From: Brian O"Neill
To: Council, City; Clerk, City
Cc: Burt, Patrick; Lauing, Ed; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer; Veenker, Vicki; Lait, Jonathan; Prior, Christine; Asher Orion
Subject: Agenda Item 11 - 531 Stanford
Date: Monday, April 20, 2026 12:04:23 PM
Attachments: 2026.04.20 Appeal Brief.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Council:
Please see the attached response to the Staff Report submitted on behalf of the Appellant for Agenda Item 11 on tonight’s agenda regarding the Demolition Order for 531 Stanford. The Exhibits are too large to submit via email, and can be accessed here:
https://pattersononeill.egnyte.com/fl/dWtdKVrdhVCj
Thank you for your attention to this important matter.
Sincerely,
Brian O’Neill
Patterson & O’Neill, PC
Office: (415) 907-9110
Direct: (415) 907-7702
235 Montgomery Street, Suite 950
San Francisco, CA 94104
[email protected]
www.pattersononeill.com
This email may contain privileged or confidential material for the sole use of the intended recipient. Review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the original sender and delete all copies. Nothing in this email or any attachments should be regarded as tax advice unless expressly stated.
PATTERSON & O’NEILL, PC
235 Montgomery Street, Suite 950
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 907-9110
Facsimile: (415) 907-7704
www.pattersononeill.com
VIA EMAIL
Palo Alto City Council
Office of the City Clerk: City Hall, 7th Floor
250 Hamilton Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Re: Appeal of Notice and Order to Demolish/Deconstruct and Remove Buildings 531 Stanford Avenue
Dear Mayor Veenker and Councilmembers:
This letter is to provide additional information in support of the Owners’ appeal of the City Building Official’s Notice and Order to Demolish/Deconstruct and Remove Buildings (“Demolition Order”) for the existing buildings at 531 Stanford Avenue, site of the Stanford Terrace Inn.
The existing buildings do not meet the criteria to support a demolition order under City’s Municipal Code, and the City lacks substantial evidence to support ordering the demolition of structurally sound buildings. The Demolition Order also demands deconstruction, which cannot be legal required. Regardless, the Owners are nonetheless already in the process of seeking the approval of a housing development project on the site that would ultimately result in the removal of the buildings and construction of 21+ units of new housing (Planning Application No. 26PLN- 00011). In fact, the Owners have been attempting to pursue redevelopment since 2023 – prior to the City’s first Notice of Violation issued in 2024 – but these efforts have been stymied time and time again.
The Demolition Order is yet another example of the City’s attempt to take the Owners’ property without just compensation and prevent any economically beneficial use of a privately owned property. The Owners have promptly responded to all the City’s demands to address any issues with property, including securing the site, addressing violations, removing debris, ensuring hazardous materials were removed, and maintaining landscaping. Rather than prematurely order demolition, the Council should grant the appeal, modify the Demolition Order, and direct City staff to focus on the approval of desperately needed housing that will accomplish the same goal.
The Buildings Do Not Meet the Criteria For Demolition
The Palo Alto Municipal Code only provides a City Building Official with the authority to order the demolition of a dangerous building in two limited circumstances. Specifically, a City Building Official can only require demolition if 1) a dangerous building is fifty percent damaged, decayed or deteriorated from its replacement value or structure or where a building cannot be repaired so that it will no longer violate the City code; or 2) where a dangerous building is a fire hazard existing or erected in violation of the City Code. (PAMC 16.40.050(c).)
The Demolition Order cites this provision but fails to provide any findings to support the Demolition Order. This is unsurprising, because the buildings at 531 Stanford do not meet the requirements that would permit the City to order demolition of a private building.
First, the buildings have not sustained damage, decay or deterioration in an amount equal to 50% of their replacement value. The Owners had the buildings inspected by a structural engineer, who confirmed that the buildings are structurally sound and remain in good condition. The City has not provided any assessment of the value, nor documented the cost of repairs, let alone documented that such damage equates to an amount equal to 50% of the replacement value.
Courts have found that an arbitrary determination that a building should be demolished rather than repaired is invalid. (Perepletchikoff v. City of Los Angeles (1959) 174 Cal. App. 2d 697.)
