Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-11-10 City Council Summary MinutesCITY COUNCIL SUMMARY MINUTES Page 1 of 23 Regular Meeting November 10, 2025 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers and by virtual teleconference at 5:30 p.m. Present In Person: Burt, Lauing, Lu, Lythcott-Haims, Reckdahl Present Remotely: None Absent: Stone, Veenker Special Orders of the Day 1. Proclamation Recognizing National Police Records and Support Personnel Week Councilmember Reckdahl read the proclamation for National Police Records and Support Personnel Week for November 9 through 15, 2025. Assistant Police Chief James Reifschenider expressed gratitude for recognizing the work of the Records Unit and Support Division at the Palo Alto Police Department. Records and support staff were often the first face or voice that members of the public encountered when contacting the police department. Their expertise was critical to successful day-to-day operations. Assistant Police Chief Reifschenider and several colleagues came forward to accept the proclamation and for a photograph with the City Council Members. NO ACTION Closed Session 2. Public Employee Performance Evaluations Authority: Cal. Gov. Code section 54957(b) Title: City Clerk, City Auditor and City Attorney 3. Conference with Labor Negotiator Authority: Cal. Gov. Code section 54957.6 Agency Representative: Dan Rich, Municipal Resources Group Unrepresented Employees: City Attorney, City Clerk and City Manager SUMMARY MINUTES Page 2 of 23 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 11/10/2025 MOTION: Councilmember Reckdahl moved, seconded by Councilmember Lythcott-Haims, to go into Closed Session. MOTION PASSED: 5-0-2, Stone and Veenker absent Council went into Closed Session at 5:36 p.m. Council returned from Closed Session at 8:20 p.m. Mayor Lauing announced no reportable action. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions Mayor Lauing predicted that because of the amount of public speakers, the issue regarding dark skies would not be taken up at this meeting. Public comment on dark skies would be taken if time allowed but the debate may be postponed. Public Comment 1. Jezzie Y., a student at Menlo College studying business management with a focus on real estate and urban planning, wanted to discuss how Palo Alto could make better use of underutilized commercial spaces to meet community needs. It was believed that reimagining these spaces as mixed-used family centers or affordable housing could breathe new life into neighborhoods and would be a community investment. California AB 2011 and AB 1490 helped other Cities to streamline these processes. The City was urged to explore policies or pilot programs to make it easier for small developers and local nonprofits to convert these properties into spaces for families. 2. Kaden T., a student at Menlo College, spoke about the gap between the amount of vacant commercial spaces in Palo Alto and the challenges that small business owners faced to afford workspace. It was reminded that the City's Comprehensive Plan says that Palo Alto should support small and locally owned businesses to maintain a diverse and vibrant local economy. Many commercial and office spaces sat empty for long stretches of time. Zoning rules, ground-floor retail protections and Title 18 were created to support walkability and community life. The City was asked to consider creating rental incentives for property owners who lease to local or early-stage businesses, explore transitional or tiered rent programs as well as review parts of Title 18 to identify where small businesses could be allowed while protecting walkability and active street life. 3. Israel G., a Menlo College student studying real estate and business, described learning about how Cities balance housing, land use and development. Some residents in Palo Alto had turned RVs and trailers into alternative forms of housing due to affordability SUMMARY MINUTES Page 3 of 23 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 11/10/2025 challenges. The Buena Vista Mobile Park remained the City's only significant site for this use, which led to unregulated RV and trailer parking throughout Palo Alto. It was recommended that the Planning and Development Department and City Council review existing zoning and land use policies to determine whether a designated RV or trailer zone could help manage this issue more effectively, particularly a currently vacant parcel of land on the outskirts of the City limits. 4. Magdalena C. expressed the need for a pilot study of a natural grass field before the City decided to use artificial turf in all fields. The Parks and Recreation Commission recommended plastic grass at El Camino Park. Much was known about cancer-causing effects of PFAS in synthetic turf as well as the shedding of nano- and microplastics. It was urged to conduct a pilot study of a well-managed grass field to make a fair comparison against artificial turf and to use natural materials in all City playgrounds. 5. Claire E., a resident of Palo Alto and a retired environmental engineer and ecologist, wanted to encourage the City Council to think about the Lloyd study before approving artificial turf at El Camino Park. Claire E. approved of a pilot study of a natural grass field. In the health hazard section of the Lloyd study, PFAS was listed as a chemical of concern for synthetic grasses. Claire E. stated that even PFAS-free turf could contain PFAS because there were no analyses for many PFAS compounds. The Lloyd study mentioned several concerns about chemical hazards of natural grass that were all pesticides, which Palo Alto does not use. Claire E. stated there were many hidden costs with synthetic grasses and that people manufacturing it were dying at increased rates. 6. Raphael Z., who lived on Ash Street with his wife, stated the RV parking situation at Ash Street and Portage Avenue had significantly worsened. One specific person had about 10 vehicles parked around this area. This situation had been reported several times on the PaloAlto311 app, which resulted in tow warnings and chalk marks on the ground. Going out after dark was now a safety concern and at least one incident had gotten aggressive. It was urged to enforce the current rules. 7. Barry K. represented the Ventura Neighbors Association on the RV issue and endorsed Raphael Z.'s comments. A humanitarian balance while approaching the enforcement on RV parking was being requested. 8. Carol G. was a 22-year resident of Palo Alto and the producer of the 3rd Thursday Cal Ave Music Festival. After 30 consecutive months, 3rd Thursday had been canceled this month for the first time. Their sponsor, the Palo Alto Chamber Foundation, ended their relationship with 35 days' notice. Petitions had gotten the signatures of 128 members and 29 businesses on car-free Cal Ave. It was urged to comment on the November 30 Palo Alto Online article or to email carol@3rdThursday.fun for the petition link. 9. Debra W., a Palo Alto resident, expressed her support for Carol G. and the 3rd Thursday Cal Avenue series and was disappointed in the decision made by their former sponsor SUMMARY MINUTES Page 4 of 23 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 11/10/2025 and City officials. It was urged to read the October 30 article regarding this at Palo Alto Online. A few complaints seemed to have determined the fate of this series. Debra W. believed Carol G.'s dedication and talent had consistently uplifted the community and its merchants and that there was room for dialogue and compromise for this event. It was hoped the City leaders would choose to lead with openness, inclusion and heart. 10. Roger S. stated that Palo Alto had 240 campers and that San Francisco, which was 11 times bigger than Palo Alto, had 546 campers. Roger S. emphasized that these 240 campers were also 240 families. It had been reported that approximately $7.1M would be spent over the next few years on this issue, which could be almost $30K given to each family to go somewhere else. It was hoped that some of this money would be used for people downtown sleeping in garages, etc. Roger S. asked when a report from the ad hoc committee would be available. Roger S. opined that businesses in Palo Alto had no voice and wanted to encourage the City Council to think about them due to their economic impact. Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements Councilmember Lythcott-Haims stated the ad hoc committee on RV impacts and safe parking was formed shortly after the October 20 meeting. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims welcomed anyone to email her concerning information about how to find more safe parking opportunities. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims attended a PG&E community meeting about a gas pipeline that runs through the backyards of residents on Ashton Avenue. This pipeline would be moved under the street in front of those properties. PG&E's proactiveness and community outreach were much appreciated. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims had also attended an event for elected officials sponsored by Working Partnerships and the South Bay Labor Council for noncooperation training regarding the response to the rise in authoritarianism. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims was putting together a Positive Potluck Supper at her home on November 14 in response to the loneliness epidemic, which was supported by the Know Your Neighbors Grant. It was requested to bring a potluck dish to this event and make a donation to the South Palo Alto Food Closet. Councilmember Burt stated he and Councilmember Reckdahl had attended the Stanford Policy Day on Environmental Resilience. Stanford Doerr School had funding and a focus on supporting local jurisdictions in their environmental innovations and was looking for greater collaboration. Councilmember Burt felt this was a great opportunity for the City staff to develop a more strategic relationship with those groups at Stanford. Mayor Lauing wanted to reference the Mayor's forum held on November 6 as this did not broadcast live because of a technical difficulty and explained the link was now on the website. In this forum, the Mayor covered the substantial progress being made on affordable housing, housing in general, OSVs and the ad hoc committee. The ad hoc committee had their first SUMMARY MINUTES Page 5 of 23 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 11/10/2025 meeting and decided to meet weekly for the rest of the year to move things along. The Mayor had toured Second Harvest of Silicon Valley on November 7, which was the predominant provider of food banks for Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties. One in 6 residents (more than 500,000 people) in these 2 counties depended on Second Harvest for food support. Second Harvest was a significant supplier of food to many agencies in Palo Alto. Mayor Lauing was extremely impressed by their logistical expertise to move such massive volumes of food to 400 different agencies a month and thanked Second Harvest for their efforts. Consent Calendar Public Comment: None. 4. FIRST READ: Adopt an Ordinance Amending PAMC Chapter 10.56 (Special Speed Zones) to Update Speed Limit Studies for Nine Streets and Approve the 2025 Traffic Survey; CEQA status – categorically exempt. 5. Approval of a Budget Amendment in the General Fund for the Planning and Development Services Department’s Deposit-Based Fee Program for Private Development Studies for a Net Zero Impact. CEQA Status: Not a Project AA1. Adopt a Resolution Deferring CPAU Late Fees and Collection Actions for Certain Customers Affected by the Ongoing Federal Government Shutdown; CEQA Status – Not a Project. MOTION: Councilmember Reckdahl moved, seconded by Councilmember Lu, to approve Agenda Item Numbers 4, 5 and AA1. MOTION PASSED: 5-0-2, Stone and Veenker absent Action Items 6. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 660 University Ave [21PLN-00341]: Request for Approval of a Planned Home Zoning (PHZ) on Three Parcels (511 Byron Street, 660 University Avenue, 680 University Avenue/500 Middlefield Road), to Demolish Existing Buildings and Provide a New Six-Story Mixed-Use Building with Approximately 1,900 Square Feet of Office, 70 Multi-Family Residential Units and a Two-Level Below-Grade Parking Garage. CEQA Status: A Draft Environmental Impact Report Circulated for Public Review Beginning on April 2, 2024, and Ending on May 17, 2024. The City published a Final EIR in March 2025 and a revised Final EIR in October 2025. Zoning District: RM-20 (Multi-Family Residential). SUMMARY MINUTES Page 6 of 23 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 11/10/2025 Senior Planner Emily Kallas, project planner for the 660 University PHZ Rezoning and Comprehensive Plan Amendment project, delivered a presentation. The amendment would reestablish the existing office space in the Multifamily Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation and included a PHZ ordinance to allow a 6-story mixed-used building with 1,984 square feet of office, 66 residential units (20 percent of which would be affordable), 2 levels of underground parking, a height exception for the 35-foot height limit and reduced setbacks. This was the 9th public hearing for this project. A builder's remedy application had been submitted for a housing project on this site that would not be subject to typical zoning development standards and would require review by the Architectural Review Board and City Council. The project had been modified since the PTC hearing on October 8 to include a decrease in the number of units, a slight decrease in the proposed floor area, bird-safe glass to the 6th floor and removing balconies from within the tree protection zone (TPZ). Slides were presented showing different elevations of the project. Key considerations for City Council included a Comprehensive Plan amendment, zoning allowances, TPZ and balconies, future use of the special setback, parking and TDM plan as well as affordable below-market rate (BMR) units. The proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment language stated, "As part of a Planned Community zone or in accordance with retail preservation requirements, existing commercial square footage may be maintained or rebuilt as part of a housing development project." This modified the definition of Multiple-Family Residential Land Use Designation. This amendment would be limited to new PC/PHZ projects with existing commercial space. About 35 out of approximately 1,700 properties in this land use designation had a nonresidential use, most of which were medical or dental offices located in the periphery of the downtown areas. As a discretionary project, the proposed modifications to the zone district would allow exceedance of the RM-20 zone’s maximum allowable height and floor area, a density of 126 dwelling units per acre, less useable open space and reduced parking. The project included several setback encroachments, most notably for the Middlefield Special Setback. Although the building face had a 24-foot setback, the parking garage below grade was proposed essentially at the property line. For the 3 street sides, the below-grade parking went to the property line and the building setback was less than required. Floors 4 through 6 encroached on the daylight plane. Preservation of the neighboring property's Coast Live Oak tree overhanging this site was a priority for this project. Balconies were removed from within the TPZ, although Urban Forestry staff confirmed that the balconies would not have affected the health of the tree. The alternative was to maintain a 70-unit design but not provide useable outdoor open space for 6 units. Staff recommended a condition of approval to dedicate a public access easement over the 24- foot front yard special setback including to a depth of 20 feet for future transportation improvements. This condition may require the removal of certain site improvements, such as a parking reduction from 78 spaces to 72, though this had an exception to allow the stairs down to the parking area and ramp locations. The parking and TDM plan included an 8 percent parking reduction required under zoning. This project was within the Downtown Residential Preferential Parking district. The staff report explained the proposed condition of approval to address spillover parking. The proposal met the PHZ requirement of 20 percent BMR units. The SUMMARY MINUTES Page 7 of 23 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 11/10/2025 plans showed 2 very low income, 5 low income and 6 moderate income designated as 5 studios, 7 one-bedroom and 1 two-bedroom for a total of 13 BMR units; however, staff recommended this be revised to 4 studios, 7 one-bedroom and 2 two-bedroom units. There were many public comments concerning this project, notably one which questioned the validity of the builder's remedy application. The City Attorney reviewed and determined that the builder's remedy application could be amended pursuant to the tolling agreement. In compliance with CEQA, a draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was published and in circulation in April of 2024. A final EIR was initially published in March of 2025 and a revised final EIR was published in October of 2025. The current project would not result in any new or more significant impacts beyond what was assessed in the previously published draft and final EIR documents, which included a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). Staff recommended adding a condition of approval to address the costs associated with staff’s implementation of the conditions of approval, MMRP and TDM plan. Staff recommended the City Council take the following actions: 1) Adopt the resolution to certify the EIR and MMRP. 2) Adopt the resolution amending the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element. 