CITY COUNCIL
SUMMARY MINUTES
Special Meeting
March 24, 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 PM.
Present In Person: Burt, Lauing, Lu, Lythcott‐Haims, Reckdahl, Stone, Veenker Present Remotely: None
Absent: None
Special Orders of the Day
1. Interview Candidates for the Boards and Commissions Spring Recruitment – Architectural Review Board, Human Relations Commission, and Utilities Advisory Commission; CEQA Status ‐ Not a Project.
Architectural Review Board:
Board Member David Hirsch handed out illustrations of two projects to the Council. Board Member Hirsch believed 824 San Antonio Road represented the ARB ’s high point where the Board suggested several design improvements and approved the project. The ARB approved 10 townhomes on Encina although Board Member Hirsch voted no. Board Member Hirsch felt the Encina project had no proper open space and was a lost opportunity to design a coordinated community environment next to one of Palo Alto’s iconic co mmercial centers. Board Member Hirsch felt the ARB should have paused any decision at the first application and asked the Planning Department or preferably an outside consultant to study the entire site comprehensively. The PTC had a tied vote based on similar concerns. Board Member Hirsch hoped to remain on the ARB with the intention of focusing on more comprehensiv e planning of
upcoming Housing Element projects.
Mayor Lauing asked how the ARB could get a more unified design if the landlord did not own all the space. Board Member Hirsch thought the ARB should have an opportunity to provide feedback during the preliminary sch
ematic stage.
Some applicants have complained about the City’s long process of going through the ARB and PTC, so Councilmember Reckdahl wanted to know what Board Member Hirsch thought of the flow and if there was any way to improve it. Board Me mber Hirsch acknowledged it was a problem but Planning determined when a project was ready for the ARB. As an example,
SUMMARY MINUTES
Sp. City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 03/24/2025
several projects were presented to the ARB for 660 University but access to the parking was off Middlefield, which was not going to work because Middlefield was busy and would be busier as traffic increases, especially if the building in Menlo Park was built. Board Member Hirsch did not think the ARB was the cause for delaying the application. Board Member Hirsch felt that some projects came to the ARB that were not completely thought through by the architect or Planning, or the ARB had opinions that were significantly different that those reviews.
Mayor Lauing queried if Board Member Hirsch was suggesting an ARB opinion session. Board Member Hirsch stated his idea was for the ARB to have an early opportunity to ask for consideration of any issues and maybe ask for alternatives but he was not suggesting another hearing.
Additional housing will transform San Antonio, El Camino, and the downtowns. Councilmember Burt asked what the ARB’s role was in the area plan as opposed to the review of individual projects. Board Member Hirsch stated there were areas where the ARB ought to be working on now even though nothing had come in yet. For the proposed project on Encina, Board Member Hirsch believed the ARB should have said they needed to see the whole site.
Candidate Semu Yavuz was one of the first LEED‐certified architects in the U.S. and worked as an architect/urban planner for about 15 years but in 2012 began working as a real estate investor focused on out‐of‐state affordable housing investment projects. Ms. Yavuz moved to Palo Alto in 2018, moved out in 2022, and returned. Young people were needed to continue Palo Alto’s legacy of innovation but they cannot afford to live here. Ms. Yavuz wanted to bring her outsider perspective to the ARB.
Councilmember Burt asked Ms. Yavuz how she would address the cost of housing in Palo Alto, and her familiarity with the emerging methods and available suppliers of modular and prefabricated construction that had good architecture and how to embrace it. Ms. Yavuz replied that manufactured housing had been her focus in the Midwest for the last 5 to 10 years.
In the Midwest, the median house costs $250,000 but a new modular home was $70,000 or $80,000. Ms. Yavuz thought you could quickly remove the stigma with modular housing if it was under $500,000 and employed good architecture and urban design; however, the land purchase problem in Palo Alto needed to be remedied.
Councilmember Lythcott‐Haims inquired if Ms. Yavuz had best practices for the minimum number of slots in safe parking lots to accommodate RV and vehicle dwellers or maybe tiny homes to make it the most cost efficient, taking into account the distributed cost of providing sewage, water, and electricity to individual sites. Ms. Yavuz answered the higher the better because of the economy of scale. Costs will come down significantly if you could build 100 or 200 units. Because of the scarcity of land, Ms. Yavuz thought tiny or modular homes had to go up vertically to increase the density.
Based on her urban design background, Councilmember Lu asked Ms. Yavuz to talk about one change she would made to Palo Alto’s zoning or design guidelines and why. Ms. Yavuz found
SUMMARY MINUTES
Sp. City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 03/24/2025
the historic district design guidelines were not flexible enough to promote development because the restrictive language discouraged developers from going forward with a project. Ms.
Yavuz suggested having generalized design guidelines as to the scale of the buildings rather than continuing the same style. Ms. Yavuz opined that modern design fit into the context as long as the scale worked.
Board Member Yingxi Chen is a licensed architect. Prior to starting her own practice, Board Member Chen worked for different architectural firms, which helped her understand the importance of site analysis. In recent years, Board Member Chen had focused on custom home design, working directly with her clients, attending design review meetings, and addressing neighbors’ concerns. Board Member Chen’s interaction with clients, neighbors, and various agencies allowed her to see projects in a broader perspective. Board Member Chen had been an ARB Member for the last three years and wished to have the opportunity to continue serving our community for another three years.
Councilmember Lythcott‐Haims wondered what role the ARB should play in the San Antonio Road Area Plan. Board Member Chen wished the ARB could have a more active role in larger urban planning. Board Member Chen was interested in the San Antonio Corridor. In the ARB’s review of projects in the San Antonio area, Board Member Chen noticed common issues with outside circulation because it was a congested corridor. Incoming/outgoing tenants’ cars, trash collection, car share drop‐off/pick‐up areas, and delivery/unloading areas need to be planned very carefully and solved smartly as those spaces were essential to the building’s operations.
Mayor Lauing wondered if Board Member Chen’s answer about the circulation pattern was also relative to design, and what her perspective was on the design aspect of having historic and modern buildings. Board Member Chen stated that each city had a unique character. Palo Alto was a low to medium‐density, so she did not expect any skyscrapers. With the housing crisis, change was inevitable but change was being made gradually, and the scale should be more appropriate to our town.
Vice Mayor Veenker asked how the ARB and PTC could avoid duplication of effort. Board Member Chen mentioned that the ARB has talked about having more collaboration between boards and commissions. Board Member Chen wanted to have a joint meeting between the PTC and ARB because some issues overlap, such as traffic.
Human Relations Commission:
Candidate Sridhar Karnam is a resident of Palo Alto and his kids attend Ohlone School. Mr.
Karnam previously spoke to some Councilmembers to understand the priorities. Mr. Karnam related very closely to the HRC’s mission of being just and fair to vulnerable communities, and was particularly interested in helping youth mental health. Housing was one of Mr. Karnam’s top priorities and he wanted to learn about people who were going through transitional housing. Mr. Karnam’s motivation for being on the HRC was to help the City of Palo Alto to become a role model for neighboring cities.
SUMMARY MINUTES
Sp. City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 03/24/2025
Councilmember Stone wanted more HRC engagement on youth mental health. Councilmember Stone inquired how the HRC could work on youth mental health and if the candidate had any background experience. Mr. Karnam replied he moved here from India 15 years ago. In India, Mr. Karnam worked for an orphanage for differently abled and minority high school girls. Mr.
Karnam helped with fundraising for the school. Mr. Karnam saw suicide and mental health issues impacting the community. Mr. Karnam suggested setting up a responsive task force leveraging City’s properties such as schools, libraries, and parks, applying contemporary technology policies to have continuous feedback loops and engagement on youth mental health issues.
Mr. Karnam’s application mentioned the community listening session on local Muslim, Palestinian, and Arab experiences. Mayor Lauing queried how the City can keep this conversation going, should it be a regular yearly agenda item or did the candidate have other suggestions. Mr. Karnam felt that a continuous feedback loop was one way to understand the community. Mr. Karnam suggested identifying ambassadors in each of those communities because people may not be comfortable talking to governing agencies or Commissioners but may be willing to talk to their faith leaders and community members. Mr. Karnam recommended reaching out to the community and leveraging youth.