The City lacks any evidence at all that buildings meet this criteria. Nowhere in the 250+ page staff report, published just days before the hearing, does the City even attempt to place a value on the buildings. The City cannot possibly make findings that the buildings are fifty percent damaged from their replacement value when no value has been identified.
Second, the buildings do not pose any fire hazards and were erected in compliance with City Code in effect at the time of construction. The Demolition Order repeats many of the same conclusory findings of purported violations that were issued in a prior Notice of Violation. The complete lack of specificity and evidence in the Demolition Order makes it impossible for the Owners to address with particularity the City’s findings. This itself is an issue of due process, as the City Code requires a Demolition Order to include a “finding that repair or rehabilitation is impracticable, with a brief statement of the facts upon which such finding is based.” (PAMC
16.40.060(b)(2).) Here, the Demolition Order contained no such findings or facts, preventing the Owners from having a meaningful opportunity to respond.
Courts have explained that a
property owner has an “elementary . . . clear constitutional right” to due process regarding “whether in fact and law” a property is a nuisance that requires demolition. (Leppo v. City of Petaluma (1971) 20 Cal. App. 3d 711)
The City has now published a 250+ staff report just days before the hearing, finally elaborating on these purported violations, which demonstrate that many of them are inaccurate, immaterial, or grossly overstated, while many others have already abated by the Owners. Even now after ther 250+ pages have been published, many of the “violations” lack any specificity or evidence, often with no citation to any specific code. A vague statement that a particular issue violates the entirety of the PAMC does not provide the Owner’s with the ability to respond.
For example, one of the major claims is that the buildings fire sprinklers have not been inspected and are not functional. This is false. The Owners completed the 5-Year internal sprinkler checks and hydrostatic testing required by Title 19 in 2020, with testing again in 2023, which confirmed that the sprinklers were functional and passed all required tests prior to the 2024 Notice of Violation. (See Exhibit A). While the declarations of City officials state visual observations “indicates” that the sprinklers could fail – actual testing of the system contradicts this claim. The City officials also suggest, without actually stating, that a lack of sprinklers on the upper floors is a code violation. This is unsurprising that the City officials do not state that this is a code violation, because it is not, as the officials are likely quite aware that existing buildings are only required to be equipped with sprinklers for A-2 (assembly for food/beverage) and I-2 uses (buildings for 24-hour medical care of five or more persons).
The City also claims various other violations that are simply not true. The City states that the pool was installed without a permit. While installation of the pool long pre-dates the Owner’s involvement with the property, the Owners have pool installation plans provided by the prior owners dating from 1998 that state a permit had been issued. (See Exhibit B.)
Other examples include a purported unpermitted gazebo even though detached accessory structures less than 120 square feet are exempt from permit requirements. The City claim the Owners violated City code by referring to the building as 520 Oxford because this address “was never formally assigned,” yet admit that the “property is also referenced in various records as 520 Oxford Avenue.” Other inconsistencies include claiming that the elevators “were not in service,” while earlier claiming the elevators were operating without proper certifications.
Other purported violations are simply conjecture without evidence, such as the claim that it “appears” that the second-floor balcony had been shored “indicating awareness” of a structural deficiency. The City uses this “appearance” of work to infer the subjective determination of an unknown third party to come to a “potential” conclusion of a structural deficiency. This, of course, is nonsensical. If the Owners did indeed complete unpermitted shoring work, this work would have fixed any structural issues. The City’s declarations do not state that the balcony is displaying any lagging, splaying, fracturing, or any other visible sign of damage. Furthermore, these posts were installed as landscaping features for climbing vines. As the City is aware, these posts were removed after the City claimed they were unpermitted – without any impact on the second-floor balcony.
Many of the cited violations could be easily corrected, such as fixing signage, labeling electric panels, removing pillow and bedding storage, and ensuring that accessways and egress remains clear – and many of these violations were addressed in the immediate aftermath of the first Notice of Violation. Then after the Owners had complied with some of the City’s demands, such as removing lighting and signage, the City then issued a violation for missing signage.
Other violations are for purported unpermitted work (which the Owners do not concede are all true) that could be remedied simply with the submittal and approval of a permit. However, as explained, the Owners have been seeking to redevelop the property. It simply does not make sense to pursue approval of permits to legalize any work at this point. But regardless, none of these violations rise to level of ordering structurally sound, privately owned buildings demolished.
