CITY COUNCIL
SUMMARY MINUTES
Regular Meeting
April 20, 2026
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.
Call to Order
Mayor Veenker called the meeting to order.
City Clerk Mahealani Ah Yun called the roll and noted all Councilmembers were present.
Special Orders of the Day
1. Proclamation Recognizing Earth Day and the Palo Alto Youth Climate Advisory Board Director of Public Works Brad Eggleston introduced a proclamation recognizing Earth Day and the Youth Climate Advisory Board (YCAB) for contributions to the City’s climate initiatives.
YCAB’s second year of activity was noted, including work on adaptation, electrification, mobility, media, water, and zero waste, along with outreach efforts at schools and community events. Participation in the recent City Earth Day event was highlighted, including remarks delivered by the YCAB Chair, tabling, and announcing raffle prize winners.
Mayor Veenker echoed appreciation for YCAB and highlighted remarks delivered by YCAB member Aiden Miao at the Earth Day event, noting strong climate awareness and contributions of youth in the community.
Councilmember Lu read the proclamation, Recognizing Earth Day and the Palo Alto Youth Climate Advisory Board: Whereas, anthropogenic climate change is a threat to the wellbeing of communities around the world, including Palo Alto; and whereas, the City of Palo Alto is committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions to mitigate climate change, to protecting and enhancing the natural environment, and to increasing livability in Palo Alto for residents through climate adaptation; and wherehas, youth are both the demographic most affected by
SUMMARY MINUTES
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 04/20/2026
the impacts of climate change and uniquely positioned to educate their peers and motivate action for a more sustainable community; and whereas, the inaugural Youth Climate Advisory Board convened in September 2024 to address issues of sustainability and climate action relevant to Palo Alto youth and to support the City in implementing the Sustainability and Climate Action Plan; and whereas, each year, “Earth Day” is celebrated by people globally, recognizing the value of the natural environments that sustain us and the importance of mitigating climate change; and whereas, the ultimate success of Palo Alto is strongly correlated to the care of the natural resources that sustain us; and whereas, on April 22nd, 2026, the City of Palo Alto is observing Earth Day. Now, therefore, Vicki Veenker, Mayor of the City of Palo Alto, does hereby proclaim April 22nd as Palo Alto Earth Day, commend the Youth Climate Advisory Board for their leadership in promoting climate action and sustainability, and urge all residents to acknowledge the importance of climate action and sustainability, to care for the natural environment, to support our City’s multi‐faceted sustainability and climate action programs, and to take action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Mayor Veenker invited YCAB members to the dais for a photo with Council.
NO ACTION
2. Proclamation Recognizing National Crime Victims' Rights Week, April 19‐25, 2026 Mayor Veenker welcomed representatives from the Victim Services Unit (VSU) of the District Attorney’s Office and described increased awareness of services provided to crime victims in the County. Recognition
was given to coordination with the District Attorney’s Office and the establishment of VSU representation serving the North County area.
Vice Mayor Stone read the proclamation, National Crime Victims' Rights Week, April 19‐25, 2026: Whereas, violent crime touches too many people in Palo Alto, as it does in all parts of our county; and whereas, since 1981, National Crime Victims’ Rights Week has served as a time to honor the strength and resilience of crime victims, elevate their voices, and reaffirm our commitment to ensuring justice, healing, and support for all those impacted by crime; and whereas, crime victims and their families often face emotional, physical, and financial hardships, and it is essential that they are treated with dignity, respect, and compassion while being informed of, and able to exercise, their rights; and whereas, the Santa Clara County District Attorney’s Office Victim Services Unit (VSU) is the designated Victim Witness Assistance Program pursuant to California Penal Code §13835, providing comprehensive, trauma‐ informed, and client‐centered services to victims of all types of crime, regardless of whether charges are filed; and whereas, the VSU is staffed by specially trained professionals who assist victims in understanding and exercising their rights throughout and beyond the criminal justice process, including providing crisis intervention, emergency assistance, court support, resource referrals, and assistance with compensation and restitution; and whereas, in the past year, the VSU has demonstrated its commitment to the community by providing over 79,000 services to
SUMMARY MINUTES
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 04/20/2026
more than 7,350 crime victims throughout Santa Clara County; and whereas, the VSU Claims Unit processed over 2,400 California Victim Compensation Board applications in 2025, securing $1,896,466 in financial assistance to help victims, including those in Palo Alto, recover from crime‐related expenses; and whereas, in 2025, the District Attorney’s Office expanded access to the VSU in North County by offering in‐person victim advocate services at the Palo Alto branch of the District Attorney’s Office, increasing accessibility for local residents; and whereas, raising awareness of victims’ rights and available services strengthens our community’s ability to respond to and support those impacted by crime, ensuring that no victim feels alone on their path toward healing and justice. Now, therefore, Vicki Veenker, Mayor of the City of Palo Alto on behalf of the entire City Council, does hereby proclaim April 19–25, 2026, as National Crime Victims’ Rights Week in the City of Palo Alto, and encourage all residents to recognize the importance of victims’ rights, support those impacted by crime, and promote access to services that foster safety, healing, and justice for all.
Victim Services Director Tasia Wiggins of the Santa Clara County District Attorney’s Office thanked the Council for the proclamation and noted that she was joined by Tim Crockett and Steve DalPorto of the District Attorney's Office. Director Wiggins emphasized that the work of the VSU is grounded in treating every individual impacted by crime with dignity and respect. It was explained that victims’ rights are not only legal protections but tools to ensure access to information, a voice in the process, and the ability to participate in the justice system. The VSU's role in notifying victims of their rights and supporting them through the process was described. Recognition was given to the dedication and expertise of VSU staff, with a reaffirmation of commitment to supporting and empowering victims across Santa Clara County.
Supervising Victims Advocate Tim Crockett of the Santa Clara County District Attorney’s Office added that VSU staff will be available at Mitchell Park Library on Thursday from 1 to 4 p.m. to provide information and answer questions about available services.
Mayor Veenker invited VSU representatives to the dais for a photo with Council.
NO ACTION
Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions
Assistant City Manager Kiely Nosé reported agenda updates, including addition of a consent item related to the Churchill Avenue discussion on accelerating capital projects and associated budget and contract authorities and an informational item on PFAS testing results at the Stanford Palo Alto Community Playing Fields. In addition, 2 supplemental reports were issued for Consent Calendar Items 6 and 10, providing additional clarification. It was explained that approval of Item 10 on consent would result in declining to adopt the second reading and that pulling the item would return it to Council for future consideration.
SUMMARY MINUTES
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 04/20/2026
Public Comment
1. Jeffrey S. commented on proposed changes by the Santa Clara Valley Water District related to the San Francisquito Creek Flood Protection Project, noting a shift from delivering flood risk reduction to providing funding based on project benefits. Questions were raised regarding Valley Water’s role in engineering design and quality assurance, as well as how benefits would be defined between Santa Clara County and the City of Palo Alto. Concerns were expressed regarding potential reallocation of funds within the Safe, Clean Water Program and implications for flood protection commitments for residents in the floodplain.
2. Mora O., Executive Director of Youth Community Service (YCS), thanked community members for attending the recent YCS Community Impact Exhibit and highlighted the organization’s mission to elevate youth voice, build community connection, and advance equity through service. The exhibit was described as showcasing youth‐led projects addressing inequities, with appreciation expressed to elected officials, including Mayor Veenker, and event sponsors. YCS’s reach was noted, including engagement with hundreds of local students and approximately 20,000 individuals across 65 Bay Area schools completing more than 85,000 hours of service, along with partnerships with over 250 community organizations. Invitations were extended to upcoming programs, including the Summer of Service and a Pride event on June 7.
Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements
Councilmember Lauing reported on ongoing work related to the Stanford General Use Permit, noting participation as the City’s representative in the County process. Recent discussions focused on regulatory framework and land use, with the process described as ongoing and progressing slowly. Council action is not anticipated until early next year, with updates to be provided as needed.
Councilmember Lythcott‐Haims provided updates on the Cubberley ad hoc, noting that the Council agenda item on the Cubberley Conceptual Master Plan, CEQA review, and polling results has been rescheduled to May 18. Progress on the project was highlighted, including interest from 3 additional community organizations, Avenidas, Maker Nexus, and Palo Alto Community Child Care, which have submitted letters of intent. These additions bring the total number of potential Cubberley partners to 5, including Friends of Palo Alto Recreation and Wellness and TheatreWorks. These partnerships were described as strengthening the project as the City approaches a decision on potential voter support for acquisition and redevelopment at the Cubberley site.
Councilmember Lythcott‐Haims shared information about the OSV ad hoc, highlighting a regional convening hosted by Supervisor Abe‐Koga’s office on safe parking solutions. The event, held at Mitchell Park Community Center and moderated by Russell Hancock of Joint Venture
SUMMARY MINUTES
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 04/20/2026
Silicon Valley, included approximately 50 participants from public agencies, businesses, nonprofits, faith groups, and the unhoused community. City of Palo Alto representation included Councilmember Lauing, Councilmember Reckdahl, Councilmember Lythcott‐Haims, City Manager Ed Shikada, Deputy City Manager Chantal Cotton‐Gaines, Assistant to the City Manager Melissa McDonough, and Mayor Veenker, with the discussion described as inspiring.
