Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-03-03 City Council Summary MinutesCITY COUNCIL SUMMARY MINUTES Page 1 of 19 Regular Meeting March 3, 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, Reckdahl, Stone, Veenker Present Remotely: None Absent: Lythcott-Haims Mayor Lauing called the meeting to order. Deputy City Clerk Christine Prior called roll and declared there was a quorum. Mayor Lauing noted that Councilmember Lythcott-Haims’ was absent due to her mother passing away. She was in his thoughts. Closed Session 1. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS City Designated Representatives: City Manager and his Designees Pursuant to Merit System Rules and Regulations (Ed Shikada, Kiely Nose, Sandra Blanch, Nick Raisch, Tori Post, Molly Stump, Jennifer Fine, and Lauren Lai) Employee Organization: Service Employees International Union, (SEIU) Local 521, Utilities Management and Professional Association of Palo Alto (UMPAPA), Palo Alto Peace Officers’ Association (PAPOA), Palo Alto Police Management Association (PMA), International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF) local 1319, Palo Alto Fire Chiefs’ Association (FCA); Authority: Government Code Section 54957.6 (a) MOTION: Councilmember Burt moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Veenker to go into Closed Session. MOTION PASSED: 6-0-1 (Lythcott-Haims absent) Council went into Closed Session at 5:32 p.m. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 2 of 19 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 3/3/2025 Council returned from Closed Session at 6:54 p.m. Mayor Lauing announced no reportable action was taken. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions City Manager Ed Shikada announced there were no changes to the agenda. Public Comment 1. Amanda M., President of the Board of Directors of Palo Alto Soccer Club, along with 2,000 club members opposed a ban on artificial turf fields. She spoke of the pros of artificial turf and the cons of grass fields. 2. Natya C., President of Palo Alto Youth Council, provided an update related to the Student Issue Census. They would create a report to share with Council. They looked forward to presenting information during the study session on March 17. She furnished an update related a college counseling event held on February 28. She spoke of the upcoming Pancakes and Pickleball event. Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements Mayor Lauing declared that he had appointed an ad hoc committee consisting of Vice Mayor Veenker and Councilmember Stone to merge the two documents related to the resolution that had been discussed on February 24 concerning potentially participating in legal actions coming from the national administration. He noted that he had hosted the first Mayor’s briefing on February 27. The plan was to have them roughly monthly, depending on other meetings, to increase communication and provide information. The next briefing was tentatively set for April 24. The State of the City Address would be on March 18 at Rivian headquarters. It would also be on YouTube. Study Session 2. Review Draft Safe Streets For All (SS4A) Safety Action Plan; CEQA status – not a project. Transportation Planning Manager Sylvia Star-Lack displayed slides. Staff requested Council’s feedback on the Quick-Build Program and the Safety Action Plan (SAP) Resolution. The deadline for public comment was March 15. At that point, staff would compile the feedback into a final SUMMARY MINUTES Page 3 of 19 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 3/3/2025 plan to present to P&S in May and to Council in June. There were three main reasons for developing the plan, which included funding/grants, the Sustainability and Climate Action Plan, and the Housing Element. Fehr & Peers Ashley Takushi presented slides listing the key elements to the plan, which she elaborated on. She discussed that within the next five years safety would be institutionalized throughout the City through updates to existing policies, programs, and projects. She outlined how the SAP and the BPTP overlapped and the differences in the two. She spoke of the relationship of the SAP to other plans. She supplied a slide of the model used for the Safe System Approach (SSA). A fundamental objective was to eliminate fatal and serious injuries for all road users. She shared a slide showing how all the Safe System elements worked together to avoid failure. The SSA focused on anticipating human error, proactively managing the transfer of kinetic energy, and sharing responsibility with all roadway users. She spoke of safety being looked at through the public health lens, and she supplied a pyramid, which she noted was slightly different than the one included in the plan in order to align with the City’s Safe Routes to School (SRTS) efforts. She supplied a slide listing what the plan must include to be compliant with for future SS4A funding, which the plan met. She displayed a map of the high injury network (HIN). She discussed how community feedback had been collected, and there had been general enthusiasm for bike lanes and concerns around speeding motorists. The public indicated there was a need for enhanced intersection treatments, more bike lanes along school routes, and additional connections to key destinations. She furnished a slide showing the seven safety-focused areas included in the plan. She discussed the equity considerations and definitions used in the plan. She spoke of EPC geographies. She stated that bus stops and connections to and from key destinations should be prioritized for first and last mile connections. She furnished a slide with the public health impact pyramid and explained how it would be infused into the plan and how it was already in action in the city. She requested Council’s feedback on implementing a Quick-Build Program and the resolution. The program goal was to immediately implement safety needs, which would require minor construction activities intended to be a lower-cost, near-term effort. The resolution tradeoffs included vehicle delay, reallocation of right-of-way, and land-use, zoning, and transit partnerships to institutionalize safety within the city. She provided a slide outlining the project timeline and next steps. The deadline for public comment was March 15. They planned to take the final plan back to P&S in May and then to Council in June. Councilmember Reckdahl