Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-04-21 City Council Summary MinutesCITY COUNCIL SUMMARY MINUTES Page 1 of 21 Regular Meeting April 21, 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 roll and declared all were present. Special Orders of the Day 1. Recognizing Palo Alto Youth Who Have Received The President's Volunteer Service Award (PVSA) As Certified by Youth Community Service (YCS) Between Feb 16, 2024 – Feb 15, 2025 NO ACTION Mayor Lauing voiced that the City of Palo Alto was honored to recognize the youth who had received the award and provided outstanding service to their community. All 57 award recipients were listed in the Staff Report. He noted that a photo would be taken later. YCS Representative Evelin Romero provided slides that reflected on what the youth had done in their communities. She discussed YCS’s partners and programs. She thanked the youth for their service. She discussed the importance of applying for the PVSA. Anyone wanting more information should reach out to the YCS team. She invited the high schools to their Summer of Service program, which was free. Mayor Lauing expressed that YCS had an amazing track record and that Palo Alto was proud. Photos were taken. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 2 of 21 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 04/21/2025 2. Signing of a Friendship City Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Narok, Kenya in Celebration of Palo Alto‘s First Friendship City NO ACTION Mayor Lauing introduced the item. President of Neighbors Abroad Sarah Burgess announced that they had the documents to begin the Friendship City Agreement with the City of Narok, Kenya. She introduced Neighbors Abroad Barb Mackraz who had a special connection to Narok, Kenya. Neighbors Aboard Barb Mackraz spoke of Neighbors Abroad bringing people from around the world together. She discussed the work of Oliveseed Foundation, a nonprofit organization in Palo Alto. She thanked Amos Kipeen and Neighbors Abroad for their work and Council for approving the measure. Narok, Kenya, Representative Amos Kipeen was pleased to be included in the initiative to create a collaboration between the communities of Palo Alto and Narok. He represented Narok County Governor Patrick Ole Ntutu who could not attend, but he would be visiting Palo Alto in May 2025. He thanked Council on behalf of the community, the government of Narok, and the government of Kenya. He discussed Narok’s growth, culture, wildlife, and governmental system. The Friendship City relationship was more than a symbolic gesture as Palo Alto and Narok shared values and commitment to sustainable growth, innovation, inclusive development, etc. On behalf of the people of Narok and the leadership of Narok County, he extended heartfelt gratitude to Palo Alto for the friendship. Mayor Lauing announced that the agreement would be signed. Photos were taken. He displayed the sign that would be placed in front of City Hall. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims commended Neighbors Abroad for bringing this opportunity to Palo Alto, and she thanked Representative Kipeen for attending the meeting. She visited the region in the past, and it felt special that the connection was being made. She thanked Representative Kipeen and Palo Alto for their work. Mayor Lauing thanked Neighbors Abroad for their work. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions City Manager Ed Shikada declared that there were no changes to the printed agenda. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 3 of 21 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 04/21/2025 Public Comment 1. Cristina D. (Presentation) spoke of the work being done for the community of Palo Alto by the Palo Alto Art Center and the Palo Alto Art Center Foundation. She discussed the programs supporting health and wellbeing. She expressed appreciation for the collaboration. 2. Bing W. spoke of bringing youth to nature, which enhanced youth mental health. She wanted to modify her original proposal for bringing youth to nature by restarting the free shuttle and adding a weekend service to Foothill Park or Bayland by Palo Alto LINK. She would submit a letter, and she thanked Council for their consideration. 3. Helena with YCS thanked Council for honoring the students with the PVSA awards. There would be a community impact exhibit on April 27. 4. Jeffrey S. urged Council to hold at least one study session regarding San Francisquito Creek Flood Control Project alternatives before the JPA selected a project alternative for implementation. On May 22, 5 flood control project alternatives would be presented to the JPA Board. On June 26, the board members would select 1 project alternative. There would be 3 community outreach events between May 22 and June 26. He discussed why he was requesting that there be a study session after the community meetings and before June 26. 5. Lara A., PTA Council Chair for SRTS, stated that over half of the students in the district walked or biked to school. She spoke of the work of SRTS and the benefits of walking or biking to school. She requested that the SRTS team be fully staffed and funded and that there again be regular Council study sessions. 6. Roger S. complimented Council for attending the Tall Tree awards ceremony on April 17. He spoke of the Magical Bridge 10th anniversary celebration on April 20 and the action plan that had been developed for the old bathroom. He hoped to invite councilmembers to the opening of the new bathroom on July 4. 7. Melissa O., Co-Chair of SRTS, spoke of her son being hit by a car in September 2023 and the changes that had immediately gone into effect, which was only possible because of the collaboration between SRTS, the PTA, the Office of Transportation, the City, and community members. She encouraged Council to have briefings and presentations like had been done in the past, to fully staff the people working on behalf of children’s safety, and to approve Item 9. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 4 of 21 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 04/21/2025 Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements Councilmember Burt discussed SRTS being a public safety program and a national leading model, which addressed student health and environmental issues. It was vital that there be collaboration between the school district and the City. He recognized Penny Ellson’s work. He provided slides and discussed SB 79 and high-density housing, and he wanted there to be a prioritized focus on SB 79 and other related legislation. Councilmember Lu congratulated PASCC for hosting an amazing event on April 18. He supported the SRTS team, and he wanted to continually invest in children and in the areas around the schools. He appreciated and thanked the SRTS team. Vice Mayor Veenker congratulated and thanked the chamber and the awardees of the Tall Trees event. She echoed Councilmember Lu’s comments as it related to PASCC and apologized for not being able to attend the event. There had been a BARC meeting on April 18. On April 22, she would attend the fourth annual California Climate Policy Summit in Sacramento. On April 23 and 24, she and Councilmember Lu would attend the Cal Cities City Leader Summit. She stated that SB 79 had gone to P&S as part of the Thompson Report, and there was a watch position on it. In the future, she would report on the Northern California Power Agency monthly commission meeting, which was scheduled for this week in Sacramento. Mayor Lauing reported that he attended the 10th birthday party for Magical Bridge. He commented that the accomplishments over the last 10 years had been phenomenal. He thanked the City and the Cubberley Committee for promoting engagement with residents, and he requested that the public provide information and opinions. Study Session 3. Semi-Annual City Council Discussion with the Independent Police Auditor (IPA) NO ACTION OIR Group Independent Police Auditor Mike Gennaco presented their report covering the last half of 2024, which included the review and audit of complaints, uses of force, evaluation of the investigations of complaints, evaluation of the outcome, and recommendations. Twice a year, they conducted an audit of all complaint investigations coming into the Police Department. The strength of the investigations and the Police Department’s responses were independently evaluated. OIR Group Independent Police Auditor Stephen J. Connolly stated that the content of the public reports audit period to audit period were dictated by the activity within the Department and the completion of cases. There had been 5 public complaints of misconduct, 1 internally SUMMARY MINUTES Page 5 of 21 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 04/21/2025 generated complaint, and 4 pointed firearm incidents. He furnished a slide showing the 6 allegations of public violations. Auditor Gennaco provided slides listing 5 recommendations related to misconduct cases, which he elaborated on. He recognized the good work of the Department. Auditor Connolly noted that there had been 4 pointed firearm incidents. It was determined that there had been consistency with training and policy in all instances. Public Comment: 1. Winter D. felt that things were moving in the right direction. She asked when the public and Council would see the work product from the National Policy Institute as it related to RIPA, if there was an update on PAPD’s interface with immigrants that Council should know of, and what would happen to PAPD’s unwanted weaponry of all kinds. 2. Tess spoke of an unpleasant experience related to a restraining order and requested that there be accountability. 3. Herb B. had sent an email related to Item 3, although he inadvertently labeled it as Item 16. He requested that footnotes identify the items being addressed. He noted that reference had been made to “uniformed” Police Department personnel, although he thought it should reference “sworn” Police Department personnel. He pointed out that members of the public were not restricted in commenting on individual incidents in the report. 4. Aram J. (Zoom) found that sometimes sufficient outreach was not being done to inform residents of the complaint process. He was encouraged by the use-of-force data and supported permanently eliminating TASERs and Police K9s. 5. Sunita D.T. asked if when there were recommendations if there was tracking for repeated recommendations for similar policy violations, if over time there were many related recommendations, and if there were consequences for policy violations. Councilmember Stone queried if field sobriety officer training was provided at the Academy and if further FST training was provided during the FTO portion. He asked when RIPA data would be released. He commended the PAPD for the outstanding feedback received in the IPA, although he pointed out that there were troubling issues, which he outlined. Chief of Police Andrew Binder answered that officers were trained in the Policy Academy and on the streets, although additional training was sometimes needed. Deputy City Manager Chantal Cotton Gains replied that the National Policing Institute had a draft with some changes happening at the federal level and that additional steps needed to be taken before issuing the report. Staff anticipated bringing it to Council in June or August. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 6 of 21 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 04/21/2025 Vice Mayor Veenker was pleased with the report. She found Chief Binder to be very responsive to the 5 recommendations. She referenced Packet Page 205, Chief Binder’s response to the IPA, which may be of interest to one of the public speakers. She addressed Packet Page 192 and questioned if there was a policy in handling DUIs when there was error on the City’s part. Chief Binder responded that he could not think of a policy, but supervisors and officers had discretion in making mistakes right. Councilmember Lu asked if there was a specific policy change related to Recommendation 1. Chief Binder answered that a policy change had not been proposed, but he recognized that relationships and conduct interacted in such an incident, which he elaborated on. He discussed relationships with friends and nonprofessional or professional interactions sometimes being hard to define. Councilmember Lu thought it was possible to make distinctions between different kinds of relationships and that there may need to be disclosure if a party was friends with or related to a party. He was surprised that there was no next step on the policy, which he hoped the Department would consider internally. He inquired if unbecoming-of-an-officer language should be clarified through other policies. Auditor Gennaco answered that the Department conducted an investigation into the incident and determined that the officer’s decision showed poor judgment but the current policy was not sufficiently specific to sanction the officer. He stated that better guidance needed to be provided to officers. They urged to the Department to provide language so officers would recognize when something was not right. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims acknowledged that the public commenters helped shape the conversation. She queried if similar policy violations were tracked over time, if multiple violations were addressed, if patterns were being tracked and where that data could be found, and if the auditor’s report would refer to progress made. Chief Binder did not know of anything the Department had been repeatedly nonresponsive to. Closure letters to complainants were a work in progress. They continued to be responsive, and additional language had been provided. He commented that he was accountable to the community. They had always followed through on what was put in writing. Auditor Gennaco stated that the evolution of the closeout letters was a good example of the Chief Binder’s focus. He was sure there would be complaint letters next term, and they would see whether they continued to improve. They would continue to incorporate recommendations as the Department progressed. They tracked patterns to see if the handling of issues was consistent with the recommendations. Auditor Connolly affirmed that their report would refer to progress made, which he provided an example of. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 7 of 21 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 04/21/2025 City Manager Ed Shikada added that there were direct links to the IPA reports on the City’s website dating back to 2006. Councilmember Burt questioned if there was a reason for the Department’s responses being a separate informational item at the end of the packet rather than them being an addendum to the IPA report. City Manager Shikada responded that the study session item was the presentation provided at this meeting. There was a separate information item that included the most recent OIR report and the Department’s responses. He stated that the organization of the items was an attempt to discuss trends in criminal justice and policing, policy and training matters, recommendations by the consultant, and other Council concerns. It was not intended to discuss individual cases reviewed by the IPA. The recommendations attempted to take a step higher than the individual cases identified. Councilmember Burt wanted it to be clear to the public that both things existed, and he did not find that to be clear. He encouraged relooking at it being a notation in the report, a separate report in the informational items addressing what was described, or some other mechanism. He asked what the policy was for reporting TASER use. Auditor Gennaco stated that the Department provided the auditor with a report each time a TASER was deployed, which was evaluated for being consistent with policy, law, etc. He found the Department to be selective in TASER use as there had not been deployment in the time frame for this audit, and he did not think there was one last time. Councilmember Burt thought it was important to note that there had not been deployment of TASERs. He asked what happened when policies were violated. He recognized that the Department was performing at a higher level than previously. Auditor Gennaco answered that outcomes with regard to violations of policy could range from non-disciplinary and disciplinary interventions, which could mean written reprimands, suspensions, and terminations. Mayor Lauing commented that Chief Binder had higher standards than he had seen in any police department. He thanked Police staff for their work. Consent Calendar 4. Approval of Minutes from April 7, 2025 Meeting 5. Approval of Contract Amendment No. 2 to Contract No. C23185922 with Kittelson & Associates, INC. to Extend Term for an Additional Year of Service Through June 30, 2026 for professional consultant services for the City's Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation SUMMARY MINUTES Page 8 of 21 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 04/21/2025 Plan Update; CEQA status - exempt under- California Senate Bill 922 (2022), codified as Public Resources Code section 21080.20. 6. Approval of Amendment Number 1 to Contract Number S22184359 With Prime Actuarial Consulting, LLC dba Bickmore Actuarial, in the Amount of $27,000, for a new Total Not-to-Exceed Contract Amount of $67,500 for Actuarial Services Related to the Workers’ Compensation and the General Liability Programs and to Extend Term for an Additional Two Years; CEQA Status – Not a Project 7. Approval of Amendment No. 1 to the Cooperative Agreement with the Association of Bay Area Governments to Construct the Horizontal Levee Pilot Project (WQ- 22001) to Reflect an Additional $2 Million in California Coastal Conservancy Grant Funds; CEQA Status – Exempt under Section 15133 8. Approval of Contract Amendment Number 2 to Contract Number C24190163 with Musson Theatrical to extend the contract time through March 2, 2026, with No Change in the Total Not-to Exceed Amount for $101,927 for the Refurbishing of the Stage Rigging System at Lucie Stern Community Theatre; CEQA status - categorically exempt. 9. Adoption of a Resolution Endorsing the Updated Safe Routes to School Consensus Statement and Approval of the Amended City/School Transportation Safety Committee Bylaws; CEQA Status – Not a Project. 10. Approval of a Surveillance Use Policy for Security Cameras in Council Chambers and Approval of Purchase of $4,886 for Security Cameras; CEQA status – not a project. MOTION: Councilmember Reckdahl moved, seconded by Councilmember Lu to approve Agenda Item Numbers 4-10. MOTION PASSED: 7-0 Public Comment: 1. Penny E. (Item 9), an SRTS volunteer, discussed why she was asking Council to support Item 9. 2. Lara A. (Item 9), PTA Council Chair for SRTS, requested that City Council approve Item 9. The documents were updated versions of what had been approved in 2006, and the new versions had been approved by the City/School Liaison Committee, the City/School Transportation Safety Committee, including the City’s voting representatives to that committee, and the PTA Council. The Board of Education would vote on approving them tomorrow. She added that the SRTS team needed to be fully staffed and funded and that regular City Council study sessions were needed. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 9 of 21 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 04/21/2025 3. Herb B. (Item 10) requested that Item 10 be removed from the Consent Calendar in order to clarify some of the language, which he elaborated on. He questioned what would be subject to video. He voiced that state law prohibited photographing members of the pubic who attended the meetings. 