HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026-04-06 City Council Summary MinutesCITY COUNCIL
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 1 of 29
Regular Meeting
April 6, 2026
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers and by virtual
teleconference at 5:30 p.m.
Present In Person: Burt, Lauing, Lu, Lythcott-Haims, Reckdahl, Stone, Veenker
Present Remotely: None
Absent: None
Call to Order
Mayor Veenker called the meeting to order.
City Clerk Mahealani Ah Yun called roll and declared all were present.
Special Orders of the Day
1. Interview Candidate for Vacancies on the Planning & Transportation Commission; CEQA
Status - Not a Project
NO ACTION
Mayor Veenker announced this was a continuation of interviews from March 23. The positions
were for two 4-year terms.
City Clerk Mahealani Ah Yun introduced the candidates.
Daniel Benas thanked Council for the special interview time. Daniel Benas had a Bachelor of
Science in business from Berkeley and an MBA in fiance from UCLA and held active CPA licenses
in California and Texas. Daniel Benas had 46 years in the industry, primarily in the technology
area, such as semiconductor software, networking, and media tech and spent the last 37 years
in controllership and finance roles and served as head of finance. Daniel Benas had worked in a
number of high-visibility roles for a number of corporations recognized for their financial
discipline and performance. For the last 5 years, Daniel Benas had been VP of Head of Finance
for Business Wire and had worked in a number of IPO and turnaround situations. Daniel Benas
was a quick study and able to learn business issues and nuances. Daniel Benas successfully
accomplished what needed to be done by working on tradeoffs, coming up with out-of-the-box
ideas, and making tough but empathetic decisions. Daniel Benas was interested in serving on
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 2 of 29
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 04/06/2026
the PTC because it helped define the essence and texture of Palo Alto. The PTC helped take
competing visions and increasing regulation and helped maintain Palo Alto as a place people
wanted to live, work, and set up businesses. Daniel Benas’ volunteer resume included Big Basin
Redwoods doing mainly roving and wilderness patrol and he was on the Board of the Portola
and Castle Rock Foundation. Prior to moving to Palo Alto, Daniel Benas was Treasurer at
Peninsula Sinai Congregation.
Councilmember Reckdahl asked what could be done better in the Housing Element.
Daniel Benas had a limited familiarity with the Housing Element and focused mainly on the
2024/2025 Work Plan. There seemed to be a focus on high-density housing mostly
compartmentalized south of Palo Alto. Affordability and traffic were problems. Daniel Benas
addressed continuing to make Palo Alto the technology capital of the world and creating park
accessibility.
Councilmember Burt requested that Daniel Benas speak to the transportation vision and the
relationship between land use and transportation.
Daniel Benas wanted Palo Alto to be easily accessible, and it was important that traffic flow.
Land use was somewhat fixed. Daniel Benas discussed E-bikes and traffic gridlock and speeds.
Mayor Veenker asked Daniel Benas to discuss the goal of having enough parking to support
businesses without disturbing the suburban feel.
Daniel Benas wanted the city to have a University-type feel with a continuum of places to live,
which might require out-of-the box solutions.
Iris Blanchet, a high school senior, thanked Council for the interview. Iris Blanchet’s primary
motivations for seeking the position were commitments to expanding mixed-use housing
opportunities, supporting local businesses, improving transportation access, and contributing
meaningfully to the City's planning process. Iris Blanchet had experience with public
transportation advocacy. Iris Blanchet’s Capstone project in the Advanced Authentic Research
program at Gunn High School consisted of designing and carrying out a project to encourage
more youth to use public transportation, which involved organizing trips across the Bay Area
using transit, teaching students how to navigate the system, and helping them build consistent
habits for transit use. Iris Blanchet and his project partner partnered with YCS at a local youth
advocacy organization to reach students across Palo Alto and received an invitation to present
their findings at the Foothill Research Symposium.
If selected, Iris Blanchet would remain in Palo Alto for the duration of the term. Iris Blanchet
would attend Foothill Community College and later transfer to a nearby CSU. In terms of policy,
Iris Blanchet focused on 3 guiding priorities – strengthening bike-safe infrastructure,
encouraging transit-oriented mixed-use housing, and increasing youth engagement, not just in
City planning but in City politics as a whole. The City should move beyond ceremonial roles for
youth and focus on pathways to provide tangible input on transportation and development
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 3 of 29
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 04/06/2026
decisions. Iris Blanchet’s vision for Palo Alto included growth being measured and intentional,
buildings remaining consistent with the existing character of the community, businesses having
the confidence to invest, safety, and more residents being able to rely on public transportation.
Councilmember Burt asked if Iris Blanchet was familiar with PABAC.
Iris Blanchet was not familiar with PABAC.
Councilmember Burt thought PABAC should have a designated position to represent the youth.
Councilmember Burt inquired if there was a bicycle network in need of greater concentration.
Iris Blanchet had seen many amazing improvements. The PTC and the City should address bike-
safe infrastructure along Alma.
Councilmember Lythcott-Haims queried if Iris Blanchet had thoughts about turning San Antonio
Road into a true set of livable, walkable, and bikeable neighborhoods.
Iris Blanchet wanted more trees and greenery as it impacted the livability of the city and
wanted the City to address the business and human aspects of mixed-use housing. Iris Blanchet
suggested providing tax credits to incentivize business to come in.
Vice Mayor Stone questioned if Iris Blanchet had any strategies to further engage youth
interest/feedback on PTC’s work.
Iris Blanchet noted that the City had multiple youth advisory groups and desired that they have
a more active role in advising the City on PTC issues. If on the PTC, Iris Blanchet would send
emails to youth advisory group heads after every meeting summarizing the discussion. Iris
Blanchet wanted to know how the youth advisory groups and youth in general felt about the
discussions and what they wanted to see moving forward. Iris Blanchet had a lot of experience
with youth advocacy and was the head of Vote16 Palo Alto. The best way to involve youth was
to talk with them, not at them, and get their opinions. Iris Blanchet wanted to see a youth-
specific advisory seat on the PTC to help with youth-related planning and transportation issues.
Mayor Veenker asked how the City could best accommodate young people living in Palo Alto.
Iris Blanchet answered that there should be a focus on listening to Palo Alto’s youth and
building more mixed-use housing near public transportation corridors.
Agenda Changes, Additions, and Deletions
City Manager Ed Shikada noted that the agenda had been amended, but there were no
additional changes.
Councilmember Reckdahl was concerned about having enough time to address Item 3.
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 4 of 29
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 04/06/2026
City Manager Shikada added that the Item 3 could be continued if the discussion needed to be
extended.
Mayor Veenker would determine later in the meeting what should be done.
Public Comment
1. Monica F. announced that she would be Council’s primary point of contact for all PG&E-
related matters. Monica F. valued strong partnerships with local government leaders
and was committed to be a responsive and collaborative resource and looked forward
to connecting.
2. Star T. thanked Councilmember Lythcott-Haims for attending the Barron Park annual
meeting. Star T. requested that more attention be given to pedestrian and bike safety.
Star T. spoke of issues with the no-right-turn-on-red near the proposed driveway at
3606 Madadero. Star T. would send comments to Council.
Council Member Questions, Comments, and Announcements
Councilmember Burt commented that VTA was soliciting input on a local investment plan from
all cities in the county, so cities had an opportunity to identify projects for funding should the
regional tax measure pass, which would result in significant additional funding to VTA. Some
cities had had meetings/study sessions with VTA, which VTA was planning to consolidate in the
next month or two. If Palo Alcohol could not meet with VTA by June, Councilmember Burt
strongly encouraged agendizing it for early August. The Palo Alto Community Fund came
forward with a $100K grant toward Alcove, which Councilmember Burt understood was a
matching grant. Councilmember Burt understood that there had been a delay in the Cal Ave
replacement to Third Thursday due to contract negotiations, and the Palo Alto Rec Foundation
needed to cover insurance and had related legal expenses. Councilmember Burt proposed that
Council allocate $5K from the Council Contingency Fund to cover their additional expenses.
Councilmembers Lythcott-Haims and Reckdahl seconded Councilmember Burt’s interest in
allocating $5K toward supporting the Palto Rec Foundation and their efforts to sponsor the
activation of Cal Ave.
