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,
Item 13
Attachment F - Public
Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 260 Packet Pg. 846 of 1140
Honorable Members of the City of Palo Alto Planning
and Transportation Commission
December 9, 2024
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 13
Attachment F - Public
Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 261 Packet Pg. 847 of 1140
Honorable Members of the City of Palo Alto Planning
and Transportation Commission
December 9, 2024
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 13
Attachment F - Public
Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 262 Packet Pg. 848 of 1140
Honorable Members of the City of Palo Alto Planning
and Transportation Commission
December 9, 2024
neighborhood 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 13
Attachment F - Public
Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 263 Packet Pg. 849 of 1140
From: Lily Lee
To: Council, City
Cc: Kallas, Emily
Subject: Palo Alto Commons public comment - Agenda item 14, May 5, 2025, City Council Mtg Date: Sunday, May 4, 2025 3:44:16 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Mayor Lauing and City Council Members,
I have lived at 4080 Wilkie Way since 2003. I support more services for seniors. I have enjoyed sidewalk chats with Palo Alto Commons patients over the years.
In addition, however, Palo Alto Commons has harmed our quality of life already, and expansion would make that worse. Thank you to all the City Council members who have visited my backyard to understand better the current conditions and the proposed expansion. As you saw, the current building dominates our backyard. We have no privacy. Patients and staff walk back and forth in common space facing our backyard with floor-to-ceiling windows. Its lights at night are bright.
Our children and I feel uncomfortable spending time in our backyard. The building’s shade has killed almost all plants except invasive weeds. When we refinanced many years ago, the appraiser subtracted $50,000 from the value of our home due to then-current impacts of Palo Alto Commons.
Now, many years later, the reduction would likely be much higher. Parking is limited, and traffic is unsafe for children going to school.
We accepted the impacts of Palo Alto Commons when we moved in. For many years, we wanted to live with a positive neighborly relationship with Palo Alto Commons. Our neighbors on Wilkie Way told us that the company promised that they would not expand. Now, however, these the company has gone back on its word. If this building expands, then all the above impacts would be even worse. Some of our longtime neighbors, beloved local PAUSD teachers, have moved out due to this anticipated expansion. We want to bequeath our home to our children, so they might raise our grandchildren in this neighborhood that we have loved. However, now I worry even more about about the greater loss of value of what we might be able to give them.
Furthermore, Palo Alto Commons has not acted in good faith to work with the City Council, Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) and residents for many years. It has violated many City requirements. It has violated its Planned Community Ordnance for almost 40 years. It has failed to prioritize Palo Alto residents and report annually on compliance. It has violated parking requirements by repeatedly parking construction vehicles and transport vans where they should not This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
Item 13
Attachment F - Public
Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 264 Packet Pg. 850 of 1140
be located. It has misrepresented the true extent of parking impact on its neighbors. I wonder if this company will in the future continue to violate requirements and to renege on past promises.
During this development process, Palo Alto Commons has failed to respond meaningfully to change its plans in spite of clear direction for the City Council to seriously consider constructing on the front of the building. This company has also ignored the PTC direction to cut plans for 7 rearfacing units. Palo Alto Commons claimed to respond to neighbors by reducing the number of residential units from 18 to 16, but only by looking at the fine print did we discover that its architects simultaneously quietly added 2 new offices that actually are even closer (less than 11 feet) to the back fences of 2 neighbors. I recommend exploring moving these offices to the front of the building or to an interior location. In spite of repeated opposition from neighbors and the PTC, the current plan continue to violate the1987 daylight plane. The daylight plane encroachment has in fact increased since the original plan presented to the City Council previously.
Palo Alto Commons is a private company that profits from harming neighbors. It is not providing any below-market-rate units, so only patients with significant resources can afford it. The community benefits it claims to provide are minimal. Palo Alto Commons has not even followed through on its verbal commitment to a no-cost recommendation from multiple neighbors to paint the back of the building a green color that would blend in with foliage.
We supported senior housing, so we did not oppose the Avant expansion, in spite of its multiple violations of usual requirements. However, now we saw that the Avant has created more significant problems than anticipated. Learning from that lesson, we cannot support impacts from 16 new units and 2 new offices.
Please vote to follow the PTC recommendation for 9 interior units only so that seniors can have more services, while complying with City requirements and reducing exacerbation of existing neighborhood impacts. Please eliminate the 7 rear-facing residential units, and move the offices or at least increase the setbacks of the 2 offices so they are no longer less than 11 feet from our back fence. Please also insist on enforcement of new and existing and future parking plans. To be fair to all developers, the City Council should compel developers to follow City requirements and to respond meaningfully to City Council members, who are elected to represent residents, and to PTC members, who are appointed by the City Council.
Thank you very much for considering my comments.
Sincerely,
Lily Lee
4080 Wilkie Way
Item 13
Attachment F - Public
Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 265 Packet Pg. 851 of 1140
From: Lait, Jonathan
To: Armer, Jennifer
Cc: Kallas, Emily
Subject: FW: real city planning
Date: Wednesday, April 30, 2025 12:43:30 PM
Attachments: image001.png
image002.png
FYI
JONATHAN LAIT
Director
Planning and Development Department
(650) 329-2679 | [email protected]
www.paloalto.gov
From: Neilson Buchanan <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2025 12:04 PM
To: Lait, Jonathan <[email protected]>; Planning Commission <[email protected]>
Subject: real city planning
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
Good afternoon, Jonathan and Planning Commission I just read about friction for the expansion of Palo Alto Commons. I posted the following comments to Palo Alto Weekly online: This is a complicated decision of tradeoffs. We all would be better informed and prepared if the staff r i
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first mail to some recipients.
Mark Safe Report
CGBANNERINDICATOR
Good afternoon, Jonathan and Planning Commission
I just read about friction for the expansion of Palo Alto Commons. I posted the following comments to Palo Alto Weekly online:
This is a complicated decision of tradeoffs. We all would be better informed and prepared if the staff report projected the number of older citizens in Palo Alto in the near future.
Pick a point in time such as 2040 and think about the number of aging baby boomers residing in Palo Alto. This situation is great opportunity for our City Council to Powered by Mimecast
Item 13
Attachment F - Public
Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 266 Packet Pg. 852 of 1140
implement wholistic planning for land use and avoid project-by-project discord. *I won't be hanging out with the baby boomers in 2040*. Unfortunatly I was born during WWII.....too early to catch this age wave. Good city planning for land use could adopt planning methods of leading hospitals and health insurers.... ie, know your demographics and future demand for services.
Neilson Buchanan
155 Bryant Street
Palo Alto, CA 94301
650 329-0484
650 537-9611 cell
[email protected]
Item 13
Attachment F - Public
Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 267 Packet Pg. 853 of 1140
From: Kevin Ji
To: Council, City; Clerk, City
Cc: Kallas, Emily
Subject: 4075 El Camino Way Comments With Attachments
Date: Monday, April 28, 2025 4:42:46 PM
Attachments: City Council Attachments 14.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
Hi Mahea,
Emily has let me know that there was an issue with my public comment for 4075 El Camino Way, an agendized item for 5/5. I've gone ahead and split them into smaller chunks. Hopefully they can get aggregated back into one larger comment. Below is my text comment, and the attachments might be in separate emails, replied to this one.
In addition, I was wondering if you could let me know how much time I get for speaking on behalf of a group? I want to submit a presentation and want to make sure that there is enough time for each slide.
Sincerely,
Kevin
Dear Mayor Lauing and Members of the City Council,
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed expansion of the Palo Alto Commons. This letter outlines serious concerns regarding ongoing code violations and patterns of irresponsible behavior that should be fully considered before any further action is taken. The issues outlined here speak not only to noncompliance with existing agreements, but to a troubling disregard for neighborhood integrity and public trust.
Illegal Behavior
The Palo Alto Commons has a long history of failing to comply with city regulations and the terms of its original Planned Community (PC) ordinance approved in 1987 (PC-3775). These are not minor oversights—they are foundational requirements meant to safeguard the quality of life for nearby residents and ensure a fair, transparent relationship between developers and the City. Specific violations include:
38 + Years of PC Ordinance Violation: Since its original PC ordinance approved in 1987, the Palo Alto Commons has failed to comply with the requirements set out in the original PC (PC3775, Attachment A) in two Item 13
Attachment F - Public
Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 268 Packet Pg. 854 of 1140
fundamental ways.
Failure to Prioritize Palo Alto Residents: Section 3(a)(9) of the ordinance clearly states that preference must be given to residents of Palo Alto and their families. This measure was meant to ensure that our community benefits from the services and housing offered.
Yet, there is no evidence that this stipulation has been honored in practice.
Lack of Required Annual Reporting: Section 3(d) mandates that the operator submit annual reports detailing occupancy levels, staffing patterns, and parking usage. This data is essential for monitoring compliance and assessing community impacts. These reports have not been submitted.
Insufficient Parking: Section 3(b)(2) requires a minimum of 55 onsite parking spaces. However, the most recent parking study indicates only 52 spaces are currently available. This ongoing shortfall directly affects neighborhood congestion and quality of life.
Even more troubling is that these violations have been documented in the staff report and in a filed complaint (#16747006), yet no enforcement action has been taken. This lack of accountability erodes public confidence in the City’s oversight mechanisms.
Parking Violations: The Palo Alto Commons have committed numerous parking related violations:
Blocking Visitor Parking with Equipment (Attachment B):
Construction and maintenance equipment often blocks designated visitor spaces, including those in the underground garage, further reducing accessibility. This occurred for several months.
Misuse of Handicap Spaces (Attachment C): The Commons’
shuttle routinely occupies handicap spots and reserves them with cones when not in use—an inappropriate and potentially unlawful practice. This has occurred for several months and continues to occur.
Parking in No Parking Zones (Attachment D): The shuttle van is frequently seen parked in zones marked for no parking. This behavior, noted even in the parking study, indicates a disregard for basic parking laws.
Overflow onto Public Streets (Attachment E): The facility’s lack of adequate parking has forced employees and visitors to park illegally across the street on El Camino Way. Only the Palo Alto Commons has illegal parking in front of it. This is also incredibly dangerous for bikers, as parked cars illegaly blocks the bike lane.
Municipal Code Violations: The proposed Palo Alto Commons expansion Item 13
Attachment F - Public
Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 269 Packet Pg. 855 of 1140
violates the Municipal Code in several ways:
Daylight Plane Encroachment: The proposed expansion violates Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 18.38.150, which requires buildings adjacent to R-1 zones to follow a daylight plane to preserve neighbor access to light and air. Ignoring this regulation directly harms adjacent homeowners.
Design Incompatibility: The proposal eliminates prior architectural step-backs, which were designed to reduce visual bulk and preserve neighborhood character. This conflicts with PAMC Sections
18.16.090(b)(4) and 18.13.060(b)(2)(B), which govern appropriate density transitions and context-sensitive design.
Bad Neighbor Behavior
Beyond legal violations, the Commons has consistently demonstrated disregard for its residential neighbors and the spirit of community-based planning. Rather than being a cooperative presence, it has become a source of tension due to the following behaviors:
Abandonment of Original Agreements (Attachment F): The original PC approval was contingent on a lower density design with a step-back architectural transition to respect the surrounding R-1 neighborhood. The proposed expansion disregards these commitments and would impose a larger, more intrusive building on the community. As early as 1978, the El Camino Way area was actually “downzoned to protect the neighbors from over intrusion”. The original developer in 1986 promised that the building would have “comparable density and mass” and proposed a “1-2-3 step-up closest to the property line” as a compromise.
Persistent Parking Burdens: Since 1986, neighbors have expressed concern over parking shortages caused by the Commons. These issues remain unresolved nearly four decades later:
Palo Alto Commons Bus on Wilkie (Attachment G): While the Palo Alto Commons claims to have enough parking on site, their bus will often park on Wilkie.
Palo Alto Commons Vehicles in Visitor Parking (Attachment H):
When not on Wilkie, the Palo Alto Commons Bus and Van will take up visitor parking, causing visitors to park on nearby streets.
Commons Staff Parking in Neighborhood (Attachment I):
Numerous residents have observed staff members from the Palo Alto Commons parking along Wilkie Way and adjacent residential Item 13
Attachment F - Public
Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 270 Packet Pg. 856 of 1140
streets. Staff are easily identifiable by their uniforms—scrubs and badges bearing the facility’s logo. When approached, some staff have candidly shared that they were instructed by management to park in the neighborhood due to the lack of available spaces on-site.
While neighbors are sympathetic to the staff, who are clearly left without sufficient alternatives, the resulting strain on street parking has led to significant disruption and frustration. Residents have also been informed that a dedicated off-site staff parking lot was previously available but has since been eliminated by the operator, further exacerbating the issue.
Additional Therapists Parking: Per the Palo Alto Commons’ own parking policy, these people are asked to park on the neighborhood streets. This directly contradicts assurances that parking is sufficient on-site.
Visitors Parking: Numerous people we know have told us that they park in our neighborhood to visit the Palo Alto Commons. In fact, when the phone number was dialed, it used to recommend visitors park on Wilkie. Vice Chair Chang of the PTC had this experience, as described in the 6/12/24 PTC meeting.
Misleading Information on Parking: Past presentations to the PTC and ARB claimed underutilization of parking. However, the current parking study reveals that all spaces are already in use. No additional parking is proposed for the new development, compounding the problem.
Inconsistent Valet (Attachment J): In the new parking study attached in the staff report, the Palo Alto Commons stated that they have a valet helping reduce parking issues. While valet parking is purportedly offered, in practice the stand is frequently unstaffed.
There is also no one depicted on page 4 of the parking study. In addition, most of the time, there is no valet. For example, when Mayor Lauing came to visit, there was no valet.
Misleading Landscape Information: The ARB asked the Palo Alto Commons to work with the neighbors on the landscaping. Most of the neighbors wanted evergreen trees, specifically, Italian cyprus, and have stated this on the record. However, the Palo Alto Commons continues to plan on planting deciduous trees. In addition, their landscape architect told us that Italian cyprus do not grow in this region, despite one neighbor having them in her backyard.
Diminished Public Benefit: When the project was originally built, the developers made an “in-lieu contribution of $205,200” (Attachment A) in 1987 dollars ($588,688 in 2024 dollars) When building the Avant, there was Item 13
Attachment F - Public
Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 271 Packet Pg. 857 of 1140
a $100,000 contribution to Avenidas (Attachment K, PC5116). Yet the public benefit this time is “2 small trees”, “space for both recycling and compost bins”, and “bike parking” (Attachment L). They claim that the primary public benefit is more housing, but this project does not qualify for RHNA housing.
Conclusion
The Palo Alto Commons has repeatedly violated the terms of its original development agreement, ignored City ordinances, and shown disregard for the neighborhood that surrounds it. To approve an expansion under these circumstances would not only reward noncompliance, but would also set a dangerous precedent for future developments throughout the city.
Our community depends on the integrity of its planning process. If a project fails to honor prior commitments, meet regulatory standards, or respect its neighbors, it should not be allowed to grow further at our expense.
I respectfully urge the City Council to deny the proposed expansion until all existing violations are rectified and meaningful accountability is established.
Sincerely,
Kevin Ji
4072 Wilkie Way
Item 13
Attachment F - Public
Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 272 Packet Pg. 858 of 1140
ATTACHMENT A
PC3775 (Original 1987 PC)
Item 13
Attachment F - Public
Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 273 Packet Pg. 859 of 1140
Item 13
Attachment F - Public
Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 274 Packet Pg. 860 of 1140
Item 13
Attachment F - Public
Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 275 Packet Pg. 861 of 1140
Item 13
Attachment F - Public
Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 276 Packet Pg. 862 of 1140
Item 13
Attachment F - Public
Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 277 Packet Pg. 863 of 1140
Item 13
Attachment F - Public
Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 278 Packet Pg. 864 of 1140
Item 13
Attachment F - Public
Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 279 Packet Pg. 865 of 1140
Item 13
Attachment F - Public
Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 280 Packet Pg. 866 of 1140
Item 13
Attachment F - Public
Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 281 Packet Pg. 867 of 1140
Item 13
Attachment F - Public
Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 282 Packet Pg. 868 of 1140
ATTACHMENT B
Construction Equipment in Parking
Spaces over Several Months
Item 13
Attachment F - Public
Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 283 Packet Pg. 869 of 1140
Item 13
Attachment F - Public
Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 284 Packet Pg. 870 of 1140
ATTACHMENT C
Cone Reserving Handicap Spot for Palo
Alto Commons Bus
Item 13
Attachment F - Public
Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 285 Packet Pg. 871 of 1140
Item 13
Attachment F - Public
Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 286 Packet Pg. 872 of 1140
ATTACHMENT D
Palo Alto Commons Vehicles Illegally
Parking
Item 13
Attachment F - Public
Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 287 Packet Pg. 873 of 1140
Item 13
Attachment F - Public
Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 288 Packet Pg. 874 of 1140
ATTACHMENT E
Illegal Street Parking from Overflow
Visitor Parking
Item 13
Attachment F - Public
Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 289 Packet Pg. 875 of 1140
Parking on El Camino Way on the right side is illegal and only occurs in front of the Palo Alto Commons.
Item 13
Attachment F - Public
Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 290 Packet Pg. 876 of 1140
ATTACHMENT F
1986/1987 Public Meeting Notes
Item 13
Attachment F - Public
Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 291 Packet Pg. 877 of 1140
Item 13
Attachment F - Public
Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 292 Packet Pg. 878 of 1140
Item 13
Attachment F - Public
Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 293 Packet Pg. 879 of 1140
Item 13
Attachment F - Public
Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 294 Packet Pg. 880 of 1140
ATTACHMENT G
Palo Alto Commons Bus on Wilkie
Item 13
Attachment F - Public
Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 295 Packet Pg. 881 of 1140
Item 13
Attachment F - Public
Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 296 Packet Pg. 882 of 1140
Item 13
Attachment F - Public
Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 297 Packet Pg. 883 of 1140
Attachment H
Palo Alto Commons Vehicles in
Visitor Parking
Item 13
Attachment F - Public
Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 298 Packet Pg. 884 of 1140
Item 13
Attachment F - Public
Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 299 Packet Pg. 885 of 1140
ATTACHMENT I
Palo Alto Commons Staff in
Neighborhood
Item 13
Attachment F - Public
Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 300 Packet Pg. 886 of 1140
Item 13
Attachment F - Public
Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 301 Packet Pg. 887 of 1140
Item 13
Attachment F - Public
Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 302 Packet Pg. 888 of 1140
ATTACHMENT J
Inconsistent Valet
Item 13
Attachment F - Public
Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 303 Packet Pg. 889 of 1140
There is often no one at the valet stand.
Item 13
Attachment F - Public
Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 304 Packet Pg. 890 of 1140
There is often no valet at all.
Item 13
Attachment F - Public
Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 305 Packet Pg. 891 of 1140
ATTACHMENT K
Avant Public Benefit (PC5116)
Item 13
Attachment F - Public
Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 306 Packet Pg. 892 of 1140
Item 13
Attachment F - Public
Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 307 Packet Pg. 893 of 1140
ATTACHMENT L
Current Public Benefit
(6/12/24 PTC Packet Page 182)
Item 13
Attachment F - Public
Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 308 Packet Pg. 894 of 1140
Item 13
Attachment F - Public
Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 309 Packet Pg. 895 of 1140
Promises Made,
Promises Broken
4075 El Camino Way, 5/5/25 City Council
Item 13
Attachment F - Public Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 310 Packet Pg. 896 of 1140
Historical Context
Item 13
Attachment F - Public Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 311 Packet Pg. 897 of 1140
Originally Zoned to Protect Neighbors (Council 9/21/87) Item 13
Attachment F - Public Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 312 Packet Pg. 898 of 1140
Developer Respects Neighbors Wishes (Meeting 6/23/86)
Item 13
Attachment F - Public Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 313 Packet Pg. 899 of 1140
Agreement on Step Back from the Architect (ARB, 7/2/87) Item 13
Attachment F - Public Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 314 Packet Pg. 900 of 1140
Parking Compromise (PC3775 Text)
Item 13
Attachment F - Public Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 315 Packet Pg. 901 of 1140
Palo Alto Preference Compromise (PC3775)
Item 13
Attachment F - Public Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 316 Packet Pg. 902 of 1140
Daylight Plane
Item 13
Attachment F - Public Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 317 Packet Pg. 903 of 1140
Palo Alto Municipal Code 18.38.150
Item 13
Attachment F - Public Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 318 Packet Pg. 904 of 1140
Daylight Plane Impacts Diagrams
Item 13
Attachment F - Public Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 319 Packet Pg. 905 of 1140
Daylight Plane Impacts in Real Life
Item 13
Attachment F - Public Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 320 Packet Pg. 906 of 1140
Daylight Plane Impacts in Real Life
Item 13
Attachment F - Public Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 321 Packet Pg. 907 of 1140
Daylight Plane Impacts in Real Life
Item 13
Attachment F - Public Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 322 Packet Pg. 908 of 1140
Daylight Plane Impacts in Real Life
Item 13
Attachment F - Public Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 323 Packet Pg. 909 of 1140
Why is the Existing PC Daylight Plane 10ft 45°
Item 13
Attachment F - Public Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 324 Packet Pg. 910 of 1140
What’s the Correct Daylight Plane?
● Because this is a commercial facility, it should be 10ft at a 3/6 angle ● Even if we assume this is residential (20ft setback), no units would be able to built along the Wilkie Way side per staff
Item 13
Attachment F - Public Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 325 Packet Pg. 911 of 1140
Grandfathering in 10ft 45°?
Item 13
Attachment F - Public Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 326 Packet Pg. 912 of 1140
Recommendation
We recommend that the applicant only build the 7 internal units to be in compliance with the current Municipal Code and in line with the PTC recommendation.
Item 13
Attachment F - Public Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 327 Packet Pg. 913 of 1140
Parking
Item 13
Attachment F - Public Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 328 Packet Pg. 914 of 1140
Parking was Always a Concern
Item 13
Attachment F - Public Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 329 Packet Pg. 915 of 1140
Many Visitors and Residents
Item 13
Attachment F - Public Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 330 Packet Pg. 916 of 1140
Illegal Construction Equipment in Parking Lot
Item 13
Attachment F - Public Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 331 Packet Pg. 917 of 1140
Illegal Construction Equipment in Parking Lot
Item 13
Attachment F - Public Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 332 Packet Pg. 918 of 1140
Cone Blocking Handicap Spot
Item 13
Attachment F - Public Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 333 Packet Pg. 919 of 1140
Illegal Parking
Item 13
Attachment F - Public Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 334 Packet Pg. 920 of 1140
Illegal Parking
Item 13
Attachment F - Public Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 335 Packet Pg. 921 of 1140
Palo Alto Commons Bus on Wilkie?
Item 13
Attachment F - Public Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 336 Packet Pg. 922 of 1140
Palo Alto Commons Bus on Wilkie?
Item 13
Attachment F - Public Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 337 Packet Pg. 923 of 1140
Palo Alto Commons Bus on Wilkie?
Item 13
Attachment F - Public Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 338 Packet Pg. 924 of 1140
Palo Alto Commons Bus Still Wilkie?
Item 13
Attachment F - Public Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 339 Packet Pg. 925 of 1140
Palo Alto Commons Vehicles in Visitor Parking
Item 13
Attachment F - Public Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 340 Packet Pg. 926 of 1140
Palo Alto Commons Staff Parking in Neighborhood
Item 13
Attachment F - Public Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 341 Packet Pg. 927 of 1140
Palo Alto Commons Parking Guidelines (PTC 6/12/24)
Item 13
Attachment F - Public Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 342 Packet Pg. 928 of 1140
Valet?
Item 13
Attachment F - Public Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 343 Packet Pg. 929 of 1140
Valet?
Item 13
Attachment F - Public Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 344 Packet Pg. 930 of 1140
Valet?
Item 13
Attachment F - Public Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 345 Packet Pg. 931 of 1140
Current Parking Conditions
Item 13
Attachment F - Public Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 346 Packet Pg. 932 of 1140
Current Parking Conditions
Item 13
Attachment F - Public Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 347 Packet Pg. 933 of 1140
Recommendation: Trust But Verify
We recommend existing parking issues be resolved before the project continues in the process
Item 13
Attachment F - Public Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 348 Packet Pg. 934 of 1140
Thank You
Item 13
Attachment F - Public Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 349 Packet Pg. 935 of 1140
1 Kallas, Emily
From: Ellen Hartog <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2025 8:18 AM
To: Council, City
Subject: The Commons
Attachments: The Commons.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
!
This message could be suspicious
The sender's email address couldn't be verified.
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast
Honorable Counsel Members,
Thank you for taking the time to read this email and attachment. I hope all the Counsel Members have had a chance to visit the existing condition of the property as it operates today and the effect it has on the adjacent neighbors or driven to the site and tried to park.
The new paint color blue matches the adjacent building, Goodwill's logo blue rainbow. I do not know of any more shocking effect on the neighborhood to see a three story blue structure looming over the one story neighbors.
The previous Conditioned of Approval are been ignored. People care about the neighborhood and this is a complete lack of respect to what was previously gone over by both parties over years of work and compromise is shocking and not neighborly. I also learned that the Commons has violated other sections of the Conditions:
1. Violation of Section 3, Subsection (a)(9):
This section requires the Palo Alto Commons to give preference for occupancy to Palo Alto residents and their families.
2. Violation of Section 3, Subsection (d):
This section requires annual reports of their occupancy/vacancy status, number and age of occupants, number of employees, number of residents and employees use of parking spaces, and copy of renewal license for residential care facility.
An complete Environmental Report should be done to ensure noise, light and air, traffic, parking study and more be done properly.
The visuals should be agreed to by the neighborhood similar to an HOA so that violations will be addressed and not put off by lack of enforcement. This is a huge impact on the neighborhood.
Item 13
Attachment F - Public
Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 350 Packet Pg. 936 of 1140
2 The Commons does not keep their landscaping up toward West Meadow and neither does Goodwill. I walk to El Camino and the bushes collect garbage which is not a pleasant walk.
The Commons taking in Palo Alto residence priority. It may not be known when there is a waiting list.
There are many more factors and I have attached a letter addressing additional items of concern.
Respectfully,
Ellen Hartog
330 Victoria Place
Palo Alto, CA
Item 13
Attachment F - Public
Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 351 Packet Pg. 937 of 1140
Honorable members of the Palo Alto City Counsel,
I am a long time resident of Charleston Meadows neighborhood. I recall when the Commons was developed and designed then to maximize its capacity. We had huge debates how the three story complex would impact the neighborhood and how it would impact adjacent properties. It took much comprising to agree on the building massing, giving up the twenty foot setback for open air space with staggered stories at a 10 foot setback. This solution was assured to the adjacent neighbors this would be the extent of building. Thus, we agreed on color, night sky, privacy, landscaping, number of units, number of parking spaces, along with agreements for reports of occupancy annually and commuter passes for employees. Palo Alto residences were to have a priority in occupancy as a benefit to the public as well as providing a monetary amount to Palo Alto.
Unfortunately, this has not been tracked and many promises have been broken along with the actual impact I have experienced personally. I have had to tolerate crowded street parking, blocked driveways, traffic congestion and no parking at the Goodwill – apparently, due to lack of parking at the Commons. Their garage seems to be closed by a gate.
Handicap access then not available to visitors. This is the current situation.
Their proposal goes against the compromises made in the past. Any further expansion would need to be outside the 20 foot setback as originally zoned or the ten foot compromised setback with a daylight plane of 3:6 for commercial zoning ordinance. I am completely opposed to this project expansion in the rear. All the work we did in the past was to ensure property owners their legal right to light and air.
Any expansion should and could be in the front or infill units at court yards as approved by the Planning and Transportation Commission.
Item 13
Attachment F - Public
Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 352 Packet Pg. 938 of 1140
The massing of the proposed addition beyond is in direct opposition to the past COA agreement.
Any further expansion other than what the P&T Board approved creates impacts that are vast and frankly must be thoroughly studied.
The owner’s noise reports do not reflect all circumstances from train horn reflective noise off a three story wall or the additional emergency sirens at different times of day/night or weather condition, or night sky impact of three stories on neighbors. A complete landscaping study should be prepared to reduce the impacts and precise shadow study to include roofs are a must for any neighbor’s solar panels to work. This addition will only exasperate the existing problems, and will create new environmental issues which will need to be studied.
It is wise that this project be thorough investigated and have a proper EIR at any rate. There are so many issues not covered or taken into account.
This development does not add housing to the housing element. The Commons is a for profit corporation by a huge developer from out of state.
Seven single Units are approved now and nine single units more are being asked by the developer which could be relocated to the front. If as currently proposed, this expansion would impact negatively all the single family neighbors along the rear of property parallel to Wilkie Way. Ten single family homes will be far more impacted loosing privacy, air, light, view, noise increased and parking which today is already a huge problem for the neighborhood. More importantly homes values will be devalued by hundreds of thousands each. I am Item 13
Attachment F - Public
Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 353 Packet Pg. 939 of 1140
all for senior housing but should be built with consideration of the original Conditions of Approval and relocate the nine units or more to the front. The cost to relocate the units to the front of the property along El Camino Way or East Meadow, which is a real option, the owner says it’s cheaper in the rear. Their cost savings will be offset by the neighbor’s losses by 10 homes and more off-site parking demand. A complete EIR needs to be done.
Thank you for your time and consideration to please approve the expansion only as previously approved by the Planning and Transportation Commission.
Ellen Hartog
330 Victoria Place
Palo Alto, CA
Item 13
Attachment F - Public
Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 354 Packet Pg. 940 of 1140
1 Kallas, Emily
From: Judy Noice <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, April 13, 2025 12:48 PM
To: Council, City
Subject: May 5 meeting re: Palo Alto Commons
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear City Council Members,
I am Judy Noice. My address is 4086 Ben Lomond Dr, Palo Alto, CA 94306. My mother is an Elite Care resident at Palo Alto Commons, where I visit her almost every day.
Because of travel, I am unable to attend the May 5 meeting in person. I wanted to let you know about an unpleasant encounter I had with a person on Wilke Way when I was taking my wheelchair‐bound mother for a walk at the beginning of March of this year.
My mother and I were on the sidewalk behind Palo Alto Commons. My Palo Alto Commons visitor's badge was on my sweater. As I pushed my mother in her wheelchair, a person came out of the house next to us and asked me if I was from Palo Alto Commons and where did I park?
When I explained that I was a family member of a resident, and I had parked along El Camino Way, the person told us Palo Alto Commons visitors clogged all the parking in the area. I replied that I tried to be respectful of the neighbors and park in the Palo Alto Commons parking lot as much as possible.
The person then asked if I had parked on the street because the underground parking was full. As I was clearly irritated by this interruption of our walk and was trying to move on, the person then backed up onto the yard and told us they really were more upset about Palo Alto Commons staff parking on their street and nearby streets.
I told them I highly valued the talented and caring staff at Palo Alto Commons. I then said I hoped the neighbors and PACommons could figure out a solution to the parking issues for visitors and staff as PACommons provided important senior housing in Palo Alto.
I was trying to maneuver my mother's wheelchair away when the person then started complaining about an addition to Palo Alto Commons taking away all the sunlight in their backyard. At this point, I repeated that I hoped the neighbors and Palo Alto Commons could find a solution to these issues and kept walking away.
Palo Alto Commons provides valuable housing and care for seniors in Palo Alto. Their families and staff are part of the neighborhood. I hope everyone can work together to find solutions for the issues rather than confronting people from Palo Alto Commons who are using public sidewalks for recreation.
Thank you for your time,
Judy Noice
Item 13
Attachment F - Public
Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 355 Packet Pg. 941 of 1140
1 Kallas, Emily
From: Marty Douglas <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2025 4:41 PM
To: Council, City; Burt, Patrick; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Lauing, Ed; Stone, Greer; Veenker, Vicki; [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: Kevin Ji
Subject: PROJECT: Palo Alto Commons (4074 El Camino Way) CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear City Council members,
I have been following the development and expansion of the Palo Alto Commons ever since it was first built, many years ago. For 45 years, I have lived at 360 Maclane St, three (3) houses from where Wilkie Way dead ends into Maclane St. Our daughter’s best friend – from 1st through 12th grades ‐ lived on Wilkie Way, with her backyard now totally obscured from sunlight by the Palo Alto Commons. This facility’s continuous expansion, including now wishing to "build out" and fill‐in their stacked units, breaks the agreement they made when they 1st built it (having stacked units to allow more sun to residents' backyards). This blatant disregard of their previous agreement demonstrates their indifference for the impact they have on their neighbors. We can not have faith that they will adhere to any further agreements. For that reason alone you can not approve this expansion plan.
In addition, the impact they have on not providing sufficient parking for their staff and visitors has caused overflow to occur up and down Wilkie Way and even onto Maclane street where I live. Especially since they built the Avant independent building, staff and visitors park on Maclane St and sometimes even cut through Jacobs Court as a shortcut to the Avant. This overflow parking on our street has caused parking issues with tradesmen and workers trying to provide services to our home. (We recently had tree service & roofing repairs done as a condition of continuing our homeowners' insurance. The workers had difficulty finding adequate parking for their trucks near our home). Also, with the streets continuously filled with parked cars, the street sweeper can no longer adequately clean on Monday mornings. In the past, my neighbors and I would know to move any cars by Sunday evening so that on Monday mornings the street sweeper could clean (homeowners are paying for this service). Wilkie Way, with its many trees, leaves and seed pods falling onto the ground and clogging the drains, is particularly in need of street sweeping, which can not be done d/t so many parked cars from Palo Alto Commons.
Suggestions:
1) Please do not approve the current proposal to “build out” the building, but rather keep the “stacked” units.
Instead, either build up or into the interior.
