Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-11-18 City Council Summary MinutesCITY COUNCIL SUMMARY MINUTES Page 1 of 14 Regular Meeting November 18, 2024 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers and by virtual teleconference at 5:30 P.M. Present In Person: Burt, Kou, Lauing, Lythcott-Haims, Stone, Tanaka, Veenker Councilmember Tanaka Arrived at 5:32 P.M. Present Remotely: None. Absent: None. Call to Order Mayor Stone called the meeting to order. The clerk called roll with six present. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions City Manager Ed Shikada reported no changes. Public Comment 1. Leland F., owner of Ravenswood Gardenkits Products, expressed concern that the public lacks current information on the day-to-day activities of the UN. He wanted to see a complete spread done within Embarcadero Media publications on what takes place in the City of Palo Alto, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills and all of the communities that fall within the jurisdiction of the United Nations. He stated he would appreciate help and input from the Council. 2. Avram F. gave his opinion about some comments made by Councilmember Burt he did not agree with. He wanted to hear Keith Reckdahl’s thoughts about a ceasefire resolution. He wanted to know the policy regarding his obligation to speak about his his association with Lockheed Martin. He did not think the vice mayor should be mayor in 2025. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 2 of 14 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 11/18/2024 Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements None. Study Session 1. Semi-Annual City Council Discussion with the Independent Police Auditor (IPA) NO ACTION Ed Shikada, City Manager, introduced the item and discussed the context for the study session. The purpose was to discuss trends in criminal justice and policing, policy and training matters, recommendations made by consultant and other City Council concerns. Consultant’s conferences with City Council were not for the purpose of elaborating on published reviews of specific incidents and should not include discussion of personnel matters prohibited by law. The would be discussing general topics the Council had expressed interest in discussing periodically. Stephen Connolly, OIR Consultants, and Mike Gennaco, OIR Consultants, shared a slide presentation about the Palo Alto City Council Report and Update From Independent Police Auditor including an overview of the OIR Group, latest semi-annual report: cases from first half of 2024, pointed firearm incidents, two incidents of use of force with injury, use of force with injury involving a barricaded subject with recommendations and discussed the challenges faced regarding staffing. Councilmember Burt pointed out that the report left out that there was no use of tasers in a six-month period. He was glad to hear the explanation on incidents where there was non- deployment of cameras that some of it may have been technical as opposed to training or otherwise. He wanted to know if there was a direct posting of the number to the direct line on the website and if it was promoted in different ways. Consultant Gennaco remarked this had been true for a few cycles. Over the past 12 years, tasers had only been authorized 1 to 3 times per year. He opined it could be indicia of using techniques like de-escalation, etc. Captain Reifschneider answered their resources page did not presently include the direct telephone number to Trust and explained why. He discussed the goal behind the 988 number available to the public that would direct the call to the appropriate service. Councilmember Veenker noted that Chief Binder responded to the recommendations made in the report in writing. She questioned if they were satisfied with the responses received and/or have any concerns about them. She was curious about the proportion of women hires. She hoped it could born in mind with the audits and the department what they did to mentor, train and retain women and other diversity on the force. She asked if they were feeling better about the camera use and wondered if there were any lingering concerns they should know about. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 3 of 14 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 11/18/2024 Consultant Gennaco replied he was satisfied with the responses received. He elaborated that when they make recommendations, they did not intend to tell the department how most effectively to implement them. If they were not happy with the way in which things were implemented, they could always report back. Consultant Connolly answered they had a good conversation about camera use and they were able to cite very specific things that had been done in recent months including focusing on briefing practices and training to try to maximize the value and efficiency or effectiveness of the equipment that the department already had. They were enthusiastic about the new equipment that would be coming in and felt that would eliminate a lot of the clunkiness. If they were still seeing issues next June, then another kind of response on the employee intervention side would perhaps be called for. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims was curious what options there were available regarding less lethal force and if they can assess their degree of satisfaction with the police force’s use of less lethal force mechanisms. She asked if a taser or rubber bullet be an example of less lethal force. She wanted to know if there was a way to make the action taken segment of the dashboard more transparent on the RIPA data. Consultant Gennaco explained a less lethal weapon was one that if it struck a sensitive part of the body it could result in lethality. They were best used judiciously and only under the right circumstance. In the case reported, the individual was suspected of a serious felonious crime with an unfortunate outcome. Because a less lethal has the potential for serious injury, it is important to dig down and evaluate after the fact whether it met the policy requirements and whether there were other options in retrospect that might have been available to alleviate going to that level of force. That was the crux of their recommendations. A taser was not at the level of less lethal force but close to that level. He explained rubber bullet was a euphemism for all kinds of devices that use a long weapon and are shot at people. They became problematic after the George Floyd protests. As a result, they did an after action for the City of San Jose in which the use of less lethal was very problematic and they wrote a public report about it. As a result, there have been restrictions on the use of less lethal munitions in the protest context because indiscriminate use of less lethal poses a risk of unintended consequences and injury. City Manager Shikada pointed out they had done an extraordinary job making that data available to the public. He thought it perilous to draw conclusions from the data in its raw form. They were doing ongoing work on making that data more meaningful. Chantal Cotton Gains, Deputy City Manager, explained they were working with the National Policing Institute through something called the Knowledge Lab at the federal level. It was an opportunity to be able to research a little bit more of what the data told them giving them the opportunity to understand what types of questions they could answer given the RIPA data. They would be spending some time looking at the dashboard itself based off their work nationally and seeing the dashboards that are available and offering them some suggestions in improving their dashboard. That report was expected to be brought to the City Council in early SUMMARY MINUTES Page 4 of 14 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 11/18/2024 2025 in order to dig deeper. They had the opportunity to look at the 2022 and 2023 data to see if they could offer ways to dig deeper and understand those outcomes. She said the 2024 data would be available around April. Councilmember Kou questioned if the SWAT team wore body cameras when going out. She wanted to know if the training involved the use of the SAGE and training officers to shoot at a certain area. She commented that the use of body worn cameras absolved the department, the person involved and the City in a lot of the issues and matters that take place. Captain Reifschneider confirmed that the SWAT teams did wear body cameras. He explained that with any less lethal type of munition, the target area would be the midsection as it would be effective in terms of delivering while not generally being lethal. Mayor Stone questioned where nine documented pointed firearm incidents compared to comparable jurisdictions. Consultant Connolly replied it was a very low number compared to a lot of the places they work but there were a lot of factors that go along with that. They had seen a slight increase from marking period to marking period in the two or three years they had been doing this. He thought nine was the highest and there was one other half year that was also nine incidents. Any number would be too many if there was a problem with the reason or how it was done or whether it met the department’s expectations. He thought the extent that it had grown was a function of better record keeping. Public Comment: 1. Avram F. expressed concern that the consultants did not spend enough time with the community. He disagreed with the consultant about the dangers of tasers and asked for a study session about this. It was his belief that officers were not putting truthful data in RIPA. He mentioned acts of disrespect he believed some officers practiced. 2. Winter D. thought the lack of taser use coincided with City Council’s approval of policy reform protocols and new leadership in the department. She advised keeping an eye on the use of body use cameras. She wanted clarification on the end of the analyst contract and what information and recommendations obtained from it. She wanted to know a status of the PERT program. City Manager Shikada acknowledged they were close to the end of the current contract and were working on a short-term extension that would lead to procurement for a longer-term contract. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 5 of 14 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 11/18/2024 Consent Calendar Councilmember Tanaka registered a no vote on Agenda Item Number 3 and 4. MOTION: Councilmember Burt moved, seconded by Councilmember Veenker to approve Agenda Item Numbers 2-8. MOTION PASSED ITEMS 2, 5-8: 7-0 MOTION PASSED ITEMS 3, 4: 6-1, Tanaka no Councilmember Tanaka could not support Item Number three as it did not talk about the use. For Item Number Four, he suggested offering higher than the 5 percent proposed to possibly attract higher caliber talent and tie the pay with servicing the community. He did support the Junior Museum Employees. 2. Approval of Minutes from November 4, 2024 Meeting 3. Approval of General Services Contract Number C25192518 with Califa Group in an Amount Not to Exceed $330,000 to Provide Procurement of Discounted Library Products for a Period of Three (3) Years; CEQA status – not a project. 4. Adoption of: (1) Revised Salary Schedules for unrepresented Management and Professional employees to increase the Utilities Director Classification by 5% as discussed and recommended by the Finance Committee on October 15, 2024, and (2) revised salary schedule for Service Employees International Union Local 521 in Alignment with one new position change in the FY 2025 Adopted Budget; CEQA Status - not a project 5. Policy and Services Committee Recommends that City Council Accept the City Auditor's Quarterly Status Report for July - September 2024 and Approve Work to Begin on FY2025 Task 6: Evaluation and Benchmarking 6. FIRST READING: Adoption of an Ordinance Continuing the Temporary Program to Expand Outdoor Dining, Retail and Other Activities on Public and Private Property through June 30, 2025; Adoption of a Resolution Continuing the Pilot Parklet Demonstration Program through June 30, 2025; CEQA status - Exempt under Sections 15301, 15303, and 15304 