Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-02-03 City Council Summary MinutesCITY COUNCIL SUMMARY MINUTES Page 1 of 12 Regular Meeting February 3, 2025 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, Lauing, Lu, Lythcott-Haims, Reckdahl, Stone, Veenker Present Remotely: None. Absent: None. Call to Order Mayor Lauing called the meeting to order. The clerk called the roll declaring all present. Special Orders of the Day 1. Interview Candidates for the Vacancies on the Planning and Transportation Commission Item Removed Off Agenda NO ACTION Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions Ed Shikada, City Manager, noted there was an amended agenda issued removing the interviews scheduled for that evening. Public Comment 1. Claire E., retired environmental engineer and a resident of Ventura neighborhood, expressed disappointment that Boulware Park could not be coordinated with the Fry’s project to free the creek from its concrete channel and she hoped it would be reconsidered in the future. She had concerns about having astroturf in the parks and where the materials would go when their lifespan was over. She hoped when the new landscape architect was hired, they might have more skill in sustainable landscaping. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 2 of 12 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 02/03/2025 2. Magdalena C. discussed the health hazards associated with artificial turf and expressed her opinion that it was unacceptable that the City would deem the pros of using plastic turf in John Boulware Park compelling. 3. Angela D. spoke about the health dangers of microplastics and declared there was no excuse for exposing the neighborhoods and children to microplastics in artificial turf. She hoped Council would direct the appropriate department to replace the plastic turf with a healthy alternative such as wood mulch. 4. Carla H. preferred grass or something safer to artificial turf. 5. Liz G. described health, safety and fair housing issues at 2500 El Camino Real that she had been attempting to have addressed. 6. Michael M., tenant of Palo Alto airport, discussed his non-profit organization called Bay Area Urban Eagles. He brought a memo announcing an event they would be running called Meet the Pros and would like to have representation from the City attend. 7. Jennifer L. applauded the approach of substituting the term health with wellness in the City's priorities. She looked forward to returning to expand on why the topic of aviation noise and sleep was important and how they could be proactive with actions specific to nighttime operations. 8. Alan C. referenced the verbal attack of Rowena Chiu at the contentious board meeting the week before. He called for City Council to speak up and condemn this behavior. 9. Jennifer D. remarked that Ms. Chiu did not like her perception of how she was treated in the school board meeting the prior week and felt a staff member minimized it. She indicated the meeting could be watched on YouTube. She pointed out that Ms. Chiu took the incident to social media rather than the appropriate channels. Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements Councilmember Reckdahl inquired what the process would be to address artificial turf at Boulware Park. City Manager Shikada responded that staff had received the concerns raised, was putting together some response and would be doing some outreach with the neighbors. Councilmember Stone announced that he had been elected as the chair of the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority the prior week. He spoke about the Reach 2 Project and looked forward to updating the community on opportunities to weigh in and assist the JPA and City on moving that forward. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 3 of 12 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 02/03/2025 Councilmember Burt shared that he was selected by the county’s Cities Association to be their representative on the Metropolitan Transportation Commission the week before. One of the major tasks for the coming year would be looking at the prospect of funding regional transportation needs. He noted that he would continue on the VTA Board as an ex-officio member and continue representation on the Caltrain Board. Vice Mayor Veenker reported on her attendance of the January Northern California Power Agency Commission meeting where a five million dollar conditional grant funding agreement toward five NCPA hydroelectric projects was accepted. She also attended the California League of Cities Conference in which there was an emergency operations roundtable, discussion of Prop 36 implementation and a legislative wrap-up. She spoke about a legislative panel hosted by the Peninsula Division of the League of California Cities where they received an update on insurance, housing and the budget after the fires. She stated she had been reappointed to the Bay Area Air District Board of Directors at the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims discussed the history of Black History Month in February. She spoke about her experience attending the Lunar New Year event. She mentioned being present for the swearing-in of the new supervisor in Santa Clara County District 5. She described attending the pinning ceremony for nine new probationary cadets in the Palo Alto Fire Department. Mayor Lauing described attending the Cities Association of Santa Clara County where he had the opportunity to vote for two of his colleagues. He announced the ad hoc was able to negotiate a number of enhancements to what they had planned in mitigations of some of the potential safety issues with Caltrans. He had collaborated on a letter with staff asking and appealing for additional funding from CTC who approved $9.5 million to get all the items requested. Consent Calendar Councilmember Lythcott-Haims registered a no vote on Agenda Item Number 4. Public Comment: 1. Armando M. (Item 4), field representative with the Northern California Carpenters Union with Local 405, spoke about labor compliance regarding Contract No. C25191929 which ensured employees were treated equally and free from all forms of discrimination and harassment. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims spoke to her no vote on Item Number 4 in light of the concerns that had been raised stating it was her impression that the contractee may not be a signatory with Nor Cal Carpenters. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 4 of 12 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 02/03/2025 MOTION: Vice Mayor Veenker moved, seconded by Councilmember Reckdahl to approve Agenda Item Numbers 2-6. MOTION PASSED ITEMS 2-3, 5-6: 7-0 MOTION PASSED ITEM 4: 6-1, Lythcott-Haims no 2. Approval of Minutes from January 13, 2025 Meeting 3. Appointment of 2025 Emergency Standby Council 4. Approval of Construction Contract No. C25191929 with Alex Kushner General Inc. in the Amount Not-to-Exceed $390,000 for the Temporary Fire Station 4 as part of the Fire Station 4 Replacement Capital Improvement Program project (PE-18004) and Authorization for the City Manager or Their Designee to Negotiate and Execute Change Orders for Related Additional but Unforeseen Work that May Develop During the Project Up to a Not-to-Exceed Amount of $39,000; CEQA Status – Exempt Under Section 15303 5. Authorize the City Manager or their Designee to Execute an Assistance Agreement with the United States Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) in the amount of $16,519,879 through January 31, 2030; CEQA Status – Not a project. 6. Approval of Three Professional Services Contracts for On-call Transportation Engineering and Planning Project Support Services, for a Four-Year Term: 1) Contract Number C25191149 with TJKM Transportation in the Amount Not-to-Exceed $300,000, 2) Contract Number C25192647 With Fehr and Peers in the Amount Not-to-Exceed $800,000, and 3) Contract Number C25192646 With Kittelson and Associates in the Amount Not-to-Exceed $800,000; CEQA status - categorically exempt; specific projects will undergo environmental review as applicable. City Manager Comments City Manager Shikada provided a slide presentation including a flood watch in the Bay area with a low risk for Palo Alto, police department updates, February events, engagement and activities and notable tentative upcoming Council items. He advised the community and Council that staff was working up a potential proposal for City Council consideration as part of the mid-year budget review that would allow them to make improvements with additional staffing for Fire Station 4 and would have more information in the packet for February 4. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 5 of 12 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 02/03/2025 Action Items 7. Update and Potential Direction on Car-Free Street Improvements on California Avenue; CEQA status – CEQA review is currently underway on the projects as described in this report. NO ACTION Steve Guagliardo, Assistant to the City Manager, offered context to the item being discussed and Council direction being sought. Bruce Fukuji, Project Manager, provided a PowerPoint presentation with a project update, stakeholder engagement, brand identity and signage system, wayfinding to California Avenue destinations, outdoor activation and street space zones, setbacks and activity zones, layout of setbacks and zones, alternatives framework and next steps. Mr. Guagliardo commented that he had spoken with a new innovation hub that cited their reason for that location was its proximity to Caltrain as well as the car-free street. He asked if Council felt they were going in the right direction and if they wanted to affirm the next steps as outlined. Public Comment: 1. Michael E., member of the Cal Ave Committee, stated the committee wanted to work closely with the City to act as stakeholders to communicate the neighborhood’s views to the City. He recalled having a good conversation in May but stated they felt they had not been involved since. He recommended making the signage less obtrusive. Councilmember Reckdahl queried if there were plans to mitigate conflicts between bikes and peds. He stated he would like to see Cambridge upgraded to a class 3 bike route with sharrows and better stoplight infrastructure for bicycles. Mr. Fukuji replied they were looking at strategies to address bicycle speeds. Councilmember Stone wanted to know if the grinding/repaving of Cal Ave remove the parking blocks. He asked what staff anticipated as far as different timing on the long term change whether the adaptive street or the reimagined street design was pursued. He inquired where the tree canopy would go on the five different zones for the sidewalk and roadway zones as envisioned in the reimagined street alternative. He preferred the reimagined street design. He was not impressed with the proposed signage. He echoed Councilmember Reckdahl’s desire to see alternative designs with regards to the bike lane. Mr. Fukuji answered yes and that several of them had been removed already. He explained the timing would depend on the scope of what the improvements and their different strategies. The reimagining was looking at what a large project would be in terms of all the elements SUMMARY MINUTES Page 6 of 12 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 02/03/2025 together. Adapting would be looking at how to do prioritized improvements that could happen over time and how to implement things as quickly as possible. He thought they would have a better idea about the timeline once they go through that process. He indicated the tree canopy would be in the curb zone space. Councilmember Lu asked for clarification how the reorganized space being proposed in slide five was different from