Palo Alto City Council
June 15, 2026

From: sharon c
To: Council, City; Council, City
Subject: SB 79 Half Size Option + Targeted Upzoning
Date: Monday, June 15, 2026 11:54:31 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear City Council Members,
I am writing to thank you for approving last week's half-size ordinance re: SB79, and ask that you please approve it again at tonight's council meeting. Without this, full SB 79 becomes effective in two weeks with no local control whatsoever.

Secondly, I ask that you review targeted areas to upzone such as the California Avenue business district and other commercial corridors within the city where high density housing makes sense. Please do not put established residential neighborhoods like Evergreen Park, Downtown and San Antonio at risk for upzoning - established neighborhoods designed for low density housing should maintain the characteristics that enable them to function well.

Instead, create new neighborhoods with proper infrastructure to support high density living.

The combination of half-size option plus targeted upzoning is not just good planning policy — it is also a good compliance strategy with regard to HCD. The city cannot wait till the next deadline. 1) Approve the half-size option to maintain local control. 2) Be proactive and work on the targeted upzoning in order to be in compliance with HCD. thank you,
Palo Alto resident
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: Fred Balin
To: Council, City
Subject: CC 6/15/26: #23 Temp Ordinnances: Reaffirm
Date: Monday, June 15, 2026 11:40:17 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.

Council members,
Thank you for your late-night diligence on this item at your June 1 meeting and for staff’s clarifications in the interim, delineated in its supplemental report.

The result is a positive solution, a good compromise among competing perspectives.

Reaffirm, without hesitation, tomorrow (Monday) night your unanimous approval of this timely package of temporary and interim ordinances.

Thank you,
Fred Balin
2385 Columbia Street
Palo Alto, CA 94306
From: Jack Farrell
To: Council, City; Clerk, City
Subject: Public Comment on 6/15 Council meeting, Item 23 Date: Monday, June 15, 2026 6:25:31 AM
Attachments: June 15 Palo Alto SB 79 Urgency Ordinance.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.

Good morning,
Please find attached YIMBY Law's letter of comment for Item 23 of Palo Alto's June 1st City Council meeting.

Sincerely,
Jack Farrell he/him
Research Attorney
267-218-1147
Check out everything we achieved in 2025!

YIMBY Law
2261 Market Street STE 10416 San Francisco, CA 94114 [email protected]

6/15/2026 Palo Alto City Council 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: SB 79 Compliance, Agenda Item 23 To the City Council of Palo Alto, YIMBY Law is a 501(c)3 non-profit corporation, whose mission is to increase the accessibility

and

affordability

of

housing

in

California.

YIMBY

Law

sues

municipalities

when

they

fail

to

comply

with

state

housing

laws,

including

the

Housing

Element

Law.

Should

the

City

fail

to

follow

the

law,

YIMBY

Law

is

prepared

to

file

suit

to

ensure

that

the

law

is

enforced.

Under the false pretense of an “emergency”, this Council is contemplating illegal urgency ordinances

that

would

immediately

suspend

SB

79’s

transit-oriented

development

standards

from

going

into

effect

in

Palo

Alto.

This

“emergency”

is

nothing

more

than

SB

79 going

into

effect

on

July

1 and

is

self-made,

as

the

Council

has

continued

consideration

of

the

items

twice

this

year

without

any

opportunity

for

public

comment.

Now

that

time

has

run

out,

the

staff

are

recommending

urgency

ordinances

that

are

clearly

out

of

compliance

with

state

and

even

the

City’s

own

law.

The City Council should reject the staff’s recommendation to adopt the urgency ordinances

and

instead

follow

the

law

and

use

the

normal

legislative

process

to

consider

the

ordinances.

This

will

give

Palo

Alto’s

residents

the

appropriate

time

to

consider

and

comment

on

these

ordinances,

including

whether

blanket

suspension

of

SB

79 makes

sense for the City, as it works towards meeting its state-mandated housing production goals.

An urgency ordinances is only allowable where it: contains legislative findings that there is a current and immediate threat to

the

public

health,

safety,

or

welfare
,

and

that

the

approval

of

additional

subdivisions,

use

permits,

variances,

building

permits,

or

any

other

applicable

entitlement

for

use

which

is

required

in

order

to

comply

with

a

zoning

ordinance

would

result

in

that

threat

to

public

health,

safety,

or

welfare.

In

addition,

any

interim

ordinance

adopted

pursuant

to

this

section

that

has

the

effect

of

denying

approvals

needed

for

the

development

of

projects

with

a

significant

component

of

multifamily

housing

may

not

be

extended

except

upon

written

findings

adopted

by

the

legislative

body,

supported

by

substantial

evidence

on

the

record…
CA Gov Code § 65858(c), emphasis added. The urgency findings contained in the draft ordinances are so sparse and without evidence

as

to

be

utterly

meaningless.

The

threat

is

unnamed,

uncertain,

and

inappropriate

to

justify

obstruction

of

a

state

housing

law

addressing

the

statewide

housing

crisis.

Stating

vaguely

that

projects

that

might

endanger

historic

resources

or

“result

in

increased

demands

on

public

infrastructure”

poses

no

certain

threat

to

public

safety.

The

“threat”

cannot

be

certain

or

immediate

when

you

don’t

know

what

the

threat

is,

can

identify

no

local

regulations

that

it

violates,

and

will

last

for

an

uncertain

period.

PMC

2.04.270,

the

only

referenced

section

of

local

regulation,

also

calls

for

specific

explanations

of

the

threat

to

“the

public

peace,

health

or

safety.”
The draft ordinances identify no specific threat to the public peace, health, or safety for a reason:

there

is

none.

It’s

pure

speculation

to

say

that

historic

resources

will

be

impacted

at

all.

Speculating

that

a

project

might

use

SB

79 does

not

present

an

immediate

threat

sufficient

to

authorize

an

emergency

ordinance,

according

to

state

law

and

Palo

Alto’s

own

regulations.

Notably

if

there

were

actually

projects

in

process,

the

law

grants

stricter

protections

against

denying

them.

Because

the

draft

urgency

ordinances

would

pre-emptively

deny

all

such

projects

within

the

affected

areas,

the

protections

are

likely

triggered

automatically.

California Courts have already weighed against this kind of blatant obstruction. The findings

for

urgency

ordinances,

especially

where

they

would

preclude

multifamily

housing,

must

cite

“specific

significant,

quantifiable,

direct,

and

unavoidable

impact

upon the public health or safety that would result from continued development approvals,

and

objective,

written

public

health

or

safety

standards,

policies,

or

conditions

on

which

that

impact

is

based”.

Hoffman

St.,

LLC

v.

City

of

W.

Hollywood,

179

Cal.

App.

4th

754,

771

(2009)

(internal

citations

omitted).

Specifically

for

the

Hoffman

case,

a

blatant

finding

that

affordable

housing

created

a

current

and

immediate

threat

was

rightly

dismissed

as

insufficient

justification

for

an

urgency

ordinance.

The

prospect

of

slightly

less

wealthy

people

being

able

to

afford

living

in

Palo

Alto

is

not

the

threat

you

think

it

is.

At

least

not

as

far

as

the

law

is

concerned.

SB

79’s

passage

followed

a

string

of

reforms

at

the

state

level

to

address

a

systemic,

ongoing

shortage

of

housing

across

the

state.

YIMBY

Law

has

sued

to

enforce

many

of

those

reforms,

and

remains

very

well

prepared

to

continue

that

work.

Any

section

of

the

alternatives

before

you

which

institute

urgency

ordinances

without

substantial

evidence

to

the

immediacy

they

speak

to

must

be

discarded.

We

urge

you

to

follow

the

law

and

adopt

an

alternative

plan

or

allow

SB

79 to

come

into

effect

as

intended,

within

the

City.

Sincerely,
Sonja Trauss Executive Director YIMBY Law

From: Robert Phillips
To: Council, City
Subject: SB79 Item
Date: Sunday, June 14, 2026 7:20:36 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
!
Dear Palo Alto City Council Members:

On second reading, please vote to approve the measure on SB79 that you voted for on June 1.

Thank you,
Bob
Robert Phillips
[email protected]
This message could be suspicious
Similar name as someone in your company.

This is a personal email address.

This is their first email to you.

Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
From: Annette Ross
To: Council, City
Cc: Annette Ross
Subject: Urgency Ordinance
Date: Sunday, June 14, 2026 6:42:32 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.

First, thank you for your June 1st vote to adopt an ordinance to modify SB79, allowing Palo Alto to implement the 50 percent limits until 2032. Second, the purpose of this communication is to urge you to pass the Urgency Ordinance at the second reading on Monday, June 15 (or at a later date if the second reading gets moved for some reason).

