Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-08-11 City Council Summary MinutesCITY COUNCIL SUMMARY MINUTES Page 1 of 13 Regular Meeting August 11, 2025 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers and by virtual teleconference at 5:30 PM. Present In Person: Burt, Lauing, Lu, Reckdahl, Stone, Veenker Present Remotely: None Absent: Lythcott-Haims Call To Order Mayor Lauing called the meeting to order. The clerk took roll and declared six present. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions No changes. Public Comment 1. Jeffrey F., Palo Alto Family YMCA, gave a report about the 8th Annual Health Fair being held on September 21. 2. Michael K., resident of 1467 Hamilton, addressed two articles in the New York Times that referred to the Zuckerberg-Chan compound, illegal operation of a private school and abuse of police power. The neighborhood is in need of Council’s help resisting pressure from the very wealthy regarding real estate. 3. Raymond G., member of Afro-UPRIS, spoke about inequality of wealth in the City compared to Santa Clara County and asked the residents and City Council to consider ways to help the less fortunate residents in the county and to support the youth voting structure to be 16 and over. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 2 of 13 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 08/11/2025 4. Prys H., Middlefield Road resident, discussed traffic issues in the area between Loma Verde and East Meadow and a bus stop by Ashton hoping for some calming measures to be installed by the City. 5. Liz G. asked the Council to move forward quickly with development of suitable housing in Palo Alto and make the billionaires who live in the town accountable. 6. Monica M., resident of Menlo Park, spoke about positive experiences at the pickleball courts at Mitchell Park and requested having the number of courts expanded. 7. Sven T., chemical engineer, requested Council ask Utility to send out a notice about the benefits of using an induction stove. A flyer was passed around regarding an event about an ADU being built at Project Green Home with advanced framing technology. 8. Star T., Barron Park resident, thanked the City and Council for supporting community activities that aid in attaining and maintaining positive mental health and suggested creating and managing more kiosks around town including on high school campuses. 9. Julia Z., director of Cool Cities Coalition, invited the City and City Council to an upcoming extreme heat summit being hosted by the Cool Cities Coalition on August 17. Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements Councilmember Burt reported MTC awarded a quarter million dollar grant for advancement of the design and environmental work on the Quarry Road extension at the University Avenue train station. Caltrain, San Mateo County and VTA have opted to participate in the regional transportation tax intended for the November 2026 ballot. Caltrain’s ridership has gone up almost 50 percent since last October. It is about 60+ percent of the pre-COVID numbers. Commuter ridership remains stuck at around 40 percent. Vice Mayor Veenker described a bus tour that was put on the past week bringing legislative staff from Washington, DC and Sacramento to see how the City generates and uses electric power obtained through Northern California Power Agency with publicly operated utilities. Vice Mayor Veenker along with Councilmembers Lu and Burt attended the Silicon Valley Youth Climate Action Climate Summit. Councilmember Reckdahl spoke about attending the Ventura Ice Cream Social at the new Boulware Park the day before and the importance of ensuring residents have access to parks when adding housing. A lot of residents voiced concerns about RV parking. The issue will be discussed in a couple weeks at a Policy and Services meeting. Councilmember Lu appreciated the removal of the orange barriers on Cal Ave. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 3 of 13 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 08/11/2025 Mayor Lauing mentioned a talk given by the new Utilities Director on what has been accomplished so far and planned future accomplishments, the National Night Out community event and a ribbon cutting and check presentation for the installation of EV charging stations at Alta Housing’s Colorado Park Apartments. Study Session 1. 4256 El Camino Real [25PLN-00095]. Request for Council Prescreening to Rezone the Subject Property from Commercial Services to Planned Community/Planned Home Zoning and to Allow Construction of a Multi-Family Apartment Complex with 120 Units in a Six-Story Structure on a 25,950-Square-Foot (0.6 Acre) Site. CEQA Status: Not a Project. NO ACTION Emily Kallas, Senior Planner, provided a slide presentation including Council pre-screening process, conceptual project, project location, site plan, proposed elevation drawings, key considerations for Council, neighbor comments, CEQA status and recommended motion. Mircea Voskerician, Applicant, discussed parking for the project. Jeff Potts, Architect, provided a slide presentation including a map of the site, affordable housing requirement options, a site plan and parking plans, roof and floor plan and elevations of the project. Public Comment: 1. Kevin C. on behalf of 7 (Jean K., Jeanne V., Marshall B., Marie B., Marta P., Haya R.) expressed concerns about how the project was being considered relative to existing plans including property values, designated growth areas and near complete lot coverage. 