Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-06-09 City Council Summary MinutesCITY COUNCIL SUMMARY MINUTES Page 1 of 11 Regular Meeting June 9, 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 PM Present In Person: Burt, Lauing, Lu, Lythcott-Haims, Reckdahl, Stone, Veenker Present Remotely: None Absent: None Mayor Lauing recognized that June is LGBTQ+ Pride Month and discussed the origins of the event. Special Orders of the Day 1. Proclamation Honoring James Moss for his Years of Service to the City of Palo Alto NO ACTION Mayor Lauing read the proclamation aloud. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions Ed Shikada, City Manager, reported no changes to the printed agenda. It was noted that an amended agenda was issued reflecting the addition of item AA1, which was deferred from the prior week. To accommodate that, the item related to California Avenue has been rescheduled to the special meeting on Tuesday, June 17. Public Comment 1. Sergio J., representative for Pacific Gas and Electric, remarked that there are opportunities to collaborate with Utilities. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 2 of 11 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 06/09/2025 2. Jason C. shared concerns about the Outdoor Activations Plan’s proposed shift from tents to parklets to only allowing umbrellas and awnings for outdoor dining. Council was urged to reconsider this plan and continue engaging in a dialogue with the community before making changes that could undermine making Cal Ave a welcoming place. 3. John K., president of Barron Park Association, asked for continued support of the Third Thursday event. 4. Brandon C. echoed concern about the Outdoor Activation Program, particularly the shift from tents and parklets to umbrellas and awnings for outdoor dining. 5. Avram F. had comments about current political events. 6. Rayla C., rising senior at Henry M. Gunn High School, spoke on behalf of Vote 16 Palo Alto. The organization asked Council to begin considering how this could be a powerful opportunity for democracy, students, and the City's future. 7. Jerry S. spoke about the detrimental effects of the changes made to the Cal Ave Plan. 8. Carol G., founder and producer of Third Thursday California Avenue Music Festival, talked about upcoming events. 9. Henry E. made observations about the human technology interface after having suffered a fall attempting to board Caltrain and called for a full investigation. 10. Michael E., resident of Oak Creek Apartments, discussed maintenance issues with the complex after being purchased by Stanford University and managed by Sares Regis Management Property. He expressed concern that Sares Regis Management Property was attempting to develop more properties in Palo Alto. Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements Councilmember Lythcott-Haims commended Vice Mayor Veenker and other leaders for speaking out against the federal government's decision to call up the National Guard to protect ICE agents going after undocumented people in Los Angeles. Saturday, June 14, is No King's Day. A local group called Indivisible Palo Alto is putting on a We the People parade and a Democracy Fair. In order to ensure ADUs are being used for housing, incentivizing ideas need to be developed. ADUs need to be condoized. Vice Mayor Veenker spoke about attending the press conference the day before and provided a speech which was summarized. A slide was provided about how many activities had climate impact by reducing carbon dioxide equivalents over a 30-year period which included reducing food waste. The County Commission on Recycling and Waste Reduction is working on this issue. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 3 of 11 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 06/09/2025 Study Session 2. Cubberley Project: Discuss First Round Polling Results and Feedback from Community and Stakeholder Engagement Activities and Review an Update on the Workplan for the Cubberley Master Plan and Consideration of November 2026 Ballot Measure; CEQA Status – the Master Plan will undergo CEQA review NO ACTION Kristen O’Kane, Community Services Director, Christine Paras, Assistant Administrative Services Director and Dave Metz, FM3, provided a slide presentation about Improving Cubberley including a project workplan, revised vision statement, poll summary, survey methodology, key findings and conclusions of the survey about public sentiment, engagement efforts, site activation plan and the next steps. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims asked for a ballpark sense of what $250 a household versus $500 a household will yield in the aggregate. City Manager Shikada answered there is an initial estimate of the $250 figure representing in the range of $75 million to $150 million and the $500 figure representing $150 million to $300 million. It depends on the structure of how a measure is put together. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims remarked the next opportunity for community input would be the following Thursday night where the consultant would lay out three alternatives. Councilmember Burt advised to get going with the near-term activation sooner to build community support and asked questions about the three scenarios. Director O’Kane replied the three scenarios had been enhanced since the ad-hoc committee saw them a month ago. They show more as far as height and green spaces. The patterns are similar but shown in more dimensions. Each concept has different options. There is one scenario for each one that includes renovation of some buildings. There are other options that include complete rebuild of all the buildings. Councilmember Burt indicated a need to provide to the community what could be done in the new buildings with the revenue provided in an objective way. Councilmember Lu asked what assumptions were being made about the duration or other bits of structure regarding the $150 million versus $300 million for a hypothetical $500 per household bond. City Manager Shikada replied no assumptions were being made. The basic concepts that had been used were a general obligation bond, valuation based or parcel tax for the purpose of some initial estimates. That did not account for any other funding sources that might be included. There are a number of variables that are yet to be accounted for. Councilmember Lu asked about the polling results and the negative messaging that was mentioned. Mr. Metz replied the results of the poll had been cross tabulated breaking out all the results for every question by geography, demographic subgroups and attitudinal subgroups. The relative details would be shared with Council. A summary statement was tested representing the kinds of objections typically raised to bond measures, especially in the current economic climate, asserting that the City has higher priorities to spend tax dollars on, the City SUMMARY MINUTES Page 4 of 11 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 06/09/2025 finding other places to cut funding in its existing budget to pay for these kinds of services rather than putting a bond measure before voters and raising the question of whether money will be spent effectively. It was testing those kinds of broad statements and seeing what impact they had. Councilmember Reckdahl had questions about slide 17. Mr. Metz discussed the results of the poll in question and stating it measured the degree of importance. It was meant to answer how to make sure the things the public viewed as the highest priorities. City Manager Shikada added the intent of having the question phrased the way it is is to help inform the master planning effort and that will help determine what features are most important to be included as a part of the master plan. Councilmember Reckdahl asked if future polls would tie together what the community would receive for the amount willing to pay. Mr. Metz answered that is the plan for the later surveys and the reason they are being done as a series. Future surveys at Council’s direction will tell voters what they pay but what they will get for it and ask them to evaluate it in a more holistic way. City Manager Shikada discussed the different dimensions of the surveys and would be a part of immediate decision making as well as what occurs over the years to determine whether the full build out occurs or if it is more segmented. Mayor Lauing had questions on the slides about priorities. Mr. Metz answered the athletic field are not viewed as unimportant but in relative terms they are lower priorities. With a lot of facilities that are for very specific kinds of recreation, there is a smaller group of voters who may be enthusiastic about them because it is a smaller group that participates in any one specific activity but those groups can be very passionate and very motivated and very supportive. Vice Mayor Veenker asked about the public-private partnerships being not part of the bond dollar amount, the priority of athletics and the context that the community is being asked about having a gym at Cubberley. City Manager Shikada explained it would be ballparked to get the right nexus. Those are ongoing conversations. As the overall master planning proceeds, explorations with partners will be continued in way that will allow it to be quantified. Mr. Metz explained the way the question about having a gym at Cubberley was framed as how important is each one of these would be personally be as something that would be a priority of the plan for the future community center at Cubberley. It asks for personal opinion but that opinion could be shaped by their own intention to use the facility or their perception of its value to the community at large. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims wondered what extent the consultant would be narrating to the concept of buildings versus potential dollars. City Manager Shikada stated how far a full campus redevelopment could occur would depend on the dollars available as well as the timing and long-term needs for the space. It will be important for the team to communicate the scalability of implementation based on the resources available. Director O’Kane added those communications exist with Concordia. They are starting with multiple concepts and those will be scaled down to something that is what the community has identified but also what is SUMMARY MINUTES Page 5 of 11 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 06/09/2025 believed to be a realistic plan moving forward and considering the phasing and other possible funding sources. Councilmember Lu wanted more explicit polling on new buildings versus renovations and how that is perceived by people. Segmentation or direction is needed about how to think about amenities for North Palo Alto or other parts of Palo Alto. How the $65 million would improve the school district is an important point. Councilmember Lu will reach out to school board members to understand the feasibility of that. City Manager Shikada thought renovation versus new space was a good example of where the polling and master planning work in concert with each other. The master planning will help identify the interest in the use of space and the footprint for buildings in a planning context. To the extent that there is interest in having additional square footage for more activities leads to a decision in renovation of existing space versus rebuilding potentially at a higher density. The master planning effort will help identify the extent to which that is a concern for the neighborhood. The master planning will identify the extent to which open space can be added to on the existing footprint of the campus by increasing density. Public Comment: 1. Henry E. discussed how the key point of all this is how Cubberley relates to the rest of the City for recreational and social needs. 2. Winter D. (Zoom) thought the survey should include questions about a universal gym and a wellness center. Winter D. found the wording “providing a warm water therapy pool for seniors, children, people with disabilities and those recovering from injury” offensive. Consent Calendar Public Comment: 1. Cynthia F. (Zoom) (Item 9) requested to pull item 9 from consent and urged Council to postpone the vote until they read emails with details of the concerns being posed. Councilmember Burt opined it did not make sense to go up to $400,000 a year when last year, when the additional $200,000 was added, phase one of the grid mod and the fiber-to-the- premise was done in large part in the same fiscal year. There was a disconnect between the funding being asked for while there are big increases in utility costs and the explanation as to why it has to be so much. Councilmember Burt requested to pull Agenda Item Number 7. Councilmember Burt registered a no vote on Agenda Item Number 7. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 6 of 11 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 06/09/2025 MOTION: Councilmember Lythcott-Haims moved, seconded by Councilmember Reckdahl to approve Agenda Item Numbers 3-15. MOTION PASSED ITEMS 3-6, 8-15: 7-0 MOTION PASSED ITEM 7: 6-1, Burt no 3. Approval of Minutes from May 27, 2025 Meeting 4. 2025 Annual Water Supply and Demand CEQA Status Assessment -- Exempt under Water Code Section 10652. 5. Approval of Proposed 10 Year Energy Efficiency Goals for 2026-2035 as Recommended by the Utilities Advisory Commission; CEQA Status – Not a Project. 6. Approval of a Professional Services Contract No. C26193873 with Avenidas, Inc. in an Amount Not-to-Exceed $3,186,528 for Provision of Comprehensive Services to Older Adults for a Term of Five Years; CEQA Status – Not a Project 7. Approval of a Professional Services Contract Number C25192686 with Statewide Traffic Safety and Signs, Inc. in an Amount Not-to-Exceed of $2,125,000 for On-Call Traffic Control Services for Utilities a Period of Five (5) Years; CEQA Status – Not a Project 8. Approve Three Professional Service Contracts: (1) Contract Number C25191790A with Ampirical Services, Inc.; (2) Contract Number C25191790B with Burns & McDonnell Western Enterprises, Inc.; and (3) Contract Number C25191790D with Transformer Consulting Services, Inc. in an Aggregated Amount Not-to-Exceed $15,000,000 Over a Three-Year Period for Utilities Electric Engineering Consulting Services and delegate authority to the City Manager to execute each vendor’s contract for two additional one- year extensions and increase the aggregated not to exceed amount to $25,000,000 ; CEQA Status: Not a Project 9. Approval of Construction Contract No. C25193640 with FieldTurf USA, Inc. in the Amount of $3,064,185 for Stanford Palo Alto Community Playing Fields Turf Replacement Project PG-26000, and Authorization of Contract Contingency in an Amount Not-to-Exceed $306,419; and Amend the FY 2025 Budget in the Capital Improvement Fund and the Parks Dedication Fund; CEQA status – categorically exempt under CEQA Guidelines sections 15301 (Existing Facilities) and 15302 (Replacement or Reconstruction). 