Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-05-19 City Council Summary MinutesCITY COUNCIL SUMMARY MINUTES Page 1 of 16 Special Meeting May 19, 2025 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers and by virtual teleconference at 4:30 P.M. Present In Person: Burt, Lauing, Lu, Lythcott-Haims, Reckdahl, Stone Present Remotely: Veenker (Vice Mayor Veenker joined at 6:00 P.M.) Absent: Special Orders of the Day 1. Proclamation Commemorating the 50th Anniversary of the Palo Alto Fire Department Paramedic Program and EMS Week May 18-24 NO ACTION Councilmember Reckdahl read the proclamation aloud. Geo Blackshire, Fire Chief, accepted the proclamation thanking the Council and City leadership for continued support. 2. Proclamation Recognizing May 2025 as Foster Care & Resource Parent Awareness Month NO ACTION Councilmember Stone read the proclamation aloud. Erika Helms, Santa Clara County, Department of Family & Children’s Services, received the proclamation thanking the Council and the Mayor for the recognition. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 2 of 16 Sp. City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 05/19/2025 Study Session 3. 788-796 San Antonio Road [25PLN-00062]. Request for Council Prescreening to Rezone the Subject Property from Commercial Services to Planned Community/Planned Home Zoning and to Allow Construction of 168 Rental Units in an Eight-Story Structure on a 43,414-Square-Foot (One-Acre) Site. CEQA Status: Not a Project. NO ACTION Emily Kallas, Senior Planner, provided a slide presentation about the 788-796 San Antonio Avenue pre-screening including Council pre-screening process, conceptual project, project location, comparisons to previously approved project, comparison to neighborhood proposed project, key considerations for Council, below market rate PHZ options and the recommended motion. Megan Watson, Grubb Properties Applicant Representative, provided a slide presentation about the pre-screen application including introduction of Grubb Properties; 788 San Antonio Road pre-screen request; background; purpose of changes; design materials, landscape and lighting; contextual map plus elevation; project comparison matrix; key modifications: site coverage, FAR, parking and height. Public Comment: 1. Amie A. urged the Council to think creatively about how housing can be enabled and wanted Council to encourage the two projects to move forward as they are. 2. Steve L. was hopeful Council would give encouragement to the applicants for the 788 and 800 projects and that the costs and timeline could be reduced. 3. Jaime V., field representative for NorCal Carpenters Local 405, urged prioritizing labor standards as the City considers rezoning requests including requiring skilled and trained workforce, supporting state certified apprenticeship programs and promoting local hiring. In response to Councilmember Stone’s questions, Ms. Kallas replied because both of these projects were included as pipeline projects, they are accounted for as the previously entitled projects. The increase in units would count towards the RHNA numbers. All eight floors have generally the same footprint as the lower floors with the exception of at the front elevated courtyard open spaces. The scaling showed in the slide presentation was generally accurate. For non-PHZ projects, rental projects always have the option to provide the units on site or pay in lieu fees. The intent with the PHZ is to provide the units on site. The requirement for that is approximately 20%. Director Lait added there is a requirement for 20% inclusionary as a part of the PHZ. The applicant would have to meet that standard even though it is rental. As part of the housing element, the City Council included a program that requires Staff to partner with the Carpenters Union to explore opportunities for further engagement labor standards. The SUMMARY MINUTES Page 3 of 16 Sp. City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 05/19/2025 program has not been implemented but is on the list of things to do. Ms. Kallas added the zoning code development standards requires a loading space for any development that has more than 50 units so that would be something Council would be considering as an exception to the underlying zoning standards with the PHC rezoning. The code is still just 1 for over 50 units. There is a designated loading zone on the street along Leghorn. It is also where trash recycling pickup will be staged and has been approved. Ms. Watson responded to Councilmember Stone’s remark that the project is underparked by stating Grubb has a zero parking projects and plans to in other jurisdictions. There is already a robust bike parking solution. Other intriguing options are making sure there are appropriate drop-off areas for ride share programs, and employers offering shuttle services. A better or more enhanced drop off zone would be considered given feedback from Council. To address questions posed by Mayor Lauing, Ms. Watson commented that having some ownership and some rental product is something a lot of developers choose to do but it is not something Grubb Properties is interested in doing. Grubb has various mechanisms for investing in different deals. It is typically a 10 year hold in terms of a financial perspective. That does not mean it is only held for 10 years. Director Lait replied to Councilmember Lu’s questions about what happens if it is pulled from the baseline stating state law and the requirements of how that would factor in would need to be