Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-08-20 City Council Summary MinutesCITY OF PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 1 of 23 Regular Meeting August 20, 2018 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 6:38 P.M. Present: DuBois, Filseth; Fine arrived at 7:38 P.M., Holman, Kniss, Kou, Scharff, Tanaka, Wolbach Participating remotely: Tanaka participating from Percolata 16F, Maple Plaza, Nanhai Road, Nanshan, Shenzhen 518052, China Absent: Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions Mayor Kniss reported Agenda Item Number 5 had been removed from the Consent Calendar to the Action Agenda. City Manager Comments James Keene, City Manager, announced the contractor would remove temporary markings from the Charleston-Arastradero Corridor Project. Staff made changes to a few intersections after evaluating the temporary markings. The Managers Mobility Partnership and Joint Venture Silicon Valley were hosting a launch event for a new interim regional bikeway on September 8 in Menlo Park. The Office of Transportation would host a second public meeting for the San Antonio Road-East Charleston Road Traffic Safety Project on September 5 to present revised concepts and additional ideas based on input from the first community meeting. The Palo Alto Festival of the Arts would occur in Downtown on August 25 and 26. On August 26, the Palo Alto Art Center would celebrate the Paper Cuts exhibition with artmaking activities and an interactive dance performance. Council Member Holman inquired about the status of the anti-idling education cards. Mr. Keene advised that the cards and bookmarks should be available in the next few weeks. MINUTES Page 2 of 23 City Council Meeting Minutes: 8/20/18 Oral Communications Walter Bliss recommended the City Council renew the City's membership in the Mayors for Peace Campaign. John Vermes urged the Council to explore temporarily preventing no-fault evictions. Michelle Kraus requested a broadening of the parameters for relocation mitigations scheduled for the following week's Council meeting. The Council needed to address just-cause evictions. Monica Williams related efforts to construct dedicated pickleball courts in Palo Alto. Alex Smaliy requested the Council broaden the following week's agenda item for relocation assistance to require landlords to show just cause before evicting tenants. Stephanie Munoz did not believe the City needed additional hotels. Iqbal Serang remarked that the renter issue before the Council on August 27 would affect 44 percent of Palo Alto residents. Rita Vrhel commented on traffic congestion in Palo Alto. Bob Moss appreciated the excellent service provided by the Utilities Department. Andrew Boone stated the construction of two parking structures did not align with the City's Comprehensive Plan. Joe Hirsch shared neighborhood concerns regarding the new plans for bulb- outs in the Charleston-Arastradero project. Suzanne Keehn suggested Staff discuss road changes with Palo Alto residents before including them in designs. Beth Rosenthal asked the City Council to consider ways to help small businesses remain viable in Palo Alto. Mary Sylvester shared an email address for the community to donate to a legal fund for tenants of the Hotel President. Arthur Keller requested the language of Agenda Item 8 scheduled for August 27 be changed so that the Council could consider just-cause evictions. MINUTES Page 3 of 23 City Council Meeting Minutes: 8/20/18 Jeff Levinsky concurred with prior comments to broaden Agenda Item Number 8 on the August 27 agenda. In addition, the Council should consider a moratorium on evictions when the owner had no successor plan for use of the building. Diane Boxill requested the Council broaden its discussion of renter protections. Vijay Ramakrishnan proposed implementation of a gun locker for the temporary and voluntary storage of guns in an effort to reduce gun violence. Council Member Holman asked if the description of the August 27 emergency Ordinance was broad enough to allow Council discussion of other options. Molly Stump, City Attorney, advised that the description of the agenda item would be revised. The City's authority with respect to relocation mitigations was limited. The Ellis Act gave a landlord/property owner of private rental units the right to exit the rental business and to hold a building vacant. The City had the authority to pass reasonable relocation assistance. Council Member Holman inquired about the Council's ability to learn more about potential options. Ms. Stump explained that Staff planned to proceed in two phases. The first phase was the relocation component, and a second phase would be renter protections. James Keene, City Manager, added that renter protections would be scheduled for the September 10 Council meeting. Ms. Stump clarified that the Council would not enact any regulations on September 10 but could give Staff direction to develop a set of administrative regulations. Council Member Holman requested the August 27 agenda item be broader to allow more discussion as the issue for Hotel President tenants was urgent. Ms. Stump indicated Staff, the Mayor, and the Vice Mayor could discuss adjusting the Council's schedule. Everyone needed to help themselves as much as possible because of the City's limited authority. Consent Calendar Council Member Tanaka registered a no vote on Agenda Item Number 1 – Approval of Contract Number C18171695 With Kone, Inc. … . MINUTES Page 4 of 23 City Council Meeting Minutes: 8/20/18 MOTION: Vice Mayor Filseth moved, seconded by Council Member Scharff to approve Agenda Item Numbers 1-4, 6. 1. Approval of Contract Number C18171695 With Kone, Inc. in an Amount Not-to-Exceed $687,760 for the Modernization of the two Elevators Located at the Cowper/Webster, Lot J, Parking Garage, Funded in the Capital Improvement Project PF-18000. 2. Approval of Mitigation Measures Minimizing Risk of Wildfires From Overhead Electrical Lines Within the Foothills Area West of Highway 280. 3. Policy and Services Committee Recommendation to Accept the Auditor’s Office Quarterly Report as of March 31, 2018. 