Attachment F - Applicant’s Project Description — Palo Alto City Council, April 13, 2026

April 13th 2026
3606 El Camino Real Proposed Multifamily Project
Developer Letter
Dear Honorable Councilmembers,
We are pleased to present 3606 El Camino Real, a 321-unit multifamily residential development that directly responds to Palo Alto's critical housing needs and the City's long-term vision for El Camino Real. This project was filed in February 2024 under California's Builder's Remedy provision — a state law that allows housing projects to proceed outside of local zoning restrictions in jurisdictions whose Housing Element had not yet received HCD certification. At the time of filing, Palo Alto's Housing Element had not been certified, which occurred in August 2024. The project also invokes State Density Bonus Law and Assembly Bill 130, which provides a CEQA exemption for qualifying infill housing projects.

While this is not a conventional entitlement pathway, we have taken care to design a project that is thoughtful, appropriately scaled, and reflective of the City's vision for El Camino Real. The project delivers 321 units of new housing — including 37 units affordable to low-income households at or below 80% AMI, consistent with AB 1893's affordability requirements. We recognize that the project's affordability component has evolved since the original filing, and we are committed to delivering these 37 BMR units as a meaningful contribution to the City's housing goals.

Beyond housing, the project offers tangible community benefits: it activates an underutilized commercial stretch of El Camino Real with an architecturally engaging building; it improves streetscape conditions at the entrance to the Barron Park neighborhood, including adding sidewalks where none currently exist; and it is broadly consistent with the El Camino Real Focus Area Plan and its Objective Design Standards.

To date, the project has gone through two formal public review processes. At the Architectural Review Board, we received design feedback that we incorporated into the current plans — including a fin design motif at the Kendall corner, an accentuated massing break along El Camino Real, enhanced landscaping on the south side to transition the building into the neighborhood, and improved connections to the tertiary courtyard. Those changes strengthened the design and are reflected in the current submittal.

At the Planning and Transportation Commission, questions were raised regarding the project's garage access locations. The vehicle access follows Palo Alto's Objective Design Standards (ODS

18.24.030(b)) which states that “Vehicle access shall be located on alleys or side streets when they abut the property.” This project benefits from distribution through two separate points of vehicular entry — one on Matadero Avenue and one on Kendall Avenue. This approach reflects standard traffic engineering practice: locating driveway access on side streets rather than arterials reduces conflict points on high-volume roadways, and distributing access across two locations spreads traffic more evenly across the surrounding street network. The Palo Alto objective design standard is particularly sensible for this site, because vehicle access on El Camino Real would introduce substantial conflicts. El Camino Real has also been the subject of recent public investment in separated bicycle infrastructure; an additional driveway cut along that frontage would introduce a new vehicle-bicycle conflict point along those facilities. Further, an independent review conducted by Hexagon Transportation Consultants evaluated the entry locations and confirmed that the Matadero and Kendall entries are appropriately sited relative to traffic distribution and street safety. We have further reinforced both entries with internal stop signs and visual and audio warnings to alert pedestrians and cyclists when vehicles are exiting. Combined with new sidewalk improvements along the project frontage on Matadero and Kendall, these elements represent a meaningful net safety enhancement for the surrounding neighborhood.

We are grateful to City Council, City staff, the ARB, and the PTC for the time and rigor they have brought to reviewing this project. We look forward to your support for bringing 321 new homes to Palo Alto.

Sincerely,
Alex Giovannotto
Vittoria Management, Inc.

3606 El Camino Real
Design Updates
Building Massing and Façade Articulation
ARB members expressed concern
that the building appears too long
and visually massive and
encouraged additional façade and
roofline breaks to reduce perceived
bulk.
1 1
2 Increased contrast at the
recessed massing break to more
clearly articulate the change in
plane and strengthen the
building’s visual breakdown.
2 Added roofline breaks to
reduced the perceived bulk of
the building.

ARB Comment
Design Response
Transition to Neighborhood
ARB members expressed concern about the
transition to adjacent lower-scale residential
areas and recommended strategies to reduce
impacts on neighboring properties.
1 1 Updated the podium level to include
landscaping along the south side to
soften the visual experience of 3606.

The building perimeter is lined with
trees to further soften the project’s
edge and enhance the transition to
neighboring properties.

ARB Comment
Design Response
2 2
Street- Facing Experience along Kendall
While parking is well screened from El
Camino Real, ARB members noted that the
Kendall-facing façade lacks sufficient
articulation and encouraged additional
façade breaks and design features to
enhance the pedestrian experience and
better screen the garage.

The Kendall/ECR corner was
enhanced to create a more prominent
corner presence and incorporate the
fin motif used at the Matadero corner,
fostering a more welcoming
pedestrian experience, adding design
interest, and maintaining the
effectiveness of the garage screening.

ARB Comment
Design Response
1 1
Existing Condition
Open Space and Amenity Design
ARB members noted that some third-floor
amenities appear underutilized or inaccessible
and recommended better connectivity, expanded
roof decks, and improved usability of shared open
spaces.
1 1 Shifted the floor plans to allow access
from the corridor to the small courtyard
on the south leg of the building.