reviewed. These were units identified as part of the pipeline which meant there was no plan for them. Albert Yang, Assistant City Attorney, added it would be treated like any other shortfall compared to what was projected. If sufficient buffer existed it could be relied on and if not other opportunities would have to be identified. Ms. Kallas commented impact fees are not required to be collected until building occupancy. At the time the planner and others would be going out for final inspections for building occupancy, the fees would be invoiced and collected. Director Lait indicated City Council changed its formula from a per unit basis to a per square foot based basis the year before following an analysis that converted that fee. Regarding public comment about potential issues with EIRs at the staff level and staff workload, Director Lait commented the work that went into establishing the GM ROLM increased zoning that was done as part of the housing element implementation. That environmental analysis anticipated a certain number of units on the housing element. Going beyond requires additional analysis that has not been done. Staff would look at the project in accordance with CEQA and do what was required. Councilmember Burt had questions to which Director Lait responded much of what would be anticipated from a coordinated area plan is yet to be revealed. Given the existing right-of-way in this location and the fact that there is a 20-foot special setback being respected, it is believed that it would accommodate any future roadway improvements that are likely to take place on that road. Available parking service and understanding what kind of services people would walk to versus drive to are part of the amount of retail services within walking distance that would be provided. Councilmember Burt agreed with the Mayor that setbacks are important and asked further questions of the applicant. Ms. Watson commented open space was important. A rooftop lounge, outdoor courtyard, fitness center, functional business center, dog wash and run SUMMARY MINUTES Page 4 of 16 Sp. City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 05/19/2025 and an inviting leasing lobby. The property manager would live onsite. Councilmember Burt opined that more parking is needed but was open to seeing how much is required based upon the concrete elements of an extremely strong TDM program including car sharing. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims asked questions of the applicant. Ms. Watson explained as part of the pre-screening application, 15% was kept because it was consistent with the existing but if 20% would not be an issue if it were the requirement and more clarity was obtained on it. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims posed questions to Staff. Director Lait confirmed a study was underway that included the park fees. Required zoning was done as part of the housing element to plan for the units. It was deliberately not extended further or make changes to the housing incentive program in this area because of the pending work being proposed on the San Antonio area plan. At a staff level, there is an expectation or understanding that there would be further changes on San Antonio. Director Lait favored coming up with some objective standards that the community can expect when a project is being proposed and developers can use to develop projects and does not see the PHZ process as a long-term strategy. Director Lait stated the more that is added to San Antonio, the more right of way will be needed. The right-of-way at San Antonio road is not complete. Depending on what sort of open space concepts are envisioned, it may be that the amount of right-of-way that we have presently combined with other multimodal solutions may not be sufficient. Councilmember Reckdahl expressed concerns about the setback, low parking and lack of commercial. Councilmember Lu had concerns about the lack of retail and having a large and green rooftop space and felt podiums are not ideal for parking. The height and density are not concerns but moving forward step backs should be considered from the San Antonio and other street angle. Councilmember Lu was more optimistic about parking. Councilmember Burt summarized his and colleagues concerns. Retail needs to be returned to the project. The upper story setbacks are critical. The construction method of mass timber is a cost reduction and an environmental improvement from embedded carbon which is an important part of the environmental impact of construction projects. The higher height is a stretch but that could be allowed if the other standards are met. Councilmember Burt supported the aggressive TDM measures and the belief that Grubb can reduce the parking demand but was skeptical about reducing it 2/3 from other more transit-oriented and service- oriented locations. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims agreed there could not be a tunnel down San Antonio and some step backs would be required and had questions regarding parking. Director Lait answered leasing of parking spots could be allowed as a solution to the parking issues. 4. 