HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026-08-10 City Council Summary MinutesCITY COUNCIL
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 1 of 27
Regular Meeting
August 10, 2026
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers and via virtual
teleconference at 5:30 p.m.
Present In Person: Burt, Lauing, Lu, Lythcott-Haims, Stone, Veenker
Present Remotely: Keith Reckdahl remote call-in teleconference location: Holiday Inn
Huntsville Research Park, 5903 University Drive, Huntsville,
Alabama 35806
Absent: None
Call to Order
Mayor Veenker called the meeting to order.
Councilmember Reckdahl said he was participating remotely for just cause. City Clerk
Mahealani Ah Yun read the remote participation statement. Councilmember Reckdahl stated
that he met the posting requirement, that he is in the business center in the lobby of his hotel
in Huntsville, and that his location is publicly accessible.
Agenda Changes, Additions, and Deletions
City Manager Ed Shikada noted the removal of Item AA1 from this evening’s agenda. The order
of items on the agenda was changed to implement Senate Bill 707. In addition to in-person
public comment, virtual public comment will be held at the end of this evening’s agenda. The
printed agenda shows the Council’s break at 6:25 p.m.; however, consistent with Council
practice, the break will likely occur later in the evening. As a result, the action items may occur
earlier than the stated times.
In-Person Public Comment
1. Manpreet S. commented on 20-foot-wide Cypress Lane in Barron Park. A few years ago,
residents called the police about abandoned vehicles on Cypress Lane, which led to the
vehicles being towed. More recently, when the same complaint arose, police said they
could not act because Cypress Lane is designated as private. The City’s GIS maps label
Cypress Lane as private; however, Santa Clara County’s maps do not classify it as
private, and it appears on no property tax roll. The City issued a conditional use permit
to Happy Donut that directs public traffic through Cypress Lane. Competing ownership
claims cause confusion and hardship for neighbors living next to the lane. Palo Alto
Online covered this issue in 1993, 2002, 2008, and 2010. In 2022, the Finance
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 2 of 27
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 08/10/2026
Committee directed staff to research the ownership of Cypress Lane, and staff proposed
a 3-step plan to determine ownership, establish a path for the City to take over the lane,
and repair and maintain it. Staff has not carried out that plan. Manpreet S. urged the
Council to resolve this issue, direct staff to determine the ownership of Cypress Lane,
and provide residents with clear, consistent answers regarding the services and
protections they can expect on this street. The City wastes resources each time this
issue resurfaces without a resolution.
2. Matt Schlegel requested that the Council order the covering of Flock cameras and
terminate the contract with Flock. He is a member of several groups deeply concerned
about City-sponsored mass surveillance, which he believes violates the Fourth
Amendment right to privacy. This surveillance may inhibit residents from exercising their
First Amendment right to publicly express grievances. A Flock camera was installed at
the intersection of Maybell and El Camino, pointed directly at a location where a group
regularly meets to protest. Additionally, a LiDAR surveillance device was installed at the
same site 2 weeks ago. Matt S. could not find any information about the LiDAR device
on the City’s website. He asked the Council to direct staff to disclose the following
details to the public: Why was this device installed? What data is being collected?
Where is that data stored? Who has access to the data? What measures are in place to
prevent unauthorized access to the data? Next week marks the National Week of
Action, which aims to raise awareness about the dangers of mass surveillance, with 342
locations across the country holding rallies. Matt S. encouraged Council Members to
meet their constituents at Palo Alto’s rally on Thursday, August 20, at King Plaza at 5:30
p.m. He thanked Councilmembers Lu and Reckdahl for recently attending a democracy
forum on the risks associated with Flock cameras. Matt S. urged the City to cover the
Flock cameras as soon as possible, similar to Stanford's recent action.
3. Raymond Goins spoke on behalf of the Coalition for Justice and Accountability regarding
the recent discovery of swastikas and anti-Black racial slurs in public restrooms across
Palo Alto. Raymond G. believed that solely punitive measures or physical cleanup will
not address the underlying issues. A racist mural in the hallway of the Palo Alto branch
of the Santa Clara County Court, between Departments 84 and 85, depicted the
colonization and subjugation of Native Californians, including the Muwekma Ohlone
people, portraying them as subservient beings kneeling before their oppressors.
Following intense advocacy by the NAACP, the Coalition for Justice and Accountability,
and the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe, the mural was recently covered with a curtain. The
urgency of needed systemic change is underscored by disturbing reports within the Palo
Alto Unified School District, including the horrific abuse and neglect of a 10-year-old
African American student at Escondido Elementary, where staff reportedly failed to
intervene during physical assaults; and an incident at Greene Middle School where a
Black student was reportedly auctioned off, demonstrating a dehumanizing culture
within our schools. These incidents reflect institutional neglect and a systemic gap. Such
behaviors are tolerated or met with insufficient responses, creating a permissive
atmosphere that emboldens youth to exhibit more extreme and public forms of hate
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 3 of 27
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 08/10/2026
and bigotry. Raymond G. believed that public education must also equip students to
navigate and sustain a diverse democratic society. Mr. Goins will submit a letter with his
full comments.
Council Member Questions, Comments, and Announcements
Councilmember Burt announced that Caltrain received the 2026 Outstanding Public
Transportation System Award from the American Public Transportation Association (APTA).
Caltrain continues to see increased ridership, now at 80 percent of pre-pandemic levels.
Councilmember Burt met with representatives from the Palo Alto Museum and learned they
are planning an outdoor community event on October 11 as part of their rolling opening. The
event is expected to draw 300 to 500 attendees and will include music, a history trivia contest,
and ice cream in the park space immediately behind the museum. However, because
construction is anticipated in that area to repair water leakage issues, the Palo Alto Museum is
uncertain whether it can proceed with the event. Given that we had fewer than our standard 6
summer concerts this year, Councilmember Burt proposed that the City partner with the
museum for an event on the other half of the park, where large music events are held.
Councilmember Burt suggested dedicating up to $10,000 from the Council Contingency Fund,
either in cash or through in-kind contributions, to support the event.
Councilmember Burt noted that Item AA1 would have addressed the potential removal of Mr.
Peterson from the Planning Commission and whether to release an appropriately redacted
investigation. Since Item AA1 was no longer on the agenda, Councilmember Burt asked when
the colleagues’ memo could be agendized. The press reported that Mr. Peterson supported
releasing the investigation. Given the urgency with which this item was previously placed on
the agenda, Councilmember Burt hopes the colleagues’ memo will be addressed promptly.
Councilmember Lythcott-Haims supported using Council contingency funds or City in-kind
efforts to assist with the museum's planned opening event in the park.
Councilmember Lauing believed that partnering with the museum was a great idea, with the
funding sources as suggested or perhaps there was a budget leftover from concerts.
Councilmember Reckdahl thought it would be a great community event and help kick off the
museum's opening.
Mayor Veenker wanted to speak with the museum to learn more about the upcoming event
and its needs. Mayor Veenker echoed Mr. Goins's concerns about the disappointing racist
incidents observed over the summer, which must be condemned. Mayor Veenker hoped to
gather youth to speak out and unite against such incidents and planned to follow up in the next
couple of weeks. Mayor Veenker had not seen the colleagues’ memo and wanted to review the
draft. Given the changed circumstances, Mayor Veenker thought the commissioners might
want to revise or adapt the colleagues’ memo to reflect the current situation. If the Council
addressed this, Mayor Veenker suggested taking a broader approach to consider parameters
and decision points going forward, rather than addressing only this specific issue. Mayor
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 4 of 27
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 08/10/2026
Veenker will review this with the City Attorney and the City Manager during agenda planning.
Mayor Veenker reminded everyone that the State of the City will take place next Wednesday at
Palo Alto High School’s Performing Arts Center, with a special guest performance at the end.
The theme is "One Community," in recognition of the collaboration, interdependence, and
common values of our community.
Councilmember Burt emphasized that the procedures and protocols clearly outline the process
for colleagues’ memos submitted to the Council. Colleagues’ memos must come at the earliest
feasible date, not at the mayor’s discretion. Councilmember Burt stated that there was no need
to change the colleagues’ memo.
Consent Calendar
Public Comment:
1. Avram Finkelstein commented via Zoom on Item 8. The Daily Post reported that the
Council may allow City Manager Ed Shikada to sign larger contracts without the
Council's approval. Avram F. expressed concern about the millions of dollars in
consulting fees City Manager Shikada has approved without Council approval, which
have negatively impacted the City’s budget, and felt it would be irresponsible for the
Council to grant City Manager Shikada the authority to approve larger contracts. Avram
F. thought contracts should be approved individually, not on the Consent Calendar.
Avram F. urged the Council not to grant City Manager Shikada approval for larger
contracts and suggested that the Council approve contracts above $100,000 or establish
a reasonable cap.
MOTION: Councilmember Lythcott-Haims moved, seconded by Councilmember Lauing to
approve Agenda Item Numbers 1 to 18.