2. Stephanie T. had concern that the current application piggybacked off the prior hotel application that had been contested, the proposed height of the property and no allowable space for emergency vehicles. 3. Anne M., engineer, discussed concerns about the vertical aspect of the project stating the building will appear too tall and narrow. The proposal calls for a zone change from CS to PHZ. Without the PHZ zone, the height and floor area will be cut in half back to what the CS zone and existing hotel permit allows. 4. Jeff L. indicated the project will create problems for the community and does not comply with the 50-foot PC height rules and parking rules and fails to deliver adequately on affordable housing. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 4 of 13 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 08/11/2025 5. Sharlene C. summarized how the proposal will impact the health of the canopy heritage trees. 6. Gayle C. expressed concern about parking, traffic and safety issues around the proposed project. 7. Julie B. objected to the height of the structure and had concerns about the environmental impact and the project aligning to the community’s needs along with enhancing the character of the neighborhood. 8. Nikolay M. had concerns about unsafe biking on Middlefield Road due to the project and the precedent being set. 9. Jeffrey H. (Zoom) advised downsizing the project and allowing the Palo Alto Redwoods Board joint the design process in order to preserve the redwood trees. 10. Liz G. (Zoom) supported the City and City Council to stop punishing working folk in the town for earning lower wages by providing better quality multifamily housing for families of all sizes and incomes. Councilmember Burt raised a question on whether there are redwoods on the current site that would be removed. Mr. Potts responded there would be no change in what was going to be removed from the hotel site. Having no underground garage being dug next to the trees puts them in a better position to maintain their health. Councilmember Burt asked for clarification on whether the project is proposing a stepdown or not. Ms. Kallas explained the elevations with the stepdown is the entitled hotel project. Councilmember Burt thought having a stepdown similar to what was on the hotel project was an important concern. Councilmember Burt queried if the assertions made by the developer about lower traffic impact than the hotel project and previous retail use were supported statements. Ms. Kallas indicated the project would be analyzed based on the standard ITE trip generation rates and did not know if multifamily is less than hotel or restaurant. Councilmember Burt inquired how the proposal stands up against the standard parking requirements. Ms. Kallas responded the project is proposing 100 parking spaces and 130 or 125 would be required depending on looking at the standard or the housing incentive program development standards. Councilmember Burt wanted to know if the agreement with an adjacent property for offsite parking is included in the analysis. Ms. Kallas replied that information was new to Staff and there are 100 spaces shown in the garage. Councilmember Burt had questions about the affordability threshold. Director Lait answered it is based on number of bedrooms. The project at Page Mill and El Camino was at 120 percent AMI and this would have to average out at 80 percent AMI. Staff understood the concern about SUMMARY MINUTES Page 5 of 13 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 08/11/2025 whether the market rate is equal to the deed restricted rate. Staff would look into that information. Councilmember Burt questioned if there was ability to change the formula for deed restricted affordable housing to incorporate the size of the unit rather than just the number of bedrooms. Director Lait thought the City established inclusionary requirement and could look into what authorities exist to make refinements to that. The planned home zoning application pre-negotiated the inclusionary requirements for these types of projects but outside of the zoning code changes, Council could consider whether some refinement could be considered as a public benefit. Vice Mayor Veenker queried if any arborist had been consulted regarding the redwood trees. Director Lait summarized that level of analysis has not been done. Ms. Kallas added it was analyzed as a part of the hotel project but would need to be reanalyzed to study this project. Mr. Voskerician indicated there is an arborist’s report on the hotel impact. None had been done for the current project and would be done if moving forward. The idea is to completely preserve the redwoods. Vice Mayor Veenker asked if there had been thought or discussion around having a green roof as opposed to a terrace. Mr. Potts responded the intention for the roof deck was to be a usable outdoor space that would incorporate greenery as well things like seating that had not been designed yet. Ms. Kallas added that would be included in the 130 