City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 menlopark.gov City Council
REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
Date: 2/14/2023
Time: 6:00 p.m.
Locations: Teleconference and
City Council Chambers
751 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025
Regular Session
A. Call To Order
Mayor Wolosin called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m.
B. Roll Call
Present: Combs, Doerr, Nash, Taylor, Wolosin
Absent: None
Staff: City Manager Justin I. C. Murphy, City Attorney Nira F. Doherty, Assistant to the City Manager/City Clerk Judi A. Herren
C. Agenda Review
Staff pulled item G4.
The City Council pulled item G6.
D. Report from Closed Session
No reportable action.
E. Public Comment
Kristen Gracia introduced themselves as the School District Superintendent. JT Faraji spoke on concerns related to policing and harassment. Eduardo Deras-Nava spoke on concerns related to policing and harassment.
F. Presentations and Proclamations
F1. Proclamation: Black History Month
Mayor Wolosin read the proclamation (Attachment).
F2. Presentation: Youth Poster Exhibition: "What Black History Means to Me" Library and Community Services Director Sean Reinhart and Library and Community Services Supervisor Natalia Jones made the presentation (Attachment).
City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 menlopark.gov G. Consent Calendar
G1. Accept the City Council meeting minutes for January 10 and 24, 2023 (Attachment)
G2. Adopt a resolution to continue conducting the City’s Council and advisory body meetings remotely due to health and safety concerns for the public and to authorize the use of hybrid meetings (Staff Report #23-025-CC)
G3. Authorize the city manager to execute the first amendment to the funding agreement with the Bohannon Development Company and adopt a resolution authorizing the city manager to execute deeds and easements for the Chrysler Pump Station (Staff Report #23-026-CC) G4. Adopt a resolution supporting the City’s shuttle program for application for the San Mateo County Shuttle Program fiscal year 2023-24 and 2024-25 and authorize the city manager to enter into funding agreements (Staff Report #23-027-CC)
Vice Mayor Taylor was recused and exited the meeting.
Staff provided an update on the resolution language and continued the item to the February 28 City Council meeting.
Vice Mayor Taylor rejoined the meeting.
G5. Approve the Environmental Quality Commission’s annual work plan (Staff Report #23-034-CC)
G6. Adopt a resolution approving the City Council Community Funding Subcommittee’s recommendations for 2022-23 community funding allocations (Staff Report #23-033-CC)
The City Council requested additional advertising for next year’s community funding grants.
ACTION: Motion and second (Doerr/ Nash), to approve the consent calendar with the exception of item G4., passed unanimously.
H. Public Hearing
H1. Adopt a resolution to abandon two ten-foot wide public utility easements along the northeasterly side (rear) of properties at 1701 Bay Laurel Drive and 1715 Bay Laurel Drive; determine this action is categorically exempt under California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15305 Class 5 exemption for minor alterations in land use limitations (Staff Report #23-028-CC) Associate Engineer Edress Rangeen made the presentation (Attachment).
Mayor Wolosin opened the public hearing.
Peter Baltay spoke in support of public utility easements abandonment. Peter Rottier spoke in support of public utility easements abandonment.
Mayor Wolosin closed the public hearing.
The City Council received clarification on the owner of the easement.
City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 menlopark.gov ACTION: Motion and second (Combs/ Taylor), to adopt a resolution to abandon two ten-foot wide public utility easements along the northeasterly side (rear) of the properties at 1701 Bay Laurel Drive and 1715 Bay Laurel Drive and determine this action is categorically exempt under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15305 Class 5 exemption for minor alterations in land use limitations, passed unanimously.
