Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-03-05 City Council Summary MinutesCITY OF PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL FINAL MINUTES Page 1 of 35 Regular Meeting March 5, 2018 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 6:03 P.M. Present: DuBois arrived at 6:04 P.M., Filseth, Fine, Holman, Kniss, Kou, Scharff, Tanaka, Wolbach Absent: Closed Session 1. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS. THIS ITEM HAS BEEN REMOVED AND WILL BE HEARD AT A LATER DATE. 2. CONFERENCE WITH CITY ATTORNEY–POTENTIAL LITIGATION Department of Industrial Relations Civil Wage and Penalty Assessment Case No. 40-57419 Subject: Contract With MDR Utility Locating Specialist Inc. Authority: Significant Exposure to Litigation Under Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(2) (One Potential Case, as Defendant). MOTION: Council Member Holman moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Filseth to go into Closed Session. MOTION PASSED: 8-0 DuBois absent Council went into Closed Session at 6:04 P.M. Council returned from Closed Session at 6:34 P.M. Mayor Kniss announced no reportable action from the Closed Session. FINAL MINUTES Page 2 of 35 City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 3/5/18 Special Orders of the Day 3. Introduction of Distinguished Guests From Yangpu District of Shanghai, China. Mayor Kniss welcomed the guests from Yangpu District and introduced Bing Wei. Bing Wei, Neighbors Abroad advised that Mayor Kniss and the Mayor of Yangpu had signed the Sister City Agreement that morning. She stated that Yangpu has a population of 1.5 million people. Zhao Naiyan, Chief Representative of Shanghai Yangpu Overseas Talent Center congratulated the Cities of Yangpu and Palo Alto on their new Sister City relationship and thanked Neighbors Abroad for their efforts in fostering the relationship. Yangpu was similar to Palo Alto in its innovative culture and ecosystem, university talents, business incubators, strong companies, and focus on education and renewable energy. Palo Alto was the first City in the United States to establish a Sister City relationship with the most progressive city in Shanghai. The Sister City relationship was going to bring the two cities together and allow new programs to flourish. She brought representatives of four key Yangpu enterprises with her who hoped to contribute to the Palo Alto economy. Palo Alto's Mayor and City Manager and Neighbors Abroad representatives were invited to visit Yangpu in the near future. She thanked everyone for their hospitality and introduced representatives from four Yangpu companies. Mayor Kniss thanked the representatives for attending the City Council meeting. Sea Reddy expressed gratitude to the Asian community for holding the Chinese New Year party. Partnering with Sister Cities was a wonderful way to build bridges. Study Session 4. 2017 Annual Housing Element Report for the Period of January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2017. Eloiza Murillo-Garcia, Senior Planner presented the 2017 Annual Housing Element Report. The Housing Element must be included in the City's Comprehensive Plan (Comp. Plan) and updated every 8 years. The Housing Element provided goals, policies, and actions that helped the City plan for housing needs for all segments of the City's population. The Housing Element was adopted in November 2014 and certified in January 2015. FINAL MINUTES Page 3 of 35 City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 3/5/18 Government Code Section 65400 required the City to prepare an Annual Progress Report (APR), which discussed the City's progress in implementing programs and meeting the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). The APR must be submitted to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) and the Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) by April 1 of each year. Under the 2017 Housing Package, charter cities were required to submit an APR annually, and local jurisdictions were required to accept public comment at a Council meeting. The City's total RHNA number for 2015-2023 was 1,988 housing units. As of December 31, 2017, the City permitted 393 units or 20 percent of its RHNA number. Since 1998, the City permitted more than 3,100 housing units, of which 774 were affordable units. Of the 73 programs contained in the Housing Element, 30 had specific deadlines for completion and 43 were ongoing. Ten of the 30 programs with deadlines were complete, 12 were underway, and 8 were not complete. Council Member Fine stated the City accomplished 20 percent of its RHNA goal in Year 4 of the cycle and also accomplished 30 percent of its Comprehensive Plan and Housing Element goals. Sacramento was interested in ensuring local municipalities provided their share of housing and thought the City should make a good faith effort to meet the Comprehensive Plan goal of 300 housing units per year. Council Member Kou felt the City was behind in producing housing because of the amount of Office and Research and Development (R&D) square footage built over the past decade. The least the City was able to do was attain the goal of 300 housing units per year. Until there was a way to lessen the amount of office space being built, the City's RHNA numbers would always be higher. Council Member Holman asked if the State Legislature had exhibited any interest in supporting jurisdictions' efforts to save existing housing units. The City's numbers did not accurately reflect accomplishments because the City could not report the number of units preserved. Hillary Gitelman, Director of Planning and Community Environment explained that the APR did report the number of units preserved. The State was aware of the loss of housing stock because Senate Bill (SB) 35 did not allow property owners to take advantage of the new by-right process on sites with existing housing units. Council Member Holman inquired about the City lobbying to enhance the awareness of housing loss in programs and legislation. FINAL MINUTES Page 4 of 35 City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 3/5/18 Ms. Gitelman believed the Legislature was likely to take further action on housing and was interested in thoughts from local agencies. Council Member DuBois requested the number of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) completed in Palo Alto and asked if Staff planned to increase or update the forecast for ADUs. Ms. Murillo-Garcia reported 12 ADUs were permitted in Calendar Year 2017. Council Member DuBois expressed interest in learning about the City's progress by housing type. Ms. Murillo-Garcia advised that the City permitted 43 single-family homes, 9 duplexes or 18 unit dwelling spaces, 12 ADUs, and 16 apartments for a total of 89 units in Calendar Year 2017. Council Member DuBois asked if Staff had updated the forecast for the total number of ADUs over the life of the Housing Element. Ms. Gitelman indicated Staff did not prepare a forecast mid-cycle and added that the City's annual average for ADUs had been four units per year. Council Member DuBois inquired whether Staff had estimated the total number of ADUs for the RHNA cycle. Ms. Gitelman did not have an estimate and said ADUs were counted as moderate units because of their size. Council Member DuBois wished to understand the number of units expected for each housing type versus the RHNA numbers based on changes the City made. He asked about HCD's purpose in collecting data about housing projects the City denied. Ms. Gitelman suspected HCD would craft the new reporting forms to obtain information for new housing bills. One bill contained a “no net loss” provision that would track the development of housing sites and the income level to ensure local jurisdictions maintained a universe sufficient to accommodate RHNA numbers throughout the cycle. Even though charter cities were exempt from that provision, she expected HCD's forms would request that information. Council Member DuBois requested an opinion regarding HCD's view of a lack of housing projects in local jurisdictions. FINAL MINUTES Page 5 of 35 City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 3/5/18 Ms. Gitelman suggested HCD could challenge whether the City was adequately implementing programs identified in its Housing Element and they could potentially scrutinize that part of the report more closely. Council Member DuBois thought permitting of uses other than housing could bolster the City's reporting. Ms. Gitelman expected HCD to request that type of information because it was relevant to the analysis of “no net loss of housing sites.” If sites designated for the RHNA allocation began developing other uses, HCD would look askance at that. Council Member DuBois believed progress would be lumpy rather than linear year over year. The City was behind in housing production. He asked if the 117 units of preserved housing was included in the 400 total units number. Ms. Murillo-Garcia advised no because those units did not meet HCD's definition. Council Member DuBois noted the City's percentage of affordable units was lower than in past Housing Elements. Perhaps Staff had ideas for making those percentages move closer to the targets. Ms. Gitelman explained that one or two projects of 100 percent affordable