Mayor Veenker thanked staff for supporting the recent comments she had made to a variety of
local groups recently on behalf of the City. Mayor Veenker attended Cal Cities statewide Public
Safety Committee meeting a week ago Friday, which had a fascinating presentation on E-bikes,
and there was an online toolkit tracking what other cities were doing, which could be useful to
Palo Alto. Cesar Chavez Day had been renamed Farmworkers Day by the State, and Palo Alto
would conform references to reflect that. To Mayor Veenker’s knowledge, nothing bared
Chavez’s name, but staff would confirm that. Stanford and the City sent out invitations to the
co-sponsored data center symposium for May 1, which would take place at Stanford by
invitation only. Due to limited space, initial invitations were issued to the Council Members on
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 5 of 29
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 04/06/2026
the Climate and Sustainability Committee, but if other Council Members wished to attend, they
should let Mayor Veenker know.
Study Session
2. Discussion of Nonprofit Partnership Workplan Phase I Purpose and Improvements for FY
2027. CEQA Status – Not a project.
NO ACTION
Assistant City Manager Kiely Nose requested that Council consider suspending Phase 1 in
FY2027 due to a fiscal deficit. If not suspended, consideration should be given to improving the
process and perspective steps. It was not intended that Phase 1 be a new grant program but to
be a discretionary source to provide a fair and equitable way to evaluate nonprofit funding as
part of the annual budget process. The Staff Report noted that 17 nonprofits were awarded
Phase 1 grants last year, but it should read 16. In January 2026, the Policy and Services
Committee reviewed areas to improve the processes, although there was no formal
recommendation. Assistant City Manager Nose displayed a slide summarizing the areas of
general consensus for improvement. A General Fund deficit of $14.9M was forecasted for
FY2027. Council would review the proposed budget in April, May, and June, which would
include service and capital improvement reductions and use of reserves. Funding Phase 1 would
widen the deficit by any amount allocated to it. Assistant City Manager Nose presented a table
showing what was proposed preliminarily in FY2027. In FY2027, there would be no reductions
to HSRAP, emerging needs funds, or ongoing service contracts. It was anticipated that almost
$6.6M would go toward supporting nonprofits, and no reductions were proposed. The City’s
nonprofit contracts over $10K were enumerated in Attachment A. Organizations with an
asterisk were expected to receive funds via HSRAP, CDBG, and/or an operating service
agreement. Staff recommended Council consider suspending the Phase 1 pilot for FY2027 and
returning in FY2028.
Public Comment:
1. Larry M., the Government Affairs Community Liaison for JobTrain, wanted the funds
allocated to JobTrain to serve Palo Alto residents and desired continuing a partnership.
Larry M. provided an update on what occurred since being awarded a grant through the
City’s program.
2. Kyra K. with Silicon Valley Council of Nonprofits furnished information gleaned from the
Nonprofit Pulse Report recently released. To preserve the systems the community relied
on, SVCN developed a set of policy recommendations focused on stabilization to ensure
that nonprofits could remain viable, maintain services, and support communities. The
recommendations focused on what local governments could do and included
contracting practices, ensuring coordination across departments, timely
reimbursements, access to advanced payments, reducing contract and grant
administrative burdens, and implementing cost of doing business adjustments.
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 6 of 29
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 04/06/2026
3. Lee P., Liaison and Board Member for the Chamber Nonprofits, urged Council to
continue Phase 1 or, at minimum, find funding and a partnership to keep the nonprofits
whole. Many local service workers relied on nonprofits for housing, etc. Lee P.
requested that consideration be given to measures, collaborations, and partnerships if
funding would not be accessible.
4. Olenka V. (Zoom), Founder and CEO of Magical Bridge, discussed the foundation’s work
and events that served a variety of residents. Olenka V. had previously sent a data and
impact summary. Olenka V. requested that Magical Bridge be an ongoing budget line
item.
Mayor Veenker expressed that the auditor wanted to ensure transparency, accountability, and
a consistent process for contracting with nonprofit partners. P&S had tried to find a mechanism
to consider when nonprofit partners could fill a service gap or a need with new programs that
were crucial to residents that the City could not provide or could not provide as well or as
efficiently. P&S tried to come up with a transparent process to receive requests instead of folks
presenting Council with one-off asks for gap funding or new services. Mayor Veenker discussed
the problems with nonprofits’ financial requests being funneled into the City’s current
processes. P&S had discussed possibly providing more HSRAP funding instead of considering
grants for things that were HSRAP eligible – not separating it into 2 processes. The longstanding
programs the City relied on should not come into this process but should be handled as it was
currently.
Mayor Veenker stated that the City had longstanding relationships with many of the
organizations listed on Slide 6, and she hoped staff was not recommending ending those
relationships if they would not be part of this process but instead that they would return to
prior practice. Some of those that Council granted the smaller amounts to were the most
thankful and grateful. Providing a process for innovative, new requests to fill a gap in services
should be sorted out and not set aside. There were questions related to available funding and
the process that should be used for longstanding partners. There were 2 factors when looking
at programs – the need in a given year, which should be addressed by P&S, and the ability to
fund it, which should be addressed by Finance. There should be a narrow process going
forward. P&S had proposed good revisions to the application form, and Mayor Veenker agreed
with almost all of the proposed process improvements.
Councilmember Lythcott-Haims, P&S Chair, stated this year’s iteration of P&S, with the
exception of Vice Mayor Stone, had not had an opportunity to review the item. The references
to proposed application and process changes came from staff, not P&S. Councilmember
Lythcott-Haims appreciated the budget deficit being faced in FY2027, but it was important for
governments to fund nonprofits because it was essential to their existence. There was a new
report from CalNonprofits indicating it was essential to pay nonprofits up front rather than in
arrears. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims was not prepared to suspend Phase 1 for the coming
fiscal year. Phase 1 should be an equitable approach and one that would wrangle HSRAP, CDBG,
and outliers receiving funding through other means to have a clear sense of what would be
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 7 of 29
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 04/06/2026
funded and why. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims was interested in the percentage of an
organization's operating budget the City was being asked to support and what would ultimately
be supported. The larger ones should not be more liberally funded than the smaller ones. The
roles of Finance, P&S, and the HRC should be clarified.
City Manager Ed Shikada mentioned that many of the changes were driven by a discussion with
the prior P&S Committee at the end of calendar year 2025.
Councilmember Reckdahl inquired what the thought process was for zeroing out Phase 1 and
keeping HSRAP intact. Many of the Phase 1 groups had a long history with the City, and
Councilmember Reckdahl did not understand why the pain would not be spread over both
groups.
City Manager Shikada replied that HSRAP was a well-established process and that Phase 1 was a
startup. Council had complete discretion over the Phase 1 selection process, and HSRAP had a
calender baked in via the HRC’s Work Plan. Council could refocus the manner grant funds were
awarded, although that would take time, and Council would receive the budget the end of
April.
Councilmember Burt stated the City had a range of relationships with nonprofits. The report
grouped everything together, and some were longtime service agreements and community
partners that provided services at a fraction of what it would cost the City. The effort to come
up with a new approach was twofold, which included determining how to implement the
recommendations of the audit, which mostly focused on staff needing better processes and
oversight of procedures, not reinventing the system. The second part pertained to a number
ongoing community partners that were up for review every 1 to 3 years, which ultimately were
built into the budget. A few of the ongoing community partners, which provided important
programs, were in Phase 1 and were in jeopardy of being zeroed out. It should be determined
which community partners should receive ongoing funding and what should be done with the
remainder. There was misguidance last year when Council set up one-year, one-time funding,
but it could be rectified.
Councilmember Lauing queried why a revised Phase 1 would raise the budget requirements and
what the default process would be if Phase 1 should be suspended.
City Manager Shikada answered that the default would largely be status quo funding for groups
that were part of the Operating Budget and no additional funding for new Phase 1 grants.
Mayor Veenker felt there should be different processes for longstanding partners and asked if
the partners on Slide 6 would be part of the status quo.
City Manager Shikada suggested referring to the attachment because it showed anticipated
funding in FY2027.
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 8 of 29
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 04/06/2026
Mayor Veenker asked if there would be different answers for the grantees listed on the
attachment or if they would all be zeroed out in FY2027.
City Manager Shikada answered that not all the grantees listed on the attachment would be
zeroed out in FY2027. There was not a process to review existing allocations for multi-year
agreements. It was previously done by Council direction.
Mayor Veenker thought the process would be for the unusual, midyear, and sudden-need
requests, not for longstanding partners. Mayor Veenker wanted the process to go forward and
to be clarified and narrowed and that funding requests traditionally done as part of the Finance
process still be done in that way.
City Manager Shikada commented that Council could define the criteria.
Councilmember Burt queried if staff was proposing zeroing out the organizations on Slide 6.
