Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-04-14 City Council Summary MinutesCITY COUNCIL SUMMARY MINUTES Page 1 of 21 Regular Meeting April 14, 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: None. Absent: None. Special Orders of the Day 1. Proclamation Honoring National Public Safety Telecommunicators Week April 13-19, 2025 NO ACTION Mayor Lauing read the proclamation aloud. James Reifschneider, Assistant Police Chief, spoke on behalf of Police Chief Andrew Binder and the Police Department to the proclamation describing the significance of the role of the Public Safety Telecommunicators. 2. Proclamation Honoring National Animal Control Officer Appreciation Week April 13-19, 2025 NO ACTION Councilmember Lythcott-Haims read the proclamation aloud. Assistant Police Chief Reifschneider spoke on behalf of Police Chief Andrew Binder and the Police Department to the proclamation acknowledging the work of the animal control officers. 3. Proclamation Celebrating César Chávez and Dolores Huerta NO ACTION SUMMARY MINUTES Page 2 of 21 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 04/14/2025 Vice Mayor Veenker read the proclamation aloud. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions Ed Shikada, City Manager, reported there were no changes. Public Comment 1. Jill A., board member of the Palo Alto Art Center Foundation, provided a slide presentation celebrating Arts, Culture and Creativity Month and the Palo Alto Art Center’s contribution to the economic development of Palo Alto including the art center’s Holiday Studio Sale, facility rental and class programs, community events, 2025 ACGA Clay and Glass Festival on July 12-13 and the appreciation of the support of the City of Palo Alto. 2. Roger S., founder of Palo Alto Police Foundation and Friends of the Palo Alto Parks, described the Magical Bridge 10-year anniversary event coming up the next Saturday. He stated he would like to work together to get the bathrooms at the park up to standards. 3. Roberta A. pointed out that over the last 20-30 years, no low-income rental housing had been built in Palo Alto, a group of people had attempted over the last seven years to get the City to address the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women to no avail and the homelessness issue in the City wanted to see more shelters in the downtown area. 4. Anika D., Palo Alto Youth Council, shared the month’s progress of the PAYC including their issue census which revealed teens were most concerned with bike safety. In response, the posted about the City’s plans of bike safety on their social media account. On May 2, they would be hosting a music festival called Palopalooza in collaboration with the Teen Advisory Board. She stated they were making a song about what the Palo Alto City Council had been up to. Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements Vice Mayor Veenker shared that she had the pleasure of talking about the City’s Climate and Sustainability programs alongside the CEO of the Greater Washington, D.C. region Clean Cities Coalition and a council member from Leeds in the U.K. on an EarthDay.org panel comparing the progress each had made and plans to make more. She was happy to report their relationship with their sibling city in Bloomington, Indiana was strong. She described a podcast in which she SUMMARY MINUTES Page 3 of 21 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 04/14/2025 was interviewed about their City Council and stated it could be accessed. She shared items from the prior week’s Policy and Services Committee meeting. First, there was a city auditor presentation of the Emergency Preparedness and Wildfire Audit Report. Second, they had an update from Townsend and recommendations regarding state and federal legislation, executive orders and other regulatory and funding circumstances. She described 3 2024 grants from the past year for which disbursement had become somewhat uncertain. Finally, she reported they discussed City Council’s interview selection process for boards, commissions and committees and a recommendation would be coming to the Council so they could have a standing policy. Councilmember Burt described developments relating to MTC, VTA and Caltrain which was consideration of a regional tax measure for support of transit agency operations throughout the Bay Area. VTA originally opted not to participate but was reconsidering after some positive developments. Mayor Lauing talked about a discussion he had the prior week at the Chamber of Commerce. He mentioned the upcoming Mayor’s Press and Community Briefing at the library on Thursday the 24th at 4 o’clock. The theme would be housing. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims recognized members of the Palo Alto Youth Council were present in the audience. As the Parks and Recreation liaison, she reported that Commission had a retreat the previous Friday at Foothills Park covering work they had done. There was also a focus on advancing equity, access and inclusion for programs, parks, and open space and enhancing biodiversity, environmental sustainability and climate change resilience. She explained much of their work is done through ad hoc committees. She was impressed by the breadth and depth of their conversations and looked forward to what would come from the PRC in the coming year. She pointed out that the Tall Tree Award sponsored by the Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce and Palo Alto Weekly would be happening on the 17th at the JCC starting at 5:30 as a networking reception and the awards presentation would begin at 7. Councilmember Reckdahl pointed out a Quiet Zone meeting in front of City Hall on Wednesday the 16th at 6 PM for anyone interested in omitting train horns. Councilmember Stone announced Third Thursday coming up from 6 to 9 PM on Cal Ave. Consent Calendar MOTION: Councilmember Lythcott-Haims moved, seconded by Councilmember Reckdahl to approve Agenda Item Numbers 4-10. MOTION PASSED: 7-0 SUMMARY MINUTES Page 4 of 21 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 04/14/2025 4. Approval of Professional Services Contract Number C25193356 with Martina Entriken in the Amount Not to Exceed $658,390 for a Preschool and Toddler Program for a Period of Five Years. CEQA Status - Not a Project. 5. Approval of Amendment No. 2 via Change Order No. 2 to Contract Number C22183580 with MP Nexlevel of California, Inc. in the Amount of $4,000,000 for a Total Not-to- Exceed Amount of $15,347,390, and Extending the Three-Year Term of the Contract for an Additional Four Months Through August 31, 2025 to Provide Substructure and Utility Trenching Construction Services for the Foothills Rebuild Wildfire Mitigation and Grid Modernization for Electrification Projects; CEQA Status: the Foothills Rebuild and Grid Modernization Project are Exempt Under CEQA Guidelines Sections 15302, 15303 and 15183 6. Approval of Contract Amendment Number 1 to Contract Number S22183286 with The Permanente Medical Group Inc in an Amount Not to Exceed $100,000 for Pre- employment and Other Occupation-Related Medical Services; CEQA Status – Not a Project. 7. Approval of Professional Services Contract No. C25191690 with InfoSend in an Amount Not to Exceed $2,344,573 to Provide Utilities Bill Print and Mailing Services for a Term of Five Years; CEQA Status - Not a Project. 8. Approval of Professional Services Contract Number C25191738 with Sedgwick Claims Management Services in an Amount Not to Exceed $612,840 for Administration of Workers Compensation Benefits through June 30, 2025; CEQA Status – Not a Project. 