Ensured that residential patios on the
podium provide as much usable
outdoor space as possible.

ARB Comment
Design Response
2 2

April 25, 2025
Palo Alto Planning Department
250 Hamilton Avenue - 5th Floor
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Re: Invocation of “Builder’s Remedy 2.0” Under AB 1893, and CEQA Compliance for the Housing Development Project at 3606 El Camino Real (24PLN-00162) Dear All:

This firm represents Vittoria Management, Inc. (the “Applicant”) in connection with its application for a housing development project consisting of 335 multifamily units (the “Project”) at 3606 El Camino Real (the “Project Site”) in Palo Alto (the “City”). The City determined the Project’s application complete for Permit Streamlining Act purposes on December 23, 2024. As explained in more detail in our previous communication, the Project is protected by the Housing Accountability Act (the “HAA”) inclusive of the Builder’s Remedy provision. The Applicant has also secured vested rights to develop the Project pursuant to the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (“SB 330”), and the Project Site has been included in the City’s housing site inventory for its 6 th cycle
Housing Element.1 The purposes of this letter are to:

1. Document the Project’s eligibility for and affirmatively invoke the protections of Assembly Bill (“AB”) 1893, also known as “Builder’s Remedy 2.0”; and

2. Document the Project’s eligibility for the protections of AB 1633 and the “Infill Exemption” from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15332.

AB 1893’s Protections and Its Applicability
AB 1893 went into effect on January 1, 2025 and provides significant new protections for Builder’s Remedy projects. Importantly, its new protections extend to proposals, including the Project, that

1 See the City’s 2023-2031 Housing Element, Appendix D: Site Inventory, available at:
https://paloaltohousingelement.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/Appendix-D_Site-Inventory.pdf.

Palo Alto Planning Department
April 25, 2025

Page 2 ends

#519811046_v2
predate AB 1893’s effective date.2 AB 1893 allows Builder’s Remedy projects to include 13% low income units, 3 and for in- process projects switching to Builder’s Remedy 2.0 to make modifications to their proposal even if they exceed a 20% change in units or square footage.4

The Applicant is hereby electing to convert to Builder’s Remedy 2.0 and include 13% low income units (37 total units when calculated as a portion of the base maximum density per AB 1893) in the now -revised Project. The Applicant reserves all rights it has including under the HAA as amended by AB 1893, or any other state or local laws, to return to its original proposal for the Project if warranted at a later time.

In addition to the above-described provisions, AB 1893 includes the following notable protections, of which we wish to remind the City:

• Local agencies may not require a Builder’s Remedy 2.0 Project to apply for or receive approval of a general plan amendment, specific plan amendment, rezoning, or other legislative approval.
5 Local agencies also may not require a Builder’s Remedy 2.0 Project to apply for or receive any approval or permit not generally required of a non- Builder’s Remedy project of the same type and density.6

• Local agencies may not adopt or impose any requirements (including fees), or undertaking any course of conduct, with respect to Builder’s Remedy 2.0 Projects that do not apply to other projects.7

• Builder’s Remedy 2.0 Projects are deemed consistent with all applicable local standards and plans, and may not be treated as nonconforming uses. 8 • Prior to AB 1893, the HAA provided only that jurisdictions could not “disapprove” Builder’s Remedy projects, or condition such projects in a manner that rendered the affordable portion of the project infeasible. AB 1893 has significantly expanded the scope

2 See Gov. Code § 65589.5(f)(7)(A) (as amended by AB 1893) (“For a housing development project application that is deemed complete before January 1, 2025, the development proponent for the project may choose to be subject to the provisions of this section that were in place on the date the preliminary application was submitted, or, if the project meets the definition of a builder’s remedy project, it may choose to be subject to any or all of the provisions of this section applicable as of January 1, 2025.”). See also Gov. Code § 65589.5(h)(5) (“Notwithstanding any other law, until January 1, 2030, ‘deemed complete’ means that the applicant has submitted a preliminary application pursuant to Section 65941.1 or, if the applicant has not submitted a preliminary a pplication, has submitted a complete application pursuant to Section 65943.”) (emphasis added). 3 Gov. Code §§ 65589.5(d); (h)(3)(C)(i)(III) (as amended by AB 1893). 4 Gov. Code § 65589.5(f)(7)(B) (as amended by AB 1893). 5 Gov. Code § 65589.5(f)(6)(D)(i) (as amended by AB 1893). 6 Gov. Code § 65589.5(f)(6)(D)(ii) (as amended by AB 1893). 7 Gov. Code § 65589.5(f)(6)(E) (as amended by AB 1893). 8 Gov. Code § 65589.5(f)(6)(D)(iii) (as amended by AB 1893).