Councilmember Reckdahl asked the candidate to talk about his experience and learnings from being the only Hindu volunteer in a Muslim‐led initiative. Mr. Karnam stated he grew up around Hindu conservatives and he did not agree with the Muslim bashing and Islamophobia. Mr.
Karnam’s friend was working with a foundation in the Bay Area that created small fundraising events and his friend mentioned the desire to hold bigger functions. Mr. Karnam worked in tech and initially provided his help with social media. The second year, Mr. Karnam organized a hugely successful event with an Indian celebrity where 1000 to 1500 people attended, which he repeated the following year. Mr. Karnam has seen how one additional voice can amplify other voices significantly, so he looks for opportunities to do so.
In closing, Mr. Karnam stated he loved Palo Alto and intended to stay at least 15 years. Mr.
Karnam deeply cared about public health, safety, and his kids’ health. Mr. Karnam wanted to help make Palo Alto a role model for his kids and other families.
Candidate Jonake Bose believed people needed to listen, learn, and collaborate with each other, especially those who might be different from you. Ms. Bose grew up in India. Ms. Bose attended a boarding school in the Himalayas and learned about different religions and cultures, as well as the importance of respecting, collaborating, and caring for others. Ms. Bose’s graduating class of 50 included 22 nationalities of diverse socioeconomic, ethnic, and religious backgrounds. Ms. Bose came to the U.S. on a scholarship for her undergraduate studies. Ms.
Bose has a free college counseling practice, helping low‐income kids get into college. Ms. Bose appreciated the diverse, integrated community in Palo Alto and has attended services within a five‐minute walk of her home at a conservative Jewish prayer hall, Buddhist temple, church, and Friends Meetinghouse. Ms. Bose has been a Palo Alto resident for over 30 years. Ms. Bose worked in corporate lending and process improvement. Ms. Bose volunteered in the
SUMMARY MINUTES
Sp. City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 03/24/2025
community, had participated in school site councils, and taught cooking at the Palo Alto Adult School and Wilton Court. Before and during the pandemic, Ms. Bose was the executive director of a small Palo Alto nonprofit where one of her priorities was increasing employees’ salaries to a living wage. Ms. Bose cared about diversity, equality, and supporting youth, especially in regard to mental health. Ms. Bose dealt with mental health within her family and did suicide crisis counseling when she was a residence hall director in graduate school and thereafter.
Vice Mayor Veenker thanked Ms. Bose for her work with LifeMoves and Hotel de Zink, and for being on the boards of YCS and DreamCatchers. Vice Mayor Veenker asked what could the City do for parents of students who were struggling and perhaps the parents did not feel like they belonged here. Ms. Bose stated that during the pandemic they brought parents together virtually to communicate with each other and learned of their shared problems. Ms. Bose was a big fan of community and bringing people together so they realize they are not alone.
Mayor Lauing read in Ms. Bose’s application about being an agent of change and inquired if she had changes she wanted to make on the HRC. Ms. Bose did not see anything that the HRC needed to change. Ms. Bose wanted to listen, learn, and understand the issues. Ms. Bose has done change management at work when processes needed to be changed but first would listen and understand the issues. Ms. Bose appreciated the listening sessions and thought they were very valuable. Ms. Bose wanted to work with the HRC group, see what their collective priorities were, and build from there.
Candidate Aji Oliyide was born and raised in Georgia but is now a resident of Palo Alto. Ms.
Oliyide’s parents immigrated to the U.S. in the 70s and attended school here. Ms. Oliyide was a strong believer of being an active participant of the community and making a difference so when she leaves she knows it was better because she was there. Ms. Oliyide had traveled to over 35 countries, including Nepal, Argentina, and Jordan. Travel was important to Ms. Oliyide because it teaches you new perspectives, different ways of living, and makes you understand you are a small piece of a bigger puzzle. Ms. Oliyide gravitated toward causes focusing on vulnerable populations. When Ms. Oliyide moved to California in 2015, she lived in San Francisco and was on the SF CASA Board (San Francisco Court Appointed Special Advocates) for three years, an organization supporting foster youth. Ms. Oliyide sits on the Global Glimpse Board in Oakland, an organization providing subsidized immersive international travel experiences for high school seniors. Ms. Oliyide has two young children and aging parents, so youth and seniors were important to her. Ms. Oliyide saw the HRC as an impactful way to give back to the Palo Alto community.
Councilmember Stone asked the candidate what the HRC should address over the next four years, as a lot of the core work the HRC focused on was being attacked by the Administration and DEI work was being questioned. Ms. Oliyide was interested in youth, mental health, and the wellness of our youth and aging population. Ms. Oliyide works for Google and they were impacted by those regulations. Ms. Oliyide believed people and organizations should stay steadfast in what they believe in, their priorities and values, regardless of what was going on
SUMMARY MINUTES
Sp. City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 03/24/2025
externally or what was popular. The children and elderly do not care about the regulations; they care about their day‐to‐day life.
Councilmember Reckdahl queried how the candidate compared living in Palo Alto to other Bay Area cities, particularly the City’s commitment and assistance to vulnerable populations. Ms.
Oliyide answered it was very nice in Palo Alto. Ms. Oliyide had lived in the Civic Center area off Van Ness in San Francisco, Dublin, Oakland, and San Jose, which each had pluses and minuses.
Ms. Oliyide did not have children and was not married when she moved to San Francisco. Since then, her priorities and values changed. Ms. Oliyide was drawn to Palo Alto because she wanted to be in a community that was positive for her children and that would provide her children with a solid educational standing. Palo Alto was esteemed for its educational system, which separated Palo Alto from other Bay Area cities. Ms. Oliyide had coworkers and friends living in other cities who send their children to private schools to give their children the level of education they were looking for. Parks and libraries enrich our life. Feeling good when you come home was a distinct value‐add of Palo Alto.
Councilmember Reckdahl asked the candidate if there was anything that Palo Alto could improve. Ms. Oliyide has lived in Palo Alto for about two months, so she would have a more educated, data‐driven response after she became more entrenched and involved in the community.
Sean Patrick King did not respond when called up for his interview.
Vice Mayor Veenker departed the meeting but will watch the videos of the interviews before casting her vote.
Candidate Sunanda Amishra moved to Palo Alto in 2009 because it was the number one school district in the area. Ms. Amishra was originally from India, came for her master’s at Oregon State University in 1993, and moved to California in 1996, living in various Bay Area cities. Ms.
Amishra worked in the tech industry for a few years before adopting her two children and deciding to be a stay‐at‐home mom. Ms. Amishra volunteered for a nonprofit organization supporting underprivileged children in India and the U.S. Ms. Amishra was interested in helping those who cannot help themselves, supporting unhoused people, and helping teens who felt left out with the current Administration raising the wall against LGBTQ, diversity, equity, and inclusion. The community was divided and many people felt distress. Instead of getting pulled into discussions, Ms. Amishra wanted to do more and speak less.
Councilmember Lythcott‐Haims asked the candidate if she was on the HRC what approach she would take to convene conversations with faith communities and its neighbors with the goal of providing greater access to safe parking. Ms. Amishra stated her brother was homeless for a short time. Ms. Amishra came from a community that believed if you had an Ivy League education or a very good financial background, you could never go down or it was considered a moral failure, which she disagreed with. Ms. Amishra had friends who were church members who feared homeless people because they thought the homeless were criminals. Ms. Amishra suggested data‐driven discussions on who we were trying to accommodate because fear causes
SUMMARY MINUTES
Sp. City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 03/24/2025
people to back out. It was helpful to have communication, awareness, and educational programs to bring information to the community with the help of community members. For example, neighborhood block coordinators could go house to house handing out flyers.
