Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-02-10 City Council Summary MinutesCITY COUNCIL SUMMARY MINUTES Page 1 of 30 Special Meeting February 10, 2025 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers and by virtual teleconference at 5:30 p.m. Present In Person: Burt, Lauing, Lu, Lythcott-Haims, Reckdahl, Stone, Veenker Present Remotely: Absent: Call to Order Mayor Lauing called the meeting to order. City Clerk Mahealani Ah Yun called roll and declared all were present. Special Orders of the Day 1. Santa Clara County 2024 Synopsys Championship Science Fair STEM Winners from Palo Alto NO ACTION Forest Williams thanked Council for recognizing the students from the Santa Clara Valley Science and Engineering Fair Association, who were winners at the Synopsys Championship. He explained what the fair comprised. He voiced that the future could be designed and shaped and that Council’s encouragement was motivation for students to continue their work in the STEM environment. He discussed the importance of engineering and requested that it be pushed forward and that students be encouraged to continue. City Clerk Mahealani Ah Yun invited the attending honorees to the dais for a photo with Council. 2. Appointment of Candidates to the Planning and Transportation Commission Deputy City Clerk Francesca Reyes announced that Council would vote to appoint commissioners to full terms on Seats 6 and 5 and a partial term on Seat 4. A majority of four votes was needed to make an appointment. The Seat 6 appointment would have a service date beginning April 1. Regarding Seat 5, prior to voting, staff requested Council’s direction on the SUMMARY MINUTES Page 2 of 30 Special City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 2/10/25 appointment taking effect April 1 or filling the current vacancy immediately. Seat 4 will be seated effective immediately and will expire March 31, 2026. Mayor Lauing asked if the two seats were four-year seats. City Clerk Mahealani Ah Yun confirmed that was correct. She explained the voting process. MOTION: Councilmember Burt moved, seconded by Councilmember Stone, to appoint seat 5 effective immediately tabulating the two highest vote getters. If candidates receive a majority, they would be appointed to the two full year positions. The highest vote getter among those two will be appointed to seat 5. Discussion ensued related to the voting process and who would be seated immediately. MOTION PASSED: 7-0 City Clerk Ah Yun emailed ballots to councilmembers. Planning and Transportation Commission First Round of Voting for Two (2) vacancies on the Planning and Transportation Commission with full terms ending March 31, 2029. Forest Olaf Peterson: Veenker, Lythcott-Haims, Lu Daniel Hekier: William Glazier: Arthur Keller: Kevin Ji: Reckdahl, Burt, Lythcott-Haims, Veenker, Stone, Lauing Salim Parak: Thomas Kellerman: Lu Declan King: Michael Regula: Todd James: Reckdahl, Burt, Stone, Lauing Candidate Kevin Ji receiving 6 votes is appointed to a full-term (Seat 5) expiring March 31, 2029. Candidate Todd James receiving 4 votes is appointed to a full-term (Seat 6) expiring March 31, 2029. First Round of Voting for One (1) vacancy on the Planning and Transportation Commission with a partial term ending March 31, 2026. Forest Olaf Peterson: Stone, Lythcott-Haims, Veenker, Lu Daniel Hekier: Burt William Glazier: SUMMARY MINUTES Page 3 of 30 Special City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 2/10/25 Arthur Keller: Salim Parak: Thomas Kellerman: Michael Regula: Terrance Holzemer: Reckdahl, Lauing Henrik Morkner: Candidate Forest Olaf Peterson receiving 4 votes is appointed to a partial term (Seat 4) expiring March 31, 2026. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions Public Comment Mel T. speaking on behalf of 6, (Henry R., Dorina L., Anna F., Alex H., Scott M.), a librarian and member of SEIU, played a video that had been put together by some of the departments and workers. She noted that they were negotiating their contract, which had ended on December 31, 2024. She discussed the public service they provided, staffing shortages, workloads expanding, and cost of living increases. They did not want fair wages and stable benefits to be eroded or replaced by uncertainty. She discussed their contract being the workers’ constitution. She requested that the City remain competitive in wages, retain workers, and provide fair benefits. She asked if Council had been approached from the City through negotiations to ask for the budget authority or to expand the budget authority. They have been asking the negotiating team that question, and they have not received a direct response. Workers wanted a healthy, safe, and welcoming city for all. She voiced that the way healthcare was structured seemed somewhat disproportional toward newer members or single people, and they requested that family healthcare be equable to a single person’s healthcare portion. She understood that over 80 percent of her department qualified for below market rate housing, and they did not want long commutes into Palo Alto to be common for workers. They wanted to ensure that there would be market realignment before COLAs and asked that they be allowed to explain that math to Council. Shani K. had received notification that Valley Water would be diverting funds from Palo Alto’s section of the Bay levee to parts in San Jose. She outlined what the 2020 Safe Clean Water and Natural Flood Protection Ballot Measure provided for. She commented that it would be important to make the local investment in the Baylands and to provide natural flood resilience for Palo Alto and Mountain View. She noted that the BCDC adopted a regional shoreline adaptation plan, and there may not be funding for it. She requested that the City not let that happen at the discussion tomorrow. Jennifer L. stated that she was following up on how the City could take steps to eliminate nighttime noise from big jet aircraft as part of the wellness focus in 2025. She discussed sleep SUMMARY MINUTES Page 4 of 30 Special City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 2/10/25 being important to health. She expressed that the FAA’s two recommendations to reduce nighttime noise had not been pursued, and she requested that it be addressed. Val P., a union member, spoke of coworkers worrying about speaking up for fear of retaliation or being labeled as troublemakers. She discussed the importance of organized labor. She asked Council to stand with the workforce. They want the contract to respect the values of their work and the dignity of their labor. McKenna C., on behalf of Palo Alto Youth Council stated that there would be a college counseling event on February 28 and the Pancakes and Pickleball event would be on March 29, and they hoped to see Council there. Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements Vice Mayor Veenker shared that yesterday a woman in the choir at her church had discussed members of the immigrant community staying home on Monday as part of the Day Without Immigrants, and she had asked for prayers as they faced unprecedented fear and new immigration enforcement efforts. She noted that many of the new executive orders were in tension with Palo Alto’s adopted values. At the next meeting, she and Mayor Lauing planned to bring forward a Colleagues’ Memo in support of a resolution denouncing administration actions inconsistent with Palo Alto’s values, and it would call for Council to consider legal and other actions to protect residents. She urged her colleges to support Palo Altans portraying what Palo Alto is, not DC. Councilmember Burt discussed the Valley Water meeting to redirect funds. He thought, given the short notice, that a continuation of the item should be requested. He requested that Councilmember Reckdahl, who was on the Policy Advisory Committee, and Councilmember Stone, who was the San Francisquito Creek JPA representative, be authorized to represent Palo Alto on the issue and that the Mayor Lauing participate if he was inclined to do so. City Manager Ed Shikada understood that Valley Water would have a hearing and that action could presumably be taken tomorrow. Staff was working on a letter requesting that any action be deferred. Mayor Lauing asked if anyone needed to be at the hearing. City Manager Shikada answered that it would not hurt. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims reported that Rabbi David Booth had been invited to provide the service at her church, who did a beautiful job drawing connections among Christian, Jewish, and black communities. She stated that it was a beautiful example of how connected and close folks could be if efforts were made, and she urged all to look for opportunities to do such. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 5 of 30 Special City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 2/10/25 Mayor Lauing mentioned that he had been delighted to make remarks at the 15th anniversary of the Rinconada Library on Saturday. He noted that it was not just a library but a community center. Study Session 3. Housing and Homelessness in Palo Alto: Review of current efforts including the 2024 Gap Analysis Report, Update on Enforcement Work, Overview of Engagement Framework to Develop an Implementation Plan, and Discussion of Other Potential Next Steps NO ACTION City Manager Ed Shikada voiced that this was a complex and important issue. He noted that often when staff received communications from community members on the topic they were preceded with an exclamation that the City was not doing anything. He believed that what the City was doing would be clearly pointed out at this meeting. Deputy City Manager Chantal Cotton Gaines announced that information from City staff, the City Manager’s office, the Police Department, the City Attorney’s office, and partners from the Santa Clara County Office of Supporive Housing would be provided. She provided slides with an overview of what would be covered at this meeting and the recommendations. Staff hoped to get Council feedback so they could do inclusive engagement with the community on setting the Implementation Plan as the next steps for the City as a whole. Staff hoped to advance the engagement efforts that had been described to Council, and if there was interest, any topics could be sent to the Policy & Services Committee or returned to the full Council. Assistant to the City Manager Melissa McDonough displayed slides and remarked that the update would include an overview of demographics and the system of care as well as some highlights of what had been done recently and what had been learned from the gap analysis. She discussed two ways data was typically gathered on those experiencing homelessness. They expected to get data from the most recent Point in Time (PIT) count in the late spring. She compared Palo Alto’s data to countywide data. She explained that besides the PIT count, they also got data from assessments folks took when accepting services, and she furnished a slide showing some of that data. If Council wanted to learn more, she encouraged review of the full report, which accompanied the gap analysis as part of the information item in December. She commented that the data was managed through the county, which provided the overall system of care. Deputy Director of Santa Clara County Office of Supportive Housing Hillary Armstrong provided a high-level brief overview of the countywide data and overviews of their system of care. Everything they did countywide with regard to homelessness was grounded in their community plan. She presented a slide with the three core strategies of the community plan. The plan would end in 2025, so probably sometime in the late spring they would launch the community SUMMARY MINUTES Page 6 of 30 Special City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 2/10/25 plan process for the next 5 years and they would reach out to Council and all stakeholders to help gather data. She supplied slides and discussed their progress in the community plan goals in the last five years. As of the end of December, they were at 87 percent of the countywide goal of housing 20,000 people by the end of 2025. They struggled with inflow, which was the number of households experiencing homeless for the first time, which was happening to a greater degree than they were able to house folks. She displayed slides showing how they were tracking progress month by month and a detailed overview of the structure of the supportive housing system. She discussed the Homelessness Prevention System, and she stated that information was available through their website. She spoke of how folks could access temporary housing. She noted that there were not enough shelter resources in the community, so they continued to work on increasing those resources. She discussed the permanent housing programs, and as there were not enough permanent housing resources, they continued to advocate for this on every level. The two main permanent housing programs were rapid rehousing and permanent supportive housing, which she outlined. Assistant to the City Manager McDonough spoke of other communities grappling with the same homelessness concerns. The gap analysis identified that there were noteworthy mismatches between demand and availability and cost burdens. The Gap Analysis Report noted some areas but not every area the City could explore, which she outlined. They knew the City had a responsibility for public health and safety and that sometimes enforcement actions needed to be taken related to conduct. Police Chief Andrew Binder addressed enforcement related to conduct and behaviors sometimes associated with homelessness. He encouraged the public to continue to call the Police Department with their concerns, and they would respond. They would continue their proactive contacts and enforcement efforts and continue to enforce the law fairly and equitably. When possible, they would connect those in need with resources, make referrals, and utilize partnerships and programs, like PERT, etc. City Attorney Molly Stump mentioned a few developments in the law that occurred in 2024 related to unhoused persons. In June 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision that enforcing laws prohibiting camping on public property was not cruel and unusual punishment under the 8th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, although there were legal guardrails in place impacting the work of law enforcement in that area. The second development was that Governor Newsom, one month after the decision, issued an executive order instructing State agencies under the Governor’s direct control to begin removing encampments on State property consistent with State policies on notice, handling of property, connecting with services, and prioritizing encampments that presented an imminent threat to life, health, safety, and public infrastructure. The Governor urged cities and counties to do similarly, but the Governor’s order was not binding on Palo Alto. The third development was in the last month of 2024. Santa Clara County initiated rollout of a State program called CARE Court, which she outlined. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 7 of 30 Special City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 2/10/25 Deputy Director Armstrong stated that a clear, structured approach was needed to effectively addresses homeless in Palo Alto. A comprehensive engagement effort could guide Council decision-making and ensure that strategies would reflect community priorities. With input from diverse stakeholders, an implementation plan could be developed, which would be informed by a range of perspectives. Inclusive engagement was key in building trust, securing buy in, and ensuring the plan would be responsive to community needs. Engagement was important in developing a strategy that would meet specific community needs, values, and expectations. They envisioned engagement including intentional conversations with key stakeholders, information sharing about what the City was doing, gathering ideas and partnerships, and leveraging related expertise of the HRC. Deputy City Manager Cotton Gaines displayed four topics – homelessness prevention programs, housing production, homelessness support services, and enforcement efforts related to health and safety. After this study session, staff hoped to advance the engagement strategies and any follow-up discussions Council might desire. It was intended that there would be an implementation plan later in the year. Public Comment John B., Board Chair of the Community Working Group, Board Member of the Abode Housing Development, and former Councilmember, opined that almost everyone was one event away from being homeless; that homelessness to this extent was a local, federal, and state policy failure; and that it would be less expensive to house folks than it would be to leave them on the street. He encouraged Council to be as proactive as possible around homelessness. He was part of a group that was willing to work with the City at any time on direct action on homelessness issues. Andrew N., Associate Director of Clinic and Clinic Programs at PHC, thanked Vice Mayor Veenker for recognizing the need to support the Latinx communities of Palo Alto. He voiced that he had been a resident of Palo Alto for nearly 25 years and he considered this to be the first time his community had been represented. He noted that PHC had experience in working with the unhoused and at-risk communities, and they looked forward to working with the City and community partners to make housing a reality for all. Mayor Lauing thanked Andrew N., for his work. Dale C., Program Manager with Downtown Streets Team in Palo Alto, stated that they offered a variety of services in the community. She thanked the City and the community for their support. She advocated for continued support for service providers who worked with the unhoused and those with low income. Jennifer D. read a letter on behalf of the League of Women Voters of Palo Alto. They agreed with the recommendations of the gap study. Their comments were based on the State and National League Policy meeting basic human needs, which she believed had been received by SUMMARY MINUTES Page 8 of 30 Special City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 2/10/25 Council in an email. They requested the City update its Inclusionary Ordinance to include rental housing projects, that the complex issues of affordable housing be coordinated in a single City department, that the City find ways to create a reliable source for funding, producing, and preserving affordable housing (she provided some suggestions), and that there be an enforcement mechanism for renter protections. They suggested a rent review board and tenant right to counsel. Eileen A., Assistant Pastor at First Congregational Church of Palo Alto, expressed that many faith communities in Palo Alto cared deeply about unhoused neighbors and did what they could to support them in partnership with some of the service providers who spoke earlier as well as City staff. She sometimes heard complaints about the unhoused, but she thought most recognized that folks needed compassion and care. They provided safe parking at their church as well as the Hotel DeZink Program every year in March, which she categorized as Band-Aids. She thanked Council for supporting all their efforts in caring for the unhoused. Amber S., Director of Move Mountain View, thanked Council for the Safe Parking Program. She encouraged Council to continue to consider another parking space like Geng, where good things were happening, and to continue to think about seniors. Winter D. (Zoom) appreciated the attitudes, commitments, and comments of John B., and Pastor Eileen A. She wanted PERT to be followed up on, as she was not sure if it was functioning. She inquired if there were other programs like TRUST and MCRT. She asked if Proposition 36 had taken effect and how it would be acted on in Palo Alto. She was concerned about what might happen with federal housing funding. Carly L. (Zoom) spoke on behalf of her company, which was an owner and developer of life sciences properties in the area. They were committed to Palo Alto, but they had been faced with significant challenges at many of their properties that could completely derail the feasibility of their projects. She urged Council to focus on a solution that would be beneficial for long-term economics and one that would be a safe and better situation. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims asked if Project Homekey was featured in Table 1 or 2 of the staff presentation. She thought it would be helpful to include the 88 units in the report. She inquired, regarding Table 2, if there was an idea of the number of bedrooms offered by the entitled or proposed units and if cost-burdened renters addressed individuals or families. She referenced the Here4You call center and asked how many were on the wait list for shelter in the county and how long they would be on the list. She asked Police Chief Binder what response he hoped police officers would have to those who call about the unhoused being outside their residence or business. She understood that some residents were being told nothing could be done. Deputy City Manager Cotton Gaines answered that Project Homekey was not listed under rapid rehousing or permanent supportive housing. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 9 of 30 Special City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 2/10/25 Assistant to the City Manager McDonough added that the Homekey Project was considered temporary and the tables represented long-term housing. Good City Company Principal/Co-Owner Aaron Acton stated that he would calculate the number of bedrooms and compare it to the number of tenants who would live in the units. Deputy Director Armstrong remarked that she would get the current number of those on the wait list, which may be tomorrow. She noted that it varied. There could be a few hundred on each of the lists – the family wait list and the singles wait list. She voiced that the average wait time could be two to three months, but she would confirm that. Police Chief Binder was familiar with the public indicating that they were being told nothing could be done about the unhoused outside of a residence or business. He had checked the body camera footage and noted that such statements were not made. He reiterated that they would enforce the law equitably and fairly. Although a situation may not be a police matter, it did not absolve them from not doing anything, such as referring for services, etc. Councilmember Stone had heard that the Sunnyvale shelter was accepting only families and that the county would redirect some of the single residents to Palo Alto Homekey. Deputy Director Armstrong stated that there were a couple factors involved but that Councilmember Stone was correct. She thinks most of the folks who were going to be housed at the Sunnyvale shelter had been placed in other shelters for singles throughout the system. She understood that in the opening period of the shelter there would be a time for direct referrals from Palo Alto organizations and the Here4You hotline for those who were affiliated with Palo Alto. The folks on the shelter hotline were trying to place callers in their own communities. When a shelter opened, the first preference would go to those connected with Palo Alto, and if there was excess supply, it would open up to North County residents. After the first 30 days of a shelter opening, there would be a more dynamic placement process through the Here4You hotline. Councilmember Stone asked if staff had a plan to work on outreach to ensure that residents of Palo Alto would receive the services. He hoped there would be a Palo Alto focus, but he understood there would be regional collaboration. Deputy City Manager Cotton Gaines answered that they were spending a lot of time on outreach. The work of Human Services Manager Minka Van Der Zwaag in connection with the community services providers would provide an opportunity to share information as a shelter became close to being online. Because Palo Alto did not yet have a shelter, they benefitted from the coordinated entry system. The intention was to place those with affiliations with Palo Alto in a Palo Alto shelter. Vice Mayor Veenker thanked the public for their work in helping those experiencing homelessness. She requested a status report on PERT. She understood that Palo Alto had no SUMMARY MINUTES Page 10 of 30 Special City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 2/10/25 permanent supportive housing in development, and she asked what would be the best way to do that and what would happen if it was not done. Deputy Director Armstrong stated that she did not represent the Behavioral Health Services Department, but she understood that PERT was currently set up with the unincorporated county through the Office of the Sheriff in the City of Santa Clara, which she would confirm. The Mobil Crisis Response Team was countywide. As for the outlook for permanent supportive housing, she spoke of the success of the 2016 Measure A Affordable Housing Bond. She spoke of housing developments in Palo Alto. There were several pipeline projects nearby. They had a partnership with the VTA to produce transient-oriented developments at various light rail and other transit stations throughout the county. She noted that the Bay Area Affordable Housing Bond was removed from the ballot and that the measure to reduce the threshold failed, so it was a tough climate. There was a number or projects in the pipeline at various affordability levels and family sizes. Police Chief Binder stated that they had been without a county clinician since the PERT clinician left in 2022. A PERT officer was in the org chart through various forms. Last month, Behavioral Health Services stated that the hiring of a PERT clinician was on hold due to some reorganization. He spoke of the value of having a clinician through Santa Clara County, and they eagerly anticipated the county hiring a clinician, which would be partnered with the PERT officer. They had the funds and the position to receive the clinician. Assistant to the City Manager McDonough stated that permanent supportive housing existed but there was very rarely a vacancy. It was more difficult and expensive to build. Without adequate permanent supportive housing, there would not be a means for folks to exit shelters, which would mean that at some point the shelters would not have a means of accepting the inflow. Planning & Development Services Department Planner Robert Feign added that page 17 of the gap analysis noted that there were 196 units currently existing in Palo Alto that could be described as permanent supportive housing. Vice Mayor Veenker felt that some things were caught up in definitions because there was a mosaic of housing available. She was trying to figure out the gap. Councilmember Lu queried if there were programs to reconnect unhoused individuals with their families. He referenced Packet Page 89 and asked what prohibiting the renting of public parking spaces meant. Human Services Manager Minka Van Der knew the Opportunity Center would assess the needs of an unhoused person to determine if they could help with transportation needs in certain circumstances. They tried to do reunification if possible. During the PIT count, folks were asked if they were interested in connecting with family members in another location, and they could connect that person with the specific need, so she was hopeful that the contactor completing SUMMARY MINUTES Page 11 of 30 Special City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 2/10/25 the PIT count would get that information back to the county or local folks who could help with that aspect. Deputy Director Armstrong added that the Here4You Hotline Housing Problem-Solving Program could also provide resources for folks who identified a need to connect with family in a specific location. City Attorney Stump stated that there was not a specific prohibition on purporting to rent a space on a public road, and she imagined Council would find that to be unacceptable behavior. She suggested that P&S explore that. Councilmember Lu supported P&S discussing that. He requested more context on using a motel on El Camino for temporary housing, which was referenced in the packet. Deputy City Manager Cotton Gaines believed the program to use a motel for temporary housing was COVID specific, but she would get more information. Councilmember Reckdahl questioned if citations or noncustodial arrests were effective. He stated that a common complaint was related to vehicle dwellers dumping garbage and sewage, and he asked if there were programs to address that. He thought there would be demand for RVs with working sewage systems. He asked if there was outreach for those who might have a nonworking engine or a leak in the roof. Police Chief Binder answered that a citation addressed acute unlawful behavior in the moment. Often they were issuing multiple citations. Whether a citation broke the cycle of unlawful behavior depended on the individual. Assistant to the City Manager McDonough replied that in the region there was one sewage pump-out station, which was on private property in Redwood City. Staff had been researching options for pursuing such. She was not aware of a place in the city where vehicle dwellers could legally dispose of their trash. As for outreach for those who might have a nonworking engine, etc., there was an emerging needs fund through Human Services. There were also small funds available, which came from a one-time donation, through the Opportunity Center for folks who might need a tire, etc. The Opportunity Center provided a variety of services that were housed there, so the outreach team deployed from the Opportunity Center, and the outreach team conducted outreach to those unhoused in Palo Alto, including vehicle dwellers. PHC conducted a lot of outreach related to mobile healthcare, and they operated a clinic at the Opportunity Center. She stated that there was overlap. City Manager Shikada shared that one city had tried a sewage system pump-out station and RV dwellers were not interested in using it. Councilmember Burt questioned why Mitchell Park Place was not considered permanent supportive housing. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 12 of 30 Special City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 2/10/25 Planner Robert Feign responded that 50 percent of the units at Mitchell Park Place would be for special needs households, which was separate from permanent supportive housing. Deputy Director Armstrong defined permanent supportive housing for this purpose. They were using a narrower HUD definition rather than the broader permanent supportive housing definition. Councilmember Burt thought it was important that the report acknowledge the Mitchell Park Place units. He noted that that being a form of permanent supportive housing had been left out of the report. He also could not find the discussion related to transitional housing. He did not know why the importance of those investments and their statuses were not visibly acknowledged. He questioned why only 25 units of the Charities Housing project were listed under the proposed units and if by being listed as rapid if that meant they were permanent. Deputy City Manager Cotton Gaines answered that staff acknowledged the investment and effort in the transitional housing piece in Homekey. She noted that there was more information in the Gap Analysis Report. Planner Robert Feign replied that the units shown on Table 1 were rapid rehousing units from the Charities 3001 El Camino project and all the units would be extremely or very low income. Deputy City Manager Cotton Gaines inquired if it was a time frame difference. Planner Robert Feign confirmed that it was a time frame difference. He stated that all the Charities project units would be permanent. Assistant to the City Manager McDonough stated that it was not clear if rapid meant permanent. Rapid rehousing and permanent supportive housing were permanent. She defined permanent supportive housing and rapid rehousing. Councilmember Burt voiced that if the public did not understand the terms of art in the presentation that what was trying to be communicated would be lacking. He asked how to get the item related to the rental of public parking spaces to P&S. He addressed Slide 18, and he thought the metric of 30 percent income toward housing was a misused metric, which he explained. He felt the metric should focus on those with extremely low, very low, or low income. He asked if the Geng Road site was in the process of expanding. He wanted to discuss inadequate bathroom facilities downtown for the unhoused. City Attorney Stump replied that the committee work plans would be coming to Council soon, which would be a good time to address the rental of public parking spaces. Assistant to the City Manager McDonough provided an update on the Geng Road site. There was enough fundraising to kick off the expansion. They would hopefully come to Council in March with a funding agreement for the expansion. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 13 of 30 Special City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 2/10/25 Deputy City Manager Cotton Gaines added that the expanded site was open and accepting people. There was a temporary funding strategy underway due to donations, and staff would return to Council for the long-term funding strategy. Mayor Lauing discussed the homeless issue being two sided. One was a need to provide shelter and care around that and the other byproducts of the situation – hygiene, aggressive behavior, etc. With respect to enforcement, he stated that ways to coexist should be addressed. He thought the City should be more sensitive to the problems caused, which he voiced needed to be addressed. He did not see data on the homeless segments, such as sex, age, etc., or data on those considered to be chronically unhoused due to mental health or drug use, and he asked if there was insight into that. He stated that the unhoused who did not want housing still needed services. He did not know if the definition of camping needed to be addressed. He asked if outreach was being done so people could possibly be housed outside county boundaries in the short term as opposed to them waiting years for housing. Assistant to the City Manager McDonough responded that the information item was released in December, which included the gap analysis and a report by the management fellow on understanding the unhoused community, which included much data and many interviews. She explained that the Here4You hotline would determine how to get a person to a happy outcome as quickly as possible, which included options outside the county as well. Deputy Director Armstrong added that within the data the county pulled it appeared that about two-thirds of folks seeking permanent supportive housing had been homeless for longer than one year. She explained that when breaking down scores for the assessment about one-third of the folks assessed were chronically unhoused. She considered chronic to be beyond the zero to one year mark. She explained that there were nuances to that information and she would pull some more data. City Attorney Stump stated, regarding the definition of camping, the City creating a definition of the conduct would be a part of the effort to regulate in that area. Deputy City Manager Cotton Gaines replied that she thought that was why the prevention question and cost burdened renters had been in there. It was not to assume the exact number, but it was emphasizing that people needed to be supported so they would not enter homelessness. The partnership with the county was important because they were working with other cities in the county as well, so they were able to learn about resources in other cities. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims understood that there were 40 safe parking spots in Palo Alto and that 18 of those were only available through the night. The staff report indicated that 88 percent of the unhoused in the community lived in vehicles. They needed to be able to dispose of trash and pump sewage. She viewed the most immediate and cheapest solution to be more safe parking lots. She thought it was time to build a proper RV dweller and tiny home community over an acre or two, which was Move Mountain View’s idea. She looked forward to continuing to work with all to better support vehicle dwellers and the unhoused more broadly. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 14 of 30 Special City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 2/10/25 Vice Mayor Veenker understood that safe parking in residential areas, often in church parking lots, was not at capacity, and she noted that there was a statistic that 88 percent of the unhoused in Palo Alto dwelt in vehicles, so she questioned what the disconnect was. She queried if the number of cars versus RVs was known and why car dwellers might elect to reside on the streets rather than in the congregational sites. She wanted the record to reflect that the County was lucky to have Deputy Director Armstrong. She asked what coordination would be happening between departments. Assistant to the City Manager McDonough answered that folks left the congregational sites every morning versus staying parked in the RV site. Fewer folks were willing to park and leave in the mornings. The congregational sites did not accept RVs. Move Mountain View Director Amber Stime explained that car dwellers were a bit more transient than those in RVs, that car dwellers sometimes felt less safe than those in RVs, and that car dwellers were not as visible as RV dwellers. Deputy City Manager Cotton Gaines replied that coordination required a lot of understanding of questions and concerns coming in from the community. It also included thinking about partnerships with community organizations. They were always looking for ways to ensure there would be department collaboration. City Manager Shikada added, regarding coordination, that there was not an org chart. It was a multidisciplinary issue and would require flexibility in doing the work. He thought the ask was for permission for staff to continue working this issue with Council to identify clarity on the priorities representing the needs to the community that would be reflected in the resources deployed. Vice Mayor Veenker noted that there was an indication that there was no unified plan but it sounded like it was more prioritization and everyone doing their part. Deputy City Manager Cotton Gaines added that where the City wanted to go was the answer to whether the recommendation made sense going forward, which would depend on the level of services, etc. Councilmember Stone thought being at the county border and far removed from the county seat and San Jose was challenging for Palo Alto. He noted that there might be spillover from San Mateo County. He considered homelessness to have no border, and he stated work had to be done collaboratively as a region to effectively address it. He was concerned that there was a growing trend with cities reacting to the Supreme Court’s decision in Grant’s Pass versus Johnson. He was concerned about inconsistent policies in the region that would move people to different cities rather than solve the problem. He thought it was critical to collaborate with regional partners and neighboring jurisdictions to find a balance and to ensure that the carrot- first approach was being used to humanely support the unhoused while also providing necessary enforcement tools. He explained that there had been confusion over jurisdiction as it SUMMARY MINUTES Page 15 of 30 Special City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 2/10/25 related to encampments along San Francisquito Creek. He believed there should be some sort of joint taskforce or agreement with neighbors for situations such as that. He voiced that there needed to be compassion and enforcement. He thinks the HRC should be a part of the discussion. He stated that centralizing unhoused services within a particular department was key. He hoped additional safe parking areas for RVs would be identified. He inquired if there was data related to homelessness being due to rent increases within the last few years. He added that such data could also provide information related rental protections, etc. He wanted to move toward developing policy around renter protections that would be data driven through the rental registry. Councilmember Reckdahl addressed Slide 6 and requested insight. He questioned if a lot of the RV dwellers were working poor. He asked if the slide indicated that