Annette Ross
Palo Alto
From: Fred Balin
To: Council, City
Subject: CC 6/15/26: #23 Temp Ordinnances: Reaffirm
Date: Sunday, June 14, 2026 6:07:17 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.

Council members,
Thank you for your late-night diligence on this item at your June 1 meeting and for staff’s clarifications in the interim, delineated in its supplemental report.

The result is a positive solution, a good compromise among competing perspectives.

Reaffirm, without hesitation, tomorrow (Monday) night your unanimous approval of this timely package of temporary and interim ordinances.

Thank you,
Fred Balin
2385 Columbia Street
Palo Alto, CA 94306
From: doria s
To: Council, City
Subject: Item 23, on Consent Calendar
Date: Sunday, June 14, 2026 5:45:56 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.

Dear Palo Alto City Council Members,
Thank you for your hard work on June first in coming to "yes" unanimously (with two recusals) on the best way to comply with SB79.

Please vote the same way tomorrow evening on the second reading! Enjoy your well earned hiatus.

Best regards,
Doria
Doria Summa
(650) 867-7544 Mobile
From: Magic
To: Council, City
Subject: Thank you for your action in response to SB79
Date: Sunday, June 14, 2026 5:45:36 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
!
Dear Councilmembers,
Thank you for voting last week to take a considered approach to meeting the mandates of SB79. The quantity and type of building allowed under this measure will have substantial repercussions for the lives of current and future Palo Altans and for those beyond our borders.

In a world of growing volatility and complexity, these are becoming ever more difficult to accurately foresee. I appreciate your recognizing this with your commitment to careful analysis and planning.

While I trust the good intentions of many who advocate stridently for housing, I’ve yet to see compelling evidence that bowing to the sweeping permissions of SB79 will yield benefits equal to those of the more discriminating alternative you’ve embraced. In the absence of such evidence advocacy is worthless in formulating sound policy. We find incontrovertible evidence for this in the tube wells of Bangladesh—ardently advocated by many to prevent diarrheal diseases that often ended in infant death—which produced what the World Health Organization calls "the largest mass poisoning in history." Thank you again for your caution as you determine the future of our community and its impacts on the world beyond, and thank you for considering these views.

With appreciation,
David Schrom
This message could be suspicious
The sender's email address couldn't be verified.

Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
From: Tina Peak
To: Council, City
Subject: Support the 50% SB79 Ordinance
Date: Sunday, June 14, 2026 4:56:18 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear City Council,

Please support the 50% ordinance.

We need to stop the incessant growth of the city. Every new building and resident adds more pollution and destruction of the environment. There are already 68,000 people living here in Palo Alto. We have inadequate roads, urban parks and recreational space and need to add to the electrical grid to plan for the future. Continued population growth worsens these issues and allows no time to work on solutions to our problems.

Please serve the community and vote for less construction by supporting the 50% SB79 ordinance.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Regards,
Tina Peak

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

Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
From: Nancy Traube
To: Council, City
Subject: SB 79 Half-Sized Buidings
Date: Sunday, June 14, 2026 3:31:56 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
I want to thank the city council members who voted for the half-size buildings in Evergreen Park Neighborhood. I know we need more housing, however, a six story building next to my house or on the block is not reasonable. I have spent 30+ years paying for my house in this wonderful neighborhood and hope you will continue to vote for no more than 3 story buildings in the single family home area.

Thank you,
Nancy Traube
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: Ann Balin
To: Council, City
Subject: Adopt Urgency Ordinance SB79
Date: Sunday, June 14, 2026 3:30:49 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.

Dear Mayor Veenker, Vice Mayor Stone and Council Members, Thank you for your conviction on June 1st in passing urgency ordinance SB79.

I urge you to approve item number 23 on the consent calendar June 15th.

In doing so you will show Palo Altans that you are undeterred by obstacles not in our town’s best interest.

Please continue your careful stewardship in supporting a thoughtful process to better serve residents, renters, home owners and businesses.

Respectfully,
Ann Lafargue Balin
From: Scott O"Neil
To: Council, City
Cc: Lait, Jonathan
Subject: SB-79 Comment, Item#23
Date: Sunday, June 14, 2026 2:16:16 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Councilmembers and City Staff,
I want to call your attention to my Op-Ed in Palo Alto Weekly on 6/12/2026. In it, I argue the case generally that the city is on-track to a mistake that denies the city much-needed housing, in contradiction of the values our shared history embodies. That letter was written in my individual capacity, as is this one.

In this letter, I want to elaborate on the Op-Ed by focusing in detail on the vulnerabilities I see in the ordinances.

I hope the city chooses to change course and modestly narrow the applicability of the ordinances. Their justification improves immensely if the city merely excludes the handful of applicable streets where the city is already planning for housing. That is a small change, and making it could avert a great deal of expense and headache.

Pedestrian Safety
The ordinance discusses pedestrian collisions with bikes and vehicles as the reason for the urgency ordinance for the 50% threshold change. This is thin because:

Not all streets in the SB-79 area even allow vehicles. Ramona and California Avenue do not.

Urgency is speculative, not ripe. If an urgency ordinance is actually ever needed, it would be in the context of an actual project. Right now the cities concerns are speculative and hypothetical, and therefore nonurgent.

Projects take years from proposal to building, even with streamlining. This creates plenty of time for appropriate bike and pedestrian improvements.

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

Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
Urgency ordinances are much faster than building projects. Fewer than three months elapsed between availability of the transit maps on April 8 2026 (when the city says it became possible to act on this issue) and the urgency ordinance appearing on consent on June 15 2026.

The Housing Accountability Act allows denial of projects with clear safety impacts.

The city can deny projects with clear safety impacts, whether or not SB-79 goes into full effect.

Indeed, the city could be using safety impacts -if they existed- to deny the 10+ projects comprising thousands of units that came in within a short window via the Builder’s Remedy. To date, the city has never made any such assertion, most notably including in the case of the Mollie Stone’s towers which the city approved with guidance from staff that the project could not be denied.

The city is already considering banning bikes on California Avenue. This policy change being in the pipeline further undermines the urgency justification.

The city is already planning comparable density in the El Camino Focus Area. This is another area where the urgency justification is fatally flawed.

The inclusion of areas that obviously have no need for urgent action creates risk.

Even if the city’s health and safety arguments were valid somewhere, they could not use that to make obviously unrelated policy changes in this urgency ordinance, such as adjusting library funding. Similarly, Palo Alto cannot use potential for pedestrian and vehicle conflicts to motivate an urgency ordinance including California Avenue or Ramona.

This not only invite lawsuits in specific locations, it may create severability risk.

Map and HCD Guidance Availability
The argument that the city only had since April 8 to enact the ordinance creating the urgency is weak:

Other maps have existed longer. There has been plenty of information for a policy debate to occur on the record using publicly available maps such as this one , which has
been available since at least October 2025.

The reason the transit maps blocked the rest of the decision is unclear.

If there is a reason a simple geospatial analysis was ever insufficient in the public record, I am not aware of it.

It has always been obvious that Palo Alto’s fixed-rail transit stations would qualify for SB-79 based on plain reading of the law, which was designed to apply to Caltrain. There was never any room for MTC or HCD to decide otherwise. “Tier 1 transit-oriented development stop” means a transit-oriented development stop within an urban transit county served by heavy rail transit or very high frequency commuter rail.” §65912.156 (n) Similarly, the HCD guidance cited is discussing factors never in doubt. The applicability of SB-79 to Santa Clara County, Palo Alto’s stops, et cetera was always clear.

Accordingly, other cities made decisions much earlier. Mountain View chose its SB-79 strategy in January, for example, despite the complication of added light-rail. More generally, if these maps were actually necessary to choose a path forward on SB-79, we would expect to have seen far more jurisdictions saying so and using urgency ordinances. If Palo Alto has to take this argument before a judge, do they have an answer to why the map availability issue so narrowly effected our fine city without touching our neighbors?
Taken together, the justification for urgency seems pretextual. Palo Alto was simply late making a decision that could have been made half a year earlier, which is not a reason for an urgency ordinance.

Infrastructure Discussion
The infrastructure considerations raised in the June 1 meeting which might otherwise support urgency are in conflict with other city findings. Specifically, the Planning Director reported:

What we would want to make sure that we have that SB79 doesn't really give us the time to do is make sure that the infrastructure that would support future development is available to the city. For instance our water resources, how that is fed through the city network and where it is available and how it can support development is something that we need to study to ensure that we have enough water pressure to support development.
…
if we start seeing more and more of these [taller buildings] it begins to put a strain -it may begin to put a strong- on our fire resources apparatus necessary to provide emergency services to taller buildings...