Palo Alto Planning Department
April 25, 2025

Page 3 ends

#519811046_v2
of prohibited actions. In addition to prohibiting a local agency from voting to disapprove a Builder’s Remedy 2.0 Project, AB 1893 also notably prohibits local agencies from:

o Taking a “final administrative action” (other than a vote) that functions as a project disapproval;
9 o Subjecting a Builder’s Remedy 2.0 to more than five hearings;10

o Wrongfully determining that a Builder’s Remedy 2.0 Project preliminary application has expired or failed to establish vested rights in contravention of the Permit Streamlining Act;
11 o Maintaining a “course of conduct undertaken for an improper purpose” that functions as an “effective disapproval” of a Builder’s Remedy 2.0 Project. 12 • AB 1893 also expands the HAA’s prohibition on unlawful conditioning. The local agency is now prohibited from imposing any condition that would render the Builder’s Remedy

2.0 Project as a whole infeasible (rather than just the affordable component of the project).
13 The local agency is also now specifically prohibited from imposing a combination of conditions that would render the Builder’s Remedy 2.0 Project infeasible.14

The Project qualifies for AB 1893, as documented in the following chart:

Summary of AB 1893 Criteria Project Consistency
Affordability (Gov. Code §
65589.5(h)(11)(A)).

The project is a housing development project
that provides housing for very low, low-, or
moderate-income households.

Gov. Code § 65589.5(h)(3): 55 years for
rental units, 45 years for ownership units.
“Housing for mixed-income households” =
Does the project satisfy one of the applicable
affordability percentage requirements?
• Yes, the Project includes 13% low
income units, calculated as a portion
of the base maximum.

Will the affordability of these units be ensured
for the required period?

9 Gov. Code § 65589.5(h)(6)(A) (as amended by AB 1893). 10 Gov. Code § 65589.5(h)(6)(E) (as amended by AB 1893). 11 Gov. Code § 65589.5(h)(6)(H) (as amended by AB 1893). 12 Gov. Code § 65589.5(h)(6)(D) (as amended by AB 1893). 13 Gov. Code § 65589.5(d) (as amended by AB 1893).
14 Gov. Code § 65589.5(f)(6)(B) (as amended by AB 1893).

Palo Alto Planning Department
April 25, 2025

Page 4 ends

#519811046_v2
Summary of AB 1893 Criteria Project Consistency
• At least 7 % “extremely low income” ;
or
• At least 10 % “very low income”; or
• At least 13% “low income” ; or
• Project contains 10 or fewer units, on a
site smaller than 1 acre, proposed at
minimum density of 10 du/acre
• Yes, the Applicant will ensure
affordability of the rental units for 55
years.

Housing element compliance (Gov. Code §
65589.5(h)(11)(B)).

When application was “deemed complete”
(this includes submission of SB 330
preliminary application or formal
application)15 the jurisdiction did not have a
housing element that was in substantial
compliance16 with this article.

At the time of preliminary application
submittal (or, if no preliminary application
was submitted, the time of submission of a
complete formal application), was the
jurisdiction’s housing element certified as
substantially compliant by HCD or a court of
competent jurisdiction?
• No – project qualifies for this
requirement.

Maximum density (Gov. Code §
65589.5(h)(11)(C)).

Must comply with the greatest of the
following densities (plus can add any density
bonus per State Density Bonus Law):
(i) The density does not exceed the greatest
of the following densities:
(I) Fifty percent greater than the minimum
density deemed appropriate to
accommodate housing for that jurisdiction
as specified in subparagraph (B) of
paragraph (3) of subdivision (c) of Section
Does the project comply with the applicable
maximum density?
• Yes – Explanation below
Using the options at left, we have identified
the highest density for each APN of the
Project Site, and calculated a weighted
average by percentage of the site that each
APN represents to determine the base
maximum density per AB 1893, as follows:

APN 137-08-016 = 30 Mullen + 50% = 45
du/acre + 35 for “high resource” tract = 80
du/acre

15 Gov. Code § 65589.5(h)(5).
16 See Gov. Code § 65589.55(a) (“For purposes of a local agency’s approval, conditional approval, or disapproval of a housing development project pursuant to subdivision (d) of Section 65589.5, a housing element or amendment shall be considered in substantial compliance with this article only if the element or amendment was in substantial compliance, as determined by the department or a court of competent jurisdiction, when a preliminary application, including all of the information required by subdivision (a) of Section 65941.1, was submitted or, if a preliminary application was not submitted, when a complete application pursuant to Section 65943 was submitted.”).

Palo Alto Planning Department
April 25, 2025

Page 5 ends

#519811046_v2
Summary of AB 1893 Criteria Project Consistency
65583.217 (this is known as the “Mullen
density”).
(II) Three times the density allowed by the
general plan, zoning ordinance, or state
law, whichever is greater.
(III) The density that is consistent with the
density specified in the housing element.