4. Policy and Services Committee Recommendation to Accept the ERP Planning: Information Technology and Data Governance Audit. 6. Approval of Amendment Number 5 to the Palo Alto-Stanford Fire Protection Agreement With the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University Extending the Term to June 30, 2018 for an Additional fee of $6,773,624. MOTION FOR AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 1 PASSED: 7-1 Tanaka no, Fine absent MOTION FOR AGENDA ITEM NUMBERS 2-4, 6: 8-0 Fine absent Council Member Tanaka's comments were inaudible. Mayor Kniss requested Council Member Tanaka provide written comments so that they could be reflected in the Minutes. Action Items 5. Adoption of a Resolution Supporting the Objective of the State Water Resources Control Board’s Bay Delta Plan and a Negotiated Voluntary Settlement of Water Issues on the Tuolumne River. Ed Shikada, Assistant City Manager, reported the State Water Resources Control Board (Water Board) would accept testimony but not take action regarding amendments to the Bay-Delta Plan at its meeting during the week. Staff was monitoring correspondence regarding the Bay-Delta Plan. Karla Dailey, Senior Resource Planner, advised that Palo Alto received 100 percent of its potable water from the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC), with approximately 85 percent originating in the Tuolumne River and MINUTES Page 5 of 23 City Council Meeting Minutes: 8/20/18 15 percent originating in local reservoirs. Staff was working toward reducing the City's dependence on imported water supplies by implementing the Northwest County Recycled Water Strategic Plan and the Water Integrated Resources Plan. The Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency (BAWSCA) was authorized to take the necessary actions to ensure a reliable water supply. All BAWSCA agencies had submitted comments regarding the Bay Delta Plan update to the Water Board and identified potential significant impacts of proposed actions. Proposed amendments to the Bay Delta Plan could cause 20-30 percent water use reductions in dry years. The reductions could be 40-50 percent if water demand returned to a normal level following a drought. The number of dry-year shortages would double or triple. The City's Urban Water Management Plan included a water shortage contingency plan of 40-percent rationing. Palo Alto supported the objectives of the Bay Delta Plan. The City and other agencies supported a voluntary, negotiated settlement process. While the importance of the Bay Delta Plan's objectives was undisputed, the Bay Delta Plan could have significant impacts on Palo Alto's water supply. Greg Schmid, Palo Alto's representative to BAWSCA, indicated BAWSCA strongly supported the objectives of the Bay Delta Plan's environmental goals. The SFPUC conducted a study of the draft Bay Delta Plan and found that the impact on water users could be severe during a drought. BAWSCA strongly supported Staff's proposal. Steven Ritchie, SFPUC Assistant General Manager, believed the Bay Delta Plan would have significant impacts on water supply and provide uncertain benefits for the Tuolumne River. SFPUC believed greater fishery benefits could be achieved for the Tuolumne River by using a March 2017 proposal for smart, functional flows. The Water Board rejected SFPUC's proposal because it did not meet flow objectives. Negotiated settlements were better than regulatory solutions. Tom Francis, BAWSCA Water Resources Manager, remarked that the proposed Resolution supported a negotiated settlement process, which aligned well with the approach embraced by the California Natural Resources Agency and State Senator Jerry Hill. If implemented, the Bay Delta Plan could seriously reduce the water supply for BAWSCA member agencies during the next drought. It could force severe water reductions for 1.8 million customers. If the Bay Delta Plan was implemented, water users could be required to reduce their average per person water use within the Palo Alto area to 41 gallons per person per day during a drought, essentially a 50-percent reduction from pre-drought usage. Some agencies could be required to reduce usage to 25 gallons per person per day. Severe water cutbacks could threaten jobs, delay community development, and eliminate new housing. A community without sufficient MINUTES Page 6 of 23 City Council Meeting Minutes: 8/20/18 water for fully operational businesses, hospitals, and public institutions was unsustainable. SFPUC's proposal, which BAWSCA supported, was a reasonable alternative to the Water Board's plan. It would preserve water supply and reliability for member agencies. Peter Drekmeier, Tuolumne River Trust Policy Director, stated that BAWSCA and SFPUC attempted to control the conversation and message of the issue. SFPUC and BAWSCA held few public hearings regarding the Bay Delta Plan. In December 2016, the City of Palo Alto used a BAWSCA template to provide comments to the Water Board. Modeling demonstrated that a drought of record could be survived with an average of 10 percent rationing. SFPUC analysis combined the two worst droughts of the latter half of the 20th century and based rationing on 2040 demand projections. If a future drought lasted longer than any previous drought, SFPUC could purchase water from irrigation districts for a price that would compensate the farmer, laborer, the processor, and the distributer. A San Francisco survey found people conserved water to benefit the environment. The number of salmon in the Tuolumne River was decreasing because of the need for off-channel floodplain habitat. The Water Board could not require habitat restoration, but its adaptive management plan incentivized habitat restoration. Council Member DuBois inquired about the disadvantages of a negotiated agreement. Mr. Shikada replied the length of time required to negotiate a settlement. Senator Hill suggested January 2019 as a deadline to resolve negotiations. Council Member DuBois asked if Staff would support adding a time