800/808-814 San Antonio Road [25PLN-00066]: Request for Council Prescreening to Amend an Existing Planned Community Ordinance (Ordinance 5622) to Allow the SUMMARY MINUTES Page 5 of 16 Sp. City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 05/19/2025 Construction of 120 Residential Units and 1,078 Square Feet Commercial Space in a Five- Story Structure on a 38,194-Square-Foot (0.87-Acre) Site. CEQA Status: Not a Project. NO ACTION Ms. Kallas provided a slide presentation about 800-814 San Antonio Avenue pre-screening including conceptual project, project location, comparison to previously approved project, comparison to neighboring proposed project, key considerations and recommended motion. Timespace Group Applicant provided a slide presentation about the 800-814 San Antonio Avenue pre-screening including the updated and previous versions, proposed parking plan, parking into special setback, ground floor plans, unit mix plans, updated and previous roof deck and updated and previous elevation designs. The Timespace Group Applicant addressed questions posed by Councilmember Reckdahl stating the reduction of three-bedroom units is a market issue. The previous project in the current environment is not financeable due to labor and material costs. The intent is to make the units available for sale or rent. Interest rates have an impact on the ability to get financing. Owner of Project explained how financing was the main challenge driving the changes. In response to Councilmember Stone’s inquiries, the Timespace Group Applicant confirmed the project would have 20% BMR. The exact units have not yet been designated but will be in proportion to the unit types. The EV infrastructure is built into the stackers. There will be approximately 1000 square foot commercial space in the center of the ground level elevation. Vice Mayor Veenker invoked the Just Cause Provision of AB 2449 with no adults 18 or older in the room. Mayor Lauing had a question about the lifts to which the Timespace Group Applicant answered there is an initial resistance in every project that has included the lifts. Those concerns have been overcome. The onsite staff will train people how to use them. It is not believed the lift parking will interfere with getting a signature on a lease. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims wanted to know the plan for a turnaround/drop-off space. The Timespace Group Applicant pointed out two locations in the packet for those accommodations. The Timespace Group Applicant addressed Councilmember Burt’s questions by confirming the automated lift technology has continued to make progress in reliability and ease of use. By putting bike parking on the street, the assumption is that if the special setback becomes a bike path then it will be easy, direct access. Other aspects of the TDM program acknowledges that this part of Palo Alto is lean on transit options but that is expected to change. Councilmember Burt indicated an openness to consideration of reducing the parking somewhat in exchange for a strong TDM program. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 6 of 16 Sp. City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 05/19/2025 Director Lait addressed Vice Mayor Veenker’s questions by indicating the project was approved before the San Antonio area plan corridor was in consideration. There are aspects of this design that need to be changed in the next review process such as the encroachments into the special setback on San Antonio. There is desire to maintain the ability to place any number of infrastructure improvements that may be impacted by the weight of a roadway within the special setback so there was concern with encroachments into the special setback. Those things will be reviewed when the application is formally submitted and might result in some design changes relative to parking. All other impediments into utilities or other areas will bel studied in the formal application submittal. Keeping the garage access from conflicting with bike and pedestrian routes would be looked at in the formal review by the Office of Transportation. Councilmember Lu agreed with allowing flexibility in TDMs for lower parking and advocated for some flexibility regarding the special setback. Public Comment: 1. Liz G. (Zoom) spoke about the negative issues with Klaus Lifts urging Council to do research and not approve them and requested including more three-bedroom units. 2. Rene (Zoom), field representative for the North Cal Carpenters Union, urged Council to ensure that any publicly supported development project in the community includes strong labor standards and invited the applicant to reach out to the organization if a responsible general contractor had not yet been selected. 3. Daniel A., field representative with the North Cal Carpenters Union, Local 405, indicated the organization has reached out to the developer multiple times to discuss strong labor standards with no response. Council was urged to include responsible contracting requirements. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions Ed Shikada, City Manager noted an upcoming closed session that would include two items of business. The consent calendar had been amended to include a personnel appointment as well as an item that was previously on the action agenda, the award of a construction contract, was moved from the action agenda to the consent calendar. Public Comment 1. Larisa V. recounted events that occurred years ago where the Palo Alto Police Department violated her human rights. Letters had been sent to Police Chief Andrew SUMMARY MINUTES Page 7 of 16 Sp. City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 05/19/2025 Binder and City Manager Ed Shikada with no response and a proper response was being sought from Council. 