2) Require, as a condition of approval, that the facility provide alternative parking sites or transportation options for staff. (More units means more staff, more external care providers, e.g. PT, OT, hospice, and more visitors)
3) Perhaps post “No Parking on Mondays for street sweeping” (include the range of months this is done ‐ October‐March?)
Thanking you in advance for your consideration of this issue, Marilyn Douglas
Item 13
Attachment F - Public
Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 356 Packet Pg. 942 of 1140
2 360 Maclane St.
Palo Alto, CA 94306
Item 13
Attachment F - Public
Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 357 Packet Pg. 943 of 1140
1 Kallas, Emily
From: Andie Reed <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2024 11:58 AM
To: Planning Commission; Kallas, Emily
Subject: Palo Alto Commons
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Planning Commissioners,
This project asks for an amendment to a PC from 1989, which would in-fill what was intentionally left as air and sun space back in 1989. It is understandable that the residents living behind the project protest the block of buildings increasing in volume.
PCs are allowed exceptions to typical zoning rules for a few reasons, one of which is that they provide a public benefit. This proposed ordinance identifies the public benefit as “providing a safe place for Palo Alto residents and other seniors to age”. Although this is a much-needed service for any community, there is no benefit to the general public; in fact, it infringes on the residential rights next door by adding more traffic and taking away benefits previously enjoyed, like privacy and daylight. It is a commercial operation whose services can be bought at a pretty hefty price. Their donation to Avenidas is commendable, but what price will cover the nearby neighbors' daily privacy loss?
Please note that the parking analysis done by Hexagon is unreliable. Clearly one can always come up with some kind of metric that shows that parking is not problematic, based on nonsensical evidence. In this case, what the study shows is that the garage is underused (only ½ of parking places underground are typically used per this study). If the facility had no parking issue, visitors and employees wouldn’t be parking on Wilkie Way.
Although with more units there will be more convalescents and thus more attendants and visitors, there is no proposed increase in parking. The Wilkie Way residents’ experience as evidenced by their letters and speeches, as well as friends I know who visit there often, testify that Wilkie Way is already used for overflow parking. And that's before the expansion.
The draft TDM (traffic demand management plan) included in the packet feels generic; checking boxes and using soft terms like “may provide for penalties”. My neighborhood’s experience with TDMs is that we got left in the dark as the applicant-produced TDM was signed and set in stone without the neighbors’ knowledge and input, and discussions regarding seeing how it goes and making adjustments along the way were disregarded.
I would highly recommend the PTC require neighbor input into the TDM before it is finalized. The TDM should include methods to track parking in the neighborhood (instead of only in Palo Alto Commons’ parking garage, per Hexagon). Requiring employees to park underground as well as directing visitors to those 55 spots. Sending overflow to Avant’s additional 42 spots needs to be specified. Monitoring and reporting should be provided by a Item 13
Attachment F - Public
Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 358 Packet Pg. 944 of 1140
2 third party, with review by the neighbors, and measures for enforcement or penalties determined and put in the document.
TDMs can end up being words gathered to solve problems near the end of the project’s approval process that end up not holding water but get institutionalized without neighbors' input. Before finalizing this document, please make the document reflect neighbors’ input and allow for continual review.
Thank you,
Andie Reed
Melville Ave
Item 13
Attachment F - Public
Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 359 Packet Pg. 945 of 1140
1 Kallas, Emily
From: Lily Lee <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2024 1:31 AM
To: Kallas, Emily; Planning Commission
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Comments on 4075 El Camino Way project
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Commissioners and Emily,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed expansion at 4075 El Camino Way. I have lived at 4080 Wilkie Way since 2003. Thank you to so many of the Commissioners for visiting our backyards to see for yourselves the impacts of the current structure so you can better understand the potential effects of the proposed expansion. And I would like to thank Emily for answering so many of my questions.
As I said before, I support senior assisted living at the 7 proposed interior new units. However, I remain concerned about the 9 external units facing Wilkie Way backyards. The 9/2024 Plans show that behind our backyard at 4080 Wilkie Way, 3 points are currently about 18 feet from our back fence. But the new development would add a new first floor room 10’1” from our fence and a 2nd floor dwelling unit 12’7” ft away, both nearly twice as close. I see another neighbor will have a unit 10’9” from her family’s back fence.
We heard at the 6/12 PTC meeting that new construction of this type should follow a 20 ft set back with a 45 degree daylight plane. Multiple commissioners asked the City’s counsel if that meant that the 20 foot set back should apply to this project. At first she said yes, but the planning staff then said that the City Council has occasionally approved PCs that were inconsistent with relevant municipal code 18.38.150 (see pages 118-122 of the transcript). Thank you for motioning for the ARB to “consider the feasibility, and relative benefits to the residents of Wilkie Way, of increasing the setback for newly constructed units to 20 ft to meet 18.38.150.” City staff explained that in response,“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 2nd 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. . . . The City Attorney does not determine if a proposed discretionary project is contextually compatible with a neighborhood, that is determined by the ARB.” The above response presumes only one version of the project would be “feasible.” However, the applicant could still explore alternative "feasible" options, e.g. reduce the size, configuration, or quantity of second floor units; reduce the size, configuration, or quantity of 3rd floor units to enable 2nd floor units with a 20 foot setback to support those; or instead of creating two 1st floor rooms with 10’1” and 10’9” setbacks, use new smaller rooms on the 2nd floor to serve those functions. If indeed the 20 foot setback is not required to apply, then could 2nd floor units be set back by a distance of, say, 18 feet, with perhaps a reduction in the number and/or size of units, and still support the 3rd floor units? I do not see evidence that the ARB, the applicant, or staff attempted to meaningfully address the PTC’s motion. I recommend that the PTC return this motion to the ARB for further followup and consult with the City Attorney to clarify legal ambiguity.
Item 13
Attachment F - Public
Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 360 Packet Pg. 946 of 1140
2 In addition, we note the applicant sometimes does not follow through on prior commitments. For example, for many years, the applicant failed to follow City requirements to submit a TDM Plan and annual reports about occupancy. The applicant told the PTC in June that it had implemented a new parking plan to divert more parking to its underground garage, but two PTC Commissioners, many employees, and visitor told us that onsite parking is unavailable and that Palo Alto Commons told them to park in the neighborhood. I am compiling a list of inconsistencies in the applicant's actions that I will send separately, for the record, to document a fact pattern in detail. Although we support more senior assisted living, alternative providers with a better track record may be better partners for the City.
Parking is one example where the applicant has a mixed record, and I support parking comments already sent by Kai Porter and many other neighbors. I agree with their recommendations that the PTC put in place up front enforceable requirements in its TDM Plan and PC Ordinance to the applicant, e.g. 3rd party confidential surveys of staff and workers, demonstrated parking compliance before approval of TDM, monthly reports to the PTC or ARB, specific dollar amount penalties for noncompliance with an escalation schedule, and a mechanism to enable 3rd party lawsuits by residents.
Due to the contradictory legal interpretations in the record and due to the applicant’s history of inconsistency and noncompliance, neighbors representing multiple homes, including ours, have contributed funds to hiring legal counsel.
I recommend to the PTC that you ask the applicant for new plans to address neighbors’ concerns more robustly and a revised TDM to address well-established problems before approving this project to move to the City Council. If you would like to visit my backyard again or talk to me further, please contact me at 650-815-9749.
Thank you for your attention.
Sincerely,
Lily Lee
Item 13
Attachment F - Public
Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 361 Packet Pg. 947 of 1140
1 Kallas, Emily
From: Lily Lee <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2024 2:46 PM
To: Kallas, Emily
Subject: Re: CEQA question
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
Thank you, Emily!
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
On Tuesday, December 10, 2024, 11:29 AM, Kallas, Emily <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Lily,
Public services in the CEQA checklist refer mainly to police and fire access. Facilities refer to schools, parks, and other recreation such as libraries. 16 additional assisted living units, at an existing facility, would not affect city‐wide emergency response times or access to city facilities in a manner that is not accounted for in the Comprehensive Plan.
Thanks,
Emily
Emily Kallas, AICP
Senior Planner
Planning and Development Services Department
(650) 617‐3125 | [email protected]
www.cityofpaloalto.org
Item 13
Attachment F - Public
Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 362 Packet Pg. 948 of 1140
2 Parcel Report | Palo Alto Zoning Code | Online Permitting System | Planning Forms & Applications | Planning Applications Mapped
From: Lily Lee <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2024 11:03 AM
To: Kallas, Emily <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: CEQA question
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
Thank you, Emily,
I did read the memo. I was wondering about how this quote applies or does not apply to this project?
(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
On Tuesday, December 10, 2024, 8:47 AM, Kallas, Emily
<[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Lily,
I appreciate the invitation, but unfortunately I do not have time in my schedule to accommodate it. Many neighbors have shared pictures with us throughout the process, and I am confident that between the photos and many years reviewing development projects that I have a good understanding of your backyard conditions.
CEQA section 15301 (e)(2) applies as explained in the CE document:
Although the proposed project would increase the existing number of units and building area onsite, the new units are for assisted living and Item 13
Attachment F - Public
Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 363 Packet Pg. 949 of 1140
3 residents of these units would not generate new daily vehicular trips or otherwise result in notable changes to the ongoing use of the facility.
The proposed addition represents a negligible increase in use (the number of units increases by 13 percent) and minor alteration of the existing facility (total building area increases by eight percent) compared to existing conditions. Only two new employees would be required to operate the expanded assisted living facility, representing a three percent increase in employees compared to existing conditions.
This qualifies as a negligible expansion for the purpose of CEQA.
The concerns about parking are being responded to as much as possible. The Zoning Code requires .75 spaces per unit for Assisted Living use and Palo Alto Commons is providing that for the proposed total number of units, so we do not have an objective basis to state there is not sufficient parking. The Transportation Demand Management Plan (TDM) will help manage and reduce staff trips, and other changes have been made such as installing a keycard reader to the gated parking, to improve access.
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: Lily Lee <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, December 9, 2024 6:56 PM
To: Kallas, Emily <[email protected]>
Cc: Kevin Ji <[email protected]>
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- Item 13
Attachment F - Public
Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 364 Packet Pg. 950 of 1140
4 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 13
Attachment F - Public
Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 365 Packet Pg. 951 of 1140
1 Kallas, Emily
From: Kevin Ji <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2024 12:09 AM
To: Kallas, Emily; Planning Commission
Subject: 12/11/24 Presentation
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
Hi Emily,
Per your instruction, I've attached the presentation I'd like your help to display at the 12/11 PTC meeting 24 or more hours in advance.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Kevin
To help protect your
privacy, Micro so ft Office
prevented automatic
download of this picture
from the Internet.
PTC 12_11.pptx
To help protect your
privacy, Micro so ft Office
prevented automatic
download of this picture
from the Internet.
Item 13
Attachment F - Public
Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 366 Packet Pg. 952 of 1140
1 Kallas, Emily
From: Mona He <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2024 12:09 AM
To: Planning Commission; Kallas, Emily
Cc: Kevin Ji; JamesYahoo Porter; Lily Lee; Jenny Chen; Jennie Chen; Ellen Hartog (wilkie Neighbor); Grace (Yan Feng) Wang; [email protected]; Jayashree Divekar 4050 Wilkie; Shashank Divekar 4050 Wilkie Neighbor; [email protected]; James Cham; [email protected]; Jagdish Pamnani; Marty Douglas (neighbor); Natacha Telusca; Tom Huibin Tang; Zhang Fion; [email protected]; Mona He
Subject: Opposing Palo Alto Commons proposed expansion
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear PTC members and Emily,
1. Discrepancies on staff report;
1). Dayline plane is never in compliance. I found out the Dayline plane is always in question and it needs to be correctly stated in the staff report to prevent further confusion. .........
The proposed is NOT in compliance with current Palo Alto municipal code 18.38.150(e). Staff in the past and continues to mislead the PTC on this specific daylight plane code violation despite neighbors have discussed with staff and pointed out numerous times during the past PTCs, ARBs and in person meetings with staff. The daylight plane currently used on the proposed expansion is 10' setback with 45 degrees height increase. However the current PC daylight plane for PC is
18.38.150(e). It is the maximum height established by a daylight plane beginninag at a height of ten feet at the applicable side or rear site lines and increasing at a slope of three feet for each six feet of distance from the side or rear site lines until intersecting the height limit otherwise established for the PC district. 2). According PC 5116, there is 38 underground parking spaces and 3 surface parking spaces, plus 55 total underground and surface parking spaces. it is clearly discrepancies from PC 5116. There are only 55 parking spaces for Palo Alto Commons NOT 57!!!
Item 13
Attachment F - Public
Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 367 Packet Pg. 953 of 1140
2 2. Multiple PC 5116/PC 3775 violations
Palo Alto Commons has currently in violation of its PC 3775 conditions and they need to bring its conditions in compliance before seeking any additional proposed project to be considered for approval. 1). PC 3775 section 3 (b)15.a; (b)15.b; (b) 15.c
" a. Maintenance in a central location of timely information regarding commute alternatives and distribution of same to all new employees. The information should include all relevant transit system timetables, information about ridesharing from RIDES for Bay Area Comauters, Inc. and County Transit, information on the buildings' and the Cityt's bicycle facilities. b. A means to provide or reimburse employees for transit passes. c. Assurance that the property manager will provide each employee with the RIDES car pool match list application form and information package at least once each year."
I talked to the Commons employee at the beginning of November who was still parking in front of my house. She said she had never received any information regarding the transit and carpool information. And they still were told not to park in the underground parking garage and continue on parking in the neighborhood. 2). PC 3775 section 3 (d)Annual Report
" The management shall provide the City with an annual project report with the following information:
1. Occupancy/Vacancy status
2. Number and age of occupants
3. Number of employees
4. Number of residents and employees who use parking spaces
5. Copy of Renewal License for. Residential Care Facility " Wilkie neighbors have been repeatedly asking city staff and Palo Alto commons regarding the annual information. And we were told there has never been such information ever submitted to the city and Commons has never composed that information for the public. Commons
3.Object to Proposed Categorical Exemption of Project under CEQA.
This proposed expansion cannot not be granted an exception from CEQA. CEQA report is required for this project. Please see Grace and my attorney's letter emailed to PTC and Emily at 4:19pm on Dec 11, 2024 for the detailed legal reasons of objection.
Best regards,
Mona
Item 13
Attachment F - Public
Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 368 Packet Pg. 954 of 1140
1 Kallas, Emily
From: Kevin Ji <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2024 12:12 AM
To: Planning Commission
Cc: Kallas, Emily; [email protected]; Gennady Sheyner; [email protected] Subject: Anonymous Letter
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Planning Commission,
I was asked to share this letter on behalf of someone who would like to remain anonymous. ‐‐
December 8, 2024
I often visit a patient at Palo Alto Commons. I am submitting this anonymously because the patient is concerned that this letter could affect how they are treated by staff at the facility.
Only once can I ever remember finding a place to park in the visitor lot for Palo Alto Commons. Sometimes a van belonging to the Palo Alto Commons is parked in one or more of those spaces. Another visitor space is reserved for future residents, and thus not intended for those visiting current patients.
Construction materials or other obstructions sometimes occupy other spaces.
And then there are always cars I presume belong to other visitors in what few spaces remain.
Not finding a spot in the visitor lot, I then have to exit back onto El Camino Way. There are never any other free places to park anywhere along El Camino Way because you can't park in many stretches and the rest are already filled with cars, probably belonging to customers of Goodwill. The same is true for West Meadow, so I end up parking on Wilkie Way. I heard that neighbors on Wilkie are protesting being used as the effective extension parking lot for Palo Alto Commons and I am sorry that I contribute to their problem. I reached out to them and am grateful that they will submit this letter.
Please note that there are no handicapped parking spaces in the Palo Alto Commons visitor lot and this adds a further problem. When I brought with me a visitor who is mobility‐impaired, I had to drop that person off, park on Wilkie, and then literally run back to attend to them.
There are a couple of signs in the Palo Alto Commons visitor lot indicating one can call for parking assistance. However, to place a call safely requires me to first park somewhere. Since there's no place to park in the visitor lot, that means I first have to park on Wilkie. Once I've done that, there's no point in calling. So the signs don't help at all.
Item 13
Attachment F - Public
Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 369 Packet Pg. 955 of 1140
2 I'm sure the staff at Palo Alto Commons want their patients to receive visitors. But by having seriously inadequate visitor parking and no handicap spaces, they are making it much harder for me and others to visit.
Fewer visits is detrimental to the health and well‐being of those living at the facility.
I urge the city to insist that Palo Alto Common's visitor parking be expanded to meet its present needs so that I and others no longer need to park on Wilkie. Furthermore, if the number of rooms at Palo Alto Commons is to increase, so should the visitor parking accordingly.
Sincerely,
Name Withheld
Item 13
Attachment F - Public
Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 370 Packet Pg. 956 of 1140
1 Kallas, Emily
From: Nia Porter <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, December 9, 2024 1:01 AM
To: Kallas, Emily; Planning Commission
Subject: Comment about project at 4075 El Camino Way
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Commissioners and City staff,
I want to comment on the senior housing behind my backyard.. I have lived at 4080 Wilkie Way since 2007. Growing up, whenever I looked out of my back window or went into my backyard, I saw a huge building with many windows, and I always felt as if people could be watching me from above. The building is 10 ft from my back fence. On the 2nd floor is a common space where people go back and forth all day and night. If I could see them, then they must also be able to see me.
Expanding the building would make the situation even worse. To help make up for this problem for neighbors, it could be good to give more benefits to the community. I do community service volunteer teaching at nearby parks and at the East Palo Alto Arts Center. And my grandma used to live at an assisted living facility. So I wonder if Palo Alto Commons could look into ways to help seniors and the rest of the city together?
I looked at Attachment G of the staff report for the June PTC meeting. I talked at that meeting. The main public benefit they talk about is housing for seniors. At a recent project at Ellsworth and Middlefield, the PTC said that housing is not by itself considered a public benefit. If public benefit is not that high, then can this project still use Planned Community zoning?
Also, I know this project will give in lieu fees to the City. Those are required. But to make up for harming the neighbors, maybe Palo Alto Commons should give more public benefits beyond that. For example, I did see that previously Palo Alto Commons gave a $100,000 to Avenidas to help low-income seniors.
That’s great. But they are not doing anything like that this time. In addition, sometimes new development projects give other benefits, like improving nearby parks, lighting, grants to nonprofits nearby or other community programs. I know many residents of Palo Alto Commons may not be able to get around as easily as they used to. But I still sometimes see them walking around our house or being pushed in their wheelchairs enjoying sunshine, flowers, and talking to the neighbors. Maybe they enjoy visiting Robles and Ventura Parks. Could Palo Alto Commons help make the nearby parks nicer or help take care of them? Then that helps their own seniors plus the neighbors.
I also wanted to talk about landscaping. At the October 5, 1987, City Council meeting, “Bob Peterson, Landscape Architect, said the planting along the rear property line was the major concern of the neighbors. The plans showed a predominance of evergreen, moderately fast-growing trees.” But I did not remember seeing many trees behind my backyard planted by Palo Alto Commons.
At the 7/18/2024 ARB meeting, the meeting minutes said, “Board Member Hirsch stated that landscaping is critical for privacy. Board Member Hirsch thought it was possible to put some landscaping adjacent to Item 13
Attachment F - Public
Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 371 Packet Pg. 957 of 1140
2 the fence line to create a higher barrier for privacy on the Wilkie side but not too high to increase shadowing on the neighbors’ properties but the applicant needs to coordinate with each of the affected residents.”
Palo Alto Commons said at the 7/18 ARB meeting it would match the landscaping to what individual neighbors want. At the 8/2024 meeting with the landscape architect and the neighbors at Palo Alto Commons they said the same thing.
Our house has the largest number of apartments that are already 10 ft away from our back fence, so our backyard is almost totally shaded already. So new trees will not make it worse. Our family and other neighbors told Palo Alto Commons and the City in person and in writing that we want evergreen instead of deciduous trees:
1. 4080 Wilkie - Lily Lee and James Porter
2. 4076 Wilkie - Yang Sze Choo and James Cham
3. 4072 Wilkie - Kevin Ji & Jenny Chan
4. 4060 Wilkie - Yanfeng Wang
I’m glad the landscape architect added more trees to the plan presented in October to ARB. But why did he make all the trees deciduous? The staff report said, “While normally evergreen trees are preferred for privacy, deciduous trees are proposed at the request of neighbors who would like to minimize additional shade in their backyards.." Palo Alto Commons said at the October ARB meeting that the “majority” of the neighbors want deciduous trees because they don’t want extra new shade. So Palo Alto Commons made all the new trees deciduous. But if 8 homes are behind Palo Alto Commons, and I know at least 4 families want evergreen, then even if all the other 4 neighbors want deciduous, 4 out of 8 is not a majority. I think it should be easy to plant evergreen trees behind families that like those and plant deciduous trees behind families that like those.
In addition, my family said at the 7/18/2024 ARB meeting that we like green paint that blends into the leaves. Is it too late to make the back green?
These seem like easy things to do to make the new apartments look nicer for the neighbors. It would be great to talk about these things at the Wednesday meeting and then see what Palo Alto Commons can do about it and report back at the next PTC meeting.
Thank you for reading my comments.
Sincerely,
Nia Porter
Item 13
Attachment F - Public
Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 372 Packet Pg. 958 of 1140
1 Kallas, Emily
From: Shashank Divekar <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, December 9, 2024 2:15 PM
To: Kallas, Emily; Planning Commission
Cc: Jayashree Divekar
Subject: Objection to expansion of Palo Alto Commons at 4075 El Camino Way CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Planning and Transportation Commission,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed project to expand the Palo Alto Commons at 4075 El Camino Way (“project”). Myself and Jayashree cc:ed here are residents of 4054 Wilkie Way and have our backyard sharing the fence directly with Palo Alto Commons.
Assisted living services are important community service. We are hoping that at least 7 units inside the 'project' will not cause physical disruption to the Wilkie neighbors (although they will increase parking/transportation impacts). However, for the remaining 'external' 9 units that will increase into two and three story additions to the existing buildings, we voice our objections as follows:
Parking: Visitors and service providers for Palo Alto Commons residents already often park in the nearby residential streets. Even though Palo Alto Commons stated it implemented improvements in the summer, I still see congested parking, and it will get worse when parking is removed from El Camino Real. In fact, even the Palo Alto Commons bus parks on Wilkie. Please make the new Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan stronger and include enforcement for violations. Although the ARB suggested setting up a parking permit system, that would require residents to pay for permits, and it would allow Palo Alto Commons to buy its own parking permits too. So it is unclear if that would be helpful..
Daylight Plane: Given that this is a commercial project, the daylight plane for PCs that are commercial should be 10 ft setback, with a 30/60 angle daylight plane. However, even if we use the residential setback, which is 20 ft setback and 45 degree angle, every new external proposed unit against the Wilkie Way side would violate these limits.
Reduced Natural Sunlight: This imposing building would reduce the amount of natural sunlight we get. This is in clear violation of the required “low-density residential transition” and policies in the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan such as “L6.8: Preserve exposure to natural light for single-family residences” Please consider reducing the number, size, and/or placement of units in a manner that reduces further shading.
Low-Density Residential Transitions: Regardless of whether this project is considered commercial or residential, it is subject to low-density residential transitions. These transitions (such as stepbacks) are part of the municipal code in general and are also specifically in the current Planned Community Zoning that currently applies. These setbacks were also promised to the neighbors in 1986 when the project was first built. Please maintain these stepbacks.
Loss of Privacy : The imposing structure with added units will have significant impact on our family privacy with new residents having clear view of our house and yard. Palo Alto is a treasured city for many reasons, this being one of them, and we would like to keep it that way.
Item 13
Attachment F - Public
Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 373 Packet Pg. 959 of 1140
2 Loss of house maket value: There will be loss of market value to single family residences on Wilkie Way:
With increased units and density resulting by expansion of Palo Alto Commons, we as owners will suffer loss of market value to our residences.
Thank you for considering my comments.
Sincerely,
Shashank Divekar
Item 13
Attachment F - Public
Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 374 Packet Pg. 960 of 1140
1 Kallas, Emily
From: James Porter <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, December 9, 2024 4:07 PM
To: Planning Commission; Kallas, Emily
Subject: Comments on 4075 El Camino Way (Palo Alto Commons Expansion) 12/11 PTC Meeting CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Commissioners and City Staff,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed expansion at Palo Alto Commons. I have lived at 4080 Wilkie Way for 21 years with the commons as our backyard neighbor.
I support expansion of senior assisted living opportunities. I’m glad that Palo Alto Commons, the “applicant,” has proposed 7 interior new units, and I support that in spite of the parking impacts. However, the proposal for 9 additional external units exacerbates existing massing and visual impact from our family room, bedroom and backyard. More workers and visitors exacerbate existing parking congestion, which will only get worse when parking is removed from El Camino Real. We appreciate that the applicant has improved landscaping and window plans to address privacy concerns. However, even after concerns expressed by the PTC 6/12/2024 with regard to massing, closeness of the existing Palo Commons units to Wilkie Way backyards, and uncertainty on daylight plane and setbacks there have been no proposals that would reduce the quantity, size, or placement of the 9 exterior units.
In addition, we have been confused about various legal topics during the PTC and ARB meetings, including the setbacks and the daylight plane, where we heard inconsistent messages, including from the City’s counsel. We have heard that the PC could overwrite itself or existing regulation. The original building was built with 10 feet setback at 45 degree. We have heard that the correct up to date 20 foot setback for commercial building can not be applied because it would put the rest of the building out of compliance. But shouldn’t there be flexibility there given PC flexibility?
Regardless of the legal requirements, I ask the PTC to consider that the neighbors have already endured a 10 foot setback, and if new construction should follow a 20 foot setback, then out of human sense of fairness, it feels like the wrong direction to allow even more new construction with a 12.5 foot setback. I am not an architect, but I understand that all new 3rd story units would have a 20 foot set back. I was told that without the 2nd floor units for support, the 3rd floor units could not be built. I don’t understand that just based on simple geometry. Please help me understand why the project could not still go forward with fewer external units so that it stays within a 20 foot set back? I thought the PTC asked the ARB to discuss what the plans would look like with a 20 foot set back. But the ARB just said that the 10 foot setback was ok. I don’t think the PTC should approve this project without getting the answer to the questions they asked in June to the ARB about potential compromise options that reduce the impact of the 9 external units. It would be good to hear more from the ARB and the applicant’s architect.
Item 13
Attachment F - Public
Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 375 Packet Pg. 961 of 1140
2 I also have concerns about the parking, so I hope that the PTC will put in specific legal requirements to hold Palo Alto Commons accountable to show that they can do what they promised to reduce parking congestion before you approve this project. I also think you should put in enforcement requirements to make sure they keep their promises after they get your approval. If they don’t do what they promise, they should get more penalties. Please be specific about continuing to check yourself (as you have already).
In conclusion, thank you for listening to our recommendation to continue to discuss the proposed project especially to explore further reductions in the number, size, and placement of proposed new external 9 units, especially the 3 2nd floor units with 12.5 foot setbacks.
Thank you,
James Porter
Item 13
Attachment F - Public
Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 376 Packet Pg. 962 of 1140
J. Randall Toch
408.947.2492
[email protected]
Silicon Valley Office | 55 South Market Street, Suite 900, San Jose, California 95113-2324 phone 408.287.9501 fax 408.287.2583 www.hogefenton.com
December 9, 2024
Via E-Mail only ([email protected]) Honorable Members of the City of Palo Alto
Planning and Transportation Commission
250 Hamilton Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Re: Meeting Date: December 11, 2024
Agenda Item: 2
Project Description: Proposed Zoning Amendment and
Architectural Approval for Palo Alto Commons
Subject Property: 4075 El Camino Way, Palo Alto, California Report #: 2410-3649
Our Clients: Mona He and Grace (Yan Feng) Wang
Objection to Proposed Categorical Exemption of Project under CEQA Dear Honorable Members of the City of Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Commission:
This law firm represents Mona He and Grace (Yan Feng) Wang who own single story residences on Wilke Way. The residences are adjacent to the real property situated at 4075 El Camino Way, Palo Alto (the “Subject Property”). For the reasons stated in this letter, Ms. He and Ms. Wang object to the proposed categorical exemption of the project under CEQA, and oppose the project itself in its current form.