The assistant city attorney confirmed:
...the concerns are basically what Director Lait spoke to which is just the capacity of the City’s infrastructure to serve higher density housing in these areas.” And later added in response to a follow up about the areas planned for high densities specifically:
...while [areas planned for high density] have been designated for higher densities in terms of being suitable locations, in each of these cases, for example the housing projects the city council has seen in the past month, utility staff and public works staff have grappled in each case with being able to handle storm water load and other utility loads that are necessary in each case.

These are not the written justification in the ordinance, yet were presented to Council as the reasons for the urgency ordinance. This is what the Council was relying upon in their discussion about the matter of urgency. Notably, while pedestrian collisions are cited in the language of the ordinance, this factor was not even brought up.

Adopting the urgency ordinance on that basis is problematic:

Contradicting Housing Element on Infrastructure and gross RHNA: The Housing Element and associated EIR found no significant impacts with up to 6,086 new units.

The Housing Element explicitly states that Palo Alto’s existing infrastructure is not a barrier to development. We are 3.5 years into the planning cycle and the city is nowhere close to the 6,086 units.

Pipeline and RHNA Status: The city has a significant pipeline, but it mostly comprises builder’s remedy units which are not recurring. Almost halfway through the planning cycle the city has been only permitting around a hundred units per year creating an enormous progress gap. Taken together, the city cannot project anywhere close to meeting RHNA, which leaves a great deal of planned capacity the city is simply not on- track to utilize.

Contradicting Housing Element on Stormwater: The conflict on stormwater is very specific. The Housing Element says: “"While no significant infrastructure constraints exist citywide, localized constraints are possible depending on a site's proximity to existing utility and service lines and whether additional connections or upgrades to those lines would be necessary. These types of improvements would typically be the responsibility of the property owner/developer."
Moreover, the Mollie Stone’s project the attorney was referring to is larger than what SB-79 allows at full density.

Funding Offsets: Palo Alto’s development and impact fees are very high, meaning development creates funding for improving safety.

Developer Responsibility: The city is largely raising issues that are a developer’s burden to mitigate, according to the Housing Element.

Deniability: As stated above, projects which create specific unmitigable public safety issues can be denied even under the Housing Accountability Act.

HCD Review Gap
It is unclear if the city has submitted this ordinance for review by HCD on the timeline required by law.
§65912.160(d)(1)(A) creates a requirement that “At least 14 days prior to adoption of an ordinance pursuant to this section, the local government shall submit a draft ordinance to the department.

The staff report says the ordinance will be transmitted to HCD if approved, but if the adoption date is to be second reading on June 15, then the deadline for transmission to HCD would have to have been June 1.

The new provision in the supplemental report seems to have been created too recently for this 14-day notice to have occurred.

Risks
The problems above and the connection to the discussion of the issue on June 1 create numerous risks to the city:

The city has been threated with lawsuits by YIMBY Law and CalHDF. These could well prevail, overturning the ordinances.

A developer could file an SB-79 compliant project in early July, prepared to assert in court that the ordinance is illegal and SB-79 is the law of the land in Palo Alto without the 50% cut.

If HCD believes the ordinances are illegal, they could refer a case to the Attorney General.

Finding that infrastructure does not support housing contradicts the Housing Element, which risks HCD determining that the Housing Element needs to be updated and reviewed. See §65585(i)(A)(1). The city’s best path to avoiding the implication that the Housing Element is out of date and newly-discovered constraints to housing exist, is to decide they were always hypothetical and therefor back away from the urgency ordinance.

This ordinance falls under HCD’s direct SB-79 direct oversight powers under §65912.160, and HCD might decide it is illegal, either because it was not provided in time or on other merits.

Conclusion
To speak candidly, I’m not a lawyer, and I doubtful all of my points above are right. However, I have to be wrong on an awful lot of points for this to look sound. The last time I saw something that looked this way was when I was co-leading Palo Alto Forward’s housing element advocacy. HCD did not agree with Palo Alto Forward on everything or even most things, but nor did they need to. So it is here.

I’m sure the Council can, in an hours’ discussion and with a modest amendment, arrive at a set of exempted streets that most are comfortable with. If they do, this would save the city potential staff time and expense. They would provide more timely much-needed housing to those who need it, including affordable housing. They would provide California Ave with more much-needed customers and revitalization. They would provide our schools with needed students. They would live up to the spirit behind of our history on affordable housing.

Thank you for your consideration.
-Scott O’Neil, writing for myself.

From: Sally Heaton
To: Council, City
Subject: Urgency ordinance
Date: Sunday, June 14, 2026 2:12:20 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.

Palo Alto City Council
I am writing to support the passage of the Urgency Ordinance, Item 23 on the consent calendar on the agenda for the June 15 council meeting.

I fully support your vote of June 1 to pass the Urgency Ordinance, and look forward to your passing of the second reading.

Thank you
William Heaton
2345 Bowdoin Street
Palo Alto
Sent from my iPad
From: Fred Krefetz
To: Council, City
Subject: Half-size option for SB 79
Date: Saturday, June 13, 2026 7:13:31 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
I urge you to vote for the half-size option related to SB79. Thank you, Fred Krefetz
225 Emerson St.

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: Council, City
Subject: Support the 50% SB79 Ordinance
Date: Saturday, June 13, 2026 5:53:24 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear City Council,

Please support the 50% ordinance.

There are 68,000 people living here in Palo Alto. To serve them, the City needs the time to plan intelligently where its taller buildings, the infrastructure needed to support them, and mitigation of community impacts make the most sense.

Regards, Eric Filseth

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: Firth Griffith
To: Council, City
Cc: Yuqing Li
Subject: Urgency Ordinance on SB79
Date: Saturday, June 13, 2026 5:01:18 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.

Dear City Council:

I support the passage of the Urgency Ordinance to reduce SB79 by 50% allowing the city to delay full implementation of the law for six years while the city pursues an alternative compliance plan. Thank you.

Firth Griffith & Yuqing Li
2149 Yale St. Palo Alto CA 94306
From: Malcolm Slaney
To: Council, City
Subject: SB 79 Urgency Ordinance
Date: Saturday, June 13, 2026 4:20:33 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.

I heartily disagree with SB 79. Housing is important, but the state passed a sledge hammer. I live in College Terrace and large buildings are completely at odds with our small lots and cottages.

I understand the Urgency Ordinance that is before the city council on June 15th is a step to slow this process down.

Please do all you can to preserve our neighborhoods.
- Malcolm Slaney
20 year resident of Yale Street
From: Amie Ashton
To: Council, City
Subject: Support SB 79 Implementation!
Date: Saturday, June 13, 2026 1:37:52 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.

Honorable Mayor Veenker and City Council,
I write against the emergency ordinance and in support of SB 79 implementation. As a downtown resident, I want new neighbors to strengthen our community. New housing units will not create dangerous conditions, per the analysis in our Housing Element (which studied the impacts of and provided mitigation measures for almost 7,000 new housing units).

What if SB 79 can actually help with difficult issues we are dealing with as a city, such as:

Lack of missing-middle housing
South Palo Alto residents complaining of "unit dumping" and the need for a more equitable distribution of units where they belong -- near transit, retail, and job centers Cal Ave, ECR, and University Ave needing more customers spending money where they live
Lack of density to support and expand our transit system Our 3:1 jobs housing ratio that means 30,000+ cars driving into our city each day with the associated traffic, and resulting air, noise, and climate pollution Full implementation of SB 79 will mean:

More neighbors enjoying all that our amazing downtowns have to offer Additional progress in meeting our RHNA housing goals
Support for our "Pro-Housing" designation application with the state Additional tax revenue (from more dollars spent locally to increased property values) to support a strong budget
Let's meet our housing, transit, and climate crises head on and study ways to successfully implement SB 79 rather than stop it with a legally dubious emergency ordinance.

Thank you,
Amie Ashton
236 Middlefield
From: Xintian Lin
To: Council, City
Subject: SB 79
Date: Friday, June 12, 2026 7:10:50 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Council Members,
Thank you for your support of the half-size building proposal for the downtown area. This option will result in fewer traffic and privacy concerns compared to the full-size, six-story alternative.

Please continue your efforts to make Palo Alto a better place to live.

Sincerely,
Xintian Lin
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: SC
To: Council, City; Council, City
Subject: Vote in Favor of SB 79 Half Size Option
Date: Friday, June 12, 2026 5:58:31 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear City Council,
Thank you for voting for the SB79 half size option on June 1st. I hope you will vote in favor of this option again at the Monday, June 15th meeting.

