Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-12-17 City Council Summary MinutesCITY OF PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL FINAL MINUTES Page 1 of 29 Regular Meeting December 17, 2018 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 6:39 P.M. Present: DuBois, Filseth, Fine, Holman, Kniss, Kou, Scharff, Tanaka, Wolbach Absent: Oral Communications Emel Muttu thanked the City and the community for supporting The Market at Edgewood and for the many encouraging comments. The Market was selected as favorite grocery and bakery in 25 neighborhoods on NextDoor. Jerry Underdal was pleased with the progress of Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan projects. The wider sidewalks and bulb-outs at Fletcher Middle School were nice. He recommended Council Members walk Arastradero to experience the pedestrian improvements. Study Session 1. Study Session With Santa Clara County Supervisor Simitian. Joe Simitian, Santa Clara County Supervisor, acknowledged Council Member Holman, Council Member Scharff, Council Member Wolbach, and City Manager Keene for their service to the community. The County of Santa Clara (County) should make a decision regarding Stanford University's General Use Permit (GUP) application by mid-year if the process followed the schedule. Stanford University applied for 2.275 million square feet of facilities development and requested 550 housing units and 2,600 beds for a total of more than 3.5 million square feet of development. As the largest development application the County had ever received, the application was challenging. The County had not denied any previous application from Stanford University. A sustainable development study indicated Stanford University could triple in size over the next 100 years without exceeding the core campus, if it continued to grow at the current rate. Stanford University had also proposed a Development Agreement, which would follow a process separate from the FINAL MINUTES Page 2 of 29 City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 12/1718 GUP application. He and a second Supervisor had been designated to negotiate the Development Agreement with Stanford University. The County had identified three possible funding sources for the Palo Alto History Museum. The County funded a range of services from which Palo Alto residents benefited. Mayor Kniss requested the academic square footage for Stanford University. Supervisor Simitian would provide the information at a later time. Mayor Kniss noted the City's development cap was based on 3.5 million square feet. Essentially, Stanford University applied for an area equivalent to the size of Downtown Palo Alto. Council Member Holman recalled Supervisor Simitian's and Supervisor Chavez's attendance at the last community meeting regarding the GUP. She inquired about consultation between the County and the City of Menlo Park as Menlo Park could be affected by the GUP. Supervisor Simitian related that he had worked with two members of the Menlo Park City Council to ensure they were engaged with him, his staff, and County staff; however, both Council Members were defeated in their bids for reelection. He had held public meetings with representatives from Palo Alto, unincorporated Santa Clara County, Woodside, Portola Valley, Menlo Park, unincorporated San Mateo County, Redwood City, and East Palo Alto. He had urged cities to provide their comments to the Environmental Impact Report (EIR). He hoped the Board of Supervisors would hold a public comment meeting in Palo Alto. Council Member Fine concurred with the Resolution passed by the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) Board of Education (Board). Perhaps the Development Agreement would address transportation impacts from additional development at Stanford University, particularly grade separations. He requested an update regarding the teacher housing project. Supervisor Simitian explained that the County could address only those impacts that a development proposal was likely to produce; therefore, the EIR should be accurate. An applicant should be expected to fully mitigate the adverse impacts caused by its development project. Negotiation of a Development Agreement could include benefits beyond those that could be lawfully and appropriately imposed as a condition of approval. School funding issues could be raised in the negotiation of a Development Agreement but not in the land use approval process. The teacher housing project was progressing. The proposed 1.5-acre site for the project was located near the County Courthouse in Palo Alto, where approximately 60 units could be FINAL MINUTES Page 3 of 29 City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 12/1718 developed. Hopefully, five school districts would participate in the project. If the units could not be affordable, perhaps they could be below market-rate. Four of the five school districts were exploring ways to fund their portions of the project. The County had agreed to dedicate the site and to provide funding. The City had agreed tentatively to set aside $3 million. The next step was identifying a nonprofit development partner for the project. Mayor Kniss remarked that Stanford University had not provided any information regarding housing for its employees. Supervisor Simitian reported housing for the Stanford University workforce would be addressed in the land-use approval process and had been partially addressed through the County's Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance and the Housing Mitigation Fee. The County had learned a great deal from the prior GUP application and could build on the successes of the prior application. Council Member DuBois felt additional development at Stanford University would have significant impacts on transportation in Palo Alto, and Stanford University should participate in the process and share in the solutions. The impact on rail and vehicles crossing rail tracks would probably be as significant for Stanford University as for the City of Palo Alto. The cost for grade separations would not be known prior to a decision on Stanford University's application; consequently, a mitigation measure could require proportional cost-sharing between Stanford University and the City. He supported the higher housing scenarios and the Board's position for additional real property for schools. He inquired about a countywide program for vehicle dwellers and an opportunity for cities to collaborate with the County. Supervisor Simitian advised that the County was providing financial support to a Mountain View nonprofit that was attempting to provide parking lot space for vehicle dwellers. Locating sites for use in the program was more difficult than anticipated. If the City of Palo Alto chose to implement some type of program, he would support the program and attempt to secure County funding for it. Vice Mayor Filseth asked if the alternative housing options remained under discussion. Supervisor Simitian responded yes, in his opinion. Vice Mayor Filseth believed the Palo Alto community would support a full mitigation scenario. For Palo Alto, the primary vectors would be housing, traffic, and schools. The County was disadvantaged by the fact that no prior Stanford University application had been denied. The proposed Stanford University expansion was different than prior expansions in terms of the scale FINAL MINUTES Page 4 of 29 City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 12/1718 of the expansion, constraints in the region, and movement away from education and into industry. Additional factors may need to be considered in reviewing the application. Supervisor Simitian viewed Stanford University as an extraordinary asset to the community and the region. People wanted it to continue as an extraordinary asset, but they did not want Stanford University's growth to affect adversely their quality of life. Conditions of approval had to connect to actual impacts. Council Member Wolbach concurred with comments supporting the Board's position. Stanford University should house its employees and students. Stanford University's participation in developing and funding grade separations would benefit both Stanford University and the City. Community views regarding housing had moved in the right direction. He inquired