Item 14 Public Comments — Palo Alto City Council, May 4, 2026

From: Michael Regula
To: Council, City
Cc: Planning Commission
Subject: Agenda Item 14: Support Housing Near the CalTrain Date: Monday, May 4, 2026 10:46:45 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Hello Palo Alto City Council,
My name is Mike Regula and I live in University South neighborhood.

SB 79 will have a significant impact on the neighborhood that I live in for the better. My wife and I live within 15 minutes of the Palo Alto CalTrain station, which SB79 directly impacts, and have reaped the benefits this enables. For one, it allows us to walk/bike to the CalTrain to visit friends and family, reducing our transportation costs by more than $10,000 per year, money that we use to support Palo Alto businesses. For another, these modes of transportation improve Palo Alto's air quality, reduce particulate emissions, and move us closer to achieving our sustainability goals, which is particularly important to us as young professionals. It also adds even more value to our local economy.

It excites me that more people will be able to contribute to our community in the same way.

More housing near the CalTrain stations will provide a steady stream of regular customers to our local businesses while also building greater community pride in our high value downtown areas at University and Cal Ave.

Please implement SB 79 in good faith to promote the most homes possible around our Caltrain stations. I particularly hope the council will either allow SB 79 to go into effect as written or implement a local alternative plan that focuses housing capacity in our entire downtown area, throughout the Cal Ave corridor, and on high-opportunity sites like the University Station Transit Center.

SB 79 presents a unique opportunity to meet our housing goals, promote affordability, and increase transit access--if we take advantage of it,
Cheers,
Mike Regula
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.

Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
From: Rob Nielsen
To: Council, City
Cc: Planning Commission
Subject: Agenda Item 14: [INSERT SUBJECT HERE ABOUT SUPPORT FOR SB 79] Date: Monday, May 4, 2026 2:18:12 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Mayor Venker and other Palo Alto City Council members, I am Rob Nielsen and I live in Midtown. I am writing to urge you to implement SB 79 in good faith in order to promote the most homes possible around our Caltrain stations. I particularly urge the council either to allow SB 79 to go into effect as written or to implement a local alternative plan that focuses housing capacity in our entire downtown area, throughout the Cal Ave corridor, and on high-opportunity sites like the Palo Alto Transit Center.

Focusing housing near transit is particularly beneficial as it makes the best of transit investments by city, county, and state entities. SB 79 presents a unique opportunity to meet our housing goals, promote affordability, and increase transit access— provided we take advantage of it.

Rob Nielsen
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.

Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
From: William M. Conlon
To: Council, City
Cc: Planning Commission
Subject: Agenda Item 14: Support for Emergency Ordinances Date: Sunday, May 3, 2026 5:31:58 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.

Hello Palo Alto city council, my name is Bill Conlon, and I have lived in Old Palo Alto for 42 years.

SB79 provides for housing density of 100 dwelling units per acre within 1/2 mile of the California Avenue train station, an area of some 506 acres, with still higher density closer to the station. The 1/2-mile radius extends from Tasso to Williams Street and from Lowell to El Dorado and could potentially hold 50,000 new units. At 1000 square feet each, and assuming current price per square foot, this $100 billion real estate developer wet dream would instead be an urban renewal project. Unlike urban renewal, which involves the clearing of blighted areas, SB79 will allow the destruction of vital, vibrant, and valuable neighborhoods. And like urban renewal, SB79 will entail displacement of entire communities.

YIMBY advocates argue that existing residents will benefit from higher land values while arguing the contradiction that increased supply will make housing more affordable. And they disregard the lost value from air, view/light, water, noise, traffic, and other impacts from the transformation of our community into an urban renewal zone with ongoing large scale high-rise construction projects. It's conceivable that SB79 urban renewal will cause residents to flee to avoid these impacts and the risk of declining property values.

Moreover, it is ironic that SB79 prioritizes housing in the immediate vicinity of the Caltrain stations, apparently to restore Palo Alto's status as a bedroom community for San Francisco, rather than addressing the needs of our community to house those who work here, not only in technology, but in community services like police, fire, education, healthcare, government, and the local businesses we patronize. The vacancies are proof that new housing is not meeting the needs of people who want to live here -- it's often too small and oriented toward delivering "units" instead of homes.

In considering options, I urge the council and staff to consider the long-term implications of SB79 on our infrastructure (schools, roads, water and wastewater, power, public safety). We need housing alternatives that can sustain Palo Alto as a community that people want to live in, not merely commute to and from. Let's craft housing plans that benefit Palo Alto, instead of pit us against each other.

Bill Conlon
From: Deborah Goldeen
To: [email protected]
Cc: Council, City; [email protected]
Subject: Leaving Evergreen Park Neighborhood After 40 Years Date: Sunday, May 3, 2026 2:06:06 PM
I expect most people who know me have noticed, by now, the for sale/open house sign in front of my house (2130 Birch). My dream for that property was to “be the change that you want to see” and build four, 2,400 square foot flats (for private ownership, not rental). Since I first started giving our urban design serious thought, at the age of eight, my vision for Palo Alto was always along the lines of a European type city; a walkable, bikeable, culturally and economically vibrant metropolis with lots of privately owned, four or five story flats.

Palo Alto does not need more low income/charity housing. Even more so, it does not need more luxury housing.

What Palo Alto needs is housing for “the missing middle.” Even though we had to scrimp and save for decades to afford our house, everyone reading this will know what I mean when I say we were blessed to be able to buy what was probably the last single family home sold for under $300K in Palo Alto. Because we believe in “sharing the wealth,” we were going to donate the value of the property. We would have ended up with one, well designed, large enough residence for us, and three other homes that, by Palo Alto standards, would have been affordable. Even more important, unlike all the “housing” be built on “the El Camino Corridor,” it would be located in a spot where someone could truly thrive, not just survive.