There is no question Palo Alto needs more housing. Voting for this option will give city planners time to thoughtfully plan and implement infrastructure changes to maintain safe, efficient roads as traffic, parking, pedestrian and bicycle impacts grow across the city. The 10 Builder's Remedy
projects already in development throughout Palo Alto will already place significant demands on our city's infrastructure including utilities capacity (ex: gas, electric, water pressure for fire suppression).

Thoughtful infrastructure planning will ensure the safety of our bike boulevards and our many neighborhood Designated Safe Routes to School throughout Palo Alto for elementary, middle and high school kiddos.

As I understand it, voting in favor of this option doesn't preclude developers invoking the State Density Bonus Law to build above the half-size baseline providing they include sufficient affordable housing units - which is a goal I think we all agree is very important.

We need thoughtful planning to grow smart as we welcome our new neighbors.

Please vote in favor of the half-size option again at the June 15th meeting. thank you,
sharon
Resident of Palo Alto
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.

Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
From: David Ball
To: Council, City
Subject: Comply with SB 79--quit messing around
Date: Friday, June 12, 2026 5:44:51 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Esteemed councillors--
There's no urgency that requires us to skirt the requirements of SB 79. It's long past time to plan to comply with SB 79 by upzoning appropriate areas of Palo Alto.

Just look at the tiny bit of life that has come back from Zareen's. We need more of that! This is the dullest college town in the entire world--the strip of El Camino that abuts Evergreen park (where I've lived for almost 20 years) is unbelievably moribund. A jacuzzi store and two mattress stores? WTF?
Let’s stop treating new housing as a threat and start viewing it as an investment in a sustainable, walkable, and welcoming community. There's no way my kids can afford to live here unless they become bankers. We need more housing options if we want an economically diverse and vibrant community with artists, young people, care workers, etc. Hell, the Grateful Dead started here--can you imagine if we had actual world-changing artists who could afford to live here?
Half sizing projects is not a plan but a reaction. And we have had lots of time and still can’t make a plan. Mountain View has done a great job building modern and attractive high-rise buildings along commercial corridors.

I'm sure you'll hear from lots of whiny NIMBY types who want to pull up the ladder now that they've got theirs. Or maybe their parents lived here and they've been grandfathered in. But we need more affordable housing, and the state requires it. Do your jobs. DB This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.

Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
From: Mary Miller
To: Council, City
Subject: June 15 city council vote input
Date: Friday, June 12, 2026 5:10:41 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Hi,
As a Cal Ave area resident I fully support the Palo Alto City Council plan to use an option in SB 79 to allow only half-sized buildings (e.g. three stories instead of six) until at least 2032.

Thank you,
Mary Miller
2145 Birch St
This message needs your attention
No employee in your company has ever replied to this person.

Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
From: Gamelandia Palo Alto
To: Council, City
Subject: Public Comment on SB 79 Emergency Measures - June 15 2026 meeting Date: Friday, June 12, 2026 3:42:08 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Mayor and Members of the Palo Alto City Council,
I am writing as the owner of Gamelandia, a small independent business on California Avenue.

Like many local merchants, our success depends on Palo Alto continuing to grow into a vibrant, walkable community where people can live, work, and spend time.

I urge the Council to reject the proposed SB 79 emergency measures and remove Item 23 from the consent calendar for full public discussion. A decision with lasting consequences for the future of our neighborhoods and commercial districts deserves open deliberation.

A seven-story mixed-use building along a major commercial corridor served by transit is not a skyscraper. It is housing for families, ground-floor retail space for new businesses, and an opportunity to create the kind of vibrant, walkable neighborhood where people can live, work, shop, and gather. That is exactly the kind of incremental growth that strengthens communities like California Avenue.

In my view, these emergency measures are not primarily about thoughtful planning. They are a final attempt to extend a decades-long pattern of resisting and delaying the housing growth our community urgently needs. Rather than confronting the housing challenges that have been growing for decades, this proposal would simply postpone inevitable change until 2032, leaving Palo Alto behind neighboring communities that are adapting to SB 79 without emergency measures and positioning themselves for continued economic growth and vibrancy. Additionally, by reducing project scale while leaving underlying development costs largely unchanged, these measures risk making smaller studio units more economically attractive to developers than one- and two-bedroom units that better serve working families.

SB 79 did not emerge in a vacuum. It is the predictable consequence of decades of restrictive local land use policies entrenched across communities like Palo Alto that failed to keep pace with the region's housing needs. As jobs, wealth, and demand for housing grew, opportunities for new multifamily housing did not. Prior City Councils and administrations had repeated opportunities to gradually expand multifamily housing, but too often chose delay, compromise, or inaction. Greater state involvement became increasingly inevitable as local governments failed to address the region's growing housing shortage.

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

Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
For local businesses, this is not an abstract planning debate. Housing policy is economic policy. We need customers who can live nearby, and we need employees who can afford to work here. As a small business owner, I see talented people forced into long commutes because living anywhere near California Avenue is simply out of reach. More housing and stronger neighborhood business districts are not competing priorities. They are deeply interconnected.

The Bay Area has changed dramatically over the last fifty years, and our housing policies must evolve with it. Rather than making one final effort to postpone inevitable change, Palo Alto should embrace the opportunity to shape housing growth in a way that strengthens our neighborhoods, supports local businesses, and builds a more sustainable future for the entire community.

Sincerely,
Berry Hatfield
Owner, Gamelandia
--

GAMELANDIA
Text Us: 650-382-2528
Find Us: 290 California Ave, Ste A, Palo Alto, CA 94306 W: www.gamelandia.fun
E: [email protected]
From: James Lloyd
To: Burt, Patrick; Lauing, Ed; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer; Veenker, Vicki; Council, City
Cc: Clerk, City; City Attorney; City Mgr; PlannerOnDuty Subject: public comment re item 23, SB 79 ordinances, for the 6/15/26 Council meeting Date: Thursday, June 11, 2026 3:04:14 PM
Attachments: Palo Alto - Joint SB 79 letter - 11 Jun 2026.docx.pdf 7-17-23 Letter Urgency Ordinances and Ministerial Approval of Housing Projects (2).pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.

Dear Palo Alto City Council,
Californians for Homeownership and the California Housing Defense Fund submit the attached comment letter (and referenced communication from the California Attorney General) regarding agenda item 23 for the 6/15/26 Council meeting, the City’s proposed ordinances temporarily exempting the City from the provisions of SB 79.

Sincerely,
James M. Lloyd
Director of Planning and Investigations
California Housing Defense Fund
[email protected]
CalHDF is grant & donation funded
Donate today - https://calhdf.org/donate/

Jun 11, 2026 City of Palo Alto
250

Hamilton

Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
By email: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Re: SB 79 Ordinances Dear City of Palo Alto, Californians for Homeownership and the California Housing Defense Fund submit this letter

in

regard

to

the

City’s

proposed

ordinances

temporarily

exempting

the

City

from

the

provisions

of

SB

79. We

appreciate

staff

taking

the

time

to

develop

an

implementation

plan

for

this

landmark

law.

However,

the

City

may

not

use

urgency

or

interim

ordinances

to

temporarily

exempt

the

City

from

SB

79,

nor

may

it

implement

objective

standards

that

effectively

prohibit

the

density

required

by

state

law.

Furthermore,

the

City

cannot

use

SB

79’s

California

Environmental

Quality

Act

(CEQA)

exemption

to

implement

its

proposal

as

written.

The City is proposing two interim/urgency ordinances to implement SB 79, in addition to temporary

ordinances.

These

ordinances

do

not

comply

with

state

law,

as

discussed

infra
.

SB 79 is not a sudden emergency requiring an urgency ordinance Per Government Code section 36937, subdivision (b), ordinances will not be effective for 30 days

after

adoption

unless

necessary

to

preserve

the

public

peace,

health,

or

safety

of

the

City

and

the

City

Council

adopts

by

a

four-fifths

majority

a

declaration

of

the

facts

constituting

the

urgency.

The

Palo

Alto

City

Charter

similarly

requires

ordinances

are

not

effective “until the commencement of the thirty-first day after the date of its adoption . . .” (Palo

Alto

City

Charter,

Appendix

A,

Section

2.04.330,

subd.

a.)

Zoning

ordinances

are

also

required

to

be

referred

to

the

Planning

Commission

prior

to

adoption

absent

any

emergency

justification.

(Palo

Alto

Municipal

Code

Section

18.80.080-18.80.090.)