City Manager Shikada confirmed that staff was proposing zeroing out those on Slide 6, but the
organizations with asterisks had other arrangements with the City for continued funding.
Assistant City Manager Nose provided an example of Ada’s Café receiving a HSRAP grant and a
Phase 1 award, so if Council paused a Phase 1 solicitation, the Phase 1 award would drop, but
they would still receive HSRAP funds.
Councilmember Burt stated it was not clear which amounts for which organizations would be
zeroed out.
City Manager Shikada stated that information was in Attachment A.
Mayor Veenker did not want to penalize entities being moved into the process last year if they
had previously been in the budget and were up for reconsideration this year.
City Manager Shikada did not know that any organizations previously in the budget had been
moved into the Phase 1 grants.
Vice Mayor Stone stated it was challenging to maintain consistent HSRAP funding from cycle to
cycle and was concerned that that there would be an ongoing funding expectation from year to
year. Vice Mayor Stone did not want to discourage future applicants. The process needed to
further refine eligibility. P&S had discussed the importance of who should review the
applications, and there was a suggestion that the HRC conduct the reviews and interviews and
make recommendations. The timeline could be improved by tightening up the applicant
interview process. A pause this year had merit given the timeline and the financial concerns,
but some programs, etc., needed to continue. It needed to be determined what was needed
and what would be nice to have to make the Finance process intentional and focused and then
with P&S refining the ultimate process moving forward.
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 9 of 29
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 04/06/2026
Councilmember Lauing asked what the default would be for things that were not HSRAP. The
new process should include evaluating organizations to ensure they were performing as the
City desired.
City Manager Shikada answered that largely operating services agreements, as described in
Attachment A, were in the budget or funded through the Operating Budget, and those
allocations would be reviewed by the Finance Committee. Earlier comments related to there
not being a process related to there not being an application or ranking or scoring involved. A
key audit finding was the need to incorporate performance measures and periodic reviews for
longstanding agreements. The P&S Committee reviewed measures of performance as
agreements came up for renewal.
Councilmember Lauing questioned if the Finance Committee should decide on the amounts
awarded and if the default would be the City not considering new service applications or if the
City would consider new applications, and he asked what the process would be.
City Manager Shikada replied that traditionally the Finance Committee decided on the amounts
awarded. The default would be new service applications making requests to the to the Finance
Committee with no format or consistent way to evaluate them, although there could be some
process improvements.
Assistant City Manager Nose added that there was an Emerging Needs Grant Program for
urgent, middle-of-the-year-type requests for eligible human services agencies.
Mayor Veenker asked if staff was considering zeroing out the specific grants on Slide 6 and
queried how the HSRAP number was determined.
City Manager Shikada confirmed that consideration was being given to zeroing out the specific
grants on Slide 6.
Assistant City Manager Nose responded that the HSRAP number was determined every 2 years
as part of the annual budget process.
Councilmember Lu asked if there would be an opportunity for organizations to apply for HSRAP
in 2028 and if human services groups would be competitive. Councilmember Lu felt $6.6M
funding for nonprofits was appropriate because the percentage of reduction aligned with what
was being cut from the City departments’ budgets. Councilmember Lu agreed with Vice Mayor
Stone’s comments related to the HRC doing the assessments, etc. HSRAP should be rebranded
to be broader. It might not be worthwhile to keep some version of Phase 1 and cut the budget
because it could be less meaningful to nonprofits. There could be allowances to make one-off
exceptions for 2026 if needed. On balance, the staff recommendation was reasonable, but the
HRC should drive the process.
City Manager Shikada did not think human services groups would be excluded from HSRAP.
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 10 of 29
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 04/06/2026
Councilmember Reckdahl questioned if a commitment had been made to the organizations
because of the 2-year HSRAP cycle. Phase 1 should not be zeroed out. A small percentage
should be cut from both groups to determine what could be done with the funds in Phase 1.
Councilmember Reckdahl asked if Council should make a recommendation on HSRAP and Phase
1.
Assistant City Manager Nose stated the City did its best to honor the HSRAP cycle process,
although with changes in the budget allocations, sometimes percentage reductions/addictions
had to be done across the board. There could be an adjustment, but recipients were relying on
the second year pending Council’s budget discussions.
City Manager Shikada answered that HSRAP would be part of the recommended budget,
although Finance could change it. There would be 2 pots in the budget, one for HSRAP and one
for Phase 1, which currently was zero.
Councilmember Burt agreed with the process for the nonprofits that were eligible for HSRAP
and that there should be differentiation. Councilmember Burt recommended tentatively
supporting ongoing funding for Magical Bridge Foundation, Cal Ave, and UNAFF and referring it
to the Finance Committee. Reimbursement created problems for some nonprofits, which policy
should address. If a program should be continually supported, thought should be given to
maximum duration and simple renewal. Councilmember Burt was surprised that PTA Special Ed
and DreamCatchers were requesting City funding rather than funding from PAUSD. Many of the
nonprofits performed vital services to the community that the City benefitted from financially.
The Council Contingency Fund was historically used for special needs coming up throughout the
year, and the fund should be used to support important community items.
Vice Mayor Stone wanted funding for Magical Bridge Foundation, UNAFF, and the Palo Rec
Foundation incorporated in the budget. As nonprofits expected and relied on HSRAP funding,
Vice Mayor Stone was concerned about reducing it. Vice Mayor Stone asked if it had been
modified in the second year since he had been following HSRAP. Vice Mayor Stone did not want
everything zeroed out.
City Manager Shikada did not believe HSRAP had been modified in the second year since Vice
Mayor Stone had been following it.
Mayor Veenker had no problem putting Magical Bridge Foundation, UNAFF, and the Palo Rec
Foundation in the budget process. Some organizations should not be zeroed out entirely.
Finance should address reducing a percentage for all. Mayor Veenker thought there was
precedent for Pathwise and the Special Ed PTA requesting City funding. Mayor Veenker wanted
the item to move forward in a limited fashion this year but not zeroed out. Mayor Veenker was
happy to see the application ask if a program would remain viable with partial funding, which
was a critical question.
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 11 of 29
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 04/06/2026
Councilmember Lauing commented that the Finance Committee would address HSRAP, the new
items in Phase 1, and ROI partners, so there should be a process/application for anything
additional. Councilmember Lauing wanted to work on the item, so it would be ready for 2027.
City Manager Shikada expressed that staff would work with the P&S Committee on process and
that the Finance Committee would receive referrals on agreements that would go directly
through the budget process. Staff suggested that Finance set aside a dollar amount for the
Phase 1 grants. More time might be needed to get to awards, so it might not track entirely with
the budget adoption and might need to follow slightly after.
[Council took a 15-minute break]
3. San Antonio Road Area Plan Update and Council Feedback on Draft Land Use and
Transportation Concepts and Alternatives. CEQA Status: Exempt under CEQA Guidelines
Section 15262.
NO ACTION
Planning and Development Services Director Jonathan Lait announced that after receiving
Council feedback at this meeting staff would return in a couple months for more discussion.
Principal Planner Robert Cain furnished a brief project update. Staff wanted to create feasible
design alternatives for capital improvements projects, to set zoning and development standards
for private development, and to implement tools and strategies. The program was in Phase 2. A
vision had been developed, and various land use and mobility alternatives were being explored
(Attachment A). Staff hoped to return to Council in June for decisions on the alternatives. After
this phase, staff would hopefully return before the end of the year with more details on policy
recommendations and analysis of the plan design before moving into the environmental
analysis and final draft plan for Council’s consideration and adoption. The project was on
schedule to finalize in the first half of 2028. The packet included a lot of detail, but staff was
focused on key areas that would be helpful in advancing to the next project milestone. The
other aspects of the plan would be addressed in later project phases. The housing unit ranges in
the packet projected what the capacity could be at different ranges under a high
redevelopment scenario. The lower end reflected what current zoning would allow, and there
were options to go beyond current zoning. The plan complemented other City initiatives,
including housing programs, bikeway improvements, grade separation projects, and the
Cubberley redevelopment project.