Add 35 du/acre to the maximum
summarized above, if any portion of the site
is located within any of the following:
(I) One-half mile of a major transit stop.18
(II) A very low vehicle travel area.
(III) A high or highest resource census
tract, as identified by the latest edition of
the “CTCAC/HCD Opportunity Map.”19
• 5,199 square feet/113,907 square feet
x 80 = 3.651 du/acre

APN 137-08-070 = 40 per zoning x 3 = 120
du/acre + 35 for “high resource” tract = 155
du/acre
• 5,103 square feet/113,907 square feet
x 155 = 6.944 du/acre

APN 137-08-077 = 40 per comp plan x 3 =
120 du/acre + 35 for “high resource” tract =
155 du/acre
• 38,058 square feet/113,907 square feet
x 155 = 51.788 du/acre

APN 137-08-079 = 30 Mullen + 50% = 45
du/acre + 35 for “high resource” tract = 80
du/acre
• 10,194 square feet/113,907 square feet
x 80 = 7.160 du/acre

APN 137-08-080 = 30 Mullen + 50% = 45
du/acre + 35 for “high resource” tract = 80
du/acre
• 28,350 square feet/113,907 square feet
x 80 = 19.911 du/acre

17 “The following densities shall be deemed appropriate to accommodate housing for lower income households: (i) For an incorporated city within a nonmetropolitan county and for a nonmetropolitan county that has a micropolitan area: sites allowing at least 15 units per acre. (ii) For an unincorporated area in a nonmetropolitan county not included in clause (i): sites allowing at least 10 units per acre. (iii) For a suburban jurisdiction: sites allowing at least 20 units per acre. (iv) For a jurisdiction in a metropolitan county: sites allowing at least 30 units per acre.” Gov.

Code § 65583.2(c)(3)(B).
18 “‘Major transit stop’ means a site containing any of the following: (a) An existing rail or bus rapid transit station. (b) A ferry terminal served by either a bus or rail transit service. (c) The intersection of two or more major bus routes with a frequency of service interval of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods.” Pub. Res. Code § 21064.3.
19 See HCD, 2024 CTCAC Opportunity Map (https://belonging.berkeley.edu/final-2024-ctcac-hcd-opportunity- map).

Palo Alto Planning Department
April 25, 2025

Page 6 ends

#519811046_v2
Summary of AB 1893 Criteria Project Consistency
APN 137-08-081 = 30 Mullen + 50% = 45
du/acre + 35 for “high resource” tract = 80
du/acre
• 16,275 square feet/113,907 square feet
x 80 = 11.430 du/acre

APN 137-08-088 = 30 Mullen + 50% = 45
du/acre + 35 for “high resource” tract = 80
du/acre
• 10,838 square feet/113,907 square feet
x 80 = 7.612 du/acre

3.651 + 6.944 + 51.788 + 7.160 + 19.911 +

11.430 + 7.612 = 108.496 du/acre base
maximum for the Project under AB 1893,
prior to using any State Density Bonus Law
bonus. This yields a 284 unit “base”
maximum.

The affordability requirement for AB 1893 is
a portion of the “base” maximum, making the
13% low income requirement equal to 37
units.

The Project achieves the currently proposed
335 units, because 13% low income units
achieves an up to 24.5% density bonus, and
284 (the base) + 70 (the maximum bonus) =
354 which is greater than the currently
proposed 335.

Minimum density (Gov. Code §
65589.5(h)(11)(D)).
(i) On sites that have a minimum density
requirement and are located within 1/2 mile of
a commuter rail station or a heavy rail station,
cannot go below the minimum.
(ii) On all other sites with a minimum density
requirement, the density of the project shall
Does the site have a minimum density
requirement under the local zoning
ordinance? If so, does the project satisfy the
statutory minimum density requirements? If
not, can it be revised to do so?
• Not applicable here – project
qualifies
Palo Alto Planning Department
April 25, 2025

Page 7 ends

#519811046_v2
Summary of AB 1893 Criteria Project Consistency
not be less than the local agency’s minimum
density or 1/2 of the “Mullen density,”
whichever is lower.20
Site restrictions (Gov. Code §
65589.5(h)(11)(E)).

The project site does not abut a site where
more than one-third of the square footage on
the site has been used, within the past three
years, by a heavy industrial use, or a Title V
industrial use, as those terms are defined in
Section 65913.16.21
Does the project site abut a disqualifying
industrial site?
• No

The Project’s Eligibility for the Protections of AB 1633 and a CEQA Infill Exemption We first note for informational purposes that the Project is eligible for the protections of AB 1633, which became effective January 1, 2024, as documented in more detail in the below chart. Under AB 1633, it is now a violation of the HAA to fail to grant qualifying projects a CEQA exemption, where there is substantial evidence in the record that the project is eligible for such an exemption.

AB 1633 limits the City’s authority to require analysis that is not legally required and beyond the limited scope of its discretion.

20“The following densities shall be deemed appropriate to accommodate housing for lower income households: (i) For an incorporated city within a nonmetropolitan county and for a nonmetropolitan county that has a micropolitan area:
sites allowing at least 15 units per acre. (ii) For an unincorporated area in a nonmetropolitan county not included in clause (i): sites allowing at least 10 units per acre. (iii) For a suburban jurisdiction: sites allowing at least 20 units per acre. (iv) For a jurisdiction in a metropolitan county: sites allowing at least 30 units per acre.” Gov. Code § 65583.2(c)(3)(B).
21 Gov. Code § 65913.16(b): (4) “Heavy industrial use” means a use that is a source, other than a Title V source, as defined by Section 39053.5 of the Health and Safety Code, that is subject to permitting by a district, as defined in Section 39025 of the Health and Safety Code,21 pursuant to Division 26 (commencing with Section 39000) of the Health and Safety Code or the federal Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. Sec. 7401 et seq.). A use where the only source permitted by a district is an emergency backup generator, and the source is in compliance with permitted emissions and operating limits, is not a heavy industrial use. […] (11) “Title V industrial use” means a use that is a Title V source, as defined in Section 39053.5 of the Health and Safety Code.21 Palo Alto Planning Department
April 25, 2025