I. Regular Business
I1. Provide direction on the preferred bikeway design for Middle Avenue and adopt a resolution to install no parking zones on Middle Avenue; determine this action is statutorily exempt as defined by Public Resource Code Section 21080.25 (Staff Report #23-032-CC) Assistant Public Works Director Hugh Louch made the presentation (Attachment). Alex and Peter spoke in support of the Option 1 bike lane project. Corey Binns spoke in support of the Option 1 bike lane project. Matthew Rascoff spoke in support of the Option 1 bike lane project (Attachment). Lucy Padrez spoke in support of the Option 1 bike lane project as a pilot. Sofia and Eloisa Visser spoke in support of the Option 1 bike lane project. Carmen Visser spoke in support of the Option 1 bike lane project. Emily and William Bailard spoke in support of the Option 1 bike lane project. Sam and Kalum Schroeder spoke in support of the Option 1 bike lane project. Brian McCarthy spoke in opposition of the removal of all parking on Middle Avenue. Dan Hilberman spoke in support of bike lanes on Middle Avenue. Bill Kirsch spoke in support of the Option 1 bike lane project as a pilot. Jacqui Cebrian spoke in support of the Option 1 bike lane project. Gregory Faris spoke in support of the Option 1 bike lane project. Jonathan Cloe spoke in support of the Option 1 bike lane project. Jeanne Marie requested clarification on Middle Avenue current size when adding a bike line and “dooring” related to Option 2.
Katie Behroozi spoke in support of the Option 1 bike lane project. Mical Brenzel spoke in opposition of the removal of all parking on Middle Avenue and in support of Options 2 or 3.
Mel van Londen spoke in support of the Option 1 bike lane project. Philipp Weitershausen spoke in support of the Option 1 bike lane project. Burcin Baytekin spoke in support of the Option 1 bike lane project. Hilary Kushins spoke in support of the Option 1 bike lane project. Brendan Visser spoke in support of the Option 1 bike lane project. Jenny Michel spoke in support of a bike lane project pilot. Aaron Meyers spoke in opposition of the removal of all parking on Middle Avenue. Sandy Napel spoke in support of a bike lane project.
Adina Levin spoke in support of the Option 1 bike lane project. Ross Silverstein spoke in support of the Option 1 bike lane project. Pamela Sperli spoke in opposition of the removal of all parking on Middle Avenue. Kealai Lee spoke in support of timed parking on Middle Avenue and in opposition of the removal of all parking on Middle Avenue.
Sally Cole spoke in support of the Option 1 bike lane project.
City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 menlopark.gov Neil Wahls spoke in support of the Option 2 bike lane project with revisions for safety and accessibility.
Cindy Kin spoke in support of the Option 1 bike lane project. John Hamilton spoke in opposition of the removal of all parking on Middle Avenue and in support of a bike lane pilot for Options 2 or 3.
Peter Lee spoke in support of the Option 2 bike lane project. Peter Olson spoke in opposition of the removal of all parking on Middle Avenue and in support of Option 3.
The City Council took a recess at 8:19 p.m.
The City Council reconvened at 8:29 p.m.
The City Council received clarification on City Council action timeline, other approved projects, parking permits, speed limit reduction timeline, adding a crosswalk at Middle Avenue and Yale Road, cost of a bike lane pilot versus no pilot, enforcement of parking and bike lanes, and protected bike lane options.
The City Council discussed the impacts of the removal of parking to residents on Middle Avenue, Blake Street at Middle Avenue closure and parking access, enforcement, parking and mitigations for the apartments and church on Middle Avenue, timed parking options at the church, combining managing and bidding for projects, Nealon Park zoning, adding a crosswalk across from the Nealon Park tennis court, flashing beacon at Arbor Road, additional bike parking, and prioritizing crosswalks on Willow Road.
The City Council directed staff to explore a crosswalk at Yale Road and tennis courts at Nealon Park, restriping of Nealon Park parking lot in coordination with Little House, explore revisions to the municipal code for overnight parking restrictions in parks, loading zone or timed parking in front of Nealon Park, additional bike parking, parking permit program for Middle Avenue residents, expediting the flashing beacon at Arbor Road, and expediting as much as possible the speed reduction on Middle Avenue.
ACTION: Motion and second (Nash/ Doerr), to adopt a resolution to install no parking zones on Middle Avenue and implement Option 1 as a pilot, passed 3-2 (Combs and Taylor dissenting).
I2. Preliminary considerations for selecting an aquatics operator for the Burgess Pool and the future Menlo Park Community Campus aquatics center (Staff Report #23-036-CC) Library and Community Services Director Sean Reinhart and Library and Community Services Supervisor Tricia Mullan made the presentation (Attachment).
