As is stated in this official city press release, Councilmember Lee will return to his previous position at the February 23rd meeting (sitting next to me!).

Here were my choices for the 2010 Study Issues.

---

Office of the City Attorney

• OCA09-01 Consideration of Directly-Elected Mayor - this may very well be a good idea, maybe not.  But if it were to be made, it should be made by a Charter Amendment Committee, and not Council. And a Charter Amendment Committee considered this very issue and recommended against it just three years ago. I don’t think anything has changed since then. We only just switched to a 2-year mayor, and giving it time to have an effect makes more sense. My vote: DROP. Council vote: ranked 1 of 2 issues.
• OCA10-01  Publicly Funded Campaign Financing – I went in prepared to DROP or DEFER.  It all comes down to money.  I’d be fine if we were to come up with a dedicated outside source for the money, such as a voter-approved tax.  But I’m not willing to spend general fund money on this – not at the expense of core services. However, it was clear there was no support for dropping or deferring this when the vote came. Council vote: ranked 2 of 2 issues.

---

Office of the City Manager

• OCM09-01 Awards Program for Recognition of Socially Responsible Sunnyvale Companies – I was fine with DROP, DEFER, or ranking lowest. I think we could handle this just by creating a new award for State of the City, and I don’t think we need a study for this. Council vote: DEFER.
• OCM10-01 Process for Appointing Interim Councilmembers – the way the Charter is worded, this can only happen if a Councilmember gets called up for active duty.  That’s not going to happen any time soon.  It’s worth fixing, it should be encoded in the Charter, and the next time we have reason to call for a Charter Review Committee, they should address this as part of their review.  It’s not worth doing standalone. My vote: DROP. Council vote: ranked 3 of 3 issues
• OCM10-02 Consider Moving From Odd-Year Elections to Even-Year Elections – rank 3rd of OCM issues.  This is a money issue.  The fewer cities that hold elections in odd years, the more expensive it is for those cities.  There are now only 3.  At some point, we’ll have to switch – it’ll be too prohibitively expensive.  But switching has other impacts.  For instance, if we switch to even-year elections, the turnout will double – and so will the cost of running a city council campaign (since it’s all based on the number of likely voters).  But we should establish a guideline for when we want to make the switch, since this likely can’t be done quickly – it impacts terms of sitting councilmembers, for instance.  Sooner is better than later. Council vote: merged with OCA10-02, ranked 2 of 2 issues.
• OCM10-03 Council Subcommittee for Board and Commission Bylaw Amendments – I actually completely changed my mind on this the night before the workshop, after a conversation I had.  I thought this was pointless.  But right now, whenever we consider a change to Council policy, we hand it to Staff, they come back with wording changes, and more often than not, we say “no, let’s do this instead”.  Commissions are entirely for Council.  But there have been repeated instances recently where Commissions haven’t really performed their duties the way Council wants them to.  If Council wants Commissions to serve in the “right” way, Council needs to take a greater responsibility for oversight.  This is a good first step.  So I ranked this third before the meeting, and second once items were dropped and rearranged. Council vote: ranked 2 of 3 issues.
• OCM10-04 Civic Center Buildings: Renovate, Replace, or Relocate? – without exception, all of our civic center buildings (public safety, administration, council chambers, library, NOVA, HR) are in very bad shape.  Fixing this won’t be quick, and it’ll be expensive.  We have some opportunities now.  Even if the plan is long-term, we should start planning now. My vote: rank #1. Council vote: ranked 1 of 3 issues.

---

Department of Community Development

I’ll say up front that this was frustrating. There were a number of issues that I wanted to rank, but the way the process worked, we only got four (unranked) votes. So I ended up getting no say on three or four issues that I wanted to rank medium or high, and I had to hope that someone would cast one of their votes for them. That didn’t happen in all cases. I didn’t game my votes in the right way (I should have recognized issues that would have made it without my votes, and cast votes elsewhere), so some of the issues ended up lower than I wanted. The top ones were all good, though.