Mayor Veenker commended YCS for their recent Community Impact Exhibit event and expressed appreciation for the opportunity to participate. Mayor Veenker was appreciative to represent Palo Alto at San Francisco Climate Week, including speaking at a 3‐day conference titled “Accelerating the Transition” on a panel called “US Mayors Advancing Climate Progress,” alongside Mayor Raj Salwan of Fremont and Vice Mayor Melissa Blaustein of Sausalito. Palo Alto’s climate initiatives were highlighted and met with enthusiasm, particularly the living levee.
Study Session
3. Discussion of the Draft 2026‐2030 Santa Clara County Community Plan to End Homelessness; CEQA Status—Not a project.
Assistant to the City Manager Melissa McDonough introduced the study session as an opportunity for the Santa Clara County Office of Supportive Housing staff to receive Council feedback on the draft 2026–2030 Community Plan to End Homelessness. Alignment with prior plan goals was noted, including addressing root causes, improving conditions for unsheltered individuals, supporting healthy neighborhoods, and expanding prevention and housing programs. County staff are expected to return to Council in late summer or early fall for review and endorsement following outreach.
Deputy Director Hilary Armstrong of the Santa Clara County Office of Supportive Housing thanked the Council for the opportunity to present and outlined the evening’s topics, including progress and outcomes from the prior Community Plan through 2025, data specific to Palo Alto households, and the process for developing the next 5‐year plan. Deputy Director Armstrong described the Supportive Housing System as a coordinated approach to using limited resources to serve unhoused individuals and help them obtain and maintain housing. The system centralizes access and assessment to connect individuals with appropriate services based on need. Examples were provided, including prevention assistance for working families at risk of eviction, permanent supportive housing for seniors with disabilities, and transitional housing for youth exiting foster care, with the overall goal of ending homelessness. This work is organized through the County’s Continuum of Care, a collaborative body including public agencies, philanthropic partners, nonprofits, individuals with lived experience, and other community stakeholders. The Continuum of Care was described as providing a coordinated, communitywide strategy to prevent and end homelessness, with Santa Clara County serving as the lead agency. Deputy Director Armstrong explained that the County’s approach is based on a
SUMMARY MINUTES
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 04/20/2026
collective impact model, emphasizing that no single entity can address homelessness alone and that coordinated efforts among cities, the County, and community partners are essential. The role of Destination Home was noted as a backbone organization and public‐private partnership that brings together government agencies, the Housing Authority, philanthropic partners, businesses, and nonprofits to support a communitywide strategy to end homelessness.
Deputy Director Armstrong explained that the County develops a Community Plan to End Homelessness every 5 years and summarized results from the 2020–2025 plan. The goal of housing 20,000 individuals was exceeded, with placements into permanent housing that ended homelessness, and over 90 percent of those placed in long‐term housing remaining housed over time. It was noted that approximately half of those served were chronically homeless, with additional populations including families with children, young adults, veterans, and seniors. The plan emphasized services for individuals currently experiencing homelessness, including expansion of temporary housing capacity, which increased by 82 percent. Investment in homelessness prevention was highlighted as a key strategy, including significant growth of the Homeless Prevention System from a small pilot to serving over 2,500 households annually and assisting more than 38,000 individuals with financial support, case management, and legal services. Outcomes included 93 percent of families remaining stably housed during assistance and a 19 percent reduction in new households becoming homeless.
Deputy Director Armstrong provided data specific to Palo Alto, noting that under the 2020– 2025 plan, 665 Palo Alto–affiliated individuals were placed into permanent housing, nearly 2,000 received temporary housing or shelter, and approximately 400 households received homelessness prevention assistance, with outcomes described as improving but still challenging given local cost conditions. It was noted that Palo Alto residents are served annually across the Supportive Housing System, with estimated investments of over $8M per year for permanent supportive housing, approximately $2M for rapid rehousing, and about $500,000 for prevention programs, totaling nearly $11M annually. The longstanding partnership between the County and the City of Palo Alto was highlighted, noting approximately $68M in investments in local housing developments, including 3001 El Camino Real, Mitchell Park Place, Wilton Court, and Acacia at 231 Grant. Additional support through scattered‐site housing, The Opportunity Center, safe parking, and Homekey Palo Alto was noted.
Deputy Director Armstrong provided an overview of the draft 2026–2030 Community Plan to End Homelessness, noting ongoing community engagement and identifying 4 focus areas:
preventing homelessness, housing placement and retention, access to care for unsheltered individuals, and investment in leadership from people with lived experience. Next steps include refining the plan based on input, returning to Council in the fall for adoption, and developing subregional plans to align City and County investments. Opportunities for public input were highlighted, including in‐person and virtual meetings, with a session scheduled at Mitchell Park Community Center on April 30 at 6 p.m. and a virtual convening on May 21. Council input was requested on whether the focus areas reflect community needs, what should be included in the subregional plan, and how to effectively share information with the Palo Alto community.
SUMMARY MINUTES
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 04/20/2026
Mayor Veenker expressed appreciation for the presentation, noting the value of the retrospective analysis and Palo Alto‐specific data.
Public Comment:
1. Charlie Weidanz of the Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce described declining conditions in business areas, including cleanliness and safety challenges, and noted impacts on foot traffic and staffing. The draft Community Plan to End Homelessness was described as a step toward accountability and prevention, with emphasis on effective services to reduce street homelessness. A proposal was made to establish a business‐led task force to work with City staff and Council, with a request to recognize the business community as a formal partner in addressing these issues.
2. Nancy C. (Zoom) expressed compassion for individuals experiencing homelessness while describing escalating conditions in the downtown business area, including frequent calls to police, harassment of customers, and impacts on staff. Conditions were described as a notable decline compared to prior years, with similar issues reported by neighboring businesses. Immediate action was requested to address safety and economic impacts affecting local businesses.
Councilmember Lauing asked for clarification on cost estimates associated with Palo Alto households. Deputy Director Armstrong explained that costs are based on the number of households within each intervention, giving the example of permanent supportive housing averages of approximately $37,000 per household multiplied by 219 households as one component.
Councilmember Lauing asked about the reliability of city affiliation data, noting it is self‐ reported and questioning whether it is verified. Deputy Director Armstrong explained that the information is collected through the Homelessness Management Information System (HIMS) during intake and enrollment and is based on self‐disclosure regarding where individuals spend time, work, or attend school, without independent verification. Limitations were acknowledged of self‐reported data while noting confidence in overall trends through consistent tracking over time and transparent reporting of methodology. Councilmember Lauing observed that responses may vary depending on recent movement between cities and Deputy Director Armstrong confirmed that possibility, while noting the system’s focus on meeting individuals where they are.
Councilmember Lauing noted the Self‐Reported Disability/Vulnerability data in the packet exceeded 100 percent and presumed people cited more than one situation, which was affirmed by Deputy Director Armstrong. Councilmember Lauing inquired about data on individuals without disabilities who may be experiencing economic hardship. Deputy Director Armstrong confirmed that such data is tracked but not included in the current report, noting these individuals are typically served through rapid rehousing or short‐term assistance programs, and stated that data point would be provided.
SUMMARY MINUTES
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 04/20/2026
Vice Mayor Stone commended results from the 2020–2025 Community Plan to End Homelessness and asked how outcomes compare to other counties across the State. Deputy Director Armstrong explained that comparisons are challenging due to differing metrics, cost‐ of‐living conditions, and service models. It was stated that Santa Clara County has benefited from the 2016 Measure A Affordable Housing Bond and maintains a broad, accessible system for service entry, which may influence reported outcomes. Vice Mayor Stone acknowledged the challenges in obtaining precise comparative data, expressed support for the proposed draft 2026‐2030 plan and its focus areas, and noted his prior experience working on related issues.
Vice Mayor Stone requested additional detail on Focus Area 1, Strategy C related to coordination across systems to prevent homelessness, including the role of cities and community partners. Deputy Director Armstrong explained that coordination extends beyond County departments to include cities, nonprofits, and other partners, with particular focus on discharge or exit from systems such as healthcare, foster care, and the criminal justice system.
Regarding the criminal justice system, Vice Mayor Stone asked about involvement of law enforcement and the District Attorney’s Office, citing feedback from business owners regarding enforcement. Deputy Director Armstrong noted upcoming planned engagement with County criminal justice partners and indicated that coordination with city police departments could be further explored.
Vice Mayor Stone raised questions regarding potential funding constraints affecting Focus Areas 2 and 3, particularly in light of anticipated reductions in federal support. Deputy Director Armstrong confirmed that the planning process has been adjusted due to funding uncertainty and described efforts to balance ambitious goals with fiscal realities, including contingency planning and coordination across the Continuum of Care. It was noted that the County has set aside General Fund resources to sustain services in the event of federal funding losses. Vice Mayor Stone observed that reduced federal support may increase reliance on local and County resources moving forward.
