Item 17 Public Comment — Palo Alto City Council, June 1, 2026

From: Ali Sapirman
To: Council, City; Burt, Patrick; Lauing, Ed; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer; Veenker, Vicki
Subject: Re: Oppose Ordinances Delaying SB 79
Date: Monday, June 1, 2026 10:53:46 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.

Reupping this letter for tonight's council meeting.

On Mon, May 4, 2026 at 12:58 PM Ali Sapirman <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear Mayor and City Council,
Please see the attached letter on behalf of The Housing Action Coalition on the Council's decision on how to implement SB 79.
--
Ali Sapirman | Pronouns: They/Them
Advocacy & Policy Manager| Housing Action Coalition
555 Montgomery St, San Francisco, CA 94111
Cell: (407) 739-8818 | Email: [email protected] To opt out of all HAC emails, respond to this email with "unsubscribe all". --
Ali Sapirman | Pronouns: They/Them
Advocacy & Policy Manager| Housing Action Coalition
555 Montgomery St, San Francisco, CA 94111
Cell: (407) 739-8818 | Email: [email protected] To opt out of all HAC emails, respond to this email with "unsubscribe all".

From: [email protected]
To: Council, City
Cc: Lait, Jonathan; Knight, Julia
Subject: Daily Post headline on SB79 agenda item
Date: Monday, June 1, 2026 10:42:15 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.

The headline says "Scramble to block tall buildings"
I hope the "block tall buildings" is not correct, more about that below.

But it does look like a "scramble" to me undercutting the claim to have an open and transparent process inviting public discussion.

This could have been heard and discussed over the past two months if council and staff had considered it "urgent" enough to schedule the item when it would be heard and at a time when most people could participate.

This did not happen not once or twice but not three times so I do not accept that council finds this "urgent"
With regard to "block tall buildings" I hope the council does not completely undercut the fine work done to get a pro-housing designation approved.

While I favor option 4, if the council approves option 3, please change the language to "at least 50%" and direct staff to come back with a large set of adjacent sites for which full SB 79 density isapproved.

Stephen Levy
From: Clerk, City
To: Council, City
Subject: FW: Support SB 79
Date: Monday, June 1, 2026 10:02:42 AM

From: Nicholas Feinberg <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, May 29, 2026 5:11 PM
To: Clerk, City <[email protected]>
Subject: Support SB 79

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.

Palo Alto Palo Alto City Clerk,
I'm a lifelong South Bay resident who commuted to work in Palo Alto for many years. I'm asking that you support the housing requirements for SB 79, rather than attempting to implement an emergency stop.

This entire region has been in a massive housing crisis for over a decade now.

Homelessness is rife, and many people are being driven out. We need more housing so that people can continue to live in this wonderful area, and we should not be overly precious about the status quo. Today's eyesore is tomorrow's heritage, etc.

For the sake of my children, please support high density housing. Allow SB 79 to proceed as enacted.

Thanks!
Nicholas Feinberg
[email protected]
Mountain View, California 94041

From: Clerk, City
To: Council, City
Subject: FW: Don"t delay SB 79!
Date: Monday, June 1, 2026 10:02:27 AM

From: Mary Stimmler <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2026 5:23 PM
To: Clerk, City <[email protected]>
Subject: Don't delay SB 79!

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.

Palo Alto Palo Alto City Clerk,
I'm writing to urge the Council not to proceed with ordinances delaying implementation of SB 79 (Wiener), and to raise two concerns about the process recommended in Staff Report #2603-6132.

Palo Alto has both the opportunity and the obligation to add housing near transit. As a major employment center well-served by Caltrain and key bus corridors, SB 79 offers a framework for doing so with objective standards that reduce delays and uncertainty. Delaying that framework undermines the region's housing and climate goals.

If the Council is nonetheless inclined to proceed, I raise two concerns:

First, the public deserves more information before the Council acts. Staff Report #2603-6132 does not provide sufficient information to evaluate the proposed ordinances. The public should have access to the actual number of locally designated historic resources within SB 79's TOD Eligibility Areas, and current allowable densities and heights across SB 79-eligible sites — without which no one can assess what it means to cap development at 50% of SB 79's minimum densities.

Second, an emergency ordinance is not the appropriate vehicle. Under California Government Code Section 65858(a), emergency land use ordinances exist to protect public safety, health, and welfare. New housing near transit does not meet that bar. Any ordinance delaying SB 79 should go through the normal legislative process, with adequate time for public input.

California's housing challenges require urgency. I urge you to allow SB 79 to take effect as intended.

Mary Stimmler
[email protected]
Palo Alto, California 94301
From: Clerk, City
To: Council, City
Subject: FW: Don"t delay SB 79!
Date: Monday, June 1, 2026 10:02:12 AM

From: Rachel Gilbert <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2026 5:40 PM
To: Clerk, City <[email protected]>
Subject: Don't delay SB 79!

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.

If the Council is nonetheless inclined to proceed, I raise two concerns:

California's housing challenges require urgency. I urge you to allow SB 79 to take effect as intended. Thank you.

Rachel Gilbert
[email protected]
Mountain View, California 94043

From: Clerk, City
To: Council, City
Subject: FW: Don"t delay SB 79!
Date: Monday, June 1, 2026 10:01:28 AM

From: Naphtali Knox <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2026 6:36 PM
To: Clerk, City <[email protected]>
Subject: Don't delay SB 79!

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.

