Agenda packet — Palo Alto City Council, May 5, 2025 (part 2 of 2)

The categorical exemption from environmental review under CEQA that is suggested by staff for the Project is inapplicable to the proposed Project. We carefully reviewed the relevant documentation posted by staff regarding the Project, including, without limitation, the document dated October 9, 2024, entitled “Memorandum”, which David J. Powers & Associates, Inc. prepared (the “ Powers Memo ”). In brief, the Powers Memo improperly concludes that the requested zoning change application, which is a legislative activity, is categorically exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to 14 C.C.R. Section 15301. However, 14 C.C.R. Section 15301(e)(2), which is relied upon by the authors of the Powers Memo, applies, by its express terms, only to proposed construction projects, and not to legislative activity. 2 This inconsistent line of reasoning applied by the Powers Memo and by City staff is false, incorrect, misleading, and, if adopted by the City of Palo Alto would likely be entirely unlawful.

Accordingly, the City of Palo Alto (the “ City”) must conduct an environmental review prior to adopting a zoning ordinance, which according to the Staff Report, will modify each of the following aspects of the City of Palo Alto Zoning Ordinance. 3 • The provided units would increase by 16 units;
• The allowed lot coverage and floor area would increase to accommodate the approximately 6,890 square foot addition; • The minimum setback would decrease from 8 feet to 6 feet for the southwestern property line adjacent to Goodwill; and
• The parking ratio provided would reduce from 0.46 spaces per unit (1.16 spaces per 2.5 beds) to 0.41 spaces per unit (1.01 spaces per 2.5 beds), as no additional spaces are being provided. However, this is consistent with the standard code requirement for this use, which is one space per 2.5 beds.” (Emphasis Added.)
Proposed Zoning Amendments (and General Plan Amendments) are “Projects” as defined in CEQA. In connection with the foregoing, 14 C.C.R. Section 15378 states, in pertinent part, as follows:
(a) “Project” means . . . any of the following: [¶] (1) An activity directly undertaken by any public agency including but not limited to . . . enactment and amendment of zoning ordinances, and the adoption and amendment of local General Plans or elements thereof . . . (Emphasis added.)
2 The Powers Memo also asserts, without explanation, attribution, or legal authority of any kind whatsoever, that a 13% increase in intensity of use is somehow “negligible” for purposes of CEQA. (Powers Memo, Pg. 12)
3 See City of Palo Alto Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report, Item No. 2,

Page 6 of 10 ends

Item 14
Attachment E - Public
Comment

Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
61 Packet Pg. 148 of 288

Honorable Members of the City of Palo Alto Planning
and Transportation Commission
December 9, 2024

Page 3 ends

And, Public Resources Code Section 21080 states, in pertinent part, as follows:
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this division, this division shall apply to discretionary projects proposed to be carried out or approved by public agencies, including, but not limited to, the enactment and amendment of zoning ordinances, the issuance of zoning variances , the issuance of conditional use permits, and the approval of tentative subdivision maps unless the project is exempt from this division . (Emphasis Added.)
The Powers Memo asserts that the Project (which is an application for a zoning change) is exempt from environmental review under CEQA pursuant to 14 C.C.R. Section 15301, which provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

Class 1 consists of the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures , facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of existing or former use. The types of “existing facilities” itemized below are not intended to be all-inclusive of the types of projects which might fall within Class 1. The key consideration is whether the project involves negligible or no expansion of use. [¶] Examples include but are not limited to:
. . . (e) Additions to existing structures provided that the addition will not result in an increase of more than: [¶] (1) 50 percent of the floor area of the structures before the addition, or 2,500 square feet, whichever is less; or [¶] (2) 10,000 square feet if: [¶] (A) The project is in an area where all public services and facilities are available to allow for maximum development permissible in the General Plan and [¶] (B) The area in which the project is located is not environmentally sensitive. (Emphasis Added)
Clearly and unequivocally, a proposed zoning amendment that is intended to alter municipal laws relating to zoning restrictions, including, without limitation, reducing property line setback requirements and altering sightlines, ambient light, noise patterns, roadways, traffic, floor area ratios, intensity of use, and reduction of parking requirements, could, and very likely would, have profound environmental impacts, as well as civil and criminal ramifications. The foregoing cannot simultaneously be considered just a “minor alteration of an existing structure” that happens to be located in a zoning district that already permits the intended use. In the current application, the proposed use is expressly prohibited under the existing zoning, hence the need for the requested zoning amendment.

If the state legislature had intended for zoning amendments and general plan amendments to be exempt from environmental review, it could and would have included such legislative activities in the list of statutorily exempt types of projects. Similarly, if the Secretary for Resources had intended for zoning amendments to be categorically exempt from environmental review, the Secretary for Resources would have included such projects in the list of categorical exemptions authorized by Public Resources Code Section 21084, which are published in 14 C.R.C. Section 15300, et seq.

Item 14
Attachment E - Public
Comment

Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
62 Packet Pg. 149 of 288

Honorable Members of the City of Palo Alto Planning
and Transportation Commission
December 9, 2024

Page 4 ends

The conclusion is clear and unmistakable. Proposed zoning amendments are specifically INCLUDED in CEQA by statute, because they have great potential to cause significant environmental impacts. Accordingly, the narrow criteria of the categorical exemption set forth in 14 C.C.R. Section 15301, which relate solely to proposed minor alterations to an existing building, without a change of use, do not apply to this proposed Project, which is a proposed zoning amendment that would change multiple aspects of the permitted uses of the Subject Property and would allow activities on the Subject Property that are currently prohibited. Accordingly, environmental review is mandated by CEQA and must be conducted in accordance with applicable laws prior to enactment of any proposed modification of the existing PC Zone District (PC-5116).

II. Potential Significant Environmental Impacts Result from the Project.

Phase 1 of the development of the Subject Property was approved in the late 1980’s through adoption of a Planned Community zoning ordinance (City of Palo Alto Ordinance No. 3775). At that time, potential environmental impacts were discussed and mitigated through the use of a terraced building design in which each higher floor was recessed further from property lines, and this design mitigation was incorporated into the applicable zoning ordinance. Multiple members of the community participated in that negotiation and remember the developer’s promises that the design would not be altered. And, Phase 2 of the development of the Subject Property was approved in the early 2010’s through adoption of a second Planning Community zoning ordinance (City of Palo Alto Ordinance No. 5116).

And, the terraced design was carefully maintained at that time.

However, the developer has now come to the City with a proposed Phase 3, which would disregard the very same environmental mitigations that were incorporated into the prior design in order to be able to alter the use of the Subject Property in a manner that was expressly prohibited at each prior phase. Nevertheless, the Powers Memo claims that these requested zoning changes, which would greatly expand the permitted uses of the Subject Property, are merely a “minor alteration” to the Subject Property that cannot possibly result in an environmental impact, and are therefore exempt from environmental review under CEQA. However, given the fact that the previously approved environmental mitigations would be eliminated upon approval of the current Project, it is apparent that the proposed Project would result in significant environmental impacts, per se.

A review of the public comment for the Project revealed that there was a proposed alternative design in which the existing facility would be built upwards over the existing third floor rather than outward over the first and second floors. This proposal potentially mitigates some of the resulting environmental impacts to a less than significant level, while achieving the benefits of the same proportional increase in intensity of use. However, the developer apparently rejected that mitigation proposal as not economically acceptable. The upshot is that the developer desires to be permitted to cause an environmental impact in order for the developer to be able to benefit financially. This is precisely the type of environmental cost vs. economic benefit analysis that CEQA is intended to cause to be disclosed to the decision makers prior to deciding upon approval of a proposed project.

Additionally, public comment reveals that the facility is already short of available parking, which results in inconvenience to the residents and neighbors, and causes additional Item 14
Attachment E - Public
Comment

Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
63 Packet Pg. 150 of 288

H
onorable Members of the City of Palo Alto Planning
and Transportation Commission
December 9, 2024

Page 5 ends

n
eighborhood traffic. A further reduction in parking capacity proposed by the application combined with elimination of entire parking areas to be used for staging during construction will only exacerbate the traffic problems that have not been reviewed and mitigated.

Allowing improvements on the second and third floors to encroach closer to property lines will increase noise and ambient light emitted towards neighborhood properties. The additions will also have an adverse impact on the existing daylight plane in violation of Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.38.150(e).

And, finally, it is our understanding that the facility, as presently configured, may currently be operating in violation of the applicable conditions of approval of Ordinance 3775 and/or Ordinance 5116, and that numerous complaints have been made to code enforcement with respect to such violations. If the Subject Property is, in fact, currently out of compliance with applicable zoning and/or use permits, then it should not be eligible to receive additional concessions until all such violations have been remedied.

The foregoing are just some examples of the many potential significant environmental impacts that might occur as the result of approval of the Project and the proposed development.

III. Conclusion.

We urge this commission to follow applicable law and refer the matter to staff to prepare a full environmental review as required in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. After an appropriate environmental review has been completed, this commission will be better able to make a recommendation to the City Council that is in compliance with the commission’s legal responsibilities. Such a recommendation should properly take into consideration possible alternative designs, further mitigations, and/or, if appropriate, adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations regarding any significant environmental impacts arising from the Project. Alternatively, the proposed Project must be denied.

If you have question about any of the above, or if we can provide you with any other documents or information, please contact the undersigned.

Very truly yours,
HOGE, FENTON, JONES & APPEL, INC.

J. Randall Toch
Of Counsel
JRT/ns
cc: Clients
Emily Kallas – Project Planner (via email only: [email protected]) Sean A. Cottle
Item 14
Attachment E - Public
Comment

Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
64 Packet Pg. 151 of 288

- 5DQGDOO7RFK

UDQG\WRFK#KRJHIHQWRQFRP
6LOLFRQ9DOOH\2IILFH_6RXWK0DUNHW6WUHHW6XLWH 6DQ-RVH&DOLIRUQLD

SKRQH
ID[ZZZKRJHIHQWRQFRP
'HFHPEHU

9LD(0DLORQO\
SODQQLQJFRPPLVVLRQ#FLW\RISDORDOWRRUJ

+RQRUDEOH0HPEHUVRIWKH&LW\RI3DOR$OWR
3ODQQLQJDQG7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ&RPPLVVLRQ
+DPLOWRQ$YH
3DOR$OWR&$

5H
0HHWLQJ'DWH
'HFHPEHU
$JHQGD,WHP

3URMHFW'HVFULSWLRQ
3URSRVHG=RQLQJ$PHQGPHQWDQG
$UFKLWHFWXUDO$SSURYDOIRU3DOR$OWR&RPPRQV
6XEMHFW3URSHUW\
(O&DPLQR:D\3DOR$OWR&DOLIRUQLD
5HSRUW

2XU&OLHQWV
0RQD+HDQG*UDFH
<DQ)HQJ
:DQJ
2EMHFWLRQWR3URSRVHG&DWHJRULFDO([HPSWLRQRI3URMHFWXQGHU&( 4$ 'HDU+RQRUDEOH0HPEHUVRIWKH&LW\RI3DOR$OWR3ODQQLQJDQG7U DQVSRUWDWLRQ&RPPLVVLRQ
7KLVODZILUPUHSUHVHQWV0RQD+HDQG*UDFH
<DQ)HQJ
:DQJZKR RZQVLQJOHVWRU\
UHVLGHQFHV RQ :LONH :D\ 7KH UHVLGHQFHV DUH DGMDFHQW WR WKH UH DO SURSHUW\ VLWXDWHG DW (O&DPLQR :D\ 3DOR $OWR
WKH ³6XEMHFW 3URSHUW\´
) R U W K H U H D V R Q V V W D W H G L Q W K L V OHWWHU0V+HDQG0V:DQJREMHFWWRWKHSURSRVHGFDWHJRULFDOH[HPSWLRQRIWKHSURMHFWXQGHU &(4$DQGRSSRVHWKHSURMHFWLWVHOILQLWVFXUUHQWIRUP 7KHSURMHFWXQGHUFRQVLGHUDWLRQE\WKH&RPPLVVLRQDV$JHQGD,WH P1RLVGHILQHG LQWKHVWDIIUHSRUWIRUWKH'HFHPEHU3ODQQLQJ 7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ&RPPLVVLRQ0HHWLQJ

WKH³6WDII5HSRUW´
XQGHUWKHKHDGLQJ³352-(&7'(6&5,37,21´DVIROORZV
³DQDPHQGPHQW
WRWKHH[LVWLQJ3&=RQH'LVWULFW
3&
´
WKH³ 3URMHFW´

, 7KH 3URMHFW LV D SURSRVHG =RQLQJ $PHQGPHQW ZKLFK ZRXOG DOWHU P X O W L S O H D V S H F W V R I W K H & L W \ R I 3 D O R $ O W R 0 X Q L F L S D O & R G H , W LV QRW
DPHUHDSSOLFDWLRQIRUDSHUPLWWRDOORZPLQRUSK\VLFDODOWHUDW LRQVWR DQ H[LVWLQJ IDFLOLW\
7KH &DOLIRUQLD (QYLURQPHQWDO 4XDOLW\ $F W
5HTXLUHV(QYLURQPHQWDO5HYLHZRI3URSRVHG=RQLQJ$PHQGPHQWV 6HH&LW\RI3DOR$OWR3ODQQLQJ 7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ&RPPLVVLRQ6WDII5HSRUW,WHP1R3DJH RI
3DFNHW3J

Item 14
Attachment E - Public
Comment

Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
65 Packet Pg. 152 of 288

+RQRUDEOH0HPEHUVRIWKH&LW\RI3DOR$OWR3ODQQLQJ
DQG7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ&RPPLVVLRQ
'HFHPEHU

3DJH
7KHFDWHJRULFDOH[HPSWLRQIURPHQYLURQPHQWDOUHYLHZXQGHU&(4$ WKDWLVVXJJHVWHG E \ V W D I I I R U W K H 3 U R M H F W L V L Q D S S O L F D E O H W R W K H S U R S R V H G 3 U R M H FW :H FDUHIXOO\ UHYLHZHG WKH UHOHYDQWGRFXPHQWDWLRQSRVWHGE\ VWDII UHJDUGLQJWKH3URMHFWL QFOXGLQJZLWKRXWOLPLWDWLRQ WKH GRFXPHQW GDWHG 2FWREHU
HQWLWOHG ³0HPRUDQGXP´ ZKLF K 'DYLG - 3RZHUV $VVRFLDWHV ,QF SUHSDUHG
WKH ³3RZHUV 0HPR´
, Q E U L H I W K H 3 R Z H U V 0 H P R L P S U R S H U O \ FRQFOXGHV WKDW WKH UHTXHVWHG ]RQLQJ FKDQJH DSSOLFDWLRQ ZKLFK LV D OHJLVODWLYH DFWLYLW\ LV FDWHJRULFDOO\H[HPSWIURPHQYLURQPHQWDOUHYLHZXQGHUWKH&DOLIR UQLD(QYLURQPHQWDO4XDOLW\ $FW
³&(4$´
SXUVXDQWWR&&56HFWLRQ+RZHYHU&&56HFWLRQ H

ZKLFKLVUHOLHGXSRQE\WKHDXWKRUVRIWKH3RZHUV0HPRDSSOLHV E\LWVH[SUHVVWHUPVRQO\ W R S U R SR V H G F R Q V W U X F W LR Q S U R M H F WV D Q G Q R W W R O H J L V O D W L Y H DF W L YLW\ 7KLV LQFRQVLVWHQW OLQH RI UHDVRQLQJDSSOLHGE\WKH3RZHUV0HPRDQGE\&LW\VWDIILVIDOVH LQFRUUHFWPLVOHDGLQJDQG LIDGRSWHGE\WKH&LW\RI3DOR$OWRZRXOGOLNHO\EHHQWLUHO\XQ ODZIXO $FFRUGLQJO\WKH&LW\RI3DOR$OWR
WKH³ &LW\´
PXVWFRQGXFWDQHQYLURQPHQWDOUHYLHZ
SULRUWRDGRSWLQJD]RQLQJRUGLQDQFHZKLFKDFFRUGLQJWRWKH6WDII5HSRUWZLOOPRGLI\HDFKRI WKHIROORZLQJDVSHFWVRIWKH&LW\RI3DOR$OWR=RQLQJ2UGLQDQFH 7KHSURYLGHGXQLWVZRXOGLQFUHDVHE\XQLWV

7KH DOORZHG ORW FRYHUDJH DQG IORRU DUHD ZRXOG LQFUHDVH W R DFFRPPRGDWHWKHDSSUR[LPDWHO\
VTXDUHIRRWDGGLWLRQ

7KH PLQLPXP VHWEDFN ZRXOG GHFUHDVH IURP IHHW WR IHHW IRU WKH VRXWKZHVWHUQSURSHUW\OLQHDGMDFHQWWR*RRGZLOO
DQG
7KHSDUNLQJUDWLRSURYLGHGZRXOGUHGXFHIURPVSDFHVSHUXQLW
VSDFHVSHUEHGV
WRVSDFHVSHUXQLW
VSDFHVSHU EHGV
DV
QRDGGLWLRQDOVSDFHVDUHEHLQJSURYLGHG+RZHYHUWKLVLVFRQVL VWHQWZLWKWKH V W D Q G D U G F R G H U H T X L U H P H Q W I R U W K L V X V H Z K L F K L V R Q H V S D F H S H U EHGV´

(PSKDVLV$GGHG

3 U R S R V H G = R Q L Q J $ P H Q G P H Q W V
D Q G * H Q H U D O 3 O D Q $ P H Q G P H Q W V
D U H ³ 3URMHFWV´ DV
GHILQHG LQ &(4$ ,Q FRQQHFWLRQ ZLWK WKH IRUHJRLQJ &&5 6 HFWLRQ VWDWHV LQ SHUWLQHQWSDUWDVIROORZV

D
³3URMHFW´PHDQV DQ\RIWKHIROORZLQJ
>@

$QDFWLYLW\GLUHFWO\
XQGHUWDNHQ E\ DQ\ SXEOLF DJHQF\ LQFOXGLQJ EXW QRW OLPLWHG WR HQDFWPHQW DQG DPHQGPHQW RI ]RQLQJ RUGLQDQFHV DQG WKH DGRSWLRQ DQG DPHQGPHQW RI ORFDO *HQHUDO 3ODQV RU HOHPHQWV WKHUHRI

(PSKDVLVDGGHG

7KH3RZHUV0HPRDOVRDVVHUWVZLWKRXWH[SODQDWLRQDWWULEXWLRQ RUOHJDODXWKRULW\RIDQ\ NLQG ZKDWVRHYHU WKDW D LQFUHDVH LQ LQWHQVLW\ RI XVH LV VRP HKRZ ³QHJOLJLEOH´ IRU SXUSRVHVRI&(4$
3RZHUV0HPR3J

6HH &LW\ RI 3DOR $OWR 3ODQQLQJ 7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ &RPPLVVLRQ 6WD II 5HSRUW ,WHP 1R 3DJHRI
3DFNHW3J

Item 14
Attachment E - Public
Comment

Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
66 Packet Pg. 153 of 288

+RQRUDEOH0HPEHUVRIWKH&LW\RI3DOR$OWR3ODQQLQJ
DQG7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ&RPPLVVLRQ
'HFHPEHU

3DJH
$QG3XEOLF5HVRXUFHV&RGH6HFWLRQVWDWHVLQSHUWLQHQWS DUWDVIROORZV

D
([FHSWDVRWKHUZLVHSURYLGHGLQWKLVGLYLVLRQ WKLVGLYLVLRQVKDOO DSSO\WR G L V F U H W L R Q D U \ S U R M H F W V S U R S R V H G W R E H F D U U L H G R X W R U D S S U R Y H G E\ SXEOLF DJHQFLHV LQFOXGLQJ EXW QRW OLPLWHG WR WKH HQDFWPHQW D QG DPHQGPHQWRI]RQLQJRUGLQDQFHVWKHLVVXDQFHRI]RQLQJYDULDQFH V WKH LVVXDQFH RI FRQGLWLRQDO XVH SHUPLWV DQG WKH DSSURYDO RI WH QWDWLYH VXEGLYLVLRQ PDSV XQOHVV WKH SURMHFW LV H[HPSW IURP WKLV GLYLVLRQ

(PSKDVLV$GGHG

7KH3RZHUV0HPRDVVHUWVWKDWWKH3URMHFW
ZKLFKLVDQDSSOLFDWLRQIRUD]RQLQJFKDQJH

LVH[HPSWIURPHQYLURQPHQWDOUHYLHZXQGHU&(4$SXUVXDQWWR&&56HFWLRQZKLFK SURYLGHVLQSHUWLQHQWSDUWDVIROORZV

&ODVVFRQVLVWVRIWKHRSHUDWLRQUHSDLUPDLQWHQDQFHSHUPLWWLQJOHDVLQJ OLFHQVLQJ RU PLQRU DOWHUDWLRQ RI H[LVWLQJ SXEOLF RU SULYDWH VWUXFWXUHV IDFLOLWLHVPHFKDQLFDOHTXLSPHQWRUWRSRJUDSKLFDOIHDWXUHVLQ YROYLQJ QHJOLJLEOH RU QR H[SDQVLRQ RI H[LVWLQJ RU IRUPHU XVH 7KH W\SHV RI ³H[LVWL QJ IDFLOLWLHV´ LWHPL]HGEHORZDUHQRWLQWHQGHGWREHDOOLQFOXVLYHRIWKHW\SHVRISURMHFWVZKLFK PLJKWIDOOZLWKLQ&ODVV7KHNH\FRQVLGHUDWLRQLVZKHWKHUWKH SURMHFWLQYROYHV QHJOLJLEOHRUQRH[SDQVLRQRIXVH>@([DPSOHVLQFOXGHEXWDUH QRWOLPLWHGWR

H
$GGLWLRQVWRH[LVWLQJVWUXFWXUHVSURYLGHGWKDWWKHDG GLWLRQZLOOQRWUHVXOW LQDQLQFUHDVHRIPRUHWKDQ
>@

SHUFHQWRIWKHIORRUDUHDRIWKHVWUXFWXUHV
EHIRUHWKHDGGLWLRQRUVTXDUHIHHWZKLFKHYHULVOHVV R U>@

VTXDUH IHHW LI
>@
$
7KH SURMHFW LV LQ DQ DUHD ZKHUH DOO SXEOLF VHUYLFHV DQG IDFLOLWLHV DUH DYDLODEOH WR DOORZ IRU PD[LPXP GHYHORSPHQW SHUPL VVLEOH LQ WKH *HQHUDO 3ODQ DQG >@
%
7KH DUHD LQ ZKLFK WKH SURMHFW LV ORFDW HG LV QRW HQYLURQPHQWDOO\VHQVLWLYH
(PSKDVLV$GGHG

&OHDUO\ DQG XQHTXLYRFDOO\ D SURSRVHG ]RQLQJ DPHQGPHQW WKDW LVLQWHQGHG WR DOWHU PXQLFLSDOODZVUHODWLQJWR]RQLQJUHVWULFWLRQVLQFOXGLQJZLWK RXWOLPLWDWLRQUHGXFLQJSURSHUW\ OLQH VHWEDFN UHTXLUHPHQWV DQG DOWHULQJ VLJKWOLQHV DPELHQW OLJKW Q R L V H S D W W H U Q V U R D G Z D \ V WUDIILFIORRUDUHDUDWLRVLQWHQVLW\RIXVHDQGUHGXFWLRQRI SDUNLQJUHTXLUHPHQWVFRXOGDQG YHU\ OLNHO\ ZRXOG KDYH SURIRXQG HQYLURQPHQWDO LPSDFWV DV ZHOO DV FLYLO DQG FULPLQDO UDPLILFDWLRQV7KHIRUHJRLQJFDQQRWVLPXOWDQHRXVO\EHFRQVLGHU HGMXVWD³PLQRUDOWHUDWLRQRI DQH[LVWLQJVWUXFWXUH´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
Item 14
Attachment E - Public
Comment

Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
67 Packet Pg. 154 of 288

+RQRUDEOH0HPEHUVRIWKH&LW\RI3DOR$OWR3ODQQLQJ
DQG7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ&RPPLVVLRQ
'HFHPEHU

3DJH
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
3&

,,3RWHQWLDO6LJQLILFDQW(QYLURQPHQWDO,PSDFWV5HVXOWIURPWKH3UR MHFW 3KDVHRIWKHGHYHORSPHQWRIWKH6XEMHFW3URSHUW\ZDVDSSURYHG LQWKHODWH ¶V
WKURXJKDGRSWLRQRID3ODQQHG&R PPXQLW\]RQLQJRUGLQDQFH &LW\ RI3DOR$OWR2UGLQDQFH1R

$WWKDWWLPHSRWHQWLDOHQYLURQPHQWDOLPSDFWVZHUHGLVF XVVHGDQGPLWLJDWHGWKURXJK WKH XVH RI DWHUUDFHG EXLOGLQJ GHVLJQ LQ ZKLFKHDFK KLJKHU IORRU ZDV UHFHVVHG IXUWKHU IURP SURSHUW\ OLQHV DQG WKLV GHVLJQ PLWLJDWLRQ ZDV LQFRUSRUDWHG LQW R WKH DSSOLFDEOH ]RQLQJ RUGLQDQFH 0XOWLSOH PHPEHUV RI WKH FRPPXQLW\ SDUWLFLSDWHG LQ W KDW QHJRWLDWLRQ DQG UHPHPEHUWKHGHYHORSHU¶VSURPLVHVWKDWWKHGHVLJQZRXOGQRWEH DOWHUHG$QG3KDVHRI WKHGHYHORSPHQWRIWKH6XEMHFW3URSHUW\ZDVDSSURYHGLQWKHHDU O\¶VWKURXJKDGRSWLRQ RID VHFRQG3ODQQLQJ&RPPXQLW\]RQLQJ RUGLQDQFH
&LW\ RI3DOR$ OWR 2UGLQDQFH 1R

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³PLQRUDOWHUDWLRQ´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tem 14
Attachment E - Public
Comment

Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
68 Packet Pg. 155 of 288

+RQRUDEOH0HPEHUVRIWKH&LW\RI3DOR$OWR3ODQQLQJ
DQG7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ&RPPLVVLRQ
'HFHPEHU

3DJH
Q H L J K E R U K R R G W U D I I L F $ I X U W K H U U H G X F W L R Q L Q S D U N L Q J F D S D F L W \ SURSRVHG E\ WKH DSSOLFDWLRQ FRPELQHGZLWKHOLPLQDWLRQRIHQWLUHSDUNLQJDUHDVWREHXVHGIR UVWDJLQJGXULQJFRQVWUXFWLRQ ZLOORQO\H[DFHUEDWHWKHWUDIILFSUREOHPVWKDWKDYHQRWEHHQUH YLHZHGDQGPLWLJDWHG $OORZLQJLPSURYHPHQWVRQWKHVHFRQGDQGWKLUGIORRUVWRHQFURDF KFORVHUWRSURSHUW\ OLQHV ZLOO LQFUHDVH QRLVH DQG DPELHQW OLJKW HPLWWHG WRZDUGV QHLJ K E R U K R R G S U R S H U W L H V 7 K H DGGLWLRQVZLOODOVRKDYHDQDGYHUVHLPSDFWRQWKHH[LVWLQJGD\O LJKWSODQHLQYLRODWLRQRI3DOR $OWR0XQLFLSDO&RGH6HFWLRQ
H

$QG ILQDOO\ LW LV RXU XQGHUVWDQGLQJ WKDW WKH IDFLOLW\ DV SUHVHQWO\ FRQILJXUHG PD\ FXUUHQWO\EHRSHUDWLQJLQYLRODWLRQRIWKHDSSOLFDEOHFRQGLWLRQ VRIDSSURYDORI2UGLQDQFH DQGRU2UGLQDQFHDQGWKDWQXPHURXVFRPSODLQWVKDYHEHHQPDGHWRFRGHHQIRUFHPHQW ZLWKUHVSHFWWRVXFKYLRODWLRQV,IWKH6XEMHFW3URSHUW\LVLQIDFWFXUUHQWO\RXWRIFRPSOLDQFH ZLWKDSSOLFDEOH]RQLQJDQGRUXVHSHUPLWVWKHQLWVKRXOGQRWE HHOLJLEOHWRUHFHLYHDGGLWLRQDO FRQFHVVLRQVXQWLODOOVXFKYLRODWLRQVKDYHEHHQUHPHGLHG 7KHIRUHJRLQJDUHMXVWVRPHH[DPSOHVRIWKHPDQ\SRWHQWLDOVLJQLILFDQWHQYLURQPHQWDO L P S D F W V W K D W P L J K W R F F X U D V W K H U H V X O W R I D S S U R Y D O R I W K H 3 U R M HF W D Q G W K H S U R S R V H G GHYHORSPHQW
,,, &RQFOXVLRQ
: H X U J H W K L V F R P P L V V L R Q W R I R O O R Z D S S O L F D E O H O D Z D Q G U H I H U W K H PDWWHU WR VWDII WR SUHSDUH D IXOO HQYLURQPHQWDO UHYLHZ DV UHTXLUHG LQ DFFRUGDQFH Z LWK WKH &DOLIRUQLD (QYLURQPHQWDO4XDOLW\$FW$IWHUDQDSSURSULDWHHQYLURQPHQWDO UHYLHZKDVEHHQFRPSOHWHG WKLVFRPPLVVLRQZLOOEHEHWWHUDEOHWRPDNHDUHFRPPHQGDWLRQWR WKH&LW\&RXQFLOWKDWLVLQ FRPSOLDQFH ZLWK WKH FRPPLVVLRQ¶V OHJDO UHVSRQVLELOLWLHV 6XFK D UHFRPPHQGDWLRQ VKRXOG SURSHUO\WDNHLQWRFRQVLGHUDWLRQSRVVLEOHDOWHUQDWLYHGHVLJQV IXUWKHU PLWLJDWLRQVDQGRULI DSSURSULDWHDGRSWLRQRID6WDWHPHQWRI2YHUULGLQJ&RQVLGHUDWLR QVUHJDUGLQJDQ\VLJQLILFDQW HQYLURQPHQWDOLPSDFWVDULVLQJIURPWKH3URMHFW$OWHUQDWLYHO\ WKHSURSRVHG3URMHFWPXVWEH GHQLHG
,I\RXKDYHTXHVWLRQDERXWDQ\RIWKHDERYHRULIZHFDQSURYL GH\RXZLWKDQ\RWKHU GRFXPHQWVRULQIRUPDWLRQSOHDVHFRQWDFWWKHXQGHUVLJQHG 9HU\WUXO\\RXUV
+2*()(1721-21(6 $33(/,1&
- 5DQGDOO7RFK
2I&RXQVHO
-57QV
FF
&OLHQWV
(PLO\.DOODV±3URMHFW3ODQQHU
YLDHPDLORQO\
HPLO\NDOODV#FL W\RISDORDOWRRUJ

6HDQ$&RWWOH
Item 14
Attachment E - Public
Comment

Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
69 Packet Pg. 156 of 288

1 Kallas, Emily
From: Lily Lee <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, December 9, 2024 6:56 PM
To: Kallas, Emily
Cc: Kevin Ji
Subject: CEQA question
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.

Hi Emily,

Thank you again for answering our earlier questions. I appreciate it. And I know you are very busy, but I would stilll like to invite you to my backyard at 4080 Wilkie Way at other days when you are more free to leave the office. If you are nearby, even if we did not make a formal set time in advance, just call my cell at 650-815- 9749. You are very welcome to visit. I am sure other neighbors would welcome you too.

I read the CEQA memo, and I have a question. I found online in CEQA examples of projects that have “negligible or no expansion of use.” It includes these scenarios:

“(e) Additions to existing structures provided that the addition will not result in an increase of more than:
(1) 50 percent of the floor area of the structures before the addition, or 2,500 square feet, whichever is less; or
(2) 10,000 square feet if:
(A) The project is in an area where all public services and facilities are available to allow for maximum development permissible in the General Plan . . . “ (Source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/regulations/california/14-CCR-15301#:~:text=Class 1 consists of the,of existing or former use.)

The proposed project would total 6,865 square feet, which exceeds the limit in (e)(1) above. Regarding (e)(2)(A), can you explain how that situation might apply or not in this project?

You have heard many concerns that public parking is not sufficient to allow for the current use, let alone an expanded use. Is that relevant?

And this project includes a 13% expansion of number of units, which is certainly an expansion of use.

I appreciate your help understanding this topic. Thank you!

Lily

Item 14
Attachment E - Public
Comment

Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
70 Packet Pg. 157 of 288

1 Kallas, Emily
From: Daniel Pei <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, December 9, 2024 9:20 PM
To: Kallas, Emily; Planning Commission
Subject: Wilkie Resident Concerns on Proposed Expansion of the Common Complex CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.

Dear Emily and Commissioners,
I hope this message reaches you well. As someone who has grown up cherishing the quiet and connected community of Palo Alto, I wanted to share some heartfelt concerns about the proposed expansion of the complex near our neighborhood. While the intention behind the project is noble, the impacts on residents like myself cannot be ignored.

The False Promise of Parking Relief
I’ve noticed some improvement in parking recently, which I’ve learned is due to the commons strategically instructing staff to avoid parking on our residential streets—perhaps in anticipation of the upcoming vote. But even with this temporary relief, it’s still challenging to find parking. This has made me wonder: if parking is barely manageable now, what will happen when the expansion is approved and these limitations are no longer in place? The thought of my family and neighbors struggling even more for parking in front of our own homes feels both unfair and inevitable.

The Impact on Mental Well‐Being
One issue that hasn’t been addressed enough is the toll this project takes on mental health. Noise pollution from the cooling units alone is exhausting, but it’s more than that. The lack of sunlight in our living spaces, the feeling of exposure in our own backyards, and the constant uncertainty of parking make it hard to truly relax in our own homes. Home is supposed to be a sanctuary—a place to recharge. But for many of us, it has started to feel like a battleground for basic comfort and peace.

Compromising the Seniors’ Experience Too
It’s important to remember that this isn’t just about the residents of Wilkie Way. The seniors who live in the complex also deserve a space that promotes their health and happiness. Expanding without carefully addressing sunlight access, noise reduction, and sufficient parking does a disservice to their quality of life as well. Overcrowding and shading their outdoor spaces could take away the serenity and balance they moved here to enjoy.

A Call for Balance and Thoughtfulness
What makes Palo Alto special is the delicate balance between progress and preservation. I know this isn’t an easy decision, and I respect the effort that’s gone into considering all perspectives. I ask only that you continue to uphold the values that make our city unique: protecting the livability of our neighborhoods while fostering thoughtful development that benefits everyone.

Thank you for taking the time to read my concerns. I truly appreciate your dedication to making decisions that reflect the needs and values of our community.

Item 14
Attachment E - Public
Comment

Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
71 Packet Pg. 158 of 288

2 Sincerely,
Daniel
4060 Wilkie Way Resident
To help protect your
pri va cy, M icr os of t Of f i ce
prevented au tomatic download of t his pict ure
from the Internet.
ᐧ
Item 14
Attachment E - Public
Comment

Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
72 Packet Pg. 159 of 288

1 Kallas, Emily
From: Rebecca Sanders <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, December 9, 2024 9:46 PM
To: Planning Commission; Kallas, Emily
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: PTC Meeting - December 11, 2025 - Item #2
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.

Dear Commissioners:

As I see it:

1. Palo Alto Commons could build these additional units elsewhere on the property. There is room. Is it too expensive? Or just more expensive to build elsewhere?

2. Palo Alto Commons claims they ease homelessness in Palo Alto by providing homes for the elderly.

PAC is a for‐profit
convalescent facility with memory care, and physical therapists. Everyone there has some kind of medical issue. There is no low‐income option over there that I am aware of. It is not a residential facility and relieving homelessness is not a mission or core value.

3. Neighbors are being asked to accept less privacy, less sunlight, lower property values, and more traffic and parking so that Palo Alto Commons makes more money. There is no public benefit to the proposed expansion so why should the city make exceptions for Palo Alto Commons.

I support my neighbors in North Ventura. They are doing a great bit of civic engagement and working hard to understand the laws and to advocate. Please respect their efforts by giving them this easy and obvious win. When you got against what you know is the right thing to do, it puts a pall on civic engagement. Please hear the voice of Ventura by recommending the applicant return with an application that does not violate current city building codes.

The people that live in Ventura have a right to expect that our codes are upheld for them, too. The people that work and make money in Palo Alto do not have the right to exploit neighborhoods for their profit. That's good governance.

Variances should not be rewarded whimsically at the behest of a for‐profit business to increase their profits while offering absolutely no public benefit. It would take a HUGE public benefit to sway Venturans to go for the proposal. We watch our quality of life erode while other wealthier neighborhoods are protected. That is wrong.

Thank you.

Becky Sanders

Item 14
Attachment E - Public
Comment

Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
73 Packet Pg. 160 of 288

1 Kallas, Emily
From: Kai Porter <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, December 9, 2024 10:00 PM
To: Kallas, Emily; Planning Commission
Subject: Comment about 4075 El Comino Way, especially TDM Plan CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.

Dear Commissioners and City staff,

I would like to comment on the project at 4075 El Camino Way. I have lived at 4080 Wilkie Way since 2005. For 19 years, I have seen the huge building behind my fence. To help seniors, I support the 7 internal units that Palo Alto Commons wants to build. I would like to see alternative designs to reduce the effect of the proposed extra 9 external units that would add 4 new 2nd floor units, including 3 more 2nd floor units with

12.5 foot setbacks. I thought that the PTC in June asked the ARB to work with the developer to come up with a plan with 20 foot setbacks, but I don’t think that happened.

I also worry about parking and traffic. Palo Alto Commons has not always done what it said it would, and I think you should wait for them to show you they can do a better job before you approve the proposal to send to the City Council. I have walked, biked, and driven, and I have seen a lot of congestion, especially as a student going to and from school, and driving to and from my job. I have seen parking get worse and worse, and I am worried it will get even worse when El Camino Real gets rid of parking. So I was glad to see the TDM Plan finally. But I think it needs some changes before you approve it.

The parking study only shows how many onsite parking spaces were used at the times of the study. It does not show how many people come to the building? Did they drive there? If so, where did they park? On pp. 51 and 52 of the TDM Plan is a parking policy. It sounds nice, but at the 6/12/2024 PTC meeting, Palo Alto Commons claimed that it implemented the plan, which included a new sign with a number that visitors could call to open the gate to an underground garage. But two Commissioners said that the person answering the phone asked them to park in the neighborhood. At the 7/18/2024 ARB Meeting, the minutes said, “Board Member Baltay had trouble parking when he visited the site on Wednesday morning; therefore, he agreed there was an issue with parking for visitors and employees overflowing into the neighborhood. Staff should ask for a Transportation Demand Management Plan (TDM). The applicant has not been in compliance with PC 3775’s requirement for a parking plan and it was never enforced. The applicant has to provide parking for employees and visitors on site or a plan to the Planning staff’s satisfaction to mitigate or reduce impact on neighborhood parking. Employees should not park in front of houses on Wilkie Way. The proposed additional units will increase parking demand.”

The parking study was done on a Tuesday, Thursday, and Friday at 9‐11 am. But visitors may be more likely on the weekends when they are not at work or school. In addition visitors might arrive more often in the afternoons. Maybe you can look at when visitors register and do a study of those times if not already covered by the March 2024 study.

Item 14
Attachment E - Public
Comment

Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
74 Packet Pg. 161 of 288

2 The TDM Plan has some great ideas to promote transit, bikes, etc., but do some workers live so far away that buses that go from their homes to Palo Alto Commons might not run very often and might take a long time? They may also live too far away to bike. The TDM Plan will do an initial survey to set a baseline and to help plan changes of the plan to make it better. They should have done this a long time ago. Let’s see what the survey says before finalizing the TDM plan.

The TDM Plan does not talk about how it fixed the problems that the PTC Commissioners saw themselves in June. It is keeping the gate. The parking study showed the underground garage was not full at those times. But four neighbors talked with nearly 10 Palo Alto Commons employees during summer and fall. The employees said they did not have room to park in the garage. They used to park on Wilkie Way. But recently, their bosses asked them to park instead on Second Street for a few months until the expansion is approved. Then they can return to parking on Wilkie Way. They told neighbors they were afraid that if they reported this, they might lose their jobs, so they did not want to say their names. Our neighbors on Second Street said they have more cars parking now than before.

One visitor said that the senior resident he visits asked him not to complain about parking because he worried that he might get treated worse by Palo Alto Commons staff. In addition, is Palo Alto Commons charging extra money to the senior resident whenever their visitors park in its parking lot? If so, are seniors asking their visitors not to park there?

Many Palo Alto Commons employees have also told neighbors that they did not receive any transit subsidies, as the TDM Plan describes.

The Palo Alto Commons van frequently parked on Wilkie Way. Then, after this concern came up at a public meeting, the van moved to a “guest” parking spot or a “handicapped” spot.’’

At the 10/17/2024 ARB meeting, the minutes said, “Boardmember Adcock suggested having a regular update of the parking policies.” That is a great idea! In fact, I have heard that on another project with concerns, the facility reported back every month on progress. Because in the past Palo Alto Commons did not do what they were supposed to, maybe the TDM Plan should include information about how the City will monitor the TDM annual surveys and reports and other follow‐up requirements to the plan. Monitoring should include 3rd party confidential surveys of employees and visitors so they will not get in trouble. In 1987, Palo Alto Commons was supposed to give the City an annual report about occupancy, but it did not.

The TDM Plan talked about administrative penalties for failure to follow the plan after 6 months. The TDM plan should add details, e.g. dollar amounts, and require increases the longer violations continue. The City should use the PC Ordinance or other legal document to ensure enforceability, including by third party suits by residents.

Finally, this is minor, but the “List of Nearby Amenities Within 0.30 or fewer miles” on p. 38 of the pdf, zero of the 45 locations are within 0.30 miles of 4075 El Camino Way. All but three locations are over three miles away. The only location within one mile is the PACCC, 0.5 miles away. Here are a few examples with distances from Google Maps:
 Tamarine is actually 3.8 miles away (not 0.10 miles away)  Mademoiselle Colette is actually 3.7 miles away
 Palo Alto Dental Group is actually 3.9 miles away
 Like! Hair Salon is actually 3.7 miles away
The table should be fixed before the TDM is finalized.

Item 14
Attachment E - Public
Comment

Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
75 Packet Pg. 162 of 288

3 In conclusion, please do not approve the TDM until Palo Alto Commons fixes these problems. And please don’t approve expansion before then either.

Thank you for letting me make these comments.

Sincerely,

Lee Kai Porter
4080 Wilkie Way

Item 14
Attachment E - Public
Comment

Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
76 Packet Pg. 163 of 288

1 Kallas, Emily
From: yanfeng wang <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, December 9, 2024 10:32 PM
To: Kallas, Emily; Planning Commission
Subject: Wilkie Way Resident's Concerns
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.

Dear Emily,
Dear Commissioners,

I hope you’re doing well. I’m writing to share my concerns about the 4075 El Camino Way Common located directly behind our backyard. While I support the idea of creating more units, I strongly believe this developer’s proposal fails to provide a sustainable solution and sets a dangerous precedent that could harm both the community and the city’s reputation.

The issues with this project are significant and unresolved:

1. Traffic and Parking Problems
Caregivers and staff from the common often park on residential streets (see pictures), leaving little to no space for nearby residents to park near their own homes (see picture). This has become a daily struggle for my family, and the overflow has only worsened over time. This proposed TDM plan seems to assume the current parking is sufficient, but it fails to reflect the reality we face. Worse yet, the developer has no clear plan for how they would enforce the proposed parking policies, leaving the specifics vague about what happens if these measures fall short. Instead of protecting the rights of neighbors by addressing these issues head-on, this vague plan feels more like a way to execute now and figure out the details later—leaving us feeling unheard and powerless.

2. Noise Pollution
The cooling units from the common have caused constant distress for nearby residents. Our neighbor at 4030 Wilkie Way, for example, endures noise levels reaching 70--100 dBA. 4060 Wilkie way/ 65-70 DBA. During a meeting with Mayor Greer Stone in October, both the mayor and neighbors experienced this overwhelming noise firsthand. For our neighbors, this is more than an inconvenience—it has upended their daily lives. They ’ve Beyond these specific concerns, approving this project as it stands could set a dangerous precedent, encouraging other developers to prioritize profits over thoughtful, community-centered solutions. This approach would undermine the very values that make Palo Alto such a unique and vibrant place to live—sustainability, balance, and respect for the quality of life of its residents been forced to keep their windows shut and blinds closed just so their teenage child can sleep at night. No family should have to live like this. Expanding the building without resolving these issues would only make life harder for families like ours and our neighbors.

3. Loss of Sunlight
The current structure already casts a shadow over our backyard and living areas by 2 p.m. (see picture taken at 2PM), leaving us in shade for much of the afternoon. The privacy trees we planted help block the two-story building, but with the proposed expansion, an additional three story would rise above the trees—eliminating privacy and blocking s unlight even earlier, possibly by noon. Imagine needing to turn on the lights in your bedroom at 3 p.m. just to navigate your home during the day (see picture taken at 2PM, the shadow is about 90 ft deep.). That’s the reality we’d face, even in sunny California. Instead of enjoying natural light, we’d be forced to live in darkness, reliant on artificial lighting. This expansion wouldn’t just harm us—it would also rob seniors in the complex of sunlight in Item 14
Attachment E - Public
Comment

Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
77 Packet Pg. 164 of 288

2 their outdoor spaces, essential for their health and well-being. Prioritizing profit over such fundamental needs disregards the values that make our community livable and vibrant.

4. Privacy Concerns
Our backyard is already fully exposed to the windows of the current complex, leaving us with little privacy in what should be our personal space. During a gathering with City Commissioners in our neighbor backyard, a man from the Common stared directly into our meeting from his window, making it clear how exposed we truly are. This constant lack of privacy has forced my family and our neighbors to keep blinds and curtains drawn during the day, sacrificing sunlight just to feel a sense of security.

We’ve lost the freedom to enjoy our backyards, knowing we are always visible to the residents above.

Adding another story would only make this worse, exposing even more of our lives and leaving us feeling like our homes are no longer our own. The thought of losing what little privacy we have left is distressing and deeply unfair.

Beyond these specific concerns, approving this project as it stands could set a dangerous precedent, encouraging other developers to prioritize profits over thoughtful, community-centered solutions. This approach would undermine the very values that make Palo Alto such a unique and vibrant place to live—sustainability, balance, and respect for the quality of life of its residents.

I truly believe that our thoughtful leaders will continue to strengthen public trust in local governance and preserve the values we all hold dear.

Thank you for your time and consideration. I’d be happy to provide further details or share the evidence we’ve collected to help inform your decision.

Best regards,

Yanfeng Wang
4060 Wilkie Way, Palo Alto Resident
To help protect your
pri va cy, M icr os of t Of f i ce prevented au tomatic download of t his pict ure from the Internet. ᐧ

Item 14
Attachment E - Public
Comment

Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
78 Packet Pg. 165 of 288

1 Kallas, Emily
From: Kirsten Flynn <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, December 9, 2024 11:49 PM
To: Kallas, Emily
Subject: Planning for 4075 El Camino Way
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.

Dear Ms Kallas,

I am life long Palo Altan, and I have seen a lot of change, including tall expensive homes going up on Wilkie Way. Now those neighbors want to roll up the ladder behind them, and not allow housing for additional seniors at the Palo Alto Commons. I love
my home town, and want to support all of its diverse population.

I strongly support the project to build more units for our seniors at 4075 El Camino Way. For several reasons. ‐ First of all, if we want families to stay intact in the Bay Area, we need a place for seniors who need supportive housing. We are lucky enough to have my Father‐in‐Law, an Emeritus professor of Electrical Engineering still alive at 90, but he can no longer live independently. It was challenging to find a nice place for him to live! We all will either‐ have an elder that needs this kind of housing, or need it ourselves some day. Perhaps both! ‐ Secondly, unlike any other type of housing, these additional units are unlikely to cause much of a traffic concern. Most seniors who need this type of housing do not drive any longer. ‐ Thirdly, this is an efficient way to add additional housing for seniors, by putting the units as infill on existing land. ‐ And finally these housing units will utilize a driveway, parking, a lobby, dining facilities that already exist at the Palo Alto Commons. This makes effective use of existing infrastructure. There is no entrance from Wilkie Way.

I have heartfelt believe that we must look out for our community members, even if there is some small inconvenience from doing so. Are we going to allow housing projects for seniors to be scrapped AGAIN? I think our community can be more supportive, more
generous and more inclusive, and provide housing for our neighbors as they age.

Kirsten A Flynn
650‐855‐9464
cell 650‐387‐3329
www.sustainablehome.com

Kirsten A Flynn
Frank M. Flynn
650‐855‐9464
K’s cell 650‐387‐3329
F’s cell 650‐804‐0865
www.sustainablehome.com

Item 14
Attachment E - Public
Comment

Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
79 Packet Pg. 166 of 288

1 Kallas, Emily
From: Kevin Ji <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 3, 2024 9:41 PM
To: Kallas, Emily
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Differences Between Versions of the Plans for Palo Alto Commons CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.

Hi Emily,

Hope you are doing well. I was wondering if you'd be able to tell me what changes have been made between the most recent version of the Palo Alto Common plans and the first version of the plans submitted to PTC in February. It'd be great to have a
list of what's concretely different, as there are lots of pages to each plan, making it difficult for me to understand what's changed.

Sincerely,

Kevin
Item 14
Attachment E - Public
Comment

Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
80 Packet Pg. 167 of 288

1 Kallas, Emily
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, December 3, 2024 8:15 PM
To: Planning Commission; Kallas, Emily
Cc: Kevin Ji; JamesYahoo Porter; Jenny Chen; Lily Lee
Subject: Re: 4075 El Camino Way -PTC Motion re 20 ft setback? CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.

Correction “ The logic here is Commons has to follow the local law first and secondly they can’t build following the law.” it should be: The logic here is Commons has to follow the local law first and secondly they can build following the law.

Sent from my iPhone

On
Dec 3, 2024, at 7:53 PM, [email protected] wrote:

Hi Emily and PTC members,

Lily forwarded Emily’s email to us. I find it is odd that Commons mentions the 20’ setback will not work. 20’ setback is wrong. Commons is commercial building, the setback is 10’. If they can’t build within the PC ordinance, then they can’t build. The logic here is Commons has to follow the local law first and secondly they can’t build following the law.

We have the Commons proposal clearly in violation of PC daylight plane. It should be 10’ with 6’ distance and 3’ height increase. It is less than 30 degrees angle not 45 degree. Commons needs to adhere Palo Alto municipal code. No one should be above the law. They need to follow the local law.

I don’t understand where 45 degrees angle can be used here. The Wilkie Way side is Commons rear yard
not side yard. For rear yard, the setback is 10’ and daylight plane is 6’ distance with 3’ height. This is the PC code. ARB used 45 degree is wrong. I really think city staff has been misleading ARB and PTC for this.

Commons expansion proposal has to and must to adhere Palo Alto municipal code. They can’t do whatever they want as city staffs telling us.

Best regards,

Mona
Sent from my iPhone

On Dec 3, 2024, at 7:14 PM, Lily Lee <[email protected]> wrote:

Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
Item 14
Attachment E - Public
Comment

Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
81 Packet Pg. 168 of 288

2 Begin forwarded message:

On Tuesday, December 3, 2024, 5:09 PM, Kallas, Emily
<[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Lily,

The City Attorney does not determine if a proposed discretionary project is contextually compatible with a neighborhood, that is determined by the ARB.