MOTION PASSED: 7-0
1. Approval of Minutes from June 8 and June 15, 2026 Meetings
2. Recommend City Council Approval to Extend Certain FY 2026 City Auditor Task Orders
with No Impact to Task Order Budgets
3. Recommend City Council Approval of the City Auditor Annual Risk Assessment and FY
2027 Audit Plan and Corresponding Task Orders. CEQA Status: Not a Project.
4. Approve Program Guidelines for a Public Agency Electric Vehicle Charging Hub Grant
Program; CEQA Status - Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, Projects Consistent with
an Existing General or Comprehensive Plan do not Require Additional CEQA Review
5. Adoption of a Resolution Establishing the FY 2027 Property Tax Levy for City of Palo Alto
General Obligation Bonds (2008 Measure N Library Projects); CEQA Status: Not a Project
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 5 of 27
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 08/10/2026
6. Adopt a Resolution Making Required Findings in Support of Acceptance of Funding from
Vehicle Registration Fee-Intelligent Transportation Systems (VRF-ITS) Cycle 5 Grant
Program; and amendment of the FY 2027 Budget in the Capital Improvement Fund.
CEQA Status – Categorically Exempt (CEQA Guidelines section 15301b Existing Facilities).
7. Adoption of a Resolution Approving a NAESB Base Contract for Sale and Purchase of
Natural Gas with JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. and Authorizing the City Manager or Their
Designee to Transact Under the Contract for a Portion of the City’s Natural Gas
Requirements; CEQA Status: Not a Project, CEQA Guidelines 15378(b)(5)
8. Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Section 2.38.240 [Settlement of Claims and
Actions] and Chapter 2.30 [Contracts and Purchasing Procedures] of the Palo Alto
Municipal Code, as accepted by the Policy and Services Committee, to increase the
thresholds for solicitation of goods and services, increase contract approval and
settlement authority, and to make other technical changes.
9. Approval of Purchase Order with JAM Services, Inc. for the purchase of Traffic Signal
Network Switches for a Total Not-To-Exceed Amount of $714,639 for 2 years; and
amendment of the FY 2027 Budget in the Capital Improvement Fund. CEQA Status –
Categorically Exempt (CEQA Guidelines section 15301).
10. Approval of Contract C27197195 with High Point Power Systems in the Amount of
$286,660 for the Repair and Refurbishment of a Load Tap Changer Located at Adobe
Creek Substation; and Authorization for the City Manager or Their Designee to Execute
Change Orders in an Amount Not-to-Exceed $28,666, for a Total Contract Not-to-Exceed
Amount of $315,326. CEQA Status – Categorically Exempt Under CEQA Guidelines
Sections 15301 and 51302.
11. Approval of Contract No. C27196740 with Blackhawk Painting Inc. in the Amount of
$735,500 Over a Period of 18 Months for Electric Substations Equipment and
Mechanical Structures Painting Services; Authorization for the City Manager or Their
Designee to Execute Change Orders in an Amount Not-to-Exceed of $73,550, for a Total
Not-to-Exceed Contract Amount of $809,050; and Approval of a Budget Amendment in
the Electric Fund; CEQA Status: Categorically Exempt Under CEQA Guidelines Section
15301.
12. Authorization to Execute Amendment to Legal Services Contract S25194587 with
Atkinson Andelson Loya Ruud & Romo to Increase Amount by $100,000 for Total Not-to-
Exceed Amount of $285,000; CEQA Status – Not a Project.
13. Approval of Amendment No. 1 to Contract No. C24189086 with Carollo Engineers, Inc.,
to Increase the Contract Amount by $551,755 for a Revised Total Not-to-Exceed Amount
of $3,294,529, and to Extend the Contract Term by Six Months through December 2027,
for the Long Range Facilities Plan Update for the Regional Water Quality Control Plant
(WQ-19002); CEQA Status – Not a Project
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 6 of 27
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 08/10/2026
14. Approval of Contract Amendment No. 1 to Contract No. C25191297 with Kittelson &
Associates to Extend the Term through September 9, 2028, and Update the Scope of
Services and Schedule of Rates for the South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Project
(Southern Palo Alto Bicycle and Pedestrian Railroad Crossing Study), with No Increase to
the Previously Approved Not-to-Exceed Compensation; CEQA Status – Categorically
Exempt
15. SECOND READING: Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section
18.18.120 of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Allow Greater
Flexibility for Noncomplying Facilities in the Commercial Downtown District (FIRST
READING: June 15, 2026; PASSED: 7-0)
16. SECOND READING: Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Various
Chapters of Title 18 (Zoning) and Chapter 16.59 (Citywide Transportation Impact Fee of
the Palo Alto Municipal Code, and the Zoning Map, to Implement Retail Vitality
Measures (FIRST READING: June 15, 2026; PASSED: 7-0)
17. SECOND READING: Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter
12.32 (Water Use Regulations) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Incorporate Additional
Water Use Regulations (FIRST READING: June 8, 2026; PASSED: 7-0)
18. SECOND READING: Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the
College Terrace Residential Parking Program (RPP) at PAMC Section 10.46.060 to
Remove Fixed Permit Terms, Sale and Grace Periods (FIRST READING: June 15, 2026;
PASSED: 7-0)
City Manager Comments
City Manager Ed Shikada announced that the Public Safety Building received its final temporary
certificate of occupancy last week, enabling full move-in. The next phase includes relocating
police patrol and other units, except 911 dispatch, which is planned for the next few weeks,
once all other operations are in place. Staff will announce the date for the transition of the
police counter and records service from City Hall to the new Public Safety Building.
City Manager Shikada noted various construction activities underway around town. The major
storm drainage infrastructure project on East and West Bayshore Road is causing disruptions,
particularly on East Bayshore Road. Improvements to Embarcadero Road for bicycle and
pedestrian access will include Saturday work, with completion expected this week. PG&E’s
major construction project at the intersection of El Camino Real and Arastradero will continue
through September. Utility work on Alma Street between Colorado Avenue and El Carmelo will
continue through October. As this is the first week of school for the Palo Alto Unified School
District, City Manager Shikada urged community members to be patient and allow extra travel
time.
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 7 of 27
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 08/10/2026
The Jed Foundation will host “Community Response to Suicide” tomorrow evening and “It’s OK
to Say Suicide” on Wednesday. August is Wellness Month, and City Manager Shikada
encourages community members to explore local offerings throughout the month. Community
members can attend the State of the City next Wednesday in person or watch it live on
YouTube. Community meetings for the Grade Separation Project on Churchill Avenue, Meadow
Drive, and Charleston Road are scheduled for Tuesday, August 25, and Wednesday, August 26.
A workshop on the South Palo Alto Bike and Pedestrian Rail Crossing will be held on Thursday,
August 27. The Transportation Management Association is sponsoring events every Tuesday
throughout the month to help community members become familiar with the El Camino Real
bike lanes. More information on these events is available on the City website.
Upcoming City Council meeting agendas include: On August 17, a public hearing on the
proposed development at 762 San Antonio Road and proposed ordinance amendments for
accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units. On August 24, a semiannual study
session with the independent police auditor and a discussion of the ALPR (automated license
plate reader) review, along with action items addressing oversized vehicle parking and the
Buena Vista regulatory agreement. There will be no meeting on September 7 due to Labor Day.
The City Council will instead meet on Wednesday, September 9, for an approximately 2-hour
closed session regarding the CAO evaluation, a study session on consultant contract
management, an action item related to the grand jury report on VTA oversight of the BART
project, and a public hearing on the proposed development at 470 Olive Avenue.
Action Items
19. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Objections for Weed Abatement Assessments; and
Adoption of Resolution Confirming the Weed Abatement Report and Ordering
Abatement Costs to be a Special Assessment on the Properties Specified in the Report;
CEQA Status – Categorically Exempt.
The special assessment list included a Stanford-owned property at 3500 Deer Creek Road.
Mayor Veenker has performed legal work for Stanford University. Councilmember Lu is
employed by SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory. City Manager Ed Shikada’s wife is
employed by Stanford Medical Center. Mayor Veenker, Councilmember Lu, and City Manager
Shikada recused themselves from Stanford-related portions of this item.
Vice Mayor Stone invited the public to comment on 3500 Deer Creek Road.
Public Comment: None.
MOTION: Councilmember Burt moved, seconded by Councilmember Lythcott-Haims, to:
1. Hold a public hearing to consider objections from affected property owners regarding
proposed assessments for completed weed abatement work at 3500 Deer Creek Rd.,
and
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 8 of 27
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 08/10/2026
2. Adopt a resolution confirming the report and ordering that abatement costs be assessed
as a special assessment on the 3500 Deer Creek Rd. property specified in the report
(Attachment A).
MOTION PASSED: 5-0, Lu and Veenker recused
Mayor Veenker and Councilmember Lu returned to the meeting. Mayor Veenker opened public
comment on properties other than 3500 Deer Creek Road.
