Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026-04-13 City Council Summary MinutesCITY COUNCIL SUMMARY MINUTES Page 1 of 26 Regular Meeting April 13, 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 Councilmember Lauing arrived at 8:36 p.m. Present Remotely: None Absent: None Call to Order Mayor Veenker called the meeting to order. City Clerk Mahealani Ah Yun called roll and declared 6 were present. Councilmember Lauing experienced a flight delay and was expected to attend the meeting at some point. Boards, Commissions, and Committees Appointments 1. Appointment of Candidates to the Human Relations Commission (HRC), Planning & Transportation Commission (PTC), and Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC); CEQA Status - Not a Project Mayor Veenker announced that voting would not take place until Councilmember Lauing arrived. Public Comment: There were no comments. Deputy City Clerk Bissell voiced there was 1 partial-term vacancy on the HRC, 2 full-term vacancies on the PTC and 3 full-term vacancies on the UAC. Recruitment for the HRB and the SMOC had been extended, so those appointments would not be included in this cycle. Deputy City Clerk Bissell outlined the voting process. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 2 of 26 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 04/13/2026 Mayor Veenker declared that the item would be deferred until the arrival of Councilmember Lauing, so it was possible that the first action would start early. Mayor Veenker moved to special orders of the day. Special Orders of the Day 2. Proclamation Honoring National Animal Control Officer Appreciation Week April 12-18, 2026 NO ACTION Councilmember Lythcott-Haims read the proclamation. On behalf of City Council, Mayor Veenker proclaimed and called upon all citizens of Palo Alto to observe the week of April 12 through 18, 2026, as National Animal Control Officer Appreciation Week and to join in in honoring animal control officers and recognizing them for their diligence and professionalism. Police Chief James Reifschneider spoke of the work of the animal control officers and thanked Council for the recognition. Animal Control Supervisor Cody Macartney thanked Council for allowing the animal control officers to help the animals and the citizens of Palo Alto. In addition to Palo Alto, the team serviced Los Altos and Los Altos Hills. Veenker invited Supervisor Macartney to the dais for a photo with Council. 3. Proclamation Honoring National Public Safety Telecommunicators Week April 12-18, 2026 NO ACTION Councilmember Burt delivered the proclamation. On behalf of City Council, Mayor Veenker proclaimed and called upon all citizens of Palo Alto to observe the week of April 12 to 18, 2026, as National Public Safety Telecommunicators Week and to join in in honoring the men and women whose diligence and professionalism kept the city and citizens safe. Police Chief James Reifschneider stated policer officers and firefighters were often referred to as first responders but the dispatchers were the true first responders. Police Chief Reifschneider discussed their work, which he was grateful for. The dispatchers were a lifeline for the community and an invaluable part of the Public Safety team. A photo was taken at the dais with Council. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 3 of 26 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 04/13/2026 Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions City Manager Ed Shikada remarked that the only change was to Item 1. Public Comment 1. The Palo Alto Youth Council President shared updates on some of the initiatives, including increasing communication between PAYC and Council to keep Palo Alto teens updated. A PAYC member discussed the Civic Impact Summit, which would take place on April 18. A PAYC member noted that the PAYC Mental Health Advocacy Committee advocated for specific mental health days for students, spoke of the work being done, and shared some statistics. Upcoming events included the Earth Day event and Palapalooza. 2. John M. thanked the PAYC speakers. John M. requested that Council consider funding quiet zones this year to manage safety instead of being reactive. 3. Ken H. requested that the meeting be adjourned in remembrance of National Holocaust Remembrance Day. Mayor Veenker thanked the public speakers and echoed the PAYC’s comments. Consent Calendar 4. Adoption of a Resolution Vacating an Easement at 700 Hansen Way; CEQA Status – Exempt under Cal. Code Regs. Title 14, Section 15305 5. Approval of Amendment Number 3 to Contract C21178333 with Black & Veatch, Inc., to increase the Contract Amount by $963,160 for a revised total not-to-exceed amount of $4,146,109, and to Extend the Contract Term to December 31, 2028, for the Local Advanced Water Purification System Project (WQ-19003); CEQA Status - Notice of Determination Adopted November 18, 2019 6. Authorize the City Manager to Execute Amendment No. 1 to Eight Professional Services Contracts for SAP On-Call Services: Contract C26193272A with 360S2G, C26193272B with Sage Group Technologies Inc, C26193272C with Avertra Corp, C26193272D with Amick Brown LLC, C26193272E with 2iSolutions Inc, C26193272F with the Peloton Group, C26193272G with Phoenix Business Inc, C26193272H with EPI-USE America, to Increase the Not-to-Exceed Amount by $2,000,000 and Extend the Term for One Year; CEQA Status – Not a Project 7. Appointment of 2026 Emergency Standby Council SUMMARY MINUTES Page 4 of 26 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 04/13/2026 Public Comment: There were no requests to speak. MOTION: Councilmember Reckdahl moved, seconded by Councilmember Burt, to approve Agenda Item Numbers 4-7. MOTION PASSED: 6-0-1 (Councilmember Lu, Councilmember Burt, Vice Mayor Stone, Councilmember Lythcott-Haims, Mayor Veenker, Councilmember Reckdahl) (Councilmember Lauing was absent) Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements Councilmember Lythcott-Haims, Chair of the Rail Safety Ad Hoc Committee, mentioned there would be a special Council meeting on April 15 to discuss the possible closure of the Churchill Avenue rail crossing. Mayor Veenker had attended the groundbreaking for El Camino Real affordable housing and a ribbon cutting at Stanford Healthcare to celebrate an outstanding advance in radiation oncology. On April 9, the Cities Association of Santa Clara County Board met and there had been a presentation by the County Office of Emergency Management and an Elected Officials’ Guide to Emergencies was provided and Mayor Veenker had a brochure for Council Members. The County Office of Emergency Management encouraged everyone to sign up for the SCC Alert, which was free and provided direct notice of emergencies and related information (alertscc.org). Mayor Veenker mentioned the passing of Mike Cobb and expressed her gratitude to him and his family. Councilmember Burt spoke of Mike Cobb being instrumental in saving Cubberley. City Manager Comments City Manager Ed Shikada spoke of upcoming events, including Earth Month, which spanned 2 months; Eco Cleanup at the Baylands on April 18; and an event at the Palo Alto Arts Center on April 19. For Earth Day, on April 22, there would be a sensory scavenger hunt at the Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo. A Compost Workshop was schedule for April 25. On May 14, there would be a home electrification webinar. Event information could be found on the City’s website and calendar. There were a number of ongoing programs related to mental health, including two 2-part workshops schedule for May 9 and 23 and June 13 and 27. The annual citywide yard sale would take place in June 6 but signups were due on May 18. There would be a special Council meeting on April 15 exclusively on the topic of the potential temporary closure of the Churchill rail crossing. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 5 of 26 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 04/13/2026 City Manager Shikada noted that Council’s regular meeting would occur on April 20, which would include study sessions on the County’s community plan to end homeless and the proposed develop at 910 Webster Street, an SB 707 (Brown Act) procedures update, and the appeal of a proposed order of demolition at 531 Stanford. Council would not meet on April 27. On May 4, Council would receive a presentation on the proposed budget, an update on the Downtown Housing Plan or implementation of SB 79, and there would be a number of other actions. The May 11 meeting would begin at 4:30 and Council would take final action on the Churchill rail crossing closure and there would be a study session on the budget. A number of items were being tracked for May 18. Action Items 8. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 3606 El Camino Real [24PLN-00162 & 25PLN- 00243]: Request for Approval of Applications for Major Architectural Review and Vesting Tentative Map to Merge Seven Existing Parcels to Create a 113,907-Square-Foot Parcel and to Construct a Seven-Story, Multi-Family Residential Housing Development Project with 321 Units, Thirteen Percent of Which Would be Provided at a Rate Affordable to Low Income. The Project is Proposed in Accordance with Builder’s Remedy (California Government Code Section 65589.5(d)(5)). A Senate Bill 330 Pre-Application was Filed on February 15, 2024. CEQA Status: Exempt Pursuant to Assembly Bill 130 (Public Resources Code Section 21080.66). Senior Planner Steven Switzer noted that there were 7 parcels on the project site with varying zoning designations ranging from commercial to residential and adjacent uses reflecting the same residential and commercial uses along El Camino Real. Senior Planner Switzer discussed what had taken place since February 2024. In February 2026, the PTC had safety concerns related to safe routes to school (SRTS) and, since that time, the applicant incorporated sidewalk easements into their proposal. Senior Planner Switzer detailed what would have to be demolished and what the new structure would consists of, including parking spaces and long- term bike spaces. The vesting tentative map would merge the 7 parcels. It was a builder’s remedy project as defined by AB 1893, so the project could not be denied based on an inconsistency with zoning or the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. The project could be denied if there was a finding of a specific adverse impact on public health and safety that could not be mitigated or avoided but staff had not found such items. The City could only require compliance with objective standards that would apply to the project if it was proposed on a site that would allow the density requested. The project with the proposed density would be permitted in the El Camino Real focus area. Senior Planner Switzer noted that the State Density Bonus Law allowed the applicant waivers and concessions from applicable standards, which were detailed in the draft Record of Land Use Action. AB 130 exempted infill housing projects from CEQA and set strict timelines for the City's review and decision process. The Staff Report included attachments related to the project's SUMMARY MINUTES Page 6 of 26 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 04/13/2026 conformance with the El Camino Real Focus Area development standards and design guidelines and objective design standards. Staff had received multiple public comments and key comments included driveway locations on side streets and potential impacts to SRTS. Some members of the public supported the project for the benefit of delivering housing. A condition of approval would include a transportation analysis to address the comments regarding some of the safety concerns. Since publishing the packet, there were some revised off-site drainage improvements to accommodate some of the strict timelines with AB 130. Since the publishing of the packet, the applicant agreed with a condition of approval for a public access easement extension along Matadero Avenue. The project was exempt from CEQA under AB 130. Staff recommended that Council consider the project exempt from CEQA and approve the major architectural review and vesting tentative map application based on the revised findings and subject to the revised conditions of approval in the draft Record of Land Use Action in Attachment B. Applicant Peter Giovinotto’s family owned the property. Applicant Giovinotto discussed the family business. The project had been brought forward to help meet housing needs. Sares Regis Group of Northern California Project Manager Marissa Riley expressed that care had been taken to design a building that aligned Palo Alto’s vision for El Camino Real. The team had a combined experience of 152 years working in the Bay Area. Project Manager Riley displayed interior photos of projects delivered to nearby communities in the last 3 years. The projects were near transit, infill, and offered desired amenities. Project Manager Riley spoke of the benefits the project would provide the community and how it would largely align with the El Camino Real Focus Area Plan. Project Manager Riley furnished a few images of the existing conditions along El Camino and slides showing the progression of the project design. The ARB requested changes to the façade, the roofline, the corner of the lobby, open space, amenities, and the courtyard, so those elements had been updated. There would be 2 access sites to the garage, which would be safer than garage access on El Camino Real. Sidewalks would be added to Kendall and Madero. The PTC had addressed sightlines, so design modifications were incorporated to ensure that drivers exiting garages could see 200 feet in either direction. This was the type of infill housing Palo Alto expressed a desire for. Project Manager Riley respectfully requested Council’s approval. Mayor Veenker requested disclosures from Council Members. Councilmember Burt had met with the property owners but did not receive any information that was not in the public record. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims had met with the property owners multiple times but had not received any information that had not been publicly disclosed. Councilmember Reckdahl requested that staff comment on the stormwater issue. Senior Planner Switzer responded staff was concerned with maintenance burdens that would be put on the City for the private benefit, so staff wanted to ensure that drainage could be SUMMARY MINUTES Page 7 of 26 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 04/13/2026 sufficiently maintained. It was in reference to the extension lines on Kendall and Matadero for drainage and for connecting the lines maintained by Caltrans. Councilmember Burt requested that the granted waivers be summarized. The PTC had discussed bike safety on the streets on either side of the project that were perpendicular to El Camino but Councilmember Burt did not know if there had been a discussion about an off-road bike path between the south edge of the Research Park and some of the backyards, which would significantly reduce conflicts for bikers who traveled those routes. Senior Planner Switzer replied that the granted waivers were detailed in the draft Record of Land Use Action and included setbacks, upper story step-back, lot coverage, daylight planes, and housing typologies. The items the PTC recommended for consideration were captured in the summarized list in the Staff Report. Portions of the site would be incorporated for a bike path. Councilmember Burt noted that what he was referring to was several hundred yards north of the site and in the Bike and Pedestrian Transportation Plan that the Planning Commission reviewed. Transportation staff should be engaged when there were projects with major transportation impacts and the PTC needed to be informed so transportation issues could be taken into consideration. Planning & Development Services Director Jonathan Lait commented that staff was interested in connecting on those points. Staff was focusing on the Bike Plan as it existed and with consideration of it being a builder's remedy project that locked in the standards at the time. Councilmember Burt was not requesting that the applicant be responsible but such information would inform the PTC’s discussion. Councilmember Lu asked if any specific interventions would likely be imposed as it related to bike safety. Chief Transportation Official Ria Lo thought Matadero was designated as bike boulevard, so it was expected that there would be typical treatments and work should be done with the neighborhood to ensure that such treatments would be suitable for the neighbors and students traveling through the area. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims inquired how the mitigations would ensure that Matadero would remain a SRTS Route. The applicant had mentioned there would be 2 methods of ingress and egress to the parking garage on the side streets and members of the community indicated it would significantly back traffic up into the neighborhood and requested that the parking entry and exit be relocated to El Camino. The community was concerned about the no right turn on red on Matadero due to traffic backing up in the neighborhood. Chief Transportation Official Lo answered that the applicant had done a traffic study, which would help inform some of the features. The applicant had mentioned the visibility triangles for SUMMARY MINUTES Page 8 of 26 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 04/13/2026 the driveways. It was expected that there would be typical traffic calming features to slow traffic and discourage them from using the route. Staff looked forward to further discussing what the features would be. While the City was limited in what could be required, it was a good spot for housing and the transportation solution would mitigate the vehicle miles traveled generated by the project. As for parking ingress and egress, City standards recommended that driveway access points be on side streets because it was safer. Matadero was a school route, so potential improvements to address the operational effects on those streets should be considered. Staff would look into adding supplemental signage for the no-right-turn-on-red issue but it would have to be done in coordination with Caltrans because it was their intersection. Mayor Veenker queried if the City would do a transportation analysis or rely on the one provided by the applicant. Mayor Veenker referenced Condition 33 and requested that staff walk through the process of the mitigations that would constitute the project being infeasible. Chief Transportation Official Lo answered that typically the City required a local transportation analysis as part of the development process and the City would review it but it was happening later in the process than it normally would. Senior Planner Switzer added that a transportation analysis was requested of the applicant through the review process but, due to the restraints and limitations with it being a builder’s remedy project, it was not supplied during the review cycle. Mayor Veenker assumed the City would be provided with the applicant’s transportation analysis and questioned if there would then be a conversation about measures that would be applied that would not render the project infeasible. Senior Planner Switzer replied that the scope of the study would be reviewed and the feasible mediation measures, not mitigation measures, for those items. Mayor Veenker asked if after receiving some of the improvements the street would be improved from a safety standpoint. Director Lait replied it was an atypical process. As a condition, the report would be supplied and staff would discuss feasible/not feasible mitigation measures with the applicant. Staff anticipated and expected some improvements. Vice Mayor Stone asked what mitigations were in place to ensure that the safe route to school would continue to be operable and safe during the construction phase. Chief Transportation Official Lo would need to consider what mitigations would be in place to ensure the route would continue to be operable and safe during the construction phase. Director Lait added that typically there would be a logistics plan, which would address phasing. If not, language would be recommended if Council was aiming to approve the project. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 9 of 26 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 04/13/2026 Councilmember Lu inquired if the City would conduct a traffic analysis if the traffic analysis referenced in the Staff Report did not clearly address mitigations that could or should be applied. Councilmember Lu queried if the applicant's traffic analysis would be used to decide which traffic improvements would not render the project infeasible. Chief Transportation Official Lo responded that staff would typically receive a draft and provided comments. Director Lait responded that the applicant’s analysis would be used and there would be a conversation with the applicant about what would/would not be feasible. If there was a challenge, the City would pay for an additional analysis. Councilmember Lu felt the condition of approval described all reasonable measures that would not render the project infeasible. Councilmember Lu questioned if traffic studies would include studies of things outside of the project’s control, such as speed bumps, etc. All reasonable traffic interventions should be considered. Chief Transportation Official Lo answered that typically there were onsite and offsite studies and often offsite improvements. There was a Traffic Control Plan that addressed some of the construction implications. The City would request offsite and onsite improvements and staff was comfortable with starting with the applicant’s traffic analysis. Senior Planner Switzer directed Council’s attention to Condition of Approval 67 as it related to the logistics plan. Public Comment: 1. Nikita K. requested that Council approve a project that included ownership housing. Nikita K. understood that Vittoria Management received negative tenant feedback and asked what the community would receive in return if the project was approved. 2. Steve L. believed the applicant and staff would work out any traffic and safety issues and considered the El Camino entrance infeasible. Steve L. supported this project and downtown housing. 3. Adam S. wanted to see more housing in the downtown area and supported the 3606 El Camino Real application. The project was in a great transit location and would serve a diversity of residents. Adam S. was confident that the traffic issue would be resolved. 4. Star T. represented the Barron Park Association. The Association did not want deny the project but there was a concren with the driveway being so close to El Camino and requested that it be moved to El Camino as sightlines would be an issue to bicyclists. The City should choose the transportation analyst and the primary paths to all 6 schools should be analyzed. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 10 of 26 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 04/13/2026 5. Dan A. provided Council with a 3D model of the 3606 and the Creekside projects. Dan A. discussed possible traffic issues and supported engineering the traffic flow on El Camino. 6. Penny B. (Zoom) urged that City staff, the Office of Transportation, and Council Members visit the site during busy commute hours. Penny B. did not agree with the refuse removal plan. Penny B. requested that there be a thorough traffic safety analysis. Penny B. understood that the OOT had not identified that the project would violate public health or safety standards but requested that Council vet the project and formulate objective written public health and safety standards. 7. Kerri J. (Zoom) was concerned with ingress and egress being on Kendall Avenue due to SRTS safety and sightline issues and was concerned that the minimal setback on Kendall would reduce visibility. Kerri J. requested that consideration be given to ingress and egress being on El Camino, that the City do a traffic analysis, and that the construction impacts of 2 major projects on Matadero be considered. 8. Scott O. (Zoom) supported the El Camino ingress and egress. Scott O. referenced a book titled Homelessness is a Housing Problem and requested that Council approve the project on terms that would result in its expeditious construction. 9. Manuel S. (Zoom), on behalf of SV@Home, respectfully urged Council to approve the project as it would bring affordable housing to a major corridor; support safer, more connected streets; and help meet RHNA obligations. 10. Michael Q. (Zoom) supported the units possibly converting to an ownership model in the future. Michael Q., discussed past processes putting the City in a builder’s remedy situation and requested that such not happen in the future. Michael Q. did not support ingress and egress on El Camino. 11. Zachary A. (Zoom) supported the project but requested there be a traffic review, that consideration be given to an off-street driveway, and that the buildings be designed for beyond zero carbon. Sares Regis Group of Northern California Jeff Smith clarified that the project was 100-percent housing. The lease space in the building would provide a coworking space as an amenity for residents. Sares Regis Group would work with City staff on the transportation analysis to make sure the project would be safe. There was a recent condition for an extension of an easement on Matadero and Sares Regis Group was open to the concept. The intent was not to change the design to ingress and egress the building and Sares Regis Group Smith wanted to move forward with the design presented at this meeting. Vice Mayor Stone asked if the project would create career opportunities for local residents in the building trades, including apprenticeship opportunities. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 11 of 26 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 04/13/2026 Sares Regis Group Smith replied that it was too early in the design process to make any commitments related to career opportunities. Sares Regis Group was willing to speak with the unions. Vice Mayor Stone encouraged Sares Regis Group to speak with the unions and requested that general contractors and subcontractors provide employees with healthcare benefits. Vice Mayor Stone inquired what the average price was of the 38 units being replaced. Sares Regis Group Smith responded that it was too early to address general contractors and subcontractors providing employees with healthcare benefits but safety, health, and welfare of workers would be priorities. Sares Regis Group Smith did know the average rate of the units being replaced but there would be compliance with the City's relocation and tenant protection ordinances. Vice Mayor Stone queried how the Tenant Relocation Assistance Ordinance would be applied. Senior Planner Switzer referenced Condition of Approval 4 – Municipal Code Section 9.68.060. There would be no-fault evictions and it would include a rental fee waiver for the last month or relocation assistance and notification requirements and documentation showing compliance with the code requirements would need to be provided before issuance of a demolition or deconstruction permit. Vice Mayor Stone questioned if cash would be provided for relocation assistance and what the price difference would be in an above moderate-income unit and a market rate unit. Director Lait answered that there was a dollar amount set in the Municipal Fee Schedule for relocation assistance, which was based on number of bedrooms. The project would be subject to the Renter Protection Ordinance. Sares Regis Group Smith replied that all units would be at 80-percent AMI. Senior Planner Switzer noted that the Staff Report listed the projections City staff made regarding the housing inventory sites and what could be produced on the property. Director Lait added that the deed-restricted units would be at 80-percent AMI and the reference in the Staff Report to above moderate income and market rate was for information purposes only. Vice Mayor Stone was disappointed that the units would be at 13-percent BMR rather than 20 percent. Councilmember Burt requested clarification on the bike facilities and asked, regarding parking demands, if shared vehicles had been considered. The east-west bike path was important to all projects, not just this one. New housing development reduced vehicle miles traveled from long- SUMMARY MINUTES Page 12 of 26 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 04/13/2026 distance inbound but there were net increases in in-city traffic. Councilmember Burt looked forward to supporting the project. Sares Regis Group Smith answered that there would be bike storage rooms with good access and a bike fix-it station. The protected lane was spectacular. Sares Regis Group would look at shared vehicles but in last 5 to 10 years it had not been feasible as companies were looking for a lot more use potential. Councilmember Reckdahl looked forward to supporting the project and considered it to be desirable for the El Camino Focus Area. Bike safety on Matadero and Kendall was a concern as the streets were narrow and a lot of work would need to be done but it was solvable. Councilmember Reckdahl asked if one-way streets in some part of the neighborhood would be good from a safety standpoint, what could be done to make the garage entrances and exits safer, and if anything could be done on City land to improve bike safety. Councilmember Reckdahl noted that completing the Valley Water bike path could alleviate construction issues. Chief Transportation Official Lo responded that one-way streets had been researched but they operated at higher speeds, which was not desired. They were typically used for downtown areas and Chief Transportation Official Lo had not seen them used in a setting like Matadero and Kendall. Hexagon Transportation Consultants Gary Black answered that the primary concern was sight distance as it related to vehicles and pedestrians at the garage entrances and exits and the driveways had been designed to meet the sight distance requirements. Ingress and egress would be safer on Matadero and Kendall than El Camino. Slowing vehicles would improve bike safety. Existing speeds had not been assessed. The project would provide additional roadway width on Matadero, so there would be more room for bikes at the El Camino signal. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims intended to support the project and was confident that the transportation analysis would be provided and expected that the applicant and staff would work together to address all safety mitigations that would not render the project infeasible. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims was pleased that the City’s tenant protections would be complied with. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims asked if tenants in buildings that would be demolished could be given priority on the waitlist for the below market units. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims requested that the applicant speak to the company’s ratings as a landlord. Director Lait answered that the Below Market Rate Housing Program was managed through Alta Housing, which had a waiting list. Director Lait did not know how it worked for those who would be displaced from an existing building but he would investigate it. Sares Regis Group Smith replied that the City’s ordinance would be followed and work could be done with Alta Housing. Sares Regis Group Smith would give the tenants in the existing buildings every opportunity to be in the new building. Sares Regis Group Smith could not speak to the company’s ratings as a landlord but Saras Regis had teamed up with the Giovinotto SUMMARY MINUTES Page 13 of 26 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 04/13/2026 family and would potentially manage the project. The intention was that every one of their communities have a great experience. Councilmember Lu looked forward to supporting the project. Councilmember Lu had some concerns about traffic safety but believed it would be mitigated to the greatest extent possible. Councilmember Lu liked the sidewalk easement, the mix of unit sizes, that outdated office space would be eliminated, that there would be a loading space, and that there would be respect for existing tenants. Mayor Veenker looked forward to the project coming to fruition, although there was still work to be done. Councilmember Reckdahl noted that one bike parking per unit was required but queried how many were typically used and questioned where garbage collection would occur. Senior Planner Switzer responded that every project had different bike parking usage. The project would provide a little less than required. Trash rooms would relocate the bins to the trash room on the first floor along Kendall and the trash hauler would access the bins inside the building. There would be no staging of bins along Kendall. The truck and the trash hauler would enter the trash room for collection. Councilmember Reckdahl agreed with the trash collection plan. Councilmember Reckdahl asked where the loading zone would be. Senior Planner Switzer answered that the loading zone would be in the garage. Councilmember Reckdahl did not consider the loading zone to be convenient, so Uber, etc., might stop by the curb and block the bike lane, which should be taken into consideration. Vice Mayor Stone noted that Condition of Approval 67 mentioned pedestrian safety but not bicycle safety, although pedestrian probably included bicycle safety. Senior Planner Switzer noted that staff had revised the language related to pedestrian and bicycle safety. MOTION: Councilmember Stone moved, seconded by Councilmember Reckdahl, to: 1. Consider the project exempt from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in