Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026-09-09 City Council Agenda PacketCITY COUNCIL Special Meeting Wednesday, September 09, 2026 Council Chambers & Hybrid 5:00 PM   City Council meetings will be held as “hybrid” meetings with the option to attend virtually or in person. Information on how the public may observe and participate in the meeting is located at the end of the agenda. Translation services are available upon request at least 24 hours before the meeting. The meeting will be broadcast on Cable TV Channel 76, live on YouTube https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofpaloalto, and streamed to Midpen Media Center https://midpenmedia.org. VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION CLICK HERE TO JOIN (https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/362027238) Meeting ID: 362 027 238 Phone:1(669)900-6833 PUBLIC COMMENTS Public Comment for items not on the agenda will be accepted for up to 3 minutes or an amount of time determined by the Chair. In-person comments will be heard at the beginning of the agenda and remote comments will be heard at the end of the agenda. In-person general public comment will be heard for 30 minutes. Additional in-person public comments, if any, will be heard at the end of the agenda. Public comments for agendized items will be accepted both in person and via Zoom for up to 3 minutes or an amount of time determined by the Chair. Requests to speak will be taken until 5 minutes after the staff’s presentation or as determined by the Chair. Written public comments can be submitted in advance to city.council@PaloAlto.gov and will be provided to the Council and available for inspection on the City’s website. Multiple individuals wishing to speak on the same item may designate a spokesperson. Spokespeople must be representing 5 or more verified individuals who are present in person or via Zoom. Spokespeople are allowed up to 10 minutes, at the discretion of the Chair. Speaking time may be reduced if the Chair reduces the speaking time for individual speakers. PowerPoints, videos, or other media to be presented during public comment are accepted only by email to city.clerk@PaloAlto.gov at least 24 hours before the meeting. Once received, the Clerk will share them at public comment for the specified item. To uphold strong cybersecurity management practices, USB’s or other physical electronic storage devices are not accepted. Signs and symbolic materials less than 2 feet by 3 feet are permitted provided that: sticks, posts, poles or similar/other type of handle objects are strictly prohibited; the items do not create a facility, fire, or safety hazard; and persons with such items remain seated when displaying them and must not raise the items above shoulder level, obstruct the view or passage of other attendees, or otherwise disturb the business of the meeting. TIME ESTIMATES Listed times are estimates only and are subject to change at any time, including while the meeting is in progress. The Council reserves the right to use more or less time on any item, change the order of items and/or continue items to another meeting. Items may be heard before or after the time estimated on the agenda. This may occur in order to best manage the time at a meeting or to adapt to the participation of the public.  1 September 09, 2026 Materials submitted after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection at www.paloalto.gov/agendas. CALL TO ORDER SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY (5:00 - 5:45 PM) 1.Interview Candidates for Vacancies on the Historic Resources Board (HRB); CEQA Status - Not a Project 2.Proclamation Honoring the 25th Anniversary of September 11, 2001 CLOSED SESSION (5:45 - 7:45 PM) 3.PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS Authority: Cal. Gov. Code section 54957(b)(1) Titles: City Manager, City Attorney and City Clerk AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS IN-PERSON PUBLIC COMMENT (7:45 - 8:15 PM) Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. 1-3 minutes depending on number of speakers. In-person comments will be heard at the beginning of the agenda and remote comments will be heard at the end of the agenda. In-person Public Comment is limited to 30 minutes. Additional in-person public comments, if any, will be heard at the end of the agenda. COUNCIL MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS (8:15 - 8:25 PM) Members of the public may not speak to the item(s). CONSENT CALENDAR (8:25 - 8:30 PM) Items will be voted in one motion unless removed from the calendar by three Council Members. 4.Approval of Minutes from August 17 and August 24, 2026 Meetings 5.Approval of Response to Civil Grand Jury Report “VTA‘s Management and Oversight of BART Silicon Valley Phase II”; CEQA Status: Not a Project 6.Approval of Five-year Memorandum of Agreement with Stanford University to Provide and be Reimbursed for Traffic Control Services during Stanford Stadium Events; CEQA status – not a project. 7.Approval of Amendment No. 1 to Contract No. S25186778 with Municipal Resources Group, LLC to increase the Contract Amount by $85,000 to a Total Not-to-Exceed of 2 September 09, 2026 Materials submitted after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection at www.paloalto.gov/agendas. $340,000 for Organizational Development Services and Extend the Contract Term by One Year through September 4, 2027; CEQA Status – Not a Project. 8.Approval of Amendment No. 1 to the Cost-Sharing Agreement with the County of Santa Clara for Continued Operation of the Safe Parking Program at 2000 Geng Road to Extend the Term Through June 30, 2027 and Not-to-Exceed $196,032; Approval of Amendment No. 3 to Contract No. 1557819, the Lease Agreement with the County of Santa Clara, Extending the County’s Temporary Use of the Site Through June 30, 2027; Approval of FY 2027 Budget Amendment in the Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA) Fund; and Authorization to Use PLHA Activity 6 Funds Accordingly; CEQA status – statutorily exempt. 9.Approval of Amendment No. 2 to Contract C23187298C with Hinderliter, de Llamas & Associates (HdL) to Add Sales Tax and Transactions Tax Analysis, Reporting, Forecasting, and Audit Recovery Services and Increase Compensation by $165,000 for a New Total Not-to-Exceed Amount of $3,035,000 over Two Years and Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing HdL and Designated City Staff to Examine Sales or Transactions and Use Taxes from the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA); CEQA Status - Not a Project 10.Adoption of Side Letter Between the City of Palo Alto and Utilities Management and Professional Association of Palo Alto for a Hiring Incentive; CEQA Status - Not a Project. 11.SECOND READING: Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Title 16 (Building Regulations), Title 18 (Zoning), and Title 21 (Subdivisions) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Amend Requirements Relating to Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (FIRST READING: August 17, 2026; PASSED: 4-3, Stone, Veenker, Lythcott-Haims no) CITY MANAGER COMMENTS (8:30 - 8:40 PM)   BREAK (15 MINUTES) Listed times are estimates only and are subject to change at any time, including while the meeting is in progress.   ACTION ITEMS (Item 12: 8:55 - 9:55 PM, Item 13: 9:55 - 10:15 PM; Item 14: 10:15 - 11:00 PM) Include: Report of Committees/Commissions, Ordinances and Resolutions, Public Hearings, Report of Officials, Unfinished Business and Council Matters.   12.PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 470 Olive Avenue [25PLN-00228]: Recommend City Council Adopt an Ordinance Amending the Zoning Map to Change the Zoning District for 470 Olive Avenue from NV-R1 (Single-Family Residential) to NV-MXM (Medium  3 September 09, 2026 Materials submitted after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection at www.paloalto.gov/agendas. Density Mixed Use) and Adopt a Resolution Changing the North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan (NVCAP) Land Use Designation from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Mixed Use to Align it With the NVMXM Zoning of the Adjacent and Connected Parcel at 2951 El Camino Real. This Action Supports a Staff Determination to Add 470 Olive Avenue as a Housing Inventory Site to Address No Net Loss Requirements. CEQA Status: Statutorily Exempt per Public Resources Code Section 21080.085. 13.Designation of Voting Delegate and Alternate for the League of California Cities 2026 Annual Conference, to be held September 23-25, 2026 in Anaheim, California; CEQA Status – Not a Project 14.Colleagues’ Memo: Council Discussion and Public Release of the Investigation Report Regarding Forest Peterson VIRTUAL PUBLIC COMMENT Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. 1-3 minutes depending on number of speakers. In-person comments will be heard at the beginning of the agenda and remote comments will be heard at the end of the agenda. In-person Public Comment is limited to 30 minutes. Additional in-person public comments, if any, will be heard at the end of the agenda. ADJOURNMENT INFORMATION REPORTS Information reports are provided for informational purposes only to the Council and the public but are not listed for action or discussion during this meeting’s agenda. A.Notification of 2023-2031 Housing Element Site Inventory Modifications for State Law Compliance. CEQA Status: The City Council approved a Revised Addendum to the Comprehensive Plan Environmental Impact Report on December 23, 2023 that fully analyzed the impacts of the 2023-2031 Housing Element, including maintenance of the site inventory. B.2026 City Council Priorities Q2 Update Supplemental Report OTHER INFORMATION Standing Committee Meetings this week Rail Committee September 8, 2026 Policy & Services Committee September 8, 2026 4 September 09, 2026 Materials submitted after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection at www.paloalto.gov/agendas. Public Comment Letters Schedule of Meetings   SUPPLEMENTAL/AMENDED AGENDA ITEMS   B. 2026 City Council Priorities Q2 Update Supplemental Report Added      5 September 09, 2026 Materials submitted after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection at www.paloalto.gov/agendas. PUBLIC COMMENT INSTRUCTIONS Members of the Public may provide public comments to teleconference meetings via email, teleconference, or by phone. 1.Written public comments may be submitted by email to city.council@PaloAlto.gov. 2.For in person public comments please complete a speaker request card located on the table at the entrance to the Council Chambers and deliver it to the Clerk prior to discussion of the item. 3.Spoken public comments using a computer or smart phone will be accepted through the teleconference meeting. To address the Council, click on the link below to access a Zoom- based meeting. Please read the following instructions carefully. ◦You may download the Zoom client or connect to the meeting in- browser. If using your browser, make sure you are using a current, up-to-date browser: Chrome 30 , Firefox 27 , Microsoft Edge 12 , Safari 7 . Certain functionality may be disabled in older browsers including Internet Explorer. Or download the Zoom application onto your smart phone from the Apple App Store or Google Play Store and enter in the Meeting ID below. ◦You may be asked to enter an email address and name. We request that you identify yourself by name as this will be visible online and will be used to notify you that it is your turn to speak. ◦When you wish to speak on an Agenda Item, click on “raise hand.” The Clerk will activate and unmute speakers in turn. Speakers will be notified shortly before they are called to speak. ◦When called, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted. A timer will be shown on the computer to help keep track of your comments. 4.Spoken public comments using a phone use the telephone number listed below. When you wish to speak on an agenda item hit *9 on your phone so we know that you wish to speak. You will be asked to provide your first and last name before addressing the Council. You will be advised how long you have to speak. When called please limit your remarks to the agenda item and time limit allotted. CLICK HERE TO JOIN Meeting ID: 362-027-238 Phone: 1-669-900-6833 Americans with Disability Act (ADA) It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to offer its public programs, services and meetings in a manner that is readily accessible to all. Persons with disabilities who require materials in an appropriate alternative format or who require auxiliary aids to access City meetings, programs, or services may contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at (650) 329-2550 (voice) or by emailing ada@PaloAlto.gov. Requests for assistance or accommodations must be submitted at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or service.  6 September 09, 2026 Materials submitted after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection at www.paloalto.gov/agendas. California Government Code §84308, commonly referred to as the "Levine Act," prohibits an elected official of a local government agency from participating in a proceeding involving a license, permit, or other entitlement for use if the official received a campaign contribution exceeding $500 from a party or participant, including their agents, to the proceeding within the last 12 months. A “license, permit, or other entitlement for use” includes most land use and planning approvals and the approval of contracts that are not subject to lowest responsible bid procedures and have a value over $50,000. A “party” is a person who files an application for, or is the subject of, a proceeding involving a license, permit, or other entitlement for use. A “participant” is a person who actively supports or opposes a particular decision in a proceeding involving a license, permit, or other entitlement for use, and has a financial interest in the decision. The Levine Act incorporates the definition of “financial interest” in the Political Reform Act, which encompasses interests in business entities, real property, sources of income, sources of gifts, and personal finances that may be affected by the Council’s actions. If you qualify as a “party” or “participant” to a proceeding, and you have made a campaign contribution to a Council Member exceeding $500 made within the last 12 months, you must disclose the campaign contribution before making your comments.  7 September 09, 2026 Materials submitted after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection at www.paloalto.gov/agendas. City Council Staff Report Report Type: SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY Lead Department: City Clerk Meeting Date: September 9, 2026 Report #:2606-6477 TITLE Interview Candidates for Vacancies on the Historic Resources Board (HRB); CEQA Status - Not a Project BACKGROUND Recruitment for the Historic Resources Board opened on January 13, 2026, and was extended until a sufficient number of applications were received. There are three full-term vacancies on the Historic Resources Board, with terms expiring on March 31, 2029. City Council selected candidates to interview at the August 24, 2026 City Council meeting. Applications may be accessed online1. Each candidate interview is scheduled for 10 minutes. Candidates will have an opportunity to summarize their experiences, and the remaining time will be allocated to Councilmember questions. Candidates have been informed of the following: 1. Each interview is scheduled for 10 minutes. Candidates may begin with 1-2 minutes describing their experience and/or desire to serve. The remaining time will be Q+A with the City Council; 2. Interviews are located in Council Chambers on the ground floor of City Hall (250 Hamilton Ave) or on Zoom; 3. If joining in person, please arrive 15 minutes before the scheduled time, and check in with the Clerk upon arrival; and 4. If joining via Zoom, please log-on 15 minutes before the scheduled time, and make sure to use your name so the clerk can identify the candidate. Please use this link to join https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/362027238. The clerk will allow you to unmute and turn on your video when it’s your turn. 1 August 24, 2026, City Council Staff Report #2605-6350 https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=897164&dbid=0&repo=PaloAlto Item 1 Item 1 Staff Report Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 1 Packet Pg. 8 of 284  Appointments are tentatively scheduled for the September 14, 2026 City Council meeting. Councilmembers will appoint candidates through live voting conducted during the meeting. The City Clerk will announce the results of the vote. ANALYSIS Historic Resources Board (HRB) 3) HRB Eligibility Requirements4: Palo Alto residency is not required All members shall have demonstrated interest in and knowledge of history, architecture or historic preservation. Two members shall be professionals in the disciplines of architecture, architectural history, planning, landscape architecture, or related disciplines, or pre-historic and historic archeology, folklore, cultural anthropology, curation, or conservation. o This requirement is currently fulfilled by three members of the commission, two of which do not have expiring terms. Therefore, this requirement will remain fulfilled regardless of applicant selection in this recruitment. At least one member shall possess academic education or practical experience in history or a related field such as American studies, American civilization, or cultural geography. 3 City Council, May 5, 2025; Agenda Item #11, SR# 2504-4537 https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/Weblink/DocView.aspx?id=83381 4 Palo Alto Municipal Code 2.27.010 Item 1 Item 1 Staff Report        Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 2  Packet Pg. 9 of 284  o This requirement is currently fulfilled by three members of the commission, and all three have expired terms in this recruitment. At least one new appointment must meet this requirement. FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT None. STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT City staff publicized the recruitment through the City’s Uplift Local community newsletter, City Clerk’s Office newsletters, the City’s website, and the City’s social media channels. The recruitment was also advertised in both print and online in the Palo Alto Daily Post, as well as the Palo Alto Weekly print and a LinkedIn online ad. Recruitment information was also posted at Palo Alto libraries, City Hall, and public facing facilities. Information was also emailed to previous applicants, community-based organizations, and businesses related to the commission’s issue areas. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Council action on this item is not a project as defined by CEQA because it is an organizational or administrative activity that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment. CEQA Guidelines section 15378(b)(5). ATTACHMENTS None. APPROVED BY: Mahealani Ah Yun, City Clerk Item 1 Item 1 Staff Report        Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 3  Packet Pg. 10 of 284  City Council Staff Report From: City Clerk Report Type: SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY Lead Department: Police Department Meeting Date: September 9, 2026 Report #:2608-6705 TITLE Proclamation Honoring the 25th Anniversary of September 11, 2001 ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Proclamation Honoring the 25th Anniversary of September 11, 2001 APPROVED BY: Mahealani Ah Yun, City Clerk Item 2 Item 2 Staff Report        Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 1  Packet Pg. 11 of 284  25th Anniversary of September 11, 2001 Patriot Day and Day of Remembrance, September 11, 2026 WHEREAS, September 11, 2026 marks twenty-five years since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, which forever changed our nation and the lives of millions of Americans; and WHEREAS, the September 11, 2001 attack was the deadliest terrorist attack in American history, killing 2996 people (including 342 members of the New York City Fire Department, 60 law enforcement officers from the New York City Police Department and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, and 55 military personnel); and WHEREAS, on-duty and off-duty firefighters, police officers, emergency medical technicians, and other responders rushed to the scenes and took heroic action to save lives at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon; and WHEREAS, office workers, military personnel, and residents showed incredible courage and support for their fellow Americans in helping each other escape the attack and flee to safety, often at the expense of their own lives; and WHEREAS, the impact of September 11, 2001 continues today, as first responders, recovery workers, survivors, and others exposed to toxic conditions have suffered serious illnesses, and many have since lost their lives as a result; and WHEREAS, amid profound tragedy, Americans came together to support one another and demonstrated extraordinary courage, compassion, unity, and service; and WHEREAS, twenty-five years later, we honor those who were lost, those who survived, the families forever changed, and all who responded and served in the days, months, and years that followed; NOW, THEREFORE, I, Vicki Veenker, Mayor of the City of Palo Alto, on behalf of the City Council, do hereby proclaim September 11, 2026, as a day of remembrance and call upon our community to honor the lives lost, recognize the heroism and enduring sacrifice of our nation’s first responders, and carry forward the courage, compassion, service, and unity demonstrated in the aftermath of September 11, 2001. Twenty-five years later, we remember their lives, we honor their sacrifice, and we renew our promise: we will never forget. Presented: September 9, 2026 ______________________________ Vicki Veenker Mayor Proclamation Item 2 Attachment A - Proclamation Honoring the 25th Anniversary of September 11, 2001        Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 2  Packet Pg. 12 of 284  City Council Staff Report Report Type: CONSENT CALENDAR Lead Department: City Clerk Meeting Date: September 9, 2026 Report #:2608-6651 TITLE Approval of Minutes from August 17 and August 24, 2026 Meetings RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council review and approve the minutes. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: August 17, 2026 Draft Action Minutes Attachment B: August 24, 2026 Draft Action Minutes APPROVED BY: Mahealani Ah Yun, City Clerk Item 4 Item 4 Staff Report        Item 4: Staff Report Pg. 1  Packet Pg. 13 of 284  CITY COUNCIL DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 1 of 5 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: Absent: Closed Session 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: Council Member Lauing moved, seconded by Council Member Lu to go into Closed Session. 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. Agenda Item Number 2 is continued to a date uncertain. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions Item 4 Attachment A - August 17, 2026 Draft Action Minutes        Item 4: Staff Report Pg. 2  Packet Pg. 14 of 284  DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 2 of 5 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 08/17/2026 In-Person Public Comment Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements Consent Calendar 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 Ed Shikada, City Manager 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). MOTION: Councilmember Lythcott-Haims moved, seconded by Vice Mayor to: A) Approve staff & Planning and Transportation Commission recommendation; Item 4 Attachment A - August 17, 2026 Draft Action Minutes        Item 4: Staff Report Pg. 3  Packet Pg. 15 of 284  DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 3 of 5 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 08/17/2026 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 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). 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, Item 4 Attachment A - August 17, 2026 Draft Action Minutes        Item 4: Staff Report Pg. 4  Packet Pg. 16 of 284  DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 4 of 5 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 08/17/2026 b. To modify conditions of approval 99 as follows: c. Modify SECTION 1. Background. B. to read: Waiver 2: Upper Floor Step-back (6-foot step-back where 10-foot is required) and step-back 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. MOTION PASSED: 7-0 Virtual Public Comment Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 11:28 P.M. Item 4 Attachment A - August 17, 2026 Draft Action Minutes        Item 4: Staff Report Pg. 5  Packet Pg. 17 of 284  DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 5 of 5 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 08/17/2026 ATTEST: APPROVED: ____________________ ____________________ City Clerk Mayor NOTE: Action minutes are prepared in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) 2.04.160(a) and (b). Summary minutes (sense) are prepared in accordance with PAMC Section 2.04.160(c). Beginning in January 2018, in accordance with Ordinance No. 5423, the City Council found action minutes and the video/audio recordings of Council proceedings to be the official records of both Council and committee proceedings. These recordings are available on the City’s website. Item 4 Attachment A - August 17, 2026 Draft Action Minutes        Item 4: Staff Report Pg. 6  Packet Pg. 18 of 284  CITY COUNCIL DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 1 of 4 Special Meeting August 24, 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: Absent: Special Orders of the Day 1. Review Applications and Select Candidates to Interview for Vacancies on the Historic Resources Board (HRB); CEQA Status – Not a Project NO ACTION Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions In-Person Public Comment Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements Study Session 2. Semi-Annual City Council Discussion with the Independent Police Auditor (IPA) NO ACTION Item 4 Attachment B - August 24, 2026 Draft Action Minutes        Item 4: Staff Report Pg. 7  Packet Pg. 19 of 284  DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 2 of 4 Sp. City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 08/24/2026 Consent Calendar MOTION: Councilmember Lu moved, seconded by Councilmember Reckdahl to approve Agenda Item Numbers 3-4, 6-8 (Agenda Item Number 5 Removed Off Agenda). MOTION PASSED: 7-0 3. Approval of Minutes from August 10, 2026 Meeting 4. Approval of Response to Civil Grand Jury Report “Pothole Damage: Improving Claims Processes within Santa Clara County” 5. Approval of Five-year Memorandum of Agreement with Stanford University to Provide Traffic Control Services during Stanford Stadium Events; CEQA status – not a project. Item Removed Off Agenda 6. Approval of a Purchase Order with Pivot Interiors Inc. in the Amount of $441,056 for Furniture for the New Laboratory and Environmental Services Building Project (WQ- 14002); CEQA Status – Not a Project 7. Approval of Amendment No. 2 to Contract No. C22182372 with CSWST2 to Add $170,450, Increasing the Not-to-Exceed Amount to $360,302 and Extending the Contract Term to December 31, 2028 for Preliminary Design Services to Support Assessment District Planning and Stakeholder Engagement for the University Avenue Streetscape Capital Improvement Program Project, PE-21004; CEQA Status – Not a Project 8. SECOND READING: Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 2.28.240 [Settlement of Claims and Actions] and Chapter 2.30 [Contracts and Purchasing Procedures] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to increase the thresholds for solicitation of goods and services, increase contract approval and settlement authority, and to make other technical changes. (FIRST READING: August 10, 2026; PASSED: 7-0) City Manager Comments Ed Shikada, City Manager Action Items 9. Authorization for the City Manager to Execute New and Amended Regulatory Agreements for the Buena Vista Mobilehome Park Redevelopment/3980 El Camino Real. CEQA Status: Exempt Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3). Item 4 Attachment B - August 24, 2026 Draft Action Minutes        Item 4: Staff Report Pg. 8  Packet Pg. 20 of 284  DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 3 of 4 Sp. City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 08/24/2026 MOTION: Councilmember Lu moved, seconded by Councilmember Reckdahl to authorize the City Manager to execute and make non-substantive changes (e.g., editing recitals and adding APNs and legal descriptions) to the new and amended regulatory agreements and related documents to facilitate improvements to the Buena Vista Mobilehome Park at 3980 El Camino Real with a referral to staff to work with Housing Authority for local preferences. MOTION PASSED: 7-0 10. Recommendation from the Oversized Vehicles (OSV) Ad Hoc Committee to Launch Two Pilot OSV Parking Programs, Including Adoption of an Ordinance Establishing an OSV Parking Permit Program, an Ordinance Amending the Municipal Fee Schedule to Add an OSV Parking Permit Fee, Resolutions Establishing OSV Parking Permit Districts on Embarcadero Road and Coyote Hill Road, a Resolution Prohibiting OSV Parking on Numerous Streets in Palo Alto; a Resolution Adding Related Penalties to the Administrative Penalty Schedule; and Related Amendments to the FY 2027 Operating and Capital Budget; CEQA status – categorically and statutorily exempt. MOTION: Councilmember Burt moved, seconded by Councilmember Reckdahl to: 1. Approve a pilot OSV parking permit program on Embarcadero Road and Coyote Hill Road for an initial term of 12 months, substantially as described in this report by January 1, 2027. This includes adoption of the following: a. An ordinance adding new PAMC Chapter 10.49 to establish an OSV Parking Permit Program and amending PAMC section 10.60.010 allowing civil penalties for parking violations of several chapters of the PAMC; b. An ordinance amending the FY 2027 Municipal Fee Schedule to add an OSV parking permit fee of up to $15 per month; c. A resolution establishing an OSV Parking Permit District on a section of Embarcadero Road. This will prohibit parking except for vehicles with permits; d. A resolution establishing an OSV Parking Permit District on a section of Coyote Hill Road. This will prohibit parking except for vehicles with permits; and e. A resolution amending the Administrative Penalty Schedule to add penalties for violations of PAMC Chapter 10.49. 2. Direct staff to begin to provide red curbs daylighting in the commercial areas that are identified for pilot 2 and evaluate a 10-foot daylighting; 3. Direct staff come back to Council with appropriate ordinance changes to recognize residential, including PCs and mixed use, be treated the same as residential zoning; Item 4 Attachment B - August 24, 2026 Draft Action Minutes        Item 4: Staff Report Pg. 9  Packet Pg. 21 of 284  DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 4 of 4 Sp. City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 08/24/2026 4. Any future consideration of a pilot 2 excludes streets that have significant residential components or bike lane (Park, Olive, Lambert, Ash); 5. Direct staff to pursue data collection to have a better understanding of the demographics of our current RV population; 6. Explore with major employers’ willingness to accommodate workers who reside in RVs, their workers who reside in RVs on their sites; 7. Direct staff continue to pursue the permitted pilot program on both sides of Coyote Hill Road; 8. Direct staff to continue to seek safe parking solutions in collaboration with County, State, Federal, public and private partners; 9. Direct staff to explore any other sites that would be eligible for RV parking in the greater downtown area; 10. Direct the City Manager to appropriate the funding needed for the scope of work in this Motion as needed. MOTION PASSED: 7-0 Virtual Public Comment Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 11:59 P.M. ATTEST: APPROVED: ____________________ ____________________ City Clerk Mayor NOTE: Action minutes are prepared in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) 2.04.160(a) and (b). Summary minutes (sense) are prepared in accordance with PAMC Section 2.04.160(c). Beginning in January 2018, in accordance with Ordinance No. 5423, the City Council found action minutes and the video/audio recordings of Council proceedings to be the official records of both Council and committee proceedings. These recordings are available on the City’s website. Item 4 Attachment B - August 24, 2026 Draft Action Minutes        Item 4: Staff Report Pg. 10  Packet Pg. 22 of 284  City Council Staff Report From: City Attorney Report Type: CONSENT CALENDAR Lead Department: City Attorney Meeting Date: September 9, 2026 Report #:2606-6489 TITLE Approval of Response to Civil Grand Jury Report “VTA‘s Management and Oversight of BART Silicon Valley Phase II”; CEQA Status: Not a Project RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that Council approve the following response to the 2025-2026 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report entitled, “VTA’s Management and Oversight of BART Silicon Valley Phase II”. BACKGROUND On June 17, 2026, the Civil Grand Jury of Santa Clara County released a report entitled “VTA‘s Management and Oversight of BART Silicon Valley Phase II”(“BSVII”). The Grand Jury investigated the role of the VTA Board, its Oversight Committee, its staff, and officials in the management and oversight of the BSVII project for this report. The only findings and recommendations relevant to the City of Palo Alto relate to the process for appointing VTA Board members. VTA Board members are appointed to two-year terms by appointing agencies, organized into six groups. Appointing agency groups are established and defined by the VTA Administrative Code. The Administrative Code encourages, but does not require, the agency groups to (1) appoint individuals with appropriate experience and qualifications in transportation; (2) ensure that there is sufficient remaining time in the elected official’s term of office to allow full completion of their term as a Director; and (3) reappoint representatives to consecutive terms. (VTA Administrative Code, § 2-14.) The City of Palo Alto is a member of Appointing Agency Group 2, along with the cities of Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, and Mountain View. The Group 2 Bylaws (Attachment B, Exhibit 1) define the process for appointing the Group 2 representative to the VTA Board and incorporate the requirements of VTA Administrative Code section 2-14 into the appointment process, including (1) minimum requirements for transportation-related experience and (2) a requirement that any eligible sitting Board Member or alternate be appointed to a second term after serving their first term. Item 5 Item 5 Staff Report        Item 5: Staff Report Pg. 1  Packet Pg. 23 of 284  A copy of the Grand Jury Report is included as Attachment A. ANALYSIS Summary of Findings and City Response: Civil Grand Jury Finding 6: VTA Administrative Code VTA Board Appointing Authority Groups 2 through 5 often do not follow VTA Administrative Code (Section 2-14) admonitions to “appoint individuals with appropriate experience and qualifications in transportation” and to “reappoint representatives to consecutive terms.” Item 5 Item 5 Staff Report        Item 5: Staff Report Pg. 2  Packet Pg. 24 of 284  recent Group 2 appointees to the VTA Board is provided in the City’s response to Finding No. 6. No further report to the VTA Board is required. of Palo Alto agrees with this finding. The VTA Administrative Code allows members of VTA Board Groups 2 through 5 to determine the process for appointing their respective Board members. The Administrative Code allows each group to have a different process. While Palo Alto lacks first-hand knowledge of the appointment processes for Groups 3 through 5, publicly available sources indicate that not all of the groups use the same process that Palo Alto and other Group 2 cities use to appoint their VTA Board members. FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ATTACHMENTS APPROVED BY: Item 5 Item 5 Staff Report        Item 5: Staff Report Pg. 3  Packet Pg. 25 of 284  2025-2026 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury VTA’s Management and Oversight of BART Silicon Valley Phase II June 17, 2026 Item 5 Attachment A - Civil Grand Jury Report        Item 5: Staff Report Pg. 4  Packet Pg. 26 of 284  Page 1 of 40 VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II T ABLE OF CONTENTS SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................... 2 BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................... 3 METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................................................... 7 INVESTIGATION ........................................................................................................................ 8 Financial Risks .......................................................................................................................... 8 Oversight Concerns ................................................................................................................ 13 Coordination with BART ....................................................................................................... 21 Board Experience and Continuity ......................................................................................... 22 Public Communication ........................................................................................................... 25 CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................... 26 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................. 27 REQUIRED RESPONSES......................................................................................................... 31 APPENDIX A: BART Management Letter ............................................................................. 32 CONFLICTS ............................................................................................................................... 34 REFERENCES............................................................................................................................ 34 Item 5 Attachment A - Civil Grand Jury Report        Item 5: Staff Report Pg. 5  Packet Pg. 27 of 284  Page 2 of 40 VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II SUMMARY The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) project to extend rapid transit rail service through downtown San José is controversial and the most costly and complex project it has ever undertaken. Known as BART Silicon Valley Phase II (BSVII), the $12.7 billion project extends rail service six miles and includes a large, single-bore underground tunnel and will take 10 years or more from 2026 to complete (VTA, March 2024). Despite significantly reduced ridership projections and uncertainty about funding sources for both capital and operating costs, VTA has awarded major construction contracts, including for the construction of a launch structure to stage a specialized one-of-a-kind Tunnel Boring Machine (TBM), which will be owned by VTA. Over the next few years, VTA anticipates awarding further construction contracts worth billions of dollars. To reduce uncertainty, the spokesperson for an independent peer review of the project urged VTA to move quickly to “build as much as you can, as fast as you can” (VTA Special Board Meeting, 2025). Such an approach assumes that there will be political will and taxpayer support to finish an incomplete project regardless of cost increases, delays, or reduced ridership. The VTA’s Board of Directors (Board) has recognized the need for additional oversight and guidance, but the Board has failed to exercise its obligation to provide the strategic direction needed for a successful project. The Oversight Committee it created has been left to define its own role. It was not required to, and does not, provide reports that share available independent analyses of critical issues. The Oversight Committee does not routinely make policy recommendations to the Board and does not hold VTA staff accountable for providing the timely analysis it has requested. The 2025-26 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury (Civil Grand Jury) investigated the role of the VTA Board, its Oversight Committee, its staff, and officials in the management and oversight of the BSVII project. This report identifies financial challenges, risks, and accountability issues that VTA must address to earn the public’s trust in delivering the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) extension to Silicon Valley and to secure support for future sales tax measures. Item 5 Attachment A - Civil Grand Jury Report        Item 5: Staff Report Pg. 6  Packet Pg. 28 of 284  Page 3 of 40 VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II BACKGROUND The Valley Transportation Authority is a transportation agency established by state law. It is responsible for operating public transit services, including buses, light rail, and paratransit within Santa Clara County. In addition to public transit, VTA is a planning and funding agency for transportation infrastructure projects throughout Santa Clara County. As established by the California Public Utilities Code Sections 100060-100070, the VTA is governed by a 12-person Board of Directors composed of elected officials appointed by the County of Santa Clara (County) and the cities in Santa Clara County, who each serve two-year terms. The Board has many responsibilities and its monthly meeting agendas are lengthy. The San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District provides regional commuter rail service and is governed by a nine-person Board of Directors elected to four-year terms from districts representing San Francisco, Alameda, and Contra Costa counties. As part of its larger regional system, BART operates the commuter rail service within Santa Clara County. By contract with BART, VTA is solely responsible for paying the capital and net operating costs of extending commuter rail service into Santa Clara County (BART and VTA, Comprehensive Agreement, 2001). Although the County was not included in the legislation establishing BART, voters of Santa Clara County supported three sales tax measures which provided funds to plan, build, and operate the extension of BART to Santa Clara County. Today, 1.625% of sales tax collected in Santa Clara County supports VTA and other local jurisdictions (see Table 1). If a currently proposed measure qualifies for the ballot, in November 2026, voters will decide whether to approve an additional 0.5% sales tax to fund local transit, which would increase the County’s base sales tax rate from the current 9.75% to 10.25%. Item 5 Attachment A - Civil Grand Jury Report        Item 5: Staff Report Pg. 7  Packet Pg. 29 of 284  Page 4 of 40 VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II Table 1: Countywide Sales Tax in Santa Clara County, Effective April 2026 Description Sales Tax % Expiration Funding Purpose California Base 7.250% No Expiration State General Fund Local Revenue Fund Local Public Safety Health & Social Services 1976 Measure A 0.500% No Expiration Transit: VTA 2000 Measure A 0.500% 2036 Transit: VTA, BART Silicon Valley 2008 Measure B 0.125% 2042 Transit: BART Silicon Valley 2016 Measure B 0.500% 2047 Transit: VTA + County/City/Caltrain/Caltrans Infrastructure 2012 Measure A 0.125% No Expiration County General Fund 2020 Measure RR 0.125% 2050 Transit: Caltrain 2026 Measure A 0.625% 2031 General incl. Healthcare Total Base Sales Tax Rate 9.750% Data extracted from: California Department of Tax and Fee Administration. 2026. (https://cdtfa.ca.gov/formspubs/cdtfa105.pdf); VTA Annual Comprehensive Financial Report. Page 3-10. 2024. (https://www.vta.org/sites/default/files/2024-12/Annual-Comprehensive- Financial-Report-ACRF-FY-2024.pdf). Note: Some cities have higher voter-approved rates in addition to the County base rate; Highlighted section of the table refers to sales tax measures that fund VTA. The first phase of BART to Silicon Valley extended service to Milpitas and then to the Berryessa Transit Center (Berryessa). Construction started in 2012 and was completed in 2020. Ridership for Phase I has not met forecasts, and due to operational, maintenance, and depreciation expenses, VTA has experienced significant financial losses. According to data reviewed by the Civil Grand Jury, BART to Silicon Valley Phase I has lost an average of $69 million annually during the first five years of operation. The second phase consists of a six-mile, four-station extension from Berryessa through downtown San José to the City of Santa Clara. For this phase, VTA is targeting completion by 2037. As a condition of federal funding, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has appointed a Project Management Oversight Consultant (PMOC). The PMOC uses a more conservative schedule and forecasts completion in 2039 (AtkinsRéalis USA Holdings LLC, 2026). Item 5 Attachment A - Civil Grand Jury Report        Item 5: Staff Report Pg. 8  Packet Pg. 30 of 284  Page 5 of 40 VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II At an early planning stage in 2014, the BSVII project cost was estimated at $4.7 billion. By 2020, the cost estimate increased to $6.9 billion. In 2022, based on the PMOC’s projected cost analysis, VTA submitted an estimate of $9.1 billion to the federal government for an Early Start Grant. In October 2023, VTA estimated the construction cost at $12.2 billion with operations to begin in 2036. The most recent estimate is $12.7 billion, and operations are pushed back to 2037 (VTA Auditor General Report, January 2024). The project's funding sources include federal and state grants, as well as local revenues from voter- approved sales tax measures. All the funding sources are subject to risks, which are identified in this report. Figure 1 shows the funding sources with $700 million to be determined (TBD) and $375 million from a potential ballot measure in November 2026. Figure 1: Components of $12.7 Billion in BSVII Funding Sources as of April 2026 Source: vtabart.org website (accessed April 9, 2026) Although two years earlier, VTA had asked for a federal commitment of $6.3 billion, in August 2024, the FTA announced that its share of funding would be capped at $5.1 billion (Geha, 2024). VTA was forced to increase its reliance on local sales tax revenue and still faced a gap of approximately $700 million (VTA, Summer 2025). To reduce project costs, VTA has been studying design changes while maintaining the full six-mile extension with four stations. Options discussed by VTA staff and officials include (VTA, November 11, 2024): • Simplifying station configurations; Item 5 Attachment A - Civil Grand Jury Report        Item 5: Staff Report Pg. 9  Packet Pg. 31 of 284  Page 6 of 40 VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II • Modifying the Santa Clara Newhall Yard and Maintenance Facility; • Modifying the tunnel and station ventilation systems; • Substituting a surface parking lot for a parking structure; • Reconfiguring the tunnel to use less concrete and steel. In addition, the funding strategy assumes $375 million from the yet-to-be-approved regional sales tax measure for a total outstanding gap of $1.075 billion. Due in part to the significant increase in estimated cost and a perceived lack of communication about the project’s cost, risks, and schedule, the Board conducted a workshop in October 2023 to review the project’s status. At this workshop, individual Board members expressed a lack of confidence in the VTA staff’s management of the project and requested a new system of oversight and project management. In response, the Board chair established an Ad Hoc BART Silicon Valley Phase II oversight committee (Oversight Committee) responsible for overseeing all aspects of the project, focusing on a full, independent, and transparent review of costs, funding, risks, and completion schedule. The Oversight Committee’s bylaws later stated that its purpose was to provide “guidance and oversight” of the project (VTA, April 4, 2024). The VTA independent auditor general was tasked with providing staff support to the Oversight Committee and was authorized to contract with Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) to independently review and comment on VTA staff recommendations regarding costs, risks, and schedule. In turn, the Oversight Committee authorized the SME firm, Gall Zeidler (GZ), to independently assess the risks and viability of cost-saving alternatives. In a 2001 Agreement, VTA and BART agreed to cooperate in the project’s planning, design, and construction. They established a series of interagency committees, the latest of which is the Joint VTA/BART Working Committee, which depending on the availability of its members, is scheduled to meet quarterly. BART staff members have been assigned to co-locate with VTA engineers to participate in the preparation and review of BSVII designs in accordance with the agreed Project Design Criteria Manual. According to the BART Inspector General, VTA has reimbursed BART $19.2 million through 2025 for the cost of the assigned employees (BART, December 19, 2025). In August 2025, the BART assistant general manager, operations, rejected some of VTA’s proposed design changes and scope reductions and complained about inadequate coordination (see Appendix A). The BART inspector general issued a report in December 2025 that also raised concerns about inadequate coordination and criticized VTA’s communication with BART officials (Id.). Item 5 Attachment A - Civil Grand Jury Report        Item 5: Staff Report Pg. 10  Packet Pg. 32 of 284  Page 7 of 40 VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II METHODOLOGY The Civil Grand Jury reviewed every meeting of the BSVII Oversight Committee, as well as select VTA Board meetings. This included reviewing agendas, minutes, agenda item reports, public comment submittals, and associated discussions. In addition, the Civil Grand Jury conducted 17 interviews of officials from VTA, BART, and the State of California. The Civil Grand Jury also reviewed publicly available documents as described in the reference section, as well as documents requested from VTA and submitted to the Civil Grand Jury. Item 5 Attachment A - Civil Grand Jury Report        Item 5: Staff Report Pg. 11  Packet Pg. 33 of 284  Page 8 of 40 VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II INVESTIGATION The Civil Grand Jury investigation of the BSVII project covered critical aspects of VTA’s management and oversight, including: • VTA’s funding strategy and its reliance on voter-approved sales tax measures, some of which expire before completion of the project, and some of which have yet to be approved; • The establishment of a separate Oversight Committee which provides guidance on the BSVII project and how it evaluates independent analyses provided by the VTA auditor general, contracted SMEs, and the federally mandated PMOC; • The contractual and practical requirement to closely coordinate with BART, which will serve as the system operator; • The impact of the VTA Board’s governance structure on the effectiveness of strategic direction, management, and oversight of the project; • VTA’s approach for keeping the public informed of costs, risks, and schedule. Financial Risks The 10-year project completion timeline of BSVII exposes VTA to financial risks that require careful, ongoing assessment of capital and operating costs, including that: • Rising labor and material costs, combined with aggressive construction methods and schedules, may increase total project costs and strain the budget’s contingency for unforeseen risks and unexpected expenses; • Delays or reductions in state and federal funding will create greater pressure to rely on local funding sources or scale back the scope of the project; • Lower ridership levels will increase VTA’s ongoing obligation to pay net operating costs, which would necessitate service level reductions or voter approval of new or extended sales tax measures; • Failure to maintain a cash-flow model exclusive to BSVII, means that contracting options for accelerating work may not be able to be financed with available resources. Risk of Increased Costs of Labor and Materials The FTA fiscal year 2025 New Starts Financial Assessment report for BSVII stated the VTA inflation estimate was optimistic. If labor and material costs were to rise above those estimated in VTA’s budget, it could lead to funding shortfalls (FTA, 2024). Item 5 Attachment A - Civil Grand Jury Report        Item 5: Staff Report Pg. 12  Packet Pg. 34 of 284  Page 9 of 40 VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II The VTA auditor general’s May 1, 2025, report to the Board also identified BSVII financial risks associated with project construction costs. The report found that the assumptions and historical data underlying VTA’s financial plan could be more robust to enable the Board and the public to evaluate the financial risk associated with the potential cost increases (VTA, 2025). Another factor that increases the difficulty in predicting materials and labor costs is the possible extension of the 2037 project completion date. The longer timeline for BSVII increases the likelihood that future costs will differ from current estimates, thereby increasing financial risk. Local, State, and Federal Funding Risks The capital cost of construction and the net operating costs are to be paid by VTA from specific revenue sources, some of which are grants with fixed amounts. The financial risks identified by the Civil Grand Jury have been experienced by other major transit agencies. For example, the various rail projects of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LA Metro) faced escalating cost estimates, reductions in federal funding, cuts into smaller construction segments to match available funding, and shifting agency priorities (Shalby, 2026). Local Funding Risks VTA’s capital financing plan calls for the 2016 Measure B to pay $2.5 billion and for the 2000 Measure A to pay $2.0 billion of the estimated $12.7 billion BSVII project. Measure A expires in 2036, before BSVII is expected to be completed. Measure B expires in 2047 (VTA, About 2016 Measure B, n.d.). As the project’s cost estimates have evolved, so have the planned funding sources. Measure B has become a much more significant source of proposed funding. Because Measure B also funds bus transit, local streets, and highway projects, there are built-in limitations on the amount available to close a BSVII financing gap. Measure B limits spending on BSVII to 23.8% of net sales tax revenue over its 30-year life (FTA, 2024). Net sales tax revenue (defined as Program Tax Revenue in the measure) is calculated as the amount remaining after deducting administrative costs and any debt service. To close current and potential future funding gaps, VTA could issue bonds to be repaid from Measure B sales tax revenue. However, this would reduce the revenue available for other voter- approved projects. Every dollar spent on debt service for BSVII is a dollar that cannot be spent on Item 5 Attachment A - Civil Grand Jury Report        Item 5: Staff Report Pg. 13  Packet Pg. 35 of 284  Page 10 of 40 VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II the other transportation projects approved by the voters. Because of bond issuance and interest costs, the total project costs would exceed the current estimate of $12.7 billion. Another risky approach to filling funding gaps would allow the Board to change the rules and permit a greater percentage of Measure B net sales tax revenue to be used for BSVII. One VTA official acknowledged to the Civil Grand Jury that this would be a “heavy lift” because VTA would first have to notify all the local agencies of the proposed increase in the percentage limit and then approve it by a ¾ vote of the Board (9 of 12 Board members). The County and the cities that have planned other transportation measures are likely to object to reduced funding for their projects. Of course, more Measure B funds could become available to support the capital costs of BSVII if the expected sales tax revenue exceeds previously anticipated levels. While early projections were based on 2016 economic conditions, it is important for the strategic funding plan that the sales tax forecast be updated regularly. The Civil Grand Jury was informed that VTA has ordered an updated forecast. Because two key sales tax measures are set to expire, several VTA officials stated in interviews that they would simply place a measure on a future ballot for voter consideration if an extension were needed. Given the current sales tax rates applicable within Santa Clara County and the need for management and oversight reforms identified in this report, there is a risk that voters may not approve such a measure. State Funding Risk As of April 2026, the capital construction funding strategy required $1.5 billion from two State of California grants. The VTA has received commitments for nearly $200 million of that total. The sources of funding are the Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program (TIRCP) and transportation funds administered by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), both of which may be affected by a recent state decision to provide a bridge loan to Bay Area transit agencies (MTC, 2026). In February 2026, the California legislature appropriated $590 million from the same TIRCP account to provide a 12-year loan to MTC. These loan proceeds will be made available to San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency, AC Transit, BART, and Caltrain to help address a greater need for public transit subsidies. The agencies are required to repay the loan over 12 years (MTC, 2026). Item 5 Attachment A - Civil Grand Jury Report        Item 5: Staff Report Pg. 14  Packet Pg. 36 of 284  Page 11 of 40 VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II The state justified the loan on the basis that the transit agencies would be able to stabilize their financial situations and avoid service reductions pending the anticipated approval in November of a regional sales tax measure. If the regional measure does not pass, or if for any other reason the agencies do not repay the loans on time, the timing of the receipt of funding to VTA might create some cash flow risk for the project. Further, the TIRCP account itself is funded by payments from private parties who agree to purchase pollution credits in the state’s Cap and Invest program. The program’s future is uncertain in light of federal changes to environmental regulations and pending legal challenges from the State of California (California State Transportation Agency, n.d.). Federal Funding Risk In August 2024, the FTA advised VTA that the federal government’s total contribution to the project would be limited to $5.1 billion. To receive these funds, VTA plans to apply for a Full Funding Grant Agreement (FFGA) by the end of 2026. Federal support for large-scale rail projects is uncertain. In 2025, the FTA canceled a $4.2 billion commitment to the California High-Speed Rail Project (Shalby, 2025). VTA’s lobbyists have suggested delaying the FFGA application until similar requests from other states are resolved. Considering the political, economic, and budgetary conditions of the United States, approval of VTA’s request for an FFGA is highly uncertain. It may be delayed, reduced, or denied. Low Levels of Ridership Could Increase VTA’s Future Costs BART ridership on the current regional system has not recovered to pre-pandemic levels. Ridership in January 2026 remains only 48% of the levels in January 2019 (BART, January 2026; BART, 2019). Recovering ridership may prove difficult due to the growth of hybrid work patterns. The Civil Grand Jury also reviewed the forecasts for the first phase of the project, which included the new Milpitas and Berryessa stations. For January 2026, ridership was 86% below estimates (see Table 2). Item 5 Attachment A - Civil Grand Jury Report        Item 5: Staff Report Pg. 15  Packet Pg. 37 of 284  Page 12 of 40 VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II Table 2: BART Ridership at Milpitas and Berryessa Stations Forecast for Average Daily Weekday Ridership for June 2021 at launch Actual Ridership, January 2026 Ridership/Day 20,110 2,789 Source: Joint VTA/BART Working Committee Meeting, December 4, 2020; BART February 2026 Monthly Ridership Snapshot. Note: VTA created forecasts in 2020, expressed as rides per day. BART actuals are based on recorded station entries and exits. To normalize BART actuals to the VTA forecast, entries and exits were averaged to produce a daily ridership figure. An overall decrease in ridership has led BART to project a $376 million budget deficit for FY2026- 27. To seek additional revenue, BART is relying on a 0.5% additional sales tax measure on the November 2026 ballot that would begin in 2027 and remain in place for 14 years. If the ballot measure does not pass, BART has proposed closing up to 15 stations and reducing service hours and train frequency (BART, February 26, 2026). Ironically, the proposed station closures would not affect Santa Clara County because VTA is solely responsible for the net operating costs. According to VTA records reviewed by the Civil Grand Jury, for the first three years of operation, VTA forecasts annual average costs of $274 million for operations, maintenance, and capital costs. Average fare revenue is forecast at $60 million, offsetting VTA's financial obligation to BART, resulting in an average annual financial loss of $214 million. Any drop in ridership will lead to further financial losses. The Need for a BSVII Cash Flow Model With a price tag of $12.7 billion, BSVII is the largest public infrastructure project in Santa Clara