Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-12-02 City Council Summary MinutesCITY COUNCIL SUMMARY MINUTES Page 1 of 17 Regular Meeting December 2, 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 Present Remotely: Absent: None Call to Order Mayor Stone called the meeting to order. The clerk called roll and declared all were present. Special Orders of the Day 1. Appreciation for Congresswoman Anna Eshoo for her Many Years Serving Palo Alto and the Region NO ACTION Mayor Stone read the proclamation. He recognized Congresswoman Eshoo as a true champion for the American people for her many years of service to the community and the nation, and he thanked her. He stated that she had always been an inspiration and a hero. He noted that the proclamation was only the tip of the iceberg of her professional accomplishments. He was proud of the person she was. He looked forward to her future accomplishments. Congresswoman Anna Eshoo thanked Mayor Stone for the beautiful proclamation and Council for the partnership. She was honored to be in attendance with all the SEIU members. She voiced she would no longer hold office as of midnight January 2. She spoke of being legislatively shaped by local government, which had prepared her for congress. She commented that the seeds of democracy were planted in this chamber and in the work Council was doing. She wished Council her best in their deliberations and challenges and mentioned that she had always thought of a challenge as an opportunity. Her top priorities were AI legislation and an appropriation request for Palo Alto for the Fire Station Number 4 replacement. She was proud of her over-three-decade relationship with Palo Alto City Council. She discussed her hope that health would be part of the FAA’s portfolio. She considered it precious and sacred that people SUMMARY MINUTES Page 2 of 17 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 12/02/2024 placed their trust in government. She spoke of her position being a privilege and an honor. She acknowledged City staff, who were first-rate professionals. She complimented and saluted the Palo Alto Fire Chief, Police Department, and Chief of Police who were true professionals. Council Member Veenker was grateful to Congresswoman Eshoo. She spoke of the personal connection, advice, and attention she provided to Council. She thanked her for being a role model. Council Member Lythcott-Haims spoke of Congresswoman Eshoo’s grace and leadership. She was grateful for her service. Council Member Burt echoed his colleagues’ comments. He expressed that Congresswoman Eshoo had been driven by a devotion to the people she served, and he thanked her. Vice Mayor Lauing stated that Congresswoman Eshoo was inspiring, and he saluted her for serving the people. Council Member Kou voiced that Congresswoman Eshoo was inspiring. She thanked her for serving the community. She appreciated it when she did the sign of the cross at memorials, etc. Council Member Tanaka thanked Congresswoman Eshoo for her work, for representing Palo Alto, and for attending the meeting. 2. Proclamation Honoring the Life of Appollonia "Mama Dee" Grey Uhilamoelangi NO ACTION Vice Mayor Lauing recited the proclamation. He honored Mama Dee’s life, legacy, and indomitable spirit and recognized her as a pillar of cultural enrichment, youth advocacy, and intercommunity understanding, whose contributions would continue to inspire future generations. Mayor Stone announced that members of Mama Dee’s family were present to accept the proclamation. Senita Uhilamoelangi, Mama Dee’s husband, was honored. On behalf of himself, his family, and the Anamatangi coalition, he respectfully and humbly accepted the proclamation. He spoke of the work she had done. Tiffany Uhilamoelangi-Hautau, Executive Director of Anamatangi Polynesian Voices and daughter of Mama Dee, on behalf of her family and the Anamatangi community expressed heartfelt gratitude to Palo Alto for honoring her beloved mother with the beautiful proclamation, It was a deeply meaningful gesture that reflected the love and respect she inspired in many. She spoke of her being a beacon of joy, kindness, and selflessness. Mama Dee’s love and commitment to serving others remained deeply rooted in her, her siblings, her father, and the community. She was humbled and honored to continue her work. Mama Dee SUMMARY MINUTES Page 3 of 17 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 12/02/2024 lived by the values of compassion, generosity, and a belief in the goodness of people. She thanked Council for recognizing the impact of her life. Michael Uhilamoelangi, Mama Dee’s son, thanked Council for the proclamation. He discussed Mama Dee bridging communities and noted that it could be done. He appreciated Council and thanked staff. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions City Manager Ed Shikada declared there were no changes. He mentioned that Item 17 was listed on the action agenda, but it was actually a consent item. Mayor Stone summarized the policies and ground rules for public comment. Public Comment Forest P. spoke of SEIU and the City’s clerical workers, and he wanted City staff to earn a living wage and requested that a fair contract be supported. Jack M., Political Director of the South Bay Labor Council, stood with SEIU and Palo Alto City workers. He discussed the importance of a living wage and demanded that the City invest in the workers. Eli S. provided a perspective on collective bargaining. He discussed the cost of living increase and the value of the work being related. He requested that the salary survey be reviewed and that the right thing be done. Cheyenne V. had been with the City of Palo Alto Utilities for 14 years, and she was an SEIU member. She discussed turnover creating a wide knowledge gap. She asked Council to consider the importance of investing in the current and future workforce with a fair contract. Sheavounda W. had worked for the City of Palo Alto for 23 years as a public safety dispatcher. She addressed the high turnover rate in that industry. She discussed all City calls having to