Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2025-09-24 Planning & Transportation Commission Agenda Packet
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Regular Meeting Wednesday, September 24, 2025 Council Chambers & Hybrid 6:00 PM Planning and Transportation Commission meetings will be held as “hybrid” meetings with theoption to attend by teleconference/video conference or in person. To maximize public safetywhile still maintaining transparency and public access, members of the public can choose toparticipate from home or attend in person. Information on how the public may observe andparticipate in the meeting is located at the end of the agenda. Masks are strongly encouraged ifattending in person. The meeting will be broadcast on Cable TV Channel 26, live onYouTube https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofpaloalto, and streamed to Midpen MediaCenter https://midpenmedia.org. Commissioner names, biographies, and archived agendas andminutes are available at http://bit.ly/PaloAltoPTC. VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION CLICK HERE TO JOIN (https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/91641559499) Meeting ID: 916 4155 9499 Phone: 1(669)900-6833 PUBLIC COMMENTSPublic comments will be accepted both in person and via Zoom for up to three minutes or anamount of time determined by the Chair. All requests to speak will be taken until 5 minutesafter the staff’s presentation. Written public comments can be submitted in advance toPlanning.Commission@paloalto.gov and will be provided to the Commission and available forinspection on the City’s website. Please clearly indicate which agenda item you are referencingin your subject line. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified aspresent at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson's presentation will be allowed up to ten(10) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree notto speak individually. The Chair may limit Public Comments to thirty (30) minutes for allcombined speakers. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak for Study Sessions andAction Items to two (2) minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers. PowerPoints, videos, or other media to be presented during public comment are accepted onlyby email to Planning.Commission@paloalto.gov at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. Oncereceived, the Clerk will have them shared at public comment for the specified item. To upholdstrong cybersecurity management practices, USB’s or other physical electronic storage devicesare not accepted. Signs and symbolic materials less than 2 feet by 3 feet are permitted provided that: (1) sticks,posts, poles or similar/other type of handle objects are strictly prohibited; (2) the items do notcreate a facility, fire, or safety hazard; and (3) persons with such items remain seated whendisplaying them and must not raise the items above shoulder level, obstruct the view or passageof other attendees, or otherwise disturb the business of the meeting. 1 Regular Meeting September 24, 2025 Materials related to an item on this agenda submitted to the Board after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection at www.paloalto.gov/agendas TIME ESTIMATESListed times are estimates only and are subject to change at any time, including while themeeting is in progress. The Commission reserves the right to use more or less time on any item,to change the order of items and/or to continue items to another meeting. Particular items maybe heard before or after the time estimated on the agenda. This may occur in order to bestmanage the time at a meeting or to adapt to the participation of the public. 2 Regular Meeting September 24, 2025 Materials related to an item on this agenda submitted to the Board after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection at www.paloalto.gov/agendas CALL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALL PUBLIC COMMENT Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS The Chair or Commission majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management. CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS 1.Director's Report, Meeting Schedule, and Assignments STUDY SESSION Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker. 2.Review of the Final Conceptual Design for the Permanent Installation of the Crescent Park Traffic Calming Project – Bulbout on Southwood and East Crescent Drive. CEQA Status: Exempt under CEQA Guidelines Section 15301. Supplemental Report ACTION ITEMS Public Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Fifteen (15) minutes, plus three (3) minutes rebuttal. All others: Three (3) minutes per speaker. 3.PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 4075 El Camino Way [23PLN-00202]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for an Amendment to a Planned Community Ordinance (PC-5116) to Allow for Modifications to an Existing 121-Unit Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility. CEQA Status: Exempt from the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in Accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Modifications to Existing Facilities). Supplemental Report COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE MEETINGS ANDAGENDAS Members of the public may not speak to the item(s). ADJOURNMENT OTHER INFORMATION 3 Regular Meeting September 24, 2025 Materials related to an item on this agenda submitted to the Board after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection at www.paloalto.gov/agendas Public Comments 4 Regular Meeting September 24, 2025 Materials related to an item on this agenda submitted to the Board after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection at www.paloalto.gov/agendas PUBLIC COMMENT INSTRUCTIONS Members of the Public may provide public comments to teleconference meetings via email,teleconference, or by phone. 1.Written public comments may be submitted by email toPlanning.Commission@paloalto.gov. 2.Spoken public comments using a computer will be accepted through the teleconferencemeeting. To address the Commission, click on the link below to access a Zoom-basedmeeting. Please read the following instructions carefully. ◦You may download the Zoom client or connect to the meeting in- browser. If usingyour browser, make sure you are using a current, up-to-date browser: Chrome 30,Firefox 27, Microsoft Edge 12, Safari 7. Certain functionality may be disabled inolder browsers including Internet Explorer. ◦You may be asked to enter an email address and name. We request that youidentify yourself by name as this will be visible online and will be used to notify youthat it is your turn to speak. ◦When you wish to speak on an Agenda Item, click on “raise hand.” The Clerk willactivate and unmute speakers in turn. Speakers will be notified shortly before theyare called to speak. ◦When called, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted. A timer will beshown on the computer to help keep track of your comments. 3.Spoken public comments using a smart phone will be accepted through theteleconference meeting. To address the Commission, download the Zoom applicationonto your phone from the Apple App Store or Google Play Store and enter the Meeting IDbelow. Please follow the instructions above. 4.Spoken public comments using a phone use the telephone number listed below. Whenyou wish to speak on an agenda item hit *9 on your phone so we know that you wish tospeak. You will be asked to provide your first and last name before addressing theCommission. You will be advised how long you have to speak. When called please limityour remarks to the agenda item and time limit allotted. CLICK HERE TO JOIN Meeting ID: 916 4155 9499 Phone:1-669-900-6833 Americans with Disability Act (ADA) It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to offer its publicprograms, services and meetings in a manner that is readily accessible to all. Persons withdisabilities who require materials in an appropriate alternative format or who require auxiliaryaids to access City meetings, programs, or services may contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at(650) 329-2550 (voice) or by emailing ada@paloalto.gov. Requests for assistance oraccommodations must be submitted at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, orservice. 5 Regular Meeting September 24, 2025 Materials related to an item on this agenda submitted to the Board after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection at www.paloalto.gov/agendas Item No. 1. Page 1 of 2 Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report From: Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: September 24, 2025 Report #: 2509-5158 TITLE Director's Report, Meeting Schedule, and Assignments RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) review and comment as appropriate. BACKGROUND This document includes the following items: Upcoming PTC Agenda Items PTC Meeting Schedule PTC Representative to City Council (Rotational Assignments) Commissioners are encouraged to contact Samuel Tavera (Samuel.Tavera@PaloAlto.gov) to notify staff of any planned absences one month in advance, if possible, to ensure the availability of a PTC quorum. PTC Representative to City Council is a rotational assignment where the designated commissioner represents the PTC’s affirmative and dissenting perspectives to Council for quasijudicial and legislative matters. Representatives are encouraged to review the City Council agendas (https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/City-Hall/City-Council/Council-Agendas-Minutes) for the months of their respective assignments to verify if attendance is needed or contact staff. Prior PTC meetings are available online at https://midpenmedia.org/category/government/city- of-palo-alto/boards-and-commissions/planning-and-transportation-commission. UPCOMING PTC ITEMS Item 1 Item 1 Staff Report Packet Pg. 6 Item No. 1. Page 2 of 2 October 8, 2025 660 University Avenue – Revised PHZ Application Zoning Code Amendment Request - Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.18.120 [Noncomplying (Grandfathered) Uses and Facilities] ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: 2025 PTC Schedule & Assignments AUTHOR/TITLE: Jennifer Armer, Assistant Director Item 1 Item 1 Staff Report Packet Pg. 7 Planning & Transportation Commission 2025 Meeting Schedule 9 0 2 6 2025 Schedule Meeting Dates Time Location Status Planned Absences 1/8/2025 6:00 PM Hybrid Canceled 1/15/2025 6:00 PM Hybrid Special 1/29/2025 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 2/12/2025 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 2/26/2025 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular Templeton 3/12/2025 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 3/26/2025 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 4/9/2025 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 4/30/2025 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 5/14/2025 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 5/28/2025 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 6/11/2025 6:00 PM Hybrid Canceled 6/25/2025 6:00 PM Hybrid Canceled 7/9/2025 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 7/30/2025 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular James, Ji 8/13/2025 6:00 PM Hybrid Canceled 8/27/2025 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 9/6/2025 10:00 AM Hybrid Special Retreat 9/10/2025 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular Hechtman 9/24/2025 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 10/8/2025 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 10/29/2025 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 11/12/2025 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 11/26/2025 6:00 PM Hybrid Cancelled 12/10/2025 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 12/31/2025 6:00 PM Hybrid Cancelled 2025 Assignments - Council Representation (primary/backup) January February March April May June Bryna Chang Bart Hechtman Allen Akin Doria Summa Doria Summa Cari Templeton Bart Hechtman Forest Peterson Cari Templeton Kevin Ji Bryna Chang Todd James July August September October November December Council Summer Break Allen Akin Forest Peterson Kevin Ji Bryna Chang Todd James Allen Akin Forest Peterson Cari Templeton Bart Hechtman Kevin Ji Item 1 Attachment A - 2025 PTC Schedule & Assignments Packet Pg. 8 Item No. 2. Page 3 of 4 7 9 8 2 provide new information that would help to identify additional modifications to address their previously stated concerns. Staff reviewed the above design improvements in consultation with the City’s Chief Building Official, who also functions as the ADA Coordinator. The Chief Building Official confirmed that the concrete pad provided access from the curb to the front walkway and was consistent with accessibility requirements. To enhance pedestrian access from the vehicle drop-off point at the concrete pad, staff will ensure that a vehicle can pull up to the curb as close as possible as part of the next stage of engineering design. According to the Chief Building Official, maintaining the current curb ramp in this location is not acceptable because it does not comply with current ADA standards. Staff considered the option of removing the pilot treatments associated with the bulbout. However, removal of the bulbout would not support the broader project goals of reducing vehicle speeds and cut through traffic along the public right of-way throughout the neighborhood. Additionally, if the bulbout were removed, the existing ramps on both sides of E. Crescent and Southwood would need to be brought up to ADA standards and based on AB 413, parking and passenger loading would not be permitted within 15-20 feet of the ramps. The proposed design including refinements listed above aligns with similar installations throughout Palo Alto and reflects a good faith effort to balance resident input with ADA access, engineering best practice and neighborhood concerns regarding speed, cut through traffic and safety. Staff recommends moving forward with the current design with the design adjustments previously conducted to date. NEXT STEPS Council has approved the conceptual designs for this project. Following PTC review, staff will prepare final construction drawings and initiate the construction phase for permanent installation, which includes Council review and approval of the construction contract. RESOURCE IMPACT The project will be funded through the existing Transportation and Parking Improvement Capital Improvement Project (PL-12000), which supports neighborhood traffic calming projects. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The proposed modifications involve minor upgrades to an existing residential street right-of- way and will not introduce any new environmental impacts. This project qualifies as a minor alteration to the existing street system and is therefore categorically exempt under Class 1 Exemption, Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). PUBLIC NOTIFICATION Households within the project area were notified by mail regarding the PTC meeting and the availability of this staff report. Item 2 Item 2 Staff Report Packet Pg. 11 Item No. 2. Page 4 of 4 7 9 8 2 ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Final Conceptual Design – Bulbout / Curb Extension Attachment B: Examples of Proposed Concrete Platform Report Author & Contact Information Shahla Yazdy, Project Engineer (650) 617-3151 Shahla.Yazdy@paloalto.gov Item 2 Item 2 Staff Report Packet Pg. 12 Curb Extension at East Crescent Drive and Southwood Drive 13 Item 2 Attachment A - Final Conceptual Design - Bulbout Curb Extension Packet Pg. 13 10 Examples of proposed concrete platform Item 2 Attachment B - Examples of Proposed Concrete Platform Packet Pg. 14 Item No. 3. Page 1 of 7 Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report From: Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: September 24, 2025 Report #: 2507-5001 TITLE PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 4075 El Camino Way [23PLN-00202]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for an Amendment to a Planned Community Ordinance (PC-5116) to Allow for Modifications to an Existing 121-Unit Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility. CEQA Status: Exempt from the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in Accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Modifications to Existing Facilities). RECOMMENDATION It is recommended the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) take the following actions: 1. Recommend approval of an ordinance (Attachment B) amending PC-5116 to allow the addition of seven units on the first and second floors; and 2. Recommend approval of the Record of Land Use Action (Attachment C) based on findings and subject to conditions of approval, modified to reflect the reduction in units. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The applicant requests approval of an amendment to the existing Planned Community (PC) Zone District (PC-5116) to allow a 13-unit addition to the existing 121-unit assisted living facility (Palo Alto Commons). A map showing the location of the proposed project is included in Attachment A. On May 27, 2025, following multiple hearings in the Planned Community Rezoning process, Council remanded the project to the PTC with specific direction for modifications to the project. Council requested that the scope of the project be reduced to only add between 11 and 13 units, where they had previously proposed 16 units, in order to address neighboring resident concerns regarding impacts to adjacent properties. This report focuses on the changes that have been made to the project in response to this motion. The proposed plans reflect Council’s direction to reduce the number of units, and now includes 13 units. Staff finds that the Item 3 Item 3 Staff Report Packet Pg. 15 Item No. 3. Page 2 of 7 proposed project, with the modifications, is consistent with the findings for approval as detailed in this report. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant requests approval for an amendment to the existing PC Zone District (PC-5116) to allow additions to the existing 121-unit assisted living facility (Palo Alto Commons), including 13 assisted living units and 172 square feet of support space. Requested Entitlements, Findings, and Purview: The following discretionary application is being requested and subject to PTC purview: Planned Community (PC/PHZ): The process for evaluating this type of application is set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapter 18.38. A Planned Community is intended to accommodate all types of developments, including combinations of uses appropriately requiring flexibility under controlled conditions not otherwise attainable under other districts. The planned community district is particularly intended for unified, comprehensively planned developments that are of substantial public benefit and which conform with and enhance the policies and programs of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. The application requires initial review by the PTC, followed by review by the ARB. Upon recommendation from the ARB, the draft ordinance for the project is presented along with the development plan to the PTC for recommendation to the City Council for final action. BACKGROUND Project Information Owner:Stephen Reller, R and M Properties Architect:Daniel Bowman, IPAOC Representative:Charlene Kussner, WellQuest Living Legal Counsel:Frank Petrilli, Coblentz Patch Duffy & Bass LLP Property Information Address:4075 El Camino Way Neighborhood:Ventura Lot Dimensions & Area:110,642 square feet, irregular shaped lot Housing Inventory Site:No Located w/in a Plume:No Protected/Heritage Trees:Yes, street trees Historic Resource(s):No Item 3 Item 3 Staff Report Packet Pg. 16 Item No. 3. Page 3 of 7 Existing Improvement(s):Palo Alto Commons: 83,511 square feet, 3 stories, 32 feet and 6 inches height, built 1989 The Avant: 47,500 square feet, 3 stories, built 2014 Existing Land Use(s):Senior Assisted Living (Palo Alto Commons), Senior Independent Living (The Avant) Adjacent Land Uses & Zoning: North: Single Family Residential (R-1) West: Multi-Family Residential (RM-20) East: Multi-Family Residential (RM-20), Goodwill Store, and Preschool (CN) South: Animal Care, Retail, Mixed-Use (CN) Special Setbacks:No Aerial View of Property: Source: Google Satellite Maps Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans/Guidelines Comp. Plan Designation:Multiple-Family Residential (MF), Neighborhood Commercial (CN) Item 3 Item 3 Staff Report Packet Pg. 17 Item No. 3. Page 4 of 7 Zoning Designation:Planned Community (PC-5116) Yes Yes Yes Baylands Master Plan/Guidelines (2008/2005) El Camino Real Guidelines (1976) Housing Development Project Downtown Urban Design Guidelines (1993) South El Camino Real Guidelines (2002) Utilizes Chapter 18.24 - Objective Standards Individual Review Guidelines (2005) Within 150 feet of Residential Use or District Context-Based Design Criteria applicable SOFA Phase 1 (2000)Within Airport Influence Area SOFA Phase 2 (2003) Prior City Reviews & Action City Council:Prescreening: August 7, 20231 Formal: May 5, 2025,2 continued to May 27, 2025 PTC:February 28, 2024,3 June 12, 2024,4 December 11, 20245 HRB:None ARB:July 18, 2024,6 and October 17, 20247 A complete summary of the meetings that occurred prior to formal Council consideration is available in the May 5, 2025, Council Report.5 On October 17, 2024, the ARB unanimously recommended approval of the project. On December 11, 2024, the PTC held a hearing to consider a 16-unit proposal. Their discussion focused on daylight plane compliance and parking. The Commission voted (3-2-2) to recommend approval of only the seven units not facing Wilkie Way and denial of the nine rear- facing units and the proposed ground-floor office space. The motion also included recommendations to: Return the TDM plan to the PTC for further review Revise Findings to reflect the modified recommendation Remove past public benefits from consideration under the current PC Ordinance 1 August 7, 2023 Council report: https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=12606 2 May 5, 2025 Council report: https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=16065 3 February 28, 2024 PTC Report: https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=13611 4 June 12, 2024 PTC Report: https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=13660 5 December 11, 2024 PTC Report: https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=13772 6 July 18, 2024 ARB Report: https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=13877 7 October 17, 2024 Report: https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=13919 Item 3 Item 3 Staff Report Packet Pg. 18 Item No. 3. Page 5 of 7 Commissioners supporting the motion cited PAMC Chapter 18.38, noting its more restrictive daylight plane provisions for PC projects near single-family homes. Dissenting Commissioners expressed support for the project as proposed. Then-Councilmembers Reckdahl and Lu were recused due to their recent election to Council. Council considered the project on May 5, 2025. At the hearing 35 members of the public provided comment, and the hearing was continued for Council deliberation on May 27, 2025. Discussion on May 27, 2025, included prioritizing enforcement of the TDM plan, repairing the relationship between Palo Alto Commons and the neighborhood, and considering the PTC recommendation. Council’s motion referred this project back to the Planning and Transportation Commission “for a review of a project between 11 to 13 units that would eliminate the 3rd floor units adjacent to Wilkie Way backyards.” This motion passed 4-3. Councilmembers Reckdahl and Burt dissented, as they believe even the motion’s proposed reduction would not sufficiently address neighbor concerns. Mayor Stone dissented as he did not want to lengthen the review process. He supported a failed motion to approve seven of the units in keeping with the PTC’s recommendation, which also would not have required the project to return to PTC or Council. ANALYSIS This report is focused on the modifications made to the project since the May 27, 2025, Council hearing. Staff finds that the project, with the proposed modifications, continues to be consistent with the findings for approval, as previously detailed in the May 5, 2025 report. Response to PTC and Council Comments In keeping with Council’s motion, the revised plans removed three of the 16 previously proposed units, for a total of 13 proposed units added to the existing facility. The remaining units include three third-floor units. One of these units does not face Wilkie Way, it faces The Avant. The other two units face Wilkie Way at an angle, in locations that are 25 feet, 10 inches and 27 feet, 6 inches from the nearest property line, respectively. The new units do not have balconies, increasing privacy compared to other existing third-floor units. The total size of the addition is now 5,002 square feet. For context, under the Zoning Code, projects adding 5,000 square feet or less can be considered “Minor Projects”, though this proposed addition would still require a PC amendment as the ordinance limits the total number of units that may be constructed under that PC zone district. To assist the PTC in their review, the applicant has prepared an additional exhibit, Attachment G. This exhibit includes the proposed units, numbered in a manner to better facilitate conversation, as well as daylight plane section diagrams showing both the adopted PC-3775 45- degree daylight plane, and the PAMC 18.38.150 non-residential 3:6 daylight plane. The applicant also revised the TDM plan per the PTC’s previous comments prior to the last Council hearing, and is available in Attachment F. The Council motion did not provide further direction or recommend edits to the TDM plan. Item 3 Item 3 Staff Report Packet Pg. 19 Item No. 3. Page 6 of 7 Staff have retained a recital of past public benefits in the proposed findings, to provide a fuller context for the current proposal. The proposed finding, however, does not rely on the past benefits to support the current PC amendment. The PTC recommendation previously included approval of only the second-floor units and denial of all third-floor units, as well as the two approximately 87-square-foot office spaces. Staff’s recommendation aligns with Council’s most recent direction on the project, but the PTC in its discretion may choose to make an alternative recommendation. Findings for Approval Staff analysis finds that the proposed project is consistent with the relevant Planned Community and Architectural Review findings required, as detailed in PAMC Chapter 18.38, as detailed in Attachments B, C, and D. In summary, the PC request supports the existing use and expands the senior housing public benefit. The proposed project is an incremental expansion of the existing use, which appears compatible with the neighborhood. The site is shared with an independent senior living apartment building, and other surrounding uses are currently mostly single-family houses, as well as condominiums and the Goodwill store. The character of the neighborhood will remain the same, and improvements are being made to privacy landscaping bordering the single-family neighborhood. The proposed addition is consistent with the existing height and existing PC daylight plane, which combined with new landscaping, preservation of existing landscaping, and privacy measures for new windows, will maintain an appropriate mass and character adjacent to the residential neighborhood. The new assisted living and memory care units will provide an important service to seniors in the community. The project proposes high-quality materials in a variety of colors appropriate for a residential building, and the variety of colors helps break up the massing. The new sloped roof areas will also add visual interest and enhance the residential feel. The design is functional and proposes improvements to existing parking conditions through the implementation and monitoring of a TDM plan. FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT The processing of this application has no fiscal impact, as applicants are responsible for staff and consultant costs through applicable fees through the deposit-based cost recovery program. The proposed addition requires payment of development impact fees, which are currently estimated at $274,698.22. STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT All previously submitted written comments on this project are included in Attachment E. In general, the key concerns raised include: • Loss of privacy • Reduced access to natural sunlight • Insufficient parking Item 3 Item 3 Staff Report Packet Pg. 20 Item No. 3. Page 7 of 7 • Opposition to any zoning code exceptions for the proposed addition • Concern that WellQuest, as a for-profit entity, does not prioritize the interests of neighboring residents • Potential negative impacts on property values and overall quality of life • Questions about compliance with conditions of approval included in PC-3775 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The subject project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. The City, acting as the lead agency, has determined that the project is exempt from CEQA in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (existing facilities). Attachment F summarizes the project’s eligibility for a Class 1 exemption and why none of the exceptions to the exemptions apply to this project. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS In addition to the recommended action, the PTC may: 1. Recommend approval of the project with modified findings or conditions; 2. Continue the project to a date (un)certain with specific direction; or 3. Recommend project denial based on revised findings. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Zoning and Land Use Map Attachment B: Draft PC Ordinance Attachment C: Draft Record of Land Use Action Attachment D: Zoning Consistency Analysis Attachment E: Public Comments Attachment F: Link to Project Plans and Environmental Analysis Attachment G: Additional Exhibits Report Author & Contact Information PTC15 Liaison & Contact Information Emily Kallas, AICP, Senior Planner Jennifer Armer, Assistant Director (650) 617-3125 (650) 329-2191 emily.kallas@paloalto.gov jennifer.armer@paloalto.gov 15 Emails may be sent directly to the PTC using the following address: planning.commission@paloalto.gov Item 3 Item 3 Staff Report Packet Pg. 21 Palo Alto 4075 El Camino Way PC-5116 Attachment A 4075 El Camino Way Location Zoning Map 0.17 () 0.35 0.7 Miles Item 3 Attachment A - Zoning and Land Use Map Packet Pg. 22 Item 3 Attachment A - Zoning and Land Use Map Packet Pg. 23 * NOT YET APPROVED * 0290163_kb2_20250917_ay16 1 Ordinance No. ____ Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (The Zoning Map) to Amend PC Planned Community Zone (PC-5116) to Allow an Addition to an Existing Senior Assisted Living Facility The Council of the City of Palo Alto ORDAINS as follows: SECTION 1. Findings and Declarations. The City Council finds and declares as follows: A. On March 21, 2011, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 5116, creating PC Planned Community 5116. B. On August 9, 2023, Irwin Partner Architects on Behalf of Wellquest Living submitted an application for an Ordinance Amending Planned Community Zone District 5116 (PC-5116) to allow a 16-Unit addition and 172 square feet of support space to an existing 121-unit Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility (“The Project”) at 4041 and 4075 El Camino Way (the “Subject Property”). C. Following Staff Review, the Planning and Transportation Commission (“PTC”) reviewed the project on February 28, 2024 and June 12, 2024 and recommended the project to the Architectural Review Board. D. The Architectural Review Board reviewed the project on July 18, 2024 and October 17, 2024; and recommended approval of the project to the City Council. E. The PTC reviewed the project on December 11, 2024 and moved to advance the project to Council, recommending approval of only the seven units which do not face Wilkie Way and denial of the nine units and ground floor office space which faces towards the neighborhood. The motion also recommended returning the Transportation Demand Management plan to the PTC for approval, revising the Findings to reflect the PTC’s recommendation, and removing consideration of past public benefits from the PC Ordinance. F. The City Council reviewed the project on May 5, 2025 and May 27, 2025 and moved to refer the project back to the PTC with direction that the project be reduced to 11 to 13 units, eliminating third floor units facing Wilkie Way. G. The PTC reviewed the project again on September 24, 2025 and recommended approval of the project as revised following City Council direction. Item 3 Attachment B - Draft PC Ordinance Packet Pg. 24 * NOT YET APPROVED * 0290163_kb2_20250917_ay16 2 H. Approval of the Planned Community Project would constitute a project under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, together with related state and local implementation guidelines promulgated thereunder (“CEQA”). I. The City is the Lead Agency pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21067 as it has the principal responsibility to approve and regulate the Planned Community Project. J. The City, in compliance with CEQA, determined the project to be Categorically Exempt from CEQA per Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines (Existing Facilities). K. The Council is the decision-making body for approval of the Planned Community Project. L. The site is so situated, and the use or uses proposed for the site are of such characteristics that the application of general districts or combining districts will not provide sufficient flexibility to allow the proposed development. Specifically, the project modifies an existing Planned Community Project (PC 5116) and includes 16 additional units, beyond the 121 units approved in ordinance 5116, and associated modifications to the development plan in accordance with this change. M. Development of the site under the provisions of the PC planned community district will result in public benefits not otherwise attainable by application of the regulations of general districts or combining districts, as set forth in Section 6 of this ordinance. N. The use or uses permitted, and the site development regulations applicable within the district are consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive plan, and compatible with existing and potential uses on adjoining sites or within the general vicinity. SECTION 2. Amendment of Zoning Map. Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, the “Zoning Map,” is hereby amended by changing the zoning of the property formerly zoned as PC Planned Community Zone 5116 from PC Planned Community Zone 5116 to “PC Planned Community Zone _____”. SECTION 3. Project Description. The Project as a whole is described in the Development Plan titled “PALO ALTO COMMONS Wellquest Living” and uploaded to the Palo Alto Online Permitting Services Citizen Portal on October 4, 2024. The Development Plan and approved supplemental materials and conditions included as part of Ordinance 5116 and Ordinance 3775 are incorporated into this ordinance by reference. With respect to the Subject Property, the project comprises the uses included in this Ordinance, depicted on the Development Plans, incorporated by reference, including the following components: Item 3 Attachment B - Draft PC Ordinance Packet Pg. 25 * NOT YET APPROVED * 0290163_kb2_20250917_ay16 3 (a) Modifications to an existing 121-unit assisted living and memory care facility, approved as part of PC Planned Community 5116. The additions would include construction of 13 additional assisted living units (approximately 5,002 square feet) and 172 square feet of additional support space. SECTION 4. Land Uses. (a) The following land uses shall be permitted: 1. Senior Housing; 2. Eating and Drinking Services for use by residents, employees, and their guests; 3. Personal Services for use by residents, employees, and their guests; 4. Retail Services for use by residents, employees, and their guests; 5. Recreational Facilities for use by residents, employees, and their guests; 6. Administrative Offices for administration of Palo Alto Commons; 7. Medical care for residents as is customarily associated with senior assisted living facilities; and 8. Accessory Uses. SECTION 5. Site Development Regulations and Development Schedule. (a) Development Standards: Development standards for the Subject Property shall be those conforming to the Development Plan. (b) Parking and Loading Requirements: The Owner shall provide parking and loading as set forth in the Development Plan and Transportation Demand Management Plan, entitled “Palo Alto Commons 4075 El Camino Way Transportation Demand Management Plan,” uploaded to Accela on October 4, 2024. (c) Modifications to the Development Plan, Land Uses and Site Development Regulations: Once the project has been constructed consistent with the approved Development Plan, any modifications to the exterior design of the Development Plan or any new construction not specifically permitted by the Development Plan Item 3 Attachment B - Draft PC Ordinance Packet Pg. 26 * NOT YET APPROVED * 0290163_kb2_20250917_ay16 4 or the site development regulations contained in Section 5 (a) – (b) above shall require an amendment to this Planned Community zone. Any use not specifically permitted by this ordinance shall require an amendment to the PC ordinance. (d) Development Schedule: The project is required to include a Development Schedule pursuant to PAMC §18.38.100. The approved Development Schedule is set forth in the Applicant Project Description Letter, and anticipates commencing in April 2025 and concluding in October 2026. Construction of the project shall commence within two years of the effective date of this ordinance. Prior to expiration of this timeline, the Owner may seek a one year extension from the Director of Planning and Development Services. SECTION 6. Public Benefits. (a) Public Benefits: Development of the Project Site under the provisions of the PC Planned Community District will result in public benefits not otherwise attainable by application of the regulations of general districts or combining districts. The public benefit provided by the Project is providing a safe place for Palo Alto residents and other seniors to age and making improvements to the existing facility to expand and improve these services. (b) Monitoring of Conditions and Public Benefits: Not later than three (3) years following issuance of a certificate of occupancy and at least every three (3) years thereafter, the Owner shall request that the City review the Project for compliance with the PC district regulations and the conditions of approval for the associated development. The applicant shall provide adequate funding to reimburse the City for these costs. If conditions or benefits are found deficient by staff, the applicant shall correct such conditions in not more than 90 days from notice by the City. If correction is not made within the prescribed timeframe, the Director of Planning and Development Services will schedule review of the project before the Planning and Transportation Commission and Council to determine appropriate remedies, fines or other actions. SECTION 7. Environmental Review. Item 3 Attachment B - Draft PC Ordinance Packet Pg. 27 * NOT YET APPROVED * 0290163_kb2_20250917_ay16 5 The project would not result in a substantial expansion of the current use and is therefore eligible for a categorical exemption from CEQA under Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines (Existing Facilities). SECTION 8. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first day after the date of its adoption (second reading). INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: ____________________________ ____________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: ____________________________ ____________________________ Assistant City Attorney City Manager ____________________________ Director of Planning and Development Services Item 3 Attachment B - Draft PC Ordinance Packet Pg. 28 Page 1 of 11 6 1 4 9 APPROVAL NO. 2025-____ RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO LAND USE ACTION FOR 4075 El Camino Way ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND PLANNED COMMUNITY 5116 to PLANNED COMMUNITY (PC) _______ (FILE NO. 23PLN-00202) On DATE, the City Council of the City of Palo Alto (“City Council”) adopted Ordinance ____ approving an amendment to Planned Community (PC) 5116 to allow a 13-Unit addition to an existing 121 unit Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility (Palo Alto Commons). In approving the application, the Council make the following findings, determination and declarations: SECTION 1. Background. A. Irwin Partner Architects on Behalf of Wellquest Living Requests Approval of a an Ordinance Amending Planned Community Zone District 5116 (PC-5116) to allow a 13-Unit addition and 172 sf of support space to an existing 121-unit Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility. (“The Project”). B. The Project site is located on a 110,642 sf (2.54-acre) site on APN 132-43-177 located at 4075 El Camino Way. The Site is designated on the Comprehensive Plan land Use Map with a split land-use designation of Multi-family and Community Neighborhood and is Zoned Planned Community 5116. C. On August 7, 2023 City Council conducted a prescreening review of the proposed legislative actions in accordance with PAMC 18.79. D. On February 28, 2024 Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) reviewed the project held a duly noticed public hearing and recommended the project return to the PTC. On June 12, 2024 the PTC held a duly noticed public hearing and recommended that the applicant submit the proposed plans to the Architectural Review Board based on the conceptual design and proposed project in accordance with the Planning Community Rezoning process set forth in 18.38. E. Following PTC and staff review, on July 18, 2024 the ARB held a public hearing to review the project design and recommend modifications in accordance with the ARB findings for approval. On October 17, 2024 ARB held a duly noticed public hearing and recommended approval. F. On December 11, 2024 PTC held a duly noticed public hearing and recommended approval of only the seven units which do not face Wilkie Way, and to recommend denial of the other nine units and ground floor office space which faces towards the neighborhood. G. On May 5, 2025, City Council held a duly noticed public hearing, at which evidence was presented and all person were afforded an opportunity to be heard in accordance with the Palo Alto Municipal Code and the Council’s Policies and Procedures. After hearing public testimony, the Council continued the meeting to a date uncertain. On May 27, 2025, the Council voted to refer this project back to the Planning and Transportation Commission for a review of a project between 11 to 13 units that would eliminate the 3rd floor units adjacent to Wilkie Way backyards. F. On September 24, 2025 PTC held a duly noticed public hearing and recommended UPDATE WITH MOTION. G. On DATE, City Council held a duly noticed public hearing, at which evidence was presented and all person were afforded an opportunity to be heard in accordance with the Palo Alto Municipal Code and the Item 3 Attachment C - Draft Record of Land Use Action Packet Pg. 29 Page 2 of 11 6 1 4 9 Council’s Policies and Procedures. After hearing public testimony, the Council voted to _________the project subject to the conditions set forth in Section 6 of this Record of Land Use Action. SECTION 2. Environmental Review. On DATE, the City Council, as the lead agency for the Project, has determined that the project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 because it includes minor modifications to an existing building that involves negligible expansion of use. A document analyzing the project’s eligibility for a categorical exemption was prepared. The document is available on file with the Planning and Development Services department and on the project webpage, as an attachment to the May 5, 2025 Staff Report. SECTION 3. Planned Community Findings Finding #1: The site is so situated, and the use or uses proposed for the site are of such characteristics that the application of general districts or combining districts will not provide sufficient flexibility to allow the proposed development. The project is consistent with Finding #1 because: The proposed project amends the existing Planned Community zoning in order to accommodate 13 additional Assisted Living units. Because the existing PC 5116 specifies the exact number of units to be constructed on the site (121), modification of the zoning ordinance is necessary to reflect the proposed unit count. Finding #2: Development of the site under the provisions of the PC planned community district will result in public benefits not otherwise attainable by application of the regulations of general districts or combining districts. In making the findings required by this section, the planning commission and city council, as appropriate, shall specifically cite the public benefits expected to result from use of the planned community district. The project is consistent with Finding #2 because: PC 5116 provides three public benefits offered for the existing Palo Alto Commons Development: 1) rental senior assisted housing (with provisions for aging in place); Roadway, pedestrian and bus stop improvements; and 3) A contribution of $1000,000 to Avenidas to be ear-marked for the age at home program for low-income seniors. development. Similar to the existing development, the public benefit for the proposed amendment would be addition of these 13 rental assisted living units, which will provide services to more seniors who need a high level of care. Although these units are not considered as dwelling units towards the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), they provide a safe place to live for seniors. Finding #3: The use or uses permitted, and the site development regulations applicable within the district shall be consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, and shall be compatible with existing and potential uses on adjoining sites or within the general vicinity. The project is consistent with Finding #3 because: This project is consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, as described further in Architectural Review Finding #1 below. The proposed project is a negligible expansion of the existing use, which is compatible with the neighborhood. The site is shared with an independent senior living apartment building, and other surrounding uses are currently mostly one- to two-story single-family houses, as well as condominiums and the Goodwill store. The Item 3 Attachment C - Draft Record of Land Use Action Packet Pg. 30 Page 3 of 11 6 1 4 9 character of the neighborhood will remain the same, and improvements are being made to privacy landscaping bordering the single-family neighborhood. SECTION 4. Architectural Review Findings Finding #1: The design is consistent with applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, coordinated area plans (including compatibility requirements), and any relevant design guides. The project is consistent with Finding #1 because: In conformance with the following Comp Plan Goals and Policies, the project will include high quality design compatible with surrounding development. Comp Plan Goals and Policies How project adheres or does not adhere to Comp Plan The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the site is a split land use that includes both Multiple Family Residential and Neighborhood Commercial. The project maintains the existing use of Assisted Living. Land Use Element Policy L-1.3 Infill development in the urban service area should be compatible with its surroundings and the overall scale and character of the city to ensure a compact, efficient development pattern. This project proposes to expand an existing facility, in a manner that is compatible with the neighborhood and will improve the services provided. Policy L-2.11 Encourage new development and redevelopment to incorporate greenery and natural features such as green rooftops, pocket parks, plazas and rain gardens. As a part of the project, landscaping is being improved to provide better privacy and more greenery. Policy L-6.1 Promote high-quality design and site planning that is compatible with surrounding development and public spaces. The proposed building additions will meet the high-quality standards of the Architectural Review Board. Policy L-6.7 Where possible, avoid abrupt changes in scale and density between residential and non-residential areas and between residential areas of different densities. To promote compatibility and gradual transitions between land uses, place zoning district boundaries at mid-block locations rather than along streets wherever possible. The proposed addition does not add additional height to the building, which borders a single- family residential neighborhood. The new windows are proposed with privacy measures and privacy landscaping is being added to and/or maintained. Policy L-6.8 Support existing regulations that preserve exposure to natural light for single family residences. The proposed addition complies with the R-1 side yard daylight plane that was initially applied to the existing building and adopted in PC Ordinance 3775. A shadow study was prepared that showed the increases in shadows as a result of the addition would be minimal. Item 3 Attachment C - Draft Record of Land Use Action Packet Pg. 31 Page 4 of 11 6 1 4 9 Transportation Element Policy T-1.2 Collaborate with Palo Alto employers and business owners to develop, implement and expand comprehensive programs like the TMA to reduce single-occupant vehicle commute trips, including through incentives. In keeping with this policy and the related policy programs, a TDM plan will reduce the number of single-occupant vehicle employee trips. Policy T-5.11 Work to protect residential areas from parking impacts of nearby businesses and uses, recognizing that fully addressing some existing intrusions may take time. The proposed TDM plan and parking plan are expected to minimize parking impacts of Palo Alto Commons on the nearby neighborhood. As an amendment to a Planned Community, adoption of the zoning ordinance to allow for the proposed modifications to the development, and specifically the total number of units would ensure that the project is in compliance with the zoning ordinance in accordance with the provisions set forth in the municipal code. No other design guidelines or documents apply to this location. Finding #2: The project has a unified and coherent design, that: a. creates an internal sense of order and desirable environment for occupants, visitors, and the general community, b. preserves, respects and integrates existing natural features that contribute positively to the site and the historic character including historic resources of the area when relevant, c. is consistent with the context-based design criteria of the applicable zone district, d. provides harmonious transitions in scale, mass and character to adjacent land uses and land use designations, e. enhances living conditions on the site (if it includes residential uses) and in adjacent residential areas. The project is consistent with Finding #2 because: This project balances adding new units to the existing building, while making improvements to the existing operations. The new TDM plan will improve parking and vehicle circulation for occupants, visitors, and staff. The proposed addition is consistent with the existing height and existing PC daylight plane, which combined with new landscaping and privacy measures for new windows, will maintain an appropriate mass and character adjacent to the residential neighborhood. The new assisted living and memory care units will provide an important service to seniors in the community. Finding #3: The design is of high aesthetic quality, using high quality, integrated materials and appropriate construction techniques, and incorporating textures, colors, and other details that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area. The project is consistent with Finding #3 because: The project proposes horizontal siding in a variety of colors, including gray, blue, and khaki, with brown awnings, and white railings. This palette is appropriate for a residential building, and the variety of colors helps break up the massing. The change from white trim to brown trim helps to visually minimize the height, while white emphasizes it. Existing balcony railings will remain, and balcony awnings will be replaced in the new color scheme. New sloped roof area will also add visual interest and enhance the residential feel. The corners will be finished in a manner that meets the requirements of the Architectural Review Board. Finding #4: The design is functional, allowing for ease and safety of pedestrian and bicycle traffic and providing Item 3 Attachment C - Draft Record of Land Use Action Packet Pg. 32 Page 6 of 11 6 1 4 9 for elements that support the building’s necessary operations (e.g. convenient vehicle access to property and utilities, appropriate arrangement and amount of open space and integrated signage, if applicable, etc.). The project is consistent with Finding #4 because: Functional operations of this building is important because the building has multiple shifts of approximately 50 employees. The TDM plan will help manage parking on site and encourage staff and visitors to take alternative modes of transportation through provisions such as the addition of bicycle parking. Residents are not expected to drive vehicles. The existing number of parking spaces is sufficient for the proposed number of assisted living beds, consistent with the zoning code requirements. Finding #5: The landscape design complements and enhances the building design and its surroundings, is appropriate to the site’s functions, and utilizes to the extent practical, regional indigenous drought resistant plant material capable of providing desirable habitat that can be appropriately maintained. The project is consistent with Finding #5 because: The project primarily maintains existing landscaping. No trees are proposed for removal. An additional 8 trees, four Tupelo and four Forest Pansey Redbud are proposed to fill gaps in the existing screening. While normally evergreen trees are preferred for privacy, deciduous trees are proposed at the request of neighbors who would like to minimize additional shade in their backyards. Proposed trees are low to medium water use. Windows on the new addition were also designed in a manner that respects privacy of adjacent neighbors including higher sill heights and angling of windows to reduce views into neighboring yards. Finding #6: The project incorporates design principles that achieve sustainability in areas related to energy efficiency, water conservation, building materials, landscaping, and site planning. The project is consistent with Finding #6 because: In accordance with the City’s Green Building Regulations, the building will satisfy the requirements for CALGreen Mandatory + Tier 2. SECTION 5. Development Plan Approval. The plans submitted for Building Permit shall be in substantial conformance with those plans prepared by the applicant titled Palo Alto Commons, Wellquest Living, 4075 El Camino Way, Palo Alto, CA 94306, consisting of 76 pages, uploaded to Accela Citizen Access on July 16, 2025, except as modified to incorporate the conditions of approval in Section 6. A copy of these plans is on file in the Department of Planning and Community Development. The conditions of approval in Section 6 shall be printed on the cover sheet of the plan set submitted with the Building Permit application. SECTION 6. Conditions of Approval. PLANNING DIVISION 1.CONFORMANCE WITH PLANS: Construction and development shall conform to the approved plans entitled, " Palo Alto Commons, Wellquest Living, 4075 El Camino Way, Palo Alto, CA 94306” uploaded to Item 3 Attachment C - Draft Record of Land Use Action Packet Pg. 33 Page 6 of 11 6 1 4 9 the Palo Alto Online Permitting Services Citizen Portal on July 16, 2025, as modified by these conditions of approval. 2.BUILDING PERMIT: Apply for a building permit and meet any and all conditions as contained in this document. 3.BUILDING PERMIT PLAN SET: A copy of this cover letter and conditions of approval shall be printed on the second page of the plans submitted for building permit. 4.PROJECT MODIFICATIONS: All modifications to the approved project shall be submitted for review and approval prior to construction. If during the Building Permit review and construction phase, the project is modified by the applicant, it is the responsibility of the applicant to contact the Planning Division/project planner directly to obtain approval of the project modification. It is the applicant’s responsibility to highlight any proposed changes to the project and to bring it to the project planner’s attention. 5.LANDSCAPE PLAN. Plantings shall be installed in accordance with the approved plan set and shall be permanently maintained and replaced as necessary. a. The screening landscaping is developed in concert with neighbor preferences and Architectural Review findings. No screening landscaping shall be altered without approval from the Director of Planning and Development Services. 6.NOISE THRESHOLDS ON RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. In accordance with PAMC Section 9.10.030, No person shall produce, suffer or allow to be produced by any machine, animal or device, or any combination of same, on commercial property, a noise level more than eight dB above the local ambient at any point outside of the property plane. All noise producing equipment shall be located outside of required setbacks. 7.OPEN AIR LOUDSPEAKERS (AMPLIFIED MUSIC). In accordance with PAMC Section 9.12, no amplified music shall be used for producing sound in or upon any open area, to which the public has access, between the hours of 11:00pm and one hour after sunrise. 8.SIGN APPROVAL NEEDED. No signs are approved at this time. All signs shall conform to the requirements of Title 16.20 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (Sign Code) and shall be subject to approval by the Director of Planning. 9.TRASH ROOM. The trash room shall be used solely for the temporary storage of refuse and recycling that is disposed on a regular basis and shall be closed and locked during non-business hours. 10.REFUSE. All trash areas shall be effectively screened from view and covered and maintained in an orderly state to prevent water from entering into the garbage container. No outdoor storage is allowed/permitted unless designated on the approved plan set. Trash areas shall be maintained in a manner to discourage illegal dumping. Item 3 Attachment C - Draft Record of Land Use Action Packet Pg. 34 Page 7 of 11 6 1 4 9 11.UTILITY LOCATIONS: In no case shall utilities be placed in a location that requires equipment and/or bollards to encroach into a required parking space. In no case shall a pipeline be placed within 10 feet of a proposed tree and/or tree designated to remain. 12.ESTIMATED IMPACT FEE: Development Impact Fees, currently estimated in the amount of $274,698.22 shall be paid prior to the issuance of the related building permit. Fees are subject to change per annual Municipal Fee Schedule. 13.IMPACT FEE 90-DAY PROTEST PERIOD. California Government Code Section 66020 provides that a project applicant who desires to protest the fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions imposed on a development project must initiate the protest at the time the development project is approved or conditionally approved or within ninety (90) days after the date that fees, dedications, reservations or exactions are imposed on the Project. Additionally, procedural requirements for protesting these development fees, dedications, reservations and exactions are set forth in Government Code Section 66020. IF YOU FAIL TO INITIATE A PROTEST WITHIN THE 90-DAY PERIOD OR FOLLOW THE PROTEST PROCEDURES DESCRIBED IN GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66020, YOU WILL BE BARRED FROM CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OR REASONABLENESS OF THE FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS, AND EXACTIONS. If these requirements constitute fees, taxes, assessments, dedications, reservations, or other exactions as specified in Government Code Sections 66020(a) or 66021, this is to provide notification that, as of the date of this notice, the 90-day period has begun in which you may protest these requirements. This matter is subject to the California Code of Civil Procedures (CCP) Section 1094.5; the time by which judicial review must be sought is governed by CCP Section 1094.6. 14.INDEMNITY. To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”) from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside or void, any permit or approval authorized hereby for the Project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City for its actual attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its own choice. 15.FINAL INSPECTION: A Planning Division Final inspection will be required to determine substantial compliance with the approved plans prior to the scheduling of a Building Division final. Any revisions during the building process must be approved by Planning, including but not limited to; materials, landscaping and hard surface locations. Contact your Project Planner, Emily Kallas at emily.kallas@cityofpaloalto.org to schedule this inspection. BUILDING 16. A building permit is required for the scope of work shown. 17. At building permit submit the following: a. Structural calculations b. Green building compliance Item 3 Attachment C - Draft Record of Land Use Action Packet Pg. 35 Page 8 of 11 6 1 4 9 c. T24 Energy calculations d. Complete MEP plans e. Accessible building elements (i.e, elevator, bathrooms, etc.) and onsite (i.e., accessible route from public sidewalk, bus stop, entrances, etc.) 18. Refer to this link for additional submittal requirements: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/3/development-services/building- division/checklists/simplified/c1-new-comm-shell-checklist-07062023.pdf PUBLIC WORKS ZERO WASTE 19. WellQuest will need to have the bins pulled out to within 25' of the gate. Otherwise GreenWaste of Palo Alto pull out charges will apply. Please add a note to the plans to specify how the bins will be pulled to the pick up area. 20. Ensure the refuse staging area can house three - 4 cubic yard bins plus three - 96 gallon carts. Please show bins and carts to scale in the staging area. 21. Refuse truck pull-out spot shall contain signage notifying tenants and other users that parking is not allowed during trash pickup days. 22. The following comments below are part of the Palo Alto Municipality Code. If your scope of work includes internal and external bins then cut-sheets for the color-coded internal and external containers, related color-coded millwork, and it’s colored signage must be included in the building plans prior to receiving approval from Zero Waste. Please see below for more details. As per Palo Alto Municipal Code 5.20.108 the site is required to have color-coded refuse containers, related color-coded millwork, and colored signage. The three refuse containers shall include recycle (blue container), compost (green container), and garbage (black container). Applicant shall present on the plan the locations and quantity of both (any) internal and external refuse containers, it’s millwork, along with the signage. This requirement applies to any external or internal refuse containers located in common areas such as entrances, conference rooms, open space, lobby, garage, mail room, gym, and etc. except for restrooms, copy area, and mother’s room. Millwork to store the color-coded refuse containers must have a minimum of four inches in height worth of color-coding, wrapping around the full width of the millwork. Signage must be color coded with photos or illustrations of commonly discarded items. Restrooms must have a green compost container for paper towels and an optional black landfill container if applicable. Copy area must have either a recycle bin only or all three refuse receptacles (green compost, blue recycle, and black landfill container). Mother’s room must minimally have a green compost container and black landfill container. Please refer to PAMC 5.20.108 and the Internal Container Guide. Examples of appropriate signage can be found in the Managing Zero Waste at Your Business Guide. Electronic copies of these signage can be found on the Zero Waste Palo Alto’s website, https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Public-Works/Zero-Waste/What-Goes- Where/Toolkit#section-2 and hard copies can be requested from the waste hauler, Greenwaste of Palo Alto, (650) 493-4894. PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING Item 3 Attachment C - Draft Record of Land Use Action Packet Pg. 36 Page 9 of 11 6 1 4 9 23. LOGISTICS PLAN: A construction logistics plan shall be provided addressing all impacts to the public including, at a minimum: work hours, noticing of affected businesses, bus stop relocations, construction signage, dust control, noise control, storm water pollution prevention, job trailer, contractors’ parking, truck routes, staging, concrete pours, crane lifts, scaffolding, materials storage, pedestrian safety, and traffic control. All truck routes shall conform to the City of Palo Alto’s Trucks and Truck Route Ordinance, Chapter 10.48, and the route map. NOTE: Some items/tasks on the logistics plan may require an encroachment permit. TRANSPORTATION 24. TDM PROGRAM AND ANNUAL REPORTING REQUIREMENT: The applicant shall abide by the Final Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan, entitled “Palo Alto Commons 4075 El Camino Way Transportation Demand Management Plan” uploaded to Accela on April 9, 2025 to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Development Services. The TDM plan includes measures and programs to achieve a reduction in single-occupancy vehicle trips to the site by a minimum of 20%, in conformance with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The TDM plan includes an annual monitoring plan to document mode split and trips to the project site. The TDM annual report shall be submitted to the Chief Transportation Official, beginning one year from the date of Ordinance approval. Monitoring and reporting requirements may be revised in the future if the minimum reduction is not achieved through the measures and programs initially implemented. Projects that do not achieve the required reduction may be subject to daily penalties as set forth in the City’s fee schedule. 25. PARKING PLAN: The applicant shall abide by the Parking plan, entitled “Parking Study & Parking Management Plan for Palo Alto Commons at 4075 El Camino Way in Palo Alto, California” uploaded to Accela on April 9, 2025 to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Development Services. URBAN FORESTRY The following conditions and/or standard Municipal Code requirements are provided for supplemental guidance, recommendation and/or best practices. Any applicable items shall be addressed prior to any future related permit application such as a Building Permit, Excavation and Grading Permit, Certificate of Compliance, Street Work Permit, Encroachment Permit, etc 26.Show outline of tree protection fencing in a boxed off dashed line for tree to be protected as specified in the consulting Arborist report. 27.The owner and contractor shall implement all protection and inspection schedule measures, design recommendations and construction scheduling as stated in the TPR and/or Sheet T-1, and is subject to code compliance action pursuant to PAMC 8.10.080. The required protective fencing shall remain in place until final landscaping and inspection of the project. If called for, project arborist approval must be obtained and documented in the monthly activity report sent to the City. When required, the Contractor and Arborist Monthly Tree Activity Report shall be sent monthly to the City (pwps@cityofpaloalto.org) beginning with the initial verification approval, using the template in the Tree Technical Manual, Addendum 11. Item 3 Attachment C - Draft Record of Land Use Action Packet Pg. 37 Page 10 of 11 6 1 4 9 28. Revisions and/or changes to plans before or during construction shall be reviewed and responded to by the (a) project site arborist, or (b) landscape architect with written letter of acceptance before submitting the revision to the Building Department for review by Planning, PW or Urban Forestry. 29. Tree Damage, Injury Mitigation and Inspections apply to Contractor. Reporting, injury mitigation measures and arborist inspection schedule (1-5) apply pursuant to TTM, Section 2.20-2.30. Contractor shall be responsible for the repair or replacement of any publicly owned or protected trees that are damaged during the course of construction, pursuant to Title 8 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, and city Tree Technical Manual, Section 2.25. 30.The following general tree preservation measures apply to all trees to be retained: No storage of material, topsoil, vehicles or equipment shall be permitted within the tree enclosure area. The ground under and around the tree canopy area shall not be altered. Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and maintained as necessary to ensure survival. 31. Prior to any site work, contractor must call Derek Sproat at 650-496-6985 to schedule an inspection of any required protective fencing. The fencing shall contain required warning sign and remain in place until final inspection of the project. 32. Any approved grading, digging or trenching beneath a tree canopy shall be performed using ‘air-spade’ method as a preference, with manual hand shovel as a backup. For utility trenching, including sewer line, roots exposed with diameter of 1.5 inches and greater shall remain intact and not be damaged. If directional boring method is used to tunnel beneath roots, then Table 2-1, Trenching and Tunneling Distance, shall be printed on the final plans to be implemented by Contractor. SECTION 8. Term of Approval. The approval shall be valid for a term consistent with the Development Schedule provided in PC Ordinance No. _____. // // // // INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: Item 3 Attachment C - Draft Record of Land Use Action Packet Pg. 38 Page 11 of 11 6 1 4 9 ATTEST: APPROVED: _________________________ ____________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: ___________________________ ___________________________ Assistant City Attorney City Manager ___________________________ Director of Planning and Development Services PLANS AND DRAWINGS REFERENCED: 1. Those plans prepared by the applicant titled Palo Alto Commons, Wellquest Living, 4075 El Camino Way, Palo Alto, CA 94306, consisting of 76 pages, uploaded to Accela Citizen Access on July 16, 2025, except as modified to incorporate the conditions of approval in Section 6. Item 3 Attachment C - Draft Record of Land Use Action Packet Pg. 39 6 1 4 8 ATTACHMENT D ZONING COMPARISON TABLE 4075 El Camino Way, 23PLN-00202 Table 1: COMPARISON WITH EXISTING PCs (5116 AND 3775)(1) Exclusively Non-residential Development Standards Regulation Existing (PC 5116 and PC 3775)Proposed Site Area, width and depth 110,642 sf Irregularly shaped 110,642 sf Irregularly shaped Minimum Front Yard (El Camino Way) 14.5 ft 14.5 ft Rear Yard (Closest to Wilkie Way) 10 ft 10 ft Interior Side Yards N/A left 8 ft other sides N/A left 8 ft other sides 6 ft at proposed addition Street Side Yard (W. Meadow Drive) 20 ft 20 ft Build-to-lines Approximately 7.5 ft (2.3%) built to front setback Approx. 7.5 ft plus 2 corners (8.2%) built to street side setback No change, complies Max. Site Coverage 47.4% (52,470 sf)48.5% (53,668 sf) Max. Building Height 32 ft 5 in 32 ft 5 in New addition max height 28 ft Max. Floor Area Ratio (FAR)0.43:1 (47,500 sf) Independent Senior Living (The Avant) 0.76:1 (83,511 sf) Assisted Living (Palo Alto Commons) 1.18:1 (131,011 sf) total 0.43:1 (47,500 sf) Independent Senior Living (The Avant) 0.82:1 (88,517 sf) Assisted Living (Palo Alto Commons) 1.25:1 (136,017 sf) total Daylight Plane for lot lines abutting one or more residential zone districts other than an RM-40 or PC Zone (2) Complies Complies (1) PC 3775 is for Palo Alto Commons, PC 5116 is for The Avant. (2) The initial height and slope shall be identical to those of the most restrictive residential zone abutting the site line in question. Item 3 Attachment D - Zoning Consistency Analysis Packet Pg. 40 6 1 4 8 Table 2: CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.38.150 SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR PC Requirement when Adjacent to RE, R-1, R-2, RM or applicable PC district Proposed (b) The maximum height within 150 feet of any RE, R-1, R- 2, RMD, RM, or applicable PC district shall be 35 feet Complies, 32’6” height existing and to be maintained. (c) A minimum interior yard of 10 feet shall be required, and a solid wall or fence between 5 and 8 feet in height shall be constructed and maintained along the common site line. Complies, 10 foot setback for the building, 7 ft fence on property line. (d) A minimum street-side or front yard of 10 feet shall be required. For housing projects, the minimum yard requirement shall be at least as restrictive as the yard requirements of the most restrictive residential district opposite such site line. The minimum yard shall be planted and maintained as a landscaped screen, excluding areas required for access to the site. Complies, change to front or streetside setbacks are proposed. (e) A maximum height established by a daylight plane beginning at a height of ten feet at the applicable side or rear site lines and increasing at a slope of three feet for each six feet of distance from the side or rear site lines until intersecting the height limit otherwise established for the PC district; for housing projects, the daylight planes may be identical to the daylight plane requirements of the most restrictive residential district abutting each such side or rear site line until intersecting the height limit otherwise established for the PC district. If the residential daylight plane, as allowed in this section, is selected, the setback regulations of the same adjoining residential district shall be imposed. Complies. The addition fits within the R-1 side daylight plane that was established for the existing PC. Table 3: PARKING CONFORMANCE WITH ZONING CODE Type Chapter 18.52 (For Reference Only) Existing PC Proposed Vehicle Parking 0.75 per Senior Housing Unit (33 spaces) 1 per 2.5 beds Assisted Living (57 spaces) 41 spaces Independent Senior Living (The Avant) 57 spaces Assisted Living (Palo Alto Commons) 41 spaces Independent Senior Living (The Avant) 57 spaces Assisted Living (Palo Alto Commons) Complies Item 3 Attachment D - Zoning Consistency Analysis Packet Pg. 41 6 1 4 8 Bicycle Parking None per Senior Housing Unit 1 per 25 beds Assisted Living (2 LT) None 4 short term 2 long term Loading Space 1 loading space for 10,000-99,999 sf. 2 required for 100,000- 199,999 sf. None No change Item 3 Attachment D - Zoning Consistency Analysis Packet Pg. 42 From:Daniel Hansen To:Planning Commission; Kallas, Emily Cc:jeff.shore@comcast.net Subject:Proposed Expansion of Palo Alto Commons at 4075 El Camino Way Date:Wednesday, September 17, 2025 10:15:31 AM Attachments:Palo Alto Commons Objection Letter.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Members of the Planning and Transportation Commission and Ms. Kallas, Please see the attached letter regarding the proposed expansion of Palo Alto Commons at 4075 El Camino Way. Best regards, Daniel Hansen This message needs your attention This is their first mail to some recipients. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 43 VIA E-MAIL (Planning.Commission@paloalto.gov; Emily.Kallas@paloalto.gov) September 17, 2025 Honorable Allen Akin, Chair and Members of the Planning & Transportation Commission City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Emily Kallas Senior Planner City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: Proposed Expansion of Palo Alto Commons at 4075 El Camino Way Dear Members of the Planning & Transportation Commission and Ms. Kallas: We are writing in opposition to the expansion of Palo Alto Commons. Although, we do not live on Wilkie Way – we live on Edgewood Drive – we know the feeling of proposed land use changes that could reduce value and enjoyment of our property. In addition to the arguments of our Wilkie Way neighbors, which we support, we offer these observations: • Wellquest Living, which operates Palo Alto Commons, is owned by FJ Management, Inc. (FJM). FJM is a huge company based in Utah with billions of dollars in investments, real estate and assets under management, built mainly on petroleum. It can afford to build senior housing in locations other than Palo Alto Commons without adversely impacting residents. • Wellquest and FJM can also afford to provide direct substantial monetary contributions to the community, like the property owner did in 1987 when Commons was built and in its 2011 expansion. • Wellquest has provided no financial information supporting its position that less than X units is not feasible (X keeps moving). Palo Alto Commons is described on its website as “Luxury Senior Living” and these units rent from an astonishing $7,000 to $15,000 per month. How can even one additional unit not be profitable? Wellquest should provide full transparency on their financial models and projections, as well as its and FJM’s balance sheets, so feasibility claims can be tested. • Wellquest, like similar private equity businesses, is driven by profit. We’ve experienced how private equity acquisitions of veterinary and health care clinics have resulted in reduced care and higher costs in our community. The same thing is happening in senior Docusign Envelope ID: 0E532C4C-1EA2-49E1-AD20-11668C588C5E Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 44 Planning & Transportation Commission September 17, 2025 Page 2 living care. If this expansion proceeds, in addition to addressing the Wilkie neighbor’s concerns, the City should put in place regulations to ensure high levels of care, such as specified nurse to tenant ratios, and preference for Palo Alto residents. FJ Management, Inc. FJM owns Wellquest Living. The “FJ” in FJ Management stands for “Flying J,” the gas stations started in the 1960s by Jay Call. Over time, FJ Management has expanded further into petroleum refining, transportation, solar, hotel management and gas and convenience stations, including the acquisitions of Maveriks and Kum & Go gas and convenience stores, which together have over 800 locations. https://fjmgt.com/about/. FJM is owned by the Maggelet family and run by Crystal Maggelet, Jay Call’s daughter. Crystal’s advice is: “Do what is best for the business, not what is best for the family.” https://familybusinessmagazine.com/family-offices/family-office-management/helm-crystal- maggelet/ In 2024, FJM’s annual revenue was $7 billion and it ranked #89 on the list of the largest US private companies, according to Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/companies/fj-management/ Wellquest shares the same headquarters address as FJM in Salt Lake City, Utah, with Wellquest located one suite below. Clearly, Wellquest and FJM can afford to select a different location for their senior living expansion in Palo Alto, one that will not adversely impact neighboring residents. Wellquest Living, LLC Wellquest’s CEO, Steve Sandholtz, also serves as managing partner with FJ Capital, LLC, a real estate private equity and development firm, according to his linked in profile. https://www.linkedin.com/in/steve-sandholtz-1828574. Presumably, FJM also owns FJ Capital. With Palo Alto Commons, Wellquest is the operator and William Reller is the property owner. The arrangement between Wellquest and Mr. Reller is not disclosed. These operating agreements generally come in two flavors: (1) the operator manages the business and takes a percentage of revenue and the owner pays the costs, or (2) the operator manages the business and keeps the profit and pays the owner a lease-type fee. Either way, these agreements are crafted to drive a single goal: increase revenue and profit. Wellquest should disclose its management contract with Reller so the underlying incentives can be understood by the community. For example, does the agreement include tenant care covenants, incentives and conditions? Does it include requirements to follow zoning restrictions and comply with neighborhood agreements? The concern is Palo Alto Commons will suffer the same fate as other businesses acquired and run by private equity. For example, after Adobe Animal Hospital was acquired by Sage Docusign Envelope ID: 0E532C4C-1EA2-49E1-AD20-11668C588C5E Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 45 Planning & Transportation Commission September 17, 2025 Page 3 Veterinary Centers (ultimate owner JAB Consumer Partners SCA SICAR, a private equity firm), it shut down the 24-7 hospital, increased service rates and lost experienced veterinarians.1 Yelp reviews suggest this may already be happening at Palo Alto Commons: May 13, 2022 “This place has gone downhill quickly ever since it was bought by WellQuest. It used to be a place where people enjoyed to work and residents enjoyed to live. It's now a dreadful place to work and a place that is lacking in many areas in terms of care for the residents. …” May 16, 2022 “This community USED TO BE the best senior living in the bay area but since the take over by Well Quest Living and the new director Li Li, it has deteriorated. …” June 1, 2024 “These place is very unfair and racist, they don't even take the employee side they always listen to one side of the story without both side defend themself.one of the worst care quality plus the have lot of of residence and only two caregivers worst place ever.” If the expansion of Commons proceeds, in addition to addressing the Wilkie neighbors’ concerns, the city should take steps to ensure care levels are appropriate and maintained, including specified nurse to tenant ratios and preference for Palo Alto residents. Sincerely, Daniel Hansen Jeffrey Shore 1 The FTC has taken action against JAB to prevent further consolidation in veterinary services. https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2022/06/ftc-acts-protect-pet-owners-private-equity- firms-anticompetitive-acquisition-veterinary- services#:~:text=The%20Federal%20Trade%20Commission%20today,Hart%2DScott%2DRodino%20Act. Docusign Envelope ID: 0E532C4C-1EA2-49E1-AD20-11668C588C5E Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 46 From:Kai Porter To:Planning Commission Cc:Kallas, Emily Subject:Comments on Palo Alto Commons project for 2025-09-17 PTC meeting Date:Wednesday, September 17, 2025 5:38:18 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Chair Akin, Vice Chair Chang, and Members of the Planning Commission, I agree with the previous PTC support for 7 internal residential units and opposition to 9 external residential units and 2 offices that face neighbors. I urge you to maintain yourposition. I have lived since 2005 at 4080 Wilkie Way. I have given public comment, both oral and written many times.I have previously given detailed comments about the failure of Palo Alto Commons to address parking and congestion meaningfully in its January 5, 2025, TDM plan update. Ihad urged the City to enforce existing requirements. I have yet to see an updated plan. After hearing repeated concerns from neighbors, PTC members, Council members, andothers, I would have hoped that this private company would improve its practices if it hoped to get positive consideration of its expansion plans from the City Council andPTC. Instead, its own buses and vans keep blocking fire access and handicapped spaces, it stores construction materials and equipment in spaces that are supposed tobe for visitors, etc. So even if the plans on paper improved, actual compliance with plans is not happening now every day. I again urge you to work with the City’s codeenforcement department and any others responsible for holding this company accountable for following basic requirements that protect the safety of its residents fromfire hazards, allow parking for visitors, especially those with disabilities, and that can reduce impacts on the neighbors. Any new TDM should build in even more enforcementmeasures. I would like to add that in 1987, the Palo Alto Commons PC ordinance (PC3775)required it to prioritize local residents and to give an annual report on its efforts to do so. This is not a burdensome requirement. After so many years it has not submitted anyrequired reports. Residents brought this up repeatedly. Yet when we asked a few weeks ago, we discovered that they still have not submitted any report.How can any of us trust this company? If Palo Alto Commons earns $15,000 per month per unit, then surely it can afford to find solutions to these continuing problems. Onlyafter Palo Alto Commons demonstrates compliance with even basic, simple legal requirements should you consider any expansion proposals. And if you do, thenexpansion should be limited to 7 interior units and 9 units that face away from Wilkie Way neighbors. This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 47 Sincerely, Kai Porter Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 48 From:Nia Porter To:Planning Commission Cc:Kallas, Emily Subject:Palo Alto Commons Project Comments Date:Wednesday, September 17, 2025 2:27:41 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Chair Akin, Vice Chair Chang, and Members of the Planning Commission, I have lived at 4080 Wilkie Way, right behind 4075 El Camino Way, since 2007. I have delivered both written and spoken comments at many meetings about this project. Thank you to the previous PTC vote for the compromise proposal of 7 internal units without the 9 external units and 2 offices. I am disappointed that the City Council in May 2025 did not vote to agree with the PTC recommendation. I and my family have met with Wellquest multiple times to express our concerns. Wellquest kept saying that they could not afford to reduce the residential units below 16. Yet they said themselves they charge $15,000 per unit per month. Only when faced at the City Council meeting in May 2025 with a vote to agree with the PTC did they talk about going from 16 to 13 backyard-facing residential units. This reversal of position shows they were not completely honest before. In addition, at the same meeting they already presented using the allotted time on the project that was publicly noticed. The City Council appeared ready to vote to approve only 7 internal units and 9 external. Project representatives should not be allowed to bring up a new different proposal. Yet the City Council let them. Furthermore Wellquest repeatedly ignores ideas that would not increase costs. For example, neighbors repeatedly requested evergreen trees, and Wellquest repeatedly verbally promised to deliver that. Yet the Cycle 6 plans include Cercis Canadensis, a deciduous species. We encouraged planting mature trees to provide more screening more quickly, but we do not see that commitment in the new plans. Previously Wellquest verbally agreed to paint the back of the building a green color to blend in with trees to reduce its impacts on the neighbors. And yet, if you visit, you will see that the building is painted entirely gray and blue, front and back. 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 Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 49 In these and other ways, this company has repeatedly shown that although they claim to listen, but they just repeatedly make minimal no effort to respond meaningfully. I urge the PTC to vote again to maintain its previous position to only approve 7 interior units and 9 external ones. Sincerely, Nia Porter Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 50 From:Lily Lee To:Planning Commission Cc:Kallas, Emily Subject:475 El Camino Way Project - 9/24/25 PTC Mtg Public Comment Date:Wednesday, September 17, 2025 1:47:35 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Chair Akin, Vice Chair Chang, and Members of the Planning Commission, I have lived behind 4075 El Camino Way since 2003. In spite of original commitments, Palo Alto Commons has continued to pursue a project that betrays their original promise to the neighbors for stepdown constructions with smooth transition from residential to commercial and minimizing massing and density, as required by PAMC 18.16.090(b)(4) and 18.13.060(b)(2)(B). When they reduced residential units from 18 to 16, they then added 2 more offices that were even closer to our back fences without calling attention to that in their summaries or presentations. I only discovered this when I looked closely at the plans. I feel this switch was misleading. Even though Palo Alto Commons claims that they have reduced the added units to 13, the Cycle 6 new plans online still have those 2 offices. One of these is 10 ft 1 inch from our back fence. Another is 10 ft 9 inches from my neighbor’s back fence. Furthermore, this project is defined as commercial by the City, and it violates the commercial requirements for a 3/6 angle with 10-foot setback (PAMC 18.38.150). Even if it could be considered residential, it does not meet the 20 ft set back and 45 degree angle requirements for that. The City created requirements such as these for new developments for the good of the community as a whole. If anyone can get exceptions any time they want, then these requirements will no longer achieve their original intended purpose, the City acts in an arbitrary and capricious manner, developers no longer have a level playing field, and the community changes in ways that can harm residents. I would ask the PTC to please continue to support 7 interior residential units and to oppose 9 external residential units and 2 office units that face Wilkie Way backyards. Thank you, Lily Lee 4080 Wilkie Way Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 51 From:jenny chen To:Kallas, Emily Cc:Planning Commission; Armer, Jennifer Subject:Public Comment for 9/24 PTC Meeting on Palo Alto Commons (4075 El Camino Way) Date:Tuesday, September 16, 2025 10:30:57 PM Attachments:2025_09_24_PTC_Comment.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Hi Emily, Please include the following public comment in the PTC Packet for the 4075 El Camino Way (Palo AltoCommons) project. This email should include the main comment, and there should be 5 attachments withappendicies in the replies. When you receive this, please confirm that all documents will make it as part ofthe PTC packet. Sincerely, Jenny 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 Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 52 Dear Chair Akin, Vice Chair Chang, and Members of the Planning Commission, We are writing to express our strong opposition to the proposed expansion of the Palo Alto Commons (the Commons) in its current form. This is now the fourth time the project has come before the Planning & Transportation Commission with only minimal changes, none of which address the fundamental issues that remain. The City Council directed the PTC to work with neighbors toward a compromise, and we continue to believe that the appropriate compromise is to allow the 7 internal units without the 9 external units and 2 offices. We are providing specific comments on this latest iteration, along with a previously submitted letter to the City Council (attached) that details our concerns more fully. Daylight Plane Violations The proposed design continues to violate the daylight plane requirements under PAMC 18.38.150. The code specifies a 3/6 angle with a 10-foot setback for commercial developments. This project qualifies as commercial since it does not meet RHNA housing requirements. Even if it were considered housing—which we dispute—it would require a 20-foot setback at a 45º angle. The current design fails to comply with either standard. In addition, allowing this project to rely on the outdated 1987 version of the Municipal Code rather than the current code sets a dangerous precedent. Such an interpretation could invite hundreds of projects citywide to claim the right to bypass present-day laws and Council policy. Staff has not fully presented Council with the significant legal consequences of this approach. Staff has suggested that a 10-foot setback with a 45º daylight plane angle would make the project “consistent,” but this interpretation is inconsistent with the plain reading of PAMC 18.38.150, which falls under “special requirements.” A project cannot be deemed consistent with municipal code while violating its special requirements. Additionally, the proposed massing conflicts with design standards regarding visual bulk and neighborhood character, violating PAMC 18.16.090(b)(4) and 18.13.060(b)(2)(B), which govern appropriate density transitions and context-sensitive design. There is still space on the front of the building facing El Camino Way to expand without having impacts on the neighbors that the Commons refuses to consider. 38+ Years of Noncompliance with PC Ordinance Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 53 Since approval of its original PC ordinance in 1987 (PC3775), the Commons has failed to comply with its conditions. Even when these violations were raised before the City Council, the Commons acknowledged noncompliance but has still submitted the required data. Parking Violations and Safety Issues Parking violations have been persistent and well-documented, including in the consultant’s parking study. Recent issues include blocking fire access with buses and vans (Attachment M), misuse of handicap spaces, equipment stored in visitor spaces, and overflow parking onto public streets. Additional examples include: ● Visitor parking blocked with equipment (Attachment B) ● Misuse of handicap spaces (Attachment C) ● Parking in no-parking zones (Attachment D) ● Overflow onto public streets (Attachment E) ● Palo Alto Commons bus parked on Wilkie (Attachment G) ● Commons vehicles in visitor spaces (Attachment H) ● Commons staff parking in the neighborhood (Attachment I) ● Therapists and visitors directed to park on Wilkie by Commons staff ● Inconsistent valet services (Attachment J) Violation of Original Agreements with Neighbors In 1987, the Commons agreed—explicitly, as part of the PC process—to limit density and respect the surrounding R-1 neighborhood. The project was “downzoned to protect the neighbors from over-intrusion” and promised “comparable density and mass” with a “1-2-3 step-up closest to the property line.” The current proposal violates that promise. Further, while the developers initially claimed they could only build 16 units or none at all due to financial infeasibility, they later admitted 13 units were possible. With unit costs reportedly up to $15,000 per month, it is difficult to believe this project is not financially viable. The Commons is part of FJ Management, a for-profit corporation based in Utah that operates the largest truck stop chain in America. Their shifting claims reflect a continued pattern of misrepresentation and profit-driven motives. Bad Faith Negotiation Undermining Neighborhood Trust Throughout this process, the Commons has demonstrated a pattern of bad-faith negotiation. Initially, they stated they would reduce the number of units from 18 to 16 as Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 54 a compromise. Instead of modifying the building’s massing, they simply converted two rooms into offices while maintaining the same overall structure. At the City Council meeting on May 27, the developers claimed that any proposal with fewer than 16 units “did not pencil out.” Yet, in an apparent effort to build more than 7 units, they later stated they would be willing to build 13 units. They maintain that 7 units are financially unfeasible. Given their inconsistent statements, it is difficult to take their claims at face value. Our Request We respectfully ask the Planning & Transportation Commission to recommend approval of only the 7 internal units, with no external units or office space adjacent to the R-1 neighborhood. This approach reflects both neighbor feedback and the PTC’s prior recommendation to Council, while avoiding the dangerous precedent of relying on outdated municipal code provisions from the time of the original construction. Sincerely, Janis Iourovitski Adrian Lee James Cham Jenny Chen Natalie Choo Lily Lee James Porter Kai Porter Nia Porter Jeffrey Shore Aaron Schultz Michael Ji Minami Sakakibara Tirumala Ranganath JP Napaa Jinmei Tian Yanfeng Wang Mingzhuo Pei Barry Katz Cathy Berwaldt Maegan Chew Mona He Bill Moss Andie Reed Magdalena Cabrera Mircha Panduru Zhengjun Pei Ellen Hartog Susan Kemp Simon Weng Mark Greenbaum Penny Brennan Bert Davies Heather Davies Bella Davies Shashank Divekar Brian Xu Rob Cassin Suchana Costa Natacha Yanling Wang Kaiwen Xu Daniel Pei Xuhao Xie Jennie Chan Pengyi Ji Guizhi You Zhiying Chen Yaofang Zhao Lucy Wu Devan Singh Batu Buyukbezci Edwin Ong Rebecca Sanders Mason Rodriguez Rand Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 55 Jayashree Divekar Joanne So Maofeng Lan Esther Lan Hei Chu Lau Carol Gilbert Daniel Hansen DeAnna Hansen Julie Baskind Pearl Y Jagdish Pamnani Iravati Pamnani Eva Dobrov Carol Bly Anne Mason Andy Dobrov Jim Bly Garrett Chan Marty Douglas Zeb Burke-Conte Tim Pense Rowan Pense Gordon Pense Adalaide Pense Nikki Pense Tim Zhang Greyson Assa Nick Massie Jen Owens Alex Fu Freda Huang Eliot Jones Alex Cauthen Carly Davenport Nishanth Salinamakki Manas Khadka Austin Tang Jetta Chu Gabe Uribe Trent Edwards Peter Chatain Jonathan Victorino Kareem Hage-ali Paul de Supinski Amantina Rossi Syler Peralta-Ramos Celine Wang Yichen Zhou Devan Shanker Akanksha Sharan Dear Mayor Lauing and Members of the City Council, I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed expansion of the Palo Alto Commons. This letter outlines serious concerns regarding ongoing code violations and patterns of irresponsible behavior that should be fully considered before any further action is taken. The issues outlined here speak not only to noncompliance with existing agreements, but also to a troubling disregard for neighborhood integrity and public trust. Illegal Behavior The Palo Alto Commons has a long history of failing to comply with city regulations and the terms of its original Planned Community (PC) ordinance approved in 1987 (PC-3775). These are not minor oversights—they are foundational requirements meant to safeguard the quality of life for nearby residents and ensure a fair, transparent relationship between developers and the City. Specific violations include: ● 38+ Years of PC Ordinance Violation: Since its original PC ordinance approved in 1987, the Palo Alto Commons has failed to comply with the requirements set out in the original PC (PC3775, Attachment A) in two fundamental ways. Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 56 ○ Failure to Prioritize Palo Alto Residents: Section 3(a)(9) of the ordinance clearly states that preference must be given to residents of Palo Alto and their families. This measure was meant to ensure that our community benefits from the services and housing offered. Yet, there is no evidence that the Commons has made any pro-active effort to honor this stipulation in practice. ○ Lack of Required Annual Reporting: Section 3(d) mandates that the operator submit annual reports detailing occupancy levels, staffing patterns, and parking usage. This data is essential for monitoring compliance and assessing community impacts. These reports have not been submitted. ○ Insufficient Parking: Section 3(b)(2) requires a minimum of 55 on-site parking spaces. However, the most recent parking study indicates not all spaces are currently available. This ongoing shortfall directly affects neighborhood congestion and quality of life. ○ No enforcement: Even more troubling is that these violations have been documented in the staff report and in a filed complaint (#16747006), yet no enforcement action has been taken. This lack of accountability erodes public confidence in the City’s oversight mechanisms. ● Parking Violations: The Palo Alto Commons have committed numerous parking related violations: ○ Blocking Visitor Parking with Equipment (Attachment B): Construction and maintenance equipment often blocks designated visitor spaces, including those in the underground garage, further reducing accessibility. This occurred for several months. ○ Misuse of Handicap Spaces (Attachment C): The Commons’ shuttle routinely occupies handicap spots and reserves them with cones when not in use—an inappropriate and potentially unlawful practice. This has occurred for several months and continues to occur. ○ Parking in No Parking Zones (Attachment D): The shuttle van is frequently seen parked in zones marked for no parking. This behavior, noted even in the parking study, indicates a disregard for basic parking laws. ○ Overflow onto Public Streets (Attachment E): The facility’s lack of adequate parking has forced employees and visitors to park illegally across the street on El Camino Way. Only the Palo Alto Commons has illegal parking in front of it. This is also incredibly dangerous for bikers, as parked cars illegally block the bike lane. ● Municipal Code Violations: The proposed Palo Alto Commons expansion violates the Municipal Code in several ways: Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 57 ○ Daylight Plane Encroachment: The proposed expansion violates Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 18.38.150, which requires buildings adjacent to R-1 zones to follow a daylight plane to preserve neighbor access to light and air. Ignoring this regulation directly harms adjacent homeowners. ○ Design Incompatibility: The proposal eliminates prior architectural step-backs, which were designed to reduce visual bulk and preserve neighborhood character. This conflicts with PAMC Sections 18.16.090(b)(4) and 18.13.060(b)(2)(B), which govern appropriate density transitions and context-sensitive design. Bad Neighbor Behavior Beyond legal violations, the Commons has consistently demonstrated disregard for its residential neighbors and the spirit of community-based planning. Rather than being a cooperative presence, it has become a source of tension due to the following behaviors: ● Abandonment of Original Agreements (Attachment F): The original PC approval was contingent on a lower density design with a step-back architectural transition to respect the surrounding R-1 neighborhood. The proposed expansion disregards these commitments and would impose a larger, more intrusive building on the community. As early as 1978, the El Camino Way area was actually “downzoned to protect the neighbors from over intrusion.” The original developer in 1986 promised that the building would have “comparable density and mass” and proposed a “1-2-3 step-up closest to the property line” as a compromise. ● Persistent Parking Burdens: Since 1986, neighbors have expressed concern over parking shortages caused by the Commons. These issues remain unresolved nearly four decades later: ○ Palo Alto Commons Bus on Wilkie (Attachment G): While the Palo Alto Commons claims to have enough parking on site, their bus will often park on Wilkie. ○ Palo Alto Commons Vehicles in Visitor Parking (Attachment H): When not on Wilkie, the Palo Alto Commons Bus and Van will take up visitor parking, causing visitors to park on nearby streets. ○ Commons Staff Parking in Neighborhood (Attachment I): Numerous residents have observed staff members from the Palo Alto Commons parking along Wilkie Way and adjacent residential streets. Staff are easily identifiable by their uniforms—scrubs and badges bearing the facility’s logo. When approached, some staff have candidly shared that they were instructed by management to park in the neighborhood due to the lack of Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 58 available spaces on-site. While neighbors are sympathetic to the staff, who are clearly left without sufficient alternatives, the resulting strain on street parking has led to significant disruption and frustration. Residents have also been informed that a dedicated off-site staff parking lot was previously available but has since been eliminated by the operator, further exacerbating the issue. ○ Additional Therapists Parking: Per the Palo Alto Commons’ own parking policy, these people are asked to park on the neighborhood streets. This directly contradicts assurances that parking is sufficient on-site. ○ Visitors Parking: Numerous people we know have told us that they park in our neighborhood to visit the Palo Alto Commons. In fact, when the facility’s own parking contact phone number was dialed, Commons staff used to recommend visitors park on Wilkie. Vice Chair Chang of the PTC had this experience, as described in the 6/12/24 PTC meeting. ○ Misleading Information on Parking: Past presentations to the PTC and ARB claimed underutilization of parking. However, the current parking study reveals that all spaces are already in use. No additional parking is proposed for the new development, compounding the problem. ○ Inconsistent Valet (Attachment J): In the new parking study attached in the staff report, the Palo Alto Commons stated that they have a valet helping reduce parking issues. While valet parking is purportedly offered, in practice the stand is frequently unstaffed. There is also no one depicted on page 4 of the parking study. In addition, most of the time, there is no valet. For example, when Mayor Lauing came to visit, there was no valet. ● Misleading Landscape Information: The ARB asked the Palo Alto Commons to work with the neighbors on the landscaping. Most of the neighbors wanted evergreen trees (one specifically requested Italian cyprus) and have stated this on the record. However, the Palo Alto Commons continues to plan on planting deciduous trees. In addition, their landscape architect told us that Italian cyprus do not grow in this region, even though one neighbor has them in her backyard. ● Diminished Public Benefit: When the project was originally built, the developers made an “in-lieu contribution of $205,200” (Attachment A) in 1987 dollars ($588,688 in 2024 dollars). When building the Avant, the Commons made a $100,000 contribution to Avenidas (Attachment K, PC5116). Yet the public benefit this time is “2 small trees,” “space for both recycling and compost bins,” and “bike parking” (Attachment L). They claim that the primary public benefit is more housing, but this project does not qualify for RHNA housing. Conclusion Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 59 The Palo Alto Commons has repeatedly violated the terms of its original development agreement, ignored City ordinances, and shown disregard for the neighborhood that surrounds it. To approve an expansion under these circumstances would not only reward noncompliance, but it would also set a dangerous precedent for future developments throughout the city. Our community depends on the integrity of its planning process. If a project fails to honor prior commitments, meet regulatory standards, or respect its neighbors, it should not be allowed to grow further at our expense. I respectfully urge the City Council to deny the proposed expansion until all existing violations are rectified and meaningful accountability is established. Sincerely, Kevin Ji 4072 Wilkie Way Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 60 ATTACHMENT A PC3775 (Original 1987 PC) Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 61 Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 62 Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 63 Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 64 Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 65 Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 66 Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 67 Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 68 Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 69 Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 70 ATTACHMENT B Construction Equipment in Parking Spaces over Several Months Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 71 Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 72 ATTACHMENT C Cone Reserving Handicap Spot for Palo Alto Commons Bus Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 73 Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 74 ATTACHMENT D Palo Alto Commons Vehicles Illegally Parking Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 75 Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 76 ATTACHMENT E Illegal Street Parking from Overflow Visitor Parking Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 77 Parking on El Camino Way on the right side is illegal and only occurs in front of the Palo Alto Commons. Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 78 ATTACHMENT F 1986/1987 Public Meeting Notes Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 79 Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 80 Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 81 Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 82 ATTACHMENT G Palo Alto Commons Bus on Wilkie Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 83 Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 84 Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 85 Attachment H Palo Alto Commons Vehicles in Visitor Parking Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 86 Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 87 ATTACHMENT I Palo Alto Commons Staff in Neighborhood Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 88 Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 89 ATTACHMENT J Inconsistent Valet Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 90 There is often no one at the valet stand. Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 91 There is often no valet at all. Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 92 ATTACHMENT K Avant Public Benefit (PC5116) Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 93 Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 94 ATTACHMENT L Current Public Benefit (6/12/24 PTC Packet Page 182) Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 95 Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 96 ATTACHMENT M Continued Illegal Bus Parking (September 2025) Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 97 Van in Fire Lane (8/31) Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 98 Bus Blocking Fire Access Road Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 99 Bus in ADA Spot with Cones Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 100 From:Velasquez, Ingrid To:Lait, Jonathan; Armer, Jennifer; Tran, Vickie; Kallas, EmilyCc:Nose, Kiely; Gaines, Chantal; City MgrSubject:FW: 5/27 City Council Palo Alto CommonsDate:Wednesday, May 28, 2025 10:59:52 AMAttachments:Screenshot 2025-05-27 at 3.03.32 PM.pngimage001.pngimage002.pngimage003.pngimage005.pngimage006.pngimage007.pngimage008.png Hello, Forwarding the comment below for awareness. Thanks, Ingrid Ingrid Velásquez Administrative Assistant Office of the City Manager (650) 329-2354| Ingrid.Velasquez@PaloAlto.gov www.PaloAlto.gov From: James Porter <jporter992003@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2025 6:44 PM To: Council, City <city.council@PaloAlto.gov> Subject: 5/27 City Council Palo Alto Commons CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City Council members, Thank you for taking the time to listen to the concerns of residents in Palo Alto about the Palo Alto Commons a couple weeks ago. I wanted to summarize some of the feedback of theneighbors. Palo Alto Commons has been and continues to be a bad neighbor. Despite many times issues were raised throughout this process, they have continued to not correct their behavior. As recently as 3 days ago, they are continuing to illegally block parking in their parking lot (see below image). Only support the 7 interior units per PTC recommendation. While the Palo Alto Commons has failed to uphold their promise from 40 years ago, we acknowledge the need for senior housing in our community. But it should not be on the backs of the neighbors. This compromise allows for more units while having minimal disruptions on the neighbors. Third Party Assessment of Parking Monthly. The previous PC required annual reporting of staff and visitor parking numbers to the city, but this requirement was never fulfilled. Given this ongoing non-compliance, we are requesting monthly reporting to ensure proper monitoring of their parking operations and adherence to city regulations. Looking forward to hearing your decision on this issue shortly. Sincerely, James Porter, 4080 Wilkie Way Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 101 Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 102 From:Jean Pressey To:Council, City Subject:Palo Alto Commons Date:Wednesday, May 21, 2025 4:52:45 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Mayor and Council, I attended the hearing on May 5. I was surprised that the objections to the Commons'expansion all sounded the same, as though the neighbors were reading from a script. And it seemed to be the same script they had used years ago, without recognizing themitigations that have been made. The Commons is not owned by an outside profit-making corporation, as you know. These 16 units are badly needed; their location at the rear of the building isdue to the need to prevent patients with dementia from wandering. I am sure that during the construction phase there will be parking and noise, but it is a fact that the value of real estate in Palo Alto simply does not decline.The neighbors' worry about the latter is misplaced. I urge you to approve the current 16-unit addition to the Palo Alto Commons. Sincerely, Jean Pressey850 Webster Ave. Palo Alto 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 Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 103 From:Patty Irish To:Council, City Subject:Support for The Commons application Date:Wednesday, May 21, 2025 3:32:07 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Mayor and Council members, I am Patty Irish and live on Webster in Palo Alto. I write in support of the application by The Commons for 16 additional needed units for people who need Assisted Living and Skilled Nursing. I have attended 4 presentations of the project - 2 at Council and 2 at the Planning Commission. I have heard the owner respond to the requests of the neighbors. Better parking, windows installed higher, actual building not built to add height and many other things. I believe they have done what they can to make it the best possible. As we add new projects things will have to change some. And sometimes this even improves the neighborhood. Please express your support for the quality of what the Rellers do for our community and give them the go ahead so they can get started making these important additions. The neighbors in most cases were repeating the identical claims each time that ithey made almost 2 years ago. Not taking into account the 4 meetings and changes made on their behalf. Thank you for all you do. As I watch your work I appreciate all the time and effort it all takes to try to help our City be the best it can be. Housing and this project are key to our moving forward. Patty Irish -- This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to you. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 104 Patty Irish850 Webster St. #628 Palo Alto, CA 94301 650-324-7407 650-245-3906 cell How do you tell a story that has been told the wrong way for so long? Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 105 From:Margaret Rosenbloom To:Council, City Subject:Palo Alto Commons Senior Housing Expansion Request Date:Wednesday, May 21, 2025 4:25:17 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor and City Councillors I am writing in support of the proposal to add 16 new units at the back of the existing Commons structure at 4075 El Camino Way. I was aware of the Commons expansion proposal when it was originally made some years ago and COULD NOT BELIEVE THAT SUCH A CRITICALLY IMPORTANT BENEFIT FOR PALO ALTO SENIORS WAS STILL UNDER REVIEW. I attended the Council meeting on May 5th and was appalled to witness first hand a shocking example of the notorious “Palo Alto Way.” I sat for an hour through a tedious procession of complainants, each coming forward to make duplicate points against the proposal. Many of the complaints were outdated, untrue, and unfair. The Wilkie Way residents seemed unaware of or chose to ignore all the accommodations the developer and Commons management have made to minimize their impact on the neighborhood. For example, the Commons has opened up access to their underground garage, added valet service, and encourage ride sharing for their staff as possible. From the complaints, one would think the Commons is the only business operating in the neighborhood and responsible for every car parked in Wilkie Way. What about Goodwill and all the other businesses along El Camino Way? The Wilkie Way residents clearly hold you all, City Councillors and Mayor, in utter contempt. They subjected you to a repeat barrage of all the tired old complaints they have made previously. They treated you as heartless imbeciles unaware of the mitigations already made by the Commons and unmindful of the desperate need the City has to accommodate its growing population of care-needing elders. They seemed unaware of the concept that trade- offs are needed to solve difficult problems around housing. As an elder myself - happily living in a wonderful senior housing community that provides me with a continuum of care - I am heartbroken at the delay, delay, delay the Commons expansion has been subjected to. The result of further delay will be fewer available spaces for a critical growing need. More elders will be denied the opportunity of moving to housing where they can enjoy the benefits of socialization, and peace of mind that they will get additional care when they need it. I urge you to speedily finalize your review and approve the Commons expansion project. Respectfully Margaret Rosenbloom 850 Webster St Palo Alto Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 106 From:slevy@ccsce.com To:Council, City; Lait, Jonathan Subject:4075 El Camino Way Date:Sunday, May 4, 2025 1:36:32 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. ! Dear Mayor Lauing, Please accept the staff recommendations and approve the additional units. This is one of many projects, past and future, where council will deal with opposition from neighbors. One of the complaints raised about 4075 El Camino Way is hypocritical and embarrassing tome. You will hear from residents, all of whom I believe live in homes built by for profit developers, complain that the proponent here is a for profit entity. This is a non valid complaint The more difficult issue is that there may be some inconvenience to some neighbors. On the one hand residents do have the right to voice their perspective to council. On the other hand if council either rejected or downsized to make infeasible housing when neighbors complained, we will not get much housing built. Our history on this is not good as council members know with regard to mixed use, primarily market rate projects, which comprise by far the largest share of housing identified as in our pipeline. I will be interested to see how council handles this and upcoming housing projects. Stephen Levy This message could be suspicious The sender's email address couldn't be verified. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 107 From:Deborah Goldeen To:Council, City Subject:Palo Alto Commons Date:Friday, May 2, 2025 12:36:34 PM I sympathize with the residents of Wilkie Way who will be negatively impacted by an expansion of Palo Alto Commons. Every time a modest tract home gets torn down in my neighborhood and replaced with a multi-story, 3,500 plus square foot, single family residence, I feel it. It’s awful. But I feel confident in the general understanding that basing decisions on the pretext that property owners have the right to insist that nothing ever changes is not only bad management, but also morally irresponsible. All the unhappy residents of Wilkie Way plus a cohort of likeminded people will be showing up on Monday to kvetch to the council. I’m sorry I do not have their ear and cannot work to dissuade them taxing the time and patience of the council. But I don’t have to add to the burden. Even though I feel strongly that the Palo Alto Commons should be allowed to proceed without further ado, I won’t address the council in person. If I had a magic wand, Wilkie Way would be narrowed and the residents could be pacified by the addition of another 250 square feet of property. I know. Not gonna happen and they will suffer, but not as much as the suffering that will result from not allowing Palo Alto Commons a very modest and carefully planned expansion. Deborah Goldeen, Birch St., 94306 Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 108 From:Shashank Divekar To:Council, City Cc:Kallas, Emily; Lait, Jonathan; Jayashree Divekar Subject:Palo Alto Commons - May 5 at Council Date:Monday, May 5, 2025 6:56:43 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Honorable Council Members, Thank you for this opportunity. I'm Shashank Divekar, a 20-year resident of 4054 Wilkie Way. Like my neighbors, I support my neighbors’ concerns about Palo Alto Commons expansion that brings traffic and parking problems, loss of privacy in our backyards, loss of quality of life and so on. Today, I speak from the heart also about our homes—the culmination of our life's work and dreams. This expansion threatens to drastically devalue Wilkie Way properties. My wife and I have poured everything into this house where our children grew up. It's not just our shelter; it's our single largest asset—the financial security we've sacrificed for decades to build. To see it diminished would be to watch our children's inheritance slip away through no fault of our own. The collective loss we as neighbors face reaches millions. One neighbor has already sold and left, anticipating these changes. With each departure, our community weakens. We support senior housing but believe there are better solutions. Palo Alto Commons, a for-profit Utah based company, could build the 7 internal units or develop on the front side without devastating our properties. Their profit shouldn't come at the cost of our life savings. I ask you to help find a balance where Palo Alto Commons can grow while respecting neighbors. Please protect not just our property values, but the legacy we've built for our children and this community. Thank you, Shashank Divekar (4054 Wilkie Way, Palo Alto, CA 94306) Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 109 From:Sharon Hoffman To:Council, City Subject:support for Palo Alto Commons Date:Monday, May 5, 2025 1:27:19 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear council members,I am writing in support of the proposed expansion at Palo Alto Commons. As alongtime Palo Alto homeowner who lives in the shadow of the proposed mega-development on Willow Rd, I am certainly sympathetic to the residents on Wilkie Waywho are concerned about traffic, noise, and other impacts to their neighborhood. Theprospect of significant change to our residential neighborhoods can be unsettling.However, this particular proposal calls for a mere 16 new units to be built amidst anexisting structure in order to better support our community's vulnerable seniors. ANIMBY approach, particularly during a regional housing crisis, does not paint ourcommunity in a positive light. I strongly encourage the council to support reasonableefforts -- like this one -- to facilitate complementary new housing wherever possible.Thank you,Sharon Hoffman 429 Ruthven AvePalo Alto Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 110 From:Neilson Buchanan To:Shikada, Ed; Council, City; Clerk, City Cc:Baird, Nathan; Lait, Jonathan; Dave Price; Gennady Sheyner Subject:Palo Alto Commons Date:Monday, May 5, 2025 12:24:06 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i There is no doubt in my mind that Palo Alto Commons provides vital, very high quality services. And there is profound need for additiional facilities as our friends and neighbors steadily age duing the next 10-20 years. Therefore, I urge you to approve the proposed expansion with strong, ENFORCEABLE conditions to monitor the intrusion of all non-resident parked vehicles in nearby residential neighborhoods. The intrusion of parking for non-resident is not limited to Palo Alto Commons. It is a multi- factor issue requiring professional planning. Who has the responsbility to fund and manage the intrusion into residential neighborhoods? This is a open question becuase neither the Office of Transportation, Planning Department or Police Department has a record of basic stewardship and attention to the Comprehensive Plan which establishes intent to promote commerce but not at the expense of residential neighborhoods. Only the City Council can set accountability for the Comprehensive Plan and budget resources appropriately. Neilson Buchanan 155 Bryant Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 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 Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 111 650 329-0484 650 537-9611 cell cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 112 From:Amie Ashton To:Council, City Subject:The Commons Date:Monday, May 5, 2025 12:11:18 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Honorable Mayor Lauing & City Council, I am writing in support of The Commons expansion, adding 16 beds for the most infirm of seniors in our community. Putting the beds in a central location allows family members to easily visit and caretakers to easily access. We need more facilities like this in Palo Alto given our rapidly aging population and the tremendous need for the kind of intensive care The Commons provides. Council gave it an initial OK severalyears ago and it has been slowly moving through the Palo Alto Process ever since. Staff supports project approval. A daylight plane is included to maintain separation from the property line. The building is overparked for what is required by city code. Asmuch as many of us wish it weren't true, a person or business does not own the street or the street parking spaces as their private property. That space is shared public right of way. How many of us have garages that are unusable for vehicle parking necessitating that we park our cars on the street? I would guess a fair share. Further,until state, federal or local resources are dedicated to the important task of caring for an aging population, we only have private companies to do the work. This is the reality of our political and social situation. This project is another reason why we need better/updated zoning to facilitateprojects we want. PD and PHZ zonings are complicated beasts that do not make for good faith in the public process, something we need to be building to create the city we want. Our city will have to deal with a lot of changes in the upcoming years. Moving forward with clarity, compromise, compassion, and understanding is how we get the best outcome. Thank you, Amie Ashton Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 113 From:Kai Porter To:Council, City; Kallas, Emily Subject:Public Comment Item 14, 5/5/35 City Council Mtg Date:Monday, May 5, 2025 3:07:31 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City Council Members, I have lived at 4080 Wilkie Way since 2005. I walked or biked to school for 6 years. That has been scary due to the high congestion. I am concerned about increases to the parking congestion and traffic from the new expansion at Palo Alto Commons. In addition, growing up, I did not like playing in the backyard, because I felt like everyone at Palo Alto Commons was looking down at me. More recently, I discovered that Palo Alto Commons has not followed rules for commercial buildings for daylight plane. That does not surprise me, because our backyard is almost always dark and cold. I went to multiple meetings with developers and multiple City meetings to hear plans and to explain my experiences. In my previous comments to the Architectural Review Board, I gave many recommendations about the draft transportation demand management plan. I urged the City to enforce compliance better in the future. I do not feel that the developers have taken the neighbors’ concerns seriously. In addition, I agree with all comments submitted already from Kevin Ji. Please do not reward their bad behavior by approving their current proposal for 16 new residential units and 2 new offices. I recommend the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) compromise for Palo Alto Commons to approve the interior 9 living units, disapprove the 7 rear-facing living units, and to move or shrink the 2 offices so they will not be less than 11 feet from our back fence. Thank you for considering my comments. Sincerely, Kai Porter Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 114 From:James Porter To:Council, City; Kallas, Emily Subject:May 5, 2025 City Council Agenda Item 14. Palo Alto Commons Expansion Date:Monday, May 5, 2025 2:44:53 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Major Lauing and City Council Members, I have lived at 4080 Wilkie Way in back of Palo Alto Commons since 2003. We bought our house withthe understanding that the commons building was "fully mature". I have supported more services forseniors and our neighborhood has already recently absorbed the significant impacts of the Avant projectwhich serves more seniors. However. I'm writing to express my opposition to the proposed expansion of Palo Alto Commons. I urgethe Council to vote against the expansion project in its current form. The current Palo Alto Commons configuration is quite massive, resulting in significant shading, coolingand loss of privacy in our back yard. Thank you to all the city council members who have visited ourbackyard to better understand the impacts of the expansion. We are okay with the current configurationas we were able to access this impact before our home purchase. Our appraisals over the years forrefinance reflected a significant reduction in value ~$50,000 back in 2011 due to the large structure. Wefear the expansion with its abandonment of the step-back design would result in significantly larger loss ofvalue, privacy, light and home utility. Palo Alto Commons originally committed to a “step-back” design along Wilkie Way to reduce the impacton adjacent residents. This approach was intended to preserve privacy and minimize the sense of massand scale facing single-family homes. The stepback keeps us from losing all utility and value of ourbackyard due to the open areas of the structure which allowed some light through. However, the current expansion plan proposes a near solid wall of construction that fills in the entire step-back area. This is a clear violation of past assurances. We respectfully ask that Palo Alto Commonshonor its original promise and keep the step-back design to reduce the negative impact on Wilkie Wayresidents. I also have significant concerns with daylight plan and understand the new Wilkie-facing unitswould violate current daylight plan standards which would further devalue property, utility and privacy ourWilkie Way properties. Both City Council (I believe in pre-screening) and the PTC recommended focusing on adding additionalinterior units or units on the el camino way side of the property. We have seen no proposals on expandingin these areas which would have far less impact financially, emotionally and otherwise on wilkie wayresidents. Internal expansion or additional units over the front of the building preserves the step-backdesign, lowers massing effects and privacy impacts of the project. Furthermore, PTC recommendedremoval of 2 offices facing the rear which also violated setbacks. No change to the plan was taken thereeither. 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 Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 115 In conclusion I urge you to vote no on this project unless modifications can be made to lessen the community impact of the project. Thanks,James Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 116 From:Nia Porter To:Council, City; Kallas, Emily Subject:Palo Alto Commons public comment for May 5 City Council meeting Date:Monday, May 5, 2025 10:00:05 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor Lauing and other City Council Members, Thank you for visiting my backyard at 4080 Wilkie Way. I have appreciated that you have come to see for yourself what it has been like for me to grow up with the huge Palo Alto Commons building behind me. As a young girl, I have felt that having so many strangers staring at me felt frankly, well, creepy. If they add 16 more units and 2 offices, including one that will be less than 11 feet from my back fence, then our loss of privacy would be that much worse. When I invite friends over to study or celebrate my birthday in the backyard, I have hesitated, because I was worried they would feel the same way. In school our teachers give us rules that we need to follow for the greater good of the entire classroom or school. I have spoken at multiple City meetings during the development of this project. I have discovered that Palo Alto Commons has not followed the rules for daylight plane, setbacks, reports for prioritizing local residents, parking its construction vehicles and vans, etc. It has also not honestly explained that its staff tell workers and visitors to park in the neighborhood. In addition, I agree with all comments submitted already from Kevin Ji. Since you are the City Council, you have the authority and responsibility to make Palo Alto Commons follow all the rules, as everyone should, for the benefit of the neighbors in the broader community. My long-time neighbor and middle school teacher, Mrs. McDaniel, remembers when the company originally promised they would not expand further, and she supported the project to help seniors because of that promise. Now she has moved out because of the expansion plans. We have talked with the company Wellquest about ways to reduce the impact. I recommended to put more units on the front or to increase the distance of new units from our back fence. Wellquest said that would cost more. I also recommended taller and more dense screening trees. I’m glad that Wellquest finally agreed to plant evergreen instead of deciduous trees behind the fences of neighbors who prefer evergreen. I would still prefer to see taller older trees be planted right away and a greater number of trees. Finally, I recommended that painting the back green, similar to the color of leaves, could allow the building to blend in better. Charlene from Wellquest said to us at a PTC meeting that would be fine. It should not cost Wellquest any extra. But the new plan still shows the back is blue. That seems like such a simple change, so I hope they will consider it. Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 117 Of course, I understand that seniors, such as my grandparents, need to have health care and other services when they are going through difficult times. Therefore, please vote for the Planning and Transportation Commission’s recommendation for Palo Alto Commons to add 9 interior living units, to remove the 7 units on the back of the building, and to move the offices farther from our back fence. Thank you for reading my comments. Sincerely, Nia Porter Resident of 4080 Wilkie Way since 2007 Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 118 From:Leif Erickson To:Council, City Cc:Leif Erickson Subject:Please approve 16-unit expansion for Palo Alto Commons Date:Sunday, May 4, 2025 10:02:05 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Councilmembers,I usually speak to the Council on behalf of our teens in Palo Alto, but in this case I speak as an advocate for our senior population, and I don't mean high school seniors.With our population now tipped with more residents over 60 than those under 18, and 20 percent of the city's population now 65 or older, I believe safe and well-serviced seniorhousing should be one of our community's priorities. Any decision you make is a balance of trade-offs. What should help you make a choice likeapproval for the 16-unit expansion at Palo Alto Commons, is this understanding of the growing needs of seniors in our community.With this goal in mind, to add on to existing housing and services makes more sense than that starting from scratch at another location.As president of the Palo Alto/University Rotary Club, I have seen the value of the Palo Alto Commons solution for the housing needs of our seniors. Our Rotary Club has had a longrelationship with the Commons - one of our members volunteered as a long time board member and one Rotary member is a current resident, with perhaps more headed there incoming years. Recent speakers have shared a broader perspective on the need for a variety of solutions for affordable housing needs in our community.Some of the Wilkie Way residents raise concerns about parking on their street, but the additional Commons elderly and memory care residents would not be drivers, and staffingincrease is only anticipated to be 1-1/2 staff members. With the new El Camino bike lanes removing El Camino street parking city-wide, creative solutions for side street parking will beengaging the attention of City Council and Planning staff in a broader context, rather than project by project.I appreciate that Commons expansion planners have met four times with neighborhood residents to listen and respond and adapt the plans to respect their requests - again seeking thebalance that will best address our broader community. Please choose to balance your decision with the housing needs of our seniors in mind. Thank you, Leif -- Leif Erickson cell: 408-406-0005 Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 119 From:Andie Reed To:Council, City Subject:Palo Alto Commons, 5/5/25 Date:Sunday, May 4, 2025 6:41:47 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor Lauing, Vice Mayor Veenker, and Council Members: I am Andie Reed and I live in Old Palo Alto, not a direct neighbor of the project, but sharethe plight. I agree with the Planning and Transportation Commission to limit this expansionto units that don’t infringe on neighbors. To reiterate, 9 of the 16 proposed units face backyards and windows of Wilkie Wayneighbors, who are rightfully incensed that the decreased daylight plane negates theirpreviously hard-won agreements, by in-filling the very light and air and privacy rights thatthey had previously been assured would be protected. Please note that these units do not reduce Palo Alto’s housing needs as per our RHNAobligations. This is an assisted living and memory care operation offering a very high-levelof care; 3 meals, personal care, general supervision and safety, and social services,recreation and medical access. It’s a business, a highly valuable business, an importantniche, but Well-Quest, the owner-operator of both Palo Alto Commons and Avant, also has agoal to make a profit. I supported a close relative in a similar place for 10 years before she passed away recently,and I can attest to how many employees, contractors, outside services and deliveries comeand go daily, not to mention guests and medical support personnel who visit residents. It’sa very busy operation, not a condo complex. Which leads me to parking. Page 7 states that the “property contains a sufficient number ofspaces for the expanded use”, but close neighbors' lived experience and documentationproves, even without expanding, that cars affiliated with the applicant take up availableWilkie Way parking. Palo Alto Commons has a history of non-compliance with their originalTDM and Conditions of Approval. The new TDM in this application provides assurance thatparking on adjacent streets will be discouraged going forward. I ask you, on what basisdo we take this as a likely outcome? Perhaps a more valid analysis would include the wholeproperty; Avant, independent senior housing, shares the same ownership and 2-1/2 acresite with Palo Alto commons. Anyone can use either property's parking spaces. The catchis that only 15 of the total 89 parking spaces are ungated. You have to call the front deskto get into the other 74 spaces behind locked gates. Seriously, most in-and-out servicesaren’t going to do that; they’ll park anywhere, including adjacent streets. Additionally, PCs are required to provide a public benefit in return for advantages nototherwise permitted. This expansion is a new addition to the PC, but the applicant is notoffering any new public benefit in their request for an expansion, sucking up air and lightfrom their neighbors and exacerbating an already bad parking situation. The report statesthat merely adding more units is a Public Benefit, but if that were true, why did theyprovide public benefits originally in 1989 and again in 2011, when the Avant was built? For these reasons, I hope you will strongly consider the PTC alternative that allows growththat doesn’t step on long-time neighbors. Thank you all for your hard work on behalf of the City of Palo Alto. -- Andie Reed Palo Alto, CA 94301 530-401-3809 Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 120 From:Jennifer To:Council, City Subject:Palo Alto Commons Date:Sunday, May 4, 2025 6:20:19 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Palo Alto Council members, I would like to express my support for the decision the PTC made on December 2024, and that is NOT approving the units to be built against the backyards of Wilkie Way residents. Thecurrent tiered structure was a result of a compromise made 38 years ago between the Common's and the residents. The tiered structure has already caused some loss of sun lightand loss of privacy for those residents. Back then the residents agreed to this sacrifice because the Common's had committed to build this way. The same residents could not have imagined38 years later the Common's would renege on this promise/commitment. The new proposed units would cause the residents to lose most of their sunglights and privacy. This is totallyunethical and unacceptable and maybe even illegal, given that this commitment was documented. In addition, the Common's has been in code violation for the past 38 years. Also they have not provided adequate parking, causing many cars over flowing to the neighborhood. On paper, it may appear that they have sufficient number of parking spaces but in reality thoseparking spaces are either blocked or difficult to reach, therefore the number of parking spaces is very misleading and grossly overstated. They claimed to have implemented programs tosolve the parking issue but when talking to some staff there, they have not heard of such programs. In addition, the Common's claimed to have implemented valet parking, but manytimes we didn't see a valet person on site. The Common's is exhibiting signs of offering solutions, but only temporarily, as a method to gain approval for their project and only to renege later once they have achieved their goals. They can not be trusted. They need to be held responsible for their proposed solutions on a permanent basis and there should be some kind of monitoring and material punishment if theyare caught in violation. Thanks, Jennifer Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 121 From:Glanckopf, Annette To:Council, City Subject:Palo Alto Commons Expansion Date:Sunday, May 4, 2025 5:01:45 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Council Members: This note is in support of the comments sent by Andie Reed. I ask you to accept the PTC recommendations. Please scale back the proposed expansion of Palo Alto Commons to 7 units for the following reasons: * The expansion will violate the set-backs for privacy and air space originally agreed on in the initial plan with onerous consequences for Wilkie Way residents. *The Palo Alto Commons operation has a history of non-compliance with theirConditions of Approval with respect to parking. Cars and transit vans currently spill out to Wilkie Way. Currently the project is under parked, and the proposed project with make it even worse. * The 13 older homes whose backyards border the operation, have organized andheld many meetings with City decision-makers, and have attended ARB and PTC meetings over the past couple of years, and so far, neither the applicant nor City staff is amenable to mitigating these issues. * The parent company, Well Quest has profit as a goal. This new units proposed bythis profit-making organization do not constitute “housing” per Palo Alto Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) and are not housing for the general public; they are very expensive units providing extensive personal services to their users and PROFIT to the owners..* This isn't "housing" for the general public but provides a very high level of services at a very dear price. thanks for considering my comments.Annette Glanckopf This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to you. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 122 From:Furman, Sheri To:Council, City Subject:Palo Alto Commons Item 14 on Monday 5: PAN Agrees with PTC Majority Date:Friday, May 2, 2025 5:01:47 PM May 2, 2025 Subject Line: Palo Alto Commons Item on Monday 5: PAN Agrees with PTC Majority Dear Mayor Lauing, Vice Mayor Veenker and Council Members: Thank you for your consideration of the impacts to the neighborhood from theproposed Palo Alto Commons expansion. This letter contains our views and those of all the members of PAN who voted to forward this to you at our May 1st meeting. The question before you is whether Palo Alto Commons, an assisted living andmemory care operation, should expand in a manner that takes away the air, light, andprivacy of the residents on Wilkie Way. Nine of the 16 additional units proposed forthe Commons would overwhelm the backyards and rear window views of theseresidents. When the project was originally built many years ago, the residents agreedto substantial but limited intrusions – but now that compromise is threatened. These issues were brought up during the prescreening and at the ARB meetings andthe PTC meetings, but the applicant made very minimal changes. The last PTCmeeting resulted in a 3-2-2 vote to approve 7 of the 16 additional units and not allowthe rear units that would greatly impact the Wilkie neighbors. The PTC pointed outthat Palo Alto Commons can still build the additional units by placing them in otherlocations that would not create new impacts on Wilkie residents. The 13 older homes whose backyards Palo Alto Commons borders have organized,held many neighborhood meetings and attended ARB and PTC commissionsmeetings over the past couple of years. Please pay attention to these residents’concerns. Also, do not be distracted by claims that reducing the number of units will affect PaloAlto’s housing needs. These units do not constitute “housing” per Palo Alto RegionalHousing Needs Assessment (RHNA) and are not housing for the general public.Rather, they are very expensive units operated by a for-profit entity called Well Quest(the parent company of Palo Alto Commons) and not a local business. Another critical issue is parking, which frequently overflows from Palo Alto Commonsinto the adjacent neighborhood. Wilkie residents have provided photos and videos,as well as documented conversations with people who park on their crowded street(employees, service workers, and visitors), that proves Palo Alto Commons’ need for Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 123 parking vastly overwhelms its onsite spaces. Even the transit vans for Palo AltoCommons often park on Wilkie Way! This incursion will only worsen under theproposed expansion. The very generic TDM associated with this applicationpromises to “discourage” cars from Palo Alto Commons from parking on Wilkie andsurrounding streets, but that has not been the case for the past decades. Theoperation has a history of non-compliance with their Conditions of Approval, per thestaff report and the neighbors. You are no doubt aware that it’s unclear which, if any,TDMs in Palo Alto are successful. Please keep that in mind as you deliberate overthis project’s proposed TDM and the likelihood it will be observed. Thank you very much for your attention to these matters Respectfully, Sheri Furman, PAN Co-Chair Becky Sanders, PAN Co-Chair Palo Alto Neighborhoods Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 124 From:Penny Brennan To:Council, City Subject:NO on Palo Alto Commons Expansion Date:Friday, May 2, 2025 2:58:23 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City Council Members, I urge you to vote NO on Palo Alto Commons Expansion. The proposed project represents a dramatic, further incursion into the backyards and homes of Wilkie Way residents by a for-profit business enterprise located outside of our community. Palo Alto Commons already towers over the backyards of individuals who live on Wilkie Way. It blocks natural sunlight from the trees, gardens, and homes of Wilkie Way residents, intrudes on their privacy, and, as a 24/7 business enterprise, is an ongoing source of noise and nighttime light pollution for them. The proposed Palo Alto Commons Expansion will only exacerbate these conditions. The proposed expansion will worsen the current parking crisis on Wilkie Way. The crisis has been caused by operation of the Palo Alto Commons business. The cars of Palo Alto Commons residents, visitors, and employees routinely fill available parking spaces on Wilkie Way leaving Wilkie Way residents no way to park in front of their own homes. Associated vehicle and foot traffic render the Wilkie Way homes an island amid the busy Palo Alto Commons business enterprise. Although Palo Alto Commons may claim to have done so, it has not made good faith efforts to effectively address the parking crisis on Wilkie Way. Predictably, the proposed Palo Alto Commons Expansion will make the Willkie Way parking crisis worse, and Palo Alto Commons will do little or nothing to resolve it. Some claim that the Palo Alto Commons Expansion is beneficial because it adds more housing for health-challenged elders in our community. I note that by virtue of its price-point (which is in line with its web-page branding as "Luxury Senior Living in Palo Alto, California"), and its apparent lack of financial accommodations for low-income elders (such as the HUD-assisted housing program at Lytton Gardens, Palo Alto), Palo Alto Commons is a housing alternative only for wealthy health-challenged elders in our community. Palo Alto Commons' profits from housing these wealthy elders are flowing to WellQuest, a for-profit company headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah. WellQuest is investing nothing to promote better health and quality of life of Palo Alto residents. In closing, please, I urge you to vote NO on the Palo Alto Commons Expansion. The expansion will inflict further harms on Wilkie Way residents, provide housing for only a select few (wealthy) elders, and send profits from care of these elders out of Palo Alto and into the coffers of an out-of-state, for-profit corporation. An expanded Palo Alto Commons will do nothing to give back to the Palo Alto community. Sincerely, Penny Brennan, PhD Ventura Neighborhood Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 125 From:Mona He To:Council, City Cc:Kallas, Emily; Lait, Jonathan Subject:Opposition to Palo Alto Commons Expansion and Objection to the Expansion be Exempt From CEQA Date:Monday, May 5, 2025 1:51:48 AM Attachments:Letter Brief to PA Planning Commission.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Honorable City Council Members, My name is Mona He, and I reside at 4040 Wilkie Way. I am writing to express my strongopposition to the proposed expansion of Palo Alto Commons. I respectfully urge the Council to vote against this project in its current form. The expansion, as proposed, is deeply flawedboth in process and in substance, and it fails to respect the interests and well-being of the Wilkie Way community. 1. Disregard for Council Guidance and Community Impact During the August 8, 2023 City Council meeting, Palo Alto Commons was explicitly asked tofocus its expansion along El Camino Way to minimize the impact on Wilkie Way residents.Despite this, the revised plan places most new units along Wilkie Way, citing cost savings.Prioritizing financial convenience over community livability is unacceptable. Wilkie Wayresidents should not be forced to absorb the consequences of a corporation’s profit-drivendecision-making. 2. Improper Claim of CEQA Exemption The project’s claim of exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) isinappropriate. Our legal counsel outlined this in a detailed letter submitted to the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) on December 9, 2024, which remains applicable as nomeaningful changes have been made to the plan. The environmental impacts of this expansion must be thoroughly and transparently reviewed. The letter is attached in this email 3. Dismissal of PTC Recommendations At its final meeting on December 12, 2024, the PTC recommended that the 9 units alongWilkie Way be removed from the plan. This recommendation was ignored entirely. Suchdisregard demonstrates not only a lack of respect for the city’s planning process, but also abelief that community and commission input can be bypassed or overridden. 4. Long Standing Pattern of Neglect and Poor Neighborhood Relations Palo Alto Commons has been an inconsiderate neighbor for years. Parking overflow continuesto spill onto Wilkie Way, with visitors and employees regularly parking at Wilkie Way. Noise disturbances persist, and the building’s bright blue exterior—despite neighborhood objections—remains visually intrusive. These issues have been raised consistently without meaningful response, eroding community trust. Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 126 5. Unmet Commitments Under Ordinance 3775 The proposed Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures—such as carpooling andcommuter incentives—are not new. They were required under Ordinance 3775, issued onOctober 26, 1987, and have never been implemented. If existing commitments have beenignored for nearly four decades, how can we trust that new promises will be fulfilled? 6. Ongoing Ordinance Violations and Lack of Transparency The City has received a formal code enforcement complaint (Case ID: 6747006). One of themis regarding violations of Section 3(d), which requires annual reporting on occupancy, staffing, and parking usage. These reports have not been provided since the ordinance wasissued for almost forty years. Without reliable data, how can the City determine whether an expansion is warranted or justified? Data-driven decisions require transparency andaccountability, both of which are lacking here. 7. Violation of Daylight Plane and Height Regulations The current proposal violates Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.38.150(e) "Sites sharing any lot line with one or more sites in any RE, R-1, R-2, RM or any residential PC district shall be subject to a maximum height established by a daylight plane beginning at a height of ten feet at the applicable side or rear site lines and increasingat a slope of three feet for each six feet of distance from the side or rear site lines until intersecting the height limit otherwise established for the PC district", which governsheight restrictions for developments adjacent to residential properties. The planned second andthird story units along Wilkie Way exceed the allowable height under the daylight planerequirement, directly impacting our privacy and neighborhood character. 8. Support for Senior Housing—But Not at a few Residents’ Expense I support the City’s commitment to senior housing. However, it is neither fair nor sustainable for Wilkie Way residents to carry the entire burden for this expansion. Palo Alto Commons, asa for-profit corporation with substantial resources, has the means to redesign the project along El Camino Way—even if that comes at a higher cost. Responsible development must considerboth community needs and long-term neighborhood integrity. 9. Broken Commitments to Step-Up Design Palo Alto Commons originally committed to a “step-up” design along Wilkie Way to reducethe impact on adjacent residents. This approach was intended to preserve privacy andminimize the sense of mass and scale facing single-family homes. However, the currentexpansion plan completely abandons that commitment, instead proposing a solid wall ofconstruction that fills in the entire step-up area. This is a clear violation of past assurances. Werespectfully ask that Palo Alto Commons honor its original promise and keep the step-updesign to reduce the negative impact on Wilkie Way residents. In conclusion, this proposal reflects a pattern of disregard for city direction, communityfeedback, and legal compliance. I respectfully urge the Council to deny this expansion unless Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 127 the plan is fundamentally restructured to: Honor prior city and PTC recommendations, Comply with existing ordinances and environmental review, and Demonstrate genuine accountability and transparency. Thank you for your attention and for considering the voices of residents most directlyimpacted by this development. Sincerely,Mona He 4040 Wilkie WayPalo Alto, CA Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 128 J. Randall Toch 408.947.2492 randy.toch@hogefenton.com Silicon Valley Office | 55 South Market Street, Suite 900, San Jose, California 95113-2324 phone 408.287.9501 fax 408.287.2583 www.hogefenton.com December 9, 2024 Via E-Mail only (planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.org) Honorable Members of the City of Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Commission 250 Hamilton Ave. Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: Meeting Date: December 11, 2024 Agenda Item: 2 Project Description: Proposed Zoning Amendment and Architectural Approval for Palo Alto Commons Subject Property: 4075 El Camino Way, Palo Alto, California Report #: 2410-3649 Our Clients: Mona He and Grace (Yan Feng) Wang Objection to Proposed Categorical Exemption of Project under CEQA Dear Honorable Members of the City of Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Commission: This law firm represents Mona He and Grace (Yan Feng) Wang who own single story residences on Wilke Way. The residences are adjacent to the real property situated at 4075 El Camino Way, Palo Alto (the “Subject Property”). For the reasons stated in this letter, Ms. He and Ms. Wang object to the proposed categorical exemption of the project under CEQA, and oppose the project itself in its current form. The project under consideration by the Commission as Agenda Item No. 2 is defined in the staff report for the December 11, 2024 Planning & Transportation Commission Meeting (the “Staff Report”) under the heading “PROJECT DESCRIPTION” as follows: “an amendment to the existing PC Zone District (PC-5116) . . .” (the “Project”).1 I. The Project is a proposed Zoning Amendment which would alter multiple aspects of the City of Palo Alto Municipal Code. (It is not a mere application for a permit to allow minor physical alterations to an existing facility.) The California Environmental Quality Act Requires Environmental Review of Proposed Zoning Amendments. 1 See City of Palo Alto Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report, Item No. 2, Page 2 of 10 (Packet Pg. 11) Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 129 Honorable Members of the City of Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Commission December 9, 2024 Page 2 The categorical exemption from environmental review under CEQA that is suggested by staff for the Project is inapplicable to the proposed Project. We carefully reviewed the relevant documentation posted by staff regarding the Project, including, without limitation, the document dated October 9, 2024, entitled “Memorandum”, which David J. Powers & Associates, Inc. prepared (the “Powers Memo”). In brief, the Powers Memo improperly concludes that the requested zoning change application, which is a legislative activity, is categorically exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to 14 C.C.R. Section 15301. However, 14 C.C.R. Section 15301(e)(2), which is relied upon by the authors of the Powers Memo, applies, by its express terms, only to proposed construction projects, and not to legislative activity.2 This inconsistent line of reasoning applied by the Powers Memo and by City staff is false, incorrect, misleading, and, if adopted by the City of Palo Alto would likely be entirely unlawful. Accordingly, the City of Palo Alto (the “City”) must conduct an environmental review prior to adopting a zoning ordinance, which according to the Staff Report, will modify each of the following aspects of the City of Palo Alto Zoning Ordinance.3 • The provided units would increase by 16 units; •The allowed lot coverage and floor area would increase to accommodate the approximately 6,890 square foot addition; •The minimum setback would decrease from 8 feet to 6 feet for the southwestern property line adjacent to Goodwill; and •The parking ratio provided would reduce from 0.46 spaces per unit (1.16 spaces per 2.5 beds) to 0.41 spaces per unit (1.01 spaces per 2.5 beds), as no additional spaces are being provided. However, this is consistent with the standard code requirement for this use, which is one space per 2.5 beds.” (Emphasis Added.) Proposed Zoning Amendments (and General Plan Amendments) are “Projects” as defined in CEQA. In connection with the foregoing, 14 C.C.R. Section 15378 states, in pertinent part, as follows: (a)“Project” means . . . any of the following: [¶] (1) An activity directly undertaken by any public agency including but not limited to . . . enactment and amendment of zoning ordinances, and the adoption and amendment of local General Plans or elements thereof . . . (Emphasis added.) 