9. FIRST READING: AdOption of an Ordinance Setting the Regular Meeting Time of the Finance and Policy & Services Committees by Resolution or Ordinance (Palo Alto Municipal Code §§ 2.04.190 and 200); and AdOption of a Resolution Setting the Regular Meeting Times at 5:30 pm for Finance and 6:00 pm for Policy & Services; CEQA status – not a project. 10. SECOND READING: Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 2.32 (Sales and Use Tax) and Chapter 4.10 (Solicitors, Peddlers, Pawnbrokers, Secondhand Dealers, and Other Businesses Regulated by Police) of the Municipal Code to Delete Obsolete References to the California Board of Equalization and Replace Them with References to the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (FIRST READING: March 24, 2025; PASSED: 6-0-1, Veenker absent) City Manager Comments City Manager Shikada provided a slide presentation including updates on Ramos and Boulware Parks and the Magical Bridge Playground 10th Anniversary celebration, invitation for community SUMMARY MINUTES Page 5 of 21 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 04/14/2025 feedback for the City’s emergency and wildfire response plans, Architectural Review Board recruitment and notable tentative upcoming Council items. Action Items 11. Review and Provide Direction on a Preferred Option for a New Parking Structure and Reserved Space for Future Affordable Housing at 375 Hamilton Avenue and Direct Staff to Pursue Preliminary Design and Environmental Review for the New Downtown Parking Garage Capital Project (PE-15007) for the Preferred Option; CEQA Status - Not a Project Holly Boyd, Assistant Public Works Director, provided a slide presentation on the Downtown Parking Garage including purpose/overview of Council item and prior Council actions for the project. Ken Hayes, Hayes Group Architects Founder & Principal, joined the presentation discussing an aerial view of the project site on Lot D; Option 1 – Waverley residential; Option 2 – no residential; Option 3 – dogleg residential; Option 1A – Waverley, separate pedestrian circulation ground floor and upper floors; Option 1B - Waverley, shared pedestrian circulation ground floor and upper floors; Option 1C – Waverley, with podium ground floor and upper floors; Option 2 – no residential; Option 3A – dogleg, separate pedestrian circulation ground floor and upper floors; Option 3B – dogleg, shared pedestrian circulation ground floor and upper floors; Option 3C – dogleg, with podium ground floor and upper floors; and their recommendation of Option 1A along with its benefits and drawbacks. Assistant Director Boyd ended the presentation with Staff’s recommendation. Mayor Lauing inquired if there was a choice B. Assistant Director Boyd replied Staff and Alta Housing felt strongly that Option 1A would best balance the housing and parking needs but they were willing to proceed with whatever Council decided. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims asked questions about the podium option. She asked Staff to walk them through how they came to consult Alta Housing. Mr. Hayes responded from the ground, there would probably not be a big impact because the first floor would be 11 ½ or 12 feet in the air. They would build the entire garage, including the ground floor of the garage where the housing would go eventually. There would not be a visual issue but a weatherproofing issue that would incur additional costs to waterproof the podium. Assistant Director Boyd explained Staff contacted Alta Housing because Council had previously selected them as the preferred developer on Lot T. City Manager Shikada elaborated that was with no expectation that they would be the preferred developer at Lot D. It was simply to get feedback from an affordable housing developer to understand how they would look at this as a potential development site. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 6 of 21 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 04/14/2025 Councilmember Lu queried if there were any notable cost differences that could be predicted at the outset for the different options. He asked about the second staircase in Option 1B. He wanted to know why 1A would have more housing square footage than 1B. He asked for elaboration about having street frontage on the ground floor and what major constraints might incur in terms of things like costs or building codes. Mr. Hayes remarked Watry Design had put together some cost summaries in the packet just for the garage portion of the project. No numbers had been put together for the housing portion of the project. He observed the podium option would be more expensive. He stated that because of the height and number of units, they needed two stairs for the residential component so 1B had a shared stair and elevator for the whole building that would need to be built with the garage to get in and out. The housing would have the stair by the paseo and would be the second means of egress for the housing component. He explained because of how the elevator and stair encroach in on 1A, they would be able to wrap the housing around the corner some picking up 500 square feet per floor. He thought it was a good idea to have ground floor active frontage if it was not going to just be a parking garage. The parking garage originally had some active street frontage along Waverley to hide the parking, provide pedestrian interest and continue that ribbon along Waverly Street. He proposed putting amenity spaces on the ground floor if it was all housing. He did not yet know what constraints might occur in terms of cost. Councilmember Burt questioned if the cost per stall was the cost for all stalls constructed or the net. He mentioned the statement of goals for the project and asked if they were the goals Staff was operating under. On Option 2, he asked if the retail or service space would be shallow spaces to minimize parking stall loss or if there was concept on the size or depth of that. He queried how many dollars were set aside in the parking in-lieu fund and what the anticipation was of how they would fund the balance of the options that ranged from $20 to $24 million. He asked about a design to budget option. Gordon Knowles, Watry Design architect, believed the cost per stall was for all the stalls. He explained the cost worked on efficiency. If they were building efficient floors, there would be a straightforward calculation. Depending on number of floors, there would be certain code requirements on emergency power, structural issues with the sheer wall proportion and structural development. Assistant Director Boyd confirmed those were the goals Staff was operating under. She believed there was about $15 million in the parking in-lieu fund earlier in the year. Funding the balance would be to be determined pending Finance Committee budget discussions and other meetings. Mr. Hayes said they could probably get 25 to 30 feet depth on the retail or service space on Option 2. Brad Eggleston, Public Works Director, wanted to make sure it was clear to Council that the construction cost figures in the report were early rough order of magnitude for the direct SUMMARY MINUTES Page 7 of 21 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 04/14/2025 construction costs only. He did not want Council to think they were the potential costs for the garages. The numbers would like change and there were a lot of construction-related costs not in them. They were provided for comparative purposes between the options. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims asked if anyone was prepared to give a sense of the estimated full scope of the project cost wise. Assistant Director Boyd replied they had not calculated the full project cost. Director Eggleston confirmed they were not prepared to give a full project cost but with the previous iteration of the garage with an underground level introducing other costs, he recalled that at the time the project was paused five years ago, they were looking at a total project cost on the order of $31 to $32 million. Councilmember Reckdahl inquired if it would be possible to finance the difference between what was in the in-lieu fund and the cost. He wondered if they would have to sell COPs if some of the parking was used for affordable housing. City Manager Shikada confirmed that would be conceivably a part of their infrastructure planning using available capital funds and how this project would be prioritized against other needs throughout the City. He stated any funding needed for affordable housing would be separate from the funds needed for the garage. He added there were a variety of financing mechanisms for a public structure. They would need to look at whether issuing tax-free debt versus assumption of any private activity associated with the garage made more sense. Regarding affordable housing, the same issues would apply in terms of what the funding source would be and what method of financing might be needed similar to the conversation related to Lot T. Subject to Council’s decisions on priority, he was confident they would be able to finance a parking structure. He thought it was more complicated as it related to allocation or assignment of any of the new parking spaces to a specific development and was not prepared to give an opinion on that but thought it was something to have Staff look at. Mayor Lauing wanted to know if the timing of housing versus the parking lots was relatively arbitrary other than getting in the way of each other on construction and they could be sourcing a developer for that at the same time they were developing a garage. City Manager Shikada thought the expectation was that they would be ready to go with the garage quicky. Understanding the nature of affordable housing development and the complex financing structures, both in terms of selecting a partner as well as their need to develop a good financing plan, he assumed that that would take longer than the garage would. Public Comment: 1. Mark M. claimed it was not good to add more parking spaces to a city and that it was better for new housing to be under parked and the goal they should be looking for was a SUMMARY MINUTES Page 8 of 21 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 04/14/2025 reduction of aggregate parking spaces. He advised the best use of the in-lieu fees would be to put forward to the demolition of existing parking garages. 2. Aram J. (Zoom) wanted to forget about the parking aspect of the project and make it all affordable housing with a top priority for the police officers in the City of Palo Alto. He was distressed to know the police chief lived an hour away. Councilmember Reckdahl’s first inclination was to support one of the Waverley projects but having stairs and ramps in structures created lost overhead so they would be much more expensive per spot than the parking only. From a financial standpoint, he thought it made more sense to build on economies of scale and maximize the parking spots they missed allowing them their next housing opportunity to maximize the scale of housing. He supported the only parking option. Councilmember Stone strongly preferred Option 1A. He thought it provided a balanced approach looking at future needs of affordable housing and parking demand in the downtown area. Councilmember Burt observed that the goal of this lot was to offset the parking lots at different other locations to balance out the parking through these projects so there was not a net loss as a result of the several affordable projects being worked on. He thought Option 2 was the most cost effective to get the most affordable housing with the least amount of additional subsidy. Vice Mayor Veenker remarked she preferred Option 1A since this was primarily a parking project and would provide 3 to 6 times more net new parking stalls with only slightly greater costs in order to get additional affordable housing downtown. She added she greatly preferred Option 2 to Option 3. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims agreed that 1A was the preferred option. She agreed that the location was part of a whole package of projects in the downtown and this location would become the offset for the parking they would take away as they built more affordable housing on city-owned surface parking lots. She supported spending a little more to tuck some affordable housing in. Councilmember Lu echoed Councilmembers Stone and Lythcott-Haims and Vice Mayor Veenker’s comments. He thought the urban design and block-by-block variability of having chunked out space that was initially green space and future housing had intangible value. He was happy to advance 1A but was more open to Option 1B than the others. Mayor Lauing found it a little frustrating they were talking about only 15 homes. He did not think going to zero fit with their vision. He agreed with Councilmember Stone’s comment about the balance being appropriate. He concurred with Councilmember Burt’s comments about a package of projects. He opined if there was any way to work in more housing without outrageous costs they should look at that. He thought the issue of financing this was important SUMMARY MINUTES Page 9 of 21 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 04/14/2025 but would require a long-term, strategic approach. He reluctantly supported 1A because it would provide some affordable housing. Councilmember Burt wanted to argue that supporting the recommendation because it has more affordable housing worked against the economics of more affordable housing downtown. Making that decision in the isolation of this lot did not optimize their package of projects. He did not think it was a bad option, just not the best option. Councilmember Reckdahl agreed it was not a bad option but not the best option. He did not believe this to be the most cost-effective way of providing housing and parking. MOTION: Vice Mayor Veenker moved, seconded by Councilmember Stone to direct staff to proceed with preliminary design and environmental review for Option 1a, a new 274-space parking garage, featuring six levels of above-ground parking with a reserved area to allow for future construction of affordable housing on the site with separate access on Waverley Street. MOTION PASSED: 5-2, Burt, Reckdahl no 12. PUBLIC HEARING/QUASI-JUDICIAL: 70 Encina Avenue [24PLN-00095]: Adopt an Ordinance Rezoning the Subject Property and an Adjacent Vacant Parcel to Planned Community/Planned Home Zoning and Adopt the Record of Land Use Action to Demolish a Surface Parking lot and to Construct a New Three-Story, 19,035 Square Foot Building with 10 Residential Condominium Units. CEQA Status- Streamlined Review in Accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 (Comprehensive Plan Consistency). Zone District: CC (Community Commercial). Emily Kallas, Senior Planner, provided a slide presentation for the Planned Home Zoning public hearing for 70 Encina including project location, project overview, background/process, Council prescreening – September 2022, ARB and PTC recommendations – February 2025, key considerations for Council to consider, public benefits of the proposed project, CEQA status – streamlined review, public comments and recommendation for Council. Jeff Galbraith, Hayes Group Architects Principal, provided a slide presentation about the 70 Encina project including site context – aerial photo, original concept – September 12, 2022, PHZ prescreening comments from September 12, 2022, Ellis Partner concerns September 12, 2022, original concept diagram – 4 stories over a ground floor podium, PHZ prescreening concept September 12, 2022, stepped massing diagram – reduced unit count, reduced program – 2 or 3 stories over podium, solution that resolved economics and T&C concerns, conceptual site and unit layout diagram, design precedent photos, proposed plan – ground floor, proposed plans – SUMMARY MINUTES Page 10 of 21 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 04/14/2025 second and third floors, proposed design – seen from the rear entry into T&C, visibility from Town & Country, Town & Country – context diagram, proposed design – view from Encina Ave, proposed design – northeast corner, proposed design – sideyards for maintenance and fire access, proposed design – courtyard view looking south, proposed design – front façade on Encina Ave and recent changes in Ellis Partners concerns at February 26 hearing. Ed Storm, Applicant, explained the property came on the market three years prior. He was contacted by the family that owned it asking what he thought it should be. He proposed it was an ideal residential location. He met with Town & Country initially who did not think it was possible. They continued doing what was necessary to get it approved. He felt they had done everything asked of them. He observed there was now another bigger project that may come forward and he was not sure how to respond to that. He indicated approval of their project did not preclude the possibility of a much larger project. He opined a positive vote would tell people this was a place where residential can be build and they ought to pursue it. He hoped Council would take the opportunity to light a spark that would make the whole area become a great place for people to live. He stated they would continue to work with any of their neighbors who thought they could make a better project out of this. Councilmember Burt disclosed he met with both the applicant and the Town & Country Ellis Properties and did not receive information that had not been disclosed in their comments, written and oral. Councilmember Lu disclosed he also met with both the applicant and Ellis Partners. Ellis Partners showed a very blocky rendering of what a five story or so development could look like across the entire parking lot area. That was the only notable thing he had seen that was not on the public record. Vice Mayor Veenker disclosed she met by Zoom with both the applicant and his architect with Ellis Partners and associate. She did not receive any additional information. She thought she had seen the blocky drawing. Mayor Lauing disclosed he similarly met with both the developer and Ellis Partners and got up to date. The goal was just to spend a little more time looking at the drawings and understanding the concepts but no additional information that was not disclosed to the public. Councilmember Reckdahl disclosed he met with Ellis partners and the applicant. He had nothing to report. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims disclosed she met by Zoom with Ellis partners as well as with the applicant, Stormland and the Hayes group. She did not see anything that had not been presented in the documents presented to them. Councilmember Stone disclosed he met with the applicant and Ellis partners. To the best of his knowledge, he did not receive anything outside of the public record. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 11 of 21 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 04/14/2025 Public Comment: 1. David H., spoke individually and not as an ARB member. He was opposed to moving ahead with the 70 Encina part of the project but he was delighted that the whole site had been redesigned PHZ. He was not opposed to the design of the project presented by Hayes Group. He advised it would interfere with the possibility of this being a really significant more than one acre site. He pointed out that the reason the ARB had a coordinated area plan was for this kind of a site and it would be a much more effective project if it were developed as a single unit for the entire site. He described reasons he suggested that this particular project be deferred until the entire site could be analyzed and presented to the Board. 2. Justine B. supported rezoning Encina Avenue. She referred Council to the 2016 Transportation Demand Management Plan that Town & Country did if there were concerns about the site losing surface parking. 3. Dean R., director of development for Ellis Partners, indicated their team saw the opportunity to reimagine Town & Country as a well-planned mixed use retail, office and housing project for the City. He alleged that the 70 Encina project did not comply with the intent or letter of the PHZ Ordinance. He advised the project could comply with the Comp Plan if it were scaled down to a more typical density. It was their opinion the project would set a bad precedent for future residential developments. 4. B. Taylor spoke on behalf of himself and the family that owned the land. He advocated for developing it as a residential property. He thought it was notable that the owners of Town & Country were not there to advocate their desire to build X number of units and there was no objection from them for the proposed development. He advised it checked all the boxes for what the City was looking for regarding affordable housing. 5. Alex A., officer and board member of Williams Charitable Foundation, stated his organization was supportive of exploring a housing project adjacent to Town & Country. They preferred to see a project built with more than 100 units and a parking structure. Ideally, they would like this area developed in conjunction with 70 Encina. They were committed to continuing to work with Ellis Partners and the City to find a more aligned with the goals and requirements of the Council as established for PHZ projects. 6. Amie A., executive director of Palo Alto Forward, spoke about her support of the project and urged Council to approve it and provide guidance in support of long-term master planning. 7. Herb B. said the site was not replacing a primary parking use but a parking use that was part of Town & Country’s development. He suggested Ellis and Hayes were working together to get a bigger development. He thought a clear statement was needed as to the property owner was and who was the true applicant. He recalled a section of the zoning code included in the administrative record that no part of Town & Country would SUMMARY MINUTES Page 12 of 21 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 04/14/2025 be replaced by residential. He mentioned having sent letters he assumed Council never received. 