Public Comment: None.
Mayor Veenker closed the public hearing.
Councilmember Reckdahl noted that the City staff spent a lot of time on this and asked whether
the revenue was sufficient, whether the City was losing money, or whether this effort was
revenue-neutral.
City Manager Shikada considered this service provided by the County to be revenue-neutral.
Fire Marshal Tami Jasso explained that the City has a contract with the County. The County
charges a fee for conducting property inspections. If property owners do not complete the
necessary mitigation in time, the County hires a company to perform weed abatement, and the
associated costs are billed to the property owner. The City does not receive weed abatement
bills. The contract includes a clause stating that the City could have to pay for excess charges
incurred by the County; however, this has not occurred in recent years. Overall, the program is
cost-neutral. County representatives, including an inspector and the program supervisor, were
present to answer questions.
MOTION: Vice Mayor Stone moved, seconded by Councilmember Lauing, to:
1. Hold a public hearing to consider objections from affected property owners regarding
proposed assessments for completed weed abatement work, and
2. Adopt a resolution confirming the report and ordering that abatement costs be assessed
as a special assessment on the properties specified in the report (Attachment A)
MOTION PASSED: 7-0
20. Approval to Proceed with Final Design for the Permanent Installation of the Crescent
Park Traffic Calming Project including a Bulb-out on Southwood Drive and East Crescent
Drive; CEQA Status – Categorically Exempt.
Ripon Bhatia, Senior Engineer with the Office of Transportation, presented the final concept
plans for the Crescent Park traffic calming project. On November 6, 2023, the Council approved
these concepts on consent. Staff sought the Council's direction to proceed with the final design.
Staff gathered feedback from the community and adjacent property owners on the revised
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 9 of 27
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 08/10/2026
concepts. At its September 2025 meeting, the PTC expressed concerns about the proposed
recommendations. The project goals and objectives were to improve safety and quality of life
for neighborhood residents, minimize cut-through traffic, and reduce speeds. Neighborhood
community meetings identified 2 locations: the 5-point intersection of Center, Southwood, and
Hamilton Drive, and the intersection of Southwood and East Crescent Park. Photos illustrated
the pilot traffic circle at the intersection of Center, Southwood, and Hamilton, as well as the
curb extension and realignment with stop signs at Southwood and East Crescent. Staff first
addressed this issue in 2017. Residents' concerns about cut-through traffic were evaluated and
analyzed. Recommended solutions were discussed with the community in 2019 and 2020. In
2020, the PTC and the Council reviewed proposed pilot improvements at those intersections,
and the installations were completed in August 2021. Staff collected post-installation data to
assess the effectiveness of the pilot improvements, and the PTC and Council reviewed the data
in June 2023. At that time, the recommendations were to proceed with the pilot improvements
and obtain input and community feedback. Staff gathered feedback from the community and
adjacent property owners, revised the concepts, and brought this item back to the PTC in 2024
and 2025.
The community has generally supported the 5-point intersection with a traffic circle. Today's
discussion focused on the curb extension and realignment at the Southwood/East Crescent Park
intersection. Property owners and community members raised concerns about aesthetics,
parking loss, accessibility, and landscaping. The existing curb ramp will be converted to a
concrete path to enhance accessibility and increase parking. Crosswalk realignment will reduce
pedestrian travel distances, improve safety, and increase visibility. Option 1 included a reduced
bulb-out, a pedestrian crossing with ADA-compliant ramps, a concrete platform for fronting
property access, three-way stop signs, and a crosswalk. Option 2 removed the bulb-out but
kept the three-way stop signs. Parking will be restricted near the crosswalk in accordance with
AB 413. Staff evaluated 3 options, considering goals and objectives related to accessibility,
traffic calming, aesthetics, and on-street parking. Staff recommended Option 1 as a balanced
solution that enhances safety, reduces cut-through traffic and speeds, incorporates most design
elements, adheres to engineering and planning principles, and addresses ADA compliance and
property access concerns along Crescent Drive. The proposed bulb-out will feature low-height,
aesthetically pleasing, drought-resistant plants. Staff is seeking Council direction on moving
forward with the final design.
Councilmember Lu asked about the purpose of the 2 yellow lines on Slide 10 for Option 1 and
requested the turning radius before and after Option 1.
Senior Engineer Bhatia explained that the yellow line marks the 15-foot distance from the
crosswalk to the concrete platform area. AB 413 restricts parking in the area approaching the
crosswalk. The orange line indicates where vehicles may park. The concrete platform will be
accessible from the frontage and will connect to the sidewalk. The existing turning radius is
estimated at more than 60 or 70 feet, while the new design will have a turning radius of about
25 to 30 feet.
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 10 of 27
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 08/10/2026
Mayor Veenker noted that the road was narrow and asked whether the orange line on the slide
indicated parking or a drop-off area.
Senior Engineer Bhatia said the resident had been accessing the fronting ramp for parking.
Chief Transportation Official Ria Hutabarat Lo added that parking is available along the side of
the street farther up toward University Avenue, which functions as a yield street and requires
drivers to slow down as they approach.
Councilmember Burt asked whether the orange line addressed the resident’s disability-access
needs, whether the resident wanted parking in the area designated for a larger landscaped
section, and whether staff had considered reducing the landscaped area so the bulb-out would
extend just beyond the new entrance to the sidewalk. Councilmember Burt sought clarification
on the purpose of extending the bulb-out beyond the intersection corner and occupying
parking space in front of a home, especially if it does not contribute to traffic calming. The
Council packet included a 2-page letter from the Planning Commission Chair and Vice Chair
noting that the PTC’s enthusiastic support for the 5-point intersection in June 2023 was not
accurately reflected in the materials presented to the Council on consent. The staff report to
the Council in November 2023 stated that the PTC unanimously endorsed the project and
recommended that staff gather input from adjacent property owners.
Chief Transportation Official Hutabarat Lo stated that staff was focused on providing ADA
access to the pedestrian routes, including the sidewalk and crossing. The resident wanted
vehicle access, so staff proposed a concrete pad, similar to those at bus stops but narrower, to
allow stepping into the vehicle from the curb. Without the bulb-out, parking in the orange area
would not be permitted under AB 413. Option 1 was a smaller bulb-out than the existing one on
the street. The bulb-out is intended to better align with the other side of the street and create a
continuous sidewalk line on both sides of Southwood Drive. If a pedestrian is heading west on
Southwood Drive and Crescent Drive is on their right, the goal is to make the crossing at this
intersection as short and aligned as possible. The PTC commissioners discussed this extensively
at their meeting, so staff focused on the PTC motion and actionable descriptions of the design
concerns.
Senior Engineer Bhatia said aligning the curbs on the west and east sides facilitated the
continuity of vehicular traffic flow straight on Southwood. The curb on Southwood would be
aligned on both sides of Crescent, making it appear as a straight road. On June 14, the PTC
approved a motion reflected as follows: To make permanent traffic calming improvements at
Location 1, the intersection of University Avenue and West Crescent Drive; Location 3, the
intersection of Southwood, Center, and Hamilton; and Location 2, Southwood and East
Crescent, with the condition that it be landscaped. The PTC recommended further work on
Location 2, suggesting that the bulb-out design be made more suitable with direct input from
the adjacent property owners.
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 11 of 27
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 08/10/2026
None of the corners in Councilmember Reckdahl’s neighborhood have crosswalks, which led
him to question why we were adding marked crosswalks in a residential area, as shown on
Slides 10 and 11, thereby triggering AB 413. According to Packet Page 344, a survey indicated
that 74 percent of neighbors wanted the pilot improvements made permanent. Councilmember
Reckdahl inquired about the wording of the survey question and whether respondents
preferred the bulb-out design and might be disappointed if we replaced it with something else,
such as a stop sign. Residents are frustrated with cut-through traffic and may have been
desperate for any form of traffic calming.
Chief Transportation Official Hutabarat Lo explained that AB 413 applies to both marked and
unmarked crosswalks. Parking is prohibited within 20 feet of a crosswalk in all residential areas.
Senior Engineer Bhatia reported that a survey was conducted across the entire neighborhood to
determine whether residents wanted the pilot improvements to be made permanent at each
location. The survey showed that 74 percent of the neighborhood favored moving forward with
the bulb-out at the intersection of East Crescent and Southwood. Additionally, we surveyed 5 to
7 homes adjacent to this location in each direction. That subset showed about 75 percent in
favor of proceeding with the bulb-out design. The pilot bulb-out was installed after various
alternatives were considered during community meetings and the community feedback process
in 2018 and 2019. Staff made the final selection of curb extension realignment after
neighborhood input and feedback.