The project under consideration by the Commission as Agenda Item No. 2 is defined in the staff report for the December 11, 2024 Planning & Transportation Commission Meeting (the “Staff Report”) under the heading “PROJECT DESCRIPTION” as follows: “an amendment to the existing PC Zone District (PC-5116) . . .” (the “Project”).1 I. The Project is a proposed Zoning Amendment which would alter multiple aspects of the City of Palo Alto Municipal Code. (It is not a mere application for a permit to allow minor physical alterations to an existing facility.) The California Environmental Quality Act Requires Environmental Review of Proposed Zoning Amendments. 1 See City of Palo Alto Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report, Item No. 2, Page 2 of 10 (Packet Pg. 11)
Item 13
Attachment F - Public
Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 377 Packet Pg. 963 of 1140
Honorable Members of the City of Palo Alto Planning
and Transportation Commission
December 9, 2024
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,
Item 13
Attachment F - Public
Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 378 Packet Pg. 964 of 1140
Honorable Members of the City of Palo Alto Planning
and Transportation Commission
December 9, 2024
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 13
Attachment F - Public
Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 379 Packet Pg. 965 of 1140
Honorable Members of the City of Palo Alto Planning
and Transportation Commission
December 9, 2024
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 13
Attachment F - Public
Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 380 Packet Pg. 966 of 1140
Honorable Members of the City of Palo Alto Planning
and Transportation Commission
December 9, 2024
neighborhood 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 13
Attachment F - Public
Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 381 Packet Pg. 967 of 1140
- 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$OWR3ODQQLQJDQG7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ&RPPLVVLRQ
7KLVODZILUPUHSUHVHQWV0RQD+HDQG*UDFH
<DQ)HQJ
:DQJZKRRZQVLQJOHVWRU\
UHVLGHQFHV RQ :LONH :D\ 7KH UHVLGHQFHV DUH DGMDFHQW WR WKH UHDO SURSHUW\ VLWXDWHG DW (O&DPLQR:D\ 3DOR$OWR
WKH ³6XEMHFW 3URSHUW\´
)RU WKH UHDVRQV VWDWHGLQ WKLV
OHWWHU0V+HDQG0V:DQJREMHFWWRWKHSURSRVHGFDWHJRULFDOH[HPSWLRQRIWKHSURMHFWXQGHU &(4$DQGRSSRVHWKHSURMHFWLWVHOILQLWVFXUUHQWIRUP 7KHSURMHFWXQGHUFRQVLGHUDWLRQE\WKH&RPPLVVLRQDV$JHQGD,WHP1RLVGHILQHG LQWKHVWDIIUHSRUWIRUWKH'HFHPEHU3ODQQLQJ 7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ&RPPLVVLRQ0HHWLQJ
WKH³6WDII5HSRUW´
XQGHUWKHKHDGLQJ³352-(&7'(6&5,37,21´DVIROORZV
³DQDPHQGPHQW
WRWKHH[LVWLQJ3&=RQH'LVWULFW
3&
´
WKH³3URMHFW´
, 7KH 3URMHFW LV D SURSRVHG =RQLQJ $PHQGPHQW ZKLFK ZRXOG DOWHU PXOWLSOHDVSHFWVRI WKH &LW\RI 3DOR$OWR0XQLFLSDO &RGH ,WLV QRW
DPHUHDSSOLFDWLRQIRUDSHUPLWWRDOORZPLQRUSK\VLFDODOWHUDWLRQVWR DQ H[LVWLQJ IDFLOLW\
7KH &DOLIRUQLD (QYLURQPHQWDO 4XDOLW\ $FW
5HTXLUHV(QYLURQPHQWDO5HYLHZRI3URSRVHG=RQLQJ$PHQGPHQWV 6HH&LW\RI3DOR$OWR3ODQQLQJ 7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ&RPPLVVLRQ6WDII5HSRUW,WHP1R3DJH RI
3DFNHW3J
Item 13
Attachment F - Public
Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 382 Packet Pg. 968 of 1140
+RQRUDEOH0HPEHUVRIWKH&LW\RI3DOR$OWR3ODQQLQJ
DQG7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ&RPPLVVLRQ
'HFHPEHU
3DJH
7KHFDWHJRULFDOH[HPSWLRQIURPHQYLURQPHQWDOUHYLHZXQGHU&(4$WKDWLVVXJJHVWHG E\ VWDII IRU WKH3URMHFWLVLQDSSOLFDEOH WR WKH SURSRVHG3URMHFW :H FDUHIXOO\ UHYLHZHG WKH UHOHYDQWGRFXPHQWDWLRQSRVWHGE\ VWDII UHJDUGLQJWKH3URMHFWLQFOXGLQJZLWKRXWOLPLWDWLRQ WKH GRFXPHQW GDWHG 2FWREHU
HQWLWOHG ³0HPRUDQGXP´ ZKLFK 'DYLG - 3RZHUV $VVRFLDWHV ,QF SUHSDUHG
WKH ³3RZHUV0HPR´
,Q EULHI WKH 3RZHUV 0HPR LPSURSHUO\
FRQFOXGHV WKDW WKH UHTXHVWHG ]RQLQJ FKDQJH DSSOLFDWLRQ ZKLFK LV D OHJLVODWLYH DFWLYLW\ LV FDWHJRULFDOO\H[HPSWIURPHQYLURQPHQWDOUHYLHZXQGHUWKH&DOLIRUQLD(QYLURQPHQWDO4XDOLW\ $FW
³&(4$´
SXUVXDQWWR&&56HFWLRQ+RZHYHU&&56HFWLRQ H
ZKLFKLVUHOLHGXSRQE\WKHDXWKRUVRIWKH3RZHUV0HPRDSSOLHVE\LWVH[SUHVVWHUPVRQO\ WRSURSRVHG FRQVWUXFWLRQSURMHFWVDQGQRW WROHJLVODWLYHDFWLYLW\ 7KLVLQFRQVLVWHQWOLQHRI UHDVRQLQJDSSOLHGE\WKH3RZHUV0HPRDQGE\&LW\VWDIILVIDOVHLQFRUUHFWPLVOHDGLQJDQG LIDGRSWHGE\WKH&LW\RI3DOR$OWRZRXOGOLNHO\EHHQWLUHO\XQODZIXO $FFRUGLQJO\WKH&LW\RI3DOR$OWR
WKH³&LW\´
PXVWFRQGXFWDQHQYLURQPHQWDOUHYLHZ
SULRUWRDGRSWLQJD]RQLQJRUGLQDQFHZKLFKDFFRUGLQJWRWKH6WDII5HSRUWZLOOPRGLI\HDFKRI WKHIROORZLQJDVSHFWVRIWKH&LW\RI3DOR$OWR=RQLQJ2UGLQDQFH 7KHSURYLGHGXQLWVZRXOGLQFUHDVHE\XQLWV
7KH DOORZHG ORW FRYHUDJH DQG IORRU DUHD ZRXOG LQFUHDVH WR DFFRPPRGDWHWKHDSSUR[LPDWHO\
VTXDUHIRRWDGGLWLRQ
7KH PLQLPXP VHWEDFN ZRXOG GHFUHDVH IURP IHHW WR IHHW IRU WKH VRXWKZHVWHUQSURSHUW\OLQHDGMDFHQWWR*RRGZLOO
DQG
7KHSDUNLQJUDWLRSURYLGHGZRXOGUHGXFHIURPVSDFHVSHUXQLW
VSDFHVSHUEHGV
WRVSDFHVSHUXQLW
VSDFHVSHUEHGV
DV
QRDGGLWLRQDOVSDFHVDUHEHLQJSURYLGHG+RZHYHUWKLVLVFRQVLVWHQWZLWKWKH VWDQGDUG FRGH UHTXLUHPHQW IRU WKLVXVHZKLFKLVRQH VSDFHSHUEHGV´
(PSKDVLV$GGHG
3URSRVHG =RQLQJ $PHQGPHQWV
DQG *HQHUDO 3ODQ $PHQGPHQWV
DUH ³3URMHFWV´ DV
GHILQHG LQ &(4$ ,Q FRQQHFWLRQ ZLWK WKH IRUHJRLQJ &&5 6HFWLRQ VWDWHV LQ SHUWLQHQWSDUWDVIROORZV
D
³3URMHFW´PHDQVDQ\RIWKHIROORZLQJ
>@
$QDFWLYLW\GLUHFWO\
XQGHUWDNHQ E\ DQ\ SXEOLF DJHQF\ LQFOXGLQJ EXW QRW OLPLWHG WR HQDFWPHQWDQGDPHQGPHQWRI]RQLQJRUGLQDQFHVDQG WKHDGRSWLRQ DQG DPHQGPHQW RI ORFDO *HQHUDO 3ODQV RU HOHPHQWV WKHUHRI
(PSKDVLVDGGHG
7KH3RZHUV0HPRDOVRDVVHUWVZLWKRXWH[SODQDWLRQDWWULEXWLRQRUOHJDODXWKRULW\RIDQ\ NLQG ZKDWVRHYHU WKDW D LQFUHDVH LQ LQWHQVLW\ RI XVH LV VRPHKRZ ³QHJOLJLEOH´ IRU SXUSRVHVRI&(4$
3RZHUV0HPR3J
6HH &LW\ RI 3DOR $OWR 3ODQQLQJ 7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ &RPPLVVLRQ 6WDII 5HSRUW ,WHP 1R 3DJHRI
3DFNHW3J
Item 13
Attachment F - Public
Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 383 Packet Pg. 969 of 1140
+RQRUDEOH0HPEHUVRIWKH&LW\RI3DOR$OWR3ODQQLQJ
DQG7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ&RPPLVVLRQ
'HFHPEHU
3DJH
$QG3XEOLF5HVRXUFHV&RGH6HFWLRQVWDWHVLQSHUWLQHQWSDUWDVIROORZV
D
([FHSWDVRWKHUZLVHSURYLGHGLQWKLVGLYLVLRQWKLVGLYLVLRQVKDOODSSO\WR GLVFUHWLRQDU\ SURMHFWV SURSRVHG WR EH FDUULHG RXW RU DSSURYHG E\ SXEOLF DJHQFLHV LQFOXGLQJ EXW QRW OLPLWHG WR WKH HQDFWPHQW DQG DPHQGPHQWRI]RQLQJRUGLQDQFHVWKHLVVXDQFHRI]RQLQJYDULDQFHV WKH LVVXDQFH RI FRQGLWLRQDO XVH SHUPLWV DQG WKH DSSURYDO RI WHQWDWLYH VXEGLYLVLRQ PDSV XQOHVV WKH SURMHFW LV H[HPSW IURP WKLV GLYLVLRQ
(PSKDVLV$GGHG
7KH3RZHUV0HPRDVVHUWVWKDWWKH3URMHFW
ZKLFKLVDQDSSOLFDWLRQIRUD]RQLQJFKDQJH
LVH[HPSWIURPHQYLURQPHQWDOUHYLHZXQGHU&(4$SXUVXDQWWR&&56HFWLRQZKLFK SURYLGHVLQSHUWLQHQWSDUWDVIROORZV
&ODVVFRQVLVWVRIWKHRSHUDWLRQUHSDLUPDLQWHQDQFHSHUPLWWLQJOHDVLQJ OLFHQVLQJ RU PLQRU DOWHUDWLRQ RI H[LVWLQJ SXEOLF RU SULYDWH VWUXFWXUHV IDFLOLWLHVPHFKDQLFDOHTXLSPHQWRUWRSRJUDSKLFDO IHDWXUHVLQYROYLQJQHJOLJLEOH RU QR H[SDQVLRQ RI H[LVWLQJ RU IRUPHU XVH 7KH W\SHV RI ³H[LVWLQJ IDFLOLWLHV´ LWHPL]HGEHORZDUHQRWLQWHQGHGWREHDOOLQFOXVLYHRIWKHW\SHVRISURMHFWVZKLFK PLJKWIDOOZLWKLQ&ODVV7KHNH\FRQVLGHUDWLRQLVZKHWKHUWKHSURMHFWLQYROYHV QHJOLJLEOHRUQRH[SDQVLRQRIXVH>@([DPSOHVLQFOXGHEXWDUHQRWOLPLWHGWR
H
$GGLWLRQVWRH[LVWLQJVWUXFWXUHVSURYLGHGWKDWWKHDGGLWLRQZLOOQRWUHVXOW LQDQLQFUHDVHRIPRUHWKDQ
>@
SHUFHQWRIWKHIORRUDUHDRIWKHVWUXFWXUHV
EHIRUHWKHDGGLWLRQRUVTXDUHIHHWZKLFKHYHULVOHVV RU>@
VTXDUH IHHW LI
>@
$
7KH SURMHFW LV LQ DQ DUHD ZKHUH DOO SXEOLF VHUYLFHV DQG IDFLOLWLHV DUH DYDLODEOH WR DOORZ IRU PD[LPXP GHYHORSPHQW SHUPLVVLEOH LQ WKH *HQHUDO 3ODQ DQG >@
%
7KH DUHD LQ ZKLFK WKH SURMHFW LV ORFDWHG LV QRW HQYLURQPHQWDOO\VHQVLWLYH
(PSKDVLV$GGHG
&OHDUO\ DQG XQHTXLYRFDOO\ D SURSRVHG ]RQLQJ DPHQGPHQW WKDW LVLQWHQGHG WR DOWHU PXQLFLSDOODZVUHODWLQJWR]RQLQJUHVWULFWLRQVLQFOXGLQJZLWKRXWOLPLWDWLRQUHGXFLQJSURSHUW\ OLQH VHWEDFN UHTXLUHPHQWVDQGDOWHULQJ VLJKWOLQHVDPELHQWOLJKWQRLVHSDWWHUQV URDGZD\V WUDIILFIORRUDUHDUDWLRVLQWHQVLW\RIXVHDQGUHGXFWLRQRISDUNLQJUHTXLUHPHQWVFRXOGDQG YHU\ OLNHO\ ZRXOG KDYH SURIRXQG HQYLURQPHQWDO LPSDFWV DV ZHOO DV FLYLO DQG FULPLQDO UDPLILFDWLRQV7KHIRUHJRLQJFDQQRWVLPXOWDQHRXVO\EHFRQVLGHUHGMXVWD³PLQRUDOWHUDWLRQRI DQH[LVWLQJVWUXFWXUH´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
Item 13
Attachment F - Public
Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 384 Packet Pg. 970 of 1140
+RQRUDEOH0HPEHUVRIWKH&LW\RI3DOR$OWR3ODQQLQJ
DQG7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ&RPPLVVLRQ
'HFHPEHU
3DJH
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
3&
,, 3RWHQWLDO6LJQLILFDQW(QYLURQPHQWDO,PSDFWV5HVXOWIURPWKH3URMHFW 3KDVHRIWKHGHYHORSPHQWRIWKH6XEMHFW3URSHUW\ZDVDSSURYHGLQWKHODWH ¶V
WKURXJKDGRSWLRQRID3ODQQHG&RPPXQLW\]RQLQJRUGLQDQFH &LW\RI3DOR$OWR2UGLQDQFH1R
$WWKDWWLPHSRWHQWLDOHQYLURQPHQWDOLPSDFWVZHUHGLVFXVVHGDQGPLWLJDWHGWKURXJK WKHXVHRIDWHUUDFHGEXLOGLQJGHVLJQLQZKLFKHDFKKLJKHU IORRUZDV UHFHVVHG IXUWKHU IURP SURSHUW\ OLQHV DQG WKLV GHVLJQ PLWLJDWLRQ ZDV LQFRUSRUDWHG LQWR WKH DSSOLFDEOH ]RQLQJ RUGLQDQFH 0XOWLSOH PHPEHUV RI WKH FRPPXQLW\ SDUWLFLSDWHG LQ WKDW QHJRWLDWLRQ DQG UHPHPEHUWKHGHYHORSHU¶VSURPLVHVWKDWWKHGHVLJQZRXOGQRWEHDOWHUHG$QG3KDVHRI WKHGHYHORSPHQWRIWKH6XEMHFW3URSHUW\ZDVDSSURYHGLQWKHHDUO\¶VWKURXJKDGRSWLRQ RID VHFRQG3ODQQLQJ&RPPXQLW\]RQLQJRUGLQDQFH
&LW\RI3DOR$OWR2UGLQDQFH1R
$QGWKHWHUUDFHGGHVLJQZDVFDUHIXOO\PDLQWDLQHGDWWKDWWLPH +RZHYHU WKHGHYHORSHUKDVQRZ FRPH WR WKH&LW\ZLWKDSURSRVHG3KDVHZKLFK ZRXOG GLVUHJDUG WKH YHU\ VDPH HQYLURQPHQWDOPLWLJDWLRQV WKDW ZHUH LQFRUSRUDWHG LQWR WKH SULRUGHVLJQLQRUGHUWREHDEOHWRDOWHUWKHXVHRIWKH6XEMHFW3URSHUW\LQDPDQQHUWKDWZDV H[SUHVVO\SURKLELWHGDWHDFKSULRUSKDVH1HYHUWKHOHVVWKH3RZHUV0HPRFODLPVWKDWWKHVH UHTXHVWHG ]RQLQJ FKDQJHVZKLFKZRXOG JUHDWO\ H[SDQG WKH SHUPLWWHG XVHV RI WKH6XEMHFW 3URSHUW\DUHPHUHO\D³PLQRUDOWHUDWLRQ´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tem 13
Attachment F - Public
Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 385 Packet Pg. 971 of 1140
+RQRUDEOH0HPEHUVRIWKH&LW\RI3DOR$OWR3ODQQLQJ
DQG7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ&RPPLVVLRQ
'HFHPEHU
3DJH
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
H
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
,,, &RQFOXVLRQ
:H XUJH WKLV FRPPLVVLRQ WR IROORZ DSSOLFDEOH ODZ DQG UHIHU WKH PDWWHU WR VWDII WR SUHSDUH D IXOO HQYLURQPHQWDO UHYLHZ DV UHTXLUHG LQ DFFRUGDQFH ZLWK WKH &DOLIRUQLD (QYLURQPHQWDO4XDOLW\$FW$IWHUDQDSSURSULDWHHQYLURQPHQWDOUHYLHZKDVEHHQFRPSOHWHG WKLVFRPPLVVLRQZLOOEHEHWWHUDEOHWRPDNHDUHFRPPHQGDWLRQWRWKH&LW\&RXQFLOWKDWLVLQ FRPSOLDQFH ZLWK WKH FRPPLVVLRQ¶V OHJDO UHVSRQVLELOLWLHV 6XFK D UHFRPPHQGDWLRQ VKRXOG SURSHUO\WDNHLQWRFRQVLGHUDWLRQSRVVLEOHDOWHUQDWLYHGHVLJQVIXUWKHUPLWLJDWLRQVDQGRULI DSSURSULDWHDGRSWLRQRID6WDWHPHQWRI2YHUULGLQJ&RQVLGHUDWLRQVUHJDUGLQJDQ\VLJQLILFDQW HQYLURQPHQWDOLPSDFWVDULVLQJIURPWKH3URMHFW$OWHUQDWLYHO\WKHSURSRVHG3URMHFWPXVWEH GHQLHG
,I\RXKDYHTXHVWLRQDERXWDQ\RIWKHDERYHRULIZHFDQSURYLGH\RXZLWKDQ\RWKHU GRFXPHQWVRULQIRUPDWLRQSOHDVHFRQWDFWWKHXQGHUVLJQHG 9HU\WUXO\\RXUV
+2*()(1721-21(6 $33(/,1&
- 5DQGDOO7RFK
2I&RXQVHO
-57QV
FF
&OLHQWV
(PLO\.DOODV±3URMHFW3ODQQHU
YLDHPDLORQO\
HPLO\NDOODV#FLW\RISDORDOWRRUJ
6HDQ$&RWWOH
Item 13
Attachment F - Public
Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 386 Packet Pg. 972 of 1140
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 13
Attachment F - Public
Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 387 Packet Pg. 973 of 1140
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 13
Attachment F - Public
Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 388 Packet Pg. 974 of 1140
2 Sincerely,
Daniel
4060 Wilkie Way Resident
To help protect your
privacy, Micro so ft Office
prevented automatic
download of this picture
from the Internet.
ᐧ
Item 13
Attachment F - Public
Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 389 Packet Pg. 975 of 1140
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 13
Attachment F - Public
Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 390 Packet Pg. 976 of 1140
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 13
Attachment F - Public
Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 391 Packet Pg. 977 of 1140
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 13
Attachment F - Public
Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 392 Packet Pg. 978 of 1140
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 13
Attachment F - Public
Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 393 Packet Pg. 979 of 1140
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 sunlight 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 13
Attachment F - Public
Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 394 Packet Pg. 980 of 1140
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 privacy, Micro so ft Office
prevented automatic
download of this picture
from the Internet.
ᐧ
Item 13
Attachment F - Public
Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 395 Packet Pg. 981 of 1140
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 13
Attachment F - Public
Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 396 Packet Pg. 982 of 1140
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 13
Attachment F - Public
Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 397 Packet Pg. 983 of 1140
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 13
Attachment F - Public
Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 398 Packet Pg. 984 of 1140
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 13
Attachment F - Public
Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 399 Packet Pg. 985 of 1140
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 2nd 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 13
Attachment F - Public
Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 400 Packet Pg. 986 of 1140
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 13
Attachment F - Public
Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 401 Packet Pg. 987 of 1140
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 continued objections to Commons being treated as residential buildings—no substantial 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 cannot—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 interpretation 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 transition requirements from low-density to highdensity areas (e.g., the stepped conceptual design).
Item 13
Attachment F - Public
Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 402 Packet Pg. 988 of 1140
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 building, 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 13
Attachment F - Public
Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 403 Packet Pg. 989 of 1140
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 13
Attachment F - Public
Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 404 Packet Pg. 990 of 1140
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 13
Attachment F - Public
Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 405 Packet Pg. 991 of 1140
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 13
Attachment F - Public
Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 406 Packet Pg. 992 of 1140
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 13
Attachment F - Public
Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 407 Packet Pg. 993 of 1140
4 Sincerely,
Kevin
Item 13
Attachment F - Public
Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 408 Packet Pg. 994 of 1140
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 13
Attachment F - Public
Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 409 Packet Pg. 995 of 1140
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 13
Attachment F - Public
Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 410 Packet Pg. 996 of 1140
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 13
Attachment F - Public
Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 411 Packet Pg. 997 of 1140
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 13
Attachment F - Public
Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 412 Packet Pg. 998 of 1140
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 13
Attachment F - Public
Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 413 Packet Pg. 999 of 1140
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 13
Attachment F - Public
Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 414 Packet Pg. 1000 of 1140
3 Item 13
Attachment F - Public
Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 415 Packet Pg. 1001 of 1140
4 Item 13
Attachment F - Public
Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 416 Packet Pg. 1002 of 1140
5 Item 13
Attachment F - Public
Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 417 Packet Pg. 1003 of 1140
6 Item 13
Attachment F - Public
Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 418 Packet Pg. 1004 of 1140
7 Item 13
Attachment F - Public
Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 419 Packet Pg. 1005 of 1140
8 Item 13
Attachment F - Public
Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 420 Packet Pg. 1006 of 1140
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 13
Attachment F - Public
Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 421 Packet Pg. 1007 of 1140
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 13
Attachment F - Public
Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 422 Packet Pg. 1008 of 1140
2 Sincerely,
Shashank Divekar (650) 681-7494
Jayashree Divekar (650) 681-7495
Item 13
Attachment F - Public
Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 423 Packet Pg. 1009 of 1140
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 13
Attachment F - Public
Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 424 Packet Pg. 1010 of 1140
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 13
Attachment F - Public
Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 425 Packet Pg. 1011 of 1140
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 13
Attachment F - Public
Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 426 Packet Pg. 1012 of 1140
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 13
Attachment F - Public
Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 427 Packet Pg. 1013 of 1140
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 13
Attachment F - Public
Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 428 Packet Pg. 1014 of 1140
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.
VERIFICATION IS REQUIRED PLEASE REQUEST A HARD-COPY VERSION. COPYRIGHT 2018. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED BY WELLQUEST LIVING,LLC, AND ITS AFFILIATES.
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 13
Attachment F - Public
Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 429 Packet Pg. 1015 of 1140
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?
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? Thank you for considering my comments. Feel free to call if you would like to talk more.
Item 13
Attachment F - Public
Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 430 Packet Pg. 1016 of 1140
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 13
Attachment F - Public
Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 431 Packet Pg. 1017 of 1140
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 13
Attachment F - Public
Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 432 Packet Pg. 1018 of 1140
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 13
Attachment F - Public
Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 433 Packet Pg. 1019 of 1140
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 13
Attachment F - Public
Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 434 Packet Pg. 1020 of 1140
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 13
Attachment F - Public
Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 435 Packet Pg. 1021 of 1140
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 13
Attachment F - Public
Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 436 Packet Pg. 1022 of 1140
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 13
Attachment F - Public
Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 437 Packet Pg. 1023 of 1140
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 13
Attachment F - Public
Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 438 Packet Pg. 1024 of 1140
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 13
Attachment F - Public
Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 439 Packet Pg. 1025 of 1140
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 13
Attachment F - Public
Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 440 Packet Pg. 1026 of 1140
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 13
Attachment F - Public
Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 441 Packet Pg. 1027 of 1140
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.
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.
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 13
Attachment F - Public
Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 442 Packet Pg. 1028 of 1140
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 13
Attachment F - Public
Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 443 Packet Pg. 1029 of 1140
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 13
Attachment F - Public
Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 444 Packet Pg. 1030 of 1140
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 2nd 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 2nd 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 13
Attachment F - Public
Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 445 Packet Pg. 1031 of 1140
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 13
Attachment F - Public
Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 446 Packet Pg. 1032 of 1140
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 13
Attachment F - Public
Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 447 Packet Pg. 1033 of 1140
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 13
Attachment F - Public
Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 448 Packet Pg. 1034 of 1140
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 13
Attachment F - Public
Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 449 Packet Pg. 1035 of 1140
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 13
Attachment F - Public
Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 450 Packet Pg. 1036 of 1140
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 13
Attachment F - Public
Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 451 Packet Pg. 1037 of 1140
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 13
Attachment F - Public
Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 452 Packet Pg. 1038 of 1140
File Details
image006.emz (1783 bytes)
© 2003 - 2019 Mimecast Services Limited.
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 13
Attachment F - Public
Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 453 Packet Pg. 1039 of 1140
File Details
image008.emz (1547 bytes)
© 2003 - 2019 Mimecast Services Limited.
Item 13
Attachment F - Public
Comments
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 454 Packet Pg. 1040 of 1140
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/CurrentPlanning/Projects/4075-El-Camino-Way Item 13
Attachment G - Project
Plans, TDM Plan, and
Environmental Documents
Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 455 Packet Pg. 1041 of 1140
City Council
Staff Report
From: City Manager
Report Type: ACTION ITEMS
Lead Department: Planning and Development Services
Meeting Date: March 16, 2026
Report #:2512-5753
TITLE
Adoption of an Ordinance Adding a New Section 18.40.280 (Bird-Friendly Design) to Chapter
18.40 (General Standards and Exceptions) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code; CEQA Status: Exempt Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15308 (Actions for Protection of the Environment)
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommend the City Council adopt an Ordinance adding a new Section 18.40.280 (BirdFriendly Design) to Chapter 18.40 (General Standards and Exceptions) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Bird-Friendly Design Ordinance (Draft Ordinance) implements Comprehensive Plan Program L6.3.1, which directs staff to develop guidelines that minimize hazards for birds, and has been a City Council Priority objective for several years. The Draft Ordinance (Attachment A) incorporates modifications recommended by the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) following its public hearing on December 10, 2025. The Draft Ordinance generally applies to new construction and major remodels involving unbroken glazing of 24 square feet or larger.
The Draft Ordinance regulates residential and nonresidential projects within or outside of Bird Sensitive Area differently, with stricter requirements apply to those within the Bird Sensitive Area.
Acknowledging the high cost and limited availability of specialized glazing, the PTC recommended specific modifications to mitigate impacts on housing production, most notably exempting any portions of residential structures under 35 feet in height located outside the Bird Sensitive Area. This recommendation effectively exempts all single-family homes outside of Bird Sensitive Area from the new regulations, reflecting the PTC’s concern that current market realities and supply chain constraints disproportionately burden smaller-scale residential projects. Additionally, the PTC directed the removal of requirements for the replacement of Item 14
Item 14 Staff Report
Item 14: Staff Report Pg. 1 Packet Pg. 1042 of 1140
existing fenestration to further reduce logistical hurdles for homeowners as well as local businesses.
However, the financial and supply chain constraints justifying the residential exemption apply similarly to non-residential developments, as small-scale commercial projects face identical cost premiums and material shortages. To address these feasibility and logistical concerns, staff recommends that the City Council consider extending the 35-foot height exemption universally to all development types. Alternatively, the Council may consider expanding the allowance of films and decals to non-residential projects, an option supported by local businesses to provide a more affordable compliance option when specialized glazing is cost prohibitive.
BACKGROUND
Establishing bird-friendly design standards is the implementation of Comprehensive Plan Program L6.3.1, which asks staff to “[d]evelop guidelines for bird-friendly building design that minimizes hazards for bird and reduces the potential for collisions.” This effort has been a City Council Priority Objective for several years and has advanced through various discussions with the Architectural Review Board (ARB), PTC, and other stakeholders.
Architectural Review Board Study Sessions
The ARB conducted two different study sessions on February 15, 2024,1 and July 18, 2024.2 The ARB recommended tailoring the Draft Ordinance to different areas within the City (e.g., foothills, Baylands, and urbanized areas) and exempting residential projects to avoid increasing housing costs. The ARB recommended considering “substantial remodel” as the threshold for triggering requirements for the Draft Ordinance, using window size limitations, and expressed some concerns about how these standards could affect residential development.
Planning and Transportation Commission Public Hearings
The PTC conducted several public hearings before providing a recommendation to forward the Draft Ordinance to the City Council. The detailed PTC motion from December 2025, along with staff response on how each modification has been incorporated into the Draft Ordinance, is included in Attachment C.
• On August 28, 2024,3 the PTC reviewed the Draft Ordinance with a focus on simplifying applicability and mitigating development costs, recommending reduced buffers and the use of non-permanent markers to avoid hindering housing production. • On October 30, 2024,4 staff subsequently presented the revised Draft Ordinance, establishing key definitions, applicability, and types of Bird-Friendly Treatments to facilitate 1 February 15, 2024, ARB Staff Report Packet (Item #3), starting on Page 130 2 July 18, 2024, ARB Staff Report Packet (Item #3), starting on Page 130 3 August 28, 2024, PTC Staff Report Packet (Item #2), starting on Page 9 4 October 30, 2024, PTC Staff Report Packet (Item #2), starting on Page 10 Item 14
Item 14 Staff Report
Item 14: Staff Report Pg. 2 Packet Pg. 1043 of 1140
easier implementation. The PTC moved to recommend the Draft Ordinance to City Council but requested specific modifications, including expanding applicability to additional project types and amending the location and amount of required treatments. Additionally, the PTC directed revisions to definitions, such as the Bird Sensitive Area, and changes to the criteria for alternative compliance
• On December 10, 2025,9 staff returned with a revised Draft Ordinance and new research on cost and availability of specialized glazing (described in more detail in the PTC Staff Report,5 and below), encouraging the PTC to reconsider residential requirements based on feasibility. Acknowledging financial burdens, the PTC accepted most modifications staff recommended and added an exemption for residential structures (exempting any portions of residential structures under 35 feet). Despite these changes, the PTC remained uncertain regarding the local significance of bird strikes and debated whether these regulations should be adopted as an ordinance or simply as guidelines.
The final recommendation was for approval of the Draft Ordinance with modifications (as described in Attachment C) by a vote of 5-2, with Commissioners Hechtman and James voting against the motion. Commissioner James expressed concerns about whether the regulations were justified and effective. Commissioner Hechtman appreciated how far these regulations have come but expressed concerns with whether the difference in regulations between residential and commercial uses was appropriate, and whether the regulations were still too strict for residential uses in the Bird Sensitive Area.
Cost and Availability of Bird-Friendly Glazing
Following the PTC direction from October 2024, staff identified concerns regarding the disproportionate cost and limited availability of specialized glazing for small-scale projects like single-family homes. Through conversations with glass manufacturers, architects, local retailers, and other cities, staff learned that a dedicated residential market for these products does not currently exist, forcing homeowners to source commercial-rated glazing that is significantly more expensive and difficult to procure directly. Architects noted that while specialized glazing offers better visibility, the high unit cost, which are often double that of standard options, and extended lead times might make it practically prohibitive for many residential projects. As a result, the glazing specialists typically recommend alternatives like insect screens, which is the cheapest option when architecturally compatible, or non-permanent markers like films, though the latter present challenges regarding installation, bulk purchasing requirements, and environmental waste.
Discussions with other cities confirmed that their ordinances essentially exempt single-family homes. However, when bird-friendly design features are required, applicants generally propose insect screens as part of their applications or staff would recommend revisions to architectural features and materials to mitigate the high cost and limited availability of specialized glazing. 9 December 10, 2025, PTC Staff Report Packet (Item #2), starting on Page 100 Item 14
Item 14 Staff Report
Item 14: Staff Report Pg. 3 Packet Pg. 1044 of 1140
Local retailers similarly reported a lack of inventory and awareness, indicating that any request for specialized glazing would require special orders from manufacturers, potentially delaying construction timelines. Given these constraints, other cities often exempt single-family homes outright or limit requirements to new construction to mitigate the financial burden. Ultimately, additional research highlighted that mandating specialized glazing for residential projects introduces substantial logistical hurdles and costs, as the current supply chain is not equipped to support individual procurement efficiently.
ANALYSIS
The Draft Ordinance (Attachment A) incorporates language to implement the direction received from the PTC at its hearing in December 2025, representing a culmination of discussion and feedback from previous public hearings. The new regulations include the following components:
• Definitions. Defines key terms pertaining exclusively to this ordinance, including, but not limited to, Bird Hazard Installation, Bird Sensitive Areas (hillsides and Baylands), BirdFriendly Treatments (visual cues such as dots or lines spaced maximum 2 inches apart for permanent installations, residential-only limited applications (decals/films), and exterior features like screens).
• Applicability. Applies to new construction, major remodels, and all new fenestration or new or replacement Bird Hazard Installation.
• Bird-Friendly Design Requirements.
o Mandating Bird-Friendly Treatments for all Bird Hazard Installations and for any unbroken glazing on an elevation that is 24 square feet or larger. o For residential, within the Bird Sensitive Area, up to 10% of an elevation may be untreated; outside of the Bird Sensitive Area, up to 40% may be untreated. o For nonresidential, up to 10% of an elevation may be untreated, regardless of location. • Alternative Compliance. Allows alternative approaches for any projects seeking to meet the intent of the ordinance through methods other than those specifically prescribed, subject to Director approval.
• Exemptions for some structures, including historic buildings, 100% affordable housing projects, first-floor commercial street-facing glazing in specified districts, and any portions of residential structures under 35 feet in height.
The following section describes additional information that staff recommends the City Council consider, in response to public comments received, prior to the adoption of the Draft Ordinance.
Item 14
Item 14 Staff Report
Item 14: Staff Report Pg. 4 Packet Pg. 1045 of 1140
Exemption on Small-Scale Projects
Acknowledging the financial burden on residential development, particularly for smaller-scale projects like single-family homes, stemming from the higher cost and limited availability of birdfriendly glazing, the PTC recommended exempting any portions of residential structures under 35 feet in height. Because the maximum allowable height for single-family homes in Palo Alto is 35 feet, this recommendation effectively exempts all single-family homes outside of the Bird Sensitive Area.
The PTC recommended this exemption due to the financial burden and availability issues associated with bird-friendly glazing, noting that these challenges disproportionately affect smaller-scale projects. However, these market realities do not discriminate by use type. A twostory office building would face the identical supply chain bottlenecks and cost premiums as a two-story house. By restricting the 35-foot exemption to residential structures, the current policy inadvertently penalizes small-scale commercial projects, which often operate on equally thin margins. Staff recommends that the City Council consider the 35-foot height exemption be applied universally to all development types.
Alternatively, if the 35-foot exemption remains for residential structures only, the draft ordinance could be revised to extend the allowance of films or decals to nonresidential projects to mitigate some of the burdens and expanding compliance options. While this option presents challenges, which include installation difficulties, bulk purchasing requirements, and environmental concerns related to periodic replacement, it remains an affordable alternative when specialized glazing is cost-prohibitive and insect screens or other exterior features are architecturally incompatible. This option was suggested by one of participants during the second focused outreach meeting with Palo Alto businesses after the PTC hearing in December 2025.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
Adopting the Draft Ordinance directly implements Comprehensive Plan Policy L6.3 and Program L6.3.1, established in 2017. This ordinance minimizes hazards for birds, reducing collisions within the city. Furthermore, it streamlines the entitlement process by establishing clear birdfriendly design standards, promoting efficient development, and enhancing the aesthetic appeal of the city streets and public spaces.
As part of the implementation of Program 3.2 (Monitor Constraints to Housing) of the Housing Element, the City needs to prepare an analysis in staff reports for initiatives proposing new regulations. This analysis should detail how the regulations may impact housing production, if at all, and recommend solutions to address any adverse impacts. The Draft Ordinance, as explained above, will directly impact housing production by definitively increasing construction costs associated with specialized glazing and materials, in addition to delayed timeline adding to the project budget. This mandatory increase in material and labor costs constrains housing Item 14
Item 14 Staff Report
Item 14: Staff Report Pg. 5 Packet Pg. 1046 of 1140
production by reducing project viability and potentially delaying approval for critical housing units.
To mitigate the significant cost burden of specialized glazing, the draft ordinance allows less expensive alternatives such as films, decals, or other similar markers, or exterior features like insect screens to treat fenestration for residential development and the residential portion of mixed-use development. The draft ordinance also has an exemption for residential development or the residential portion of mixed-use development. Any portions of residential structures, located outside of Bird Sensitive Area, under 35 feet are exempt from the regulations in the draft ordinance, which could help reduce the cost of construction, if any developer or homeowner prefers to have specialized glazing over more affordable alternatives like films or decals. While these markers and insect screens, as well as an exemption on residential structures, represent a reduced financial impact, they still increase cost for materials and installation that is not currently required in standard construction. Therefore, the ordinance could result in higher construction costs, confirming its potential adverse impact on housing production.
FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT
The implementation of the proposed ordinance is not anticipated to have any direct fiscal impact on the City budget; the costs for installing bird-friendly design elements would be borne entirely by applicants. The marginal effort of staff to review plans and permit applications for compliance with bird-friendly design requirements is expected to be minimal.
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
Staff conducted two study sessions, one in February and another in July 2024 with the ARB to receive input from the ARB and provide a platform for community members to express their views and concerns regarding the proposed ordinance. In addition, staff engaged with representatives from the Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society and Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter to solicit their input on the proposed ordinances.