Councilmember Stone queried how the candidate saw the HRC playing a role in navigating these next few years with the villainization of DEI and other issues. Ms. Amishra watched the HRC’s last meeting where 20 nonprofits were funded and was impressed by the work each of those organizations did and how it affected the Palo Alto community. Ms. Amishra felt that people who push back on DEI or who say transgender was polluting our schools do not see the work being done in the community. Watching the HRC’s two‐hour meeting can convince people that our community was together in solving problems, not divided. Ms. Amishra could take that two‐hour meeting and create a three‐page PowerPoint to give to community members to show we are in agreement on many things instead of focusing on what we disagree on.
Candidate Jessica Nelson has been a resident of Palo Alto for six years. Ms. Nelson is a realtor and has three children. Ms. Nelson serves as a Director on the Santa Clara County Realtor Foundation Board. Ms. Nelson was encouraged to apply for this position to give back in an effective way for the amazing things the City was doing that she had benefitted from.
Councilmember Reckdahl asked Ms. Nelson to talk about her nonprofit, Pinnacle Coast Global.
Ms. Nelson created Pinnacle Coast because she learned through her experience in property management in the East Oakland area that the community lacked a lot of resources and needed opportunities. Ms. Nelson lost her brother to suicide. Ms. Nelson’s nonprofit offered tutoring, mock interviews, and connected people to legal aid and other nonprofits in the area. Ms.
Nelson’s organization got the City of Oakland and churches involved, delivered free groceries to the community, did a turkey drive, and held several events with the police and fire department to engage with the community. The area crime rate dropped. Pinnacle Coast mobilized youth and adults in the area to clean up the neighborhood.
Mayor Lauing noticed Ms. Nelson’s application mentioned her goal to create more opportunities for affordable housing and inquired if she had any new ideas. Ms. Nelson replied that Palo Alto had a gap in wealth. Ms. Nelson felt that a program needed to be in place that was supportive but had an expectation such as a deadline in order to promote growth because many subsidy programs promote support but do not push people from their stagnation.
In closing, Ms. Nelson felt that her experience and background in housing made her a great candidate. The City had a project for mental health that Ms. Nelson wanted to support, having experienced loss in that area.
Utilities Advisory Commission:
Since graduate school in 1980, Candidate Craig Barney had been involved in environmental management, chemical manufacturing, and chemical research, with experience in wastewater treatment chemistry and a background in air pollution chemistry. Mr. Barney’s reason for applying for the UAC was to protect the environment. Although sustainability was not within
SUMMARY MINUTES
Sp. City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 03/24/2025
the realm of the UAC, Mr. Barney felt that environmental protection was an important part of delivering utilities to customers. About 10 years ago, Mr. Barney was on Palo Alto’s Compost Committee. Mr. Barney was part of the Citizens CDBG. Mr. Barney had been a resident of Palo Alto for about 30 years and his kids graduated from Palo Alto schools. Mr. Barney will retire from Stanford University on June 2 and was looking to get more engaged in the City during his retirement.
Councilmember Lu wanted the candidate to talk about his perspectives on fiber‐to‐home, the pilot area, and use of funds. Mr. Barney was glad to see the pilot was launched. The internet was invented in Palo Alto and Mr. Barney thought not having fiber to our homes was a disgrace when other towns had it. Mr. Barney understood there were many obstacles but he was very interested in pushing for fiber to the home.
Councilmember Lu inquired what the candidate thought about the financial tradeoffs and priorities versus funding other critical utilities’ projects. Mr. Barney was not aware of how the City was balancing its financial considerations but he welcomed the opportunity to take a look at it. Mr. Barney always looked at costs when operating his program at Stanford because it was critical to protect the environment as effectively as possible.
Councilmember Burt asked the candidate for some examples of what the UAC should give greater attention to or areas he wanted to focus on in the context of sustainability. Mr. Barney was very interested in the wastewater treatment plant and its operations. Stanford’s laboratories discharge to the wastewater treatment plant. Mr. Barney along with Julia Nussbaum in Stanford’s Water group looked at how they could control those materials being discharged down the drain. The treatment plant can remove pollutants from the wastewater but Mr. Barney felt that sometimes the plant’s approach on chemicals was too strict. Mr.
Barney had been a chemist at a sewage treatment plant in San Pablo.
Councilmember Reckdahl wanted the candidate to discuss increasing the City’s green energy portfolio as he mentioned in his application. Mr. Barney stated that Stanford built a large solar plant south of the Central Valley to provide solar power to the grid. Mr. Barney thought that kind of facility was very important because it was effective and efficient when you track the sun and find the right location where land was affordable. Mr. Barney was not necessarily suggesting the City of Palo Alto build one but supporting that kind of activity was critical.
Candidate Olha Tanriverdi was interested in this position because he worked almost five years each for PG&E and Southern California Edison and thought his background could help. Mr.
Tanriverdi spoke about providing safe, reliable, and cost‐efficient energy to the public. Mr.
Tanriverdi had experience with model‐based pricing, contract evaluation, and market design changes.
Mayor Lauing asked how the candidate transitioned from working 10 years with two electric companies to working five years with games. Mr. Tanriverdi explained his background was in electrical engineering but he also worked as a data scientist. At PG&E, Mr. Tanriverdi worked in
SUMMARY MINUTES
Sp. City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 03/24/2025
Treasury performing evaluations of contracts. Mr. Tanriverdi got into coding and built tools to automate contract evaluations. Mr. Tanriverdi understood energy generation policies, procurement of energy, transmission systems, pricing, cost recovery above and below the line, RFO processes, and resource adequacy.
Councilmember Reckdahl noted Mr. Tanriverdi’s application mentioned he was a FORTRAN programmer and did Monte Carlo looking at the distribution of risk exposure. Councilmember Reckdahl inquired how the candidate determined the distribution of commodity prices. Mr.
Tanriverdi replied that contracts and energy producing units were not linear, so they ran a Monte Carlo simulation. Mr. Tanriverdi created 10,000 generating points giving 24‐hour pricing and ran it to see the distribution of cost and revenue. More than a hundred contracts were run in the simulation and each contract’s impact to the portfolio was evaluated.
Councilmember Lu asked what were some best practices or changes in the market that Palo Alto or similar small utilities could learn or adopt from larger utilities. Mr. Tanriverdi answered least cost, reliable, and safe. For example, looking at the number of cycles their given electric storage was utilizing, a fire factor addresses the safety section, least cost depended on the units we run and evaluating the revenue it will bring, and reliability takes into consideration when the unit was available such as wind and solar time. Integration was a broad question he needed to look at. Mr. Tanriverdi was not familiar with the megawatt level in Palo Alto and how many contracts the City had.
In closing, Mr. Tanriverdi was interested in the UAC position because he believed he could help the Council. Mr. Tanriverdi saw the YouTube videos from previous meetings. With Governor Newsom’s executive order to change some of the contracts that NEM 1.0 and NEM 2.0 might be subject to, Mr. Tanriverdi felt he could help provide evaluation or advice.
Commissioner Rachel Croft was serving a partial two‐year term and hoped to serve another term. Commissioner Croft’s interest in the UAC stemmed from her desire to make an impact on climate and sustainability, and she saw utilities as major levers in achieving climate goals.
Commissioner Croft’s background included 30 years in healthcare marketing, finance, and strategy, with the eight most recent years working for a company applying behavioral science to smoking cessation. Commissioner Croft believed behavioral science had a huge role to play in utilities and the challenges lying ahead for S/CAP and management of the utility. During her two years on the UAC, Commissioner Croft weighed in on important areas of investment, gave input on grid modernization, and advocated for more detailed planning around new technologies such as vehicle to grid, smart panels, and demand side management. Commissioner Croft served on the Finance Committee for two years. Commissioner Croft pushed for visibility to the financial model for fiber to the premises to determine whether to continue making significant investments. Rollout of time‐of‐use rates provided an opportunity to influence customer behavior to achieve the S/CAP and Utility goals by shifting load to cheaper, cleaner energy.
