Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-11-12 City Council Summary MinutesCITY COUNCIL SUMMARY MINUTES Page 1 of 17 Special Meeting November 12, 2024 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers and by virtual teleconference at 5:30 P.M. Present In Person: Burt, Lauing, Lythcott-Haims, Stone, Tanaka, Veenker Tanaka Arrived at 5:33 P.M. Present Remotely: Kou Absent: None. Mayor Stone called the meeting to order. Roll was called by the clerk reporting six present. Councilmember Kou invoked the Just Cause provision of AB 2449 as she was traveling at the National League of Cities Convention in Tampa, Florida. She indicated there were no adults 18 plus in the room. Special Orders of the Day 1. Signing of a Friendship City Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Narok, Kenya in Celebration of Palo Alto‘s First Friendship City Item Removed Off Agenda 2. Proclamation Honoring Law Enforcement Records and Support Personnel Week November 11-15, 2024 Mayor Stone read the proclamation aloud. Police Chief Reifschneider thanked the Mayor and Council on behalf of Chief Binder and the department for recognizing their Police Records and Support Personnel thanking them for their exemplary work. NO ACTION Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions The assistant city manager reported no changes to the agenda. Public Comment The clerk indicated there were no requests to speak on general public comment on items not on the agenda. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 2 of 17 Sp. City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 11/12/2024 Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements Vice Mayor Lauing spoke about speaking at the Veterans Day celebration the day before. Councilmember Veenker mentioned a ribbon cutting for the Valley Health Center North County that opening right in Palo Alto the previous Friday. She announced that Stanford dedicated the floor in Maples Pavilion to Tara VanDerveer, the winningest coach in college basketball, the previous Sunday. She gave a brief update from BAAQMD indicating they would be sending the executive officer and the board chair to COP this year which would connect the Bay Area to learnings from around world. The previous week, the Air District released a wood smoke white paper for public comment that would provide extensive information on wood burning in the Bay Area, the current state of the regulatory landscape for wood burning and potential recommendations to further minimize wood smoke emissions and exposures. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims commented that the following weekend would be Mitchell Park’s ten-year anniversary celebration. Study Session 3. Annual Report on Sustainability and Climate Action Plan (S/CAP) Implementation: 2022 Greenhouse Gas Inventory, Quarterly S/CAP Progress Report, and S/CAP Key Performance Indicators Annual Progress Report; CEQA status - Not a Project NO ACTION Brad Eggleston, Public Works Director, started the presentation with a reminder that Council approved the updated S/CAP and the three-year workplan in June 2023. Since then, staff, the Climate Protection Ad Hoc Committee and a working group of community members had been working closely together to make progress. He presented a slide with an agenda of objectives. Jonathan Abendschein, Public Works Assistant Director – Sustainability and Climate Action, resumed the presentation discussing the 2022 greenhouse gas emissions inventories, 2022 Palo Alto citywide GHG emissions down ~47.4 percent, Palo Alto greenhouse gas emissions per capita, 2022 Palo Alto citywide GHG emission sources, progress towards carbon neutrality ~66 percent reductions, 2022 Palo Alto Municipal GHG emissions by sectors, 2023 key performance indicators progress, 2023 key performance indicators progress highlights, 2024 2nd and 3rd quarter progress, S/CAP key issue areas, climate action progress, Climate Protection Ad Hoc Committee, sustainability progress, Whole Home Electrification Pilot Program, Whole Home Program 2-phase launch plan, proposed Whole Home Electrification Pilot Program incentives and next steps in S/CAP implementation. Councilmember Veenker commended the staff for the work done on this program. She mentioned a new EPA directed has been appointed with the stated goal of deregulation which would create a different funding and regulatory backdrop so they would have to watch the policy coming out of Washington going forward. BAAQMD had a Board of Directors’ meeting SUMMARY MINUTES Page 3 of 17 Sp. City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 11/12/2024 Wednesday morning after the election and the directors asked to agendize an item specifically on this so they could know and follow the context in which this work would proceed. As the Northern California Power Agency commissioner, she had received a report from the DC-based lobbyists about what it would be like and how they would monitor it going forward. She summarized points from the S/CAP report. She asked for a benchmark how their emissions and reductions generally compare with neighboring cities, state and nation. Christine Luong, Environmental Control Program Manager, replied she did an exercise a couple of years prior looking at where all of the Bay Area cities were with their goals and progress. They were well ahead of the CARB guidelines for where they should be and doing better than a lot of neighboring cities. Councilmember Burt discussed the City’s progress in the program. He emphasized that merely focusing on environmental responsibility and impacts was only a portion of the necessary communications. He stressed the importance of the family and public health benefits of the programs, building comfort and transportation quality. He remarked the quality of life of EVs and electrified heat pump buildings would be a quality of life improvement. He opined they would bring more support on in the community by emphasizing all three of those areas. He discussed the strength of the Transportation Management Association programs. He noted