Thanks,
Emily

<image001.png> Emily Kallas, AICP
Senior Planner
Planning and Development Services Department
(650) 617‐3125 | [email protected]
www.cityofpaloalto.org

<image002.png>

Parcel Report | Palo Alto Zoning Code | Online Permitting System | Planning Forms & Applications | Planning Applications Mapped

From: Lily Lee <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 3, 2024 5:00 PM
To: Kallas, Emily <[email protected]>
Cc: Kevin Ji <[email protected]>; JamesYahoo Porter Item 14
Attachment E - Public
Comment

Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
82 Packet Pg. 169 of 288

3 <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: 4075 El Camino Way ‐PTC Motion re 20 ft setback?

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

Thank you, Emily. Did the city attorney confirm that?
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

On Tuesday, December 3, 2024, 4:48 PM, Kallas, Emily
<[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Lily,

The applicant confirmed that it is not possible to reduce the second floor units in a way that would allow for a 20 ft setback. There needs to be structure under the
proposed third floor units, but a 20 ft setback would not leave enough space for the 2
nd floor additions to be
usable as units.

The ARB did not comment on the applicant’s
justification of the setback. However, they did comment that the three story building with a 10 ft setback and
the 45‐degree angle daylight plane does meet the
zoning requirements and is appropriate next to a one‐
story residential context.

Thanks,
Emily

<image001.png> Emily Kallas, AICP
Senior Planner
Planning and Development Services Department
(650) 617‐3125 | [email protected]
www.cityofpaloalto.org

<image002.png>

Parcel Report | Palo Alto Zoning Code | Online
Permitting System | Planning Forms & Applications |
Planning Applications Mapped
Item 14
Attachment E - Public
Comment

Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
83 Packet Pg. 170 of 288

4 From: Lily Lee <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, December 2, 2024 10:57 PM
To: Kallas, Emily <[email protected]>
Cc: Kevin Ji <[email protected]>; JamesYahoo
Porter <[email protected]>
Subject: 4075 El Camino Way ‐PTC Motion re 20 ft
setback?

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

Hi Emily,

I'm sorry I missed the last ARB meeting due to a work trip. I saw in your staff report for 7/18 this excerpt:
<image003.png>

Has the applicant responded to this PTC motion? Did the ARB discuss this topic in its October meeting? I appreciate your clarification.

Lily Lee
4080 Wilkie Way
650-815-9749
<image001.png>
<image002.png>
<image003.png>
Item 14
Attachment E - Public
Comment

Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
84 Packet Pg. 171 of 288

1 Kallas, Emily
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, December 2, 2024 4:45 PM
To: Kallas, Emily; Planning Commission
Cc: City Mgr; Lily Lee; Kevin Ji; Jennie Chen; Jayashree Divekar Wilkie; Shashank Divekar Wilkie Neighbor; Jennie Chen; Natacha Telusca; Ellen Hartog; Grace Wang; Tom Huibin Tang; James Cham; Zhang Fion; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; lucy_wu711 @yahoo.com; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Re: Palo Alto Commons Schedule Update
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.

Hi Emily and PTC members,

I am writing to express my concerns regarding why the Commons project was allowed to hold another PTC meeting without making any meaningful changes to their building design. In the last PTC meeting, there were specific requirements for Commons to revise the setbacks along Wilkie Way. Despite these requirements—and our contin ued objections to Commons being treated as residential buildings—no substantia l design changes have been made.

From what I have observed, the only modification Commons has made is the creation of a few trees as their landscaping plan. Is this truly sufficient to warrant moving the project forward? How can this be justified when the PTC requirements appear to have been disregarded? The ARB’s role is to review the architectural design to ensure it complies with city ordinances. Yet, staff seem to have misled the ARB by implying that because Commons is zoned as a PC, they can bypass all City municipal codes and requirements. I strongly disagree with this interpretation.

The truth is that the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) contains specific provisions dictating how PC zoning rules must be followed. Commons should not—and ca nnot—be considered above the city’s municipal code. These are our local laws, and all developments, including Commons, must adhere to them.

It is the responsibility of city staff to ensure that Commons is following the rules and to remain impartial throughout this process. However, it seems that staff have failed to present the facts accurately and have misled both the PTC and ARB into believing that Commons is in compliance written in staff reports in the past. We, as neighbors, have repeatedly pointed out—both in meetings and emails—that the current interp retation of PC zoning is incorrect.

The Commons project, as currently designed, clearly violates several municipal codes.

Specifically:

1. It does not adhere to the building tran sition requirements from low-density to high- density areas (e.g., the stepped conceptual design).

Item 14
Attachment E - Public
Comment

Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
85 Packet Pg. 172 of 288

2 2. Its backyard setback and daylight plane requirements are violated by approximately 10 feet for setbacks and 3 feet for height increases at a 6-foot distance.

3. Commons is a commercial bu ilding, not a residential one, and therefore must comply with the commercial building PC ordinance codes.

City staff’s job is to ensure that projects comply with the law and to act as impartial mediators. By failing to enforce the municipal code and allowing the project to proceed without meeting basic requirements, staff are undermining public trust.

We, as residents, expect a fair and thorough review process. Commons cannot be allowed to bypass the rules, and any interpretation of PC zoning must align with the city’s ordinances. We urge staff, the PTC, and the ARB to enforce the municipal code and require that Commons make substantial design changes before moving forward.

I am looking forward to hearing back from you.

Best regards,

Mona He

Sent from my iPhone

On Nov 19, 2024, at 5:14 PM, Kallas, Emily <[email protected]> wrote:

Hello,

You are receiving this email because you expressed interest in the Palo Alto Commons addition project.

The project has been scheduled for a hearing at the Planning and Transportation Commission on December 11, 2024. The plans are the same as presented to ARB in October, and the Draft TDM plan will be available soon.

The Staff Report will be published on December 4, 2024. All previously received comments will be included in the report, and you are welcome to send new/additional emails as well, both to me or to
[email protected].

The PTC hearing is at 6 pm though I do not know its placement on the Agenda yet. The next step after PTC is Council for the final decision, which will be in early 2025 to avoid any potential conflict with the Holidays.

As always, please let me know if you have any questions or comments.

Thanks,
Emily

Item 14
Attachment E - Public
Comment

Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
86 Packet Pg. 173 of 288

3 Emily Kallas, AICP
Senior Planner
Planning and Development Services Department
(650) 617‐3125 | [email protected]
www.cityofpaloalto.org

Parcel Report | Palo Alto Zoning Code | Online Permitting System | Planning Forms & Applications | Planning Applications Mapped

Item 14
Attachment E - Public
Comment

Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
87 Packet Pg. 174 of 288

1 Kallas, Emily
From: Kallas, Emily
Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2024 4:01 PM
To: Kevin Ji
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: RE: 4075 El Camino Way Project Questions
Hi Kevin,

In response to your questions:

1. Beyond the Condition of Approval referencing it in the PC Ordinance, we do not have record of an existing TDM plan.

2. Per PAMC 18.52.050(d), a monitoring program for the TDM is required, and if the trip reduction performance measures are not met,
the Director may require program modifications and may impose administrative penalties.

3. The Draft TDM plan is now available on the project webpage:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Planning‐Development‐Services/Current‐Planning/Projects/4075‐ El‐Camino‐Way

4. I can provide examples of other TDMs, but this one meets the requirements in terms of what we expect to see in a TDM plan, and was prepared by a consultant who has worked on other projects within Palo Alto. Some minor edits are still needed, but it is not going to change substantially.

5. If you would like to show slides or pictures at a public hearing, you will need to send them to me 1 day prior to the public hearing, and I can share them on the screen during public comment.

Thanks,
Emily

Emily Kallas, AICP
Senior Planner
Planning and Development Services Department
(650) 617‐3125 | [email protected]
www.cityofpaloalto.org

Parcel Report | Palo Alto Zoning Code | Online Permitting System | Planning Forms & Applications | Planning Applications Mapped

From: Kevin Ji <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2024 10:25 PM
To: Kallas, Emily <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: 4075 El Camino Way Project Questions

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

Item 14
Attachment E - Public
Comment

Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
88 Packet Pg. 175 of 288

2 Hi Emily,

Thanks for these answers. I had a few more questions from the neighbors about the TDM plan.

1. What does the existing TDM plan look like?

2. What happens when a TDM plan is violated?

3. Do you have any examples of any TDM plans?

4. Will we be able to comment on the TDM plan before the meeting?

5. In addition, is there any way to make a slide show or other multimedia to be shown at the meeting? Sincerely,

Kevin

On Wed, Nov 13, 2024 at 11:37 AM Kallas, Emily <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Kevin,

My responses to your questions have been added to your email below.

Thanks,
Emily

Emily Kallas, AICP
Senior Planner
Planning and Development Services Department
(650) 617‐3125 | [email protected]
www.cityofpaloalto.org

Item 14
Attachment E - Public
Comment

Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
89 Packet Pg. 176 of 288

3 Parcel Report | Palo Alto Zoning Code | Online Permitting System | Planning Forms & Applications | Planning Applications Mapped

From: Kevin Ji <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2024 8:35 AM
To: Kallas, Emily <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: 4075 El Camino Way Project Questions

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

Hi Emily,

I hope you are doing well and thank you for sending the email with the updates on the project. The neighbors and I had some follow up questions:

1. In the last PTC meeting (6/12), there was discussion about a 20ft setback as a possibility. Can you help me understand the impacts of this? Which units would be affected and what code they are pointing to? This comment was specifically referring to the potential for a 20ft setback from the Wilkie Way neighbors, where 10 ft is the current setback per the existing PC. I believe the PTC was referencing 20 ft as the R‐1 rear yard setback.

The Cycle 3 plans presented to PTC already included the 3rd floor being stepped back approximately 20 ft, affecting about 5 units. The 2nd floor adds 4 units facing Wilkie Way, all of which are approximately 12.5 ft setback from the property line, and about 2.5 ft setback from the existing first floor it is built above.

2. Can you help me understand which units are inside the 45 degree daylight plane, but outside the 3/6 daylight plane? How many of these units are there?
This is a little complicated because I had to cross reference between the Cycle 3 and Cycle 5 plan sets, but it appears that at least 2 existing units and an existing stairwell encroach into the 3:6 daylight plane. All new units facing Wilkie Way (9 units) would encroach into a 3:6 daylight plane as well.

3. Do we have a final date for the next PTC meeting? I know you had said tentatively 12/11 and 12/18, but is there a decision on this?
No, this still hinges on when we receive their revised TDM plan, I will know by 11/25 which date it is going on.

Thank you for taking the time to answer these.

Item 14
Attachment E - Public
Comment

Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
90 Packet Pg. 177 of 288

4 Sincerely,

Kevin
Item 14
Attachment E - Public
Comment

Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
91 Packet Pg. 178 of 288

1 Kallas, Emily
From: Laura Perry <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 6, 2024 10:43 AM
To: Kallas, Emily
Subject: Public Hearing on 10/17/24
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.

Hello Ms Kallas:

There was a Public Hearing/ Quasi-Judicial re: construction plans for Palo Alto Commons at 4075 El Camino Way (23PLN-00202). I was not able to attend/ log into the meeting on Friday, 10/17/24. My mom is a tenant at Palo Alto Commons.

I'm not sure if this comment is the type of feedback you are looking for but I wanted to share my concern about the project.

My mom has been a tenant at Palo Alto Commons since September 2022. Construction started there sometime in late 2023 and while any construction project is a challenge and for the most part, things have been manageable except for one issue--parking. This is a huge issue and affects families and healthcare workers coming to see patient as well as staff at the facility. There has been storage of construction materials in the garage and around the property which has impacted the ability of family members (and I believe staff) to park either at Palo Alto Commons or the senior living facility, Avant next door. In addition, there is severely limited street parking on El Camino Way and W. Meadow Drive. I have mentioned parking access to the director in the past but there has been no information from the organization about improving parking during the construction.

I hope this information will inform your decision on moving forward with the project.

Thank you,
Laura Perry
Item 14
Attachment E - Public
Comment

Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
92 Packet Pg. 179 of 288

1 Kallas, Emily
From: Lily Lee <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 28, 2024 7:26 PM
To: Planning Commission
Cc: Kallas, Emily; [email protected]
Subject: Neighbors oppose proposed PA Commons expansion at 4075 El Camino Way Attachments: 2024-10-20 neighbors oppose PA Commons Expansion.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.

Hello Planning and Transportation Commissioners,

I would like to share attached signatures from many neighbors opposing the proposed addition of 16 units to Palo Alto Commons at 4075 El Camino Way. Although we appreciate that Wellquest Living has improved landscaping and window plans, these measures are not enough to mitigate the considerable impacts of the proposed project on the neighbors. The neighbors who signed this statement met on October 20, after the ARB recommendation for project approval, and we agreed to jointly express our continued opposition.

Thank you very much again to those of you who already visited our backyards. For other Commissioners, we again invite you to come see for yourselves the current quality of life impacts of the existing facility in the transition between commercial and residential zones.

The proposed additional units would significantly exacerbate these impacts. Please contact me to set a date/time convenient for you. We look forward to seeing you.

Sincerely,

Lily Lee and neighbors
650-815-9749
Item 14
Attachment E - Public
Comment

Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
93 Packet Pg. 180 of 288

From: jenny chen
To: Kallas, Emily; Planning Commission
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Ziming Weng; [email protected]; [email protected]; Chen Jenny
Subject: Opposition to Palo Alto Commons Expansion
Date: Wednesday, April 10, 2024 4:36:40 PM
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.

Dear Emily,
We extend our gratitude for meeting with us, Mona He, Yanfeng Wang, and Jenny Chen, on Thursday, April 4, 2024, regarding the interpretation of Palo Alto municipal code 18.38.150(e) concerning the daylight plane.

During the February 28, 2024 meeting, Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Commissioner Keith Reckdahl provided clarification (video timestamp 3:51:43-3:52:34 Planning and Transportation Commission | Midpen Media Center), stating, "In the code there are two ways of implementing the daylight plane, PC option or R1 setback option. PC daylight plane starts at 10 feet and ascends at a shallow 30-degree angle. R1 setback on the rear of an R1 is 20 feet. Therefore, the R1 setback optional daylight plane would commence 20 feet into the property. R1 option cannot be applied here due to the current building setback being only 10 feet. PC optional daylight plane must be applied in this case. This could significantly impact the types of units permitted in the rear."
We concur with Commissioner Reckdahl's interpretation of the daylight plane regulation.

Sincerely,
Jenny Chen
Item 14
Attachment E - Public
Comment

Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
94 Packet Pg. 181 of 288

Sincerely,
Jenny Chen
Item 14
Attachment E - Public
Comment

Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
95 Packet Pg. 182 of 288

1 Kallas, Emily
From: hermesmh1 He <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, February 23, 2024 5:33 PM
To: Kallas, Emily
Cc: [email protected]; Jayashree Divekar 4050 Wilkie; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Lait, Jonathan Subject: Re: 4075 El Camino Way - Palo Alto Commons Project CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.

Hi Emily,

I reviewed a post card regarding public next Wednesday public meeting. I am planning to attend it in person. Would you please let me know exactly where the meeting is at?

I used the link your provided from last email regarding Palo Alto Commons Expansion. But I couldn't tell which was rt he
most updated the plan and what are the changes since the last city council meeting. Would you please send me the most up to day information about their proposal and how they have addressed planning department comments and last city council meeting to do list for them?

From what I can see the plan was dated for 10/27/2022.

As you knew, during our last meeting on November 7, 2023, I am strongly oppose Palo Alto Commons new expansion plan.

Here are some of the reasons:

1. The Commons expansion proposal is in violation of my real property right of enjoyment by completely blocking my property afternoon sun. Which I have already be greatly limited by Commons current second story building about 15 feet apart from my ADU. If proposed third story is built, my ADU and house will lost sun in the afternoon starting at 12:30om. My backyard grass and plants and trees will die due to lack of sun. With my house and ADU are very close to the existing building, the third story is overpowering my property and I will lost entire skylight which I have been enjoying. All I will see from my backyard would have been an over towering block of wall with many windows that people can over looking my windows. I will have no privacy at inside my house and backyard at all and a total lost of my privacy and enjoyment of my property. Please see attached pictures.

2. The current building has underground parking and it was designed over thirty years ago, with adding new extra two more stories are huge publicly safety concerns. Can it withstand a major earthquake (according USGS, Bay Area is over due for a major earthquake) There are five ADUs at the backyard of Wilkie Way block which next to the proposed expansion building. The distance from the building will be as close as 15' apart( that's my ADU). If during the earthquake, the three story building were clapped, my ADU will be the direct hit by the 30’ tall building. Who is responsible to the people living in my ADU and my ADU building itself? Who is responsible the lives who live in the Commons clapped three story building? We are living in the earthquake zone and we have major earthquake overdue to happen in northern California. For Palo Alto single family resident backyard setback requirement is 20 feet. What's the setback requirements for three story building? You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important Item 14
Attachment E - Public
Comment

Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
96 Packet Pg. 183 of 288

2 3. Currently Commons and Avent buildings HAVC have already made very loud noises that is so loud we can open our windows. With new additions, there will be more powerful HVAC added, I can't imagine how we will sleep at night or work from home or just simply sit in our backyard to enjoy our day quietly.

4. There are cars constantly parking at front of my house on our street and these cars owners are working at Commons and Avant. I had asked some of them why they were parking their cars at our street. I was told that there were not enough parking spaces for them to park at Commons and Avant. With 14 (the latest on the website says 18?) more rooms added without single parking spaces added, there will be more cars parking our street and we won’t be able to park cars on our street.

5. 4 of the 14 proposed rooms will be added right behind my house and my neighbor right next to me(4040, 4050 Wilkie). 13 of 14(18?) proposed rooms addition are all added to the existing buildings right next to our Wilkie Way single family one story houses. Please see attached photos. The new addition is at the price of entire block Wilkie Way residents' enjoyment of our lives. I asked Commons why they won’t add forth story to their building facing El Comino or East Meadow. They said it is too costly to them to do so. So naturally , the Wilkie way residents become the victims of their money saving proposal! It is utterly absurd that big corporation want to save and make money at the cost of us, ordinarily working class residents who mostly are long time residents of PAL Alto?

6. The new addition next to Wilkie Way all single story houses are very intrusive and the new height felt monstrous in the neighborhood. It doesn't conform our neighborhood appeal.

7. I took some of the pictures from Palo Alto Commons front and it's parking. There seems if plenty of space for them to expand. They could add more parking space at the underground lever and add three or four stories in top of that. It will be facing El Camino. That way, they can add more rooms without put hugh negative impact on the neighboring houses and streets.

8. Ventura neighborhood housing values are Palo Alto most under appreciated. I see my house valued almost the same in the last 10 years vs other neighborhoods have seen tremendous amount of value appreciation in hundred of thousands or in million. With this proposal Commons new additions plan, it will further deprive and decrease our home prices. Commons cannot and shouldn’t make money at the lost of our neighborhood home values

9. I heard some neighbors talking about selling their homes because of Commons proposal as they feel that they won't be able to enjoy their backyard peacefully after new additions.

Item 14
Attachment E - Public
Comment

Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
97 Packet Pg. 184 of 288

3 Item 14
Attachment E - Public
Comment

Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
98 Packet Pg. 185 of 288

4 Item 14
Attachment E - Public
Comment

Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
99 Packet Pg. 186 of 288

5 Item 14
Attachment E - Public
Comment

Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
100

Packet Pg. 187 of 288

6 Item 14
Attachment E - Public
Comment

Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
101

Packet Pg. 188 of 288

7 Item 14
Attachment E - Public
Comment

Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
102

Packet Pg. 189 of 288

8 Item 14
Attachment E - Public
Comment

Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
103

Packet Pg. 190 of 288

9 Sent from my iPhone

On Nov 9, 2023, at 3:29 PM, Kallas, Emily <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Mona,

Thank you for speaking with me at the Development Center today to express your concerns regarding the proposed project.

As we discussed:

Here is the link to the Project Webpage, it
will be update when revised plans are submitted by the
Architect: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Planning‐Development‐Services/Current‐ Planning/Projects/4075‐El‐Camino‐Way

Here is the link to the 8/7/23 Council Staff Report and Minutes:
https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=12606 (under Study Session) https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Public/CompiledDocument?meetingTemplateId=12611&compileO utputType=1

I will notify you of any future public hearings, and you will also receive a post card in the mail two weeks prior to any scheduled meeting. A flowchart of the expected project process is here:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/2/development‐services/planning‐review/7.‐maps‐ zoning/planned‐community‐review‐process‐02‐03‐2023.pdf. We are on the 5th step, waiting for the applicant to revise the plans.

I’m happy to answer any other questions you may have.

Thanks,
Emily

Emily Kallas, AICP
Planner
Planning and Development Services Department
(650) 617‐3125 | [email protected]
www.cityofpaloalto.org

Parcel Report | Palo Alto Zoning Code | Online Permitting System | Planning Forms & Applications | Planning Applications Mapped

Item 14
Attachment E - Public
Comment

Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
104

Packet Pg. 191 of 288

1 Kallas, Emily
From: Shashank Divekar <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 6, 2023 11:26 AM
To: Kallas, Emily
Cc: Jayashree Divekar
Subject: Objection to Palo Alto Commons Extension Plan Attachments: IMG_5862.jpg; IMG_5861 (1).jpg; IMG_6230.jpg CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.

Hello Emily,

This is regarding the extension plan of Palo Alto Commons to add more stories with the addition of 14 rooms.

We live in a single family home on 4054 Wilkie Way, right behind the Commons. We hereby would like to voice our strong opposition to the plan as it significantly affects the value of the property and our privacy. Adding these 14 rooms would create a tall high rise wall with overlooking balconies right behind our backyard fence. Palo Alto has valued schools, unique and prized houses and a great sense of community. We do not want this to be disrupted. The current existing structures at Palo Alto Commons are already a compromise when they were first constructed. There can be no further compromises.

At the Community outreach meeting, we understood that Charlene Kussner from the Commons would model a two-story addition, and we have heard nothing about that. Her offer seems disingenuous and misleading at this point.

We are also writing to ask about the 2 x 4 wooden structures or “sticks” as Charlene referred to them.

If the plans are not approved why are they adding the sticks/wood structure? See attached photos. When can they be taken down? They are oppressive and depressing for us and the noise from the ongoing construction is bothersome. If they are not approved, they are also illegal. We are no longer able to use the backyard to relax anymore or for any other family activities that require privacy.

As you can see from the photos, the structures already tower over our backyard.

We understood Councilman Lauing to have said at the study session that the rooms and services at the Commons cost $225,000.00 per year. That is over $3,000,000 revenue increase for the Commons with the addition of 14 rooms. Though the city will collect more tax revenue, it does not have to be at the expense of the residents along Wilkie Way and W. Meadow. We are also concerned about increase in visitor traffic on our street due to increased residents in those 14 rooms. It is unfair to us to have our lives and quality of life forever altered because of this extension.

PLEASE HELP STOP THIS EXTENSION PLAN OF PALO ALTO COMMONS !! You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important Item 14
Attachment E - Public
Comment

Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
105

Packet Pg. 192 of 288

2 Sincerely,
Shashank Divekar (650) 681-7494
Jayashree Divekar (650) 681-7495
Item 14
Attachment E - Public
Comment

Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
106

Packet Pg. 193 of 288

1 Kallas, Emily
From: seanshari <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, January 6, 2024 5:49 PM
To: Lait, Jonathan
Cc: Velasquez, Ingrid; Kallas, Emily; Rice, Danille; City Mgr; [email protected] Subject: Re: 4075 El Camino Way - The Commons Expansion Hello Jonathan,

I’m happy to say that the “sticks” outlining the proposed expansion are now down!

Thank you very much!

Happy New Year!
Sean and Shari McDaniel

On Dec 22, 2023, at 2:42 PM, seanshari <[email protected]> wrote:

Hello Jonathan,

I’m sorry to say that the “sticks” outlining the
proposed expansion are still up.

Thanks for your communication.

Happy holidays!

Sean McDaniel

On Dec 20, 2023, at 1:31 PM, Lait, Jonathan <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Mr. McDaniel,

Thank you for your email message below. I understand the poles have been removed. If this is not consistent with your
understanding, please let me know. With regard to the
pending development application, please continue to coordinate with Emily Kallas the project planner reviewing the application. She can provide you updates and let you know of opportunities to participate in the process going forward.

Thank you,

Jonathan

Item 14
Attachment E - Public
Comment

Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
107

Packet Pg. 194 of 288

2 <image003.png> JONATHAN LAIT
Director
Planning and Development Department
(650) 329‐2676 | [email protected]
www.cityofpaloalto.org

<image004.png>

From: Family <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, December 15, 2023 12:44 PM
To: Council, City <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: 4075 El Camino Way ‐ The Commons Expansion

[Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important at
https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]

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

Dear Council Members,

Below is the email and photos that I recently sent to Emily Kallas at the city planning office. My neighbor, who is “cc” on this email, informed that it would be better to send
it to you council members as you are the final decision makers.

As you take a look at the photos, you can imagine the invasive nature of the proposed expansion.

I know that many of my neighbors work full‐time and it is hard for them to carve out the
time to communicate. All that I have spoken to are opposed to this expansion. The compromises were made for The Common's structure and its impact on nearby residents when first built. I have lived with those impacts for 30 years. The Commons already encroaches on our lives and increasing the structural height along the Wilkie Way side of the building is unacceptable.

Thank you for your representation.

Sincerely,
Sean McDaniel

> Hello Emily,
> I am writing to ask about the 2 x 4 wooden structures or “sticks” as Charlene Kussner from the Commons
referred to them. When can they be taken down? They are oppressive and depressing for us. We don’t go in the backyard to relax anymore. >
> I have attached some photos for your review and for the council’s consideration regarding the appropriateness of this proposed expansion.

Item 14
Attachment E - Public
Comment

Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
108

Packet Pg. 195 of 288

3 >
> At the Community outreach meeting, I understood that Charlene would model a two‐ story addition, and I have heard nothing about that. Her offer seems disingenuous at this point.
>
> We are still very opposed to the development. I believe Councilman Lauing said at the study session that the rooms and services at the Commons cost $225,000.00 per year.

That is a $3,000,000 revenue increase for the Commons with the addition of 14 rooms.

