Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-01-14 City Council Summary MinutesCITY OF PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL FINAL MINUTES Page 1 of 33 Regular Meeting January 14, 2019 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 6:04 P.M. Present: Cormack, DuBois, Filseth, Fine, Kou, Tanaka Absent: Kniss Study Session 1. Palo Alto Transportation Management Association (TMA) Annual Report. Ed Shikada, City Manager, reported the City funded the Palo Alto Transportation Management Association (TMA) and, as an employer in Downtown, was a member of the TMA. The TMA was an integral part of the City's strategies to encourage City employees to utilize alternative modes of transportation. Staff intentionally separated the two roles to avoid any potential conflict. Rob George, TMA Board Chair, Lemonade, shared the Mission of the TMA. In 2018, the TMA secured nonprofit status under Section 501(c)(3). The Board of Directors was comprised of five Downtown employers. The current Executive Director, Steve Raney, had been actively working to meet the goals of the TMA. The TMA had three primary programs: transit pass subsidies for service workers, app-based carpools, and employer-based Transportation Demand Management (TDM) guidance. The TMA's primary goal over the first few years was to assess the demand for programs. At the end of 2018, the TMA had met and exceeded its goals. Growth could be achieved with app-based carpools and contact with small offices. Marketing tools had been word of mouth, flyers, and a few advertisements. The TMA purchased and managed monthly transit passes for more than 230 low- income commuters who worked in Downtown and provided Lyft subsidies for low-income commuters between the hours of 8:00 P.M. and 6:00 A.M. The Board of Directors increased the annual household income limit from $50,000 to $70,000 per year, which increased the number of transit pass users and extended the reach of the TMA. The TMA exceeded its 2018 goal of 200 transit passes. The greatest challenge for the TMA was the turnover of service workers. The app-based carpool program utilized Scoop, Waze, and Lyft, none of which had income restrictions. As part of the program for employer-based TDM guidance, TMA staff provided in-person transit FINAL MINUTES Page 2 of 33 City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 1/14/2019 counseling to Downtown employers and employees. The program had not been a focus for TMA staff in 2018, but it would be a focus in 2019. TMA programs had removed 333 cars from City streets each weekday. In addition, the TMA had raised $240,000 in private funds for organizational development and accepted an offer to pilot an expansion of the TMA to the California Avenue area. The TMA's annual survey provided data regarding the effectiveness of TMA programs. Challenges and the potential for growth could be found in expanding leadership, improving the annual survey, adding programs, extending the boundaries of the TMA, and diversifying funding sources. Goals for 2019 included updating the strategic plan, seeking metrics to better evaluate existing programs, launching the California Avenue pilot program, expanding the Board of Directors, and exploring ideas for new programs and partnerships. The TMA had formed partnerships with the California Avenue Business Association, Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) employees, other TMAs in the area, the Bay Area Council, Joint Venture Silicon Valley, and the Gunn High School Business, Entrepreneurship, and Math (BEAM) student team. Adina Levin, Friends of Caltrain, commended the TMA for removing 300 cars from streets and identifying programs that help low-income workers. The TMA model could be used in other nearby cities. Friends of Caltrain was working with the TMA, employers, and nonprofits to revise the Go Pass program to include TMAs. David Coale, Carbon Free Palo Alto, noted the TMA's programs were approximately five times more cost effective than building new parking spaces. The Council should revisit construction of the Downtown garage and consider continuing and expanding funding for the TMA. Council Member DuBois wanted to know whether the mode share was keeping pace with employee growth. He hoped the TMA would work with other TMAs in the Bay Area. He requested the TMA's 2019 goal for mode shift. Mr. George indicated the Board would discuss goals later in the week and as part of updating the strategic plan. Council Member DuBois remarked that the TMA should be nimble in utilizing new and more cost-effective services. The bike percentage appeared to be decreasing. Steve Raney, TMA Executive Director, noted bike usage decreased according to the November survey. FINAL MINUTES Page 3 of 33 City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 1/14/2019 Council Member DuBois suggested the TMA provide each year the chart showing the number of employees participating in programs by company. He inquired about the possibility of making commuters more responsible for Clipper cards. Mr. Raney did not believe it was possible. Mr. George remarked that navigating Clipper phone support was sometimes difficult for commuters whose native language was not English. While customer support for the Clipper card was time-consuming, it had demonstrated the TMA's care for commuters. Council Member DuBois wanted to understand the table of relative costs of programs. The cost of a parking garage space appeared to be as low as the cost of a Go Pass. Mr. Raney related that the numbers were good for a TDM space, but he wanted to continue refining them. Council Member DuBois expressed concern regarding the ongoing business model and the strategy for growth. Reaching larger and mid-sized companies and middle and higher-income employees had to be part of the plan for a sustainable funding model. Programs other than transit pass subsidies may be needed to reach that population. He questioned whether Council Members would be interested in a challenge grant for the TMA. Mr. George related that the TMA's limited resources had been applied to the initial programs. TMA staff had discussed partnering with small medical professional offices to partially subsidize transit passes for their employees. Council Member DuBois suggested tying the amount of a subsidy to the commuter's income level. Mid-income agencies could be targets for testing new programs. The chart of commuting patterns in the Bay Area seemed to indicate carpooling programs could be successful. Council Member Cormack concurred with Council Member DuBois' comments. Perhaps the City could expand its leadership role as an employer/member of the TMA. Employers seemed to be using transit passes to attract employees; however, employers in other parts of the City did not have the same ability. She suggested a referral program for employees who utilized the TMA. Vice Mayor Fine challenged TMA staff to make the metrics, purposes, and operations more legible. He inquired about the business model for the California Avenue pilot program. FINAL MINUTES Page 4 of 33 City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 1/14/2019 Mr. George planned to duplicate existing programs for employers on California Avenue. Restaurants and coffee shops on California Avenue were already expressing interest in and support for the TMA. Vice Mayor Fine inquired about ways the Council could assist the TMA with transit passes. Mr. George believed the Council could advocate with Caltrain regarding the price the TMA pays for passes. Vice Mayor Fine felt the Council would support sending a letter of advocacy to Caltrain. He requested the source of the City's funding for the TMA. Sylvia Star-Lack, Transportation Manager, advised that the source of the City's Fiscal Year 2018 funding was Downtown parking revenue. Vice Mayor Fine wanted to understand the City's ability to continue funding the Downtown and California Avenue TMAs with that funding source and the effects of City parking policies on the TMA. Mr. George suggested the TMA may institute an accountability metric whereby the commuter would reciprocate in some way for a transit pass. Council Member Kou requested information regarding the Fair Value Commuting grant. Mr. Raney replied that the grant was commute focused. Council Member Kou asked if it measured vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and carbon reduction. Mr. Raney related that the purpose of the grant was to shift mode away from single-occupancy vehicles (SOV). Mr. Shikada explained that the grant is funded through the Federal Transit Administration and is spread across several agencies. The project pertained to research and development regarding connectivity. Council Member Kou requested the difference between the Clipper card and the Go Pass. Mr. Raney indicated they were the same. The Clipper Card could be used to pay a Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) or Caltrain fare. The TMA deposited funds and associated