Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-03-19 City Council Summary MinutesCITY OF PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL FINAL MINUTES Page 1 of 38 Special Meeting March 19, 2018 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 5:06 P.M. Present: DuBois, Filseth, Fine, Holman, Scharff Absent: Kniss, Kou, Tanaka, Wolbach Closed Session 1. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS City Designated Representatives: City Manager and his Designees Pursuant to Merit System Rules and Regulations (James Keene, Ed Shikada, Michelle Flaherty, Terence Howzell, Rumi Portillo, Sandra Blanch, Molly Stump, Nicholas Raisch, Lalo Perez, Kiely Nose) Employee Organizations: Utilities Management and Professional Association of Palo Alto (UMPAPA); and Unrepresented Limited Hourly Employees Authority: Government Code Section 54957.6(a). MOTION: Council Member DuBois moved, seconded by Council Member Fine to go into Closed Session. MOTION PASSED: 5-0 Kniss, Kou, Tanaka, Wolbach absent Council went into Closed Session at 5:07 P.M. Council returned from Closed Session at 6:18 P.M. Vice Mayor Filseth announced no reportable action. Special Orders of the Day 2. Proclamation Welcoming Exchange Students and Chaperones From Tsuchiura, Ibaraki, Japan. Vice Mayor Filseth welcomed the delegation of teachers, chaperones and students from Tsuchiura, Japan. FINAL MINUTES Page 2 of 38 Special City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 3/19/18 Council Member Scharff read the Proclamation into the record. Hiroshi Sugaya, Tsuchiura delegation advised that the Friendship Tree between Palo Alto and Tsuchiura was planted 25 years ago when the student exchange program began. Tsuchiura and Palo Alto shared understanding and values through the long history of the program, and the experiences made their lives richer. Palo Alto's support of Tsuchiura following the earthquake 7 years ago had cheered the people of Tsuchiura. Tsuchiura looked forward to hosting a guest runner in the April Kasumigaura Marathon. He hoped the relationship and exchange program would continue to develop. 3. Mayor's Green Business Leader Award. Vice Mayor Filseth reported that the City of Palo Alto supported energy efficiency and sustainability for all residents and businesses. In 2012, the Council began the Mayor's Green Business Leader Award, which was presented to business owners and property managers who had worked tirelessly to improve the energy efficiency of their buildings. The award recognized building owners who had participated in two important programs, the United States (U.S.) Green Business Council's Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) and the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Energy Star Certification. LEED certification was the worldwide standard for efficient building design and provided a framework for creating healthy, highly efficient, and cost-saving green buildings. Fifty buildings in Palo Alto had achieved LEED certification including the Downtown Library, Rinconada Library, and Mitchell Park Library and Community Center. Energy Star certification was presented to buildings in the top 25 percent of similar facilities nationwide. Facility owners were subjected to a rigorous benchmarking process that allowed them to demonstrate effective ongoing management of their buildings. Studies had shown that Energy Star buildings had a 4 percent increase in occupancy rates, averaged $250,000 less in operating costs per year, and utilized 35 percent less energy than similar facilities in similar climates. Palo Alto had long been an active supporter of Energy Star buildings. If the EPA ranked cities individually, Palo Alto was the third highest rated Energy Star small city in the Country. Ed Shikada, Assistant City Manager and Utilities General Manager presented awards to Wilson Sonsini Goodrich Rosati law firm; Hines Property Management for 601 California Avenue and 650 Page Mill Road; Stanford Real Estate for 3200 Hillview, 3210 Porter, and 975 Page Mill Road; Hudson Pacific Properties for nine buildings including 1520 Page Mill Road; Hewlett Packard Enterprise at 3000 Hanson Way; International School of the Peninsula, Cohn campus; SAP for 3450 and 3460 Hillview Avenue, 3408 Hillview Avenue Building 5, 3412 Hillview Avenue, 3475 Deer Creek Buildings FINAL MINUTES Page 3 of 38 Special City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 3/19/18 8 and 9, and 2209-2215 El Camino Real; and OTO Development for Hilton Garden Inn Palo Alto. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions None. City Manager Comments Ed Shikada, Assistant City Manager and Utilities General Manager announced the Upgrade Downtown Project along University Avenue and adjacent streets began that day. Staff scheduled a partnering meeting for April 9 to coordinate communication throughout the duration of the project. Installation of video cameras along the Caltrain corridor was planned before the end of March. City Staff completed cleanup and protection of the former International Telephone and Telegraph (ITT) building at the Emily Renzel Wetlands. Staff was working on interpretive signage to highlight the history of the building and the antennae field. The Association of Local Government Auditors recognized the City Auditor's Office with a distinguished award for the audit of water meter billing accuracy. Applications for the Historic Resources Board, Human Relations Commission, Public Arts Commission, and the Utilities Advisory Commission were due March 20th by 4:30 P.M. The Fourth Annual Cubberley Community Day Celebration was scheduled for March 24th from 9:00 A.M. to 1:00 P.M. The opening reception for the Youth Speaks Out Exhibition was held on March 23rd from 5:00 to 7:00 P.M. The exhibit was on display until April 19, 2018. Teen Takeover of the Art Center followed the opening reception. Oral Communications Rita Vrhel supported Dr. Horowitz's efforts to place a tax on sugar- sweetened beverages and encouraged everyone to read a book titled Combat Ready Kitchen. Ken Horowitz relayed he spoke with Assemblyman Marc Berman, County Supervisor Joe Simitian, the Public Health Department, Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD), the Parent Teacher Association (PTA) District 6, Avenidas, Palo Alto Dental Society, First Five, Santa Clara County, Health Trust, American Heart Association, Working Partnerships, and members of the community in the past few months regarding a tax on sugar-sweetened beverages. Such a tax reduced consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages and would raise revenue for important programs. People supported such a tax. He suggested Council Members author a Colleagues' Memo to support a tax on sugar-sweetened beverages. FINAL MINUTES Page 4 of 38 Special City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 3/19/18 Palo Alto Free Press stated the Police Department's field policy for body-worn cameras focused on exonerating officers of false accusations. The policy did not address transparency and accountability. He hoped videos about body- worn cameras would be made available to the general public to enhance transparency and accountability. Neva Yarkin recommended the Council hire a professional moderator to lead the next train meeting. The next train meeting was held at City Hall. The public needed to know the details and options of a train project and should be allowed more than 15 minutes to ask questions. Sea Reddy noted New Year celebrations for Iran, Afghanistan and four provinces in India. James Baker and Robert Gates were to be included in a commission so that work could be finished by July 4. Mary Sylvester supported Dr. Horowitz's proposal for a tax on sugar- sweetened beverages. There was a strong correlation between added sugar in beverages and foods and its contribution to obesity, Type II diabetes, cardiovascular disease and dental cavities. She supported Dr. Horowitz's plan to utilize tax revenues for educating families and providing dental care. Bill Ross provided documents regarding Planning and Transportation Commissioner Alcheck and building projects at 558 Madison and 11 Addison Way. The City was stopped from granting building permits for the two projects. He requested the Council set the matter for hearing. Council Member Holman asked Mr. Ross if he intended to provide two copies of the same letter. Mr. Ross explained that the letters were the same, but they related to different properties. Minutes Approval 4. Approval of Action Minutes for the February 26 and March 5, 2018 Council Meetings. MOTION: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Fine to approve the Action Minutes for the February 26 and March 5, 2018 Council Meetings. MOTION PASSED: 5-0 Kniss, Kou, Tanaka, Wolbach absent FINAL MINUTES Page 5 of 38 Special City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 3/19/18 Consent Calendar MOTION: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Holman to approve Agenda Item Numbers 5-11. 5. Approve and Authorize the City Manager or his Designee to Execute a Contract With U.S. Digital Designs in an Amount Not-to-Exceed $303,023 for the Acquisition of a Fire Station Alerting System as Part of the Fire Ringdown System Capital Improvement Program Project FD-14002. 6. Approval of Amendment Number 2 to Contract Number S17166237 With Hillary Rupert for Sustainability Implementation Services to Extend the Term Through December 31, 2019 and Increase the Contract Limit by $187,200 to an Amount Not-to-Exceed $272,200. 7. Approval of a Construction Contract With Waterproofing Associates, Inc. in an Amount Not-to-Exceed $280,356 to Provide Construction Services to Replace the Existing J Wing Roof at Cubberley Community Center. 