accordance with Assembly Bill (AB) 130 (Public Resources Code Section 21080.66); and 2. Approve the Major Architectural Review and Vesting Tentative Map applications based on findings and subject to conditions of approval in the Draft Record of Land Use Action (RLUA) in Attachment B with the following amendments: a. Condition of Approval # 33: Replace Mediation with Mitigation SUMMARY MINUTES Page 14 of 26 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 04/13/2026 b. Condition of Approval # 67: LOGISTICS PLAN: A construction logistics plan shall be provided addressing all impacts to the public including, at a minimum: work hours, noticing of affected businesses, bus stop relocations, construction signage, dust control, noise control, storm water pollution prevention, job trailer, contractors' parking, truck routes, staging, concrete pours, crane lifts, scaffolding, materials storage, pedestrian safety, safe routes to school and mitigation of construction impacts on Matadero and Kendell Avenues, and traffic control. All truck routes shall conform to the City of Palo Alto's Trucks and Truck Route Ordinance, Chapter 10.48, and the route map. The logistics plan shall be reviewed and approved by Public Works Department, who shall consult with the City's Chief Transportation Official and the Director of Planning and Development Services prior to approval. NOTE: Some items/tasks on the logistics plan may require an encroachment permit. c. Newly Added Condition of Approval: EASEMENT EXTENSION. The public access easement along Matadero Avenue will extend to the building facade, taking into account any architectural projections and as-built construction tolerances Director Lait suggested adding A, B, and C (above) to the motion. Sares Regis Group Smith accepted the language. The friendly amendment was accepted by Vice Mayor Stone and Councilmember Reckdahl. MOTION PASSED: 6-0-1, (Councilmember Lythcott-Haims, Councilmember Reckdahl, Councilmember Burt, Mayor Veenker, Councilmember Lu, Vice Mayor Stone) (Councilmember Lauing was absent) [Council took a 25-minute break] 9. 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 13 for further Council Deliberation and Action - No Public Testimony Will be Heard on April 13.) City Manager Ed Shikada noted that the item was continued and largely a cleanup since Council had worked through the priorities and objectives. Remaining were the purpose statements for the ad hoc committees and the work plans for the standing committees. Work plans for the Policy and Services Committee and the Finance Committee were on a month-by-month basis as there would be adjustments based on capacity and as items came forward. The work plans were put together before the grade crossing safety effort, so the work on the listed items was impacted. If Council wished to add items to the work plans, City Manager Shikada requested SUMMARY MINUTES Page 15 of 26 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 04/13/2026 that staff be allowed to review the capacity and ability to take on additional items and potentially remove items from the current lists. Staff had agreed to the revisions proposed by the Cubberley Ad Hoc. Mayor Veenker noted that the public commented on the entire item on March 9. Mayor Veenker suggested that Council first comment on ad hoc purposes; that the Climate Action and Sustainability Committee purposes include making recommendations to Council on any possible revisions to the Work Plan, such as future S/CAP; and that the Rail Safety/Youth Mental Health Ad Hoc be titled differently. City Manager Shikada noted that some versions had the title Rail Safety and others added Youth Mental Health. The intent was to drop Youth Mental health from the title. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims found the Cubberley Ad Hoc description outdated and had sent an email to staff and the Ad Hoc suggesting the Cubberley Ad Hoc facilitate Council review and approval of the Master Plan process working on financial vehicles for acquiring acreage, ballot measure language, public/private funding partnerships, space allocation in the transition and long-term, and future operating model. City Attorney Chris Jensen noted that the last sentence in the original language would be removed because some items that had been before the Ad Hoc Committee were being considered by the Finance Committee. MOTION: Councilmember Lythcott-Haims moved, seconded by Councilmember Reckdahl, to approve the Ad Hoc Purpose Statements with the following changes and additions: a. Cubberley Ad Hoc Committee description as stated below; The Cubberley Ad Hoc will facilitate City Council review and approval of: 1) The Cubberley master plan process, 2) Financial vehicles for acquiring 7 acres from Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD); 3) Ballot measure language; 4) Public/private funding partnerships; 5) Space allocation in the transition and long-term; and 6) Future operating model. The Ad Hoc will also serve as the Council ambassador for engagement with the community and build community support for development of a new community center at the Cubberley site. Coordination with PAUSD on Cubberley will occur through this committee rather than the City Schools Liaison Committee. Mayor Veenker made a friendly amendment to add B, C, and D (as below) to the motion. b. Conform the name of the Rail Safety Committee to Rail Safety; SUMMARY MINUTES Page 16 of 26 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 04/13/2026 c. Climate and Sustainability Committee to recommend to Council any revisions of the 2026-2027 workplan and future SCAPs; and d. Discontinue the Valley Water Shoreline Funding Allocation Ad Hoc. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims and Councilmember Reckdahl accepted the amendment. Councilmember Lauing joined the meeting. MOTION PASSED: 6-0-1 (Councilmember Reckdahl, Councilmember Lythcott-Haims, Vice Mayor Stone, Mayor Veenker, Councilmember Lu, Councilmember Burt) (Councilmember Lauing abstained) Mayor Veenker advanced the conversation to the workplans for the Policy & Services Committee and Finance Committee. Councilmember Lu noted the Bike and Pedestrian Plan, the Transportation Plan, and the Safe Systems Plan would wrap up and there were no next steps for funding, etc., and suggested that the Finance Committee discuss available funding, grants, and the status of different project costs, so Council could potentially advance the Bike and Pedestrian Plan. City Manager Shikada voiced that Council would discuss the Capital Improvement Program as part of the Finance Committee’s budget discussion within the next month. The Bicycle Plan was slated to return to Council in June. A committee referral did not need to be created at this point because it could be done as the plan came forward for approval. Mayor Veenker noted that the legislative update would be an April item and suggested that it read “legislative update and strategy for strategic weighing in” because it would be helpful to look at how advocacy would be handled. City Manager Shikada stated a revision was not necessary because the topic was on the agenda for April 14. MOTION: Mayor Veenker moved, seconded by Councilmember Lu, to approve Committee Workplans for the Policy & Services Committee and Finance Committee. MOTION PASSED: 7-0 1. Appointment of Candidates to the Human Relations Commission (HRC), Planning & Transportation Commission (PTC), and Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC); CEQA Status - Not a Project Mayor Veenker continued Item 1 from earlier. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 17 of 26 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 04/13/2026 Deputy City Clerk Bissell sent electronic ballots to Council Members and tabulated the results. Human Relations Commission First Round Voting for One (1) partial-term vacancy (seat 4) on the Human Relations Commission ending October 31, 2026 Elle Bob: Councilmember Lauing, Councilmember Reckdahl Rona Hu: Councilmember Burt Raizel Rosenberg: Councilmember Lu, Councilmember Lythcott-Haims, Vice Mayor Stone, Mayor Veenker Candidate Raizel Rosenberg receiving four votes was appointed to the partial-term expiring October 31, 2026 (seat 4). Planning & Transportation Commission First Round Voting for Two (2) full term vacancies (seats 1, 4) on the Planning & Transportation Commission ending March 31, 2030 Daniel Phillip Benas: No votes Martin Blanchet: Zero votes Bryna Chang: Councilmember Burt, Councilmember Lauing, Councilmember Lu, Councilmember Lythcott-Haims, Councilmember Reckdahl, Vice Mayor Stone, Mayor Veenker Forest Olaf Peterson: Councilmember Lu, Councilmember Lythcott-Haims, Vice Mayor Stone, Mayor Veenker Tom Siegal: Councilmember Burt, Councilmember Lauing, Councilmember Reckdahl Jeff Watt: Received no votes Candidate Bryna Chang receiving seven votes was appointed to the full term expiring March 31, 2030 (seat 1). Candidate Forest Olaf Peterson receiving four votes was appointed to the full term expiring March 31, 2030 (seat 4). Utilities Advisory Commission First Round Voting for Three (3) full term vacancies (seats 3, 5, 6) on the Utilities Advisory Commission ending March 31, 2029 Meagan Mauter: Councilmember Burt, Councilmember Lauing, Councilmember Lu, Councilmember Lythcott-Haims, Councilmember Reckdahl, Vice Mayor Stone, Mayor Veenker Robert Phillips: Councilmember Burt, Councilmember Lauing, Councilmember Lu, Councilmember Lythcott-Haims, Councilmember Reckdahl, Vice Mayor Stone, Mayor Veenker Greg Scharff: Councilmember Lauing, Councilmember Lythcott-Haims, Councilmember Reckdahl, Vice Mayor Stone Mayor Veenker Olgu Tanriverdi: No votes SUMMARY MINUTES Page 18 of 26 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 04/13/2026 Julia Zeitlin: Councilmember Burt, Councilmember Lu Candidate Meagan Mauter receiving seven votes was appointed to the full term expiring March 31, 2029 (seat 3). Candidate Robert Phillips receiving seven votes was appointed to the full term expiring March 31, 2029 (seat 6). Candidate Greg Scharff receiving five votes was appointed to the full term expiring March 31, 2029 (seat 5). City Clerk Mahealani Ah Yun congratulated all candidates, thanked those who applied, and encouraged folks to apply for the HRB and the SMOC as recruitment continued. Mayor Veenker was grateful to the applicants for applying, encouraged them to apply again, and requested they remain involved in the community. 10. Colleagues Memo on Mitigating Impacts of Property Aggregation in Residential Districts Vice Mayor Stone voiced that the proposal was about protecting neighborhoods, preserving housing supply, and maintaining quality of life in Palo Alto while respecting property rights. The existing rules were not designed to address the consolidation of multiple single-family homes under a single owner, sometimes spanning an entire block and being transformed into long- term construction sites and effectively private compounds. The wealth gap in Silicon Valley had grown dramatically. That level of wealth intersected with a constrained housing market and created pressures City policies had not kept up with and the impacts were playing out at the neighborhood level. Residents experienced multi-year construction that blocked streets, sidewalks, and bike lanes and there was persistent noise, etc. Homes were frequently vacant for extended periods. There were concerns that unmarked private security made public streets feel unwelcoming or intimidating and residents expressed that it was changing the character and social fabric of the neighborhood blocks. Vice Mayor Stone stated the challenge was that current Zoning Code and building rules looked at projects one parcel at a time and did not account for one owner controlling multiple adjacent properties, overlapping multi-year construction across those properties, nor the cumulative impacts on traffic, safety, and livability. It was a policy gap. The proposal would begin to fill the gap with reasonable, targeted guardrails focused on the scale, duration, and cumulative impact of what was happening. The proposal would not prohibit private security but would establish clear citywide rules. The proposal would create an aggregation oversight overlay framework for situations where one owner controlled 3 or more homes within a 500-foot radius and additional standards would apply in such cases. It would set limits on prolonged back-to-back construction, require construction parking and circulation plans, discourage homes being vacant for years, and include a private right of action giving neighbors a tool to enforce the SUMMARY MINUTES Page 19 of 26 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 04/13/2026 rules when violations persisted. The proposal was about balance. The question before Council was whether to allow entire neighborhoods to bear years of disruption with no guardrails or whether the policies should be updated to reflect the realities being faced. Councilmember Reckdahl clarified that the focus was on protecting neighborhoods. There should be reasonable rules. Councilmember Reckdahl provided an overview of the rules, which included construction management and circulation plan requirements, maximum construction duration, a temporary moratorium on new construction and major remodels, enforcement, vacancy restrictions, private right-of-action enforcement, and private security policies. The Staff Report provided the rules in full. Councilmember Reckdahl requested that Council comment on issues that might be considered controversial – a class of special rules, private action, vacancy restrictions, and construction intensity versus duration. Councilmember Reckdahl was a little uncomfortable with a class of special rules because laws should apply equally but a subset of the population was creating the impact. There were ways to mitigate the impacts without having 2 sets of rules. As for private action and code enforcement, Councilmember Reckdahl was concerned about neighbors suing neighbors. Councilmember Reckdahl questioned whether vacancy restrictions should be citywide or in aggregated properties. As for construction intensity versus duration, Councilmember Reckdahl questioned whether construction should be at a low intensity for what could be years or at a high intensity for what could be months. Public Comment 1. Michael K. urged Council to support the proposal as it was reasonable, modest, and carefully tailored. Michael K. discussed how folks avoided the ARB process. Michael K. suggested a change to the permit process that might help with code enforcement. 2. Stu B. disagreed with Braden Cartwright’s recent Post article. Stu B. was glad to have private security. 3. Christine W. urged Council to support the proposal. 4. John M. generally supported the Colleagues Memo and believed Council had the authority to enforce rules and hoped Council could find the diplomacy necessary to create the dialogue for folks to work with the City. The new bylaws should address abuse, encourage neighborliness and gratitude, and be fair to everyone. 5. David D. (Zoom) supported the proposal and spoke of how folks could avoid ARB review. David D. requested that Council approve the proposal to fill gaps in the housing regulations and to put restrictions in place to slow the expansion or creation of large residential compounds. 6. Tom M. (Zoom) made a derogatory remark. Councilmember Lu queried how many compounds were in Palo Alto and how they were distributed. Councilmember Lu understood there were complaints about the Chan Zuckerberg SUMMARY MINUTES Page 20 of 26 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 04/13/2026 compound but asked if there were complaints about other compounds that drove the proposal or complaints in general. Vice Mayor Stone could not find records reflecting how many compounds were in Palo Alto but had heard from residents that there were several. Feedback had been received from neighbors alleging compounds other than the Chain Zuckerberg compound. Councilmember Lu wanted information about other compounds and whether there were significant issues before making a pattern in the form of an ordinance. Councilmember Lu was concerned that under the definition a community member renting rooms at affordable rates, churches owning multiple parcels in R1 neighborhoods, etc. would be considered compounds and questioned if the compounds causing problems could be identified. Vice Mayor Stone stated staff did not have information on existing compounds. Residents adjacent to compounds provided feedback and generally supported the proposal. Compound exceptions could be outlined in the draft moving forward, such as churches, etc. This would be triggered after purchasing 3 homes within a 500-foot radius. Vice Mayor Stone did not imagine neighbors would pursue right of private action unless someone was a bad actor. Councilmember Reckdahl noted this would not affect folks