Clipper Cards with the funds so that fares were paid when commuters scanned the cards. FINAL MINUTES Page 5 of 33 City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 1/14/2019 Council Member Kou asked if the TMA could track a commuter who used a Clipper card. Mr. Raney advised that the TMA could track usage of Clipper cards with VTA but not Caltrain. Council Member Tanaka remarked that the cost efficiency of programs was impressive. He expressed interest in seeing a more conclusive measure of cars removed from the road and tracking transit pass usage. The TMA may want to consider a bill insert to advertise programs. He inquired about the possibility of sharing administration with Palo Alto Downtown or the Chamber of Commerce. Mr. George noted TMA inserts would be placed in invoices for the Business Improvement District (BID) and Business Registry. The best marketing tool had been presenting information to business and community groups. The TMA had received a donation of $100,000 to facilitate work with the sub- regional TMA. Mr. Raney added that the sub-regional TMA was considering labor sharing across organizations. Mayor Filseth inquired whether the rideshare numbers were derived from rideshare apps. Mr. Raney answered yes. Mayor Filseth inquired about the TMA's awareness of traditional carpooling. Mr. Raney explained that some data regarding traditional carpools was obtained from surveys. Mayor Filseth inquired about the obstacles to employees utilizing TMA programs. Mr. George felt the primary obstacles were low-income workers needing to travel to two and sometimes three jobs during a single day and workers enjoying the respite offered by an SOV trip. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions Beth Minor, City Clerk, requested the Council continue Agenda Item Number 5 to January 22. FINAL MINUTES Page 6 of 33 City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 1/14/2019 MOTION: Vice Mayor Fine moved, seconded by Council Member Cormack to continue Agenda Item Number 5, “PUBLIC HEARING: on Objections to Weed Abatement …” to January 22, 2019. MOTION PASSED: 6-0 Kniss absent City Manager Comments Ed Shikada, City Manager, reported tree removal for construction of the California Avenue parking structure would begin the following week. Staff was hosting a walking tour on January 18 for the public to learn about the tree removal and construction projects. Staff had posted frequently asked questions (FAQs) at cityofpaloalto.org/psb. PG&E announced it would file a Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding related to its potential liability for Northern California wildfires. Staff did not expect any service outages as a result and was evaluating the financial implications of the bankruptcy filing. Applications for small cell wireless antennas had been submitted to the City. On March 11, Staff would present a proposed update to the City's Wireless Facilities Ordinance in response to a recent Federal Communications Commission (FCC) order. Natural gas prices spiked in December; therefore, customers could receive higher utility bills in January. Public Works Staff would monitor storm pump stations and creek levels due to the forecast for heavy rain on Wednesday. On January 16, Cool Block Palo Alto would hold informational meetings for residents. A celebration of the life and legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., was scheduled for January 21. The Palo Alto Youth Council was sponsoring the Palo Alto Rotary Club's youth speech contest on January 31. Should the Council approve Agenda Item Number 3, future plans for any permanent improvements and substantive changes would trigger additional community engagement. Oral Communications Mayor Filseth reported the Council was considering different methods to manage time during Council meetings and may try different options over the next few meetings. Dennis Backlund remarked that some tenants of the Hotel President had not located alternative homes and were facing an eviction date of January 31. He requested the Council recommend AJ Capital consider extending the tenancy of the remaining tenants to June 16 or the date on which AJ Capital's development application was approved. The Council could agendize a discussion of the topic for the following week. FINAL MINUTES Page 7 of 33 City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 1/14/2019 Karen Gao indicated AJ Capital had violated the one-year lease requirement and requested the Council recommend AJ Capital allow tenants to remain until building permits were approved. Michelle Kraus urged the Council to open communications with AJ Capital and to make the eviction of Hotel President tenants a priority. Twenty-five tenants remained in the Hotel President. Iqbal Sarang concurred with prior comments regarding Hotel President tenants. The Council had not responded to tenants' comments and requests. Tenants needed an extension of the eviction date in order to locate equivalent accommodations in Downtown. Stephanie Munoz suggested the City sponsor housing for people who did not own cars, and the Federal Government house veterans at Moffett Field. She was surprised that no one had suggested building teacher housing at Cubberley Community Center. In order to relieve traffic congestion, workers had to live adjacent to their workplaces. Kin Shen related that the new bus stop on Charleston was located immediately adjacent to his driveway. The safety of people awaiting the bus was a concern. The stop obstructed the sightline of cars exiting his driveway. Rita Vrhel encouraged the Council to void the approval of the development project at 429 University Avenue. The Council should not have approved a concept until all details were known. Winter Dellenbach suggested the Council grant three minutes to each public speaker, not divide public comment for an agenda item, and schedule Closed Sessions for the end of Council meetings. Roger Smith suggested the Council limit public comments to two minutes. Minutes Approval 2. Approval of Action Minutes for the December 17, 2018 and January 7, 2019 Council Meetings. MOTION: Council Member DuBois moved, seconded by Council Member Kou to approve the Action Minutes for the December 17, 2018 and January 7, 2019 Council Meetings. Council Member Cormack asked if she should recuse herself from the vote on the December Minutes as she was not a Council Member in December. FINAL MINUTES Page 8 of 33 City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 1/14/2019 Molly Stump, City Attorney, reported Council Member Cormack could vote or recuse herself. Mayor Filseth remarked that Council Members sometimes abstained from the vote. MOTION PASSED: 6-0 Kniss absent Consent Calendar MOTION: Council Member DuBois moved, seconded by Council Member Kou to approve the Consent Calendar. 3. Receive the Middlefield Road North Traffic Safety Project End-pilot Report and Direction to Adopt the Current Configuration as a Permanent Feature. 4. Approval of Amendment Number 2 to Contract Number C15157537 With CIGNA for Long Term Disability (LTD), Life Insurance, and Accidental Death Policies for an Additional Three-year Term for a Total Not-to-Exceed Amount of $5,373,662. MOTION PASSED: 6-0 Kniss absent Action Items 5. PUBLIC HEARING: on Objections to Weed Abatement and Adoption of a Resolution Ordering Weed Nuisance Abated (STAFF REQUESTS THIS ITEM BE CONTINUED TO JANUARY 22, 2019) 6. PUBLIC HEARING/QUASI-JUDICIAL: 3703-3709 El Camino Real [18PLN-00136]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for a Zone Change to Apply the Affordable Housing (AH) Combining District to the Site, as Well as Architectural Review to Allow for the Demolition of two Existing Retail Buildings and Construction of a 100 Percent Affordable Housing Project. The Project Consists of a Four-story Building Containing 59 Residential Units, two Levels of Garage Parking, and Associated Site Improvements. The Applicant Also Requests a Design Enhancement Exception to Allow for Garage and Ground Level Encroachments Into Required Rear and Street Side Yards, and a Waiver From Retail Preservation Requirements. Zoning District: CN (Neighborhood Commercial). Environmental Assessment: Exempt From the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Guideline Section 15194 (Affordable Housing). FINAL MINUTES Page 9 of 33 City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 1/14/2019 Council Member Tanaka disclosed conversations with a representative and Ms. Sanders, and he did not learn any information that was not contained in the public record. Council Member Kou disclosed a meeting with Palo Alto Housing staff, wherein she obtained more detailed information regarding the project. She had read emails from the Ventura neighborhood. Vice Mayor Fine disclosed a meeting with Ms. Klein, wherein he obtained information regarding financing of a 100-percent affordable housing development. He had patronized Euro Mart and Family Fashion. Mayor