the EV purchase rate had gone over 50 percent. He indicated the real challenge was retrofitting of existing buildings. Vice Mayor Lauing inquired what should be changed in the next 12 months in order to push things harder to make up the 9 percent gap. He suggested a communication program for the early adopters to get the word out. He wanted explanation about the two kinds of heat water replacements. He wanted a reminder of where the pilot program is. Director Abendschein answered those were some of the discussions that would need to be held in 2025. The current focus was finishing up studies that would help answer that question and then starting to talk about some of the preliminary results with the Committee. Things they still wanted to make a push on in the 2023 through 2025 work plan included figuring out how to scale up the efforts on multifamily EV charging, where the opportunities are to electrify in multifamily and nonresidential buildings and how to accelerate electrification of commercial rooftop packaged units. They were trying to understand the customer experience. He described a planned replacement program and an emergency replacement program that had recently launched. They were expecting one-third to two-thirds of replacements may be on an emergency basis. He said the first phase of the grid modernization program would be about a thousand homes around the Greer and Triple El neighborhoods. Councilmember Tanaka emphasized the importance of focusing on transportation. He observed that a lot of the programs seemed to be programmed for the rich. He advised looking at who would benefit from these programs and how equity would be distributed among the people in the City emphasizing that rebates need not be just for big ticket items. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 4 of 17 Sp. City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 11/12/2024 Director Abendschein talked about a potential program to rent E-bikes that was in discussion. They were working on micromobility in active transportation. He agreed that a lot of the building electrification equipment was more accessible to homeowners and higher income residents but they did have a Residential Energy Assistance Program that would install heat pump water heaters free. They were looking at pilots to electrify dedicated affordable housing including studies on how to do that cost effectively. They were looking into getting multifamily residents access to electric vehicle charging as older vehicles and plug-in hybrids were becoming more accessible. They were doing an electric vehicle charging needs assessment and e-mobility study with a goal of figuring out how to accelerate EV charging in affordable housing and market rate multifamily. Councilmember Kou queried if the global protocol for communities framework included the origins of a product and how far back it went. She wanted to know why flights that take off from Palo Alto Airport and land elsewhere and flights that land in Palo Alto Airport but take off from elsewhere were not included for the GPC basic protocol. She asked for elaboration about the baseline being established measuring what trees do for carbon storage and when it would be seen. She opined it needed to be part of the 2025 Sustainability Plan in order to make sure that the natural environment was included. She thought it would be great if the Urban Forestry Department was included in the sustainability report outs. She wanted to know why the offsets written about in the report were in other locations and not offsetting within the City. She appreciated that the urban canopy was being prioritized. She wanted to see that there was a plan to ensure solar panels could be installed without the loss of trees. She reported that at the last Valley Water Commission meeting, one of the directors said that BAWSCA said Palo Alto was bad at water conservation because of their tree canopy. She took umbrage at that because the tree canopy produced clean air and oxygen inexpensively. Manager Luong replied it was only included if the manufacturing took place within city boundaries. She explained that the way the GPC calculate their methodology ensured that cities account for their portion of various emissions making sure all emissions would be accounted for but divided among different cities. She explained that the Urban Forestry Department had been working on a software program that would help calculate the baseline. It would be a higher priority for the next implementation plan. She added they had not yet figured out a way to make a local urban canopy offset program cost competitive with similar programs not in the Bay Area. The costs were too high for labor. Director Abendschein replied that over the years they had looked at the ability to register for offsets either within Palo Alto or California. Within California more broadly, they have been unable to find the offsets for new forestry. They have looked at registering for offsets for their own urban canopy. He explained the complexity of the process and that it would be picked up but then there would be staff turnover so they have not been able to make progress on it but the funding was available for the urban canopy efforts included in the S/CAP. He opined as they started to look ahead toward the City’s carbon neutrality goals, urban canopy would have to be a part of that discussion. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 5 of 17 Sp. City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 11/12/2024 Councilmember Lythcott-Haims was interested in the staff’s position as to what variables go into the assessment of whether a gas cutoff date would be a meaningful approach or whether more gradual voluntary adoption of electrification would be the intent. Director Abendschein replied that continued efforts toward electrification brought into focus a long-term future where natural gas may cease to be used as to regional, state and federal incentive efforts on mandates. He expressed the importance of having the utilities director weighing in. Important milestones being looked at included the 2024 Council priority on ways to manage the physical and financial infrastructure of a gas utility through a major electrification transition, understanding what it would take to modernize the electric grid to manage the transition and studies being done on multifamily and non-residential buildings looking at whether gas loads exist that maybe be difficult to electrify. He indicated all of that information could be used to inform the perspective of the utilities team and provide the information that Council and the community would need to make decisions on the topic at hand. Director Eggleston added that other than setting the date and publicizing it, all the studies and work on the transition were in progress. Mayor Stone asked if the 21.8 percent of emission decline was caused by EV adoption amongst private users. He wanted to know if there had been as study about which part of the City fleet contributed the greatest emissions. He queried how proactive they had been in approaching private businesses offering support in installing public chargers. He thought the investment the City has made in creating public charging stations had provided an opportunity to incentivize that for people in multifamily. He inquired if there were any updates on improving and streamlining the process of solar panel installation. Manager Luong answered the overall decline since 1990 had to do with the adoption of electric vehicles. Some was also due to the increase of alternate transportation. Director Eggleston confirmed a study had been conducted as to which part of the City fleet contributed the greatest emissions and it was Public Works, Utilities and Police. He indicated they were going through the purchasing process for a Rivian SUB EV pursuit vehicle. Director Abendschein remarked they were in the beginning stages of approaching private businesses about offering support in installing public chargers. They had been working with the faith community on that sort of effort. They had a program for a while attempting to get DC fast chargers into Palo Alto with one or two successes. They were trying to reengage on that. He shared that the Planning and Development Services Team had been working to streamline solar panel installation and they would appreciate any information on any installation challenges reported. Ed Shikada, City Manager, added there had been a significant ramp up in the streamlining of the permitting and inspection process through Planning and Development Services. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 6 of 17 Sp. City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 11/12/2024 Councilmember Burt desired consideration of focusing on whole home program on areas of the City that have underground power reducing the cost to Utility for the upgrades. He wondered if a zero-interest loan program should be targeted on a pilot level initially at just a multifamily focus. He asked for the reduction in GHG number from Caltrain’s electrification. He discussed GHG in housing. He wanted information on the program on the low carbon concrete ordinance and the progress being made. He referenced the table comparing 1990 to 2022 on attachment B. The staff report noted there were a number of places where the baseline did not originally include some categories of GHGs that are now being calculated. When those started to be included, he wanted to know if that just increased the 2022 GHGs but they did not proportionately increase the baseline. He advised incorporating best estimates of what those emissions were in the 1990 baseline asterisk for a correct comparison. Manager Luong replied Caltrain’s emissions account for 1.7 percent of total emissions so that would eventually be gone. She indicated they had been tracking the low carbon concrete ordinance. She explained the first year they added the different emission sources was in 2019. They did not go back and recalculate the 1990 baseline because there was no data available. For 2020, about 7.5 percent of emissions were from new sources that were not included in 1990. If those are removed, overall emissions reductions are more like 50 percent. Councilmember Veenker wanted information about the study to modify transformer upgrade fees. She pointed out efforts to induce active transportation, pedestrian and bicycles and mentioned Caltrain electrification had some transportation-based emissions. She acknowledged opportunities for the youth to participate in climate action. She talked about a program called Clean Cars for All administered by the Air District designed to assist low-income people in replacing the most polluting vehicles with clean air vehicles. Director Abendschein explained trying to create a standardized fee applicable depending on how large a panel or load is being put in place could go a long way toward dealing with inequities. Public Comment: 1. Andrea G. spoke on behalf of 350 Palo Alto. She suggested letting people know that the program that existed for heat pump water heaters was the best price they had offered and encourage as many people as possible to take advantage of the window of opportunity. They could let them know a guaranteed date the program would run through, and they were not sure what kind of incentive would be available after that date. They also thought it would be useful to let the community know that starting in 2027 the Bay Area ruling would make heat pump water heaters the default. She advised doing some kind of incentive for an electrification readiness assessment. 2. Shreya V., member of 350 Silicon Valley Palo Alto and postdoctoral scholar in theoretical physics at Stanford. She urged taking advantage of the approved housing element to start building new multifamily housing projects on a large scale in Palo Alto as quickly as SUMMARY MINUTES Page 7 of 17 Sp. City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 11/12/2024 possible to help reduce carbon emissions. She gave statistics from the April 2022 IPCC report and an analysis by the Terner Center at UC Berkeley. She urged Council to work closely with the Building Department and developers to streamline and accelerate housing construction in the city. 3. Debbie M. advised dipping into the energy and enthusiasm of those that have switched from gas to electricity in order to publicize the benefits of switching. She thought it would be good to publicize the efforts of the Air Quality Management District in implementing a ban on gas appliances by 2027 and that the price of electricity was going down while the cost of gas was increasing. 