Palo Alto Palo Alto City Clerk,
Dear Councilmembers,
Please do NOT proceed with ordinances delaying implementation of SB 79 (Wiener).

We have both the need and the opportunity to add housing near transit. I have lived in Palo Alto 54 years. Our city is a major employment center well-served by Caltrain and key buseays. SB 79 offers a way for us to add housing strategically using objective standards that reduce delays and uncertainty. Delay in implementing SB79 we’ll only undermine our housing goals and aspirations.

Naphtali Knox
[email protected]
Palo Alto, California 94301

From: Clerk, City
To: Council, City
Subject: FW: Don"t delay SB 79!
Date: Monday, June 1, 2026 10:01:17 AM

From: Blair MacDonald <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2026 8:47 PM
To: Clerk, City <[email protected]>
Subject: Don't delay SB 79!

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.

If the Council is nonetheless inclined to proceed, I raise two concerns:

California's housing challenges require urgency. I urge you to allow SB 79 to take effect as intended.

Blair MacDonald
[email protected]
, 94043
From: Rob Nielsen
To: Council, City
Cc: Planning Commission
Subject: SB 79 Implementation (Item 17)
Date: Monday, June 1, 2026 12:29:41 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.

My name is Rob Nielsen. I live in Midtown and support efforts to promote more homes.

On the issue of SB 79 implementation, I request that you modify the emergency ordinances to allow SB 79 to go into effect in places where the city already plans for new homes. These would include the Downtown Housing Plan area, along El Camino Real and California Ave, the Transit Center, and the San Antonio area as well as Housing Element sites.

Much work has been put into identifying these areas and in garnering public support for these choices. There is no need to delay action for a few years if a good SB79- aligned proposal comes in for such a site.

If Palo Alto wants to be considered a pro-housing city, we should embrace state law in the places near transit where we want more homes.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely yours,
Rob Nielsen
From: Jeff Levinsky
To: Council, City
Subject: Possible Flaws in Proposed Ordinance for SB 79 (Item #17 on June 1, 2026 Agenda) Date: Sunday, May 31, 2026 9:42:45 PM
Dear City Council Members:

Here are some concerns about the proposed ordinance in Attachment C on Monday’s agenda regarding SB 79 (Item #17):

1) Upzones Non SB-79 Projects: The proposed ordinance will add a new section 18.14.070 into our Municipal Code to offer 50% of the upzoning SB 79 allows, enabling us to forestall the full SB 79 upzoning until 2032. However, the text of the proposed ordinance appears to offer this upzoning to projects ineligible for SB 79.

It’s important to remember that SB 79 only upzones projects that contain at least five residential units at a minimum density of at least 30 units per acre (California Government Code section 65912.157(a)(1)), are no larger than 1,750 square feet on average (California Government Code section 65912.157(a)(2)) are not hotels and the like (California Government Code section 65912.156(g)), and meet other requirements as well.

Without these restrictions being clearly echoed or referenced in the proposed ordinance, it appears we will upzone for all projects within the ½ mile radius. For example, the ordinance appears to allow an R-1 parcel within ¼ mile of a train station to build a single residence at

1.75 FAR (that’s 8,750 square feet on a 5,000 square foot lot), even though SB 79 itself would not allow this and it is many times larger than we permit today.

Perhaps the proposed ordinance language should clearly state it only applies to housing development projects as defined by SB 79.
1 2) Unnecessary Daylight Plane Changes: The same proposed ordinance text alters our daylight plane rules and eliminates them entirely in some cases. Yet SB 79 does not require this. Rather, it only states that a “local government shall not enforce any other local development standard or combination of standards that would physically preclude achieving a residential floor area ratio” allowed by the law.(California Government Code section 65912.157(a)(3)(C) et. al.).

In practice, this could mean that if applicants claim they cannot fit a building with the allowed floor area into the daylight plane and the City verifies this is true, the City could have a waiver process to accommodate relaxed daylight planes. This verification and waiver allowance could be inserted into the proposed ordinance.

3) Unnecessary Setback Changes: By the same argument, there is no need to change the minimum setbacks in the ordinance. The same verification and waiver process could be used for projects unable to accommodate our current setback laws.

4) Unnecessary Maximum Density Elimination: The proposed ordinance eliminates our maximum density standards, but SB 79 itself does not. Rather it establishes maximum densities, as noted in the table on page 3 of the staff report. Why not just have our proposed ordinance set the maximums to half of the densities allowed under SB 79?

---

Apart from the above comments on the proposed ordinance, please note that the discussion in the staff report about AB 2097 says we cannot enforce minimum parking requirements within ½ mile of our train stations. As I think the Council knows, AB 2097 does allow us to enforce (and we do!) minimum requirements for both accessible parking and electric vehicle charging stations. Our rules for this are at §18.52.040(a)(1)B.

Thank you,

Jeff Levinsky

1Technical Note: The proposed ordinance relies on California Government Code section 65912.161(b)(1)(A), which allows for the temporary exemption from SB 79 for “A site that has been identified by the local jurisdiction which permits density and residential floor area ratio at no less than 50 percent of the standards specified under subdivision (a) of Section 65912.157.” That referenced subdivision contains the requirements noted above that the project have at least five units averaging no more than 1,750 square feet each, etc. It provides no standards for projects that do not comply with those requirements. So unless there is reason to think otherwise, our local ordinance can parallel the state law, namely allow SB 79- eligible projects to have density and residential floor area of 50% of what SB 79 otherwise allows and not upzone projects ineligible for SB 79.

