CITY COUNCIL
SUMMARY MINUTES
Regular Meeting
December 18, 2023
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers and by virtual teleconference at 5:30 P.M.
Present In Person: Burt, Kou, Lauing, Lythcott-Haims, Stone, Tanaka, Veenker Present Remotely:
Absent:
Call to Order
Mayor Kou called the meeting to order. Roll was taken with seven present.
Special Orders of the Day
1. Resolution Expressing Appreciation to Matt Raschke Upon His Retirement Public Works Director Brad Eggleston expressed his apprec iation to Mr. Matt Raschke for his service. He discussed his history and some of his accomplishments and stated that he would be missed. He wished him many new and ex citing adventures in his retirement. He acknowledged his wife, Tanya, and his son.
Council Member Burt read the resolution for Mr. Matt Raschke. Mr. Raschke was recognized by his peers and City staff for being professional, knowledgeable, dependable, and a team player.
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto gratefully record ed and extended i ts sincere appreciation to him for his dedication and excellent service rendered to the City.
MOTION: Council Member Burt moved, seconded by Mayor Kou to adopt a resolution expressing appreciation to Matt Raschke upon his retirement.
Mayor Kou was impresse d with and appreciated his management of projects and his knowledge, communication skills, and engagement with stakeholders. She stated he would be greatly missed . She thanked him for his service and wished him the bes t and joy in his new adventures.
MOTION PASSED: 7-0
SUMMARY MINUTES
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 12/18/2023
Mayor Kou invited Mr. Raschke to the dais for a picture with Council.
2. Proclamation Honoring Bob Moss for his Service to the City of Palo Alto No action taken.
Mayor Kou delivered the proclamation for Mr. Bob Moss and itemized his accomplishments. On behalf of City Counc il, she commended and honored his many decades of devotion, instructional knowledge, and service to the City.
Bob Moss appreciated Council giving him the a ward. He noted that he had been involved with Palo Alto for over 50 ye ars. He thought it was important that individuals communicate issu es and benefits received from being in Palo Alto and to work together in the community to make things better. He acknowledged that his wife, Harriet, sons, and granddaughter were present to appreciate Council's kindness. He thought it was important that people not come to Palo Alto and do nothing but that they be involved wi th the neighborhood , the community , and the entire environment. He mentioned it had been a pleasure living in Palo Alto and working with the community, City Council, and Council staff. He thanked Council for their consideration.
Mayor Kou expressed her gratitude and thanked him for his work. She asked him to continue his efforts. She appreciated that he not only talked abo ut issues but that he actually took action. She invited him and his family to the dais for a photo.
AA1. Proclamation Honoring Herb Borock for his Service to the City of Palo Alto No action taken.
Mayor Kou recited the procl amation for Mr. Herb Borock and detailed his achievements and ongoing efforts. On behalf of the City Council, she commended and honored h is many decades of devotion, institutional knowledge, and service to the City. She thanked him for all his work.
Herb Borock thanked Mayor Kou. He spoke of his history in Palo Alto and the community and organizing in relation to community , regional, statewide, natio nal, and i nternational changes.
He appreciated the commendation. He voiced that being present at the meeting with Mr. Bob Moss was an honor.
Council Member Lauing remarked that he looked forward to Mr. Borock's comments in meetings because he was well-informed concerning the issues he spoke to. He thought he was the perfect example of the right kind of public commente r and active citizen. H e thanked him for his work and hoped to keep seeing him at meetings.
Mayor Kou thanked him for safeguarding the pr eservation of democracy and requested he continue his work. She invited him to the dais for a picture.
Closed Session
SUMMARY MINUTES
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 12/18/2023
3. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS
Authority: Government Code Section 54956.8
Property: 4000 Middlefield Road, Palo Alto (Cubberley Community Center) Negotiating Party: Palo Alto Unified School District
City Negotiators: (Ed Shikada, Kiely Nose, Chantal Cotton Gaines, K risten O'Kane, Sunny Tong)
Subject of Negotiations: Purchase and Lease, Price and Terms of Payment Public Comment
Ken H. indicated that he had spoken about Cubberley many times , and he encouraged Council to take action and make a decision, whatever it may be. He stated that Palo Alto deserved a modern, up-to-date community center. He discussed the City paying rent to PAUSD.
Mark W. thought rights should be assigned to the Cubberley Alumni Association to let them decide what should be done. He did not think this item should be discussed in a closed session, but openly. He thanked Council for their service.
MOTION: Mayor Kou moved, seconded by Council Member Lauing to go into Closed Session.
MOTION PASSED: 7-0
Council went into Closed Session at 6:03 P.M.
Council returned from Closed Session at 6:40 P.M.
Mayor Kou reconvened the meeting.
Mayor Kou announced no reportable action.
Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions
City Manager Ed Shikada a nnounced the re were no agenda changes. He noted that with the amended agenda staff had added a supplemental memo to Item 22 that provided the summary of a P&S Committee discussion.
Public Comment
Peter B. stated he was concerned ho w Palo Alto might address the future of housing development in the city. He opined that the C ity needed to activate a proactive process of selecting projects, describing the priorities for dev elopment, and defining program objectives.
He suggested there be a development office to manage the State-mandated efforts.
David H. discussed the 10-unit project at the Encina parking lot, and he provided suggestions to possibly allow 150 units on the lot. He indicated that a development office was needed.
SUMMARY MINUTES
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 12/18/2023
Noel S. requested a resolution be considered and passed calling for immediate ceasefire in the Middle East and Gaza. He discussed the Geneva Convention and control of borders.
Syed discussed why he wanted Council to agendize a resolution calling for a ceasefire in Gaza.
Abdullah A. asked Council to push for a ceasefire resolution to facilitate hostage release.
Aatif S. petitioned Council and Palo Alto citizens to add the ceasefire resolution to the agenda.
Fadi A. urged Council to add to the agenda a resolution for an immediate ceasefire for the release of hostages.
Mike F. agreed with the prior speaker. He discussed war not benefitting anyone. He spoke of his opposition of toilet to tap, a bill that he indicated was being considered.
Bassel O. (Zoom) urged Council to support an immediate ceasefire resolution in Gaza. He asked that consideration be given to prec edent set by City Council for a foreign policy resolution in October 2023.
Greg F. (Zoom) urged Council to pass a resolution calling for a ceasefire.
Noha (Zoom) called on City Council to issue a resolution to stand with the people of Palestine in calling for an immediate and permanent ceasefire in Gaza.
Mark W. mainly attended the meeting to pr aise Mr. Bob Moss and Mr. Herb Borock. He spoke of the happenings between Israel and Gaza.