Finally, some of the violations are merely about habitability and occupancy. The City very well knows that the building was ordered to be vacated. The City has ordered that the buildings be locked, and the Owners themselves do not even have permission to enter their own buildings for over a year. A vacant building cannot possibly be in violation of use and occupancy requirements.
The City has failed to make the findings and present facts to require demolition of the buildings because the buildings do not meet the criteria for demolition.
As such, the Demolition Order
cannot be upheld. At a minimum, the City must provide the findings and facts to the Owners to provide the Owners with a meaningful opportunity to respond.
The City Lacks the Authority to Require Deconstruction
The Demolition Order cites to PAMC § 5.24 in support of the City’s demand for deconstruction.
The City Code requiring deconstruction clearly states the following:
5.24.080 Exclusions.
The provisions of this chapter shall not apply to the following:
(a) Dangerous Structures. Any building or structure that has been determined to be dangerous, structurally unsafe or otherwise hazardous to human life, and is required to be abated by demolition.
Even if the City upholds the Demolition Order, the City’s requirements for deconstruction in PAMC § 5.24 clearly would not apply. We are unaware of any other code basis that would authorize the City to require deconstruction and the City’s demand for deconstruction is not authorized by law.
The Owners Have Already Submitted and Completed a Hazmat Closure Permit and Submitted a Demolition Permit
The Demolition Order demands that the applicant take immediate steps to submit two applications, including a demolition permit and hazardous material closure permit.
The Owners first submitted a demolition application in October 2024. The City had this application for over a year and never identified any deficiencies. The City refused to even consider a demolition application until September 2025, first stating that demolition could not be completed until a redevelopment plan was approved. The Owners submitted this application again in October 2025. (See Exhibit C, Declaration of Isaac Winer).
In addition, the Owners already submitted a Hazmat Closure Permit (Permit No. 24HZM- 00040). The Hazmat Closure plan was approved by Palo Alto Fire Department, and the Owners completed all steps necessary to complete the plan. The Owners’ representatives did a final walk-through with Mike Espeland of Palo Alto Fire Department in May 2024 to confirm all steps had been completed.
(See Exhibit D, Declaration of Isaac Winer).
It is unclear why the Demolition Order continues to list violations that have long been abated and demand applications that have already been submitted. This appears to be aimed at creating a false impression that the Owners have been dilatory and negligent in responding to City staff.
Nothing could be further from the truth. (See generally Declaration of Isaac Winer.)
In fact, as explained in more detail below, the Owners have made multiple attempts to ensure the property is well maintained and provide reasonable investment-backed expectations. The reason why the property is currently fenced off with vacant buildings is solely due to the City’s actions.
And not the City has used this vacancy to its advantage, claiming that this has led to deterioration to support its Demolition Order. The City itself has prevented the Owners have from accessing their own property to keep it maintained.
The City Has Systematically Taken Steps to Prevent Any Use of the Property
History of Non-Transient Residential Use
The current Owners first become involved in the property 531 Stanford Avenue in 2010, when the property was purchased by Fortune Sun, Inc.
(“Fortune”). This entity took over operations of
the existing Stanford Terrace Inn, a well-known hotel that had operated for decades prior to Fortune’s ownership. The hotel had a long history of hosting many guests for long-term stays, including faculty members and students who used the Stanford Terrace Inn as their residence, as well as short-term transient guests. In 2018, the buildings were sold to Aurora Rising, Inc. (“Aurora”), who continued to operate the Stanford Terrace Inn in the same manner.
In the Spring of 2020, as a result of COVID, the Stanford Terrace Inn rapidly lost its transient customer base, began to operate at a loss, and was forced to lay off most of its staff. The few customers who remained were the non-transient users, specifically Stanford faculty members and students who continued to reside at the property for stays longer than 30 days. On the advice of former counsel, the Owners increased the number of long-term guests upon the belief that this use was not only lawful, but a benefit to the community. Contrary to the staff report’s claims, the Owners continued to register the hotel as a business and kept up with City permit requirements. (See Exhibit E.)
On or about June 18, 2021, the City of Palo Alto sent a letter to the ownership of Stanford Terrace Inn, expressing preliminary interest in purchasing the subject property for possible inclusion in the State’s Project HomeKey program to provide housing for unhoused residents.