SB79 should have allowed us to do this. But no. The state gatve cities an opportunity to get ahead of the game and develop “objective standards.” No city put more energy and enthusiasm into this project than Palo Alto. he upshot is that the City of Palo Alto has created so many restrictions that we can’t build four, decent units at 2130 Birch.

Our new house isn’t very far away. Ironically, it’s still, technically, in Palo Alto. The house is new to us, but it is not new, which means we are now running the repair gauntlet. This has involved a couple of emergency technician calls, technicians who are driving in from Gilroy or Tracy or Livermore (we pay their travel time). When I explain to the technicians why we moved and how I’ve had decades of hearing Palo Alto residents say, “people can just go live somewhere else,” you can see the smoke coming out of their ears.

What to do about SB79 is item 14 on city council agenda tomorrow (Monday, May 4th). If you are contemplating weighing in, please consider the fact that even though you may not personally see or experience the hurt caused by obstructing the construction of decent, denser housing, make no mistake - the number of people hurt by this decades truculence is probably, by now, in the millions.

Palo Alto likes to pride itself on its humanitarian/environmentally conscious values. When I was growing up here in the ’60’s and ’70’s, those values did indeed, fairly often, prevail. There was a promise that the City of Palo Alto could have delivered on those values and been a shining example for the rest of the state. But no. Cowardice, self preservation and greed ended up ruling the day. Based on my personal values, I feel Palo Alto has failed.

God only knows what is going to be built on 2130 Birch St. now. What happens to that property now is out of our control.

Even though this long email, which most won’t read to the end, I have included a link to a an excellent OWN Real Estate produced video about the Palo Alto and building housing. I have found that the vast majority of residents who I talk with about housing in Palo Alto are woefully uniformed or misinformed. This video is as close to unbiased as it comes and presents the information with an extraordinary level of rigor and clarity. I can’t recommend it enough.

Wishing you all the best and see you at the farmers market - Deborah Goldeen https://youtu.be/XBWyE2bGaLk?si=KImTlkPtUeQGRXOG
From: Barb V
To: Council, City
Cc: Planning Commission
Subject: Agenda Item 14: support for housing near transit and SB79 Date: Sunday, May 3, 2026 11:51:56 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Hello Palo Alto city council, my name is Barb Voss and I live in Palo Alto Redwoods (4250 El Camino Real)
Please implement SB 79 in good faith to promote the most homes possible around our Caltrain stations. I particularly hope the council will either allow SB 79 to go into effect as written or implement a local alternative plan that focuses housing capacity in our entire downtown area, throughout the Cal Ave corridor, and on high-opportunity sites like the University Station Transit Center.

Please also prioritize affordable and accessible housing near transit hubs. I am a locally- employed educator with disabilities who recently went through a housing transition. I was shocked at how few properties in Palo Alto have accessible housing options. This forced difficult compromises for me - living further than desired from my job, and letting go of some accessibility features that would eventually enable me to age in place as my condition progresses.

Although I am currently able to drive, many people with disabilities are not. It's critically important that transit-accessible housing be designed with accessibility in mind from the beginning to make sure that our community is inclusive and affordable.

SB 79 presents a unique opportunity to meet our housing goals, promote affordability, and increase transit access--if we take advantage of it.

Barb Voss, 4250 El Camino Real C221, Palo Alto CA 94306 This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.

Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
From: Steve Pierce
To: Council, City
Cc: Lait, Jonathan
Subject: SB 79 Revised Exhibit
Date: Sunday, May 3, 2026 11:20:14 AM
Attachments: SB 79 Exhihit A Color Version.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
!
This message could be suspicious
The sender's email address couldn't be verified.

Mark Safe Report
Dear Council Members,
The attached color version of Exhibit A [to the letter sent on Friday May 1, also attached] shows more clearly that there are numerous examples of historic homes with multifamily residences on the the rear portion of the lot.

This common lotting pattern supports my request that SB 79 units be permitted on parcels with an historic structure when that structure is retained.

It is critical that we maximize the opportunities for new housing.

Thank you for your consideration.

Steve
Date: May 1, 2026
To: Members of the City Council
From: Steve Pierce
RE: SB 79, Item #14, Meting May 4, 2026
Should the Council decide to exclude sites containing historic resource from SB 79 development standards, that exclusion should NOT include sites where SB 79 development will not result in the removal of the historic resource.

In areas such as Downtown North where there are extensive areas zoned R-2 and RM [multifamily], it is common for there to be multiple residences on a parcel. There are many examples of 100+/- year old homes with additional structures, including apartment buildings, behind. Because this is the prevalent land use pattern in Downtown North, it should be allowed to continue under SB 79, if the historic home is preserved.

Powered by Mimecast
By way of example, the property at 177 Bryant is a Category 4 historic home located on the front quarter of a largely vacant 11,000+sf parcel zoned RM-20. [See Exhibit A.] To its left [#171] is a 12 unit multifamily structure. To the right is an historic bungalow [#179] with multiple units on the rear of the site. As shown in Exhibit A, this block [like many others in downtown] is dense, with multiple residences on most parcels.

Our historic homes are a community resource and if they are preserved, development of precious housing can occur on the same parcel, as has been demonstrated over the decades. The blanket exclusion of sites with historic resources is not appropriate. Although there are historic homes, Downtown North is not Professorville.

From: [email protected]
To: Council, City
Cc: Lait, Jonathan; Knight, Julia; Armer, Jennifer
Subject: Item 14 on SB 79 alternatives
Date: Saturday, May 2, 2026 10:33:17 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,
Recommendations
1) Select option 4 and ask staff to develop an Alternative TOD plan to meet SB 79 and city housing goals
2) Direct staff to continue developing and expand the Downtown Housing Plan to include more sites.

