560 Mission Street, Suite 1900 | San Francisco, CA 94105 | T 415.743.6900 | F 415.743.6910 Holland & Knight LLP | www.hklaw.com
Genna Yarkin
+1 415-743-6990
[email protected]
Chelsea Maclean
+1 415-743-6979
[email protected]
Atlanta | Austin | Birmingham | Boston | Century City | Charlotte | Chattanooga | Chicago | Dallas | Denver | Fort Lauderdale Houston | Jacksonville | Los Angeles | Miami | Nashville | Newport Beach | New York | Orlando | Philadelphia | Portland Richmond | San Francisco | Seattle | Stamford | Tallahassee | Tampa | Tysons | Washington, D.C. | West Palm Beach
April 29, 2026
Palo Alto Planning Department
250 Hamilton Avenue - 5th Floor
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Re: Invocation of “Builder’s Remedy 2.0” Under AB 1893, and CEQA Compliance for the Housing Development Project at 3781 El Camino Real (24PLN-00161) Dear All:
This firm represents Vittoria Management, Inc. (the “Applicant”) in connection with its application for a housing development project consisting of 183 multifamily units (the “Project”) at 3 781 El Camino Real (the “Project Site”) in Palo Alto (the “City”). The City determined the Project’s application complete for Permit Streamlining Act purposes on March 17, 2025. As explained in more detail in our previous communication, the Project is protected by the Housing Accountability Act (the “HAA”) inclusive of the Builder’s Remedy provision. The Applicant has also secured vested rights to develop the Project pursuant to the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (“SB 330”). The purposes of this letter are to:
1. Document the Project’s eligibility for and affirmatively invoke the protections of Assembly Bill (“AB”) 1893, also known as “Builder’s Remedy 2.0”; and
2. Document the Project’s eligibility for the protections of AB 1633 and the “Infill Exemption” from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15332.
AB 1893’s Protections and Its Applicability
AB 1893 went into effect on January 1, 2025 and provides significant new protections for Builder’s Remedy projects. Importantly, its new protections extend to proposals, including the Project, that predate AB 1893’s effective date.1 AB 1893 allows Builder’s Remedy projects to include 13% low
1 See Gov. Code § 65589.5(f)(7)(A) (as amended by AB 1893) (“For a housing development project application that is deemed complete before January 1, 2025, the development proponent for the project may choose to be subject to the provisions of this section that were in place on the date the preliminary application was submitted, or, if the project Palo Alto Planning Department
April 29, 2026
#519811052_v3
income units, 2 and for in- process projects switching to Builder’s Remedy 2.0 to make modifications to their proposal even if they exceed a 20% change in units or square footage.3
The Applicant is hereby electing to convert to Builder’s Remedy 2.0 and include 13% low income units (23 total units when calculated as a portion of the Project’s units totally which is below the base maximum per AB 1893) in the now-revised Project. The Applicant reserves all rights it has including under the HAA as amended by AB 1893, or any other state or local laws, to return to its original proposal for the Project if warranted at a later time.
In addition to the above-described provisions, AB 1893 includes the following notable protections, of which we wish to remind the City:
• Local agencies may not require a Builder’s Remedy 2.0 Project to apply for or receive approval of a general plan amendment, specific plan amendment, rezoning, or other legislative approval.
4 Local agencies also may not require a Builder’s Remedy 2.0 Project to apply for or receive any approval or permit not generally required of a non- Builder’s Remedy project of the same type and density.5
• Local agencies may not adopt or impose any requirements (including fees), or undertaking any course of conduct, with respect to Builder’s Remedy 2.0 Projects that do not apply to other projects.6
• Builder’s Remedy 2.0 Projects are deemed consistent with all applicable local standards and plans, and may not be treated as nonconforming uses.7
• Prior to AB 1893, the HAA provided only that jurisdictions could not “disapprove” Builder’s Remedy projects, or condition such projects in a manner that rendered the affordable portion of the project infeasible. AB 1893 has significantly expanded the scope of prohibited actions. In addition to prohibiting a local agency from voting to disapprove a Builder’s Remedy 2.0 Project, AB 1893 also notably prohibits local agencies from:
meets the definition of a builder’s remedy project, it may choose to be subject to any or all of the provisions of this section applicable as of January 1, 2025.”). See also Gov. Code § 65589.5(h)(5) (“Notwithstanding any other law, until January 1, 2030, ‘deemed complete’ means that the applicant has submitted a preliminary application pursuant to Section 65941.1 or, if the applicant has not submitted a preliminary application, has submitted a complete application pursuant to Section 65943.”) (emphasis added). 2 Gov. Code §§ 65589.5(d); (h)(3)(C)(i)(III) (as amended by AB 1893). 3 Gov. Code § 65589.5(f)(7)(B) (as amended by AB 1893). 4 Gov. Code § 65589.5(f)(6)(D)(i) (as amended by AB 1893). 5 Gov. Code § 65589.5(f)(6)(D)(ii) (as amended by AB 1893). 6 Gov. Code § 65589.5(f)(6)(E) (as amended by AB 1893). 7 Gov. Code § 65589.5(f)(6)(D)(iii) (as amended by AB 1893).