County (Aragon, 2025). Nearly 60% of the planned funding sources include revenue from grants that will not be distributed in advance but will be reimbursed in accordance with each grant’s draw schedule (See Figure 1). The timing of those cash inflows must be carefully matched with the timing of payment schedules for construction contracts worth billions of dollars. VTA staff is evaluating different approaches to contracting the construction work. Alternatives are being evaluated for the following reasons: 1) to identify segments of work that could be bid out separately to accelerate the overall schedule; and 2) to identify segments for which there is a greater likelihood of strong competitive bids. For each contract, the cash outflows will be specified and must be carefully matched with the cash inflows. Item 5 Attachment A - Civil Grand Jury Report        Item 5: Staff Report Pg. 16  Packet Pg. 38 of 284  Page 13 of 40 VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II A cash flow model that matches receipts and expenditures for BSVII would enable VTA decision- makers to fully evaluate the alternative approaches being studied. However, VTA officials have advised the Civil Grand Jury that such a model has not yet been developed. A cash flow model is necessary to avoid unplanned delays from cash shortfalls. Oversight Concerns VTA Board Recognizes That Oversight Must be Improved Independent reports and audits have identified problems with project management and VTA Board oversight, including those identified by a prior Civil Grand Jury, the California State Auditor, and the PMOC (AtkinsRéalis USA Holdings LLC, 2026). VTA’s cost-estimation practices, along with its lack of transparency around changes to project scope and cost, were identified as significant deficiencies. VTA’s oversight and management of the BSVII project have also been heavily criticized by the media, in public comments presented at Board meetings, and in letters to the editor of multiple local publications. VTA Board Outsources Guidance and Oversight of the BSVII Project Following a workshop on the project’s direction in October 2023, the VTA Board Chairman announced the creation of an Ad Hoc BART Silicon Valley Phase II Oversight Committee (VTA, 2023). However, only the Board can make binding decisions on the project’s scope, funding, risks, schedule, and contracting approach. While ultimately accountable itself, the Board nonetheless effectively delegated oversight to a committee without providing clear direction. By abdicating its responsibility to set its expectations of how the Oversight Committee can best support the Board, the committee has been left to set its own course. That course does not keep the Board fully informed of issues raised by independent experts or the PMOC, hampering its ability to make the best decisions about the project's funding and schedule. At its meeting on January 15, 2026, the Oversight Committee adopted what it called a revised charter intended to clarify the lines of communication and relationships among the auditor general, SME, VTA staff, and Oversight Committee (VTA, January 15, 2026). Members of the Oversight Committee had expressed concern about a perceived lack of coordination between VTA staff and the SME. Nonetheless, the question remains: Is the role of an SME to provide the Board with an independent review of VTA staff recommendations as originally intended, or is it to help VTA staff improve their recommendations? Notably, in the following excerpt, the Charter requires the Item 5 Attachment A - Civil Grand Jury Report        Item 5: Staff Report Pg. 17  Packet Pg. 39 of 284  Page 14 of 40 VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II auditor general to document issues raised by the SME and the VTA staff but does not require that the full Board be advised of the critical issues: To ensure transparency and balanced oversight, selected advisory input from SME will be documented in Oversight Committee materials. Where consensus exists between the SME and the Project Team, it will be noted. Where minority or dissenting views are expressed, the AG [auditor general] will explicitly record final input received alongside the majority view (VTA Oversight Committee Charter, 2026). During Oversight Committee meetings, there are few deliberations or actions to provide collective guidance or oversight, leaving individual members to raise questions and propose guidance for VTA staff to consider. VTA staff also receives input from individual members in private pre- meeting briefings. As a result, the full Board does not benefit from Oversight Committee analysis, and the public is not fully informed about individual Board member perspectives. The Committee Has Two Purposes: Guidance and Oversight “Guidance” suggests that the committee helps the Board establish a strategic direction and recommend actions to keep the project on track. “Oversight,” on the other hand, is a separate function that ensures VTA staff is accountable for following the Board’s direction in an efficient and effective manner. “Guidance” looks forward. “Oversight” monitors implementation as it happens. Better at Oversight than Guidance The Oversight Committee requires VTA staff to produce a comprehensive monthly report detailing the financing and construction progress of the BSVII project. The auditor general provides insightful periodic reports on his independent review of the project’s costs, risks, and schedule. The VTA staff’s monthly reports address the information gap identified in the auditor general’s January 2024 report. As a result, the Oversight Committee can effectively monitor compliance with the Board’s direction. However, the Oversight Committee often fails to provide guidance on issues critical to future strategic direction. Item 5 Attachment A - Civil Grand Jury Report        Item 5: Staff Report Pg. 18  Packet Pg. 40 of 284  Page 15 of 40 VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II Strategic Guidance on Critical Issues is Informal, Intermittent, and Often Late VTA staff routinely provide private briefings to Oversight Committee members prior to meetings. Those briefings allow VTA staff to explain and advocate for their recommendations and to receive input and questions from individual members. Occasionally, some agenda materials for an Oversight Committee meeting are not published with the rest of the agenda because VTA staff members will modify presentations up to the last minute based on what they have heard in private briefings. The Oversight Committee has established an informal standard of limiting its once-monthly meetings to no more than two hours, and meetings often do not begin on time. At the meetings, VTA staff often deliver lengthy presentations on issues for which it will subsequently seek Board approval, leaving little time for committee deliberations. During these presentations, only a few members ask questions, and rarely does a committee member propose a policy recommendation that the Oversight Committee might take action on. Individual Oversight Committee members are given the opportunity to express support or concern about a proposed VTA staff position, providing VTA staff with some insight into how to frame their recommendations to the Board. The Oversight Committee receives independent analyses from the VTA auditor general, its contracted SME, and the PMOC. The committee often receives lengthy written comments from the public but limits oral comments to one minute. Members of the committee rarely comment on materials received from the public, many of which are extensive critiques of the VTA staff recommendations. Following each meeting, the Oversight Committee chair submits a short report summarizing discussion topics, which is placed on the VTA Board’s consent calendar. Following presentation to the Oversight Committee, formal VTA staff recommendations are made to the VTA Board, but without the benefit of a summary or synthesis of the alternative perspectives from the auditor general, SME, PMOC, or informed public comment. The Civil Grand Jury identified three examples of policy issues for which guidance was needed but delivered inadequately. One of the examples, the single-bore versus twin-bore issue, illustrates both the failure of the committee to make recommendations and the VTA staff’s failure to follow through on committee requests in a timely manner. Item 5 Attachment A - Civil Grand Jury Report        Item 5: Staff Report Pg. 19  Packet Pg. 41 of 284  Page 16 of 40 VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II Example of Inadequate Guidance: The KST Contract Decision The Oversight Committee endorsed a major contract change without providing independent analysis, articulating its rationale, or conveying identified risks to the Board. VTA had issued a contract to a construction consortium, Kiewit Shea Traylor (KST), using a “progressive/design/build” approach, under which KST would design the tunnel project and, after reviews by VTA and its construction management consultant, KST would build it. By the spring of 2025, VTA believed that KST’s proposed design could significantly increase the project’s estimated cost by up to $1 billion and that it would be preferable to engage in a competitive bidding process for the remaining tunnel work. In a more traditional contract approach, VTA would prepare the design specifications and contract conditions. To accomplish this, it was necessary to limit the contract with KST to only the work required to prepare for the TBM, which VTA would own but make available to the tunneling contractor to operate and maintain. At its June 12, 2025, meeting, VTA staff presented its proposal to modify the KST contract to the Oversight Committee, which unanimously endorsed it. Two weeks later, the VTA Board met and approved VTA staff recommendations. Although the VTA staff agenda report did include a reference to the Committee’s recommendation, it did not include the risk analysis that had been reviewed by the Committee. The Oversight Committee’s regular report to the VTA Board was placed on the consent calendar and simply reported the committee’s concurrence with the VTA staff recommendation. There was no report or analysis laying out the reasons for the Oversight Committee’s concurrence or the SME’s risk assessment. Therefore, the Board made its decision without a complete understanding of the risks. Example of Inadequate Guidance: The Twin-Bore versus Single-Bore Decision The Oversight Committee retroactively requested a side-by-side analysis of tunnel options through Downtown San José. A preliminary design controversy was whether to tunnel two smaller bores for the downtown San José underground tracks or to tunnel a single larger bore at greater depth. Downtown businesses had raised concerns that the twin-bore approach would require additional work and disrupt their operations during construction. BART initially opposed the single-bore tunnel approach because it differed from its existing, smaller twin-bore tunnels. However, the BART inspector general reported that in the spirit of Item 5 Attachment A - Civil Grand Jury Report        Item 5: Staff Report Pg. 20  Packet Pg. 42 of 284  Page 17 of 40 VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II cooperation, BART officials consented to the single-bore approach after being assured that operational and safety concerns would be met (BART, December 19, 2025). In December 2022, VTA approved the fabrication and purchase of a large TBM for $76 million, effectively locking in the single-bore approach. In a news article dated November 7, 2023, in the Mountain View Voice, San José Mayor Matt Mahan was quoted as saying: “There is no turning back now” (Hicks, 2023). Nonetheless, individual Board members and informed public commenters continued to raise questions about whether a twin-bore approach might be cheaper, faster, and safer for BART operations. In response, members of the Oversight Committee commissioned an analysis of the two options for costs, risks, and impact on schedules. In September 2025, more than 18 months after the request, VTA and its engineering consultants presented their analysis to the Oversight Committee, confirming the single-bore approach. Although it had requested the analysis, the Oversight Committee did not make a recommendation to the Board. In October 2025, the Board was presented with the VTA staff and consultants’ analysis and confirmed the single-bore approach by declining to take steps to amend the environmental documents or modify the tunneling contracts. Example of Inadequate Guidance: Scenario 1 versus 1a Decision In October 2025, VTA decided on an approach to the construction of the tunnel without the benefit of the SME’s analysis that the Oversight Committee had requested. Before design work could progress to a more advanced level, the VTA Board needed to decide between two alternatives for staging the actual tunneling work. The SME had suggested that concurrent tunneling from both ends could reduce costs and accelerate the schedule (VTA, June 12, 2025). The two options were labeled “Scenario 1” (a straight-through tunneling using the larger TBM from west-to-east) and “Scenario 1a” (an option of concurrent tunneling starting at both the east and west portals using two TBMs). Although this would require two TBMs, the east-to-west work could be done simultaneously with a smaller-bore tunneling machine. Further, the SME reported that a smaller-bore TBM was readily available and would require less lead time than the TBM being fabricated in Germany. Because the Oversight Committee considered the potential benefits significant, the committee asked both VTA staff and the SME to analyze the options and prepare a recommendation. On Item 5 Attachment A - Civil Grand Jury Report        Item 5: Staff Report Pg. 21  Packet Pg. 43 of 284  Page 18 of 40 VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II August 4, 2025, the Oversight Committee authorized an expenditure of $110,000 and directed the auditor general to contract with GZ for the requested work. GZ presented interim reports on September 11, 2025, and October 9, 2025, and promised to deliver its completed report at the November 2025 meeting of the Oversight Committee. VTA staff subsequently presented its analysis and recommendations to the Oversight Committee on October 9, 2025. Although the Project Manager stated that the VTA staff was aware of some of GZ’s preliminary analysis (especially differing assumptions about the rate at which each of the two TBMs can move forward when digging a tunnel), VTA staff requested a Board meeting to decide between the two alternatives. In prior presentations to the Oversight Committee, VTA staff said that the analysis would be presented at a Board “workshop” (at which no formal action could be taken). However, a special meeting of the Board was called for October 17, 2025, and VTA staff made its recommendations to the Board, neglecting to advise the Board that the Oversight Committee was still awaiting the GZ analysis that the Committee had authorized. The Oversight Committee failed to present any report or recommendation at the special meeting. As a result, the Board adopted ‘Scenario 1’ without the benefit of an independent analysis of the risks. On February 12, 2026, four months after the Board made its decision, the SME presented his written report analyzing the options and raising concerns that should have been considered before the decision. VTA Staff Accountability for Responding to Oversight Committee Member Requests The auditor general maintains two types of monitoring reports: a tracking report that lists the requests of individual committee members for information or analysis, and a work plan that lists the schedule for upcoming formal reports, including risk assessments such as financing and procurement risks. Both monitoring reports establish a due date, but the deadlines are often not met. During public meetings, Oversight Committee members rarely discuss the tracking report or the work plan and do not publicly comment on changes to the expected date in subsequent reports. More importantly, neither the auditor general nor the Oversight Committee holds VTA staff accountable for late responses to issues raised in the tracking report. Below, the Civil Grand Jury presents two examples: Item 5 Attachment A - Civil Grand Jury Report        Item 5: Staff Report Pg. 22  Packet Pg. 44 of 284  Page 19 of 40 VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II Example of Lack of Accountability: Prolonged Delay in Analysis of Single-Bore versus Twin-Bore The side-by-side analysis of two design options was not provided until more than 18 months after it was first requested. At the Oversight Committee’s first meeting in November 2023, a member of the public requested that the committee order a cost and risk analysis of the single-bore versus twin-bore options, which remained controversial following the VTA Board’s selection of the single-bore option in 2018. In 2023, the Chair of the Oversight Committee responded that such an “apples-to-apples” (side-by- side) analysis would be one of the committee’s first tasks. Here are some of the subsequent activities: • At the committee’s meeting on January 19, 2023, two committee members formally requested the “apples-to-apples” analysis and placed it on the committee’s tracking list. (VTA, March 2025). At its meeting on June 13, 2024, the Project Manager reported that the scope of the twin-bore analysis would be worked on and reported to the Board “over the course of the summer.” • At its meeting on August 8, 2024, a member of the public asked about the status of the “apples-to-apples” analysis. • At the September 12, 2024, Oversight Committee, the auditor general announced that VTA staff had asked engineering design contractor Mott Macdonald to conduct the “apples-to- apples” review. • The March 2025 tracking report included a comment regarding the “apples-to-apples” comparison: “These items are being evaluated as part of cost savings task force efforts with participation from GZ” (VTA, April 2024). • One year later, on September 11, 2025, Mott Macdonald presented its analysis of the twin- bore versus single-bore options – nearly 22 months after the request was first discussed at an Oversight Committee meeting – concluding that the single-bore option was preferred (VTA, September 11, 2025). Example of Lack of Accountability: An Alternative Strategy Some Call “Plan B” Despite multiple requests for an alternative strategy to address risks associated with the federal funding decision, VTA staff advised the Oversight Committee that it would wait until after the federal decision. Since the Oversight Committee meeting on October 9, 2025, committee members have stressed the need for an alternative strategy in the event the federal government delays or denies the FFGA Item 5 Attachment A - Civil Grand Jury Report        Item 5: Staff Report Pg. 23  Packet Pg. 45 of 284  Page 20 of 40 VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II for the promised $5.1 billion. Some committee members asked whether a “Plan B” might include reducing the number of planned stations or revising the funding strategy. VTA staff reported to the Civil Grand Jury that there was reluctance to discuss a “Plan B” out of concern that the discussion itself might jeopardize the FFGA. At public meetings, VTA staff dismissed requests for an alternative funding strategy, instead reporting that an alternative plan should not be prepared until the FTA made its decision in 2027. This is an example of the VTA staff’s dismissal of the Oversight Committee direction. Expediency of Decisions versus Rigorous Analysis The Civil Grand Jury identified tension between VTA Board members’ competing goals: avoiding delays in decision-making and requiring rigorous, independent analysis of costs, risks, and schedule. In public meetings, the Project Manager has often stated that each month of delay adds $20 to $30 million to the overall project cost (Dorsey, 2025). There is a strong financial incentive to keep the project moving by advancing decisions incrementally—approving one component at a time to show visible progress—without fully evaluating how each step alters the project’s overall cost, scope, and risk. For a project of this size, complexity, and cost, this piecemeal approach masks cumulative effects, increasing the likelihood of cost escalation and delays. These should be identified and addressed through rigorous, front- end analysis. With two-year terms and constituencies limited to portions of the County, Board members may understandably focus on immediate actions rather than the long-term, systemwide implications that demand a coherent strategic plan. The Role Assigned to the Auditor General The Oversight Committee benefits from periodic risk assessments and audits performed by the VTA auditor general on the BSVII project. However, by assigning the auditor general the responsibility to also provide staff support to the Oversight Committee, VTA has created a situation in which the auditor general is asked to provide an independent audit of prior decisions while also assisting the committee in evaluating future policy and management decisions. At the June 2025 public Board meeting, the auditor general stated that he sometimes feels like a referee among the analyses provided by VTA staff, the SME, the public, and the PMOC. However, the VTA Board is the final arbiter, not the auditor general. Item 5 Attachment A - Civil Grand Jury Report        Item 5: Staff Report Pg. 24  Packet Pg. 46 of 284  Page 21 of 40 VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II The Board is best served when it hears all relevant views on an upcoming decision and is presented with options and a recommendation. The auditor general’s participation and input are critical, but he should not be placed in the position of having to synthesize all the competing views, including his own. The auditor general is better placed to assist the Oversight Committee in its role of “oversight” and less so in commenting on the Oversight Committee's “guidance” functions. Accordingly, the Oversight Committee and the VTA Board would be better served if a VTA staff person were assigned responsibility for staffing the committee. This person could be part of the General Manager’s Office and should not report to the Project Manager. The position would be like that of the chief of staff, which was recently assigned to support the chair of the Board. Coordination with BART Because the County of Santa Clara is not part of the BART District, the extension of rail service to San José required a contract that established both VTA’s and BART’s commitment to cooperate. Under the 2001 Cooperative Agreement, VTA is financially responsible for paying for the design, construction, and operation of the segment in Santa Clara County (BART and VTA, Comprehensive Agreement, 2001). BART retained approval authority over design elements that affect operations, maintenance, and safety. To date, this has been accomplished through the joint preparation of a Design Criteria Manual. As recently as December 2025, BART’s Independent Office of the Inspector General (OIG) issued a report titled: “Transparency & Communication Gaps in the BSVII Project.” The report summarizes years of controversy over the single-bore versus twin-bore approach but acknowledges that BART eventually agreed to the single-bore concept evaluated in the final environmental impact statement. However, the BART OIG remained critical of the extent of cooperation between the two agencies: We also determined that the length of time since the project began, extensive media coverage of the project, conflicting subject-matter opinions, and some public displeasure with the single-bore design have created uncertainty about the project’s direction. We concluded that gaps in transparency and communication, including limited public discussions in recent years, have resulted in mixed messaging on a project that has evolved over multiple decades (BART Independent Office of the Inspector General, 2025). In August 2025, the lack of communication and cooperation was publicly exposed when a BART official wrote a letter to VTA (Appendix A) specifically objecting to the consideration of reducing Item 5 Attachment A - Civil Grand Jury Report        Item 5: Staff Report Pg. 25  Packet Pg. 47 of 284  Page 22 of 40 VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II the size of the Newhall Yard and Maintenance Facility as a capital cost-saving measure. The VTA Project Manager publicly acknowledged a failure to keep BART informed of design issues that might impact BART’s operational efficiency and pledged to develop recommendations to the administrative heads of both agencies on a more formal process to identify and resolve those issues (VTA Oversight Committee, 2025). Board Experience and Continuity Since 2019, five audits and reports have critiqued VTA’s governance structure and recommended a series of revisions to improve VTA’s capability to provide Board direction and oversight of the BART extension. Those audits have included the 2018-19 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury in 2019; the Auditor of the State of California, in 2024; the BART Independent Office of the Inspector General in 2025; RSM US LLC, a VTA subcontractor, in 2019; and the VTA Auditor General in 2024. VTA has accepted and acted on most of the recommendations for governance reform, except those relating to the terms and required experience level of Board members. During the investigation of the BSVII project, sources repeatedly raised concerns about the level of knowledge and decision-making ability of the full VTA Board, which is responsible for the project’s success. Decisions made today will have a direct impact on its ultimate success. Diligent oversight of its schedule, cost, progress, and scope is required. According to the California Public Utilities Code, which established the VTA Board, “to the extent possible, the appointing powers shall appoint individuals who have expertise, experience, or knowledge relative to transportation issues” (Pub. Util. Code 10000 et seq). VTA Board members are appointed to two-year terms by appointing agencies, organized into six groups as detailed in Table 3. Appointing agency groups are established and defined by VTA Administrative Code, which states “Appointing Authorities are strongly encouraged, where possible, to: (1) appoint individuals with appropriate experience and qualifications in transportation; (2) ensure that there is sufficient remaining time in the elected official’s term of office to allow full completion of their term as a Director; and (3) reappoint representatives to consecutive terms” (VTA Administrative Code § 2-13). Item 5 Attachment A - Civil Grand Jury Report        Item 5: Staff Report Pg. 26  Packet Pg. 48 of 284  Page 23 of 40 VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II Table 3: Appointing Authorities Composition of the VTA Board Appointing Agency Group Jurisdiction Represented Number of Board Members Method of Appointment Group 1 San José 5 members 1 alternate Appointed by city council from city council members/mayor Group 2 Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Mountain View, Palo Alto 1 member 1 alternate Determined by Group 2 members Group 3 Campbell, Cupertino, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, Saratoga 1 member 1 alternate Determined by Group 3 members Group 4 Gilroy, Morgan Hill 1 member 1 alternate Determined by Group 4 members Group 5 Milpitas, Santa Clara, Sunnyvale 2 members 1 alternate Determined by Group 5 members Group 6 County of Santa Clara 2 members 1 alternate Appointed by County Board of Supervisors Source: California Pub. Util. Code section 100060. While VTA continues to insist that two-year terms are suitable for its governance (as specified in PUC § 100060.2), peer agencies in the state appoint their Board members to four-year terms, leading to much longer average lengths of service and potentially greater experience and transportation-related knowledge (see Figure 2). Multiple reports and audits have suggested weaknesses introduced by VTA’s approach to the appointment of Board members. For example, the 2019 Board Governance Assessment concluded, in part, that some processes and policies (e.g., committee structure, term limits, and Board member selection guidelines) might not reflect best practices or support long-term Board stability (VTA, 2019). Additionally, a report by the 2018-19 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury found that the VTA Board suffers from: • A lack of experience and limited continuity by many Board members; • Inadequate time for the directors to devote to the Board’s oversight and policy-making functions; • A lack of engagement by some of the directors, fostered in part by the committee system, resulted in VTA functioning largely as a staff-driven organization. More recently, a critical 2024 report from the State Auditor regarding VTA’s project management and financial oversight noted the following weaknesses: Item 5 Attachment A - Civil Grand Jury Report        Item 5: Staff Report Pg. 27  Packet Pg. 49 of 284  Page 24 of 40 VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II • The process for selecting directors for the Board is not always transparent enough to ensure the appointment of directors experienced in transportation issues. • Some groups of cities appoint VTA directors without public deliberation, limiting transparency and sometimes bypassing the statutory recommendation for transportation expertise. • VTA directors have shorter tenures, on average, than their peers, meaning that VTA’s Board has less experience overseeing the agency’s operations than the Boards of peer agencies. Figure 2: Average Directors’ Tenure among VTA and Peer Agencies Source: Auditor of the State of California, “Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, Improvements Are Necessary to Strengthen Its Project Management and Financial Oversight,” June 2024. Note: LA Metro stands for Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority; OCTA stands for Orange County Transportation Authority; SacRT stands for Sacramento Regional Transit District. During interviews and in reviewing existing reports and audits about VTA, the Civil Grand Jury learned that Board members and elected officials broadly support a four-year term for directors. Lengthening terms would require a change to VTA’s enabling legislation. The findings of the State and VTA’s own auditors’ governance reform recommendations remain unchanged. Item 5 Attachment A - Civil Grand Jury Report        Item 5: Staff Report Pg. 28  Packet Pg. 50 of 284  Page 25 of 40 VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II Public Communication Following the VTA auditor general’s report in January 2024, public communication and community outreach regarding the BSVII project have improved. The Civil Grand Jury noted improvements to the VTA BSVII project website, including efforts to deliver timely updates to residents about the impact of construction activities, and a section for frequently asked questions (FAQ) (VTA, BART Silicon Valley Phase II Project, n.d.). In addition, many interviewees told the Civil Grand Jury that VTA has made efforts to better inform the public and officials since the auditor general's report highlighted communication breakdowns in 2023. However, there are areas where the public would benefit from VTA focusing more on improving communication. The VTA’s BSVII project website does not offer a simple, clear dashboard outlining the costs, timeline, and progress of the BSVII project. Although it includes technical reports from the federally sponsored PMOC, it does not include the independent analyses by the SME or the VTA auditor general. A high-level dashboard would consolidate information from multiple sources, present project metrics to the public, and provide access to source materials. Today, information on funding, expenditures, and schedule status is available on the website, but is buried in layers of reports that are nonintuitive to find or navigate. In addition, the Civil Grand Jury found the site’s search function inadequate for locating specific details or addressing questions not covered in the FAQ, and it often returned results for irrelevant materials. The website would be more user-friendly if VTA incorporated a more robust search engine. Item 5 Attachment A - Civil Grand Jury Report        Item 5: Staff Report Pg. 29  Packet Pg. 51 of 284  Page 26 of 40 VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II CONCLUSION The VTA Board has failed in its responsibility to provide effective management, oversight, and financial control of the BSVII Project. Based on its investigation, the Civil Grand Jury concludes: • There is no realistic plan to deal with foreseeable financial risks, including significant uncertainty about BSVII’s construction and operating costs, reliance on expiring voter- approved sales tax measures, uncertain federal government support, cash flow, and declining ridership. • When considering major scope and design decisions, the Oversight Committee and the VTA Board do not take into account the ongoing operations and maintenance costs that will be borne by VTA and will require voter approval of subsequent sales tax measures. • The Oversight Committee exercises its oversight responsibility by requiring monthly progress reports and by questioning VTA project staff, but when it declines to make recommendations to the VTA Board, it fails in its responsibility to provide guidance on critical policy issues. • The Oversight Committee receives valuable input from multiple sources but does not share this information with the VTA Board in the form of helpful reports that synthesize the different perspectives of VTA staff, the Subject Matter Expert, the auditor general, the Project Management Oversight Consultant, and the public. • The VTA Board and the Oversight Committee have failed to hold VTA staff accountable for missing deadlines to provide analysis and information requested by members of the Oversight Committee. • There is a lack of meaningful communication and cooperation between BART and VTA officials, which undermines public confidence. • VTA’s failure to adopt governance reform recommendations from prior Civil Grand Jury reports and independent audits has led to a lack of Board member continuity and expertise, weakening the Board’s ability to successfully oversee the BSVII project. Item 5 Attachment A - Civil Grand Jury Report        Item 5: Staff Report Pg. 30  Packet Pg. 52 of 284  Page 27 of 40 VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Finding 1 The BSVII project currently requires voter approval of additional sales tax measures to address gaps in construction and operations funding. Recommendation 1 VTA should adopt and publish a strategy for the completion and operation of the project that reduces dependency on new sales tax measures. This should be implemented by December 31, 2026. Finding 2 VTA does not maintain a cash-flow model for the BSVII project. Recommendation 2 The VTA Board should direct the General Manager to prepare a cash-flow model for the BSVII project and present it quarterly to the Oversight Committee and the Board. This should be implemented by December 31, 2026. Finding 3 VTA has not developed an alternative funding strategy for the project in the event that planned funding sources are unavailable or insufficient. Recommendation 3 The VTA Board should direct the General Manager to prepare an alternative funding strategy to meet the project’s estimated total capital costs and VTA’s responsibility for operating and maintenance costs and present it to the Oversight Committee and Board for approval. This should be implemented by December 31, 2026. Finding 4 Project management does not consistently report the operating and maintenance cost implications of design and construction decisions to the Oversight Committee or the Board. Item 5 Attachment A - Civil Grand Jury Report        Item 5: Staff Report Pg. 31  Packet Pg. 53 of 284  Page 28 of 40 VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II Recommendation 4 VTA should adopt a policy requiring staff to present an analysis of operating and maintenance costs when considering design and construction alternatives for BSVII. This should be implemented by December 31, 2026. Finding 5 The VTA Board would benefit from longer terms of office to improve continuity and institutional knowledge. Recommendation 5 VTA should reconsider its prior rejections of audit recommendations calling for the establishment of four-year terms and direct its legislative advocates to seek a legislative author to amend VTA’s enabling statute to require four-year terms. This should be implemented by December 31, 2026 Finding 6 VTA Board Appointing Authority Groups 2 through 5 often do not follow VTA Administrative Code (Section 2-14) admonitions to “appoint individuals with appropriate experience and qualifications in transportation” and to “reappoint representatives to consecutive terms.” Recommendation 6 VTA Board Appointing Authority Groups 2 through 5 should certify to the VTA Board that they will adhere to VTA Administrative Code (Section 2-14) admonitions, regarding Board member expertise and appointment to consecutive terms. This should be implemented by December 31, 2026. Finding 7 VTA Board Appointing Authority Groups 2 through 5 have different processes for making Board appointments. Item 5 Attachment A - Civil Grand Jury Report        Item 5: Staff Report Pg. 32  Packet Pg. 54 of 284  Page 29 of 40 VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II Recommendation 7 The cities represented in Appointing Authority Groups 2 through 5 should agree on a uniform process for making Board appointments. This should be implemented by December 31, 2026. Finding 8 The role assigned to the auditor general is outside the traditional scope of an auditor’s responsibilities and has introduced conflict and uncertainty among VTA staff and the Oversight Committee. Being involved in the management and policy-making process threatens the auditor general’s independence. Recommendation 8 The Board should implement an alternative model for supporting the Oversight Committee that does not rely on the auditor general to provide services such as agenda preparation, monitoring of VTA staff assignments, or preparation of a synthesis of multiple independent inputs to the Committee’s deliberations. This should be implemented by December 31, 2026 Finding 9 The Board of Directors has not approved the bylaws, nor the charter of the Oversight Committee. Recommendation 9 VTA should formally adopt a revised Charter for the Oversight Committee, setting the Board’s expectations on the following issues: • Defining the role of the auditor general to no longer require him to supervise the presentations by VTA staff to the Oversight Committee; • The responsibility of the Oversight Committee to report regularly to the Board on the independent analyses of costs, risks, and schedule by the PMOC and any SMEs; and to provide the Oversight Committee’s synthesis of those analyses with recommendations to resolve conflicts when necessary; • The responsibility of the Oversight Committee to consider and present its recommendations before the Board considers major decisions such as scope of the project, contracting, risk management, budgeting, and funding strategy; Item 5 Attachment A - Civil Grand Jury Report        Item 5: Staff Report Pg. 33  Packet Pg. 55 of 284  Page 30 of 40 VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II • The responsibility of the Oversight Committee to hold subject matter experts accountable for timely analysis of costs, risk, and schedule; • The responsibility of the Oversight Committee to report to the Board on the implications of design and construction issues that impact future ongoing operations and maintenance costs to be borne by VTA. This should be implemented by December 31, 2026. Finding 10 VTA’s vtabart.org website is poorly organized and not always intuitive to navigate, making it hard to find information about the status, cost, and schedule of the BSVII project. Recommendation 10 The VTA Board should direct the General Manager to implement and maintain a project dashboard on its vtabart.org website that includes status, cost, and schedule information. This should be implemented by October 31, 2026. Item 5 Attachment A - Civil Grand Jury Report        Item 5: Staff Report Pg. 34  Packet Pg. 56 of 284  Page 31 of 40 VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II REQUIRED RESPONSES Pursuant to California Penal Code section 933(a) et seq. and California Penal Code section 933.05, the 2025-26 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury requests responses from the following governing bodies: Responding Agency Findings Recommendations VTA Board of Directors 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10 County of Santa Clara, Board of Supervisors 6 6 The City of Campbell, City Council 6, 7 6, 7 The City of Cupertino, City Council 6, 7 6, 7 The City of Gilroy, City Council 6, 7 6, 7 The City of Los Altos, City Council 6, 7 6, 7 The Town of Los Altos Hills, Town Council 6, 7 6, 7 The Town of Los Gatos, Town Council 6, 7 6, 7 The City of Milpitas, City Council 6, 7 6, 7 The City of Monte Sereno, City Council 6, 7 6, 7 The City of Morgan Hill, City Council 6, 7 6, 7 The City of Mountain View, City Council 6, 7 6, 7 The City of Palo Alto, City Council 6, 7 6, 7 The City of San José, City Council 6, 7 6, 7 The City of Santa Clara, City Council 6, 7 6, 7 The City of Saratoga, City Council 6, 7 6, 7 The City of Sunnyvale, City Council 6, 7 6, 7 Item 5 Attachment A - Civil Grand Jury Report        Item 5: Staff Report Pg. 35  Packet Pg. 57 of 284  Page 32 of 40 VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II APPENDIX A: BART Management Letter Item 5 Attachment A - Civil Grand Jury Report        Item 5: Staff Report Pg. 36  Packet Pg. 58 of 284  Page 33 of 40 VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II Page 33 of 40 VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II Page 33 of 40 VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II Page 33 of 40 VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II VTA'S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II kai BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II (BSV I) BART rema i n s fully c ommitted to the success ful del ivery of this critical regio nal investmen t . H owe ver, that commitmen t d ep ends on VTA's i m medi ate corrective action to rest ore tra nsparency and ac co untability. Sincerely, Shane Edwards BART Assis tant General Manager, 0perations BART Project Director Ce: VTA's BART S i l icon Vall ey P hase II 0versight Com m i ttee Members Greg R i chardson, VTA Deputy General Manager Robert Po w e rs , BART General Manager Mich ae l Jones, BART D ep uty General Manager Ni Lee, BART D epu t y P roj ect D i rector M o n i ca Born, VTA Program Director Tom Maguire, VTA C h i ef De l i very Officer of Mega Proj ects BSVII: Co ll aborati o n , I n n ovat i on, Safety, R e l i ab ility 2 Page 33 of 40 Item 5 Attachment A - Civil Grand Jury Report        Item 5: Staff Report Pg. 37  Packet Pg. 59 of 284  Page 34 of 40 VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II CONFLICTS Members of the Civil Grand Jury are conflicted from a Civil Grand Jury investigation if, as a result of prior or current employment or associations, investment in public or private enterprise, financial interest, bias, or personal relationship, they are subject to recusal from participating in a matter before the Civil Grand Jury. One juror was recused from this matter. REFERENCES Bibliography 2018-19 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury. “Inquiry Into Governance of the Valley Transportation Authority.” June 18, 2019. (https://santaclara.courts.ca.gov/system/files/cgj-vta-final-report-061819_0.pdf). Accessed April 5, 2026. Aragon, Greg, “Single-Bore Tunnel Method Chosen for BART Silicon Valley Phase II.” ENRWest. November 4, 2025. (https://www.enr.com/articles/61798-single-bore-tunnel- method-chosen-for-bart-silicon-valley-phase-ii). Accessed April 29, 2026. AtkinsRéalis USA Holdings LLC. “Project Monitoring Report.” March 9, 2026. (https://vtabart.org/transparency-commitment/#docaccess- 8dd20a14312d4f35dd29658c7e4d5f55). Accessed May 1, 2026. Auditor General, Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority. “Auditor General’s Risk Assessment Report on VTA’s BSVII Finance Risks.” May 1, 2025. (https://santaclaravta.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_LegiFile.aspx?MeetingID=4412&ID= 9358). Accessed April 5, 2026. Auditor of the State of California. “Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, Improvements Are Necessary to Strengthen Its Project Management and Financial Oversight.” June 2024. (https://www.auditor.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/2023-101-Report.pdf). Accessed April 5, 2026. California State Transportation Agency. “Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program.” n.d. (https://calsta.ca.gov/subject-areas/transit-intercity-rail-capital-prog). Accessed May 12, 2026. Item 5 Attachment A - Civil Grand Jury Report        Item 5: Staff Report Pg. 38  Packet Pg. 60 of 284  Page 35 of 40 VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II Cal. Pub. Util. Code section 10000 et seq. Cal. Pub. Util. Code section 100060 et seq. Dorsey, Dustin. “Silicon Valley BART Extension construction remains on time, budget.” ABC Eyewitness News. December 8, 2025. (https://abc7news.com/post/silicon-valley-bart- extension-construction-remains-time-budget-west-portal-site/18265543/). Accessed April 29, 2026. Federal Transit Administration. “FY 2025 New Starts Financial Assessment.” June 2024. (https://www.transit.dot.gov/funding/grants/grant-programs/capital-investments/bart- silicon-valley-phase-ii-project-profile-fy-0). Federal Transit Administration. “BART Silicon Valley Phase II Extension Project San Jose, California. June 2024. (https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/2024-08/CA- BART-Silicon-Valley-Phase-II-Eng-Profile-20240705.pdf). Accessed March 30, 2026. Geha, Joseph. “Feds Commit $5.1 Billion to South Bay BART Extension.” KQED.org. August 2, 2024. (https://www.kqed.org/news/11998646/feds-commit-5-1-billion-to-south-bay- bart-extension#:~:text=Joseph%20Geha,increases%20to%20the%20current%20figure). Accessed April 22, 2026. Hicks, Tony. “VTA Board approves purchase of machine to bore BART line.” Mountain View Voice. November 7, 2023. (https://www.mv-voice.com/news/2023/11/07/vta-board- approves-purchase-of-machine-to-bore-bart-line/). Accessed April 5, 2026. Metropolitan Transportation Commission. “Agreement Reached on Loan for Bay Area Transit Agencies.” January 30, 2026. (https://mtc.ca.gov/news/agreement-reached-loan-bay-area- transit- agencies#:~:text=Because%20many%20transit%20capital%20projects,funds%20remaine d%20in%20state%20accounts.). Accessed April 28, 2026 Office of the County Counsel, County of Santa Clara. “County Counsel’s Impartial Analysis of Measure B.” 2016. (https://www.vta.org/sites/default/files/2025- 08/2016%20Measure%20B%20Ballot.pdf). Accessed April 29, 2026. Item 5 Attachment A - Civil Grand Jury Report        Item 5: Staff Report Pg. 39  Packet Pg. 61 of 284  Page 36 of 40 VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District Independent Office of the Inspector General. “Transparency & Communication Gaps in BSVII Project.” December 19, 2025. (https://www.bartoig.org/investigation-reports-2025#docaccess-98152ed2acf38 cd4da53e1efbb737c86cc96ef6c2e1f439edf6ec6f51905271f). Accessed April 5, 2026. San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District and Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, Comprehensive Agreement, November 22, 2001. (www.bart.gov/sites/default/files/docs/O%26M%20Agreement_Silicon%20Valley%20B ART%20Extn.pdf). Accessed May 12, 2026. San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District. “BART Board initially approves Alternative Service Plan outlining budget balancing details.” February 26, 2026. (https://www.bart.gov/news/articles/2026/news20260226-0). Accessed April 29, 2026. San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District. "January 2026 Monthly Ridership Snapshot." February 2026. (https://www.bart.gov/sites/default/files/2026- 02/202601%20Monthly%20Ridership%20Snapshot.pdf). Accessed April 29, 2026. San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District. " 2019 Monthly Ridership Reports." 2019. (https://www.bart.gov/sites/default/files/docs/ridership_2019.zip). Accessed April 29, 2026. Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, BART Silicon Valley Phase II Project. n.d. (https://www.vtabart.org). Accessed May 12, 2026. Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, “VTA Board of Directors Workshop Reviews BART Phase II Timeline, Costs, And Next Steps.” October 23, 2023. (https://www.vta.org/blog/vta-board-directors-workshop-reviews-bart-phase-ii-timeline- costs-and-next-steps). Accessed April 29, 2026. Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Auditor General. “Auditor General’s Initial Monitoring Report on VTA’s BART Silicon Valley Phase II Extension Project.” VTA’s BART Silicon Valley Phase II Extension Oversight Committee Agenda. Item 8a. January 19, 2024. (https://santaclaravta.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_Meeting.aspx?ID=4233). Accessed April 5, 2026. Item 5 Attachment A - Civil Grand Jury Report        Item 5: Staff Report Pg. 40  Packet Pg. 62 of 284  Page 37 of 40 VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority/RSM US LLC. “Board Governance Assessment – Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority.” December 20, 2019. (https://www.vta.gov/ sites/default/files/2020-01/VTA%20Board%20Governance%20Assessment%20 %281%29.pdf). Accessed April 5, 2026. Santa Clara Valley Transportation Agency. “BART Silicon Valley Extension Project Implements Major Cost Reductions.” November 13, 2024. (https://www.vta.org/blog/bart-silicon- valley-extension-project-implements-major-cost-reductions). Accessed April 23, 2026. Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority/HayGroup. “Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Organizational and Financial Assessment Executive Report.” March 2007. (https://ti.org/pdfs/HayGrouponVTA.pdf). Accessed April 5, 2026. Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority. “Operations and Maintenance Agreement By and Between the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority and The San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District.” May 22, 2020. (https://www.vta.org/sites/default/files/2020- 12/VTA%20BART%20Operations%20and%20Maintenance%20Agreement_0.pdf). Accessed April 23, 2026. Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority. “Santa Clara Valley Transit Authority Administrative Code (With Amendments through March 6, 2025).” March 2025. (https://www.vta.org/sites/default/files/2025-04/VTA_Administrative_Code_2025-3- 6.pdf). Accessed April 5, 2026. Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority. “Bylaws for VTA’s BART Silicon Valley Phase II Oversight Committee.” April 4, 2024. (https://www.vta.gov/sites/default/files/2024-04/ vta-bsv-oversight-committee-bylaws_0.pdf). Accessed April 8, 2026. Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority. Special Board Meeting. October 17, 2025. (https:// santaclaravta.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=14&ID=4297&Inline=True) Accessed April 9, 2026. Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority. “VTA's BART Silicon Valley Phase II Oversight Committee Regular Meeting”, Agenda Item 9.a, Item #25. April 17, 2024. (https://santaclaravta.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=3940&Inline=True ). Accessed May 1, 2026. Item 5 Attachment A - Civil Grand Jury Report        Item 5: Staff Report Pg. 41  Packet Pg. 63 of 284  Page 38 of 40 VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority. “VTA's BART Silicon Valley Phase II Oversight Committee Regular Meeting.” Agenda Item 4, Item #4. March 13, 2025. (https://santaclaravta.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=4138&Inline=True ). Accessed May 1, 2026. Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority. “VTA's BART Silicon Valley Phase II Oversight Committee Regular Meeting.” Item 11a. June 12, 2025. (https://santaclaravta.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_Meeting.aspx?ID=4430). Accessed April 29, 2026. Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority. “BSVII Project Update.” Summer, 2025. (https://vtabart.org/vtas-bart-silicon-valley-phase-ii-extension-project-summer-2025/). Accessed May 13, 2026. Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority. “VTA's BART Silicon Valley Phase II Oversight Committee Regular Meeting.” Item 8. January 15, 2026. (https://santaclaravta.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=4354&Inline=True ). Accessed April 22, 2026. Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority. “2000 Measure A.” n.d. (https://www.vta.org/projects/funding/2000-measure-a). Accessed April 29, 2026. Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority. “About 2016 Measure B.” n.d. (https://2016measureb.vta.org/about). Accessed April 29, 2026. Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority. “VTA's BART Silicon Valley Phase II Oversight Committee Regular Meeting.” Item 10b. Slide 21. September 11, 2025. (https://santaclaravta.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=4273&Inline=True ). Accessed April 13, 2026. Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority. “Fact Sheet: VTA's Bart Silicon Valley Phase 2 Extension Project.” March 2024. (https://www.vta.org/sites/default/files/2024- 07/VTABSV_FactSheet_2024_OverviewBenefits%201.pdf). Accessed April 13, 2026. Shalby, Colleen. “Trump administration pulls billions in funding for high-speed rail project; state leaders call decision ‘illegal.’” Los Angeles Times. July 16, 2025. (https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2025-07-16/trump-administration-cancels- funding-for-high-speed-rail-project). Accessed April 29, 2026. Item 5 Attachment A - Civil Grand Jury Report        Item 5: Staff Report Pg. 42  Packet Pg. 64 of 284  Page 39 of 40 VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II Shalby, Colleen. “Multibillion-dollar transit project to tunnel through the Santa Monica Mountains is approved by L.A. Metro.” LA Times. January 22, 2026. (https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2026-01-22/this-multibillion-dollar-transit- project-could-improve-traffic-across-la-it-goes-to-vote-today - :~:text=This is read by an,transit projects in the country). Accessed April 13, 2026. Item 5 Attachment A - Civil Grand Jury Report        Item 5: Staff Report Pg. 43  Packet Pg. 65 of 284  Page 40 of 40 VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II This report was ADOPTED by the 2025-2026 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury on this 17 th day of June, 2026. ______________________________ Dinesh Ramde Foreperson Item 5 Attachment A - Civil Grand Jury Report        Item 5: Staff Report Pg. 44  Packet Pg. 66 of 284  Attachment B September __, 2026 The Honorable Julie A. Emede Presiding Judge Santa Clara County Superior Court 191 North First Street San Jose, CA 95113 RE: City of Palo Alto Response to 2026 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report: VTA’s Management and Oversight of BART Silicon Valley Phase II Dear Judge Emede: The following is the City of Palo Alto’s response to the above-mentioned Grand Jury Report pursuant to California Penal Code §§ 933 and 933.05. Civil Grand Jury Finding 6: VTA Board Appointing Authority Groups 2 through 5 often do not follow VTA Administrative Code (Section 2-14) admonitions to “appoint individuals with appropriate experience and qualifications in transportation” and to “reappoint representatives to consecutive terms.” City of Palo Alto Response to Finding 6: The City of Palo Alto disagrees with Finding 6, to the extent this finding applies to the City of Palo Alto and VTA Board Group 2. Group 2 Cities Working Group Resolution No. 2022-01 (enclosed herewith) governs the appointment of the Group 2 representative to the VTA Board. The Resolution incorporates the requirements of VTA Administrative Code section 2-14 into the appointment process, including (1) requirements for transportation-related experience and (2) a requirement that any eligible sitting Board Member or alternate be appointed to a second term after serving their first term. The Resolution also requires that appointment of the Board Member and alternate shall take place at a noticed meeting open to the public. The last two Group 2 representatives (a Palo Alto Councilmember and Los Altos Councilmember) have both had relevant transportation experience, including local and regional experience with transportation issues and/or service on the VTA Policy Advisory Committee. The Palo Alto Councilmember continues to serve as an ex officio member of the VTA Board by virtue of his role as the Cities Association of Santa Clara County City Selection Committee representative to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. In addition, both recent Group 2 appointees either served two terms on the VTA Board or are expected to do so, consistent with Resolution No. 2022-01. Item 5 Attachment B - City of Palo Alto Civil Grand Jury Response Draft        Item 5: Staff Report Pg. 45  Packet Pg. 67 of 284  Civil Grand Jury Recommendation 6: VTA Board Appointing Authority Groups 2 through 5 should certify to the VTA Board that they will adhere to VTA Administrative Code (Section 2-14) admonitions, regarding Board member expertise and appointment to consecutive terms. City of Palo Alto Response to Recommendation 6: The City of Palo Alto has already implemented this recommendation to the extent it applies to the City and other Group 2 cities. Group 2 Cities Working Group Resolution No. 2022-01 complies with VTA Administrative Code section 2-14. Information regarding the two most recent Group 2 appointees to the VTA Board is provided in the City’s response to Finding No. 6. No further report to the VTA Board is required. Civil Grand Jury Finding 7: VTA Board Appointing Authority Groups 2 through 5 have different processes for making Board Appointments. City of Palo Alto Response to Finding 7: The City of Palo Alto agrees with this finding. The VTA Administrative Code allows members of VTA Board Groups 2 through 5 to determine the process for appointing their respective Board members. The Administrative Code allows each group to have a different process. While Palo Alto lacks first-hand knowledge of the appointment processes for Groups 3 through 5, publicly available sources indicate that not all of the groups use the same process that Palo Alto and other Group 2 cities use to appoint their VTA Board members. Civil Grand Jury Recommendation 7: The cities represented in Appointing Authority Groups 2 through 5 should agree on a uniform process for making Board appointments. City of Palo Alto Response to Recommendation 7: This recommendation will not be implemented by the City of Palo Alto, because Palo Alto does not have authority over the VTA or other VTA members. However, Palo Alto and other Group 2 cities currently comply with VTA Administrative Code section 2-14. The City of Palo Alto remains open to discussing a uniform process for making Board appointments, consistent with the VTA Administrative Code. Sincerely, ______________________________ Vicki Veenker Mayor Enclosure Item 5 Attachment B - City of Palo Alto Civil Grand Jury Response Draft        Item 5: Staff Report Pg. 46  Packet Pg. 68 of 284  City Council Staff Report From: City Manager Report Type: CONSENT CALENDAR Lead Department: Police Meeting Date: September 9, 2026 Report #:2607-6570 TITLE Approval of Five-year Memorandum of Agreement with Stanford University to Provide and be Reimbursed for Traffic Control Services during Stanford Stadium Events; CEQA status – not a project. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the City Council approve and authorize the City Manager or designee to execute the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University (Stanford) to provide and be reimbursed for traffic control for events at the Stanford Stadium for five years (Attachment A). BACKGROUND During each year, Stanford hosts a number of large events at Stanford Stadium, including home football games, concerts, and professional athletic events. These events require the movement of large numbers of vehicles and pedestrians into and out of the university in a short period of time. Stanford and the City of Palo Alto (City) share a goal of moving traffic as safely and efficiently as possible to and from the stadium area while minimizing impacts to nearby vehicles, pedestrians, businesses and residents. To accomplish this shared goal, Stanford and the City have partnered for decades to share the costs of supplemental traffic control services needed to facilitate safe and efficient traffic and pedestrian movements. Under the most recent MOA executed in 2021, the City agrees to provide services from uniformed peace officers to control traffic around Stanford stadium during athletic events where Stanford requests such services. Under this agreement, Stanford Item 6 Item 6 Staff Report        Item 6: Staff Report Pg. 1  Packet Pg. 69 of 284  reimburses the City for 50% of the costs of uniformed officers providing services during these events. This MOA expired August 31, 20261. ANALYSIS FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW 1 City Council Meeting November 1, 2021, Item #6, SR #13657 https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=81622&dbid=0&repo=PaloAlto&searchid=d23e37dc -92cc-4855-b70b-1b59ef128dfd) Item 6 Item 6 Staff Report        Item 6: Staff Report Pg. 2  Packet Pg. 70 of 284  either a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. ATTACHMENTS APPROVED BY: Item 6 Item 6 Staff Report        Item 6: Staff Report Pg. 3  Packet Pg. 71 of 284  DRAFT MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY FOR STADIUM EVENT TRAFFIC CONTROL STAFFING AND EQUIPMENT This Memorandum of Agreement (“Agreement”) is entered into effective September 1, 2026 (“Effective Date”), by and between the City of Palo Alto, a California chartered municipal corporation (“CITY”), and the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University (“STANFORD”). CITY and STANFORD may be referred to individually as a “PARTY” and collectively as the “PARTIES”. RECITALS During each academic year, STANFORD hosts several large events at or associated with STANFORD Stadium, including college football games, concerts, commercial professional athletic events, and other special events; These events require the movement of large numbers of vehicles into and out of STANFORD campus and stadium parking areas and surrounding roadways in a short period of time; STANFORD and CITY share a goal of moving traffic as safely and efficiently as possible to and from the stadium area while minimizing impacts to nearby vehicles, pedestrians, businesses, residents, and public safety operations; The PARTIES have partnered for decades to provide and fund supplemental traffic control services and related resources needed to facilitate safe and efficient vehicle movements; This Agreement confirms STANFORD’s reimbursement obligations for CITY traffic control staffing, equipment, planning, coordination, contractors, outside agency personnel, and other direct event support resources, in compliance with Section 53069.8 of the California Government Code; The Parties recognize that effective implementation of this Agreement may require coordination regarding staffing availability, scheduling, operational needs, and other constraints, and desire to work cooperatively to address such matters consistent with the terms of this Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties agree as follows: SECTION 1. CITY SERVICES CITY shall make every reasonable effort to perform the Services described in Exhibit A in accordance with the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement. SECTION 2. TERM The term of this Agreement shall begin on September 1, 2026 and shall remain in effect for until August 31, 2031, unless terminated earlier in accordance with this Agreement. SECTION 3. SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE STANFORD Associate Athletics Director, Operations & Events, or designee, shall communicate with the designated employee in the Police Department regarding upcoming events no later than four weeks in advance of the event date(s) in a manner mutually agreeable to the PARTIES. CITY shall perform Services in a reasonably prompt and timely manner based upon mutual expectations of the PARTIES. Item 6 Attachment A - Stanford - Palo Alto Traffic Control MOA        Item 6: Staff Report Pg. 4  Packet Pg. 72 of 284  SECTION 4. COMPENSATION The compensation to be paid to CITY for performance of the Services shall be based on the compensation structure detailed in Exhibit B, entitled “COMPENSATION,” including any reimbursable expenses specified therein, and the hourly schedule of rates, is set out in Exhibit C, entitled “SCHEDULE OF RATES.” SECTION 5. ANNUAL COST ESTIMATE By a date mutually acceptable to both PARTIES, CITY will provide STANFORD with an estimated cost for Events every year, for planning and budgeting purposes. The estimate may be based on the day-of-event staffing assumptions described in this Agreement, together with anticipated equipment and other direct support costs. The estimate is non-binding and intended only to inform STANFORD’s budgeting. Final invoicing will be based on actual resources used, including planning or coordination time where applicable. SECTION 6. INVOICING AND PAYMENT CITY will issue invoices within ten (10) business days after each operational event day, and STANFORD will make payment within twenty (20) business days after receipt. STANFORD shall not be liable for interest or late charges for late payments unless expressly required by a written amendment signed by both Parties. SECTION 7. LIMITATION OF LIABILITY AND INDEMNIFICATION STANFORD’s payment obligations under this Agreement shall be limited to the payments provided for in this Agreement. STANFORD shall not be liable for any special, consequential, indirect, or incidental damages in connection with this Agreement. CITY shall not be liable to STANFORD for any special, consequential, indirect, or incidental damages, including but not limited to lost profits, in connection with this Agreement. Each party shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the other party, its Board Members, Council Members, officers, employees, and agents from any and all demands, claims or liability of any nature, including wrongful death, caused by or arising out of the other party, its officers’, directors’, employees’ or agents’ negligent acts, errors, or omissions, or willful misconduct. SECTION 8.TERMINATION This Agreement may be terminated at any time in writing by agreement of both Parties. In the alternative, this Agreement may be terminated upon thirty (30) days’ written notice by either Party. Within thirty (30) days after the specified termination date, CITY shall submit to STANFORD an itemized invoice detailing unpaid costs incurred for services rendered up to the date of termination. STANFORD’s payment obligation under this Section shall survive termination of this Agreement. SECTION 9. ENTIRE AGREEMENT; AMENDMENTS This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement and understanding between the Parties with respect to the subject matter hereof, supersedes any prior or contemporaneous written or oral understanding or agreement, and may be amended only by written amendment executed by the Parties. SECTION 10. SEVERABILITY If any term or provision of this Agreement is found illegal or unenforceable, this Agreement shall remain in full force and effect and such term or provision shall be deemed stricken. SECTION 11. NOTICE TO PARTIES All notices to be given by the Parties shall be in writing and served by depositing the same in the United States mail, or by other mutually agreed written delivery method, as follows: Item 6 Attachment A - Stanford - Palo Alto Traffic Control MOA        Item 6: Staff Report Pg. 5  Packet Pg. 73 of 284  NOTICE TO STANFORD: NOTICE TO THE CITY OF PALO ALTO: Associate Athletics Director, Events Chief of Police Stanford University Athletics CITY of Palo Alto Arrillaga Family Sports Center 250 Sherman Ave 641 E. Campus Dr. Palo Alto, CA 94306 Stanford, CA 94305 650-329-2406 650-723-6771 pd@paloalto.gov NOTICE ALSO TO STANFORD ATTORNEY: NOTICE ALSO TO THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK: Office of the General Counsel Office of the City Clerk Stanford University City of Palo Alto Building 170, 3rd Floor, Main Quad 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 city.clerk@paloalto.gov 650-723-9611 SECTION 12. NO EMPLOYMENT Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed as creating an employment or agency relationship between CITY and STANFORD or any agent or employee of CITY or STANFORD. SECTION 13. EXHIBITS. Each of the following exhibits, is hereby attached and incorporated into this Agreement by reference as though fully set forth herein: EXHIBIT A: SCOPE OF SERVICES EXHIBIT B: COMPENSATION EXHIBIT C: SCHEDULE OF RATES (Continued on next page.) Item 6 Attachment A - Stanford - Palo Alto Traffic Control MOA        Item 6: Staff Report Pg. 6  Packet Pg. 74 of 284  IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have executed this Agreement. APPROVED: BY: _______________________________ Ed Shikada CITY Manager REVIEWED: BY: _______________________________ Chief of Police APPROVED AS TO FORM: BY: _______________________________ CITY Attorney or designee STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY APPROVED: BY: _______________________________ Stanford University Director of Athletics or designee APPROVED AS TO FORM: BY: _______________________________ Senior University Counsel Electronically signed by: Jennifer Zimbroff Reason: I have reviewed this document. Date: Aug 25, 2026 22:04:38 PDT John Donahoe Electronically signed by: John Donahoe Reason: I have reviewed and am approving this document. Date: Aug 27, 2026 09:30:05 PDT Item 6 Attachment A - Stanford - Palo Alto Traffic Control MOA        Item 6: Staff Report Pg. 7  Packet Pg. 75 of 284  Exhibit A SCOPE OF WORK CITY shall make every reasonable effort to provide event-related traffic control support, within the CITY boundaries, for events held at or associated with STANFORD Stadium for which STANFORD requests support and CITY determines support is operationally appropriate (“Athletic Events” or “Events”). Support may include, as needed: (a) police or other CITY staff assigned to event-related traffic control; (b) traffic control equipment; (c)contractors retained for traffic control or related support; (d) outside agency personnel when needed to fill roles CITY cannot fill internally; (e) other direct event support resources reasonably necessary for safe traffic operations; and (f) event-related planning, coordination, operational preparation, command preparation, post- event follow-up, and other administrative or operational work. STAFFING APPROACH AND OPERATIONAL CONTROL CITY will determine staffing based on operational, safety, and traffic management needs. STANFORD may request support for an Event, but STANFORD will not determine the exact number of positions to be staffed or the specific deployment locations. Final decisions regarding staffing levels, assignments, deployment, and all activity within CITY’s jurisdiction remain with CITY and under CITY’s operational control and direction. STANFORD may provide its own personnel to assist CITY operations at no additional cost to CITY, subject to CITY direction and operational compatibility. STANFORD personnel shall not direct CITY public safety operations. City will make every reasonable effort to ensure enough staff are available for traffic control operations within the CITY jurisdiction. DAY-OF-EVENT STAFFING EXPECTATIONS For planning and budgeting purposes only, the Parties acknowledge that concert events are expected generally to require a maximum of twenty-two (22) personnel; non-concert events are expected generally to require fewer than twenty-two (22) personnel; minimum staffing is expected generally to be no fewer than sixteen (16) personnel; and day-of-event staffing is expected to average approximately eight (8) hours per assigned traffic control staff member, except traffic control equipment operators, who are expected to be assigned eleven (11) hours, including setup and breakdown. These expectations reflect both sworn and non-sworn staffing, apply only to day-of-event staffing, do not include planning or coordination work outside the event shift, and do not limit CITY’s authority to determine actual staffing levels needed for public safety and traffic operations. NO GUARANTEE OF PERSONNEL AVAILABILITY CITY will make reasonable efforts to support STANFORD Events. Staffing is subject to operational needs, emergency response demands, employee availability, and public safety priorities. CITY does not guarantee that all requested support can be provided using CITY personnel alone. Item 6 Attachment A - Stanford - Palo Alto Traffic Control MOA        Item 6: Staff Report Pg. 8  Packet Pg. 76 of 284  Exhibit B COMPENSATION COST RECOVERY FRAMEWORK 1. For regular season STANFORD Football home games, STANFORD will reimburse CITY as follows: (a) CITY full-time hourly staff and part-time Palo Alto Reserve Police Officers: fifty percent (50%) of actual cost, calculated pursuant Exhibit C; (b) contractors: one hundred percent (100%) of actual cost; (c) per-diem, temporary, or limited-term personnel: one hundred percent (100%) of actual cost; (d) outside agency staff required because CITY cannot fill roles internally: one hundred percent (100%) of actual cost; and (e) equipment and other direct event costs: the fixed equipment reimbursement described below. 2. For all other events, including concerts and commercial athletic events (including playoff/post-season football bowl games), STANFORD will reimburse CITY for one hundred percent (100%) of CITY’s traffic control costs for the Event, including planning and coordination. CITY EQUIPMENT STANFORD will reimburse CITY a fixed cost of one thousand dollars ($1,000) per operational event day to reimburse a portion of CITY’s acquisition, installation, fabrication, maintenance, and replacement costs for equipment associated with Event operations. Examples include vehicles, trailers, fuel, traffic signs, traffic cones, barricades, electronic signs, and temporary lighting. OUTSIDE AGENCY FILL-IN STAFFING If CITY is unable to fill required assignments with its own full-time personnel for any reason, including insufficient availability of employees for overtime assignments, STANFORD will reimburse one hundred percent (100%) of actual cost for required outside agency staff, per-diem personnel, contractors, or other non-CITY resources used to fill those assignments. This provision does not apply to STANFORD personnel provided by STANFORD to assist CITY operations at no cost. Item 6 Attachment A - Stanford - Palo Alto Traffic Control MOA        Item 6: Staff Report Pg. 9  Packet Pg. 77 of 284  Exhibit C Schedule of Rates CITY employee costs will be billed as detailed below for each bargaining unit, including employees in the Palo Alto Police Officer Association (PAPOA) and Service Employee International Union (SEIU) bargaining unit. CITY employees perform services on an overtime basis and shall be compensated (and billed to Stanford) at the applicable overtime rate in accordance with the relevant collective bargaining agreement, the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), and all other applicable federal, state, and local labor laws and regulations. Regular Police Staff (those employees under PAPOA bargaining unit): The hourly rate billed will be based on the highest published base salary schedule rate for the “Advanced” step of each applicable classification, plus bilingual specialty pay, regardless of whether the assigned employee receives bilingual pay. Applicable job classifications (and job code) include Police Officer (624), Police Agent (616), and Police Sergeant (628). Nighttime differential of five percent (5%) will apply to work performed on the event day, by full-time sworn staff, billed under these classifications between 6:00 p.m. and 5:00 am. Except for the nighttime differential and overtime, pay modifiers not listed in the salary schedule but written into the Memorandum of Understanding between CITY and PAPOA, including K-9, detective, motorcycle, and similar modifiers, will not be included in this billing. Reserve Police Officers (Hourly bargaining unit) will be billed on the maximum published hourly classification rate for Police Reserve I plus overtime if applicable. Non-sworn classifications (SEIU bargaining unit) will be based on a blended rate for SEIU classifications of $65 per hour and will be adjusted by the percentage of change listed in the heading of the SEIU salary schedule for each event day plus overtime if applicable. Item 6 Attachment A - Stanford - Palo Alto Traffic Control MOA        Item 6: Staff Report Pg. 10  Packet Pg. 78 of 284  City Council Staff Report From: City Manager Report Type: CONSENT CALENDAR Lead Department: Human Resources Meeting Date: September 9, 2026 Report #:2607-6557 TITLE Approval of Amendment No. 1 to Contract No. S25186778 with Municipal Resources Group, LLC to increase the Contract Amount by $85,000 to a Total Not-to-Exceed of $340,000 for Organizational Development Services and Extend the Contract Term by One Year through September 4, 2027; CEQA Status – Not a Project. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that Council approve and authorize the City Manager or their designee to execute Amendment No 1. to Contract No. S25186778 (Attachment A) with Municipal Resources Group, LLC, to increase the contract amount by $85,000 and to extend the contract term from September 4, 2026, to September 4, 2027, to provide organizational development services as needed. The revised contract not-to-exceed amount is $340,000 for a revised contract term of 4 years. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Staff proposes an extension to the existing contract with Municipal Resources Group, LLC (MRG) for organizational development services. The City provides employee leadership coaching, professional development, and career advancement training for employees, advancing the City's commitment to a positive work environment and its organizational values through this contract. MRG delivers these services through a team of experienced organizational development professionals. The proposed amendment increases the contract's not-to-exceed amount from $255,000 to $340,000. This increase covers continuation of services provided in prior fiscal years and ensures the City can continue providing coaching and training services through September 4, 2027. The Council Appointed Officer performance evaluation process is outside the scope of this proposed amendment and is under separate contract. Item 7 Item 7 Staff Report        Item 7: Staff Report Pg. 1  Packet Pg. 79 of 284  BACKGROUND ANALYSIS FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT Item 7 Item 7 Staff Report        Item 7: Staff Report Pg. 2  Packet Pg. 80 of 284  Administrative Services managed the contract amendment process and supporting documentation. Human Resources will continue working with these stakeholders to complete the amendment process. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ATTACHMENTS APPROVED BY: Item 7 Item 7 Staff Report        Item 7: Staff Report Pg. 3  Packet Pg. 81 of 284  Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019 Page 1 of 4 AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO CONTRACT NO. S25186778 BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND MUNICIPAL RESOURCE GROUP, LLC This Amendment No. 1 (this “Amendment”) to Contract No. S25186778 (the “Contract” as defined below) is entered into as of September 9, 2026, by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation (“CITY”), and MUNICIPAL RESOURCE GROUP, LLC, a California limited liability company, located at 1622 D Street, Sacramento, CA 95814 (“CONSULTANT”). CITY and CONSULTANT are referred to collectively as the “Parties” in this Amendment. R E C I T A L S A. The Contract (as defined below) was entered into by and between the Parties hereto for the provision of planning and implementing organization transformation, providing leadership training, and developing a performance management system, as detailed therein. B. The Parties now wish to amend the Contract in order to extend the contract term for one year through September 4, 2027 and increase compensation by Eighty-Five Thousand Dollars ($85,000), from a total not-to-exceed compensation of Two Hundred Fifty-Five Thousand Dollars ($255,000) to a new not-to-exceed total compensation of Three Hundred Forty Thousand Dollars ($340,000), as detailed herein. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants, terms, conditions, and provisions of this Amendment, the Parties agree: SECTION 1. Definitions. The following definitions shall apply to this Amendment: a. Contract. The term “Contract” shall mean Contract No. S25186778 between CONSULTANT and CITY, dated September 5, 2023. b. Other Terms. Capitalized terms used and not defined in this Amendment shall have the meanings assigned to such terms in the Contract. SECTION 2. Section 2 “TERM’’ of the Contract is hereby amended to read as follows: “The term of this Agreement shall be effective as of September 5, 2023 through September 4, 2027 unless terminated earlier pursuant to Section 19 (Termination) of this Agreement.” SECTION 3. Section 4 “NOT TO EXCEED COMPENSATION” of the Contract is hereby amended to read as follows: "!#            Item 7 Attachment A - Amendment No. 1 to Contract no. S25186778        Item 7: Staff Report Pg. 4  Packet Pg. 82 of 284  Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019 Page 2 of 4 “The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT for performance of the Services shall be based on the compensation structure detailed in Exhibit C, entitled “COMPENSATION,” including any reimbursable expenses specified therein, and the maximum total compensation shall not exceed Eighty-Five Thousand Dollars ($85,000) per year for Four Years, Not to Exceed Three Hundred Forty Thousand Dollars ($340,000.00). The hourly schedule of rates, if applicable, is set out in Exhibit C-1, entitled “SCHEDULE OF RATES.” Any work performed or expenses incurred for which payment would result in a total exceeding the maximum compensation set forth in this Section 4 shall be at no cost to the CITY. Optional Additional Services Provision (This provision applies only if checked and a not- to-exceed compensation amount for Additional Services is allocated below under this Section 4.) In addition to the not-to-exceed compensation specified above, CITY has set aside the not- to-exceed compensation amount of Dollars ($ ) for the performance of Additional Services (as defined below). The total compensation for performance of the Services, Additional Services and any reimbursable expenses specified in Exhibit C, shall not exceed Dollars ($ ), as detailed in Exhibit C. “Additional Services” means any work that is determined by CITY to be necessary for the proper completion of the Project, but which is not included within the Scope of Services described at Exhibit A. CITY may elect to, but is not required to, authorize Additional Services up to the maximum amount of compensation set forth for Additional Services in this Section 4. CONSULTANT shall provide Additional Services only by advanced, written authorization from CITY as detailed in this Section. Additional Services, if any, shall be authorized by CITY with a Task Order assigned and authorized by CITY’s Project Manager, as identified in Section 13 (Project Management). Each Task Order shall be in substantially the same form as Exhibit A-1, entitled “PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TASK ORDER”. Each Task Order shall contain a specific scope of services, schedule of performance and maximum compensation amount, in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement. Compensation for Additional Services shall be specified by CITY in the Task Order, based on whichever is lowest: the compensation structure set forth in Exhibit C, the hourly rates set forth in Exhibit C-1, or a negotiated lump sum. To accept a Task Order, CONSULTANT shall sign the Task Order and return it to CITY’s Project Manager within the time specified by the Project Manager, and upon authorization by CITY (defined as counter-signature by the CITY Project Manager), the fully executed Task Order shall become part of this Agreement. The cumulative total compensation to CONSULTANT for all Task Orders authorized under this Agreement shall not exceed the amount of compensation set forth for Additional Services in this Section 4. CONSULTANT shall only be compensated for Additional Services performed under an authorized Task Order and only up to the maximum amount of compensation set forth for Additional Services in this Section 4. Performance of and payment for any Additional Services are subject to all requirements and restrictions in this Agreement.” "!#            Item 7 Attachment A - Amendment No. 1 to Contract no. S25186778        Item 7: Staff Report Pg. 5  Packet Pg. 83 of 284  Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019 Page 3 of 4 SECTION 4. The following exhibit(s) to the Contract is/are hereby amended or added, as indicated below, to read as set forth in the attachment(s) to this Amendment, which is/are hereby incorporated in full into this Amendment and into the Contract by this reference: SECTION 5. Legal Effect. Except as modified by this Amendment, all other provisions of the Contract, including any exhibits thereto, shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION 6. Incorporation of Recitals. The recitals set forth above are terms of this Amendment and are fully incorporated herein by this reference. (SIGNATURE BLOCK FOLLOWS ON THE NEXT PAGE.) "!#            Item 7 Attachment A - Amendment No. 1 to Contract no. S25186778        Item 7: Staff Report Pg. 6  Packet Pg. 84 of 284  Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019 Page 4 of 4 SIGNATURES OF THE PARTIES IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have by their duly authorized representatives executed this Amendment effective as of the date first above written. CITY OF PALO ALTO __________________________ City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: __________________________ City Attorney or designee MUNICIPAL RESOURCE GROUP, LLC Officer 1 By:_________________________ Name:______________________ Title:_______________________ "!#              $ Item 7 Attachment A - Amendment No. 1 to Contract no. S25186778        Item 7: Staff Report Pg. 7  Packet Pg. 85 of 284  9 9 1 8 City Council Staff Report From: City Manager Report Type: CONSENT CALENDAR Lead Department: City Manager Meeting Date: September 9, 2026 Report #:2604-6316 TITLE Approval of Amendment No. 1 to the Cost-Sharing Agreement with the County of Santa Clara for Continued Operation of the Safe Parking Program at 2000 Geng Road to Extend the Term Through June 30, 2027 and Not-to-Exceed $196,032; Approval of Amendment No. 3 to Contract No. 1557819, the Lease Agreement with the County of Santa Clara, Extending the County’s Temporary Use of the Site Through June 30, 2027; Approval of FY 2027 Budget Amendment in the Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA) Fund; and Authorization to Use PLHA Activity 6 Funds Accordingly; CEQA status – statutorily exempt. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council approve and authorize the City Manager or their designee to: 1) Execute Amendment No. 1 (Attachment A) to the cost-sharing Agreement Between the County of Santa Clara and the City of Palo Alto at the 2000 Geng Road Safe Parking expanded site, extending the agreement term through June 30, 2027 and authorizing reimbursement of Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PHLA)-eligible documented costs for the period September 16, 2026 through June 30, 2027, in an amount not to exceed $196,032, including $63,068 for PLHA-eligible documented program costs subject to any required review or approval by the California Department of Housing and Community Development of the City’s proposed use of PHLA funds, provided that any resulting changes are non-substantive and do not increase the City’s costs or reduce the County’s maximum reimbursement amount; 2) Execute Amendment No. 3 to Contract No. 1557819, the Lease Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and the County of Santa Clara, extending the County’s temporary use of a portion of 2000 Geng Road for the Safe Parking Program through June 30, 2027; and 3) Amend the Fiscal Year 2027 Budget Appropriation Ordinance in the PLHA Fund, requiring a 2/3 vote, by: a) Increasing revenue from Other Agencies in the amount of $63,068; and Item 8 Item 8 Staff Report        Item 8: Staff Report Pg. 1  Packet Pg. 86 of 284  9 9 1 8 b) Increasing the City Manager Other Contract Services budget for eligible documented Safe Parking Program costs in the amount of $63,068 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City of Palo Alto and the County of Santa Clara have partnered on the operation of the Safe Parking Program at 2000 Geng Road as part of a coordinated regional response to homelessness. The program provides a safe parking location for households residing in vehicles and connects participants with case management and supportive services. Based on high program utilization and continued use of the site by Palo Alto-connected households, staff recommends approval of amendments to the City-County cost-sharing and lease agreements to allow the existing Geng Road Safe Parking Program to continue through June 30, 2027. Approval of Amendment No. 1 to the cost-sharing agreement would extend City funding participation through June 30, 2027 and authorize reimbursement of eligible documented costs incurred between September 16, 2026 and June 30, 2027, in an amount not to exceed $196,032, including $63,068 for PLHA-eligible documented program costs. Approval of Amendment No. 3 to Contract No. 1557819, the Lease Agreement, would extend the County’s temporary use of a portion of the City-owned property at 2000 Geng Road for Safe Parking Program purposes through June 30, 2027. The proposed actions would not establish a new safe parking site, expand the leased premises beyond the existing approved site configuration, or modify citywide parking regulations. The proposed funding plan includes $63,068 in PLHA funds, subject to applicable funding restrictions and review or approval by the California Department of Housing and Community Development, with the remaining $132,964 funded within existing FY 2027 General Fund appropriations approved by Council during the budget process. The proposed amendment preserves the City’s ability to review invoices and supporting documentation, request clarification, and deny reimbursement for costs that are inadequately documented, ineligible, inconsistent with the agreement, or above the approved not-to-exceed amount. BACKGROUND Safe parking programs provide safe, legal locations where households sheltering in vehicles can park and access services. The County of Santa Clara, through its Office of Supportive Housing, serves as the lead agency for the Santa Clara County Continuum of Care and coordinates supportive housing policies, shelter, outreach, and related homeless services countywide.1 On September 14, 2020, City Council approved an interim Safe Parking ordinance and a three- year lease with the County of Santa Clara for use of City property at 2000 Geng Road for Safe 1 The Santa Clara County Continuum of Care coordinates regional homelessness response activities, including coordinated assessment and referral processes used to connect eligible households with housing and supportive services. Item 8 Item 8 Staff Report        Item 8: Staff Report Pg. 2  Packet Pg. 87 of 284  9 9 1 8 Parking Program purposes.3 Under the lease, the County contracted with a local nonprofit operator to operate a Safe Parking Program at the site. 4 5 6 ANALYSIS 3 City Council, September 14, 2020, Item #9, https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/agendas- minutes-reports/reports/city-manager-reports-cmrs/year-archive/2020-2/id-11513.pdf?t=58031.91 4 City Council, September 18, 2023 https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/meetings/ItemWithTemplateType?id=3115&meetingTemplateType=2 5City Council Staff Report, August 19, 2024, https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=14361 https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/meetings/pre-meeting/2169 Note, while the agreement allows for expansion of up to 22 total RV spaces, site conditions can accommodate 21 6 See Cost-Sharing Agreement Between the County of Santa Clara and the City of Palo Alto for the 2000 Geng Road Safe Parking Program, Exhibit A, Program Specifics Item 8 Item 8 Staff Report        Item 8: Staff Report Pg. 3  Packet Pg. 88 of 284  9 9 1 8 services and manages referrals consistent with the Santa Clara County Continuum of Care’s Coordinated Assessment System. The County is also responsible for maintaining financial records and providing backup documentation to support City payment of eligible documented costs. Item 8 Item 8 Staff Report        Item 8: Staff Report Pg. 4  Packet Pg. 89 of 284  9 9 1 8 applicable eligibility requirements, and sufficient documentation of eligible costs. Staff will continue to explore additional grant, partnership, and other eligible funding opportunities to offset City costs in future fiscal years, as appropriate. 11￿12 when spaces are unavailable. The waitlist functions as a pipeline for future enrollment but does not represent all households residing in vehicles in Palo Alto, because some households may not apply, may not meet eligibility requirements, may decline services, or may seek alternatives outside the Geng Road program. 13. Measure FY 2026 Q1 FY 2026 Q2 FY 2026 Q3 Total households enrolled 30 29 27 Total individuals enrolled 43 44 38 Palo Alto-affiliated households 24 21 20 Palo Alto-affiliated individuals 37 36 30 11 Interest list refers to those who have expressed an interest in the Safe Parking Program but may not have produced documents to prove eligibility 12 Waitlist refers to those who have been vetted and have all documents approved by the program 13 Based on County-provided quarterly program materials and invoice documentation for FY 2026 Q1 through FY 2026 Q3. FY 2026 Q4 program utilization and outcome data was not available in time for inclusion in this report. Item 8 Item 8 Staff Report        Item 8: Staff Report Pg. 5  Packet Pg. 90 of 284  9 9 1 8 and 463 days, respectively, for currently enrolled households, and 316 days and 389 days, respectively, for exiting households. Exit destinations for 11 household exits in Q3 included temporary stays with family or friends, places not meant for habitation, and permanent housing or permanent stays with family. Item 8 Item 8 Staff Report        Item 8: Staff Report Pg. 6  Packet Pg. 91 of 284  9 9 1 8 through FY 2026 Q3 invoice amounts reviewed. The County remains responsible for the costs associated with the original Safe Parking site area and original permitted spaces. 17 17 This not-to-exceed amount is covering an approximately 10-month period. Item 8 Item 8 Staff Report        Item 8: Staff Report Pg. 7  Packet Pg. 92 of 284  9 9 1 8 Safe Parking Program purposes through June 30, 2027. This action would align site control with the proposed cost-sharing term and allow uninterrupted program operation. 19 FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT Approval of Amendment No. 1 to the cost-sharing agreement would authorize reimbursement of eligible documented costs in an amount not to exceed $196,032 for the period September 16, 2026 through June 30, 2027, including $63,068 for PLHA-eligible documented program costs. 19 Government Code Section 8698.4 authorizes local agencies, under specified conditions, to allow designated parking areas for overnight shelter by persons and families who are homeless Item 8 Item 8 Staff Report        Item 8: Staff Report Pg. 8  Packet Pg. 93 of 284  9 9 1 8 The lease amendment itself does not authorize separate reimbursement beyond the proposed cost-sharing amendment. However, Amendment No. 3 to Contract No. 1557819, the Lease Agreement, is required to continue the County’s temporary use of the designated portion of 2000 Geng Road for Safe Parking Program purposes during the same period. STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT This item was coordinated with the City Manager’s Office, City Attorney’s Office, Administrative Services/Finance, Utilities, relevant operating departments, and the County of Santa Clara Office of Supportive Housing. Staff participate in regular coordination with the County Office of Supportive Housing, including monthly contract management meetings and monthly leadership meetings, to discuss program operations, contract administration, reimbursement documentation, service coordination, and implementation issues. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Item 8 Item 8 Staff Report        Item 8: Staff Report Pg. 9  Packet Pg. 94 of 284  9 9 1 8 approval of Amendment No. 2 expanding the leased premises, the City considered environmental review for the temporary Safe Parking use of the site.21 The proposed actions before Council do not establish a new Safe Parking site, expand the leased premises beyond the existing approved site configuration, modify citywide parking regulations, or authorize physical changes to the property. The actions would continue the existing temporary use and related cost-sharing arrangement. The proposed actions are not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act because they constitute administrative, fiscal, and organizational activities that will not result in direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical changes in the environment. In the alternative, the actions are statutorily exempt under PRC section 21080.10(c) as contracts providing services for people experiencing homelessness. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Amendment No. 1 to the Agreement Between the County of Santa Clara and the City of Palo Alto for Cost Sharing at 2000 Geng Road Safe Parking Expanded Site Attachment B: Amendment No. 3 to Contract No. 1557819, the Lease Agreement Between the City of Palo Alto and the County of Santa Clara for Use of 2000 Geng Road APPROVED BY: Ed Shikada, City Manager 21 See City Council Staff Report ID #11513, dated September 14, 2020, regarding adoption of an interim Safe Parking ordinance and approval of a three-year lease with the County of Santa Clara for City property located at 2000 Geng Road for Safe Parking Program purposes. Item 8 Item 8 Staff Report        Item 8: Staff Report Pg. 10  Packet Pg. 95 of 284  Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019 Page 1 of 2 AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO CONTRACT NO. 1557819 BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA This Amendment No. 3 (this “Amendment”) to Contract No. 1557819 (the “Contract” as defined below) is entered into as of September 12, 2026 by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation (“CITY”), and the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, a political subdivision of the State of California (“COUNTY”). CITY and COUNTY are referred to collectively as the “Parties” in this Amendment. R E C I T A L S A. The Contract (as defined below) was entered into by and between the Parties hereto for the provision of the use of a portion of 2000 Geng Road for the County’s 24-hour safe parking program for recreational and other vehicles and persons residing in such vehicles on a temporary basis (“Safe Parking”), as detailed therein. B. The Parties now wish to amend the Contract to extend the term. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants, terms, conditions, and provisions of this Amendment, the Parties agree: SECTION 1. Definitions. The following definitions shall apply to this Amendment: a. Contract. The term “Contract” shall mean Contract No. 1557819 between COUNTY and CITY, dated September 17, 2020, as amended by: • Amendment 1, dated September 12, 2023, and • Amendment 2, dated August 26, 2024 b. Other Terms. Capitalized terms used and not defined in this Amendment shall have the meanings assigned to such terms in the Contract. SECTION 2. Section 2 of the Contract is hereby amended to read as follows: 2. Term. The term of this Agreement shall commence upon the Effective Date and end on June 30, 2027 (“Term”). Notwithstanding anything to the contrary this Agreement, the Term shall expire no later than the date Government Code Section 8698.4 (or any statutory replacement thereof) is repealed. It is understood that this Agreement is intended to give County a temporary use of the Premises and that County shall not be entitled to relocation benefits, assistance, damages (liquidated or otherwise), costs, Item 8 Attachment A - Amendment No. 1 to the Agreement Between the County of Santa Clara and the City of Palo Alto for Cost Sharing at 2000 Geng Road Safe Parking Expanded Site        Item 8: Staff Report Pg. 11  Packet Pg. 96 of 284  Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019 Page 2 of 2 claims or fees from City upon expiration, termination, or cancellation of this Agreement. SECTION 3. Legal Effect. Except as modified by this Amendment, all other provisions of the Contract, including any exhibits thereto, shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION 4. Incorporation of Recitals. The recitals set forth above are terms of this Amendment and are fully incorporated herein by this reference. SIGNATURES OF THE PARTIES IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have by their duly authorized representatives executed this Amendment effective as of the date first above written. CITY OF PALO ALTO ______________________________ City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: ______________________________ City Attorney or designee COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA ______________________________ Name: Title: APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY: ______________________________ Name: Title: Item 8 Attachment A - Amendment No. 1 to the Agreement Between the County of Santa Clara and the City of Palo Alto for Cost Sharing at 2000 Geng Road Safe Parking Expanded Site        Item 8: Staff Report Pg. 12  Packet Pg. 97 of 284  Page 1 of 6 AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA FOR COST SHARING AT 2000 GENG ROAD SAFE PARKING EXPANDED SITE This Amendment No. 1 (this “Amendment”) to the Agreement Between the County of Santa Clara and the City of Palo Alto (the “Contract” as defined below) is entered into as of September 12, 2026 by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered mun icipal corporation (“CITY”), and the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, a political subdivision of the State of California (“COUNTY”). CITY and COUNTY are referred to collectively as the “Parties” in this Amendment. R E C I T A L S A. The Contract (as defined below) was entered into by and between the Parties hereto for the City to contribute funds to the County’s operation of the Expanded Site at 2000 Geng Road for Safe Parking (“Safe Parking”), as detailed therein. B. The Parties now wish to amend the Contract in order to extend the term of the Contract and amend other terms. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants, terms, conditions, and provisions of this Amendment, the Parties agree: SECTION 1. Definitions. The following definitions shall apply to this Amendment: a. Contract. The term “Contract” shall mean the “Agreement Between the County of Santa Clara and the City of Palo Alto” between COUNTY and CITY, effective February 1, 2025. b. Other Terms. Capitalized terms used and not defined in this Amendment shall have the meanings assigned to such terms in the Contract. SECTION 2. Section 1 of the Contract is hereby amended to read as follows: 1) TERM This Agreement is effective on February 1, 2025 and will continue thereafter through June 30, 2027 unless extended by mutual consent or terminated as provided below in Sections 4 and 13. SECTION 3. Section 2 of the Contract is hereby amended to read as follows: 2) ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES a) The Parties shall jointly develop, implement, and monitor the programs described in Exhibit A: Program Specifics (“Programs”). Item 8 Attachment B - Amendment No. 3 to Contract No. 1557819, the Lease Agreement Between the City of Palo Alto and the County of Santa Clara for Use of 2000 Geng Road​        Item 8: Staff Report Pg. 13  Packet Pg. 98 of 284  Page 2 of 6 b) City’s Responsibilities i) The City shall designate a Program Manager to: (1) Serve as the County’s liaison to the City’s departments and City Council; (2) Participate in management meetings for the Programs, which will be held as needed; and (3) Actively assist in the developmen t and improvement of the Programs to ensure that the Programs meet their goals. ii) The City shall reimburse the County for eligible expenses incurred in connection with this Agreement, up to the maximum amounts specified below in Table 1, following receipt, review, and approval of the County’s invoice or payment request. The County’s invoice or payment request will consist of a summary of eligible costs in accordance with this agreement. Table 1: City’s Not-to-Exceed Contribution Time Period Total Maximum Financial Obligation February 1, 2025 - June 30, 2025 $98,507 July 1, 2025 – June 30, 2026 $235,238 July 1, 2026 – September 15, 2026 $59,104 Utility Charges (as defined below) for February 1, 2025 – September 15, 2026 $55,000 September 16, 2026 – June 30, 2027 $295,004 Utility Charges (as defined below) for September 16, 2026 – June 30, 2027 $30,000 TOTAL $772,853 The County shall submit its final invoice no later than sixty (60) days after expiration or termination of this Agreement, unless the City agrees in writing to a later date. The City shall have no obligation to reimburse invoices submitted after that date. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Geng Road Lease, the City shall pay for electricity, gas, refuse, sewer, and water for the Geng Road site (“Utility Charges”) during the time periods above up to the specified amounts in Table 1 above. Utilit y Charges may be paid directly from the City to itself as the utility provider, through interdepartmental transfer or other City accounting mechanism, or the City may reimburse the County for actual eligible utility costs paid, as applicable. Item 8 Attachment B - Amendment No. 3 to Contract No. 1557819, the Lease Agreement Between the City of Palo Alto and the County of Santa Clara for Use of 2000 Geng Road​        Item 8: Staff Report Pg. 14  Packet Pg. 99 of 284  Page 3 of 6 iii) The City’s contribution under this Agreement may be funded from a combination of Permanent Local Housing Allocation (“PLHA”) funds, General Fund appropriations, and/or other legally available funds, subject to applicable restrictions on the use of suc h funds, City Council appropriations, and all applicable federal, state, and local laws and requirements. c) County’s Responsibilities i) The County shall designate one or more Program Managers to: (1) Serve as the City’s liaison to County departments; (2) Plan and lead management and coordination meetings, which will be held as needed; (3) Lead in development, management, and refinement of the Programs to ensure that the Programs meet their goals; and (4) Lead coordination meetings with appropriate stakeholders to ensure the Programs’ success. ii) The County shall provide or subcontract Programs’ services. To the maximum extent practicable, the County shall leverage other resources to offset, improve, or expand the Programs’ services. iii) The County or its contractors shall implement referral criteria and procedures consistent with the Santa Clara County Continuum of Care’s Coordinated Assessment System. iv) The County shall maintain complete and accurate financial records supporting all costs for which reimbursement is sought under this Agreement and reasonably requested by the City for audit purposes. v) To the extent the City uses PLHA or other restricted funds under this Agreement, the County shall cooperate with the City in providing documentation required by the State or funder to support cost eligibility, reporting, monitoring, and audit compliance. The City shall communicate any known funding-source-specific documentation requirements to the County reasonably in advance. d) The Parties shall work collaboratively to: i) Establish the Programs’ success and outcome measures consistent with the Santa Clara County Continuum of Care’s System Performance Measures; ii) Identify resources that would enable the Programs to more effe ctively use City and County funds and improve Programs, incorporating lessons learned from similar Programs; iii) Meet regularly to discuss the performance and progress of the Programs. When appropriate, the Parties shall jointly develop corrective actions to be implemented by the Programs’ contractors; iv) Jointly monitor the Programs’ expenses and outcomes. Based on the availability of the City’s Item 8 Attachment B - Amendment No. 3 to Contract No. 1557819, the Lease Agreement Between the City of Palo Alto and the County of Santa Clara for Use of 2000 Geng Road​        Item 8: Staff Report Pg. 15  Packet Pg. 100 of 284  Page 4 of 6 funds in future years and the Programs’ outcomes, the Parties will determine whether to continue, expand, contract, or terminate the Programs at the end of the Term ; e) Funding under this Agreement is contingent on appropriations approved by the City Council and, where applicable, on the continued availability and lawful use of PLHA or other restricted funding sources. Nothing herein, however, shall prevent the obligation of the City Council to reimburse costs eligible under this Agreement where any non -compliance with PLHA or other restricted funding sources was due to conditions not communicated to the County in advan ce. SECTION 4. The following exhibit to the Contract is hereby amended to read as set forth in the attachment to this Amendment, which is hereby incorporated in full into this Amendment and into the Contract by this reference: a. Exhibit “A” entitled “PROGRAM SPECIFICS”, AMENDED, REPLACES PREVIOUS. SECTION 3. Legal Effect. Except as modified by this Amendment, all other provisions of the Contract, including any exhibits thereto, shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION 4. Incorporation of Recitals. The recitals set forth above are terms of this Amendment and are fully incorporated herein by this reference. SIGNATURES OF THE PARTIES IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have by their duly authorized representatives executed this Amendment effective as of the date first above written. CITY OF PALO ALTO ______________________________ City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: ______________________________ City Attorney or designee COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA ______________________________ Name: Title: APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY: ______________________________ Name: Title: Attachment: Exhibit “A” “PROGRAM SPECIFICS” Item 8 Attachment B - Amendment No. 3 to Contract No. 1557819, the Lease Agreement Between the City of Palo Alto and the County of Santa Clara for Use of 2000 Geng Road​        Item 8: Staff Report Pg. 16  Packet Pg. 101 of 284  Page 5 of 6 EXHIBIT A: PROGRAM SPECIFICS This Exhibit describes the Programs that will be implemented under this Agreement, either directly by the County or by a County subcontractor. A. Safe Parking (SP) 1. Program Description SP programs provide homeless households with a temporary, overnight, safe location to park, as along with case management and related supportive services. 2. Ordinance The County agrees to comply with all of the terms and conditions set forth in the City’s Safe Parking Ordinance. 3. Target Population The Program shall serve homeless households who are unsheltered and sleeping in their vehicle with priority for households with students enrolled in a school district within Palo Alto as outlined in the Safe Parking Ordinance. 4. Number of Households The County or its contractors shall serve up to 10 households at a given point in time. 5. Program Funding Amount The City shall reimburse the County for eligible documented Program costs in accordance with Section 2(b)(ii) of this Agreement, up to the maximum amounts authorized under this Agreement. 6. Reporting Requirements a) The County shall provide quarterly reports to the City no later than thirty (30) days following the end of each calendar quarter, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Parties. Quarterly reports shall include, at a minimum: b) Number of unduplicated clients served: a. All clients served. b. Clients served that are connected to the City. c) Exit destinations: a. Number of unduplicated clients exits per period by exit categories. b. Number of unduplicated clients exits per period by exit categories for those connected to the City. Item 8 Attachment B - Amendment No. 3 to Contract No. 1557819, the Lease Agreement Between the City of Palo Alto and the County of Santa Clara for Use of 2000 Geng Road​        Item 8: Staff Report Pg. 17  Packet Pg. 102 of 284  Page 6 of 6 d) Enrollments of Palo Alto connected clients for the time period as well as enrollments that are new in that time period. e) Average length of time that individuals and families remain in program. f) Returns to homelessness within 12 months of individuals and families served, as data becomes available. g) Returns to homelessness within 2 years of individuals and families served, as data becomes available. h) A summary budget-to-actual report of operation and maintenance costs funded by the City during the reporting period, in categories and a format agreed upon by the Parties. Item 8 Attachment B - Amendment No. 3 to Contract No. 1557819, the Lease Agreement Between the City of Palo Alto and the County of Santa Clara for Use of 2000 Geng Road​        Item 8: Staff Report Pg. 18  Packet Pg. 103 of 284  City Council Staff Report From: City Manager Report Type: CONSENT CALENDAR Lead Department: Administrative Services Meeting Date: September 9, 2026 Report #:2606-6439 TITLE Approval of Amendment No. 2 to Contract C23187298C with Hinderliter, de Llamas & Associates (HdL) to Add Sales Tax and Transactions Tax Analysis, Reporting, Forecasting, and Audit Recovery Services and Increase Compensation by $165,000 for a New Total Not-to-Exceed Amount of $3,035,000 over Two Years and Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing HdL and Designated City Staff to Examine Sales or Transactions and Use Taxes from the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA); CEQA Status - Not a Project RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council: 1. Approve and authorize the City Manager of their designee to execute Amendment No. 2 to Contract C23187298C with Hinderliter, de Llamas, and Associates (HdL) to add sales tax and transactions tax analysis, reporting, forecasting, and audit recovery services and increase compensation by $165,000 for a revised not-to-exceed amount of $3,035,000 (Attachment A); and 2. Adopt a Resolution Authorizing HdL and Designated City Staff to Examine Sales or Transactions and Use Taxes from the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA) (Attachment B). EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This item recommends approval of Amendment No. 2 to the City’s existing agreement with Hinderliter, de Llamas, and Associates (HdL) to add sales tax and transactions tax analysis, forecasting, reporting, and audit recovery support services through June 30, 2028. The amendment increases the contract authority by $165,000 over the remaining two years of the contract term, for a revised not-to-exceed amount of $3,035,000. The City Council previously approved $2,870,000 for Business Tax and Business Registry administration, compliance, and related services over the full five-year agreement term. Recent changes to California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA) sales tax allocation methodologies, along with broader economic and consumer spending uncertainty, have increased the complexity and variability associated with sales tax forecasting, revenue Item 9 Item 9 Staff Report        Item 9: Staff Report Pg. 1  Packet Pg. 104 of 284  monitoring, and related financial analysis. The proposed amendment reassigns the City’s existing sales tax analysis and reporting services from the City’s current consultant, MuniServices LLC, to HdL. The amendment would also add similar services for local transactions and use tax measure, if approved by voters at the November 2026 election. Under the proposed service structure, these activities would be more closely aligned with the City’s financial planning and revenue monitoring processes and timelines and provide staff with greater information and flexibility to evaluate changing economic conditions and revenue assumptions. BACKGROUND 1. The RFP was structured to award services across multiple firms based on qualifications, experience, and operational needs associated with each service area. Since that time, the City has continued to evaluate and adjust service assignments among selected consultants in response to changing operational needs, evolving financial planning priorities, and external economic and regulatory changes. ANALYSIS 1 City Council, June 19, 2023, Report #2304-1337 https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=82399&dbid=0&repo=PaloAlto Item 9 Item 9 Staff Report        Item 9: Staff Report Pg. 2  Packet Pg. 105 of 284  ability to accurately project revenues, monitor economic trends, and ensure the timely recovery of sales tax revenue. Under the proposed service structure, these activities would be more closely coordinated with the City’s financial planning and revenue monitoring processes and timelines. Although the proposed amendment reflects a price increase relative to the City’s current agreement, staff recommends this transition, this structure would also provide staff with greater information and flexibility to evaluate changing economic conditions, refine revenue assumptions, and incorporate updated information throughout the budget and financial planning process. 3 authorizes MuniServices, HdL, and designated City staff to examine confidential sales and use tax information. The proposed resolution would replace Resolution No. 10222 to reflect the City’s current service providers and expand the authorization to include transactions tax information. MuniServices would remain authorized to access confidential tax information only as necessary to complete any outstanding petitions under its previous agreement with the City. FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT 3 Resolution 10222, passed by City Council on March 24, 2025: https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=62115&dbid=0&repo=PaloAlto Item 9 Item 9 Staff Report        Item 9: Staff Report Pg. 3  Packet Pg. 106 of 284  Staff expects to manage these costs within existing appropriations. Actual costs will vary based on audit recovery activity levels and any optional services requested by the City. Staff will monitor costs throughout the remaining agreement term. Any additional funding needs will be brought forward for City Council consideration through a future budget process. This contract and pricing is recommended to meet the service delivery and expectations critical to the city’s second largest revenue stream. STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ATTACHMENTS APPROVED BY: Item 9 Item 9 Staff Report        Item 9: Staff Report Pg. 4  Packet Pg. 107 of 284  Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019 Page 1 of 17 AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO CONTRACT NO. C23187298C BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND HINDERLITER DE LLAMAS & ASSOCIATES (HDL) This Amendment No. 2 (this “Amendment”) to Contract No. C23187298C (the “Contract” as defined below) is entered into as of September 9, 2026, by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation (“CITY”), and HINDERLITER DE LLAMAS & ASSOCIATES (HDL), a California corporation, located at 120 S. State College Blvd. Suite 200, Brea, California 92821 (“CONSULTANT”). CITY and CONSULTANT are referred to collectively as the “Parties” in this Amendment. R E C I T A L S A.The Contract (as defined below) was entered into by and between the Parties hereto for the provision of administration, collection, enforcement, compliance, and audit activities for the City’s business tax and business registry certificate program, as detailed therein. B. The Parties entered into Amendment No. 1 to extend the term for an additional two (2) years, changing expiration date from June 30, 2026 to June 30, 2028 and increasing the compensation value by Two Million Nine Thousand Four Hundred Forty Five Dollars ($2,009,445); changing total not to exceed compensation value from Eight Hundred Sixty Thousand Five Hundred Fifty Five Dollars ($860,555) to Two Million Eight Hundred Seventy Thousand Dollars ($2,870,000), as detailed therein. C. The Parties now wish to amend the Contract in order to (1) increase the compensation value by One Hundred Sixty-Five Thousand Dollars ($165,000); changing total not to exceed compensation value from Two Million Eight Hundred Seventy Thousand Dollars ($2,870,000) to Three Million Thirty-Five Thousand Dollars ($3,035,000); and (2) add to the Scope of Services, as detailed herein. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants, terms, conditions, and provisions of this Amendment, the Parties agree: SECTION 1. Definitions. The following definitions shall apply to this Amendment: a.Contract. The term “Contract” shall mean Contract No. C23187298C between CONSULTANT and CITY, dated October 1, 2023, as amended by: Amendment No. 1 dated September 29, 2025 b.Other Terms. Capitalized terms used and not defined in this Amendment shall have the meanings assigned to such terms in the Contract. $)' ##*"$%         ATTACHMENT AItem 9 Attachment A - Amendment No. 2 to Contract No. C23187298C with HdL        Item 9: Staff Report Pg. 5  Packet Pg. 108 of 284  Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019 Page 2 of 17 SECTION 2. Section 4. “COMPENSATION” of the Contract is hereby amended to read as follows: “The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT for performance of the Services shall be based on the compensation structure detailed in Exhibit C, entitled “COMPENSATION,” including any reimbursable expenses specified therein, and the maximum total compensation shall not exceed Two Million Nine Hundred Eleven Thousand ($2,911,000). The hourly schedule of rates, if applicable, is set out in Exhibit C-1, entitled “SCHEDULE OF RATES.” Any work performed or expenses incurred for which payment would result in a total exceeding the maximum compensation set forth in this Section 4 shall be at no cost to the CITY. Optional Additional Services Provision (This provision applies only if checked and a not-to- exceed compensation amount for Additional Services is allocated below under this Section 4.) In addition to the not-to-exceed compensation specified above, CITY has set aside the not-to- exceed compensation amount of One Hundred Twenty-Four Thousand Dollars ($124,000) for the performance of Additional Services (as defined below). The total compensation for performance of the Services, Additional Services and any reimbursable expenses specified in Exhibit C, shall be Three Million Thirty-Five Thousand Dollars ($3,035,000), as detailed in Exhibit C. “Additional Services” means any work that is determined by CITY to be necessary for the proper completion of the Project, but which is not included within the Scope of Services described at Exhibit A. CITY may elect to, but is not required to, authorize Additional Services up to the maximum amount of compensation set forth for Additional Services in this Section 4. CONSULTANT shall provide Additional Services only by advanced, written authorization from CITY as detailed in this Section. Additional Services, if any, shall be authorized by CITY with a Task Order assigned and authorized by CITY’s Project Manager, as identified in Section 13 (Project Management). Each Task Order shall be in substantially the same form as Exhibit A-1, entitled “PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TASK ORDER”. Each Task Order shall contain a specific scope of services, schedule of performance and maximum compensation amount, in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement. Compensation for Additional Services shall be specified by CITY in the Task Order, based on whichever is lowest: the compensation structure set forth in Exhibit C, the hourly rates set forth in Exhibit C-1, or a negotiated lump sum. To accept a Task Order, CONSULTANT shall sign the Task Order and return it to CITY’s Project Manager within the time specified by the Project Manager, and upon authorization by CITY (defined as counter-signature by the CITY Project Manager), the fully executed Task Order shall become part of this Agreement. The cumulative total compensation to CONSULTANT for all Task Orders authorized under this Agreement shall not exceed the amount of compensation set forth for Additional Services in this Section 4. CONSULTANT shall only be compensated for Additional Services performed under an authorized Task Order and only up to the maximum amount of compensation set forth for Additional Services in this Section 4. Performance of and payment for any Additional Services are subject to all requirements and restrictions in this Agreement.” $)' ##*"$%         ATTACHMENT AItem 9 Attachment A - Amendment No. 2 to Contract No. C23187298C with HdL        Item 9: Staff Report Pg. 6  Packet Pg. 109 of 284  Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019 Page 3 of 17 SECTION 3. The following exhibit(s) to the Contract is/are hereby amended or added, as indicated below, to read as set forth in the attachment(s) to this Amendment, which is/are hereby incorporated in full into this Amendment and into the Contract by this reference: a. Exhibit “A-1” entitled “SCOPE OF SERVICES, AMENDMENT NO. 2”, ADDED. b. Exhibit “B” entitled “SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE, AMENDMENT NO. 2”, AMENDED, REPLACES PREVIOUS. c. Exhibit “C” entitled “COMPENSATION, AMENDMENT NO. 2”, AMENDED, REPLACES PREVIOUS. SECTION 4. Legal Effect. Except as modified by this Amendment, all other provisions of the Contract, including any exhibits thereto, shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION 5. Incorporation of Recitals. The recitals set forth above are terms of this Amendment and are fully incorporated herein by this reference. (SIGNATURE BLOCK FOLLOWS ON THE NEXT PAGE.) $)' ##*"$%         ATTACHMENT AItem 9 Attachment A - Amendment No. 2 to Contract No. C23187298C with HdL        Item 9: Staff Report Pg. 7  Packet Pg. 110 of 284  Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019 Page 4 of 17 SIGNATURES OF THE PARTIES IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have by their duly authorized representatives executed this Amendment effective as of the date first above written. CITY OF PALO ALTO _________________________ City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: _________________________ City Attorney or Designee HINDERLITER DE LLAMAS & ASSOCIATES (HDL) Officer 1 By:__________________________ Name:_______________________ Title:________________________ Officer 2 By:__________________________ Name:_______________________ Title:________________________ Attachments: - EXHIBIT A – SCOPE OF SERVICES, AMENDMENT NO. 1 - EXHIBIT A-1 – SCOPE OF SERVICES, AMENDMENT NO. 2 (ADDED) - EXHIBIT B – SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE, AMENDMENT NO. 2 (AMENDED, REPLACES PREVIOUS) - EXHIBIT C – COMPENSATION, AMENDMENT NO. 2 (AMENDED, REPLACES PREVIOUS) - EXHIBIT C-1 – SCHEDULE OF RATES, AMENDMENT NO. 1 - EXHIBIT D – INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS $)' ##*"$%         #&+ !&'$#&' #( &' #(  &&!  ATTACHMENT AItem 9 Attachment A - Amendment No. 2 to Contract No. C23187298C with HdL        Item 9: Staff Report Pg. 8  Packet Pg. 111 of 284  Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019 Page 5 of 17 EXHIBIT A SCOPE OF SERVICES, AMENDMENT NO.1 CONSULTANT shall provide the Services detailed in this Exhibit A, entitled “SCOPE OF SERVICES”. CONSULTANT shall provide the Services detailed in this Exhibit A, entitled “SCOPE OF SERVICES”. Notwithstanding any provision herein to the contrary, CONSULTANT’s duties and services described in this Scope of Services shall not include preparing or assisting CITY with any portion of CITY’s preparation of a request for proposals, request for qualifications, or any other solicitation regarding a subsequent or additional contract with CITY. CITY shall at all times retain responsibility for public contracting, including with respect to any subsequent phase of this project. CONSULTANT’s participation in the planning, discussions, or drawing of project plans or specifications shall be limited to conceptual, preliminary, or initial plans or specifications. CONSULTANT shall cooperate with CITY to ensure that all bidders for a subsequent contract on any subsequent phase of this project have access to the same information, including all conceptual, preliminary, or initial plans or specifications prepared by CONSULTANT pursuant to this Scope of Services CONSULTANT (HdL) will provide the following monthly recurring services relative to the administration, collection, enforcement, compliance, and audit activities for the City’s business tax and business registry certificate program: Task 1: 1. Operations Management Services 1.1. Establish and maintain database of businesses for the business registry certificate program and business tax. 1.2. Receive and process, in a timely fashion: 1.2.1. Business registry applications, renewals and payments, and. 1.2.2. Business tax filings, amended returns, and payments. 1.3. Renewal and payment notices: 1.3.1. Business registry renewal notices will be sent renewal notices to active businesses within 30 days of the renewal period end date or at another interval specified by CITY. 1.3.2. Business tax payment reminder notices will be sent within 30 days of the tax payment due date or at another interval specified by CITY. 1.4. Provide businesses multiple options for submitting applications, renewals, tax filing, payments, or support requests (including via website, email, mail, phone, and fax). 1.4.1. Have experience and capabilities to process business payments, renewals, delinquent payments and ongoing monitoring and administration of CITY’s business registry certificate program and business tax, as described in the CITY’s municipal code, ordinances, policies and program procedure manuals. 1.4.2. Consultant specialists will be available for live interactions Monday through Friday, 8:00am to 5:00pm Pacific). 1.4.3. Respond to business correspondence via return phone call or written correspondence within 24 hours. 1.5. Remit revenue to CITY no less than monthly, along with detail of business registry $)' ##*"$%         ATTACHMENT AItem 9 Attachment A - Amendment No. 2 to Contract No. C23187298C with HdL        Item 9: Staff Report Pg. 9  Packet Pg. 112 of 284  Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019 Page 6 of 17 applications, business tax filings, and any additional documentation. 1.6. Provide CITY staff access to website portal offering business registry inquiry, reporting, and electronic department approval capabilities. Task 2: 2. Compliance Services: 1) Identify and register businesses which are subject to business registry certificate program and/or business tax, 2) collect known debt as pertains to business registry certificate and/or business tax, and 3) identify under-reported registration fee and/or tax liability. 2.1. Discovery Services 2.1.1. Develop a list of businesses subject to CITY business registry certificate or taxation. 2.1.2. Notify non-compliant businesses of their options to comply or dispute their non- compliant status. Notification and support to businesses will be facilitated through the website, mail, email, phone and/or fax. 2.1.3. Review information and forms submitted by the business for completion and accuracy, inclusive of any additional required documentation (i.e. home occupation permit). All submissions are filed and stored electronically and made available to CITY upon request. 2.1.4. Provide businesses with detailed invoicing and options to pay via website, mail, and phone. 2.1.5. Remit revenue to CITY no less than monthly, along with detail of business registry applications, business tax filings, and any additional documentation. 1.5. Collection Services 1.5.1. Identify businesses subject to CITY business registry certificate or taxation which have known debt to CITY and have failed to pay within an appropriate time frame. 1.5.2. Notify businesses of their options to comply or dispute their non-compliant status. 1.5.3. Provide businesses with detailed invoicing and options to pay via website, mail and phone. 1.5.4. Remit revenue to CITY no less than monthly, along with detail of business registry applications, business tax filings, and any additional documentation. 2.3. Audit Services 2.3.1. Identify potential under-reporting and/or misclassified businesses. 2.3.2. Audit businesses mutually agreed to by CITY and CONSULTANT that are identified as potential under-reporting businesses. 2.3.3. Submit audit summaries to CITY and discuss further actions. 2.3.4. Educate businesses on proper reporting practices. 2.3.5. Invoice and collect identified delinquencies. 3. Payment Processing – services include PCI compliant payment processing services powered by FIS Global, which supports both credit card (taxpayer funded) and eCheck (CITY funded) transactions. $)' ##*"$%         ATTACHMENT AItem 9 Attachment A - Amendment No. 2 to Contract No. C23187298C with HdL        Item 9: Staff Report Pg. 10  Packet Pg. 113 of 284  Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019 Page 7 of 17 Task 3: 3.1. CITY Responsibilities 3.1.1. As a condition to its receipt of the Service, CITY shall execute and deliver any and all applications, agreements, certifications or other documents required by FIS Global, Networks or other third parties whose consent or approval is necessary for the processing of Transactions by FIS Global. “Network” is an entity or association that operates, under a common service mark, a system which permits participants to authorize, route, and settle Transactions among themselves, including, for example, networks operated by VISA USA and Mastercard, Inc., NYCE Corporation, American Express, and Discover. 3.1.2. CITY hereby grants CONSULTANT the full right, power and authority to request, receive and review any Data or records reflected in a Transaction report. CITY represents and warrants that it has the full right and authority to grant these rights. $)' ##*"$%         ATTACHMENT AItem 9 Attachment A - Amendment No. 2 to Contract No. C23187298C with HdL        Item 9: Staff Report Pg. 11  Packet Pg. 114 of 284  Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019 Page 8 of 17 EXHIBIT A-1 SCOPE OF SERVICES, AMENDMENT NO.2 (ADDED) Sales and Use Tax 4. Task 4: Sales and Use Tax and Economic Analysis, Reporting, and Forecasting 4.1. Establish a special database with California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (“CDTFA”) registration data for businesses within applicable district boundaries holding seller’s permit accounts. 4.2. CONSULTANT shall make available to CITY the HdL proprietary software program and database containing all applicable registration and quarterly allocation information for CITY business outlets registered with the Department of Tax and Fee Administration. The database will be updated quarterly. Access shall be made available through downloadable standard file formats, including Excel or comma-delimited formats, and/or through a web-based application that allows CITY staff to view, query, and download data. 4.3. CONSULTANT shall provide reasonable customization of reports, queries, and data extracts to support CITY operational, financial, and economic analysis needs, including reporting by geographic or organizational areas identified by CITY, such as shopping centers, business districts, commercial districts, redevelopment areas, governmental areas, residential areas, and other defined reporting segments. 4.4. CONSULTANT shall make reasonable efforts to provide requested custom reports, queries, and supporting information within mutually agreed upon timelines based on the complexity of the request. 4.5. CONSULTANT shall provide updated reports each quarter identifying changes in allocation totals by individual businesses, business groups and by categories. Quarterly aberrations due to State audits, fund transfers, and receivables, along with late or double payments, will also be identified. 4.6. Following each calendar quarter, CONSULTANT shall provide both (i) a detailed quarterly review and analysis report for CITY staff use, and (ii) a non-confidential summary report for the CITY to include in presentations with Council Members, Chamber of Commerce, other economic development interest groups and the public. The public-facing report shall summarize sales tax trends, economic activity, and major business group performance without disclosing confidential individual tax records. 4.7. Provide periodic updated reports endeavoring to identify and assist with budget forecasting including annual and multi-year revenue forecast and the assumptions supporting those forecasts, as well as (i) changes in allocation totals by individual businesses, business groups and categories, and (ii) aberrations due to State audits, fund transfers, and receivables, along with late or double payments. 4.8. CONSULTANT shall provide a presentation led by an HdL Sales Tax Principal discussing latest sales tax results, emerging retail trends, business retention needs, leveraging of economic clusters and reviewing successes in client jurisdictions with similar characteristics. This presentation will occur following each calendar quarter. 5. Task 5: Sales Tax Allocation and Audit Recovery Services 5.1. Conduct (when mutually agreed with CITY) initial and on-going sales and use tax audits of businesses to help identify and correct allocation errors, and to proactively affect favorable registration, reporting or formula changes thereby generating previously unrealized sales and use tax income for the CITY and/or recovering misallocated tax from registered taxpayers. Common $)' ##*"$%         ATTACHMENT AItem 9 Attachment A - Amendment No. 2 to Contract No. C23187298C with HdL        Item 9: Staff Report Pg. 12  Packet Pg. 115 of 284  Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019 Page 9 of 17 errors that will be monitored and corrected include but are not limited to: transposition errors resulting in misallocations; erroneous consolidation of multiple outlets; misreporting of “point of sale” to the wrong location; delays in reporting new outlets; misallocating use tax payments to the allocation pools or wrong jurisdiction; and erroneous fund transfers and adjustments. 5.2. Initiate contacts with sales, management and accounting officials in companies that have businesses where a probability of error exists to endeavor to help verify whether current tax receipts accurately reflect the local sales activity. Such contacts will be conducted in a professional and courteous manner. 5.3. Prepare and submit to the CDTFA information for the purpose of correcting any identified allocation errors, and follow-up with individual businesses and the CDTFA to promote recovery by the CITY of back or prospective quarterly payments that may be owing. 5.4. If, during the course of its audit, CONSULTANT finds businesses located in the CITY’s jurisdiction that are properly reporting sales and use tax but have the potential for modifying their operation to provide an even greater share to CITY, CONSULTANT may so advise CITY and collaborate with those businesses and CITY to encourage such changes. Transactions and Use Tax The City has placed a transactions and use tax measure on the November 2026 ballot. Upon passage by Palo Alto voters, the following services will apply: 6. Task 6: Transactions Tax and Economic Analysis, Reporting, and Forecasting 6.1. Establish a database containing all applicable Department of Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA) registration data for each business within the District boundaries holding a seller’s permit account. Said database shall also identify the quarterly transactions and use tax allocations under each account for the most current and previous quarters where available. 6.2. CONSULTANT shall make available to CITY the HdL proprietary software program and database containing all applicable registration and quarterly allocation information for CITY business outlets registered with the Department of Tax and Fee Administration. The database will be updated quarterly. 6.3. CONSULTANT shall provide updated reports each quarter identifying changes in allocation totals by individual businesses, business groups and by categories. Quarterly aberrations due to State audits, fund transfers, and receivables, along with late or double payments, will also be identified. 6.4. Following each calendar quarter shall provide a summary analysis for CITY to share with Council Members, Chamber of Commerce, other economic development interest groups and the public that analyze CITY’s sales tax trends by major groups without disclosing confidential individual tax records. 6.5. Provide periodic updated reports endeavoring to identify and assist with budget forecasting including annual and multi-year revenue forecast and the assumptions supporting those forecasts, as well as (i) changes in allocation totals by individual businesses, business groups and categories, and (ii) aberrations due to State audits, fund transfers, and receivables, along with late or double payments. 6.6. CONSULTANT shall provide a presentation led by an HdL Sales Tax Principal discussing latest sales tax results, emerging retail trends, business retention needs, leveraging of economic clusters and reviewing successes in client jurisdictions with similar characteristics. This presentation will occur following each calendar quarter. $)' ##*"$%         ATTACHMENT AItem 9 Attachment A - Amendment No. 2 to Contract No. C23187298C with HdL        Item 9: Staff Report Pg. 13  Packet Pg. 116 of 284  Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019 Page 10 of 17 7. Task 7: Transactions Tax Allocation and Audit Recovery 7.1. CONSULTANT shall conduct on-going reviews to identify and correct unreported transactions and tax payments and distribution errors thereby generating previously unrealized revenue for the CITY. Reviews shall include: 7.1.1. (a) Comparison of county-wide local tax allocations to transactions tax for brick-and-mortar stores and other cash register-based businesses, where clearly all transactions are conducted on-site within the CITY boundaries, and therefore subject to transactions tax. 7.1.2. (b) Review of any significant one-time use tax allocations to ensure that there is corresponding transaction tax payments for taxpayers with nexus within the CITY boundaries. 7.1.3. (c) Review of state-wide transactions tax allocations and patterns to identify any obvious errors and omissions. 7.1.4. Identification and follow-up with any potentially large purchasers of supplies and equipment (e.g. hospitals, universities, manufacturing plants, agricultural operations, refineries) to ensure that their major vendors are properly reporting corresponding transactions tax payments to the Transactions Tax District. 7.2. CONSULTANT will initiate, where the probability of an error exists, contacts with the appropriate taxpayer management and accounting officials to verify whether current tax receipts accurately reflect the local sales activity. Such contacts will be conducted in a professional and courteous manner so as to enhance CITY’s relations with the business community. 7.3. CONSULTANT shall prepare and submit to the Department of Tax and Fee Administration all information necessary to correct any allocation errors and deficiencies that are identified and shall follow-up with the individual businesses and the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration to ensure that all back quarter payments due the CITY are recovered. 8. Consulting and Other Optional Services CONSULTANT may from time to time in its sole discretion, consult with CITY’s staff, including without limitation, regarding (i) technical questions and other issues related to sales, use and transactions tax, (ii) utilization of reports to enhance business tax and business registry collection efforts, (iii) sales tax projections for proposed annexations, economic development projects and budget planning, (iv) negotiating/review of tax sharing agreements, (v) establishing purchasing corporations, (vi) meeting with taxpayers to encourage self-assessment of tax obligations, and (vii) other sales, use or transactions tax revenue-related matters. $)' ##*"$%         ATTACHMENT AItem 9 Attachment A - Amendment No. 2 to Contract No. C23187298C with HdL        Item 9: Staff Report Pg. 14  Packet Pg. 117 of 284  Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019 Page 11 of 17 ADDITIONAL TERMS – Sales, Use and Transactions Tax Services 9. Consulting and Other Optional Services 9.1. Fees for performing other optional services are described below: 9.1.1. Fees for performing CITY Staff training, public representation, or technical seminars for elected officials shall be $3,000 for one-time service and $2,000 for recurring service. 9.1.2. Fees for performing transactional tax ballot measure estimates shall be $2,600 per report. Incremental non-core packet reporting shall be $2,600 for a one-time report and $700 for recurring reporting service. 1. Confidentiality Information Section 7056 of the State of California Revenue and Taxation Code (“R&T Code”) specifically limits the disclosure of confidential taxpayer information contained in the records of the CDTFA. Section 7056 specifies the conditions under which a CITY, county or district may authorize persons other than such CITY, county or district’s officers and employees to examine state sales and use tax records. The following conditions specified in Section 7056-(b)(1) of the State of California R&T Code are hereby made part of this Agreement: 1.1. CONSULTANT is authorized by this Agreement to examine sales, use or transactions and use tax records of the CDTFA provided to CITY pursuant to contract under the Bradley-Burns Uniform Local Sales and Use Tax Law R&T Code Section 7200 et.seq. 1.2. CONSULTANT is required to disclose information contained in, or derived from, those sales or transactions and use tax records only to an officer or employee of CITY who is authorized by CITY resolution provided to the CDTFA to examine the information. 1.3. CONSULTANT is prohibited from performing consulting services for a retailer (as defined in R&T Code Section 6015), during the term of this agreement. 1.4. CONSULTANT is prohibited from retaining the information contained in or derived from those sales, use or transactions and use tax records after this agreement has expired. Information obtained by examination of the CDTFA records shall be used only for purposes related to collection of local sales and use tax or for other governmental functions of the CITY as set forth by resolution adopted pursuant to Section 7056 (b) of the Revenue and Taxation Code. The resolution shall designate the CONSULTANT as a person authorized to examine sales and use tax records and certify that this agreement meets the requirements set forth above and in Section 7056 (b), (1) of the Revenue and Taxation Code. $)' ##*"$%         ATTACHMENT AItem 9 Attachment A - Amendment No. 2 to Contract No. C23187298C with HdL        Item 9: Staff Report Pg. 15  Packet Pg. 118 of 284  Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019 Page 12 of 17 EXHIBIT B SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE, AMENDMENT NO. 2 (AMENDED, REPLACES PREVIOUS) CONSULTANT shall perform the Services so as to complete each milestone within the number of days/weeks specified below. The time to complete each milestone may be increased or decreased by mutual written agreement of the Project Managers for CONSULTANT and CITY so long as all work is completed within the term of the Agreement. CONSULTANT shall provide a detailed schedule of work consistent with the schedule below within 2 weeks of receipt of the notice to proceed (“NTP”) from the CITY. Milestones Completion Number of Days/Weeks (as specified below) from NTP Business Tax and Business Registry 1. Task 1: BT and BRC Operations Management Services Recurring monthly service within term of Agreement, with first collection cycle beginning October 2023; filing and collection occurring quarter beginning January 2024. 2. Task 2: BT and BRC Compliance Services a. Discovery b. Collection c. Audit Recurring monthly service within term of Agreement. 3. Task 3: BT and BRC Payment Processing Recurring monthly service within term of Agreement. Sales Tax and Transactions Tax Audit and Information Services 4. Task 4: Sales and Use Tax Economic Analysis and Reporting Quarterly and as needed throughout the term of the agreement 5. Task 5: Sales and Use Tax Allocation and Audit Recovery Services Ongoing throughout the term of the agreement 6. Task 6: Transactions Tax Economic Analysis and Reporting Quarterly and as needed throughout the term of the agreement 7. Task 7: Transactions Tax Allocation and Audit Recovery Services Ongoing throughout the term of the agreement Optional Schedule of Performance Provision for On-Call or Additional Services Agreements. (This provision only applies if checked and only applies to on-call agreements per Section 1 or agreements with Additional Services per Section 4.) The schedule of performance shall be as provided in the approved Task Order, as detailed in Section 1 (Scope of Services) in the case of on-call Services, or as detailed in Section 4 in the case of Additional Services, provided in all cases that the schedule of performance shall fall within the term as provided in Section 2 (Term) of this Agreement. $)' ##*"$%         ATTACHMENT AItem 9 Attachment A - Amendment No. 2 to Contract No. C23187298C with HdL        Item 9: Staff Report Pg. 16  Packet Pg. 119 of 284  Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019 Page 13 of 17 EXHIBIT C COMPENSATION, AMENDMENT NO.2 (AMENDED, REPLACES PREVIOUS) BUDGET SCHEDULE RATE EST. UNIT NOT TO EXCEED AMOUNT (5 YEARS) YEAR 1 FY 2024 (10/1/2023- 6/30/2024) YEAR 2 FY 2025 YEAR 3 FY 2026 YEAR 4 FY 2027 YEAR 5 FY 2028 Includes all sub-tasks under Task 1 of Scope of Services. Fees are increase as of July 1 of each year based on the 12-month Bay Area Consumer Price Index (Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers, San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose) as of March 31, not to exceed 5% Max. Annual CPI Adj Per processed account fee - any account for which an application or renewal/return was processed, or active account which was sent a renewal notice $17.00 8,000 $640,000 $85,000 $85,000 $130,000 $170,000 $170,000 2.1: Discovery Services Contingency percentage applies to all monies received for the curent tax/license period and any other period collected (including monies received for taxes, penalties, interest, and fees). In the event that CITY discovers a non-compliant business and report to CONSULTANT, activity will be categorized as a collection service effort rather than discover effort. 35% 170,000 $260,000 $60,000 $60,000 $60,000 $40,000 $40,000 2.2: Collection Services Contingency percentage applies to revenues received as a result of compliance services. 25% 1,600,000 $1,700,000 $200,000 $450,000 $400,000 $350,000 $300,000 2.3: Audit Services Contingency percentage applies to revenues received as a result of audit services. 35% 115,000 $160,000 N/A N/A $40,000 $60,000 $60,000 Sub-Total Compliance Services $2,120,000 $260,000 $510,000 $500,000 $450,000 $400,000 Taxpayer Funded: Credit and debit card processing CITY authorizes CONSULTANT to collect convenience fee from taxpayer at the time of payment. 2.90%N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Taxpayer Funded: Returned payment/NSF fee, each occurance. 25%N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A City Funded: ACH/eCheck processing per transaction fee. $0.50 2,000 $5,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 REIMBURSEABLE EXPENSES $5,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 ADDITIONAL SERVICES OR CONTINGENCY $100,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 TOTAL (TASK 1-3) - BT & BRC OPERATIONS AND COMPLIANCE $2,870,000 $367,000 $617,000 $652,000 $642,000 $592,000 BUSINESS TAX (BT) AND BUSINESS REGISTRY CERTIFICATE (BRC) OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT AND COMPLIANCE SERVICES TASK 1: Operations Management Services TASK 2: Compliance Services TASK 3: Payment Processing $)' ##*"$%         ATTACHMENT AItem 9 Attachment A - Amendment No. 2 to Contract No. C23187298C with HdL        Item 9: Staff Report Pg. 17  Packet Pg. 120 of 284  Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019 Page 14 of 17 BUDGET SCHEDULE RATE EST. UNIT NOT TO EXCEED AMOUNT (5 YEARS) YEAR 1 FY 2024 (10/1/2023- 6/30/2024) YEAR 2 FY 2025 YEAR 3 FY 2026 YEAR 4 FY 2027 YEAR 5 FY 2028 $1,000 per month, updated annually based on the 12-month change in the annual Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) Includes the quarterly detailed review and analysis report and quarterly non-confidential summary report described in the Scope of Services (Task 4.4.6). Additional optional reports requested by the City will be billed separately in accordance with the Additional Terms for Consulting and Other Optional Services. $1,000 $24,480 N/A N/A N/A $12,000 $12,480 Contingency percentage applies to all monies received for all new, increased and recovered sales and use tax revenue received by the City as a result, in whole or in part, of the allocation audit and recovery services Fee applies to both historical reallocations resulting from the audit and the subsequent eight (8) reporting quarters following CDTFA confirmation of the correction. 18%$60,000 N/A N/A N/A $30,000 $30,000 $300 per month, updated annually based on the 12-month change in the annual Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) $300 $5,520 N/A N/A N/A $1,800 $3,720 Contingency percentage applies to all monies received for all new, increased and recovered transactions and use tax revenue received by the City as a result, in whole or in part, of the allocation audit and recovery services Fee applies only to historical recoveries identified through the audit and does not apply to future reporting periods. 25%$45,000 N/A N/A N/A $15,000 $30,000 REIMBURSEABLE EXPENSES $6,000 N/A N/A N/A $3,000 $3,000 ADDITIONAL SERVICES OR CONTINGENCY $24,000 N/A N/A N/A $12,000 $12,000 TOTAL (TASK 4-7) - SALES TAX AND TRANSACTIONS TAX AUDIT AND INFORMATION SERVICES $165,000 $0 $0 $0 $73,800 $91,200 TOTAL NOT-TO-EXCEED (NTE) $3,035,000 $367,000 $617,000 $652,000 $715,800 $683,200 TASK 6: Transactions Tax Economic Analysis and Reporting TASK 7: Transactions Tax Allocation and Audit Recovery Services TASK 4: Sales and Use Tax Economic Analysis and Reporting TASK 5: Sales and Use Tax Allocation and Audit Recovery Services SALES TAX AND TRANSACTIONS TAX AUDIT AND INFORMATION SERVICES $)' ##*"$%         ATTACHMENT AItem 9 Attachment A - Amendment No. 2 to Contract No. C23187298C with HdL        Item 9: Staff Report Pg. 18  Packet Pg. 121 of 284  Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019 Page 15 of 17 EXHIBIT C-1 COMPENSATION, AMENDMENT NO.1 $)' ##*"$%         ATTACHMENT AItem 9 Attachment A - Amendment No. 2 to Contract No. C23187298C with HdL        Item 9: Staff Report Pg. 19  Packet Pg. 122 of 284  Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019 Page 16 of 17 EXHIBIT D INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS CONSULTANTS TO THE CITY OF PALO ALTO (CITY), AT THEIR SOLE EXPENSE, SHALL FOR THE TERM OF THE CONTRACT OBTAIN AND MAINTAIN INSURANCE IN THE AMOUNTS FOR THE COVERAGE SPECIFIED BELOW, AFFORDED BY COMPANIES WITH AM BEST’S KEY RATING OF A-:VII, OR HIGHER, LICENSED OR AUTHORIZED TO TRANSACT INSURANCE BUSINESS IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. AWARD IS CONTINGENT ON COMPLIANCE WITH CITY’S INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS AS SPECIFIED HEREIN. REQUIRED TYPE OF COVERAGE REQUIREMENT MINIMUM LIMITS EACH OCCURRENCE AGGREGATE YES YES WORKER’S COMPENSATION EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY STATUTORY STATUTORY STATUTORY STATUTORY YES GENERAL LIABILITY, INCLUDING PERSONAL INJURY, BROAD FORM PROPERTY DAMAGE BLANKET CONTRACTUAL, AND FIRE LEGAL LIABILITY BODILY INJURY PROPERTY DAMAGE BODILY INJURY & PROPERTY DAMAGE COMBINED. $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 BODILY INJURY $1,000,000 $1,000,000 - EACH PERSON 1,000,000 1,000,000 YES AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY, - EACH OCCURRENCE 1,000,000 1,000,000 INCLUDING ALL OWNED, HIRED, NON-OWNED PROPERTY DAMAGE $1,000,000 $1,000,000 BODILY INJURY AND PROPERTY $1,000,000 $1,000,000 DAMAGE, COMBINED YES PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY, INCLUDING, ERRORS AND OMISSIONS, MALPRACTICE (WHEN APPLICABLE), AND NEGLIGENT PERFORMANCE ALL DAMAGES $1,000,000 YES THE CITY OF PALO ALTO IS TO BE NAMED AS AN ADDITIONAL INSURED: CONSULTANT, AT ITS SOLE COST AND EXPENSE, SHALL OBTAIN AND MAINTAIN, IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE TERM OF ANY RESULTANT AGREEMENT, THE INSURANCE COVERAGE HEREIN DESCRIBED, INSURING NOT ONLY CONSULTANT AND ITS SUBCONSULTANTS, IF ANY, BUT ALSO, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION, EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY AND PROFESSIONAL INSURANCE, NAMING AS ADDITIONAL INSUREDS CITY, ITS COUNCIL MEMBERS, OFFICERS, AGENTS, AND EMPLOYEES. I. INSURANCE COVERAGE MUST INCLUDE: A. A CONTRACTUAL LIABILITY ENDORSEMENT PROVIDING INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR CONSULTANT’S AGREEMENT TO INDEMNIFY CITY. II. THE CONSULTANT MUST SUBMIT CERTIFICATES(S) OF INSURANCE EVIDENCING REQUIRED COVERAGE AT THE FOLLOWING EMAIL: PURCHASINGSUPPORT@PALOALTO.GOV III. ENDORSEMENT PROVISIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE INSURANCE AFFORDED TO ADDITIONAL INSUREDS: A. PRIMARY COVERAGE $)' ##*"$%         ATTACHMENT AItem 9 Attachment A - Amendment No. 2 to Contract No. C23187298C with HdL        Item 9: Staff Report Pg. 20  Packet Pg. 123 of 284  Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019 Page 17 of 17 WITH RESPECT TO CLAIMS ARISING OUT OF THE OPERATIONS OF THE NAMED INSURED, INSURANCE AS AFFORDED BY THIS POLICY IS PRIMARY AND IS NOT ADDITIONAL TO OR CONTRIBUTING WITH ANY OTHER INSURANCE CARRIED BY OR FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE ADDITIONAL INSUREDS. B. CROSS LIABILITY THE NAMING OF MORE THAN ONE PERSON, FIRM, OR CORPORATION AS INSUREDS UNDER THE POLICY SHALL NOT, FOR THAT REASON ALONE, EXTINGUISH ANY RIGHTS OF THE INSURED AGAINST ANOTHER, BUT THIS ENDORSEMENT, AND THE NAMING OF MULTIPLE INSUREDS, SHALL NOT INCREASE THE TOTAL LIABILITY OF THE COMPANY UNDER THIS POLICY. C. NOTICE OF CANCELLATION 1. IF THE POLICY IS CANCELED BEFORE ITS EXPIRATION DATE FOR ANY REASON OTHER THAN THE NON-PAYMENT OF PREMIUM, THE CONSULTANT SHALL PROVIDE CITY AT LEAST A THIRTY (30) DAY WRITTEN NOTICE BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF CANCELLATION. 2. IF THE POLICY IS CANCELED BEFORE ITS EXPIRATION DATE FOR THE NON-PAYMENT OF PREMIUM, THE CONSULTANT SHALL PROVIDE CITY AT LEAST A TEN (10) DAY WRITTEN NOTICE BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF CANCELLATION. EVIDENCE OF INSURANCE AND OTHER RELATED NOTICES ARE REQUIRED TO BE FILED WITH THE CITY OF PALO ALTO SENT TO THE FOLLOWING EMAIL: PURCHASINGSUPPORT@PALOALTO.GOV $)' ##*"$%         ATTACHMENT AItem 9 Attachment A - Amendment No. 2 to Contract No. C23187298C with HdL        Item 9: Staff Report Pg. 21  Packet Pg. 124 of 284  RESOLUTION NO._______________ A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Palo Alto Authorizing Examination of Sales or Transactions and Use Tax Records WHEREAS, pursuant to Ordinance Number 2756, the City of Palo Alto (City) entered into a contract with the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (Department) to perform all functions incident to the administration and collection of sales and use taxes; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Revenue and Taxation Code section 7270, the City entered into a contract with the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (Department) to perform all functions incident to the administration and collection of transactions and use taxes; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palo Alto deems it desirable and necessary for authorized officers, employees and representatives of the City to examine confidential sales or transactions and use tax records of the Department pertaining to sales or transactions and use taxes collected by the Department for the City pursuant to that contract; and WHEREAS, Section 7056 of the California Revenue and Taxation Code sets forth certain requirements and conditions for the disclosure of Department records, and Section 7056.5 of the California Revenue and Taxation Code establishes criminal penalties for the unlawful disclosure of information contained in, or derived from, the sales or transactions and use tax records of the Department; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the following listed employee titles, or other officer or employee of the City designated in writing by the City Manager to the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration is hereby appointed to represent the City with authority to examine sales or transactions and use tax records of the Department pertaining to sales or transactions and use taxes collected for the City by the Department pursuant to the contract between the City and the Department. •City Manager •Assistant City Manager •Assistant to the City Manager •Deputy City Manager •Administrative Assistant, City Manager’s Office •Administrative Services Director •Assistant Director, Administrative Services Department •Treasury Manager, Administrative Services Department •Budget Manager, Administrative Services Department •Principal Management Analyst, Administrative Services Department •Senior Management Analyst, Administrative Services Department •Management Analyst, Administrative Services Department •Administrative Assistant, Administrative Services Department •Administrative Associate II/III, Administrative Services Department ATTACHMENT BItem 9 Attachment B - Resolution Authorizing Examination of Sales or Transactions and Use Tax Records        Item 9: Staff Report Pg. 22  Packet Pg. 125 of 284  Section 2. The information obtained by examination of Department records shall be used only for purposes related to the collection of City sales or transactions and use taxes by the Department pursuant to that contract, and for purposes related to the following governmental functions of the City: (a) Budget revenue forecasting; (b) Administration of the City’s tax programs; and (c) Economic development activities The information obtained by examination of Department records shall be used only for those governmental functions of the City listed above. Section 3. That Hinderliter de Llamas & Associates (HdL) is hereby designated to examine the sales or transactions and use tax records of the Department pertaining to sales or transactions and use taxes collected for the City by the Department. The person or entity designated by this section meets all of the following conditions, which are also included in the contract between the City and the Hinderliter de Llamas & Associates (HdL): a) has an existing contract with the City to examine those sales or transactions and use tax records; b) is required by that contract to disclose information contained in, or derived from, those sales or transactions and use tax records only to the officer or employee authorized under Section 1 of this resolution to examine the information. c) is prohibited by that contract from performing consulting services for a retailer during the term of that contract; d) is prohibited by that contract from retaining the information contained in, or derived from those sales or transactions and use tax records, after that contract has expired. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the information obtained by examination of Department records shall be used only for purposes related to the collection of City sales or transactions and use taxes by the Department pursuant to the contract between the City and the Department and for those purposes relating to the governmental functions of the City listed in section 2 of this resolution. Section 4. That MuniServices, LLC is hereby designated to examine the sales or transactions and use tax records of the Department pertaining to any petition or appeal for the reallocation/redistribution of sales or transactions and use taxes that was filed by MuniServices, LLC on behalf of the City pursuant to the contract between the MuniServices, LLC and City. The person or entity designated by this section meets all of the following conditions, which are also included in the contract between the City and the MuniServices, LLC: a) has an existing contract with the City to examine those sales or transactions and use tax records; b) is required by that contract to disclose information contained in, or derived from, those sales or transactions and use tax records only to the officer or employee authorized under Section 1 of this resolution to examine the information. ATTACHMENT BItem 9 Attachment B - Resolution Authorizing Examination of Sales or Transactions and Use Tax Records        Item 9: Staff Report Pg. 23  Packet Pg. 126 of 284  c) is prohibited by that contract from performing consulting services for a retailer during the term of that contract; d) is prohibited by that contract from retaining the information contained in, or derived from those sales or transactions and use tax records, after that contract has expired. Section 5. That this resolution supercedes all prior resolutions of the City Council of the City of Palo Alto adopted pursuant to subdivision (b) of Revenue and Taxation Code section 7056. Introduced, approved and adopted this__________day of___________________ 20___. ATTEST: (s) ___________________________ (s) ____________________________ City Clerk Mayor I, ____________________, City Clerk of the City of _______________________, California, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was duly introduced, approved and adopted by the City Council of the City of _______________________, at a regular meeting of said Council held on the ________ day of ________________, 20___, by the following roll call vote: Ayes: (Names of Councilmembers) Noes: (Names of Councilmembers) Absent: (Names of Councilmembers) (s) _______________________________ City Clerk ATTACHMENT BItem 9 Attachment B - Resolution Authorizing Examination of Sales or Transactions and Use Tax Records        Item 9: Staff Report Pg. 24  Packet Pg. 127 of 284  City Council Staff Report From: City Manager Report Type: CONSENT CALENDAR Lead Department: Human Resources Meeting Date: September 9, 2026 Report #:2608-6620 TITLE Adoption of Side Letter Between the City of Palo Alto and Utilities Management and Professional Association of Palo Alto for a Hiring Incentive; CEQA Status - Not a Project. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that Council adopt the side letter of agreement (Attachment A) between the City of Palo Alto and Utilities Management and Professional Association of Palo Alto (UMPAPA) which authorizes Council Appointed Officers to authorize a hiring incentive for critical personnel vacancies. BACKGROUND The City's recruitment and labor strategies emphasize the successful recruitment of top-quality employees and maintaining competitive salaries to continue being an Employer of Choice. Effective recruiting involves understanding the job market, industry trends, and adapting to current conditions by implementing strategic initiatives to successfully hire for specialized positions. These strategies also result in continuing to improve employee retention and decrease in turnover. Utilities Department leadership and Human Resources (HR) recruitment reviewed classifications represented by UMPAPA that are difficult to fill. In such recruitments, a hiring incentive may be needed to finalize an employment offer. The proposed incentive structure authorizes the City Manager to provide a hiring incentive for critical personnel vacancies. This recruitment strategy aligns with the hiring incentive in the Management and Professional Compensation Plan approved in June 2025 and similar to the hiring incentive approved by City Council in June 2026 for the Palo Alto Police Officers Association. ANALYSIS The City has experienced recruitment challenges in filling certain critical positions within the Utilities Management group. Currently, the primary financial incentive available to attract qualified candidates is placement at a higher point within the established salary range. Item 10 Item 10 Staff Report        Item 10: Staff Report Pg. 1  Packet Pg. 128 of 284  A one-time hiring incentive would provide the City with an additional recruitment tool and greater flexibility in structuring a competitive total compensation package for selected candidates. The availability of a one-time incentive at the time of hire may also reduce the need to place candidates near the top of the salary range, thereby potentially slowing the growth of the City’s ongoing salary and related benefit costs. The proposed hiring incentive program is intended to address recruitment challenges associated with difficult-to-fill positions while maintaining a financially sustainable approach to employee compensation. Similar to the other incentive programs, the hiring incentive is not to exceed 5% of the authorized position, eligible recruitments are to be determined by the Human Resources and Utilities Departments, with approval of award to be authorized of the City Manager. FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ATTACHMENTS APPROVED BY: Item 10 Item 10 Staff Report        Item 10: Staff Report Pg. 2  Packet Pg. 129 of 284                          !"#$%$& ' (')%#$%$"/,0+1-.2345,//0/6--./72-8+19:;+4;-+:6<=>9494?@-./9:,-2/3AB:5,//-+-./1+;/6-2E/FHIJKLMNOOHLJPQRSTTLKQUVWXYXIPZHUL[QXZLULJ\LJKQJPL]QTHUKULPLKXMOQUVHJJQM]XKXJKLQLPZLJPZQNVVHKLXPLHJ_`LULJ\LJKQJPL]QVWIVPaQTIJRQRPZUHI\ZRQOXUPWQJPVXMXUYVX]LJ/3:5,//-+:<<-./:c+E/;:65d:5/-+4,-2D;/eff+1:683dc3/gd/6->/0+,:6<d0+16-C./6-./8D+00/6D/-./2,6/h-,+d6<+13dDD/33+,c:,5:26265i62+6F      *+,-./72-8F  jjj       ,k263l7.:2,    m<n.2k:<:l72-8>:6:5/, Item 10 Attachment A - UMPAPA Hiring Incentive Side Letter 2026        Item 10: Staff Report Pg. 3  Packet Pg. 130 of 284                            "# $ % &   ' Item 10 Attachment A - UMPAPA Hiring Incentive Side Letter 2026        Item 10: Staff Report Pg. 4  Packet Pg. 131 of 284  City Council Staff Report Report Type: CONSENT CALENDAR Lead Department: City Clerk Meeting Date: September 9, 2026 Report #:2608-6695 TITLE SECOND READING: Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Title 16 (Building Regulations), Title 18 (Zoning), and Title 21 (Subdivisions) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Amend Requirements Relating to Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (FIRST READING: August 17, 2026; PASSED: 4-3, Stone, Veenker, Lythcott-Haims no) BACKGROUND The City Council heard this item on August 17, 2026 for a first reading and approved it on a 4-3 vote. Staff removed the reference in the adopting ordinance for Section 1, Item F as the Separate Sale ordinance will come back to Council at a later time on the Consent Calendar. Staff also reintroduced Footnote 7 under Table 1, which codifies staff’s interpretation of how square footage applies under Table 1. This footnote was provided in the draft ordinance the PTC reviewed and recommended but was inadvertently omitted in the version of the ordinance provided during the first reading. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Title 16 (Building Regulations), Title 18 (Zoning), and Title 21 (Subdivisions) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Amend Requirements Relating to Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units APPROVED BY: Mahealani Ah Yun, City Clerk Item 11 Item 11 Staff Report        Item 11: Staff Report Pg. 1  Packet Pg. 132 of 284  *NOT YET APPROVED* 1 0160207_20260821_ay16 Ordinance No. _____ Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Title 16 (Building Regulations), Title 18 (Zoning), and Title 21 (Subdivisions) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Amend Requirements Relating to Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1. Findings and Declarations. A. In 2025, the City of Palo Alto adopted Ordinance 5656, amending the City’s requirements for ADUs and JADUs to reflect changes in State law and guidance from the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). B. On May 12, 2025, the City Council directed staff to evaluate modifying the City’s ordinance to increase the maximum size for ADUs to 1,200 square feet and allowing ADU condominiums as allowed under AB 1033 (2024). C. On September 30, 2025, the Governor signed Assembly Bills (AB) 130, 462, 1154 and Senate Bills (SB) 9 and 543, effective between June 30, 2025 and January 1, 2026. These various bills affect the processing time and requirements for ADU/JADU permits as well as the number of permissible ADU/JADUs on one lot. D. Upon recommendation of City Staff and the Planning and Transportation Commission, the Council of the City of Palo Alto desires to amend its ADU/JADU ordinance to implementing SB 1211 and to make additional clerical amendments and minor amendments to conform with State law. E. Section 4 of this Ordinance amends Chapter 16.58 (Development Impact Fee) of Title 16 (Building Regulations) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. This is an administrative amendment to align how impact fees for ADUs must be calculated based on interior livable space rather than gross square footage as defined in Chapter 18.04.030 (Definitions) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. F. This ordinance is adopted to incorporate changes in state law that have occurred since the adoption of Ordinance 5656 and to respond to direction from the City Council. SECTION 2. Chapter 18.09 (Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (“PAMC”) is amended to read as follows (additions underlined and deletions struck-through): 18.09.010 Purpose Item 11 Attachment A - Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Title 16 (Building Regulations), Title 18 (Zoning), and Title 21 (Subdivisions) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Amend Requirements Relating to Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units        Item 11: Staff Report Pg. 2  Packet Pg. 133 of 284  *NOT YET APPROVED* 2 0160207_20260821_ay16 The intent of this Chapter is to provide regulations to accommodate accessory and junior accessory dwelling units (ADU/JADU), in order to provide for variety to the city's housing stock and additional affordable housing opportunities. These units shall be separate, self- contained living units, with separate entrances from the main residence, whether attached or detached. The standards below are provided to minimize the impacts of units on nearby residents and throughout the city, and to assure that the size and location of such dwellings is compatible with the existing or proposed residence(s) on the site and with other structures in the area. 18.09.020 Applicable Zoning Districts The establishment of an ADUaccessory dwelling unit is permitted in zoning districts when single-family or multi-family residential is a permitted land use. The development of a single-family home with multiple ADU/JADUs, ADU, and/or a JADU on a lot that allows for single-family development shall not be considered a multifamily development pursuant to PAMC Section 18.04.030, nor shall they require Architectural Review pursuant to other sections of Title Chapter 18. 18.09.030 Units Exempt from Generally Applicable Local Regulations (a) Government Code sections 66323 provides that certain units shall be approved notwithstanding State or local regulations that may otherwise apply. The following types of units shall be governed by the standards in this section. In the event of a conflict between this section and Government Code section 66323, the Government Code shall prevail. i. An ADU and JADU within the existing space of a single-family dwelling or an ADU within the existing space of an accessory structure (i.e. conversion without substantial addition). ii. An ADU and JADU within the proposed space of a single-family dwelling. iii. A detached, new construction ADU on a lot with a proposed or existing single-family dwelling, provided the ADU does not exceed 800 square feet, four-foot side and rear (i.e. interior) setbacks, or the maximum height described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) of paragraph (4) of subdivision (b) of Government Code Section 66321, as applicable. iv. ADUs created by conversion of portions of existing multi-family dwellings not used as livable space. v. Up to eight detached ADUs on a lot with an existing multi-family dwelling, provided that the number of ADUs does not exceed the number of existing units on the lot. Item 11 Attachment A - Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Title 16 (Building Regulations), Title 18 (Zoning), and Title 21 (Subdivisions) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Amend Requirements Relating to Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units        Item 11: Staff Report Pg. 3  Packet Pg. 134 of 284  *NOT YET APPROVED* 3 0160207_20260821_ay16 vi. Up to two detached ADUs on a lot with a proposed multi-family dwelling. (b) The Development Standards for units governed by this section are summarized in Table 1. Regulations set forth in section 18.09.040 do not apply to units created under 18.09.030. The minimum and maximum sizes indicated in Table 1 do not prohibit units that are greater than 800 square feet. These sizes simply serve to distinguish when a unit transitions from regulations set forth in Table 1 and section 18.09.030 to regulations set forth in Table 2 and section 18.09.040. Table 1: Development Standards for Units Described in Government Code Section 66323 Single-Family Multi-Family Conversion of Space Within the Existing Space of a Single-Family Home or Accessory Structure Construction of Attached ADU and/or JADU Within the Proposed Space of a Single- Family Home New Construction of Detached ADU Conversion of Non-Habitable Space Within Existing Multi- family Dwelling Structure Conversion or Construction of Detached(4) ADU on a site with Existing Multi-family Structure Conversion or Construction of Detached(4) ADU on a site with Proposed Multi- family Structure Number of Units Allowed 1 Attached ADU, 1 Detached ADU, and 1 JADU 25% of the existing units (at least one) Up to 8 (not to exceed the number of existing units on the lot) 2 Minimum size(1) 150 sf Maximum size(1) N/A2 800 sf N/A Setbacks N/A, if condition is sufficient for fire and safety Underlying zone standard for Single Family Home (ADU must be within allowable space of Single-Family Home) 4 feet from side and rear lot lines; N/A 4 feet from side and rear lot lines; underlying zoning for front setback Daylight Plane N/A N/A Maximum Height(3) N/A 16(5) N/A 16(5)(6) Parking None State Law Reference 66323(a)(1) 66323(a)(1) 66323(a)(2) 66323(a)(3) 66323(a)(4) (1) Lofts where the height from the floor level to the underside of the rafter or finished roof surface is 5' or greater shall count towards the unit’s floor area. (2) The maximum size of a JADU is 500 square feet. See PAMC 18.09.030(h) for additional information. (3) Units built in a flood zone are not entitled to any height extensions granted to the primary dwelling. (4) Units must be detached from primary dwellings but may be attached to each other. Item 11 Attachment A - Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Title 16 (Building Regulations), Title 18 (Zoning), and Title 21 (Subdivisions) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Amend Requirements Relating to Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units        Item 11: Staff Report Pg. 4  Packet Pg. 135 of 284  *NOT YET APPROVED* 4 0160207_20260821_ay16 (5) A height of 18 feet for a detached ADU on a lot with an existing or proposed single family or multifamily dwelling unit that is within one-half of one mile walking distance of a major transit stop or a high-quality transit corridor, as those terms are defined in Section 21155 of the Public Resources Code. An additional two feet in height shall be provided to accommodate a roof pitch on an ADU that is aligned with the roof pitch of the primary dwelling unit. (6) A height of 18 feet for a detached ADU on a lot with an existing or proposed multifamily, multistory dwelling. (7) Square footage of a detached ADU under this section shall not reduce the allowable square footage of a proposed single-family home. (c) Development standards stated elsewhere in this Section or Title 18, including standards related to FAR, lot coverage, and privacy, are not applicable to ADUs or JADUs that qualify for approval under this section. When there is an ADU or JADU attached to an existing or proposed primary dwelling, the shared wall between these units shall contribute to the maximum allowable Floor Area, Lot Coverage, and Maximum House Size of the primary unit. For a single-family home, this measurement shall be taken to the outside stud wall in accordance with Section 18.04.030(a)(65)(D). For a multi-family dwelling, this measurement shall be taken to the outside surface of exterior walls in accordance with Section 18.04.030(a)(65)(B) and (C). (d) For ADUs and JADUs only, the allowable square footages noted in Table 1 and this section for these units shall be based on the interior livable space for the purposes of FAR, lot coverage, and maximum house size. The exterior walls not counted towards interior livable space for these units will not count against the property’s FAR, lot coverage, or maximum house size requirements. (e) The establishment of ADUsaccessory dwelling units and JADUsjunior accessory dwelling units pursuant to this section shall not be conditioned on the correction of non- conforming zoning conditions; provided, however, that nothing in this section shall limit the authority of the Chief Building Official to require correction of building standards relating to health and safety. Upon request of the owner for a delay in enforcement, the Chief Building Official shall delay enforcement of a building standard, subject to compliance with Section 17980.12 of the Health and Safety Code. (f) The installation of fire sprinklers shall not be required in an ADUaccessory dwelling unit if sprinklers are not required for the primary residence. The construction of an ADUaccessory dwelling unit shall not trigger a requirement for fire sprinklers to be installed in the existing multifamily dwelling. Nothing in this section shall preclude the Fire Marshal from accepting fire sprinklers as an alternative means of compliance with generally applicable fire protection requirements. (g) Rental of any unit created pursuant to this section shall be for a term of 30 days or more. Item 11 Attachment A - Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Title 16 (Building Regulations), Title 18 (Zoning), and Title 21 (Subdivisions) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Amend Requirements Relating to Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units        Item 11: Staff Report Pg. 5  Packet Pg. 136 of 284  *NOT YET APPROVED* 5 0160207_20260821_ay16 (h) Attached units shall have independent exterior access from a proposed or existing single-family dwelling. Except for JADUs, attached units shall not have an interior access point to the primary dwelling (e.g. hotel door or other similar feature/appurtenance). If a permitted JADU does not include a separate bathroom, the permitted JADU shall include a separate entrance from the main entrance to the structure, with an interior entry to the main living area. (i) Conversion of existing living area or an existing accessory structure pursuant to Government Code section 66314(d)(7) may include reconstruction in-place of a non- conforming structure, so long as the renovation or reconstruction does not increase the degree of non-compliance, such as increased height, envelope, or further intrusion into required setbacks. An expansion of not more than 150 square feet beyond the same physical dimensions as the existing accessory structure may be provided to accommodate ingress and egress. Any addition to the existing accessory structure that is not limited to providing for ingress and egress to the unit, and that exceeds the envelope of the existing accessory structure shall be subject to Section 18.09.040. (j) Street addresses shall be assigned to all units prior to building permit final to assist in emergency response. (k) The unit shall not be sold separately from the primary residence, except as allowed under Government Code Section 66341. (l) Replacement parking is not required when an off-street parking space is converted to, or demolished in conjunction with the construction of, an ADU or JADU. (m) JADUs shall comply with the requirements of Section 18.09.050. (n) An applicant that seeks to appeal the City’s determination of completeness or denial of a permit for an ADU must submit their appeal in writing to the City identifying the reasons for their appeal and pay the accompanied appeal fee, as set forth in the adopted municipal fee schedule. Appeals for these applications shall follow the procedures for appeal under PAMC 18.77.075 except that the appeal shall be placed on Council’s Consent Agenda within 45 days of filing a timely appeal. Any decision from the Council, either on consent or through an agendized item, is final. 