2 The Powers Memo also asserts, without explanation, attribution, or legal authority of any kind whatsoever, that a 13% increase in intensity of use is somehow “negligible” for purposes of CEQA. (Powers Memo, Pg. 12) 3 See City of Palo Alto Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report, Item No. 2, Page 6 of 10 (Packet Pg. 15) Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 130 Honorable Members of the City of Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Commission December 9, 2024 Page 3 And, Public Resources Code Section 21080 states, in pertinent part, as follows: (a) Except as otherwise provided in this division, this division shall apply to discretionary projects proposed to be carried out or approved by public agencies, including, but not limited to, the enactment and amendment of zoning ordinances, the issuance of zoning variances, the issuance of conditional use permits, and the approval of tentative subdivision maps unless the project is exempt from this division. (Emphasis Added.) The Powers Memo asserts that the Project (which is an application for a zoning change) is exempt from environmental review under CEQA pursuant to 14 C.C.R. Section 15301, which provides, in pertinent part, as follows: Class 1 consists of the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of existing or former use. The types of “existing facilities” itemized below are not intended to be all-inclusive of the types of projects which might fall within Class 1. The key consideration is whether the project involves negligible or no expansion of use. [¶] Examples include but are not limited to: . . . (e) Additions to existing structures provided that the addition will not result in an increase of more than: [¶] (1) 50 percent of the floor area of the structures before the addition, or 2,500 square feet, whichever is less; or [¶] (2) 10,000 square feet if: [¶] (A) The project is in an area where all public services and facilities are available to allow for maximum development permissible in the General Plan and [¶] (B) The area in which the project is located is not environmentally sensitive. (Emphasis Added) Clearly and unequivocally, a proposed zoning amendment that is intended to alter municipal laws relating to zoning restrictions, including, without limitation, reducing property line setback requirements and altering sightlines, ambient light, noise patterns, roadways, traffic, floor area ratios, intensity of use, and reduction of parking requirements, could, and very likely would, have profound environmental impacts, as well as civil and criminal ramifications. The foregoing cannot simultaneously be considered just a “minor alteration of an existing structure” that happens to be located in a zoning district that already permits the intended use. In the current application, the proposed use is expressly prohibited under the existing zoning, hence the need for the requested zoning amendment. If the state legislature had intended for zoning amendments and general plan amendments to be exempt from environmental review, it could and would have included such legislative activities in the list of statutorily exempt types of projects. Similarly, if the Secretary for Resources had intended for zoning amendments to be categorically exempt from environmental review, the Secretary for Resources would have included such projects in the list of categorical exemptions authorized by Public Resources Code Section 21084, which are published in 14 C.R.C. Section 15300, et seq. Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 131 Honorable Members of the City of Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Commission December 9, 2024 Page 4 The conclusion is clear and unmistakable. Proposed zoning amendments are specifically INCLUDED in CEQA by statute, because they have great potential to cause significant environmental impacts. Accordingly, the narrow criteria of the categorical exemption set forth in 14 C.C.R. Section 15301, which relate solely to proposed minor alterations to an existing building, without a change of use, do not apply to this proposed Project, which is a proposed zoning amendment that would change multiple aspects of the permitted uses of the Subject Property and would allow activities on the Subject Property that are currently prohibited. Accordingly, environmental review is mandated by CEQA and must be conducted in accordance with applicable laws prior to enactment of any proposed modification of the existing PC Zone District (PC-5116). II. Potential Significant Environmental Impacts Result from the Project. Phase 1 of the development of the Subject Property was approved in the late 1980’s through adoption of a Planned Community zoning ordinance (City of Palo Alto Ordinance No. 3775). At that time, potential environmental impacts were discussed and mitigated through the use of a terraced building design in which each higher floor was recessed further from property lines, and this design mitigation was incorporated into the applicable zoning ordinance. Multiple members of the community participated in that negotiation and remember the developer’s promises that the design would not be altered. And, Phase 2 of the development of the Subject Property was approved in the early 2010’s through adoption of a second Planning Community zoning ordinance (City of Palo Alto Ordinance No. 5116). And, the terraced design was carefully maintained at that time. However, the developer has now come to the City with a proposed Phase 3, which would disregard the very same environmental mitigations that were incorporated into the prior design in order to be able to alter the use of the Subject Property in a manner that was expressly prohibited at each prior phase. Nevertheless, the Powers Memo claims that these requested zoning changes, which would greatly expand the permitted uses of the Subject Property, are merely a “minor alteration” to the Subject Property that cannot possibly result in an environmental impact, and are therefore exempt from environmental review under CEQA. However, given the fact that the previously approved environmental mitigations would be eliminated upon approval of the current Project, it is apparent that the proposed Project would result in significant environmental impacts, per se. A review of the public comment for the Project revealed that there was a proposed alternative design in which the existing facility would be built upwards over the existing third floor rather than outward over the first and second floors. This proposal potentially mitigates some of the resulting environmental impacts to a less than significant level, while achieving the benefits of the same proportional increase in intensity of use. However, the developer apparently rejected that mitigation proposal as not economically acceptable. The upshot is that the developer desires to be permitted to cause an environmental impact in order for the developer to be able to benefit financially. This is precisely the type of environmental cost vs. economic benefit analysis that CEQA is intended to cause to be disclosed to the decision makers prior to deciding upon approval of a proposed project. Additionally, public comment reveals that the facility is already short of available parking, which results in inconvenience to the residents and neighbors, and causes additional Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 132 Honorable Members of the City of Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Commission December 9, 2024 Page 5 neighborhood traffic. A further reduction in parking capacity proposed by the application combined with elimination of entire parking areas to be used for staging during construction will only exacerbate the traffic problems that have not been reviewed and mitigated. Allowing improvements on the second and third floors to encroach closer to property lines will increase noise and ambient light emitted towards neighborhood properties. The additions will also have an adverse impact on the existing daylight plane in violation of Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.38.150(e). And, finally, it is our understanding that the facility, as presently configured, may currently be operating in violation of the applicable conditions of approval of Ordinance 3775 and/or Ordinance 5116, and that numerous complaints have been made to code enforcement with respect to such violations. If the Subject Property is, in fact, currently out of compliance with applicable zoning and/or use permits, then it should not be eligible to receive additional concessions until all such violations have been remedied. The foregoing are just some examples of the many potential significant environmental impacts that might occur as the result of approval of the Project and the proposed development. III. Conclusion. We urge this commission to follow applicable law and refer the matter to staff to prepare a full environmental review as required in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. After an appropriate environmental review has been completed, this commission will be better able to make a recommendation to the City Council that is in compliance with the commission’s legal responsibilities. Such a recommendation should properly take into consideration possible alternative designs, further mitigations, and/or, if appropriate, adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations regarding any significant environmental impacts arising from the Project. Alternatively, the proposed Project must be denied. If you have question about any of the above, or if we can provide you with any other documents or information, please contact the undersigned. Very truly yours, HOGE, FENTON, JONES & APPEL, INC. J. Randall Toch Of Counsel JRT/ns cc: Clients Emily Kallas – Project Planner (via email only: emily.kallas@cityofpaloalto.org) Sean A. Cottle Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 133 From:Lily Lee To:Council, City Cc:Kallas, Emily Subject:Palo Alto Commons public comment - Agenda item 14, May 5, 2025, City Council Mtg Date:Sunday, May 4, 2025 3:44:16 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Mayor Lauing and City Council Members, I have lived at 4080 Wilkie Way since 2003. I support more services for seniors. I have enjoyed sidewalk chats with Palo Alto Commons patients over the years. In addition, however, Palo Alto Commons has harmed our quality of life already, and expansion would make that worse. Thank you to all the City Council members who have visited my backyard to understand better the current conditions and the proposed expansion. As you saw, the current building dominates our backyard. We have no privacy. Patients and staff walk back and forth in common space facing our backyard with floor-to-ceiling windows. Its lights at night are bright. Our children and I feel uncomfortable spending time in our backyard. The building’s shade has killed almost all plants except invasive weeds. When we refinanced many years ago, the appraiser subtracted $50,000 from the value of our home due to then-current impacts of Palo Alto Commons. Now, many years later, the reduction would likely be much higher. Parking is limited, and traffic is unsafe for children going to school. We accepted the impacts of Palo Alto Commons when we moved in. For many years, we wanted to live with a positive neighborly relationship with Palo Alto Commons. Our neighbors on Wilkie Way told us that the company promised that they would not expand. Now, however, these the company has gone back on its word. If this building expands, then all the above impacts would be even worse. Some of our longtime neighbors, beloved local PAUSD teachers, have moved out due to this anticipated expansion. We want to bequeath our home to our children, so they might raise our grandchildren in this neighborhood that we have loved. However, now I worry even more about about the greater loss of value of what we might be able to give them. Furthermore, Palo Alto Commons has not acted in good faith to work with the City Council, Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) and residents for many years. It has violated many City requirements. It has violated its Planned Community Ordnance for almost 40 years. It has failed to prioritize Palo Alto residents and report annually on compliance. It has violated parking requirements by repeatedly parking construction vehicles and transport vans where they should not 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 Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 134 be located. It has misrepresented the true extent of parking impact on its neighbors. I wonder if this company will in the future continue to violate requirements and to renege on past promises. During this development process, Palo Alto Commons has failed to respond meaningfully to change its plans in spite of clear direction for the City Council to seriously consider constructing on the front of the building. This company has also ignored the PTC direction to cut plans for 7 rear- facing units. Palo Alto Commons claimed to respond to neighbors by reducing the number of residential units from 18 to 16, but only by looking at the fine print did we discover that its architects simultaneously quietly added 2 new offices that actually are even closer (less than 11 feet) to the back fences of 2 neighbors. I recommend exploring moving these offices to the front of the building or to an interior location. In spite of repeated opposition from neighbors and the PTC, the current plan continue to violate the1987 daylight plane. The daylight plane encroachment has in fact increased since the original plan presented to the City Council previously. Palo Alto Commons is a private company that profits from harming neighbors. It is not providing any below-market-rate units, so only patients with significant resources can afford it. The community benefits it claims to provide are minimal. Palo Alto Commons has not even followed through on its verbal commitment to a no-cost recommendation from multiple neighbors to paint the back of the building a green color that would blend in with foliage. We supported senior housing, so we did not oppose the Avant expansion, in spite of its multiple violations of usual requirements. However, now we saw that the Avant has created more significant problems than anticipated. Learning from that lesson, we cannot support impacts from 16 new units and 2 new offices. Please vote to follow the PTC recommendation for 9 interior units only so that seniors can have more services, while complying with City requirements and reducing exacerbation of existing neighborhood impacts. Please eliminate the 7 rear-facing residential units, and move the offices or at least increase the setbacks of the 2 offices so they are no longer less than 11 feet from our back fence. Please also insist on enforcement of new and existing and future parking plans. To be fair to all developers, the City Council should compel developers to follow City requirements and to respond meaningfully to City Council members, who are elected to represent residents, and to PTC members, who are appointed by the City Council. Thank you very much for considering my comments. Sincerely, Lily Lee 4080 Wilkie Way Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 135 From:Lait, Jonathan To:Armer, Jennifer Cc:Kallas, Emily Subject:FW: real city planning Date:Wednesday, April 30, 2025 12:43:30 PM Attachments:image001.png image002.png FYI JONATHAN LAIT Director Planning and Development Department (650) 329-2679 | jonathan.lait@paloalto.gov www.paloalto.gov From: Neilson Buchanan <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2025 12:04 PM To: Lait, Jonathan <Jonathan.Lait@paloalto.gov>; Planning Commission <Planning.Commission@PaloAlto.gov> Subject: real city planning CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Good afternoon, Jonathan and Planning Commission I just read about friction for the expansion of Palo Alto Commons. I posted the following comments to Palo Alto Weekly online: This is a complicated decision of tradeoffs. We all would be better informed and prepared if the staff r i This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first mail to some recipients. Mark Safe Report CGBANNERINDICATORGood afternoon, Jonathan and Planning Commission I just read about friction for the expansion of Palo Alto Commons. I posted the following comments to Palo Alto Weekly online: This is a complicated decision of tradeoffs. We all would be better informed and prepared if the staff report projected the number of older citizens in Palo Alto in the near future. Pick a point in time such as 2040 and think about the number of aging baby boomers residing in Palo Alto. This situation is great opportunity for our City Council to Powered by Mimecast Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 136 implement wholistic planning for land use and avoid project-by-project discord. *I won't be hanging out with the baby boomers in 2040*. Unfortunatly I was bornduring WWII.....too early to catch this age wave. Good city planning for land usecould adopt planning methods of leading hospitals and health insurers.... ie, know your demographics and future demand for services. Neilson Buchanan 155 Bryant Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 650 329-0484 650 537-9611 cell cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 137 From:Kevin Ji To:Council, City; Clerk, City Cc:Kallas, Emily Subject:4075 El Camino Way Comments With Attachments Date:Monday, April 28, 2025 4:42:46 PM Attachments:City Council Attachments 14.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hi Mahea, Emily has let me know that there was an issue with my public comment for 4075 El Camino Way, an agendized item for 5/5. I've gone ahead and split them into smaller chunks. Hopefullythey can get aggregated back into one larger comment. Below is my text comment, and the attachments might be in separate emails, replied to this one. In addition, I was wondering if you could let me know how much time I get for speaking onbehalf of a group? I want to submit a presentation and want to make sure that there is enough time for each slide. Sincerely, Kevin Dear Mayor Lauing and Members of the City Council, I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed expansion of the Palo Alto Commons. This letter outlines serious concerns regarding ongoing code violations and patterns of irresponsible behavior that should be fully considered before any further action is taken. The issues outlined here speak not only to noncompliance with existing agreements, but to a troubling disregard for neighborhood integrity and public trust. Illegal Behavior The Palo Alto Commons has a long history of failing to comply with city regulations and the terms of its original Planned Community (PC) ordinance approved in 1987 (PC-3775). These are not minor oversights—they are foundational requirements meant to safeguard the quality of life for nearby residents and ensure a fair, transparent relationship between developers and the City. Specific violations include: 38 + Years of PC Ordinance Violation: Since its original PC ordinance approved in 1987, the Palo Alto Commons has failed to comply with the requirements set out in the original PC (PC3775, Attachment A) in two Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 138 fundamental ways. Failure to Prioritize Palo Alto Residents: Section 3(a)(9) of the ordinance clearly states that preference must be given to residents of Palo Alto and their families. This measure was meant to ensure that our community benefits from the services and housing offered. Yet, there is no evidence that this stipulation has been honored in practice. Lack of Required Annual Reporting: Section 3(d) mandates that the operator submit annual reports detailing occupancy levels, staffing patterns, and parking usage. This data is essential for monitoring compliance and assessing community impacts. These reports have not been submitted. Insufficient Parking: Section 3(b)(2) requires a minimum of 55 on- site parking spaces. However, the most recent parking study indicates only 52 spaces are currently available. This ongoing shortfall directly affects neighborhood congestion and quality of life. Even more troubling is that these violations have been documented in the staff report and in a filed complaint (#16747006), yet no enforcement action has been taken. This lack of accountability erodes public confidence in the City’s oversight mechanisms. Parking Violations: The Palo Alto Commons have committed numerous parking related violations: Blocking Visitor Parking with Equipment (Attachment B): Construction and maintenance equipment often blocks designated visitor spaces, including those in the underground garage, further reducing accessibility. This occurred for several months. Misuse of Handicap Spaces (Attachment C): The Commons’ shuttle routinely occupies handicap spots and reserves them with cones when not in use—an inappropriate and potentially unlawful practice. This has occurred for several months and continues to occur. Parking in No Parking Zones (Attachment D): The shuttle van is frequently seen parked in zones marked for no parking. This behavior, noted even in the parking study, indicates a disregard for basic parking laws. Overflow onto Public Streets (Attachment E): The facility’s lack of adequate parking has forced employees and visitors to park illegally across the street on El Camino Way. Only the Palo Alto Commons has illegal parking in front of it. This is also incredibly dangerous for bikers, as parked cars illegaly blocks the bike lane. Municipal Code Violations: The proposed Palo Alto Commons expansion Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 139 violates the Municipal Code in several ways: Daylight Plane Encroachment: The proposed expansion violates Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 18.38.150, which requires buildings adjacent to R-1 zones to follow a daylight plane to preserve neighbor access to light and air. Ignoring this regulation directly harms adjacent homeowners. Design Incompatibility: The proposal eliminates prior architectural step-backs, which were designed to reduce visual bulk and preserve neighborhood character. This conflicts with PAMC Sections 18.16.090(b)(4) and 18.13.060(b)(2)(B), which govern appropriate density transitions and context-sensitive design. Bad Neighbor Behavior Beyond legal violations, the Commons has consistently demonstrated disregard for its residential neighbors and the spirit of community-based planning. Rather than being a cooperative presence, it has become a source of tension due to the following behaviors: Abandonment of Original Agreements (Attachment F): The original PC approval was contingent on a lower density design with a step-back architectural transition to respect the surrounding R-1 neighborhood. The proposed expansion disregards these commitments and would impose a larger, more intrusive building on the community. As early as 1978, the El Camino Way area was actually “downzoned to protect the neighbors from over intrusion”. The original developer in 1986 promised that the building would have “comparable density and mass” and proposed a “1-2-3 step-up closest to the property line” as a compromise. Persistent Parking Burdens: Since 1986, neighbors have expressed concern over parking shortages caused by the Commons. These issues remain unresolved nearly four decades later: Palo Alto Commons Bus on Wilkie (Attachment G): While the Palo Alto Commons claims to have enough parking on site, their bus will often park on Wilkie. Palo Alto Commons Vehicles in Visitor Parking (Attachment H): When not on Wilkie, the Palo Alto Commons Bus and Van will take up visitor parking, causing visitors to park on nearby streets. Commons Staff Parking in Neighborhood (Attachment I): Numerous residents have observed staff members from the Palo Alto Commons parking along Wilkie Way and adjacent residential Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 140 streets. Staff are easily identifiable by their uniforms—scrubs and badges bearing the facility’s logo. When approached, some staff have candidly shared that they were instructed by management to park in the neighborhood due to the lack of available spaces on-site. While neighbors are sympathetic to the staff, who are clearly left without sufficient alternatives, the resulting strain on street parking has led to significant disruption and frustration. Residents have also been informed that a dedicated off-site staff parking lot was previously available but has since been eliminated by the operator, further exacerbating the issue. Additional Therapists Parking: Per the Palo Alto Commons’ own parking policy, these people are asked to park on the neighborhood streets. This directly contradicts assurances that parking is sufficient on-site. Visitors Parking: Numerous people we know have told us that they park in our neighborhood to visit the Palo Alto Commons. In fact, when the phone number was dialed, it used to recommend visitors park on Wilkie. Vice Chair Chang of the PTC had this experience, as described in the 6/12/24 PTC meeting. Misleading Information on Parking: Past presentations to the PTC and ARB claimed underutilization of parking. However, the current parking study reveals that all spaces are already in use. No additional parking is proposed for the new development, compounding the problem. Inconsistent Valet (Attachment J): In the new parking study attached in the staff report, the Palo Alto Commons stated that they have a valet helping reduce parking issues. While valet parking is purportedly offered, in practice the stand is frequently unstaffed. There is also no one depicted on page 4 of the parking study. In addition, most of the time, there is no valet. For example, when Mayor Lauing came to visit, there was no valet. Misleading Landscape Information: The ARB asked the Palo Alto Commons to work with the neighbors on the landscaping. Most of the neighbors wanted evergreen trees, specifically, Italian cyprus, and have stated this on the record. However, the Palo Alto Commons continues to plan on planting deciduous trees. In addition, their landscape architect told us that Italian cyprus do not grow in this region, despite one neighbor having them in her backyard. Diminished Public Benefit: When the project was originally built, the developers made an “in-lieu contribution of $205,200” (Attachment A) in 1987 dollars ($588,688 in 2024 dollars) When building the Avant, there was Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 141 a $100,000 contribution to Avenidas (Attachment K, PC5116). Yet the public benefit this time is “2 small trees”, “space for both recycling and compost bins”, and “bike parking” (Attachment L). They claim that the primary public benefit is more housing, but this project does not qualify for RHNA housing. Conclusion The Palo Alto Commons has repeatedly violated the terms of its original development agreement, ignored City ordinances, and shown disregard for the neighborhood that surrounds it. To approve an expansion under these circumstances would not only reward noncompliance, but would also set a dangerous precedent for future developments throughout the city. Our community depends on the integrity of its planning process. If a project fails to honor prior commitments, meet regulatory standards, or respect its neighbors, it should not be allowed to grow further at our expense. I respectfully urge the City Council to deny the proposed expansion until all existing violations are rectified and meaningful accountability is established. Sincerely, Kevin Ji 4072 Wilkie Way Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 142 ATTACHMENT A PC3775 (Original 1987 PC) Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 143 Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 144 Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 145 Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 146 Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 147 Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 148 Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 149 Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 150 Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 151 Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 152 ATTACHMENT B Construction Equipment in Parking Spaces over Several Months Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 153 Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 154 ATTACHMENT C Cone Reserving Handicap Spot for Palo Alto Commons Bus Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 155 Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 156 ATTACHMENT D Palo Alto Commons Vehicles Illegally Parking Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 157 Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 158 ATTACHMENT E Illegal Street Parking from Overflow Visitor Parking Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 159 Parking on El Camino Way on the right side is illegal and only occurs in front of the Palo Alto Commons. Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 160 ATTACHMENT F 1986/1987 Public Meeting Notes Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 161 Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 162 Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 163 Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 164 ATTACHMENT G Palo Alto Commons Bus on Wilkie Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 165 Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 166 Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 167 Attachment H Palo Alto Commons Vehicles in Visitor Parking Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 168 Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 169 ATTACHMENT I Palo Alto Commons Staff in Neighborhood Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 170 Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 171 Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 172 ATTACHMENT J Inconsistent Valet Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 173 There is often no one at the valet stand. Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 174 There is often no valet at all. Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 175 ATTACHMENT K Avant Public Benefit (PC5116) Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 176 Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 177 ATTACHMENT L Current Public Benefit (6/12/24 PTC Packet Page 182) Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 178 Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 179 1 Kallas, Emily From:Ellen Hartog <elh109@sbcglobal.net> Sent:Wednesday, April 23, 2025 8:18 AM To:Council, City Subject:The Commons Attachments:The Commons.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ! This message could be suspicious The sender's email address couldn't be verified. This is a personal email address. This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast Honorable Counsel Members, Thank you for taking the time to read this email and attachment. I hope all the Counsel Members have had a chance to visit the existing condition of the property as it operates today and the effect it has on the adjacent neighbors or driven to the site and tried to park. The new paint color blue matches the adjacent building, Goodwill's logo blue rainbow. I do not know of any more shocking effect on the neighborhood to see a three story blue structure looming over the one story neighbors. The previous Conditioned of Approval are been ignored. People care about the neighborhood and this is a complete lack of respect to what was previously gone over by both parties over years of work and compromise is shocking and not neighborly. I also learned that the Commons has violated other sections of the Conditions: 1. Violation of Section 3, Subsection (a)(9): This section requires the Palo Alto Commons to give preference for occupancy to Palo Alto residents and their families. 2. Violation of Section 3, Subsection (d): This section requires annual reports of their occupancy/vacancy status, number and age of occupants, number of employees, number of residents and employees use of parking spaces, and copy of renewal license for residential care facility. An complete Environmental Report should be done to ensure noise, light and air, traffic, parking study and more be done properly. The visuals should be agreed to by the neighborhood similar to an HOA so that violations will be addressed and not put off by lack of enforcement. This is a huge impact on the neighborhood. Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 180 2 The Commons does not keep their landscaping up toward West Meadow and neither does Goodwill. I walk to El Camino and the bushes collect garbage which is not a pleasant walk. The Commons taking in Palo Alto residence priority. It may not be known when there is a waiting list. There are many more factors and I have attached a letter addressing additional items of concern. Respectfully, Ellen Hartog 330 Victoria Place Palo Alto, CA Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 181 Honorable members of the Palo Alto City Counsel, I am a long time resident of Charleston Meadows neighborhood. I recall when the Commons was developed and designed then to maximize its capacity. We had huge debates how the three story complex would impact the neighborhood and how it would impact adjacent properties. It took much comprising to agree on the building massing, giving up the twenty foot setback for open air space with staggered stories at a 10 foot setback. This solution was assured to the adjacent neighbors this would be the extent of building. Thus, we agreed on color, night sky, privacy, landscaping, number of units, number of parking spaces, along with agreements for reports of occupancy annually and commuter passes for employees. Palo Alto residences were to have a priority in occupancy as a benefit to the public as well as providing a monetary amount to Palo Alto. Unfortunately, this has not been tracked and many promises have been broken along with the actual impact I have experienced personally. I have had to tolerate crowded street parking, blocked driveways, traffic congestion and no parking at the Goodwill – apparently, due to lack of parking at the Commons. Their garage seems to be closed by a gate. Handicap access then not available to visitors. This is the current situation. Their proposal goes against the compromises made in the past. Any further expansion would need to be outside the 20 foot setback as originally zoned or the ten foot compromised setback with a daylight plane of 3:6 for commercial zoning ordinance. I am completely opposed to this project expansion in the rear. All the work we did in the past was to ensure property owners their legal right to light and air. Any expansion should and could be in the front or infill units at court yards as approved by the Planning and Transportation Commission. Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 182 The massing of the proposed addition beyond is in direct opposition to the past COA agreement. Any further expansion other than what the P&T Board approved creates impacts that are vast and frankly must be thoroughly studied. The owner’s noise reports do not reflect all circumstances from train horn reflective noise off a three story wall or the additional emergency sirens at different times of day/night or weather condition, or night sky impact of three stories on neighbors. A complete landscaping study should be prepared to reduce the impacts and precise shadow study to include roofs are a must for any neighbor’s solar panels to work. This addition will only exasperate the existing problems, and will create new environmental issues which will need to be studied. It is wise that this project be thorough investigated and have a proper EIR at any rate. There are so many issues not covered or taken into account. This development does not add housing to the housing element. The Commons is a for profit corporation by a huge developer from out of state. Seven single Units are approved now and nine single units more are being asked by the developer which could be relocated to the front. If as currently proposed, this expansion would impact negatively all the single family neighbors along the rear of property parallel to Wilkie Way. Ten single family homes will be far more impacted loosing privacy, air, light, view, noise increased and parking which today is already a huge problem for the neighborhood. More importantly homes values will be devalued by hundreds of thousands each. I am Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 183 all for senior housing but should be built with consideration of the original Conditions of Approval and relocate the nine units or more to the front. The cost to relocate the units to the front of the property along El Camino Way or East Meadow, which is a real option, the owner says it’s cheaper in the rear. Their cost savings will be offset by the neighbor’s losses by 10 homes and more off-site parking demand. A complete EIR needs to be done. Thank you for your time and consideration to please approve the expansion only as previously approved by the Planning and Transportation Commission. Ellen Hartog 330 Victoria Place Palo Alto, CA Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 184 1 Kallas, Emily From:Judy Noice <jelnoice@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, April 13, 2025 12:48 PM To:Council, City Subject:May 5 meeting re: Palo Alto Commons CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City Council Members, I am Judy Noice. My address is 4086 Ben Lomond Dr, Palo Alto, CA 94306. My mother is an Elite Care resident at Palo Alto Commons, where I visit her almost every day. Because of travel, I am unable to attend the May 5 meeting in person. I wanted to let you know about an unpleasant encounter I had with a person on Wilke Way when I was taking my wheelchair‐bound mother for a walk at the beginning of March of this year. My mother and I were on the sidewalk behind Palo Alto Commons. My Palo Alto Commons visitor's badge was on my sweater. As I pushed my mother in her wheelchair, a person came out of the house next to us and asked me if I was from Palo Alto Commons and where did I park? When I explained that I was a family member of a resident, and I had parked along El Camino Way, the person told us Palo Alto Commons visitors clogged all the parking in the area. I replied that I tried to be respectful of the neighbors and park in the Palo Alto Commons parking lot as much as possible. The person then asked if I had parked on the street because the underground parking was full. As I was clearly irritated by this interruption of our walk and was trying to move on, the person then backed up onto the yard and told us they really were more upset about Palo Alto Commons staff parking on their street and nearby streets. I told them I highly valued the talented and caring staff at Palo Alto Commons. I then said I hoped the neighbors and PACommons could figure out a solution to the parking issues for visitors and staff as PACommons provided important senior housing in Palo Alto. I was trying to maneuver my mother's wheelchair away when the person then started complaining about an addition to Palo Alto Commons taking away all the sunlight in their backyard. At this point, I repeated that I hoped the neighbors and Palo Alto Commons could find a solution to these issues and kept walking away. Palo Alto Commons provides valuable housing and care for seniors in Palo Alto. Their families and staff are part of the neighborhood. I hope everyone can work together to find solutions for the issues rather than confronting people from Palo Alto Commons who are using public sidewalks for recreation. Thank you for your time, Judy Noice Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 185 1 Kallas, Emily From:Marty Douglas <martydoug3@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, February 10, 2025 4:41 PM To:Council, City; Burt, Patrick; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Lauing, Ed; Stone, Greer; Veenker, Vicki; keithforcouncil2024@gmail.com; georgeglue+ptc@gmail.com Cc:Kevin Ji Subject:PROJECT: Palo Alto Commons (4074 El Camino Way) CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City Council members, I have been following the development and expansion of the Palo Alto Commons ever since it was first built, many years ago. For 45 years, I have lived at 360 Maclane St, three (3) houses from where Wilkie Way dead ends into Maclane St. Our daughter’s best friend – from 1st through 12th grades ‐ lived on Wilkie Way, with her backyard now totally obscured from sunlight by the Palo Alto Commons. This facility’s continuous expansion, including now wishing to "build out" and fill‐in their stacked units, breaks the agreement they made when they 1st built it (having stacked units to allow more sun to residents' backyards). This blatant disregard of their previous agreement demonstrates their indifference for the impact they have on their neighbors. We can not have faith that they will adhere to any further agreements. For that reason alone you can not approve this expansion plan. In addition, the impact they have on not providing sufficient parking for their staff and visitors has caused overflow to occur up and down Wilkie Way and even onto Maclane street where I live. Especially since they built the Avant independent building, staff and visitors park on Maclane St and sometimes even cut through Jacobs Court as a shortcut to the Avant. This overflow parking on our street has caused parking issues with tradesmen and workers trying to provide services to our home. (We recently had tree service & roofing repairs done as a condition of continuing our homeowners' insurance. The workers had difficulty finding adequate parking for their trucks near our home). Also, with the streets continuously filled with parked cars, the street sweeper can no longer adequately clean on Monday mornings. In the past, my neighbors and I would know to move any cars by Sunday evening so that on Monday mornings the street sweeper could clean (homeowners are paying for this service). Wilkie Way, with its many trees, leaves and seed pods falling onto the ground and clogging the drains, is particularly in need of street sweeping, which can not be done d/t so many parked cars from Palo Alto Commons. Suggestions: 1) Please do not approve the current proposal to “build out” the building, but rather keep the “stacked” units. Instead, either build up or into the interior. 