Planner Cain noted that the plan area included 53 Housing Element sites over a 20- to 25-year
horizon, not the immediate RHNA cycle. The 275 acres were broken down into smaller
subareas. Areas that were most likely to redevelop and areas most in need of parks and third
spaces had been identified. There was a focus on which intersections should be improved to
create connections to transit and to increase safety and mobility. There were 4 primary
subareas – Central San Antonio, CTI, and North and South Fabian. There were secondary
subareas on East and West Bayshore and Alma and areas of stability where significant
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 12 of 29
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 04/06/2026
development was not expected, which included Greenmeadow. Greenmeadow was not
technically in the plan area, but parts of it were subject to SB 79, which Council would discuss at
a later date. There had been 3 community advisory group meetings, 3 technical advisory group
meetings, workshops, online surveys, walk audits, popups, and stakeholder interviews, and
staff had met with many advisory boards, commissions, and committees. Staff requested
feedback in 7 main areas – plan direction, subarea classification, residential unit building
heights and density, office development, parks and outdoor space, ground-floor retail, and
general mobility improvements. Council was provided with high-level feedback that had been
received from advisory groups and the public through the workshop and the survey.
Public Comment:
1. Sonya B., a Greenmeadow resident, stated the development potential of 7,400 units
exceeded the total state mandate and would massively change the area and asked how
and when new infrastructure would be funded, what other parts of the city were being
studied for similar heights and levels of density in the same time frame, the timeline for
the process, and if a SARAP plan was adopted before 2031 would the recommendation
supersede the existing Housing Element Comp Plan limits. Sonya B. questioned what the
plan was to maintain operations and safety on the San Antonio truck route. Sonya B.
requested that PABAC add the proposed San Antonio bike lanes to the list of CIP
priorities and that bike lanes be funded.
2. Penny E., a SARAP CAG member, spoke of a congested San Antonio Road causing traffic
diversion onto school routes, etc., which was prohibited by the Comp Plan, and
requested that staff address the impacts to the neighborhoods. Bike/ped facilities
between Alma and the Caltrain station were needed. Penny E. requested that SARAP
planning incorporate Cubberley, Charleston Shopping Center, and the Mitchell Park
super block; that projections for citywide growth in population and demand for
community services be included in the Cubberley ballot measure language; that San
Antonio Road include retail; that SummerWinds not be upzoned; that the amount and
type of office space not increase current number of jobs; that provisions of mitigations
be required, such as a nexus study for parks, traffic impacts, bike/ped facilities, and
transit; and that heights be capped at 60 to 85 feet and such only be allowed in
locations where infrastructure could support it. Penny E. queried how SARAP would be
funded.
3. Evoriste D., a resident of Greenmeadow, stated that 7,000 units on the corridor would
result in a massive scale change and density. Evoriste D. was concerned about traffic,
parking overflow into the surrounding residential streets, cut-through routes, and
safety.
4. Benigne D., a resident of Greenmeadow, was concerned about the population growth in
a small area of the city, the budget for the plan, and the traffic increase. Benigne D.
asked what other areas of the city were being considered for expansion to meet the
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 13 of 29
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 04/06/2026
RHNA mandates and how and when there would be infrastructure to support resident
safety.
5. Meri G., a Greenmeadow resident, supported the Housing Element and wanted SARAP
to succeed but had concerns about how the process had been communicated to the
public. Over the past 2 years, residents heard that about 2,000 units were planned, and
Meri G. questioned why the plan was for 3,800 to 7,400 units and what had been
rezoned in the SARAP area in the Council meeting on November 13, 2023. The SARAP
Council Study Session in October 2025 cited 2,000 units. SARAP was described as a 20-
year planning horizon, but upon rezoning, land development could be market driven,
and Meri G. wanted to know the urgency that scale would demand for infrastructure
and budgeting. Meri G. requested a transportation nexus study and a commitment to
community services.
6. Dashiell L. (Zoom), Conservation Coordinator for the Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter,
spoke on behalf the Chapter’s Bay Alive Campaign. There was concern about increasing
the development potential east of Bayshore due to storm surge, sea level and ground
water rise, the riparian corridor, shoreline resilience, and limiting space for wetland
migration and nature-based solutions like horizontal levies and transition zones. The
BCDC Regional Shoreline Adaptation Plan stated shoreline areas should be preserved.
The Chapter urged Council to limit the development intensity east of Bayshore and to
preserve the lands for shoreline resilience, habitat, and long-term public safety.
7. Liz H. (Zoom) spoke on behalf of Presidio Bay Ventures, which was invested in the best
outcome for the area and excited about the opportunity to partner with the City to add
housing. Presidio Bay Ventures urged the City to allow a true mix of uses – housing,
office, commercial, and community services. Residential alone would not be
economically feasible in the location. Creating job spaces would not necessarily
translate to a jobs/housing imbalance. A mixed use neighborhood similar to Springline in
Menlo Park was a perfect example of combining work, residential, and public open
space. Liz H. understood there were traffic concerns and opined that the way to
mitigate that would be to have housing in a neighborhood where workplaces were
walkable and bikeable.
8. Amber B. (Zoom), a second year at Stanford University working with Palo Alto Forward,
stated the plan presented a chance to advance the objectives of the Housing Element.
Over half of the Palo Alto student survey respondents who were affiliated with Stanford
University were in favor of the plan. Amber B. requested there be an investment in fully
protected Class 4 bike lanes.
9. John P. (Zoom), a Greenhouse Condominium resident, was focused on the block of San
Antonio Road between Middlefield and Charleston and stated it would be challenging
for the area to be of a park-like atmosphere. John P. was concerned about traffic and
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 14 of 29
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 04/06/2026
removing parking. John P. did not consider any of the options viable. John P. had
submitted most of the comments to Council and the Planning Commission.
10. Mark H. (Zoom), a resident of Greenmeadow, stated that 8-story buildings along San
Antonio would place too much of a burden on nearby neighborhoods and suggested
limiting new buildings to 60 to 75 feet. Mark H. urged the City to look for opportunities
to meet the requirements of SB 79 by spreading units more broadly across the city and
requested that development along San Antonio provide 1 parking space per unit.
Development should be emphasized in areas currently served by transit. Mark H. voiced
that development on Fabian Way would add to congestion in the area and offered a
suggestion to mitigate additional flow in that area and requested that staff investigate
the option.
11. Christopher B. (Zoom) discussed traffic and parking concerns and was opposed to
underground parking. Christopher B. requested there be trees and plants on either side
of the sidewalks and urged Council to not go over the state mandated housing numbers.
Mayor Veenker suggested that Council first comment on the overall plan direction, subarea
classification to include predicate methodology and assumptions, density and building height,
office development, and ground-floor retail.
Councilmember Lauing addressed Packet Page 61. Bullet 1 should be the vision, although Bullet
1 was contradictory to Attachment B. Councilmember Lauing was not sure how maximum
growth potential in the area helped the analysis because the upper number might not be
possible due to infrastructure limitations and traffic concerns. Councilmember Lauing explained
why 7,400 units should not be referenced. Councilmember Lauing did not understand Bullet 5
being factored in because there were reality constraints. The jobs/housing balance might need
to be reduced. All housing types would be feasible over the course of 20 years, but developers
needed to believe investments would be good. The idea of office in general was fine. The
heights and amount of office in a given area would have to be done according to the districts
staff created, and the districts made sense. Councilmember Lauing asked why building heights
were 60, 90 and 260 feet with nothing in between. Councilmember Lauing understood that a
developer proposing a 60-foot building could build an almost 90-foot building by using the State
Density Bonus, which was considered positive for affordable housing, and he asked if that
should be emphasized as opposed to being liberal to begin with on 85 or 90 feet.
Director Lait replied that 90 feet could be allowed with an inclusionary component being
required akin to State Density Bonus. Just because consideration would be given to 90 feet, it
would not include inclusionary units, and the economic proforma analysis had not been done to
determine what that would entail. The goal was to have a range of housing diversity.
Councilmember Lauing noted that something might be done like in the Focus Area where there
would be height with a certain requirement. Councilmember Lauing asked if it was too early in
the process to address parking.
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 15 of 29
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 04/06/2026
Staff asked Council which heights should not be pursued. It was too early in the process to
address parking.
Councilmember Burt had concerns with some of the development scenarios, but the study had
good work in it. In addition to San Antonio, the El Camino Corridor Plan and the SB 79 mandates
for the downtown areas were being considered. Councilmember Burt inquired if developers
could build beyond the height zoned for by using the State Density Bonus. As for office
development, the jobs/housing imbalance should be reduced, but Councilmember Burt was
open to replacement office. Transfer of development rights might be a tool in determining
where to locate office and parks. Councilmember Burt discussed how TDRs might play a role
and queried if it would legally feasible and practical for one to sell their TDR.
Director Lait responded, regarding developers possibly building beyond the height zoned for,
there might be an alternative to the State Density Bonus, etc.
Planner Cain answered that and the Parks and Rec and the Planning and Transportation
Commissions had discussed TDRs. Staff was not currently at a phase to develop such, but
analysis would be done on different policies later in the year.
