Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026-02-10 Policy & Services Committee Summary MinutesPOLICY & SERVICES COMMITTEE SUMMARY MINUTES Page 1 of 16 Regular Meeting February 10, 2026 The Policy & Services Committee of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in Council Chambers and by virtual teleconference at 6:00 p.m. Present In-Person: Lythcott-Haims (Chair), Reckdahl, Stone Absent: None Call to Order Chair Lythcott-Haims called the meeting to order. The clerk called the roll and all were present. Public Comment There were no requests to speak. 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. Director of Planning & Development Services Jonathan Lait introduced Senior Program Manager Julia Knight to present the item and noted that Chief Building Official George Hoyt was available to respond to questions. Planning & Development Services Senior Program Manager Julia Knight presented an overview of the proposed Seismic Hazards Identification and Risk Mitigation Ordinance update and requested the Policy and Services Committee (P&S) feedback on progress and initial policy direction. The existing 1986 ordinance requires mandatory seismic evaluations but voluntary retrofits, resulting in greater emphasis on hazard identification than mitigation. Since adoption, 67 of 89 identified buildings across 3 vulnerable categories have been retrofitted or demolished. Following the 2014 Napa earthquake, City Council directed staff to pursue updates and recommendations were presented to the P&S in 2017, though the effort was later SUMMARY MINUTES Page 2 of 16 Policy & Services Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 02/10/2026 deprioritized due to other City initiatives including pandemic response. Staff resumed work last year and outlined the 2026 schedule, including 3 additional Community Advisory Group (CAG) meetings, an informational report to Council, 2 additional P&S Committee meetings, and presentation of a draft ordinance to Council in the fall. Senior Program Manager Knight outlined anticipated components of the draft ordinance, which would seek to reduce seismic vulnerabilities, enhance life safety protections, and support business and service continuity following an earthquake. Proposed policy changes could include minor revisions to existing building categories, expansion of regulations to additional vulnerable building types, establishment of mandatory retrofit requirements with defined compliance timelines, incorporation of updated seismic retrofit standards and procedures, and consideration of additional policy and financial incentives. Senior Program Manager Knight described the ordinance implementation process, noting that key policy decisions include determining what vulnerable building categories to regulate, potentially establishing building age or size thresholds, and creating a screening process with a defined deadline to identify affected buildings. The City must decide whether to require mandatory retrofits for some or all categories and, if so, establish notification procedures, evaluation requirements, and plan submittal processes to address identified deficiencies, as well as set compliance deadlines for completion of retrofit work by category. Senior Program Manager Knight recommended retaining Categories I, II, and III and expanding Category I for unreinforced masonry buildings to include all sizes and occupancies. The City may consider regulating 4 additional vulnerable categories, IV through VII, which are at risk of partial or total collapse during a major earthquake and are therefore priorities for life safety and continuity planning. Staff, the consultant team, and the CAG support mandatory retrofit requirements with short-, mid-, and long-term compliance deadlines for Categories I through IV and VI, while discussions regarding retrofit requirements for Categories V and VII remain ongoing. All retrofit work would be required to meet modern seismic standards and staff supports offering a package of incentives to encourage timely compliance and reduce property owner costs. Senior Program Manager Knight outlined additional policy considerations, including evaluation of how AB 130 may affect the ordinance update, potential development of tenant resources if retrofit work affects residential or nonresidential occupants, and options for communicating building safety risks to the public. Staff, the consultant team, and many CAG members recommend exempting 1- and 2-unit residential buildings from the ordinance. In closing, Senior Program Manager Knight invited feedback on all content, including regulated building categories, mandatory and voluntary retrofit requirements, potential incentives to reduce property owner costs, and exemptions for buildings under 3 units. It was noted that seismic specialists were present to provide technical input. Vice Mayor Stone asked whether tenant disclosure of vulnerable building status would need to be included in the ordinance, noting that state law requires disclosure at time of sale. Senior Program Manager Knight confirmed that additional tenant disclosure requirements would need to be incorporated into the ordinance. Vice Mayor Stone supported tenant disclosure and emphasized tenant protections, noting that many affected buildings are older and more SUMMARY MINUTES Page 3 of 16 Policy & Services Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 02/10/2026 affordable and that lower-income residents could face displacement or rent increases if retrofits or renovations occur. Vice Mayor Stone suggested that tenant protection strategies may warrant referral to the HRC and underscored the need to address displacement risks carefully as part of ordinance implementation. Senior Program Manager added that many residential buildings likely to be affected are tuck-under structures, which can often be retrofitted at a relatively lower cost and, in many cases, without tenant displacement. Senior Program Manager Knight emphasized that all displacement risks would need to be carefully evaluated but indicated that