Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-05-13 Policy & Services Committee Summary MinutesPOLICY & SERVICES COMMITTEE SUMMARY MINUTES Page 1 of 11 Special Meeting May 13, 2025 The Policy and Services Committee of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in Council Chambers and by virtual teleconference at 7:00 PM. Present In-Person: Lu, Stone, Veenker (arrived at 7:05 PM) Absent: None Public Comment Cherrill Spencer is a member of the Palo Alto Branch of the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF). In October 2018, the Palo Alto City Council passed a unanimous motion directing staff to develop an ordinance based on the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW). Item 3.4 of the 2024 and 2025 Equity Action Plan is to finalize the CEDAW Ordinance and present it to the City Council for adoption. Cherrill Spencer has provided staff with copies of CEDAW ordinances passed by San Francisco and Berkeley. Cherrill Spencer urged the development and adoption of a CEDAW ordinance. Agenda Items 1. Recommend Adoption of Palo Alto Safe Streets for All (SS4A) Safety Action Plan and Resolution; CEQA status - not a project; exempt pursuant to Public Resources Code 21080.20 Sylvia Star-Lack, Planning Manager in the Office of Transportation, presented the final draft of the Palo Alto Safe Streets for All (SS4A) Safety Action Plan. Staff sought the Committee’s confirmation of the planned target date and an endorsement of the Resolution adopting the plan. In June, staff will bring this plan to Council for adoption. Planning Manager Star-Lack compared the SS4A Plan and the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan (BPTP) updates. The SS4A Plan and BPTP Update had a variety of common data inputs from crash data sources and community engagement activities. Some key differences between the SS4A Plan and BPTP Update were the SS4A’s focus on safety for all modes of travel while the BPTP Update addresses bicycle and pedestrian collisions only. The SS4A reviewed safety of proposed projects from existing plans while the BPTP Update identified new projects or updated projects from the 2012 plan. The SS4A Plan institutionalizes a new safety framework through policy while the BPTP update will build off the policy framework for project implementation. Where appropriate, upcoming area plans will prepare a more detailed land use and transportation design and implementation plan. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 2 of 11 Sp. Policy & Services Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 5/13/2025 The SS4A uses the Safe System Approach to improve the transportation system. The Safe System Wheel included five elements: Safe road users, safe vehicles, safe speeds, safe roads, and post-crash care. A fundamental objective of the Safe System Approach is to eliminate fatal and serious injuries (KSIs) for all road users by accommodating human mistakes and keeping impacts on the human body at tolerable levels. What separates the Safe System Approach from the traditional approach to safety is the ethical imperative that not even one death is acceptable on our roadway system. The Swiss Cheese Model demonstrated how the Safe System elements work together to create redundant systems. The Public Health Pyramid framework points to the relative efficacy of each tier of strategies available to the City. The SS4A Plan met the following nine required components to receive future funding from the Safe Streets and Roads for All grant: Strategic planning, discussion of existing efforts, strategies for evaluation and implementation, partnerships, systematic and data-driven analysis, high- injury network (HIN) identification, engagement, project prioritization or location-specific engineering recommendations, as well as strategies for engineering, education, and enforcement. The HIN is a map based on 2018-2022 crash data that identifies streets where a disproportionately high number of traffic KSIs occurs. The crash analysis showed that 63 percent of collisions occurred on 4 percent of Palo Alto’s streets. The top injury-producing streets were El Camino Real, Middlefield Road, and Embarcadero Road. The project team analyzed the 2018-2022 collision dataset and found seven safety focus areas and the associated KSI percentage: Residential arterials (13 percent), alcohol involved (15 percent), pedestrians on arterials at night (9 percent), pedestrians on major downtown streets (6 percent), 90-degree angle collisions with bicyclists of all ages (13 percent), Walk & Roll bike routes crossing higher-stress streets (4 percent), and children riding bicycles (6 percent). The following methods were used to collect community feedback: An online survey with an interactive web map, two in-person events, a four-month review period on the draft plan that garnered over 300 comments, virtual meetings with an internal stakeholder working group, and meetings with advisory committees and Council. The public voiced their support for this plan, its initiatives, and for education to remain a key effort in the City’s safety work. Concerns were raised about nighttime crashes due to insufficient lighting. Requests were made regarding daylighting treatments, Safe Routes to School, the San Antonio Road Area Plan, the Plan’s target date, and regulations for minors riding e-bikes. The final draft incorporated these comments and requests except for regulating