Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026-09-09 City Council Summary MinutesCITY COUNCIL SUMMARY MINUTES Page 1 of 22 Special Meeting September 9, 2026 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers and by virtual teleconference at 5:00 p.m. Present In Person: Burt, Lauing, Lu, Lythcott-Haims, Reckdahl, Stone, Veenker Present Remotely: None Absent: None Call to Order Mayor Veenker called the meeting to order. City Clerk Mahealani Ah Yun called roll and declared that all council members were present. Special Orders of the Day 1. Interview Candidates for Vacancies on the Historic Resources Board (HRB); CEQA Status - Not a Project NO ACTION City Clerk Mahealani Ah Yun outlined the process for the interviews. Aleksandar Patrick Dusan Rakicevic More had spent time with the Palo Alto Children’s Theatre; was an archivist at the Rinconada Library; studied architecture at Pratt Institute and worked on 11 studio projects; studied in Rome and conducted research; engaged in an adaptive reuse project in Berlin, Germany, and worked as a teaching assistant; and had an internship with CAW Architects and collaborated with them on Campbell Garden. Mr. More was employed by RMW Architecture & Interiors and was working on the preservation and adaptive reuse of the Bank of Italy building. Mr. More was enthusiastic about preserving architecture and adapting it to everyday life and wanted to redirect his enthusiasm and experience to public service. Councilmember Lauing asked how Palo Alto’s architecture led Mr. More to a career in architecture. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 2 of 22 Sp. City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 09/09/2026 Mr. More answered that he was inspired by the Palo Alto Children's Theatre. Councilmember Reckdahl inquired if Mr. More had seen the renovation at the Fry’s site and what could encourage such renovations. Mr. More had visited the Fry’s renovation site and noted Phase 2 of the residential complex was about to be entered and he had toured the units. As for encouraging renovations, Mr. More mentioned the housing crisis and residents wanting to retain the historic nature or the small-town feel of Palo Alto while having well-funded amenities and highly ranked school districts. Mr. More welcomed the opportunity to participate in conversations related to historical preservations and, in some cases, the need for newer, higher-density development. Vice Mayor Stone queried why Mr. More wanted to dedicate his background to the HRB and how his passion and experience could serve the HRB. Mr. More answered that he could discuss architecture all day. Vast varieties within one architectural style could manifest into hyper-specific, well-articulated examples. It would be rewarding to engage in conversations on new cases and situations, permitting, types of architecture, and where to preserve it, etc. Mr. More thanked Council for their consideration and looked forward to learning more about the work and future of Palo Alto. Nandini Ramamurthi wanted to serve on the HRB because she could bring confluence and understood where the city should grow. Ms. Ramamurthi, an architect with Arcanum Architecture, focused on single-family custom homes and had worked with the City's Planning Department in pre- and post-planning, which informed how she thought about City processes and buildings. HRB was a continuum and not only about preservation. Ms. Ramamurthi had experience working with frustrated clients and had a unique vantage point of working behind the scenes. Ms. Ramamurthi was particularly interested in Professorville and building in the National Historic Registry portion. Ms. Ramamurthi had worked with Historic Preservation Planner Steven Switzer on a Professorville project and had presented it to the HRB. Ms. Ramamurthi was interested in rehabilitating buildings and did not have a homogeneous static view of what a board needed to do. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims questioned if Ms. Ramamurthi had learned lessons in her work with the Planning Department and if processes could be streamlined and made clearer or more efficient. Ms. Ramamurthi replied that the processes were not clear at the outset and had suggestions for what could be done internally for planning processes, getting information to citizens up front so constraints could be navigated, how the HRB or Planning could be flexible within the established guidelines, and how to get people excited about building in Palo Alto versus being daunted by the process. Ms. Ramamurthi understood why there was a process but things could be done by both parties to make it better. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 3 of 22 Sp. City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 09/09/2026 Mayor Veenker requested that Ms. Ramamurthi speak to the continuum of looking at today as the history of the future. Ms. Ramamurthi used Professorville as an example and addressed contributing structures and thought guidelines should be tweaked to not be so prescriptive. There had been one new construction in the National Historic District, which helped preserve the past but thought should be given to the district not falling into disrepair. New buildings should reflect the look of 2026, not mimic older structures. Ms. Ramamurthi wanted to be part of the HRB and discuss building guidelines within the district. In closing, Ms. Ramamurthi wanted to serve on the HRB and meaningfully contribute. Alisa Eagleston-Cieslewicz filled a complete term on the HRB and specialized in the conservation of artistic and historic 3-dimensional objects and worked with wood, stone, metal, sculpture, and architectural built-in features. Ms. Eagleston-Cieslewicz deeply cared about historic preservation, which was woven in her professional life. It had been a privilege to serve on the HRB to help the community understand the historic resources and available options when making modifications to a historic property. The education component was vital to the HRB’s work. Eagleston-Cieslewicz hoped to continue being part of the process, which had been a privilege. Mayor Veenker requested that Ms. Eagleston-Cieslewicz speak to the goals of the preservation awards. Ms. Eagleston-Cieslewicz remarked that the inaugural HRB awards had occurred since submitting her application. It was a great opportunity to acknowledge properties that had undergone sensitive restorations or made thoughtful alterations to a building. It included businesses that made ADA upgrades for easier access and homeowners who removed inappropriate additions or recovered a structure from a fire. The community outreach helped with communication and raised awareness of community history. Councilmember Reckdahl requested that Ms. Eagleston-Cieslewicz speak to the experience of living in a Category 2 historic home and asked if there were ways to improve the rules. Ms. Eagleston-Cieslewicz had purposefully purchased a historic home and loved historic architecture, being a steward of the home, and being part of the history. Ms. Eagleston- Cieslewicz’s home was included in walking tours and she had discussed the experience of living in and renovating it. Ms. Eagleston-Cieslewicz had not had significant trouble with the rules when renovating but she had not attempted to change the structure footprint. The community desired different incentives for those undergoing renovations or ones more appropriate to their needs and wanted more clarity on specific requirements. There was an aspect of helping people understand what could and could not be done, so up-front education would be helpful when entering into ownership of a historic property. In closing, Ms. Eagleston-Cieslewicz thanked Council for the opportunity to be considered for reappointment. It had been a pleasure serving on the HRB. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 4 of 22 Sp. City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 09/09/2026 City Clerk Yun thanked the candidates. Appointments would be conducted during the September 14 Council meeting. 2. Proclamation Honoring the 25th Anniversary of September 11, 2001 NO ACTION Mayor Veenker discussed her experience in hearing the news of September 11, 2001. There were horrific stories but also stories of bravery, heroism, and kindness. Mayor Veenker read the Proclamation Honoring the 25th Anniversary of September 11, 2001. Mayor Veenker on behalf of the Palo Alto City Council proclaimed September 11th, 2026, a day of remembrance and called upon the community to honor the lives lost; recognize the heroism and enduring sacrifice of first responders; carry forward the courage, compassion, service, and unity demonstrated in the aftermath of September 11, 2001; and renew the promise that it never be forgotten. Mayor Veenker requested there be a promise to promote understanding, belonging, and acceptance of each other and that harmony and peace be strived for. City Manager Ed Shikada thanked Council for acknowledging September 11, 2001, and first responders for their dedication and sacrifices. Police Captain Ben Becchetti, on behalf of the Palo Alto Police Department, expressed appreciation for Council commemorating the occasion and recognizing the sacrifice of first responders who gave their lives on September 11, 2001. For first responders, 9/11 was a solemn occasion but it was also a reminder of the nobility and uncertainty of the profession and the character of those who wore the badge. Acting Fire Marshal Dave Villareal thanked Council for the opportunity to speak on behalf of the Palo Alto Fire Department and the public safety partners and for setting aside time to remember. On behalf of the Fire Department and Fire Chief Stephen Lindsey, Acting Fire Marshal Villareal honored all the lives lost on September 11, 2001, and recognized the impact that day had on the profession and the nation. The events reshaped how fire departments across the country trained, prepared, and responded. Acting Fire Marshal Villareal requested a moment of silence. Mayor Veenker expressed gratitude to the Fire Department and the Police Department and invited Police and Fire to the dais for a photo. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 5 of 22 Sp. City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 09/09/2026 Closed Session 3. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS Authority: Cal. Gov. Code section 54957(b)(1) Titles: City Manager, City Attorney and City Clerk Public Comment: 1. Herb B. had sent comments in writing and requested the item be continued until the public and the press were provided with KPIs and key goals on which the evaluation would be based. Valley Transportation Authority’s KPIs and goals were available so the public and the press could monitor their executives. Before the meeting, Herb B. supplied Council with comments regarding the Forest Peterson Report. Herb B. opined that the KPIs and goals for this year and previous years should be part of the public record. 2. Henry E. found the procedures inadequate because they did not address the root of being overstaffed, over-consulted, and over-administrated. Henry E. requested adopting zero budgeting procedures to justify the entire system, not every position and desired an elective form of government and proposed that Councilmember Pat Burt be the mayoral candidate and that Commissioner Cari Templeton be the candidate for vice mayor. Henry E. wanted Police and Fire staffing to be reviewed. Henry E. suggested the nominations be held in abeyance until the process could be reviewed and changed for the better. Henry E. described himself as the super residentialist candidate for Palo Alto City Council. MOTION: Councilmember Reckdahl moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Stone, to go into Closed Session. MOTION PASSED: 7-0 Council went into Closed Session at 5:48 p.m. Council returned from Closed Session at 8:25 p.m. Mayor Veenker announced no reportable action. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions City Manager Ed Shikada noted there were no changes to the agenda. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 6 of 22 Sp. City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 09/09/2026 In-Person Public Comment 1. Sarah A.H., a resident of Los Angeles, speaking on behalf of Tahsin S., Rihan A-H., Anyan K., Mobaidu H., and Rehnuma A., spoke of her brother, Irfan Al-Hussaini, who sustained critical injuries in Palo Alto on July 22 and passed away on July 30 and there were unanswered forensic questions about his injuries. Sarah A.H. spoke of issues with the police investigation and indicated there was a breakdown between the Palo Alto Police Department and the Santa Clara coroner's office. Sarah A.H. and others had hand delivered a formal complaint to the Attorney General’s Office and State intervention to investigate Mr. Al-Hussaini’s death was being requested. Sarah A.H. asked Council to look into the matter and provided Council with a redacted copy of the complaint. Mayor Veenker expressed her condolences to Sarah A.H. and stated she would follow up with staff. 2. Henry E. spoke as a 2026 candidate for Palo Alto City Council and in a professional capacity as a sociologist of organizations, including governmental, and provided an analysis of the breakdown in government as it related to the death of Irfan Al-Hussaini. Henry E. advised the family to seek legal advice and suggested the City provide the family with an advocate. Henry E. requested zero budgeting and an electoral form of government. 3. Bob L. commented that the airport community and the Offices of Emergency Services conducted a successful Disaster Airlift Response Team drill. Bob L. invited Council to the open house event on September 20. If desired, Mayor Veenker would be provided an opportunity to greet the crowd. 