other cities have addressed this building category without significant displacement impacts. Vice Mayor Stone inquired about available state and federal financial incentives to support retrofit, demolition, or rebuilding, expressing concern about the potential cost burden on landlords. Senior Program Manager Knight responded that several funding sources exist, including the Brace + Bolt Program for 1- to 4-unit properties, as well as other state and federal programs and lender education efforts, though available funding is often limited and requires outreach to ensure property owners are aware of options. Executive Principal of Rutherford + Chekene Consulting Bret Lizundia noted that the consultant team prepared a report outlining the state and local funding landscape and stated that upcoming CAG discussions will focus on incentives, disclosure measures, and related strategies to encourage retrofit compliance. Vice Mayor Stone expressed interest in how City-supported financial assistance programs might be structured, including potential qualification tiers, and reiterated concern regarding significant retrofit costs. Vice Mayor Stone expressed concern that AB 130 could restrict the City’s ability to apply new building standards to residential units and sought clarification regarding its scope. Deputy City Attorney Madeline Salah explained that the law applies to new building standards affecting residential units, not only new construction, but advised that staff believes the City can advance its objectives within the constraints of AB 130, potentially including adoption of standards through an emergency ordinance. Staff is coordinating with other jurisdictions, monitoring interpretation by the California Building Standards Commission, and tracking related litigation and will return with legal guidance as needed. Vice Mayor Stone suggested engaging the City’s lobbyists if amendments to the law become necessary and expressed concern that the legislation may create unintended barriers to improving seismic safety. Vice Mayor Stone expressed support for regulating the additional building categories and for exempting residential properties with no more than 2 dwelling units, stating that the exemption appropriately captures nonprofessional landlords, and inquired whether accessory dwelling units (ADUs) would be exempt. Senior Program Manager Knight confirmed that single ADUs would qualify for the exemption, though multiple ADUs could present additional considerations. Director Lait noted that ADUs in Palo Alto are relatively new and constructed to contemporary standards. Vice Mayor Stone indicated overall support for staff’s proposed direction. Director Lait stated that the purpose of the item was to confirm alignment with the P&S Committee and identify any concerns before proceeding. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 4 of 16 Policy & Services Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 02/10/2026 Councilmember Reckdahl raised concerns regarding AB 130 but noted that adoption of an emergency ordinance may provide a viable path forward and observed that current building codes are generally strong. Referring to the list of subject matter experts in the packet, Councilmember Reckdahl asked whether the California Earthquake Authority serves as the insurance representative within the advisory process; Senior Program Manager Knight confirmed that it does. Councilmember Reckdahl questioned whether earthquake insurance is sufficiently widespread to influence retrofit behavior through rate adjustments and suggested that the effectiveness of such market incentives would depend on overall coverage rates. Senior Program Manager Knight stated that staff would research insurance participation levels and report back through the CAG process. Councilmember Reckdahl asked whether the building survey covered the entire City or only urban areas. Senior Program Manager Knight responded that the survey encompassed the entire City and was conducted over several years, beginning with assessor data to identify older buildings potentially subject to seismic vulnerabilities, followed by refinement based on building type. The consultant team conducted sidewalk surveys of approximately 2,400 buildings to assess potential risk using engineering judgment, resulting in a narrowed list of potentially vulnerable structures. It was noted that 1- and 2-unit residential buildings and buildings constructed after 1998 were excluded from the initial screening due to improved seismic standards. Councilmember Reckdahl questioned whether retrofit requirements differ across the 7 building categories and whether most involve simply adding a shear wall. Senior Program Manager Knight confirmed that retrofit approaches vary by category. Executive Principal Lizundia explained that Category I (unreinforced masonry buildings), currently regulated by the City and widely retrofitted statewide, typically require strengthening wall-to-roof and wall-to-floor connections and reinforcing brick walls often through interior shotcrete or concrete overlays and, in some cases, added columns to brace tall, slender walls. In response to Councilmember Reckdahl’s question regarding wall behavior, Executive Principal Lizundia stated that tilt-up walls in Category V buildings often fall outward during earthquakes due to weak wall-to-roof connections. Modern retrofit standards address not only those connections but improve the overall roof diaphragm to better transfer seismic loads. Executive Principal Lizundia added that similar vulnerabilities exist in certain multistory precast concrete office buildings, where retrofit strategies focus on strengthening floor and roof connections to prevent panel failure. Executive Principal Lizundia described Category VI (nonductile concrete buildings), which vary widely in size and use and may include office or institutional structures. Deficiencies typically involve brittle or weak structural elements and retrofits can require substantial intervention, including adding new concrete, installing shear