From: Penny Brennan
To: Council, City
Subject: 3/16 Mtg: Palo Alto Commons
Date: Monday, March 9, 2026 8:54:40 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear City Council,
The Palo Alto Commons has historically broken its 1986 promises to its Wilkie Way neighbors and by breaking them has significantly diminished the quality of life of Wilkie Way residents, especially
with regard to the invasiveness of the Palo Alto Commons into the backyards and interiors of Wilkie Way residents' homes, and the burden of excess traffic and over-parking of Wilkie Way by Palo Alto Commons employees, suppliers, and residents' visitors and service providers.
Palo Alto Commons should be permitted a maximum of an additional 7 internal units to its
complex and then only with enforceable contingencies that require Palo Alto Commons to live up to its current promises to minimize the negative impacts of 7 new iinternal
units on its Wilkie Way neighbors, especially with respect to the traffic and parking problems it has created on Wilkie Way.
At every meeting regarding the Palo Alto Commons proposal much is made of the need for more senior housing in Palo Alto. I note again that, although this need is quite real, Palo Alto Commons has always been and will continue to be housing for wealthy seniors. Over the years
Palo Alto Commons has made no effort to provide affordable housing to Palo Alto elders who have modest-to-low incomes in the same way that, for example, Lytton Gardens has. Palo Alto Commons is generating huge profits that are flowing out of Palo Alto to benefit out-of-state, for-profit corporations. In my opinion, Palo Alto Commons provides no appreciable benefit to its local neighborhood and negligible benefit to the broader City of Palo Alto.
Sincerely,
Penny Brennan, PhD
Ventura Neighborhood
From: Shashank Divekar
To: Council, City
Cc: Raybould, Claire; Jayashree Divekar
Subject: 3/16 Palo Alto Commons City Council (Final Meeting) Date: Friday, March 6, 2026 3:34:55 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Members of the City Council
We are writing to express our strong opposition to the proposed expansion of the Palo Alto Commons in its current form and to respectfully request that City Council approve only the 7 internal units, with no external units or office space adjacent to the R-1 neighborhood, consistent with the Planning & Transportation Commission’s (PTC) recommendation.
When this project last came before City Council, you directed the applicant to work with neighbors toward a compromise. After further review, the PTC returned with a strengthened recommendation, approved by a 5–1 vote, to approve the 7 internal units only, along with additional conditions of approval. We strongly support that recommendation and urge Council to uphold it.
Neighborhood History and Good-Faith Compromise
When this project first came before Council, the neighborhood overwhelmingly opposed any additional units, based on a clear and documented compromise made on the public record in 1986 that expressly agreed to no further development on the Wilkie Way side of the property. Despite this, neighbors repeatedly negotiated in good faith and ultimately accepted 7 internal units as a compromise. The applicant, by contrast, refused to meaningfully engage or reduce the project until the final stages of review, despite repeated requests from both neighbors and the PTC.
A neighborhood petition signed by over 100 individuals (Attachment Q), including residents of The Avant and other WellQuest-managed properties, demonstrates broad, sustained opposition to any external expansion of the Commons.
Failure to Follow Council Direction
Council sent the project back to the PTC with direction to remove third-floor units. However, the proposal that returned to the PTC did not fully remove those units. In addition, during this period, they started illegally parking their bus to block fire lanes. 38+ Years of Noncompliance with Planned Community Ordinance Since approval of its original Planned Community ordinance in 1987 (PC3775, Attachment A), the Commons has failed to comply with multiple conditions of approval. These violations have been raised repeatedly, including before City Council. While the Commons has acknowledged noncompliance, required data and corrective actions have still not been adequately submitted.
Multiple code enforcement requests remain unresolved.
Persistent Parking Violations and Safety Concerns
Parking violations at the Commons are ongoing, well-documented, and acknowledged even in the applicant’s own consultant parking study. Recent and continuing issues include:
Blocking of fire access lanes with buses and vans (Attachment M, N) Misuse of handicap parking spaces (Attachment C)
Equipment stored in visitor parking spaces (Attachment B, O) Parking in no-parking zones (Attachment D)
Overflow parking onto public streets (Attachment E)
Palo Alto Commons bus parked on Wilkie Way (Attachment G) Commons vehicles occupying visitor spaces (Attachment H) Staff parking in the surrounding neighborhood (Attachment I) Therapists and visitors directed by staff to park on Wilkie Way Inconsistent or absent valet service (Attachment J)
These violations have continued even after being explicitly raised before both City Council and the PTC. As recently as December 2025, there are still violations (Attachment M, N, O).
