Palo Alto Locks In Easier Path for Two-Story Homes, Eyes Climate Reset

Palo Alto homeowners who want to add a second story now have a permanent, more workable alternative to discretionary design review. On Nov. 2, 2026, the City Council unanimously adopted an ordinance that writes objective design standards into code and loosens several limits. The same night, a climate report showed deep emissions cuts, and at least one councilmember said the city's 2030 target is out of reach as written.

---

• Two-story home ordinance adopted unanimously, with a 40% second-floor share, 23-foot low-pitched roofs and small balconies
• Emissions down 49.5% from 1990, but Councilmember Patrick Burt says the 80-by-30 goal needs resetting
• 2027 calendar approved unanimously; a Policy and Services meeting moves off the eve of Eid al-Fitr
• Burt's bid to keep a Jan. 30 retreat fails 2-5, and State of the City timing goes to committee

---

Objective Standards Become Permanent Law

The basics: State laws SB 9 and SB 450 limit cities to "objective" standards for certain residential projects. These are clear, measurable rules that leave no room for subjective judgment. Palo Alto's alternative is individual review, a discretionary process that homeowners often find slow and unpredictable.

Why it matters: Interim Ordinance 5645 took effect in January 2025 and was extended to Dec. 31, 2026. It placed the city's objective standards in a resolution, and few applicants used them. The new ordinance moves the standards into the municipal code and makes them easier to meet. Staff hope that will draw more homeowners away from individual review.

Where things stand: The ordinance frames individual review as the alternative path and clarifies how accessory dwelling units (ADUs) fit within SB 9 projects. It also changes three limits:

• The second-floor share rises from 35% to 40% of allowable floor area.
• The height limit for low-pitched roofs rises from 22 to 23 feet.
• Small second-floor balconies are now allowed.

The Planning and Transportation Commission recommended approval unanimously. It also asked for Professorville standards next year.

Staff said they built the changes by asking applicants why they avoided the standards. Councilmember Ed Lauing praised that outreach. Balconies were the biggest sticking point. "I think the privacy change about the balconies was a big complaint that we were getting, and a lot of people did not want to go through the process because of that," said Planning Director Jonathan Lait.

Councilmember George Lu asked whether the city could go further and doubted the roof change would matter much. "I can't possibly imagine how that practically makes a difference in very many cases," he said. Lait replied that further loosening is "a policy call for the City Council."

Councilmember Julie Lythcott-Haims asked whether the shift toward objective standards has led to neighbor complaints. "They're not related to the individual review process or SB 9. They are related to ADUs," Lait said.

The other side: Hamid Mirzai, an Emerson Street homeowner, supported the ordinance. He asked council to exempt objective-standard projects from the city's contextual garage placement rule. He said a rear-half garage requirement would force a longer driveway on his 50-by-100-foot lot and described two years of planning delays. Senior Planner Emily Gallus said "there is no proposed change to the contextual garage placement requirement," and that the rule applies under both review paths. Lu said he would reconsider the issue. Councilmember Keith Reckdahl questioned requiring everyone to follow contextual designs and suggested the commission study it. Council did not adopt any garage amendment.

Decisions and stakeholder impacts: Mayor Vicki Veenker moved the staff recommendation, "knowing that there will likely be friendly amendments." Burt pressed for clarity on balcony privacy walls. Council accepted his friendly amendment: a solid privacy wall, or translucent or opaque material, satisfies the requirement. The motion carried unanimously; a numeric tally was not stated. Homeowners rebuilding in single-family zones gain clearer, more flexible rules. Garage placement remains a friction point for owners of narrow lots.

What's next: The commission's requested Professorville standards are slated for next year. Reckdahl's garage suggestion has no formal action attached.

---

Climate Progress Is Real, but the Goal May Not Be

Why it matters: Palo Alto emitted 403,593 metric tons of greenhouse gases in 2025, down 5.2% from the prior year. That puts the city roughly 60% of the way to its goal of an 80% cut by 2030, known as "80-by-30." The question now is whether council will change the goal itself.

Where things stand: "This is a 49.5% decrease in total community emissions despite a 20.5% population increase during the same time period," said Sustainability Manager Christine Long. Other findings from the report:

• Per-capita emissions fell to about 6 tons from 14.3 in 1990, meeting the California Air Resources Board's 2030 per-capita guidance.
• Transportation accounts for about 64% of emissions and natural gas about 32%.
• Natural gas emissions rose 2.2%. Commercial use climbed 8.1% during a colder winter.
• The waste diversion rate reached 88%.
• More than 900 homeowners have installed or scheduled heat pump water heaters.
• Counting offsets, the reduction reaches 66%.

Electric vehicle adoption drove most of the gains. Data gaps cloud the picture, though. Vice Mayor Greer Stone noted that total vehicle miles traveled rose from 598 million to 614 million. Long said the 2025 figure was modeled because Google's Environmental Insights Explorer "did not provide updated VMT for 2025 due to data privacy issues." She also warned that if a regional transit funding measure fails, "it would probably be quite catastrophic because we are still struggling to get our public transit ridership up to pre-COVID levels." Staff have not modeled that scenario.

The other side: Burt compared Palo Alto with San Francisco (41%), London (48%) and New York (25% to 30%). He said the city is "going to have to reset the 80-30 goal. We need to be frank about that." He proposed setting both absolute and per-capita goals. Reckdahl questioned whether per-capita comparisons between cities are fair. Climate staff noted that not every city shares Palo Alto's commercial and industrial base. Reckdahl still urged staff to borrow from peer cities: "I have no pride. I will happily steal good programs."

Decisions and stakeholder impacts: Council took no action, and no one spoke during public comment on this item. Stone asked for key performance indicator (KPI) dashboards that show whether each goal is on pace. Lythcott-Haims asked for a 2016 baseline on charts; staff said the 2016 inventory was incomplete. Reckdahl backed expanding free transit passes. Staff said talks continue with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) about changing the scope of a community charging grant that includes a Ventura location.

What's next: Any reset of the 80-by-30 goal would need to come back to council as a future item.

---

Calendar Fight Exposes Split Over Priorities

Where things stand: Assistant City Clerk Christine Prior presented the 2027 calendar, which the Human Relations Commission reviewed without changes on Oct. 8. Staff proposed moving the first August meeting to Aug. 9 and replacing the Dec. 20 meeting with a Nov. 29 special meeting.

Reckdahl noted that Eid al-Fitr begins at sundown on the day of a scheduled Policy and Services Committee meeting. "So I would want to move the Policy and Services from the 9th to the 23rd," he said. Burt asked council to clarify that summer recess starts June 23.

The other side: The sharper debate was over the council retreat, where members set annual priorities. Staff recommended Jan. 30 because "we wanted to build a little more time in if we could," said Deputy City Manager Chantal Cotton Gaines. She called Jan. 23 a tight squeeze. Lauing pushed for an earlier date: "I'm still concerned about using up the whole month."

Burt moved to keep Jan. 30 and replace the Feb. 1 meeting with a Feb. 3 special meeting. "I just think that's a real scramble to have it on the 23rd, and we heard that from staff," he said. The amendment failed, For: 2 (Burt, Reckdahl), Against: 5 (Veenker, Stone, Lauing, Lythcott-Haims, Lu), Absent: 0.

Members also disagreed about the State of the City address. Veenker defended a midyear address "so we knew how we were doing against council priorities and goals." Burt favored earlier timing "to avoid any perception that it is overlapping with a political campaign." Stone referred the question to Policy and Services.

Decisions and stakeholder impacts: Stone's main motion carried unanimously. It sets the recess start at June 23, moves the Policy and Services meeting off the eve of Eid, adds June 22 as a standby date and holds the retreat Jan. 23. A Tuesday, Jan. 19 special meeting replaces Jan. 25.

What's next: Policy and Services will take up State of the City timing. Cotton Gaines said the mayor's input on the retreat format won't be known until Jan. 4.

---

• Consent calendar passed unanimously. Councilmember Lu and Mayor Veenker recused from item 8, which involves Stanford-owned property.
• Community Development Block Grant funds: About $500,000 is available to local nonprofits. Applications are due in January, with an info session Nov. 12.
• Paramedic hiring: City Manager Ed Shikada said offers are going to four full-time and three part-time paramedics for a single-role EMS unit expected this spring.
• Public comment: Speakers urged covering Flock license plate cameras, condemning ICE staging at Elmwood Detention Center and supporting Measure J. One speaker asked for a Gaza ceasefire resolution.
• Dolores Huerta: Veenker adjourned the meeting in memory of the labor leader. Earlier, a closed session on potential litigation produced no reportable action.

---

Looking ahead: A Veterans Day program is set for Nov. 9 at 3 p.m. at MacArthur Park. A joint session with the Utilities Advisory Commission is scheduled for Nov. 16. Upcoming council items include study sessions on 720 San Antonio Road and the Quarry Road transit connection, Bryant and Lincoln traffic calming, and a Lot T public hearing.