September 29, 2025 By Email Mahealani Ah Yun, City Clerk Claire Raybould, Planning Manager City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 [email protected] [email protected] Re: Appeal of Planning Directors’ Decision -2451 Cowper Street Individual Review Application (25PLN-00102) Dear Ms. Ah Yun and Ms. Raybould: This office represents John X. J. Zhang, the owner of the residence at 2450 Tasso Street, immediately adjacent and to the rear of 2451 Cowper Street. By way of the attached completed form, Mr. Zhang is appealing the September 17, 2025 decision of the Planning Director upholding the above-referenced approval of Individual Review Application No. 25PLN-00102. The reasons for the appeal are as stated in the attached letter submitted to Planning Director on September 9, 2025. Because the Director added no new conditions of approval, the letter’s points and reasoning still apply in their entirety.
Jodie Gerhardt Veronica Dao Vinhloc Nguyen September 29, 2025 Page 2 Thank you for your attention to this appeal, and please contact me with any questions or concerns. Most sincerely, M. R. WOLFE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. Mark R. Wolfe On behalf of John X. C. Zhang MRW: attachments
ATTACHMENT
September 9, 2025 By Email Jonathan Lait, Planning Director City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 [email protected] Re: 2451 Cowper Street (25PLN-00102); Director’s Hearing on Individual Review Application Dear Mr. Lait: This office represents John X. J. Zhang, the owner of the residence at 2450 Tasso Street, immediately adjacent and to the rear of 2451 Cowper Street. Mr. Zhang requested a Director’s Hearing following the Planning Department’s July 3, 2025 tentative approval of the Individual Review application for the above-referenced development project (“Project”). As explained in the body of this letter, the tentative approval fails to impose enforceable conditions to protect nearby residents, including Mr. Zhang’s newborn infant and one- and three-year old children, from exposure to hazardous pollutant emissions and excessive noise during demolition and construction of the project. Furthermore, the Project appears not qualify for the Class 3 categorical exemption from the environmental review provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) due to the presence of unusual circumstances. We therefore respectfully request that you DENY the application at this time, and instead direct your staff to develop adequate, enforceable mitigation measures as set forth further below. In their current form, the proposed conditions of approval focus largely on landscaping, tree protection, parking, and design conformance. They do not require the applicant to implement standard measures for dust-control, asbestos and lead abatement, or diesel particulate matter (“DPM”) emissions reduction in accordance with guidance from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (“BAAQMD”).
Jonathan Lait September 9, 2025 Page 2 The existing structure was built in 1938 and therefore is likely to contain both lead-based paint and asbestos-containing materials. In addition, the foreseeable use of diesel-powered construction equipment and trucks at the Project site will result in emissions of DPM, which the California Air Resources Board (“CARB”) has classified as a cancer-causing toxic air contaminant. As a result, in the absence of clearly defined and enforceable mitigation measures leaves Mr. Zhang’s family and other sensitive receptors1 in the vicinity vulnerable to exposure to: • Lead particles from disturbance of painted building surfaces during demolition. • Asbestos fibers from potential asbestos-containing materials in the existing home. • Fugitive dust/PM10 emissions from excavation, grading, and hauling activities. • Emissions of DPM a known carcinogen. • Construction noise at levels likely to exceed Palo Alto’s municipal code standard of no more than 6 dBA above ambient (PAMC § 9.10.030), adversely affecting the health and safety of nearby sensitive receptors, particularly infants. Please note that Palo Alto Municipal Code (“PAMC”) Section 18.40.270 requires that air contaminants such as smoke, dust, and odors be controlled and prevented from leaving the property, and authorizes the City to require applicants to demonstrate methods to minimize such contaminants. There is no indication that the City has required such a demonstration from the applicant here. Likewise, PAMC Section 9.10.010 declares that it is City policy to protect residents’ peace, health, and welfare from “excessive, unnecessary and unreasonable noises” from any source, and emphasizes control of noise under those conditions of use that most severely impact nearby persons. Allowing demolition and heavy 1 Sensitive receptors include “residences, schools, community resource centers, childcare facilities, parks, playgrounds, health care facilities, hospitals, nursing homes, live-in housing, and any building housing a business open to the public.” (CARB, SB 1137 Frequently Asked Questions, July 2025.) Jonathan Lait September 9, 2025 Page 3 construction immediately adjacent to a home with small children and an infant, without imposing enforceable noise controls, violates both the spirit and the letter of this policy. The proposed conditions of approval further fail to require compliance with best management practices for handing standard hazardous materials when older structures are demolished or deconstructed. These include: • Inspect: Before demolition, a trained professional must inspect pre-1980s structures for asbestos, lead, and other hazardous materials. The subject home was built in 1938, yet there is no evidence that such an inspection has been conducted. • Protect: During removal, hazardous wastes must be segregated from other construction debris, with precautions to protect residents, neighbors, and workers from contaminated dust. No conditions of approval require protective measures such as containment, labeling, or safe on-site storage. • Dispose: Hazardous wastes must be lawfully disposed of under state and federal requirements to avoid environmental releases and liability. The City’s approval is silent on disposal procedures, tracking, or manifests, leaving a significant enforcement gap. These omissions leave adjacent residents, including sensitive receptors, even further at risk. We would also dispute the City’s determination that the project is categorically exempt from CEQA based on the Class 3 categorical exemption established by Section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines. The “unusual circumstances” exception of section 15300.2 likely applies here. Sensitive receptors live immediately adjacent to the demolition site; there is no documentation of the presence or absence of hazardous materials in the existing 1938 structure; and the City has imposed no enforceable conditions to prevent exposure to lead, asbestos, fugitive dust, DPM, or excessive noise. These circumstances create a reasonable possibility of significant adverse environmental impacts, rendering the categorical exemption inapplicable.