square foot per unit of open space. Councilmember Stone expressed concern about the lack of loading space and wondered if that also included no space for ride share. Ms. Kallas confirmed that. Code would treat the loading zone as able to serve both purposes. Councilmember Stone stated that concern needed to be addressed. Councilmember Stone questioned why PTC did not recommend this site in the ECR retail node map. Director Lait guessed it was an entitled project and it was believed that it would develop as a hotel and not likely to turn over. Councilmember Stone asked if there was discussion of it at the PTC meeting. Director Lait agreed to obtain that information. Councilmember Stone inquired the exact height of the hotel. Ms. Kallas agreed to obtain that information. Councilmember Stone asked the applicant to speak to the estimated rent would be for a one bedroom. Mr. Potts did not have that information as of yet but indicated typically a smaller apartment of the same bedroom count is less expensive to rent. Councilmember Stone shared the concerns for the protection of the redwood trees, the size and mass of the building, under parking, no retail use and the lack of step backs and façade modulation. Councilmember Lu commented 3.57 FAR is fine and questioned the applicant if there are any thoughts and trade-offs on why the setback are the way they are or if there was consideration SUMMARY MINUTES Page 6 of 13 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 08/11/2025 to put more massing closer to El Camino. Mr. Potts indicated a lot of consideration went into laying things out. The lot coverage is already high. There are requirements for some setbacks around the building for things like fire and safety. The way to achieve the FAR, more privacy and more setbacks is taller on the El Camino side. It is a trade-off of getting the number of units that makes a viable project versus trying to work with the neighbors and various requests for more space, light and buffer. Those things can be further explored if the applicant chooses to move forward after Council’s feedback. Councilmember Lu wanted to see if any additional setback would make a difference in the viability of the redwood trees at the border of the lot and wanted assurance that offsite parking would be durable. The lack of retail is regrettable. Councilmember Lu queried if the intention was to abandon the hotel entitlement. Mr. Potts answered this is the key moment for that decision to be made. Councilmember Reckdahl opined this proposal did not give enough attention to the impact to the nearby neighbors. Assurance is needed that the setback is enough to prevent damage to the redwoods during construction. Privacy measures are needed. Councilmember Reckdahl was skeptical that external parking would be durable and needed to be addressed. Ample loading zones will be required. There was concern about the value of the micro units. Retail could be waived if the design was modified to have less impact on the neighbors. Mayor Lauing inquired about the plan if housing is not done. Mr. Voskerician replied that would have to be discussed internally and an evaluation would be done. Every step Council presented would be taken into consideration to make something feasible. Depending on the outcome of the analysis and Council decision on direction, the hotel might be paused. Mayor Lauing thought zoning could require that parking be permanent for the life of the ownership of the building. Director Lait confirmed that information stating if there was any offsite parking associated with the development, zoning code would have requirements for that and it would be required to run for the life of the project or some other long term use. Mayor Lauing asked if BMR would be negotiated. Director Lait answered defaulting to the code would be the starting place. Mayor Lauing suggested if the applicant wanted to make moves then continue it. Councilmember Burt was open to waiving the retail component in exchange for addressing some of the other issues. There were concerns expressed regarding the setback for the top floor on El Camino, the position of the mechanical and loading space. 2. 332 Forest Avenue [25PLN-00130]. Request for Council Prescreening to Rezone the Subject Property from Multifamily Residential (RM-40) to Planned Home Zoning (PHZ) and to Allow Construction of a New Multi-Family Apartment Complex with 82 units in an SUMMARY MINUTES Page 7 of 13 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 08/11/2025 Eight-Story Structure on a 25,000 Square Foot (0.57 Acre) Site. CEQA Status: Not a Project. NO ACTION Steven Switzer, Planner, provided a slide presentation including Council pre-screening process, conceptual project, project location, site plan, elevations, key considerations, CEQA status and recommended motion. Peter Giovannotto, Applicant, provided a slide presentation including an introduction of the property owner, architect and development advisors; the location; current layout of the site; vision: transit-oriented, walkable, bikeable development; vision: the joys of downtown Palo Alto residency; the project: creating the Forest Commons; shared outdoor space; reasons for the PHZ process; and community benefits. Rob Steinberg, Applicant, provided a slide presentation including The Fourth Corner – unique opportunity, vision for the site, shared garden, respect the past and celebrate the future, sculpting the massing of the building, details from Casa Real and Forest Avenue streetscape. Public Comments: 1. Ignacio d.M. had concerns about the size of the building and requested building more housing in Palo Alto in a way that does not affect the surrounding buildings. 