Commissioner Croft encouraged CPAU to develop a knowledgebase of technologies to assist customers in modifying their behavior to make the most of time‐of‐use rates. The challenge of
SUMMARY MINUTES
Sp. City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 03/24/2025
getting customers to engage with their AMI data and wanting to change was where Commissioner Croft looked forward to contributing her experience.
Councilmember Burt asked if Commissioner Croft felt the UAC was adequately empowered for its voice to have influence on staff and Council. Commissioner Croft pointed out that the UAC was appointed by the Council to advise the Council on decisions to make for the City but the UAC meetings were with staff. Commissioner Croft thought the UAC was exceptionally capable and meetings were very detailed but they had discussed how best to clearly deliver their findings and thoughts to the Council. At times, the Council’s decision was different than what the UAC recommended, so the UAC decided if they had a significant decision that they should have a UAC member come to the Council meeting as a representative to talk to Council directly.
Councilmember Burt wondered if the UAC was more reactive than proactive. Commissioner Croft stated there were some items where the UAC suggested having a pre‐meeting before making a decision. The UAC had not been presented theoretical time‐of‐use rates. The UAC asked staff multiple times about integrating technologies such as vehicle to grid or distributed energy resources but the UAC had not received a lot of detail on it to opine.
Councilmember Stone asked what Commissioner Croft had learned during her partial term that made her feel better suited to address in a second term. Commissioner Croft had a big learning curve during her first term because every area of the utility was new to her. Commissioner Croft learned about the cadence of what the City had to do every year and the challenges of running a utility with a limited staff of a few hundred people. The UAC opined on things that had been a long time in the works, so there was a buildup of knowledge over time. The UAC lost some long‐term members recently and the remaining members had a relatively short tenure; however, staff had a vast amount of knowledge and could answer the UAC’s questions.
Candidate Barry Wolf had been employed as a research scientist/biochemical engineer in the biopharma industry for about 25 years and had an undergraduate in mechanical engineering. In the past decade, Mr. Wolf became interested in solar photovoltaic, EVs, charging, grid reliability, hydropower, battery energy, and stationary storage. Mr. Wolf had been driving an EV since 2015, had a heat pump water heater, three EVs, and two charging stations at home. Mr.
Wolf was glad that Palo Alto had its own utility and cared about the people it served. Mr. Wolf was glad to assist with any aspects within the purview of the Utility. The City could take advantage of the climate, abundant solar, and rapid advancement of battery technology to improve grid reliability and reduce the cost of electricity for its citizens. The 2023 City plan for electricity mentioned battery energy storage but not vehicle to home. A bidirectional vehicle could provide energy to the home during peak periods and help the Utility reduce the need for infrastructure improvements such as adding or replacing transformers to have sufficient capacity. In 2041, the City wanted to have 25‐megawatt backup for four hours, which Mr. Wolf calculated could be met with 20% of single family homes generating their own solar and vehicle to home. The City could leverage the rising EV ownership to reduce the cost of meeting future electricity demands. Mr. Wolf wanted to give back to the City and was excited to help.
SUMMARY MINUTES
Sp. City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 03/24/2025
Councilmember Burt asked if the candidate had followed the City Council’s committee on the Sustainability and Climate Action Plan and if it was an area he was interested in engaging with.
Mr. Wolf read about S/CAP from the local newspaper and believed sustainability was very important. Based on what he had seen in politics recently, Mr. Wolf suggested focusing on reducing cost in order to convince people to do things that were sustainable.
Councilmember Reckdahl queried if the applicant thought the City should explicitly encourage V to H and V to G or if it would happen spontaneously from time‐of‐use rates, and if there were other things the City should do to encourage electrification. Mr. Wolf was not sure about V to G because it was complicated. Mr. Wolf recommended focusing on V to H because it helped the grid. The vehicle had to be bidirectional as an AC modality and required some hardware to the home, which potentially could be encouraged through subsidies as those were available for other home electrification aspects. Mr. Wolf did not know how much of a subsidy but if the City believed that encouraging V to H would take some load off the general infrastructure within the City and avoid needing to upgrade transformers or neighborhood grid systems, then it was a benefit to the city as a whole to subsidize the electric changes needed to support V to H. Mr.
Wolf was aware of the legal and political issues with limiting gas but felt it was a valuable mission for the City to move ahead with as best as it could.
Commissioner Phil Metz was seeking a second term and thought he was well qualified for the UAC. Commissioner Metz had experience in senior executive management including at the VP level at a large manufacturing company, had a strong technology background, a PhD in physics, and experience in the energy industry. One of Commissioner Metz’s accomplishments during his tenure with the UAC was getting more detailed presentations on grid modernization.
Emergency preparedness was one of Commissioner Metz’s top areas of interest. The electrical utility had much more to do to be prepared for emergencies. The City had worked on fiber to the home for about 20 years. Commissioner Metz was on the UAC’s Subcommittee on fiber to the home, was proud of that accomplishment, and wanted the opportunity to follow through.
As liaison to the UAC, Mayor Lauing saw and appreciated Commissioner Metz telling staff that the UAC not only needed more information but to do it faster. Mayor Lauing asked Commissioner Metz about using new technologies in relation to grid modernization.
Commissioner Metz and Commissioner Phillips wrote a Commission memo about needing to think about upcoming technologies. Based on his consulting experience, Commissioner Metz would use a scenario‐based approach to evaluate different options. There was a glut of renewable energy at certain times of the day, particularly solar during midday, and the rapidly changing regulatory and legal environment in the state needed to be taken into account. UAC’s discussions addressed decisions somebody made in 1975, so an electric utility had to think 20 or more years down the road.
Councilmember Burt inquired if Commissioner Metz had any thoughts on how we might leverage resources with the CCA or Stanford to expand our capabilities. Commissioner Metz thought Stanford’s world‐class center of expertise and energy institutes was a good resource. In an uncertain environment, you can conduct pilots to try different things on a small scale and
SUMMARY MINUTES
Sp. City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 03/24/2025
see what happens, such as vehicle to grid. Use benchmarks. Hawaiian utilities have a problem with parts of the island having no people or roads, so the grid was very straggly and had some of the features we face in having distributed energy resources. Do analysis. Commissioner Metz wanted the City to do more benchmarking and pilots.
In closing, Commissioner Metz stated CPAU was a gem and was respected throughout the world for being a leader. A century ago, fossil fuel was cheap but somebody suggested buying a share of a hydroelectric dam. Now we are benefitting incredibly from that decision and he wanted the UAC to keep making similar decisions. Commissioner Metz had the qualifications to help contribute and wanted the opportunity to do so.
Candidate Claude Ezran is an electrical engineer and was interested in energy issues. Mr. Ezran had visited many power plants and understood transmission issues. Mr. Ezran signed up to visit Stanford’s Central Energy Facility next week and hoped he could learn more about sustainability and innovation. Mr. Ezran’s last job was with a clean energy company that manufactured fuel cells. Mr. Ezran had a good understanding of how City commissions function, having served two terms on the HRC including as Vice Chair and Chair. Mr. Ezran was on the Cable Co‐Op Board of Directors, which functioned similar to a utility. Mr. Ezran was interested in grid reliability. Mr.
Ezran thought Palo Alto had too many power outages and should seek ways to remedy the situation and confine power outages to a smaller area. On March 10, 3500 households lost power from a car running into a power pole. Mr. Ezran was interested in seeing tangible results to see if there was a return on the investment from the deployment of AMI, if there were savings in electricity or water usage or if more campaigns were needed for people to look at their data on a frequent basis. The City needed a lot more electricity because of more EVs and electrical appliances and the expected increase in population from new housing. Grid modernization was a critical mid‐term and long‐term issue that Mr. Ezran wanted to use his analytical and financial skills and knowledge to help.
Councilmember Burt asked the candidate to speak to any additional areas he thought the UAC, Utility, and City should place greater emphasis on. Mr. Ezran mentioned conservation of electricity and water. Have campaigns with restaurants and companies to reduce waste but address the issue of waste reduction creating a financial problem for the City because people pay based on the size of their garbage can, so use reserves or increase rates to make up for shrinking waste. More periods of drought can be expected in California and it was important to be prepared. Have great resilience to earthquakes and other big events.