Raimi + Associates Consultant Matt Raimi added that TDRs were possible but difficult to
implement. There were other strategies to balance different types of development with
different heights in different areas.
Councilmember Burt had an interest in that outcome and how the City could afford to have the
needed parkland.
Councilmember Lu remarked that the maximum development numbers might be misleading,
but he did not consider it scarey because the high end of the numbers would not be built any
time soon. The price increases needed to make some of the housing typologies feasible, which
would not occur in the foreseeable future. With housing becoming available in other areas of
the region, that type of growth might not be needed in the area. With SB 79, the development
potential of the area 1/2 mile around Cal Ave and University station would increase by tens of
thousands of units, although that would not happen, so the plan’s high-end numbers might be
useful reference points, but the opportunities from this plan should be considered rather than
worrying about future traffic gridlock. Councilmember Lu was worried that there was a lot of
traffic but not much housing, relatively little redevelopment reinvestment in the area, and 2-
acre parks instead of a 4.5-acre park contemplated at the Maxar site. The following made
sense: TDRS for office and residential, integrating the TDRs with the downtown TDRs, and
minimum densities. Developing more height on the Maxar site, instead of townhomes, could
allow for several more acres of park, which could result in more impact fees for park
acquisition, etc.
Councilmember Reckdahl remarked that the area could be a great place to live due to walking
and biking distances from Google, etc., and because there could be a lot of density as there
were no nearby neighbors in most places. Councilmember Reckdahl would be happy with 85
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 16 of 29
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 04/06/2026
feet in most areas. Councilmember Reckdahl asked what type of traffic modeling had been
done to determine traffic volumes and paths.
Kittelson Consultant Amanda Leahy replied that once a land use scenario was selected a traffic
analysis would be done to evaluate trips generated and paths. Existing counts had been
collected at a number of intersections within the study area, which were summarized in the
Existing Conditions Report.
Councilmember Reckdahl did not know what the traffic impact would be if there should be a lot
of housing and queried what the schedule was for the new interchange in San Antonio and if
work had been done with VTA to look at future traffic and bus lines.
Consultant Leahy stated the analysis showed that intersections were operating at LOS F with
morning and evening peak hours, so adding vehicles would mean more delay. Kittelson was
considering paring these with parking and TDM strategies to reduce vehicle trips coming to the
developments. Once scenarios were available, trip generation would be run.
Director Lait added that the goal was to make improvements. There was a host of
transportation, interconnectivity, and mobility options staff hoped to integrate as a part of
future planning. Existing conditions could be improved to accommodate additional growth.
Transportation Planning Manager Sylvia Star-Lack responded that the new interchange in San
Antonio could be fewer than 20 years away. Manager Star-Lack thought the funding plan would
be addressed in the next 2 or 3 years. Environmental would finish soon, and Manager Star-Lack
believed there would be public engagement this year related to that document.
Planner Cain answered that VTA was part of the Technical Advisory Group, and improving
transit in the area had been discussed. They were trying to determine the best way to get
eventual transit there and techniques that could be used in the meantime to answer transit
needs.
Councilmember Reckdahl queried if the traffic studies would incorporate VTA’s prediction.
Planner Cain would look into the traffic studies incorporating VTA’s prediction.
Vice Mayor Stone expressed that there would be significant traffic impacts by adding
substantial housing and jobs. Vice Mayor Stone wanted to continue to reduce the jobs/housing
imbalance. Vice Mayor Stone was considering the massing happening along San Antonio in
Mountain View and the impacts to traffic. It was unfortunate that the units would not be
affordable. Vice Mayor Stone wanted to continue to build on the El Camino Real Focus Area.
Those types of policies had been effective. The breakdown of the subarea classifications made
sense. Vice Mayor Stone liked that the 53 Housing Element opportunity sites were not in the
sites identified as stable sites. The magic number for residential density and heights was 90
feet/8 stories. Vice Mayor Stone asked if with 90-foot/8-story buildings would be step-ups from
single-family residential.
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 17 of 29
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 04/06/2026
Planner Cain replied there could be step-ups from single-family residential. Many ARB and PTC
members wanted heights staggered in areas close to sensitive areas and for heights near single-
family homes to remain at 60 foot and be higher in other parts of the area.
Vice Mayor Stone agreed with that. There should not be a growth in square footage office, but
replacing existing low-density R&D made sense and should be used more as leverage in
negotiations to try to get greater affordability and open space. Vice Mayor Stone requested
there be an analysis of the tradeoffs. The report recommended that ground-floor retail apply to
the primary subareas. Maybe the secondary subareas could be professional services.
Councilmember Lythcott-Haims could support 165 to 250 foot height next to 101 and was
interested in height to obtain the needed units and to create more spaces for parkland and
trees. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims was concerned about the neighborhood feel.
Councilmember Lythcott-Haims supported working across jurisdictions with Mountain View as
it related to the CTI. A few public commenters expressed concern related to the volume of
housing planned on a small percentage of the City's land and surprise related to the 7,400 units.
Planner Cain replied that in November 2023 zoning ordinance amendments related to the
Housing Element were adopted. In addition, other zoning allowed developers to build
residential throughout most of the plan area. Applications for 4- to 9-story buildings had been
received for San Antonio and Fabian. When developing the projections to look at the maximum
amount of development, to give a boundary, staff tried to determine what the maximums
would look like. Without rezoning, the maximum number that could be built was on the low
end of the scale, but 90 feet or higher could be built with the other options. Council should
determine what the capacity should be.
Director Lait stated there was an apparent disconnect between RHNA and what had been
planned in the 8-year cycle. Staff did their best to communicate and engage, but staff was not
always able to make all the connections. There had been a series of meetings, and the idea of
250-foot buildings and higher density had evolved through the process, which staff wanted to
present to Council to determine what should be done. Staff would investigate how
communication was done with the public and determine if it could be done better.
Councilmember Lythcott-Haims discussed the housing element putting many potential units in
the southern end of town, and many thought that end of the city was absorbing far more than
its share. If share was important, maybe it should be determined how to get housing at the
Stanford Shopping Center, near train stations, near University Avenue, etc. With grade
separation potentially happening in the southern end of town, which was going to be a massive
infrastructure project, the community feared the potential for an even bigger project than what
was anticipated.
Director Lait replied that the Downtown Housing Plan was underway, and staff was trying to
reconcile how to address SB 79, which had potential to increase density along the rail corridor.
Staff was trying to create a sense of place in the San Antonio area. Elements to connect and
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 18 of 29
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 04/06/2026
make a neighborhood required a certain amount of density, office, etc. Maybe it should be
scaled back.
Councilmember Lythcott-Haims noted that San Antonio was going to be in conversation with
other projects, and it would help if people felt the balance was being planned for.
Mayor Veenker mentioned that building the neighborhood would be an iterative process. It
appeared that the 90-foot height was the most feasible in most instances, but perhaps there
could be greater height in the CTI area along the highway. Mayor Veenker liked the TDR
strategy Councilmembers Burt and Lu spoke of. Mayor Veenker wanted to know more about
market demand for office development, as there were many empty offices in Palo Alto. Mayor
Veenker liked the ground-floor retail requirement in the primary areas, but maybe it should not
be required in the secondary areas and wondered if there was a reason to require it there.
Mayor Veenker invited Council to discuss parks, outdoor space, mobility improvements, and
bike lanes.
Councilmember Lu remarked that this process should be a learning experience on how to
communicate and engage with different technical concepts around maximum capacity versus
the Housing Element Site inventory capacity and that it would be useful in the downtown area
plans and potentially future area plans. Typical podium style buildings up to 90 feet would be
fine, particularly in North Fabian and CTI. Councilmember Lu was not concerned about Density
Bonus and was not opposed to a 9- or 10-story mass timber building along the freeway. As for
office, the jobs/housing imbalance should be improved, and TDRs could manage that. The retail
requirements were fine. In general, the retail definition should be liberal. Hypothetical traffic
studies were needed. Each of bike the bike mobility improvements were desirable, but
Councilmember Lu needed a sense of the cost and the traffic studies to make a decision on
what to spend on improvements.
Councilmember Lauing remarked that the problem related to transportation more than
housing. Upon doing the traffic studies, it might be determined that the amount of housing in
the plan might not be feasible. It appeared that Packet Page 116 was alluding to the idea of
using the wide roads for bikes/pedestrians. Retail being optional in all areas was shortsighted
because some might not want to reside in buildings without retail. Councilmember Lauing
preferred larger parks and suggested being open to a partnership with a developer to do a semi
master plan. There should be discussion with the school board to address safe routes to school,
etc.