Vice Mayor Stone supported the Chamber of Commerce's proposal to establish a business task force to collaborate with staff and Council on impacts affecting local businesses. Deputy City Manager Chantal Cotton‐Gaines noted ongoing coordination between the Police Department and the business community and stated that concerns are being taken seriously.
Mayor Veenker commended the coordinated entry system and highlighted strong outcomes from homelessness prevention efforts, noting that 93 percent of families remained stably housed. Concern was raised that, despite these results, Palo Alto is experiencing a net increase in homelessness, with more households becoming homeless than being housed. Questions were raised whether greater investment in prevention should be considered given its demonstrated impact. Deputy Director Armstrong acknowledged that City‐specific discussions help identify trends, noting that Palo Alto is not reducing inflow at the same pace as other jurisdictions and that prevention efforts may need to be expanded locally. Potential actions were described, including increased outreach through community‐based providers and partnerships with school districts to identify at‐risk households. Assistant McDonough noted
SUMMARY MINUTES
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 04/20/2026
national recognition of the County’s prevention model and Mayor Veenker expressed strong support for expanding those efforts. Deputy Director Armstrong outlined funding sources for homelessness prevention, including approximately $30M annually countywide supported by Medi‐Cal, CalAIM, CalWORKS, State funds, and philanthropic contributions through Destination Home. Mayor Veenker commended the program’s progress and emphasized the connection between housing stability and health outcomes, noting the importance of addressing social determinants of health.
Councilmember Lu expressed support for the plan’s ambition and asked for clarification on differences between cumulative and annual homelessness prevention data for Palo Alto.
Deputy Director Armstrong confirmed that the larger figure represents a 5‐year total and the smaller figure reflects a single year, noting that the lower number appears to be an outlier and is not yet fully understood. It was stated that staff will review year‐over‐year trends, including whether COVID‐related assistance influenced the data, and will look at opportunities to expand access and awareness of prevention services in Palo Alto.
Councilmember Lu compared Palo Alto’s share of County population to service data, noting lower proportional use of homelessness prevention services and higher use of temporary housing and shelter, and asked about potential reasons for the variation. Deputy Director Armstrong indicated that explanations would be speculative, noting the need to review intake and assessment data, including use of the Homelessness Prevention Assessment Tool (HPAT), and to examine whether demand or eligibility patterns differ locally. It was noted that limited resources affect service distribution and that further analysis would be conducted.
Councilmember Lu suggested that proximity to the Opportunity Center may influence service utilization patterns. Assistant McDonough noted that staffing levels at the Opportunity Center and outreach teams can influence service data, with lower intake observed during periods of reduced staffing and increases when fully staffed. It was noted that the presence of the Opportunity Center is an asset in connecting individuals to services.
Councilmember Lu asked about inclusion of programs such as Homeward Bound and CARE Court in the draft plan, acknowledging their limited but targeted role. Deputy Director Armstrong explained that relocation‐type assistance is addressed through the Housing Problem Solving program and that CARE Court is currently operating in the County under Behavioral Health Services for a specific population. Councilmember Lu expressed interest in learning more about these programs and emphasized expanding prevention efforts in Palo Alto, including safe parking capacity.
Councilmember Reckdahl expressed support for homelessness prevention efforts and asked about funding for services addressing financial causes of homelessness. Deputy Director Armstrong emphasized the importance of prevention and reiterated ongoing efforts to sustain funding through a combination of City, County, and external sources, including Medi‐Cal, CalWORKS, and philanthropic contributions. It was noted that demand exceeds available resources and that financial instability remains a significant driver of homelessness.
Councilmember Reckdahl pointed out the increased difficulty of assisting individuals once they
SUMMARY MINUTES
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 04/20/2026
become unhoused. Deputy Director Armstrong highlighted broader structural challenges, including limited national investment in housing, and described efforts to expand the prevention model nationally through partnerships with other communities in hopes of eventual federal investment in homelessness prevention.
Councilmember Reckdahl discussed concerns regarding disruptive behavior associated with a subset of unhoused individuals in the downtown area and around businesses and asked about best practices from other cities. Deputy Director Armstrong explained that consistent outreach and service availability are key strategies, emphasizing relationship‐building, trust, and one‐on‐ one engagement, particularly for individuals with trauma, behavioral health needs, or substance use challenges. Councilmember Reckdahl referenced the former Downtown Streets Team and asked about the potential for a similar program. Assistant to the City Manager McDonough described the current outreach capacity as limited, noting a 2‐person team contracted through LifeMoves and ongoing efforts to expand engagement with businesses.
Councilmember Reckdahl expressed support for peer‐based approaches, noting their effectiveness compared to law enforcement. Deputy City Manager Cotton‐Gaines indicated that current outreach efforts incorporate similar peer engagement methods, including staff with lived experience, but noted that capacity is constrained due to competing responsibilities across multiple city programs, including OSV‐related outreach.
Councilmember Burt commended the County’s approach to homelessness and expressed support for the Homelessness Prevention System, while asking about the status of funding from Measure A. Deputy Director Armstrong explained that Measure A funding is nearing completion, with most funds committed and projects either under construction or seeking financing. Councilmember Burt raised concerns about future funding for permanent supportive housing and inquired about potential renewal efforts. Deputy Director Armstrong indicated that discussions have occurred with the County Housing Committee regarding lessons learned and potential future funding mechanisms, including consideration of a new housing bond, as well as possible State‐level funding through proposed legislation. Councilmember Burt emphasized the importance of maintaining funding continuity and avoiding a lapse in voter‐supported tax measures.
Councilmember Burt sought clarification on the metric indicating that for each Palo Alto resident housed, 2.2 individuals become homeless, asking whether it was based on point‐in‐ time count comparisons. Deputy Director Armstrong explained that the measure is based on monthly tracking of first‐time assessments compared to the number of individuals housed.
Councilmember Burt then referenced data on the number of unhoused individuals in Palo Alto and questioned the implication that increases were tied to factors identified in the City’s gap analysis, noting that growth in OSV habitation appeared to coincide with policy changes in neighboring jurisdictions. Assistant to the City Manager McDonough responded that causation cannot be determined from available data and noted that changes in PIT count methodology may have contributed to observed increases, while acknowledging that external factors could play a role. Councilmember Burt opined that regional OSV policy changes were a significant contributing factor.
SUMMARY MINUTES
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 04/20/2026
Councilmember Burt noted a report that quoted 456 days as the average length of stay at the Geng Road OSV site and requested the range of stay durations. Assistant McDonough, with input from a staff member online, indicated that the range was not obtained. Clarification was provided that referenced staffing challenges related to separate CDBG‐CV funded positions and were not specific to the Geng Road site. Councilmember Burt expressed concern regarding extended lengths of stay at the Geng Road site for what was intended as a transitional site and requested follow‐up. Deputy City Manager Cotton‐Gaines indicated that additional information would be provided and noted that availability of permanent housing options affects the pace of transitions out of the Geng Road site.
Councilmember Burt supported the Chamber of Commerce's proposal for a business task force around ongoing concerns from downtown businesses regarding disruptive behavior and indicated that current efforts are not sufficient to address worsening conditions. Deputy City Manager Cotton‐Gaines acknowledged the feedback and noted that Police Department resources are limited, with staff supporting downtown enforcement and OSV‐related efforts.
Councilmember Burt emphasized that resource constraints do not eliminate the problem and called for directly addressing the problem and evaluating solutions.
Councilmember Lythcott‐Haims described a conversation with a reporter regarding safe parking programs and noted a perceived disconnect between reporting and available outcomes data from MOVE Mountain View. Concern was expressed about ensuring accurate understanding of program performance, with a request that Council be provided with the outcomes data to inform evaluation of the program.
Councilmember Lythcott‐Haims asked for clarification on data related to Palo Alto households in the County system, including differences between the number of VI‐SPDAT assessments and those in the housing queue. Deputy Director Armstrong explained that individuals in the queue have completed assessments and that differences may reflect households that were previously housed, found housing through other means, or were removed due to lack of contact.
Councilmember Lythcott‐Haims asked about the distinction between first‐time and total VI‐ SPDAT assessments. Deputy Director Armstrong confirmed that the difference reflects repeat assessments, which may occur due to changes in circumstances or reentry into the system after a temporary resolution of homelessness.
Councilmember Lythcott‐Haims observed that Palo Alto households appear to have a lower placement rate compared to the County average and asked about potential reasons. Deputy Director Armstrong indicated that the information was not available at the time but that she would ask her staff about it.
Councilmember Lythcott‐Haims questioned the classification of safe parking as temporary shelter, noting that existing sites provide amenities and services that resemble supportive housing, and asked whether it could be considered a more permanent solution. Deputy Director Armstrong explained that current categorization may be influenced by HUD requirements and described safe parking as an evolving model. Discussions are ongoing
SUMMARY MINUTES
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 04/20/2026
regarding potential long‐term approaches and the possibility of incorporating more permanent safe parking models into future planning.
Councilmember Lythcott‐Haims asked whether Palo Alto’s current cold weather shelter capacity is sufficient or should be expanded given local needs. Deputy Director Armstrong emphasized that decisions depend on resources and priorities and noted that City staff are best positioned to assess local demand. It was noted that Countywide emergency shelter expansions are activated during severe weather events such as flooding to supplement local capacity.
