Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-11-26 City Council Summary MinutesCITY OF PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL FINAL MINUTES Page 1 of 33 Special Meeting November 26, 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, Kniss, Kou; Scharff arrived at 5:10 P.M., Tanaka, Wolbach Absent: Special Orders of the Day 1. Proclamation Honoring Sikh Awareness Month. Council Member Wolbach read the proclamation into the record. JJ Singh thanked the Council and Council Member Wolbach for the Proclamation. Sikh Americans had been part of the fabric of America for more than a century. The Sikh religion, founded 549 years ago, was the fifth largest religion in the world. Sikhs had contributed to agriculture, technology, and sports. Maria Bhatia advised that Sikhs began immigrating to California in the 1890s. Of the 500,000 Sikhs in the United States, approximately 40 percent lived in the Bay Area. Sikhs believed in truthfulness, being God-conscious, and community service. Sikhism was more a way of life than a religion. She shared a brief history of Sikhism, emphasizing the effects of the 1947 Partition, 1984 genocide, and 9/11. As a minority, Sikhs faced hate crimes and bullying. Inclusion and diversity appreciation was critical to a successful society. The public was invited to visit the Sikh Gurdwara in San Jose. Mr. Singh on behalf of American Sikhs appreciated the opportunity to share information about Sikhs. Ms. Bhatia presented books to the Palo Alto Library, the Council, and Staff. Council Member Kou appreciated the presentation and shared her experiences with Indian celebrations. MINUTES Page 2 of 33 City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 11/26/18 Council Member DuBois was happy to support Sikh Awareness Month. It was important to create awareness of individual religions and not to tolerate discrimination against any group. Council Member Holman expressed appreciation for the Sikh community's engagement and leadership in the broader community. Mayor Kniss thanked Mr. Singh and Ms. Bhatia for their presentation and the books. Study Session 2. Study Session With Assemblymember Marc Berman. Mayor Kniss reported Assemblymember Berman had served two years of his first term in the California Assembly. Assemblymember Berman advised that he had supported youth mental health and suicide prevention and the rights of sexual assault survivors. In 2017, he introduced legislation to require school districts with zero tolerance policies around substance abuse discuss whether the policies were deterring students from seeking help for mental health problems. The Governor vetoed the bill. In 2018, he led the effort to allocate $1.7 million for identification of the best online suicide prevention training and providing it to every middle and high school administrator, teacher, and student without charge. He introduced a second bill that required middle and high schools to update their suicide prevention policies every five years. Assemblymember Berman worked with Assemblymember Gonzales Fletcher to create the California Sexual Assault Survivors Bill of Rights in 2017. He introduced a bill in 2018 to extend the statute of limitations for sexual assault survivors to file civil lawsuits. As Chairman of the Elections Committee, he had focused on election cybersecurity and sponsored a bill to create the State Office of Elections Cybersecurity. The Office of Elections Cybersecurity was charged with sharing best practices and monitoring online and social media misinformation about the voting process. In another of his bills, that type of online activity was classified as a misdemeanor. In addition, he was Chairman of a Select Committee for the 2020 Census. Federal funding for State programs was based on data collected in the census. The State was providing resources for census outreach and communication. He had created a Select Committee for California's Master Plan for Higher Education. The Master Plan had not been updated since its creation in 1960. The Legislature had focused on transportation, housing, cap-and-trade programs, and reformation of the bail system. One provision of Senate Bill (SB) 100, which set a goal of 100-percent renewable energy by 2045, would have been punitive for Palo Alto; therefore, he did not support the bill. He became a cosponsor of SB 100 after the MINUTES Page 3 of 33 City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 11/26/18 provision was removed from the bill. With respect to grade separations, the City of Palo Alto would have to seek funding from many sources, and he would support the City. Council Member Kou appreciated the information about grade separations. Council Member Scharff inquired about potential legislation concerning utilities, housing, and transportation. Assemblymember Berman replied that Senator Hill would likely introduce a bill to break up PG&E. Assemblymember Holden would introduce a bill to eliminate inverse condemnation. He would not support the elimination of inverse condemnation unless SB 901 was amended. Regionalization of the power grid would be an issue in 2019. Legislators would introduce many housing bills in 2019. Senator Weiner would introduce an updated version of SB 827. Bills would be introduced regarding redevelopment agencies. Over the past few years, the Legislature had addressed transportation with several bills and initiatives. Vice Mayor Filseth was pleased to learn that the housing discussion included funding. He inquired whether the Legislature would consider including a regional focus in discussions of transportation investments and whether the Legislature had any interest in reviewing the California Voting Rights Act (CVRA). Assemblymember Berman indicated Governor-elect Newsom had shown interest in High Speed Rail for the Central Valley and Bay Area. He led the effort to obtain $130 million for the Dumbarton Corridor in Regional Measure 3 (RM 3). Bills that would eliminate the CVRA had been introduced, but he killed the bills in committee. He and his staff had initiated conversations with the sponsors of the original CVRA and with colleagues regarding amendments to the CVRA. Mayor Kniss asked if the tenor of Governor-elect Newsom's administration would be different from the tenor of Governor Brown's administration. Assemblymember Berman responded yes. Governor-elect Newsom's outlook and demeanor were very different from Governor Brown's. Early childhood education would be a main priority for the Legislature. After serving 16 years as Governor, Governor Brown was a master of the political process. Council Member Wolbach believed Costa-Hawkins should be reformed to provide a rolling eligibility date for properties. Dumbarton Rail could have a major impact on traffic into Palo Alto, and he encouraged regional Legislators to participate in the topic. The CVRA, if amended, should encourage municipal MINUTES Page 4 of 33 City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 11/26/18 bodies to select an electoral process that would represent all parts of the community. A balanced approach to housing included requiring cities to provide housing and allowing the cities to determine the method to provide housing. With regard to sea level rise and climate change, he was interested in a true carbon tax and the potential for litigation. Entities responsible for climate change should pay for adaptation measures. Assemblymember Berman stated sea level rise would impact his district in different ways. One of the first bills he introduced extended the planning for sea level rise database until 2023. The database allowed jurisdictions to coordinate their planning and projects for sea level rise. He had no thoughts regarding litigious strategies. Resiliency and strategic retreat could be better strategies than buffering infrastructure in certain areas. Council Member Fine concurred with his colleagues' comments regarding CVRA, housing, and transportation. The State should be reviewing novel and dynamic methods to hold cities accountable with respect to housing and transportation. He inquired regarding requirements or linkages the State might propose for transportation funding. Assemblymember Berman could not recall whether the disbursement of transportation funding was contingent upon housing or other policies, but that could occur. Council Member Fine inquired about State policy around autonomous vehicles. Assemblymember Berman noted the California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) had finalized regulations for autonomous passenger vehicles and was beginning to consider regulations for autonomous freight. Both would have impacts on communities, congestion, and fatalities. Council Member Fine encouraged the State to continue innovating with respect to autonomous vehicles. Council Member Holman inquired about the potential for State funding to underground utilities in light of the recent issues with wildfires and electric lines and about the source of funding for housing mandates. Assemblymember Berman related that the cost to the State for the recent wildfires was at least $118 million, but the total cost of damages from the Camp Fire alone was more than $7 billion. Council Member Holman asked if the $7 billion amount included economic