10. Approval of Construction Contract No. C25194274 with O’Grady Paving, Inc. in the Amount Not-to-Exceed $1,218,317 and Authorization for the City Manager or Their Designee to Negotiate and Execute Change Orders Up to a Not-to-Exceed Amount of $121,832 for the Fiscal Year 2025 Streets Preventative Maintenance Project; Capital SUMMARY MINUTES Page 7 of 11 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 06/09/2025 Improvement Program Projects PE-86070 and PO-11001; CEQA Status – Exempt under CEQA Guidelines Section 15301(c) 11. Approval of Amendment No. 1 to Contract No. C22183804 With Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc. to Increase the Contract Amount by $150,000 to $1,030,569, to Update the Hourly Rate Schedule, and to Extend the Contract Term to June 30, 2026 for Engineering Services During Construction; Amendment No. 2 to Contract No. C21179265E with Tanner Pacific, Inc. to Increase the Contract Amount by $245,095 to $1,097,595 for Construction Management Services, to add Exhibit C-2 Schedule of Rates, and to Extend the Contract Term to June 30, 2026; and Amendment No. 6 to Contract No. C21179265C with Carollo Engineers, Inc. to Increase the Contract Amount by $397,800 to $15,093,184 for Construction Management Services and to add Exhibit C-2 Schedule of Rates, Funded by Wastewater Treatment Enterprise Fund for the Joint Intercepting Sewer Rehabilitation (Phase 1) Project (WQ-24000); CEQA Status – Exempt under CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Repairs to Existing Facilities) 12. Approval of Contract Amendment Number 1 to Contract Number C24193066 with Origami Risk in the Amount of $3,163 for API Integration Resulting in a New Not-to- Exceed Amount of $209,473 for claims processing services. CEQA Status – Not a Project. 13. Approval of Contract Amendment Number 1 to Contract Number S22183280 with Sloan Sakai Yeung & Wong, LLP for Legal Services, Extending the Term to July 1, 2028 and Increasing the Amount Not to Exceed by $200,000, Bringing the New Total Not to Exceed to $455,000; CEQA Status – Not a Project. 14. FIRST READING: Adoption of an Ordinance amending Section 15.04.410 (Definition of Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Area) to adopt and incorporate the 2025 CAL FIRE Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ) Map for the City of Palo Alto. CEQA status: Not a Project. 15. SECOND READING: Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 18.42 (Standards for Special Uses) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code on a Temporary Basis to Modify the Procedure and Standards Governing the Review of Wireless Communications Facilities Applications; and repealing Resolution 9873 (Amending Objective Aesthetic, Noise, and Related Standards for Wireless Communication Facilities in the Public Rights of Way) (FIRST READING: May 19, 2025, PASSED: 7-0) City Manager Comments City Manager Ed Shikada noted to the public commenter about item number 9 that a supplemental memo was issued on the topic of testing for PFAS on the field turf product that was approved. A slide presentation was provided including input on the fire chief recruitment, engagement opportunities for the week and notable tentative upcoming Council items. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 8 of 11 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 06/09/2025 Action Items 16. Adoption of the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Fiscal Year (FY) 2025- 2026 Annual Action Plan, 2025-2030 Consolidated Plan, and a Resolution Approving Use of CDBG Funds for FY 2025-2026 as Recommended by the Human Relations Commission. CEQA Status: Exempt under CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(4). Robert Feign, Housing Planner, provided a slide presentation about the CDBG including meeting purpose, consolidated plan and CDBG, consolidated plan primary findings, consolidated plan five-year goals, Palo Alto CDBG funds available for allocation in FY 2025-26, FY 2025-26 AAP funding recommendations, implementation timeline, HRC review and recommendation and the HRC and Staff recommendations. Public Comment: 1. Melanie F., Community Impact Manager at Upwards, thanked Council for their past support and advocated for continued support of Palo Alto's family child care providers and working families on behalf of the organization’s Boost team. Mayor Lauing asked where this is in the current budget. Mr. Feign replied the funds are a result of the entitlement grant from the federal government. Part of the recommendation is to direct Staff to return next week to amend the fiscal year 2026 budget to show the funds being received from the federal government and an equal amount being expended on the programs outlined in the