• CDD09-01 Centralized Trash Enclosure Requirements for Attached Housing – I live in a condo.  Trash tends to be one of the top two resident concerns, only made worse if the City doesn’t permit the best possible solution.  I think I ranked this third, and it was one of my four votes. Council vote: ranked 3 of 10.
• CDD09-02 Requiring Dual Plumbing for Future Developments for Reclaimed Water – water is already a problem, and it’s going to be a huge problem in future years.  Wider use of reclaimed water is going to be necessary, and we need the infrastructure in place to handle this, when we have the capacity to make use of it.  And infrastructure like this can’t be built quickly.  Start ASAP, so start planning now. It was #1 for me, and it got one of my votes. Council vote: ranked 1 of 10.
• CDD09-03 Increasing Minimum Dimensions for Usable Open Space – with Sunnyvale being built out and no available park land, open space like this will only become more important. I ranked this fifth, but we were only given four votes. Council vote: ranked 4 of 10.
• CDD09-04 Zoning Code Requirements for Political Signs – in the last election, I personally observed how certain campaigns took advantage of loopholes in the city codes to place signs illegally and without permission, all without consequence.  I personally was diligent in my observance of city codes and the rights of private property owners, and I made sure all of my volunteers were aware of the rules.  Candidates who play by the rules shouldn’t be penalized for it. I ranked it around 7 or 8, and it wasn’t one of my 4 votes. Council vote: ranked 6 of 10.
• CDD09-05 New Heritage Preservation Designation for Existing Structures as “Buildings of Character” - I was iffy on this one, so I deferred to my survey results, which indicated “rank moderate or drop it”. But it wasn’t in my top 4, so I couldn’t vote for it. Council vote: unranked (received no votes).
• CDD09-06 Review Front Yard Fence Requirements and Policies – again, I was iffy.  But I’ve seen a lot of appeals of fencing permits, so I was willing to rank it moderate. But Council’s preference was to drop it, and not feeling strongly about it, I conceded. Council vote: DROP.
• CDD09-07 Consider Revisions to Zoning Code for Conversions of Mobile Home Parks to Other Uses – I was willing to rank this high simply because Council experience with actual park conversions indicated that the process could be done better.  Can’t argue with real life experience. But again, it wasn’t in my top four, and apparently the same was true for everyone else. Council vote: ranked 8 of 10.
• CDD09-08 Review Wireless Telecommunications Standards, Funding Mechanisms to Upgrade Towers, and Enforcement Options – people always want to talk about cell phone towers.  An opportunity for discussion and possible change is a good thing.  And my survey ranked it pretty high. So it was high for me, but again not top four, and there was little support (probably due to the staff recommendation). Council vote: ranked 9 of 10.
• CDD09-09 Onizuka AFS Artifacts - staff’s argument for deferring was compelling.  I was prepared to DEFER, but sentiment was to DROP, and that was fine with me. Council vote: DROP.
• CDD09-10 Auto Mall on Freeway - staff is right.  DEFER, possibly even DROP. Council vote: DROP.
• CDD09-11 Review of the Housing Mitigation Fee - DEFER. Council vote: DEFER.
• CDD10-01 Secondary Signage - this is important to making businesses more successful, and some of the sign complaints that have been rejected by staff due to existing ordinances are well-founded. I felt Sunnyvale businesses needed my vote on this one, so I ranked it #4 and it got one of my votes. Council vote: ranked 5 of 10.
• CDD10-02 Revisit Use Permit Requirements for Uses over 10,000 s.f. in C-1 and C-2 Zoning Districts - staff believes the same study is already being done, I’m all for not duplicating work.  DROP. Council vote: DROP.
• CDD10-03 Framework for Permitting and Regulating Medical Marijuana Dispensaries - tough one.  I support medical marijuana.  I believe the decision as to what constitutes effective medical practices should generally be left to the medical community, not to the government.  However, while dispensaries are legal in California, and while the Obama administration has said “don’t worry, we won’t enforce federal law”, they nevertheless currently violate federal law.  I’m all for changing that law, and if it’s changed, I’m all for considering allowing dispensaries here when that happens (with some reservations).  But I won’t vote to approve facilities that violate federal law.  My vote was DROP, but there was clearly no Council support for that, so I didn’t try to oppose it. Council vote: ranked 7 of 10.
• CDD10-04 Develop a Plan for Use of City Property for Wireless Telecommunications Facilities - I was inclined to DROP, but I wanted to know why the Planning Commission ranked it. Council vote: DROP.
• CDD10-06 Toolkit for Commercial/Residential Mixed Use
  Development - really important for building sustainable communities. I ranked it #2, and it was one of my votes. Council vote: ranked 2 of 10.
• CDD10-07 Signage for Properties Near Freeways - I really didn’t care about it, but nobody seemed inclined to drop or defer it. Council vote: ranked 10 of 10.

---

Department of Community Services

• DCS09-01 Explore Opportunities to Develop a Community Theatre
  Based in Downtown Sunnyvale – A cultural amenity like a community theater in the downtown area is a good idea. And our existing theater facilities are overbooked. But at a time when we’re struggling to afford to maintain basic services, studying a theater is like shopping for wallpaper while your house is on fire. First responsibility is to put out the fire. Not only can’t we afford to build and operate a theater right now, we can’t afford the $165k in consultant hours to study building a theater that we can’t afford. My vote was to DEFER. Council vote: ranked 1 of 1.
• DCS10-01 Consider Potential Locations and Related Costs for
  Development of New Mini-Parks in North Sunnyvale – I agreed with staff that the Parks of the Future study made this redundant. My vote was to DROP. Council vote: DROP.