losses. MINUTES Page 5 of 33 City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 11/26/18 Assemblymember Berman answered yes. Perhaps he would initiate a conversation around undergrounding electric lines in order to obtain a cost/benefit analysis. All possible means to minimize the likelihood of wildfires had to be considered. Council Member Holman indicated earthquakes also cause downed power lines. Assemblymember Berman remarked that he had been studying emergency alert systems in other countries because emergency alerts failed miserably in the Camp Fire. Council Member Holman recalled her interest in an audible alert system. Assemblymember Berman explained that voters approved a measure to allocate $4 billion for affordable housing, $1 billion for veterans' affordable housing, and $3 billion for general affordable housing. The Legislature changed a real estate transaction fee that should create approximately $250 million a year for affordable housing. Changing or updating redevelopment agencies would be helpful as well. The State was projecting a $15 billion surplus for the 2019 fiscal year. Housing was a top priority for some of that funding. Mayor Kniss recalled Governor Brown's efforts to establish the Rainy Day Fund. Council Member DuBois advised that funding and constructing grade separations were regional issues. Having grant criteria such as economic impact on the State could be helpful. The CVRA needed amending. Nuisance lawsuits and redistricting were detrimental to good governance. He inquired regarding changes in Assemblymember Berman's views on local control since his election to the Legislature. Assemblymember Berman stated his philosophy regarding local control was to tread lightly and to obtain as much feedback as possible from local council members, city staff, and constituents. Because mental health professionals supported the school start time bill, he felt it was appropriate for the State to set the start time. He was more willing to take a statewide approach for youth mental health, housing, and criminal justice issues. Council Member DuBois hoped Assemblymember Berman would see the need for local control in housing and transportation issues. Neilson Buchanan remarked that people were beginning to recognize the need to organize as one entity and to speak with one voice. People had to relate MINUTES Page 6 of 33 City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 11/26/18 to their Legislators, their County Supervisors, the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), and Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) better. Assemblymember Berman invited the public to speak with him at his district office and community coffees. James Keene, City Manager, reported personal property tax revenue collected from 8,000 households in Palo Alto totaled $1 billion. This was one small measure of Palo Alto benefiting the State. Closed Session 3. CONFERENCE WITH CITY ATTORNEY - EXISTING LITIGATION Subject: James Judge Luckey v. City of Palo Alto Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No. 16CV303728 Authority: Government Code Section 54956.9(d) (1) MOTION: Council Member Wolbach moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Filseth to go into Closed Session. MOTION PASSED: 9-0 Mayor Kniss asked if the contract for aquatic services at Rinconada Pool would be presented to the Council the following week. James Keene, City Manager, reported Staff would meet with stakeholders, and the contract would be presented to the Council on December 10. Mayor Kniss indicated the City Manager had been working closely with Team Sheeper and Rinconada Masters. Mr. Keene clarified that he would be working with the two groups over the next two weeks. Mayor Kniss reassured the public that a meeting or two would be scheduled for the issue. Mr. Keene reported he would first meet with Staff to learn about the issue. He hoped to create better understanding and agreement for the contract. Council Member Holman suggested the Council hear Oral Communications prior to the Closed Session. Mayor Kniss concurred. MINUTES Page 7 of 33 City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 11/26/18 Oral Communications Nate Gallon remarked that Rinconada Masters had worked diligently to comply with its contract with Team Sheeper and to resolve contract issues. In meetings with Mr. Sheeper in October and November, Mr. Sheeper made clear that he was not interested in considering a new subcontract with Rinconada Masters. The situation had left Rinconada Masters with no voice and no choice. Don Williams advised that following a contract dispute, Team Sheeper's behavior toward Rinconada Masters became more aggressive and less friendly. Team Sheeper claimed Rinconada Masters did not always have two certified lifeguards on duty; however, Team Sheeper's lap-swimming sessions regularly did not have two certified lifeguards on duty. Jim Shaw commented that a great deal of power was invested in Team Sheeper, and management of the aquatics program should have more checks and balances. He requested the Council extend Rinconada Masters contract on a month-to-month basis through the next year. Richard Bone described Rinconada Masters as an active and vibrant club that welcomed newcomers and accepted swimmers of all levels. Users of Rinconada Pool expected their uses of the pool to continue. Rinconada Masters wants to achieve a positive outcome. Chris Robell urged the Council to stop all discretionary spending, travel, City Hall remodel projects, and pay raises until the Budget gap could be evaluated and closed. He urged the Council to review the approval process for telecommunication facilities and ensure the process adheres to aesthetics and noise requirements. John Beeley stated replacing Rinconada Masters with a Masters program that had not established any credibility would be a stab in the back to anyone who had placed his faith in the integrity of the City. He expected better of the City. The City favored character assassination and casting older citizens aside. Herb Borock suggested Council Members should examine the public record of candidates defeated in the November election in order to avoid making the same mistakes. In 2016, Council Members from three adjacent cities authored a published opinion regarding the housing crisis and regional cooperation. The three authors' bids for reelection failed in 2018. Council went into Closed Session at 7:00 P.M. Council returned from Closed Session at 7:49 P.M. MINUTES Page 8 of 33 City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 11/26/18 Mayor Kniss announced no reportable action. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions None. City Manager Comments James Keene, City Manager, reported a Connecting Palo Alto community meeting regarding rail and grade separations was scheduled for November 28. The meeting would focus on the Charleston Road and Meadow Drive crossings. The next meeting on January 23, 2019 would focus on the crossings at Churchill and Palo Alto Avenues. The Rail Committee would reconvene on November 27 at 1:30 P.M. to complete the agenda from the prior meeting. Waymo would hold a public forum the following day to introduce its driverless cars. The aquatics contract for Rinconada Pool had been continued to December 10. Staff anticipated presenting the Bike Bridge maintenance agreement with Caltrans and easement agreement with Google to Council for approval on December 10. Once Caltrans completed the right-of-way certification process and approved the construction documents, the project would be released for bids. The City was providing high speed Wi-Fi connectivity at Lytton Plaza. The eighth annual Tree Lighting Ceremony would be held on November 30 on Lytton Plaza. The Art Center's ceramic and jewelry holiday sale was scheduled for December 1. The Office of Emergency Services and the Police Department provided assistance to the town of Paradise following the Camp Fire. The NASA InSight spacecraft had landed on Mars. Council Member Kou requested Agenda Item Number 12 be continued to a meeting in 2019. Molly Stump, City Attorney, advised that the request would require a Motion, second, and a majority vote. MOTION: Council Member Kou moved, seconded by Council Member XXX to remove Agenda Item Number 12 - PUBLIC HEARING: Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Various Sections of Title 18 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Related to Residential and Mixed-use Development Standards … and continue it until after the new year. MOTION FAILED DUE TO THE LACK OF A SECOND MINUTES Page 9 of 33 City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 11/26/18 Consent Calendar MOTION: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Fine to approve Agenda Item Numbers 4-11. 4. Resolution 9800 Entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Conflict of Interest Code for Designated City Officers and Employees as Required by the Political Reform Act and Regulations of the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) and Repealing Resolution Number 9648.” 5. Approval of Amendment Number 2 to Contract Number C15159248 With Geodesy in the Amount of $810,000 to: 1) Correct the Dates of the Extension Term in Amendment Number 1; 2) add a Renewal Term of September 19, 2018-June 30, 2021; and 3) add Department-specific Data Work, for a Total Not-to-Exceed Amount of $1,395,000. 