8. Approval of a 5-year Contract With Manesco Corporation to Conduct Annual Walking and Mobile Gas Leak Surveys, Including Resurveys of Existing Leaks, for a Total Not-to-Exceed Amount of $437,710. 9. Approval and Authorization for the City Manager to: 1) Execute an Electric Fund Construction Contract With K. J. Woods Construction Inc., in the Amount of $1,475,540 for Trenching and Installation of Utility Substructures for Underground Utility District No. 46 (Project EL-12001) in the Area of West Charleston Crossing El Camino Real to Arastradero Road up to Alta Mesa Avenue; 2) Execute the Specific Supplementary Agreement for Joint Participation in the Installation of the Underground Facilities Between the City of Palo Alto, AT&T, and Comcast Corporation of CAIX, Inc.; and 3) Approve Budget Amendments in the Electric Fund. 10. Approval of a Donation of $25,000 From the City Council Contingency Fund to Support North Bay Fire Relief, Resilience, and Recovery. 11. Ordinance 5431 Entitled, “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 FINAL MINUTES Page 6 of 38 Special City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 3/19/18 (FIRST READING: March 5, 2018 PASSED 6-0 Kniss, Tanaka, Wolbach absent).” MOTION PASSED: 5-0 Kniss, Kou, Tanaka, Wolbach absent Action Items 12. Approval of the City of Palo Alto Utilities 2018 Strategic Plan (Continued From February 26, 2018). Ed Shikada, Assistant City Manager and Utilities General Manager reported development of the Strategic Plan (Plan) had involved extensive work by Staff, stakeholders and the Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC). Staff requested approval of the Plan however, other Departments provided Strategic Plans to the Council as information items. The Plan was an attempt to allow every member of Staff to see how their individual efforts contributed to the overall achievements of the department. Staff had identified key drivers of change in the industry and developed the elements of the Plan from a mission statement and strategic direction to specific strategies, actions, and Key Performance Indicators (KPI). The Utilities Department prepared many plans specific to individual utilities as well as plans as broad as the Strategic Plan. Department Staff had engaged in developing the Plan through all-hands meetings and workshops. A core project team, comprised of approximately two dozen employees across the department, crafted suggestions and recommendations based on issues raised in meetings and workshops. A utility stakeholder group and the UAC provided input at various points along the way. The proposed 2018 Strategic Plan took a different approach from the 2011 Strategic Plan by focusing on key priority areas, strategies to address those areas and then specific actions. The key priority areas were workforce, collaboration, technology and financial and resource optimization. As part of the Plan, Staff planned to pilot individual development plans where individuals would express their interest in specific areas of growth. Staff recognized the need for additional work on customer surveys and for a better understanding of specific market segments. Stakeholders were interested in keeping rates as low as possible in light of the many competing priorities. The Plan contained cost containment measures and strategies. Staff had begun planning workshops with the UAC to articulate and identify priorities for resiliency. With Council approval, Staff wanted to begin implementation of the Strategic Plan. Judith Schwartz, Utilities Advisory Commissioner advised that the UAC was attempting to be proactive and to look at things realistically rather than aspirationally. They were working in a broadly collaborative fashion, and FINAL MINUTES Page 7 of 38 Special City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 3/19/18 Commissioners were expressing interest in understanding the issues in more depth. Staff also contacted Commissioners to gain insight into Commissioners' perspectives and to educate Commissioners about specific issues. Council Member Holman requested clarification of the statement that a second transmission line may be too narrowly focused on a single risk and strategy. Mr. Shikada explained that the statement was a broader perspective on resiliency and a recognition that the UAC was interested in seeing where the City could do more. The Utility focused on what the grid could provide; the UAC was beginning to discuss actions that individual customers could take to provide greater resilience at a neighborhood scale. Ms. Schwarz added that because obtaining equipment often required long lead times, the UAC talked about ordering equipment needed in a disruption so that it could be available when needed. Islanding had been another topic of conversation. The Elks solar canopy was not set up to be an emergency preparedness center, but it had the fundamental components to be upgraded to an emergency preparedness center. It was advantageous for the City to work with the Elks to upgrade the solar canopy to be a gathering place in the event of an emergency. The City needed to explore advances in technology and how they had been implemented in other jurisdictions. Council Member Holman noted emergency Staff supported this type of effort, but this type of project was not inexpensive. Resiliency factors were not "one or the other," but the Strategic Plan seemed to address them as "one or the other." Mr. Shikada agreed the City needed to pursue multi-threat mitigations. Council Member Holman did not hear a clear statement about progress on a second transmission line. Mr. Shikada advised that Staff set a goal to resolve that in 2018. Council Member DuBois felt it would be a good practice for the Utilities Department to present its Strategic Plan to Council. The first three goals in the current Plan were clear, while the proposed Plan was considerably less clear. The proposed Plan contained nothing specific about sustainability. Mr. Shikada stated the Department's mission had not changed. On a daily basis, sustainability was such an institutionalized part of the culture that Staff felt it was not appropriate to isolate it. FINAL MINUTES Page 8 of 38 Special City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 3/19/18 Council Member DuBois indicated much of the Sustainability and Climate Action Plan (S/CAP) could lie with Utilities, but it was not explicit in the Strategic Plan. KPIs were not tied to sustainability. Ms. Schwartz explained that Staff was learning how to provide safe, reliable cost-efficient services and identifying the tradeoffs. Council Member DuBois remarked that the current strategic goals provided clear reductions and targets, which did not seem aspirational. Mr. Shikada noted that the S/CAP and Strategic Implementation Plan (SIP) were continuing. The Plan in no way diminished Staff's commitment to pursue and report on progress in attaining specific actions contained in the SIP. Council Member DuBois asked if Staff currently utilized an individual development plan. Mr. Shikada reported Staff currently utilized performance reviews. An individual development plan was an opportunity for Staff to communicate their interest in growth that was not part of the performance review process. Council Member DuBois commented that the Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) sounded good. He inquired whether the goal for 100 percent of personnel to have appropriate certification and training was removed from the 2018 Plan. Mr. Shikada advised that it would continue but not be highlighted as part of the 2018 Plan. Council Member DuBois asked whether the 2018 Plan explicitly stated that goal. Mr. Shikada indicated it would be part of the individual development plan and part of the selection and training process. Council Member DuBois stated the goal of 100 percent of employees having tools and training to perform their jobs sounded measurable. Just saying Staff had a development plan did not mean Staff had a good development plan. It felt less specific. Mr. Shikada explained that one challenge with the 2011 Plan was a number of KPIs led to debates of the appropriate threshold for individuals. The proposed Plan reflected an interaction and less black and white because it was not black and white to start with. FINAL MINUTES Page 9 of 38 Special City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 3/19/18 Council Member DuBois noted a significant change in one of the financial goals. The current goal was the City would have an average monthly utility bill at or below the average bills of surrounding cities. The previous goal was specific that the City's utility bill, which would be below the bills of specific communities. He requested the rationale for the change. Ms. Schwartz remarked that the State required the City's rates to reflect the actual cost of service. In the past, financial goals were met by using Reserve Funds, and increases in expenses were not always reflected in the actual prices. An issue for Commissioners was wanting the prices to reflect actual costs. Commissioners considered the utility bill in comparison to the surrounding areas. If a project or resource cost increased and rates had to increase, then that was how Commissioners had been oriented. Council Member DuBois believed it was a difference between being a low- cost provider and an average provider. He asked why Palo Alto should have utilities if the City only hit the median. Ms. Schwartz stated being less expensive than every other community did not mean there wasn't value or the City's bill wasn't cheaper in other ways. Commissioners looked at the interdependencies, tried to fit the priorities and made measured decisions and recommendations to the Council. A UAC and Council discussion about tradeoffs was appropriate. Council