PALO ALTO, Calif. — Before adjourning to closed session on Oct. 15, a member of the public urged the Palo Alto City Council not to use closed-session discussions to negotiate the scope of a redevelopment project at 156 North California Avenue in a manner that would avoid public California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review.

Herb B., who asked to speak during public comment, told the council it should not treat the existence of a CEQA exemption as a pretext to negotiate a larger project in private. He said such closed-session negotiations “evade the public hearing process” and the Brown Act’s requirements that substantive planning decisions be conducted in public when CEQA review is implicated.

After public comment the council took a motion, seconded by unnamed members on the record, to meet in closed session on a potential litigation matter regarding 156 North California Avenue. The roll-call vote was recorded as unanimous; council members present voted “yes” to convene the closed session.

What the action was: The meeting adjourned to closed session for a conference on potential litigation related to the property, as announced by the mayor. No details on the substance of the potential litigation were disclosed in open session. The council indicated it would return to public session after the closed meeting and report any required actions at that time.

Vote at a glance
- Motion: Adjourn to closed session to discuss potential litigation regarding 156 North California Avenue.
- Mover/Second: Motion moved and seconded on the record (not recorded by name in the public portion of the transcript).
- Tally: recorded as a unanimous vote in favor (council members on the record answered “yes” when called).

The council did not announce any substantive outcome from the closed session in the public portion of the record before adjourning; the mayor said the council would return after closed session to announce any reportable actions.