The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutStaff Report 2503-4358CITY OF PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting Monday, March 17, 2025 Council Chambers & Hybrid 5:30 PM Agenda Item AA2.Approval of the 2025 City Council Priority Objectives, as well as Committee Objectives and Workplans. CEQA Status -- Not a Project. (Item Continued from February 24, 2025 and March 10, 2025 City Council Meetings) New Item Added, Staff Presentation, Public Comment 6 7 8 9 City Council Staff Report Report Type: ACTION ITEMS Lead Department: City Manager Meeting Date: March 17, 2025 Report #:2503-4358 TITLE Approval of the 2025 City Council Priority Objectives, as well as Committee Objectives and Workplans. CEQA Status -- Not a Project. (Item Continued from February 24, 2025 and March 10, 2025 City Council Meeting) This item is a continuation of Agenda Item # 10 on the City Council February 24, 2025 agenda and Item #8 on the City Council March 10, 2025 agenda. The original report and materials may be found here: https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=15969 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the City Council approve: (a) 2025 City Council Priority Objectives, and (b) Committee Objectives and Workplans BACKGROUND On January 25, 2025, the City Council held its annual retreat to discuss and establish the 2025 Council Priorities. The City Council Protocols and Procedures Handbook defines a priority as a topic that will receive significant attention during the year. The City Council established the following Priorities for 2025: •Economic Development & Retail Vibrancy •Climate Action and Adaptation & the Natural Environment Protection •Implementing Housing Strategies for Social and Economic Balance •Public Safety, Wellness & Belonging As has been the City’s practice for the past few years, staff has followed the City Council approval of its priorities by developing and recommending for City Council approval a set of objectives to advance each priority throughout the calendar year. These objectives reflect “SMARTIE” principles - Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Relevant, Time-bound, Inclusive, and Equitable. These Objectives primarily consist of City Council actions and engagement and where significant staff resources are required throughout the calendar year to further the Priorities. City Council engagement may include a variety of forms, such as 6 7 8 9 City Council approval, committee/council ad hoc review and recommendations, legislative advocacy, regional board/committee representation, and budgetary actions. Using the 2024 City Council Priorities and Objectives as a baseline, along with department proposed and City Council suggested objectives during its Annual Retreat, staff has evaluated and included a proposed list for City Council consideration in 2025. ANALYSIS Carryforward/Revised/New- Objectives annotated by (C) are objectives that are carried over from the 2024 list. (R) are objectives from the 2024 list that may have a second phase to the project and have been revised to reflect 2025 goals. The number designation from the 2024 workplan is shown in parentheses. New Objectives (N) reflect a project that is new in 2025. Objective Description- Summarizes the activity to be accomplished in calendar year 2025, and if needed, a brief sentence describing the project. Once approved, a more thorough description of the project and milestones will return to City Council at a later meeting. Estimated Completion- Reflects the 2025 calendar quarter in which the Objective is expected to be completed, subject to change. Q1 is January-March, Q2 is April-June, Q3 is July- September, and Q4 is October-December. City Council Priority Crossover- Identifies objectives that advance more than one City Council Priority. Funding Needed- Reflects a project that requires additional resources (staffing, capital investment, or professional services) to achieve and complete the activity beyond current budgeted levels. $ - up to 50K, $$ - 51-400K, $$$ - 500K+. Additional resources will be considered for inclusion in the 2025-26 annual budget. Staff Not Recommended- For a variety of reasons, any objectives that may have been carried over from last year or suggested during the Annual Retreat that staff is not recommending be considered in 2025 are identified in Attachment B. 6 7 8 9 •Retail Ad Hoc Committee •Rail Ad Hoc Committee •Cubberley Ad Hoc Committee •Climate Action & Sustainability Ad Hoc Committee Based on the City Council action, staff has drafted Objectives for each of these committees and are provided in Attachment C. In drafting these recommended Objectives, staff used the principles presented at the City Council retreat: •Ad hocs facilitate efficient Council meetings by vetting complex topics in advance •Priorities and assignments, including ad hoc missions (objectives), will be made by the full Council to ensure transparent management of resources •Ad hoc recommendations proceed directly to the full Council, not heard by more than one committee •Recommendations from ad hocs will be developed in public Objectives for the perennial Council Appointed Officers