Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-10-21 City Council Summary MinutesCITY COUNCIL SUMMARY MINUTES Page 1 of 18 Regular Meeting October 21, 2024 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers and by virtual teleconference at 5:30 P.M. Present In Person: Burt, Kou, Lauing, Lythcott-Haims, Stone, Tanaka, Veenker Councilmember Tanaka Arrived at 5:34 P.M. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims Arrived at 5:37 P.M. Present Remotely: Absent: Call to Order Mayor Stone called the meeting to order. Mahealani Ah Yun, City Clerk, called roll noting five present. Special Orders of the Day 1. Review List of Applicants and Select Candidates to Interview for the Parks and Recreation Commission Vacancy. CEQA Status – Not a project. City Clerk Ah Yun announced the special recruitment for the vacancy on the Parks and Recreation Commission closed on October 6. The applications were made available to the Council and to the public. All Council members electronically submitted their selections of candidates to interview to the clerk's office. She provided a slide presentation outlining the vote results. The three candidates being moved forward to the interview round were Vadim Axelrod, Yu Deng and James Fox tentatively scheduled for October 28. Councilmember Burt questioned if there was an interest in interviewing more than the three. He was interested in all six. He suggested possibly reconsidering the policy to provide more flexibility. City Clerk Ah Yun advised it was at the discretion of the Council to make a motion to either select to interview all or potentially add an additional vote. Vice Mayor Lauing opined that the list was short enough that they could interview all six candidates. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 2 of 18 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 10/21/2024 Councilmember Veenker expressed concern about making a wholesale change on interviewing all the applicants as sometimes there were multiple positions on multiple commissions. Councilmember Burt did not expect that they would all want to interview the same candidates. Councilmember Kou thought it was prudent to meet with all worthwhile candidates. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims was not inclined to go this direction but supported it out of a sense of collegiality. Mayor Stone did not want to go back to the old practice but agreed there were a lot of good applicants here and was fine interviewing all for a small applicant pool. MOTION: Councilmember Burt moved, seconded by Councilmember Kou to interview all six (6) applicants for the Parks and Recreation Commission special recruitment. MOTION PASSED: 7-0 2. Resolution in Support of the Child Care Program: Build the Future Santa Clara County Councilmember Lythcott-Haims read the resolution. She acknowledged Minka van der Zwaag and Lee Pfab for their roles in the resolution being put forward in Palo Alto. Working Partnerships USA Representative accepted the resolution. She provided an overview of Build the Future. She asked for yes votes to continue to reaffirm support for affordable childcare in the City. Councilmembers Burt and Veenker and Mayor Stone expressed appreciation for Palo Alto Community Child Care. MOTION: Councilmember Lythcott-Haims moved, seconded by Councilmember Burt to approve the Resolution is support of the Child Care Program: Build the Future Santa Clara County. MOTION PASSED: 7-0 Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions Kiely Nose, Assistant City Manager, indicated there were no revisions. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 3 of 18 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 10/21/2024 Public Comment 1. Samantha R., Vice Chair Historic Resources Board, spoke in preparation for Chairperson Eagleston-Cieslewicz 's review of the 23-24 workplan. She requested a joint Council-HRB study session on historic preservation initiatives during the 2025 workplan year. 2. Ahmed M. mentioned the recent hate crimes event. He advised that an integral part of preventing hate crimes was ensuring the people's trust in the government to be able to report them. He encouraged Council to attend Muslim events and announced a Friday prayer at Unity at 1:30. Councilmember Questions, Comments and Announcements Councilmember Burt wanted to make sure everyone was aware of the UNAFF showings of all things related to the UN Declaration of Human Rights through the 27th. He gave an update on the Bay Adapt Plan of Shoreline Rise of the Bay Conservation Development Commission. They will be looking at approval in December. He clarified the role of BCDC being to adopt guidelines. The Regional Shoreline Adaptation plan was planned to be adopted on December 5. He described goals of the Bay Adapt Plans by other cities. He advised the guidelines would not change the permitting processes. Local cities would be adopting their plans under the RSAP and they would determine whether those plans need CEQA approval. Once they have approved plans, they would be eligible for additional funding. He hoped to from the city manager at the next meeting when the next update would be agendized. Councilmember Kou reported out on her trip to the Cal Cities Conference the week before. She described sessions she attended on the California Economic Forecast and navigating the fire insurance maze. Councilmember Tanaka provided an update on discussions with Tesla about Palo Alto providing test areas for self-driving taxis. This would allow them to provide the service to the community at great prices. Tesla does not have the license to pick people up so there was discussion about potentially going under Palo Alto Link's license. Councilmember Veenker thanked staff, community members, Neighbors Abroad and her colleagues for supporting the Connection Weekend and described the associated events. She thanked the HRC and Mayor Stone for facilitating the Hate Crimes Panel. She gave a report on her attendance of the Cal Cities Conference where Brown Act guidelines did not get discussed as intended as there was not a quorum and it would go to the Board of Directors. She mentioned having a regional breakfast with the Peninsula Division of the League of California Cities where they talked about the programs they have had this year and efforts being made in San Jose around homelessness and housing. She announced she was re-elected as the Legislative Action Committee Chair from Santa Clara County. She spoke about the Electric Home Tour that was held the past weekend. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 4 of 18 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 10/21/2024 Councilmember Lythcott-Haims commended the Sibling Cities Team for an extraordinary Town Hall and Housing the past weekend. She was struck by the similarities between Palo Alto and the sister city, Bloomington. She brought up the Open House held in City Hall a week and a half before where the Community could look at presentations and depictions of Downtown and answer questions about what they would like to see where and what was important to them. She encouraged more residents to come out for those things. She expressed her appreciation of the Hate Crimes Conversations sponsored by the HRC. She mentioned a conversation held by the Retail Committee the week prior about the imperative of holding a study session to examine the levers the City and its partners in business need to push and pull to stimulate the local retail economy. She encouraged participation of anyone that the issue appeals to. Vice Mayor Lauing underscored thanks to the HRC for their work on the Hate Crimes Forum. Councilmember Burt mentioned the Calenda Parade held the past Saturday on California Avenue. It would potentially be the first year of an ongoing festival. He remarked that Caltrain was in the midst of a modification to their Quarter Crossing Strategy. The Rail Committee had been attempting to look at efforts to reduce environmental impact of rail crossings and that package could perhaps address three-quarters of the reasons they were planning to do grade separations at a fraction of the time, cost and impact. The focus is to continue forward on the highest priority grade crossings and then to look at the other measures as a package. This would be presented at the next Local Policy Maker Group then he would bring this concept back to the Council. Consent Calendar Public Comment: Amy M. (Zoom) urged Council not to extend the contract with Team Sheeper for the management of Rinconada Pool until they addressed the needs of Palo Alto residents. She opined that it should be tracked residents were actually using the pool. She thought it was unacceptable that access to the pool was restricted after 4 PM. She discussed issues with the current pricing structure. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims and Tanaka requested to Pull Agenda Item Number 6. Councilmember Tanaka registered a no vote on Agenda Item Numbers 4, 5, 7, 10. Councilmember Kou registered a no vote on Agenda Item Number 12. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims registered a no vote on Agenda Item Number 6. MOTION: Vice Mayor Lauing moved, seconded by Councilmember Burt to approve Agenda Item Numbers 3-12. MOTION PASSED ITEMS 3, 8, 9, 11: 7-0 MOTION PASSED ITEMS 4, 5, 7, 10: 6-1, Tanaka no SUMMARY MINUTES Page 5 of 18 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 10/21/2024 MOTION PASSED ITEM 12: 6-1, Kou no MOTION PASSED ITEM 6: 6-1, Lythcott-Haims no Councilmember Tanaka voted no on Item 4 as he thought they should have stronger justifications for carrying certain funds forward by prioritizing only legally-required or revenue- backed projects and setting higher bars for discretionary projects. His no vote on Item 5 was because he thought it was too late and did not make sense. His no vote on Item 7 was because he felt heat pump water heaters were too expensive and he thought they would get a better return on investment in terms of reducing carbon output by spending money on transportation projects. He also opined that the numbers did not add up. His no vote on Item 10 was because he felt like they should not pour more money into that project. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims voted no on Item 6 as she was concerned about entering into a 5-year contract without having the data needed as to whether the pool was serving Palo Alto residents and requested bringing that data in the future. She suggested the public commenter to bring the same public comment in front of the Parks and Recreation Commission. 3. Approval of Minutes from September 30, 2024 and October 7, 2024 Meetings 4. Approval of FY 2024 Reappropriation Requests to FY 2025; CEQA Status: Not a Project 5. Approval of Purchase Order with Anixter, Inc. for the Purchase of Fiber Materials Not-to- Exceed $348,003; and Authorization to Execute Changes Not-to-Exceed $30,000 for Related, for a Total Not-to-Exceed Amount of $378,003 for Fiscal Year 2025; CEQA Status – Council action on this item is within the scope of the Final Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) was adopted by Council Resolution on June 17, 2024 6. Approval of Contract Amendment Number 2 to Contract Number C19173035 with Team Sheeper, Inc., for a five-year Operating and Revenue Sharing Agreement for operations of Rinconada Pool, with an option to renew for an additional five years, effective January 1, 2025; CEQA status –not a project. 7. Approval of Contract Amendment Number 1 to Contract Number S25190354 with Larratt Bros Plumbing Inc. in the Amount of $410,000 for the Residential Emergency Water Heater Replacement Pilot Program Within Electrification Programs; CEQA Status – Not a Project. 8. Approval of Contract Amendment No. 3 to Contract No. S18171325 with ESO Solutions for a 5-Year Extension, Increasing the Total Not-to-Exceed (NTE) Amount by $150,007 to SUMMARY MINUTES Page 6 of 18 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 10/21/2024 $277,155 for the Fire Department's Records Management System (RMS) and Electronic Patient Care Reporting (ePCR) Software; CEQA Status: Not a Project 9. Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing Grant Applications to the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle); CEQA status – not a project. 10. Approval of 1) Increase of Construction Contingency for Contract No. C21178123B with Swinerton Builders in the Amount Not-to-Exceed $1,000,000; 2) Increase of Construction Contingency for Contract No. C23186775 with L.D. Strobel Co., Inc. in the Amount of $25,000; 3) Increase of Contingency for Purchase Order No. 4523000432 with Pivot Interiors in the Amount of $40,000 in the Capital Improvement Fund for the New Public Safety Building Capital Project (PE-15001); CEQA – Environmental Impact Report for the New Public Safety Building and New California Avenue Area Garage (Resolution 9772) 11. SECOND READING: Adoption of an Ordinance Updating Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 4.64 (Permits for Retailers of Tobacco Products) to Conform with County Amendments and Approval of the Updated Agreement Between the County of Santa Clara and City of Palo Alto for a Tobacco Retail Permit Program (FIRST READING: September 23, 2024 PASSED 7-0) 12. SECOND READING: Adopt an Ordinance Adding Chapter 18.29 and Amending Chapters 18.14, 18.24, 18.70, and 16.65 in the Palo Alto Municipal Code as well as Amendments to the Zoning District Map, and Rezoning of Parcels Within the NVCAP area (FIRST READING: September 23, 2024 PASSED 6-1 Kou no; PREVIOUSLY INTRODUCED: August 5, 2024 PASSED 6-1, Kou no) City Manager Comments Assistant City Manager Nose provided a slide presentation on behalf of City Manager Ed Shikada noting updates on the Palo Alto Community Survey and the University Ave. Streetscape Project Online Survey and upcoming November Community celebrations, notable tentative upcoming Council items. Action Items 13. Approval of FY 2025 Architectural Review Board, Historic Resources Board, Human Relations Commission, and Planning and Transportation Commission Workplans; CEQA status – not a project SUMMARY MINUTES Page 7 of 18 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 10/21/2024 Human Relations Commission Chair Eberle went over the Human Relations Commissions Work Plan for FY24/25 covering key accomplishments of FY22/23 and Work Plan highlights for F24/25. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims pointed out that the community wants to call things hate crimes and get a resolution that feels neat and clean but it is not that simple. A hate crime has to involve an actual crime. She wondered what the HRC would take up as a continuation of the conversation in trying to convene the community. She mentioned a program that had been instituted in the wake of the George Floyd murder that might be a model for getting back out into the community and having small conversations among the willing. Chair Eberle thought it was important that one of the takeaways from the meeting the previous week was that there is a difference between a hate crime and a hate incident but the police do want to know about hate incidents. They made several recommendations to Council a few weeks prior and she was starting to work with the City to work to do training on antisemitic, anti-Arab and Islamophobic topics for boards, commissions and city staff. They hoped to keep the dialog alive in a respectful way. She added they have talked about facilitating conversations and would follow up on Councilmember Lythcott-Haims' suggestion. Councilmember Burt wanted to follow up with the police that there are times where a hate incident can be a precursor to a future hate crime and having that on the record would be valuable. He suggested potentially having a preventative engagement to reach out where someone is bordering on going over the line. He asked if the thought of a discussion of funding for the various non-profits and emerging needs would help inform their subsequent review under goal one. He wanted to make sure the HRC was aware of the programs that are being evaluated as part of the Climate Action Plan specifically to address electrification and heat pumps that go into the HVAC system for multifamily home and affordable housing. He asked if the first data from the Rental Registry was on the radar of the HRC and suggested putting it as an additional goal. Ms. Eberle agreed that the discussion of funding would be helpful. She replied that as soon as there was data they could take it upon themselves or the Council could refer something to them. She remarked that the police did say they wanted to keep track of the hate incidents in case it rose to a hate crime. Minka Van Der Zwaag, Human Services Manager, responded that since the HRC Work Plan was established last March that the registry was far enough that they were thinking of coming to the HRC with data. The Planning Department had been involved in many of the items but she was not sure they were specifically coming to the HRC with the results. Councilmember Veenker mentioned the Community Equity Health and Justice Committee that focused on the issues of heat pumps and electrification and suggested some of what they did might be instructive on this goal. She invited them to work with the Council and Climate Ad Hoc Committee on climate control so they could be coordinated on things. She wanted to know SUMMARY MINUTES Page 8 of 18 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 10/21/2024 what they had in mind regarding a listening session and what role they could be of help and support on that goal. Ms. Eberle replied they were thinking of finding out the City's response to shelter needs for the unhoused during extreme weather events. She recalled there was pushback the previous year about opening up the library for the unhoused during inclement weather. They wanted to invite the residents of Palo Alto to come and make public comment on it. She said they could also discuss electrification and heat pumps but they were mainly looking at how to serve the unhoused of the community in inclement weather and people who could not