purchasing a house next door for a family member and was why reference was made to the trigger being 3 homes within a 500- foot radius. Councilmember Lu wanted to ensure that the drafting process would find solutions to any potential problems. Councilmember Burt was aware that there had been issues with compounds for 15 to 20 years and noted there were at least 6 compounds. This was not related to income equality. The focus should be on zoning and quality of life. College Terrace had expressed concern but would be exempt from the regulations. Vacant homes affected housing stock and neighborhoods with many ghost homes was not addressed. If this should be added to the work plans, something would need to be removed and the proposal did not rank as a priority. The legal letter in the packet raised many legality issues. Councilmember Burt wanted to look at things more broadly important in the neighborhoods and address the issues in the next Zoning Code update. Mayor Veenker wanted to foster good relationships in neighborhoods. Whenever possible 2 sets of rules should be avoided. There were a couple situations when rules could be applied more broadly, such as proximate construction occurring simultaneously and creating safety risks, and Mayor Veenker questioned if thought had been given to addressing that. Vice Mayor Stone answered that there had been a conversation about proximate construction and safety but the proposal addressed a single purchaser purchasing homes and then doing demolition and reconstruction and being in control of the construction. In the proposal, those folks would have a construction time limit. Vice Mayor Stone was hesitant with Mayor Veenker’s proposal as it could cause someone to have to delay a construction project. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 21 of 26 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 04/13/2026 Mayor Veenker stated it would be more equitable to find something that would help all neighborhoods. With respect to private security, some did not want the vehicles marked for various reasons. Vice Mayor Stone was not considering marking security vehicles but suggested a hangtag on a rearview mirror so folks would not feel uneasy about such vehicles. Mayor Veenker did not object to hangtags. Mayor Veenker found the private right of action interesting. There would need to be notice provisions, etc. Mayor Veenker was concerned about unfinished demolitions and leaving someone with a partially destroyed house. It was an interesting way to tackle the enforcement piece but it would have to be carefully looked into. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims appreciated the concern that some found loopholes and exploited them to their advantage to the detriment of neighborhood quality. As for the number of compounds, Councilmember Lythcott-Haims had heard people brag about buying adjacent lots, tearing down houses, and building one residence. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims was concerned about the purchase of 3 homes within a 500-foot radius as it could occur to accommodate family members and those exploiting a situation should be identified. Those on the 1400 block of Hamilton were no more important than the neighbors adjacent to the Caltrain tracks possibly facing grade separation or those who lived near the multi-family projects that might be constructed on El Camino or San Antonio. Councilmember Lythcott- Haims was more concerned with converting homes to non-residential use, the extensive vacancy or ghosting, and a number of residential units on a lot being converted to a single- family home. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims asked how vacancies would be restricted beyond 6 months and how it would be determined if a residence was vacant. The private right of action was concerning because citizens would be expected to have the funds and motivation to do such a process. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims was concerned about penalties for construction delays because homeowners and contractors did not always have control over the duration of a project. Councilmember Lauing agreed with every point made by Councilmember Burt. Imposing separate rules for separate groups was concerning. Councilmember Lauing noted that construction time and noise could possibly be addressed by acreage. Councilmember Lauing was not interested in private action as enforcement was the City’s responsibility and neighbors should not be encouraged to sue neighbors. Councilmember Lauing did not think partial year vacancy restrictions would be enforceable and it would affect property rights. Ghost houses were different because it kept houses off the market. It appeared that some of the construction regulations had loopholes and changing them for everyone would be equitable. Councilmember Lauing stated that something would have to be removed from the priorities if this were to be included. It could be scaled back in the short term for somewhat of a Phase 1 to focus on construction issues. Security could provide better security without advertising they were security. A Conditional Use Permit was a law and action should be taken if there was a violation. Demolished housing had to be replaced with another home and if that rule was not sufficiently reflected in the Zoning Code, changes should be made. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 22 of 26 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 04/13/2026 Councilmember Lu aligned with Councilmember Lythcott-Haims’ comments. Councilmember Lu was concerned with how to restrict unintended spillover impacts. Councilmember Lu strongly supported investigating what could be done about ghost homes, which could move forward without creating separate rules. Councilmember Lu supported private security and the rules should apply to all private security, not just those associated with compounds. Councilmember Lu had a strong aversion to a right of action. Some of the construction penalties might be too harsh. Penalties should guide good behavior but it should not make certain construction impossible or prohibitive and it should apply to everyone. Maybe the loopholes used by compounds should be closed, such as requiring ARB reviews for projects of certain adjoining lots, stronger penalties for violating needed CUPs, etc., which could be done without creating separate rules. Councilmember Lu wanted to investigate ghost homes and generally supported construction rules and subtle but clear labeling for private security. Councilmember Burt noted that most of the items identified were covered by current code and there was a problem with proactive code enforcement due to capacity. Complaints should be addressed by code enforcement. Ghost homes and reducing construction impacts should be addressed in the Zoning Code update. Applicants should sign off on permitting, including routine requirements that were often overlooked, and penalties for clear violations should be increased. Certain things should be on the books to encourage compliance and self- enforcement. This should be equitable across the community, proportionate to the problem, and not disrupt the Work Plan. Mayor Veenker was troubled by vacant homes because it was an opportunity cost for people participating in neighborhoods and the community and the misuse with other uses was problematic. Ghost homes should be addressed in the next Code cycle. Mayor Veenker wanted private security to be low key but wanted to know how other cities addressed it and wanted it to be separated from the compound issue. Vice Mayor Stone remarked that many items could be severed and the private right of action could be removed. Issues were felt across the community but never-ending construction impacts in particular neighborhoods as a result of compounds were felt every day and policy could be designed to bring some peace back to the neighborhoods. It was not a perfect policy proposal or a cure all. It would not create a separate set of rules and treat people differently. If one chose to build in a confined area that would have spillover impacts on neighbors, it would be fair to regulate it. Regulation was necessary because fines would not matter to those with unlimited resources. The proposal would not limit one’s ability to purchase 3 homes 500-foot radius but it would set reasonable restrictions and regulations related to destroying the homes and rebuilding. Churches and families who had homes for family purposes would not be penalized. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims asked how it could be determined if a home was a ghost home. City Attorney Chris Jensen was aware of vacancy taxes in 3 other cities and they applied to rent control jurisdictions. Palo Alto did not currently have a database of such property information. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 23 of 26 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 04/13/2026 Two of those ordinances remained in effect and one was not being enforced pending the outcome of litigation. City Manager Ed Shikada noted that staff had not received direction. Council could consider a motion that would become a referral or the item could be referred back to the originators for refinement. Vice Mayor Stone suggested forming an ad hoc to refine the proposal and possibly present it to Policy and Services for further refinement and then return it to Council. City Manager Shikada voiced that an ad hoc was not needed. Mayor Veenker asked Vice Mayor Stone and Councilmember Reckdahl if they wanted to refine the proposal. Councilmember Reckdahl was interested in refining the proposal only if Council considered it worthwhile. There did not seem to be a lot of support for refinements. Councilmember Burt elected to do a referral as part of the next Zoning Code update. Councilmember Burt asked when the next Zoning Code update would take place. Planning & Development Services Director Jonathan Lait replied that a Zoning Code update was not scheduled to return to Council unless Council identified a specific task on the Work Plan. Councilmember Burt asked if issues, such as regulating ghost homes, tightening construction impacts on neighborhoods, and updating the permit application to ensure that those doing projects were aware of the requirements, were referred to staff how it would be prioritized. Director Lait responded that ghost homes was an area of interest but it was on the below-the- line list. Staff could address the application piece. If ghost homes or construction impacts were discrete efforts, something would have to be removed from the list or, at a minimum, it could be added as a Group 2 item with the expectation and understanding that staff might not address it. Councilmember Burt understood that Group 2 would hopefully be addressed the following calendar year. Director Lait noted that it could be on the list for next year's Work Plan objectives. Councilmember Burt asked, regarding code violations, if in the meantime staff could be better trained on responding to complaints. Director Lait affirmed that staff could be better trained on responding to complaints. The Code Enforcement Program was being rebooted to address complaints, so staff would be more responsive. The volume of the work exceeded the resources, so staff could not respond to every complaint. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 24 of 26 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 04/13/2026 Councilmember Burt suggested that applicants be better educated to diminish code enforcement issues, that staff be better trained, and that prioritization be done. MOTION: Councilmember Burt moved, seconded by Councilmember Lu, to refer to staff a review workplan priority for 2027 and make recommendations to the Council to address: a. Home vacancies (aka ghost homes), b. Impacts on neighbors from construction regulations to reduce construction impacts in neighborhoods – inclusive of circumstances in cases of property aggregation, c. Increase education for applicants on their obligations, d. Review the legality of requiring hangtags for security services that are regulated by the State, and e. Planning and Development Services Department to update training and policies on code enforcement. AMENDMENTS INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER. Councilmember Burt commented that A through D (above) would not be done in Calendar Year 2026 but would be reviewed for the 2027 Work Plan priority. Many building compounds came to the community because they valued the sense of community but many were not showing respect. Many of the of the most valued assets in the community were volunteer groups and many community facilities had been donated. The ultra-affluent in the community had historically contributed less to the local nonprofits than many in the community. Councilmember Burt encouraged the ultra-affluent to reflect on being part of the community and address community needs and making positive contributions. Councilmember Lu wanted to move faster on ghost homes and the motion was the most reasonable way to do it. Vice Mayor Stone inquired how construction impacts on neighbors would be interpreted if the Memo recommendations were not incorporated in the motion and no specificity had been provided. City Manager Shikada answered that staff would need to return to Council as work began. It would be taken more broadly than what was reflected in the proposal. Director Lait added, regarding training, that changes were being made in the Code Enforcement Program. Vice Mayor Stone did not feel the motion addressed the needs identified in the Memo. Home vacancies and ghost homes should move forward. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 25 of 26 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 04/13/2026 SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Vice Mayor Stone moved, seconded by Councilmember Reckdahl, to refer this back to the makers of the Colleague’s Memo to revise and bring back to City Council by the end of the year. Councilmember Lu did not support the private right of action or broadening for less unintentional spillover and queried what feedback would be returned for incorporation. Vice Mayor Stone agreed to remove the private right of action. Property aggregation concerns should be addressed but there should be no unintended consequences with churches, etc. To refine the proposal, Vice Mayor Stone would refer to the comments made at this meeting. Councilmember Reckdahl did not want to spend time on it unless limitations on property aggregation was desired. Mayor Veenker wanted to address the impacts of property aggregation throughout the city and preferred the original motion. The cures being considered could have broader applicability and benefit to residents. Councilmember Burt stated the original motion focused on impacts and looked at the issue broadly. Targeting certain property owners was inappropriate and legally questionable. Councilmember Lauing queried if the intent was to narrow the Colleagues’ Memo. Vice Mayor Stone expressed that the private right of action would be a significant change. Vice Mayor Stone would review the meeting video to verity what had been suggested to determine what modifications would be made. Vice Mayor Stone did not want to spend time on it if Council felt the City should not regulate property aggregation. Vice Mayor Stone mentioned that the proposal addressed property aggregation broadly because it would address concentrated aggregation, which was problematic and why the 500-foot radius had been chosen. Mayor Veenker wanted to address the impacts of aggregation broadly and impacts from other causes, such as construction, noise, etc. The issue could be addressed more quickly by doing it through other means because doing it through the aggregation lens would require a lot of legal spadework. SUBSTITUTE MOTION FAILED: 2-5 (Vice Mayor Stone, Councilmember Reckdahl) (Councilmember Burt, Councilmember Lu, Councilmember Lythcott-Haims, Councilmember Lauing, Mayor Veenker voted no) Mayor Veenker returned to the original motion. Vice Mayor Stone offered an amendment that D include security vehicles displaying clear and visible signage or markings, that they comply with the City’s No Idling Ordinance, and that SUMMARY MINUTES Page 26 of 26 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 04/13/2026 private security personnel clearly identifying themselves and not harass or intimidate members of the public or imply that a public right-of-way was private property. Councilmember Burt did not accept the amendment. Vice Mayor Stone offered the suggestion as an unfriendly amendment. Mayor Veenker announced that the amendment failed for lack of a second. Councilmember Reckdahl noted that harassment, etc., was covered by law. ORIGINAL MOTION PASSED: 7-0 Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 10:42 p.m. in honor of National Holocaust Remembrance Day.