minors on e-bikes because e-bikes are regulated by the State. State legislation allows Marin County and jurisdictions in San Diego County to restrict the use of e-bikes by minors. The SS4A grant funding requires adoption of a target date by which the City would have reduced KSI collisions to zero. Public and advisory committees’ comments as well as Council feedback indicated a 2035 target year instead of 2040. Staff recommended that the Policy and Services Committee recommend Council approve the Resolution to adopt the SS4A Safety SUMMARY MINUTES Page 3 of 11 Sp. Policy & Services Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 5/13/2025 Action Plan with a target date of 2035. Staff sought the Committee’s confirmation of the target date for the plan. Council Member Stone thought 2035 was not ideal but he was willing to support it. Council Member Stone did not want to push staff beyond its capabilities. Last week’s death of a Menlo- Atherton coach was devastating for the entire community and in particular for the school district he teaches in. To prevent future local tragedy, Council Member Stone wanted to move this Plan along but he understood the timeline was challenging to meet. Council Member Stone was glad Theme H included development of regulations for minors riding e-bikes in the work plan but it was not addressed in the final draft. The staff report mentioned a State pilot program in Marin. Council Member Stone wanted to know if there was anything the City could do to regulate minors riding e-bikes on our streets because it was a serious safety concern. Planning Manager Star-Lack replied the plan addresses e-bikes with education. Parents are provided information regarding children using these devices. Planning Manager Star-Lack expected the State to act on this because many communities were dealing with this issue. Council Member Stone did a Google search this morning and the results included many news stories. Council Member Stone searched the topic on Nextdoor and shared a redacted screenshot of posts complaining about minors on e-bikes, one post had 78 comments and the other had 100 comments. Council Member Stone shared an experience of seeing kids riding e-bikes without a helmet and swerving in the lanes. Council Member Stone inquired if staff required direction to incorporate e-bikes in the final draft so the City has the language and is ready to implement it when the State allows Cities to regulate use. Planning Manager Star-Lack thought if the State changes the law allowing the City to regulate that we would do so because the goal of the Plan is to orient our transportation work around safety. Council Member Stone asked what was being done when police officers observe unsafe behavior, and what distinguishes a motorcycle from an e-bicycle. Assistant Police Chief James Reifschneider expressed the frustration felt by local law enforcement and safety personnel in dealing with juveniles and adults using e-vehicles (scooters or bicycles) because State law has not kept up with the evolving technology and speed of e-vehicles. Police can address bicycle- related infractions and driving behaviors; however, e-vehicles are fast, maneuverable, and do not lend themselves to being chased by a police car. The Police Department is aware of it being a community issue. Assistant Police Chief Reifschneider pointed out that parent education is a key part because parents are typically the ones providing kids with these vehicles but frequently parents may not be aware of how dangerous and fast they are and how unsafely their child is operating it. Assistant Police Chief Reifschneider hoped to have clarity on the definition of e-bikes in the Vehicle Code because you have to know a lot about the specific bicycle or motorcycle to make the distinction. Previously, a chain-driven device was a bicycle and everything else was a motorcycle or car but it is not as easy now. There are liaison relationships with the School District. Council Member Stone agreed the education component is huge, so he inquired if there had been an attempt to work with local high schools. Assistant Police Chief Reifschneider was aware of the Police Department SUMMARY MINUTES Page 4 of 11 Sp. Policy & Services Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 5/13/2025 participating in the Bike Rodeo event that encourages bike and pedestrian safety with younger age groups but he did not think the Police Department did a lot of outreach to the high school age group, so they will work on that. Council Member Lu thought 2035 is a good date. Palo Alto had up to 15 KSIs per year, so reducing KSIs to zero will be difficult but Council Member Lu felt we should take a credible and ambitious shot at it. Council Member Lu asked about the prioritization of projects listed in Appendices G and H, and if those projects will be refined through the BPTP. Planning Manager Star-Lack said this was intended to be a living plan, so staff expected to update the data regularly. The projects listed in Appendices G and H were best practice or suggested from the community. Council Member Lu questioned if the PABAC or PTC had any major points of critique or disagreement. Planning Manager Star-Lack stated the feedback on the target date was that 2040 was more realistic but they wanted this work to happen sooner because it is very urgent. If it was the consensus of the Committee, Council Member Lu wanted to make