Councilmember Lythcott‐Haims raised concerns regarding staffing levels and vacancies in shelters and supportive housing, noting the importance of frontline staff and challenges related to compensation and retention. Deputy Director Armstrong acknowledged that workforce capacity is a significant issue, citing funding limitations and the difficulty of sustaining staff for demanding roles. Efforts were described to support providers and strengthen the workforce as part of broader supportive housing system improvements following expansion through Measure A.
Councilmember Lythcott‐Haims concluded by expressing appreciation for the report and encouraging greater clarity in written materials to improve understanding and gain support for the County's work on homelessness.
Mayor Veenker expressed appreciation for the presentation and noted that extended discussion on this item reflected the complexity of homelessness, Council’s interest in partnering with the County, and the depth of information provided.
Deputy City Manager Cotton‐Gaines noted an upcoming opportunity for public engagement into homelessness at a community event to be held at Mitchell Park on April 30 at 6 p.m. and encouraged residents to participate. It was reiterated that the County's draft 2026‐2030 plan will return to Council in August for consideration of endorsement, with the current discussion intended to provide an opportunity for questions and feedback.
NO ACTION
4. 910 Webster Street [26PLN‐00026]. Request for Council Prescreening to Rezone the Subject Property from RM‐20 to Planned Community/Planned Home Zoning and to Allow Construction of 70 Residential Units in a Seven‐Story Structure. CEQA Status: Not a Project.
Principal Planner Garrett Sauls presented a prescreening request for a proposed 70‐unit residential project at 910 Webster Street, where there are 24 existing units. The prescreening process was described as an opportunity for Council to provide nonbinding feedback without indicating a position on the project. The proposal includes rezoning from RM‐20 to Planned Home Zoning (PHZ) to allow a 7‐story structure with a mix of rental and ownership units and 2
SUMMARY MINUTES
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 04/20/2026
levels of below‐grade parking. The site is located at the edge of the University South and Professorville neighborhoods, with nearby comparable projects developed through the planned community process include Channing House back in 2006 and Webster Wood Apartments in 1974. Planner Sauls provided additional project details, noting a proposed height of approximately 81½ feet to the rooftop and 92 feet to the top of the cupola, compared to the 30‐foot limit in the RM‐20 district. Proposed development standards include 48 percent lot coverage, an FAR of approximately 2.7, and a density about 3 times what is allowed under RM‐ 20 zoning. Parking includes 130 vehicle spaces and 119 bicycle spaces, compared to a requirement of 134 vehicle spaces. Open space is proposed through ground‐level courtyards, covered patios, a pool deck, and a 7th‐floor sky deck. Elevation drawings for all sides of the building were presented.
Planner Sauls outlined key considerations for the project, noting the applicant is currently pursuing Option 2 under the PHZ process while continuing to evaluate which option to advance.
A slide showing the distribution of units proposed to satisfy that requirement was presented. It was noted that any future project would be subject to the Local Relocation Assistance Program for the 24 existing units. Deviations from standard requirements were described, including modifications to transitional height and the daylight plane, with the proposal seeking a 65‐ degree angle in certain areas rather than the typical 50‐degree requirement for the daylight plane. Planner Sauls reported that staff received recent public input expressing support for additional housing and concerns regarding scale, quality‐of‐life impacts, traffic, safety, and neighborhood effects. It was noted that the project is not subject to CEQA review at this stage but would undergo environmental review upon formal application. Planner Sauls reiterated that the prescreening is intended for informal, nonbinding Council feedback.
Councilmember Reckdahl questioned the source of the 50‐degree daylight plane requirement, noting that R‐2 and RM‐20 districts typically use a 45‐degree standard. Planner Sauls explained that Planned Community district provisions include special requirements, offering a 50‐degree daylight plane option when a majority of the project is residential, with the alternative to apply more restrictive adjacent zoning standards. It was noted that Council retains discretion to determine the appropriate daylight plane standard for the project.
Councilmember Burt clarified that the 2006 approval for Channing House was in reference to a 53‐unit addition, noting the original project was approved in 1964. Planner Sauls acknowledged the correction.
Applicant and Co‐owner Prabhas Kejriwal described ownership of the property by 2 families and noted his long‐term ties to Palo Alto. Project goals were outlined, including compatibility with the neighborhood, responsiveness to Housing Element needs, and incorporation of community‐ oriented spaces. Prior development experience at 430 Forest Avenue was referenced, including sustainability features, LEED Platinum certification, and recognition as Green Building of the Year, with intent to apply similar principles to the proposed project.
SUMMARY MINUTES
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 04/20/2026
Project Architect Tony Carrasco of Carrasco & Associates expressed appreciation to staff for advancing the item and acknowledged the flexibility provided by the PHZ zoning framework.
Following previous discussions with Councilmember Burt, the team chose not to engage individually with Councilmembers in order to allow the project to be evaluated on its merits.
Coordination with neighboring properties, including Channing House, was described. Architect Carrasco described the project’s design approach, emphasizing creation of a central courtyard and common spaces to foster a sense of community. Landscaping elements were highlighted, including trees along each side of the sidewalks to screen the building, along with efforts to preserve existing trees by increasing setbacks. The building is set back approximately 22 feet to protect trees, exceeding the 10‐foot requirement in the RM‐20 district.
Architect Carrasco addressed the daylight plane, describing use of shadow studies to ensure the project does not block sunlight to adjacent properties between 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. in winter and summer conditions. Existing trees were noted as contributing to current shading conditions. Architect Carrasco described design features intended to support community and privacy, including courtyards, covered verandas, and interior common spaces comprising approximately 0.75 FAR, or about 25 percent of total floor area. Building massing and shadowing were described as supporting privacy for units with indoor‐outdoor living features. It was noted that further refinement of the daylight plane will continue, with a commitment to minimizing shading impacts on neighbors. Existing trees along the south side of the property were described as providing screening for adjacent single‐family residences on Webster Street.
Mayor Veenker announced that each public speaker would have up to 3 minutes for this agenda item.
Public Comment:
1. David G. advocated for additional housing at the site but raised concerns regarding building height and compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. It was noted that the proposal significantly exceeds the scale of nearby development and may negatively affect quality of life for adjacent residents. Suggestions included increasing density through lower‐scale approaches, such as underground parking or modest height increases, and incorporating greater step‐downs and adherence to standard daylight plane requirements to reduce impacts.
2. Adam S. voiced strong support for the proposed 70‐unit project, emphasizing the need to add housing in areas with access to jobs and amenities. Support was framed in terms of expanding housing opportunities for a diverse range of residents and advancing fair housing goals. It was noted that the project would result in a net increase of 46 units, including affordable units across income levels, and that existing tenants would receive relocation assistance. The commenter stated that parking and building height would be compatible with the surrounding area and encouraged Council's approval of new housing at the site.
SUMMARY MINUTES
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 04/20/2026
3. Elisabeth R. supported adding housing at the site but raised concerns regarding the proposed scale and compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. Reference was made to prior transition design at Channing House, noting that lower‐scale development was used to step down to adjacent residential areas, and concern was raised that the current proposal does not provide a comparable transition. Questions were raised regarding the intended use of the project, including whether features such as a dining room suggest a potential relationship to nearby senior housing and whether the project would serve a diverse range of residents. The commenter emphasized the importance of clearly defining the project’s purpose and ensuring alignment with neighborhood context before proceeding with zoning changes.
4. Deborah D. stated that the project would directly impact her adjacent property, raising concerns about loss of sunlight, parking congestion, traffic safety, and noise. It was asserted that the proposal would result in significant shading for neighboring properties and that existing parking conditions in the area are constrained due to nearby uses.
Impacts were noted regarding driveway placement near school activity, potential safety risks, and lack of buffering between the project and adjacent homes. The commenter indicated that while internal project amenities may benefit residents, the surrounding neighborhood would experience negative impacts and suggested the project be redesigned to reduce those effects.
5. Catherine C. stated support for additional housing but questioned the affordability of the proposed units and their ability to serve local workers. Concerns were highlighted regarding the scale of the 7‐story project in a neighborhood of primarily 1‐ and 2‐story homes, with potential impacts to neighborhood character. Ongoing impacts from nearby Channing House were cited, including noise, deliveries, and traffic congestion.
Safety issues related to vehicle speeds and proximity to Addison Elementary School were noted, along with anticipated increases in traffic. Questions were raised regarding a proposed restaurant use and its operational implications, as well as whether the project is affiliated with Channing House. Construction impacts were identified, including worker parking and strain on the existing residential permit system. The commenter urged consideration of a reduced‐scale project and opposition to the proposed rezoning as presented.
6. Scott O. (Zoom) voiced support for the proposed project, acknowledging the need for additional housing and describing the proposal as a strong opportunity to add density in a part of the City with challenging development economics. The project was framed as aligning with fair housing goals. Consideration was given to the loss of existing units, with the view that the overall increase in housing supply could provide net affordability benefits through market effects. A suggestion was offered to adjust the mix of affordable units to prioritize lower‐income households. Proximity to transit and accessibility was noted and support was conveyed for the project to move forward.