Explanation
Option 4 the development of an alternative TOD plan to meet the SB 79 goals meets the city housing goals and allows
the most local control consistent with continuing to promote our Housing Element goals and programs.

By allowing the SB 79 density to be moved around, it maximizes the location of new housing in areas close to jobs, shopping, services and public and Stanford shuttle transit.

In particular, option 4 could support new housing in the broader downtown area, which is ideally suited and also supports less car use.

In addition, option 4 is also the only option that truly minimizes the impacts on R1 neighborhoods if that is what residents and council members want.

And option 4 can include option 2 by exempting historic sites to the extent allowed by SB 79 In contrast option 3 will, as I understand it, allow townhomes and small apartments in R1 neighborhoods as that is consistent with 50%
of the SB 79 density.

I hope staff will show members and the public pictures of the housing that will be allowed under option 3 in R1 neighborhoods.

I hope the council has time and energy to help staff move forward on the Downtown Housing Plan.

This message could be suspicious
The sender's email address couldn't be verified.

Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
As it exists, it includes only the least likely parcels to site housing and faces challenges outlined in the October 2025 Strategic Economic report cited in the staff report.

I suggest a broader definition including the SOFA and parts of University South and North. 660 University, 332 Forest and the townhome proposal on Webster are all outside the existing study area yet that is where housing is being proposed.

I favor an area from Everett to Homer or the north side of Channing and extending to Middlefield in parts of the area.

I support the ULI study findings about the potential on lands near the transit center and note that these lands and portions of Stanford are in the 1/4 mile area.

Whatever else council chooses, please include these sites in the housing inventory update underway by staff.

As a downtown resident, I believe our area is well suited for more housing and it is time to make housing more feasible in the north part of Palo Alto.

Stephen Levy
From: Adam Schwartz
To: Council, City
Cc: Planning Commission
Subject: Agenda Item 14: please fully implement SB 79 to build new homes Date: Saturday, May 2, 2026 10:16:16 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.

Hi Palo Alto city council:

Greetings, my name is Adam Schwartz, and I have lived in Palo Alto for a decade, mostly in University South. I write to respectfully request that you fully implement SB 79 to promote the most new homes reasonably possible around our Caltrain stations (two in Palo Alto and one adjacent to us in Mountain View).

I particularly hope the council will either (1) allow SB 79 to go into effect as written, or (2) implement a local alternative plan that focuses housing capacity in our entire downtown area, throughout the Cal Ave corridor, and on high-opportunity sites like the University Station Transit Center.

The local and state issue I care about the most is building new homes in our beautiful city and entire bay area. So many of my friends and family members want to stay here or move here, but are being pushed out or block from moving in by one thing: the high rents and home purchase prices. This problem is caused in significant part by overly restrictive zoning, permitting, and fees. So this problem can be solved in significant part by adjusting our local policies.

Our city's implementation of SB 79 is a great opportunity to do this. Let's take this chance to meet our housing goals, promote affordability, and increase transit access Sincerely,
Adam Schwartz
University South
From: Ken Novak
To: Council, City
Cc: Planning Commission
Subject: Agenda Item 14: Implement SB 79
Date: Friday, May 1, 2026 11:03:53 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Hello ,
My name is Ken Novak and I live near Duveneck school.

I’m writing to urge you to implement SB 79 in good faith to maximize housing near our Caltrain stations. This law presents a significant opportunity to address our housing shortage, improve affordability, and strengthen transit-oriented development.

I encourage the council to either allow SB 79 to take effect as written or adopt a local alternative that meaningfully expands housing capacity—particularly across our downtown area, along the California Avenue corridor, and at key sites such as the University Station Transit Center. These are high-opportunity locations where additional housing can support both residents and our broader economic and environmental goals.

SB 79 offers a rare chance to align housing growth with transit access. I urge you to take full advantage of this opportunity and ensure that implementation results in substantial, not minimal, new housing capacity.

Ken Novak
1644 Channing Ave, Palo Alto, Ca 94303
[email protected]
This message needs your attention
Some Recipients have never replied to this person.

This is a personal email address.

Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
From: Gia Pham
To: Council, City
Subject: Item 14 on 5/04/26: SB 79 Public Comment
Date: Friday, May 1, 2026 9:29:11 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Palo Alto City Council,
I am a resident of Palo Alto living at the Stanford Apartments in Alma Village on Alma Street near Grocery Outlet. I am submitting my comments on SB 79 both as a resident and as a nonprofit professional working in the city. I work as the Communications Coordinator at Housing Choices, where we support individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) in finding and retaining affordable housing.

SB 79 will have a significant impact on cities across California, and that impact will largely depend on how local jurisdictions choose to implement it, making it important that cities carefully consider their approach.

It is important that Palo Alto’s approach reflects long-term priorities that support a thriving and vibrant city that retains its historical roots while thoughtfully and intentionally adapting to the needs of the community.

Maximize Housing Near Stuff
Those with Disabilities
In my work with individuals with developmental disabilities, I see daily how essential public transit and walkable communities are for a stable life. Access to affordable housing and reliable transportation, nearby services, and jobs without dependence on a car - and urban design that supports multimodal mobility - directly determines independence and quality of life. Those with disabilities get constantly pushed to the sides, it's important for city leadership to make urban planning decisions that are universally designed to optimize the success for all its residents.

Myself
This message needs your attention
This is their first email to your company.

Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
I have also experienced the value of living near transit and services personally (even though I am able bodied) while living and working in Palo Alto. For 1 year I didn’t have a car due to a hit and run. During this time, I had to make mandatory monthly orthodontic appointments as well as go to work. Good thing I lived 3 minutes from the dentist and a 15 minute “Palo Alto Link” ride to work. Sometimes I had to go to Santa Clara. My nearest reliable bus stop was a 25-minute walk to access these regional routes. Not terrible but could be better. These experiences highlight how critical it is to live near transit hubs like Caltrain and major bus lines, as well as everyday essentials such as healthcare, food, and employment centers.