the current state. He wanted to understand what the key differences were in the near term and the timeline for getting that organized. Mr. Fukuji replied the adaptive street concept was looking at places where the curbs would stay or would be modified. The diagram in slide five showed curbs that were there. The zones could apply to whether there were curbs there or not. The zones would still be laid out in that configuration. He thought it would be clearer to present when the next step of design work for the alternatives was done. They would be coming back to Council in the second quarter of 2025 after doing outreach. Mr. Guagliardo added engagement and outreach was needed with the merchants on the street regarding the activation guidelines and they would be looking to incorporate their feedback into the activation guidelines as they were brought forward for approval from the Council. City Manager Shikada explained they would effectively implement the adaptive approach which was what could be done within the context of the existing Infrastructure. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims was curious as to how they would ensure that designs for near term solutions would be consistent with designs that had not yet been approved for the long term. She was in favor of the proposed signage. She wondered what the designers felt about the blade signs. She suggested considering a vertical sign with stacked letters. She wanted to be sure Backyard Brew was on the radar as an entity of urban fields. She queried what they were doing with the conditional use parking permits and how that work aligned with this work. Mr. Fukuji answered they did the near term improvements consistent with what they had been working on with the signage program. They met with consultants and reviewed all that. He explained that the blade sign was chosen because California was such a long word and it could be turned on its side. He agreed Backyard Brew would be on the radar. Mr. Guagliardo remarked that Council took action following up on the Retail Committee conversation about the land use changes back in November 2024 so they were live. If someone wanted to do formula retail, they would be allowed to proceed without the CUP. Councilmember Burt was interested in focusing on helping retailers thrive and having Cal Ave be the location the community and neighboring communities value. He would be for the reimaged street if they could get it in a reasonable timeframe at a reasonable cost and figure out how to pay for it but he was skeptical about that and thought the adaptive was more feasible. He wanted to see the question asked about embracing the historic identity of Mayfield. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 7 of 12 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 02/03/2025 Councilmember Veenker agreed the reimagined would be preferable if it was feasible. She wanted to see Cal Ave and University Ave polished up to make Palo Alto a destination between the two. She was interested in seeing community member conversation pursued. She spoke about combining the residents’ wishes of making it beautiful and the merchants’ wishes of making it functional. Mr. Guagliardo thought they saw the tension for merchants wanting to see it success as a commercial destination with other perceptions being wanting it to be an open space. Mr. Fukuji explained merchants were uncomfortable about having the community tell them what kind of seating they should have. He thought there were different value sets in terms of how people thought about it. He stated there was a need on California Avenue for there to be more free public seating. Mayor Lauing questioned what they believed the heartbeat of the merchants was with regard to what they were seeing. Mr. Guagliardo thought there was a general understanding that retail vibrancy was a broad term that supported both restaurants and goods retailers. He pointed out there were more restaurants on the car free street portion than hard goods retailers. As part of the outdoor activation guidelines, they were trying to make sure to set it up to be able to take advantage of the car free street and should a retailer decide to locate their goods out in that space, they would be able to do so in a way that would help entice customers into the store. Councilmember Reckdahl queried if there was a route to take to the reimagined street without having to do a lot of wasted work. He asked if there was anything to be done to speed the project up. Mr. Fukuji commented thinking about how to do the design work was to look at ways to be able to evolve to be able to do a reimagined street. There were certain benchmarks that would trigger things like stormwater prevention programs. Mr. Guagliardo advised affirmation from Council that they were going in the right direction would be powerful and help keep staff focused on the next steps that were outlined. He thought shovels in the ground later in the month would do a lot for the community to see what was happening. Construction had already taken place at the intersection of El Camino and Cal Ave. Vice Mayor Veenker inquired if there could be bike lanes in the alleys behind the buildings on each side of Cal Ave. She asked if the terrazzo sidewalks would be staying. She wanted to know if any feedback had been received from the business community about the potential of a business association administering outdoor activation guidelines. Mr. Guagliardo thought bike lanes in the alleys behind the buildings on each side of Cal Ave could be explored beyond the very preliminary stages. The reason it had not been explored yet SUMMARY MINUTES Page 8 of 12 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 02/03/2025 was because those back of the house alleyways was where a lot of deliveries occurred. He commented they had been meeting monthly trying to convene a merchants of Cal Ave