Page 8 ends

#519811046_v2
AB 1633 Eligibility Criteria Project Consistency
(1) “[S]ubstantial evidence in the record before the local agency that the housing development project is not located . . .” in the following areas:22 Within specified areas of a coastal
zone23
There are not any parts of Palo Alto that are in the
coastal zone.
“Either prime farmland or farmland of
statewide importance . . . designated
on the maps prepared by the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program of
the Department of Conservation, or
land zoned or designated for
agricultural protection or preservation
by a local ballot measure that was
approved by the voters of that
jurisdiction.”
24 The Project site is not designated prime farmland or farmland of statewide importance by the California
Department of Conservation.
25 The Project site is not
zoned or designated for agricultural protection, but
rather is zoned for urban uses and surrounded by
other urban uses.

Wetlands26 The Project site is primarily developed with urban uses and does not contain wetlands.

A hazardous waste site listed on the
Cortese List “or a hazardous waste site
designated by the Department of Toxic
Substances Control,” unless the
Department of Toxic Substances
Control has cleared the site for
residential or residential mixed uses.
27 The Project site is not listed.28
Within a state-delineated earthquake
fault zone, “unless the development
complies with applicable seismic
protection building code standards
adopted by the California Building
The Project site is not located within a state-
delineated earthquake fault zone.30

22 Gov. Code § 65589.5 .1(a)(1): On a site specified in subparagraphs (A) to (C), inclusive, or subparagraphs (E) to (K), inclusive, of paragraph (6) of subdivision (a) of Section 65913.4.” 23 Gov. Code § 65913.4(a)(6)(A) (as amended by SB 423 (2023)). 24 Gov. Code § 65913.4(a)(6)(B).
25 See https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/, last accessed April 13, 2025. 26 Gov. Code § 65913.4(a)(6)(C) (“as defined in the United States Fish and Wildlife Service Manual, Part 660 FW 2 (June 21, 1993)”).
27 Gov. Code § 65913.4(a)(6)(E).
28 California Environmental Protection Agency Cortese List: https://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/, last visited April 12, 2025.
30 See https://usgs.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=5a6038b3a1684561a9b0aadf88412fcf, last accessed April 13, 2025.

Palo Alto Planning Department
April 25, 2025

Page 9 ends

#519811046_v2
AB 1633 Eligibility Criteria Project Consistency
Standards Commission . . ., and by any
local building department . . ..”29
“Within a special flood hazard area
subject to inundation by the 1 percent
chance of flood,” unless the project
has been issued a Letter of Map
Revision or flood plain development
permit.
31 The Project site is located within the X flood zone
which is not a special flood hazard area.32
Within a floodway, unless the project
has received a no-rise certification.33
The Project site is not located within a floodway.34
“Lands identified for conservation in
an adopted natural community
conservation plan . . ., habitat
conservation plan . . ., or other adopted
natural resource protection plan.”
35 The Project site is designated as an urban area and is not identified for conservation.
“Habitat for protected species
identified as candidate, sensitive, or
species of special status by state or
federal agencies, fully protected
species, or species protected by the
Federal Endangered Species Act . . .,
the California Endangered Species Act
. . ., or the Native Plant Protection Act
. . ..”
36 The Project site is mostly improved with urban uses
and surrounded by urban uses, and the vacant portion
of the Project site appears to be regularly mowed,
and is fenced. We do not anticipate the Project site
contains such habitat.
“Lands under conservation
easement.”37
We do not understand there to be any conservation
easements recorded on the Project site, based on the
Project’s title report.

29 Gov. Code § 65913.4(a)(6)(F).
31 Gov. Code § 65913.4(a)(6)(G).
32 See https://hazards-
fema.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=8b0adb51996444d4879338b5529aa9cd, last accessed April 13, 2025.
33 Gov. Code § 65913.4(a)(6)(H).
34 See https://hazards-
fema.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=8b0adb51996444d4879338b5529aa9cd, last accessed April 13, 2025.
35 Gov. Code § 65913.4(a)(6)(I).
36 Gov. Code § 65913.4(a)(6)(J).
37 Gov. Code § 65913.4(a)(6)(K).