18.09.040 Units Subject to Local Standards (a) This section shall govern applications for ADUs that do not qualify for approval under section 18.09.030 and for which the City may impose local standards pursuant to Government Code section 66314. Nothing in this section shall be interpreted to prohibit an ADU of up to 800 square feet, at the heights stated in Table 2, with a four foot side and rear setbacks. Item 11 Attachment A - Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Title 16 (Building Regulations), Title 18 (Zoning), and Title 21 (Subdivisions) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Amend Requirements Relating to Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units        Item 11: Staff Report Pg. 6  Packet Pg. 137 of 284  *NOT YET APPROVED* 6 0160207_20260821_ay16 (b) The Development Standards for units governed by this section are provided in Table 2. These regulations do not limit the height of existing structures converted into ADU unless the envelope of the building is proposed to be modified beyond any existing legal, non-conforming condition. Table 2: All other Units Attached Detached Number of Units Allowed1 1 Minimum size 150 sf Maximum size 1,200900 sf (1,000 sf for two or more bedrooms required to exceed 1,000 sf); no more than 50% of the size of the single- family home 1,200900 sf (1,000 sf for two or more bedrooms required to exceed 1,000 sf) Setbacks 4 feet from side and rear lot lines; Daylight Plane Underlying zone standard per footnote (7) N/A Maximum Height3 Res. Estate (RE) 30 feet Open Space (OS) 25 feet All other eligible zones 16 feet(5)(6)(7) Parking None Square Footage Exemption when in conjunction with a single family home(4) Up to 800 sf (1) An attached andor detached ADU may be built in conjunction with the allowable units prescribed under Table 1 and PAMC 18.09.050(f)a JADU on a lot with an existing or proposed single family home. One attached or detached ADU may be built in conjunction with the allowable units prescribed under Table 1 on an existing or proposed multifamily building. (2) Lofts where the height from the floor level to the underside of the rafter or finished roof surface is 5' or greater shall count towards the unit’s floor area. (3) Units built in a flood zone are not entitled to any height extensions granted to the primary dwelling. (4) Lots with both an attached and detached ADU may exempt a maximum combined total of 800 square feet of both ADUs from FAR, Lot Coverage, and Maximum House Size calculations. Any square footage that exceeds this exemption shall contribute to the FAR, Lot Coverage, and (if attached) Maximum House Size calculations for the subject property. This exemption is not afforded to lots with existing or proposed multifamily dwellings. (5) A height of 18 feet for a detached ADU on a lot with an existing or proposed single family or multifamily dwelling unit that is within one-half of one mile walking distance of a major transit stop Item 11 Attachment A - Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Title 16 (Building Regulations), Title 18 (Zoning), and Title 21 (Subdivisions) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Amend Requirements Relating to Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units        Item 11: Staff Report Pg. 7  Packet Pg. 138 of 284  *NOT YET APPROVED* 7 0160207_20260821_ay16 or a high-quality transit corridor, as those terms are defined in Section 21155 of the Public Resources Code. An additional two feet in height shall be provided to accommodate a roof pitch on an ADU that is aligned with the roof pitch of the primary dwelling unit. (6) A height of 18 feet for a detached ADU on a lot with an existing or proposed multifamily, multistory dwelling. (7) A height of 25 feet or the height limitation in the underlying zone district that applies to the primary dwelling, whichever is lower, for an ADU that is attached to a primary dwelling. These ADUs shall not exceed two stories in height. (c) A single-family or multifamily dwelling shall exist on the lot or shall be constructed on the lot in conjunction with the construction of an ADU. (d) Interior livable space for ADU square footage shall not be included in FAR, Lot Coverage, and Maximum House Size calculations for a lot with an existing or proposed single family home, up to the amounts stated in Table 2. ADU sSquare footage in excess of the exemptions provided in Table 2 shall be included in FAR, Lot Coverage, and Maximum House Size calculations for the lot. (e) When there is an ADU attached to an existing or proposed primary dwelling, the shared wall between these units shall contribute to the maximum allowable Floor Area, Lot Coverage, and Maximum House Size of the primary unit. For a single-family home, this measurement shall be taken to the outside stud wall in accordance with Section 18.04.030(a)(65)(D). For a multi-family dwelling, this measurement shall be taken to the outside surface of exterior walls in accordance with Section 18.04.030(a)(65)(B) and (C). (f) Attached units shall have independent exterior access from a proposed or existing single-family dwelling. Attached units shall not have an interior access point to the primary dwelling (e.g. hotel door or other similar feature/appurtenance). (g) For ADUs only, the allowable square footages noted in Table 2 and this section for these units shall be based on the interior livable space for the purposes of FAR, lot coverage, and maximum house size. The exterior walls not counted towards interior livable space for these units will not count against the property’s FAR, lot coverage, or maximum house size requirements.Reserved (h) For properties listed in the California Register of Historical Resources compliance with the appropriate Secretary of Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties shall be required. (i) Noise-producing equipment such as air conditioners, water heaters, and similar service equipment that exclusively serves an ADU may be located anywhere on the site, provided they maintain the underlying front yard setback requirements of the property and, if the property is a corner lot, a 10-foot street-side setback. All such equipment shall be insulated and housed, except that the Director may permit installation without Item 11 Attachment A - Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Title 16 (Building Regulations), Title 18 (Zoning), and Title 21 (Subdivisions) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Amend Requirements Relating to Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units        Item 11: Staff Report Pg. 8  Packet Pg. 139 of 284  *NOT YET APPROVED* 8 0160207_20260821_ay16 housing and insulation, provided that a combination of technical noise specifications, location of equipment, and/or other screening or buffering will assure compliance with the city’s Noise Ordinance at the nearest property line. All service equipment must meet the city’s Noise Ordinance in Chapter 9.10 of the Municipal Code. (j) Setbacks (1) Detached units shall maintain a minimum three-foot distance from the primary unit, measured from the exterior walls of structures. (2) A basement or other subterranean portion that serves an ADU may encroach into a setback required for the primary dwelling provided the following conditions are met: (A) Newly constructed basement walls are no closer than four feet to an adjacent interior side or rear property line. (B) A new lightwell associated with a basement shall not be placed closer than four feet to an adjacent interior property line. When visible from the right of way, these facilities shall be screened from view with vegetation. (C) Habitable ADU basements shall contribute toward the unit’s total allowable floor area. Any floor area in excess of the exemptions provided in this Section shall contribute to the total allowable limits for the site. (3) Projections, including but not limited to windows, doors, mechanical equipment, venting or exhaust systems, are not permitted to encroach into the required setbacks, with the exception of a roof eave of up to 2 feet. (4) For corner lots developed as a single-family home, when an existing or proposed primary dwelling unit is expanded or constructed simultaneously with the construction of a new ADU, the homeowner may elect to build all structures to a 10- foot street-side setback and a 16-foot front yard setback, regardless of the presence of a more restrictive special setback, unless a fire or life-safety regulation requires a greater setback. Pursuant Government Code section 66321(b)(3), a street-side setback may not preclude the development of an 800 square foot unit. (5) When an existing, legal, nonconforming structure is converted or reconstructed to create an ADU, any portion of the ADU that is in the same location and falls within the building envelope of the original structure shall not be subject to the development standards stated in this Section. Any portion of the ADU that is in a different location or exceeds the envelope of the original structure shall comply with the development standards stated in this Section. Item 11 Attachment A - Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Title 16 (Building Regulations), Title 18 (Zoning), and Title 21 (Subdivisions) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Amend Requirements Relating to Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units        Item 11: Staff Report Pg. 9  Packet Pg. 140 of 284  *NOT YET APPROVED* 9 0160207_20260821_ay16 (6) Notwithstanding the development standards stated in Table 2 and paragraph (5) above, when an existing, legal, non-conforming structure is converted in-place to an ADU, the envelope of the structure may be modified to encroach further into a setback or daylight plane as follows: (A) The height of the existing structure may be increased by no more than one linear foot in height commensurate to the existing roofline of the structure provided the height of the addition does not exceed 12 feet from grade. The roofline shall not be changed to a style other than what currently exists on the structure. (B) Each non-conforming wall may be expanded by no more than six inches in thickness based on its existing location and configuration, as measured to exterior surface of the material, to provide for greater insulation and energy requirements provided that a minimum of one foot is maintained between the addition and an adjacent interior property line. An existing wall of a structure that does not currently have a separation of one foot from a parallel property line shall not be expanded outward. (C) All other additions not specified here shall follow the standard setbacks for the ADU identified in Table 2. (k) Design (1) Except on corner lots, where feasible, ADUsthe unit shall not have an entranceway facing the same lot line (property line) as the entranceway to the main dwelling unit unless the entranceway to the ADUaccessory unit is located in the rear half of the lot. Exterior staircases to second floor units shall be located toward the interior side or rear yard of the property. (2) Privacy (A) Second story doors and decks shall not face a neighboring property line. Second story decks and balconies shall utilize screening barriers to prevent views towards an adjacent interior property line. These barriers shall be a minimum five-foot, six-inch height from the floor level of the deck or balcony and shall not include perforations of any kind that would allow visibility between properties. (B) Windows on a second floor, loft, or equivalent elevated space, excluding those required for egress, shall have a five-foot sill height as measured from the second-finished floor level, or utilize obscuredopaque glazing on the entirety any window that faces an adjacent interior property line. (C) Windows on a second finished floor, loft, or equivalent elevated space, shall be offset from neighbor’s windows to maximize privacy. Item 11 Attachment A - Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Title 16 (Building Regulations), Title 18 (Zoning), and Title 21 (Subdivisions) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Amend Requirements Relating to Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units        Item 11: Staff Report Pg. 10  Packet Pg. 141 of 284  *NOT YET APPROVED* 10 0160207_20260821_ay16 (D) Where feasible, egress windows on the first and second finished floor of an ADU shall not face towards an adjacent interior property line. If this is not feasible, then these windows shall utilize obscuredopaque glazing on the whole window. (E) If the first finished floor of an ADU is two feet or more above grade, then first floor windows shall include the following: i. Non-egress, operable windows facing an adjacent interior property line shall have a windowsill(s) that start five feet above the first finished floor for the unit; ii. Non-egress, non-operable windows facing an adjacent interior property line shall have the lower half of window(s) (minimum of five feet above the first finished floor) utilize obscured opaque glazing. (F) Where feasible, the use of skylights (whether operable or not) shall be used in lieu of operable windows that face adjacent interior properties. (G) No exterior lighting shall be mounted above seven feet. All lighting mounted on walls shall be directed downwards and shall not direct light towards adjacent interior property lines. Any ground lighting shall not direct light upwards to the building or sky. (l) Parking (1) Replacement parking is not required when a garage, carport, covered parking structure, or uncovered parking space is converted to, or demolished in conjunction with the construction of, an ADU. (2) When parking is provided, the unit shall have street access from a driveway in common with the main residence in order to prevent new curb cuts, excessive paving, and elimination of street trees, unless separate driveway access will result in fewer environmental impacts such as paving, grading or tree removal. (3) When a single-family dwelling unit is permitted simultaneously with the construction of new ADU, the primary unit’s covered parking requirements identified in Chapter 18.10 and 18.12 do not need to be provided. Two uncovered parking spaces shall be provided in any configuration on the lot including within the front or street-side setback for the property. (4) If covered parking for a unit is provided in any district, the maximum size of the covered parking area for the ADUaccessory dwelling unit is 220 square feet. This space shall count towards the total floor area for the site but does not contribute to the maximum size of the unit. Any attached garage shall not have an interior access point to the ADU (e.g. hotel door or other similar feature/appurtenance). Item 11 Attachment A - Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Title 16 (Building Regulations), Title 18 (Zoning), and Title 21 (Subdivisions) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Amend Requirements Relating to Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units        Item 11: Staff Report Pg. 11  Packet Pg. 142 of 284  *NOT YET APPROVED* 11 0160207_20260821_ay16 (m) Landscape (1) For the purposes of this subsection (m), “protected tree” means: (A) Any locally native tree of the species Acer macrophyllum (Bigleaf Maple), Calocedrus decurrens (California Incense Cedar), Quercus agrifolia (Coast Live Oak), Quercus douglasii (Blue Oak), Quercus kelloggii (California Black Oak), or Quercus lobata (Valley Oak) which is eleven and one-half inches in diameter (thirty-six inches in circumference) or more when measured four and one-half feet (fifty-four inches) above natural grade. (B) Any Coast Redwood tree (species Sequoia sempervirens) that is eighteen inches in diameter (fifty-seven inches in circumference) or more when measured four and one-half feet (fifty-four inches) above natural grade. (C) Any tree of any species, other than a Coast Redwood Tree, fifteen inches in diameter (forty-seven inches in circumference) or more when measured four and one-half feet (fifty-four inches) above natural grade. A “protected tree” does not include a tree of any species on the Exempt Species List put forth by the Department of Urban Forestry and available on the City’s website. (D) Any tree designated for protection during review and approval of a current or previously completed development project. (E) Any tree designated for carbon sequestration and storage and/or environmental mitigation purposes as identified in an agreement between the property owner and a responsible government agency or recorded as a deed restriction. (F) Any heritage tree previously designated by the city council. (G) Any tree previously planted as a replacement mitigation tree. (2) Except as provided in subsection (3) below, the construction of an ADU shall not impact any protected tree, on the subject property or any adjacent lot by requiring: (A) Removal of more than twenty-five percent of the functioning leaf, stem, or root area of a tree in any twenty-four-month period; or (B) Removal of more than fifteen percent of the functioning root area of any Quercus (oak) species in any thirty-six-month period; or (C) Trenching, excavating, altering the grade, or paving within the tree protection zone of a tree in a way that foreseeably leads to the death of the tree. For the purposes of this subsection (m), "tree protection zone" means the area defined Item 11 Attachment A - Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Title 16 (Building Regulations), Title 18 (Zoning), and Title 21 (Subdivisions) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Amend Requirements Relating to Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units        Item 11: Staff Report Pg. 12  Packet Pg. 143 of 284  *NOT YET APPROVED* 12 0160207_20260821_ay16 by a circle with a radius ten times the diameter of the trunk when measured four and one-half feet (fifty-four inches) above natural grade. (3) If an action prohibited by section 18.09.040(m)(2) is necessary to allow the construction of an ADU that meets the minimum standards set forth in state law, the tree shall be replaced according to the objective requirements identified in the Tree Canopy Replacement Table of the Palo Alto Tree and Landscape Technical Manual. (4) The construction of an ADU must comply with applicable objective standards and specifications in the Tree and Landscape Technical Manual for the protection of trees during construction. Compliance with this subsection (4) shall not delay or cause the denial of an ADU or JADU building permit or use permit. (n) Miscellaneous requirements (1) Street addresses shall be assigned to all units prior to building permit final to assist in emergency response. (2) The unit shall not be sold separately from the primary residence except as allowed under Government Code Section 66341 and PAMC 21.09. (3) Rental of any unit created pursuant to this section shall be for a term of 30 days or more. (4) The installation of fire sprinklers shall not be required in an accessory dwelling unit if sprinklers are not required for the primary residence. Nothing in this section shall preclude the Fire Marshal from accepting fire sprinklers as an alternative means of compliance with generally applicable fire protection requirements. (5) An applicant that seeks to appeal the City’s determination of completeness or denial of a permit for an ADU must submit their appeal in writing to the City identifying the reasons for their appeal and pay the accompanied appeal fee, as set forth in the adopted municipal fee schedule. Appeals for these applications shall follow the procedures for appeal under PAMC 18.77.075 except that the appeal shall be placed on Council’s Consent Agenda within 45 days of filing a timely appeal. Any decision from the Council, either on consent or through an agendized item, is final. 18.09.050 Additional Requirements for JADUs (a) A JADU may be created on a lot in a single-family residential zone with an existing or proposed single family residence. A JADU shall be attached to or created within the walls of an existing or proposed primary dwelling, including enclosed uses within the residence, such as an attached garage. Item 11 Attachment A - Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Title 16 (Building Regulations), Title 18 (Zoning), and Title 21 (Subdivisions) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Amend Requirements Relating to Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units        Item 11: Staff Report Pg. 13  Packet Pg. 144 of 284  *NOT YET APPROVED* 13 0160207_20260821_ay16 (b) The JADU shall include an efficiency kitchen, requiring the following components: A cooking facility with appliances, and; food preparation counter and storage cabinets that are of reasonable size in relation to the size of the JADUjunior accessory dwelling unit. i. JADUs may share sanitation facilities (bathrooms, laundry facilities, etc.) with the primary unit. If a permitted JADU does not include a separate bathroom, the permitted junior accessory dwelling unit shall include a separate entrance from the main entrance to the structure, with an interior entry to the main living area. In this instance, the floor area and lot coverage associated with shared space shall count towards the primary unit’s maximum allowances only. The combined sanitation facilities between the units shall include shower, toilet, and sink fixtures at a minimum and shall conform to the minimum requirements specified in the Building Code. (c) For the purposes of any fire or life protection ordinance or regulation or for the purposes of providing service for water, sewer, or power, a JADU shall not be considered a separate or new unit. (d) The owner of a parcel proposed for a JADU shall occupy as a primary residence either the primary dwelling or the JADU. Owner-occupancy is not required if the owner is a governmental agency, land trust, or housing organization or if the required bathroom for the JADU is provided in the unit, rather than inside the primary home. (e) Prior to the issuance of a building permit for a JADU, the owner shall record a deed restriction in a form approved by the city that includes a prohibition on the sale of the junior accessory dwelling unit separate from the sale of the single-family residence, identifies that if the unit is rented it shall be rented for no shorter term than 30 days, isrequires owner-occupancy consistent with subsection (d) above, and restricts the size and attributes of the JADU to those that conform with this section. (f) JADU incentive. The existing or proposed primary dwelling unit shall be afforded bonus square footage equal to the square footage of a proposed JADU when a JADU is constructed on site, provided the JADU meets the following requirements: 1) The JADU must conform to the underlying zoning district’s development standards for single family homes. 2) The maximum number of units on site shall not exceed fivefour (threetwo ADUs, one JADU, and one primary home). 3) The maximum size of the JADU shall not exceed 500 square feet. 4) The total maximum bonus/exempt floor area provided for the site under Section 18.09.040 and 18.09.050 may not exceed 800 square feet. Item 11 Attachment A - Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Title 16 (Building Regulations), Title 18 (Zoning), and Title 21 (Subdivisions) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Amend Requirements Relating to Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units        Item 11: Staff Report Pg. 14  Packet Pg. 145 of 284  *NOT YET APPROVED* 14 0160207_20260821_ay16 5) The exterior entryway to the JADU shall not face the same direction as the entrance to the primary home. 6) All egress windows which face an adjacent residential property must utilize obscureopaque glazing on the whole window. 7) All non-egress windows which face an adjacent residential property must have a windowsill(s) that start five feet above the first finished floor for the unit. 8) All noise producing equipment associated with the JADU must comply with the noise regulations in PAMC 9.10. 9) When a single-family dwelling unit is permitted simultaneously with the construction of new JADU using these provisions, the primary unit’s covered parking requirements do not need to be provided. Instead, two uncovered parking spaces shall be provided in any configuration on the lot including within the front or street-side setback for the property. SECTION 3. Subsection (g) of Section 16.58.030 (Exemptions) of Chapter 16.58 (Development Impact Fees) of Title 16 (Building) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (“PAMC”) is amended to read as follows (additions underlined and deletions struck-through): (g) Accessory dwelling units (ADU) less than 750 square feet in size of interior livable space. Any impact fees to be charged for an accessory dwelling unit of 750 square feet of interior livable space or more shall be proportional to the square footage of the primary dwelling unit; SECTION 4. Any provision of the Palo Alto Municipal Code or appendices thereto inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance, to the extent of such inconsistencies and no further, is hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary to affect the provisions of this Ordinance. SECTION 5. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of the ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION 6. The Council finds that the adoption of this Ordinance is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.17 and CEQA Guidelines sections 15061(b)(3), because it constitutes amendments to the City’s zoning ordinance to conform with preemptive State law, including Item 11 Attachment A - Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Title 16 (Building Regulations), Title 18 (Zoning), and Title 21 (Subdivisions) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Amend Requirements Relating to Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units        Item 11: Staff Report Pg. 15  Packet Pg. 146 of 284  *NOT YET APPROVED* 15 0160207_20260821_ay16 Article 2 (commencing with Section 66314) and Article 3 (commencing with Section 66333) of Chapter 13 of Division 1 of Title 7 of, the Government Code, as well as other minor and non- substantive amendments. As such, it can be seen with certainty that the proposed action will not have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. SECTION 7. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first date after the date of its adoption. INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: ____________________________ ____________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: ____________________________ ____________________________ City Attorney or Designee City Manager ____________________________ Director of Planning and Development Services Item 11 Attachment A - Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Title 16 (Building Regulations), Title 18 (Zoning), and Title 21 (Subdivisions) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Amend Requirements Relating to Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units        Item 11: Staff Report Pg. 16  Packet Pg. 147 of 284  CITY COUNCIL Staff Report From: City Manager Report Type: ACTION ITEMS Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: September 9, 2026 Report #: 2607-6531 TITLE PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 470 Olive Avenue [25PLN-00228]: Recommend City Council Adopt an Ordinance Amending the Zoning Map to Change the Zoning District for 470 Olive Avenue from NV-R1 (Single-Family Residential) to NV-MXM (Medium Density Mixed Use) and Adopt a Resolution Changing the North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan (NVCAP) Land Use Designation from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Mixed Use to Align it With the NVMXM Zoning of the Adjacent and Connected Parcel at 2951 El Camino Real. This Action Supports a Staff Determination to Add 470 Olive Avenue as a Housing Inventory Site to Address No Net Loss Requirements. CEQA Status: Statutorily Exempt per Public Resources Code Section 21080.085. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommend the Council: 1. Adopt the Resolution in Attachment B amending the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation from NVCAP Low Density Residential to NVCAP Medium Density Mixed Use; and 2. Adopt the Ordinance in Attachment C amending the Zoning Map to rezone the subject parcel from NV-R1 to NV-MXM consistent with previous City Council direction. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Draft Resolution (Attachment B) amends the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation Map to change the land use designation of the subject property from NVCAP Low Density Residential to NVCAP Medium Density Mixed Use. The Draft Ordinance (Attachment C) amends the zoning map to change the zoning designation of the site from North Ventura Single- Family Residential District (NV-R1) to North Ventura Medium Density Mixed Use (NV-MXM). These actions are consistent with the City Council motion on May 27, 2025, “Direct staff to return to Council with a proposal for Rezoning the property behind 2999 [El Camino Real] from R1 to an appropriate transition for housing.” The NV-MXM development standards include Item 12 Item 12 Staff Report        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 1  Packet Pg. 148 of 284  provisions to facilitate a transition between medium density mixed use and abutting single- family. These actions also support a staff determination to add 470 Olive Avenue (APN 132-37- BACKGROUND 1 2: Discussion on El Camino Real Focus Area 1 City Council Action Minutes from May 27, 2025 (Item 7, on Page 4): https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=43272&dbid=0&repo=PaloAlto 2 Link to the May 27, 2026 City Council Staff Report: https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=83418&dbid=0&repo=PaloAlto. Item 12 Item 12 Staff Report        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 2  Packet Pg. 149 of 284  January 19, 20215: Prescreening for Planned Home Zoning project October 5, 20206: Prescreening for Planned Community project October 2, 20177: Prescreening for Zone Change from R-1 to CS PTC:July 8, 20268,9: Recommendation on Zone Change from NV-R1 to NV-MXM December 17, 202410: Discussion on El Camino Real Focus Area October 30, 201911: Consideration of non-conforming use exception HRB:None ARB:December 19, 202412: Discussion on El Camino Real Focus Area July 8, 2026 PTC Hearing On July 8th, the PTC made a motion to move the project forward for Council consideration with a split recommendation after the commission was unable to reach a majority recommendation to approve or deny the rezoning request. Two of the Commissioners who voted against the rezoning specified they would be willing to reconsider the proposal if it was concurrent with a proposal for a housing project. A majority of the Commissioners agreed that they were concerned about how the NV-MXM development standards could be exceeded utilizing State laws such as State Density Bonus Law. For example, it was discussed that the property would be subject to the R-1 daylight plane as it is adjacent to NV-R1 zoned properties, but a proposed development utilizing State Density Bonus could request a waiver from the daylight plane requirement. One Commissioner also noted this rezoning should have been requested at the time the NVCAP was being drafted. 5 Link to the January 19, 2021 Council Staff Report: https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Public/CompiledDocument?meetingTemplateId=3577&compileOutputType= 1 6 Link to the October 5, 2020 Council Staff Report: https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Public/CompiledDocument?meetingTemplateId=2947&compileOutputType= 1 7 Link to the October 2, 2017 Council Staff Report: https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Public/CompiledDocument?meetingTemplateId=1939&compileOutputType= 1 8 Link to the July 8, 2026 PTC Staff Report and Supplemental Report: https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=20326 9 Link to the July 8, 2026 PTC Summary Minutes (Item 2, on Page 1): https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Public/CompiledDocument?meetingTemplateId=20330&compileOutputType =1 10 Link to the December 17, 2024 PTC Staff Report: https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=16861 11 Link to the October 30, 2019 PTC Staff Report: https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Public/CompiledDocument?meetingTemplateId=5776&compileOutputType= 1 12 Link to the December 19, 2024 ARB Staff Report: https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=13947 Item 12 Item 12 Staff Report        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 3  Packet Pg. 150 of 284  Commissioners who did support the rezoning cited this as a good location for a potential housing project, that Council supported a rezoning, that a new building would have a greater setback from the adjacent single-family homes than the existing building, and expressed concern that if redevelopment along El Camino Real did not include this parcel it may be forgotten and left between housing developments. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 9 The property owner further detailed the request in a letter (Attachment E). It was determined in staff’s review that a Comprehensive Plan land use map amendment is also required to align the proposed zoning with the underlying Comprehensive Plan land use designations. No formal development application has been submitted at this time, however this rezoning facilitates opportunities for future development at this and the adjacent parcel under same ownership. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Amendment: The steps for processing a request for a Comprehensive Plan amendment are set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapter 19.04. The PTC considers the amendment and forwards its recommendation to the City Council for final action. This may be done in in parallel with the Zoning Map Amendment. The Draft Resolution Amending the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map is included in Attachment B. Zoning Map Amendment: The process for evaluating this type of application is set forth in PAMC Chapter 18.80. The application will be considered by the PTC, who will make a recommendation to City Council for adoption of an Ordinance to modify the Zoning Map Item 12 Item 12 Staff Report        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 4  Packet Pg. 151 of 284  and must find that the proposed zoning is appropriate for the site. The Draft Ordinance Amending the Zoning Map is included in Attachment C. ANALYSIS Item 12 Item 12 Staff Report        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 5  Packet Pg. 152 of 284  same zoning as the abutting properties fronting El Camino Real, and it will facilitate the desired future redevelopment of the site with housing. FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT Item 12 Item 12 Staff Report        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 6  Packet Pg. 153 of 284  ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The City has reviewed the proposed ordinance in accordance with that authority and criteria set forth in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The City, as the lead agency, anticipates that this ordinance will be exempt from CEQA in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21080.085. This exemption applies to rezoning of sites to address No Net Loss Law (Gov Code Section 65863). The City, in approving the 2100-2300 Geng Road project on March 16, 2026, as well as in approving the 3606 El Camino Real Project on April 13, 2026 made findings identifying the need to add sites to the housing inventory in order to provide an adequate number of sites planned for moderate income units (RLUA 2026-01) to address No Net Loss Law. If Council supports the rezoning of this property, staff intends to place 470 Olive Avenue on the City’s housing inventory along with adjacent sites along El Camino Real, to address the shortfall of moderate income units within 180 days. Rezoning of this site is necessary for the site to accommodate moderate income units. The City sent notification letters in accordance with SB 18 (California Government Code § 65352.3), inviting California Native American tribes to participate in consultation regarding the project. The City received one request for consultation from the Tamien Nation. Following consultation, the Tribe agreed that the existing tribal cultural resource mitigation measures adopted for future development on this site as part of the NVCAP environmental review were sufficient. Tribal consultation was completed on April 2, 2026. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Location Map Attachment B: Draft Resolution Amending the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation of 470 Olive Avenue Attachment C: Draft Ordinance Amending the Zoning District for 470 Olive Avenue Attachment D: Zoning Comparison Table Attachment E: Letter from the Applicant Attachment F: Public Comments Attachment G: COI Map 470 Olive – No Conflict APPROVED BY: Jonathan Lait, Planning and Development Services Director Item 12 Item 12 Staff Report        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 7  Packet Pg. 154 of 284  119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 115.7' 119.7' 115.7' 139.5' 50.0' 139.5' 50.0' 66.9' 200.0' 66.9' 200.0' 50.0' 134.7' 50.0 134.7' 50.0' 134.7' 50.0' 134.7' 50.0' 134.7' .' 134.7' 50.0' 134.7'134.7' 50.0' 50.0' 65.7' 119.7'119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50. 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 47.9' 150.0' 47.9' 150.0' 95.7' 150.0' 95.7' 150.0' 95.7' 150.0' 95.7' 150.0' 200.0' 72.6' 200.0' 72.6' 119.5' 119.5' 119.5' 119.5' 119. 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 2. 109.8' 150.0' 420 412 461 451 431 3017 441 430 440 450 460 470 411 421 431 471 470 456 450 440 441 451 461 430 2999 2951 2905 3001 431A 456A OLIVE AVENUE PEPPER AVENUE EL This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend Project Site Current Features 0' 50' Location Map 470 Olive Avenue CITY OF PALO ALTO I NC O R P O R A TE D CALI FORNIA P a l o A l t o T h e C i t y o f APRI L 1 6 189 4 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors. ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto ekallas, 2026-06-26 13:50:56 Attachment A. Location Map (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Personal\Planning.mdb) Item 12 Attachment A - Location Map        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 8  Packet Pg. 155 of 284  ***NOT YET APPROVED*** 1 0160201_20260701_ay16 Resolution No. ____ Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Changing the Land Use Designation of 470 Olive Avenue from “North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan (NVCAP) Low Density Residential” to “NVCAP Medium-Density Mixed-Use.” R E C I T A L S A. 470 Olive Avenue, (the “subject property”, as further described in Exhibit A) B. On September 15, 2025, Jessica Agramonte, on behalf of Agramonte Property LLC (“Applicant”) submitted an application for a Zone Change for 470 Olive Avenue from NV-R1 to NV-MXM (the “Project”) at 470 Olive Avenue (the “Subject Property”, as further described in Exhibit A). C. To align the planned rezoning with the underlying Comprehensive Plan land use designation, the project requires an amendment to the Land Use Map. D. Whereas the Planning and Transportation Commission, after a duly noticed public hearing on July 8, 2026, recommended that the City Council amend the Land Use Map of the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan as set forth below. E. Whereas the City Council considered said recommendation after a duly noticed public hearing held on________ and now desires to amend the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map as set forth below. NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto RESOLVES as follows: SECTION 1. The City Council finds that the public interest, health, safety and welfare of Palo Alto and the surrounding region would be furthered by an Amendment to the Land Use and Community Design Element Land Use Map. SECTION 2. The proposed Land Use Map Amendment is consistent with the following goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan: Policy L-1.3: Infill development in the urban service area should be compatible with its surroundings and the overall scale and character of the city to ensure a compact, efficient development pattern. The proposed land use designation better facilitates opportunity for infill development, particularly in combination with the adjacent properties on El Camino Real. Policy L-1.6: Encourage land uses that address the needs of the community and The proposed amendment takes into consideration the existing non-residential use, Item 12 Attachment B - Draft Resolution Amending the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation of 470 Olive Avenue        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 9  Packet Pg. 156 of 284  ***NOT YET APPROVED*** 2 0160201_20260701_ay16 manage change and development to benefit the community. and shared ownership with 2951 El Camino Real, and aligns 470 Olive with 2951 El Camino Real. Policy L-2.6: Create opportunities for new mixed-use development consisting of housing and retail. The comprehensive plan amendment would allow for a mix of uses on a site where currently only residential uses are allowed. SECTION 3. The City Council hereby amends the Land Use Map in the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Land Use and Community Design Element as follows: Change the land use designation of 470 Olive from NVCAP Low Density Residential to NVCAP Medium-Density Mixed-Use. SECTION 4. In conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the environmental impacts of this Resolution were evaluated and found to be statutorily exempt per CEQA Guideline 21080.085. INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: ____________________________ ____________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: ____________________________ ____________________________ Assistant City Attorney City Manager ____________________________ Director of Planning and Development Services Item 12 Attachment B - Draft Resolution Amending the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation of 470 Olive Avenue        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 10  Packet Pg. 157 of 284  ***NOT YET APPROVED*** 3 0160201_20260701_ay16 EXHIBIT A (Legal Description) Item 12 Attachment B - Draft Resolution Amending the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation of 470 Olive Avenue        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 11  Packet Pg. 158 of 284  Item 12 Attachment B - Draft Resolution Amending the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation of 470 Olive Avenue        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 12  Packet Pg. 159 of 284  *** NOT YET APPROVED *** 0160200_20260701_ay16 1 Ordinance No. ____ Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (The Zoning Map) to Change the Zoning District Boundaries of 470 Olive Avenue from NV-R1 to NV-MXM The Council of the City of Palo Alto ORDAINS as follows: SECTION 1. Findings and Declarations. The City Council finds and declares as follows: A. On May 27, 2025, the City Council directed staff to rezone 470 Olive Avenue from NV-R1 to a more appropriate zoning for housing transition. B. On September 15, 2025, Jessica Agramonte, on behalf of Agramonte Property LLC submitted an application to rezone the property located at 470 Olive Avenue (“Property”, more particularly described in Exhibit A) from NV-R1 to NV-MXM (“Project”). C. To align the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map with the proposed zoning designation, the planning commission recommended, and Council adopted, Resolution _____amending the land use designation of the site from NVCAP Low Density Residential to NVCAP Medium Density Mixed-Use. D. Following Staff Review, the Planning and Transportation Commission (“PTC”) held a duly noticed public hearing on July 8, 2026, and recommended ________ of the Project to the City Council. E. On _______, following a duly noticed public hearing, Council determined that the rezoning is appropriate because it aligns with the adjacent NV-MXM zoned properties along El Camino Real, but provides a transition from those neighboring parcels, which are within the El Camino Real Focus area, to the adjacent lower density residential neighborhood northeast of the subject property. F. The rezoning supports placement of the subject property on the housing inventory site to address no net loss requirements for the Regional Housing Needs Assessment, as required pursuant to state law. SECTION 2. Amendment of Zoning Map. Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, the “Zoning Map,” is hereby amended by changing the zoning of the Property from North Ventura Single-Family Residential NV-R1 to North Ventura Medium-Density Mixed-Use NV-MXM, as shown in Exhibit B. Item 12 Attachment C - Draft Ordinance Amending the Zoning District for 470 Olive Avenue        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 13  Packet Pg. 160 of 284  *** NOT YET APPROVED *** 0160200_20260701_ay16 2 SECTION 4. Environmental Review. The Council finds that the Ordinance is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 21080.085. This exemption applies to rezoning of sites to address No Net Loss Law (Gov Code Section 65863). Staff intends to place 470 Olive on the City’s housing inventory along with adjacent sites along El Camino Real, to address the shortfall of moderate-income units. Rezoning of this site is necessary for the site to accommodate moderate income units. SECTION 5. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first day after the date of its adoption (second reading). INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: ____________________________ ____________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: ____________________________ ____________________________ Assistant City Attorney City Manager ____________________________ Director of Planning and Development Services Item 12 Attachment C - Draft Ordinance Amending the Zoning District for 470 Olive Avenue        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 14  Packet Pg. 161 of 284  *** NOT YET APPROVED *** 0160200_20260701_ay16 3 EXHIBIT A Legal Description Item 12 Attachment C - Draft Ordinance Amending the Zoning District for 470 Olive Avenue        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 15  Packet Pg. 162 of 284  Item 12 Attachment C - Draft Ordinance Amending the Zoning District for 470 Olive Avenue        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 16  Packet Pg. 163 of 284  ATTACHMENT D 470 Olive Avenue, 25PLN-00228 Select standards reflect portions of 470 Olive which abut a NV-R1 low density residential zoning district. With the SB 79 (TOD) Overlay, the more permissive of the base zoning or overlay standards apply. Maximum Height 35 feet 55 feet 50-85 feet depending on proposed use Maximum Site Coverage SB 79 (TOD): 70% 100%Lot size => 10,000 sq. ft.: 80% Lot size < 10,000 sq. ft.: 70% Maximum Total FAR SB 79 (TOD): 1.5:1 2.0:1 Lot size => 10,000 sq. ft.: 4.0 Lot size < 10,000 sq. ft.: 3.0 Minimum Setbacks SB 79 (TOD): 4 ft side, 10 ft front and rear SB 79 (TOD): 4 ft side, 0 front, 10 ft rear 20 feet for rear and interior sides Minimum Density SB 79 (TOD): greater of 30 du/ac or 5 units 31 du/ac None Daylight Plane - Side SB 79 (TOD): Initial height: 16 feet, measured at the property line Slope: 45 degrees SB 79 (TOD): Initial height: 16 feet, measured at the property line Slope: 45 degrees Initial height: 16 feet, measured at the property line Slope: 45 degrees Other Upper floor stepbacks apply Item 12 Attachment D - Zoning Comparison Table        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 17  Packet Pg. 164 of 284  August 10, 2026 Thomas G. Agramonte tgrant.agramonte@gmail.com Jessica Rose Agramonte jessicaroseagramonte@stanford.edu Palo Alto City Council 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Via email: city.council@cityofpaloalto.org Re: 470 Olive Avenue [25PLN-00228]: Dear Mayor Veenker, Vice Mayor Stone, and City Councilmembers: On behalf of the Agramonte Family, a four-generation Palo Alto family and landowners of 2951 El Camino Real (ECR) and 470 Olive Avenue, we are writing to respectfully request that the City Council adopt the Planning staff recommendation regarding 470 Olive Avenue to change the Zoning District from NV-R-1 to NV-MXM and the land use designation from NVCAP Low Density Residential to NVCAP Medium Density Mixed, and the site be added to the City’s Housing Element to allow for the appropriate development of high quality housing in Palo Alto. The City Council’s May 27, 2027 hearing action was “to direct staff to return to Council with a proposal for Rezoning the property behind 2999 [El Camino Real] (470 Olive) from R1 to an appropriate transition for housing.” Consistent with staff’s analysis, we would like to provide additional contextual information supporting staff’s recommendation and address concerns expressed by some of the Planning Commissioners regarding daylight plane and respecting existing single-family homes per the NVCAP, and those expressed by the owner of 471 Pepper Avenue. Existing Neighborhood & Zoning/LU Context • 470 Olive is directly across from the 3001-3017 El Camino Real (Mike’s Bikes) 129-unit project which is zoned NV-MXM and designated NVCAP Medium Density and property lines align. See Attachment 1. • There is an existing single-family home located east of the 3001 ECR project, similar context with the redevelopment of 470 Olive and adjacent ECR parcels. See Attachment 2. • 470 Olive’s approximately 19’ high building walls are located on the property lines abutting 471 Pepper Avenue and 456 Olive Avenue R-1 lots impacting the current daylight onto those single-family properties. See Attachment 3 showing the existing walls. • 456 Olive Avenue is currently under construction with a new 30’ high 2-story home including a 2320 SF house, attached 747 SF ADU, and a 224 SF garage. The owner was disclosed that a rezoning and multifamily development was proposed via the posted signage onsite. • The 471 Pepper Avenue home was completed and sold after the NVCAP process was well underway and the Auto Collision Repair at 2905 ECR was still in operation. • 470 Olive Avenue is located in a mixed-use area with multiple commercial businesses, consistent with the original commercial development of and CS zone designation of the property. • 470 Olive is within ½ mile of the California Avenue CalTrain Station. Item 12 Attachment E - Letter from the Applicant        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 18  Packet Pg. 165 of 284  SB 79 Transit Oriented Development Combining District Zoning • Since the July 8th Planning Commission hearing, the 470 Olive Avenue property has become eligible to use the City’s SB79 Alternative Transit Oriented Development Combining District Zoning and associated development standards. These standards are more generous (or less restrictive) than those under MXM and require a minimum 5-unit project. • The 470 Olive Avenue property is 50 feet wide by 119.7 feet deep. Any subsequent development under TOD CD will be required to have a minimum 4-foot setback and adhere to a 45-degree daylight plane starting at 16 feet up along the northern and western sides of the property. Please see Attachment 4 depicting the overlapping impact of the daylight plane and setbacks on the 470 Olive parcel relative to the adjacent 471 Pepper and 456 Olive properties. In summary, together with staff’s report and the physical and statutory context above, we believe that the proposed recommendation of MXM is the appropriate response to the City Council’s direction on May 27, 2025. In addition, in response to Planning and Transportation Commission meeting on this rezoning application and certain comments, we would also like to document the timeline and details of the zoning history and our family’s now nine years of working collaboratively with the City of Palo Alto to create housing on this ideal location and support of staff’s recommendation to change the site’s zoning and land use designation. Zoning History – Summary This building on 2951 ECR and 470 Olive Avenue is a single building that spans both parcels that was originally zoned and operated as CS, but was rezoned, likely inadvertently, into two different zone designations in 1978 that changed 470 Olive Avenue to R1. A prior owner applied for an Exception from the Non-conforming Use Termination requirement, which was unanimously approved, however, they did not follow up on landscaping required for the approval and sold it as CS zoning without disclosing the zoning issues. It was built as a commercial building and always used as commercial, and office through multiple generations of owners, prior to it being sold to my family in 1993. My father ran his Veterinary practice there. Once we discovered the undisclosed zoning issue, we alerted the City Planning of it and have been working earnestly with the City of Palo Alto since 2017 to accommodate the city’s housing priorities in this ideal location, walking distance from transit. On the prescreening on October 2, 2017, some of the Council members posited that the 1978 rezoning of 470 Olive Avenue from CS to R-1 was likely done mistakenly. Approval of this application for rezoning of 470 Olive Avenue to realign it with 2951 ECR, both corrects this zoning while directly addressing the urgent need of providing viable multifamily housing development on this ideally located site, walking distance to Caltrans and Cal Ave. 470 Olive Avenue Zoning History: • Based on City of Palo Alto documents, a review of historical aerials and permit history, 470 Olive Avenue is part of a two-parcel, single commercial building in Palo Alto, built and permitted for commercial use in 1968, the building spans both parcels: 2951 El Camino Real (APN# 132-37- 052) and 470 Olive Ave (APN# 132-37-029). 