SUMMARY MINUTES
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 04/20/2026
7. Steve C. emphasized the need for housing while advocating for affordability and suggested the consideration of 100 percent senior and/or Section 8 housing, noting potential reductions in parking demand and traffic impacts and opportunities to increase density. Attention was drawn to potential neighborhood impacts, with encouragement for Council to consider input from nearby residents. A recommendation was made to conduct independent sun/shadow studies. The commenter urged that housing be developed responsibly with careful attention to community impacts.
Mayor Veenker returned the item to the dais and noted that the meeting was running behind schedule, proposing that Council limit initial comments to 5 minutes with the option for a second round if needed.
Councilmember Lu questioned the inclusion of a large dining and kitchen area on the first floor, noting this is atypical for a condominium development and inquiring about the intended use and target population. Planning and Development Services Director Jonathan Lait noted that the project is still preliminary and indicated that further clarification could be provided with a formal application. Architect Carrasco described the large dining hall space as multipurpose, intended for activities such as dining and social gathering, and indicated that the size and function may be refined as the project develops.
Councilmember Lu highlighted several positive aspects of the proposal, including underground parking and architectural design. The project was viewed as comparable to other recent infill developments in the downtown area, with acknowledgement of the inclusion of affordable units and provision of vehicle and bicycle parking. Consideration was given to neighborhood concerns, including shading impacts, with the view that additional analysis beyond limited timeframes may be warranted. Overall, Councilmember Lu indicated general support for the project concept while noting potential opportunities to refine elements such as the daylight plane to better address adjacent impacts.
Councilmember Burt reviewed key development standards outlined in the staff report, focusing on the extent of deviations from RM‐20 zoning and the need to balance increased density with compatibility adjacent to single‐family homes. Higher FAR and lot coverage were viewed as potentially acceptable, while concern was noted regarding the proposed height, particularly in proximity to lower‐density residential uses. Emphasis was placed on maintaining the required daylight plane to address neighborhood compatibility. Parking reductions were suggested through transportation demand management strategies, with the potential to lower costs and improve project feasibility. Councilmember Burt questioned claims regarding the project’s contribution to fair housing, noting that affordable units represent a portion of the total, while acknowledging the value of the proposed affordability mix. Overall, support was indicated for a revised project that better addresses compatibility concerns while accommodating increased housing at the site.
Councilmember Reckdahl noted that the zoning provides 2 options for the daylight plane:
either the surrounding zoning standard of 45 degrees or a “3 up over 6” standard, which
SUMMARY MINUTES
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 04/20/2026
equates to approximately 26 degrees, and indicated that the appropriate comparison for this property is the 45‐degree standard. Positive aspects of the project were acknowledged, including architectural design, housing production, and incorporation of community space.
Concern was raised that the project does not function as a transition within the RM‐20 district, particularly in relation to adjacent lower‐density homes. Support was indicated for increased height on the side nearer to Channing House, while maintaining stricter daylight plane standards along edges adjoining residential properties. Councilmember Reckdahl emphasized the importance of zoning expectations and signaled his willingness to support certain deviations, such as FAR and height in limited areas, but not reductions to the daylight plane.
Vice Mayor Stone asked about average rents at the existing complex and Applicant Kejriwal reported rents between $3,000 and $3,500. Vice Mayor Stone then requested clarification on the Tenant Relocation Assistance (TRA) ordinance, specifically whether the property owner may choose between providing direct payment or waiving the final month’s rent. Planner Sauls indicated it is a choice. Vice Mayor Stone questioned how that aligns with required relocation payment amounts. Director Lait noted that the ordinance establishes set payment amounts based on unit size and indicated that those amounts are not optional. City Attorney Christopher Jensen clarified that TRA requirements vary based on the number of units. For projects with 10 or more units, the ordinance requires payment of set relocation amounts based on unit size, such as approximately $9,000 for a 1‐bedroom and $13,000 for a 2‐bedroom. For properties with fewer than 10 units, the requirement is a waiver of one month’s rent.
Vice Mayor Stone acknowledged positive aspects of the proposal, including tree preservation and community‐oriented design, while identifying concerns related to the daylight plane and limited EV parking. The location was recognized as appropriate for housing; however, emphasis was placed on the displacement of existing residents and the loss of comparatively more affordable units. Vice Mayor Stone noted that the project replaces 24 homes with 70 units, resulting in a net increase of 46 units, and questioned whether that gain justifies the proposed scale and neighborhood impacts. Concern was raised regarding building height and compatibility with the surrounding area, with the view that the project may be out of context despite proximity to Channing House. Overall, Vice Mayor Stone indicated discomfort with the trade‐offs presented, particularly in relation to displacement and neighborhood character.
Councilmember Lythcott‐Haims praised the applicant and architect for the exterior and interior design, green building approach, and efforts to foster community through the dining hall concept and courtyard. Daylight plane issues were described as complex and additional explanation was requested regarding the applicant’s solar geometry analysis. Architect Carrasco described the use of sun studies to guide building volumes and courtyard placement, noting that the analysis had been repeated and would continue to be refined. Councilmember Lythcott‐Haims encouraged clear, concrete descriptions of anticipated shading impacts as the project moves forward.
Councilmember Lythcott‐Haims indicated support for the proposed FAR and lot coverage and discussed the relationship between building height and surrounding context, including
SUMMARY MINUTES
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 04/20/2026
proximity to taller structures such as Channing House. Support was conveyed for concentrating height on that side of the site, with stepbacks and daylight considerations applied along edges adjacent to lower‐density residential uses. Overall, Councilmember Lythcott‐Haims expressed strong support for the design and noted appreciation for the project as an infill development in the downtown area.
Councilmember Lauing raised concerns regarding displacement of existing tenants and the affordability of proposed units, questioning whether current residents would be able to return even with relocation provisions. Inquiry was made regarding anticipated rents for the new development. Applicant Kejriwal indicated that pricing has not yet been determined and that the project may be either rental or for‐sale. Reference was made to a comparable project at 430 Forest Avenue to illustrate potential pricing levels, with concern noted that existing units, though modest in size, function as relatively affordable housing that may be lost through redevelopment. Councilmember Lauing emphasized the trade‐off between removal of existing units and addition of new affordable units, noting that 24 existing units would be replaced by 12 deed‐restricted affordable units and that displaced residents are unlikely to return due to cost. Additional affordable units were encouraged to better offset the loss of lower‐cost housing. Concern was noted regarding building height and compatibility with surrounding residential areas, with support for incorporating stepbacks, reviewing the daylight plane, and considering setbacks in relation to neighboring properties. Reference was made to the importance of larger setbacks in comparable projects such as Channing House. While the site was viewed as appropriate for housing and generally accessible, Councilmember Lauing encouraged refinement of the design to better address neighborhood context and affordability considerations.
Mayor Veenker noted agreement with several Councilmember comments and highlighted positive aspects of the proposal, including architectural design, balcony screening, multipurpose space, and the number of vehicle and bicycle parking spaces. The increased garage setback beyond zoning requirements was recognized. Concern was identified regarding the daylight plane and its impact on adjacent lower‐density homes, with questions raised about whether reducing height or redistributing density could improve compatibility. Architect Carrasco indicated that removing a floor would affect unit count or daylight plane conditions and stated that the design would be revisited to improve transitions. Mayor Veenker indicated particular concern with the west side interface and encouraged further refinement of stepbacks and daylight plane treatment. While general support for the project direction and site suitability for higher‐density housing was conveyed, it was noted that additional design changes are needed before the project would be ready to move forward.
NO ACTION
[Council took a 15‐minute break, which was extended to approximately 25 minutes due to technical difficulties]
SUMMARY MINUTES
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 04/20/2026
Consent Calendar
Mayor Veenker stated that each public speaker would have 2 minutes to speak.
Public Comment:
1. Jenny C., a resident of Wilkie Way, supported the staff recommendation for Item 10, referencing prior Council action establishing a 7‐unit outcome and noting the duration of the review process. It was stated that the community has invested significant time over multiple hearings and support was urged for concluding the matter consistent with the staff recommendation.
2. Michael J., a longtime resident of Wilkie Way, voiced support for the staff recommendation for Item 10, referencing prior Council action establishing a 7‐unit compromise after multiple hearings over several years. It was noted that the community, staff, and Council have invested significant time in the process and he urged moving forward with the staff recommendation.
3. Daniel P., who lives on Wilkie Way, indicated support for the staff recommendation for Item 10, referencing the Council’s prior unanimous decision establishing a 7‐unit compromise. It was observed that the process has involved multiple hearings over several years and further deliberation was viewed as unnecessary. Support was conveyed for approving the item consistent with the staff recommendation.
4. Yanfeng W., who resides on Wilkie Way, expressed appreciation for the Council’s and Planning and Transportation Commission’s (PTC) efforts on the project, noting multiple hearings and site visits. Confidence was conveyed in the Council’s fairness and commitment to the community, with trust expressed in the decision‐making process.