something needed to be done and if people were somehow being failed. He asked how many were homeless due to economics, how many due to mental health, and how many due to substance issues. He inquired if there had been success for those with mental health or substance issues. He requested information on CARE Court. Assistant to the City Manager McDonough stated that there was Hotel DeZink and people were likely to accept shelter in an area they were comfortable in and shelter that was non- congregate. Palo Alto had a higher percentage of folks living in vehicles than countywide, and she thought that had something to do with the demographics. She speculated that many RV dwellers were working poor. The main purpose of the slide was to show how Palo Alto’s population differed from the county. It was important to design a solution or strategy to meet the needs of the city’s specific population. She noted that on Page 15 of Understanding the Unhoused there was a table that reported on folks’ various vulnerabilities. Approximately 150 folks reported mental health or brain issues affecting housing, which was more than half, and 68 percent self-reported having a disability. Deputy Director Armstrong replied that of the folks assessed, about 28 percent reported some sort of mental health issue, which ranged from minor to major disorders, which was why there was permanent supportive housing programs. She commented that the CARE Court had been enacted within Santa Clara County. Eligibility required a diagnosis of a particular psychotic disorder and that the person not be stabilized in voluntary treatment. The CARE Court process could begin with a Court petition, and there was information on the Behavioral Health Services website. Councilmember Lu echoed all of Councilmember Stone’s points. He mentioned that more restrooms, showers, and laundry services were needed downtown and other places. He aligned himself with all the comments by the League of Women Voters. He did not think a criminalization of homelessness in the style of Grant’s Pass should be applied. He believed situations posing risks to health, fire, etc., should be enforced. He wanted investigation into how mental crises were handled. He asked if staff needed anything more from the study session or if any referrals needed comments. He supported more conversations in the HRC. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 16 of 30 Special City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 2/10/25 Deputy City Manager Cotton Gaines responded that one of the next steps would be gathering specific community feedback, which should be done in a more organized way than a large Town Hall. If Council wished to refer anything additional, February 24 would be a good time to make referrals to P&S. Councilmember Burt addressed Slide 6, and he was concerned that the unsheltered and not-in- vehicle homeless population may be undercounted. The data showed that a high percentage of the homeless was not living in tents but in vehicles. He questioned how vehicle dwellers could be addressed more effectively. He noted that 10 acres on the northeast side of Geng Road was empty land, and he wanted a fraction of that land to be considered for use. He discussed why he thought referrals should go to HRC and the PTC. He addressed issues downtown and enforcement, and he thought a focused approach on compounding violations needed to be prioritized. He felt public restrooms should be offered downtown, although it could become a magnet for concentration in a given area. Regarding showering and laundry, he requested an update on the portable service. He spoke of there being a problem in the City Hall Lobby, and he wanted shower and laundry services to be offered weekly. He suggested there not be seating or food allowed in the space other than for special events. He suggested setting rules that would be easy to implement. He did not want to lose public support in allowing such actions to continue. Deputy City Manager Cotton Gaines replied that staff had connections with Dignity on Wheels and they recently offered services downtown, which included showering and laundry services. Manager Van Der Zwaag added that there was capacity in the contract with Dignity on Wheels to provide occasional services beyond their HSRAP contract. City Manager Shikada noted that recently Dignity on Wheels did a test deployment at the Civic Center. Unfortunately, they did not receive a good response in terms of individuals taking advantage of the service. There were opportunities to look at how such a service might generate a better response. Mayor Lauing thought one department should coordinate comprehensive engagement. In the short term, he wanted to act on expanding a Geng Road-type parking situation and get help from faith communities for parking. He expressed that inclusive housing with respect to rentals needed to be accelerated. He added that some of the long-term solutiones needed to start now, including a fund for affordable housing that would be managed and owned by the City. He did not believe enough was coming in through the business tax and development fees. He queried if there were specific outreach targets. Deputy City Manager Cotton Gaines answered that they had not broadly connected with the community on the topic. They had received information from those who were passionate one way or the other. They did not know what the broader community wanted to focus on, and staff wanted to provide that information to Council. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 17 of 30 Special City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 2/10/25 Mayor Lauing thought those answers could be written now, which might become the hypothesis to be tested in the outreach. He felt staff should return with a short- and long-term gameplan. He did not want to wait four months for the report. He questioned whether there could be parking at night on the unused baseball field. City Manager Shikada had heard great suggestions at this meeting, and staff would like an opportunity to identify a few specific areas that could be next steps. Staff did not think drastic action should be taken in one area without recognizing that there may be repercussions not immediately obvious, which was where outreach would come into play. The work plans was a good way to telegraph what the priorities might be and to get confirmation by Council so different pieces could be in play simultaneously. Deputy City Manager Cotton Gaines thought Council’s feedback set the baseline for what could be explored in further conversations and especially the discussion on February 24 for things to happen on a parallel track. She thanked Council in advance for recognizing staff’s workload in addressing this. Mayor Lauing thanked staff for the comprehensive Staff Report and for the breadth of staff attending this meeting. Consent Calendar Public Comment There were no requests to speak. MOTION: Councilmember Lu moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Veenker to approve Agenda Item Numbers 4-12. MOTION PASSED: 7-0 4. Approval of Minutes from January 21, 2025 and January 25, 2025 Meetings 5. Approval of Contract Amendment Number 2 to Contract Number S24189598 with Good City Company in the Amount of $24,930 for a Stream Corridor Protection Ordinance Update; CEQA Status: Exempt Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 15061(b)(3) 6. Approval of Contract Amendment Number Three to Contract Number C21177024 With Veolia Sustainable Buildings USA West, Inc. to Extend the Contract Time Through August 14, 2026 With No Change in the Amount Not-to-Exceed of $1,985,000 for the Commercial & Industrial Energy Efficiency Program. CEQA - Not a Project 7. Approval of Amendment Number Three (3) to Contract Number C19174648 with WaterSmart Software, Inc. (dba WaterSmart) for the WaterSmart Utilities Customer Portal, to Extend the Contract Term for 18 Months, for the Total Not-to-Exceed Amount of SUMMARY MINUTES Page 18 of 30 Special City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 2/10/25 $537,763 Over the Seven-Year Term; CEQA status –Exempt under CEQA Guidelines Section 15308. 8. Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Approve the Verified Emission Reduction (VER) Master Agreements with AQC Environmental Brokerage Services, Inc. and SCB Brokers, LLC and Authorizing the City Manager to Purchase VERs from AQC Environmental Brokerage Services, Inc. and SCB Brokers, LLC Under Specified Terms and Conditions During Calendar Years 2025 Through 2034, Inclusive, Subject to Limitations; CEQA Status: Not a Project, CEQA Guidelines 15378(b)(5) 9. Approval of Professional Services Contract Number C25189597 with Rutherford & Chekene in an Amount Not to Exceed $207,812 for Development of a Seismic Hazard Identification and Mitigation Program for a Period of Three Years. CEQA Status: Exempt under CEQA Guidelines 15262. 10. Approval of Two Professional Service Agreements: Contract No. C25190944A with 4Leaf, Inc. and Contract No. C25190944B with Park Engineering, Inc in the Aggregate Amount Not- to-Exceed $3.75 Million for a Period of Five Years for On-Call Field Inspections and Construction Management Services to Support Utilities Water, Gas, and Wastewater Capital Improvement Projects; CEQA Status: Not a project. 