Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-12-15 City Council Summary MinutesCITY COUNCIL SUMMARY MINUTES Page 1 of 23 Special Meeting December 15, 2025 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers and by virtual teleconference at 4:30 p.m. Present In Person: Burt, Lauing, Lu, Lythcott-Haims, Reckdahl, Stone, Veenker Councilmember Lu arrived at 4:55 p.m. Present Remotely: None Absent: None Call to Order Mayor Lauing called the meeting to order. The clerk called roll and declared 6 were present. Special Orders of the Day 1. Proclamation Expressing Appreciation to Molly S. Stump Upon Completion of Her Public Service as City Attorney. Mayor Lauing read the proclamation expressing appreciation to City Attorney Molly S. Stump and thanked Attorney Stump for her years of service. City Attorney Molly Stump commented that it had been an honor, privilege and joy to spend her entire career in public service. City Attorney Stump recognized and thanked those who provided help and assistance over the years, whom she would miss. Councilmember Stone expressed that City Attorney Stump had compassion, competence, integrity and a good sense of humor. Councilmember Stone shared the story of first meeting City Attorney Stump. It had been a honor working with City Attorney Stump and her knowledge, advice and approach to the role would be missed and was not replaceable. City Attorney Stump would leave the team with a legacy of leadership. Councilmember Stone respected City Attorney Stump who would be missed as a colleague and a friend. Councilmember Stone thanked City Attorney Stump for her service. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 2 of 23 Sp. City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 12/15/2025 Councilmember Burt thanked City Attorney Stump for the commitment to the City, fulfilling the role to the highest standards, mentoring staff and for 15 years of service, which was a reflection of commitment. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims had enjoyed seeing the pride, satisfaction and joy City Attorney Stump had in her work and the dedication, which was palpable and inspiring. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims’ career in public service had been guided by City Attorney Stump’s work. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims thanked City Attorney Stump. Councilmember Reckdahl would miss working with City Attorney Stump whose guidance was valued and appreciated. Vice Mayor Veenker remarked that City Attorney Stump had intelligence, integrity, empathy, grace, grit and purpose and delivered unwelcomed advice in a calm and gracious manner. City Attorney Stump’s legal acumen was beyond question and her north star was the people served. Vice Mayor Veenker appreciated City Attorney Stump’s patience. City Attorney Stump was highly regarded by many peers and Vice Mayor Veenker considered City Attorney Stump one of the best lawyers on the planet. City Attorney Stump would be missed. Mayor Lauing valued City Attorney Stump’s responsiveness, calmness and thoughtfulness and was sad to see her leave. NO ACTION Closed Session 2. CONFERENCE WITH CITY ATTORNEY-POTENTIAL LITIGATION Subject: Initiation of litigation in one case Authority: Potential Exposure to Litigation Under Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(4) Number of potential cases: 1, as Plaintiff. Public Comment: There were no requests to speak. MOTION: Councilmember Reckdahl moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Veenker, to go into Closed Session. MOTION PASSED: 7-0 Council went into Closed Session at 4:56 p.m. Council returned from Closed Session at 6:10 p.m. Mayor Lauing announced no reportable action. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 3 of 23 Sp. City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 12/15/2025 Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions City Manager Ed Shikada announced that Item 21 had been deleted from the agenda. Public Comment 1. Sven T. (Presentation) spoke of the negative health impacts of natural gas stoves and noted that Gas Utility members had not attended the S/CAP meeting. 2. Prisha G. (Presentation) discussed the pollutants of gas stoves, which impacted health and the environment, and urged the City to accelerate household electrification especially by supporting pathways for induction stove adoption. 3. Kanami T. advocated for the electrification of household appliances. 4. Naomi R. had sent Council a letter and requested that the park named in honor of his brother, who had drowned, be preserved. Mayor Lauing voiced that the City Manager would get Naomi R’s contact information. 5. Ben X. opposed the decision to remove the AAYSA youth soccer club from Greer Park because the City had a fiscal responsibility and a commitment to inclusivity. 6. Aurora L. asked that the AAYSA be allowed to play at Greer Park. 7. Felicia requested that AAYSA continue playing at Greer Park. 8. Min T. spoke of the benefits of AAYSA. 9. Herb B. noted there were differences in the 2 job listings for City Attorney, which might have resulted in fewer applicants. 10. Ken H. mentioned that Mayor Lauing received a commendation from the Board of Supervisors for his mayoral term. Ken H. suggested that Mayor Lauing remain in the position another year. Ken H. wished all a happy Hanukkah and happy holidays. 11. Roger S. appreciated the work of staff, the City Manager and Council. Roger S. thanked Mark Zuckerberg and Priscilla Chan for the unrestricted $50K gift to the Friends of the Palo Alto Parks. Roger S. requested that folks review an article on Page 6 of the December 15 Post. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 4 of 23 Sp. City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 12/15/2025 Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements Mayor Lauing had attended the StanfordNext community outreach meeting on December 13, which was well attended. Mayor Lauing and many Council Members had attended the Hanukkah menorah lighting on December 14. Mayor Lauing outlined the OSV ordinances and practices in surrounding cities, which the OSV Ad Hoc had confirmed. There would be a Sunnyvale Council meeting in February and consideration would be given to modernizing parking requirements and restrictions, parking permits and new regulations for OSVs near schools and parks. Mayor Lauing and Vice Mayor Veenker had raised the issue of homelessness and safe parking with the County and it was agreed that it was a regional problem. There was a shortage of sufficient RV storage for towed vehicles, so staff was researching additional resources. Regarding the motion of October 20, Items 1 and 2 passed last week and could be enforced at any time. Item 3, street sweeping, had been defined and implementation had begun. Item 5, implementation and enforcement, was occurring. Regarding Item 7, there had been significant outreach to congregational and private parking lots. Regarding Item 9, Council had authorized a little over $700K. The Ad Hoc would look at Phase 2 items in January. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims added that the faith communities felt they were already doing their part related to safe parking. The business community might need to partner with the City to locate and create safe parking space. Space for lease was being sought and those who could help should contact the City Manager’s office or julieforpaloalto.com. Vice Mayor Veenker reported that the Ad Hoc for athletic turf selection met last week and it was expected that a recommendation for Council consideration would be presented mid- January. There had been a Climate Action Retreat/Workshop over the weekend that focused on economics and incentives around single-family home electrification. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims stated the Jed Foundation had visited the community last week and would help address the youth mental health crisis. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims had attended Kara’s candlelight vigil. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims and Vice Mayor Veenker had attended Belonging in the County last week and there had been a workshop in an attempt to reach agreement on how to respond to the presence of ICE in the communities. Palo Alto staff was working with staff from the County and the City of San Jose to get protocols and procedures in place. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims had attended the Palo Alto Museum Community Sneak Peek, which would open in February. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims commended the museum for placing nice signage directing folks to the all-gender restrooms. Councilmember Burt addressed Item 8 on the Consent Calendar and voiced that he did not see in the Staff Report a reference to grants not being overly burdensome and he requested that P&S consider requirements and reimbursements. The Staff Report addressed nonprofits that might have been eligible for or received funding from HSRAP and whether they would again be eligible. Historically the City had partnered with a number of nonprofits that had different forms of funding or in-kind contributions on an annual basis, which were imbedded in the budget at different places. The ones the Finance Committee and Council supported the prior SUMMARY MINUTES Page 5 of 23 Sp. City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 12/15/2025 year were ongoing relationships that the City and Council treated as enduring, though not necessarily permanent. Councilmember Burt questioned if the nonprofits should be consolidated into a category of ongoing funding that would not necessarily be part of the annual funding allocation. Councilmember Lu voiced that the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors Health and Hospital Committee and Alcove would meet on December 16. The Staff Report highlighted challenges with growing the program and a variety of fiscal difficulties with cost recovery and overall County funding. Council cared deeply about the program. The Mayor had sent a letter discussing partial funding and there would be continued follow-up. Councilmember Reckdahl echoed Councilmember Burt’s comments about nonprofits being enduring partners. Expectations should be set, so nonprofits could make plans. With funding uncertainty, nonprofits would not be able to maximize the use of the funding. Study Session 3. Receive an update on the Cubberley project and second polling results and discuss next steps. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims, Chair of Council’s Cubberley Ad Hoc, thanked the community for their participation and staff for their work. There was a lot of support for the project to a certain level and a lot of work ahead. FM3 Research Consultant Miranda Everitt presented the results of the recently conducted community survey. Upgrades to the center were generally supported. There was dissatisfaction with the condition of the current facilities. It was understood that there was a need for additional funding but there were limits of support. The next poll would include ballot measure language, including the mechanism to pay, the amount, etc. The poll was conducted on November 6 through 13, 2025, and folks were contacted by phone, email and text messaging. There had been 407 interviews, which gave about a 5-percent margin of error for the full sample and about 7 percent where a split sample was employed. There was tracking data for many past years. Consultant Everitt detailed the poll questions and outlined what folks thought about the condition of Cubberley, the services, the programs, the need for additional funding and the need for more space. The proposal was described to pollees, which included purchasing 7 acres of the site from the School District allowing the School District to use those proceeds for school improvements and using additional proceeds from the ballot measure to repair, upgrade and redevelop the community campus. Consultant Everitt voiced there was more than a 3:1 margin of strong support to opposition and about 11 percent were undecided. Pollees were provided with information about how the center would be funded. Half opposed a parcel tax and the majority was opposed to a sales tax, a bond measure or a utilities users tax, although pollees were not presented with the expected SUMMARY MINUTES Page 6 of 23 Sp. City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 12/15/2025 improvements or the tax amount. Willingness to pay was tested, which was key to the bond amounts, and 53 percent were willing to pay $250 annually for land purchase and to do minor renovations and upgrades. Support declined going up the scale of cost and scope of project. Seventy-one percent were unwilling to pay $1,000 annually to purchase land and build new centers for recreation and wellness, etc. Fifty-three percent of pollees were willing to support a parcel tax of $250 annually for land purchase and to do minor renovations and upgrades and, again, support declined going up the scale of cost and scope of project. Consultant Everitt stated that Poll 3 would include scope of project, cost and the mechanism. Potential additional projects did not dramatically increase support for the overall package. It was important to the majority of pollees that current safety, earthquake and accessibility be met, that outdated or deteriorated electrical wiring and plumbing be repaired and that there be greenspace. Consultant Everitt detailed the areas that fewer than half of pollees prioritized and the priorities that were relatively low. After pollees received positive and negative messaging, 64 percent were in favor of the project. While voters generally supported upgrades, willingness to invest was limited to a package focused on basic repairs and upgrades for earthquake, safety and accessibility. Pollees were dissatisfied with the condition of existing facilities and did not support additional space at Cubberley. Mechanisms tested in isolation without amounts did not have majority support. The majority supported paying $250 annually for basic renovations. Most were satisfied with the current programs and services offered at Cubberley. The next poll would vet ballot measure language, specific mechanism, amount and uses of funds for voter consideration. Assistant Administrative Services Director Christine Paras noted that positive messaging increased total support to 71 percent, which staff wanted to consider in the financing strategy. While the tax measure support might have been low, there were opportunities for other financing sources, which made the project viable. In the last study session with Council, staff placed significant intention on phasing the project to include renovation of existing buildings and some new construction. The first phase would prioritize the land purchase, repairs, a recreation and wellness center and performing arts complex and would total $392M. Future phases of the Master Plan would total an additional $220M. The costs assumed construction escalators with an assumed start date of April 2030. The financing strategy included 3 funding sources over time. Sales tax and parcel tax options would be explored further in the third poll and in either scenario the proceeds would finance the land purchase and minor repairs and renovations. Partner contributions in addition to the tax options would chart a path forward for the recreation and wellness center and performing arts complex financing with construction being in Phase 1 of the project. Assistant Director Paras outlined the amount of funds that could be generated with the first potential tax measure and explained the limitations on collecting a tax. Assistant Director Paras voiced that to keep the option of a sales tax viable, staff was working with lobbyists, etc., on the next step for the State statutory authorization to raise the sales tax cap. Staff was exploring what residents and nonresidents paid in sales tax to assess the impact to residents. Business community outreach was critical to address how the potential sales tax SUMMARY MINUTES Page 7 of 23 Sp. City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 12/15/2025 measure might impact the local economy. Poll 3 would also examine a parcel tax and the average cost per household would be $250, which would include all single- and multi-family residential and all nonresidential square footage. The second component of the funding strategy was development impact fees and use of the fees. The City had balances in the community center and parks and development impact fees that could fund eligible costs for development, improvement, expansion to community centers, acquisition of land and improvements for parks. Impact fees from upcoming development projects could also be used as a funding source for this project. Use of the funds to pledge against debt financing needed to be explored by staff and PFM. Partner contributions and donations would be needed to fund the recreation and wellness center and performing arts complex and discussions continued to secure financial support from interested parties. City Manager Ed Shikada mentioned that the survey results reinforced the need for a multipart strategy for funding improvements at Cubberley. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims asked what voter threshold was necessary to achieve the parcel tax versus the sales tax. Assistant Director Paras answered that the voter threshold for sales tax was simple majority and supermajority for parcel tax. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims noted that the sales tax would supply $218M and would need a simple majority to pass and that a parcel tax would supply about $102M and need a supermajority to pass. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims inquired if there was optimism that the cap on sales tax could be raised. City Manager Shikada clarified that the 50-percent threshold for the sales tax assumed a general tax and would require Council adopting a resolution expressing intent. A vehicle to increase the state sales tax cap was expected. Vice Mayor Veenker inquired if a statutory vehicle was needed to raise the tax by an additional quarter cent, so it would equal the one-half cent needed. Assistant Director Paras confirmed that a statutory vehicle was needed to raise the tax by an additional quarter cent, so it would equal the one-half cent needed. Councilmember Burt queried if a parcel tax placed on the ballot by a citizens’ initiative would result in needing only a simple majority to pass. Assistant Director Paras confirmed that a parcel tax placed on the ballot by a citizens’ initiative would result in needing only a simple majority to pass. Public Comment: SUMMARY MINUTES Page 8 of 23 Sp. City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 12/15/2025 1. Ken H. indicated that in June 2026 the School District would introduce a parcel tax of $904 per parcel. Ken H. suggested that the land be acquired and that the repairs be done. 2. Anne C., Chair of the Friends of the Palo Alto Recreation Center, supported the public/private partnership to build a new recreation and wellness center at Cubberley as part of Phase 1. The Friends organization was committed to fundraising, advocacy, inclusion and access. 3. Jennifer D. supported the Cubberley project and noted that many community members were excited to do the work when the time came. 4. Penny E. (Zoom) voiced that the City owning Cubberley would be a first step toward a phased and longer term realization of an ambitious campus vision and that owning it might draw philanthropic support. Penny E. supported a parcel tax/bond measure but not additional sales taxes. Penny E. suggested that the City/School Liaison Committee discuss PAUSD potentially having a measure on the same ballot. 5. Yudy D. Society of Hearts (Zoom) spoke as a PRC Commissioner and a Board Member of the Friends of the Palo Alto Recreation and Wellness Center and strongly supported moving forward with a bond measure and purchasing the Cubberly land. Councilmember Stone asked if the third survey would poll the viability of there being a sales tax and a parcel tax on the same ballot. Consultant Everitt replied there was no plan to poll the viability of having a sales tax and a parcel tax on the same ballot. Councilmember Stone thought it would be helpful to poll the viability of having a sales tax and a parcel tax on the same ballot and was curious how that might play with the School District possibly introducing a parcel tax on the ballot. Councilmember Stone inquired if there was a bias toward pollees selecting the least expensive option and what the impact might be if the next poll reflected the least expensive option as $500 instead of $250 and what was meant by “visionary goal” on Page 597. Councilmember Stone was concerned about sales tax being regressive and explained how a sales tax might be crafted. City Manager Shikada understood that the School District’s measure would occur in the spring. A regional transit measure might be on the November ballot. Staff had discussed doing only a parcel tax or a sales tax, not both. Consultant Everitt replied that it was best practice for pollees to indicate their willingness to pay $250, $500, $750 and $1,000. Pollees were not forced to choose one amount or another. Consultant Everitt explained what was meant by “visionary goal,” which about two-thirds of pollees supported. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 9 of 23 Sp. City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 12/15/2025 Councilmember Burt explained that there would be additional community space at Cubberley for Palo Alto’s use if the City purchased the land, although all buildings needed renovation. The parcel tax after the land purchase would not provide enough funding to do the full renovation but a lot could be done. Councilmember Burt discussed the prospect of community partners being exciting. There could be a hybrid model of voter contributions and the contributions of community organizations but such partners needed Palo Alto to purchase the land before moving forward with full fundraising. The first 2 potential additional projects listed on Slide 11 increased support by 12 and 14 percent, which was significant. Regarding Slide 13, including the numbers for somewhat important to the extremely and very important numbers significantly raised the percentage of support. Somewhat support did not mean no support but instead that it was not the highest priority. Councilmember Lu was not thrilled with the sales tax options, although it was reasonable to include them in the coming poll. Voter preferences for the teen center and Rinconada Pool should be more explicitly included in the next poll. Councilmember Lu suggested the poll articulate the benefits offered at a $250 level and that when considering priorities there be an option for not important at all. There should be an effort to solidly partner with groups that could bring their own funding. Councilmember Reckdahl was inclined not to include the teen center and Rinconada Pool as additional projects in a parcel tax because it would dilute the funds applied toward Cubberley. Councilmember Reckdahl queried if “somewhat important” was considered negative or positive. The polling indicated that the community valued Cubberley and wanted it to be the current size with a few features added and that it be modernized with new wiring, etc. Consultant Everitt responded that “somewhat important” was positive but less motivational. Mayor Lauing stated the goal for Cubberley needed to in line with what Councilmember Reckdahl stated was the will of the community. There should be datapoints showing that partnership funding would work. Mayor Lauing was not optimistic that the sales tax would poll well. The City buying Cubberley would allow Phase 1 to move forward and other changes and improvements could be done later. Vice Mayor Veenker agreed with Mayor Lauing. The community valued Cubberley and liked the programming but wanted it to be safe, clean, modern and upgraded. Vice Mayor Veenker did not like the regressive nature of the sales tax but the parcel tax would need a supermajority vote. Both polls should be done. Regarding funding mechanism, parcel tax was at the top at 39 percent but it might be influenced by there being 40-plus percent renters in Palo Alto and renters might not consider that immediate or personal. Vice Mayor Veenker questioned if a square footage parcel tax as opposed to a flat fee was explained to folks. Vice Mayor Veenker hoped to remodel and whet folks’ appetite to want to do more and to work with partners. Consultant Everitt answered that the parcel tax was presented as a parcel tax based on the size of a property. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 10 of 23 Sp. City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 12/15/2025 Councilmember Lythcott-Haims underscored her excitement to attract partners that would do their own fundraising. Development impact fees could be drawn from significant housing projects in the pipeline and on the horizon. The community would be asked to do only its fair share. NO ACTION Consent Calendar 4. Approval of Minutes from December 1, 2025 Meeting 5. Adoption of a Resolution appointing Caio Arellano as Interim City Attorney 6. Adoption of a Resolution Approving and Attesting to the Veracity of the City's 2024 Power Source Disclosure and Power Content Label Reports. CEQA Status: Not a project 7. Approval of a Surveillance Use Policy for Security Cameras at the Palo Alto Museum at the Roth Building (300 Homer Avenue); CEQA Status - Not a Project 8. Approve Policy & Services Committee Recommendation to Continue the Nonprofit Partnership Workplan Phase I funding process for FY 2027 Budget Cycle, with Additional Refinements to be Developed by the Policy & Services Committee in January 2026 and Return to Council for Approval 9. Policy and Services Committee Recommends Council Amend the Procedures and Protocols Handbook to Allow January Committee Meetings and Schedule Procedures and Protocols Handbook Review Every Other Year: CEQA - Not a Project 10. Reaffirmation of the Carbon Neutral Plan and the Renewable Energy Credit Exchange Program as Recommended by the Utilities Advisory Commission; CEQA Status: Not a project 11. QUASI-JUDICIAL. 3150 El Camino Real [25PLN-00273]: Request for a Final Map to Merge Three Contiguous Parcels to Create a 111,030-Square-Foot Parcel. The Final Map Would Facilitate Construction of a 368-Unit Rental Development Project (24PLN-00230) Previously Approved on July 11, 2025. Zone District: CS (Commercial Services). CEQA Status: Exempt in Accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183. 12. Approval of Partnership Agreement with Metropolitan Transportation Commission, in an Amount Not to Exceed $108,888 to Provide Unlimited Transit Access Available Through the Clipper BayPass Pilot Program for City of Palo Alto Employees Through December 31, 2026; CEQA Status - Not a Project. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 11 of 23 Sp. City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 12/15/2025 13. Accept the City of Palo Alto’s Audited Financial Statements as of June 30, 2025, and the Macias, Gini & O’Connell Management Letter; Approve the FY 2025 Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR) and Amendments to the FY 2025 Budget in Various Funds; CEQA Status – Not a Project. 14. Approval for the City Manager or Designee to Execute Purchase Order with Zoll Medical Corporation, utilizing a Sourcewell Cooperative Contract to Procure Replacement Pre- hospital Monitors/Defibrillators and ancillary equipment for Emergency Responses for a Total Not-To-Exceed amount of $1,129,138. CEQA Status – Not a Project. 15. Approval of Professional Services Agreement No. C26193655 with Canopy to Support the City of Palo Alto's Urban Forestry Programs for a Term of Three Years and a Not-To- Exceed Amount of $1,236,366, and Approval of a Budget Amendment in the General Fund; CEQA Status - Not a Project 16. Adoption of a Resolution Approving Conduit Financing for Charities Housing Development Corporation, on behalf of El Camino PA, L.P., for the 130-Unit Affordable Multifamily Housing Rental Project Located at 3001 El Camino Real, and Approving the Issuance of Revenue Bonds not to exceed $80 Million by the California Municipal Finance Authority (CMFA) for the Purpose of Financing and Refinancing the Acquisition, Development, Construction and Equipping of Project; CEQA Status: Not a Project 17. Approval of General Services Contract No. C26195803 with Genuine Parts Company dba Napa Auto Parts for an Amount Not-to-Exceed $6,238,832 for an On-Site Fleet Parts and Inventory Program for a Six-Year Term Utilizing Pricing Set by Cooperative Sourcewell Contract No. 090624-GPC, and Approval of a Budget Amendment in the Vehicle Replacement and Maintenance Fund; CEQA Status - Not a Project 18. Approval of Professional Services Contract Number C26194283 with Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. in the Amount Not-to-Exceed $371,415 to Conduct Development Impact and In-Lieu Fee Study. CEQA Status: Exempt Under CEQA Guidelines Sections 15061(b)(2) and (b)(3). 19. Approval of a Professional Services Contract Number C26196324 with Santa Clara County Communications in an Amount Not to Exceed $100,000 for Public Safety Radio Maintenance and Support for a Period of Five (5) Years; CEQA Status - Not a Project 20. Approval of Professional Services Contract No. C26190778A with Turbo Data LLC, in an Amount Not to Exceed $989,138 to Provide Development, Implementation, Support and Maintenance of a Comprehensive Parking Permit and Citation Management System for five years; CEQA status - not a project. 21. Approval of a Purchase Order with Golden State Fire Apparatus in an Amount Not to Exceed $3,378,458, for the Purchase of One Hybrid Electric Pierce Enforcer Volterra 1500 GPM Pumper and One Diesel Pierce Enforcer 1500 GPM Pumper, Utilizing a SUMMARY MINUTES Page 12 of 23 Sp. City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 12/15/2025 Cooperative Purchase Agreement, as Part of the Scheduled Vehicle and Equipment Replacement Capital Improvement Fiscal Year 2025 and 2026 Projects (VR-25000 and VR-26000); CEQA Status – Not a Project Item Removed Off Agenda 22. Approval of Amendment #1 for Professional Services Contract No. C26195143 in the Amount of $101,292 with Peninsula Healthcare Connection to continue the Downtown Food Closet Operations for a Revised Total Amount Not-to-Exceed $268,521 including the Provision of Outreach, Mental and Physical healthcare to Unhoused and Low- Income Members of the Community for a Period of Two Years; CEQA status – not a project. 23. Approval of Amendment No. 2 to Contract S20176706 with FolgerGraphics, Inc. to Reduce the Scope of Services for Professional Printing and Distribution Services of the Enjoy! Activity Guide through March 2026; CEQA Status – not a project. 24. Adoption of an Ordinance Amending the Fiscal Year 2026 Municipal Fee Schedule to Implement Technical Corrections. CEQA Status: Not a Project Public Comment: Herb B. (Item 5) discussed why he was requesting that Item 5 be removed and that the issue of an appointment of an interim City Attorney be referred to the Council CAO Committee. MOTION: Vice Mayor Veenker moved, seconded by Councilmember Reckdahl, to approve Agenda Item Numbers 4-20, 22-24 (Agenda Item Number 21 Removed Off the Agenda). MOTION PASSED ITEMS 4-20, 22-24: 7-0 City Manager Comments City Manager Ed Shikada commented that January 5 would be Council’s reorganization date. Council’s first 2026 business meeting would occur on January 12. Council would meet on January 20. Council’s retreat was scheduled for January 24. Items related to Board and Commission Workplans, weed abatement, S/CAP reliability strategy to the Work Plan, follow-up reports and discussions on Palo Alto Link, an oversized vehicle report from the Ad Hoc Committee and the midyear budget actions were anticipated for February but staff was finalizing dates. [Council took a 10-minute break] SUMMARY MINUTES Page 13 of 23 Sp. City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 12/15/2025 Action Items 25. PUBLIC HEARING/QUASI-JUDICIAL. 