Michael Ross spoke in support of an agreement with Team Sheeper Inc. (Sheeper). Juliana Morow spoke in support of an agreement with Sheeper. Jenny Roost spoke in support of an agreement with Sheeper. Bob Hubbell spoke in support of an agreement with Sheeper. Stephane Mouradian spoke in support of an agreement with Sheeper. Tricia Barr spoke in support of an agreement with Sheeper. Cameron Wessel spoke in support of an agreement with Sheeper. Adina Levin spoke in support of considering the needs of the communities in Menlo Park when
City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 menlopark.gov considering the pool operator.
Eric Filseth spoke in support of an agreement with Sheeper. Janet Davis spoke in support of reduced pricing and more equitable lane availability. Burcin Baytekin spoke in support of an agreement with Sheeper. Tom McRae spoke on Solo Aquatics’ experience in Menlo Park and working with Sheeper.
The City Council took a recess at 10:55 p.m.
The City Council reconvened at 10:59 p.m.
ACTION: By acclamation, the City Council continued the meeting beyond 11 p.m.
The City Council received clarification on how proposals were rated/audited, how providers can prioritize resident access, programming structuring/restructuring for residents.
The City Council discussed a City operated aquatics program, survey on resident needs and desired programming, low fees for residents and higher fees for non-residents.
The City Council directed the following for consideration of a pool operator:
User fees and resident prioritization
Free swim versus competitive/structured programs
Lane hours for programs
Schedule of pool activities
Ad-hoc subcommittee to assist with negotiations
Clarity on revenue shares
Clarification on the disruption that transitioning to a new operator could entail Reconsideration of items on individual proposals
I3. Direction on Finance and Audit Committee composition (Staff Report #23-029-CC) City Clerk Judi Herren made the presentation (Attachment).
The City Council discussed options for the composition of the Finance and Audit Committee (FAC).
The City Council directed staff to proceed with Option 3 and return to the City Council if unable to fill seven resident member seats to consider a reduction in membership to five.
J. Informational Items
J1. City Council agenda topics: February 28 – March 14, 2023 (Staff Report #23-035-CC)
J2. Proposed cultural and community events grant program (Staff Report #23-030-CC) Adina Levin spoke in support of a cultural and community events grant program and requested clarification.
The City Council requested this be held and discussed during the budget process.
J3. Transmittal of city attorney billing (Staff Report #23-031-CC)
City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 menlopark.gov J4. Police department quarterly update – Q4 September 2022 – December 2022 (Staff Report #23-037-CC)
K. City Manager's Report
City Manager Justin Murphy reported out on the March 18 City Council goal setting meeting and current advisory body recruitment through April 7.
L. City Councilmember Reports
City Councilmember Doerr reported on office hours every Tuesday from 8 a.m. – 9:30 a.m. at the Woodside Bakery.
City Councilmember Combs requested a future agenda item related to Animal Control.
Mayor Wolosin reported out on the Local Policy Maker Group (LPMG) meeting.
Vice Mayor Taylor reported out Menlo Park Community Campus working group, Reimagining Public Safety Subcommittee, San Francisco Airport/Community Roundtable, South Bayside Waste Management Authority (RethinkWaste), and City/County Association of Government meetings (Attachment).
City Councilmember Nash reported out on Mayor Wolosin’s appointment as the LPMG Vice Chair.
M. Adjournment
Mayor Wolosin adjourned the meeting at 11:40 p.m.
Judi A. Herren, Assistant to the City Manager/ City Clerk These minutes were approved at the City Council meeting of March 14, 2023.
AGENDA ITEM F-1
F2-PRESENTATION
RESOLUTION TO ABANDON PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENTS
1701 Bay Laurel Drive and 1715 Bay Laurel Drive
H1-PRESENTATION
Standard Vacation – 3 step process
– City Council – Planning Commission – City Council
On December 16, 2022, the City Council adopted
Resolution No. 6796
On January 9th, 2023, Planning Commission adopted
Resolution No. 2023-03 confirming that proposed abandonments were consistent with general plan and recommending approval of abandonment.