Though the city will collect more tax revenue, it is unfair that the residents along Wilkie Way and W. Meadow have their lives forever altered.
>
> I hope all is well for you. Thank you for your efforts on our behalf. >
> Sincerely,
> Sean McDaniel
>
>
>
<image013.jpg>
<image014.jpg>
<image015.jpg>
<image016.jpg>
>
Item 14
Attachment E - Public
Comment

Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
109

Packet Pg. 196 of 288

1 Kallas, Emily
From: James Porter <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 7, 2024 9:55 PM
To: Charlene Kussner; Yangsze Choo; Tim Davis; Lily Lee Cc: [email protected]; Kevin Ji; Kallas, Emily; [email protected]; Jenny Chen; Grace (Yan Feng) Wang
Subject: Re: Palo Alto Commons Community Outreach Meeting: Tree Screening Discussion CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.

Thanks Tim and Charlene,

Just a few additional considerations from 4080 Wilkie Way. - Our family is 100% supportive of evergreen trees.
- Denser foliage is better
- 40 feet height is preferable. We noted some tree suggestions that were 20 feet. This seems to low to obscure the addition at all
- Also could you look at shade tolerant evergreens as we note that the addition may shade the newly planted tree significantly given its position?

We are looking forward to the other tree recommendations.

Thanks,

James Porter

On Monday, October 7, 2024 at 04:58:17 PM PDT, Lily Lee <[email protected]> wrote:

Thank you Tim,

This information is very helpful!

Lily

On Monday, October 7, 2024 at 09:45:27 AM PDT, Tim Davis <[email protected]> wrote:

Good morning everyone,
See my responses to the questions below in Red.

1. I thought Charlene said we would be given 3 tree options to review. Will you send us another proposed species to review? I will research and provide an additional evergreen tree species.

2. The descriptions are related to Santa Barbara conditions. I was just at Santa Barbara 2 weeks ago. Conditions are not the same as here. Could you please give us information about how the trees would do in the local environment? I'm interested in how quickly they would grow in our environment and how long hardy, resistant to insects/disease, drought tolerant, etc. they would be in our environment. I noticed that the landscape architect is from San Bernardino. Perhaps they could communicate with local arborists? I will in a separate email ask the Santa Clara County extension agents and Canopy nonprofit (which Item 14
Attachment E - Public
Comment

Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
110

Packet Pg. 197 of 288

2 works with the City of Palo Alto) and cc you. The trees selected were chosen from my reaching out to Moon Valley Nursery northern California location for trees that they grow, and that would be compatible with the Palo Alto location. The Water Use Calculations of Landscape Species (WUCOLS) put out by UC Davis and used by California Landscape Architects for drought tolerance indicate that both species are compatible in the Palo Alto area as a medium water use tree.

3. I like that the Hymenosporum flavum is evergreen. That will maximize the screening effect. However, the Cercis canadensis is deciduous. Would you suggest some evergreen trees instead? The choice of the Cercis was to provide a small tree with colorful foliage to offset the large amount of green foliage. We can substitute the Cercis occidentalis for the Cercis canadensis, Which is a native variety, however the location that we are proposing is not a suitable location for a native species.

4. I noticed that neither species is native. Native plants that are well-adapted to our local environment can often be more sustainable and support the local ecosystem. Could you suggest some native species? The existing environment would not be suitable for native trees. The existing plant material is not a native plant palette and the existing irrigation would be too much for native plants and if reduce the irrigation so as not to over water the native plants you will stress the non-native plants and risk losing them or vice versa.

Cheers!

Tim Davis, ASLA
Wilson Davis Associates
2825 Litchfield Dr.

Riverside, CA 92503
Ph. (951) 353-2436 ext. 1001
Cell (951) 255-0402
[email protected]
“The bitterness of poor quality is remembered long after the sweetness of low price has faded from memory”

From: Charlene Kussner <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 7, 2024 8:05 AM
To: Yangsze Choo <[email protected]>; Lily Lee <[email protected]> Cc: Tim Davis <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Kevin Ji <[email protected]>; Emily Kallas <[email protected]>; JamesYahoo Porter <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Jenny Chen <[email protected]>; Grace (Yan Feng) Wang <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Fw: Palo Alto Commons Community Outreach Meeting: Tree Screening Discussion

Item 14
Attachment E - Public
Comment

Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
111

Packet Pg. 198 of 288

3 Thank you for this response. We will incorporate into our plans.

Charlene Kussner | V.P. of Development & Asset Management

[email protected]
C: 951.757.2571

Corporate Office: 185 South State Street, Suite 1300, Salt Lake City, UT 84111

CA Office: Wellquest of Menifee Lakes, 29914 Antelope Road, Menifee CA 92586

“All that I have seen teaches me to trust the Creator for all I have not seen.” Ralph Waldo Emerson

THIS MESSAGE CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION AND IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE INDIVIDUAL(S) NAMED. IF YOU ARE NOT THE NAMED ADDRESSEE(S) YOU SHOULD NOT DISSEMINATE, DISTRIBUTE OR COPY THIS E-MAIL. PLEASE NOTIFY THE SENDER IMMEDIATELY BY E-MAIL IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS E-MAIL BY MISTAKE AND DELETE THIS E-MAIL FROM YOUR SYSTEM. E-MAIL TRANSMISSION CANNOT BE GUARANTEED TO BE SECURE OR ERROR-FREE AS INFORMATION COULD BE INTERCEPTED, CORRUPT LOST, DESTROYED, ARRIVE LATE OR INCOMPLETE, OR CONTAIN VIRUSES. THE SENDER THEREFORE DOES NOT ACCEPT LIABILITY FOR ANY ERRORS OR OMISSIONS IN THE CONTENTS OF THIS MESSAGE, WHICH ARISE AS A RESULT OF E-MAIL TRANSMISSION.

From: Yangsze Choo <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 6, 2024 9:54 PM
To: Lily Lee <[email protected]>
Cc: Charlene Kussner <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; Kevin Ji <[email protected]>; Emily Kallas <[email protected]>; JamesYahoo Porter <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Jenny Chen <[email protected]>; Grace (Yan Item 14
Attachment E - Public
Comment

Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
112

Packet Pg. 199 of 288

4 Feng) Wang <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Fw: Palo Alto Commons Community Outreach Meeting: Tree Screening Discussion

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hi Charlene and Tim,

We are the residents of 4076 Wilkie Way, and we would like to have a tree at the fenceline with 4076 Wilkie. More screening is preferred by us, especially if it is evergreen.

Best wishes,

Natalie

On Sun, Oct 6, 2024 at 9:49 PM Lily Lee <[email protected]> wrote:

Hello Charlene and Tim,

Thank you for sending the draft revised landscape plan. I have several comments:

1. I thought Charlene said we would be given 3 tree options to review. Will you send us another proposed species to review?

2. The descriptions are related to Santa Barbara conditions. I was just at Santa Barbara 2 weeks ago. Conditions are not the same as here. Could you please give us information about how the trees would do in the local environment? I'm interested in how quickly they would grow in our environment and how long hardy, resistent to insects/disease, drought tolerant, etc. they would be in our environment. I noticed that the landscape architect is from San Bernardino. Perhaps they could communicate with local arborists? I will in a separate email ask the Santa Clara County extension agents and Canopy nonprofit (which works with the City of Palo Alto) and cc you.

3. I like that the hymenosporum flavum is evergreen. That will maximize the screening effect. However, the cercic canadensis is deciduous. Would you suggest some evergreen trees instead?

Thank you for considering my comments. Feel free to call if you would like to talk more.

Item 14
Attachment E - Public
Comment

Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
113

Packet Pg. 200 of 288

5 Lily Lee
4080 Wilkie Way
650-815-9759

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Charlene Kussner <[email protected]>
Date: Fri, Aug 30, 2024 at 7:46 AM
Subject: Palo Alto Commons Community Outreach Meeting: Tree Screening Discussion To: [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]> Cc: Daniel Bowman <[email protected]>, Tim Davis <[email protected]>

Good Morning Neighbors on Wilkie Way~

Thank you for coming to the Community meeting last week to discuss planting trees to add more privacy/screening the building from your rear yards.

As we discussed, some residents wanted trees against the building and some did not want added shade in their rear yards.

We have added some trees up against the building, to screen the new units from view. These trees do not add any significant shade impacts, and there is only one tree which adds just a little shade at the fence line, at 4076 Wilkie Way address. We can certainly remove this tree if no added shade is requested.

We appreciate your feedback on this matter.

Please see the attached exhibits as you requested:
3D landscape rendering showing new trees and the building Landscape Plan with added trees for privacy, screening
Updated Shadow Studies based on adding these trees.

I am here and available for further dialog on this matter.

Item 14
Attachment E - Public
Comment

Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
114

Packet Pg. 201 of 288

6 Charlene Kussner | V.P. of Development & Asset Management

[email protected]
C: 951.757.2571

Corporate Office: 185 South State Street, Suite 1300, Salt Lake City, UT 84111

CA Office: Wellquest of Menifee Lakes, 29914 Antelope Road, Menifee CA 92586

“All that I have seen teaches me to trust the Creator for all I have not seen.” Ralph Waldo Emerson

THIS MESSAGE CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION AND IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE INDIVIDUAL(S) NAMED. IF YOU ARE NOT THE NAMED ADDRESSEE(S) YOU SHOULD NOT DISSEMINATE, DISTRIBUTE OR COPY THIS E-MAIL. PLEASE NOTIFY THE SENDER IMMEDIATELY BY E-MAIL IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS E-MAIL BY MISTAKE AND DELETE THIS E-MAIL FROM YOUR SYSTEM. E-MAIL TRANSMISSION CANNOT BE GUARANTEED TO BE SECURE OR ERROR-FREE AS INFORMATION COULD BE INTERCEPTED, CORRU LOST, DESTROYED, ARRIVE LATE OR INCOMPLETE, OR CONTAIN VIRUSES. THE SENDER THEREFORE DOES NOT ACCEPT LIABILITY FOR ANY ERRORS OR OMISSIONS IN THE CONTENTS OF THIS MESSAGE, WHICH ARISE AS A RESULT OF E-MAIL TRANSMISSION VERIFICATION IS REQUIRED PLEASE REQUEST A HARD-COPY VERSION. COPYRIGHT 2018. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED BY WELLQUEST LIVING,LLC, AND ITS AFFILIATES.

Item 14
Attachment E - Public
Comment

Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
115

Packet Pg. 202 of 288

1 Kallas, Emily
From: Charlene Kussner <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 23, 2024 11:11 AM
To: Kallas, Emily
Cc: Daniel Bowman; Steve Sandholtz; Stephen Reller; Li Li Subject: FW: Palo Alto Commons Community Outreach Meeting updates CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.

HI Emily, I have followed up a couple times with our neighbors, this has been our only response to date. (below)

Avant Pipe/Exhaust update: We are working with our contractor, Vance Brown, to increase the exhaust pipe size to 5 inches, and then extend the pipe away from the resident property, around the

corner of the building towards our courtyard. This should solve the issue, I have left two messages for that resident, Huibin Tang, with no response. I will document the new piping with photos and video prior to the Oct. 17th ARB meeting.

Thank you!

Charlene Kussner | V.P. of Development & Asset Management

[email protected]
C: 951.757.2571

Corporate Office: 185 South State Street, Suite 1300, Salt Lake City, UT 84111

CA Office: Wellquest of Menifee Lakes, 29914 Antelope Road, Menifee CA 92586

“All that I have seen teaches me to trust the Creator for all I have not seen.” Ralph Waldo Emerson

THIS MESSAGE CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION AND IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE INDIVIDUAL(S) NAMED. IF YOU ARE NOT THE NAMED ADDRESSEE(S) YOU SHOULD NOT DISSEMINATE, DISTRIBUTE OR COPY THIS E‐MAIL. PLEASE NOTIFY THE SENDER IMMEDIATELY BY E‐MAIL IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS E‐MAIL BY MISTAKE AND DELETE THIS E‐MAIL FROM YOUR SYSTEM. E‐MAIL TRANSMISSION CANNOT BE GUARANTEED TO BE SECURE OR ERROR‐FREE AS INFORMATION COULD BE INTERCEPTED, CORRUPTED, LOST, DESTROYED, ARRIVE LATE OR INCOMPLETE, OR CONTAIN VIRUSES. THE SENDER THEREFORE DOES NOT ACCEPT LIABILITY FOR ANY ERRORS OR OMISSIONS IN THE CONTENTS OF THIS MESSAGE, WHICH ARISE AS A RESULT OF E‐MAIL TRANSMISSION. IF VERIFICATION IS REQUIRED PLEASE REQUEST A HARD‐COPY VERSION. COPYRIGHT 2018. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED BY WELLQUEST LIVING,LLC, AND ITS AFFILIATES.

From: Kevin Ji <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, September 22, 2024 9:42 PM
To: Charlene Kussner <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Palo Alto Commons Community Outreach Meeting: Tree Screening Discussion

Item 14
Attachment E - Public
Comment

Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
116

Packet Pg. 203 of 288

2 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hi Charlene,

Thanks for reaching out. GIve me a couple days to chat with the neighbors and I'll circle back with you.

Sincerely,

Kevin

On Thu, Sep 19, 2024 at 2:57 PM Charlene Kussner <[email protected]> wrote:

HI Kevin, just following up on this. Any further comments we need to incorporate? Please let me know.

Thanks so much~

Charlene Kussner | V.P. of Development & Asset Management

[email protected]
C: 951.757.2571

Corporate Office: 185 South State Street, Suite 1300, Salt Lake City, UT 84111

CA Office: Wellquest of Menifee Lakes, 29914 Antelope Road, Menifee CA 92586

“All that I have seen teaches me to trust the Creator for all I have not seen.” Ralph Waldo Emerson

THIS MESSAGE CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION AND IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE INDIVIDUAL(S) NAMED. IF YOU ARE NOT THE NAMED ADDRESSEE(S) YOU SHOULD NOT DISSEMINATE, DISTRIBUTE OR COPY THIS E‐MAIL. PLEASE NOTIFY THE SENDER IMMEDIATELY BY E‐MAIL IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS E‐MAIL BY MISTAKE AND DELETE THIS E‐MAIL FROM YOUR SYSTEM. E‐MAIL TRANSMISSION CANNOT BE GUARANTEED TO BE SECURE OR ERROR‐FREE AS INFORMATION COULD BE INTERCEPTED, CORRUPTED, LOST, DESTROYED, ARRIVE LATE OR INCOMPLETE, OR CONTAIN VIRUSES. THE SENDER THEREFORE DOES NOT ACCEPT LIABILITY FOR ANY ERRORS OR OMISSIONS IN THE CONTENTS OF THIS MESSAGE, WHICH ARISE AS A RESULT OF E‐MAIL TRANSMISSION. IF VERIFICATION IS REQUIRED PLEASE REQUEST A HARD‐COPY VERSION. COPYRIGHT 2018. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED BY WELLQUEST LIVING,LLC, AND ITS AFFILIATES.

Item 14
Attachment E - Public
Comment

Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
117

Packet Pg. 204 of 288

3 From: Daniel Bowman <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 9, 2024 9:43 AM
To: Charlene Kussner <[email protected]>; Kevin Ji <[email protected]> Cc: Tim Davis <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: RE: Palo Alto Commons Community Outreach Meeting: Tree Screening Discussion

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Kevin,

The existing shade plans are on the sheets above the proposed shade plans. It is the one without the green and red areas. Green being the impact from the added trees and red being the impact from the building areas.

Below is the square footages for the proposed added shade at the dates and times that are on the shade plans. Since the sun is always moving, these times are a snapshot of the shadows throughout the year. Dec 21 having the most shade impact during the year and June 21 having the least shade impact. 3 times are taken at noon and 1 at 4pm near sunset (at sunset its 100% shade by definition).

The area of all of the properties along Wilkie Way is 57,110 sf. So the worst case shade impact of these times would add shade to 0.29% of the property areas. All of which will be on roofs for that time (dec 21st at 4 pm).

Square Footages of Shade Impact on Neighbor’s Property
Dates and Times
Area of Added Shade
From building addition From proposed trees
Item 14
Attachment E - Public
Comment

Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
118

Packet Pg. 205 of 288

4 March 21st at 12 PM 0 sf 28 sf
June 21st at 12 PM 0 sf 0 sf
Dec 21st at 12 PM
43 sf
(37 sf on roofs)
86 sf
Dec 21st at 4 PM
157 sf
(all on roofs)
7 sf
(all on roofs)

DANIEL BOWMAN, NCARB

IRWIN PARTNERS ARCHITECTS
245 Fischer Avenue, Suite B2 Costa Mesa, CA 92626
714.557.2448 | [email protected] | ipaoc.com

From: Charlene Kussner <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 9, 2024 7:40 AM
To: Kevin Ji <[email protected]>; Daniel Bowman <[email protected]> Cc: Tim Davis <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: RE: Palo Alto Commons Community Outreach Meeting: Tree Screening Discussion

Yes, we do. Daniel can send to you this morning.

Charlene Kussner | V.P. of Development & Asset Management

Item 14
Attachment E - Public
Comment

Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
119

Packet Pg. 206 of 288

5 [email protected]
C: 951.757.2571

Corporate Office: 185 South State Street, Suite 1300, Salt Lake City, UT 84111

CA Office: Wellquest of Menifee Lakes, 29914 Antelope Road, Menifee CA 92586

“All that I have seen teaches me to trust the Creator for all I have not seen.” Ralph Waldo Emerson

THIS MESSAGE CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION AND IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE INDIVIDUAL(S) NAMED. IF YOU ARE NOT THE NAMED ADDRESSEE(S) YOU SHOULD NOT DISSEMINATE, DISTRIBUTE OR COPY THIS E‐MAIL. PLEASE NOTIFY THE SENDER IMMEDIATELY BY E‐MAIL IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS E‐MAIL BY MISTAKE AND DELETE THIS E‐MAIL FROM YOUR SYSTEM. E‐MAIL TRANSMISSION CANNOT BE GUARANTEED TO BE SECURE OR ERROR‐FREE AS INFORMATION COULD BE INTERCEPTED, CORRUPTED, LOST, DESTROYED, ARRIVE LATE OR INCOMPLETE, OR CONTAIN VIRUSES. THE SENDER THEREFORE DOES NOT ACCEPT LIABILITY FOR ANY ERRORS OR OMISSIONS IN THE CONTENTS OF THIS MESSAGE, WHICH ARISE AS A RESULT OF E‐MAIL TRANSMISSION. IF VERIFICATION IS REQUIRED PLEASE REQUEST A HARD‐COPY VERSION. COPYRIGHT 2018. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED BY WELLQUEST LIVING,LLC, AND ITS AFFILIATES.

From: Kevin Ji <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, September 7, 2024 10:21 AM
To: Daniel Bowman <[email protected]>
Cc: Tim Davis <[email protected]>; Charlene Kussner <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Re: Palo Alto Commons Community Outreach Meeting: Tree Screening Discussion

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hi All,

Item 14
Attachment E - Public
Comment

Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
120

Packet Pg. 207 of 288

6 Thanks for this information. I was wondering if you have a shade analysis not against what is being proposed to be built, but what is currently there. Is there any way we can get the square footage of new shade caused by the new construction? It is hard to measure this with these paper print outs.

Thanks,

Kevin

On Wed, Sep 4, 2024 at 9:37 AM Daniel Bowman <[email protected]> wrote:

The shadow study drawings are on 11x17 sheets. If you print it on 8 1/2x11 (standard) you can either scale it down 50% (so the scale of the drawing would be 1”=100’) or you can print it on two 8 1/2x11 sheets to keep it at 1”=50’.

Sheet 1: Sheet 2:

DANIEL BOWMAN, NCARB

IRWIN PARTNERS ARCHITECTS
245 Fischer Avenue, Suite B2 Costa Mesa, CA 92626
714.557.2448 | [email protected] | ipaoc.com
Item 14
Attachment E - Public
Comment

Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
121

Packet Pg. 208 of 288

7 From: Tim Davis <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 4, 2024 8:03 AM
To: [email protected]; Kevin Ji <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Daniel Bowman <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Palo Alto Commons Community Outreach Meeting: Tree Screening Discussion

Charlene,
Here are the tree descriptions. As for the height when planted that would depend on the size of the tree we intend to install. Most likely it will take 5‐10 years to provide the privacy they are hoping for.

Cheers!

Tim Davis, ASLA
Wilson Davis Associates
2825 Litchfield Dr.

Riverside, CA 92503
Ph. (951) 353‐2436 ext. 1001
Cell (951) 255‐0402
[email protected]
“The bitterness of poor quality is remembered long after the sweetness of low price has faded from memory”

From: Charlene Kussner <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 4, 2024 6:53 AM
To: Kevin Ji <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Daniel Bowman <[email protected]>; Tim Davis <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Palo Alto Commons Community Outreach Meeting: Tree Screening Discussion Item 14
Attachment E - Public
Comment

Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
122

Packet Pg. 209 of 288

8 Good Morning! Thank you for your response.

Daniel and Tim can provide these answers for you.

Charlene Kussner | V.P. of Development & Asset Management

[email protected]
C: 951.757.2571

Corporate Office: 185 South State Street, Suite 1300, Salt Lake City, UT 84111

CA Office: Wellquest of Menifee Lakes, 29914 Antelope Road, Menifee CA 92586

“All that I have seen teaches me to trust the Creator for all I have not seen.” Ralph Waldo Emerson

THIS MESSAGE CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION AND IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE INDIVIDUAL(S) NAMED. IF YOU ARE NOT THE NAMED ADDRESSEE(S) YOU SHOULD NOT DISSEMINATE, DISTRIBUTE OR COPY THIS E‐MAIL. PLEASE NOTIFY THE SENDER IMMEDIATELY BY E‐MAIL IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS E‐MAIL BY MISTAKE AND DELETE THIS E‐MAIL FROM YOUR SYSTEM. E‐MAIL TRANSMISSION CANNOT BE GUARANTEED TO BE SECURE OR ERROR‐FREE AS INFORMATION COULD BE INTERCEPTED, CORRUPTED, LOST, DESTROYED, ARRIVE LATE OR INCOMPLETE, OR CONTAIN VIRUSES. THE SENDER THEREFORE DOES NOT ACCEPT LIABILITY FOR ANY ERRORS OR OMISSIONS IN THE CONTENTS OF THIS MESSAGE, WHICH ARISE AS A RESULT OF E‐MAIL TRANSMISSION. IF VERIFICATION IS REQUIRED PLEASE REQUEST A HARD‐COPY VERSION. COPYRIGHT 2018. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED BY WELLQUEST LIVING,LLC, AND ITS AFFILIATES.

From: Kevin Ji <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 3, 2024 11:12 PM
To: Charlene Kussner <[email protected]>
Item 14
Attachment E - Public
Comment

Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
123

Packet Pg. 210 of 288

9 Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Daniel Bowman <[email protected]>; Tim Davis <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Palo Alto Commons Community Outreach Meeting: Tree Screening Discussion

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hi Charlene,

Thanks for sending this over to me. I had a couple of follow up questions.

1. Can you help me understand the scaling on the shadow study? I see that it says 1" = 50'. But how large of a surface is this printed out on? If I were to print this out on a standard letter size paper, I imagine it would be much smaller than if I were to print it out on a large poster board size.

2. Can you attach the blow up on the information about these trees? The information on the plant schedule and the species is too small to see on a computer.

3. What are the growing schedules of these trees? How tall will they start out as and how long will it take them to grow to a height where it will actually provide shade/privacy?

Thanks,

Kevin

On Fri, Aug 30, 2024 at 7:46 AM Charlene Kussner <[email protected]> wrote:

Good Morning Neighbors on Wilkie Way~

Thank you for coming to the Community meeting last week to discuss planting trees to add more privacy/screening the building from your rear yards.

As we discussed, some residents wanted trees against the building and some did not want added shade in their rear yards.

Item 14
Attachment E - Public
Comment

Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
124

Packet Pg. 211 of 288

10 We have added some trees up against the building, to screen the new units from view.

These trees do not add any significant shade impacts, and there is only one tree which adds just a little shade at the fence line, at 4076 Wilkie Way address. We can certainly remove this tree if no added shade is requested.

We appreciate your feedback on this matter.

I am here and available for further dialog on this matter.

Charlene Kussner | V.P. of Development & Asset Management

[email protected]
C: 951.757.2571

Corporate Office: 185 South State Street, Suite 1300, Salt Lake City, UT 84111

CA Office: Wellquest of Menifee Lakes, 29914 Antelope Road, Menifee CA 92586

“All that I have seen teaches me to trust the Creator for all I have not seen.” Ralph Waldo Emerson

THIS MESSAGE CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION AND IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE INDIVIDUAL(S) NAMED. IF YOU ARE NOT THE NAMED ADDRESSEE(S) YOU SHOULD NOT DISSEMINATE, DISTRIBUTE OR COPY THIS E‐MAIL. PLEASE NOTIFY THE SENDER IMMEDIATELY BY E‐MAIL IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS E‐MAIL BY MISTAKE AND DELETE THIS E‐MAIL FROM YOUR SYSTEM. E‐MAIL TRANSMISSION CANNOT BE GUARANTEED TO BE SECURE OR ERROR‐FREE AS INFORMATION COULD BE INTERCEPTED, CORRUPTED, LOST, DESTROYED, ARRIVE LATE OR INCOMPLETE, OR CONTAIN VIRUSES. THE SENDER THEREFORE DOES NOT ACCEPT LIABILITY FOR ANY ERRORS OR OMISSIONS IN THE CONTENTS OF THIS MESSAGE, WHICH ARISE AS A RESULT OF E‐MAIL TRANSMISSION. IF VERIFICATION IS REQUIRED PLEASE REQUEST A HARD‐COPY VERSION. COPYRIGHT 2018. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED BY WELLQUEST LIVING,LLC, AND ITS AFFILIATES.

Item 14
Attachment E - Public
Comment

Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
125

Packet Pg. 212 of 288

11 Item 14
Attachment E - Public
Comment

Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
126

Packet Pg. 213 of 288

From: Lily Lee
To: Kevin Ji; Kallas, Emily
Subject: Re: Palo Alto Commons project - Timeline? Applicable landscaping/privacy requirements? Date: Tuesday, September 24, 2024 9:49:49 PM
Attachments: image006.png
image004.png
image003.png
image002.png
image001.png
image007.png
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.

