Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026-02-10 Policy & Services Committee Agenda PacketPOLICY AND SERVICES COMMITTEE Regular Meeting Tuesday, February 10, 2026 Council Chambers & Hybrid 6:00 PM   Policy and Services Committee meetings will be held as “hybrid” meetings with the option to attend by teleconference/video conference or in person. Information on how the public may observe and participate in the meeting is located at the end of the agenda. The meeting will be broadcast on Cable TV Channel 26, live on YouTube https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofpaloalto, and streamed to Midpen Media Center https://midpenmedia.org. VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION CLICK HERE TO JOIN (https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/94618744621) Meeting ID: 946 1874 4621 Phone: 1(669)900-6833   PUBLIC COMMENTS General Public Comment for items not on the agenda will be accepted in person for up to three minutes or an amount of time determined by the Chair. General public comment will be heard for 30 minutes. Additional public comments, if any, will be heard at the end of the agenda. Public comments for agendized items will be accepted both in person and via Zoom for up to three minutes or an amount of time determined by the Chair. Requests to speak will be taken until 5 minutes after the staff’s presentation or as determined by the Chair. Written public comments can be submitted in advance to city.council@PaloAlto.gov and will be provided to the Council and available for inspection on the City’s website. Please clearly indicate which agenda item you are referencing in your subject line. Multiple individuals who wish to speak on the same item may designate a spokesperson. Spokespersons must be representing five or more verified individuals who are present either in person or via zoom. Spokespeople will be allowed up to 10 minutes, at the discretion of the presiding officer. Speaking time may be reduced if the presiding officer reduces the speaking time for individual speakers. PowerPoints, videos, or other media to be presented during public comment are accepted only by email to city.clerk@paloalto.gov at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. Once received, the Clerk will have them shared at public comment for the specified item. To uphold strong cybersecurity management practices, USB’s or other physical electronic storage devices are not accepted. Signs and symbolic materials less than 2 feet by 3 feet are permitted provided that: (1) sticks, posts, poles or similar/other types of handle objects are strictly prohibited; (2) the items do not create a facility, fire, or safety hazard; and (3) persons with such items remain seated when displaying them and must not raise the items above shoulder level, obstruct the view or passage of other attendees, or otherwise disturb the business of the meeting.  1 February 10, 2026 Materials related to an item on this agenda submitted to the Board after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection at www.paloalto.gov/agendas. CALL TO ORDER   PUBLIC COMMENT Members of the public may speak in-person ONLY to any item NOT on the agenda. 1-3 minutes depending on number of speakers. Public Comment is limited to 30 minutes. Additional public comments, if any, will be heard at the end of the agenda.   ACTION ITEMS   1.Update and Feedback to Staff Regarding Progress and Direction for the Seismic Hazards Identification and Risk Mitigation Ordinance Update. CEQA Determination: Not a Project. 2.Receive an update on changes to the Brown Act and provide recommendations on the implementation of provisions related to teleconferencing, remote public participation, translation and interpretation assistance, and expanded outreach; CEQA Status – Not a Project. 3.City Council Referral: Review and Recommend Updates to the City Council Values FUTURE MEETINGS AND AGENDAS Members of the public may not speak to the item(s)   ADJOURNMENT      2 February 10, 2026 Materials related to an item on this agenda submitted to the Board after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection at www.paloalto.gov/agendas. PUBLIC COMMENT INSTRUCTIONS Members of the Public may provide public comments to teleconference meetings via email, teleconference, or by phone. 1.Written public comments may be submitted by email to city.council@PaloAlto.gov. 2.For in person public comments please complete a speaker request card located on the table at the entrance to the Council Chambers and deliver it to the Clerk prior to discussion of the item. 3.Spoken public comments for agendized items using a computer or smart phone will be accepted through the teleconference meeting. To address the Council, click on the link below to access a Zoom-based meeting. Please read the following instructions carefully. ◦You may download the Zoom client or connect to the meeting in- browser. If using your browser, make sure you are using a current, up-to-date browser: Chrome 30 , Firefox 27 , Microsoft Edge 12 , Safari 7 . Certain functionality may be disabled in older browsers including Internet Explorer. Or download the Zoom application onto your smart phone from the Apple App Store or Google Play Store and enter in the Meeting ID below. ◦You may be asked to enter an email address and name. We request that you identify yourself by name as this will be visible online and will be used to notify you that it is your turn to speak. ◦When you wish to speak on an Agenda Item, click on “raise hand.” The Clerk will activate and unmute speakers in turn. Speakers will be notified shortly before they are called to speak. ◦When called, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted. A timer will be shown on the computer to help keep track of your comments. 4.Spoken public comments for agendized items using a phone use the telephone number listed below. When you wish to speak on an agenda item hit *9 on your phone so we know that you wish to speak. You will be asked to provide your first and last name before addressing the Council. You will be advised how long you have to speak. When called please limit your remarks to the agenda item and time limit allotted. CLICK HERE TO JOIN Meeting ID: 946-1874-4621 Phone: 1-669-900-6833 Americans with Disability Act (ADA) It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to offer its public programs, services and meetings in a manner that is readily accessible to all. Persons with disabilities who require materials in an appropriate alternative format or who require auxiliary aids to access City meetings, programs, or services may contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at (650) 329-2550 (voice) or by emailing ada@PaloAlto.gov. Requests for assistance or accommodations must be submitted at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or service.  3 February 10, 2026 Materials related to an item on this agenda submitted to the Board after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection at www.paloalto.gov/agendas. California Government Code §84308, commonly referred to as the "Levine Act," prohibits an elected official of a local government agency from participating in a proceeding involving a license, permit, or other entitlement for use if the official received a campaign contribution exceeding $500 from a party or participant, including their agents, to the proceeding within the last 12 months. A “license, permit, or other entitlement for use” includes most land use and planning approvals and the approval of contracts that are not subject to lowest responsible bid procedures and have a value over $50,000. A “party” is a person who files an application for, or is the subject of, a proceeding involving a license, permit, or other entitlement for use. A “participant” is a person who actively supports or opposes a particular decision in a proceeding involving a license, permit, or other entitlement for use, and has a financial interest in the decision. The Levine Act incorporates the definition of “financial interest” in the Political Reform Act, which encompasses interests in business entities, real property, sources of income, sources of gifts, and personal finances that may be affected by the Council’s actions. If you qualify as a “party” or “participant” to a proceeding, and you have made a campaign contribution to a Council Member exceeding $500 made within the last 12 months, you must disclose the campaign contribution before making your comments.  4 February 10, 2026 Materials related to an item on this agenda submitted to the Board after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection at www.paloalto.gov/agendas. Policy & Services Committee Staff Report From: City Manager Report Type: ACTION ITEMS Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: February 10, 2026 Report #:2505-4746 TITLE Update and Feedback to Staff Regarding Progress and Direction for the Seismic Hazards Identification and Risk Mitigation Ordinance Update. CEQA Determination: Not a Project. RECOMMENDATION Review progress and initial recommendations to develop an updated Seismic Hazards Identification and Risk Mitigation Ordinance; provide feedback to staff for additional refinement and analysis. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City is updating its Seismic Hazards Identification and Risk Mitigation ordinance set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapter 16.42. The purpose of this effort is to more effectively reduce seismic vulnerability in buildings, enhance life safety protections, and support business and service continuity following a seismic event. Last comprehensively updated in 1986, the current program requires mandatory evaluations of a select number of vulnerable buildings (89) and includes outdated references to the 1973 Uniform Building Code. Voluntary compliance is incentivized but not required. To align with current best practices, the program would need to include additional vulnerable building types, explore mandatory retrofit requirements, and incorporate modern retrofit seismic standards. Staff seeks feedback from the Policy and Services Committee on anticipated aspects of an updated program based on extensive analysis prepared by industry experts and diverse representation from a community advisory group. This effort recommends the City expand its list of vulnerable building types, update its evaluation screening methodology, establish retrofit compliance options and timelines, and consideration of limited residential compliance exemptions. This report also introduces key considerations related to financial and policy incentives, public disclosure practices, and tenant rights. Item 1 Item 1 Staff Report        Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 1  Packet Pg. 5 of 46  BACKGROUND 1 These efforts resulted in a comprehensive Seismic Risk Assessment Study completed by Rutherford & Chekene in April 2017.2 In October 2017, the City Council directed staff to refine the seismic inventory, assess community impacts, and explore program options, disclosures, and incentives.3 However, this project was later deprioritized to address other critical City initiatives, including the City’s pandemic response.4 5 6 In February 2025, Council approved a contract with Rutherford & Chekene to provide these services.7 In May 2025, staff issued the consultant a notice to proceed and the team began work, including forming an advisory group of both community members and development, design, housing policy, seismic safety and finance experts. A list of advisory group members is included in Attachment F. 1 https://portal.laserfiche.com/Portal/DocView.aspx?id=50804&repo=r-704298fc&searchid=40cbf59c-d0a1-4c36- b16f-7681f1f06744 2 https://portal.laserfiche.com/Portal/DocView.aspx?id=136329&repo=r-704298fc&searchid=40cbf59c-d0a1-4c36- b16f-7681f1f06744 3 https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/agendas-minutes-reports/reports/city-manager-reports- cmrs/year-archive/2017/id-8207-seismic.pdf 4 https://portal.laserfiche.com/Portal/DocView.aspx?id=136329&repo=r-704298fc&searchid=40cbf59c-d0a1-4c36- b16f-7681f1f06744 5 https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/viewer?id=2677&type=0 6 https://procurement.opengov.com/portal/palo-alto-ca/projects/94858/document 7 https://portal.laserfiche.com/Portal/DocView.aspx?id=155404&repo=r-704298fc&searchid=9be649d9-7fee-4ce6- 926f-089d174a5d37 Item 1 Item 1 Staff Report        Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 2  Packet Pg. 6 of 46  updated ordinance. The remaining 1,224 buildings that were surveyed were found to be unlikely to fall into one of these categories and are considered to pose less of a threat to life safety in a major earthquake. ANALYSIS Existing Building Categories While the existing ordinance is outdated, it was the result of a robust policy development process many years ago and was forward-thinking for its time. Category I: Buildings constructed of unreinforced masonry (except for those smaller than 1,900 square feet with six or fewer occupants) Category II: Buildings constructed prior to January 1, 1935, containing 100 or more occupants Category III: Buildings constructed prior to August 1, 1976, containing 300 or more occupants. 15 In addition, the CAG, consultant team and staff support adding new categories based on construction types to address new structural systems that have been found less resilient during a seismic event. Staff seeks Policy and Services Committee feedback and any concerns with this recommendation. 15 More information about the original policy-making process for this ordinance is available on the City’s seismic program update webpage: https://www.paloalto.gov/Departments/Planning-Development- Services/Development-Services/Seismic-Hazards-Identification-Program-Update. Item 1 Item 1 Staff Report        Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 3  Packet Pg. 7 of 46  Additional Vulnerable Building Types Staff, consultant team and the CAG recommend the updated ordinance include the following additional key categories to address seismically vulnerable buildings in Palo Alto: Weak-Story Wood Frame Buildings Built Before 1977 (324 buildings) Older weak-story wood-frame buildings are at risk of partial or total collapse during seismic events. These buildings generally accommodate parking on the ground floor, which results in fewer shear walls at this level and poorly distributed walls. They can be soft (too flexible), weak (lacking in shear strength), and have open fronts (for parking) that lead to twisting during seismic events from the poor layout of walls. These buildings have performed poorly in past earthquakes, including collapses in the Marina district in San Francisco in the 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake and in the San Fernando Valley in the 1994 Northridge Earthquake. The year 1977 is used as the milestone date to help distinguish when certain statewide building code changes came into effect, leading to better performance. This category includes buildings with mostly residential uses. Note: These buildings are commonly called “soft-story” buildings and represent the most common category of building included in local seismic safety ordinances in California, including those in San Jose, San Francisco, Oakland and Berkeley. Rigid-Wall Flexible Diaphragm Buildings Built Before 1998 (474 buildings) The primary deficiencies in these buildings are poor out-of-plane tension connections between the roof and walls in one-story buildings and between the roof and floors and the walls in multi-story buildings. The perimeter walls can fall outward, leading to partial collapse. These building have performed poorly during seismic events in the past, including the 1971 San Fernando and 1994 Northridge Earthquakes. In 1998, statewide building code changes were made to address damage that occurred in the 1994 Northridge Earthquake from various seismic deficiencies in these types of buildings. This category includes buildings with mostly non-residential (retail, industrial, office) uses. Nonductile Concrete Buildings Built before 1977 (313 buildings) Older concrete buildings can have many different seismic deficiencies, including weak and/or soft ground stories, that may result in partial or total collapse during a seismic event. This can be exacerbated by older nonductile detailing which can lead to premature, brittle cracking of elements such as walls and columns. These buildings have performed poorly during seismic events in the past, including the 1971 San Fernando and 1994 Northridge Earthquakes. The year 1977 is used as a benchmark to mark when statewide building code requirements became more stringent and resulted in improved Item 1 Item 1 Staff Report        Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 4  Packet Pg. 8 of 46  building performance. This category includes buildings with both residential and non- residential uses. Steel Moment Frame Buildings Built Before 1998 (64 buildings) Steel moment frame buildings are also at risk of partial or total collapse during a seismic event, but less so than the other categories described here. In older buildings of this type, the connection detailing and construction techniques used can lead to premature, brittle failure such as weld cracking, beam buckling, or fracture at column flanges during seismic events. Code updates were made in 1998 to address these issues following the 1994 Northridge Earthquake. This category includes both residential and non-residential buildings. Residential Exemptions Based on Unit Count Staff and the consultant team recommend exempting one- and two-unit residential properties from the Seismic Hazards Identification and Risk Mitigation Program. Under this approach, only residential properties with three or more units would be subject to the program. This threshold aligns with the City’s definition of multi-family properties (PAMC Section 18.04.030, Definitions).17 It also reflects a public policy approach that prioritizes buildings housing multiple households, where life-safety risks are higher and occupants often have limited control or resources to address seismic hazards, while recognizing that owners of one- and two-unit homes generally have greater autonomy to manage their own risk. The CAG was also supportive of this approach overall, though some members thought duplexes should not be exempted. Staff seeks Policy and Services Committee feedback and any concerns with this recommendation. Structures proposed for exemption typically fall into the weak-story, wood-frame building category. The table below summarizes unit thresholds for similar programs in a selection of jurisdictions across California. Table 1: Summary of Soft-Story, Wood-Frame Program Unit Thresholds in California Jurisdiction Unit Threshold West Hollywood 1 or more units Albany, San Jose 3 or more units Los Angeles 4 or more units San Francisco, Berkeley, Oakland, Alameda 5 or more units Reducing the threshold to include two-unit residential structures would require review of approximately 260 additional properties for potential seismic vulnerabilities and result in 17 https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/paloalto/latest/paloalto_ca/0-0-0-76370 Item 1 Item 1 Staff Report        Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 5  Packet Pg. 9 of 46  additional project expense. Raising the threshold to five or more units would decrease the number of residential buildings in the inventory from approximately 400 to 290 units. Retrofit and Performance Standards Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Buildings, is the nationally recognized standard for earthquake safety upgrades to existing buildings. The current version, ASCE 41-23, covers all building types being considered for the City’s expanded seismic safety ordinance. ASCE 41-23 uses a performance-based approach, meaning buildings are evaluated based on how they would perform during actual earthquakes rather than applying one-size-fits-all requirements. Table 2: BPOE Earthquake Scenarios Earthquake Scenario Probability Required Performance Meaning Moderate earthquake Major earthquake Item 1 Item 1 Staff Report        Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 6  Packet Pg. 10 of 46  Table 3: Recommended Evaluation and Retrofit Standards by Building Category I Unreinforced Masonry ASCE 41-23 or California Existing Building Code Appendix Chapter A1 II Built before 1/1/35 with 100 or more occupants ASCE 41-23 III Built before 8/1/76 with 300 or more occupants ASCE 41-23 IV Pre-1977 weak-story wood frame ASCE 41-23 or California Existing Building Code Appendix Chapter A4 or FEMA P-807 V Pre-1998 rigid wall – flexible diaphragm ASCE 41-23 or California Existing