Someone I know
I also live with someone who relies entirely on biking and does not own a car, which reinforces how important safe and connected infrastructure is for daily mobility.

Because of this, I strongly believe housing should be prioritized/maximized in locations where it best supports daily life—near transit, jobs, schools, grocery stores, and healthcare, and in areas that reduce dependence on private vehicles. This is especially important for people with disabilities, low-income workers balancing multiple jobs, residents without cars, and students or newcomers to the region.

Preserve Historic Sites
Beyond transportation, I value Palo Alto’s cultural and community assets that contribute to livability for residents of all ages and incomes. Preserving historic and community sites such as Gamble Garden and Ramona Street supports public enjoyment and provides accessible, low-cost or free activities. I am a big supporter of “cheap thrills,” and I believe museums, historic places, and interesting streets help define the city’s character while also creating walkable, engaging neighborhoods where people can access educational and affordable leisure activities.

Therefore, Palo Alto should move forward with a Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Alternative Plan without delay. This is the only option that actively accomplishes both: preserve historic sites and maximize housing in best sites.

Thank you for your time and consideration. I urge the City Council to prioritize policies that ensure housing is both accessible and well-connected, so all residents, regardless of income (as people like teachers or nonprofit workers may qualify as low income even when they are providing meaningful value to the community) or ability, can fully participate in Palo Alto’s community life.

Warm Regards,
Gia Pham

From: Steven Atneosen
To: Council, City
Cc: Planning Commission
Subject: Agenda Item 14: We support SB 79
Date: Friday, May 1, 2026 8:09:09 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.

We live in the College Terrace neighborhood and most recently, Crescent Park.

We care deeply about housing near transit because it is one of the most practical, equitable, and environmentally responsible ways to grow Palo Alto. Concentrating housing near Caltrain reduces car dependence, lowers emissions, and allows people—especially families, young professionals, and essential workers—to live closer to where they work, shop, and build community. It also helps ensure that Palo Alto remains a diverse and economically vibrant city rather than an increasingly exclusive one.

More importantly, this is an opportunity to bring Palo Alto fully into the 21st century. All European cities have demonstrated that thoughtful density near transit creates thriving “15- minute cities”—places where daily needs are accessible within a short walk or bike ride. These communities are not only more sustainable, but also more livable, resilient, and socially connected. Palo Alto already has the foundational elements—transit, a strong downtown, and walkable corridors—but we have not yet aligned our housing policies to realize that vision.

By embracing SB 79 and focusing growth around transit, the City can help create vibrant, mixed-use neighborhoods where residents can live, work, and connect without relying on long commutes or car trips. This is how we strengthen our local economy, reduce congestion, and preserve quality of life at the same time.

SB 79 presents a unique opportunity to meet our housing goals, promote affordability, and increase transit access—if we take advantage of it.

Steven Atneosen and Caroline Dahllof
Steven Atneosen
[email protected]
From: Reid Kleckner
To: Council, City
Cc: Planning Commission
Subject: Agenda Item 14: Housing is the cornerstone of prosperity Date: Friday, May 1, 2026 5:24:59 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Hello Palo Alto city council, my name is Reid Kleckner and I live in Midtown.

In particular, the California Avenue district could use more homes. It is ideally located next to several businesses that would all greatly benefit from additional customer foot traffic. It is an opportunity for new residents and families to live a low-car, walkable lifestyle. There are three grocery stores right in that neighborhood, and my neighbors and I would all have fresher produce if more patrons shopped there.

A bakery, GK Pastry, recently opened on Park Ave, but declined to renew its lease after a few months. Now I miss that convenient sourdough that I could pick up on my way home after getting off the train at the Cal Ave train station. If we had housing-over-retail on the Cal Ave strip, then maybe we'd be able to support our own neighborhood-local bakery.

SB 79 presents a unique opportunity to meet our housing goals, promote affordability, and increase transit access--if we take advantage of it,
Reid Kleckner
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.

Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
From: Steve Pierce
To: Council, City
Cc: Lait, Jonathan
Subject: Item #14 SB 79
Date: Friday, May 1, 2026 3:58:05 PM
Attachments: SB 79 Exhibit A.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
!
This message could be suspicious
The sender's email address couldn't be verified.

This is their first mail to some recipients.

Mark Safe Report
Date: May 1, 2026
To: Members of the City Council
From: Steve Pierce
RE: SB 79, Item #14, Meting May 4, 2026
Should the Council decide to exclude sites containing historic resource from SB 79 development standards, that exclusion should NOT include sites where SB 79 development will not result in the removal of the historic resource.

By way of example, the property at 177 Bryant is a Category 4 historic home located on the front quarter of a largely vacant 11,000+sf parcel zoned RM-20. [See Exhibit A.] To its left [#171] is a 12 unit multifamily structure. To the right is an historic bungalow [#179] with multiple units on the rear of the site. As shown in Exhibit A, this block [like many others in downtown] is dense, with multiple residences on most parcels.

Our historic homes are a community resource and if they are preserved, development of precious housing can occur on the same parcel, as has been demonstrated over the decades.

The blanket exclusion of sites with historic resources is not appropriate. Although there are historic homes, Downtown North is not Professorville.

From: Russell Siegelman
To: Council, City
Cc: Planning Commission
Subject: Agenda Item 14: I strongly support SB 79 - please implement it in Palo Alto! Date: Friday, May 1, 2026 3:11:02 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Hello Palo Alto city council, my name is Russell Siegelman and I live at 244 Santa Rita Av.

