Item 8 Public Comment — Palo Alto City Council, March 10, 2025

From: Jason Edelman
To: Council, City
Subject: Fwd: Agenda Item #8 - March 10 - 2025 City Council/Committe Priority Objectives and Workplans Date: Monday, March 10, 2025 9:43:09 AM
Attachments: SCVWD-Unhoused-JPA-28Feb2025.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.

Dear Mayor Lauing and Councilmembers,
Please consider directing Staff to explore and assess the formation of a JPA dedicated to addressing homelessness, encampments, and the increasing need for housing, shelter, and social services across Santa Clara County, as formally proposed by Valley Water in its recent letter to Mayor Lauing et al. See attached.
--
Jason Edelman
[email protected]
(415) 672-9945
www.linkedin.com/in/edelmanjason

Santa Clara Valley Water District | 5750 Almaden Expressway, San Jose, CA 95118-3686 | (408) 265-2600 | www.valleywater.org Clean Water • Healthy Environment • Flood Protection
♺

BOARD OF DIRECTORS
John L. Varela (District 1)
Shiloh Ballard (District 2)
Richard P. Santos / Vice Chair (District 3)
Jim Beall (District 4)
Nai Hsueh (District 5)
Tony Estremera / Chair (District 6)
Rebecca Eisenberg (District 7)

INTERIM CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
Melanie Richardson, P.E.

INTERIM CLERK OF THE BOARD
Candice Kwok-Smith

February 28, 2025

The Honorable Otto Lee The Honorable Sergio Lopez
President, County of Santa Clara Board of Supervisors Mayor, City of Campbell 70 West Hedding Street, 10th Floor 70 North First Street San Jose, CA 95110 Campbell, CA 95008

The Honorable Liang Chao The Honorable Greg Bozzo
Mayor, City of Cupertino Mayor, City of Gilroy
10300 Torre Avenue 7351 Rosanna Street
Cupertino, CA 95014 Gilroy, CA 95020

The Honorable Pete Dailey The Honorable Kavita Tankha Mayor, City of Los Altos Mayor, Town of Los Altos Hills 1 North San Antonio Road 26379 W Fremont Road
Los Altos, CA 94022 Los Altos Hills, CA 94022

The Honorable Matthew Hudes The Honorable Carmen Montano Mayor, Town of Los Gatos Mayor, City of Milpitas
110 East Main Street 455 East Calaveras Boulevard
Los Gatos, CA 95030 Milpitas, CA 95035

The Honorable Burton Craig The Honorable Mark Turner Mayor, City of Monte Sereno Mayor, City of Morgan Hill 18041 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road 17575 Peak Avenue
Monte Sereno, CA 95030 Morgan Hill, CA 95037

The Honorable Ellen Kamei The Honorable Ed Lauing
Mayor, City of Mountain View Mayor, City of Palo Alto 500 Castro Street, 3rd Floor 250 Hamilton Avenue
Mountain View, CA 94041 Palo Alto, CA 94301

The Honorable Matt Mahan The Honorable Lisa M. Gillmor Mayor, City of San José Mayor, City of Santa Clara
200 East Santa Clara Street, 18th Floor 1500 Warburton Avenue San Jose, CA 95113 Santa Clara, CA 95050

The Honorable Belal Aftab The Honorable Larry Klein Mayor, City of Saratoga Mayor, City of Sunnyvale
13777 Fruitvale Avenue 456 West Olive Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070 Sunnyvale, CA 94086
Attachment 1

Page 1 of 2 ends

San
ta Clara Valley Water District | 5750 Almaden Expressway, San Jose, CA 95118-3686 | (408) 265-2600 | www.valleywater.org ♺
Clean Water • Healthy Environment • Flood Protection
Dear Esteemed Colleagues,
As we continue to face the growing and pressing issue of unsheltered homelessness in our community, I write to you today on behalf of the Santa Clara Valley Water District (Valley Water) Board of Directors to propose an idea that could help us address this challenge in a more coordinated and impactful way.