Palo Alto Planning Department
April 25, 2025

Page 10 ends

#519811046_v2
AB 1633 Eligibility Criteria Project Consistency
“Within a very high fire hazard
severity zone, as determined by the
Department of Forestry and Fire
Protection.”
38 The Project site is not located within a Very High
Fire Hazard Severity Zone within the State
Responsibility Area as determined by CALFire.
39 (2) The project’s parcel(s) is legal and located “within an urbanized area40 and meets one or the more of the following criteria . . ..”41
Located within 0.5 mile “walking
distance” of “a high quality transit
corridor,” as defined in Public
Resources Code Section 21155(b), or
“a major transit stop,” as defined in
Pub. Res. Code Section 21064.3.
42 N/A. Analysis not required because the Project
qualifies under one or more other criteria.
“[L]ocated in a very low vehicle travel
area”43
N/A. Analysis not required because the Project
qualifies under one or more other criteria.
“[P]roximal to six or more amenities .
. . as of the date of the” application’s
submittal.
44 A project is proximal an amenity if it
is within:
• .5 mile of “[a] bus station” or “[a]
ferry terminal”; OR
1 mile of “[a] supermarket or grocery
store,” “public park,” “community
center,” “pharmacy or drugstore,”
“medical clinic or hospital,” “public
The Project is within 1 mile of the Stanford/Palo Alto
Community Playing Fields; Grocery Outlet; Barron
Park Elementary School; Cornelis Bol Park; and
likely others. Analysis not required because the
Project qualifies under one or more other criteria –
see row immediately below.

38 Gov. Code § 65589.5.1(a)(1)(B) (“Within a very high fire hazard severity zone, as determined by the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection pursuant to Section 51178, or within a high or very high fire hazard severity zone as indicated on maps adopted by the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection pursuant to Section 4202 of the Public Resources Code.”).
39 See https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/what-we-do/community-wildfire-preparedness-and-mitigation/fire-hazard-severity- zones, last accessed April 13, 2025.
40 A parcel is within an urbanized area if it meets the definition provided in Public Resources Code Section 21071.

Gov. Code § 65589.5 .1(b)(5). The Project site is located in an urbanized area because Palo Alto is a qualifying incorporated city because its population, when combined with the populations of contiguous cities Menlo Park and East Palo Alto, is greater than 100,000.
41 Gov. Code § 65589.5.1(a)(2).
42 Gov. Code § 65589.5.1(a)(2)(A).
43 Gov. Code § 65589.5.1(a)(2)(B).
44 Gov. Code § 65589.5.1(a)(2)(C).

Palo Alto Planning Department
April 25, 2025

Page 11 ends

#519811046_v2
AB 1633 Eligibility Criteria Project Consistency
library,” or school serving any grade -
kindergarten to 12th grade.45
75% of the project site’s perimeter (or
3 sides of a 4 sided project site) is
adjoined by urban uses.
46 The Project Site is fully surrounded by urban uses, as shown on Google Maps.

(3) The project’s density meets the following criteria
“[M]eets or exceeds 15 dwelling units
per acre.”47
The Project far exceeds the requirement for at least
15 du/ac.
(4) “There is substantial evidence in the record that”
• The “project is eligible for an
exemption”48; AND
• That any categorical exemption
sought is not barred by an
applicable exception.49
We anticipate that the Project qualifies for the Class
32 Urban Infill Exemption, see the discussion below.

We anticipate that the City will find the Project eligible for a Class 32 Infill Exemption, because it meets the Class 32 Infill Exemption criteria and is not subject to any of the exceptions, as documented below.

1. The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations.

45 Gov. Code § 65589.5.1(b)(4).
46 Gov. Code § 65589.5.1(a)(2)(D).
47 Gov. Code § 65589.5.1(a)(3).
48 Gov. Code § 65589.5.1(a)(4)(A)
49 Gov. Code § 65589.5.1(a)(4)(B).

Palo Alto Planning Department
April 25, 2025

Page 12 ends

#519811046_v2
As revised to proceed under Builder’s Remedy 2.0, the Project is consistent as a matter of law. AB 1893 provides that any project that complies with AB 1893 “shall be deemed consistent, compliant, and in conformity with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, redevelopment plan and implementing instruments, or other similar provision for all purposes.” 50 On February 7, 2025, San Jose received a Technical Assistance letter from the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) that says due to AB 1893, lead agencies cannot rely on subdivision (a) of CEQA Guidelines section 15332 to preclude a projec t that meets the definition of “ Builder’s Remedy” from utilizing a Class 32 Infill Exemption. Builder’s Re medy projects that meet all other criteria for a Class 32 Infill Exemption, and for which none of the exceptions criteria in Section 15300.2 of the CE QA Guidelines apply, are eligible for a Class 32 Infill Exemption.

2. The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses.

The Project Site is approximately 2.61 acres, and is entirely surrounded by urban uses.

3. The project site has no value as a habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species.

The Project Site is not identified in any regional, state, or federal plans for habitat or conservation.

The Project S ite is developed with urban uses and is surrounded by urban development and significant roadways including El Camino Real, and has no anticipated value as habitat for threatened, rare or endangered species. The vacant portion of the Project Site is regularly mowed and is surrounded by other urban development.

4. Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality or water quality.

The Project does not entail any unusual methods of construction or particularly impactful use, and we anticipate that the Project will be found not to cause significant traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality impacts.

5. The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services.

The Project would not propose unusually intensive uses, and will be required to comply with all local regulations governing the provision of utilities and public services.