limit to the Resolution. Mr. Shikada answered yes. Council Member DuBois inquired about the possibility of purchasing water from irrigation districts. Ms. Dailey reported SFPUC's and BAWSCA's efforts to develop a water transfer agreement had been unsuccessful. Mr. Francis added that BAWSCA had been unable to negotiate an agreement to transfer a small amount of water. Council Member DuBois inquired whether BAWSCA had offered high prices. Mr. Francis responded yes. MINUTES Page 7 of 23 City Council Meeting Minutes: 8/20/18 Council Member Holman requested the rationale for Staff not supplying the Council with all communications. Mr. Shikada explained that Staff felt it was important to leverage BAWSCA's knowledge of the subject matter. Because of the possibility of litigation, nondisclosure agreements limited parties' ability to share all information. Council Member Holman clarified that the Council did not receive relevant correspondence as part of the Staff Report or as part of the public communications. Mr. Keene remarked that Staff hurriedly compiled information to present to the Council in response to the item being removed from the Consent Calendar. Staff did not intentionally withhold information from the Council. Council Member Holman requested the basis for determining a reasonable rate when negotiating for agricultural water. Mr. Drekmeier clarified that SFPUC purchased water during the 1987-1992 drought. If irrigation districts would not sell water to SFPUC, then the Water Board could intervene. The socioeconomic impact study suggested every acre foot of water lost would cost $415,000 in economic impacts. No environmental group believed a negotiated settlement was possible. Currently, only 20 percent unimpaired flow of the Tuolumne River reached the San Joaquin River; however, the science indicated 60 percent unimpaired flow was needed to protect fish and wildlife. As a consequence, the Water Board set the unimpaired flow at 40 percent. A negotiated settlement sounded good, but it was not likely to occur. Council Member Scharff noted water conserved during the drought was stored in reservoirs rather than released into the rivers for wildlife and fish. He requested an explanation of the different drought scenarios. Mr. Drekmeier elucidated that river base flows could not drop below a certain level without damaging the ecosystem. During the drought, irrigation districts released the base flow into the Tuolumne River. The water conserved was stored in reservoirs. At the height of the drought, SFPUC had sufficient water in storage to last three years. Irrigation districts released water from the reservoirs after the rains began in 2017. The Bay Delta Plan would have apportioned the water throughout the five years of the drought. Council Member Scharff asked for the meaning of the phrase "framework for voluntary agreements for unimpaired flow of not less than 30 percent." MINUTES Page 8 of 23 City Council Meeting Minutes: 8/20/18 Mr. Drekmeier explained that Alternative 3, the preferred alternative for the Water Board, proposed 30-50 percent of unimpaired flow. The flow would begin at 40 percent even though the Bay Delta Plan stated 30-50 percent. Mr. Ritchie reported SFPUC offered irrigation districts $700 per acre foot of water when the districts were charging farmers $7 per acre foot, but irrigation districts were unwilling to sell water. Water planners could not allow reservoirs to run dry; they had to preserve water, build additional projects, or transfer water. Mr. Francis added that the drought of record in the next 100 years would be significantly different from the 1986-1992 drought because of climate change. 2017 proved to be a wet year, but it could have been another dry year. Council Member Scharff inquired about a timeframe for the Regional Water Quality Control Plant to produce super-purified water. Ms. Dailey advised that regulations had not been drafted for direct potable reuse. Mr. Shikada clarified that the amount of water produced would be a fraction of the amount needed. Council Member Fine asked for SFPUC's vision of a process for negotiated settlement. Mr. Ritchie recounted an attempt to negotiate settlements for the San Joaquin River and the Sacramento River, which began in late 2016 or early 2017 and ended around August 2017 when environmental groups could not support two processes. Interest in a negotiated settlement returned with release of the Bay Delta Plan. Council Member Fine inquired about the risk to Palo Alto ratepayers with a unilateral settlement. Mr. Shikada believed ratepayers would be affected by an action that led to greater conservation mandates during a drought. Ms. Dailey added that during a drought conservation had to increase and alternate water supplies had to be found, both of which would affect ratepayers. Virginia Tincher Van Kuran read a letter published in response to a Mercury News editorial supporting the Bay Delta Plan. MINUTES Page 9 of 23 City Council Meeting Minutes: 8/20/18 Dave Warner advised that the rationing figures and socioeconomic analyses were unlikely to occur. The socioeconomic studies appeared to be incomplete or were designed for political objectives. Jeff Brown remarked that the Bay Delta Plan was not a cure for the systemic ills facing the Bay Delta; it proposed the least action to be taken. The Council should support the Bay Delta Plan. Rita Vrhel urged the Council to support the Bay Delta Plan. Stephen Rosenblum recounted relevant goals and strategies from the Sustainability and Climate Action Plan (S/CAP). Julianne Frizzell believed the Bay Delta Plan most accurately reflected the solutions required to maintain the health of the Tuolumne River system. Mary Holzer concurred with Mr. Drekmeier's comments. The Bay Delta Plan would support wildlife and fish. Existing water supplies would not support the amount of projected growth. Patti Regehr felt the Bay Delta Plan was a compromise that provided something to everyone. Annette Isaacson supported the Bay Delta Plan. Compliance with a negotiated voluntary settlement would be tricky. Karen