From: Amy Krystosik
To: Council, City
Subject: Item 17/sb79
Date: Sunday, May 31, 2026 2:36:40 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Please cooperate with sb79
I am a mother with a young family.

Amy krystosik
309 Grant Ave
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.

This is their first email to you.

Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
From: Elizabeth Greenfield
To: Council, City
Subject: Item #17 at 6/1 City Council Mtg: SB 79 implementation comment Date: Saturday, May 30, 2026 2:35:53 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
To the Palo Alto City Council:

I support permitting 5-7 story buildings within 0.5 miles of both of the Caltrain stations. Those are the places where we should densify in the City. Many people of my demographic (I'm 29) would love to be in an apartment next to Caltrain, and would be less likely to need to own a car. This is great for the city, the world (greenhouse gas emissions), and the people who get to live there.
5-7 stories are not like the 12 and 14 story towers that have recently been approved on the Mollie Stones site. 5-7 stories is low enough that it feels like a community, but significantly more dense than most of the buildings now. Think of downtown Sunnyvale.

I live at 3476 Waverley St, where I have lived the majority of my life. I have a masters in urban planning.

Best,
Elizabeth Greenfield
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.

This is their first email to you.

Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
From: Business TAB + CCS
To: Council, City
Subject: Urgent matter for Monday June 1st meeting. Item #17 Date: Saturday, May 30, 2026 12:24:01 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Members of the City Council,
I urge the Council to adopt a more nuanced approach regarding SB79, rather than applying broad-stroke legislation across Palo Alto. It is essential to examine how this bill impacts specific areas differently, particularly by distinguishing between residential neighborhoods adjacent to single-family homes and the urban core.

I believe that redevelopment in the core of Palo Alto, specifically in areas like California Avenue, is vital for its recovery and long-term success. Further development will bring new life to the area, supporting all local businesses and providing Palo Alto with a prestigious, positive destination. Encouraging growth in this urban center will foster community participation and create a necessary foundation for the rest of the city to thrive.This growth is critical for existing businesses and essential for bringing new business to the area.

While I recognize that less urban areas should maintain lower density, allowing for strategic growth in our more urbanized zones will serve as a strong foundation for the future of California Avenue and the entire Palo Alto community.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Best regards,
Dritan Azemi of Casual Chic Salon
Sent from Dritan (Dri) Azemi’s iPhone
For further inquiry call or text:

Business Line # (1) 650.272.6833 (Text/Call)
Business Line # (2) 650.382.2263 (Text/Call)
Non Business Personal Line 650.656.5223 (Text/Call)
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: Gina Dalma
To: Council, City
Cc: Planning Commission
Subject: SB 79 Implementation (Item 17) + Expansion of the Rental Registry (Item 3) Public Comment Date: Saturday, May 30, 2026 11:15:49 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.

My name is Gina Dalma and I live in Midtown. I support efforts to promote more homes and protect tenants.
re SB 79 implementation, please modify the emergency ordinances to allow SB 79 to go into effect in places where the city already plans for new homes: The Downtown Housing Plan area, along El Camino Real and Cal Ave, the Transit Center, San Antonio, and other areas. I want to live in a diverse and inclusive community. We need to embrace state law in the places near transit where we want more homes.
re Tenant Protections and the rental registry, please plan to revisit expansion of the rental registry next year, as opposed to deferring it indefinitely. Single family homes make up a growing share of the rental market, and having more data about them can help the city make more informed decisions about tenant protections.

Please support more homes for all in our community,
Gina
From: Garrett Clark
To: Council, City
Cc: Planning Commission
Subject: SB 79 Implementation (Item 17) + Expansion of the Rental Registry (Item 3) Public Comment Date: Friday, May 29, 2026 5:13:49 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.

My name is Garrett Clark and I live in Downtown North. I support efforts to promote more homes and protect tenants.
re SB 79 implementation, please modify the emergency ordinances to allow SB 79 to go into effect in places where the city already plans for new homes: The Downtown Housing Plan area, along El Camino Real and Cal Ave, the Transit Center, San Antonio, and other areas. If Palo Alto wants to be considered a pro-housing city, we should embrace state law in the places near transit where we want more homes. re Tenant Protections and the rental registry, please plan to revisit expansion of the rental registry next year, as opposed to deferring it indefinitely. Single family homes make up a growing share of the rental market, and having more data about them can help the city make more informed decisions about tenant protections.

Thank you for your leadership to support homes for all in our community, Garrett Clark
From: Jeremy Levine, Palo Alto Forward
To: Council, City
Cc: Scottoneil; Chao Lam
Subject: Public Comment Agenda Item 17: Implementing SB 79 Effectively and Legally Date: Friday, May 29, 2026 5:07:37 PM
Attachments: 2026.5.29 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 Mayor Veenker and the Palo Alto City Council, Please see the attached comment with Palo Alto Forward's perspective regarding the implementation of SB 79. The letter includes legal language to amend Attachment C in the staff report such that it would better promote housing in the places where the City has already planned for it.

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. I'd love to see you all at our Cal Ave Housing Walking Tour this Sunday,
Jeremy
--
Jeremy Levine (he • him)
Executive Director, Palo Alto Forward
(650) 485-0127

May 29, 2026 Palo Alto City Council 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 RE : Agenda Item 17, 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,

and

transit

access.