2. Fred K. explained how there were daylight plane issues that needed to be resolved and more zoning analysis was needed before coming to conclusions on the project. 3. Judith S. expressed concerns about the height of the proposed project. 4. David S. discussed the concerns about the height of the building impacting the property values and noise from construction. 5. Rob L. spoke about a tree on the property of 332 that disappeared one weekend in 2020. 6. Liz G. (Zoom) expressed that 16 units at 80 percent AMI was not enough. The City needs homes that are about 120 AMI. 7. Amie A. (Zoom) supported the project and hoped it moved forward quickly and provided a list of buildings with a quarter mile that are as tall or taller. 8. Lisa L. (Zoom) shared concerns about the parking entrance and the massiveness of the building. Councilmember Lu inquired if the project is CEQA exempt. Mr. Switzer replied it is not a project as detailed in the staff report. Director Lait said the project itself would be subject to CEQA. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 8 of 13 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 08/11/2025 Councilmember Lu was confused why an option to connect to Homer would be related to the project. Mr. Switzer responded it was noted in some internal conversations with transportation that there could be a potential for a through lot connection to Homer. Councilmember Lu was curious about thoughts on the absence of bicycle parking. Mr. Giovannotto replied the plan was to fully comply with bicycle parking. Councilmember Lu wanted explanation about the massing. Mr. Steinberg explained a vertical element was being looked at to break a solid block into two blocks. There was plan to horizontally pick up the height from the building on the corner of Bryant and Forest. The part of the building closest to Forest would match the height of their building. Horizontal datum lines would be taken from both adjacent buildings to break the scale of the building down into smaller pieces to feel more in context with the Professorville area in order to make that feel like it is a transition building. Councilmember Lu had questions about the west elevation. Mr. Steinberg stated there are ins and outs. It will be broken down into smaller increments so it begins to be finer grain at Bryant Street. It builds up as it comes to the middle of the block. The middle of the block is the densest and then terraces back down to the single family on the other side of Casa Real. Councilmember Stone asked if loading space and ride share spots would be included in the final design. Mr. Steinberg confirmed it would be included in the final design. Councilmember Stone asked for a review of key provisions of how the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 or additional protections in Palo Alto would be able to help displaced residents. Mr. Switzer stated at a local level, there is relocation assistance offered for a just cause eviction. At the state level, there is Right to Return and some comparable amenities and benefits afforded. Specifics would require more attention. Councilmember Stone had concern about the potential historic significance of the current building and asked if the possibility of being able to build something new within the existing footprint had been looked into. Mr. Giovannotto answered between the backlot and 332 Forest was the only thing that allowed the density to make the project feasible. Mayor Lauing opined the project is exactly what is needed downtown and the location is ideal. Vice Mayor Veenker asked if the project still exceeds the open space requirement. Mr. Giovannotto explained the two campuses are being envisioned together. This will be the open space requirement for the new building. Mr. Switzer added it needs further evaluation. Some different zoning and building code standards applied to the structure at the time of construction. What was presented is a shared open space that would require some alternative. An easement might need to be required for that shared space. The two properties are under common ownership. Vice Mayor Veenker suggested bringing more detail on that upon returning. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 9 of 13 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 08/11/2025 Vice Mayor Veenker wanted clarification about bike parking. Mr. Giovannotto provided assurance that there would be compliant bike parking sufficient to the requirement. Councilmember Burt encouraged the applicant to explore whatever number of parking slots would work economically to serve all four buildings. Councilmember Reckdahl had concern about the impact to the next door neighbors and asked if the right hand wall on slide six was going to change. Mr. Steinberg indicated it was not finished. Moves would have to be made on Forest and adjacent to the existing residents on Bryant to find the right balance. Councilmember Reckdahl wanted to see a step back on the right side or scooting the whole thing left to provide more buffer. Mr. Steinberg explained it will be tough to shift the whole building because the property has a dog leg in the back that requires the building width to keep the required setbacks on both sides. There are opportunities to push the building in and step it down a little bit to articulate that side so it is reasonable to existing residents. Consent Calendar Public Comment: 1. Carol S. (Item 7) (Zoom) discussed concerns about Item Number 7 and requested it be taken off the consent calendar. 