report and plan. The 20% program planning and administration goes toward the Michael Baker International Consultant who administers much of the day-to-day of the program. That 20% is a programmatic cap. There is a 20% cap on the program and planning and administration, which has historically been used to fund the consultant. There is also a 15% cap on the public services category, which is more of the social service related organizations. Councilmember Reckdahl asked if it is rotated around and have different nonprofits funded each year. Mr. Feign explained historically the uncapped funds have been more challenging to identify projects for. Conversations can be engaged with a number of the affordable housing owners within the City but the wage requirements tied to a federal program often make it difficult for a relatively small rehab to be financially feasible. This project was one that was able to be funded last year in a bit of a larger amount. They were able to make the financials work. They reached out to them with the HRC's recommendation to see if they could use additional funding given the success they have had in expending funds from the previous year. Councilmember Reckdahl queried how many different other rehabs have been done. Mr. Feign stated four years ago there were some funds that had been attributed to Mitchell Park Place but they had to return the CDBG fund specifically because the wage requirements made it financially not feasible. The entitlement grant amount has remained largely consistent for the past 20, 30 years. Historically, the dollar went further for rehab projects and they were able to make them work. There have been no recent projects within the past five years that they have been able to fund using the dollars. For the uncapped funds, every year it is an effort to identify SUMMARY MINUTES Page 9 of 11 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 06/09/2025 housing rehab and public facilities projects that fit under the CDBG criteria and the want to take on those dollars. MOTION: Councilmember Stone moved, seconded by Councilmember Burt to: 1. Adopt the draft Fiscal Year (FY) 2025-2026 Annual Action Plan (AAP), 2025-2030 Consolidated Plan (ConPlan)1, and the associated resolution (Attachment A) allocating Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding for FY 2025-2026; 2. Authorize the City Manager to execute the FY 2025-2026 CDBG application to fund the FY 2025-2026 AAP and any other necessary documents concerning the application, and to otherwise bind the City with respect to the applications and commitment of funds; 3. Authorize staff to submit the FY 2025-2030 Consolidated Plan and 2025-2026 AAP to U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) by the extended deadline of August 16, 2025; 4. Authorize the City Manager or designee to draft and execute amendments to a loan agreement, regulatory agreement, and related documents necessary to implement City Council direction on the Alma Garden Rehabilitation Project in a form consistent with the City’s affordable housing loan documents and approved by the City Attorney; and 5. Direct staff to return to Council following budget adoption to amend the FY 2026 Budget Appropriation for the Community Development Block Grant Fund (2/3 vote needed) by: a. Increasing Revenue from Other Agencies by $616,233. b. Increasing General Expenses by $616,233. MOTION PASSED: 7-0 17. Approve a Resolution to Allow Dining and Retail Encroachments on Car Free California Avenue under PAMC Ch. 12.11; Direct Staff to Approve the Car Free California Avenue Outdoor Activation Program Regulations Including Reference to the Program fees in the FY 2026 Municipal Fee Schedule; Adopt a Resolution Allowing Open Containers in Conjunction with Third Thursday Performances in 2025; Direct Staff to Review Differences Between the Open Container Resolution and an Entertainment Zone as Recommended by the Retail Committee. CEQA Status – categorically exempt. Item Removed Off Agenda (Rescheduled to be heard at the June 17, 2025 City Council Meeting) SUMMARY MINUTES Page 10 of 11 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 06/09/2025 AA1. LEGISLATIVE. Adoption of a Temporary, Emergency Ordinance Amending Title 18 and Title 21 to Reflect Changes in State Law in Accordance with Senate Bill 1123 and Related Direction to Staff Regarding Updates to the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan. CEQA Status: Exempt Pursuant to Government Code Sections 65852.28 and 66499.41. New Item Added, Supplemental Report Added Claire Raybould, Current Planning Manager, provided a slide presentation about the Title 18 and 21 amendments to implement SB 1123 including a background, project overview, purpose of the ordinance, key policy considerations and recommendation. Public Comment: 1. Ratnakar V. (Zoom) hoped the City would consider engaging with Senate Bill 1123 thoughtfully and favorably. Councilmember Lu asked about the