2. Henry E. addressed the lawsuit that Neighbors for Environmental and Social Justice has brought against the Tesla Corporation and Elon Musk for environmental degradation of Palo Alto. An invitation was extended for the City and Council to join in an amicus curiae brief and the lawsuit itself. 3. Martin B., co-founder of Vote 16 Palo Alto, spoke about the positive impacts lowering the voting age can have and indicated that the City has the opportunity to lead the way in youth civic engagement. 4. Brandon B., sole member of Stretchy.Us, LLC operating at Mariners Point Golf Center, sought to learn the process of gaining access to offer services to other golf courses. Councilmember Burt clarified that the public commenter’s assertion that he was in support of his lawsuit is factually false. Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements Mayor Lauing talked about attending an event that was the Magical Bridge sponsoring open mic inside in Lucy Stern. The affordable housing forum happened the previous Saturday in a windstorm and still over 100 people showed up. A letter was sent to the county with help from Chief Bender to solicit support in PERT funding with the county resource. That item will be tabled under the budget process has moved forward. Mayor Lauing spoke at the Peninsula Healthcare's expansion project who would be coming to Council for some needs relative to the building. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims reported progress being made by the Cubberley Ad-Hoc Committee and an event that was held by Young Minds Celebrated on Cal Ave before Third Thursday the previous Thursday that allowed kids to present their talents. Councilmember Reckdahl spoke about the Junior Museum and Zoo applying for accreditation. It is hoped for the zoo to be accredited sometime this fall. Vice Mayor Veenker talked about speaking at the second anniversary of Third Thursdays. Vice Mayor Veenker described attended a meeting of the Climate Action Working Group the previous Wednesday. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 8 of 16 Sp. City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 05/19/2025 Closed Session 5. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS City Designated Representatives: City Manager and his Designees Pursuant to Merit System Rules and Regulations (Ed Shikada, Kiely Nose, Sandra Blanch, Nick Raisch, Tori Post, Molly Stump, Lauren Lai, Paul Harper, and Jennifer Fine) Employee Organization: Service Employees International Union, (SEIU) Local 521 Hourly Unit, Utilities Management and Professional Association of Palo Alto (UMPAPA), Palo Alto Peace Officers’ Association (PAPOA), Palo Alto Police Management Association (PMA), International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF) local 1319, Palo Alto Fire Chiefs’ Association (FCA); Authority: Government Code Section 54957.6 (a) AA1. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL—POTENTIAL LITIGATION (two cases) Subject: Initiation of litigation in two cases, American Federation of Government Employees v. Trump, US District Court for the Northern District of California, Case No. 25-CV-03698 and City and County of San Francisco v. Trump, US District Court for the Northern District of California, Case No. 25-CV-01350 Authority: Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(4) MOTION: Councilmember Lythcott-Haims moved, seconded by Councilmember Lu to go into Closed Session. MOTION PASSED: 7-0 Council went into Closed Session at 7:01 P.M. Council returned from Closed Session at 9:25 P.M. Mayor Lauing announced no reportable action. Consent Calendar Public Comment: 1. Herb B. (Items 9 and 10) opined Item 9 did not fit the definition of the category 1 exemption and should be rejected. On Item 10, Stanford should be paying for the changes and the treatment plant rather than the rate payers for operations and maintenance expenses every year. MOTION: Councilmember Reckdahl moved, seconded by Councilmember Lythcott-Haims to approve Agenda Item Numbers 6, 8-10, AA2. MOTION PASSED: 7-0 SUMMARY MINUTES Page 9 of 16 Sp. City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 05/19/2025 6. Approval of Minutes from May 5, 2025 Meeting 7. Climate Action and Sustainability Committee Recommendation to Council to Direct Staff to Develop an Affordable Multi-Family Housing Electrification Grant Program and to Approve a Budget Amendment in the Gas Utility Funds; CEQA Status: Under CEQA Guidelines section 15183, projects consistent with an existing general or comprehensive plan do not require additional CEQA review Item Removed Off Agenda 8. Approval of Blanket Purchase Order with Olin Finance Company LLC for the Purchase of Bulk Sodium Hypochlorite for the Regional Water Quality Control Plant for a Two-Year Term with an annual amount of $400,000, for a Total Not-to-Exceed Amount of $800,000; CEQA Status – Not a Project 9. Approval of a Lease Agreement with Embarcadero Way Property Owner, LP, c/o BioScience Properties, Inc. for Laboratory and Office Space at 2470 Embarcadero Way for a Period of 20 Years, at an Initial Annual Lease Amount of $1.11 Million Per Year plus Common Area Expenses, and $4.5 million in Tenant Improvements; CEQA Status – Exempt Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 AA2. Approval of the Appointment of Alan Kurotori as Utilities Director 10. Approval of Construction Contract No. C25193197 with Anderson Pacific Engineering Construction, Inc. in the Amount Not-to Exceed $47,282,100 for the Local Advanced Water Purification System project (WQ-19003); Authorization of Contract Contingency in an Amount Not-to-Exceed $4,728,210; and Approval of