6. Approval of Amendment Number 1 to Contract Number C15156644 With Concern: EAP for the City of Palo Alto's Employee Assistance Plan to add $57,000 for a Total Not-to-Exceed Amount of $223,036. 7. Approval of the Appointment of Bradley L Eggleston as Director of Public Works/City Engineer. 8. Policy and Services Committee Recommends the City Council Accept the Auditor’s Office Quarterly Report as of June 30, 2018. 9. Policy and Services Committee Recommends the City Council Accept the Fiscal Year 2019 Audit Work Plan. 10. Resolution 9801 Entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Declaring Weeds to be a Public Nuisance and Setting January 14, 2019 for a Public Hearing for Objections to Proposed Weed Abatement.” 11. Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 4.42 (Taxicabs and Other For-Hire Vehicles) of Title 4 (Business Licenses and Regulations) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code as Mandated by State Law (AB 939). MOTION PASSED: 9-0 James Keene, City Manager, recognized Brad Eggleston as the City's new Public Works Director. Brad Eggleston, Public Works Director, thanked the Council for approving his appointment as Public Works Director. He was looking forward to working closely with the Council, leadership team, and the organization. MINUTES Page 10 of 33 City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 11/26/18 Council Member Holman appreciated Mr. Eggleston's service to the City. Action Items 13. Approval of an Operating Agreement With Pets In Need, Interim Improvements for the Palo Alto Animal Shelter, and Approval of Budget Amendments in the General Fund and the Capital Improvement Fund. Rob de Geus, Deputy City Manager, reported Staff and Pets In Need (PIN) had negotiated agreeable terms. The PIN Board would consider the draft agreement in December. The contract amount would not exceed $3,700,626; the contract term was five years. The agreement contained the City's commitment for $3.4 million in capital improvements for the existing facility. Following approval of the contract, a Budget amendment would be needed to increase the Animal Shelter renovation project budget by $800,000 and decrease the Infrastructure Reserve by $800,000. Improvements to the existing facility included remodeling and expanding the medical suite, adding a modular office/classroom, adding 16 new dog kennels, improving the existing dog kennels, and abatement of any hazardous materials. With $800,000 previously allocated to the project and the requested $800,000 amendment, $1.8 million would be included in the next fiscal year's Capital Budget. Staff expected the level of service to remain the same or improve under PIN's operation of the Animal Shelter. Owner-requested euthanasia would no longer be performed at the Animal Shelter. The draft contract included 13,500 square feet of land not currently being used by the Animal Shelter. PIN would use the space for a modular office and pet exercise. The City would forego the $100,000 revenue from leasing the space. The Community Services Department would oversee the partnership with PIN. Contract oversight, construction management, and assistance with the capital campaign would result in an additional $60,000 cost to the Community Services Department. In the Financial Impact table, the contracts line item for Pets In Need should be reduced by $100,000. Revenue would be reduced due to PIN receiving Shelter service revenues to support operations. PIN's costs for operating the Animal Shelter would be substantially lower than the status quo. Changes in the Animal Control expenses were not related to the PIN agreement. Overall, Staff anticipated costs would be approximately $100,000 lower under PIN's operation of the Shelter. The status quo budget contained the amounts currently budgeted for the Animal Shelter. The status quo budget was not adequate to deliver the quality and scope of services the community expected. Rob Kalman, Pets In Need Board President, advised that PIN was committed to giving more animals a second chance at life. Partnering with the City of Palo Alto was the best opportunity to save more lives. PIN had a proven track MINUTES Page 11 of 33 City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 11/26/18 record of operating a cost-effective and efficient animal shelter while remaining at the forefront of the no-kill animal welfare movement. PIN had earned a four-star rating from Charity Navigator, and PIN's medical operation was accredited by the American Animal Hospital Association. PIN offered robust humane education and outreach programs. PIN and the City of Palo Alto could establish an exemplary public-private partnership that provided financial stewardship and a treasured community institution. Reine (Ren) Flexer acknowledged the dedication of Staff who continued to work at the Animal Shelter. The Animal Shelter needed additional staff until PIN assumed control. Leonor Delgado was disappointed by the loss of Animal Shelter services during the transition period, particularly low-cost spay and neuter services. Spay and neuter services should resume immediately. MOTION: Vice Mayor Filseth moved, seconded by Council Member Scharff to: 1. Authorize the City Manager to execute an Operating and Management Agreement between Pets In Need and the City of Palo Alto for the City’s Animal Shelter with a not to exceed amount of $3,700,626.10, a term of Five Years, a Commitment to Build Approximately $3.4 Million in Capital Improvements, and other contract terms substantially similar to those found in the draft agreement in Attachment D; and 2. Amend the Fiscal Year 2019 Budget Appropriation Ordinance for: a. The General Fund by: i. Increasing the Community Services Department expense appropriation by $355,000; and ii. Reducing the Police Department expense appropriation by $355,000 b. The Capital Improvement Fund by: i. Increasing the Animal Shelter Renovation Project PE-19002 appropriation in the amount of $800,000; and ii. Decreasing the Infrastructure Reserve in the amount of $800,000. Vice Mayor Filseth was pleased to reach this point after a significant amount of work. A healthy city took care of its animals, and a healthy region took MINUTES Page 12 of 33 City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 11/26/18 care of its animals. He was looking forward to working with PIN in serving residents of Palo Alto and the region. Council Member Scharff concurred with Vice Mayor Filseth's comments. Reviewing Animal Services and finding a service provider had taken six years. He thanked PIN for working with the City. Council Member Kou requested Staff comment on the transition and spay and neuter services. Mr. de Geus indicated the Animal Shelter was not fully staffed, and services had suffered. Once PIN assumed operations, the low-cost spay and neuter program would be available. Council Member Kou inquired about a date for PIN to assume operations. Mr. de Geus responded mid-January. As soon as the agreement was finalized, the transition could move quickly. Council Member Kou asked if staffing was sufficient to accept and care for animals over the holidays. Mr. de Geus related that staffing was not sufficient to provide full service. The Animal Shelter was not open regular hours. Council Member Kou asked if mid-January was a firm date for the transition. Mr. de Geus explained that a 45-day notice had to be provided to Staff. Mid- January was a reasonable date. Council Member Kou understood PIN was ready to begin operations. She hoped City Staff understood the urgency of completing the transition. Mr. de Geus reported Staff would move as expeditiously as possible. At least three of the current Animal Shelter Staff had agreed to join PIN. Council Member Fine encouraged Staff to work on obtaining Mountain View and other cities as partners in the Animal Shelter. Caring for pets was an important service in a high-service community like Palo Alto. This situation could put pressure on other wants and needs of the City. He inquired about the cost for the 16 new kennels. Mr. de Geus understood the cost to build additional kennels was approximately $1.8 million. MINUTES Page 13 of 33 City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 11/26/18 Council Member Holman noted the agreements did not mention the use of additional land or the parameters for use of the land. Mr. de Geus indicated the Honda dealership utilized the land to store vehicles, and the land was generating lease revenue for the City. James Keene, City Manager, added that the financial information included the lease revenue. Council Member Holman was looking for a commitment from the City that PIN would be granted use of the land. Mr. de Geus advised that the draft agreement contained a map of the site with a border drawn around the land to which PIN would have access. Council Member Holman reiterated that the agreements did not reference the map. Mr. Keene would ensure the final agreement clarified the land available for PIN's use. Council Member Holman inquired whether the rear of the property, currently being used by Public Safety, could be returned