The

State

Supreme

Court

has

ruled

that

“the

nature

of

the

ordinance

itself

will

.

.

.

be

determinative,

and

where

a

sudden

emergency

has

arisen,

a

statement

of

the

nature

of

the

urgency

finds

proper

place

to

support

the

declaration.”

Ex

parte

Hoffman

(1909)

155

Cal.

114,

120.

SB 79 was signed into law in October 2025, giving the City almost nine months before its effective

date

of

July

1,

2026

to

enact

an

ordinance

preserving

the

public

health

and

safety

of

its

residents.

This

was

ample

time;

had

there

been

an

immediate

and

urgent

threat

to

the

public

health

and

safety

of

residents,

the

City

would

have

enacted

an

ordinance

more

quickly.

The City cites “unanticipated strain on public infrastructure and cause additional points of conflict

between

vehicles

and

bicycles

or

pedestrians

in

the

effected

[sic]

areas”

to

justify

the

use

of

an

urgency

ordinance.

The

many

years

that

project

entitlement

and

construction

requires

provides

more

than

adequate

time

to

plan

for

any

potential

traffic.

Furthermore,

the

Legislature

has

already

found

that,

“Building

more

homes

near

transit

access

reduces

housing

and

transportation

costs

for

California

families,

and

promotes

environmental

sustainability,

economic

growth,

and

reduced

traffic

congestion
.”

(emphasis

added)

(Gov.

Code,

§

65912.155,

subd.

(c).

New

development

will

also

bring

substantial

new

revenue

to

the

City

that

offsets

any

strain

on

infrastructure,

because

underutilized

development

sites

are

reassessed

at

much

higher

valuations.

Similarly, the City is not justified in its reliance on city code section 2.04.270(d), which allows for

ordinances

to

be

introduced

and

adopted

at

the

same

meeting

as

an

“emergency

measure

for

preserving

the

public

peace,

health

or

safety

…”

The

City

cites

the

need

to

preserve

historic

resources

to

justify

the

reliance

on

this

code

section.

However,

debatable

concerns

about

historic

preservation

do

not

rise

to

the

level

of

an

emergency

regarding

public

peace,

health

or

safety.

The City also cited the need to wait for guidance from the Department of Housing and Community

Development

(HCD)

and

also

the

Metropolitan

Transportation

Commission

(MTC).

However,

there

was

never

any

confusion

as

to

what

the

result

was

going

to

be:

Palo

Alto

was

going

to

need

to

plan

for

its

Caltrain

stations

to

be

Tier

1 TOD

stations,

as

required

by

the

plain

language

of

SB

79. Other

parts

of

the

state

have

more

complicated

implementations

of

the

law,

with

bus

rapid

transit,

multiple

commuter

rails

using

the

same

station,

etc.

Palo

Alto

does

not

have

these

complications.

Additionally, we would like to draw the City’s attention to the attached July 17, 2023 letter from

the

California

Attorney

General

regarding

the

use

of

urgency

ordinances

in

response

to

state housing laws. The letter reiterates the requirements from statute and caselaw that the legislative

findings

must

establish

a

threat

to

the

public

health,

safety,

or

welfare

that

is

current

and

immediate;

local

jurisdictions

must

provide

evidence

documenting

the

immediacy

of

the

threat

to

public

health,

safety,

or

welfare;

and

local

jurisdictions

must

make

these

findings

with

enough

specificity

to

support

an

adverse

impact.

In

other

words,

there

is

a

high

bar

for

the

use

of

urgency

ordinances.

The

letter

states

specifically

that

urgency

ordinances

“must

comply

with

the

substantive

requirements

of

state

housing

laws

and

cannot

be

used

in

an

attempt

to

circumvent

substantive

legal

requirements.”
Given the extremely thin findings and complete lack of evidence that the City has presented to

justify

these

urgency

ordinances,

it

is

clear

that

the

City

has

not

met

the

requirements

discussed

in

the

Attorney

General’s

letter.

The City therefore may not use urgency ordinances to adopt an SB 79 implementation ordinance.

The City’s Use of an Interim Ordinance is Unlawful In addition to adopting its SB 79 ordinance as an urgency ordinance, the City is adopting it as an

interim

ordinance

pursuant

to

Government

Code

section

65858

in

order

to

take

illegal

shortcuts

in

adopting

this

ordinance.

Section

65858,

subdivision

(a)

provides:

Without following the procedures otherwise required prior to the adoption of a zoning

ordinance,

the

legislative

body

of

a

county,

city,

including

a

charter

city,

or

city

and

county,

to

protect

the

public

safety,

health,

and

welfare,

may

adopt

as

an

urgency

measure

an

interim

ordinance

prohibiting

any

uses

that

may

be

in

conflict

with

a

contemplated

general

plan,

specific

plan,

or

zoning

proposal

that

the

legislative

body,

planning

commission

or

the

planning

department

is

considering

or

studying

or

intends

to

study

within

a

reasonable

time

…
As discussed supra , just as SB 79 poses no risk to “public peace, health, or safety” it also poses

no

risk

to

“public

safety,

health,

and

welfare.”

In

fact,

the

Legislature

has

found

the

contrary

to

be

true.

(See

Gov.

Code,

§

65912.155.)
Furthermore, the interim ordinances are not being done to prevent a particular type of use from

being

developed

in

an

area

where

the

City

intends

to

plan

for

a

different

type

of

use,

as

is

required

by

the

law.

(Gov.

Code

§

65858,

subdivision

(a).)

It

is

not

as

though

the

City

is

seeking

to

prevent

the

development

of

noxious

industry

in

an

area

where

it

is

planning

for

residential.

Instead,

the

City

is

simply

resisting

a

State-mandated

level

of

residential

density.

Finally, each ordinance states, “... this ordinance would not have the effect of denying any approvals

needed

for

the

development

of

projects

containing

multifamily

housing.”

This

is

simply

untrue.

There

are

applicants

ready,

willing

and

able

to

submit

applications

for

multifamily development as soon as SB 79 goes into effect on July 1, 2026. The purpose of these

ordinances

is

transparently

to

prevent

multifamily

development

and

worsen

the

state’s

housing

crisis.

The City may therefore not use interim ordinances to skip legally required steps in the adoption

of

an

SB

79 implementation

ordinance.

The City Retains the Power to Prevent Health & Safety Impacts The Housing Accountability Act (HAA) (Gov. Code, § 65589.5) allows the City to deny a proposed

housing

development

project

if

it

“would

have

a

specific,

adverse

impact

upon

the

public

health

or

safety.”

(
Id
.

at

subds.

(d),

(j).)

As

multifamily

housing

development

projects,

SB

79 projects

are

subject

to

the

HAA.

If

a

situation

ever

arose

that

presented

a

true

threat

to

public

health

and

safety

as

defined

by

the

HAA,

the

City

could

use

the

power

of

that

statute

to

lawfully

deny

a

proposed

development.

Given

the

backstop

provided

by

the

HAA,

there

is

no

justification

for

the

City

to

use

interim/urgency

ordinances

based

on

supposed

health

and

safety

impacts.

The Proposed Envelopes Will Not Accommodate the Required Density The City has proposed dramatic envelope controls (in both the urgency/interim ordinances of

agenda

item

17 and

in

the

temporary

ordinances

of

agenda

item

18)

on

parcels

adjacent

to

lower-density

zoning,

including

a

height

limit

of

16 feet

with

a

sky

exposure

plane

extending

at

a

45 degree

angle

from

this

point.

Of note, pursuant to Government Code section 65912.160, subdivision (c)(1) the City must demonstrate

by

a

preponderance

of

the

evidence

that

its

proposed

objective

standards

do

not

physically

preclude

the

applicable

densities.

The only evidence the City offers is a sample massing diagram (Slide 17) which shows that on a

60’

x

100’

lot

it

is

possible

up

to

1.75 FAR

with

3 stories.

This

also

demonstrates

that

on

smaller

lots

this

is

likely

not

possible.

The

City's

proposal

also

does

not

displace

all

underlying

zoning

standards,

with

the

result

that

projects

must

contend

with

a

variety

of

development

standards

(e.g.

lot

coverage,

offstreet parking,

objective

design

standards,

etc.)

that

will

have

the

effect

of

reducing

density

beyond

what

was

shown

in

the

single

slide

on

massing

diagram.

We

are

therefore

still

concerned

that

the

proposed

standards

will

physically

preclude

the

development

of

the

required

density.

Furthermore, pursuant to Government Code section 65912.160, subdivision (d), the California

Department

of

Housing

and

Community

Development

must

evaluate

whether

or

not

the

City’s

implementation

ordinance

will

physically

preclude

residential

development

at

the

required

densities.