I want more housing, more rental housing and more affordable housing in Palo Alto. We need to build more housing in CA and other cities in Silicon Valley (e.g. Mt View, Cupertino, Redwood City) have built significant multi-family rental housing. Why can’t we? I want our teachers, fire fighters, police force and more middle and lower class families to be able to live in my community. Our zoning has blocked out these folks for decades. There are now laws like SB 79 to change that and we need to enforce them and build accordingly.

There is a significant multi-family project proposed on the site of Molly Stone’s grocery store . This is very close to my home and I strongly support this development.

SB 79 presents a unique opportunity to meet our housing goals, promote affordability, and increase transit access--if we take advantage of it. Please make sure we do! Russell Siegelman
[email protected]
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.

This is their first email to your company.

Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
From: [email protected]
To: pdsdirector
Cc: City Mgr; Council, City
Subject: Report #:2603-6132 (SB79)
Date: Friday, May 1, 2026 3:00:05 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.

Mr. Jonathan Lait - Nice work!
I’ve read a lot of staff reports. This one was really well done, and on such an important topic.

Thank you. - Deb Goldeen, 94304
From: David Ball
To: Council, City
Cc: Planning Commission
Subject: Agenda Item 14: Denser housing
Date: Friday, May 1, 2026 1:19:14 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Hello Palo Alto city council, my name is David Ball and I live in Evergreen Park.

SB 79 is really important to provide affordable housing and to cut down on greenhouse gases by building near Caltrain stations. IGNORE ALL MY NIMBY NEIGHBORS--hey, we all wished we lived somewhere that didn't have exorbitant housing or climate crisis, but that is not the world as it is. Please implement SB 79 in good faith to promote the most homes possible around our Caltrain stations. I particularly hope the council will either allow SB 79 to go into effect as written.

SB 79 presents a unique opportunity to meet our housing goals, promote affordability, and increase transit access--if we take advantage of it. Thank you, David Ball (Greer Stone's former professor)
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.

This is their first mail to some recipients.

Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
From: Jaime Bayan
To: Council, City
Cc: Planning Commission
Subject: Agenda Item 14: SUPPORT FOR SB 79]
Date: Friday, May 1, 2026 1:17:08 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Hello Palo Alto city council, my name is Jaime Bayan and I live on Greer Road .

SB 79 presents a unique opportunity to meet our housing goals, promote affordability, and increase transit access--if we take advantage of it,
Sincerely ,
Jaime and Lisa Bayan
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
From: Susan Setterholm
To: Council, City
Cc: Planning Commission
Subject: Agenda Item 14: [INSERT SUBJECT HERE ABOUT SUPPORT FOR SB 79] Date: Friday, May 1, 2026 12:34:26 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.

Hello Palo Alto city council, my name is Susan and I lived in Downtown Palo Alto (Forest).

Please implement SB 79 in good faith to promote the most homes possible around our Caltrain stations. I particularly hope the council will either allow SB 79 to go into effect as written or implement a local alternative plan that focuses housing capacity in our entire downtown area, throughout the Cal Ave corridor, and on high- opportunity sites like the University Station Transit Center.

Palo Alto and California need housing near transit. As we look at the medium-term probability of huge fuel price increases, it is obvious we all need more people to take public transportation from where they live.

SB 79 presents a unique opportunity to meet our housing goals, promote affordability, and increase transit access--if we take advantage of it.

Susan Setterholm
From: Christopher A Kantarjiev
To: Council, City
Cc: Planning Commission
Subject: Agenda Item 14: I support SB79"s initiative to improve housing equity in Palo Alto Date: Friday, May 1, 2026 12:06:02 PM
Hello Palo Alto city council, my name is Christopher Kantarjiev and I live in Southgate.

I understand that there are concerns about the Mollie Stone's project - but honestly, it's a perfect location for dense housing. The people who eventually live there have easy walking access to transit, retail, and food ... unlike the San Antonio corridor, which seems designed to require more car trips, not fewer.

SB 79 presents a unique opportunity to meet our housing goals, promote affordability, and increase transit access--if we take advantage of it, Thank you,
Chris Kantarjiev
From: Jeremy Levine, Palo Alto Forward
To: Council, City
Cc: Lait, Jonathan; Frick, Coleman; Armer, Jennifer; Scottoneil Subject: Public Comment Agenda Item 14: Implementing SB 79 to Promote Homes and Further City Goals Date: Thursday, April 30, 2026 5:33:07 PM
Attachments: 2026.3.9 Public Comment on SB-79 Implementation.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.

Good afternoon city council,
Please see the attached comment with Palo Alto Forward's perspective regarding the implementation of SB 79. We hope the city will leverage the law strategically to address our housing needs, promote homes near transit, and build a more inclusive community.

Thank you for your consideration and looking forward to seeing you at May Fete this weekend,
Jeremy
--
Jeremy Levine (he • him)
Executive Director, Palo Alto Forward
(650) 485-0127

April 30, 2026 Palo Alto City Council 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 RE : Agenda Item 14, Implementation of SB 79 To the Palo Alto City Council, Palo Alto Forward works to expand housing and transportation choices in our community. In furthering

our

mission,

want

the

city

implement

79 in

way

that

maximizes

housing

options

near

transportation

our

community,

promoting

housing

affordability,

walkability,

transit

access.

To that end, we support the city implementing SB 79 as written, as we believe every neighborhood–especially

those

near

transit–can

benefit

from

additional

housing

options.

However, we understand the city has additional goals. To best achieve those goals, we would also

support

the

city

implementing

good

faith

local

alternative

plan

(Approach

comply

with

79. A

local

alternative

plan

will

allow

the

city

focus

new

homes

the

places

that

make

the

most

sense

near

transit,

jobs,

and

amenities.

79 provides

tool

further

opportunities

for

transit-oriented

homes

such

the

Downtown

Housing

Plan,

the

University

Station

Transit

Center,

and

the

Cal

Ave

corridor.