4. Deborah G. (Item 9) (Zoom) supported SRTS. She felt it enhanced quality of life. She requested that the program be fully funded. City Manager Comments City Manager Ed Shikada shared slides. He thanked the volunteers and participants in the SRTS. The next Mayor’s press and community briefing would be on April 24, which would focus on housing, although there would be a Q&A session on any topic of interest. The annual Earth Day Festival would be on April 27. There was currently a live survey related to the South Palo Alto bike rail crossings, which would be extended to May 15. The May Fete Parade and Fair would occur on May 3. Friends, families, and pets were welcome to participate in the parade after consulting with staff at the starting point. Community input related to emergency preparedness was ongoing. The comment deadline would close on April 30, and it would come to Council following that. The deadline for community comments related to the Emergency Operations Plans and the Foothills Fire Management Plan was May 4. Options were available at paloalto.gov/wildfirediscussions. Upcoming Council meetings included a roll out of the proposed budget for the next fiscal year, a study session on gas Cap-and-Trade revenue use, and an action item on the proposed development at 4075 El Camino Way, which would be on May 5. On May 12, there would be a budget study session following the first series of hearings with the Finance Committee, and Housing Element programs and ADU ordinance adjustments would be addressed. He believed the May 19 meeting would start early, but he would have more information closer to that meeting date. There would be pre-screenings on the proposed developments on San Antonio Road, an update on the downtown housing plan, a construction contract for the advanced water purification system, and a number of other items for May 27 through June. Councilmember Burt thought it was important for Council to have a study session and public input on the San Francisquito Creek Flood Control Project. City Manager Shikada would look at the calendar to see if that was possible. [Council took a 15-minute break] SUMMARY MINUTES Page 10 of 21 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 04/21/2025 Action Items 11. Review and Authorize Initiation of Community Poll Number One Themes for the Cubberley Master Plan Project and Receive an Update on the Project Workplan; CEQA Status - the Master Plan will undergo CEQA review. NO ACTION Community Services Director Kristen O’Kane stated that she and other staff were working on getting the Cubberley Project to the November 2026 ballot. She discussed tasks that had been completed. There would be a Parks and Recreation Commission presentation on May 22. They planned on releasing the poll on April 28 and returning to Council in June to share the results. There would be a second community meeting and a Parks and Recreation Commission meeting. They were doing constant community engagement through various means. She discussed the happenings at Community Meeting Number 1 held on March 19. The participants wanted the space to be flexible and inclusive with long-term community engagement and for sustainability practices to be incorporated. In addition, they valued gathering hubs for connectivity with others, accessibility for all, and being able to access holistic wellness resources. They had discussed adequate green space and affordability. She supplied a slide showing the desired indoor and outdoor programs. They had identified opportunity for shared building spaces and programming within the facility but fewer outdoor programs being able to share space. Staff would use what they had learned to inform the next step in the Master Plan, which was to develop 3 concepts. She added that it would be important to include the data collected from the 2019 Master Plan. Results from the polling would also be used to develop the concepts. Assistant Director of Administrative Services Christine Paras stated that polling was a critical planning tool that would directly inform the upcoming community meetings, serve as the baseline for development of the Master Plan, and provide insight into the potential success of the ballot measure. They had engaged with FM3 to design the poll outline in the first round of polling, which was expected to be launched next week. The outline had been reviewed by the Cubberley Ad Hoc Committee on March 25 and April 4. Results of the poll would be available mid-May and presented to Council on June 9. Consultant Dave Metz walked through the first poll, which was 1 of a series of 3. The goal of the first poll would be to understand public sentiment as it related a variety of the building blocks that might go into a proposal. The second poll would put those pieces together into a more fully developed proposal with a specific price tag and specific improvements to be made. There may be a couple alternative structures tested. The third poll would be conducted shortly before the deadline of Council taking action to place it on the ballot, just to ensure that Council would have the most up-to-date information as it related to community sentiment. He furnished slides outlining the survey questions, which he elaborated on. FM3 would then provide informational statements, ask final questions, and assess the support level. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 11 of 21 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 04/21/2025 Director O’Kane commented that, if approved, the community poll would be released April 28 and the results would be presented in June. For the Master Plan, 3 concepts would be developed based on poll and community meeting results, and information would be drawn from the 2019 Master Plan. Three concepts would be presented at the June 12 community meeting. They would continue the CEQA analysis at the same time. She detailed the engagement efforts that would be continued. They hoped to build excitement for the project by doing site activation, which she explained. The different ideas being developed would be presented to the ad hoc in May. She provided a slide with the staff recommendation. Councilmember Lu asked how the poll would be conducted. Assistant Director Paras stated that polls were generally a mix of online and direct phone calls with voters. FM3 would randomly select and target voters and send emails. There would not be a link to the poll on the website. Mayor Lauing asked for clarification on how the survey would be done. Consultant Metz replied that they would draw a random sample of Palo Alto registered voters and they would reach out to those voters online and by phone. He noted that it was the same polling methodology they had done for the City over the last decade. Folks had to be invited to participate. Vice Mayor Veenker queried what the status was of the Cubberley fellows. Director O’Kane stated that Cubberley fellows were community members who volunteered to serve as table hosts during community meetings, they let their networks know about the project and community meetings, and they attended events, etc. There were 23 community fellows, and many were teams. Public Comment: 1. Penny E. was delighted to see Cubberley being reconsidered, which she considered a valuable community resource. She thought it would be important to know what quadrant of the city the poll responses would come from. As there was not yet a project, she questioned what the CEQA analysis was analyzing. If there was to be pickleball at Cubberley, she requested it be indoors due to the noise. She considered early childhood education to be important, and she did not see that referenced. She voiced why she did not support a lap pool. She suggested there be a warm pool and a program for physical therapy. 