go through the Dispatch Center. She did not consider the salary to be competitive, which interfered with recruitment. David P., a Park Ranger with the Community Services Department and SEIU member, spoke of the services they provided. The increase in housing, transpiration, etc., impacted him on a daily basis. He asked the City to increase their contributions to healthcare and medical insurance. David S., a Park Ranger with the Community Services Department and SEIU member, spoke of the work of his team. With the rising cost of housing, etc., he urged the City to increase its contribution toward medical insurance. Jaya U., a senior at Gunn High School, was a member of the Social Justice Pathway and a previous a member of Congresswoman Eshoo’s Student Advisory Board. She represented her SUMMARY MINUTES Page 4 of 17 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 12/02/2024 mother and fellow City employees. She hoped Council would further invest in the workers by supporting livable wages and benefits that would retain workers. She indicated that a full workforce was more effective in contribution to the local economy as opposed to underemployed and underpaid workers. Melody T. was a Palo Alto employee as a Senior Librarian Lead. She addressed of the library’s public service work. She asked Council to help with the expense of healthcare. Peter Q., with the Utilities Department, was honored to share the podium with inspiring people. He expressed that his department provided top-tier service. He wished he could one day live in Palo Alto with his family. During contract negations, he asked that Council work to find balance that would be equitable for the residents, the City, and the employees. He believed the common goal was to attract and retain the very best employees to provide residents the absolute best service. Mora O. was the Executive Director of YCS and on the Board of the Embarcadero Media Foundation and expressed her gratitude to Council for issuing a proclamation to Mama Dee. In her memory, she brought attention to two local nonprofits – the Palo Alto Weekly and the Midpeninsula Media Center. She invited community members to explore how their voices could be heard through these mediums. She recognized Palo Alto Weekly staff writer Lisa Moreno for her dedication. Avram F. thanked the junior workers and requested they receive a living wage and more. He did not agree with a proposal to swear allegiance to the Israeli flag. He was in support of Council Members Lythcott-Haims and Veenker being the next mayor and vice mayor. Mayor Stone thanked SEIU members for attending. Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements Vice Mayor Lauing reported on the CAO Committee’s meeting last week. There had been a closed session related to possibly setting KPIs on the objectives that were in place. There had been productive conversations with the City Manager, City Clerk, and City Attorney. It was unanimously concluded that the CAOs should identify a few of the key goals and set measurements (KPIs or metrics) for the goals, which Council would receive shortly from the outside consultant. The process had been reviewed in open session and specific questions/prompts had been given to the CAOs for them to address and the questions had been reworked. In closed session, they had dedicated a lot of time for an interactive process with the CAOs, and the process for KPIs had begun. It had been suggested that the overall time frame be compressed next year and maybe start earlier. They wanted to make sure new Council members would be up to speed on their important role in governance. The other agenda items included evaluating the process and what would be done going forward, and they were pleased with Consultant/Facilitator Dan Rich whom they would welcome back. It was felt that the Committee should choose consultants and then have a faceoff of candidates and that SUMMARY MINUTES Page 5 of 17 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 12/02/2024 the Committee chose the facilitator. The steps of that were in process, and updates would be provided. Consent Calendar 3. Approval of Minutes from November 12, 2024 and November 18, 2024 Meetings 4. Adoption of a Resolution Vacating an Easement at 561 Addison Avenue; CEQA Status– Exempt under Cal. Code Regs. Tit. 14, section 15305 5. Adoption of a Resolution Approving and Attesting to the Veracity of the City's 2023 Annual Power Source Disclosure and Power Content Label Reports; CEQA Status: Not a project 6. Approval of Professional Services Contract Number C25191013 with BKF Engineers in an Amount Not to Exceed $451,705 for Preliminary Engineering (PE) Design Services for Railroad Crossing Safety Improvements for a Period of Four Years; CEQA status - categorically exempt under CEQA Guidelines Section 15301. 7. Approval of Professional Services Contract Number C25191563 with Navia Benefits Solutions Inc. in an Amount Not to Exceed $179,730 as the City of Palo Alto’s Administrator for City Employee Benefit Services of Flexible Spending Account (FSA), Transportation Spending Account (TSA), Lifestyle Plan and Consolidate Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA) for a Period of Five Years; CEQA Status – Not a Project. 8. Approval of Professional Services Contract No. C25193007 with Watry Design, Inc. in the Amount of $2,403,592 to Provide Design, Environmental Review, and Construction Administration Services for the New Downtown Parking Garage, Capital Improvement Program Project (PE-15007); CEQA Status: Not a Project 9. Approval of Contract Amendment Number 1 to Contract Number C23186719 with CivicPlus, LLC in the amount of $48,265 for Additional Features and Security for Existing Recreation Management Software for a new not-to-exceed of $783,330; CEQA Status – Not a Project. 