Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026-08-17 City Council Summary MinutesCITY COUNCIL SUMMARY MINUTES Page 1 of 14 Regular Meeting August 17, 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. The clerk called the roll and declared all Councilmembers present in chambers. Closed Session Public Comment: 1. Call-In User (Zoom): An unidentified caller provided comments unrelated to Closed Session items and was disconnected. 2. Aram J. (Zoom) expressed concern regarding closed-session discussions related to Cubberley and urged greater transparency, including release of the appraisal. The commenter supported improvements to Cubberley but stated that the lack of transparency would cause him to vote against the proposal. 1. CONFERENCE WITH CITY ATTORNEY-EXISTING LITIGATION Subject: Swinerton v. City of Palo Alto (JAMS Reference # 5100003409) Authority: Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1) One Case, as Defendant 2. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS Authority: Government Code Section 54956.8 Property: 4000 Middlefield Road, Palo Alto (Informally known as the Cubberley Site) Negotiating Party: Palo Alto Unified School District City Negotiators: Ed Shikada, Kristen O'Kane, Sunny Tong Subject of Negotiations: Purchase, Exchange, and/or Lease Price and Terms of Payment MOTION: Councilmember Lauing moved, seconded by Councilmember Lu, to go into Closed Session. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 2 of 14 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 08/17/2026 MOTION PASSED: 7-0 Council went into Closed Session at 5:38 p.m. Council returned from Closed Session at 8:08 p.m. Mayor Veenker announced no reportable action on either item. Closed Session Item Number 2 is continued to a date uncertain. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions City Manager Ed Shikada reported no changes or additions to the agenda. In-Person Public Comment 1. Henry E. urged Council to adopt an ordinance addressing OSVs in residential neighborhoods and suggested working with Stanford University to provide alternative parking for individuals of modest means and longer-term housing solutions. 2. Avram F. expressed support for Raymond Goins’ City Council candidacy, citing his social justice involvement and experience as an Opportunity Center resident, and advocated for greater diversity on Council. 3. Matt S. expressed concern regarding mass surveillance, urged Council to protect residents and invited the community to an ALPR awareness rally at King Plaza on August 20. 4. Raymond G. opposed the City’s use of Flock due to concerns regarding collection and retention of personal data and urged the City to safeguard residents’ information. Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements None. Consent Calendar Public Comment: Avram F. commended Council for Item 4, expansion of the Overnight Warming/Cooling Location Program to support vulnerable community members and encouraged the City to pursue additional efforts. Mayor Veenker asked whether there were any no votes, requests to pull items, or recusals. There were none. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 3 of 14 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 08/17/2026 MOTION: Councilmember Reckdahl moved, seconded by Councilmember Lu, to approve Agenda Item Numbers 3-5. MOTION PASSED: 7-0 3. Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager or Their Designee to Transact for Electric Supplies to Meet the City’s Electrical Needs under Electric Master Agreements; CEQA Status: Not a project, CEQA Guidelines 15378(b)(5) 4. Approve Expansion of the City’s Overnight Warming/Cooling Location Program, Approve an Operating Framework for Emergency Inclement Weather Response; CEQA status. 5. Approval of Contract Number C27196410 with Salas O’Brien Engineers, Inc. for an Amount Not-to-Exceed $298,716 to Provide Professional Design Services for the Electrification of City Facilities Capital Improvement Program Project PE-24001, for a Contract Term through August 24, 2029; CEQA Status – Exempt under CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 City Manager Comments City Manager Ed Shikada announced that the annual community survey administered by Polco was underway for randomly selected households, with a second opt-in phase to follow. The State of the City will be held at Palo Alto High School on August 19, featuring U.S. Table Tennis Olympian Lily Zhang. Resident registration for the fall Enjoy catalog opens August 20, with non- resident registration opening August 27. The 43rd annual Festival of the Arts will be held in Downtown Palo Alto on August 22 and 23, with associated street closures to vehicles. California Avenue Thursday Live will continue August 27 with additional events in September and October. City Manager Shikada reviewed upcoming Council agendas. The August 24 meeting will include the Independent Police Auditor study session, an OSV parking update and a Buena Vista Mobile Home Park update. The September 9 meeting will include Council-appointed officer evaluations, consultant contract management and 470 Olive Avenue. The September 14 meeting will include the proposed parking structure at 375 Hamilton Avenue, water revenue bonds and Stream Corridor Protections. Action Items 6. Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Various Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapters in Titles 16 and 18 to Address Changes in State Law and Direction from City Council Regarding Accessory and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units. CEQA Status: Exempt From the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.17 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3). SUMMARY MINUTES Page 4 of 14 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 08/17/2026 Principal Planner Garrett Sauls presented proposed ordinance amendments addressing state law and previous Council direction regarding ADUs and junior ADUs (JADUs). Changes under SB 543 include calculating floor area and lot coverage based on interior livable space, establishing an appeals process, increasing allowable units on a single-family lot from 3 to 4, and reducing the application completeness review period from 30 to 15 business days. Current law allows 1 attached ADU, 1 detached ADU, 1 conversion ADU and 1 JADU on a single-family lot, while multifamily standards remain unchanged. Staff proposed placing appeals on the Council Consent Calendar. Staff and the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) supported increasing the maximum ADU size from 1,000 to 1,200 square feet. Regarding separate sale of ADUs, Principal Planner Sauls reported that state law requires separate sale of qualifying nonprofit-developed ADUs and permits cities to establish an opt-in program for other ADUs. Early-adopter jurisdictions have received few applications and identified barriers including lienholder consent, fees and process uncertainty. Staff considered an administrative process modeled on SB 9; JADUs would not be eligible for separate sale. Additional requirements could be imposed but may create barriers for applicants. The PTC did not recommend incorporating separate sale provisions at this time. Staff recommended approval of the draft ordinance as revised by the supplemental memorandum and requested Council direction regarding separate sale. Item 6 Public Comment: 1. Henry E. opposed the ordinance, stating that ADUs would not effectively address affordable housing needs and could compromise Palo Alto’s architectural character. The commenter advocated for landmark protections and alternative housing strategies. 2. John K. supported ADUs but opposed the proposed Table 1 provision, expressing concern that it could reduce development rights for owners of smaller homes. The commenter advocated for larger ADUs, separate financing and sale under AB 1033, and elimination of ADU impact fees. 3. Jeremy L. supported separate conveyance of ADUs to create more affordable homeownership opportunities, citing the sale of a 749-square-foot ADU in San Jose for $530,000 as an example. The commenter supported family-sized ADUs and cautioned against restrictions that could discourage participation. Councilmember Lu sought clarification regarding Table 1 and Table 2 ADU standards. Principal Planner Sauls explained that state law guarantees an 800-square-foot detached ADU with 4- foot side and rear setbacks under Table 1, while most applicants use Table 2 because local bonus provisions provide greater flexibility. Director Lait confirmed that the proposed ordinance does not change existing practice. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 5 of 14 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 08/17/2026 Councilmember Lu questioned how sequencing Table 1 and Table 2 ADUs affects eligibility for the floor area bonus. Director Lait confirmed that sequencing can produce different outcomes and explained that the existing ordinance incentivizes Table 2 applications to address local priorities such as privacy and trees. Councilmember Lu expressed interest in addressing inconsistent outcomes resulting from project sequencing. Vice Mayor Stone supported the PTC and staff recommendation and questioned whether the separate-sale provisions were ready for adoption. Director Lait explained that the draft could move forward but staff preferred additional review. Principal Planner Sauls confirmed that the PTC recommended waiting for additional data from other jurisdictions. Vice Mayor Stone questioned the proposed 600-foot notification requirement, particularly for sale of an existing ADU without new construction. Principal Planner Sauls explained that the requirement was modeled on SB 9 and could be modified. Vice Mayor Stone supported notification for new construction and potentially adjacent property owners but otherwise favored treating separate conveyances like other property sales. Vice Mayor Stone supported establishing a consistent application fee rather than determining fees case by case. Director Lait confirmed that staff would establish a consistent fee if Council pursued separate conveyance. Director