4. Becky W. discussed issues at the Opportunity Center that needed to be addressed and had written Council and filed local, state, and federal complaints. Becky W. wanted to know what needed to be done to have a voice at the Center. Mayor Veenker mentioned that note had been taken of the public comments. Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements Vice Mayor Stone stated the executive director of San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority resigned the end of July. At the last meeting, the board agreed to seek a search firm to identify a new executive director and there was an agreement to work with Valley Water to essentially form a joint committee to better define Valley Water’s role in the Reach 2 Project in particular. Vice Mayor Stone would be on the subcommittee to determine if Valley Water could take on a project management role for the Reach 2 Project. An update would be provided SUMMARY MINUTES Page 7 of 22 Sp. City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 09/09/2026 concerning the executive director and the outcome of the decision on the continuing partnership with Valley Water. Councilmember Lauing commented that on September 16 Stanford University would inform the Advisory Group that he would represent the City. The official reveal of the next GUP draft would occur on September 16 but it was being sent to various subsets of constituents in advance of that date. Councilmember Lauing noted that he might miss the Commission Recognition Event. Mayor Veenker voiced that the Cities Association of Santa Clara County and Silicon Valley Clean Energy had an electrification event explaining the air district amendments to rules with respect to electrification specifically related to water heaters. Mayor Veenker thanked staff for their work, the City for co-sponsoring the event, and Jonathan Abendschein for attending. It interfaced with Palo Alto’s efforts and S/CAP. Consent Calendar 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 $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 SUMMARY MINUTES Page 8 of 22 Sp. City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 09/09/2026 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) Public Comment: 1. Henry E. indicated that some items on the consent calendar should not be consented to without more public review and requested that the BART II extension not be supported, that it be reviewed, and that a more modern system be put in place. 2. Jessica R. (Item 11), owner of ADU Collective Architecture, urged the City to retain a uniform exemption for the first 800 square feet of ADU area. Jessica R. submitted a memorandum with 14 ADU projects approved between 2020 and 2026, which documented a consistent City practice. Jessica R. referenced the plans and Tables 1 and 2 and it appeared that building an ADU would sacrifice future entitlement area for primary homes, which homeowners were unaware of. All had relied on the City approved calculations since 2020 and an identified distinction of Tables 1 and 2 was made known to the public in August 2026. Jessica R. asked if changing the interpretation meant homeowners would lose development capacity. Jessica R. requested that Item 11 be pulled from the consent calendar. 3. Drew H. (Item 11), a real estate developer, encouraged Council to pull Item 11 and to discuss it. It appeared that the ordinance would result in a net loss of buildable area and would act as a downzoning, which was prohibited by SB 330 and likely violated the Housing Accountability Act. Drew H. requested that the item be returned once it was understood how it would result in no net loss within the city. The ordinance seemed to open the City to many legal challenges and financial impacts. 4. John K. (Item 11) strongly recommended that Council remove Item 11 from the consent calendar and postpone it to a future meeting to allow for greater public participation. Staff might not be prepared to provide an analysis of highly technical issues should the item be heard at this meeting. John K. asked staff to distribute a supplemental memo. Amending Tables 1 and 2 should be closely considered. John K. requested there be uniform 800 square-foot exemptions under Tables 1 and 2, which it appeared Director Jonathan Lait alluded to at the last meeting; that consideration be given to increasing SUMMARY MINUTES Page 9 of 22 Sp. City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 09/09/2026 the maximum size from 1,200 to 1,600 square feet; and that consideration be given to staff’s direction related to fees. 5. Jeremy L. (Item 11) stated Palo Alto had been an ADU leader and requested that Item 11 be removed from consent, that it be revisited at a later meeting, that the uniform exemption be clarified in the code, and that amendments be added to provide a uniform exemption. 6. Aram J. (Item 8) (Zoom) supported ongoing funding for the Safe Parking Program, requested it be expanded, suggested looking into the program in Santa Barbara, and suggested more community outreach. Aram J. read an excerpt from the 1995 case Tobe versus the City of Santa Ana. Councilmember Lu recused from Item 6 (because his wife worked at SLAC) and wanted to pull Item 11 because there were problems. It was not a question of preventing the building of multiple ADUs. ADUs could be sequenced in a way to build ADUs and add 1,600 square feet. It should not be overly complicated. Succinct approaches could be taken after pulling the item. Vice Mayor Stone voted to pull Item 11. Councilmember Burt supported pulling Item 11 and wanted to pull Item 8. Regarding Item 8, Councilmember Burt supported using Geng Road sites but it needed to be determined why it was not functioning as intended. Additional information was needed on the barriers to success, the demographics of the residents, and the range of resident stays and other factors to determine if there was a path to greater success. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims wanted to pull Item 11. It was not included in the draft ordinance Council discussed in August. Footnote 7 was concerning as it indicated that some would be treated more favorably. Staff identified the discrepancy in 2020. A slide was displayed showing the Staff Report for an item agendized for August 17, 2020, which continued to October 5, 2020. Staff had noted that a uniform exemption would make it easier for the public to understand what was allowed, easier for staff to implement, remove a potential incentive to demolish and max out FAR before building an ADU, and allow a property owner to build a larger ADU if there was additional FAR available for a site. Pulling Item 11 would allow Council to codify and correct the ordinance. Councilmember Reckdahl wanted to pull Items 11 and 8. Councilmember Lauing voted to pull Items 11 and 8. Mayor Veenker recused from Item 6 (having performed legal work for Stanford) and wanted to pull Item 11. MOTION: Councilmember Reckdahl moved, seconded by Councilmember Lu, to approve Agenda Item Numbers 4-7, 9-10 and to pull Agenda Items 8 and 11 off of the consent calendar. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 10 of 22 Sp. City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 09/09/2026 MOTION PASSED ITEMS 4-5, 7, 9-10: 7-0 MOTION PASSED ITEM 6: 5-0, Veenker, Lu recused Mayor Veenker suggested that Item 11 be referred to staff and returned ASAP and there were no objections. Pulled Consent Calendar Agenda Item 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. Councilmember Lauing supported the ideas within the amendment to more granularly determine what was happening, what could be done, and a logical time frame for parking. Councilmember Lauing questioned if the contract could be for a shorter period or if it could be delayed 30 days to discuss it, although that might not be long enough. City Manager Ed Shikada had not been advised that the Item would be discussed at this meeting, so staff was unprepared for the conversation. Deputy City Manager Chantal Cotton Gains commented that the shorter time frames would be complicated. Staff was more than happy to return additional information if Council desired. The agreement allowed the City to continue with the safe parking site. Councilmember Burt wanted to better understand how it was working compared to the initial intentions and what actions would improve performance or what goals needed to be redefined if improving performance was not possible. Councilmember Burt suggested a study session be agendized and then the approval an extension provided there was a commitment to transparency and accountability on performance. City Manager Shikada would follow up accordingly. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims had reached out to the head of the Geng Road Mountain View site in February requesting data on transitioning out and received an email response, which she wanted Council to see. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims provided details related to the number of placements. It might be possible to do more but there did not appear to be a throughput problem. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 11 of 22 Sp. City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 09/09/2026 MOTION: Mayor Veenker moved, seconded by Councilmember Lauing, to reconsider Agenda Item 8 (to approve agenda item number 8) and direct staff to return with a study session related to Agenda Item 8. MOTION PASSED: 7-0 Mayor Veenker asked when Item 11 would return. City Manager Shikada replied that Item 11 would return ASAP. Councilmember Lu asked if there was any direction or research actionable for staff or if it would return to Council wholesale. City Manager Shikada responded that Council took action to defer the item, so it would be returned as recommended. City Manager Comments City Manager Ed Shikada announced there would be many September community events and requested that the community refer to the City’s homepage for additional details. The ribbon cutting for the Horizontal Levee Pilot Project would occur on September 10 and folks should consider carpooling or biking as parking would be limited. The email survey reminder community members received from the NRC was officially from the City. There was a phone number in the City Manager’s office to verify it being an official City request. The survey would be open to all community members on September 15. The Council meeting on September 14 would include the public hearing on the Hamilton parking garage, approval of water revenue bonds, and an ordinance related to stream corridor protection. On September 28, there would be a pre-screening and a Rail Committee follow-up discussion on rail grade separations to advance to 35% design. There were a number of items for October 5 and beyond. Action Items 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 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. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 12 of 22 Sp. City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 09/09/2026 Councilmember Lu recused from Item 12 as he lived within 1,000 square feet of the property. Senior Planning Emily Kallas expressed that this item related to the El Camino Real Focus Area being adopted. The property was not included in the El Camino Real Focus Area based on being adjacent to a single-family neighborhood and the proposal would appropriately transition it from a single-family neighborhood to the El Camino Real area housing. The proposal was submitted to the PTC on July 8, 2026, and there was a split vote. The main concern related to State laws possibly being combined with an application proposal to exceed local development standards and how a project related to respecting the NV-R1 neighborhood as stated in the NVCAP. Two commissioners had suggested the request be concurrent with a housing proposal but the applicant expressed the rezoning needed to happen first to secure project funding. There was a concern about timing and it not being considered at the time of the NVCAP adoption but overall the PTC supported a housing project in the location. Slides were furnished showing the site location and the proposed rezoning with a table, which included the temporary 50 percent SB 79 Ordinance. Senior Planning Kallas stated the table was included in the Staff Report to Council, though slightly different than what the PTC received because the ordinance was not in effect at that time. Senior Planning Kallas discussed the development standards that would provide an appropriate transition between single-family homes and the El Camino Real Focus Area. The allowable height and FAR would increase but the daylight plane and setbacks would remain the same, which could be further modified by State laws. The rezoning would facilitate the applicant's interest in redeveloping the property in tandem with the adjacent parcels. Any proposed development would be subject to further review and the process would depend on the project. The rezoning was exempt from CEQA. The RHNA allocation deficit would be addressed by the rezoning, which would be placed on the City's housing inventory. Staff recommended that Council adopt the resolution, which amended the Comprehensive Plan land use designation or the NVCAP low-density residential to NVCAP medium-density mixed use, and adopt the ordinance amending the zoning map to rezone the parcel from NV-R1 to NV-MXN, consistent with Council’s May 2025 motion. Owner Thomas Agramonte, spoke on behalf of the Agramonte family, and requested that Council adopt the staff recommendation. Owner Agramonte discussed the zoning history of 470 Olive. The landowners learned of a zoning issue in 2017 and brought it to the City’s attention to correct the issue but the City presented the prospect of the site being a housing development. The family continued to follow the guidance of the City and respected the residents in the community. SummerHill Apartment Communities was