walls, and wrapping columns. For Category VII (steel moment frame buildings), it was explained that damage observed during the 1994 Southern California earthquake led to significant research and code revisions after brittle joint failures were identified. While no such buildings collapsed, some experienced near-failure conditions. In response to Councilmember Reckdahl’s question regarding repair methods, Executive Principal Lizundia stated that retrofit strategies vary and may include removing SUMMARY MINUTES Page 5 of 16 Policy & Services Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 02/10/2026 asbestos fireproofing, reinforcing joints with steel plates and haunches, rewelding connections, or adding braces depending on building conditions and planned occupancy changes. Councilmember Reckdahl inquired about relative retrofit costs and whether demolition and reconstruction might be more feasible than upgrading existing buildings. Executive Principal Lizundia responded that costs vary by category, with weak-story wood-frame buildings (Category IV) generally among the least expensive to retrofit and unreinforced masonry and nonductile concrete buildings often among the most costly. It was noted that smaller footprint buildings can experience higher per-square-foot costs due to the extent of perimeter and upper-level structural work required. While demolition has occurred in some cases including several of the 89 buildings identified under the original ordinance, recent experience has shown more retrofits than demolitions, with replacement buildings constructed to meet current standards where demolition has taken place. Councilmember Reckdahl asked whether any identified vulnerable buildings are located on opportunity sites or parcels upzoned under SB 79 and suggested redevelopment incentives could address seismic risk through reconstruction. Senior Program Manager Knight stated that staff does not have that information and will review and report back. Councilmember Reckdahl expressed concern that aggressive retrofit requirements for Category IV structures, which often include older and more affordable apartments, could result in displacement and redevelopment into higher-cost housing. Councilmember Reckdahl acknowledged the importance of improving life safety but cautioned against unintended gentrification and loss of affordable housing. Councilmember Reckdahl questioned whether hazards beyond structural deficiencies such as liquefaction were evaluated. Executive Principal Lizundia responded that risk varies by location and stated that most identified buildings in Palo Alto are situated on relatively stable soils with greater liquefaction concerns generally closer to the Bay beyond Highway 101. The primary focus of the ordinance update is structural deficiencies rather than soil conditions. Councilmember Reckdahl asked whether closely spaced downtown buildings could experience pounding during seismic movement. Executive Principal Lizundia stated that modern codes require substantial seismic separation gaps while older buildings lack such joints. It was explained that pounding is generally not addressed in retrofit ordinances due to practical constraints and has not been a significant source of collapse or life loss. Councilmember Reckdahl inquired what categories present the greatest concern given relative numbers and risk. Chief Building Official George Hoyt believed that Category I unreinforced masonry buildings present the highest collapse risk despite smaller numbers, followed by Category IV weak-story wood-frame buildings due to life safety concerns, then Category V tilt- up buildings where wall-to-roof failures can occur. Executive Principal Lizundia concurred and added that certain Category VI nonductile concrete buildings warrant concern due to their brittle nature and potential for partial or total collapse, though risk varies widely within that SUMMARY MINUTES Page 6 of 16 Policy & Services Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 02/10/2026 category. Executive Principal Lizundia stated that a targeted approach similar to San Francisco’s ordinance would be preferable to a broad requirement and felt that Category VII steel moment frame buildings present the lowest relative concern. Councilmember Reckdahl noted that Categories V and VII were described as voluntary. Senior Program Manager Knight clarified that no draft ordinance has been finalized and stated that a preliminary poll of the CAG suggested initial support for considering Categories V and VII as voluntary while discussion remains ongoing. Staff, the CAG, and consultants are generally aligned in supporting mandatory requirements for the other categories and it was emphasized that the P&S Committee and City Council will determine final direction. Councilmember Reckdahl stated that the distinction between voluntary and mandatory requirements for higher-risk categories warrants further discussion. Councilmember Reckdahl referenced Table 5.1 (Number of Buildings by Occupancy Type) in the Draft for Discussion document and expressed concern that many small- to mid-sized residential properties may be owned by smaller landlords who could be less inclined to pursue voluntary retrofits. Executive Principal Lizundia clarified that Table 5.1 reflects all surveyed buildings and directed attention to another table that identifies residential units within the 7 categories. Category IV wood-frame soft-story buildings contain approximately 1,800 units and Category VI nonductile concrete buildings contain nearly 2,000 units. Many Category IV properties are small to mid-sized apartment buildings, particularly in North Palo Alto, while larger complexes are more common in South Palo Alto. Executive Principal Lizundia acknowledged the struggle between minimizing displacement and improving safety. Councilmember Reckdahl asked about 13-, 14-, and 15-story buildings identified in Table 5.3 (Number of Buildings by Stories) and whether any remain on the final list. Executive Principal Lizundia stated that 3 such buildings were identified including