2. Aram J. (Item 5, 9, 12) (Zoom) felt the pay scale for public safety employees to be excessive. He wanted Items Number 9 and 5 removed from the calendar as both needed discussion. He advised Council to look at the Spotlight article he sent. 3. Liz G. (Items 7, 12, 13) (Zoom) expressed concerns over parking. Councilmember Lu Recused from Agenda Item Number 7 and 13. Vice Mayor Veenker Recused from Agenda Item Number 13. MOTION: Vice Mayor Veenker moved, seconded by Mayor Lauing to approve Agenda Item Numbers 3-15. MOTION PASSED ITEMS 3-6, 8-12, 14-15: 6-0-1, Lythcott-Haims Absent MOTION PASSED ITEM 7: 5-0-1-1, Lythcott-Haims Absent, Lu Recused MOTION PASSED ITEM 13: 4-0-1-2, Lythcott-Haims Absent, Lu, Veenker Recused 3. Approval of Minutes from June 9, June 16, and June 17, 2025 Meetings SUMMARY MINUTES Page 10 of 13 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 08/11/2025 4. Ordinance Adopting the 2025 Fire Hazard Severity Zone Map Issued by the State Fire Marshal 5. Adoption of Memorandums of Agreement with the Palo Alto Police Officers’ Association (PAPOA) and the Palo Alto Police Managers Association (PMA) for Terms Ending June 30, 2028, and Corresponding Salary Schedules; CEQA Status – Not a Project 6. Adoption of a Resolution Establishing Fiscal Year 2026 Property Tax Levy for General Obligation Bonds (Measure N Libraries) 7. Adopt a Resolution to Modify Evergreen Park-Mayfield Residential Preferential Parking Program Employee Permit Allotment and Zone Revisions and Create New Two-Hour Parking Areas Adjacent to El Camino Real; CEQA Status: Exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15061(b)(3) and 15301. 8. Adopt a Council Chambers Use Policy as recommended by the Policy and Services Committee and Adopt an Ordinance Adding Use of Council Chambers Fees to the FY 2026 Municipal Fee Schedule; CEQA status: Not a project 9. Approval of Five (5) On-Call Consulting Contracts to Provide Long Term Planning Policy Development support for the Planning and Development Services over a Five-Year Term, as needed: 1) Aaron Welch Planning, 2) Ascent Environmental, Inc. 3) Lexington Planning LLC, 4) PlaceWorks, Inc., 5) Raimi & Associates Inc. in an amount not to exceed $2,000,000; CEQA Status: Not a Project. 10. Approval of Increase of Construction Contingency for Contract No. C24189237 with SAK Construction, LCC in the amount of $1,800,000, Funded by the Wastewater Treatment Enterprise Fund for the Joint Intercepting Sewer Rehabilitation (Phase 1) Project (WQ 24000), and Approval of a Budget Amendment in the Wastewater Treatment Fund; CEQA Status - Exempt under CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Repairs to Existing Facilities) 11. Approval of Amendment No. 1 to Contract No. C22182051 with EPI-USE Labs LLC to Increase the Compensation by $939,675 for the City’s AWS Cloud and SAP Basis Support Services and Extending the Term by 12 months to December 31, 2026; CEQA status - exempt under 15061(b)(3). 12. Approval of Amendment #1 to Contract C23184669A With LifeMoves to Extend the Contract by Two Years Through July 1, 2025 – June 30, 2027 in the Amount of $512,377 for a Total Contract Value Not To Exceed $972,377 for the Provision of Homeless Outreach Service; and Amend the FY 2026 Budget in the General Fund and the Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA) Grant Fund; CEQA Status – Not A Project. 13. QUASI-JUDICIAL. 3150 El Camino Real [24PLN-00231]: Approval of a Vesting Tentative Map to Merge Five Parcels Together to Create One 111,030-Square-Foot Parcel to SUMMARY MINUTES Page 11 of 13 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 08/11/2025 Facilitate Construction of 368 New Residential Rental Units. CEQA Status: Streamlined CEQA Review in Accordance with Section 15183. Zoning District: CS (Service Commercial). 14. FIRST READING: Adoption of an Ordinance to align chair and vice chair selection language for the Parks and Recreation Commission (Palo Alto Municipal Code Ch. 2.25) and the Architectural Review Board (Palo Alto Municipal Code Ch. 2.21) with the City’s other Boards, Commissions, and Committees (BCCs); and Adoption of a Resolution doing the same for the Storm Water Management Oversight Committee – CEQA Status: Not a Project 15. FIRST READING: Adoption of an Ordinance Adding PAMC Chapter 16.15 to Restate Procedures for Expedited Permitting of Electric Vehicle Charging Systems to Comply with State Law. CEQA Status: Exempt under CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3). City Manager Comments City Manager Shikada provided a slide presentation including public safety building milestones, upcoming community