2. Phil M., an organizer for the Palo Alto Ballroom Dancers, was concerned about continuity of use during construction. He urged consideration of a phased construction plan, which would allow regular users to continue operating throughout the remodel process. They were also concerned about the features and design of the new gymnasium, and they hoped the new facility would match or improve upon what they SUMMARY MINUTES Page 12 of 21 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 04/21/2025 currently had with the pavilion. They valued excellent sound quality; overhead mood lighting; and a dedicated entrance, kitchen area, and storage space. They saw opportunities for air conditioning serving 300+ attendees and a built-in sound system. To his knowledge, his group had not been contacted about their needs. He recommended that regular user groups be involved in the planning process. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims questioned if the data would be distinguish by city quadrants or the precincts represented. She asked what CEQA was about at this phase. She referenced Slide 6, and she noted that seniors and early childcare was referenced, and she wanted there to also be a focus populations aged 12 to 65. She was excited about building excitement through site activation, but she explained that she wanted to find a balance in doing it. Consultant Metz replied that they would have the physical address of all those polled, so the data could be geographically dissected. He noted that Slide 6 did not call out other age groups specifically, although many of the themes applied to all ages or people in the middle range, which he outlined. He thought there was opportunity for all residents of the city, regardless of age, to see themselves in the questions being asked. Director O’Kane responded, regarding CEQA, that they had initiated consultation with the local Native American tribes and historic resources. They were at the existing conditions stage and not trying to analyze a nonexistent project. Mayor Lauing was intrigued with the philosophy of starting with what he called negative polling questions, and he inquired why it was being done that way; what data would be gathered as it related to the cost of the services; and if programs, not facilities, were being asked about. Consultant Metz answered that the sequence and approach to polling questions was the industry standard and how all the research had been conducted for the City in the past. He discussed why it was done in such a way. As for the data collected for the cost of services, they would provide a range of different price points. The goal of the initial poll would be to provide a rough sense of acceptable price points. Upon there being more specific proposals with attached price tags, the later polls would provide a more precise indication of the public’s thoughts. They would ask questions about specific services and facility improvements the funds might be used for. Vice Mayor Veenker explained why she was concerned about the negative polling questions. She wondered if community wellness should be called out as a goal before moving on to the more specific language uses of pickleball, tennis, etc. She mentioned that the term gym resonated differently with different people, that one referred to team use for sports and the other to lifting weights, yoga classes, etc., and she inquired if both were being considered. Consultant Metz explained why the questions were positive and negative. They wanted to keep things balanced and neutral before introducing the central topic. They could add language related to community wellness before using the more specific language of tennis, etc. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 13 of 21 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 04/21/2025 Director O’Kane answered that staff envisioned gym space being flexible. Vice Mayor Veenker felt that weight rooms would be an exception, which she thought may need to be looked at specifically. She wanted to consider proximal redundancies, such as pools. Councilmember Lu thought the milestones were great, and he felt progress could be made quickly. He queried if consideration had been given to other projects coming along with this project. Director O’Kane answered that staff had considered other projects coming along with this project, but she thought it should be a decision made after the initial polling results. Consultant Metz added that with a series of 3 polls there would be opportunities, if appropriate, to identify a companion effort but the first poll would get a baseline public opinion about Cubberley. Councilmember Lu suggested sketching out some concepts for Poll 2. He questioned if there would be feedback from the school district related to specific improvements they might be interested in and if there would be polling questions about price tolerances as it related to the different tax structures. City Manager Ed Shikada responded that there was ongoing conversation with the school district. They had not heard definitively that the City would get a set of projects that would be identified as a part of the use of the proceeds. As far as polling questions related to price tolerances as it related to the different tax structures, they were trying to get a general sense of voter sentiment and they want to make it more precise in subsequent stages and in conjunction with the Master Plan. Councilmember Burt explained that doing this in parallel should be considered as there was not enough time to go in sequence. He did not know if sprucing up (painting, etc.) Cubberley would build enthusiasm or diminish the sense of need. He spoke of the library bond and the advocates being determined to put all the focus on that project. He thought North Palo Altans voted and supported taxes more than South Palo Altans. He wanted to start thinking about where the benefits might go, which may not be purely North Palo Alto, and he would support considering a skate park at Greer. He wanted staff to think ahead of moving forward with this poll. Councilmember Reckdahl questioned if the purpose of the polling was to determine if people would support the uses or if it was to determine how strongly they felt about each one. Consultant Metz responded that the polling was to determine how strongly people felt about each use and which was the most urgent or important. Director O’Kane asked for a motion to advance/conduct the poll. City Manager Shikada stated that absent direction to the contrary staff could proceed. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 14 of 21 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 04/21/2025 12. Approval of Professional Service Contract Number C25192988 with Lloyd Consulting Group, LLC., in the Amount Not to Exceed $160,825 to Conduct a Comprehensive Turf Study for a Period of Six Months; CEQA Status – exempt under CEQA regulations 15262 and 15306. Community Services Director Kristine O’Kane clarified that the contract would be with Lloyd Consultants, otherwise referred to as Lloyd Sports and Engineering, not Lloyd Turf and Landscaping. She provided some background of the item. They expected the construction contract for Mayfield to go Council in June. She shared a slide showing the study objectives. They had reduced the scope of work for Lloyd, and some of the work would be done in house. A supplemental report was submitted on April 18, which discussed an alternative option, which was to evaluate turf replacement at El Camino Park only, which would include product recommendations. She supplied a slide outlining the original turf study scope of work. She detailed how the turf study scope had been revised. Next steps were to finalize the scope, if needed, and community and stakeholder engagement would be started through a project webpage, surveys, etc. On a separate track, staff would return to Council in June with a contract to replace the turf and the base at Stanford Palo Alto community playing fields, which had been discussed by the Finance Committee in May 2024. They were proceeding with the contract bid to do the construction and looking into different synthetic turf products, and they were fairly certain what product would be used. They were doing internal studies to confirm that the product was PFAS-free, and they were investigating the best way to recycle/repurpose the existing turf. Another consideration related to the best time to do the construction to minimize impact to the field users. The original staff recommendation was to authorize the City Manager to execute the contract with Lloyd Consulting Group to develop the turf study, and the alternative recommendation, as described in the supplemental report, was to authorize the City Manager to negotiate a new scope with Lloyd to focus just on the turf replacement at El Camino Park. She added that El Camino needed to be replaced very soon. Mayor Lauing reiterated that the item was only about a possible contract, not specific field construction. The emphasis was on turf versus grass fields. He wanted to discuss needed information to make a decision on turf versus grass, and he questioned where that information would come from – staff, outside analysis, published research, etc. He also wanted to evaluate the cost. Councilmember Reckdahl asked staff’s opinion on Santa Clara County claiming that artificial turf would provide 3.5x as much playtime as natural turf. Director O’Kane estimated that synthetic turf would provide about 3x more playtime than natural grass. Councilmember Reckdahl asked how much of that was due closing fields in the rainy season and limiting playtime during dry seasons. He asked staff to speak to the relative cost between natural grass and artificial turf, the time it would take to do the replacement, and maintenance. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 15 of 21 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 04/21/2025 Director O’Kane stated that having 3x more playtime on artificial turf was due to a combination of rainy season and limiting playtime during dry seasons. She hoped the study would indicate the relative cost between natural and artificial turf. Synthetic turf would be approximately $1M to $1.5 per field depending on the extent of work. It would take about 2 months to do artificial turf at Mayfield. As for natural turf, the entire process (design, contracting) could take 18 to 24 months, although it would take about 6 months if just digging it up and placing the turf. She hoped maintenance would be addressed in the study. Councilmember Burt asked what the relationship was between Lloyd Consulting and Lloyd Turf and Landscape. He spoke of the advancements in artificial turf. Regarding the list of pros and cons, he wanted consideration to be given to the detriments of grass fields as it related to herbicides, etc. Director O’Kane replied that the consultant’s website address was lloydengineers.com. Lloyd Consulting and Lloyd Turf and Landscape were unrelated companies. Councilmember Stone asked if the study would include organic grass fields in addition to natural turf. Director O’Kane asked if he was referring to managing the field. She noted that natural grass was organic. She assumed organic meant managing turf by not using pesticides, etc., and the consultant could look into that as a comparison. Vice Mayor Veenker discussed field technology changing a lot in the last few years. She noted that there were hybrid turf products, which she understood could be within the scope of the analysis, and she encouraged considering that. She discussed new technology for drainage systems. She asked how many grass fields the City managed. If affordable, she suggested experimenting with hybrid turf on 2 fields. Director O’Kane responded that the City managed the grass fields of all elementary schools, 3 middle schools, Cubberley, and all the neighborhood parks. Councilmember Reckdahl mentioned that in Sydney, had incorporated large amounts of organic matter into the ground, which helped the root structure and allowed the grass to be more durable, and he thought the term organic related to that. Public Comment: 1. Amanda M., President of Board of Directors for Palo Alto Soccer Club, stated that she and their 2,000 members strongly opposed a ban on turf fields. She voiced that a similar study to the one being proposed had already been conducted at the county level, and she opposed funding another study. She spoke of the advancements made in artificial turf and the health, social, and environmental benefits. She suggested that all fields be transformed into turf fields. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 16 of 21 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 04/21/2025 2. Angela (Zoom) urged Council to look at research already done rather than researching the different merits of artificial and grass turf. She discussed artificial turf having harmful effects. She had sent Council links to TURI’s research and studies, which she requested Council consider. She encouraged Council to reach out to Millbrae City Council, which prohibited all artificial turf in their city. 3. Andrea W. (Zoom) represented CFNPS and they strongly opposed artificial turf. She opined that the money being spent on a study would be better spent on understanding natural grass options and organic, regenerative maintenance practices. She voiced that PFAS-free artificial turf did not exist. She added that cork infill was not a healthy, sustainable product. She discussed the heat generated on artificial turf. 4. Claire E. (Zoom) did not support funding a contract with Lloyd. She believed there was data showing synthetic turf’s negative impacts from cradle to grave. She suggested looking at the rugby field at Stanford, which was an organically managed field with good drainage. 