Though Palo Alto Forward would support the city implementing SB 79 as written, we do not object

the

City

Council

moving

forward

with

legislation

that

“right-sizes”

application

79 in

Palo

Alto,

focusing

housing

opportunity

the

places

want

and

limiting

the

impact

historic

sites.

To promote housing in the places that make the most sense, the City should allow SB 79 to

into

effect

select

areas

where

plans

for

denser

homes

are

already

under

way.

Long

run,

these

are

the

places

where

Palo

Alto

will

likely

plan

for

denser

housing

its

local

alternative

plans.

Short

run,

79 provides

tool

further

transit-oriented

homes

places

that

Palo

Alto

has

already

approved

been

planning

for

higher-density

zoning

such

the

Downtown

Housing

Plan,

the

University

Station

Transit

Center,

Camino

Real,

the

San

Antonio

Road

Area

Plan,

and

the

Cal

Ave

corridor.

In the appendix below, we suggest specific language modifying Attachment C, an urgency ordinance that would zone all sites within the half mile of Palo Alto’s Caltrain stations to 50% of the

79 standards.

Our

suggested

language

would

allow

79 to

into

full

effect

specific

areas

that

align

with

the

City’s

preexisting

housing

plans

and

housing

element

site

inventory.

Allowing

79 to

take

full

effect

the

listed

areas

will

further

the

city’s

preexisting

housing

goals

and

its

application

for

the

Pro-Housing

Designation,

reflecting

the

improving

reputation

Palo

Alto

community

that

embraces

new

homes.

Furthermore, by allowing SB 79 to go into effect in areas near transit where the city already planned

for

new

homes,

Palo

Alto

would

strengthen

the

findings

its

urgency

ordinance—which

are

otherwise

unconvincing

pretenses.

Both

state

and

local

law

only

allow

urgency

ordinances

upon

findings

that

the

ordinance

necessary

“preserve

the

public

health,

safety,

welfare.”

Housing

near

transit—especially

when

required

the

state’s

own

legislature,

much

locations

for

which

the

City

already

planned

for

additional

homes—is

not a threat to public health, safety, or welfare; rather, such homes bring broad community benefits,

including

customers

local

stores,

riders

public

transit,

employees

near

jobs.

Overall, we do not understand the logic behind a legally dubious urgency ordinance for a 50% reduction

79 densities

opposed

allowing

the

law

into

effect

and

then

pursuing

full

local

alternative

plan.

Other

cities

nearby,

including

Menlo

Park

and

Mountain

View,

have

opted

exempt

historic

sites

but

otherwise

allow

79 to

into

effect.

Menlo

Park

can

embrace

79,

then

can

our

community.

However, Palo Alto Forward sees our proposed language as a compromise solution. Not only will

show

the

State

that

the

City

serious

about

facilitating

new

housing

development

areas

the

City

already

identified

for

higher

density

housing,

but

will

also

bolster

urgency

findings

for

limiting

79,

such

"unanticipated

strain”

public

infrastructure,

when

that

suspension

being

applied

only

areas

Palo

Alto

that

weren’t

already

viewed

suitable

for

higher-density

housing

the

city’s

own

planning

efforts.

We hope the City will begin working on a local alternative plan that maximizes the benefits of SB 79 as

soon

possible.

the

interim,

urge

the

City

support

79 in

the

locations

where

already

anticipates

growth,

balancing

housing

needs

with

other

city

priorities.

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

[SUGGESTED EDITS TO DRAFT ORDINANCE IN RED TEXT BELOW] Ordinance No. _____ Interim, Urgency Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Excluding from the Effect of Government Code Section 65912.157 Those Properties Designated as Local Historic Resources Pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.49 and Amending the Zoning Map (Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.08.040) The Council of the City of Palo Alto ORDAINS as follows: SECTION 1. Findings and Declarations. The City Council finds and declares as follows: A. On October 10, 2025, the Governor of the State of California signed Senate Bill 79 (SB 79), which

adopted

California

Government

Code

sections

65912.155

through

65912.162

and

requires

local

agencies,

effective

July

2026,

permit

high

density

residential

development

designated

transit-oriented

development

(TOD)

zones

within

one-half

mile

certain

TOD

stops.

B. There are three TOD zones in Palo Alto, centered on the Palo Alto, California Avenue, and San

Antonio

Road

Caltrain

stations.

C. California Government Code section 65912.157 sets forth residential development standards that

apply

housing

development

projects

within

TOD

zones,

such

height

75 feet,

density

120

dwelling

units

per

acre,

and

floor

area

ratio

3.5 for

projects

within

one-quarter

mile

Caltrain

station.

D. Government Code section 65912.161, subdivision (b), permits local agencies to exclude certain

properties

from

compliance

with

Government

Code

section

65912.157

adopting

ordinance

implementing

79,

including:
a. A site that permits density and residential floor area ratio at no less than 50 percent of the

standards

specified

under

Government

Code

section

65912.157.
b. Sites with a historic resource designated as of January 1, 2025, on a local register. E. The City Council desire to adopt an ordinance pursuant to Government Code section 65912.161,

excluding

sites

designated

local

historic

resources

the

Palo

Alto

Historic

Resources

Inventory

pursuant

Palo

Alto

Municipal

Code

(PAMC)

Chapter

16.49. F. SB 79 charges the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) with

promulgating

regulations

relating

the

bill

July

2026.