whether Supervisor Simitian had any ideas for a regional collaboration for Caltrain grade crossings and sea level rise. Supervisor Simitian noted Measure B funding had been delayed due to litigation; however, that delay had provided the City with time to research and plan for grade separations. Adaptation was an important concept in planning for sea level rise. Council Member Scharff suggested an analysis similar to that prepared for Measure B be prepared for the latest County housing bond and similar issues. He hoped the County would focus on repairing roads and reducing congestion. He supported full mitigation for PAUSD. Supervisor Simitian explained that the housing bond was targeted toward people who were homeless or at risk of being homeless. The following day, the Board of Supervisors was scheduled to provided $270 million for projects fitting that description, but his district was not scheduled to receive any of those funds. The bond measure precluded the use of funds for the developmentally disabled community. The Board of Supervisors directed staff to attempt to find $40 million in other funding for the developmentally disabled community. The County had a longstanding policy that transportation funding for roads could not incur on the General Fund. Measure B funding could have positive impacts on the quality of roads and mitigations for county expressways. Council Member Tanaka agreed with comments suggesting the County and Stanford University provide funding for grade separations. He inquired about ways the County could obtain funding from Stanford University for schools. FINAL MINUTES Page 5 of 29 City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 12/1718 Supervisor Simitian reported school funding was limited pursuant to State law; therefore, a Development Agreement would be the appropriate process to discuss the issue. First-class schools were a benefit for the community and Stanford University. The County's ability to impose conditions of approval to fund schools was more limited than its ability to impose conditions for other impacts. Council Member Kou asked if a tri-party agreement could be included in the Development Agreement to ensure each party mitigated impacts. She expressed interest in locating a homeless shelter in Palo Alto and exploring a program for vehicle dwellers. Supervisor Simitian appreciated the City expressing support for PAUSD because he could share that with his colleagues. Council Member Kou requested Supervisor Simitian consider the increasing number of office workers per square foot in his review of Stanford University's application. Supervisor Simitian remarked that the County sometimes required years to resolve a problem, but the County tried to solve problems. Todd Collins, PAUSD Board Member, reported the Board passed a Resolution asking County Supervisors to secure full mitigation from Stanford University regarding funding and real property for schools. Stanford University had not offered any proposals. Future meetings between PAUSD and Stanford University had been canceled. He hoped the Council would pass a Resolution supporting PAUSD's position. Jennifer DiBrienza, PAUSD Board President, appreciated the Council's support of PAUSD. If Stanford University's proposed housing resulted in 1,000 new students for PAUSD and if Stanford University did not provide any funding for those students, the number of students per classroom would increase significantly. If several hundred children moved into a neighborhood that did not have a school, the children would have to bike or walk across town or school trips would increase traffic congestion. Jade Chao, Palo Alto Parent Teacher Association (PTA) Council President, supported the Board's Resolution and requested Council support for the Resolution. The PTA Council had met with Stanford University representatives and was working through issues raised during those meetings. The PTA Council requested Stanford University hold community meetings for school committees when school was in session; contribute to Safe Routes to School programs; subsidize housing for full-time PAUSD teachers and staff; build or FINAL MINUTES Page 6 of 29 City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 12/1718 extend afterschool childcare spaces on PAUSD school sites housing Stanford University students. Jennifer Liu remarked that students from Stanford University's proposed housing would have a significant impact on schools and the community. Palo Alto residents would bear the cost of educating students from Stanford University housing. Arthur Keller questioned whether the 9,610 number included families. He supported PAUSD's requests and requests for Stanford University to contribute funds for grade separations. Land should be permanently preserved in the Foothills. Upstream floodwater retention on San Francisquito Creek was needed. The 1985 tri-party agreement should be valid. The County should provide Stanford University the right to build under the Development Agreement but should not set the amount of the fees. Penny Ellson suggested the Development Agreement require upfront, fair- share payments to the City of Palo Alto to support grade separations. Fair- share funding by Stanford University and adjacent jurisdictions for grade separation would not be required as a mitigation in the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR). The FEIR did not appear to address many of the impacts that the City, PAUSD, and PTA had requested it study. Iqbal Serang commented that perhaps Stanford University should be its own city. The Hotel President was a unique and historical structure and should be preserved for its merits. NO ACTION TAKEN Council Member Holman suggested the Council hear Agenda Item Number 2 before Agenda Item Number 1A because of the large number of people present for Agenda Item Number 2. Mayor Kniss advised that Agenda Item Number 1A would not be lengthy. Action Items 1A. (Former Agenda Item Number 19) Finance Committee Recommends the City Council Approve the $4 Million in General Fund Savings and Approve Corresponding Budget Amendments in Various Funds and the Table of Organization (Continued From December 17, 2018 4:30 P.M. meeting). Council Member Scharff reported Staff recommended a two-pronged approach to the Finance Committee (Committee), one for immediate actions and one for strategic actions. Immediate actions would eliminate $4 million from the FINAL MINUTES Page 7 of 29 City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 12/1718 Budget, and the Committee approved the recommended immediate actions. In addition, the Committee recommended the $4 million be used to halt the growth of the unfunded pension liability. The Council directed Staff to draft a work plan for an intensive Citywide review of programs and a review of the Budget to determine structural savings. MOTION: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded Vice Mayor Filseth to: A. Amend the Fiscal Year 2019 Budget Appropriation for various funds as identified by Staff; and B. Amend the Fiscal Year 2019 Table of Organization for the General Fund to: i. Eliminate 1.0 Performance Auditor I in the Office of the City Auditor; ii. Reduce 1.4 Building Serviceperson-Lead and reduce 0.75 Building Serviceperson positions; and C. Amend the Fiscal Year Table of Organization for Other Funds to increase by 1.4 Building Serviceperson-Lead and increase by 0.75 Building Serviceperson. Vice Mayor Filseth advised that structural adjustments would take some time. The goal was not to reduce the Budget by $4 million but to save $4 million towards the City's pension obligation. The $4 million savings provided time for Staff to work on structural adjustments. James Keene, City Manager, remarked that the $4 million savings was effectively a structural adjustment because the funds would be placed in trust. With time provided by the savings, the Council could make structural adjustments thoughtfully and with the least impact to City services. Council Member DuBois noted one-time reductions totaled approximately $1.4 million, and structural reductions totaled approximately $600,000. Hopefully, Staff understood that the Council wanted ongoing reductions. The $2 million in new revenue could not be used for other things, and reducing Staff positions would increase