From: Jack Farrell
To: Council, City
Subject: Letter of Support for 762 San Antonio
Date: Wednesday, August 12, 2026 7:37:08 AM
Attachments: 762 San Antonio Letter of Support.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 7 of the August 17th Council agenda.
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]
1 August 12, 2026 City of Palo Alto City Council 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: Item 7, 762 San Antonio Road [24PLN-00120] Dear 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
Crisis
Act
of
2019
(SB-330).
This
Council
has
an
obligation
to
abide
by
all
relevant
state
housing
laws
when
evaluating
the
above
captioned
proposal,
including
the
HAA.
When complete, the proposed development at 762 San Antonio Road will consist of an 8-story development
with
228
residential
units.
30 units
will
be
deed-restricted
affordable
to
low-income
households.
We
urge
the
Council
to
adopt
the
EIR
addendum
and
grant
all
Density
Bonus
waivers
to
which
the
project
is
entitled.
As your staff have already informed you, denials of Builder’s Remedy projects are limited to circumstances
where
the
hearing
body
can
cite
specific,
adverse
impacts
based
on
prewritten
health
and
safety
standards.
It
may
not
be
denied
based
on
inconsistency
with
Zoning
designations
or
the
Comprehensive
Plan,
and
is
subject
only
to
ordinances
or
standards
in
place
when
its
SB
330
pre-application
was
submitted.
The SB 330 pre-application vested on January 9, 2024. Palo Alto’s Housing Element was not certified
as
substantially
compliant
until
August
20,
2024.
The
Project
proposal
is
consistent
with
the
provisions
of
the
Builders’
Remedy;
therefore,
you
must
approve
the
application,
or
else
make
findings
to
the
effect
that
the
proposed
project
would
have
an
adverse
impact
on
public
health
and
safety,
as
described
above.
A Density Bonus was being sought in order for the Project proponent to be granted waivers to which
they
are
entitled
under
California
state
Density
Bonus
Law,
California
Government
Code
§
YIMBY Law, 2261 Market Street STE 10416, San Francisco, CA 94114 1
YIMBY Law
2261 Market Street STE 10416 San Francisco, CA 94114 [email protected]
2 65915(e), so long as there are no specific, adverse impacts, upon health, safety, or the physical environment,
and
there
are
no
feasible
methods
to
satisfactorily
mitigate
or
avoid
the
specific
adverse
impacts.
The
HAA,
§
65589.5
(j)(3)
specifies
that
the
receipt
of
a
density
bonus
does
not
constitute
a
valid
basis
on
which
to
find
a
proposed
housing
development
project
is
inconsistent,
not
in
compliance,
or
not
in
conformity,
with
an
applicable
plan,
program,
policy,
ordinance,
standard,
requirement,
or
other
similar
provision.
With
the
requested
concessions
and/or
waivers
available
under
State
Density
Bonus
Law,
the
above-captioned
project
is
zoning
and
general
plan
compliant.
Should Palo Alto fail to comply with the law, YIMBY Law will not hesitate to take legal action to ensure
that
the
law
is
enforced.
I
am
signing
this
letter
both
in
my
capacity
as
the
Executive
Director
of
YIMBY
Law,
and
as
a
resident
of
California
who
is
affected
by
the
shortage
of
housing
in
our
state.
Sincerely,
Sonja Trauss Executive Director YIMBY Law
YIMBY Law, 2261 Market Street STE 10416, San Francisco, CA 94114 2
From: Steve Levy
To: Council, City; Lait, Jonathan
Subject: 762 San Antonio applica
Date: Sunday, August 16, 2026 10:48:43 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Mayor Veenker and council members,
I support the ARB and staff recommendation to approve this application. 228 units with 30 deed restricted units makes a meaningful contribution to meeting our adopted housing goals and adds to our buffer.
The project meets the parking requirement and has made modifications as requested by the ARB.
Please approve this application and continue council’s recent set of approvals.
Stephen Levy
Sent from my iPad
From: Gary Johnson
To: Council, City
Cc: Raybould, Claire; Dobkevicius, Kristina; Mark Johnson; Matt Hengehold; Chris Lee Subject: 762 San Antonio Rd-Request for Revisions to COAs Date: Sunday, August 16, 2026 10:37:08 PM
Attachments: image001.png
762 SAR-Acclaim Letter 2.0.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
On behalf of Acclaim Companies and property owner Globe Investments LLC, I am submitting the attached letter that requests revisions to a limited number of the Conditions of Approval for the 762 San Antonio Rd project.
Sincerely,
Gary Johnson
125 Willow Road
Menlo Park, CA 94025
650.622.2107
www.acclaimcompanies.com
This message needs your attention
This is their first mail to some recipients.
Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
August 15, 2026
City Council of the City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
RE: Applicant Acclaim Companies’ Request for Revisions to Conditions of Approval – 762 San Antonio Road
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
On behalf of ourselves and property owner Globe Investments LLC, we provide the following comments regarding the Conditions of Approval included in the Draft Record of Land Use Approval for the 762 San Antonio Road project (the “Project”), which is before you as Agenda Item 7 on August 17. First, we are incredibly grateful for City staff’s hard work in processing this Project, and for the revisions to Condition 99 that staff has thus far proposed to include in its presentation and read into the record. We a lso greatly appreciate the City’s strong understanding of this Project’s state law protections, inclusive of its status as a “housing development project” subject to the protections of the Housing Accountability Act (the “HAA”) including the “Builder’s Remedy” and Senate Bill (“SB”) 330.