4. Matt S. talked about the effects of carbon dioxide levels on the planet. He agreed with the comments of the other public speakers and Councilmember Kou on carbon sequestration and oxygen generation. He suggested taking advantage of the opportunity of the wetlands and protecting them. He echoed with Councilmember Lythcott-Haims comments about creating competition in neighborhoods and added they should expand on that by learning all they could from sister cities. 5. Aiden M., representative of Palo Alto Student Climate Coalition, expressed appreciation to the City and its officials on their efforts and urged further action as they were not at their goal. He stressed the importance of electrification for the carbon neutral goals. 6. Bruce H. (Zoom), Carbon Free Palo Alto, mentioned a list of no regrets actions the City could take provided by Carbon Free Palo Alto. He hoped City Council would become more engaged in the crisis by crafting smart and effective solutions and engaging the community. 7. David C. (Zoom) indicated that it was clear from the report that they needed to move faster in all aspects of addressing the 80x30 Greenhouse Gas Reduction Goals. He urged Council to look at the Whole Home Electrification Pilot Program in order to save money and further efforts in financing the electrification of the rest of the neighborhoods. 8. Kat S. (Zoom), member of 350 SV Palo Alto, expressed appreciation for the efforts in addressing the 80x30 Goals. She discussed recommendations for incentives to encourage people switch to a heat pump HVAC system when their furnaces failed. 9. Bret (Zoom) expressed appreciation for the efforts being made toward electrification. He thought the zero-interest financing option for building owners would accelerate the adoption of the measures and allow the community to establish standards and mandates for zero emissions appliances. He suggested Council and staff to start considering a fee on fossil fuel use that could be used to rebate to community members or fund electrification efforts. 11. Avroh S. (Zoom), head of outreach at Palo Alto Student Climate, trusted that the Councilmembers knew what the right steps were and hoped they would take them in SUMMARY MINUTES Page 8 of 17 Sp. City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 11/12/2024 efforts toward the 80x30 Goal. He opined the gas sunset date that had been set almost a year ago seemed to have been pushed out of the picture due to the Berkeley ruling. He hoped that as soon as they had a feasible Whole Home Electrification Program that could be rolled out, there would be more support for setting a gas sunset date. 12. Rachel C., Utilities Advisory Commission and Climate Working Group, was impressed with the Cities’ S/CAP goal. She described opportunities to improve communication as she saw it as one of the biggest challenges. She thought there was a need for more comprehensible metrics. Consent Calendar Councilmember Tanaka registered a no vote on Agenda Item Number 6. MOTION: Councilmember Lythcott-Haims moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Lauing to approve Agenda Item Numbers 4-7. MOTION PASSED ITEMS 4, 5, 7: 7-0 MOTION PASSED ITEM 6: 6-1, Tanaka no Councilmember Tanaka thought it would be helpful if staff would report what the range in bids was leading to his no vote on Agenda Item Number 6. 4. Approval of Minutes from October 28, 2024 Meeting 5. Approval of the New Councilmember Onboarding Outline as recommended by the Policy and Services Committee; CEQA – Not a Project 6. Approval of the Tri-Cities Consortium Computer Aided Dispatch System Software Agreement with Sun Ridge Systems Inc. in an Amount Not to Exceed $339,857 for Five Years to Implement a New Computer Aided Dispatch System for the Communications Departments of Palo Alto, Mountain View, and Los Altos; CEQA Status - Not a Project 7. Approval of Construction Contract No. C25190935A with Valhalla Builders in the Amount Not-to-Exceed $392,800 for Children’s Library as part of the Library Automated Materials Handling System Project, Capital Improvement Program Project LB-21000 and Authorization for the City Manager or Their Designee to Negotiate and Execute Change Orders for Related Additional but Unforeseen Work that May Develop During the Project Up to a Not-to-Exceed Amount of $39,280; CEQA Status – Exempt under Section 15070 City Manager Comments City Manager Shikada appreciated Councilmember Tanaka’s comments on Agenda Item Number Six and explained the process. He provided a slide presentation about the Storm SUMMARY MINUTES Page 9 of 17 Sp. City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 11/12/2024 Preparedness Workshop on November 13, Help Inform County effort, Mitchell Park Library and Community Center 10-year anniversary, Downtown Housing Area Plan Survey and notable tentative upcoming Council items. Action Items 8. FIRST READING: Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Palo Alto Municipal Code Title 18 (Zoning) and Title 21 (Subdivisions and Other Divisions of Land) to Clarify Existing Regulations and to Implement State Housing Laws Adopted in 2023 and earlier. Provide Direction on: (1) Implementation of AB 2097 (2022) and (2) Implementation of Recently Adopted State Housing Laws from the 2023-24 Legislative Session. CEQA Status - Exempt Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3). Jonathan Lait, Planning Director, provided a slide presentation about State Housing Laws including a summary of the ordinance, more context/explanation of AB 2097, 2024 state legislative amendments