8. Randy P. (Zoom), architect, indicated he was a strong supporter of housing in Palo Alto and wanted to housing built here but was not in support of this project. He agreed with the PTC that it remained too dense and could not satisfy the required findings for compatibility due to inadequate setbacks. He explained how the facts of this project's design were incompatible with the Comp Plan policies related to urban greening and preservation of scale and architectural compatibility. He asked Council to consider the decision in the context of decades and make the best choice for how it would impact all of Palo Alto. Mr. Storm rebutted that this was urban living and that there were people who wanted to live in that environment. He was surprised the Ellis’ did not thank him for opening the door to build residential on their parking lot as it would be a great economic opportunity. He stated a big project could be done on this property. They were 16% of the land. They could also create a smaller project in front of a much bigger project. He opined that people only wanted to talk about the negatives and that was a reason things did not get done in the City. He indicated they were ready to build it, they believed in it and they were going to put their own money up to make it happen. He hoped Council could see the path forward to approve the project and hoped bigger projects would come forward. Councilmember Reckdahl wanted to hear how the setback would affect what Ellis did with their property, particularly the 7-inch setback in the back. He mentioned downtown buildings with zero setbacks and assumed Ellis could use the same technique to build right up to the property line. Senior Planner Kallas replied the 7-inch setback was not an issue in terms of fire access to the site, which would be provided through the courtyard as well as through the 5-foot side setbacks. She confirmed things like fire rated walls and fire sprinklers contribute to being able to construct a building at the property line. Councilmember Burt had trouble justifying a reversal to scaling down now that they had a bigger project potentially on the horizon on the other parking areas, Town & Country or some of the other parking. He wondered whether there had been any consideration of utilizing the rooftop space as either a private or a common among the tenants open space with some limited landscaping. He was interested in his colleague’s thoughts on the issue. He asked if there was some access issue at the end of Encina up against the bike path next to the Caltrain tracks that would require improvement. Mr. Galbraith replied having a rooftop garden required a stairwell. It could also impacted placement of HVAC equipment and access to firefighters. It would also offset a lot of the ability to have photovoltaic arrays or they would get pushed up creating a higher project. He indicated it was possible to consider a rooftop garden. They would have to overcome the cost of getting SUMMARY MINUTES Page 13 of 21 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 04/14/2025 up to the roof and the fact that the units were condominiums making it a common roof access would make it more complicated. Senior Planner Kallas remarked one of the Planning Commissioners noted there was a portion of Encina Avenue between the project site and the entry to the bike trail where there was not a sidewalk. They did not consider that to have a nexus to this project in terms of site improvements. Mayor Lauing summarized that the impetus in 2020 for Council to create this was to try something radical to jumpstart a lot of new projects at scale that would get permitted in 2022 and prepare for the 2023 t 2030 RHNA cycle. The original intent of the emergency motion was the scale of 70 Encina caused him pause. He discussed the history of the project from the beginning up to the current proposal. He acknowledged that the applicant did what was asked and scaled the project down. He was not sure if they did a prescreening at that time that they would not go in the opposite direction and ask for more height and density and more than 20 units. Circumstances had radically changed because the RHNA numbers were exponentially higher than in 2020. Vice Mayor Veenker expressed interest in the rooftop garden or adding trees if it were possible. She wanted to know if the parcel that cut through the parking lot going to the Medical Foundation would have to stay if the rest of the parking lot was developed by the Ellises. She appreciated that both BMR units were at 80% AMI. Senior Planner Kallas replied that because they did not have a formal or preliminary application from Ellis Partners at the time, they had not been able to evaluate what the fire access requirements for the shopping center would be. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims asked if she was right that the PHZ must demonstrate compatibility with existing or potential uses on adjoining sites. She struggled with the obligation about finding compatibility with existing and potential uses. She was looking to Staff for guidance about making a decision about a potential impact on a potential future use or lack of compatibility with it if that potential future use is hypothetical until it becomes you know a project that's proposed and entitled and permitted and so on. She asked how they assess the extent to which this project asked them to compromise on some of the expectations they might have knowing that additional housing might go in around it and would be impacted by the fact that this project had pushed to the edges of its limitations and they had given some concessions. Senior Planner Kallas presented a slide showing the three findings for planned community application. She indicated Staff looked at it as the use would refer to the land use and not the density. They would look at housing as being compatible next to future housing. In the case of Town and Country, housing was also appropriate next to the community commercial land use. When talking about land use for the purpose of the finding, they were thinking land use equals housing commercial, they were not thinking 150 units. She commented that they believed this SUMMARY MINUTES Page 14 of 21 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 04/14/2025 project was sufficient within its boundaries in the same way a potential future project on adjoining sites would also need to be sufficient and meet fire and building code within the parameters of their property lines. Councilmember Lu queried if there was any precedent for prioritizing the tree in-lieu fee to apply to the adjacent parts of El Camino, Encina and the Embarcadero Bike Path such that the trees in-lieu for this project attempt to offset some of the heat island impacts from this project. He was curious if that had ever happened before. He thought it would be useful to consider or take a second look at any tree planting opportunities in the public right-of-way in the adjacent area. He suggested considering if that would appreciably tackle some of those concerns. He thought this was a good project and was appropriate for an urban setting. He opined a small setback was okay for a service alley or passageway. He would prefer an expanded, thought-out, planned project across that strip of parking lots. He would support projects at least as dense with similar setbacks and rules for the adjacent sites. He hoped negotiations would continue and they could get another proposal before this one was constructed. He did not want to block this project due to the speculative future project. Jonathan Lait, Planning & Development Services Director, did not remember a specific case but thought there was an opportunity for a conversation on where to direct those in lieu funds in areas of the City. He believed the Urban Forestry Department knew where they wanted to increase the canopy in the City. To the extent that their mapping and analysis would include this area, they could have a conversation about how they might be able to direct those funds in that area. Vice Mayor Veenker inquired about the standard of review. She queried if it was dispositive or a necessary