1680 Bryant Street [25PLN-00204]. Approval of a Record of Land Use Action to Reclassify the Historic Building Located at 1680 Bryant Street From a Category 2 Resource on the Local Historic Inventory to a Category 3 Resource. Senior Historic Planner Steven Switzer stated that the property at 1680 Bryant Street, located at Lowell Avenue and Bryant Street in the Old Palo Alto Neighborhood, was built in 1914 and designed by John Hudson Thomas. Page & Turnbull prepared a Historic Resource Evaluation in July 2025, after which the applicant requested reclassification from Category 2 to Category 3. The request was heard by the Historic Resources Board (HRB) on October 9. An illustration showing the building’s 1924 orientation was presented. An illustration from the 1940s showed there had been demolition of the main entry connector and porte cochere. Planner Switzer stated that a later parcel report indicated construction of the property at 275 Lowell Avenue, with the southern portion demolished in 1997 for a new 2-story residence. Planner Switzer explained that during the 1997–2001 Dames & Moore inventory update, the City only focused on new structures but did not reevaluate existing listings. The property had been added to the City's historic inventory in 1978 as a Category 2 resource for its Prairie style, notable architect, and design elements. On October 9, 2025, the HRB voted 3–1–1 to recommend retaining the Category 2 designation, citing concerns that reclassification to Category 3 would reduce preservation protections, including demolition delay, and that existing incentives are insufficient. Key considerations for Council included the July 2025 Historic Resource Evaluation, the construction chronology with over 2/3 of the structure removed, and the municipal code definitions for Category 2 and 3 resources. Staff noted that under CEQA, reclassifying the building does not constitute a foreseeable change to the built environment. Staff recommended that Council approve the Record of Land Use Action to reclassify the building at 1680 Bryant Street from a Category 2 to a Category 3 resource on the Palo Alto Historic Resources Inventory. It was emphasized that this recommendation differs from the HRB's recommendation to retain the existing Category 2 listing and is based on the July 2025 Historic Resource Evaluation. No HRB members were present at this meeting. Stanton Architecture’s Steve Allen described the original and current state of 1680 Bryant Street. A photo showed the original Prairie-style front facade and H-shaped plan with the main entry from Lowell Avenue. An illustration highlighted demolished portions, including the south wing, main entry connector, and porte cochere. The current lot is approximately 25 percent of the original size. The original intent was an H-shaped building being on a larger lot with a large rear yard and a side yard. Photos of the original and current building were shown. The Planning Department still considers Lowell Avenue to be the front-facing portion of the building, though there is no entry. The current building is rectangular with no porte cochere and an existing garage encroaching 16 to 18 feet over the setbacks, which cannot be corrected due to its SUMMARY MINUTES Page 14 of 23 Sp. City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 12/15/2025 Category 2 status. A diagram showed the smaller lot and current setbacks, limiting modifications. Interior photos showed significant alterations and need for updating. There is an occupiable roof on the second floor but is unusable due to head-height clearance of the roof and cannot be modified because of the Category 2 designation. An inappropriate addition on the south side of the home includes a glass block wall on the first floor and a bathroom on the second, located near the rear property line. Architect Allen stated the applicant requests reclassification from Category 2 to Category 3 under the Palo Alto Municipal Code. Category 2 is defined as a major building retaining its original character despite some exterior modifications. Categories 3 and 4 are contributing buildings that may have extensive or permanent changes, including inappropriate additions and removal of architectural details. The applicant’s team stated the building has undergone significant permanent alterations. Architect Allen noted that reclassification to Category 3 is required to address site constraints. George Halstead, representing the owners of 1680 Bryant Street, stated the family purchased the property in 2014 but never occupied it. A rental attempt in 2019 to cover taxes was unsuccessful, and the home has remained vacant. The family now aims to rehabilitate the property and return it to Palo Alto’s housing stock. Mr. Halstead acknowledged it was unusual to request the City Council take a different position than the HRB and noted the absence of the owners at the October HRB meeting was a procedural oversight. Public Comment: None. Councilmember Lu noted he had previously reviewed this item as an HRB liaison and met with Mr. Halstead. Councilmember Lu stated the applicant had raised concerns about livability and the difficulty of renovations. While acknowledging the HRB’s appreciation of the Prairie-style home and its prominent Bryant Street location, Councilmember Lu stated there was no record at the HRB meeting of the applicant’s intended use. Councilmember Lu agreed with the staff recommendation that the property no longer meets the criteria for Category 2. Councilmember Burt asked whether the HRB opposed recategorization or simply valued the building as-is. Planner Switzer clarified that among the 3 HRB members who voted to retain the designation, not all agreed with the Category 2 status, and 1 suggested upgrading to Category 1. Councilmember Burt wanted to confirm his understanding in that the HRB’s objections were based on their valuation of the building, not technical compliance, which Planner Switzer said was a fair statement. Councilmember Burt noted he also values the structure, expressed concern that the City Council received a recommendation based on the HRB’s subjective valuation rather than objective standards, and suggested Mayor Lauing provide feedback to the HRB. Councilmember Stone asked if the 275 Lowell Avenue portion, demolished in 1997, had been removed from the historic registry at that time; Planner Switzer confirmed it had not. Councilmember Stone inquired whether that demolition was illegal. Planner Switzer and Director Lait clarified that the demolition and prior construction were permitted by the City, SUMMARY MINUTES Page 15 of 23 Sp. City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 12/15/2025 though records provided limited historical information. Councilmember Stone acknowledged the property’s historical significance and expressed support for the applicant’s reclassification request. Mayor Lauing asked what a Category 3 designation would allow or restrict the applicant from doing. Planner Switzer explained that Category 1 and 2 structures require historic review, typically involving the HRB, while Category 3 and 4 structures have more flexibility, are not subject to historic review, and receive some zoning incentives. Director Lait added that a 1- story addition would be permitted through the Building Department and noted that Category 3 structures have fewer protections, including the possibility of future demolition. Mayor Lauing commented that, given over 2/3 of the structure is gone, he finds it reasonable to support the staff recommendation. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims supported the motion, noting the home already fits the Category 3 definition and was appreciative of the owner’s intent to use it for residential purposes to address community housing needs. Vice Mayor Veenker noted the property was once a notable example of Prairie architecture and expressed frustration that the City's own definitions were not followed. Vice Mayor Veenker commended the applicants for their patience and professionalism. MOTION: Vice Mayor Veenker moved, seconded by Councilmember Lythcott-Haims to approve the Record of Land Use Action (Attachment B) reclassifying the building at 1680 Bryant Street from a Category 2 resource to a Category 3 resource on the Palo Alto Historic Resources Inventory. MOTION PASSED: 7-0 26. Review and Selection of the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) to proceed with 15% design and Prepare CEQA and NEPA Documentation for the Grade Separations at Churchill Avenue, Meadow Drive, and Charleston Road Crossings; CEQA status – CEQA and NEPA will be conducted on this project as part of the upcoming scope of work. This item is a continuation of Agenda Item Number 1 on the City Council December 10, 2025 agenda. The report for this item can be found here under Agenda Item Number 1 here: https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=18178 On December 10, 2025, Council will receive staff presentation(s) and Public Testimony; this item continued to the December 15, 2025 City Council meeting is for, as needed, Council discussion, deliberation and action – No Public Testimony will be heard on December 15, 2025. Mayor Lauing reiterated that there would be no public comment for this item. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 16 of 23 Sp. City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 12/15/2025 Councilmember Reckdahl recused himself from Agenda Item 26 due to the location of his home. Senior Engineer Ripon Bhatia stated the project team would address questions from the December 10 City Council meeting regarding the traffic analysis. Chief Transportation Official Ria Hutabarat Lo explained that Council Members requested fully accurate traffic data. Standardized traffic analysis used a standard 4-step model: 1) trip generation, 2) trip distribution, 3) mode split, and 4) route assignment. Those results were then represented on a scale from A to F for automobile level of service (LOS). Chief Transportation Official Hutabarat Lo clarified that traffic LOS grades should not be compared to school grades, as LOS A is not always better than C. Transportation models provide forecasts, not exact predictions, and have known limitations. Induced demand shows that expanding capacity can increase traffic. Human choices and policy such as density, design, destinations, and demand management also influence traffic volumes. Project Manager Edgar Torres (Caltrain) wanted the Council to be aware of updated numbers reflected in the presentation. Project Manager Torres said there were questions at the December 10 meeting with regard to the overall network delay, approach delays, and movement queues, and this information was in the Packet for the Council to review. Project Manager Torres emphasized that there would be trade-offs, citing that underpasses reduce overall delays but restrict certain movements, benefiting some users more than others. Project Manager Torres reminded Council that alternatives are still being refined. Vehicle travel times were calculated using intersection paths and typical delays, while cyclist times considered path distance, intersection delays, and speed. Slides showed vehicle travel times at Charleston/Alma, and explanations for increases and decreases were given. Mayor Lauing confirmed stop time was included in travel time. Another slide showed hybrid and underpass options would improve delays at Meadow/Alma and Charleston/Alma but would increase cyclist travel times in most cases. Mayor Lauing asked if the traffic studies used real 2040 projections rather than a 15-year gap. Project Manager Torres confirmed the 2040 projections reflect a buildout scenario, accounting for new housing and employment. Councilmember Stone noted that some 2040 projections at Charleston/Alma showed better vehicle travel times without building any improvements. Project Manager Torres clarified this applied to specific movements and highlighted the importance of the overall network data for a broader view. Councilmember Burt asked for clarification on directional references. Project Manager Torres explained that northbound and southbound refer to Alma Street, while eastbound and westbound refer to the cross streets, and clarified that southbound bicycle trips refer to cyclists traveling south on Park Boulevard toward the east side of the railroad tracks. Councilmember Burt asked where the traffic study reflected heavy east-to-west bicycle travel on Charleston in SUMMARY MINUTES Page 17 of 23 Sp. City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 12/15/2025 the morning and west-to-east in the afternoon. Project Manager Torres stated that westbound- to-northbound bicycle travel times on Charleston Road in the report provide a reasonable approximation. Councilmember Burt asked which scenario best represented morning bicycle travel for Gunn High School students crossing the tracks westbound. Project Manager Torres stated a direct crossing would be provided, and Chief Transportation Official Hutabarat Lo added the northbound segment would be similar across all options. Councilmember Burt noted discrepancies between Slide 19 and an earlier graphic and questioned whether reduced underpass delay reflected a shift to travel-time analysis. Project Manager Torres clarified that Slide 19 focused solely on redirected movements, such as those under the roundabout option. Project Manager Torres suggested that Slide 19 be viewed alongside Slide 10 for broader context. Councilmember Burt expressed interest in how traffic would rebalance with grade separation only at Charleston/Alma and noted that Meadow Drive traffic could shift to Charleston Road. Councilmember Burt stated that Slide 10 would be most useful for his analysis. Vice Mayor Veenker noted that underpass options showed significant delay reductions compared to hybrids and questioned the benefit of constructing only 1 underpass before deciding on a second. Vice Mayor Veenker also noted that doing so could reduce the number of required property acquisitions. Project Manager Torres stated that constructing a single underpass would significantly reduce travel time for certain movements, potentially attracting users and rebalancing the system, assuming demand remains unchanged. Vice Mayor Veenker suggested evaluating travel times for a single underpass at either Meadow or Charleston compared to hybrids at both intersections. Project Manages Torres felt that analysis could be done concurrently with the 15 percent drawings. If the Council wanted that data before the 15 percent drawings, it would cause a change in the schedule. Project Manager Torres stated that advancing either alternative to 15 percent design would not materially change the traffic results, though further analysis would be useful for implementation, noting the traffic study assumed comparable improvements at both Charleston and Meadow. Mayor Lauing asked whether the intent was to build the same type of crossing at both Charleston and Meadow. Project Manager Torres responded that the team had no preference and had evaluated a scenario with one underpass and one hybrid from a technical standpoint. Project Manager Torres explained that building underpasses at both intersections is challenging because one crossing must remain open, requiring sequential construction. The hybrid option had its own challenges because of the requirement of a shoofly. The most complex and expensive option would be doing a hybrid crossing at both intersections years apart because the railroad track would have to be moved vertically twice. Mayor Lauing noted a potential funding advantage of doing an underpass first and a hybrid later, and asked about proceeding with both options to 15 percent design. Project Manager Torres estimated a 3 to 6 month schedule delay for this. Senior Engineer Bhatia noted the FRA grant requires completion by October 2027, and extensions would need to be requested. The next grant has a constrained timeline. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 18 of 23 Sp. City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 12/15/2025 Mayor Lauing asked if additional analysis of both options could lead to engineering changes that would reduce property acquisitions. Project Manager Torres explained that adjustments to lane geometry or additional use of Caltrain right-of-way could affect this, but such changes are uncommon at the 15 percent stage. Torres emphasized that 15 percent drawings establish a stable project footprint for environmental review, not final design, and many changes may occur before construction. Mayor Lauing asked if additional analysis could allow studying another alternative. Project Manager Torres noted it depends on the scope, with some cases being minor variations, such as the roundabout versus direct-access ramp. Councilmember Stone seconded Vice Mayor Veenker’s proposal. Councilmember Stone noted Slide 10 was helpful but did not show hybrid/underpass combinations. Stone asked why Slides 17 and 19 focused on specific traffic movements rather than others. Project Manager Torres stated that a grade separation represents a significant change to the transportation network and would require recalibration of the traffic study data. Two options were identified: 1) conduct additional traffic analysis for a new alternative with a delay to 15 percent drawings, or 2) advance both alternatives to 15 percent drawings concurrently while performing traffic analysis to maintain schedule. A cost adjustment would be needed between preliminary engineering and 15 percent drawings. Councilmember Stone felt that this approach made the most sense at this point and would like to see analysis of an underpass at one intersection and a hybrid at the other. Councilmember Stone did not see much benefit with the roundabout for time