Reduced Parking and Future Impacts
Since this project was first proposed, parking has already been removed from El Camino, an area the applicant previously stated should accommodate staff and visitor parking.
Additionally, the City’s 2025 Bike and Pedestrian Transportation Plan proposes removing all parking on El Camino Way. Approving further expansion under these conditions will create a significant parking and safety crisis for the surrounding neighborhood. Attachment P shows how fully parked El Camino Way already is.
These concerns led the PTC to appropriately recommend Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures with enforcement mechanisms for noncompliance, which we strongly support.
Pattern of Bad-Faith Negotiation
Throughout this process, the applicant has demonstrated a pattern of inconsistent and bad- faith negotiation:
An initial claim of reducing units from 18 to 16 was accomplished only by converting rooms into offices, without reducing building mass.
At the May 27 City Council meeting, the applicant stated that any proposal with fewer than 16 units was financially infeasible.
Subsequently, the applicant stated willingness to build 13 units, then 11 units, while continuing to assert that 7 units “do not pencil out.”
These shifting positions undermine confidence in the applicant’s claims.
Daylight Plane Violations
As previously discussed, the proposed design continues to violate the daylight plane requirements under PAMC 18.38.150. The code specifies a 3/6 angle with a 10-foot setback for commercial developments. This project qualifies as commercial since it does not meet RHNA housing requirements. Even if it were considered housing, which we dispute, it would require a 20-foot setback at a 45º angle. The current design fails to comply with either standard.
Loss of Property Values :
The proposed development will result in loss of property values of the neighbors' single family homes. Palo Alto Commons shares the backyard wall with ours. One of the neighbors sold their house and left. Our house is our strongest real estate asset that we have and wish to leave as legacy to our children after us and retain Palo Alto as a desired neighborhood and City for future generations. Palo Alto Commons should not profit resulting in significant financial losses for the neighbors.
Our Request
We respectfully ask City Council to:
Uphold the Planning & Transportation Commission’s recommendation Approve only the 7 internal units
Reject all external units and office space adjacent to the R-1 neighborhood Adopt and enforce the PTC’s recommended conditions of approval, including TDM requirements with consequences for noncompliance
This approach reflects the maximum compromise offered by the neighborhood, aligns with the PTC’s careful review, and avoids setting a dangerous precedent by relying on outdated municipal code provisions from the time of the original construction.
In Summary :
Our Ask to the Council :
Approve only the 7 internal units recommended by the Planning & Transportation Commission (PTC).
Enforce strong conditions of approval, including Transportation Demand Management (TDM), with real consequences.
Why
Upon City Council's request, PTC carefully reviewed the project and strengthened its recommendation (from 3-2 vote to 5-1) for only 7 units with additional conditions.
Historical agreement (1986) promised no development on the Wilkie Way side; neighbors already compromised by allowing 7
Developer violating existing PC Ordinance and using parking spaces for construction equipment, parking in fire lanes, and causing overflow into nearby streets such as Wilkie
The Commons are in non-compliance. Why do we expect them to be in compliance with their proposed expansion?
Developer ignored Council’s direction to remove all third-floor units when the project was sent back to PTC.
Parking and safety problems are serious and will worsen, with the recent loss of parking on El Camino and planned removal on El Camino Way Rooms cost $15K per month, and the owner, FJ Management, is a large national corporation that can afford to build only 7 units or expand on the El Camino Way side instead.
Loss of residential property values resulting from Palo Alto Commons profit.
Bottom line:
7 internal units is the maximum reasonable compromise.
Anything more increases safety risks, parking problems, and breaks past agreements.
Thank you for your time, consideration, and commitment to neighborhood safety, trust, and sound planning.