asked if the final report would contain post-COVID data. Fehr & Peers Takushi answered that the final plan would contain the data currently provided. The City would continue to look at data and provide collision history updates. Public Comment: 1. Helene G., on behalf of 6 (Tim H., Aaron H., Sarah H., Andrew H., Ariella R.), presented slides. She thanked all involved in providing a 4-way stop at East Meadow and Ross. She discussed not seeing as much success at the intersections of Middlefield and San SUMMARY MINUTES Page 4 of 19 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 3/3/2025 Antonio and Greer and Thomas, and she requested that they be addressed soon. She asked the City to provide updates related to the California daylighting law and curb painting. She discussed how the City could receive more funding for painting curbs. She offered the City a free ChatGPT Pro subscription, which could save the City from hiring consultants. She strongly supported the SS4A SAP. She encouraged Council to act sooner. She requested that 311 tickets be responded to sooner. She asked that curbs be painted red near crosswalks and that stop signs be placed appropriately ASAP. 2. Eric N., a member of PABAC, spoke as an individual and requested that the draft SS4A plan be supported. He suggested the goal be a 20-percent drop in fatalities in 5 years, 40 percent in 10 years, and 0 by 2050. 3. Martin B. (Zoom) requested the definition of EPC. Fehr & Peers Takushi clarified that EPC was the acronym for equity, priority, and community. Councilmember Reckdahl addressed Slide 17 and noted that the data did not include a usage description. He asked if bike traffic on different routes was known and if the dots on the slide could outline which were bad intersections, speeding cars, etc. He wanted to target individual issues separately. He asked if specific crossing spots would be targeted. Transportation Planning Manager Star-Lack replied that the plan analyzed the HIN for all modes and the Bike Plan identified HINs for biking and walking. They did not yet have a regular monitoring schedule for biking. However, they had put a recommendation into the Bike Plan scope of work for the consultants to determine where that should be done. As for targeting specific crossing spots, they would go back and forth between this plan and the Bike Plan. The Bike Plan listed intersections and crossings for improvements. Fehr & Peers Takushi responded that the dots represented aggregate data and that not every single collision was called out within the report. They had recommended a speed management program, which would indicate where in the city there was speeding, and with that, it could be determined where there was overlap with the HIN in order to prioritize speeding improvements at those locations. Councilmember Burt commented that a data foundation was crucial. He asked what happened to the sensor technology system that monitored bike travel; if the overlap in the two plans was safety; and if the number of travelers and the number of collisions were being considered. He found it hard to move forward on either program in an effective way without getting a better sense of the data. He queried what would need to be prioritized to get the right data. Transportation Planning Manager Star-Lack answered that the sensor technology system that monitored bike travel was a startup that did not continue. She was sure there was a replacement technology available, which was part of the recommendation in the Bike Plan scope. She confirmed that the overlap in the two plans was safety, although this plan was more of a policy framework. For actual projects, the Bike and Pedestrian Plan should be referenced. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 5 of 19 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 3/3/2025 As for getting a better sense of the data, the Bike Plan would look at how to do that. They could get collision data and look at the trends. Fehr & Peers Takushi replied that the City did not have anything in place to look at volumes. The SRTS Walk and Roll routes was a datapoint that could be used to understand where there might be higher volumes of bicyclists. Councilmember Burt wanted to know if there was technology to give bike and ped use data. He wanted to prioritize getting the needed data. Councilmember Lu queried if the one of the original motivations for the study was a federal funding program. Transportation Planning Manager Star-Lack responded that federal and state funding programs were the original motivations for the study. Councilmember Lu questioned how much funding was federal and how much was state. He noted that he had issues with the execution of the Quick-Build Project for the Crescent Park Traffic Calming Project when it came before PTC, and he asked what was left to do on that project and what quick-build meant in the historical practices of the City. He urged the SAP and BPTP to look into practices and how the quick-build projects were managed. Transportation Planning Manager Star-Lack stated they had contacted the liaison at FHWA, and they were awaiting guidance for some of the federal grant money. This plan would allow the City to apply for State funds, which were potentially millions of dollars, for safety projects. Senior Engineer Ripon Bhatia recapped what was happening with the Crescent Park Traffic Calming Project. The final pilot would return to Council after completion of the full design. They planned to return to the PTC in April to seek feedback related to iterations done to the concept plans. Mayor Lauing did not think there was enough data to do the analysis, and he wanted data to be prioritized. He was onboard with the objectives of the plan. He spoke of the challenge in addressing human error, which he considered important. He inquired if roadways and crosswalks would be better lit. Fehr & Peers Takushi referenced Slide 22, and she mentioned that nighttime collisions was a key factor in looking at the data. Contextual considerations were included in the plan. Councilmember Stone thought more data was needed to make an informed decision. He felt staff should look into the dangerous Greer intersection. He asked how staff would prioritize painting red curbs. He believed areas around schools should a priority. He was concerned about federal funding impacting the SS4A Program. He considered this to fit pretty much within Council priorities and to be moving in the right direction. He wanted things to be appropriately prioritized for the best return on the investment, especially the short-term improvements. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 6 of 19 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 3/3/2025 Transportation Planning Manager Star-Lack answered that they were prioritizing red curbs at places downtown and parking spots. They would develop a more comprehensive plan moving forward. Vice Mayor Veenker invited Helene G. to send her the turf study. She thought it would be great to do this in coordination with the BPTP and in a way that would allow for federal funding, although value could not be put on human life. She was directionally aligned with the near-term action. She supported educating the community on roadway use, and she did not think SRTS and bike education events was broad enough. She wanted to find a way to reach drivers. She suggested something be done about delivery vehicles parking in dangerous places. She wanted to create a culture of more polite and better educated driving. She asked what the difference was in terms of the awareness measure versus education and what might be done in an education campaign. She found that the SAP had some granular data that could be built out, such as 90-degree angle crashes involving bicyclists. Fehr & Peers Takushi explained why the language was changed from education to awareness. Transportation Planning Manager Star-Lack added that they were trying to make the pyramid apply to Palo Alto. She discussed why the language at the top of the pyramid had been changed. Education was included in all levels of the pyramid. Councilmember Reckdahl referenced Page 11 and requested an explanation of coordinate media training for accurate roadway safety reporting. He referenced the chart on Page 26, and he was surprised that only 70 percent of bicyclists felt safe in the neighborhoods, and he queried what could be done about it. He asked if more time was needed to determine where the quick-builds should be. He supported quick-build. Transportation Planning Manager Star-Lack stated there was literature indicating that how collisions were reported affected how people saw collisions. There was a sense that better media reporting would help folks have a clearer understanding of risks on the road. Bicyclists feeling safe was the heart of the plan. They needed to determine which corridors needed more investment. She noted that the 70 percent reference may not have all been cyclists. More time was needed to determine where the quick-builds should be, to get funding, and for implementation. Councilmember Burt did not support changing the term education to awareness. He thought the local role of education should focus mostly on bikers, pedestrians, microtransit, and E-bikes. He did not understand why the 2023 data was provisional. He asked if StreetLight or Replica was being used for data collection. Fehr & Peers Takushi explained why the 2023 data was provisional. They had not used StreetLight or Replica data for this plan. Transportation Planning Manager Star-Lack added that that the OOT found very large errors in StreetLight Data two years ago. Replica data was being used in other projects. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 7 of 19 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 3/3/2025 Councilmember Burt recommended that StreetLight and Replica be reexamined and that there be conversations with other agencies, such as VTA, etc. He spoke of development on San Antonio and asked if there should be placeholders for it. He found pedestrian arterials to be an important element. Of the State and Federal funds, he inquired what portion was allocated by MTC versus direct grants. Transportation Planning Manager Star-Lack clarified that they would call out in the text how the San Antonio Road Area Plan would relate to this plan and the SSA would be included in that plan. She did not have information related to State and Federal funds and the portion allocated by MTC versus direct grants. Councilmember Burt mentioned that it would be useful to follow up on State and Federal fund allocation. He questioned why downtown sightlines and curb painting were being prioritized. He felt sightlines presenting the greatest risk to bikers should be the priority and that wayfinding should be strengthened in the BPTP if it was not in there. He wanted folks to be directed to the safest bike routes, although they could chose to use less safe routes. He noted that parking of delivery vehicles had not been changed to accommodate a very strong cultural and business change. He wanted a program propagating short-term, drop-off parking areas where needed. Councilmember Lu generally agreed with speed reductions and reallocating, narrowing, or otherwise managing lanes. As for the 2035 versus 2040 time frame, he asked what staff was considering in determining which year to choose. Transportation Planning Manager Star-Lack invited Council to tell staff which year to choose. It was clear that PTC wanted 2035. Staff was collecting feedback. Councilmember Lu advocated for 2035 and the City funding many projects even without grants. He liked the idea of a rapid response team. He did not feel there was enough follow-up as it related to crashes. He discussed the need to daylight, etc., bike boulevards where there was a decent amount of accidents. He agreed that some issues with delivery vehicles needed to be addressed. He was concerned that red curbs would be used by delivery vehicles. He aligned himself with the comments related to data and moving aggressively on San Antonio. Councilmember Reckdahl addressed garbage bins on bike lanes being a safety issue, and he asked if they could be placed on sidewalks and routes done in the early morning. Consent Calendar 3. Approval of Minutes from February 18, 2025 Meeting 4. Approval of Contract Amendment Number 3 to Contract Number S17167826 with NEOGOV, in the Amount of $87,700 to Extend Onboarding Recruitment Software as a SUMMARY MINUTES Page 8 of 19 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 3/3/2025 Service Subscription for an Additional Year for a Revised Total not-to-exceed Amount of $499,022 Over 9 Years. CEQA Status - exempt. 