Public Comment:
1. Dan Goggins spoke on behalf of his father-in-law, Jim Girand, who was unable to attend
tonight but requested that his statement be read. Jim G. can no longer drive but he desires to
remain as independent as possible while living with disabilities. The City installed a 900-square-
foot traffic bulb-out directly in front of his home, which he learned about only after
construction began in 2021. Jim G. is the homeowner most directly affected, yet no one asked
for his input or notified him about the project. The bulb-out has made it more difficult and, at
times, unsafe for Jim G. to get in and out of vehicles and reach his front door. With his limited
mobility, additional curbs, obstacles, and distance threaten his independence. According to the
City, East Crescent and Southwood were among the safest intersections in Crescent Park.
Vehicle speeds were at or below the posted limit before the bulb-out and remain so afterward.
The City’s consultant found no reduction in traffic attributable to the bulb-out and no
measurable safety benefit. If the intersection was already safe and the project did not improve
safety, Jim G. questioned why the bulb-out should be made permanent. It felt less safe after the
pilot was installed, with drivers squeezing through the narrowed roadway and cyclists having
little room to safely pass moving vehicles. Jim Girand’s concern was whether decisions that
permanently affect people’s homes were grounded in evidence, made transparently, and
carried out with respect for the residents who must live with the consequences. Jim G. asked
the City to restore this intersection to its original condition.
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 12 of 27
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 08/10/2026
2. Juanita Girand Goggins is the co-owner of 590 East Crescent. She submitted a letter to
the Council highlighting significant misstatements of fact and evidence in today’s staff report.
Juanita G. believed staff should provide objective evidence that this project is necessary and
effective. Before the pilot was installed, the City’s records show that the intersection of East
Crescent and Southwood was among the safest in Crescent Park, based on citations and
collisions. According to the City’s consultant, Fehr & Peers, vehicle speeds were at or below the
posted speed limit before and after the project. Fehr & Peers concluded that changes in traffic
volume at the intersection were consistent with broader post-pandemic trends across Palo
Alto, rather than the bulb-out. The City failed to demonstrate that this pilot produced any
improvements in speed, volume, cut-through traffic, or safety. Eleven residents living closest to
the project signed a petition requesting removal of the bulb-out. This petition was delivered to
the Office of Transportation but was never presented to the PTC or Council. Emergency vehicles
were never tested on the sharp hairpin turn from East Crescent onto Southwood; testing was
limited to the easier route through the intersection. The intersection now appears less safe, as
moving vehicles heading in opposite directions on East Crescent struggle to pass each other.
Bicycles have no safe path when moving vehicles are present. Juanita G. asked the Council to
consider the impact of this bulb-out on her elderly, disabled father, who is forced to take a
longer, more difficult route between his home and a vehicle. Juanita G. urged the Council to
vote for Option 3 and restore the intersection to its original condition.
3. Laurie Girand, co-owner of 590 East Crescent, commented on the bulb-out at East
Crescent and Southwood. A recent article inaccurately portrayed the Girand family as the cause
of many delays in approving the overall traffic calming project. As early as 2023, the
Transportation Department had the authority to separate the intersection's approval from the
rest of the project but staff chose not to. Her family has been open to alternatives for years, yet
staff proposed none. An unexplored and unproven option is now presented that does not meet
the goals, shows no substantiated improvement, and has not received PTC approval. Bulb-outs
and stop signs do not always make intersections safer or improve traffic flow, especially when
drivers roll through stop signs as they currently do. Transportation emailed volunteer Greg
Welch and asked him to notify her father about the pilot installation. In 2023, Transportation
presented a proposal to the Council that the PTC had not approved, implying it had been
approved. Transportation is now proposing another alternative that has not received PTC
approval. If the Council approves Option 1 or 2, it sends a clear message to Transportation that
substantiation and PTC review are not important. Laurie G. urged the Council not to reward
Transportation for circumventing formal processes, causing unnecessary delays, and failing to
complete the homework the PTC explicitly requested. Laurie G. asked the Council to return the
intersection as closely as possible to its original state, as decades of evidence show it is no more
dangerous or safer than most residential intersections throughout Palo Alto.
4. Sheryl Klein displayed a picture taken in front of her house at 576 East Crescent Drive,
next door to the Girands. Her street is very narrow and serves as a cut-through for traffic
getting on and off Highway 101 seeking a quick passage downtown. The bulb-out has
significantly slowed traffic in her neighborhood, making her street feel much safer. Cars can see
the stop sign from about 25 to 30 feet away, which helps ensure they slow down and creates a
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 13 of 27
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 08/10/2026
safer environment for cyclists and pedestrians crossing the street. Sheryl K. supports modified
Option 1, and would be disappointed if there were no stop sign and measures to slow traffic
cutting through.
5. Harlan Pinto lives at 1845 University Avenue, around the corner from the location in
question. In 2017, Greg Welch organized this effort. Harlan P. drives and walks through the area
daily and supports the project, urging the Council to approve Option 1. However, he expressed
disappointment with some staff-related issues. Plastic bollards were installed at West Crescent
and University but not at Center and East Crescent, even though it was part of the original plan.
In tonight's presentation, staff did not mention plastic bollards. These bollards are inexpensive,
very effective, and help discourage cut-through traffic. Harlan P. believed that the bulb-out
could become an amenity for the neighborhood, similar to the beautiful circles on Ross Road.
The bulb-out has successfully slowed traffic that used to speed around the corner from
University into the neighborhood. Harlan P. urged the Council to approve this important project
and to ask staff to reconsider installing bollards.
6. Keith Raffel lives at 275 Southwood, at the end of the cul-de-sac. Traffic at the
intersection of Southwood and East Crescent has been worsening. They feel stranded at home
during rush hour as traffic backs up for 2 blocks. If average traffic speed has slowed, it is
because traffic does not move at all for a couple of hours a day. Keith R. favors keeping the
existing structures with proposed improvements, noting that conditions have improved
significantly and it is safer since their installation; however, adjustments could address other
problems that have arisen. Keith R. preferred making East Crescent a one-way street, as it is
very narrow, especially with parked cars. Keith R. urged the Commission to avoid making the
situation worse.
7. Greg Welch provided comments via Zoom. Nearly 9 years ago, he met with neighbors
from Crescent Park who were increasingly frustrated by safety hazards caused by cut-through
traffic that led to gridlock in their neighborhood. When it was not gridlocked, commuters sped
through the residential streets. They held many public meetings, publicized to the
neighborhood in collaboration with the Transportation Department. The test installation was
completed. The City collected extensive data before and after the temporary installations. The
data showed traffic calming in the neighborhood, with reductions in speeding, overall traffic
volume, and gridlock. The temporary structures have been in place for over 5 years; however,
they were not designed for permanent installation and are an eyesore. A City survey indicated
that the neighborhood's general sentiment is that the temporary installations have been an
improvement, and removing them would be seen as a step backward. Greg W. acknowledged
homeowners' concerns at the apex of the turn from Southwood into East Crescent but
emphasized that this is a public thoroughfare and that most residents in the neighborhood
favor this project.
8. Doria Summa served on the Planning Commission when this issue was discussed and
sought to convey the Commission’s sentiments on the matter at that time. It was always clear
that the PTC believed the 5-point oval traffic circle was a great idea but it was not worth
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 14 of 27
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 08/10/2026
implementing because the Girand family, who were primarily affected, did not find it desirable.
Traffic patterns have changed over the last decade, likely improving conditions on this street. It
has not been proven that these changes were due to the traffic calming device. Doria S. felt
that the traffic calming device was unnecessary, an extra expense, and a potential harm to Mr.
Girand’s well-being. Doria S. did not think the traffic at that time required calming; perhaps a
decade ago it was a different situation. Doria S. urged the Council to proceed with the 5-point
oval traffic circle.
Councilmember Lauing noted that a PTC representative was present and that the Council could
seek their input. Mayor Veenker stated that the Council typically did not request input from the
PTC unless someone asked for it.
Councilmember Lu noted that a quorum of former PTC members was present, including
Commissioners Summa, Templeton, Reckdahl, and himself. Councilmember Lu emphasized that
the Council would need to make an executive decision at some point. Councilmember Lu
thought Crescent Park required more attention for traffic calming. There was a fatal hit-and-run
incident last year, and a car crashed into a house at Newell and Channing last weekend. With
the recently passed BPTP plan, much work remains in all neighborhoods. A photo from a public
commenter showed the stop sign's visibility; otherwise, it would be hard to see until you were
very close to the corner. The intersection is now safer. Without a bulb-out or some form of
traffic calming, drivers could easily and quickly maneuver around that corner. Best practice is to
install a bulb-out at turns with a very large turning radius. A public commenter and the staff
report referenced a standard from NACTO (National Association of City Transportation
Officials). Caltrans, the Institute of Transportation Engineers, the American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials, and our Bike and Pedestrian Plan define bulb-outs as a
best practice. During his internet search, Councilmember Lu came across a recent peer-
reviewed study that examined 94 intersections in Philadelphia with curb extensions. The bulb-
outs were implemented for storm drain purposes. These intersections were not on arterial
roads, and 18 percent were signalized. The findings revealed a 13 percent reduction in crashes
at intersections with bulb-outs.