Lait confirmed that Council previously directed staff to explore ADU development impact fees. Vice Mayor Stone supported separate conveyance as an opportunity to create more naturally affordable housing in single-family areas. Mayor Veenker supported exploring separate conveyance of ADUs as a pathway to homeownership and sought clarification regarding subdivision of the property. Principal Planner Sauls explained that an ADU would generally be conveyed as an air parcel, although physical and air parcels could potentially be created simultaneously. Mayor Veenker questioned how shared property would be managed. Principal Planner Sauls explained that an HOA-like arrangement would address landscaping, shared access and utilities through governing documents without City involvement. Mayor Veenker supported further consideration of separate conveyance and ADU development impact fees. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims supported the proposed ADU changes and early exploration of separate conveyance. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims questioned the proposed 1,200-square- foot maximum ADU size. Principal Planner Sauls explained that state law establishes a 1,200- square-foot maximum for detached ADUs under local standards but that attached ADUs could potentially exceed that size. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims expressed concern regarding ADU impact fees, emphasized incentivizing ADU development, and hoped staff’s analysis would return to Council before the end of the year. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 6 of 14 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 08/17/2026 Regarding separate conveyance, Councilmember Lythcott-Haims questioned using the City’s SB 9 process as a framework rather than AB 1033. Principal Planner Sauls explained that the ordinance incorporates AB 1033 requirements while using SB 9 as the procedural framework. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims favored targeted revisions and returning the ordinance to Council on the Consent Calendar, removing the broader notification requirement, and establishing a consistent fee. Councilmember Burt confirmed that previous Council direction regarding development impact fees included consideration of replacing smaller homes with larger homes and potentially basing fees on bedrooms or square footage. Director Lait confirmed that analysis is underway. Councilmember Burt supported ADUs but raised concerns regarding allowing up to 4 on a parcel. Staff clarified that project sequencing could allow up to 1,600 square feet beyond base zoning allowances and that no minimum parcel size applies. Councilmember Burt raised concerns regarding ADU privacy impacts. Principal Planner Sauls explained that Table 2 includes privacy requirements, while Director Lait clarified that state law prevents similar restrictions on Table 1 projects. Councilmember Burt encouraged consideration of an outcome-based privacy standard. Councilmember Reckdahl questioned enforcement of affordability requirements for deed- restricted ADUs and restrictions prohibiting JADUs from short-term rental use. Director Lait explained that short-term rental restrictions are enforced on a complaint basis. Councilmember Reckdahl viewed separate conveyance as an opportunity for relatively inexpensive homeownership but raised concerns regarding disputes between owners sharing a small HOA. Director Lait explained that such matters would be governed by private agreements without City involvement. Councilmember Reckdahl encouraged careful study of unintended impacts before proceeding. Councilmember Reckdahl questioned whether tenant protections or relocation assistance would apply when a rental ADU is converted for separate sale. Director Lait responded that existing requirements apply at a higher unit count and staff does not anticipate ADU-specific protections. Councilmember Lauing questioned whether different lot-size requirements could apply to separately owned and rental ADUs. City Attorney Chris Jensen cautioned that such restrictions could present legal challenges. Councilmember Lauing supported considering a residential-use requirement to ensure ADUs provide housing rather than serve as offices or pool houses. Councilmember Lauing favored additional PTC review before proceeding with separate conveyance. Director Lait explained that Council could instead provide specific direction and return an ordinance directly to Council this year but cautioned that additional complexity could affect other workplan priorities. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 7 of 14 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 08/17/2026 Regarding development impact fees, Councilmember Lauing distinguished replacement of a smaller home with a larger home from construction of additional ADUs and encouraged considering the additional demand on City services associated with new residents. Councilmember Lu favored moving forward with separate conveyance through a simple, streamlined program without additional restrictions such as AMI requirements, with the ability to modify the ordinance if concerns arise. Councilmember Lu supported extending the floor area exemption to Table 1 ADUs to address differing allowances based on project sequencing and hoped Council could begin implementation of separate conveyance. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims supported the 1,200-square-foot maximum as an opportunity for older homeowners to downsize into an ADU while making the primary residence available to the housing market. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims supported moving forward with separate conveyance to expand more affordable homeownership opportunities. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims moved to approve the draft ordinance, including the 1,200- square-foot maximum and Attachment C allowing separate conveyance, with removal of the 600-foot notification requirement and establishment of a consistent application fee. Vice Mayor Stone seconded the motion. The maker and seconder worked with the clerk to refine the motion language. Councilmember Lu questioned the residential-use requirement for separately conveyed ADUs. Principal Planner Sauls explained that the provision was intended to ensure the units function as residences rather than semi-commercial spaces. City Attorney Jensen noted that certain uses are allowed by right under state law and recommended language avoiding conflicts with state requirements. Councilmember Lu proposed allowing Table 2 ADUs up to 1,400 square feet but withdrew the proposal after City Attorney Jensen clarified that state law caps locally regulated ADUs at 1,200 square feet. Councilmember Lauing clarified that the PTC voted 6-0 to recommend approval of the ADU ordinance changes but recommended that the separate conveyance provisions return to the PTC for further consideration. Councilmember Lauing favored allowing the PTC to complete its review of the separate conveyance ordinance before returning the matter to Council, potentially on the Consent Calendar. Councilmember Lauing moved a substitute motion directing staff to return to the PTC with an ordinance allowing separate conveyance of ADUs. Councilmember Reckdahl seconded the substitute motion. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims opposed the substitute motion and Vice Mayor Stone questioned the need for additional PTC review. Principal Planner Sauls explained that the PTC had discussed separate conveyance but determined that insufficient regional data were available to make a recommendation. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims favored adopting the ordinance and modifying it later if implementation concerns arose. Councilmember Burt favored the substitute motion and additional PTC and staff review. Principal Planner Sauls clarified that the PTC lacked sufficient data to recommend proceeding SUMMARY MINUTES Page 8 of 14 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 08/17/2026 and had not fully considered the 600-foot notification requirement, application fee, residential- use restriction, parking requirements or minimum parcel sizes. Councilmember Burt viewed those unresolved issues as reasons for further PTC review. Councilmember Lauing emphasized that the PTC had not rejected separate conveyance and stated that returning the matter for additional review would allow Council to provide clearer direction and a defined timeline. Councilmember Lu indicated willingness to support the substitute motion if the direction specified that staff return to the PTC with an ordinance providing for streamlined ADU conveyance rather than merely further exploration of the concept. Councilmember Lauing and Councilmember Reckdahl accepted the modification. Following discussion of timing, the maker and seconder further agreed that the ordinance would return to Council before the end of 2026. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims maintained that Council, staff and the PTC had completed the requested process and favored proceeding with separate conveyance rather than awaiting additional regional data. Councilmember Burt emphasized that the revised substitute motion provides the PTC with more specific direction and a defined timeline for developing an ordinance. MOTION: Councilmember Lythcott-Haims moved, seconded by Vice Mayor, to: A) Approve staff & Planning and Transportation Commission recommendation; B) Direct staff to return to Council on Consent Calendar an ordinance to allow for separate ADU conveyance (attachment C) with the feedback provided by council, including: 1. Removal of the 600-foot notice requirement 2. Require units be used only for residential purposes 3. Clarify Section M of the Ordinance related to fees and establish a set fee MOTION PASSED/FAILED: X-X SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Councilmember Lauing moved, seconded by Councilmember Reckdahl, to: A) Approve staff & Planning and Transportation Commission recommendation outlined in the packet; B) Direct staff to return to Planning and Transportation Commission with an Ordinance to allow streamlined separate ADU conveyance, and come back to Council with their recommendation before the end of 2026. SUBSTITUTE MOTION PASSED: 4-3, Stone, Veenker, Lythcott-Haims no SUMMARY MINUTES Page 9 of 14 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 08/17/2026 7. PUBLIC HEARING/QUASI-JUDICIAL. 