a recommendation to Council for a State-level action that will make the 2035 goal more feasible, so he wondered what was the right way to agendize or consider having Assembly Member Marc Berman use one of his limited number of bills for an amendment on e-bikes. Vice Mayor Veenker expressed her appreciation for this very important work in sparing the community some heartbreak for each life we save. Vice Mayor Veenker thought we should do our best to meet the 2035 goal. Vice Mayor Veenker asked how Marin had the ability to regulate e-bikes. Planning Manager Star-Lack thought Unincorporated Marin County started by convening a committee to research the crash data and there was enough evidence to convince the State to allow them to create a regulation. Via State legislation, cities within San Diego County have the choice to regulate minors on e-bikes. Vice Mayor Veenker suggested the staff ask the consultants at Townsend to provide us an update on State legislation for minors and adults on e-bikes to help inform the decision whether to do some self-help or potentially provide input or consider a Support position. Deputy City Manager Chantal Cotton Gaines said staff can request that information from Townsend and share it with the Committee. If the Committee was interested in talking about future sponsorship, staff can outline the process. Vice Mayor Veenker asked how the BPTP addresses e-bikes. Planning Manager Star-Lack answered the draft BPTP Update will include e-bikes and other forms of micromobility. Vice Mayor Veenker believed education was important and noted Theme B and Theme E addressed education but she wondered education was included in the Safe System Approach. Planning Manager Star-Lack explained that text was added to the Plan to emphasize education. Public Comment: None. Council Member Stone was intrigued by the potential option to advocate for expanding the pilot program to maybe include the City or County, or ending the pilot program and pursuing statewide legislation. Council Member Stone thought Legislature should craft some language to differentiate good e-bikes from dangerous e-bikes. Council Member Stone asked if staff needed SUMMARY MINUTES Page 5 of 11 Sp. Policy & Services Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 5/13/2025 direction from the Committee to engage with Townsend on this issue or if the commissioners’ comments were sufficient. Deputy City Manager Cotton Gaines will verify but she felt that because it was promoting safety that it would fit within the legislative guidelines about general safety themes. MOTION: Councilmember Stone moved staff’s recommendation, seconded by Councilmember Lu, to recommend the City Council approve the Resolution to adopt the Safe Streets for All (SS4A) Safety Action Plan with a target date of 2035. MOTION PASSED: 3-0 2. Recommend City Council Approve the Office of the City Auditor Annual Risk Assessment and FY 2026 Audit Plan and Corresponding Task Orders Item Removed Off Agenda 3. Recommend City Council Approval to Amend the FY 2024 and FY 2025 Budgets for Task Orders to Realign the Authorized Budgets with a Net-Zero Impact City Auditor Kate Murdock addressed the Committee. The Office of the City Auditor (OCA) recommends the Policy and Services Committee recommend City Council amend FY 2024 and FY 2025 Task Orders to realign the authorized budgets with a net-zero impact overall: • FY 2025 Task 4.32: CSD Equipment and Materials Inventory Management reduced by $20,000 • FY 2024 Task 4.25: Emergency Preparedness – Wildfire increased by $5000 • FY 2024 Task 4.28: Dispatch Center Assessment increased by $15,000 Public Comment: None. Council Member Stone fully supported staff’s recommendation, especially to ensure the Auditor was provided the resources to complete the wildfire assessment. Council Member Lu noticed the task order in the attachment had Emergency Preparedness with a red strikethrough of $73,110, and then said $75,000, increased by $2000; however, staff’s recommendation was to increase by $5000. City Auditor Murdock explained that the budget for wildfire was amended once before but there were additional costs incurred to complete the reporting. The Audit Office wrote off some costs but as costs continued to rise and due to the savings in the other Task, City Auditor Murdock wanted to see if they could realign the budget. The proposed increase does not include the costs that were already written off. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 6 of 11 Sp. Policy & Services Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 5/13/2025 Seeing that less could have been spent on inventory management and more on wildfire preparedness, Council Member Lu asked staff to let the Committee know if there is anything else they want proactively flagged. Vice Mayor Veenker did not have any issues with staff’s recommendation, and expressed her appreciation for the write off and the net-zero budget impact. Vice Mayor Veenker asked if Task 4.32 was done because she wanted to make sure there were enough funds to complete that audit. City Auditor Murdock answered Task 4.32 is in reporting and should wrap up this week, and will come to Policy and Services in June or August. Deputy City Manager Chantal Cotton Gaines provided the following response to a question about e-bikes that arose in Item 1. The Transportation Section of the legislative guidelines says to deter single-occupancy