It is doubtful that the City can produce the required preponderance of the evidence, given the

degree

to

which

the

proposed

(and

underlying)

objective

standards

will

constrain

development,

particularly

on

smaller

lots

adjacent

to

lower-density

zoning

districts.

The City’s Proposal is Ineligible for SB 79’s CEQA Exemption The City is proposing to exempt its proposal from CEQA pursuant to SB 79’s CEQA exemption in

Government

Code

section

65912.160,

subdivision

(c)(2).

However,

the

City’s

proposal

is

ineligible

for

this

exemption.

SB 79 provides an exemption from CEQA for cities fully implementing SB 79 or which had permissive

enough

zoning

codes

for

the

Legislature

to

authorize

a

temporary

delay

in

SB

79’s

effect.

The

CEQA

exemption

is

not

for

cities

to

upzone

in

order

to

make

themselves

eligible

for

an

exemption.

Such

an

upzoning

is

not

an

implementing

ordinance

of

SB

79 like

an

Alternative

Plan

or

codification

of

the

standards

in

section

65912.157.

It

is

a

separate

council

action

being

taken

to

avoid

the

provisions

of

SB

79. The Legislature made a policy judgement that compliance with the provisions of section 65912.157

were

to

be

exempt

from

CEQA.

It

made

no

such

judgement

that

an

attempt

to

evade

the

provisions

of

section

65912.157

were

to

be

equally

exempt

from

CEQA.

The City therefore may not use SB 79’s CEQA exemption for its proposal and must otherwise comply

with

the

provisions

of

CEQA.

⧫

⧫

⧫ For these reasons, we urge the Council to reject the urgency/interim ordinances; to direct city

staff

to

restart

the

ordinance

adoption

process;

and

to

comply

with

CEQA.

Sincerely,

Matthew Gelfand Dylan Casey Californians for CalHDF Homeownership \

July 17, 2023

To: All Cities and Counties in California

Dear Colleagues:

In recent years, the Legislature has passed several laws responding to California’s housing crisis by mandating that local governments ministerially approve proposed housing developments under certain circumstances. Such laws include (but are not limited to) Senate Bill 9 (SB 9) (Gov. Code §§ 65852.21, 66411.7), which took effect January 1, 2022, and addresses lot splits and duplexes in single-family zoned neighborhoods, and Assembly Bill 2011 (AB 2011), which takes effect July 1, 2023, and addresses affordable housing permitting on commercial zoned land.

Following the enactment of SB 9, some local jurisdictions enacted “urgency zoning ordinances” aiming to restrict or impose additional requirements on projects that were otherwise subject to ministerial approval under SB 9. Interim urgency ordinances provide a procedural tool to quickly respond to an immediate threat to public health, safety, or welfare, and do not circumvent the substantive requirements of state housing laws such as SB 9 or AB 2011. This guidance reminds local jurisdictions of the strict state law requirements that apply to the enactment of urgency ordinances. The Attorney General encourages local jurisdictions to review their existing urgency ordinances for validity, and properly implement California’s housing laws moving forward.

Analysis

A. Legal Requirements for Urgency Ordinances

1. “Current and Immediate Threat to Public Health, Safety, or Welfare”

Under limited emergency circumstances, local jurisdictions may pass urgency zoning ordinances that prohibit projects and land uses that conflict with a city’s planning or zoning. (Gov. Code, § 65858, subds. (a)-(c); see also 216 Sutter Bay Associates v. County of Sutter All Cities and Counties in California
July 17, 2023
Page

2 (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 860, 869.)1 An urgency ordinance is initially valid for only 45 days, but can be extended for a total of two years, subject to the requirements discussed below. (§ 65858, subds. (a), (b).)

To be valid, urgency ordinances amending zoning regulations must be supported by written legislative findings that “there is a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety, or welfare, and that the approval of additional subdivisions, use permits, variances, building permits, or any other applicable entitlement for use which is required in order to comply with a zoning ordinance would result in that threat to public health, safety, or welfare.” (§ 65858, subd. (c).) Failure to make the showings required by Section 65858 renders an urgency ordinance invalid as a matter of law. (California Charter Schools Assn. v. City of Huntington Park (2019) 35 Cal.App.5th 362, 365.) Urgency ordinances must be adopted by a four-fifths vote. (§ 65858, subds. (a), (b).)

The legislative findings must establish a threat to the public health, safety, or welfare that is current and immediate. (§ 65858, subd. (c); Building Industry Legal Defense Foundation v.

Superior Court (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 1410.) Courts have generally found that the immediacy requirement is satisfied in “situations where local agencies were faced with immediate threats of development.” (Id. at p. 1419, citing 216 Sutter Bay Associates v. County of Sutter (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 860; Conway v. City of Imperial Beach (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 78; Metro Realty v.

County of El Dorado (1963) 222 Cal.App.2d 508.) Urgency ordinances are intended to be limited “to situations where an approval of an entitlement of use was imminent.” (Building Industry, supra, 72 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1418–1419; accord California Charter Schools Assn., supra, 35 Cal.App.5th at p. 370; Crown Motors v. City of Redding (1991) 232 Cal.App.3d 173, 179–180 [a pending permit application would constitute an immediate threat because, absent an urgency ordinance, the permit at issue would have been approved within 30 days].)

Local jurisdictions must provide evidence documenting the immediacy of the threat to public health, safety, or welfare. In California Charter Schools Assn. v. City of Huntington Park, Huntington Park enacted an urgency ordinance that temporarily barred development of new charter schools while the City considered amending its zoning code. (California Charter Schools Assn. v. City of Huntington Park (2019) 35 Cal.App.5th 362, 365.) Huntington Park claimed that new charter schools would increase traffic and prevent the development of commercial tax- generating properties, which posed an immediate threat to public health, safety, or welfare. (Id. at p. 366.) As evidence for its claim, Huntington Park proffered “at least five inquiries” it had received requesting charter schools and “several serious sit down discussions” it had conducted with charter school representatives. (Id. at p. 369.) Upon reviewing this evidence, the Court concluded that “mere inquiries, requests, and meetings do not constitute a current and immediate threat within the meaning of [section 65858,] subdivision (c).” (Id. at p. 371.) Local jurisdictions are therefore required to show an actual imminent threat to the public health, safety, or welfare and make specific supportive factual findings. An urgency ordinance that is not supported by a sufficient showing of an immediate threat to public safety, health, or welfare is invalid as a matter of law. (Id. at p. 365.)

1 Statutory references that follow are to the Government Code unless otherwise stated.

All Cities and Counties in California
July 17, 2023
Page

3 An urgency ordinance’s findings must also document the nature of the threat to public health, safety, or welfare. In 216 Sutter Bay Associates v. County of Sutter, the County justified its urgency ordinance by showing that a proposed amendment to the general plan would create a new 140,000-person community in a county of only 65,000, and that an urgency ordinance was needed to preserve a countywide vote on the proposed amendment. (216 Sutter Bay Associates, supra, 58 Cal.App.4th at p. 864.) The Court of Appeal in Sutter Bay held that the County’s showing that the amendment “could alter—in a radical and fundamental manner—the current way of life for Sutter County residents” satisfied the findings required by Section 65858. (Id. at p. 868.) By contrast, statements about the uncertainty of implementation of a new state housing law or generalized concerns about visual or aesthetic standards are insufficient to support an urgency ordinance.

2. Extension of Urgency Ordinance Beyond Initial 45 Days: “Objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions”

An urgency ordinance that “has the effect of denying approvals needed for the development of projects with a significant component of multifamily housing,” defined as one- third of the total square footage of the project, is subject to additional requirements upon its extension. (§ 65858, subds. (c), (h).) Such ordinances may not be extended beyond the initial 45 days except upon written findings adopted by the legislative body, supported by substantial evidence in the record, of a “specific, adverse impact upon the public health and safety,” which is defined as “a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions” existing at the time that the urgency ordinance is adopted. (§ 65858, subd. (c)(1)). The findings must further demonstrate that there is no feasible alternative that would mitigate or avoid the adverse impact “as well or better, with a less burdensome or restrictive effect,” than the urgency ordinance. (§ 65858, subd. (c)(3).) In addition, a city must “issue a written report describing the measures taken to alleviate the condition which led to the adoption of the ordinance” at least ten days before its extension. (§ 65858, subd. (d).)

This provision applying to urgency ordinances that would deny multifamily housing development would likely apply to interim ordinances responding to SB 9 and AB 2011. SB 9’s provisions allowing for duplexes would entail multifamily development and AB 2011 is specifically directed to multifamily housing.