Harwell related the need for everyone to have a relationship with the environment and a sense of place. Shannon McEntee trusted the technical analysis performed by the Tuolumne River Trust and urged the Council to support the Bay Delta Plan. Kirsten Essenmacher voiced concerns about the declining salmon population and rising salinity levels and hoped the Council would support the Bay Delta Plan. Arthur Keller questioned the wisdom of SFPUC considering guaranteed water allocations for San Jose and Santa Clara when the future availability of water was a concern. The Council should write a letter in support of the Bay Delta Plan. David Schrom felt science supported the Bay Delta Plan. The Council should write a letter in support of the Bay Delta plan to protect the watershed. MINUTES Page 10 of 23 City Council Meeting Minutes: 8/20/18 Shani Kleinhaus advised that 80 percent of water was used for agriculture. Huge amounts of water were needed to support California almond plantations; yet, 90 percent of the almonds were exported. Mike Ferreiro, Sierra Club, stated agencies should not kill rivers just to remain within arbitrary percentages. Council Member Scharff felt restoring the health of the Delta ecosystem was necessary and the right thing to do. MOTION: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Filseth to support the State Water Resources Control Board’s Bay Delta Plan to have 40 percent of natural water in the Central Valley to enter the Delta from February to June and associated Southern Delta salinity objectives; and send a letter expressing this policy position to Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency (BAWSCA), California State Water Resources Control Board, San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC), and other stakeholders Staff believes should receive the letter. Vice Mayor Filseth was persuaded by Mr. Drekmeier's arguments to support the Bay Delta Plan. The dire scenario assumed unprecedented drought and little or no response from cities, which was unlikely. Deliberately damaging the environment was unconscionable. Council Member Wolbach felt a worst-case drought was likely given climate change; therefore, investments in alternate water supplies were needed. Palo Alto's efforts to conserve and recycle water would prepare it for the next drought. Council Member Holman did not believe the purported economic risk was supported by data. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to replace in the Motion, “have 40 percent of natural water in the Central Valley” with “have 30-50 percent of natural water in the San Joaquin Valley.” Council Member Kou was pleased to support the Motion in light of the goals and strategies contained in the S/CAP. She would like to see a prioritization of products for which water was used. Council Member DuBois noted water flows historically were 21-40 percent. Even in a drought, water should be available for the Tuolumne River and cities. MINUTES Page 11 of 23 City Council Meeting Minutes: 8/20/18 Mayor Kniss recalled Mr. Drekmeier's efforts to conserve water and to promote recycled water. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to replace “natural water” with “unimpaired flow.” Council Member Tanaka stated one of the City's core values was protecting the environment. He requested Staff address the impact of the Council's decision on the City's tree canopy. Mr. Keene reported Council decisions to reallocate water would not impact the City's ability to maintain the tree canopy. Council Member Tanaka wanted to ensure the canopy was protected. Ms. Dailey advised that adding San Jose and Santa Clara as SFPUC customers would not affect SFPUC's water supply guarantees with other customers. Council Member Tanaka did not believe the allocation of water between cities and agriculture was within the City's purview. Perhaps the City should send a letter to the appropriate agency regarding a more fair allocation of water between cities and agriculture. Ms. Dailey indicated the irrigation districts held senior water rights. An agency or agencies did not determine the allocation of water to agriculture. Council Member Tanaka felt the City should exert its influence to change the allocation. MOTION AS AMENDED RESTATED: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Filseth to support the State Water Resources Control Board’s Bay Delta Plan to have 30-50 percent of unimpaired flow in the San Joaquin Valley to enter the Delta from February to June and associated Southern Delta salinity objectives; and send a letter expressing this policy position to Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency (BAWSCA), California State Water Resources Control Board, San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC), and other stakeholders Staff believes should receive the letter. MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 9-0 Mr. Keene remarked that the Council's support for the Bay Delta Plan did not reflect on the City's relationship with BAWSCA and SFPUC. Mayor Kniss thanked BAWSCA and SFPUC representatives for appearing before the Council for the discussion. MINUTES Page 12 of 23 City Council Meeting Minutes: 8/20/18 At this time Council heard Agenda Item Numbers 8-10. 