afford their high utility bills. They also planned to have somebody from Utilities talk to them to come up ideas for resolution. Councilmember Kou inquired what group they referred to as vulnerable populations. She asked if it was a specific library the residents were having issues with being used as a shelter during inclement weather. She questioned if they reach out to organizations like La Comida, AbilityPath or Avenidas when talking about the vulnerable even on other topics. Ms. Eberle responded that was the unhoused and lower socioeconomic. She stated they were in constant conversation with those organizations when they dealt with a topic that might interest one of them. Ms. Van Der Zwaag understood that some residents had concerns about the use of the downtown library as an overnight warming location and staff would bring that information to the Human Relations Commission. Her intention was to give a presentation as a key program that the City and Office of Human Services was doing during the cold weather season. She recalled there were neighbor complaints about the library being used as an overnight warming area. She stated in anticipation for the cold weather this year they were going to have an open house for the OWL inviting members of the public displaying information and rules and inviting questions. Councilmember Tanaka wanted to know what percentage of people were suffering from high utility rates. He thought it would be good to keep track of how frequent the complaints are. Ms. Eberle answered they get complaints about the high utility rates from people on a fixed income and the rates continue to go up. They are trying to gather data to understand the problem and invite public comment in order to act on it. Mayor Stone expressed appreciation of the work of the HRC. MOTION: Councilmember Veenker moved, seconded by Councilmember Lythcott-Haims to approve the Human Relations Commission Fiscal Year 2025 Workplan. MOTION PASSED: 7-0 MOTION SPLIT FOR THE PURPOSE OF VOTING SUMMARY MINUTES Page 9 of 18 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 10/21/2024 MOTION: Councilmember Veenker moved, seconded by Councilmember Lythcott-Haims to request the Human Relations Commission do a preliminary review of the rental registry data and to begin to formulate any recommendations to Council they would have based upon that data. MOTION PASSED: 6-1, Tanaka no Architectural Review Board Chair Rosenberg gave a slide presentation reviewing the Architectural Review Board, ARB 23-24 accomplishments, initial proposal and final designs on projects they provided input on and the ARB 24-25 Work Plan (ARB approved April 4). Vice Mayor Lauing inquired if they had considered mini area plans in order to make zoning and building decisions without having to wait four years. He did not understand the second bullet point on Item Number 5. Chair Rosenberg replied they have to follow the stepping point. The smaller stepping stones of doing smaller areas at a time were complicated. The goal of the coordinated area plans was that they had a larger swath they were tackling all at once so it was not piecemeal. She would discuss with the Board if there were targeted areas they could potentially dig into faster. She explained it was their understanding that the staff would be helping to facilitate communication because they did not always sit in on City Council meetings. Councilmember Veenker wanted feedback from staff about recommendation five. She wondered if the preliminary meetings seemed like a good idea and what to expect. Jonathan Lait, Planning and Development Services Director, indicated they were always open to ideas on making the process easier and more coordinated. He thought there were a couple of projects that get on peoples' radar because they may be cumbersome in some way. They have objective standards and have made changes to their zoning regulations and are looking at additional ways to streamline and incentivize certain projects that would go through a much more streamlined review process. His understanding of the recommendation was that there was a desire to have more communication between the boards and direction and actions the City Council has taken. He thought there was an opportunity to have a communication at the beginning of meetings talking about work that has been done from other boards and commissions that may have some overlap. Chair Rosenberg observed they had not had a big step forward in this other than having people sit in on some meetings and listen in to things they thought were pertinent. There are several projects that are more finicky in terms of how they will process. The ARB was not looking to have extra meetings but just make sure there was more coordination. Councilmember Burt commended the Commission on their efforts. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 10 of 18 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 10/21/2024 MOTION: Councilmember Burt moved, seconded by Councilmember Lythcott-Haims to approve the Architectural Review Board Fiscal Year 2025 Workplan with the additional referral to review aesthetic standards for cell towers contingent on City Council direction to do so. MOTION PASSED: 7-0 Historic Resources Board Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz provided a slide presentation reviewing the Historic Resources Board, HRB 23-24 accomplishments and HRB 24-25 Work Plan (HRB approved April 11, revises August 8). Councilmember Burt expressed appreciation of the HRB's work and for reconsideration of the Mill's Act. Councilmember Kou thought it should be clearly stated that projects go through HRB first and then recommendations made to other committees. Mayor Stone liked the idea of increased incentives. Councilmember Tanaka wanted to highlight that some people do not want to be on the list of potentially eligible historic homes. He preferred having the option to opt in versus having to opt out. Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz responded they are working to update the language on the parcel reports to clarify it. Director Lait added they would be having an update for the City Council on that topic in the next two to four weeks. MOTION: Councilmember Kou moved, seconded by Mayor Stone to approve the Historic Resources Board Fiscal Year 2025 Workplan. MOTION PASSED: 7-0 Planning and Transportation Commission Chair Chang provided a slide presentation reviewing the Planning and Transportation Commission, PTC 23-24 accomplishments, project pictures and PTC 24-25 Work Plan (PTC approved April 24, 2024). Councilmember Burt suggested creating a template for the process under the comp plan policy implementation. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 11 of 18 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 10/21/2024 Councilmember Lauing encouraged talking to the ARB about the area plan. He agreed with the comments about getting things right the first time and getting things approved when they are submitted. Chair Chang indicated area planning was where the PTC could use Council's and ARB's assistance the most. Councilmember Veenker echoed Councilmember Burt's comments. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims queried how to work around something already in the pipeline when a coordinated area plan was developed. She wanted to know if applicants were informed that a coordinated area plan was coming. She asked what they had learned from prior coordinated area plan efforts that they would want to deploy for San Antonio Road. She asked if two years was the amount of time it takes to do a proper process or to fit it in alongside the various other items in the workplan of the various bodies that have to participate. Director Lait answered to some degree the City Council has an opportunity to think about that. He explained how PTC and staff had been cognizant of the projects that had been filed and processed. He indicated they let the applicants know that they have an interest in the area and what they are. He explained that two years was an ambitious schedule to conduct an area plan such as the one on San Antonio. They set forth that timeline in order to communicate their urgency and need to advance important policy discussions quickly and get a consultant that could meet that standard. He noted differences between SOFA and NVCAP in planning effectiveness. The Housing Ad Hoc had many tasks to look at the coordinated area plan process and they had some conversation about it. He thought there was value in going back to look at what was and was not successful in the different initiatives. He indicated not calling it a coordinated area plan and relying on state law as an area plan concept gave them flexibility to respond to the community and move the policies forward. Chair Chang thought the consultant selection was critical and feedback needed to be taken seriously. Councilmember Burt opined they should learn from the SOFA and NVCAP processes before starting the San Antonio Plan process. Councilmember Kou added that moving forward the coordinated plans should be inclusive of what the area would be needing. She thought they needed to ensure the consultants had an idea of local conditions. Mayor Stone agreed with the frustration around the use of consultants in the community. He thought they could do a better job developing policy around that. He requested for staff to be very clear with Council about their needs to accelerate the timeline on area plans. Director Lait indicated unilateral decision making would accelerate developing plans and pulling things together. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 12 of 18 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 10/21/2024 MOTION: Vice Mayor Lauing moved, seconded by Councilmember Lythcott-Haims to approve the Planning and Transportation Commission Fiscal Year 2025 Workplan. MOTION PASSED: 7-0 14. Adoption of City Council Positions on State and Local Measures Presented to Palo Alto Voters on the November 5, 2024 Ballot; CEQA status – not a project Christine Prior, Deputy City Clerk, and Carly Shelby, Townsend Public Affairs Senior Associate, gave a joint slide presentation about 2024 ballot measures discussion and possible positions, she provided the background, November 5, 2024, recommended positions, description of ballot initiatives including Propositions 3, 6, 32, 33, 34, 36, 2, 4, 5 and 35 and the recommendations. Councilmember Kou requested to see a diagram of the proposed road on Measure D. For Proposition 2 and 4, she asked where the money would come from and when they would see the money available. Senior Associate Shelby answered they would essentially be purchasing and selling bonds. The bond would comprise less than one-half of one percent of the state's budget. The state would have to pay interest on the money it borrowed. The total cost of the bond would be about 10 percent more after adjusting for inflation than if the state paid up front for taxes. They would be looking at a few hundreds of millions of dollars in terms of the carrying cost for the bonds over a 35-year period. She said that the revenue certainty would become clearer in November when some of the preliminary tax receipts were on hand but would only be really clear in April when the final tax receipt push occurs. They did anticipate another budget deficit but did not know the extent of it. She stated they had not bonded to this extent in some time and the impact on the state's general fund would be minimal. Councilmember Veenker supported the staff-recommended positions. Councilmember Burt agreed with the recommendations on the propositions that were already consistent with their legislative guidelines but he was interested in looking at positions on propositions that were not already framed by their legislative guidelines. He wanted to know if PAUSD has taken a position on Prop 2. He stated he would tend to be supportive of what they believe would be beneficial to the schools in the community. He thought Prop 33 would react against a problem with the current law and swing to the opposite direction. He thought that the length of time new properties were allowed to be free of rent control was an important question for the Council. He was also interested in Prop 36 and Measure D. Deputy City Clerk Prior agreed to find the information on PAUSD's position on Prop 2. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 13 of 18 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 10/21/2024 Vice Mayor Lauing was not ready to dive into Costa Hawkins. He concurred with Councilmember Veenker's position. Councilmember Veenker supported Proposition 2 but she personally wanted to defer the PAUSD on taking a position. She discussed the complexity of Proposition 33 preferring to stay out of it as a Council. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims agreed with Vice Mayor Lauing on the complexity of Costa Hawkins. She liked the notion of grappling with ballot measures sooner in the future. She reported that she had corresponded with a school board member who indicated that the school board did not take any positions officially but a number were personally in favor of Prop 2. Councilmember Kou supported all but Proposition 5. She explained how Proposition 5 would be a burden to the property owners. Councilmember Tanaka did not support Propositions 5, 32, 33. He did support Proposition 36. Mayor Stone supported the staff recommendations. MOTION: Vice Mayor Lauing moved, seconded by Councilmember Lythcott-Haims to adopt support positions on Measure D, Proposition 3, and Proposition 4. MOTION PASSED: 7-0 MOTION SPLIT FOR THE PURPOSE OF VOTING MOTION: Vice Mayor Lauing moved, seconded by Councilmember Lythcott-Haims to adopt support position on Proposition 5. MOTION PASSED: 5-2, Kou, Tanaka no 15. Colleagues Memo - Restoration of subjective aesthetic standards to Palo Alto’s Wireless Communication Facilities (WCF) ordinance. Councilmember Kou explained with the court order that had taken place in 2020 at the Ninth Circuit Court, the City of Portland versus the United States, jurisdictions were given the ability to return to subjective standards and she believed that should be put on the agenda for further discussion to review the designs and placement. Vice Mayor Lauing added that in September of 2018 FCC issued a ruling to move away from objective standards for small cell wireless. At that time, many of the PTC argued that since the edict was already being legally opposed by many other cities, no action should be taken until the court made a ruling. PTC was overruled by staff. In 2019, Council voted to go ahead with it SUMMARY MINUTES Page 14 of 18 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 10/21/2024 but PTC also said they could easily revert back to the current norm and process if the FCC action was not sustained by the court. It was vacated in 2020. The staff report declared it arbitrary, not defined and its purpose unexplained. He opined it should have been reverted seamlessly right after the 2020 verdict to their thoughtful list of subjective standards prepared by multiple city departments and managed with transparency and in public meetings by the ARB. He pointed out that the so-called objective standards were really not objective and the small cell towers needed site-specific review in some cases so the one size fits all approach could not be taken on all of the antennas. With the FCC standards being applied by the planning director, applicants can request and obtain exceptions based on their own claims of necessity and sometimes that necessity from the standpoint of the applicants is based on a desire to lower their costs of creating the setting. The subjective changes are already being made by the planning director instead of the ARB as it was before. He opined the best outcome for citizens would be a process of ARB making these judgment calls based on their training and their expertise for various areas in the city and in a public hearing with transparency. Assistant City Manager Nose indicated staff provided a response for a resource in their report. Public Comment: 1. Jeanne F. spoke on behalf of the United Neighbors of Palo Alto who were requesting Council to vote to agendize the Colleagues Memo for full consideration by Council. 2. Peter B. (Zoom), member of the Architecture Review Board, urged Council to take up this item. He felt that staff had not interpreted and enforced their standards the way they intended and believed it needed more work to properly represent what the citizens of Palo Alto would like. 3. Bryna C. (Zoom) urged Council to advance the recommendations in the Colleagues Memo. Councilmember Burt pointed out the recommendation was to flat out appeal. Councilmember Veenker questioned if going back to the subjective standards meant the ones already on the books or the ones that had been developed and proposed. She wanted to know when the standards in the code had been developed. If they go back to subjective standards, she was not sure they want to go back to 2017 as technology has changed a lot since then. She asked if there had been any prior efforts on developing subjective standards because of the Ninth Circuit decision. She wanted clarification about shot clock and why a party applicant would agree to not be deemed approved. With the remedies getting stronger, she was curious what would motivate one to do an extension deal if an application would be deemed approved if the clock was allowed to run out. She wondered if they have this agendized and go through all the processes to adopt new standards if it will really be a distinction without a difference. Director Lait replied they had standards in the code that guided their review that were struck and replaced with objective standards. He was not aware of any efforts looking to establish SUMMARY MINUTES Page 15 of 18 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 10/21/2024 subjective standards since the court ruling. He said they were taking a look at their objective standards and trying to come up with a set of criteria that would guide their decision making. They were contemplating a point-based