predicate. She observed if the project were approved, a comprehensive set of housing projects could continue to be developed and they might end up amending the application which she would encourage. Because they did not have an application in front of them for the larger project, she felt they should rule on this one on its own merits. Albert Yang, Assistant City Attorney, explained the normal standard of review for a land-use decision was substantial evidence where the Council would need to show the link between the facts in the record, the findings that need to be made and the ultimate decision yes or no. Because this is a rezoning legislative item, the Council would likely receive a little more deference than the usual substantial evidence review standard but substantial evidence would still be the basic framework they were working within. He recommended basing the yes or no decision on the ability to make findings or not. He suggested that the findings were fairly broad and hopefully any factors entering into Council's considerations could be tied to those findings in some way to inform whether or not they could be made. Councilmember Reckdahl agreed if they were prescreening this at the time, they would kick it back saying it was not dense enough. He thought they had to appreciate they lead them down a path and they followed that path. He tended to support the project. He had concern about the greenery. He asked about the in lieu fees for trees. He asked if they were still following the SUMMARY MINUTES Page 15 of 21 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 04/14/2025 Comp Plan if they planted in the neighborhood of Town & Country. He asked how narrow they had to follow the findings as they were losing trees. Senior Planner Kallas replied the in lieu tree fees would depend on the project but they were very common. She commented Policy L-2.11 encouraged projects to incorporate greenery and natural features and L-4.13 encouraged a vibrant retail environment and urban greening in Town & Country Village. Director Lait remarked the Comp Plan was a high-level document that set forth their aspirations for what they wanted to accomplish in different parts of the City. It talks about the environment and how the City will change or evolve over time. It relies on the zoning code to implement those visions and that that policy into either objective or subjective standards set forth in the municipal code. Included in the municipal code are opportunities to address when trees do need to be removed as part of a development and procedures for in lieu payment are included. Any project will find areas of general consistency and other areas where it may not be as consistent. They tend to speak about a project's conformance with the general plan on balance that the project is more compliant or not compliant. These would be the factors Council would weigh in its decision. Staff did its analysis and fell on a set of findings they believed could support the project. Mayor Lauing asked the applicant if there was a willingness to reduce the size of the space of one or two of the units to accommodate open space greenery so they could get around that problem for any future developer that would have to deal with the setbacks or having to add greenery. He asked if they looked at projects beyond condos. Mr. Galbraith explained the CC District required zero setback and they were pulled back five feet on both sides. The only place they were down to 7 inches was on the rear lot line and on about 12 or 13 feet about the side lot lines for just the lower story toward the rear garages. Part of the reason for that was the one-story bump outs were where the fire department needed to get up onto in order to get access to the roof so they were serving a couple of possibilities. If they pulled the sides in from the seven inches to the five feet like the rest of the of the project, it would cause problems for the fire access to the roof. On the rear setback, they were facing up against Town & Country and their back of house. If they pulled back two, three, four or five feet, they would create dead space on the lot that could be planted potentially but would have to be maintained somehow. It would basically green the edge of the service alley. That underlied a zone that the fire department was relying on for half of the building. Hypothetically, they could shrink the garages on the ground floor, pull the back facade in and create a dead space back there on one half of the project but the other half needed the fire access to the roof. In terms of greenery, it was a question of finding space. They were relying on the trees in the central courtyard which was the space that would get used by occupants the most. They started the side yards out as more green garden spaces. The fire department needed both of those to fight fires so they had to give that space up. Creating more green space that was not vertical planting on walls would require either something on a rooftop or finding other horizontal space and would be tough. There was about an 18-inch setback on the side SUMMARY MINUTES Page 16 of 21 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 04/14/2025 yards past the 5 foot that created space for low planting on. He agreed deleting two condos would leave space for greenery but he did not think the project would work at that point. He stated they did look at rentals. He explained they would commonly develop a project and do cost analysis on the rental side and the condo side. They had to weigh the BMR impacts and the rentals did not work. Councilmember Stone’s concerns were the setback, greenery and the density. He appreciated the applicant working with Town & Country. He opted to vote in favor for a housing project than deny it in hopes for a future larger housing project and this would not preclude a future larger housing project. He encouraged the applicant to continue to engage with Ellis Partners to see what could be possible there. He noted there were still concerns raised by PTC and ARB that had not been addressed. He appreciated the two BMR units at 80% AMI. Mayor Lauing commented that in a future agenda, they would have to get back to making some adjustments to the PHZ. He reiterated the applicant did what they were asked and he could not see penalizing them for it going down. He thought the two discounted homes was the only benefit. MOTION: Councilmember Lu moved, seconded by Councilmember Lythcott-Haims to: 1. Consider the CEQA Guidelines section 15183 checklist analyzing the project’s consistency with the Comprehensive Plan 2030 Environmental Impact Report (SCH#2014052101); 2. Approve an Ordinance (Attachment B) rezoning the subject site from Community Commercial to Planned Community/Planned Home Zoning; and 3. Approve the Record of Land Use Action (Attachment C) approving the proposed project, based on findings and subject to conditions of approval to the City Council. MOTION PASSED: 7-0 13. FIRST READING: Adoption of an Ordinance Adding New Chapter 9.75 (Fair Chance in Housing) to Title 9 (Public Peace, Morals, and Safety) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Limit the Use of Criminal History Information in Rental Housing Decisions. CEQA Status - Exempt Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3). Rebecca Atkinson, Planner, provided a slide presentation about the Fair Chance Housing Policy and Draft Ordinance including the meeting purpose, Fair Chance Housing past policy discussions and motions, Fair Chance Housing Ordinance overview, Fair Chance Housing policy comparison, SUMMARY