5. Ellen H., a Victoria Place resident, indicated support for the staff recommendation for Item 10 and encouraged approval consistent with the PTC recommendation.
6. James P., a resident of Wilkie Way, voiced support for the staff recommendation for Item 10 in reference to the project at Palo Alto Commons. Appreciation was conveyed for the Council’s consideration throughout the process and approval was encouraged consistent with the staff recommendation.
7. Lily L., a Wilkie Way resident, spoke in favor of the staff recommendation for Item 10 and referenced the Council’s prior unanimous decision establishing a 7‐unit outcome.
Appreciation was conveyed for the Council’s deliberative process, including site visits and consideration of multiple perspectives.
8. Nia P., who lives on Wilkie Way, indicated support for the staff recommendation for Item 10. Appreciation was conveyed to the Council for their attention, deliberation, and prior unanimous decision establishing a 7‐unit outcome.
SUMMARY MINUTES
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 04/20/2026
9. Herb B. opposed Item 6, objecting to granting discretionary authority to the Director of Planning and Development Services to modify Housing Element site inventory, and advocated for maintaining the standard public review process through the PTC and Council. Regarding Item AA1, concerns were raised about proceeding without detailed design information, including specific improvements such as sidewalk widening. It was stated that existing issues relate more to user behavior than physical constraints.
Additional comments addressed the Kingsley Avenue and Embarcadero Road intersection, with suggestions that meaningful improvements would require removal of existing barriers and slip lanes.
10. Shashank (Zoom) expressed appreciation for the Council’s prior unanimous decision establishing a 7‐unit compromise for Item 10. It was noted that the community has invested significant time in the process and a request was made to avoid further hearings and proceed with approval consistent with the staff recommendation.
11. James C. (Zoom), a Wilkie Way resident, conveyed support for the staff recommendation for Item 10 and thanked the Council for considering community input throughout the process.
12. Scott O. (Zoom) challenged characterization of the Item 10 outcome as a fair compromise, stating that reducing the project to zero units would result in loss of needed beds for individuals requiring care.
Mayor Veenker asked whether there were any no votes, requests to pull, or recusals for this item and, seeing none, requested a motion.
MOTION: Councilmember Lauing moved, seconded by Councilmember Reckdahl, to approve Agenda Item Numbers 5‐10, AA1.
MOTION PASSED: 7‐0
5. Approval of Minutes from April 6, 2026 Meeting
6. Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the Director of Planning and Development Services to Make Minor Modifications to the 2023‐2031 Housing Element Site Inventory. CEQA Status: The City Council adopted a Revised Addendum to the Comprehensive Plan Final Environmental Impact Report on December 18, 2023, that, in conjunction with the Comprehensive Plan Final EIR, fully analyzes the impacts of the 6th Cycle Housing Element, including minor modifications to the site inventory.
7. Approval of Amendment Number 1 to Contract C23187554 with Vox Network Solutions to Increase Compensation by $212,819 and to Extend the Term to June 30, 2027, for Maintenance of the City’s Enterprise Phone System; CEQA Status – exempt under section 15061(b)(3).
SUMMARY MINUTES
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 04/20/2026
8. FIRST READ: Adopt an Entertainment Zone Ordinance to Establish an Entertainment Zone on California Avenue as Recommended by the Economic Development Ad Hoc Committee; CEQA status – Categorically Exempt.
9. Approval of Contract Amendment No. 3 to Contract S25190354 with Larratt Brothers Plumbing Inc. in the Amount of $950,000, for a Revised Total Not to Exceed $1,445,000 and to Extend the Contract Term for One Additional Year ending July 21, 2027, for the Residential Emergency Water Heater Replacement Pilot Program Within Electrification Programs; CEQA Status – Not a Project.
10. 4075 El Camino Way [23PLN‐00202]: Recommendation to Decline Adoption on Second Reading of an Ordinance Adopting an Amendment to a Planned Community Ordinance (PC‐5116) to Allow for Modifications to an Existing 121‐Unit Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility. First Reading Adoption was on March 16, 2026. CEQA Status: Exempt from the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in Accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Modifications to Existing Facilities).
AA1. Amend the FY 2026 Budget Appropriation for the Capital Improvement Fund to Establish the Embarcadero Road Improvement Project, Phase 1, and Authorize the City Manager or Their Designee to Award a Construction Contract with a Qualified Contractor for the Embarcadero Road Improvement Project, Phase 1; CEQA Status – Exempt under CEQA Guidelines Section 15301(c)
City Manager Comments
Assistant City Manager Kiely Nosé indicated that, due to time constraints, these comments would be deferred for posting through standard communication channels and that slides would be posted for the broader community. A reminder was provided regarding the upcoming May Fete Parade and Fair on May 2, with encouragement for community participation and note of the registration deadline for groups.
Action Items
11. Quasi‐Judicial: Adoption of a Resolution Documenting the City Council’s Consideration and Decision on an Appeal of the Chief Building Official’s Order to Demolish the Buildings Located at 531 Stanford Avenue.
Mayor Veenker outlined the procedure for this quasi‐judicial appeal, stating that the appellant would present first, followed by the staff presentation and an optional appellant rebuttal. It was noted that Council disclosures, public comment, and questions would follow, after which closing statements, deliberation, and a vote would occur.
SUMMARY MINUTES
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 04/20/2026
Appellant Representative Attorney Brian O’Neill framed the appeal as a significant exercise of Council authority involving potential taking of private property, emphasizing that such action requires a high legal standard. It was asserted that 3 findings necessary to justify demolition must be clearly supported, including demonstrating that damage exceeds 50 percent of replacement value, that the structure cannot be repaired, and that it constitutes a fire hazard that cannot be addressed through less restrictive means than demolition. Attorney O’Neill questioned whether sufficient evidence exists to support these findings, particularly noting the absence of an assessed property value in the staff report and asserting that many identified issues may be repairable. Attorney O’Neill addressed the fire hazard findings, asserting that several cited violations are factually inaccurate. Evidence was referenced indicating that fire sprinkler testing was conducted, identified as Exhibit A, contrary to statements in the staff findings. Additional documentation, identified as Exhibit B, was cited to support that the pool was permitted and inspected and that fire safety equipment was present. Concerns were raised regarding the timing and volume of documentation, noting that a substantial staff report was provided shortly before the hearing, limiting the ability to fully respond. It was further asserted that some alleged unpermitted improvements may have been compliant at the time of construction.
Attorney O’Neill acknowledged that violations and unpermitted work may exist but asserted that the applicable standard requires findings of damage exceeding 50 percent or a fire hazard that cannot be addressed through less restrictive means than demolition and contended that this burden has not been met. It was stated that many cited issues were identified during an initial inspection and subsequently addressed, including clearing storage areas and unblocking accessways. Concerns were raised regarding inconsistent direction during follow‐up inspections, with additional issues identified as corrective actions were taken. Attorney O’Neill noted that the owner undertook remedial steps, including submitting a demolition plan and obtaining a hazmat permit, and reported that more than $50,000 was spent on hazardous materials closure. Reference was made to Exhibit D, indicating that a final walkthrough with the Fire Department confirmed resolution of most items, with remaining elevator components since removed. It was further stated that the only remaining hazardous element is an operational rooftop cell phone tower.
Attorney O’Neill described the applicant’s prior development efforts, stating that a Builder’s Remedy application was submitted in 2023, followed by a subsequent application within the required timeframe. Concerns were raised regarding the City’s processing of applications, including issues related to intake, rejection of fees, and removal of submissions from the system. It was reported that multiple applications have been submitted since that time, with the most recent in August, and that communication challenges occurred during review, including delays related to a requested CEQA exemption. Attorney O’Neill noted that a demolition order was issued during this period. It was asserted that the owners have attempted to pursue redevelopment of the site with housing and requested that Council direct staff to work with the applicant on a pending application, suggesting that approval of a redevelopment project would allow removal of the building without requiring demolition findings.
SUMMARY MINUTES
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 04/20/2026
Planning and Development Services Director Jonathan Lait explained the Council’s role in the quasi‐judicial proceeding, noting that decisions must be based on the administrative record and supported by findings either in favor of the appellant or staff. Draft findings included in the materials were referenced. Director Lait reviewed noticing requirements under the code and indicated that those requirements were met. The enforcement history was summarized, noting that potential violations were identified in early 2024, with access to the property granted in March 2024 for an initial inspection involving multiple City departments. Numerous violations were documented following that inspection and a notice to vacate was issued in April 2024. It was further stated that no permits were obtained to address the identified issues prior to the Chief Building Official’s demolition order. Ongoing access to the property was noted as a continuing concern for the surrounding neighborhood.
Director Lait described extensive building deficiencies, noting that multiple building systems were compromised or degraded. Significant concerns were identified with fire suppression and alarm systems, including lack of documentation and observed deterioration. Photographic evidence was referenced showing corroded sprinkler components and unsafe electrical conditions. Additional issues included obstructed egress, structural deficiencies such as balcony deterioration and corrosion in structural elements, and widespread electrical and plumbing problems, including unpermitted installations and improperly maintained equipment.