Palo Alto Planning Department
April 29, 2026
#519811052_v3
o Taking a “final administrative action” (other than a vote) that functions as a project disapproval;
8 o Subjecting a Builder’s Remedy 2.0 to more than five hearings;9
o Wrongfully determining that a Builder’s Remedy 2.0 Project preliminary application has expired or failed to establish vested rights in contravention of the Permit Streamlining Act;
10 o Maintaining a “course of conduct undertaken for an improper purpose” that functions as an “effective disapproval” of a Builder’s Remedy 2.0 Project. 11 • AB 1893 also expands the HAA’s prohibition on unlawful conditioning. The local agency is now prohibited from imposing any condition that would render the Builder’s Remedy
2.0 Project as a whole infeasible (rather than just the affordable component of the project).
12 The local agency is also now specifically prohibited from imposing a combination of conditions that would render the Builder’s Remedy 2.0 Project infeasible.13
The Project qualifies for AB 1893, as documented in the following chart:
Summary of AB 1893 Criteria Project Consistency
Affordability (Gov. Code §
65589.5(h)(11)(A)).
The project is a housing development project
that provides housing for very low, low-, or
moderate-income households.
Gov. Code § 65589.5(h)(3): 55 years for
rental units, 45 years for ownership units.
“Housing for mixed-income households” =
• At least 7 % “extremely low income” ;
or
• At least 10 % “very low income”; or
• At least 13% “low income” ; or
Does the project satisfy one of the applicable
affordability percentage requirements?
• Yes, the Project includes 13% low
income units, calculated as a portion
of the Project unit total (which is less
than the base maximum per AB 1893).
Will the affordability of these units be ensured
for the required period?
• Yes, the Applicant will ensure
affordability of the rental units for 55
years.
8 Gov. Code § 65589.5(h)(6)(A) (as amended by AB 1893). 9 Gov. Code § 65589.5(h)(6)(E) (as amended by AB 1893). 10 Gov. Code § 65589.5(h)(6)(H) (as amended by AB 1893). 11 Gov. Code § 65589.5(h)(6)(D) (as amended by AB 1893). 12 Gov. Code § 65589.5(d) (as amended by AB 1893).
13 Gov. Code § 65589.5(f)(6)(B) (as amended by AB 1893).
Palo Alto Planning Department
April 29, 2026
#519811052_v3
Summary of AB 1893 Criteria Project Consistency
• Project contains 10 or fewer units, on a
site smaller than 1 acre, proposed at
minimum density of 10 du/acre
Housing element compliance (Gov. Code §
65589.5(h)(11)(B)).
When application was “deemed complete”
(this includes submission of SB 330
preliminary application or formal
application)14 the jurisdiction did not have a
housing element that was in substantial
compliance15 with this article.
At the time of preliminary application
submittal (or, if no preliminary application
was submitted, the time of submission of a
complete formal application), was the
jurisdiction’s housing element certified as
substantially compliant by HCD or a court of
competent jurisdiction?
• No – project qualifies for this
requirement.
Maximum density (Gov. Code §
65589.5(h)(11)(C)).
Must comply with the greatest of the
following densities (plus can add any density
bonus per State Density Bonus Law):
(i) The density does not exceed the greatest
of the following densities:
(I) Fifty percent greater than the minimum
density deemed appropriate to
accommodate housing for that jurisdiction
as specified in subparagraph (B) of
paragraph (3) of subdivision (c) of Section
65583.216 (this is known as the “Mullen
density”).
Does the project comply with the applicable
maximum density?