selected as the developer and had an excellent track record. SummerHill Apartment Communities (SHAC) Vice President Elaine Breeze mentioned that SHAC was headquartered on California Avenue and was the multi-development arm of The Marcus and Millichap Company and the sister company was SummerHill Homes. SHAC had a long track record of meeting communities’ commitments and the financial capacity to complete projects. Vice President Breeze had been with the organization for 37 years and her experience in Palo SUMMARY MINUTES Page 13 of 22 Sp. City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 09/09/2026 Alto dated back to the early 1990s. SHAC’s communities had won national awards year after year. Vice President Breeze highlighted SHAC’s experience with the El Camino Focus Area. The goal was to assemble and develop the parcel, as well as others on El Camino, that would be appropriate for the existing neighborhood. The site had been studied and a project aligning with the City’s goals and the NVCAP would be developed. SHAC supported staff’s recommendation as it would provide an appropriate transition and allow for the development of a cohesive, high-quality community, which Vice President Breeze outlined. Vice President Breeze stated that since the July 8 PTC hearing, the property became eligible to use the City's SB 79 alternative TOD Combining District Zoning and the associated development standards, and Vice President Breeze outlined the setbacks and daylight planes TOD Zoning would require. The State Density Bonus Waiver could be used to evade compliance with the daylight plane in AB 79 but SHAC understood the importance of preserving the daylight plane. With an assemblage of all 4 parcels, SHAC would be able to adhere to the SB 79 TOD daylight plane on the 470 parcel under the MXM and not exercise the right to use a waiver for the daylight plane under State law. Daylight access would be improved because commercial walls would be removed. It was important to design sites holistically for proper massing, etc. Staff’s recommendation would enable a cohesive, respectful approach to the site and, on behalf of the Agramonte family, Vice President Breeze respectfully requested Council’s support. City Attorney Chris Jensen noted that the PTC had discussed the daylight plane, so the Attorney’s office had explored ways to preserve the daylight plane particularly in the case of future Density Bonus projects that had the possibility of waving that protection. The applicant was open to protecting the daylight plane in the form of a covenant on the property that would be a condition of approving the rezoning. Specific language had not been formulated. If Council was interested in that option, the item should be continued to a future meeting to allow continued work to develop language. Public Comment: 1. Matt B. speaking on behalf of Jing J., Hengwei W., Nathaniel W., Scott A., and Ruben H. opposed the rezoning application. It had been rejected during a redevelopment proposal in January 2021, which Matt B. outlined in a letter to Council. The NVCAP should be respected, which specifically addressed single-family homes on Olive and Pepper Avenue. Matt B. indicated that 470 Olive had not complied with the Palo Alto Municipal Code, the existing building codes, or the property zoning since 1978. Matt B. noted that 2951 El Camino and 470 Olive had 2 buildings in 2 zoning areas. Matt B. asked why the owners of 470 were not fined for noncompliance. It appeared that the South Palo Alto and Ventura neighborhoods continued to take on the majority of high- density housing projects and within 1 block of 470 Olive there were 6 high-density developments. Matt B. requested that medium-density, mixed use not be allowed adjacent to single-family homes as detailed in the spirit of the NVCAP, objected to the reliance of the Public Resources Code 21080.085, opposed the application to rezone 470 SUMMARY MINUTES Page 14 of 22 Sp. City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 09/09/2026 Olive single family into high-density housing, and urged the owner to comply with the Palo Alto Municipal Code and build a single-family home. 2. Jason R. speaking on behalf of Anupa B., Jieming L., Louis L., and Nico L. had sent Council detailed written comments. The zoning of 470 Olive was the product of decades of decisions memorialized in the City's legislative history. The NVCAP expressly designated Olive and Pepper as an area of stability. Council was being asked to walk back years of coordinated planning and decisions, the results of which would be out of place for the surroundings. The Olive and El Camino boundary had been repeatedly reaffirmed. Jason R. noted that the FAR referenced in the Staff Report and the FAR in Attachment D reflected different numbers. The FAR should raise the burden for changing a boundary the City spent years planning and repeatedly upholding. Jason R. explained that the entitlement was concrete and the housing project hypothetical. As PTC’s vote was split 3-3, Council would not be ratifying a clear PTC recommendation but making a land use judgment. No net loss was a City obligation but the record did not show why 470 Olive should be selected to satisfy it. The record did not establish the need or the planning basis for MXM. Jason R. requested that the rezoning and NVCAP amendment be denied. 3. Henry E. declared himself a super residentialist candidate for Palo Alto City Council, which meant he would fight for light, air, and view of every resident. Henry E. wanted Olive Avenue and similar areas to be declared residential sites with no commercial or multifamily developments, did not consider El Camino the proper place for a corridor, and suggested housing be on Stanford lands. 4. Candy T. opposed the rezoning application. When Candy T. purchased her home on Pepper it was done with a full understanding and awareness of the surrounding zoning, etc. Candy T. was concerned about a future development creating privacy concerns, demolition, building impacts, and downstream issues. Candy T. was not opposed to housing but was concerned about developments not being compatible with established single-family homes. Candy T. requested Council respect the Ventura neighborhood and the NVCAP commitment the City made. 5. Jared L. resided on Olive Avenue and noted that there were 5 housing units in progress within 1,000 feet of his house, which he indicated would equate to an additional 2,200 residents and 1,200 additional vehicles in the area. 6. Linda D. opposed the Olive Avenue project as it would change the complexion of the neighborhood. Linda D. was concerned about noise, traffic, parking, and lighting. Linda D. asked if single-family neighborhoods should be disrupted. 