Member DuBois expressed concern about the change in policy because it seemed to be a major change. Mr. Shikada suggested the change may appear to be more than it really was. This goal reflected a commitment to ongoing benchmarking against surrounding communities. Current benchmarking was less rigorous than proposed benchmarking. This goal represented maintaining a comparison with adjacent communities as the ongoing manner in which information was presented to the Council for policy decisions. Jonathan Abendschein, Assistant Director of Utilities referenced the language in both the 2011 and 2018 Strategic Plans for comparing Palo Alto's average utility bill to surrounding communities' utility bills. Staff did attempt to meet the goal. Council Member DuBois advised that the distinction was average or less or less than average. The City balanced infrastructure investments with maintaining utility rates at a certain level. The proposed language was a shift in policy. It was possible for the City to increase utility rates to pay for infrastructure projects sooner. FINAL MINUTES Page 10 of 38 Special City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 3/19/18 Mr. Abendschein reported Staff aimed to keep rates below average while maintaining investments in infrastructure. Council Member DuBois asked if the language was intended to be a shift in policy. Mr. Abendschein did not believe it was intended to be a shift in policy. It appeared to a rewording that gave an unintended appearance of a shift in policy. Council Member DuBois wished to restore KPIs for the City's utility bill being less than the average of surrounding communities and for 100 percent of personnel to have appropriate certification and training. Mr. Shikada concurred with the changes. MOTION: Council Member DuBois moved, seconded by Council Member Scharff to approve the 2018 Utilities Strategic Plan including the following changes: A. Add a Key Performance Measure, “100 percent of personnel would have appropriate certification and training;” and B. Replace in the third Financial Efficiency and Resource Optimization Key Performance Measure, “average (e.g. median) or below” with “below average.” Council Member Scharff liked many of the employee actions and goals. The goals for technology were balanced. He was unhappy with the response about Commissioners' view of cost containment and hoped the UAC seriously considered that Council had always wanted City rates to be lower than surrounding communities. The City needed to maintain the historic statistic of rates being 25 percent less than PG&E rates. Santa Clara appeared to operate its utility in a more financially advantageous manner than the City, but the City operated a much greener utility than Santa Clara. Therefore, he concurred with Council Member DuBois raising the issue. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion, “maintain our historical differential for electric utility rates compared to Pacific Gas and Electric.” (New Part C) Mr. Shikada stated it would be tricky for Staff to maintain that differential, but the goal provided a good benchmark. FINAL MINUTES Page 11 of 38 Special City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 3/19/18 Vice Mayor Filseth felt Staff had strengthened the process orientation in the proposed Strategic Plan. MOTION AS AMENDED RESTATED: Council Member DuBois moved, seconded by Council Member Scharff to approve the 2018 Utilities Strategic Plan including the following changes: A. Add a Key Performance Measure, “100 percent of personnel would have appropriate certification and training;” B. Replace in the third Financial Efficiency and Resource Optimization Key Performance Measure, “average (e.g. median) or below” with “below average;” and C. Maintain our historical differential for electric utility rates compared to Pacific Gas and Electric. MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 5-0 Kniss, Kou, Tanaka, Wolbach absent Council took a break from 7:57 P.M. to 8:07 P.M. 13. Resolution 9744 Entitled, “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adopting a Hydroelectric Rate Adjustment Mechanism (Electric Rate Schedule E-HRA) and Amending the Electric Utility Reserves Management Practices, as Part of a Comprehensive Hydroelectric Generation Variability Management Strategy.” Ed Shikada, Assistant City Manager and Utilities General Manager, reported hydroelectric resources were highly variable based upon drought and weather conditions on a year-to-year basis. The recommendation was to create an algorithm to adjust rates, which would eliminate some case-by- case analysis and policy actions. The Finance Committee held a full discussion but did not reach a unanimous vote. Council Member Scharff advised that in the Finance Committee meeting Council Member Tanaka thought some sort of derivatives approach could create value, but the remaining Committee members felt that approach was too risky. MOTION: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Fine to adopt a Resolution to: 1. Adopt Electric Utility Rate Schedule E-HRA (Electric Hydro Rate Adjuster), which shall become effective July 1, 2018; and FINAL MINUTES Page 12 of 38 Special City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 3/19/18 2. Amend the Electric Utility Reserves Management Practices, which shall update previously adopted Reserves Practices for the Electric Utility. Council Member Fine felt this was a reasonable method to achieve the goal of arbitraging hydroelectric rates. He inquired about the wide range in the Reserve Fund. Jonathan Abendschein, Assistant Utilities Director advised that the variability in hydroelectric resources over time had mostly saved money for the City. The variability in the cost of hydroelectric resources could be as much as $8 million in a single year. The wide range provided an opportunity for the utility to accumulate funds in wet years and draw down funds in dry years. Ideally, the hydroelectric rate adjuster would be utilized when Reserve Funds were either very low or very high. MOTION PASSED: 5-0 Kniss, Kou, Tanaka, Wolbach absent 14. 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 Undercrossings and Establish Speed Limits on Shared-use Paths. The First Ordinance was Recommended for Approval by the Planning and Transportation Commission. Exempt Under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) (Continued From March 5, 2018). Clare Campbell, Principal Planner reported the proposed amendments affected various sections of the Municipal Code, focused on correcting errors FINAL MINUTES Page 13 of 38 Special City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 3/19/18 and modifying provisions to reflect current practice, and introduced process improvements and policy changes. The amendments were generally intended to improve Staff's implementation. Staff requested "Chapter 9.10 (Noise) of Title 9" be removed from the ordinance title in Attachment A. The Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) reviewed and recommended approval of Attachment A; however, the PTC did not review Attachment B. Staff recommended the Council find the proposed draft Ordinances exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and adopt Ordinances, Attachment A as corrected and Attachment B. Jonathan Lait, Assistant Director of Planning and Community Environment reiterated that Staff viewed the proposed Amendment regarding context- based garages and carports as an effort to address a loophole. The existing Wireless Ordinance did not include a process to refer applications to the Architectural Review Board (ARB). The proposed Amendment explicitly stated that the Director had the authority to refer applications to the ARB for guidance and input when time permitted. Public Hearing opened at 8:17 P.M. Bob Moss did not find a provision regarding enforcement of Code Section 18.12.040(f). He questioned the effect of not penalizing a violation of the provision on neighbors and the community. There had to be some means to state the penalties for violating the Code section. Fred Balin spoke regarding two projects where carports were converted to garages. If the time for an appeal to be presented to the Council had expired, then the public had no way of knowing they had an opportunity to address the issues with the Council. The Planning Director's statement confirmed that Commissioner Alcheck had a conflict of interest at the time of the November 29, 2017 PTC meeting. Public Hearing closed at 8:24 P.M. Vice Mayor Filseth requested Council Members address noncontroversial Amendments first. MOTION: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Fine to: 1. Find the draft Ordinances exempt from the provision of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3); FINAL MINUTES Page 14 of 38 Special City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 3/19/18 2. Adopt an Ordinance, including corrections presented by Staff, to amend various sections of the Palo Alto Municipal Code with clarifications, corrections, and adjustments, excluding the following: a. Proposed Municipal Code Modification 23, allow Director referral to the Architectural Review Board or Planning and Transportation Commission and specify that Appeals are heard by the City Council for the Wireless Communication Facilities Review Process; b. Proposed Municipal Code Modification 25, delay the Individual Review Process for replacement homes when a Historic Inventory Property has been demolished; 3. Adopt an Ordinance to amend Chapter 10.04 (Definitions) and Chapter 10.64 (Bicycles, Roller Skates and Coasters) of Title 10 (Vehicles and Traffic) excluding Sections: a. Proposed Municipal Code Modification 27, clarifications to rules for bike riding in undercrossings; and b. Proposed Municipal Code Modification 28, add Speed Limits on Shared-use Bikeways. Council Member Fine wished to discuss the wireless communication facilities review process. He questioned implementation of the protection in Modification 25 when the City allowed redevelopment of a historic property. Softer language achieved the same results as text in Modifications 27 and 28. Council Member Holman inquired about the use of "peak hour" rather than "peak period" in Modification 1. Ms. Campbell understood the terms were interchangeable, and "peak hour" was the language currently in use. Council Member Holman stated language specifically indicated peak hour versus peak period in many instances and asked how the terms were interchangeable. Mr. Lait explained that within a peak period Staff looked for the peak hour trip generation. The peak hour occurred within the peak period. Council Member Holman did not understand why the language would change from peak hour to peak period if it didn't make a difference. FINAL MINUTES Page 15 of 38 Special City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 3/19/18 Mr. Lait indicated the Amendment did not change the language. The purpose of Modification 1 was to change the number. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion Part 2: c. “Proposed Municipal Code Modification 6, clarify that the Contextual Garage Placement applies to Carports; d. Proposed Municipal Code Modification 7, clarification of Carport and Garage Definitions; e. Proposed Municipal Code Modification 20, clarify Setbacks for Outdoor Fireplaces and barbecues (BBQs); and f. Proposed Municipal Code Modification 22a, reduce request for hearing timeline to seven days and limit hearing request to adjacent property owners and tenants (Minor Architectural Review).” Council Member DuBois inquired about enforcement of not removing previously approved interior space in Modification 18. Ms. Campbell explained that Staff would review existing building permit plans for the approved project to determine whether a trash enclosure had been built into the project. If the applicant had already moved the trash enclosure outdoors, Staff would trace the property's history to determine whether a relocation had been approved. Council Member DuBois asked whether Staff would deny an application if they found the relocation had not been approved. Ms. Campbell explained that the intent was to maintain a trash enclosure within a building footprint unless there were extenuating circumstances. The purpose of Modification 18 was to establish a process for new projects within constrained sites so that new projects could meet Code requirements for a covered and enclosed trash area and have flexibility to waive the floor area to accommodate that requirement. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion Part 2: g. “Proposed Municipal Code Modification 22b, continue to rely on mailed notices, removing requirements for publishing and e- mailing Director’s Decisions; and FINAL MINUTES Page 16 of 38 Special City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 3/19/18 h. Proposed Municipal Code Modification 24, update Residential Density Bonus per State requirements.” MOTION AS AMENDED RESTATED: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Fine to: 1. Find the draft Ordinances exempt from the provision of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3); 2. Adopt an Ordinance, including corrections presented by Staff, to amend various sections of the Palo Alto Municipal Code with clarifications, corrections, and adjustments, excluding the following: a. Proposed Municipal Code Modification 23, allow Director referral to the Architectural Review Board or Planning and Transportation Commission and specify that Appeals are heard by the City Council for the Wireless Communication Facilities Review Process; b. Proposed Municipal Code Modification 25, delay the Individual Review Process for replacement homes when a Historic Inventory Property has been demolished; c. Proposed Municipal Code Modification 6, clarify that the Contextual Garage Placement applies to Carports; d. Proposed Municipal Code Modification 7, clarification of Carport and Garage Definitions; e. Proposed Municipal Code Modification 20, clarify Setbacks for Outdoor Fireplaces and barbecues (BBQs); f. Proposed Municipal Code Modification 22a, reduce request for hearing timeline to seven days and limit hearing request to adjacent property owners and tenants (Minor Architectural Review).” g. Proposed Municipal Code Modification 22b, continue to rely on mailed notices, removing requirements for publishing and e-mailing Director’s Decisions; h. Proposed Municipal Code Modification 24, update Residential Density Bonus per State requirements;” FINAL MINUTES Page 17 of 38 Special City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 3/19/18 3. Adopt an Ordinance to amend Chapter 10.04 (Definitions) and Chapter 10.64 (Bicycles, Roller Skates and Coasters) of Title 10 (Vehicles and Traffic) excluding Sections: a. Proposed Municipal Code Modification 27, clarifications to rules for bike riding in undercrossings; and b. Proposed Municipal Code Modification 28, add Speed Limits on Shared-use Bikeways. MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 5-0 Kniss, Kou, Tanaka, Wolbach absent Vice Mayor Filseth requested Council Members address Modification 6. Council Member Holman requested an estimate of the number of carports approved in the last 4-5 years in locations inconsistent with Contextual Garage Placement. She questioned whether the Amendment would allow someone to enclose an existing carport that was inconsistent with Contextual Garage Placement such that it became a garage. Mr. Lait answered yes, existing carports would be allowed to convert to garages. Staff was aware of two cases where a carport had been allowed in a front yard in the past 10-15 years. Council Member Holman asked why the Code could not address both existing carports and future carports. Mr. Lait explained that covering both situations would be more complicated administratively. He inquired whether Council Member Holman wanted to prohibit all carports existing as of the passing of the Ordinance from converting to a garage and prohibit all new carports after passage of the Ordinance. Council Member Holman replied yes. She requested the City Attorney explain why the Council could take up Contextual Garage Placement during the meeting. Molly Stump, City Attorney reported Staff in the City Attorney's Office reviewed the issue. She said the Council could lawfully consider the item. The question from the public concerned advisory work performed at the PTC. The governmental decision before the PTC in December and January concerned a Staff proposal to make stricter the application of the context garage placement rule to clarify that it also would prohibit the placement of a carport in the front portion of a lot where the prevailing pattern on the block was rear placement. No Commissioner had a financial or property FINAL MINUTES Page 18 of 38 Special City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 3/19/18 interest that would foreseeably and materially be impacted by that question. The PTC had recommended the rule be made more strict, which was the item before the Council. The Council needed to consider the question. Council Member Holman felt a City Attorney response in a public manner to the complainant would be appropriate. Perhaps the City Attorney was able to explain the difference between a legal conflict of interest and an ethical conflict of interest. MOTION: Council Member Fine moved, seconded by Council Member Scharff to include in the Ordinance, Proposed Municipal Code Modification 6, clarify that the Contextual Garage Placement applies to carports. Council Member Fine stated the Amendment clarified a small issue and would prevent future misinterpretation. Council Member Scharff concurred with Council Member Fine's comments. The Amendment closed a loophole and clarified the Code. He requested Staff provide the rationale for distinguishing a carport and garage. Mr. Lait believed the Code looked at carports and garages similarly. The Code contained two distinct definitions. Both counted towards floor area. The Amendment attempted to qualify carports and garages the same under the context. Council Member Scharff suggested the next Code cleanup contain an Amendment merging carports and garages. AMENDMENT: Council Member Holman moved, seconded by Council Member XX to add to the Motion, “existing carports that are located in a manner that was inconsistent with the current Contextual Garage Placement rule shall not be enclosed into a garage.” Ms. Stump reported the Contextual Garage Placement rule counted carports. The language of the Motion referred to itself in a way that could not be implemented. To accomplish Council Member Holman's intent, the language needed to be "carports that at the time of construction of the carport would not have satisfied Contextual Garage Placement," so that it required a historical review of when the carport had been constructed. Council Member Holman imagined existing carports that were inconsistent with Contextual Garage Placement could have an impact on how the contextual garage was determined. Also, it changed the street face. FINAL MINUTES Page 19 of 38 Special City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 3/19/18 Vice Mayor Filseth clarified that Council Member Holman was searching for language that an existing carport, which was located in the front and should not be, could not be converted to a garage. Council Member Holman proposed language of "existing carports that are located inconsistent with Contextual Garage Placement shall not be enclosed." Ms. Stump advised that the language was not appropriate