Amendment No. 2 to the First Amended and Restated Contract No. C059999 Between the City of Palo Alto and the City of Mountain View; CEQA Status - Addendum to the 2015 Environmental Impact Report for the Palo Alto Recycled Water Project (SCH 2011062037) Item Reordered to be Heard Under Consent Calendar, Supplemental Report added City Manager Comments City Manager Shikada stated a set of slides was distributed for public record giving an update on a variety of items. He announced the new utilities director would address Council. Alan Kurotori, Director of Utilities, spoke about his plans in the new position and thanked Council for the opportunity to serve. Action Items 11. FIRST READING: Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Section 18.42.110 (Wireless Communications Facilities) of Title 18 (Zoning) to Modify the Permit Process and SUMMARY MINUTES Page 10 of 16 Sp. City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 05/19/2025 Required Findings for Tier 2 and Tier 3 Wireless Communications Facilities to Require Architectural Review Board review and Repealing the Objective Aesthetic, Noise, and Related Standards for Wireless Communication Facilities in the Public Rights of Way. Jonathan Lait, Planning and Development Services Director, provided a slide presentation about the wireless communications facilities including background and Council direction, procedural timeline, industry comments and concerns, current permit process (status quo), proposed ordinance – key changes, Staff concerns with proposed ordinance, public comments summary, implementation and next steps. Councilmember Stone had clarifying questions to which Director Lait responded the objective standards say it can be no closer than 20 feet to residential units and not closer than 600 feet to a public school. A carrier could request a waiver from that standard to not go less than 300 feet to the school. The objective standard does not speak to daycares. Director Lait addressed Councilmember Reckdahl’s questions explaining it will result in additional work to process tier two and three applications which currently do not require reports before the Architectural Review Board. This change in the ordinance would require assembling reports for the Architectural Review Board and City Council. Formalizing the work in a report is based on the application and Staff's analysis. There is initially 10 days to review an application at which point the application will be deemed complete or incomplete. Thereafter, the applicant would submit a revised materials and the clock begins anew at that point. There is a total processing time of 60 to 90 days. If the shot clock runs out, there are technical standards that need to be processed. The courier would have to assert their right to develop the project as it was submitted at the time the City lapsed on its shot clock. They would get the project approved as it was submitted. When working with an applicant who has submitted an application, if there is a shared perspective that the application is moving productively forward, there is usually an opportunity to engage a provider in an extension of time. If an application comes in, all efforts will be made to get it processed within the timeframe and then likely have scheduled a hearing before the City Council to consider the item because there would not be enough time to wait out an appeal. Any tier two or three application that comes in and goes to the Architectural Review Board will also come to the City Council. The appeals are the shot clock. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims had questions about concerns and safety issues attached to cell tower exposure. Director Lait was aware of those concerns and knew the current standards have procedures set in place that require a wireless provider to demonstrate compliance with the FCC's regulations when it comes to radiation exposure from the wireless communication facilities. An as-built set of plans requiring an engineer to attest to the fact that they are in operation in accordance with the standards that have been established by the federal government is required. That information is peer reviewed. The tier two applications require an intensive amount of work to process them so the staff that was processing those applications, that was all they did. There is no indication that more applications are imminent. At present, most of the activities are tier one. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 11 of 16 Sp. City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 05/19/2025 Director Lait will follow up to answer Vice Mayor Veenker’s question about the year the subjective standards were adopted. If the subjective standards were rolled back, there would be no established setback. Antennas placed on telephone poles and light standards would be in the public right-of-way. The objective standards prohibit placement on telephone poles in the rear alley. An applicant could propose one on that location. Each one would be evaluated subjectively and compared to the Architectural Review Board findings to make a decision. Aylin Bilir, Assistant City Attorney, explained the temporary aspect of the ordinance is because it is coming directly from Council and did not go to PTC to be recommended as an amendment to the zoning code. That is why it is in separate process. The objective standards are currently in a resolution that can be repealed and the ordinance still stands as it is. The changes to the ordinance replaces what has been in the