Sincerely,
Shashank & Jayashree Divekar
4054 Wilkie Way
Palo Alto, CA
(650)681-7494
From: Marty Douglas
To: Council, City; Raybould, Claire
Subject: Public comment- Proposed expansion of Palo Alto Commons (City council mtg 3/16) Date: Tuesday, March 3, 2026 5:08:32 PM
Attachments: Public comment- proposed expansion of Palo Alto Commons.docx CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Members of the City Council,
Please accept the attached letter as public comment from me and my husband regarding the agenda item on the Monday, 3/16 City Hall (250 Hamilton) City Council Meeting into the proposed expansion of the Palo Alto Commons.
As 46-year residents of Palo Alto near the Palo Alto Commons, we have witnessed the 38+ years of non-compliance with Planned Community Ordinance, persistent parking violations and safety concerns, reduced parking, and pattern of bad-faith negotiation by the owners of Palo Alto Commons. As senior citizens ourselves who will be seeking assisted living in the near future, we wish to be good neighbors. However, how the owners have conducted themselves over these past years of negotiations does not seem to be in good faith.
We respectfully request that you approve only 7 internal units, along with the other recommendations of the PTC.
Thank you for your consideration of our opinions.
Marilyn (and John) Douglas
360 Maclane St
Palo Alto, CA 94306
This message needs your attention
No employee in your company has ever replied to this person.
This is a personal email address.
Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
Dear Members of the City Council
We are writing to express our strong opposition to the proposed expansion of the Palo Alto Commons in its current form and to respectfully request that City Council approve only the 7 internal units, with no external units or office space adjacent to the R-1 neighborhood, consistent with the Planning & Transportation Commission’s (PTC) recommendation.
When this project last came before City Council, you directed the applicant to work with neighbors toward a compromise. After further review, the PTC returned with a strengthened recommendation, approved by a 5–1 vote, to approve the 7 internal units only, along with additional conditions of approval. We strongly support that recommendation and urge Council to uphold it.
Neighborhood History and Good-Faith Compromise
When this project first came before Council, the neighborhood overwhelmingly opposed any additional units, based on a clear and documented compromise made on the public record in 1986 that expressly agreed to no further development on the Wilkie Way side of the property. Despite this, neighbors repeatedly negotiated in good faith and ultimately accepted 7 internal units as a compromise. The applicant, by contrast, refused to meaningfully engage or reduce the project until the final stages of review, despite repeated requests from both neighbors and the PTC.
A neighborhood petition signed by over 100 individuals (Attachment Q), including residents of The Avant and other WellQuest-managed properties, demonstrates broad, sustained opposition to any external expansion of the Commons.
Failure to Follow Council Direction
Council sent the project back to the PTC with direction to remove third-floor units. However, the proposal that returned to the PTC did not fully remove those units. In addition, during this period, they started illegally parking their bus to block fire lanes. 38+ Years of Noncompliance with Planned Community Ordinance Since approval of its original Planned Community ordinance in 1987 (PC3775, Attachment A), the Commons has failed to comply with multiple conditions of approval. These violations have been raised repeatedly, including before City Council. While the Commons has acknowledged noncompliance, required data and corrective actions have still not been adequately submitted.
Multiple code enforcement requests remain unresolved.
Persistent Parking Violations and Safety Concerns
Parking violations at the Commons are ongoing, well-documented, and acknowledged even in the applicant’s own consultant parking study. Recent and continuing issues include:
• Blocking of fire access lanes with buses and vans (Attachment M, N) • Misuse of handicap parking spaces (Attachment C)
• Equipment stored in visitor parking spaces (Attachment B, O)
• Parking in no-parking zones (Attachment D)
• Overflow parking onto public streets (Attachment E)
• Palo Alto Commons bus parked on Wilkie Way (Attachment G) • Commons vehicles occupying visitor spaces (Attachment H) • Staff parking in the surrounding neighborhood (Attachment I) • Therapists and visitors directed by staff to park on Wilkie Way • Inconsistent or absent valet service (Attachment J)
These violations have continued even after being explicitly raised before both City Council and the PTC.
As recently as December 2025, there are still violations (Attachment M, N, O).
Reduced Parking and Future Impacts
Since this project was first proposed, parking has already been removed from El Camino, an area the applicant previously stated should accommodate staff and visitor parking.
Additionally, the City’s 2025 Bike and Pedestrian Transportation Plan proposes removing all parking on El Camino Way. Approving further expansion under these conditions will create a significant parking and safety crisis for the surrounding neighborhood. Attachment P shows how fully parked El Camino Way already is.
