From: Jennifer Landesmann
To: Council, City
Subject: March 9 Agenda Item # 11 - What happens with items submerged “below the water line” in the City’s iceberg metaphor
Date: Sunday, March 8, 2026 2:59:52 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Mayor Veenker, Vice Mayor Stone, Councilmembers Lauing, Burt, Lu, Lythcott- Haims, Reckdhal,
Thank you for all your efforts on the Council Priority Setting process.
It was however concerning to hear the iceberg metaphor used at the retreat for annual priorities and resource allocation planning when Council and the public currently lack a systematic way to track and measure what lies “below the water line.” The City only recently adopted the workplan to track objectives and progress on “above the water line” issues. This facilitated your discussions about what to elevate as a 2026 priority, and – for the first time in these discussions –I commend that Council is making the objectives in the priorities workplan more metrics-driven.
More alarming though- and repeatedly stated at the retreat - is the assumption that items “below the water line” do not require Council involvement during the year.
Please clarify this point because in reality, many such items make the public agenda.
The implication appears to be that Council’s attention to resource allocation is primarily (or only) about the annual priorities, treating everything else as mostly staff’s domain. As I have written before, this poses problems when an issue lacks any other formal direction or oversight - such as a commission or standing committee - that provides transparency and ways for public input to be considered on a topic.
Understandably, Council cannot review every City issue annually. Councilmembers are eager to advance their highest aspirations during their terms, and some issues may not personally interest individual Council members. Nevertheless, every Council has a responsibility to ensure that issues that are important to the community and “below the water line” make the public agenda at least periodically. This would improve public understanding of how resources are being allocated and enable more seamless tracking of performance across all issues. Many items reached Council priority lists through community input, so their treatment and follow up with Council representation matters.
Aircraft noise serves as a clear example. Thanks to community involvement, it has appeared on the priorities workplan for several years (including 2025) yet the topic has not had a staff report or appeared on a public agenda in over six years. The City’s efforts lack measurable goals, its recent strategy was developed without considering other viewpoints or objectives, it has no commission or standing committee oversight, and obtaining updates or answers to questions has been extremely difficult. If an issue that has been “above the water line” exhibits this level of limited attention, it is highly concerning that it could be further submerged. The current state of aircraft noise is unclear: last year’s priorities were grouped into Group 1 or Group 2 visibility, except for 10 items explicitly set aside by staff. I could not find aircraft noise – previously ranked on the 2025 Public Safety, Wellness and Belonging objectives list – in either Group 1, Group 2, or among the ten issues set aside. As a side note, in your discussions on January 24 some climate issues were qualified as falling under the City’s “public health mantle;” it should be noted that SFO big-jet particulate matter is possibly much more immediately serious to Palo Alto.
Frankly, the title of above or below the water line is not the core issue. What matters is clarity on how any issue is handled from year to year and the ability to track results and performance. Some issues are inherently more complex and long running, involving multiple departments (e.g., aircraft noise includes a role for the City Attorney’s office) and intergovernmental concerns. Pre-COVID, it was managed by an Assistant City Manager and overseen by Policy & Services. In 2020 it was assigned to Public Works, now often confused with Palo Alto Airport issues. Community outreach and communications went dark after this unannounced and unexplained shift. Potentially labeling it now as a City Council “value” only adds confusion. I suggest using City Council's values as tests instead; Are issues managed with transparency, innovation, community well-being and so forth? To track "below the water line” issues more effectively, labels organized by department or line of responsibility - and better threaded with the budget process - would be more appropriate.
It is not surprising that the City finds itself in its current fiscal situation when neither our elected representatives nor the public has a systematic way to track performance, results, or transparency for the bulk of the CIty’s portfolio. As long as Council focuses year-to-year only on trailing priorities or new ideas, it tends to expand the already expansive portfolio further. There are many ways to approach the whole picture with more disciplined practices. I hope the Government Efficiency priority (now “above the water line” this year) will provide an opportunity to address these concerns.
Best regards,
Jennifer