762 San Antonio Road [24PLN-00120]: Request for Approval of a Major Architectural Review Application to Demolish Three Existing Commercial Buildings and Construct an Eight-Story Multi-Family Residential Building Containing 228 Rental Apartments. The Project is Proposed in Accordance with California Government Code Section 65589.5(d)(5) “Builders Remedy". CEQA Status: An Addendum to the Previously Certified Environmental Impact Report for the Housing Incentive Program Expansion and 788 San Antonio Mixed Use Project (SCH # 2019090070) has Been Prepared. Zoning District: CS (AD); Service Commercial (Automobile Dealership). Associate Planner Kristina Dobkevicius presented the Major Architectural Review application for 762 San Antonio Road. A compliant SB 330 preapplication was submitted in January 2024, so the project is evaluated under development standards in effect at that time. The project underwent 2 ARB hearings and would combine 2 parcels into an approximately 2-acre site. The project would demolish 3 commercial buildings and construct an 8-story development with 228 rental units, including 30 low-income units, 284 parking spaces, and 228 long-term bicycle parking spaces. As a Builder’s Remedy project, the City may apply only objective standards allowing the proposed density, with the El Camino Real Focus Area providing the applicable zoning framework. The applicant seeks waivers under State Density Bonus Law. Following ARB review, revised plans included increased transparency and activation along San Antonio Road, additional vertical breaks and upper-level stepbacks, and refinements to materials and colors. An addendum to the previously certified EIR determined that the project remains within the scope of the previous environmental analysis. For Waiver 2, staff recommended allowing the 6-foot upper-floor stepback to begin at 65 feet rather than the required 55 feet. For Condition of Approval 99, staff recommended language clarifying fire-flow requirements and the developer’s fair-share responsibility for utility upgrades. Staff recommended approval subject to the Conditions of Approval in the RLUA. Hengehold Trucks Owner Matt Hengehold described the family business’s longstanding presence on San Antonio Road and partnership with Acclaim Companies to redevelop the site while honoring its legacy. Hengehold stated that the 228-unit development, including 30 low- income units, would advance the SARAP goals for higher-density housing and enhanced pedestrian and bicycle access. Acclaim Companies Partner Gary Johnson stated that the project team worked with Planning staff for approximately 3.5 years to develop a financially feasible project. Acclaim Partner Johnson requested 2 RLUA revisions: Condition of Approval 99 language limiting responsibility for additional utility capacity consistent with other Builder’s Remedy projects and extension of the 2-year entitlement expiration. Acclaim Partner Johnson explained that additional time may be needed to complete construction documents and secure financing. Studio T-SQ Project Architect Chris Lee presented the revised design following 2 rounds of ARB review. The 8-story building incorporates transparent ground-level amenity spaces, upper-level SUMMARY MINUTES Page 10 of 14 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 08/17/2026 stepbacks, rooftop gardens, and a south-facing courtyard. A 50-foot setback along San Antonio Road continues the adjacent hotel setback and provides space for enhanced bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Architect Lee explained that vertical elements, roof articulation, and varied materials are intended to reduce the perceived scale and create a residential character. Mayor Veenker requested disclosures from Councilmembers regarding the quasi-judicial matter. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims disclosed previous phone or Zoom conversations with the applicant consistent with conversations held with other Builder’s Remedy applicants and stated that no information was received beyond what was presented at the meeting. Councilmember Burt inquired about the bicycle lane setback along San Antonio Road. Planning and Development Services Director Jonathan Lait explained that the City requires a special setback along San Antonio Road and that the project does not encroach into that area. Regarding the upper-floor stepback, Planning Manager Claire Raybould stated that the El Camino Real Focus Area requires the stepback to begin at 55 feet with a depth of 10 feet. Mayor Veenker questioned how the project’s 30 low-income units exceed the capacity identified in the Housing Element, which contemplated a combined 44 low-income units for the 2 sites. Director Lait indicated that staff would review the figures and respond following public comment. Public Comment: 1. Henry E. opposed the project and advocated preserving existing industrial structures along San Antonio Road for an arts district. The commenter argued that needed housing should instead be concentrated near existing retail and amenities and encouraged a broader vision centered on arts, humanities and technology. 