objective standards with this new process that it would have go to the ARB and have this extra review step in a public meeting. That is the piece that is temporary and PTC would have to evaluate and recommend to Council to make permanent. If the objective standards are repealed permanently and the other thing temporarily with no replacement in time, projects might have to be evaluated case-by-case based on the ARB standards. There are several levels of standards. The objective standards gave some concrete parameters to the public right-of-way. If those are removed, they could still be a guidance document. Director Lait interjected if the temporary ordinance being reviewed expires, it would return to Council with an extension of the ordinance being considered if there was not a new set of standards to replace it. Councilmember Lu’s questions were answered by Director Lait stating Staff could take note if City Council had guidance on what hypothetical objective standards might look like. The temporary ordinance for two years is that the ability to work on a replacement ordinance is going to be contingent upon what resources are available in the department to implement that. Based on how the budget discussions have been going, a more likely scenario within two years would be to come back with an extension. When this was being worked on a couple of years ago to make refinements to the program, there was different criteria on some of the community values in terms of where to cite the antennas. That was conceptual and not fully developed and could be explored along with other ideas from Council, the Commission or community. Most of the applications received are tier one applications. They are ministerial projects. Director Lait does not get involved in those applications on a routine basis. There is designated staff for tier two and three applications. They process all of the applications received. Director Lait reviews those with the planner when their analysis has been completed. There has not been feedback from any other body. In response to Councilmember Burt’s questions, Director Lait answered the subjective standards are not guidelines specific to cell towers. It has been identified that there is not a lot of guidance if the objective standards are removed. There are number of conditions that are embedded in the code that still need to be met but that still leaves open the idea of how one could achieve an approval. The current objective standards could be converted into a set of guidelines to communicate aesthetic interests to be regulated. To develop those guidelines, the Review Authority would require going through the Planning and Transportation Commission for amendments to the zoning code. One area of tension that existed several years ago was an SUMMARY MINUTES Page 12 of 16 Sp. City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 05/19/2025 insistence by the Architectural Review Board to underground the mechanical equipment with these wireless communication facilities. That was a non-starter for the facilities and created some of the challenges. The process could be Staff working with ARB to develop subjective guidelines, PTC reviewing those and making a recommendation to the Council and then Council adopting it. Mayor Lauing wanted to know who wrote up the objective standards in Exhibit 1 of Attachment C. Director Lait replied that was a staff-generated document that was approved by Council. Molly Stump, City Attorney explained that document is an attachment to Resolution 9873. Assistant City Attorney Bilir added it had gone to Council previously in prior iterations. Director Lait commented since the objective standards went into place, 2 Tier 2 applications came in in 2020 and 2021. Assistant City Attorney Bilir noted each application can have several notes. Councilmember Lu wanted to confirm that replacement or maintenance with substantially similar equipment met the definition for Tier 2 and Tier 3 subjective process in the draft ordinance. Assistant City Attorney Bilir replied a case-by-case analysis, whether the FCC definition of substantial change applies to the site being proposed. If it does not, it is Tier 1. Public Comment: 1. Lydia K. (Presentation) discussed the telecom industry’s 2020 court case. The notification was not upheld for projects that happened near three properties. A slide photo was displayed that showed a shroud of slender design with a reminder that mental health was a goal for this year. 2. Jeanne (Presentation) speaking on behalf of (13): Cathy B., Ruthellen D., Mary D., Jerry F., Mary G., Janet G., Amrutha K., Peggy P., Jim R., Doria S., Rebecca S., Michael M. asked Council to restore public hearings and ARB review for cell tower applications, prioritize locating cell towers as far as possible from homes and require that any technical feasibility assertions made by cell tower applicants be reviewed by non-industry aligned experts hired by Palo Alto but paid for by the cell tower applicant. 3. Ariel S. speaking on behalf of (12): Ron C., Joyce B., Meridith E., Hamilton H., Charlene L., Ann P., Leo P., Mark S., Leonard S., Rita V., John M. pointed out that the recommendation before Council is what had been anticipated in 2019 when the FCC forced the City to enact objective standards and the ordinance has the steps being considered. Explanations of a Tier 1 application and the shot clock were given. It was hoped that Council would adopt or pass this ordinance with the additions of the setbacks from residences, as well as from schools and the adoption of an expert analysis to determine whether an exception is necessary. 