From: Velasquez, Ingrid
To: Lait, Jonathan; Tran, Vickie; Kallas, Emily
Cc: Nose, Kiely; Gaines, Chantal; City Mgr
Subject: FW: 2951
Date: Tuesday, July 7, 2026 9:36:53 AM
Attachments: image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
Hello,
Forwarding the thread below for awareness.
Thanks,
Ingrid
Ingrid Velásquez
Administrative Assistant
Office of the City Manager
(650) 329-2354| [email protected]
www.PaloAlto.gov
From: Matthew Bryant <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 6, 2026 10:17 AM
To: Jason Robinson <[email protected]>; Council, City <[email protected]> Cc: David Adams <[email protected]>; Jeff Levinsky <[email protected]>; peplive- [email protected]; Rebecca Sanders <[email protected]>; David Adams <[email protected]>; Anupa Bajwa <[email protected]>; Marvin Jing Woo <[email protected]>; Candy Tsourounis <[email protected]>; Shirley Yeh <[email protected]>; jieming lin <[email protected]> Subject: Re: 2951
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
Hi Jason and everyone included on this note, Thank you for your input. I plan to submit a version of this letter to the City Council ([email protected] ) and Emily Kallas ([email protected]) on the PTC. Also, it would be great to get everyone to show up or call into the PTC meeting o i
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first mail to some recipients.
Mark Safe Report
CGBANNERINDICATOR
Hi Jason and everyone included on this note,
Thank you for your input. I plan to submit a version of this letter to the City Council ([email protected]
) and Emily Kallas ([email protected]) on the PTC.
Also, it would be great to get everyone to show up or call into the PTC meeting on Wednesday, 8Jul26 at 6pm to reject this rezoning of 470 Olive Ave.
As a reminder, the newly adopted NVCAP continues to include 470 Pepper Ave as part of the R-1 zoning (https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/2/planning-amp- development-services/north-ventura-cap/nvcap-reports/adopted_nvcap_8_26_24.pdf).
Best regards,
Matt
On Jul 1, 2026, at 12:18 AM, Jason Robinson <[email protected] >
wrote:
Matt, David,
Thanks for your notes.
I'll send an email shortly. See below. My argument is to consider it holistically. These projects typically involve piecemeal considerations and multiple variances. The impact may be larger. More housing is fine, but planning is paramount.
Matt -- In the past, some noted that operating a commercial business in earnest on residentially-zoned property allegedly violates Palo Alto code and incurs a $1,000 daily fine. $365k/year. That may not be covered by the plans.
SUBJECT: PUBLIC COMMENT Re: Piecemeal Rezoning (470 Olive Ave / 2951 El Camino Real Corridor) -- Cumulative Infrastructure Impact Concerns Powered by Mimecast
BODY:
Dear Mayor, Council Members, and Commissioners,
We are writing to express clear and pressing concerns regarding the proposed rezoning of 470 Olive Ave and 2951 El Camino Real from R-1 to a higher-density mixed-use designation.
We also note that this topic has come up before, and it didn't proceed for reasons: [e.g., https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/agendas- minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/planning-and-transportation- commission/2019-agendas-minutes-and-staff-reports/ptc-12.11.19-470- olive.pdf ].
While everyone understands the state-mandated pressure to fulfill the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), approving this rezoning without a holistic, corridor-wide cumulative impact analysis introduces massive safety and infrastructure liabilities to Ventura and
surrounding neighborhoods.
The current planning approach evaluates this block entirely in a piecemeal fashion (i.e., each project's study typically concludes that their specific project alone won't significantly degrade the surrounding intersection to a point of total failure), creating a dangerous blind spot regarding localized gridlock:
Compounding Localized Density: This specific stretch of El Camino Real (SR 82) will bear the weight of multiple massive redevelopments, including the 368-unit project at the former Fish Market/McDonald’s site, the 5-story 129-unit housing development at the former Mike’s Bikes site, and another 113 units at 2951 El Camino / 470 Olive. And what happens when the Fry's site blossoms? This combination obviously risks overwhelming this single micro-corridor, therefore, development must proceed with care to prevent expensive mistakes.