5. Approval of Purchase Order C25190365 with Kone, Inc. in the Not To Exceed Amount of $672,686 for Elevator, Chairlift, and Platform Lift Maintenance, Repair, Testing, and Related Services for Five Years; CEQA Status – Categorically Exempt under Sections 15301 and 15302 6. Approval of a Purchase Order with Professional Sales and Service, L.C. in the Not-to- Exceed Amount of $429,213, Including an Approximate 5% Contingency in the Amount of $20,439 for Unforeseen Price Increases, for the Purchase of a 2024 Chevrolet G4500 Type III Ambulance Utilizing a Cooperative Purchase Agreement, Funded by Capital Improvement Program Project VR-23000; CEQA Status – Not a Project Title Updated 7. Approval of Two Professional Services Agreements, C25193332 and C25193333 with EPI-USE America to Implement Identity Access Governance (IAG) Solutions, SAP Signavio/LeanIX, SAP Governance, Risk, Compliance (GRC) for a Total Not-To-Exceed Amount of $289,080, for a Period of One Year; CEQA Status - Not a Project. 8. Adoption of a Resolution Vacating an Easement at 318 Ferne Avenue and 4120 Mackay Drive; CEQA Status– Exempt under Cal. Code Regs. Tit. 14, section 15305 MOTION: Councilmember Reckdahl moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Veenker, to approve Agenda Item Numbers 3-8. MOTION PASSED: 6-0-1 (Lythcott-Haims absent) City Manager Comments City Manager Ed Shikada announced that they would move forward with the refunds related to the Green settlement and credits would show on utility bills over the course of the next month. Related to the BPTP, there were opportunities upcoming for community input, and information was available at cityofpaloalto.org/bikepedplan. He shared a slide and discussed the community events planned for March. Next week, Council would have a study session on City-produced special events and there would be discussions concerning Council priority objectives and the comprehensive plan amendments for car-free streets on Ramona and California Avenue. The following week would include a study session with Palo Alto Youth Council and the professional services agreement for the synthetic natural turf study analysis would be addressed. April 7 would include the Dark Sky Ordinance, the ordinance related to early demolition, and the proposed development at 70 Encino. The Fair Chance proposed ordinance and follow-up actions on the downtown parking garage design options would be addressed on April 14. There would be a number of items through the remainder of April and into May. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 9 of 19 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 3/3/2025 [Council took a 10-minute break] Action Items 9. FIRST READING: Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Palo Alto Municipal Code Title 18 (Zoning) to Modify the Housing Incentive Program, Affordable Housing Incentive Program, and Retail Preservation Ordinance (Housing Element Programs 3.3A, B, and D; 3.4A-D; and 6.2A). CEQA Status -- Addendum to the Comprehensive Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR), adopted December 18, 2023 (SCH #2014052101). Lexington Planning Owner/Principal Jean Eisberg noted that three distinct programs packaged within one ordinance were being discussed – the Housing Incentive Program (HIP), the Affordable Housing Incentive Program (AHIP), and the Retail Preservation Ordinance (RPO). She encouraged Council to think about the items separately. She supplied slides and discussed the options developers had when interested in obtaining a Density Bonus. Housing Element Program 3.4A through D called for a few changes, which she discussed. Housing Element Program 3.3A, B, and D called for changes that were very prescriptive, which she detailed. The ordinance would do what was stated in the Housing Element Program. Following review with the Planning Commission, the draft ordinance had expanded eligibility, which she outlined, and the language had been edited to provide consistent definitions of 100 percent affordable housing. Regarding the RPO, the draft ordinance did what the program intended, which she elaborated on. She explained in what instances the RPO could not be enforced and where it would continue to apply. She displayed a map showing the areas were the RPO would apply. Outside of those areas, the RPO would not necessarily apply, depending on the proposal and whether it was a housing opportunity site. Concerning the HIP, the draft ordinance made the changes identified in the Housing Element Program. The HIP was proposed to be completely focused on market rate projects, and it was proposed that the AHIP would focus on 100 percent affordable projects. The draft ordinance would allow an incentive to provide family friendly units. She supplied a slide showing how HIP had changed over time. Consistent with the Housing Element, the proposal in the draft ordinance was to add RM zones and the GM/ROLM focus area. She discussed the existing regulations and the Housing Element creating two tiers. She spoke of the draft HIP regulations. She discussed how the ordinance would make incremental changes. The HIP would allow a reduction in parking. She displayed a slide comparing the State Density Bonus Law and the City’s proposed HIP. State laws allowed for waivers and concessions from other regulations that were not proposed in the HIP and was where the State Density Bonus Law could provide an advantage. In terms of parking and process, the programs were basically the same. In terms of awareness, she did not think a lot of developers were aware of the HIP, as it was buried in the code. They had added it to the Housing Incentives chapter. The City could also provide handouts and a website that could help promote the potential program to developers. Staff recommended adopting an ordinance amending Title 18 to implement the Housing Element Programs. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 10 of 19 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 3/3/2025 Mayor Lauing asked whether the HIP Plus Program would include any opportunity site or any opportunity site with a certain percentage of affordable and why it was all housing sites as opposed to just some. He requested information related to Slide 10. He did not understand why all the Housing Element sites would be used. Lexington Planning Eisberg explained that when the rezoning went into place it upzoned only specific sites, which were sites in the Housing Element, which was where the two tiers came into play. The housing opportunity sites had different density standards than non-opportunity sites. Slide 10 related to the RPO. She voiced that retail preservation should be considered separately from the HIP. For simplicity of administration, the draft ordinance stated that all Housing Element opportunity sites could build out as 100 percent residential, but Council could choose not to do that. Planning and Development Services Assistant Director Jennifer Armer added that the HIP and AHIP process and regulations applied broadly through the commercial zones shown on some of the maps and well beyond the Housing Inventory Sites. There were far more sites than just the Housing Element sites where the HIP or AHIP could be used. It was a broader program across a number of commercial areas throughout the city and beyond those sites. It did not include all Housing Element sites. Councilmember Burt referenced Page 4 of the Staff Report and asked how removing FAR would eliminate an incentive versus creating an additional incentive. Lexington Planning Eisberg explained why the ARB suggested consideration be given to eliminating the FAR altogether. Councilmember Burt inquired if there were other ARB recommendations that had not been listed and why there was discussion of eliminating retail beyond the priority sites before the PTC and Council had a chance to consider such. Planning and Development Services Director Jonathan Lait responded that State law required a housing opportunity site to be able to redevelop as 100 percent housing. He would investigate to see if it had an associated affordability component. They did not include opportunity sites on University Avenue and California Avenue areas because the requirement could remove retail from core commercial areas. The HIP was a reduction of compliance with the RPO, not a full elimination. Lexington Planning Eisberg added that State law required that Housing Element opportunity sites accommodating lower income households had to build 100 percent residential. Technically the sites above market could continue to be required to be mixed use. She wanted to distinguish between the base zoning district requirements where ground-floor retail was required versus where the RPO would apply because there was existing retail on the sites. Councilmember Burt queried if the reference to affordable housing referred to a market project that had inclusionary housing or 100 percent affordable. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 11 of 19 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 3/3/2025 Assistant Director Armer answered that it was about what the Housing Element said in the sites inventory, not what the project proposed, which she elaborated on. Assistant City Attorney Albert Yang clarified that what was being referenced was what was assigned from RHNA to each site. He explained that it was not about the project being proposed but what had been projected in the Housing Element document. He discussed what would have to be developed as 100 percent residential without a retail requirement. Councilmember Burt considered it onerous if it could have, not that it would have, some proportion of affordable housing triggering this. Assistant Director Armer voiced that the State said if this was a site where the City said there was capacity for affordable housing at some number, the potential restriction would be removed on that housing requiring retail regardless of the project. Regarding the retail nodes, she discussed the map that staff prepared as part of this effort in advance of any future efforts. Councilmember Burt questioned if the map included the auto dealerships on El Camino as Housing Inventory Sites. He referenced Slide 11 and the retail nodes, and he noted that the map did not appear to include the automotive dealerships. He asked if they were eligible as housing sites and, if they were, under what there would be a discretion on or if they were priority sites to begin with. Assistant Director Armer voiced that the Housing Inventory Sites would not change. Director Lait replied that they could investigate to see if the dealerships were housing opportunity sites identified in the Housing Element. Council had discretion to look at the green outlines of the retail nodes on Slide 11. If the dealerships were included in the green node, it did not mean the dealerships would remain dealerships. They could transition into another retail or retail-like use. Councilmember Burt voiced that that was a different scenario from giving bonuses to incentivize a conversion to high-density housing. He questioned if the other Housing Inventory Sites were included under the same new rules as if they were priority and not requiring ground- floor retail and if they would be excluded from a retail node. He asked if they would have a retail protection. Jonathan Lait would find out if those sites were on the Housing Inventory. He added that it was not a decision point for this meeting. Lexington Planning Eisberg added that the map was only about where the retail preservation ordinance applied. It should be thought of separately from the HIP. It was addressing if a site redeveloped if it needed to replace retail in kind. If the other Housing Inventory Sites redeveloped they would not be required to replace in kind if outside the nodes. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 12 of 19 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 3/3/2025 Councilmember Burt thought that was an important distinction and one that staff and Council needed to dwell on. Councilmember Reckdahl, who had been on PTC, explained the items listed on Slide 10. The PTC wanted to revisit the nodes. He walked through the five bullets on Packet Page 142. The PTC had recommended the first two bullets and the fifth bullet. The third and fourth bullets had not been recommended. They felt strongly that there should be more retail on El Camino. Vice Mayor Veenker asked if there would be expansion on Cal Ave and how staff foresaw the downtown and San Antonio areas returning to Council and when. Assistant Director Armer replied that a couple streets of small parcels on California Avenue had been previously included and the HIP could be used in those areas, which was being expanded slightly. Some of the downtown and San Antonio areas had some allowance for use of the HIP. The rules and how they were or were not used in other areas would be taken into consideration during conversations for development of those two plans. Mayor Lauing