11. Adoption of a Resolution Amending the Conflict of Interest Code for Designated City Officers and Employees as Required by the Political Reform Act and Regulations of the Fair Political Practices Commission and Repealing Resolution Number 9937. CEQA Status -- Not a Project 12. SECOND READING: Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Various Chapters of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Implement the 2023-2031 Housing Element (FIRST READING: January 21, 2025 PASSED 7-0) City Manager Comments City Manager Ed Shikada mentioned that the Rinconada celebration was an excellent example of what could be achieved when the community invested in facilities and was a good example to follow in the Cubberley work. The Cubberley Master Plan next steps included an initial Council discussion on February 18 (additional information would be available Thursday) and a community meeting on March 19. February 17 was the deadline for community fellows as a way for community members to get personally involved in the master planning effort and would be a way to have a higher level of involvement in the outreach, and information could be found at cityofpaloalto.org/cubberleyproject. The Affordable Housing wait list was open to those who wished to participate in the Below Market Rate Housing Program. The deadline to join the waiting list was February 28. It would be followed by a lottery for available units, and he believed it would be used for some period of time after that date for allocation of units to select 200 households to participate. There was much community interest regarding fire SUMMARY MINUTES Page 19 of 30 Special City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 2/10/25 protection and staffing at Fire Station 4. A community update/article was posted by the City last week. There would be a neighborhood briefing for any interested community members on February 13. Staff would bring forward a recommendation as part of the midyear budget review on February 24. The PTC had additional board and commission vacancies available, including the ARB, HRC, and the UAC, and the due date for applications was February 26. There would be no regular meeting next week. The following week would be the midyear budget review and the discussion of Council priority objectives and committee work plans. He noted that the Electrification Pilot Program for multi-family housing topic was listed on the slide in error. On March 3, there would be a study session on the Draft Safe Streets For All Safety Action Plan and an action item on the Housing Element Housing Incentive Program. March 10 would include the proposed expansion of development at 4075 El Camino Way as well as the return on the artificial/synthetic versus natural turf study scope of work. There would be a number of items in the following weeks. [Council took a 15-minute break] Recess City Council Meeting and Convene Public Improvement Corporation Meeting Mayor Lauing called the Public Improvement Corporation Board meeting to order. He stated that Council was meeting as the PIC Board for the purposes of approving the FY2024 Palo Alto PIC annual financial statements, which were audited annually and required Board approval. City Clerk Mahealani Ah Yun noted that all Board members were present. PIC Board Members Present In Person: Burt, Lauing, Lu, Lythcott-Haims, Reckdahl, Stone, Veenker Action Items 13. Approval of the FY 2024 Public Improvement Corporation’s Annual Financial Report; CEQA Status: Not a Project Assistant Director of Administrative Services Department Christine Paras declared that there was not a presentation but they had some verbal comments. The PIC was a nonprofit lead by Council that enabled the City to issue Certificate of Participation bond debt to fund capital projects. The bylaws required the Board to meet at least once annually to approve the financial statements. The PIC had three outstanding debt obligations totaling $151M, which were outlined on Table 1 on Packet Page 373, which she elaborated on. Staff was seeking the Board’s approval of the 2024 financial statements, which had been audited by the City’s external auditor with a clean audit opinion. Public Comment SUMMARY MINUTES Page 20 of 30 Special City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 2/10/25 There were no requests to speak. MOTION: Board Member Stone moved, seconded by Board Member Veenker to approve the Fiscal Year (FY) 2024 Annual Financial Report for the Palo Alto Public Improvement Corporation. MOTION PASSED: 7-0 Reconvene City Council Meeting Mayor Lauing adjourned the PIC Board meeting and reconvened the Council meeting. He noted for the record that the Council had reconvened as Council, which was confirmed by the City Clerk. Action Items 14. PUBLIC HEARING: Objections to Weed Abatement at Affected Properties and Approval of Affected Property List for Commencing Weed Abatement in 2025; CEQA status – exempt City Manager Ed Shikada reported that this item was largely driven by fire prevention needs. The staff report identified properties on the list of potential weed abatements, which had been notified, and potential objections could be raised to Council. He asked the City Clerk to confirm that no objections had been received. Public Comment City Clerk Mahealani AH Yun declared there were no requests to speak and no public comments. Councilmember Reckdahl noted that Stanford was on the list, and he inquired if they could be asked to mow. City Manager Shikada stated it was an annual occurrence and the university was given notice of their properties on the list, which were almost exclusively lease holds. MOTION: Mayor Lauing moved, seconded by Councilmember Lythcott-Haims to: 1. Adopt a determination that weed abatement activities in 2025, as described in Resolution 10201 (Attachment A) adopted by Council on December 2, 2024, are exempt under Class 8 (CEQA Guidelines section 15308); 2. Hold a Public Hearing to hear and consider any objections to the proposed destruction and removal of weeds in 2025 at the properties listed in Attachment B; and 3. Approve the final list of affected properties for weed abatement in 2025 (Attachment B) following the public hearing, and direct weed abatement activities to commence at those properties in accordance with Resolution 10201. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 21 of 30 Special City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 2/10/25 MOTION PASSED: 7-0 15. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 3265 El Camino Real [24PLN-00012]: Approval of an Ordinance Rezoning the Subject Parcel From Commercial Services (CS) to Planned Community Zoning (PC) and Adoption of a Record of Land Use Action to Construct a 100% Affordable, Five-Story, 55 Unit Residential Rental Project. Environmental Assessment: Initial Study/15183 Streamlined CEQA Review. Principal Planner Garret Sauls gave a brief overview of the process and the project for the Planned Home Zoning Application. In January, the PTC recommended that Council approve the application. He shared a slide noting the various ways the project deviated from the underlying CS Zoning District. The project site was across from where the current El Camino Real focus area standards applied. Feeback provided for the application in September 2023 focused on the length of time for parking stackers to cycle through, whether parking spaces would be unbundled from each of the units, anticipated rents, if units would be affordable for teachers, and consideration of expanding the driveway, and the staff report addressed all these items. He supplied slides showing drawings of the elevations and the rooftop deck. In requesting a parking reduction from the standard requirement, the applicant had proposed following TDM measures within the application, which he outlined. Regarding circulation, the City’s environmental consultant looked into the proposed design to understand how accessible the property would be to vehicles. He noted that vehicle lifts were proposed as the primary parking, which had a different standard than typical dimensions in the Municipal Code. For vehicle lifts, the City’s code created a standard focusing on mid-size or full-size vehicles. All stalls would be assigned parking. Affordability information was provided in a table in the Staff Report. He noted that there were some Staff Report corrections related to affordable rent, which he discussed and displayed on a slide. The project proposal satisfied Council’s Option 2 in the PHZ Application requirements. The property was within the current NVCAP boundaries, but the project was deemed complete before the NVCAP standards applied to the project, so the standards did not apply currently to the design. If the project should be denied, any future design would need to meet those standards. There was a valley oak on the site that could be removed under the current Tree Ordinance requirements. The roof deck would provide the majority of the open space requirements. Staff recommended that Council consider the environmental document, adopt the ordinance in Attachment B to amend the district from CS to PC, and approve the Record of Land Use Action. Planning and Development Services Director Jonathan Lait declared that the PTC Vice Chair was available to answer questions. Applicant Jason Matloff commented that he and his wife had been trying for years to find the right compromise to get approval to build a 100-percent affordable housing project that would hopefully house and be prioritized for Palo Alto educators in the public school system. He mentioned that the community benefits were the same as they were a year and a half ago. He highlighted that the primary benefit would be that some portion of housing would be provided to the vast majority of teachers who could not afford to live in Palo Alto. The primary revisions SUMMARY MINUTES Page 22 of 30 Special City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 2/10/25 in the application from one and one-half years ago was related to feedback from Council and commissions they presented to, which included unit affordability for teachers and the City’s undertakings to upzone the vicinity around the project. The application provided for 25 percent low income, moderate income being reduced to 75 percent, and the income threshold used to calculate affordable rents was reduced, which he outlined. They were doing that by embracing the upzoning and increasing by an additional level, adding a floor of residential units, so there would be 55 units and parking would be increased from 24 units to 31 units, which would increase the parked ratio slightly. He furnished slides showing how rents would be calculated, rent amounts, and salary grades that would qualify for an affordable rent category. He discussed affordability versus affordable rent and whether an affordable rent would be affordable to an individual’s salary. He presented a slide showing the rent-to-income ratios referencing the varying standards, which included HUD, commercial, and the City’s low-income Alta Housing standards. He noted that 2755 El Camino was a market rate project and that those rents would not reflect rents at this project. Applicant Architect Isaiah Stackhouse stated that since September 2023 they had worked extensively with City departments to refine the project details. They had added 11 affordable units, increased the affordability, added an extra level of parking machines to increase parking, added more open space, widened the driveway, and added windows and daylighting. He noted that the ARB, PTC, and City staff recommended the project. Mayor Lauing requested disclosures from councilmembers. Councilmember Stone voiced that he had met with the applicant a few times over the last couple years. To the best of his knowledge, they had not discussed anything not in the public record. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims stated that she had met with the applicant by phone a few times since the project was first presented, and she had not learned anything that had not been communicated in the public record. Councilmember Reckdahl remarked that he had met with the applicant but nothing had been revealed that was not in the packet. He had visited the site and had nothing to report. Mayor Lauing noted that with the various iterations over the last two years he had visited the site with the applicant in person. He had not reviewed it since it last went to the PTC, so he had nothing to report. Councilmember Lu declared that he had spoken with the applicant and visited the site and he had nothing to report. Councilmember Burt commented that he had met with the applicant twice over the last two years and not since the PTC’s last review. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 23 of 30 Special City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 2/10/25 Public Comment Teri B., President of the Palo Alto Educators Association, voiced her enthusiastic support of the vital educator housing project. She spoke of the positive impacts related to teachers being able to reside in the area. She voiced that the project was about more than housing, that it was about strengthening the schools, the students, and the community. She urged Council to approve the initiative for the benefit of all. Mila Z., the CEO of Manzanita Works, discussed the work they were doing. She spoke of the lack of available housing for teachers and the workforce being crucial to the overall wellbeing of the community. While they were not familiar with the specifics of the projects, they applauded the intent to serve educators, and she hoped the project would be a resource for educators’ commutes. Meb S., President of the California School Employees Association Palo Alto Chapter 301, considered the project to be a win-win for the City, affordable housing, and educators and support staff. She voiced that there was tremendous interest in 231 Grant, and she thanked Council for supporting that project. She remarked that this project would be another step in the right direction. They supported the project and urged Council to move it forward. Amie A. (Zoom), Executive Director of Palo Alto Forward, noted that they had submitted a letter of support and attached over 40 additional support letters from the community. They urged approval of the much-needed project. Scott O. (Zoom) requested that Council approve the project. He discussed how rules needed to change to allow for more projects like this without years of hearings. He wanted to hear direction that would get the ball rolling on broader reforms that this project seemed to motivate. He requested that the project be leveraged as much as possible. Jennifer D. (Zoom) fully supported the project. She stated that many PAUSD staff traveled a far distance and that they were desperate for the units. She requested that the project be approved. Councilmember Stone thanked the applicant for bringing a good project to Council that would fill a critical need. He asked for more information concerning the ARB wanting a schedule for garage door operations to be considered. Principal Planner Sauls responded that there were concerns about the right-in/right-out entry/exit to the property and how quickly the door would open. The applicant proposed using a high-speed door that would open within three to five seconds. The ARB had been concerned about having to idle slightly on El Camino before being able to turn in. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 24 of 30 Special City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 2/10/25 Councilmember Stone saw confirmation from staff that there would be no curfew on the parking garage. He asked what design elements would be incorporated to avoid traffic backup on El Camino in the afternoon. Principal Planner Sauls answered that the ARB had suggested recessing the garage door so there would be a queue space for one vehicle. The ARB questioned what that would look like architecturally, and he believed their thoughts were that with a high-speed door and having a time frame for leaving the doors open during normal traffic hours that there would not be a queuing capacity issue. Councilmember Stone felt the door remaining open during that time would make the most sense. He inquired what would happen if a tenant’s income should rise beyond the AMI threshold. Principal Planner Sauls replied that if a tenant’s income should rise above the AMI threshold that they would typically be given notice to move out. If they were in the low-income band and income increased to the moderate income band, they may be able to move into a moderate income unit. If income increased above the moderate income level, they would be provided a notice and given ample time to find other accommodations. Assistant City Attorney Albert Yang added that issues related to income bands and the amount of time a resident would have to find other accommodations were typically negotiated in the regulatory agreement prior to the building permit. In the past, there had been a six-month period or residents were allowed to remain in the unit organically until they vacated the property, so either were options. Because the project was not using funding sources that had stringent requirements, there was flexibility in how to handle such situations. Councilmember Stone thought at the very least folks who outgrew the income restrictions should be able to stay until the end of the school year or the start of the following school year. He wanted to hear the perspective of the Educators Association. President of the Palo Alto Educators Association Teri Baldwin thought it would be best if they could do it at the end of the school year in the summer, not right away if it should be during the school year. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims was persuaded that the question of affordability had been laid to rest. She requested that the rent-to-income ratio slide be shared and discussed again. Applicant Matloff discussed the rent ratios relative to affordable rents that one would qualify for. He pointed out that the income bands established by the HCD were huge, and he was trying to make it more specific to the salary grades. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 25 of 30 Special City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 2/10/25 Councilmember Reckdahl asked if everyone in the development would receive transit passes. He inquired about electric bikes being roughly $5 per hour and if the meter would keep running for bikes parked at a school. He asked where the nearest Zipcar or rental was from the location. Principal Planner Sauls responded that the TDM plan proposed providing free VTA passes to all tenants. Applicant Matloff stated that he had indicated previously that electric bikes would be $1 per hour. They were trying to prevent people from squatting on them. They did not plan to make money on it. The clock would run for bikes parked at a school. They tried to engage shared cars. He urged the City to engage with Zipcar to provide public parking support. Principal Planner Sauls responded that the closest Zipcar or rental was at Clocktower Square, which was across the street. Director Lait added that Uber, Lyft, and Palo Alto LINK were mobility options as well. Councilmember Burt added, regarding Zipcars, that deliberate central locations should be considered. He addressed the AMI breakdowns and migrating out of a category and queried if consideration had been given to having a 90 percent category between the 70 and the 110 percent categories, so rent might be in proportion to an income increase. Applicant Matloff responded that a 90 percent category had not been modeled. He understood that he was bound by HCD regulations and there being affordable rents for differing incomes. Director Lait stated that there was nothing inherently restrictive about having a moderate income at 100 percent AMI to be a part of the project but he did not know if it had been modeled out from an economic feasibility standpoint from the applicant’s perspective. Applicant Matloff stated that they would not be able to add a 90 percent AMI level of rent if the 70 percent AMI level rent was not reduced, so it would have a negative effect. Councilmember Burt explained that X percent of units could be in the middle category, which could prevent evictions if one received a small raise. He stated that Palo Alto Forward indicated that the project had no subsidies from the City, but he noted that the impact fees would be waived, and he explained why he thought it was necessary. He asked the dollar amount associated with the waiver. He wanted the community to understand the project was one the City was partnering on through waiving the impact fees in a deliberate way. Applicant Matloff had no objection to that. He was amenable to whatever the teachers or Council wanted in terms of transitioning out, and waiting until the end of the school year made sense. He was happy to entertain Councilmember Burt’s proposal. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 26 of 30 Special City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 2/10/25 Principal Planner Sauls explained that generally the impact fees would be $3.5M to $4M, but because 100 percent affordable housing projects did not have that requirement, the answer was zero now. Vice Mayor Veenker referenced the rent-to-income ratio chart and the percentage of income bands at the different affordability levels, and she understood that there was a slight difference between the number of income bands versus the number of people/teachers that would be eligible, and she requested that the chart be translated to people. She spoke of the value of teachers and employees residing in the community. She supported the project. Applicant Matloff responded that there were two important terms – the calculated affordable rent and whether the affordable rents would be affordable to an individual. The Staff Report reflected that 9 percent of the published salary grades would qualify for low income, 79 percent for moderate income, and 13 percent would not qualify. He did not know how many teachers were in each salary grade. He added that the 2 unions consisted of 1,600 members. Councilmember Lu asked what staff wanted to see in the motion as it related to Council’s direction in negotiating terms in the regulatory agreement. Director Lait requested that Council provide direction on approaching the negotiation. Mayor Lauing requested that the developer speak to the details of the recruitment of teachers and nonteachers. He noted that the Staff Report indicated that there would not be requirements that teachers be tenants, but he questioned if the prioritization and a first right of refusal should be included. Applicant Matloff replied that they had developed an agreement with the two unions as it related to the recruitment of teachers and the general market, which he detailed. The unions’ list would be prioritized on a first-come, first-served basis. Principal Planner Sauls replied that the prioritization for teachers would be incorporated into the regulatory agreement. Mayor Lauing inquired if it should be stated in the development agreement. He asked about a discount for affordable, unbundled parking. Director Lait responded that it would be done as part of the regulatory agreement. Principal Planner Sauls stated that it was initially proposed that the application would charge all units a flat parking rate, which was noted to be $150 per unit and the Staff Report identified an alternative, should Council consider it, which was an option of 4 or 5 percent (which he would confirm) based off rent plus the utility allowance, which captured a range proposed by the applicant. There was a draft condition of approval in the Record of Land Use Action on the subject. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 27 of 30 Special City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 2/10/25 Applicant Matloff was fine with the variability of low-income versus moderate-income parking. Mayor Lauing was interested in that being stipulated. Principal Planner Sauls pointed out that the condition was referenced on Packet Page 434, Condition 14B. Councilmember Stone queried how much of a drop in rent there had been from the first prescreening to now. Applicant Matloff responded that the rents were 10 percent lower. MOTION: Councilmember Stone moved, seconded by Councilmember Burt, to take the following actions: 1. Consider the Initial Study Checklist/Streamlined Environmental Review prepared in accordance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15183; 2. Adopt the Ordinance in Attachment B amending the zone district from CS to PC; and 3. Approve the Record of Land Use Action in Attachment C, with the following additions: a. Future residents shall be notified that if a future Residential Parking Permit (RPP) will be enacted, that they may be excluded from it; and b. The property manager shall provide an annual report to the City of the number of Palo Alto Unified School District employees that occupy the building and which unit types they are occupying. 4. Incorporate into the Regulatory Agreement: a. Allow the Owner to designate the Low-Income Unit as a Moderate-Income Unit with a countervailing re-designation of a previously Moderate-Income Unit to Low-Income Unit; and b. For PAUSD employees, if a tenant exceeds the maximum allowable income, they will be allowed to stay in the unit for a period of six months or through the end of the school year, whichever is later, subject to legal review; and c. Include a preference for PAUSD employees; and d. Allow up to 2 low-income units to transition to 100% AMI. Councilmember Stone thought it was a great project and a step in the right direction. He had been concerned about unbundling parking for low-income parking, but he thought an exception SUMMARY MINUTES Page 28 of 30 Special City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 2/10/25 should be made for this particular project, though he hoped perspective PC applicants would not consider unbundling parking for low-income residents. Councilmember Burt supported Councilmember Stone’s comments. He considered this project a success. He recognized that the project would stand out exceptionally from its surroundings. He questioned if it would be appropriate to include in the motion, not as a condition of this project but as a referral, a request for staff to pursue car-sharing in this area and other areas where extensive amounts of housing or commercial would be added with reduced parking. City Manager Ed Shikada responded that there may be a better occasion. He wanted the Chief Transportation Official to weigh in on it, as it would need to be factored into a work plan. Councilmember Burt suspected that it could be factored into certain significant developments as one of the TDM measures. He was pleased with how the unbundled parking would be done. Councilmember Reckdahl detailed why he felt there should be incentive to combine small lots on El Camino. He discussed that there was a subsidy. He discussed unbundled parking and the need to have a good way to measure the number of drivers and parking. He asked if there was a way to determine which tenants had registered vehicles and if there was a way to determine if the TDM methods were working. He was concerned that there was a hope that the tenants would not have vehicles but that the information was not known. He was concerned about tenants parking on the street. He wanted to know how many would be parking on the street, which could be a learning tool for future projects. Principal Planner Sauls answered that he did not believe there was an easy way to access information related to which tenants had registered vehicles. Director Lait added that they could get vehicle registration information from the DVM, which included a cost for receiving it. He did not know if the information would be available for a particular property. He added that it typically took a year to a year and a half to implement TDM plans. Then inspections would need to be done and compliance with the TDM plan would need to be verified. The City verifying how many tenants would be parking on the street would be problematic. As part of the TDM Plan, there could be a survey conducted by the owner to get tenant car ownership information. City Manager Shikada added that the privacy of residents was a limitation. Information could be aggregated but not to the point that would identify individuals parking on the street. Mayor Lauing felt that the topic had been discussed to the extent possible at this meeting. Councilmember Reckdahl wanted this to be a learning experience so that it will be known for the next development whether the TDM actions were working. He requested a friendly amendment that future residents be excluded from a future residential parking permit if one SUMMARY MINUTES Page 29 of 30 Special City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 2/10/25 should be enacted and that the property manager provide an annual report to the City indicating the number of residents who were and were not teachers. Director Lait commented that 4A was typical in the regular business of administering the BMR Program, though it may not be perfectly aligned in every instance. He noted that 4A and 4D may result in the ratios/percentages earmarked for low income to be less than 25 percent as the provisions were implemented, but if a tenant vacated a space, it would be restored to being a low-income unit, so there would be adjustments throughout time. Regarding 4D, he requested that it read 100 percent AMI for ease of administration. Principal Planner Sauls stated that Councilmember Reckdahl’s friendly amendments had not been incorporated in the Record of Land Use Action, so it could be incorporated in the motion to ensure that they are. Councilmembers Stone and Burt accepted the friendly amendment. Councilmember Lu echoed Councilmember Reckdahl’s point about combining lots and more broadly making the projects easier. He thought consideration should be given to AHIP supporting 100 percent affordable projects. He offered a friendly amendment and requested that C, 4B, and 4D state PAUSD employees. Councilmember Stone accepted that be applied to 4B, but he did not think there was a need to add it to 4D. Councilmember Burt added that while the greatest value would be placed on PAUSD tenants, he did not want any low-income tenants to go through a hardship because of a modest raise. Councilmember Lu suggested that 4D not be limited to two units. He suggested a friendly amendment to add a bullet E to direct staff to formalize outreach and write a first refusal for PAUSD employees. Director Lait understood that 4C would identify how available units would first be made available to PAUSD faculty and staff. He recommended language for 4B. Councilmembers Stone and Burt accepted the recommendation. Applicant Matloff addressed D and suggested that two low-income units be allowed to transition to 100 percent AMI. He questioned if there should be a time frame. Councilmember Burt did not want to put a sunset on such a low number of units. Assistant City Attorney Yang suggested that 4B be subject to legal review. Councilmember Stone accepted that. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 30 of 30 Special City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 2/10/25 MOTION PASSED: 7-0 AMENDMENTS INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 11:06 p.m.