Ahmed M. indicated that ceasefire meant human dignity fo r all, all being treated equally, and the safe return of hostages.
SN (Zoom) urged Council to pass a resolution call ing for an immediat e and lasting ceasefire in Gaza and condemning hatred and discrimination of all protected groups in Palo Alto.
URM (Zoom ) spoke of an article titled " We Are No Strangers to Human Suffering, But We've Seen Nothing Like the Siege of Gaza." She asked for a resolution for a ceasefire. [email protected] (Zoom) discussed children's rights being human rights and asked Council to pass a ceasefire resolution.
Michelle H. (Zoom) requested the City of Palo Alto pass a res olution calling for an immediate ceasefire. She spoke of human rights and stopping further harm to civilians.
Liz G. (Zoom) spoke on behalf of world peace. She urged City Council to have and vote on a resolution to support peace in Gaza through a ceasefire.
SUMMARY MINUTES
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 12/18/2023
Aram J. (Zoom) wanted a ceasefire now. He asked if Council Member Lythcott-Haims was going to support Congresswoman Anna Eshoo's position concerning Israel and Gaza.
Chenelle H. (Zoom) wanted to discuss with Council what was going on with children of co lor in PAUSD. She spoke of racism.
Syed H. (Zoom) asked the City of Palo Alto to propose a ceasefire resolution for Gaza.
Lakeshia P -M. (Zoom) discussed PAUSD and discrimination and bias and incidents being reported to the District and School personnel. She requested City Council intervene.
Nicole W. (Zoom) was concerned about a proclamation signed by Mayor Kou – the UN Amnesty International Human Rights Watch [inaudible]. She requested Palo Alto release a s tatement supporting a ceasefire.
Ayelet M. (Zoom) discussed a re solution condemning terrorism a nd supporting impacted community members. She opined that any resolution passed must include specific language as to who in the community held identit ies being most affected by the happenings in Israel and Palestine. She asked for a ceasefire now.
Rami S. (Zoom) discussed the deaths of children in Gaza, and he asked that the children of Gaza be advocated for.
Dima (Zoom) opined that the procl amation issued was one-sided and did not address war crimes being committed. She requested an immediate and permanent ceasefire resolution that would allow entry for all necessary humanitarian aid, release of all hostages, unrestricte d entry of humanitarian assistance, respect fo r international law , and the protection of innocent civilians. She urged the City do what other countries had called for in the Security Council.
Mayor Kou was grateful for the comments , and she thanked the sp eakers for respecting Council's regulations.
Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements
Council M ember Veenker provided an update of the Executive Committee of Cal City's Peninsula Division. A legislative address was planned for January 26, which would be at HP in Palo Alto, and formal invitations should be forthcoming. She had had meetings in the las t week or so concerning how well t he City was viewed from outside. She had been invited by U.S.
Commissioner of Patents to attend a meeting related to their new C limate Mitigation Technology Program, which she indicated could help Palo Alto. She regretted missing the Council meeting last week, which was the first she had not attended. She was in Washington, D.C., on behalf of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District to advocate for climate mitigation programs for the Bay A rea, and Palo Alto's Heat Pump Water Heater Program amazed and interested them.
SUMMARY MINUTES
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 12/18/2023
Study Session
4. Request for Pre -Screening of Application to Amend the Development Agreement and South of Forest Area Phas e 1 Coordinated A rea Plan for 260 Homer Avenue that Currently Restricts the Amount of Space that One or More Commercial Office Tenants can Occupy at the Property. Zoning District: AMF (MUO). CEQA Status: Not a Project.
No action taken.
Planner Garrett Sauls stated that the purpose of this item was to discuss the applicant's request to remove the 10,000 square foot office tenant limitation that had been established for this specific zoning district through the South of Forest Area ( SOFA) P hase 1 document. The applicant h ad noted that removing the limit would help them maintain and possibly attract tenants who wanted to grow in place. There were no other physical changes proposed at the site. He displayed a slide of the project location. He provided some history of SOFA. He furnished a slide showing the current floor plan. The policy implications were identified in the Staff Rep ort, which he outlined. Staff recommended conducting a p rescreening and that informal comments be pro vided regarding the applicant's reques t to modify the SOFA Phase 1 document.
Applicant Ben Bullock introduced himself a nd his colle ague, Kenny Berzo ni, who were the owners and managers of the property at 260 Homer Avenue , which included office a nd residential tenants. He presented a slide and summarized the occupancy use restriction, which limited their ability to le ase more than one -third of the project. They wanted to have a discussion with the City to understand if there were benefits the applicant was not aware of by having the occupancy use res triction in place. He wanted to discuss how it had ne gatively impacted their leasing of the property as well as possible benefits to the City for adjusting the restriction. He furnished slides related to impacts they had experienced at the property due to the restriction and possible benefits to the City in releasing the restriction, which he elaborated on and which included sales tax earnings, higher office space occupancy, etc.
Mayor Kou asked how the office space came to be from the coordinated plan and if Ap plicant Bullock was the original owner when the building was constructed during the coordinated plan phase.
Applicant Bullock replied that he was not part of the original dev elopment team. He understood there was an ex tensive process for approval and that it was part of the SOFA Plan to allow for office and residential.
Council Member Burt voiced that he had b een extensively involved with SOFA Phases 1 and 2, and this dev elopment came at the end of the Phase 1 Project and was not part of the original recommendation of the Working Group but was proposed by the par ties i nvolved in t he residential development and other public benefits and was added value to those parties. It was proposed and accepted beyond the Work ing G roup's original pro posal. He assumed that the reference to retail foot traffic of 36,500 squar e feet was the correct number and not 30,000
SUMMARY MINUTES
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 12/18/2023
that was also referenced. He inquired if the number of employees for retail and grocery retail commerce was currently 183 people. He asked if the applicant was aware of Condition F of the Development Agreement, which limited the number of work stations to that dev elopment to
96. The Staff Report referenced that it came to the Planning Commission in 2007 , and it was noted th at there was not strong opposition from staff or the PTC, which seemed to impl y support, but that was not his recollection. He outlined why this existed, which included having a diversity of small- to medium -sized companies occupying the space . He outlined why there could be a problem having a single, big company. He voiced that consideration should be given to whether the limits specified in 2000 were correct. He remarked that the existing zoning in the downtown area had not been pro perly enforced, and he commented that it needed to be updated and changed.
Applicant Bullock did not know the specific density for each tenant. It was an approximation based on office utilization rates. He explained that square feet per person could increase or decrease in density. They were trying to use a gene ralization for over a 20 -plus-year period of tenants t hat would ebb and flow. He believed Condition F of the D evelopment Agreement expired after 20 years.