By implementing a local alternative plan, Palo Alto can maximize housing allowed in the places that

make

the

most

sense

for

development.

can

build

upon

its

housing

element

commitments

actually

meet

its

housing

goals.

And

can

facilitate

sustainable

lifestyles

for

current

and

future

Palo

Alto

residents,

who

will

benefit

from

vibrant

mixed-use

residential

and

commercial

areas

with

customers

and

diversity

housing

options.

local

alternative

plan

will

take

substantial

time

pass,

would

endorse

allowing

79 to

take

effect

combined

with

emergency

ordinance

proposed

staff

exempt

historic

sites

the

interim.

We have identified several factors that we believe some council members care about—though they

are

not

our

top

priority—on

which

the

four

approaches

presented

the

staff

report

create

tradeoffs.

These

are

presented

below

Table

1 on

the

following

page,

and

will

explored

detail

the

rest

this

document.

discussed

the

following

pages,

Approach

4 (move

forward

with

TOD

Alternative

Plan

without

delay)

best

meets

the

city’s

specified

goals

for

79 implementation.

Table 1 - Comparison of Approaches
Approach
Default SB-79 TOD Alternative Plan
1: No Action 2: Emergency Ordinance
3: 50% Now, Rest in 2032
4: TOD Alternative Plan Now
Minimizes Expense To City
Reduces R-1 Neighborhood Impact
Promotes Cohesive Massing
Maximizes Housing on Best Sites
Maximizes Chances of Building RHNA
Preserves SDBL Height Exemption
Preserves Historic Sites
Delays or Avoids Full TOD Alternative Plan Table 1. Comparison of approaches presented by staff. A check mark means the approach accomplishes

that

goal,

minus

sign

means

the

approach

has

impact

the

goal

relative

baseline

assumptions

under

79,

and

means

the

approach

directly

undermines

the

stated

goal.

Analysis of Factors
The following sections explain in detail our assessments in Table 1.

Minimizes Expense to the City
Approach 1 (No Action) is absolutely free, which is categorically different from all the other approaches

which

would

require

new

workstreams

(including

staffing,

consultant

services,

technical

report

preparation,

etc.)

city

staff

overseen

elected

and

appointed

officials.

Accordingly,

awarded

the

only

green

checkmark.

Approaches 2 (Ordinance) and 4 (TOD Alternative Plan) both require new workstreams. Approach 3 (50% now) sets itself in a different category from 2 and 4, because it requires all of the

work

TOD

Alternative

Plan

(albeit

due

2032),

and

separate

comparable

workstream

due

ASAP.

Approach

3 will

involve

multiple

rezonings,

multiple

rounds

CEQA

review,

and

HCD

oversight.

Accordingly,

Approach

3 is

assigned

the

‘red

x’

for

cost.

Returning to Approaches 2 and 4, we do expect 4 would be qualitatively more expensive.

Reduces R-1 Impact
Approaches 1 (No Action) + 2 (Ordinance) do not allow the city to move density around within the

TOD

area.

Accordingly,

R-1

neighborhoods

would

generally

upzoned

levels

consistent

with

midrise

construction.

have

scored

these

options

‘red’.

Approaches 3 + 4 do allow the city to exempt R-1 areas from 50% (but not all) of the effects of SB-79

which

the

most

the

law

allows,

have

scored

them

both

‘green’.

will

likely

see

townhomes

R-1

neighborhoods

even

with

these

measures–the

sort

gradual

neighborhood

change

hope

the

council

will

support

neighborhoods

transit.

Promotes Cohesive Massing
Approaches 1 (No Action), 2 (Ordinance), and 4 (TOD Alternative Plan) all move the city as quickly

possible

into

the

land

use

regime

that

will

ultimately

prevail

for

the

foreseeable

future.

believe

this

quality

what

will

lead

the

best

aesthetic

outcomes

our

downtowns

evolve.

Approach 3 (50% now), in contrast, will introduce an interim period where only townhomes and low-density

apartments

are

allowed

even

sites

that,

after

2032,

could

support

four

times

that

density

(i.e.,

the

event

TOD

Alternative

Plan

that

moves

the

maximum

allowable

density

from

R-1

neighborhood

into

transit-adjacent

downtown

site.)

Once development like that happens, it will take decades for the use to convert again during which

time

adjacent

structure

heights

will

jarringly

uneven.

Accordingly,

have

awarded

Approaches

and

4 green

checks,

and

Approach

3 a

red

Maximizes Housing on Best Sites
SB-79 aligns transit infrastructure with train stops, but not with other resources such as bus routes,

jobs,

retail,

and

services.

believe

the

city

will

want

align

housing

production

not

just

with

rail

transit

infrastructure,

but

also

factors

such

these.

Approaches 1 (No Action) and 2 (Ordinance) do a decent job of this by allowing midrise construction

such

areas

the

near

term,

but

are

blunt

instruments.

have

scored

them

“yellow

checkmark.”

also

acknowledge

the

Ordinance

offers

advantage

over

Action.

Approach 3 (50% Now, Rest Later) has the disadvantage that it will zone our best sites to just 25%

their

future

capacity.

This

risks

generating

actual

projects

this

density

before

2032.

have

scored

this

outcome

red.

Approach 4 (TOD Alternative Plan) improves upon the approaches above by allowing the city to move

density

from

less

favorable

sites

favorable

sites

–also

the

short

term.

Consequently,

have

awarded

this

approach

green

checkmark.

Maximizes Chances of Building RHNA
According to the city’s latest Annual Progress Report to Housing and Community Development, the

city

not

on-pace

build

its

sixth-cycle

RHNA,

having

permitted

just

173

units

2025,

down

from

181

2024

and

271

2023.