to Animal Shelter use once the Public Safety Building was constructed. Mr. de Geus suggested that use would have to be negotiated following construction of the Public Safety Building. Council Member Holman asked if the agreement for professional services was the same as the operating agreement. Mr. de Geus replied yes. The operating agreement had a number of attachments, and one of the attachments was the site use agreement. Council Member Holman asked if the Council was approving the use of the site premises, the scope of services, and the agreement for professional services. Mr. de Geus answered yes. Council Member Holman requested the meaning of "substantially in the form attached" and questioned the use of "substantially." Molly Stump, City Attorney, explained that Staff's customary process was to obtain the other party's approval and execution of a contract prior to presenting the contract to the Council for approval. In this instance, Staff presented a draft agreement that they believed would be the final agreement. MINUTES Page 14 of 33 City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 11/26/18 The language of "substantially in the form of" reserved some minor ability for the City Manager to make non-substantive adjustments to the contract should PIN request adjustments in the next few days. A substantive change would require a return to the Council for approval of revisions. Council Member Holman inquired whether the Motion should include all three agreements. Ms. Stump responded no. The Operating and Management Agreement encompassed the other agreements. Council Member DuBois asked if the contract contained triggers for noted contingencies. Jazmin LeBlanc, Senior Management Analyst, explained that $40,000 annually was allocated for unexpected expenses, such as an unusually large number of animals. A contingency of $5,000 per month would be paid to PIN if the City did not meet the timelines for the short-term capital improvements. Council Member DuBois inquired whether Staff anticipated meeting the timelines. Ms. LeBlanc answered yes. Public Works was working expeditiously on the project. Council Member DuBois asked if PIN would make a profit over time. Mr. de Geus did not believe PIN as a nonprofit organization would make a profit. PIN would recover its costs through the contract with the City and fundraising. Council Member DuBois asked if the City's decrease in revenue from operations resulted from the capital improvements. Mr. de Geus clarified that the decrease would result from PIN retaining revenues from services to pay for operation of the Animal Shelter. Council Member DuBois inquired about the costs for staffing. Ms. LeBlanc advised that those costs included Community Services Director and Assistant Director time for overseeing Animal Control personnel and contract administration. The $60,000 amount represented the cost of a half- time person. Council Member DuBois asked if the City would continue providing the Animal Shelter. MINUTES Page 15 of 33 City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 11/26/18 Mr. Keene related that the City would continue providing Animal Control services. That component was included in the financial impact to show the total operations. Council Member DuBois remarked that the City would save $400,000 per year in Animal Shelter expenses; however, the increase in staffing costs would reduce the savings. Mr. Keene understood the cost increase for Animal Control was due to a correction of the status quo amount. Because contingencies were counted twice, the actual savings was closer to $500,000 per year. Council Member DuBois reiterated that the City would save $400,000- $500,000 per year under a contract with PIN. Council Member Tanaka requested an explanation of the Year 1 expenses of $708,000 shown on Page 22 and the expenses of $687,000 shown in the presentation. He asked if Year 1 was Fiscal Year 2020. Ms. LeBlanc advised that Year 1 was the Calendar Year. The City agreed to pay the first 90 days of expenses in advance; therefore, the amounts in the presentation and Staff Report did not align. Council Member Tanaka assumed the withdrawal from the Infrastructure Reserve Fund would be a one-time only withdrawal. He inquired about the source of the funds. Mr. Keene indicated the source was capital money. Council Member Tanaka inquired about the consequences of the withdrawal on other projects. Mr. Keene reported Council policies guided Staff as to the level of funds kept in the Infrastructure Reserve Fund. The withdrawal would leave sufficient funds in the Infrastructure Reserve to maintain policy levels. Many of the funds in the Infrastructure Reserve came from end-of-year Budget surpluses. The withdrawal would reduce the amount of funds available for some other project. Clearly, there would be no deal with PIN without the City investing in the project. The City could not continue to operate the Animal Shelter without making capital investments in it. In one sense, the Council was reaffirming its commitment to the project and to making capital investments in the Animal Shelter. Council Member Tanaka requested the amount of capital investment the City would make if it continued to operate the Animal Shelter. MINUTES Page 16 of 33 City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 11/26/18 Mr. de Geus reported the amount would be $1.5-$2 million, perhaps more. Mr. Keene remarked that Animal Shelter conditions were shabby, and PIN would not be able to provide effective and efficient services without the improvements. An analysis of the Animal Shelter determined $10-$18 million would be needed to create a higher-performing Animal Shelter. One premise of the contract was the potential for PIN to raise funds for the long-term capital costs. The City and PIN felt long-term improvements were in the long-term interest of providing services to the community. However, neither party was under any obligation. Council Member Tanaka noted the impact to PIN was $150,000 rather than $57,000. He inquired whether the operating expenses would balance the capital investment in approximately ten years. Mr. de Geus advised that the cost of improvements if the City continued to operate the Animal Shelter could be more. Council Member Tanaka suggested the City would invest $1.4 million and have savings of approximately $50,000 per year. He assumed the City would own the capital improvements. Mr. de Geus responded correct. Council Member Tanaka requested an explanation of the $103,000 expense for staffing when PIN would administer the Animal Shelter. Mr. de Geus explained that a public-private partnership required support for fundraising, capital improvements, issues with the program, and public engagement. Council Member Tanaka felt it was a large amount of money for administering a contract. Ms. LeBlanc advised that the amount was a conservative estimate. The amount of funding for the Community Services Department could be lower over time. Council Member Tanaka requested additional details regarding the level of service guarantees. Mr. de Geus indicated reporting requirements were incorporated into the contract, such as customer service surveys. Mayor Kniss congratulated Staff and PIN for reaching an agreement. MINUTES Page 17 of 33 City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 11/26/18 MOTION PASSED: 9-0 Mr. Keene acknowledged Mr. de Geus' leadership in the project. 12. PUBLIC HEARING: Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Various Sections of Title 18 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Related to Residential and Mixed-use Development Standards Including, but not Limited to; Minimum and Maximum Unit Density, Unit Size, Floor Area Ratio, Height, and Open Space Including Rooftop Gardens; Parking Requirements Including, but not Limited to; Regulations Related to In- lieu Parking for Downtown Commercial Uses and Retail Parking for Mixed Use Projects; Exclusively Residential Projects in Certain Commercial Zoning Districts; Ground-floor Retail and Retail Preservation Provisions; the Entitlement Approval Process; and Other Regulations Governing Residential, Multi-family Residential and Commercial Zoning Districts, all to Promote Housing Development Opportunities in These Zoning Districts in Furtherance of Implementation of the Comprehensive Plan. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA): Determination of Consistency With the Comprehensive Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Certified and Adopted on November 13, 2017 by Council Resolution No. 9720. The Planning and Transportation Commission Recommended Approval of the Proposed Ordinance on October 10, 2018. Mayor Kniss announced the item had been divided into five sections, and the Council would discuss the sections one-by-one. Council Members were recused from three of the five sections. The Council might continue one or more sections to a subsequent meeting but would hear public comment on all sections. Jean Eisberg, AICP Lexington Planning, reported the Housing Work Plan identified ways to meet goals for dwelling units. The Housing Element and the Comprehensive Plan contained projections for the number of units that may be built over time. Notably, the City had not produced housing in the quantities stated in the projections. The Housing Work Plan focused on the 2018 Zoning Ordinance revisions and providing incentives and removing constraints for multifamily housing in the Downtown, California Avenue, and El Camino Real Districts. The Housing Work Plan also mentioned removing residential density constraints in the Multifamily Residential (RM) Districts. Over the past year, Staff worked with the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) and the Architectural Review Board (ARB), held a community meeting, and met with a number of advisers from the development and architecture community. The development and architecture advisers generally agreed with the contents of the Housing Work Plan including the MINUTES Page 18 of 33 City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 11/26/18 importance of streamlining the review process and modifying zoning standards to reduce constraints. They cited density and parking as the top two issues for site planning, massing, and determining the number of units in a project. They expressed concern that the current zoning standards did not support the City's goals to produce multifamily housing and recommended the City review types of development that it wanted "by right" or through modifications to density, parking, and related standards. Lastly, the advisers raised concerns about the length of time of the entitlement process. Staff held a community meeting in June, and approximately 30 people attended the meeting. Participants supported proposed revisions to development standards and review processes and expressed concerns about potential impacts on existing neighborhoods, traffic, and services. The PTC discussed current zoning standards, supported the draft Ordinance, and recommended the Council consider reinstating the additional guest parking requirement. The main concepts of the draft Ordinance were streamlining the review process, increasing densities, adjusting development standards, and a Housing Incentive Program (HIP). HIP was an alternative to the State Density Bonus Law. The draft Ordinance would affect multifamily uses Citywide, RM Districts, and the Downtown District, the California Avenue District, and the El Camino Real District. Proposed Citywide changes would require 150 square feet of open space per unit in multifamily residential projects; eliminate the site and design review process for residential projects of ten or more units; maintain ARB review and appeals to the City Council for residential projects of ten or more units; exempt 100-percent affordable housing projects from the Retail Preservation Ordinance, except along El Camino Real; and revise parking standards for multifamily residential uses. Proposed changes to multifamily zones would increase the maximum density of the RM-15 zone to RM-20; establish a minimum density; and allow replacement of nonconforming unit density. Changes in the Downtown District would eliminate the maximum residential density; establish a maximum average unit size; exempt the first 1,500 square feet of ground-floor retail from parking requirements within a residential mixed-use building; preclude curb cuts on University Avenue; eliminate the in-lieu parking fee for nonresidential uses above the ground floor; allow 100-percent residential projects except in the Ground-Floor Combining District and sites subject to the Retail Preservation Ordinance; and allow rooftop open space to qualify as usable open space. Many of the proposed changes to the Downtown District would apply to the California Avenue and El Camino Real Districts. By law, a HIP needed to provide more density bonus than allowed under State law and incentivized a developer to utilize the HIP rather than the State Density Bonus Law. The HIP would maintain the ARB review process. Under Senate Bill (SB) 35, projects that met certain affordability requirements and were consistent with the City's zoning and objective standards were eligible for streamlined review such that California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and discretionary reviews were MINUTES Page 19 of 33 City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 11/26/18 eliminated and projects near transit were not subject to parking requirements. The HIP could provide more density than SB 35 combined with the Density Bonus Law. In the California Avenue District, the HIP would increase the allowed residential floor area ratio (FAR) from 0.6 to 2.0; allow Affordable Housing Overlay development standards; and maintain discretionary review by the ARB. In the El Camino Real District, proposed changes would require ground-floor design residential standards; preclude ground-floor units that front El Camino Real; and in the HIP eliminate the 50-percent lot coverage requirement. Staff anticipated that the Ordinance would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and that future projects may be eligible for exemptions under CEQA. Michael Alcheck, Planning and Transportation Commissioner, advised that the PTC's work on the proposed Ordinance included analyses and interaction with Staff and the community. The PTC realized that instituting a commercial cap, an annual limit, or both did not make a residential project in and of itself feasible. A majority of Commissioners consistently expressed strong reservations about reductions in parking standards. One Commissioner repeatedly voiced support for completely reimagining the approach to parking. For many Commissioners, experimenting with parking standards was a questionable endeavor. The PTC did not benefit from regional housing developers' comments. Staff's suggestions were largely responsive to their conversations with residential multifamily developers, but the PTC had no direct input. Therefore, the hurdles presented may not have appeared as large as they may be. Public Hearing was opened at 9:15 P.M. Neilson Buchanan noted residents inside the commercial core would have full access to free and almost-free residential parking permits, but they would not be allowed to park in the commercial core. This would result in a maldistribution of resident parking in the zones closest to the commercial core. Staff had failed to mention this issue. Carol Scott remarked that the proposed Ordinance was not ready for Council review and approval. No meetings were held with residents who would be affected by the proposed Ordinance. Density should not export negative externalities to residential neighborhoods. Developers should take full responsibility for needs created by the developments. The design of the parking study was flawed, and its conclusions were wrong. Bonnie Packer, League of Women Voters of Palo Alto, felt the proposed Ordinance was a first step towards housing for all. The Council should reject the requirement for 100-percent affordable housing projects on El Camino MINUTES Page 20 of 33 City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 11/26/18 Real or in the Ground-Floor Retail Combining District to have retail. Requiring retail in an affordable housing project would essentially kill the project. The Council should direct Staff to return with more possibilities for housing by increasing height and density in certain locations. Bryan Globus stated action was needed to prevent the loss of familial bonds and of a generation of hard workers due to the housing crisis. The proposed Ordinance was a step towards resolving the housing crisis. Max Kapczynski, Palo Alto Forward, indicated the Housing Work Plan would enable the production of all types of housing. Policies must allow the growth of housing. Height and density incentives for 100-percent affordable housing projects and exempting 100-percent affordable housing projects from the Retail Preservation Ordinance would benefit the projects. Paul Machado related that the proposed Ordinance did little to address traffic and parking concerns. The Council should exclude future projects from participating in Residential Preferential Parking Permit (RPP) Programs. Gertrude Reagan supported reasonable changes in the height requirement, expansion of transit zones, and easing the retail requirement. She preferred small units. Jim Jurkovich believed the proposed Ordinance was the wrong approach to creating more housing opportunities. He did not support elimination of the design review process. In the Downtown District, the amount of density should be established rather than determined by the Planning Department. Parking exceptions should be removed from the proposed Ordinance. Grant Dasher advised that a lot of misinformation was being circulated about the proposed Ordinance. The policy decision was made in the Comprehensive Plan, and the policy needed to be implemented. The only way to achieve 300 housing units was to change parking and zoning requirements. The parking requirements should align with the changes proposed in the study. The in- lieu parking fee should not be eliminated. Elaine Uang commented that the PTC recognized that halting commercial development would not incentivize residential development. To encourage residential development, the City needed to zone for it or legalize more residential square footage. The HIP is a good gesture. Most multifamily projects provided more parking than