Building Code Appendix Chapter A2 VI Pre-1977 nonductile concrete ASCE 41-23 or a new local standard similar to San Francisco’s Administrative Bulletin entitled “Application of Engineering Criteria in SFEBC Appendix A, Chapter A6” (see Attachment G) VII Pre-1998 steel moment frame ASCE 41-23 The following steps are anticipated as part of the program implementation and compliance process: Notification: Using the City’s recently updated building inventory, written notices will be issued to all potentially vulnerable buildings in the identified categories informing them of program requirements. Mandatory Screening: Following written notice of program requirements, all buildings on the City’s “List of Seismically Vulnerable Buildings”, will be required to hire a licensed design or engineering professional to complete an initial screening to verify whether the building fits into one or more of the vulnerable building categories included in the updated ordinance. If a building’s screening determines it does not fall within any of the vulnerable building categories, then the building will be removed from the “List of Seismically Vulnerable Buildings” maintained by the City. Item 1 Item 1 Staff Report        Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 7  Packet Pg. 11 of 46  Mandatory Evaluations: If a building’s screening determines that the building falls into one or more of the vulnerable building categories included in the updated ordinance, the property owner must hire a licensed civil or structural engineer to prepare an investigation and engineering report. This report will identify the building’s structural deficiencies, if any, and be submitted to the City. If a building’s seismic evaluation determines that the building already meets the Basic Performance Objective for Existing Buildings (BPOE) outlined in ASCE 41-23, or one of the acceptable alternative standards listed in Table 3, then the building will be considered compliant with the program and removed from the City’s List of Seismically Vulnerable Buildings. If not, the building may be required to complete a mandatory retrofit to bring the building up to these standards. Plan Submissions: If the evaluation confirms that a building is required to complete a retrofit, then the evaluation submissions to the City must also include retrofit plans and structural calculations demonstrating how the building will be brought up to the approved seismic standards. Once the plan review is approved, a building permit will be issued. Retrofit Completion: Construction may begin once the building permit is issued. After the building passes its final inspection for the required retrofit work, it will be considered compliant with the program and removed from the City’s “List of Seismically Vulnerable Buildings”. As previously noted, the passage of AB 130, which limits changes to the residential building code through 2031, requires further analysis to determine the extent to which certain standards may still be enacted. Compliance Types and Timelines As detailed in the proposed implementation process above, staff recommend mandatory screenings for all potentially vulnerable buildings in the listed categories. Staff also recommend mandatory seismic evaluations for any buildings in which the screenings identify structural deficiencies that may pose life safety risks. These evaluations would serve to educate building owners about the specific risks associated with their building and potential retrofits needed. Staff envisions a combination of mandatory and voluntary retrofits to address structural deficiencies by building type. If a mandatory retrofit is required, the ordinance could establish a clear deadline for retrofit completion as well as interim deadlines for plan submissions and building permit applications and receipt. Once all work has been completed, the building would be removed from the City’s “List of Seismically Vulnerable Buildings.” If a mandatory retrofit is not required for a specific building category, staff recommend setting clear standards for the level of voluntary retrofit required to remove a building from the City’s Item 1 Item 1 Staff Report        Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 8  Packet Pg. 12 of 46  “List of Seismically Vulnerable Buildings”. This would ensure that buildings would remain on the City’s List of Seismically Vulnerable Buildings if incomplete or insufficient voluntary retrofits were completed. Table 4: Potential Retrofit Requirements and Timelines by Building Category Building Type Potential Retrofit Compliance Type Screening Deadline Evaluation Deadline* Retrofit Plan Submission Building Permit Receipt Retrofit Completion Same as evaluation Same as evaluation Same as evaluation Same as evaluation N/A for voluntary retrofits N/A for voluntary retrofits N/A for voluntary retrofits Item 1 Item 1 Staff Report        Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 9  Packet Pg. 13 of 46  Pre-1977 Nonductile Concrete Buildings Mandatory 1.5-3 years 3-10 years Same as evaluation 5-15 years 10-25 years Pre-1998 Steel Moment Frame Buildings Voluntary 1.5-10 years 3-15 years N/A for voluntary retrofits N/A for voluntary retrofits N/A for voluntary retrofits ^ Retrofit compliance type for this category may vary based on occupancy type (ie. residential vs. non-residential) ^^ Retrofit compliance deadlines for this category may vary based on total unit count Local Policy and/or Financial Incentives Mandatory screening and evaluation requirements are not expected to burden building owners with significant costs. However, mandatory retrofit requirements could be quite costly depending on the type of building and the scope of the work needed. Some buildings may qualify for loans or similar incentives through State programs.19 However, the City may also need to offer local incentive packages to make mandatory retrofits feasible for building owners. Staff seeks initial input from the Policy and Services Committee on which types of incentives best align with the Council’s priorities currently. Options include: Procedural: Technical support for building owners and/or expedited permit processing Development: Density or height increases and/or reductions in parking or similar requirements Fee Waivers or Reductions: Waived or reduced building permit fees, demolition fees, and/or development impact fees (as applicable) Financial Incentives: City-issued, low-interest loans or grants for building owners and/or local tax incentives These options would each require further work and analysis by staff, but staff seeks the Committee’s feedback on which, if any, to prioritize. Public Disclosure Consistent with past discussions on this topic, staff recommend that the City maintain a searchable online inventory/list of all potentially vulnerable buildings subject to compliance 19 See section 3.3 “Funding Sources” in “Summarize Relevant State Laws – Memorandum” for more information: https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/development- services/palo-alto-seismic-memo-on-relevant-state-laws.pdf Item 1 Item 1 Staff Report        Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 10  Packet Pg. 14 of 46  with the updated seismic ordinance. Removal from the list would be dependent upon completion of mandatory or voluntary retrofits to the required life safety standards. The Policy and Services Committee may also provide feedback to staff to consider additional public disclosure measures, such as exterior building placards and/or tenant notification at time of leasing. Note: California law already requires buyer notification of potential seismic vulnerabilities at the time of building sale. Tenant Considerations Habitability standards and/or plans; Temporary relocation assistance (property owner or City funded); and/or Rent increase caps and/or limits to cost pass throughs. FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT August 20, 2025: Project History & Scope October 14, 2025: Policy Context & Precedent Programs January 6, 2026: Program Applicability & Compliance Item 1 Item 1 Staff Report        Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 11  Packet Pg. 15 of 46  Staff plans to host three more community advisory group meetings later this year. These will focus on policy and financial incentives, public disclosure requirements, tenant rights and draft ordinance development and review. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ATTACHMENTS APPROVED BY: Item 1 Item 1 Staff Report        Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 12  Packet Pg. 16 of 46  Summary of Relevant State Laws “Summarize Relevant State Laws – Memorandum 1” is available for review on the City of Palo Alto’s Seismic Program Update webpage 2. 1 https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/development-services/palo-alto-seismic-memo-on- relevant-state-laws.pdf 2 https://www.paloalto.gov/Departments/Planning-Development-Services/Development-Services/Seismic- Hazards-Identification-Program-Update Item 1 Attachment A - Summary of Relevant State Laws        Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 13  Packet Pg. 17 of 46  Summary of Precedent Programs at the Local Level “Summary of Relevant Progress at the Local Level - Memorandum 1” is available for review on the City of Palo Alto’s Seismic Program Update webpage 2. 1 https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/development-services/palo-alto-seismic-task-a.2-memo-psc- draft.pdf 2 https://www.paloalto.gov/Departments/Planning-Development-Services/Development-Services/Seismic- Hazards-Identification-Program-Update Item 1 Attachment B - Summary of Precedent Programs        Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 14  Packet Pg. 18 of 46  Summary of Retrofit Techniques “Summary of Applicable Retrofit Techniques - Memorandum 1” is available for review on the City of Palo Alto’s Seismic Program Update webpage 2. 1 https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/development-services/palo-alto-seismic-memo-on- retrofit-standards-and-techniques.pdf 2 https://www.paloalto.gov/Departments/Planning-Development-Services/Development-Services/Seismic- Hazards-Identification-Program-Update Item 1 Attachment C - Summary of Applicable Retrofit Techniques        Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 15  Packet Pg. 19 of 46  Summary of Field Survey Findings and Process “Field Survey Report - Memorandum 1” is available for review on the City of Palo Alto’s Seismic Program Update webpage 2. 