These concerns led the PTC to appropriately recommend Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures with enforcement mechanisms for noncompliance, which we strongly support.
Pattern of Bad-Faith Negotiation
Throughout this process, the applicant has demonstrated a pattern of inconsistent and bad-faith negotiation:
• An initial claim of reducing units from 18 to 16 was accomplished only by converting rooms into offices, without reducing building mass.
• At the May 27 City Council meeting, the applicant stated that any proposal with fewer than 16 units was financially infeasible.
• Subsequently, the applicant stated willingness to build 13 units, then 11 units, while continuing to assert that 7 units “do not pencil out.”
These shifting positions undermine confidence in the applicant’s claims.
Daylight Plane Violations
As previously discussed, the proposed design continues to violate the daylight plane requirements under PAMC 18.38.150. The code specifies a 3/6 angle with a 10-foot setback for commercial developments.
This project qualifies as commercial since it does not meet RHNA housing requirements. Even if it were
considered housing, which we dispute, it would require a 20-foot setback at a 45º angle. The current design fails to comply with either standard.
Our Request
We respectfully ask City Council to:
• Uphold the Planning & Transportation Commission’s recommendation • Approve only the 7 internal units
• Reject all external units and office space adjacent to the R-1 neighborhood • Adopt and enforce the PTC’s recommended conditions of approval, including TDM requirements with consequences for noncompliance
This approach reflects the maximum compromise offered by the neighborhood, aligns with the PTC’s careful review, and avoids setting a dangerous precedent by relying on outdated municipal code provisions from the time of the original construction.
Thank you for your time, consideration, and commitment to neighborhood safety, trust, and sound planning.
Sincerely,
Marilyn & John Douglas
360 Maclane St (Wilkie Way dead-ends into Maclane St & we get Wilkie Way’s overflow parking) Palo Alto, CA
From: A. Mason
To: Council, City; Raybould, Claire
Subject: 3/16 City Council Meeting Agenda Item #13 Palo Alto Commons Date: Sunday, March 15, 2026 9:39:25 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Members of the City Council
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed expansion of the Palo Alto Commons in its current form and to respectfully request that City Council approve only the 7 internal units, with no external units or office space adjacent to the R-1 neighborhood, consistent with the Planning & Transportation Commission’s (PTC) recommendation.
When this project last came before City Council, you directed the applicant to work with neighbors toward a compromise. After further review, the PTC returned with a strengthened recommendation, approved by a 5–1 vote, to approve the 7 internal units only, along with additional conditions of approval. We strongly support that recommendation and urge Council to uphold it.
Neighborhood History and Good-Faith Compromise
When this project first came before Council, the neighborhood overwhelmingly opposed any additional units, based on a clear and documented compromise made on the public record in 1986 that expressly agreed to no further development on the Wilkie Way side of the property. Despite this, neighbors repeatedly negotiated in good faith and ultimately accepted 7 internal units as a compromise. The applicant, by contrast, refused to meaningfully engage or reduce the project until the final stages of review, despite repeated requests from both neighbors and the PTC.
A neighborhood petition signed by over 100 individuals, including residents of The Avant and other WellQuest-managed properties, demonstrates broad, sustained opposition to any external expansion of the Commons.
Failure to Follow Council Direction
Council sent the project back to the PTC with direction to remove third-floor units. However, the proposal that returned to the PTC did not fully remove those units. In addition, during this period, they started illegally parking their bus to block fire lanes. 38+ Years of Noncompliance with Planned Community Ordinance Since approval of its original Planned Community ordinance in 1987 (PC3775, Attachment A), the Commons has failed to comply with multiple conditions of approval. These violations have been raised repeatedly, including before City Council. While the Commons has acknowledged noncompliance, required data and corrective actions have still not been adequately submitted.
Multiple code enforcement requests remain unresolved.