The City sent similar inquiries in 2022. At this time the Owners informed the City that they were in discussions with a hotel operator to renovate the property into a four-star, high-end hotel.
In other words, just four years ago the City believed the Stanford Terrace Inn was not only suitable for residential uses, but desired to purchase the buildings that it now seeks to order demolished.
The City Prevents Continued Historical Use of the Property On February 28, 2024, the City sent a “courtesy notice” of the City’s intention to inspect the buildings for an enforcement “investigation” based on a determination that the property appeared to be used for long term stays – even though the Stanford Terrace Inn had long been used for such purposes and the City had been aware of this well-established use for years.
The City took the position that because the number of transient guests had dwindled, the hotel use had been abandoned. Because the property was zoned RM-30, the City made clear that its preference was for the property to be redeveloped for high density housing. The Owners believe this particular property had been singled out by the City for disparate treatment. While many other hotels in the City also regularly allow long term stays, the Owners know of no other investigations or similar actions being taken against other properties.
The City Prevents Any Continued Use of the Property
Three days after the Planning Department met with the property management’s legal representative to discuss redevelopment options now that the City took the position that the hotel use had been abandoned, the City issued a formal Notice of Violation.
The City then embarked on an aggressive enforcement campaign, sending more than ten officials to investigate the property, including code enforcement, building, and fire officials. Many officials arrived in uniform with badges,
conducted an aggressive and comprehensive search, and
photographed and documented technical code violations throughout the premises.
The Notice of Violation cited numerous purported violations without citing to any specific code provisions. Some of the violations were related to residential code standards that would only apply if the hotel had been abandoned. The Notice required immediate fire-watch services by March 22, complete evacuation of upper floors, and numerous corrective actions by March 25, 2024. The Notice also warned of possible declarations of substandard conditions, fines, or abatement orders if compliance was not achieved.
The Owners complied, including by providing fire watch services and taking remedial actions such as providing smoke detectors and carbon monoxide alarms, removing deadbolts from doors, and ensuring all exits were cleared. Ultimately, ownership was forced by the City to cease long term guest stays and clear the building.
The City Strips the Owners of Builder’s Remedy Vesting Rights Following the Notice of Violation, Owners sought to redevelop the property for high-density housing. The Owners submitted a preliminary application for 36 units of new housing, including six below-market-rate units, utilizing the “builder’s remedy” provision of the Housing Accountability Act on April 10, 2024. (Application No. 24APP-01150.) The Owners submitted a formal application on September 16, 2024 – within 180 days of the preliminary application submittal to maintain vesting rights in the builder’s remedy.
City staff, however, took the position that the formal application would not be considered “submitted” until the applicant scheduled an intake appointment, the City’s system issued an invoice, and application fees were paid. The City denied payment and unlawfully removed the application from the City’s system.
The Department of Housing and Community Development, the state agency tasked with enforcing state housing law, has advised local governments that fee invoices must be provided concurrently with submittal and any delay in providing fee invoices is inconsistent with the Permit Streamlining Act.
1 HCD has also confirmed that requiring “intake” meetings before an application is considered “submitted” is inconsistent with the requirements of the Permit Streamlining Act and a constraint on the development of housing. 2 Because the City unlawfully
prevented the Owners from submitting a formal application and the City had subsequently come into compliance with the Housing Element Law, the Owners lost the ability to pursue the builder’s remedy project. (See Exhibit F.)
But this is not the only application that the Owners submitted. The Owners submitted multiple different plans for projects of various sizes over several months. Each time an application was submitted, it was removed from the City’s system or otherwise blocked by City staff. (See Exhibit G.) To suggest that the Owners have done nothing over the 18 months is simply not true.
The Owners have consistently attempted to pursue demolition and redevelopment over the last three years without success.
The Owners Are Pursing a New Housing Project and the City Continues to Delay The Owners have since filed a new preliminary application for a 21-unit housing project on August 19, 2025. (Application No. 25PLN-00209). Our office submitted the preliminary application with a request that the City issue a CEQA exemption consistent with the newly enacted AB 130 exemption. The City appeared to cooperate and began AB 130’s tribal consultation process.
The owner’s representative met with City officials on September 11, 2025. The parties all seemed aligned to cooperate moving forward, keep open dialogue, and move toward the goal of demolishing the existing building and redeveloping the property. (See Declaration of Isaac Winer.)