7. Yugen L. spoke of massive growth impacting the neighborhood. If approved, zoning in the daylight planes might be a good concession. Yugen L. was against rezoning as developers did not always adhere to the rules and he requested there be a proposal before rezoning. Whatever should be in the location should be self-contained with SUMMARY MINUTES Page 15 of 22 Sp. City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 09/09/2026 enough parking. Yugen L. requested that traffic studies be continually revised for Page Mill and El Camino and that consideration be given to making Ash Street one way. 8. Scott O. (Zoom) worked with Palo Alto Forward volunteers, which submitted a report to Council, and considered the site to be a good one. 9. Rebecca E. (Zoom) opposed the rezoning. There did not appear to be a promise that the lot would be used only for housing. Rebecca E. indicated that North Ventura was a historic neighborhood and the only and largest African-American and Asian-American community in Palo Alto, which should be preserved. Mayor Veenker asked council members to comment on continuing the item as suggested by Attorney Jensen. Attorney Jensen stated the zoning could be approved/disapproved but there was an option of attaching a condition to preserve the daylight plane in the event of a future Density Bonus project on the parcel. The applicant was open to preserving the daylight plane. Owner Agramonte deeply cared about the community and did not want to build something out of place. Owner Agramonte would reach out to those with concerns and advised folks to refer to his letter regarding the history of the property. Vice President Breeze was committed to preserving daylight plane and willing to work with staff on the language. Councilmember Burt supported continuing the item in order to see the proposed daylight plane language and council members agreed. MOTION: Mayor Veenker moved, seconded by Councilmember Reckdahl, to continue this item to a date uncertain. MOTION PASSED: 6-0, Lu Recused Council took a 10-minute break. 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 Mayor Veenker stated she and Councilmember Lu would attend the event. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 16 of 22 Sp. City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 09/09/2026 Public Comment: 1. Henry E. discussed attending a conference at Stanford related to construction, which addressed improving construction using AI technologies. Henry E. referenced a 1945 report by Vannevar Bush. Henry E. opined that the City did not have a policy to produce massive amounts of housing apart from financial policies. Henry E. called upon Councilmember Lu to be a knowledgeable and careful participant and to return with useful results for the City to consider. 2. Aram J. (Zoom) supported Councilmember Lu as delegate, wanted policing and transparency to be discussed, and looked forward to Councilmember Lu’s report. Councilmember Burt noted that action would be taken at the conference concerning establishing a working group or committee to evaluate and develop a proposed constitutional amendment, legislative policy, etc., to restore and strengthen local authority over housing, land use matters, etc. State and Federal guidelines addressed local control and Councilmember Burt wanted to know if the delegates interpreted that as guidance to support the proposed resolution. In the past, Council gave delegates direction on voting on important matters. Mayor Veenker assumed it was akin to the letters the mayor signed from year to year, which were consistent with the legislative guidelines, but it was a good idea to address some of the specific ones. Mayor Veenker recalled that in the past something not clearly within the legislative guidelines would be further analyzed or returned to Council. Mayor Veenker requested staff provide a memo showing what did and did not line up. If it was unclear whether something fit within the guidelines, the delegate could abstain from voting or it could be returned to Council if there was time or interest. City Manager Shikada expressed that based on a superficial reading of the resolution it appeared consistent with the legislative guidelines Council adopted. Councilmember Lu was happy to be the delegate. It appeared to align with the legislative guidelines, although a lot was unclear about the proposal but it could be deciphered. Councilmember Lu interpreted the legislative guidelines as within local control and this was about retaining local control. Councilmember Burt inquired if the delegates understood that the proposed resolution was consistent with the City’s legislative guidelines and if they would vote in support of the resolution. Mayor Veenker did not have an answer and would follow the legislative guidelines. Councilmember Burt moved that Council take a position and that the delegates vote in favor of the resolution. City Attorney Jensen noted that needed to be separately agendized. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 17 of 22 Sp. City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 09/09/2026 Councilmember Lu would vote with the City’s legislative guidelines. Mayor Veenker suggested agendizing it if upon review staff or a council member considered it outside the guidelines. City Attorney Jensen stated that would comply with the Brown Act. City Manager Shikada would assume it to be consistent with the guidelines unless there was a contradictory conclusion by a council member or staff. Policy and procedures had a section addressing voting delegate authority at conferences authorizing the council member to act. Prior to the conference meeting, if Council provided the voting delegate with specific direction, the delegate would follow it. Mayor Veenker suggested leaving the meeting with the understanding that the resolution was consistent with the legislative guidelines and that the voting delegate would vote that way. However, if there was a desire to vote differently, the City Manager would attempt to agendize for Council discussion. There were no objections from council members. City Attorney Jensen had no objections but recommended agendizing designations of positions differently in the future. Councilmember Burt stated that designations of positions should be routinely added to the agenda annually. Mayor Veenker stated that going forward it would be agendized as a designation of voting delegate and would include designations of positions on proposed resolutions. MOTION: Mayor Veenker moved, seconded by Councilmember Reckdahl, to designate Councilmember Lu as the voting delegate and Mayor Veenker as the alternate voting delegate for the League of California Cities (Cal Cities) 2026 Annual Conference. MOTION PASSED: 7-0 14. Colleagues’ Memo: Council Discussion and Public Release of the Investigation Report Regarding Forest Peterson Councilmember Reckdahl wanted the public to understand what occurred and be made aware of the investigation results. Even though Forest Peterson resigned, the results should be publicized. Folks would speculate if they did not have the facts. It was good public policy to release the information. Councilmember Burt added that Forest Peterson, before being called on to resign, advocated for the release of the report. The matter had been confusing and lacked transparency. It was SUMMARY MINUTES Page 18 of 22 Sp. City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 09/09/2026 Council’s authority and responsibility to make a determination on releasing the report. Council releasing the report would be a step forward in providing transparency. Public Comment: 1. Henry E. requested that Council be transparent and provide clear statements. Henry E. thought it was incumbent upon Council to make a statement of substance. 