10. Approval of Amendment No. 1 to Contract No. C22182372 with CSW/Stuber-Stroeh Engineering Group Inc. in the Amount of $25,000 for a total not to exceed amount of $189,852 and Extend the Contract Term for the University Avenue Streetscape Update Project (PE-21004); CEQA status – Not a Project 11. Approval of Amendment Number 1 to Contract Number S23187316 with Flock Safety in the amount of $349,808 for Automated License Plate Recognition (ALPR) to Implement 10 Additional Cameras and Extend the Term through December 2029 in a new not to exceed of $524,208; CEQA status – categorically exempt (Section 15321 enforcement actions) SUMMARY MINUTES Page 6 of 17 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 12/02/2024 12. Approval of the Second Amendment to Lease Agreement Between Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) and City of Palo Alto for a Portion of the Cubberley Site at 4000 Middlefield Road through December 31, 2029, Not-to-Exceed $2,500,000 in Rent per Year; CEQA Status—Not a Project 13. Approval of Amendment No. 2 to Contract No. C20176877 with Schaaf & Wheeler in the Amount of $77,360 for a total not-to-exceed amount of $867,278 and Extend the Contract Term for the Corporation Way System Upgrades and Pump Station (SD-21000), West Bayshore Road Pump Station (SD-20000) and West Bayshore Trunk Line Improvements (SD-23000) Projects; CEQA Status – Exempt Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 14. FIRST READING: Adoption of an Ordinance to Move Commissioner Appointments from April to November for the Public Art Commission (PAMC Ch. 2.18), Human Relations Commission (Ch. 2.22), and Parks and Recreation Commission (Ch. 2.25); and Adoption of a Resolution Moving Storm Water Management Oversight Committee Appointments from March to November; and Extending Terms Accordingly for these Commissions; CEQA status - not a project. 15. SECOND 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; CEQA status - Exempt under Sections 15301, 15303, and 15304 of the CEQA Guidelines (FIRST READING: November 18, 2024 PASSED 7-0) 16. SECOND 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 Foot Basis; CEQA Status: Exempt Pursuant to 15061(b)(3). (FIRST READING: November 18, 2024 PASSED 7-0) Public Comment Nolan N. (Presentation) on behalf of 7 (Jason C., Adam F., David K., Eric J., Kahi G., Nitzan D., Nithila S.) (Item 12) stated that he was one of eight highschoolers and volunteers from the Bay Area for MakeX Palo Alto. He summarized what MakeX did. They appreciated that Cubberley and Palo provided them access to the space at Cubberley. Through the anticipated Cubberley renovation plans, they would appreciate access to an expanded space, and he discussed how that would be beneficial to the community. He stated that he had provided the link to their website for more information. Elizabeth W. (Item 15) stated that her family owned the property at 532, 534, and 536 Ramona Street, and they had contacted the City (and had not received a reply) about one of their neighbors occupying two-thirds of the space in front of their building. Her businesses were prevented from participating in the Parklet Program and she did not know why. She asked for SUMMARY MINUTES Page 7 of 17 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 12/02/2024 equal treatment under the Constitution, specifically the 14th Amendment. She invited Council to visit her property to make an individual judgment, and she thought it would be fair ask the City to compensate for the loss of income and value of the property. Council Member Tanaka registered a no vote on Agenda Item Number 9, 13. MOTION: Council Member Veenker moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Lauing to approve Agenda Item Numbers 3-16. MOTION PASSED ITEMS 3-8, 10-12, 14-16: 7-0 MOTION PASSED ITEMS 9, 13: 6-1, Tanaka no Council Member Tanaka did not have issues in terms of what Items 9 and 13 would do. Concerning Item 9, his issues were around the Staff Report not addressing the vendor’s performance. Regarding Item 13, he was not sure about the issues with easements. He would have appreciated more information about the Item being delayed. City Manager Comments City Manager Ed Shikada displayed slides. He noted that the annual test of the emergency alert system would occur on December 12 at 12 noon. Information related to the annual Uplift Local holiday to support local businesses was available at upliftlocal.org/holidays. Upcoming events included the annual holiday tree lighting on Friday, December 6 and the Palo Alto Arts Center studio holiday sale and the California Avenue holiday trees and tree lighting on Saturday, December 7. More information was available at cityofpaloalto.org/winter events. There would be fare changes this week to the Palo Alto Link shuttle system, which he outlined. There would be two more meetings this calendar year. The annual review of community survey results, the University Avenue streetscape update, and Council Appointees Employment Agreements would occur on December 9. On December 16, there would be a study session with the City Council ad hoc committees reporting out, City Council reimbursement recommendations from the Policy & Services Committee, and the extension of the City auditor’s contract under Baker Tilly. There would be a reorganizational meeting on January 6. The first business meeting would be on January 13 with the long-range financial forecast on the agenda. On Tuesday, January 21, there would be a study session on suicide prevention policy and downtown affordable housing public/private partnerships next steps. The Council retreat would be on Saturday, January 25. [The Council took an 18-minute break] Action Items 17. Adoption of a Resolution Declaring Weeds to be a Public Nuisance and Setting February 10, 2025, for a Public Hearing for Objections to the Proposed Weed Abatement; CEQA status: exempt, CEQA Guidelines Section 15308. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 8 of 17 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 12/02/2024 City Manager Ed Shikada reported that this item had been inadvertently agendized as an action item and could have been agendized as a consent item. This was the beginning of the annual process of reviewing any properties with weed abatement issues, which could result in the cost of weed abatement being placed on property taxes. The date of the first public hearing should be set. Public Comment There were no public speakers. MOTION: Council Member Kou moved, seconded by Council Member Veenker to adopt the attached resolution: 1. Declaring weeds to be a public nuisance; 2. Setting February 10, 2025, for a public hearing on objections to proposed weed abatement; and 3. Directing staff to publish a notice of hearing in accordance with the provisions of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. MOTION PASSED: 7-0 18. Master Plan for the Cubberley Site: (1) Approval of Professional Services Contract Number C25192924 with Concordia, LLC in an Amount Not to Exceed $631,966 for Development of a Revised Master Plan for the Cubberley Site for a Period of Two Years; (2) Approve Budget Amendments in the General Fund and Cubberley Infrastructure Fund; (3) Approve a Letter of Intent with the Friends of the Palo Alto Recreation Wellness Center; (4) Approve the Workplan for Pursuit of a Local Ballot Measure for the November 2026 General Election to fund the Purchase of Land and Development of a New Community Recreation and Resource Center at the Cubberley Site; CEQA Status - CEQA review will be conducted on the Master Plan. City Manager Ed Shikada highlighted that there was a significant amount of work ahead to prepare for a ballot measure in November 2026. He elaborated on the workplan being unique. Community Services Director Kristen O’Kane furnished slides. She commented that the item contained several related Cubberley topics, a workplan for the upcoming ballot measure in November 2026, a contract with Concordia Consulting Group, and a Letter of Intent (LOI) with Friends of the Recreation Wellness Center. The actions followed what Council approved in October, which she detailed. She supplied a slide showing the project area being referred to. She discussed the significant amount of work to be completed to place a measure on the November 2026 ballot. Engagement with the community and stakeholders would occur throughout the process. This was not a linear effort but multiple things happening at the same time, and staff would be working on a very condensed time frame to get everything done. They SUMMARY MINUTES Page 9 of 17 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 12/02/2024 intended to revise the previous Cubberley Concept Plan with the assistance of Concordia, and it would involve significant community participation. The CEQA document would be updated. A naming plan for the future facility would be established. The final Master Plan would be guided by community preferences, cost, and site limitations. Fiscal and site analysis would involve an evaluation of the existing utility infrastructure system. An operating model and plan and a future financial plan needed to be developed for the facility. All would be important to understand the project cost and to inform polling and how the ballot measure would be developed. She listed what would be needed to define the ballot measure. The Staff Report outlined expected workplan tasks; however, many subtasks needed to be completed to meet the condensed timeline. They expected the workplan to be adjusted through the process. To complete the master planning effort, staff recommended reengaging with Concordia to resume and build upon the Master Plan completed in 2019, which would reaffirm programming preferences, concept plans for site layout and design, and the Master Plan for the community use of the site. The scope would include a sustainability report, transportation study, and construction cost estimates and phasing. She expressed why the LOI was related to the entire Cubberley effort, which would not be a legally binding document, but it would demonstrate a commitment by the Friends and the City for the Friends to raise funds to build a portion of the Cubberley project, the Recreation Wellness Center, and for the City to provide the land at Cubberley to construct the center. If the Friends could raise funds and develop architectural plans in advance of finalizing the plans and financing for the entire site, it could be constructed as a first phase of the larger project. She outlined the tasks that the City and Friends would do together. Staff recommended that the City Manager be authorized to execute a contract with Concordia, amend the FY2025 budget appropriation, and approve a LOI and the workplan for pursuit of a November 2026 local ballot measure. The community could get the latest information and sign up for emails at cityofpaloalto.org/cubberleyproject. Public Comment Herb B. believed the LOI needed more information before being approved, which he elaborated on. He suggested additional information be gathered on the Friends of Palo Alto Recreation Wellness Center. He had not found the Friends of Palo Alto Recreation Wellness Center to be listed on the Attorney General’s website. He voiced why he thought it was a mistake to say Cubberley would be the preferred site and thought it should be a declarative statement. Anne C. was attending as the President of the Palo Alto Recreation and Wellness Center, and she noted that several board members would also provide comments. They thanked the ad hoc, City staff, and the Board of Directors of the Friends for sharing the vision. They looked forward to working with Council. She hoped the LOI would be signed because they were anxious to move forward with the fundraising. Marc Q. stated that he was the founder and on the Board of Agile Physical Therapy, so he could support the community delivery of service required for the wellness factor. He saw the need for ongoing community support in services in gym and wellness centers for this area. He looked SUMMARY MINUTES Page 10 of 17 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 12/02/2024 forward to supporting the Friends program to get the wellness and recreation center up and running. Jeff L., a Board member of the Friends group, spoke of the importance of the gym and wellness center. They supported the action. He appreciated everything that had been done to move this forward. Yudy D., a newly appointed PRC Commissioner