Several months went by and our office requested issuance of the CEQA exemption on December 4, 2025. The City responded by arguing the Project did not qualify for the exemption and that the
1 See HCD’s Letter of Technical Assistance to Los Gatos, available here:
https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and-community/HAU/losgatos-hau891- ta-08302024.pdf
2 See HCD’s Letter of Technical Assistance to the City of Berkeley, available here:
https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and-community/HAU/berkeley-ta- hau331-120723.pdf
City had conducted the tribal scoping “in error.” While we disagree, it is inexplicable why this was never communicated to the Owners. The City simply made this determination in secret and waited for three months for Owner’s attorney to follow-up. (See Exhibit H.)
Further, while delaying approval of the Project, the City unilaterally sent the Demolition Order (to a vacant, fenced building) with an unreasonable timeline, without any attempt to contact the Owners or their representatives, and threatening fines and jail time for noncompliance. And this was merely a few weeks after meeting face to face to discuss cooperation and open communication.
The formal application was subsequently submitted on January 16, 2026 and the Owners have continued to pursue the current iteration of the project, yet the City has continued to stonewall the application most recently by issuing Notice of Incompleteness/Corrections that fails to comply with state law. Further, the Owners have been unable to focus its efforts on the planning process while having a looming Demolition Order an appeal clouding the property.
The City’s Actions Demonstrate a Pattern of Regulatory Overreach and Arbitrary Action that Prevents Beneficial Use of the Owners’ Property
The City’s actions described above have cost the Owners enormously both financially and emotionally. We believe the Owners’ decision not to sell the property to the City or repurpose it in accordance with the City’s preferred high-density housing agenda has provoked a systematic campaign of retaliation to prevent any beneficial economic use of their private property – first wrongfully finding that a historical nonconforming use had been abandoned; pursuing an aggressive and heavy-handed enforcement action; unlawfully preventing a housing project aligned with the Owners’ goal; and finally resulting in a Demolition Order that lacks the required findings and evidence.
The City has insisted on treating the removal of the current buildings separately from the proposed project, demanding that the Owners agree to a demolition timeline without providing any assurances that the Project will be timely approved. This is unacceptable. First, separating demolition from the redevelopment of the property will significantly increase construction costs and impact the financial feasibility of the Project. This would require removing the buildings, securing grading permits, backfilling the site, and removing all construction equipment – only to begin construction again in the near future and excavate the site that was just filled. This demand to demolish first is simply another attempt to prevent any redevelopment.
Second, there is an existing T-Mobile tower on the hotel building that needs to be relocated, and the proposed redevelopment is necessary to ensure uninterrupted service. Owners believe that this T-Mobile tower is critical to ensure adequate service for the City, including for emergency personnel. Third, the Owners are concerned that a vacant property with no active use will be a magnet for nuisance activities, trespassing, and other activities that will create a liability. The Demolition Order will
Appeal Request
Despite these prior challenges, the Owners have continued to engage in discussions with City personnel in an effort to redevelop the property – a goal shared by the Owners, the City, and the Community. The Demolition Order is not only legally deficient, it hinders that shared goal and does not demonstrate that the City is operating in good faith toward an amicable resolution. The Owners would have no reason to trust that the City will process the current pending application and may have no choice but to seek legal action to protect their property rights. This is not an outcome that any party desires.
As explained above, the Owners have been proactive in responding to the City’s concerns and are diligently pursuing a pending housing development project application that would result in removal of the buildings. While the buildings do not meet the criteria for demolition, the Owners only object to the unreasonable timeframe to complete the demolition and the “decoupling” of the demolition from the approval of the pending application and relocation of the T-Mobile tower. Based on the City’s prior actions, the Owners have grave concerns that the City will continue to stonewall the Owner’s desired redevelopment plans.
Pursuant to City Code, the Council has the authority to affirm, reverse, modify or set aside any order or action of the building official. (PAMC § 16.40.080(e).) To that end, Owners request that the Council modify the building official’s order to require demolition only upon the approval of Application No. 25PLN-00209 and associated building and demolition permits.