drivers, alleviate local traffic congestion, and promote active transportation safety infrastructure. Deputy City Manager Cotton Gaines thought “promote active transportation safety infrastructure” allowed the ability to work on it. MOTION: Councilmember Lu moved, seconded by Councilmember Stone, to recommend the City Council approve the amendment of the FY 2024 and FY2025 Task Orders to realign the authorized budgets with a net-zero impact overall: • FY 2025 Task 4.32: CSD Equipment and Materials Inventory Management reduced by $20,000 • FY 2024 Task 4.25: Emergency Preparedness – Wildfire increased by $5,000 • FY 2024 Task 4.28: Dispatch Center Assessment increased by $15,000 MOTION PASSED: 3-0 4. Discussion and Direction on Establishing a Council Chambers Use and Reservation Policy Deputy City Clerk Francesca Reyes presented a draft Council Chambers Use and Reservation Policy, which included the Community Meeting Room and the Flexible Meeting Room. The City Clerk’s Office occasionally receives requests from outside government agencies and nonprofit organizations to use these spaces. These requests are evaluated on a case-by-case basis, depending on staff capacity, space availability, and logistical considerations. The lack of a clear policy has led to challenges in decision making and questions regarding the criteria for use. The purpose of the draft policy is to ensure that City spaces, especially the Council Chambers, are used primarily for official City and government-related functions, provide clear and consistent guidelines for reservation and space use, minimize liability and protect City resources and facilities; and is designed to promote fairness, transparency, and efficiency in the reservation process. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 7 of 11 Sp. Policy & Services Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 5/13/2025 Staff proposed the following priority framework for use of the Chambers. Priority 1: Public meetings of the City Council, Council Committees, Boards, and Commissions, and use by City staff (for example, a Council Member has a seat on the San Francisquito JPA). Priority 2: Meetings and events organized by other government agencies (for example, the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors held a special meeting a few years ago at City Hall). Priority 3: A policy decision to allow 501(c)(3) nonprofits to use these spaces with the criteria that it be free and open to the public (could attract a wide variety of groups seeking to raise their public profile by using a government venue). Staff sought feedback from the Committee on whether to allow nonprofit organizations to access the facility use under Priority 3, and if so, what conditions if any should apply. The proposed deposit and fee structure will apply to Priority 2 and Priority 3: Cleaning and damage refundable deposit of $250 to secure the reservation. The deposit will be held until after the event. If the event exceeds its scheduled time, any cleaning needs or damages identified during the post-event inspection will be deducted from the deposit. A fee of $47/hour per attendant applies in cases where City staff is required to provide day-of-event support, needed to be present afterhours, or if additional cleaning and room organization is needed. A technology assistance fee of $100/hour may be applied when audio/visual services or streaming support is requested. Technology equipment and setup are primarily reserved for governmental functions. These proposed fees are an initial estimate; future refinement will be needed based on actual usage and cost data. All requests must be submitted no later than 30 days before the event and no earlier than 6 months in advance. The City Clerk is responsible for setting final reservation dates and times. The City may cancel reservations for emergencies or when a Special Meeting of the City Council must be held. If a user must cancel their reservation, this must be done in writing at least 10 days before the event. Cancellations less than 7 days in advance will result in a forfeiture of the deposit to recover planning and administrative costs. For events with 100 or more participants, organizers will be required to provide proof of liability insurance. Security may be required, depending on the nature of the reservation. The City will not provide police officers or City staff for day-of-event security services. If security is needed, the event organizer is responsible to arrange appropriate coverage. A chart was shown of neighboring Cities and their deposits, fees, uses, and restrictions. Atherton and Portola Valley do not have a formal Council Chambers policy in place. Staff sought the Committee’s input and direction on the policy draft. If the Committee is interested in having a discussion on Priority 3 for 501(c)(3) organizations, under the law there are two models to choose from and City Attorney Stump offered to explain those for the Committee’s consideration. Public Comment: None. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 8 of 11 Sp. Policy & Services Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 5/13/2025 Council Member Lu asked how often staff receives requests from Priority 2 or Priority 3. Deputy City Clerk Reyes answered the City Clerk’s Office receives about three to four requests a month but it has not been made publicly known that folks are able to potentially reserve this venue. Another staff member noted that requests have increased over the last few years but Priority 2 and Priority 3 were maybe five requests per year. Council Member Lu saw that fees for Lucie Stern, Cubberley, and Mitchell Park were higher than these proposed fees and wanted to know the reason why. The deposit for Lucie Stern and Mitchell Park was $500, and the attendant fee was slightly more per hour. Deputy City Clerk Reyes explained that staff felt the deposit was appropriate for the events being held at the facilities. Food is not allowed in Council Chambers. The other venues had features such as kitchen access and a park; therefore, there was higher interest in those venues for birthdays, weddings, bar mitzvahs, etc. Council Member Lu was not in favor of Priority 3 for 501(c)(3) because groups that we otherwise do not support can use this space and there may be perceived viewpoint discrimination. Nonprofits can get affordable nonprofit rental rates at our other venues. Council Member Stone thought the policy overall looked good and had no problem with the fees, although he had some concerns about Priority 3. Council Member Stone understood the First Amendment law will preclude the City from screening groups based on their views but he was concerned about how the Clerk makes the determination that something is a public benefit and how that would not raise First Amendment issues. According to the ADL, over the years there has been an increase in hate groups seeking 501(c)(3) status to further their hateful objectives and political speech. For example, the IRS granted tax-exempt status to the Oath Keepers Educational Foundation and several Three Percenters groups across the country. Council Member Stone was concerned that allowing Priority 3 would welcome hate groups to host hate rallies within our Chambers. City Attorney Stump stated the concept of public benefit is general and vague, opening up the possibility that the Clerk is put into a position where her decisions could be viewed as related to the viewpoint of the various groups. Neutral and clear objective criteria can be established for Priority 3, such as you must be a 501(c)(3), have a local connection, and be free and open to the public but beyond that, government officials should not make distinctions between groups based on their viewpoint, so any qualifying entity will have an opportunity to use this space if it was available. The second model solves this but is narrower in that 501(c)(3) groups would only be allowed to use the space if it was a City-sponsored activity or the City was partnering with a 501(c)(3), which puts the governmental decision into the category of government speech. City Attorney Stump recalled this space has occasionally been used by the League of Women Voters and the local newspaper for basic civic education activities. The City will not cosponsor that because it is not appropriate for a City to engage in candidate forums. Council Member Stone would support Priority 1, Priority 2, and a modified Priority 3 with City sponsorship. Council Member Stone expressed his concerns on the Weekly’s previous tradition SUMMARY MINUTES Page 9 of 11 Sp. Policy & Services Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 5/13/2025 of hosting the candidate forum in Council Chambers and found this year’s forum location resulted in a much fairer process. To inform the decision on what types of events the Committee was saying yes or no to, Vice Mayor Veenker wanted to know how many requests were from Priority 2 versus Priority 3 and what was the nature of those 501(c)(3) organizations. City Manager Ed Shikada gave an example of VTA’s Ad Hoc Committee being a Priority 2. Staff requested clarification from the Committee because if a Council Member sits on a board or outside agency and requests to have the meeting in Council Chambers, for example the JPA, staff considered it Priority 1. Examples of Priority 2 are requests from SamTrans, VTA Mobility Hub, and Anna Eshoo’s art exhibition. At the time, there was no policy on the use of Council Chambers, so staff brought it to Council for their decision on consent. City Manager Shikada recalled an inquiry from the California Transportation Commission but the amount of people would not fit. Vice Mayor Veenker wanted to set a reservation fee because the City did not need to subsidize other agencies. Vice Mayor Veenker sits on a variety of boards and other entities get fees for the use of their spaces. Vice Mayor Veenker’s concerns about broadly opening up to 501(c)(3) was the perception of bias, staff making judgment calls, or scenarios where the use of the Chambers might not be with the decorum that we would want; however, she was intrigued by the City-sponsored option. Vice Mayor Veenker noted the first subsection of Section 8 of the attached Draft Policy addressed conduct. If Priority 3 was opened up more broadly, Vice Mayor Veenker wondered if there are legal issues around having language in the policy stating the City reserves a right to immediately call an end to the event if the user cannot maintain attendees’ compliance with the rules. Vice Mayor Veenker was at an event in Chambers recently when the sponsors of the event had no control over the attendees. City Manager Shikada stated the City would not have a presence at the event if it were rented to an organization and therefore would not be there to shut it down. City Attorney