3) Adopt the Planned Community Ordinance rezoning the subject property. 4) Approve the Record of Land Use Action with approval findings and conditions of approval. Boyd Smith from Smith Development said this application remained within the City process rather than builder’s remedy. Boyd Smith encouraged the Council to move the project ahead this evening without adding further costs or constraints on an already difficult project to build and finance. Ted Korth with Korth Sunseri Hagey (KSH) Architects delivered a slide presentation. In June of 2025, the project was revised to meet FEMA’s definitions of a mixed-use building in a Special Flood Hazard Area. The project was approved by the Architectural Review Board (ARB) and Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) in August and October of 2025, respectively. In response to the ARB ad hoc comment and PTC proposed conditions of approval, the project was revised and resubmitted in October of 2025. This project would provide 1,984 square feet of ground-level office space, 66 units at Levels 2-6, 78 stalls with a parking reduction of 8 percent and space for possible future City improvements at the corner of University Avenue and Middlefield Road while complying with the 24-foot Middlefield Road Special Setback above grade. Mr. Korth with KSH Architects said the City’s arborist and applicant’s arborist agreed that the proposed measures were adequate to protect the adjacent coast live oak tree and let it flourish in the future. Slides were shown of the context plan, neighborhood context plan, context photos, existing site plan, renderings from different views, floorplans for each level, Middlefield Road elevation, University Ave elevation with public art located on the building and Byron Street elevation. To provide 13 BMR units, which was 20 percent of the total 66 units, the applicant proposed 4 studios, 8 one-bedroom and 1 two-bedroom; however, City staff suggested 4 studios, 7 one-bedroom and 2 two-bedroom units. The 4-block Middlefield Road setback diagram noted setbacks ranging from 8 feet 6 inches to 24 feet, which this project would comply with. The City did not yet have a plan for the 24-foot SUMMARY MINUTES Page 8 of 23 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 11/10/2025 setback designated in blue on the building sections as well as P1 and P2 Level plans (first and second levels of parking below grade) but the City could retrofit that area in the future, for example, to potentially change the signalization at the intersection of University and Middlefield. The rear elevation and Level 2 floorplan had no balconies behind the oak tree, complying with the ARB suggestion to remove the balconies located in the centerline of the tree. The units were reconfigured to have 2 one-bedroom units with a balcony straddling that line, so every unit would have private open space. An alternate section depicted the oak tree on the right with 2 vertical lines to the right of the building representing a 6-foot zone where the tree would be trimmed, allowing adequate space for scaffolding and construction of the project. Mr. Korth with KSH Architects reported that Urban Forestry determined the balconies would not hinder the tree in any way. The landscape site plan was shown. There would be planters at the ground floor on all 4 sides of the building. To avoid disturbing the roots, the terrace deck would be built beneath the canopy of the oak tree and float above the existing asphalt. Mayor Lauing asked Council Members to disclose any interface they have had with the developer. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims had a few conversations with the applicant and what she learned was covered in the presentation. Councilmember Reckdahl met with the applicant and had nothing to report. Mayor Lauing met with the applicant approximately 3 times in the last 9 months and everything in the presentation was the same as his conversations with the applicant. Councilmember Lu had not met with the applicant or residents but did walk around the outside of the property. Councilmember Burt met with the applicant previously but not within the last year. Public Comments: 1. Kinsey H. spoke on behalf of Rich F., Justine F., Deb F., Kay B., Joann M. and Franko P. Kinsey H. was a lawyer who disagreed with the City Attorney’s determination that the builder’s remedy, although it had a defect, could be remedied. Kinsey H. previously submitted extensive materials to the Council that argued this point. Although many commissioners voiced their concerns about this project at the PTC hearing, Kinsey H. believed the PTC approved the project because a builder’s remedy would be worse. Kinsey H. thought the Council had been deprived of the opportunity to get viewpoint from the PTC and ARB that was unclouded by the builder’s remedy. Kinsey H. urged the Council to request additional input from the PTC and ARB. A slide in the developer’s presentation showed the side of the coast live oak tree as viewed from Middlefield and Kinsey H. noticed the tree was misshapen with a truncated canopy in the direction of the building and an extended canopy going the other way. In Los Altos, an oak tree of SUMMARY MINUTES Page 9 of 23 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 11/10/2025 similar size and age was pruned to keep the tree away from residential buildings and it grew in a misshapen fashion. Consequently, a giant limb fell and landed in the middle of a cul-de-sac. Kinsey H. noted the arborists had not addressed how the tree would grow given the shade and necessary pruning as well as the inevitable risk of damage to property and people caused by this project contributing to the misshapen growth of the tree. Kinsey H. opined that this project would contribute to transportation congestion. Every car that entered or exited the garage would almost immediately impact traffic on either University or Franklin, so to look at transportation only on the 500 block of Byron was an incomplete perspective. The City’s larger response to Housing Element mandates and in particular Rezone Strategy #2 would create a lot of intense development by Caltrain and all those cars would go down the major arterials, so even a modest change in the burden on those arterials at the periphery had the potential to create significant bottlenecks and complete gridlock. Kinsey H. did not see that the Rezone Strategy had been considered in relation to this project. Kinsey H. wondered how many studios were expected in the Rezone Strategy because 20 percent would equate to almost 1,000 studios. 