Given the complexities of homelessness, I encourage local officials to explore the possibility of forming a county-wide Joint Powers Authority (JPA) focused on this issue. This could serve as a platform for representatives of our respective jurisdictions to collaborate and take collective, action-oriented steps toward meaningful solutions.

As we all know, homelessness in Santa Clara County, particularly unsheltered homelessness, has reached humanitarian, environmental, and public safety crises levels. While each of our jurisdictions has made significant strides in addressing this issue, the scale and scope of the problem requires an approach that transcends individual city or county efforts. We must collaborate in a more coordinated and effective manner to truly make progress.

The JPA could function similarly to the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority (LAHSA), which was established in 1993 as a joint powers authority between the City and County of Los Angeles. LAHSA has proven to be an effective mechanism for the coordination of resources, policy development, and service delivery across a diverse and complex region. A JPA in Santa Clara County would bring together the expertise and resources of each of our jurisdictions, while providing a platform for accountability, shared decision-making, and innovation on the most pressing issues surrounding homelessness.

By leveraging the strengths and collective resources of each participating jurisdiction, we would be better positioned to develop and implement policies that help address the underlying causes of homelessness and provide comprehensive solutions. The JPA could focus on a variety of critical areas, including emergency shelter expansion, permanent supportive housing development, mental health and substance use disorder services, outreach strategies, and more. Through this collaboration, we can better serve the public, reduce duplication of efforts, and maximize our collective impact.

I am confident that by working together, we can make a meaningful difference in the lives of those experiencing homelessness in our community. Valley Water is happy to facilitate a joint discussion to explore this idea if there is interest. We invite you to share any thoughts and feedback with Marta Lugo, Deputy Administrative Officer for Valley Water’s Office of Government Relations, at [email protected] or (408) 630-
2237, by Friday, March 28, 2025.

Thank you for your time and consideration, as well as your dedicated leadership, partnership, and commitment to serving all residents of Santa Clara County. We look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,
Richard P. Santos
Vice Chair, Board of Directors
cc: Valley Water Board of Directors, Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors, Campbell City Council, Cupertino City Council, Gilroy City Council, Los Altos City Council, Los Altos Hills City Council, Los Gatos Town Council, Milpitas City Council, Monte Sereno City Council, Morgan Hill City Council, Mountain View City Council, Palo Alto City Council, San José City Council, Santa Clara City Council, Saratoga City Council, Sunnyvale City Council
rb:jh
0228a-l
Attachment 1

Page 2 of 2 ends

From: [email protected]
To: Council, City
Cc: Lait, Jonathan; Shikada, Ed; Maggie Bening; Julie Baskind Subject: Fwd: PAR Zoning Text Amendment request - 3/10 ITEM #8 Date: Sunday, March 9, 2025 10:40:22 PM
Attachments: PAR Proposed Amendments to PAMC Sec 18.16.060 Dev Stds.docx PAR Proposed Amendments to PAMC Section 18.16.040.b.docx image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
image005.png
PAR Proposed Amendments to PAMC Sec 18.16.060 Dev Stds.docx PAR Proposed Amendments to PAMC Section 18.16.040.b.docx CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.

Dear Mayor Lauing and City Council Members,
The Planning and Development Department's 2025 Work Plan is item #8 on the City Council’s agenda 3/10.

I am writing to reiterate Kristi Bascom’s letter to Director Jonathan Lait dated 12/3/2024, to ask whether the motion passed unanimously by the City Council on November 13, 2023 will be placed on the Planning and Development Department's 2025 Work Plan?
Quoting from Bascom letter dated 12/3/2024:

At the City Council meeting on November 13, 2023, the Council unanimously supported a request from the Palo Alto Redwoods Homeowner’s Association to consider specific amendments to the City’s zoning code, and directed Staff to review the amendments that PAR proposed. The proposed amendments were written to ensure that higher density housing constructed on properties zoned for commercial uses are buffered from impacts created by commercial neighbors such as noise, reduction in access to daylight, and impacts to privacy. These are the protections that are provided to residentially-zoned properties throughout the City. In a letter to the City Council dated November 7, 2023, I outlined PAR’s request and provided the exact text amendments proposed for PAMC Sections 18.16.040(b) and 18.16.060 (attached to this email for reference).