470 Olive Avenue has always been structurally and operationally linked to 2951 El Camino Real, sharing a single building built with a connecting doorway, and a single drive-through parking lot. As described above, the building is zero-lot line along the western and northern property lines with the building connection between the two parcels following the offset lot lines and accommodating parking and circulation. Item 12 Attachment E - Letter from the Applicant        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 19  Packet Pg. 166 of 284  • 470 Olive Avenue was originally built and zoned CS. The first occupants were Carnes Piano in 1968, where customers walked through the entire building spanning 2951 El Camino and 470 Olive. However, the section of the building located on 470 Olive Avenue was re-zoned in 1978 to R-1, during a City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. As noted by the City Council on October 2, 2017, this splitting of a single building into two different zones may have been done inadvertently, in error. The parcels located directly across from on Olive Avenue and two parcels adjacent to 470 Olive on ECR are zoned CS. We believe that the original CS zone designation of 470 Olive Avenue was appropriate and the subsequent rezoning to R1 was not. The rezoning to R1 created a noncompliant building on 470 Olive; it was designed to meet CS requirements, not R1 requirements. The entire building has always operated as commercial use. • In 1987, a prior owner applied for an Exception from the Non-conforming Use Termination requirement, which was unanimously approved by the City Council. On July 16, 1992, the City of Palo Alto confirmed in a letter to the owner that this action allowed the existing non-conforming use to continue indefinitely, subject to site improvement. The letter suggested an option of applying for a zone change to change zoning of 470 Olive from R-1, back to CS, Service Commercial’. Unfortunately, the prior owner did not follow up or disclose this when we purchased the building in 1993. We were never notified by the City of Palo Alto regarding this issue. However, since becoming aware of this situation, we immediately brought it to the attention of the city, and we have taken proactive steps to resolve it and to accommodate priorities of the City of Palo Alto. • In 1993 Superfund ground water quality test wells were installed in the parking lot of 470 Olive Avenue. Access to these wells could be provided within a multifamily residential development, located in the parking garage. The cost to comply with both R1 zone and the Superfund water quality well access, if at all possible, would be financially and space prohibitive. • On October 2, 2017, the Palo Alto City Council conducted a rezoning prescreening and suggested the Code Amendment Application as a solution. We were advised by the City Council during the prescreening on October 2, 2017 to request an Exception to the Non-conforming Use Amortization Code section 18.70.070 to match Commercial use of the structurally and functionally linked parcel, 2951 El Camino (zoned CS) and the single building that spans both parcels. On October 30, 2019, the Planning and Transportation Commission reviewed the request for a 5-year Exception favorably, and the concept of a Multifamily Residential Development was discussed and initiated. We appreciated the prescreening with City Council in 2020 and 2021. Development was pursued; however a formal application was not submitted as the project was unfortunately deemed financially infeasible at the time. Our family’s collaboration with the City of Palo Alto to provide housing on this ideal location: • Nearly a decade ago, in 2017 we brought this zoning issue to the attention of the City. Through working with staff, they recommended pursuing multifamily development on this location to address the zoning issue, as it presented a “win, win” in terms of providing housing and addressed the zoning. Since then, we have continued to follow the requests and guidance from the City. Item 12 Attachment E - Letter from the Applicant        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 20  Packet Pg. 167 of 284  •When the City required us to stop renting out 470 Olive Avenue in 2017 until the zoning was resolved and recommended that we pursue multifamily development to resolve both the housing need and the zoning, we agreed and have been consistently working towards this goal since. •We attended the NVCAP working group meetings and listened to the neighborhood priorities. When we requested for our rezoning to be addressed through NVCAP, Jonathan Lait requested that we pursue zoning through a development application instead as the NVCAP was on a short deadline and they didn’t want to risk missing the deadline. For the benefit of the City, we agreed and immediately continued to work toward this goal of multifamily housing on this site. •This brings us to where we are today, nine years later still doing our best, working earnestly and diligently with the City to get much needed housing on this site. We care about this community and the people in it. We feel we have demonstrated this through our interactions with the City. Rezoning this site is a necessary step to get housing on the site that can integrate and benefit the community. Thank you for taking time to review our application and we request that the 470 Olive Avenue rezoning be approved and added as a Housing Element Site, allowing for the appropriate provision of housing in an ideal location in Palo Alto. Please feel free to contact us: tgrant.agramonte@gmail.com and jessicaroseagramonte@gmail.com. Sincerely, Thomas G. Agramonte Jessica Rose Agramonte Attachments Cc: Jonathan Lait, City of Palo Alto Jennifer Armer, City of Palo Alto Emily Kalla, City of Palo Alto Item 12 Attachment E - Letter from the Applicant        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 21  Packet Pg. 168 of 284  Attachment 1 – 470 Olive Avenue across from 3001-3017 (Mike’s Bikes) NV-MXM MIKE’S BIKES 470 OLIVE Item 12 Attachment E - Letter from the Applicant        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 22  Packet Pg. 169 of 284  Attachment 2 – 3001-3017 El Camino Real (Mike’s Bikes) NV-MXM next to existing single-family home Item 12 Attachment E - Letter from the Applicant        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 23  Packet Pg. 170 of 284  471 Pepper Avenue 456 Olive Avenue Attachment 3 – 470 Olive Avenue Building Wall on 471 Pepper and 456 Olive Property Lines Item 12 Attachment E - Letter from the Applicant        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 24  Packet Pg. 171 of 284  Attachment 4 – SB 79 TOD CD Daylight Plane & Setback Required Item 12 Attachment E - Letter from the Applicant        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 25  Packet Pg. 172 of 284  From:Velasquez, Ingrid To:Lait, Jonathan; Tran, Vickie; Kallas, Emily Cc:Nose, Kiely; Gaines, Chantal; City Mgr Subject:FW: 2951 Date:Tuesday, July 7, 2026 9:36:53 AM Attachments:image001.png image002.png image003.png Hello, Forwarding the thread below for awareness. Thanks, Ingrid Ingrid Velásquez Administrative Assistant Office of the City Manager (650) 329-2354| Ingrid.Velasquez@PaloAlto.gov www.PaloAlto.gov From: Matthew Bryant <vacationmatt@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, July 6, 2026 10:17 AM To: Jason Robinson <robinson.jason.c@gmail.com>; Council, City <city.council@PaloAlto.gov> Cc: David Adams <david_94306@yahoo.com>; Jeff Levinsky <jeff@levinsky.org>; peplive- residents@googlegroups.com; Rebecca Sanders <rebsanders@gmail.com>; David Adams <guitarchap@gmail.com>; Anupa Bajwa <anupabajwa@gmail.com>; Marvin Jing Woo <marvin.woo@gmail.com>; Candy Tsourounis <vacationcandy@yahoo.com>; Shirley Yeh <yaojuan123@gmail.com>; jieming lin <lin_jieming@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: 2951 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hi Jason and everyone included on this note, Thank you for your input. I plan to submit a version of this letter to the City Council (city.council@paloalto.gov ) and Emily Kallas (emily.kallas@paloalto.gov) on the PTC. Also, it would be great to get everyone to show up or call into the PTC meeting o i This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first mail to some recipients. Item 12 Attachment F - Public Comments        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 26  Packet Pg. 173 of 284  &nbsp;Mark Safe Report CGBANNERINDICATOR Hi Jason and everyone included on this note, Thank you for your input. I plan to submit a version of this letter to the City Council (city.council@paloalto.gov ) and Emily Kallas (emily.kallas@paloalto.gov) on the PTC. Also, it would be great to get everyone to show up or call into the PTC meeting on Wednesday, 8Jul26 at 6pm to reject this rezoning of 470 Olive Ave. As a reminder, the newly adopted NVCAP continues to include 470 Pepper Ave as part of the R-1 zoning (https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/2/planning-amp- development-services/north-ventura-cap/nvcap-reports/adopted_nvcap_8_26_24.pdf). Best regards, Matt On Jul 1, 2026, at 12:18 AM, Jason Robinson <robinson.jason.c@gmail.com> wrote: Matt, David, Thanks for your notes. I'll send an email shortly. See below. My argument is to consider it holistically. These projects typically involve piecemeal considerations and multiple variances. The impact may be larger. More housing is fine, but planning is paramount. Matt -- In the past, some noted that operating a commercial business in earnest on residentially-zoned property allegedly violates Palo Alto code and incurs a $1,000 daily fine. $365k/year. That may not be covered by the plans. SUBJECT: PUBLIC COMMENT Re: Piecemeal Rezoning (470 Olive Ave / 2951 El Camino Real Corridor) -- Cumulative Infrastructure Impact Concerns Powered by Mimecast Item 12 Attachment F - Public Comments        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 27  Packet Pg. 174 of 284  BODY: Dear Mayor, Council Members, and Commissioners, We are writing to express clear and pressing concerns regarding the proposed rezoning of 470 Olive Ave and 2951 El Camino Real from R-1 to a higher-density mixed-use designation. We also note that this topic has come up before, and it didn't proceed for reasons: [e.g., https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/agendas- minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/planning-and-transportation- commission/2019-agendas-minutes-and-staff-reports/ptc-12.11.19-470- olive.pdf ]. While everyone understands the state-mandated pressure to fulfill the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), approving this rezoning without a holistic, corridor-wide cumulative impact analysis introduces massive safety and infrastructure liabilities to Ventura and surrounding neighborhoods. The current planning approach evaluates this block entirely in a piecemeal fashion (i.e., each project's study typically concludes that their specific project alone won't significantly degrade the surrounding intersection to a point of total failure), creating a dangerous blind spot regarding localized gridlock: Compounding Localized Density: This specific stretch of El Camino Real (SR 82) will bear the weight of multiple massive redevelopments, including the 368-unit project at the former Fish Market/McDonald’s site, the 5-story 129-unit housing development at the former Mike’s Bikes site, and another 113 units at 2951 El Camino / 470 Olive. And what happens when the Fry's site blossoms? This combination obviously risks overwhelming this single micro-corridor, therefore, development must proceed with care to prevent expensive mistakes. The Page Mill Bottleneck: The intersection of Page Mill Road and El Camino Real is currently being reconfigured after the permanent redesign to remove street parking and accommodate bike lanes. Backups at that intersection are commonplace. Combined with eliminating the right-on-red option, this actively reduces vehicular lane Item 12 Attachment F - Public Comments        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 28  Packet Pg. 175 of 284  capacity and impacts business and neighborhood parking. Traffic spills into the arteries. The Page Mill crosswalk in front of Ash is more dangerous with increased traffic. Time will tell whether the new reconfiguration mitigates these issues. Gridlock of Neighborhood Side-Streets: Because 470 Olive Ave connects to El Camino Real via an un-signaled stop sign on the side street, the compounding traffic from these projects can effectively trap neighborhood residents. When El Camino backs up due to the restricted Page Mill intersection, turning left into or out of Olive Avenue becomes physically impossible and creates a severe hazard for emergency vehicle access. Our Request to the Council and Commission: We urge you to conduct a sober, realistic Cumulative Traffic and Safety Infrastructure Study that explicitly evaluates the combined impact of the Fish Market/McDonald's site, the Mike’s Bikes site, 2951 El Camino/470 Olive, the old Fry's site, and other projects within a reasonable (e.g., 0.75-mi) radius working in tandem against the reduced road capacity from the new El Camino/Page Mill configuration including the wholesale removal of street parking. The study may not be free, but it would likely be much cheaper than fixing the resulting mistakes later. Palo Alto plays a dangerous game by continuing to approve massive, isolated density increases block-by-block while actively dismantling the very road infrastructure meant to support them. Thank you for your time and consideration of Palo Alto's neighborhoods' long-term safety and efficient transportation. Regards, ... cc: Becky Jason On Tue, Jun 30, 2026 at 7:11 PM David Adams <david_94306@yahoo.com> wrote: + Pepper/Olive residents some of whom live at that end. Item 12 Attachment F - Public Comments        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 29  Packet Pg. 176 of 284  Does anyone have a good case against this rezoning? With what's been going on around here it would seem the forces are against us. Regards David On Tuesday, June 30, 2026 at 06:22:46 PM PDT, Matthew Bryant <vacationmatt@yahoo.com> wrote: Need your help again to stop 470 Olive Ave rezoning . We have mixed use on both ends of our blocks. Help preserve the few R1 single family homes we have left. Best regards, Matt Item 12 Attachment F - Public Comments        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 30  Packet Pg. 177 of 284  On May 6, 2023, at 19:08, Matthew Bryant <vacationmatt@yahoo.com> wrote:  Turns out that the Acclaim Property did buy 2951. They are going to renovate it and turn into commercial. It’s up for soft sale if anyone is interested (not listed but shopping it around). The fish house project is a Stanford collaboration includes McDonald’s. The vet (now bmnt) pulled out of the old 2951 plan, and it is done. I talked with Lydia Kou at the May fête parade today. I thanked her for promoting bikes and asked her to help out the NVCAP. I said the building heights are too tall and she agreed. She said she is looking out for Venturans! Cheers, Matt Sent from Outer Space On May 6, 2023, at 17:04, Jeff Levinsky <jeff@levinsky.org> wrote:  There's no new project submitted for that address. See https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Planning-Development-Services/Current- Planning/Projects/2951-El-Camino-Real, but what's there is the 2020 project that didn't go forward. We were told the developer and the four different owners back then couldn't agree on things. That developer opted instead to work on the Fish Market project on the other side of El Camino. 2951 El Camino's last transfer date was in 2017 per the County. See attached assessment. Of course, the various owners can always launch a new effort to build something there and it could be much bigger than the prior plans, thanks to state laws. ----- Original Message ----- From: Matthew Bryant To: Rebecca Sanders Cc: David Adams ; Anupa Bajwa ; Marvin & Jing Woo ; Candy Tsourounis ; Shirley Yeh ; Jeff Levinsky ; robinson.jason.c@gmail.com Sent: Friday, May 5, 2023 10:20 AM Subject: 2951 On another note, the Akins auto body is moving out of 2951 El Camino Real (at Pepper Ave). I think the property was sold in 2022 and the new owner raised the rent on Akins. Akins has decided to move out by May 20. Today, I noticed three well-dressed individuals walking around the 2951 property and looking longingly at its future. I wonder if these are real estate developers looking to build another high- rise commercial/residential like Acclaim Properties proposed a few years ago. Does Jeff Levinsky or anybody know anything about 2951 ECR? I tried to find information Item 12 Attachment F - Public Comments        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 31  Packet Pg. 178 of 284  about a property sale online. Best regards, Matt 471 Pepper Ave On May 1, 2023, at 7:13 PM, Rebecca Sanders <rebsanders@gmail.com> wrote: Dear David and Matt: I am cc'ing Anupa, since she is right there. Is there anyone else that should be on this thread? I emailed Jeff Levinsky about this massive building being grossly under-parked. He was aware of it. You guys know him, right. He's PAN's land use guru and super helpful when it comes to reading zoning laws. Jeff Levinsky says it would really help if neighbors wrote letters or better yet spoke at the ARB meeting Thursday. Neighbors rarely show up and when they do, ARB tends to listen. Here's some other stuff he said to me. I hope this helps: "The overview suggests the project is using its full count of four exemptions under SB 330. I think that leaves them still subject to our other rules that protect sight-lines into neighboring properties and require screening, plantings, and things like that. I'd recommend the neighbors go to the ARB and ask for every bit of that -- and the project should have to provide it as it has no exemptions left. That might give some relief. 'A more sophisticated argument is that the state parking exemptions don't apply if a city can show it would create safety problems. Normally the City had to be prepared to make such an argument, but neighbors might hire a lawyer to help pursue that. At a minimum, they could certainly mock the developer's attempt to take over the street for its own parking." I also asked Jeff about whether it will automatically go to Council. He's not sure. Various rules generally require PTC and Council meetings for large projects, even if using SB 330. But if it doesn't go to Council, it can be appealed to the Council, although the SB 330 limit on five meetings may create problems and the Council may not be able to overturn anything unless it relates to compliance with objective standards. This Thursday's meeting is the third hearing for this project. Jeff's see one can explicitly appeal per 18.15.090(d) for the density bonus aspects. (I haven't look it up.) More direct quotes from Jeff: "The ARB staff report claims the project is subject neither to the new objective standards protecting neighbors nor the older ones if they're not objective. I can't see it hurting the neighbors to ask for anything they feel would help...The City could have objected to the massive parking reduction, but opted not to. The City definitely does not have to grant any special rights to the building for street parking, of course." By the way,Charities Housing is run by a 501(c)3 non-profit, so it could well stay low income forever. If they eventually sell, the funds they raise would have Item 12 Attachment F - Public Comments        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 32  Packet Pg. 179 of 284  to be used for something else consistent with their non-profit charter. Anyway, does anyone over there have a plan to go to the ARB? I'm happy to lend my voice to yours. Is there any one else we can muster? Best to all, Becky <2951 El Camino Assessment.pdf> Item 12 Attachment F - Public Comments        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 33  Packet Pg. 180 of 284  From:Matthew Bryant To:Planning Commission; Council, City; Kallas, Emily Cc:Matt Bryant; Candy Tsourounis Subject:470 Olive Ave rezoning opposition Date:Monday, July 6, 2026 12:09:45 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear distinguished Palo Alto City Council, PTC members, and project planner Emily Kallas, I am writing this letter to express my opposition with the rezoning request by 470 Olive Ave, which is an existing R-1 zoning that is shown to be part of the R-1 zoning per the existing and updated 2024 NVCAP (https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/2/planning-amp-development-services/north- ventura-cap/nvcap-reports/adopted_nvcap_8_26_24.pdf). Per the existing NVCAP zoning ordinances the 470 Olive Ave parcel is R-1 and should not be permitted to become a medium density mixed use for a multitude of reasons. It should be noted that 470 Olive Ave is currently non conforming and has previously attempted to rezone in 2019 and it was not allowed to proceed for reasons: [e.g., https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas- minutes/planning-and-transportation-commission/2019-agendas-minutes-and-staff-reports/ptc- 12.11.19-470-olive.pdf ]. In 2019, 470 Olive Ave had been noted to be non conforming and operating a commercial business in earnest on residentially-zoned property which allegedly violates Palo Alto code and incurs a $1,000 daily fine or $365,000/year. It is unknown whether the fines been paid to the City of Palo Alto. It should further be noted that there is a new R-1 single family residential currently under construction next door at 450 Olive Ave which is conforming and will help to enhance the NVCAP R-1 zoning as designed and agreed to in the updated 2024 NVCAP. Also, recent ADU have been built on R-1 zones at 461 Pepper Ave, 295 Olive Ave, and 305 Olive Ave which helps fulfill further housing needs in Palo Alto. We and our Pepper and Olive Street neighbors are writing to express clear and pressing opposition and concerns regarding the proposed rezoning of 470 Olive Ave from R-1 to a medium-density mixed-use designation. While everyone understands the state-mandated pressure to fulfill the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), approving this rezoning without a holistic, corridor-wide cumulative impact analysis introduces massive safety and infrastructure liabilities to Ventura and surrounding neighborhoods. This message needs your attention Some Recipients have never replied to this person. This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast Item 12 Attachment F - Public Comments        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 34  Packet Pg. 181 of 284  The current planning approach evaluates this block entirely in a piecemeal fashion (i.e., each project's study typically concludes that their specific project alone won't significantly degrade the surrounding intersection to a point of total failure), creating a dangerous blind spot regarding localized gridlock: Compounding Localized Density: This specific stretch of El Camino Real (SR 82) of South Palo Alto will bear the weight of multiple massive redevelopments, including the 368-unit project at the former Fish Market/McDonald’s site, the 5-story 129-unit housing development at the former Mike’s Bikes site, and other nearby construction such as the 80-plus condos at former Fry's Cannery site. This combination obviously risks overwhelming this single micro-corridor, therefore, development must proceed with care to prevent expensive mistakes. The Page Mill Bottleneck: The intersection of Page Mill Road and El Camino Real is currently being reconfigured after the permanent redesign to remove street parking and accommodate bike lanes. Backups at that intersection are commonplace. Combined with eliminating the right-on-red option, this actively reduces vehicular lane capacity and impacts business and neighborhood parking. Traffic spills into the arteries. The Page Mill crosswalk in front of Ash is more dangerous with increased traffic. Time will tell whether the new reconfiguration mitigates these issues. Gridlock of Neighborhood Side-Streets: Because 470 Olive Ave connects to El Camino Real via an un-signaled stop sign on the side street, the compounding traffic from these projects can effectively trap neighborhood residents. When El Camino backs up due to the restricted Page Mill intersection, turning left into or out of Olive Avenue becomes physically impossible and creates a severe hazard for emergency vehicle access. Our Request to the Council and Commission: We urge you to oppose the 470 Olive Ave rezoning request and furthermore conduct a sober, realistic Cumulative Traffic and Safety Infrastructure Study that explicitly evaluates the combined impact of the Fish Market/McDonald's site, the Mike’s Bikes site, the Fry's Cannery site, and other projects within a reasonable (e.g., 0.75-mi) radius working in tandem against the reduced road capacity from the new El Camino/Page Mill configuration including the wholesale removal of street parking. The study may not be free, but it would likely be much cheaper than fixing the resulting mistakes later. Palo Alto plays a dangerous game by continuing to approve massive, isolated density increases block-by-block while actively dismantling the very road infrastructure meant to support them. Thank you for your time and consideration of Palo Alto's neighborhoods' long-term safety and efficient transportation. Sincerely, Matthew Bryant, PharmD 471 Pepper Ave, Palo Alto, CA 94306 Item 12 Attachment F - Public Comments        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 35  Packet Pg. 182 of 284  From:Pepper Person To:Kallas, Emily Cc:Rebecca Sanders Subject:Fwd: PUBLIC COMMENT Re: Piecemeal Rezoning (470 Olive Ave / 2951 El Camino Real Corridor) -- Cumulative Infrastructure Impact Concerns Date:Tuesday, July 7, 2026 8:35:03 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Ms. Kallas, We're forwarding our note ahead of tomorrow's PTC meeting, given its relevance. Warm regards, Jason Robinson, PhD, MBA Jieming Robinson, MS, Economics cc: Rebecca Sanders, Ventura Neighborhood Association ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Pepper Person <pepperxigua@gmail.com> Date: Wed, Jul 1, 2026 at 12:18 AM Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT Re: Piecemeal Rezoning (470 Olive Ave / 2951 El Camino Real Corridor) -- Cumulative Infrastructure Impact Concerns To: <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>, Rebecca Sanders <rebsanders@gmail.com> Dear Mayor, Council Members, and Commissioners, We are writing to express clear and pressing concerns regarding the proposed rezoning of 470 Olive Ave and 2951 El Camino Real from R-1 to a higher-density mixed-use designation. We also note that this topic has come up before, and it didn't proceed for reasons: [e.g., https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas- minutes/planning-and-transportation-commission/2019-agendas-minutes-and-staff-reports/ptc- 12.11.19-470-olive.pdf ]. While everyone understands the state-mandated pressure to fulfill the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), approving this rezoning without a holistic, corridor-wide cumulative impact analysis introduces massive safety and infrastructure liabilities to This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first mail to some recipients. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast Item 12 Attachment F - Public Comments        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 36  Packet Pg. 183 of 284  Ventura and surrounding neighborhoods. The current planning approach evaluates this block entirely in a piecemeal fashion (i.e., each project's study typically concludes that their specific project alone won't significantly degrade the surrounding intersection to a point of total failure), creating a dangerous blind spot regarding localized gridlock: Compounding Localized Density: This specific stretch of El Camino Real (SR 82) will bear the weight of multiple massive redevelopments, including the 368-unit project at the former Fish Market/McDonald’s site, the 5-story 129-unit housing development at the former Mike’s Bikes site, and another 113 units at 2951 El Camino / 470 Olive. And what happens when the Fry's site blossoms? This combination obviously risks overwhelming this single micro-corridor, therefore, development must proceed with care to prevent expensive mistakes. The Page Mill Bottleneck: The intersection of Page Mill Road and El Camino Real is currently being reconfigured after the permanent redesign to remove street parking and accommodate bike lanes. Backups at that intersection are commonplace. Combined with eliminating the right-on-red option, this actively reduces vehicular lane capacity and impacts business and neighborhood parking. Traffic spills into the arteries. The Page Mill crosswalk in front of Ash is more dangerous with increased traffic. Time will tell whether the new reconfiguration mitigates these issues. Gridlock of Neighborhood Side-Streets: Because 470 Olive Ave connects to El Camino Real via an un-signaled stop sign on the side street, the compounding traffic from these projects can effectively trap neighborhood residents. When El Camino backs up due to the restricted Page Mill intersection, turning left into or out of Olive Avenue becomes physically impossible and creates a severe hazard for emergency vehicle access. Our Request to the Council and Commission: We urge you to conduct a sober, realistic Cumulative Traffic and Safety Infrastructure Study that explicitly evaluates the combined impact of the Fish Market/McDonald's site, the Mike’s Bikes site, 2951 El Camino/470 Olive, the old Fry's site, and other projects within a reasonable (e.g., 0.75-mi) radius working in tandem against the reduced road capacity from the new El Camino/Page Mill configuration including the wholesale removal of street parking. The study may not be free, but it would likely be much cheaper than fixing the resulting mistakes later. Palo Alto plays a dangerous game by continuing to approve massive, isolated density increases block-by-block while actively dismantling the very road infrastructure meant to support them. Thank you for your time and consideration of Palo Alto's neighborhoods' long-term safety and efficient transportation. Regards, Jason Robinson, PhD, MBA Jieming Robinson, MS, Economics Item 12 Attachment F - Public Comments        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 37  Packet Pg. 184 of 284  cc: Rebecca Sanders, Ventura Neighborhood Association Item 12 Attachment F - Public Comments        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 38  Packet Pg. 185 of 284  El Camino Real Ramos Way (Private) nsen Way Gra nt Avenu Sherida n Avenue El Ca mino Real Sherma Ash Street Page Mill Road P Pepper Avenue Olive Avenue Acacia Avenue Page Mill Road Ash Street irch Street 2501 2904 2650 408 425 444 455 469 200 425 755 2675 2701 2805 2825 3000 260 345 360 398 410 435 399 407 425 445 630 2700 Bldg A 2700 Bldg B 2865 303- 315 309- 315 3111- 3159 446- 464 31703160 3150 3128 3200 420 412 461 451 431 421 411 405 399 435 395 375 365 385 395 3017 441 411 345 430 420 440 450 460 470 461 2875 411 421 431 471 470 456 450 440 441 451 461 430 2999 775 250 4 250 6250 2 250 8 405 409 3 466 0 29512905 2755 450 3001 402 406408 412 400 370 2700 2473 306 322 320 8 314 312 334336338340 342 344 261 2360358356 354352350348346 332 330328 264 845 835 600 620 2650 404 404 431A BLDG 1 BLDG 2 BLDG 3 422424426428430 101 103 100 101 102 103 104 105 108 107109 456A 473 George Lu PTC This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend City Jurisdictional Limits Conflict-Of-Interest, Architectural Review Board Conflict-Of-Interest, City Attorney Conflict-Of-Interest, City Council Main Residence Conflict-Of-Interest, City Council Other Property Interest Conflict-Of-Interest, City Manager Conflict-Of-Interest, Historic Resources Board Conflict-Of-Interest, PCE Staff Conflict-Of-Interest, Public Art Program Director Conflict-Of-Interest, Planning and Transportation Commission Assessment Parcel Current Features 0' 168' COI Map 470 Olive CITY OF PALO ALTO I NC O R P O R A TE D CALI FORNIA P a l o A l t o T h e C i t y o f APRI L 1 6 189 4 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors. ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto ekallas, 2026-07-28 15:34:23 COI map All Bodies (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Personal\Planning.mdb) Item 12 Attachment G - COI Map 470 Olive - No Conflict        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 39  Packet Pg. 186 of 284  CITY COUNCIL Staff Report Report Type: ACTION ITEMS From: City Clerk Meeting Date: September 9, 2026 Report #:2608-6634 TITLE Designation of Voting Delegate and Alternate for the League of California Cities 2026 Annual Conference, to be held September 23-25, 2026 in Anaheim, California; CEQA Status – Not a Project RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the City Council consider attendees Mayor Veenker and Councilmember Lu and designate a voting delegate and an alternate voting delegate for the League of California Cities (Cal Cities) 2026 Annual Conference. BACKGROUND Cal Cities’ 2026 Annual Conference is scheduled for September 23-25, 2026 in Anaheim, California. Cal Cities will convene its member-driven General Assembly on September 25th as part of the conference. The General Assembly is an opportunity for city officials to participate directly in the development of Cal Cities policies. During the General Assembly, voting delegates debate and consider general and petitioned resolutions forwarded by the Resolutions Committee. To cast a vote during the General Assembly, the City Council must designate a voting delegate and up to two alternate voting delegates, one of whom may vote if the designated voting delegate is unable to. Voting delegates may be either an elected or appointed official. Voting delegates and alternates must be registered to attend the conference. At this time, Mayor Veenker and Councilmember Lu are registered to attend the 2026 Annual Conference. Additional information on Cal Cities’ voting designation and process and the 2026 proposed resolution are included as Attachments A and B, respectively. Council action on the voting delegate designation is advised by September 1; however, the City Clerk has confirmed with Cal Cities that action taken and submitted after September 1 will still be accepted. Item 13 Item 13 Staff Report        Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 1  Packet Pg. 187 of 284  Staff anticipates the designated voting delegate(s) to use the Council-approved Federal and State Legislative Guidelines1 to help inform the City’s position on item to be voted on at the General Assembly. FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ATTACHMENTS APPROVED BY: 1 City of Palo Alto’s 2026 Federal and State Legislative Guidelines: https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/2/city-manager/legislation/2026-legislative-guidelines.pdf Item 13 Item 13 Staff Report        Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 2  Packet Pg. 188 of 284  1400 K Street, Suite 400, Sacramento, CA 95814 • 916.658.8200 • calcities.org DATE: Wednesday, May 13, 2026 TO: Mayors, Council Members, City Clerks, and City Managers RE: DESIGNATION OF VOTING DELEGATES AND ALTERNATES League of California Cities Annual Conference and Expo, Sept. 23-25, 2026 Anaheim Convention Center Every year, the League of California Cities convenes a member-driven General Assembly at the Cal Cities Annual Conference and Expo. The General Assembly is an important opportunity where city officials can directly participate in the development of Cal Cities policy. Taking place on Friday, Sept. 25, 2026 the General Assembly is comprised of voting delegates appointed by each member city; every city has one voting delegate. Your appointed voting delegate plays an important role during the General Assembly by representing your city and voting on resolutions. To cast a vote during the General Assembly, your city must designate a voting delegate and up to two alternate voting delegates, one of whom may vote if the designated voting delegate is unable to serve in that capacity. Voting delegates may either be an elected or appointed official. Action by Council Required. Consistent with Cal Cities bylaws, a city’s voting delegate and up to two alternates must be designated by the city council. Please note that designating the voting delegate and alternates must be done by city council action and cannot be accomplished by individual action of the mayor or city manager alone. Following council action, please submit your city’s delegates through the online submission portal by Tuesday, Sept. 1, 2026. When completing the Voting Delegate submission form, you will be asked to attest that council action was taken. You will need to be signed in to your My Cal Cities account when submitting the form. Submitting your voting delegate form by the deadline will allow us time to establish voting delegate/alternate records prior to the conference and provide pre-conference communications with voting delegates. Conference Registration Required. The voting delegate and alternates must be registered to attend the conference. They need not register for the entire conference; they may register for Friday only. Conference registration opens June 2. For a city to cast a vote, one voter must be present at the General Assembly and in possession of the voting delegate card and voting tool. Voting delegates and Council Action Advised by September 1, 2026 Item 13 Attachment A - Cal Cities 2026 Voting Delegate Information Memo        Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 3  Packet Pg. 189 of 284  alternates need to pick up their conference badges before signing in and picking up the voting delegate card at the voting delegate desk. This will enable them to receive the special sticker on their name badges that will admit the voting delegate into the voting area during the General Assembly. Please view Cal Cities’ event and meeting policy in advance of the conference. Transferring Voting Card to Non-Designated Individuals Not Allowed. The voting delegate card may be transferred freely between the voting delegate and alternates, but only between the voting delegate and alternates. If the voting delegate and alternates find themselves unable to attend the General Assembly, they may not transfer the voting card to another city official. Seating Protocol during General Assembly. At the General Assembly, individuals with a voting card will sit in a designated area. Admission to the voting area will be limited to the individual in possession of the voting card and with a special sticker on their name badge identifying them as a voting delegate. The voting delegate desk, located in the conference registration area of the Anaheim Convention Center, will be open at the following times: Wednesday, Sept. 23, 8:00 a.m.-6:00 p.m. and Thursday, Sept. 24, 7:30 a.m.-4:00 p.m. On Friday, Sept. 25, the voting delegate desk will be open at the General Assembly, starting at 7:30 a.m., but will be closed during roll calls and voting. The voting procedures that will be used at the conference are attached to this memo. Please share these procedures and this memo with your council and especially with the individuals that your council designates as your city’s voting delegate and alternates. Once again, thank you for submitting your voting delegate and alternates by Tuesday, Sept. 1. If you have questions, please contact Zach Seals at zseals@calcities.org. Attachments: •General Assembly Voting Guidelines •Information Sheet: Cal Cities Resolutions and the General Assembly Item 13 Attachment A - Cal Cities 2026 Voting Delegate Information Memo        Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 4  Packet Pg. 190 of 284  1400 K Street, Suite 400, Sacramento, CA 95814 • 916.658.8200 • calcities.org General Assembly Voting Guidelines 1. One City One Vote. Each member city has a right to cast one vote on matters pertaining to Cal Cities policy. 2. Designating a City Voting Representative. Prior to the Cal Cities Annual Conference and Expo, each city council may designate a voting delegate and up to two alternates; these individuals are identified on the voting delegate form provided to the Cal Cities Credentials Committee. 3. Registering with the Credentials Committee. The voting delegate, or alternates, may pick up the city's voting card at the voting delegate desk in the conference registration area. Voting delegates and alternates must sign in at the voting delegate desk. Here they will receive a special sticker on their name badge and thus be admitted to the voting area at the General Assembly. 4. Signing Initiated Resolution Petitions. Only those individuals who are voting delegates (or alternates), and who have picked up their city’s voting card by providing a signature to the credentials committee at the voting delegate desk, may sign petitions to initiate a resolution. 5. Voting. To cast the city's vote, a city official must have in their possession the city's voting card and voting tool; and be registered with the credentials committee. The voting card may be transferred freely between the voting delegate and alternates but may not be transferred to another city official who is neither a voting delegate nor alternate. 6. Voting Area at General Assembly. At the General Assembly, individuals with a voting card will sit in a designated area. Admission to the voting area will be limited to the individual in possession of the voting card and with a special sticker on their name badge identifying them as a voting delegate. 7. Resolving Disputes. In case of dispute, the credentials committee will determine the validity of signatures on petitioned resolutions and the right of a city official to vote at the General Assembly. Item 13 Attachment A - Cal Cities 2026 Voting Delegate Information Memo        Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 5  Packet Pg. 191 of 284  Sixty days before the Annual Conference and Expo, Cal Cities members may submit policy proposals on issues of importance to cities. The resolution must have the concurrence of at least five additional member cities or individual members. How it works: Cal Cities Resolutions and the General Assembly General Assembly General Resolutions Policy Committees Developing League of California Cities policy is a dynamic process that engages a wide range of members to ensure Cal Cities represents cities with one voice. These policies directly guide Cal Cities’ advocacy to promote local decision-making, and lobby against statewide policies that erode local control. The resolutions process and General Assembly is one way that city officials can directly participate in the development of Cal Cities policy. If a resolution is approved at the General Assembly, it becomes official Cal Cities policy. Here’s how resolutions and the General Assembly work. The petitioned resolution is an alternate method to introduce policy proposals during the annual conference. The petition must be signed by voting delegates from 10% of member cities, and submitted to the Cal Cities President at least 24 hours before the beginning of the General Assembly. Petitioned Resolutions The Cal Cities President assigns general resolutions to policy committees where members review, debate, and recommend positions for each policy proposal. Recommendations are forwarded to the Resolutions Committee. Who’s who The Resolutions Committee includes representatives from each Cal Cities diversity caucus, regional division, municipal department, and policy committee, as well as individuals appointed by the Cal Cities president. Voting delegates are appointed by each member city; every city has one voting delegate. The General Assembly is a meeting of the collective body of all voting delegates —one from every member city. Seven policy committees meet throughout the year to review and recommend positions to take on bills and regulatory proposals. Policy committees include members from each Cal Cities diversity caucus, regional division, and municipal department, as well as individuals appointed by the Cal Cities president. During the General Assembly, voting delegates debate and consider general and petitioned resolutions forwarded by the Resolutions Committee. Potential Cal Cities bylaws amendments are also considered at this meeting. Cal Cities policy development is a member- informed process, grounded in the voices and experiences of city officials throughout the state. For more information visit www.calcities.org/general-assembly Prior to the Annual Conference and Expo Resolutions Committee The Resolutions Committee considers all resolutions. General Resolutions approved1 by either a policy committee or the Resolutions Committee are next considered by the General Assembly. General resolutions not approved, or referred for further study by both a policy committee and the Resolutions Committee do not go to the General Assembly. All Petitioned Resolutions are considered by the General Assembly, unless disqualified.2 During the Annual Conference and Expo 1 The Resolution Committee can amend a general resolution prior to sending it to the General Assembly. 2 Petitioned Resolutions may be disqualified by the Resolutions Committee according to Cal Cities Bylaws Article VI. Sec. 5(f). Item 13 Attachment A - Cal Cities 2026 Voting Delegate Information Memo        Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 6  Packet Pg. 192 of 284  2025-2026 CAL CITIES OFFICERS President Gabe Quinto Mayor El Cerrito First Vice President Teresa Acosta Council Member Carlsbad Second Vice President David Cohen Council Member San Jose Immediate Past President Lynne B. Kennedy Mayor Pro Tem, Rancho Cucamonga Executive Director and CEO Carolyn M. Coleman 1400 K Street, Suite 400, Sacramento, CA 95814 • 916.658.8200 • calcities.org August 10, 2026 TO: Cal Cities Members RE: Cal Cities 2026 Resolution Packet Sixty days before the Cal Cities Annual Conference and Expo, Cal Cities members may submit resolutions on issues of importance to cities. This year, Cal Cities received one resolution by the July 25 deadline. The attached packet contains the proposed resolution, background information, supporting letters from cities and city officials, and an analysis of the resolution by Cal Cities. The packet includes detailed information on the resolution process and the next steps for the resolution. We encourage each city council to consider the resolution and determine a position so your voting delegate can represent your city’s position on the resolution. Voting Delegates: City councils must appoint a voting delegate to vote during the General Assembly. Each city may also appoint up to two alternate delegates. If your city has not already done so, please appoint your voting delegate by Tuesday, Sept. 1, 2026. The voting delegate packet contains more information. The 2026 General Assembly will be held Friday, Sept. 25, at 8:30 a.m. in the Anaheim Convention Center during the Annual Conference and Expo. For questions about resolutions, voting delegates, or the General Assembly, please contact Zach Seals. Item 13 Attachment B - Cal Cities 2026 Resolution Packet        Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 7  Packet Pg. 193 of 284  Resolution Item 13 Attachment B - Cal Cities 2026 Resolution Packet        Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 8  Packet Pg. 194 of 284  2026 Resolution Packet Information on 2026 Resolutions Process Consideration by Policy Committee (pre-conference) Per the Cal Cities bylaws, Cal Cities President Gabe Quinto has referred the submitted resolution to the Housing, Community, and Economic Development Committee. The committee will meet on Thursday, Sept. 17, at 10 a.m. via Zoom to review the resolution and make a recommendation that will be sent to the Resolutions Committee. A public comment period will be held during the meeting. Register for the meeting here. A list of recommendations the policy committee may make during its meeting is on page two of this packet. Consideration by Resolutions Committee (during conference) On Thursday, Sept. 24, at 1:00 p.m. the Resolutions Committee will meet to review the resolution and the recommendation of the policy committee. The Resolutions Committee consist of one representative from each of Cal Cities caucuses, departments, divisions, and policy committees, as well as up to ten additional appointments made by the Cal Cities President. A public comment period will be held during the meeting. Refer to the onsite conference program for the location. A list of recommendations the Resolutions Committee may make during its meeting is on page two of this packet. Consideration by the General Assembly (during conference) The General Assembly will convene on Friday, Sept. 25, at 8:30 a.m. to consider any resolutions the Resolutions Committee has forwarded. To vote during the General Assembly, voting delegates must have checked in at the voting delegate booth. Conference attendees will receive materials for the General Assembly on the evening of Thursday, Sept. 24. For more information on voting and discussion procedures during the General Assembly, see page three of this packet. Petitioned Resolutions (during conference) The petitioned resolution is an alternate method to introduce policy proposals during the annual conference. To initiate a petitioned resolution, voting delegates from 10% of member cities must sign the petition. The resolution and signatures are due at least 24 hours before the beginning of the General Assembly. Voting delegates who have checked in at the voting delegate booth can receive more information on petitioned resolutions at the booth onsite. 1 Item 13 Attachment B - Cal Cities 2026 Resolution Packet        Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 9  Packet Pg. 195 of 284  2026 Resolution Packet Policy Committee and Resolutions Committee Actions The submitted resolution will be heard by the policy committee to which it was assigned, and the Resolutions Committee. The table below shows what recommendations these bodies may make on the resolution. Policy Committee Actions Resolutions Committee Actions for further study* policy committee for further study* for further study* policy committee for further study* amendment(s) appropriate policy committee for further study* *If a resolution is disapproved or referred for further study by all policy committees to which it is assigned and the Resolutions Committee, it will not proceed to the General Assembly. 2 Item 13 Attachment B - Cal Cities 2026 Resolution Packet        Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 10  Packet Pg. 196 of 284  2026 Resolution Packet General Assembly Voting and Discussion Procedures Discussion Procedures: Discussion procedures during the General Assembly are guided by two calendars: the Consent Calendar and the Regular Calendar. As seen below, resolutions are calendared by the recommendations they receive from policy committees and the Resolutions Committee. For General Resolutions: Policy Committee Recommendation Resolutions Committee Recommendation Calendar Approve Approve Consent Calendar Approve Disapprove or refer Regular Calendar Disapprove or refer Approve Regular Calendar Disapprove or refer Disapprove or refer Does not proceed to General Assembly For Petitioned Resolutions: Policy Committee Recommendation Resolutions Committee Action Calendar N/A Items on the Consent Calendar will be presented as one motion during the General Assembly from the Resolutions Committee chair. Unless an item on the Consent Calendar is set aside by the majority of the General Assembly, a vote will be taken on the whole calendar. If an item is set aside, it will be opened for discussion, followed by a vote. Items on the Regular Calendar will be presented individually by the Resolutions Committee chair. After a recommendation is presented by the Resolutions Committee chair, the resolution will be opened for discussion by the General Assembly. A vote will take place following discussion. Voting Procedures: Per Cal Cities Bylaws Article XII, Sec. 2, all votes will be conducted by voice vote first. If the presiding official cannot determine the outcome, a vote will be taken by an alternative method, typically a raise of voting cards by voting delegates. A roll call vote may be called for by delegates of ten percent or more of the General Assembly. 3 Item 13 Attachment B - Cal Cities 2026 Resolution Packet        Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 11  Packet Pg. 197 of 284  2026 Resolution Packet 2026 Resolution 1.Resolution No. 1 submitted by City of Murrieta •Letters of concurrence submitted by: i.City of Banning; ii.City of Calimesa; iii.City of Canyon Lake; iv.City of Moreno Valley; v.City of Norco; vi.City of Torrance; vii.Crystal Ruiz, Mayor, City of San Jacinto; viii.Jessica Alexander, Mayor, City of Temecula •Referred to Housing, Community, and Economic Development Committee •Policy Committee Recommendation: •Resolutions Committee Recommendation: 4 Item 13 Attachment B - Cal Cities 2026 Resolution Packet        Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 12  Packet Pg. 198 of 284  2026 Resolution Packet Resolution No. 1 Submitted by City of Murietta 5 Item 13 Attachment B - Cal Cities 2026 Resolution Packet        Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 13  Packet Pg. 199 of 284  2026 Resolution Packet 1.A RESOLUTION OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES CALLING FOR A WORKING GROUP TO CONSIDER A STATE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT OR OTHER FORM OF INITIATIVE TO ENSURE FINAL LOCAL AUTHORITY OVER HOUSING AND LAND USE DECISIONS Source: City of Murrieta Concurrence of five or more cities/city officials Cities/city officials: City of Banning; City of Calimesa; City of Canyon Lake; City of Moreno Valley; City of Norco; City of Torrance; Crystal Ruiz, Mayor, City of San Jacinto; Jessica Alexander, Mayor, City of Temecula Referred to: Housing, Community, and Economic Development Policy Committee WHEREAS, California cities have historically been responsible for adopting general plans and zoning regulations, reviewing housing development proposals, and providing or coordinating the streets, water, wastewater, public safety, parks, transportation, and other infrastructure and services necessary to support responsible, environmentally sound, and well-planned residential growth; and WHEREAS, the League of California Cities is dedicated to protecting and expanding local control for municipalities across the state to ensure their orderly growth and development; and WHEREAS, the League of California Cities recognizes that local zoning is a primary function of cities and an essential component of home rule, and that a city’s general plan should guide its land use planning and strategic decision-making free from pre-emption by the state; and WHEREAS, increasingly prescriptive statewide housing mandates and development approval requirements can override locally adopted plans, zoning standards, and public review procedures without adequately accounting for differences that exist in each unique jurisdiction in infrastructure capacity, water availability, wildfire and evacuation risks, environmental constraints, fiscal impacts, public service needs, and community priorities; and WHEREAS, California’s housing goals can be more effectively advanced through state funding, streamlined environmental requirements, and voluntary partnerships that support housing production while preserving the authority of locally elected officials to determine how and where housing is best planned and approved; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the General Assembly of the League of California Cities, assembled during the Annual Conference in Anaheim, California, on September 25, 2026, that the League of California Cities support the development and advancement of a state constitutional amendment or other legislative, policy, or ballot- based strategies that restore and strengthen local authority over housing and land use matters within municipal boundaries, including general plans, housing elements, zoning, density, design and development standards, project siting, and the approval or denial of housing development applications; and 6 Item 13 Attachment B - Cal Cities 2026 Resolution Packet        Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 14  Packet Pg. 200 of 284  2026 Resolution Packet BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that any constitutional amendment or alternative strategy should preserve the State’s authority to establish broad statewide housing goals and enforce constitutional and civil rights, fair housing requirements, building and life-safety standards, and generally applicable environmental protections, while protecting cities from state actions that compel, through funding conditions or state law, the approval of housing developments that are inconsistent with locally adopted requirements; override local zoning or density standards; or invalidate locally adopted housing or land use decisions when a city has planned in good faith to accommodate its regional housing needs allocation and maintains adequate capacity for housing at all income levels; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the League of California Cities consider establishing a statewide working group or other appropriate committee(s) to evaluate and develop a proposed constitutional amendment or other legislative, policy, or ballot-based strategies to restore and strengthen local authority over housing and land use matters including but limited to: conducting appropriate legal, fiscal, and policy analyses; engaging cities and other stakeholders; and building a statewide coalition of proponent supporters in preparation for; the November 2030 General Election, or within another reasonable time frame as determined by the working group. 7 Item 13 Attachment B - Cal Cities 2026 Resolution Packet        Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 15  Packet Pg. 201 of 284  2026 Resolution Packet Resolution No. 1: Background Information 8 Item 13 Attachment B - Cal Cities 2026 Resolution Packet        Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 16  Packet Pg. 202 of 284  2026 Resolution Packet Background Information for Resolution Source: City of Murrieta Background: California cities are responsible for planning residential growth, adopting general plans and zoning regulations, reviewing development proposals, and providing or coordinating the infrastructure and public services necessary to support new housing. Since 2010, the State has enacted more than 500 housing-related laws that have increasingly shifted housing and land use authority away from local governments. These laws have expanded by-right development, limited locally adopted standards and review processes, and established enforcement mechanisms, including the builder’s remedy, that may override local plans and zoning. Although these measures are frequently presented as solutions to housing affordability, many increase development capacity or restrict local review without delivering the meaningful production of housing needed to address the housing crisis. At the same time, the State has continued to prioritize increased development capacity without adequately accounting for the infrastructure, public services, economic realities, and safety measures necessary to support housing growth. State mandates often fail to reflect local conditions, including roadway and utility capacity, water availability, wildfire exposure, environmental limitations, fiscal impacts, and the availability of essential services. Cities are consequently required to accommodate additional housing while receiving no funding or assistance to address the resulting infrastructure and service demands. Local elected officials are directly accountable to the residents who experience the effects of development decisions and are responsible for balancing housing production with infrastructure capacity, public safety, environmental protection, fiscal sustainability, and community needs. Cities of all types in California have been grappling with this dynamic, ranging from urban to rural, coastal to inland, small to large, northern to southern, voicing concerns to legislative representatives with minimal responsiveness. This is an issue of statewide concern that needs the strength and diversity of the League of California Cities to pursue a long-term solution. The proposed resolution directs the League of California Cities to establish a statewide working group to evaluate a constitutional amendment or other legislative, policy, or ballot-based strategies to restore and strengthen local authority over housing and land use decisions. The working group would be tasked with developing a more balanced framework that preserves the State’s role in establishing broad housing goals and enforcing constitutional, civil rights, fair housing, building, life-safety, and environmental requirements, while restoring meaningful local authority to allow cities to determine how statewide housing 9 Item 13 Attachment B - Cal Cities 2026 Resolution Packet        Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 17  Packet Pg. 203 of 284  2026 Resolution Packet objectives should be implemented in a manner that reflects local conditions and community priorities while continuing to support responsible housing production. As the primary statewide organization representing California cities, the League is uniquely positioned to lead this effort. Its established policy, legal, legislative, communications, and advocacy networks enable it to convene municipalities, evaluate potential strategies, conduct legal and fiscal analyses, build consensus, engage stakeholders, and coordinate with statewide decision-makers. League leadership would help ensure that any recommendation reflects the collective interests of California municipalities and would provide the credibility, organizational capacity, and statewide reach necessary to advance a viable strategy. 10 Item 13 Attachment B - Cal Cities 2026 Resolution Packet        Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 18  Packet Pg. 204 of 284  2026 Resolution Packet Resolution No. 1: Letters of Concurrence 11 Item 13 Attachment B - Cal Cities 2026 Resolution Packet        Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 19  Packet Pg. 205 of 284  12 Item 13 Attachment B - Cal Cities 2026 Resolution Packet        Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 20  Packet Pg. 206 of 284  13 Item 13 Attachment B - Cal Cities 2026 Resolution Packet        Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 21  Packet Pg. 207 of 284  July 23, 2026 President Gabe Quinto League of California Cities 1400 K Street, Suite 400 Sacramento, CA 95814 Subject: Support for a Resolution Establishing a Working Group to Evaluate a State Constitutional Amendment or Other Initiative to Restore Local Housing and Land Use Authority Dear President Quinto, The City of Murrieta is sponsoring a resolution for consideration by the General Assembly of the League of California Cities to establish a statewide working group to evaluate a constitutional amendment or other legislative, policy, or ballot-based strategies to restore and strengthen local authority over housing and land use decisions. The proposed resolution, together with the required background materials, will be submitted to Cal Cities for consideration at the 2026 Annual Conference in Orange County on September 24 and 25. The resolution would direct the League to convene a working group to evaluate potential approaches for addressing the increasingly broad and prescriptive state mandates affecting local housing, zoning, development standards, and project approval authority. On behalf of the City of Canyon Lake, this letter confirms our support for the City of Murrieta’s submission of the proposed resolution and its consideration by the League of California Cities General Assembly at the 2026 Annual Conference. Sincerely, Arron Brown City Manager City of Canyon Lake 14 Item 13 Attachment B - Cal Cities 2026 Resolution Packet        Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 22  Packet Pg. 208 of 284  July 23, 2026 President Gabe Quinto League of California Cities 1400 K Street, Suite 400 Sacramento, CA 95814 Subject: Support for a Resolution Establishing a Working Group to Evaluate a State Constitutional Amendment or Other Initiative to Restore Local Housing and Land Use Authority Dear President Quinto, The City of Murrieta is sponsoring a resolution for consideration by the General Assembly of the League of California Cities to establish a statewide working group to evaluate a constitutional amendment or other legislative, policy, or ballot-based strategies to restore and strengthen local authority over housing and land use decisions. The proposed resolution, together with the required background materials, will be submitted to Cal Cities for consideration at the 2026 Annual Conference in Orange County on September 24 and 25. The resolution would direct the League to convene a working group to evaluate potential approaches to address increasingly broad and prescriptive state mandates affecting local housing, zoning, development standards, and project approval authority. On behalf of the City of Moreno Valley, this letter confirms our support for the City of Murrieta’s submission of the proposed resolution and its consideration by the League of California Cities General Assembly at the 2026 Annual Conference. Sincerely, Brian Mohan City Manager City of Moreno Valley 15 Item 13 Attachment B - Cal Cities 2026 Resolution Packet        Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 23  Packet Pg. 209 of 284  July 22, 2026 President Gabe Quinto League of California Cities 1400 K Street, Suite 400 Sacramento, CA 95814 Subject: Support for a Resolution Establishing a Working Group to Evaluate a State Constitutional Amendment or Other Initiative to Restore Local Housing and Land Use Authority Dear President Quinto, The City of Murrieta is sponsoring a resolution for consideration by the General Assembly of the League of California Cities to establish a statewide working group to evaluate a constitutional amendment or other legislative, policy, or ballot-based strategies to restore and strengthen local authority over housing and land use decisions. The proposed resolution, together with the required background materials, will be submitted to Cal Cities for consideration at the 2026 Annual Conference in Orange County on September 24 and 25. The resolution would direct the League to convene a working group to evaluate potential approaches for addressing the increasingly broad and prescriptive state mandates affecting local housing, zoning, development standards, and project approval authority. On behalf of the City of the Norco, this letter confirms our support for the City of Murrieta’s submission of the proposed resolution and its consideration by the League of California Cities General Assembly at the 2026 Annual Conference. Sincerely, Kevin Bash City Council Member (951) 768-8981 16 Item 13 Attachment B - Cal Cities 2026 Resolution Packet        Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 24  Packet Pg. 210 of 284  17 Item 13 Attachment B - Cal Cities 2026 Resolution Packet        Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 25  Packet Pg. 211 of 284  18 Item 13 Attachment B - Cal Cities 2026 Resolution Packet        Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 26  Packet Pg. 212 of 284  19 Item 13 Attachment B - Cal Cities 2026 Resolution Packet        Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 27  Packet Pg. 213 of 284  20 Item 13 Attachment B - Cal Cities 2026 Resolution Packet        Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 28  Packet Pg. 214 of 284  July 23, 2026 Mr. Gabe Quinto, President League of California Cities 1400 K Street, Suite 400 Sacramento, CA 95814 Subject: Support for the City of Murrieta's Resolution Establishing a Working Group to Evaluate a State Constitutional Amendment or Other Initiative to Restore Local Housing and Land Use Authority Dear President Quinto: I am writing in my individual capacity as Mayor of the City of Temecula to express my strong support for the City of Murrieta's proposed resolution for consideration by the General Assembly of the League of California Cities at the 2026 Annual Conference. The proposed resolution presents an important opportunity to thoughtfully evaluate the appropriate balance between California's statewide housing objectives and the constitutional principle of local governance. Establishing a statewide working group to examine a potential constitutional amendment, legislative reforms, or other policy initiatives will provide a meaningful forum to assess how local authority over housing and land use decisions can be strengthened while continuing to address the State's housing challenges. Cities are uniquely positioned to understand the needs, opportunities, and constraints of their communities. Local elected officials are accountable to the residents they serve and are best equipped to make land use decisions that reflect a community's character, infrastructure capacity, economic development goals, environmental stewardship, and long-term vision. Equally important, local governments bear the primary responsibility for protecting public safety. Decisions regarding housing density, transportation, emergency access, wildfire preparedness, evacuation routes, police and fire service capacity, water availability, and critical infrastructure are inherently local matters that require the knowledge and judgment of those who serve their communities every day. While the State has an important role in addressing California's housing needs, a collaborative approach that respects local expertise and preserves meaningful local discretion will produce stronger, safer, and more sustainable communities. The proposed working group offers an opportunity to evaluate policies that achieve these shared objectives while restoring an appropriate balance between state direction and local authority. 