Councilmember Lu expressed significant concern about the neighbor’s access; however, he
believed there were reasonable solutions. Under Option 1, the unobstructed options for a car
to pull up to pick up or drop off someone were the curb ramp, the closest access point to the
front door, and the driveway, which provides the nearest route to the side door and the garage.
Continuing to delay this process risks setting a negative precedent for traffic calming measures
throughout the city. We will encounter other streets where we may want to remove parking,
add bulb-outs, or implement other interventions that are likely safer overall but may disrupt
certain neighbors. Councilmember Lu believed that moving forward with Option 1 was the best
decision for both the neighborhood and the community at large.
Councilmember Burt agreed that the 8-year timeframe for this project is excessively long. The
Planning Commission's concerns about balancing the issues at Crescent have not been
adequately addressed. Initially, Crescent Park had significant problems with traffic speeds,
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 15 of 27
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 08/10/2026
volumes, and safety, particularly the horrendous overflow of traffic from downtown. Although
traffic levels have decreased since COVID, they could return to previous levels. Councilmember
Burt generally supports bulb-outs; however, he believes this proposed bulb-out is much larger
than necessary for traffic calming and safety. Councilmember Burt questioned the reasoning
behind aligning Southwood, as it was not identified as one of the issues we aimed to address
and created an unnecessary problem with an oversized bulb-out. The PTC asked to minimize
the bulb-out's impacts without compromising traffic safety. Councilmember Burt proposed
keeping the bulb-out to the corner and just past the new crosswalk entrance but not including
the additional landscaped area that obstructs the frontage of 590 East Crescent up to the
driveway, unless staff can provide a compelling reason for a larger bulb-out. When driving
westbound on University and turning left onto Crescent, the bike lane has a dashed line that
allows cars to pass vehicles backed up in the middle continuing along University. Without a
dashed line, that maneuver is illegal, which encourages drivers to turn at Crescent instead of at
Center.
Chief Transportation Official Hutabarat Lo said staff could review Councilmember Burt’s
suggestion and that she believed slicing the end of the bulb-out would be acceptable.
Councilmember Lauing served on the PTC when the pilot phase was discussed. Councilmember
Lauing agreed that projects should not take 8 years to complete; instead, they must be finished
within a year, regardless of priority. Councilmember Lauing asked whether any analyses had
been conducted on using speed bumps as an alternative to construction and why this option
was ruled out. Councilmember Lauing suggested that placing a speed bump just before a stop
sign could slow drivers effectively. Councilmember Lauing asked how close a speed bump could
be to an intersection before it would be undesirable. Councilmember Lauing suggested that
staff consider converting Crescent to a one-way street, given the traffic conditions and the
road's narrowness. Councilmember Lauing recalled that the PTC discussed various bulb-out
sizes and settings in 2017. Councilmember Lauing believed the study cited by Councilmember
Lu was statistically flawed because it failed to report the size of the bulb-outs at each
intersection where it reported a 13 percent reduction in collisions. Drawing on his almost daily
experience with the bulb-out at Kellogg and Middlefield on Packet Page 346, Councilmember
Lauing considered it less safe than before, emphasizing that not all bulb-outs are beneficial. To
turn south on Middlefield from Kellogg, you must wait for northbound traffic to clear, and even
in a small car you cannot move because the road is so narrow. The bulb-out at Kellogg and
Middlefield is smaller than the one proposed for Crescent Park. Councilmember Lauing found
Option 2 appealing and wanted to hear staff’s perspective on its drawbacks. Stop signs are
effective, faster and cheaper than the proposed bulb-out with landscaping, and any needed
changes could be made in the future, possibly adding speed bumps.
Senior Engineer Bhatia replied that, given the larger radius and speeding occurring at the
intersection itself, realignment would be much more effective than a speed bump. Senior
Engineer Bhatia did not have the exact figures but noted that you usually want at least 100 feet
before a speed bump. Bulb-outs force people to reduce speed. Drivers may roll through, ignore,
speed through, or may not yield at stop signs. Bulb-outs reduce pedestrian travel distance, so
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 16 of 27
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 08/10/2026
pedestrians spend less time in the street with a large radius. At the intersection and prior to the
crossing, there will be no parking.
Councilmember Lythcott-Haims referred to Slide 7 and expressed concern about the timeline’s
length, noting that community members have been affected by these issues for a long time. It is
also unfortunate that the PTC found that its recommendations to the Council were not
accurately recorded or reported. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims was inclined to support the
proposed motion to significantly reduce the bulb-out to restore the frontage to Jim Girand’s
home. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims asked Commissioner Templeton or former PTC Chair
Summa to provide additional insight into what was miscommunicated and what procedural
changes are needed to prevent similar errors in conveying information. Councilmember
Lythcott-Haims wondered how staff might use this situation as a case study to analyze what
went wrong, how they can learn from it, and what they will do differently moving forward.
Given the small neighborhood and the project's length, it was not handled efficiently.
During this project, Planning and Transportation Commissioner Cari Templeton noted personnel
changes within the PTC and the Office of Transportation, as well as changes in the community
due to COVID-19. The proposal was intended as a pilot project, which was uncommon at that
time and was under different leadership. It was not thoroughly vetted or prepared as a
permanent installation typically would be. Other options were not considered, which should
have been part of the process. Commissioner Templeton did not know whether the survey
questions were broad or designed to elicit the most meaningful responses rather than a default
assumption.
Chief Transportation Official Hutabarat Lo stated that staff is using this as a case study. Staff will
present an item on the traffic calming policy to the Council, allowing review of the process,
performance, and options for improvement.
Vice Mayor Stone heard conflicting anecdotal accounts. While most residents believe the
changes make their street safer, some feel they make it less safe. Since this is a multi-year pilot
program, we should have collected data to definitively determine whether the intersection has
become safer. An appearance of safety does not necessarily mean it is safer. Vice Mayor Stone
asked staff to discuss the data. Ensuring ADA access to on-street parking adjacent to 590 East
Crescent is necessary. Although the property owners do not like Option 1, it appears to offer
better accessibility. The resident wants more direct, street-level access, but reverting to the
pre-pilot access is not an option under state law AB 413.
Senior Engineer Bhatia said an analysis of pre-pilot installation collision data revealed 1 serious
injury collision at this intersection. After the pilot installation, no collisions have been recorded.
Traffic volumes in Crescent Park decreased significantly after the pilot installation, while speeds
remained similar. Average speed stayed within posted limits, ranging from 25 to 27 miles per
hour pre- and post-pilot, with a slight 0.5-mile-per-hour increase in one direction and a
decrease in the opposite direction, within the data-collection margin of error. University
Avenue returned to its pre-pilot traffic conditions.
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 17 of 27
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 08/10/2026
City Attorney Chris Jensen explained that the City did not receive a formal request for an ADA
accommodation; however, this did not prevent Transportation staff from assessing the
resident’s mobility needs. The resident has vehicular access to the property via a driveway with
a curb cut. Therefore, it is difficult to argue that there is any legal obligation to provide
additional access.
Chief Transportation Official Hutabarat Lo confirmed that the resident at 590 East Crescent
cannot have the same access as before the pilot due to the change in state law.
Mayor Veenker drove by this location yesterday to view the bulb-out and believed it could
effectively slow drivers. Although she did not take any measurements, the bulb-out seemed to
overcorrect, bringing the driver back past a perpendicular position. The combination of
vehicular speed and the previously long crossing distance scared pedestrians. With the bulb-out
in place, the crossing distance for pedestrians decreases, making the crossing quicker and safer,
as pedestrians can now see oncoming cars better when entering the walkway. Mayor Veenker
liked staff's suggestion to incorporate a permeable surface and improve aesthetics by adding
landscaping to be more consistent with the neighborhood character. Mayor Veenker also liked
the parking spot depicted in orange. Three-quarters of the neighbors appear to like Option 1.
Mayor Veenker was intrigued by Councilmember Burt's idea of reducing the bulb-out on the
west or left side when viewing the slide, although it was difficult to gauge the proportion of the
space relative to the nearby home and whether it is large enough to accommodate a car. If
some of the area to the left of the bulb-out were eliminated, Mayor Veenker asked how long
the sidewalk is and how to measure the 20 feet, as she wondered whether a car could fit in the
curb space to the west or left side of the sidewalk up against the street. Mayor Veenker wanted
to explore keeping the traffic calming and the shortened walkway while further reducing the
bulb-out size.
Chief Transportation Official Hutabarat Lo explained that the west or left side of the sidewalk is
considered inside the intersection, and parking is not allowed in an intersection. Staff could
explore keeping the traffic calming and the shortened walkway while reducing the bulb-out
size.