4. Tina C. remarked Palo Alto had written standards in place for cell towers before the so- called objective standards were codified in 2019. In 2018, the FCC asked for objective standards to speed up the approval process. This would mean allowing them to install SUMMARY MINUTES Page 13 of 16 Sp. City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 05/19/2025 their least expensive, ugly and noisy equipment in Palo Alto. The memo before Council would reinstate normal review procedures. 5. Simone (Presentation) requested having an antenna removed from her backyard due to potential safety issues. The antenna in question is listed under three different addresses in the city planning documents, one of which is a public location. 6. Cindy R. advised Council to strengthen this ordinance as far as possible and give more power in the decision-making for cell tower placement to make better decisions. Two studies were highlighted indicating health impacts due to close proximity of cell towers. 7. Peter B., sitting member of the Palo Alto Architecture Review Board, recommended a full review of the current standards by ARB. 8. Marc G. (Zoom), representing AT&T, expressed concerns about challenges carriers face when the standards are subjective rather than the current objective standards. Going to subjective standards will result in nonconformity on a lot of different solutions. Council was urged to keep the objective standards in place. 9. iPhone - Martin (Zoom) suggested Council maintain support of the current objective standards. 10. Wynne F. (Zoom) spoke in support of the comments of the ARB members that ARB comment be obtained before the Council proceeds on this and consideration of reinstating ARB review. 11. Paul (Zoom), outside counsel for Verizon Wireless, recommended keeping the objective standards in the ordinance. The objective standards can be modified by resolution. The planning director has the ability to refer any application to the ARB and that should continue. Mayor Lauing commented it is time to review and update the standards being used for cell towers. ARB performed the role well for many years based on the subjective standards until 2019 and have had no role or input in the standards or decisions since then. Regardless of what standards are in place, they should be reviewed periodically by ARB because of constantly changing technology and a need to have a process for public transparency and input on the decision making process for applications. It makes sense to leverage the experience and mission of the ARB. It is time to review the maximum distance allowed between a tower and a residence and still provide good cell coverage. Good standards are needed that will result in cell towers with reasonable design and function and will get the applicant and consumer the coverage they want with clear guidelines in a straightforward manner. There will be exceptions in the field to any list of standards and those by definition have to be negotiated. This means that no standards are 100% objective. Subjective standards do not mean a chaotic process with vague standards requiring new judgments on each issue from scratch. It is a question of who should review the inevitable exceptions that will occur and where. Involving a public process by SUMMARY MINUTES Page 14 of 16 Sp. City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 05/19/2025 seven council-appointed experts might get a superior process compared to simply and only the City's planning director, who should still have a primary role. Mayor Lauing recommended approving the temporary ordinance in the colleague’s memo and direct ARB to promptly review the standards for approval of cell tower applications, amend them as needed and return them to Council on a recommendation for approval. Secondly, ARB can define a process of how and when ARB should review submitted applications. During the effective period of this temporary ordinance, it was suggested ARB shall have the opportunity to review all applications after an initial decision by the planning director, who would submit these applications with his decision onto the ARB consent calendar. The ARB can then vote to pull the items from the consent calendar for discussion and possible action. Those applications not pulled for debate shall be deemed complete. Those pulled and then approved by ARB should be deemed complete. Items pulled from consent, which result in a recommendation that differs from the planning director's initial decision can be forwarded for final action to City Council. In this process, they can come up with a different process that they recommend. In the interim, that gives public insight on any new application that is going to be coming. ARB recommendations should also be referred to PTC in whole or in part as and if needed. The urgency would be for ARB to jump soon onto looking at the objective standards that Staff came up with and subjective standards from before and come back on that. It is time for Council to direct Staff to engage in a suitable outside consultant to investigate technical feasibility of tower setbacks, starting with 100 feet from any structure. In those cases that are technically infeasible at 100 feet or more, the consultant should just provide maximum distances from residential structures that would still provide adequate coverage. That is consistent with the PTC motion in January of 22 that passed unanimously. Councilmember Burt