5. Sue (Zoom) discussed the health and environmental concerns related to microplastics and nanoplastics. She urged Council to prioritize health and environmental protection over playtime, cost, etc., and to prioritize natural grass fields. She suggesting researching organically managed grass fields. 6. Herb P. (Zoom), speaking on behalf of PASC and SVSA, supported synthetic fields. He remarked that the impacts relative to the chemical concerns were unfounded. He asked that Council look at the materials as it related to playability, community service, and sustainability. 7. Jeff G. (Zoom) was concerned with the timeline for replacing fields at Mayfield and El Camino. He did not know the point of the study. He requested that Council not couple the study with a decision to move forward with replacing fields at Mayfield and El Camino. 8. Helene G. (Zoom) urged Council to vote no on the contract for the turf study. She suggested using AI-based Deep Research and using these funds for other needs. She had previously submitted a Deep Research report covering many of the contract’s key areas. She had since done another Deep Research study, which compared products, etc., which she would be happy to share with staff. With AI available, she did not find using a consultant justifiable. She suggested using AI resources before approving any consulting contracts. Councilmember Lu queried if there was a plan to assess hybrid turf options and if a consultant had been used to select the product for Mayfield. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 17 of 21 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 04/21/2025 Director O’Kane did not think there was a plan to assess hybrid turf options, although they could ask the consultant to include it. Staff had done the research to select the product for Mayfield, not a consultant. Councilmember Lu asked if staff could do the research and select the product for El Camino Park and if bids from natural and hybrid turf companies could be obtained. Director O’Kane outlined what staff had done in terms of research. Staff thought a consultant could provide information on a broader choice of products. City Manager Ed Shikada added that the research done was related to turf products, not grass. Councilmember Lu understood that a lot of the research was already available. If the scope of the study was to research newer products, he could support it, but he did not want to redo work already done by other jurisdictions. He commented that balancing environmental and health concerns and the benefits of recreation should be addressed. He thought there could be a policy that would respect the environment and allow some mix of synthetic or hopefully hybrid fields. Mayor Lauing asked why the original proposal of $233K at 6 months was cut back to $160K at 4 months. He noted that Packet Page 128 indicated that it would take 6 months and $160K and that Packet Page 130 indicated 4 months. Director O’Kane answered that it was a compressed timeline because they were eager to get the final study done and staff was also doing some of the work. She added that some of the tasks could be done in parallel because some of the work would be done in house. Division Manager Open Space Parks & Golf Sarah Robustelli stated, regarding Packet Page 128 indicating 6 months and Packet Page 130 indicating 4 months, that upon returning to Council in August there would be time within the contract to finalize and make edits prior to the report being final. Mayor Lauing understood that it would still be 6 months. He inquired why the firm with a bid of $233K was chosen over the firm that bid $91K. He referenced Exhibit A and asked why items 4 and 8 had been put back in. Regarding Number 9, he asked if staff would be doing focus groups. He inquired if staff would provide the consultant with information related to current conditions and playability. He did not understand the value add with pulling certain items, as the cost of the narrower scope did not decease. He did not understand how the evaluation could be shifted to El Camino Park only as he thought the objective was to determine if turf would work anywhere. Director O’Kane explained that there was the contract period and the period of time expected to conduct the work. They included an extra 2 months in the contract in the event the consultant needed to do additional work. Staff considered the firm that bid $233K to be better than the firm that bid $91K. Exhibit A itemized the information to be presented in the final SUMMARY MINUTES Page 18 of 21 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 04/21/2025 report. Staff would lead the focus groups and provide information related to current user playability to the consultant. City Manager Shikada responded that that there had not yet been negotiations with Lloyd as it related to the more focused scope of El Camino Park. If Council wished to pursue that alternative, staff would request authorization to negotiate with Lloyd. He explained the premise behind focusing on El Camino Park. Part of Lloyd’s work would be to identify alternatives. As products were evolving, it may or may not need to be reevaluated in a couple years. Mayor Lauing did not think $160K should be approved. He thought Lloyd should rebid it and return with a contact. City Manager Shikada responded that the alternative scope was consistent with the evaluation that had been proposed. The evaluation as originally scoped was to address the issue more broadly. This would have a very specific location and the basis for the evaluation. Vice Mayor Veenker explained that she could argue on the side of grass and artificial turf. She was interested in learning if there were truly PFAS-free options for synthetic fields. She wanted to better understand the natural infill. She wanted to know the durability and viability of hybrid turf and how long it would take to install; information on drainage options; the difference in upfront and maintenance costs; and durability and years of life for synthetic. Director O’Kane believed that most of what Vice Mayor Veenker referenced was in the consultant’s scope with the exception of looking at the hybrid, and staff could discuss with the consultant adding that. She did not know if drainage options were called out. Councilmember Burt queried what staff was envisioning for the difference between $160K and the scope of work and the cost. He was struggling with the difference in cost and scope between what was in the proposal and the alternative. He did not want to pay a consultant for information that was widely available through AI, etc. He recognized that some of the comparisons may be customized to a given ask. He wanted to ensure that what had been learned would be applied to the Mayfield site. Upon coming back, he wanted to