Staff received numerous comment letters from the Santa Clara Valley Bird Alliance (formerly known as the Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society) and Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter on various versions of the draft ordinance presented to the ARB and PTC. The public comments included specific modification recommendations on the multiple versions of the Draft Ordinance, of which some of feedback was incorporated throughout the process. Staff also received two public comment letters from two different residents. The residents were particularly concerned about the PTC decision to modify the Bird Sensitive Area definition by adding areas within 300 feet from the centerlines of natural streams.
Major developers, including Stanford University and Sand Hill Properties, strongly object to the Draft Ordinance, arguing that its requirements are overly broad and lack sufficient local data to Item 14
Item 14 Staff Report
Item 14: Staff Report Pg. 6 Packet Pg. 1047 of 1140
justify the associated costs. Both entities urge the City to reconsider highly restrictive glazing mandates, such as the 10% limit on untreated glass and the 24 square foot treatment threshold for replacements, which they argue will dramatically increase construction costs, strain supply chains, and negatively impact the aesthetics and marketability of projects. They recommend that the City instead conduct a justifying study or adopt more practical, targeted alternatives, such as exempting retail/lobby areas or narrowly defining the Bird Sensitive Area.
Two focused outreach meetings were held virtually with Palo Alto businesses to get their feedback on the draft ordinance. The first focused outreach meeting was held on October 8, 2025, and a total of 38 participants attended. The participants expressed concern that specialized glazing might be visually unappealing, making buildings harder to lease. They also questioned the Ordinance’s necessity, as no study shows how often birds actually collide with buildings specifically in Palo Alto. The second meeting was held on January 15, 2026, following the PTC hearing, with 16 participants. The Chamber of Commerce requested this additional meeting to ask staff to explain the PTC recommendation to the City Council and how that direction might impact local businesses. Although the impact on existing businesses decreased following the PTC direction from December 2025, concerns remained regarding the cost and availability of materials for nonresidential projects, such as office or research buildings.
Participants expressed that films and decals should be allowed for these developments.
Staff held several meetings with property owners from the Edgewood Neighborhood Alliance.
These owners expressed concerns regarding the Draft Ordinance, specifically how the Bird Sensitive Area definition directly limits their property rights. In response, the specific portion of the definition that placed a disproportionate burden on the Edgewood neighborhood has been removed from the draft. Additionally, owners highlighted practical difficulties regarding the application and long-term maintenance of window films or markers. They also expressed aesthetic concerns over inconsistent glazing appearances and the potential for these requirements to impair outdoor visibility. The PTC addressed their concern by adding a new exemption on any portions of residential structures under 35 feet that are located outside of Bird Sensitive Area, as well as removing the 300-foot buffer from natural creeks from the definition of Bird Sensitive Area.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The City has reviewed the proposed ordinance in accordance with the authority and criteria set forth in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The City, as the lead agency, anticipates that the ordinance will be exempt from CEQA in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15308, which includes actions by regulatory agencies for the protection of the environment.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Draft Ordinance
Item 14
Item 14 Staff Report
Item 14: Staff Report Pg. 7 Packet Pg. 1048 of 1140
Attachment B: Draft Bird Sensitive Area Map
Attachment C: Staff Response to the PTC Motion from December 10, 2025 APPROVED BY:
Jonathan Lait, Planning and Development Services Director Item 14
Item 14 Staff Report
Item 14: Staff Report Pg. 8 Packet Pg. 1049 of 1140
*** NOT YET APPROVED ***
0160152_20260303_ay
Ordinance No. _____
Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 18.40 (General Standards and Exceptions) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Adopt Bird Friendly Design Standards
The Council of the City of Palo Alto ORDAINS as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings and Declarations.
The City Council finds and declares as follows:
A. On November 13, 2017, the City Council adopted the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The plan included a policy encouraging bird-friendly design and a program to develop guidelines for bird-friendly building design that minimizes hazards for birds and reduces the potenƟal for collisions.
B. On January 29, 2024, the City Council selected four City Council prioriƟes, one of which is “Climate Change & Natural Environment – ProtecƟon & AdaptaƟon.” This priority includes an objecƟve to approve a bird-safe glass and wildlife light polluƟon protecƟons ordinance.
C. On February 14, 2024, and July 18, 2024, the Architectural Review Board conducted study sessions and provided feedback on this ordinance.
D. On August 14, 2024, the Planning and TransportaƟon Commission reviewed the draŌ ordinance, provided feedback, and conƟnued the hearing to a date uncertain.
E. On October 30, 2024, the Planning and TransportaƟon Commission iniƟally reviewed the proposed ordinance and recommended its adopƟon to the City Council.
F. On December 10, 2025, aŌer considering addiƟonal informaƟon presented by staff, the Planning and TransportaƟon Commission again recommended adopƟon of the ordinance to the City Council.
G. This Ordinance is intended to reduce bird mortality rates by reducing the possibility of bird collisions with buildings, contribuƟng to a healthier and more resilient environment.
H. This Ordinance provides clear and consistent standards, streamlining the approval process by reducing the need for case-by-case review of individual projects.
SECTION 2. Section 18.40.280 (Bird-Friendly Design Standards) of Chapter 18.40 (General Standards and Exceptions) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is added to read as follows:
18.40.280 Bird-Friendly Design Standards
(a) Purpose. The intent of this section is to establish bird-friendly design standards for glass to minimize hazards for birds and to reduce the potential for collisions.
Item 14
Attachment A - Draft
Ordinance
Item 14: Staff Report Pg. 9 Packet Pg. 1050 of 1140
*** NOT YET APPROVED ***
0160152_20260303_ay
(b) Definitions. The following terms are defined for the purposes of this section:
(1) “Bird Sensitive Area” means the areas located east of Highway 101 and west of Foothill Expressway.
(2) “Bird-Friendly Treatment” means treatment to glazing that provides visual cues to birds and reduces the likelihood of bird collisions by incorporating one of the following:
(A) Patterned Treatment, Permanent. Glazing shall be permanently translucent or obscured, or include patterns are etched, fritted, stenciled, silk-screened, or otherwise permanently incorporated into the transparent material. (i) For patterns using dots or other isolated solid shapes, each dot or shape must be at least a 1/4 inch in diameter and be no more than 2 inches apart in any direction.
(ii) For patterns using lines, they must be at least 1/8 inch in width and spaced no more than 2 inches apart.
(iii) Frit, ceramic ink, or other marker types must be opaque, permanently adhered, and durable for the life of the glazing, unless an alternative compliance method is chosen as outlined in Section 18.40.280(e). (B) Patterned Treatment, Limited. Films, decals, or other similar markers may be used only for residential development or the residential portion of mixed-use development. These Limited Patterned Treatments shall have the same visual cues or patterns as Permanent Patterned Treatment under 18.40.280(b)(2)(A) and be applied to the outer surface to the extent as possible. (C) Exterior Features. Panes with exterior screens, shutters or shading devices installed permanently over windows, structures, or building features such that there is no gap larger than 9 inches in one dimension. Exterior features include, but are not limited to, metal screens, insect screens, shutters, window grilles, fixed solar shading such as louvres, and exterior insert, brise soleil, or solar screens.
(3) “Bird Hazard Installations” are defined as visually unbroken, exterior glazing and/or glass panels that are reflective or transparent that provide a clear line of sight through the glazed elements to porches, courtyards, water features, trees, vegetation, landscaping, or the sky on the other side of the glazed element, including, but not limited to: (A) Free standing features such as transparent awnings, (B) Transparent handrails and guards, (C) Transparent wind break panels, acoustic barriers, bus, weather shelters, other free-standing transparent walls, or seethrough building protrusions; (D) Transparent skyways or walkways; (E) Two or more parallel transparent elements with a distance of 30 feet or less between them, when at least one of the parallel panes is 24 square feet or larger; or (F) Two or more Item 14
Attachment A - Draft
Ordinance
Item 14: Staff Report Pg. 10 Packet Pg. 1051 of 1140
*** NOT YET APPROVED ***
0160152_20260303_ay
transparent elements on opposing sides and within 12 feet of a corner (perpendicular, acute, or obtuse) when at least one of the panes is 24 square feet or larger.
(4) “Elevation” means any exterior walls of a building or structure, as seen from a twodimensional perspective like the front, side, or rear. (5) “Fenestration” means the openings in a building’s façade, such as door, skylights, and windows.
(6) “Glazing” means the reflective, transparent or translucent materials that fill openings in a building’s exterior walls. This typically includes glass but can also encompass other materials like plastic or acrylic sheets that allow light transmission. (c) Applicability. The bird-friendly design requirements apply to any of the following projects, when a permit is otherwise required:
(1) All newly constructed structures and buildings;
(2) Substantial Remodel, as defined in Section 16.14.070 of the Code; or (3) Any new fenestration or new or replacement Bird Hazard Installations. (d) Bird-Friendly Design Requirements
(1) Basic Requirement. Bird-Friendly Treatment is required for all Bird Hazard installations and all glazing on an elevation of a building or structure that is unbroken and 24 square feet or larger in size.
(2) Residential and the residential portion of mixed-use development. (A) Within the Bird Sensitive Area, in addition to the requirements of (d)(1), no more than ten percent of an elevation of any structure or building shall be untreated glazing.
(B) Outside of the Bird Sensitive Area, in addition to the requirements of (d)(1), no more than 40 percent of an elevation above 35 feet of any structure or building shall be untreated glazing.
(3) Nonresidential and the nonresidential portion of mixed-use development. In addition to the requirements of (d)(1), no more than ten percent of an elevation of any structure or building shall be untreated glazing.
(e) Alternative Compliance. Property owners or applicants may request an alternative means of compliance with requirements established in Section 18.40.280(d). The alternative shall be recommended in a report by a biologist or ornithologist holding a degree in wildlife biology or a specialization in ornithology, and having experience in bird-friendly building design. The request shall be submitted and reviewed in accordance with the applicable procedures in Item 14
Attachment A - Draft
Ordinance
Item 14: Staff Report Pg. 11 Packet Pg. 1052 of 1140
*** NOT YET APPROVED ***
0160152_20260303_ay
Chapter 18.77, and is subject to approval by the Director. The proposed alternative compliance shall:
(1) Reduce the risk of bird collision to a level equivalent to or less than that which would result from strict compliance with Section 18.40.280(d); and (2) Be consistent with the intent of this section as set forth in Section 18.40.280(a). (f) Lighting. All projects shall comply with the outdoor lighting requirements pursuant to Section 18.40.250 of the Municipal Code.
(g) Exemptions. The following types of projects shall be exempt from Section 18.40.280(d):
(1) Any historic structure located within the City’s Historic Districts or listed on the City’s Historic Inventory or the State or National Historical Registers, except for new additions where treatment conforms to Secretary of Interior Standards for Rehabilitation of Historic Properties.
(2) The first floor of commercial uses facing a public street, up to 14 feet in height, within the following districts:
(A) Retail Shopping (R) Combining District
(B) Pedestrian Shopping (P) Combining District
(C) Ground Floor (GF) Combining District
(D) North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan Districts
(3) 100% affordable housing projects as defined in Section 18.32.030. (4) Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units pursuant to Chapter
18.09. (5) Outside of the Bird Sensitive Area, any portions of residential structures under 35 feet.
(h) California Building Code. All windows, doors, or other features must comply with the requirements of the California Building Code including the fire hazard severity zone regulations in California Green Buildings Standards Code (CALGreen). Should a conflict exist with the provisions of this section, the standards in the California Building Code shall prevail.
SECTION 3. If any section, subsection, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion or sections of the Ordinance. The Council hereby declares that it should have adopted the Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid.
Item 14
Attachment A - Draft
Ordinance
Item 14: Staff Report Pg. 12 Packet Pg. 1053 of 1140
*** NOT YET APPROVED ***
0160152_20260303_ay
SECTION 4. The Council finds that this project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), pursuant to Section 15061 of the CEQA Guidelines, because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the ordinance will have a significant effect on the environment and Section 15308, as an action by a regulatory agency to protect the environment.
SECTION 5. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first day following its adoption.
SECTION 6. Pipeline Projects. This Ordinance shall not apply to any project application deemed complete prior to the effective date of this Ordinance. Any project completed pursuant to such application shall be deemed a legal non-conforming structure and/or use, subject to the provisions of Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 18.70.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
NOT PARTICIPATING:
ATTEST:
____________________________ ____________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
____________________________ ____________________________ Assistant City Attorney City Manager ____________________________
Director of Planning & Development
Services
Item 14
Attachment A - Draft
Ordinance
Item 14: Staff Report Pg. 13 Packet Pg. 1054 of 1140
Item 14
Attachment B - Draft Bird Sensitive
Area Map
Item 14: Staff Report Pg. 14 Packet Pg. 1055 of 1140
!
"#$ %&!'
!(!)
*+,
- ./0 12 344
5//1678
5
/. !(17
(")
9%5
/.12
:!;/!/5
< !%;0 =
(
<1(8!)/
>/
(1
!1/12 $
(?
'
!(!) !=@()2. !1=/512
>/
1A
BCDAE4AFD4G6HGCH
B=@()2. !1/5
12
>/
1
- ./0 12 IJ7(":
K5
/. J7(":
6/"/&%1%L
5 !) 1/
())
1(;/!(!
:0
# (
%/5
M>
!) 5
/.12 ="1
!(;0
N/.>"(!) % );/!
<1(8!)/
>/
(1
!1/12 $
(?
'
!(!) !=@()2. !1=/512
>/
1A
CDAE4AFD4G H
- ./0 I
>"() . !15 ! %1
(;/!K
5 /.12 =>>")(6"1#% );/!
<1(8!)/
>/
(1
!1/12 $
(?
'
!(!) !=@()2. !1=/512
>/
1A
CDAE4AFD4G)HG3H
OM .>1(!#>/
;/!%/5
%
!;("
%1
7)17
%7!
3P5 1L/71%
/5
12
0%
< !%;0 =
(
<1(8!)/
>/
(1
!1/12 $
(?
'
!(!) !=@()2. !1=/512
>/
1A
BCDAE4AFD4G&HGPH
BCDAE4AFD4G
HGFHGH
- )/.. !
12 N1#N/7!)"
0("7(1 12 )/!/.).>()1(!
12 Q)()#/5(!/
!(!) 0%A
&7
"! %
6(%
(>>
/()26 5/
(
/>;/!
<1(8)/!
7)1
(
;/!("
% (
)2
/!12 )/%1.>()1%/56
5 !
"#
&"(R!&L(!
12
(?/
!(!)
)7
!1"#(
%% %)/!)
!%S12
./
:)(;/!%
)/.. !
6#12
TUNA<1(8
)/.. !
%(!/
!(!)
!%1 (
/5&7
"! %5/
12 ! S
&7"(;/!%6 )(7%
) !1%1(1
2/7%!&" &%"(;/!
J7
%
%
!;("
0 "/>. !11/6
&/0
!
6#/6V );0 %1(!
(
%L(!
&7
"! %(
%76V );0 6#!(17
A
!W(
=)9!/S"
& 5/
12
)/
12 "()9
/5J7(!;:(6"
(1(
&(
!&12
.(&!17
/512 >
/6" .(!
12
!
1/ 0("7(1 12 %> ):)
8 );0 ! %%/512 % . (%7
%5/
%
!;("
0 "/>. !15
.>" . !1
A
U2 %1(8
>/
1!)"7
%(%7..(
#
/512 TUN2 (
!&/!CFWC4WFP(!
%)
6 %12 TUNX%>/%;/!
&(
!&12%()9!/S"
&. !1A
!W(
Item 14
Attachment C - Staff
Response to the PTC Motion
from December 10, 2025
Item 14: Staff Report Pg. 15 Packet Pg. 1056 of 1140
City Council
Staff Report
From: City Manager
Report Type: INFORMATION REPORTS
Lead Department: Planning and Development Services
Meeting Date: March 16, 2026
Report #:2601-5797
TITLE
Summary of Fiscal Year 2024-2025 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program Accomplishments — Review of the CDBG Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER). CEQA Status: Not a Project.
RECOMMENDATION
This is an informational report and no action is required.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City is required to annually report its accomplishments achieved through its Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). This annual report to HUD is called the Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER). In accordance with the City’s CDBG Citizen Participation Plan, the City’s Human Relations Commission (HRC) conducts a public hearing on the draft CAPER to allow for public review and discussion. The City then submits the draft CAPER to HUD by the annual September deadline. Afterwards, staff typically provides City Council with an informational report disseminating the draft CAPER submitted to HUD. Rather than providing a copy of the draft CAPER to City Council in November, this year staff is providing City Council with a copy of the final CAPER for CDBG Fiscal Year (FY) 2024-2025 (Attachment A). This updated process ensures that City Council has the opportunity to view the HUD-approved version of the document.
The CAPER was accepted by HUD on January 13, 2026. No action is required by City Council to receive the CAPER.
During FY 2024-2025, the City’s CDBG subrecipients provided projects, programs, and activities that benefited extremely low-, very low-, low-, and moderate-income individuals and households in Palo Alto. Through CDBG and CDBG-CV funds, 7,320 persons and 15 microenterprises were assisted in FY 2024-2025. Of the 7,320 persons and microenterprises assisted by CDBG, 447 were extremely low-income and 6,918 were low-income. CDBG-CV Item A
Item A Staff Report
Item A: Staff Report Pg. 1 Packet Pg. 1057 of 1140
funds, in 2020, were awarded to entitlement jurisdictions to prevent, prepare for and respond to the spread of COVID-19.
BACKGROUND
The City of Palo Alto receives funds annually from HUD as an entitlement city under the CDBG program. As a recipient of CDBG funds, the City is required to prepare a CAPER at the end of each fiscal year. The CAPER describes the City’s progress on implementing the projects, programs, and activities identified in the City’s CDBG FY 2024-2025 Annual Action Plan (AAP) and the goals and objectives of the 2020-2025 Consolidated Plan (ConPlan).
The HRC reviewed the draft CAPER on September 12, 2025, briefly discussed the findings, and asked a few clarifying questions. The HRC did not provide any comments on the draft CAPER that required any changes. Additionally, there were no members of the public that spoke to this item. The City submitted the draft CAPER for FY 2024-2025 to HUD by the September 30, 2025, deadline. The City also responded to minor comments from HUD and submitted minor typographical amendments to the draft CAPER in November and December, which were accepted by HUD on January 13, 2026.
ANALYSIS
During FY 2024-2025, the City’s CDBG subrecipients continued to provide vital services to extremely low-, very low-, low-, and moderate-income households while addressing the priorities and needs of the community and the City’s funding priorities. A total of $1,107,757 was available for CDBG projects, programs, and activities during FY 2024-2025.
As reported in the 2024-2025 Final CAPER, major FY 2024-2025 accomplishments from the City’s CDBG program are as follows:
Catholic Charities of Santa Clara County – Long Term Care Ombudsman Program [Goal:
Assist 37 individuals; Actual: 37 individuals]. The program provided advocacy and complaint investigation for elderly residents of long-term care facilities in Palo Alto, which included regular contact with Palo Alto Residential Care Facilities to observe and monitor conditions of care.
Alta Housing – SRO Resident Supportive Services [Goal: Assist 131 individuals; Actual:
516 individuals]. Alta Housing engaged a service coordinator to provide 40 hours of weekly services to provide case management and support counseling services to residents at Alma Place and Barker Hotel to help them maintain housing stability.
Activities included financial counseling, health maintenance, information, and referral problem-solving, employment assistance, crisis intervention, and case management.
Both Alma Place and Barker Hotel are single-room occupancy facilities.
Item A
Item A Staff Report
Item A: Staff Report Pg. 2 Packet Pg. 1058 of 1140
LifeMoves – Case Management [Goal: Assist 32 individuals; Actual: 47 individuals].
LifeMoves provided case management services to Opportunity Services Center and Hotel De Zink clients for locating housing and/or employment and be connecting clients to benefits.
Project Sentinel – Fair Housing Services [Goal: Assist 10 individuals; Actual: 7 individuals]. Project Sentinel provided fair housing services to City residents including community education and outreach regarding fair housing law and practices, investigation, counseling, and legal referral for victims of housing discrimination. Silicon Valley Independent Living Center (SVILC) – Case Management Services [Goal:
Assist 21 individuals; Actual: 12 individuals]. SVLIC provided assistance for individuals with disabilities and their families. This assistance helped these persons to transition from homelessness, health care facilities, unstable or temporary housing to permanent affordable, accessible, integrated housing involving emergency assistance, security deposits, rent, information, and referrals.
Rebuilding Together Peninsula – Safe at Home Program [Goal: Assist 5 households; Actual: 2 households]. Program preserved affordable housing by transforming homes through critical repairs and accessibility modifications, at no cost to the service recipient. The majority of the low-income homeowners served were elderly seniors and/or people with disabilities, who are physically and financially unable to maintain safe living conditions for themselves and their families. The program did not meet its anticipated goal due to program outreach and recruitment challenges. The City is working with Rebuilding Together Peninsula to determine new outreach methods. Palo Alto Public Works Department – 2023 ADA Curb Ramp Improvements [Goal:
2,090 individuals; Actual: 6,681 individuals]. The City intends to fund a major curb ramp improvement project that will bring an estimated 70 curb ramps up to current ADA accessibility standards.
Abode/Community Work Group – Alma Garden Rehabilitation [Goal: 10 individuals; Actual: 0 individuals]. Project activities include rehabilitating rental housing units in Alma Garden, an affordable multi-family housing complex for very low and low-income households, to address existing health and safety concerns. Funding is being spent on a project manager, bathroom upgrades, exterior repairs, and electrical and water utility upgrades. Construction continues with interior work as exterior work has concluded.
Rehabilitation is anticipated to be complete by May 2026, at which point the City will close the project out and update the outcomes to reflect 10 individuals served.
Item A
Item A Staff Report
Item A: Staff Report Pg. 3 Packet Pg. 1059 of 1140
LifeMoves – HomeKey Recreation Project [Goal: 100 individuals; Actual: 0 individuals].
Provider will manage the design and construction of recreation area and recreation equipment within the Homekey Palo Alto shelter property. The anticipated project completion timeframe is 12 months. The Homekey interim shelter project has experienced construction delays. The City plans to complete the recreation project by July 2026 - then update the program outcomes to reflect 100 individuals. WeeCare/Upwards – BOOST Program [Goal: 15 microenterprises; Actual: 15 microenterprises]. WeeCare worked with Family Child Care Home (FCCH) providers in Palo Alto who are already on the wait list for the BOOST program. These providers received staff training-learning best practices on how to grow and sustain their organization and how to better support the families they serve. Funds requested to pay WeeCare staff salaries for training providers on how to use Child Management System (CCMS) software. CCMS was developed for providers to create work plans, goals, capacity, and revenue, empowering them to reach service and operations goals. Move Mountain View (MMV) [Goal: 37 individuals; Actual: 6 individuals]. The program provides reserved off-street parking for participants, as well as permanent housing solutions through intensive case management. MMV operates four 24/7 RV Safe Parking lots and three Congregational Safe Parking locations. The total capacity of these lots in Palo Alto and Mountain View is 109 vehicles. A total of 159 vehicle dwellers are currently enrolled in the program. One of locations is located in Palo Alto at the Geng Road Safe Parking Lot. The Geng Road Safe Parking Lot is where MMV utilizes Palo Alto’s CDBG-CV funds. Funding pays for the salary of one full-time Client Counseling Case Manager and one full-time Client Case Manager Housing Specialist. The program has an ongoing vacancy at the Case Manager level. Despite active recruitment efforts, this vacancy has limited the programs ability to meet its anticipated goals.
If a subrecipient does not meet the anticipated performance outcomes identified in the funding agreement, the City may require corrective actions, modify the scope of services, or reallocate unspent funds to other eligible activities. Continued underperformance may be considered in future funding recommendations.
As required by HUD, the FY 2024-2025 draft CAPER was submitted by the September 30, 2025, deadline.
FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT
This informational report has no fiscal impact. However, leveraging CDBG funds enables the City to support essential public services, capital improvements, and housing-related activities Item A
Item A Staff Report
Item A: Staff Report Pg. 4 Packet Pg. 1060 of 1140
without reliance on the General Fund. The use of CDBG funds represents an effective strategy to secure and deploy outside resources to accomplish local goals and priorities.
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
An advertisement was published in The Daily Post on August 30, 2025, announcing the availability of the draft CAPER for public review and comment. The draft CAPER was posted on the City’s CDBG webpage (www.paloalto.gov/CDBG) from September 9, 2025, through September 24, 2025, meeting the 15-day public comment period requirement. Hardcopies of the draft CAPER were also available for review at the City’s Development Center; Planning & Development Services Department at City Hall; and the City’s Downtown Public Library. The HRC held a public hearing on September 11, 2025, to discuss the draft CAPER and provide the public the opportunity to comment; the meeting fulfills the public hearing requirement for the CAPER. There were no public comments made during the hearing and the HRC did not provide comments necessitating changes to the contents and or metrics of the draft CAPER.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Council review on this item is not considered a project as defined by CEQA because the CAPER is for informational purposes only with no action required by City Council.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: 2024-2025 Final Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER), as accepted by HUD.
APPROVED BY:
Jonathan Lait, Planning and Development Services Director Item A
Item A Staff Report
Item A: Staff Report Pg. 5 Packet Pg. 1061 of 1140
2024-2025
Consolidated Annual Performance
and Evaluation Report
(CAPER)
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK
GRANT (CDBG)
ADMINISTERED BY:
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
Item A
Attachment A - 2024-2025
Final Consolidated Annual
Performance and Evaluation
Report (CAPER), as
accepted by HUD.
Item A: Staff Report Pg. 6 Packet Pg. 1062 of 1140
1 Item A
Attachment A - 2024-2025
Final Consolidated Annual
Performance and Evaluation
Report (CAPER), as
accepted by HUD.
Item A: Staff Report Pg. 7 Packet Pg. 1063 of 1140
2 CR-05 - Goals and Outcomes
Progress the jurisdiction has made in carrying out its strategic plan and its action plan.
91.520(a)
This could be an overview that includes major initiatives and highlights that were proposed and executed throughout the program year.
The Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER) is a report that demonstrates the overall progress realized through the City’s priorities and specific objectives as identified in the Fiscal Year (FY) 2024-2025 Annual Action Plan and the 2020-2025 Consolidated Plan. The CAPER highlights accomplishments that occurred between July 1, 2024, to June 30, 2025. This is the final year-end report of the 2020-2025 Consolidated Plan.
As shown in Table 1, the City of Palo Alto has accomplished immense success in FY2024-2025 (PY2024-2025, Program Year 2024-2025, PY2024) while meeting identified goals. The City has used Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds to support their community’s residents.
The City does not receive HOME Investment Partnership (HOME), Emergency Shelter Grant (ESG), or Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) and thus these funds are not reflected in this report.
A total of $1,107,757 in CDBG funds was available for projects and programs during the 2024- 2025 Program Year (PY). The City received $513,653 from the federal CDBG program and $129,950 in program income and had $464,154.61 available in unspent funds from previous years. In FY2024-2025, the City reallocated CDBG-CV funds in the sum of $34,200.50 unspent funds from the canceled LifeMoves’ COVID-19 Testing Project and $85,278.24 unspent funds from Planning and Administration.
In PY2024, 7,320 persons and 15 microenterprise businesses were assisted through CDBG allocations.
Major accomplishments for FY2024-2025 include the following:
Planning and Administration.
• Catholic Charities of Santa Clara County – Long Term Care Ombudsman Program [Goal:
Assist 37 individuals; Actual: 37 individuals]. The program provided advocacy and complaint investigation for elderly residents of long-term care facilities in Palo Alto, which included regular contact with Palo Alto Residential Care Facilities to observe and monitor conditions of care;
• Alta Housing – SRO Resident Supportive Services [Goal: Assist 131; Actual: 516 individuals]. Alta Housing engaged a service coordinator to provide 40 hours of weekly Item A
Attachment A - 2024-2025
Final Consolidated Annual
Performance and Evaluation
Report (CAPER), as
accepted by HUD.
Item A: Staff Report Pg. 8 Packet Pg. 1064 of 1140
3 services to provide case management and support counseling services to residents at Alma Place and Barker Hotel to help them maintain housing stability. Activities included financial counseling, health maintenance, information, and referral problem-solving, employment assistance, crisis intervention, and case management. Both Alma Place and Barker Hotel are single-room occupancy facilities;
• LifeMoves – Case Management [Goal: Assist 32 individuals; Actual: 47 individuals].
LifeMoves provided case management services to Opportunity Services Center and Hotel De Zink clients for locating housing and/or employment and be connecting clients to benefits;
• Project Sentinel – Fair Housing Services[Goal: Assist 10 individuals; Actual: 7 individuals].
Project Sentinel provided fair housing services to City residents including community education and outreach regarding fair housing law and practices, investigation, counseling, and legal referral for victims of housing discrimination; • Silicon Valley Independent Living Center (SVILC) – Case Management Services [Goal:
Assist 21 individuals; Actual: 24 individuals]. SVLIC provided assistance for individuals with disabilities and their families. This assistance helped these persons to transition from homelessness, health care facilities, unstable or temporary housing to permanent affordable, accessible, integrated housing involving emergency assistance, security deposits, rent, information, and referrals;
• Rebuilding Together Peninsula – Safe at Home Program [Goal: Assist 5 households; Actual: 2 households]. Program preserved affordable housing by transforming homes through critical repairs and accessibility modifications, at no cost to the service recipient.
The majority of the low-income homeowners served were elderly seniors and/or people with disabilities, who are physically and financially unable to maintain safe living conditions for themselves and their families;
• Public Works Department (PW) – 2023 ADA Curb Ramp Improvements [Goal: 2,090 individuals; Actual: 6,681 individuals]. The City intends to fund a major curb ramp improvement project that will bring an estimated 70 curb ramps up to current ADA accessibility standards;
• Abode/Community Work Group – Alma Garden Rehabilitation [Goal: 10 individuals; Actual: 0 individuals]. Project activities include rehabilitating rental housing units in Alma Garden, an affordable multi-family housing complex for very low and low-income households, to address existing health and safety concerns. Funding would be spent on a project manager, bathroom upgrades, exterior repairs, and electrical and water utility Item A
Attachment A - 2024-2025
Final Consolidated Annual
Performance and Evaluation
Report (CAPER), as
accepted by HUD.
Item A: Staff Report Pg. 9 Packet Pg. 1065 of 1140
4 upgrades. Construction continues with interior work as exterior work has concluded; • LifeMoves – HomeKey Recreation Project [Goal: 100 individuals; Actual: 0 individuals].
Provider will manage the design and construction of recreation area and recreation equipment within the Homekey Palo Alto shelter property. The anticipated project completion timeframe is 12 months. Environmental review reaching conclusion with construction to begin shortly thereafter.
• WeeCare/Upwards – BOOST Program [Goal: 15 microenterprises; Actual: 15 microenterprises]. WeeCare worked with Family Child Care Home (FCCH) providers in Palo Alto who are already on the wait list for the BOOST program. These providers received staff training-learning best practices on how to grow and sustain their organization and how to better support the families they serve. Funds requested to pay WeeCare staff salaries for training providers on how to use Child Management System (CCMS) software. CCMS was developed for providers to create work plans, goals, capacity, and revenue, empowering them to reach service and operations goals; and • Move Mountain View (MMV) [Goal: 37 individuals; Actual: 6 individuals]. The program provides reserved off-street parking for participants, as well as permanent housing solutions through intensive case management. MMV operates four 24/7 RV Safe Parking lots and three Congregational Safe Parking locations. The total capacity of these lots in Palo Alto and Mountain View is 109 vehicles. A total of 159 vehicle dwellers are currently enrolled in the program. One of locations is located in Palo Alto at the Geng Road Safe Parking lot. The Geng Road Safe Parking Lot is where MMV utilizes Palo Alto’s CDBG-CV funds. Funding pays for the salary of one full-time Client Counseling Case Manager and one full-time Client Case Manager Housing Specialist. MMV continues to look to fill these positions.
Comparison of the proposed versus actual outcomes for each outcome measure submitted with the consolidated plan and explain, if applicable, why progress was not made toward meeting goals and objectives. 91.520(g)
Categories, priority levels, funding sources and amounts, outcomes/objectives, goal outcome indicators, units of measure, targets, actual outcomes/outputs, and percentage completed for each of the grantee’s program year goals
Item A
Attachment A - 2024-2025
Final Consolidated Annual
Performance and Evaluation
Report (CAPER), as
accepted by HUD.
Item A: Staff Report Pg. 10 Packet Pg. 1066 of 1140
Goal Category
Source
/
Amount
Indicator Unit of
Measure
Expected
–
Strategic
Plan
Actual –
Strategic
Plan
*Percent
Complete
Expected
–
Program
Year
Actual –
Program
Year
Percent
Complete
Affordable
Housing
Affordable
Housing
CDBG: $ Rental units
rehabilitated
Household
Housing
Unit
107 0 0.00% 0 0 -
Affordable
Housing
Affordable
Housing
CDBG: $
Homeowner
Housing
Rehabilitated
Household
Housing
Unit
40 19 47.50% 15 2 13.33%
Economic
Development
Non-Housing
Community
Development
CDBG: $ Jobs
created/retained Jobs 150 28 18.67% 0 0 -
Economic
Development
Non-Housing
Community
Development
CDBG: $ Businesses
assisted
Businesses
Assisted
0 34 - 15 15 100.00%
Fair Housing
Non-Housing
Community
Development
CDBG: $
Public service
activities other
than
Low/Moderate
Income Housing
Benefit
Persons
Assisted
75 89 118.67% 10 7 70.00%
Homelessness Homeless
CDBG: $
/ CDBGCV: $
Public service
activities other
than
Low/Moderate
Income Housing
Benefit
Persons
Assisted
800 1,546 193.25% 304 569 187.17%
Item A
Attachment A - 2024-2025 Final
Consolidated Annual Performance and
Evaluation Report (CAPER), as accepted
by HUD.