the tallest building downtown, which has been retrofitted within the past several years, and indicated that he would confirm details on the remaining 2. Chief Building Official Hoyt stated that the other 2 are located in Palo Alto Square and were included on the original 1989 list and have not been retrofitted but indicated that some level of retrofit would be warranted. Executive Principal Lizundia noted that the complex includes older concrete buildings of varying heights, which would require evaluation and may not meet current standards. Senior Program Manager Knight added that City Hall has been partially retrofitted. Councilmember Reckdahl wanted to know whether churches identified in Table 5.1 (Number of Buildings by Occupancy Type) are included among buildings requiring retrofit and expressed concern regarding cost due to large spans and complex forms. Executive Principal Lizundia stated that churches were not specifically screened but are likely represented among vulnerable building types based on field surveys and noted that churches are often structurally irregular with heavy roofs and weak wall connections, which can increase seismic vulnerability. Councilmember Reckdahl inquired about the cost of retrofitting a church. Executive Principal Lizundia indicated that church retrofits would likely fall at the higher end of expense and SUMMARY MINUTES Page 7 of 16 Policy & Services Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 02/10/2026 referenced the California Historic Building Code, which provides flexibility in preserving historic features while improving safety. Chair Lythcott-Haims recounted Stanford University’s decision prior to the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake to relocate approximately 300 students from Roble Hall, a 1918 unreinforced masonry dorm determined to be seismically unsafe. Chair Lythcott-Haims described the large- scale effort to rehouse students during the winter break. Chair Lythcott-Haims noted that the subsequent 6.9 earthquake underscored the life-safety risks associated with unreinforced masonry buildings and expressed strong support for seismic retrofitting while acknowledging the financial and practical challenges of requiring property owners to undertake costly safety improvements. Chair Lythcott-Haims expressed support for expanding the ordinance to 7 categories, emphasized the importance of tenant protections to prevent displacement, and supported exploration of procedural development and financial incentives to encourage compliance. Chair Lythcott-Haims requested that staff return with additional detail regarding incentive options including cost estimates by retrofit type, anticipated construction timelines, and expected duration of occupant displacement to better understand impacts across categories. Chair Lythcott-Haims sought clarification regarding the sidewalk survey and whether the 2,421 figure represents a projected number of dwellings requiring retrofit. Senior Program Manager Knight clarified that 2,421 refers to properties or buildings rather than individual dwellings and reflects the initial screening based on assessor data from approximately 29,000 buildings citywide after excluding 1- and 2-unit residences and buildings constructed after 1998. The subsequent sidewalk survey further narrowed the list to approximately 1,200 buildings that fit within the 7 identified categories. It was noted that some buildings fall into multiple categories. Chair Lythcott-Haims questioned the rationale for exempting 1- and 2-unit residential buildings and was concerned that some homeowners may not fully understand or manage seismic risk, suggesting the City has a responsibility to ensure broader awareness. Senior Program Manager Knight responded that mandatory requirements can be more challenging to impose on small property owners but noted that voluntary programs and education efforts remain available including state funding such as the Brace + Bolt Program to support basic upgrades. Senior Program Manager Knight felt that outreach and education may be more appropriate tools for smaller properties. Chair Lythcott-Haims stated that, even if exempt, the City should clearly communicate the importance of seismic safety to ensure that homeowners do not interpret the exemption as a signal that no action is needed. Chair Lythcott-Haims inquired why multiple retrofit standards were referenced including ASCE 41-23 and questioned whether a single standard would be more efficient. Executive Principal Lizundia explained that ASCE 41 is a national consensus standard for evaluation and retrofit updated most recently in 2023, while the California Existing Building Code (CEBC) contains targeted standards for specific vulnerable building types. For certain categories such as unreinforced masonry, the CEBC and ASCE 41 provisions are closely aligned, whereas for others SUMMARY MINUTES Page 8 of 16 Policy & Services Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 02/10/2026 including weak-story wood-frame buildings the CEBC provides a more focused and pragmatic approach. Executive Principal Lizundia indicated that while a single standard would be simpler, the existence of specialized standards allows design professionals to select the most appropriate code standard. Public Comment: None. NO ACTION Public Comment Chair Lythcott-Haims reopened general public comment. 