Councilmember Stone inquired how the candidate’s past experience on the HRC would help him on the UAC. Mr. Ezran replied that when he was on the HRC he tried to have a very collegiate atmosphere and was very proud of helping people come to leadership positions to succeed him as vice chair or chair.
Councilmember Reckdahl wondered how the candidate’s experience with Cable Co‐op made him think about fiber to the home. Mr. Ezran stated that Cable Co‐op was similar to a utility in many ways, having subscribers and keeping them happy, discussing rates and type of service. A
SUMMARY MINUTES
Sp. City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 03/24/2025
board functioned like a commission in many ways. Working with colleagues, the Cable Co‐op Board decided to sell to AT&T instead of going bankrupt, which was a momentous decision but the right one.
Staff stated an email was sent to the Council. Expiring members can stay on the ARB until a successor was appointed.
MOTION: Councilmember Stone moved, seconded by Councilmember Reckdahl, to allow the expiring commissioner(s) of the Architectural Review Board to remain seated on the board until new appointments are made and to reopen the Architectural Review Board recruitment for additional candidates.
MOTION PASSED: 6‐0‐1, Vice Mayor Veenker absent.
Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements
None
Consent Calendar
Councilmembers Burt, Reckdahl, and Lythcott‐Haims requested to pull Agenda Item Number 3.
Public Comment:
1. Mora O. commented on Consent Item 3. Mora O. expressed her gratitude and admiration for the dedication and leadership of Reverend Kaloma Smith, who recently completed eight years of service on the HRC. Mora O. stated the nonprofit partnership work plan could explore process that stem from a trust‐based philanthropy model, seeing nonprofits as partners and collaborators including in tracking usage of funds, measuring outcomes, and ensuring alignment with community priorities. The recommendation restricted funding requests to 501(c)(3) nonprofit organizations that exclusively served Palo Alto residents. Mora O. encouraged the Council to invite nonprofit organizations based in Palo Alto to apply for funding to serve residents and nonresidents needing these vital services.
2. On behalf of the Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce and in support of nonprofit Chamber members, Charlie W. wanted to address Consent Item 3. Charlie W. thanked Lupita Alamos for her efforts in reaching out to our nonprofit community to share the nonprofit partnership work plan and gather valuable feedback. Charlie W. commended staff and the Council for their ongoing efforts to support nonprofits in Palo Alto. One area of concern Charlie W. encouraged the Council to consider was to allow nonprofit
SUMMARY MINUTES
Sp. City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 03/24/2025
organizations based in Palo Alto to apply for this funding and not be restricted to only serving Palo Alto residents.
3. Evelyne K. commented on Consent Item 3. Evelyne K. thanked Reverend Kaloma Smith for his recent completion of eight years of service to the city as a very highly regarded member of the HRC. Evelyne K. was grateful for staff for laying out the plan for the nonprofits to better understand it and for the work done to include the voices of the grassroots. Evelyne K. agreed with the other public commenters that this new work plan needed to take into consideration that nonprofits who served our communities were capable of tracking how the money was spent. The City needed to look at the needs of the community, especially those residing in RVs and transient. With the re‐pavement of El Camino Real, families were displaced. Funding cannot be restricted to a specific area where folks are residing. Evelyne K. hoped the Council would take these suggestions into consideration.
MOTION: Councilmember Reckdahl moved, seconded by Councilmember Burt, to approve Agenda Item Numbers 2, 4‐11, and to pull Agenda Item Number 3.
MOTION PASSED: 6‐0‐1, Vice Mayor Veenker absent.
2. Approval of Minutes from March 10, 2025 Meeting
3. Nonprofit Partnership Workplan: Phased Approach
4. Approval of General Services Contract No. C25192791 with Synagro‐WTT, Inc., for Sludge Hauling Services for a Term of Three Years in an Amount Not to Exceed $2,584,756, for the Regional Water Quality Control Plant; CEQA Status – Not a Project
5. Approval of General Services Contract No. C25193187 with Universal Security Company in the Amount of $220,752 for Security Services at the Municipal Service Center and the Regional Water Quality Control Plant for a Period of Nine Months; CEQA status ‐ Categorically Exempt under Sections 15301 and 15302
6. Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing MuniServices, LLP, Hinderliter de Llamas & Associates, and Appropriate City Staff to Examine Sales and Use Tax Records from the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA); Adoption of an Ordinance Amending the Municipal Code to Update References to CDTFA; CEQA Status – Not a Project
7. Approval of Professional Services Contract C25187148 with Innovative Claims Solutions (ICS) in an Amount Not‐To‐Exceed Amount of $760,886 to provide Third‐Party Administration of Workers’ Compensation Benefits for a Period of One Year with an Option to Renew for up to Five Years Term. CEQA status ‐ Not a Project
SUMMARY MINUTES
Sp. City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 03/24/2025
8. Approval of Contract Amendment Number 2 to Contract Number C22183462 with Macias Gini & O'Connell, LLP, (MGO) to Add $415,071 and Extend the Term for Two Years for External Financial Audit Services; CEQA Status ‐‐ Not a Project.
9. Approval of Audit Reports for Grant Management And Utility Billing as Reviewed by Policy and Services Committee; CEQA: Not A Project
10. Approval of an Amended Funding Agreement with the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) for 2016 Measure B Bicycle and Pedestrian Education and Encouragement Program Funding; CEQA status – not a project.
11. SECOND READING: Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Creating New Chapter 10.66 (Pedestrian Only Streets and Community Streets) in Title 10 (Vehicles and Traffic) (FIRST READING: March 10, 2025 PASSED 7‐0)
Public Comment
1. Riley A. is a senior at Saratoga High School. Last year, she created a documentary on the impacts of light pollution. She wanted to share her documentary today and was excited that the City Council was close to adopting a dark sky ordinance.
2. Rani F., Chair of the Environmental Advocacy Committee for the Santa Clara Valley Bird Alliance, addressed the Council on behalf of Shani K., Junyan W., Lyn H., Drey K., and Tris R. [A video documentary on light pollution was played.]
3. Mora O. is a resident of Palo Alto. She thanked Vice Mayor Veenker and Councilmember Lythcott‐Haims for participating and cohosting the March 20 event to honor June Fleming, who served as Palo Alto City Manager from 1992 to 2000. She thanked City staff, elected officials, and community members who attended the event. A collection of notes and photographs to express condolences will be sent to June Fleming’s family on behalf of the community.
4. Marcie R. represented the owners of 314 Lytton Avenue and wanted to bring the Council’s attention to an unresolved issue. Since August of 2023, Green Waste, the City of Palo Alto, and the Palo Alto Police Department were repeatedly contacted regarding the homeless encampment in the garbage enclosure at 314 Lytton Avenue shared with 445 Bryant and 420 Florence. As employee safety had become a growing concern, security cameras have been installed on their buildings. Their employees use the City’s easement to pass through the garbage enclosure to access the public parking garage.
Nonfunctional sensor lights in the City‐owned parking garage created a dark, unsafe space where homeless individuals frequently reside and defecate. Marcie R. provided pictures of human feces often present on the City side of the easement, which her maintenance crew cleaned weekly. Defecating on public property was a violation of Palo
SUMMARY MINUTES
Sp. City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 03/24/2025
Alto Code Section 1.12.010. Marcie R. urged the City to take immediate action to maintain the cleanliness and safety of this public space because her maintenance team was not equipped to handle biohazard waste and should not be responsible to do so.
Marcie R. looked forward to working with the City to come up with a solution.
5. Jeffrey S. commented on the resolution adopted by Council last week, reaffirming the Council’s commitment to Palo Alto values and interests in the context of recent federal administrative actions. Executive Order 14173 required federal grantees to certify they do not operate illegal DEI programs. Jeffrey S. wanted to ensure that the City was evaluating whether this Executive Order had any bearing on the timing and/or availability of federal highway bridge program funding for the Newell Road Bridge replacement project.
Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions
City Manager Ed Shikada stated that no changes had been made to the amended agenda.