savings and property acquisition reduction, preferred the overall network data, and was in favor of advancing the 15 percent design for the partial underpass option for Churchill Avenue. Councilmember Burt stated that the issue was which alternatives should advance to 15 percent design and what additional information would be gained at that stage. Councilmember Burt highlighted that if the Churchill crossing were deferred due to funding, the question was to either pause with moderate property impacts or refine the design to reduce impacts and uncertainty for residents. Councilmember Burt noted uncertainty in Charleston and Meadow cost estimates, noting earlier projections were based on different assumptions, including hybrid designs. Earthen hybrid and podium hybrid had been discussed. Councilmember Burt noted that with noise addressed by quiet zones, the remaining objectives are future congestion and safety, comparing at-grade improvements to full grade separation. Councilmember Burt noted there were opportunities to reduce property impacts, particularly for an underpass, and to assess bicycle circulation and safety. Councilmember Burt noted that advancing select alternatives to 15 percent design would clarify these issues and questioned which options should proceed given time and cost considerations. Councilmember Burt stated that focusing on a single location introduces additional complications. Councilmember Burt noted regional cost escalation, cited Measure B funding of approximately $400 million, and inquired about potential state and federal funding. Councilmember Burt asked if grant estimates for Meadow and Charleston could guide prioritization. Senior Engineer Bhatia stated future grants are uncertain but completing 35 percent preliminary engineering and environmental work improves prospects for future construction funding. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 19 of 23 Sp. City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 12/15/2025 Councilmember Lu asked how deferring Churchill Avenue would affect the 15 percent design for Meadow and Charleston, including grant funding and project timing. Senior Engineer Bhatia stated federal agreements require 35 percent preliminary engineering and environmental analysis for all 3 crossings and that deferral would withhold funding and reduce future project eligibility. Councilmember Lu said this clarified how to proceed with Churchill. Councilmember Lu questioned if any scenario exists at the 15 percent design phase where the underpass would not be significantly more expensive than the hybrid for Charleston and Meadow. Project Manager Torres replied that cost differences are uncertain and depend on project sequencing and that the 15 percent drawings provide a stable footprint and enable market pricing of alternatives. Councilmember Lu asked if construction advances such as like prefabricated tunnel structures could make underpasses less expensive than hybrids. Project Manager Torres stated that while it is possible, he could not confirm a high likelihood. Utilizing precast, modular, and sequential construction could help, but accurate costs require developed drawings. Councilmember Lu stated that no definitive conclusions on project costs could be drawn, making it difficult to determine the most feasible option for traffic and rail safety improvements. Senior Engineer Bhatia noted previous estimates provide some cost insight but do not improve constructability understanding. Project Manager Torres added that prior estimates predated Caltrain electrification, which introduced new guidelines. The 15 percent drawings are needed to provide more cost certainty. Councilmember Lu supported advancing 15 percent drawings for both hybrid and underpass options to better identify the most feasible and cost-effective alternative. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims stated that this discussion is one of the most significant she has participated in, given its long-term impact on the community. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims commended the experts and noted that the data provides both complexity and clarity. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims highlighted Vice Mayor Veenker’s observation that a single underpass could achieve greater traffic benefits than 2 hybrids. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims emphasized that, while not the primary goal, grade separation also addresses preventing train- related suicides. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims expressed concern that reducing to a single option or focusing on only Charleston or Meadow may not sufficiently advance this safety objective, especially if Churchill is deferred. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims stated that she is increasingly recognizing the benefits of the underpass option and noted that public comments have largely supported it. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims emphasized the community’s need for clear information on eminent domain, including when it applies, how offers are made, and tax basis considerations. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims referenced a May 2024 plan and VTA materials for public education that may not have been fully implemented and requested a clear strategy to communicate eminent domain information as the underpass option is advanced. City Attorney Molly Stump said information was provided to the public on eminent domain from general authoritative sources in the form of a staff report. This information did not get separately elevated on the website, so steps could be taken to provide that information. City Attorney Stump noted that the City can provide only general information at this early stage, which will not answer specific questions about individual properties or final plans. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 20 of 23 Sp. City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 12/15/2025 Councilmember Lythcott-Haims understood that one member of the public has offered to sell their house to the City and believed people want to know when that will become a conversation that can be had. City Attorney Stump explained that, because this is a federally involved process, early acquisitions, even with local funds, are only possible under narrow exceptions approved by the federal government. This ensures the NEPA process is not bypassed. While the City may inquire about exceptions, final approval is not a local decision. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims asked whether acquiring a house with City funds without including it in the grade separation project costs was allowed. City Attorney Stump said that if the property remains a part of the project in any way, federal funding could be jeopardized by an early action that is not approved by the federal government. Vice Mayor Veenker noted that while grade separation provides significant means restriction, other options such as advanced intrusion detection or additional physical barriers could be considered and is a worthwhile discussion moving forward. Vice Mayor Veenker stated that she is leaning away from the hybrid option due to the berm design, but if pursued, she would like both berm and podium alternatives analyzed. Project Manager Torres confirmed Vice Mayor Veenker was referring to essentially a bridge spanning Charleston to Meadow. Project Manager Torres said that is a separate alternative that can be explored. Vice Mayor Veenker believed this issue was specifically discussed at the last Council meeting and would not support the hybrid design if the berm is the only option. Vice Mayor Veenker asked whether constructing a single underpass at either Charleston or Meadow could provide cost savings and wanted clarification that all 3 intersections must be considered under the current grant. Senior engineer Bhatia confirmed that preliminary engineering and environmental analysis has to be completed for all 3 crossings. Vice Mayor Veenker requested that the next step include the cost, travel modeling, and impacts of focusing on just 1 of the 2 intersections, Meadow or Charleston. Vice Mayor Veenker noted the large differences in traffic outcomes between hybrid and underpass options and emphasized the potential savings in cost, time, and property impacts. Vice Mayor Veenker