supported Mayor Lauing’s direction. Councilmember Reckdahl opined it is an issue of transparency and public comment and the public is shielded from that and supported this. In order to make it work, clarity and efficiency is needed. A specific list of guidelines is essential. Councilmember Stone discussed studies regarding the appropriate setbacks from schools and daycare centers. Vice Mayor Veenker agreed that it was a good time to review things that address changing technology and appreciated the creativity of the consent calendar. In response to questions about that, Director Lait believed that could pose shot clock problems. In a scenario where it is approved and approved, the carrier may decide to appeal it so the shot clock and the appeal timeframes may still be an issue. It was also noted that the ARB does not have consent calendar like City Council. Going back to the subjective standards in the interim would that require Staff retraining in order for them to be applied. It would be doable. Vice Mayor Veenker liked the idea without paragraph two. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 15 of 16 Sp. City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 05/19/2025 In response to Councilmember Lu’s question, Director Lait confirmed appeals come to City Council. The decision of the Director can be appealed within 14 days of a decision. The applicant would get a decision letter. Councilmember Stone responded to the question about the 1500 feet reference stating it is in resolution number 2018-19.19 from the Palo Alto School Board in 2019. Mayor Lauing addressed questions by commenting the idea of number two is to get it in the public. Director Lait wanted clarification whether the motion was intending to repeal the objective standards. Mayor Lauing answered the intent is for ARB to come up with a new set of standards decide on the objective or subjective standards. Director Lait explained the process if the ordinance is enacted. Director Lait explained why item two would not be necessary. Gail Karish, Outside Counsel, addressed item three by explaining possible challenges in having set distances and technical issues about whether that significant a distance would impede the ability of a small carrier to fill in gaps in their network. City Attorney Stump said if Council desired having some technical feasibility study work done, it could be put on the list. Mayor Lauing wanted to get that started. MOTION: Mayor Lauing moved, seconded by Councilmember Stone to adopt a Temporary Ordinance amending Section 18.42.110 (Wireless Communications Facilities) of Title 18 (Zoning) with the following adjustments: 1. Direct Architectural Review Board (ARB) to: a. Promptly review the standards for approval of cell tower applications, amend them as needed, and return them to council for approval. b. Define a process of how and when ARB should review submitted applications. 2. During the effective period of this temporary ordinance, the ARB shall have the opportunity to review all applications after an initial decision by the Planning Director who will submit such applications with his decision on the ARB Consent Calendar. a. The ARB can vote to pull items from the Consent Calendar for discussion and possible action. Those applications not pulled for debate shall be deemed complete. Those pulled and then approved by ARB will also be deemed complete. Those pulled from Consent which result in a recommendation that differs from the Planning Director’s initial decision will be forwarded for final action to City Council with a report of what is recommended for compliance/approval. 3. Refer ARB recommendations to Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) in whole or in part as, and if, needed. 4. Direct staff to engage a qualified outside consultant to investigate the technical feasibility of tower setbacks of one hundred (100) feet from any structure approved for residential use and 1500 feet from daycares and schools. In those cases that are not SUMMARY MINUTES Page 16 of 16 Sp. City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 05/19/2025 technically infeasible at one hundred (100) feet or more, the consultant should provide the maximum distances from a residential structure that would still provide adequate coverage. AMENDMENTS MADE TO THE FINAL MOTION BY THE MAKER AND THE SECONDER FINAL MOTION: Mayor Lauing moved, seconded by Councilmember Stone to adopt a Temporary Ordinance amending Section 18.42.110 (Wireless Communications Facilities) of Title 18 (Zoning) with the following adjustments: 1. Direct Architectural Review Board (ARB) to: a. Promptly review the standards for approval of cell tower applications, amend them as needed, and return them to Council for approval. b. Define a process of how and when ARB should review submitted applications. 2. Refer ARB recommendations to Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) in whole or in part as, and if, needed. 3. Direct staff to engage a qualified outside consultant to investigate the technical feasibility of tower setbacks of one hundred (100) feet from any structure approved for residential use and 1500 feet from daycares and schools. In those cases that are not technically infeasible at one hundred (100) feet or more, the consultant should provide the maximum distances from a residential structure that would still provide adequate coverage to the extent permissible by law. MOTION PASSED: 7-0 Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 11:50 PM in honor of Mr. Steve Sinchek.