Councilmember Reckdahl encouraged staff to consider installing bollards, which he believed
would improve safety and traffic. Action is necessary because the narrow roads in Crescent Park
were not designed for cut-through traffic, leading to impatient drivers. Councilmember
Reckdahl visited the site during rush hour while on the PTC and observed that drivers coming
off University Avenue would accelerate, slam on their brakes, and coast through the stop sign
at the intersection. Councilmember Reckdahl suggested placing a speed bump halfway between
University and Southwood to prevent this pattern of acceleration and braking. In general,
Councilmember Reckdahl liked bulb-outs; they reduce the distance pedestrians have to walk
and improve safety, but he did not think they were necessary given the small streets and low
traffic. Councilmember Reckdahl believed that a speed bump halfway between University and
Southwood, along with a stop sign, was a simpler and maybe more effective solution. With a
bulb-out, drivers would continue to accelerate on that road to reach Southwood.
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 18 of 27
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 08/10/2026
Councilmember Lu commented on the challenge of obtaining precise data in a context like Palo
Alto. In his review of various papers and guidelines, the turning radius is one of the most
important factors to consider when deciding whether to add a bulb-out. If the turning radius is
already tight, as in the Lucie Stern example, drivers tend to slow down significantly and must
look both ways carefully. A long turning radius can make an intersection exceptionally
dangerous. The guidelines indicate that the larger the intersection, the more necessary it is to
prioritize bulb-outs. Given the stop sign's obscurity due to the road's curve, Councilmember Lu
believes this bulb-out will be safer than the average bulb-out in the city. Speed remained
similar before and after installing this bulb-out, suggesting this intervention may have a positive
impact because cars tend to speed up when there are fewer vehicles.
Regarding Option 2, Slide 11, Councilmember Lu raised questions about line of sight and the
effectiveness of the stop sign on Crescent, as the bushes could obstruct visibility. The foliage
and positioning make it difficult for drivers turning from Crescent onto Southwood to see cars
on the eastern side of Southwood heading west, creating a potential risk that drivers may not
notice the intersection or each other. For Option 1, Councilmember Lu suggested that it might
be beneficial to shorten the leftmost, or western, side of the bulb-out.
Senior Engineer Bhatia acknowledged a sight-distance challenge at the proposed location for
the stop sign in Option 2. Because it is a three-way stop, some bushes may need trimming to
ensure a clear line of sight. An ordinance allows Cities to enforce sight lines at intersections.
Typically, after stopping at the sign, vehicles must roll forward to ensure clear visibility before
proceeding through the intersection. Residents block their own driveways or back up and
obstruct a corner of their driveways to provide extra parking, but this could conflict with the
sidewalk. Trimming the left side of the bulb-out could provide more street parking and access
without any obvious safety detriment.
Councilmember Burt did not want the consideration of speed bumps or plastic bollards to delay
action tonight but he encouraged exploring those options in the future.
Councilmember Lauing asked whether it would be acceptable for a car to briefly stop in the
curb lane to pick up a passenger at 590 East Crescent.
Chief Transportation Official Hutabarat Lo confirmed that the orange location is a valid area for
vehicle parking or pickup.
Councilmember Reckdahl inquired whether staff had confirmed that the orange parking
location provided sufficient access for the resident of 590 East Crescent.
City Manager Ed Shikada replied that the resident at 590 East Crescent was dissatisfied with this
concept.
Chief Transportation Official Hutabarat Lo has not received confirmation that the resident at
590 East Crescent is satisfied with this concept.
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 19 of 27
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 08/10/2026
Mayor Veenker asked the owners of 590 East Crescent whether the orange parking area would
provide the resident with adequate access.
The co-owner of 590 East Crescent stated that 60 feet of space in front of the house was
removed for the 900-square-foot bulb-out. One parking space did not reflect the square
footage and access her father has been denied. Previously, cars could pull up in front of the
house but they will now need to pull up to 1 specific spot.
MOTION: Councilmember Burt moved, seconded by Councilmember Lythcott-Haims, to
approve the final concept design and proceed with Option 1: Permanent Traffic Calming, which
includes the permanent installation of the bulb-out at Southwood Drive and East Crescent Drive
as part of the Crescent Park Traffic Calming Project, with the modification that the bulb-out at
Crescent and Southwood be reduced to the minimum size necessary to support the turning
radius.
Councilmember Lu sought clarification on whether the motion required additional language
regarding buffers to ensure that when a car backs out from the parking spot along Southwood,
it does not enter the sidewalk or pedestrian path. Chief Transportation Official Hutabarat Lo
confirmed that the motion was acceptable and did not require any additional language.
MOTION PASSED: 5-2, Lauing, Reckdahl no.
The Council took a 15-minute break and returned at 8 p.m.
21. Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the Borrowing of Funds on an Interim Basis for
Improvements to the City's Regional Water Quality Control Plant and Authorizing the
Execution and Delivery of a Revolving Credit Agreement, Fee Letter and Related Note;
CEQA Status - Not a Project
Christine Paras, the Assistant Director of Administrative Services, delivered a presentation on
the line of credit (LOC) agreement, following the City Council's direction to execute a $31M
facility in June 2024 after significant reimbursement delays from the State Revolving Fund
(SRF). Since then, cash flow in the wastewater treatment fund has stabilized but the need for
interim financing for larger capital projects remains. This line of credit is part of a broader
initiative to advance over $500M in essential capital improvements at the plant to modernize
infrastructure and improve regulatory compliance and operational resilience. To guide future
capital investments, staff initiated a comprehensive update of the Long-Range Facilities Plan in
2024, which will be further refined in 2027 to address long-term capital needs. In November
2025, the Finance Committee reviewed funding strategies to support the plant’s near-term
project delivery and long-term capital plan. Strategies included SRF loans, Water Infrastructure
Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA) loans, utility revenue bonds, LOC, and pay-as-you-go
funding. The LOC serves as a temporary emergency capital reserve, providing short-term
liquidity to support project cash flow and keep projects on schedule. It allows staff to draw
funds only as needed rather than borrowing a large amount upfront, offering flexibility while
long-term borrowing strategies are finalized. Since 2023, City staff and representatives from all
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 20 of 27
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 08/10/2026
partner agencies have discussed the LOC concept during quarterly meetings to ensure partners
understand the financing needs, the rationale for considering an LOC, and cost sharing.
If the Council approves it, the initial draw on the LOC is expected later this month to cover
closing costs, as required by the agreement with U.S. Bank. Clients commonly use their initial
draw for closing costs. Staff plans to agendize partner agency contract amendments in the fall,
after their respective City Councils approve them. This will enable Palo Alto to charge partners
for their share of the LOC costs.
The City sent an RFP for the LOC to 19 banks and received 2 proposals. Staff evaluated and
discussed the proposals and recommends a 5-year LOC with U.S. Bank, based on the fee
structure and U.S. Bank’s experience with water utilities. The City may draw funds either as
taxable or tax-exempt, depending on project eligibility. Staff expects to use primarily tax-
exempt drawdowns, priced at 80% of the 1-month SOFR rate plus 1.19 percentage points. The
facility has a 125% rate covenant, which the City is already subject to under the existing SRF
loan obligations. The annual cost to the partner agencies is expected to range from $0.8M to
$1M, lower than the previous estimate of $1.3M to $1.5M that staff communicated to the
Finance Committee last November. This reduction reflects more favorable rates from U.S. Bank
than initially anticipated. As of today, the 1-month SOFR rate is 3.63%, meaning the rate on a
tax-exempt draw would be 4.1%. A 0.25% undrawn fee applies to the unutilized amount, which
covers the bank's cost of keeping these funds available to the City at any time.
Staff’s recommendation was for the Council to adopt the resolution authorizing interim
borrowing for the plant’s improvements and to approve the execution and delivery of a
revolving credit agreement and note, not-to-exceed $31M for 5 years, and a fee letter.
Given that only 2 banks responded to the RFP, Councilmember Burt asked whether staff
believed we received good terms.
Assistant Director Paras believed we had received favorable terms. When staff reviewed the
RFPs, U.S. Bank's LOC rates were in line with the market at the time. Regarding the RFP being
sent to 19 banks and only 2 responded, Assistant Director Paras found that banks preferred to
propose LOCs in the hundreds of millions of dollars rather than the much smaller facility
requested by Palo Alto.
Mayor Veenker questioned why Mountain View can pay cash as they go while Palo Alto cannot,
and what the advantages and disadvantages are for Mountain View and the group as a whole
from 1 partner not participating in this LOC.
The staff explained that, as the lead agency, we are advancing projects important to our
operations, and this LOC serves as a vehicle to achieve that. As we review the cash flow and
debt service, Palo Alto will allocate the appropriate costs to all participating partners. It would
be great if all partners chose to participate in the LOC but staff can navigate nonparticipation as
we go through this process.