Item A: Staff Report Pg. 11 Packet Pg. 1067 of 1140
1 Goal Category
Source
/
Amount
Indicator Unit of
Measure
Expected
–
Strategic
Plan
Actual –
Strategic
Plan
*Percent
Complete
Expected
–
Program
Year
Actual –
Program
Year
Percent
Complete
Homelessness Homeless
CDBG: $
/ CDBGCV: $
Tenant-based
rental assistance
/ Rapid
Rehousing
Households
Assisted
60 92 153.33% 0 0 -
Homelessness Homeless
CDBG: $
/ CDBGCV: $
Homeless
Person
Overnight
Shelter
Persons
Assisted
100 0 0.00% 0 0 -
Homelessness Homeless
CDBG: $
/ CDBGCV: $
Overnight /
Emergency
Shelter /
Transitional
Housing Beds
Beds 0 0 0 0 0 -
Strengthen
Neighborhoods
NonHomeless
Special
Needs
Non-Housing
Community
Development
CDBG: $
Public Facility or
Infrastructure
Activities other
than
Low/Moderate
Income Housing
Benefit
Persons
Assisted
2,190 6,681 305.07% 2,090 6,681 319.67%
Item A
Attachment A - 2024-2025 Final
Consolidated Annual Performance and
Evaluation Report (CAPER), as accepted
by HUD.
Item A: Staff Report Pg. 12 Packet Pg. 1068 of 1140
2 Goal Category
Source
/
Amount
Indicator Unit of
Measure
Expected
–
Strategic
Plan
Actual –
Strategic
Plan
*Percent
Complete
Expected
–
Program
Year
Actual –
Program
Year
Percent
Complete
Strengthen
Neighborhoods
NonHomeless
Special
Needs
Non-Housing
Community
Development
CDBG: $
Public service
activities other
than
Low/Moderate
Income Housing
Benefit
Persons
Assisted
3,600 1,886 52.39% 59 62 105.08%
Table 1 - Accomplishments – Program Year & Strategic Plan to Date *IDIS (Integrated Disbursement and Information System) automatically rounds percentages to the nearest whole number: rounding up if the decimal portion is greater than 0.50 and rounding down if the decimal portion is less than 0.50. Table 1 reports on precise percentages.
Assess how the jurisdiction’s use of funds, particularly CDBG, addresses the priorities and specific objectives identified in the plan, giving special attention to the highest priority activities identified.
Throughout FY2024-25 (Program Year 2024), the subrecipients of the City’s CDBG program persistently delivered essential services to households belonging to the extremely low-, very low-, low-, and moderate-income brackets. Simultaneously, they tackled the priorities and needs of the community, as outlined in the City’s officially adopted 2020-2025 Consolidated Plan.
The City achieved numerous goals as outlined in the FY2024-2025 Annual Action Plan (AAP) through CDBG funding. A total of $1,107,757 was available for funding projects and programs during the 2024 Program Year. The City received $513,653 from the federal CDBG program and $129,950 in program income and had $464,154.61 in previous year unspent CDBG funds. At the time of this CAPER, the City has spent approximately $793,516.08. In FY2024-2025, the City reallocated CDBG-CV funds in the sum of $34,200.50 unspent funds from the canceled LifeMoves’ COVID-19 Testing Project and $85,278.24 unspent funds from Planning and Item A
Attachment A - 2024-2025 Final
Consolidated Annual Performance and
Evaluation Report (CAPER), as accepted
by HUD.
Item A: Staff Report Pg. 13 Packet Pg. 1069 of 1140
3 Administration.
Goals established through the 2020-2025 Consolidated Plan include:
• Affordable Housing: Assist in the creation and preservation of affordable housing for low-income and special needs households.
• Homelessness: Support activities to prevent and end homelessness. • Community Services and Public Improvements: Support provision of essential human services, particularly for special needs populations, and maintain/expand community facilities and infrastructure. • Fair Housing: Promote fair housing choice.
• Economic Development: Support economic development activities that promote employment growth and help lower income people secure and maintain jobs.
Through the CDBG annual formula grant, activities such as the following were undertaken and accomplished to contribute toward meeting the 2020-2025 Consolidated Plan’s goals:
• Catholic Charities, Ombudsman Program: Assisted 37 senior residents through visitation, resolved complaints, completed phone outreach at local long-term facilities.
• LifeMoves, Opportunity Services Center: Assisted 47 homeless and very low-income individuals through case management services, including housing and job searches.
• Project Sentinel: Assisted 7 low-income individuals with tenant and landlord mediation services. • Alta Housing: Assisted 516 individuals in the Single-Room Occupancy (SRO) Residents Support Program through onsite counseling services.
• Rebuilding Together Peninsula: Assisted 2 households with home rehabilitation. • Move Mountain View: Assisted 6 individuals with intensive case management services through the reserved off-street parking program.
• WeeCareUpwards: Assisted 15 family childcare home businesses with business improvement services. • SVILC: assisted 24 persons through case management services. • Alma Garden: construction underway with completion scheduled for PY2025.
Item A
Attachment A - 2024-2025 Final
Consolidated Annual Performance and
Evaluation Report (CAPER), as accepted
by HUD.
Item A: Staff Report Pg. 14 Packet Pg. 1070 of 1140
4 • Homekey Recreation Project: environmental review to completed with construction to commence shortly there after. • 43 ADA Curb Ramps were installed, benefiting the City of Palo Alto’s 6,681 residents with disabilities.
Item A
Attachment A - 2024-2025 Final
Consolidated Annual Performance and
Evaluation Report (CAPER), as accepted
by HUD.
Item A: Staff Report Pg. 15 Packet Pg. 1071 of 1140
5 CR-10 - Racial and Ethnic composition of families assisted Describe the families assisted (including the racial and ethnic status of families assisted).
91.520(a)
CDBG
White 5,527
Black or African American 318
Asian 996
American Indian or American Native 65
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 12
Total 6,918
Hispanic 572
Not Hispanic 6,346
Table 2 – Table of assistance to racial and ethnic populations by source of funds Narrative
During FY2024-2025, the City was successful in collecting demographic data for 7,335 persons who were served with CDBG funds. Table 2 above outlines the racial and ethnic populations served by CDBG funds in FY2024-2025 (PY 2024) for a variety of races, although this HUD IDIS formatted reporting table does not track persons identifying as multi-racial. Not reflected in Table 2 above is an additional 417 identified as multi-racial individuals. Further, 584 of the total individuals assisted identified as Hispanic.
A portion of services provided included:
• Alta Housing SRO Resident Support Services Program: Case management and support counseling services provided to 516 residents of Barker Hotel and Alma Place. • Catholic Charities of Santa Clara County Long Term Care Ombudsman Program: Advocacy and compliant investigation provided to 37 elderly residents of long-term care facilities in the City.
• LifeMoves at Opportunity Services Center and Hotel De Zink: Case management services provided to 47 homeless and/or very low-income individuals, including assistance with housing/job searches, referrals, and mentoring.
• Silicon Valley Independent Living Center: Case management services provided to 24 very low-income residents with disabilities and their families, including group workshops, oneon-one service training, and access to independent living services, including emergency food assistance, security deposits/rent (as funding allows), information and referral to ensure the long-term sustainability of affordable and accessible housing.
Item A
Attachment A - 2024-2025
Final Consolidated Annual
Performance and Evaluation
Report (CAPER), as
accepted by HUD.
Item A: Staff Report Pg. 16 Packet Pg. 1072 of 1140
6 • Project Sentinel Fair Housing Services: Fair housing services, including complaint counseling, investigation, and (where appropriate) enforcement referral was provided to 7 LMI individuals.
• WeeCare/Upwards Family Childcare Home Microenterprises: 15 microenterprise daycare businesses in the City of Palo Alto received assistance. WeeCare/Upwards’ BOOST Program supports low-income family-child care home providers in Palo Alto. • Rebuilding Together Peninsula, Safe at Home: 2 LMI households including seniors and/or persons with disabilities received home improvement assistance for critical home repairs.
Item A
Attachment A - 2024-2025
Final Consolidated Annual
Performance and Evaluation
Report (CAPER), as
accepted by HUD.
Item A: Staff Report Pg. 17 Packet Pg. 1073 of 1140
7 CR-15 - Resources and Investments 91.520(a)
Identify the resources made available
Source of Funds Source Resources Made
Available
Amount Expended
During Program Year
CDBG public - federal 1,107,757 793,516.08
Table 3 - Resources Made Available
Narrative
Identify the geographic distribution and location of investments Target Area Planned Percentage
of Allocation
Actual Percentage of
Allocation
Narrative Description
Citywide 100% 100% Community Services
and Public
Improvements,
Economic
Development,
Housing
Rehabilitation,
Sidewalk
Improvements
Table 4 – Identify the geographic distribution and location of investments Narrative
The City’s approach to housing assistance encompasses all forms of housing support, aligning with the principles outlined in the City’s Comprehensive Plan. CDBG-funded public service and housing activities are not confined to specific target areas. The City strives to offer affordable housing options and community services to individuals with lower incomes across the entire municipality.
Item A
Attachment A - 2024-2025
Final Consolidated Annual
Performance and Evaluation
Report (CAPER), as
accepted by HUD.
Item A: Staff Report Pg. 18 Packet Pg. 1074 of 1140
8 Leveraging
Explain how federal funds leveraged additional resources (private, state and local funds), including a description of how matching requirements were satisfied, as well as how any publicly owned land or property located within the jurisdiction that were used to address the needs identified in the plan.
The City of Palo Alto does not receive HOME, ESG, or any other federal grants that require matching requirements. However, the City is consistently maximizing their use of available resources while simultaneously looking out for additional funding opportunities. In addition, the City actively encourages nonprofit organizations to pursue various avenues of funding, including state, local, and federal resources, to support housing and community development activities.
The following funds were leveraged during FY2024-2025.
Human Services Resources Allocation Process (HSRAP): In FY2024-2025, the City allocated General Funds to HSRAP to address primary human service needs in Palo Alto. These funds support human service initiatives, guided by the Human Relations Commission’s priority needs and administered by the Office of Human Services.
Local Housing Trust Fund (LHTF): In FY2022-2023, the City of Palo Alto received $3.4 million from HCD to use alongside local matching funds toward the production of rental housing units at varying affordability levels. 70 percent of these funds target housing units for residents with incomes at or below 60 percent of the area median income (AMI), while 30 percent are for residents with incomes at or below 30 percent AMI.
Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA): As a PHLA entitlement jurisdiction, Palo Alto received an annual PHLA allocation from HCD. The City uses these funds to assist persons who are experiencing homelessness or who are at risk of experiencing homelessness. Funding is used toward street outreach and operating expenses for the Palo Alto Homekey shelter, and for affordable rental housing preservation, new construction, and operating subsidies.
HOMEKEY: Palo Alto Homekey is a forthcoming modular interim housing shelter with the capacity to serve over 200 individuals annually with on-site supportive services. As a codevelopment partnership between the City and LifeMoves, the project is receiving a combination of funding from both state and local contributions, including the Palo Alto Community Fund, the Peery Foundation, Sobrato Philanthropies, Santa Clara County, and the City itself. These additional funding sources address expenses beyond what federal funds can cover, such as predevelopment costs, feasibility studies, and site acquisition.
Item A
Attachment A - 2024-2025
Final Consolidated Annual
Performance and Evaluation
Report (CAPER), as
accepted by HUD.
Item A: Staff Report Pg. 19 Packet Pg. 1075 of 1140
9 CR-20 - Affordable Housing 91.520(b)
Evaluation of the jurisdiction's progress in providing affordable housing, including the number and types of families served, the number of extremely low-income, low-income, moderate-income, and middle-income persons served.
One-Year Goal Actual
Number of homeless households to
be provided affordable housing
units
0 0
Number of non-homeless
households to be provided
affordable housing units
0 0
Number of special-needs
households to be provided with
affordable housing units
5 2
Total 5 2
Table 5 – Number of Households
One-Year Goal Actual
Number of households supported
through rental assistance
0 0
Number of households supported
through the production of new
units
0 0
Number of households supported
through the rehab of existing units
5 2
Number of households supported
through the acquisition of existing
units
0 0
Total 5 2
Table 6 – Number of Households Supported
Discuss the difference between goals and outcomes and problems encountered in meeting these goals.
While not a recipient of HOME funds, the City continued its partnership with Rebuilding Together Peninsula through its Safe at Home Program. The Program represents preservation of affordable housing, as the program provides for critical home repairs and accessibility modifications at no cost to the recipient. Those served include LMI homeowners that are elderly and/or are people with disabilities, who are physically and financially unable to maintain safe living conditions for themselves and their families. With Rebuilding Together Peninsula, the City assisted a total of 2 LMI households with rehabilitation through CDBG funds during PY2024. The number of households assisted through the Safe at Home Program is dependent on available funds and the
Item A
Attachment A - 2024-2025
Final Consolidated Annual
Performance and Evaluation
Report (CAPER), as
accepted by HUD.
Item A: Staff Report Pg. 20 Packet Pg. 1076 of 1140
CAPER- 2025 10
extent of rehabilitation work needed per household.
The City also partnered with Community Work Group/Abode to rehabilitate rental housing units in Alma Garden, an affordable multi-family housing complex for very low- and low-income households. These rehabilitation efforts addressed health and safety concerns, with funding spent on a project manager, bathroom upgrades, exterior repairs, and electrical and water utility upgrades. During PY2024, Community Work Group/Abode completed exterior work to the Alma Garden multi-family housing complex. This work will act as a precursor to the continuation of the project in future funding years, with the goal of rehabilitating 10 LMI household units.
Discuss how these outcomes will impact future annual action plans.
Rebuilding Together Peninsula’s multi-year success demonstrates a continued need for home rehabilitation for LMI households in the City of Palo Alto. Future plans would build upon these consecutive successes to continue providing home rehabilitation. In addition, Community Work Group/Abode’s successful start to rehabilitate the interior of LMI rental units at Alma Gardens in future fiscal years demonstrates a continued need for rental unit rehabilitation.
Include the number of extremely low-income, low-income, and moderate-income persons served by each activity where information on income by family size is required to determine the eligibility of the activity.
Number of Households Served CDBG Actual HOME Actual
Extremely Low-income 1 0
Low-income 1 0
Moderate-income 0 0
Total 2 0
Table 7 – Number of Households Served
Rebuilding Together Peninsula assisted 2 LMI households through its Safe at Home rehabilitation program in PY2024. These households included 1 extremely low-income and 1 low-income household.
Narrative Information
The City of Palo Alto continues to prioritize the promotion of affordable housing for its residents.
Currently, the City has the second highest inventory of affordable housing for incorporated jurisdictions within Santa Clara County (as a percentage of total housing stock). Since 2017, the City has contributed or pledged $52 million towards affordable housing, has approximately 2,300 units (nine percent of total housing stock) dedicated to affordable housing through deed restrictions, and has permitted over 1,000 housing units in the last eight years. Further, the Palo Alto City Council adopted “housing for social and economic balance” as a key priority in both 2023 and 2024. For 2025, the City Council has made “implementing housing strategies for social and economic balance” a key priority. To make the search for affordable housing easily accessible Item A
Attachment A - 2024-2025
Final Consolidated Annual
Performance and Evaluation
Report (CAPER), as
accepted by HUD.
Item A: Staff Report Pg. 21 Packet Pg. 1077 of 1140
11 to LMI residents, the City has an interactive Affordable Housing Resources Map embedded on their website featuring affordable housing properties and projects managed by affordable housing organizations.
In addition, the Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara (HACSC) administers the federal Section 8 program countywide, providing rental subsidies and developing affordable housing for low-income households, seniors, and persons with disabilities.
Item A
Attachment A - 2024-2025
Final Consolidated Annual
Performance and Evaluation
Report (CAPER), as
accepted by HUD.
Item A: Staff Report Pg. 22 Packet Pg. 1078 of 1140
12 CR-25 - Homeless and Other Special Needs 91.220(d, e); 91.320(d, e); 91.520(c) Evaluate the jurisdiction’s progress in meeting its specific objectives for reducing and ending homelessness through:
Reaching out to homeless persons (especially unsheltered persons) and assessing their individual needs
The City of Palo Alto has an enduring local commitment to address homelessness and provide services for the unhoused.
Jurisdictions in the County of Santa Clara participate in the county-wide Point-in-Time (PIT) Count every two years. At the time of this report, the 2025 PIT Count’s preliminary results show that there are 10,711 individuals experiencing homelessness in Santa Clara County. This represents an 8.2 percent increase from 2023. Simultaneously, the number of sheltered homeless individuals increased by approximately 30 percent as compared to 2023, marking an increase in shelter capacity. Unsheltered homeless individuals remained relatively the same as in 2023, with an increase of just one percent. The full 2025 PIT Count Report, which includes detailed data about the City of Palo Alto’s homeless trends, will be available in late summer or early fall of 2025. According to Santa Clara County’s 2023 PIT Count, there were 206 homeless persons in the City of Palo Alto, including 187 unsheltered individuals and 19 sheltered individuals.
The City of Palo Alto provides funding for unhoused services and homelessness prevention through multiple funding channels, including CDBG, Human Services Resource Allocation Process (HSRAP), Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA), and the Emerging Needs Fund. This broad financial support is directed toward service provision and homeless prevention.
Services for the City’s homeless population include workforce development, basic needs stipends for work experience, food, seasonal homeless shelter, school supplies for children, case management, tele-medicine equipment, and shower/laundry services. Additionally, the City contracted with a local nonprofit to provide a two-person full time Outreach Team to reach out and provide services to unhoused individuals in the community, including those living in cars and RVs. The City also opened an Overnight Warming Location (OWL) that operated during winter and provided 19 “nights indoors.”
The City also has several initiatives aimed at preventing homelessness from occurring, including assistance through LifeMoves and the Silicon Valley Independent Living Center. LifeMoves’ Opportunity Services Center (OSC) is specifically designated by the County of Santa Clara as the Emergency Assistance Network Agency for financial assistance in the City of Palo Alto. The OSC in Palo Alto exclusively serves homeless individuals. Further, LifeMoves at the OSC provides intake services to all clients served to assess needs and to provide appropriate resources and referrals. LifeMoves also provides basic need services such as access to restrooms, showers, Item A
Attachment A - 2024-2025
Final Consolidated Annual
Performance and Evaluation
Report (CAPER), as
accepted by HUD.
Item A: Staff Report Pg. 23 Packet Pg. 1079 of 1140
13 laundry, used clothing, hygiene supplies, healthcare, mail and telephone services, food, transportation assistance, counseling, information and referral services, and other critical services as needed.
The City of Palo Alto will continue to explore its funding strategy and collaborate with other Santa Clara County cities to ensure that limited federal and local resources are targeted to critical community needs such as homelessness.
Addressing the emergency shelter and transitional housing needs of homeless persons During FY2024-2025, LifeMoves’ Opportunity Services Center (OSC) received funding from the City of Palo Alto to provide emergency shelter and/or transitional housing for homeless persons.
This project received $28,247 in CDBG funding from the City and has significantly extended its operational hours, thereby providing enhanced support to Palo Alto’s homeless community. This extension has provided vulnerable clients with more time within a secure and nurturing environment, ensuring they receive the critical assistance they require. During FY2024-2025, LifeMoves offered case management services to 47 individuals in the City of Palo Alto through its CDBG funds.
Helping low-income individuals and families avoid becoming homeless, especially extremely low-income individuals and families and those who are: likely to become homeless after being discharged from publicly funded institutions and systems of care (such as health care facilities, mental health facilities, foster care and other youth facilities, and corrections programs and institutions); and, receiving assistance from public or private agencies that address housing, health, social services, employment, education, or youth needs In FY2024-2025, the City of Palo Alto administered CDBG funds to Alta Housing and LifeMoves to help low-income individuals and families avoid becoming homeless, especially those who are extremely low-income and those who are discharged from publicly funded institutions and systems of care.
Alta Housing received $11,575 in CDBG funding and offered on-site counseling services to residents at Alma Place and Barker Hotel who are part of the Single-Room Occupancy (SRO) Resident Support Program. This program encompasses 145 units with the majority of residents being low-income, persons with disabilities, seniors, veterans, and/or formerly homeless adults.
Many residents experience difficulty managing daily living skills, such as managing finances, maintaining mental and physical health, maintaining living spaces, and having good relationships with others. Without onsite support, such issues can become so severe that tenants risk losing their housing. Case management was provided to 516 residents through CDBG in FY2024-2025.
LifeMoves received $28,247 in CDBG funding and provided case management services to 47 Item A
Attachment A - 2024-2025
Final Consolidated Annual
Performance and Evaluation
Report (CAPER), as
accepted by HUD.
Item A: Staff Report Pg. 24 Packet Pg. 1080 of 1140
14 homeless and/or very low-income City residents. Case management services included assistance with housing and job searches, referrals to other resources, and mentoring.
The City follows the guidance of Santa Clara County’s Continuum of Care (CoC) as it relates to individuals who may be discharged from publicly funded institutions and systems of care. The Santa Clary County CoC has developed the Santa Clara County Countywide Quality Assurance Standards for Homeless Housing and Service Programs (2021). This was developed with the expectation of providing quality, standardized services to persons who have become homeless to facilitate their successful re-entry back into their communities. As a member of the CoC, the City of Palo Alto will be following the standards established in the documents.
Helping homeless persons (especially chronically homeless individuals and families, families with children, veterans and their families, and unaccompanied youth) make the transition to permanent housing and independent living, including shortening the period of time that individuals and families experience homelessness, facilitating access for homeless individuals and families to affordable housing units, and preventing individuals and families who were recently homeless from becoming homeless again
In FY2024-2025, the City undertook several activities to help homeless persons, especially chronically homeless individuals and families, families with children, veterans and their families, and unaccompanied youth make the transition to permanent housing and independent living.
Through CDBG funding, Silicon Valley Independent Living Center (SVILC) conducted case management and offered their Housing Workshops. These Housing Workshops educate households on skills and topics that are conducive to independent living. Topics and skills include credit card readiness and credit repair, types of low-income housing and eligibility, application and interview preparation, tenant and landlord rights and responsibilities, housing and home modifications laws and resources, security deposit and rental assistance programs, and long-term supportive services. During FY2024-2025, SVILC used CDBG funds to assist 24 unduplicated Palo Alto residents with disabilities with one-on-one assistance and the development of an independent living plan for housing. These individualized independent living plans resulted in improved access to decent affordable housing.
In addition, Project Sentinel provided community education and outreach regarding housing laws and practices, investigation, counseling, and legal referrals for victims of housing discrimination.
During FY2024-2025, 7 LMI residents were provided individual case management and consultation through CDBG funds.
Item A
Attachment A - 2024-2025
Final Consolidated Annual
Performance and Evaluation
Report (CAPER), as
accepted by HUD.
Item A: Staff Report Pg. 25 Packet Pg. 1081 of 1140
15 CR-30 - Public Housing 91.220(h); 91.320(j)
Actions taken to address the needs of public housing
The Santa Clara County Housing Authority (SCCHA) administers Housing Choice Vouchers (HCVs) and Project-Based Vouchers (PBVs) in the City of Palo Alto. As of January 2025, there were 272 total vouchers in use in the City, including 67 PBVs at the Buena Vista Mobile Park. SCCHA’s waiting list for the County is operated on a lottery basis, with preference given to households who have lived and worked in the County for the past five years and to veterans. For PBV units, accessibility features are tracked, and a lottery is used to match households based on specific accessibility needs.
SCCHA currently has no public housing units in its portfolio that are located in the City of Palo Alto. Following SCCHA’s conversion of its public housing portfolio under the Rental Assistance Demonstration (RAD) program, only four traditional public housing units remain in the County, all of which are located in the City of Santa Clara.
Actions taken to encourage public housing residents to become more involved in management and participate in homeownership
While the majority of the public housing units have been converted to affordable housing stock, the Santa Clara County Housing Authority (SCCHA) is proactive in incorporating resident input into the agency’s policy making process. An equitable and transparent policy making process that includes the opinions of residents is achieved through the involvement of two tenant commissioners, one being a senior citizen, on the Authority’s board.
SCCHA also operates a Family Self-Sufficiency (FSS) Program for households participating in the Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) Program. Through the FSS Program, as earned income and rent portions increase, SCCHA makes monthly deposits into a household savings account. Upon the completion of the Program, which involves meeting personal goals, the savings are provided to the household. The FSS Program encourages financial independence and stability, and is typically five years in length, with an average completion time of 3 years and 10 months.
Actions taken to provide assistance to troubled PHAs
Not applicable.
Item A
Attachment A - 2024-2025
Final Consolidated Annual
Performance and Evaluation
Report (CAPER), as
accepted by HUD.
Item A: Staff Report Pg. 26 Packet Pg. 1082 of 1140
16 CR-35 - Other Actions 91.220(j)-(k); 91.320(i)-(j)
Actions taken to remove or ameliorate the negative effects of public policies that serve as barriers to affordable housing such as land use controls, tax policies affecting land, zoning ordinances, building codes, fees and charges, growth limitations, and policies affecting the return on residential investment. 91.220 (j); 91.320 (i) The City of Palo Alto is committed to taking actions to remove or ameliorate the negative effects of public policies that serve as barriers to affordable housing. In July 2024, the City adopted the 2023-2031 Housing Element, which includes several programs meant to tackle impediments to affordable housing development. The 2023-2031 Housing Element was certified by HCD on August 20, 2024. Programs include modifications to existing zoning standards to allow for denser development, further streamlining the development review process, provisions of development standards that incentivize housing production, reevaluation of fees to support development, and more.
The Housing Trust Silicon Valley (Housing Trust) was established to provide available financial resources targeted at bridging the affordable housing gap within Santa Clara County. Originally known as the Housing Trust Fund of Santa Clara County, the Housing Trust’s overarching mission is to contribute to rendering Silicon Valley a more financially accessible place to live. The Housing Trust achieves this by disbursing loans and grants to increase the affordable housing supply, supporting first-time homebuyers, forestalling homelessness, and enhancing community stability. Palo Alto was one of the founding contributors to this initiative and has continued to support and help fund the Housing Trust. Notably, the partnership has a provision to ensure that funds allocated by the City of Palo Alto are exclusively channeled toward qualifying affordable housing projects within the City’s municipal boundaries.
To further remove or ameliorate the negative effects of public policies that result in barriers, the City has development impact fees encompassing four distinct categories. These include housing, traffic, community facilities, and parkland dedication. The introduction of development impact fees in the City are a result from comprehensive nexus studies undertaken for both commercial and residential development. Outcomes from the studies laid the groundwork for revised fees associated with residential and non-residential housing, which became effecting on June 19, 2017. The housing impact fees are subject to annual updates, with fees charged being periodically evaluated and modified to ensure that they support, rather than prohibit, housing development.
Actions taken to address obstacles to meeting underserved needs. 91.220(k); 91.320(j) The City's CDBG program demonstrates a committed effort to collaborate with various funding entities, aiming to maximize the impact of each dollar invested. This is accomplished through strategic collaborations with other municipal resources, such as the Human Services Resource Item A
Attachment A - 2024-2025
Final Consolidated Annual
Performance and Evaluation
Report (CAPER), as
accepted by HUD.
Item A: Staff Report Pg. 27 Packet Pg. 1083 of 1140
17 Allocation Process (HSRAP), enabling the pooling of funds designated for site acquisition in lowincome housing alongside diverse funding sources. However, Palo Alto faces challenges in fully addressing barriers that impede the fulfillment of underserved needs, given that needs outshine the annual availability of CDBG funds over the years. In response, the City supplements its CDBG funding with other resources and funds. For example:
• During FY2024-2025 (PY 2024), the City allocated General Funds to the City’s Human Service Resource Allocation Process (HSRAP) to address primary human service needs in Palo Alto. HSRAP funds, coupled with CDBG public service funds, are allocated to local non-profit organizations.
• Palo Alto’s Commercial Housing Fund is used primarily to increase the number of new affordable housing units for Palo Alto’s work force. It is funded with mitigation fees required from developers of commercial and industrial projects. • Palo Alto’s Residential Housing Fund is derived from mitigation fees collected through the City’s Below Market Rate (BMR) Housing Program from residential developers and various other miscellaneous sources, such as the proceeds generated from the sale or leasing of City property.
• The City established the Below Market Rate (BMR) Emergency Fund to offer continuous funding for loans to BMR owners, encompassing special assessment loans. This supports the restoring and safeguarding of the City's collection of BMR ownership units. • While the City itself is not a recipient of HOME funds, HOME funds are made accessible through a competitive selection process administered by the State of California HOME program and the County’s HOME Consortium.
Actions taken to reduce lead-based paint hazards. 91.220(k); 91.320(j) Lead-based paint (LBP) was popularized in the early twentieth century but was banned for use in public housing through the Lead-Based Paint Act of 1971 and later in 1978 for use in private residential housing. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), LBP can be found on window frames, walls, on the outside of a home, or on other surfaces. While LBP in good condition does not typically pose a threat, chipped paint or paint dust is harmful when ingested. This is particularly concerning for young children, as elevated blood lead levels are associated with cognitive impairments amongst other issues. According to the State of California Department of Health, children are most susceptible to LBP poisoning due to hand-to-mouth behaviors.
City housing and CDBG staff disseminate information and make referrals to property owners, developers, and non-profit organizations engaged in the restoration of older housing, particularly concerning hazards linked to LBP. In line with this, any dwelling slated for rehabilitation aided by Item A
Attachment A - 2024-2025
Final Consolidated Annual
Performance and Evaluation
Report (CAPER), as
accepted by HUD.
Item A: Staff Report Pg. 28 Packet Pg. 1084 of 1140
18 City financial support is subjected to an assessment for the presence of LBP hazards. The City extends financial support for mitigating LBP hazards in rehabilitated units with City funding.
Additionally, the City enforces contractor training and certification to mitigate the potential use of LBP in the construction of 40 new units. All development and rehabilitation projects must be evaluated according to HUD’s Lead Safe mitigating LBP hazards in rehabilitated units Housing Rule 24 CFR Part 35.
Actions taken to reduce the number of poverty-level families. 91.220(k); 91.320(j) The City of Palo Alto is actively committed to ending and reducing poverty. During FY2024-2025 (PY 2024), the following activities were undertaken to reduce the number of poverty-level families:
• LifeMoves provided case management services, including assistance with housing and job searches to 47 homeless/very low-income community residents. LifeMoves provides necessities for persons who are homeless or at risk of becoming homeless. Additionally, LifeMoves operates the Opportunity Services Center (OSC), which is a comprehensive, one-stop, multi-service, day drop-in center providing critical services for homeless Palo Alto residents. Specifically, the center provides showers, laundry, clothing, snacks, case management, and shelter/housing referral services.
• Alta Housing provided counseling and supportive case management services to 516 lowincome residents of single room occupancy facilities to help them maintain housing stability. Activities included financial counseling, health maintenance, information and referral, problem solving, employment assistance, crisis intervention, and case management.
• The Silicon Valley Independent Living Center (SVILC) assisted 24 very low-income Palo Alto residents with disabilities and their families in searching for affordable and accessible housing. CDBG funds were used to support the Housing and Emergency Services for Persons with Disabilities Program and case management services. The Program provides education and training on all aspects of how to conduct a housing search to transition from homelessness, healthcare facilities, or unstable/temporary housing into safe, longterm community-based housing. In addition, the Program includes group workshops, oneon-one service training, and access to independent living services (including emergency food assistance, security deposits, and information/referral to other services).
Actions taken to develop institutional structure. 91.220(k); 91.320(j) The City is actively working towards enhancing collaboration between governmental bodies and private sector entities to harness collective endeavors, pool resources, and identify additional Item A
Attachment A - 2024-2025
Final Consolidated Annual
Performance and Evaluation
Report (CAPER), as
accepted by HUD.
Item A: Staff Report Pg. 29 Packet Pg. 1085 of 1140
19 revenue to address community service requirements and create affordable housing. This collaborative approach encompasses several key initiatives, including participation in:
• Meetings among entitlement jurisdictions through the CDBG Coordinators; • Meetings of the Regional Housing Working Group;
• Joint jurisdiction Request for Proposals and project review committees; • Community service and housing initiatives funded by multiple jurisdictions; and • HOME Consortium meetings among member jurisdictions to discuss affordable housing projects.
Actions taken to enhance coordination between public and private housing and social service agencies. 91.220(k); 91.320(j)
The City of Palo Alto benefits from a strong housing and community development partnership network both within its jurisdiction and the wider region. Collaborative relationships with organizations such as the County and the Continuum of Care (CoC) further strengthen this network. To foster increased collaboration between public and private sectors, the City actively partners with local jurisdictions and developers, facilitating the exchange of knowledge and resources. In addition to the strategies mentioned above, the City remains dedicated to harmonizing its goals with its Human Services Resource Allocation Process (HSRAP) funding initiatives, ensuring a comprehensive approach to meeting community needs Identify actions taken to overcome the effects of any impediments identified in the jurisdictions analysis of impediments to fair housing choice. 91.520(a) The City is committed to actively promoting fair housing in accordance with the adopted 2020- 2025 Analysis of Impediments. Measures undertaken to advance fair housing in Palo Alto include:
• 2023-2031 Housing Element: Includes programs to address affirmatively further fair housing, such as outreach/education services, the continuation and enforcement of the Below Market Rate (BMR) program that provides more affordable units, the expansion of housing services, and the implementation of more renter protections. • City of Palo Alto Local Housing Funds: A sizable portion of the City's local housing funds were allocated towards augmenting and conserving the inventory of affordable housing. • Section 8 Housing Vouchers: The Office of Human Services held regular meetings with the County of Santa Clara Housing Authority to facilitate the placement of homeless individuals using Section 8 vouchers.