79 further

chargers

metropolitan

planning

organizations

with

creating

maps

TOD

stops

and

zones

accordance

with

HCD

guidance.

G. HCD issued a set of “advisory clarifications on definitions for Metropolitan Planning Organizations”

March

23,

2026.

The

Metropolitan

Transportation

Commission

(MTC),

the

metropolitan

planning

organization

for

the

San

Francisco

Bay

Area,

released

preliminary

draft
maps on April 8, 2026. H. Due to the short time between the issuance of guidance from HCD and MTC and the July 1, 2026

effective

date

Government

Code

section

65912.157,

there

insufficient

time

for

the

amendments

the

zoning

map

proposed

this

ordinance

presented

for

review

the

Planning

and

Transportation

Commission.

Accordingly,

pursuant

PAMC

section

18.80.090,

the

City

Council

adopts

this

ordinance

temporary

measure

preserve

the

public

health,

safety,

welfare.

I. The City Council finds and declares that the implementation of Government Code section 65912.157

July

2026

will

create

significant

incentive

for

redevelopment

properties

the

TOD

zones
that the City has not already identified as being suitable locations for higher-density

development,

allow

at densities that would create unanticipated strain on public

infrastructure

and

cause

additional

points

conflict

between

vehicles

and

bicycles

pedestrians

the

effected

areas.

The

rezoning

and

exclusion

actions

set

forth

this

ordinance

would

reduce

these

impacts

for

temporary

period,

during

which

the

City

may

plan

for

increased

demands

infrastructure

and

transportation

resources.

Accordingly,

this

ordinance

necessary

emergency

measure

pursuant

PAMC

section

2.04.270

preserve

the

public

peace,

health,

safety.

J. Additionally, the City Council finds and declares that the impacts described above present a current

and

immediate

threat

the

public

health,

safety,

welfare

that

would

realized

approval

projects

under

the

standards

set

forth

Government

Code

section

65912.157.

There

are

pending

project

applications

that

would

impacted

this

ordinance

and

this

ordinance

would

not

have

the

effect

denying

any

approvals

needed

for

the

development

projects

containing

multifamily

housing.

Accordingly,

for

the

reasons

set

forth

above,

this

ordinance

necessary

interim,

urgency

measure

pursuant

Government

Code

section

65858

protect

the

public

health,

safety,

welfare.

SECTION 2. Section 18.14.070 (Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Combining District) of Chapter

18.14 (Housing

Incentives)

Title

18 (Zoning)

the

Palo

Alto

Municipal

Code

hereby

added

read:

18.14.070 Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Combining District (a) Purpose. The purpose of the TOD Combining District is to implement Senate Bill 79 (2025), California

Government

Code

sections

65912.155

through

65912.162.

For

purposes

this

section,

definitions

California

Government

Code

section

65912.156

shall

apply.
(b) Applicability. The TOD Combining District shall apply to all sites within a TOD zone, except:
(i) sites designated as local historic resources on the Palo Alto Historic Resources Inventory as

of January 1, 2025; (ii) sites located in the Downtown Housing Plan Assessment Area; (iii) sites

with

frontages

California

Avenue

between

Camino

Real

and

the

Caltrain

right-of-way;

(iv)

the

Palo

Alto

Transit

Center

(95

University

Avenue);

(v)

sites

with

frontages

Camino

Real;

and

(vi)

sites

with

frontages

Alma

Street;

(vii)

sites

with

frontages

Cambridge

Avenue,

New

Mayfield

Avenue,

Jacaranda

Lane,

and

Sherman

Avenue;

and

(viii)

sites

with

frontages

San

Antonio

Road. [NO COMMENTS ON REMAINDER OF DRAFT ORDINANCE] From: Rachel Miller
To: Council, City
Cc: Planning Commission
Subject: SB 79 Implementation (Item 17) Public Comment
Date: Friday, May 29, 2026 4:24:38 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.

My name is Rachel Miller and I live in Downtown North. I support efforts to promote more homes. re SB 79 implementation, please modify the emergency ordinances to allow SB 79 to go into effect in places where the city already plans for new homes: The Downtown Housing Plan area, along El Camino Real and Cal Ave, the Transit Center, San Antonio, and other areas. If Palo Alto wants to be considered a pro-housing city, we should embrace state law in the places near transit where we want more homes.

Thank you for your leadership to support homes for all in our community, Rachel Miller
Sent from my iPhone
From: Jean Pressey
To: Council, City
Cc: Planning Commission
Subject: SB 79 Implementation (Item 17) + Expansion of the Rental Registry (Item 3) Public Comment Date: Friday, May 29, 2026 4:12:49 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
My name is Jean Pressey and I live in downtown. I very strongly support efforts to promote more homes.
re SB 79 implementation, please modify the emergency ordinances to allow SB 79 to go into effect in places where the city already plans for new homes: The Downtown Housing Plan area, along El Camino Real and Cal Ave, the Transit Center, San Antonio, and other areas.

Palo Alto should embrace state law in the places near transit where we want more homes.

Near transit is the logical place. We should be spending city dollars on more effective ways to implement this law, rather than fighting it.

We often hear arguments that new housing creates more traffic, but that is not true. The number of cars that drive into Palo Alto every day for jobs exceeds the available housing by a vast number. If we have more housing, it will mean fewer cars and parking issues, especially if it is near transit.
re Tenant Protections and the rental registry, please plan to revisit expansion of the rental registry next year, as opposed to deferring it indefinitely. Single family homes make up a growing share of the rental market, and having more data about them can help the city make more informed decisions about tenant protections. In fact, what we need is an effort to make more homes available for rent by legislating against "ghost" homes that have been purchased purely for investment without any intent to live in them. I'm sure we all can name a few; I personally could point out three. This is an outrage and harmful for neighborhoods.