21 Item 13 Attachment B - Cal Cities 2026 Resolution Packet        Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 29  Packet Pg. 215 of 284  Mr. Gabe Quinto, President League of California Cities July 23, 2026 Page 2 Although this letter reflects my personal position and is not an official action or policy of the City of Temecula or the Temecula City Council, I respectfully endorse the City of Murrieta's submission of this resolution and encourage its favorable consideration by the League of California Cities General Assembly. Thank you for your leadership and your thoughtful consideration of this important issue. Respectfully, Jessica Alexander Mayor, City of Temecula Signing in her individual capacity and not on behalf of the City of Temecula or the Temecula City Council. 22 Item 13 Attachment B - Cal Cities 2026 Resolution Packet        Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 30  Packet Pg. 216 of 284  2026 Resolution Packet Resolution No. 1: Staff Analysis 23 Item 13 Attachment B - Cal Cities 2026 Resolution Packet        Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 31  Packet Pg. 217 of 284  League of California Cities Staff Analysis on Resolution No. 1 Staff: Brady Guertin, Legislative Advocate Committee: Housing, Community, and Economic Development Summary: Resolution No.1 states that the League of California Cities (Cal Cities) will: 1. Support the development and advancement of a state constitutional amendment or legislative, policy, or ballot-based strategy that restores and strengthens local authority over housing and land use matters, including general plans, housing elements, zoning, density, design and development standards, project siting, and the approval or denial of housing development applications. Pursuant to the resolution, the strategy should preserve the state’s authority to set broad, statewide housing goals and enforce civil rights, fair housing, building safety, and environmental standards while protecting local control by preventing the state from compelling the approval of developments that conflict with local requirements, override local zoning or density standards, or overturn local land use decisions where a city has planned for and maintained sufficient capacity to meet its housing obligations. 2. Consider establishing a statewide working group or other appropriate committee(s) to evaluate and develop a proposed constitutional amendment or other legislative, policy, or ballot-based strategies to restore and strengthen local authority over housing and land use matters. The resolution states: “conducting legal, fiscal, and policy analyses; engaging cities and other stakeholders; and building a statewide coalition of proponent supporters in preparation for the November 2030 General Election, or within another reasonable time period.” Background: As provided in the background information, the city of Murrieta is sponsoring this resolution in response to concerns over state laws that have increasingly reduced city discretion over housing and land use decisions, including legislation that requires ministerial or by-right approvals for housing projects, limits the application of local development standards, and strengthens state enforcement mechanisms against local governments. Additionally, the city of Murrieta, in its background information, maintains that these legislative efforts have not resulted in sufficient housing production to address California's housing shortage and have not adequately accounted for 24 Item 13 Attachment B - Cal Cities 2026 Resolution Packet        Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 32  Packet Pg. 218 of 284  local infrastructure, public service needs, public safety, market, and fiscal considerations. The resolution states that California’s housing goals are better advanced through state funding, streamlined environmental requirements, and voluntary partnerships, while preserving local authority over how and where housing is best planned and approved. Consideration of the resolution may be informed by a brief examination of how the California Constitution allocates authority between the state and cities with respect to land use decisions. The constitution grants cities the power to adopt local laws to protect the public’s health, safety, and welfare. This grant is called the “police power,” which is the basis for local land use regulation. The constitution grants charter cities the additional power to adopt local laws affecting “municipal affairs.” This power, commonly referred to as “home rule,” is based on the principle that a city, rather than the state, is in the best position to identify and satisfy the needs of the local community. The constitution’s broad grant of police power contains a significant limitation. Local law adopted under the police power is not valid if it “conflicts” with state law. A local law “conflicts” with state law when it regulates the same “field” in which the Legislature has stated its intent to occupy. In that case, state law is said to “preempt” the local law and it cannot be enforced. An ordinance adopted by a charter city under the municipal affairs power cannot be enforced if it affects a “matter of statewide concern.” The subjects that have been identified as “matters of statewide concern” have changed over the years due to economic, social, and political circumstances. Since the 1960s, the state has enacted numerous laws that limit or preempt aspects of local land use and zoning authority. These laws include the Fair Employment and Housing Act, Housing Element Law, Housing Accountability Act, Density Bonus Law, Permit Streamlining Act, accessory dwelling unit laws, California Environmental Quality Act, and others. In recent years, the state has enacted several laws that Cal Cities was the leading opposition force against, as many of the proposals pre-empted local land use authority, limited public review, and constrained local flexibility. In support of its housing and land use legislation, the Legislature has cited a statewide housing crisis and the need for increased housing production at all income levels while asserting that a uniform approach to local land use decision-making is required. 25 Item 13 Attachment B - Cal Cities 2026 Resolution Packet        Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 33  Packet Pg. 219 of 284  Discussion: The resolution does not prescribe a specific policy mechanism. The eight letters in support recommend creating a working group or committee to evaluate potential approaches, including legislative proposals, constitutional amendments, or ballot initiatives to strengthen local authority over housing and land use matters. A discussion of a strategy to restore and strengthen local authority over housing and land use matters will need to consider the California Constitution’s framework for both preemption of police power enactments and municipal affairs, discussed above. It will also need to determine whether changes to the California Constitution will be proposed, and whether they constitute an amendment or a revision, which require different processes. A constitutional revision is a multistep process blending legislative consensus, voter support, and on occasion, a constitutional convention. It requires significant public engagement. A constitutional amendment would require a ballot initiative, which includes gathering enough valid signatures to qualify for the ballot, building large coalitions to support election efforts, and campaigning to voters to support the initiative. This process can involve significant costs. In the last major election for ballot initiatives in 2024, proponents spent $8-$18 million to qualify for the ballot and spent nearly $700 million for the full election cycle, averaging out to about $100 million per ballot initiative. Cal Cities has been engaged in ballot advocacy for over 20 years. In the early 2000s, Cal Cities developed a ballot advocacy infrastructure that included forming an issue political action committee, fundraising, establishing a network of regional managers, and building a coalition with other organizations to ultimately advocate on a ballot measure. Ballot advocacy requires the approval of the Board of Directors with a supermajority vote. In the Legislature, Cal Cities plays an active and influential role to ensure that local flexibility and autonomy in the land use and housing space is maintained by engaging on dozens of bills every legislative session to ensure that cities' voices are heard at the state Capitol. Below, you will find Cal Cities “Existing Policy” on local control, housing, and land use policies. Fiscal Impact The resolution itself would not have a significant direct fiscal impact. However, depending on what actions follow, the fiscal costs could be significant. 26 Item 13 Attachment B - Cal Cities 2026 Resolution Packet        Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 34  Packet Pg. 220 of 284  Existing Cal Cities Policy Vision To be recognized and respected as the leading advocate for the common interests of California's cities. Mission Statement To expand and protect local control for cities through education and advocacy to enhance the quality of life for all Californians. We Believe • Local self-governance is the cornerstone of democracy. • Our strength lies in the unity of our diverse communities of interest. • In the involvement of all stakeholders in establishing goals and in solving problems. • In conducting the business of government with transparency, openness, respect, and civility. • The spirit of honest public service is what builds communities. • Open decision-making that is of the highest ethical standards honors the public trust. • Cities are vital to the strength of the California economy. • The vitality of cities is dependent upon their fiscal stability and local autonomy. • The active participation of all city officials increases the League's effectiveness. • Partnerships and collaborations are essential elements of focused advocacy and lobbying. • Ethical and well-informed city officials are essential for responsive, visionary leadership and effective and efficient city operations. Zoning Cal Cities believes local zoning is a primary function of cities and is an essential component of home rule. The process of adoption, implementation and enforcement of zoning ordinances should be open and fair to the public and enhance the responsiveness of local decision-makers. State policy should leave local siting and use decisions to the city and not interfere with local prerogative beyond providing a constitutionally valid procedure for adopting local regulations. State agency siting of facilities, including campuses and office buildings, should be subject to local notice and hearing requirements in order to meet concerns of the local community. Cal Cities opposes legislation that seeks to limit local authority over parking requirements. Housing Element Housing issues should be addressed in the general plan as other planning issues are. The housing element should be prepared for the benefit of local 27 Item 13 Attachment B - Cal Cities 2026 Resolution Packet        Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 35  Packet Pg. 221 of 284  governments and should have equal status with the other elements of the general plan. Encourage Full Community Participation Foster an open and inclusive community dialogue and promote alliances and partnerships to meet community needs. Well-Planned New Growth Recognize and preserve open space, watersheds, environmental habitats, and agricultural lands, while accommodating new growth in compact forms, in a manner that: • De-emphasizes automobile dependency; • Integrates the new growth into existing communities; • Creates a diversity of affordable housing near employment centers; • Provides job opportunities for people of all ages and income levels. Support: The following letters of concurrence were received: City of Banning City of Calimesa City of Canyon Lake City of Moreno Valley City of Norco City of Torrance Crystal Ruiz, Mayor, City of San Jacinto Jessica Alexander, Mayor, City of Temecula 28 Item 13 Attachment B - Cal Cities 2026 Resolution Packet        Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 36  Packet Pg. 222 of 284  CITY COUNCIL Colleague’s Memo Sponsor(s): Councilmembers Reckdahl and Burt Meeting Date: September 9, 2026 TITLE Colleagues’ Memo: Council Discussion and Public Release of the Investigation Report Regarding Forest Peterson SUMMARY The purpose of this memo is to request that the Council discuss and vote on publicly releasing the independent investigation report into the serious misconduct allegations concerning Forest Peterson which were made in the written complaint by a local business owner. Maintaining public community trust requires transparency, and public accountability. Releasing this report, along with necessary redactions to protect third-party privacy, is necessary to upholding the standards of openness our residents expect from Palo Alto leadership. BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT Over the past several months, serious allegations of misconduct involving Planning and Transportation Commissioner Forest Peterson were brought forward, prompting the City to initiate an independent third-party investigation at a public expense of $15,334. The details and conclusion of the final investigation report remain restricted. However, the original complaint has been reported in the local press, along with Petersen’s unverified characterization of the events. The scope of the investigation was limited to factual questions of whether the misconduct occurred. It was indicated that it would be up to the Council to determine whether any violations of city policy (based on the Boards, Commissions, and Committees Handbook) or the law occurred. However, the Council has not had an opportunity to consider those actions. Under the Brown Act, the Palo Alto City Council procedures, and the California State Bar Rules of Professional Conduct, decisions regarding the waiver of attorney-client privilege and the disclosure of confidential investigation records are at the discretion of the Council. Rationale for Public Disclosure Guiding Principles: The Brown Act is not merely a set of rules, it’s based on guiding principles: Item 14 Item 14 Colleagues Memo        Item 14: Staff Report Pg. 1  Packet Pg. 223 of 284  “The people of this State do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created.” Gov’t Code § 54950. https://firstamendmentcoalition.org/facs-brown- act-primer/ 1.Public Interest & Transparency: When allegations of significant misconduct arise among our public representatives, the public’s interest in understanding what occurred, and how the City responded, outweighs generalized privacy concerns. 2.Accountability & Trust: Withholding investigation results fuels public speculation and erodes trust in municipal oversight. Proactively sharing findings demonstrates that the City operates with integrity and is committed to learning from internal lapses. 3.Precedent for Responsible Redaction: Releasing the report does not mean compromising personal identifying information of uninvolved lower-level staff, victims, or whistleblowers. The City Attorney can prepare appropriate, narrowly tailored redactions to respect privacy laws while preserving the core facts and findings.. PROPOSED COUNCIL ACTION We ask the Council to authorize the waiver of attorney-client privilege with respect to the final investigative report on the complaint against Commissioner Forest Peterson. The privilege waiver would be limited to the final report itself, with no intent to waive privilege over the subject matter of the investigation. The proposed Council action would include direction to the City Attorney to redact the report to preserve witness privacy to the extent practicable. RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS Subject to the specific direction provided by Council, staff anticipates resource implications to consist of the time necessary to support the Council discussion, redaction of the investigative report, and public release. RECOMMENDED MOTION "Move to waive attorney-client privilege with respect to final investigative report regarding the complaint against Forest Peterson and direct the City Attorney to release a version of the report with redactions to protect the privacy of witnesses to the extent practicable, with the clarifications that the waiver of privilege is limited to the final report and that Council does not intended to waive privilege over the subject matter of the investigation." ATTACHMENTS None. Report #: 2608-6643 Item 14 Item 14 Colleagues Memo        Item 14: Staff Report Pg. 2  Packet Pg. 224 of 284  CITY COUNCIL Staff Report From: City Manager Report Type: INFORMATION REPORTS Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: September 9, 2026 Report #: 2607-6598 TITLE Notification of 2023-2031 Housing Element Site Inventory Modifications for State Law Compliance. CEQA Status: The City Council approved a Revised Addendum to the Comprehensive Plan Environmental Impact Report on December 23, 2023 that fully analyzed the impacts of the 2023-2031 Housing Element, including maintenance of the site inventory. RECOMMENDATION This is an informational report, and no Council Action is required. BACKGROUND The City’s 2023-2031 Housing Element was adopted on April 14, 2024, and certified by California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) on August 20, 2024.1 Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA) and Maintaining Adequate Sites Per State law requirements, the Housing Element contains a list of available housing site to help address the City’s share of regional housing needs as identified by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). The City’s housing needs are quantified in the RHNA, which includes housing targets at all income levels. As shown in Table 1, the minimum RHNA requirement for Palo Alto in the 2023-31 planning period is 6,086 homes across four income levels. Table 1: City of Palo Alto 2023-31 RHNA Requirement Income Level Very Low Income Low Income Moderate Income Above Moderate Income Total Area Median Income (AMI)<50% AMI 50-80% of AMI 80-120% AMI >120% AMI Units 1,556 896 1,013 2,621 6,086 1https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/planning-amp-development-services/housing- element/housing-element_2023_2031/palo-alto-housing-element.pdf Item A Item A Staff Report        Item A: Staff Report Pg. 1  Packet Pg. 225 of 284  Housing Element Program 1.1 Adequate Sites Program requires the City to maintain a residential site inventory that is adequate to accommodate the City’s share of regional housing needs through the duration of planning period. Housing Element Program 1.2 Site Inventory Monitoring Program requires the City to identify additional housing inventory sites if there is a shortfall of adequate RHNA capacity for any income level.3 The City Council adopted a 2026 priority objective in March to identify and designate additional Housing Element site capacity to maintain RHNA compliance. This was identified in anticipation of estimated shortfalls occurring in 2026. The Housing Element site inventory4 includes estimated capacities and income levels based on the best available information at the time of adoption. As sites in the inventory develop, the actual number of units and income levels in the proposed development projects will vary based on the unique circumstances of each project and likely will not match the City’s projections. In the past year, several sites projected to provide moderate income units have received planning entitlement approvals with units designated at other levels, including both above moderate and inclusionary units deed restricted to be available to lower income households. On March 16, 2026, City Council approved of the project at 2100-2400 Geng Road, that resulted in a deficit in the City’s moderate income RHNA category, requiring the City to identify new sites to meet the capacity within 180 days. On April 20, 2026,5 the City Council adopted a resolution authorizing the Director of Planning and Development Services to make minor modifications to the 2023-2031 Housing Element Site Inventory. This action allowed staff maintain compliance with State law and the Housing Element’s Adequate Sites Program, while being responsive to mid-cycle conditions. The April 20 agenda item outlined criteria for identifying replacement sites to implement the City’s Housing Element and comply with State law, and stated that the Director would report to the City Council when changes were made to the Housing Element site inventory, and report changes annually to HCD as part of the State-mandated reporting requirement. ANALYSIS Based on the moderate income net loss resulting from approval of the Geng Road project, and other pipeline projects located on Housing Element sites with lower than anticipated moderate income units (80-120 percent of area median income), staff began analyzing potential replacement sites. Staff applied the same evaluation criteria used for the existing Housing 3 Note: for purposes of determining adequate capacity in a site inventory, the RHNA requirements for very low- and low-income are combined. (See Gov. Code Section 65583.2(c)(3).) 4 https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/planning-amp-development-services/housing- element/housing-element_2023_2031/appendix-d_site-inventory.pdf 5 https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=18703 Item A Item A Staff Report        Item A: Staff Report Pg. 2  Packet Pg. 226 of 284  Element inventory sites and reassessed previously studied sites. Staff also considered additional criteria in response to changing State laws such as Senate Bill (SB) 79. Evaluation Methodology Vacant lot Developer interest Surface parking Vacant building Faith-based institution Single story Improvement to land ratio less than 1.5 Structure age of 47 years or older Increased unit potential, or an existing development with floor area ratio less than or equal to 0.6 Zoning prohibiting multi-family residential Lot size under 0.25 acres9 Open space zones Existing multi-family residential units with densities greater than 20 dwelling units/acre Sites adjacent to R-1 zones Added Sites 9 The adopted HE Site Inventory assumed 100% Above Moderate capacity for all lots under 0.25 acres, so these small sites would not be anticipated to generate below-market rate units. Item A Item A Staff Report        Item A: Staff Report Pg. 3  Packet Pg. 227 of 284  Many sites are within the SB 79 area of influence which increases development potential. Attachment B is the revised Housing Element inventory following addition of these sites. FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ATTACHMENTS APPROVED BY: Item A Item A Staff Report        Item A: Staff Report Pg. 4  Packet Pg. 228 of 284  Attachment A: New Housing Element Site Moderate Income Yield 3241 Park Blvd 1-story office/industrial NV-MXH Yes 0.43 20 429 Acacia Ave 1-story office NV-MXM Yes 0.31 14 4117 El Camino Real 1-story restaurant and parking CN No 0.25 8 3275 Ash St 1-story commercial with parking NV-MXM Yes 0.38 13 411 Page Mill Rd 1-story retail and parking NV-MXM Yes 0.36 17 3250 Ash St 2-story office with parking NV-MXM Yes 0.38 18 439 Lambert Ave 1-story auto repair shop CS No 0.46 10* 400 Forest Ave 1-story medical office and parking RM-40 Yes 0.46 22 217 Alma St 1-story retail and parking CD-N (P)Yes 0.26 12 882 Emerson St 2-story medical office with parking RT-35 Yes 0.26 12 635 Waverley St 1-story office building and parking CD-C (P)Yes 0.31 14 150 Forest Ave 1-story office building RT-50 Yes 0.36 17 Item A Attachment A - New Moderate Income Housing Element Sites        Item A: Staff Report Pg. 5  Packet Pg. 229 of 284  111 Homer Ave 1-story auto repair and parking RT-35 Yes 0.48 11 437 Lytton Ave 2-story office building CD(C)(P)No 0.28 6 Total 194 * Net of existing units to be replaced on-site. Item A Attachment A - New Moderate Income Housing Element Sites        Item A: Staff Report Pg. 6  Packet Pg. 230 of 284  2023-2031 Housing Element City of Palo Alto Appendix D: Site Inventory April 15, 2024 Adopted August 20, 2024 Certified Updated August 2026 Item A Attachment B - Housing Element Appendix D (Site Inventory), Updated August 2026        Item A: Staff Report Pg. 7  Packet Pg. 231 of 284  Table A: Site Inventory Category Site Address/Intersection 5 Digit ZIP Code Assessor Parcel Number General Plan Designation (Current) Zoning Designation (Current) Minimum Density Allowed (units/acre) Maximum Density Allowed (units/acre) 1 Parcel Size (Acres) Existing Use/Vacancy Lower Income Capacity Moderate Income Capacity Above Moderate Income Capacity Total Capacity Planned Units 3200 PARK BL 94306 132-32-042 MF RM-30 16 30 0.28 Surface Parking 0 11 10 21 Planned Units 3200 PARK BL 94306 132-32-036 LI GM 0 90 0.17 One story gym, surface parking 0 1 6 7 Planned Units 3200 PARK BL 94306 132-32-043 MF RM-30 16 30 1.38 Surface Parking 0 8 18 26 Planned Units 486 HAMILTON AVE 94301 120-16-008 CC CD-C (P) 0 40 0.12 One story restaurant, surface parking 0 0 4 4 Planned Units 660 -680 UNIVERSITY AV, 511 BYRON ST 94301 120-03-042 MF RM-15 0 15 0.14 Two story office space 5 0 11 16 Planned Units 660 -680 UNIVERSITY AV, 511 BYRON ST. 94301 120-03-043 MF RM-15 0 15 0.15 Surface Parking 5 0 11 16 Planned Units 660 -680 UNIVERSITY AV, 511 BYRON ST 94301 120-03-044 MF RM-15 0 15 0.3 One story office space, surface parking 10 0 23 33 Planned Units 702 CLARA DR 94303 127-35-023 MF RM-15 0 15 0.3 Single-family homes 0 0 0 0 Planned Units 3128, 3150-3160 EL CAMINO REAL 94306 142-20-035 CS CS 0 30 1.19 One story restaurant, surface parking 36 0 143 179 Planned Units 3128, 3150-3160 EL CAMINO REAL 94306 142-20-054 CS CS 0 30 0.75 One story restaurant, surface parking 23 0 90 113 Planned Units 3128, 3150-3160 EL CAMINO REAL 94306 142-20-055 CS CS 0 30 0.29 Two story multi-family homes 9 0 35 44 Planned Units 3128, 3150-3160 EL CAMINO REAL 94306 142-20-079 CS CS 0 30 0.19 Vacant 6 0 23 29 Planned Units 3128, 3150-3160 EL CAMINO REAL 94306 142-20-080 CS CS 0 30 0.11 Vacant 3 0 13 16 Planned Units 300 LAMBERT AV 94306 132-39-061 CS CS 0 30 0.32 Auto service, surface parking 0 0 45 45 MFA 555 UNIVERSITY AV 94301 120-03-024 CC CD-C (P) 0 40 0.17 One story office space 0 0 5 5 MFA 624 UNIVERSITY AV 94301 120-03-040 MF RM-40 31 40 0.15 Two story office space 0 0 4 4 MFA 543 COWPER ST 94301 120-03-067 CC CD-C (P) 0 40 0.23 One story office space 0 0 7 7 MFA 330 LYTTON AV 94301 120-15-003 CC CD-C (P) 0 40 0.16 One story restaurant space 0 0 5 5 MFA 401 WAVERLEY ST 94301 120-15-007 CC CD-C (P) 0 40 0.22 One story commercial, surface parking 0 0 7 7 MFA 444 COWPER ST 94301 120-15-014 CC CD-C (P) 0 40 0.14 Surface Parking 0 0 4 4 MFA 426 WAVERLEY ST 94301 120-15-039 CC CD-C (P) 0 40 0.12 Two story commercial building 0 0 3 3 MFA 318 UNIVERSITY AV 94301 120-15-058 CC CD-C (GF)(P) 0 40 0.18 One story restaurant 0 0 5 5 MFA 328 UNIVERSITY AV 94301 120-15-059 CC CD-C (GF)(P) 0 40 0.18 One story retail 0 0 5 5 MFA 527 WAVERLEY ST 94301 120-15-080 CC CD-C (GF)(P) 0 40 0.16 Surface Parking 0 0 5 5 MFA 515 WAVERLEY ST 94301 120-15-081 CC CD-C (GF)(P) 0 40 0.18 Surface Parking 0 0 5 5 MFA 550 WAVERLEY ST 94301 120-15-084 CC CD-C (GF)(P) 0 40 0.14 One story restaurant 0 0 4 4 MFA 560 WAVERLEY ST 94301 120-15-085 CC CD-C (GF)(P) 0 40 0.14 Two story restaurant 0 0 4 4 MFA 630 COWPER ST 94301 120-16-011 CC CD-C (P) 0 40 0.34 One story office space, surface parking 0 10 0 10 MFA 464 FOREST AV 94301 120-16-044 SOFA I CAP RM-40 31 40 0.23 One story medical office, surface parking 0 0 7 7 MFA 163 EVERETT AV 94301 120-25-042 CN CD-N 0 30 0.19 One story office space, surface parking 0 0 4 4 MFA 525 ALMA ST 94301 120-26-109 CC CD-C (P) 0 40 0.25 One story retail 0 0 8 8 MFA 654 HIGH ST 94301 120-27-037 CC CD-C (P) 0 40 0.19 Surface Parking 0 0 6 6 MFA 660 HIGH ST 94301 120-27-039 SOFA II CAP RT-50 0 50 0.14 Surface Parking 0 0 5 5 MFA 701 EMERSON ST 94301 120-27-049 SOFA II CAP RT-35 0 50 0.22 One story commercial, surface parking 0 0 8 8 1 Where the base zone district allows greater density or does not prescribe maximum density, these figures represent anticipated maximum density. Item A Attachment B - Housing Element Appendix D (Site Inventory), Updated August 2026        Item A: Staff Report Pg. 8  Packet Pg. 232 of 284  MFA 721 EMERSON ST 94301 120-27-072 SOFA II CAP RT-35 0 50 0.12 One story office space, surface parking 0 0 4 4 MFA 718 EMERSON ST 94301 120-27-073 SOFA II CAP RT-35 0 50 0.12 One story auto service 0 0 4 4 Table A: Site Inventory Category Site Address/Intersection 5 Digit ZIP Code Assessor Parcel Number General Plan Designation (Current) Zoning Designation (Current) Minimum Density Allowed (units/acre) Maximum Density Allowed (units/acre) 2 Parcel Size (Acres) Existing Use/Vacancy Lower Income Capacity Moderate Income Capacity Above Moderate Income Capacity Total Capacity MFA 839 EMERSON ST 94301 120-28-033 SOFA II CAP RT-35 0 50 0.12 One story office space, surface parking 0 0 4 4 MFA 821 EMERSON ST 94301 120-28-036 SOFA II CAP RT-35 0 50 0.12 One story vacant office space, surface parking 0 0 4 4 MFA 840 EMERSON ST 94301 120-28-037 SOFA II CAP RT-35 0 50 0.48 Surface Parking 0 19 0 19 MFA 849 HIGH ST 94301 120-28-040 SOFA II CAP RT-35 0 50 0.24 One story office space, surface parking 0 0 9 9 MFA 875 ALMA ST 94301 120-28-045 SOFA II CAP RT-50 0 50 0.32 One story retail, surface parking 0 12 0 12 MFA 853 ALMA ST 94301 120-28-046 SOFA II CAP RT-50 0 50 0.16 One story office space, surface parking 0 0 6 6 MFA 901 HIGH ST 94301 120-28-050 SOFA II CAP RT-35 0 50 0.32 Auto Storage 0 12 0 12 MFA 975 HIGH ST 94301 120-28-089 SOFA II CAP RT-35 0 50 0.35 One story office space 0 14 0 14 MFA 929 HIGH ST 94301 120-28-090 SOFA II CAP RT-35 0 50 0.12 One story office space, surface parking 0 0 4 4 MFA 925 HIGH ST 94301 120-28-091 SOFA II CAP RT-35 0 50 0.14 Auto Storage 0 0 5 5 MFA 940 HIGH ST 94301 120-28-092 SOFA II CAP RT-35 0 50 0.18 Auto garage 0 0 7 7 MFA 960 HIGH ST 94301 120-28-093 SOFA II CAP RT-35 0 50 0.12 Auto garage 0 0 4 4 MFA 917 ALMA ST 94301 120-28-097 SOFA II CAP RT-50 0 50 0.24 One story office space 0 0 9 9 MFA 829 EMERSON ST 94301 120-28-099 SOFA II CAP RT-35 0 50 0.19 One story retail, surface parking 0 0 7 7 MFA 1015 ALMA ST 94301 120-30-049 SOFA II CAP RT-35 0 50 0.12 One story commercial 0 0 4 4 MFA 466 GRANT AV 94306 124-33-037 MF RM-40 31 40 0.19 Residential (1) 0 0 5 5 Caltrain Station 3241 PARK BL 94306 132-26-078 NVCAP NV-MXH 61 61 0.43 1-story office 0 21 0 21 Caltrain Station 3275 ASH ST 94306 132-38-011 NVCAP NV-MXM 31 60 0.27 1-story commercial with parking 0 13 0 13 Caltrain Station 429 ACACIA AV 94306 132-38-069 NVCAP NV-MXM 31 60 0.31 1-story office 0 14 0 14 Caltrain Station 411 PAGE MILL RD 94306 132-37-064 NVCAP NV-MXM 31 60 0.36 1-story retail with surface parking 0 17 0 17 Caltrain Station 3250 ASH ST 94306 132-38-046 NVCAP NV-MXM 31 60 0.38 2-story office with parking 0 18 0 18 Caltrain Station 882 EMERSON ST 94301 120-28-038 SOFA II CAP RT-35 30 60 0.26 2-story medical office with surface parking 0 12 0 12 Caltrain Station 150 FOREST AV 94301 120-27-046 SOFA II CAP RT-50 30 60 0.36 1-story office building 0 17 0 17 Caltrain Station 111 HOMER AV 94301 120-27-078 SOFA II CAP RT-35 30 60 0.48 Auto body with parking 0 11 0 11 Caltrain Station 635 WAVERLEY ST 94301 120-16-020 CC CD-C (P) 30 60 0.31 1-story office with parking 0 14 0 14 Developer Interest 437 LYTTON AV 94301 120-14-075 CC CD-C (P) 30 60 0.28 2-story office 0 6 0 6 2 Where the base zone district allows greater density or does not prescribe maximum density, these figures represent anticipate d maximum density. Item A Attachment B - Housing Element Appendix D (Site Inventory), Updated August 2026        Item A: Staff Report Pg. 9  Packet Pg. 233 of 284  Table B: Sites Rezoned to Accommodate Shortfall Housing Need Category Site Address/Intersection 5 Digit ZIP Code Assessor Parcel Number Parcel Size (Acres) Current General Plan Designation Current Zoning Proposed General Plan (GP) Designation Proposed Zoning Minimum Density Allowed Maximum Density Allowed Description of Existing Uses Very Low- Income Low- Income Moderate- Income Above Moderate- Income Total Capacity Upzone 3200 ASH ST 94306 132-38-045 0.39 CS CS CS CS 0 40 One story office space 0 0 12 0 12 Upzone 3260 ASH ST 94306 132-38-047 0.22 CS CS CS CS 0 40 One story office space, surface parking 0 0 0 7 7 Upzone 202 BRYANT ST 94301 120-25-159 0.16 MF RM-30 MF RM-30 16 40 Residential (1) 0 0 0 4 4 Upzone 430 CAMBRIDGE AV 94306 124-32-009 0.14 CC CC (2)(R) CC CC (2)(R) 0 40 One story tutoring center/ office space 0 0 0 4 4 Upzone 456 CAMBRIDGE AV 94306 124-32-012 0.16 CC CC (2)(R) CC CC (2)(R) 0 40 One story retail 0 0 0 5 5 Upzone 325 COLLEGE AV 94306 124-28-013 0.2 MF RM-30 MF RM-30 16 40 Residential (1) 0 0 0 5 5 Upzone 417 COLLEGE AV 94306 124-32-026 0.2 MF RM-30 MF RM-30 16 40 Residential (1) 0 0 0 5 5 Upzone 371 COLLEGE AV 94306 124-32-031 0.2 MF RM-30 MF RM-30 16 40 Residential (1) 0 0 0 5 5 Upzone 564 COLLEGE AV 94306 137-01-036 0.13 CN CN CN CN 0 30 One story office space 0 0 0 3 3 Upzone 708 COLORADO AV 94306 127-34-054 0.13 CN CN (GF/P) CN CN (GF/P) 0 30 One story commercial, surface parking 0 0 0 3 3 Upzone 706 COLORADO AV 94306 127-34-092 0.18 CN CN (GF/P) CN CN (GF/P) 0 30 One story retail, surface parking 0 0 0 4 4 Upzone 720 COWPER ST 94301 120-16-046 0.23 MF RM-30 MF RM-30 16 40 One story medical office, surface parking 0 0 0 7 7 Upzone 343 COWPER ST 94301 120-10-044 0.19 MF RM-30 MF RM-30 16 40 Two story office space, surface parking 0 0 0 6 6 Upzone 397 CURTNER AV 94306 132-41-025 0.19 MF RM-30 MF RM-30 16 40 Residential (2) 0 0 0 4 4 Upzone 2011 EL CAMINO REAL 94306 124-31-024 0.2 CN CN CN CN 0 30 One story retail, surface parking 0 0 0 4 4 Upzone 841 EL CAMINO REAL 94301 120-34-001 0.64 CS CS CS CS 0 40 One story car wash, surface parking 8 8 0 4 20 Upzone 1921 EL CAMINO REAL 94301 124-30-017 0.43 CN CN CN CN 0 30 One story restaurant, surface parking 0 0 10 0 10 Upzone 3825 EL CAMINO REAL 94301 132-41-088 0.35 CS CS CS CS 0 40 One story medical office, Surface parking 0 0 11 0 11 Upzone 3839 EL CAMINO REAL 94306 132-41-089 0.17 CS CS CS CS 0 40 One story auto service, surface parking 0 0 0 5 5 Upzone 3939 EL CAMINO REAL 94306 132-42-070 0.17 CS CS CS CS 0 40 One story retail, surface parking 0 0 0 5 5 Upzone 3901 EL CAMINO REAL 94301 132-42-073 1.1 MF RM-30 MF RM-30 16 40 One story lodging, surface parking 14 14 0 7 35 Upzone 4195 EL CAMINO REAL 94301 132-46-119 0.35 CS CS CS CS 0 40 One story auto service, surface parking 0 0 11 0 11 Upzone 2280 EL CAMINO REAL 94301 137-01-113 0.43 CN CN CN CN 0 30 Fast food restaurant, surface parking 0 0 10 0 10 Upzone 3636 EL CAMINO REAL 94301 137-08-078 0.25 CN CN CN CN 0 30 One story restaurant, surface parking 0 0 0 6 6 Upzone 3516 EL CAMINO REAL 94301 137-08-079 0.23 CS CS CS CS 0 40 One story retail space, surface parking 0 0 0 7 7 Upzone 3606 EL CAMINO REAL 94301 137-08-080 0.65 CN CN CN CN 0 30 Vacant 6 6 0 3 15 Upzone 3630 EL CAMINO REAL 94301 137-08-081 0.37 CN CN CN CN 0 30 Two story office space, surface parking 0 0 8 0 8 Item A Attachment B - Housing Element Appendix D (Site Inventory), Updated August 2026        Item A: Staff Report Pg. 10  Packet Pg. 234 of 284  Table B: Sites Rezoned to Accommodate Shortfall Housing Need Category Site Address/Intersection 5 Digit ZIP Code Assessor Parcel Number Parcel Size (Acres) Current General Plan Designation Current Zoning Proposed General Plan (GP) Designation Proposed Zoning Minimum Density Allowed Maximum Density Allowed Description of Existing Uses Very Low- Income Low- Income Moderate- Income Above Moderate- Income Total Capacity Upzone 3508 EL CAMINO REAL 94301 137-08-088 0.24 CS CS CS CS 0 40 One story auto service, surface parking 0 0 0 7 7 Upzone 3666 EL CAMINO REAL 94301 137-08-097 0.25 CN CN CN CN 0 30 Two story office space, surface parking 0 0 0 6 6 Upzone 3700 EL CAMINO REAL 94301 137-11-078 0.36 CN CN CN CN 0 30 One story retail, surface parking 0 0 8 0 8 Upzone 3972 EL CAMINO REAL 94301 137-11-105 0.25 CN CN CN CN 0 30 One story auto service and gas station, surface parking 0 0 0 6 6 Upzone 4146 EL CAMINO REAL 94301 137-24-034 0.77 MF RM-20 MF RM-20 8 30 Vacant 7 7 0 4 18 Upzone 4335 EL CAMINO REAL 94301 148-09-010 0.4 CS CS CS CS 0 40 One story commercial, surface parking 0 0 12 0 12 Upzone 4291 EL CAMINO REAL 94301 148-09-014 1.16 CS CS CS CS 0 40 Two story commercial, surface parking 9 9 0 5 23 Upzone 4230 EL CAMINO REAL 94301 167-08-030 0.52 CS CS CS CS 0 40 One story car rental, Surface parking 6 6 0 4 16 Upzone 4238 EL CAMINO REAL 94306 167-08-031 0.65 CS CS CS CS 0 40 Two story lodging, The Palo Alto Inn, surface parking 8 8 0 4 20 Upzone 4232 EL CAMINO REAL 94301 167-08-036 0.43 CS CS CS CS 0 40 One story preschool, surface parking 0 0 13 0 13 Upzone 825 EL CAMINO REAL 94301 120-33-011 0.2 CS CS CS CS 0 40 One story medical offices, surface parking 0 0 0 6 6 Upzone 805 EL CAMINO REAL 94301 120-33-012 0.24 CS CS CS CS 0 40 One story medical offices 0 0 0 7 7 Upzone 1681 EL CAMINO REAL 94306 124-25-044 0.91 MF RM-20 MF RM-20 8 30 One story medical offices, surface parking 5 5 0 3 13 Upzone 2137 EL CAMINO REAL 94306 124-31-058 0.32 CN CN CN CN 0 30 Surface Parking 0 0 7 0 7 Upzone 2127 EL CAMINO REAL 94301 124-31-059 0.25 CN CN CN CN 0 30 One story office space (0.6), surface parking 0 0 0 6 6 Upzone 2401 EL CAMINO REAL 94306 124-33-061 0.24 CC CC CC CC 0 40 One story commercial, surface parking 0 0 0 7 7 Upzone 3337 EL CAMINO REAL 94306 132-39-005 0.17 CS CS CS CS 0 40 Two story vacant office space 0 0 0 5 5 Upzone 3339 EL CAMINO REAL 94306 132-39-074 0.36 CS CS CS CS 0 40 One story lodging Berbeda Place, surface parking 0 0 11 0 11 Upzone EL CAMINO REAL 94306 132-39-075 0.18 CN CN CN CN 0 30 Surface Parking 0 0 0 4 4 Upzone 3345 EL CAMINO REAL 94306 132-39-080 0.22 CS CS CS CS 0 40 One story restaurant, surface parking 0 0 0 7 7 Upzone 3691 EL CAMINO REAL 94306 132-40-062 0.25 CN CN CN CN 0 30 One story restaurant, surface parking 0 0 0 6 6 Upzone 3929 EL CAMINO REAL 94306 132-42-068 0.17 CS CS CS CS 0 40 One story retail, surface parking 0 0 0 5 5 Upzone 3903 EL CAMINO REAL 94306 132-42-072 0.53 CS CS CS CS 0 40 One retail, surface parking 6 6 0 4 16 Upzone 4127 EL CAMINO REAL 94306 132-46-104 0.45 CN CN CN CN 0 30 Two story office space, surface parking 0 0 10 0 10 Upzone 2080 EL CAMINO REAL 94306 137-01-132 0.31 CN CN CN CN 0 30 One story retail 0 0 7 0 7 Item A Attachment B - Housing Element Appendix D (Site Inventory), Updated August 2026        Item A: Staff Report Pg. 11  Packet Pg. 235 of 284  Table B: Sites Rezoned to Accommodate Shortfall Housing Need Category Site Address/Intersection 5 Digit ZIP Code Assessor Parcel Number Parcel Size (Acres) Current General Plan Designation Current Zoning Proposed General Plan (GP) Designation Proposed Zoning Minimum Density Allowed Maximum Density Allowed Description of Existing Uses Very Low- Income Low- Income Moderate- Income Above Moderate- Income Total Capacity Upzone 4279 EL CAMINO REAL 94306 148-01-016 0.8 CS CS CS CS 0 40 Two story lodging, surface parking 10 10 0 5 25 Upzone 4224 EL CAMINO REAL 94301 167-08-037 0.63 CS CS CS CS 0 40 One story restaurant, surface parking 7 7 0 4 18 Upzone 4085 EL CAMINO WY 94306 132-43-153 0.71 CN CN CN CN 0 30 One story retail Goodwill Donation Center, surface parking 7 6 0 4 17 Upzone 116 EMERSON ST 94301 120-24-019 0.24 MF RM-20 MF RM-20 8 30 Residential (1) 0 0 0 4 4 Upzone 124 EMERSON ST 94301 120-24-020 0.24 MF RM-20 MF RM-20 8 30 Residential (1) 0 0 0 4 4 Upzone 75 ENCINA AV 94301 120-33-003 0.13 CS CS CS CS 0 40 One story office space 0 0 0 4 4 Upzone 63 ENCINA AV 94301 120-33-004 0.27 CS CS CS CS 0 40 One story office space 0 0 0 8 8 Upzone 27 ENCINA AV 94301 120-33-010 0.16 CS CS CS CS 0 40 Surface parking 0 0 0 5 5 Upzone 262 HAWTHORNE AV 94301 120-25-158 0.16 MF RM-30 MF RM-30 16 40 Residential (1) 0 0 0 4 4 Upzone 652 HOMER AV 94301 120-05-008 0.64 MF RM-20 MF RM-20 8 30 One story medical offices, surface parking 6 6 0 3 15 Upzone KENDALL AV 94306 137-08-033 0.13 CN CN CN CN 0 30 Vacant 0 0 0 3 3 Upzone 460 LAMBERT AV 94306 132-38-017 0.22 CS CS CS CS 0 40 Surface parking 0 0 0 7 7 Upzone 268 LAMBERT AV 94306 132-38-048 0.35 CS CS CS CS 0 40 One story office space, surface parking 0 0 11 0 11 Upzone 320 LAMBERT AV 94306 132-38-058 0.28 CS CS CS CS 0 40 One story retail, surface parking 0 0 8 0 8 Upzone 411 LAMBERT AV 94306 132-39-017 0.16 CS CS CS CS 0 40 One story commercial, vacant 0 0 0 5 5 Upzone 455 LAMBERT AV 94306 132-39-087 0.32 CS CS CS CS 0 40 One story office space, surface parking 0 0 10 0 10 Upzone LEGHORN ST 94303 147-05-012 0.85 CS CS CS CS 0 40 Auto storage 11 10 0 6 27 Upzone 4151 MIDDLEFIELD RD 94301 127-15-023 0.93 MF RM-20 MF RM-20 8 30 Two story office space, surface parking 5 5 0 3 13 Upzone 4201 MIDDLEFIELD RD 94301 147-05-086 0.32 CS CS CS CS 0 40 One story auto service, surface parking 0 0 10 0 10 Upzone 435 MIDDLEFIELD RD 94301 003-02-023 0.23 MF RM-30 MF RM-30 16 40 One story medical office, surface parking 0 0 0 7 7 Upzone 827 MIDDLEFIELD RD 94301 003-32-064 0.23 MF RM-20 MF RM-20 8 30 Residential (1) 0 0 0 4 4 Upzone 853 MIDDLEFIELD RD 94301 003-32-094 0.8 MF RM-20 MF RM-20 8 30 One story medical offices, surface parking 5 4 0 3 12 Upzone MIDDLEFIELD RD 94301 120-03-046 0.13 MF RM-20 MF RM-20 8 30 Surface Parking 0 0 0 3 3 Upzone 660 MIDDLEFIELD RD 94301 120-04-017 0.29 MF RM-20 MF RM-20 8 30 One story medical offices, surface parking 0 0 6 0 6 Upzone 744 MIDDLEFIELD RD 94301 120-04-053 0.37 MF RM-20 MF RM-20 8 30 One story medical offices, surface parking 0 0 8 0 8 Upzone 850 MIDDLEFIELD RD 94301 120-05-011 0.66 MF RM-20 MF RM-20 8 30 One story medical offices, surface parking 6 6 0 3 15 Upzone 884 MIDDLEFIELD RD 94301 120-05-012 0.23 MF RM-20 MF RM-20 8 30 One story medical offices, surface parking 0 0 0 5 5 Item A Attachment B - Housing Element Appendix D (Site Inventory), Updated August 2026        Item A: Staff Report Pg. 12  Packet Pg. 236 of 284  Table B: Sites Rezoned to Accommodate Shortfall Housing Need Category Site Address/Intersection 5 Digit ZIP Code Assessor Parcel Number Parcel Size (Acres) Current General Plan Designation Current Zoning Proposed General Plan (GP) Designation Proposed Zoning Minimum Density Allowed Maximum Density Allowed Description of Existing Uses Very Low- Income Low- Income Moderate- Income Above Moderate- Income Total Capacity Upzone 2801 MIDDLEFIELD RD 94306 127-34-052 0.17 CN CN (GF/P) CN CN (GF/P) 0 30 Two story office space, surface parking 0 0 0 4 4 Upzone 2741 MIDDLEFIELD RD 94306 127-34-095 0.22 CN CN (GF/P) CN CN (GF/P) 0 30 Two story retail 0 0 0 5 5 Upzone 2811 MIDDLEFIELD RD 94306 127-34-098 1.74 CN CN (GF/P) CN CN (GF/P) 0 30 One story commercial, surface parking 0 0 0 41 41 Upzone 3200 MIDDLEFIELD RD 94306 132-10-148 0.37 MF RM-20 MF RM-20 8 30 One story medical offices 0 0 8 0 8 Upzone 2754 MIDDLEFIELD RD 94306 132-55-029 0.55 CN CN (GF/P) CN CN (GF/P) 0 30 One story Retail, surface parking 0 0 0 13 13 Upzone 3902 MIDDLEFIELD RD 94303 147-08-048 4.26 CN CN (GF/P) CN CN (GF/P) 0 30 One story commercial/retail, surface parking 0 0 0 63 63 Upzone 3900 MIDDLEFIELD RD 94303 147-08-049 0.29 CN CN (GF/P) CN CN (GF/P) 0 30 One story commercial, surface parking 0 0 6 0 6 Upzone 2181 PARK BL 94306 124-27-038 0.25 MF RM-30 MF RM-30 16 40 Two story office space, surface parking 0 0 0 8 8 Upzone 425 PORTAGE AV 94306 132-38-068 0.4 CS CS CS CS 0 40 One story commercial 0 0 12 0 12 Upzone 127 RINCONADA AV 94301 124-18-095 0.23 MF RM-20 MF RM-20 8 30 Residential (1) 0 0 0 4 4 Upzone 122 RINCONADA AV 94301 124-19-003 0.23 MF RM-20 MF RM-20 8 30 Residential (2) 0 0 0 3 3 Upzone 760 SAN ANTONIO RD 94303 147-05-091 0.65 CS CS CS CS 0 40 One story retail, surface parking 8 8 0 4 20 Upzone 780 SAN ANTONIO RD 94303 147-05-092 0.42 CS CS CS CS 0 40 One story auto service, surface parking 0 0 13 0 13 Upzone 716-720 SAN ANTONIO RD 94303 147-05-087 1.36 CS CS CS CS 0 40 One story retail space, surface parking 17 17 0 9 43 Upzone 119 SEALE AV 94301 124-18-045 0.23 MF RM-20 MF RM-20 8 30 Residential (2) 0 0 0 3 3 Upzone 114 SEALE AV 94301 124-18-050 0.23 MF RM-20 MF RM-20 8 30 Residential (2) 0 0 0 3 3 Upzone 725 UNIVERSITY AV 94301 003-02-021 0.25 MF RM-30 MF RM-30 16 40 One story medical office, surface parking 0 0 0 8 8 Upzone 720 UNIVERSITY AV 94301 003-02-047 0.41 MF RM-30 MF RM-30 16 40 One story office space, surface parking 0 0 13 0 13 Upzone 701 UNIVERSITY AV 94301 003-02-022 0.25 MF RM-30 MF RM-30 16 40 One story medical office, surface parking 0 0 0 8 8 Upzone 643 WEBSTER ST 94301 120-04-022 0.23 MF RM-30 MF RM-30 16 40 Residential (1) 0 0 0 5 5 Upzone 439 LAMBERT AV 94306 132-39-071 0.46 CS CS CS CS 0 40 1-story auto repair with parking 0 0 10 0 10 Caltrain Station 343 HAWTHORNE AV 94301 120-12-019 0.25 MF RM-20 MF RM-20 8 40 Residential (2) 0 0 0 6 6 Caltrain Station 221 BRYANT ST 94301 120-14-011 0.13 MF RM-20 MF RM-20 8 40 Residential (1) 0 0 0 3 3 Caltrain Station 170 EMERSON ST 94301 120-24-025 0.13 MF RM-20 MF RM-20 8 50 Residential (2) 0 0 0 3 3 Caltrain Station 230 EMERSON ST 94301 120-25-036 0.13 MF RM-20 MF RM-20 8 50 Residential (1) 0 0 0 4 4 Caltrain Station 251 HIGH ST 94301 120-25-043 0.19 CC CD-N (P) CC CD-N (P) 0 50 One story dentist office 0 0 0 7 7 Item A Attachment B - Housing Element Appendix D (Site Inventory), Updated August 2026        Item A: Staff Report Pg. 13  Packet Pg. 237 of 284  Table B: Sites Rezoned to Accommodate Shortfall Housing Need Category Site Address/Intersection 5 Digit ZIP Code Assessor Parcel Number Parcel Size (Acres) Current General Plan Designation Current Zoning Proposed General Plan (GP) Designation Proposed Zoning Minimum Density Allowed Maximum Density Allowed Description of Existing Uses Very Low- Income Low- Income Moderate- Income Above Moderate- Income Total Capacity Caltrain Station 291 ALMA ST 94301 120-25-056 0.13 CC CD-N (P) CC CD-N (P) 0 50 One story office building 0 0 0 5 5 Caltrain Station 326 BRYANT ST 94301 120-25-070 0.12 MF RM-30 MF RM-30 16 50 Two story medical office space 0 0 0 4 4 Caltrain Station 324 EMERSON ST 94301 120-25-094 0.13 MF RM-30 MF RM-30 16 50 Residential (1) 0 0 0 4 4 Caltrain Station 345 HIGH ST 94301 120-25-100 0.13 MF RM-30 MF RM-30 16 50 Residential (1) 0 0 0 4 4 Caltrain Station 412 EMERSON ST 94301 120-26-106 0.15 CC CD-C (GF)(P) CC CD-C (GF)(P) 0 50 One story restaurant 0 0 0 6 6 Caltrain Station 640 RAMONA ST 94301 120-27-015 0.12 CC CD-C (P) CC CD-C (P) 0 50 One story restaurant 0 0 0 4 4 Caltrain Station 227 FOREST AV 94301 120-27-017 0.12 CC CD-C (P) CC CD-C (P) 0 50 Two story office space (1.0) 0 0 0 4 4 Caltrain Station 635 HIGH ST 94301 120-27-034 0.12 CC CD-C (P) CC CD-C (P) 0 50 One story office space 0 0 0 4 4 Caltrain Station 160 HOMER AV 94301 120-28-005 0.14 SOFA II CAP RT-35 SOFA II CAP RT-35 0 40 Surface Parking 0 0 0 4 4 Caltrain Station 828 BRYANT ST 94301 120-28-018 0.13 SOFA I CAP AMF SOFA I CAP AMF 0 40 One story office space 0 0 0 4 4 Caltrain Station 145 ADDISON AV 94301 120-28-094 0.18 SOFA II CAP RT-35 SOFA II CAP RT-35 0 40 One story office space, surface parking 0 0 0 5 5 Caltrain Station 100 ADDISON AV 94301 120-30-050 0.24 SOFA II CAP RT-35 SOFA II CAP RT-35 0 40 One story preschool, surface parking 0 0 0 7 7 Caltrain Station 106 RINCONADA AV 94301 124-19-001 0.11 MF RM-20 MF RM-20 8 50 Residential (1) 0 0 0 3 3 Caltrain Station 114 RINCONADA AV 94301 124-19-002 0.11 MF RM-20 MF RM-20 8 50 Residential (1) 0 0 0 3 3 Caltrain Station 2151 PARK BL 94306 124-27-039 0.26 MF RM-30 MF RM-30 16 50 Two story office building, surface parking 0 0 0 10 10 Caltrain Station 2211 PARK BL 94306 124-28-043 0.35 MF RM-30 MF RM-30 16 50 One story office building, surface parking 0 0 14 0 14 Caltrain Station 1963 EL CAMINO REAL 94306 124-30-015 0.28 CN CN CN CN 0 40 Auto service and convenience store 0 0 8 0 8 Caltrain Station 1885EL CAMINO REAL 94306 124-30-060 0.13 CN CN CN CN 0 40 Two story office space, surface parking 0 0 0 4 4 Caltrain Station 1895 EL CAMINO REAL 94306 124-30-061 0.16 CN CN CN CN 0 40 Two story office space 0 0 0 5 5 Caltrain Station 2001 EL CAMINO REAL 94306 124-31-025 0.18 CN CN CN CN 0 40 One story retail 0 0 0 5 5 Caltrain Station CAMBRIDGE AV 94306 124-32-050 0.65 CC PF(R) CC PF(R) 0 40 Parking structure 8 8 0 4 20 Caltrain Station 415 CAMBRIDGE AV 94306 124-32-052 0.13 CC CC (2)(R) CC CC (2)(R) 0 40 Two story vacant office building 0 0 0 4 4 Caltrain Station 2455 EL CAMINO REAL 94306 124-33-008 0.38 CC CC (2) CC CC (2) 0 40 Two story lodging, surface parking 0 0 12 0 12 Item A Attachment B - Housing Element Appendix D (Site Inventory), Updated August 2026        Item A: Staff Report Pg. 14  Packet Pg. 238 of 284  Table B: Sites Rezoned to Accommodate Shortfall Housing Need Category Site Address/Intersection 5 Digit ZIP Code Assessor Parcel Number Parcel Size (Acres) Current General Plan Designation Current Zoning Proposed General Plan (GP) Designation Proposed Zoning Minimum Density Allowed Maximum Density Allowed Description of Existing Uses Very Low- Income Low- Income Moderate- Income Above Moderate- Income Total Capacity Caltrain Station 445 SHERMAN AV 94306 124-33-043 0.28 CC CC (2) CC CC (2) 0 40 Two story office space 0 0 8 0 8 Caltrain Station 3197 PARK BL 94306 132-26-076 0.59 LI GM LI GM 0 50 One story office space, surface parking 9 9 0 5 23 Caltrain Station 404 SHERIDAN AV 94306 132-36-025 0.11 MF RM-40 MF RM-40 31 50 Surface Parking 0 0 0 4 4 Caltrain Station 2673 EL CAMINO REAL 94306 132-36-077 0.64 CN CN CN CN 0 40 One story retail, surface parking 8 8 0 4 20 Caltrain Station 2805 EL CAMINO REAL 94306 132-37-067 0.39 CS CS CS CS 0 40 One story retail, surface parking 0 0 12 0 12 Caltrain Station 555 COLLEGE AV 94306 137-01-069 0.48 CN CN CN CN 0 40 Single story office space, surface parking 0 0 15 0 15 Caltrain Station 2200 EL CAMINO REAL 94306 137-01-070 0.41 CN CN CN CN 0 40 Auto service and convenience store, surface parking 0 0 13 0 13 Caltrain Station YALE ST 94306 137-01-078 0.14 CN CN CN CN 0 40 Surface Parking 0 0 0 4 4 Caltrain Station 2000 EL CAMINO REAL 94306 137-01-116 0.27 CN CN CN CN 0 40 One story restaurant, surface parking 0 0 0 8 8 Caltrain Station 577 COLLEGE AV 94306 137-01-125 0.44 CN CN CN CN 0 40 Two story office space, surface parking 0 0 14 0 14 Caltrain Station 2310 EL CAMINO REAL 94306 137-01-129 0.76 CN CN CN CN 0 40 One story restaurant, surface parking 10 9 0 5 24 Caltrain Station 2400 EL CAMINO REAL 94306 142-20-012 0.75 CS CS (AS1) CS CS (AS1) 0 40 Two Story Office Building 10 9 0 5 24 Caltrain Station 400 FOREST AV 94301 120-16-041 0.46 SOFA I CAP RM-40 SOFA I CAP RM-40 31 60 1-story medical office with tuck-under parking 0 0 22 0 22 Caltrain Station 217 ALMA ST 94301 120-25-059 0.26 CN CD-N (P) CN CD-N (P) 30 60 1-story retail and surface parking 0 0 12 0 12 Transit Corridor 105 LOWELL AV 94301 124-17-035 0.11 MF RM-20 MF RM-20 8 40 Residential (1) 0 0 0 2 2 Transit Corridor 114 LOWELL AV 94301 124-17-040 0.17 MF RM-20 MF RM-20 8 40 Residential (2) 0 0 0 3 3 Transit Corridor 120 LOWELL AV 94301 124-17-041 0.17 MF RM-20 MF RM-20 8 40 Residential (2) 0 0 0 3 3 Transit Corridor 126 LOWELL AV 94301 124-17-042 0.17 MF RM-20 MF RM-20 8 40 Residential (1) 0 0 0 4 4 Transit Corridor 12 CHURCHILL AV 94306 124-24-025 0.14 MF RM-20 MF RM-20 8 40 Residential (2) 0 0 0 2 2 Transit Corridor LAMBERT AV 94306 132-38-018 0.23 CS CS CS CS 0 40 Surface parking 0 0 0 7 7 Transit Corridor 3457 EL CAMINO REAL 94306 132-39-077 0.15 CN CN CN CN 0 40 One story retail 0 0 0 4 4 Transit Corridor 3487 EL CAMINO REAL 94306 132-39-078 0.2 CN CN CN CN 0 40 Two story retail, surface parking 0 0 0 6 6 Item A Attachment B - Housing Element Appendix D (Site Inventory), Updated August 2026        Item A: Staff Report Pg. 15  Packet Pg. 239 of 284  Table B: Sites Rezoned to Accommodate Shortfall Housing Need Category Site Address/Intersection 5 Digit ZIP Code Assessor Parcel Number Parcel Size (Acres) Current General Plan Designation Current Zoning Proposed General Plan (GP) Designation Proposed Zoning Minimum Density Allowed Maximum Density Allowed Description of Existing Uses Very Low- Income Low- Income Moderate- Income Above Moderate- Income Total Capacity Transit Corridor 3505 EL CAMINO REAL 94306 132-40-060 0.14 CN CN CN CN 0 40 Two story office space 0 0 0 4 4 Transit Corridor 3545 EL CAMINO REAL 94306 132-40-063 0.14 CN CN CN CN 0 40 Two story retail 0 0 0 4 4 Transit Corridor 3897 EL CAMINO REAL 94306 132-41-086 0.36 CS CS CS CS 0 40 One story car wash 0 0 11 0 11 Transit Corridor 4131 EL CAMINO WY 94306 132-44-010 0.16 CN CN CN CN 0 40 One story restaurant surface parking 0 0 0 5 5 Transit Corridor 4125 EL CAMINO WY 94306 132-44-012 0.18 CN CN CN CN 0 40 One story art school 0 0 0 5 5 Transit Corridor 4123 EL CAMINO REAL 94306 132-46-103 0.2 CN CN CN CN 0 40 One story restaurant surface parking 0 0 0 6 6 Transit Corridor 4117 EL CAMINO REAL 94306 132-46-105 0.16 CN CN CN CN 0 40 One story office space, surface parking 0 0 0 5 5 Transit Corridor EL CAMINO REAL 94306 137-11-074 0.12 CN CN CN CN 0 40 Surface parking 0 0 0 3 3 Transit Corridor 3760 EL CAMINO REAL 94306 137-11-079 0.12 CN CN CN CN 0 40 Surface parking 0 0 0 3 3 Transit Corridor 3924 EL CAMINO REAL 94306 137-11-084 0.16 CN CN CN CN 0 40 One story commercial 0 0 0 5 5 Transit Corridor 3944 EL CAMINO REAL 94306 137-11-085 0.22 CN CN CN CN 0 40 One story retail space 0 0 0 7 7 Transit Corridor 3864 EL CAMINO REAL 94306 137-11-089 0.18 CN CN CN CN 0 40 One story restaurant 0 0 0 5 5 Transit Corridor 3780 EL CAMINO REAL 94306 137-11-098 0.24 CN CN CN CN 0 40 One story retail 0 0 0 7 7 Transit Corridor 561 VISTA AV 94306 137-37-004 0.65 MF RM-30 MF RM-30 16 40 One story Faith-based institution. Congregation Emek Beracha 8 8 0 4 20 Transit Corridor 4117 El CAMINO REAL 94306 132-46-106 0.25 CN CN CN CN 30 40 1-story commercial with parking 0 0 8 0 8 City Owned Parking Lots WAVERLY ST & LYTTON AVE 94301 120-14-088 0.85 CC PF CC PF 0 90 Surface parking 30 29 0 0 59 City Owned Parking Lots COWPER ST & HAMILTON AVE 94301 120-15-073 0.67 CC PF CC PF 0 90 Surface parking 23 23 0 0 46 City Owned Parking Lots WAVERLY ST & HAMILTON AVE 94301 120-15-086 0.64 CC PF CC PF 0 90 Surface parking 22 22 0 0 44 City Owned Parking Lots EMERSON ST 94301 120-26-027 0.54 CC PF CC PF 0 90 Surface parking 19 18 0 0 37 City Owned Parking Lots NEW MAYFIELD LN 94301 124-32-055 0.49 CC PF(R) CC PF(R) 0 90 Surface parking 17 17 0 0 34 City Owned Parking Lots SHERMAN AVE & PERAL LN 94301 124-33-007 1 CC PF CC PF 0 90 Surface parking 35 35 0 0 70 Item A Attachment B - Housing Element Appendix D (Site Inventory), Updated August 2026        Item A: Staff Report Pg. 16  Packet Pg. 240 of 284  Table B: Sites Rezoned to Accommodate Shortfall Housing Need Category Site Address/Intersection 5 Digit ZIP Code Assessor Parcel Number Parcel Size (Acres) Current General Plan Designation Current Zoning Proposed General Plan (GP) Designation Proposed Zoning Minimum Density Allowed Maximum Density Allowed Description of Existing Uses Very Low- Income Low- Income Moderate- Income Above Moderate- Income Total Capacity Faith-Based Institutions 1985 LOUIS RD 94303 003-50-022 1.09 SF R-1 SF R-1 0 30 Faith-based institution 13 13 0 0 26 Faith-Based Institutions 1140 COWPER ST 94301 120-18-048 0.61 SF R-1 SF R-1 0 30 Faith-based institution 7 7 0 0 14 Faith-Based Institutions 3505 MIDDLEFIELD RD 94306 127-47-042 1.5 SF R-1 SF R-1 0 30 Faith-based institution 18 18 0 0 36 Faith-Based Institutions 2490 MIDDLEFIELD RD 94301 132-01-083 0.46 SF R-1 SF R-1 0 30 Faith-based institution 6 5 0 0 11 Faith-Based Institutions 2890 MIDDLEFIELD RD 94306 132-03-193 0.76 SF R-1 SF R-1 0 30 Faith-based institution 9 9 0 0 18 Faith-Based Institutions 3149 WAVERLEY ST 94306 132-20-161 0.69 SF R-1 SF R-1 0 30 Faith-based institution 8 8 0 0 16 GM 860 E CHARLESTON RD 94303 127-15-002 0.23 LI GM LI GM 0 90 One story office space, surface parking 0 0 0 16 16 GM 4055 FABIAN WY 94303 127-15-006 0.23 LI GM LI GM 0 90 One story office space, surface parking 0 0 0 16 16 GM 801 SAN ANTONIO RD 94303 127-15-041 0.2 LI GM LI GM 0 90 Faith-based institution, surface parking 0 0 0 14 14 GM 799 SAN ANTONIO RD 94303 127-15-042 0.23 LI GM LI GM 0 90 One story restaurant, surface parking 0 0 0 16 16 GM 797 SAN ANTONIO RD 94303 127-15-043 0.23 LI GM LI GM 0 90 One story office space, surface parking 0 0 0 16 16 GM 830 E CHARLESTON RD 94303 127-15-049 0.27 LI GM LI GM 0 90 One story auto service, surface parking 0 0 0 18 18 GM 809 SAN ANTONIO RD 94303 127-15-050 0.37 LI GM LI GM 0 90 Two story office space, surface parking 0 0 25 0 25 GM 849 E CHARLESTON RD 94303 127-37-001 0.23 LI GM LI GM 0 90 One story office space, surface parking 0 0 0 16 16 GM E CHARLESTON RD 94303 127-37-002 0.22 LI GM LI GM 0 90 Surface parking 0 0 0 15 15 GM FABIAN WY 94303 127-37-005 0.4 LI GM LI GM 0 90 One story office space, surface parking 0 0 28 0 28 GM FABIAN WY 94303 127-37-007 0.45 LI GM LI GM 0 90 Two story office space, surface parking 0 0 31 0 31 GM 811 E CHARLESTON RD 94303 127-37-016 0.54 LI GM LI GM 0 90 One story auto service, surface parking 15 14 0 8 37 GM 3960 FABIAN WY 94303 127-37-029 1.37 LI GM LI GM 0 90 One story vacant office space, surface parking 38 37 0 20 95 GM 3940 FABIAN WY 94303 127-37-023 1.27 LI GM LI GM 0 90 Two story office space, surface parking 35 35 0 18 88 GM 4030 TRANSPORT ST 94303 147-01-013 0.45 LI GM LI GM 0 90 Two story office space, surface parking 0 0 31 0 31 GM 989 COMMERCIAL ST 94303 147-01-016 0.19 LI GM LI GM 0 90 One story office space, surface parking 0 0 0 13 13 GM 977 COMMERCIAL ST 94303 147-01-018 0.19 LI GM LI GM 0 90 One story office space, surface parking 0 0 0 13 13 Item A Attachment B - Housing Element Appendix D (Site Inventory), Updated August 2026        Item A: Staff Report Pg. 17  Packet Pg. 241 of 284  Table B: Sites Rezoned to Accommodate Shortfall Housing Need Category Site Address/Intersection 5 Digit ZIP Code Assessor Parcel Number Parcel Size (Acres) Current General Plan Designation Current Zoning Proposed General Plan (GP) Designation Proposed Zoning Minimum Density Allowed Maximum Density Allowed Description of Existing Uses Very Low- Income Low- Income Moderate- Income Above Moderate- Income Total Capacity GM 990 COMMERCIAL ST 94303 147-01-041 0.79 LI GM LI GM 0 90 Two story office space, surface parking 22 22 0 11 55 GM 4051 TRANSPORT ST 94303 147-01-068 0.26 LI GM LI GM 0 90 Two story office space, surface parking 0 0 0 18 18 GM 4047 TRANSPORT ST 94303 147-01-069 0.25 LI GM LI GM 0 90 One story office space, surface parking 0 0 0 17 17 GM 4041 TRANSPORT ST 94303 147-01-071 0.23 LI GM LI GM 0 90 One story office space, surface parking 0 0 0 16 16 GM 4039 TRANSPORT ST 94303 147-01-072 0.23 LI GM LI GM 0 90 One story office space, surface parking 0 0 0 16 16 GM 4035 TRANSPORT ST 94303 147-01-073 0.23 LI GM LI GM 0 90 One story office space, surface parking 0 0 0 16 16 GM 4075 TRANSPORT ST 94303 147-01-079 0.16 LI GM LI GM 0 90 One story office space, surface parking 0 0 0 11 11 GM 4019 TRANSPORT ST 94303 147-01-096 0.31 LI GM LI GM 0 90 Two story office space, surface parking 0 0 21 0 21 GM 4007 TRANSPORT ST 94303 147-01-097 0.54 LI GM LI GM 0 90 One story office space, surface parking 15 14 0 8 37 GM 4067 TRANSPORT ST 94303 147-01-099 0.25 LI GM LI GM 0 90 Two story medical office space, surface parking 0 0 0 17 17 GM 4083 TRANSPORT ST 94303 147-01-116 0.51 LI GM LI GM 0 90 Two story office space, surface parking 14 14 0 7 35 GM 999 COMMERCIAL ST 94303 147-01-122 0.3 LI GM LI GM 0 90 Two story office space, surface parking 0 0 21 0 21 GM 991 COMMERCIAL ST 94303 147-01-123 0.35 LI GM LI GM 0 90 One story preschool, surface parking 0 0 24 0 24 GM 4045 TRANSPORT ST 94303 147-01-070 0.24 LI GM LI GM 0 90 Two story office space, surface parking 0 0 0 16 16 GM TRANSPORT ST 94303 147-02-017 0.66 LI GM LI GM 0 90 Surface parking 18 18 0 10 46 ROLM 1060 E MEADOW CIR 94303 127-10-049 1.13 RO ROLM RO ROLM 0 90 One story office space, surface parking 32 31 0 16 79 ROLM 1068 E MEADOW CIR 94303 127-10-051 1 RO ROLM RO ROLM 0 90 One story office space, surface parking 28 28 0 14 70 ROLM 3600 W BAYSHORE RD 94303 127-10-076 2.08 RO ROLM RO ROLM 0 90 Two story office space, surface parking 58 58 0 29 145 ROLM 1050 E MEADOW CIR 94303 127-10-099 2.62 RO ROLM RO ROLM 0 90 Two story office space, surface parking 73 73 0 37 183 ROLM 3460 W BAYSHORE RD 94303 127-36-029 1.49 RO ROLM RO ROLM 0 90 Two story office space, surface parking 42 41 0 21 104 Stanford Sites PASTEUR DRIVE + 1100 WELCH RD 94305 142-05-032 4.2 RO RM-40 MF RM-40 31 40 Portable structures, surface parking 0 0 0 158 158 Stanford Sites PASTEUR DRIVE + 1100 WELCH RD 94305 142-03-038 4.2 RO RM-40 MF RM-40 31 40 Portable structures, surface parking 0 0 0 159 159 Developer Interest 3398, 3400, 3490 EL CAMINO REAL and 556 MATADERO AV 94306 137-08-072 3.6 CS CS, CS(H), RM-20 CS CS, CS(H), RM-20 0 40 One story auto service, surface parking 15 15 0 120 150 Item A Attachment B - Housing Element Appendix D (Site Inventory), Updated August 2026        Item A: Staff Report Pg. 18  Packet Pg. 242 of 284  Table B: Sites Rezoned to Accommodate Shortfall Housing Need Category Site Address/Intersection 5 Digit ZIP Code Assessor