1. Sheryl Marymount, CEO and founder of Musical Memories Foundation, introduced herself and described the organization’s mission to address loneliness and isolation among older adults through customized interactive music-based programming for active seniors, assisted living residents, and memory care participants. As a recent nonprofit grant recipient and startup funded in late December, Ms. Marymount reported that the organization has launched programming including 2 events at La Comida, a partnership with Avenidas, and an upcoming cardio drumming workshop on March 27. There has been outreach to Channing House and other organizations. Action Items 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. City Clerk Mahealani Ah Yun explained that this item would provide an update on changes to the Brown Act under SB 707 and stated that the purpose of the item is to obtain P&S Committee feedback on implementation direction. City Clerk Ah Yun noted that some provisions became effective January 1, 2026, while others take effect July 1, 2026, and that many requirements align with existing City practices. Staff is seeking input on 5 policy areas requiring Council action including expanded alternative teleconferencing for boards, commissions, and committees (BCCs), remote public access and comment at City Council meetings, adoption of a remote public access disruption policy, reasonable assistance for third- party translation and interpretation, and expanded outreach to underrepresented groups. These recommendations are intended to balance access, transparency, and administrative feasibility. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 9 of 16 Policy & Services Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 02/10/2026 Assistant City Clerk Christine Prior provided an overview of updated alternative teleconferencing provisions under SB 707, which took effect January 1, 2026. Alternative teleconferencing allows remote participation without requiring publication of a member’s location and builds on prior AB 2449 “just cause” and "emergency circumstances." SB 707 extends these provisions through 2030, consolidates "emergency circumstances" into "just cause," adds certain military obligations, requires meeting minutes to identify the applicable provision, and adjusts annual usage limits based on meeting frequency. Assistant City Clerk Prior noted that the Brown Act limits and Palo Alto’s internal limits are reflected in the Procedures and Protocol Handbook for City Council and standing committees including an internal limit of 3 for the Finance Committee and that conforming updates to the Handbook were adopted by Council the prior evening. Assistant City Clerk Prior described expanded alternative teleconferencing under SB 707, which permits City Council to authorize BCCs to allow fully remote participation without just cause and without requiring an in-person quorum. Assistant City Clerk Prior explained that Council must first authorize a board or commission and that the body must accept the option, with reauthorization required every 6 months. Even if authorized, a staffed physical meeting location would remain available with in-person public comment accommodated and remote participants required to use audio and video with clear public instructions published for participation. Staff requested P&S Committee direction on whether to recommend authorizing expanded alternative teleconferencing and suggested a modest pilot with 1 board or commission to evaluate impacts before broader implementation. Deputy City Attorney Jennifer Fine outlined SB 707 provisions affecting City Council beginning July 1, 2026, including a requirement to offer a remote meeting option and allow remote general public comment beyond agendized items. The law requires adoption of a remote public access disruption policy under which Council must recess for at least 1 hour if remote access is disrupted, may meet in agendized closed session during that period, and may reconvene only upon a roll call finding that the public interest in continuing outweighs the public interest in remote access. Staff prepared a draft policy (Attachment A) and recommended adoption. City Clerk Ah Yun explained that SB 707 does not require the City to provide translation services but requires reasonable assistance for individuals using third-party interpretation at City Council meetings. Staff recommended making posting boards in King Plaza and Council Chambers available for translated agendas, providing space for interpreters upon advance request, allowing additional time for public speakers using interpretation, and permitting use of personal devices or loaned City devices upon request. These provisions apply to City Council meetings and not BCCs. Regarding outreach efforts, City Clerk Ah Yun stated that SB 707 requires reasonable efforts to encourage participation by groups that do not traditionally engage in public meetings and noted that Palo Alto exceeds minimum requirements through early agenda publication, multilingual website translation, weekly agenda newsletters, livestreaming and cable broadcasts, and Wordly real-time translation services. Staff recommended continuing these practices and adding distribution of newsletter sign-up information to identified community groups, posting QR codes at physical locations, and SUMMARY MINUTES Page 10 of 16 Policy & Services Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 02/10/2026 translating the meeting participation guide into commonly spoken languages. City Clerk Ah Yun concluded that staff is seeking P&S Committee direction on whether to authorize expanded alternative teleconferencing for BCCs, recommend adoption of the remote public access disruption policy, and support staff recommendations regarding translation assistance and outreach efforts. City Clerk Ah Yun noted that based on Committee feedback staff will return to City Council later in the spring with a formal action item. Chair Lythcott-Haims proposed reviewing the 5 topics sequentially by addressing Item 1 first, Items 2 and 3 together due to their shared focus on remote public participation, followed by Items 4 and then 5. Vice Mayor Stone and Councilmember Reckdahl concurred, and the Committee proceeded to discuss whether to approve expanded alternative teleconferencing for BCCs. Vice Mayor Stone expressed opposition to authorizing expanded alternative teleconferencing for BCCs, stating that the benefits do not outweigh the drawbacks in a city of Palo Alto’s size, and noted that in-person attendance supports engagement and interaction among Commissioners. Vice Mayor Stone indicated that travel to City Hall is generally manageable and that remote participation has not been identified as a primary reason