because Contextual Garage Placement considers garages and carports in the front part of the lot. Vice Mayor Filseth suggested "existing carports that are in the front part of the lot." Ms. Stump indicated that language would fundamentally change the context garage placement rule for many blocks in Palo Alto. She suggested the Council refer this Amendment for further consideration and continue with other amendments. Vice Mayor Filseth did not believe the Amendment to the Motion would be approved even if the language was corrected. Ms. Stump reserved the right to review and revise the language of the Amendment to the Motion if it was approved. She offered language of "existing carports that are located in a manner that was inconsistent with the Contextual Garage Placement rule at the time the carport was constructed." Mr. Lait reported the language would be incredibly problematic for Staff to recreate. It required Staff to look at the individual property in question and recreate at some point in time the conditions for the property and look at a series of properties within a 600-foot area at the time the building was constructed. He did not know whether the City had such analyses. Vice Mayor Filseth understood Council Member Holman wanted to prohibit existing carports that were located in a manner that was inconsistent with Contextual Garage Placement at the current time as opposed to when it was constructed. Council Member DuBois questioned whether the changes would close the loophole that made it work. FINAL MINUTES Page 20 of 38 Special City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 3/19/18 Vice Mayor Filseth clarified that Council Member Holman was proposing existing carports located in a manner inconsistent with current Contextual Garage Placement rules. Ms. Stump stated that had nothing to do with Contextual Garage Placement. If there was a block with ten homes and all of them had parking in the rear except two, which had front-facing carports, those people did not have the ability to construct that carport today, but the current Code allowed them to convert the carports into garages. Council Member Holman reported that situation was the one she wanted to preclude because it changed the street face and was inconsistent with the intention of Contextual Garage Placement. Vice Mayor Filseth requested someone provide language that accurately reflected Council Member Holman's intention. Ms. Stump advised that Staff was struggling with whether Council Member Holman was attempting to only address the issue where an applicant was able to build a new carport in the front that was not built as a garage because of the Contextual Garage Placement rule and now could not be converted, including any carport where a majority of the parking was located in the back and could not be converted to a garage. Vice Mayor Filseth thought the situation was: a carport could not be converted into a garage in a location where a garage was not allowed under the Contextual Garage Placement rule. Ms. Stump suggested refining the idea did not make sense if the Council was not going to approve it. Staff was able to refine the language later if needed. Council Member Holman asked when Staff would return with the next Code cleanup so Staff could draft a Municipal Code cleanup and include this situation so that the Council could move forward. Ms. Stump reported the annual Code updates were a tremendous amount of work. Code updates needed to be limited to once per year. Mr. Lait indicated a Code cleanup Ordinance was not included in the Work Plan for 2019 because of other work priorities. Council Member Holman understood Code cleanups were supposed to be drafted annually. FINAL MINUTES Page 21 of 38 Special City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 3/19/18 Mr. Lait reiterated that Staff would not draft an update in 2018 because of the housing work program. Council Member Holman expressed disappointment for not receiving an answer when she originally asked the question in February 2018. AMENDMENT WITHDRAWN BY THE MAKER Vice Mayor Filseth reported Staff would consider the issue in the next Code cleanup. MOTION PASSED: 5-0 Kniss, Kou, Tanaka, Wolbach absent Vice Mayor Filseth requested Council Members address Modification 7. Council Member DuBois asked if the current definition was the language on Page 382, the language without the redlines. Mr. Lait's replied yes. Council Member DuBois heard concerns from several members of the public about these carports. He asked if a carport enclosed on three sides and with a door into the house met the definition of carport. Ms. Stump advised that a specific application on a ministerial project application or a Code enforcement complaint was not on the Council's agenda. The conversation needed to be held offline. The agenda item pertained to the Ordinance, what it said and how it should be amended. Council Member DuBois wished to understand whether the discussion was discussed at PTC, whether a carport was to be built, and how the definition was different from what was built. Ms. Stump requested Staff answer the conceptual questions of what the Ordinance currently said and what it was proposed to say with Amendments. Council Member DuBois asked if a window in a wall made the wall an unenclosed side, up to the time of these Amendments. Mr. Lait explained that a carport had to be open on two or more sides. The car entrance was one open side. There was no requirement for the degree of openness, but the wall had to be open to the elements. A window itself did not have to be open on two sides. Council Member DuBois inquired if Staff's interpretation was any opening on a side made the wall open. FINAL MINUTES Page 22 of 38 Special City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 3/19/18 Mr. Lait clarified that in a general context, a carport constituted two openings open to the elements. The PTC discussed the added text of "at least 50 percent." Council Member DuBois inquired about the rationale for choosing 50 percent. Mr. Lait advised that the 50 percent requirement came from the PTC conversation. He thought the original language was "completely open on two or more sides" or something similar. Council Member DuBois asked if a large window opening without a window in the opening would constitute a carport. Mr. Lait indicated a window opening that was 50 percent open would meet the proposed definition. Council Member DuBois added that the installation of glass or a window would result in an enclosed side. MOTION: Council Member DuBois moved, seconded by Council Member Holman to include in the Ordinance, “replace in Municipal Code Section 18.04.030(24.5) replace ‘50 percent’ with ‘80 percent.’” Council Member DuBois felt the threshold should be higher to ensure people did not "game" the threshold. Council Member Holman accepted 100 percent open because it was consistent with people's concept of a carport. AMENDMENT: Council Member Holman moved, seconded by Council Member XX to replace in the Motion, “80 percent” with “100 percent.” Council Member DuBois preferred to allow some flexibility. AMENDMENT FAILED DUE TO THE LACK OF A SECOND Council Member Fine asked if the proposed language meant one wall would be fully open for the car entrance and 80 percent of each of the two remaining walls would be open. Mr. Lait clarified that one wall would be open for the car entry and at least one other side would be at least 80 percent open. Council Member Fine asked if the third side could be closed. FINAL MINUTES Page 23 of 38 Special City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 3/19/18 Mr. Lait indicated two sides could be solid walls. The precise definitions for carport and garage said the same thing. Staff was attempting to distinguish the two definitions. Council Member Fine inquired whether Staff felt 50 percent was sufficient. Mr. Lait stated Staff did not propose 50 percent and had no objection to 80 percent. Vice Mayor Filseth supported 80 percent but understood Staff's point that it did not matter. MOTION FAILED: 4-1 Scharff no, Kniss, Kou, Tanaka, Wolbach absent Council Member DuBois noted Packet Page 384 contained a definition of porte cochere and asked how porte cochere was different from a carport or garage. Ms. Campbell reported Staff specifically added the words "for parking or storage" in the definition of carport and definition. A porte cochere was a temporary unloading zone. Council Member DuBois inquired whether a porte cochere was counted in the Contextual Garage Placement rule. Ms. Campbell replied that it was not. Council Member Holman asked if carports always had a solid roof. Ms. Campbell explained that a carport had to have a solid roof to count towards parking. Council Member Holman inquired whether the language captured a carport made with a lattice top and enclosed sides. Ms. Campbell advised that Staff checked any building permit or permit application for a carport to ensure the carport was 100 percent covered. MOTION: Council Member Holman moved, seconded by Council Member XX to include in the Ordinance, “replace in Section 18.04.030 (24.5) replace, ‘50 percent’ with ‘65 percent.’” MOTION FAILED DUE TO THE LACK OF A SECOND FINAL MINUTES Page 24 of 38 Special City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 3/19/18 MOTION: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Fine to include in the Ordinance, Proposed Municipal Code Modification 7, clarification of carport and garage definitions. MOTION PASSED: 5-0 Kniss, Kou, Tanaka, Wolbach absent Vice Mayor Filseth requested Council Members address Modification 20. Council Member Holman noted noise-producing pool equipment had to be located outside the rear setback. By allowing BBQs and fireplaces in the rear setback, the rear neighbor was