Staff's workload. Structural reductions were needed because one-time reductions would end at some point. Council Member Scharff recalled that the Council in October allowed Staff to delay structural changes. Council Member DuBois was disappointed by the small amount of structural adjustments. FINAL MINUTES Page 8 of 29 City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 12/1718 Council Member Scharff concurred; however, Staff followed the Council's direction. Mr. Keene related that in the same timeframe the City had added three or four labor contracts with significant cost increases that to be assimilated into the overall Budget and strategies. In Staff's opinion, this was the best way to achieve structural adjustments in a meaningful way. Council Member Holman agreed with Council Member DuBois' comments. The cost savings from Staff positions were temporary. She was dissatisfied with the proposal to eliminate the Human Services Resource Allocation Process (HSRAP) contingency fund. The likelihood of needing those funds in the next recession was high. The City could not be constructing Infrastructure Plan projects at a more expensive point in time. She had hoped the proposal would be a reduction of the amount transferred from the General Fund to the Infrastructure Fund. Members of the City/School Liaison Committee agreed that the City and Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) should review benefits shared between the City and PAUSD. Council Member Tanaka felt the fundamental problem was the Council approving increases in budgeted amounts without requiring an offsetting reduction. He hoped the Council in future would prioritize projects to remain with the Budget. MOTION PASSED: 8-1 Holman no 2. Discussion and Direction on the Status and use of the Roth Building, Extension of Fundraising Period With the Palo Alto History Museum, and Adoption of a Resolution 9810 Entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto for County Grant Application to use the Roth Building Consistent With Park use for 20 Years.” David Ramberg, Administrative Services Assistant Director, reported the Palo Alto History Museum Board of Directors (Board) would announce it had met the goal of $1.75 million in fundraising. The one-year lease option extension expired on November 30, 2018; therefore, Staff recommended presentation of a new lease option in six months for Council approval. Expiration of the lease option should not cause any adverse effect. Planning review was complete for the project, and tentative approval had been granted. The City in partnership with the Board had submitted an application to the County of Santa Clara (County) for an Historical Heritage grant, which could provide $305,000 for roof repair. The grant application included a recorded California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) exemption form. Staff was working with County staff to draft Resolution language that was agreeable to both the City and the County. The Council's packet contained a redline version of the FINAL MINUTES Page 9 of 29 City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 12/1718 required County Resolution. Staff proposed amending the Resolution language shown as underlined or struck through. There was some question as to whether the County would accept the proposed language. In 2019, additional County grant funds may be available. Laura Bajuk, Palo Alto History Museum Executive Director, advised that a year ago the City Council challenged the Board to raise $1.75 million and indicated additional funding would be released and the project would continue if the Palo Alto History Museum met the challenge. As of December 14, the fundraising total was more than $1.8 million. The Board's goal was to create and operate a world-class community museum. The first phase of the project was to rehabilitate the Roth Building at a cost of $3.5 million for planning and $9.2 million for construction. The second phase was to create a museum at a cost of $8.8 million for museum installation and $2 million for initial operations. The total goal of the fundraising campaign was $20 million. The Board had raised 81 percent of the construction cost and 23 percent of the museum installation cost. Much of the existing structure would remain as-is with some modifications for the permanent exhibit of Palo Alto history. The building would house administrative space, an education lab, a permanent exhibit gallery, two changing exhibit galleries, a café, a community room, City of Palo Alto archives, storage of non-archival items, and exhibit preparation space. In the future, the roof space may be developed. More than 650 neighbors and friends had supported the Palo Alto History Museum. Mayor Kniss was excited by the Board meeting the City's challenge. Herb Borock remarked that an Ordinance was the only method for dedicating City-owned land. A time limit could not be imposed on the dedication. City- owned property could be removed from dedication by voters only. The Palo Alto History Museum was a valid use of dedicated parkland. Stephen Player appreciated the efforts and work of the Board, City Staff, and the Council. Mayor Kniss requested supporters of the Palo Alto History Museum stand and be recognized. MOTION: Mayor Kniss moved, seconded by Council Member Holman to: A. Extend the deadline by six months for the Palo Alto History Museum to achieve the goal of raising $1.75 million as set by Council in 2017 (to allow for validation of PAHM fundraising); FINAL MINUTES Page 10 of 29 City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 12/1718 B. Direct Staff to revise and update the lease agreement between the Palo Alto History Museum and return to City Council in six months for approval; and C. Adopt a Resolution designating the Roth Building as a park and committing to use the Roth Building consistent with park use for a period of no less than 20 years and making other representations to apply for historic preservation grant funds from the County of Santa Clara to rehabilitate the Roth Building roof. James Keene, City Manager, explained that Staff was not proposing park dedication by Ordinance. To comply with grant requirements, the Council had to adopt the proposed Resolution Molly Stump, City Attorney, advised that the Palo Alto History Museum could be located in a park or outside a park. Based on the City's classification, the Palo Alto History Museum was adjacent to Heritage Park, which was sufficient for the County. Staff did not propose park dedication. Mayor Kniss was pleased to have this item before the Council. The Board was very close to the amount needed to break ground for the project. Council Member Holman congratulated the Board on its fundraising and inquired whether Staff had alternate wording for Part C of the Motion. Mr. Ramberg clarified that the proposed Resolution contained Staff's revisions. Therefore, the Council could approve the proposed Resolution as presented. Council Member Holman asked if the language of Part C should be revised to provide some flexibility should the County not approve Staff's revisions. Mr. Keene indicated Supervisor Simitian would work with the City to resolve the issue. The purpose of the item was to inform the Council of the Board's progress with fundraising and to seek Council approval of a lease extension, revisions to the lease agreement, and the Resolution for the grant application. Council Member Holman proposed a Part D to transfer $655,000 in Sea Scout Transferable Development Rights (TDRs) to the Roth Building Rehabilitation Reserve. Mayor Kniss asked if the language needed to be added to the Motion. Kiely Nose, Administrative Services Interim Director, reported the TDRs had been set aside, but the Council could officially dedicate the TDRs to the Roth Building. The TDRs were part of the Council's challenge. FINAL MINUTES Page 11 of 29 City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 12/1718 Council Member Holman noted the challenge had been met, and the TDRs were placed in the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Fund. She wished to transfer the TDRs to the Roth Building Rehabilitation Reserve. Mayor Kniss requested Staff clarify whether the TDRs needed to be transferred. Mr. Keene reported Staff could not utilize the TDRs without Council approval. The TDRs were placed in a reserve fund. The Council could dedicate the TDRs; however, the TDRs were intended to be a challenge grant, and the Board had not closed the funding gap. Maintaining the challenge grant showed the City's continuing investment in the Palo Alto History Museum. Mayor Kniss suggested Part D could state "make available the TDR funds for a challenge grant which could be overseen by Palo Alto History Museum staff." Council Member Holman believed the language was a continuation of the prior Motion. She understood the TDRs would be transferred once the Board raised $1.75 million. Ms. Bajuk preferred to utilize the TDRs as a challenge grant. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion a new Part D “Transfer the $665,000 of Sea Scout Building Transferable Development Rights (TDRs) proceeds to the Roth Building Rehabilitation Reserve Fund.” Council Member Wolbach encouraged the Board to continue its fundraising momentum. Council Member Scharff congratulated the Board on its fundraising efforts. He recalled the Sea Scouts' error in using funding for its operations rather than capital improvements and proposed funding the Sea Scouts' request for $65,000 from the Council Contingency Fund. Vice Mayor Filseth inquired about the balance of the Council Contingency Fund. Ms. Nose replied approximately $95,000. Ms. Bajuk advised that the $350,000 challenge grant was contingent on the TDRs being guaranteed by the City. She requested assurance that the TDRs were reserved for the use of the Palo Alto History Museum. Mr. Keene related that nothing had changed in that regard. He suggested the Sea Scouts issue had not been properly agendized. FINAL MINUTES Page 12 of 29 City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 12/1718 Council Member Scharff responded that funding the Sea Scouts' request was as much a properly agendized item as the Council authorizing $25,000 for victims of the Camp Fire during Council Member Comments, Questions and Announcements. Ms. Bajuk recalled the suggestion to consider TDRs from the College Terrace Library for the Palo Alto History Museum, but other entities had needed the funding. She was not requesting those funds. AMENDMENT: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Mayor Kniss direct Staff to return to Council to dedicate $65,000 from the Council Contingency Fund to the Sea Scouts. Ms. Stump requested the Amendment be direction to Staff because the topic had not been agendized. Council Member Kou questioned the appropriateness of the Amendment. Ms. Stump clarified that the Council could present but not discuss or act upon a new idea, one that had not been agendized, during the same meeting. The Council could give direction for Staff to return with an action. Council Member Kou asked if the Amendment should be presented during Council Member Questions, Comments, and Announcements. Ms. Stump understood the Amendment was related to the Agenda Item in that the origin of funding for the Palo Alto History Museum was the TDRs generated by renovation of the Sea Scout Building. When Staff returned with the item, the Council could debate and not approve it. Council Member Kou asked if the Amendment would return separate from the Motion. She did not want the Amendment tied to the Palo Alto History Museum. Mr. Keene answered yes. AMENDMENT PASSED: 7-2 Fine, Kou no Council Member Holman interpreted the language of Part D as requiring the Palo Alto History Museum Board to raise another $1.75 million before receiving the TDRs. The language of "would not count towards the $1.75 million" should be deleted from Part D. Mr. Keene indicated the Council could delete the language if it chose. FINAL MINUTES Page 13 of 29 City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 12/1718 Mayor Kniss suggested Part D authorize the use of the $665,000 from the TDRs for historical restoration as a challenge grant for next year. Council Member Holman agreed with the suggestion. Richard Green, Palo Alto History Museum Board President, reported the $665,000 in TDRs had been part of the challenge, which caused the increase in fundraising momentum. The challenge was closed because the Board had met the goal. The TDRs should not be extended over the next year. Mayor Kniss asked if Mr. Green felt Part D was unnecessary. Mr. Green replied yes. Part of the 2017 Motion stated the Sea Scout TDRs would be transferred to the Palo Alto History Museum if it met the challenge. Council Member Holman stated her Part D was to transfer the Sea Scout TDRs to the Roth Building Rehabilitation Reserve Fund because the Board had met the challenge. Mayor Kniss concurred. Council Member Kou asked if Part B of the 2017 Motion would be taken out. Ms. Nose explained that the current Motion would preclude any action regarding Part B of the 2017 Motion. MOTION AS AMENDED RESTATED: Mayor Kniss moved, seconded by Council Member Holman to: A. Extend the deadline by six months for the Palo Alto History Museum to achieve the goal of raising $1.75 million as set by Council in 2017 (to allow for validation of PAHM fundraising); B. Direct Staff to revise and update the lease agreement between the Palo Alto History Museum and return to City Council in six months for approval; C. Adopt a Resolution designating the Roth Building as a park and committing to use the Roth Building consistent with park use for a period of no less than 20 years and making other representations to apply for historic preservation grant funds from the County of Santa Clara to rehabilitate the Roth Building roof; D. Transfer the $665,000 of Sea Scout Building Transferable Development Rights (TDRs) proceeds to the Roth Building Rehabilitation Reserve Fund; and FINAL MINUTES Page 14 of 29 City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 12/1718 E. Direct Staff to return to Council to dedicate $65,000 from the Council Contingency Fund to the Sea Scouts. MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 9-0 3. Project Update on Connecting Palo Alto and Consider the Following Actions: a) Separate From Study all Alternatives for the Palo Alto Avenue Crossing (Closure and Hybrid) and Include Palo Alto Avenue in a Separate Comprehensive Planning Effort; b) Separate From Study the Bicycle and Pedestrian Crossing of the Caltrain Corridor in the Vicinity of Loma Verde Avenue and Assess Feasibility in a Future Study; c) Address the Rail Committee’s Recommendation Regarding a Deep Bore Tunnel by Modifying the Alternative to be South of California Avenue Only and Further Explore the Scope and Budget for an Alternative With Freight Trains on the Surface and Passenger Trains Underground for the Meadow and Charleston Crossings; and d) Adopt a Modified List of Grade Separation Alternatives. Mayor Kniss announced that only public comments would be received. Mayor Kniss advised she would not participate in this item as she owned property within 500 feet of the project. She left the meeting at 9:32 P.M. Vice Mayor Filseth advised he would not participate in this item as his residence was located within 500 feet of the project. He left the meeting at 9:32 P.M. Council took a break at 9:32 P.M. and returned at 9:42 P.M. Council Member Fine reported many of the Council's rail efforts began in 2009, but the Council redoubled and refocused its efforts in 2017 as Caltrain electrification and modernization gained momentum. Over the past two years, Staff, the community, and the Rail Committee (Committee) had debated priorities, alternatives, and impacts. The Council had reduced the number of alternatives from 34 to 8. Rob de Geus, Deputy City Manager, advised that Staff recommended the Council remove all alternatives for the Palo Alto Avenue crossing from study and include the Palo Alto Avenue crossing in a separate, comprehensive planning effort; remove the Loma Verde bicycle and pedestrian undercrossing from the Meadow-Charleston hybrid alternative; and merge the reverse hybrid and the trench alternatives. The consultant team had identified a number of key constraints for the deep-bore tunnel, and the Committee directed Staff to present information to further evaluate a tunnel alternative involving a South Palo Alto-only tunnel with underground rail and surface freight. The tunnel FINAL MINUTES Page 15 of 29 City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 