8. Approval of Agreements Between the City of Palo Alto and the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University: 1) Agreement for Fire Protection Services to Stanford University for the Period July 1, 2018 – June 30, 2023; and 2) Settlement Agreement for Overpayment Claim by Stanford University Regarding Fire Protection Services. Ed Shikada, Assistant City Manager, reported the item concerned a new agreement for fire services over a five-year period and a settlement agreement for an outstanding claim. Jean McCown related the analysis performed to reach a new agreement and to resolve past issues. Council Member Scharff noted negotiations began in 2012. Reaching an agreement had been one of his main concerns as a Council Member. MOTION: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Wolbach to approve: A. The settlement of a claim by Stanford University for prior overpayment (“Settlement Agreement”), through payment by the City to Stanford University in the amount of $5.5 million and credit for termination of prior agreement apparatus value; and B. The Palo Alto-Stanford Fire Protection Agreement for the provision of Fire Protection Services by the City to the Stanford University campus (“Agreement for Services”) for the period of July 1, 2018 to June 30, 2023, to automatically renew to June 30, 2028 unless terminated by either party. Council Member Wolbach appreciated City Staff and Stanford University staff's efforts and work to conclude the matter. Council Member DuBois felt the agreement was a good solution to an unfortunate situation. He suggested Stanford University donate funds set out in the agreement to Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD). MOTION PASSED: 9-0 9. Approval of Employment Agreement With Edward Shikada as City Manager. James Keene, City Manager, highlighted the contract's effective date of December 20, 2018, if not sooner. MINUTES Page 13 of 23 City Council Meeting Minutes: 8/20/18 Mayor Kniss noted Mr. Shikada was offered the position of City Manager in June. MOTION: Mayor Kniss moved, seconded by Council Member Kou to approve an employment agreement with Edward Shikada providing for his employment as City Manager for the City of Palo Alto effective December 20, 2018 or the date of retirement of current City Manager James R. Keene, Jr., whichever was sooner. Mayor Kniss recounted recruiters' advice to consider Mr. Shikada and the difficulty of hiring someone outside the Bay Area or Los Angeles. Council Member Holman hoped Mr. Shikada would be happy working as City Manager. Council Member Kou was looking forward to Mr. Shikada remaining with the City. Council Member Wolbach indicated Mr. Shikada's understanding of the organization, the community, and the Council would lead to his success. The City Manager had an opportunity to shape the City and its policies. Council Member Fine knew Mr. Shikada would do a great job as City Manager. As City Manager, Mr. Shikada should remind the Council of areas where it could have an impact. Council Member Scharff appreciated Mr. Keene's vision for the City and Mr. Shikada's willingness to take on different roles in the City. Council Member DuBois felt Mr. Shikada was well-suited to the position of City Manager. Council Member Tanaka welcomed Mr. Shikada to the role of City Manager. Perhaps Mr. Shikada's compensation could include some type of bonus component. Molly Stump, City Attorney, recommended the Council split the motion into the selection and appointment of Mr. Shikada as City Manager and his employment agreement. MOTION SEPARATED FOR THE PURPOSE OF VOTING MOTION1: Mayor Kniss moved, seconded by Council Member Kou to approve Edward Shikada as City Manager for the City of Palo Alto effective December 20, 2018 or the date of retirement of current City Manager James R. Keene, Jr., whichever is sooner. MINUTES Page 14 of 23 City Council Meeting Minutes: 8/20/18 MOTION2: Mayor Kniss moved, seconded by Council Member Fine to approve an employment agreement with Edward Shikada. MOTION1 PASSED: 9-0 SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Council Member Tanaka moved, seconded by Council Member XX to approve an employment agreement with Edward Shikada, separating compensation into a salary component and a potential performance bonus component. SUBSTITUTE MOTION FAILED DUE TO THE LACK OF A SECOND MOTION2 PASSED: 8-1 Tanaka no Edward Shikada, Assistant City Manager, appreciated Council Members' comments and encouragement and looked forward to the next phase of his employment with the City. 10. Adoption of: (1) a Resolution 9789 Entitled, “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto of Intent;” and (2) an Ordinance to Amend the Contract Between the Board of Administration of the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) and the City of Palo Alto to Implement the Share of Employer Contribution in Accordance With Section 20516 of the California Government Code and the Compensation Plan Between the City of Palo Alto and the Management and Professional Personnel and Council Appointees. James Keene, City Manager, reported the City Council had authorized the contribution. Staff requested the Council adopt the Resolution and Ordinance to amend the contract. MOTION: Mayor Kniss moved, seconded by Council Member Wolbach to: A. Adopt a Resolution of Intention of the Council of the City of Palo Alto stating its intent to amend the contract between the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) and the City of Palo Alto in order to implement the pension cost share provision in accordance with California Government Code section 20516 and the Compensation Plan between the City of Palo Alto and the Management and Professional Personnel (MGMT) employee group; and B. Adopt, on first reading, an Ordinance amending the City’s contract with CalPERS. This Ordinance will return to the Council on second reading in accordance with state law. MOTION PASSED: 9-0 MINUTES Page 15 of 23 City Council Meeting Minutes: 8/20/18 Mr. Keene remarked that the Council likely would not reach the final item on the Agenda, the comment letter regarding the Stanford University General Use Permit (GUP), prior to 10:30 P.M. Mayor Kniss announced the comment letter could be continued to a future meeting or Council Members could provide written comments to Staff. The City should have plenty of time to provide comments to the County of Santa Clara (County) prior to a vote on the GUP. Council Member Holman requested the date the comment period originally closed. Mr. Keene replied July 26. Council Member Holman advised that the revised letter did not address concerns she raised previously. Therefore, she requested the item be continued to August 27. Mr. Keene stated the item could not be heard on August 27. Mayor Kniss disclosed that the County would accept comments all fall because additional hearings would be held in October and November. Council Member Holman indicated the hearings concerned the GUP. The comment letter pertained to the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). She requested clarification from Staff. Mr. Keene assured Council Members that the County would accept comments from the City of Palo Alto. Drafting a letter was a more complicated issue and would require more time than submitting individual comments. Council Member Holman inquired whether Staff had communicated with the County Planning Department to learn of a new deadline for submitting comments. Mayor Kniss suggested Council Members submit written comments to Staff, who would submit them to the County. Agenda Item Number 11 – Review and Comment on the Letter Sent to the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors … removed from the Agenda. 