Very truly yours,
PATTERSON & O’NEILL, PC
_______________________________
Brian O’Neill
From: Rosita Wong
To: Council, City
Subject: Public comment for item 11 on Council Meeting April 20 agenda Date: Monday, April 13, 2026 1:21:29 PM
Attachments: Council Meeting April 20 Public Comment item 11 - WONG.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear City Council,
Please kindly find attached my public comment for item 11 on the council meeting agenda on April
20. Thank you,
Rosita Wong
546 Oxford Ave
Palo Alto
From: Rosita Wong
To: Council, City
Subject: One change - Public comment for item 11 on Council Meeting April 20 agenda Re: Your e-mail to City Council was received
Date: Monday, April 13, 2026 1:31:29 PM
Attachments: Council Meeting April 20 Public Comment item 11 - WONG.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
Mark Safe Report
Dear City Council,
I had a typo in my public comment. If you can kindly replace the old one with this attached PDF, I will greatly appreciate it.
Thank you
Rosita
On Apr 13, 2026, at 1:21 PM, Council, City <[email protected]> wrote:
Thank you for your comments to the City Council. Your e‐mail will be forwarded to all seven Council Members and a printout of your correspondence will also be included in the next available Council packet.
If your comments are about an item that is already scheduled for a City Council agenda, you can call (650) 329‐2571 to confirm that the item is still on the agenda for the next meeting.
If your letter mentions a specific complaint or a request for service, we'll either reply with an explanation or else send it on to the appropriate department for clarification.
We appreciate hearing from you.
------------------
Cybersecurity safety note: Official emails from the City of Palo Alto typically end with @cityofpaloalto.org and there are limited exceptions such as surveys or polls that may come from City consultants acting on the City’s behalf. Though the City doesn’t often solicit donations, City partners, including local foundations such as the Palo Alto Art Center Foundation, Friends of the Palo Alto Library, and Friends of the Palo Alto Junior Museum & Zoo do send out fundraising communications. Please contact the appropriate City department or City Council Member to double check its legitimacy and never share personal information or other secure details via Powered by Mimecast
April 13, 2026 Public Comment to City Council – April 20 Councill Meeting Agenda item 11: Quasi-Judicial: Adoption of a Resolution Documenting the City Council’s Consideration and Decision on an Appeal of the Chief Building Official’s Order to Demolish the Buildings Located at 531 Stanford Avenue. Commentor: Rosita Wong, home owner, 546 Oxford Ave (a single family home sharing rear and side property line with 531 Stanford and involved structures) Position: I urge the City Council to uphold the order to demolish the endangered buildings and to proceed with demolition promptly, in full compliance with asbestos and safety regulations. Comments: 1. An endangered complex encircling my house presenting hazards that threaten health and safety The city has fully and professionally examined the structures and, based on evidence, found the complex “to be dangerous and unsafe, constituting public nuisances that pose substantial danger to health, safety, and general welfare”, “The Order was based on findings that the structures were fifty percent or more damaged, decayed, or deteriorated, constituted fire hazards, and could not be repaired to eliminate code violations”.* It has been six months since the Order to Demolish the buildings was issued on October 16, 2025, that my house is standing next to structures facing high-risk of fire hazards due to the buildings’ “dilapidated fire sprinkler and fire alarm systems; high combustible storage creating excessive fire loads; improper hazardous materials storage; severely corroded and exposed electrical wiring creating ignition sources;…non-functioning fire-rated doors and assemblies compromising fire separation”.* My house on Oxford 531 Stanford Structures
Any delays to enforce the Order to Demolish pose daily threats to my house and people living inside – physically and mentally. We live with the risk that all it takes is someone leaving an unextinguished cigarette bud inside or around the buildings, especially when the structures are surrounded by uncared weeds, to catch a fire and could burn down the buildings, my house and could cause lives. 2. Increasing unwanted activities in/around 531 Stanford, raising risk of fire and health hazards I had called the police department non-emergency line many times since the buildings were red-taped, reporting individuals: hoping fences to get into the building, camping outside, leaving bottles of urine, food, bedsheets, trash, and even needles. These items are abandoned around the structures, some were left in the sidewalks, and outside my driveway. Oxford and Stanford are the major routes for children to bike to Escondido Elementary, Greene, and Paly. I ended up removing urine bottles, bedsheets, and needles in the mornings to prevent young children coming into contact with these items. I called Public Works many times requesting street cleaning because it smells urination outside the buildings and my house. My ring doorbell recorded an individual walked into my front yard and urinated behind my tree. Rats in the size of a small rabbit are often seen run around outside my house.