In February 2024, on behalf of PAR, I sent you the email below and asked when the proposed amendments were going to be reviewed by Staff and moved forward for City Council consideration. You responded that, due to other priorities, the work would not be undertaken in the near term and that the proposed amendments would not be added to thedepartment’s work
plan for the upcoming fiscal year. I am reaching out today with a relatively simple ask: to see if you’ll please add these amendments to thedepartment’s work
plan for FY 25/26. In calendar year 2023, for example, the City adopted five (5) amendments to Title 18. It is likely more are forthcoming in the near future. PAR’s proposed amendments are minor in nature, are completely drafted, and can simply be included in an upcoming Zoning Ordinance amendment initiated by the City.

PAR is suggesting this citywide zoning text amendment (as opposed to a rezoning action that would benefit the PAR property only) since the issue of protecting high density residential uses from commercial impacts is not unique to our property. We believe it is an issue that all high density housing in commercial corridors would like to see addressed.

Thank you,
Anne Mason
Begin forwarded message:

From: Kristi Bascom <[email protected]>
Subject: PAR Zoning Text Amendment request - follow-up
Date: December 3, 2024 at 10:29:57 PST
To: "Lait, Jonathan" <[email protected]> Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, Sharlene Carlson <[email protected]>, Julie Baskind <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, Lydia Kou <[email protected]>, Ed Lauing <[email protected]>, "Lythcott-Haims, Julie" <[email protected]>, Greer Stone <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "Laura D. Beaton" <[email protected]>
Dear Mr. Lait (copy to City Manager and City Council),
On behalf of the homeowners at Palo Alto Redwoods (4250 El Camino Real), I am writing to request once again that the Planning and Development Department include the attached proposed zoning code amendments related to commercial impacts on residential uses in the department’s workplan for next year.

In February 2024, on behalf of PAR, I sent you the email below and asked when the proposed amendments were going to be reviewed by Staff and moved forward for City Council consideration. You responded that, due to other priorities, the work would not be undertaken in the near term and that the proposed amendments would not be added to the department’s workplan for the upcoming fiscal year. I am reaching out today with a relatively simple ask: to see if you’ll please add these amendments to the department’s workplan for FY 25/26. In calendar year 2023, for example, the City adopted five (5) amendments to Title

18. It is likely more are forthcoming in the near future. PAR’s proposed amendments are minor in nature, are completely drafted, and can simply be included in an upcoming Zoning Ordinance amendment initiated by the City.

We are happy to discuss PAR’s request further or provide any additional explanation if it would be helpful.

As always, we appreciate your consideration of this request and hope that the City Council’s unanimous support of this issue means that these proposed amendments find their way into your department’s workplan for next fiscal year.

Kind regards,
Kristi Bascom

Kristi Bascom, AICP
Urban Planner
Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger LLP
396 Hayes Street
San Francisco, CA 94102-4421
office: 415/552-7272 x 202 | direct: 925/872-6327
www.smwlaw.com
| A San Francisco Green Business

From: Lait, Jonathan <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, February 12, 2024 10:40 PM
To: Kristi Bascom <[email protected]>; Gerhardt, Jodie <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected]; Sharlene Carlson <[email protected]>; Julie Baskind <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Zoning Text Amendment workplan - follow-up

Thank you for the email, Kristi.

The City Council is expected to consider department workplans for the upcoming fiscal year on March 4.

Based on available long range planning staff resources and competing Council priorities, I do not anticipate this item being recommended for the upcoming year.

As an alternative, your client could consider filing a text amendment, which would be processed by our current planning staff. @Gerhardt, Jodie
can provide more information about the application submittal process if interested in pursuing that route. Otherwise you may provide comment to the City Council on March 4.

You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important

JONATHAN LAIT
Director
Planning and Development Department
(650) 329-2676 | [email protected]
www.cityofpaloalto.org

From: Kristi Bascom <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 6, 2024 5:50 PM
To: Lait, Jonathan <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]; Sharlene Carlson <[email protected]>; Julie Baskind <[email protected]>
Subject: Zoning Text Amendment workplan - follow-up

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.

Mr. Lait,

Following up on my email from last week regarding the question on timing to move forward this rezoning analysis. Your insight is much appreciated.

Thank you,
Kristi Bascom

Kristi Bascom
Urban Planner
Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger LLP
396 Hayes Street
San Francisco, CA 94102-4421
p: 415/552-7272 x 202 | c: 925/872-6327
www.smwlaw.com
| A San Francisco Green Business

From: Kristi Bascom
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2024 1:33 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Zoning Text Amendment workplan

Mr. Lait,

Our clients, the Palo Alto Redwoods Homeowners Association, received support from the City Council at their November 13, 2023 meeting when they directed staff to review the zoning text amendments we proposed amendments to PAMC 18.16.040(b) and 18.16.060. I’ve attached the proposal to this email for easy reference.

Can you please advise on Staff’s plan and timing to review these amendments and (hopefully) move them forward to the City Council for their consideration?

Thank you,
Kristi Bascom

Kristi Bascom, AICP
Urban Planner
Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger LLP
396 Hayes Street
San Francisco, CA 94102-4421
p: 415/552-7272 x 202 | c: 925/872-6327
www.smwlaw.com
| A San Francisco Green Business

1 18.16.060 Development Standards
(a) Exclusively Non-Residential Uses
Table 3 specifies the development standards for exclusively non-residential uses and alterations to non-residential uses or structures in the CN, CC, CC(2) and CS districts. These developments shall be designed and constructed in compliance with the following requirements and the context-based design criteria outlined in Section

Table 3
Exclusively Non-residential Development Standards
CN CC CC(2) CS Subject to regulations
in Section
Minimum Site
Specifications
Site Area (ft 2 )
Site Width (ft)
Site Depth (ft)

None required
Minimum Setbacks
Front Yard (ft)
0 - 10' to
create an 8'
- 12'
effective
sidewalk
width (1),
(2), (8)
None
Required
(8)
0 - 10' to
create an
8' - 12'
effective
sidewalk
width (1),
(2), (8)
0 - 10' to
create an
8' - 12'
effective
sidewalk
width (1),
(2), (8)
Setback lines imposed
by a special setback
map pursuant to
Chapter 20.08 of this
code
Rear Yard (ft)
None required

Interior Side Yard (ft)
Street Side Yard (ft) 20' (2) None required
Minimum Yard (ft) for lot
lines abutting or opposite
residential districts or
residential PC districts or
properties developed with
exclusively residential
uses
10’ (2) 10’ (2) 10’ (2) 10’ (2)
2 CN CC CC(2) CS Subject to regulations
in Section
Build-To-Lines 50% of frontage built to setback (7)
33% of side street built to setback (7)
Minimum setbacks from
alleys for structures other
than public parking
garages (ft) (3)

Corner lots, from rear lot
line on the alley
Not applicable
8’
Not
applicable

Corner lots, from side lot
line on the alley None
All lots other than corner
lots 20’
Maximum Site Coverage 50% None required
Maximum Height (ft)

18.08.030
Standard
25' and 2
stories
50’ 37’ (4) 50’
Portions of a site within
150 ft. of an abutting
residential district (other
than a PC zone) or within
150 ft. of an abutting
property developed with
exclusively residential
uses. (9)
35’ 35’ 35’
Maximum Floor Area
Ratio (FAR) 0.4:1 2.0:1 0.4:1 18.18.060(e)
Maximum Floor Area
Ratio (FAR) for Hotels N/A - (5) 2.0:1 2.0:1 18.18.060(d) Daylight Plane for lot
lines abutting one or
more residential zone
districts other than an
RM-40 or PC zone or for
lot lines abutting a
property developed with

3 CN CC CC(2) CS Subject to regulations
in Section
exclusively residential
uses.

Initial Height at side or
rear lot line (ft) - (6) - (6) - (6) - (6)
Slope - (6) - (6) - (6) - (6)
(1) No parking or loading space, whether required or optional, shall be located in the first 10 feet adjoining the street property line of any required yard. (2) Any minimum front, street side, or interior yard shall be planted and maintained as a landscaped screen excluding areas required for access to the site. A solid wall or fence between 5 and 8 feet in height shall be constructed along any common interior lot line. (3) No setback from an alley is required for a public parking garage. (4) As measured to the peak of the roof or the top of a parapet; penthouses and equipment enclosures may exceed this height limit by a maximum of five feet, but shall be limited to an area equal to no more than ten percent of the site area and shall not intrud e into the daylight plane.
(5) See additional regulations in subsection (e) of this Section 18.16.050. (6) The initial height and slope shall be identical to those of the most restrictive residential zone abutting the site line in question.
(7) Twenty-five-foot driveway access permitted regardless of frontage; build- to requirement does not apply to CC district.
(8) A 12-foot sidewalk width is required along El Camino Real frontage. (9) Distance shall be measured from the property line of the subject site. 150-foot measurement may be reduced to 50 feet at minimum, subject to approval by the Planning Director, upon recommendation by the Architectural Review Board pursuant to criteria set f orth in Chapter

18.76. (b) Mixed Use and Residential
Table 4 specifies the development standards for new residential mixed use developments and residential developments. These developments shall be designed and constructed in compliance with the following requirements and the objective design standards in Chapter 18.24. Non-Housing Development Projects and Housing Development Projects that elect to deviate from one or more objective standards in Chapter 18.24 shall meet the context-based design criteria outlined in Section

18.16.090, provided that more restrictive regulations may be recommended by the architectural review board and approved by the director of planning and development services, pursuant to Section 18.76.020.
4 Table 4
Mixed Use and Residential Development Standards
CN CC CC(2) CS Subject to regulations
in:

Minimum Site
Specifications
Site Area (ft2)
None required

Site Width (ft)
Site Depth (ft)
Minimum Setbacks
Setback lines imposed
by a special setback
map pursuant to
Chapter 20.08 of this
code may apply
Front Yard (ft)
0' - 10' to
create an 8'
- 12'
effective
sidewalk
width (8)
None
Required
(8)
0' - 10' to
create an
8' - 12'
effective
sidewalk
width (8)
0' - 10' to
create an
8' - 12'
effective
sidewalk
width (8)

Rear Yard (ft) 10' for residential portion; no requirement for commercial portion
Rear Yard abutting
residential zone district or
a property developed with
exclusively residential
uses (ft)
10’
Interior Side Yard if
abutting residential zone
district or a property
developed with
exclusively residential
uses (ft)
10’
Street Side Yard (ft) 5’
Built-to-Lines 50% of frontage built to setback (1)
33% of side street built to setback (1)

Permitted Setback
Encroachments
Balconies, awnings, porches, stairways, and similar
elements may extend up to 6' into the setback.

Cornices, eaves, fireplaces, and similar architectural
features (excluding flat or continuous walls or
enclosures of interior space) may extend up to 4' into
the front and rear setbacks and up to 3' into interior
side setbacks

Maximum Site Coverage 50% 50% 100% 50%
Minimum
Landscape/Open Space
Coverage
35% 30% 20% 30%
5 CN CC CC(2) CS Subject to regulations
in:

Usable Open Space
(Private and/or
Common)
150 sq ft per unit (2) 18.16.090
Maximum Height (ft)
Standard 35’ (4) 50’ 37’ 50’
Portions of a site within
150 ft. of an abutting
residential district (other
than an RM-40 or PC zone)
or within 150 ft of an
abutting property
developed with
exclusively residential
uses.
35’ 35’ 35’ 35’ 18.08.030
Daylight Plane for lot
lines abutting one or
more residential zoning
districts or abutting a
property developed with
exclusively residential
uses.

Daylight plane height and slope shall be identical to
those of the most restrictive residential zoning
district abutting the lot line. If no residential zoning district abuts the lot line, the daylight plane and
slope shall be identical to that of any exclusively
residential use abutting the lot line.

Residential Density
(net)(3) 15 or 20 (9)
See sub-
section (e)
below
No
maximum
30 18.16.060(i)
Sites on El Camino Real No
maximum
No
maximum
Sites on San Antonia Rd
between Middlefield Rd
and E. Charleston Rd.
15 or 20 (9) No
maximum
Maximum Residential
Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 0.5:1(4) 0.6:1 0.6:1 18.16.065
Maximum
Nonresidential Floor
Area Ratio (FAR)

0.4:1 2.0:1 0.4:1
Total Mixed Use Floor
Area Ratio (FAR) 0.9:1 (4) 2.0:1 1.0:1 18.16.065
Minimum Mixed Use
Ground Floor Commercial
FAR(6)

0.15:1 (10)

0.15:1
(10)

0.25:1 (7)
(10)

0.15:1
(10)
Parking See Chapters 18.52 and 18.54 (Parking) 18.52, 18.54 (1) Twenty-five-foot driveway access permitted regardless of frontage; build- to requirement does not apply to CC district.
(2) Required usable open space: (1) may be any combination of private and common open spaces; (2) does not need to be located on the ground (but rooftop gardens are not included as open space except as provided below); (3) minimum private open space dimension six feet; and (4) minimum common open space dimension twelve feet. 6 For CN and CS sites on El Camino Real and CC(2) sites that do not abut a single - or two- family residential use or zoning district, rooftop gardens may qualify as usable open space and may count as up to 60% of the required usable open space for the residen tial component of a project. In order to qualify as usable open space, the rooftop garden shall meet the requirements set forth in Section 18.40.230.
(3) Residential density shall be computed based upon the total site area, irrespective of the percent of the site devoted to commercial use.
(4) For CN sites on El Camino Real, height may increase to a maximum of 40 feet and the FAR may increase to a maximum of 1.0:1 (0.5:1 for nonresidential, 0.5:1 for residential). (5) Distance shall be measured from the property line of the subject site. 150-foot measurement may be reduced to 50 feet at minimum, subject to approval by the Planning Director, upon recommendation by the Architectural Review Board pursuant to criteria set f orth in Chapter

18.76. (6) Ground floor commercial uses generally include retail, personal services, hotels and eating and drinking establishments. Office uses may be included only to the extent they are permitted in ground floor regulations.
(7) If located in the California Avenue Parking Assessment District. (8) A 12-foot sidewalk width is required along El Camino Real frontage. (9) Residential densities up to 20 units/acre are allowed on CN zoned housing inventory sites identified in the Housing Element. Other CN zoned sites not located on El Camino Real are subject to a maximum residential density of up to 15 units/acre. (10) In the CC(2) zone and on CN and CS zoned sites on El Camino Real, there shall be no minimum mixed use ground floor commercial FAR for a residential project, except to the extent that the retail preservation requirements of Section 18.40.180 or the retail s hopping (R) combining district (Chapter 18.30(A)) applies.

1 18.16.040 Land Uses
(b) Late Night Use and Activities
The following regulations restrict businesses that operate or have associated activities at any time between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m., where such site abuts or is located within 50 feet of residentially zoned properties or properties with exclusively residential uses.
(1) Such businesses shall be operated in a manner to protect residential properties from excessive noise, odors, lighting or other nuisances from any sources during those hours.
(2) For properties located in the CN or CS zone districts, businesses that operate or have associated activities at any time between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. shall be required to obtain a conditional use permit. The director may apply conditions of approval as are deemed necessary to assure that the operations or activities are compatible with the nearby residentially zoned property or property developed with exclusively residential uses.

Table 3
Exclusively Non-residential Development Standards
CN CC CC(2) CS Subject to regulations
in Section
Minimum Site
Specifications
Site Area (ft 2 )
Site Width (ft)
Site Depth (ft)

Corner lots, from rear lot
line on the alley
Not applicable
8’
Not
applicable

Corner lots, from side lot
line on the alley None
All lots other than corner
lots 20’
Maximum Site Coverage 50% None required
Maximum Height (ft)

3 CN CC CC(2) CS Subject to regulations
in Section
exclusively residential
uses.

Minimum Site
Specifications
Site Area (ft2)
None required

Permitted Setback
Encroachments
Balconies, awnings, porches, stairways, and similar
elements may extend up to 6' into the setback.

Maximum Site Coverage 50% 50% 100% 50%
Minimum
Landscape/Open Space
Coverage
35% 30% 20% 30%
5 CN CC CC(2) CS Subject to regulations
in:

0.4:1 2.0:1 0.4:1
Total Mixed Use Floor
Area Ratio (FAR) 0.9:1 (4) 2.0:1 1.0:1 18.16.065
Minimum Mixed Use
Ground Floor Commercial
FAR(6)

0.15:1 (10)

0.15:1
(10)

0.25:1 (7)
(10)

From: Bob Lenox
To: Council, City
Subject: Council 2025 Priorities - Palo Alto Airport
Date: Sunday, March 9, 2025 12:02:18 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
Council members,
On behalf of the Palo Alto Airport Association, I urge you to reject the “Not Recommended” position for moving forward with the Long Range Facility and Sustainability Plan. It is imperative that together we plan for an updated airfield.

Much of the physical plant is outdated and in need of replacement and/or repair.

The terminal building, a gateway to our city, is a double wide trailer from the 1960’s.

The runway requires rehabilitation. These and other projects are funded by Federal grants covering 90 percent of the cost, and airport generated revenues pay the balance.

We envision a major solar array project on the airport, providing power for the airport and other facilities such as the water treatment plant. This decarbonization effort, and the other projects, cannot begin without the LRFSP being completed.

The PAAA understands the council direction for the airport to maintain its’ current footprint without major expansion, and is ready to work with staff to optimize the layout.

Senior city staff seems to think that airport staff does not have the “bandwidth” to work on the LRFSP due to other commitments; specifically the transition to unleaded fuel, and noise abatement. Let me briefly address these two issues:

The transition to unleaded fuels is an ongoing effort. Simply put, there is not yet a viable widely available product.

We have one unleaded fuel on the field, but it is not certified, yet, for roughly 90 percent of the aircraft on the airport. Hopefully that will change, but it is a Federal matter, and out of staff’s hands. We continue to champion the transition to unleaded fuel as soon as possible.

Staff meets monthly with users and FAA tower personnel in order to optimize noise abatement procedures and compliance. We all work together to emphasize flying as good neighbors. The airport staff have recently contracted for a tracking service so they can identify noncompliant flights and work with the pilots to ensure an understanding of these procedures. In the last five months (October-February) PAO had over 57,000 takeoffs and landings. During that same period, airport staff received a total of 39 noise complaints, 12 of which came from Palo Alto residents.

In summary we urge you to direct staff to move forward with the LRFSP so that the upkeep, modernization and decarbonization of our Palo Alto Airport can proceed without further delay.

Respectfully,
Bob Lenox, President
Palo Alto Airport Association
From: Mr. Shore
To: Council, City
Subject: Agenda Item #8 - March 10 - 2025 City Council/Committe Priority Objectives and Workplans Date: Saturday, March 8, 2025 11:30:25 AM
Attachments: SCVWD-Unhoused-JPA-28Feb2025.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.

Regards,
Jeffrey Shore

Santa Clara Valley Water District | 5750 Almaden Expressway, San Jose, CA 95118-3686 | (408) 265-2600 | www.valleywater.org Clean Water • Healthy Environment • Flood Protection
♺

INTERIM CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
Melanie Richardson, P.E.

INTERIM CLERK OF THE BOARD
Candice Kwok-Smith

February 28, 2025

The Honorable Liang Chao The Honorable Greg Bozzo
Mayor, City of Cupertino Mayor, City of Gilroy
10300 Torre Avenue 7351 Rosanna Street
Cupertino, CA 95014 Gilroy, CA 95020

The Honorable Matthew Hudes The Honorable Carmen Montano Mayor, Town of Los Gatos Mayor, City of Milpitas
110 East Main Street 455 East Calaveras Boulevard
Los Gatos, CA 95030 Milpitas, CA 95035

The Honorable Ellen Kamei The Honorable Ed Lauing
Mayor, City of Mountain View Mayor, City of Palo Alto 500 Castro Street, 3rd Floor 250 Hamilton Avenue
Mountain View, CA 94041 Palo Alto, CA 94301

The Honorable Belal Aftab The Honorable Larry Klein Mayor, City of Saratoga Mayor, City of Sunnyvale
13777 Fruitvale Avenue 456 West Olive Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070 Sunnyvale, CA 94086
Attachment 1

Page 1 of 2 ends

Thank you for your time and consideration, as well as your dedicated leadership, partnership, and commitment to serving all residents of Santa Clara County. We look forward to hearing from you.

Page 2 of 2 ends

From: David Coale
To: Council, City
Cc: Shikada, Ed; Abendschein, Jonathan; Eggleston, Brad Subject: Bike and pedestrian infrastructure needs to be at a higher priority.

Date: Thursday, March 6, 2025 8:11:07 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
!
Mayor and Councilmembers,
Here is my public input from two weeks ago as a reminder about City priorities. -------
Thanks for this opportunity to speak to you this evening. Bike and pedestrian infrastructure needs to be at a higher priority.

Over the last 12 years Palo Alto has built/completed many projects: housing, fire stations, Libraries, a new public Safety building, and more. But in the same time frame, we have only completed 30% of our last bike and pedestrian plan. I know we can do better.

In fact, I would like to thank the Mayor and Council member Burt for their efforts on the Ad Hoc committee to make the bike lanes on El Camino better then the initial Caltrans plans called for. I was skeptical they could do this is such a short time frame, but they did and have set a great example of what the rest of El Camino should be on the Peninsula.

Palo Alto needs to be a leader again in this area. Our SCAP goals depend on it. The safety of our school children depend on it. The success of our housing build-out depends on it, along with the vitality of our downtown areas and the health of our community.

There is a lot of support for this. In looking at the people that have signed on to my letter, I see the following groups:

SVBC Palo Alto
Carbon Free Palo Alto
350.org
Palo Alto
Palo Alto Forward
This message could be suspicious
The sender's email address couldn't be verified.

Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
Acterra
Transition Palo Alto members
Safe Routes to School members
Bike Palo Alto
School Parents
And more
In addition, the Safe Streets for All Safety Action Plan needs to also be a high priority as this is the basis for funding the bike and pedestrian transportation plan.

The east-west crossing in south Palo Alto are very important as this is vital to the safety of our school children and needs to be completed before any rail crossing projects are started. This is also a real game changer for getting around Palo Alto.

Thanks for your attention on addressing this issue.

David Coale

Palo Alto City CouncilMarch 10, 2025

Palo Alto City Council
March 10, 2025