The Page Mill Bottleneck: The intersection of Page Mill Road and El Camino Real is currently being reconfigured after the permanent redesign to remove street parking and accommodate bike
lanes. Backups at that intersection are commonplace. Combined with eliminating the right-on-red option, this actively reduces vehicular lane capacity and impacts business and neighborhood parking. Traffic spills into the arteries. The Page Mill crosswalk in front of Ash is more dangerous with increased traffic. Time will tell whether the new reconfiguration mitigates these issues.
Gridlock of Neighborhood Side-Streets: Because 470 Olive Ave connects to El Camino Real via an un-signaled stop sign on the side street, the compounding traffic from these projects can effectively trap neighborhood residents. When El Camino backs up due to the restricted Page Mill intersection, turning left into or out of Olive Avenue becomes physically impossible and creates a severe hazard for emergency vehicle access.
Our Request to the Council and Commission:
We urge you to conduct a sober, realistic Cumulative Traffic and Safety Infrastructure Study that explicitly evaluates the combined impact of the Fish Market/McDonald's site, the Mike’s Bikes site, 2951 El Camino/470 Olive, the old Fry's site, and other projects within a reasonable (e.g., 0.75-mi) radius working in tandem against the reduced road capacity from the new El Camino/Page Mill configuration including the wholesale removal of street parking.
The study may not be free, but it would likely be much cheaper than fixing the resulting mistakes later.
Palo Alto plays a dangerous game by continuing to approve massive, isolated density increases block-by-block while actively dismantling the very road infrastructure meant to support them.
Thank you for your time and consideration of Palo Alto's neighborhoods' long-term safety and efficient transportation.
Regards,
...
cc: Becky
Jason
On Tue, Jun 30, 2026 at 7:11 PM David Adams <[email protected] >
wrote:
+ Pepper/Olive residents some of whom live at that end.
Does anyone have a good case against this rezoning? With what's been going on around here it would seem the forces are against us.
Regards
David
On Tuesday, June 30, 2026 at 06:22:46 PM PDT, Matthew Bryant <[email protected] >
wrote:
Need your help again to stop 470 Olive Ave rezoning . We have mixed use on both ends of our blocks. Help preserve the few R1 single family homes we have left.
Best regards,
Matt
Sent from Outer Space
On May 6, 2023, at 19:08, Matthew Bryant <[email protected]> wrote:
Turns out that the Acclaim Property did buy 2951. They are going to renovate it and turn into commercial. It’s up for soft sale if anyone is interested (not listed but shopping it around).
The fish house project is a Stanford collaboration includes McDonald’s.
The vet (now bmnt) pulled out of the old 2951 plan, and it is done.
I talked with Lydia Kou at the May fête parade today. I thanked her for promoting bikes and asked her to help out the NVCAP. I said the building heights are too tall and she agreed. She said she is looking out for Venturans!
Cheers,
Matt
Sent from Outer Space
On May 6, 2023, at 17:04, Jeff Levinsky <[email protected] > wrote:
There's no new project submitted for that address. See https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Planning-Development-Services/Current- Planning/Projects/2951-El-Camino-Real, but what's there is the 2020 project that didn't go forward. We were told the developer and the four different owners back then couldn't agree on things. That developer opted instead to work on the Fish Market project on the other side of El Camino.
2951 El Camino's last transfer date was in 2017 per the County. See attached assessment.
Of course, the various owners can always launch a new effort to build something there and it could be much bigger than the prior plans, thanks to state laws. ----- Original Message -----
From: Matthew Bryant
To: Rebecca Sanders
Cc: David Adams ; Anupa Bajwa ; Marvin & Jing Woo ; Candy Tsourounis ; Shirley Yeh ; Jeff Levinsky ; [email protected]
Sent: Friday, May 5, 2023 10:20 AM
Subject: 2951
On another note, the Akins auto body is moving out of 2951 El Camino Real (at Pepper Ave).