Commissioners step down. Councilmember Reckdahl indicated agreement with Vice Mayor Stone’s position and requested staff’s perspective. Deputy City Manager Chantal Cotton-Gaines stated that staff has not yet had sufficient opportunity to evaluate operational impacts with board and commission liaisons and recommended additional time for review, particularly if a pilot were considered, while indicating staff could support the Committee’s direction. Councilmember Reckdahl suggested that if considered, the Public Art Commission and the ARB may be potential candidates given allowance for nonresident members but stated there is no immediate need and expressed preference to decline authorization at this time. Chair Lythcott-Haims sought clarification regarding the distinction between existing and expanded alternative teleconferencing and inquired whether “just cause” participation would remain available if expanded authority were not adopted. Assistant City Clerk Prior clarified that expanded alternative teleconferencing is an additional option and that boards and commissions would retain access to “just cause” participation regardless. Assistant City Clerk Prior explained that expanded authority would allow all Commissioners to participate remotely with only staff present at a physical location. After elaboration, Chair Lythcott-Haims indicated agreement with Vice Mayor Stone and Councilmember Reckdahl and stated that the P&S Committee would decline authorization of expanded alternative teleconferencing for BCCs. Public Comment: None. Chair Lythcott-Haims summarized the next topics as required changes to remote public participation including allowing remote general public comment on non-agendized items and adoption of a remote public access disruption policy. Chair Lythcott-Haims noted that SUMMARY MINUTES Page 11 of 16 Policy & Services Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 02/10/2026 permitting remote general public comment is mandated by state law effective July 1 and invited Committee input on implementation of that as well as on the proposed disruption policy addressing procedures if Zoom access fails during a meeting. Councilmember Reckdahl inquired whether implementation of remote general public comment would require moving the timing of public comment on the agenda and asked whether in- person and remote comment could be scheduled at different times during the meeting. Assistant City Clerk Prior stated that the Brown Act does not dictate placement on the agenda and that timing remains at Council’s discretion. Deputy City Attorney Fine confirmed that splitting in-person and remote comment would be permissible. Deputy City Manager Cotton- Gaines added that any changes to timing would require updates to the Procedures and Protocols Handbook. Councilmember Reckdahl acknowledged that remote general public comment is required under state law and that Council has flexibility regarding format. Vice Mayor Stone stated that permitting remote general public comment is required under state law and expressed frustration with the loss of local control. Vice Mayor Stone referenced prior changes to public comment procedures adopted in response to repeated instances of hate speech during remote participation and noted that limiting comment to in-person participation reduced those incidents. Vice Mayor Stone indicated openness to exploring adjustments such as separating in-person and remote comment and suggested monitoring conditions in the future if disruptive behavior reemerges. Vice Mayor Stone inquired whether general public comment may be limited to matters within the City’s business and whether additional policy clarity could assist the Mayor in managing comments that extend beyond City business. Deputy City Attorney Fine stated that public comment may be curtailed if it is unrelated to City business but noted that speakers often connect remarks to local issues, making relevance determinations challenging, particularly during general public comment. Deputy City Attorney Fine indicated that additional guidance could be provided to the Mayor as needed. Vice Mayor Stone expressed interest in bifurcating public comment by holding in-person comment at the beginning of the meeting and remote comment later in the agenda while maintaining opportunities for participation. Vice Mayor Stone inquired about the frequency of Zoom service disruptions during public meetings. City Clerk Ah Yun stated that the City has not experienced a Zoom outage during a public meeting. Vice Mayor Stone expressed support for the staff recommendation regarding the remote public access disruption policy. Councilmember Reckdahl inquired whether alternatives exist to the proposed remote public access disruption policy including automatic adjournment if Zoom service fails. Assistant City Clerk Prior explained that the Brown Act requires adoption of a policy and mandates a 1-hour recess to attempt restoration with Council permitted to meet in agendized closed session during that period. At the conclusion of the hour, Council may either adjourn or make a roll call finding that good faith restoration efforts were made and that the public interest in continuing outweighs the interest in remote access before proceeding. Councilmember Reckdahl indicated support for this proposed approach. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 12 of 16 Policy & Services Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 02/10/2026 Chair Lythcott-Haims expressed support for the proposed remote public access disruption policy and expressed appreciation for the decision-making flowchart. Chair Lythcott-Haims directed the Clerk to advise the Committee if any public comment requests were received on this item. Chair Lythcott-Haims moved to the 4th topic and opened Committee discussion on whether to approve reasonable assistance for third-party translation and interpretation. Councilmember Reckdahl inquired about prior use of translation services including Wordly. City Clerk Ah Yun stated that Wordly has been activated at several Council meetings and at some committee and commission meetings when advance notice was provided. Councilmember Reckdahl expressed support for continued use. Assistant City Clerk Prior clarified that SB 707 does not require the City to provide translation services but does require reasonable assistance for individuals using third-party interpreters or devices and confirmed that staff intends to continue offering Wordly. Councilmember Reckdahl indicated support for maintaining current practices. Vice Mayor Stone indicated no additional comments on this topic. Chair Lythcott-Haims expressed support for reasonable assistance for third-party translation and interpretation and commended City Clerk Ah Yun for piloting and implementing Wordly as an inclusivity measure. Chair Lythcott-Haims supported extending public comment time for speakers using interpreters and encouraged broader promotion of Wordly, noting its availability in more than 50 languages and its accessibility through personal devices to better reflect and serve the City’s linguistic diversity. Chair Lythcott-Haims summarized that the P&S Committee supports staff’s recommendation to provide reasonable assistance for translation and interpretation. Chair Lythcott-Haims moved to the 5th topic regarding staff-recommended outreach efforts to increase participation. Vice Mayor Stone and Councilmember Reckdahl expressed support. Councilmember Reckdahl suggested expanding outreach beyond traditional newspaper notices or local news websites to locations such as libraries and supermarkets to reach residents who may not engage through existing channels and inquired about feasibility and staffing impacts. Assistant City Clerk Prior stated that staff is willing to explore additional posting locations including supermarkets and will evaluate logistical considerations. Chair Lythcott-Haims supported staff’s outreach recommendations and emphasized the challenge of engaging residents who do not currently participate in civic processes. Chair Lythcott-Haims highlighted the City’s linguistic diversity including Mandarin and Spanish speakers and encouraged exploration of more proactive outreach strategies such as partnering with community centers, culturally specific organizations, and ethnic media to expand awareness and civic education. City Clerk Ah Yun indicated that staff will explore additional outreach opportunities. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 13 of 16 Policy & Services Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 02/10/2026 Chair Lythcott-Haims stated that the Committee had reviewed the 5 recommendations and proposed a friendly amendment to add consideration of bifurcating general public comment by holding in-person comment at the beginning of the meeting and remote comment at the end. Councilmember Reckdahl and Vice Mayor Stone accepted the amendment. Vice Mayor Stone requested clarification regarding timing and process for returning with recommendations including the proposed bifurcation of general public comment. Assistant City Clerk Prior stated that an action item will return to City Council in the spring as required by state law and that staff will work with the City Attorney’s Office and other staff to evaluate options for splitting public comment before presenting additional information to Council. Councilmember Reckdahl requested that the motion be amended to include language directing staff to explore the legality of bifurcating general public comment at the beginning of Item 2. Vice Mayor Stone accepted the amendment. Chair Lythcott-Haims proposed amending Item 2 to add the phrase “in light of remote public participation requirements dictated by SB 707.” Councilmember Reckdahl and Vice Mayor Stone accepted the amendment. MOTION: Councilmember Reckdahl moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Stone, to recommend the City Council: 1. Decline the use of expanded alternative teleconferencing for Boards, Commissions, and Committees (BCCs) as recommended by the Policy & Services Committee, 2. Explore legality of having in-person general public comment at the start of the meeting and remote public comment at the end of the meeting, in light of remote public participation requirements dictated by SB707, 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. MOTION PASSED: 3-0 3. City Council Referral: Review and Recommend Updates to the City Council Values Deputy City Manager Chantal Cotton-Gaines introduced discussion regarding potential updates to Council Values and noted that the topic was raised at the January 24 City Council retreat and that the current values were adopted on November 7, 2022. Council is considering whether the values should reflect enduring principles alongside updated priorities. The February 23 Council meeting will address priority objectives while the January 24 action adopted annual priorities, with today’s discussion focused solely on values. Council Values are intended to be "an SUMMARY MINUTES Page 14 of 16 Policy & Services Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 02/10/2026 enduring goal and intention to guide the work of the Council which allow and maintain enduring intentions while selecting annual priorities that reflect short-term projects and goals." Council priorities are "a topic that will receive particular and significant attention during the year," and Council objectives are "a discrete SMARTIE project or milestone intended to be achieved within the year." Deputy City Manager Cotton-Gaines reviewed the existing Council values: 1) Balance revenues and expenses, now and in the future. 2) Are environmentally sustainable, now and in the future. 3) Will integrate equity into our decisions, considering how decisions affect people differently based on their identity or circumstances. 4) Create a healthy, safe and welcoming community for all. 5) Will safeguard public trust through transparent practices and open communication. 