Councilmember Reckdahl stated parks were important and was interested in the funding of
them. Councilmember Reckdahl referenced Scenario 4A through 4D on Packet Page 186 and
questioned if jobs would be a good way to fund parks. Scenario 4C appeared to be a losing
situation. Resident-serving office could help a neighborhood, and it should be determined if
certain types of office would enhance the neighborhood. Using office to pay for parkland would
result in the jobs/housing imbalance being worse.
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 19 of 29
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 04/06/2026
Strategic Economics Consultant Derek Braun directed Council to Figure 13 on Packet Page 178,
which summarized the table on Packet Page 186 and outlined the cost. The vast majority of the
park impact fee revenue would come from residential development, and the revenue
generated by commercial development would be modest.
Councilmember Burt stated not having traffic scenarios was problematic, and it was difficult to
provide feedback on the scale of the development without understanding traffic impacts, and
there should be scenarios on each end of the range. If fewer housing units were built, the same
number of parks and impacts would not be needed. Councilmember Burt hoped the impacts
were in proportion to the impact fees that would be generated. Councilmember Burt did not
support high-density on East Bayshore, but with the bike bridge, townhomes might be
considered in the future. Over the last couple years, zoning for height and density allowed on
the corridor had been increased and consideration was never given to a 250-foot height, so
Councilmember Burt rejected it. Councilmember Burt asked if consideration could be given to
heights in between 5 and 8 stories with in-between ROIs. Part of the reason the City had
development proposals for the area was because, compared to the rest of the city, the lots
were generally larger and the land value was lower. It should be determined what should be
zoned for now and if it should be metered. Councilmember Burt inquired how much of the
upzoning done was for Housing Inventory Sites and how many potential new units had been
upzoned for.
Director Lait responded that consideration could be given to heights in between 5 and 8 stories
with in-between ROIs. Staff did not intend to create a binary choice but to create some
distinction. There had been developer interest in 7 and 8 stories. Director Lait did not know
how many potential new units had been upzoned for, but as part of the Housing Element,
zoning in the ROLM sort of GM area had been increased, which was believed to be up to 50
feet, which could be a development taking advantage of State Density Bonus Law.
Councilmember Burt voiced that it was important to know how much had been upzoned.
Director Lait stated the material described status quo as 50 or 60 feet possibly with a hedge of
10 feet or so. Staff was trying to communicate that the existing condition as one level and then
80 or 90 feet would reach another level.
Councilmember Burt commented it was important to know how many units 60 feet would
provide in the upzoned area. Councilmember Burt questioned if much further incentivization
should be provided because it might be the more attractive area for developers due to it
supplying a better ROI. There could be a risk of there being a higher proportion of RHNA
developed in the area and less in other areas set for housing sites. Caution should be taken, and
it might go into metering of the upzoning. Further upzoning could be done in the future. Retail
nodes were needed as neighborhoods and trip reduction needed retail and services. The north
side of the Middlefield-San Antonio intersection would be community serving. It would be
important to retain the nursery and gas station.
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 20 of 29
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 04/06/2026
Mayor Veenker asked if additional feedback was needed.
Consultant Raimi requested that Council comment on the mobility alternatives for San Antonio
Road.
Director Lait added that Council provided great feedback, but there might need to be more
discussion on returning in June, and staff could return after that if needed.
Councilmember Burt encouraged that consideration be given to car sharing at the mobility hub
and elsewhere, transit passes, and increased bus service in the San Antonio corridor. There
should be setbacks on all development on San Antonio for bike lanes from this point forward,
not just upon approving the plan. The vision statement should reference pedestrian and bikes
instead of walkable. Councilmember Burt discussed a particular street that could possibly be a
bus path and provide access to the Caltrain station. Councilmember Burt did not think the
strongest TDM the City had would mitigate the additional car trips for the potential
development. Traffic modeling needed to be done ASAP, which AI could help with.
Councilmember Reckdahl expressed having setbacks for bike lanes on San Antonio was critical.
All bike routes should go through the San Antonio tunnel. Councilmember Reckdahl worried
about the upzoning because another Housing Element would be due in a few years.
Director Lait responded that upzoning needed to be done because there was not enough
capacity to accommodate the growth. The future Housing Element had the potential to identify
opportunity sites. HCD was concerned with local zoning creating an impediment to housing
development.
Consent Calendar
4. Approval of Minutes from March 16 and March 23, 2026 Meeting
5. Approval of Construction Contract No. C26196846 with FieldTurf USA, Inc. in an Amount
Not-to-Exceed $878,919 for El Camino Park Turf Replacement PG-24000, Including
Authorization to Execute Change Orders; and Amend the FY 2026 Budget Appropriation
in the Capital Improvement Fund; CEQA status – categorically exempt under CEQA
Guidelines sections 15301 (Existing Facilities) and 15302 (Replacement or
Reconstruction).
6. Approval of General Services Contract No. C26194173 with Duke’s Root Control for a
Total Not-to-Exceed Amount of $279,098 and a Three-Year Term and for Root Foaming
Treatment Services; and Finding of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Categorical Exemption pursuant to CEQA Guideline 15301, Maintenance of Existing
Facilities
7. Approval of a Final Map for the Properties Located at 4335 and 4345 El Camino Real to
Allow for a Condominium Subdivision to Create Eight Units on a 17,406-Square-Foot
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 21 of 29
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 04/06/2026
Parcel and to Create 21 Units on a 41,370-Square-Foot Parcel and the Naming of Three
Private Streets Associated With the Development (25PLN-00160). CEQA Status: Exempt
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 (In-fill Development). Zoning District: CS
(Service Commercial).
8. Approval of Contract Amendment Number 2 to Contract Number C21177635B with
Ingram Library Services in the amount of $664,000 for Print Materials and Services for a
new not-to-exceed (NTE) of $1,119,000 and to extend the contract term to June 30,
2028, Contract Amendment Number 2 to Contract Number C21177635C with Midwest
Tape in the amount of $360,000 for Media and Digital Materials and Services for a new
NTE of $1,113,000 and to extend the contract term to June 30, 2028, and Contract
Amendment Number 1 to Contract Number C25190507 with OverDrive in the amount of
$200,000 for Digital Materials and Services for a new NTE of $400,000 and to extend the
contract term to June 30, 2028; CEQA Status – Not a Project.
9. Approval of Amendment Number 2 to Contract Number S20178516 with Hohbach-
Lewin Inc. to Increase Compensation by $10,000, Revising the Amount Not-to-Exceed to
$70,000 and Extend the Contract Term Through March 30, 2029, for On-Call Structural
Engineering Services for Public Art Installations; CEQA Status – exempt under regulation
15061(b)(3).
10. QUASI-JUDICIAL. 530 Barron Avenue [25PLN-00021]: Appeal of Director’s Decision to
Deny an Individual Review Application to Allow Partial Deconstruction of an Existing
924-Square-Foot Single-Story Residence and to Allow the Construction of a New 2,528-
Square-Foot Two Story Single-Family Residence with Attached One-Car Garage, 303-
Square-Foot Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit and 497-Square-Foot of Existing House
Converted to Detached Accessory Dwelling Unit. CEQA Status: Exempt from the
Provisions of CEQA in Accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15303. Zoning District:
R-1 (Single-Family Residential).
11. SECOND READING: Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter
18.70 (Nonconforming Uses and Noncomplying Facilities) of the Palo Alto Municipal
Code to Allow De Minimis Exceptions (FIRST READING: March 9, 2026; PASSED: 7-0)
12. SECOND READING: Ordinance of the Council of Authorizing Work in the Baylands
Related to the Adjacent Development at 2100-2400 Geng Road (24-PLN-00356) (FIRST
READING: March 16, 2026; PASSED 7-0)
13. SECOND READING: Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter
18.40 (General Standards and Exceptions) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal
Code to Adopt Bird Friendly Design Standards (FIRST READING: March 16, 2026; PASSED:
5-2, Lu, Lythcott-Haims no)
Mayor Veenker bought to Council’s attention that there was an At-Places Memo on Item 5.
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 22 of 29
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 04/06/2026
Public Comment:
1. Cynthia F. (Zoom) requested that Item 5 be pulled from consent. The turf study carrying
capacity finding; solid field parameter barrier; turf heat, removal, and waste; and PFAS
expectations warranted further discussion.