• Yes – Explanation below
Using the options at left, we have identified
the highest density for each APN of the
Project Site, and calculated a weighted
average by percentage of the site (63,025
square feet total) that each APN represents, to
determine the base maximum density per AB
1893, as follows:
APN 132-41-019 = 40 per comprehensive
plan x 3 = 120 du/acre + 35 for “highest
resource” tract = 155 du/acre
14 Gov. Code § 65589.5(h)(5).
15 See Gov. Code § 65589.55(a) (“For purposes of a local agency’s approval, conditional approval, or disapproval of a housing development project pursuant to subdivision (d) of Section 65589.5, a housing element or amendment shall be considered in substantial compliance with this article only if the element or amendment was in substantial compliance, as determined by the department or a court of competent jurisdiction, when a preliminary application, including all of the information required by subdivision (a) of Section 65941.1, was submi tted or, if a preliminary application was not submitted, when a complete application pursuant to Section 65943 was submitted. ”). 16 “The following densities shall be deemed appropriate to accommodate housing for lower income households: (i) For an incorporated city within a nonmetropolitan county and for a nonmetropolitan county that has a micropolitan area: sites allowing at least 15 units per acre. (ii) For an unincorporated area in a nonmetropolitan county not included in clause (i): sites allowing at least 10 units per acre. (iii) For a suburban jurisdiction: sites allowing at least Palo Alto Planning Department
April 29, 2026
#519811052_v3
Summary of AB 1893 Criteria Project Consistency
(II) Three times the density allowed by the
general plan, zoning ordinance, or state
law, whichever is greater.
(III) The density that is consistent with the
density specified in the housing element.
Add 35 du/acre to the maximum
summarized above, if any portion of the site
is located within any of the following:
(I) One-half mile of a major transit stop.17
(II) A very low vehicle travel area.
(III) A high or highest resource census
tract, as identified by the latest edition of
the “CTCAC/HCD Opportunity Map.”18
• 5,627 square feet/ 63,025 square feet x
155 = 13.839 du/acre
APN 132-41-020 = 40 per comprehensive
plan x 3 = 120 du/acre + 35 for “highest
resource” tract = 155 du/acre
• 29,618 square feet/ 63,025 square feet
x 155 = 72.841 du/acre
APN 132-41-083 = 30 mullen + 50% = 45
du/acre + 35 for “highest resource” tract = 80
du/acre
• 18,376 square feet/ 63,025 square feet
x 80 = 23.325 du/acre
APN 132-41-084 = 30 mullen + 50% = 45
du/acre + 35 for “high resource” tract = 80
du/acre
• 9,160 square feet/ 63,025 square feet
x 80 = 11.627 du/acre
13.839 + 72.841 + 23.325 + 11.627 = 121.63
(rounded to 122) du/acre maximum for the
Property under B.R. 2.0, prior to using any
State Density Bonus Law bonus yields a 177
unit “base” maximum. The State Density
Bonus Law grants a 24.5% bonus for a project
that includes 13% low income units. (Govt.
Code § 65915(f)(1)) Here that allows up to
220 units. The Project’s proposed 183 units
are consistent.
20 units per acre. (iv) For a jurisdiction in a metropolitan county: sites allowing at least 30 units per acre.” Gov.
Code § 65583.2(c)(3)(B).
17 “‘Major transit stop’ means a site containing any of the following: (a) An existing rail or bus rapid transit station. (b) A ferry terminal served by either a bus or rail transit service. (c) The intersection of two or more major bus routes with a frequency of service interval of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods.” Pub. Res. Code § 21064.3.
18 See HCD, 2024 CTCAC Opportunity Map (https://belonging.berkeley.edu/final-2024-ctcac-hcd-opportunity- map).
Palo Alto Planning Department
April 29, 2026
#519811052_v3
Summary of AB 1893 Criteria Project Consistency
The affordability requirement for AB 1893 is
at least 13% low income, equal to 23 units.
Minimum density (Gov. Code §
65589.5(h)(11)(D)).
(i) On sites that have a minimum density
requirement and are located within 1/2 mile of
a commuter rail station or a heavy rail station,
cannot go below the minimum.
(ii) On all other sites with a minimum density
requirement, the density of the project shall
not be less than the local agency’s minimum
density or 1/2 of the “Mullen density,”
whichever is lower.19
Does the site have a minimum density
requirement under the local zoning
ordinance? If so, does the project satisfy the
statutory minimum density requirements? If
not, can it be revised to do so?
• Not applicable here – project
qualifies
Site restrictions (Gov. Code §
65589.5(h)(11)(E)).