However, there are two items in the Record of Land Use Approval that we feel exceed the bounds of what can be required of the Project by law, and that make a material difference in the Project’s feasibility. Accordingly, we request that Council consider the following, specific text edits. We have provided the text of each item with proposed revisions shown in red underline for additions, and red strikethrough for deletions. The basis for each request follows the text.
Requests for Revisions
• COA #99: The applicant is responsible for installing and upgrading existing utility mains, services, and laterals as needed to accommodate needs attributable to the development anticipated peak loads, including fire flow requirements determined by the City of Palo Alto Fire Department. This responsibility includes covering all costs related to the design and construction support services of these installations or upgrades resulting from the development. The developer’s financial obligation for construction costs of utility main and service/lateral upgrades whose new capacity exceeds the impacts of the development will be limited to the developer’s fair share contribution as reasonably determined by the City of Palo Alto Utility Department. Specifically, the developer shall not be responsible for any marginal increase in cost associated with a limited and reasonable amount of excess capacity requested by the City, with construction limited to within and adjacent to the project site to the greatest extent feasible.
• SECTION 5. Term of Approval. Architectural Review Application. In the event actual construction of the project is not commenced within two years of the Effective Date, the approval shall expire and be of no further force or effect. An extension may be granted in accordance with the allowances set forth in the municipal code and state law. To the extent this time period is inconsistent with the Project’s SB 330 Vesting (construction must be commenced within two and one half years from “final approval” as that term is defined in California Government Code Section 65589.5(o)(2)(D)), this appro val shall be automatically extended consistent with the SB 330 Vesting time period.
Basis for Revisions
• COA 99
With regard to COA 99, our requested changes harmonize the condition with the matching condition recently imposed on the Builder’s Remedy projects at 3606 El Camino Real and 3781 El Camino Real, as we think it is appropriate and fair to treat similarly situated projects the same way. We also want to make clear that we recognize it can be difficult to limit utility -related construction to one site’s frontage, and that a very small upgrade in capacity that’s meant to serve only one project, is not necessarily helpful in the long term. Accordingly, we are requesting limited edits that do recognize the potential that we be required to assist in some upsizing beyond the capacity needed for this Project, but that also reflect that the City’s ability to impose conditions on a development project pursuant to its police power are limited by the concepts of sufficient nexus and proportionality.1
Though the condition as written limits our ultimate financial responsibility to work that is specifically related to accommodating capacity needed for our Project, the condition does not currently provide any limitation on the extent of the construction we can be required to complete on behalf of other projects, which poses material financing issues for the Project due to uncertainty as to the initial cost and time required to comply (even if eventually compensated for cost beyond our fair share). Accordingly, we are requesting that the work be limited to our frontag e or immediately adjacent areas “to the greatest extent feasible,” and that if capacity beyond what’s needed for our Project is necessary, it be a “limited and reasonable amount.” • Term of Approval
With regard to the 2-year term of approval, we note that allowing for a City entitlement to expire while the Project’s SB 330 vesting continues, defeats the purpose of SB 330’s vesting provisions, which require only that construction commence within 2.5 years of “final approval” as defined in SB 330. Final approval means that “ the housing development project has received all necessary approvals to be eligible to apply for, and obtain, a building permit or permits” and either all appeal
1 The "essential nexus" and "rough proportionality" standards for land -use permit conditions and development exactions come from two key U.S. Supreme Court cases: Nollan v. California Coastal Commission (1987) and Dolan v. City of Tigard (1994). These are later expanded by Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District (2013) and most recently Sheetz v. County of El Dorado (2024).
periods and statutes of limitations have expired, or if a legal challenge is filed, it has been fully resolved in favor of the housing development.2
As currently written, the Project’s Major Architectural Review permit could expire before its SB 330 vesting has expired. Because SB 330 vesting freezes in place (as of the date of the Project’s preliminary application) all City requirements inclusive of p rocessing fees, development impact fees, and all applicable policies and standards, it would be duplicative and wasteful process (not to mention incredibly costly) for the Applicant to need to obtain a new land use approval for the Project.
While we conceptually understand local agencies’ concerns around “land banking,” two years to obtain a building permit and “actually commence” construction is an incredibly tight timeline and makes Project financing much more difficult. Even a potential 1-year extension can be insufficient.
We have no interest in prolonging development for any longer than is strictly necessary. It is simply the case that the financial environment is incredibly difficult, and any additional bit of certainty we can provide is meaningful and makes the Project more certain to be successful. We also strongly believe that these edits harmonize the City’s entitlement process, with the intended purpose of SB 330 and that imposing a 2 year entitlement timeline exceeds the City’s authorization under state housing law.
For all of the above reasons, we request that City Council consider our requested edits. We much appreciate your consideration of this matter.
Sincerely,
Gary Johnson
Acclaim Companies
2 Govt. Code Section 65589.5(o)(2)(D)(ii).