Going forward, the city needs to produce an average of 1,092 units per year to meet aggregate RHNA,

which

understates

the

challenge

once

the

distribution

units

across

income

categories

considered.

Approaches 1 (No Action) and 4 (TOD Alternative Plan) urgently move the city toward legalizing apartment-scale

construction

SB-79

areas.

have

scored

these

approaches

‘green’.

Approach 2 (Ordinance) somewhat reduces scope of the reform, and might exclude some units.

scored

‘yellow’.

Approach 3 (50% Now, Rest Later) unnecessarily delays (yet does not prevent) the legalization of

units

this

scale

late

2032.

has

been

scored

“red.”

Preserves SDBL Height Exemption
As drafted, SB-79 exempts sites in the TOD area from using State Density Bonus Law (SDBL) to

exceed

the

heights

specified

SB-79.

However,

this

SDBL

exemption

lost

the

city

adopts

TOD

Alternative

Plan.
1 Approaches 1 (No Action) and 2 (Ordinance) preserve this SDBL exemption, which is a local control

advantage.

Without

implying

that

this

outweighs

the

local

control

advantage

obtained

adopting

TOD

Alternative

Plan

(we

believe

does

not),

are

surfacing

this

factor

the

table

with

green

checkmark.

Approaches 3 (50% Now, Rest Later) and 4 (TOD Alternative Plan) both involve forming TOD Alternative

Plans

and

loss

SDBL

exemptions,

and

are

scored

with

‘red

x’.

Preserves Historic Sites
Approach 1 (No Action) is the only approach which would not likely result in historic sites being exempted

from

SB-79

treatment.

have

scored

red

and

all

others

green.

Delays or Avoids Full TOD Alternative Plan
We believe Approach 3 (50% Now, Rest Later) is presented as an approach because it defers deliberation

about

how

move

density

between

areas.

SB-79

written,

does

accomplish

this.

This

not

advantage

over

Approach

1 (No

Action)

Approach

2 (Ordinance)

because

those

effectively

defer

TOD

Alternative

Plan

due

date

“never,”

but

advantage

over

Approach

4 (TOD

Alternative

Plan.)
Accordingly, we have scored Approaches 1, 2, and 3 green and Approach 4 as red for this factor.

Conclusion
A TOD Alternative Plan can best harmonize the city’s goals with the opportunity to promote housing

Palo

Alto’s

most

desirable

locations,

and

the

city

will

best

served

moving

toward

adopting

such

plan

without

delay.

Notably,

delaying

TOD

Alternative

Plan

for

other

options:
● Increases expense ● Fails to maximize our chances of meeting our housing goals ● Fails to promote cohesive build environments ● Fails to maximally align housing production with site suitability 1 See the interaction between 65912.161(d): “ Section 65912.157 shall not apply within a jurisdiction that has

local

transit-oriented

alternative

plan…
”;

and

65912.157(d),

which

implements

the

SDBL

height

exemption

SB-79.

We urge the city to either allow SB 79 to take effect as written or adopt a TOD Alternative Plan, the

best

way

balance

housing

needs

with

other

city

priorities.

Thank you for your consideration,
Jeremy Levine Executive Director, Palo Alto Forward

From: LWV of Palo Alto
To: Council, City
Subject: May 4, 2026 Council meeting, agenda item 14 (SB79) Date: Thursday, April 30, 2026 10:02:25 AM
Attachments: ULI and SB79 v.4 (1) (1).pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.

The League of Women Voters of Palo Alto submits the attached comment on Agenda Item 14 (SB 79) at the May 4, 2026 Council Meeting.
--
League of Women Voters of Palo Alto
3921 E. Bayshore Road
Palo Alto, CA 94303
Phone: (650) 903-0600
Web: www.lwvpaloalto.org
Facebook: www.facebook.com/PaloAltoLeague/
Twitter: www.twitter.com/lwvpaloalto
1 3921 E. Bayshore Road Palo Alto California 94303 (650) 903-0600 [email protected] April 30, 2026
Dear Mayor Veenker and City Council members:

Re: May 4 Agenda Item 14 (SB79)
The League of Women Voters of Palo Alto supports (1) increasing the supply of low and moderate income housing and (2) educating communities concerning the need for affordable housing and the methods by which this can be attained.

The League urges the City to follow the Urban Land Institute’s (ULI) recommendations for development around the downtown transit station (the “Gateway”) and to promptly enter into joint development agreements with Stanford and the regional transit agencies. We also urge promptly adding Gateway Area sites to the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA)Housing Inventory sites to create housing affordable to all incomes, families, and age groups in downtown Palo Alto, an existing well-resourced area, in line with the City’s duty to affirmatively further fair housing. The Gateway also presents faster and less costly development opportunities and a wider array of state, regional, and local financing opportunities for affordable housing than any other area of the city.

ULI’s recommendations stress that the Gateway presents a unique opportunity to comply with SB 79’s goal of locating affordable housing near existing transit stations. The League would oppose rezoning which would make that goal infeasible by reducing allowed density downtown.

Discussion
Under its 2023-2031 Regional Housing Needs Assessment, Palo Alto must plan for providing affordable homes to 3,465 very low, low, and moderate-income households, in addition to 2,621 homes affordable to above moderate-income households. Plus, by July 1, 2026, SB 79 requires the City to allow denser housing (5-9 stories) near major transit stops, to reduce emissions and boost housing available for all incomes, families and age-groups.

Where should the City zone for these homes?
The area (the “Gateway”) near the downtown transit station has an existing multi-transit infrastructure, including a Caltrain station, the Palo Alto Transit Center (a major hub for

2 multiple bus providers situated next to Caltrain), and well-established bike routes. ULI’s recent study found that the Gateway is uniquely positioned for creating mixed income housing (including family housing) together with walkable and bikeable retail and community gathering spaces. Relevant factors include large parcels of land and few landowners which make development faster and less costly; existing multi-transit infrastructure; qualifying for state transit and emissions reduction funds; and the opportunity for land value recapture.