Exceptions to Categorical Exemptions
51:

50 Govt. Code §65589.5(f)(1)(D)(iii).
51 CEQA Guidelines § 15300.2.

Palo Alto Planning Department
April 25, 2025

Page 13 ends

#519811046_v2

1. The project will not have a significant cumulative impact resulting from “successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time.” 52 The Project is a single residential development, and there is no plan to propose “successive” development on the Project Site. Accordingly, we anticipate the City will conclude that the Project will not have any new cumulative impacts related to “successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time.”

2. The project will not “have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances.”
53 There are no unusual circumstances related to the Project. In determining whether the “unusual circumstances” exception applies, the only questions are (a) whether there is any substantial evidence to support the City’s conclusion that the Project does not have unusual features that distinguish it from other comparable Class 32 infill projects, and (b) whether any project opponents have shown that “the project will have a significant environmental effect.” 54 The Project is a typical infill housing development project and we anticipate that substantial evidence will demonstrate that the Project will not have a significant effect on the environment.

Further, no opponents have demonstrated that the project “will have” significant environmental effects.

3. The project will not “result in damage to scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings, or similar resources, within a highway officially designated as a state scenic highway.”
55 The Project has no effect on scenic highways.

4. The project is not “located on a site which is included on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code.”56
The Project Site is not listed on the Cortese List and it is not designated by the Department of Toxic Substances Control as a hazardous waste site.57

52 CEQA Guidelines § 15300.2(b).
53 CEQA Guidelines § 15300.2(c).
54 Walters v. City of Redondo Beach (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 809, 822-23 (emphasis in the original). 55 CEQA Guidelines § 15300.2(d).
56 CEQA Guidelines § 15300.2(e).
57 California Environmental Protection Agency Cortese List: https://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/, last visited April 12, 2025.

Palo Alto Planning Department
April 25, 2025

Page 14 ends

#519811046_v2

5. The project will not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource.”
58 The Project Site is not a designated as historic. This exception may only be applied to the extent that designation had already been made on or before the Project’s complete application was submitted.
59 As outlined in this letter, the Project is eligible for AB 1633 and a Class 32 Infill Exemption. The Applicant would like to move forward with the process to complete CEQA, including any specific studies required, and look forward to discussing with the City as soon as possible. We appreciate the City’s attention to this Project.

Sincerely,

HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP

Genna Yarkin
Chelsea Maclean

58 CEQA Guidelines § 15300.2(f).
59 Gov. Code § 65913.10.

This firm represents Vittoria Management, Inc. (the “Applicant”), on behalf of whom we are pleased to provide the enclosed formal application for redevelopment of the property at 3606 El Camino Real (the “Project Site”) in Palo Alto, California (the “City”). 1 The project proposes to redevelop the Project Site with 335 multifamily units (the “Project”) , providing high-quality housing in a contemporary architectural style that will create visual interest and enhance the El Camino corridor, while contributing to the City’s achievement of the City’s regional housing needs allocation. As a housing development project, the Project is subject to Senate Bill (“SB”) 330 and protected by the Housing Accountability Act (“HAA”).
2 The purpose of this letter is to transmit the project’s formal planning application. The application provides the information required by the City’s Preliminary ARB Submittal Requirements Checklist and Major/Minor Architectural Review Submittal Requirements Checklist, which we understand to be the City’s requirements for the Project’s formal planning application.

I. SB 330 and the “Builder’s Remedy” Provision of the HAA Pursuant to SB 330, t he Applicant submitted a preliminary application on January 30 2024, with the information required by Government Code Section 65941.1 and paid the City’s required fee on February 15, 2024. Accordingly, the Applicant obtained a vested right to develop a housing 1 The Project Site is composed of APNs: 137-08-16, 137-08-88, 137-08-79, 137-08-80, 137-08-81, 137-08-77, 137- 08-70.
2 Gov. Code § 65589.5. The Project qualifies as a housing development project protected by the HAA because the Project proposes all residential units. Gov. Code § 65589.5(h)(2)(A).

Palo Alto Planning & Development
June 6, 2024

Page 2 ends

#503733576_v1
development project in accordance with the applicable “ordinances, policies, and standards” in effect as of February 15, 2024, subject to a requirement to submit a formal application within 180 days, or by August 13, 2024.
3 The enclosed formal application materials are hereby submitted in satisfaction of that requirement.

An applicant’s vested rights include a right to proceed under the City’s housing element compliance status in effect at the time of the submittal of the Project’s SB 330 preliminary application.4 The compliance status of a jurisdiction’s housing element is determined by the Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”) and “HCD’s determination of substantial compliance with the Housing Element [l]aw, or lack thereof, is entitled to deference.”5 As confirmed by HCD, when a preliminary application submittal “occurs at a time when the jurisdiction does not have a compliant housing element, any potential benefits afforded to the applicant as a result of the jurisdiction’s noncompliant status . . . remain throughout the entitlement process even if the jurisdiction subsequently achieves compliance during the entitlement process.”6