These unwanted human activities, with cigarette butts, human litters and needles are doubling the risks of fire hazards and threats to public health and safety. These activities are Urine bottle
Urine bottle Cigarette butts
Cigarette butts
unchecked. The police department has no authority to do anything about it. Yet, the vacant buildings continue to attract an increasing level of unwanted activities. One cigarette bud thrown into the buildings with dilapidated fire sprinkler and fire alarm systems; high combustible storage creating excessive fire loads; improper hazardous materials storage would burn down my house and take away lives. I sincerely urge to the city council to take into consideration of threats of the endangered structures to our neighborhood, and to enforce the Order to Demolish immediately without further delay. Being the neighboring property next to 531 Stanford, I am often reminded of the 3-alarm fire on El Camino and San Antonio in December 2023. Despite its separate nature from this case, it highlights the fact that human activities next door, near my doorstep could bring the same fast-spreading fire to my house and to our neighborhood. That grave reminder sent me to countless sleepless nights. 3. Requesting immediate demolition with proper compliance According to public record, 531 Stanford structures were built around 1955. By California law, constructures built prior to 1980 are subjected to asbestos inspection. I know some people close to 531 Stanford have respiratory issues, including myself. I request that any demolition work should meet city and state compliance. The buildings are multi-level and with underground parking, covering four parcels of land. Should there be asbestos contained, the amount of hazardous materials released to the air during months of demolition would be extremely harmful to people living nearby. When I demolished my old property (built in 1952) for re-construction in 2023, I followed the city’s compliance requirement, performed asbestos testing, and removed asbestos found professionally in order to obtain a J permit. 531 Stanford should be expected to follow the same compliance for public safety. 4. Developers’ economic interests should not be prioritized over public safety and human life Our neighborhood has already waited for six months since the Order to Demolish was issued. Each day passes, we risk fire hazards and public health safety threats. I find the developer’s appeal to link the demolition order to its future re-development plan unacceptable and urge the council to consider a rejection to this appeal based solely on the urgent needs for demolition.
Residents and homeowners who chose to call Palo Alto home and pay property taxes expect the city to protect our bottom line of safety and properties. That bottom line is universal to all residents and should not be seconded to any developers’ economic calculations. This developer has already set a negative precedent by maneuvering legal procedures to delay (since October 16, 2025) a needed enforcement of code violation that is jeopardizing our safety and quality of life. Most of us in the neighborhood do not have the resources to hire a fleet of attorneys to fight the process. We rely on the city professional staff and the city council members to stand up and defend what is universal to public health and safety for us. Palo Alto is a desirable community for many people because we have one of the most respected planning and building department that enforces high quality of city growth. After evidence-based inspections and repeated examinations by the city supporting a demolition, further delays to a proven, needed enforcement is an attack on our city’s integrity, reputation and the trust that brought us all to Palo Alto. 5. Willingness to work with the developer and the city As the adjacent neighbor to 531 Stanford, I am willing to work with the developer and the city during the demolition work, given that steps taken by the developer follows city’s compliance. Thank you for your consideration. * Information is quoted from city report.
From: Rosita Wong
To: Council, City
Cc: Hana Chandler; [email protected]; Larry Kavinoky; [email protected]; Josie Chang; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; debbie Kaplan; Randy Bluestone; Jiahe (Jan) Wang; TApan Mukerji Subject: April 20 Council meeting - Comments: College Terrace Residents and Merchants comments on 531 Stanford Demolition
Date: Monday, April 13, 2026 1:46:54 PM
Attachments: Oppose Any Delay of Demolition Enforcement.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
Mark Safe Report
Dear Palo Alto City Council Members,
We are residents and merchants (all copied in this email) along Oxford Avenue in the College Terrace neighborhood. We respectfully request your support on the following matters concerning 531 Stanford Avenue:
Immediate Demolition Enforcement / Do Not Link Enforcement to Redevelopment Approval
The structure at 531 Stanford Ave has been determined to be in violation of City code and is currently under enforcement. We urge the City Council to require immediate demolition of the unsafe structure and do not allow the developer to link enforcement to Redevelopment Approval.