Hi Emioly,
Thank you for this information. I was wondering if this is still the plan? Lily
On Wednesday, August 28, 2024 at 11:29:38 AM PDT, Kallas, Emily <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Lily,

Yes, that timeline is accurate to the process.

Currently, assuming the fastest possible timeline, it would look like this:

ARB 10/17 – this is tentatively scheduled and likely to remain on this date PTC 11/13
Council 12/16 – this is the last one of 2024

There’s a lot of factors that go into this, but this at least gives a sense of what is possible. Many items, such as review of the TDM plan, could delay this schedule. This schedule would not be affected by the election, but if it becomes certain that the PTC would be in 2024 and Council would be in 2025, then any PTC members who win the Council election may choose to recuse themselves from the PTC vote since they can only vote once as either PTC or Council.

Thanks,
Emily

Emily Kallas, AICP
Item 14
Attachment E - Public
Comment

Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
127

Packet Pg. 214 of 288

Planner
Planning and Development Services Department
(650) 617-3125 | [email protected]
www.cityofpaloalto.org

Parcel Report | Palo Alto Zoning Code | Online Permitting System | Planning Forms & Applications | Planning Applications Mapped

From: Lily Lee <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 4:59 PM
To: Kevin Ji <[email protected]>; Kallas, Emily <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Palo Alto Commons project - Timeline? Applicable landscaping/privacy requirements?

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

Hi Emily,

Thank you for your speedy and substantive response!

I am attaching the 1st fil as a Word doc. I'm sorry this link did not work for you.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1IX-3UxhfHq1EfNYf3d4tordXKVtnTwQYT1oCoOkLozg/edit?usp=sharing

On Monday, August 26, 2024 at 09:19:42 AM PDT, Kallas, Emily <[email protected] >
wrote:

Item 14
Attachment E - Public
Comment

Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
128

Packet Pg. 215 of 288

Hi Lily,

I’m happy to provide a project update, and please feel free to share my response with other neighbors.

1. Thank you for sending over the documents, unfortunately I was only able to open 2 nd link with the
meeting notes, and not the 1st link? If you could please download it and resend it as a Word doc, that would be great.

2. In terms of the 2
nd link, thank you very much for the summary since I was unable to attend the meeting. I have a couple additional notes to add:

The Planning Dept. would also prefer screening landscaping to be evergreen, however we are open to neighbor preferences.

The allowed residential fence height is 7 ft (not 6 ft, also this is inclusive of any lattice). 8 ft is allowed where residential abuts non-residential, and with Staff approval. It would be possible to rebuild the 8ft fence, though it cannot be any taller.

There may be Fire Code/egress issues with only having 5ft sill windows in a unit, I will follow up on this. Secondary windows may have a 5ft sill, but I believe each sleeping room is required to have at least 1 egress window.

3. Yes, we are currently anticipating the project will go back to the ARB in October. It is tentatively scheduled for 10/17, though this is subject to change. It does not make sense to return to ARB until we have the revised landscape design, since the ARB specifically asked for that.

4. As a Planned Community Project, the project is not required to meet the code requirements of PAMC

18.24 or 18.40. However, those are starting points for the ARB, PTC, and Council to use to determine if what the applicants are asking for is reasonable and should be approved.

Thanks,
Emily

Emily Kallas, AICP
Planner
Planning and Development Services Department
(650) 617-3125 | [email protected]
www.cityofpaloalto.org

Item 14
Attachment E - Public
Comment

Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
129

Packet Pg. 216 of 288

Parcel Report | Palo Alto Zoning Code | Online Permitting System | Planning Forms & Applications | Planning Applications Mapped

From: Lily Lee <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, August 25, 2024 3:53 PM
To: Kallas, Emily <[email protected]>; Kevin Ji <[email protected]> Subject: Palo Alto Commons project - Timeline? Applicable landscaping/privacy requirements?

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

Hi Emily,

I hope you are well! Some neighbors have requested more information about the bigger picture timeline. I drafted a summary to help them. Would you mind reviewing this and making any corrections or additions? I hope all of us will be less confused that way:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1IX-3UxhfHq1EfNYf3d4tordXKVtnTwQYT1oCoOkLozg/edit?usp=sharing Also, Charlene told me that she expects to go back to the ARB in 45 days, which means October. I thought they would revise the landscape plan first based on the comments that we gave them. But maybe they do not think they need to make much change?

In addition, here are some notes I took from the 8/22 meeting. I asked the neighbors to add/edit based on what they remember from the meeting. I may not have remembered correctly what Charlene said about a back fence height restrictions and the option for increasing the height if a request for a special permit is granted. I would appreciate your help with making sure I have the right information about that too.

2024-08-22 Landscape architects Mtg

Item 14
Attachment E - Public
Comment

Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
130

Packet Pg. 217 of 288

2024-08-22 Landscape architects Mtg
Wellquest Living meeting with Landscape Architects Plans to expand Palo Alto Commons 8/22, 6 pm, 4071 El
Camino...

Finally, thank you for the 2 links below. I wanted to clarify - does that mean that the 2 links I looked up do not apply to this project?

18.40.260 Visual Screening and Landscaping

Item 14
Attachment E - Public
Comment

Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
131

Packet Pg. 218 of 288

18.40.260 Visual Screening and Landscaping
Legal publisher offering ordinance codification services for local governments, specializing in providing codes ...

And this?

18.40.130 Landscaping

18.40.130 Landscaping
Item 14
Attachment E - Public
Comment

Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
132

Packet Pg. 219 of 288

Legal publisher offering ordinance codification services for local governments, specializing in providing codes ...

I know you are busy. Please do not feel any urgency to respond this week (or even next week) to these questions.

But maybe in the next month, if you have some quiet time, I would appreciate your advice. You can respond piece by piece as you have time. And if it is easier for you, of course, call any time. Again, thank you very much for your help! I have learned a lot from you!

Lily
650-815-9749

----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Kallas, Emily <[email protected]
>
To: Lily Lee <[email protected]>; Kevin Ji <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, July 22, 2024 at 09:29:30 AM PDT
Subject: RE: Summary of Board Member Baltay's conversation with Wilkie Way residents

Hi Lily,

Thank you for the summary. The existing privacy standards are located in two places:

18.24.050(b)(2) Privacy and Transitions to Residential Uses. I would specifically look at subsection (D) – the section starting with “Windows: within 30 feet of facing residential windows…” Individual Review Guidelines Guideline 5 (pages 14-15). These are the ones the PTC cited, though the ARB discussed/determined 18.24 would be more appropriate to apply.

Thanks,
Emily

Emily Kallas, AICP
Planner
Planning and Development Services Department
(650) 617-3125 | [email protected]
Item 14
Attachment E - Public
Comment

Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
133

Packet Pg. 220 of 288

www.cityofpaloalto.org

Parcel Report | Palo Alto Zoning Code | Online Permitting System | Planning Forms & Applications | Planning Applications Mapped

From: Lily Lee <[email protected]
>
Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2024 6:20 PM
To: Kallas, Emily <[email protected]>; Kevin Ji <[email protected]> Subject: Summary of Board Member Baltay's conversation with Wilkie Way residents

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

Hi Emily,

Thank you for helping us understand the process. You requested a Summary of Board Member Baltay's conversation with Wilkie Way residents. As I said he reiterated several things he said during the meeting. I did not take notes, but below is what I remember. Kevin, plese add/correct:

He thanked us for our input. He said the ARB is taking our concerns seriously and that is why it asked the applicant to come back with many additional tasks and changes in design. He appreciated Kevin's thorough research.

Although he does not agree with some of Kevin's interpretation, using the existing code and other guidelines is the best way to influence the process. In that spirit, he recommended looking at the existing privacy standards, which is what he asked the applicant to apply. He said the ARB takes seriously the impacts on parking, noise, privacy, and visual impact. That is why it went beyond usual requirements to recommend no noise producing equipment in the 10 foot setback.

Emily, is this what he was talking about?

18.40.260 Visual Screening and Landscaping
Item 14
Attachment E - Public
Comment

Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
134

Packet Pg. 221 of 288

18.40.260 Visual Screening and Landscaping
Legal publisher offering ordinance codification services for local governments, specializing in providing codes ...

And this?

18.40.130 Landscaping

Item 14
Attachment E - Public
Comment

Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
135

Packet Pg. 222 of 288

18.40.130 Landscaping
Legal publisher offering ordinance codification services for local governments, specializing in providing codes ...

Thank you again!

Lily

We removed a file from this message
Your organization's email policy doesn't permit this type of file. If you need it, please contact your administrator.

Item 14
Attachment E - Public
Comment

Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
136

Packet Pg. 223 of 288

File Details

image006.emz (1783 bytes)

We removed a file from this message
Your organization's email policy doesn't permit this type of file. If you need it, please contact your administrator.

Item 14
Attachment E - Public
Comment

Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
137

Packet Pg. 224 of 288

File Details

image008.emz (1547 bytes)

Item 14
Attachment E - Public
Comment

Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
138

Packet Pg. 225 of 288

If you need assistance reviewing the above documents, please contact the Project Planner or call the Planner-on-Duty at 650-617-3117 or email [email protected]
Project Plans
In order to reduce paper consumption, a limited number of hard copy project plans are provided to Council members for their review. The same plans are available to the public, at all hours of the day, via the following online resources.

Directions to Review Project Plans and Environmental Document Online:

1. Go to: bit.ly/PApendingprojects

2. Scroll down to find “4075 El Camino” and click the address link

3. Click on “Tell me more about 4075 El Camino Way”

4. On this project-specific webpage you will find a link to the project plans and other important information
Direct Link to Project Webpage:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Planning-Development-Services/Current- Planning/Projects/4075-El-Camino-Way
Item 14
Attachment F - Link to
Project Plans and
Environmental Analysis

Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
139

Packet Pg. 226 of 288

City Council
Staff Report
From: City Manager
Report Type: INFORMATION REPORTS
Lead Department: Transportation
Meeting Date: May 5, 2025
Report #:2503-4406
TITLE
Palo Alto Transportation Management Association 2024 Annual Report, 2026-28 Strategic Plan, and 2024 Commute Survey

RECOMMENDATION
No action is recommended, this is for information only. The 2024 Annual Report, 2026-28 Strategic Plan, and 2024 Commute Survey by the Palo Alto Transportation Management Association are being transmitted for compliance with the contractual agreement.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City contracts with the Palo Alto Transportation Management Association (TMA) to implement programs to reduce single-occupancy vehicle (SOV) trips to and from Palo Alto. The funding agreement between the Palo Alto TMA and the City restricts the use of City funds to trip reduction programs and requires the TMA to report on the use of these funds. The attached Annual Report covers the 2024 calendar year, detailing how the City’s contribution was used to support SOV trip reduction, including the results of the Fall 2024 Commute Survey.

The attachment also includes the 2026-28 TMA Strategic Plan. The work of the TMA supports the City’s Sustainability and Climate Action Goals by working to reduce vehicle miles traveled and increasing the mode share for active transportation and transit. Additional program history can be found in the April 23, 2024, Finance Committee Staff Report.1

BACKGROUND
Following direction from the City Council in 2013, staff worked to develop transportation demand management (TDM) strategies to encourage alternatives to solo driving as part of a multi-faceted effort to address traffic and parking concerns in the downtown area and the city at large. The development of a TMA for Palo Alto was a key component of this approach, which 1 Finance Committee, April 23, 2024, Agenda Item #6; SR #2403-2761, https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/meetings/ItemWithTemplateType?id=4692&meetingTemplateType=2&comp iledMeetingDocumentId=9724
Item 15
Item 15 Staff Report

Item 15: Staff Report
Pg.
1 Packet Pg. 227 of 288

the City initially funded through a $499,880 contract with consultants Moore Iacofano Goltsman, Inc.2 After the TMA was formed in January 2016, this contract continued to fund the sub-consultant services of the TMA’s part-time executive director. The TMA hired permanent part-time staff in April 2018. Per the non-profit’s bylaws, the City has a seat on the TMA Board of Directors, traditionally filled by the City’s Chief Transportation Official.

In June 2016, Council formalized the provision of additional City funding for TMA programs by executing a $100,000 funding agreement between the City of Palo Alto, the Silicon Valley Community Foundation (SVCF), and the Palo Alto TMA to reduce single-occupancy vehicle (SOV) commute trips to and from downtown Palo Alto.3 Because the TMA was not yet an approved Section 501(c)(3) organization (its application was pending with the Internal Revenue Service), the TMA operated as a program of SVCF. SVCF held and administered a fund restricted to specific charitable purposes and had legal discretion and control over the restricted account.

When the TMA received its formal 501(c)(3) status, SVCF ceased to be the organization’s program sponsor and to act as the TMA’s fiscal agent.

Under a subsequent amendment, the City provided an additional $100,000 to support the TMA’s work in 2017. The City Council adopted a Fiscal Year 2018 budget that included $480,000 for the Palo Alto TMA to continue to support its efforts to reduce SOV commute trips using a variety of strategies. In December 2018, the agreement was amended to incorporate additional funds allocated for FY 2019 and to reflect the fact that the SVCF no longer serves as the financial agent for the TMA now that the TMA is a non-profit.

In April 2019, the Finance Committee received a presentation from the TMA and provided feedback on the TMA Strategic Plan.4 On May 15, 2019, the Finance Committee recommended an increase in employee parking permit rates to provide the TMA with additional funding of up to $180,000, for a total of $660,000 annually. On June 17, 2019, the Council voted to increase the FY 2020 budget recommendation by $90,000 from the University Avenue Parking Permit Fund for a total amount of $750,000 and a subsequent amendment was executed to implement this. That agreement expired on June 30, 2020.

An informational report transmitted to Council on May 26, 2020, included the 2019 TMA Annual Report, comprising commute program data, results and analysis of the Fall 2019 Downtown Commute Survey, and a summary of the 2020 Strategic Business Plan.5 In that month, the Council considered its annual budget during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Council 2 City Council, August, 11, 2014; Agenda Item #4; SR #4766, https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/43344 3 City Council, June 13, 2016: Agenda Item #10; SR #6823, https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/52687 4 Finance Committee, April 16, 2019; Agenda Item #4; SR #10198, https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/70194, Presentation:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=63435.61&BlobID=70664 5 City Council, May 26, 2020; Informational Report; SR #11307, https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=64175.41&BlobID=76770 Item 15
Item 15 Staff Report

Item 15: Staff Report
Pg.
2 Packet Pg. 228 of 288

voted to appropriate a reduced funding level of $453,000 for the TMA in FY 2021 and approved the use of City funds for the TMA’s programs in the California Avenue Business District as well as the Downtown.6 Funding was provided under the new proposed funding agreement but was reduced further based on a November 2020 TMA request for $350,000. A new funding agreement was signed in 2020 reflecting Council’s appropriation of $350,000 in FY 2021. This agreement expired in FY 2023 and again delegated authority to the City Manager to amend the agreement to add funding if Council budgeted more funds. In June of 2021, Council allocated $150,000 in funds for the TMA for FY2022 and in June of 2022, allocated $200,000 in funds for FY 2023.

A new three-year funding agreement was approved by City Council in September of 2023, providing $200,000 for the TMA in FY 2024 and delegating authority to the City Manager to amend the agreement to add funding if Council budgets more funds. This agreement also allows the TMA to use $25,000 of City funds to reduce SOV trips anywhere in Palo Alto.7 Council increased the amount allocated via an amendment to the agreement in March of 2024, adding $42,000 for additional outreach labor and expanded active mobility programs.8 Amendments in July and December reflect Council’s allocation of $400,000 for FY20259 and changes in funding and scope for a $10,000 Electric Bike/Scooter Pilot program from the City’s Utilities Department. For FY 2025, $200,000 can be used for TMA programs anywhere in the City.

ANALYSIS
Regular reports are required under the TMA’s funding agreement with the City. In the past year, the TMA has used City funds to purchase transit passes for low-income workers, supporting their use of transit, and to subsidize other programs such as carpooling, biking, and ride-share aimed at increasing all Downtown and California Avenue commuters’ use of alternative modes of transportation. The attached Annual Report covers the 2024 calendar year, detailing how public funds were spent to support SOV trip reduction, including the results of the Fall 2024 Downtown Commute Survey. The attachment also includes the 2026-2028 TMA Strategic Plan which is required to be updated by the funding agreement. 6 City Council, May 26, 2020; Agenda Item #1; SR #11376; https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/76803, Action Minutes:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=48631.05&BlobID=77870 7 City Council, September 11, 2023; Agenda Item #7; SR #2308-1883; https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/meetings/ItemWithTemplateType?id=2983&meetingTemplateType=2 8 City Council, February 12, 2024; Agenda Item #11; SR #2311-2233; https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/meetings/ItemWithTemplateType?id=3638&meetingTemplateType=2&comp iledMeetingDocumentId=9079
9 City Council, June 17, 2024: Agenda Item #28; SR#2406-3140; https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/meetings/ItemWithTemplateType?id=5334&meetingTemplateType=2&comp iledMeetingDocumentId=10470
Item 15
Item 15 Staff Report

Item 15: Staff Report
Pg.
3 Packet Pg. 229 of 288

The Annual Report highlights several accomplishments, noting that in 2024, the TMA:
•Increased funding
oStability - City of Palo Alto restored PATMA’s budget which allowed expansion beyond University Ave Downtown and California Ave
oGrant Awards –PATMA won funding from VTA’s Transit Oriented Communities program ($24,550), City of Palo Alto Utilities ($10,000), Palo Alto Community Foundation ($5,000), and the Starbucks Neighborhood Grant program ($1,000) oFair market value of transit passes – Securing free Caltrain GoPasses (worth $4,200/year each) and reduced-cost $169/year VTA passes (worth $1,080/year each) allowed PATMA to help more workers at a lower cost/user •Expanded geographic reach
oPerformed outreach at the Stanford Mall, along El Camino Real, at Midtown, and in South Palo Alto
oIn these areas, PATMA offered sustainable transportation programs, conducted the annual commute survey, and presented an e-bike and e-scooter pilot program
•Small business support
oAhead of Caltrans’ El Camino Real repaving project where bike lanes will be replacing 220 on-street parking spaces, PATMA offered train and bus passes and refurbished bikes to workers who park on El Camino
•Leveraged partnerships
•Dramatically reduced cost/user/month from $77 in Dec 2023 to $51 in Dec 2024 Key insights from the 2024 Commute Survey about potential future directions for mode shifts targets include:
•Light office (77%) and government (72%) sectors have higher drive alone rates than service (55%) and tech (55%) sectors.
•Seventy percent (70%) of survey respondents live in a city served by Caltrain or a bus that runs directly to Palo Alto.

The Strategic Plan details the following goals for the next three years. •Year 1: Scale up the number of transit passes; scale up the number of active mobility commuters traveling <3 miles
•Year 2: Make it easier for commuters to access multiple sustainable commute modes; support active commutes <5 miles
•Year 3: Leverage new technologies and programs to enable workers to commute without a personal vehicle
Item 15
Item 15 Staff Report

Item 15: Staff Report
Pg.
4 Packet Pg. 230 of 288

POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The City’s S/CAP includes two mobility goals that are directly supported by the work of the TMA:
•Reduce total vehicle miles traveled 12% by 2030, compared to a 2019 baseline, by reducing commute vehicle miles traveled 20%, visitor vehicles miles traveled 10%, and resident vehicle miles traveled 6%
•Increase the mode share for active transportation (walking, biking) and transit from 19% to 40% of local work trips by 2030
In addition, the transportation demand management (TDM) services provided by the TMA are consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan policies and programs:

Policy T-1.1 Take a comprehensive approach to reducing single-occupant vehicle trips by involving those who live, work and shop in Palo Alto in developing strategies that make it easier and more convenient not to drive.

Policy T-1.2 Collaborate with Palo Alto employers and business owners to develop, implement and expand comprehensive programs like the TMA to reduce single-occupant vehicle commute trips, including through incentives.

Program T1.2.1 Create a long-term education program to change the travel habits of residents, visitors, shoppers and workers by informing them about transportation alternatives, incentives, and impacts. Work with the PAUSD and with other public and private interests, such as the Chamber of Commerce and Commuter Wallet partners, to develop and implement this program.

Program T1.2.4 Evaluate the performance of pilot programs implemented by the Palo Alto Transportation Management Association and pursue expansion from Downtown to California Avenue and other areas of the city when appropriate.

Program T1.2.6 Pursue full participation of Palo Alto employers in the TMA.

Policy T-1.13 Encourage services that complement and enhance the transportation options available to help Palo Alto residents and employees make first/last mile connections and travel within the city for daily needs without using a single-occupancy vehicle, including shuttle, taxi and ridesharing services.

Policy T-2.2 As part of the effort to reduce traffic congestion, seek ongoing funding and engage employers to operate and expand TMAs to address transportation and parking issues as appropriate in the City’s employment districts.

Item 15
Item 15 Staff Report

Item 15: Staff Report
Pg.
5 Packet Pg. 231 of 288

Program T2.2.1 Work in partnership with the Palo Alto TMA and Stanford University to aggregate data and realize measurable reductions in single-occupant vehicle commuting to and from Downtown and in the Stanford Research Park.

Policy T-5.5 Minimize the need for employees to park in and adjacent to commercial centers, employment districts and schools.

Program T7.1.1 Expand transportation opportunities for transit-dependent riders by supporting discounts for taxi fares, rideshare services and transit, by coordinating transit systems to be shared by multiple senior housing developments, by maintaining a database of volunteer drivers and other transit options.

FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT
Funding for the TMA in FY 2024 was approved from the University Avenue Parking Fund ($175,000) and the General Fund ($25,000). The current funding agreement is a three-year agreement expiring at the end of FY 2026 (June 30, 2026). As part of the FY 2025 Adopted Budget, a total of $400,000 was approved as the ongoing funding amount for the TMA from the University Avenue Parking Fund ($200,000) and the General Fund ($200,000).

STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
Monthly Palo Alto TMA Board of Directors meetings are open to the public and occur from 9:00 - 10:00am on the third Thursday of the month. Information about board meetings can be found at the Palo Alto TMA website: https://www.paloaltotma.org/

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The funding for PATMA and its associated scope of work is exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) since it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility of a significant impact on the environment (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3)).

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: 2024 Palo Alto TMA Annual Report, 2026-28 Strategic Plan, and 2024 Commute Survey
APPROVED BY:

Lily Lim-Tsao, Interim Chief Transportation Official
Item 15
Item 15 Staff Report

Item 15: Staff Report
Pg.
6 Packet Pg. 232 of 288

March 4, 2024

Palo Alto City Councilmembers

Subject: PATMA’s 20024 Annual Report, Three-Year Strategic Plan, and 2024 Commute Survey

Dear Councilmembers,

The non-profit Palo Alto Transportation Management Association (PATMA) is pleased to present three reports for your consideration. Written in an easy to skim style, you will see attached PATMA’s 2024 Annual Report, Three-Year Strategic Plan (FY 2026 – FY 2028), and 2024 Commute Survey.

In FY 2025, PATMA’s budget was restored to $400,000/year, closer to pre-pandemic levels. With the same budget level in FY 2026, we will be able to grow our impact by further reducing traffic, demand for parking, and greenhouse gas emissions while supporting local businesses. We also understand the City’s budget situation and offer three budget scenarios.

Three budget scenarios for FY 2026
Expenses Expenses
$400,000
budget
Expenses
$350,000
budget
Expenses
$300,000
budget
ALTRANS management $105,000 $95,000 $85,000
Business (office supplies, insurance, software) $8,000 $8,000 $8,000 Lyft $3,000 $3,000 $0
ALTRANS operations & admin $105,000 $84,000 $75,000
Transit passes - Clipper card expenses $115,000 $100,000 $100,000 Commute survey $28,000 $28,000 $28,000
E-bike e-scooter pilot $4,000 $0 $0
Refurbished bikes $4,000 $4,000 $4,000
Bike Love $28,000 $28,000 $0
Total $400,000 $350,000 $300,000
The $400,000 scenario represents a continuation of the restored budget PATMA realized in FY 2025, which would allow PATMA to grow the program’s impact to 500 parking spaces freed up. The $350,000 budget (cutting staff hours and transit pass expenditures) would allow us to grow the program to 400 parking spaces freed up. A smaller $300,000 budget (cutting staff hours further, cutting the Lyft afterhours program and cutting the BikeLove $5/day rewards program) would maintain our impact at 312 parking spaces freed up.

PATMA is pleased to support the City Council’s goals on climate change, community wellness, and economic development. Let me know if you have any questions.

Kind regards,

Justine Burt
Executive Director, Palo Alto Transportation Management Association Item 15
Attachment A - 2024 Palo
Alto TMA Annual Report,
2026-28 Strategic Plan,
and 2024 Commute
Survey

Item 15: Staff Report
Pg.
7 Packet Pg. 233 of 288

2024 Annual Report
January 1, 2024 – December 31, 2024
Submitted to the Palo Alto City Council

Prepared by:

Palo Alto Transportation Management Association
855 El Camino Real #13A-200, Palo Alto, CA 94301
www.paloaltotma.org

March 2025
Item 15
Attachment A - 2024 Palo
Alto TMA Annual Report,
2026-28 Strategic Plan,
and 2024 Commute
Survey

Item 15: Staff Report
Pg.
8 Packet Pg. 234 of 288

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 1 Introduction ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 2 About PATMA ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 2 PATMA’s Top Five Accomplishments in 2024 ................................ ................................ .............. 3 PATMA Programs ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 5 Benefits of PATMA Programs ................................ ................................ ................................ ....10 Program Results ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 11 Testimonials ................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. 14 Budget ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ......15 Conclusion ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 18

Item 15
Attachment A - 2024 Palo
Alto TMA Annual Report,
2026-28 Strategic Plan,
and 2024 Commute
Survey

Item 15: Staff Report
Pg.
9 Packet Pg. 235 of 288

Palo Alto Transportation Management Association
2024 Annual Report
Executive Summary
With leadership and financial support from the City of Palo Alto, as well as collaborative partnerships with regional transit agencies, local community-based organizations, and grantmaking organizations, in 2024, the Palo Alto Transportation Management Association (PATMA) delivered mode shift results efficiently and cost-effectively.