stating they would like to come back to City Council on consent with an urgency ordinance to memorialize those recent state law changes so that they can be in effect locally for 2025 and finally the staff recommendations. Councilmember Burt questioned how 2097 reconciles with the state and federal laws on ADA requirements and access. He recalled the HCD missive that asserted they could not have the requirements for ADA or EV charging. He asked if this would run into the higher-level requirement that disabled people simply have access. He wanted to know what the likely outcomes from a lot of transit-oriented development in the community would be. He questioned if it would push into the City owned parking lots. He asked if they allow overnight parking. He described some unintended consequences he foresaw as likely to come about with AB 2097. Albert Yang, Assistant City Attorney, was not familiar with an HCD letter on the EV and ADA issue. They did issue a letter on how to measure the half mile distance. He indicated the federal and state disability access laws did not require that anybody provide parking but if parking is provided some accessible parking will be provided. He added that access to disabled people was up to the property owner to determine what sort of service and enterprise they are running. If there is a disabled person who feels unable to access that service, they can request a reasonable accommodation but there are limits to what can be required under a reasonable accommodation request. City Manager Shikada believed the allowance of overnight parking varied by facility. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims described how they could end up with diffuse or limited supply of parking if each small number of spots is only good for one business. Director Lait confirmed her comment as the spaces required onsite would be for the occupants of the building. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 10 of 17 Sp. City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 11/12/2024 Vice Mayor Lauing wanted clarification on the areas that qualify for AB 2097. He did not understand how parking would not be provided for EVs in light of the efforts in reducing climate change. He would support insisting on EV chargers even prioritizing over ADA but he also favored adding ADAs. Director Lait provided a slide of a map outlining the qualifying areas for AB 2097 that would apply to new construction or development issued a building permit. He explained how the HCD ruling would affect it. He clarified state law was clear that a project within the radius did not need to meet required parking. If voluntary parking were provided, it would be assessed and they would require accessible parking and electric vehicle requirements based on the amount of voluntary parking spaces provided. The question posed to Council was if the metric proposed was sufficient and if not the other alternative would be to look at how much would be required for the development and base it off those percentages. Councilmember Kou asked that a letter be submitted asking what their intent is and whether it is not allowing ADA. She had concerns about people with disabilities getting easy access to the properties and venues located in the new building. If not, she thought the City should challenge. Mayor Stone wanted to know only 1 percent of the total square footage of a project touched the radius it could forego all parking requirements. He was more interested in accepting in lieu fees for EV but require onsite for ADA. Director Lait confirmed that to be correct and provided explanation of how it is measured. Councilmember Burt wanted to understand why the paragraph in the middle of page eight did not clarify that they can require parking for ADA. Director Lait countered that it was saying ADA parking could be required. It also stated that it was unclear how that requirement was to be measured when looking at how many spaces would be provided. Molly Stump, City Attorney, explained most cities read the paragraph as the ability to still impose the requirements that are proportional to the parking provided. Assistant City Attorney Yang stated the requirement to provide EVSE installed spaces or accessible spaces was that percentage-based requirement. He indicated that AB 2097 said that cities cannot impose parking minimums. The language quoted created an exception to that prohibition on local parking minimums. The other way to read the exception would be to say it did not preclude the enforcement of those percentages that exist and would apply in the absence of that section. Vice Mayor Lauing thought the compromise being proposed was reducing the ratio of ADA spaces because of a limitation to space and access to drop-off traffic also has to be provided. He thought they could still put in ADA spots proportional to what would have been there and SUMMARY MINUTES Page 11 of 17 Sp. City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 11/12/2024 would be challenging the legality of it. His issue with in lieu fees was that they had a history of not doing anything with them and it would not provide a charger where someone lived. He wanted to know the plan monitoring the TDM situation. Director Lait answered that was an area where they needed to shore up work on the approved TDM plans. He thought it was a combination of the Planning and Development Services working with the Office of Transportation and Code Enforcement making sure they were checking them as set forth by the code or conditions to make sure they were adhering to the conditions of the TDM plan. Councilmember Kou wanted to see a TDM plan as part of the process as the larger development, building remedies, housing mandate and housing came forward. She understood there was no staff available for that. She thought the City should have a template of some of the points they want developers to have included in their TDM plan and they can enhance it any way they see fit. Director Lait replied some TDM plans had been approved. Their staff was somewhat limited but