system that would allow them to promote certain types of facilities depending on where they were located in the city and whether they met certain criteria and assigning higher or lower points in the negative if it were in proximity to a school or residential properties, for example. He remarked they do engage with applicants to toll agreements when there is a mutual benefit to do so. He did not know if staff shares the same perspective in the memo that it is as easy to accomplish for these particular types of facilities because they do not have the same leverage they might have in another type of development application where they are trying to reach some kind of an agreement on that. They have to proceed with processing the application based on the timelines that are codified or established and if they do get a tolling agreement, it will not be at the beginning. It might happen if it happens toward the end but by that time they would not have gone through all of the work, schedule the hearing before the Architecture Review Board and likely schedule the hearing before the City Council before the agreement was received. He thought the motivation to do an extension deal would depend on the circumstance and that people generally do not like to have an adversarial relationship with the Regulatory Authority that is processing their application but that does not mean that they will necessarily agree to a tolling agreement. They may utilize the stronger position that they have now for wireless applications than they may have been willing to in the past. He explained how they would process the applications such that the clock did not run out. It was his understanding that the tolling agreement included the appeal period. Ms. Fleming explained objective standards refer to the process by which any development in the city of Palo Alto was to be considered. The movement to the so-called objective standards was to try to put in concrete standards that could be used over and over again. The subjective standards were part of the city ordinance with respect to any type of development, cell towers included. Vice Mayor Lauing thought they should have the discussion about whether they want to go back to the 2017 subjective standards at the next meeting where it could be agendized. Caio Arellano, Chief Assistant City Attorney agreed with Director Lait's comments. He added they find that it depends on how the applicant wishes to proceed. In terms of the general legal landscape, the shot clock timelines have gotten shorter and the remedies for violating the shot clock have gotten stronger. There is now a deemed approved remedy if an application is not acted on within the specified time period. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims queried how often this happens, how pertinent it is, what volume of work would it entail and what would be displaced to make room for this. Chief Assistant City Attorney Arellano replied it would be hard to forecast because they come in batches typically by carrier but looking at the last couple of years and only tier 2 or tier 3 SUMMARY MINUTES Page 16 of 18 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 10/21/2024 applications, which would be the ones proposed to move back to ARB review, there were 8 tier 2 applications in 2022 and 1 in 2023 and 2024. Director Lait remarked that it would be a low burden when there were no applications and a high burden when there is an application with multiple nodes. Councilmember Burt observed they could repeal the objective standards, refer this to PTC or do a temporary amendment. He asked if he was correct that taking action that night would be against policy. Deputy City Manager Chantal Cotton Gaines pointed out a note in Procedures and Protocols that the colleagues memo process would provide for action to be taken same night in straightforward or ceremonial cases. Staff was working hard to be respectful of colleagues memo authors. The staff resource section was the staff drafted section and that was drafted in collaboration with multiple departments. The colleagues memo itself appeared to be drafted. The title of it and the attachment of a document in the form of a resolution appeared to suggest immediate action. The title of the item that was noticed to the public did not include adoption of a resolution because staff advised and informed the authors that that would be inappropriate that night because it did not fall under their procedures and while it would be a policy option for the Council to give them direction to bring back legislation that meets as much as possible the goals of the drafted resolution, there would need to be some minor changes to conform with law. One option was to refer this for more discussion at another time to Council, one of their committees, a board or a commission. Another options would be to lay aside the whole topic and decline to proceed. Yet another option would be give them enough detailed direction they could draft legislation and bring it back. Councilmember Burt wanted to look at the option that says, "This can be accomplished by directing staff to amend the wireless communications facility ordinance in a manner consistent with the colleagues memo. This process requires an ordinance that would be reviewed by the PTC". He thought that would not occur if they asked for this to return directly to Council. He wanted to see this laid out more clearly in the staff responses to colleagues memos. He asked if referral to PTC rather than ARB was because that was the default process under state law. He wondered if ARB would be the more appropriate commission to review it. Deputy City Manager Cotton Gaines understood there was some interest by some Councilmembers to have it return to Council for continued discussion of the policy direction. That language refers to the standard process mandated by state law for amending the zoning code. They need to send an amendment to the zoning code through their planning commission unless it is done on an urgent or temporary basis in which case it can