PATMA’s sustainable transportation programs for workers – free train and bus passes, $5/day Bike Love bicycle commute incentive rewards, free refurbished bicycles, after-hour Lyft rides, and a new e-bike e-scooter pilot – in 2024, resulted in a reduction in demand for 312 parking spaces around town, 1,542,441 fewer vehicle miles traveled, and 603 fewer tons of greenhouse gas emissions. With these accomplishments, PATMA supported three of the 2024 Palo Alto City Council’s four priorities: economic development, climate change, and community health.

Highlights of PATMA’s work in 2024 included:
• Increased funding
o Stability - City of Palo Alto restored PATMA’s budget which allowed expansion beyond University Ave Downtown and California Ave
o Grant awards – PATMA won funding from VTA’s Transit Oriented Communities program, City of Palo Alto Utilities, Palo Alto Community Foundation, and the Starbucks Neighborhood Grant program
o Fair market value of transit passes – Securing free Caltrain GoPasses (worth $4,200/year each) and reduced cost $169/year VTA passes (worth $1,080/year each) allowed PATMA to help more workers at a lower cost/user • Expanded geographic reach
o Performed outreach at the Stanford Mall, along El Camino Real, at Midtown, and in South Palo Alto
o In these areas, PATMA offered sustainable transportation programs, conducted the annual commute survey, and presented an e-bike and e-scooter pilot program
• Small business support
o Ahead of Caltrans’ El Camino Real repaving project where bike lanes will be replacing 220 on-street parking spaces, PATMA offered train and bus passes and refurbished bikes to workers who park on El Camino
• Leveraged partnerships
• A dramatic reduction in cost/user/month from $77 in Dec 2023 to $51 in Dec 2024 These developments lay a strong foundation for PATMA’s future mode shift work.

Item 15
Attachment A - 2024 Palo
Alto TMA Annual Report,
2026-28 Strategic Plan,
and 2024 Commute
Survey

Item 15: Staff Report
Pg.
10 Packet Pg. 236 of 288

2 | P a g e

Introduction
The Palo Alto TMA is a non-profit working to reduce single-occupancy vehicle (SOV) trips, traffic congestion, demand for parking and greenhouse gas emissions by delivering targeted transportation solutions that serve Palo Alto’s diverse range of employers, employees, visitors, and residents. Financial support for this work comes primarily from the City of Palo Alto’s University Avenue and California Avenue parking fund, and, starting in 2024, from the City’s General Fund. This funding allows PATMA to provide free transit passes, $5/day Bike Love rewards, refurbished bicycles, and late-night Lyft rides chiefly to low wage service sector workers in the commercial districts of Palo Alto.

About PATMA
Staff
PATMA is a non-profit, staffed by ALTRANS TMA Inc., a firm specializing in transportation demand management (TDM). Staff providing on-going support for PATMA include:
● Justine Burt, Executive Director
● Sana Ahmed, Program Coordinator
● Stephen Blaylock, President, ALTRANS TMA Inc.
● Andrew Ridley, Chief Operating Officer, ALTRANS TMA Inc.

Board of Directors
In 2024, two long-serving board members (Philip Kamhi, the City’s Chief Transportation Official, and Brad Ehikian) stepped down and one new member (Steven Lee) joined. The City’s seat on the board will be filled by Interim Chief Transportation Official Lily Lim-Tsao until a permanent replacement is identified. A representative from the tech sector helped diversify our board whose members at the end of the year included:
● Cedric de la Beaujardiere, resident (Board Chair)
● Rob George, Philz Coffee (Treasurer and a founding board member) ● Shannon Rose McEntee, resident (Secretary)
● Lily Lim-Tsao, City of Palo Alto
● Sebastian Mafla, Sheraton
● Nathaniel Duncan, Patagonia
● Alejandra Mier, Coupa Café
● Steven Lee, Meta
The PATMA board meets monthly on the third Thursday at 9:00am and efficiently works through one hour of agenda items. Nearly all board members regularly attend. The public is encouraged to join these virtual meetings. Meeting details and zoom links can be found on our Meetings page at https://www.paloaltotma.org/meetings-reports.

Item 15
Attachment A - 2024 Palo
Alto TMA Annual Report,
2026-28 Strategic Plan,
and 2024 Commute
Survey

Item 15: Staff Report
Pg.
11 Packet Pg. 237 of 288

3 | P a g e

New Mission and Core Values
In 2024, PATMA staff and Board members updated PATMA’s mission and core values to be more aspirational and memorable. The new mission statement reads “Better commutes for everyone.” PATMA’s core values describe how our non-profit improves life for the workers and residents of Palo Alto:
• Traffic and parking – reduce traffic congestion and demand for parking • Climate change – transition to a zero-emission transportation system • Equity – fair outcomes, treatment and opportunities for all • Local businesses – help local businesses attract and retain employees • Health – encourage community health
Incorporating City of Palo Alto Priorities
While the original motivation for the Palo Alto City Council to create PATMA was to alleviate traffic congestion and reduce demand for parking downtown, each year, PATMA overlays the City Council’s stated priorities to guide its work. In January 2024, the City Council announced its priorities for the year:

1. Climate Change & Natural Environment - Protection & Adaptation

2. Community Health, Safety, Wellness & Belonging

3. Economic Development & Transition

4. Housing for Social & Economic Balance

PATMA’s work supports three of these priorities: climate change, community health, and economic development. Regarding City Council’s priority of addressing climate change, PATMA helps reduce greenhouse gases from on-road transportation sources which are 51.7% of Palo Alto’s emissions, according to the City’s 2022 Greenhouse Gas Emissions inventory.

Supporting City of Palo Alto’s Sustainability/Climate Action Plan (S/CAP) The City of Palo Alto set a goal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80% below 1990 levels by 2030 and to become carbon neutral by 2030. One S/CAP mobility goal relevant to PATMA regarding reducing greenhouse gas emissions is “increasing the mode share for active transportation (walking, biking) and transit from 19% to 40% of local work trips by 2030.” The S/CAP focuses on launching effective programs for emissions reductions with the highest impact and lowest cost. PATMA’s programs help accomplish this goal as noted in the following section.

PATMA’s Top Five Accomplishments
The following were highlights of PATMA’s work in 2024.

1. Rebuilt the transit pass program from a Covid-induced low of 28 people served in May 2020 to a high of 300 in December 2024, exceeding pre-pandemic numbers. Figure 1 shows the number of PATMA-granted transit passes in circulation among Palo Alto workers over the past six years.

Item 15
Attachment A - 2024 Palo
Alto TMA Annual Report,
2026-28 Strategic Plan,
and 2024 Commute
Survey

Item 15: Staff Report
Pg.
12 Packet Pg. 238 of 288

4 | P a g e

Figure 1: Transit passes activated 2019 – 20241

2. Activated and distributed 197 Caltrain GoPasses from the Caltrain GoPass Donation Program. Likewise, 67 VTA Smartpasses were distributed to low wage service sector workers in 2024.

3. Received approval from transit agencies to continue distributing Caltrain GoPasses and VTA Smartpasses in 2025 to low wage service sector workers to help grow transit ridership.

4. Reduced 605 tons of greenhouse gas emissions

5. Started an e-bike and e-scooter pilot program with City of Palo Alto Utilities funding to develop case studies that will inspire other low wage service sector workers to consider active commutes.

These activities demonstrate the power of partnerships with local and regional organizations as well as the trust PATMA has established with local business managers.

1 Note the drop of transit passes between Dec 2023 and Jan 2024. This is due to the fact that in 2023, PATMA started distribuing free annual Caltrain GoPasses instead of renewing and paying for Caltrain passes each month. In December 2023, about 100 workers had moved to different jobs outside of Palo Alto and did not renew their GoPasses for January 2024. 0 50
100
150
200
250
300
350
Jan '19
Mar '19
May '19
Jul '19
Sep '19
Nov '19
Jan '20
Mar '20
May '20
Jul '20
Sep '20
Nov '20
Jan '21
Mar '21
May '21
Jul '21
Sep '21
Nov '21
Jan '22
Mar '22
May '22
Jul '22
Sep '22
Nov '22
Jan '23
Mar '23
May '23
Jul '23
Sept '23
Nov '23
Jan '24
Mar '24
May '24
Jul '24
Sep '24
Nov '24
Item 15
Attachment A - 2024 Palo
Alto TMA Annual Report,
2026-28 Strategic Plan,
and 2024 Commute
Survey

Item 15: Staff Report
Pg.
13 Packet Pg. 239 of 288

5 | P a g e

Programs
With funding from the City’s University Avenue Parking Fund, California Avenue Parking Fund, and General Fund, PATMA provides free Clipper Cards loaded with monthly or annual passes for Caltrain, VTA buses, SamTrans buses, and Dumbarton Transbay buses. PATMA also offers $10 credits for after-hours Lyft rides of less than five miles, refurbished bicycles at no cost to the recipient, and $5/day Bike Love rewards. During 2024, PATMA expanded outreach efforts to the Stanford Mall, throughout the length of El Camino Real, at Midtown, and in South Palo Alto.

Service sector workers who receive transit passes work primarily in food service establishments, retail, and accommodation. Light office workers who receive transit passes or accrue Bike Love rewards include staff at Palo Alto’s banks, dental and medical offices, and professional firms such as accounting and law offices.

Programs with income thresholds
Train and bus passes
Transit pass benefits are provided to employees earning less than $70,000 per year who work in the commercial areas of Palo Alto and who do not already receive employer-supported TDM benefits. Workers at the Stanford Research Park and Stanford University are ineligible for PATMA’s programs as these organizations have their own TDM programs.

Pilot: E-bicycles and e-scooters
With funding from the City of Palo Alto Utilities Department, in 2024 PATMA ran a pilot program to study e-bikes and e-scooters for active mobility commutes. Four pilot participants making less than $70,000/year received either an e-bike and safety equipment, or a 12-month e-scooter lease. The intent was to study how many times a week they used the e-bike or e- scooter, how many device miles they traveled, and understand supports and barriers to device use. The four participants in the 12-month pilot have realized the following benefits.

Figure 2: E-scooter and e-bike pilot case studies

Katrina uses an Unagi e-scooter to travel the
first mile to the Santa Clara Caltrain station,
folds it up and brings it onboard, then rides
the last mile to work. During the week she
often scooters to restaurants Downtown to
grab lunch. But the big time savings comes
when she leaves work. The e-scooter allows
her to catch the train and get home in time
to pick up her kids from school.

Item 15
Attachment A - 2024 Palo
Alto TMA Annual Report,
2026-28 Strategic Plan,
and 2024 Commute
Survey

Item 15: Staff Report
Pg.
14 Packet Pg. 240 of 288

6 | P a g e

Rickaya’s kids have scooters. Now that she
also has an e-scooter she can keep up with
them. After dropping them off at school, she
rides off to meet either the Caltrain or a VTA
bus. She folds up the Unagi e-scooter and
brings it on, then scooters the last half-mile to
work. Rickaya finds this a faster way to
commute from Santa Clara given rush hour
traffic or accidents on Highway 101 or 280.

Antonio works at Patagonia and lives in
Mountain View. Each morning, once he’s
ready to leave for work, he looks at the time
of the next Caltrain and the weather to
figure out if he wants to bike to Caltrain or
bike five miles to work. One handy feature
of his Lectric folding e-bike is that it does
not take up much space when folded, which
makes it easier to store safely inside at
home and at work. The benefits of the e-
bike to Antonio are getting exercise and
fresh air, relaxing on Caltrain, saving money
on gas, and helping the environment.

Item 15
Attachment A - 2024 Palo
Alto TMA Annual Report,
2026-28 Strategic Plan,
and 2024 Commute
Survey

Item 15: Staff Report
Pg.
15 Packet Pg. 241 of 288

7 | P a g e

Dorothee teaches cooking classes at Taste
Buds Kitchen in Midtown. She loves
commuting to work from Menlo Park on her
Lectric e-bike among the beautiful, tree-lined
streets of Palo Alto. The fresh air and exercise
energize her on the way to work.

Refurbished bicycles
In 2024, PATMA continued working with local non-profit Bike Exchange for a pilot program to provide seven refurbished bicycles and safety gear to essential workers. This pilot is open to workers making less than $70,000/year. Figure 3 shows several Palo Alto-based essential workers receiving their refurbished bicycles.

Figure 3: Essential workers taking delivery of their “new” refurbished bikes

Item 15
Attachment A - 2024 Palo
Alto TMA Annual Report,
2026-28 Strategic Plan,
and 2024 Commute
Survey

Item 15: Staff Report
Pg.
16 Packet Pg. 242 of 288

8 | P a g e

Lyft after-hours rides
The Lyft after-hours program provides rides home to workers commuting less than five miles after transit stops running.

Item 15
Attachment A - 2024 Palo
Alto TMA Annual Report,
2026-28 Strategic Plan,
and 2024 Commute
Survey

Item 15: Staff Report
Pg.
17 Packet Pg. 243 of 288

9 | P a g e

PATMA programs without an income threshold
Bike Love rewards
The Bike Love smartphone app provides daily incentives for active mode first-mile commute trips to transit and active mode commutes between home and work, of $5/day up to $599 per year per commuter. Automated travel mode detection identifies eligible bike, e-bike, e-scooter, and e-skateboard trips. Eligibility is determined by trips that stop or start within geofences around 30 Caltrain stations and five commercial areas (Downtown, California Ave., Stanford Mall, El Camino Real, and Midtown). Incentive dollars are instantly redeemable at local merchants via reloadable Apple/Google Wallet Virtual Visa cards.

Figure 4 shows the current geofences that mark commute destinations that earn workers rewards. This map includes all Caltrain stations, for workers who use a bike or e-scooter for first/last mile, as well as expanded commercial areas.

Figure 4: Bike Love Geofence Boundaries

In 2024, 35% of the transaction values of redeemed rewards happened in Palo Alto, in support of the City Council’s 2024 priority for economic development. The ability of Bike Love users to Item 15
Attachment A - 2024 Palo
Alto TMA Annual Report,
2026-28 Strategic Plan,
and 2024 Commute
Survey

Item 15: Staff Report
Pg.
18 Packet Pg. 244 of 288

10 | P a g e

redeem incentives at Palo Alto businesses helps keep dollars in the local economy. Figure 5 provides detail about where Bike Love users spend their reward funds.

Figure 5: Where Bike Love Rewards Were Spent in 2024
All
Palo
Alto
Mountain
View
Redwood
City
San
Francisco
San
Carlos
Sunny-
vale
Menlo
Park
Amazon
or online
Other
cities
Transactions
value ($) 17,503 4,944 596 195 1344 110 231 2,570 3,586 3,927 Number of
transactions 877 308 20 12 55 22 8 114 172 166
Source: Motion
This information is gathered from merchant identification numbers where rewards are redeemed.

For a quick overview video explaining the app, please visit Bike Love in 80 seconds (video).

Benefits of PATMA Programs
While PATMA programs save service workers money on their commutes, many other benefits of these programs accrue to local businesses, workers, City government, and Palo Alto residents.

Businesses
For business owners and managers, PATMA participation gives them a competitive advantage over similar businesses in nearby cities. Being able to provide transit passes to their employees helps shops, restaurants, and hotels attract and retain workers in competitive industries with high rates of staff turnover.

Workers
Workers who stop driving not only save money on variable vehicle costs such as gasoline, maintenance, and repairs, they also escape the stress of having to drive in traffic congestion.

The workers who commute by active modes enjoy the benefits of exercise that allow them to arrive at work energized and refreshed.

City of Palo Alto
Municipal governments impact the wellbeing of residents and workers within the city’s boundaries, and PATMA’s programs on the City’s behalf reduce traffic congestion, free up parking spaces in commercial areas, and enhance the quality of life for residents by reducing the number of cars parked in neighborhoods.

Item 15
Attachment A - 2024 Palo
Alto TMA Annual Report,
2026-28 Strategic Plan,
and 2024 Commute
Survey

Item 15: Staff Report
Pg.
19 Packet Pg. 245 of 288

11 | P a g e

Program Results
Results of the TMA’s program management, outreach, and program operation labor in Figures 6 – 12 depict the number of transit passes distributed, the cost per freed up parking space (cost/user), vehicle miles traveled avoided, and greenhouse gases reduced.

Among all businesses served, Figure 6 gives a breakdown by business with the number of their employees in descending order who had an active train or bus pass from PATMA in December 2024.

Figure 6: Number of Transit Passes Distributed by Employer in December 2024 Employer
Transit
Pass
Count
Sheraton/Westin 33
Nobu Hotel 16
Ettan 12
Whole Foods 10
Patagonia 9
Neiman Marcus 8
Walgreens 7
Coupa Cafe 7
Apple 7
Watercourse Way 6
Rangoon Ruby 6
Philz Coffee 6
Macy's 6
Crepevine 6
West Elm 5
The Palo Alto Inn 5
SkinSpirit 5
The Melt 4
Sephora 4
Peloton 4
Lytton Gardens
(Front Porch) 4
Christine Hansen
DDS 4
VIP Vein Treatment
Clinic 3
True Foods Kitchen 3
Employer
Transit
Pass
Count
San Agus 3
Oren's Hummus 3
Lima Ruby Peruvian
Restaurant 3
Hobee's 3
Glass Slipper Inn 3
Buca di Beppo 3
Avenidas 3
Yayoi 2
Wells Fargo 2
Webster House 2
Vizavoo Salon 2
Starbucks 2
Spring Spa 2
School of Rock 2
Restoration
Hardware (RH) 2
Palo Alto
Orthodontics 2
Palo Alto Oral and
Maxillofacial surgery 2
Palo Alto Bicycles 2
Mollie Stone’s
Market 2
McDonald’s 2
L&P Aesthetics 2
Kowa Ramen 2
Kindercare Day Care
Center 2
Equinox 2
Curry Up Now 2
Employer
Transit
Pass
Count
Creamery 2
Coach 2
City of Palo Alto
(interns) 2
Cardinal Hotel 2
Bright Horizons 2
Blue Bottle 2
Bloomingdales 2
Arya Steakhouse 2
Zola + Zola Bar 1
Zareen's 1
Xfinity 1
Wu Orthodontics 1
Williams Sonoma 1
Wetzel Pretzel 1
Victra 1
Trader Joes 1
The Real Real 1
TAVERNA 1
Tamarine 1
Tacolicious 1
Summit Bicycles 1
Sprinkles 1
Somi Somi 1
Smiles By Pai 1
Security Industry
Specialists 1
Rooh 1
PIP Printing 1
Item 15
Attachment A - 2024 Palo
Alto TMA Annual Report,
2026-28 Strategic Plan,
and 2024 Commute
Survey

Item 15: Staff Report
Pg.
20 Packet Pg. 246 of 288

12 | P a g e

Employer
Transit
Pass
Count
Palo Alto Bilingual
Montessori
Academy 1
Pacific catch 1
Nola Restaurant &
Bar 1
Matroid 1
Lush Cosmetics 1
La Bodeguita del
Medio 1
Kris Hamamoto
DDS, Inc. 1
Khazana Palo Alto 1
Keen Garage 1
K. Minamoto 1
Employer
Transit
Pass
Count
Immersion Spa 1
Imaginemos
Oruguitas 1
Guckenheimer: Palo
Alto Club 1
Gott's Roadside 1
Gong Cha 1
Gardening 1
Fast Repair 1
Everything but
Water 1
Everlane 1
Embarcadero Media
Foundation 1
Dr. William Tseng 1
Employer
Transit
Pass
Count
Downtown Streets
Team 1
Da Sichuan 1
Comfort Inn 1
Clement Hotel 1
City National Bank 1
Channing House 1
Caretaker (home in
Palo Alto) 1
Cafe 220 1
Block Advisors 1
Bike Connection 1
Beyond Explorations 1
Grand Total 304
Figure 7 provides the number of transit passes PATMA distributed to businesses along El Camino Real (between Park Blvd and San Antonio Rd) by month. PATMA’s proactive transit pass outreach efforts were conducted along with Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition volunteers to help reduce demand for parking ahead of the Caltrans repaving and bike lane project in fall 2024.

Figure 7: Transit Passes Distributed Along El Camino Real by Month in 2024 Month Caltrain VTA SamTrans Dumbarton Express
Jan
Feb
Mar 12
Apr 1 1
May 1
Jun
Jul
Aug 2
Sep 3 1 1 1
Oct 3 10 1
Nov 6 2 1
Dec
Total 14 26 4 2
PATMA’s marketing and outreach efforts throughout Palo Alto in 2024 resulted in the following impacts.

Item 15
Attachment A - 2024 Palo
Alto TMA Annual Report,
2026-28 Strategic Plan,
and 2024 Commute
Survey

Item 15: Staff Report
Pg.
21 Packet Pg. 247 of 288

13 | P a g e

Figure 8: Number of Commuters Diverted from Single-Occupancy Vehicles (average of three months) Program Q1 2024 Q2 2024 Q3 2024 Q4 2024
Transit passes 153 182 216.67 286.67
Bike Love (>12
rides/month)

13.33 15.33 14.67 10
Lyft 3.33 2.67 3.33 4
Total 169.67 200.0 234.67 300.67
Figures 9 and 10 show the average cost per month that PATMA paid to mode shift workers out of single-occupancy vehicles and into a sustainable transportation commute. The drop in monthly cost between December 2023 and December 2024 is partially attributable to the increased number of GoPasses Caltrain donated to PATMA and the highly discounted Smartpasses VTA sold to PATMA.

Figure 9: Cost per User in 2023
Cost per
user
Jan
'23
Feb
'23
Mar
'23
Q1
'23
Apr
'23 May '23 Jun '23 Q2 '23 Jul '23
Aug
'23
Sep
'23
Q3
'23
Oct
'23
Nov
'23 Dec '23
Q4
'23
ANNUAL
TOTALS
Transit
Pass
Program $39.45 $50.29 $44.49 $44.74 $45.98 $39.87 $38.30 $41.38 $36.29 $39.10 $36.97 $37.45 $45.54 $49.40 $31.92 $42.29 $493.97 Bike
Love $54.93 $69.97 $46.02 $56.98 $49.15 $53.16 $61.95 $54.75 $49.78 $72.12 $62.43 $61.44 $65.90 $74.84 $85.02 $75.25 $741.64 Lyft
Program $106.99 $63.31 $86.42 $85.57 $86.89 $100.09 $116.25 $101.08 $107.95 $93.98 $79.12 $93.68 $63.62 $78.78 $112.74 $85.05 $1,099.67 Average
cost/user $67.12 $61.19 $58.98 $62.43 $60.67 $64.37 $72.17 $65.74 $64.67 $68.40 $59.51 $64.19 $58.35 $67.67 $76.56 $67.53 $778.43

Figure 10: Cost per User in 2024
Cost per
user
Jan
'24
Feb
'24
Mar
'24
Q1
'24
Apr
'24 May '24 June
'24 Q2 '24 July '24 Aug
'24
Sept
'24
Q3
'24
Oct
'24
Nov
'24 Dec '24 Q4
'24
ANNUAL
TOTALS
Transit
pass
subsidy
$58.63 $56.07 $56.76 $57.15 $46.33 $50.77 $46.79 $47.97 $40.75 $38.86 $40.27 $39.96 $49.54 $19.69 $15.47 $28.23 $486.55 Bike
Love $52.47 $0.00 $99.46 $50.64 $47.49 $0.00 $69.60 $39.03 $80.36 $65.73 $54.30 $66.80 $54.20 $67.84 $83.84 $68.63 $659.46 Lyft
Program $86.54 $86.65 $69.47 $80.89 $85.35 $124.37 $78.04 $95.92 $94.98 $70.91 $70.00 $78.63 $42.17 $49.94 $54.67 $48.93 $870.62 Average
cost/user
$65.88 $47.57 $75.23 $62.89 $59.72 $58.38 $64.81 $60.97 $72.03 $58.50 $54.86 $61.80 $48.63 $45.82 $51.33 $48.60 $672.21 Figure 11 shows the number of avoided vehicle miles traveled as a result of PATMA’s programs.

Item 15
Attachment A - 2024 Palo
Alto TMA Annual Report,
2026-28 Strategic Plan,
and 2024 Commute
Survey

Item 15: Staff Report
Pg.
22 Packet Pg. 248 of 288

14 | P a g e

Figure 11: Avoided Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)
Program Q1 2024 Q2 2024 Q3 2024 Q4 2024
Transit pass subsidy 247,473.7 320,103.0 403,728.4 561,593.4 Lyft 250.4 211.9 239.1 195.8
Bike Love 2,179.4 2,408.2 2,205.9 1,852.1
Total 249,903.5 322,723.1 406,173.4 563,641.3

Adding up the four quarters, PATMA programs reduced vehicle miles traveled by 1,542,441.

And finally, Figure 12 shows greenhouse gas emissions reduced as a result of programs.

Figure 12: Greenhouse Gases Reduced (tons)
Program Q1 2024 Q2 2024 Q3 2024 Q4 2024
Transit passes, Lyft and Bike Love 98.5 126.0 158.7 220.2

In 2024, PATMA’s work resulted in a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions of 603.4 tons.

Testimonials
Beyond the quantitative effect, PATMA also has a qualitative impact on workers in Palo Alto.

The following feedback from employees of local businesses shows how much PATMA’s programs mean to the community. Here are some testimonials we received from retail, accommodations, and personal services establishments.
• “I was able to ride the bus to work this morning and it was a lot of fun! Very efficient and saving me lots of gas money! I appreciate your efforts and this awesome program!” - DéBorah S.
• “I love the ability to combine bicycling and Caltrain and not rely at all on an automobile.