Our cover letter for the Project’s SB 330 preliminary application explains in detail why the City’s housing element was not in substantial compliance with H ousing Element law at the time of the Project’s SB 330 preliminary application submittal. Additionally, the Applicant submitted an SB 330 preliminary application prior to the City’s adoption of the City’s housing element on April 15, 2024 and HCD has not yet certified the adopted housing element . Therefore, Applicant’s SB 330 preliminary application vested against the City’s non-compliant housing element and the City must process Applicant’s appl ication for a housing development project regardless of whether the Project complies with the City’s zoning or general plan. 7 The proposal of a housing development project that does not comply with a jurisdiction’s applicable general plan designation or zoning, and which is made while a jurisdiction’s housing element is not in substantial compliance with Housing Element law, is informally known as the “Builder’s Remedy.” As explained in our prior letter, the City is prohibited from disapproving a qualifying Builder’s Remedy project “on the grounds it does not comply with the municipality’s zoning and general plan.”
8 To qualify as a Builder’s Remedy project, the project must include

3 Gov. Code § 65589.5(o)(1); § 65941.1(d).
4 California Housing Defense Fund v. City of La Cañada Flintridge, Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. 23STPC02614, Order on Petitions For Writ of Mandate and Complaints for Declaratory Relief (“Builder’s Remedy Order”), (Mar. 4, 2024), at 15-16.
5 Id. at 19 (citations omitted).
6 See HCD, “3030 Nebraska Avenue, Santa Monica – Letter of Technical Assistance” (Oct. 5, 2022).

Available at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and-community/HAU/santa-monica-TA- 100522.pdf.
7 California Housing Defense Fund, Builder’s Remedy Order, at 33 (holding that “the City is required by law to process the application pursuant to the Builder’s Remedy provision of the HAA” and that is is an abuse of discretion to find “that the Builder’s Remedy does not apply”).
8 California Housing Defense Fund, Builder’s Remedy Order, at 1; Gov. Code § 65589.5(d).

Palo Alto Planning & Development
June 6, 2024

Page 3 ends

#503733576_v1
housing “for very low, low-, or moderate-income households,” at the statutorily prescribed levels.9 For purposes of the HAA, housing “for very low, low-, or moderate-income households” includes projects in which at least 20% of the units are rented at affordable rents to lower -income households.10

Here, the Project will reserve 20% of the Project’s units as affordable to lower income households Therefore, because the Project will provide the requisite levels of affordable units and the City’s housing element was out of compliance at the time the Project’s SB 330 preliminary application was submitted, the City may not deny the Project for noncompliance with the existing general plan designation or zoning. For this reason, the Project is not required to, and is not designed to comply in all respects with the Project site’s zoning or general plan designations. The Project design may continue to evolve throughout the processing of the Project’s application because a project’s vested rights are maintained as long as “the number of residential units or square footage of construction” does not change by more than 20%.
11 II. State Density Bonus Law – Right Reserved

By providing 20% of the Project’s units affordable to lower income households, the Project is entitled to the benefits of the State Density Bonus Law (“SDBL”), Gov. Code § 65915. This letter reserves the right to apply for certain benefits under the SDBL at a later date. Pursuant to the SDBL, the Project’s affordability level entitles the Project to all of the following separate categories of benefits:

• (1) A 35% density bonus over the base density;
• (2) Two mandatory concessions or incentives;
• (3) Any required physical waivers of development standards to accommodate the Project; and
• (4) Applicable mandatory residential parking standards.

Because the Project is a qualifying Builder’s Remedy project, the Project is not limited by existing zoning or general plan standards and the City must process the Project’s application consistent with the requirements under state housing law .
12 Although the Project is not required to exercise
the Project’s right to a density bonus, the Applicant reserves the right to apply for density bonus units, up to the maximum, and other protections for which it is eligible. The Project is not required to utilize a density bonus in order to qualify for incentives, concessions, waivers, and parking reductions. Applicant reserves the right to identify and apply for SDBL concessions or incentives, waivers, and parking reductions at a later date.

9 Gov. Code § 65589.5(d).
10 Gov. Code § 65589.5(h)(3).
11 Gov. Code § 655895(o)(2)(E).
12 Gov. Code § 65589.5(f)(1) (any objective policies, standards, or conditions applied to the project must “be applied to facilitate and accommodate development at the density . . . proposed by the development”).

Palo Alto Planning & Development
June 6, 2024

Page 4 ends

#503733576_v1

Please note that the City’s authority to review the “completeness” of the Project’s formal development application is strictly limite d to determining whether the application provided the material contained on the City’s official submittal requirements checklist(s), as they existed at the time of submittal.
13 Additionally, “[i]n any subsequent review of the application determined to be incomplete, the local agency shall not request the applicant to provide any new information that was not stated in the initial list of items that were not complete.” 14 We look forward to receiving the City’s response to the enclosed formal application and welcome further advisory comments in addition to the completeness determination.

Thank you for your attention to this matter, we look forward to working with the City on bringing this project to fruition.

Sincerely yours,

HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP

Genna Yarkin
Chelsea Maclean

13 Gov. Code § 65943(a); see also Gov. Code §§ 65940, 65941, 65941.5. 14 Gov. Code § 65943(a).

Palo Alto City CouncilApril 13, 2026

Palo Alto City Council
April 13, 2026