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 21 of 27
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 08/10/2026
Lauren Lai, Director of Administrative Services/Chief Financial Officer, stated that the debt
covenants required a 1.25 percent reserve, based on the Utility’s revenues and ability to repay.
Councilmember Lu asked what changes occurred at the state level, how significant that was
when initially considering the LOC, and when the bond was expected to close. We have
reserves with year-end balances totaling tens of millions of dollars, so Councilmember Lu
inquired whether staff examined the feasibility of loans from different reserves for the $31M
line item.
Assistant Director Paras noted a change in 2022 or 2023. The City has several SRF loans.
Reimbursements were delayed for a few months, which was the primary focus when the LOC
was presented to the Council in 2024. Since then, the state’s reimbursement timing has
improved. Staff reassessed the capital needs and funding strategy and still believed that the
LOC could be an effective tool for funding near-term projects.
Director/CFO Lai said staff is moving forward with finalizing the capital project plans, which will
provide more clarity on debt financing as staff determines the appropriate bond size to provide
the cash flow needed to advance design work for key projects while aiming to avoid substantial
financing costs. The capital plan is nearly $0.5B, so some design work exceeds the capacity of
interfund loans. Staff presented comprehensive financing solutions to the Finance Committee
in 2024. The most effective option is the SRF loan, which we use substantially. A short-term
loan is significantly less flexible than a line of credit. This enterprise did not have the capacity to
carry a 5-year loan. Loans from other enterprises complicate matters further, and we could
encounter issues related to Proposition 218 regarding the use of reserves. Staff’s current
recommendation for a sustainable solution is an LOC.
When staff presented this to Finance, the estimated upfront cost was $200,000.
Councilmember Reckdahl posed the following questions: Which expenses are not eligible for
funding at tax-exempt rates? Are there any additional upfront costs beyond the $50,000 in legal
fees mentioned in the staff report? Given the 0.25% undrawn fee, did staff plan to withdraw
smaller amounts or cash out the LOC all at once and deposit it into a revolving fund? Who will
take out the line of credit, the wastewater fund or the water control plant?
Attorney Chris Lynch from Jones Hall, the City’s bond counsel, explained that federal tax-
exempt bonds are considered a subsidy by the federal government, which limits the types of
projects these bonds can finance. For instance, no more than 10 percent of the proceeds from
any tax-exempt obligation can be used to finance unique rights of a private business user, such
as Stanford University. Additionally, there are limitations on reimbursing costs incurred before
the issuance date of a tax-exempt obligation. The City is assessing whether it can reimburse
prior expenses; it can make such reimbursements only within a specific timeframe using tax-
exempt obligations.
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 22 of 27
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 08/10/2026
Assistant Director Paras replied that the costs in U.S. Bank’s proposal came in differently than
staff anticipated, so those represent part of the closing costs. The wastewater treatment fund is
taking out the line of credit.
Director/CFO Lai noted additional closing costs, including approximately $137,000 for bond
counsel and municipal fiscal advisory services, bringing the total to under $200,000. The LOC
has a 5-year term. Regarding the planned drawdown schedule or strategy, Director/CFO Lai
invited the Public Works department to discuss project needs, which will guide cash flow.
Karin North, Assistant Director of Public Works, anticipated quarterly draws based on project
expenditures. For instance, once the Council approves the headworks design project and design
work begins, staff will estimate quarterly expenses and withdraw those funds. Once the design
is complete and construction expenses are known, staff will likely finance the design costs
through a bond, WIFIA, or another method, depending on how they plan to cover the full
construction cost of that project. Staff will move forward with various projects funded through
the LOC. The City has no capital projects on the SRF list. The SRF is now capped at $50M, which
has been depleted. This cap makes it challenging for the City’s projects to get on the SRF
fundable list, which is why they are considering WIFIA and bonds. Staff was hopeful the political
climate would improve and more funding would become available in the future. The LOC buys
time while staff investigates alternative funding options to move the capital program forward.
Director/CFO Lai stated that the fee is significantly lower for unused capacity. Therefore, the
plan is to draw on the LOC as needed, as departments proceed with projects, contingent on the
Council's approval of capital spending. The $31M will not be drawn immediately.
Assistant Director Paras mentioned that utility revenue bonds are one strategy; however, the
bond proceeds must be spent within 3 years. For large projects, the design phase can take
several years. Therefore, an LOC provides immediate funding while staff determines the best
long-term strategy, whether it is WIFIA or utility revenue bonds.
Public Comment: None.
Councilmember Lu noted that the wastewater treatment fund rate stabilization reserves were
projected to be $28M at the end of FY27. If there were an additional $10M in the wastewater
reserves, Councilmember Lu asked whether staff would use those reserves instead of the LOC,
whether that would make it more complicated to charge our partners, and under what
conditions we would not pay off the loan even if we had extra cash.
Assistant Director Paras stated that staff had begun a reserve policy for the wastewater
treatment fund. Before using reserves to pay off the LOC, staff wanted to pause and review
best practices for determining appropriate reserve levels for the fund.
Director/CFO Lai said that the decision to pay off the LOC, if resources become available, would
be guided by the Council’s budget process for the 5-year capital project plan and by project
timeliness.
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 23 of 27
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 08/10/2026
Mayor Veenker has seen LOCs work well at other entities, and she was in favor of keeping the
LOC balance low while maintaining flexibility to keep projects moving.
Public Comment: None.
MOTION: Mayor Veenker moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Stone, to adopt the attached
resolution (Attachment A) authorizing the borrowing of funds on an interim basis for
improvements to the City's Regional Water Quality Control Plant and authorizing the execution
and delivery of a Revolving Credit Agreement, a Fee Letter, and related Notes for a total not to
exceed $31M for 5 years.
MOTION PASSED: 7-0
22. Adoption of a Resolution to Reduce the Membership of the Stormwater Management
Oversight Committee and Direction Related to an Amendment to the Palo Alto
Municipal Code to Streamline the Functions of the Historic Resources Board; CEQA
Status - Not a Project
City Clerk Mahealani Ah Yun stated that this item addresses ongoing operational challenges
with the Stormwater Management Oversight Committee and the Historic Resources Board
(HRB). Vacancies, recusals, and absences have made it difficult for these bodies to consistently
achieve a quorum and conduct business, despite ongoing recruitment efforts. Staff
recommends that the Council adopt a resolution to reduce the Stormwater Management
Oversight Committee from 7 to 5 members. This change would better align the committee with
current recruitment realities and improve its ability to maintain a quorum, without altering the
committee’s responsibilities, authority, or role. Additionally, staff seeks the Council’s direction
on a potential amendment to the municipal code to allow the Planning and Development
Services Director to designate a historic preservation officer to handle certain routine
administrative functions that currently require action by the HRB. This change aims to minimize
project delays when the board cannot establish a quorum, while still maintaining the HRB’s
important policy and advisory responsibilities. These administrative changes are intended to
improve continuity and efficiency while ensuring meaningful community oversight.
Public Comment: None.
Vice Mayor Stone asked what outreach had been conducted and whether the Stormwater
Management Oversight Committee and the HRB had been consulted about the proposed
changes. City Clerk Mahealani Yun responded that they had not. Vice Mayor Stone expressed
concern about the lack of outreach and wanted to hear the opinions of both affected bodies
before he could support either change. Delaying the Council’s decision by a few months to
allow staff to gather feedback would be worthwhile. While reducing the Stormwater
Management Oversight Committee seemed reasonable, it was important to gather feedback
from that committee first. Vice Mayor Stone wanted to hear the HRB’s perspective on the
historic preservation officer's role. Vice Mayor Stone asked who would determine what
constitutes minor changes to a historic structure. Vice Mayor Stone was concerned that the
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 24 of 27
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 08/10/2026
historic preservation officer, rather than the HRB, would decide on exterior remodeling and the
removal of alterations to historic structures, as changing the exterior can significantly alter the
structure's character and might strip away the very elements that make it worth preserving.
Vice Mayor Stone wanted detailed clarity on “removal of an alteration to a historic structure”
and whether it includes changes made at any time after the original structure was built. The
staff report did not include a proposed ordinance or specific language. Vice Mayor Stone
wanted a recommendation from the HRB on whether they endorse the idea of a historic
preservation officer. Vice Mayor Stone concluded that this matter was not ready for a Council
decision at this time.
City Manager Ed Shikada explained that the reason for bringing this matter forward now is the
ongoing recruitment challenges for both bodies in finding eligible candidates. Staff wanted to
address this issue as quickly as possible. The state reviews any changes to the proposed
process. City Manager Shikada emphasized that staff is seeking general direction from the
Council. If the Council decides to move forward with the HRB changes, staff will return with
specific language for consideration.
Senior Planner Steven Switzer noted that the City’s historic preservation ordinance has
undergone minor updates but, for the most part, remains from the 1980s. A provision allows
staff review of most projects but it is limited to minor revisions, which our ordinance does not
define. This update would clarify the circumstances and better align with our architectural
review process, allowing both staff-level reviews and board involvement. It would also align our
historic preservation ordinance with those in other jurisdictions across the state and define
what constitutes a staff-level review versus a board review.