ULI Study in October 2025.

At the request of Stanford, VTA, and Palo Alto, ULI in October 2025 studied the impact of SB 79 on development around the Gateway. The ULI study1 found:

1. The land is uniquely positioned to comply with SB 79 because it has large parcels of land, few landowners, an existing transit center, and can accommodate around 1500 units of new mixed income housing. These factors make development, including financing of affordable housing feasible.

The ULI designers imagined space for about 1500 units of mixed income housing (including families), retail facilities, and walkable and bikeable community gathering space. Because the area consists of large parcels with only a handful of landowners, these conditions create an opportunity for faster and less costly development compared to other areas of Palo Alto. This in turn allows land value recapture to pay for infrastructure and housing, or operations of the transit station, or other public priorities.

Considering the Gateway for development and land value recapture, one ULI researcher made this point:
“Time kills all [development] deals…the land is uniquely valuable here. Most of Palo Alto is comprised of small lots with separate ownership... [the Gateway] has large parcels with only a handful of owners…consider the monetary value of this land…as land density increases, so does the value of the land [due to government action].

Some of this increase can help pay for infrastructure and housing, or operations of the transit station, or other public priorities. . . you need to weigh the increasing value and how its split…too much burden and you halt development…you don’t want it to be a cash grab for the developer- that just got the benefit of having this land increase in value… ”
A similar point is made by land use experts at CalMatters https://calmatters.org/commentary/2026/03/housing-production-tax-increment- financing/#:~:text=This%20housing%20can%20help,sufficient%20incentives%20to%20us e%20it
3 2. The Gateway should also enable Palo Alto to take advantage of the State’s desire to prove that SB 79 can alleviate the housing shortage and reduce dependence on cars by being a pilot program for SB 79.

ULI suggested immediately exploring joint development agreements with the transit agencies, the City, and Stanford. Although SB 79 does not explicitly provide funding for new housing, it does authorize transit agencies like the VTA to develop housing or commercial projects on land within one half mile of a transit stop, allowing them to generate their own revenue.

3. State and Regional financing programs are available for affordable, high density, and mixed-use projects within one-half mile of a transit station, including the Transit-Oriented Affordable Housing Fund (TOAH), the California TOD Program, the Bay Area Preservation Pilot Fund, and the BAHFA Priority Sites Program. Other financing under California Housing Emissions Reduction programs includes Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities (AHSC) grants and loans and the California Energy Commission’s BUILD program.

4. The San Antonio Road Area Plan (SARAP)is the other contender for locating affordable housing production, labeled “Housing Opportunity Sites” in the City’s Housing Element.

But the City’s SARAP “Existing Conditions” report for the San Antonio Road area highlighted obstacles to funding affordable housing in that area: the City could either demand, on a project-by-project basis from many different developers, either a small percentage (13-20%) of low- and moderate-income units or a contribution to the City’s affordable housing fund (which would be made available for 100% affordable developments by nonprofits.) Since the affordable housing sites in the San Antonio Road Area are not within one half mile of the Mountain View Caltrain station, transit-oriented housing state funds or funds authorized by SB 79 would not be available nor would funding for Emissions Reduction. 2
Both the Gateway and SARAP are considered high resource areas for Low Income Housing Tax Credit funding. However, SARAP is an under resourced neighborhood lacking city parks, retail, and community gathering spaces, as well as transportation infrastructure funding to address both existing unsafe conditions for pedestrians and bikes and the transportation impact of 1600 new housing units.

Conclusion
We urge the City to designate new RHNA Housing Inventory Sites in the Gateway area or transfer some sites from SARAP to the Gateway, which presents faster and less costly development opportunities and a wider array of state, regional, and local financing opportunities for affordable housing.
4 Transferring some housing sites to the Gateway and away from SARAP would also address concerns that by locating a large percentage of affordable housing in an under resourced area (SARAP), the City is ignoring its duty to affirmatively further fair housing which could be met by distributing low and moderate income housing throughout the community to areas with existing amenities like parks, libraries, retail, and well-developed transit. We would oppose suggestions to rezone which would make the Gateway vision infeasible.

Sincerely.

Lisa Ratner and Hannah Lu
Copresidents
LWV Palo Alto

1 . Video of ULI October 2025 presentation https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8rVK3- vWZc, particularly 1:48:21 Andrew Malik on unique opportunity downtown

2 SARAP Existing Conditions Report chrome-
extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/publ ic/v/1/planning-amp-development-services/long-range-planning/area-plans-and- studies/san-antonio-rd-area-plan/draft-san-antonio-road-area-plan-existing-conditions- analysis-summary-report-9-4-2025.pdf, particularly Housing Findings, p. 19 and Transportation challenges, p. 29

From: [email protected]
To: Council, City; Lait, Jonathan
Cc: "gmca-discuss"
Subject: Historic Place Designation
Date: Tuesday, April 28, 2026 3:30:17 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.

Honorable City Council & Director Lait,

Question related to SB79 and Historic Place designation:

Greenmeadow neighborhood is on the National Register of Historic Places. (GMCA has all of the original paperwork associated with this designation.)

Can State law or local ordinance legally override or undermine this Federal designation in order to rezone for higher density? Many people in our neighborhood have worked to respect this designation and to restore our Eichler homes to bring formerly non- contributing homes to compliance so they now contribute to the integrity of Greenmeadow as an Historic Place.

I am asking this question because of comments in the May 4 Council packet, Item #14 re: Historic designation.

Thank you, in advance, for providing your perspective on this matter.

Sincerely,

Penny Ellson
Virus-free.www.avg.com

Palo Alto City CouncilMay 4, 2026

Palo Alto City Council
May 4, 2026