2. Rebecca E. (Zoom) indicated most issues could be resolved by talking to the complainant and the accused to get both sides of the story verses paying for an investigation. Rebecca E. advocated for releasing the investigation with the backup information included, requested that towing companies’ practices be investigated, and outlined the events that occurred. 3. Aram J. (Zoom) disagreed with Forest Peterson being called for resignation and felt he was prosecuted in the court of public opinion. Aram J. was disappointed with the City’s transparency. 4. Mazin O. (Zoom) discussed a negative experience with Bay Area Autoworks and requested that towing companies be transparent with charges and practices. Vice Mayor Stone noted that witnesses in the investigation spoke with the promise of confidentiality. The memo suggested that the confidentiality concerns could be addressed through redaction but redaction was more complicated than simply removing names and identifying information. The details might be necessary to understand the investigator's analysis and conclusions. If too little was redacted, a witness might be identified. Redacting too much might remove important context and potentially change a reader’s understanding of the findings. Vice Mayor Stone asked the City Attorney to speak to the challenges of redaction. City Attorney Chris Jensen responded that primary information directly identifying witnesses would be redacted. It was difficult to remove context and background secondary identifying information without risking changing the meaning of the report. City Attorney Jensen would be careful to not change the meaning of the report and would tread carefully in making redactions that might change the way facts were weighed. Mayor Veenker queried if removing specifically identifying information and leaving the facts might reveal one’s identity. City Attorney Jensen could not rule out someone with sufficient motivation being able to reconstruct identities. Vice Mayor Stone was concerned that releasing the report would establish a precedent that could seriously undermine the ability to conduct effective investigations in the future. When the investigation was initiated, there was a clear government purpose. There were serious allegations involving a sitting PTC commissioner and Council potentially needed to determine SUMMARY MINUTES Page 19 of 22 Sp. City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 09/09/2026 what occurred and whether further action was warranted but circumstances had materially changed as Mr. Peterson resigned from the PTC and there was no longer a question whether he should remain on the commission, whether Council should remove him, or whether some other consequences should attach to his service. Vice Mayor Stone asked what government decision Council was trying to make by releasing the report. The memo addressed disclosure being necessary for transparency, accountability, and public trust but transparency was not an absolute value outweighing every other institutional interest, particularly when the commissioner resigned. Witnesses had participated in the investigation with assurances that their identities would remain confidential. Vice Mayor Stone stated if Council released the statements or a report based upon those statements that thought should be given to the message it would send to the next witness in a sensitive investigation. Vice Mayor Stone questioned what confidential meant if Council decided to release the investigation when its release would have no material effect on the subject of the report. If the commissioner was still serving, it would be a different situation. Redaction would not solve the problem. Identity protection involved more than redacting a name. The context surrounding a witness statement might identify the witness. The results of a redacted report could result in confidentiality being compromised or the report not providing enough information to fairly evaluate the investigator's findings. The immediate governmental purpose for the investigation was no longer before Council. The marginal benefit of releasing the report did not outweigh the long-term harm that could be done to the credibility and confidentiality of future City investigations. Vice Mayor Stone believed Council’s responsibility was to devote attention to the significant challenges facing Palo Alto. City Attorney Jensen clarified that witnesses were informed that the investigation was confidential and advised that the investigation would be provided to Council and that Council would decide what to do with it. The consequences of providing such to Council were spelled out as clearly as possible to the witnesses. Vice Mayor Stone did not want to waive confidentiality for a moot issue. Mayor Veenker asked if the witnesses were advised that Council could waive the privilege and disclose the report. City Attorney Jensen answered that the witnesses were not explicitly advised that Council could waive the privilege and disclose the report. Mayor Veenker had litigated redaction of documents and redacted thousands of documents. The subject in lawsuits was oftentimes about it being done correctly. Removing identifying information was more than blocking out names. There was a risk of identifying witnesses or losing significant detail underlying an investigator's conclusion. Mayor Veenker worried how witnesses might view it if they were unaware of it not being waived and the effect on future whistleblowers. Mayor Veenker discussed why the report was not trustworthy. The report would be hard to redact, could chill future whistleblowing, could break the City’s word to SUMMARY MINUTES Page 20 of 22 Sp. City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 09/09/2026 witnesses who participated, and was not useful. Sometimes there was value in waving privilege. It could be compared and contrasted with the Cubberley appraisal. The Cubberley appraisal was not moot and was not about personal conduct but about public land paid for with public money and it did not involve any witnesses. Mayor Veenker thought that one could be waived. Such things should be weighed when making precedent-setting decisions. Councilmember Lauing expressed that the tow truck company was in the press and known to the public, so the company would not be protected by any sort of