MINUTES Page 17 of 21 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 04/14/2025 Fair Chance Housing Ordinance: procedures, potential alternative policy considerations, a proposed timeline and the staff recommendation. Councilmember Reckdahl queried when the lookback period started. Planner Atkinson answered the lookback period was from the date of application for the type of decision being made. The date of the record would be the date of sentencing. She stated the procedure set up the ways in which a landlord could look at criminal history information. State law already required looking at only directly related convictions. Madeleine Salah, Deputy City Attorney, clarified if the sentencing occurred beyond more than two years prior to the date of the application, the landlord would not be able to consider that conviction regardless of whether or not it was a directly related conviction. Councilmember Stone wanted to understand why Staff was proposing the lookback period be the time from conviction rather than from the date of release from custody and why reports were cited that seemed to be using date of release rather than date of sentencing. He thought it would be relevant for a landlord to be able to see if a person had been able to stay out of trouble and not cause issues of concern for a perspective landlord after being released from prison. He wanted to know the landlord would receive only the two-year window if there was a two-year lookback or the entire criminal history report. He asked if this ordinance as proposed would apply to a single-family home assuming the property owner was not living there. Planner Atkinson thought that in general when people were released it was considered that they served their time. It was her understanding that all records would be coming depending on the different types of databases being used. She stated the definition of landlord in the ordinance was similar to other definitions of landlord elsewhere in the municipal code and property owner or property manager were in the definition of landlord so it could be both. Director Lait asked if it followed state law. Deputy City Attorney Salah explained state law did not have a lookback period. She thought the data Staff cited in the report varied in terms of whether or not it analyzes from date of release, conviction or sentencing. She stated it was standard in many of the other ordinances that Staff based their proposed ordinance on to consider date of sentencing and the point about the policy rationale being that once somebody is released from incarceration they were generally considered to be rehabilitated. Another important policy piece of feedback that Staff received was that the time immediately succeeding release from incarceration was a particularly vulnerable time for people who have experienced incarceration. Vice Mayor Veenker was under the impression that it may not be very easy to get dates of incarceration from some of the databases. Her worry was that they may be disadvantaging those who commit less egregious crimes and advantaging those who commit more egregious crimes. She wondered if that was part of why the legislature did not do a lookback. She thought it looked like some other jurisdictions may do a proxy-type thing and asked if there was any SUMMARY MINUTES Page 18 of 21 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 04/14/2025 look at that to try to deal with the logic problem with a flat lookback. She thought what they were aware of would be uneven having a cutoff for the lookback. Planner Atkinson explained in general what was considered a felony and misdemeanor could differ across different jurisdictions. The HRC recommendation was to include a two-year lookback period for both misdemeanors and felonies. Given the differences in how offences could show up in criminal history databases, that was one consideration to have a single lookback period. Given that it was an individualized assessment and would be on the obligation of the landlord to identify directly related convictions was another reason to have a lookback period and have the landlords make their decisions and do that process rather than specifying what types of offenses would be something to consider or not right rather than the local organization doing it. Councilmember Burt agreed the lookback seemed problematic. He wanted to know why they were focusing on a two-year versus a stepped one or other alternatives. Planner Atkinson remarked in general as policymaking in the Fair Chance space had recently produced a proposed rule where anything longer than three years for misdemeanors and felonies was considered presumptively unreasonable based on the various points of reference they included in the proposed rule for consideration including the how the risk of recidivism was reduced over time. Director Lait added it had been a few years since the City Council gave Staff direction to study this issue and report back on the implications of a Fair Chance Policy. They had reached out to the Human Relations Commissions and had a number of community engagement opportunities but they had not had a chance to check in with City Council on how they wanted this policy to develop. The intent for that night was to frame it as a discussion to share what they learned and to get feedback. They included an ordinance as a starting place for Council to begin to look at it and find areas where they were supportive and other areas they thought needed further refinement. They heard the lookback provision might be one of those areas. From a Staff perspective, they wanted to make sure Council would have options to take action if they so wanted but if there were policy items they had not had a chance to dive into, they would like to hear that feedback and get that direction and they could make refinements to the ordinance. Councilmember Lu queried if consideration had been made for the workability of an exception for serious crimes having a longer lookback window. He inquired if it would be viable for a landlord to request to know the locations of where the individual last lived and a reference from their last landlord. That would effectively exclude people recently released. He asked how possible ways to circumvent this had been considered or discussed. Deputy City Attorney Salah answered that proposal had not been considered and Staff did not put forth a perspective definition of serious crimes. There would be implementation challenges defining what a serious crime might be. Even if they were to call out certain types of offenses, not every offense is classified in a one-to-one way in different jurisdictions. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 19 of 21 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 04/14/2025 Planner Atkinson observed that the staff report mentioned that it is not possible to prevent someone from running a criminal history check without consent but the procedures offered in the code offered some protections. This was one means by which to address it. It was not necessarily a problem with the ordinance itself but a situation where it was one way to be able to address some of the circumstances with the problems with criminal history databases and providing renters with a fair opportunity to compete. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims underscored that they all appreciated the illogic of a lookback period that started with sentencing. Public Comment: 1. Emily R. spoke on behalf of SV@H expressing their support for the proposed Fair Chance Housing Ordinance and to urge Council to commit Staff time and resource to ensure effective enforcement for the full suite of tenant protections they adopted in recent years. 