Hazardous materials on site were identified as posing risks to occupants and first responders. It was further noted that the building had been converted from a hotel use to residential occupancy without required permits or code‐compliant upgrades, with substantial unpermitted work identified throughout the property. Director Lait reiterated that conditions identified following the notice to vacate remained unaddressed in the period leading to the demolition order, with no substantive materials submitted to the City. It was noted that a permit for hazardous materials closure had been filed but subsequently lapsed due to lack of follow‐ through.
Director Lait reviewed the recommended findings, noting that demolition is required if any 1 of the 3 specified criteria is met. Reference was made to the Chief Building Official’s declaration, which identified failure of the fire protection system, severe deterioration of electrical and plumbing systems, structural degradation, and extensive unpermitted work. It was explained that, based on professional assessment, repairing these conditions would require replacement of major building systems and investigation behind walls, effectively resulting in demolition‐ level work. Findings from the Fire Marshal were cited, indicating that nonfunctional fire protection systems constitute a fire hazard under applicable codes. Director Lait summarized the appellant’s objections, noting that the issue of proper notice was resolved through the current hearing. It was stated that the threshold for demolition remains a point of disagreement. Staff’s position on deconstruction versus demolition was noted as addressed and it was observed that the concern regarding the compliance timeline was no longer being advanced by the applicant. The staff recommendation to Council was cited as denial of the appeal and upholding the Chief Building Official’s demolition order.
SUMMARY MINUTES
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 04/20/2026
Attorney O’Neill reiterated that no valuation of the property or assessment of damage had been provided, asserting that such information is necessary to support demolition findings. It was argued that the fire sprinkler system is operational, with supporting evidence submitted, and that other fire‐related concerns pertain to occupancy conditions that are not applicable to a vacant building. Attorney O’Neill disputed assertions that the owners failed to pursue permits, stating that multiple development applications, including a Builder’s Remedy and subsequent housing proposals, have been submitted. It was explained that efforts have focused on redevelopment rather than repair of existing conditions. A request was reiterated for Council to direct staff to advance the pending application as an alternative path to remove the building through redevelopment. Clarification was provided regarding hazardous materials work, noting a completed walkthrough with the Fire Department and ongoing efforts to obtain documentation. The continued presence of an operational rooftop cell phone tower was noted, with intent to maintain service until a replacement project is approved.
Mayor Veenker opened Council disclosures for the quasi‐judicial item and disclosed a prior meeting with the appellant focused on ownership history and application process, noting no information outside the record was received.
Councilmember Lythcott‐Haims disclosed a prior meeting with the owner regarding a Builder’s Remedy application, noting it was not directly related to the item under consideration.
Councilmember Lu disclosed a conversation during office hours with a family friend of the appellant, describing general concerns without substantive details about the case.
Public Comment:
1. Rosita W., a nearby resident, described conditions observed at the property and surrounding area, stating that the building presents an immediate public safety concern. It was reported that the site has attracted ongoing nuisance activity, including trespassing and accumulation of debris, contributing to safety concerns for nearby residents. Concern was raised regarding fire risk given the building’s condition and proximity to adjacent homes. The commenter urged prompt demolition and opposed delaying action in connection with redevelopment considerations.
2. Pria G., a resident of Yale Street, raised concerns regarding fire risk associated with the building and cited reports of ongoing activity at the site and presence of hazardous materials. It was asserted that the condition of the building poses a significant safety threat to surrounding residents. The commenter urged the Council to follow the staff recommendation and proceed with demolition without delay, independent of any redevelopment plans.
Mayor Veenker opened the Council question period and sought clarification regarding appropriate parties for questions. City Attorney Christopher Jensen indicated that questions
SUMMARY MINUTES
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 04/20/2026
may be directed to staff or the applicant. Mayor Veenker confirmed that closing statements would follow the question period, after which Council would deliberate.
Mayor Veenker asked whether staff’s position is that all 3 required findings for demolition are met or if reliance is placed on specific findings. Director Lait confirmed that staff’s recommendation concludes that all 3 criteria are satisfied. Mayor Veenker then focused on the fire hazard standard, requesting clarification on whether it requires risk to occupants or that demolition be the only remedy. Legal Fellow Scott Pease referenced the applicable municipal code, stating that demolition is required where a dangerous building constitutes a fire hazard in violation of applicable provisions, and indicated that staff finds this standard met. Director Lait clarified that the fire hazard determination is not limited to occupant risk, noting that the building was vacated due to unsafe conditions and emphasizing concerns related to public safety and emergency response. Legal Fellow Pease provided further explanation that the requirement that no other remedy exists apart from demolition applies to a separate criterion and is not part of the fire hazard standard.
Mayor Veenker inquired whether additional speakers would be considered witnesses. City Attorney Jensen clarified that prior speakers were not witnesses but indicated that if the Fire Marshal provides testimony, that individual would be considered a witness and should be sworn in. Mayor Veenker confirmed that additional testimony could be taken in response to Council questions and City Attorney Jensen affirmed that Council has discretion to obtain needed information.
Councilmember Lu requested additional clarification on how the findings related to 50 percent deterioration and fire hazard are evaluated, referencing the appellant’s assertion that a formal valuation is required. City Attorney Jensen responded that the appellant’s cited statute applies to eminent domain proceedings, not code enforcement actions. It was explained that, while the City bears the burden of demonstrating that violations exist and demolition standards are met, this may be supported through evidence in the administrative record, including declarations and supporting documentation, rather than requiring an eminent domain‐style valuation process.
Councilmember Lu raised questions about how to interpret the "beyond repair" finding, noting that most conditions could theoretically be repaired at sufficient cost. City Attorney Jensen deferred to technical experts, particularly the Building Official, for evaluation of those conditions. Councilmember Lu asked about the threshold for determining a fire hazard, questioning how minor violations differ from conditions warranting demolition. City Attorney Jensen explained that the standard involves judgment, including consideration of whether repairs are practicable or economically feasible, and whether the building poses a danger. It was noted that expert opinions in the record support the conclusion that the building is dangerous. Councilmember Lu acknowledged the role of judgment in applying these standards and indicated the explanation regarding economic framing for what is beyond repair was useful.
SUMMARY MINUTES
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 04/20/2026
Mayor Veenker invited the appellant’s attorney to respond to questions regarding the fire hazard standard, including whether demolition must be the only remedy and whether hazards must relate to occupants. Attorney O’Neil clarified that some cited violations pertain to occupant safety, such as signage, while others relate to broader building fire risks, including fire suppression systems. It was asserted that the requirement that no alternative remedy exists derives from case law related to takings, rather than the municipal code, and that demolition constitutes a form of taking subject to constitutional protections. Mayor Veenker questioned whether the cited case law pertains specifically to takings rather than demolition standards.
Attorney O’Neil maintained that demolition orders constitute takings, subject to limited exceptions such as public nuisance. City Attorney Jensen disagreed with that characterization, stating that nuisance enforcement actions do not constitute takings and that it is within Council’s discretion to determine whether a nuisance exists. Mayor Veenker then asked whether the cited case law is inapplicable in this context. City Attorney Jensen indicated that case law requiring property valuation in takings proceedings is not applicable to this code enforcement matter.
Vice Mayor Stone requested testimony from the Fire Marshal regarding fire hazard conditions found on this property. City Clerk Mahealani Ah Yun administered the oath and Fire Marshal Tamara Jasso was sworn in.
Fire Marshal Tamara Jasso testified regarding fire hazard conditions at the property. It was stated that while 5‐year sprinkler testing documentation from 2023 was provided, required annual testing and maintenance records for subsequent years have not been submitted. It was further noted that the building is not fully sprinklered, with coverage limited primarily to the basement. Concerns were raised regarding structural deterioration, including compromised balconies, which were described as posing risks to firefighters. The building’s size and proximity to adjacent structures were identified as factors increasing the likelihood of fire spread.
Additional issues included compromised fire separation features, such as nonfunctional fire doors and openings in walls, which could allow rapid fire spread. Fire Marshal Jasso indicated that, due to these conditions, a defensive firefighting approach would likely be required, prioritizing protection of nearby structures rather than interior operations. Concerns were noted regarding the reliability of alarm systems and potential delays in emergency response. In response to occupancy considerations, it was reported that unauthorized entry and evidence of habitation have been identified on multiple occasions, with associated fire risks from warming or cooking activities. Reference was made to prior incidents involving fires in other local vacant buildings. Fire Marshal Jasso concluded that, in her professional opinion, the building constitutes a fire hazard and poses a risk to first responders and the public.
Mayor Veenker asked about potential impacts to neighboring properties and the surrounding area in the event of a fire at this building. Fire Marshal Jasso stated that the building’s size and proximity to adjacent structures would increase heat exposure and the likelihood of fire spread.
It was noted that the building’s scale would make containment more difficult, particularly if interior access is limited. Additional concerns were raised regarding smoke and air quality impacts to the surrounding neighborhood.