PROJECT BACKGROUND
2 MAP
3 Adopt resolution ordering the vacation and abandonment of the two 10-foot-wide Public Utility Easements along the northeasterly side (rear) of properties at 1701 Bay Laurel Drive and 1715 Bay Laurel Drive.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
4 THANK YOU
MIDDLE AVENUE
COMPLETE STREETS PLANCity Council – February 14, 2023
I1-PRESENTATION
Project goals
Background Outreach Prior City Council
direction
Bike lane design
options
RecommendationAGENDA
2 Enhance bicyclist and pedestrian visibility and improve safety of all users
Provide safe and comfortable cycling and pedestrian
infrastructure and encourage sustainable mode of transportation Increase accessibility of the corridor by supporting improvements related to Middle Plaza and ongoing study of the grade-separated pedestrian and bicycle crossing
PROJECT GOALS
3 BACKGROUND
4 65’ City right of way – 41-42’ wide curb to curb Edge lines with parallel parking Speed limit varies – 25 to 30 MPH and new 15 MPH school zones Street use – vehicle, bicycle and pedestrian volumes
City collision data Parking counts
– Average day – 2019 to 2022– Nealon Park lot – multiple days, time periods– New Community Church Sunday counts Permits for apartment residentsDATA COLLECTION
5 OUTREACH
Public meetings – March 3, 2022
– In-person at Nealon Park tennis court– Virtually via Zoom– About 100 total participants Public Survey
– Over 600 participants
Meetings with institutions
– PVI – Little House and Rosener House– New Community Church Councilmember led outreach
– October 2022– February 2023
PUBLIC OUTREACH
7 In person outreach (in the rain)
ONLINE SURVEY
BIKE LANE/PARKING REMOVAL PREFERENCES
8 45%
50%
53%
54%
63%
41%
29%
37%
36%
34%
28%
40%
26%
13%
11%
11%
10%
19%
Live on Middle Avenue
Live nearby
Visit parks
Commute
Get to and from school
Other
Parking Removal Preference by User Group
Remove both sides Remove one side Do not remove or Partial removal
CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS
TO DATE
Approved traffic calming measures:
– Raised crosswalks and speed humps– Flashing pedestrian beacons at Arbor Rd– Speed feedback signs Approved installation of all-way stop at San Mateo
Drive and Middle Avenue
Approved temporary closure of Blake Street at Middle
Avenue – requested by residents
Directed staff to pursue intersection safety
improvements at El Camino Real and Middle Avenue
Directed staff to add sidewalk completion to the 5-year CIP
CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS TO DATE
10 BICYCLE LANE
OPTIONS
BIKEWAY OPTION 1
12 BIKEWAY OPTION 2
13 14
TRADEOFFS BETWEEN OPTIONS
OPTION ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES(1) Remove both sides
Wider bike lanes reduce
conflicts with vehicles
Wider bike lanes and buffers may be
used for passing turning vehicles
(2) Remove one side
Parking retained across
the corridor
Narrower bicycle lanes and buffer Increased risk of dooring (bicycle collisions with people opening car doors) compared to option 1 (3) Keep one side in high need areas
Parking retained for users
with high need (NealonPark/Little House, Menlo Community Church and apartments) Narrower bike lanes and buffer in
select areas, including by NealonPark and Lyle Park
Potential increase risk of dooring in
select areas compared to option 1
15 PILOT & EVALUATION
16 Pilot
recommended for option 1, not 2 or 3
Pilot would be 6 to
12 months to span multiple seasons
Pilot would start in
summer
SCHEDULE
17 Provide direction on the preferred bike lane design option
Adopt a resolution to install no parking zones on Middle Avenue consistent with the preferred option
ACTION TONIGHT
18 THANK YOU
I1-PUBLIC COMMENT
PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS FOR SELECTING AN
AQUATICS OPERATORCity Council – February 14, 2023
I2-PRESENTATION
Recommendation
• No City Council action is requested at this time. • This is a discussion-only item to provide City Council and the community the opportunity to view the proposals received (Attachments A, B and C) • Preliminary considerations related to the selection of an aquatics operator for City Council’s awareness
• Any feedback, questions, or direction City Council may desire to provide at this juncture.
2 Timeline*
• February 14 – Proposals released for City Council and community review and preliminary City Council discussion and feedback • February 28 – City staff analysis and recommendation for a preferred operator; City Council authorizes the city manager to negotiate an agreement with the preferred operator • March 1 – City enters negotiations with the preferred operator identified by City Council
• March 28 – City Council reviews and approves the aquatics operator agreement; the agreement is executed shortly thereafter • September 1 – Agreement takes effect.