And I am impressed by how the City of Palo Alto encourages and supports that.” - Dennis W.
• “Estoy muy contenta con el servicio de PATMA. Gracias .” (I am very happy with PATMA’s service.) - Yuliana A.
• “Being a part of the program really reduces my stress of commuting to work. I don’t drive because it will cost me too much money to drive back and forth versus taking the train. It really saves me stress and money.” – Ernestine T.

Item 15
Attachment A - 2024 Palo
Alto TMA Annual Report,
2026-28 Strategic Plan,
and 2024 Commute
Survey

Item 15: Staff Report
Pg.
23 Packet Pg. 249 of 288

15 | P a g e

• “Me gusta viajar en el Caltrain porque es comodo, llego a tiempo a mi trabajo, etc.” (I like to travel on Caltrain because it’s comfortable, I arrive to work on time, etc.) – Juana A.
• “Es seguro y siempre llego temprano a mi trabajo.” (It’s safe and I always arrive on time for work.) - Nancy R.
• “No issues! Happy with Caltrain.” – Spencer S.

Budget
The non-profit demonstrated program results which helped to grow its City funding allocation until 2020 when the pandemic altered commuting habits and parking fund revenues fell dramatically. Figure 13 shows the history of PATMA’s funding allotments since FY 2016.

Figure 13: PATMA Funding Since Inception

Since 2020, PATMA has worked hard to do more with less and build back the number of workers it supports with mode shift.

Grant funding
In 2024, PATMA applied for and received grants from four organizations to use for various purposes.
• VTA Transit Oriented Communities - $24,550 for outreach and marketing along El Camino Real to encourage mode shift to VTA buses
Item 15
Attachment A - 2024 Palo
Alto TMA Annual Report,
2026-28 Strategic Plan,
and 2024 Commute
Survey

Item 15: Staff Report
Pg.
24 Packet Pg. 250 of 288

16 | P a g e

• City of Palo Alto Utilities - $10,000 grant for e-bike and e-scooter pilot • Palo Alto Community Foundation - $5,000 unrestricted grant • Starbucks Neighborhood Grant - $1,000 used to purchase Starbucks gift cards to incentivize filling out PATMA’s commute survey
These grants complemented City of Palo Alto funding.

Figure 14 provides specific information about income sources and expenses by month.

Figure 14: PATMA Income and Expenses in 2024

In Figure 14, the Executive Director’s tasks include program oversight, communications with stakeholders, finance and accounting activities, managing board meetings, maintaining 501c3 non-profit status, tax filing, and pursuing grant opportunities to diversify funding sources.

The Program Coordinator’s labor involves updating the website, processing new transit pass requests, communicating about pass renewals, purchasing new passes, replacing lost passes, troubleshooting, and monitoring accounts.

Item 15
Attachment A - 2024 Palo
Alto TMA Annual Report,
2026-28 Strategic Plan,
and 2024 Commute
Survey

Item 15: Staff Report
Pg.
25 Packet Pg. 251 of 288

17 | P a g e

Figures 15 and 16 show relative income sources and expenditures. Note that the fair market value of Caltrain GoPasses ($827,400) and VTA Smartpasses ($50,105) in 2024 that PATMA received for free or at a fully discounted price respectively are not included in the income chart.

Figure 15: Overview of 2024 Income

Figure 16: Overview of 2024 Expenses

Item 15
Attachment A - 2024 Palo
Alto TMA Annual Report,
2026-28 Strategic Plan,
and 2024 Commute
Survey

Item 15: Staff Report
Pg.
26 Packet Pg. 252 of 288

18 | P a g e

Conclusion
In 2024, PATMA made great strides in mode shift and program cost effectiveness by working in close collaboration with a number of partners. Thanks to our colleagues at Caltrain and VTA, additional free Caltrain GoPasses and highly discounted VTA Smartpasses helped bring down PATMA’s cost/user. Grant providers supported PATMA with specific aspects of our mode shift work along El Camino Real and during the annual commute survey.

Local and regional non-profits such as Bike Exchange, Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition, Seamless Bay Area, and Palo Alto Forward either provided services, volunteers, or introduced PATMA to potential funders to grow our work. In addition, PATMA’s Board members provided valuable advice and conducted advocacy on PATMA’s behalf.

All together, these collaborations have helped position PATMA to have an even larger impact reducing traffic, demand for parking, and greenhouse gas emissions in 2025.

Item 15
Attachment A - 2024 Palo
Alto TMA Annual Report,
2026-28 Strategic Plan,
and 2024 Commute
Survey

Item 15: Staff Report
Pg.
27 Packet Pg. 253 of 288

Three-Year Strategic Plan
July 1, 2025 – June 30, 2028
Submitted to the Palo Alto City Council

Prepared by:

Palo Alto Transportation Management Association
855 El Camino Real #13A-200, Palo Alto, CA 94301
www.paloaltotma.org

March 2025

Item 15
Attachment A - 2024 Palo
Alto TMA Annual Report,
2026-28 Strategic Plan,
and 2024 Commute
Survey

Item 15: Staff Report
Pg.
28 Packet Pg. 254 of 288

Table of Contents
Executive Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ . 1 Introduction ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 1 Context ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 2 PATMA Programs ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 5 Accomplishments ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 6 Three-Year Strategic Planning ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 7 Workplan ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 10 Budget ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 10 Conclusion ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 12

Item 15
Attachment A - 2024 Palo
Alto TMA Annual Report,
2026-28 Strategic Plan,
and 2024 Commute
Survey

Item 15: Staff Report
Pg.
29 Packet Pg. 255 of 288

1 PATMA’s Three Year Strategic Plan
July 1, 2025 – June 30, 2028
Executive Summary
Each year, the Palo Alto Transportation Management Association (PATMA) conducts a Three-Year Strategic Plan with input from its Board of Directors. This plan provides a roadmap of goals, strategies, tactics, and objectives that ensure the non-profit will be able to help an increasing number of workers shift from driving single-occupancy vehicles to sustainable transportation modes.

PATMA’s work supports local businesses with transportation demand management programs that help companies attract and retain workers: free transit passes, refurbished bicycles, rewards for active mobility commutes, and after-hours Lyft rides less than five miles. For the past five years, PATMA has been rebuilding from a pandemic-induced 90% drop in transit pass requests in early 2020 and in 2024 exceeded pre-pandemic numbers.

In December 2024, PATMA’s programs resulted in a reduction of demand for 312 parking spaces which yields benefits every day, all year. Building on this success, this Strategic Plan details the following goals for the next three years.
• Year 1: Scale up the number of transit passes; scale up the number of active mobility commuters traveling <3 miles
• Year 2: Make it easier for commuters to access multiple sustainable commute modes; support active commutes <5 miles
• Year 3: Leverage new technologies and programs to enable workers to commute without a personal vehicle
In the next year, PATMA expects dramatic growth in the number of workers served by our mode shift work for several reasons. Contractually, PATMA is now able to offer programs beyond just Downtown and California Ave to most businesses throughout the commercial areas of Palo Alto.

New findings from the 2024 Commute Survey provide insights about which sectors offer mode shift opportunities. PATMA has the ability to provide programs to workers at a higher income threshold.

Caltrain and VTA have made a large number of free or highly discounted transit passes available.

Starting in FY2025, the City restored PATMA’s baseline $400,000 budget which provided more resources to accomplish mode shift.

These conditions enable growth in the number of workers served in the next year.

Introduction
The Palo Alto Transportation Management Association (PATMA) is a non-profit leading efforts to reshape commute behaviors around town. Abundant mass transit, active mobility (bicycle, electric scooter, walking), on-demand ride hailing options, as well as trip planning and real time arrival apps are available to enable workers who live and work near major transit pipelines (Caltrain, VTA 22/522, SamTrans ECR, and the Dumbarton Express) to commute quickly and efficiently without Item 15
Attachment A - 2024 Palo
Alto TMA Annual Report,
2026-28 Strategic Plan,
and 2024 Commute
Survey

Item 15: Staff Report
Pg.
30 Packet Pg. 256 of 288

2 needing to own a personal vehicle. In this spirit, PATMA provides information and incentives that encourage workers to shift out of their single-occupancy vehicles (SOVs) and into low-carbon transportation options.

For the 12-month period ending December 31, 2024, PATMA programs resulted in a reduction in demand for 312 parking spaces around town, 1,542,441 fewer vehicle miles traveled, and 603 fewer tons of greenhouse gas emissions by providing free transit passes, $5/day Bike Love rewards, refurbished bicycles, and after-hour Lyft rides.

There is potential for PATMA to free up more parking spaces and reduce more greenhouse gas emissions. The following Three-Year Strategic Plan, which is compiled each year for the next three years, lays out goals, strategies, tactics, and objectives for PATMA’s work supporting Palo Alto businesses and workers over the next three years.

Context
Several contextual elements inform this strategic plan, including the City of Palo Alto’s ambitious greenhouse gas emission reduction goals, the fact that on-road transportation contributes more than half of Palo Alto’s greenhouse gases emissions, the priorities the Palo Alto City Council sets each January, PATMA’s contract with the City of Palo Alto, and PATMA’s bylaws, among other considerations.

Sustainability Climate Action Plan (S/CAP)
The City of Palo Alto set a goal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80% below 1990 levels by 2030 and to become carbon neutral by 2030. One S/CAP mobility goal relevant to PATMA regarding reducing greenhouse gas emissions is “increasing the mode share for active transportation (walking, biking) and transit from 19% to 40% of local work trips by 2030.” Two sectors in Palo Alto already exceed the 40% metric.

Data from PATMA’s 2024 commute survey found the following percentages of workers in four different work sectors in Palo Alto who were commuting by a mode other than driving a single- occupancy vehicle:
• Service – 45%
• Light office – 23%
• Tech – 45%
• Government – 28%
To help realize the City’s S/CAP goal that 40% of work trips by 2030 be by transit or active mobility, PATMA plans to support each sector in different ways. The service sector - in retail, food service, and accommodation - has a high sustainable commute rate already but also high turnover. This is a sector whose employees served as frontline workers during the pandemic, that are price sensitive and have elastic demand for driving to work, and as a result is most open to PATMA’s sustainable commute mode shift programs. PATMA will continue offering programs to new service sector employees.

Item 15
Attachment A - 2024 Palo
Alto TMA Annual Report,
2026-28 Strategic Plan,
and 2024 Commute
Survey

Item 15: Staff Report
Pg.
31 Packet Pg. 257 of 288

3 With PATMA’s new higher income threshold, PATMA will be able to serve more members of front office staff in the light office sector who have been just above PATMA’s old income threshold of $70,000/year. Finally, PATMA will support mode shift efforts at large tech companies and the City of Palo Alto by sharing annual commute survey findings, and in the case of tech companies, table at commuter fairs when requested. All of these efforts will help realize the City’s S/CAP goals.

City Council Priorities
Each year, the Palo Alto City Council sets their strategic priorities for the year. In January 2025, the new set of goals included:

1. Climate Change & Natural Environment – Protection & Adaptation

2. Community Health, Safety, Wellness & Belonging

3. Economic Development & Transition

4. Housing for Social & Economic Balance

PATMA’s programs help address three of these four priorities: economic recovery, climate change, and community health by providing low wage workers with commute counseling, access to free transit passes, rewards for bicycling to work, and late night ride hailing services.

PATMA’s Contract with the City of Palo Alto
The contract between the City of Palo Alto and PATMA provides guidance about how public funds should be used to ensure the public good as well as planning, reporting, and surveying requirements.
• Use of City funds – “PATMA shall use the City Funds for “pilot projects” intended to reduce single occupancy vehicle trips by Downtown and California Avenue Business District workers, as mutually agreed upon by the City Manager and PATMA. For FY24 and FY25, $200,000 of City Funds may be used to reduce single occupancy vehicle trips anywhere in Palo Alto. Pilot projects may include purchase and distribution of transit passes, active commute rewards, support for carpooling, and other measures to address first mile and last mile connections. If PATMA uses City Funds to purchase transit passes to give away free-of-charge, the free transit passes shall be provided solely to low income workers.” • Planning – “PATMA shall: (a) conduct an annual strategic planning session producing 3-year goals and objectives and funding requirements, and prepare an annual budget with projected metrics (cost per mode shift, ROI, etc.), and (b) annually provide to the City a detailed, updated strategic plan and budget. The strategic plan may utilize scenarios to illustrate the return on investment associated with different funding levels. The strategic plan shall identify the projects proposed to be funded with the City Funds for the City Manager’s review and approval.”
• Reporting – “PATMA shall provide the City with quarterly written reports on the implementation and effectiveness of pilot programs funded by the City, including quantitative measures of SOV trip reduction and mode shift achieved, metrics used, cost Item 15
Attachment A - 2024 Palo
Alto TMA Annual Report,
2026-28 Strategic Plan,
and 2024 Commute
Survey

Item 15: Staff Report
Pg.
32 Packet Pg. 258 of 288

4 per employee mode shift, and how the City Funds were expended. PATMA shall submit the reports at the same time that PATMA submits the quarterly invoice to the City.” • Surveying – “PATMA shall conduct a robust survey of Downtown and California Avenue Business District employee commute patterns on an annual basis. Additional areas of Palo Alto where the TMA has been active may be included in the survey.” PATMA’s Bylaws
PATMA’s bylaws provide operating instructions for the non-profit. One way it does this is by ensuring PATMA’s board members represent a range of interests among the Palo Alto community as well as the number of board members PATMA should have. • Qualifications of Directors. “The Board shall in good faith strive to include as Directors, representatives from major stakeholder groups serving PATMA’s current or planned/proposed service areas, including representatives of the following industries:
technology, real estate development, retail and/or hospitality, philanthropy, and traditional office (e.g., finance, accounting, legal) and including representatives representing residential interests.”
• Number of Directors. “The authorized number of Directors shall consist of at least five but no more than thirteen Directors.”
New Mission and Core Values
In 2024, PATMA staff and their board rewrote PATMA’s mission statement to make it more memorable and rewrote its core values to provide clarity on what the non-profit seeks to accomplish.

Mission
Better commutes for everyone
Core values
• Traffic – lighten traffic congestion
• Parking – reduce demand for parking in commercial areas • Climate change – transition to a zero-emission transportation system • Equity – fair outcomes, treatment and opportunities for all • Local businesses – help local businesses attract and retain employees • Health – encourage community health
Higher Income Threshold
In 2018, PATMA raised its income threshold for program participation from $50,000 to $70,000/year. Since then, the cost of living in the Bay Area has increased substantially. In January 2025, PATMA’s board decided to raise the threshold to 80% of Area Median Income in Santa Clara County which in 2024 was $103,200/year for a household of one.

All together, this context provides guidance to PATMA about how to structure our programs to best serve the public’s interest.

Item 15
Attachment A - 2024 Palo
Alto TMA Annual Report,
2026-28 Strategic Plan,
and 2024 Commute
Survey

Item 15: Staff Report
Pg.
33 Packet Pg. 259 of 288

5 PATMA Programs
Programs with a $100,000/year income threshold
Transit Passes
Currently, PATMA focuses on supporting essential workers in the commercial districts of Downtown and California Ave, at the Stanford Mall, along El Camino Real, at Midtown, and along San Antonio Rd. If these workers are driving to work and make less than $100,000/year1, they can receive free Caltrain, SamTrans, or Dumbarton Transbay bus passes.2 Refurbished Bicycles
In 2022, PATMA piloted a refurbished bicycle program with the local non-profit Bike Exchange. This refurbished bicycle program is for essential workers in Palo Alto making less than PATMA’s income threshold who would like to bike to work but do not own a bicycle. If they also need any safety equipment – helmet, lock, lights – Bike Exchange provides these to each essential worker receiving a refurbished bike.

E-bike e-scooter pilot
This pilot studied two mode shift scenarios: active commutes via e-bike and first/last mile solutions via e-scooter. Four pilot participants making less than $70,000/year received either an e- bike and safety equipment, or a 12-month e-scooter lease. The intent was to study how many times a week they used the e-bike or e-scooter, how many device miles they traveled, and understand supports and barriers to device use. In addition, based on what is learned in the pilot, PATMA will create case studies with photos to inspire other workers in similar situations who drive alone to work.

After hours Lyft rides
Workers who live less than five miles from work and who need to travel home from work late at night when mass transit is not running can receive a $10 Lyft credit per ride.

Program without an income threshold
Bike Love
PATMA’s Bike Love app provides $5/day up to $599/year to workers in Palo Alto’s commercial districts to encourage commuters to leave their cars at home and bike or e-scooter to work. Unlike the transit pass program, there are no income restrictions for the Bike Love program. The app was designed to provide attractive financial rewards to build active mobility habits. See Figure 1 for a map of Bike Love program boundaries within which workers earn rewards. The Bike Love app also

1 PATMA’s new income threshold is currently 80% of Santa Clara County’s Area Median Income, which in 2024 was $103,200 for a household of one person. For the sake of memorability to PATMA’s target audience, marketing materials will say $100,000/year.
2 VTA is currently working on a contract amendment to allow PATMA to raise the income limit for access to Smartpasses to workers making less than 80% of Area Median Income.

Item 15
Attachment A - 2024 Palo
Alto TMA Annual Report,
2026-28 Strategic Plan,
and 2024 Commute
Survey

Item 15: Staff Report
Pg.
34 Packet Pg. 260 of 288

6 rewards travel to all 30 Caltrain
stations for commuters who would
be incentivized to bike or scooter to
Caltrain and take the train to work.

In 2024, 35% of Bike Love reward
transactions were redeemed at
Palo Alto-based businesses which
is another way that PATMA
supports local businesses and
multiplies program impact to
benefit the local economy.

Accomplishments
PATMA’s sustainable
transportation programs in 2024,
resulted in a reduction in demand
for 312 parking spaces around town, 1,542,441 fewer vehicle miles traveled, and 603 fewer tons of greenhouse gas emissions. The majority of these results were due to the transit pass program.

See Figure 2 for the number of transit passes activated over the past five years.

Figure 2: Transit passes activated 2019-20243

3 Note the drop in the number of transit passes activated in January 2024. This was due to a switch from monthly pass purchases to annual free passes. High turnover in the service sector means about 100 workers no longer needed transit passes for 2025 which PATMA found out about after asking if they wanted to re-register in December 2024 for 2025.
0 50
100
150
200
250
300
350
Figure 1: Geofenced areas for Bike Love rewards

Item 15
Attachment A - 2024 Palo
Alto TMA Annual Report,
2026-28 Strategic Plan,
and 2024 Commute
Survey

Item 15: Staff Report
Pg.
35 Packet Pg. 261 of 288

7 Three-Year Strategic Planning
With this context in mind, PATMA staff and board members met in person in December 2024 to discuss strategic planning for the next three years. Input gathered informs PATMA’s path forward with goals (targets to achieve), strategies (plan of action), tactics (specific actions), and objectives (measurable outcomes) for FY2026-FY2028.

Year 1 (Jul 2025-Jun 2026)
Assumptions: Free Caltrain GoPasses and highly discounted VTA Smartpasses will continue to be available for PATMA to distribute to low wage workers
Goals
• Scale up number of transit passes activated
• Scale up number of workers commuting <3 miles by active mobility • Support S/CAP goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions • Support local businesses to attract and retain workers Strategies
• Develop or deepen relationships with managers at light office and service sector businesses
• Develop or deepen relationships with community-based organizations that work on transportation, housing and/or climate issues
• Raise awareness about PATMA’s programs
• Develop new pilot programs
Tactics
• Update and expand marketing collateral for transit passes and active mobility o Update one page flyer with $100,000 income threshold for English, Spanish, and Mandarin. Translate into Vietnamese.
o Develop window clings (non-adhesive decal) for windows of businesses that receive PATMA incentives
• Deploy 8 minute 1:1 manager training on mode shift programs and tools beneficial to workers (transit passes, refurbished bikes, $5/day Bike Love, after-hours Lyft, Transit app) o 40% transit or active mobility commutes by 2030 S/CAP goal o One page flyer
o Real time arrival information: Transit app and Caltrain live system map o Window clings – membership and ask them to post
• Refer a co-worker outreach wherein workers receive a free coffeehouse gift card if the coworker they refer receives a transit pass
• Refine application process for refurbished bicycle program (apply, download Bike Love app, and pass bike safety quiz) before workers can receive a refurbished bicycle • Conduct annual commute survey
Item 15
Attachment A - 2024 Palo
Alto TMA Annual Report,
2026-28 Strategic Plan,
and 2024 Commute
Survey

Item 15: Staff Report
Pg.
36 Packet Pg. 262 of 288

8 • Develop pilot programs that encourage active mobility – e-bike financing, bike safety quiz and classes
• Hold a promotional event around active mobility
• Organize interactive information sharing event with other Bay Area TMA and TDM professionals
• Deepen relationships with non-profit organizations that have similar missions and goals (Friends of Caltrain, Seamless Bay Area, Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition, Bike Exchange, Alta Housing)
• Develop and share short, relevant content regularly with local CBOs and the Chamber of Commerce to distribute to their membership
• Develop and offer short content regularly to local online news outlets Objectives
• # freed up parking spaces
• # workers using transit passes
• # workers commuting by active mobility
• # vehicle miles traveled reduced
• # tons greenhouse gas emissions reduced
• # survey respondents
Year 2 (Jul 2026-Jun 2027)
Assumptions: Availability of Tap to Pay, expanded Bay Pass program, and/or Mobility Wallet pilot Goals
• Scale up number of transit passes
• Enable workers who live outside Santa Clara County to access multiple sustainable commute modes and make transit connections seamlessly
• Scale up number of active mobility commutes <5 miles
• Find creative solutions to challenges of workers interested in active mobility commutes <5 miles
Strategies
• Raise awareness about PATMA’s programs by strengthening relationships with local business managers and community-based organizations
• Update printed and digital promotional materials
• Leverage new technologies for trip planning and payment • Develop new pilot programs
Tactics
• Develop e-bike financing pilot program
Item 15
Attachment A - 2024 Palo
Alto TMA Annual Report,
2026-28 Strategic Plan,
and 2024 Commute
Survey

Item 15: Staff Report
Pg.
37 Packet Pg. 263 of 288

9 • Update printed and digital materials to address gaps in knowledge and mode shift friction points
• Train managers on new apps that help workers plan and pay for sustainable commute modes
• Update branding materials – PATMA as a fun, trusted, and valued brand • Further streamline application process
• Conduct commute survey
• Hold a promotional event
• Develop and share content with inspiring new case studies about local workers commuting by transit or active mobility
Objectives
• # freed up parking spaces
• # workers using transit passes
• # workers commuting by active mobility
• # vehicle miles traveled reduced
• # tons greenhouse gas emissions reduced
• # survey respondents
Year 3 (Jul 2027-Jun 2028)
Assumptions: 2026 Bay Area ballot initiative passed providing more funding for transit agencies which allows them to increase service frequency, Mobility Hubs are available around town Goals
• Workers can easily commute without a personal vehicle • Study and leverage new technologies (ex., Mobility as a Service to plan and pay for commute trips, commute management platform)
• Support the evolution of our region’s commuting systems • Determine what is missing to help workers get where they need to go without owning a personal vehicle
Strategies
• Expand PATMA’s toolkit of information and incentives to encourage mode shift • Help expand clean transportation options available to workers in Palo Alto Tactics
• Develop new case studies of workers who commute by transit or active mobility • Test new technology Mobility-as-a-Service planning and payment options as they become available
• Promote Mobility Hubs that are available
Item 15
Attachment A - 2024 Palo
Alto TMA Annual Report,
2026-28 Strategic Plan,
and 2024 Commute
Survey

Item 15: Staff Report
Pg.
38 Packet Pg. 264 of 288

10 Objectives
• # parking spaces freed up
• # vehicle miles traveled reduced
• # tons greenhouse gas emissions reduced
• # survey respondents
Workplan
Year 1
The flow of work over the course of FY2026 is shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3: Year 1 workplan
Jul
‘25
Aug
‘25
Sep
‘25
Oct
‘25
Nov
‘25
Dec
‘25
Jan
‘26
Feb
‘26
Mar
‘26
Apr
‘26
May
‘26
Jun
‘26
Events X X X
Market transit passes X X X X
Develop pilot X X
Translate materials into
additional language
X
Commute survey X X X
Apply for grant funding X X
Deliver Commute
Survey, Annual Report,
and Strategic Plan
reports
X
Market active mobility X X X
Budget
Looking back at funding levels since PATMA’s inception in 2016, PATMA grew over several years and demonstrated cost-effective successes freeing up parking spaces, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and reducing vehicle miles traveled until the pandemic. Figure 4 shows historic budget trends.

Item 15
Attachment A - 2024 Palo
Alto TMA Annual Report,
2026-28 Strategic Plan,
and 2024 Commute
Survey

Item 15: Staff Report
Pg.
39 Packet Pg. 265 of 288

11 Figure 4: PATMA funding since inception

The PATMA baseline budget is $400,000. This level allows PATMA to continue with 2 part-time staff and pull in additional contractors on an ad hoc basis to support seasonal activities such as active mobility marketing in the spring and Commute Survey distribution in the fall. A status quo budget for FY2026 will allow PATMA to:
• Perform marketing and outreach to target sectors
• Develop or deepen relationships with business managers who are the gatekeepers to workers who could use PATMA’s programs and services
• Conduct the annual commute survey
• Free up additional parking spaces, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and ease traffic congestion
In 2024, the cost/user/year or cost to free up a parking space was $672 while in 2023 the cost/user/year was $780. This includes the cost to purchase transit passes, Lyft rides, refurbished bicycles, and $5/day Bike Love rewards. Figure 5 provides three budget scenarios for PATMA’s projected expenses in FY2026. The $400,000 scenario represents a continuation of the restored budget PATMA realized in FY2025, closer to a pre-pandemic level which would allow PATMA to grow the program’s impact to 500 parking spaces freed up. The $350,000 budget would allow us to grow the program to 400 parking spaces freed up. A smaller $300,000 budget would maintain our impact at 312 parking spaces freed up.