asked whether it is possible to analyze mixed scenarios, such as a hybrid at one intersection and an underpass at another, and the traffic impacts of completing only a single improvement. Senior Engineer Bhatia reiterated there would be additional cost and timing for this additional analysis and that there is limited funding availability at this time. The project team would like to see if there is a way to do this in the existing contracts. There was a likelihood of additional need for funding, but funding is currently available to proceed forward with 2 alternatives to the 15 percent design. The project team would like to narrow down some of the alternatives so there are not multiple iterations, such as the direct-access ramp versus the roundabout. Vice Mayor Veenker expressed her desire to eliminate the roundabout option. Mayor Lauing asked for clarification that, as an example, a hybrid at Charleston and an underpass at Meadow could each advance to 15 percent design, and that the option to implement hybrids at both intersections would remain possible at 80 percent engineering. Project Manager Torres explained that the options could be evaluated independently, including SUMMARY MINUTES Page 21 of 23 Sp. City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 12/15/2025 sequencing if one intersection is an underpass and the other a hybrid. Advancing both alternatives at either location is recommended to provide clear guidance for cost estimating. Vice Mayor Veenker suggested evaluating the ramp/underpass at Charleston Road and the hybrid option at Meadow Drive, with the option to defer the hybrid later. Vice Mayor Veenker requested an impact study for implementing only the underpass and asked for analysis on a protected bike lane on the first block of Seale Avenue and additional measures to improve bicyclist safety at the ramp. Chief Transportation Official Hutabarat Lo wanted to clarify that Vice Mayor Veenker was suggesting a preference for the Alma Street ramp but also addressing the connection to Seale Avenue to make sure that it is safe for bicyclists coming out of the ramp and vice versa. Senior Engineer Bhatia stated this would be included in the 15 percent designs. Vice Mayor Veenker noted that the Seale Avenue ramp could remove parking on both sides, while a protected bike lane on Alma might remove parking on one side, and asked for further details for consideration. Project Manager Torres stated that surface improvements can sometimes help to avoid full utility relocations and complex construction and that the concept can be advanced while the Council provides direction on improving safety. Vice Mayor Veenker pointed out the fact that while there may be no utility impacts, the improvements could affect parking. Councilmember Burt noted that Caltrain’s new technical and design standards significantly impact construction methods and costs, which are not yet reflected in cost estimates. Councilmember Burt reminded the Council that property acquisitions are typically not through eminent domain and referenced SB 698, which sets notification requirements but does not require the agency to provide tax information to property owners. Councilmember Burt asked whether the Council can choose to evaluate a hybrid as either earthen only or podium based. Project Manager Torres explained that Charleston as an underpass would require a longer bridge, with the Meadow hybrid starting to rise several hundred feet south of Charleston. A podium is possible but would be longer than a typical bridge crossing and could be explored as part of the hybrid alternative. Vice Mayor Veenker said she would like this information in the motion. Councilmember Stone agreed with these amendments. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims noted that earthen berm and podium-style hybrid options had been discussed at the April 2024 Rail Committee meeting. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims recalled being told in November that a hybrid with columns would be included and acknowledged a possible disconnect in communication. Mayor Lauing confirmed that these options were now in the motion. Project Manager Torres added that these options can be studied. Councilmember Stone requested that the motion clearly reflect the intent to study both options and keep them available through the 15 percent design phase. Senior Engineer Bhatia asked for clarification from the Council about the language concerning Meadow Drive in the motion, whether it should say the 'selected alternative' or 'explore podium-style hybrid alternative.' Vice Mayor Veenker said if there is only support for the podium-style hybrid, she would advocate only exploring that. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 22 of 23 Sp. City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 12/15/2025 Councilmember Lu expressed concern about ruling out the earthen berm alternative, noting its common use along the Caltrain corridor and potential long-term benefits for traffic and safety. Councilmember Lu suggested including additional analysis comparing earthen berm and podium-style hybrids for Meadow. Councilmember Lu also raised concerns about whether findings from studying one location could be directly applied to the other and wanted to be sure it was understood that these potential limitations are built into the motion. Senior Engineer Bhatia explained that advancing alternatives under the motion includes 15 percent design preliminary engineering and environmental phases. Changing options at 15 percent would require additional work for each crossing. Councilmember Lu stated his understanding is that cost and engineering findings for Meadow may not transfer to Charleston, as implementing hybrids at both locations would present greater constructability, cost, and feasibility challenges. Project Manager Torres confirmed that some findings would be transferable between the 2 alternatives but noted that constructing 2 hybrids years apart would be substantially more complex. Councilmember Lu asked whether limiting underpass analysis to Charleston would omit critical information for Meadow, such as differences in utility complexity. Project Manager Torres stated the utilities are more complicated at Charleston Road versus Meadow Drive and that studying it there would show the greatest constraints associated with an undercrossing. Councilmember Lu stated that a Meadow Drive underpass would likely be less costly and less technically complex, making a hybrid–underpass combination a reasonable outcome. Councilmember Lu noted that if the approach proves unworkable at 15 percent design, further analysis could be undertaken. Councilmember Lu was curious if the motion maker or seconder would be open to exploring both a berm and viaduct podium-style hybrid at this phase. Senior Engineer Bhatia stated that at Meadow Drive, both earthen berm and podium-style options could be explored. Both Vice Mayor Veenker and Councilmember Stone were accepting of this language in the motion. Vice Mayor Veenker stated that while the goal is to narrow options, some uncertainty will remain and adjustments may be needed later. Vice Mayor Veenker noted that the Charleston ramp reduces full property acquisitions compared to other options, which is a significant consideration. Vice Mayor Veenker concluded that, despite tradeoffs and the lack of a clear solution, this approach represents the best available option and supported moving forward. MOTION: Vice Mayor Veenker moved, seconded by Councilmember Stone to select the Preferred Alternatives to proceed with 15 percent design for the grade separations at Churchill Avenue, Meadow Drive, and Charleston Road Crossings: • Churchill Avenue: Partial Underpass at Churchill without landscaping strip. Bicycle and pedestrian crossing at Seale Avenue using Alma Street Ramp with attention to bicycle safety on the Eastside; • Meadow Drive: Explore both an earthen berm and Podium-style Hybrid alternative; • Charleston Road Crossings: Underpass alternative with Direct Access Ramp; SUMMARY MINUTES Page 23 of 23 Sp. City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 12/15/2025 • Direct staff to conduct an implementation study if we only did the underpass at Charleston Road Crossing MOTION PASSED: 6-0-1, Reckdahl recused Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 11:05 p.m.