and a Board member on the Friends of Palo Alto Recreation and Wellness Center, expressed her heartfelt gratitude for Council’s dedication to advance the Cubberley Development Plan. Sonya B. (Zoom) was a next-door neighbor to Cubberley Community Center. She opposed housing at Cubberley and wanted it to continue as a community center to support the residents of South Palo Alto. She wanted Cubberly to provide as many services to South Palo Alto as was provided to North Palo Alto. Penny E. (Zoom) was glad to see Cubberley back on Council’s agenda. She thanked Council and City staff for the work that had been done. She expressed that the project needed to draw broad citywide support as a two-thirds majority vote would be required. She asked that a therapy pool be considered, not a lap pool, and to consider creating an agreement with PAUSD to use one of their existing publicly funded pools for lap and recreational swimming. She noted that the 2019 designs included housing, which she understood to be controversial. She asked that housing expectations for this site be intentional and explicit at this meeting. She requested that staff and Concordia be directed to consider how much additional community space would be needed with the planned growth. Beatrice K. (Zoom) remarked that changes could be implemented at Cubberley now to benefit the Cubberley community and visitors. She supported staff’s recommendation to work with Concordia and Friends. She proposed improved artistic signage, courtyard landscaping, including community seating, and working with local vendors to support popup events along with food and beverage outlets. She requested that the City support their efforts and appropriate funds to activate Cubberly now. Ken (Zoom) supported the staff proposal but with the exception that Concordia not be involved. He thought staff and a local architect could create a plan, and he recommended contacting David Hirsh with the ARB. He thought using Concordia would delay the time-sensitive process. Jennifer D. (Zoom) expressed support for the proposal and thanked Council, the City Manager, and the Friends of Cubberley for their work. She was grateful for the engagement over the last year and a half with the Palo Alto School Board. She appreciated Council’s response to Mr. Dharap’s letter. Council Member Lythcott-Haims commented that she was a member of the former Ad Hoc Committee and was eager to see it get going again, but she would be fine with it starting in January. She wanted to give new Council members the opportunity to join various ad hocs and SUMMARY MINUTES Page 11 of 17 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 12/02/2024 committees. Regarding the lease, she did not see mention of $1 million in credit for unpaid maintenance. She felt that Concordia needed to be involved. She noted that the scope of services on Packet Page 289 stated the process concluded with Concordia in 2017, and she thought that should read 2019. Concerning conversations occurring with Concordia biweekly in the first phase, she suggested the language be clear as to whether that would be twice a week or every two weeks. Community Services Director O’Kane answered that the lease came forward as a consent item, so the $1 Million credit was detailed in that document. Staff would correct Packet Page 298 to reflect 2019 instead of 2017. She indicated that the meetings with Concordia would be project- management-type meetings, and based on prior experience with Concordia, there would be daily communication. Council Member Kou understood that the LOI from Friends had to do with providing funding. She asked what other obligations the City would have, as she was seeing reference to partnership, etc. If it was just about funding, she would support it, but if there were other conditions and terms, it needed to be discussed with the community. Community Services Director O’Kane replied that the model for the Friends was in part developed after the Friends of the Junior Museum and Zoo model. At that time, it was important to ensure that the donors contributing to the construction would receive what they were told would be represented in the new facility, such as programming, etc. The Friends were almost representing the donor in that way, so they needed to know their asks would be supported. The Friends would likely be able to design and construct the facility quicker than the City if the Junior Museum and Zoo model was followed. She thought donors needed assurance that they would get what they were being promised. Council Member Kou requested that Council be provided with the Friends’ fundraising plan, goals, etc. She did not want donors to have a right to certain programming. She wanted it to be the community’s. City Manager Shikada thought that at this point it would be best to consider the LOI as enabling the pursuit of funding rather than obligating the City to any specific outcome. In the months ahead, ideally this would be used as a way to reflect the mix of funding to be used to bring the facility to the community. Private donations would ideally strengthen the case to the voters. It would not obligate the City to any specific operational plan. Any operational priorities would be presented to Council in the future. Council Member Kou stated that she would remember the statement that this LOI would not obligate the City in developing a staffing and operating plan for programs. She would be much more comfortable if the item were removed. Vice Mayor Lauing thought it was understood conceptually what would happen but that it was not known what would actually happen. He thought Concordia was one of the best resources to have. He was supportive of the unusual process the City Manager outlined. He supported the SUMMARY MINUTES Page 12 of 17 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 12/02/2024 staff recommendation. He queried where Concordia would start and what their guidelines would be. He proposed that housing not be on the table. He questioned what had changed and was no longer needed. He inquired, for example, if considering a smaller gym might