of the CEQA Guidelines 7. SECOND READING: Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Renewing the Military Equipment Use Policy in Compliance with Govt. Code Section 7070 et seq. (2024-2025) (FIRST READING: November 4, 2025 PASSED 7-0) SUMMARY MINUTES Page 6 of 14 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 11/18/2024 8. SECOND READING: Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Fiscal Year 2025 Municipal Fee Schedule to Amend Existing Fees for City’s Palo Alto Link OnDemand Transit Service (FIRST READING: November 4, 2024 PASSED 7-0) City Manager Comments City Manager Shikada gave a slide presentation discussing driverless vehicles expected in Palo Alto, new City Hall lobby desk staff, Advancing Flood Protection projects and Storm Readiness reminders, Support Local Holidays program and notable tentative upcoming Council items. Action Items 9. FIRST READING: Adoption of an Ordinance Amending the Municipal Fee Schedule to Modify the Calculation for Park, Community Center and Library Development Impact Fees From a per Unit to per Square Feet Basis for Residential Development. CEQA Status: Exempt Pursuant to 15061(b)(3). Jonathan Lait, Planning Director, gave a slide presentation about development impact fees including a summary of development impact fee conversion, the initial study and current studies of the impact fees, proposed actions, public comments and upcoming work. Councilmember Burt queried if single family home additions or scrapes and rebuilds included in the fees. He wanted clarification on the fees generated. He assumed the additional fees could be calculated on a pro rata basis. He observed there was an assertion that the occupancy density for multifamily was on average higher than single family but he could not find data on that. Director Lait replied they were not. He explained the way the fee system is set is based on per unit basis, not on additions to a single family. He agreed that under the current approach, an increase in square footage would not trigger additional fees but they could look at that in the upcoming work and the report identified some other measures they wanted to consider. They had already charged the single family dwelling unit a fee on the per unit basis and was not sure how to reconcile that. He stated development impact fees were not charged under 750 square feet. Albert Yang, Assistant City Attorney, stated they could implement the pro rata concept in the future after doing additional analysis to support that type of approach. The current was supported by a nexus study in 2021 and they were switching from one basis to another. The nexus study was completed three years ago and they did not look at additions or remodels at that time. They would a new nexus study to support that. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 7 of 14 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 11/18/2024 Kuda Wekwete, DLA, remarked that the occupancy density for multifamily figures were based on census data. They looked at the number of households and population for each single and multifamily and derived persons by household from that information. Vice Mayor Lauing wanted to confirm that the development fees were based around the building and the productivity of the buildings and not around programs and people. He asked if there had been any comparison to surrounding cities and what they charge for these kinds of fees. Director Lait confirmed the distinction was the capital improvements associated with the city services. He indicated some data points from surrounding cities were collected as part of DTA’s prior work. He added that this was an interim step to take the existing fees and convert them to a per-square-foot fee. It was also a commitment the City made in its housing element to have this work done in addition to the more expanded study that would look at all the other questions that had been raised in the public comments. Director Wekwete replied they did a comparison of the neighboring jurisdictions, essentially looking at how the individual fees as well as the consolidated amount range and he could provide that information later. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims questioned if they were certain that the new distinct impact fee structure would not be too high an assessment on multifamily homes creating an impediment to building the kind of housing needed. She wanted to know when they anticipated the economic impact feasibility study would be out. She thought the per bedroom might be the more equitable calculation and was in favor of taking a deep look at that because she was concerned that the distinct rates seemed to be unduly burdening multifamily housing. She described her understanding of the calculations asking she was correct. She wanted Council to wrap their heads around why they would arrive at a scheme that has a per square foot fee for single family and then a per square foot fee for multifamily that is 2.5 times the per square feet for single family if, through AB602, the state was saying a per unit was inequitable and therefore per square foot was the equitable way to go. Director Lait thought that would depend on the level of analysis they would need to do. They first planned to do an updated feasibility study to see how the impact fees would impact housing production and either make changes to development standards to make it more economically feasible or explore changes to the impact fees. If there was an interest in moving from a per square foot basis to something like per bedroom basis might require some kind of an update to the nexus study. That process would be much more involved in cost and time. They hoped to begin the process of selecting a consultant in the first quarter of next year. If it is the former will move more quickly but if it is the latter they would have to go to City Council for a budget appropriation. Director Wekwete indicated that the data they had on the average size of a single family unit and of a multifamily unit was what drove calculations. That data was derived from the building SUMMARY MINUTES Page 