1 https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/development-services/seismic/palo-alto-seismic-task-a.4- memo-rc-2026-01-25.pdf 2 https://www.paloalto.gov/Departments/Planning-Development-Services/Development-Services/Seismic-Hazards- Identification-Program-Update Item 1 Attachment D - Summary of Field Survey Findings and Process        Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 16  Packet Pg. 20 of 46  Summary of Vulnerable Building Categories “Building Types Subject to the Updated Ordinance - Memorandum 1” is available for review on the City of Palo Alto’s Seismic Program Update webpage. 2 1 https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/development-services/palo-alto-seismic-memo-on- vulnerable-building-categories.pdf 2 https://www.paloalto.gov/Departments/Planning-Development-Services/Development-Services/Seismic- Hazards-Identification-Program-Update Item 1 Attachment E - Summary of Vulnerable Building Types        Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 17  Packet Pg. 21 of 46  January 2026 2025-2026 Community Advisory Group Members City of Palo Alto Seismic Risk Mitigation Program Update Subject Matter Experts 1. Abha Nehru, Carrasco & Associates 2. Anil Babbar, California Apartment Association 3. Christopher Rojahn, Applied Technology Council 4. Doug Hohbach, Hohbach-Lewin, Inc. 5. Emily Ann Ramos, Silicon Valley at Home 6. Janiele Maffei, California Earthquake Authority 7. John Shenk, Thoits Bros., Inc. 8. Jon Goldman, Premier Properties 9. Ken Hayes, Hayes Group Architects 10. Laurel Mathews, City and County of San Francisco 11. Luke Farley, Heritage Bank of Commerce 12. Michael Germeraad, Association of Bay Area Governments 13. Rich Cody, CVG Builders 14. Roxy Rapp, Rapp Development 15. Sarah Atkinson, SPUR 16. Tim Steele, The Sobrato Organization 17. Tom Holzer, USGS City of Palo Alto Staff 1. Alex Andrade, Economic Development Manager 2. Andres Orozco, Office of Emergency Services Coordinator 3. David Chung, Assistant Chief Building Official 4. George Hoyt, Chief Building Official 5. Julia Knight, Special Projects and Innovation Manager 6. Maddie Salah, Deputy City Attorney 7. Nathaniel Rainey, Office of Emergency Services Coordinator 8. Steven Switzer, Senior Historic Planner Consultant Team 1. Bret Lizundia, structural engineer and lead consultant, Rutherford + Chekene, 2. Zahraa Saiyed, public policy and engagement specialist, Scyma Consulting Item 1 Attachment F - Community Advisory Group Members        Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 18  Packet Pg. 22 of 46  2022 San Francisco Building Code AB-XXX Draft by ATC. 6/5/2025 8:26:00 AM Page 1 of 6 ADMINISTRATIVE BULLETIN NO. AB-XXX : DATE : DRAFT by ATC 6 May 2025 SUBJECT : Seismic Retrofit Provisions for Concrete Buildings TITLE : Application of Engineering Criteria in SFEBC Appendix A, Chapter A6 PURPOSE : The purpose of this Administrative Bulletin is to provide technical details and commentary on the application of engineering criteria in SFEBC Appendix A, Chapter A6 which covers the seismic evaluation and retrofitting of concrete buildings. REFERENCES : 2022 San Francisco Existing Building Code (SFEBC) ASCE 7-16 Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures ASCE 41-17 Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Buildings ACI 318-19 Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete DISCUSSION : San Francisco Existing Building Code (SFEBC) Chapter A6 outlines the seismic retrofit provisions aimed at reducing the collapse risk of vulnerable Concrete Buildings (CB), as defined in Chapter 5G. This includes certain types of concrete buildings and their associated vintage as well as buildings with rigid- walls and flexible diaphragms. Chapter A6 establishes structural engineering criteria, including Engineering Criteria Options (per Table A6.4-1) that a Concrete Building must satisfy through seismic evaluation or retrofit. The document also specifies other retrofit triggers, such as substantial structural or non-structural alterations, which necessitate adherence to these provisions. A key focus is on addressing common seismic deficiencies, detailed in Table A6.4-2, which include weak stories, irregularities in lateral-force-resisting elements, non-ductile moment frames, shear-governed concrete columns or wall piers, punching shear in concrete slabs, weak connections of concrete walls to flexible diaphragms, and inadequate bearing connection lengths. This bulletin provides further clarification by offering commentary on selected sections of Appendix A, Chapter A6 of the SFEBC. In addition to this commentary, this bulletin provides the specific technical requirements for how to identify, evaluate, and retrofit the seismic deficiencies of Table A6.4-2 when using Engineering Criteria Option (a). SFEBC Chapter A6 Commentary: I. A6.2 Definitions Commentary: This subsection of Chapter A6 includes a definition of the term “wall pier,” which is used in the chapter to specify buildings that are exempt from the requirements of the chapter and to specify seismic deficiencies that are required to be addressed by Engineering Criteria Option (a). The definition of wall pier is per Section 2.3 of ACI 318-19. II. A6.3 Design professionals Commentary: Chapter A6 requires that evaluations and design be performed by or under the supervision of “appropriately licensed individuals.” The State of California governs the registration of professional Item 1 Attachment G - San Francisco Administrative Bulletin        Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 19  Packet Pg. 23 of 46  2022 San Francisco Building Code AB-XXX Draft by ATC. 6/5/2025 8:26:00 AM Page 2 of 6 engineers and requires that engineers practice only in areas where they have demonstrated competence. The registration status of any licensed professional engineer can be checked at http://www.bpelsg.ca.gov/consumers/lic_lookup.shtml. The successful execution of a seismic retrofit project and the resulting building performance in an earthquake rely heavily on the analysis and design work done by the Owner’s Engineer. Building owners are encouraged to seek references for the engineer that they plan to engage, and to understand the engineer’s experience and qualifications applicable to the building type, size, and other characteristics. Questions that an owner may want to ask a structural or civil engineer before selecting them include: • Do you have experience with seismic retrofitting of concrete buildings? • Do you have experience using the seismic evaluation and retrofit standard ASCE 41? • Can you describe structures that you have evaluated or retrofitted that are most similar to my building? III. A6.4 Structural engineering criteria A. A6.4.1 Engineering criteria Commentary: Table A6.4-1 provides two options for engineering criteria that engineers may use for seismic evaluation or retrofit of Concrete Buildings. Option (b) specifies greater seismic forces. Option (a) specifies lower seismic forces, but it requires also addressing the seismic deficiencies that are listed in Table A6.4-2. i. Criteria Option (a) For Engineering Criteria Option (a), addressing the seismic deficiencies in Table A6.4-2 is required, even if analysis indicates that the building satisfies Collapse Prevention for the BSE-1E earthquake level without addressing a listed deficiency. Addressing the seismic deficiencies in Table A6.4-2 is intended to enable gravity-load-resisting elements to undergo severe earthquake movements, greater than BSE-1E, while maintaining their capacity to support gravity loads. These seismic deficiencies can be critical contributors to the collapse vulnerability of concrete buildings; they do not include all possible seismic deficiencies. ii. Criteria Option (b) Engineering Criteria Option (b) uses the BSE-2E earthquake hazard level for Collapse Prevention and equates to the requirements of ASCE 41 for the Basic Performance Objective for Existing Buildings (BPOE) except that non-structural evaluation and retrofitting is limited to elements of unreinforced masonry, and evaluation of the Life Safety performance level for the BSE-1E earthquake level is not required. Addressing the seismic deficiencies specified in Table A6.4-2 is not necessarily required in meeting Engineering Criteria Option (b). For buildings assigned to Risk Category I or II, the criteria for Engineering Criteria Option (b) will typically also provide compliance with triggered retrofit requirements for Substantial Alteration (Section 304.3.2 of the SFEBC). For Engineering Criteria Option (b), evaluation of the Life Safety performance level for the BSE- 1E earthquake level need not be evaluated, because for San Francisco earthquake hazard parameters, it will not govern over Collapse Prevention for the BSE-2E level. This is because the ratio between these earthquake ground motion levels is typically around 1.8, while the ratio between the Collapse Prevention and Life Safety acceptability limits in ASCE-41 does not exceed 1.33. iii. “75% of code” criteria not permitted in Appendix A6 The option (in Section 304.3.2) to use 75 percent of the prescribed forces of the new building code is intentionally not included in Chapter A6, and thus is not permitted for use in Chapter A6 because this option does not make clear how to address (a) the design of gravity framing for Item 1 Attachment G - San Francisco Administrative Bulletin        Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 20  Packet Pg. 24 of 46  2022 San Francisco Building Code AB-XXX Draft by ATC. 6/5/2025 8:26:00 AM Page 3 of 6 imposed deformations and (b) structural detailing that does not conform to that of any concrete seismic-force-resisting system that is permitted in high seismic design categories. iv. Buildings assigned to Risk Category III or IV Chapter A6 provides retrofit criteria intended to achieve basic safety for Risk Category II buildings. The criteria can be applied to Risk Category III or IV buildings if the goal is only to achieve this basic safety (i.e., Structural Collapse Prevention (S-5) for the BSE-2E earthquake hazard level). It is not in the scope of Chapter A6 to provide retrofit criteria to achieve the higher performance related to safety or recovery that is associated with