Persistent Parking Violations and Safety Concerns
Parking violations at the Commons are ongoing, well-documented, and acknowledged even in the applicant’s own consultant parking study. Recent and continuing issues include:
Blocking of fire access lanes with buses and vans (Attachment M, N) Misuse of handicap parking spaces (Attachment C)
Equipment stored in visitor parking spaces (Attachment B, O) Parking in no-parking zones (Attachment D)
Overflow parking onto public streets (Attachment E)
Palo Alto Commons bus parked on Wilkie Way (Attachment G) Commons vehicles occupying visitor spaces (Attachment H) Staff parking in the surrounding neighborhood (Attachment I) Therapists and visitors directed by staff to park on Wilkie Way Inconsistent or absent valet service (Attachment J)
These violations have continued even after being explicitly raised before both City Council and the PTC. As recently as December 2025, there are still violations (Attachment M, N, O).
Reduced Parking and Future Impacts
Since this project was first proposed, parking has already been removed from El Camino, an area the applicant previously stated should accommodate staff and visitor parking.
Additionally, the City’s 2025 Bike and Pedestrian Transportation Plan proposes removing all parking on El Camino Way. Approving further expansion under these conditions will create a significant parking and safety crisis for the surrounding neighborhood. Attachment P shows how fully parked El Camino Way already is.
These concerns led the PTC to appropriately recommend Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures with enforcement mechanisms for noncompliance, which we strongly support.
Pattern of Bad-Faith Negotiation
Throughout this process, the applicant has demonstrated a pattern of inconsistent and bad- faith negotiation:
An initial claim of reducing units from 18 to 16 was accomplished only by converting rooms into offices, without reducing building mass.
At the May 27 City Council meeting, the applicant stated that any proposal with fewer than 16 units was financially infeasible.
Subsequently, the applicant stated willingness to build 13 units, then 11 units, while continuing to assert that 7 units “do not pencil out.”
These shifting positions undermine confidence in the applicant’s claims.
Daylight Plane Violations
As previously discussed, the proposed design continues to violate the daylight plane requirements under PAMC 18.38.150. The code specifies a 3/6 angle with a 10-foot setback for commercial developments. This project qualifies as commercial since it does not meet RHNA housing requirements. Even if it were considered housing, which we dispute, it would require a 20-foot setback at a 45º angle. The current design fails to comply with either standard.
Our Request
We respectfully ask City Council to:
Uphold the Planning & Transportation Commission’s recommendation Approve only the 7 internal units
Reject all external units and office space adjacent to the R-1 neighborhood Adopt and enforce the PTC’s recommended conditions of approval, including TDM requirements with consequences for noncompliance
This approach reflects the maximum compromise offered by the neighborhood, aligns with the PTC’s careful review, and avoids setting a dangerous precedent by relying on outdated municipal code provisions from the time of the original construction.
Thank you for your time, consideration, and commitment to neighborhood safety, trust, and sound planning.
Sincerely,
Anne Mason
Sent with Proton Mail secure email.
From: Sheri Furman
To: Council, City
Subject: PAN Chairs Regarding Palo Alto Commons Item #13 Date: Friday, March 13, 2026 1:28:59 PM
Dear City Councilmembers:
PAN (Palo Alto Neighborhoods) has actively followed the Palo Alto Commons application and held many discussions about it among our members. Based on that, we are supporting the September 2026 Planning and Transportation Commission’s 5-1 recommendation for just seven new units (none in the rear) at Palo Alto Commons and enforcement of tighter parking rules.
The Commission’s recommendation offers you important advantages that the staff report does not explain. Specifically, by eliminating the proposed new rear units, the Commission eliminated several Palo Alto zoning code violations in the applicant’s proposal, namely:
The failure to comply with Palo Alto Municipal Code 18.38.150(e), which requires Palo Alto Commons next to the residences on WIlkie and West Meadow to conform to a daylight plane starting at 10 feet high at the property line and rising by 3 feet for every 6 feet away from the property line. The plans at A5.11, A5.12, and A5.13 show the proposed second floor additions will not comply with this.
The failure to provide additional public benefits, as required for a PC amendment by 18.38.060(b). In its recent action to allow a PC amendment for the home on Ellsworth, the applicant’s attorney listed 15 separate public benefits to justify that one extra unit. Not only does Palo Alto Commons propose no public benefits in exchange for the additional FAR it seeks in excess of what is allowed, but it also wants to diminish its original public benefit of a partially-stepped-back facade backing up to the Wilkie and West Meadow residences.