Filseth disclosed a meeting with Ms. Klein and Ms. Sanders, and he had not learned any information that was not contained in the public record. Council Member DuBois had not learned any information that was not contained in the public record. Council Member Cormack disclosed her attendance at a meeting of the Ventura Neighborhood Association, which Ms. Sanders and Ms. Klein also attended. She and many residents of Ventura attended a Tree House tour hosted by Palo Alto Housing. She did not learn any information that was not contained in the public record. Graham Owen, Planner, reported Palo Alto Housing requested a rezoning of the site from Neighborhood Commercial (CN) to CN with the Affordable Housing (AH) Combining District Overlay in order to construct a four-story, 59-unit, 100-percent affordable housing project. Palo Alto Housing also requested an Architectural Review, a Design Enhancement Exception (DEE) for setback encroachments, and a waiver of retail preservation requirements. The project would provide approximately 19 percent of the housing units targeted for completion in 2019. CN zoning allowed commercial uses and mixed uses that served the neighborhood. The lot area was slightly less than a half-acre. The existing uses on the site were retail and auto services. The two existing buildings totaled approximately 8,000 square feet of floor area. Traveling north from the site, zoning changed from RM-30 to R-2 to R-1. The proposed L-shaped building was sited against the setbacks along El Camino Real and Wilton Avenue. The main pedestrian access was proposed for the corner of the site with bicycle access along El Camino Real. Vehicles could access the site via the alley at the rear of the property. The applicant proposed constructing a podium- level courtyard above the garage. The building would have a mix of board- formed concrete and glass on the ground floor and a mix of terra cotta tile and stucco on the upper floors. Key issues were consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, El Camino Real Design Guidelines, and South El FINAL MINUTES Page 10 of 33 City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 1/14/2019 Camino Real Design Guidelines. The applicant proposed to reserve 35 percent of units for individuals with developmental disabilities. The site could provide 41 parking spaces, which exceeded the AH Combining District requirement. Except for the DEE, the project conformed to AH Combining District standards. The applicant had provided a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan and a parking analysis. The project was exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Guidelines Section 15194 and complied with criteria established in Sections 15192 and 15194. The Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) and Architectural Review Board (ARB) had reviewed the project and unanimously recommended approval. Jonathan Lait, Planning and Community Environment Interim Director, advised that an at-places memorandum provided additional information. Mr. Owen added that the at-places memo contained refinements to two conditions of approval. Tenants' incomes would be limited to 80 percent of the area median income (AMI). The applicant had accepted the income limit. One unit for a manager would not be income restricted. The City would not advocate for any loading or parking restrictions along Wilton Avenue. Council Member Kou requested clarification of the number of units designated for adults with developmental disabilities. Mr. Owen explained that the applicant had revised the number of units from 25-35 percent in the prior week. The condition of approval required a minimum of 25 percent to ensure the site provided adequate parking. The Council may amend the condition of approval. Public Hearing was opened at 8:09 P.M. Sheryl Klein, Palo Alto Housing Board Chair, reported 3,000 individuals were on waiting lists for Palo Alto Housing's affordable housing units. Wilton Court would be 100-percent affordable housing, offer a Palo Alto live/work preference, target households earning 30-60 percent AMI, and designate 21 apartments for adults with developmental disabilities. Amenities included a community room, bike storage, a gym, a computer lab, and laundry services. The project provided 41 parking spaces and a TDM plan. Palo Alto Housing had attended two community meetings, met neighbors at their homes, offered tours of the Tree House project, and addressed neighbors' concerns. Adrianne Steichen, Pyatok Architects, remarked that the podium courtyard reflected the backyard pattern in the neighborhood to the north of the site. FINAL MINUTES Page 11 of 33 City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 1/14/2019 She stepped down the building to the adjacent RM-30 zone and architecturally accentuated the corner and corner entry. The basement garage would be accessed from the alley. A location for public art had been defined. George Parry hoped the Council would understand the project without placing pressure on the applicant. Nicole Ventre expressed concerns about the large building encroaching on the adjacent building, the potential for 100 tenants living in the project, and the lack of sunlight on the adjacent building during winter months. The alley was too small for the number of cars that would utilize it. People routinely parked in the alley, and delivery services utilized the alley. She requested the Council eliminate one floor from the project; designate 35 percent of units for individuals with developmental disabilities; and ensure individuals with developmental disabilities did not own vehicles. Andrea Tsang had learned about the dire need for affordable housing for adults with developmental disabilities through her work. She urged the Council to support the project because it would support an inclusive community. John Ma shared concerns about vehicular safety in the alleyway, construction parking, and the effect of less sunlight on the tenants of the building adjacent to the project. Amy Bryman supported the project because it would provide affordable housing for her son with special needs. Her son did not drive and wanted to remain in the community with his friends, family, and case manager. Ellen Smith, Palo Alto League of Women Voters, supported the City's efforts to encourage the development of subsidized housing and increasing the supply of multiunit housing with access to public transportation. She encouraged the Council to approve the project as Staff recommended. Becky Sanders noted the concerns about the project blocking sunlight from the adjacent building and shared Ventura residents' concerns, which had been addressed. Noah Fiedel related that the applicant had collaborated with neighbors to develop creative solutions to concerns. Staff had accommodated neighbors and their concerns. Neighbors and the applicant had reached compromises; however, traffic continued to be a concern. The Council should direct Staff to prioritize a traffic study. FINAL MINUTES Page 12 of 33 City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 1/14/2019 Winter Dellenbach advised that neighbors were concerned about traffic traveling from East Meadow onto Park and onto Wilton Avenue. She was impressed with the number of compromises the applicant and neighbors reached in just two weeks. Linnea Wickstrom urged the Council to approve the project because it would provide affordable housing for developmentally disabled adults. Per Maresca commented that developmentally disabled adults wanted to be full members of the community and to live independently. The project would provide affordable and inclusive housing that would meet the needs of developmentally disabled people. Jerry Underdahl encouraged the Council to support the project unanimously. Katie Talbot asked the Council to support the project and thereby support the community's diversity. Maria Marriott related that the project's location was perfect for individuals with developmental disabilities to access public transportation and to remain in the community. Jan Stokley, Housing Choices Executive Director, noted the project would provide affordable local housing for Palo Alto residents with developmental disabilities and create inclusive and integrated community housing. The project was an example of the community creating housing for people of all incomes and all abilities. Lynnie Melena supported the project. Affordable housing was needed more than another vacant retail space on El Camino Real. Ryan Globus urged the Council to set a goal of developing maybe 600 housing units in 2019 because of the loss of affordable housing units at the Hotel President. Leora Ross remarked that the project would change the lives of individuals with developmental disabilities and encouraged the Council to approve the project. David Meyer, Silicon Valley at Home, supported the project, especially the designation of units for individuals with developmental disabilities. Collaboration