I think the property was sold in 2022 and the new owner raised the rent on Akins. Akins has decided to move out by May 20.
Today, I noticed three well-dressed individuals walking around the 2951 property and looking longingly at its future. I wonder if these are real estate developers looking to build another high- rise commercial/residential like Acclaim Properties proposed a few years ago.
Does Jeff Levinsky or anybody know anything about 2951 ECR? I tried to find information about a property sale online.
Best regards,
Matt
471 Pepper Ave
On May 1, 2023, at 7:13 PM, Rebecca Sanders <[email protected] >
wrote:
Dear David and Matt:
I am cc'ing Anupa, since she is right there. Is there anyone else that should be on this thread? I emailed Jeff Levinsky about this massive building being grossly under-parked. He was aware of it. You guys know him, right. He's PAN's land use guru and super helpful when it comes to reading zoning laws.
Jeff Levinsky says it would really help if neighbors wrote letters or better yet spoke at the ARB meeting Thursday. Neighbors rarely show up and when they do, ARB tends to listen.
Here's some other stuff he said to me. I hope this helps:
"The overview suggests the project is using its full count of four exemptions under SB 330. I think that leaves them still subject to our other rules that protect sight-lines into neighboring properties and require screening, plantings, and things like that. I'd recommend the neighbors go to the ARB and ask for every bit of that -- and the project should have to provide it as it has no exemptions left. That might give some relief.
'A more sophisticated argument is that the state parking exemptions don't apply if a city can show it would create safety problems. Normally the City had to be prepared to make such an argument, but neighbors might hire a lawyer to help pursue that. At a minimum, they could certainly mock the developer's attempt to take over the street for its own parking."
I also asked Jeff about whether it will automatically go to Council. He's not sure.
Various rules generally require PTC and Council meetings for large projects, even if using SB 330. But if it doesn't go to Council, it can be appealed to the Council, although the SB 330 limit on five meetings may create problems and the Council may not be able to overturn anything unless it relates to compliance with objective standards. This Thursday's meeting is the third hearing for this project.
Jeff's see one can explicitly appeal per 18.15.090(d) for the density bonus aspects. (I haven't look it up.) More direct quotes from Jeff:
"The ARB staff report claims the project is subject neither to the new objective standards protecting neighbors nor the older ones if they're not objective. I can't see it hurting the neighbors to ask for anything they feel would help...The City could have objected to the massive parking reduction, but opted not to. The City definitely does not have to grant any special rights to the building for street parking, of course."
By the way,Charities Housing is run by a 501(c)3 non-profit, so it could well stay low income forever. If they eventually sell, the funds they raise would have to be used for something else consistent with their non-profit charter.
Anyway, does anyone over there have a plan to go to the ARB? I'm happy to lend my voice to yours. Is there any one else we can muster?
Best to all,
Becky
<2951 El Camino Assessment.pdf>
From: Matthew Bryant
To: Planning Commission; Council, City; Kallas, Emily
Cc: Matt Bryant; Candy Tsourounis
Subject: 470 Olive Ave rezoning opposition
Date: Monday, July 6, 2026 12:09:45 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear distinguished Palo Alto City Council, PTC members, and project planner Emily Kallas, I am writing this letter to express my opposition with the rezoning request by 470 Olive Ave, which is an existing R-1 zoning that is shown to be part of the R-1 zoning per the existing and updated 2024 NVCAP
(https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/2/planning-amp-development-services/north- ventura-cap/nvcap-reports/adopted_nvcap_8_26_24.pdf). Per the existing NVCAP zoning ordinances the 470 Olive Ave parcel is R-1 and should not be permitted to become a medium density mixed use for a multitude of reasons.