Stump pointed out that having a rule about making a decision to shut down or not shut down an event meant the City needed to be willing to take on responsibility for public accountability. Vice Mayor Veenker asked if the language could say the City reserves the right to do it instead of stating the City shall or will. City Manager Shikada wanted to have some language that provides the prerogative to withdraw the permission. Deputy City Manager Cotton Gaines said maybe more language can be added to Page 3 of the draft policy in the fees section, which states: Security may be required. If so, the user must hire a licensed, insured security firm approved by the City and provide proof of the event security plan. Vice Mayor Veenker agreed with Priority 1, Priority 2, and part of Priority 3, which she will call Priority 3½. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 10 of 11 Sp. Policy & Services Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 5/13/2025 Council Member Lu noted this proposed policy had a $47 fee whereas it was $49 for Mitchell Park and $75 on holidays or overtime. Deputy City Clerk Reyes acknowledged her mistake. Mitchell Park recently changed their fees but it was $47 at the time she input it. Council Member Lu had concerns with Priority 3 because there could be perceived bias or discrimination and legal risk with co-sponsorship. Council Member Lu gave a hypothetical example of allowing Anna Eshoo to host an art event; the following week the Pope wants to host an art event, speak to the crowd, and have crucifixes all over the walls, making it feel like a church. If the City does not cosponsor the Pope’s event, the Catholic Church could say you sponsored an almost identical event the week before and you are excluding my event only because the perception of religious incorporation is not proper in a government space. City Attorney Stump explained there is a recognized doctrine around government speech that provides government with more deference in choosing to associate or promote speech or not participate in speech. People could likely challenge if you make decisions based on the exercise of religion, which is an area of the law that is in flux at this time. Council Member Lu stated there is a Supreme Court case decision to be released about a religious charter school that was denied public funding because it is religious but they may win and therefore there may be consequences for the City. Council Member Lu’s other concern was publicizing on our website the availability of this space for all nonprofits and the resultant amount of time and work administering this through the Clerk’s Office instead of CSD. Vice Mayor Veenker pointed out the City allows Priority 3½ in other venues and was not aware of there being much of a problem, so she did not know why this policy would be any different. Vice Mayor Veenker asked if use would only be during business hours or also on evenings and weekends. Deputy City Clerk Reyes said events could be held outside of operational hours. Vice Mayor Veenker suggested having a separate attendant fee for afterhours. Staff commented they did not expect their workload to change much, as the purpose of this policy was only to have guidelines to facilitate the reservation process. Council Member Lu did not have a strong opinion on Priority 3 if the City website did not publicize City Hall as an available venue, if this policy was continuing what is being doing now and is manageable. Council Member Lu wondered if the attendant for City Hall would be someone from the Clerk’s Office because that is more expensive and potentially bad for work- like balance compared to Community Services having a larger and more flexible staff pool to provide an attendant. Council Member Stone instructed the Clerk’s Office to notify the City Manager’s Office if they feel they are overstretched and cannot handle the workload. Vice Mayor Veenker invited the Clerk to let the Committee know if this becomes burdensome or if any unanticipated issues arise, and this Committee would welcome an update. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 11 of 11 Sp. Policy & Services Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 5/13/2025 Staff asked if the Committee wanted to see this policy again before it goes to Council or can it be put on Consent to Council. The consensus was that the policy did not need to return to the Committee. MOTION: Councilmember Stone moved, seconded by Councilmember Veenker, to recommend the City Council adopt the proposed draft Council Chambers Use and Reservation Policy and fees, with the following addition: • Add a Priority 3 category to allow City-sponsored or co-sponsored events with 501(c)(3) organizations. MOTION PASSED: 3-0 Future Meetings and Agendas Deputy City Manager Chantal Cotton Gaines stated the Packet will go out this week for the Committee’s Special Meeting on May 28 to be held in the Community Meeting Room. At least two items were anticipated on that agenda, one related to the management of contracts and the other is the Auditor Risk Assessment, and there may be one other item. The meeting after that will be held on June 10, which had a lot of items on the agenda. Staff will include an update on the CEDAW ordinance in the next Race and Equity or Wellness and Belonging item to this Committee in either August or June. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 8:40 PM.