• Information Access: The Office of Human Services provided affordable housing information and referral services.
• Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH) Plan: In a joint effort with the County of Santa Clara Item A
Attachment A - 2024-2025
Final Consolidated Annual
Performance and Evaluation
Report (CAPER), as
accepted by HUD.
Item A: Staff Report Pg. 30 Packet Pg. 1086 of 1140
20 and its cities, Palo Alto adopted its updated AFH Plan in May 2023. • Project Sentinel: During FY2024-2025, the City provided CDBG funding to Project Sentinel, a non-profit organization dedicated to assisting individuals with housing problems. Project Sentinel served 7 LMI individuals with case management services.
Item A
Attachment A - 2024-2025
Final Consolidated Annual
Performance and Evaluation
Report (CAPER), as
accepted by HUD.
Item A: Staff Report Pg. 31 Packet Pg. 1087 of 1140
CR-40 - Monitoring 91.220 and 91.230
Describe the standards and procedures used to monitor activities carried out in furtherance of the plan and used to ensure long-term compliance with requirements of the programs involved, including minority business outreach and the comprehensive planning requirements
The City remains actively engaged in overseeing all subrecipients and projects to ensure their adherence to the federal CDBG program and comprehensive planning requirements. This monitoring process encompasses the review of quarterly performance reports, reimbursement requests, supporting documentation, and agency audit reports. Biennial desk-site monitoring is conducted for all CDBG subrecipients, involving assessing client files, project objectives, compliance with agreements, administrative and financial management, and internal controls.
The City completed its last subrecipient monitoring process in Spring 2024 for all subrecipients and will conduct subrecipient monitoring again in the next Fiscal Year. The City also completed risk assessments for all subrecipients.
Citizen Participation Plan 91.105(d); 91.115(d)
Describe the efforts to provide citizens with reasonable notice and an opportunity to comment on performance reports.
Electronic copies of the FY2024-2025 draft CAPER were made available on the City’s website for the required 15-day public comment period from September 9, 2025, through September 24, 2025. Hardcopies of the draft CAPER were also available for review at the Development Center, Planning and Development Services at City Hall, and at the City’s Downtown Public Library. On August 30, 2025, an advertisement was placed in the Daily Post newspaper advertising the upcoming availability of the draft CAPER for public review and comment. The Human Relations Commission (HRC) held a public hearing on September 11, 2025, to discuss and hear public comments on the draft CAPER.
Per the City’s adopted Citizen Participation Plan (CPP), Palo Alto offers translation services when a substantial number of non-English speaking residents can be reasonably expected to participate or when a reasonable accommodation request is made. Non-English speaking residents requiring translation assistance or any accommodations, along with persons with disabilities requiring assistance, are advised to submit their request as soon as possible but no later than 48 hours before a scheduled meeting, program, or service.
For the September 11th HRC meeting agenda, staff report, and meeting information, please visit City’s website.
Comments, if any, received by phone, email, and/or during the public meeting will be 21 Item A
Attachment A - 2024-2025
Final Consolidated Annual
Performance and Evaluation
Report (CAPER), as
accepted by HUD.
Item A: Staff Report Pg. 32 Packet Pg. 1088 of 1140
22 summarized and provided in the draft CAPER attachments that will later be submitted to HUD.
CR-45 - CDBG 91.520(c)
Specify the nature of, and reasons for, any changes in the jurisdiction’s program objectives and indications of how the jurisdiction would change its programs as a result of its experiences.
Not applicable. The City does not plan to change the CDBG program objectives.
Does this Jurisdiction have any open Brownfields Economic Development Initiative (BEDI) grants?
No.
[BEDI grantees] Describe accomplishments and program outcomes during the last year.
Not applicable.
Item A
Attachment A - 2024-2025
Final Consolidated Annual
Performance and Evaluation
Report (CAPER), as
accepted by HUD.
Item A: Staff Report Pg. 33 Packet Pg. 1089 of 1140
23 CR-58 – Section 3
Identify the number of individuals assisted and the types of assistance provided Total Labor Hours CDBG HOME ESG HOPWA HTF
Total Number of Activities 0 0 0 0 0
Total Labor Hours
Total Section 3 Worker Hours
Total Targeted Section 3 Worker Hours
Table 8 – Total Labor Hours
Qualitative Efforts - Number of Activities by
Program
CDBG HOME ESG HOPWA HTF
Outreach efforts to generate job applicants who are Public Housing Targeted Workers
Outreach efforts to generate job applicants who are Other Funding Targeted Workers.
Direct, on-the job training (including apprenticeships).
Indirect training such as arranging for, contracting for, or paying tuition for, off-site training.
Technical assistance to help Section 3 workers compete for jobs (e.g., resume assistance, coaching).
Outreach efforts to identify and secure bids from Section 3 business concerns.
Technical assistance to help Section 3 business concerns understand and bid on contracts.
Division of contracts into smaller jobs to facilitate participation by Section 3 business concerns.
Provided or connected residents with assistance in seeking employment including drafting resumes, preparing for interviews, finding job opportunities, connecting residents to job placement services.
Held one or more job fairs.
Provided or connected residents with supportive services that can provide direct services or referrals.
Provided or connected residents with supportive services that provide one or more of the following: work readiness health screenings, interview clothing, uniforms, test fees, transportation.
Assisted residents with finding childcare.
Assisted residents to apply for or attend community college or a four year educational institution.
Assisted residents to apply for or attend vocational/technical training.
Assisted residents to obtain financial literacy training and/or coaching.
Bonding assistance, guaranties, or other efforts to support viable bids from Section 3 business concerns.
Provided or connected residents with training on computer use or online technologies.
Promoting the use of a business registry designed to create opportunities for disadvantaged and small businesses.
Outreach, engagement, or referrals with the state one-stop system, as designed in Section 121(e)(2) of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act.
Other.
Table 9 – Qualitative Efforts - Number of Activities by Program Item A
Attachment A - 2024-2025
Final Consolidated Annual
Performance and Evaluation
Report (CAPER), as
accepted by HUD.
Item A: Staff Report Pg. 34 Packet Pg. 1090 of 1140
24 Narrative
Not applicable.
Item A
Attachment A - 2024-2025
Final Consolidated Annual
Performance and Evaluation
Report (CAPER), as
accepted by HUD.
Item A: Staff Report Pg. 35 Packet Pg. 1091 of 1140
CAPER 28
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Item A
Attachment A - 2024-2025
Final Consolidated Annual
Performance and Evaluation
Report (CAPER), as
accepted by HUD.
Item A: Staff Report Pg. 36 Packet Pg. 1092 of 1140
CAPER 29
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Item A
Attachment A - 2024-2025
Final Consolidated Annual
Performance and Evaluation
Report (CAPER), as
accepted by HUD.
Item A: Staff Report Pg. 37 Packet Pg. 1093 of 1140
CAPER 30
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Item A
Attachment A - 2024-2025
Final Consolidated Annual
Performance and Evaluation
Report (CAPER), as
accepted by HUD.
Item A: Staff Report Pg. 38 Packet Pg. 1094 of 1140
CAPER 31
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Item A
Attachment A - 2024-2025
Final Consolidated Annual
Performance and Evaluation
Report (CAPER), as
accepted by HUD.
Item A: Staff Report Pg. 39 Packet Pg. 1095 of 1140
CAPER 32
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Proof of Notice for Comment Period
Item A
Attachment A - 2024-2025
Final Consolidated Annual
Performance and Evaluation
Report (CAPER), as
accepted by HUD.
Item A: Staff Report Pg. 40 Packet Pg. 1096 of 1140
City Council
Staff Report
Report Type: SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY
Lead Department: City Clerk
Meeting Date: March 16, 2026
Report #:2603-6124
TITLE
Recognition of Sister City Tsuchiura, Japan and Palo Alto Student Exchange Program Participants.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Proclamation Welcoming Exchange Students and Chaperones from Tsuchiura, Ibaraki, Japan
APPROVED BY:
Mahealani Ah Yun, City Clerk
Item 1
Item 1 Late Packet Report
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 1 Packet Pg. 1097 of 1140
WELCOMING EXCHANGE STUDENTS AND CHAPERONES
FROM TSUCHIURA, IBARAKI, JAPAN
WHEREAS, exchange programs between middle schools are the foundation of the Sister City program with Tsuchiura, Japan, which promotes international and intercultural understanding among our youth; and
WHEREAS, Palo Alto and Tsuchiura City have worked together to involve their respective middle school students and their families in cultural and educational exchanges and special programs; and WHEREAS, the opportunity to host Tsuchiura students here and to send Palo Alto students to Tsuchiura, Japan since 1994 has been mutually beneficial.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Vicki Veenker, Mayor of the City of Palo Alto, on behalf of the entire City Council, hereby express our heartfelt welcome and the best wishes of the City of Palo Alto to Mr.
Hirotomo Araki, Ms. Taeko Banno, Ms. Azusa Nakagoshi, and fifteen students: Rio Sugita, Kanon Furukawa, Ai Usui, Kanji Ono, Kokoa Sakai, Kiyoka Numata, Sahya Hanaeda, Mai Yaguchi, Kokone Yoshimura, Ryoichi Kawada, Keita Tsukahara, Sousuke Nasu, Yuuna Kurata, Sayaka Watanabe, and Kirato Hino.
FURTHER, we also acknowledge their Palo Alto buddies: Khloe Chang, Milla Rosen, Alyssa Leong, Austin Shovkoplyas, Hailyn Kim Cho, Kaya Ishihara, Hui Ching Perri So, Ella Guo, Ellie Lin, Rohan Chandra, Elijah Straub, Matteo Boog, Lindsay Mo, Adeline Tran, and Tyler Stutz.
PRESENTED: March 16, 2026
____________________________
Vicki Veenker
Mayor
Proclamation
Item 1
Attachment A -
Proclamation Welcoming
Exchange Students and
Chaperones from Tsuchiura,
Ibaraki, Japan
Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 2 Packet Pg. 1098 of 1140
Item No. 12. Page 1 of 2
City Council
Supplemental Report
From: Jonathan Lait, Planning and Development Services Director Meeting Date: March 16, 2026
Item Number: 12
Report #:2603-6126
TITLE
QUASI-JUDICIAL. 2100-2400 Geng Road [24PLN-00356 & 24PLN-00357]: Request for Approval of Applications for Site and Design, a Conditional Use Permit, and a Vesting Tentative Map to Construct 145 For Sale Townhome Units. Thirteen Percent of the Units Would Be Deed Restricted to Low Income Households. The Project is Proposed in Accordance with Builder’s Remedy (California Government Code Section 65589.5(d)(5)). A Senate Bill 330 Pre-Application was Filed on July 8, 2024. The Project Also Includes Adoption of a Parkland Improvement Ordinance to Authorize Tree Removals in the Baylands Athletic Center, Which Would be Impacted by the Project. CEQA Status: Exempt from CEQA in Accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 (Comprehensive Plan Consistency).
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that Council consider the additional information provided in this report, including the revised Draft Record of Land Use Action.
BACKGROUND
This supplemental memo transmits an updated Attachment B: Draft Record of Land Use Action.
Following publication of the agenda packet, staff identified two inadvertent errors and omissions in the Draft Record of Land Use Action. This memo also provides an update on Parkland Dedication fees for the project.
Record of Land Use Action
First, the City is required, pursuant to SB 166 (2017, Gov. Code § 65863) to make certain findings whenever a parcel is developed with fewer units by income category than identified in its housing element. Those findings have been added into Section 1 of the attached revised Draft Record of Land Use Action.
Second, this project differs from most because it requires a Park Improvement Ordinance, which will not be effective until the 31st day following adoption on second reading. Accordingly, staff have revised Section 12 of the Draft Record of Land Use Action so that the effective dates of the planning entitlements to coincide with the effective date of the ordinance.
Item 12
Item 12 Supplemental
Report
Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 1 Packet Pg. 1099 of 1140
Item No. 12. Page 2 of 2
Parkland Dedication in-lieu fees
The applicant recently identified a potential issue with the fee estimate provided by staff, specifically with respect to Parkland Dedication in-lieu fees. Staff prepared the fee estimate using the proposed number of new residential units, but did not provide any offsetting credit for the demolition of approximately 190,000 square feet of existing office space. It is the City’s standard practice to provide such offsetting credits for fees subject to the Mitigation Fee Act (Gov. Code §§ 66000-66025), but it was not automatically calculated in this case because Parkland Dedication in-lieu fees are imposed under a separate statutory scheme, which was not historically subject to the same strictures. Recent court decisions have clarified, however, that Parkland Dedication in-lieu fees may be subject to similar requirements to mitigation impact fees. The applicant has indicated its intent to “protest” the failure to provide a credit under the City’s fee protest procedures (PAMC Sections 16.64.060-070), and pursuant to the recent Sheetz v. County of El Dorado decision of the United States Supreme Court. Staff will evaluate this request, which could result in a reduction of Parkland Dedication in-lieu fees of up to $3.5-4 million.
ATTACHMENTS
Supplemental Attachment A: Revised Draft Record of Land Use Action APPROVED BY:
Jonathan Lait, Planning and Development Services Director Item 12
Item 12 Supplemental
Report
Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 2 Packet Pg. 1100 of 1140
DRAFT
1 DRAFT ACTION NO. 2026-__
RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO LAND USE ACTION FOR 2100-2400 GENG RD: SITE AND DESIGN, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, AND VESTING TENTATIVE MAP [24PLN-00356 & 24PLN-00357]
On _________, 2026, the City Council of the City of Palo Alto (“City Council”) approved a Site and Design application, Conditional Use Permit, and Vesting Tentative Map for development of 145 for sale townhome units (“the Project”). In approving the application, Council makes the following findings, determinations, and declarations:
SECTION 1. Background.
A. On July 8, 2024, Strada Investment Group filed a compliant pre-application in accordance with Senate Bill (SB) 330 and with California Government Code Section 65589.5(d)(5) (also known as Builder’s Remedy).
B. On December 18, 2024, Strada Investment Group filed a Site and Design and Conditional Use Permit application (24PLN-00356) for 145 for sale townhome units to allow for the proposed multi-family development and use of the site. In addition, Strada Investment Group filed an application for a Vesting Tentative Map (24PLN-00357) to merge two existing lots to create a single resulting 480,230-square-foot parcel (11.02 acres) and to re-subdivide the lot for condominium purposes for 145 townhome units. The project includes the following density bonus waivers and concessions in accordance with State Density Bonus Law, and additional protections as a “builder’s remedy project,” under AB 1893:
• Waiver 1: Floor Area Ratio (0.97:1 where 0.5:1 maximum is allowed) • Waiver 2: Height (42 feet where 30 feet maximum is allowed) • Waiver 3: Front Setback (16.5 feet where 20 feet is required) • Waiver 4: Rooftop Garden Width (Railings intersect a plane measured at a forty-five degree angle from the edge of the building sloping upward and inward toward the center of the unit)
• Waiver 5: Private street width (26 feet where 32 feet is required) • Concession 1: Distribution of below market rate units.
C. The project site is comprised of two existing lots (APN 008-02-035, Approximately 239,800 square feet and APN 008-02-036, Approximately 240,430 square feet).
The site contains four existing office buildings. To the north of the project site is the Baylands Athletic Center that offers softball/baseball lighted fields on a six-acre facility. Adjacent uses to the south, east, and west are office buildings.
Item 12
Supplemental Attachment
A - Revised Draft Record of
Land Use Action
Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 3 Packet Pg. 1101 of 1140
DRAFT
2 D. Following staff review, the Architectural Review Board held a duly noticed public hearing to review the Site and Design application at an initial hearing on October 16, 2025, to provide feedback on the design.
E. Following staff review of the Site and Design application, Conditional Use Permit, and Vesting Tentative Map, the Planning and Transportation Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to review the project and recommended approval on December 10, 2025, subject to conditions of approval.
F. Following the Planning and Transportation Commission’s review of the project, the Architectural Review Board held a duly noticed public hearing to review the Site and Design application and recommended approval on January 15, 2026, subject to conditions of approval.
G. On December 16, 2025 the Parks and Recreation Commission considered the associated Park Improvement Ordinance required for the project and recommended approval, subject to conditions of approval.
H. On ___________, 2026 the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing at which evidence was considered and all persons were afforded an opportunity to be heard in accordance with the City Council’s policies and procedures.
I. The project site is included in the City’s 2023-2031 Housing Element Site Inventory, with a projected capacity of 175 moderate income units. The project does not provide any moderate income units. Following approval of the project, the remaining sites in the Site Inventory will be insufficient to meet the remaining Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) for moderate income units.
J. Including the proposed project, the remaining RHNA and remaining capacity at each income level will be approximately:
Lower Moderate Above Moderate
Remaining RHNA 1,994 899 305
RHNA Credits 598 182 515
Remaining Site
Inventory Capacity
1,837 622 1,902
Surplus/Deficit 441 -95 2,112
K. In accordance with Government Code Section 65863, the City shall, within 180 days, identify and make available additional adequate sites to accommodate the remaining RHNA at the moderate income level.
Item 12
Supplemental Attachment
A - Revised Draft Record of
Land Use Action
Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 4 Packet Pg. 1102 of 1140
DRAFT
3 SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The City, acting as the lead agency for the Project, has determined that the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in accordance with CEQA Guideline section 15183. An Initial Study (IS) Checklist to determine consistency with the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (State Clearinghouse [SCH] #2014052101) certified in 2017 (“2017 EIR”) for the City of Palo Alto’s 2030 Comprehensive Plan found that the Project is consistent with a Community Plan or Zoning with any project related effects substantially mitigated under uniformly applicable development policies or standards. Documentation to support the exemption is available as part of the public record on file with the Planning and Development Services Division.
SECTION 3. Site and Design Review Objectives. The design and architecture of the proposed improvements, as conditioned, comply with the Site and Design Objectives as required in Chapter 18.30.060(G) of the PAMC.
1. Objective (a): To ensure construction and operation of the use in a manner that will be orderly, harmonious, and compatible with existing or potential uses of adjoining or nearby sites.
The proposed project is located on two contiguous parcels located at 2100-2400 Geng Road. To the north of the project site is the Baylands Athletic Center that offers softball/baseball lighted fields on a six-acre facility. Adjacent uses to the south, east, and west are office buildings. While surrounding uses differ from the proposed residential use, the project site allows residential development with a conditional use permit. The colors and materials of the project are consistent with the Baylands Design Guidelines, such as using muted colors. Lighting would be downcast and the proposed landscaping would provide long-term visual screening along the property line abutting the Baylands Athletic Center.
The project would not conflict with the City’s airport operations and is consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan. Therefore, the project is consistent with this objective.
2. Objective (b): To ensure the desirability of investment, or the conduct of business, research, or educational activities, or other authorized occupations in the same or adjacent areas.
The project is located within the boundaries of the Baylands Master Plan on the area identified as Private Lands. The proposed residential project would redevelop two parcels currently occupied with office uses. The proposed use is consistent with the land use designation and, with a Conditional Use Permit, is consistent with the allowed uses set forth in the zoning code. The project would provide 145 townhome units improving the City’s jobs housing imbalance consistent with the Housing Element’s goals and policies. The project would not affect existing or potential future uses within the surrounding area including the adjacent airport, nearby office uses, and/or recreational use of the Baylands and therefore would not affect the desirability of investment, or the conduct of business, research, or educational activities on adjacent sites.
3. Objective (c): To ensure that sound principles of environmental design and ecological balance shall be observed.
The project is consistent with the Baylands Design Guidelines in that it utilizes muted colors and materials that will weather without degrading such as stucco and treated wooden siding. Lighting is designed and conditioned to not shine onto the adjacent properties. The project will implement green Item 12
Supplemental Attachment
A - Revised Draft Record of
Land Use Action
Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 5 Packet Pg. 1103 of 1140
DRAFT
4 building measures as required by the Palo Alto Municipal Code and, in itself, allows for the increased reuse of recycled water within the City of Palo Alto and surrounding communities.
4. Objective (d): To ensure that the use will be in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan.
The proposed project complies with all applicable and objective standards in the Comprehensive Plan and the Palo Alto Municipal Code except where waivers or concessions are requested pursuant to state density bonus law or additional protections as a “builder’s remedy project,” under AB 1893. In accordance with The Housing Accountability Act as set forth in California Government Code 65589.5(j)(3), the receipt of a density bonus, incentive, concession, waiver, or reduction of development standards pursuant to Section 65915 shall not constitute a valid basis on which to find a proposed housing development project is inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in conformity, with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision. Therefore, the project is compliant with the objective standards.
A summary of the project’s consistency with the Comprehensive Plan is provided in this table. The project is required to comply with the Comprehensive Plan to the extent that the requirements are objective.
Comp Plan Goals and Policies How project adheres or does not adhere to Comp Plan
The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for
the site is Research/Office Park which allows
multifamily housing in specific locations.
One of the two parcels on which the proposed
project would be located is identified as a
housing inventory site. The project adheres to the
Comprehensive Plan by providing housing on this
opportunity site. The proposed multi-family use is
allowed within this land use designation.
Housing Element
Policy 4.3 Implement development standards,
objective design standards, and architectural and
green building standards that encourage new
high-quality rental and ownership housing.
The project complies with the implemented
standards except where requests for waivers or
concessions in accordance with state density
bonus law is provided. The project provides the
necessary upgrades to infrastructure on the site
to provide new high-quality ownership units. The
project complies with all required green building
requirements in accordance with state law and
the city’s local reach code.
Land Use and Community Design Element
Policy L-6.1 Promote high-quality design and site
planning that is compatible with surrounding
development and public spaces.
The project utilizes a muted material palette with
natural colors and materials that will weather
without degrading. The design aligns with The
Site Assessment and Design Guidelines, intended
to ensure compatibility with the special aesthetic
qualities and environmental conditions unique to
the Baylands.
Item 12
Supplemental Attachment
A - Revised Draft Record of
Land Use Action
Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 6 Packet Pg. 1104 of 1140
DRAFT
5 Comp Plan Goals and Policies How project adheres or does not adhere to Comp Plan
Policy L-9.2 Encourage development that
creatively integrates parking into the project,
including by locating it behind buildings or
underground wherever possible, or by providing
for shared use of parking areas. Encourage other
alternatives to surface parking lots that minimize
the amount of land devoted to parking while still
maintaining safe streets, street trees, a vibrant
local economy and sufficient parking to meet
demand.
290 spaces would be provided in the townhome
garages (70 tandem spaces) and 43 parking
spaces would be provided along the private
streets, including 4 accessible spaces. The
frontage still provides a sidewalk, street trees and
other greenery for an inviting streetscape.
Policy L-9.4 Treat residential streets as both
public ways and neighborhood amenities. Provide
and maintain continuous sidewalks, healthy
street trees, benches and other amenities that
promote walking and “active” transportation.
The project includes private streets lined with
trees as well as new short-term bicycle parking
within the common area and bicycle parking in
garage fronting the streets to promote active
transportation. This improves the current office
park design, which provides surface level parking
along the project frontage.
Policy L-9.9 Involve the Urban Forester, or
appropriate City staff, in development review.
The applicant has worked closely with the City’s
Urban Forestry division to ensure that tree
removals meet the goals of the Urban Forest
Master Plan. The proposed 648 replacement
trees would exceed the required 292 trees.
Further, the applicant has also worked with
Urban Foresty to develop a parkland
improvement ordinance that would address
project related impacts to adjacent City trees on
Parkland.
Policy L-10.2 Regulate land uses in the Airport
Influence Area to ensure consistency with the
Palo Alto Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan
and the Baylands Master Plan.
The project would not exceed density
requirements as set forth in the adopted
Comprehensive Plan and zoning and there are no
limits on residential units within the Airport
Traffic Pattern Zone. Further, the development
would not exceed the maximum height limit of
154 feet. The project is conditioned to secure a
Determination of No Hazard from the Federal
Aviation Administration and the recording of an
Avigation Easement and Deed Notice with the
Vesting Tentative Map to ensure prospective
buyers are made aware of the airport's existence
and any potential impacts that the airport activity
has on surrounding land uses.
Transportation Element
Policy T-3.7 Encourage pedestrian-friendly design
features such as sidewalks, street trees, on-street
The project includes direct connections to the
sidewalk that help to activate the frontage along
Item 12
Supplemental Attachment
A - Revised Draft Record of
Land Use Action
Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 7 Packet Pg. 1105 of 1140
DRAFT
6 Comp Plan Goals and Policies How project adheres or does not adhere to Comp Plan
parking, gathering spaces, gardens, outdoor
furniture, art and interesting architectural details.
Geng Road in addition to new street trees and
plantings.
Policy T-3.9 Support citywide sustainability
efforts by preserving and enhancing the tree
canopy where feasible within the public right-ofway, consistent with the Urban Forest Management Plan, as amended.
The project meets the tree canopy replacement
requirements through on site planting. The
project includes removal of 218 trees and
replaces with 648 trees, over which 50 percent
would be California native species, and 57 would
be coast live oaks and valley oaks.
Urban Forest and Understory
Policy N-2.3 Enhance the ecological resilience of
the urban forest by increasing and diversifying
native species in the public right-of-way,
protecting the health of soils and understory
vegetation, encouraging property owners to do
the same and discouraging the planting of
invasive species.
The project will remove the existing 216 trees on
site, and replace them with 648 new trees, an
increase of 432 trees. Of the new trees, a
majority will be native species and high habitat
value species, including coast live oak, valley oak,
and California buckeye. The understory is also
designed to support native habitat. Shrubs &
Grasses are nearly all California native species
with a focus on high habitat value species.
Policy N-2.11 Coordinate City review by the
Urban Forester, Planning, Utilities, and Public
Works Departments, of projects that might
impact the urban forest.
While the project will impact the urban forest,
the replacement tree values will exceed what is
required. The project will also include a parkland
improvement ordinance to address the potential
impacts to City trees on adjacent parkland. This
ordinance includes provisions for a program to
replace the impacted unhealthy non-native public
trees over time.
Flood Hazard and Mitigation
Policy S-2.8 Minimize exposure to flood hazards
by protecting existing development from flood
events and adequately reviewing proposed
development in flood prone areas.
The project site would be graded and raised out
of the flood zone to meet minimum National
Flood Insurance Program standards. The
applicant submitted a Conditional Letter of Map
Revision with FEMA. Following project
construction a Letter of Map Revision from FEMA
will officially revise the current NFIP map to show
changes to floodplains, regulatory floodways, or
flood elevations.
SECTION 4. Conditional Use Permit Findings. Conditional Use Permit approval is based on the findings indicated under PAMC Section 18.76.010:
1. The proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience.
Item 12
Supplemental Attachment
A - Revised Draft Record of
Land Use Action
Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 8 Packet Pg. 1106 of 1140
DRAFT
7 A Conditional Use Permit is required for a residential use within the ROLM(E) Zone District. In the surrounding vicinity of the project site, there is a Post Office, International School of the Peninsula, two automobile agencies, and office uses. To the north of the project site is the Baylands Athletic Center that offers softball/baseball lighted fields on a six-acre facility.
Adjacent uses to the south, east, and west are office buildings. With the conditions set forth in this record of land use action, which reduce lighting impacts of the proposed project within the Baylands setting, the project would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience to other property improvements in the vicinity.
2. The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance.
The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the project site is Research/Office Park, which states: "Office, research and manufacturing establishments whose operations are buffered from adjacent residential uses… in some locations, residential and mixed-use projects may also locate in this category. Maximum allowable FAR ranges from 0.3 to 0.5, depending on site conditions. Consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, multifamily housing may be allowed in specific locations.” Because a portion of the site is identified as a Housing Inventory site in accordance with the City’s adopted Housing Element, the proposed land use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Though the project exceeds the floor area ratio allowance set forth for this land use designation, the applicant requests a waiver in accordance with state density bonus law for the floor area; therefore, the increase in FAR may not be seen as inconsistent with the zoning ordinance or Comprehensive Plan. Additionally, the proposed application was filed in accordance with the Builder’s Remedy provision in the Housing Accountability Act.
Therefore, inconsistency with the Comprehensive Plan land use designation is not a basis for denial of a project. Because the project is a “builder’s remedy project,” as defined in AB 1893, the City is further limited to only enforcing those objective standards that exist in a zone district or land use designation that allows the density requested. Exclusively residential uses in the ROLM (E) District requires compliance with the development standards prescribed for the RM20 zoning district. The project applicant has identified incentives, concessions, and waivers under State Density Bonus Law to demonstrate compliance with the enforceable standards as detailed in Section 1.
SECTION 5. Architectural Review Findings.
1. The design is consistent with applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, coordinated area plans (including compatibility requirements), and any relevant design guides.
The project applicant has identified incentives, concessions, and waivers under State Density Bonus Law to demonstrate compliance with the enforceable standards as detailed in Section 1 of this record of land use action. This finding can be made in the affirmative Item 12
Supplemental Attachment
A - Revised Draft Record of
Land Use Action
Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 9 Packet Pg. 1107 of 1140
DRAFT
8 because the project is consistent with applicable Comprehensive Plan goals and policies as summarized above in Section 3, Site and Design Findings, and Section 4, Conditional Use Permit Findings, and the relevant findings can be made in the affirmative. The project is consistent with the Baylands Design Guidelines, as applicable to the proposed project, in that the project uses muted colors and the height is consistent with the requirements for the Palo Alto Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan and the zoning code as modified in accordance with state law. The proposed 145-unit townhome development would not exceed density requirements as there are no limits on residential units within the Airport Traffic Pattern Zone and the project is consistent with the allowed density set forth in the Zoning and Comprehensive Plan.
2. The project has a unified and coherent design, that:
a. creates an internal sense of order and desirable environment for occupants, visitors, and the general community,
b. preserves, respects and integrates existing natural features that contribute positively to the site and the historic character including historic resources of the area when relevant,
c. is consistent with the context-based design criteria of the applicable zone district, d. provides harmonious transitions in scale, mass and character to adjacent land uses and land use designations,
e. enhances living conditions on the site (if it includes residential uses) and in adjacent residential areas.
There is internal order between the pedestrian entries, car entry, and open spaces on the project site. There are three building typologies provided, detached townhomes, row townhomes, and duplex townhomes, that each have varying defined entrances for residents.
There is no historic character to preserve. The project is designed consistent with the Baylands Design Guidelines with the use of muted colors. While the project mostly complies with the applicable objective standards applied to housing development projects within the ROLM(E) Zone District, the applicant has identified waivers pursuant with State Density Bonus Law and Builder’s Remedy provisions as detailed in Section 1.
3. The design is of high aesthetic quality, using high quality, integrated materials and appropriate construction techniques, and incorporating textures, colors, and other details that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area.
The project consists of a townhome community designed with a high level of aesthetic quality through the use of durable, high quality materials, including stucco, cementitious panels, treated wood siding, brick, and metal balcony railings. The materials, textures, and construction techniques are cohesively integrated into the building design and reflect a contemporary architectural design comparable to other projects in the surrounding vicinity. The proposed neutral muted color palette is compatible with surrounding development and is consistent with Item 12
Supplemental Attachment
A - Revised Draft Record of
Land Use Action
Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 10 Packet Pg. 1108 of 1140
DRAFT
9 the Baylands Design Guidelines. Overall, the project’s design is compatible with the Baylands’ unique landscape character and the visual quality of the surrounding area.
4. The design is functional, allowing for ease and safety of pedestrian and bicycle traffic and providing for elements that support the building’s necessary operations (e.g. convenient vehicle access to property and utilities, appropriate arrangement and amount of open space and integrated signage, if applicable, etc.).
The project design provides a network of pedestrian and bicycle pathways that access a central green with a stage for community performances, grills, and a games area, pocket parks, and room for additional neighborhood amenities like a community garden. Vehicles would access the site through two entrances: one from Geng Road and the other from East Bayshore road. Bicycle parking is currently shown within each garage totaling 145 bike spaces and a centrally located bike rack on the project site. The proposed centrally located bike parking area holds 16 shortterm bike racks.
5. The landscape design complements and enhances the building design and its surroundings, is appropriate to the site’s functions, and utilizes to the extent practical, regional indigenous drought resistant plant material capable of providing desirable habitat that can be appropriately maintained.
The project will provide a variety of drought-tolerant planting. A majority of the plantings were selected from a California native palette. The selected varieties of trees would provide appropriate habitat for wildlife as a part of a bigger neighborhood and community wide system.
Additional landscaping is provided in the common areas of the project.
6. The project incorporates design principles that achieve sustainability in areas related to energy efficiency, water conservation, building materials, landscaping, and site planning.
In accordance with the City’s Green Building Regulations, the project will satisfy the requirements for CALGreen Mandatory + Tier 2. This is demonstrated on the GB sheets in the plan set. The project also is designed to accommodate future recycled water improvements should they be available in the future, consistent with the municipal code requirements for this area.
SECTION 6. Vesting Tentative Map Findings. A legislative body of a city shall deny approval of a Parcel Map, if it makes any of the following findings (California Government Code Section 66474). The City Council cannot make these findings for the following reasons:
Item 12
Supplemental Attachment
A - Revised Draft Record of
Land Use Action
Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 11 Packet Pg. 1109 of 1140
DRAFT
10 1. That the proposed map is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans as specified in Section 65451:
The site is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as described below. There is no adopted specific plan for this project site.