It should be noted that 470 Olive Ave is currently non conforming and has previously attempted to rezone in 2019 and it was not allowed to proceed for reasons: [e.g., https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas- minutes/planning-and-transportation-commission/2019-agendas-minutes-and-staff-reports/ptc-
12.11.19-470-olive.pdf ]. In 2019, 470 Olive Ave had been noted to be non conforming and operating a commercial business in earnest on residentially-zoned property which allegedly violates Palo Alto code and incurs a $1,000 daily fine or $365,000/year. It is unknown whether the fines been paid to the City of Palo Alto.
It should further be noted that there is a new R-1 single family residential currently under construction next door at 450 Olive Ave which is conforming and will help to enhance the NVCAP R-1 zoning as designed and agreed to in the updated 2024 NVCAP. Also, recent ADU have been built on R-1 zones at 461 Pepper Ave, 295 Olive Ave, and 305 Olive Ave which helps fulfill further housing needs in Palo Alto.
We and our Pepper and Olive Street neighbors are writing to express clear and pressing opposition and concerns regarding the proposed rezoning of 470 Olive Ave from R-1 to a medium-density mixed-use designation.
While everyone understands the state-mandated pressure to fulfill the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), approving this rezoning without a holistic, corridor-wide cumulative impact analysis introduces massive safety and infrastructure liabilities to Ventura and surrounding neighborhoods.
This message needs your attention
Some Recipients have never replied to this person.
This is a personal email address.
Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
The current planning approach evaluates this block entirely in a piecemeal fashion (i.e., each project's study typically concludes that their specific project alone won't significantly degrade the surrounding intersection to a point of total failure), creating a dangerous blind spot regarding localized gridlock:
Compounding Localized Density: This specific stretch of El Camino Real (SR 82) of South Palo Alto will bear the weight of multiple massive redevelopments, including the 368-unit project at the former Fish Market/McDonald’s site, the 5-story 129-unit housing development at the former Mike’s Bikes site, and other nearby construction such as the 80-plus condos at former Fry's Cannery site. This combination obviously risks overwhelming this single micro-corridor, therefore, development must proceed with care to prevent expensive mistakes.
The Page Mill Bottleneck: The intersection of Page Mill Road and El Camino Real is currently being reconfigured after the permanent redesign to remove street parking and accommodate bike lanes. Backups at that intersection are commonplace. Combined with eliminating the right-on-red option, this actively reduces vehicular lane capacity and impacts business and neighborhood parking. Traffic spills into the arteries. The Page Mill crosswalk in front of Ash is more dangerous with increased traffic. Time will tell whether the new reconfiguration mitigates these issues.
Gridlock of Neighborhood Side-Streets: Because 470 Olive Ave connects to El Camino Real via an un-signaled stop sign on the side street, the compounding traffic from these projects can effectively trap neighborhood residents. When El Camino backs up due to the restricted Page Mill intersection, turning left into or out of Olive Avenue becomes physically impossible and creates a severe hazard for emergency vehicle access.
Our Request to the Council and Commission:
We urge you to oppose the 470 Olive Ave rezoning request and furthermore conduct a sober, realistic Cumulative Traffic and Safety Infrastructure Study that explicitly evaluates the combined impact of the Fish Market/McDonald's site, the Mike’s Bikes site, the Fry's Cannery site, and other projects within a reasonable (e.g., 0.75-mi) radius working in tandem against the reduced road capacity from the new El Camino/Page Mill configuration including the wholesale removal of street parking.
The study may not be free, but it would likely be much cheaper than fixing the resulting mistakes later.
Palo Alto plays a dangerous game by continuing to approve massive, isolated density increases block-by-block while actively dismantling the very road infrastructure meant to support them.
Thank you for your time and consideration of Palo Alto's neighborhoods' long-term safety and efficient transportation.
Sincerely,
Matthew Bryant, PharmD
471 Pepper Ave, Palo Alto, CA 94306
From: Pepper Person
To: Kallas, Emily
Cc: Rebecca Sanders
Subject: Fwd: PUBLIC COMMENT Re: Piecemeal Rezoning (470 Olive Ave / 2951 El Camino Real Corridor) -- Cumulative Infrastructure Impact Concerns
Date: Tuesday, July 7, 2026 8:35:03 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Ms. Kallas,
We're forwarding our note ahead of tomorrow's PTC meeting, given its relevance.