Local jurisdictions must make these findings with enough specificity to support an adverse impact. In Hoffman Street, LLC. v. City of West Hollywood¸ developer petitioners sought a writ of mandate against West Hollywood for enacting an urgency ordinance that barred petitioners from developing a condominium project. (Hoffman Street, LLC. v. City of West Hollywood (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 754.) West Hollywood’s urgency ordinance, which limited permitting in certain zones to increase density and affordability, was based on the claim that “‘the significant unmet need for smaller affordable housing units [is] posing a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety and welfare.’” (Id. at pp. 760–761.) The Court noted that the requirements for urgency ordinances limiting multifamily development under subsection (c)(1) of section 65858 are “more extensive and more specific than the findings required upon the adoption or extension of any interim ordinance.” (Id. at p. 771.) The Court held that West All Cities and Counties in California
July 17, 2023
Page

4 Hollywood’s findings “failed to identify ‘a specific, adverse impact on the public health or safety.” (Id. at p. 772, emphasis added.) West Hollywood’s findings also “failed to identify any ‘written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions’ on which such an impact would be based.” (Ibid., citing § 65858, subd. (c)(1).)

Therefore, the findings supporting an urgency ordinance extension that affects multifamily housing must be specifically targeted to the issues arising on particular parcels that create the adverse public health and safety impact.

B. Recently Enacted State Housing Laws Limiting Local Discretion

Urgency ordinances provide a procedural tool to respond to current and immediate public health and safety threats, but they do not provide an avenue to avoid the substantive application of relevant state law. The passage of laws like SB 9 and AB 2011 does not, in and of itself, pose a current and immediate threat to public health, safety, or welfare. Accordingly, the enactment of such a law generally cannot — standing alone — support an urgency ordinance.

As described below, California’s housing laws generally empower local jurisdictions to regulate or deny projects on a case-by-case basis based on specific health or safety grounds, without an urgency ordinance. For example, SB 9 expressly allows local agencies to deny permits upon written objective findings addressing public health and safety and AB 2011 allows jurisdictions to exempt some parcels from its requirements under specified conditions. Urgency ordinances are unsupportable when public health and safety concerns arising from a permit application can be addressed without an urgency ordinance.

1. SB 9

SB 9, which took effect on January 1, 2022, enacted Government Code sections 65852.21 and 66411.7. Together, these sections allow property owners to build duplexes on single-family lots and split single-family lots in two. Importantly, both sections expressly bar SB 9’s application to potentially dangerous areas such as very high fire hazard severity zones, special flood hazard areas, and earthquake fault zones. SB 9 incorporates these safety exemptions from SB 35, another housing law requiring ministerial approval of some housing applications that was passed in 2017. (§§ 65852.21(a)(2), 664117(a)(3)(C) [incorporating the requirements of § 65913.4, subds. (a)(6)(B)-(a)(6)(K)].)

a. Section 65852.21 (Duplexes)

Government Code section 65852.21 provides that proposed housing projects of two residential units located on a single-family residential zone will be reviewed ministerially, without discretionary review, if they meet specific criteria, such as being located within a city. (§ 65852.21.) Local jurisdictions may impose on such projects objective zoning, subdivision, and design review standards, defined as standards devoid of “personal or subjective judgment by a public official” and that “are uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public official prior to submittal.” (§ 65852.21, subd. (i)(2).) All Cities and Counties in California
July 17, 2023
Page

5 Local jurisdictions may deny housing project applications under SB 9 if they make a “written finding, based upon a preponderance of the evidence, that the proposed housing development project would have a specific, adverse impact … upon public health and safety or the physical environment.” (§ 65852.21, subd. (d).) Central to this power to deny is the “specific, adverse impact,” which is defined by Government Code section 65589.5 as “a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed completed.” (§ 65589.5, subd. (d)(2), incorporated by reference in § 65852.21.)

In light of the fact that section 65852.21 authorizes local jurisdictions to deny individual duplex applications based on findings that the project would have an adverse impact on health and safety or the environment, an urgency ordinance seeking to restrict all such projects across the board cannot be justified.

b. Section 66411.7 (Lot Splits)

Government Code section 66411.7 requires local jurisdictions to ministerially review requests to split urban single-family lots into two approximately equal parcels, if those lots meet specific requirements. (§ 66411.7.) Lots created in this manner shall be exclusively for residential purposes. (§ 66411.7, subd. (f).) Local jurisdictions may impose objective zoning, subdivision, and design standards on such projects unless such standards “physically preclude[e] the construction of two units on either of the resulting parcels or that would result in a unit size of less than 800 square feet.” (§ 66411.7, subd. (c)(1)(2).)

As with duplexes, local jurisdictions may deny requests to split lots when the relevant official makes written objective findings that the lot split would have a specific and adverse impact on public health and safety or the physical environment. (§ 66411.7, subd. (d).) Thus section 66411.7, like section 65589.21, offers local jurisdictions a case-by-case instrument for preserving their public health, safety, and physical environment and there can be no justification for an urgency ordinance with a broad exemption.

2. AB 2011

AB 2011 requires ministerial review for affordable housing projects located in commercial zones. Specifically, it provides ministerial approval for two types of projects: (1) projects that provide entirely (100%) affordable multifamily housing and are in an urban infill area that is zoned commercial (§ 65912.114), and (2) projects that provide mixed-income housing, with a certain percentage of affordability, and are located along commercial corridors in urban infill areas (§ 65912.124).

Like SB 9, AB 2011 is not applicable in potentially dangerous areas such as very high fire hazard severity zones, special flood hazard areas, and earthquake fault zones. (§§ 65912.111, subd. (e), 65912.121, subd. (g).) Like SB 9, these sections accomplish this by incorporating the requirements of section 65913.4, subdivisions (a)(6)(B) through (a)(6)(K). In addition, AB 2011 provides specific requirements to assess and mitigate environmental hazards. (§§ 65912.113, All Cities and Counties in California
July 17, 2023
Page

6 subd. (c), 65912.123, subd. (f).) Also, a local jurisdiction may exempt parcels from AB 2011 if it makes available other replacement parcels for development, at specified densities and subject to other provisions of AB 2011, and makes findings that the replacement results in no net loss of total zoned capacity or zoned capacity for affordable units and affirmatively furthers fair housing. (§§ 65912.114, subd. (i), 65912.124, subd. (i).) AB 2011 delayed operation of its provisions for nine months, which provided local jurisdictions ample opportunity to utilize this exemption before applying AB 2011 to project applications. All these provisions allow jurisdictions to protect public health, safety, and physical environment, provided that they contribute to increasing California’s housing supply and affirmatively further fair housing. A generalized urgency ordinance in response to AB 2011 is unnecessary.

C. Conclusion

Where state housing laws expressly authorize local governments to deny specific proposed projects based on health and safety concerns, as SB 9 does, or exempt specific properties from its ambit, as AB 2011 does, it is unclear how the high bar for an urgency ordinance can be satisfied.

The mere fact that a state law provides for a ministerial — as opposed to discretionary — review process does not, standing alone, establish the type of immediate threat to public health, safety, or welfare required to justify an urgency ordinance. Further, an interim urgency ordinance is a procedural tool to expeditiously adopt local regulations pending a city’s contemplated plan adoption or zoning ordinance. Such an ordinance must comply with the substantive requirements of state housing laws and cannot be used in an attempt to circumvent substantive legal requirements.

Local jurisdictions are urged to review any existing urgency ordinances for compliance with the requirements of section 65858, and repeal urgency ordinances that do not comply with these standards. Where needed, jurisdictions are encouraged to use their existing authority under state housing laws to review individual projects on health and safety grounds, rather than enacting overly broad and legally unjustifiable urgency ordinances. If implementation of a ministerial housing approval statute poses an immediate, current, and substantiated public health and safety threat, local legislative bodies must make the requisite written findings to justify an urgency ordinance. Given that such an ordinance likely would impact multifamily housing, findings supporting an extension must also satisfy the heightened standards applicable under Section 65858(c)(1)-(3) of establishing “a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions.” Developers, property owners, and permit applicants are advised that jurisdictions with insufficiently supported urgency ordinances are vulnerable to legal challenge under existing case law.

Sincerely,

ROB BONTA
Attorney General
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: Wednesday, June 10, 2026 1:39:09 PM
Attachments: Follow up_ Oppose Ordinances Delaying SB 79 Implementation in Palo Alto.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.

Dear Mayor and City Council,
Please see the attached follow up letter on behalf of The Housing Action Coalition on the Council's decision on how to implement SB 79.
--
On Mon, Jun 1, 2026 at 10:53 AM Ali Sapirman <[email protected] > wrote:

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". --
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".