between the community and the applicant at the level achieved for the project was rare. Trina Lovercheck urged the Council to support the project because it provided affordable housing for low-income adults and adults with FINAL MINUTES Page 13 of 33 City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 1/14/2019 developmental disabilities near public transit. The loss of retail space would not impact the area. Max Kapczynski preferred a taller, more dense building with less parking, but the project as presented was the result of compromise. He appreciated the level of support shown for the project. Pat Burt commended the parties for achieving consensus on the design of the project and supported the request for a traffic study as part of the North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan (NVCAP) project. Shani Kleinhaus supported the project as it would provide housing for developmentally disabled adults near their families and support systems. Kelsey Banes enthusiastically supported the project and encouraged the Council to consider the impacts of not supporting housing developments. Rita Vrhel hoped the Council clarified the number of units designated for developmentally disabled adults. Future housing projects should address the needs of Palo Alto residents before residents of any other jurisdiction. Adina Levin, Friends of Caltrain, explained that Friends of Caltrain supported development projects on transit corridors when the projects worked with the community and community leaders. The location near transit was helpful for low-income and developmentally disabled adults. Patricia Saffir urged the Council to approve Staff's recommendations, particularly the waiver for retail. The existing retail uses at the location were not particularly neighborhood-serving. L. David Baron encouraged the Council to adopt Staff's recommendations. The AH Combining District was intended for this type of project. Ann Marquart encouraged the Council to approve the project as rejecting the project could have a negative fair housing implication. Public Hearing was closed at 9:03 P.M. Council Member Kou requested the applicant address construction traffic. Ms. Klein advised that the applicant would develop a construction plan that mitigated the impact on the neighborhood. Council Member Kou asked if the applicant would develop the construction plan with Staff. FINAL MINUTES Page 14 of 33 City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 1/14/2019 Ms. Klein replied yes. The Council took a break at 9:05 P.M. and returned at 9:10 P.M. Council Member Kou inquired about the use of tie-backs for the subterranean garage. Mr. Owen did not know if tie-backs would be required. Given the setbacks, tie-backs may not be feasible at the interior lot line. Staff would review the issue during building permit review. Council Member Kou asked if Palo Alto Housing would agree to allowing their Palo Alto properties to be used as case studies of parking needs, e.g., allow their residents to respond to surveys regarding parking. Randy Tsuda, Palo Alto Housing Corporation President, agreed to discuss the scope of a study with Staff. Council Member Kou noted the developer would monitor the TDM plan and inquired about the possibility of Staff or a third-party acting as the monitor. Mr. Owen could explore the issue. The City required a developer to submit a monitoring report annually to determine the efficacy of the TDM plan. Typically, the Transportation Division reviewed the TDM plan. Council Member Kou felt an independent party should monitor the TDM plan to ensure the data was accurate. She inquired about the usual process for monitoring a TDM plan. Mr. Owen reported a condition of approval required the submission of a final TDM plan with the building permit and prior to occupancy. Council Member Kou wanted a third-party to prepare and submit the monitoring report. Mr. Lait clarified that the Transportation Office reviewed TDM measures, enforcement, and monitoring. The applicant would hire an independent party to prepare the monitoring report, and City Staff would peer review the report. Council Member Kou asked if monitoring reports were submitted yearly. Mr. Lait advised that the first monitoring report was required two years after the building permit was issued. If the numbers did not meet expectations or were not in compliance, Staff would work with the consultant to revise the TDM plan to achieve goals and compliance. FINAL MINUTES Page 15 of 33 City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 1/14/2019 Ed Shikada, City Manager, remarked that the issue was Staff's capacity to review TDM plans on an ongoing basis. Vice Mayor Fine noted the project would not be possible without zoning changes. The AH Overlay was one tool for obtaining housing for the community. He commended Palo Alto Housing for working with the community and encouraged it to present another project soon. He understood the tradeoff of retail space for affordable housing units. MOTION: Vice Mayor Fine moved, seconded by Council Member Cormack to: A. Find the project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act per Guidelines Section 15194 (Affordable Housing Exemption); B. Introduce for first reading and adopt an Ordinance to apply the Affordable Housing (AH) Combining District to the subject property; and C. Adopt the proposed Record of Land Use Action approving the Applicant’s request for architectural review, design enhancement exception, a request to waive the retail preservation requirement for the project, subject to the rezoning ordinance taking effect, and as modified by the at-places memo provided by Staff. Vice Mayor Fine indicated approving the DEE would allow the site to provide a few more parking spaces. Council Member Cormack requested the number of Palo Alto Housing properties located in Palo Alto that contained ground-floor retail space. Ms. Klein replied none because including retail space was not financially feasible in an affordable housing project. Council Member Cormack requested the process for the City funding affordable housing projects. Mr. Lait explained that guidelines required Staff to provide a Notice of Funding Availability, through which Staff could solicit interest in affordable housing funds. The City was not obligated by the process. Through a separate action, the City Council could allocate a specific amount of funding to housing providers. Council Member Cormack understood the applicant adjusted the tree canopy on the El Camino Real side of the property because the reduction was larger FINAL MINUTES Page 16 of 33 City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 1/14/2019 than it appeared. She asked if visitor parking was located on the first or second floor of the garage. Ms. Klein reported the location had not been determined. Council Member DuBois supported the project and appreciated many aspects of it. He assumed the income level would be 30-60 percent AMI. He did not want to grant a waiver for retail, but it was a reasonable tradeoff for 100- percent below-market-rate (BMR) housing. He inquired about testing for toxic substances. Ms. Klein advised that soil testing would occur over the next few months, and the applicant would develop a soil mitigation plan. Council Member DuBois inquired about including the unsignalized crosswalk at El Camino in a future traffic study. Mr. Owen clarified that Caltrans would install a HAWK beacon at the intersection of Wilton Avenue and El Camino Real. The Wilton Court project included some improvements that Caltrans would make on El Camino Real. The crosswalk was a component of the traffic operations analysis. Council Member DuBois would support a traffic study as part of the NVCAP project. While parking for the project met the requirements of the AH Overlay, the amount of parking was approximately half of the amount previously required. Enforcement of the TDM plan was very soft. He requested the actions the applicant would take if the TDM did not fulfill expectations. Mr. Tsuda did not view the TDM plan as fixed because it could be modified to include new techniques and approaches so that goals could be met. He was confident the 30-percent threshold would be fulfilled. Council Member DuBois proposed adding to the Record of Land Use Action (ROLUA), Council direction to Staff to evaluate any future Residential Preferential Parking Permit (RPP) program in the area of the project to minimize the impact from Wilton Court based on the project's TDM plan and intent to fully park the building, to the extent allowed by law. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion a new Part D, “Direct Staff to evaluate any future RPP Districts in this area to minimize the impact from Wilton Court based on the project’s TDM plan and the project’s intent to fully park the building, to the extent allowed by law.” FINAL MINUTES Page 17 of 33 City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 1/14/2019 Vice Mayor Fine requested Staff's opinion of the proposal. Molly Stump, City Attorney, reported the direction to Staff was not unique to the project but more a general direction to Staff. The issue was tracking the direction so that it could be applied to any future RPP proposals. Vice Mayor Fine suggested the direction should not reside in the ROLUA. Ms. Stump concurred. Staff would investigate methods to track the direction. Council Member Tanaka requested Staff comment regarding navigation of the narrow alley and any potential mitigation measures. Mr. Owen explained that the alley was 20 feet wide and could accommodate two vehicles. During building permit review, the Transportation Division and Public Works Department would review traffic safety and operations at a detailed level. Staff would address any issues at that point in time. Council Member Tanaka inquired regarding the possibility of restricting developmentally disabled tenants from having cars on the property. Mr. Owen reported such a restriction was not possible. Council Member Tanaka requested the number of additional parking spaces needed for a modest amount of retail space on the site and the impact of the Council waiving the parking requirement for retail. Mayor Filseth understood the financing arrangements for the project precluded any retail space in the project. Council Member Tanaka requested the rationale for locating the entrance in the proposed location. Mr. Owen reported Staff had explored an entrance off El Camino Real. The El Camino Real Design Guidelines and South El Camino Real Design Guidelines supported alley access for vehicles. The alley entrance eliminated a curb cut, which increased safety for pedestrians and bicyclists, and a line of sight issue, which increased vehicle safety. Queuing vehicles for loading in the alley was safer than queuing them on El Camino Real. Council Member Tanaka inquired about the possibility of prioritizing Palo Alto residents when renting or selling units. Ms. Klein advised that the project proposed a preference for people who live or work in Palo Alto. FINAL MINUTES Page 18 of 33 City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 1/14/2019 Council Member Kou proposed an amendment for the plans to remain substantially consistent with those presented to the Council on January 14, 2019; for the project to provide 21 units or more, but no less, for adults with development disabilities; for the project to contain 37 units affordable or more, but no less than 30-60 percent AMI; for the project to provide a Palo Alto live/work preference; for the onsite community room to be available for neighborhood meetings; and for Staff to conduct a comprehensive traffic study of the Ventura neighborhood, which could be a component of the NVCAP project. Vice Mayor Fine requested the applicant's comments regarding the proposal. The Council was approving the project in concept and the zoning; however, the plans may need to be revised in order to comply with Codes requirements. Ms. Klein preferred to offer use of the community room to the neighborhood as a gesture rather than being bound by a City requirement. Offering use of the community room would have to comply with funders' requirements and regulations, and not all funders had been identified for the project. She agreed to requirements for 21 units to be designated for individuals with developmental disabilities and for low-income units and for 30-60 percent AMI for the building. Mr. Owen requested clarification of the AMI requirement. Council Member Kou revised her proposal to indicate 58 units would be restricted to 30-60 percent AMI; to eliminate the requirement for the community room to be offered for the neighborhood's use; and to add a requirement that the number of parking spaces shall remain at 41. Mr. Lait noted unanticipated requirements often caused changes between the conceptual plans and construction plans. The Council may want to allow Staff some flexibility in altering the number of parking spaces in order to accommodate such changes. Council Member Kou wanted to ensure the City and the applicant honored the terms presented to the community. Mr. Lait stated under the proposed parking requirement, Staff would have to return to the Council for approval of fewer parking spaces, even if the reduction was only one space. Mayor Filseth agreed that the number of parking spaces should not change without being presented to the Council. FINAL MINUTES Page 19 of 33 City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 1/14/2019 Vice Mayor Fine questioned whether including the traffic study was appropriate. Mr. Lait expressed concern about the proposed requirement tying the traffic study to the NVCAP, which had a defined project boundary that did not include the project site. Council Member Kou remarked that traffic would not remain in North Ventura but would spread across the Ventura neighborhood. Any action in North Ventura would affect the Ventura neighborhood. She wanted a traffic study of the entire Ventura neighborhood rather than one limited to North Ventura. Ms. Stump reported the traffic study was a new idea on an Agenda Item for a project approval. The traffic study was related to the project, but its scope was quite a bit broader than the project's scope. The traffic study was not within the noticed description of the Agenda Item. The Council may want to direct Staff to return with a future item pertaining to the traffic study. Council Member Kou inquired whether Staff could return with a proposal for a comprehensive traffic study. Mr. Shikada would interpret the proposed requirement as a referral to Staff, if the Council approved it. Council Member Cormack reluctantly accepted the proposal because other Council Members appeared to be comfortable with it. In general, she preferred not to act on new proposals for which the Council had little or no information. Mr. Shikada indicated Staff was uncomfortable with the requirement not to reduce the number of parking spaces and requested the Council provide Staff with some flexibility to work with the applicant regarding any minor impacts. Council Member Kou requested Staff provide alternate language. Mr. Owen suggested allowing Staff to design the parking lot in compliance with the Building Code would be helpful. Perhaps the language could include "except as subject to applicable Building Code requirements." Council Member Cormack offered language of "in the event parking spaces are reduced to 40, Staff will return to the Council for approval." She questioned whether one parking space provided Staff with sufficient FINAL MINUTES Page 20 of 33 City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 1/14/2019 discretion. She asked the applicant whether vacant parking spaces were common in other Palo Alto Housing properties. Mr. Tsuda could not provide a definitive answer because each property had a different population and different characteristics and income levels. Council Kou proposed Staff return to Council if the number of parking spaces was reduced during final design. Mr. Shikada advised that Staff preferred not to return to the Council and delay the project. Perhaps the language could state "a reduction in parking of no more than 5 percent if necessary to comply with Building Code requirements." Mayor Filseth reiterated that parking shall not be reduced more than two spaces in order to comply with Building Code requirements. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion: A. Wilton Court building plans shall remain substantially consistent to Palo Alto Housing’s presentation before Council on January 14, 2019: i. Shall contain 21 units or more, but no less, for adults with developmental disabilities; ii. A total of 58 units at 30-60 percent AMI; iii. Palo Alto live/work preference; iv. Parking spaces shall not be reduced more than two spaces in order to comply with Code requirements; and v. Direct Staff to return to Council with a proposal on how to conduct a comprehensive traffic study of the Ventura neighborhood. MOTION AS AMENDED RESTATED: Vice Mayor Fine moved, seconded by Council Member Cormack to: A. Find the project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act per Guidelines Section 15194 (Affordable Housing Exemption); B. Introduce for first reading and adopt an Ordinance to apply the Affordable Housing (AH) Combining District to the subject property; and FINAL MINUTES Page 21 of 33 City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 1/14/2019 C. Adopt the proposed Record of Land Use Action approving the Applicant’s request for architectural review, design enhancement exception, a request to waive the retail preservation requirement for the project, subject to the rezoning ordinance taking effect, and as modified by the at-places memo provided by Staff; D. Direct Staff to evaluate any future RPP Districts in this area to minimize the impact from Wilton Court based on the project’s TDM plan and the project’s intent