was needed. Roberta Ahlquist believed affordable housing should be defined. The proposal did little to address the needs of low-income workers. While housing was being debated, low and moderate-income housing was being demolished. MINUTES Page 21 of 33 City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 11/26/18 Bob Moss remarked that the proposed Ordinance was one of the worst he had ever seen. Developers made money by building housing in Palo Alto without incentives; incentives were not needed. The retention of ground-floor retail along El Camino was essential. Increasing the density and height were terrible proposals. Randy Tsuda, Palo Alto Housing Chief Executive Officer, urged the Council to adopt a narrowly crafted exemption from the Retail Preservation Ordinance for 100-percent affordable housing projects on El Camino. He opposed a guest parking requirement in addition to the reduced parking standards. One parking space per bedroom provided adequate parking for residents and guests. He supported additional incentives of height and FAR for affordable housing projects in Downtown and California Avenue. John Guislin stated the Staff Report and proposed Ordinance were examples of inadequate data collection, subpar analysis, and biased collection of input. The proposed Ordinance would worsen traffic. Hamilton Hitchings related that the proposed Ordinance enabled mostly luxury apartments and condominiums. Like SB 35, the proposed Ordinance should require 50 percent affordable housing including the 15 percent inclusionary housing. The provision to eliminate the parking requirements for the first 1,500 square feet of retail meant the City would have to build more garages. As currently written, the proposed Ordinance targeted zoning incentives to increase the supply of under-parked luxury housing while doing little to help those who needed quality affordable housing. Mark Mollineaux was impressed with many of the proposals in the Ordinance. Staff did a good job of dealing with hard problems such as parking. He supported eliminating ground-floor retail requirements for 100-percent affordable housing projects along El Camino Real. Paul Leone supported the proposed Ordinance. With the rise of construction costs, the effectiveness of the proposed Ordinance was questionable. The City should create conditions favorable for the construction of affordable housing projects in Palo Alto. Linnea Wickstrom requested the Council's support for proposals that would remove barriers to affordable housing. L. David Baron encouraged the Council to adopt the proposed Ordinance. While the proposed Ordinance would not create sufficient housing to fulfill the Comprehensive Plan goal, additional proposals in the future could. He supported in-lieu parking fees for both residential and commercial projects in Downtown and changes to building height, FAR, parking, and retail MINUTES Page 22 of 33 City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 11/26/18 preservation to encourage 100-percent affordable housing projects. He preferred zoning standards for El Camino Real be implemented through zones rather than standards. David Meyer, SV@Home, advised that the proposed Ordinance reflected best practices that SV@Home supported and that had succeeded across Santa Clara County. For the proposed changes to be effective, they had to be passed as a package. He recommended the Council remove the retail requirement for 100-percent affordable housing projects on El Camino Real and allow increased height and density for 100-percent affordable housing projects in Downtown and California Avenue. Waldemar Kaczmarski suggested the Council give existing residents parking permits in their neighborhoods and then change the parking requirements as needed for new developments. David Adams indicated the parking survey utilized an indirect method of data collection. The RM-15 District should remain as a transition zone, and the review processes should not change. Given the proposed Ordinance, the Ventura neighborhood would be a dumping ground for high-density housing. Beth Rosenthal urged the Council not to approve the proposed Ordinance. The approval of new office development should occur only when sufficient housing was built to address the jobs/housing imbalance. Incentives should be offered to new housing projects only. She suggested the Council delay adoption of the proposed Ordinance until the new City Manager and Council Members took office and obtain additional community input. Peter Rosenthal disputed the data around seniors not needing or having cars. The proposed Ordinance was not the way to address housing issues. The proposed Ordinance would increase traffic and parking problems. Shannon McEntee urged the Council not to relax parking requirements. Because of the cost of housing, the number of people living in each housing unit was increasing, which increased the need for parking. Jerry Underdal saw no point in continuing the item to allow the new Council Members to discuss the issues. Deb Goldeen reported people slept in their cars in rest stops because they worked in the Bay Area but could not afford to live in the Bay Area. The community had been criminally negligent from a social justice perspective for not having a decent housing stock. MINUTES Page 23 of 33 City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 11/26/18 John Kelley commented that the City had to build more housing. Without a series of dramatic steps, additional housing would not be built. He encouraged the Council to treat 100-percent affordable housing projects much more liberally than other types of projects. Becky Sanders advised that the proposal contained no economic analysis that demonstrated how the proposal would increase housing production. The desired results may not occur. The proposed Ordinance would create market- rate housing. Jeff Levinsky reported the proposed Ordinance would not create more low- income housing. The Staff Report admitted the proposed Ordinance potentially would not result in any new housing. The proposed Ordinance encouraged more office development and eliminated opportunities for housing. The Council should insist that any lowered parking requirements only apply to new housing rather than existing buildings. Elaine Meyer suggested the Council continue the item to the new year. The proposed Ordinance contained no increase in set-asides for below-market-rate (BMR) housing. Hilary Bayer believed the Council should end commercial growth in Palo Alto and create incentives to convert existing commercial space to housing until a jobs/housing balance was attained. David Schrom felt the proposal taxed residents by imposing externalities on residents and transferred wealth to people who built at higher densities in Palo Alto. Trina Lovercheck hoped the Council would adopt the proposed Ordinance with revisions to exempt affordable housing projects from the Retail Preservation Ordinance; to lower parking requirements; to allow greater density and height in the Downtown areas; and to preserve ground-floor retail on University Avenue, California Avenue, Midtown, and other retail areas. Loren Brown had submitted a proposal for three potential housing sites on Park Boulevard. Evan Goldin supported the proposed Ordinance, especially the changes in parking requirements. Perhaps the proposed Ordinance could include unbundled parking. Public Hearing was closed at 10:30 P.M. MINUTES Page 24 of 33 City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 11/26/18 Molly Stump, City Attorney, advised the Council to discuss first the sections of the proposed Ordinance for which Council Members needed to recuse themselves. The Council could not ask general questions because the questions would involve the conflicted sections. James Keene, City Manager, recommended the Council identify an appropriate time to break the discussion and end the meeting. Council Member Scharff suggested the Council begin with the first section. Council Member DuBois suggested the Council ask general questions first. Mayor Kniss reiterated the City Attorney's prohibition for general questions. Vice Mayor Filseth asked if a representative of Fehr & Peers was present and if he would be present for the next discussion. Jonathan Lait, Planning and Community Environment Acting Director, did not know if the representative would be present at a future meeting. Vice Mayor Filseth believed parking would be a significant topic and anticipated many questions regarding the parking study. He asked if the Council could discuss the parking study in light of Council Members' conflicts. Ms. Stump indicated the Council could speak with Fehr & Peers about the parking study, its conclusions and methodology. However, Council Members could not discuss policy and applying parking information to policies. Mayor Kniss asked which section the Council as a whole could discuss. Ms. Stump understood Vice Mayor Filseth wanted to discuss the parking study with Fehr & Peers rather than the sections of the proposed Ordinance. Mr. Keene reported the City Attorney may guide Council Members away from policy issues. Council Member Holman had questions that did not relate to specific sections of the Code and wanted an opportunity to ask those questions. Ms. Stump