Item 15
Attachment A - 2024 Palo
Alto TMA Annual Report,
2026-28 Strategic Plan,
and 2024 Commute
Survey

Item 15: Staff Report
Pg.
40 Packet Pg. 266 of 288

12 Figure 5: Three budget scenarios for FY2026
Expenses Expenses
$400,000
budget
Expenses
$350,000
budget
Expenses
$300,000
budget
ALTRANS management $105,000 $95,000 $85,000
Business (office supplies, insurance, software) $8,000 $8,000 $8,000 Lyft $3,000 $3,000 $0
ALTRANS operations & admin $105,000 $84,000 $75,000
Transit passes - Clipper card expenses $115,000 $100,000 $100,000 Commute survey $28,000 $28,000 $28,000
E-bike e-scooter pilot $4,000 $0 $0
Refurbished bikes $4,000 $4,000 $4,000
Bike Love $28,000 $28,000 $0
Total $400,000 $350,000 $300,000
In the $350,000 budget scenario, PATMA would cut staff hours and expenditures on transit passes.

In the $300,000 budget scenario, PATMA would cut back further on staff hours, cut the Lyft afterhours program, and cut the BikeLove $5/day rewards program.

As circumstances change, PATMA has the ability to adjust income and expenses through various financial levers.
• Reducing labor costs
• Reducing program expenses
• Requesting additional GoPasses from Caltrain and large employers in the area • Increasing grant writing and philanthropic fundraising PATMA will continue to operate leanly and use our budget effectively to maximize impact.

Conclusion
Many public and private organizations in the Bay Area are working hard to facilitate a future seamless, integrated low-carbon transportation system that will lower personal transportation costs and reduce GHG emissions. PATMA will continue to monitor developments in these areas and adjust our programs accordingly to best serve Palo Alto businesses.

In support of the local economy, over the next three years PATMA will look for opportunities to help more workers shift to a sustainable commute as we raise awareness about the benefits of transit and active mobility commutes, offer information about sustainable transportation options, and provide programs and incentives for mode shift.

Item 15
Attachment A - 2024 Palo
Alto TMA Annual Report,
2026-28 Strategic Plan,
and 2024 Commute
Survey

Item 15: Staff Report
Pg.
41 Packet Pg. 267 of 288

2024 COMMUTE SURVEY REPORT
for

and
PATMA Board Members

Cedric de la Beaujardiere, resident (Chair)
Rob George, Philz Coffee (Treasurer)
Shannon McEntee, resident (Secretary)
Philip Kamhi, City of Palo Alto
Sebastian Mafla, Sheraton
Alejandra Mier, Coupa Cafe
Nathan Duncan, Patagonia
Steven Lee, Meta

December 2024

Prepared by:

Justine Burt
Sana Ahmed
ALTRANS TMA Inc
302 Toyon Ave, F, 410
San Jose, CA 95127
www.altrans.net

Item 15
Attachment A - 2024 Palo
Alto TMA Annual Report,
2026-28 Strategic Plan,
and 2024 Commute
Survey

Item 15: Staff Report
Pg.
42 Packet Pg. 268 of 288

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. 1 Introduction ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 3 Survey Population ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 3 Survey Methodology ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 6 Results ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 6 Key Insights ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 17 Conclusions ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 18 Item 15
Attachment A - 2024 Palo
Alto TMA Annual Report,
2026-28 Strategic Plan,
and 2024 Commute
Survey

Item 15: Staff Report
Pg.
43 Packet Pg. 269 of 288

1 Executive Summary
In August and September 2024, the Palo Alto Transportation Management Association (PATMA) team surveyed workers in commercial areas of Palo Alto to learn about their commute habits and preferences. The team conducted online and in-person surveys in English, Spanish, and Mandarin beginning with emailing and texting then following up with door-to-door canvassing. This document provides highlights from the survey findings.

The two main objectives of the commute survey were to 1) determine which workers were open to shifting their commute from single-occupancy vehicles to mass transit or active mobility options and 2) raise awareness of PATMA’s programs.

Based on the 885 completed surveys, Figure 1 shows the percentage of respondents from the four main sectors into which PATMA classifies workers: service, government, technology, and light office.

Figure 1: Survey Respondents by Sector

Figure 2 below provides the primary mode workers use to commute each week . The survey found that overall 62% of w orkers surveyed use d a single -occupancy vehicle (SOV) as their primary commute mode in 2024.

Item 15
Attachment A - 2024 Palo
Alto TMA Annual Report,
2026-28 Strategic Plan,
and 2024 Commute
Survey

Item 15: Staff Report
Pg.
44 Packet Pg. 270 of 288

2 Figure 2: Primary Commute Mode of Survey Respondents

By separating out commute mode by work sector, Figure 3 illustrates the sectors with the highest drive alone rates: light office and government.

Figure 3: Commute Mode by Work Sector

With respect to PATMA’s mission, data collected in the 2024 commute survey provides opportunities to reach more workers and expand PATMA’s program offerings that will help realize PATMA’s goals to reduce traffic congestion, reduce demand for parking, support small businesses, lower greenhouse gas emissions, and address social equity issues.

Item 15
Attachment A - 2024 Palo
Alto TMA Annual Report,
2026-28 Strategic Plan,
and 2024 Commute
Survey

Item 15: Staff Report
Pg.
45 Packet Pg. 271 of 288

3 Introduction
In 2024, the Palo Alto Transportation Management Association (PATMA) conducted its ninth annual employee commute survey as required by the funding agreement between PATMA and the City of Palo Alto (COPA). PATMA contracted with ALTRANS TMA Inc. to conduct the survey and performed outreach in August and September 2024.

The survey was designed to identify how Palo Alto employees working in the commercial areas of Palo Alto - University Avenue (Downtown), California Avenue (Cal Ave), El Camino Real, the Stanford Mall, the Charleston Middlefield shopping center, and along San Antonio Rd - commute to work, identify individuals currently driving alone who are open to shifting to a sustainable commute mode, and raise awareness of PATMA’s program offerings.

Survey Population
According to U.S. Census data, the total worker population in Palo Alto was 109,011 in 2022.

The darker shaded areas of Figure 4 show where work centers are clustered Downtown, along El Camino Real, and along San Antonio close to Highway 101.

Figure 4: Density of Workers in Palo Alto

Source: U.S. Census OnTheMap, 2022
Item 15
Attachment A - 2024 Palo
Alto TMA Annual Report,
2026-28 Strategic Plan,
and 2024 Commute
Survey

Item 15: Staff Report
Pg.
46 Packet Pg. 272 of 288

4 The U.S. Census organizes sectors using the North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) categories. Figure 5 shows the number of workers by NAICS codes.

Figure 5: Palo Alto Workers by Sector
NAICS Sector Number of
Employees
Percentage
Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing, and Hunting 5 0.0%
Mining, Quarrying, Oil and Gas Extraction 1 0.0%
Utilities 282 0.3%
Construction 881 0.8%
Manufacturing 5,152 4.7%
Wholesale Trade 971 0.9%
Retail Trade 3,991 3.7%
Transportation and Warehousing 2,217 2.0%
Information 18,860 17.3%
Finance and Insurance 4,283 3.9%
Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 1,389 1.3%
Professional, Scientific, and Information 23,575 21.6%
Management of Companies and Enterprises 3,049 2.8%
Administration & Support, Waste Management and Remediation 1,915 1.8% Educational Services 3,420 3.1%
Healthcare and Social Assistance 30,187 27.7%
Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 831 0.8%
Accommodation and Food Services 4,931 4.5%
Other Services (excluding Public Administration) 2,315 2.1% Public Administration 756 0.7%

PATMA organizes NAICS sectors into four employer categories – service, light office, technology, and government – and offers programs to workers in the first two categories.

Figure 6 shows which NAICS code sectors PATMA includes in service, light office, technology, and government categories.

Figure 6: NAICS Codes and PATMA Classification
NAICS Code NAICS Sector Name PATMA
Classification
11 21
22 23
31-33
42 44-45
48-49
51 Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting
Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and Gas Extraction
Utilities
Construction
Manufacturing
Wholesale Trade
Retail Trade
Transportation and Warehousing
Information
Service
Service
Government
Service
Service
Service
Service
Service
Technology
Item 15
Attachment A - 2024 Palo
Alto TMA Annual Report,
2026-28 Strategic Plan,
and 2024 Commute
Survey

Item 15: Staff Report
Pg.
47 Packet Pg. 273 of 288

5 NAICS Code NAICS Sector Name PATMA
Classification
52 53
54 55
56 61
62 71
72 81
92 Finance and Insurance
Real Estate and Rental and Leasing
Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services
Management of Companies and Enterprises
Administrative and Support and Waste Management
and Remediation Services
Educational Services
Health Care and Social Assistance
Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation
Accommodation and Food Services
Other Services (except Public Administration)
Public Administration
Light Office
Light Office
Technology
Light Office
Light Office

Light Office
Service
Light Office
Service
Service
Government
Source: NAICS Association
After sorting Census data for the number of workers in the four categories for statistical purposes, Figure 7 shows the number of workers in each category and the total worker population in Palo Alto.

Figure 7: Number of Workers in Four Sectors
PATMA Organization Category Number of Employees % Share Service 50,651 46%
Light Office 14,887 14%
Technology 42,435 39%
Government 1,038 1%
Total 109,011
Subtracting the 29,000 worker population at the Stanford Research Park, which has its own Transportation Management Association, leaves us with a worker population of 80,011.

After cleaning the survey data of duplicate responses and incomplete surveys, there were a total of 885 complete surveys of which:
• 399 respondents were service sector workers
• 280 were government staff
• 47 were light office workers
• 142 were tech workers
• 17 chose not to share their employer’s name
This year’s response rate was higher than the t hree previous years the survey was conducted.

The response rate for each of the nine survey years is shown in Figure 8.

Item 15
Attachment A - 2024 Palo
Alto TMA Annual Report,
2026-28 Strategic Plan,
and 2024 Commute
Survey

Item 15: Staff Report
Pg.
48 Packet Pg. 274 of 288

6 Figure 8: Number of PATMA Commute Survey Responses by Year Year Number of Respondents
2024 885
2023 738
2022 511
2021 551
2019 1,471
2018 496
2017 892
2016 829
2015 1,173

Compared to 2023, stronger working relationships with managers in the technology and government sectors in 2024 helped boost response numbers.

Survey Methodology
In August and September 2024, the PATMA team reached out to businesses and organizations to administer the survey. The survey asked questions about the primary travel mode workers used to commute, their home city, employer, income level, and openness to sustainable commute options.

The survey was administered through the SurveyMonkey platform which respondents accessed via personal smartphones through a QR code or PATMA’s electronic tablets. The electronic survey tool offers skip logic and survey branching to optimize question relevance to different respondents. Paper copies of the surveys in English and Spanish were distributed to managers at downtown hotels who collected responses from their staff. Electronic surveys in Mandarin were administered at restaurants and spas. Block-by-block, door-to-door canvassing resulted in a dataset representing businesses and organizations in commercial areas. Door-to-door outreach was bolstered by mass texting and email follow-up to business contacts.

As noted above, the PATMA team secured 885 responses from a citywide worker population of 80,011. With a 95% confidence level and a sample size representing 1.1% of the population, the margin of error for this data is ±3%.

Results
Data collected in this survey shed light on several topics:
• how people commute to work
• where they are coming from
• which workers could commute using one main transit or active mobility option Item 15
Attachment A - 2024 Palo
Alto TMA Annual Report,
2026-28 Strategic Plan,
and 2024 Commute
Survey

Item 15: Staff Report
Pg.
49 Packet Pg. 275 of 288

7 • which workers are open to a different commute mode, and • what information, equipment, or incentives could encourage them to make the shift from driving alone.

The following figures show results for each question.

Q1. In which city and zip code do you live?
Among survey respondents this year, the top 10 home cities are shown in Figure 9.

Figure 9: Top 10 Cities of Survey Respondents
Home City Number Survey Respondents
1 San Jose 152
2 Redwood City 83
3 Palo Alto 80
4 Mountain View 74
5 Sunnyvale 57
6 East Palo Alto 56
7 Santa Clara 36
8 Fremont 33
9 San Francisco 32
10 San Mateo 23
Note that 70% of respondents live in cities served by a train or bus that runs to Palo Alto.

Figure 10 maps the home zip codes of survey respondents in San Francisco Bay Area1 counties.

1 The Bay Area refers to the nine counties that touch the San Francisco Bay plus Santa Cruz County.

Item 15
Attachment A - 2024 Palo
Alto TMA Annual Report,
2026-28 Strategic Plan,
and 2024 Commute
Survey

Item 15: Staff Report
Pg.
50 Packet Pg. 276 of 288

8 Figure 10: Number of Respondents by Zip Code

Some survey respondents live beyond the nine county Bay Area near Sacramento, in the Central Valley, and even one in Southern California.

Q2. What is the name of your employer? (This information will help us analyze commuting patterns for the four main types of employers [service, technology, light office, and government] in Palo Alto.)
Employer names were organized into four main sectors of employers in Palo Alto , as seen in Figure 11.

Item 15
Attachment A - 2024 Palo
Alto TMA Annual Report,
2026-28 Strategic Plan,
and 2024 Commute
Survey

Item 15: Staff Report
Pg.
51 Packet Pg. 277 of 288

9 Figure 11: Survey Respondents by Sector

Note that t he number of survey respondents from technology companies located in Downtown, Amazon and Salesforce, is higher this year than last . With Return to Office encouragement from management and corporate concern about greenhouse gas emission reductions, employees at both companies were encouraged to fill out PATMA’s commute survey.

Q3. How do you usually travel to work? If you use more than one type of transportation, choose the one used for the longest distance of your trip.

Many commuters use more than one type of transportation for commuting. To be able to compare this year’s data with previous years’, we asked people about the main commute mode they use d for the longest segment of their trip. Figure 1 2 provides information about the primary commute mode.

Item 15
Attachment A - 2024 Palo
Alto TMA Annual Report,
2026-28 Strategic Plan,
and 2024 Commute
Survey

Item 15: Staff Report
Pg.
52 Packet Pg. 278 of 288

10 Figure 12: Primary Commute Mode

Figure 13 divides this data by sector for 2024 to allow comparisons between government, light office, service, and tech sectors.

Figure 13: Commute Mode by Sector, 2024

A comparison of commute modes over the past several years is shown in Figure 14.

Item 15
Attachment A - 2024 Palo
Alto TMA Annual Report,
2026-28 Strategic Plan,
and 2024 Commute
Survey

Item 15: Staff Report
Pg.
53 Packet Pg. 279 of 288

11 Figure 14: Changes in Commute Mode, 2015-2024

Q4 If you drive alone to work, which of the following sustainable commute modes are you open to taking?
Note that respondents could choose more than one option, and only respondents who said their main commute mode was by single-occupancy vehicle were given this question.

Figure 15: Sustainable Commute Options Drivers Considering

Item 15
Attachment A - 2024 Palo
Alto TMA Annual Report,
2026-28 Strategic Plan,
and 2024 Commute
Survey

Item 15: Staff Report
Pg.
54 Packet Pg. 280 of 288

12 Many respondents were open to transit (46%), carpooling (22%), bicycling (17%), vanpooling (9%), and walking (4%).

Q5. If you drive alone to work, is your home located less than one mile from a Caltrain station, VTA 22/522 bus stop, SamTrans ECR bus stop, or Dumbarton Express bus stop? Figure 16: Live <1 Mile from Sustainable Transit Option

This question was included to determine the proximity of a transit option that runs directly to Palo Alto.

Q6. If you live less than 5 miles from work, are you open to switching to an active mobility mode (bicycle, electric bicycle, scooter, electric scooter, or other personal mobility device) for commuting?
Figure 17: Live <5 Miles from Work and Open to Active Commute

Item 15
Attachment A - 2024 Palo
Alto TMA Annual Report,
2026-28 Strategic Plan,
and 2024 Commute
Survey

Item 15: Staff Report
Pg.
55 Packet Pg. 281 of 288

13 Thirty percent of respondents are open to an active commute.

Q7. What is most important to you when choosing how to commute to work? (select up to 3) Figure 18: Most Important Considerations When Choosing How to Commute

Travel time and schedule predominates the list of factors workers consider when deciding how to commute.

Q8. Does your workplace need additional bike racks outside? Figure 19: Need Additional Bike Racks

Item 15
Attachment A - 2024 Palo
Alto TMA Annual Report,
2026-28 Strategic Plan,
and 2024 Commute
Survey

Item 15: Staff Report
Pg.
56 Packet Pg. 282 of 288

14 This information provides an opportunity for follow-up with organizations surveyed.

Q9. What is your annual salary?
Figure 20: Is Your Annual Salary Less Than $70,000 or More?

Figure 20 shows the percentage of respondents making less than $70,000/year who are eligible for PATMA’s free transit passes, refurbished bicycles, and after hour Lyft credits.

Q10. Are there any issues or concerns you would like to share about your commute? The answers to this open-ended question provide PATMA with insights to improve our programs, accomplish more mode shift, or share questions and concerns with our contacts at tech companies and City government.

Compliments and positive statements included:
• I am excited about new Caltrain trains.
• Very hard to get my bike on old trains. Like the new schedule too!! • I love the ability to combine bicycling and Caltrain and not rely at all on an automobile.

And I am impressed by how the City of Palo Alto encourages and supports that. • Being a part of the program really reduces my stress of commuting to work. I don’t drive because it will cost me too much money to drive back and forth versus taking the train. • This has saved me money and time in traffic.
• It has saved my job and life. I’m so thankful for this service. I would love more stops at my Caltrain station.

Item 15
Attachment A - 2024 Palo
Alto TMA Annual Report,
2026-28 Strategic Plan,
and 2024 Commute
Survey

Item 15: Staff Report
Pg.
57 Packet Pg. 283 of 288

15 • No issues! Happy with Caltrain.
• Estoy muy contenta con el servicio de PATMA. Gracias. (I’m very happy with PATMA’s service. Thank you.)
• Es seguro y siempre llego temprano a mi trabajo. (It’s safe and I always arrive early to work.)
• Me gusta viajar en el Caltrain porque es comodo, llego a tiempo a mi trabajo, etc. (I like to travel on Caltrain because it’s comfortable, I arrive on time to work, etc.) • I like the VTA and Caltrain options.
• Bike lanes have improved throughout the Peninsula. Thank you!!! • Biking to Downtown is the best!
• I love the train and really appreciate the Caltrain GoPass.

Concerns raised multiple times by respondents were grouped by topic in Figure 21.

Figure 21: Respondent Concerns About Their Commute
Topic # of Workers
Mentioning
Topic
Example Comment
Difficulties while driving:
traffic, parking, cost of gas
and tolls, road surface
quality
73 “The afternoon commute has doubled in time
in the last 1-2 years from 1 hour 10 min to 2
hours 15-20 mins.”
Timeliness of trains and
buses: late, infrequent
service, not reliable
31 “Just buses being on time, especially in the
morning hours.”
Limited or no transit
options near home (East
Bay, Tri-Valley, Los Gatos,
Gilroy) or work
20 “I wish there were a reliable, quick public
transit option from the East Bay” and “Caltrain
stops infrequently in South Counties.”
Caltrain passes for City
workers who don’t work
Downtown
12 “I would take the train if it was offered since I
can bike easily to and from the train.”
Connectivity too difficult:
to and from transit, making
connections between
transit options
11 “The first 5 miles and the last 5 miles are the
biggest barrier for public transportation.”

Safety and cleanliness of
transit and stations
9 “The station needs to be only for people that
use it to commute to take the bus or train.”
Want more transit service:
earlier, later, weekends
8 “Wish Caltrain stopped at the Blossom Hill
station in San Jose more frequently in general,
but on weekends specifically.”
Item 15
Attachment A - 2024 Palo
Alto TMA Annual Report,
2026-28 Strategic Plan,
and 2024 Commute
Survey

Item 15: Staff Report
Pg.
58 Packet Pg. 284 of 288

16 Topic # of Workers
Mentioning
Topic
Example Comment
Feel can do their job from
home most of the time
7 “I can do my job well from home and would
use the extra 2 hours a day to do more work if
could work from home every day.”
Would like electric vehicle
charging for City workers -
MSC and Elwell
6 “There are no charging stations at our yard
(MSC) and I believe I have the only all electric
vanpool running for the City.”
Wish could afford a home
closer to work
4 “My commute is very long but my husband is
a disabled veteran. The city we live in is the
only place we can live for accessibility reasons
and afford.”
Would like showers to
wash up after biking
3 “There are no showers for staff at my
workplace so biking isn't an option.”

Other concerns mentioned:
• I can’t be late for work: “I work as a dental hygienist and have patients” or “my manager expects a timely arrival for my shift.”
• Public transit is difficult to navigate, so I drive. Nobody is at the train stations to help when you are new to it. I worry about problems at the last minute. Like funds not applied to Clipper card etc.
• Clipper cards should cover Caltrain and buses in case one is running late I can take the other.
• As a single parent working an hour away from home, I have to be able to get to my kiddo fast in case of an emergency.
• Better lights for nighttime commuters.
• Neighborhoods should be zoned for multi-use so there would be less sprawl and more housing.

Comments about bicycling:
• Would like more visible and separated bike lanes. (3) • Unsafe drivers
o Palo Alto really needs to ban Right Turn on Red in Downtown Palo Alto. Drivers accelerate to red lights - it's terrible for pedestrians. At least do this for a 2 block radius around the Caltrain Station.
o Cars that run the red lights at the intersection of Lytton and High Street in Palo Alto in particular but all along University and Lytton is an issue. o Cars run red lights which is dangerous for cyclists and pedestrians. o I almost get right hooked every day I ride my bike in to work. It’s terrifying sometimes.

Item 15
Attachment A - 2024 Palo
Alto TMA Annual Report,
2026-28 Strategic Plan,
and 2024 Commute
Survey

Item 15: Staff Report
Pg.
59 Packet Pg. 285 of 288

17 • The nearest train station is very far away and there is no secondary transit to close the gap. No buses, no bike or scooter rental etc. (Midtown) • There is one bike rack, but it is blocking a convenient access point for handicapped people getting out of their cars.
• Bike theft (4)
o There are people who will steal bikes in downtown Palo Alto. o Lots of bike theft in Palo Alto, so outdoor bike rack not optimal. (Downtown) o Need bike boxes. We have racks but I won't use. Had locked bike stolen from racks. I bring my bike inside. (retail on University Ave) o Bikes are still getting stolen and I would like greater protection for bike racks.

Key Insights
The following insights gleaned from data and comments lead PATMA to believe that additional mode shift opportunities exist among workers in Palo Alto.
• PATMA conducted the 2024 commute survey in an expanded geographic area this year with a larger worker population compared to previous years.
• The survey had more participation from workers in the government and technology sectors this year than last.
• This year, the average drive alone commute rate is higher (62%) than last year (56%). • Light office (77%) and government sector (72%) sectors have higher drive alone rates than service (55%) and tech (55%) sectors.
• Gathering responses from service sector workers in restaurants, retail and accommodations was more time-consuming than government and tech sectors where managers took a more active role encouraging staff to participate. Service sector businesses required multiple visits to realize results.
• Seventy percent (70%) of survey respondents live in a city served by Caltrain or a bus that runs directly to Palo Alto.
• Two percent (2%) of respondents are super commuters coming from outside of the Bay Area (17 out of 885 responses).
• Among people who drive alone to work:
o 46% are open to taking transit
o 22% are open to carpool
o 17% are open to active mobility (bicycle or e-scooter) o 9% are open to vanpool
o 4% are open to walking
• Sixteen percent (16%) live less than 5 miles from work and are open to an active commute (bike or e-scooter).
• When deciding how to travel to work, 72% of respondents cite travel time or schedule as the most important consideration.

These insights point to potential for workers to switch from driving alone to transit, carpooling, active mobility, vanpool, or walking, particularly among light office and government workers.

Item 15
Attachment A - 2024 Palo
Alto TMA Annual Report,
2026-28 Strategic Plan,
and 2024 Commute
Survey

Item 15: Staff Report
Pg.
60 Packet Pg. 286 of 288

18 Conclusions
Given the openness of respondents to sustainable commute modes and the proximity of their home or workplace to transit options, survey results point to opportunities to mode shift more workers who commute to Palo Alto by providing information, equipment, and rewards.

Some people would benefit from more availability of refurbished bikes, electric bikes, and electric scooters to connect to transit or for commutes of less than five miles. Others just need information about real time train and bus arrivals, Guaranteed Ride Home availability, rapid bus schedules and routes, and safer bicycle routes between home and work. And finally, any incentives, such as Bike Love rewards, would provide an additional nudge toward a more sustainable commute.

Item 15
Attachment A - 2024 Palo
Alto TMA Annual Report,
2026-28 Strategic Plan,
and 2024 Commute
Survey

Item 15: Staff Report
Pg.
61 Packet Pg. 287 of 288

Item No. 11. Page 1 of 1

City Council
Supplemental Report
From: Mahealani Ah Yun, City Clerk
Meeting Date: May 5, 2025
Item Number: 11
Report #:2505-4608
TITLE
Supplemental Report - Approval of Boards, Commissions, and Committees Interview as Recommended by Policy and Services Committee

BACKGROUND
Staff is issuing this supplemental memo to clarify the item’s recommendation. The Policy & Services Committee’s recommendation was included in the Analysis section of the staff report but not in the Recommendation. The Committee’s action is below.

MOTION: Vice Mayor Veenker moved, seconded by Councilmember Lu, to recommend the City Council adopt the following procedure to select BCC candidates to interview:

The number of candidates to interview varies based on the number of vacancies.

Councilmembers will vote on whom to interview, getting twice the number of votes as there are openings. The top vote getters are interviewed.
•Interview all candidates if there are 6 or fewer applicants •Interview up to 6 candidates when there 1-2 openings
•Interview up to 8 candidates when there are 3 openings •Interview up to 10 candidates when there are 4 openings MOTION PASSED: 3-0
APPROVED BY:

Mahealani Ah Yun, City Clerk
Item 11
Item 11 Supplemental
Report

Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
1 Packet Pg. 288 of 288

Palo Alto City CouncilMay 5, 2025

Palo Alto City Council
May 5, 2025