The Council’s job has unfortunately been made more difficult by incomplete and inaccurate information in the staff report, including:
The use of the word “complies” in Attachment E’s Table 1 for the Daylight Plane. As explained above, the proposed expansion does not comply with our municipal code.
The use of the word “complies” in Attachment E’s Table 2 bottommost row regarding daylight plane. Although the left side of that row correctly explains the law, the right side says the project complies when it doesn’t .
To this last point, to claim that the proposed expansion “complies” with the daylight plane rules, the staff report silently relies on an extraordinary, precedent-breaking notion, namely that the expansion need not be compliant with our current laws, but only with itself
. To our knowledge, such a legal conception has never before been used in Palo Alto nor anywhere else, no doubt because it wholly undermines the regulatory power of government.
Consider that under staff’s new notion, any of the many homes constructed before Palo Alto adopted FAR residential limits can add as much square footage as they desire no matter what laws the City Council passes. The height, site placement, and nature of the expansions would also be unregulatable. The Council has rightly been wary in the past of creating bad precedents and has repeatedly avoided doing so.
We strongly urge that in this case too you adhere to the long-established and supremely rational practice of requiring new development to comply with current laws.
The application is for a PC, so there is also the matter of public benefits. Past problems with ephemeral public benefits caused our City Council to cease granting PCs, and subsequently allowed only PCs designed at PHZ projects containing a minimum of 20% affordable housing. Such a requirement would make sense for this PC expansion too. As you have heard, the monthly rent for a small unit at the Palo Alto Commons is typically upwards of $15,000 and far out of reach of many. In its letter to the Council, on page T2 of the plan set, the applicant seeks to be treated as a residential project despite its clear classification as a commercial convalescent facility per our municipal code 18.04.030(a)(35). If they wish to be treated as residential, it would be completely appropriate to require the 20% affordable housing that other recent PC applicants provide.
Finally, we encourage you not to think of this item as one property owner versus its neighbors but rather as an opportunity to uphold Palo Alto’s laws. We believe the laws that apply to this project are reasonable and good -- and that it is best for all if the Council simply upholds them.
In appreciation of your consideration of this matter,
Sheri Furman, PAN Co-Chair
Rebecca Sanders, PAN Co-Chair
From: Susan Kemp
To: Council, City
Subject: March 16 Item #113 - Palo Alto Commons - 7 Internal Units Max and Strong TDM Provisions! Date: Friday, March 13, 2026 10:02:30 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Subject: March 16 Item #13 - Palo Alto Commons - 7 Internal Units and No More
Dear Mayor Veenker and Council Members:
I urge you to let democracy work. We have clear majority direction from PTC only to approve the 7 internal units and deny the 6-9 units overlooking the homes of our neighbors on Maclane. To do so would be in violation of a host of existing laws and agreements and exacerbate parking headaches and safety problems already in play with existing units. Certainly the public, as evidenced by intense engagement, agree with PTC.
The tactic of “asking for the moon” is an advantageous starting point in any negotiation. In this case, the business owners have “asked for the moon.” To be sure, we are willing to give them a slice! By adding only the 7 internal units, the business owners can still achieve their goals of expanding their services, adding more $17,000/head units to make more money. The Maclane neighbors can continue to live in their homes without 6-9 new off-code units overlooking their yards in violation of an agreement the owners entered into years ago, not to mention suffering an inevitable decrease in their property values due to the infringement on their privacy and daylight plane.
I don't agree that granting the applicant 13-16 units in total as a “compromise.” is fair or reasonable since adding 7 new units is already a compromise, so let’s not get drawn in by false equivalences.
Thank you for denying the applicant the moon and offering them a good deal instead. By sticking to our laws and code, you maintain a healthy and robust democratic process in Palo Alto.
In addition, as the Palo Alto Commons owners have to date not shown serious enforcement of Transportation Demand Management provisions, please be sure to enforce strong conditions of approval, including Transportation Demand Management with real consequences.