6) Will embrace innovation. Deputy City Manager Cotton-Gaines reported that 2 sets of proposed updates to the Council values were submitted, one from Councilmembers Burt and Reckdahl and one from Mayor Veenker, with largely similar subject areas but different wording. Staff recommended that the P&S Committee review the values and, if desired, forward proposed revisions to the City Council for approval. Chair Lythcott-Haims invited Councilmember Reckdahl, as co-author of one set of proposed updates, to present them. Councilmember Reckdahl stated that the 2 proposals are largely similar and supported incorporating elements from the Mayor’s version into the other version, including language on optimizing efficiency and outcomes, adding “belonging” to the community value, and describing fiscal responsibility as “fiscally strategic.” Vice Mayor Stone expressed appreciation for the collaborative effort and noted the 2 proposals are very similar but somewhat lengthy. Vice Mayor Stone had combined them into a condensed list of 5 values to streamline discussion while retaining key concepts and stated that Councilmember Reckdahl’s suggestions could be incorporated. Councilmember Reckdahl explained that broader values were intended to allow more focused priorities and enable projects to align with values rather than priorities. Vice Mayor Stone clarified that his condensed version was primarily a stylistic change. Chair Lythcott-Haims noted the Committee could retain the 2022 values but observed limited support given the newly proposed alternatives. Chair Lythcott-Haims recommended selecting one of the proposed lists as a starting point for revisions, emphasizing readability and usefulness for Council decision-making. Assistant City Manager Kiely Nosé acknowledged the volume of material and suggested either a brief recess to allow review or using staff’s slides that combine the 2 proposals. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 15 of 16 Policy & Services Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 02/10/2026 Vice Mayor Stone stated that his own 5-item version was intended only as a tool to help blend the 2 proposals and expressed support for instead starting with the Burt/Reckdahl list and incorporating elements from the Mayor’s version if preferred. Chair Lythcott-Haims called a recess to review these proposed lists. The Committee took a 7-minute recess. Chair Lythcott-Haims reconvened the meeting and invited direction on how to proceed with discussion of Council Values. Chair Lythcott-Haims observed that Vice Mayor Stone’s list of 5 items effectively merges proposals from Councilmember Burt, Councilmember Reckdahl, and Mayor Veenker and suggested beginning with a single working document to revise and ensure it incorporates desired elements. Vice Mayor Stone deferred to Councilmember Reckdahl regarding what document to use as the starting point and indicated willingness to proceed at the Chair’s direction. Councilmember Reckdahl likewise deferred to the Chair on how to proceed. Assistant City Manager Nosé suggested using Vice Mayor Stone's document containing 5 proposed values as the working draft and recommended tracking edits in real time as the Committee discusses revisions. Chair Lythcott-Haims expressed preference for using the side-by-side review prepared by Deputy City Manager Cotton-Gaines and then incorporate relevant language from Vice Mayor Stone’s draft as needed. Staff displayed the side-by-side review prepared by Deputy City Manager Cotton-Gaines alongside Vice Mayor Stone’s list of 5 proposed values for comparison. Chair Lythcott-Haims stated that sequencing of the values is less important than merging and refining the substance of the proposed values. Deputy City Manager Cotton-Gaines confirmed that the lists were presented without priority order and that no commitment has been made to sequencing. Councilmembers and staff collaboratively refined language across the proposed lists to develop a consolidated motion regarding the Council Values. Chair Lythcott-Haims emphasized that members retain the ability to revise any language and proposed taking an additional break to review the draft for potential refinements. The Committee took a 3-minute recess. Chair Lythcott-Haims identified 3 additional proposed revisions to the motion, and Councilmember Reckdahl and Vice Mayor Stone indicated agreement with these edits. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 16 of 16 Policy & Services Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 02/10/2026 Councilmember Reckdahl suggested one small edit to the motion, to which Chair Lythcott- Haims and Vice Mayor Stone agreed. Public Comment: None. MOTION: Vice Mayor Stone moved, seconded by Councilmember Reckdahl, to recommend the City Council adopt the below values: 1. Vibrant Community: Cultivate a dynamic community by fostering retail vibrancy, economic development, 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, and are fiscally strategic and responsible. 3. Accountable Governance: Earn public trust through transparent leadership, inclusive engagement, and open communication. 4. Strategic Innovation: As the birthplace of Silicon Valley, embrace innovation in the public and private sectors to optimize efficiency and outcomes. 5. Equity & Shared Prosperity: Center equity in every decision, and advance housing, workforce, and social policies that promote inclusion, socioeconomic diversity, and opportunity. 6. Climate Leadership & Environmental Stewardship: Lead with urgency on climate action and adaptation, sustainability, and environmental protection for current and future generations. 7. Community Well-being & Belonging: Foster a safe, healthy, and welcoming community where everyone belongs and can thrive physically, mentally, and socially. MOTION PASSED: 3-0 Future Meetings and Agendas Deputy City Manager Chantal Cotton-Gaines reported that tentative items for the March 10 meeting include nonprofit partnership Phase I improvements, a Housing Element program related to multifamily development in mixed-use districts, a potential audit item, and a possible rent stabilization discussion. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 8:44 p.m.