Mayor and Members of the Palo Alto City Council 250

Hamilton

Ave.

Palo

Alto,

CA

94301
Re: – Oppose Ordinances Delaying SB 79 Implementation Dear Mayor and Councilmembers, On behalf of the Housing Action Coalition, please accept this as a follow-up to our May 4, 2024 letter

regarding

SB

79 implementation

in

Palo

Alto

and

a

specific

response

to

the

Council's

discussion

at

its

June

1 meeting,

where

it

ultimately

voted

up

staff-proposed

SB

79 suspension

ordinances

despite

almost

unanimous

opposition

in

both

written

and

verbal

public

comment

received

before

and

at

the

meeting.

Specifically, we were alarmed that two talking points at the meeting seemed to carry significant weight

in

leading

the

Council

to

support

voting

up

the

staff-proposed

"interim"

ordinance

and

to

bring

the

"urgency"

ordinance

forward

on

June

15. New SB 79 Housing Would Not "Strain" Public Infrastructure The only rationale pointed to by staff, the City Attorney, and council members to support the staff-proposed

"urgency"

SB

79 ordinance

(which

requires

findings

that

the

ordinance

addresses

an

imminent

public

health

or

safety

issue)

was

that

the

additional

housing

allowed

by

SB

79 would

"strain"

the

City's

public

infrastructure.

This

is

absurd,

particularly

in

the

areas

of

the

City

(such

as

California

Ave,

El

Camino

Real,

the

Downtown

Housing

Plan

Assessment

Area,

etc.)

that

would

have

been

subject

to

SB

79 under

Councilmember

Lythcott-Haim's

amendment

that

the

Council

voted

down.

The

City's

own

Housing

Element

underscores

that

"as

a

primarily

urban

and

developed

community,

Palo

Alto

is

well-served

by

existing

infrastructure

systems"

and

that

new

housing

development

will

require

only

"minor

upgrades."

See

Section

3.9 of

Housing

Element.

Further, the City's Housing Element emphasizes that Palo Alto's development impact fees/capacity

fees

"are

among

the

highest

in

the

region"

for

new

multi-family

housing

developments.

See

Introduction

of

Chapter

4 of

the

Housing

Element.

Specifically, the Housing Element notes that Palo Alto currently collects nearly $80,000 per unit in

development

impact

and

capacity

fee

charges.

These

fees

are

collected

in

addition

to

extensive

on-

and

off-site

improvements

the

City

requires

new

developments

to

comply

with,

including

robust stormwater control requirements, adjacent roadway improvements, and sewage collection and

treatment

requirements.

See

Tables

4-13

through

4-18

of

Housing

Element,

as

well

as

pp.

4-76

through

4-78.

We

have

included

with

this

letter

the

cited

excerpts

of

the

Housing

Element

for

the

City

Council's

reference.

Simply put, it is a complete fallacy to say any new housing allowed by SB 79 would put a strain on

the

City's

infrastructure,

which

is

already

well-built

and

for

which

the

City

would

collect

millions

in

impact

fees

to

improve

as

new

SB

79 housing

went

under

construction.

If

anything,

new

housing

in

Palo

Alto

will

generate

funds

to

further

improve

and

make

more

resilient

an

already

well-built

infrastructure

system.

As such, the City cannot credibly adopt an "urgency" ordinance suspending SB 79 on the grounds

it

would

"strain"

public

infrastructure.

The City's PHZ Program Is Not a Credible Alternative to SB 79 At multiple points in the June 1 meeting, certain members of the Council labelled Councilmember

Lythcott-Haims'

proposed

amendment

to

the

staff-proposed

SB

79 ordinances

—

which

would

have

allowed

SB

79 to

go

into

effect

in

areas

of

the

City

already

zoned

or

planned

for

higher-density

housing

—

as

"spot

zoning,"

but

then

also

argued

that

the

increased

density

of

SB

79 wasn't

necessary

because

developers

can

always

propose

to

use

the

City's

"PHZ"

program.

These members of the Council should know that the City's PHZ program is just as much of a spot

zoning

program,

if

not

more

so,

than

SB

79. The City's PHZ program "allows" developers to propose site-by-site rezoning in exchange for a commitment

to

build

on-site

affordable

housing.

It

involves

detailed

community

benefit

negotiations

between

the

developer

and

City,

takes

years

to

complete,

and

provides

no

upfront

certainty

to

the

developer

as

to

whether

the

City

Council

will

ultimately

vote

to

approve

the

rezoning.

The City's Housing Element characterizes the PHZ program as involving "lengthy legislative processes

that

have

reduced

predictability

compared

to

a

ministerial

application

review."

See

p.

4-22

of

the

Housing

Element.

Though SB 79 does not offer outright ministerial review, it affords not only sensible density near transit,

but

a

significantly

more

predictable

path

to

approval

for

developers

and

is

exactly

the

type of program the City's Housing Element purports to support to "convey increased development

potential

in

the

City's

multi-family

and

commercial

zones."

With it clear that new housing would not strain the City's public infrastructure and that the City has

no

meaningful

alternative

to

offer

that

would

allow

for

the

sensible

transit-oriented

density

and

predictable

entitlement

pathway

offered

by

SB

79,

there

is

no

basis

for

the

Council

to

move

forward

with

the

SB

79 urgency

ordinance.

Further,

there

is

good

reason

for

the

Council

to

revisit

its

first

read

decision

to

vote

up

the

"interim"

ordinances

without

Councilmember

Lythcott-Haims'

amendments

that

would

allow

SB

79 to

go

into

effect

in

areas

of

the

City

already

zoned

or

planned

for

high-density

residential.

We hope the Council will take this into consideration at its June 15 meeting.

In solidarity,
Ali Sapirman Advocacy & Policy Manager Housing Action Coalition

From: Leela Hebbar
To: Council, City
Subject: SB 79 delayed implementation
Date: Monday, June 8, 2026 8:31:45 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.

Hello,
I unfortunately could not make the public comment portion of Monday’s (June 8) city council meeting, so I am writing to share two comments.

1. I ask that you move the SB 79 topic from the consent agenda to the regular agenda.

Delaying full implementation of SB 79 without public debate is not transparent. It also prevents the public from hearing the city’s justification for using an urgency ordinance on a significant housing matter. I’d like to hear why it’s been deemed an emergency situation to delay full implementation of SB 79. Moreover, the June 1st meeting covered the topic late in the evening when most residents had left, which raises concerns about whether enough opportunity was given to discuss a significant topic. Irrespective of whether you support delaying SB 79 full implementation or not, this topic deserves to be discussed publicly.

2. I oppose delaying full implementation of SB 79 because it is disproportionately unfair to low-income residents. We need more affordable units sooner.

I also think it’s ironic that the council is using an urgency ordinance mechanism, which is designed to protect the public from immediate harm to delay a housing law that was itself designed to accelerate urgently needed affordable housing production.

I understand the city’s argument is that delaying SB 79 is a more pressing need than full implementation of SB 79. But affordable housing already has a long construction timeline. Further delay compounds a shortage that disproportionately harms low-income families.

I think the need for more affordable housing sooner is the more urgent emergency.

Thank you for considering these comments.

Leela Hebbar
Palo Alto Resident
Sent from Gmail Mobile
From: Justine Burt
To: Council, City
Subject: SB 79 discussion
Date: Monday, June 8, 2026 6:46:22 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 writing as a resident of Palo Alto who would like to see more housing built near transit. Building within a half-mile of Caltrain stations and El Camino Real would be the best places to do so as residents of these new developments would not need cars.

I encourage you to remove SB 79 from the consent calendar on June 15 to give the public a greater say in how the city implements SB 79. On June 1, the item came up for discussion around10:30pm, which meant many community members did not have a chance to comment on the topic and Council discussion was cut short.

With the San Antonio Road Area Plan discussion tonight and other projects, overall I’m pleased to see the City’s progress toward the 2031 Housing Element goal of enabling at least 6,000 new housing units.

Thank you,
Justine Burt
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.

Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
From: [email protected]
To: Council, City
Cc: Lait, Jonathan; Armer, Jennifer
Subject: Please pull SB 79 item from consent to allow full public particiaption Date: Monday, June 8, 2026 3:24:33 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
!
Dear Mayor Veenker and council members,
Please pull the SB79 item from consent so there can be full public participation that has been missing given the delayed meetings and the past 11pm time for public comment in the last meeting.

I am not an attorney but do wonder if suppressing/preventing full public participation is a grounds for successful legal challenge.

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

Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast