Item AA2 Public Comment — Palo Alto City Council, March 17, 2025

From: Tavera, Samuel
To: Council, City
Subject: Call from Residents
Date: Monday, March 17, 2025 12:01:06 PM
Attachments: image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
image006.png
image007.png
Greetings Councilmembers,

Our office received three calls today from residents: Akshat Jain, Jonathan Chin, Pamar de la Concedcion urging the Council prioritize Quiet Zones in 2025. Thank you!

Samuel Tavera
Administrative Associate III
Office of the City Clerk
P: 650.838.2898
E: [email protected]
www.cityofpaloalto.org

From: MAO-HONG
To: Council, City
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Palo Alto Quiet Zone
Date: Monday, March 17, 2025 11:38:24 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.

Dear Mayor Lauing, Vice Mayor Veenker, Councilmembers Burt, Lu, Lythcott- Haims, Reckdahl, and Stone,

Thank you for the generosity of your time and effort to make Palo Alto a great place to live.

I am writing today to ask City Council to establish a Quiet Zone in our very noisy rail corridor. Caltrain horns exposes us to harmful noise 104 times per day at each level crossing! Each horn blast is very loud, between 96 db and 110 db. The blasts begin at 5:06 a.m. and end at 12:58 a.m. Federal Railway Regulations mandate the blowing of horns, but Federal Regulations Allow for The City of Palo Alto to silence them.

For those of us living between the two crossings of East Meadow and Charleston, we have 832 horn blasts a day, not counting the freight trains. This is a serious health hazard that must be addressed.

Establishment of Quiet Zones may only be created if City Council initiates the process. Costs of establishing and installing equipment upgrades to qualify for a Quiet Zone are very low per intersection, perhaps $2 million per crossing, compared to to grade separation projects which will cost hundreds of millions of dollars per crossing.

Respected members of our Rail Committee, Mr. Burt, Ms. Lythcott-Haims, and Mr. Lauing are knowledgeable about the Quiet Zones and their benefits. Please ask them what they know.

Atherton has had a Quiet Zone at Fair Oaks since 2016. Menlo Park plans to install Quiet Zones at Oak Grove Avenue and Ravenswood Avenue beginning this year. Palo Alto joined Menlo Park by commissioning a study of Quiet Zones for the Palo Alto Avenue crossing.

Those of us who reside near Churchill Avenue, and especially near East Meadow Drive and Charleston Road ask you to please vote in favor of and find the budget for establishment of Quiet Zones in all of Palo Alto this year.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Hong Mao
3741 Lindero Dr
Palo Alto CA, 94306
From: Brian Kilgore
To: Council, City
Subject: Quiet Zone in our corridor
Date: Monday, March 17, 2025 11:36:30 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.

Dear Mayor Lauing, Vice Mayor Veenker, Councilmembers Burt, Lu, Lythcott-Haims, Reckdahl, and Stone,

Thank you for the generosity of your time and effort to make Palo Alto a great place to live.

For those of us living between the two crossings of East Meadow and Charleston, we have 832 horn blasts a day, not counting the freight trains. This is a serious health hazard that must be addressed.

Respected members of our Rail Committee, Mr. Burt, Ms. Lythcott-Haims, and Mr.

Lauing are knowledgeable about the Quiet Zones and their benefits. Please ask them what they know.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Brian Kilgore
31 Roosevelt Circle
Palo Alto, CA
From: Mar Carpanelli
To: Council, City
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Request for Establishment of a Quiet Zone in East Meadow and Charleston crossings Date: Monday, March 17, 2025 11:36:20 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.

Dear Mayor Lauing, Vice Mayor Veenker, Councilmembers Burt, Lu, Lythcott-Haims, Reckdahl, and Stone,

Thank you for the generosity of your time and effort to make Palo Alto a great place to live.

For those of us living between the two crossings of East Meadow and Charleston, we have 832 horn blasts a day, not counting the freight trains. This is a serious health hazard that must be addressed.

Establishment of Quiet Zones may only be created if City Council initiates the process. Costs of establishing and installing equipment upgrades to qualify for a Quiet Zone are very low per intersection, perhaps $2 million per crossing, compared to grade separation projects which will cost hundreds of millions of dollars per crossing.

Respected members of our Rail Committee, Mr. Burt, Ms. Lythcott-Haims, and Mr.

Lauing are knowledgeable about the Quiet Zones and their benefits. Please ask them what they know.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Mar Carpanelli
4126 Park Blvd, Palo Alto, CA 94306
From: Peter Streiff
To: Council, City
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Please vote to establish a Quiet Zone on the Caltrain Corridor Priority for this year, 2025.

Date: Monday, March 17, 2025 11:24:10 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.

Dear Mayor Lauing, Vice Mayor Veenker, Councilmembers Burt, Lu, Lythcott-Haims, Reckdahl, and Stone, Thank you for your dedication to making Palo Alto a great place to live and work.

We have four level crossings in Palo Alto, Palo Alto Avenue, Churchill Avenue, East Meadow Drive and East Charleston Road. ChatGPT helped us estimate that more than 10,000 residents will have more peace, better sleep, and a more enjoyable environment if noise pollution from Caltrain is reduced. This means parents and children will get more sleep and be better able to enjoy their gardens without diminishing safety at the level crossings. For those of us living between the two crossings of East Meadow and Charleston, we have 832 horn blasts a day, not counting the freight trains. This is a serious health hazard that must be addressed.

Establishment of Quiet Zones may only be created if City Council initiates the process. Costs of establishing and installing equipment upgrades to qualify for a Quiet Zone are very low per intersection, perhaps $2 million per crossing, compared to grade separation projects which will cost hundreds of millions of dollars per crossing.

Respected members of our Rail Committee, Mr. Burt, Ms. Lythcott-Haims, and Mr. Lauing are knowledgeable about the Quiet Zones and their benefits. Please ask them what they know.

Those of us who reside near Churchill Avenue, East Meadow Drive, and East Charleston Road ask you to please vote in favor of and find the budget for establishment of Quiet Zones in all of Palo Alto this year.

Thank you for your time and consideration of this important issue. Establishing Quiet Zones will significantly improve the quality of life for thousands of Palo Alto residents while maintaining safety at our rail crossings. We appreciate your leadership and commitment to making our city a better place to live.

Sincerely,
Peter Streiff
3723 Lindero Dr, Palo Alto, CA 94306
From: Thang Nguyen
To: Council, City
Subject: Please vote to establish a Quiet Zone on the Caltrain Corridor Priority for this year, 2025.

Date: Monday, March 17, 2025 11:16:15 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.

Dear Mayor Lauing, Vice Mayor Veenker, Councilmembers Burt, Lu, Lythcott-Haims, Reckdahl, and Stone,
Thank you for your dedication to making Palo Alto a great place to live and work.

Establishment of Quiet Zones may only be created if City Council initiates the process. Costs of establishing and installing equipment upgrades to qualify for a Quiet Zone are very low per intersection, perhaps $2 million per crossing, compared to grade separation projects which will cost hundreds of millions of dollars per crossing.

Respected members of our Rail Committee, Mr. Burt, Ms. Lythcott-Haims, and Mr. Lauing are knowledgeable about the Quiet Zones and their benefits. Please ask them what they know.

Sincerely,
Thang Nguyen
3715 Lindero Drive
From: Melinda McGee
To: Council, City
Subject: Message to City Council - yes to establishing Quiet Zones in Palo Alto Rail Corridor Date: Monday, March 17, 2025 11:05:12 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.

Dear Mayor Lauing, Vice Mayor Veenker, Councilmembers Burt, Lu, Lythcott-Haims, Reckdahl, and Stone,

Thank you for your generosity of your time and effort to make Palo Alto a great place to live.

For those of us living between the two crossings of East Meadow and Charleston, we have 832 horn blasts a day, not counting the freight trains. To work in my garden, I need to wear noise cancelling headphones to be outside. I can’t sleep with the windows open or open doors during the day because of the blasts of the train horns. This is a serious health hazard that must be addressed.

Establishment of Quiet Zones may only be created if City Council initiates the process.

Costs of establishing and installing equipment upgrades to qualify for a Quiet Zone are very low per intersection, perhaps $2 million per crossing, compared to to grade separation projects which will cost hundreds of millions of dollars per crossing.

Respected members of our Rail Committee, Mr. Burt, Ms. Lythcott-Haims, and Mr.

Lauing are knowledgeable about the Quiet Zones and their benefits. Please ask them what they know.

Thank you.

Best regards,
Melinda McGee
Palo Alto resident for 19 years in Midtown without train horn aggravation 14 years in Fairmeadow with terrible horn aggravation
650-704-6236
From: John Melnychuk
To: Council, City
Subject: Message to City Council - yes to establishing Quiet Zones in Palo Alto Rail Corridor Date: Monday, March 17, 2025 10:35:14 AM
Attachments: QuietZonePaloAltofinal v.2.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
!
This message could be suspicious
The sender's email address couldn't be verified.

This is a personal email address.

Mark Safe Report
Subject: Please vote to establish a Quiet Zone on the Caltrain Corridor Priority for this year, 2025.

Dear Mayor Lauing, Vice Mayor Veenker, Councilmembers Burt, Lu, Lythcott-Haims, Reckdahl, and Stone,
I attended the last Council Meeting and was impressed with length and complexity of the agenda. Thank you for your dedication to making Palo Alto a great place to live and work.

Lauing are knowledgeable about the Quiet Zones and their benefits. Please ask them what they know.

I attach a short 10 slide presentation (2 to 3 minute read) about this topic. I did my best to make it an accurate presentation, if there are factual errors, it’s my fault. Please tell me and I will make corrections, and share those corrections with supporters in our ad hoc group. Quiet Zones Palo Alto.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely yours,

John Melnychuk
3707 Lindero Dr
Palo Alto 94306
1 Caltrain Horn Noise & Quiet Zones in Palo Alto 1. What is a Quiet Zone? It’s an area along a railway where train horn noise is prohibited, unless there is an emergency which requires horn blowing to warn people that there is a potential for collision.

2. A Quiet Zone is a solution to keep safety standards high while reducing problematic noise pollution.

3. Because there are no Quiet Zones in Palo Alto, neighbors of Caltrain railway are subject to disruptive noise pollution nearly around the clock. 2 Caltrain Horn Noise & Quiet Zones in Palo Alto
City Council has the power to establish Quiet Zones. Ask City Council to do so, please.

4. Caltrain gives us 416 horn blasts a day at 96 decibels - 110 decibels from 5:06 am, early in the morning to 12:58 am, in the middle of the night!

5. Freight trains also sound their 96 db - 110 db horns just as Caltrains do, but typically at 11 p.m., 12 midnight, and sometimes at 3 a.m.

6. These continual blasting sounds, nearly round the clock, disturbs our sleep. This noise pollution is detrimental to everyone’s health, and it interrupts quiet enjoyment of our homes and gardens. 3 Caltrain and Freight Train Horn Noise 7. How many residents are aﬀected by Caltrain and Freight Train Horns? • ChatGPT: approximately 11,000 residents, babies to seniors, are subject to continual disruption.

8. How will Palo Alto City pay for the engineering changes? • Funds suﬃcient to meet the budget for these changes are already held for this and other Transportation related projects.

Caltrain Horn Noise & Safety of Quiet Zones in Palo Alto

9. Will the crossings be safe if the train horns don’t blow?•Yes, the governing bodies that designate Quiet Zones, the Federal Railway Administration (FRA), and the California Public Utilities Commission, (CPUC), specify what changes must be made, and what equipment must be installed to maintain safety.•Yes, Train Engineers will be allowed to blow their horns to warn pedestrians, bicyclists and motorists if a risk of collision is seen. •Yes, Menlo Park is planning to build Quiet Zones for their crossings beginning in 2025. •Yes, Atherton installed a Quiet Zone at Fair Oaks Ln in 2016. 4 5
100 db Gas Powered Leaf Blower
70 db Diesel truck at 100 feet.
80 db Diesel truck at 50 feet.
416 Train Horn BLASTS 96-110 db from 5:06 morning to 12:58 late night.

Palo Alto Level Crossings
Palo Alto Ave
Churchill Ave
E. Meadow Dr
E. Charleston Rd
6 Quiet Zone Engineering is preferable to other options WHY? 1)Preserves Safety at level crossings for less then 2% of the cost of grade separation projects while providing great beneﬁts to 11,000 residents who suﬀer from 20 hours of train horn noise per day. 2)Estimated Costs: $2M x 4 crossings = $8M. Constructed and operable within 2 years. Funds suﬃcient to make these changes are already available. 3)High Speed Rail is DEAD. Grade separation projects estimated to cost over $600 million, with use of eminent domain. At least 6 to 8 years of heavy construction disrupting traﬃc in Palo Alto on major thoroughfares. 4)Quiet Zones will reduce noise pollution, help us to sleep better, be able to open our windows, and enjoy our homes and gardens.

Please make time to speak at a City Council meeting either in person or via Zoom. Ask for Quiet Zones to be established as a priority. This will take a minute or two.

Here’s how to get a link to observe a Council Meeting.

It’s easy to get a slot to speak for one minute, even if you’re shy. • If you are nervous about public speaking, don’t worry, we all are. 1) Just introduce yourself.
2) Thank the Council Members for their hard and thoughtful work. 3) Tell them you are in favor of establishing Quiet Zones on our Rail Right of Way as soon as possible. 4) Ask them to make a priority to initiate the process and provide a budget for it this year. 5) Thank them again and that’s it. Saying more and talking longer won’t be more eﬀective. https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/City-Clerk/City-Meeting-Groups/Resources-for-Hybrid-Meeting-Attendance 7 A Call to take Action
8 To: [email protected]; CC: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] [email protected],, [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Please vote to establish a Quiet Zone on the Caltrain Corridor Priority for this year, 2025. Dear Mayor Lauing, Vice Mayor Veenker, Councilmembers Burt, Lu, Lythcott-Haims, Reckdahl, and Stone, I am writing today to ask City Council to establish a Quiet Zone in our very noisy rail corridor. Caltrain horns exposes us to harmful noise 104 times per day at each level crossing! Each horn blast is very loud, between 96 db and 110 db. The blasts begin at 5:06 a.m. and end at 12:58 a.m. Federal Railway Regulations mandate the blowing of horns, but Federal Regulations Allow for The City of Palo Alto to silence them. We have four level crossings in Palo Alto, Palo Alto Avenue, Churchill Avenue, East Meadow Drive and East Charleston Road. ChatGPT helped us estimate that more than 10,000 residents will have more peace, better sleep, and a more enjoyable environment if noise pollution from Caltrain is reduced. This means parents and children will get more sleep and be better able to enjoy their gardens without diminishing safety at the level crossings. Establishment of Quiet Zones may only be created if City Council initiates the process. Costs of establishing and installing equipment upgrades to qualify for a Quiet Zone are very low per intersection, perhaps $2 million per crossing, compared to to grade separation projects which will cost hundreds of millions of dollars per crossing. Esteemed members of our Rail Committee, Mr. Burt, Ms. Lythcott-Haims, and Mr. Lauing are knowledgeable about the Quiet Zones and their beneﬁts. Please ask them what they know. Atherton has had a Quiet Zone at Fair Oaks Lane since 2016. Menlo Park plans to install Quiet Zones at Oak Grove Avenue and Ravenswood Avenue beginning this year. Palo Alto joined Menlo Park by commissioning a study of Quiet Zones for the Palo Alto Avenue crossing. Those of us who reside near Churchill Avenue, East Meadow Drive, and East Charleston Road ask you to please vote in favor or and ﬁnd the budget for establishment of Quiet Zones in all of Palo Alto this year. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely yours Name, address Please Send this letter by email Asking for Quiet Zones in Palo AltoPlease be sure to CC individual Councilmembers and the City Clerk. Mail sent to the general address for City Council doesn’t always get to its intended destination.

A Call to take Action
9 We Prefer Inexpensive, [$2M each x 4 = $8M] Easy to Engineer Quiet Zones Project * Eminent Domain is the process in which a government body uses its power to take private property away from owners when constructing public projects. All of the grade separation project include plans to make some homeowners lose all or some of their property.

To see animated renderings of 4 options for Grade Separations we oppose:
https://vimeo.com/447595080/4060497f66https://vimeo.com/447568612/4a3ﬀa5af8 https://vimeo.com/447567369/40c25c2184https://vimeo.com/444677215/b39c8f91d6Meadow-Charleston Hybrid Meadow Charleston Viaduct Alternative
Meadow Charleston Trench Alternative
Meadow Charleston Partial Underpass Alternative
Quiet Zones - The Best Solution
We oppose Expensive, Disruptive, 6 to 8 Years long Grade Separation Projects estimated to cost $150M to $200M x 4 = $600M to $800M that involve use of eminent domain.* 10 About Us:

We are an all volunteer ad-hoc group of Palo Altans, all neighbors of the Caltrain tracks who wish to sleep better and to enjoy peace and quiet in our homes and neighborhoods.

We respect the need to maintain safety at level crossings in our City while asserting there is now need to reduce harmful noise pollution along the rail corridor.

We think establishment of Quiet Zones is achievable, economical and a common sense approach to improve quality of life in our City.

In good faith, we have done our best to provide accurate, factual information.

If you see inaccurate information in this presentation, please notify us and provide a citation so that we may improve the quality and accuracy here.

For Questions: [email protected]
From: [email protected]
To: Council, City
Cc: Lait, Jonathan; Shikada, Ed; Julie Baskind; Maggie Bening Subject: Fwd: PAR Zoning Text Amendment request - 3/17 ITEM #AA2 Date: Sunday, March 16, 2025 7:30:33 PM
Attachments: Page3_Meetings1971Action%20Minutes_20240105235923477.pdf 031725_Packet_Page214.pdf
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 #AA2 on the City Council’s agenda for 3/17.

I am writing to ask whether the motion passed unanimously by the City Council on November 13, 2023, highlighted in yellow in this attached Action Items from 11/13/23 Page 3, and also listed as 2025 Work Plan Staff Not Recommended Objectives Item #5, will be placed on the Planning and Development Department's 2025 Work Plan Recommended Items, or at least on the 2026 Work Plan Recommended Items?
Here is the entirety of the Municipal Code changes requested (highlighted in pink):

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.

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 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.

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)

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)

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 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 intrude 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 forth 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.

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
0' - 10' to 0' - 10' to
Front Yard (ft)
0' - 10' to
create an 8' -
12' effective
sidewalk
width (8)
None
Required
(8)
create an 8'
- 12'
effective
sidewalk
width (8)
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%

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
Daylight plane height and slope shall be identical to those of the most restrictive residential zoning district abutting abutting a property
developed with
exclusively residential
uses.
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)

0.25:1 (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.

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 residential 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 forth 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 shopping (R) combining district (Chapter 18.30(A)) applies.

Quoting from Kristi Bascom’s 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

ACTION MINUTES

Page 3 of 5 ends

City Council Meeting
Action Minutes: 11/13/2023
MOTION: Vice Mayor Stone moved, seconded by Council Member Lauing to approve the staff recommendation as it pertains to the Housing Focus Area and Pasteur Drive with the following additions:

1. Refer expansion of the El Camino Real Housing focus area to staff for further analysis and return to Council with a recommendation.

2. Exempt parapets and guardrails from height limits in the El Camino Real Housing Focus Area and Pasteur Drive.

3. Remove the 18.14.020(c)(5)(C) regarding Stanford affiliation, and refer to staff and the Stanford Ad Hoc for further dialogue.

4. Amend 18.14.020 Table 3, upper story stepback to state a 20-foot average stepback from the property line, with a minimum stepback of 15-feet, and any additional requirements identified by staff to meet this intent contingent on meeting fire safety standards and as an alternative to the 15-foot stepback direct staff evaluate for inclusion of a standard that would require an appropriate stepback from the front façade.

MOTION PASSED: 5-1-1, Kou no, Veenker recuse

MOTION: Council Member Lauing moved, seconded by Council Member Lythcott-Haims to:

1. Adopt a resolution amending the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element (Attachment A); and,

2. Adopt an ordinance amending Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) (Attachment B) to implement Program 1.1A and 1.1B of the Housing Element regarding the Adequate Sites Inventory.

MOTION SPLIT FOR THE PURPOSE OF VOTING
MOTION PASSED 1 & 2: 6-1, Kou no

MOTION: Council Member Lauing moved, seconded by Council Member Lythcott-Haims to:

3. Direct staff to review proposed amendments to PAMC 18.16.040(b) and 18.16.060 regarding Redwood residences as described in the November 7, 2023 from Kristi Bascom.

MOTION PASSED 3: 7-0

ATTACHMENT B
Staff Not Recommended Objectives
For various reasons—including staff capacity to advance, feasibility challenges, or that work is already underway —some objectives from the 2024 Priority Objectives list, previous Council suggestions, or the Annual Retreat suggestions are not recommended to become priority objectives for 2025. Objectives that were part of the 2024 list will have their corresponding number in parentheses at the end of the sentence. These objectives are listed below. Staff will be prepared to respond to any Councilmember’s questions.

Economic Development and Retail Vibrancy
a)Develop and present preliminary options for activating vacant storefronts: Explore regulatory strategy and low friction/barrier permitting for temporary popup stores. (11) b)Facilitate the establishment of sustainable business organization in the Cal Ave, DT, and Midtown districts. (1)
c)Council Consideration and Adoption of Parking Permit Policies and Program Updates: Improve Customer Experience, Align with Environmental and Transportation Goals, and Recover Costs. (26) d)Comprehensively Update the City's Zoning Code including policies that support Economic Development Strategies. Reformat for improved readability, update definitions, use categories, development standards and permitting processes. (12)
Climate Action and Adaptation & Natural Environment Protection (CA) e)Evaluate the integration of biogas into the gas utility business model and share results with Council and other policymakers.

Implementing Housing Strategies for Social & Economic Balance f)Initiate study that identifies options and feasibility of regulations to limit short-term rentals Citywide consistent with Housing Element Programs 4.2D&E. g)Enforcement policy recommendations related to Ghost Houses: Survey existing enforcement mechanisms and Ghost House (extended vacancy) data collection in other jurisdictions and return to Council by end of 2024, consistent with Council direction from November 27, 2023. h)Amend the zoning code to ensure residential uses in commercially zoned areas receive the same protections as those in exclusively residential zones. The City Council on November 13, 2023 supported this request from the Palo Alto Redwoods Homeowners Association. i)Amend the City’s Comprehensive Plan Safety Element to align with State law. j)Evaluate and make policy recommendation to Council regarding a partnership with the California Community Housing Agency (CalCHA). CalCHA issues governmental bonds for the purpose of financing projects that provide, preserve and support affordable local housing for low-income, moderate-income and middle-income families and individuals. k)Present options to Council for increasing housing in the California Avenue corridor. Consistent with Council direction from August 14, 2023.

Item 8
Attachment B - 2025 Staff
Not Recommended
Objectives

Item 8: Staff Report Pg. 9 Packet Pg. 214 of 247
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.

From: Dong Liu
To: Council, City
Subject: Support for Expanding Quiet Zones in Palo Alto Date: Saturday, March 15, 2025 7:09:43 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.

Dear Members of the Palo Alto City Council,
As a resident of Palo Alto, I am writing to express my strong support for the establishment of Quiet Zones at our city's railroad crossings. I appreciate the progress made at the Palo Alto Avenue/Alma Street crossing and urge the Council to prioritize the implementation of Quiet Zones at Charleston Road.

Implementing these Quiet Zones will significantly enhance the quality of life in our community by reducing noise pollution and improving safety. I respectfully request that the Council allocate the necessary resources and expedite the planning and execution of these projects.

Thank you for your attention to this important matter.

Sincerely,
Dong Liu
From: Diane
To: Council, City
Subject: Public safety is a no brainer
Date: Thursday, March 13, 2025 4:39:22 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.

Dear Mayor Lauing and members of the city council,
The choice between sidewalks and safety of our community should not be hard to make when choosing to fund the fire station by Mitchell Park. Another crazy windstorm could result in much of our city burning to the ground.

Please focus on the most important duty you have, the safety of all residents of Palo Alto.

Diane Finkelstein
2049 Dartmouth Street
Sent from my iPad
From: Palo Altans for Sensible Zoning
To: Council, City
Subject: Time to redistribute resources
Date: Thursday, March 13, 2025 1:54:21 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.

View this email in your browser
Time to redistribute resources
To all concerned:

Palo Alto provides 24/7 staffing at Stanford's Fire Station. That constitutes five firefighters, night and day, for a total of 16 positions. Palo Alto also gives Stanford a fire engine and a fire truck. It is time to bring it ALL back home to Palo Alto!
Fire Station 4 in south Palo Alto has been closed for four years, not because we don't have an engine, but because there are no firefighters to staff it.

Even if a small part of Stanford is within the city limits of Palo Alto, why do we give their on campus fire station an over abundance of resources? When I ask that question of the powers that be, I am told, "Oh. well. Stanford has a contract with Palo Alto; the University pays a fee. "
Well, the residents of south Palo Alto also have a contract and also pay a fee. We have the contract of citizens with our government to protect us from fire. The fee we pay is the hundreds of millions of dollars from the very, very large tax base of south Palo Alto, poured into the city coffers.

If it is true, as City Manager Shikadas said at the City Council meeting two weeks ago, that it costs a half a million dollars to support one firefighter position, then Stanford is getting a bargain, paying 20% of the city's PAPD cost but receiving redundant, overly abundant fire protection.

Stanford contracts with the Menlo Park fire department to serve the SLAC Fire Station

7. Might they add theStanford campus coverage to their contract with Menlo Park, which has an abundance of well staffed, happy firefighters who work little mandatory overtime, in contrast with the understaffed skeleton crew of the PAFD? Stanford has redundant fire protection in that two Palo Alto fire stations outside the campus also provide coverage, as does the Menlo Park station via reciprocal agreement.

Stanford's fire protection will continue.

The Philz fire on Middlefield had an 8 minute, 20 second response time from the Barron Park Fire Station. The Mitchell Park Library alarm response time was over six minutes. If Fire Station 4 had been open,the response times would have been a minute, and less-than-a- minute respectively. Philz is five short blocks from FS4; the Mitchell Library is in the same block as Fire Station 4.

Please don't insult us by telling us we are just as safe with a response from engines which are miles away,across railroad tracks with trains frequently crossing. Fire doubles every thirty seconds; every second counts! Fire Station 4 must be fully staffed with ten firefighters, as the firefighters themselves recommend for our safety.

Mr. Shikada, bring Palo Alto's fire fighters HOME. Assign them to Fire Station 4. Our children in the 12 schools surrounding FS4 are deserving of a one minute response.

Our mailing address is:

Palo Altans for Sensible Zoning
PO Box 305, Palo Alto, CA 94302
Want to change how you receive these emails?
You can update your preferences or unsubscribe

Palo Alto City CouncilMarch 17, 2025

Palo Alto City Council
March 17, 2025