12/1718 alternative raised some of the same issues as the tunnel, but it could allow the City to avoid stations. Staff supported the tunnel alternative and requested the Council consider modifying the deep-bore tunnel to south of California Avenue only and explore the scope and budget for the tunnel alternative. David Shen, speaking for Kerry Yarkin, Mandar Boskar, Monica Tan Brown, and Neva Yarkin, proposed four options for the Embarcadero Avenue crossing and two options for the Palo Alto Avenue crossing as a means to stimulate thinking and creativity. The Embarcadero Avenue crossing should be included in the work plan. More study of the Palo Alto Avenue crossing was needed. Nadia Naik, speaking for Neilson Buchanan, Marion Odell, Kimberley Wong, and Ceci Kettendorf, advised that the evaluation criteria needed to be amended and were missing some key points. In reviewing crossings, the Council should explore synergistic projects in geographic areas. The scope of work should be amended to include the freight-less tunnel. Without stations, the freight-less tunnel could be less expensive. Alternatives should not be eliminated. Applying the right criteria to all alternatives would reduce community concerns. She supported Staff's recommendation of an area plan for Palo Alto and University Avenues. Funding may be available for changes near transit centers. One benefit of the area plan was the City could engage Stanford University as an adjacent jurisdiction for the northern crossings. Barbara Hazlett stated there should be no rail crossing or street closures in North Palo Alto until robust traffic studies were conducted and vetted with the public and mitigations were developed. Closing Churchill would unfairly burden North Palo Alto neighborhoods and eliminate east-west conduits. Jean Bozman opposed the deep-bore tunnel due to cost, geophysical and seismic concerns, and extensive disruptions for the community. Stephen Rosenblum commented that Staff proposed elimination of the Citywide tunnel without any Committee discussion. A Citywide viaduct should be an alternative because it would offer better east-west connectivity. A Citywide solution would be equitable for the entire City. David Herzl urged the Council to eliminate all raised options and add the deep- bore tunnel. The trench option was the best option. Megan Kanne supported the proposed area plan and urged the Council to include the Churchill, Embarcadero, and Town & Country area in the plan. Comprehensive Plan Policy T-3.16 referred to keeping at-grade rail crossings open. The City should collaborate with neighboring cities to develop a regional solution. FINAL MINUTES Page 16 of 29 City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 12/1718 Davina Brown supported underground options. John Kovak noted no other modern country with high speed rail had a ground-level interface within an urban community. He preferred below-ground alternatives. A trench option should extend the length of the City. Jeffrey Hook believed climate change should be a component of the rail discussion. At-grade crossings should be closed, and streets placed below ground. Cedric de la Beaujardiere remarked that the viaduct option would be a net improvement over current conditions for many reasons. The viaduct option achieved all the goals of grade separation at half the cost of the trench or tunnel. A short tunnel would not be cost effective. Susan Stansbury expressed concern regarding the costs of a trench and tunnel and their impacts to groundwater. Greg Conlon suggested the Council consider a sales tax to fund grade separations. High Speed Rail would have more resources than the City to build a trench or tunnel. The trench would be a practical solution. Tom Kellerman supported the criteria for impacts on residential traffic and pedestrian and bicycle safety. Any suggested mitigations would require careful study and analysis. Any decision would need to be supported by a traffic study. University Avenue, Embarcadero, and Churchill comprised an integrated system and should be included in the area plan. Ellen Hartog asked the Council to consider a below-grade rail option with at- grade freight at Charleston and Meadow. She urged the Council to eliminate the viaduct and wall options. Mark Darrell Cox suggested bikeways should be placed above grade with a ten-mile radius to improve bicycle safety. Terry Holzemer believed the Council should incorporate the recommendations of Californians Advocating Responsible Rail Design (CARRD) and follow the surveys of residents. One source of funding was a business tax. Keith Reckdahl remarked that elevated tracks would not require land takings, but their impacts on property would effectively be a taking without compensation. Instead of debating whether to build below-grade options, the Council should figure out how to build below-grade options. FINAL MINUTES Page 17 of 29 City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 12/1718 Renee Hofer concurred with Mr. Reckdahl's and Ms. Naik's comments. She inquired about the rationale for Staff not talking to Google, Amazon, Facebook, and Stanford University when considering the cost of options. Florence Keller felt psycho-social concerns needed to be addressed. She opposed raised structures. Joan Holtzman supported a deep-bore tunnel south of California Avenue and encouraged the Council to gather more information about it. Khurshid Gandhi supported the partial tunnel with above-ground freight. Mitigation measures for earthquakes would cost no more for a tunnel than for an elevated structure. She suggested cost estimates contain breakdowns of the calculations and comparisons to other projects worldwide. Sheri Moody supported the deep-bore tunnel across the City. In the long run, it would be worth the additional cost. Rob Levitsky questioned the proposal to close Churchill. Closing Churchill between 11:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. was illogical when there were only two trains per hour. Ed Shikada, Assistant City Manager, noted the consultants' and the community advisory panel's support of the Council's priority to narrow options and to develop viable options. Staff would present a scope of work, schedule implications, and a budget to the Council. Issues were complex and interrelated. MOTION: Council Member Fine moved, seconded by Council Member Scharff to continue this item to a date uncertain. MOTION PASSED: 6-1 Wolbach no, Filseth, Kniss recused Mayor Kniss and Vice Mayor Filseth returned at 10:51 P.M. 4. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL: 429 University Avenue [18PLN-00240]: Appeal of the Planning and Community Environment Director’s Denial of a Minor Architectural Review Application for Proposed Exterior Building Materials, Colors, and Craftsman Related to a Previously Approved Mixed-Use Project. Environmental Assessment: Use of Mitigated Negative Declaration Prepared for 14PLN-00222. Zoning FINAL MINUTES Page 18 of 29 City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 12/1718 District: CD-C(G)(P) (Downtown Commercial With Ground Floor and Pedestrian Shopping Overlay) (Continued From December 3, 2018). Molly Stump, City Attorney, reported Council Members needed to disclose contacts they had had outside the formal record process, whether they learned anything not a part of the formal record and, if so, what they learned. Council Member Holman disclosed her receipt of an email and one or two phone calls from the original appellant. She was informed that a lawsuit would be filed if the project was approved. Council Member Fine disclosed his receipt of some text messages from the original appellant, one of which indicated there could be a countersuit. He had spoken on the phone with the applicant and visited the property. The applicant had threatened she would consider legal action if the project was not approved. The applicant felt Staff's interpretation of the craftsmanship language and the details thereof was used inappropriately to affect the massing and structure of the building. Council Member Wolbach disclosed his receipt of text messages from Mr. Harbour similar to those Council Member Fine received. Mayor Kniss disclosed her receipt of texts or emails from the applicant and the original appellant. Vice Mayor Filseth disclosed