Planner Sauls confirmed that Condition F of the Development Agreement expired after 20 years.
Planning Director Jonathan Lait noted that the expiration was for one provision of the document, not the entirety of the document.
Council Member Lythcott -Haims queried how the i nternational accounting firm tenant expanding beyond the 10,000 square foo t limitation would increase foot traffic, local service s, and retail demand. She asked for a comparison of what existed today and what was anticipated if the square footage was expanded. She asked if this particular zoning attach ing multifamily with mixed-use overlay existed in ma ny places in the city and if the require ments imposed had much similarity throughout the city.
Applicant Bullock expressed that they no longer had the ability to accom modate that tenant as the space had been leased to a different tenant, and they did not have the specific retail use o f that tenant. He noted that it was an executive training area for the tenant, so beyond daily retail traffic, people were flying in on a regular basis and staying in local h otels, so on average they would be a higher supporter of local retial traffic tha n an average tenant . They could investigate to get a better u nderstanding of how much retail impact existing tenants were having.
Planner Sauls answered that this was the only parcel that had th is zoning district. The attached multifamily zoning distri ct only existed in the S OFA Phase 1 document, and the mixed -use overlay was only a part of the post-SOFA Phase 1 document.
Vice Mayor Stone spoke of the square footage cap on thi s particular property and inquired if it was an oversight in applying only to this one. He did not see a need to change anything because
SUMMARY MINUTES
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 12/18/2023
the reasons for the cap a couple decades ago continued to exist today. The concern about a large vacancy in do wntown from one large tenant moving out was a strong argument for the cap. He voiced that Palo Alto had always been an incubator for small businesses and having offices with a smaller footprint, so there was a strong policy reason to support that.
Council Member Veenker asked if the applicant was requesting that one tenant have more than one of four separate offices. She appreciated Council Member Burt's point about a vacancy if one large tenant should leave. She discussed medical office use and asked if traffic and parking had been con sidered with the 10,000 square foot limit. She wonder ed if there could be input from residents if this were to come back.
Applicant Bullock answered that there were four suites in the building at 260 Homer and one in a standalone building at 819 Ramona that was vacant, so there were five suites.
Planner Sauls remarked that in the research he had done there were concerns about significant foot traffic and vehicle traffic with medical office use.
Council Member Lauing asked if mixed-use housing was included in the zoning . He noted that an alternative use might be lucrativ e and was something the owner could consider. He understood that the owner bought this with the restriction in place and with knowledge of it.
He discussed larger comp anies moving from spaces being a ris k, and he thought the target tenant should be a smaller company, which he believed was the objective during the SOFA. He did not see this as a zoning issue , and he had not heard that much had changed, so he was not sure why it would change.
Planner Sauls responded that mixed-use housing was included in the zoning.
Public Comment
Liz G. (Zoom) asked how the expansion would help housing and what the public benefit would be. She did not see a public benefit by expanding commercial, but she claimed there would be a benefit if there was an affordability component to the mixed -use expansion. She hoped Council would consider more housing and affordable housing in the downtown areas.
Karen H. (Zoom) had been part of the SOFA 1 and 2 Working Groups, and she voiced that the decision was made intentionally and with great consideration. She stated that i t was a residential character neighborhood. She discussed the nature of an area plan and studies done, etc. She supported continuing a smaller scale office size. She asked if Condition F meant it was expired.
Mayor Kou stated that this was a residential mixed use and that potentially office spaces could be considere d for residential. She understood there was the ability to lease the space.
Community engagement had been taken into consideration during the pl anning, and she considered their input important . She felt that changing this would be breaking a promise to the community. Community outreach should be done if changes were to be considered.
SUMMARY MINUTES
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 12/18/2023
Council Member Tanaka discussed high vacancy rates. He supported the change.
Council Member Lythcott-Haims was interested in learning more and potentially supporting the change because the zoning was specific to this partic ular site a nd occur red long ago. She questioned if the neighborhood a nd economic environment c hanged significantly and if the levers to be pushed then were levers that should be pulled now.
Mayor Kou commented that the 4Q 2022 rents looked high in the Staff Report, which may need to be considered. She wanted to look at the TDM Plan in the Development Agreement.
Consent Calendar
5. Approval of Minutes from December 4, 2023 Meeting
6. Review and Approve the Williamson Act Contract Renewals Within Palo Alto City Limits (2023)
7. Approval of Construction Contract with GradeTech, Inc. in the Amount of $296,599 and Authorization for the City Manager to Negotiate and Execute Change Orders up to a Not-to-Exceed Amount of $29,659 for Site Work for Rinconada Park Improvements (PE - 08001) and Ra mos Park Restroom Installation (PG -19000) Projects; CEQA status – exempt under CEQA Guidelines Section 15303
8. Adoption of Updated Salary Schedules for Limited H ourly (HRLY) and Service Employee International Union Hourly (SEIU -H) Employee Grou ps in Accordan ce with the City of Palo Alto Minimum Wage Ordinance; Adoption of Revised S alary Schedules for Management and Professional, Fire Chiefs’ Association (FCA), and Service Employees International Union (SEIU); CEQA Status - Not a project.
9. Approval of Professional Services Contract Number C24189293 with Nova Partners, Inc. in an Amoun t Not to Exceed $652,331 for Construction Management Services for the Capital Improvement Program Fire Station No. 4 Replacement Project (PE -18004); CEQA Status – Exempt under CEQA Guidelines Sections 15302 and 15303
10. Approval of Easement at Greer Park, 1098 Amarillo Avenue, for Sewer Line Connecting Building at 2850 W. Bayshore Road; CEQA status – categorically exempt.
11. Adoption of a Resolution and Approving an Easement Relocation Agr eement Relocating and Vacating a 25 Foot Public Service Easement at the Castilleja School at 1263 Emerson Street and 220 Embarcadero Road (also commonly known as 1310 Bryant Street), Assessor Parcel Numbers 124-12-033 & 124-12-034; CEQA status – categorically exempt.
12. Adoption of a Resolution Vacating Two Public Service Easements at 1129 San Antonio Road
SUMMARY MINUTES
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 12/18/2023
13. Approval of Professional Services Contract Number C24188179 with Urban Field Studio for a Not -to-Exceed Amount of $249,708 for the Development of the Car -Free Streets Implementation Plan, for a Period of 7-Months; CEQA Status - statutorily Exempt.