subjected to smoke and noise. She did not know why BBQs and fireplaces were treated differently than noise-producing equipment for pools and spas. She did not support the rear setback stipulation contained in the proposed Amendment. Mr. Lait reported the Code was silent on outdoor BBQs, and Staff received many requests to install them in rear yards. If the Code did not allow BBQs in rear yards, then Staff at the counter heard many complaints from homeowners. Vice Mayor Filseth understood the proposal allowed BBQs in the rear yard, but they had to be located 6 feet away from the property line. Mr. Lait noted the required rear setback was 20 feet. If BBQs were not allowed within 20 feet of the rear property line, the Council needed to discuss it. The Staff recommendation was 4 feet; however, Staff was not wedded to 4 feet. Council Member DuBois was more concerned about the side setback. Comparing a BBQ or firepit to a chimney or cooking in a kitchen was not appropriate. He requested the rationale for selecting a 4-foot setback. Mr. Lait reported Planners working the public counter had to work with homeowners daily regarding outdoor entertainment areas. The Code provided no guidance for their location. Staff felt there should be a setback. The reference to chimneys indicated the kind of projections typically allowed in side and rear yards. MOTION: Council Member DuBois moved, seconded by Council Member Holman to include in the Ordinance, “replace in Municipal Code Section 18.10.080(b)(3)(A), ‘four feet’ with ‘eight feet.’” Council Member DuBois believed 4 feet on the side was too close. FINAL MINUTES Page 25 of 38 Special City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 3/19/18 Council Member Holman stated this Amendment would impact neighbors. Four feet was absolutely minimal but did not address the consequence of putting these kinds of amenities so close to a property line. Impacts to neighbors were real and sometimes significant. Council Member Fine noted the Fire Department recommended a 3-5-foot clearance for maneuverability in case of a fire. The Council was balancing the nuisance to neighbors against homeowners placing amenities in their yards as they wished. Most of the time, these amenities had fire shields that stopped smoke and grease. If these amenities were larger or more elaborate than normal, he hoped Staff would review it more closely. He could support a setback of 4-5 feet. Doria Summa, Planning and Transportation Commissioner reported this topic did not engender a great deal of conversation. Commissioners were comfortable with 4 feet because the Fire Department had made a similar recommendation. The standard side setback was 6 feet; therefore, 8 feet would not cause harm. Council Member Scharff inquired about the receipt of complaints about this. Ms. Campbell was aware of some complaints. People had expressed concern about smoke specifically. Council Member Scharff requested details of the complaints. Ms. Campbell did not have any details. Council Member Scharff preferred to allow people to do as they pleased in their backyards as long as it did not bother other people. There was not a lot of evidence that smoke and noise were bothering anyone. He asked if Staff had any data to support a specific number. Mr. Lait reported Staff had no data and had been requiring a 4-foot setback. Council Member Scharff believed the Council could revisit the issue if it became a problem in the future. Vice Mayor Filseth felt the Code requirement was most needed when placement of amenities was not obvious. SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Fine to include in the Ordinance, Proposed Municipal Code Modification 20, clarify setbacks for outdoor fireplaces and barbecues (BBQs). FINAL MINUTES Page 26 of 38 Special City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 3/19/18 Council Member Holman felt 8 feet was a respectable distance and would not restrict the ability to have a fire pit or BBQ in the backyard. Council Member DuBois inquired whether Staff looked at daylight planes if the amenities were large. Mr. Lait advised that typically amenities were not large. Council Member DuBois supported a distance of 5 feet because there had been some complaints. Council Member Fine reported cities in California required 3, 4, or 5 feet. Council Member Scharff would support 4 feet only. Council Member Holman noted the Staff Report did not mention outdoor kitchens, but Staff did. She had seen outdoor kitchens that were as tall as she. Mr. Lait advised that Staff utilized accessory structure standards for daylight plane, which would come into play if something was proposed too tall and at a certain angle. SUBSTITUTE MOTION FAILED: 3-2 DuBois, Holman no, Kniss, Kou, Tanaka, Wolbach absent MOTION RESTATED: Council Member DuBois moved, seconded by Council Member Holman to include in the Ordinance, “replace in Municipal Code Section 18.10.080(b)(3)(A), ‘four feet’ with ‘six feet.’” MOTION AS AMENDED FAILED: 4-1 Scharff no, Kniss, Kou, Tanaka, Wolbach absent Council Member Holman stated not providing guidance to Staff was ill advised. Staff proposed Modification 22A because Staff-level reviews of minor architectural review projects were rarely called for public hearing. Rare use of a process did not mean the process was bad. In addition, the 7 days were not defined. If the 7-day period included a holiday, then the public had little opportunity to participate. MOTION: Council Member Holman moved, seconded by Council Member DuBois to retain in Municipal Code Section 18.77.070(b)(3), “14 days.” Council Member DuBois was unsure which items referred to Sections 18.80.060 and 21.21.090. To be consistent, all those items had to state 14 FINAL MINUTES Page 27 of 38 Special City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 3/19/18 days. This seemed like a short time period to respond to potentially large changes. Mr. Lait reported Staff proposed changing the noticing requirements from 12 days to 10 days for maps. Ten days was the standard period to notify the public of a pending application or public hearing. Changing the timeframe to 14 days was a major procedure change for Staff; therefore, the Council needed to discuss it further. Council Member DuBois asked why a longer time period would be a concern. Mr. Lait explained that Modification 22A concerned an appeal period. The universal appeal period was 14 days generally. Changing the time period for public notice from 10 days to 14 days was a concern and not Staff's proposal. Only a minor Architectural Review application had an appeal period of 12 days, and Staff wanted to align it with the 10-day appeal period of other applications. Council Member DuBois asked if that was also true for parcel maps. Mr. Lait seemed to recall maps also provided a 12-day notice. All other applications provided a 10-day notice. Public notification for subdivision maps and text amendments was changed from 12 days to 10 days in Modification 16. Modification 22A pertained to modifying the appeal period for Minor Architectural Review applications. Staff reviewed hundreds of these applications each year. Vice Mayor Filseth noted hundreds of the applications were delayed by the 14-day appeal period. Council Member DuBois believed the appeal period should be 14 days so that the public would have time to react. Council Member Holman added that the proposed 7-day time period would begin after the date the notice was mailed. If a holiday fell within the 7-day period, the public did not have the ability to respond. Mr. Lait reported the Zoning Code defined days as calendar days. When an appeal fell on a holiday, it carried over to the next business day. Vice Mayor Filseth remarked that an applicant could delay mailing the notice until a holiday weekend in order to reduce the actual notice period. Mr. Lait advised that Staff mailed the notice. Council Member Holman commented that minor projects could be significant. FINAL MINUTES Page 28 of 38 Special City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 3/19/18 Mr. Lait indicated a minor review could pertain to a 5,000-square-foot building. If Staff received such an application, they probably referred it to the ARB as authorized by the Zoning Code. Council Member Scharff indicated only two solar projects had been appealed in the last 3 years. He requested Council Member Holman's opinion about an appeal period of 10 days. Council Member Holman felt 10 days would be better than 7 days. Council Member Scharff supported a Motion for 10 days. MOTION RESTATED: Council Member Holman moved, seconded by Council Member DuBois to include in the Ordinance, “replace in Municipal Code Section 18.77.070(b)(3), ‘7 days’ with ‘10 days.’” MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 5-0 Kniss, Kou, Tanaka, Wolbach absent Vice Mayor Filseth requested Council discussion of Modification 22B. MOTION: Council Member DuBois moved, seconded by Council Member Scharff to include in the Ordinance, Proposed Municipal Code Modification 22b, continue to rely on mailed notices, removing requirements for publishing and emailing Director’s Decisions. MOTION PASSED: 5-0 Kniss, Kou, Tanaka, Wolbach absent Vice Mayor Filseth requested Council discussion of Modification 23. Council Member Scharff remarked that the proposed Amendment streamlined the process and did not decrease the likelihood of a public hearing. MOTION: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Filseth to include in the Ordinance, Proposed Municipal Code Modification 23, allow Director referral to the Architectural Review Board or Planning and Transportation Commission and specify that Appeals are heard by the City Council for the Wireless Communication Facilities Review Process. Council Member Scharff believed the community