Committee and City/Schools Liaison Committee are also included in Attachment C. Recommended workplans for the standing Policy & Services Committee and Finance Committee are provided in Attachments D and E. As work proceeds over the year, it is likely that changes to committee objectives may be desired. Staff or committees may recommend such changes for City Council approval at any point during the year. FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT City Council approval of Priority Objectives does not have an immediate fiscal impact; however, resources will need to be allocated to implement Council Priorities. Opportunities to allocate resources to projects include the FY 2026 annual budget process, with adoption scheduled for June 2025. In addition, the City Council may amend the budget throughout the year. STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT City Council, community and stakeholder engagement is a key area of focus that is woven into the workplans to implement the proposed City Council objectives contained in this report. The City uses the International Association for Public Participation (IAP2) as a guide to structure community participation and align that participation with the type of input or feedback needed based on the project/issue. Workplan engagement typically fit within these general focus areas- Inform: Fact sheets, webpages, blog posts, information sessions, open houses, frequently asked questions, community briefings, and website feedback forms 6 7 8 9 Consult & Involve: Surveys, focus groups, questions and answer sessions, office hours, public meetings like community meetings, town halls, panel discussions, workshops, and polling Collaborate & Empower: Working groups, ad hoc groups, feedback groups, boards, commissions and committee meetings, community advisory panels, advisory groups, digital engagement platforms, and voter ballot measures. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ATTACHMENTS APPROVED BY: Item No. 10. Page 1 of 3 7 1 2 2 City Council Supplemental Report From: Ed Shikada, City Manager Meeting Date: February 24, 2025 Item Number: 10 Report #:2502-4185 TITLE Approval of the 2025 City Council Priority Objectives, as well as Committee Objectives and Workplans - Supplemental Information on Attachment B ‘Objectives Not Recommended’ REPORT UPDATE Attachment B: Objectives Not Recommended provides a list of objectives that been suggested in various venues, but for a variety of reasons, were not included in the proposed 2025 City Council Priority Objectives. Below is the list of objectives not recommended (as outlined in Attachment B), with an added brief bullet point explanation for the reason the objective is not recommended. 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) This work is already underway for pop-up businesses that fall into the same use category. Popups requiring a change of use raise significant building code and potential safety concerns that require additional staff resources to address. b) Facilitate the establishment of sustainable business organization in the Cal Ave, DT, and Midtown districts. (1) Staff will continue to meet with businesses to engage on key projects and investments, however at this time there is not support from the business community to engage in establishing new or more robust organizations. 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) This item is an open referral with the Finance Committee and included in the Committee workplan and is already underway. The next schedule discussion will be part of the FY 2026 Item No. 10. Page 2 of 3 7 1 2 2 budget process. Proposed parking program amendments and relevant changes to Title 10 will be presented to PTC on March 26, 2025. 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) Staff capacity to advance this with the other priority objectives is not feasible given prioritization of Housing Element programs. In addition, significant investment in consultant services would be required. 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. While not a component of the Sustainability & Climate Action Plan, biogas could support the City’s climate goals; however, rising utility rates raise questions about its feasibility. Staff could explore this strategy but would need direction on its desirability at this time. 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. An Ordinance Adoption is not required by Housing Element until July 1, 2027. This objective is not recommended for approval in 2025 due to limited staff capacity to manage the effort required. Instead, this will be a recommended priority in 2026. 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. This objective is not recommended for approval due to limited staff capacity to manage the effort required given prioritization of Housing Element programs. 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. This objective is not recommended for approval due to limited staff capacity to manage the effort required given prioritization of Housing Element programs. i) Amend the City’s Comprehensive Plan Safety Element to align with State law. Update will include modifications related to hazards, public safety, emergency response, and climate action to reflect State requirements that have come into effect since 2018. This project is currently underway and will be reflected in the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) workplan for 2025. Item No. 10. Page 3 of 3 7 1 2 2 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. This objective is not recommended for approval due to limited staff capacity to manage the effort required given prioritization of Housing Element programs. k) Present options to Council for increasing housing in the California Avenue corridor. Consistent with Council direction from August 14, 2023. This objective is not recommended for approval due to limited staff capacity to manage the effort required given prioritization of Housing Element programs. l) Prepare a Coordinated Area Plan or similar for California Avenue. This objective is not recommended for approval due to limited staff capacity to manage the effort required given prioritization of Housing Element programs. m) Prepare a Coordinated Area Plan or similar for El Camino Real. This objective is not recommended for approval due to limited staff capacity to manage the effort required given prioritization of Housing Element programs. n) Present options to the City Council that identify and evaluate sources and methods to raise significant funding to support new affordable housing production and preservation. (42) This objective is not recommended for approval due to limited staff capacity to manage the effort required given prioritization of Housing Element programs. Public Safety, Wellness & Belonging o) Complete next steps for Palo Alto Airport Long Range Planning work. Develop new alternatives considering Council's September 2024 Study Session input, conduct community engagement, and return to Council for review and action. Based on Council feedback at the Airport study session and to meet constraints to not expand its footprint, staff are reconsidering planning alternatives while also working to make near- term progress on leaded fuel and noise issues. The Airport long range plan will therefore pause while this work proceeds. p) Support Caltrain’s Corridor Safety and Security Initiatives. (74) Caltrain has begun installing safety fencing along the rail corridor. City staff will support these efforts but are not positioned to lead these investments, and no City Council action is required. APPROVED BY: Ed Shikada, City Manager March 17, 2025 www.cityofpaloalto.org 2025 City Council Priority Objectives & Committee Objectives and Workplans March 17, 2025 2025 Council Priorities & Objectives Introduction •Lists the 68 proposed Objectives that build on the 2024 incomplete or returning objectives, department proposed, or Council suggested during the 2025 Annual Retreat. •Reinforces the Council’s annual priority setting process •Shares the role of Council Committees in the work ahead, including Council ad hoc committees and standing committees (committee objectives and workplans review tonight) •Begins discussion on the Council, community and stakeholder engagement necessary to implement the proposed Council Objectives •Recognizes tension between capacity, resource limitations, and potential interest in additional objectives for the year 2 March 17, 2025 Discussion Facilitation •Staff is seeking input on and approval of the 2025 Council Objectives and will guide Council through a review and discussion of the proposed Objectives by Council Priority. •Council Objectives are stated in a manner to reflect a milestone of completion within calendar year 2025, work on many of these objectives will continue beyond 2025 with subsequent milestones. •Both estimated completion and funding needs are reflective of the 12-month milestone goal and resource needs; additional resources are expected to be necessary for subsequent milestones of some objectives in future years. •Staff will guide Council to discuss the Committee objectives and Standing Committee Workplans following discussion of Objectives 3 2025 Council Priorities & Objectives (68 objectives) Economic Development and Retail Vibrancy # of Objectives $$ Needs 13 7 Climate Action and Adaptation & Natural Environment Protection # of Objectives $$ Needs 21 6 Implementing Housing Strategies for Social & Economic Balance # of Objectives $$ Needs 18 4 Public Safety, Wellness & Belonging # of Objectives $$ Needs 16 5* 4 *Updated to reflect reduced funding needs upon further consideration. Economic Development & Retail Vibrancy (13 Objectives) Resource Needs- $ up to 50K, $$ 51-400K, $$$ 500K+C- 2024 Carryover R- Revised Objective N-New Objective 5 Climate Action and Adaptation & Natural Environment Protection (21 Objectives) 6 Implementing Housing Strategies for Social and Economic Balance (18 Objectives) 7Resource Needs- $ up to 50K, $$ 51-400K, $$$ 500K+C- 2024 Carryover R- Revised Objective N-New Objective Public Safety, Wellness & Belonging (16 Objectives) Resource Needs- $ up to 50K, $$ 51-400K, $$$ 500K+C- 2024 Carryover R- Revised Objective N-New Objective 8 March 17, 2025 Committee Objectives and Workplans •Committee Objectives reflect principles reflected at the City Council Retreat: •Ad hocs facilitate efficient Council meetings by vetting complex topics in advance •Priorities and assignments, including ad hoc missions (objectives), will be made by the full Council to ensure transparent management of resources •Ad hoc recommendations proceed directly to the full Council, not heard by more than one committee •Recommendations from ad hocs will be developed in public •Standing committee workplans reflect annual agenda items and current referrals (to the best of our knowledge) from Council •As work progresses on the 2025 Objectives, these committees will be used for review and feedback as appropriate to ensure continued progress •Council may discuss and identify any adjustments to the Committee Objectives and Standing Committee Workplans including updates on the status of Council referrals 9 Committee Objectives 10 Rail Ad Hoc Committee The Rail Committee reviews the projects and provides recommendations to the City Council based on the Rail Guiding principles adopted by the City Council (August 8, 2022). The projects include: the grade separations and safety improvements at existing crossings, additional east-west bicycle and pedestrian crossings, and quiet zone improvements. Rail committee will review and advance projects for Council approval. With the exception of bicycle and pedestrian railway crossings, all matters related to cycling and pedestrians such as the Bicycle Pedestrian Transportation Plan (BPTP) will be reviewed by the Policy & Services Committee for recommendations to the full City Council. Cubberley Ad Hoc Committee The Cubberley Ad Hoc will ensure the City Council’s vision is reflected through the master plan process and serve as the Council ambassador for engagement with the community and building community support for development for a new community center at the Cubberley site. This includes making recommendations to the Council on the future operating model (e.g. services available, approach to fees & charges, space allocation) and master plan that will successfully receive voter support in 2026. Coordination with PAUSD on Cubberley will occur through this committee rather than CSLC. Operations, funding, and ballot measure work (including polling) may be heard by the Finance Committee rather than the Cubberley Ad Hoc for recommendations to the full City Council. Committee Objectives 11 Retail Ad Hoc Committee The retail committee will provide a regular forum for business and community stakeholders to engage with Council members on implementation of the City’s economic development strategy. The retail committee will make recommendations to the City Council on economic development and retail vibrancy efforts, such as additional business support, proposed University and California Avenue improvements, and citywide retail zoning code changes. Climate Action & Sustainability Ad Hoc Committee The Climate Action & Sustainability Committee will support implementation of the Climate Action workplan items of the Three-Year Sustainability and Climate Action Plan (S/CAP) Workplan and the 2025 Council Priority Objectives for the Climate Action & Adaptation, and Natural Environment Council priority. The Committee will also discuss and provide input on S/CAP implementation strategy leading to Council approval and the development of the Climate Action sections of the upcoming 2026-2027 S/CAP Workplan, including consideration of appropriate actions toward the 2030 Carbon Neutrality goal. Implementation of the Reliability and Resiliency Strategic Plan will continue to be reviewed primarily by the Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC), and recommendations for funding S/CAP programs through the budget process will be made by the UAC and Finance Committee based on priorities established by the Climate Action & Sustainability Committee. Policy & Services Committee Workplan 12 January •Mayor appoints Committee and designates Chair; no Policy & Services Committee meeting February •Auditor Report: Grant Management Audit •Auditor Report: Utility Billing Audit •Nonprofit Partnerships Workplan •Follow Up from City Council Retreat re Umbrella Operating Strategies March •Auditor Report: Dispatch Assessment •Recommendations for Nonprofit Partnerships Workplan Phase 1 •Auditor Quarterly Report (tentative) •Auditor Task Order Report (if needed) April •Update on Recent Race and Equity Work •Legislative Update (State and Federal) •Referral: Board and Commission Member Onboarding Support •Auditor Report: TBD •Auditor Report: TBD May •Recommended Approval of Safe Streets for All Action Plan •Referral (2024): Establish a frequency for joint City Council meetings or Policy & Services meeting with Boards and Commissions, Youth Council, and meetings with Boards and Commissions Chairs; •Referral Follow Up: Discussion and Recommendation to Council Regarding Potential New Procedure for Councilmembers to Make Referrals to Staff •Auditor Report: TBD June •Referral (2024): Review of an annual schedule of repeat items that occur annually on agendas for Policy & Services, Finance Committee, and City Council along with the approximate month they occur •Referral (2024): Review and make recommendations for any initiatives to support and strengthen neighborhood programs (linked to discussions in 2021) •Audit task orders •Tentative: Bicycle Pedestrian Transportation Plan (BPTP) July No meeting; Council break August •Auditor Report: TBD •Auditor Report: TBD •Race and Equity Update Report •Legislative Update (State and Federal) September •Auditor Report: TBD October •Quarterly Audit Status Report November •Auditor Report: TBD •Legislative Agenda and Guidelines (can also go in December) •Quarterly Update on Recent Race and Equity Work December •Auditor Report: TBD •Procedures & Protocols Handbook Annual Discussion •2026 City Council Priorities Discussion (focused on process, the retreat and submitted ideas) •Informational: Report out on Status of Committee Referrals Finance Committee Workplan 13 January •Mayor appoints Committee and designates Chair; usually no FC meeting February •No Meeting, City Council meeting scheduled for Cubberley visioning March (4th & 18th) •Planning and Development Services Municipal Fee Update •Real Property Transaction Review •Storm Water Management Fee April (1st & 15th) •Utilities Advisory Commission Rate Forecasts and Five-Year Financial Plans: Gas, Electric, Water, Wastewater Collection •Review Human Services Resource Allocation Program recommended grants after Human Resources Commission Review in March [tentative] May (6th, 7th, & 20th) •Annual Budget Review: Operating and Five-year Capital Improvement Plan o Alternative meeting times (9:00am – 5:00pm) 5/6 and 5/7 •City-wide Municipal Fee Study June (3rd & 17th) •Review Cubberley [tentative] •Third Quarter Fiscal Year 2025 Financial Report •Adoption of Fiscal Year 2025 Investment Policy (to be done by June 30 per code) July No meeting; Council Break August •Grid Modernization Capital Improvement review issuance of debt for project financing September •Accept California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) Pension Annual Valuation. Reports as of June 30, 2024 o Every 3-4-year review/decision on pension funding policy assumptions next review scheduled for FY 2026. October November •Informational: Report out on Status of Committee Referrals •Discussion and Recommendation to the City Council to Accept the Macias Gini & O'Connell's Audit of the City of Palo Alto's Financial Statements as of June 30, 2025 and Management Letter •Discussion and Recommendation to Approve the Fiscal Year (FY) 2025 Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR) and Approve Budget Amendments in Various Funds December •Review and Forward the FY 2027 - FY 2036 Long Range Financial Forecast •First Quarter Fiscal Year 2026 Financial Report •Preliminary Utility Rate Forecast Review TITLE 40 FONT BOLD Subtitle 32 font March 17, 2025 Summary and Potential Council Direction Summary •Council Priority and Committee Objectives reflect Council action from retreat on January 25th •Proposed Objectives continue work from previous year and support Council Priorities adopted, and suggested objectives at the retreat. •Proposed Objectives described to reflect organization’s capacity to accomplish and advance within the calendar year Potential Action: •Council approval of 2025 Council Objectives •Council approval of Committee Objectives and workplans 14 Lupita Alamos Assistant to the City Manager Kiely Nose Assistant City Manager TITLE 40 FONT BOLD Subtitle 32 font March 17, 2025 Options for Additional Objectives Priority Objectives have already been through initial vetting: Objective → Scope → Resources Required → Schedule → 2025 Milestone •Should Council wish to add additional objectives, staff will seek clarity on the scope of proposal and may seek the opportunity to review and provide feedback on resource needs. •As a general path of escalation should Council seek to add: Seek to understand from the department if the new addition is part of a current body of work/objective under way OR if it is a new effort. If not in an existing project, seek to better understand the effort sought. Options include but aren’t limited to referral to committee(s), colleagues' memos, etc. 16 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: Samuel.Tavera@cityofpaloalto.org www.cityofpaloalto.org From:MAO-HONG To:Council, City Cc:quietzonespaloalto@gmail.com Subject:Palo Alto Quiet Zone Date:Monday, March 17, 2025 11:38:24 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof 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. 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 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 cautiousof 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. 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 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, Brian Kilgore 31 Roosevelt Circle Palo Alto, CA From:Mar Carpanelli To:Council, City Cc:quietzonespaloalto@gmail.com 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 cautiousof 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. 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. 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, Mar Carpanelli 4126 Park Blvd, Palo Alto, CA 94306 From:Peter Streiff To:Council, City Cc:quietzonespaloalto@gmail.com 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 cautiousof 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. 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. 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. 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, 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 cautiousof 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. 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. 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. 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, 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, 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 cautiousof 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 cautiousof 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. 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. 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. Powered by Mimecast 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, 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. 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: City.Council@CityofPaloAlto.org; CC: Ed@EdLauing.com; Vicki@VickiforCouncil.com; Pat.Burt@CityofPaloAlto.org; george.Lu@CityofPaloAlto.org Julie@JulieforPaloAlto.com,, Keith.Reckdahl@CityofPaloAlto.org; gstone22@gmail.com; quietzonespaloalto@gmail.com 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 Alto Please 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/447595080/4060497f66 https://vimeo.com/447568612/4a3ﬀa5af8 https://vimeo.com/447567369/40c25c2184 https://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: quietzonespaloalto@gmail.com From:a_m_mason@yahoo.com 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 openingattachments 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 ActivitiesThe following regulations restrict businesses that operate or have associated activities at anytime between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m., where such site abuts or is locatedwithin 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 fromexcessive noise, odors, lighting or other nuisances from any sources during thosehours.(2) For properties located in the CN or CS zone districts, businesses that operate or haveassociated activities at any time between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. shallbe required to obtain a conditional use permit. The director may apply conditions ofapproval as are deemed necessary to assure that the operations or activities arecompatible 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 andalterations to non-residential uses or structures in the CN, CC, CC(2) and CS districts. Thesedevelopments shall be designed and constructed in compliance with the followingrequirements and the context-based design criteria outlined in Section 18.16.090, providedthat more restrictive regulations may be recommended by the architectural review boardand approved by the director of planning and development services, pursuant to Section18.76.020. Table 3 Exclusively Non-residential Development Standards CN CC CC(2)CS Subject to regulations in Section Minimum Site SpecificationsSite Area (ft 2 )Site Width (ft)Site Depth (ft) None required Minimum Setbacks Front Yard (ft) 0 - 10' tocreate an 8' -12' effectivesidewalkwidth (1),(2), (8) NoneRequired(8) 0 - 10' tocreate an 8'- 12'effectivesidewalkwidth (1),(2), (8) 0 - 10' tocreate an 8' -12' effectivesidewalkwidth (1),(2), (8) Setback lines imposedby a special setbackmap pursuant toChapter 20.08 of thiscode Rear Yard (ft)None required Interior Side Yard (ft) Street Side Yard (ft)20' (2)None required Minimum Yard (ft) forlot lines abutting oropposite residentialdistricts or residentialPC 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 fromalleys for structures parking garages (ft) (3) Corner lots, from rearlot line on the alley Not applicable 8’ Notapplicable Corner lots, from side lotline on the alley None All lots other thancorner lots 20’ Maximum Site Coverage 50%None required Maximum Height (ft) 18.08.030 Standard 25' and 2stories 50’37’ (4)50’ Portions of a site within150 ft. of an abuttingresidential 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 exclusively residential uses. Initial Height at side orrear 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 adjoiningthe street property line of any required yard. (2) Any minimum front, street side, or interior yard shall be planted and maintained as a landscaped screenexcluding areas required for access to the site. A solid wall or fence between 5 and 8 feet in height shall beconstructed 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 mayexceed this height limit by a maximum of five feet, but shall be limited to an area equal to no more thanten 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 thesite line in question.(7) Twenty-five-foot driveway access permitted regardless of frontage; build-to requirement does not applyto 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 bereduced to 50 feet at minimum, subject to approval by the Planning Director, upon recommendation bythe Architectural Review Board pursuant to criteria set forth in Chapter 18.76. (b) Mixed Use and ResidentialTable 4 specifies the development standards for new residential mixed use developmentsand residential developments. These developments shall be designed and constructed incompliance with the following requirements and the objective design standards in Chapter18.24. Non-Housing Development Projects and Housing Development Projects that elect todeviate from one or more objective standards in Chapter 18.24 shall meet the context-baseddesign criteria outlined in Section 18.16.090, provided that more restrictive regulations maybe recommended by the architectural review board and approved by the director of planningand 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 linesimposed by a specialsetback mappursuant to Chapter20.08 of this codemay apply Front Yard (ft)create an 8' -12' effectivesidewalkwidth (8) NoneRequired(8) create an 8'- 12'effectivesidewalkwidth (8) create an 8'- 12'effectivesidewalkwidth (8) Rear Yard (ft)10' for residential portion; no requirement for commercialportion Rear Yard abuttingresidential zone district or a property developed with exclusively residential uses (ft)10’ Interior Side Yard ifabutting residential zonedistrict 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 SetbackEncroachments Balconies, awnings, porches, stairways, and similarelements may extend up to 6' into the setback. Cornices,eaves, fireplaces, and similar architectural features(excluding flat or continuous walls or enclosures ofinterior space) may extend up to 4' into the front and rearsetbacks 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 within150 ft. of an abuttingresidential district (otherthan an RM-40 or PCzone) 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 thoseof 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 lotline, the daylight plane and slope shall be identical to thatof any exclusively residential use abutting the lot line. Residential Density (net)(3)15 or 20 (9) See sub-section (e)below Nomaximum 30 18.16.060(i) Sites on El Camino Real Nomaximum Nomaximum Sites on San Antonia Rdbetween Middlefield Rdand E. Charleston Rd.15 or 20 (9) Nomaximum 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 18.16.065Minimum Mixed UseGround FloorCommercial 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 applyto CC district.(2) Required usable open space: (1) may be any combination of private and common open spaces; (2) doesnot need to be located on the ground (but rooftop gardens are not included as open space except asprovided below); (3) minimum private open space dimension six feet; and (4) minimum common openspace 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 residentialuse or zoning district, rooftop gardens may qualify as usable open space and may count as up to 60% ofthe required usable open space for the residential component of a project. In order to qualify as usableopen 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 thesite 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 increaseto 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 bereduced to 50 feet at minimum, subject to approval by the Planning Director, upon recommendation bythe 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 drinkingestablishments. Office uses may be included only to the extent they are permitted in ground floorregulations.(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 inthe Housing Element. Other CN zoned sites not located on El Camino Real are subject to a maximumresidential 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 preservationrequirements 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 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 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) 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 3 CN CC CC(2) CS Subject to regulations in Section 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. 4 Table 4 Mixed Use and Residential Development Standards CN CC CC(2) CS Subject to regulations in: 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 residential zone district or a property developed with exclusively residential 10’ abutting residential zone district or a property developed with exclusively residential 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 35% 30% 20% 30% 5 CN CC CC(2) CS Subject to regulations in: (Private and/or 150 sq ft per unit (2) 18.16.090 Maximum Height (ft) Standard 35’ (4) 50’ 37’ 50’ 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 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 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 between Middlefield 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 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 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. 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 cautiousof 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 ofopening 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. CeCi Kettendorf 45 year resident of south PaloAlto For more information https://pasz.com/townhall Copyright (C) 2025 *Palo Altans for Sensible Zoning*. All rights reserved. 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