engagement opportunities, local Energy Reach code updates, summer events and family fun continue and notable tentative upcoming Council items. Councilmember Burt asked if the upcoming Reach Code update was exempt from AB 130. City Manager Shikada replied that the item being brought forward was to meet a deadline stated in that legislation. It exempts changes made effective in September. There is an exemption the City is believed to qualify for that is being pursued. Councilmember Burt asked if the agenda item on RVs in the community was planned to get to Council after the Policy and Services meeting. City Manager Shikada indicated space and flexibility was being provided to the P&S Committee and their recommendations. Adjustments would be made as needed to ensure it was brought forward in a timely manner. Action Items 16. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Objections for Weed Abatement Assessments; and Adoption of Resolution Confirming the Weed Abatement Report and Ordering Abatement Costs to be a Special Assessment on the Properties Specified in the Report; CEQA status - categorically exempt. Tami Jasso, Fire Mashall summarized that Council would approve the list of property owners that had been put on the Weed Abatement List and hear any objections to being on the list. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 12 of 13 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 08/11/2025 Councilmember Burt queried if the weed abatement requirement applies to properties of public agencies. Garik Losilevsky, Santa Clara County Representative replied the program only focuses on privately owned properties. Any issues regarding publicly owned properties are communicated to that agency to be addressed internally. MOTION: Councilmember Reckdahl moved, seconded by Councilmember Stone to adopt a resolution confirming the report and ordering abatement costs to be a special assessment on the properties specified in the report (Attachment A). MOTION PASSED: 6-0-1, Lythcott-Haims Absent 17. Approval of Resolutions Amending the Amended and Restated Water Supply Agreement Between the City and County of San Francisco and Wholesale Customers in Alameda County, San Mateo County and Santa Clara County and the Updated Tier 2 Drought Response Implementation Plan; CEQA Status: Not a Project and Categorically Exempt under CEQA Guidelines Sec. 15307, 15308 Karla Daily, Assistant Director provided a slide presentation including an agenda, key elements of the water supply agreement between San Francisco and the wholesale customers, minimum purchase requirement, 3 elements of the minimum purchase agreement, minimum purchase requirement amendment impacts, shortages on the regional water system plans, tier 1 family plan, update to the tier 2 drought allocation plan, tier 2 methodology, tier 2 policy principles, Palo Alto water use restrictions with new tier 2 plan and recommended motion. Public Comment: 1. Pat S., Mountain View City Council member, summarized the benefits of the water supply agreement and asked the Council to support it. 2. Tom S. spoke in support of the water supply agreement and hoped Council would approve it. 3. Chris T. (Zoom) opined that there was not sufficient data from SFPUC to make these decisions emphasizing the connection between this contract amendment and the alt- water decisions and asked for more collaboration from the Commission. 4. Utsav G. (Zoom) discussed how approving these water agreement amendments would be a fiscally irresponsible decision made without essential data and advised sending the item back to the UAC to be properly reviewed after critical drought forecast data is received from the SFPUC and there is better cost modeling for impacts on Palo Altoans. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 13 of 13 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 08/11/2025 5. Peter D. (Zoom), Tuolumne River Trust policy director, spoke in opposition to the water supply agreement because of inaccurate data from the SFPUC. 6. Patti R. (Zoom) read a statement from Steven Rosenblum indicating disappointment in the policies of BOSCA. The commenter wanted City Council to pursue a study session and listen to the stakeholders. Councilmember Stone wanted to clarify that the SFPUC would not receive additional funds or money from the revised agreement. Director Daily confirmed that information. Councilmember Stone summarized his support for the amendment and encouraged colleagues to vote yes. Councilmember Burt agreed with Councilmember Stone’s comments and discussed support for the recommendations and the efforts the mayor and Councilmember Stone has been pursuing with BOSCA. Vice Mayor Veenker agreed with approving the amendment but wanted to continue to push for an analysis on the need for alt-water. MOTION: Councilmember Stone moved, seconded by Councilmember Lu to approve two resolutions: 1. Amending the Amended and Restated Water Supply Agreement between the City and County of San Francisco and Wholesale Customers in Alameda County, San Mateo County and Santa Clara County (Attachment A) and; 2. Approve the updated Tier 2 Drought Response Implementation Plan (Attachment B). MOTION PASSED: 6-0-1, Lythcott-Haims Absent Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 10:02 PM