---

Finance Department

• FIN10-01 Residential Sewer Rate Based on Water Consumption – Staff said this wasn’t a good idea, and that it was somewhat irrelevant. My vote was to DROP. Council vote: DROP.
• FIN10-02 Pension Reform – in this economic climate, this was probably the most important of the study issues. I ranked it #1. Council vote: ranked 1 of 1.

---

Department of Public Safety

• DPS10-01 Photo Red Light Enforcement – I’m on the fence. It’s cost-effective, but I’ve been told it also increases accident rates. Still, that’s what a study is for. My vote was to rank 1 of 1. Council vote: ranked 1 of 1.

---

Department of Public Works

• DPW09-01 School Transportation Demand Management
  Opportunities – I supported ranking this high – right up until Council voted to merge it with DPW10-08, and its 1000 consultant hours. Important, but we cannot afford it right now. My vote was to DEFER. Council vote: ranked 3 of 7.
• DPW09-02 Update/Review Corner Vision Triangle Municipal Code
  Ordinance – I was fairly indifferent, and the survey didn’t show much interest. My vote was to rank 6 of 7. Council vote: ranked 6 of 7.
• DPW09-03 Suitable Bicycle Schemes for Office, Shopping Centers
  and Entertainment Venues – I was fairly indifferent, and the survey didn’t show much interest, but I was willing to rank it low, strictly because of the BPAC recommendation. But Council’s clear preference was to DROP.
• DPW09-04 Impacts of Traffic Calming Devices on Cyclists – This was a little more important, due to the hazards that cyclists have to deal with. My vote was to rank 5 of 7. Council vote: ranked 7 of 7.
• DPW09-05 Caltrain Community Wall Benefit Assessment District
  Study – I favored DEFER or DROP. Council vote: DEFER.
• DPW09-06 Heritage Neighborhood North of Caltrain Parking
  Management Study – I didn’t like this, the survey didn’t like this, Council didn’t like this. My vote: DROP. Council’s vote: DROP.
• DPW09-07 Sunnyvale Cyclovia Event – There was some sentiment to drop this. But I’ve seen YouTube video of Cyclovia events in other cities, and they’re terrific. They’d be great on the newly-opened McKinley or Taaffe. But the problem is affording it now, so I pulled it off the DROP list and moved to DEFER it. My vote: DEFER. Council’s vote: DEFER.
• DPW09-08 Downtown to Moffett Industrial Park Shuttle Bus
  Feasibility Study – it wouldn’t be needed for a couple of years. It’s expensive. And it’s been studied to death recently. My vote: DROP. Council’s vote: DROP.
• DPW09-09 Banning the Use of Plastic Grocery Bags Throughout the
  City – this is a hot issue, as single-use bags are a serious sustainability problem, whether they’re plastic or paper. My vote: rank 3 of 7. Council’s vote: ranked 4 of 7.
• DPW09-10 Explore Development of a Sustainability Commission
  Advisory to Council, or Sustainability Committee Advisory
  to Staff – this was my #1 DPW issue. If we’re going to take sustainability seriously, we need to institutionalize recommendation of best practice policies. We shouldn’t depend on engaged citizens learning about the issue three days beforehand and making an attempt to influence policy at the last moment. My vote: rank 1 of 7. Council’s vote: ranked 2 of 7.
• DPW10-01 Policy on Roundabouts – roundabouts aren’t practical given our lack of space. The existing policy is OK. Staff didn’t feel strongly. The survey showed no support. My vote: DROP. Council’s vote: DROP.
• DPW10-04 Establishment of Guided Bicycle Routes Through
  Neighborhoods – I liked this and ranked it as high as I could, given some greater priorities. My vote: rank 4 of 7. Council’s vote: rank 5 of 7.
• DPW10-06 Plan Line Study to Accommodate Bicyclists and
  Pedestrians – I just couldn’t justify the huge number of hours for this, particularly the consultant hours. I’d have prefer DEFER, but I didn’t think it would ever be approved with so many hours. My vote: DROP. Council’s vote: DROP.
• DPW10-08 School Zone Traffic Controls and Enforcement – see DPW09-01.
• DPW10-09 Reliable Electrical Power Options – vitally important, and it would have been #1 if I didn’t feel so strongly about the need for a sustainability commission. And I knew this would end up #1 regardless. My vote: rank 2 of 7. Council’s vote: ranked 1 of 7.

---

One final comment. I was fairly aggressive in wanting to DROP or DEFER items, particularly those that lead to proposals I believe I’m likely to vote against in the future. My colleagues were less so, and I saw cases where individuals supported studies that I suspect they’ll oppose when the studies eventually come to Council. I suspect that while they may oppose issues, they still want to have the public debate on them, whereas I took more of a “nip it in the bud, let’s not waste time” approach. In retrospect and with this in mind, I was probably too aggressive in trying to kill off items I have problems with. Public debate is good. Hopefully, I’ll remember this for next year’s session.