2) Require, as a condition of approval, that the facility provide alternative parking sites or transportation options for staff. (More units means more staff, more external care providers, e.g. PT, OT, hospice, and more visitors) 3) Perhaps post “No Parking on Mondays for street sweeping” (include the range of months this is done ‐ October‐March?) Thanking you in advance for your consideration of this issue, Marilyn Douglas Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 186 2 360 Maclane St. Palo Alto, CA 94306 Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 187 1 Kallas, Emily From:Andie Reed <andiezreed@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, December 11, 2024 11:58 AM To:Planning Commission; Kallas, Emily Subject:Palo Alto Commons CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Planning Commissioners, This project asks for an amendment to a PC from 1989, which would in-fill what was intentionally left as air and sun space back in 1989. It is understandable that the residents living behind the project protest the block of buildings increasing in volume. PCs are allowed exceptions to typical zoning rules for a few reasons, one of which is that they provide a public benefit. This proposed ordinance identifies the public benefit as “providing a safe place for Palo Alto residents and other seniors to age”. Although this is a much-needed service for any community, there is no benefit to the general public; in fact, it infringes on the residential rights next door by adding more traffic and taking away benefits previously enjoyed, like privacy and daylight. It is a commercial operation whose services can be bought at a pretty hefty price. Their donation to Avenidas is commendable, but what price will cover the nearby neighbors' daily privacy loss? Please note that the parking analysis done by Hexagon is unreliable. Clearly one can always come up with some kind of metric that shows that parking is not problematic, based on nonsensical evidence. In this case, what the study shows is that the garage is underused (only ½ of parking places underground are typically used per this study). If the facility had no parking issue, visitors and employees wouldn’t be parking on Wilkie Way. Although with more units there will be more convalescents and thus more attendants and visitors, there is no proposed increase in parking. The Wilkie Way residents’ experience as evidenced by their letters and speeches, as well as friends I know who visit there often, testify that Wilkie Way is already used for overflow parking. And that's before the expansion. The draft TDM (traffic demand management plan) included in the packet feels generic; checking boxes and using soft terms like “may provide for penalties”. My neighborhood’s experience with TDMs is that we got left in the dark as the applicant-produced TDM was signed and set in stone without the neighbors’ knowledge and input, and discussions regarding seeing how it goes and making adjustments along the way were disregarded. I would highly recommend the PTC require neighbor input into the TDM before it is finalized. The TDM should include methods to track parking in the neighborhood (instead of only in Palo Alto Commons’ parking garage, per Hexagon). Requiring employees to park underground as well as directing visitors to those 55 spots. Sending overflow to Avant’s additional 42 spots needs to be specified. Monitoring and reporting should be provided by a Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 188 2 third party, with review by the neighbors, and measures for enforcement or penalties determined and put in the document. TDMs can end up being words gathered to solve problems near the end of the project’s approval process that end up not holding water but get institutionalized without neighbors' input. Before finalizing this document, please make the document reflect neighbors’ input and allow for continual review. Thank you, Andie Reed Melville Ave Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 189 1 Kallas, Emily From:Lily Lee <lee_lilyning@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, December 10, 2024 1:31 AM To:Kallas, Emily; Planning Commission Cc:gsheyner@embarcaderopublishing.com Subject:Comments on 4075 El Camino Way project CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Commissioners and Emily, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed expansion at 4075 El Camino Way. I have lived at 4080 Wilkie Way since 2003. Thank you to so many of the Commissioners for visiting our backyards to see for yourselves the impacts of the current structure so you can better understand the potential effects of the proposed expansion. And I would like to thank Emily for answering so many of my questions. As I said before, I support senior assisted living at the 7 proposed interior new units. However, I remain concerned about the 9 external units facing Wilkie Way backyards. The 9/2024 Plans show that behind our backyard at 4080 Wilkie Way, 3 points are currently about 18 feet from our back fence. But the new development would add a new first floor room 10’1” from our fence and a 2nd floor dwelling unit 12’7” ft away, both nearly twice as close. I see another neighbor will have a unit 10’9” from her family’s back fence. We heard at the 6/12 PTC meeting that new construction of this type should follow a 20 ft set back with a 45 degree daylight plane. Multiple commissioners asked the City’s counsel if that meant that the 20 foot set back should apply to this project. At first she said yes, but the planning staff then said that the City Council has occasionally approved PCs that were inconsistent with relevant municipal code 18.38.150 (see pages 118-122 of the transcript). Thank you for motioning for the ARB to “consider the feasibility, and relative benefits to the residents of Wilkie Way, of increasing the setback for newly constructed units to 20 ft to meet 18.38.150.” City staff explained that in response,“The applicant confirmed that it is not possible to reduce the second floor units in a way that would allow for a 20 ft setback. There needs to be structure under the proposed third floor units, but a 20 ft setback would not leave enough space for the 2nd floor additions to be usable as units. The ARB did not comment on the applicant’s justification of the setback. However, they did comment that the three story building with a 10 ft setback and the 45-degree angle daylight plane does meet the zoning requirements and is appropriate next to a one-story residential context. . . . The City Attorney does not determine if a proposed discretionary project is contextually compatible with a neighborhood, that is determined by the ARB.” The above response presumes only one version of the project would be “feasible.” However, the applicant could still explore alternative "feasible" options, e.g. reduce the size, configuration, or quantity of second floor units; reduce the size, configuration, or quantity of 3rd floor units to enable 2nd floor units with a 20 foot setback to support those; or instead of creating two 1st floor rooms with 10’1” and 10’9” setbacks, use new smaller rooms on the 2nd floor to serve those functions. If indeed the 20 foot setback is not required to apply, then could 2nd floor units be set back by a distance of, say, 18 feet, with perhaps a reduction in the number and/or size of units, and still support the 3rd floor units? I do not see evidence that the ARB, the applicant, or staff attempted to meaningfully address the PTC’s motion. I recommend that the PTC return this motion to the ARB for further followup and consult with the City Attorney to clarify legal ambiguity. Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 190 2 In addition, we note the applicant sometimes does not follow through on prior commitments. For example, for many years, the applicant failed to follow City requirements to submit a TDM Plan and annual reports about occupancy. The applicant told the PTC in June that it had implemented a new parking plan to divert more parking to its underground garage, but two PTC Commissioners, many employees, and visitor told us that onsite parking is unavailable and that Palo Alto Commons told them to park in the neighborhood. I am compiling a list of inconsistencies in the applicant's actions that I will send separately, for the record, to document a fact pattern in detail. Although we support more senior assisted living, alternative providers with a better track record may be better partners for the City. Parking is one example where the applicant has a mixed record, and I support parking comments already sent by Kai Porter and many other neighbors. I agree with their recommendations that the PTC put in place up front enforceable requirements in its TDM Plan and PC Ordinance to the applicant, e.g. 3rd party confidential surveys of staff and workers, demonstrated parking compliance before approval of TDM, monthly reports to the PTC or ARB, specific dollar amount penalties for noncompliance with an escalation schedule, and a mechanism to enable 3rd party lawsuits by residents. Due to the contradictory legal interpretations in the record and due to the applicant’s history of inconsistency and noncompliance, neighbors representing multiple homes, including ours, have contributed funds to hiring legal counsel. I recommend to the PTC that you ask the applicant for new plans to address neighbors’ concerns more robustly and a revised TDM to address well-established problems before approving this project to move to the City Council. If you would like to visit my backyard again or talk to me further, please contact me at 650-815-9749. Thank you for your attention. Sincerely, Lily Lee Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 191 1 Kallas, Emily From:Lily Lee <lee_lilyning@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, December 10, 2024 2:46 PM To:Kallas, Emily Subject:Re: CEQA question CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Thank you, Emily! Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone On Tuesday, December 10, 2024, 11:29 AM, Kallas, Emily <Emily.Kallas@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote: Hi Lily, Public services in the CEQA checklist refer mainly to police and fire access. Facilities refer to schools, parks, and other recreation such as libraries. 16 additional assisted living units, at an existing facility, would not affect city‐wide emergency response times or access to city facilities in a manner that is not accounted for in the Comprehensive Plan. Thanks, Emily Emily Kallas, AICP Senior Planner Planning and Development Services Department (650) 617‐3125 | emily.kallas@cityofpaloalto.org www.cityofpaloalto.org Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 192 2 Parcel Report | Palo Alto Zoning Code | Online Permitting System | Planning Forms & Applications | Planning Applications Mapped From: Lily Lee <lee_lilyning@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2024 11:03 AM To: Kallas, Emily <Emily.Kallas@cityofpaloalto.org> Subject: Re: CEQA question CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Thank you, Emily, I did read the memo. I was wondering about how this quote applies or does not apply to this project? (A) The project is in an area where all public services and facilities are available to allow for maximum development permissible in the General Plan On Tuesday, December 10, 2024, 8:47 AM, Kallas, Emily <Emily.Kallas@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote: Hi Lily, I appreciate the invitation, but unfortunately I do not have time in my schedule to accommodate it. Many neighbors have shared pictures with us throughout the process, and I am confident that between the photos and many years reviewing development projects that I have a good understanding of your backyard conditions. CEQA section 15301 (e)(2) applies as explained in the CE document: Although the proposed project would increase the existing number of units and building area onsite, the new units are for assisted living and Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 193 3 residents of these units would not generate new daily vehicular trips or otherwise result in notable changes to the ongoing use of the facility. The proposed addition represents a negligible increase in use (the number of units increases by 13 percent) and minor alteration of the existing facility (total building area increases by eight percent) compared to existing conditions. Only two new employees would be required to operate the expanded assisted living facility, representing a three percent increase in employees compared to existing conditions. This qualifies as a negligible expansion for the purpose of CEQA. The concerns about parking are being responded to as much as possible. The Zoning Code requires .75 spaces per unit for Assisted Living use and Palo Alto Commons is providing that for the proposed total number of units, so we do not have an objective basis to state there is not sufficient parking. The Transportation Demand Management Plan (TDM) will help manage and reduce staff trips, and other changes have been made such as installing a keycard reader to the gated parking, to improve access. Thanks, Emily Emily Kallas, AICP Senior Planner Planning and Development Services Department (650) 617‐3125 | emily.kallas@cityofpaloalto.org www.cityofpaloalto.org Parcel Report | Palo Alto Zoning Code | Online Permitting System | Planning Forms & Applications | Planning Applications Mapped From: Lily Lee <lee_lilyning@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, December 9, 2024 6:56 PM To: Kallas, Emily <Emily.Kallas@cityofpaloalto.org> Cc: Kevin Ji <kevinji2021@gmail.com> Subject: CEQA question CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Hi Emily, Thank you again for answering our earlier questions. I appreciate it. And I know you are very busy, but I would stilll like to invite you to my backyard at 4080 Wilkie Way at other days when you are more free to leave the office. If you are nearby, even if we did not make a formal set time in advance, just call my cell at 650-815- Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 194 4 9749. You are very welcome to visit. I am sure other neighbors would welcome you too. I read the CEQA memo, and I have a question. I found online in CEQA examples of projects that have “negligible or no expansion of use.” It includes these scenarios: “(e) Additions to existing structures provided that the addition will not result in an increase of more than: (1) 50 percent of the floor area of the structures before the addition, or 2,500 square feet, whichever is less; or (2) 10,000 square feet if: (A) The project is in an area where all public services and facilities are available to allow for maximum development permissible in the General Plan . . . “ (Source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/regulations/california/14- CCR-15301#:~:text=Class 1 consists of the,of existing or former use.) The proposed project would total 6,865 square feet, which exceeds the limit in (e)(1) above. Regarding (e)(2)(A), can you explain how that situation might apply or not in this project? You have heard many concerns that public parking is not sufficient to allow for the current use, let alone an expanded use. Is that relevant? And this project includes a 13% expansion of number of units, which is certainly an expansion of use. I appreciate your help understanding this topic. Thank you! Lily Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 195 1 Kallas, Emily From:Kevin Ji <kevinji2021@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, December 10, 2024 12:09 AM To:Kallas, Emily; Planning Commission Subject:12/11/24 Presentation CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Hi Emily, Per your instruction, I've attached the presentation I'd like your help to display at the 12/11 PTC meeting 24 or more hours in advance. Please let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely, Kevin To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. PTC 12_11.pptx To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 196 1 Kallas, Emily From:Mona He <hermesmh1@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, December 10, 2024 12:09 AM To:Planning Commission; Kallas, Emily Cc:Kevin Ji; JamesYahoo Porter; Lily Lee; Jenny Chen; Jennie Chen; Ellen Hartog (wilkie Neighbor); Grace (Yan Feng) Wang; danielpei@gmail.com; Jayashree Divekar 4050 Wilkie; Shashank Divekar 4050 Wilkie Neighbor; garrettchan@hotmail.com; James Cham; james.cham@gmail.com; Jagdish Pamnani; Marty Douglas (neighbor); Natacha Telusca; Tom Huibin Tang; Zhang Fion; simon_weng@yahoo.com; Mona He Subject:Opposing Palo Alto Commons proposed expansion CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear PTC members and Emily, 1. Discrepancies on staff report; 1). Dayline plane is never in compliance. I found out the Dayline plane is always in question and it needs to be correctly stated in the staff report to prevent further confusion. ......... The proposed is NOT in compliance with current Palo Alto municipal code 18.38.150(e). Staff in the past and continues to mislead the PTC on this specific daylight plane code violation despite neighbors have discussed with staff and pointed out numerous times during the past PTCs, ARBs and in person meetings with staff. The daylight plane currently used on the proposed expansion is 10' setback with 45 degrees height increase. However the current PC daylight plane for PC is 18.38.150(e). It is the maximum height established by a daylight plane beginninag at a height of ten feet at the applicable side or rear site lines and increasing at a slope of three feet for each six feet of distance from the side or rear site lines until intersecting the height limit otherwise established for the PC district. 2). According PC 5116, there is 38 underground parking spaces and 3 surface parking spaces, plus 55 total underground and surface parking spaces. it is clearly discrepancies from PC 5116. There are only 55 parking spaces for Palo Alto Commons NOT 57!!! Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 197 2 2. Multiple PC 5116/PC 3775 violations Palo Alto Commons has currently in violation of its PC 3775 conditions and they need to bring its conditions in compliance before seeking any additional proposed project to be considered for approval. 1). PC 3775 section 3 (b)15.a; (b)15.b; (b) 15.c " a. Maintenance in a central location of timely information regarding commute alternatives and distribution of same to all new employees. The information should include all relevant transit system timetables, information about ridesharing from RIDES for Bay Area Comauters, Inc. and County Transit, information on the buildings' and the Cityt's bicycle facilities. b. A means to provide or reimburse employees for transit passes. c. Assurance that the property manager will provide each employee with the RIDES car pool match list application form and information package at least once each year." I talked to the Commons employee at the beginning of November who was still parking in front of my house. She said she had never received any information regarding the transit and carpool information. And they still were told not to park in the underground parking garage and continue on parking in the neighborhood. 2). PC 3775 section 3 (d)Annual Report " The management shall provide the City with an annual project report with the following information: 1. Occupancy/Vacancy status 2. Number and age of occupants 3. Number of employees 4. Number of residents and employees who use parking spaces 5. Copy of Renewal License for. Residential Care Facility " Wilkie neighbors have been repeatedly asking city staff and Palo Alto commons regarding the annual information. And we were told there has never been such information ever submitted to the city and Commons has never composed that information for the public. Commons 3.Object to Proposed Categorical Exemption of Project under CEQA. This proposed expansion cannot not be granted an exception from CEQA. CEQA report is required for this project. Please see Grace and my attorney's letter emailed to PTC and Emily at 4:19pm on Dec 11, 2024 for the detailed legal reasons of objection. Best regards, Mona Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 198 1 Kallas, Emily From:Kevin Ji <kevinji2021@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, December 10, 2024 12:12 AM To:Planning Commission Cc:Kallas, Emily; gsheyner@paweekly.com; Gennady Sheyner; Lee_lilyning@yahoo.com Subject:Anonymous Letter CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Planning Commission, I was asked to share this letter on behalf of someone who would like to remain anonymous. ‐‐ December 8, 2024 I often visit a patient at Palo Alto Commons. I am submitting this anonymously because the patient is concerned that this letter could affect how they are treated by staff at the facility. Only once can I ever remember finding a place to park in the visitor lot for Palo Alto Commons. Sometimes a van belonging to the Palo Alto Commons is parked in one or more of those spaces. Another visitor space is reserved for future residents, and thus not intended for those visiting current patients. Construction materials or other obstructions sometimes occupy other spaces. And then there are always cars I presume belong to other visitors in what few spaces remain. Not finding a spot in the visitor lot, I then have to exit back onto El Camino Way. There are never any other free places to park anywhere along El Camino Way because you can't park in many stretches and the rest are already filled with cars, probably belonging to customers of Goodwill. The same is true for West Meadow, so I end up parking on Wilkie Way. I heard that neighbors on Wilkie are protesting being used as the effective extension parking lot for Palo Alto Commons and I am sorry that I contribute to their problem. I reached out to them and am grateful that they will submit this letter. Please note that there are no handicapped parking spaces in the Palo Alto Commons visitor lot and this adds a further problem. When I brought with me a visitor who is mobility‐impaired, I had to drop that person off, park on Wilkie, and then literally run back to attend to them. There are a couple of signs in the Palo Alto Commons visitor lot indicating one can call for parking assistance. However, to place a call safely requires me to first park somewhere. Since there's no place to park in the visitor lot, that means I first have to park on Wilkie. Once I've done that, there's no point in calling. So the signs don't help at all. Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 199 2 I'm sure the staff at Palo Alto Commons want their patients to receive visitors. But by having seriously inadequate visitor parking and no handicap spaces, they are making it much harder for me and others to visit. Fewer visits is detrimental to the health and well‐being of those living at the facility. I urge the city to insist that Palo Alto Common's visitor parking be expanded to meet its present needs so that I and others no longer need to park on Wilkie. Furthermore, if the number of rooms at Palo Alto Commons is to increase, so should the visitor parking accordingly. Sincerely, Name Withheld Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 200 1 Kallas, Emily From:Nia Porter <nial.p.23@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, December 9, 2024 1:01 AM To:Kallas, Emily; Planning Commission Subject:Comment about project at 4075 El Camino Way CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Commissioners and City staff, I want to comment on the senior housing behind my backyard.. I have lived at 4080 Wilkie Way since 2007. Growing up, whenever I looked out of my back window or went into my backyard, I saw a huge building with many windows, and I always felt as if people could be watching me from above. The building is 10 ft from my back fence. On the 2nd floor is a common space where people go back and forth all day and night. If I could see them, then they must also be able to see me. Expanding the building would make the situation even worse. To help make up for this problem for neighbors, it could be good to give more benefits to the community. I do community service volunteer teaching at nearby parks and at the East Palo Alto Arts Center. And my grandma used to live at an assisted living facility. So I wonder if Palo Alto Commons could look into ways to help seniors and the rest of the city together? I looked at Attachment G of the staff report for the June PTC meeting. I talked at that meeting. The main public benefit they talk about is housing for seniors. At a recent project at Ellsworth and Middlefield, the PTC said that housing is not by itself considered a public benefit. If public benefit is not that high, then can this project still use Planned Community zoning? Also, I know this project will give in lieu fees to the City. Those are required. But to make up for harming the neighbors, maybe Palo Alto Commons should give more public benefits beyond that. For example, I did see that previously Palo Alto Commons gave a $100,000 to Avenidas to help low-income seniors. That’s great. But they are not doing anything like that this time. In addition, sometimes new development projects give other benefits, like improving nearby parks, lighting, grants to nonprofits nearby or other community programs. I know many residents of Palo Alto Commons may not be able to get around as easily as they used to. But I still sometimes see them walking around our house or being pushed in their wheelchairs enjoying sunshine, flowers, and talking to the neighbors. Maybe they enjoy visiting Robles and Ventura Parks. Could Palo Alto Commons help make the nearby parks nicer or help take care of them? Then that helps their own seniors plus the neighbors. I also wanted to talk about landscaping. At the October 5, 1987, City Council meeting, “Bob Peterson, Landscape Architect, said the planting along the rear property line was the major concern of the neighbors. The plans showed a predominance of evergreen, moderately fast-growing trees.” But I did not remember seeing many trees behind my backyard planted by Palo Alto Commons. At the 7/18/2024 ARB meeting, the meeting minutes said, “Board Member Hirsch stated that landscaping is critical for privacy. Board Member Hirsch thought it was possible to put some landscaping adjacent to Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 201 2 the fence line to create a higher barrier for privacy on the Wilkie side but not too high to increase shadowing on the neighbors’ properties but the applicant needs to coordinate with each of the affected residents.” Palo Alto Commons said at the 7/18 ARB meeting it would match the landscaping to what individual neighbors want. At the 8/2024 meeting with the landscape architect and the neighbors at Palo Alto Commons they said the same thing. Our house has the largest number of apartments that are already 10 ft away from our back fence, so our backyard is almost totally shaded already. So new trees will not make it worse. Our family and other neighbors told Palo Alto Commons and the City in person and in writing that we want evergreen instead of deciduous trees: 1. 4080 Wilkie - Lily Lee and James Porter 2. 4076 Wilkie - Yang Sze Choo and James Cham 3. 4072 Wilkie - Kevin Ji & Jenny Chan 4. 4060 Wilkie - Yanfeng Wang I’m glad the landscape architect added more trees to the plan presented in October to ARB. But why did he make all the trees deciduous? The staff report said, “While normally evergreen trees are preferred for privacy, deciduous trees are proposed at the request of neighbors who would like to minimize additional shade in their backyards.." Palo Alto Commons said at the October ARB meeting that the “majority” of the neighbors want deciduous trees because they don’t want extra new shade. So Palo Alto Commons made all the new trees deciduous. But if 8 homes are behind Palo Alto Commons, and I know at least 4 families want evergreen, then even if all the other 4 neighbors want deciduous, 4 out of 8 is not a majority. I think it should be easy to plant evergreen trees behind families that like those and plant deciduous trees behind families that like those. In addition, my family said at the 7/18/2024 ARB meeting that we like green paint that blends into the leaves. Is it too late to make the back green? These seem like easy things to do to make the new apartments look nicer for the neighbors. It would be great to talk about these things at the Wednesday meeting and then see what Palo Alto Commons can do about it and report back at the next PTC meeting. Thank you for reading my comments. Sincerely, Nia Porter Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 202 1 Kallas, Emily From:Shashank Divekar <shashankdivekar@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, December 9, 2024 2:15 PM To:Kallas, Emily; Planning Commission Cc:Jayashree Divekar Subject:Objection to expansion of Palo Alto Commons at 4075 El Camino Way CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Planning and Transportation Commission, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed project to expand the Palo Alto Commons at 4075 El Camino Way (“project”). Myself and Jayashree cc:ed here are residents of 4054 Wilkie Way and have our backyard sharing the fence directly with Palo Alto Commons. Assisted living services are important community service. We are hoping that at least 7 units inside the 'project' will not cause physical disruption to the Wilkie neighbors (although they will increase parking/transportation impacts). However, for the remaining 'external' 9 units that will increase into two and three story additions to the existing buildings, we voice our objections as follows: Parking: Visitors and service providers for Palo Alto Commons residents already often park in the nearby residential streets. Even though Palo Alto Commons stated it implemented improvements in the summer, I still see congested parking, and it will get worse when parking is removed from El Camino Real. In fact, even the Palo Alto Commons bus parks on Wilkie. Please make the new Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan stronger and include enforcement for violations. Although the ARB suggested setting up a parking permit system, that would require residents to pay for permits, and it would allow Palo Alto Commons to buy its own parking permits too. So it is unclear if that would be helpful.. Daylight Plane: Given that this is a commercial project, the daylight plane for PCs that are commercial should be 10 ft setback, with a 30/60 angle daylight plane. However, even if we use the residential setback, which is 20 ft setback and 45 degree angle, every new external proposed unit against the Wilkie Way side would violate these limits. Reduced Natural Sunlight: This imposing building would reduce the amount of natural sunlight we get. This is in clear violation of the required “low-density residential transition” and policies in the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan such as “L6.8: Preserve exposure to natural light for single-family residences” Please consider reducing the number, size, and/or placement of units in a manner that reduces further shading. Low-Density Residential Transitions: Regardless of whether this project is considered commercial or residential, it is subject to low-density residential transitions. These transitions (such as stepbacks) are part of the municipal code in general and are also specifically in the current Planned Community Zoning that currently applies. These setbacks were also promised to the neighbors in 1986 when the project was first built. Please maintain these stepbacks. Loss of Privacy : The imposing structure with added units will have significant impact on our family privacy with new residents having clear view of our house and yard. Palo Alto is a treasured city for many reasons, this being one of them, and we would like to keep it that way. Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 203 2 Loss of house maket value: There will be loss of market value to single family residences on Wilkie Way: With increased units and density resulting by expansion of Palo Alto Commons, we as owners will suffer loss of market value to our residences. Thank you for considering my comments. Sincerely, Shashank Divekar Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 204 1 Kallas, Emily From:James Porter <jporter992003@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, December 9, 2024 4:07 PM To:Planning Commission; Kallas, Emily Subject:Comments on 4075 El Camino Way (Palo Alto Commons Expansion) 12/11 PTC Meeting CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Commissioners and City Staff, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed expansion at Palo Alto Commons. I have lived at 4080 Wilkie Way for 21 years with the commons as our backyard neighbor. I support expansion of senior assisted living opportunities. I’m glad that Palo Alto Commons, the “applicant,” has proposed 7 interior new units, and I support that in spite of the parking impacts. However, the proposal for 9 additional external units exacerbates existing massing and visual impact from our family room, bedroom and backyard. More workers and visitors exacerbate existing parking congestion, which will only get worse when parking is removed from El Camino Real. We appreciate that the applicant has improved landscaping and window plans to address privacy concerns. However, even after concerns expressed by the PTC 6/12/2024 with regard to massing, closeness of the existing Palo Commons units to Wilkie Way backyards, and uncertainty on daylight plane and setbacks there have been no proposals that would reduce the quantity, size, or placement of the 9 exterior units. In addition, we have been confused about various legal topics during the PTC and ARB meetings, including the setbacks and the daylight plane, where we heard inconsistent messages, including from the City’s counsel. We have heard that the PC could overwrite itself or existing regulation. The original building was built with 10 feet setback at 45 degree. We have heard that the correct up to date 20 foot setback for commercial building can not be applied because it would put the rest of the building out of compliance. But shouldn’t there be flexibility there given PC flexibility? Regardless of the legal requirements, I ask the PTC to consider that the neighbors have already endured a 10 foot setback, and if new construction should follow a 20 foot setback, then out of human sense of fairness, it feels like the wrong direction to allow even more new construction with a 12.5 foot setback. I am not an architect, but I understand that all new 3rd story units would have a 20 foot set back. I was told that without the 2nd floor units for support, the 3rd floor units could not be built. I don’t understand that just based on simple geometry. Please help me understand why the project could not still go forward with fewer external units so that it stays within a 20 foot set back? I thought the PTC asked the ARB to discuss what the plans would look like with a 20 foot set back. But the ARB just said that the 10 foot setback was ok. I don’t think the PTC should approve this project without getting the answer to the questions they asked in June to the ARB about potential compromise options that reduce the impact of the 9 external units. It would be good to hear more from the ARB and the applicant’s architect. Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 205 2 I also have concerns about the parking, so I hope that the PTC will put in specific legal requirements to hold Palo Alto Commons accountable to show that they can do what they promised to reduce parking congestion before you approve this project. I also think you should put in enforcement requirements to make sure they keep their promises after they get your approval. If they don’t do what they promise, they should get more penalties. Please be specific about continuing to check yourself (as you have already). In conclusion, thank you for listening to our recommendation to continue to discuss the proposed project especially to explore further reductions in the number, size, and placement of proposed new external 9 units, especially the 3 2nd floor units with 12.5 foot setbacks. Thank you, James Porter Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 206 J. Randall Toch 408.947.2492 randy.toch@hogefenton.com Silicon Valley Office | 55 South Market Street, Suite 900, San Jose, California 95113-2324 phone 408.287.9501 fax 408.287.2583 www.hogefenton.com December 9, 2024 Via E-Mail only (planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.org) Honorable Members of the City of Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Commission 250 Hamilton Ave. Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: Meeting Date: December 11, 2024 Agenda Item: 2 Project Description: Proposed Zoning Amendment and Architectural Approval for Palo Alto Commons Subject Property: 4075 El Camino Way, Palo Alto, California Report #: 2410-3649 Our Clients: Mona He and Grace (Yan Feng) Wang Objection to Proposed Categorical Exemption of Project under CEQA Dear Honorable Members of the City of Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Commission: This law firm represents Mona He and Grace (Yan Feng) Wang who own single story residences on Wilke Way. The residences are adjacent to the real property situated at 4075 El Camino Way, Palo Alto (the “Subject Property”). For the reasons stated in this letter, Ms. He and Ms. Wang object to the proposed categorical exemption of the project under CEQA, and oppose the project itself in its current form. The project under consideration by the Commission as Agenda Item No. 2 is defined in the staff report for the December 11, 2024 Planning & Transportation Commission Meeting (the “Staff Report”) under the heading “PROJECT DESCRIPTION” as follows: “an amendment to the existing PC Zone District (PC-5116) . . .” (the “Project”).1 I. The Project is a proposed Zoning Amendment which would alter multiple aspects of the City of Palo Alto Municipal Code. (It is not a mere application for a permit to allow minor physical alterations to an existing facility.) The California Environmental Quality Act Requires Environmental Review of Proposed Zoning Amendments. 1 See City of Palo Alto Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report, Item No. 2, Page 2 of 10 (Packet Pg. 11) Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 207 Honorable Members of the City of Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Commission December 9, 2024 Page 2 The categorical exemption from environmental review under CEQA that is suggested by staff for the Project is inapplicable to the proposed Project. We carefully reviewed the relevant documentation posted by staff regarding the Project, including, without limitation, the document dated October 9, 2024, entitled “Memorandum”, which David J. Powers & Associates, Inc. prepared (the “Powers Memo”). In brief, the Powers Memo improperly concludes that the requested zoning change application, which is a legislative activity, is categorically exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to 14 C.C.R. Section 15301. However, 14 C.C.R. Section 15301(e)(2), which is relied upon by the authors of the Powers Memo, applies, by its express terms, only to proposed construction projects, and not to legislative activity.2 This inconsistent line of reasoning applied by the Powers Memo and by City staff is false, incorrect, misleading, and, if adopted by the City of Palo Alto would likely be entirely unlawful. Accordingly, the City of Palo Alto (the “City”) must conduct an environmental review prior to adopting a zoning ordinance, which according to the Staff Report, will modify each of the following aspects of the City of Palo Alto Zoning Ordinance.3 • The provided units would increase by 16 units; •The allowed lot coverage and floor area would increase to accommodate the approximately 6,890 square foot addition; •The minimum setback would decrease from 8 feet to 6 feet for the southwestern property line adjacent to Goodwill; and •The parking ratio provided would reduce from 0.46 spaces per unit (1.16 spaces per 2.5 beds) to 0.41 spaces per unit (1.01 spaces per 2.5 beds), as no additional spaces are being provided. However, this is consistent with the standard code requirement for this use, which is one space per 2.5 beds.” (Emphasis Added.) Proposed Zoning Amendments (and General Plan Amendments) are “Projects” as defined in CEQA. In connection with the foregoing, 14 C.C.R. Section 15378 states, in pertinent part, as follows: (a)“Project” means . . . any of the following: [¶] (1) An activity directly undertaken by any public agency including but not limited to . . . enactment and amendment of zoning ordinances, and the adoption and amendment of local General Plans or elements thereof . . . (Emphasis added.) 