* All dates are tentative and subject to change 3
4 Proposals
• Three proposals were received in response to the RFP (Attachments A, B and C)
• RFP Section VI. Submittal Procedure: “Submitted proposals may be considered public documents and the City will adhere to all laws and regulations regarding the dissemination of public documents as they relate to submitted proposals.” • The proposals are being provided to City Council in advance of selecting a preferred operator in order to give City Council and the community sufficient time to review the proposals and to identify preliminary considerations for City Council feedback and direction. 5 Proposals
• Team Sheeper, Inc. proposal is from the City’s current operator that has operated Burgess Pool since 2006 and previously operated Belle Haven Pool from 2011 until 2021 when the Belle Haven Pool was demolished to make way for construction of a new aquatics center as part of the MPCC project • Swimming Swan, LLC proposal is from a qualified operator that is based in southern California and recently expanded its operations to Santa Clara County and Las Vegas, Nevada • SOLO Aquatics proposal is from a local aquatics program that operates as a program subcontractor to the current operator of Burgess Pool. 6 Proposals
• Two of the proposals (Team Sheeper, Inc., and The Swimming Swan, LLC) are from respondents that currently operate public aquatics facilities • In the opinion of City staff and the RFP review panel, these two proposals demonstrate sufficient capabilities and experience to operate the Burgess Pool and future MPCC aquatics center. 7 8
Preliminary considerations
• During the proposal review process, several preliminary considerations were identified for City Council’s awareness
• Staff seeks any additional feedback, questions, or direction City Council may desire to provide at this juncture.
9 Preliminary considerations
• Making some changes to the city’s aquatics services and programs is expected and desired based on the key priorities and requirements that City Council established in the RFP • Preserving some continuity of the city’s aquatics services and programs is expected and desired based on the key priorities and requirements that City Council established in the RFP • Based on the information received during the RFP process to date, City staff is confident and prepared to execute any direction City Council may provide regarding the desired future operations of the City’s aquatics program. 10 Preliminary considerations
• Remaining with the current qualified operator would probably result in relatively less disruption to current programs and operations from the perspective of current pool users, continuity of services and programs that are already in place • Selecting a new qualified operator would probably result in relatively more disruption to current programs and operations from the perspective of current pool users, particularly in regard to the unique challenges and opportunities of transitioning from one operator to another operator. 11 Next steps*
February 28 – City staff analysis of the proposals, anticipated impacts and potential benefits of each option, and City staff’s recommendation for a preferred operatorFebruary 28 – City Council identify a preferred aquatics operator and authorize staff to negotiate an operator agreementMarch 1 – At City Council’s direction, the City enters negotiations with the preferred operator that City Council identified. March 28 (tentative) – City Council authorization to execute the agreement. * All dates are tentative and subject to change 12
13 DIRECTION ON FINANCE AND AUDIT
COMMITTEE COMPOSITION Judi A. Herren, City Clerk
I3-PRESENTATION
Provide staff with updates to City Council Policy #CC23-004 Commissions/Committees Policies and procedures, Roles and Responsibilities
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
2 Option 1 - Reduce the FAC membership from seven to five and remove two City Councilmembers as voting members. FAC composition: Five residents and appointment of one City Councilmember liaison (not a voting member.) Option 2 - Reduce the FAC membership from seven to five and retain two City Councilmembers as voting members.
FAC composition: Three residents and two City Councilmembers as voting members. Option 3 - Retain the FAC membership at seven members, but remove two City Councilmembers as voting members. FAC composition: Seven residents and appointment of one City Councilmember liaison (not a voting member.) Option 4 - Retain the current FAC membership of five residents and two City Councilmember as voting members. 3
OPTIONS
Option no. Total FAC membership No. of resident members No. of City Council as FAC members No. of City Council liaisonsOption 1(Reduce 7 to 5) 5 members 5 0 1Option 2(Reduce 7 to 5) 5 members 3 2 0Option 3(Retain 7) 7 members 7 0 1Option 4(Retain 7) 7 members 5 2 0
THANK YOU