The project site does not abut a site where
more than one-third of the square footage on
the site has been used, within the past three
years, by a heavy industrial use, or a Title V
industrial use, as those terms are defined in
Section 65913.16.20
Does the project site abut a disqualifying
industrial site?
• No
19“The following densities shall be deemed appropriate to accommodate housing for lower income households: (i) For an incorporated city within a nonmetropolitan county and for a nonmetropolitan county that has a micropolitan area:
sites allowing at least 15 units per acre. (ii) For an unincorporated area in a nonmetropolitan county not included in clause (i): sites allowing at least 10 units per acre. (iii) For a suburban jurisdiction: sites allowing at least 20 units pe r acre. (iv) For a jurisdiction in a me tropolitan county: sites allowing at least 30 units per acre.” Gov. Code § 65583.2(c)(3)(B).
20 Gov. Code § 65913.16(b): (4) “Heavy industrial use” means a use that is a source, other than a Title V source, as defined by Section 39053.5 of the Health and Safety Code, that is subject to permitting by a district, as defined in Section 39025 of the Health and Safety Code,20 pursuant to Division 26 (commencing with Section 39000) of the Health and Safety Code or the federal Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. Sec. 7401 et seq.). A use where the only source permitted by a district is an emergency backup generator, and the source is in compliance with permitted emissions and operating limits, is not a heavy industrial use. […] (11) “Title V industrial use” means a use that is a Title V source, as defined in Section 39053.5 of the Health and Safety Code.20 Palo Alto Planning Department
April 29, 2026
#519811052_v3
The Project’s Eligibility for the Protections of AB 1633 and a CEQA Infill Exemption We first note for informational purposes that the Project is eligible for the protections of AB 1633, which became effective January 1, 2024, as documented in more detail in the below chart. Under AB 1633, it is now a violation of the HAA to fail to grant qualifying projects a CEQA exemption, where there is substantial evidence in the record that the project is eligible for such an exemption.
AB 1633 limits the City’s authority to require analysis that is not legally required and beyond the limited scope of its discretion.
AB 1633 Eligibility Criteria Project Consistency
(1) “[S]ubstantial evidence in the record before the local agency that the housing development project is not located . . .” in the following areas:21 Within specified areas of a coastal
zone22
There are not any parts of Palo Alto that are in the
coastal zone.
“Either prime farmland or farmland
of statewide importance . . .
designated on the maps prepared by
the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the
Department of Conservation, or land
zoned or designated for agricultural
protection or preservation by a local
ballot measure that was approved by
the voters of that jurisdiction.”
23 The Project site is not designated prime farmland or farmland of statewide importance by the California
Department of Conservation.
24 The Project site is not
zoned or designated for agricultural protection, but
rather is zoned for urban uses and surrounded by other
urban uses.
Wetlands25 The Project site is primarily developed with urban uses and does not contain wetlands.
A hazardous waste site listed on the
Cortese List “or a hazardous waste
site designated by the Department of
Toxic Substances Control,” unless
the Department of Toxic Substances
Control has cleared the site for
The Project site is not listed.27
21 Gov. Code § 65589.5.1(a)(1): On a site specified in subparagraphs (A) to (C), inclusive, or subparagraphs (E) to (K), inclusive, of paragraph (6) of subdivision (a) of Section 65913.4.” 22 Gov. Code § 65913.4(a)(6)(A) (as amended by SB 423 (2023)). 23 Gov. Code § 65913.4(a)(6)(B).
24 See https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/, last accessed April 13, 2025. 25 Gov. Code § 65913.4(a)(6)(C) (“as defined in the United States Fish and Wildlife Service Manual, Part 660 FW 2 (June 21, 1993)”).
27 California Environmental Protection Agency Cortese List: https://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/, last visited April 12, 2025.
Palo Alto Planning Department
April 29, 2026
#519811052_v3
AB 1633 Eligibility Criteria Project Consistency
residential or residential mixed
uses.26
Within a state-delineated earthquake
fault zone, “unless the development
complies with applicable seismic
protection building code standards
adopted by the California Building
Standards Commission . . ., and by
any local building department . . ..”
28 The Project site is not located within a state-delineated earthquake fault zone.29
“Within a special flood hazard area
subject to inundation by the 1
percent chance of flood,” unless the
project has been issued a Letter of
Map Revision or flood plain
development permit.