2. Chris R., spoke on behalf of Hal V., Carol V., Richard S. and Rosamaria P. Chris R. was allowed to use his laptop to share his PowerPoint presentation at the last ARB and PTC hearings. Chris R. asked if the Council could direct staff to show his presentation. Mayor Lauing explained that Council‘s rule was that it had to be done in advance. Chris R. was not allowed to show his presentation tonight, so he delivered a verbal presentation. According to the applicant’s information, the coast live oak tree was 50 inches in diameter, 60 feet tall and 90 feet across in the canopy. Chris R.’s arborist viewed the tree and concluded that the proposed trimming would cause the tree to go into decline. The north side of the tree would be cut back 25 percent whereas the south side on the neighbor’s property would have its full canopy, resulting in the south side of the canopy being twice as big as the north side. To explain leverage, Chris R. used a seesaw as an analogy. Because the trimming would be on the peripheral of the canopy, the center of weight on the north side would move in toward the center of the tree whereas the south side would remain the same. This would result in a factor of 2:1 in weight and distance, which calculated to 4:1 in leverage, meaning the south side of the tree had 4 times the force to pull the tree over than the north side had to try to pull it back. The City’s arborist consultant performed a ground radar projection showing roots that stopped at 51 feet, citing they could extend 90 feet or 135 feet (2 or 3 times the canopy dripline). The applicant would be putting a garage over the tree roots. The applicant’s tree report said they would permit ground incursions into a 20-foot radius. The garage would cut back 30 feet, so Chris R. calculated that the roots would be cut back by about 20 percent. The leverage pulling it over and no roots holding it up posed a risk of the tree crashing. Chris R. described a photo of a truck on Byron Street. There was not enough space for 2 cars to get past each other, so 1 car must pull off into a driveway to SUMMARY MINUTES Page 10 of 23 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 11/10/2025 allow the other to pass and the proposed construction would worsen this situation. A building covered the entire lot, so there was no place for construction people to be on the property or get in or out. Chris R. agreed with Board Member Hirsch’s comment at the first ARB meeting that this was too much building in too small of a space. The City Council worked with the PTC to approve the Housing Element on April 15, 2024, and approved by the State in August. The applicant did not file a builder’s remedy until May and June; therefore, the City had a valid Housing Element when the applicant filed. 3. Carol Gilbert shared a slide presentation on behalf of C.S.P., Jin P., Nic T., Richard M. and Peggy F. Ms. Gilbert noted the applicant’s slides did not show any cars. Area traffic would double or triple when 660 University is built. Many seniors live in this area at The Hamilton, the Webster buildings and Lytton Gardens. Byron had dentists, psychiatrists and a very active church. This proposed project would add garbage trucks, Uber, Amazon, UPS and postal delivery trucks to Byron. Byron Street’s width was 29 feet; therefore, 2 cars cannot pass each other. A slide was shown of 2 white trucks that had not moved in 2 months. An illustration of Byron Street showed side-load parking spaces with garbage trucks taking up the parking and street space. The new state law required no parking within 20 feet of crosswalks. Ms. Gilbert suggested the following: Require 660 University to provide an adequate number of parking spaces for the number of units being built. Delete the Residential Parking Permits for Byron being used to park vehicles 24/7 for months without moving and restore the original 2-hour parking. Establish Byron as a “no construction vehicle” zone. Consider limiting parking to 1 side of Byron Street in order to be a 2-way street for emergency vehicle access. Ms. Gilbert encouraged the Council to withhold approval, send the application back to the PTC because they did not reach a unanimous decision, or change Byron Street to make it manageable. If Byron Street parking was not adjusted now, this issue would resurface. 4. Cesar P., Field Representative with Carpenter’s Union Local 405 in Santa Clara County, stated this project was an investment in the city’s future. With 66 new rental units and nearly 2000 square feet of office space, it aligned with many of the goals outlined in Palo Alto’s Comprehensive Plan in supporting mixed-use redevelopment, walkable neighborhoods and the preservation of commercial vitality. Cesar P. wanted everyone to think about who would be building this development and under what conditions. If this project was to reflect the community’s values of equity, sustainability and shared prosperity, it must incorporate labor standards. Cesar P. urged the Council to require the following labor standards as part of the Development Agreement: Living wages for construction workers to live with dignity in the region they serve. Opportunities for local residents to enter the trade through state-certified apprenticeship programs or joint labor-management apprenticeship programs. Workers should not have to choose between their health and their paychecks, so projects of this scale must ensure that workers have access to comprehensive healthcare benefits. These standards were in alignment with Policy L1.6 of the Comprehensive Plan which called for development that addressed the needs of the community and managed change to benefit all as well SUMMARY MINUTES Page 11 of 23 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 11/10/2025 as Policy L2.2 which envisioned stronger connections between commercial centers and residential neighborhoods. 5. Herb B. requested the City Council to remove this item from the agenda and direct staff to properly process the application, which was an action that would not trigger the builder’s remedy. Herb B. pointed out that the agenda item description omitted all the actions the Council was expected to take tonight, including certifying the Environmental Impact Report (EIR), adopting the Comprehensive Plan and adopting the Record of Land Use Action. The public notice requirement was only 10 days, which was less than the minimum time required for noticing an environmental project. Each discretionary approval was not a project in environmental law; it was the whole of a project. All EIRs get a State Clearinghouse number when staff submits a project to the Office of Planning and Research. Herb B. noted there was no State Clearinghouse number indicated for this project, which meant that the project’s draft EIR had not received the proper review from other government agencies. Herb B. thought this was part of a pattern of behavior with the Planning Commission where projects were presented in such a way that there was a rejection so there could be a builder’s remedy project. Herb B. believed the Council should expect staff to follow the law. 6. In all the meetings that Faith B. had attended regarding this project, there had been no mention about the concern of earthquakes or shallow water level. Faith B. understood that the building’s owner was from out of the country, so it was possible that he was unaware of the risk of earthquakes or shallow water in this area. Faith B. stated that most buildings in Palo Alto were usually not more than 4 stories high because of earthquakes. Palo Alto had very few basements due to the shallow water level. Faith B. felt it was imperative that the new owner be educated and informed by the City on these 2 problematic issues, which in turn would help protect future tenants if the owner built with respect to these 2 conditions. Faith B. sent a letter at 4:30 on Friday. Faith B. though the Council should consider the possibility that the builder’s remedy was not applicable to this project at this point. 7. Ali S. spoke on behalf of the Housing Action Coalition, a member-supported nonprofit that advocated for homes for people of all income levels. The Housing Action Coalition proudly endorsed the proposal at 660 University Avenue because it represented the thoughtful, inclusive growth that Palo Alto needed. Under the state-mandated Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), the City was required to plan for 6086 new homes, including 1556 for very low income and 896 for low-income households. This project helped the City meet those goals with 20 percent of the units reserved for affordable housing. Ali S. was aware that some neighbors had voiced opposition to this project out of worry that it might change the character of the community but Ali S. viewed the real threat to the community character was refusing to let new people in. Blocking new homes did not preserve neighborhoods; it excluded the next generation of neighbors. The Housing Action Coalition applauded the project’s central location, proximity to Caltrain and strong bike infrastructure that promoted sustainability and reduced car SUMMARY MINUTES Page 12 of 23 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 11/10/2025 dependence. Palo Alto was not in a parking crisis; it was in a housing crisis. The office component of this project was critical because the affordable homes do not pencil without it. Ali S. commended the efforts to preserve the coast live oak tree. Ali S. believed this project reflected Palo Alto’s best values: Innovation, inclusion and environmental responsibility. Ali S. encouraged the City Council to move this project forward without any further delays. 