was confused by the proposed Amendment. Hopefully Staff's explanation in response to comments had resolved some of the confusion as there was not any public comment during the meeting. The proposed Amendment did not lessen any protections. FINAL MINUTES Page 29 of 38 Special City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 3/19/18 Vice Mayor Filseth was persuaded that the proposed Amendment would make it easier for the City to require ARB review. The proposed Amendment clarified the process for the City to command an ARB review. The proposed Amendment did not require ARB review. Council Member Fine reported the existing Code was not clear regarding the ability of the Planning Director to forward wireless applications to the PTC or ARB. It was not clear whether the PTC, ARB and/or Council should hear appeals. Uncertainty about the hearing of an appeal delayed an application and forced the City to approve a permit, due to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulations. He said the proposed Amendment clarified that the Planning Director could send wireless applications to the PTC or ARB for comment and clarified that the Council heard appeals. These changes gave the City more avenues to evaluate wireless applications and protected residents from FCC regulations. Mr. Lait concurred with Council Member Fine's comments. Council Member DuBois requested the City Attorney clarify her comments to which a member of the public referred. Ms. Stump understood the member of the public was referring to a Staff Report that supported the existing Ordinance and that the City Attorney issued. In describing the Ordinance, the Staff Report stated the Ordinance required Architectural Review. Architectural Review did not mean review by the ARB but by the Planning Director. The Planning Director often obtained advice and consultation from the ARB, and this Amendment clarified that the Planning Director had the authority to do that. Council Member DuBois inquired about the meaning of Tier 1. Ms. Stump explained that the definition of Tier 1 was contained in the Spectrum Act. Tier 1 permits were ministerial and pertained to minor modifications to existing facilities. Council Member Holman asked about the City's compliance with FCC regulations if applications were referred to the ARB and/or the PTC. Ms. Stump advised that Federal law was complex in this area. The time period for review was tolled or extended through various means. Primarily the City satisfied the time period by obtaining an agreement with the applicant to extend the time. Council Member Holman understood the agreement was negotiated. FINAL MINUTES Page 30 of 38 Special City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 3/19/18 Ms. Stump indicated it was not always negotiated. Portions of the time period were tolled or extended automatically. MOTION PASSED: 5-0 Kniss, Kou, Tanaka, Wolbach absent Vice Mayor Filseth requested comments regarding Modification 24. Council Member DuBois asked why the definition of size of units was changed to number of bedrooms. Ms. Stump understood the proposed Amendment would conform the local Ordinance to State law. Council Member DuBois inquired about the meaning of type of unit. Mr. Lait explained that the State was attempting to ensure affordable units and market-rate units provided in the same development were similar. Council Member DuBois asked if the replacement units could be smaller in square footage if they contained the same number of bedrooms. Mr. Lait stated this change was mandated by the State, not proposed by Staff. Council Member Holman noted the Inclusionary Ordinance talked about equivalent size and type and asked if both size and type were included in the proposed Amendment. Mr. Lait advised that Staff would not propose a modification to State language. The proposed Amendment corresponded to State law. Council Member Holman suggested the State was disrespecting people who live in affordable units. MOTION: Council Member DuBois moved, seconded by Council Member Holman to include in the Ordinance, Proposed Municipal Code Modification 24, update Residential Density Bonus per State requirements. MOTION PASSED: 5-0 Kniss, Kou, Tanaka, Wolbach absent Vice Mayor Filseth requested comments concerning Modification 25. Council Member Scharff understood the Amendment would require an applicant to wait 5 years after demolishing a historic structure to develop the site. FINAL MINUTES Page 31 of 38 Special City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 3/19/18 Mr. Lait clarified that an application to add a second story to a home that had replaced a demolished historic structure would be delayed. Council Member Scharff requested an explanation of the categories of historic structures. Mr. Lait reported Category 1 was a significant structure that qualified for inclusion on the National Register. Category 2 was a structure that qualified for the State Register. Categories 3 and 4 were contributing buildings, ones that reflected an architectural style or character. Council Member Scharff asked if the Amendment applied only to houses currently on the Housing Inventory. Mr. Lait answered yes. Council Member Scharff inquired about the difference between Categories 3 and 4. Mr. Lait provided the definitions of Category 3 and Category 4. Council Member Scharff requested the rationale for imposing a 5-year delay. Mr. Lait indicated Staff was attempting to close a potential loophole. Council Member Scharff asked if anyone had proposed the circumstances Staff was attempting to prevent. Mr. Lait knew of one case. Five years seemed to be a significant deterrent for the situation. MOTION: Council Member Holman moved, seconded by Council Member DuBois to include in the Ordinance, Proposed Municipal Code Modification 25, delay the Individual Review Process for replacement homes when a Historic Inventory Property has been demolished. Council Member Holman agreed that this situation had occurred. The loophole left historic properties vulnerable for demolition. Council Member DuBois asked if there had been discussion of combining the levels of historic homes. Mr. Lait reported a discussion would have to be presented to the City Council for policy direction and guidance. FINAL MINUTES Page 32 of 38 Special City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 3/19/18 Council Member DuBois inquired about the date the Historic Inventory was instituted. Council Member Holman indicated the late 1970s. Council Member DuBois deferred to Council Member Holman's expertise and Staff's recommendation. Council Member Holman reported the Historic Resources Board (HRB) unanimously supported the Amendment. Council Member Fine was unsure whether there was a loophole. He inquired about the difference between a property owner demolishing a historic structure to build a one-story home and a two-story home. Mr. Lait explained that a two-story home required an Individual Review (IR) and CEQA review. Council Member Fine asked if that had any bearing on the historic value of the property. Mr. Lait replied no. Council Member Fine believed the language did not get to the historic nature of the property. He did not like the idea of imposing a punishment. Council Member Scharff did not like the City putting homeowners through the CEQA review process. Category 1 and Category 2 structures typically needed to be saved. Five years was a long time. Circumstances prevented a property owner from rebuilding a structure. SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Fine to add to the Ordinance, “add to Municipal Code Section 18.12.110, ‘as a Category 1 or 2’ after ‘Historic Inventory’ and replace ‘five (5) years’ with ‘three (3) years.’” Council Member Holman stated the proposed Amendment did not change the IR process. The proposed Amendment prevented someone from proposing to demolish a single-story home and replace it with a one-story home and then proposing a two-story home. Category 3 and 4 buildings were eligible for the State Register because the Historic Inventory had not been updated in such a long time. Three years was not a sufficient deterrent when obtaining approval often required 2 years. Vice Mayor Filseth believed the 5-year period was irrelevant. The intent was to prevent people from gaming the system. The only people who waited 5 FINAL MINUTES Page 33 of 38 Special City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 3/19/18 years were trying to game the system. The salient question was regulation of Categories 3 and 4. The fundamental question was “why was it okay to demolish a one-story house and replace it with a one-story house but not with a two-story house”. Mr. Lait explained that replacement with a one-story structure was "by right." Replacement with a two-story structure was discretionary. Construction of a two-story home was subject to the IR process, which was discretionary. Council Member Holman advised that when the IR process was instituted, single-story homes were promoted over two-story homes. The IR process was instituted as a means for public review and inclusion of mediating factors regardless of historic structures. A one-story versus two-story replacement home was not the issue. The issue was the lack of consideration of historic structures in the IR process. Vice Mayor Filseth felt there was a better way to preserve historic homes. Council Member Fine remarked that if the purpose was to preserve historic homes, then the process should not matter. He was unsure if the City had a legitimate interest in funneling people to a different review process. Council Member Holman explained that demolishing a historic property and replacing it with a two-story home was subject to IR, which triggered CEQA review. There was an incentive to propose a single-story