be done directly but it' would be temporary and then it would need to go to Planning and then back to Council. She remarked an amendment to the zoning code would need to go to PTC at some point. If council wished to send this matter to ARB, that would be an additional step and at their discretion. Vice Mayor Lauing clarified that the point was to have a procedural meeting that night and the intent of the two authors was to revert to subjective standards when it came back for full SUMMARY MINUTES Page 17 of 18 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 10/21/2024 debate. They wished to take a look at it again and maybe fix some of that because things had changed since 2017. He had not anticipated getting to the debate level that night. Mayor Stone agreed this should have come before Council in 2020 when the Ninth Circuit made this decision. He hoped they were moving in the right direction to be able to return back to subjective standards. Councilmember Burt observed the options before them were to send it to ARB or send it to ARB and PTC before coming back to them. Vice Mayor Lauing thought they some of them would be comfortable if they thoroughly debate it, decide that it should go to one of those bodies with direction that they should feel free to change the 2017 subjective standards if they can be improved and send it back for final approval and they could get to it in the next month or so. Councilmember Kou was under the impression they were going to be deciding if it would be agendized on the next Council meeting. She suggested moving forward with the motion of directing staff to bring back an ordinance to address subjective standards as they had previously. Councilmember Veenker asked if she was correct that if they want to talk about issues about updating subjective standards, they would need to do so at the meeting and give direction because otherwise they have the 2017 objective standards. She thought they would want to be able to give more direction if they agree to refer this on to PTC and ARB for adoption of new subjective standards and would appreciate any help given. Director Lait thought one key feature about the subjective standards was that it was subject to the Architecture Review Board findings which have not changed since 2017. He did not know if there were other context-based criteria related to wireless facilities that got modified and made objective based on how they were written. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims had concern with the sentence on item three that stated, "Having a robust and demanding discretionary application review process…will achieve these aims". She felt like that was a step back for the City. Her concern was that staff said even one of them would be burdensome and in the report before them they do not know the scope of the problem. Her inclination was to vote against moving this forward. Councilmember Burt supported moving forward with agendizing this before the Council but not merely with the language for the repeal but a better analysis of the alternative approaches and the implications that would reside with each of them. Chief Assistant City Attorney Arellano clarified that the previous subjective standards were the findings under the architectural review process. Those would be reverting back to the pre-2018 standards. In preparing for this item, staff did not undertake a rigorous review of the suggestions and previsions contained in the resolution. They cannot simply repackage the SUMMARY MINUTES Page 18 of 18 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 10/21/2024 resolution in ordinance format for the Council's consideration. At that point, they could get to some of the questions that Councilmember Burt addressed. Councilmember Veenker wanted to know if the standards were broadly applicable or specific to cell towers. Ms. Fleming explained the fundamental difference is that there is ARB review, public hearing and decisions with respect to siting and design made on the basis of particular applications as opposed to any application that might be submitted at any time. Design is not typically a problem because if you have a cluster of cell towers, the design is the same for all of them so the ARB can deal with that very efficiently, but siting becomes more of an issue. On the design and siting front, there were a set of guidelines prepared by the Planning Department, by Utilities, by the ARB and by the PTC that established guidelines specifically for cell towers. It might be as simple as the color paint that would be right for the equipment to be painted or might be much broader. The objective standards are defined quantitatively. Councilmember Burt said they were trying to find out if the subjective standards were adopted or proposed. Mayor Stone advised these questions would be answered when it comes back on consent. Councilmember Burt asked for clarification of whether they had previously adopted subjective standards specifically to cell towers or whether were looking at the general ARB standards when it comes back as an agendized item. MOTION: Councilmember Burt moved, seconded by Councilmember Veenker to direct staff to return to Council with a set of alternatives on the process by which we would be going forward and a review of the historic context including prior standards and community impacts but not limited to, resource and other implications and any alternatives that staff has identified. MOTION WITHDRAWN BY THE MAKER MOTION: Councilmember Burt moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Lauing to direct staff to return to Council with an action item an amendment to the Wireless Communication Facilities ordinance, consistent with the colleagues memo to the extent allowed by law, on a temporary basis, up to two years, with the additional guidance provided by Council on a future permanent amendment to the Planning and Transportation Commission and Architectural Review Board. MOTION PASSED: 6-1, Lythcott-Haims no Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 11:43 P.M.