new structures assigned to Risk Category III and IV. v. Elements of unreinforced masonry Both engineering criteria options in Table A6.4-1 require removing or retrofitting unreinforced masonry elements (if any). This requirement addresses the safety risk from elements such as unreinforced masonry chimneys, hollow clay tile partitions, and brick masonry walls falling out-of- plane. Except for these elements, Chapter A6 does not require seismic retrofitting of nonstructural components. B. Flexible floor- or roof-diaphragms Requirements: For buildings with one or more flexible diaphragms, compliance with Appendix A, Chapter A2 is sufficient to comply with the portions of Chapter A6 related to the wall anchorage system and collectors. In addition, for buildings satisfying all of the following, compliance with Chapter A2 is sufficient to meet the structural requirements of Chapter A6: (a) The building has no more than two stories above grade plane, excluding mezzanines. (b) The building does not include concrete columns nor wall piers, as defined in Chapter A6. (c) The building’s floor and roof diaphragms are both flexible in-plane, meaning sheathed with plywood, wood decking (e.g., 1x or 2x), or metal deck without concrete topping slab. Commentary: Rigid-wall-flexible-diaphragm (RWFD) buildings are addressed by Chapter A2. Chapter A6 is not expected to be invoked for one-story buildings. For Concrete Buildings taller than one story, where Chapter A6 is invoked and the structure satisfies all of (a), (b), and (c) above, the wall-to roof diaphragm and wall-to-floor diaphragm anchorage system and collectors are the only structural aspects of such buildings that are required to be addressed per Chapter A6. C. Combinations of seismic-force-resisting systems Requirements: For buildings having structural systems that are partially concrete and partially other structural materials, the building shall comply with Chapter A6 as a combined system, except: (a) Vertical combinations of seismic-force-resisting systems: For vertical combinations of seismic-force-resisting systems (meaning different seismic-force-resisting system in upper story(s) compared to lower story(s)) where only the lower system is of concrete, if the existing upper system (including the lateral-force-resisting system and gravity system) is not of concrete construction, the existing upper system need not comply with Chapter A6. (b) Combinations of seismic-force-resisting systems in different directions: For combinations of seismic-force-resisting systems where different seismic-force-resisting systems are used along each of the two orthogonal axes of the structure, if the gravity system is not of concrete construction, the existing non-concrete lateral-force-resisting system need not comply with Chapter A6. Item 1 Attachment G - San Francisco Administrative Bulletin        Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 21  Packet Pg. 25 of 46  2022 San Francisco Building Code AB-XXX Draft by ATC. 6/5/2025 8:26:00 AM Page 4 of 6 D. Technical requirements for addressing the seismic deficiencies of Table A6.4-2 when using Engineering Criteria Option (a). Requirements: The following requirements apply to identifying, evaluating, and retrofitting the seismic deficiencies listed in Table A6.4-2. Potential deficiency Requirements Commentary Weak story: The structure includes one or more stories having lateral strength less than the story above. The structure shall not have vertical structural irregularity of Type 5a nor Type 5b in Table 12.3-2 of ASCE 7. If the structure has a weak story or extreme weak story, to meet Engineering Criteria Option (a) the weak story must be eliminated by retrofitting. Otherwise the structure must meet Engineering Criteria Option (b). Lateral-force-resisting- element irregularity: The lateral-force-resisting system includes one or more concrete walls or frames that are not continuous to the foundation. The building shall not have a horizontal structural irregularity Type 4 of Table 12.3-1 or vertical structural irregularity Type 4 of Table 12.3-2 of ASCE 7. If the structure has either of the specified irregularities—in-plane or out-of-plane offset or discontinuity— to meet Engineering Criteria Option (a), the irregularity must be eliminated by retrofitting. Otherwise the structure must meet Engineering Criteria Option (b). Non-ductile moment frame: The main lateral-force-resisting- system includes concrete moment frames that do not satisfy strong-column-weak- beam requirements or that have shear-governed columns or beams. Comply with all of the following: 1. Moment frame columns shall satisfy Section 18.7.3 of ACI 318 and Section 18.7.6.1 of ACI 318. 2. Moment frame beams shall satisfy Section 18.6.5.1 of ACI 318. Section 18.7.3 requires strong- column weak-beam strength proportions. Section 18.6.6.1 requires columns to be flexure governed. Section 18.6.5.1 requires beams to be flexure governed. Such requirements are essential for ductile behavior of concrete moment frames. Shear-governed concrete column or wall pier: The structure includes one or more concrete columns or wall piers that are shear-governed and are susceptible to failure resulting in loss of gravity load support. For each column or wall pier, comply with at least one of the following: 1. Columns and wall piers shall have design shear strength satisfying Section 18.7.6.1 of ACI 318 or greater than the maximum shear that can be delivered to the column or wall pier based on a capacity design approach. For wall piers, joint faces shall be taken as the top and bottom of the clear height of the wall pier. 2. Provide or demonstrate an alternate load path to support design gravity load assuming a failure of the column or wall pier such that it cannot support gravity load. 3. For wall piers in buildings that do not have an Extreme Torsional Irregularity per 1. Shear governed columns or wall piers can be a serious deficiency that leads to building collapse. Retrofitting columns or wall piers by jacketing, such as with fiber reinforced polymer (FRP), can be used to make the elements flexure governed. 2. If failure of columns or wall piers can be shown not to cause collapse because of an alternate load path for gravity load, the shear-governed behavior is permitted. An example of an acceptable alternate load path is a beam that can span over a failed column or wall pier to supports not susceptible to failure, or an added column adjacent to the susceptible column or wall pier. The alternate load path is to be a complete load path, i.e. to the foundation and supporting soil, that does not rely on non-compliant elements. Item 1 Attachment G - San Francisco Administrative Bulletin        Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 22  Packet Pg. 26 of 46  2022 San Francisco Building Code AB-XXX Draft by ATC. 6/5/2025 8:26:00 AM Page 5 of 6 Potential deficiency Requirements Commentary demonstrate compliance with the Tier 1 Quick Check for shear stress in concrete walls in that story in each plan direction per Section 4.4.3.3 of ASCE 41. Pseudo seismic force V shall be 2 times the pseudo seismic force at the BSE-1E earthquake level, but need not exceed that at BSE=2E. System modification factor Ms shall be for Collapse Prevention performance. check for shear at the specified level and does not have an Extreme Torsional Irregularity, it is judged that there is enough wall that the consequences of shear failure of wall piers will be limited. Option 3 is not permitted for structures with high plan-torsion irregularity because of a concern that columns or wall pier on one side of the building plan could suffer undo damage in such a case. Punching shear in concrete slab: One or more concrete floor or roof slabs are supported by columns without beams framing into the column and susceptible to loss of gravity load support following punching shear failure. Comply with one or more of the following in each principal plan direction at each column: 1. Demonstrate compliance with Section 18.14.5 of ACI 318 with earthquake force E and design story drift ∆x taken as 2 times the earthquake force and story drift at the BSE-1E earthquake level, but need not exceed that at BSE-2E, determined in accordance with Section 7.4. of ASCE 41. Also comply with Section 8.7.4.2.2 of ACI 318. The slab bottom bars must be continuous through the column or spliced using mechanical or welded splices. 2. Demonstrate the existence of continuity reinforcement in accordance with ASCE 41 Table 10-15 footnote d. 3. For post-tensioned slabs, demonstrate compliance with Section 8.7.5.6 of ACI 318. 4. Provide an alternate load path to support design gravity load, assuming a failure at the slab-column interface such that the slab-column interface cannot support gravity load. 1. Section 18.14.5 addresses acceptable punching shear stress from gravity load as a function of story drift, a key indicator of susceptibility to punching shear of slab-column connections. Section 8.7.4.2.2 requires two slab bottom bars to pass between the column cage longitudinal bars in each plan direction. 2. ASCE 41 Table 10-15 footnote d requires one post-tensioning tendon to pass through the column cage in each plan direction, or slab bottom bars with steel area based on the gravity shear demand on the slab critical section. 3. Section 8.7.5.6 requires two prestressing tendons to pass through the column cage in each plan direction, or slab bottom bars with steel area based on the column and slab geometry. The tendons or bottom bars help prevent collapse of the slab if punching shear initiates. 