Warm regards,
Jason Robinson, PhD, MBA
Jieming Robinson, MS, Economics
cc:
Rebecca Sanders, Ventura Neighborhood Association
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Pepper Person <[email protected]
>
Date: Wed, Jul 1, 2026 at 12:18 AM
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT Re: Piecemeal Rezoning (470 Olive Ave / 2951 El Camino Real Corridor) -- Cumulative Infrastructure Impact Concerns To: <[email protected]
>, Rebecca Sanders <[email protected]>
Dear Mayor, Council Members, and Commissioners,
We are writing to express clear and pressing concerns regarding the proposed rezoning of 470 Olive Ave and 2951 El Camino Real from R-1 to a higher-density mixed-use designation.
We also note that this topic has come up before, and it didn't proceed for reasons:
[e.g., https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas- minutes/planning-and-transportation-commission/2019-agendas-minutes-and-staff-reports/ptc-
12.11.19-470-olive.pdf ].
While everyone understands the state-mandated pressure to fulfill the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), approving this rezoning without a holistic, corridor-wide cumulative impact analysis introduces massive safety and infrastructure liabilities to This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first mail to some recipients.
Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
Ventura and surrounding neighborhoods.
The current planning approach evaluates this block entirely in a piecemeal fashion (i.e., each project's study typically concludes that their specific project alone won't significantly degrade the surrounding intersection to a point of total failure), creating a dangerous blind spot regarding localized gridlock:
Compounding Localized Density: This specific stretch of El Camino Real (SR 82) will bear the weight of multiple massive redevelopments, including the 368-unit project at the former Fish Market/McDonald’s site, the 5-story 129-unit housing development at the former Mike’s Bikes site, and another 113 units at 2951 El Camino / 470 Olive. And what happens when the Fry's site blossoms? This combination obviously risks overwhelming this single micro-corridor, therefore, development must proceed with care to prevent expensive mistakes.
The Page Mill Bottleneck: The intersection of Page Mill Road and El Camino Real is currently being reconfigured after the permanent redesign to remove street parking and accommodate bike lanes. Backups at that intersection are commonplace. Combined with eliminating the right-on-red option, this actively reduces vehicular lane capacity and impacts business and neighborhood parking. Traffic spills into the arteries. The Page Mill crosswalk in front of Ash is more dangerous with increased traffic. Time will tell whether the new reconfiguration mitigates these issues.
Gridlock of Neighborhood Side-Streets: Because 470 Olive Ave connects to El Camino Real via an un-signaled stop sign on the side street, the compounding traffic from these projects can effectively trap neighborhood residents. When El Camino backs up due to the restricted Page Mill intersection, turning left into or out of Olive Avenue becomes physically impossible and creates a severe hazard for emergency vehicle access.
Our Request to the Council and Commission:
We urge you to conduct a sober, realistic Cumulative Traffic and Safety Infrastructure Study that explicitly evaluates the combined impact of the Fish Market/McDonald's site, the Mike’s Bikes site, 2951 El Camino/470 Olive, the old Fry's site, and other projects within a reasonable (e.g., 0.75-mi) radius working in tandem against the reduced road capacity from the new El Camino/Page Mill configuration including the wholesale removal of street parking.
The study may not be free, but it would likely be much cheaper than fixing the resulting mistakes later.
Palo Alto plays a dangerous game by continuing to approve massive, isolated density increases block-by-block while actively dismantling the very road infrastructure meant to support them.
Thank you for your time and consideration of Palo Alto's neighborhoods' long-term safety and efficient transportation.
Regards,
Jason Robinson, PhD, MBA
Jieming Robinson, MS, Economics
cc:
Rebecca Sanders, Ventura Neighborhood Association