2. Jamie A., representing the North Coast States Carpenters Union, raised concerns regarding labor conditions on large construction projects and urged that project workers receive livable wages and healthcare coverage. The commenter encouraged Council to revisit citywide labor standards for discretionary projects and noted that further discussions with the developer were planned. 3. Joan L., a resident of 777 San Antonio Road, opposed the project based on traffic and safety concerns, citing congestion and potential emergency vehicle access issues. The commenter noted the lack of bus service and bicycle lanes and questioned whether future bicycle lanes would require removal of street trees. 4. John P., a resident of The Greenhouse at 777 San Antonio Road, raised concerns regarding bicycle safety, particularly at intersections, and suggested considering an alternate bicycle route such as Montrose Avenue. The commenter encouraged use of recycled water for the project. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 11 of 14 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 08/17/2026 5. Penny E., speaking as an individual, questioned whether PABAC had reviewed the project’s bicycle and pedestrian components and whether bicycle lanes would be completed before project occupancy. The commenter favored the required 12-foot shared walkway rather than the requested 10-foot width and requested earlier scheduling of future South Palo Alto items. Councilmember Lauing appreciated the applicant’s responsiveness to ARB input and retention of the special setback and encouraged consideration of additional affordable units. Director Lait stated that staff supports its proposed language for Condition of Approval 99 and does not recommend changing the entitlement timeline because the existing 2-year approval with a 1- year extension provides up to 3 years. Regarding the requested reduction of the 12-foot path between the bicycle room and sidewalk to 10 feet, Director Lait explained that the waiver is permitted under State Density Bonus Law and meets statutory requirements. Councilmember Burt questioned whether the lack of bus pull-outs limits VTA service along San Antonio Road and emphasized the need for greater public transit access as the area develops. Director Lait indicated that staff would follow up with the Office of Transportation. Director Lait further clarified that the requested reduction from 12 feet to 10 feet applies to the pathway between the project’s bicycle room and the public right-of-way rather than a bicycle lane. Councilmember Burt emphasized the importance of upper-floor stepbacks in reducing the perceived massing of 8-story buildings and favored retaining the required 10-foot stepback. Councilmember Burt indicated potential willingness to allow the stepback to begin at 65 feet rather than 55 feet if the 10-foot depth is retained. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims supported the increased density and alignment with the SARAP, encouraged incorporation of public art, and expressed support for livable wages, healthcare, apprenticeships, and local labor on construction projects. Regarding Condition of Approval 99, Acclaim Partner Johnson clarified that the applicant seeks language specifying that the developer would not be responsible for costs associated with excess utility capacity requested by the City, consistent with 2 recently approved Builder’s Remedy projects. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims questioned whether the existing 2-year entitlement period with a 1-year extension provides sufficient time. Acclaim Partner Johnson explained that approximately 2 years may be required to complete design and construction documents, with additional time needed for permitting and financing. Director Lait noted that Council previously extended the entitlement period for another San Antonio Road project. Councilmember Lu asked whether the City had previously allowed an entitlement period longer than 2 years. Director Lait responded that the standard entitlement period was increased from 1 year to 2 years approximately 6 years ago and that he was unaware of any precedent for a longer initial period. Councilmember Lu supported extending the project’s initial entitlement SUMMARY MINUTES Page 12 of 14 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 08/17/2026 period to 2.5 years to facilitate implementation of the SARAP and expressed interest in considering longer periods for sufficiently complex projects. Councilmember Reckdahl supported the project’s special setback and questioned whether 228 bicycle parking spaces would be sufficient for 341 bedrooms given the site’s proximity