Councilmember Lauing stated that if staff is seeking only direction on potential changes, not a
final ordinance, staff can do so with the board. Councilmember Lauing recalled that 2 years ago,
the Library Commission came to the Council with a suggestion to dissolve itself, and it was ideal
for the commission to take the initiative. Seeking input from the board was a quick process
through a poll and the right thing to do.
Councilmember Burt thought that reducing the Stormwater Management Oversight Committee
from 7 to 5 members was reasonable, as its functions are mostly perfunctory. Councilmember
Burt heard from 1 committee member about irregular meeting dates and times, so establishing
a more consistent schedule could help committee members plan to attend meetings. Regarding
the HRB, Councilmember Burt asked whether the staff person handling administrative functions
would perform those duties only when there is no quorum or whether those functions would
always be handled by the staff member. Councilmember Burt believed the 2 issues should be
considered separately: whether a project requires HRB review under current rules but there is a
lack of quorum due to vacancies, recusals, or other absences, and whether to streamline the
process. Councilmember Burt felt it was appropriate for the Council to hear the HRB’s feedback
on the process and weigh input from the HRB, staff, and Council Members.
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 25 of 27
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 08/10/2026
Jennifer Armer, Assistant Director of Planning and Development Services, explained that staff
reviewed the Architectural Review Board’s processes and examples from other cities to reduce
the number of times items are delayed for review because the HRB lacks a quorum. The staff
report described an adjustment clarifying what the HRB would review versus what an expert
historian consultant would review.
Councilmember Lythcott-Haims noted that government efficiency was among the Council's
priorities this year. The staff report was a plea for assistance, as the HRB often struggles to
achieve a quorum, causing delays. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims did not want the HRB
feedback process to take too long and was inclined to support staff's recommendation to move
things forward more quickly.
City Clerk Ah Yun stated that the HRB consists of 5 members. There is 1 completely vacant
position. Two members were termed out as of March 31, 2026, but they agreed to remain for
an additional 6 months while recruitment continued; otherwise, the board would have only 2
members.
Mayor Veenker acknowledged the City Clerk’s hard work on recruitment. Mayor Veenker was
inclined to support a 5-member body but asked for the proportion of the City’s boards,
commissions, and committees that have 5 members rather than 7. Regarding the effort to align
with other cities in the state that have created similar positions for a historic preservation
officer, Mayor Veenker expressed interest in reviewing a few job descriptions from those cities.
Mayor Veenker requested quick feedback from the HRB on the scope of routine administrative
functions the historic preservation officer would handle. Mayor Veenker generally supports
having a historic preservation officer to move things along, since it is unsustainable to have
vacant positions on the HRB and for members to continue serving for 6 months beyond the end
of their terms. Given the HRB's requirements, Mayor Veenker questioned whether term limits
should be eliminated or extended.
City Clerk Ah Yun said that the ARB and HRB are 5-member bodies.
Councilmember Lu was comfortable with both sets of staff’s proposed changes, though he
believed the HRB-related changes would require a follow-up ordinance for Council
consideration and that the HRB should provide feedback before that ordinance was presented.
Councilmember Lu felt comfortable moving forward with a historic preservation officer as a
fallback option when a deadline must be met or when it may take several months to reach a
quorum but obtaining HRB feedback and clarifying staff’s role would be beneficial.
Councilmember Lu suggested that the Stormwater Commission should dissolve, as the Library
Commission did. Councilmember Lu enjoyed serving as an HRB liaison and noted members'
engagement and enthusiasm. Many HRB meetings are very quick, involving decisions on 1 or 2
small items, as applicants typically conduct extensive research in preparation for the HRB. To
better support the HRB's success, Councilmember Lu suggested eliminating term limits or
refreshing aspects of the historic preservation ordinance to encourage more interesting and
relevant projects and decisions that better preserve history, while also providing a more
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 26 of 27
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 08/10/2026
cohesive set of historic preservation incentives. Councilmember Lu expressed interest in
working on a colleague's memo to address these suggestions.
Senior Planner Steven Switzer clarified that the voter initiative requires a Stormwater
Management Oversight Committee, although the Council has some discretion over its
membership and composition.
Councilmember Reckdahl agreed that the 2 issues raised, streamlining and quorum concerns,
should be debated separately. Councilmember Reckdahl asked: Does CLG status require us to
have an HRB? If we streamline the responsibilities, at what point would the state no longer
recognize it as an HRB? Are there specific responsibilities that must remain with the HRB?
Senior Planner Steven Switzer said state law requires a board or commission to make decisions
at the local level regarding historic preservation. Other jurisdictions have faced quorum issues
and have assigned those responsibilities to other boards but such changes require state
approval. Streamlining efforts have helped reduce the frequency of these board meetings. We
have already adjusted the composition, reducing the number of members from 7 to 5 to
minimally meet the state standards for a certified local government (CLG). The state weighs in
on any ordinance changes. At least 4 meetings a year are required to be considered a
functioning commission. A significant part of the HRB’s responsibilities includes designating
historic resources, with the City Council having the final authority on what is listed in the
inventory. Compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards is also necessary. Some
jurisdictions have implemented streamlining efforts to reduce the frequency of commission
meetings but there has been debate about which responsibilities can be handled at the staff
level.
Councilmember Burt asked whether the HRB members who extended their terms are leaving
only because of term limits or whether they would be interested in continuing.
City Clerk Ah Yun stated that 2 HRB members were leaving due to term limits; however, she is
unsure whether 1 board member has indicated she is ready to step down.
MOTION: Council Member Burt moved, seconded by Mayor Veenker, to:
1. Adopt a Resolution to reduce the membership of the Stormwater Management
Oversight Committee (SWMOC) from seven (7) members to five (5) members.
2. Direct staff to receive input on the proposed changes from the Historic Resources Board
(HRB), along with staff input for future Council consideration. Direct staff to explore
what other jurisdictions have done relating to the HRB concerns. Return to Council with
an evaluation of relaxing term limits for the HRB and SWMOC.
Mayor Veenker seconded the motion and requested that the Council be informed about what
other jurisdictions have done with a historic preservation officer. Councilmember Burt agreed
with Mayor Veenker’s request.
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 27 of 27
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 08/10/2026
MOTION PASSED: 7-0
Agenda Item Number AA1 not heard.
Virtual Public Comment
1. Avram F. noted increasing pushback against Zionists and expressed his disapproval of
having them on our City Council. Avram F. was dismayed that Councilmember Lauing and
Mayor Veenker were seeking reelection. Avram F. was concerned that Councilmember
Reckdahl may be prosecutable under international law as a war criminal due to his work on
weapon systems for Lockheed that have reportedly been used in Palestine. Avram F. sent
Councilmember Reckdahl the re Weller case he litigated many years ago and asked what his
position is on the first-strike weapon mentioned in that case.
2. Star T. thanked our emergency services for participating in the recent National Night
Out, as well as the neighbors and Council Members who attended. Recent survey responses
from high school students indicate they often feel as if they do not matter. She encouraged
families to cultivate a sense of belonging by building relationships with people at local
businesses, attending local events and classes, and appreciating the work of local government.
She emphasized the importance of Council communicating effectively with constituents and of
fostering care for our city. Palo Alto’s communication system may contribute to commission
vacancies. Many residents are unaware of what is happening in the city, which leads to apathy.
She recently received an email about park sign upgrades. The sign at Bol Park was replaced in
the past few years. Although it is beautiful, she prefers something handmade from real wood
that is compatible with its surroundings. She asked the City to pause the upgrades of wooden
park signs and explain why uniformity is essential. She indicated strong support for the
Cubberley Community Center project and emphasized the importance of the community
receiving a clear message about the current and projected needs this project aims to address.
Withholding the appraisal value prior to Measure J is a deal-breaker for some residents, as they
want to assess whether the $65.5M was a good negotiation. Star T. suggested the City address
some of the concerns Diana Diamond raised in the August 1 article in the Palo Alto Weekly. Star
T. will send her ideas on improving the City’s website, including direct notifications of the City’s
monthly calendar and the City Manager's Uplift! local newsletter.
3. Ravi S. submitted 3 slides on SB 79 implementation issues in Palo Alto. The ordinance
created a 15-day window that created substantial economic opportunities for some. However,
for those who could not get through that window, including his daughter’s location, it led to
significant economic impacts. The state law allows for much more than the ordinance. He asked
the Council to review his suggestions and take steps to mitigate economic disparities in lot
values on the market. For example, 340 Palo Alto Avenue was listed at approximately $6.3M,
while homes in that area typically sell for around $3.2M to $3.3M. Ravi S. urged the Council to
reconsider the ordinance with livability and flexibility in mind.
Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 9:10 p.m.