8. Michael Q. was involved with Palo Alto’s Housing Element process years ago. This project had been in the site inventory for quite some time. The developer had been working on this project since 2021. The applicant had been receptive to changes requested by the ARB and PTC. Michael Q. strongly advised the Council to move the project forward. Michael Q. encouraged Council Members to take this opportunity to keep themselves relevant, show good faith and show that the City can provide and act decisively for ourselves. If the City did not meet its obligations to build for the next generation, future meetings like this would not be relevant because the choices would have been made for us by the State, which was not an outcome that any community member wanted. 9. Xenia H. was in favor of housing but believed there were big problems with this project. Xenia H. believed that the ARB and PTC noted those problems but voted to advance this project solely because of the builder’s remedy threat. Xenia H. was concerned about the need for a loading space in front of the main residential entrance on University Avenue and cited Section 18.52.040(d) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code where it stated that residential and mixed-use structures with 50 or more dwelling units shall provide at least 1 on-site short-term loading space for passenger vehicles to be used by taxicabs and similar transportation and delivery services. This was a through street for 101 traffic to Stanford Avenue. Loading space was needed in this key intersection. There was a bus stop on University Avenue right before Middlefield. Without a loading space, any rideshare or delivery would block busses. Cars would be unable to make a right turn from University onto Middlefield. This proposal provided less than needed parking, so residents would need more rideshares, making the loading space more important. All other buildings in the area had circular driveways. Xenia H. asked the Council to insist on loading space on University Avenue in front of the residential entrance. Xenia H. stated setbacks were also important. 10. Stephen L. pointed out that this site was included in the City’s adopted housing goals and was an appropriate location for 67 units. Stephen L. felt that objections to the project’s size conflicted with the Council’s prior determination to support additional downtown housing. Stephen L. added that approving this project would signal the Council’s commitment to advancing mixed-use market-rate housing. 11. Tom Harris lived in Palo Verde and described a nearby ADU that reduced his privacy. Despite this personal inconvenience, Mr. Harris realized the ADU created valuable housing opportunities for community members. Mr. Harris expressed support for the SUMMARY MINUTES Page 13 of 23 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 11/10/2025 proposed development and commented that new housing benefitted the community overall. 12. Rebecca Eisenberg expressed her personal opinion, not in her capacity on the Water District. Ms. Eisenberg clarified that housing advocates were opposed to the project because the proposed units were too small to meet the community’s need for affordable housing and would primarily attract tech workers rather than low-income families. Ms. Eisenberg expressed concern that the development would harm the quality of life and the environment, including damage to a mature tree and impacts on the ecosystem. Ms. Eisenberg noted issues with the building’s design, such as inadequate bird-safe windows. Ms. Eisenberg echoed the public comments about problems with the application overall. Lund Smith emphasized their commitment to preserving the tree and deferred technical questions to the City’s arborist. Lund Smith noted that traffic concerns were addressed by relocating the driveway from Middlefield to Byron. Lund Smith referenced Slide 17 on BMR (below market rate) allocations and argued that the City’s recommendation to designate 25 percent of the 2-bedroom units as BMR exceeded the 20 percent requirement under PHZ guidelines. A 2-bedroom unit would be provided at no charge to the onsite manager. Therefore, it created a hardship to rent only 5 of the 8 proposed 2-bedroom units at market rate. The City’s recommendation to have 7 of the 1-bedroom units and 2 of the 2-bedroom units at BMR was introduced at the time of the staff report, leaving no opportunity for the developer to adjust the unit mix. Lund Smith proposed 8 of the 1-bedroom units and 1 of the 2-bedroom units as BMR. Councilmember Lu asked the City’s arborist to provide a substantive recap of the overall risks to the tree and to clarify the importance of removing balconies in this iteration. Councilmember Lu inquired if the 70-unit version that included balconies had allocated the unit mix more equitably across the different unit sizes for affordability. Councilmember Lu wanted confirmation that office and neighborhood-serving uses were permitted within approximately 2,000 square feet at the ground level and whether that space was restricted solely to neighborhood-serving uses. Councilmember Lu noted the staff report mentioned that the PTC had requested more information on the Residential Parking Program (RPP). Councilmember Lu queried how many of the approximately 50 RPP permits were currently utilized. Urban Forester Peter Gollinger stated the current 41-foot encroachment into the standard TPZ was about 20 percent, which was the City’s allowed maximum without extra precautions. The required pruning as shown in the Babby report was approximately 15 percent, which was within the City’s tolerances. Urban Forestry did not have an issue with balconies being present within the canopy because the applicant had provided evidence that balcony construction would not require additional pruning beyond scaffolding; however, the PTC and ARB raised concerns, so the applicant moved the balconies further from the centerline of the canopy to reduce interference. Urban Forester Gollinger did not believe any balconies were removed in the current proposal. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 14 of 23 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 11/10/2025 Lund Smith acknowledged the 70-unit version had a disproportionate number of studios, whereas the current 66-unit proposal had more 1-bedrooms but reduced the 2-bedrooms from 9 to 8. Senior Planner Kallas confirmed that the draft ordinance language for Planned Community allowed both neighborhood-serving and office uses. Chief Transportation Official Ria Hutabarat Lo stated that staff would need to follow up on the question of how many RPP permits were currently being utilized. Councilmember Reckdahl noted there were conflicting arborist reports, one from the applicant indicating the tree would remain healthy and another submitted by nearby residents suggesting it would not. Councilmember Reckdahl asked if Urban Forester Gollinger had reviewed both arborist reports. Councilmember Reckdahl sought Urban Forester Gollinger’s opinion on whether excavation for the building could cause excessive damage to the tree roots. Councilmember Reckdahl inquired if asymmetric trimming might place excess weight on one side of the tree; and if asymmetric trimming posed a concern, could the City require trimming on both sides of the tree. Councilmember Reckdahl questioned whether cutting large limbs could leave the exposed wood vulnerable to infection or other problems. Councilmember Reckdahl queried whether anything could be done to reduce stress on the tree. Councilmember Reckdahl asked what measures Urban Forester Gollinger would take if this were his own tree. The staff report made reference to asphalt removal causing stress to the tree. Councilmember Reckdahl wanted to know the pros and cons of removing asphalt that covered tree roots. Councilmember Reckdahl wondered whether leaving asphalt beneath the patio or porch area would impede air and water from reaching the tree’s roots. Urban Forester Gollinger had reviewed both arborist reports and did not have any issues. Urban Forester Gollinger stated that both arborists were in good standing and had great reputations in the city. Urban Forester Gollinger noted the applicant’s new report did not reflect all prior stipulations and agreements, including the construction of the patio on existing asphalt without excavation or irrigation lines beneath the tree canopy and balcony installation within the space allocated for the scaffolding to minimize pruning. The residents’ report implied that up to 20 feet would need to be cut back from the face of the building, which was inconsistent with previous discussions. Urban Forester Gollinger stated that some root loss would occur due to excavation because the ground-penetrating radar (GPR) showed roots beneath the asphalt; however, the majority of the property was already hardscape, so the primary gathering for this tree likely occurred elsewhere. While some roots under the asphalt may provide gas exchange and possibly some water, Urban Forester Gollinger did not believe the impact exceeded tolerable limits for the species and it was within the City’s acceptable range for construction impacts. The full TPZ would be a complete circle of 41 feet, as mentioned in both arborists’ reports. The reduction of the total TPZ to 30 feet for the garage excavation calculated to approximately 19.5 percent; it was considered tolerable for this species to have 20 percent or less disturbance of the TPZ. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 15 of 23 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 11/10/2025 Urban Forester Gollinger acknowledged that asymmetric trimming could be a concern in the future but was an issue that could be addressed over time. Trimming on both sides of the tree would probably need an agreement with the tree owner, which Urban Forester Gollinger did not think could be unilaterally imposed but could be considered. Urban Forester Gollinger agreed that pruning carried some risk. The applicant’s arborist identified specific, acceptable pruning locations, though some cuts would be large, with most canopy removal limited to a single lower branch. By contrast, the resident’s report suggested internodal pruning, which would involve large topping type cuts but Urban Forester Gollinger did not believe that type of cut would be necessary based on his site visit and review of the reports. Urban Forester Gollinger concluded that the majority of pruning could be performed with typical heading type cuts. Urban Forester Gollinger stated that mitigation measures had been discussed with the project arborist and included in the report. Urban Forester Gollinger emphasized maintaining as much of the TPZ as possible from being disturbed, ensuring adequate watering during construction and, if possible, coordinating with the tree owner for any offsite needs. Urban Forester Gollinger stated that although asphalt in the root zone was not ideal, it may benefit the tree during construction by protecting existing roots from disturbance. Once underground work was complete and above-ground work begins, the asphalt could be evaluated for removal and replaced with a permeable surface. Urban Forester Gollinger explained that the intention to retain asphalt beneath the terrace was to avoid excavation, footings for the deck and irrigation in that area. Urban Forester Gollinger stated that while asphalt beneath the patio would impede air and water from reaching the tree’s roots, the impact would be less than excavation. Urban Forester Gollinger noted that most of the root zone in that area was already covered by asphalt and hardscape, with roots growing underneath. Mayor Lauing commented that the PHZ was created to support housing and the project delivered the 20 percent BMR requirement. Mayor Lauing asked how the proposed Lyft/Uber space would function and how residents would access rideshares. Mayor Lauing wondered if the developer was seeking any other changes to staff’s recommended motion, aside from the distribution of BMR units. Mayor Lauing emphasized that the project’s 13 BMR units met the 20 percent BMR requirement, which was the intended outcome of the PHZ ordinance. Mayor Lauing believed the proposed building height reflected current standards and the slight reduction in parking was acceptable. The project did not qualify for a full parking waiver; therefore, the allowable parking shortage was limited to 8 percent. Mayor Lauing pointed out that Council Members had access to PTC and ARB minutes, videos and discussions, thereby ensuring a well-informed process. Amanda Borden from KSH explained that 1 loading stall had been designated on Byron located beyond the driveway in front of the trash staging area and 2 stalls would be used for residential trash staging. Besides the BMR allocation, Boyd Smith was comfortable with all other aspects of staff’s recommended motion and supported everything currently under discussion. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 16 of 23 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 11/10/2025 Regarding the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program, Councilmember Burt noted the report indicated an 8 percent parking reduction and a 20 percent reduction in trips. Councilmember Burt asked what evaluation or analysis had been conducted to establish a correlation between reductions in trips, parking demand and car ownership. Councilmember Burt explained that car sharing programs, such as Zipcar, provided a stronger correlation to reduced parking demand than trip reduction alone but had not been incorporated in TDM programs. Car sharing programs were typically located within 1 or 2 blocks rather than on site, allowing occasional drivers to rent nearby vehicles. Councilmember Burt pointed out that the Webster/Cowper Garage would be an ideal location because it was less than 2 blocks away and had surplus spaces. Councilmember Burt asked how the establishment of a car sharing program could be incorporated into project approval, potentially using a public parking lot. Councilmember Burt did not expect to resolve the details this evening but asked whether the Council could do a referral to pursue a car sharing program as part of the Council’s direction on the TDM program. Related to the parking reduction in this application, Councilmember Burt suggested that the applicant contribute to help launch a car sharing program, similar to other mitigation costs under a TDM program, or that City staff pursue the provision of space for a car sharing program. Senior Planner Kallas explained that a TDM plan was commonly used to justify a reduction in parking spaces. The zoning code permitted this approach even for nondiscretionary projects. Whether trip reduction would lead to less parking in the building, Assistant Director Jennifer Armer will review the document to determine whether a direct correlation was drawn and report back. Planning and Development Services Director Jonathan Lait acknowledged that no analysis had been conducted to directly correlate trip reduction with parking demand. TDM plans typically focused on reducing single-occupancy vehicle trips rather than car ownership. Director Lait stated that a car sharing program had a lot of complexity and had not been analyzed by staff. Director Lait said that the Council may provide direction on the TDM program but it would likely be independent of the action on the item before the Council tonight; however, Director Lait requested that staff have a few moments to consider the idea. Councilmember Burt asked whether the loading space near the trash bins off Byron was adequate for common carriers, ride-hailing and other loading uses. Byron Street was narrow, measuring 29 feet wide, and Councilmember Burt observed cars pulling over to let others pass. Councilmember Burt cautioned that if the street became fully parked, the ability to pull over would be lost. Assistant Director Armer noted that loading space had previously been discussed with the PTC. The loading space was off-site, located directly in front of the trash pickup area, occupying a street parking spot that must remain clear for trash pickup. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 17 of 23 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 11/10/2025 Senior Planner Kallas mentioned that the zoning code typically required 1 on-site loading space for a project of this size. This project instead proposed 1 off-site loading space in the street within the right-of-way, occupying one of the current on-street parking spaces. Director Lait added that this application had been on file for some time. Since its submission, local policies had changed within the past two years to require on-site loading for new development projects. This issue was raised at the ARB and PTC but there was not sufficient traction to mandate a change to on-site loading, in part due to the length of time the application had been in process. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims emphasized the need for housing, noted this site was in the City’s site inventory and thanked the applicant for their perseverance in proposing housing at 660 University. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims acknowledged that new housing inevitably impacted existing conditions. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims echoed the public comments welcoming the next generation of neighbors. Especially when presented with conflicting arborist reports, Councilmember Lythcott-Haims remarked on the value of the City’s Urban Forestry with Urban Forester Gollinger concluding the majestic Coast Live Oak tree would survive. Turning to labor concerns, Councilmember Lythcott-Haims noted that a member of the public raised issues about the applicant’s lack of commitment to strong labor standards on this project. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims inquired whether the applicant had previously worked with unionized labor. Regarding the unit count and mix, Councilmember Lythcott-Haims asked Senior Planner Kallas whether it was true that the City had made a last-minute request to change the unit mix from 1 two-bedroom BMR to 2. Boyd Smith explained that entitlements had not yet been secured, so a contractor had not been selected. Boyd Smith expressed willingness to consider and speak with interested parties but noted it was too early in the process to make a commitment to a contractor. Boyd Smith thought their contractor had worked with unionized labor. Senior Planner Kallas explained that about 3 weeks prior to publication of the staff report, the applicant requested a reduction in the unit count, from 70 units to 66 units, in response to the recommendation made by the ARB and the PTC. During preparation of the staff report, the BMR issue arose because the unit count had been reduced and the number of BMR units shifted from 14 to 13, so the distribution of unit sizes changed accordingly. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims pointed out that the unit count was reduced to 66 so the balconies would not intrude on the tree, a change made in response to concerns that had been raised. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims said the goal was to preserve the tree and ensure it lived a long, majestic life, consistent with the arborist’s guidance. Councilmember Lythcott- Haims suggested that the project could remain at 70 units if the applicant was willing to remove balconies in the area closest to the tree. In that scenario, the applicant would gain additional 2- bedroom units overall and achieve their desired mix of 2-bedroom BMR units and the City would secure its 2 BMR 2-bedroom units. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims noted that City staff and the Urban Forester were not concerned with removing balconies to protect the tree on the SUMMARY MINUTES Page 18 of 23 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 11/10/2025 70-unit proposal. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims asked the applicant whether the earlier 70- unit concept with no balconies removed and the desired mix of two-bedroom BMR units was still on the table and if the applicant would prefer that over the current 66-unit proposal. Senior Planner Kallas stated that Councilmember Lythcott-Haims’s suggestion was an option but she wanted to avoid making things more complicated. Assistant Director Armer explained that staff had brought forward the 70-unit project based on a recommendation from the PTC for Council’s consideration but the change itself was made by the applicant. Assistant Director Armer added that neither staff nor the City Arborist had concerns with the balconies on the 70-unit proposal because the installation would not require trimming beyond what was needed for the building itself; and the City’s internal tree professionals considered the approach sufficient since it originated with the Planning and Transportation Commission. Lund Smith answered that they would be happy with the 70-unit mix with the balconies for all the units. Urban Forester Gollinger added that balconies could be installed without additional pruning. Only minimal maintenance pruning would be required. Councilmember Reckdahl asked if there were plans for staging and traffic during construction, if there would be short-term (10-minute) parking spots for pickup/delivery, how folks would access the pickup/delivery parking spots from the building, if calculations had been done indicating the demand for pickup/delivery, if there would be parking on the University side of the building, if anything could be done to prevent Uber pickups from occurring at the front door and if Affordable Housing addressed nonrevenue apartments. Boyd Smith replied that Butler Construction had been engaged for pre-con. Senior Planner Kallas responded there would be appropriate signage to designating pickup/delivery spots. Existing parking conditions on the University side of the building would remain. Uber sometimes had pickup spots for certain buildings but it was not clear how those spots were established. Nonrevenue apartments would count as housing units. Ms. Borden from KSH explained there would be 2 routes from the building to Uber parking, which presumably would be covered. Calculations for pickup/delivery demand had been not been done. Councilmember Reckdahl inquired if all units in a complex were counted when calculating the number of required BMR units. Assistant Director Armer responded that all units in a complex were counted when calculating the number of required BMR units. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 19 of 23 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 11/10/2025 Councilmember Reckdahl commented that the applicant indicated they were only recently notified that the manager’s spot would count as a unit when calculating BMR. Assistant Director Armer believed the manager’s spot had always been part of the calculation for this project to ensure the 20 percent. Mayor Lauing announced that the Dark Sky Ordinance would not be addressed at this meeting due to time constraints. Councilmember Lu queried if there was information available about the RPP usage for this project. Those residing in the building should be allowed to particulate in the RPP Program but traffic circulation on the block should be investigated. Parking on one side or other circulation tweaks should be considered on Byron. The project was fine overall. Councilmember Lu was empathetic about traffic impacts to neighbors. It was persuasive that the site proposed 65 Housing Element units. Councilmember Lu discussed why the 70-unit configuration with balconies was preferred. Councilmember Burt addressed Byron being narrow and there being parking on both sides and questioned if the project included a construction mitigation plan. Councilmember Burt did not have a strong preference for either 66 units without balconies or 70 units with balconies. The builder’s remedy eligibility did not appear to favor the hoped for interpretation as it related to the Housing Element. Councilmember Burt asked if thought had been given to construction parking on Byron. Senior Planner Kallas answered that the conditions of approval included preparation of a construction logistics plan as a part of the Building Permit submittal. Director Lait replied that the Construction Management Plan would look at where construction workers would park, satellite parking and how workers would get to and from the site. It could include equipment parking and there may be a need for permits through the OOT to block off spaces to accommodate equipment parking. Councilmember Reckdahl referenced Slide 12 and asked what was meant by the Byron Street side yard being 12 feet above grade. Senior Planner Kallas responded that the Byron Street wall setback was 12 feet from the property line. Councilmember Reckdahl explained there would be an intrusion due to the stairway on the sidewalk. Care had to be taken in defining encroachments. This would set a precedent for setbacks. MOTION: Councilmember Lu moved, seconded by Mayor Lauing to, as it relates to the 70-unit proposal with balconies with modification to remove required mitigation for