2. Anil B. (Zoom), California Apartment Association, expressed why he had concern about the duplicative nature of this ordinance. He commended Planner Atkinson for her diligent outreach to all parties involved. 3. Mary Kate S. (Zoom), chair of Human Relations Commission, addressed Councilmember Lu’s question about loopholes by saying they set up the procedure where a tenant would have to give their consent to having their background checked and it would be more clear when that background check uncovered something informing the landlord’s decision. She remarked they talked about the lookback period but the nuance around when it would begin was not something they turned onto and she thought it was worthy of more discussion. She mentioned other issues brought up by the HRC that were listed on page 309 of the packet. Vice Mayor Veenker appreciated the work that had gone into the proposal and understood the link between being unhoused and recidivism. She supported the consistency with the state law prohibiting consideration of anything but directly related convictions and the procedural steps suggested by the HRC that a landlord must take before rejecting somebody based on criminal history such as making a condition offer before doing a background check. She wondered if a little more work could be done finding out if they could get incarceration and release data and if not figure out what would be the best proxy. She remarked the criminal justice system takes a variety of factors into account in setting the length of a sentence. They had to figure out a way around the issue of the longer a sentence is, the less likely it will be found out. She was not inclined to pass the ordinance at that time but wanted to continue to pursue it as a City. She hoped the things she mentioned would be looked at and they could see it again. Mayor Lauing concurred with looking at calculating the lookback by the release date. He asked if comparing to other jurisdictions meant other states or other cities within the state and if they SUMMARY MINUTES Page 20 of 21 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 04/14/2025 would be able to apply the California standards. He commented that criminals get past the system and they could not ignore the threat to tenants and landlords was real. Deputy City Attorney Salah stated it was a comparison between states. She stated it might not be easy to understand what the relevant California standards would be because the categories of crimes in different jurisdictions were different. Councilmember Stone was confused by the recidivism rates shown on the graph on page 3 of the Department of Corrections report and asked if Staff could clarify where in the report it showed most convictions occur during years 1 and 2 and falls off in year 3. He asked if there was a way hate incident would show up on a criminal background check or if it could be incorporated as something a landlord could consider. He wanted to know if a landlord who found out that someone went off on a racist rant would have a basis to deny an applicant based on that. He inquired if an applicant wanted to dispute any of the findings of a criminal background if there was a requirement that the landlord would have to consider that evidence or if it was at the discretion of the landlord and if the prospective tenant was still unhappy if they would have the right to pursue legal litigation. He wanted to see the lookback window changed. He wanted to ensure they were using data that was informing their decision and finding a balance. He thought separating serious crimes would be an important piece to this. He was more comfortable with a three-year lookback window for less serious crimes. He thought more serious crimes should require a 10-year lookback window. He suggested looking closer into exempting single-family home rentals even if the property owner was not living there. Planner Atkinson stated she would be happy to take another look at that and write up the response. Molly Stump, City Attorney indicated that Staff would have to follow up about hate incidents. Deputy City Attorney Salah did not think this ordinance would prohibit that because if it did not show up in the criminal history, it would not be taking action based on something in the criminal history and did not change the landlord’s ability to not rent to someone who engaged in that type of behavior. She explained a landlord would be required to consider mitigating information or evidence of inaccuracy in the criminal history report they receive. If they ultimately decide to take adverse action based on the applicant’s criminal history information, they have to include in the written statement of reasons how they took that information into account and that becomes a documented paper trail for the applicant whose next step would be to bring a lawsuit. Planner Atkinson added the actual information the landlord needed to provide could be found in draft ordinance 9.75.070E1b. Councilmember Burt wanted to talk about distinguishing between serious and less serious crimes. He did not think the fact that they could not have perfection in how they establish the standards should not mean they abandon certain principles of distinguished distinction. He opined they knew the difference between a serious violent crime and trespassing. He recognized it would not be simple to reconcile that but did not accept that they could not make SUMMARY MINUTES Page 21 of 21 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 04/14/2025 those distinctions because of state-to-state differences. He discussed his understanding of the Statewide Recidivism Rates. He observed that they had to figure out how to strike the right balance in the Fair Chance Housing Ordinance. Mayor Lauing asked Director Lait if their comments would be enough to bring back another draft or if it should go to a subcommittee. Director Lait replied they were open to any path forward. He felt they had information they could react to. Options to consider would be to engage with the Policy and Services Committee to work through the process to refine the ordinance or go back and work with the HRC. City Manager Shikada offered that they could bring it back to Council after conferring with the city attorney’s office to see what would be the most defensible approach to extending the lookback period to a level reflective of the seriousness of the crime. Vice Mayor Veenker wanted to bear in mind that part of the purpose of the Fair Chance Ordinance was to help reduce recidivism rates by giving people stable environments and having them be housed. She wanted to make Staff aware of the tiers of sex crimes moving forward to the next step. She was fine for it to go to P&S. She wanted to see the Planning Department and the city attorney’s office work on this. Councilmember Reckdahl commented they had to balance their good intentions with the good intentions for the landlords and other tenants and could not close their eyes that other tenants were impacted by this. He thought Policy and Services was the right way to go. He did not think the lookback window made sense to start at sentencing and it had to be from release and they also needed to separate minor crimes from violent crimes. MOTION: Councilmember Burt moved, seconded by Councilmember Reckdahl to refer this item to the Policy and Services Committee. MOTION PASSED: 7-0 Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 10:18 P.M.