SUMMARY MINUTES
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 04/20/2026
Mayor Veenker asked whether Council would be precluded from asking additional questions after closing this portion of the hearing. City Attorney Jensen stated that Council may reopen the public hearing to seek additional information or take further evidence. It was suggested that the appellant be given an opportunity to respond to the Fire Marshal’s testimony. Mayor Veenker indicated intent to proceed to closing statements while confirming flexibility to revisit questions if needed.
Councilmember Lythcott‐Haims raised a question regarding the appellant’s assertion that a finding of 50 percent damage requires a formal valuation of the property. Legal Fellow Pease deferred to the Building Official’s declaration for that determination. Director Lait sought clarification on whether the question related to the need for a financial analysis or the basis for staff’s findings, referencing prior legal guidance that a formal valuation is not required and Councilmember Lythcott‐Haims acknowledged that the point may have been previously addressed. City Attorney Jensen reiterated that Council may rely on a range of evidence in the record to make the finding, including the Chief Building Official’s declaration, which provides a professional assessment supporting the 50 percent threshold.
Mayor Veenker invited the appellant to provide a closing statement of up to 3 minutes.
Attorney O’Neil responded to the Fire Marshal’s testimony, stating that annual testing had not been performed due to lack of access to the building. It was asserted that statements regarding potential alarm failure are speculative and not supported by evidence. Attorney O’Neil reiterated that demolition constitutes a taking requiring a high evidentiary standard, noting that cited case law includes specific valuation and damage thresholds not present in this case. It was further stated that the owners have pursued multiple development applications in an effort to address the site and that approval of a pending application would allow removal of the building while enabling beneficial use of the property. A request was made for Council to modify the demolition order to be contingent upon approval of the pending application. It was reported that additional security measures have been implemented to address prior trespassing concerns.
Director Lait reiterated that a formal analysis of the 50 percent threshold is not required to support the finding, noting that substantial evidence in the record supports that conclusion.
The building was described as presenting extensive and severe deficiencies across multiple systems, including fire protection, electrical, plumbing, and structural components, with widespread unpermitted construction. It was stated that bringing the building into compliance would effectively require replacement of major systems, amounting to deconstruction. Public safety concerns were emphasized, including risks to adjacent properties and limitations on firefighting response due to building conditions. Director Lait addressed the applicant’s development applications, stating that they are not relevant to the current proceeding and have not met requirements for completeness or compliance with state law. Issues were cited related to housing mix requirements and site access, and noted that required easement rights have not been demonstrated.
SUMMARY MINUTES
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 04/20/2026
Attorney O’Neil disputed staff’s characterization, asserting that the owners previously submitted demolition permits that were not accepted by the City. It was contended that, over an extended period, the City indicated demolition would require an approved redevelopment application and that the demolition order was issued after ongoing discussions regarding redevelopment efforts. Concerns were raised regarding the timing of the demolition order relative to application processing, including delays and changes in the City’s position. Attorney O’Neil argued that, if the building posed an immediate hazard, earlier action would have been taken.
Mayor Veenker closed the public hearing and transitioned to Council deliberation.
Councilmember Burt indicated he had some follow‐up questions for the applicant. Mayor Veenker stated that the public hearing would be reopened and invited other Councilmembers to prepare any further questions.
Councilmember Burt asked follow‐up questions regarding whether violations had been remedied. Attorney O’Neil indicated that certain conditions had been addressed, including clearing stored materials, removing some unpermitted elements, improving egress access, and undertaking hazardous materials remediation through a closure permit and walkthrough.
Councilmember Burt sought clarification on the scope of remediation, distinguishing between minor corrections and major building system deficiencies. Attorney O’Neil acknowledged that electrical and plumbing systems had not been remedied and indicated uncertainty regarding specific firewall conditions. Councilmember Burt sought confirmation regarding acknowledgment of violations and Attorney O’Neil confirmed that violations existed and continue to exist.
Mayor Veenker asked if there were any additional Council questions and, hearing none, closed the public hearing and invited Council discussion and/or a motion.
Vice Mayor Stone moved to deny the appeal and uphold the Chief Building Official’s demolition order. The motion was supported by the testimony and staff analysis, with the building characterized as a clear fire hazard posing risks to first responders, nearby residents, and the broader community. Appreciation was expressed for staff efforts to advance removal of the building and improve public safety.
Councilmember Lauing stated that the required findings could be made and noted the irony that all parties ultimately seek removal of the building. It was indicated that any future application would be evaluated by the Planning Department.
Councilmember Burt supported the motion, stating that the building poses a significant threat to adjacent properties and public welfare and that emergency response would be limited due to existing conditions. Concern was expressed that demolition is being delayed pending entitlement approval without a complete application.
Mayor Veenker stated that at least 1 of the required 3 findings, particularly the fire hazard, could be made. It was noted that while there is a desire for housing and redevelopment, that
SUMMARY MINUTES
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 04/20/2026
issue is separate from the matter before Council. Emphasis was placed on public safety and the ability to make the necessary findings based on the record. Support was expressed for the motion.
Councilmember Lythcott‐Haims indicated intent to support the motion and quoted the Chief Building Official’s declaration, which described the scope and severity of violations as among the most extensive encountered of his career and that demolition is required by law.
MOTION: Vice Mayor Stone moved, seconded by Councilmember Lauing, to adopt a resolution denying the appeal and upholding the Chief Building Official's Order to Demolish the buildings on the subject property based on findings and conditions set forth in Attachment A.
MOTION PASSED: 7‐0
12. Adoption of Recommendations by the Policy & Services Committee Implementing Changes to Meeting Procedures Related to Teleconferencing, Remote Public Participation, Translation and Interpretation Assistance, and Expanded Public Outreach; CEQA Status – Not a Project.
City Clerk Mahealani Ah Yun indicated that, due to time constraints, the staff presentation could be bypassed and the item could proceed directly to Council questions, noting it reflects P&S Committee recommendations and is heard as an action item due to statutory requirements. Mayor Veenker confirmed no Councilmembers requested a presentation.
Public Comment: None.
Vice Mayor Stone moved the staff and P&S Committee recommendations, reiterating the item is on the action agenda due to state law requirements. Councilmember Lythcott‐Haims seconded the motion.
Council and staff discussed options for structuring in‐person and remote general public comment, including whether to separate the timing of each. City Attorney Christopher Jensen confirmed that allowing in‐person general public comments at the beginning of meetings and remote general public comments at the end would be legally permissible. Discussion focused on whether to formalize this approach or allow flexibility. Support was expressed for providing discretion to the Chair or agenda‐setting process to determine the timing of remote comments, rather than adopting a fixed rule. Consideration was given to applying this approach across Council, boards, commissions, and committees. Staff noted the importance of maintaining flexibility as the City continues to evaluate meeting practices, particularly given differences in legal requirements for Council versus other bodies. It was clarified that while Council must accept remote public comment under current law, other bodies are only required to do so if meetings are conducted in a hybrid format, which is currently the City’s standard practice.
SUMMARY MINUTES
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 04/20/2026
Councilmember Burt proposed an amendment to allow the timing of remote general public comment to be determined by the Chair either during agenda setting or at the beginning of each meeting.
Vice Mayor Stone stated he would not support the proposed amendment, expressing concern that allowing timing to be determined at the meeting could create uncertainty for the public.
Preference was stated for a consistent default approach, with in‐person general public comments at the beginning and remote general public comments at the end of the meeting, subject to Chair discretion. Councilmember Lythcott‐Haims seconded that approach.
MOTION: Vice Mayor Stone moved, seconded by Councilmember Lythcott‐Haims, to:
1. Decline the use of expanded alternative teleconferencing for Boards, Commissions, and Committees (BCCs),
2. Adopt a default practice for all Council, Council Committee, and Boards and Commissions meetings to take in‐person general public comment near the beginning of the agenda and remote general public comment at the end of the agenda, with the Chair retaining discretion to arrange public comment on the agenda according to the needs of the body.
a. Refer the Policy and Services Committee to reevaluate of this general public comment practice when Council Procedures & Protocols handbook is reviewed;
3. Approve the Two‐Way Remote Public Access Disruption Policy (Attachment A),
4. Approve the following practices as reasonable assistance for third party translation and interpretation services, and
a. Arrange a space for interpreters at the meeting location, upon written request to the City Clerk at least 24 hours before the meeting,
b. Provide public speakers using interpretation extra time. Staff recommends providing twice as much time for individuals using interpretation, or an amount of time determined by the presiding officer,
c. Allow the public to use their own devices to access translation or interpretation devices, and
d. Loan city devices to the public to access translation or interpretation services upon written request to the City Clerk at least 24 hours before the meeting.
5. Direct the City Clerk to implement the following outreach practices:
SUMMARY MINUTES
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 04/20/2026
a. Share information about agenda notification newsletters with community groups and organizations such as neighborhood associations, non‐English news media, service organizations,
b. Post informational resources in the King’s Plaza and Council Chambers posting board and other public‐facing City facilities with QR codes linking to the Agendas webpage, newsletter sign‐up page, meeting participation guide, and translation services webpage, and
c. Translate the Meeting Participation Guide into the two most commonly spoken non‐English languages as reported by the American Community Survey.
MOTION PASSED: 7‐0
Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 10:54 p.m.