7. PUBLIC HEARING/QUASI-JUDICIAL: Consideration of the Appeal of the Planning and Community Environment Director’s Decision to Approve the Architectural Review Application for 620 Emerson Street (17PLN- 00331) to Allow Demolition of an Existing Single Story Building and Construction of a new Two-story 4,063 Square Foot Commercial Building MINUTES Page 16 of 23 City Council Meeting Minutes: 8/20/18 for the Expansion of Nobu Restaurant. The Project Includes Replacement of Three On-site Parking Spaces With Five In-lieu Spaces in the Downtown Parking Assessment District. Environmental Assessment: Exempt From the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Guideline Section 15303 (New Construction) Zoning District: CD-C(GF)(P) (Downtown Commercial) (Continued From June 4, 2018). Jonathan Lait, Planning and Community Environment Interim Director, reported the item concerned an appeal of the Planning and Community Environment Director's approval of an Architectural Review application. The approval authorized the demolition of an existing building and construction of a new building for a restaurant space. The Architectural Review Board (ARB) held two public hearings and unanimously recommended approval of the project. The appeal was filed in late April. In June, the Council removed the item from the Consent Calendar and continued it to the current date. The appellant raised issues concerning parking, transportation and circulation, loading, and restroom facilities. Three onsite substandard parking spaces and two parking spaces required by the change of use would be replaced with five in-lieu parking spaces in the Downtown Parking Assessment District. Physical constraints made onsite parking infeasible. The ARB reviewed alternatives that Staff explored and was satisfied with Staff's analysis. Based on the size of the building, the site was not subject to a loading requirement. A covenant had been drafted to require restroom facilities on the subject site should the relationship between Nobu and the Epiphany Hotel terminate. Council Member Fine requested Staff summarize the appeal process. Mr. Lait explained that the appeal was filed prior to the Council revising the process. At the time the appeal was filed, anyone could appeal a decision within the required time period and pay the fee. Council Member Fine asked if Staff would reevaluate the Certificate of Occupancy should the internal connection between the buildings be eliminated. Mr. Lait clarified that Staff would require a building permit to seal the connection, review egress and fire requirements, and require restroom facilities be provided onsite. Council Member DuBois asked how Staff differentiated between a building expansion and two separate buildings. Mr. Lait disclosed that the subject site was a separate and independent parcel. The covenant recognized the connection. MINUTES Page 17 of 23 City Council Meeting Minutes: 8/20/18 Council Member DuBois asked if each part of the restaurant had a kitchen. Mr. Lait answered yes. For the subject property to operate as an independent restaurant, it would need onsite restrooms or access to restrooms. Council Member DuBois inquired about the parking requirement if the two buildings operated independently. Mr. Lait advised that the parking analysis considered two separate sites. Council Member DuBois requested clarification of the rooftop garden. Samuel Gutierrez, Planner, explained that the rooftop was a green roof rather than a rooftop garden. Hotel guests could access a small patio adjacent to the green roof. A raised planter separated the patio from the roof and prevented hotel guests from accessing the green roof. Public Hearing opened at 10:32 P.M. Elizabeth Wong, Appellant, advised that the three substandard parking spaces were the same size as 2,124 parking spaces in the Downtown Parking Assessment District. The three spaces had been used as onsite parking for decades. Use of mechanical lifts could double or triple the number of onsite parking spaces. The garbage bin could be placed on the parcel with the Epiphany Hotel or the existing Nobu restaurant so that the onsite parking could be preserved. The structure could be two or three stories so that the site could accommodate parking spaces. Allowing Nobu to expand and eliminate the parking spaces would result in the loss of many parking spaces. Greg Stutheit, Applicant, divulged that the proposed restaurant would operate in unison with Nobu but could operate as a standalone restaurant. Nobu provided room service to the Epiphany Hotel. The area between the two restaurants contained the lobby, lounge, reception, and restrooms. Access to Nobu was located on Hamilton Avenue, while entrances to the hotel and the proposed restaurant were located on Emerson. Trash and loading for the hotel occurred off Hamilton Avenue; the proposed restaurant would utilize the alley. The proposed facade would match the pedestrian scale of surrounding buildings, and the entry would be recessed from the sidewalk. Facade materials for the proposed restaurant would be complementary to materials used for the hotel but would be sufficiently differentiated to maintain a unique expression. An existing, second-floor balcony at the hotel would overlook the green roof of the