queried what the time line was for making decisions and why taking it back to PTC or talking with Council about adding more retail nodes was delayed. Assistant Director Armer responded that they were moving forward as quickly as possible. Additional clarification on the nodes had been provided. They were originally referring to the South El Camino Real design guidelines, and further study could be done. Getting the specific updates to the HIP and AHIP had been targeted for the end of last year. They were working to adopt something ASAP, so it could be reported on. Director Lait remarked that Council could direct staff to include additional retail nodes. Mayor Lauing requested an explanation of the concept for a resolution as a way of getting direction. Assistant City Attorney Yang answered that Council could adopt and amend the map by resolution. Mayor Lauing asked if this would come back for a second reading and if it would be implemented as law, so applicants could build according to that, and then Council would add by resolution a map change, so potentially there would be a slight window where there would be no more nodes to consider other than the ones currently there. Staff confirmed that was correct. Public Comment: 1. Amie A. (Zoom) with Palo Alto Forward had submitted a letter and a petition with 150 signatures in support of HIP. She wanted to ensure that this would be an actual incentive. She asked why bifurcate into two HIP tiers, why not exceed State Density SUMMARY MINUTES Page 13 of 19 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 3/3/2025 Bonus Law or exempt parking from FAR and extend the maximum heights and FARs contemplated to all the C commercial zones, and why not review HIP annually and make changes based on applications received and data collected. She wanted to be cognizant of the implications of not being aggressive with HIP. 2. Ted O. (Zoom) spoke on behalf of the owners of Grubb Properties. They had submitted comments. He discussed why the 788 San Antonio Road project was no longer feasible. He requested that the HIP be updated to support such projects. He suggested FARs of 4.0 or higher, eliminating above-grade parking from FAR calculations, building heights allowing midrise construction with parking above grade, and adjusting parking ratios. They would bring a new plan for 788 San Antonio. 3. Manuel (Zoom) spoke on behalf of SV @ Home and strongly supported the recommendations from Palo Alto Forward to enhance the HIP and AHIP. They proposed expanding HIP and AHIP citywide, increasing the FAR and height limits in commercial zones, reducing or eliminating parking requirements, and exempting parking from FAR calculations. They suggested an annual reporting requirement and engaging directly with developers between ordinances. He voiced that the HIP and AHIP should offer strong competitive incentives and make projects financially viable. 4. Tim P. (Zoom) supported a stronger HIP so there could be progress on fair housing. 5. John K. (Zoom) associated himself with Amy A’s comments. He suggesting moving forward with staff’s recommendation to modify and strengthen the reforms proposed in the HIP and AHIP and that Council consider the uniqueness of this. He stated that there had been an essentially unanimous recommendation from PTC. He felt it was important to consider PTC’s recommendations in terms of changes. Planning and Transportation Commissioner Doria Summa stated that she had not been present for the December meeting but she had watched it and she had been present for the study session. She voiced that the first two bullets on Packet Page 142 were not in the motion, so it could not be taken as general consensus of the Planning Commission. The third one was further amended and strengthened, and Chair Chang wanted the additional nodes to return to the Planning Commission within the first three months of 2025. The discussion about the nodes on El Camino was separate from the municipal code that would need to be made, which the Planning Commission unanimously agreed to do. One did not depend on the other. A separate action could be taken. She did not think the Planning Commission felt the nodes as planned were sufficient. Councilmember Burt spoke of the retail on El Camino and who they served, which he considered an important revenue source. He wanted to understand the implications of this proposal on those sites. He queried if the Housing Inventory Sites and Incentive Program parcels were the same as the opportunity sites. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 14 of 19 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 3/3/2025 Director Lait replied that Housing Inventory Sites were the same as Housing Element opportunity sites. The auto dealerships were not opportunity sites but the Jiffy Lube across the street was. Councilmember Burt questioned if the non-opportunity sites would be a 2.85 FAR under the recommendation. He was concerned that there were somewhat cross sections of some of the heights, etc., but there were not examples and renderings that would allow folks to visualize building sizes. He wanted to ensure that the neighborhood would serve retail, and he did not want to be harmed economically by providing incentives. Director Lait stated that the analysis shared with the PTC provided renderings and modeling. The retail preservation component may not be complete, but they had built into the ordinance the process of quickly adapting and changing the boundaries of the retail nodes along El Camino if Council should direct it. Lexington Planning Eisberg provided an example of height limits being 50 feet but the FAR not allowing it to reach 50 feet, so the increase in FAR to 2.85 would allow the 50-foot height and the HIP would add just an additional 10 feet, 1 story. She discussed the key difference between the HIP and the State Density Bonus as it related to heights. Councilmember Burt understood that the proposal would mean eliminating the auto dealerships, and he did not think that had been fully considered. He explained why he did not want to go further than needed at the current time. Councilmember Reckdahl asked if there was an obligation to include the auto dealerships in the next HIP generation. Director Lait replied that the HIP could be suspended at the Charleston El Camino auto dealership overlay for a period of time while staff had discussion with the PTC. Lexington Planning Eisberg displayed slides with information that had helped them determine the standards that should be modified, which she detailed. Urban Field Team Founding Partner Jane Lin displayed slides and discussed their test site studies. She stated that the existing zoning standards did not support the development of retail, mixed use, or stacked flat buildings, which needed to be reconsidered. They had looked at a comparison between what existed and what was proposed for changes, which included heights, setbacks, etc. She provided an example of something in the CM district not being financially feasible and what could be done to make it so and to achieve a higher number of units. Councilmember Burt asked if that was a 3.5 FAR, if there were any examples of anything near a 3.5 FAR that was only 4 stories, and what the FAR and number of stories were at the Acclaim Project. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 15 of 19 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 3/3/2025 Urban Field Team Lin confirmed it was a 3.5 FAR, which was quite typical for this type of building. She did not have details about other projects in the community. Lexington Planning Eisberg explained how the FAR could be filled out within the height limit. Director Lait replied that the Acclaim project was a 4.0 building, if under the housing focus area, and up to 7 stories. Councilmember Burt was skeptical of the renderings being representative of what would actually be faced. Mayor Lauing asked if the buildings would be livable or just feasible by the financial analysis. Lexington Planning Eisberg remarked that there were not a lot of built examples in the city that looked like what the market might be building in adjacent communities, so they looked at other examples. The architects created units that would be buildable and to code. They were based on prototypical developments. Urban Field Team Lin added that they used examples of projects in the region. The design was based on market research of other unit layouts typical in the area. Director Lait mentioned that it was very different than the current based zoning in the commercial districts and for extension into the RM zones what the FAR was currently versus the HIP. He noted that they were behind on the Housing Element implementation time frame, but he added that they were important policy issues, and if more time was needed for this, Council could direct staff to do that. Councilmember Lu commented that the affordable teacher housing project was 4.4 FAR at 6 stories, which he considered to be reasonable and livable. He wanted the AHIP to allow more projects like that. Councilmember Stone asked if the proposed standards were necessary to meet the Housing Element targets at the identified opportunity sites. He liked expanding the AHIP and FAR bonus for larger bedrooms. He wanted to know what this would mean for potential housing production on Housing Element sites. He considered the HIP and AHIP to be superior to the State Density Bonus. He voiced that incentive needed to be created for developers to follow Palo Alto’s rules, not the State’s. He expressed that the retail nodes along El Camino needed to be fixed. Director Lait replied that it was not necessary for the target projections but some set of regulations were necessary as a program in the Housing Element. He did not believe the incentives would be required to achieve the targeted site projections in the Housing Inventory Sites. They were needed as a program to encourage greater housing production. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 16 of 19 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 3/3/2025 Councilmember Lu inquired if State Density Bonus allowed waiving of retail preservation requirements, if auto dealerships were considered retail or retail like, and if above-grade parking was counted in FAR. He thought retail nodes should return to Council. He liked the FAR incentive for 3-bedroom units at 10 percent. He asked if there had been conversation related to allowing 50 percent 3 bedrooms in a stacked unit configuration and if there would be appetite or utility to giving more FAR. Assistant City Attorney Yang replied that the Density Bonus would be a concession that could be used to get out of retail preservation requirements. Director Lait believed the definition of retail like included auto dealerships, but he would check the zoning code. Assistant Director Armer thought that with the interim ordinance they did distinguish the auto showrooms, which were included in the retail-like category, from auto dealerships, which had their own definition. Required parking, even if above grade, was not counted in the FAR. Lexington Planning Eisberg replied that they had not contemplated allowing 50 percent 3 bedrooms in a stacked unit configuration. She had observed that projects with 3 to 5 bedroom suites were for student-focused housing. Studios tended to be more profitable on a per door basis. Councilmember Lu was interested in that. If there was developer interest, he wanted this to come back to Council to see if the HIP could be more family friendly. He believed the ARB recommended adding five feet on the existing standards, which he supported and wanted to flag that rationale to Council. In general, he appreciated the improvements to AHIP, but he thought it could go further in some cases. He wanted projects like teacher-preferred housing to be covered under a more streamlined zoning process. Vice Mayor Veenker thought the proposal was moving in the right direction. She appreciated the incentives on the units with three or more bedrooms and the density FAR bonuses. She felt it was important to move forward to help developers opt out of the State Density Bonus and into the HIP and AHIP programs. She supported continuing the discussion on the retail piece. She thought it could be done in way that would amend the HIP and AHIP. She asked how data on the progress of this would be gathered and shared and how programs could be data driven. Director Lait responded that an annual report was not needed. They would report back to Council as a part of the Housing Element. They had an obligation to understand constraints or perceived constraints of standards interfering with developers, which would be presented to Council during the priorities and objective standards. He thought the Mayor expressed an interest in a housing dashboard, so staff was considering how that might be done. The goal was to have something online that would be updated regularly. He hoped that would be available shortly. He explained why there would not be information on the HIP right away. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 17 of 19 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 3/3/2025 Vice Mayor Veenker mentioned that it would be helpful to see that. She referenced Slide 17 and asked why the [Housing Element opportunity sites and non-opportunity sites would be separate. She liked that the HIP had been tuned up. She encouraged looking at non-opportunity sites within the same zoning districts. Lexington Planning Eisberg explained why there were two tiers. Director Lait thought there would be an opportunity to revamp the base zoning when updating the zoning code. He discussed there being an environmental component and going beyond the umbrella of the Housing Element Addendum would require additional environmental review under CEQA. In response to earlier questions, he added that auto dealerships were not a part of the retail-like definition. PTC wanted to discuss retail nodes further. Because it was to be adopted as a resolution, staff could return to Council fairly quickly with an update. Council could direct staff to work with the PTC and return with an updated retail node boundary, which he thought could be done in two to three months. Staff excluded properties from the AD overlay from this iteration of the ordinance, which would give time to consider the implications of the auto dealership being part of the HIP program at this moment. Mayor Lauing stated that he was a fan of HIP. He was concerned that the feasibility analysis potentially forced this into a couple models that did not work. He believed the RPO needed to be looked at every two or three years in order to change the ordinance as needed. He addressed Packet Pages 69 and 71 and asked if the fees had been calculated in or if they were the old fees, if pure affordable housing units would be subject to the fees within a project. He noted that real estate value appreciations were generally not in prototypes. He was fine with the 12-percent profit. He noted that one page indicated none would work and that the next page indicated all would work, and he wondered if staff went too far to try to get every one of them to work, which may result in unintended consequences. He did not find the feasibility study to be particularly helpful in trying to determine what should be done. Director Lait answered that the studies and fees did not reflect recent changes. Staff had received direction to study the fees, but it had not been implemented yet. They would bring that forward as part of the housing focus area discussion, but for the broader citywide discussion, they wanted to fold it into the nexus and feasibility studies, which would take another year. Much time had been spent going between the economic feasibility studies and the different variables that might be modified on the prototype analyses. Councilmember Burt asked if the changes were to be approved and if the retail node issue was to return to Council if there would be a risk of applicants coming forward with some form of entitlements they could lock in a project in the future retail node in the next few months. Assistant Director Armer answered that the area with auto dealerships could be excluded from HIP without any risk. The further discussion with PTC and bringing a revised resolution of the map could make something available in that limited timeframe. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 18 of 19 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 3/3/2025 Councilmember Burt asked if a project should be applied for but before receiving approval, if the location was established as part of an expanded retail node, if it would risk them being able to undermine that action. Director Lait thought it would be highly unlikely that someone would have a housing project ready to go and file and be deemed complete before returning to Council. He asked Attorney Yang how they could safeguard the action, if adopted tonight, so potential modifications to the retail nodes would be subject to any future application as filed. Assistant City Attorney Yang stated that with SB 330 preliminary applications, someone could file a preapplication which could lock in the rules at the date of the preapplication completion, although it was very unlikely. Council could provide direction on the auto dealerships, and staff would need to work as quickly as possible to return with further consideration of the nodes. Councilmember Burt stated that an alternative would be to not include areas that would prospectively go into the future retail nodes in tonight’s action and include all the other areas not under that consideration. Director Lait stated that Council could carve out areas for the PTC to consider. Mayor Lauing stated that this could be approved with the distinctions that Council desired to consider adding retail nodes ASAP via PTC and that the auto dealerships on that corner be maintained. Discussion ensued related to the language of the motion. MOTION: Mayor Lauing moved, seconded by Councilmember Reckdahl, to amend Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) to implement Programs 3.3A, B, and D, 3.4A- D, and 6.2A of the Housing Element regarding the Affordable Housing Incentive Program (AHIP), Housing Incentive Program (HIP), and Retail Preservation Ordinance, with the following additions: • Modify the retail node to extend along El Camino Real from Page Mill Road to the southern City boundary, and refer to the Planning & Transportation Commission for further discussion and recommendation to City Council • Exclude auto dealerships (AD overlay) near El Camino Real and Charleston Road from the HIP Program Councilmember Lu asked if there was appetite for enabling HIP and AHIP projects at the incremental five feet for lobbies or parking at or above grade in height, so there could be more true five- or six-story projects. He noted that he did not see enthusiasm for that, so he would not make the proposal. MOTION PASSED: 6-0-1 (Lythcott-Haims absent) SUMMARY MINUTES Page 19 of 19 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 3/3/2025 Mayor Lauing remarked that Council appreciated the work done on this item. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 11:00 p.m.