Councilmember Lythcott‐Haims announced the City was celebrating Supervisor Simitian this Sunday at Lucie Stern from 4 to 6. City Manager Shikada clarified that the event was at capacity.
A waiting list was attached to the Eventbrite. Community members who had sent their RSVP but could not make it were asked to cancel their RSVP so others could attend.
Vice Mayor Veenker returned at 8:24 PM.
Council took a break.
Action Items
AA1. Potential Support or Sponsorship of Senate Bill 457 (Becker) Regarding Housing Accountability Act Reforms
City Manager Ed Shikada wanted to make the Council aware of the tight timeline for notifying nonprofits of the process and mentioned that staff was prepared to discuss Consent Item 3 this evening.
City Manager Shikada acknowledged the quick pace of Item AA1 appearing on the agenda for Council discussion. City Manager Shikada’s first contact with Senator Becker’s Office was the week before last, and staff understood last week that the bill was moving forward. The bill would modify rules related to Builder’s Remedy development applications. The current law allowed a preliminary application as sufficient for establishing the status of an application as a Builder’s Remedy project. This bill would require complete application to qualify as a Builder’s Remedy project. The current window under State Law for applications to be submitted
SUMMARY MINUTES
Sp. City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 03/24/2025
extended until the HCD (Housing Community Development) Department of the State certified a City’s Housing Element as compliant. This bill would change the deadline to the date the City Council approved a Housing Element that was subsequently certified as compliant by HCD. The time sensitivity of action on this item was driven by an April 1 Senate Committee hearing date but staff has since heard that the earliest first hearing date was April 22. Knowing where the City Council’s position was likely to head was useful for staff. This item could be continued to the next scheduled City Council meeting on April 7.
Mayor Lauing invited discussion from the Council.
Councilmember Stone asked if the bill would apply retroactively to Builder’s Remedy applications submitted after April 15, when Palo Alto’s revised Housing Element was adopted.
Assistant City Attorney Albert Yang responded that this bill would apply to pending Builder’s Remedy applications with the exception that if a project was able to complete the entitlement process before January 1, 2026, when this bill would go into effect, then they would likely vest the right to the Builder’s Remedy by getting that entitlement. Councilmember Stone inquired if passage of this bill had an impact on the Mollie Stone project or the Sunset Magazine project in Menlo Park. City Attorney Molly Stump explained it was good practice when language was being introduced to allow the process to play out without speculating what language will ultimately get adopted by the Legislature and signed by the Governor. If the bill was approved, staff will do a case‐by‐case analysis and advise on all our projects. The Townsend Report only specified two preliminary applications submitted between April 15 and August 20 but Councilmember Stone wanted to know if there were any Builder’s Remedy projects submitted as preliminary applications prior to April 15 and later completed as formal applications.
Jonathan Lait, Planning and Development Services Director, replied that staff was still putting together the data and needed to do more analysis before responding.
Councilmember Burt encouraged the Council to focus on the merits of the legislation and legislative language as opposed to its impact on projects within the community.
Public Comment:
1. Nadia N. expressed her strong support for Senator Becker’s SB 457. Urbanist and architect Peter Calthorpe keynoted the State of the Valley conference a few years ago.
Mr. Calthorpe emphasized that height, design, and location should align with broader community planning and warned about the risk of out‐of‐context projects triggering a wave of local resistance. SB 457 ensured that the efforts made on the Housing Element were not undermined by rogue Builder’s Remedy speculative projects that ignored zoning and damaged public trust. The proposed 80 Willow Road project in Menlo Park was located near ecologically sensitive San Francisquito Creek and included three towers, the tallest reaching 461 feet, nearly three times the height of 525 University or 101 Alma. SB 457 backed Palo Alto’s approach to have meaningful housing without compromising scale, character, or environmental responsibility. Nadia N. urged the Council to support SB 457.
SUMMARY MINUTES
Sp. City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 03/24/2025
2. Michael Q. was a former Palo Alto resident. Michael Q. was concerned about public money being spent and members of staff given a directive to work with Senator Becker’s Office on SB 457 with little notification to the public. Michael Q. thought a continuance until the next Council meeting was appropriate because more time was necessary. Senator Becker’s constituents were not just in Palo Alto and this bill would impact the entire region. Michael Q. did not think this bill had good odds in Sacramento with Robert Rivas as Speaker of the House, Senator Wiener as Chair of the Budget Committee in a tough fiscal year, and Senator Skinner as head of the Housing Committee. Michael Q. believed the City was looking at this bill as a salvation for failing to come close to its promised RHNA numbers.
3. Kevin K. lived in Menlo Park, is a housing advocate, and was in favor of this bill. Some of the outcomes from Builder’s Remedy, such as 80 Willow, could overturn the State’s efforts and cause housing to go back to local control. Kevin K. gave Palo Alto credit for being brave in proposing changes to Builder’s Remedy. Kevin K. thought this bill was beneficial because not every Builder’s Remedy project was housing‐positive, especially those delivered late as placeholders and were more commercial. Kevin K. agreed with public commenter Nadia N.
4. Faith B. hoped the City will support this important bill. Faith B. agreed with Nadia N. and Kevin K.
5. Herb B. urged the Council to continue this item to the March 31 or April 7 meeting.
Amendments to a bill can be submitted to the Housing Committee by noon on April 14 for the April 22 meeting. The proposed language had not been generally available to the public. Continuing this item would give interested parties, the public, and the press an opportunity to see the proposed language and decide whether they support it or support it with changes.
6. Jeff S. was a former Palo Alto resident and is a Menlo Park City Councilmember in District 3 but spoke on his own behalf. He wanted to make the Council aware that the Menlo Park City Attorney and City Manager were aware of this legislation and will be looking at it very closely. He encouraged Palo Alto to work with Menlo Park on analyzing and discussing this bill to determine what made sense for both cities. The bill would have a big impact in Menlo Park. He expressed appreciation for Councilmember Burt reaching out to him about this.
7. Scott O. was unclear on what the City was asking the Council to support. He was engaged in the Housing Element process and heard from staff and others that they did not have time or spare cycles to do review. This bill was taking staff’s time during the most critical period of Housing Element implementation. Mid‐cycle review was in two years and we were behind. He wondered if 80 Willow was motivating this bill, why Menlo Park was not sponsoring it. Mollie Stone’s was our biggest Builder’s Remedy project and it had a lot of community support.
SUMMARY MINUTES
Sp. City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 03/24/2025
8. Peter D. is Palo Alto resident who thought he supported this legislation but needed to learn more about it. When He ran for City Council 20 years ago, the city’s jobs‐housing imbalance was 2.7:1 and now it was about 3.5:1. It was an issue of supply and demand, not having enough housing for our workforce. The problem with Builder’s Remedy was sometimes it focused more on supply. For example, 80 Willow Road proposed 665 housing units and 3000 jobs, so the housing crisis will get worse. Cities needed some encouragement from the State to do more on housing but we also need the nuances of the community and looking at what is best for our region. He believed Palo Alto had made a good faith effort recently to build housing in a smart way. He thought this legislation was important to regain some balance between what the State was encouraging and what our community can do to address the issue locally.
9. Winter D. did not support the Mollie Stone project and believed it was overreach. The City had a Planning Department, which the word “planning” connoted some rational thinking about proposed development issues, which she supported. Winter D. hoped the City would co‐sponsor SB 457. As it was written, “The intent of the bill is not to weaken existing housing laws but to provide a rational and predictable framework that aligns compliance determinations with actual adoption dates, thus eliminating opportunities for speculative development.” Winter D. urged for this matter to be decided soon in order to be ready for the first hearing.
10. Liz G. did not want the City to support SB 457. She felt that this was a surprise agenda item without necessary public discussion. She was surprised to hear the City had been in discussions with Senator Josh Becker. As a housing advocate and especially in the affordability category, she wanted housing now and believed there needed to be fewer roadblocks instead of more denials and delays. Palo Alto had a history of being a leader in inclusive housing. She encouraged the City to look very closely at SB 457.