association type meeting. They saw that they relationship could only move at the speed of trust. They reassured the merchants they were doing what they could to move forward. He mentioned when the direction was given to staff to pursue these improvements, an online petition was signed by a number of businesses that focused on the issue of circulation and access. He thought these efforts would do a lot to improve the conditions on the street and hopefully continue to attract customers to those businesses. Mr. Fukuji remarked they would know more what would be staying in terms of the terrazzo sidewalks when they looked at the street designs. Councilmember Burt wanted his colleagues input on the idea of having an action item brought back to Council to give direction on permanent parklets. He opined they needed to have a greater mix of non-deciduous trees. He was interested in what measures were going to be taken to prevent bike speeding on the access zone. He agreed that improving biking on Cambridge should be part of the greater plan. He wanted to make sure the consideration of having sidewalks in front of stores was there. He was disappointed that near-term and ADA parking was not included in the package and thought there should be a greater sense of urgency on that. Councilmember Lu supported bike improvements on Cambridge. He agreed that slowing bike traffic on Cal Ave was important. He was in favor of working on a permanent parklet ordinance. He supported the reimagine proposal. He thought they could do mid-century aesthetics well but advised they needed to make sure the materials would age gracefully. He was not in favor of the terrazzo. He thought a more contemporary aesthetic would align with some of the public comment. He supported a full-width gateway sign. He liked the option where the letters were hung. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims wanted a sense of how the bike lanes down the center would work with a whole crowd of people shopping in a farmer's market. Mr. Guagliardo replied they did not work as bike lanes any longer. It would still act as emergency access but would not be practical to ride a bike through there. Mayor Lauing gave staff the opportunity to respond to the idea of scheduling a time to return and look at things like tent removal. Mr. Guagliardo answered they did anticipate returning to Council in Q2 to talk about the outdoor activation guidelines that serve as the equivalent of a parklet program for Cal Ave. Mr. Fukuji explained how Cal Ave being a car-free street changed the needs regarding parklets making it more of an outdoor activation program. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 9 of 12 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 02/03/2025 8. REINTRODUCED FIRST READING: Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Palo Alto Municipal Code Title 18 (Zoning) and Title 21 (Subdivisions and Other Divisions of Land) to Clarify Existing Regulations and to Implement State Housing Laws Adopted in 2023 and Earlier, Including Parking Requirements Near Transit Stations in Accordance with AB 2097. CEQA Status - Exempt Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3). (PREVIOUSLY INTRODUCED: November 12, 2024 PASSED 6-1, Kou no; and Pulled from Consent Calendar on December 16, 2024) Jonathan Lait, Planning and Development Director, provided a slide presentation about the State Housing Laws implementation ordinance including the ordinance purpose/background, six state housing laws, AB 2097 details and issues, AB 2097 implementation survey, AB 2097 policy direction regarding accessible and electric vehicle parking and recommended action. Councilmember Reckdahl wanted information about in lieu fees. Director Lait replied in lieu fees only apply in the downtown parking assessment district area. If a commercial use sought to pay for in lieu parking, that would be available to them only on the ground floor. There was no provision for residential. The money would go into the City’s in lieu parking fund. The City was required how the money would be used and commit to spending it on parking within a certain period of time. He explained that where there are excess parking spaces available downtown, private property owners can engage in a shared parking agreement or off-site parking. He commented they could enter into a partnership with a builder and use a portion of the parking funds to help support that but that would be subject to a regulatory scheme with their partner. He stated under AB 2097, standard parking cannot be required. Councilmember Lu asked how an in-lieu program would look for EVSE spaces. He inquired about the interplay with the housing element. Director Lait advised that was something they needed to study further. He said it could be the full replacement cost of parking or they could charge for the installation of electrification equipment on existing public rights-of-way or within the existing parking structure. He commented that this was no local policy. To the extent that the state had set forth certain standards, he did not believe it would create any risk or challenge to the housing element. The issue of accessibility and the electric vehicle parking station aspect was the one area they were trying to vet out. Councilmember Burt was interested in where they stood on the Downtown Housing Advisory Committee and if that might be an appropriate vehicle to refer consideration of a more nuanced approach that would address the problems with small parcels, residential in lieu fees and other related matters while the legislature looks at what changes may be made to the law. Director Lait commented there were a couple of members on that committee that had the technical skill set of design and implications that would enable a narrow subset of the committee to engage on that. He did not think it would be the best use of their time as a whole. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 10 of 12 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 02/03/2025 Councilmember Stone was concerned about the removal of accessible parking. He thought that people and especially people with disabilities would continue to need cars in the Bay Area until they were able to invest the necessary public transportation. He did not think the City should promote that policy. He was open to removing the EV requirement. He was concerned with the balance of making sure they were achieving the type of housing development and growth they wanted to see in Downtown while not putting more barriers in the way. Mayor Lauing questioned if they had enough knowledge with the complexity to make that kind of decision. He felt like PTC was the logical place to put this. Vice Mayor Veenker queried if the City could establish its own policy utilizing its existing resources to advance its EV infrastructure. She wanted to know the default for ADA loading zones as opposed to parking spots. Director Lait answered the City would be able to do that. He did not have an answer to how they would designate certain public parking spaces for loading or ADA spaces. They were usually acquired based on request or an identified need. City Manager Shikada indicated their transportation staff worked with individual property management on a one-off basis to ensure access issues could be addressed. The City could undertake a more comprehensive approach with respect to EV spaces. Public Comment: 1. Amie A. (Zoom), executive director of Palo Alto Forward, urged Council to reconsider the EV and ADA amendments to the ordinance to implement AB 2097 explaining the challenges they would create. 2. Ken H. (Zoom), Hayes Group Architects, described ways AB 2097 would have a chilling effect on housing production. 3. John S. (Zoom), Thoits, echoed the comments of Amie A. and Ken H. He asked that Council afford staff and PTC to have the time to look into this. Councilmember Burt thought there were important nuances such as not all downtown parcels lend themselves to on-site, etc. He spoke about ways this could conflict with HUD law. He advised a process going forward doing a combination of ask for an advisory group from a subset of the Housing Advisory Group to provide recommendations to the Planning and Transportation Commission while allowing development that would provide no ADA parking or EV charging in the meantime. Mayor Lauing stated subsection F made the question of the legality clear. He thought there were workarounds that could help. He thought part of the analysis from PTC or the advisory SUMMARY MINUTES Page 11 of 12 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 02/03/2025 group had determine what the right number would be. He stated the priority should be ADA over EV. He thought it would be best to refer the issue or vote that they wanted ADA spaces and look at some of the other options. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims affiliated herself with Mayor Lauing and Councilmember Burt’s comments. Councilmember Lu was comfortable moving ahead with the default position of interpretation one. He favored exploring in lieu programs, reduced parking requirements and an option of the City encouraging accessible spaces. He echoed the sentiment that PTC would be the best group to manage this issue. Vice Mayor Veenker felt interpretation one was the better choice. She advised looking at incentive programs to encourage accessible parking. Councilmember Reckdahl supported passing Option 1 for now and investigating better ways. He advised exempting covered parking in 2097 areas from FAR would encourage people to build parking. Councilmember Lu thought it was a big decision to pre-conclude that they would go with Option 2. MOTION: Councilmember Burt moved, seconded by Councilmember Reckdahl to adopt the attached ordinance that clarifies existing land use regulations and implements State housings laws adopted in 2023 and earlier and direct staff to: 1. Come back with a 1st reading on Consent with an Ordinance consistent with Option 1, which would require ADA/EVCS parking based on the amount of voluntary parking provided on site; and 2. Refer to Planning and Transportation Commission, in consultation with the Downtown Housing Committee, to make recommendation to the Council on how to best implement a set of ADA/EVCS parking requirements aligned with Option 2 and incentives aligned with Option 1. MOTION PASSED: 7-0 Closed Session 9. CONFERENCE WITH CITY ATTORNEY – POTENTIAL LITIGATION SUMMARY MINUTES Page 12 of 12 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 02/03/2025 Subject: Calculation of Housing In-Lieu Fees for Sheridan Plaza, as set forth in December 18, 2024 Letter from David Van Atta Authority: Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(2) One Case, as Defendant City Manager Shikada noted that Sheridan Plaza was approved as condos in 1995. Despite this approval, the owner chose not to sell the units and had been renting them out for the last 30 years. The owner did not need to seek any additional approval from the City to sell the units as condominiums nor can the City revisit its approval from 1995. The process for sale of the units would now be governed by state law and the California Department of Real Estate. Tenants may be entitled to certain protections or benefits under state or local laws, such as notice and potentially relocation assistance. He indicated the closed session would relate to a narrow issue regarding interpretation of certain conditions from the 1995 project approval. MOTION: Vice Mayor Veenker moved, seconded by Mayor Lauing to go into Closed Session. MOTION PASSED: 7-0 Council went into Closed Session at 9:20 P.M. Council returned from Closed Session at 9:42 P.M. Mayor Lauing announced no reportable action. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 9:43 P.M.