they were slowly putting together a database. The next step would be doing the enforcement activities. Vice Mayor Lauing asked if the wording could state something like, “new projects or projects that remodel X percent of the existing building” to avoid loopholes with builders. Assistant City Attorney Yang explained the law says local governments shall not impose parking minimums on development within half a mile. In the government code, development is very broadly defined to mean basically anything that requires a building permit. That is contrasted with the way the language around ADA and EV parking is written in AB 2097 where “new development” is specifically used. That is not used elsewhere where the basic prohibition is stated. They understand that to mean anything that requires a building permit. Councilmember Burt talked about the lack of clarity and leaned toward not allowing just any development. City Attorney Stump remarked that it was possible at some point that some clarifications could come from HCD but in general the issues about what statutes mean and how they are to be applied are resolved in the courts. If the City took a position that AB 2097 was not available for that type of pulling of a building permit but not brand-new development and the property owner disagreed with that, the court would interpret and apply that. Director Lait clarified AB 2097 was an ordinance they believed implemented the provisions of state law based on the ambiguities that existed within that law based on the guidance provided by HCD. If City Council wanted to make some policy decisions taking a different tangent from that, they needed to be clear about what the guidance was. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 12 of 17 Sp. City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 11/12/2024 Councilmember Veenker recalled an HCD technical assistance letter issue to another city regarding the distance from which the half mile radius was measured and she assumed there had been no HCD technical assistance letter on this issue regarding ADA/EV issues. She wanted to know how that could be procured and how long it would take. She inquired how they would operate if they were to go forward with this and a developer wanted to voluntarily add X amount of parking spaces. She wondered if they could do option one and solicit a technical letter and act in accordance with that. Neither Director Lait did not recall an HCD technical assistance letter related to ADAs. He answered one could be obtained by written request. Assistant City Attorney Yang thought it would take a few months to receive a letter. He explained if a developer wanted to voluntarily add X amount of parking spaces they would be required to provide those ADA and EVCS spaces and it would be up to them to voluntarily provide any unrestricted spaces in addition to that and they would not take another percentage of those. Councilmember Burt commented given the letter they had seen from HCD, he would rather put faith in the court than HCD's guidance letter. He assumed HCD would take an aggressive position against what they believed were their interests in trying to interpret the law. Councilmember Tanaka wanted to know why they needed to do this since state law supersedes their laws. He thought it seemed self-referential and did not make sense. Assistant City Attorney Yang explained they could just take the position that the state law supersedes their law which is how they had been operating for the past two years. Staff had proposed in August to codify that and Council wished to provide alternative direction. City Attorney Stump replied the topics were different. One was about the location where AB 2097 would apply. It did not exactly match the guidance from HCD but they thought it was reasonable, complied with the statute and they could defend it. The second one was about what the requirement on ADA accessible and EVCS charging spaces would be within the AB 2097 area. She stated there was some risk to what was proposed by Council. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims wondered about an amendment to Item 2 requiring ADA/EVCS parking based on the full amount that would have been required if AB 2097 did not apply. Councilmember Burt explained why he would not accept that amendment. Mayor Stone wondered if they could send to staff that there needs to be some sort of base saying if they did what Councilmember Burt described there would still have to be a minimum and that could be an incentive for a developer to build additional parking in a space that would normally have none and also get the added benefit of ADA and EV parking. Councilmember Burt agreed with Mayor Stone’s suggestion. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 13 of 17 Sp. City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 11/12/2024 City Attorney Stump encouraged Council to get some confidential legal advice before doing that. Councilmember Kou wondered if limiting it to new project applications make it clearer. Director Lait replied they would have the same interpretation of if a building permit were required, they would apply AB 2097. Councilmember Burt added that Director Lait had clarified that any project that requires a permit would de facto be a new development. Councilmember Veenker was inclined to go the way it was written but wanted to be sure they could revise it quickly if an adverse decision was made. Vice Mayor Lauing suggested continuing this for two weeks and in the interim get legal advice on how to frame Item Number Two. Director Lait remarked in practice this was more restrictive than how staff had been approaching this law to date so implementing the motion before them was taking a more aggressive posture on AB 2097. He stated if they table direction on AB 2097, staff would continue to apply the math included in the packet as the geographic boundaries that would be subject to AB 2097 and take the position that when voluntary parking spaces were provided on site, ADA and electric vehicle charging spaces would be required relative