30 The Project site is located within the X flood zone
which is not a special flood hazard area.31
Within a floodway, unless the
project has received a no-rise
certification.32
The Project site is not located within a floodway.33
“Lands identified for conservation in
an adopted natural community
conservation plan . . ., habitat
conservation plan . . ., or other
adopted natural resource protection
plan.”
34 The Project site is designated as an urban area and is not identified for conservation.
“Habitat for protected species
identified as candidate, sensitive, or
species of special status by state or
The Project site is mostly improved with urban uses
and surrounded by urban uses. We do not anticipate the
Project site contains such habitat.
26 Gov. Code § 65913.4(a)(6)(E).
28 Gov. Code § 65913.4(a)(6)(F).
29 See https://usgs.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=5a6038b3a1684561a9b0aadf88412fcf , last accessed April 13, 2025.
30 Gov. Code § 65913.4(a)(6)(G).
31 See https://hazards-
fema.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=8b0adb51996444d4879338b5529aa9cd , last accessed April 13, 2025.
32 Gov. Code § 65913.4(a)(6)(H).
33 See https://hazards-
fema.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=8b0adb51996444d4879338b5529aa9cd , last accessed April 13, 2025.
34 Gov. Code § 65913.4(a)(6)(I).
Palo Alto Planning Department
April 29, 2026
#519811052_v3
AB 1633 Eligibility Criteria Project Consistency
federal agencies, fully protected
species, or species protected by the
Federal Endangered Species Act . . .,
the California Endangered Species
Act . . ., or the Native Plant
Protection Act . . ..”
35 “Lands under conservation
easement.”36
We do not understand there to be any conservation
easements recorded on the Project site, based on the
Project’s title report.
“Within a very high fire hazard
severity zone, as determined by the
Department of Forestry and Fire
Protection.”
37 The Project site is not located within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone within the State Responsibility
Area as determined by CALFire.
38 (2) The project’s parcel(s) is legal and located “within an urbanized area39 and meets one or the more of the following criteria . . ..”40
Located within 0.5 mile “walking
distance” of “a high quality transit
corridor,” as defined in Public
Resources Code Section 21155(b),
or “a major transit stop,” as defined
in Pub. Res. Code Section
21064.3.
41 N/A. Analysis not required because the Project
qualifies under one or more other criteria.
“[L]ocated in a very low vehicle
travel area”42
N/A. Analysis not required because the Project
qualifies under one or more other criteria.
35 Gov. Code § 65913.4(a)(6)(J).
36 Gov. Code § 65913.4(a)(6)(K).
37 Gov. Code § 65589.5.1(a)(1)(B) (“Within a very high fire hazard severity zone, as determined by the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection pursuant to Section 51178, or within a high or very high fire hazard severity zone as indicated on maps adopted by the Department of Forestry a nd Fire Protection pursuant to Section 4202 of the Public Resources Code.”).
38 See https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/what-we-do/community-wildfire-preparedness-and-mitigation/fire-hazard-severity- zones, last accessed April 13, 2025.
39 A parcel is within an urbanized area if it meets the definition provided in Public Resources Code Section 21071.
Gov. Code § 65589.5 .1(b)(5). The Project site is located in an urbanized area because Palo Alto is a qualifying incorporated city because its population, when combined with the populations of contiguous cities Menlo Park and East Palo Alto, is greater than 100,000.
40 Gov. Code § 65589.5.1(a)(2).
41 Gov. Code § 65589.5.1(a)(2)(A).
42 Gov. Code § 65589.5.1(a)(2)(B).
Palo Alto Planning Department
April 29, 2026
#519811052_v3
AB 1633 Eligibility Criteria Project Consistency
“[P]roximal to six or more amenities
. . . as of the date of the”
application’s submittal.
43 A project is proximal an amenity if it
is within:
• .5 mile of “[a] bus station” or
“[a] ferry terminal”; OR
1 mile of “[a] supermarket or
grocery store,” “public park,”
“community center,” “pharmacy or
drugstore,” “medical clinic or
hospital,” “public library,” or school
serving any grade - kindergarten to
12th grade.
44 The Project is within 1 mile of the Stanford/Palo Alto Community Playing Fields; Grocery Outlet; Barron
Park Elementary School; Cornelis Bol Park; and likely
others. Analysis not required because the Project
qualifies under one or more other criteria. – see row
immediately below.
75% of the project site’s perimeter
(or 3 sides of a 4 sided project site)
is adjoined by urban uses.