proposed restaurant. He had worked with Staff to implement mutually agreeable solutions to concerns raised by the appellant, and the ARB approved the solutions. The City's Design Guidelines precluded vehicular access across a sidewalk; therefore, parking was focused toward the alley. A MINUTES Page 18 of 23 City Council Meeting Minutes: 8/20/18 vehicle had to back out of the site because there was no room to turn around. The rear of the site provided emergency egress from the building and storage for garbage bins. The 20-foot alley was not sufficiently wide for a vehicle to back up. A consultant studied a variety of options for parking and determined that general parking at the rear of the parcel was not feasible. The project would not generate a significant increase in traffic. The proposed project was below the 5,000-square-foot threshold for a dedicated loading area. Access to restrooms was well within the 200-foot distance required by the Code. The restrooms were sized to support patrons and employees of both uses. Michael Harbour recalled the appellant's use of in-lieu fees for her project at 429 University Avenue. He encouraged the Council to uphold the Director's decision. The project would be a nice addition to the area. Jeff Levinsky questioned the legality of in-lieu parking spaces. The Municipal Code listed exemptions that could be used to comply with parking requirements. In-lieu parking spaces were not a listed exemption. In essence, the City sold ghost parking spaces as in-lieu parking spaces, which caused business employees and patrons to park in neighborhoods. He requested the Council review use of in-lieu parking spaces as an exemption and the price charged for in-lieu spaces. Ms. Wong reiterated suggestions to pull back the building to provide 4 feet for standard parking spaces at the rear of the building and to utilize mechanical lifts to double or triple the number of parking spaces. Mr. Stutheit recapitulated reasons for not providing parking onsite. Public Hearing closed at 10:55 P.M. MOTION: Council Member Fine moved, seconded by Council Member Scharff to adopt a Record of Land Use Action, thereby denying the appeal, upholding the Director’s approval of an Architectural Review application and finding the proposed project exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act. Council Member Fine stated Staff and the ARB reviewed and addressed the issues well. Council Member Scharff did not understand the rationale for the appeal. The ARB unanimously supported the project, which was unusual. Constructing a second story in order to have onsite parking would ruin the pedestrian feel of the building. MINUTES Page 19 of 23 City Council Meeting Minutes: 8/20/18 Council Member Kou requested the number of employees for the proposed restaurant. Mr. Lait did not have an employee count. The Code set forth a blended rate for parking standards, and the blended rate accounted for visitors and employees. Council Member Kou asked if employees for the proposed restaurant could utilize the hotel's lease of offsite parking spaces. Mr. Lait clarified that the subject parcel was separate and independent from the hotel parcel; therefore, the subject parcel was evaluated for compliance with zoning regulations that applied to the subject parcel only. The project with its proposal for in-lieu parking complied with parking requirements. Council Member Kou remarked that the project offered no mitigation for parking congestion. Staff had not identified the physical locations of in-lieu parking spaces. Mr. Lait explained that the City utilized in-lieu parking fees to construct garages. Mr. Lait was not aware of a list of physical parking spaces designated as in-lieu spaces. If the Council directed, Staff could review in-lieu parking in its next Code cleanup project. An applicant had to meet one of the five criteria in order to propose in-lieu parking. Until the policy was revised, Staff had to process applications using the existing Code provisions. Council Member Kou felt a review of parking policies should be a high priority. Use of in-lieu parking compounded parking congestion. She inquired whether in-lieu parking fees would increase with construction of the new parking garages. Mr. Lait advised that the current parking in-lieu fee was approximately $71,000 per space. When more information was available regarding construction of the new parking garage, parking in-lieu fees would be reevaluated. If the applicant for the subject project obtained a building permit before Staff reevaluated the in-lieu fee, then it would pay a fee of $71,000 per space. Council Member Kou requested the differences between Ms. Wong's project at 429 University and the subject project. Mr. Lait did not recall the facts of the project at 429 University. Some of the Transfer of Development Rights (TDRs) used for the project did not require additional parking. MINUTES Page 20 of 23 City Council Meeting Minutes: 8/20/18 Council Member Kou inquired about the hotel's offsite location for employee and patron parking. Mayor Kniss understood the hotel leased spaces from a building that housed elderly residents. Mr. Stutheit assumed employees utilized public parking or public transportation. The hotel's valet service parked patron vehicles in a privately licensed parking lot. Presumably, valets would park restaurant patrons' vehicles in the same lot. Council Member Kou wanted assurances that employee and patron vehicles would not displace properly parked vehicles. Council Member DuBois inquired whether Ms. Wong's position was the City should not accept in-lieu parking fees for required parking spaces. Ms. Wong stated the parking studies were fantasies. The three onsite parking spaces had been used for decades. The applicant should retain as many onsite parking spaces as possible. Council Member DuBois asked if Ms. Wong would be willing to provide onsite parking spaces rather than pay in-lieu parking fees for her projects. Ms. Wong did not understand the question. Council Member DuBois felt the appellant's concerns were addressed through