4. If the existing condition is susceptible to punching shear, a possible retrofit solution is to provide a path of support such as a collar at the top of a column that supports the bottom of the slab beyond the expected punching shear failure plane. Weak connection of concrete wall to flexible diaphragm: The structure includes one or more concrete walls supporting one or more flexible diaphragms, where the wall is not adequately anchored to the diaphragm. For each flexible floor or roof diaphragm, comply with Chapter A2, or ASCE 41 with a performance objective of Structural Collapse Prevention with the BSE-2E earthquake level. The objective of this item is to make it unlikely that a concrete wall will separate from a flexible floor or roof diaphragm in a way that could lead to floor or roof collapse. For floor or roof diaphragms that have timber framing in combination with a complete grid of concrete floor beams, Chapter A2 may be used to Item 1 Attachment G - San Francisco Administrative Bulletin        Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 23  Packet Pg. 27 of 46  2022 San Francisco Building Code AB-XXX Draft by ATC. 6/5/2025 8:26:00 AM Page 6 of 6 Potential deficiency Requirements Commentary floor beams are connected to the walls in such a way that they resist out-of-plane forces on the walls at least equal to the forces prescribed in Chapter A2. Inadequate length of bearing connection: One or more beams or slabs are supported by a bearing connection with short bearing length. Provide bearing length to support gravity load, such that the bearing length satisfies all of the following: 1. Section 18.14.4.1(d) of ACI 318. 2. Two times the displacement demand at the BSE-1E earthquake level, determined in accordance with Section 7.4 of ASCE 41, but need not exceed that at BSE-2E. In some cases, including at building expansion joints, concrete floor structures, either cast-in-place or precast, have bearing supports. In older structures such bearing supports may not have adequate bearing length compared to earthquake displacement demands. 1. Section 18.14.4.1(d) requires a bearing length of 5 inches for beams, or 2 inches + L/180 for slabs. E. A6.4.2 Building separation Commentary: Building separation issues are not required to be considered in Chapter A6 because of the likely impracticalities of addressing property-line separations in San Francisco. Engineers are encouraged to inform the building owner if there is a risk of pounding damage at building separations. F. A6.4.3 Liquefaction and landslide risk. Commentary. Similarly, seismic evaluation and retrofit per Chapter A6 is not required to address soil liquefaction or landslide. Engineers are required to notify the owner if their building is in a zone of high or very high risk of liquefaction or landslide. The exemption from considering the geotechnical hazards of liquefaction and landslide does not apply to lateral earth pressure. Forces from static and dynamic earth pressure on walls (absent liquefaction or landslide) shall be considered in the seismic evaluation in combination with other forces on the structure. G. A6.4.5 Masonry infill Commentary. If the infill is of unreinforced masonry, its attachment to the main structure is to be addressed as shown in Table A6.4-1. Additionally, for either reinforced or unreinforced masonry infill, the effect of the infill on building response is to be addressed per this subsection. _________________________________________________ Patrick O’Riordan, C.B.O. Date Director Department of Building Inspection Approved by the Building Inspection Commission on (date) Item 1 Attachment G - San Francisco Administrative Bulletin        Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 24  Packet Pg. 28 of 46  Policy & Services Committee Staff Report From: City Clerk Report Type: ACTION ITEMS Lead Department: City Clerk Meeting Date: February 10, 2026 Report #:2512-5627 TITLE Receive an update on changes to the Brown Act and provide recommendations on the implementation of provisions related to teleconferencing, remote public participation, translation and interpretation assistance, and expanded outreach; CEQA Status – Not a Project. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Policy & Services Committee consider, provide feedback, and recommend the City Council: 1. Approve or decline the use of expanded alternative teleconferencing for Boards, Commissions, and Committees (BCCs) as recommended by the Policy & Services Committee 2. Receive an update on changes to remote public participation, 3. Approve the Two-Way Remote Public Access Disruption Policy (Attachment A), 4. Approve staff recommendation regarding reasonable assistance for third party translation and interpretation services, and 5. Approve staff recommendation regarding outreach efforts. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In 2024 the California State Legislature passed SB 707, which amends the Brown Act to modernize remote participation and expand public access. This report provides an overview of SB 707 requirements, identifies which provisions already align with the City’s existing practices, and outlines recommended implementation approaches for provisions that require new or revised policies. Staff also seeks Policy & Services Committee feedback regarding whether to recommend City Council authorization of expanded alternative teleconferencing for eligible BCCs, reasonable efforts for assisting third-party translation, and expanded outreach. Item 2 Item 2 Staff Report        Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 1  Packet Pg. 29 of 46  BACKGROUND Topic Summary Applicable Meeting Bodies Effective Date Item 2 Item 2 Staff Report        Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 2  Packet Pg. 30 of 46  Outreach Efforts SB 707 requires cities to make reasonable efforts to encourage participation from groups that traditionally do not engage in public meetings. Staff recommends continuing existing outreach practices and enhancing transparency and accessibility by clarifying how community members may request language assistance and participate remotely, consistent with SB 707’s intent to broaden civic engagement. City Council 7/1/26 ANALYSIS The following section details Brown Act changes brought by SB 707 that will affect the City and staff’s recommended implementations. The City’s current practices already satisfy some of SB 707’s requirements (detailed in Attachment B), but others will require a change in practice or policy. Expanded Alternative Teleconferencing for Eligible Subsidiary Bodies (effective January 1, 2026) Following COVID-19, the State Legislature amended the Brown Act to allow members of legislative bodies to participate in meetings remotely under specific circumstances (i.e. “just cause” or “emergency circumstances”) with fewer noticing requirements than pre-COVID Brown Act teleconferencing. This form of teleconferencing, which does not require remote attendance locations be published on the agenda or accessible to the public, is referred to as “alternative teleconferencing.”1 SB 707 allows the City Council to expand alternative teleconferencing for “eligible subsidiary bodies,” a category that includes the City’s BCCs. Expanded alternative teleconferencing allows BCC members to attend remotely without opening their location to the public and without just cause, subject to the minimum requirements listed below. Unlike “just cause” alternative teleconferencing, this expanded alternative teleconferencing does not require a quorum to attend from a singular physical location, and therefore could allow a fully virtual meeting. Council Committees are not eligible for this form of expanded alternative teleconferencing because SB 707 does not permit officials to use expanded alternative teleconferencing. The City Council may authorize expanded alternative teleconferencing for up to six months, and every six months thereafter. To authorize expanded alternative teleconferencing for a BCC, the City Council must take formal action approving the expanded use of alternative teleconferencing for a period of up to six months, finding that Council has: Considered the circumstances of the subsidiary body, 1 SB 707 changes to alternative teleconferencing are described in more detail in Attachment B. Item 2 Item 2 Staff Report        Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 3  Packet Pg. 31 of 46  Determined that teleconferencing would enhance public access, Ensured publication of remote and physical access and comment options, and Determined that teleconferencing would promote attraction, retention, and diversity of eligible board or commission members. Meetings held via expanded alternative teleconferencing must meet the requirements below. The City Council may impose additional requirements but may not remove requirements. The subsidiary body must provide a staffed physical meeting location where the agenda is posted and members of the body or public may attend and participate in-person, Elected officials may not use this section to appear remotely, and Remote members must appear visibly on camera, with limited exceptions. While expanded alternative teleconferencing may improve flexibility and accessibility for BCC members, staff notes that in-person meetings provide important benefits that support the City’s public engagement goals. Face-to-face meetings facilitate stronger communication between Commissioners, staff, and community members, promote relationship-building, and allow for more dynamic public dialogue. Further, a significant expansion of alternative teleconferencing presents compliance and administrative challenges. The City has eight Boards and Commissions addressing diverse subject areas ranging from stormwater management to arts and culture. These bodies are supported by staff from multiple departments, many of whom support BCC meetings infrequently. The Brown Act’s teleconferencing requirements are complex, and expanded alternative teleconferencing adds additional procedural obligations that increase the risk of inadvertent non-compliance. For these reasons, staff recommends that any expansion of alternative teleconferencing be implemented thoughtfully and incrementally, with clear, administrable rules and defined evaluation criteria. If the Committee wishes to recommend authorization of expanded alternative teleconferencing, staff suggests beginning with a modest pilot approach. For example, Council could authorize one specific Board or Commission to conduct a limited number of fully virtual meetings within a six-month period, allowing staff and the body to evaluate impacts on public participation, meeting quality, and administrative workload before considering broader implementation. Remote Public Participation and Public Comment (effective July 1, 2026) SB 707 requires City Council meetings include an option for the public to participate remotely and accept remote public comment via a two-way telephonic or audiovisual platform. The City Council’s use of Zoom satisfies this requirement for public access, but SB 707 will require a Item 2 Item 2 Staff Report        Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 4  Packet Pg. 32 of 46  change in general public comment practice for the City Council. On May 13, 2024,3 the City Council voted to accept general public comment for non-agendized items only in-person and accept public comment on agendized items in-person and remotely. The City Council must allow remote general public comment no later than July 1, 2026. This requirement does not apply to BCCs. Although not mandated by SB 707, staff recommends also accepting remote general public comment at Council Committee meetings to maintain consistency across the meeting bodies. Staff will communicate the change to the public prior to the effective date and update agenda materials and internal practices to comply with this provision. Policy on Disruption of Remote Public Access (effective July 1, 2026) If a disruption prevents public participation through Zoom, Council shall recess open session for at least one hour and attempt in good faith to restore service, Council may meet in an agendized closed session during the recess, Open session may not reconvene until at least one hour has passed or service is restored, whichever comes first, and If service is not restored, Council may resume only after adopting, by roll call vote, a finding that good faith efforts were made to restore service and that public interest in continuing the meeting outweighs the public’s interest in remote access. 