8 of 14 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 11/18/2024 permit activity for the City over the past 10 years. Those number identify the size units in the single family and multifamily categories. From there, they would layer on the census data that told on average how many people live in a multifamily unit versus a single family unit. They were taking the baseline of what had been built and how many people on average live in those units, whether it be single family or multifamily. Councilmember Veenker thought they needed to keep in mind that the number of people, not the buildings, had the impact. She agreed that the question was how to set the impact fees high enough to pay for the increased demand for the public amenities that had been described and reduce commuters to help the climate goals but not so high as to prevent the achievement of the housing element goals. She was interested to see if some kind of impact fee structure on bedroom doors could be crafted. Since they were in a waiting period, she thought the staff recommendation was a good place to start. She wanted to know whether the consultant found the data about impact fees in other cities, particularly in the parks component. Director Wekwete had located the fee range and he provided that data. Vice Mayor Lauing thought they would have to look at the wide range of fees. He described why counting bedrooms would not provide accurate data. He suggested going ahead with the study but direct staff to go back and take a look at evaluating waiving the fee on the 20 percent with 80 percent AMI. He thought that was the most crucial segment because it was hard to get. Other fees were not on the agenda but were a way to address fees. He stated any action taken on the study or getting more data before that would not be fruitful because they needed a full up study. Mayor Stone agreed with Vice Mayor Lauing’s statements. He thought it would be good to have another conversation with Council on things like public art fees. Director Lait wanted to know if Number One was where the City would require 20 percent inclusionary at 80 percent AMI or for any development where a project proponent would have 20 percent inclusionary voluntarily or through Builder's Remedy or through a City process. Vice Mayor Lauing responded he was thinking primarily the former but in the context of evaluating this, they might come back with four different recommendations. Mayor Stone questioned if they could exclude Builder’s Remedy projects from that. Director Lait remarked the housing focus area was the only place in the City with a 20 percent inclusionary requirement. They were looking to expand the housing focus area and expected to have that before City Council by June of next year. That could be a discreet area of the community where they could have that one fee as reflected in the motion or not. Assistant City Attorney Yang indicated they could look at that in combination with the policy evaluation under Number One. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 9 of 14 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 11/18/2024 Councilmember Kou was confused why they were waiting for the nexus study to come back before advancing it. Vice Mayor Lauing explained it was a parallel process because they were going to do the nexus study and they wanted that data but if they came back with this discreet study, they could move on that sooner before the nexus study came back. Director Lait described Number One as carrying forward a possible set of directions from the City Council to address concerns that had been stated about the City’s impact fees as an interim step to the City embarking on a more comprehensive nexus study and fee analysis. He anticipated within the first half of next year he would return with Item One and the analysis would be a fiscal analysis as they do in staff reports and frame some of the policy and potentially some of the legal considerations that may be warranted. Molly Stump, City Attorney, added she was not sure if this was intended to be the entirety of the action or in addition to adopting the conversion of the three fees to a per square foot basis. She reminded Council they had a part of the housing element that said that by September of 2024 the City would complete and implement studies to convert these three fees to a per square foot basis. It with within Council’s power to not move forward with that at that time but it would put them reporting to HCD that they were behind on that item. Councilmember Veenker supported this with the addition of Item Three. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims wanted to add a friendly amendment that fees would be assessed later in the project lifeline and holding developers to the lower of the day’s rate versus the rate when the fees became due. She had a concern about the distinct rates perpetuating inequity between single family and multifamily housing units and would like to go to consolidated immediately. Assistant City Attorney Yang commented that both of those suggestions were already features of either the ordinance on fee administration or of state law. Vice Mayor Lauing was not open to going to consolidated immediately as it would immediately reduce the development fees in half and take away that half until the new fee schedule came out. Councilmember Burt understood that distinct rates seemed better aligned with AB 602. He wanted to know to what extent they would be placing themselves in legal jeopardy if they went with the consolidated rate. Director Lait replied that was what was in the report because it reflects the size and impact because they could distinguish single family from multifamily. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 10 of 14 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 11/18/2024 Assistant City Attorney Yang clarified that AB 602 requested expressing structuring fees in a per square footage manner. They believed the distinct fees to be more consistent with the constitutional law as well as the Mitigation Fee Act, which is separate from AB 602. City Attorney Stump said that the constitutional principles of nexus and proportionality would apply to this type of legislatively adopted development impact fee. Those require a close connection between the type of development, the category of development and the impact that has as a basis for the fee. This would be a constitutional principle that cities are called on to attend to the closeness of the link essentially between the development type and the amount of the fee. Mayor Stone asked how much additional workload the motion proposed. Director Lait answered he saw Item Three as most important. Item One would come back within roughly six months. Items Four and Five would be grouped into the forthcoming feasibility study. Item Two was for looking at other things. They would consider those and work with colleagues and other departments to study them. Councilmember Burt wanted to know what other pertinent matters were referred to in Item Two. Vice Mayor Lauing explained it was items staff deemed relevant relative to the development fees. Director Lait acknowledged without more specificity they would rely on prior Council direction that related to those matters as found in the housing element and the various studies that would be done relative to looking at development process fees with the potential to impede housing production. There was a specific note about art fees so they would have a conversation with colleagues to see how that would fit into the work plan for the upcoming year. Councilmember Tanaka asked how staff would propose doing Number One. He had concern that Number One would be used to bump up the rates of all the other impact fees. He asked if the idea of the motion was that all the fees would remain the same and they would eliminate a bunch of fees. He worried about the multifamily issue. Director Lait replied there is a policy idea represented in Number One that tiers off of an existing policy where they do not assess development impact fees for 100 percent affordable housing projects. He understood development impact fees were not always assigned to inclusionary units in some other communities. He thought the implementation of Number One was straightforward in terms of preparing an ordinance. The analysis was understanding how much reduced fees may be collected as a result of waiving these particular units. He explained Item Number One was not direction to recalibrate the fees, do a fee study, do a nexus study. It would take the existing fees that are adjusted every year for CPI increases and not have them apply to the inclusionary units. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 11 of 14 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 11/18/2024 City Manager Shikada assured Councilmember Tanaka that his concern would not be what staff would come back with. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims requested that when staff came back with that, they would give clear explanation what it was they came up with and why and how they knew it was equitable. MOTION: Vice Mayor Lauing moved, seconded by Mayor Stone to direct staff to: 1. Evaluate the elimination of development fees for affordable units in multi-family projects which have at least 20% BMR units at under 80% AMI and a 50% reduction in fees for units between 81% and 100% AMI and provide recommendations on where this waiver would apply; and 2. Return to Council with an impact assessment of fees and other pertinent matters such as art fees; and 3. Adopt an ordinance amending the City’s FY2025 Adopted Municipal Fee Schedule to update the Parks, Community Center, and Library impact fees from a per unit to per square feet basis for residential development (Attachment B); and 4. Evaluate structures based on bedrooms and a hybrid of bedrooms and square foot; and 5. Evaluate fees for home additions and full rebuilds of homes based upon the incremental increase in size. PORTIONS OF MOTION INCORPORATED INTO THE FINAL MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER MOTION PASSED: 7-0 10. FIRST READING: Adoption of an Interim Ordinance Amending Chapters 18.04, 18.16, 18.30(A), and 18.30(C) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Implement High Priority Retail Revitalization Measures and Direction; Adoption of an Identical Emergency Ordinance; and Direction to Staff to Advance Other Initiatives Related to the City Council's Economic Development and Transition Policy. CEQA Status: Exempt Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3). Director Lait summarized the City’s retail revitalization efforts and provided a slide presentation discussing the proposed ordinance, future efforts and recommendations. Public Comment: 1. Charlie W. spoke about the Chamber’s support of the interim ordinance and efforts to support and revitalize business in the community. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 12 of 14 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 11/18/2024 2. John S. (Zoom), Thoits Brothers, remarked that the retail community needed approval immediately on this. He hoped they would recognize it was a first small step toward the resolution and implementation of vastly improved and more appropriate changes to the retail zoning ordinance, etc. He provided his thoughts about the Michael Baker Street Sense recommendations. He suggested looking through the proposed ordinance language and remove any and all subjective languages. 