In addition, demolition must be conducted in full compliance with all applicable safety requirements, including proper asbestos inspection and abatement protocols, to protect the health and well-being of nearby residents, businesses, and families.
Thank you for your time, your service, and your commitment to protecting Palo Alto’s neighborhoods and local businesses.
Sincerely,
College Terrace Residents and Merchants
Powered by Mimecast
Oppose Any Delay of Demolition Enforcement / Do Not Link Enforcement to Redevelopment Approval (APNs: 137-01-121, 137-01-002, 137-01-003) February 24, 2026 Dear Mayor and City Councilmembers, We are Palo Alto residents and neighbors of the property located on the combined lots APNs: 137-01-121, 137-01-002, and 137-01-003. We are writing to strongly urge the City Council to reject any request to delay demolition enforcement of the decayed structures and to oppose any effort to tie demolition compliance to approval of the developer’s proposed redevelopment plan. The City has already determined that the property is in violation of fire code and poses a hazard to the community. The City Council has previously ruled in favor of demolition. This demolition order is a matter of public safety enforcement, and it must be carried out immediately. The property has remained vacant and deteriorated for an extended period, creating ongoing safety and public health concerns for nearby residents. Vacant and decaying structures have become an attractor for illegal activity, unsanitary conditions, and pests. The City has an obligation to protect the surrounding community from these hazards. Most importantly, I urge the Council to maintain a clear separation between two distinct issues: 1. Code enforcement and demolition of a hazardous property, which is urgent and required for public safety. 2. The proposed redevelopment plan, which is a separate matter that must follow established planning processes, including due process, environmental review (as applicable), and public hearings. Allowing a developer to delay demolition enforcement unless and until a redevelopment proposal is approved would establish a dangerous precedent. It would effectively allow property owners to use public safety compliance as a bargaining tool to gain leverage in the entitlement process. This undermines the City’s enforcement authority and weakens public trust in fair and consistent governance. Additional Concern: Material Misrepresentation of Environmental Safety Standards (PCBs / Hazardous Materials)
1. In addition, the applicant has submitted a signed “PCBs in Priority Building Materials” form (SLLC SB-330 signed.pdf) that appears to be factually incorrect. The applicant certified that the project is exempt from PCB requirements. However, public records and Santa Clara County Assessor data show that the site is a former hotel, not a single-family or duplex residential building, and that the structure was constructed in 1955 and remodeled in 1964. Based on these facts, the correct response to Part 2 Questions A and B should be “YES” to both. Instead, the applicant certified “NO,” which improperly allowed the applicant to bypass mandatory PCB screening and professional sampling requirements required under applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board standards. This is a serious issue. We respectfully request that the City find the application incomplete under Government Code § 65941.1 until a professional PCB sampling report is submitted and reviewed. Further, the certification statement itself warns of significant penalties for submitting false information, which we expect the City to enforce. 2. Additionally, the applicant must comply with the City’s demolition permitting and inspection requirements. Palo Alto requires demolition and construction permit applications to be submitted through the Accela Citizen Access (ACA)portal. For demolitions or significant renovations, inspection for asbestos-containing materials (ACM) is legally required under state and regional regulations (including Cal/OSHA and BAAQMD) before permits are issued or work begins. Given the size of the existing structure, the potential danger of asbestos fibers being released into the air over an extended demolition period—potentially lasting months—poses a serious health risk to nearby residents if proper testing, abatement, containment, and monitoring are not conducted. This is not a minor procedural matter; it is a critical public health protection. Similarly, mandatory PCB screening and professional sampling must not be skipped or omitted, whether intentionally or unintentionally. The City must require full environmental compliance and verification before allowing any demolition or redevelopment activity to proceed. Request to the City Council For these reasons, we respectfully ask the City Council to: • Uphold and enforce immediate demolition of the unsafe structures on these lots; • Reject any proposal that links demolition enforcement to redevelopment approval or delays enforcement as part of negotiation; and • Require full compliance with environmental and hazardous materials requirements, including PCB sampling and asbestos inspection, before any demolition or redevelopment proceeds. Demolition enforcement is a public safety obligation and must not be treated as a bargaining chip. Any redevelopment plan should be reviewed separately and fairly through the normal public process, without shortcuts or political pressure. Thank you for your service and for protecting the health and safety of Palo Alto residents. Sincerely, College Terrace Residents