3 City Council May 13, 2025 Action Minutes: https://portal.laserfiche.com/Portal/DocView.aspx?id=83921&repo=r- 704298fc Item 2 Item 2 Staff Report        Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 5  Packet Pg. 33 of 46  Staff from the City Clerk, City Attorney, and IT departments collaborated on the attached draft policy (Attachment A). The draft policy details the good faith efforts staff shall make to restore service, which may include: Troubleshooting platform or teleconferencing software, Resetting or replacing audiovisual equipment, Attempting alternative connection methods, Contacting necessary support staff or service providers, and/or Switching to back-up equipment or platforms, if available. Third-Party Translation and Interpretation Assistance (effective July 1, 2026) As revised, the Brown Act requires the City Council to reasonably assist community members who wish to provide or receive meeting translation and interpretation services. These requirements do not apply to Council Committees or BCCs. While SB 707 requires some jurisdictions to translate their agendas, additional agenda translation is not required in Palo Alto at this time. Item 2 Item 2 Staff Report        Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 6  Packet Pg. 34 of 46  The City must make available to the public a physical posting space where members of the public may post their own translations of the City Council’s agendas. The City will provide notice that these translations will be provided by third parties, and that the City cannot verify the content or accuracy of publicly provided agenda translations. Staff intends to make the King Plaza posting board available for translated agendas and will post instructions for how the public may utilize the space. Arrange a space for interpreters at the meeting location, upon written request to the City Clerk at least 24 hours before the meeting, Provide public commenters using interpretation extra time. Staff recommends providing twice as much public comment time for individuals using interpreters, or an amount of time determined by the presiding officer, Allow the public to use their own devices to access translation or interpretation devices, and Loan City devices to the public to access translation or interpretation services upon request. Requests for City devices must be made in writing to the City Clerk at least 24 hours before the meeting. Information on borrowing City devices may be found on the City Clerk’s Translation Services webpage5. Outreach to Underrepresented Groups (effective July 1, 2026) Publishes City Council agenda and agenda packet 11 days before meeting, rather than the minimum required 72 hours for regular meetings and 24 hours for special meetings, 5 City of Palo Alto Translation Services: https://www.paloalto.gov/Departments/City-Clerk/City-Meeting- Groups/Translation-Services Item 2 Item 2 Staff Report        Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 7  Packet Pg. 35 of 46  Provides physical agenda packets for public review at Mitchell Park and Rinconada libraries, in addition to posting agendas in King’s Plaza (accessible 24/7) and in Council Chambers, Displays prominent link on city homepage to webpage with meeting schedule and agenda materials, Distributes a weekly newsletter of published agendas and events sent to over 1,500 people and prominently displays newsletter sign-up link on agenda website, Maintains a City website explaining the format of public meetings and how the public may participate, Publishes all City Council and Council Committee agendas weekly in Palo Alto Weekly and Daily Post, rather than only special meetings, Enables automatic translation of the City website into Spanish or simplified Chinese, Enables automatic translation of HTML agendas for all meeting bodies into over 200 languages, Offers free access to Wordly, a real-time audio and text translation service supporting over 50 languages, upon request. The public may use own device or borrow a City device to receive verbal and/or written interpretation. Instructions for requesting and using Wordly service are available on the City Clerk’s website, and Livestreams public meetings on YouTube and broadcasts on local cable television. Given the priorities of SB 707, staff recommends continuing the above efforts, taking the following additional actions, and continually updating and improving practices based on effectiveness: Share information about agenda notification newsletters with community groups and organizations identified by the Policy and Services Committee, Post a QR code to agenda newsletter sign-up page in the King’s Plaza and Council Chambers posting board, and Translate the Meeting Participation Guide7 into the two commonly spoken non-English languages as reported by the American Community Survey. FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT The City Clerk’s Office has sufficient resources in its existing budget to implement the staff recommendations. Additional resources may be required depending on the Committee’s recommendations to the City Council regarding expanded alternative teleconferencing, translation, and outreach. STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT 7 City of Palo Alto Meeting Participation Guide: https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/city-clerk/city- charterprocedures/2025-meeting-participation-guide.pdf Item 2 Item 2 Staff Report        Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 8  Packet Pg. 36 of 46  Staff in the City Clerk’s, City Attorney, and IT departments collaborated on the recommended implementation of SB 707. The City Clerk’s Office has also been in touch with BCC members and staff regarding Brown Act changes applicable to their bodies. After feedback from the Policy and Services Committee, staff will bring this item to the City Council as an action item for additional Councilmember input and public awareness. Staff expects to agendize this item in the spring. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ATTACHMENTS APPROVED BY: Item 2 Item 2 Staff Report        Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 9  Packet Pg. 37 of 46  Policy: Disruption of Two-Way Remote Public Access Service 1. Purpose This policy establishes procedures for responding to a disruption in the telephonic or internet services that provide two-way remote public access to meetings of the City Council of the City of Palo Alto, as required by the Brown Act (Gov. Code § 54953.4). If state law is subsequently amended, the amended terms of state law will apply. 2. Definitions For purposes of this policy: “Disruption” means any failure, outage, or other interruption that prevents members of the public from attending or observing the meeting via a two-way telephonic service or two-way audiovisual platform. “Remote access services” means the two-way telephonic service and/or two-way audiovisual platform used to provide real-time remote public attendance and participation in meetings. Services that allow remote observation but not participation of meetings, such as a television broadcast or livestream, are not included. 3. Applicability This policy applies to all open and public meetings of the City Council of the City of Palo Alto at which remote public participation is offered or required under the Brown Act. 4. Procedures in the Event of a Service Disruption 4.1. Response to Service Disruption If the Presiding Officer or Clerk becomes aware of a disruption to the agency’s remote access services that prevents members of the public from attending or observing the meeting remotely: 1. The Presiding Officer or Clerk shall immediately announce the disruption to the public. 2. The Presiding Officer may then call for a recess of the open session or convene the legislative body in an agendized closed session. The Presiding Officer will make the following, or a substantially similar, announcement: “The City is experiencing a disruption of its remote access service that prevents remote public participation. In accordance with the Brown Act, the City Council will recess the meeting for at least one hour or until services are restored, whichever comes sooner. If service is not restored after one hour, the City Council may either vote that the public interest in continuing the public meeting outweighs the public interest in remote access and reconvene or adjourn the meeting.” 3. Staff shall begin efforts to diagnose and restore the disrupted service. 4. The meeting shall remain in recess for at least one hour or until service is restored, whichever is sooner. The recess period may be extended if restoration efforts are ongoing. 