2. That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans:
There is no adopted specific plan for this project site. The proposed vesting tentative map and related improvements is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in that it facilitates housing development on a site designated for multi-family use within the urban services area, consistent with Goal 2 of the Housing Element and Goal L1.2 of the Land Use Element. The proposed density (13 DU/AC) is consistent with the allowance for multifamily residential in specified locations in the Research/Office Park land use designation of the Land Use Element.
The project replaces four existing office buildings with 145 for sale townhome units with thirteen percent of the units (19 units) deed restricted to serve low-income households.
Nineteen (19) units (13%) are designated to be provided at below-market rate (BMR) at a rate affordable to low-income households (80% of Area Median Income or below). The project improves the city’s jobs housing imbalance consistent with the Housing Element’s goals and policies.
3. That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development:
The Project site is suitable for multi-family residential development in that it’s located on a site designated on the City’s Land Use Map that allows for multi-family uses and identified as a housing inventory site in the Housing Element. The proposed resulting parcels meet the minimum code requirements for the ROLM(E) zone district with respect to lot area, width and depth. The proposed number of condominium units for the project site complies with the applicable densities set forth in the land use element.
4. That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development:
The proposed development would create a total of 145 townhome residential units which is 13 dwelling units (DU) per acre (total project site is 11 acres). This density complies with the minimum and maximum allowable residential density as calculated for the total site area under the zoning code (11-20 DU/acre = 121-220 DU). Building, Palo Alto Fire Department, Planning, Transportation, Zero Waste, and Public Works Engineering have reviewed the requested density bonus waiver to permit a minimum 26-foot street width to ensure that all necessary requirements for safety, including but not limited to, fire safety and traffic safety (e.g. curb cut location, turning radius, etc.) have been met as well as to ensure that the street allows for proper function of the site (e.g. trash pickup).
Item 12
Supplemental Attachment
A - Revised Draft Record of
Land Use Action
Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 12 Packet Pg. 1110 of 1140
DRAFT
11 5. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat:
The project site is located on the eastern side of Highway 101 adjacent to the Baylands Nature Preserve. The Baylands is an approximately 1,976-acre open space located along the edge of San Francisco Bay (Bay) including multiple habitats and a wide variety of recreational and educational benefits. However, the project site is located in an area of approximately 90 acres of industrial research, office, and commercial uses that are concentrated along Embarcadero Road and East Bayshore frontage road. The project design would incorporate lighting reduction design features to reduce the spillover of lighting or glare/increased luminance perceived by birds and other wildlife, in compliance with recommendations by the International Dark-Sky Association. Though the project proposes the removal of 218 on-site trees, the proposed project would also include the planting of 648 trees, which would gradually replace the existing foraging habitat on the site for native migratory birds as these trees gradually mature. The increase in the number of trees on site would also provide valuable foraging resources for migrating birds. Thus, in the long term, the project will continue to support foraging habitat for migrating birds along the San Francisco Bay. With incorporation of the standard conditions of approval, the project would have less than significant impacts on biological resources, the same as those identified in the 2017 EIR. Therefore, the project would not cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.
6. That the design of the subdivision or type of improvements is likely to cause serious public health problems:
The subdivision of this parcel and associated improvements would not have the potential to result in serious health problems. The proposed multi-family use would not include use or storage of hazardous materials. The site is not located on a hazardous waste site pursuant to government code 65962.5.
7. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. In this connection, the governing body may approve a map if it finds that alternate easements, for access or for use, will be provided, and that these will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This subsection shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction and no authority is hereby granted to a legislative body to determine that the public at large has acquired easements for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision.
There are no public access easements over the property currently. Therefore, the design of the subdivision will not conflict with any public access easements for access through, or use of, the Item 12
Supplemental Attachment
A - Revised Draft Record of
Land Use Action
Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 13 Packet Pg. 1111 of 1140
DRAFT
12 property. Existing public utility easements would either continue to be used or otherwise vacated and new utility easements created as part of the mapping process to reflect modifications to the location of utility infrastructure.
SECTION 7. Vesting Tentative Map Approval Granted. Vesting Tentative Map Approval is filed and processed in accordance to PAMC Section 21.13.020 and granted by the City Council under PAMC Sections 21.12 and 21.20 and the California Government Code Section 66474, subject to the conditions of approval in Section 9 of this Record of Land Use Action.
SECTION 8. Final Map. The Final Map submitted for review and approval by the City Council shall be in substantial conformance with the Vesting Tentative Map prepared by CBG Civil Engineers titled “Vesting Tentative Map 2100-2400 Geng Road For Condominium Purposes City of Palo Alto, California”, stamped as received January 30, 2026, except as modified to incorporate the conditions of approval in Section 9. A copy of the Vesting Tentative Map is on file in the Department of Planning and Development Services, Current Planning Division. Prior to the expiration of the Vesting Tentative Map approval, the subdivider shall cause the subdivision or any part thereof to be surveyed, and a Final Map, as specified in Chapter 21.08, to be prepared in conformance with the Vesting Tentative Map as conditionally approved, and in compliance with the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and PAMC Title 21 and submitted to the City Engineer (PAMC Section 21.16.010[a]).
SECTION 9. Conditions of Approval Site and Design Permit.
PLANNING DIVISION
1. CONFORMANCE WITH PLANS. Construction and development shall conform to the approved plans entitled, "2100-2400 Geng Road, Palo Alto, CA” stamped as received by the City on January 30, 2026, on file with the Planning Department, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California except as modified by these conditions of approval.
2. BUILDING PERMIT. Apply for a building permit and meet any and all conditions of the Planning, Fire, Public Works, and Building Departments.
3. BUILDING PERMIT PLAN SET. A copy of this cover letter and conditions of approval shall be printed on the second page of the plans submitted for building permit.
4. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS. All modifications to the approved project shall be submitted for review and approval prior to construction. If, during the Building Permit review and construction phase, the project is modified by the applicant, it is the responsibility of the applicant to contact the Planning Division/project planner directly to obtain approval of the project modification. It is the applicant’s responsibility to highlight any proposed changes to the project and to bring it to the project planner’s attention.
Item 12
Supplemental Attachment
A - Revised Draft Record of
Land Use Action
Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 14 Packet Pg. 1112 of 1140
DRAFT
13 5. LANDSCAPE PLAN. Plantings shall be installed in accordance with the approved plan set and shall be permanently maintained and replaced as necessary. Landscaping along the rear lot line between the project and Baylands Athletic Center shall be planted at a minimum height of 8 feet. The landscaping screen along the shared property line shall be maintained in accordance with the code requirements for objective standards.
6. NOISE THRESHOLDS ON RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. In accordance with PAMC Section
9.10.030, No person shall produce, suffer or allow to be produced by any machine, animal or device, or any combination of same, on residential property, a noise level more than six dB above the local ambient at any point outside of the property plane.
7. OPEN AIR LOUDSPEAKERS (AMPLIFIED MUSIC). In accordance with PAMC Section 9.12, no amplified music shall be used for producing sound in or upon any open area, to which the public has access, between the hours of 11:00pm and one hour after sunrise.
8. PG&E ENCROACHMENT PERMIT. An encroachment permit is required prior to any temporary work or permanent improvements within PG&E easement. The project shall comply with any and all requirements of the encroachment permit.
9. SIGN APPROVAL NEEDED. No signs are approved at this time. All signs, if proposed,shall conform to the requirements of Title 16.20 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (Sign Code) and shall be subject to approval by the Director of Planning.
10. STANDARD REQUIREMENTS FOR UNANTICIPATED DISCOVERY OF BURIED ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES. No known archeological or paleontological resources are present on or within the immediate vicinity of the site. However, as noted in the project description and per the City’s standard conditions, in the unlikely event that an archeological resource is unearthed during ground disturbing activities, work in the immediate area should be halted and an archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for archeology (National Park Service 1983) shall be contacted immediately to evaluate the find. If the find is Native American in origin, then a Native American representative should also be contacted to participate in the evaluation of the find. The qualified archaeologist, and, if applicable, the Native American representative, shall examine the find and make recommendations regarding additional work necessary to evaluate the significance of the find and the appropriate treatment of the resource. Recommendations could include, but are not limited to, invasive or non-invasive testing, sampling, laboratory analysis, preservation in place, or data recovery. A report of findings documenting any data recovered during monitoring shall be prepared by a qualified archaeologist and submitted to the Director of Planning. Prior to commencement of any project-related construction activities, a qualified Archaeologist hired by the applicant shall provide a worker environmental awareness training to all site personnel that addresses cultural and tribal cultural resources. The training shall discuss the appearance of resources that may be Item 12
Supplemental Attachment
A - Revised Draft Record of
Land Use Action
Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 15 Packet Pg. 1113 of 1140
DRAFT
14 encountered during construction as well as the procedures and notification process in the event of discovery.
11. RETENTION OF A QUALIFIED ARCHAEOLOGIST AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL MONITORING. Prior to the start of ground-disturbing activities, the Applicant and/or subsequent responsible parties shall retain an archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards (NPS 2020a) (Qualified Archaeologist) to carry out all cultural resources related work associated with the project and to oversee the implementation of all cultural resources mitigation measures. The Qualified Archaeologist shall possess experience and familiarity with historic-period and prehistoric archaeological resources in the region. The Qualified Archaeologist or other designated archaeologist working under the direction of the Qualified Archaeologist shall conduct full-time monitoring within native sediments to the project’s proposed maximum depths of disturbance. In general, archaeological monitoring shall be limited to initial ground disturbance which is defined as construction-related earthmoving of sediments from their native place of deposition and does not include any secondary movement of sediment that might be required for the project. The Qualified Archaeologist may adjust monitoring efforts as needed (increase, decrease, or discontinue monitoring frequency) based on the observed potential for construction activities to encounter archaeological deposits. The archaeological monitor shall maintain daily monitoring logs. Following the completion of construction, the Qualified Archaeologist shall prepare an archaeological monitoring report for submittal to the lead agency and the NWIC with the results of the archaeological monitoring program.
12. STANDARD REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PROTECTION OF NESTING BIRDS. As detailed in the project description and per the City’s standard conditions, vegetation or tree removal shall be prohibited during the general avian nesting season (February 1 – August 31), if feasible.
If nesting season avoidance is not feasible, the applicant shall retain a qualified biologist, as approved by the City of Palo Alto, to conduct a preconstruction nesting bird survey to determine the presence/absence, location, and activity status of any active nests on or adjacent to the project site no more than 14 days prior to scheduled vegetation clearance and/or demolition activities. If nesting birds are found to be present, a suitable buffer (typically a minimum buffer of 50 feet for passerines and a minimum buffer of 250 feet for raptors) as determined appropriate by the biologist, shall be established around such active nests and no construction shall be allowed within the buffer areas until a qualified biologist has determined that the nest is no longer active (i.e., the nestlings have fledged and are no longer reliant on the nest). A report documenting any data recovered during monitoring shall be prepared by a qualified biologist and submitted to the Director of Planning prior to final planning inspection.
13. STANDARD REQUIREMENTS FOR PM10 and PM2.5 Emissions. The following conditions shall be implemented during all phases of construction to control dust and exhaust at the project site in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan Policy N-5.5:
Item 12
Supplemental Attachment
A - Revised Draft Record of
Land Use Action
Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 16 Packet Pg. 1114 of 1140
DRAFT
15 • Water all exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) two times per day.
• Cover all haul trucks transporting soil, sand, and other loose material off-site. • Remove all visible mud or dirt track out onto adjacent public roads at least once per day using wet power vacuum street sweepers. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.
• Limit all vehicle speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour. • Pave all new roadways, driveways, and sidewalks as soon as possible. • Lay building pads as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.
• Suspend all excavation, grading, and/or demolition activities when average wind speeds exceed 20 miles per hour.
• Wash off all trucks and equipment, including their tires, prior to leaving the site. • Post a publicly visible sign with the name and phone number of an on-site construction coordinator to contact regarding dust complaints. The on-site construction coordinator shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The sign shall also provide the City’s Code Enforcement Complaints email and number and the Air District’s General Air Pollution Complaints number to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.
14. CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT. All construction equipment larger than 25 horsepower used at the site for more than two continuous days or 20 hours total shall meet U.S. EPA Tier 4 Final emission standards for particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5), if feasible. If Tier 4 Final equipment is not available for a particular piece of equipment, then use equipment that meets U.S. EPA emission standards for Tier 3 engines and include PM emissions control equivalent to CARB Level 3 verifiable diesel emission control devices that altogether achieve an 80 percent reduction in PM exhaust in comparison to uncontrolled equipment.
15. VIBRATION ANALYSIS. Prior to issuance of a demolition permit, a list of all heavy construction equipment to be used for this project known to produce high vibration levels (e.g., tracked vehicles, vibratory compaction, jackhammers, hoe rams, clam shovel drop, and vibratory roller, etc.) shall be submitted to the City by the contractor. This list shall be used to identify equipment and activities that would potentially generate substantial vibration and to define the level of effort for reducing vibration levels below the thresholds. • Smaller equipment (less than 18,000 pounds) shall be used near the property lines adjacent to sensitive buildings to minimize vibration levels to 0.3 in/sec PPV or less. For example, a smaller vibratory roller similar to a Caterpillar model CP433E vibratory compactor could be used when compacting materials within 20 Item 12
Supplemental Attachment
A - Revised Draft Record of
Land Use Action
Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 17 Packet Pg. 1115 of 1140
DRAFT
16 feet of the adjacent conventional building. The smaller equipment intended to implement this requirement shall be individually identified among the list of equipment required under the above condition as the subset of equipment allowed for use at the property lines.
• Select demolition methods that do not involve large impact tools such as hoerams within 20 feet of the adjacent conventional building. Portable jackhammers, saws, or grinders shall be used to minimize impacts to the ground. • Avoid dropping heavy equipment and use alternative methods for breaking up existing pavement, such as a pavement grinder, instead of dropping heavy objects, within 20 feet of the adjacent conventional building. • Designate a Disturbance Coordinator responsible for registering and investigating claims of excessive vibration. The contact information for the responsible party shall be clearly posted on the construction site.
16. SITE MANAGEMENT PLAN. The project applicant shall retain a qualified environmental consultant, California Professional Geologist (PG) or California Professional Engineer (PE), to prepare a Site Management Plan (SMP) prior to construction. The SMP, or equivalent document, will be prepared to address onsite handling and management of impacted soils, soil vapor, groundwater, or other impacted wastes, and reduce hazards to construction workers and offsite receptors during construction. The plan shall establish remedial measures and/or soil management practices to ensure construction worker safety, the health of future workers and visitors, and the off-site migration of contaminants from the project site. These measures and practices may include, but are not limited to:
a. Stockpile management, including stormwater pollution prevention and the installation of BMPs
b. Proper disposal procedures of contaminated materials c. Monitoring, reporting, and regulatory oversight notifications d. A health and safety plan for contractors working at the project site that addresses the safety and health hazards of each phase of site construction activities with the requirements and procedures for employee protection e. The health and safety plan will also outline proper soil handling procedures and health and safety requirements to minimize worker and public exposure to hazardous materials during construction.
17. TREE CANOPY REPLACEMENT. Replacement of the tree canopy for the two trees located along the Geng Road frontage of the project proposed to be removed is required in accordance with Chapter 8 of the municipal code and the City’s Tree Technical Manual.
18. REFUSE. All trash areas shall be covered and maintained in an orderly state within private garages to prevent water from entering into the garbage container. No outdoor storage is allowed/permitted except when brought out to the street for pickup as shown in the plan set.
Trash areas shall be maintained in a manner to discourage illegal dumping.
Item 12
Supplemental Attachment
A - Revised Draft Record of
Land Use Action
Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 18 Packet Pg. 1116 of 1140
DRAFT
17 19. BELOW MARKET RATE (BMR) HOUSING. This project is proposed as a Builder’s Remedy project, as defined in AB 1893, and is providing thirteen percent of the proposed units at prices affordable to lower income households. This also represents an alternative means of compliance with the City’s inclusionary housing requirement stated in Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.65. The applicant shall execute and record a BMR regulatory agreement in a form satisfactory to the City Attorney. The project shall conform to the approved regulatory agreement, which shall be recorded prior to issuance of building permit or final map, whichever occurs first. All BMR units constructed under this condition shall be in conformance with the City’s BMR Program rules and regulations, as modified by the concession granted pursuant to State Density Bonus Law regarding unit distribution.
Failure to comply with the timing of this condition and any adopted BMR Program rules and regulations shall not waive its later enforcement.
20. FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION NOTICE OF PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION. The applicant shall notify the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) as required by FAR Part 77, Subpart B on FAA Form 7460-1, Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration, for the proposed project including temporary construction equipment, such as cranes. A copy of the submitted form shall be submitted to the City of Palo Alto Planning Division as well as a copy of the FAA’s response to this form.
21. ESTIMATED IMPACT FEE. Development Impact Fees, currently estimated in the amount of $8,306,259.10 plus the applicable public art fee, per PAMC 16.61.040, prior to the issuance of the related building permit(s). Impact fees may be paid at occupancy in accordance with the requirements under PAMC 16.64.030.
22. IMPACT FEE 90-DAY PROTEST PERIOD. California Government Code Section 66020 provides that a project applicant who desires to protest the fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions imposed on a development project must initiate the protest at the time the development project is approved or conditionally approved or within ninety (90) days after the date that fees, dedications, reservations or exactions are imposed on the Project. Additionally, procedural requirements for protesting these development fees, dedications, reservations and exactions are set forth in Government Code Section 66020.
IF YOU FAIL TO INITIATE A PROTEST WITHIN THE 90-DAY PERIOD OR FOLLOW THE PROTEST PROCEDURES DESCRIBED IN GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66020, YOU WILL BE BARRED
FROM CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OR REASONABLENESS OF THE FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS, AND EXACTIONS. If these requirements constitute fees, taxes, assessments, dedications, reservations, or other exactions as specified in Government Code Sections 66020(a) or 66021, this is to provide notification that, as of the date of this notice, the 90-day period has begun in which you may protest these requirements. This matter is subject to the California Code of Civil Procedures (CCP) Section 1094.5; the time by which judicial review must be sought is governed by CCP Section 1094.6 Item 12
Supplemental Attachment
A - Revised Draft Record of
Land Use Action
Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 19 Packet Pg. 1117 of 1140
DRAFT
18 23. ENTITLEMENT EXPIRATION. The project approval shall be valid for a period of two years from the date of issuance of the entitlement. If within such period, the proposed use of the site or the construction of buildings has not commenced, the Planning entitlement shall expire. Application for a one-year extension of this entitlement may be made prior to expiration.
24. FINAL INSPECTION. A Planning Division Final inspection will be required to determine substantial compliance with the approved plans prior to the scheduling of a Building Division final. Any revisions during the building process must be approved by Planning, including but not limited to; materials, landscaping and hard surface locations. Contact your Project Planner, Steven Switzer at [email protected] to schedule this inspection.
25. INDEMNITY. To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”) from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside or void, any permit or approval authorized hereby for the Project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City for its actual attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its own choice.
PUBLIC ART
26. The applicant has selected to pay the public art in-leiu fee as an alternative to constructing public art on site. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall pay the required in-lieu contribution to the Public Art Fund. The Public Art Program team will need to verify the Construction Valuation with an outside consultant. Contact the Public Art Program at the time you apply for Building permit to begin this verification process. All information and application materials may be found at paloalto.gov/public art under the Policies and Documents tab. In-lieu fees may be paid at occupancy in accordance with the requirements under PAMC 16.64.030.
PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING
27. PUBLIC WORKS APPLICATIONS, FORMS, AND DOCUMENTS: Applicant shall be advised that most forms, applications, and informational documents related to Public Works Engineering conditions can be found at the following link:
https://www.paloalto.gov/Departments/Public-Works/Engineering-Services/Forms-andPermits
28. STREETWORK PERMIT: The applicant shall obtain a Streetwork Permit from the Department of Public Works for all public improvements.
Item 12
Supplemental Attachment
A - Revised Draft Record of
Land Use Action
Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 20 Packet Pg. 1118 of 1140
DRAFT
19 29. UPGRADE OF EXISTING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS: As part of the plan review for improvements within the public right-of-way, any existing improvements to be re-used by the project, which are not to current City standards and are not specifically in these project conditions (such as streetlights, utility covers and lids, etc.), shall be upgraded to current City standards as required by the Director of Public Works and the Director of Utilities.
30. MODIFICATIONS TO EXISTING PUBLIC UTILITIES: The Developer is responsible for any changes or modifications to existing utilities, streets, and public infrastructure within or adjacent to the project site. This includes, but is not limited to, the relocation of utility facilities, conduits, or vaults required due to grade changes in the sidewalk area resulting from the development.
31. DAMAGE TO EXISTING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS: The Developer is responsible for repairing any damage to existing public improvements fronting or adjacent to the project site caused by construction, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department.
32. EXISTING UTILITY ABANDONMENT AND/OR RELOCATION: The Developer is responsible for researching all existing utility lines to ensure there are no conflicts with the project. Any existing utility lines (public or private) or their appurtenances that conflict with the project or do not serve it must be capped, abandoned, removed, relocated, or disposed of to the satisfaction of the City.
33. RE-USE OF EXISTING STORM DRAINS: The re-use of existing City storm drain service lines and appurtenances is subject to City review and approval. The Developer’s contractor shall expose the existing storm drain facilities during construction for City inspection or provide video documentation of their condition. Any deficient facilities, as determined by Public Works, must be replaced by the Developer.
34. STORM DRAIN TRIBUTARY PATTERN: This project must follow the existing storm drain tributary pattern. Any deviations require additional analysis and approval by Public Works during building plan review. The project shall not negatively impact the drainage pattern for adjacent properties.
35. GRADING AND EXCAVATION PERMIT: A Grading Permit is required per PAMC Chapter
16.28. The permit application and all applicable documents (see Section H of application) shall be submitted to Public Works Engineering. Add the following note: “THIS GRADING
PERMIT WILL ONLY AUTHORIZE GENERAL GRADING AND INSTALLATION OF THE STORM DRAIN SYSTEM. OTHER BUILDING AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS ARE SHOWN FOR
REFERENCE INFORMATION ONLY AND ARE SUBJECT TO SEPARATE BUILDING PERMIT APPROVAL.”
Item 12
Supplemental Attachment
A - Revised Draft Record of
Land Use Action
Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 21 Packet Pg. 1119 of 1140
DRAFT
20 36. ROUGH GRADING: provide a Rough Grading Plan for the work proposed as part of the Grading and Excavation Permit application. The Rough Grading Plans shall including the following: pad elevation, elevator pit elevation, ground monitoring wells, limits of over excavation, stockpile area of material, overall earthwork volumes (cut and fill), temporary shoring for any existing facilities, ramps for access, crane locations (if any), tree protection measures, etc.
37. CIVIL ENGINEER CERTIFICATION: Upon completion of the rough grading work and at the final completion of the work, applicant shall provide an as-graded grading plan prepared by the civil engineer that includes original ground surface elevations, as-graded ground surface elevations, lot drainage patterns and locations and elevations of all surface and subsurface drainage facilities. The civil engineer shall certify that the work was done in accordance with the final approved grading plan.
38. SOILS ENGINEER CERTIFICATION: Upon completion of the rough grading work and at the final completion of the work, applicant shall provide a soil grading report prepared by the soils engineer, including locations and elevation of field density tests, summaries of field and laboratory tests and other substantiating data, and comments on any changes made during grading and their effect on the recommendations made in the soils engineering investigation report. The soils engineer shall certify as to the adequacy of the site for the intended use.
39. DIRECT CONNECTIONS TO STORM DRAIN SYSTEM: If the project proposes to replace and/or add connections to the City maintained storm drain system, then the applicant may be responsible for improvements to the system. These improvements may include, but not limited to, upsizing the storm drain facility, replacing or adding City standard catch basins, pipes and manholes. THIS MAY INCLUDE REPLACING BRICK AND MORTAR MANHOLES. The extent of required improvements will be at the public works staff discretion and shall be consistent with Storm Drain Master Plan and Public Works Construction Standards. Any work on the city's storm drain systems requires permits and inspection by Public Works inspectors.
40. CCTV OF STORM DRAIN SYSTEM: Post construction the applicant may be required to provide CCTV inspection of the City’s storm drain facilities to verify that any lines were not broken, cracked or damaged during construction. The video shall be high resolution and done by professional who is familiar with the process and meticulous. A CCTV inspection video is required for new storm drain connection (s) to verify proper connections were made into the City’s system and that no construction material was left behind. Videos of storm drain system may also be required where construction occurred less than 5-ft from the city’s storm drain system. Videos shall be provided from structure to structure, such as manhole to manhole. Contractor may want to conduct their own inspection in advance of construction to verify the existing pipe integrity. If existing damages are located, they shall be reported to Public Works inspectors prior to the start of construction. If not reported, Item 12
Supplemental Attachment
A - Revised Draft Record of
Land Use Action
Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 22 Packet Pg. 1120 of 1140
DRAFT
21 the contractor may be responsible to restore the pipe segment as determined by Public Works prior to final.
41. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER STATEMENT: The grading plans shall include the following statement signed and sealed by the Geotechnical Engineer of Record: “THIS PLAN HAS
BEEN REVIEWED AND FOUND TO BE IN GENERAL CONFORMANCE WITH THE INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT”.
42. SWPPP: This proposed development will disturb more than one acre of land. Accordingly, the applicant shall apply for coverage under the State Water Resources Control Board’s (SWRCB) NPDES general permit for storm water discharge associated with construction activity. A Notice of Intent (NOI) shall be filed for this project with the SWRCB in order to obtain coverage under the permit. The General Permit requires the applicant to prepare and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The applicant is required to submit two copies of the NOI and the draft SWPPP to the Public Works Department for review and approval prior to issuance of the building permit. The SWPPP should include both permanent, post-development project design features and temporary measures employed during construction.
43. FLOOD ZONE: This project is in a FEMA Special Flood Hazard Area and shall comply with the requirements in Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.52 and the California Residential Code Section 322 (CRC 322).
44. CLOMR: Evidence that this document has been executed shall be provided prior to building permit issuance.
45. ENCROACHMENT PERMIT: Prior to any work in the public right-of-way, the applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from the Public Works Department for any work that encroaches onto the City right-of-way.
46. LOGISTICS PLAN: A construction logistics plan shall be provided addressing all impacts to the public including, at a minimum: work hours, noticing of affected businesses, bus stop relocations, construction signage, dust control, noise control, storm water pollution prevention, job trailer, contractors’ parking, truck routes, staging, concrete pours, crane lifts, scaffolding, materials storage, pedestrian safety, and traffic control. All truck routes shall conform to the City of Palo Alto’s Trucks and Truck Route Ordinance, Chapter 10.48, and the route map. NOTE: Some items/tasks on the logistics plan may require an encroachment permit.
47. STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION: All improvement plan sets shall include the “Pollution Prevention – It’s Part of the Plan” sheet.
Item 12
Supplemental Attachment
A - Revised Draft Record of
Land Use Action
Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 23 Packet Pg. 1121 of 1140
DRAFT
22 48. C.3 THIRD-PARTY CERTIFICATION: Applicant shall provide certification from a qualified third-party reviewer that the proposed permanent storm water pollution prevention measures comply with the requirements of Provision C.3 and Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.11. Submit the following:
a. Provide a stamped and signed C.3 data form (April 2024 version) from SCVURPPP. https://scvurppp.org/2024/09/19/provision-c-3-data-form-2024/ b. Final stamped and signed letter confirming which documents were reviewed and that the project complies with Provision C.3 and PAMC 16.11.
49. C.3 STORMWATER AGREEMENT: The applicant shall enter into a Stormwater Maintenance Agreement with the City to guarantee the ongoing maintenance of the permanent storm water pollution prevention measures. The City will inspect the treatment measures yearly and charge an inspection fee. The agreement shall be executed by the applicant team prior to building permit final.
50. C.3 FINAL THIRD PARTY CERTIFICATION PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY: Within 45 days of the installation of the required storm water treatment measures and prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit for the building, the third-party reviewer shall submit to the City a certification verifying that all the permanent storm water pollution prevention measures were installed in accordance with the approved plans.
WASTE-GAS-WATER UTILITIES
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF DEMOLITION PERMIT
51. The applicant shall submit a request to disconnect utility services and remove meters. The utilities demo is to be processed within 10 working days after receipt of the request. The demolition permit will be issued by the building inspection division after all utility services and/or meters have been disconnected and removed.
52. The applicant shall submit a completed water-gas-wastewater service connection application - load sheet for the City of Palo Alto Utilities. The applicant must provide all the information requested for utility service demands (water in fixture units/g.p.m., gas in b.t.u.h, and sewer in fixture units/g.p.d.). The applicant shall provide the existing (prior) loads, the new loads, and the combined/total loads (the new loads plus any existing loads to remain).
53. The applicant shall submit improvement plans for utility construction. The plans must show the size and location of all underground utilities within the development and the public right of way including meters, backflow preventers, fire service requirements, sewer mains, sewer cleanouts, sewer lift stations, and any other required utilities. Plans for new wastewater laterals and mains need to include new wastewater pipe profiles showing existing potentially conflicting utilities especially storm drain pipes, electric and communication duct banks. Existing duct banks need to be daylighted by potholing to the bottom of the duct bank to verify cross section prior to plan approval and starting lateral Item 12
Supplemental Attachment
A - Revised Draft Record of
Land Use Action
Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 24 Packet Pg. 1122 of 1140
DRAFT
23 installation. Plans for new storm drain mains and laterals need to include profiles showing existing potential conflicts with sewer, water, and gas.
54. The applicant must show on the site plan the existence of any auxiliary water supply, (i.e. water well, gray water, recycled water, rain catchment, water storage tank, etc).
55. The applicant shall be responsible for installing and upgrading the existing utility mains and/or services, laterals as necessary to handle anticipated peak loads. This responsibility includes all costs associated with the design and construction for the installation/upgrade of the utility mains and/or services/laterals.
56. An approved reduced pressure principle assembly (RPPA backflow preventer device) is required for all existing and new water connections from Palo Alto Utilities to comply with requirements of California administrative code, title 17, sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive. The RPPA shall be installed on the owner's property and directly behind the water meter within 5 feet of the property line. RPPA's for domestic service shall be lead free. Show the location of the RPPA on the plans.
57. An approved reduced pressure detector assembly (RPDA backflow preventer device, STD.
WD-12A or STD. WD-12B) is required for all existing and new fire water connections from Palo Alto Utilities to comply with requirements of California administrative code, title 17, sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive. The RPDA shall be installed on the owner's property and directly behind the City owned meter, within 5' (feet) of the property line or City Right of Way.
58. All backflow preventer devices shall be approved by the WGW engineering division.
Inspection by the city inspector is required for the supply pipe between the meter and the assembly.
59. The applicant shall pay the capacity fees and connection fees associated with new utility service/s or added demand on existing services. The approved relocation of services, meters, hydrants, or other facilities will be performed at the cost of the person/entity requesting the relocation.
60. If a new water service line installation for fire system usage is required. Show the location of the new water service on the plans. The applicant shall provide to the engineering department a copy of the plans for fire system including all fire department's requirements.
61. Each unit or building shall have its own water meter and gas meter shown on the plans.
Each parcel shall have its own water and gas service and sewer lateral connection shown on the plans.
Item 12
Supplemental Attachment
A - Revised Draft Record of
Land Use Action
Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 25 Packet Pg. 1123 of 1140
DRAFT
24 62. A sewer lateral per lot is required. Show the location of the new sewer lateral on the plans. A profile of the sewer lateral is required showing any possible conflicts with storm, electric/communications ductbanks or other utilities.
63. All existing water, gas, and wastewater services/laterals that will not be reused shall be abandoned at the main per the latest WGW utilities standards.
64. Utility vaults, transformers, utility cabinets, concrete bases, or other structures cannot be placed over existing water, gas, or wastewater mains/services. Maintain 1' horizontal clear separation from the vault/cabinet/concrete base to existing utilities as found in the field. If there is a conflict with existing utilities, Cabinets/vaults/bases shall be relocated from the plan location as needed to meet field conditions. Trees may not be planted within 10 feet of existing water, gas, and wastewater mains/laterals/water services/or meters. New water or wastewater services/laterals/meters may not be installed within 10' of existing trees unless otherwise approved by water, gas, and wastewater utilities and Urban Forestry. Maintain 10' between new trees and new water and wastewater services/laterals/meters unless otherwise approved by water, gas, and wastewater utilities and Urban Forestry. If 10’ separation is not feasible, project will utilize root barrier protection and maintain 5’ of separation between trees and water and wastewater services/laterals/meters. If any tree shown on the planting plan cannot satisfy the required separation distances, and the Water, Gas, and Wastewater utilities and Urban Forestry do not approve a reduced separation standard that would accommodate the proposed planting, the Project shall not be required to plant that tree, provided that the total number of replacement trees otherwise meets the requirements of Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 8.10.
The following requirements apply for the offsite improvements of the City of Palo Alto water distribution system (including but not limited to water main, meter, hydrant, services, etc.):
65. Third-Party Beneficiary: the City of Palo Alto shall be a Third-Party Beneficiary of this Project.
66. Before building application approval, developer must prepare a hydraulic model of the planned drinking water utility improvements, and the developer shall complete the water system planning review application and submit to CPAU WGW development services group.