exceptions provided in the Code. The scale and massing of the project fit the street well. Council Member Holman disclosed communications with Michael Harbour and Jeff Levinsky. Council Member Scharff disclosed communications with Mr. Harbour. Council Member Fine disclosed communications with Mr. Harbour. Council Member Kou disclosed communications with Mr. Levinsky. Council Member Tanaka disclosed communications with Ms. Wong and her husband. Council Member Holman inquired about the applicant's compliance with requirements for the trash enclosure. MINUTES Page 21 of 23 City Council Meeting Minutes: 8/20/18 Mr. Lait explained that the applicant must comply with requirements for the trash enclosure prior to issuance of a building permit even though the requirements were not stated in the condition of approval. Council Member Holman asked if the ARB was comfortable with the applicant's compliance with requirements for trash enclosures. Peter Baltay, Architectural Review Board Commissioner, replied yes. In his opinion, the space was adequate for trash and oil receptacles. Council Member Holman inquired about a requirement for the proposed restaurant to provide restrooms should its association with the hotel terminate. Mr. Lait stated a condition of approval required preparation of a covenant that would attach to the property. Council Member Holman inquired regarding protection of tiles on an adjacent building during demolition and construction work. Mr. Lait explained that protection of adjacent properties would be addressed in the plan check process. Council Member Holman was accustomed to protection of a unique resource being included in conditions of approval. Many times, project review focused on the project to the detriment of adjacent properties. Mr. Lait suggested the Council amend the Motion to direct Staff to ensure appropriate protections were in place to ensure adjacent properties were not damaged. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion, “direct Staff to ensure appropriate protections are in place during construction to protect adjacent properties, with special focus on the historic tile on the property to the South.” (New Part C) Council Member Holman commented that a customary practice did not have to continue. Mr. Lait advised that Staff attempted to be consistent in applying Code provisions and to utilize a plain reading of Code provisions. Application of the in-lieu parking program was not the same as an interpretation of development regulations. MINUTES Page 22 of 23 City Council Meeting Minutes: 8/20/18 Council Member Holman would welcome a Council discussion of the in-lieu parking program. She did not understand why cars could not park at the alley. Mr. Lait articulated that the first on-site parking space was designated an Americans with Disability Act (ADA) space, which would measure 18 feet by 18 feet. Council Member Holman requested the rationale for not including a condition of approval for the lease agreement for offsite parking spaces. Mr. Lait advised that the property owner paid for 11 parking spaces in the Downtown Parking Assessment District when the district was formed. The applicant would pay for five in-lieu parking spaces comprised of the three onsite parking spaces plus two parking spaces for increasing the floor area. If the Council was interested in stating the details of offsite parking, then Staff could explore that. To require both offsite parking and payment of in-lieu parking fees was not appropriate. Council Member Holman understood the applicant had initiated and perhaps concluded a lease agreement. Mr. Lait understood the hotel had an existing relationship for offsite valet parking. The applicant should address questions about offsite parking for the proposed restaurant. Molly Stump, City Attorney, commented that any new or additional requirements should be consistent with City Code requirements. According to her understanding, the Code required payment of in-lieu parking fees or identification of offsite parking, not both. Council Member Scharff reported the tiles on the adjacent building were not historic, according to the Chair of the Historic Resources Board; therefore, he would not accept an amendment to the Motion regarding historic tiles. He assumed the City required appropriate protections for adjacent properties and additional conditions were not necessary. Mr. Lait concurred. Additional conditions highlighted the need to be aware of existing protections. He understood the Council's intentions and requested direction for Staff to draft a condition of approval. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to remove from the Motion Part C, “with special focus on the historic tile on the property to the South.” MINUTES Page 23 of 23 City Council Meeting Minutes: 8/20/18 MOTION AS AMENDED RESTATED: Council Member Fine moved, seconded by Council Member Scharff to: A. Adopt a Record of Land Use Action, thereby denying the appeal, upholding the Director’s approval of an Architectural Review application; B. Find the proposed Project exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act; and C. Direct Staff to ensure appropriate protections are in place during construction to protect adjacent properties. MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 8-1 Kou no 11. Review and Comment on the Letter Sent to the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors Regarding the Stanford General Use Plan (GUP). State/Federal Legislation Update/Action None. Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements Council Member Kou requested the status of a comment letter to the Grand Jury regarding affordable housing. James Keene, City Manager, reported an item was scheduled for the Council on either September 10 or 17 in order to submit it prior to September 20. Council Member DuBois requested the Cubberley community meeting be rescheduled if it coincided with the Palo Alto Neighborhood candidate debate on October 4. Mr. Keene agreed to reschedule it if necessary. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 11:39 P.M.