4.2. Efforts to Restore Service The agency shall make good faith efforts to restore remote access services, which may include: Troubleshooting platform or teleconferencing software Resetting or replacing audiovisual equipment Attempting alternative connection methods Item 2 Attachment A - Two-Way Remote Public Access Disruption Policy        Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 10  Packet Pg. 38 of 46  Contacting necessary support staff or service providers Switching to back-up equipment or platforms, if available 5. Reconvening the Open Session 5.1. Timing The open session may be reconvened after at least one hour has elapsed from the time of disruption or as soon as service is restored, whichever occurs earlier. 5.2. If Service Is Restored If the remote access service is restored before or at the time the meeting reconvenes, the meeting shall continue as normal. 5.3. If Service Is Not Restored If service has not been restored after one hour, the City Council of the City of Palo Alto may reconvene and: 1. Adjourn the meeting; or 2. Continue the meeting in open session by adopting, by roll call vote, the following, or a substantially similar, finding: “The City of Palo Alto has made good faith efforts to restore remote access services in accordance with its adopted policy, and the public interest in continuing the meeting outweighs the public interest in remote public access.” Upon adoption of the finding, the legislative body may continue the open session. 6. Recordkeeping The Clerk shall enter a brief statement into the meeting minutes, including the following: The nature and time of the disruption That good faith efforts to restore service were made in accordance The time the meeting was reconvened (if applicable) Any finding adopted pursuant to Section 6.3 7. Review and Updates This policy may be amended by the City Council of the City of Palo Alto at a noticed public meeting in open session, not on the consent calendar. Item 2 Attachment A - Two-Way Remote Public Access Disruption Policy        Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 11  Packet Pg. 39 of 46  1 0 4 2 4 City Practices Already in Alignment with SB 707 Alternative Teleconferencing (effective January 1, 2026) Extends expiration date to 2030, Removes the procedural differences between attending remotely due to “just cause” or “emergency circumstances,” Expands “just cause” to include certain military service obligations, Modifies the annual limit on attendance by alternative teleconference based on the body’s frequency of regular meetings, and Requires meeting minutes to identify specific provision a member relies on to participate remotely. 1 the Policy and Services Committee recommended the City Council adopt the updated provisions as part of its Procedures & Protocol Handbook update. The City Council was scheduled to consider this item on January 12, 2026, but deferred it to a future meeting. Brown Act Distribution (effective January 1, 2026) 1 December 9, 2025 Policy and Services Committee Action Minutes: https://portal.laserfiche.com/Portal/DocView.aspx?id=246407&repo=r-704298fc Item 2 Attachment B - City Practices Already in Alignment with SB 707        Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 12  Packet Pg. 40 of 46  1 0 4 2 4 commissioners during their orientation and will incorporate this mandate into new Councilmember onboarding practices. Remote Member Participation as an Accommodation (effective January 1, 2026) Disclose the presence of anyone over the age of 18 with them and their relationship to that person, and Use audio and visual technology, unless a physical condition related to their disability results in a need to participate only through audio. Remote Public Attendance Website Requirements (effective July 1, 2026) a general explanation of the public meeting process, an explanation of how to provide in-person or remote verbal or written public comment, a calendar of all public meetings with the times, dates, and locations, and a link to posted agendas. 3 is prominently displayed on Palo Alto’s homepage and complies with these requirements. In addition to the Agendas page, the City Clerk’s Office also maintains a Resources for Meeting Attendance4 webpage. This page includes information about City Council meeting structure, public comment procedures, FAQs, City Council and BCC meeting frequencies, and resources for remote attendance. 3 City of Palo Alto Meeting Agendas and Minutes: https://PaloAlto.gov/CouncilAgendas 4 City of Palo Alto Resources for Public Meetings: https://www.paloalto.gov/Departments/City-Clerk/City-Meeting- Groups/Resources-for-Meeting-Attendance Item 2 Attachment B - City Practices Already in Alignment with SB 707        Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 13  Packet Pg. 41 of 46  1 0 4 2 4 newsletter with information about City Council and Council Committee meetings and events, including direct links to all published agendas and notifications of amended or supplemental materials. The newsletter is currently distributed to over 1,500 individuals, and the public may sign up online via a prominent link on the Meeting Agendas and Minutes page. Item 2 Attachment B - City Practices Already in Alignment with SB 707        Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 14  Packet Pg. 42 of 46  Policy & Services Committee Staff Report From: City Manager Report Type: ACTION ITEMS Lead Department: City Manager Meeting Date: February 10, 2026 Report #:2601-5853 TITLE City Council Referral: Review and Recommend Updates to the City Council Values RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Policy and Services Committee review the City Council values and propose any recommended changes to the City Council for approval. BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS On November 7, 2022, the City Council adopted1 values in the Procedures and Protocols Handbook as a way to guide future priority-setting meetings with more focus on more timely issues. The City Council noted that the values statement was intended as a reflection what the enduring values are of the City Council to save time, act as a guide in the future, and to help with the confusion between values and priorities annually. At the time the values were approved by the City Council, it was understood that a future City Council could change/update the values and that the values were focused on the work of the City Council (not intended to be stated as City of Palo Alto values). At the January 24, 2026 City Council retreat, the City Council expressed interest in updating the values statement as well as elevating the presence of the values to be shared beyond just being shown in the City Council Procedures and Protocols Handbook. The existing values statement: The Palo Alto City Council has universally shared values that help guide our decisions and the work we do. These values include: 1. We will make decisions that balance revenues and expenses, now and in the future. 2. We will make decisions that are environmentally sustainable, now and in the future. 1 City Council Meeting, November 7, 2022; Link: https://portal.laserfiche.com/Portal/DocView.aspx?id=31240&repo=r-704298fc&searchid=0d712abe-b8ef-435e- 9045-9198fc7001ae Item 3 Item 3 Staff Report        Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 1  Packet Pg. 43 of 46  3. We will integrate equity into our decisions, considering how decisions affect people differently based on their identity or circumstances. 4. We will make decisions that create a healthy, safe and welcoming community for all. 5. We will safeguard public trust through transparent practices and open communication. 6. We embrace innovation. At the January 24 City Council retreat, the following values suggestions3 were shared for discussion and recommended to be further explored by the Policy and Services Committee. City Councilmember Suggestions for Values Updates Councilmembers Burt/Reckdahl suggestions: The Council holds these values to help guide Council and staff initiatives and actions: 1) Vibrant Community. Cultivate a dynamic community by fostering retail vibrancy, strong local economy, engaging public spaces, and a high quality of life for all. 2) Fiscal Responsibility. Exercise disciplined financial management to ensure city revenues and expenses remain balanced and sustainable. 3) Accountable Governance. Safeguard public trust through transparent practices, inclusive civic engagement, and open communication. 4) Environmental Leadership. Lead in environmental sustainability, protection of our natural environment, and climate action and adaptation. 5) Equitable Policies. Prioritize equity by evaluating how decisions impact individuals based on their unique identities and circumstances. 6) Community Well-being. Foster a healthy, safe, and welcoming community for all. 7) Socioeconomic Diversity. Advance diverse housing and workforce opportunities to build a socially and economically balanced community. 8) Strategic Innovation. As the birthplace of Silicon Valley, embrace innovation in the public and private sectors. 3 City Council Retreat, January 24, 2026, Link: https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=18520 Item 3 Item 3 Staff Report        Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 2  Packet Pg. 44 of 46  Mayor Veenker Suggestions: 3) Implement housing strategies for social & economic balance 4) Promote climate action and adaptation and environmental sustainability. 5) Promote economic development and retail vibrancy 6) Promote safety, wellness, and belonging for all 5 on this topic was transmitted to the City Council in December. This effort involved a team comprised of representatives from across the City to review and update the City values established more than two decades ago, to restate values that are both aspirational and grounded in the experiences of current employees. The four Organizational Values and descriptors that emerged from the refresh review and engagement effort are: Respect Exemplify integrity, courtesy, inclusion and professionalism Innovation Develop creative solutions for continuous improvement Service Demonstrate excellence through purpose driven, collaborative problem solving Empowerment Cultivate learning growth and shared success FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT 5 City Council Meeting, December 8, 2025, Informational Report, Item A: https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=16345 Item 3 Item 3 Staff Report        Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 3  Packet Pg. 45 of 46  STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW APPROVED BY: Item 3 Item 3 Staff Report        Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 4  Packet Pg. 46 of 46