14. Approval of Amendment Number Two to Contract Number S17168145 with WONDERWARE INC., dba CORE BUSINESS TECHNOLOGIES, in the Amount of $205,200 for an U pgrade to the Revenue Collections Cashiering Application and Extend Term for Three Additional Years; and Authorization of a Contract Contingency in an Amount Not- to-Exceed $54,264 for Related, Additional but Unforeseen Work Which May Develop During the Project for a new Not-to-Exceed Contract Amount of $596,913; CEQA Status - Not a Project
15. Approval of Contract Amendment Number 1 to Contract Number S22185727 with the City of S an Jose in the Amount of $30,000 for Minimum Wage Enforcement Services; CEQA Status – Not a Project
16. Approval of Two Lease Agreements for a Five Year Term Between the City of Palo Alto (Landlord) and Palo Alto Community Child Care (Tenant) for Community Child Care Spaces at the College Terrace and Ventura Sites; CEQA Status – Not a Project
17. Recognize Permanent Local Housing Allocation Program (PLHA) Grant Funding f rom the State of California of $592,367 for Homeless Outreach Services, Approve FY 2024 Budget Amendments in the General Fund, and Establish a Permanent Local Housing Allocation Program (PLHA) Grant Fund; CEQA status – not a project.
18. Approval of a Resolution Authorizi ng the City Manager to Negotiate and Execute Temporary Construction Easements and Compensation with the Property Owners at 475 Newell Road and 1761 & 1767 Woodland Avenue for the Ne well Road/San Francisquito Creek Bridge Replacement Project CIP Program (PE -12011); CEQA - Environmental Impact Report for Newell Road/San Francisquito Creek Bridge (Resolution No. 9889)
19. SECOND READING: Adoption of an Ordinance Amending the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Add Chapter 9.65 and Amend Chapter 9.72 to Establish a Mandato ry Registry Program of Residential Rental Units in the City of Palo Alto; CEQA Status - Exempt under CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) (FIRST READING: November 27, 2023 PASSED 6 -1, Tanaka No).
20. SECOND READING: Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 2.3 0 (Contracts and Purchasing Procedures) and Chapter 2.37 (Business Tax) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Correct Clerical Errors and Clarify Procedures for Administe ring the Business Tax.
CEQA Status -- Not a project. (FIRST READING: December 4, 2023 PASSED 7-0) Public Comment
SUMMARY MINUTES
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 12/18/2023
Rob L. discussed why he questioned and objected to Item 11 being on the Consent Calendar and requested that Council vote no on this . He opined that the PUE would negatively impact the neighborhood. He felt a clause shou ld be added to the item so the above and underground parts of Melville Avenue would revert to the City. He stated that public input was needed and that a separate agenda item should be scheduled.
Liz G. (Zoom) requested Item 6 be a regular agenda item. She claimed that the City did not have sufficient land for housing. She thought the public should know how much property this included and where it was located. It seemed the Consent Calendar was larger at each meeting, and she asked that it be addressed.
Mayor Kou registered a no vote on Agenda Item Number 13.
Council Member Tanaka registered a no vote on Agenda Item Number 8, 14,19.
Mayor Kou, Council Member Burt, and Council Membe r Lauing requested to pull Agenda Item Number 11.
MOTION: Mayor Kou moved, seconded by C ouncil Member Veenker to approve Agenda Item Numbers 5-10, 12-20, and pull Agenda Item Number 11 off of Consent.
MOTION SPLIT FOR THE PURPOSE OF VOTING
MOTION PASSED ITEMS 5-7, 9-10, 12, 15-18, 20: 7-0
MOTION PASSED ITEM 13: 6-1, Kou no
MOTION PASSED ITEMS 8, 14, 19: 6-1, Tanaka no
Council Member Tanaka spoke to Items 8, 14, and 19. Regarding Item 8, he had an issue with the FCA group and could not support it. He did not support Item 14 due to the amount of the increase in the cost, and he thought the City should have considered other companies. He did not support Item 19 as he stated it would take property off the market, make it harder for people to get housing, and increase rents.
Mayor Kou addressed Item 13 . She had concerns related to street closures wi thout further examining the businesses on the street and possible impacts to them. She hoped it would not hinder attracting businesses to the locations.
City Manager Comments
City Manager Ed Shikada presented slides concerning winter s torm readiness. They were compiling results from the emergency notification system test, and they looked for ward to doing that annually. He urged all to sig n up at a lertSCC.com. Storm updates we re available at cityofpaloalto.org/stormupdates, and the power outage map coul d be found at cityofpaloalto.org/outagemap. On January 1, 2024, the business tax payment would be due for
SUMMARY MINUTES
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 12/18/2023
businesses subject to it, and information could be found at cityofpaloalto.org/business tax. The new minimu m wage in the City would be $17 .80, and cri teria information was on the City's homepage. An opportunity for input to the City Council priorities setting was open, and community input would be received through January 2. The C ouncil's priority setting session was scheduled for January 29. The Policy and Services Committee discussed the format last week, and that would be brought to the Full Council after the first of the year. T he Council's first business meeting would be on Ja nuary 16, and soon thereafter there would be a number of ongoing planning efforts, which he outlined. Upcoming Council items included the annual reorganization on January 8; a Special Council meeting on January 16 , which would include the Tree Ordinance review and Tesla Utilities Agreement on the action agenda; the 2025-2033 long- range financial forecast and the annual legislative items on January 22; and a special session on January 29 for Council priorities setting. The midyear budget review would be in February. [The Council took a four-minute break]
Action Items
Mayor Kou announced that Item AA2 had been pulled from consent at its second reading.
AA2. SECOND READING: Adoption of an Ordinance Implementing Program 1.1A and 1.1B of the Housing Element, I ncluding: 1) New Chapter 18.14: Housing Incentives, and 2) Modifications to Base Zoning Districts Throughout Title 18. Adoption of a Resolution Making Corresponding Changes to the Land Use and Design Element of the Comprehensive Plan. (FIRST READING: No vember 13, 2023 PASSED 5-1- 1, Kou no, Veenker recused and PASSED 6-1, Kou no)
Council Member Veenker Recusal on Stanford-owned properties & Housing Focus Area Council Member Veenker noted that similar to the first r eading she needed to recuse herself from the part of the item addressing Stanford properties, and she would return for the vote.