Thank you for supporting homes for all in our community, Jean Pressey
850 Webster
Palo Alto
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.

Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
From: [email protected]
To: Council, City; Clerk, City
Cc: [email protected]; Ah Yun, Mahealani; Reckdahl, Keith; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Lu, George; Lauing, Ed; Burt, Patrick; Stone, Greer; Veenker, Vicki; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Arellano, Caio; [email protected] Subject: Item 17 — Opposition to Draft Ordinance Establishing 50 Percent SB 79 Development Standards (Attachment C); June 1, 2026 City Council Hearing
Date: Friday, May 29, 2026 2:27:43 PM
Attachments: 05.29.26 Letter to Palo Alto City Council on 414 California Avenue.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Palo Alto City Council:

Please find the attached letter on Item 17, in advance of Monday’s City Council hearing.

Thanks for your attention.

Best,
Scott
Scott Gesundheit
| Holland & Knight
Associate
Holland & Knight LLP
560 Mission Street, Suite 1900 | San Francisco, California 94105 Phone
+1.415.743.6917 | Fax +1.415.743.6910
[email protected] | www.hklaw.com
________________________________________________
Add to address book | View professional biography
NOTE: This e-mail is from a law firm, Holland & Knight LLP ("Holland & Knight"), and is intended solely for the use of the individual(s) to whom it is addressed. If you believe you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately, delete the e-mail from your computer and do not copy or disclose it to anyone else. If you are not an existing client of Holland & Knight, do not construe anything in this e-mail to make you a client unless it contains a specific statement to that effect and do not disclose anything to Holland & Knight in reply that you expect it to hold in confidence. If you properly received this e-mail as a client, co-counsel or retained expert of Holland & Knight, you should maintain its contents in confidence in order to preserve the attorney-client or work product privilege that may be available to protect confidentiality.

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

Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast

560 Mission Street, Suite 1900 | San Francisco, California 94105 | T +1.415.743.6900 | F +1.415.743.6910 Holland & Knight LLP | www.hklaw.com
+1 415-743-6917
[email protected]

Ryan M. Leaderman
[email protected]

May 29, 2026

via email ([email protected])
Mayor and Members of the City Council
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, California 94301
Re: Item 17 — Opposition to Draft Ordinance Establishing 50 Percent SB 79 Development Standards (Attachment C); June 1, 2026 City Council Hearing Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council:

This firm represents 414 California Ave., LLC (the "Applicant"), the owner of real property located at 414 California Avenue, Palo Alto, California (APN 124-32-040) (the "Project Site"). The Project Site, which currently contains a shuttered bank building and a surface parking lot, is presently planned for a mixed-use, transit-oriented housing project, consisting of multi- family residential units, subterranean parking and ground-floor retail/restaurant uses (the “Project”). The Project Site is located less than one-quarter mile from the pedestrian entrance to the California Avenue Caltrain station. As such, the Project Site qualifies as a Tier 1 transit- oriented development ("TOD") site under Senate Bill 79 ("SB 79"), codified at Government Code Sections 65912.155 through 65912.162, which takes effect on July 1, 2026.

The Applicant urges the City Council not to adopt the draft ordinance presented as Attachment C to the June 1, 2026 Staff Report (the "Draft Ordinance"). The Draft Ordinance does not satisfy the statutory prerequisites for a local exclusion under Government Code Section 65912.161(b)(1) because it fails to provide at least 50 percent of the density capacity mandated by SB 79. If the California Department of Housing and Community Development ("HCD") determines that the Draft Ordinance is not in substantial compliance with state law, the local exclusion will fall away and the full, unmodified SB 79 development standards will apply to all eligible parcels in Palo Alto. This creates precisely the regulatory gap that the City's own staff has warned against, and it is an outcome that does not serve the City or its residents.

May 29, 2026

Page 2 ends

#539284517_v1

1. Statutory Framework
Government Code Section 65912.161(b) provides a narrow mechanism by which a local government may temporarily exclude TOD-eligible parcels from the default SB 79 standards.

The statute permits exclusion only where local zoning allows "density and residential floor area ratio at no less than 50 percent of the standards specified under Government Code section 65912.157."
As a reminder, local governments must submit draft ordinances to HCD at least 14 days before adoption and again within 60 days after enactment, and HCD has 90 days (extendable to 120) to review for substantial compliance. If HCD finds an ordinance non-compliant and the local government fails to cure, HCD may notify the Attorney General, and the local exclusion ceases to operate.

There is no evidence in the record that the City complied with the legal requirement to submit the Draft Ordinance to HCD at least 14 days prior to the adoption. Government Code Section 65912.160(d)(1)(A). In approving a defective ordinance, the City may reasonably find itself in a similar position to 2023-2024, when the City’s local zoning was superseded by state law via the Builder’s Remedy. The Draft Ordinance, as proposed, plainly falls to allow at least “50 percent of the standards specified” in SB 79, and it therefore exposes the City to exactly that risk.

2. The Draft Ordinance Runs Counter to the City’s Goals Beyond its legal deficiencies, the Draft Ordinance fails on its own terms. The City has articulated core objectives for its SB 79 implementation: “coordinated design and placemaking,” and the protection of single-family neighborhoods from “contextually inconsistent” redevelopment. The Draft Ordinance undermines each of them.

Coordinated design and placemaking. Staff has expressly warned that under a poorly calibrated SB 79 implementation, "new development may also lack coordinated design or placemaking, with larger parcels likely proving more attractive for redevelopment than smaller ones." That warning unfortunately describes the Draft Ordinance itself.

By imposing a uniform placeholder density across the entire zone, regardless of whether a parcel is more appropriate for redevelopment or less so, the ordinance applies a one-size-fits-all envelope that ignores the very contextual differences staff has flagged as critical. That outcome is doubly damaging on California Avenue, where placemaking depends on a specific economic chain reaction. Real placemaking on the commercial corridor requires three elements working together: active ground-floor uses, residential density above to support those uses and animate the street, and pedestrian-oriented design. Without any one of these three legs, the corridor fails.

The Project's proposed ground-floor program, two fine-dining restaurants, a bakery, and additional neighborhood-serving retail totaling approximately 10,000 square feet, is precisely the type of placemaking use local zoning was designed to encourage. Ground-floor retail of this

May 29, 2026

Page 3 ends

#539284517_v1
quality, however, is a loss leader for developers. Construction costs for restaurant-grade ground floors — grease interceptors, hood ventilation, tenant improvement allowances, higher floor-to- floor heights — substantially exceed those for residential floors, and retail rents in the California Avenue district do not generate returns sufficient to justify such costs standing alone. The only way to deliver and sustain high-quality ground-floor retail on California Avenue is to cross- subsidize it with a sufficient mass of residential square footage above.

The residential program must be large enough to generate returns that offset the below-market economics of the ground floor. This is the fundamental economics of urban mixed-use development, and the City's own staff has acknowledged the challenge. The Draft Ordinance strips that residential density out, leaving the City with two-thirds of a placemaking framework and no economic engine to drive it. Put differently, when FAR is constrained, every square foot must work as hard as possible economically. Developers will inevitably devote the limited envelope to residential uses that generate market returns and will cut the ground-floor retail and restaurant components, which do not. The Draft Ordinance therefore guarantees, as a matter of basic development economics, the very loss of ground-floor activation the City is trying to prevent. The result will be a residential-only project with no ground floor retail at all, which, while providing necessary housing during a crisis, will deprive California Avenue of the pedestrian vibrancy and engaging street life that all Palo Alto residents, and visitors from elsewhere, appreciate so much about the corridor.

Protection of single-family neighborhoods from contextually inconsistent redevelopment. Staff has also recognized that the California Avenue SB 79 area "contains a substantial proportion of single-family zoned property, including larger 10,000 square foot lots in the Old Palo Alto neighborhood that would not require land consolidation to support apartment development," and that "new construction built to SB 79 standards may appear contextually inconsistent with the historic development pattern northeast of the Caltrain station." If the City's genuine concern is the contextual fit of new development in those single-family neighborhoods, the policy response should be to concentrate density on the commercial spine, where it belongs, where it advances placemaking, and where it does not disturb single-family blocks, and not to suppress density uniformly across the entire TOD zone.

It bears emphasis that concentrating density on the California Avenue commercial corridor carries none of the displacement or neighborhood-character concerns that often accompany infill development elsewhere. The Project Site itself contains no housing, only a shuttered bank building and a surface parking lot, so redevelopment will displace no existing residents. The same is true of most of the California Avenue commercial spine, which is dominated by retail, office, and surface parking uses rather than residential ones. Directing SB 79 density to this corridor therefore adds housing without subtracting any, and does so on parcels where redevelopment is most economically and physically appropriate. By contrast, the surrounding single-family neighborhoods remain undisturbed when density is channeled to the commercial corridor where it belongs. Concentrating capacity on California Avenue is thus the policy choice

May 29, 2026

Page 4 ends

#539284517_v1
that simultaneously protects single-family neighborhoods and delivers the housing SB 79 requires.

Meanwhile, the Draft Ordinance does the opposite. A well-designed implementing ordinance would instead concentrate the highest density on the commercial corridors closest to transit, where SB 79's full standards are most appropriate and most easily absorbed, allowing the City to use the 50-percent-capacity tools surgically to protect genuinely sensitive single-family contexts.

3. Consequences of Adopting the Draft Ordinance
If HCD determines that the Draft Ordinance is not in substantial compliance with Government Code Section 65912.161(b)(1), because it does not genuinely deliver 50 percent of SB 79 density, the local exclusion falls away. The City would then face a period during which the full, unmodified SB 79 development standards apply to every eligible parcel in the City. This is precisely the "regulatory gap" the City's own staff warned against.

Once those full SB 79 standards take effect, qualifying projects would be protected by the Housing Accountability Act ("HAA"). A project that complies with SB 79 and applicable objective standards may only be denied upon a finding of a "specific adverse impact" on public health or safety that cannot be mitigated in any other way — an extraordinarily high bar. AB 130 further streamlines review by creating a CEQA exemption for qualifying infill housing and imposing a 30-day approval deadline after completion of objective standards review. The combined effect of SB 79 and AB 130 is that, if the Draft Ordinance is invalidated by HCD, developers on TOD sites could submit and vest their projects under the full SB 79 standards before the City has any opportunity to adopt a replacement ordinance.

Ironically, the City will yield a better project at 414 California Avenue without the Draft Ordinance. Under the Draft Ordinance, the Applicant is forced to choose residential viability over ground-floor activation, and the corridor loses the very retail and placemaking that the City says it wants to preserve. Under the full SB 79 standards, the Applicant can deliver what California Avenue actually needs: meaningful housing in a transit-rich location, paired with the active, pedestrian-oriented ground-floor uses that have always defined the corridor's character. A workable residential envelope is the precondition for everything else the City says it values here, and the Draft Ordinance takes that precondition away.

The Applicant respectfully urges the Council to reject the Draft Ordinance in its current form, to confirm that SB 79 development standards remain available as the base density for State Density Bonus Law incentives, concessions, and waivers on all sites, and to direct staff to return with an implementation framework that genuinely delivers the 50 percent of SB 79 density and floor area capacity that Government Code Section 65912.161(b)(1) requires.

The Applicant reserves all rights, including the right to submit additional objections in advance of any urgency ordinance hearing, to seek administrative review by HCD's Housing Accountability Unit, and to pursue any and all remedies available under the HAA, SB 79, the

May 29, 2026

Page 5 ends

#539284517_v1
State Density Bonus Law, and applicable provisions of the Government Code if the Draft Ordinance is adopted as presented.

The Applicant is committed to delivering high-quality, transit-oriented, mixed-use housing on California Avenue, housing that includes meaningful ground-floor retail, complies with affordability requirements, and advances the City's own planning objectives. The Council is urged to ensure that its SB 79 implementing ordinance does not inadvertently prevent that outcome.

Sincerely yours,

HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP

Scott L. Gesundheit

cc: California Department of Housing and Community Development, Housing Accountability Unit; Office of the Attorney General of California; City Attorney, City of Palo Alto

From: Bill Fitch
To: Council, City
Cc: Planning Commission
Subject: SB 79 Implementation (Item 17) + Expansion of the Rental Registry (Item 3) Public Comment Date: Friday, May 29, 2026 1:51:13 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.

My name is Bill Fitch and I live in Evergreen Park. I support efforts to promote more homes and protect tenants. re SB 79 implementation, please modify the emergency ordinances to allow SB 79 to go into effect in places where the city already plans for new homes: The Downtown Housing Plan area, along El Camino Real and Cal Ave, the Transit Center, San Antonio, and other areas. If Palo Alto wants to be considered a pro-housing city, we should embrace state law in the places near transit where we want more homes.

I spoke at city council some years back, in favor of then SB50. We should build housing near existing transit, especially Caltrain.
re Tenant Protections and the rental registry, please plan to revisit expansion of the rental registry next year, as opposed to deferring it indefinitely. Single family homes make up a growing share of the rental market, and having more data about them can help the city make more informed decisions about tenant protections.

Thank you for your leadership to support homes for all in our community, Bill Fitch
From: Mert Dikmen
To: Council, City
Cc: Planning Commission
Subject: SB 79 Implementation (Item 17) Public Comment
Date: Friday, May 29, 2026 12:33:59 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.

My name is Mert Dikmen and I live in Crescent Park. I support efforts to promote more homes and protect tenants.

Please modify the emergency ordinances to allow SB 79 to go into effect without any restrictions or hurdles in places where the city already plans for new homes: The Downtown Housing Plan area, along El Camino Real and Cal Ave, the Transit Center, San Antonio, and strongly consider expanding it to the entirety of the city limits. If Palo Alto wants to be considered a pro-housing city, we should embrace state law in the places near transit where we want more homes.

Thank you for your leadership to support homes for all in our community, Mert Dikmen
From: Mihai Fechete
To: Council, City
Subject: Fwd: Letter to city council
Date: Thursday, May 28, 2026 11:17:26 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: 414 California LLC <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, May 27, 2026 at 3:08 PM
Subject: Letter to city council
To: [email protected]
<[email protected]

---------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Members of the City Council,
We are writing as the owners of Nob Hill Hardware, located at 251 California Avenue and as long-standing members of the local business community.

We understand that the Council is considering an emergency ordinance related to California SB79 at the meeting on Monday, June 1. We respectfully urge the Council to reconsider their approach and rather than applying broad restrictions uniformly across Palo Alto, consider applying a more nuanced approach.

California Avenue is one of Palo Alto’s important commercial and mixed-use districts, and its future depends on renewed investment, increased activity, and a stronger daytime customer base.

Service businesses like ours rely on nearby residents, office workers, visitors, restaurants, and other local businesses to keep the district vibrant. Strategic redevelopment in areas like California Avenue can bring more people, more energy, and more consistent support for the small businesses that serve this community every day.

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
Additional housing, thoughtful density, and new investment would not only help existing businesses survive and grow, but also help attract new businesses that can strengthen California Avenue as a lively and successful destination for Palo Alto.

We recognize that less urban residential neighborhoods may warrant a different approach.

However, California Avenue should be evaluated on its own terms, as an urban commercial corridor where carefully planned growth can support both the business community and the broader city. A one-size-fits-all policy risks limiting the very kind of investment needed to help this district thrive.

We respectfully ask the Council to distinguish between Palo Alto’s residential neighborhoods and its urban commercial centers, and to preserve the opportunity for thoughtful redevelopment in areas like California Avenue.

Thank you for your time, consideration, and service to the city.

Sincerely,

Palo Alto City CouncilJune 1, 2026

Palo Alto City Council
June 1, 2026