his receipt of texts and emails from the applicant and the original appellant. He had not learned anything that was not in the public record. He had received and returned a campaign contribution from Ms. Wong. Council Member Scharff disclosed his receipt of text messages and emails mostly from Mr. Harbour, and he had not learned anything that was not in the public record. Council Member Kou disclosed her receipt of phone calls, texts, and emails and she had spoken with Mr. Harbour. She had not learned anything that was not in the public record. Council Member Tanaka disclosed that he had met with the applicant, viewed the model, and heard about the potential lawsuit. He did not recall receipt of any texts or emails from the original appellant. Jonathan Lait, Planning and Community Environment Interim Director, advised that an at-places memo was provided in the late afternoon. Staff's recommendation encouraged the Council to modify the Director's Decision to FINAL MINUTES Page 19 of 29 City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 12/1718 approve the project. In February 2017, the City Council approved on appeal an Architectural Review Board (ARB) application for the approval of a four-story building. The approval imposed a number of conditions including conditions that required additional architectural review and action by the Director regarding a decorative wall treatment on the fourth floor, landscape plans and details, and exterior building materials, colors, and craftmanship. Two members of the ARB were recused from the project, leaving three members to discuss the project. The Board Members generally approved the landscape plans and the wall treatment, but they could not approve the building colors and materials. Based on the administrative record and the ARB's dialog, the decision approved the landscape plans and wall treatment and denied the building colors, materials, and craftsmanship. The applicant appealed the denial of the building colors, materials, and craftsmanship. The applicant had submitted some appeal statements. During the prior week, the City Attorney's Office held some conversations with the applicant's counsel regarding the project. He had participated in one of the meetings and during the meeting reiterated the items that he believed to be important for Staff to support the project. Based on that conversation, the applicant submitted revised plans on Friday of the prior week, and he had drafted the at-places memo based on the plans. At the pedestrian level along University and Kipling Avenues, the applicant added a steel awning, inside which a stretched canvas material would be placed. The awning wrapped around the building and was placed at the same approximate location as the awnings on the adjacent building on University Avenue. The color of the fabric had been conditioned for either taupe or burgundy so as to add more warmth to the color palette for the building. At the second floor, the project included a window screening above eye-level and extending to the top of the window. This detail added visual depth and detailing to the project that did not exist in prior plans. On the third level and the alley elevation of the second and third levels, the railing was changed to provide more detail and more definition to the attachment and to incorporate a cap of dark bronze color, all of which added warmer colors and more architectural detailing to the building. Based on those additions, Staff was able to make the findings to support the project. Questions had been raised regarding the floor area of the fourth floor, which had changed since the Council's approval. In February 2017, the Council approved a conceptual drawing. In converting the conceptual drawing to construction drawings, elements of the building changed. For this project, changes were made to the driveway ramp, circulation, and the third-floor library that the Council asked the applicant to remove. The Record of Land Use Action established a square footage for approval of the project. Staff attempted to find a place to put the floor area that needed to be relocated. There was no room on the first and second floors because they were built-out. The third floor already contained some building articulation in response to the Council's interest in pushing the upper levels back to create more modulation. FINAL MINUTES Page 20 of 29 City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 12/1718 Therefore, Staff focused on the fourth floor to provide some additional floor area. Approximately 400 square feet was added to the fourth floor. In placing the additional floor area on the fourth floor, Staff was mindful of the setback requirements that the Council imposed when approving the project in 2017. The setback from University Avenue was approximately 40 feet as approved by the Council. The setback from Kipling was 37 feet. The setback from the alley was almost 19 feet. The added area did not get any closer to Kipling or University or the alley. The added area was closer to the interior property line. Staff reviewed the changes and believed them to be generally consistent with the Council's approval and with the interest and intent of the massing concerns on Kipling and University. Staff recommended the City Council modify the Director's Decision approving the building colors, materials, and craftsmanship and extend the entitlement for the Record of Land Use Action, which was set to expire in February 2019, to allow the applicant time to compile building permit plans. Public Hearing was opened at 11:09 P.M. Tim Kassouni, Appellant’s Attorney, reserved the right to utilize PowerPoint presentations he had submitted to the City Clerk later in the discussion if needed. The project had been in the approval phase for six years. The project was thoroughly vetted and approved two years ago by the Council with 18 specific findings in support. The project had a modern design. Two weeks ago, City Manager Keene suggested the item be continued to the present meeting and cited potential grounds for the approval of Interim Director Lait. The at-places memo was the culmination of much hard work on all sides. He urged the Council to accept the recommendations of approval contained in the memo. He had been authorized to promptly file a petition for writ of mandate and a complaint for damages under inverse condemnation, due process, and equal protection. He would seek damages for delays, lost income, increased construction costs, and attorney's fees. In light of good faith discussions with Interim Director Lait, he was hopeful that the City Council would accept the recommendation of approval. A legal challenge to the City Council's approval of the project would have little success. Jaime Wong, Appellant Kipling Post, remarked that if the project was not approved during the meeting, he would proceed with other options. Sallyann Rudd and Michael Harbour speaking for Neilson Buchanan, Terry Holzemer, Andres Mediavilla, and Jeff Levinsky, requested a denial of the current proposal and termination of any extension of the project. The four buildings proposed to be demolished were in the Art Deco style that Birge Clark was designing in the late 1920s. The structure was proposed at the limit of the buildable envelope. The structure lacked pleasing and compatible FINAL MINUTES Page 21 of 29 City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 12/1718 design linkages to its surroundings and dwarfed neighboring buildings. The project was inappropriate for the location. Only the Planning Department had reviewed the latest modifications. Michael Harbour reviewed the February 2017 Motion and the conditions imposed by the Council. The latest modifications had not been published online prior to the meeting. The addition of 400 square feet to the fourth floor was inappropriate. The latest modification was not Option 1 as the Council required. With the additional square footage, the fourth floor was more visible from the alleyway and Kipling. Development of the third and fourth floors was predicated on the Transferable Development Rights (TDRs). The structure was predominantly an office space by square footage and worsened the jobs to housing imbalance. Three luxury apartments did not qualify for the California Housing Accountability Act (CHAA). He