Parcel Number Parcel Size (Acres) Current General Plan Designation Current Zoning Proposed General Plan (GP) Designation Proposed Zoning Minimum Density Allowed Maximum Density Allowed Description of Existing Uses Very Low- Income Low- Income Moderate- Income Above Moderate- Income Total Capacity Developer Interest 955 ALMA ST 94301 120-28-096 0.24 SOFA II CAP RT-35 SOFA II CAP RT-35 0 40 One story office space 0 0 0 7 7 Developer Interest 70 ENCINA AV 94301 120-34-006 0.14 CC CC CC CC 0 40 Surface parking 0 0 0 4 4 Developer Interest 705 SAN ANTONIO RD 94303 127-15-045 0.56 CS CS CS CS 0 40 Auto service 7 6 0 4 17 Developer Interest 2951 EL CAMINO REAL 94306 132-37-052 0.33 CS CS CS CS 0 40 One story office space, surface parking 0 0 10 0 10 Developer Interest 340 PORTAGE AV (1 acre site &DA) 94306 132-38-071 1 MF RM-30 MF RM-30 0 40 One story commercial use 30 30 0 15 75 Developer Interest 3300 EL CAMINO REAL 94306 142-20-046 3.01 RO RP RO RP 0 40 Surface parking 10 9 0 77 96 Developer Interest 4225 MIDDLEFIELD RD 94303 147-05-068 0.54 CS CS(AD) CS CS(AD) 0 40 One story commercial use 7 6 0 4 17 Developer Interest 4233 MIDDLEFIELD RD 94303 147-05-069 0.77 CS CS(AD) CS CS(AD) 0 40 One story auto service 10 9 0 5 24 Developer Interest 708-710 SAN ANTONIO RD 94303 147-05-090 0.26 CS CS(AD) CS CS(AD) 0 40 Auto service 0 0 0 8 8 Developer Interest 762 SAN ANTONIO RD 94304 147-05-102 0.93 CS CS(AD) CS CS(AD) 0 40 Truck rental 12 11 0 6 29 Developer Interest 4345 EL CAMINO REAL 94306 148-09-011 0.99 CS CS CS CS 0 40 Two story lodging. The Palo Alto Country Inn, surface parking 12 12 0 7 31 Developer Interest 4015, 4017 FABIAN WY 94303 127-15-048 0.34 LI GM LI GM 0 90 One story small office building 0 0 23 0 23 Developer Interest 3977 FABIAN WY 94303 127-37-004 0.38 LI GM LI GM 0 90 One story vacant structure, surface parking 0 0 26 0 26 Developer Interest 3963 FABIAN WY 94303 127-37-006 0.41 LI GM LI GM 0 90 Two story vacant structure, surface parking 0 0 28 0 28 Developer Interest 3997 FABIAN WY 94303 127-37-003 0.28 LI GM LI GM 0 90 Surface parking 0 0 19 0 19 Developer Interest 2100-2200 GENG RD 94303 008-02-035 5.5 RO ROLM (E)(D)(AD) RO ROLM (E)(D)(AD) 0 90 Office building 0 0 175 0 175 Developer Interest 3265 EL CAMINO REAL 94306 132-38-020 0.17 CS CS CS CS 0 40 Vacant 0 0 0 44 44 Developer Interest 3305 EL CAMINO REAL 94306 132-39-059 0.52 CS CS CS CS 0 40 Two story lodging, surface parking 6 6 0 4 16 Developer Interest 960 SAN ANTONIO RD 94303 147-01-106 0.69 LI GM LI GM 0 90 Two story office space, surface parking 19 19 0 10 48 Developer Interest 3160 W BAYSHORE RD 94303 127-36-030 3.2 RO ROLM RO ROLM 0 90 Two story office space/warehouse, surface parking 90 89 0 45 224 Developer Interest 4061 TRANSPORT ST 94303 147-01-067 0.25 LI GM LI GM 0 90 Two story commercial with parking lot 0 0 0 17 17 Developer Interest 156 CALIFORNIA AVE 94306 124-28-045 1.14 CC CC (2)(R) CC CC (2)(R) 0 50 Grocery store 0 37 0 246 286 Developer Interest PARK BL 94306 124-28-003 0.29 CC CC (2)(R) CC CC (2)(R) 0 50 Surface Parking 0 13 0 94 104 Item A Attachment B - Housing Element Appendix D (Site Inventory), Updated August 2026        Item A: Staff Report Pg. 19  Packet Pg. 243 of 284  Table C: Land Use Zoning Designation General Land Uses Allowed R-1 Low density residential (Chapter 18.12) RM-20 Multi-family residential uses (Chapter 18.13) RM-30 Multi-family residential uses (Chapter 18.13) RM-40 Multi-family residential uses (Chapter 18.13) CS Residential and non-residential uses (Chapter 18.16) CS(AS1) Residential and non-residential uses (Chapter 18.16) CS(H) Residential and non-residential uses (Chapter 18.16) CS(AD) Residential and non-residential uses (Chapter 18.16) CN Residential and non-residential uses (Chapter 18.16) CN(GF/P) Residential and non-residential uses (Chapter 18.16) CC Residential and non-residential uses (Chapter 18.16) CC(2) Residential and non-residential uses (Chapter 18.16) CC(2)(R) Residential and non-residential uses (Chapter 18.16) CD-C Residential and non-residential uses (Chapter 18.18) CD-C(P) Residential and non-residential uses (Chapter 18.18) CD-C(GF)(P) Residential and non-residential uses (Chapter 18.18) CD-N Residential and non-residential uses (Chapter 18.18) CD-N(P) Residential and non-residential uses (Chapter 18.18) RT-35 Residential and non-residential uses up to 35 feet RT-40 Residential and non-residential uses up to 40 feet RT-50 Residential and non-residential uses up to 50 feet GM Light manufacturing, research, and commercial services uses (Chapter 18.20) ROLM Light manufacturing, research, and commercial services uses (Chapter 18.20) ROLM(E)(D)(AD) Light manufacturing, research, and commercial services uses (Chapter 18.20) PC Any use in accordance with approved development plan (Chapter 18.38) PF Public facilities (Chapter 18.28) PF(R) Public facilities (Chapter 18.28) AMF South of forest Area (SOFA) Master Plan RP Light manufacturing, research, and commercial services uses (Chapter 18.20) Item A Attachment B - Housing Element Appendix D (Site Inventory), Updated August 2026        Item A: Staff Report Pg. 20  Packet Pg. 244 of 284  Table D: Nonvacant Sites Analysis Categories Site Address or Street Assessor Existing Use Meet Sites Requirements (1, 2, 3, 4, OR 5), or 2 Criteria (6-10) Vacant (1) Developer Interest (2) Surface Parking (3) Vacant Buildings (4) Faith-Based Facilities (5) Single- Story Building (6) ILR (7) Year Built (8) Increased Unit Potential (9) Costar Rating Planned Units 3200 PARK BL 132-32-042 Parking Yes No Yes Yes No No No N/A N/A N/A N/A Planned Units 3200 PARK BL 132-32-036 Commercial Yes No Yes No No No Yes 0.9 1964 FAR: 0.1426697277796 N/A Planned Units 3200 PARK BL 132-32-043 Parking Yes No Yes Yes No No No N/A N/A N/A N/A Planned Units 486 HAMILTON AVE 120-16-008 Commercial Yes No Yes No No No Yes 1 1956 FAR: 0.485364453797589 N/A Planned Units 660 -680 UNIVERSITY AV, 511 BYRON ST 120-03-042 Commercial Yes No Yes No No No No 2.6 1950 FAR: 0.89350052984811 N/A Planned Units 660 -680 UNIVERSITY AV, 511 BYRON ST 120-03-043 Parking Yes No Yes Yes No No No 0.01 1900 N/A N/A Planned Units 660 -680 UNIVERSITY AV, 511 BYRON ST. 120-03-044 Commercial Yes No Yes No No No Yes 1.13 1952 FAR: 0.410205572367735 N/A Planned Units 702 CLARA DR 127-35-023 Residential Yes No Yes No No No No 0.3 1954 Increased Units: 0.75 N/A Planned Units 3128, 3150-3160 EL CAMINO REAL 142-20-035 Commercial Yes No Yes No No No Yes 0.94 1974 FAR: 0.0846242860875733 N/A Planned Units 3128, 3150-3160 EL CAMINO REAL 142-20-054 Commercial Yes No Yes No No No Yes 0.65 1962 FAR: 0.238996020814203 N/A Planned Units 3128, 3150-3160 EL CAMINO REAL 142-20-055 Residential Yes No Yes No No No No 0.15 1948 Increased Units: 3 N/A Planned Units 3128, 3150-3160 EL CAMINO REAL 142-20-079 Vacant Yes Yes Yes No No No No N/A N/A N/A N/A Planned Units 3128, 3150-3160 EL CAMINO REAL 142-20-080 Vacant Yes Yes Yes No No No No N/A N/A N/A N/A Planned Units 300 LAMBERT AV 132-37-074 Industrial Yes No No No No No No 0.94 1968 FAR: 0.288824705620973 N/A MFA 555 UNIVERSITY AV 120-03-024 Commercial Yes No No No No No Yes 1.01 1970 FAR: 0.915732613099257 2 MFA 624 UNIVERSITY AV 120-03-040 Commercial Yes No No No No No No 0.33 1926 FAR: 0.47004800667919 2 MFA 543 COWPER ST 120-03-067 Commercial Yes No No No No No Yes 1.47 1978 FAR: 0.867638251147934 2 MFA 330 LYTTON AV 120-15-003 Commercial Yes No No No No No Yes 1.46 1957 FAR: 0.931841010187975 2 MFA 401 WAVERLEY ST 120-15-007 Commercial Yes No No No No No Yes 1.09 1977 FAR: 0.422623395596369 2 MFA 444 COWPER ST 120-15-014 Parking Yes No No Yes No No No 0.04 1900 N/A N/A MFA 426 WAVERLEY ST 120-15-039 Commercial Yes No No No No No No 0.32 1920 FAR: 0.452649703462789 N/A MFA 318 UNIVERSITY AV 120-15-058 Commercial Yes No No No No No Yes 0.53 1926 FAR: 0.816326530612245 2 MFA 328 UNIVERSITY AV 120-15-059 Commercial Yes No No No No No Yes 0.53 1926 FAR: 0.816326530612245 2 MFA 527 WAVERLEY ST 120-15-080 Parking Yes No No Yes No No No N/A 1900 N/A N/A MFA 515 WAVERLEY ST 120-15-081 Parking Yes No No Yes No No No N/A 1900 N/A N/A MFA 550 WAVERLEY ST 120-15-084 Commercial Yes No No No No No Yes 0.91 1952 FAR: 1.22991144637586 3 MFA 560 WAVERLEY ST 120-15-085 Commercial Yes No No No No No No 0.89 1938 FAR: 1.77763201049524 2 MFA 630 COWPER ST 120-16-011 Commercial Yes No No No No No Yes 0.45 1956 FAR: 0.234503713706955 1 MFA 464 FOREST AV 120-16-044 Commercial Yes No No No No No Yes 0.39 1952 FAR: 0.428359216745442 2 MFA 163 EVERETT AV 120-25-042 Commercial Yes No No No No No Yes 0.7 1951 FAR: 0.462904784920251 1 MFA 525 ALMA ST 120-26-109 Commercial Yes No No No No No Yes 1.39 1948 FAR: 2.45341496078056 2 MFA 654 HIGH ST 120-27-037 Parking Yes No No Yes No No No 0.04 1900 N/A 3 MFA 660 HIGH ST 120-27-039 Parking Yes No No No No No Yes 1.3 1946 FAR: 1.01672679567071 1 MFA 701 EMERSON ST 120-27-049 Commercial Yes No No No No No Yes 0.98 2003 FAR: 0.392778879265366 1 Item A Attachment B - Housing Element Appendix D (Site Inventory), Updated August 2026        Item A: Staff Report Pg. 21  Packet Pg. 245 of 284  Table D: Nonvacant Sites Analysis Categories Site Address or Street Assessor Existing Use Meet Sites Requirements (1, 2, 3, 4, OR 5), or 2 Criteria (6-10) Vacant (1) Developer Interest (2) Surface Parking (3) Vacant Buildings (4) Faith-Based Facilities (5) Single- Story Building (6) ILR (7) Year Built (8) Increased Unit Potential (9) Costar Rating MFA 721 EMERSON ST 120-27-072 Commercial Yes No No No No No Yes 0.8 2003 FAR: 0.43925770040176 1 MFA 718 EMERSON ST 120-27-073 Industrial Yes No No No No No Yes 0.54 1950 FAR: 0.516548689496843 1 MFA 839 EMERSON ST 120-28-033 Commercial Yes No No No No No Yes 0.03 1959 FAR: 0.205662904151521 2 MFA 821 EMERSON ST 120-28-036 Commercial Yes No No No Yes No No 0.32 1966 FAR: 0.294624067342644 2 MFA 840 EMERSON ST 120-28-037 Parking Yes No No Yes No No No 0.03 1959 FAR: 0.0538071551559212 2 MFA 849 HIGH ST 120-28-040 Commercial Yes No No No No No Yes 1.49 1950 FAR: 0.459136822773186 2 MFA 875 ALMA ST 120-28-045 Commercial Yes No No No No No Yes 0.79 1949 FAR: 0.49588674191697 1 MFA 853 ALMA ST 120-28-046 Commercial Yes No No No No No Yes 0.11 1927 FAR: 0.622345513678975 2 MFA 901 HIGH ST 120-28-050 Parking Yes No No Yes No No No 0.01 1900 N/A N/A MFA 975 HIGH ST 120-28-089 Commercial Yes No No No No No Yes 0.47 1968 FAR: 0.418929555293192 1 MFA 929 HIGH ST 120-28-090 Commercial Yes No No No No No Yes 0.2 1955 FAR: 0.447675530897264 1 MFA 925 HIGH ST 120-28-091 Parking Yes No No Yes No No No 0.01 N/A N/A N/A MFA 940 HIGH ST 120-28-092 Parking Yes No No No No No No 0.63 1946 FAR: 0.440051020408163 2 MFA 960 HIGH ST 120-28-093 Parking Yes No No No No No No 0.59 1947 FAR: 0.464893820547159 1 MFA 917 ALMA ST 120-28-097 Commercial Yes No No No No No Yes 1.2 1929 FAR: 0.867323512531089 2 MFA 829 EMERSON ST 120-28-099 Commercial Yes No No No No No Yes 0.9 1962 FAR: 0.544345094248429 2 MFA 1015 ALMA ST 120-30-049 Commercial Yes No No No No No Yes 1.25 1955 FAR: 0.765257317773101 2 MFA 466 GRANT AV 124-33-037 Residential Yes No No No No No No 0.02 1900 Increased Units: 3 N/A Upzone 3200 ASH ST 132-38-045 Commercial Yes No No No No No Yes 1.2 1975 FAR: 0.465034141747116 2 Upzone 3260 ASH ST 132-38-047 Commercial Yes No No No No No Yes 0.49 1998 FAR: 0.309715120525931 2 Upzone 202 BRYANT ST 120-25-159 Residential Yes No No No No No No 0.61 1918 Increased Units: 3 N/A Upzone 430 CAMBRIDGE AV 124-32-009 Commercial Yes No No No No No Yes 1.33 1958 FAR: 0.94293210888816 2 Upzone 456 CAMBRIDGE AV 124-32-012 Commercial Yes No No No No No Yes 0.82 1951 FAR: 0.467068445975032 2 Upzone 325 COLLEGE AV 124-28-013 Residential Yes No No No No No No 0.23 1938 Increased Units: 6 N/A Upzone 417 COLLEGE AV 124-32-026 Residential Yes No No No No No No 0.6 1948 Increased Units: 6 N/A Upzone 371 COLLEGE AV 124-32-031 Residential Yes No No No No No No 0.08 1949 Increased Units: 6 N/A Upzone 564 COLLEGE AV 137-01-036 Commercial Yes No No No No No Yes 0.47 1949 FAR: 0.291416460614624 2 Upzone 708 COLORADO AV 127-34-054 Commercial Yes No No No No No Yes 1.14 1968 FAR: 0.381490639350053 2 Upzone 706 COLORADO AV 127-34-092 Commercial Yes No No No No No Yes 1.27 1954 FAR: 0.41594387755102 2 Upzone 720 COWPER ST 120-16-046 Commercial Yes No No No No No Yes 0.49 1973 FAR: 0.24955080854462 1 Upzone 343 COWPER ST 120-10-044 Commercial Yes No No No No No No 0.13 1907 FAR: 0.366349622827156 N/A Upzone 397 CURTNER AV 132-41-025 Residential Yes No No No No No No 0.73 1954 Increased Units: 3 2 Upzone 2011 EL CAMINO REAL 124-31-024 Commercial Yes No No No No No Yes 0.62 1930 FAR: 0.604156597390043 N/A Upzone 841 EL CAMINO REAL 120-34-001 Commercial Yes No No No No No Yes 0 1973 FAR: 0.072434469761864 2 Upzone 1921 EL CAMINO REAL 124-30-017 Commercial Yes No No No No No Yes 0.98 1945 FAR: 0.218981529792341 2 Upzone 3825 EL CAMINO REAL 132-41-088 Commercial Yes No No No No No Yes 0.2 1963 FAR: 0.294714361986119 2 Upzone 3839 EL CAMINO REAL 132-41-089 Industrial Yes No No No No No Yes 0.68 1947 FAR: 0.37272113436867 2 Upzone 3939 EL CAMINO REAL 132-42-070 Commercial Yes No No No No No Yes 0.7 1948 FAR: 0.37137069547603 2 Upzone 3901 EL CAMINO REAL 132-42-073 Hotel/motel Yes No No No No No Yes 1.09 1956 FAR: 0.379413974455297 N/A Item A Attachment B - Housing Element Appendix D (Site Inventory), Updated August 2026        Item A: Staff Report Pg. 22  Packet Pg. 246 of 284  Table D: Nonvacant Sites Analysis Categories Site Address or Street Assessor Existing Use Meet Sites Requirements (1, 2, 3, 4, OR 5), or 2 Criteria (6-10) Vacant (1) Developer Interest (2) Surface Parking (3) Vacant Buildings (4) Faith-Based Facilities (5) Single- Story Building (6) ILR (7) Year Built (8) Increased Unit Potential (9) Costar Rating Upzone 4195 EL CAMINO REAL 132-46-119 Industrial Yes No No No No No Yes 0.89 1989 FAR: 0.155558647558091 3 Upzone 2280 EL CAMINO REAL 137-01-113 Commercial Yes No No No No No No 0.07 1969 FAR: 0.130497825036249 2 Upzone 3636 EL CAMINO REAL 137-08-078 Commercial Yes No No No No No Yes 0.09 1953 FAR: 0.232323232323232 2 Upzone 3516 EL CAMINO REAL 137-08-079 Commercial Yes No No No No No Yes 0.1 1946 FAR: 0.399281293671391 2 Upzone 3606 EL CAMINO REAL 137-08-080 Vacant Yes Yes No No No No No N/A N/A N/A N/A Upzone 3630 EL CAMINO REAL 137-08-081 Commercial Yes No No No No No No 1.39 1963 FAR: 0.477135943413787 2 Upzone 3508 EL CAMINO REAL 137-08-088 Industrial Yes No No No No No Yes 0.16 1950 FAR: 0.0780562464128563 2 Upzone 3666 EL CAMINO REAL 137-08-097 Commercial Yes No No No No No No 0.46 1931 FAR: 0.410596026490066 N/A Upzone 3700 EL CAMINO REAL 137-11-078 Commercial Yes No No No No No Yes 0.01 1953 FAR: 0.172182896498948 N/A Upzone 3972 EL CAMINO REAL 137-11-105 Industrial Yes No No No No No Yes 0.27 1959 FAR: 0.138251147933719 2 Upzone 4146 EL CAMINO REAL 137-24-034 Vacant Yes Yes No No No No No 0 N/A N/A N/A Upzone 4335 EL CAMINO REAL 148-09-010 Commercial Yes No No No No No Yes 1.21 1966 FAR: 0.376779155188246 2 Upzone 4291 EL CAMINO REAL 148-09-014 Commercial Yes No No No No No No 0.33 1957 FAR: 0.173452369273031 2 Upzone 4230 EL CAMINO REAL 167-08-030 Commercial Yes No No No No No Yes 0.05 1950 FAR: 0.0466204582579136 3 Upzone 4238 EL CAMINO REAL 167-08-031 Hotel/motel Yes No No No No No No 0.37 1953 FAR: 0.264250900614537 N/A Upzone 4232 EL CAMINO REAL 167-08-036 Educational/ins titutional/religio us Yes No No No No No Yes 1.08 1954 FAR: 0.316070475173518 2 Upzone 825 EL CAMINO REAL 120-33-011 Commercial Yes No No No No No Yes 0.37 1955 FAR: 0.339761248852158 1 Upzone 805 EL CAMINO REAL 120-33-012 Commercial Yes No No No No No Yes 0.56 1940 FAR: 0.463267648746891 2 Upzone 1681 EL CAMINO REAL 124-25-044 Commercial Yes No No No No No Yes 0.11 1939 FAR: 0.259014179608373 2 Upzone 2137 EL CAMINO REAL 124-31-058 Parking Yes No No Yes No No No 0.01 1900 N/A N/A Upzone 2127 EL CAMINO REAL 124-31-059 Commercial Yes No No No No No Yes 0.91 1940 FAR: 0.503841059602649 2 Upzone 2401 EL CAMINO REAL 124-33-061 Commercial Yes No No No No No Yes 0.56 1975 FAR: 0.377558829156304 3 Upzone 3337 EL CAMINO REAL 132-39-005 Commercial Yes No No No Yes No No 0.72 1938 FAR: 0.385955435516543 2 Upzone 3339 EL CAMINO REAL 132-39-074 Hotel/motel Yes No No No No No Yes 0.75 1955 FAR: 0.371149799119954 2 Upzone EL CAMINO REAL 132-39-075 Parking Yes No No Yes No No No N/A N/A N/A N/A Upzone 3345 EL CAMINO REAL 132-39-080 Commercial Yes No No No No No Yes 0.37 1968 FAR: 0.305541062297819 2 Upzone 3691 EL CAMINO REAL 132-40-062 Commercial Yes No No No No No Yes 0.92 1946 FAR: 0.286975717439294 2 Upzone 3929 EL CAMINO REAL 132-42-068 Commercial Yes No No No No No Yes 0.49 1948 FAR: 0.367994598244429 2 Upzone 3903 EL CAMINO REAL 132-42-072 Commercial Yes No No No No No Yes 1.06 1997 FAR: 0.277224291778567 3 Upzone 4127 EL CAMINO REAL 132-46-104 Commercial Yes No No No No No No 0.14 1963 FAR: 0.177919895051859 2 Upzone 2080 EL CAMINO REAL 137-01-132 Commercial Yes No No No No No Yes 1.18 1961 FAR: 0.540620602829001 2 Upzone 4279 EL CAMINO REAL 148-01-016 Hotel/motel Yes No No No No No No 0.52 1961 FAR: 0.361570247933884 2 Upzone 4224 EL CAMINO REAL 167-08-037 Commercial Yes No No No No No Yes 0.41 1946 FAR: 0.37147571561805 2 Upzone 4085 EL CAMINO WY 132-43-153 Commercial Yes No No No No No Yes 0.71 1985 FAR: 0.266301055383732 3 Upzone 116 EMERSON ST 120-24-019 Residential Yes No No No No No No 0.92 1922 Increased Units: 5 N/A Upzone 124 EMERSON ST 120-24-020 Residential Yes No No No No No No 0.35 1926 Increased Units: 5 N/A Upzone 75 ENCINA AV 120-33-003 Commercial Yes No No No No No Yes 0.44 1958 FAR: 1.06852702225362 1 Upzone 63 ENCINA AV 120-33-004 Commercial Yes No No No No No Yes 1.17 1941 FAR: 0.739996720236143 1 Item A Attachment B - Housing Element Appendix D (Site Inventory), Updated August 2026        Item A: Staff Report Pg. 23  Packet Pg. 247 of 284  Table D: Nonvacant Sites Analysis Categories Site Address or Street Assessor Existing Use Meet Sites Requirements (1, 2, 3, 4, OR 5), or 2 Criteria (6-10) Vacant (1) Developer Interest (2) Surface Parking (3) Vacant Buildings (4) Faith-Based Facilities (5) Single- Story Building (6) ILR (7) Year Built (8) Increased Unit Potential (9) Costar Rating Upzone 27 ENCINA AV 120-33-010 Parking Yes No No Yes No No No 0 1900 N/A N/A Upzone 262 HAWTHORNE AV 120-25-158 Residential Yes No No No No No No 0.97 1918 Increased Units: 5 N/A Upzone 652 HOMER AV 120-05-008 Commercial Yes No No No No No Yes 0.36 1956 FAR: 0.284675722211594 2 Upzone KENDALL AV 137-08-033 Vacant Yes Yes No No No No No N/A N/A N/A N/A Upzone 460 LAMBERT AV 132-38-017 Parking Yes No No Yes No No No 0.08 1937 FAR: 0.0939163101325264 N/A Upzone 268 LAMBERT AV 132-38-048 Commercial Yes No No No No No Yes 0.65 1963 FAR: 0.408500590318772 2 Upzone 320 LAMBERT AV 132-38-058 Commercial Yes No No No No No Yes 0.42 1978 FAR: 0.288824705620973 2 Upzone 411 LAMBERT AV 132-39-017 Commercial Yes No No No Yes No No 0 1900 FAR: 0.0 N/A Upzone 455 LAMBERT AV 132-39-087 Commercial Yes No No No No No Yes 0.57 1965 FAR: 0.50218810531602 2 Upzone LEGHORN ST 147-05-012 Industrial Yes No No No No No No 0 1900 FAR: 0.15294188 N/A Upzone 4151 MIDDLEFIELD RD 127-15-023 Commercial Yes No No No No No No 1.26 1961 FAR: 0.532835544012615 3 Upzone 4201 MIDDLEFIELD RD 147-05-086 Industrial Yes No No No No No Yes 1.09 1992 FAR: 0.0855524946434037 3 Upzone 435 MIDDLEFIELD RD 003-02-023 Commercial Yes No No No No No Yes 0.91 1961 FAR: 0.37388268 N/A Upzone 827 MIDDLEFIELD RD 003-32-064 Residential Yes No No No No No No 0.21 1926 Increased Units: 5 N/A Upzone 853 MIDDLEFIELD RD 003-32-094 Commercial Yes No No No No No Yes 0.57 1952 FAR: 0.35367619 2 Upzone MIDDLEFIELD RD 120-03-046 Parking Yes No No Yes No No Yes 0.02 1900 N/A N/A Upzone 660 MIDDLEFIELD RD 120-04-017 Commercial Yes No No No No No Yes 0.29 1951 FAR: 0.259626421788584 2 Upzone 744 MIDDLEFIELD RD 120-04-053 Commercial Yes No No No No No Yes 0.69 1956 FAR: 0.290259101344703 N/A Upzone 850 MIDDLEFIELD RD 120-05-011 Commercial Yes No No No No No Yes 0.47 1955 FAR: 0.313062218890555 2 Upzone 884 MIDDLEFIELD RD 120-05-012 Commercial Yes No No No No No Yes 0.69 1953 FAR: 0.272788656313302 1 Upzone 2801 MIDDLEFIELD RD 127-34-052 Commercial Yes No No No No No No 1 1986 FAR: 0.266846725185685 2 Upzone 2741 MIDDLEFIELD RD 127-34-095 Commercial Yes No No No No No No 1.43 1956 FAR: 1.06083689867474 3 Upzone 2811 MIDDLEFIELD RD 127-34-098 Commercial Yes No No No No No Yes 0.1 1964 FAR: 0.266920864448373 2 Upzone 3200 MIDDLEFIELD RD 132-10-148 Commercial Yes No No No No No Yes 0.68 1957 FAR: 0.309445719908167 N/A Upzone 2754 MIDDLEFIELD RD 132-55-029 Commercial Yes No No No No No Yes 0.61 1952 FAR: 0.311795642374155 2 Upzone 3902 MIDDLEFIELD RD 147-08-048 Commercial Yes No No No No No Yes 0.08 N/A FAR: 0.226556732142376 3 Upzone 3900 MIDDLEFIELD RD 147-08-049 Commercial Yes No No No No No Yes 0.07 1958 FAR: 0.100379987333756 2 Upzone 2181 PARK BL 124-27-038 Commercial Yes No No No No No No 1.07 1957 FAR: 0.67584940312213 2 Upzone 425 PORTAGE AV 132-38-068 Commercial Yes No No No No No Yes 0.12 1951 FAR: 0.466023875114784 1 Upzone 127 RINCONADA AV 124-18-095 Residential Yes No No No No No No 0.14 1932 Increased Units: 5 N/A Upzone 122 RINCONADA AV 124-19-003 Residential Yes No No No No No No 0.78 1925 Increased Units: 3 2 Upzone 760 SAN ANTONIO RD 147-05-091 Commercial Yes No No No No No Yes 0.49 1975 FAR: 0.341922220318657 2 Upzone 780 SAN ANTONIO RD 147-05-092 Industrial Yes No No No No No Yes 0.14 1988 FAR: 0.101229844219732 3 Upzone 716-720 SAN ANTONIO RD 147-05-087 Commercial Yes No No No No No Yes 0.44 1965 FAR: 0.337604024239969 2 Upzone 119 SEALE AV 124-18-045 Residential Yes No No No No No No 0.53 1966 Increased Units: 3 2 Upzone 114 SEALE AV 124-18-050 Residential Yes No No No No No No 0.55 1962 Increased Units: 3 N/A Upzone 725 UNIVERSITY AV 003-02-021 Commercial Yes No No No No No Yes 0.41 1954 FAR: 0.39751111 1 Upzone 720 UNIVERSITY AV 003-02-047 Commercial Yes No No No No No Yes 0.37 1954 FAR: 0.39616667 2 Upzone 701 UNIVERSITY AV 003-02-022 Commercial Yes No No No No No Yes 0.12 1959 FAR: 0.23093333 2 Item A Attachment B - Housing Element Appendix D (Site Inventory), Updated August 2026        Item A: Staff Report Pg. 24  Packet Pg. 248 of 284  Table D: Nonvacant Sites Analysis Categories Site Address or Street Assessor Existing Use Meet Sites Requirements (1, 2, 3, 4, OR 5), or 2 Criteria (6-10) Vacant (1) Developer Interest (2) Surface Parking (3) Vacant Buildings (4) Faith-Based Facilities (5) Single- Story Building (6) ILR (7) Year Built (8) Increased Unit Potential (9) Costar Rating Upzone 643 WEBSTER ST 120-04-022 Residential Yes No No No No No No 0.03 1903 Increased Units: 3.5 N/A Upzone 439 LAMBERT AV 132-39-071 Industrial Yes No No Yes No No Yes 0.24 1960 FAR: 0.418694693 2 Caltrain Station 343 HAWTHORNE AV 120-12-019 Residential Yes No No No No No No 1.35 1959 Increased Units: 4 N/A Caltrain Station 221 BRYANT ST 120-14-011 Residential Yes No No No No No No 0.08 1928 Increased Units: 4 N/A Caltrain Station 170 EMERSON ST 120-24-025 Residential Yes No No No No No No 0.72 1912 Increased Units: 2.5 N/A Caltrain Station 230 EMERSON ST 120-25-036 Residential Yes No No No No No No 0.39 1901 Increased Units: 5 N/A Caltrain Station 251 HIGH ST 120-25-043 Commercial Yes No No No No No Yes 1.32 1956 FAR: 0.435476075398743 2 Caltrain Station 291 ALMA ST 120-25-056 Commercial Yes No No No No No Yes 0.01 1959 FAR: 0.403864549454754 1 Caltrain Station 326 BRYANT ST 120-25-070 Commercial Yes No No No No No No 0.63 1946 FAR: 0.61699018993947 1 Caltrain Station 324 EMERSON ST 120-25-094 Residential Yes No No No No No No 0.43 1911 Increased Units: 5 N/A Caltrain Station 345 HIGH ST 120-25-100 Residential Yes No No No No No No 1.08 1990 Increased Units: 5 N/A Caltrain Station 412 EMERSON ST 120-26-106 Commercial Yes No No No No No Yes 0.5 1958 FAR: 0.44286792 2 Caltrain Station 640 RAMONA ST 120-27-015 Commercial Yes No No No No No Yes 1 1910 FAR: 0.642454602379462 3 Caltrain Station 227 FOREST AV 120-27-017 Commercial Yes No No No No No No 1.32 1965 FAR: 0.948236276351492 2 Caltrain Station 635 HIGH ST 120-27-034 Commercial Yes No No No No No Yes 0.08 1946 FAR: 0.84533500313087 1 Caltrain Station 160 HOMER AV 120-28-005 Parking Yes No No Yes No No No 0.03 1961 N/A N/A Caltrain Station 828 BRYANT ST 120-28-018 Commercial Yes No No No No No Yes 0.72 1900 FAR: 0.338435048785154 2 Caltrain Station 145 ADDISON AV 120-28-094 Commercial Yes No No No No No Yes 0.77 1950 FAR: 0.509250506414585 2 Caltrain Station 100 ADDISON AV 120-30-050 Educational/In stirutional/religi ous Yes No No No No No Yes N/A 1980 FAR: 0.25396977 2 Caltrain Station 106 RINCONADA AV 124-19-001 Residential Yes No No No No No No 0.06 1925 Increased Units: 4 N/A Caltrain Station 114 RINCONADA AV 124-19-002 Residential Yes No No No No No No 0.4 1925 Increased Units: 4 N/A Caltrain Station 2151 PARK BL 124-27-039 Commercial Yes No No No No No No 1.05 1958 FAR: 0.651606978879706 2 Caltrain Station PARK BL 124-28-003 Parking Yes No No Yes No No No 0 1900 N/A N/A Item A Attachment B - Housing Element Appendix D (Site Inventory), Updated August 2026        Item A: Staff Report Pg. 25  Packet Pg. 249 of 284  Table D: Nonvacant Sites Analysis Categories Site Address or Street Assessor Existing Use Meet Sites Requirements (1, 2, 3, 4, OR 5), or 2 Criteria (6-10) Vacant (1) Developer Interest (2) Surface Parking (3) Vacant Buildings (4) Faith-Based Facilities (5) Single- Story Building (6) ILR (7) Year Built (8) Increased Unit Potential (9) Costar Rating Caltrain Station 2211 PARK BL 124-28-043 Commercial Yes No No No No No Yes 0.33 1956 FAR: 0.221697494424767 2 Caltrain Station 1963 EL CAMINO REAL 124-30-015 Industrial Yes No No No No No No 0.05 1950 FAR: 0.0846179075106592 2 Caltrain Station 1885EL CAMINO REAL 124-30-060 Commercial Yes No No No No No No 1.5 N/A FAR: 0.63801712 2 Caltrain Station 1895 EL CAMINO REAL 124-30-061 Commercial Yes No No No No No No 1.49 N/A FAR: 0.5726257 2 Caltrain Station 2001 EL CAMINO REAL 124-31-025 Commercial Yes No No No No No Yes 0.18 1953 FAR: 0.337627551020408 N/A Caltrain Station CAMBRIDGE AV 124-32-050 Parking Yes No No No No No No 0 1910 N/A N/A Caltrain Station 415 CAMBRIDGE AV 124-32-052 Commercial Yes No No No Yes No No 0.87 N/A FAR: 1.17180026784006 2 Caltrain Station 2455 EL CAMINO REAL 124-33-008 Hotel/motel Yes No No No No No No 0.1 1970 FAR: 0.456660668858969 2 Caltrain Station 445 SHERMAN AV 124-33-043 Commercial Yes No No No No No No 0.61 1975 FAR: 1.8661678428705 3 Caltrain Station 3197 PARK BL 132-26-076 Commercial Yes No No No No No Yes 1.43 N/A FAR: 0.411414072254219 2 Caltrain Station 404 SHERIDAN AV 132-36-025 Parking Yes No No Yes No No No N/A N/A N/A N/A Caltrain Station 2673 EL CAMINO REAL 132-36-077 Commercial Yes No No No No No Yes 0.59 1970 FAR: 0.252172070353889 2 Caltrain Station 2805 EL CAMINO REAL 132-37-067 Commercial Yes No No No No No Yes 0.92 1946 FAR: 0.36001168 2 Caltrain Station 555 COLLEGE AV 137-01-069 Commercial Yes No No No No No Yes 0.57 1958 FAR: 0.363808237677245 2 Caltrain Station 2200 EL CAMINO REAL 137-01-070 Industrial Yes No No No No No No 0.19 1990 FAR: 0.145746727058386 2 Caltrain Station YALE ST 137-01-078 Parking Yes No No Yes No No No 0 1958 N/A N/A Caltrain Station 2000 EL CAMINO REAL 137-01-116 Commercial Yes No No No No No Yes 1.14 N/A FAR: 0.204232381712917 2 Caltrain Station 577 COLLEGE AV 137-01-125 Commercial Yes No No No No No No 1.24 1958 FAR: 0.904996623902768 3 Caltrain Station 2310 EL CAMINO REAL 137-01-129 Commercial Yes No No No No No Yes 1.39 1924 FAR: 0.490174471992654 3 Caltrain Station 2400 EL CAMINO REAL 142-20-012 Commercial Yes No No No No No No 1.01 1970 FAR: 0.201010101010101 2 Caltrain Station 3241 PARK BL 132-26-078 Commercial Yes No No No Yes No Yes 0.00 1970 FAR: 0.1824679743890147 3 Caltrain Station 400 FOREST AV 120-16-041 Commercial Yes No No No No No Yes 1.19 1975 FAR: 0.46 2 Caltrain Station 217 ALMA ST 120-25-059 Commercial Yes No No Yes No No Yes 0.99 1946 FAR: 0.6644258370440963 2 Item A Attachment B - Housing Element Appendix D (Site Inventory), Updated August 2026        Item A: Staff Report Pg. 26  Packet Pg. 250 of 284  Table D: Nonvacant Sites Analysis Categories Site Address or Street Assessor Existing Use Meet Sites Requirements (1, 2, 3, 4, OR 5), or 2 Criteria (6-10) Vacant (1) Developer Interest (2) Surface Parking (3) Vacant Buildings (4) Faith-Based Facilities (5) Single- Story Building (6) ILR (7) Year Built (8) Increased Unit Potential (9) Costar Rating Caltrain Station 882 EMERSON ST 120-28-038 Commercial Yes No No Yes No No No 8.87 1960 FAR: 0.3590222222222222 2 Caltrain Station 3275 ASH ST 132-38-011 Commercial Yes No No Yes No No Yes 2.48 1900 FAR: 0.09452106379 1 Caltrain Station 429 ACACIA AV 132-38-069 Commercial Yes No No No No No Yes 0.02 1948 FAR: 0.9057126623388808 1 Caltrain Station 635 WAVERLEY ST 120-16-020 Commercial Yes No No Yes No No Yes 0.91 1966 FAR: 0.3028867505551444 2 Caltrain Station 411 PAGE MILL RD 132-37-064 Commercial Yes No No Yes No No Yes 7.02 1952 FAR: 0.3773093018044195 2 Caltrain Station 150 FOREST AV 120-27-046 Commercial Yes No No No No No Yes 1.06 1929 FAR: 0.9523809523809523 2 Caltrain Station 3250 ASH ST 132-38-046 Commercial Yes No No Yes No No No 0.38 1940 FAR: 0.2663447026863869 2 Caltrain Station 111 HOMER AV 120-27-078 Industrial Yes No No Yes No No Yes 0.45 1940 FAR: 0.5714285714285714 2 Transit Corridor 105 LOWELL AV 124-17-035 Residential Yes No No No No No No 0.11 1948 Increased Units: 3 N/A Transit Corridor 114 LOWELL AV 124-17-040 Residential Yes No No No No No No 0.45 1985 Increased Units: 3 N/A Transit Corridor 120 LOWELL AV 124-17-041 Residential Yes No No No No No No 0.42 1988 Increased Units: 3 N/A Transit Corridor 126 LOWELL AV 124-17-042 Residential Yes No No No No No No 0.13 1994 Increased Units: 5 N/A Transit Corridor 12 CHURCHILL AV 124-24-025 Residential Yes No No No No No No 0.09 1945 Increased Units: 2 N/A Transit Corridor LAMBERT AV 132-38-018 Parking Yes No No Yes No No No 0.03 1955 N/A N/A Transit Corridor 3457 EL CAMINO REAL 132-39-077 Commercial Yes No No No No No Yes 1.11 1950 FAR: 0.587695133149679 1 Transit Corridor 3487 EL CAMINO REAL 132-39-078 Commercial Yes No No No No No No 0.6 1963 FAR: 0.747945867568874 2 Transit Corridor 3505 EL CAMINO REAL 132-40-060 Commercial Yes No No No No No No 1.26 1950 FAR: 0.254017710724828 2 Transit Corridor 3545 EL CAMINO REAL 132-40-063 Commercial Yes No No No No No No 1.34 1969 FAR: 0.679522497704316 2 Transit Corridor 3897 EL CAMINO REAL 132-41-086 Commercial Yes No No No No No Yes 0.52 2000 FAR: 0.0295159386068477 3 Transit Corridor 4131 EL CAMINO WY 132-44-010 Commercial Yes No No No No No Yes 0.43 1956 FAR: 0.35227435787057 3 Transit Corridor 4125 EL CAMINO WY 132-44-012 Educational/In stirutional/religi ous Yes No No No No No Yes 1.11 1955 FAR: 0.413234301147873 2 Transit Corridor 4123 EL CAMINO REAL 132-46-103 Commercial Yes No No No No No Yes 0.64 1960 FAR: 0.377391494479064 2 Item A Attachment B - Housing Element Appendix D (Site Inventory), Updated August 2026        Item A: Staff Report Pg. 27  Packet Pg. 251 of 284  Table D: Nonvacant Sites Analysis Categories Site Address or Street Assessor Existing Use Meet Sites Requirements (1, 2, 3, 4, OR 5), or 2 Criteria (6-10) Vacant (1) Developer Interest (2) Surface Parking (3) Vacant Buildings (4) Faith-Based Facilities (5) Single- Story Building (6) ILR (7) Year Built (8) Increased Unit Potential (9) Costar Rating Transit Corridor 4117 EL CAMINO REAL 132-46-105 Commercial Yes No No No No No Yes 0.85 1983 FAR: 0.252260008609557 3 Transit Corridor EL CAMINO REAL 137-11-074 Parking Yes No No Yes No No No N/A N/A N/A N/A Transit Corridor 3760 EL CAMINO REAL 137-11-079 Parking Yes No No Yes No No No 0.04 N/A N/A N/A Transit Corridor 3924 EL CAMINO REAL 137-11-084 Commercial Yes No No No No No Yes 0.57 1934 FAR: 0.266896254842876 3 Transit Corridor 3944 EL CAMINO REAL 137-11-085 Commercial Yes No No No No No Yes 0.49 1987 FAR: 0.37072264130316 3 Transit Corridor 3864 EL CAMINO REAL 137-11-089 Commercial Yes No No No No No Yes 1.19 1956 FAR: 0.447959183673469 N/A Transit Corridor 3780 EL CAMINO REAL 137-11-098 Commercial Yes No No No No No Yes 0.13 1950 FAR: 0.358478189570351 N/A Transit Corridor 561 VISTA AV 137-37-004 Educational/In stirutional/religi ous Yes No No No No No Yes 0.03 1975 FAR: 0.19252244 2 Transit Corridor 4117 El Camino Real 132-46-106 Commercial Yes No No Yes No No Yes 2.42 1953 FAR: 0.5189741188336365 N/A City Owned Parking Lots WAVERLY ST & LYTTON AV 120-14-088 Parking Yes No No Yes No No No N/A N/A N/A N/A City Owned Parking Lots COWPER ST & HAMILTON AV 120-15-073 Parking Yes No No Yes No No No N/A N/A N/A N/A City Owned Parking Lots WAVERLY ST & HAMILTON AV 120-15-086 Parking Yes No No Yes No No No N/A N/A N/A N/A City Owned Parking Lots EMERSON ST 120-26-027 Parking Yes No No Yes No No No N/A N/A N/A N/A City Owned Parking Lots NEW MAYFIELD LN 124-32-055 Parking Yes No No Yes No No No N/A N/A N/A N/A City Owned Parking Lots SHERMAN AVE & PERAL LN 124-33-007 Parking Yes No No Yes No No No N/A N/A N/A N/A Faith-Based Institutions 1985 LOUIS RD 003-50-022 Educational/In stirutional/religi ous Yes No No No No Yes No N/A N/A FAR: 0.30773094 N/A Faith-Based Institutions 1140 COWPER ST 120-18-048 Educational/In stirutional/religi ous Yes No No No No Yes No N/A N/A FAR: 0.34545658 N/A Faith-Based Institutions 3505 MIDDLEFIELD RD 127-47-042 Educational/In stirutional/religi ous Yes No No No No Yes No N/A N/A FAR: 0.38196028 3 Faith-Based Institutions 2490 MIDDLEFIELD RD 132-01-083 Educational/In stirutional/religi ous Yes No No No No Yes No N/A N/A FAR: 0.22212453 N/A Faith-Based Institutions 2890 MIDDLEFIELD RD 132-03-193 Educational/In stirutional/religi ous Yes No No No No Yes No N/A N/A FAR: 0.64240523 3 Item A Attachment B - Housing Element Appendix D (Site Inventory), Updated August 2026        Item A: Staff Report Pg. 28  Packet Pg. 252 of 284  Table D: Nonvacant Sites Analysis Categories Site Address or Street Assessor Existing Use Meet Sites Requirements (1, 2, 3, 4, OR 5), or 2 Criteria (6-10) Vacant (1) Developer Interest (2) Surface Parking (3) Vacant Buildings (4) Faith-Based Facilities (5) Single- Story Building (6) ILR (7) Year Built (8) Increased Unit Potential (9) Costar Rating Faith-Based Institutions 3149 WAVERLEY ST 132-20-161 Educational/In stirutional/religi ous Yes No No No No Yes No N/A N/A FAR: 0.3762166 3 GM 860 E CHARLESTON RD 127-15-002 Commercial Yes No No No No No Yes 1.11 1956 FAR: 0.347699050401753 2 GM 4055 FABIAN WY 127-15-006 Commercial Yes No No No No No Yes 0.69 1957 FAR: 0.526348742564959 1 GM 801 SAN ANTONIO RD 127-15-041 Educational/In stirutional/religi ous Yes No No No No No No 1.43 1957 FAR: 0.362493958434026 1 GM 799 SAN ANTONIO RD 127-15-042 Commercial Yes No No No No No Yes 0.76 1960 FAR: 0.130439319628509 2 GM 797 SAN ANTONIO RD 127-15-043 Commercial Yes No No No No No Yes 1.43 1962 FAR: 0.441406657622874 2 GM 830 E CHARLESTON RD 127-15-049 Industrial Yes No No No No No Yes 0.25 1961 FAR: 0.0787143325680551 2 GM 809 SAN ANTONIO RD 127-15-050 Commercial Yes No No No No No No 0.89 1956 FAR: 0.50814715269612 2 GM 849 E CHARLESTON RD 127-37-001 Commercial Yes No No No No No Yes 0.47 1959 FAR: 0.554627987060419 2 GM E CHARLESTON RD 127-37-002 Parking Yes No No Yes No No No 0 N/A N/A N/A GM FABIAN WY 127-37-005 Commercial Yes No No No No No Yes 0 N/A FAR: 0.48445153 2 GM FABIAN WY 127-37-007 Commercial Yes No No No No No No 0 N/A FAR: 0.42175013 2 GM 811 E CHARLESTON RD 127-37-016 Industrial Yes No No No No No No 0.21 1972 FAR: 0.085419734904271 1 GM 3960 FABIAN WY 127-37-019 Commercial Yes No No No Yes No Yes 0.45 1995 FAR: 0.417405822811228 2 GM 3940 FABIAN WY 127-37-023 Commercial Yes No No No No No No 0.51 1991 FAR: 0.503534777651083 3 GM 4030 TRANSPORT ST 147-01-013 Commercial Yes No No No No No No 1.13 1954 FAR: 0.859298130534601 2 GM 989 COMMERCIAL ST 147-01-016 Commercial Yes No No No No No Yes 1.13 1958 FAR: 0.543740937651039 1 GM 977 COMMERCIAL ST 147-01-018 Commercial Yes No No No No No Yes 1.46 1957 FAR: 0.712421459642339 2 GM 990 COMMERCIAL ST 147-01-041 Commercial Yes No No No No No No 1 1999 FAR: 0.566662792049285 3 GM 4051 TRANSPORT ST 147-01-068 Commercial Yes No No No No No No 0.77 1957 FAR: 0.716997792494481 1 GM 4047 TRANSPORT ST 147-01-069 Commercial Yes No No No No No Yes 0.48 1956 FAR: 0.441501103752759 1 GM 4041 TRANSPORT ST 147-01-071 Commercial Yes No No No No No Yes 1.5 1959 FAR: 0.48306868184427 1 GM 4039 TRANSPORT ST 147-01-072 Commercial Yes No No No No No Yes 0.33 1959 FAR: 0.605509852687966 3 GM 4035 TRANSPORT ST 147-01-073 Commercial Yes No No No No No Yes 0.63 1958 FAR: 0.669600153051464 2 GM 4075 TRANSPORT ST 147-01-079 Commercial Yes No No No No No Yes 0.39 1957 FAR: 0.710288420146363 1 GM 4019 TRANSPORT ST 147-01-096 Commercial Yes No No No No No No 0.35 1958 FAR: 0.660018652701055 2 GM 4007 TRANSPORT ST 147-01-097 Commercial Yes No No No No No Yes 1.26 1957 FAR: 0.590333292337966 1 GM 4067 TRANSPORT ST 147-01-099 Commercial Yes No No No No No No 1.08 1959 FAR: 0.599449035812672 1 GM 4083 TRANSPORT ST 147-01-116 Commercial Yes No No No No No No 1.5 1980 FAR: 0.532523069997749 3 GM 999 COMMERCIAL ST 147-01-122 Commercial Yes No No No No No No 1 1966 FAR: 0.298332527791204 2 GM 991 COMMERCIAL ST 147-01-123 Educational/In stirutional/religi ous Yes No No No No No Yes 0.79 2005 FAR: 0.541928467858869 2 GM 4045 TRANSPORT ST 147-01-070 Commercial Yes No No No No No No 1.26 1957 FAR: 0.407499521714176 1 GM TRANSPORT ST 147-02-017 Parking Yes No No Yes No No No N/A N/A N/A N/A ROLM 1060 E MEADOW CIR 127-10-049 Commercial Yes No No No No No Yes 0.77 1964 FAR: 0.347766791680873 2 ROLM 1068 E MEADOW CIR 127-10-051 Commercial Yes No No No No No Yes 0.6 1974 FAR: 0.307623055974432 2 Item A Attachment B - Housing Element Appendix D (Site Inventory), Updated August 2026        Item A: Staff Report Pg. 29  Packet Pg. 253 of 284  Table D: Nonvacant Sites Analysis Categories Site Address or Street Assessor Existing Use Meet Sites Requirements (1, 2, 3, 4, OR 5), or 2 Criteria (6-10) Vacant (1) Developer Interest (2) Surface Parking (3) Vacant Buildings (4) Faith-Based Facilities (5) Single- Story Building (6) ILR (7) Year Built (8) Increased Unit Potential (9) Costar Rating ROLM 3600 W BAYSHORE RD 127-10-076 Commercial Yes No No No No No No 1.12 1990 FAR: 0.383139817226613 3 ROLM 1050 E MEADOW CIR 127-10-099 Commercial Yes No No No No No No 0.44 1968 FAR: 0.287382255433353 3 ROLM 3460 W BAYSHORE RD 127-36-029 Commercial Yes No No No No No No 1 1970 FAR: 0.462837421422408 3 Stanford Sites PASTEUR DRIVE + 1100 WELCH RD 142-05-032 Parking Yes No No Yes No No No N/A N/A Increased Units: 2.5 N/A Stanford Sites PASTEUR DRIVE + 1100 WELCH RD 142-03-038 Parking Yes No No Yes No No No N/A N/A Increased Units: 2.5 N/A Developer Interest 3398, 3400, 3490 EL CAMINO REAL and 556 MATADERO AV 137-08-072 Industrial Yes No Yes No No No Yes N/A N/A FAR: 1.15571980514027 3 Developer Interest 955 ALMA ST 120-28-096 Commercial Yes No Yes No No No Yes 1.65 1947 FAR: 0.652381863401569 3 Developer Interest 70 ENCINA AV 120-34-006 Parking Yes No Yes Yes No No No N/A N/A N/A N/A Developer Interest 705 SAN ANTONIO RD 127-15-045 Industrial Yes No Yes No No No No N/A N/A FAR: 0.00442139273871269 N/A Developer Interest 2951 EL CAMINO REAL 132-37-052 Commercial Yes No Yes No No No Yes 0.63 1975 FAR: 0.2288854876861 3 Developer Interest 340 PORTAGE AV (1 acre site & DA) 132-38-071 Commercial Yes No Yes No No No Yes N/A N/A FAR: 0.441935002844293 N/A Developer Interest 3300 EL CAMINO REAL 142-20-046 Parking Yes No Yes Yes No No No N/A N/A N/A N/A Developer Interest 4225 MIDDLEFIELD RD 147-05-068 Commercial Yes No Yes No No No Yes N/A N/A FAR: 0.401562557855371 N/A Developer Interest 4233 MIDDLEFIELD RD 147-05-069 Industrial Yes No Yes No No No Yes N/A N/A FAR: 0.298023314749113 N/A Developer Interest 708-710 SAN ANTONIO RD 147-05-090 Industrial Yes No Yes No No No No N/A N/A FAR: 0.423841059602649 N/A Developer Interest 762 SAN ANTONIO RD 147-05-102 Commercial Yes No Yes No No No No N/A N/A FAR: 0.141049467067505 N/A Developer Interest 4345 EL CAMINO REAL 148-09-011 Hotel/motel Yes No Yes No No No No 0.38 1953 FAR: 0.438064859117491 2 Developer Interest 4015, 4017 FABIAN WY 127-15-048 Commercial Yes No Yes No No No Yes N/A N/A FAR: 0.493855503038488 N/A Developer Interest 3977 FABIAN WY 127-37-004 Commercial Yes No Yes No No No No N/A N/A FAR: 0.848235862735621 N/A Developer Interest 3963 FABIAN WY 127-37-006 Commercial Yes No Yes No No No No N/A N/A FAR: 1.15571980514027 N/A Developer Interest 3997 FABIAN WY 127-37-003 Parking Yes No Yes Yes No No No N/A N/A N/A N/A Developer Interest 2100-2200 GENG RD 008-02-035 Commercial Yes No Yes No No No No N/A N/A FAR: 0.38731266 N/A Developer Interest 3265 EL CAMINO REAL 132-38-020 Vacant Yes Yes Yes No No No No N/A N/A N/A N/A Developer Interest 3305 EL CAMINO REAL 132-39-059 Hotel/motel Yes No Yes No No No No 2 1956 FAR: 0.526491109610623 N/A Developer Interest 960 SAN ANTONIO RD 147-01-106 Commercial Yes No Yes No No No No 2.67816 701 2002 FAR: 0.355514459713675 N/A Item A Attachment B - Housing Element Appendix D (Site Inventory), Updated August 2026        Item A: Staff Report Pg. 30  Packet Pg. 254 of 284  Table D: Nonvacant Sites Analysis Categories Site Address or Street Assessor Existing Use Meet Sites Requirements (1, 2, 3, 4, OR 5), or 2 Criteria (6-10) Vacant (1) Developer Interest (2) Surface Parking (3) Vacant Buildings (4) Faith-Based Facilities (5) Single-Story Building (6) ILR (7) Year Built (8) Increased Unit Potential (9) Costar Rating Developer Interest 3160 W BAYSHORE RD 127-36-030 Commercial Yes No Yes No No No No 2.97 1974 FAR: 0.437541559798613 N/A Developer Interest 4061 TRANSPORT ST 147-01-067 Commercial Yes No Yes No No No No N/A 1957 FAR: 0.758494031221304 N/A Developer Interest 437 LYTTON AV 120-14-075 Commercial Yes No Yes No No No No 1.57 1969 FAR: 0.55195897435 N/A Item A Attachment B - Housing Element Appendix D (Site Inventory), Updated August 2026        Item A: Staff Report Pg. 31  Packet Pg. 255 of 284  City Council Staff Report From: City Manager Report Type: INFORMATION REPORTS Lead Department: City Manager Meeting Date: September 9, 2026 Report #:2606-6511 TITLE 2026 City Council Priorities Q2 Update RECOMMENDATION This is an informational report that provides progress updates on the 2026 Council Priorities and Objectives approved by the City Council on March 9, 2026. No action is needed. BACKGROUND On March 9,1 2026, the City Council discussed and approved the 2026 Priority Objectives, following its January 24, 2026,2 retreat in which the City Council adopted the following Priorities: Achieve Near-Term Housing Milestones Cubberley Acquisition and Renovation Funding Enhance Business Vibrancy Government Efficiency A total of 43 objectives within each priority were discussed, with several objectives being supported by the revised and adopted Council Values: 1. Vibrant Community 2. Fiscal Responsibility 3. Accountable Governance 4. Strategic Innovation 5. Shared Prosperity and Housing Leadership 1 March 9, 2026 City Council Meeting: https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=86901&dbid=0&repo=PaloAlto 2 January 24, 2026 City Council Retreat: https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=85283&dbid=0&repo=PaloAlto Item B Item B Staff Report Item B: Staff Report Pg. 1 Packet Pg. 256 of 284  6. Climate Leadership and Environmental Stewardship 7. Community Well-Being & Belonging This report provides a progress update on the Council Priorities and Objectives. ANALYSIS This report focuses on Group 1 objectives, which are categorized as mission-critical, and must be achieved to meet legal, operational, safety, or strategic requirements. Objectives in this group require City Council engagement. Progress on Council Priorities is measured by the accomplishments of its subset objectives and reported on a calendar quarterly basis. Calendar Q2 spans the months April through June 2026. A summary table of all 43 objectives is listed in Attachment A, including an estimated completion date, which is also measured in calendar quarters. A narrative on each objective update is found in Attachment B, it includes: Project Description- Describes overall project goals and outcomes. 2026 Milestone- Describes activities and outcomes planned for the calendar year as some projects are multi-year in length and are broken up into phases. Project Status- Completed - Project as described in the 2026 milestone is overall complete, though some minor/non-substantive follow-up may still be needed. On-Track- Project is expected to be completed as specified. Any changes in project scope or timing due to Council direction or action will remain labeled On Track with the new estimated timeframe. Behind - The project estimated completion date may be delayed due to operational issues, capacity constraints (such as vacancies in staffing), or project has not started by the estimated completion date. Hold/Dropped - Project is not actively in progress or will no longer move forward in the current year. Reasons may include the issue is no longer relevant, operational constraints, or is stalled/dropped due to City Council direction. Estimated Completion - The calendar quarter in which the objective is expected to be completed. Department Lead - Identifies the lead department and project manager responsible for coordinating progress. Quarterly Update - a brief progress update on the project describes work reflected in the respective calendar quarter. Any delays or project issues will be reflected in this section. Item B Item B Staff Report        Item B: Staff Report Pg. 2  Packet Pg. 257 of 284  To date, of the 43 Council objectives supporting Council priorities, in the second quarter, a total of 9 (21%) have been completed, 28(65%) are on track with new Council direction, 6 objectives are behind schedule (14%), and none are on hold. Council Priority Completed On Track Behind On Hold/ Dropped Total Achieve Near-Term Housing Milestones 15 Cubberley Acquisition and Renovation Funding 2 Enhance Business Vibrancy 5 Government Efficiency 9 Council Values 12 Total 9 28 6 0 43 FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ATTACHMENTS APPROVED BY: Ed Shikada, City Manager Item B Item B Staff Report        Item B: Staff Report Pg. 3  Packet Pg. 258 of 284  ATTACHMENT A #AN P H M CA & R F EB V GE 1.1.1 x Adopt an updated Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) ordinance to comply with State law  and implement additional policy alternatives, including increased allowable square  footage and condominium conversions, consistent with City Council direction  (05.15.23).x 1 1.1.2 x Develop and adopt Objective Development Standards for the South of Forest Area  Coordinated Area Plan (SOFA), and present plan amendment options to replace  subjective standards with objective standards for Planning and Transportation  Commission and City Council consideration, consistent with Housing Element  Program 3.7. Explore alignment opportunities with SB 79 work and Downtown  Housing Plan. x 1 1.1.3 x Codify the R1/SB 9 interim ordinance by establishing objective development  standards and increasing the maximum floor area for SB 9 units from 800 to 1,200  square feet, consistent with Housing Element Program 6.3A, and evaluate  implications for R1 and SB 9 projects within the City’s Individual Review Program. x 1 1.1.4 x Conduct and complete a study of short‐term rentals and adopt housing and  neighborhood preservation regulations that prioritize long‐term occupancy,  consistent with Housing Element Programs 4.2D–E (anticipates ordinance adoption  by July, 2027). x 1 1.1.5 x Adopt zoning incentives and development standards that support innovative housing  typologies, including micro‐units, intergenerational housing, housing for aging adults,  students, and lower‐income households, consistent with Housing Element Program  6.5B. x 1 1.2.1 x Select a preferred alternative for the San Antonio Road Area Plan land use and  transportation alternatives based on community input and City Council direction. x 1 1.2.2 x Receive Council direction on optional SB 79 implementation strategies and, as  appropriate, present scenario Downtown Housing Plan scenarios to Council and  initiate environmental review. x 1 1.3.1 x Partner with Santa Clara County Housing Authority to achieve construction timeline  milestones for the Palo Alto Homekey project (which will provide transitional housing  and services for unhoused residents). x 1 1.3.2 x Issue Requests for Information or Requests for Proposals (RFI/P) to develop  approximately 218 affordable or workforce housing units on City‐owned surface  parking lots. (Housing Element Program 1.4A). x 1 Achieve Near‐Term Priority Housing Milestones (ANTPHM)‐ 15 Total 1.1 Housing Code and Zoning Updates 1.2 Area Plans and Long‐Range Housing Strategy 1.3 Affordable, Supportive, and Publicly Enabled Housing Delivery 2026 DRAFT CITY COUNCIL PRIORITIES AND OBJECTIVES Priority CC  Va l u e    # OBJECTIVES (43 Total) Sorted by:  Council Priority, Group #, estimated completion date, and finally by additional resource needs.Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Gr o u p  # Item B Attachment A - 2026 Council Priorities and Objectives Summary Table        Item B: Staff Report Pg. 4  Packet Pg. 259 of 284  ATTACHMENT A #AN P H M CA & R F EB V GE 2026 DRAFT CITY COUNCIL PRIORITIES AND OBJECTIVES Priority CC  Va l u e    # OBJECTIVES (43 Total) Sorted by:  Council Priority, Group #, estimated completion date, and finally by additional resource needs.Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Gr o u p  # 1.4.1 x Receive a Prohousing Designation from the California Department of Housing and  Community Development in order to enhance the City's competitive advantage for  qualifying grants. x 1 1.4.2 x Identify and designate additional Housing Element site capacity to maintain RHNA  compliance and buffer by evaluating new opportunity sites to address anticipated  capacity shortfalls in 2026, including impacts from development on faith‐based sites  and downtown parking lots. x 1 1.5.1 x Update and adopt development impact fees for public safety, government facilities,  housing, transportation, parks, and community services, including completion of  nexus and feasibility studies and establishment of fee waivers for low‐income  inclusionary units. (Housing Element Programs 2.1B; 3.1B & C). x 1 1.5.2 x Evaluate opportunities that make multi‐family housing an attractive alternative to  commercial office development, consistent with Housing Element Program 3.9A. x 1 1.6.1 x Implement Oversized Vehicles (OSV) Phase 1 work, including options for RV buyback  and storage, new recruiting safe parking and enforcement/signage relating to  detached/inoperable vehicles prohibition. x 1 1.6.2 x Initiate and advance Oversized Vehicles Phase 2 work, including oversized vehicle  permit pilot (e.g., collecting count data, designing permit process & terms, conducting  informal RFI/Q to operate pilot). x 1 2.1.1 Continue to advance the Cubberley Project focusing on anticipated purchase of 7  acres from PAUSD and community polling for potential placement of a measure on  the November 2026 ballot and other funding source(s). x 1 2.1.2 Continue to explore and develop partnership opportunities with community  nonprofit organizations to advance certain elements of the master concept plan  through a combination of city and private investments. x 1 1.5 Housing Incentives, Fees, and Market‐Activation Tools 3.1 Business Development and Vitality 1.6 Unhoused Resident and Oversized Vehicle Housing Response Cubberley Acquisition and Renovation Funding (CA&RF)‐ 2 Total 2.1 Strategies to Support Cubberley Acquisition and Renovation Enhance Business Vibrancy (EBV)‐ 5 Total 1.4 State Compliance, Housing Capacity, and Grant Competitiveness Item B Attachment A - 2026 Council Priorities and Objectives Summary Table        Item B: Staff Report Pg. 5  Packet Pg. 260 of 284  ATTACHMENT A #AN P H M CA & R F EB V GE 2026 DRAFT CITY COUNCIL PRIORITIES AND OBJECTIVES Priority CC  Va l u e    # OBJECTIVES (43 Total) Sorted by:  Council Priority, Group #, estimated completion date, and finally by additional resource needs.Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Gr o u p  # 3.1.1 x Develop a formal business retention/expansion/attraction program focused on  supporting existing Palo Alto businesses seeking to diversify the local economy,  increase the tax base that pays for essential public services, job creation, support  placemaking and special events, and enhance the Palo Alto brand in innovation and  entrepreneurship globally. x 1 3.1.2 x Adopt an ordinance expanding retail opportunities and strengthening retail resiliency,  including refining retail and retail‐like definitions and updating the retail preservation  ordinance. X 1 3.2.1 x Implement the California Avenue near‐term signage plan replacing the El Camino Real  (October 2026) and Oregon Expressway (August 2026) signs—by completing their  procurement and installation. x 1 3.2.2 x Continue design work on new parking structure in Downtown core (Lot D). x 1 3.2.3 x Secure City Council approval for the California Avenue Outdoor Activation Guidelines.  These guidelines will be finalized through continued stakeholder engagement that  includes a representative mix of business owners and residents and a formal  Architectural Review Board (ARB) review. x 1 4.1.1 x Develop and balance FY 2027 budget by June 30 prioritizing government efficiency,  ongoing solutions and balancing fiscal impacts of policies and practices including  consultant contracts, downtown parking and general fund subsidies, nonprofit  partnerships and revenue enhancements.x 1 4.1.2 x Implement a standardized Citywide Consultant Stewardship Framework—covering  the lifecycle from the decision to outsource and scope drafting to contract close‐ out—to develop and manage scope of services and enhanced reporting on use of  professional services.x 1 4.1.3 x Improve City processes by streamlining approval of revised procurement thresholds  and contract authority.x 1 4.1.4 x Council support position allocation as a short‐term pilot (6‐12 months) funded from  the Council Contingency fund.x 1 4.2.1 x x Improve and streamline staff work on homelessness, housing and services for  vulnerable residents. x 1 3.2 District Activation and Access Improvements Government Efficiency (GE)‐ 9 Total 4.1 Fiscal Stewardship and Operational Efficiency 4.2Process Modernization and Service Delivery Item B Attachment A - 2026 Council Priorities and Objectives Summary Table        Item B: Staff Report Pg. 6  Packet Pg. 261 of 284  ATTACHMENT A #AN P H M CA & R F EB V GE 2026 DRAFT CITY COUNCIL PRIORITIES AND OBJECTIVES Priority CC  Va l u e    # OBJECTIVES (43 Total) Sorted by:  Council Priority, Group #, estimated completion date, and finally by additional resource needs.Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Gr o u p  # 4.2.2 x Leverage the Palo Alto 311 staff working group workplan, vendor support and City  Auditor benchmarking advice to improve clarity and timing of constituent response  and satisfaction, and enhance staff efficiencies by aligning report categories with  constituent expectations, and implementing vendor‐proposed 2026 system  upgrades—including integrating AI tools.x 1 4.2.3 x Modify the municipal code to remove the requirement for planning entitlement  approval (such as architectural review) or compliance with zoning regulations and  procedures for capital improvement or other city‐initiated projects on publicly owned  right of way and land. x 1 4.2.4 x Streamline delivery of low‐cost, high‐value (aka quick build) traffic safety  improvements including updating the City's Traffic Calming Policy in alignment with  the City's Safety Action Plan, Bicycle/Pedestrian Transportation Plan (BPTP), Safe  Routes to School and California's Daylighting Law (AB413). x 1 4.3.1 x Relocate City operations in Utilities and the Development Center back to City Hall in  order to reduce rent expense to third party landlords, maximizing revenue to the  General Fund, and consolidating property and facility management within City owned  land.x 1 5.1.1 3,4 Open 429 Bryant Street Community Center. Complete construction and any  necessary partnership agreements to begin La Comida Senior Lunch Program at the  facility by end of July, 2026; plan further work for general community center  operations concurrently. x 1 5.1.2 4 Pursue a natural grass athletic field pilot project to determine the best management  practices to enhance playability and durability. x 1 5.2.1 2 Adopt ordinance updates establishing additional Green Building Standards and Energy  Reach Codes. x 1 5.2.2 2 Complete 2026 Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan (BPTP) with City Council  adoption of the plan. x 1 5.2.3 2 Advance recommendations for the Regional Water Quality Control Plant Biosolids  Facility Plan. x 1 5.2.4 2 Implement the strategies contained in the 2026‐2027 Sustainability and Climate  Action Plan Work Plan. x 1 Council Values‐ 12 Total 5.1 Vibrant Community 5.2 Climate Leadership and Environmental Stewardship 4.3 Organizational Alignment and Facilities Optimization Item B Attachment A - 2026 Council Priorities and Objectives Summary Table        Item B: Staff Report Pg. 7  Packet Pg. 262 of 284  ATTACHMENT A #AN P H M CA & R F EB V GE 2026 DRAFT CITY COUNCIL PRIORITIES AND OBJECTIVES Priority CC  Va l u e    # OBJECTIVES (43 Total) Sorted by:  Council Priority, Group #, estimated completion date, and finally by additional resource needs.Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Gr o u p  # 5.2.5 2 Develop and recommend for Council approval a multi‐year grid modernization capital  improvement plan focused on improving reliability and facilitating city‐wide customer  electrification by upgrading  sub‐transmission, substation, and distribution  infrastructure. Issue the first tranche of debt financing in 2026.x 1 5.3.1 3,4 Execute MOU with Santa Clara County for assignment of clinician to PD Psychiatric  Emergency Response Team (PERT) in Jan 2026. x 1 5.3.2 2 Advance design of Grade Separation projects at Charleston Road, Meadow Drive and  Churchill Avenue. x 1 5.3.3 4 Update the Safety Element and develop an Evacuation Plan pursuant to SB 99, AB  747, and AB 1409. x 1 5.3.4 3,4 Support Community Mental Health through provision of support for all ages through  community partnerships, programs, and initiatives. x 1 5.3.5 4 Advance Quiet Zones at Palo Alto Avenue, Churchill Avenue, Meadow Drive, and  Charleston Road Rail Crossings. x 1 5.3 Community Well‐Being & Belonging Item B Attachment A - 2026 Council Priorities and Objectives Summary Table        Item B: Staff Report Pg. 8  Packet Pg. 263 of 284  Item B Attachment B - 2026 Council Priorities and Objectives Q2 Update        Item B: Staff Report Pg. 9  Packet Pg. 264 of 284  Item B Attachment B - 2026 Council Priorities and Objectives Q2 Update        Item B: Staff Report Pg. 10  Packet Pg. 265 of 284  Item B Attachment B - 2026 Council Priorities and Objectives Q2 Update        Item B: Staff Report Pg. 11  Packet Pg. 266 of 284  Item B Attachment B - 2026 Council Priorities and Objectives Q2 Update        Item B: Staff Report Pg. 12  Packet Pg. 267 of 284  Item B Attachment B - 2026 Council Priorities and Objectives Q2 Update        Item B: Staff Report Pg. 13  Packet Pg. 268 of 284  Item B Attachment B - 2026 Council Priorities and Objectives Q2 Update        Item B: Staff Report Pg. 14  Packet Pg. 269 of 284  Item B Attachment B - 2026 Council Priorities and Objectives Q2 Update        Item B: Staff Report Pg. 15  Packet Pg. 270 of 284  Item B Attachment B - 2026 Council Priorities and Objectives Q2 Update        Item B: Staff Report Pg. 16  Packet Pg. 271 of 284  Item B Attachment B - 2026 Council Priorities and Objectives Q2 Update        Item B: Staff Report Pg. 17  Packet Pg. 272 of 284  Item B Attachment B - 2026 Council Priorities and Objectives Q2 Update        Item B: Staff Report Pg. 18  Packet Pg. 273 of 284  Item B Attachment B - 2026 Council Priorities and Objectives Q2 Update        Item B: Staff Report Pg. 19  Packet Pg. 274 of 284  Item B Attachment B - 2026 Council Priorities and Objectives Q2 Update        Item B: Staff Report Pg. 20  Packet Pg. 275 of 284  Item B Attachment B - 2026 Council Priorities and Objectives Q2 Update        Item B: Staff Report Pg. 21  Packet Pg. 276 of 284  Item B Attachment B - 2026 Council Priorities and Objectives Q2 Update        Item B: Staff Report Pg. 22  Packet Pg. 277 of 284  Item B Attachment B - 2026 Council Priorities and Objectives Q2 Update        Item B: Staff Report Pg. 23  Packet Pg. 278 of 284  Item B Attachment B - 2026 Council Priorities and Objectives Q2 Update        Item B: Staff Report Pg. 24  Packet Pg. 279 of 284  Item B Attachment B - 2026 Council Priorities and Objectives Q2 Update        Item B: Staff Report Pg. 25  Packet Pg. 280 of 284  Item B Attachment B - 2026 Council Priorities and Objectives Q2 Update        Item B: Staff Report Pg. 26  Packet Pg. 281 of 284  Item B Attachment B - 2026 Council Priorities and Objectives Q2 Update        Item B: Staff Report Pg. 27  Packet Pg. 282 of 284  Item B Attachment B - 2026 Council Priorities and Objectives Q2 Update        Item B: Staff Report Pg. 28  Packet Pg. 283 of 284  Item B Attachment B - 2026 Council Priorities and Objectives Q2 Update        Item B: Staff Report Pg. 29  Packet Pg. 284 of 284  City Council Supplemental Report From: Ed Shikada, City Manager Meeting Date: September 9, 2026 Item Number: B Report #:2609-6737 TITLE Supplemental Report: 2026 City Council Priorities Q2 Update BACKGROUND Due to an administrative error, updates for Objectives 1.6.1, 1.6.2, and 4.2.1 were inadvertently omitted from the staff report. The attached two pages provide the Q2 updates for these objectives and should replace the corresponding pages in Attachment B. ATTACHMENTS Supplemental Attachment A: Objectives 1.6.1, 1.6.2, and 4.2.1 Q2 Updates APPROVED BY: Ed Shikada, City Manager Item B Item B Supplemental Report        Item B: Staff Report Pg. 1  Packet Pg. 285 of 287  Item B Supplemental Attachment A - Objectives 1.6.1, 1.6.2, and 4.2.1 Q2 Updates        Item B: Staff Report Pg. 2  Packet Pg. 286 of 287  Item B Supplemental Attachment A - Objectives 1.6.1, 1.6.2, and 4.2.1 Q2 Updates        Item B: Staff Report Pg. 3  Packet Pg. 287 of 287