Writing as a concerned resident and a Ventura neighbor, Susan Kemp
Ventura Neighborhood
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
From: Daniel Hansen
To: Council, City; Kallas, Emily
Cc: Cha, Kelly; [email protected]
Subject: March 16, 2026 Agenda Item #13 - Proposed Expansion of Palo Alto Commons at 4075 El Camino Way Date: Wednesday, March 11, 2026 10:24:45 AM
Attachments: Palo Alto City Council, March 16, 2026 Agenda Item #13 - PA Commons Objection Letter.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council,
Please see the attached letter regarding the Proposed Expansion of Palo Alto Commons at 4075 El Camino Way.
Best regards,
Daniel Hansen
March 11, 2026
VIA E-MAIL [[email protected] and [email protected]] Mayor Veenker and Members of the City Council
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, California 94301
Emily Kallas
Senior Planner
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Re: March 16, 2026 Agenda Item #13 - Proposed Expansion of Palo Alto Commons at 4075 El Camino Way
Dear Mayor Veenker and Members of the City Council:
We are writing in support of the PTC’s recommendation regarding the limited expansion of Palo Alto Commons. Although, we do not live on Wilkie Way, we know the feeling of proposed land use changes that could reduce value and enjoyment of our property.
In addition to the arguments of our Wilkie Way neighbors, which we support, we offer these observations:
• Wellquest Living, which operates Palo Alto Commons, is owned by or closely affiliated with FJ Management, Inc. (FJM). FJM is a huge company based in Utah with billions of dollars in investments, real estate and assets under management, built mainly on petroleum. It can afford to build senior housing in locations other than Palo Alto Commons without adversely impacting residents.
• Wellquest has provided no financial information supporting its position that less than X units is not feasible (X keeps moving). Palo Alto Commons is described on its website as “Luxury Senior Living” and these units rent from an astonishing $7,000 to $15,000 per month. How can even one additional unit not be profitable? To support additional expansion, Wellquest should provide full transparency on their financial models and projections, as well as its and FJM’s balance sheets, so feasibility claims can be tested. • Wellquest, like similar private equity businesses, is driven by profit. We’ve experienced how private equity acquisitions of veterinary and health care clinics have resulted in reduced care and higher costs in our community. The same thing is happening in senior living care. If this expansion proceeds, in addition to addressing the Wilkie neighbor’s concerns, the City should put in place regulations to ensure high levels of care, such as specified nurse to tenant ratios, and preference for Palo Alto residents.
FJ Management, Inc.
Docusign Envelope ID: 907ADD60-2E3A-45AF-A308-C7DD8CC823B4 Palo Alto City Council
May 11, 2026
FJM owns (or is at least closely affiliated with) Wellquest Living.1 FJM and Wellquest share the same address in Salt Lake City with adjoining suites (185 S State St., Suites 1200 and 1300). Wellquest’s CEO, Steve Sandholtz, has served for many years as managing partner with FJ Capital, LLC, a real estate private equity and development firm, according to his linked in profile. https://www.linkedin.com/in/steve-sandholtz-1828574. Presumably, FJ Management also owns FJ Capital.
The “FJ” in FJ Management stands for “Flying J,” the gas stations started in the 1960s by Jay Call. Over time, FJ Management has expanded further into petroleum refining, transportation, solar, hotel management and gas and convenience stations, including ownership of Maveriks and Kum & Go gas and convenience stores, which together have over 800 locations. https://fjmgt.com/about/. FJM is owned by the Maggelet family and run by Crystal Maggelet, Jay Call’s daughter.
Crystal’s advice is: “Do what is best for the business, not what is best for the family.” https://familybusinessmagazine.com/family-offices/family-office-management/helm-crystal- maggelet/
In 2024, FJM’s annual revenue was $7 billion and it ranked #89 on the list of the largest US private companies, according to Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/companies/fj-management/ Clearly, Wellquest and FJM can afford to select a different location for their senior living expansion in Palo Alto, one that will not adversely impact neighboring residents.