restart the design process and if such should be considered. He was concerned that it would take too long. He inquired if there would be one or two study sessions with Concordia. He explained that he had concerns with the LOI. As for staff’s reference to PRC and Friends of the Zoo, it was good to have that as a model, although that had not been perfect. He thought donors should know exactly what they would get. He was also concerned with the language of mutually developing a construction and program budget. The LOI was a little fuzzy, which may be okay now, but he did not want to sign up for anything specific at this meeting. He found the schedule compression and doing it in parallel to be the right thing to do. Community Services Director O’Kane responded that Concordia had been told that the Master Plan would not include housing. Concordia would start by looking at the previous work as it related to programming and site design preferences. They would identify gaps and what was still relevant and no longer relevant. There would be three community meetings similar to what had been done previously. The intention was to build off what had already done and put it into a 15-acre land area as opposed to the 43 acres that had been used originally to design the Master Plan. There were many checks and balances, so it was unlikely that they would develop something that had not already been discussed. As for what had changed and was no longer needed, housing was off the table. The level of a bond measure the community would be willing to fund needed to be identified, so the amenities the community wanted needed to be recognized, although care should be taken to not shoot to high which might not lead to a successful ballot measure. She stated that with Concordia’s track record she was confident that they would be able to do the work in the time period in the contract. They had a deadline of December 2025. The CEQA documentation would need be completed and Council would need to adopt the Master Plan and CEQA to meet the March 2025 deadline. She thought there would be check-ins with the PRC, the Planning Commission, and Council. Council Member Burt stated that upon having a better understanding of the cost the community needed to be polled to determine what they would be willing to pay for. He noted that the previous plan was problematic in that it did not address how expensive it would be and the voters’ appetite for it. He wanted to do as much as the voters would support and ensure that this would be rooted in what would be achievable, which may mean there being two iterations of the plan. He hoped the first phase would be the wellness center and recreation center and an activation of the space as it currently was. The first major phase of the reconstruction may not include everything desired beyond the wellness center and the activation efforts. He asked what the square footage of the current buildings was, which he felt was an important reference point. He was concerned with the language in the MOU and thought there needed to be engagement with PAUSD sooner rather than later to ensure that the City would have latitude in the event of this not being on the ballot. He noted that it took two rounds to pass the Library Bond. He added that this would be a great investment. He wanted to ensure citywide support to get to a two-thirds supermajority. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 13 of 17 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 12/02/2024 Community Services Director O’Kane did not know the total square footage of the current buildings, but she believed it was 15 acres of land. Council Member Veenker was generally excited about this item. She thought Council should be cognizant of the expenses as this progressed and the wants of residents and what they would support. She wondered if looking at the cost of the Los Altos and Ravenswood community center might provide good datapoints. She referenced Slide 5 and the timeline and asked if outreach to the school district should occur in March 2026 to address amendments being made to the agreement if the sale should not go through. She supported retaining Concordia. She generally agreed with the budget amendments outlined in the Staff Report and the LOI. As the LOI was not binding, she thought deciding who would do what could be worked out in the process. She assumed that in 2019 the goals, values, priorities, and ideas had been addressed, but she thought it should be done again. She reference Page 268 of the Staff Report and re- affirming programming priorities developed in the 2019 master planning process and cautioned that the language of re-affirm could be presumptive and leading and people may now have new ideas. She requested that staff speak about the feedback loop and what was often called second judgment. She asked if there was a separate process for ballot polling feedback and if that polling would feed into the Master Plan and vice versa. Community Services Director O’Kane replied that the word re-affirm did not mean nothing would change. There was not time to do as many iterations as had been done in the process last time. She thought they could start with what they had and see what the community still hoped for and then consider new things or changes that might be cause for doing something different. Iterations would definitely happen through checking in with the community multiple times. Most of the space could be considered adaptable and flexible. City Manager Shikada answered that initial polling would identify the most important amenities and that would inform Concordia’s programming work on the site and then the process would be iterative from there with future considerations. Council Member Lythcott-Haims voiced, regarding the MOU, that the City wanted the option of purchasing the property even if the bond did not pass, and she was confident that a Plan B could be worked out in the coming months. MOTION: Council Member Lythcott-Haims moved, seconded by Council Member Veenker to: 1. Approve and authorize the City Manager or designee to execute