Mayor Lauing addressed the public comments. SB 457 had nothing to do with RHNA. The City’s Housing Element was adopted by the State. After a four‐year process, the City had programs, zoning, and sites to build housing and was not trying to change the quotas. In the last two years, Mayor Lauing had been told by a number of legislators that they had made mistakes with the Housing Element, so this bill was not a surprise to the Legislature. Senator Becker was trying to fix the mistake and it made sense for all Cities. Palo Alto was not the only City concerned about this. As Mr. Drekmeier commented, there were four times as many jobs as there was housing and the City wanted to go the opposite direction. The building on Willow was an example of a mistake.
Councilmember Lythcott‐Haims believed there were 10 Builder’s Remedy projects in Palo Alto and many or most applicants using Builder’s Remedy were working on a compromise with the City. Councilmember Lythcott‐Haims did not think this bill was about Palo Alto. Councilmember Lythcott‐Haims believed SB 457 was about Builder’s Remedy projects she called flagrant fouls, such as 80 Willow Road in Menlo Park. Councilmember Lythcott‐Haims asked Menlo Park Councilmember Schmidt why Palo Alto would be the lead sponsor and not Menlo Park. Mr.
SUMMARY MINUTES
Sp. City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 03/24/2025
Schmidt replied that the City of Palo Alto was aware of this bill quicker than Menlo Park. Palo Alto meets every week. Menlo Park meets tomorrow, then every two weeks, so this item could not be agendized by April 1 but Menlo Park will have some discussions about how to follow Palo Alto’s lead.
Councilmember Lythcott‐Haims asked Menlo Park Councilmember Schmidt if the City of Menlo Park gave notice to the City of Palo Alto or if an attempt had been made to have a more regional conversation before passing an ordinance banning RVs in Menlo Park from 11 PM to 5 AM, which would push RVs to the streets of Atherton, East Palo Alto, and Palo Alto. Mr.
Schmidt was one of the newest members to Menlo Park’s Council, so he did not know the outreach history. Mr. Schmidt was the one Councilmember who voted against the ordinance with the hope they could establish a program.
Councilmember Lythcott‐Haims thought this bill had significant merits but was concerned about the public not having adequate notice with it being added to the agenda 4 days before the meeting instead of the usual 11 days and it was a policy item that did not go to Policy & Services first. The draft bill was given to Councilmembers after 2 PM today. Councilmember Lythcott‐Haims asked what lead sponsorship entailed, if it was the City’s idea or Senator Becker’s, and when was the last time the City was the lead sponsor of a bill. City Manager Shikada stated there were two categories of bills; this was a sponsor paired with the author legislator. The idea of this bill came up through discussions between a Councilmember and the legislator. Staff involvement was limited to the one‐hour rule. Staff did not do any substantive work on it until it became clear this bill could move forward, which was when staff put it on Council’s agenda. That last time City Manager Shikada was involved in sponsoring a bill was 30 years ago but the City of Palo Alto had not sponsored a bill in staff’s collective memory.
Carlin Shelby, Townsend Public Affairs, stated the legislative process moved extremely fast.
Communication with the Legislative Council to vet the language to ensure it was implementable contributed to the delay but Ms. Shelby anticipated the language would cross the desk tomorrow or sometime this week. Members were allowed to produce 35 bills over the two‐ year session, which was reduced from 40 to 50 bills previously. Senator Becker prioritized this bill because he understood it was very important to multiple cities. Over 2000 measures were introduced throughout each Legislative session, so it was typical for things to move and change very abruptly, including the timing of Committee scheduling.
Councilmember Burt stated that Senator Becker’s request for a quick response was based upon a hearing on April 1, however, with the first hearing of the Senate Committee on April 22, it allowed the Council to postpone action and make sure the public and Council fully understood the ramifications. Councilmember Burt understood it was Senator Becker who asked Palo Alto to be a sponsor. Councilmember Burt mentioned the City’s efforts with the Housing Element, including up‐zoning of the RM Districts and adding high‐density housing in primarily commercial areas, as well as one or two ADU units per property were allowed. Palo Alto had the second highest proportion of deed‐restricted affordable housing in Santa Clara County; three may come on line this year and six more were in the pipeline. Councilmember Burt had been
SUMMARY MINUTES
Sp. City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 03/24/2025
involved with pushing forward affordable housing for 30 years. Councilmember Reckdahl led the campaign and Councilmember Burt led the charge within the Council to have a third of the business tax dedicated to additional funding for affordable housing. Councilmember Burt was grateful for Senator Becker coming forward with this proposal to address flagrant fouls; 40‐ story towers were not needed to meet the City’s RHNA allocations.
Councilmember Lu echoed concerns about the process and agreed that 80 Willow Road was a flagrant foul. Councilmember Lu thought Builder’s Remedy had restrictions of 35 dwelling units per acre at most, making projects such as Mollie Stone’s and Sunset possible in the future.
Assistant City Attorney Yang stated that the guidelines for maximum density under Builder’s Remedy only applied prospectively for projects that came in before January of this year; applicants could choose which provisions they wanted to take advantage of but were not required to comply with them. There was a proposed change to the Builder’s Remedy standard to redefine “deemed complete” to mean a complete formal application, which was traditionally what it had been but was changed in recent years to refer to a preliminary application. January 1, 2026, was an exception to the proposed change in application requirements. Councilmember Lu thought it would be useful to have a table of options in reference to January 1, 2025 and January 1, 2026.
Director Lait mentioned that Palo Alto’s processes were similar to other jurisdictions in the area. Staff looked to see if the application was filled out completely, had the property owner’s signature, and if the plans had enough detail to evaluate the project, which was what Director Lait thought was being referred to in the State language about a formal application being deemed complete. City Manager Shikada stated the City had a checklist similar to what other agencies used, to which Director Lait added that it was online. Director Lait explained that staff identified the information they wanted on a plan set to assess for code compliance, such as floor area or dimension but would not deem a project incomplete for things such as the plan set not being scaled or missing the north arrow.
Councilmember Lu pointed out that Builder’s Remedy applications would probably be submitted before the first local certification of the Housing Element, so Cities had the opportunity to make modifications to reduce the risk of Builder’s Remedy projects. City Manager Shikada agreed with Councilmember Lu’s observation that, if this bill passed, having complete Builder’s Remedy applications prior to adoption would provide additional information for Cities. City Manager Shikada noted in the Townsend memo that this bill, by tightening the window, provided a better means for the City to assess the level of impact created by a Builder’s Remedy application when they were not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Vice Mayor Veenker asked if the bill’s language addressed if changes were allowed and to what extent, such as substantive, not material, or ministerial. Assistant City Attorney Yang explained that as it was currently proposed, the only relevant factor was the date the governing body acted, which for Palo Alto was April 15, 2024.
SUMMARY MINUTES
Sp. City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 03/24/2025
Vice Mayor Veenker asked Menlo Park Councilmember Schmidt if Menlo Park would agendize this bill before the April 22 hearing. Mr. Schmidt replied it was a possibility and he was in favor of getting it on the agenda; however, it was not for him to decide. Vice Mayor Veenker thought Palo Alto was doing well on housing and getting a better reputation in Sacramento, which she wanted to maintain. Vice Mayor Veenker encouraged more public comment after the language was available. Vice Mayor Veenker wanted to know what other Cities thought about this bill.
Vice Mayor Veenker thought there should be further discussion about creating a process for going beyond supporting or opposing. Vice Mayor Veenker believed it was prudent to continue this item to April 14, after the P&S session when Townsend was agendized to provide a legislative overview, which was closer to the hearing and allowed time to see what was going on in Sacramento with the budget.
MOTION: Vice Mayor Veenker moved, seconded by Councilmember Lythcott‐Haims, to continue this item to the April 14 City Council Meeting.
Councilmember Reckdahl and Mayor Lauing preferred continuing this item to April 7. Ms.