45 The Project Site is fully surrounded by urban uses, as shown on Google Maps.
(3) The project’s density meets the following criteria
“[M]eets or exceeds 15 dwelling
units per acre.”46
The Project far exceeds the requirement for at least 15 du/ac.
43 Gov. Code § 65589.5.1(a)(2)(C).
44 Gov. Code § 65589.5.1(b)(4).
45 Gov. Code § 65589.5.1(a)(2)(D).
46 Gov. Code § 65589.5.1(a)(3).
Palo Alto Planning Department
April 29, 2026
#519811052_v3
AB 1633 Eligibility Criteria Project Consistency
(4) “There is substantial evidence in the record that”
• The “project is eligible for an
exemption”47; AND
• That any categorical exemption
sought is not barred by an
applicable exception.48
We anticipate that the Project qualifies for the Class 32 Urban Infill Exemption, see the discussion below.
We anticipate that the City will find the Project eligible for a Class 32 Infill Exemption, because it meets the Class 32 Infill Exemption criteria and is not subject to any of the exceptions, as documented below.
1. The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations.
As revised to proceed under Builder’s Remedy 2.0, the Project is consistent as a matter of law. AB 1893 provides that any project that complies with AB 1893 “shall be deemed consistent, compliant, and in conformity with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, redevelopment plan and implementing instruments, or other similar provision for all purposes.” 49 On February 7, 2025, San Jose received a Technical Assistance letter from the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) that says due to AB 1893, lead agencies cannot rely on subdivision (a) of CEQA Guidelines section 15332 to preclude a projec t that meets the definition of “Builder’s Remedy” from utilizing a Class 32 Infill Exemption. Builder’s Re medy projects that meet all other criteria for a Class 32 Infill Exemption, and for which none of the exceptions criteria in Section 15300.2 of the CE QA Guidelines apply, are eligible for a Class 32 Infill Exemption.
2. The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses.
The Project Site is approximately 1.45 acres, and is entirely surrounded by urban uses.
3. The project site has no value as a habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species.
The Project Site is not identified in any regional, state, or federal plans for habitat or conservation.
The Project S ite is developed with urban uses and is surrounded by urban development and significant roadways including El Camino Real, and has no anticipated value as habitat for threatened, rare or endangered species.
47 Gov. Code § 65589.5.1(a)(4)(A)
48 Gov. Code § 65589.5.1(a)(4)(B).
49 Govt. Code §65589.5(f)(1)(D)(iii).
Palo Alto Planning Department
April 29, 2026
#519811052_v3
4. Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality or water quality.
The Project does not entail any unusual methods of construction or particularly impactful use, and we anticipate that the Project will be found not to cause significant traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality impacts.
5. The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services.
The Project would not propose unusually intensive uses, and will be required to comply with all local regulations governing the provision of utilities and public services.
Exceptions to Categorical Exemptions
50:
1. The project will not have a significant cumulative impact resulting from “successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time.” 51 The Project is a single residential development, and there is no plan to propose “successive” development on the Project Site. Accordingly, we anticipate the City will conclude that the Project will not have any new cumulative impacts related to “successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time.”
2. The project will not “have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances.”52
There are no unusual circumstances related to the Project. In determining whether the “unusual circumstances” exception applies, the only questions are (a) whether there is any substantial evidence to support the City’s conclusion that the Project does not have unusual features that distinguish it from other comparable Class 32 infill projects, and (b) whether any project opponents have shown that “the project will have a significant environmental effect.” 53 The Project is a typical infill housing development project and we anticipate that substantial evidence will demonstrate that the Project will not have a significant effect on the environment.
Further, no opponents have demonstrated that the project “will have” significant environmental effects.
50 CEQA Guidelines § 15300.2.
51 CEQA Guidelines § 15300.2(b).
52 CEQA Guidelines § 15300.2(c).
53 Walters v. City of Redondo Beach (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 809, 822-23 (emphasis in the original).
Palo Alto Planning Department
April 29, 2026
#519811052_v3
3. The project will not “result in damage to scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings, or similar resources, within a highway officially designated as a state scenic highway.”
54 The Project has no effect on scenic highways.
4. The project is not “located on a site which is included on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code.”55
The Project Site is not listed on the Cortese List and it is not designated by the Department of Toxic Substances Control as a hazardous waste site.56
5. The project will not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource.”57
The Project Site is not a designated as historic. This exception may only be applied to the extent that designation had already been made on or before the Project’s complete application was submitted.
58 As outlined in this letter, the Project is eligible for AB 1633 and a Class 32 Infill Exemption. The Applicant would like to move forward with the process to complete CEQA, including any specific studies required, and look forward to discussing with the City as soon as possible.
We appreciate the City’s attention to this Project.
Sincerely,
HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
Genna Yarkin
Chelsea Maclean
54 CEQA Guidelines § 15300.2(d).
55 CEQA Guidelines § 15300.2(e).
56 California Environmental Protection Agency Cortese List: https://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/, last visited April 12, 2025.
57 CEQA Guidelines § 15300.2(f).
58 Gov. Code § 65913.10.
Palo Alto Planning Department
April 29, 2026
#519811052_v3
May 11th 2026
3781 El Camino Real
Developer Leter
Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council,
We are pleased to present 3781 El Camino Real, a 183-unit mul�family residen�al development that directly responds to Palo Alto’s cri�cal housing needs and the City’s long-term vision for El Camino Real. This project was filed in February 2024 under California’s Builder’s Remedy provision — a state law that allows housing projects to proceed outside of local zoning restric�ons in jurisdic�ons whose Housing Element had not yet received HCD cer�fica�on. At the �me of filing, Palo Alto’s Housing Element had not been cer�fied; HCD cer�fica�on was subsequently received in August 2024. The project also invokes State Density Bonus Law and Assembly Bill 130, which provides a CEQA exemp�on for qualifying infill housing projects. On September 22, 2025, the Applicant formally invoked the AB 130 CEQA exemp�on and demonstrated the Project’s eligibility across all applicable criteria.
While this is not a conven�onal en�tlement pathway, we have taken care to design a project that is though�ul, appropriately scaled, and reflec�ve of the City's vision for El Camino Real. The project delivers 183 units of new housing — including 23 units affordable to low-income households at or below 80% AMI, consistent with AB 1893's affordability requirements. We recognize that the project's affordability component has evolved since the original filing, and we are commited to delivering these 23 BMR units as a meaningful contribu�on to the City's housing goals.
Beyond housing, the project offers tangible community benefits: it brings added vitality and ac�vates a stretch of El Camino Real that would benefit from reinvigora�on, with an architecturally engaging building; it improves streetscape condi�ons at the entrance to the Ventura neighborhood, including enhanced sidewalks; and it is broadly consistent with the El Camino Real Focus Area Plan and the City’s recently adopted Objec�ve Design Standards.
The project has been subject to thorough review with City staff and appeared before the Architectural Review Board as required. We received design feedback that we have incorporated into the current plans — including expanding the third-floor balconies; adjus�ng the architectural detailing and materials along Curtner Avenue to further enhance the pedestrian experience; improving the appearance of the parking area and adding trellises along blank walls to increase visual interest; and improving bicycle circula�on by adding a door that connects the bike storage room to the garage, giving cyclists mul�ple paths of egress.
We are grateful to City Council, City staff, and the ARB for the �me and rigor they have brought to reviewing this project. We respec�ully request your support in approving 183 units of new mul�family housing at 3781 El Camino Real and look forward to delivering much-needed housing for the Palo Alto community.
Sincerely,
Alex Giovannoto
Vitoria Management, Inc.
President
3781 El Camino Real
Design Updates
Expanded Patios on Podium Level
ARB Comment:
ARB members suggested expanding
the patios at the podium level to
enhance livability and activate the
building's street presence.
Design Response:
1 1 Expanded the patios at the
podium level, maximizing
usable outdoor space for
residents and strengthening
the connection between the
building and the street.
Improved Bike Circulation and Trash Staging
ARB Comment:
ARB members recommended adding a
door connecting the bike room directly
to the garage for improved resident
access.
The City and ARB also recommended
relocating the trash staging area —
previously within the trash termination
room — to a position adjacent to the
street to allow for easier trash
circulation.
Design Response:
1 1 Added direct bike room access
to the garage.
Relocated trash staging to
Curtner Ave frontage for efficient
service access.
2 2
Updated Curtner Frontage
ARB Comment:
Rethink the garage entry materials,
add visual interest to the blank
flanking walls, and improve parking
structure screening particularly from
adjacent properties.
Design Response:
Redesigned the garage entry to
better integrate with the
architecture and added
trellises on either side to
activate the frontage.
Enhanced parking screening
strategy to improve views from
neighboring properties.
1 2
1