2. Leanne M. (Zoom) requested that Palo Alto set zero PFAS standards. If the City could not
do that, Leanne M. requested that the term PFAS-free not be used and that the testing
done and the PFAS amounts be disclosed. Leanne M. suggested that protective heat
protocols be incorporated.
3. D. Woelke (Zoom), a Board Member of Safe Healthy Playing Fields, opposed artificial
turf.
4. Andrea (Zoom) (Item 5) had sent Council emails on April 2 and 5 and asked that
approval of the contract as currently written be pulled from the consent calender and
that the study be pulled from the website. Andrea wanted to know where G-Max testing
was referenced in the contract and requested that testing be more frequent and that
past and present records be available to the public. Andrea was concerned about heat,
recycling, waste management, and clarity on PFAS testing.
Councilmember Lythcott-Haims registered a no vote on Agenda Item Number 13.
Councilmembers Stone and Burt registered a no vote on Agenda Item Number 5.
MOTION: Vice Mayor Stone moved, seconded by Councilmember Lythcott-Haims, the Consent
Calendar.
MOTION PASSED ITEMS 4, 6-12: 7-0
MOTION PASSED ITEM 5: 5-2 (Councilmembers Stone and Burt voted no)
MOTION PASSED ITEM 13: 6-1 (Councilmember Lythcott-Haims voted no)
Councilmember Lythcott-Haims did not feel there was sufficient data to compel bird-friendly
design standards and that implementation was overly burdensome.
Vice Mayor Stone voiced that the no vote on Item 5 was consistent with his prior vote.
Councilmember Burt voted no on Item 5 because artificial turf testing did not outline the
results, there was no regulatory standard for PFAS-free, and transparency was inadequate.
City Manager Comments
City Manager Ed Shikada dispensed with comments. Slides were available to the public in the
packet.
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 23 of 29
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 04/06/2026
Action Items
AA1. Approval of Selection of and Employment Agreement with James Reifschneider as the
Chief of Police at an Annual Salary of $363,584; CEQA Status – Not a Project New Item
Added
City Manager Ed Shikada announced Police Chief Andrew Binder’s retirement. The City had
always done a recruitment for key executive positions, but it had been concluded that that
would be counter to the City’s interest in moving forward efficiently and providing continuity
and stability to the Department and the community. James Reifschneider had exemplary
qualifications.
Interim Police Chief James Reifschneider expressed gratitude to the City Manager and thanked
Chief Binder for his mentorship and the entire Police Department team for their support and
patience. Interim Chief Reifschneider was flattered and excited by the prospect of leading the
Department, honored to serve the community, and treasured the relationships with Palo
Altans. The Department policed impartially, professionally, and with integrity. The Department
built trust by meaningfully engaging with the public outside of enforcement settings, and
Interim Chief Reifschneider would make finding more opportunities to do that a priority going
forward. Officer recruitment and retention continued to be critical, and more officers were
needed to continue to provide the high level of service the community deserved. Efforts were
being intensified to expanded and diversify the applicant pool, to maximize the effectiveness of
the recruit training program, and to ensure that officers, dispatchers, and staff felt valued. The
Department had a solid culture of professionalism and accountability. Interim Chief
Reifschneider was honored to be before Council and appreciated the opportunity to serve as
the City’s next Police Chief.
Public Comment:
1. Steve E. spoke on behalf of the Palo Alto Police Foundation and its board members and
congratulated Interim Chief Reifschneider who was the right person for the job. The
Foundation thanked Chief Binder for his years of good work and looked forward to
continuing the relationship and working with Interim Chief Reifschneider.
2. Chris C. represented the Palo Alto Peace Officers’ Association and offered wholehearted
support and proud endorsement for Interim Chief Reifschneider as the next Chief of
Police. Interim Chief Reifschneider had integrity, accountability, and a deep
commitment to the community, had demonstrated strong leadership and genuine
dedication to building trust, and was intelligent, helpful, thoughtful, strong,
compassionate, and kind.
3. Hamilton H. (Zoom) strongly supported promoting Interim Chief Reifschneider to be
Palo Alto’s next Police Chief. Hamilton H. spoke of his direct experience with Palo Alto
police leadership and policy and community oversight. Interim Chief Reifschneider was
transparent, accountable, personable, responsive, willing to listen, earnest,
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 24 of 29
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 04/06/2026
hardworking, intelligent, knowledgeable, and capable. Interim Chief Reifschneider was a
strong communicator and had an in-depth understanding of the Department's complex
technologies. Chief Binder spent time with community members, including the strongest
critics, and Interim Chief Reifschneider had the same spirit.
4. Winter D. (Zoom) discussed Chief Binder being a near-perfect hire and welcomed
Interim Chief Reifschneider.
Mayor Veenker was proud of the Police Department, which residents had confidence in and
respect for. Mayor Veenker thanked Chief Binder for the outstanding service. The City was
lucky to have Interim Chief Reifschneider who exemplified the things Chief Binder lifted up.
Mayor Veenker had confidence in Interim Chief Reifschneider and admired his skill, integrity,
commitment, responsiveness, judgment, and professionalism, which would serve the City well.
MOTION: Mayor Veenker moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Stone, to confirm the City
Manager’s selection of James Reifschneider as Police Chief and approve his employment
agreement (Attachment A).
Vice Mayor Stone was saddened by the early and unexpected retirement of Chief Binder. A
great legacy of Chief Binder’s would be the team he helped establish. Interim Chief
Reifschneider embodied the kind of police officer Palo Altans came to expect, who was
competent, responsible, kind, and professional and made folks comfortable when interacting
with the police. Vice Mayor Stone was excited to work with Interim Chief Reifschneider and to
vote in favor of the promotion.
Councilmember Burt thanked Chief Binder for his service, who elevated the Department. The
Department was the most high-performing Department Councilmember Burt had known in his
30 years of public service. Councilmember Burt normally leaned strongly toward open
recruitment processes, but it would not have been honest to open the process with Interim
Chief Reifschneider’s qualifications, long-term commitment to the City, and high respect by the
rank and file of the Department. The City was fortunate to have Interim Chief Reifschneider
continuing to lead and move the Department forward with his qualifications and commitment
to the community and the Police Department team. Councilmember Burt echoed earlier
comments.
Councilmember Lythcott-Haims voiced that Chief Binder’s leave of absence that turned into a
retirement did not provide a proper opportunity to say goodbye or thank him, so it was
wonderful that he was in attendance. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims admired how Chief
Binder led the Police Department and thanked him. Chief Binder was a person of integrity,
kindness, and strength. Interim Police Chief Reifschneider demonstrated head and heart in
every conversation and was intelligent, data-driven, analytical, strategic, and human-centered.
Interim Police Chief Reifschneider becoming the new Police Chief was the only logical next step.
MOTION PASSED: 7-0
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 25 of 29
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 04/06/2026
Mayor Veenker thanked Chief Binder for attending the meeting.
14. Approval of FY 2026-2027 Human Relations Commission, Parks and Recreation
Commission, Public Art Commission, and Stormwater Management Oversight
Committee Work Plans; CEQA Status - not a project
NO ACTION
Human Relations Commission Chair Michelle Kraus presented the HRC accomplishments for
2024 and 2025. The current Work Plan proposed the core responsibilities as Goal 1 – the
funding programs, the liaison, and the partner agency. A rapid response capability had been put
in place. HRC Chair Kraus suggested that CEDAW be included in the core. Goal 2 was community
mental health, which was broadly defined to address youth, adults, homeless, and veterans.
Goal 3 was community safety to decrease hate incidences and to focus on environmental
disaster mitigation, so that work could be done with the Fire Department to bring community
workshops to the table and provide a space for community members to learn and to speak.
Goal 4 was engagement to foster a sense of inclusion. Goal 5 was housing and justice, so the
most vulnerable would have access, and HRC Chair Kraus had asked Dunbar to steer it.
Parks & Recreation Commission Chair Nellis Freeman presented the Fiscal Year 2027 Work Plan.
The Work Plan reflected the PRC’s role to advise Council on policy matters related to parks,
open space, golf, and other recreational programs. This year’s focus would align with the Parks
Master Plan, respond to community needs, and advance key Council priorities. At a high level,
the work focused on planning, transparency, access, equity, sustainability, and stewardship.
PRC Chair Freeman spoke of items the PRC had worked on in the past. The key Work Plan areas
were the Capital Improvement Plan with a focus on improving the prioritization of projects and
ensuring stronger alignment with the master plan, and the goal was for transparency and better
use of resources. Second was park dedication. Opportunities to expand parkland across the city
was being evaluated, which was about increasing access and supporting community health and
well-being. Third was the Baylands Comprehensive Conservation Plan, and the PRC would
support completing the updated plan with a focus on habitat protection, sea level rise, and
long-term stewardship.