to Google and Caltrain. Architect Lee indicated that additional bicycle racks could be provided and Councilmember Reckdahl encouraged the applicant to reconsider the amount of bicycle parking. Architect Lee explained that trash collection would be staged entirely on the property along Leghorn Street rather than on the sidewalk. Councilmember Reckdahl questioned whether solar panels shown on the plans would be installed during construction. Architect Lee explained that the project would comply with CALGreen requirements but the final solar capacity would depend on the rooftop mechanical equipment and access layout. Infrastructure would be provided to accommodate the panels. Councilmember Reckdahl supported retaining the upper-floor stepback to reduce the perceived massing of the 8-story building. Architect Lee explained that the design team evaluated the stepback but the building configuration and shorter San Antonio Road frontage made the required stepback difficult to accommodate while maintaining functional units. Acclaim Partner Johnson added that the required stepback would make the units unmarketable. Mayor Veenker appreciated Acclaim Partner Johnson’s responsiveness to the North Coast States Carpenters Union and expressed hope that workers on the project would receive livable wages and appropriate benefits. In response to Mayor Veenker’s earlier question regarding the Housing Element, Planner Dobkevicius clarified that the project provides fewer affordable units than anticipated for the 2 sites but more total units and meets the 30 percent BMR requirement for a Builder’s Remedy project. Director Lait indicated that the staff report may contain an error regarding the affordable unit comparison. Mayor Veenker sought clarification regarding the relationship between the project and future bicycle improvements contemplated through SARAP. Director Lait explained that bicycle lanes are not part of this development and that the project is expected to be constructed before bicycle facilities are established along San Antonio Road through the separate SARAP process. Mayor Veenker questioned the requested waiver of open-space landscaping requirements from 20 percent to 15 percent on the 4th floor and to none on the 8th floor. Architect Lee explained that City standards do not allow stormwater treatment planters to count toward the requirement and that including those landscaped areas would allow the project to meet the standard. Councilmember Burt moved to approve the staff recommendation, including the Conditions of Approval in Section 4, with Waiver 2 modified to allow the 6-foot upper-floor stepback beginning at 55 feet. The motion included a referral directing staff to evaluate options for accelerating the San Antonio Road bicycle lane initiative and return to Council for review Councilmember Reckdahl seconded. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 13 of 14 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 08/17/2026 Speaking to the motion, Councilmember Burt explained that allowing the requested 6-foot stepback while retaining the 55-foot starting height would address the applicant’s concerns regarding unit depth while better reducing the perceived height and massing along the street. City Attorney Jensen noted that the stepback modifications were requested as a Density Bonus waiver and recommended determining whether the applicant would accept Councilmember Burt’s proposed modification. Acclaim Partner Johnson declined, explaining that the project’s 65-foot starting height was necessary to maximize developable square footage and maintain project feasibility. Architect Lee added that beginning the stepback at 55 feet would affect the building proportions and that the 6-foot depth was necessary to maintain marketable unit dimensions. Councilmember Burt expressed disappointment that the applicant would not accept the modification. City Attorney Jensen and Chief Assistant City Attorney Caio Arellano recommended amending the motion. Councilmembers and staff worked to revise the motion language. MOTION: Councilmember Burt moved, seconded by Councilmember Reckdahl, to: 1. Consider the Addendum to the previously certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH#2019090070) (Attachment F); and 2. Approve the Major Architectural Review application based on findings and subject to conditions of approval in the Record of Land Use Action (RLUA) in Attachment B a. Including SECTION 4 conditions of approval; and, b. To modify conditions of approval 99 as follows: c. Modify SECTION 1. Background. B. to read: Waiver 2: Upper Floor Stepback (6-foot stepback where 10-foot is required) and stepback beginning at 65 feet in height rather than 55 feet. 3. Refer to staff to evaluate and return to Council with a review of accelerating the San Antonio Road bike lane initiative. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 14 of 14 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 08/17/2026 MOTION PASSED: 7-0 Virtual Public Comment None. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 11:28 p.m.