Shelby with Townsend Public Affairs recommended solidifying this as early as possible and draw in additional stakeholders to support this measure because letters of support were due April 15, one week before the hearing, in order to be reflected on the record and presented to legislators. City Manager Shikada stated there was a question of whether this will be double referred and potentially the Local Government Committee may hear it on April 22 in addition to the Housing Committee hearing on April 29.
Councilmember Reckdahl asked why January 1, 2026 was chosen as the effective date. City Attorney Stump explained it was because of State law. Only urgency ordinances approved by two‐thirds were able to go into effect immediately. Councilmember Reckdahl encouraged outreach to other Cities to join Palo Alto to show there was broad‐based support for this bill.
Councilmember Burt stated that this did not need to get routed through the Policy & Services committee.
AMENDMENT: Councilmember Burt moved, seconded by Councilmember Stone, to continue this item to the April 7 City Council Meeting for consideration of support or sponsoring of the bill.
Vice Mayor Veenker’s rationale for continuing this item to April 14 was to allow as much time as possible for outreach to determine if other Cities and Cal Cities were interested because this bill had a better chance of passing if other Cities were with Palo Alto on it.
Councilmember Stone was uncomfortable pushing this item to April 14 when letters had to go out on April 15, so he preferred April 7.
Councilmember Lu wanted to confirm the deadline for making amendments before the bill arrived to the Senate Committees. Ms. Shelby with Townsend Public Affairs replied that there was no deadline because amendments could be taken up at the dais during the Committee
SUMMARY MINUTES
Sp. City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 03/24/2025
hearing, although typically they were pre‐negotiated. Ms. Shelby announced the language crossed the desk minutes ago, so the language was now live. City Manager Shikada remarked that the SB 457 language distributed to Council this afternoon was now posted to the Legislature’s website. Ms. Shelby stated that the City’s letters of sponsorship and/or support were due one week prior to the Committee hearing in order to be accurately reflected within the legislative analysis. With the possibility of being double referred to the April 22 Senate Local Government Committee, the City’s letters were due by April 15.
Councilmember Lu was comfortable with an April 14 timeline. Councilmember Lu thought it was helpful to send this to Policy & Services.
Mayor Lauing asked if there were any bills similar to SB 457. Based on her conversations with various legislators and stakeholders in this space, Ms. Shelby was unaware of any bills proposing to amend the same code sections related to the self‐certification and Builder’s Remedy processes that SB 457 was seeking. Cal Cities will pursue a measure related to the timelines by which Cities and HCD have a cadence throughout the RHND and RHNA process but it was not directly linked to what SB 457 was seeking to accomplish.
Vice Mayor Veenker wanted to know if it was possible to take more public comment the next time Council heard this item. City Attorney Stump replied that the Council could take more public comment. Mayor Lauing confirmed the Council will hear public comment.
Councilmember Burt thought two weeks was enough time to have a good public process and for everybody to understand it.
Mayor Lauing preferred continuing this item to April 7 because it allowed more time to make any changes. If the Chair of P&S thought it was appropriate to have a presentation from Townsend, Mayor Lauing thought they ought to look at P&S having a Special Meeting.
AMENDMENT PASSED: 5‐2, Vice Mayor Veenker and Councilmember Lu no Mayor Lauing thought it was a substitute motion because nothing was added. City Attorney Stump said it was not a substitute motion because one aspect of the motion was changed.
AMENDMENT INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION
MOTION: Vice Mayor Veenker moved, seconded by Councilmember Lythcott‐Haims, to continue the item to the April 7 City Council Meeting for consideration of support or sponsoring of the bill.
MOTION PASSED: 7‐0
3. Nonprofit Partnership Workplan: Phased Approach
SUMMARY MINUTES
Sp. City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 03/24/2025
Councilmember Lythcott‐Haims was worried that the monitoring and reporting section put too onerous of a burden on smaller nonprofits to pay the huge expense of getting an independent audit as opposed to relying on the 990. Therefore, Councilmember Lythcott‐Haims wanted to allow more nonprofits to use the 990 by basing it upon the size of the nonprofit rather than the size of the grant. Councilmember Lythcott‐Haims’ second concern was that portions of the staff report seemed to imply this was exclusive to entities serving only Palo Alto residents.
Councilmember Lythcott‐Haims received calls from nonprofits who were concerned because they served residents and employees of Palo Alto. Councilmember Lythcott‐Haims preferred language in the preamble section to be more inclusive to include Palo Alto residents and employees or the greater community. For the metric section, the City might want to know how many Palo Alto residents were served. Councilmember Reckdahl agreed.
Councilmember Burt shared Councilmember Lythcott‐Haims’ concerns. In addition, the report implied that it was the same funding but Councilmember Burt believed it was $60,000 less. The nonprofit funding listed in the report added up to $246,000 for last fiscal year; however, the proposal was $235,000, of which $50,000 was for new funding of community grants up to $5000 per event. The community events funding up to $5000 was first come, first served, which Councilmember Burt did not know if that was the best approach. Last fall, Council said they did not want this process to inhibit the City’s partnerships with nonprofits and Councilmember Burt was concerned the work plan did, particularly around the reporting requirement. Standard financial reporting was IRS Form 990, not a reviewed financial statement. Councilmember Burt did not know why City Staff was seeking something that other funding agencies do not seek.
This new open‐ended process had a lessor amount of dollars available to all nonprofits. In addition to HSRAP and CDBG funding, the City funded some nonprofits every year and included it in the budget. Councilmember Burt raised the question of whether there were certain nonprofit long‐term partners or programs the City wanted to fund on a sustained basis.
Councilmember Burt stated one of the reasons Council committed additional dollars to HSRAP and to these organizations last year was because Council thought it was an important commitment of the City to the community, and their intentions were voiced last year during the budget and in the study session during the fall.
Staff heard the same concern late last week and City Manager Ed Shikada was in agreement with changing the requirement from independent financial reporting to using IRS Form 990 as the basis for financial reporting. If the Council decided to increase the funding, additional financial reporting may be appropriate. City Manager Shikada was happy to change the wording to clarify funding was not exclusive to Palo Alto residents. Metrics were for data collection, not to exclude any organization that provided broader services. In reply to Councilmember Burt’s question, City Manager Shikada offered to describe the math in more detail at the appropriate time but it was the distinction in what was done last year with the budget between one‐time allocations to specific nonprofits and ongoing funding to be used for this purpose.
For financial reporting, Vice Mayor Veenker stated the requirement for a 990 was moved up from $5000 to $25,000 during their meeting but she was okay with $100,000 if staff was fine
SUMMARY MINUTES
Sp. City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 03/24/2025
with it. Vice Mayor Veenker pointed out it was not a CPA‐prepared document but a CPA was needed to review it. Vice Mayor Veenker did not hear complaints about financial reporting from the many nonprofits that were in attendance at the two meetings it was discussed, so she did not realize it was a concern.
Councilmember Stone was comfortable with it moving forward.
Mayor Lauing thought it was good structurally. Mayor Lauing thought they might decide to do three‐year or five‐year grants but funds needed to be spread out appropriately to meet unmet needs, not to five organizations addressing the same need.
In reply to Councilmember Burt asking if Neighbors Abroad was elsewhere in the budget for ongoing funding, City Manager Shikada answered yes. City Manager Shikada recommended going forward with the process for additional discretionary funding open to all nonprofits but have a Council discussion about which nonprofits to include in the budget on an ongoing basis.
City Manager Shikada stated that the Council will be presented with initial recommendations from staff at their study session on the budget on May 5. Then, the Finance Committee will go into deliberations. P&S will review and rank the applications. The Finance Committee was responsible for setting the limit for the total dollar amount.
MOTION: Vice Mayor Veenker moved, seconded by Councilmember Burt, to approve a phased approach to enhancing nonprofit partnerships parameters as outlined in the staff report with the following amendments:
a) Only Form 990 is required for financial reporting; and b) Clarify that funds are not restricted to nonprofits serving Palo Alto residents only; and c) Funding comparable to last year plus whatever funding is added for community events.
MOTION PASSED: 7‐0
Next Council meeting is April 7.
Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 10:45 PM.