requested the Council reject the latest design proposal and deny the request for an extension. Rita Vrhel related that the Council should refer the project to the ARB for review of the latest modifications to the project. The Council's job was to implement established policies and procedures. Mr. Wong reminded the Council that the project was approved with conditions. The four buildings were not designed by Birge Clark. The small buildings on Kipling were rented to businesses. He had made many efforts to comply with Staff's and the ARB's comments regarding the project. Additions to the fourth floor were mandated because of efforts to adapt the conceptual design to construction plans. Public Hearing was closed at 11:31 P.M. Mayor Kniss was troubled by the threats of a lawsuit. The purpose of the hearing was to determine whether the project complied with the Council's previous approval and conditions. She asked if the project was outside the zoning envelope. Mr. Lait explained that in refining the conceptual design to construction drawings elements changed. In this instance, approximately 400 square feet were moved to the fourth floor. The location and manner in which the square footage was placed complied with the City's zoning regulations. Staff believed the additional floor area added to the fourth floor to achieve the 28,547 square feet of floor area was generally consistent with the Council's approval of Option 1. Mayor Kniss requested Staff comment regarding TDRs and alternative parking. FINAL MINUTES Page 22 of 29 City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 12/1718 Mr. Lait advised that the project benefited from TDRs, some of which may not have required parking. The applicant did not request any deviation from development standards. Council Member Scharff asked if the applicant disagreed with the recommendation for the color of the awning material to be taupe or burgundy. Mr. Lait had not heard from the applicant as to whether he objected to the recommendation. Council Member Scharff asked why the applicant was not required to recess the ground-floor glass facade and to add texture to the exterior concrete on the first and second floors as stated in Mr. Lait's letter to the applicant. Mr. Lait clarified that the items were intended to stimulate design changes that could be presented to the ARB for review. Recessing the entries resulted in structural modifications to the building that the applicant was not prepared to advance. Staff did not suggest that the exterior concrete was less than acceptable, but it was an opportunity to add human-scale detail at the ground level. The applicant was not agreeable to those types of changes. Staff developed some details that were significant enough to improve the pedestrian experience. Council Member Scharff believed the building would look better with textured concrete. He asked the applicant to address his reluctance to make the change. Elizabeth Wong, Applicant Kipling Post, remarked that the model for the building was the building at 102 University Avenue. The building at 102 University Avenue had a smooth concrete exterior. Mr. Ko wrote a letter detailing the reasons he could not implement the changes. Peter Ko, Ko Architects, reported that recessing the facade would have caused the loss of more square footage. The smooth concrete would provide a very nice, high-quality look. Council Member Scharff understood Mr. Ko disagreed with the ARB regarding the aesthetic appearance of smooth versus textured concrete. Mr. Ko clarified that the Council approved a smooth finish. Council Member Scharff indicated that the Council referred the project to the ARB to make recommendations regarding aesthetic issues. Ms. Wong stated adding more concrete would expand the concrete so that it would encroach into the sidewalk. FINAL MINUTES Page 23 of 29 City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 12/1718 Council Member Scharff requested verification of Ms. Wong's statement. Mr. Lait explained that the existing concrete would be textured; therefore, he had difficulty concluding that the texturing would result in an encroachment. Ms. Wong added that the concrete finish ended at the property line. Generally, regular concrete was clad or had stucco added to make it beautiful. The proposed concrete was a finished product. Cladding the building would add weight, and the components would not be structurally feasible. Smooth concrete was a feature of the modern style of the building. Council Member Scharff could not imagine how texturing the concrete would be a structural issue. Mr. Ko indicated it was a structural issue. Providing texture to a finished concrete required the addition of a veneer to the concrete wall, which added weight. Mr. Lait had no knowledge of the issue and could not comment. Council Member Holman stated TDRs were not assured square footage that could be applied to a site. TDRs had their own compatibility requirements. The City's Procedures and Protocols addressed late submittals related to planning applications. The latest submission did not comply with the Procedures and Protocols, but Staff allowed the submission. Ms. Stump read the next sentence of the procedure in that Staff could determine whether additional review was needed and reschedule the item. The Council may refer the item or proceed. Council Member Holman indicated she omitted the sentence in an effort to be brief. The Procedures and Protocols were available to the public. Like Council Member Scharff, she did not understand how texturing concrete would add weight to a building. She did not find landscape details and plans in the information. In its Motion, the Council approved the square footage and overall massing. The massing had shifted in the latest drawings. Some of that massing was visible from University Avenue. Mr. Lait reported the landscape plans were not included in the packet because they had not been appealed and were not before the City Council. Council Member Holman understood the landscape plans were an outstanding issue for the ARB. Mr. Lait clarified that the October Director's Decision approved the wall treatment and the landscape plans. FINAL MINUTES Page 24 of 29 City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 12/1718 Council Member Holman asked if Staff sought the opinion of an independent architect regarding the compatibility improvements with the latest changes. Mr. Lait replied yes. He had spoken with an ARB Member. Council Member Holman asked if the ARB Member viewed the plans. Mr. Lait answered yes. Council Member Holman asked why Staff did not provide the Council with the ARB Member's comment. Mr. Lait advised that he did not seek formal feedback. Council Member Holman commented that difficulties arose when a compatible building was blocks away from the project and when the applicant changed architects a number of times. Council Member Fine reiterated that the Council's purview was the applicant's appeal of the Director's Decision regarding exterior building colors, materials, and craftsmanship. He asked if the applicant accepted the changes recommended in the at-places memo. Ms. Wong responded yes. MOTION: Council Member Fine moved, seconded by Mayor Kniss to modify the Director’s October 16, 2018 decision to provide for approval of all aspects of the architectural review application (18PLN00240) and approve the corresponding Record of Land Use Action included in the at-places memo dated December 17, 2018. Council Member Fine remarked that the Motion would allow the project to move forward. Mayor Kniss felt it was important for the Council to make a decision. The building complied with the envelope allowed on the site. Vice Mayor Filseth noted the project reached the limit of building requirements without exceeding them. The 28,547 square feet was calculated based on drawings that put the west wall at the property line. However, the Seismic Code required a setback of approximately 8 inches from the property line, which required the relocation of approximately 139 square feet. The 139 square feet was part of the 400 square feet relocated to the fourth floor. The major issues for compatibility were massing and transitions relative to the two-story buildings surrounding the site. The remedy was to reduce the size FINAL MINUTES Page 25 of 29 