to fully park the building, to the extent allowed by law; E. Wilton Court building plans shall remain substantially consistent to Palo Alto Housing’s presentation before Council on January 14, 2019: i. Shall contain 21 units or more, but no less, for adults with developmental disabilities; ii. A total of 58 units at 30-60 percent AMI; iii. Palo Alto live/work preference; iv. Parking spaces shall not be reduced more than two spaces in order to comply with Code requirements; and F. Direct Staff to return to Council with a proposal on how to conduct a comprehensive traffic study of the Ventura neighborhood. Mayor Filseth shared Council Member Kniss' comments regarding efforts to encourage large amounts of affordable housing, when affordable housing projects were complex. MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 6-0 Kniss absent Mayor Filseth expressed appreciation to Palo Alto Housing, the neighborhood, Staff, and PTC for working together to achieve the first affordable housing project in many years. It was important for the City to fulfill its commitments to the Ventura neighborhood. Affordable housing projects would not occur without financing. The City would provide approximately $10 million from affordable housing funds for the project. The affordable housing fund balance would be approximately $3 million, which had been reserved for Supervisor Simitian's proposal for teacher housing. The affordable housing fund received approximately $2 million per year from Impact Fees on primarily commercial development. The City had to grow the fund faster by either modulating Impact Fees or finding new sources. If Governor Newsom's call for corporate and State investment in FINAL MINUTES Page 22 of 33 City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 1/14/2019 housing materialized as policy, it could become an important source of affordable housing funding. 7. PUBLIC HEARING/QUASI-JUDICIAL: 3743 Redwood Circle [17PLN- 00272]: Consideration of an Appeal of the Director's Individual Review Approval of a new Two-story, Single Family Home. Environmental Assessment: Exempt From the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in Accordance With Guideline Section 15303 (Small Structures). Zoning District: R-1 (Single Family Residential) (Continued From October 29, 2018). Graham Owen, Planner, reported the item pertained to an appeal of the Planning Director's decision to approve an Individual Review (IR) application. The application proposed demolition of the existing one-story home and construction of a new two-story home. The parcel was located in the R-1 zoning district, and two-story homes were permitted uses in the zone. Typically, Staff reviewed IR applications for compliance with objective standards and for consistency with IR Guidelines. Following an initial Staff decision, adjacent neighbors may request a Director's hearing. An applicant or appellant may appeal the final decision of the Director to the City Council. The project was located in the Fairmeadow Eichler tract in South Palo Alto. The neighborhood was characterized by a mix of one- and two-story homes. Neighbors reacted to the Mediterranean style of the proposed home when the home was located in an Eichler-influenced, Mid-Century Modern neighborhood. The original application was received on July 26, 2017 and revised on January 18, 2018 and May 2, 2018. Staff tentatively approved the May 2, 2018 design, and adjacent neighbors to the rear of the property requested a Director's hearing. The neighbor's concerns were privacy impacts and solar access. Two Director's hearings were held, and revised plans were approved on August 28, 2018. The main design revisions between May 2 and August 28 were the placement of windows on the rear of the second story, the removal of bay windows on the rear of the second story, and the addition of two separate windows only wide enough for egress purposes. All windows on the rear of the second story were either five foot tall or had an obscure glazing. These mitigations typically were not employed at the rear of a home, but Staff added them as conditions of approval following the Director's hearings due to the appellant's concerns. The appellant requested the imposition of a 40-foot rear setback for the second story; the centering of the second story above the first story; and relocation of all egress windows on the rear of the second story to the sides. The appellant's request for opaque glass had been addressed in the most- recent iteration of the plans. A 40-foot setback would remove a substantial section of the second story. Compliance with Eichler Design Guidelines was FINAL MINUTES Page 23 of 33 City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 1/14/2019 voluntary, and Staff believed the application as presented was consistent with the Eichler Design Guidelines. Council Member Tanaka disclosed that he scheduled a meeting with both the applicant and appellant; however, the meeting was canceled. Council Member Kou disclosed a meeting with the appellant. Vice Mayor Fine disclosed the receipt of emails from the applicant and appellant. He did not respond to the emails. Mayor Filseth disclosed the receipt of emails from the applicant and appellant and a visit to the site. Council Member DuBois disclosed a meeting with the appellant and a visit to the backyards of 3712 and 3714 Carlson Circle in October 2018. Council Member Cormack disclosed the receipt of an email from the applicant. She declined the request for a meeting. Public Hearing was opened at 10:20 P.M. Manoj Raisinghani, Appellant, remarked that the second-story windows on the rear of the project looked into the first floors of the homes to the rear of the project, which raised privacy concerns. He requested a 40-foot setback for the second story of the project; full windows should be allowed only on the front of the second story; egress windows should be moved from the rear of the second story to the sides of the second story; and the second story should be centered above the first story. The 29-foot setback did not alleviate privacy concerns because the vegetative screening was not permanent. The rear of the first floor in his home was composed of glass. The proposed second-story addition would block his access to sunlight from 5:30 p.m. until dark during the summer. Ket Le, Applicant Architect, commented that the appellant's second story blocks the applicant's access to morning sunlight. The final design of the project did not allow the applicant to look from the second story into the backyards of homes to the rear. The majority of windows on the rear of the second story had been raised to a height of five feet or more. Windows less than a height of five feet were obscured and required for emergency egress. In order to reduce the mass of the front elevation of the second story, he had to push the second story to the rear of the house as much as possible. The lot was only 93 feet deep, and the appellant requested a 40-foot rear setback. Pushing the second story back and complying with a 40-foot rear setback was virtually impossible. FINAL MINUTES Page 24 of 33 City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 1/14/2019 Ming Li, Applicant, related that many neighbors supported the project. Other homes in the neighborhood were two-story and Modern in design, and two homes had balconies. She suggested the appellant plant a tree to screen his home. Privacy was a concern in Eichler neighborhoods, but the residents tolerated the intrusion in order to be considerate of their neighbors. The proposed home maximized privacy and complied with development standards. She had proposed planting three trees to screen her home from the appellant's home. John Hurst supported the proposal for a compromise that would provide the applicant with a second-story addition and protect the privacy of the appellant. Rick Tan supported the applicant's project. Privacy concerns could be mitigated. Joe Kagan believed the appellant's concerns had been addressed. The applicant would not be able to see into the appellant's backyard. The appellant had not obscured his bay window, which looked into Mr. Kagan's home and another neighbor's home. Privacy was not a primary concern for residents of Redwood Circle because they knew their neighbors. Shifa Xu supported the applicant's project. The applicant's existing home needed improvements. Fan Ding felt the applicant had done everything possible to address the appellant's privacy concerns. The applicant deserved the right and opportunity to build their dream house. Sean Zhou noted the project complied with the IR Guidelines and development standards. The applicant had done their best to accommodate the appellant's requests. The appellant should also attempt to address their privacy concerns. Mr. Le related that the appellant first commented on the project in May 2018, after Staff had tentatively approved the project. The applicant had met with the appellant and revised the design and proposed trees to mitigate the appellant's concerns; however, the appellant was not willing to compromise. Aren Raisinghani advised that Staff reviewed the initial design and determined that a 40-foot setback was feasible. The applicant's architect deemed a design in compliance with a 40-foot setback as impossible. The applicant did not address the privacy issue in their comments. His parents' FINAL MINUTES Page 25 of 33 City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 1/14/2019 home did not block the morning sun from other homes because the home was sited 40 feet away from neighbors. Public Hearing was closed at 10:57 P.M. Council Member DuBois asked if the accessory dwelling unit (ADU) would be habitable. Mr. Owen explained that an accessory structure containing a maximum of 120 square feet and at most two plumbing fixtures was allowed in an R-1 zone. The proposed structure was an accessory structure rather than an ADU. Jonathan Lait, Planning and Community Environment Interim Director, reported conversion of the accessory structure to an ADU would require permits. Mr. Owen added that the structure had reached the maximum allowed floor area ratio (FAR). Council Member DuBois asked if Staff ever required trees be planted 10 feet away from the property line. Mr. Owen answered yes. The plans showed three trees and the existing landscaping. Council Member DuBois related that the windows on most older two-story homes in the neighborhood were oriented to protect privacy. The massing for the homes was towards the street. They were designed in the Eichler style. The proposed home was not pushed toward the street. It had some elements of horizontal lines. There seemed to be a conflict between the IR requirements and the Eichler Design Guidelines. The IR requirements pushed the massing towards the back, which created privacy issues. He would likely support a further setback for the second story and a reduction in the number of windows on the rear of the house. Council Member Kou requested clarification of the appellant's statement about the feasibility of a 40-foot setback. Mr. Owen reviewed the June 2017 plans and did not find a 40-foot setback on the plans. Council Member Kou asked if any of the new plans showed a second story moved towards the front. FINAL MINUTES Page 26 of 33 City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 1/14/2019 Mr. Owen clarified that the applicant pushed a small section of the second story towards the front between the Director's hearing and approval of the plans. Council Member Kou concurred with Council Member DuBois' comments regarding a reduction in windows and moving the massing towards the front. Privacy and sunlight were primary concerns for many homeowners. With Eichler homes, privacy was a special problem. She inquired regarding other appeals of Eichler projects. Mr. Owen indicated Staff had not received any appeals to the Architectural Review Board or the Council in six years. Council Member Kou asked if there was some way to memorialize a requirement for trees and landscaping, such as deed restricting the property. Mr. Owen advised that Staff typically did not utilize a deed restriction for landscaping. Specific conditions of approval for landscaping were included in the Record of Land Use Action (ROLUA) to ensure the project continued to comply with IR Guidelines. The conditions ran with the land. Vice Mayor Fine reiterated that the project complied with all R-1 development standards. He asked when the IR review began. Mr. Owen replied June 2017. Vice Mayor Fine asked if the request for opaque glass on a 1-foot-8-inch- wide window located on the right side of the house had been included. Mr. Owen answered yes. Vice Mayor Fine requested Staff's reasons for not requiring the relocation of rear-facing egress windows to the side elevation. Mr. Owen explained that Staff preferred egress windows face the rear of the home because the smaller side yard setbacks created the potential for greater privacy impacts. Given the layout of windows on adjacent properties, Staff believed egress windows on the sides would potentially impact privacy more than on the rear. Vice Mayor Fine recalled that the rear yard setback to the second floor was 29 feet and the side yard setback was 6 feet. He requested Staff comment regarding the appellant's request to center the second floor over the first floor. FINAL MINUTES Page 27 of 33 City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 1/14/2019 Mr. Owen reported the centering the second floor would shift it toward the north in plan view. Vice Mayor Fine asked if the rear setback requirement was 20 feet and whether the second story was set back 29 feet. Mr. Owen advised that the setback was 20 feet; however, the rear daylight plane cut into the property at a 60-degree angle. Ultimately, the requirement was typically slightly greater than 20 feet depending on the location of the second floor. Vice Mayor Fine requested the actual setback for the project. Mr. Owen related that it was probably 6 feet below the rear daylight plane. Council Member Cormack asked if the project requested any variances or exceptions. Mr. Owen responded no. Council Member Cormack asked if the applicant could look into the appellant's rear yard from the second floor. Mr. Owen recalled the applicant had shared a photo depicting the view. Council Member Cormack noted the glazing was at a height of five feet. She concurred with Council Member DuBois regarding a conflict between the IR Guidelines and the Eichler Design Guidelines. Projects for Eichler homes were always a balancing act. She was loathe to design from the dais. Council Member DuBois clarified that the IR seemed to indicate the second story should be pushed away from the street. The most Eichler-like homes in the neighborhood had the second story pushed flat towards the street. In an Eichler neighborhood, the front plane should be flat at the street. Council Member Cormack seemed to recall the Eichler Design Guidelines indicated the second story should be pushed back. Amy French, Chief Planning Official, reiterated that the Eichler Design Guidelines were voluntary for IR projects. The project was submitted prior to adoption of the Eichler Design Guidelines. The IR Guidelines were the operative document at the time the project was submitted. On a larger lot, pushing the second story toward the street would be a good idea to provide greater privacy for the rear of the home. Staff worked with the applicant to revise the windows on the rear of the second story. The bay windows did not seem to be compatible at the back. FINAL MINUTES Page 28 of 33 City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 1/14/2019 Mayor Filseth asked if the second story of other homes in the neighborhood were set back significantly less than 40 feet from the rear property line. Mr. Owen answered yes. Mayor Filseth noted a couple of homes' second story was set back 20, 25 feet. He requested Staff comment regarding the privacy implications of the rear windows on the applicant's home. Mr. Owen reported Staff believed the privacy impacts had been addressed through reducing the width of the egress windows, increasing the sill height to five feet, requiring obscured glazing, and adding landscaping at the rear of the property. Mayor Filseth inquired whether the front setback was under appeal. Mr. Lait felt the totality of the project was before the Council. Council Member DuBois asked if the landscape plan identified the exact location of plantings. Mr. Owen advised that the trees would be a type of pittosporum. The conditions of approval specified the height and box size of the trees at the time of planting. Council Member DuBois wanted to know the distance of the tree trunk from the rear fence. Mr. Owen replied approximately 4-6 feet from the property line. Staff did not specify the distance but allowed some flexibility. Council Member Kou reiterated that the second story was located 29 feet from the property line. She asked if the applicant's architect could design the second story to be 35 feet from the property line. Mr. Le explained that the increased distance would affect the design significantly. Moving the second story would affect the placement of the stairway between the floors and other components of the first floor. Shifting the second story 2-3 feet would still affect the first floor without affecting the views. Obscuring the windows up to five feet would address the privacy issue. Council Member Kou asked if the applicant had agreed to obscure the windows to a height of five feet. FINAL MINUTES Page 29 of 33 City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 1/14/2019 Mr. Le replied yes. It was part of the agreement reached at the Director's hearings. MOTION: Council Member Cormack moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Fine to uphold the Director of Planning and Community Environment’s approval by adopting the Draft Record of Land Use Action. Council Member Cormack stated the project met all guidelines, and the applicant had made a good faith effort to resolve as many issues as possible. Vice Mayor Fine felt the appellant raised good issues regarding privacy. He encouraged the applicant to plant the trees further from the fence and closer to the windows. AMENDMENT: Council Member DuBois moved, seconded by Council Member XX to direct Staff to update the Individual Review Guidelines with Eichler massing standards in the Eichler neighborhoods. Mayor Filseth questioned the appropriateness of the Amendment. Mr. Lait explained that Staff considered the Eichler Design Guidelines when reviewing IR applications. Council Member DuBois expressed concern that Staff was telling applicants to push the second story back, which exacerbated the problem in an Eichler neighborhood. He wanted to see some flexibility for Eichler neighborhoods. Mr. Lait advised that the Eichler Design Guidelines spoke to not having complicated facades and suggested not stacking additions on top of the single story. If the Council wanted Staff to be more aggressive with the Eichler Design Guidelines, Staff needed direction. Council Member DuBois was interested in Staff reviewing second-story massing more aggressively. Molly Stump, City Attorney, remarked that the Eichler Design Guidelines were carefully considered, and Council provided some direction in a noticed item to the community. The Council should revisit and adjust the guidelines in a meeting that was noticed for a discussion of the Eichler Design Guidelines. AMENDMENT WITHDRAWN BY THE MAKER Mr. Lait would examine the IR Guidelines and the Eichler Design Guidelines to determine whether a conflict existed. FINAL MINUTES Page 30 of 33 City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 1/14/2019 Council Member Tanaka asked if the windows could be fully obscured. Mr. Owen advised that the Code did not require or prohibit full obscuring of the windows; however, the homeowners should be able to look out the windows. Mr. Lait added that the Council could require full obscure glazing. Council Member Tanaka asked if the parties had considered fully obscuring the windows. Mr. Owen recalled that during a Director's hearing the applicant expressed a preference for not obscuring all the windows on one side of the home. Council Member Tanaka requested the appellant's thoughts about fully obscuring the windows. Mr. Lait advised that there were no minutes for Director's hearings. Ms. Li wanted to see at least a bit of sky through her windows. Mr. Le commented that five feet was the unofficial standard height to protect the privacy of adjacent neighbors. During the Director's hearing, the appellant was more concerned with removing all the rear windows. Ms. Raisinghani indicated the interior of Eichler homes was highly visible at night when interior lights were on. She supported the suggestion to make the windows fully opaque. Mr. Aren Raisinghani related that a person over five feet tall could look out the window and have an obstructed view into his rear yard. Fully opaque windows would be useless when the windows were open. The appellant could accept a requirement for the windows to be fully opaque and inoperable. Council Member Tanaka noted opaque glass did not fully block the view or sunlight. The windows had to be operable in case of an emergency. He inquired whether other projects had been required to have fully opaque windows. Mr. Owen reported the concept was relatively new for windows on the rear of a home. It was much more common for windows on the sides of homes. He had never seen fully frosted windows on the rear. Council Member Tanaka requested Council Members' comments regarding fully opaque windows. FINAL MINUTES Page 31 of 33 City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 1/14/2019 Council Member Cormack requested the height of the windows. Mr. Owen stated the egress windows were eight feet tall, and the glazing began at a height of 2 feet and extended to a height of 5 feet. Council Member Cormack asked which parts of the window were operable. Mr. Owen noted half of an egress window would open. Council Member Cormack was open to requiring fully opaque windows if it would resolve all issues. Vice Mayor Fine did not believe full opacity would resolve the privacy issue because the windows could be opened. He would not support removing the windows because they were egress windows. Egress windows on the rear were safer than on the side. Council Member Tanaka wanted to find a compromise that would allow the two neighbors to live peacefully. Ms. Li would accept fully opaque windows if the Council would approve the project. AMENDMENT: Council Member Cormack moved, seconded by Council Member XX to require glazing on the rear egress windows. Vice Mayor Fine agreed with the applicant's comment regarding seeing a bit of the sky. Council Member Kou remarked that fully opaque windows were not good from a realtor's perspective. She suggested the windows open downward rather than upward. Council Member Tanaka noted both parties agreed to fully opaque windows. AMENDMENT FAILED DUE TO THE LACK OF A SECOND Council Member Kou wished to deed restrict the property for landscaping and require the homeowner to maintain landscaping at a height that would screen but not block the view. She requested the height of the first floor from grade to the eaves. Mr. Owen answered ten feet. Council Member Kou suggested a condition of approval or a deed restriction requiring trees to be planted and maintained at a height of 10-11 feet. FINAL MINUTES Page 32 of 33 City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 1/14/2019 Mr. Owen recommended the Council set a minimum height for the trees at the time of planting and a maximum height to which the trees should be maintained. Mr. Lait suggested the Council include a five foot range so that the tree could grow. Council Member Kou clarified that the maximum height should be 11 feet. Mr. Owen asked if Council Member Kou wanted the existing condition of approval to include an eight-foot minimum height and an 11-foot maximum height. Council Member Kou stated the tree could be any height at the time of planting. The maximum height should not block the appellant's sunlight. Mayor Filseth asked if such a condition of approval was practical. Mr. Lait reported Staff would likely not enforce the condition of approval any time soon. Conditions of approval typically did not limit the height of hedges. Council Member Kou commented that the IR Guidelines would cause future difficulties, especially in Eichler neighborhoods. Mr. Lait advised that the Council could require the planting and maintaining of a hedge or screening. He wanted to prevent complaints that the hedge exceeded the maximum height by six inches. Council Member Cormack asked if Council Member Kou wished to propose a range for the maximum height. Council Member Kou stated 10-12 feet. Council Member Cormack requested the typical height of pittosporums in 24- inch containers. Mr. Lait replied 8 feet. Council Member Cormack asked the appellant if the height was important. Ms. Raisinghani responded yes. Mr. Raisinghani believed a height of 10-11 feet would block sunlight, but he would accept it. He did not know how the City would enforce the condition FINAL MINUTES Page 33 of 33 City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 1/14/2019 of approval. Trees would allow some sunlight into his home, but a structure would not. AMENDMENT: Council Member Tanaka moved, seconded by Mayor Filseth to require full translucent glazing on the rear egress windows on the upper floor of the property. AMENDMENT PASSED: 5-1 Kou no, Kniss absent Mr. Lait reported the applicant could not utilize a film to obscure the windows. The obscurity, such as beveled glass, would be embedded within the glass and would allow light into the home. MOTION AS AMENDED RESTATED: Council Member Cormack moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Fine to uphold the Director of Planning and Community Environment’s approval by adopting the Draft Record of Land Use Action; and to require full translucent glazing on the rear egress windows on the upper floor of the property. MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 6-0 Kniss absent State/Federal Legislation Update/Action None. Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements Council Member Kou reported the Palo Alto Youth Council (PAYC) held a final study cram slam on December 11-13. Over three days, 228 students attended the event. She requested Staff provide materials to the North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan (NVCAP) citizens advisory panel prior to the meeting so that members had time to study the material. Council Member Tanaka suggested Boards and Commission could resolve issues similar to Agenda Item Number 7 more easily and better than the Council. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 11:56 P.M.