advised that questions, comments, or Motions pertaining to procedural aspects and not pertaining to specific policy proposals could be expressed with the full Council present. Council Member Kou objected to hearing the item at the present time as acting on the proposal was highly unethical. Making a decision on parking and the in-lieu parking fee would affect a property owner directly. MINUTES Page 25 of 33 City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 11/26/18 Mayor Kniss advised that the new Council would have only one new Council Member. Council Member Kou stated the issue was public trust. The Council's action could further public mistrust and cause allegations of Council decisions being made behind closed doors. Mayor Kniss replied that the Council was not conducting business behind any kind of door. Council Member Kou requested the City Clerk provide the letter from the property owner. Council Member Kou clarified that the Motion should continue Item Number 12 and Item Number 6 from the December 3 Agenda. Ms. Stump advised the Council to limit its deliberations to the agendized item. MOTION: Council Member Kou moved, seconded by Council Member DuBois to continue Agenda Item Number 12 to early January 2019. Council Member Kou explained that dates and proposals were put before Council by a property owner. The Council's decision would work towards the dates set as ultimatums. Council Member DuBois felt the new City Council and City Manager should be seated before the Council worked through the issues. The proposal presented many items for discussion and action. He expressed concern that the Council would rush to complete the item prior to the end of the calendar year. Council Member Holman supported the Motion. The public had spoken strongly and positively regarding affordable housing. The Staff Report and its contents were not ready for discussion. The proposed changes may not create any housing. The proposed Ordinance could create some level of market-rate housing but impose parking demand and other ill-defined things onto the community. The Staff Report did not provide data, evidence, or examples that it would create affordable housing as the community interpreted the proposed Ordinance. Council Member Fine would not support the Motion. The topic of housing creation began with a 2017 Colleagues' Memo, which received unanimous support from the Council. The proposed Ordinance aligned with Council goals of 2017 and 2018. It was exceptionally important for the Council not to delay the matter. Staff had followed the process, and actions had been transparent. MINUTES Page 26 of 33 City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 11/26/18 Council Member Wolbach commented that the point of the Colleagues' Memo was to reverse incentives that favored commercial development, large housing units, and pricier housing. The proposed Ordinance attempted to address those incentives. The proposed Ordinance was a first step in addressing housing. He was not clear regarding Council Member Kou's ethical concerns. The debate regarding growth was over, and the question was how to achieve the Comprehensive Plan goal for housing. To say the proposed Ordinance was not ready for discussion was classic analysis paralysis or filibustering. Mayor Kniss would not support the Motion. Vice Mayor Filseth indicated the new Council would be remarkably similar to the current Council. The topics in the proposed Ordinance warranted a great deal of discussion. Clearly, not all the housing contemplated by the Comprehensive Plan goal would be affordable housing. The proposed Ordinance would stimulate the growth of market-rate housing and would not make housing more affordable or more accessible. The economics of market- rate housing came from parking and density. The danger of under-parking projects was increased parking in neighborhoods. If projects were accurately parked and if over-parking existed, there were no costs to externalize onto the neighborhoods. Without altering height limits, setbacks, or other development standards, increasing density within the existing building envelope would improve the economics of housing. Because of the amount of discussion needed to understand the many aspects of the proposed Ordinance, the discussion should begin at the current time. MOTION FAILED: 3-6 DuBois, Holman, Kou yes Mr. Keene inquired whether the Council would discuss the parking study and then possibly continue the item to a subsequent meeting. Council Member Scharff wanted to discuss at least one section. Mayor Kniss announced the Council would ask questions regarding the parking study and then determine how to proceed. Council Member Holman asked if the Council could ask broad, general questions. Ms. Stump advised that the question would determine whether it could be asked. Mayor Kniss directed Council Members to ask questions regarding the parking study rather than parking in general. MINUTES Page 27 of 33 City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 11/26/18 Ms. Stump reiterated the need for the Council to avoid discussing the policy proposals contained in the proposed Ordinance. Vice Mayor Filseth emphasized the importance of understanding under-parked and over-parked. He requested the consultant briefly describe the methodology of the parking study. Ryan Caldera, Fehr & Peers Transportation Engineer, reported the PTC requested a count of cars parked on the street. He first identified if a residential complex was isolated or near other residential complexes. At midnight, he counted the cars parked on streets next to residential complexes and in neighboring commercial parking lots, basically any area in which a resident might park. Vice Mayor Filseth noted the peak parking time for residents was night. He asked if a neighborhood's individual characteristics of parking affected Mr. Caldera's view of parking. Mr. Caldera explained that his counts were more conservative because of those characteristics. In areas where parking was not 100-percent utilized, the cutoffs for residential units were clear. In areas with higher parking utilization, the counts required a bit of engineering judgment and observation of the streets. Vice Mayor Filseth noted the public questioned the accuracy of parking counts. Mr. Caldera stated he was confident in the accuracy of the results. Vice Mayor Filseth asked if counts were fairly consistent between different complexes. Mr. Caldera replied yes. The counts were confirmed by the results from parking lot counts. In most parking lots, he observed vacant parking spaces. Consultants contacted all the units for which they observed onsite parking demand and sought permission to conduct interviews with residents. The Mark was the only unit that permitted resident interviews. Consultants elected not to conduct interviews at units without permission. Survey results from The Mark were anecdotal, but the results showed the residents preferred to park onsite. The residents also felt the right amount of parking included some vacant spaces. During the first round of data collection, consultants conducted five surveys per site at different time periods. The surveys conducted at midnight or later showed the highest parking demand. Surveys were conducted three times on a weekday and twice on the weekend at lunch time and after midnight. The data was supplemented with a second round of surveys. Consultants utilized the highest of the onsite observations and the MINUTES Page 28 of 33 City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 11/26/18 on-street parking results to calculate the number of parking demand vehicles. To calculate the demand rate, consultants divided the number of demand vehicles by the number of units and then by the number of bedrooms for each complex. Consultants did not discuss any type of reduction for affordable demand but left that to Staff's discretion. Surveys did include guest parking spaces. The total demand rate included guest spaces, accessible spaces, leasing office spaces, staff spaces, all parking available onsite. Vice Mayor Filseth asked if consultants collected data from both affordable and market-rate facilities. Mr. Caldera replied yes. Vice Mayor Filseth inquired about observations on the gradation between affordable and market-rate facilities. Mr. Caldera explained that the sample size prevented consultants from finding a statistical difference. There could be a difference, but consultants could not determine a statistically significant difference at the three market-rate observations and the three affordable observations. Vice Mayor Filseth remarked that other studies suggested a difference between parking demand for the two facilities; however, the question was whether the situations were truly comparable. He inquired whether there was a statistical difference for proximity to a Caltrain station. Mr. Caldera indicated there was a difference in demand between those nearest transit and those medium and far from transit. Vice Mayor Filseth requested the amount of the difference. Mr. Caldera was unsure of the exact number, but it was a statistically significant difference. He corrected his earlier comments in that consultants observed a lower demand for senior housing. Vice Mayor Filseth