replacement home and then amend the proposal to a two-story home. Council Member Fine asked if the two-story proposal would be subject to IR. Council Member Holman responded yes, but not a CEQA review. Mr. Lait added that a two-story home would be subject to IR but not an evaluation of the historic resource. Council Member Fine believed the historic resource would be lost in either case. Mr. Lait hoped to discourage the loss of the historic resource through the Amendment. Council Member Fine did not see a connection between preserving a historic resource and replacing it with a one or two-story home. Council Member DuBois remarked that the point was to trigger a review to evaluate the historic resource. FINAL MINUTES Page 34 of 38 Special City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 3/19/18 Council Member Fine indicated the IR process should be extended to historic structures whether they were replaced by one-story or two-story structures. Council Member DuBois asked if the Amendment accomplished that. Council Member Fine answered no. A review was only triggered if the proposal was amended to construct a two-story structure. He asked if the Code contained any other provision similar to the proposed punishment. Council Member Holman advised that the Council just closed the loophole on carports and garages. Mr. Lait was not aware of anything. Council Member Fine would not support this. Staff had to extend an IR to one and two-story structures or figure out other demolition controls. Council Member Scharff asked if an applicant had to obtain approval prior to demolishing a structure. Mr. Lait answered yes. Council Member Scharff believed it was unlikely people would incur the time and expense to develop plans for a one-story home and then a two-story home. Council Member Holman encouraged the Council to support the Motion as it was a small measure that could protect some historic resources. SUBSTITUTE MOTION FAILED: 2-3 DuBois, Scharff yes, Kniss, Kou, Tanaka, Wolbach absent MOTION FAILED: 3-2 Fine, Scharff no, Kniss, Kou, Tanaka, Wolbach absent Council Member Holman requested reconsideration of the Substitute Motion. Council Member Scharff advised that Council Member Fine did not support the Substitute Motion. Vice Mayor Filseth requested discussion of Modification 27. Council Member Fine felt Modification 27 was sensible but should apply only when other people were using the facility. He questioned the value of adding regulations when they were not enforced. FINAL MINUTES Page 35 of 38 Special City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 3/19/18 Mr. Lait reported that Modifications 27 and 28 were presented to the Council based on concerns voiced by members of the public. Council Member DuBois asked if Council Member Fine recommended the Council approve the modification as written. Council Member Fine clarified that the Council should either adopt a policy that bicyclists dismount when others were present or not approve it. Council Member DuBois disagreed because the Police Department would perhaps not enforce it when others were not present, but this was a logical step for an aging population. MOTION: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Fine to include in the Ordinance, “update Municipal Code Section 10.64.130 to require dismounting when others are present.” Ed Shikada, Assistant City Manager and Utilities General Manager suggested Staff review the proposed language and return to Council with comments. Council Member Scharff requested the revision be returned for the second reading. MOTION PASSED: 5-0 Kniss, Kou, Tanaka, Wolbach absent Vice Mayor Filseth requested discussion of Modification 28. Council Member Fine felt Bol Park was the main concern. A speed limit on multiuse paths was fair, but 15 miles per hour was low. If no one else was present, a speed limit was not needed. MOTION: Council Member Fine moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Filseth to include in the Ordinance, “update Municipal Code Section 10.64.220 to set the speed limit when pedestrians are present.” Vice Mayor Filseth agreed that 15 miles per hour was fast if others were using the path. Council Member DuBois noted the Bol Park path was downhill, heavily utilized by pedestrians, and had been the site of many near misses. He supported the Staff recommendation. Council Member Holman felt 15 miles per hour was fast because of the many children playing in and around the path. She supported the Staff recommendation. FINAL MINUTES Page 36 of 38 Special City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 3/19/18 Council Member Scharff inquired about accidents and injuries on Bol Park path. Mr. Lait did not have data to report but said the public had complained to Staff. Council Member Scharff did not support the Motion or limiting the speed limit to Bol Park path only. Mr. Lait clarified that the City could not post or enforce speed limits on other multiuse paths if the Motion stated only Bol Park path. Council Member Fine agreed that the community had expressed concern about the speed on Bol Park path. The Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition did not support the Amendment. Council Member DuBois noted the proposed Amendment was defined for a shared-use path and inquired about the number of shared-use paths in Palo Alto. Mr. Lait was unsure. Council Member DuBois did not believe there were many. Council Member Holman asked if the PTC discussed various shared-use paths. Ms. Summa advised that the PTC did not review Modifications 27 and 28. MOTION PASSED: 5-0 Kniss, Kou, Tanaka, Wolbach absent Council Member DuBois inquired about a list of Code cleanup items from 2015. Mr. Lait reported the items were identified in the first Code cleanup as Tier 2 items. They were deemed too controversial, lacking support from the PTC, requiring an independent work effort. No active work was taking place regarding the items. Staff needed Council direction to prepare an Ordinance for the items. In its discussion, the Council determined which items remained on the Tier 2 list. Council Member Holman asked if the PTC had discussed any of the items. Mr. Lait reiterated that Staff had not moved forward on Tier 2 items. Without Council direction to proceed, Staff did not consider them part of the cleanup process. FINAL MINUTES Page 37 of 38 Special City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 3/19/18 Council Member Holman suggested Staff prepare only ten items for Code cleanup. Ms. Stump advised that annual Code cleanups had not occurred prior to 2015. This was a good government effort by Staff. It was not required by the State or Council policy. A lot of effort was required to prepare these items. The Council needed to provide direction to Staff to proceed on specific items if they chose to do so. Vice Mayor Filseth recommended the Council utilize the PTC to help in the effort. Following a PTC recommendation accelerated the Council process. Council Member Scharff remarked that the purpose of the annual Code cleanup was not to implement new policies. The Council did not direct Staff to work on Tier 2 items. Council Member Holman reiterated that a smaller package might not require quite as much effort for both Staff and Council. State/Federal Legislation Update/Action None. Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements Vice Mayor Filseth reported a City delegation attended the National League of Cities conference in Washington, D.C. the prior week. Council Member Fine advised that the conference was an opportunity to network with other local officials and city managers and to advocate for San Francisquito Creek, net neutrality, relief from airplane noise, preservation of the tax-exempt status of municipal bonds, and affordable housing with Congressional representatives. The meeting with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) was mostly futile. Council Member Scharff indicated the transportation tour involved 15-20 meetings with various Federal agencies and groups, where he heard concerns regarding Federal funding of projects. Most grants appeared to have been awarded to rural projects. Council Member DuBois remarked on Council input for polling on tax measures and for criteria to evaluate grade separation options. He requested a meeting of the Council Appointed Officers (CAO) Committee to discuss the City Manager's retirement and a Council discussion of ethical standards and Commissioner Alcheck's behavior. FINAL MINUTES Page 38 of 38 Special City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 3/19/18 Council Member Holman suggested the City Attorney respond in writing to the complainant to differentiate legal conflict and ethical conflict. Molly Stump, City Attorney reported she generally responded to correspondence directed to her and her office. She planned on providing a response regarding her purview. The Council needed to discuss the issues and determine how to proceed with respect to Council Member Holman's request. Council Member Holman inquired about the process for agendizing an item for the Council to consider waiving attorney-client privilege. Ms. Stump explained that two to four Council Members could request an item be placed on an agenda. Council Member Holman had been assured that polling would be presented to the Council prior to the poll occurring. She expressed concern that the Finance Committee was directing Staff with respect to polling topics. Ed Shikada, Assistant City Manager and Utilities General Manager advised that the City Manager was engaged with polling. He was going to share the comments with the City Manager. Council Member Scharff noted that the agenda item did not provide for discussion of topics. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 10:59 P.M.