PRC Chair Freeman stated the fourth goal was the natural grass pilot, and the PRC would work
with Council to finalize it. Fifth was the racket sports policy, and the PRC would continue to
work on tennis and pickleball using a data-driven and stakeholder-informed approach to
improve fairness and access and reduce conflict. Six was the Cubberley Project, which was a key
priority, and the PRC would support planning and community engagement and help prepare for
future ballot measure. Work would be done with partners to ensure that the site would meet
long-term community needs. Seven was nature connectivity. The PRC was introducing a policy
framework to support biodiversity and pollinator habitats aligning with the City's broader
climate and sustainability goals. The Work Plan reflected a balanced and achievable set of
priorities that aligned with Council direction, responded with community needs, and positioned
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 26 of 29
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 04/06/2026
the City for long-term success. PRC Chair Freeman respectfully requested Council’s support and
approval of the Work Plan.
Public Art Commission Chair Hsinya Shen was pleased to present the FY2027 Work Plan and
introduced the commissioners and staff. Many of the commissioners were practicing artists and
ensured that the collection reflected Palo Alto's innovative spirit. In prior years, execution was
based on 3 priorities – building community, social justice, and public art education. The PAC had
evolved the priorities to align with Council priorities – government efficiency, housing
production, economic development, and renovation of Cubberley. The Work Plan would build
on 4 priorities, which were detailed on Page 12 of the Work Plan. First, the PAC elaborated on
the community building priority to cover economic development, which would be accomplished
by driving foot traffic to business corridors and revitalizing hubs like Cubberley. The second
priority was social justice, and the words inclusion and joy were added to include the concept of
joy and the intersection of art and housing. Rapidly developing corridors were being targeted
for public art opportunities to ensure that new shared spaces would include interactive art to
act as a catalyst for community building among diverse neighbors. The third and standing
priority was public art education and implementation to continue to execute the Public Art
Master plan and its ancillary plans in the California Avenue District Master Plan and the Bayland
Art Plan.
PRC Chair Shen voiced that the fourth and new priority was called responsible stewardship and
government efficiency, which was inspired by Council's government efficiency priority, and the
purpose of it was to advance government efficiency by streamlining public art processes,
protecting city assets, and reducing financial liability through diligent maintenance,
conservation, and responsible deaccessioning. Every project in the Work Plan met at least 3 of
the 4 priorities. Most of the PAC’s work was multi-year in nature and there's a continuity in
theme and many recent accomplishments aligned with the updated priorities. PAC Chair Shen
spoke of past accomplishment. King Artist in Residence would continue. There would be more
downtown murals, permanent public art, and municipal projects. There were more ArtLift
grants. A temporary mural pilot program had been started. Regarding public art in private
development, there would be updates to Castilleja School. Code: ART 2027 was underway. The
Commission was prioritizing the conservation of Jerome Kirk's Homage to Silence and Phase 2
of the Arnautoff Frescoes restoration. The PAC strategically alined with Council. Art was being
used to support local economy, promote new housing corridors, and manage city assets with
the highest level of responsibility.
Stormwater Management Oversight Committee Chair Catherine Perman discussed the
2026/2027 Work Plan. There were slides in the packet detailing the statuses of various capital
improvement projects. The mission statement was to provide oversight on the spending for
projects and maintenance by the funds provided by the 2017 ballot measure. The work had
been divided into 3 major components, which were monitored on an annual basis – spending
for capital improvement projects and annual maintenance, ensuring everything adhered to the
overall umbrella of the regulatory and compliance programs, and determining how to make
more progress with the green infrastructure projects.
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 27 of 29
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 04/06/2026
Public Comment: Naomi R. (Zoom) thanked Council for the Ventura Project. There was a
dedication sign for Naomi R’s brother, and Naomi R. wanted to ensure it was addressed on the
agenda.
City Manager Ed Shikada stated that the Ventura Project was on the PRC Work Plan.
Mayor Veenker added that it was apparently part of Item 2.
Councilmember Reckdahl requested that PRC study whether the City should prohibit the use of
artificial turf in playgrounds and other non-athletic City facilities.
City Manager Shikada stated such a study would be a significant body of work and expected
that staff and the PRC would want to confer on what would be required to accommodate that
within the upcoming year.
Mayor Veenker asked what the process should be for suggesting additions or changes to the
work plans.
City Manager Shikada answered that Council could provide feedback. Additions to the work
plans could be referred to the commissions. Recognizing the hour, another step could be
agendized.
Mayor Veenker suggested compiling the feedback at this meeting and agendizing discussions
for a future meeting.
Councilmember Reckdahl proposed that the PRC develop guidelines for including native plants
in development and ongoing maintenance of City properties, including parkland.
Councilmember Burt seconded Councilmember Reckdahl’s recommendations.
PRC Chair Freeman understood, regarding the natural grass pilot study, that the PRC should
work with Council to determine if there was a need to collect more information.
Division Manager Open Space, Parks, and Golf Sarah Robustelli believed there would be
community engagement related to surfacing as part of the upcoming CIP projects. The PRC had
discussed it.
Councilmember Reckdahl noted there were 2 issues – transparency and policy. Councilmember
Reckdahl considered having/not having artificial turf on playgrounds to be a policy decision, but
the PRC should provide feedback.
City Manager Shikada remarked that before committing there should be a discussion to
determine what resources would be required and potentially what trade-offs would need to be
made to include that as a priority.
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 28 of 29
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 04/06/2026
Mayor Veenker stated the subject could be part of the future discussion, and maybe staff could
return with what it would require in terms of resources.
Councilmember Burt stated the issue was not a binary one but how to address health and
safety of playground surfaces, which was important. Councilmember Burt assumed the PRC had
concerns.
PRC Chair Freeman agreed and thought it would be enhanced and added to the work plan.
Councilmember Burt discussed pickleball and the impacts on traffic and parking, which did not
appear to be part of the discussion. Councilmember Burt did not know if it should be referred
to the PTC with an intersection with PRC. As for the HRC mental health goal, there should be a
particular focus on youth mental health. The LGBTQ community should have a leading role in
the upcoming Pride event. Regarding the PAC Work Plan, the incorporation of joy, the
expansion of murals throughout the city, and the focus on community places was positive.
Councilmember Burt encouraged additional focus on public walking spaces of Cal Ave and
Ramona Street. Councilmember Burt commended the mosaics on the Fry’s building and the
murals on the utility boxes. Councilmember Burt questioned if the SMOC’s purview included
stormwater runoff from public lands other than streets and if such was covered by the funding
for the plan.
PRC Chair Freeman stated the pickleball topic would be on the May agenda, and information
was being collected and would be presented at that meeting. The item should return to
Council. The local pickleball community was working with staff to determine how to alleviate
traffic. A decision had not been made on an expansion at Mitchell Park, and it would be
discussed in May.
SMOC Chair Perman answered that stormwater runoff from public lands other than streets was
not covered by the plan funding.
Councilmember Lythcott-Haims stated there would be a public input sessions with the local
LGBTQ+ nonprofits and advocates to assess what type of Pride event the community was
interested in.
Mayor Veenker wanted CEDAW incorporated into the HRC Work Plan and commended the PRC
for supporting the economic vibrancy goal. Concerning SMOC, Mayor Veenker was excited
about Item 3 because it was a key part of the Sustainability Work Plan. Mayor Veenker
requested that on return to Council staff provide information on what it would take to add the
suggestions to the work plans. Mayor Veenker thanked all for their work on the plans.
15. Adoption of Recommendations by the Policy & Services Committee Implementing
Changes to Meeting Procedures Related to Teleconferencing, Remote Public
Participation, Translation and Interpretation Assistance, and Expanded Public Outreach;
CEQA Status – Not a Project.
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 29 of 29
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 04/06/2026
Agenda Item Number 15 was not heard and was deferred to a date uncertain.
16. Approval of City Council Values (as Recommended by Policy & Services Committee),
2026 Objectives, Ad Hoc Purpose Statements, and Committee Workplans (Continued
from 3/9/2026 - On March 9, 2026, the Council Received Presentations and Public
Testimony; the Item Will be Continued to April 6 for further Council Deliberation and
Action - No Public Testimony Will be Heard on April 6.) Item Removed Off Agenda
Agenda Item Number 16 was removed off the agenda and not heard.
Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 11:02 p.m.