clarified that there was a statistically significant difference between senior housing and general housing but not specifically affordable senior housing versus market-rate senior housing. Council Member DuBois remarked that the consultant saw about 1.31 parking space demand per bedroom over the nine properties. In the past, the City had higher parking requirements; therefore, there were empty spaces. The consultants saw a demand of more than one space per bedroom. Mr. Caldera explained that consultants compared the parking supply at each location with the Palo Alto Municipal Code. All the complexes were over- MINUTES Page 29 of 33 City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 11/26/18 parked based on the Municipal Code, but parking lots at all complexes had vacant spaces. This suggested the parking code may require an over supply. Council Member DuBois advised that the parking results aligned with the suburban guidelines recommendation for 1.2-1.4 spaces per bedroom. He asked if consultants verified that guest parking was occupied or if consultants were indicating on average complexes had vacant guest spaces. Mr. Caldera reported consultants observed the occupancy of guest parking spaces, especially during the overnight period. Guest parking spaces were occupied at no higher rate than other spaces. Council Member Holman asked if the analysis compared parking utilization to the Municipal Code or to the development of the project. Mr. Caldera related that consultants conducted both comparisons. Consultants compared the actual supply to the actual demand. Council Member Holman requested the rationale for conducting the surveys at nine complexes. Mr. Lait did not believe any sample size would be sufficient to answer questions around parking. Staff attempted to draw from published resources and observe local examples. The three categories for observations were affordable housing, senior housing, and market-rate housing and proximities to transit options. Decisions were made based on the cost of the study and the data obtained from the study. Choosing nine complexes was an administrative decision. Council Member Holman commented that it was difficult to draw conclusions from the study because of the small sample size. She inquired about statistical conclusions that could be drawn from an analysis of only one complex. Mr. Caldera clarified that statistical conclusions were drawn from the parking demand. Interviews from The Mark were anecdotal. Council Member Holman requested Mr. Caldera's recommendations for Municipal Code changes for projects near transit. Ms. Stump cautioned Council Members to avoid questions of policy. Council Member Fine requested the names of other cities in the region for which Fehr & Peers had conducted similar studies. MINUTES Page 30 of 33 City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 11/26/18 Mr. Caldera reported his office typically worked in the area from Redwood City south to San Luis Obispo. The firm worked across the West Coast. Offices were located in Denver, Salt Lake City, and Washington, D.C. Council Member Fine asked if the consultants were seeing similar demand profiles for similar projects in the Bay Area. Mr. Caldera answered yes. The findings aligned with typical expectations for apartment complexes in the Bay Area. Council Member Fine asked about the trend for parking requirements and multifamily development and where Palo Alto fell in the spectrum of parking requirements. Mr. Caldera stated Palo Alto's place in the spectrum depended upon the city being compared to Palo Alto. Council Member Fine inquired whether over supply of parking related to vacant parking spaces. Mr. Caldera responded yes. The over supply data reflected the fact that consultants could not determine which on-street parking spaces were part of a complex. Council Member Fine requested possible interactions between the RPP Programs and proposed parking changes. Mr. Caldera indicated he could not address the issue because the consultants did not consider RPP Programs as part of the study. Council Member Fine noted the PTC had reviewed the data and requested follow-up data. The proposed Ordinance did not right-size parking requirements to the level suggested by the data. Council Member Scharff requested confirmation that there was no difference between affordable housing and market-rate housing with respect to parking supply rates. Mr. Caldera observed that the same supply rates could be used for affordable housing and market-rate housing, and both would be accurate. Council Member Scharff requested clarification of the supply rates for affordable housing and market-rate housing per unit and per bedroom. Ms. Eisberg explained that most senior housing units had one bedroom. Therefore, the per bedroom and per unit rates were typically the same. MINUTES Page 31 of 33 City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 11/26/18 Affordable units tended to have two or more bedrooms, which changed the demand rates per unit and per bedroom for affordable projects. More family members could be living in affordable units than in market-rate units. Council Member Scharff asked if affordable units usually had more than two vehicles. Ms. Eisberg could not speak to the number of vehicles. Because Palo Alto had a standard by bedroom, consultants reported the demand rate by bedroom and by unit. Council Member Scharff inquired whether the City should require more parking for a three-bedroom unit than a two-bedroom unit. Mr. Lait suggested Council Members limit their questions to methodology. Vice Mayor Filseth understood the consultants were saying there could be a system requiring parking based on the number of units. Council Member Scharff did not find in the Executive Summary the effect of proximity to transit on parking demand. Mr. Caldera reported the consultants did not suggest any further reductions based on proximity to transit. Generally, a good Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program could reduce trip generation and parking demand rates. The consultants proposed rates based on observed supply and demand. Council Member Scharff inquired whether an urban or suburban setting affected parking rates. Mr. Caldera advised that more parking was typically required for a suburban development, and less parking was required for an urban development. Council Member Scharff asked if the complexes in other cities were suburban or urban. Mr. Caldera indicated much of the historical parking data was obtained in more urban areas near transit. Ms. Eisberg added that the link to Figure 1 contained a map of the literature review. Vice Mayor Filseth noted the over supply range in Table 4 contained quite a bit of variation and requested an explanation of the range. MINUTES Page 32 of 33 City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 11/26/18 Mr. Caldera explained that the range resulted from the inability to link on- street cars to individual complexes. Mayor Kniss asked if the consultants had an answer to the PTC's query regarding where residents park and why. Mr. Caldera reported consultants conducted a resident intercept survey at The Mark to answer the PTC's query. The goals for the survey were to determine if residents parked onsite or offsite, if residents felt safe parking onsite or offsite, why residents parked onsite or offsite, and the residents' perceptions of the general parking supply at The Mark. Anecdotal evidence suggested a perception of having more spaces available was the right amount of parking and a preference for parking onsite. Mayor Kniss remarked that she parked as close as possible to her destination and was puzzled by the PTC's question. Mr. Keene noted the items on the following week's Agenda. If the Council directed, Staff would notice the continuation of Agenda Item Numbers 9 and 10 on the December 3 Agenda. He inquired whether public hearings for the two items should be opened during the December 3 meeting. Ms. Stump advised that the Mayor should open the public hearing and continue it to a date certain. The Council did not need to take public comment. The Council should vote to continue Item Number 12 to December 3 and clarify that the item would not include new Staff presentations or public comment. Mr. Keene would confer with the Mayor and Vice Mayor regarding subsequent dates for Agenda Item Numbers 9 and 10 from the December 3 Agenda. MOTION: Council Member Fine moved, seconded by Council Member Wolbach to continue this item to next week. MOTION PASSED: 9-0 Mayor Kniss announced the Council would take up Agenda Item Number 12 on December 3 at the point the discussion ended on November 26. 14. Approval of a Five-year Operating and Revenue Sharing Agreement With Team Sheeper for Operations of the Rinconada Pool STAFF REQUEST THIS ITEM BE CONTINUED TO DECEMBER 10, 2018. State/Federal Legislation Update/Action None. MINUTES Page 33 of 33 City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 11/26/18 Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements Council Member Holman requested someone follow-up on the Chan- Zuckerberg pledge to match donations to relief efforts for the Camp Fire. Council Member Fine agreed to do so. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 11:49 P.M.