to the amount provided on site until further direction is provided by Council sometime next year. Mayor Stone asked for an estimate as to when that would come back to them and wanted an estimate of how many developments might happen within that timeframe. City Manager Shikada guessed the earliest possible time would be in February. Director Lait remarked they had not been getting a lot of development activity and it would not be significant. Councilmember Burt did not see why they would table the first two parts. Councilmember Veenker answered depending on what they heard and wanted to do about the second one could be persuasive on the first. Even though it could stand alone, she preferred knowing the legal advice first. Vice Mayor Lauing wondered why it would take basically three months. He opined the third one that might be added would substantially change the first two so it seemed more consistent to him to consider them all at once. City Attorney Stump indicated they needed more time to do a thorough job and there would be issue getting it back on the agenda. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 14 of 17 Sp. City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 11/12/2024 Councilmember Lythcott-Haims preferred going forward with what they had in the original motion and if it turned out what they had did not past mustard legally, they could amend it at the time. Councilmember Burt opined that adding the third one would not change the first two, just add an additional condition. Vice Mayor Lauing queried if there was any linkage between SB 684 and SB 9. He asked for explanation on the sentence, “local agencies are not required to permit accessory or JA dwelling units on SB 684 parcels”. He asked how practical it would be in getting these done in 60 days. Assistant City Attorney Yang explained they were similar in concept in that they both require the city to ministerially approve subdivisions. It would be a difference in scale where SB 9 dealt with single family zones and allowed 1 lot to be split into 2 and 684 was broader and allowed a lot to be split into 10 to develop up to 10 units. They cannot be split into 10 and then use SB 9 to split that into 2 again. The sentence in question meant once a lot was split into 10 they would not have to allow ADUs on them. Director Lait remarked they needed to prioritize it in order to get it done in 60 days. Councilmember Burt wanted to know if this would apply in low density neighborhoods and if the law would allow 10 units on a single-family lot. On SB 4, he had no idea what was allowed. He stated if they were not getting these as a bundle, each would be a big deal. Not knowing the implications presented a challenge and bordered on them not performing their fiduciary responsibilities if they did not as follow-up questions. He hoped staff would be ready to clarify on the implications of it in a concise way. Assistant City Attorney Yang believed the answer to be yes. It would need to be zoned for multi- family development. He stated the requirements for SB 4 were spelled out in the bill. They would be for sites that were owned by religious institutions and private universities. They would have to be 100 percent affordable. Up to 20 percent of those units could be moderate but the rest had to be lower income levels. Density and other development standard restrictions were set out in the law. They would be able to add an additional story of height over existing zoning and were subject to multifamily development standards. They would be permitted to develop to the standards that apply to 30 dwelling units per acre and then they would be allowed to use the density bonus on top of that giving them between 80 and 100 percent density bonus if it was 100 percent affordable. They would be looking at 60 unit per acre on the top end with only one additional story. Director Lait added the reports reflected their desire to move quickly and probably did not have all the information he was looking for. He referred back to Assistant City Attorney Yang’s explanation regarding the requirements. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 15 of 17 Sp. City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 11/12/2024 City Attorney Stump indicated Council was not being asked to do anything that was not already required and mandatory by state law so staff was trying to get a local ordinance as quickly as possible. Councilmember Kou asked if they were saying the faith-based institutions that are in the R1 zones can be two-story or higher. She asked if ancillary ground floor uses were also permitted meant they could have commercial use in the childcare centers and so forth and this was all in the single-family neighborhoods. She stated a lot of the faith-based in Palo Alto were in residential neighborhoods and the AB 2097 would apply if they're near the train station or a public transportation location. She wanted to know if there was any notification to the neighbors. Assistant City Attorney Yang believed the maximum height in the R1 was 30 to 35 feet so they would be able to add one story on top of that up to 45 feet. He confirmed her comments to be correct about the ancillary ground floor uses. No notification to the neighbors was required. Mayor Stone clarified staff recommendation required notice to neighbors, but they would not be able to be able to do anything if there were objections to it. Vice Mayor Lauing asked what commercial uses would be permitted without a conditional use permit. He wanted to know what was meant by half a mile high-quality public transit and one block from a car-share vehicle. On AB 894, he did not understand how frequently the parking analysis would be done and how underutilized would be defined. He asked if it meant 24/7. Assistant City Attorney Yang replied it would depend on the underlying zone. He explained they applied the half a mile high-quality public transit and one block from a car-share vehicle to mean there was a fixed location car-share that has an assigned parking space. It would not apply to free-floating car-share. He explained underutilized meant 20 percent or more of the spaces were not occupied during the period of time where the parking was proposed to be shared. If it was a 24/7 sharing arrangement, the study would need to show that it was 20 percent vacant for all 24 hours. If sharing was only in the evening or daytime would be when underutilization would need to be shown. Director Lait explained they would get a one-time parking study prepared by the applicant seeking to take advantage of the provision. It would be submitted to the City and if they had questions or comments they would ask for more data. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims questioned if it was a supply-and-demand situation. She felt like it would sort itself out in the market. Councilmember Burt added there have been private lots in the downtown areas that have been underutilized for decades. They have tried to encourage this and a number of the property owners have said no as surplus parking was attractive to customers. Mayor Stone asked if this would apply to all uses. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 16 of 17 Sp. City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 11/12/2024 Assistant City Attorney Yang confirmed it would apply to all uses. Councilmember Burt indicated AB 970 required explanation. He did not understand why there was no explanation in the staff report. He wanted to know if his colleagues shared his concerns that we would be looking for their lobbyists and legislative analysts to be providing a more thorough update with an appreciation that as it went through the legislature it started with a lot of bills that get changed and winnowed down. He did not feel they were being provided the opportunity to determine whether they want to wade into them during the legislative session. Assistant City Attorney Yang explained the law said if local governments have minimum parking requirements, they cannot be used to prevent someone from turning their general parking space into an EV charging space. No matter the consequences, that conversion to EV charging would have to be permitted. Director Lait remarked he heard the request for more of an expanded analysis. It was their hope to return to City Council on consent with addition information. Councilmember Kou commented she had been advocating for years for Council to be looking at these laws coming from the state and to help evaluate them. She was curious to know the process staff goes through with the lobbyists when they contact staff with laws that fit within legislative guidelines. City Manager Shikada indicated there were multiple parties involved. At its peak, City Council receives a weekly update from their lobbyists on bills they are tracking. It is difficult to identify which would be likely to have impact on Palo Alto and what action should be taken. On a legislative session, they typically track and take position on dozens of bills. The question becomes if they are the right ones or if there are other higher levels of engagement they should take on. That is a topic that regularly comes back to the Policy and Services Committee and Council as a whole when bills require full Council action versus action by the mayor to sign a letter on behalf of the Council based on legislative guidelines. Councilmember Kou stated she looks at the reports TPA gives them but they are very condensed with very small letters. She felt a lot of it goes over and nobody knows what happens until it has been passed by legislature and they have to implement and that took it away from a streamlined public process. She thought notification was important with this top- down manner of development. She thought they should consider that most remodels or new buildings did not need notification for planning purposes and it was good to let people know if something impactful will be happening. Mayor Stone questioned on AB 1893 if that meant pending Builder Remedy applications in Palo Alto would be able to modify their applications to be able to reduce the percentage of BMR units from 20 to 13 percent. Assistant City Attorney Yang confirmed that to be correct. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 17 of 17 Sp. City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 11/12/2024 Mayor Stone opined this was more reason to fight Builder Remedy projects. Vice Mayor Lauing expressed frustration as that went against the RHNA numbers they had been assigned. Councilmember Kou could not support adoption of these laws because they went against their comprehensive plan. They had not conducted additional environmental review of them moving into the single-family neighborhoods. They use the TDM as a way to mitigate; however, they did not have one. There was no implementation plan or enforcement or reporting of the TDMs. She thought they should be challenging these laws. SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Councilmember Veenker moved, seconded by Councilmember Tanaka to table direction on AB 2097 until such time as legal advice can be produced. SUBSTITUTE MOTION FAILED: 3-4, Kou, Burt, Lythcott-Haims, Stone no MOTION: Councilmember Burt moved, seconded by Councilmember Kou to: 1. Direct staff to apply AB 2097 to properties within the radius depicted in Attachment B. MOTION PASSED: 7-0 MOTION SPLIT FOR THE PURPOSE OF VOTING MOTION: Councilmember Burt moved, seconded by Councilmember Kou to: 2. Require ADA / EVCS parking based on the full amount that would have been required if AB 2097 did not apply. MOTION PASSED: 6-1, Tanaka no MOTION: Mayor Stone moved, seconded by Councilmember Veenker to: 1. Adopt the attached ordinance implementing state law and other minor amendments to Titles 18 and 21 of the municipal code, except as modified by the prior motion on AB 2097; and 2. Direct staff to prepare an urgency ordinance for placement on the consent calendar to implement various land use-related state law changes from the 2024 state legislative session. MOTION PASSED: 6-1, Kou no Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 10:18 P.M.