Jonathan Lait September 9, 2025 Page 4 Finally, while the July 3 tentative approval concludes that the Project meets all five of the City’s Individual Review (IR) Guidelines, staff’s own review flagged inadequate privacy screening (Guideline 5), and insufficient side/rear yard buffering under Guideline 1 (site planning). Unless these inconsistencies corrected with enforceable conditions, the project fails to satisfy the IR Guidelines. Moreover, staff’s IR comments explicitly recommended taller evergreen screening trees along the side and rear lot lines (e.g., Arbutus ‘Marina’ or Cherry Laurel) to protect privacy. Fortunately, the Planning Director has clear authority to impose additional mitigation requirements to rectify these omissions. PAMC Section 18.12.110(e) makes clear that in granting individual review approvals, “reasonable conditions or restrictions may be imposed if appropriate or necessary to protect the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience.” Accordingly, to address the foregoing concerns and to establish an evidentiary record sufficient to support an overall finding of compliance with the PAMC, we respectfully request that the Planning Director deny the current application at this time, and subsequently impose the following enforceable mitigation measures in any future approval: 1. Pre-Construction Meeting with Neighbors: Require a meeting between the City inspector, contractor, and adjacent neighbor to review the schedule, high-noise activities, dust controls, construction management plan, haul routes, and complaint protocol. Deliverables should include a one-page contact sheet with a 24/7 site supervisor phone number and email. 2. Temporary Acoustic Barrier: Install a continuous sound wall along the shared property line prior to demolition and framing, at least 10 feet tall with a surface density ≥ 1.0 psf (or STC/NIC ≥ 25), with no gaps at seams or grade. Verified with dated photos and product specs submitted to Planning. 3. Best Practices for Noise Control: Use broadband backup alarms, prohibit unmuffled compressors or generators, and locate stationary equipment away from the shared property line. Limit high-noise activities such as demolition, saw-cutting, and hammering to 10:00 a.m.–1:00 p.m. where practicable, with 72-hour advance notice to neighbors. Prohibit construction activities on weekends and holidays.
Jonathan Lait September 9, 2025 Page 5 4. Dust, Lead, and Asbestos Compliance (Inspect / Protect / Dispose): a. Require licensed asbestos and lead surveys before permit issuance. b. Mandate licensed abatement contractors with third-party clearance reports filed with the City. c. Require BAAQMD demolition/renovation notifications and disposal manifests. d. Implement Dust Control Measures per BAAQMD guidelines (continuous wet methods, haul truck covers, track-out prevention, no visible dust crossing the property line). e. Conduct perimeter PM2.5 spot monitoring at the shared property line during demolition/major grading, with daily logs submitted to the City and neighbors. 5. Traffic, Staging, and Public Safety: Submit a Construction Management Plan identifying haul routes, staging, dumpster and concrete washout locations on-site, and protections to ensure the shared fence remains undamaged. 6. Communication, Complaints, and Enforcement: Post a 24/7 site supervisor phone number at the site, maintain a complaint/response log available to the City, and authorize the City to issue stop-work orders for material or repeated violations. 7. Privacy Screening and Landscaping: Require installation of 12–15 ft evergreen screening trees (minimum 24-inch box size, e.g., Arbutus ‘Marina’, Cherry Laurel, or equivalent) along the rear and side lot lines to provide lasting privacy protection, consistent with staff’s IR recommendations. Imposition of the foregoing conditions will ensure adequate compliance with CEQA, BAAQMD Guidance, and the City’s own municipal code. We therefore once again respectfully request that the Planning Director deny the application at this time, and impose the foregoing mitigation requirements as enforceable conditions in any future approval.
Jonathan Lait September 9, 2025 Page 6
Thank you for your consideration of these concerns. Most sincerely, M. R. WOLFE & ASSOCIATES, P.C Mark R. Wolfe On behalf of John X. C. Zhang MRW: cc: Claire Raybould, Manager of Current Planning ([email protected]) Bhavani Potharaju, Project Planner ([email protected])