housing could drastically change the percentages. If the City could accomplish one or two projects by the end of the housing cycle, then the City's production should be sufficient in that regard. Vice Mayor Filseth remarked that 70 percent of the RHNA target was Below Market Rate (BMR) housing. Of the 393 units permitted, 143 units or 36 percent were BMR; however, he did not believe that the Citywide average was anywhere near 36 percent BMR housing units. He inquired whether the City was farthest behind on BMR units. Ms. Gitelman commented that the City's RHNA was weighted heavily in the affordability category. Vice Mayor Filseth inquired about the role Stanford played in calculation of the City's RHNA. Ms. Gitelman had to do research on the methodology of calculating RHNA. Job creation and housing costs factored into the methodology somehow, but she could not recall all the criteria. Mayor Kniss asked if the City received credit for Mayfield Place and requested the number of units in Mayfield Place. FINAL MINUTES Page 6 of 35 City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 3/5/18 Ms. Murillo-Garcia responded that the City did receive credit for 70 units, but the City received credit in either 2015 or 2016. Mayor Kniss seemed to recall that the former the Mayor cut the ribbon on the development in 2017. Ms. Gitelman clarified that the building permit was issued prior to 2017. The City received credit in the year the building permit was issued rather than the year the development opened. Mayor Kniss asked if RHNA pertained to identification of sites rather than construction of developments. Ms. Gitelman replied yes. Mayor Kniss felt the public should be aware of that difference because the City's job was to identify sites. Ms. Gitelman explained that RHNA referred to the Regional Housing Needs Allocation and said the State provided a large housing need number to each region of the State. The region distributed the number among the member jurisdictions. The State modified the RHNA methodology for each cycle, such that it could be heavily dependent on job growth or existing population and income level or other factors. The City's obligation in preparing the Housing Element for HCD review was to include sites sufficient to meet and exceed the RHNA. The City had to zone for the RHNA number and include implementation programs that would assist and encourage development of those sites to provide housing. Mayor Kniss reminded everyone that the numbers were a composite of RHNA, Comprehensive Plan goals, and one other touchstone. She requested Council Member Kou reiterate her comment about the Housing Element. Council Member Kou reiterated that commercial construction in Palo Alto over the last decade had far surpassed residential construction. To believe that the City could fulfill its RHNA numbers was aspirational. Mayor Kniss remarked that housing was very difficult to attain because the City did not initiate it. Council Member Wolbach felt Council Member Kou's point was good. The City had an annual office cap which allowed no more than 100,000 square feet of office development in any 2-year period. The cap appeared to be effective in slowing the rate of office development. The number of permits for ADUs over the last year was encouraging. It would be interesting to see FINAL MINUTES Page 7 of 35 City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 3/5/18 the effect of the Housing Work Plan on the City's ability to achieve its housing numbers. Given all the changes the City had made and the goals the City had adopted, achieving the RHNA numbers was aspirational and possible. He expressed concern that State legislation was going a little too far and that Palo Alto's State Assembly Member and Senator were withholding their support for SB 827. Perhaps SB 827 was to be amended such that the City could support it. He hoped the next APR would be more positive. He said one or two affordable housing developments could help the City reach its targets and fulfill its promises. Council Member Scharff responded to Council Member Kou's comments by saying the amount of office space did not affect and was not related to the RHNA numbers. He asked when Staff might present the Council with information about implementing Program H2.1.1, limited exceptions to the 50-foot height limit. Ms. Gitelman believed Staff designated that program as ongoing when the Comprehensive Plan Update was underway, and Staff needed to review the program. Staff did include a program in the Housing Element to consider additional height and Staff was not currently working on an ordinance to that effect. Council Member Scharff understood State law required the City to do everything in its Housing Element. The word “ongoing” implied Staff was working on it. Ms. Gitelman noted the language of the program was "to consider zoning increases." In the context of the Comprehensive Plan, Staff did consider the program. If the Council directed, Staff would consider it further. Mayor Kniss asked if Staff felt the City was on track, in good shape, or needed more effort to achieve its goals. Ms. Gitelman reported the Staff's position was: a lot of work is needed. Mayor Kniss agreed. Attaining the goal of 300 units per year was a long- term challenge for the City because the City needed to be ready for SB 827, if it did pass. Council Member Kou stated Council Member Scharff was correct that RHNA's methodology pertained to Priority Development Areas and said the RHNA methodology stated that employment, transit and fair share were all considered. Her comments pertained to a cumulative view. FINAL MINUTES Page 8 of 35 City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 3/5/18 Mayor Kniss recalled that RHNA numbers were based on the region rather than the community. The entire region was experiencing growth. Council Member Scharff advised that he was a member of the Methodology Committee for RHNA. The amount of office space constructed was irrelevant to the RHNA numbers. Perhaps Council Member Kou was speaking to the jobs/housing balance. Historically Palo Alto always had a 3:1 ratio of jobs to housing balance, and it probably would not change. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions Mayor Kniss reported Item Number 10 had been removed from the Agenda and would return on April 2. City Manager Comments James Keene, City Manager reported the City's Planning Department was hosting a community meeting at David Starr Jordan Middle School on March 7, 2018 from 6:30 to 8:30 P.M. to discuss the application for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for a community center at the First Baptist Church. The meeting was not a public hearing, and no project decision would be made during the meeting. Palo Alto Paramedics recently delivered a baby at a home in Crescent Park and then transported both mother and infant to Stanford Hospital. As a separate comment, “Making Palo Alto a Dementia- Friendly Community” would be held on March 28, 2018 from 7:00 to 9:00 P.M. at Mitchell Park Community Center. On March 29, 2018 from 7:00 to 9:00 P.M. at Mitchell Park Community Center, a listening forum sponsored by the County Office of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Questioning (LGBTQ) Concerns and the Palo Alto Human Relations Commission (HRC) would be held. The fifth annual Racing Hearts 5K and 10K Race and community event was scheduled for March 18, 2018. The Family Heart Wellness Festival was scheduled for March 18, 2018 from 2:00 to 4:00 P.M. at King Plaza. The City had signed a letter of support for Assembly Bill 2308, which would prohibit the sale of cigarettes with single-use filters in California. The Connecting Palo Alto Community Roundtable would take place on March 6, 2018 from 6:30 to 8:30 P.M. at the Palo Alto Art Center auditorium. Mayor Kniss encouraged the public to attend the Making Palo Alto a Dementia-Friendly Community workshop. Oral Communications Mayor Kniss reported members of the public who wished to speak to Item Number 10 should speak under Oral Communications rather than the FINAL MINUTES Page 9 of 35 City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 3/5/18 Consent Calendar because Item Number 10 had been removed from the Agenda. Sandra Slater remarked that the Cool Block Program assisted City programs with gaining traction in the community and allowed residents to take advantage of the City's programs. The City did not have a program to engage with citizens regarding climate change. Hopefully, the City would support the next phase of the Cool Block Program's efforts to make the community healthier, safer and friendlier and to combat climate change. Hillary Glann shared outcomes of Ilima Way becoming a Cool Block. It was important for the Council to consider funding the Cool Block Program. Annette Isaacson was proud of the City's concern about the environment and climate change. Palo Alto needed a proven way to save resources and to build cohesion in neighborhoods. She hoped the City would fund the Cool Block Program. Lisa Van Dusen commented that the City's support of the Cool Block Program would yield a high return on investment. This program integrated the City's programs into the community. Edward LaFargo shared takeaways from the Triple El neighborhood becoming a Cool Block. The Cool Block Program was the ideal vehicle for continuing positive changes in Palo Alto. Bret Anderson felt the City's support of the Cool Block Program would be a stimulus for the program. This was one of the few programs that utilized a systematic approach to engaging the community. Neva Yarkin suggested flashing lights be installed at major intersections where bike paths also cross the streets. Bob Wilson requested support for efforts to stop the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) from harassing Westpoint Harbor. Westpoint Harbor opened in 2008 and was focused on meeting the need for safe and responsible Bay access to boating, fishing, walking, and observing wildlife. BCDC seemed intent on forcing the closure of Westpoint Harbor. Rita Vrhel remarked that the proposal for the Cool Block Program lacked facts. She questioned whether $100,000 was intended to support the program for 1 year, to purchase the program for the City, or to be a one-time donation. National Groundwater Awareness week was March 11-17. She encouraged Council Members to view the Ross Road project. FINAL MINUTES Page 10 of 35 City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 3/5/18 Stephanie Muñoz believed the most controversial aspect of affordable housing was density. The Council should increase density for projects of 50 percent or more affordable housing. John Kelley urged the Council to support the Cool Block Program. Climate risk and global warming were different and required a different form of decision-making. The Cool Block Program could have a global effect on change. Elaine Meyer questioned whether the Empowerment Institute could ethically award a $100,000 contract to one of its Board Members. Minutes Approval 5. Approval of Action Minutes for the February 12, 2018 Council Meeting. MOTION: Vice Mayor Filseth moved, seconded by Council Member Scharff to approve the Action Minutes for the February 12, 2018 Council Meeting MOTION PASSED: 9-0 Consent Calendar Mayor Kniss reiterated that Item Number 10 was continued to April 2. MOTION: Council Member Fine moved, seconded by Council Member Scharff, third by Vice Mayor Filseth to pull Agenda Item Number 9 - Adoption of a Resolution and Approval of Guidelines for a One-year Pilot Program to Enable Bicycle and Electric Scooter Sharing … to be heard as Agenda Item Number 14A. Katie Sevens spoke regarding Agenda Item Number 9. The proposed regulations for bike share services were good. She requested the cap on standard bikes and the requirement for real-time data be deleted from the regulations. Sam Sadle, Limebike representative spoke regarding Agenda Item Number 9. Limebikeprovided real-time data; he suggested the regulations require all bicycle, scooters and e-bikes to have a permanently affixed Global Positioning System (GPS) tracking mechanism. James Keene, City Manager reported the Ordinance establishing the Evergreen/Mayfield Residential Preferential Parking Permit (RPP) Program required the City to prioritize low-income employees and employees on waiting lists for lots and garages in the California Business District. Staff would prioritize employee permit sales to these groups and also set aside 40 FINAL MINUTES Page 11 of 35 City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 3/5/18 permits for employees who work outside the assessment district as directed by Council in early February 2018. Staff planned on contacting businesses outside the assessment district to ensure they had an opportunity to purchase permits. MOTION: Vice Mayor Filseth moved, seconded by Council Member Scharff to approve Agenda Item Numbers 6-8, 11-14. 6. Adoption of an Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 2.22 (Human Relations Commission) and Chapter 2.25 (Parks and Recreation Commission) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to use Gender-neutral Language and add Gender Identity to the Human Relations Commission’s Jurisdiction, and to Reflect the Community Services Department’s Current Divisions. 7. Resolution 9741 Entitled, “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Evergreen Park - Mayfield Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Program Extending the Program Area to the East Side of El Camino Real, Increasing the Number of Employee Parking Permits, and Making Clarifying Modifications to the Resolution.” 8. Resolution 9742 Entitled, “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Southgate Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Program to Extend the Program Area to the West Side of El Camino Real, Increase the Number of Employee Parking Permits, Make Clarifying Modifications to the Resolution, and Restate the Program Provisions.” 9. Adoption of a Resolution and Approval of Guidelines for a One-year Pilot Program to Enable Bicycle and Electric Scooter Sharing Systems to Operate Within Palo Alto, Subject to City Criteria Regarding Parking, Quality of Devices, and Other Factors at no Cost to the City. 10. Approval of a Contract With the Empowerment Institute for $100,000 for Community Engagement Block Program. 11. Appointment of the 2018 Emergency Standby Council. 12. Approval of an Amendment to the Palo Alto Parks and Open Space Regulation R1-32 to Update the City's Dog Park Rules. 13. Policy and Services Committee Recommendation to Accept the City Auditor's Office Proposed Fiscal Year 2018 Audit Work Plan. FINAL MINUTES Page 12 of 35 City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 3/5/18 14. Approval of Amendment Number 4 to Contract Number C14152025 With SP Plus for Valet Parking Services, Extending the Term of the Contract to December 31, 2018 With no Additional Cost to the City. MOTION PASSED: 9-0 Action Items 14A. (Former Agenda Item Number 9) Resolution 9743 Entitled, “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto and Approval of Guidelines for a One-year Pilot Program to Enable Bicycle and Electric Scooter Sharing Systems to Operate Within Palo Alto, Subject to City Criteria Regarding Parking, Quality of Devices, and Other Factors at no Cost to the City.” James Keene, City Manager, reported that the necessary Staff was not present to respond to questions. It was helpful to hear the scale or scope of Council Members' concerns. Perhaps the Council could craft a Motion for Staff to take action. Council Member Kou requested the Council continue with the regular Agenda prior to taking up this action. Mayor Kniss advised that the Council agreed to dispose of this item in short order and proceeded with the item. Council Member Fine expressed concern about the cap of 700 standard bikes. Competition among bike share companies was important. MOTION: Council Member Fine moved, seconded by Council Member Scharff to adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to create guidelines for a one-year pilot program regulating private bicycle sharing systems in the City of Palo Alto, including: A. The pilot program would allow bicycle and electric scooter sharing vendors to operate programs, subject to specific City guidelines; B. Will expire on March 31, 2019, or upon adoption of permanent regulations by the City Council; C. Remove the 700 human-powered bicycle cap; D. Authorize the City Manager to regulate the number of permits in order to resolve nuisance or encroachment issues; and E. Violation of proposed City guidelines could result in revocation of a permit. FINAL MINUTES Page 13 of 35 City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 3/5/18 Council Member Fine felt competition among the vendors was important to a successful Bike Share Program. A cap of 700 standard bikes affected competition and the success of the program. Staff drafted some good regulations to address nuisance and encroachment issues. Council Member Scharff agreed that competition was necessary for success. Artificially limiting competition did not provide good information. He did not understand why Staff limited the number of bikes in the Downtown and California Avenue business districts; this limit could make the program less successful. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion, “eliminate language requiring no more than 50 percent of bicycles be in the Downtown and California Avenue areas.” (New Part F) Council Member Scharff indicated data from the pilot program could determine that these limits are logical. Council Member DuBois advised that the Policy and Services Committee (P&S) discussed many of these issues and voted unanimously on its recommendation. The program was modeled on cities that had successfully implemented dockless bike programs. The cap was intended to allow multiple vendors to participate. The P&S discussion did not contemplate one vendor obtaining permits for all 700 standard bikes. The limit on bikes in Downtown and California Avenue was intended to prevent all bikes ending up in those two areas. The Motion was not well considered, and the Council should have a more substantial discussion with Transportation Staff. Vice Mayor Filseth asked if the City Manager had sufficient information to provide more detail on the 700-bike cap. Mr. Keene reiterated that he could re-agendize the topic without the Motion. If the Council passed the Motion, any direction to Staff should be subject to his review with City Staff. If Staff raised many concerns, then he would re- agendize the item for the Council before implementing the direction. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion, “this Motion would be subject to the City Manager returning to Council if Staff raises concerns with this direction.” (New Part G) Council Member Tanaka stated success of bike share programs was partially determined by placing bikes in convenient locations. The market determined the right number of bikes for Palo Alto. The real-time Application Program FINAL MINUTES Page 14 of 35 City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 3/5/18 Interface (API)requirement seemed onerous, and requiring it would create less competition. Council Member Scharff suggested allowing vendors to anonymize data or to provide data that was not proprietary. Council Member Tanaka clarified the issue as some vendors did not install electronics that track and collect data on their bikes. AMENDMENT: Council Member Tanaka moved, seconded by Council Member Fine to add to the Motion, “remove API requiring vendor data sharing.” Mayor Kniss remarked that the item would be continued if the discussion continued past 5 minutes. Council Member DuBois felt the API was one of the more important elements of the program. AMENDMENT FAILED: 2-7 Fine, Tanaka yes Council Member Holman agreed that Staff provided a good proposal. Multiple cities had reported issues with dockless bikes and the original proposal was both adequate and intelligent. Council Member Kou concurred with Council Member Holman's comments. Council Member Wolbach appreciated Council Members adding their input through the Motion. This item needed to be continued so that further discussion could occur or, instead of deleting Items 3 and 5, the Council should authorize the City Manager to be flexible with the two provisions. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to replace in the Motion Part C, “remove the” with “provide the City Manager with flexibility regarding the.” INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to replace in the Motion Part F, “eliminate” with “provide the City Manager with flexibility regarding the.” Council Member DuBois indicated the original proposal was back on the table. Mr. Keene noted a discrepancy in the pilot program dates between the Staff Report and the Resolution. The pilot program was designed to extend 1 year; therefore, the end date should be March 31, 2019. If the regulations FINAL MINUTES Page 15 of 35 City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 3/5/18 needed revisions to make them congruent with the recommendation, then Staff would make those revisions. Council Member Scharff advised that the regulations needed to reflect authorization of the City Manager to revise terms. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion, “which would expire March 31, 2019” after “pilot program.” MOTION AS AMENDED RESTATED: Council Member Fine moved, seconded by Council Member Scharff to adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to create guidelines for a one-year pilot program which would expire March 31, 2019 regulating private bicycle sharing systems in the City of Palo Alto, including: A. The pilot program would allow bicycle and electric scooter sharing vendors to operate programs, subject to specific City guidelines; B. Will expire on March 31, 2019, or upon adoption of permanent regulations by the City Council; C. Provide the City Manager with flexibility regarding the 700 human powered bicycle cap; D. Authorize the City Manager to regulate the number of permits in order to resolve nuisance or encroachment issues; E. Violation of proposed City guidelines could result in revocation of a permit; F. Provide the City Manager with flexibility regarding the language requiring no more than 50 percent of bicycles be in the Downtown and California Avenue areas; and G. This Motion would be subject to the City Manager returning to Council if Staff raises concerns with this direction. MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 7-2 Holman, Kou no 15. Adoption of Preliminary Goals and Objectives, Schedule, and Boundaries for the North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan Project; Authorization for the City Manager to Negotiate and Execute a Related Grant Agreement With Caltrans; Direction to Staff Regarding Recruitment of Community Working Group Members; and Approval of a Budget Amendment in the General Fund Reflecting $638,000 in FINAL MINUTES Page 16 of 35 City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 3/5/18 Grant Funding, $250,000 in Matching/Supplemental Private Funding, and Equivalent Expenditures (Continued From February 12, 2018). Hillary Gitelman, Director of Planning and Community Environment reported this was the beginning of a planning endeavor. Staff was interested in the Council's and the public's comments and questions. Elena Lee, Project Manager advised that the purpose of the item was to review and approve preliminarily the goals, objectives, plan boundaries, and schedule milestones. Staff requested authorization of budget changes to reflect the grant and matching funds, for the City Manager to negotiate and execute a grant agreement with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and to provide direction to Staff regarding formation of a working group. Based on the Coordinated Area Plan (CAP) being part of the Comprehensive Plan Update and the adopted Comprehensive Plan, Staff applied for a Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) for a grant in 2017 and VTA awarded a Priority Development Area (PDA) grant of $638,000. On November 6, 2017, the Council adopted a Resolution of local support for a CAP. The North Ventura CAP was an opportunity to plan a walkable, mixed- use neighborhood around one of the largest underutilized housing opportunity sites in Palo Alto before a development project was proposed for the site. A CAP provided specific guidance for the development of a subarea. A CAP also provided enhanced opportunities to build a sense of community through public involvement throughout the process. Staff proposed six draft goals based on the Comprehensive Plan, the Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan and the Housing Element, including six draft objectives. Staff wanted to extend the boundary of the site along Lambert, to include recent parcel lot line modifications on Acacia, and to incorporate parcels adjacent to the boundary areas. Previously, Council requested Staff consider extending the boundaries to El Camino Real and to Boulware Park. The proposed boundaries were as close to the PDA boundaries as possible to promote connections and to comply with grant requirements. The two largest parcels in the PDA were zoned Research Office and Limited Manufacturing (ROLM) and Multifamily Residential RM-30. A working group was to be formed to advise Staff, the Architectural Review Board (ARB), the Planning & Transportation Commission (PTC) and the Council and would be chaired by Staff and a consultant. The working group planned on meeting monthly between June 2018 and December 2019 to discuss a broad vision and goals, conduct site visits, review and respond to data, perform analysis and recommendations, review draft goals and policies and serve as a conduit to the larger community. The working group was composed of three local residents, two business owners, two property owners, three City residents (with specific expertise), one PTC member, one ARB member, one Parks and Recreation Commission (PARC) member and two alternates. It was possible FINAL MINUTES Page 17 of 35 City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 3/5/18 for a member of the working group to represent more than one category, i.e., a member could be both a local resident and a business owner. Working group meetings were public and provided an opportunity for public comment. The Business Registry indicated 43 individual businesses were located within the project area and approximately 265 were businesses in the greater California Avenue area. Approximately 67 percent of those businesses had ten or fewer employees, and only 3 percent had more than 100 employees. Next steps were to solicit working group members, issue a Request for Proposal (RFP) for consultant services, have Council appoint members of the working group, select a consultant and to have the project kicked off by May, 2018. Staff hoped the project would be substantially complete in 18 months and adopted by mid-2020. Mayor Kniss requested clarification of the boundaries. Ms. Lee explained that Staff attempted to identify sites that were most likely to be redeveloped. Staff did not include properties along El Camino because they had been redeveloped recently. The properties included were on Lambert and Portage because there was some interest in redeveloping those areas. Modifications to the boundary outside the PDA were limited. Ms. Gitelman added that granting agencies were open to minor modifications of the boundaries. In Staff's professional judgment, extending the boundary to El Camino Real was not a good idea because El Camino Real had its own identity and issues as a corridor that would distract from the planning area. Granting agencies did not want boundaries extended more than a block or the PDA boundaries would have to be modified. Mayor Kniss asked Staff to provide the guidelines for the working group. Ms. Gitelman stated the Municipal Code set out the CAP process, which called for a working group comprised of seven to fourteen individuals. Staff recommended a maximum number of 14 members. She assumed the process was developed concurrent with or shortly after the South of Forest Area (SOFA) planning process. The Council was able to direct Staff to amend the Code or appoint nonvoting members to allow more members. Individuals who applied for the working group but were not chosen could participate as members of the public. Becky Sanders, speaking for David Adams, Ken Joye, T. R. Ranganath and Angela Dellaporta requested more neighborhood representation on the working group. She was pleased the Council would appoint members to the working group. The Comprehensive Plan Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) and the Downtown Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) program stakeholder group were precedents for a larger working group. She FINAL MINUTES Page 18 of 35 City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 3/5/18 requested a definition of the Greater Northern Ventura Neighborhood. Between the plan boundaries and the Greater Northern Ventura Neighborhood, she thought residents of Ventura might not have a seat on the working group. The North Ventura CAP process was much easier if Ventura residents felt they had a real say in creating the CAP. David Hirsch remarked that the site had the potential for several hundred residences. The site had no comfortable and safe pedestrian/bike-friendly connection. The challenge was applying Comprehensive Plan policies, especially Policy L-1.6. The properties along Lambert and Ash were significant to the development of the site and would provide a reasonable connection to Boulware Park. Boulware Park needed to be included in the site. Mathew Reed, Silicon Valley @Home felt the area was situated to become a vibrant neighborhood. This was an ideal and essential site for affordable housing in Palo Alto. Affordable housing needed to be set at 15-20 percent of housing in this site. Bob Moss stated the known toxic contamination on the site must be addressed. Any development on the site must fully evaluate the potential for toxic contamination in the soil and groundwater. Rebecca Parker Mankey suggested this was an opportunity for Palo Alto to address the housing issues on its terms. Andrew Boone believed this was the best location for use of public transit and the bicycle network. This site had to be as low a carbon site as possible. With increased traffic on El Camino Real, the City needed to reevaluate its opposition to VTA's bus-only lane project. Council Member Holman advised that the SOFA I working group was comprised of seven residents, one major property owner, one historic preservation representative, one housing person, one realtor/resident/owner, one developer in the area, one local business owner and five alternates for a total of 19 members. The SOFA II working group's membership had essentially the same make up as SOFA I with the exception of nine residents and four area business owners for a total of 16 members. The Ventura CAP working group had 17 members composed of six local residents, one housing professional, one arts professional, two business owners, two property owners, one PTC member, one ARB member, one PARC member and two alternates. Mayor Kniss inquired about the length of the SOFA processes. FINAL MINUTES Page 19 of 35 City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 3/5/18 Council Member Holman explained that the SOFA process extended extremely long because of the turnover in Planning Directors. The working group needed two Co-Chairs rather than Staff as a single Chair. The boundaries needed to not be created based on development potential. Acacia and Portage were considered for the PDA to provide connectivity to El Camino Real. A page for each block in the PDA showing the zoning, current uses, current floor area ratio and additional relevant data was very helpful for the working group. She asked if Staff thought a Development Agreement would be the means to develop the site. Ms. Gitelman reported the CAP would set development standards, goals, and policies. Tools to implement the CAP were to be discussed later. Council Member Holman encouraged Staff, community and property owners/residents to consider historic resources and their preservation. She hoped to explore partnerships with entities that were willing to invest with property owners to accomplish things, such as an art district, that were usually financially infeasible. Council Member Kou agreed with the sentiment to have more Ventura residents on the working group. She asked if business owners would be required to have a business in the area or generally in Palo Alto to be a member of the working group. Ms. Lee responded that businesses should be located in the area. Council Member Kou suggested a Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) Board Member be a member of the working group. Ms. Gitelman indicated Staff would follow the Council's direction as to membership. The working group categories overlapped in order to provide flexibility for adding members if one person could fulfill multiple categories. Council Member Kou recommended they include a youth from the community. Council Member Wolbach concurred with having a youth representative on the working group. He recommended nonvoting memberships for PAUSD staff or Board Member, Stanford University, the Transportation Management Association (TMA) and Safe Routes to School. For this area to succeed, it had to be car-lite in design. The concern about toxic contaminants was important. He inquired about the disadvantages of extending the width of the area to El Camino Real. FINAL MINUTES Page 20 of 35 City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 3/5/18 Ms. Gitelman explained that extending the area to El Camino Real would be a large adjustment to the information provided in the grant application and quite an adjustment to the PDA boundaries. Staff needed to consult with funding agencies to determine their acceptance of the change. If Staff amended the PDA, then other agencies would get involved. Extending the boundary to El Camino included a site that was recently entitled for multifamily housing, and that development was unlikely to change as a result of the planning process. The extension incorporated several single- family residential lots. El Camino Real had an identity and a regional planning process and vision associated with the Grand Boulevard Initiative. Including El Camino Real distracted the focus from the Fry's site and the immediately surrounding area. The El Camino Real corridor being located outside the plan area did not prevent Staff from considering it and building connections. Council Member Wolbach requested Colleagues share their opinions regarding inclusion of El Camino Real. Bike connectivity was important for this area. Council Member Scharff asked if working group recommendations would be presented to the Council directly or after review by the PTC and ARB. Ms. Gitelman indicated Ordinance provisions would be presented to the PTC and design standards to the ARB as part of the process. Council Member Scharff questioned including PTC and ARB members in the working group given items would be presented to those bodies. Ms. Gitelman suggested the PTC and ARB members could provide updates to those bodies, such that Staff would not need to update the PTC and ARB on a regular basis. “Conflict of interest” for the PTC and ARB members was not a concern. Council Member Scharff inquired whether approval of the CAP was a quasi- judicial action. Ms. Gitelman replied no, it was a legislative action. Council Member Scharff requested Staff's opinion regarding the appropriate number of members for the working group. Ms. Gitelman reported that the Code stated 7-14 members. There was some flexibility to add nonvoting members. Council Member Holman had suggested 15 members and two alternates; 14 members and three alternates would comply with the Code. FINAL MINUTES Page 21 of 35 City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 3/5/18 Council Member Scharff inquired about an appropriate number regardless of the Code provision. Ms. Gitelman remarked that 20 members on the CAC limited the ability and time for deep conversations about issues. Council Member Scharff debated a larger working group versus deeper conversation versus input from many perspectives. Ms. Gitelman reiterated that members from the Boards and Commissions would add to the process and engage their peers. Of course, those Board and Commission members could also be residents or business owners. Council Member Scharff noted changing the PDA boundaries to incorporate El Camino Real had ramifications. Ms. Gitelman clarified that incorporating the whole frontage of El Camino Real would be harder to explain to the funding agencies. MOTION: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member DuBois to: A. Approve the preliminary Project Goals, Objectives, schedule milestones, and Plan boundaries for the North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan, recognizing that these may be modified during the planning process; B. Amend the Fiscal Year 2018 Budget Appropriation Ordinance for the General Fund budget by: i. Increasing the Planning and Community Environment revenue estimate by $888,000 ($638,000 in grant revenues and an additional $250,000 in matching/supplemental funding from the Sobrato Organization for the project, as well as equivalent expenditures for Staff and consultant services); ii. Increasing the Planning and Community Environment appropriation by $888,000; C. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute a grant agreement with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in the amount of $638,000 for the preparation of a coordinated area plan; and D. Direct Staff regarding recruitment and formation of a Working Group to assist with the North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan. FINAL MINUTES Page 22 of 35 City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 3/5/18 Council Member Scharff advised that he was receptive to amendments with the exception of adding nonvoting members to the working group. The important aspect was obtaining community buy-in. He liked Council Member Holman's idea of preserving buildings on the Fry's site and having infill development, but the working group had to reach that conclusion. He wished to include startup space with retail and commercial services in the goals. Council Member DuBois requested the distinction between startup space and commercial services. Council Member Scharff explained that commercial implied a company larger than a startup. This area of Palo Alto contained the premier space for startups. Council Member DuBois felt startup and commercial were very similar. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion, “add to Goal 1 - Housing and Land Use, ‘and possibly start up space.’” (New Part A.i.) Council Member DuBois requested the rationale for including single-family homes on Olive and the properties on Lambert. Ms. Lee reported the majority of the Olive properties were owned by two people. Including them was an opportunity to take advantage of an aggregate of properties. The property owner had requested inclusion of the Lambert properties. Ms. Gitelman clarified that Staff added some of the Lambert properties at the Council's direction. The remaining Lambert properties were added because they were owned by the same person and contiguous to the area. Council Member DuBois asked why the office building zoned ROLM was included. Ms. Gitelman thought it was logical to extend the northern boundary to Page Mill Road to create a district. The property owner had indicated he might be willing to add housing at the location and wanted to participate in the planning process. Council Member DuBois inquired about the addition of properties on Park that had been redeveloped. Ms. Gitelman clarified that the Park Boulevard corridor was included for its connection to the Caltrain and for bike connectivity. FINAL MINUTES Page 23 of 35 City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 3/5/18 Council Member DuBois asked if the properties at the top of Olive were included because they were owned by the same person. Ms. Lee clarified that the properties were primarily owned by two people, but there were some individually owned properties between those properties. Council Member DuBois expressed concern about displacement and a random R-1 owner in the middle of the property. Ms. Gitelman indicated Staff attempted to address the issue in the goals. Council Member DuBois asked about the narrow strip of properties extending to El Camino Real. Ms. Lee explained that the strip reflected property lines that existed previously. Staff followed property lines in drawing the boundaries. That strip was being removed because it did not exist as a separate property. Council Member DuBois asked if Staff was suggesting more roads cross Oregon Expressway to California Avenue. Ms. Lee indicated that would be investigated through the study process. The Comprehensive Plan Update revealed many pedestrians travel from the area to California Avenue, particularly along Park Boulevard. The CAP was a means to develop an identity for the area and improve the pedestrian and bicycle experience. Council Member DuBois believed connected street grid was very specific as opposed to improving access to transportation. Ms. Lee advised that specific streets dead end into the Fry's site. This was an opportunity to design a better street grid that would serve more purposes. Council Member DuBois noted Goal 6 mentioned infill development respecting the scale and character of the surrounding neighborhood. Perhaps Goal 6 could include something about a transition zone. Having a transition to the surrounding neighborhood would be more appropriate than expanding the area. Ms. Gitelman agreed that a transition zone could be added to Goal 6. Council Member Scharff asked if adding a transition zone to Goal 6 would limit the working group. Ms. Gitelman advised that transition zones were consistent with the goals. FINAL MINUTES Page 24 of 35 City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 3/5/18 INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion, “add to Goal 6 - Urban Design, Design Guidelines and Neighborhood Fabric, ‘include transition zones to surrounding neighborhoods.’” (New Part A.ii.) Council Member DuBois requested the rationale for a schedule of 18 months. Ms. Lee reported the schedule followed the VTA's proposed guidelines. VTA's purpose was to ensure the project was implemented; therefore, there probably was some flexibility. Staff was also attempting to follow the requirements of the Code. Council Member DuBois urged Staff to consider a 2-year schedule if that was more realistic than 18 months. Ms. Gitelman explained that the CAP would be substantially complete in 18 months. With another 6 months, the CAP could be complete. Council Member DuBois noted community meetings and check-ins were marked "as needed." Hopefully that did not mean they were less important. He wished to see a schedule with more details of community meetings and check-ins. It was possible for the working group to be composed of three residents from North Ventura, two residents from the rest of Ventura, two residents from Barron Park, two residents from Mayfield, two business owners, one PTC member, one ARB member and one Parks and Recreation Commissioner. He added there could be a separate advisory group composed of representatives from the TMA, PAUSD and Stanford University, and experts in land economics, transportation, and urban design. Members of the advisory group attended meetings that were pertinent to their subject matter. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion Part D, “including the following: i. Stakeholders: a. (3) Residents: live within the planning area boundaries or the greater North Ventura neighborhood; b. (2) Residents: live within the greater Ventura neighborhood; c. (2) Residents: live within Mayfield; d. (2) Business owners; FINAL MINUTES Page 25 of 35 City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 3/5/18 e. (2) Property Owner; f. (2) Residents: live within Barron Park; g. (1) Planning and Transportation Commissioner; h. (1) Architectural Review Board Member; i. (1) Parks and Recreation Commissioner; and ii. Nonvoting Advisory Group to be invited to meetings as needed." Ms. Gitelman reported Staff attempted to balance the working group membership between people interested in the immediate area and people interested in the City. Council Member DuBois felt the surrounding neighborhoods constituted a large swathe of the City. Council Member Scharff indicated the proposal omitted property owners and questioned the need for residents from Barron Park. Council Member DuBois amended his proposal to Substitute two property owners for two Barron Park residents. Council Member Scharff suggested one Barron Park resident and one property owner. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to replace in the Motion Part D.i.e, “(2) Property” with “(1) Property.” INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to replace in the Motion Part D.i.f, “(2) Residents” with “(1) Resident.” Mayor Kniss reported 27 members of the public were waiting for the next Agenda item and urged Council Members to proceed expeditiously. Parsing each detail of the CAP process was not absolutely necessary. Council Member DuBois stated the nonvoting advisory group could be composed of a experts in transportation, arts, and land economics, and representatives from the TMA, Stanford University, PAUSD, and Palo Alto Youth Council. FINAL MINUTES Page 26 of 35 City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 3/5/18 Council Member Scharff recommended language of "including but not limited to" so that Staff could determine the various experts needed for discussions. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion Part D.ii., “including but not limited to: a. Youth representative; b. Palo Alto Unified School District; c. Stanford representative; d. Palo Alto Transportation Management Association representative; e. Arts professional; and f. Land economics expert.” Council Member Tanaka supported the direction of the Motion and Amendments. For effective land use, the boundaries needed to be based on natural boundaries. He suggested extending the boundaries to El Camino Real or restricting the boundaries to Ash and Park. The current boundaries did not make sense because property ownership changed often. Council Member Fine believed the CAP was a microcosm of Palo Alto. The CAP process gave the City a canvas to work with the community in drawing the type of district everyone wanted to see in the future. He encouraged everyone to think about the district as a place to embrace new ideas, technologies, construction methods, and community input. He requested a new goal regarding sustainability and the environment. Council Member DuBois asked if that was different from the existing environmental goal. Council Member Fine understood the existing goal pertained more to public health and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion, “add Goal 7, ‘Sustainability and the Environment.’” (New Part A.iii.) Council Member Fine suggested including areas on Pepper, Acacia, Portage and El Camino Real so that they did not absorb impacts caused by the CAP. This was also an opportunity to share potential benefits with residents of FINAL MINUTES Page 27 of 35 City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 3/5/18 those areas. Including properties because of ownership seemed disjointed. The current boundary did not respect conformity, transitions, and midblock changes. In addition, the Council had to address potential displacement in these areas. He wished to extend the boundary to El Camino Real between Lambert and Page Mill. Ms. Gitelman requested the language of the Motion include "consider expanding the boundaries" and "Staff to consult with funding agencies." INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion, “consider extending the boundary to El Camino Real between Lambert Avenue and Page Mill Road and direct Staff to consult with the funding agencies regarding this boundary change.” (New Part A.iv.) Council Member Fine believed the City should independently plan the adjacent area extending to El Camino Real if grant funds could be used for the PDA only. Mayor Kniss inquired if the intention was to consider extending the boundary to include those areas and, if the grant could not be used for the areas, then the City would pay for planning the areas. Ms. Gitelman had stated a number of times that the funding agencies would not support extending the boundary to El Camino Real. Council Member DuBois suggested extending the boundary down the streets but not including the buildings facing El Camino Real. Ms. Gitelman clarified that Staff was unsure of the funding agencies' position on this type of boundary change. She requested an opportunity to talk with the funding agencies. Council Member Fine remarked that Palo Alto had been a member of the Grand Boulevard Initiative for 20 years and not much had happened. The responsible action was to consider the connections from El Camino Real to the planning site and include those businesses. Ms. Gitelman accepted the concept of extending the boundary and consulting with funding agencies in that regard. Council Member Scharff inquired about the consequences of funding agencies not supporting extension of the boundary. Ms. Gitelman reported Staff would return to the Council for direction if that happened. The boundaries, goals, and objectives were not able to be FINAL MINUTES Page 28 of 35 City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 3/5/18 adjusted through the planning process. There were additional opportunities to discuss boundaries. Council Member Scharff did not want to discuss the boundaries in the future. If the funding agencies did not accept the extended boundaries, then the recommended boundaries were the final boundaries. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion Part A.iv., “if the funding agencies do not support this revised boundary implement the Staff recommended boundary.” Council Member DuBois felt extending the boundary down Ash would provide a more cohesive neighborhood. Council Member Tanaka suggested the boundary be reduced to Ash Street if the funding agencies did not accept extending the boundaries. The area included both sides of Ash and incorporates that property that sticks out. This was more logical because property ownership changed but streets probably would not. Ms. Gitelman clarified that property ownership was only one factor in Staff's proposal of the boundary. Staff wanted to include both sides of Ash Street. Council Member Tanaka inquired about the reason for including one side of Olive. Mayor Kniss explained that excluding the pocket of R-1 zoning seemed logical to Staff. AMENDMENT: Council Member Tanaka moved, seconded by Council Member Holman to replace in the Motion Part A.iv., “implement the Staff recommended boundary” with “reduce the boundary to both sides of Ash Street.” Council Member Holman stated a zoning change in the middle of a street was contrary to basic planning tenets. AMENDMENT PASSED: 6-3 Filseth, Fine, Scharff no Council Member Wolbach requested the advisory group include Palo Alto Housing or a nonprofit housing developer. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion Part D.ii., “Palo Alto Housing representative.” (New Part D.ii.g.) FINAL MINUTES Page 29 of 35 City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 3/5/18 Council Member Wolbach concurred with adding the goal for sustainability and the environment. The direction of the Motion was good. Council Member Holman suggested the advisory group be invited to all meetings. Advisory group members attended as they deemed appropriate and needed to decide whether to attend. Council Member Scharff commented that advisory group members could attend meetings as members of the public. If they all attended as the advisory group, then the working group's depth of discussion was lost. Council Member Holman believed advisory group members would attend and speak as they chose. AMENDMENT: Council Member Holman moved, seconded by Council Member XX to remove from the Motion Part D.ii., “as needed.” AMENDMENT FAILED DUE TO THE LACK OF A SECOND Council Member Holman requested inclusion of a goal to minimize or avoid displacement of small businesses and residents. Council Member Wolbach indicated that would be part of Goal 5. Council Member Holman stated the last remaining auto repair shops were located on Lambert, and the City should be sensitive to that. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion Part A, “add to Goal 5, ‘and Small Businesses.’” (New Part A.v.) Council Member Kou suggested inclusion of a goal to address the urban canopy and retaining as much nature as possible or the addition of Canopy to the advisory group. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion Part D.ii., “Canopy representative.” (New Part D.ii.h.) Council Member Kou requested the PTC and ARB members be moved to the advisory group and two residents with expertise in urban design, housing development, environmental planning or land economics be added to the working group. AMENDMENT: Council Member Kou moved, seconded by Council Member Scharff to move the Architectural Review Board Member and the Planning FINAL MINUTES Page 30 of 35 City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 3/5/18 and Transportation Commissioner to the Non-voting Advisory Group and add (2) City residents with expertise in urban design, housing development, environmental planning, transportation, or land economics. AMENDMENT WITHDRAWN BY THE MAKER Mayor Kniss advised that planning for the development of this property was good and appropriate. Council Member Holman's experience with SOFA I and II was valuable. MOTION AS AMENDED RESTATED: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member DuBois to: A. Approve the preliminary Project Goals, Objectives, schedule milestones, and Plan boundaries for the North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan, recognizing that these may be modified during the planning process including the following modification from the Staff Recommendations: i. Add to Goal 1 - Housing and Land Use, “and possibly start up space;” ii. Add to Goal 6 - Urban Design, Design Guidelines and Neighborhood Fabric, “include transition zones to surrounding neighborhoods;” iii. Add Goal 7, “Sustainability and the Environment;” iv. Consider extending the boundary to El Camino Real between Lambert Avenue and Page Mill Road and direct Staff to consult with the funding agencies regarding this boundary change if the funding agencies do not support this revised boundary reduce the boundary to both sides of Ash Street; v. Add to Goal 5, “and Small Businesses;” B. Amend the Fiscal Year 2018 Budget Appropriation Ordinance for the General Fund budget by: i. Increasing the Planning and Community Environment revenue estimate by $888,000 ($638,000 in grant revenues and an additional $250,000 in matching/supplemental funding from the Sobrato Organization for the project, as well as equivalent expenditures for Staff and consultant services); FINAL MINUTES Page 31 of 35 City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 3/5/18 ii. Increasing the Planning and Community Environment appropriation by $888,000; C. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute a grant agreement with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in the amount of $638,000 for the preparation of a coordinated area plan; and D. Direct Staff regarding recruitment and formation of a Working Group to assist with the North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan including the following: i. Stakeholders: a. (3) Residents: live within the planning area boundaries or the greater North Ventura neighborhood; b. (2) Residents: live within the greater Ventura neighborhood; c. (2) Residents: live within Mayfield; d. (2) Business owners; e. (1) Property Owner; f. (1) Resident: live within Barron Park; g. (1) Planning and Transportation Commissioner; h. (1) Architectural Review Board Member; i. (1) Parks and Recreation Commissioner; ii. Non-voting Advisory Group to be invited to meetings as needed including but not limited to: a. Youth representative; b. Palo Alto Unified School District representative; c. Stanford representative; d. Palo Alto Transportation Management Association representative; e. Arts professional; FINAL MINUTES Page 32 of 35 City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 3/5/18 f. Land economics expert; g. Palo Alto Housing representative; and h. Canopy representative. MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 9-0 16. PUBLIC HEARING: Annual Code Update via Adoption of two Ordinances: the First Amending Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapter 2.20 (Planning and Transportation Commission) of Title 2; Chapter 10.64 (Bicycles, Roller Skates and Coasters) of Title 10; and Chapters 18.04 (Definitions), 18.10 (Low-Density Residential [RE, R-2 and RMD]), 18.12 (R-1 Single-Family Residential District), 18.15 (Residential Density Bonus), 18.16 (Neighborhood, Community, and Service Commercial [CN, CC and CS] Districts), 18.28 (Special Purpose [PF, OS and AC] Districts), 18.30(G) (Combining Districts), 18.40 (General Standards and Exceptions), 18.42 (Standards for Special Uses), 18.52 (Parking and Loading Requirements), 18.54 (Parking Facility Design Standards), 18.76 (Permits and Approvals), 18.77 (Processing of Permits and Approvals), and 18.80 (Amendments to Zoning Map And Zoning Regulations) of Title 18; and Chapters 21.12 (Tentative Maps and Preliminary Parcel Maps) and 21.32 (Conditional Exceptions) of Title 21; and the Second Amending PAMC Chapter 10.04 (Definitions) and Chapter 10.64 (Bicycles, Roller Skates and Coasters) of Title 10 (Vehicles and Traffic) to Prohibit use of Bicycles and Similar Vehicles on Certain Sidewalks and Under- crossings and Establish Speed Limits on Shared-use Paths. First Ordinance was Recommended for Approval by the Planning and Transportation Commission. Exempt Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3). Mayor Kniss suggested the Council hear public comment and then continue the item. Jonathan Lait, Assistant Director, Planning and Community Environment reported that the Planning Department proposed a variety of amendments to the Municipal Code. The amendments were generally regarded as clarification and cleanup of existing Code provisions. A few new policy initiatives were proposed, but they were relatively minor. Council Member Holman requested public speakers be allowed more than 1 minute because they had waited a long time and because of the number of proposed Amendments. FINAL MINUTES Page 33 of 35 City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 3/5/18 Council Member DuBois concurred with continuing the item after oral communications. Beth Minor, City Clerk advised that many public speakers had a desire to address the wireless component of the Amendments. Public Hearing opened at 10:49 P.M. Fred Balin, speaking for William Heaton, Ann Lafague Balin, Mary Sylvester, Bill Ross, Becky Sanders and Margaret Heath, commented about Commissioner Alcheck's participation in Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) discussion of Items 6 and 7 and Commissioner Alcheck's interest in building projects. If his complaint was found to be valid, then the amendments would need to be returned to the PTC for discussion. Francesca Kautz expressed concern regarding the appearance, noise, and safety of cell stations. The Architectural Review Board (ARB) should review and approve applications to install cell towers adjacent to residences. She requested the Council deny the wireless amendments. Grant Lum concurred with Ms. Kautz's comments. Anne Lum concurred with the two prior speakers. Alissa Hatfield concurred with prior speakers. Jeannie Fleming advised that she, Ardan Blum, Leila Bazargan, Annelie Myers, Jim van Hurne, Saeid Salehi-Had, Barbara Lilley, Orit Glenn, Jeffrey Glenn and Ruthellen Dickinson wanted the Council to vote against the wireless Amendment. She read the City Attorney's comments of April 9, 2015 regarding the importance of cell tower applications being reviewed by the ARB. Mr. Ofer questioned the undergrounding of utility service and the consequences of additional wireless providers applying for cell towers. He requested ARB meetings be scheduled for the evening or weekends to allow greater public participation. Helen Simoni concurred with previous comments regarding the wireless amendments. Richard Simoni reiterated that wireless amendments should be denied and the ARB should review aesthetics of cell towers. Abbie Burgess supported ARB review of cell tower applications. FINAL MINUTES Page 34 of 35 City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 3/5/18 Chad Furey expressed concern that lack of ARB review would reduce the voice of residents. Robert Lum urged the Council to deny wireless amendments. Herc Kwan shared a New York Times article from March 2 regarding installation of cell stations. He hoped the Council would oppose amendments to the wireless Ordinance. Girish Joshi asked the Council to oppose wireless amendments. Dr. Ann Lee stated the wireless Amendment was not a minor revision. She questioned whether the Council had time to review appeals of applications for cell towers. Amrutha requested the Council vote against amendments to the wireless Ordinance. Jyotsna Nimkar opposed amendments regarding wireless communication facilities. The Planning Department's use of the firm also utilized by Verizon Wireless appeared to be a conflict of interest. Andrew Boone felt a 15 mile per hour speed limit for bicyclists passing pedestrians was reasonable. However, at other times it was not reasonable. The language should be modified such that it was not a blanket speed limit. Jerry Fan opposed changes to the wireless Ordinance. Jeff Levinsky advised that the public, the PTC, and the Council were not fully informed regarding two building projects for garages and a possible conflict of interest. Public Hearing closed at 11:17 P.M. This Agenda Item was continued to a date uncertain. Mayor Kniss reported public speakers who had spoken to this item would not be allowed to address this item again. Molly Stump, City Attorney recommended the Council conclude the item rather than continue it. Mr. Lait advised that Staff had asserted the authority to refer applications for wireless communication facilities to the ARB even though the process was not contained in the Municipal Code. The Amendment would include the process in the Municipal Code rather than remove it from the Code. Staff FINAL MINUTES Page 35 of 35 City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 3/5/18 had not proposed any changes to the regulatory review process. The ARB was and had been advisory to the Planning Director. The Planning Director made the decisions on applications unless they were appealed to the City Council. The existing Code language referred to two Code Sections, which provided different processes for appeals. The proposed Amendment clarified that appeals would be presented to the City Council. State/Federal Legislation Update/Action Mayor Kniss announced several Council Members would attend the National League of Cities conference in Washington, D.C. Council Members planned on meeting with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and elected representatives and attend programs about airplane noise. James Keene, City Manager added that meetings were planned with the Army Corps of Engineers. Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements Mayor Kniss reported that the Chinese New Year celebration was successful. James Keene, City Manager added that 4,000 people attended the celebration. Mayor Kniss advised that the Yangpu delegation visited Google after a nice visit with Vice Mayor Filseth and her. Vice Mayor Filseth and Council Member Kou attended a special event for the delegation at Stanford University. Council Member Wolbach reiterated the success of the Chinese New Year celebration. The event planners may be searching for a new venue to accommodate the crowd. Council Member DuBois noted the City's sponsorship of the celebration. The site was extremely crowded. Council Member Kou indicated Stanford Mall had approached the event planners. Council Member Tanaka reported that the event planners had obtained corporate sponsors, and proceeds from food sales were donated to Palo Alto Unified School District. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 11:27 P.M.