67. Before building application approval, the developer must submit detailed design plans for the new public water main on street B shown on the preliminary utility plan dated September 26, 2025 to the City of Palo Alto Utilities (CPAU) for review and approval.
Item 12
Supplemental Attachment
A - Revised Draft Record of
Land Use Action
Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 26 Packet Pg. 1124 of 1140
DRAFT
25 68. Before building application approval, design plans must adhere to CPAU standards, guidelines, and revision comments set forth by the CPAU WGW Engineering Division.
Incorporate CPAU’s design comments into revised plans and resubmit for final approval.
69. Before building application approval, develop and submit for approval a phasing plan detailing construction of the new public water main, and abandonment of the existing public water main located in the existing easement adjacent to the Baylands Athletic Center. Phasing plan shall include work activities for abandonments, maintaining water service, and protection of public water mains.
70. The existing public water main located in the existing easement adjacent to the Baylands Athletic Center provides critical water flow and fire flow to the nearby City water distribution network. A public water main with the existing capacity shall always be in service during all phases of construction.
71. Permittee/Contractor warranty and “Guarantee to Repair Period a. In addition to the guarantee to repair referenced below and any specific warranty mentioned in the Project specifications, Permittee’s Contractor warrants that all materials and equipment used in or incorporated into the Project will be of good quality, new and free of liens, Claims and security interests of third parties; that all labor, installation, materials and equipment used or incorporated into the Project will be of good quality and free from defects; and that the Project will conform with the requirements of the Permit Documents and Applicable Code Requirements. If required, Permittee/Contractor shall furnish satisfactory evidence as to the kind and quality of materials and equipment. Manufactured items installed in the Project and not specifically covered in the Contract Documents are to be installed in strict accordance with manufacturers' current printed instructions.
b. The Guarantee to Repair Period will commence upon the first dates of actual occupancy or use of portions of the Project, as reflected in the City's final notice of acceptance.
c. City of Palo Alto “Guarantee to Repair Period”: Permittee/Contractor shall:
i. Correct defective work that becomes apparent during the progress of the work or during the Guarantee to Repair Period (one year from the City's Final Notice of Acceptance); and
ii. Replace, repair, or restore to City's satisfaction any other parts of the work and any other real or personal property which is damaged or destroyed as a result of defective work or the correction of defective work, without any expense whatsoever to City. City will give notice of observed defective work with reasonable promptness to the Permittee/Contractor, and Permittee/Contractor shall promptly commence such correction, replacement, repair or restoration upon notice from City, but in no case later than seven (7) Days after receipt of such notice. The Item 12
Supplemental Attachment
A - Revised Draft Record of
Land Use Action
Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 27 Packet Pg. 1125 of 1140
DRAFT
26 Permittee/Contractor shall diligently and continuously prosecute such correction to completion. The Permittee/Contractor shall bear all costs of such correction, replacement, repair, or restoration and all losses resulting from such defective work, including additional testing, inspection and compensation for City's services and expenses. The Permittee/Contractor shall perform corrective work at such times that are acceptable to City and in such a manner as to avoid disruption, to the extent practicable. Ordinary wear and tear, unusual abuse, or neglect are excepted from this guarantee.
Permittee/Contractor shall notify City upon completion of repairs. The Insurance requirements from the City's Street Work Permit will apply throughout the Permittee/Contractors Guarantee to Repair period.
PUBLIC WORKS ELECTRIC UTILITIES
72. UTILITY EASEMENT REQUIRED. Prior to energization, a public utility easement is required to provide access to the proposed transformers. This can either be provided through separate instrument and documented on the tentative and final map or dedicated through the tentative and final map process.
73. UTILITIES APPLICATION. Changes to existing electric utilities equipment on site, such as the transformer, will require a utilities application. Submit a utilities application and obtain City of Palo Alto Utilities Electrical Engineering approval for the modifications to the electrical system.
74. UTILITY DISCONNECT. The applicant shall submit a request to disconnect all existing utility services proposed for removal, including a signed affidavit of vacancy, on the form provided by the Building Inspection Division. Utilities will be disconnected or removed within 10 working days after receipt of request. The demolition permit will be issued after all utility services and/or meters have been disconnected and, as applicable, removed.
75. UTILITIES SHOWN ON LANDSCAPE PLANS. All utility meters, lines, transformers, backflow preventers, and any other required equipment shall be shown on the landscape and irrigation plans and shall show that no conflict will occur between the utilities and landscape materials.
In addition, all aboveground equipment shall be screened in a manner that is consistent with the building design and setback requirements.
76. PERMIT. Contractors and developers shall obtain permit from the Department of Public Works before digging in the street right-of-way. This includes sidewalks, driveways and planter strips.
77. UNDERGROUND SERVICES ALERT. At least 48 hours prior to starting any excavation, the customer must call Underground Service Alert (USA) at 1-800-227-2600 to have existing underground utilities located and marked. The areas to be checked for underground facility Item 12
Supplemental Attachment
A - Revised Draft Record of
Land Use Action
Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 28 Packet Pg. 1126 of 1140
DRAFT
27 marking shall be delineated with white paint. All USA markings shall be removed by the customer or contractor when construction is complete.
78. CITY STANDARDS. All new underground conduits and substructures shall be installed per City standards and shall be inspected by the Electrical Underground Inspector before backfilling.
PUBLIC WORKS ZERO WASTE
79. REQUIRED DECONSTRUCTION. In conformance with PAMC 5.24, deconstruction and source separation are required for all residential and commercial projects where structures (other than a garage or ADU) are being completely removed, demolition is no longer allowed.
Deconstruction takes longer than traditional demolition, it is important to plan ahead. For more information, visit www.paloalto.gov/deconstruction.
80. SALVAGE SURVEY FOR REUSE. A Salvage Survey is required for deconstruction permit applications. The survey shall be conducted by a City approved reuse vendor. The survey submittal shall include an itemized list of materials that are salvageable for reuse from the project. The applicant shall source separate and deliver materials for reuse. Certification is required indicating that all materials identified in the survey are properly salvaged. Contact The ReUse People to schedule this FREE survey by phone (888) 588-9490 or e-mail [email protected]. More information can be found at www.TheReusePeople.org.
Please upload a completed copy to the deconstruction permit.
81. SOURCE SEPARATION FOR RECYCLING. The applicant shall source separate deconstruction materials into specific categories for recycling. Additional staging areas for source separated materials will need to be considered. All materials shall be delivered to one of the City approved materials recovery facilities listed in Green Halo, all records shall be uploaded to www.greenhalosystems.com. For more information, refer to www.paloalto.gov/deconstruction.
PUBLIC WORKS WATER QUALITY
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY BUILDING PERMIT:
82. Stormwater treatment measures:
a. All Bay Area Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit requirements shall be followed. b. Refer to the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program C.3 Handbook (download here: http://scvurppp-w2k.com/c3_handbook.shtml) for details.
83. Stormwater quality protection:
a. Temporary and permanent waste, compost and recycling containers shall be covered to prohibit fly-away trash and having rainwater enter the containers. b. Drain downspouts to landscaping (outward from building as needed).
Item 12
Supplemental Attachment
A - Revised Draft Record of
Land Use Action
Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 29 Packet Pg. 1127 of 1140
DRAFT
28 c. PAMC 16.09.180(b)(5) Condensate from HVAC -Condensate lines shall not be connected or allowed to drain to the storm drain system. Drain HVAC fluids from roofs and other areas to landscaping.
d. Offsite downgrade storm drain inlets shall also be identified on this plan set and protected. If City staff removes protection from an inlet in the ROW during a rain event, the contractor shall replace the inlet protection by the end of the following business day.
PUBLIC WORKS URBAN FORESTRY
84. URBAN FORESTRY STANDARD CONDITIONS: In addition to any project specific Urban Forestry Conditions of Approval listed here, the Urban Forestry Standard Conditions listed on the T-1 Sheet Set included in the plans for this project still apply.
85. MODEL WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE (MWELO): During the permit phase of the project, applicant must provide all components of an MWELO submission for review.
Please see the document titled “Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO) Compliance Submittals and Guidelines”
(https://paloalto.gov/civicax/filebank/documents/76159) to determine the specific submission requirements for the project scope. Please follow the instructions in the above document when submitting your MWELO package as part of the permit application and plan set.
86. TREE PROTECTION COMPLIANCE: The owner and contractor shall implement all tree protection, tree inspection schedules, design recommendations, construction impact mitigation measures, and construction scheduling as stated in the Preliminary Arborist Report by Hort Science Bartlett Consulting dated August 2025 and any standard measures listed in the T-1 Sheet Set, and is subject to code compliance action pursuant to PAMC
8.10.080. The required protective fencing shall remain in place until final landscaping and inspection of the project.
87. PROJECT ARBORIST REQUIRED: The property owner or contractor shall hire a designated arborist to ensure the project conforms to all Planning and Urban Forestry conditions related to landscaping/trees. The project arborist must be included in a mandatory preconstruction meeting and be present during any rough grading and trenching activities occurring within 10-feet of a Tree Protection Zone, and for any approved activities inside a Tree Protection Zone.
88. PROJECT ARBORIST CERTIFICATION FORM REQUIRED: During the building permit phase, the project arborist must submit an online form
[https://us.openforms.com/Form/2262bf1ac26f-4c04-8daa-15dbd9c8e08e] certifying that they have reviewed the building permit plan set with regards to trees as well as any Urban Forestry Conditions of Approval, and that all requirements have been met. The letter also Item 12
Supplemental Attachment
A - Revised Draft Record of
Land Use Action
Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 30 Packet Pg. 1128 of 1140
DRAFT
29 confirms that any required site monitoring inspections and reporting have been arranged in advance with the contractor or owner. Project Arborist Certification Forms should be included as supporting documents when submitting an application for a building permit that required prior approval through Planning (See Project Arborist Certification Form, TLTM Section 5.03.5).
89. MONTHLY ARBORIST INSPECTIONS REQUIRED: The project arborist shall perform monthly inspections to monitor changing conditions and tree health. The Urban Forester shall be in receipt of an inspection summary during the first week of each calendar month or, immediately if there are any changes to the approved plans or protection measures.
Reports should be submitted via the online form
[https://us.openforms.com/Form/ca5003f1-6836-4789-b534-b4dff1d457b1] (see Tree Monitoring Reports, TLTM Section 5.03.6).
90. ONSITE TREE REMOVAL AUTHORIZATION AND REQUIRED REPLACEMENT. The Project is authorized to remove up to 218 trees. This project approval incorporates a Tree Removal Permit for removal of these trees. The Project shall replace the removed trees by planting approximately 648 trees total. Replacement planting shall be provided in compliance with Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 8.10 (Tree and Landscape Preservation and Management). At least 50 percent of the replacement trees shall be California native species. The final replacement species mix, tree sizes, and planting locations shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Division and Urban Forestry prior to issuance of building permits.
91. OFFSITE TREE REMOVAL AUTHORIZATION AND REQUIRED REPLACEMENT. The project is authorized to remove two protected offsite street trees, as shown on the Plans. This project approval incorporates a Tree Removal Permit for removal of these trees.
92. REQUIRED STREET TREES: Based on plans submitted with this application, a minimum of five (5) new street trees will be required. These trees must be a minimum of 24” Box size and be planted per City of Palo Alto Standard Drawings 603 or 604 depending on planting locations.
Irrigation to new street trees is required per City of Palo Alto Standard Drawings 510 or 513 depending on planting locations.
93. CITY TREE REMOVAL REQUIREMENTS. The City adopted Ordinance No. ____ authorizing and approving a process to remove certain City-owned eucalyptus trees at/near the Baylands Athletic Center (“City Trees”) if impacted by Project grading, and requiring the Applicant to comply with certain monitoring and reporting requirements, and pay a tree-replacement contribution to fund replacement plantings, as set forth below. a. UPDATED ARBORIST REPORT PRIOR TO GRADING PERMIT. In connection with submittal of Project grading permit application(s) involving work along the shared boundary with the Baylands Athletic Center, the Applicant shall submit to Item 12
Supplemental Attachment
A - Revised Draft Record of
Land Use Action
Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 31 Packet Pg. 1129 of 1140
DRAFT
30 the City’s Urban Forestry Section (“Urban Forestry”) an updated arborist report prepared by a certified arborist identifying any City Trees located on the Baylands Athletic Center property that must be removed to facilitate grading or site access. Upon application to and review by Urban Forestry, Urban Forestry shall issue a Tree Removal Permit under PAMC section 8.04.040 for those City Trees identified where the Tree Protection Zone is so impacted that the tree will be prone to become unstable or unlikely to survive and otherwise in compliance with the requirements in PAMC Ch. 8.04. The scope of Urban Forestry’s review shall be limited to making this determination. Applicant shall be responsible for removal of the City Tree(s) to be removed. Applicant shall notify Urban Forestry at least 14 calendar days in advance of any scheduled tree removals. b. MONITORING AND REPORTING OF REMAINING TREES. During grading activities, the Applicant shall retain a licensed arborist to be present for any excavation work within the Tree Protection Zones of any City Tree. During active grading work, the arborist shall conduct monthly inspections of the remaining City Trees.
Upon completion of grading, the arborist shall conduct quarterly inspections of the remaining City Trees for the duration of Project construction. The purpose of such inspections shall be to assess City Tree health and identify any City Trees that either (a) pose an imminent hazard to public health or safety, or (b) are unlikely to survive as a result of grading impacts. For City Trees that pose an imminent hazard to public health or safety, Applicant shall notify Urban Forestry (including its on-call staff if after hours) and shall remove the tree after receiving a Tree Removal Permit or other City authorization, including over-the-phone approval for emergency issues. For any City Tree that is unlikely to survive as a result of grading impacts, Applicant shall remove any such City Tree following application and issuance of a Tree Removal Permit by Urban Forestry. Applicant shall notify Urban Forestry at least 14 calendar days in advance of any such tree removal.
c. TREE REPLACEMENT CONTRIBUTION. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the Project, the Applicant shall remit to the City payment for replacement of the City Trees (the “Tree Replacement Contribution”). The Tree Replacement Contribution shall be calculated based on the canopy width of the City Trees that were removed using Table 3-1 of the City of Palo Alto’s Tree Technical Manual. The canopy width of the City Trees shall be based on the canopy width as measured in the Arborist Report described in Recital E. The Tree Replacement Contribution shall be $1,250 per each 24” box tree required. Urban Forestry Section and Parks Golf and Open Space shall use these funds to plant and establish replacement trees on the BAC property.
Item 12
Supplemental Attachment
A - Revised Draft Record of
Land Use Action
Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 32 Packet Pg. 1130 of 1140
DRAFT
31 SECTION 10. Conditions of Approval Conditional Use Permit.
Planning
1. CONFORMANCE WITH PLANS. The use of the site shall include up to 145 residential units in accordance with the approved plans entitled, "2100-2400 Geng Road, Palo Alto, CA” stamped as received by the City on January 30, 2026 , on file with the Planning Department, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California except as modified by these conditions of approval.
2. NUISANCES AND NOISE. Noise levels shall not exceed the maximum level established in the PAMC Chapter 9.10.
3. LIGHTING. The owner or designee shall ensure that lighting is the minimum necessary and shielded downward to avoid light spillover as shown in the approved plan set.
4. COMMON AREA LIGHTING. Light fixtures shall come on at dusk and off at dawn. Lighting shall have continuous dimming capability to maintain design footcandles when areas are occupied or not.
5. REVOCATION OF APPROVAL. The director may issue a notice of noncompliance for any failure to comply with any condition of this permit approval, or when a use conducted pursuant to a Conditional Use Permit is being conducted in a manner detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare.
6. INDEMNITY. To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”) from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside or void, any permit or approval authorized hereby for the Project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City for its actual attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its own choice.
7. FINAL INSPECTION. A Planning Division Final inspection will be required to determine substantial compliance with the approved plans prior to the scheduling of a Building Division final. Any revisions during the building process must be approved by Planning, including but not limited to; materials, landscaping and hard surface locations. Contact your Project Planner, Steven Switzer at [email protected] to schedule this inspection.
Item 12
Supplemental Attachment
A - Revised Draft Record of
Land Use Action
Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 33 Packet Pg. 1131 of 1140
DRAFT
32 SECTION 11. Conditions of Approval Vesting Tentative Map.
Planning
1. PROJECT PLANS. The Vesting Tentative Map submitted for review and approval by the City Council shall be in substantial conformance with the Vesting Tentative Map titled “Vesting Tentative Map 2100-2400 Geng Road For Condominium Purposes City of Palo Alto, California”, prepared by CBG Civil Engineers and submitted January 30, 2026, except as modified to incorporate the conditions of this approval.
2. FINAL MAP COVER PAGE. At such time as the Final Map is filed, the cover page shall include the name and title of the Director of Planning and Development Services.
3. STANDARD CC&R REQUIREMENTS. Section 16.38 of Palo Alto’s Municipal Code provides that all condominium and other “community housing projects” shall submit Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R’s) to the City Attorney for approval before issuance of the Final Map. The City Attorney has developed the following standard covenants which shall be included in all CC&R’s.
a. PROPERTY SHALL COMPLY WITH CITY ZONING ORDINANCES. The property, including all common areas within the property, shall at all times comply with the City’s Zoning Code and shall not be used for any purpose other than as permitted in the City Zoning Code.
b. MODIFICATIONS TO PROPERTY. Any alterations, modifications, or other improvements to the property shall comply with all applicable City Codes. c. MAINTENANCE AND LANDSCAPING OF COMMON AREAS. The Association is responsible for maintenance and landscaping of all parts of the community housing project which are held in common and such maintenance shall be performed to the standard of maintenance prevalent in the neighborhood. (See PAMC Section 16.38.030(a)).
d. TERMINATION OF MANAGER OR MAINTENANCE CONTRACTS. The association may terminate the contract of any person or organization engaged by the developer to perform management or maintenance duties three months after the association assumes control of the community housing project or any time thereafter. (See PAMC Section 16.38.030(b).) e. PROTECTION OF STORM WATER FACILITIES. Neither the association, its residents, nor their agents, employees, representatives, invitees, licensees, Item 12
Supplemental Attachment
A - Revised Draft Record of
Land Use Action
Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 34 Packet Pg. 1132 of 1140
DRAFT
33 customers, or contractors shall alter or modify any storm water facilities in any way including but not limited to placing, maintaining, constructing, or planting any improvements, landscaping or other items, including without limitation decks, stairs, walls, irrigation systems, trees, or any vegetation on any storm water facilities.
f. TRASH DISPOSAL AND RECYCLING AREAS SHALL COMPLY WITH CITY ORDINANCES. All trash disposal and recycling areas shall be kept in a clean and sanitary condition and shall comply with all applicable City Ordinances. g. PROHIBITION AGAINST AIR AND WATER POLLUTION. Neither the association, its residents, nor their agents, employees, representatives, invitees, licensees, customers, or contractors shall use the property in any way which emits pollution into the atmosphere in excess of environmental standards set forth by City, State, and Federal laws, ordinances, and regulations. Neither the association, its residents, nor their agents, employees, representatives, invitees, licensees, customers, or contractors shall discharge garbage, trash, waste, or any other substance or materials of any kind into any private or public sewer or waterway on the property in violation of any regulations of any private or public body having jurisdiction over such matters. h. AMENDMENTS TO ORGANIZATION DOCUMENTS REQUIRE CITY APPROVAL.
Any amendments or modifications to the organizational documents shall be submitted to the city attorney for approval. No amendment or modification to the organizational documents shall be effective without prior written consent of the city attorney.
i. CITY’S RIGHT TO ENFORCE COVENANTS AND RESTRICTIONS. The City is hereby granted the right, but in no event the duty, to enforce the covenants and restrictions set forth in this section of the organizational documents. The association shall recognize that it has the primary responsibility for enforcement of the organizational documents and unequivocally guarantees to institute and expeditiously prosecute any required legal action to obtain compliance with all provisions set forth in the organizational documents. j. NO WAIVER OF CITY’S RIGHTS. No failure of the City to enforce any of the covenants or restrictions contained in the organizational documents will in any event render them ineffective.
k. CITY’S REMEDIES TO CURE A BREACH OR VIOLATION. Remedies available to the City to cure any breach or violation of the organizational documents shall be cumulative to any other provisions of law. The City’s failure to exercise Item 12
Supplemental Attachment
A - Revised Draft Record of
Land Use Action
Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 35 Packet Pg. 1133 of 1140
DRAFT
34 any remedy provided for in the organizational documents shall not, under any circumstances, be construed as a waiver of the remedy. l. SEVERABILITY. Invalidation of any one of the City’s required covenants or restrictions by judgment or court order shall in no way affect any other provisions which shall remain in full force and effect.
4. ADDITIONAL CC&R REQUIREMENT. The CC&Rs shall also include a provision that dictates the responsibilities of residents for the trash pickup for the townhomes as shown in the approved plan set.
5. AVIGATION EASEMENT. Dedication of an avigation easement to the County of Santa Clara shall be required prior to building permit issuance. All such easements shall be similar to that shown as Exhibit 1 in Appendix A of the Palo Alto Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP).
https://plandev.santaclaracounty.gov/hearings-and-committees/airport-land-usecommission
6. AVIGATION DEED NOTICE. Prior to building permit issuance a deed notice shall be required to be recorded with the County Clerk-Recorder disclosing that the property is subject to routine overflights and associated noise and other impacts by aircraft operating at a nearby airport. The deed notice shall be similar to that shown in Exhibit 2 in Appendix A of the Palo Alto Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP). https://plandev.santaclaracounty.gov/hearings-and-committees/airport-land-usecommission
7. DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES. The Property Owner or their designee shall pay all applicable development impact fees associated with the proposed development and subdivision, as detailed in the Site and Design Approval Conditions. At the time of the final map. parkland dedication in-lieu fees shall be required to be paid or may be deferred to occupancy in accordance with the requirements under PAMC 16.64.030.
8. INDEMNITY. To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”) from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside or void, any permit or approval authorized hereby for the Project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City for its actual attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its own choice.
Public Works Engineering
Item 12
Supplemental Attachment
A - Revised Draft Record of
Land Use Action
Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 36 Packet Pg. 1134 of 1140
DRAFT
35 9. PUBLIC WORKS APPLICATIONS, FORMS, AND DOCUMENTS: Applicant shall be advised that most forms, applications, and informational documents related to Public Works Engineering conditions can be found at the following link:
https://www.paloalto.gov/Departments/Public-Works/Engineering-Services/Forms-andPermits
10. SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT: The applicant shall execute a Subdivision Improvement Agreement and provide improvement securities (Bonds) for all proposed public improvements. THE AGREEMENT SHALL BE EXECUTED PRIOR TO MAP
RECORDATION OR ISSUANCE OF ANY PERMITS FOR CONSTRUCTION, ONSITE AND OFFSITE. ADVISORY -- The applicant shall provide a detailed itemized stamped and signed engineer's estimate for all off-site public improvements which will be reviewed to determine the security amount.
11. FINAL MAP: This project is subject to, and contingent upon the approval of a tentative map and recordation of a Final Map. The submittal, approval and recordation of the Map shall be in accordance with the provisions of the California Subdivision Map Act and Palo Alto Municipal Code Title 21 Subdivision requirements. All existing and proposed property lines, easements, dedications shown on the tentative map are subject to City’s technical review and staff approval during the map process prior to issuance of any construction permits.
12. STREETWORK PERMIT: The applicant shall obtain a Streetwork Permit from the Department of Public Works for all public improvements.
13. UPGRADE OF EXISTING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS: As part of the plan review for improvements within the public right-of-way, any existing improvements to be re-used by the project, which are not to current City standards and are not specifically in these project conditions (such as streetlights, utility covers and lids, etc.), shall be upgraded to current City standards as required by the Director of Public Works and the Director of Utilities.
14. MODIFICATIONS TO EXISTING PUBLIC UTILITIES: The Developer is responsible for any changes or modifications to existing utilities, streets, and public infrastructure within or adjacent to the project site. This includes, but is not limited to, the relocation of utility facilities, conduits, or vaults required due to grade changes in the sidewalk area resulting from the development.
15. DAMAGE TO EXISTING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS: The Developer is responsible for repairing any damage to existing public improvements fronting or adjacent to the project site caused by construction, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department.
Item 12
Supplemental Attachment
A - Revised Draft Record of
Land Use Action
Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 37 Packet Pg. 1135 of 1140
DRAFT
36 16. EXISTING UTILITY ABANDONMENT AND/OR RELOCATION: The Developer is responsible for researching all existing utility lines to ensure there are no conflicts with the project.
Any existing utility lines (public or private) or their appurtenances that conflict with the project or do not serve it must be capped, abandoned, removed, relocated, or disposed of to the satisfaction of the City.
17. RE-USE OF EXISTING STORM DRAINS: The re-use of existing City storm drain service lines and appurtenances is subject to City review and approval. The Developer’s contractor shall expose the existing storm drain facilities during construction for City inspection or provide video documentation of their condition. Any deficient facilities, as determined by Public Works, must be replaced by the Developer.
18. STORM DRAIN TRIBUTARY PATTERN: This project must follow the existing storm drain tributary pattern. Any deviations require additional analysis and approval by Public Works during plan review. The project shall not negatively impact the drainage pattern for adjacent properties.
19. GRADING AND EXCAVATION PERMIT: A Grading Permit is required per PAMC Chapter
16.28. The permit application and all applicable documents (see Section H of application) shall be submitted to Public Works Engineering. Add the following note:
“THIS GRADING PERMIT WILL ONLY AUTHORIZE GENERAL GRADING AND INSTALLATION OF THE STORM DRAIN SYSTEM. OTHER BUILDING AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS ARE
SHOWN FOR REFERENCE INFORMATION ONLY AND ARE SUBJECT TO SEPARATE BUILDING PERMIT APPROVAL.”
20. ROUGH GRADING: provide a Rough Grading Plan for the work proposed as part of the Grading and Excavation Permit application. The Rough Grading Plans shall including the following: pad elevation, elevator pit elevation, ground monitoring wells, limits of over excavation, stockpile area of material, overall earthwork volumes (cut and fill), temporary shoring for any existing facilities, ramps for access, crane locations (if any), tree protection measures, etc.
21. CIVIL ENGINEER CERTIFICATION: Upon completion of the rough grading work and at the final completion of the work, applicant shall provide an as-graded grading plan prepared by the civil engineer that includes original ground surface elevations, as-graded ground surface elevations, lot drainage patterns and locations and elevations of all surface and subsurface drainage facilities. The civil engineer shall certify that the work was done in accordance with the final approved grading plan.
22. SOILS ENGINEER CERTIFICATION: Upon completion of the rough grading work and at the final completion of the work, applicant shall provide a soil grading report prepared by the soils engineer, including locations and elevation of field density tests, summaries of field and laboratory tests and other substantiating data, and comments on any changes Item 12
Supplemental Attachment
A - Revised Draft Record of
Land Use Action
Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 38 Packet Pg. 1136 of 1140
DRAFT
37 made during grading and their effect on the recommendations made in the soils engineering investigation report. The soils engineer shall certify as to the adequacy of the site for the intended use.
23. DIRECT CONNECTIONS TO STORM DRAIN SYSTEM: If the project proposes to replace and/or add connections to the City maintained storm drain system, then the applicant may be responsible for improvements to the system. These improvements may include, but not limited to, upsizing the storm drain facility, replacing or adding City standard catch basins, pipes and manholes. THIS MAY INCLUDE REPLACING BRICK AND MORTAR MANHOLES. The extent of required improvements will be at the public works staff discretion and shall be consistent with Storm Drain Master Plan and Public Works Construction Standards. Any work on the city's storm drain systems requires permits and inspection by Public Works inspectors.
24. CCTV OF STORM DRAIN SYSTEM: Post construction the applicant may be required to provide CCTV inspection of the City’s storm drain facilities to verify that any lines were not broken, cracked or damaged during construction. The video shall be high resolution and done by professional who is familiar with the process and meticulous. A CCTV inspection video is required for new storm drain connection (s) to verify proper connections were made into the City’s system and that no construction material was left behind. Videos of storm drain system may also be required where construction occurred less than 5-ft from the city’s storm drain system. Videos shall be provided from structure to structure, such as manhole to manhole. Contractor may want to conduct their own inspection in advance of construction to verify the existing pipe integrity. If existing damages are located, they shall be reported to Public Works inspectors prior to the start of construction. If not reported, the contractor may be responsible to restore the pipe segment as determined by Public Works prior to final.
25. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER STATEMENT: The grading plans shall include the following statement signed and sealed by the Geotechnical Engineer of Record: “THIS PLAN HAS
BEEN REVIEWED AND FOUND TO BE IN GENERAL CONFORMANCE WITH THE INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT”.
26. SWPPP: This proposed development will disturb more than one acre of land.
Accordingly, the applicant shall apply for coverage under the State Water Resources Control Board’s (SWRCB) NPDES general permit for storm water discharge associated with construction activity. A Notice of Intent (NOI) shall be filed for this project with the SWRCB in order to obtain coverage under the permit. The General Permit requires the applicant to prepare and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP).
The applicant is required to submit two copies of the NOI and the draft SWPPP to the Public Works Department for review and approval prior to issuance of the building permit. The SWPPP should include both permanent, post-development project design features and temporary measures employed during construction.
Item 12
Supplemental Attachment
A - Revised Draft Record of
Land Use Action
Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 39 Packet Pg. 1137 of 1140
DRAFT
38 27. FLOOD ZONE: This project is in a FEMA Special Flood Hazard Area and shall comply with the requirements in Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.52 and the California Residential Code Section 322 (CRC 322).
28. CLOMR: Evidence that this document has been executed shall be provided prior to building permit issuance.
29. ENCROACHMENT PERMIT: Prior to any work in the public right-of-way, the applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from the Public Works Department for any work that encroaches onto the City right-of-way.
30. LOGISTICS PLAN: A construction logistics plan shall be provided addressing all impacts to the public including, at a minimum: work hours, noticing of affected businesses, bus stop relocations, construction signage, dust control, noise control, storm water pollution prevention, job trailer, contractors’ parking, truck routes, staging, concrete pours, crane lifts, scaffolding, materials storage, pedestrian safety, and traffic control. All truck routes shall conform to the City of Palo Alto’s Trucks and Truck Route Ordinance, Chapter 10.48, and the route map. NOTE: Some items/tasks on the logistics plan may require an encroachment permit.
31. STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION: All improvement plan sets shall include the “Pollution Prevention – It’s Part of the Plan” sheet.
32. C.3 THIRD-PARTY CERTIFICATION: Applicant shall provide certification from a qualified third-party reviewer that the proposed permanent storm water pollution prevention measures comply with the requirements of Provision C.3 and Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.11.
Submit the following:
c. Provide a stamped and signed C.3 data form (April 2024 version) from SCVURPPP. https://scvurppp.org/2024/09/19/provision-c-3-data-form-2024/ d. Final stamped and signed letter confirming which documents were reviewed and that the project complies with Provision C.3 and PAMC 16.11.
33. C.3 STORMWATER AGREEMENT: The applicant shall enter into a Stormwater Maintenance Agreement with the City to guarantee the ongoing maintenance of the permanent storm water pollution prevention measures. The City will inspect the treatment measures yearly and charge an inspection fee. The agreement shall be executed by the applicant team prior to building permit final.
34. C.3 FINAL THIRD PARTY CERTIFICATION PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY: Within 45 days of the installation of the required storm water treatment measures and prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit for the building, the third-party reviewer shall submit to the City a Item 12
Supplemental Attachment
A - Revised Draft Record of
Land Use Action
Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 40 Packet Pg. 1138 of 1140
DRAFT
39 certification verifying that all the permanent storm water pollution prevention measures were installed in accordance with the approved plans.
SECTION 12. Terms of Approval.
The effective date of the approvals in this Record of Land Use Action shall be the effective date of the related Park Improvement Ordinance No. ____ (“Effective Date”).
1. Site and Design Application. In the event actual construction of the project is not commenced within two years of the Effective Date, the approval shall expire and be of no further force or effect. An extension may be granted in accordance with the allowances set forth in the municipal code and state law.
2. Conditional Use Permit. The project approval shall be valid for a period of two years from the Effective Date. In the event the use does not commence within the time limit specified above, the approval shall expire and be of no further force or effect. An extension may be granted in accordance with the allowances set forth in the municipal code. Additionally, following commencement, a Use Permit that has not been used for a period of one (1) year or more shall become null and void (PAMC 18.77.100).
3. Vesting Tentative Map. All conditions of approval of the Vesting Tentative Map shall be fulfilled prior to approval of a Final Map (PAMC Section 21.16.010[c]). Unless a Final Map is filed, and all conditions of approval are fulfilled within a two-year period from the Effective Date, the Vesting Tentative Map shall expire and all proceedings shall terminate. An extension may be granted in accordance with the allowances set forth in the municipal code and the Subdivision Map Act.
//
//
//
//
//
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
Item 12
Supplemental Attachment
A - Revised Draft Record of
Land Use Action
Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 41 Packet Pg. 1139 of 1140
DRAFT
40 ATTEST: APPROVED:
_________________________ ____________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________ ___________________________ Assistant City Attorney City Manager
____________________________
Director of Planning and
Development Services
PLANS AND DRAWINGS REFERENCED:
Those plans titled “C5_2100-2400 Geng Road” consisting of 101 pages, dated and submitted January 30, 2026.
Those plans titled “C5_2100-2400 Geng Road VTM PLANS ” consisting of 12 pages, dated and submitted January 30, 2026.
A copy of these plans are on file with the Department of Planning and Development Services.
Item 12
Supplemental Attachment
A - Revised Draft Record of
Land Use Action
Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 42 Packet Pg. 1140 of 1140