Planning Director Jonathan Lait noted that last week the Item had been pulled from the Consent Calendar . There had been a public hearing on the ma tter on November 13 . A representative for o ne of the properties in the housing focus area h ad expre ssed conc erns related to dev elopment standards. Staff had met with the representative and his tea m. He summarized the main points that had been discussed – building or stepback height, floor area, and building modulation for parcels on larger lots. In revi ew of the record and the intent of the ordinance, staff found that there was a ne ed to clarify intent with respect to building modulation. The standard in the ordinance was unclear, so some de minimis edits had been made to address that issue . Staff believ ed the issues relat ing to height and floor area were more substantial, and staff did not believe it would qualify for a second reading change .
However, Council could direct staff to explore future changes or direct staff to work with the Housing Ad Hoc to explore consideration being given to extending the housing focus area in 2024, as previously directed by Council. He voiced why it was important to take action on the ordinance this year. There was an action on the ordinance relative to the discrete change that
SUMMARY MINUTES
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 12/18/2023
staff was making to the building modulation requirement and the second action was to vote on the resolution amending or adopting the changes to the land use element.
Public Comment
Liz G. (Zoom) provided some history related to inclusionary, equitable, and diverse housing. She supported inclusionary, denser housing within the city canopy.
Council Member Lauing, as a Housing Ad Hoc Committee member, endorsed the staff report. It was clear to him that one item would be adjusted and should be approved in the second reading. He supported this.
Council Member Lythcott- Haims expressed that so me items needed to be approved at this meeting and second reading , and step back height needed to be discussed further with the applicant.
Council Member Lauing moved the staff motion on Packet Page 490, Item 2.
Mayor Kou asked if he was giving staff direction on Number 3.
Council Member Lauing though there would be ongoing conversations in the future. He did not know how specific that needed to be.
Director Lait anticipated that design modification s might be needed for the project application for 3150, which was a pending application with the City. The housing focus area was not designed to that project, and the ordinance as drafted would necessitate design modifications.
Staff did not have formal direction to revis it the stepback hei ght, which he believed was the only outstanding issue. Staff would most likely revisit it when they studied extending the housing focus area to other parts of El Camino. Council had identified that as something to be done, and staff would return with the priority objectives for the next year, and stepbacks would presumably be on the list and studied at that time. If C ouncil wanted a more immediate response, staff would need to revisit the stepback issue. He noted that the applicant and staff had not nece ssarily reached an agreement. Staff believed the project could be built in compliance with the housing focus area standards that Council had approved, and the applicant asserted that there were challenges.
Council Member Lauing suggested there be conversations with the applicant or others a nd that the planning director give a recommendation to the Housing Ad Hoc , and then the Ad H oc could return to Council with a recommendation.
MOTION: Council Member Lauing moved, seconded by Council Member Lythcott-Haims to:
1. Adopt on second reading the attached housing element implementation ordinance that includes a clarifying revisi on related to a building facade modulation requirement for properties located in the Housing Focus Area.
SUMMARY MINUTES
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 12/18/2023
2. Planning Director to work with the Housing Ad Hoc Committee for other possible suggested changes to this focus area and return to Council.
Mayor Kou outlined why she would not support this , which related to min uscule affordable housing being built as unfunded State mandates were imposed on planning. She indicated that this did not address Palo Alto's housing affordability issues.
MOTION PASSED: 5-1-1, Kou no, Veenker recused
Council Member Veenker returned to the meeting.
MOTION: Council Member Lythcott-Haims moved, seconded by Council Member Lauing to adopt a resolution updating the Land Use and Design Element of the Comprehensive Plan to be consistent with Programs 1.1A and 1.1B of the Housing Element.
Council Member Veenker commented that she had been watching the proceedings while outside the room and felt prepared to vote.
MOTION PASSED: 6-1, Kou no
21. Discussion and Confirmation of the Preferred Altern ative Concept Plan Line for the University Avenue S treetscape Improvements Project (PE -21004) and Authorization for the City Manager to Develop and Refine the Scope of Work for Future Phases through a Contract Amendment
Assistant Director Public Works Holly Boyd introduced the project team that would present on the item.
Assistant to the City Manager Steve Guagliardo noted that he was at the me eting to discuss how the item related to economic dev elopment. He provided a slide related to Council's economic recovery and transition priority, and an objective h ad been in cluded for this project.
They were looking for Council's thoughts on approving the current concept plan and going forward, which he stated was foundational to the work of economic development on University Avenue. They interacted with a variety o f stakeholders, and there was a great deal of support for reinvesting in downtown, and Streetsense echoed that support. He shared a slide with respect to the economic dev elopment strategy that had been app roved on August 14, 2023, which he detailed. The pr oject sought to offer a compel ling visitor experience and provide a foundation that would allow people to enjoy the proposed amenities . He discussed the project being long overdue. The concept plan was intended to make a significant reinvestment in downtown University Avenue that would work for all stakeholders. This did n ot discount work Council had done on a permanent parklet program, and they would continue to have a space to operate until the beginni ng of construction. After that, parklets could continue to operate on side streets and other corridors.
SUMMARY MINUTES
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 12/18/2023
Senior Engineer Public Works Megha Bansal supplied a slide and reviewed the scope of the streetscape study . She noted that Phas e 1 focused on street co nfiguration, constra ints, and opportunities, and final details for the stree t features would be developed in future phases of the project with input from the community, stakeholders, and City boards and commissions.
Project Manager Robert Stevens displayed a slide outlining the study a rea. He discussed community engagement that had been done. He furnished a slide showing comments th ey had heard, and folks we re looking to create an economically vibrant street with a diverse array of retail and restaurants and did not want to se e major changes but wanted it to be clean , safe, attractive, and simple. There was interest in preserving on -street parking. They heard that closing University Avenue for events was challenging for businesses, so they wanted to work with the businesses to see if there was a different way to do programming. Some advocated for events to be relocated to the civic center. The concerns related to business vacancies and a decrease in retail operations. Suggested improvements included creating a better zone for outdoor dining, expanded sidewalks, and social gathering spac es. He discussed width between buildings and sidewalk widths. He presented a slide related to off-street parking garages, and he noted that occupancy was not back to pre-COVID levels, and they had considered options for University Avenue. He presented slides with three options (Option 1 : Bikeway, Option 2 :
PASEO, and Option 3: Activation Flex) related to the width of vehicle travel lanes, bicycle travel lanes, sidewalk wi dths, parking, and commerce, pedestrian , and amenity zones, which he detailed. They thought maintaining a special event space for road clos ures wi thin the zone made sense. They wanted to work with stakeholders concerning planning events. He provided a slide showing how sidewalk space could be used with Option 3. He shared a slide summarizing the three options. He noted Option 1 was great for bikes and took away on-street parking. They were concerned about vehicle speeds increasing and there not being any drop -off or loading zones. It also did n ot meet the fire depart ment's criteria for wid th for buildings taller than 30 feet. Option 2 offered wide sidewalks but no parking. He thoug ht Option 3 balanced what stakeholders and community groups wanted. There would be a sidewalk for outdoor dining and retail options and 75% of the on-street parking would be preserved. They anticipated a cost of about $40M, but more analysis was needed to refine that. He understood that the City had not programmed any funds to implement the p roject, so funding would likely be thr ough a combination of sources, including an assessment district, development impact fees, and grants.
He provided details related to an assessment district, and he noted that in addition to the $40M there would be additional costs to form the district. If built, there would need to be a higher level of maintenance – street sweeping, trash removal, etc., which he thought would be about $395K. He discussed funding possibly being through a district management entity, which would be about $250K per year.
Senior Engineer Bansal stated, if Council directed staff to proceed with the prefer red concept plan, staff would amend the consultant contract for Phase 2 services, which would include preliminary desig n, environmental assessment, refinement of cost, and additional outreach.
Concurrent with Phase 2, the City would need to retain m unicipal bond counsel for the assessment district planning, election, and implementation. After c ompletion of Phase 2, Phase 3 would include fi nal design construction document s and bi dding. Phase 4 would be the
SUMMARY MINUTES
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 12/18/2023
construction, which was anticipated to take two years. They were seeking Council's confirmation for Option 3 as the prefer red concept plan and Council's direction to amend the consultant contract for future phases.
Public Comments
Vikran B. from Rooh restaurant invited all to dine there. He opposed Option 3 due to his parklet being eliminated and the disruption to businesses.
Clayton A. , a partner at Local Union restaurant, det ailed why he strongly opposed the streetscape program, which included losing outdoor seating , revenue, employees , and t ax dollars.
Mayor Kou requested that commenters email comments if they did not have time in the allotted two minutes to make their statements.
Claudia, the owner and operator of Cafe Venetia, asked th e Council to consider the value of cafes, restaurants , and bars in the community. She specified why she opposed Option 3 and asked Council to vote against this reconfiguration.
Mazen F. , owner of Cre pevine restaurant, agreed that the concep t of beautifying University Avenue was great, but he claimed the parklets enhanced it. H e discussed why he opposed this and asked Council to consider it carefully.
Amie A. stated she participated in several of the community outreach meetings for this project.
If Council should choose to move ahead with this, she asked that they consider narrowing the proposed 13 -foot drive aisles and suggested there be an open -door lane , signage, and sl ow speeds. She questioned whether the additional sidewalk width and loss of parklets would meet the established goals of the program and if it was worth $40M.
Randale C. was a general manager for Oren' s Humm us, and he represented Mistie Boulton, Oren Dobronsky, and their ownership group . He stated they were not invited to the planning meetings. They strongly opposed the proposal due to it eliminating parklets and outdoor space, the cost of the project, and low occupancy rates. He asked that the commerce zone be 12 feet.
Nur Z. , the gener al manager at Local Union restaurant, strongly opposed the concept of the cityscape plan due to removal of parklets , construction impacting businesses, loss of revenue, having to lay off employees , and the cost of the project . He urged Council to prioritize restaurants.
Zafarali A. stated that he walked and biked every day, and he enjoyed the amenities and the parklets, but he did not feel safe w alking or cycling on University Avenue . He did not think enough consideration was given to biking, and he requested cycling safety be considered.
SUMMARY MINUTES
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 12/18/2023
Charlie W. stated that the Chamber of Commerce supported the concept of the project; however, businesses wanted to fully understand the impact of any proposed streetscape changes before finalizing plans. If the decision before Council was viewed a s an interim step necessary for further analysis and evaluation before a final decision was made, they concurred, although there was no t consensus of all members for Option 3. If the decision at th is meeting was to be final, the y asked that there be additional outreach, especially to businesses that had not participated previously.
Brad E. (Zoom) , a partner with Premier Properties , had volunteered to be a stakeholder in the design discussion, and from those discussions, it was c lear to him that Option 3 was the most balanced approach, which he elaborated on. He voiced his concerns related to Options 1 and 2.
Liz G. (Zoom) noted that she had not heard anything from the presenters about the outer portion of University Avenue, and she thought the infrastructure needed to be considered , and she asked how the City was addressing that. She had also not hear d discussion related to the alleys behind businesses.
John S. (Zoom), with Thoits, voiced why he thought Option 3 was best. He opi ned that parklets were sub par. He voiced that there should be safety and complianc e with all codes and ordinances.
Council Member Burt supported the need to revitalize the downtown University Avenue area. If he had to choose, he would lean toward Option 3, but he voiced that there were more options.
He stated that the biggest contributor to the vibranc y of the street was outdoor dining. He was also enthusiastic about other ways to increase vibrancy, including retailers putting goods on the street. It did not make sense to him for the City to spend $40M and cut outdoor dining in half.
He was interested in a plan along the lines o f Option 3 but one that would retain parklets. H e did not understand why 17 ½-foot side walks would be needed in front of a bank , etc . He thought consideration should be given to a street scape that would meet different needs better than Option 3. He understood that the principal argu ment for the parklets was not wanting to give up parking on the street. He appreciated that consideration was given to making the street more pedestrian and bi ke friendly. He commented that basically the pattern of riders was to ride on a perpendicular street a nd the n enter onto University. He thought parrel parking , instead of diagonal parking, should be put in for biking on Bryant from Forest to Lytton. He also felt there should be additional bike racks downtown. He asked how many parking spaces were consumed by parklets on University.
Assistant Director Boyd answered that 18 parking spaces were consumed by parklets on University.
Council Member Lauing agreed with Council Member Burt 's comments. He supported redoing downtown. He expressed there w ere more options tha n presented. A Parklet Ordinance was approved 90 days ago, and he did not agree with that bei ng in effect for only four years. He wanted an option with parklets. He indi cated that economic vitality downtown was driven by
SUMMARY MINUTES
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 12/18/2023
parklets, and he felt risking tha t would be a very serious risk to take. H e thought making a judgment with the options in front of Council was the wrong approach. He found Option 3 to be better than 1 and 2, but he did not like the tradeoffs related to parking and sidewalk widths. He thought there should be other proposals to consider. He queried what the policy f lexibility would be for the assessment district going forward and who would make decisions related to it; if the funding was $40M , if it would be scaled up [inaudible] pieces; and who would determine where things would be funded. He requested that there be a proposal showing what could be done for a $20M investment.
Project Manager Stevens remarked that an assessment district would be formed and created for fundraising, which would happen over 20 to 30 years , but initial bond funding for the construct would happen immediately.
City Attorney Molly Stump stated that the project would need to be defined up front, which was the reason for the engineer's report, and it would describe the proposed special benefit to the assessment district payors, which would be commitments the City would need to follow in terms of what the payors would receive for their assessment. It was quite structured.
City Manager Shikada added that a very specific design would be finalized with construction plans and the like , and based on the estimated co st to construct , there would be a methodology to assign special benefits to the properties, and each property would have an individual assessment. The City's commitment would be to build what the properties were being assessed for.
Council Member Veenker was concerned about bike safety and preservation of outdoor dining.
She asked staff to comment on some businesses not being invited to the meetings . She addressed Option 3 and asked if parking could be removed from one side and the gained space split with each side of the street to provide more sidewalk space. She asked if amenities zone s could be in certain spots and not the whole length of the properties.
Assistant Director Boyd explained how they developed the list for the block ambassadors. It was a sampling along the blocks, not an open invitation to everyone.
Assistant to the City Manager Steve Guagliardo added that almost quarterly updates were sent to businesses, and the ongoing progress of t his work was mentioned, but there was not an opportunity to provide input. He rema rked that more work c ould be done with outreach to ensure potential stakeholders were informed.
Project Manager Stevens indicated that parking on one side of the street was an alternative, but he discussed the cons of doing it. Concerning the amenities zones, there could be additional flexibility as the design advanced. He explained why they wanted to create eight foot wide clear zones.
Council Member Lythcott -Haims had concerns with not seeing the vision in Option 3 being an attractive sense of overhaul, coherence, and a rebranding of the en vironment that would make
SUMMARY MINUTES
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 12/18/2023
Palo Alto a destination on par with other places. She thought Opti on 3 would hurt dining, do nothing for vacancies, be difficult for bikers, and not provide social spac es. She asked how such an upgrade would enhance the ability to tell the story of Palo Alto past and present and signal what was being sough t for the future. She outlined that her questions related to timing, vacancy tax, and operational cost. She asked if implementation was anticipated to be in 2030.
Regarding revitalizing retail, s he asked if there was information regarding v acancy taxes imposed by other cities. She inquired if the items listed on page 40 of the spiral-bound were the same things that had been agreed to for California Avenue.
Assistant Director Boyd answered that 2030 was the cost estimate in doll ar amount. The slide outlining the Phase 2 and 3 timeline s were was very aggressive and optimistic . She thought construction could maybe be finished in 2030.
Assistant to the City Manager Gua gliardo addressed vacancy tax and revitalizing retail, and what staff had seen work effectively in other communities was included in the Streetsense comprehensive economic development strategy, which included p opups and was in the economic development strategy approved by Council, which would be further explored and was an option. A s for operations and maint enance costs, they were still in the design phase for California Avenue, and that same suite of things would be contemplated going forward.
Vice Mayor Stone was not sur e this would achieve the vision . He did not like that Option 1 would remove trees. He did not understand what would happen with ex isting parklets with Option 3 and if outdoor dining would exist in the parallel parking spaces.
Assistant Di rector Boyd noted that Option 3 would remove parklets, and that space would move to the commerce zone/side of the sidewalk. As proposed, outdoor dining would not exist in the parallel parking spaces.
Assistant to the City Manager Guagliardo clarified that that the commerce zone would be 6½ feet wide, which was roughly equivalent to space used by park lets. He also made clear that no existing parklet was compliant with the permanent parklet regulations as passed, so they would need to evolve.
Vice Mayor Stone asked if the existing parklets needed slight modification or reconstruction. He felt that this would be reneging on the permanent parklet program. He was interested in pursuing other alternatives.
Assistant Director Boyd responded that modification versus reconstruction would depend on the parklet. She thought the most expensive parklet had been $80K.
City Manager Shikada thought the discussion indicated that the cross section may need to vary along the street to reflect the different nature along U niversity. If Counsel wanted to see what could be done to incorporate whether it would be parklets or other active uses with in that space, it would require staff and consultants to explo re how to vary the cross section along the
SUMMARY MINUTES
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 12/18/2023
street. He suspected it would be out of scope . They would return to Council with that information.
Council Member Burt thoug ht the City Manager's comments captured a lot of the sense of the Council, and he felt this item was functioning as a study session more than an action item.
Council and staff discussed possibly deferring Item 22, and it was decided to have a brief conversation related to it after the conclusion of Item 21.
Council Member Tanaka mentioned that there needed to be better outreach to the community.
He provided a pho to (he believed it was of Burlingame) and asked if a configuration like it with wider sidewalks was possible and, if so, what it would take. He indicated that narrow traffic lanes meant slower traffic, and suggested that the extra feet in vehicle traffic lanes be invested in wide r sidewalks. Concerning the theme, he thought downtown should be thought of more holistically versus just a street. He thought there should be activated parks, pedestrian walkways to the core, a garage added, and alleyways cleaned up [inaudible] so there would be more cohesion and connect ivity. Due to the City's competit ion, h e felt this needed to be resolved before 2030, and he did not agree with there being uncertainty to retailers , restaurants, etc. To benefit not only Uni versity Avenue and to possibly help in raising funding and expediting the project, he thought there should be activation of parks and alleys.
Project Manager Stevens answered that a configuration l ike the photo was possible, but it would require removal of parking stalls . He clarified that Option 3 was called Activation Flex because the design could evolve. He discussed California law and required drive access isles. By narrowing the travel lanes to below 26 feet, it cou ld change how private development would occur on the corridor. The travel lane of 11 feet for Option 2 was not a problem because it had a bike lane. In terms of the 2030 date, he noted that he had built the cost model trying to be conservative regarding financing and funding. He thought it could be done quicker, but it would require funding, and forming an assessment district would require two-thirds of prop erty owners. He thought it could progress quickly if stakeholders were motivated.
Mayor Kou appre ciated that the 2016 traffic coun ts w ere u sed but she did not want to be shortsighted about economic times changing . She wanted to develop and attract more retail and personal business t o Palo Alto, which would mean restaurant dining. She discussed there being vacancy issues. She hoped the pla ns would take into consideration existing businesses needing to be retained. She voiced there ne eded to be consistency in the planning to not scare off businesses . She announced that Council approve d a Retail Ad Hoc Co mmittee, which consisted of herself, C ouncil Member Lauing, and Vice Mayor Stone, and she wanted the Ad Hoc to be included in community outreach. She wanted a vacancy tax to be considered.
MOTION: Council Member Lauing moved, seconded by Council Member Burt to:
1. Direct staff to draft additio nal alternatives that would include one option with the current parklet plan and that sidewalks should be variable or outdoor dining space comparable to the current parklet plan.
SUMMARY MINUTES
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 12/18/2023
2. Consider moving bikes to Hamilton and Lytton and or shrinking the travel lane.
3. Direct staff to present options to the Retail Ad Hoc Committee and come back to Council with interim measure s that we can do cheap ly and quickly that wil l show progress in that area.
4. Alternatives should cover a range of costs.
Council Member Lauing did not presume his suggestions were the correct objective s but that a number of things should be explo red and that these we re the areas to start with relative to concerns that had been raised.
Council Member Burt agreed t hat vision was needed. He stated that vibrancy and customers would help everybody. Concerning an 8 -foot clearan ce, h e noted that was the current ordinance requirement , and he thought there were opportunities to expand sidewalks in appropriate places. Regarding the drawing showing straight, cle an lines, he did not think that created environment vibrancy as much as h aving a v ariety of spaces . He was concerned about having only five ADA spaces on the street. H e commented there was a need for short -term parking, which he was happy to see on the per pendicular streets against University. R egarding maintenance, he asked if it was an incremental increase or the total cost.
Senior Engineer Bansal replied that it was the total maintenance cost.
Council Member Burt r emarked that it should be incremental increases, not total cost. He noted t hat there were discussion s with Stanford thr ough the A d Hoc Committee regarding improvements to the Intermodal Center, and they were preparing for a meeting with VTA, Caltrain, and SamTrans.
Council Member Lauing expre ssed t hat existing parklets needed to be addressed, and an interim improvement might be postponing the March deadline.
Council Member Veenker liked the photo Council Member Tanka shared. She wanted to know if restaurant owners liked the proposed design for outdoor dining being next to the restaurant, so one would not have to cross over the pedestrian walkway to get to a parklet. However, she was sensitive to changing parklet rules. Related to parklet size and the depth of the commerce zone, she asked if parklets having the same amount of space on the side walk next to the restaurant would eliminate part of the issue.
Project Manager Stevens explained why it would not eliminate part of the issue.
Council Member Veenker had hoped the amenities zone could be used. She was concerned about bike safety and asked about signage and what could be done to make it safe. She requested bike safety be addressed upon returning to Council.
SUMMARY MINUTES
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 12/18/2023
Project Manager Stevens thought wide shoulder striping was needed between parked ca rs and the vehicle lanes to constrain the lane of travel, that there could be creative treatments with the asphalt, and that lanes could be narrower.
Council Member Tanaka asked if the current assessment district shou ld be considered in making this more h olistic with activating alley s, parks, etc. , to address a theme and drive pedestrian traffic toward University Avenue.
City Manager Shikada suggested limiting the scope to University Avenue for the time being and there being possible expansion to a broader area later.
Council Member Lauing agreed with Council Member Tanaka and City Manager Shikada.
Mayor Kou was concerned about parking due to city parking lots eventually becoming housing, and she requested consideration be given to the number of parking spaces that would be lost.
Council Member Tanaka requested the plan be accelerated.
Council Member suggested looking at moving the comprehensive plan in from 2030.
MOTION PASSED: 7-0
22. Policy and Services Committee Rec ommendations for Changes to the City C ouncil Procedures and Protocols Handbook based on Prior City Council Referrals Council Member Burt noted there w as a range of items to be addre ssed. He indicated that a short-term need related to January Committee meet ings. He proposed that the prior year' s committee composition carry over until new committee members were appointed by the new mayor and that t hose committe es continue their work in January , if needed. He hoped th is issue would be addressed and the others be agendized for January.
Council Member Veenker agreed as long as it was not after January, as the most time sensitive was the election of the mayor. Regarding organization, she was hoping there would be more information from staff. She wanted a Full Council discussion related to the mayor be ing a one- year appointment, and she outlined the pros and cons of the position being more than a year .
To have that conversation, she requested there be more in Council's briefing and background to aid in the discussion. She would love to hear from so me of the cities in Santa Clara and San Mateo counties who had changed the appointment time. She did not want to wait and do it a t a time when options may be taken off the table , and she wanted it to return to P&S in a time ly way. She recommended the question be brought back in early 2024 and that there be additional information about tradeoffs and experiences of other cities.
City Manager Ed Shikada replied that staff had identified the possible follow-up discussion on procedures and protocols as January 2 2 or February 5 . Regarding organization, a t the P&S
SUMMARY MINUTES
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 12/18/2023
Committee meeting, staff felt more Council direction was needed to do follow-up work on the selection of the mayor.
Deputy City Manager Chantal Cotton-Gains noted that in front of Council were seven referrals that Council had given to P&S and that Council Member Veenker had been speaking of the first of the seven, which related to the reorganization of the Council, which was the selection of the mayor. She understood that P& S had recommended and wanted to kno w if Council wanted to pursue a broader discussion of the topic and if that item would be brought back specifically for further Council discussion in early 2024.
City Manager Shikada did not think staff would be unable to articulate and categorize pros and cons of a governance question of this nature. He thought Council was equi pped to engage in the discussion unless there were specific areas of inquiry that staff should prepare in advance.
Mayor Kou requested Council Member Burt make h is motion, defer the rest, and suggest a mayor election.
Council Member Lauing mentioned that Packet Page 397 contained a n outline of the mayor selection for other cities.
MOTION: Council Member Burt moved, seconded by Mayor Kou to:
1. Continue the discussion of the changes of the City Council Procedure s and Protocols Handbook to a date uncertain soon in the beginning of 2024.
2. Allow for the prior year’s current Ad Hoc, standing committees and council liaison roles, and regional appointment compositions to carry over until the new mayor appoints new members so that those committees can therefore continue to m eet in January of the following new year.
City Manager Shikada remarked, regarding Number 2, that the only public meeting staff was aware of and anticipating prepar ing reports for was a Rail Committee meeting , and staff was trying to finalize a da te. Staff was not preparing for any Finance or P&S meetings in January.
Item 22 would be brought back to Council , and in late Ja nuary or early Fe bruary, Council could decide how much to [inaudible].
Mayor Kou added that there would most likely be regional meetings.
Public Comment
Aram J. (Zoom) claimed if the term of the mayor was changed to a two -year term it would not apply to the next mayorship, a nd he s upported Council Members Tanaka and Veenker for the positions. Regarding the Handbook, he refer red Council to the Northern California ACLU and a memo that had been sent to the Los Ga tos Mayor and Town Council on March 1, 2023 , related to constructive communication.
SUMMARY MINUTES
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 12/18/2023
MOTION PASSED: 7-0
Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 11:14 P.M.