3. Amie A. (Zoom) supported Council’s actions and looked forward to more retail changes in the future. She stated they needed a code that was easily translatable. Councilmember Burt supported the recommendations. He asked for a definition of financial institutions. He was going to propose a more clear intention that it applied to walk-in retail financial services. Director Lait replied financial service meant a use providing financial services to individuals, firms, or other entities. It would include banks, savings and loan institutions, loan and lending institutions, credit unions, and similar services. Vice Mayor Lauing asked if it was the PTC or Retail ad hoc that previously worked with staff on refinement of definition of retail-like uses and establish performance-based criteria. He asked if they knew what cities and how many folks were interviewed by the consultants or others. Director Lait explained they were making a modest change to the retail definition to address the type of performance standards they were looking to achieve. They thought there might be additional opportunities to expand upon that and were looking to do that under that provision. In all of the zoning districts, there was a whole list of permitted land uses. It was fine if it was identified and listed but if it was not listed then it was not an allowed use and they might be missing some opportunities there. He explained Santa Monica was one of the areas studied. They did not look at Burlingame as an example and that was flagged as an oversight. The individuals reached out to was included in the report. He noted there was a fair amount of fatigue because the City had been engaged in a number of outreach and community engagement activities so they did not get as much responsiveness to some of their inquiries. Councilmember Veenker asked how Starbucks to be on California Avenue in light of the formula retail and the prohibitions on it and conditional use permits. She looked forward to hearing about the dog groomer and auto showroom ideas and others. Director Lait opined it may have preceded the regulations. He highlighted that the ordinance did not currently allow auto showroom uses on University and California Avenue. If there was interest, it could be modified. Mayor Stone asked if they go the sales tax dollars from the purchase of a car. He wanted detail for how the practical difficulty standard worked for the waivers and the hardship section. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 13 of 14 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 11/18/2024 City Manager Shikada thought that was something they would need to look at. It would depend on the structure of the transaction and following the state rules. He noted they had interest from auto companies and their current regulations added to other reasons that those have not moved forward. Director Lait noted this was the current standard. It applied in the retail preservation chapter of the code and they were just now applying it to the ground floor protection in the University Avenue and Middlefield and also the California Avenue area. Councilmember Kou queried what would be the performance criteria and thought it could be expressed to PTC a little more. On packet page 269 1.25.1K, she asked what would be construed as high level. She suggested possibly changing it to vibrant. On the future efforts, on bullet number one where it said review, update, retail, preservation, geographical boundaries, she hoped there would be detail into looking at each street that intersected the first block closest to the main road. She asked why they were treating the closed street different from University when it is also a main retail component. She did not think a gym belonged in those areas and thought that should be considered when this went back to PTC. On allowing non- retail uses in the portion of retail or retail-like spaces, she would like the consideration of a percentage. She asked if there was a restriction on offices having cafeterias. She believed they needed to ensure that there was protection for retail and retail-like businesses on the well- traveled streets. Director Lait explained it was not going to be prescriptive intentionally. It was going to try to get to uses open to the public that generate walk-in pedestrian clientele and contribute to the general pedestrian activity they were trying to achieve in this area. Regarding the term high level, he thought they may be setting too high a standard for what they were trying to achieve. If Council was interested in moderating or striking that language it could be done. He said the Planning and Transportation Commission had a good discussion on the consideration of a percentage on allowing non-retail uses in the portion of retail or retail-like spaces and they were not prepared to move forward the consultant's recommendation, favoring instead to dive into the details more along the lines of being more strategic and prescriptive about when and where that kind of activity could take place. He remarked offices having cafeterias was not addressed in this ordinance. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims announced a study session happening run by the Retail Committed on Wednesday at 9:00. MOTION: Councilmember Tanaka moved, seconded by Councilmember Burt to: 1. Adopt the attached emergency ordinance (Attachment A) and interim ordinance (Attachment B); 2. Direct staff to work with the Planning and Transportation Commission on the following: SUMMARY MINUTES Page 14 of 14 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 11/18/2024 a. Continued refinement of the definition of retail-like land uses to establish a performance-based criteria that promotes pedestrian activity in commercial areas b. Expansion of the permitted uses in the ground floor (GF) and retail (R) combining districts and standards to allow non-retail like uses in certain circumstances; c. Review and recommend whether to amend retail preservation ordinance and evaluate changes to the geographic extent or applicability of the City’s retail preservation ordinance; and, 3. Direct staff to include a comprehensive update to the City’s zoning code as an objective for Council consideration in 2025 work plan; and, 4. Include automobile showrooms in the GF and R combining districts; and, 5. Direct Staff to develop a definition for financial institutions that clarify financial intuitions applies to walk-in retail financial services open to the public; and 6. Amend Emergency Interim Ordinance to change section (125.1)(K) to substitute “high level” with a word(s) comparable to “substantive”. PORTIONS OF MOTION INCORPORATED INTO THE FINAL MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER MOTION PASSED: 7-0 Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 9:07 P.M.