spillover parking: SUMMARY MINUTES Page 20 of 23 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 11/10/2025 1. Adopt the Resolution in Attachment B certifying the EIR and Adopting the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP); 2. Adopt the Resolution in Attachment C amending the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element to modify the allowable uses in the Multiple Family Land Use Designation; 3. Adopt the Planned Community (PC) Ordinance in Attachment D rezoning the subject property and approving the development plan, uses and public benefits; and 4. Approve the Record of Land Use Action in Attachment E with approval findings and conditions of approval. Councilmember Lu asked if traffic and circulation improvements on Byron would be investigated. The motion did not include mitigations for spillover parking because parking in one’s own neighborhood should not be considered spillover parking. Staff indicated that traffic and circulation improvements on Byron would be investigated. AMENDMENT: Councilmember Burt moved, seconded by Councilmember Reckdahl, to restore the mitigations for spillover parking. Council took a short recess so Attorney Stump could determine how many votes were needed to pass the motion and the amendment since 2 Council members were absent. City Attorney Stump declared the motion required 4 yea votes to pass regardless of Council members being absent. It was explained that 3 yea votes would approve the amendment. AMENDMENT FAILED: 2-3-2. Councilmember Lu, Mayor Lauing and Councilmember Lythcott- Haims voted no. Councilmember Stone and Vice Mayor Veenker were absent. MOTION FAILED: 3-2-2. Councilmembers Burt and Reckdahl voted no. Councilmember Stone and Vice Mayor Veenker were absent. MOTION: Councilmember Burt made the same motion but restoring mitigations for spillover parking, seconded by Councilmember Reckdahl, as it relates to the 70-unit proposal with balconies: 1. Adopt the Resolution in Attachment B certifying the EIR and Adopting the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP); 2. Adopt the Resolution in Attachment C amending the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element to modify the allowable uses in the Multiple Family Land Use Designation; 3. Adopt the Planned Community (PC) Ordinance in Attachment D rezoning the subject property and approving the development plan, uses and public benefits; and SUMMARY MINUTES Page 21 of 23 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 11/10/2025 4. Approve the Record of Land Use Action in Attachment E with approval findings and conditions of approval. Councilmember Burt asked if the mitigations for spillover parking were part of the conditions the developer agreed to. There were potentially many impacts from the project and many would not be mitigated. The parking could be mitigated, so it was important to include the mitigations put forward in the Staff Report. Assistant Director Armer answered that the PTC added the mitigations for spillover parking, which the developer had not objected to. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims had voted against the amendment because neighborhood residents should be entitled to use the RPP. Councilmember Lu felt that including mitigations for spillover parking indicated that those moving into the new project would have second priority. Mayor Lauing stated the substance of the motion was the project, not the parking mitigation and the applicant had agreed to the parking mitigation. MOTION PASSED: 4-1-2. Councilmember Lu voted no. Councilmember Stone and Vice Mayor Veenker were absent. 7. Approval of the Four-Quadrant Gate System as the preferred Quiet Zone Implementation Measure at the Churchill, Meadow and Charleston Rail Crossings as Recommended by the Rail Committee; CEQA status – categorically exempt. Assistant City Manager Kiely Nose noted the item was unanimously recommended by the Rail Committee. Transportation Senior Engineer Ripon Bhatia provided a background on the item and outlined the alternatives that had been considered. The Rail Committee had recommended the 4- quadrant gate system. This project was separate from discussions and projects related to rail grade separation, safety improvements and Caltrain improvements at the crossings. The project was in the study phase and after Council approval of the proposed measures, staff would look into implementation, which would include design, construction, permitting and certifications. The timing and the cost of the project could vary based on Caltrain designing and constructing or the City designing and Caltrain constructing. There would be more discussion with Caltrain on implementing and delivering the project. Staff requested that Council approve the 4- quadrant gate system. Next steps would include procuring funding and coordinating with Caltrain to initiate the project design. Public Comment: SUMMARY MINUTES Page 22 of 23 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 11/10/2025 1. Rachel C. opposed wayside horns and urged Council to approve quad gates. 2. John M. was in favor of quad gates and requested they be implemented quickly. 3. Melinda M. requested that quad gates be approved and completed quickly. 4. Adrian B. (Zoom), Chair of the Caltrain’s Citizens Advisory Committee, speaking on his own behalf encouraged adoption of the staff recommendation. Adrian B. addressed comments in the Palo Alto Daily Post and stated quad gates had occupancy sensors, so vehicles could not be trapped on the tracks. It was suggested that funding from the High-Speed Rail Authority be pursued. 5. Jennifer (Zoom) opposed wayside horns and requested that quad gates be a high priority and implemented immediately. Jennifer had sent Council aircraft noise studies. Councilmember Burt, Rail Committee Chair, noted that the Committee strongly supported addressing horn noise. Councilmember Burt referenced Slide 10 and asked if the cost difference between wayside horns and quad gate systems had been revised. Councilmember Burt discussed why wayside horns had been considered. Since the Rail Committee reviewed this item, the enhanced crossing strategy had been reviewed and those measures would reduce the practical value of horn blasting. Consultants had indicated it would take 5 years to implement quiet zones but Councilmember Burt felt that timeline could be reduced. Transportation Senior Engineer Bhatia answered that the cost of quad gates was higher but the wayside horn cost remained the same. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims, Rail Committee Member, agreed with Councilmember Burt’s comments and supported implementing quad gates ASAP. Investigating wayside horns had been necessary. Councilmember Reckdahl stated quad gates should be implemented ASAP and asked if by working with Caltrain a 36-month timeline was feasible. Transportation Senior Engineer Bhatia answered that Caltrain had indicated it could be implemented in 36 months if Palo Alto had the funding arranged and the service agreement in place. Councilmember Lu inquired if the City could do anything to accelerate the timeline. Transportation Senior Engineer Bhatia replied the City intended to expedite it. There were staff resource constraints and things that were not in the City’s control, such as getting CPUC approval, etc. MOTION: Mayor Lauing moved, seconded by Councilmember Reckdahl, to approve the Four- Quadrant Gate System as the Quiet Zone implementation Measure at the Churchill Avenue, SUMMARY MINUTES Page 23 of 23 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 11/10/2025 Meadow Drive and Charleston Road Rail Crossings for Quiet Zones along the Caltrain Corridor in Palo Alto. MOTION PASSED: 5-0-2. Councilmember Stone and Vice Mayor Veenker were absent. 8. REINTRODUCED FIRST READING: Adoption of an Ordinance Updating Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 18.40.250 (Lighting) of Chapter 18.40 (General Standards and Exceptions) and Amending Chapters 18.10, 18.12, 18.28 and Section 18.40.230 of Title 18 (Zoning) to Adopt New Outdoor Lighting Regulations; CEQA Status — Exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15308 (Actions for Protection of the Environment) Agenda Item Number 8 not heard and deferred to a date uncertain. Adjournment Mayor Lauing recognized the passing of Matthew "Matt" Dolan. Councilmember Burt spoke of the privilege of knowing Matthew "Matt" Dolan. Mayor Lauing adjourned the meeting in Matthew "Matt" Dolan’s honor at 11:38 p.m.