know if a PFAS- free turf had been identified. He noted that there was a difference between PFAS in the material and PFAS that may be part of the manufacturing byproduct. He added that PFAS as a part of the manufacturing byproduct may be acceptable. He noted that traditionally turf was used to describe grass and now turf was used synonymous with synthetic turf, so he want to ensure that there would be distinction every time the term was used. He queried if the study would be less than $160K and if it would address Council’s questions. City Manager Shikada answered that they did not know what the alternative proposal cost would be. He expected that the number of discrete alternatives evaluated would be a primary driver in the cost. He thought the substance for the basis for comparison was set in what had been documented in the proposal. He understood that Council was interested in focusing on the functional distinctions rather than duplicating any research that had been done on the health effects. The base scope was 2 alternatives – synthetic and grass. Now it was likely that 3 SUMMARY MINUTES Page 19 of 21 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 04/21/2025 or 4 alternatives may be considered. He suggested scoping the work to be consistent with the budget ceiling. Director O’Kane replied that the study could be less than $160K. The consultant had not been asked to scope that work out yet. Councilmember Burt asked if the alternative would have an El Camino focus and if it would presumably be less except that some additional analysis may be added back in. City Manager Shikada confirmed that was correct. MOTION: Councilmember Burt moved, seconded by Councilmember Lythcott-Haims to approve and authorize the City Manager or their designee to negotiate and execute a contract with a modified scope and budget not-to-exceed $160,825 with Lloyd Consulting Group, LLC, to provide a comprehensive turf study that compares synthetic, natural turf athletic fields, and additional research necessary that would focus the work involved to specifically address the need for a turf replacement decision at El Camino Park anticipated in fiscal year 2026. Councilmember Burt wanted there to be an analysis of natural turf with its alternatives and the best practices emerging on synthetic turf both with fillers and artificial grass. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims agreed with Councilmember Burt. She asked if the maker was limiting the scope of the task to the decision that would be made for El Camino Park. Councilmember Burt affirmed that he was limiting the scope of the task to the decision that would be made for El Camino Park. Basically the supplemental Staff Report would add back some of the matters discussed at this meeting related to comparisons. He suggested the City Manager summarize what would be added back. Councilmember Reckdahl was struggling with the scope. He addressed Packet Page 130, and he did not think it was necessary to address current conditions, playability, maintenance cost, or health hazards. Cost to conversion was not known. He had a good idea of the tradeoffs related to environmental impact. Regarding community user feedback, he noted that the City had received hundreds of emails. He felt the scope could be narrow. Councilmember Burt asked if some of what Councilmember Reckdahl spoke of could be pulled out. City Manager Shikada stated, using El Camino Park as an example, that there was ample information related to operating cost and playability on the current synthetic field. They did not have comparable information for grass, organic grass, hybrid, or synthetic. Evaluating that would be additional work. Councilmember Reckdahl questioned if the tradeoffs would change with a hybrid or a different type of grass. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 20 of 21 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 04/21/2025 Mayor Lauing stated that the motion authorized approximately $160K to do a report that was not scoped. He wanted to return the item to staff with the parameters to be considered on the narrow scope and to return to Council in 2 weeks for another discussion. SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Mayor Lauing moved, seconded by Councilmember Lu to direct staff to modify and narrow the scope of work and return to Council. Councilmember Lu hoped to get a narrowly focused scope responsive to Councilmember Reckdahl and Vice Mayor Veenker’s concerns. He voiced that AI and the availability of other reports could answer a lot of the questions about natural turf. Mayor Lauing stated that it did not make sense to spend $160K to get information that was available in published research, with AI, etc. Director O’Kane remarked that she understood Mayor Lauing’s concerns, which she stated may be a result of staff not articulating the amount of work that would go into such a study. There was existing research related to environmental and health risks. They received a list of publications from a public speaker, which had been forwarded to Lloyd Consulting, and staff would look at the data and update it. She discussed why she did not think the consultant would just pull data from a previous report and apply it to Palo Alto’s fields. Staff did not have the bandwidth or the expertise to do such a study. Vice Mayor Veenker voiced that the scope was what the best product type would be. She considered information on installation, wear, etc., to be significant if it should be needed for future decisions. The substitute motion made her nervous because she thought the item should move forward. She trusted staff to swap out work that the consultant would do within the budget. She would not support the substitute motion. Councilmember Reckdahl was envisioning a scope that would cost less than $160K. He asked if the original motion could be staff trimming down the scope and not spending $160K and minimizing the cost or if it should come back to Council with the scope trimmed. City Manager Shikada did not understand the scenario Councilmember Reckdahl described. Councilmember Reckdahl stated that the cost and maintenance were the only unknowns. City Manager Shikada understood that there was interest in confirming and understanding PFAS-free. If health and environmental impacts were limited to that specific issue, he thought that would be orders for staff to negotiate with the consultant. Councilmember Reckdahl asked if it would be best to trust staff to negotiate. City Manager Shikada replied that it would be best to trust staff to negotiate. SUBSTITUTE MOTION FAILED: 2-5, Burt, Stone, Lythcott-Haims, Reckdahl, Veenker no SUMMARY MINUTES Page 21 of 21 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 04/21/2025 Mayor Lauing moved to vote on the original motion. MOTION PASSED: 6-1, Lauing no Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 10:49 p.m.