redaction. The press and the public wanted to know what the City’s investment was and what information Council had. There was no benefit to keeping it private. Not releasing the information would indicate that the City was trying to hide something. It would not deter future witnesses partly because such things would eventually become public. Councilmember Burt explained that the decision was partially about the actions of Mr. Peterson due to what was in the public record. Councilmember Burt considered there to be an ethical lapse by the majority of Council in the reappointment of Mr. Peterson. The claims against Mr. Peterson indicated a serious abuse of position and Council had full access to the investigation and supported reappointment. Rather than the majority of Council saying a mistake had been made, the majority possibly voted in a way they would not have if the information had been public. One or two days after submitting the Colleagues’ Memo, there was an agenda item to remove Mr. Peterson from office with no public hearing. Mr. Peterson was the current chair of the Democratic Club, which carried significant weight in local democratic politics. The public had a right to understand what was known by Council and why the reappointment moved forward. An issue was Council’s credibility and accountability for its actions. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims stated the ethical lapse of Council was the issue before Council. Four council members had determined that the results of the investigation did not prove by the preponderance of the evidence that a violation of city rules or procedures occurred, so Mr. Peterson was reappointed to the PTC. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims stated the investigation Council had access to was thin and one-sided and no video was provided despite requesting it and the complainant was not examined. A confidential process should not be conducted and then willy-nilly turned over. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims worried about breaking promises to witnesses and understood that there was no consent (or request for such) from the witnesses to share the investigation. If a request had been presented to witnesses, they might feel coerced and future witnesses might question the trustworthiness of the City if the City did not honor the promise to keep identities confidential. The decision could set a precedent and lead to the disclosure of future investigations. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims was concerned about the ability to appropriately redact to preserve privacy without obfuscating the underlying facts. As the report was inadequate, redacting it would make it confusing and render it useless. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims did not support releasing the report. Mayor Veenker did not support releasing the report. Release it in this circumstance would not be wise. Waiving privilege was done on a case-by-case basis and was serious. Political motivations should not supersede the good practices and precedent-setting nature of the vote. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 21 of 22 Sp. City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 09/09/2026 Councilmember Lu noted that the complaint was public. There were several witnesses and bits of information not included in the report. Councilmember Lu asked which witnesses would be considered for redaction and questioned what would be interpretable if the report was redacted. City Attorney Jensen answered that there would be an attempt to de-identify private non-City parties involved in the discussion. Identities would be redacted but testimonies would be provided. The goal would be to accurately present all sides of the story to the greatest extent possible Councilmember Lauing asked Councilmember Lythcott-Haims why she opposed releasing the report. Councilmember Lauing thought the report would invoke readers’ opinions. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims saw 2 distinct issues – the merits or desirability of disclosing to the public versus the obligation to uphold a commitment to witnesses and keeping the report confidential. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims saw upside to making the investigation public but it was less compelling than the obligation to the witnesses. Confidentiality should not be offered and then withdrawn. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims was concerned about possible witness trepidation related to future investigations. Councilmember Reckdahl did not consider the issue moot because Mr. Peterson resigned. The report stated that Mr. Peterson identified himself as a public official. Courts had ruled repeatedly that the public interest in knowing the truth about wrongdoing outweighed privacy issues. The public should see the evidence and make a conclusion. Not releasing the report would reduce public trust. Councilmember Burt stated the investigator’s conclusion and the substance of the report was known by Council but it had not been released to the public and the public should have that information. Mayor Veenker mentioned that information in challenging circumstances was often incomplete and people had different information. There had not been an opportunity for Council to determine what happened through the video, which Forest Peterson had requested. Mayor Veenker knew about the video at the time of the vote but the full Council did not. Mayor Veenker commented that the Palo Alto Police Department determined that no crime occurred. City Attorney Jensen noted that no criminal charges were filed and there was no active criminal investigation. Councilmember Lauing asked if the City Attorney cleared the recommended motion. City Attorney Jensen stated the recommended motion had been cleared. MOTION: Councilmember Lauing moved, seconded by Councilmember Reckdahl, to waive attorney-client privilege with respect to final investigative report regarding the complaint SUMMARY MINUTES Page 22 of 22 Sp. City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 09/09/2026 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 was limited to the final report and that Council does not intended to waive privilege over the subject matter of the investigation. Councilmember Lauing thought not releasing the report would be a serious problem for the public. MOTION FAILED: 3-4, Lu, Stone, Lythcott-Haims, Veenker Virtual Public Comment 1. Aram J. had sent Council written comments and discussed a memo that had been released about a TASER incident and thought Council should have released the information to the public. Aram J. requested an investigation and a study session on TASERs. 2. Rebecca E. amended her earlier request to release the Investigation Report Regarding Forest Peterson as she had been unaware of important facts, which she outlined. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 11:58 p.m.