Contract No. C25192924 (Attachment C), with Concordia, LLC, for development of a revised Master Plan for the Cubberley Community Center site for a term of two years, and a total amount not-to-exceed $631,966, including $585,860 for basic services and $46,106 for additional services; and 2. Amend the Fiscal Year 2025 Budget Appropriation for: a. General Fund by: SUMMARY MINUTES Page 14 of 17 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 12/02/2024 i. Increasing the transfer to the Cubberley Property Infrastructure Fund by $631,966; and ii. Decreasing the Real Property Investment Reserve by $631,966; b. Cubberley Property Infrastructure Fund by (requires 2/3 approval): i. Increasing the transfer from the General Fund by $631,966; and ii. Increasing the Cubberley Community Center Redevelopment Capital Improvement Project (CB-26000) by $631,966; and 3. Approve the workplan for pursuit of a November 2026 local ballot measure to fund the purchase of land and development of a new Community Recreation and Resource Center at the Cubberley site. Council Member Kou wanted to ensure that Council do its due diligence. She supported moving forward with Concordia and the other staff asks. She was concerned with the LOI. She expressed that there needed to be sufficient parking so as not to impact the residential areas. She thought JCC’s parking situation should be investigated as to how overflows were managed, etc. She wanted to know what the plan was for mobility circulation and if there would be a TDM plan. She felt the swimming pool should accommodate swim therapy and rehabilitation. She was glad that housing was not part of this discussion. She noted that the gym was part of the community center not vice versa. She asked that the LOI be voted on separately. MOTION PASSED: 7-0 MOTION SPLIT FOR THE PURPOSE OF VOTING MOTION: Council Member Lythcott-Haims moved, seconded by Council Member Veenker to: 4. Approve a Letter of Intent (Attachment D) with the Friends of the Palo Alto Recreation Wellness Center for the purpose of fundraising for a recreation wellness center (gymnasium) at the Cubberley site; and MOTION PASSED: 6-1, Kou no 19. Colleague's Memo: Resolution Supporting the Efforts of the Amah Mutsun Tribal Band to Preserve Juristac/Sargent Ranch as Open Space Council Member Kou introduced the Colleague’s Memo. She remarked that Palo Alto treasured open spaces. Climate change and natural environment protection was a Palo Alto priority. Protecting diversity in the region was connected to the community’s health and wellbeing. She and Mayor Stone requested that Council support and stand with the Amah Mutsun Tribal Band, the environmental groups, and concerned citizens to protect the ecologically sensitive, ancient, ceremonial site, Juristac. The SCC supervisors were visiting a proposal from an investor group SUMMARY MINUTES Page 15 of 17 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 12/02/2024 based in San Diego to develop a 403-acre open pit mining operation at the proposed Sargant Quarry, which included a processing plant, an access road, etc. She stated it was destructive and would produce much excavated material, which she elaborated on. This would be over the 30-year life of the mine and would primarily be for use in local road building and general construction. She discussed the history of the Amah Mutsun Tribal Band. The entire Sargent Ranch area was contained within the Juristac tribal cultural landscape, which contained several cultural sites. The tribe was invested in the condor’s comeback and working with the National Park Services on their recovery. She asked Council to pass the resolution and that Council support the efforts of the Amah Mutsun Tribal Band to preserve Juristac Sargent Ranch as open space in perpetuity, to regain access to the cultural and spiritual sites at Juristac, to support the Amah Mutsun Tribal Band preference that the name of the open space be Juristac, and that the Charter City of Palo Alto urge Santa Clara County to deny approval of permits for the proposed Sargent Ranch Quarry Project. Mayor Stone added that Lehigh Quarry had been closed but it would likely take decades for the land to be reclaimed with the environmental impacts lasting over 100 years. He felt this was a chance to avoid the mistakes of the past. He requested that Council support the resolution and encourage the Board of Supervisors to object to the expansion. Public Comment Valentin L. on behalf of 5 (Victorina A., Colleen C. (Zoom), Jenny G., Lizabeth M., Mohini N.) discussed Juristac being without a doubt their most sacred site. They were working with four universities to identify ways to steward and manage the land to aid in recovering from climate change. Their territory had been the most populated area of Native Americans in the United States. The mining proposal would remove four of their most sacred mountains. When they learned of the proposal 10 years ago, they spoke to the Board of Supervisors and others, and they learned that the only thing that could stop this would be overwhelming public support. Their coalition included five cities (and they were asking Palo Alto to be the sixth) and religious leaders of all faiths. Because they were not federally recognized, the laws for religious protections did not apply to them. He stated that they had signed a treaty in 1851, which had not been ratified. He commented that the mining permit being denied would go a long way in the healing of their tribe, the people that supported them, other organizations, and governments. Alice K., Policy and Advocacy Director for Green Foothills, thanked Council for considering the resolution and urged its approval. They had submitted a joint letter to Council last week. She explained that the landscape was important for wildlife movement. Maria D. supported Juristac and thought it was critical that the land be for the Amah Mutsun Tribe. She found sacred lands to be healing. She was concerned about the changes in the air and water quality and the temperature of the earth, and this was an opportunity to reverse some of the problems that had been brought to the land. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 16 of 17 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 12/02/2024 Nichole B., a member of Showing Up for Racial Justice, SCC, spoke in solidarity with the Amah Mutsun Tribal Band. She was deeply concerned about the cultural and spiritual impact of mining Juristac. She thought the project moving forward might set a precedent leading to similar projects in Palo Alto. Maya A. thanked Mayor Stone and Council Member Kou for bringing the recommendation forward. She supported the resolution to recommend that the county protect Juristac from mining. She noted that many considered the project to be bad for environmental health. The Santa Clara County Human Rights Commission ruled that the project would be a desecration of sacred land and a violation of their human rights. Council could continue to be a leader by standing for environmental and indigenous justice. Cedric (Zoom) thanked Mayor Stone and Council Member Kou for bringing this forward. He supported the action and hoped Council would too. He thought it was about respect for the Native people. He commented that the area was important for biodiversity and that keeping it natural and wild was essential. He understood that the quarry was not needed, that there were other sources. Shani, Environmental Advocate for SCVBA, thanked Mayor Stone and Council Member Kou for the Memo. She spoke of the injury caused by the Lehigh and Stevens Creek quarries and this quarry possibly impacting the regional area. Alice S. (Zoom) had written a letter to Council yesterday, and she added that there may be loss of public lands and open space in the next four years and that SCC should be the leaders in standing up for the protection of the sacred and environmentally important areas at Juristac. She added that the destruction in Alaska, Utah, and Montana was irretrievable. Dashiell L. (Zoom), Conservation Coordinator for the Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter, supported the memorandum and resolution. He thanked Mayor Stone and Council Member Kou for it. They were concerned what the impacts the mine could have on Juristac’s biodiversity, wildlife corridors and habitats, and watershed and requested that Juristac be protected and preserved as open space. Council Member Burt thanked his colleagues for bringing this forward. He fully supported the recommendation. He spoke of the closing of Permanente Quarry and concrete being shipped in from further distances, which added to construction costs, and the shipments were a significant contributor to GHG and other pollutants. He thought this action would cause greater attention being put on low-carbon concrete. He stated that the impacts to concrete production should be mitigated. MOTION: Council Member Kou moved, seconded by Mayor Stone to approve the Resolution and send to the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors to support and stand with the Amah Mutsun Tribal Band, environmental groups, and concerned citizens to protect the ecologically sensitive ancient ceremonial site, called Juristac, located in south Santa Clara County, and to reject the proposed Sargent Quarry Project. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 17 of 17 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 12/02/2024 Council Member Kou thought it was the right thing to do. She believed Council should be conscious about open space of other places being impacted with these kind of actions. Mayor Stone noted that it had been an honor to be the coauthor on the Memo and thanked Council Member Kou for all she had done. Council Member Veenker thanked her colleagues for bringing this forward. She stated that reducing a supply of something may spur innovation to solve the needs, and this could be one of those instances. She was concerned about the impact on wildlife and the various climate impacts of a potential quarry, and she spoke of the impact on the Amah Mutsun Tribal Band. The tradition and spirituality of indigenous people was near and dear to her family. She was deeply troubled that the draft EIR prepared by the county found that the quarry would cause 14 separate and significant unavoidable impacts, that no reclamation activities could restore the alterations to the Juristac tribal cultural landscape, and that it could result in potential disturbance of archeological sites and human burials. The SCC Human Rights Commission voted unanimously to recognize the desecration of the Amah Mutsun sacred site of Juristac as a significant human rights issue and recommended that the county deny approvals of permits for the proposed mine. She agreed with the Human Rights Commission and supported the recommendation. Council Member Tanaka thanked his colleagues for bringing this forward. He stated that he was a staunch environmentalist, so he appreciated that aspect. He had done some research on the quarry, which he elaborated on, and he was concerned about how this could impact housing in the area as it related to building materials, and the environmental impact and cost of importing concrete concerned him. While all could hope for a revolution in building technology, concrete was a staple of modern construction, which concerned him. Council Member Lythcott-Haims echoed what had been said. She thanked her colleagues for bringing this forward, and she appreciated it. She commented that sometimes there were trade-offs to face. She was excited about the idea of low-carbon concrete and hoped it would be pursued. It was clear to her that this was the right decision, so she supported the efforts of the Amah Mutsun Tribal Band to preserve Juristac as open space. She hoped it would go a small way toward repairing the relationship with the Amah Mutsun people and other indigenous people. Vice Mayor Lauing stated that the best word to describe this was desecration. He firmly supported this and stopping the desecration in the region, which affected people, animals, and the environment. MOTION PASSED: 7-0 Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 9:11 p.m.