Old Trace Road Project private street width and square footage. Ms. Raybould stated that was not currently in the ordinance. Under 1804 in the code there are definitions of floor area ratio. Private streets and creek easements are deducted from the net lot area for the purposes of FAR. Nothing was recommended different that how every other lot is evaluated in the City of Palo Alto. Council could add something into Title 18 specific to SB 1123 if they wanted to. No changes were recommended to the current ordinance with respect to that. Albert Yang, Assistant City Attorney, added with respect to the private street width, the 32 foot width was adopted by an initiative ordinance in 2009. It is not something Council is able to change. It has to be amended by a vote of the people or another initiative ordinance. With respect to FAR, the Senate bill allows cities to adopt a maximum average habitable space of 1750 square feet. That is believed to be consistent with the intention of the bill to spur the creation of starter homes that are perhaps more affordable because they are limited in size. Councilmember Lu was happy with the temporary ordinance, allowing ADUs and thought it reasonable to go more than 1750 square feet but needed more dialog to consider that. Mayor Lauing advised Council keep in mind that this is a temporary ordinance and is going back to PTC some of those can be incorporated when it gets there. Mayor Lauing wanted to know if very high fire hazard severity or delineated earthquake applied to Trace Road. Ms. Raybould stated it is not a high wildfire hazard area and did not believe it is in a fault zone. Mayor Lauing had concern about jumping right in and making changes to the comprehensive plan with the limited resources available but did not suggest putting a timeframe on that. The proposal in front of Council was to select what kind of ADUs might be appropriate. The trade-offs presented in the staff report and the supplement suggest that if going with junior ADUs on all of the units would result in 10 units plus 10 junior ADUs, which would give benefits down the line in turn of some modicum of local control and still increase the numbers of units from 10 to 20 which was a sensible approach. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 11 of 11 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 06/09/2025 Councilmember Burt asked if the high wildfire hazard area was determined by what the state identified as specific high wildfire hazard zones. Jonathan Lait, Planning and Development Services Director, confirmed that and believed those maps would come to City Council next week for review. City Manager Shikada added the maps had been in public circulation for a number of weeks and are being finalized. Councilmember Burt expressed the need to rely on what data is being provided by the state. Councilmember Burt was skeptical that the whole Arastradero area was not objectively a high wildfire hazard. Councilmember Reckdahl asked if there is a deadline for making changes to the comp plan. Director Lait replied the reason for amending the comp plan is to align the City Council's priorities with respect to those different areas. Until those changes are made, there will be some uncertainty that people can expect in terms of redevelopment of properties in those lower density residential areas. There are no legal issues with them not being matched up. It is what is articulated in the land use element of the comprehensive plan versus what community expectations are based on zoning. There is a disconnect on how that can be utilized. There are some cases like SB 330 that if they are different the developer can choose the one that is different. With state density bonus law, one could choose the higher of the two standards to base the bonus. With respect to 1123, that state provision is being implemented and asking if Council wants to allow for ADUs to also be allowed. That was left an open question for local jurisdictions to decide how they wanted to regulate that. It not regulated at that time, it will be allowed if someone pursued 1123. If the ADU provision was omitted, developers will probably look to state density bonus law to see what they could do for redevelopment. MOTION: Mayor Lauing moved, seconded by Councilmember Reckdahl to: 1. Adopt the proposed ordinance (Attachment A) by a four-fifths majority (six affirmative votes), temporarily updating Title 18 and Title 21 of the Municipal Code in accordance with recent changes in State law; 2. Direct staff to prepare an ordinance for review by Planning and Transportation Commission and City Council; and 3. Direct staff to develop an ordinance for Council consideration updating the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan to more specifically differentiate single-family, low-, medium-, and high-density residential land use designations. MOTION PASSED: 7-0 Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 8:42 PM