Wellquest Living, LLC
With Palo Alto Commons, Wellquest is the operator and William Reller is the property owner. The arrangement between Wellquest and Mr. Reller is not disclosed. These operating agreements generally come in two flavors: (1) the operator manages the business and takes a percentage of revenue and the owner pays the costs, or (2) the operator manages the business and keeps the profit and pays the owner a lease-type fee. Either way, these agreements are crafted to drive a single goal: increase revenue and profit. Wellquest should disclose its management contract with Reller so the underlying incentives can be understood by the community. For example, does the agreement include tenant care covenants, incentives and conditions? Does it include requirements to follow zoning restrictions and comply with neighborhood agreements? The concern is Palo Alto Commons will suffer the same fate as other businesses acquired and run by private equity. For example, after Adobe Animal Hospital was acquired by Sage Veterinary Centers (ultimate owner JAB Consumer Partners SCA SICAR, a private equity firm),
1 “WellQuest was founded in 2018 by the owners of one of the largest privately-held companies in the United States, FJ Management. The Utah-based company, which owns gas stations like Flying J, Pilot and Maverick also works in hospitality and wealth management.” https://www.sacbee.com/news/california/article311640315.html Docusign Envelope ID: 907ADD60-2E3A-45AF-A308-C7DD8CC823B4 Palo Alto City Council
May 11, 2026
it shut down the 24-7 hospital, increased service rates and lost experienced veterinarians. The FTC has taken action against JAB to prevent further consolidation in veterinary services.2 Yelp reviews suggest this may already be happening at Palo Alto Commons:
May 13, 2022
“This place has gone downhill quickly ever since it was bought by WellQuest.
It used to be a place where people enjoyed to work and residents enjoyed to live. It's now a dreadful place to work and a place that is lacking in many areas in terms of care for the residents. …”
May 16, 2022
“This community USED TO BE the best senior living in the bay area but since the take over by Well Quest Living and the new director Li Li, it has deteriorated. …”
June 1, 2024
“These place is very unfair and racist, they don't even take the employee side they always listen to one side of the story without both side defend themself.one of the worst care quality plus the have lot of of residence and only two caregivers worst place ever.”
Wellquest is no stranger to controversy. It has been the subject of many complaints and lawsuits in California. See Elk Grove Senior Home Sued for Negligence After 74 Year Old Dies of Extreme Heat, Sept 27, 2025, https://www.sacbee.com/news/california/article311640315.html.
Wilkie neighbors have documented countless times Wellquest has failed to be a good partner to the neighborhood. Wellquest should not be rewarded with additional expansion. If the expansion of Commons proceeds, in addition to addressing the Wilkie neighbors’ concerns, the Council should take steps to ensure care levels are appropriate and maintained, including specified nurse to tenant ratios, and preference for Palo Alto residents.
Sincerely,
Daniel Hansen
Jeffrey Shore
2 https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2022/06/ftc-acts-protect-pet-owners-private-equity-firms- anticompetitive-acquisition-veterinary-
services#:~:text=The%20Federal%20Trade%20Commission%20today,Hart%2DScott%2DRodino%20Act.
Docusign Envelope ID: 907ADD60-2E3A-45AF-A308-C7DD8CC823B4
From: Rebecca Sanders
To: Council, City
Subject: March 16 Item #13 - Palo Alto Commons - 7 Internal Units and No More Date: Tuesday, March 10, 2026 9:18:40 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Mayor Veenker and Council Members:
You are no doubt becoming well-versed in the Palo Alto Commons proposal before you. I won’t add in the paragraphs of documentation for your review as the PTC and invested residents have dedicated hours of research to this topic.
I urge you to let democracy work. We have clear majority direction from PTC only to approve the 7 internal units and deny the 11 units overlooking the homes of our neighbors on Maclane. To do so would be in violation of a host of existing laws and agreements and exacerbate parking headaches and safety problems already in play with existing units. Certainly the public, as evidenced by intense engagement, agree with PTC.
The tactic of “asking for the moon” is an advantageous starting point in any negotiation. In this case, the business owners have “asked for the moon.” To be sure, we are willing to give them a slice! By adding only the 7 internal units, the business owners can still achieve their goals of expanding their services, adding more $17,000/head units to make more money. The Maclane neighbors can continue to live in their homes without 11 new off-code units overlooking their yards in violation of an agreement the owners entered into years ago.
I believe there was some talk of granting the applicant 11 units in toto as a “compromise.” Adding 7 new units is already a compromise, so let’s not get drawn in by false equivalences.
Thank you for denying the applicant the moon and offering them a good deal instead. By sticking to our laws and code, you maintain a healthy and robust democratic process in Palo Alto.
Writing as a concerned resident and a Ventura neighbor, Becky Sanders
Ventura Neighborhood