City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 12/1718 of the fourth floor such that it could not be seen from the street. He inquired whether the fourth floor with the additional floor area was visible from Kipling. Mr. Lait indicated portions of the fourth floor probably would be visible from some locations along Kipling depending on landscaping and vantage points. A perspective drawing showing that was not submitted. Ms. Wong advised that the setbacks from Kipling and University in Option 1 were retained in the latest submission. The extra square footage was added to the northwest corner of the building. Mr. Lait reported the location of the square footage on the fourth floor maintained the Council-approved setbacks from the alley, Kipling, and University. The fourth floor encroached closer to the interior side property line. The fourth-floor addition was pushed further away from Kipling in the most remote part of the building. Vice Mayor Filseth commented that the building was a little bit four stories on Kipling. Mr. Lait reiterated that the area added to the Council-approved plans aligned with the setbacks and was placed in a manner that addressed massing concerns on Kipling. Vice Mayor Filseth stated the compatibility issue concerned visibility rather than setbacks. Mr. Lait responded that compatibility, visibility, and massing were areas of concern. Mr. Wong related that the back part of the fourth floor would be visible from halfway down Kipling, but the front part would already be visible. Council Member DuBois believed the latest project was significantly different from the project the Council approved in 2017. He opposed the project in 2017 because he could not make the findings for mass and scale. The Council had requested the selection of building materials that would create design linkages with surrounding buildings. The ARB did a good job in reviewing the project. The building did not comply with requirements for context and massing. He could not make the findings. AMENDMENT: Council Member DuBois moved, seconded by Council Member Holman to require that approval be subject to the project matching what is being presented to the City Council tonight. Council Member Holman requested clarification of the term "matching." FINAL MINUTES Page 26 of 29 City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 12/1718 Council Member DuBois indicated the project should match the diagrams and materials provided to the Council. Mayor Kniss inquired whether Staff interpreted the Amendment as redundant. Council Member Scharff commented that the Amendment was illogical. Council Member DuBois wanted to prevent further changes. Council Member Scharff stated the issues before the Council were three or four aesthetic issues. The Record of Land Use Action was the legal document to which Staff matched the project. Council Member DuBois inquired about the chances of any other aspect of the project changing after the meeting. Mr. Lait could not say definitely because minor refinements were often needed during construction. The ARB would have to review any significant change. He did not expect any substantive changes to massing and scale. Council Member Holman remarked that projects could change significantly between architectural plans and construction drawings. Mr. Lait did not believe there would be significant changes because the applicant had gone through the building permit process and had received approval from most if not all reviewing agencies. AMENDMENT WITHDRAWN BY THE MAKER Council Member Scharff proposed adding Staff's recommendation for the color of awning fabric to be either taupe or burgundy. Council Member Fine indicated the last line of the Motion referred to the at- places memo, and the recommendation was included in the at-places memo. Council Member Scharff asked if the recommendation was included in the Record of Land Use Action. Mr. Lait reported it was Item 2A of the Record of Land Use Action. Council Member Scharff inquired about the renderings displayed in the Chambers. Ms. Wong advised that the renderings were prepared for an ARB hearing. The renderings showed the two designs for the western wall. FINAL MINUTES Page 27 of 29 City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 12/1718 Council Member Scharff read the ARB's comments regarding building colors from the Record of Land Use Action and asked if the applicant revised the colors. Mr. Lait related that the applicant did lighten the colors. Council Member Scharff requested the color of the building. Ms. Wong shared a materials board with the beige color for the first and second floors and the gray color for the third and fourth floors. Mr. Lait suggested the Council select a preferred color choice as the matter was before the Council. AMENDMENT: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Holman to use the lighter color scheme for the concrete. Ms. Wong explained that the darker color would lighten over time. AMENDMENT PASSED: 9-0 Council Member Holman asked if the Amendment should have included the phrase "lighter color scheme recommended by the ARB." Mr. Lait reported the administrative record would include the color name and reference number. Council Member Kou continued to consider the 2017 Motion for the project to match Option 1. Responses had not been satisfactory. She did not appreciate the threats of a lawsuit. She had an issue with the City Attorney's Office not defending the laws. Council Member Wolbach felt the Council should not make a decision based on the threat of a lawsuit. MOTION AS AMENDED RESTATED: Council Member Fine moved, seconded by Mayor Kniss to modify the Director’s October 16, 2018 decision to provide for approval of all aspects of the architectural review application (18PLN00240), approve the corresponding Record of Land Use Action included in the at-places memo dated December 17, 2018, and use the lighter color scheme for the concrete. MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 6-3 DuBois, Holman Kou no FINAL MINUTES Page 28 of 29 City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 12/1718 5. Approval of Annual Amendments to the Employment Agreements Between the City of Palo Alto and Council Appointed Officers. MOTION: Mayor Kniss moved, seconded by Council Member DuBois to approve and authorize the Mayor to execute the following contract amendments for Council Approved Officers: A. Amendment Number Six to Employment Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Molly S. Stump; B. Amendment Number Four to Employment Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Harriet M. Richardson; and C. Amendment Number Four to Employment Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Beth D. Minor. Council Member Tanaka noted the raises were 4-5 percent while revenue growth had been 3-3.5 percent. Continuing to approve raises above the revenue growth rate would result in budgetary problems. MOTION PASSED: 9-0 State/Federal Legislation Update/Action None Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements Council Member Scharff believed Legislators and regional City Councils would engage in discussions regarding the CASA Compact. Council Members needed to understand the Compact and issues surrounding it. The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) would vote on the Compact during the week, and the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) would vote on it in early 2019. Council Member Kou reported she had requested the City submit a letter to MTC regarding the CASA Compact. The Compact would have a big impact on cities. Council Member Tanaka thanked Council Members Scharff, Wolbach, and Holman and City Manager Keene for their service to the City. James Keene, City Manager, advised that Staff had been discussing the CASA Compact and would present a recommendation to the Council on January 14. FINAL MINUTES Page 29 of 29 City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 12/1718 Council Member DuBois requested an agenda item regarding CASA and Senate Bill (SB) 50. Council Member Wolbach thanked the Council and Staff for an interesting four years. The Council had done good things for the community. He hoped the Council would endorse CASA and remain neutral regarding SB 50. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 12:42 A.M.