2 The Powers Memo also asserts, without explanation, attribution, or legal authority of any kind whatsoever, that a 13% increase in intensity of use is somehow “negligible” for purposes of CEQA. (Powers Memo, Pg. 12) 3 See City of Palo Alto Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report, Item No. 2, Page 6 of 10 (Packet Pg. 15) Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 208 Honorable Members of the City of Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Commission December 9, 2024 Page 3 And, Public Resources Code Section 21080 states, in pertinent part, as follows: (a) Except as otherwise provided in this division, this division shall apply to discretionary projects proposed to be carried out or approved by public agencies, including, but not limited to, the enactment and amendment of zoning ordinances, the issuance of zoning variances, the issuance of conditional use permits, and the approval of tentative subdivision maps unless the project is exempt from this division. (Emphasis Added.) The Powers Memo asserts that the Project (which is an application for a zoning change) is exempt from environmental review under CEQA pursuant to 14 C.C.R. Section 15301, which provides, in pertinent part, as follows: Class 1 consists of the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of existing or former use. The types of “existing facilities” itemized below are not intended to be all-inclusive of the types of projects which might fall within Class 1. The key consideration is whether the project involves negligible or no expansion of use. [¶] Examples include but are not limited to: . . . (e) Additions to existing structures provided that the addition will not result in an increase of more than: [¶] (1) 50 percent of the floor area of the structures before the addition, or 2,500 square feet, whichever is less; or [¶] (2) 10,000 square feet if: [¶] (A) The project is in an area where all public services and facilities are available to allow for maximum development permissible in the General Plan and [¶] (B) The area in which the project is located is not environmentally sensitive. (Emphasis Added) Clearly and unequivocally, a proposed zoning amendment that is intended to alter municipal laws relating to zoning restrictions, including, without limitation, reducing property line setback requirements and altering sightlines, ambient light, noise patterns, roadways, traffic, floor area ratios, intensity of use, and reduction of parking requirements, could, and very likely would, have profound environmental impacts, as well as civil and criminal ramifications. The foregoing cannot simultaneously be considered just a “minor alteration of an existing structure” that happens to be located in a zoning district that already permits the intended use. In the current application, the proposed use is expressly prohibited under the existing zoning, hence the need for the requested zoning amendment. If the state legislature had intended for zoning amendments and general plan amendments to be exempt from environmental review, it could and would have included such legislative activities in the list of statutorily exempt types of projects. Similarly, if the Secretary for Resources had intended for zoning amendments to be categorically exempt from environmental review, the Secretary for Resources would have included such projects in the list of categorical exemptions authorized by Public Resources Code Section 21084, which are published in 14 C.R.C. Section 15300, et seq. Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 209 Honorable Members of the City of Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Commission December 9, 2024 Page 4 The conclusion is clear and unmistakable. Proposed zoning amendments are specifically INCLUDED in CEQA by statute, because they have great potential to cause significant environmental impacts. Accordingly, the narrow criteria of the categorical exemption set forth in 14 C.C.R. Section 15301, which relate solely to proposed minor alterations to an existing building, without a change of use, do not apply to this proposed Project, which is a proposed zoning amendment that would change multiple aspects of the permitted uses of the Subject Property and would allow activities on the Subject Property that are currently prohibited. Accordingly, environmental review is mandated by CEQA and must be conducted in accordance with applicable laws prior to enactment of any proposed modification of the existing PC Zone District (PC-5116). II. Potential Significant Environmental Impacts Result from the Project. Phase 1 of the development of the Subject Property was approved in the late 1980’s through adoption of a Planned Community zoning ordinance (City of Palo Alto Ordinance No. 3775). At that time, potential environmental impacts were discussed and mitigated through the use of a terraced building design in which each higher floor was recessed further from property lines, and this design mitigation was incorporated into the applicable zoning ordinance. Multiple members of the community participated in that negotiation and remember the developer’s promises that the design would not be altered. And, Phase 2 of the development of the Subject Property was approved in the early 2010’s through adoption of a second Planning Community zoning ordinance (City of Palo Alto Ordinance No. 5116). And, the terraced design was carefully maintained at that time. However, the developer has now come to the City with a proposed Phase 3, which would disregard the very same environmental mitigations that were incorporated into the prior design in order to be able to alter the use of the Subject Property in a manner that was expressly prohibited at each prior phase. Nevertheless, the Powers Memo claims that these requested zoning changes, which would greatly expand the permitted uses of the Subject Property, are merely a “minor alteration” to the Subject Property that cannot possibly result in an environmental impact, and are therefore exempt from environmental review under CEQA. However, given the fact that the previously approved environmental mitigations would be eliminated upon approval of the current Project, it is apparent that the proposed Project would result in significant environmental impacts, per se. A review of the public comment for the Project revealed that there was a proposed alternative design in which the existing facility would be built upwards over the existing third floor rather than outward over the first and second floors. This proposal potentially mitigates some of the resulting environmental impacts to a less than significant level, while achieving the benefits of the same proportional increase in intensity of use. However, the developer apparently rejected that mitigation proposal as not economically acceptable. The upshot is that the developer desires to be permitted to cause an environmental impact in order for the developer to be able to benefit financially. This is precisely the type of environmental cost vs. economic benefit analysis that CEQA is intended to cause to be disclosed to the decision makers prior to deciding upon approval of a proposed project. Additionally, public comment reveals that the facility is already short of available parking, which results in inconvenience to the residents and neighbors, and causes additional Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 210 Honorable Members of the City of Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Commission December 9, 2024 Page 5 neighborhood traffic. A further reduction in parking capacity proposed by the application combined with elimination of entire parking areas to be used for staging during construction will only exacerbate the traffic problems that have not been reviewed and mitigated. Allowing improvements on the second and third floors to encroach closer to property lines will increase noise and ambient light emitted towards neighborhood properties. The additions will also have an adverse impact on the existing daylight plane in violation of Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.38.150(e). And, finally, it is our understanding that the facility, as presently configured, may currently be operating in violation of the applicable conditions of approval of Ordinance 3775 and/or Ordinance 5116, and that numerous complaints have been made to code enforcement with respect to such violations. If the Subject Property is, in fact, currently out of compliance with applicable zoning and/or use permits, then it should not be eligible to receive additional concessions until all such violations have been remedied. The foregoing are just some examples of the many potential significant environmental impacts that might occur as the result of approval of the Project and the proposed development. III. Conclusion. We urge this commission to follow applicable law and refer the matter to staff to prepare a full environmental review as required in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. After an appropriate environmental review has been completed, this commission will be better able to make a recommendation to the City Council that is in compliance with the commission’s legal responsibilities. Such a recommendation should properly take into consideration possible alternative designs, further mitigations, and/or, if appropriate, adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations regarding any significant environmental impacts arising from the Project. Alternatively, the proposed Project must be denied. If you have question about any of the above, or if we can provide you with any other documents or information, please contact the undersigned. Very truly yours, HOGE, FENTON, JONES & APPEL, INC. J. Randall Toch Of Counsel JRT/ns cc: Clients Emily Kallas – Project Planner (via email only: emily.kallas@cityofpaloalto.org) Sean A. Cottle Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg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³6XEMHFW 3URSHUW\´ )RU WKH UHDVRQV VWDWHG LQ WKLV OHWWHU0V+HDQG0V:DQJREMHFWWRWKHSURSRVHGFDWHJRULFDOH[HPSWLRQRIWKHSURMHFWXQGHU &(4$DQGRSSRVHWKHSURMHFWLWVHOILQLWVFXUUHQWIRUP 7KHSURMHFWXQGHUFRQVLGHUDWLRQE\WKH&RPPLVVLRQDV$JHQGD,WHP1RLVGHILQHG LQWKHVWDIIUHSRUWIRUWKH'HFHPEHU3ODQQLQJ 7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ&RPPLVVLRQ0HHWLQJ WKH³6WDII5HSRUW´ XQGHUWKHKHDGLQJ³352-(&7'(6&5,37,21´DVIROORZV ³DQDPHQGPHQW WRWKHH[LVWLQJ3&=RQH'LVWULFW 3& ´ WKH³3URMHFW´ , 7KH 3URMHFW LV D SURSRVHG =RQLQJ $PHQGPHQW ZKLFK ZRXOG DOWHU PXOWLSOH DVSHFWV RI WKH &LW\ RI 3DOR $OWR 0XQLFLSDO &RGH ,WLV QRW DPHUHDSSOLFDWLRQIRUDSHUPLWWRDOORZPLQRUSK\VLFDODOWHUDWLRQVWR DQ H[LVWLQJ IDFLOLW\ 7KH &DOLIRUQLD (QYLURQPHQWDO 4XDOLW\ $FW 5HTXLUHV(QYLURQPHQWDO5HYLHZRI3URSRVHG=RQLQJ$PHQGPHQWV 6HH&LW\RI3DOR$OWR3ODQQLQJ 7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ&RPPLVVLRQ6WDII5HSRUW,WHP1R3DJH RI 3DFNHW3J Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 212 +RQRUDEOH0HPEHUVRIWKH&LW\RI3DOR$OWR3ODQQLQJ DQG7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ&RPPLVVLRQ 'HFHPEHU 3DJH 7KHFDWHJRULFDOH[HPSWLRQIURPHQYLURQPHQWDOUHYLHZXQGHU&(4$WKDWLVVXJJHVWHG E\VWDIIIRUWKH3URMHFWLVLQDSSOLFDEOHWRWKH SURSRVHG3URMHFW :H FDUHIXOO\ UHYLHZHGWKH UHOHYDQWGRFXPHQWDWLRQSRVWHGE\VWDIIUHJDUGLQJWKH3URMHFWLQFOXGLQJZLWKRXWOLPLWDWLRQ WKH GRFXPHQW GDWHG 2FWREHU HQWLWOHG ³0HPRUDQGXP´ ZKLFK 'DYLG - 3RZHUV $VVRFLDWHV ,QF SUHSDUHG WKH ³3RZHUV 0HPR´ ,Q EULHI WKH 3RZHUV 0HPR LPSURSHUO\ FRQFOXGHV WKDW WKH UHTXHVWHG ]RQLQJ FKDQJH DSSOLFDWLRQ ZKLFK LV D OHJLVODWLYH DFWLYLW\ LV FDWHJRULFDOO\H[HPSWIURPHQYLURQPHQWDOUHYLHZXQGHUWKH&DOLIRUQLD(QYLURQPHQWDO4XDOLW\ $FW ³&(4$´ SXUVXDQWWR&&56HFWLRQ+RZHYHU&&56HFWLRQ H ZKLFKLVUHOLHGXSRQE\WKHDXWKRUVRIWKH3RZHUV0HPRDSSOLHVE\LWVH[SUHVVWHUPVRQO\ WRSURSRVHGFRQVWUXFWLRQSURMHFWVDQGQRWWROHJLVODWLYHDFWLYLW\7KLVLQFRQVLVWHQWOLQHRI UHDVRQLQJDSSOLHGE\WKH3RZHUV0HPRDQGE\&LW\VWDIILVIDOVHLQFRUUHFWPLVOHDGLQJDQG LIDGRSWHGE\WKH&LW\RI3DOR$OWRZRXOGOLNHO\EHHQWLUHO\XQODZIXO $FFRUGLQJO\WKH&LW\RI3DOR$OWR WKH³&LW\´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´ (PSKDVLV$GGHG 3URSRVHG =RQLQJ $PHQGPHQWV DQG *HQHUDO 3ODQ $PHQGPHQWV DUH ³3URMHFWV´ DV GHILQHG LQ &(4$ ,Q FRQQHFWLRQ ZLWK WKH IRUHJRLQJ &&5 6HFWLRQ VWDWHV LQ SHUWLQHQWSDUWDVIROORZV D ³3URMHFW´PHDQVDQ\RIWKHIROORZLQJ >@ $QDFWLYLW\GLUHFWO\ XQGHUWDNHQ E\ DQ\ SXEOLF DJHQF\ LQFOXGLQJ EXW QRW OLPLWHG WR HQDFWPHQW DQG DPHQGPHQWRI]RQLQJRUGLQDQFHV DQGWKH DGRSWLRQ DQG DPHQGPHQW RI ORFDO *HQHUDO 3ODQV RU HOHPHQWV WKHUHRI (PSKDVLVDGGHG 7KH3RZHUV0HPRDOVRDVVHUWVZLWKRXWH[SODQDWLRQDWWULEXWLRQRUOHJDODXWKRULW\RIDQ\ NLQG ZKDWVRHYHU WKDW D LQFUHDVH LQ LQWHQVLW\ RI XVH LV VRPHKRZ ³QHJOLJLEOH´ IRU SXUSRVHVRI&(4$ 3RZHUV0HPR3J 6HH &LW\ RI 3DOR $OWR 3ODQQLQJ 7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ &RPPLVVLRQ 6WDII 5HSRUW ,WHP 1R 3DJHRI 3DFNHW3J Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg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³H[LVWLQJ IDFLOLWLHV´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³PLQRUDOWHUDWLRQRI DQH[LVWLQJVWUXFWXUH´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tem 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg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¶V WKURXJKDGRSWLRQRID3ODQQHG&RPPXQLW\]RQLQJRUGLQDQFH &LW\RI3DOR$OWR2UGLQDQFH1R $WWKDWWLPHSRWHQWLDOHQYLURQPHQWDOLPSDFWVZHUHGLVFXVVHGDQGPLWLJDWHGWKURXJK WKHXVHRIDWHUUDFHGEXLOGLQJGHVLJQLQZKLFKHDFKKLJKHUIORRUZDVUHFHVVHGIXUWKHUIURP SURSHUW\ OLQHV DQG WKLV GHVLJQ PLWLJDWLRQ ZDV LQFRUSRUDWHG LQWR WKH DSSOLFDEOH ]RQLQJ RUGLQDQFH 0XOWLSOH PHPEHUV RI WKH FRPPXQLW\ SDUWLFLSDWHG LQ WKDW QHJRWLDWLRQ DQG UHPHPEHUWKHGHYHORSHU¶VSURPLVHVWKDWWKHGHVLJQZRXOGQRWEHDOWHUHG$QG3KDVHRI WKHGHYHORSPHQWRIWKH6XEMHFW3URSHUW\ZDVDSSURYHGLQWKHHDUO\¶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³PLQRUDOWHUDWLRQ´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tem 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg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¶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±3URMHFW3ODQQHU YLDHPDLORQO\ HPLO\NDOODV#FLW\RISDORDOWRRUJ 6HDQ$&RWWOH Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 216 1 Kallas, Emily From:Lily Lee <lee_lilyning@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, December 9, 2024 6:56 PM To:Kallas, Emily Cc:Kevin Ji Subject:CEQA question CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Hi Emily, Thank you again for answering our earlier questions. I appreciate it. And I know you are very busy, but I would stilll like to invite you to my backyard at 4080 Wilkie Way at other days when you are more free to leave the office. If you are nearby, even if we did not make a formal set time in advance, just call my cell at 650-815- 9749. You are very welcome to visit. I am sure other neighbors would welcome you too. I read the CEQA memo, and I have a question. I found online in CEQA examples of projects that have “negligible or no expansion of use.” It includes these scenarios: “(e) Additions to existing structures provided that the addition will not result in an increase of more than: (1) 50 percent of the floor area of the structures before the addition, or 2,500 square feet, whichever is less; or (2) 10,000 square feet if: (A) The project is in an area where all public services and facilities are available to allow for maximum development permissible in the General Plan . . . “ (Source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/regulations/california/14-CCR-15301#:~:text=Class 1 consists of the,of existing or former use.) The proposed project would total 6,865 square feet, which exceeds the limit in (e)(1) above. Regarding (e)(2)(A), can you explain how that situation might apply or not in this project? You have heard many concerns that public parking is not sufficient to allow for the current use, let alone an expanded use. Is that relevant? And this project includes a 13% expansion of number of units, which is certainly an expansion of use. I appreciate your help understanding this topic. Thank you! Lily Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 217 1 Kallas, Emily From:Daniel Pei <danielpei54@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, December 9, 2024 9:20 PM To:Kallas, Emily; Planning Commission Subject:Wilkie Resident Concerns on Proposed Expansion of the Common Complex CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Emily and Commissioners, I hope this message reaches you well. As someone who has grown up cherishing the quiet and connected community of Palo Alto, I wanted to share some heartfelt concerns about the proposed expansion of the complex near our neighborhood. While the intention behind the project is noble, the impacts on residents like myself cannot be ignored. The False Promise of Parking Relief I’ve noticed some improvement in parking recently, which I’ve learned is due to the commons strategically instructing staff to avoid parking on our residential streets—perhaps in anticipation of the upcoming vote. But even with this temporary relief, it’s still challenging to find parking. This has made me wonder: if parking is barely manageable now, what will happen when the expansion is approved and these limitations are no longer in place? The thought of my family and neighbors struggling even more for parking in front of our own homes feels both unfair and inevitable. The Impact on Mental Well‐Being One issue that hasn’t been addressed enough is the toll this project takes on mental health. Noise pollution from the cooling units alone is exhausting, but it’s more than that. The lack of sunlight in our living spaces, the feeling of exposure in our own backyards, and the constant uncertainty of parking make it hard to truly relax in our own homes. Home is supposed to be a sanctuary—a place to recharge. But for many of us, it has started to feel like a battleground for basic comfort and peace. Compromising the Seniors’ Experience Too It’s important to remember that this isn’t just about the residents of Wilkie Way. The seniors who live in the complex also deserve a space that promotes their health and happiness. Expanding without carefully addressing sunlight access, noise reduction, and sufficient parking does a disservice to their quality of life as well. Overcrowding and shading their outdoor spaces could take away the serenity and balance they moved here to enjoy. A Call for Balance and Thoughtfulness What makes Palo Alto special is the delicate balance between progress and preservation. I know this isn’t an easy decision, and I respect the effort that’s gone into considering all perspectives. I ask only that you continue to uphold the values that make our city unique: protecting the livability of our neighborhoods while fostering thoughtful development that benefits everyone. Thank you for taking the time to read my concerns. I truly appreciate your dedication to making decisions that reflect the needs and values of our community. Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 218 2 Sincerely, Daniel 4060 Wilkie Way Resident To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. ᐧ Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 219 1 Kallas, Emily From:Rebecca Sanders <rebsanders@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, December 9, 2024 9:46 PM To:Planning Commission; Kallas, Emily Cc:gsheyner@paweekly.com Subject:PTC Meeting - December 11, 2025 - Item #2 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Commissioners: As I see it: 1. Palo Alto Commons could build these additional units elsewhere on the property. There is room. Is it too expensive? Or just more expensive to build elsewhere? 2. Palo Alto Commons claims they ease homelessness in Palo Alto by providing homes for the elderly. PAC is a for‐profit convalescent facility with memory care, and physical therapists. Everyone there has some kind of medical issue. There is no low‐income option over there that I am aware of. It is not a residential facility and relieving homelessness is not a mission or core value. 3. Neighbors are being asked to accept less privacy, less sunlight, lower property values, and more traffic and parking so that Palo Alto Commons makes more money. There is no public benefit to the proposed expansion so why should the city make exceptions for Palo Alto Commons. I support my neighbors in North Ventura. They are doing a great bit of civic engagement and working hard to understand the laws and to advocate. Please respect their efforts by giving them this easy and obvious win. When you got against what you know is the right thing to do, it puts a pall on civic engagement. Please hear the voice of Ventura by recommending the applicant return with an application that does not violate current city building codes. The people that live in Ventura have a right to expect that our codes are upheld for them, too. The people that work and make money in Palo Alto do not have the right to exploit neighborhoods for their profit. That's good governance. Variances should not be rewarded whimsically at the behest of a for‐profit business to increase their profits while offering absolutely no public benefit. It would take a HUGE public benefit to sway Venturans to go for the proposal. We watch our quality of life erode while other wealthier neighborhoods are protected. That is wrong. Thank you. Becky Sanders Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 220 1 Kallas, Emily From:Kai Porter <kaibop22@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, December 9, 2024 10:00 PM To:Kallas, Emily; Planning Commission Subject:Comment about 4075 El Comino Way, especially TDM Plan CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Commissioners and City staff, I would like to comment on the project at 4075 El Camino Way. I have lived at 4080 Wilkie Way since 2005. For 19 years, I have seen the huge building behind my fence. To help seniors, I support the 7 internal units that Palo Alto Commons wants to build. I would like to see alternative designs to reduce the effect of the proposed extra 9 external units that would add 4 new 2nd floor units, including 3 more 2nd floor units with 12.5 foot setbacks. I thought that the PTC in June asked the ARB to work with the developer to come up with a plan with 20 foot setbacks, but I don’t think that happened. I also worry about parking and traffic. Palo Alto Commons has not always done what it said it would, and I think you should wait for them to show you they can do a better job before you approve the proposal to send to the City Council. I have walked, biked, and driven, and I have seen a lot of congestion, especially as a student going to and from school, and driving to and from my job. I have seen parking get worse and worse, and I am worried it will get even worse when El Camino Real gets rid of parking. So I was glad to see the TDM Plan finally. But I think it needs some changes before you approve it. The parking study only shows how many onsite parking spaces were used at the times of the study. It does not show how many people come to the building? Did they drive there? If so, where did they park? On pp. 51 and 52 of the TDM Plan is a parking policy. It sounds nice, but at the 6/12/2024 PTC meeting, Palo Alto Commons claimed that it implemented the plan, which included a new sign with a number that visitors could call to open the gate to an underground garage. But two Commissioners said that the person answering the phone asked them to park in the neighborhood. At the 7/18/2024 ARB Meeting, the minutes said, “Board Member Baltay had trouble parking when he visited the site on Wednesday morning; therefore, he agreed there was an issue with parking for visitors and employees overflowing into the neighborhood. Staff should ask for a Transportation Demand Management Plan (TDM). The applicant has not been in compliance with PC 3775’s requirement for a parking plan and it was never enforced. The applicant has to provide parking for employees and visitors on site or a plan to the Planning staff’s satisfaction to mitigate or reduce impact on neighborhood parking. Employees should not park in front of houses on Wilkie Way. The proposed additional units will increase parking demand.” The parking study was done on a Tuesday, Thursday, and Friday at 9‐11 am. But visitors may be more likely on the weekends when they are not at work or school. In addition visitors might arrive more often in the afternoons. Maybe you can look at when visitors register and do a study of those times if not already covered by the March 2024 study. Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 221 2 The TDM Plan has some great ideas to promote transit, bikes, etc., but do some workers live so far away that buses that go from their homes to Palo Alto Commons might not run very often and might take a long time? They may also live too far away to bike. The TDM Plan will do an initial survey to set a baseline and to help plan changes of the plan to make it better. They should have done this a long time ago. Let’s see what the survey says before finalizing the TDM plan. The TDM Plan does not talk about how it fixed the problems that the PTC Commissioners saw themselves in June. It is keeping the gate. The parking study showed the underground garage was not full at those times. But four neighbors talked with nearly 10 Palo Alto Commons employees during summer and fall. The employees said they did not have room to park in the garage. They used to park on Wilkie Way. But recently, their bosses asked them to park instead on Second Street for a few months until the expansion is approved. Then they can return to parking on Wilkie Way. They told neighbors they were afraid that if they reported this, they might lose their jobs, so they did not want to say their names. Our neighbors on Second Street said they have more cars parking now than before. One visitor said that the senior resident he visits asked him not to complain about parking because he worried that he might get treated worse by Palo Alto Commons staff. In addition, is Palo Alto Commons charging extra money to the senior resident whenever their visitors park in its parking lot? If so, are seniors asking their visitors not to park there? Many Palo Alto Commons employees have also told neighbors that they did not receive any transit subsidies, as the TDM Plan describes. The Palo Alto Commons van frequently parked on Wilkie Way. Then, after this concern came up at a public meeting, the van moved to a “guest” parking spot or a “handicapped” spot.’’ At the 10/17/2024 ARB meeting, the minutes said, “Boardmember Adcock suggested having a regular update of the parking policies.” That is a great idea! In fact, I have heard that on another project with concerns, the facility reported back every month on progress. Because in the past Palo Alto Commons did not do what they were supposed to, maybe the TDM Plan should include information about how the City will monitor the TDM annual surveys and reports and other follow‐up requirements to the plan. Monitoring should include 3rd party confidential surveys of employees and visitors so they will not get in trouble. In 1987, Palo Alto Commons was supposed to give the City an annual report about occupancy, but it did not. The TDM Plan talked about administrative penalties for failure to follow the plan after 6 months. The TDM plan should add details, e.g. dollar amounts, and require increases the longer violations continue. The City should use the PC Ordinance or other legal document to ensure enforceability, including by third party suits by residents. Finally, this is minor, but the “List of Nearby Amenities Within 0.30 or fewer miles” on p. 38 of the pdf, zero of the 45 locations are within 0.30 miles of 4075 El Camino Way. All but three locations are over three miles away. The only location within one mile is the PACCC, 0.5 miles away. Here are a few examples with distances from Google Maps: Tamarine is actually 3.8 miles away (not 0.10 miles away) Mademoiselle Colette is actually 3.7 miles away Palo Alto Dental Group is actually 3.9 miles away Like! Hair Salon is actually 3.7 miles away The table should be fixed before the TDM is finalized. Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 222 3 In conclusion, please do not approve the TDM until Palo Alto Commons fixes these problems. And please don’t approve expansion before then either. Thank you for letting me make these comments. Sincerely, Lee Kai Porter 4080 Wilkie Way Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 223 1 Kallas, Emily From:yanfeng wang <yanfengwang2@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, December 9, 2024 10:32 PM To:Kallas, Emily; Planning Commission Subject:Wilkie Way Resident's Concerns CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Emily, Dear Commissioners, I hope you’re doing well. I’m writing to share my concerns about the 4075 El Camino Way Common located directly behind our backyard. While I support the idea of creating more units, I strongly believe this developer’s proposal fails to provide a sustainable solution and sets a dangerous precedent that could harm both the community and the city’s reputation. The issues with this project are significant and unresolved: 1. Traffic and Parking Problems Caregivers and staff from the common often park on residential streets (see pictures), leaving little to no space for nearby residents to park near their own homes (see picture). This has become a daily struggle for my family, and the overflow has only worsened over time. This proposed TDM plan seems to assume the current parking is sufficient, but it fails to reflect the reality we face. Worse yet, the developer has no clear plan for how they would enforce the proposed parking policies, leaving the specifics vague about what happens if these measures fall short. Instead of protecting the rights of neighbors by addressing these issues head-on, this vague plan feels more like a way to execute now and figure out the details later—leaving us feeling unheard and powerless. 2. Noise Pollution The cooling units from the common have caused constant distress for nearby residents. Our neighbor at 4030 Wilkie Way, for example, endures noise levels reaching 70--100 dBA. 4060 Wilkie way/ 65-70 DBA. During a meeting with Mayor Greer Stone in October, both the mayor and neighbors experienced this overwhelming noise firsthand. For our neighbors, this is more than an inconvenience—it has upended their daily lives. They’ve Beyond these specific concerns, approving this project as it stands could set a dangerous precedent, encouraging other developers to prioritize profits over thoughtful, community-centered solutions. This approach would undermine the very values that make Palo Alto such a unique and vibrant place to live—sustainability, balance, and respect for the quality of life of its residents been forced to keep their windows shut and blinds closed just so their teenage child can sleep at night. No family should have to live like this. Expanding the building without resolving these issues would only make life harder for families like ours and our neighbors. 3. Loss of Sunlight The current structure already casts a shadow over our backyard and living areas by 2 p.m. (see picture taken at 2PM), leaving us in shade for much of the afternoon. The privacy trees we planted help block the two-story building, but with the proposed expansion, an additional three story would rise above the trees—eliminating privacy and blocking sunlight even earlier, possibly by noon. Imagine needing to turn on the lights in your bedroom at 3 p.m. just to navigate your home during the day (see picture taken at 2PM, the shadow is about 90 ft deep.). That’s the reality we’d face, even in sunny California. Instead of enjoying natural light, we’d be forced to live in darkness, reliant on artificial lighting. This expansion wouldn’t just harm us—it would also rob seniors in the complex of sunlight in Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 224 2 their outdoor spaces, essential for their health and well-being. Prioritizing profit over such fundamental needs disregards the values that make our community livable and vibrant. 4. Privacy Concerns Our backyard is already fully exposed to the windows of the current complex, leaving us with little privacy in what should be our personal space. During a gathering with City Commissioners in our neighbor backyard, a man from the Common stared directly into our meeting from his window, making it clear how exposed we truly are. This constant lack of privacy has forced my family and our neighbors to keep blinds and curtains drawn during the day, sacrificing sunlight just to feel a sense of security. We’ve lost the freedom to enjoy our backyards, knowing we are always visible to the residents above. Adding another story would only make this worse, exposing even more of our lives and leaving us feeling like our homes are no longer our own. The thought of losing what little privacy we have left is distressing and deeply unfair. Beyond these specific concerns, approving this project as it stands could set a dangerous precedent, encouraging other developers to prioritize profits over thoughtful, community-centered solutions. This approach would undermine the very values that make Palo Alto such a unique and vibrant place to live—sustainability, balance, and respect for the quality of life of its residents. I truly believe that our thoughtful leaders will continue to strengthen public trust in local governance and preserve the values we all hold dear. Thank you for your time and consideration. I’d be happy to provide further details or share the evidence we’ve collected to help inform your decision. Best regards, Yanfeng Wang 4060 Wilkie Way, Palo Alto Resident To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. ᐧ Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 225 1 Kallas, Emily From:Kirsten Flynn <sustainablekir@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, December 9, 2024 11:49 PM To:Kallas, Emily Subject:Planning for 4075 El Camino Way CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Ms Kallas, I am life long Palo Altan, and I have seen a lot of change, including tall expensive homes going up on Wilkie Way. Now those neighbors want to roll up the ladder behind them, and not allow housing for additional seniors at the Palo Alto Commons. I love my home town, and want to support all of its diverse population. I strongly support the project to build more units for our seniors at 4075 El Camino Way. For several reasons. ‐ First of all, if we want families to stay intact in the Bay Area, we need a place for seniors who need supportive housing. We are lucky enough to have my Father‐in‐Law, an Emeritus professor of Electrical Engineering still alive at 90, but he can no longer live independently. It was challenging to find a nice place for him to live! We all will either‐ have an elder that needs this kind of housing, or need it ourselves some day. Perhaps both! ‐ Secondly, unlike any other type of housing, these additional units are unlikely to cause much of a traffic concern. Most seniors who need this type of housing do not drive any longer. ‐ Thirdly, this is an efficient way to add additional housing for seniors, by putting the units as infill on existing land. ‐ And finally these housing units will utilize a driveway, parking, a lobby, dining facilities that already exist at the Palo Alto Commons. This makes effective use of existing infrastructure. There is no entrance from Wilkie Way. I have heartfelt believe that we must look out for our community members, even if there is some small inconvenience from doing so. Are we going to allow housing projects for seniors to be scrapped AGAIN? I think our community can be more supportive, more generous and more inclusive, and provide housing for our neighbors as they age. Kirsten A Flynn 650‐855‐9464 cell 650‐387‐3329 www.sustainablehome.com Kirsten A Flynn Frank M. Flynn 650‐855‐9464 K’s cell 650‐387‐3329 F’s cell 650‐804‐0865 www.sustainablehome.com Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 226 1 Kallas, Emily From:Kevin Ji <kevinji2021@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, December 3, 2024 9:41 PM To:Kallas, Emily Cc:Lee_lilyning@yahoo.com Subject:Differences Between Versions of the Plans for Palo Alto Commons CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Hi Emily, Hope you are doing well. I was wondering if you'd be able to tell me what changes have been made between the most recent version of the Palo Alto Common plans and the first version of the plans submitted to PTC in February. It'd be great to have a list of what's concretely different, as there are lots of pages to each plan, making it difficult for me to understand what's changed. Sincerely, Kevin Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 227 1 Kallas, Emily From:hermesmh1@gmail.com Sent:Tuesday, December 3, 2024 8:15 PM To:Planning Commission; Kallas, Emily Cc:Kevin Ji; JamesYahoo Porter; Jenny Chen; Lily Lee Subject:Re: 4075 El Camino Way -PTC Motion re 20 ft setback? CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Correction “ The logic here is Commons has to follow the local law first and secondly they can’t build following the law.” it should be: The logic here is Commons has to follow the local law first and secondly they can build following the law. Sent from my iPhone On Dec 3, 2024, at 7:53 PM, hermesmh1@gmail.com wrote: Hi Emily and PTC members, Lily forwarded Emily’s email to us. I find it is odd that Commons mentions the 20’ setback will not work. 20’ setback is wrong. Commons is commercial building, the setback is 10’. If they can’t build within the PC ordinance, then they can’t build. The logic here is Commons has to follow the local law first and secondly they can’t build following the law. We have the Commons proposal clearly in violation of PC daylight plane. It should be 10’ with 6’ distance and 3’ height increase. It is less than 30 degrees angle not 45 degree. Commons needs to adhere Palo Alto municipal code. No one should be above the law. They need to follow the local law. I don’t understand where 45 degrees angle can be used here. The Wilkie Way side is Commons rear yard not side yard. For rear yard, the setback is 10’ and daylight plane is 6’ distance with 3’ height. This is the PC code. ARB used 45 degree is wrong. I really think city staff has been misleading ARB and PTC for this. Commons expansion proposal has to and must to adhere Palo Alto municipal code. They can’t do whatever they want as city staffs telling us. Best regards, Mona Sent from my iPhone On Dec 3, 2024, at 7:14 PM, Lily Lee <Lee_lilyning@yahoo.com> wrote: Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 228 2 Begin forwarded message: On Tuesday, December 3, 2024, 5:09 PM, Kallas, Emily <Emily.Kallas@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote: Hi Lily, The City Attorney does not determine if a proposed discretionary project is contextually compatible with a neighborhood, that is determined by the ARB. Thanks, Emily <image001.png> Emily Kallas, AICP Senior Planner Planning and Development Services Department (650) 617‐3125 | emily.kallas@cityofpaloalto.org www.cityofpaloalto.org <image002.png> Parcel Report | Palo Alto Zoning Code | Online Permitting System | Planning Forms & Applications | Planning Applications Mapped From: Lily Lee <lee_lilyning@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 3, 2024 5:00 PM To: Kallas, Emily <Emily.Kallas@cityofpaloalto.org> Cc: Kevin Ji <kevinji2021@gmail.com>; JamesYahoo Porter Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 229 3 <jporter992003@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: 4075 El Camino Way ‐PTC Motion re 20 ft setback? CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Thank you, Emily. Did the city attorney confirm that? Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone On Tuesday, December 3, 2024, 4:48 PM, Kallas, Emily <Emily.Kallas@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote: Hi Lily, The applicant confirmed that it is not possible to reduce the second floor units in a way that would allow for a 20 ft setback. There needs to be structure under the proposed third floor units, but a 20 ft setback would not leave enough space for the 2nd floor additions to be usable as units. The ARB did not comment on the applicant’s justification of the setback. However, they did comment that the three story building with a 10 ft setback and the 45‐degree angle daylight plane does meet the zoning requirements and is appropriate next to a one‐ story residential context. Thanks, Emily <image001.png> Emily Kallas, AICP Senior Planner Planning and Development Services Department (650) 617‐3125 | emily.kallas@cityofpaloalto.org www.cityofpaloalto.org <image002.png> Parcel Report | Palo Alto Zoning Code | Online Permitting System | Planning Forms & Applications | Planning Applications Mapped Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 230 4 From: Lily Lee <lee_lilyning@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, December 2, 2024 10:57 PM To: Kallas, Emily <Emily.Kallas@cityofpaloalto.org> Cc: Kevin Ji <kevinji2021@gmail.com>; JamesYahoo Porter <jporter992003@yahoo.com> Subject: 4075 El Camino Way ‐PTC Motion re 20 ft setback? CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Hi Emily, I'm sorry I missed the last ARB meeting due to a work trip. I saw in your staff report for 7/18 this excerpt: <image003.png> Has the applicant responded to this PTC motion? Did the ARB discuss this topic in its October meeting? I appreciate your clarification. Lily Lee 4080 Wilkie Way 650-815-9749 <image001.png> <image002.png> <image003.png> Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 231 1 Kallas, Emily From:hermesmh1@gmail.com Sent:Monday, December 2, 2024 4:45 PM To:Kallas, Emily; Planning Commission Cc:City Mgr; Lily Lee; Kevin Ji; Jennie Chen; Jayashree Divekar Wilkie; Shashank Divekar Wilkie Neighbor; Jennie Chen; Natacha Telusca; Ellen Hartog; Grace Wang; Tom Huibin Tang; James Cham; Zhang Fion; wengziming@gmail.com; jpamnani@gmail.com; simon_weng@yahoo.com; lucy_wu711 @yahoo.com; garrettchan@hotmail.com; celinewang16@gmail.com; yschoo@gmail.com; jerry_chou_home@yahoo.com; akin@arden.org; cberwaldt@hotmail.com; danielpei@gmail.com; gsheyner@embarcaderopublishing.com Subject:Re: Palo Alto Commons Schedule Update CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Hi Emily and PTC members, I am writing to express my concerns regarding why the Commons project was allowed to hold another PTC meeting without making any meaningful changes to their building design. In the last PTC meeting, there were specific requirements for Commons to revise the setbacks along Wilkie Way. Despite these requirements—and our continued objections to Commons being treated as residential buildings—no substantial design changes have been made. From what I have observed, the only modification Commons has made is the creation of a few trees as their landscaping plan. Is this truly sufficient to warrant moving the project forward? How can this be justified when the PTC requirements appear to have been disregarded? The ARB’s role is to review the architectural design to ensure it complies with city ordinances. Yet, staff seem to have misled the ARB by implying that because Commons is zoned as a PC, they can bypass all City municipal codes and requirements. I strongly disagree with this interpretation. The truth is that the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) contains specific provisions dictating how PC zoning rules must be followed. Commons should not—and cannot—be considered above the city’s municipal code. These are our local laws, and all developments, including Commons, must adhere to them. It is the responsibility of city staff to ensure that Commons is following the rules and to remain impartial throughout this process. However, it seems that staff have failed to present the facts accurately and have misled both the PTC and ARB into believing that Commons is in compliance written in staff reports in the past. We, as neighbors, have repeatedly pointed out—both in meetings and emails—that the current interpretation of PC zoning is incorrect. The Commons project, as currently designed, clearly violates several municipal codes. Specifically: 1. It does not adhere to the building transition requirements from low-density to high- density areas (e.g., the stepped conceptual design). Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 232 2 2. Its backyard setback and daylight plane requirements are violated by approximately 10 feet for setbacks and 3 feet for height increases at a 6-foot distance. 3. Commons is a commercial building, not a residential one, and therefore must comply with the commercial building PC ordinance codes. City staff’s job is to ensure that projects comply with the law and to act as impartial mediators. By failing to enforce the municipal code and allowing the project to proceed without meeting basic requirements, staff are undermining public trust. We, as residents, expect a fair and thorough review process. Commons cannot be allowed to bypass the rules, and any interpretation of PC zoning must align with the city’s ordinances. We urge staff, the PTC, and the ARB to enforce the municipal code and require that Commons make substantial design changes before moving forward. I am looking forward to hearing back from you. Best regards, Mona He Sent from my iPhone On Nov 19, 2024, at 5:14 PM, Kallas, Emily <Emily.Kallas@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote: Hello, You are receiving this email because you expressed interest in the Palo Alto Commons addition project. The project has been scheduled for a hearing at the Planning and Transportation Commission on December 11, 2024. The plans are the same as presented to ARB in October, and the Draft TDM plan will be available soon. The Staff Report will be published on December 4, 2024. All previously received comments will be included in the report, and you are welcome to send new/additional emails as well, both to me or to planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.org. The PTC hearing is at 6 pm though I do not know its placement on the Agenda yet. The next step after PTC is Council for the final decision, which will be in early 2025 to avoid any potential conflict with the Holidays. As always, please let me know if you have any questions or comments. Thanks, Emily Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 233 3 Emily Kallas, AICP Senior Planner Planning and Development Services Department (650) 617‐3125 | emily.kallas@cityofpaloalto.org www.cityofpaloalto.org Parcel Report | Palo Alto Zoning Code | Online Permitting System | Planning Forms & Applications | Planning Applications Mapped Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 234 1 Kallas, Emily From:Kallas, Emily Sent:Thursday, November 21, 2024 4:01 PM To:Kevin Ji Cc:Lee_lilyning@yahoo.com Subject:RE: 4075 El Camino Way Project Questions Hi Kevin, In response to your questions: 1. Beyond the Condition of Approval referencing it in the PC Ordinance, we do not have record of an existing TDM plan. 2. Per PAMC 18.52.050(d), a monitoring program for the TDM is required, and if the trip reduction performance measures are not met, the Director may require program modifications and may impose administrative penalties. 3. The Draft TDM plan is now available on the project webpage: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Planning‐Development‐Services/Current‐Planning/Projects/4075‐ El‐Camino‐Way 4. I can provide examples of other TDMs, but this one meets the requirements in terms of what we expect to see in a TDM plan, and was prepared by a consultant who has worked on other projects within Palo Alto. Some minor edits are still needed, but it is not going to change substantially. 5. If you would like to show slides or pictures at a public hearing, you will need to send them to me 1 day prior to the public hearing, and I can share them on the screen during public comment. Thanks, Emily Emily Kallas, AICP Senior Planner Planning and Development Services Department (650) 617‐3125 | emily.kallas@cityofpaloalto.org www.cityofpaloalto.org Parcel Report | Palo Alto Zoning Code | Online Permitting System | Planning Forms & Applications | Planning Applications Mapped From: Kevin Ji <kevinji2021@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2024 10:25 PM To: Kallas, Emily <Emily.Kallas@cityofpaloalto.org> Cc: Lee_lilyning@yahoo.com Subject: Re: 4075 El Camino Way Project Questions CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 235 2 Hi Emily, Thanks for these answers. I had a few more questions from the neighbors about the TDM plan. 1. What does the existing TDM plan look like? 2. What happens when a TDM plan is violated? 3. Do you have any examples of any TDM plans? 4. Will we be able to comment on the TDM plan before the meeting? 5. In addition, is there any way to make a slide show or other multimedia to be shown at the meeting? Sincerely, Kevin On Wed, Nov 13, 2024 at 11:37 AM Kallas, Emily <Emily.Kallas@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote: Hi Kevin, My responses to your questions have been added to your email below. Thanks, Emily Emily Kallas, AICP Senior Planner Planning and Development Services Department (650) 617‐3125 | emily.kallas@cityofpaloalto.org www.cityofpaloalto.org Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 236 3 Parcel Report | Palo Alto Zoning Code | Online Permitting System | Planning Forms & Applications | Planning Applications Mapped From: Kevin Ji <kevinji2021@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2024 8:35 AM To: Kallas, Emily <Emily.Kallas@cityofpaloalto.org> Cc: Lee_lilyning@yahoo.com Subject: 4075 El Camino Way Project Questions CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Hi Emily, I hope you are doing well and thank you for sending the email with the updates on the project. The neighbors and I had some follow up questions: 1. In the last PTC meeting (6/12), there was discussion about a 20ft setback as a possibility. Can you help me understand the impacts of this? Which units would be affected and what code they are pointing to? This comment was specifically referring to the potential for a 20ft setback from the Wilkie Way neighbors, where 10 ft is the current setback per the existing PC. I believe the PTC was referencing 20 ft as the R‐1 rear yard setback. The Cycle 3 plans presented to PTC already included the 3rd floor being stepped back approximately 20 ft, affecting about 5 units. The 2nd floor adds 4 units facing Wilkie Way, all of which are approximately 12.5 ft setback from the property line, and about 2.5 ft setback from the existing first floor it is built above. 2. Can you help me understand which units are inside the 45 degree daylight plane, but outside the 3/6 daylight plane? How many of these units are there? This is a little complicated because I had to cross reference between the Cycle 3 and Cycle 5 plan sets, but it appears that at least 2 existing units and an existing stairwell encroach into the 3:6 daylight plane. All new units facing Wilkie Way (9 units) would encroach into a 3:6 daylight plane as well. 3. Do we have a final date for the next PTC meeting? I know you had said tentatively 12/11 and 12/18, but is there a decision on this? No, this still hinges on when we receive their revised TDM plan, I will know by 11/25 which date it is going on. Thank you for taking the time to answer these. Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 237 4 Sincerely, Kevin Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 238 1 Kallas, Emily From:Laura Perry <perrylaura@yahoo.com> Sent:Wednesday, November 6, 2024 10:43 AM To:Kallas, Emily Subject:Public Hearing on 10/17/24 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Hello Ms Kallas: There was a Public Hearing/ Quasi-Judicial re: construction plans for Palo Alto Commons at 4075 El Camino Way (23PLN-00202). I was not able to attend/ log into the meeting on Friday, 10/17/24. My mom is a tenant at Palo Alto Commons. I'm not sure if this comment is the type of feedback you are looking for but I wanted to share my concern about the project. My mom has been a tenant at Palo Alto Commons since September 2022. Construction started there sometime in late 2023 and while any construction project is a challenge and for the most part, things have been manageable except for one issue--parking. This is a huge issue and affects families and healthcare workers coming to see patient as well as staff at the facility. There has been storage of construction materials in the garage and around the property which has impacted the ability of family members (and I believe staff) to park either at Palo Alto Commons or the senior living facility, Avant next door. In addition, there is severely limited street parking on El Camino Way and W. Meadow Drive. I have mentioned parking access to the director in the past but there has been no information from the organization about improving parking during the construction. I hope this information will inform your decision on moving forward with the project. Thank you, Laura Perry Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 239 1 Kallas, Emily From:Lily Lee <lee_lilyning@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, October 28, 2024 7:26 PM To:Planning Commission Cc:Kallas, Emily; gsheyner@embarcaderropublishing.com Subject:Neighbors oppose proposed PA Commons expansion at 4075 El Camino Way Attachments:2024-10-20 neighbors oppose PA Commons Expansion.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Hello Planning and Transportation Commissioners, I would like to share attached signatures from many neighbors opposing the proposed addition of 16 units to Palo Alto Commons at 4075 El Camino Way. Although we appreciate that Wellquest Living has improved landscaping and window plans, these measures are not enough to mitigate the considerable impacts of the proposed project on the neighbors. The neighbors who signed this statement met on October 20, after the ARB recommendation for project approval, and we agreed to jointly express our continued opposition. Thank you very much again to those of you who already visited our backyards. For other Commissioners, we again invite you to come see for yourselves the current quality of life impacts of the existing facility in the transition between commercial and residential zones. The proposed additional units would significantly exacerbate these impacts. Please contact me to set a date/time convenient for you. We look forward to seeing you. Sincerely, Lily Lee and neighbors 650-815-9749 Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 240 From:jenny chen To:Kallas, Emily; Planning Commission Cc:hermesmh1@gmail.com; jayashreed@yahoo.com; altairetang@gmail.com; Yanfengwang2@yahoo.com; wkneighbour@gmail.com; Lee_lilning@yahoo.com; Ziming Weng; jennietuchan@hotmail.com; garrettchan@hotmail.com; Chen Jenny Subject:Opposition to Palo Alto Commons Expansion Date:Wednesday, April 10, 2024 4:36:40 PM You don't often get email from jennyslchen@yahoo.com. Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Emily, We extend our gratitude for meeting with us, Mona He, Yanfeng Wang, and Jenny Chen, on Thursday, April 4,2024, regarding the interpretation of Palo Alto municipal code 18.38.150(e) concerning the daylight plane. During the February 28, 2024 meeting, Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Commissioner Keith Reckdahlprovided clarification (video timestamp 3:51:43-3:52:34 Planning and Transportation Commission | Midpen Media Center), stating, "In the code there are two ways of implementing the daylight plane, PC option or R1setback option. PC daylight plane starts at 10 feet and ascends at a shallow 30-degree angle. R1 setback on therear of an R1 is 20 feet. Therefore, the R1 setback optional daylight plane would commence 20 feet into theproperty. R1 option cannot be applied here due to the current building setback being only 10 feet. PC optionaldaylight plane must be applied in this case. This could significantly impact the types of units permitted in therear." We concur with Commissioner Reckdahl's interpretation of the daylight plane regulation. Sincerely, Jenny Chen Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 241 From:jenny chen To:Kallas, Emily; Planning Commission Cc:hermesmh1@gmail.com; jayashreed@yahoo.com; altairetang@gmail.com; Yanfengwang2@yahoo.com;wkneighbour@gmail.com; Lee_lilning@yahoo.com; Ziming Weng; jennietuchan@hotmail.com;garrettchan@hotmail.com; Chen Jenny Subject:Opposition to Palo Alto Commons Expansion Date:Wednesday, April 10, 2024 4:36:40 PM You don't often get email from jennyslchen@yahoo.com. Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Emily, We extend our gratitude for meeting with us, Mona He, Yanfeng Wang, and Jenny Chen, on Thursday, April 4,2024, regarding the interpretation of Palo Alto municipal code 18.38.150(e) concerning the daylight plane. During the February 28, 2024 meeting, Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Commissioner Keith Reckdahlprovided clarification (video timestamp 3:51:43-3:52:34 Planning and Transportation Commission | Midpen Media Center), stating, "In the code there are two ways of implementing the daylight plane, PC option or R1setback option. PC daylight plane starts at 10 feet and ascends at a shallow 30-degree angle. R1 setback on therear of an R1 is 20 feet. Therefore, the R1 setback optional daylight plane would commence 20 feet into theproperty. R1 option cannot be applied here due to the current building setback being only 10 feet. PC optionaldaylight plane must be applied in this case. This could significantly impact the types of units permitted in therear." We concur with Commissioner Reckdahl's interpretation of the daylight plane regulation. Sincerely, Jenny Chen Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 242 1 Kallas, Emily From:hermesmh1 He <hermesmh1@yahoo.com> Sent:Friday, February 23, 2024 5:33 PM To:Kallas, Emily Cc:seanshari@comcast.net; Jayashree Divekar 4050 Wilkie; altairetang@gmail.com; 385wombat@gmail.com; hermemsh1@yahoo.com; Lait, Jonathan Subject:Re: 4075 El Camino Way - Palo Alto Commons Project CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Hi Emily, I reviewed a post card regarding public next Wednesday public meeting. I am planning to attend it in person. Would you please let me know exactly where the meeting is at? I used the link your provided from last email regarding Palo Alto Commons Expansion. But I couldn't tell which was rt he most updated the plan and what are the changes since the last city council meeting. Would you please send me the most up to day information about their proposal and how they have addressed planning department comments and last city council meeting to do list for them? From what I can see the plan was dated for 10/27/2022. As you knew, during our last meeting on November 7, 2023, I am strongly oppose Palo Alto Commons new expansion plan. Here are some of the reasons: 1. The Commons expansion proposal is in violation of my real property right of enjoyment by completely blocking my property afternoon sun. Which I have already be greatly limited by Commons current second story building about 15 feet apart from my ADU. If proposed third story is built, my ADU and house will lost sun in the afternoon starting at 12:30om. My backyard grass and plants and trees will die due to lack of sun. With my house and ADU are very close to the existing building, the third story is overpowering my property and I will lost entire skylight which I have been enjoying. All I will see from my backyard would have been an over towering block of wall with many windows that people can over looking my windows. I will have no privacy at inside my house and backyard at all and a total lost of my privacy and enjoyment of my property. Please see attached pictures. 2. The current building has underground parking and it was designed over thirty years ago, with adding new extra two more stories are huge publicly safety concerns. Can it withstand a major earthquake (according USGS, Bay Area is over due for a major earthquake) There are five ADUs at the backyard of Wilkie Way block which next to the proposed expansion building. The distance from the building will be as close as 15' apart( that's my ADU). If during the earthquake, the three story building were clapped, my ADU will be the direct hit by the 30’ tall building. Who is responsible to the people living in my ADU and my ADU building itself? Who is responsible the lives who live in the Commons clapped three story building? We are living in the earthquake zone and we have major earthquake overdue to happen in northern California. For Palo Alto single family resident backyard setback requirement is 20 feet. What's the setback requirements for three story building? You don't often get email from hermesmh1@yahoo.com. Learn why this is important Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 243 2 3. Currently Commons and Avent buildings HAVC have already made very loud noises that is so loud we can open our windows. With new additions, there will be more powerful HVAC added, I can't imagine how we will sleep at night or work from home or just simply sit in our backyard to enjoy our day quietly. 4. There are cars constantly parking at front of my house on our street and these cars owners are working at Commons and Avant. I had asked some of them why they were parking their cars at our street. I was told that there were not enough parking spaces for them to park at Commons and Avant. With 14 (the latest on the website says 18?) more rooms added without single parking spaces added, there will be more cars parking our street and we won’t be able to park cars on our street. 5. 4 of the 14 proposed rooms will be added right behind my house and my neighbor right next to me(4040, 4050 Wilkie). 13 of 14(18?) proposed rooms addition are all added to the existing buildings right next to our Wilkie Way single family one story houses. Please see attached photos. The new addition is at the price of entire block Wilkie Way residents' enjoyment of our lives. I asked Commons why they won’t add forth story to their building facing El Comino or East Meadow. They said it is too costly to them to do so. So naturally , the Wilkie way residents become the victims of their money saving proposal! It is utterly absurd that big corporation want to save and make money at the cost of us, ordinarily working class residents who mostly are long time residents of PAL Alto? 6. The new addition next to Wilkie Way all single story houses are very intrusive and the new height felt monstrous in the neighborhood. It doesn't conform our neighborhood appeal. 7. I took some of the pictures from Palo Alto Commons front and it's parking. There seems if plenty of space for them to expand. They could add more parking space at the underground lever and add three or four stories in top of that. It will be facing El Camino. That way, they can add more rooms without put hugh negative impact on the neighboring houses and streets. 8. Ventura neighborhood housing values are Palo Alto most under appreciated. I see my house valued almost the same in the last 10 years vs other neighborhoods have seen tremendous amount of value appreciation in hundred of thousands or in million. With this proposal Commons new additions plan, it will further deprive and decrease our home prices. Commons cannot and shouldn’t make money at the lost of our neighborhood home values 9. I heard some neighbors talking about selling their homes because of Commons proposal as they feel that they won't be able to enjoy their backyard peacefully after new additions. Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 244 3 Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 245 4 Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 246 5 Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 247 6 Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 248 7 Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 249 8 Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 250 9 Sent from my iPhone On Nov 9, 2023, at 3:29 PM, Kallas, Emily <Emily.Kallas@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote: Hi Mona, Thank you for speaking with me at the Development Center today to express your concerns regarding the proposed project. As we discussed: Here is the link to the Project Webpage, it will be update when revised plans are submitted by the Architect: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Planning‐Development‐Services/Current‐ Planning/Projects/4075‐El‐Camino‐Way Here is the link to the 8/7/23 Council Staff Report and Minutes: https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=12606 (under Study Session) https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Public/CompiledDocument?meetingTemplateId=12611&compileO utputType=1 I will notify you of any future public hearings, and you will also receive a post card in the mail two weeks prior to any scheduled meeting. A flowchart of the expected project process is here: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/2/development‐services/planning‐review/7.‐maps‐ zoning/planned‐community‐review‐process‐02‐03‐2023.pdf. We are on the 5th step, waiting for the applicant to revise the plans. I’m happy to answer any other questions you may have. Thanks, Emily Emily Kallas, AICP Planner Planning and Development Services Department (650) 617‐3125 | emily.kallas@cityofpaloalto.org www.cityofpaloalto.org Parcel Report | Palo Alto Zoning Code | Online Permitting System | Planning Forms & Applications | Planning Applications Mapped Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 251 1 Kallas, Emily From:Shashank Divekar <shashankdivekar@yahoo.com> Sent:Wednesday, December 6, 2023 11:26 AM To:Kallas, Emily Cc:Jayashree Divekar Subject:Objection to Palo Alto Commons Extension Plan Attachments:IMG_5862.jpg; IMG_5861 (1).jpg; IMG_6230.jpg CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Hello Emily, This is regarding the extension plan of Palo Alto Commons to add more stories with the addition of 14 rooms. We live in a single family home on 4054 Wilkie Way, right behind the Commons. We hereby would like to voice our strong opposition to the plan as it significantly affects the value of the property and our privacy. Adding these 14 rooms would create a tall high rise wall with overlooking balconies right behind our backyard fence. Palo Alto has valued schools, unique and prized houses and a great sense of community. We do not want this to be disrupted. The current existing structures at Palo Alto Commons are already a compromise when they were first constructed. There can be no further compromises. At the Community outreach meeting, we understood that Charlene Kussner from the Commons would model a two-story addition, and we have heard nothing about that. Her offer seems disingenuous and misleading at this point. We are also writing to ask about the 2 x 4 wooden structures or “sticks” as Charlene referred to them. If the plans are not approved why are they adding the sticks/wood structure? See attached photos. When can they be taken down? They are oppressive and depressing for us and the noise from the ongoing construction is bothersome. If they are not approved, they are also illegal. We are no longer able to use the backyard to relax anymore or for any other family activities that require privacy. As you can see from the photos, the structures already tower over our backyard. We understood Councilman Lauing to have said at the study session that the rooms and services at the Commons cost $225,000.00 per year. That is over $3,000,000 revenue increase for the Commons with the addition of 14 rooms. Though the city will collect more tax revenue, it does not have to be at the expense of the residents along Wilkie Way and W. Meadow. We are also concerned about increase in visitor traffic on our street due to increased residents in those 14 rooms. It is unfair to us to have our lives and quality of life forever altered because of this extension. PLEASE HELP STOP THIS EXTENSION PLAN OF PALO ALTO COMMONS !! You don't often get email from shashankdivekar@yahoo.com. Learn why this is important Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 252 2 Sincerely, Shashank Divekar (650) 681-7494 Jayashree Divekar (650) 681-7495 Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 253 1 Kallas, Emily From:seanshari <seanshari@comcast.net> Sent:Saturday, January 6, 2024 5:49 PM To:Lait, Jonathan Cc:Velasquez, Ingrid; Kallas, Emily; Rice, Danille; City Mgr; hermesmh2@yahoo.com Subject:Re: 4075 El Camino Way - The Commons Expansion Hello Jonathan, I’m happy to say that the “sticks” outlining the proposed expansion are now down! Thank you very much! Happy New Year! Sean and Shari McDaniel On Dec 22, 2023, at 2:42 PM, seanshari <seanshari@comcast.net> wrote: Hello Jonathan, I’m sorry to say that the “sticks” outlining the proposed expansion are still up. Thanks for your communication. Happy holidays! Sean McDaniel On Dec 20, 2023, at 1:31 PM, Lait, Jonathan <Jonathan.Lait@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote: Hi Mr. McDaniel, Thank you for your email message below. I understand the poles have been removed. If this is not consistent with your understanding, please let me know. With regard to the pending development application, please continue to coordinate with Emily Kallas the project planner reviewing the application. She can provide you updates and let you know of opportunities to participate in the process going forward. Thank you, Jonathan Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 254 2 <image003.png> JONATHAN LAIT Director Planning and Development Department (650) 329‐2676 | jonathan.lait@cityofpaloalto.org www.cityofpaloalto.org <image004.png> From: Family <seanshari@comcast.net> Sent: Friday, December 15, 2023 12:44 PM To: Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org> Cc: hermesmh2@yahoo.com Subject: Re: 4075 El Camino Way ‐ The Commons Expansion [Some people who received this message don't often get email from seanshari@comcast.net. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ Dear Council Members, Below is the email and photos that I recently sent to Emily Kallas at the city planning office. My neighbor, who is “cc” on this email, informed that it would be better to send it to you council members as you are the final decision makers. As you take a look at the photos, you can imagine the invasive nature of the proposed expansion. I know that many of my neighbors work full‐time and it is hard for them to carve out the time to communicate. All that I have spoken to are opposed to this expansion. The compromises were made for The Common's structure and its impact on nearby residents when first built. I have lived with those impacts for 30 years. The Commons already encroaches on our lives and increasing the structural height along the Wilkie Way side of the building is unacceptable. Thank you for your representation. Sincerely, Sean McDaniel > Hello Emily, > I am writing to ask about the 2 x 4 wooden structures or “sticks” as Charlene Kussner from the Commons referred to them. When can they be taken down? They are oppressive and depressing for us. We don’t go in the backyard to relax anymore. > > I have attached some photos for your review and for the council’s consideration regarding the appropriateness of this proposed expansion. Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 255 3 > > At the Community outreach meeting, I understood that Charlene would model a two‐ story addition, and I have heard nothing about that. Her offer seems disingenuous at this point. > > We are still very opposed to the development. I believe Councilman Lauing said at the study session that the rooms and services at the Commons cost $225,000.00 per year. That is a $3,000,000 revenue increase for the Commons with the addition of 14 rooms. Though the city will collect more tax revenue, it is unfair that the residents along Wilkie Way and W. Meadow have their lives forever altered. > > I hope all is well for you. Thank you for your efforts on our behalf. > > Sincerely, > Sean McDaniel > > > <image013.jpg> <image014.jpg> <image015.jpg> <image016.jpg> > Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 256 1 Kallas, Emily From:James Porter <jporter992003@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, October 7, 2024 9:55 PM To:Charlene Kussner; Yangsze Choo; Tim Davis; Lily Lee Cc:dbowman@ipaoc.com; Kevin Ji; Kallas, Emily; ntelusca@gmail.com; Jenny Chen; Grace (Yan Feng) Wang Subject:Re: Palo Alto Commons Community Outreach Meeting: Tree Screening Discussion CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Thanks Tim and Charlene, Just a few additional considerations from 4080 Wilkie Way. - Our family is 100% supportive of evergreen trees. - Denser foliage is better - 40 feet height is preferable. We noted some tree suggestions that were 20 feet. This seems to low to obscure the addition at all - Also could you look at shade tolerant evergreens as we note that the addition may shade the newly planted tree significantly given its position? We are looking forward to the other tree recommendations. Thanks, James Porter On Monday, October 7, 2024 at 04:58:17 PM PDT, Lily Lee <lee_lilyning@yahoo.com> wrote: Thank you Tim, This information is very helpful! Lily On Monday, October 7, 2024 at 09:45:27 AM PDT, Tim Davis <tim@wilsondavisassociates.com> wrote: Good morning everyone, See my responses to the questions below in Red. 1. I thought Charlene said we would be given 3 tree options to review. Will you send us another proposed species to review? I will research and provide an additional evergreen tree species. 2. The descriptions are related to Santa Barbara conditions. I was just at Santa Barbara 2 weeks ago. Conditions are not the same as here. Could you please give us information about how the trees would do in the local environment? I'm interested in how quickly they would grow in our environment and how long hardy, resistant to insects/disease, drought tolerant, etc. they would be in our environment. I noticed that the landscape architect is from San Bernardino. Perhaps they could communicate with local arborists? I will in a separate email ask the Santa Clara County extension agents and Canopy nonprofit (which Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 257 2 works with the City of Palo Alto) and cc you. The trees selected were chosen from my reaching out to Moon Valley Nursery northern California location for trees that they grow, and that would be compatible with the Palo Alto location. The Water Use Calculations of Landscape Species (WUCOLS) put out by UC Davis and used by California Landscape Architects for drought tolerance indicate that both species are compatible in the Palo Alto area as a medium water use tree. 3. I like that the Hymenosporum flavum is evergreen. That will maximize the screening effect. However, the Cercis canadensis is deciduous. Would you suggest some evergreen trees instead? The choice of the Cercis was to provide a small tree with colorful foliage to offset the large amount of green foliage. We can substitute the Cercis occidentalis for the Cercis canadensis, Which is a native variety, however the location that we are proposing is not a suitable location for a native species. 4. I noticed that neither species is native. Native plants that are well-adapted to our local environment can often be more sustainable and support the local ecosystem. Could you suggest some native species? The existing environment would not be suitable for native trees. The existing plant material is not a native plant palette and the existing irrigation would be too much for native plants and if reduce the irrigation so as not to over water the native plants you will stress the non-native plants and risk losing them or vice versa. Cheers! Tim Davis, ASLA Wilson Davis Associates 2825 Litchfield Dr. Riverside, CA 92503 Ph. (951) 353-2436 ext. 1001 Cell (951) 255-0402 tim@wilsondavisassociates.com “The bitterness of poor quality is remembered long after the sweetness of low price has faded from memory” From: Charlene Kussner <charlene@wqliving.com> Sent: Monday, October 7, 2024 8:05 AM To: Yangsze Choo <yangszechoo@gmail.com>; Lily Lee <lee_lilyning@yahoo.com> Cc: Tim Davis <tim@wilsondavisassociates.com>; dbowman@ipaoc.com; Kevin Ji <kevinji2021@gmail.com>; Emily Kallas <emily.kallas@cityofpaloalto.org>; JamesYahoo Porter <jporter992003@yahoo.com>; ntelusca@gmail.com; Jenny Chen <jennyslchen@yahoo.com>; Grace (Yan Feng) Wang <yanfengwang2@yahoo.com> Subject: RE: Fw: Palo Alto Commons Community Outreach Meeting: Tree Screening Discussion Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 258 3 Thank you for this response. We will incorporate into our plans. Charlene Kussner | V.P. of Development & Asset Management charlene@wqliving.com C: 951.757.2571 Corporate Office: 185 South State Street, Suite 1300, Salt Lake City, UT 84111 CA Office: Wellquest of Menifee Lakes, 29914 Antelope Road, Menifee CA 92586 “All that I have seen teaches me to trust the Creator for all I have not seen.” Ralph Waldo Emerson THIS MESSAGE CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION AND IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE INDIVIDUAL(S) NAMED. IF YOU ARE NOT THE NAMED ADDRESSEE(S) YOU SHOULD NOT DISSEMINATE, DISTRIBUTE OR COPY THIS E-MAIL. PLEASE NOTIFY THE SENDER IMMEDIATELY BY E-MAIL IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS E-MAIL BY MISTAKE AND DELETE THIS E-MAIL FROM YOUR SYSTEM. E-MAIL TRANSMISSION CANNOT BE GUARANTEED TO BE SECURE OR ERROR-FREE AS INFORMATION COULD BE INTERCEPTED, CORRUPTLOST, DESTROYED, ARRIVE LATE OR INCOMPLETE, OR CONTAIN VIRUSES. THE SENDER THEREFORE DOES NOT ACCEPT LIABILITY FOR ANY ERRORS OR OMISSIONS IN THE CONTENTS OF THIS MESSAGE, WHICH ARISE AS A RESULT OF E-MAIL TRANSMISSION. VERIFICATION IS REQUIRED PLEASE REQUEST A HARD-COPY VERSION. COPYRIGHT 2018. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED BY WELLQUEST LIVING,LLC, AND ITS AFFILIATES. From: Yangsze Choo <yangszechoo@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, October 6, 2024 9:54 PM To: Lily Lee <lee_lilyning@yahoo.com> Cc: Charlene Kussner <charlene@wqliving.com>; tim@wilsondavisassociates.com; dbowman@ipaoc.com; Kevin Ji <kevinji2021@gmail.com>; Emily Kallas <emily.kallas@cityofpaloalto.org>; JamesYahoo Porter <jporter992003@yahoo.com>; ntelusca@gmail.com; Jenny Chen <jennyslchen@yahoo.com>; Grace (Yan Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 259 4 Feng) Wang <yanfengwang2@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: Fw: Palo Alto Commons Community Outreach Meeting: Tree Screening Discussion CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi Charlene and Tim, We are the residents of 4076 Wilkie Way, and we would like to have a tree at the fenceline with 4076 Wilkie. More screening is preferred by us, especially if it is evergreen. Best wishes, Natalie On Sun, Oct 6, 2024 at 9:49 PM Lily Lee <lee_lilyning@yahoo.com> wrote: Hello Charlene and Tim, Thank you for sending the draft revised landscape plan. I have several comments: 1. I thought Charlene said we would be given 3 tree options to review. Will you send us another proposed species to review? 2. The descriptions are related to Santa Barbara conditions. I was just at Santa Barbara 2 weeks ago. Conditions are not the same as here. Could you please give us information about how the trees would do in the local environment? I'm interested in how quickly they would grow in our environment and how long hardy, resistent to insects/disease, drought tolerant, etc. they would be in our environment. I noticed that the landscape architect is from San Bernardino. Perhaps they could communicate with local arborists? I will in a separate email ask the Santa Clara County extension agents and Canopy nonprofit (which works with the City of Palo Alto) and cc you. 3. I like that the hymenosporum flavum is evergreen. That will maximize the screening effect. However, the cercic canadensis is deciduous. Would you suggest some evergreen trees instead? 4. I noticed that neither species is native. Native plants that are well-adapted to our local environment can often be more sustainable and support the local ecosystem. Could you suggest some native species? Thank you for considering my comments. Feel free to call if you would like to talk more. Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 260 5 Lily Lee 4080 Wilkie Way 650-815-9759 ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Charlene Kussner <charlene@wqliving.com> Date: Fri, Aug 30, 2024 at 7:46 AM Subject: Palo Alto Commons Community Outreach Meeting: Tree Screening Discussion To: Kevinji2021@gmail.com <Kevinji2021@gmail.com>, jennyslchen@yahoo.com <jennyslchen@yahoo.com>, tee_lilyning@yahoo.com <tee_lilyning@yahoo.com>, yanfengwang2@yahoo.com <yanfengwang2@yahoo.com> Cc: Daniel Bowman <dbowman@ipaoc.com>, Tim Davis <tim@wilsondavisassociates.com> Good Morning Neighbors on Wilkie Way~ Thank you for coming to the Community meeting last week to discuss planting trees to add more privacy/screening the building from your rear yards. As we discussed, some residents wanted trees against the building and some did not want added shade in their rear yards. We have added some trees up against the building, to screen the new units from view. These trees do not add any significant shade impacts, and there is only one tree which adds just a little shade at the fence line, at 4076 Wilkie Way address. We can certainly remove this tree if no added shade is requested. We appreciate your feedback on this matter. Please see the attached exhibits as you requested: 3D landscape rendering showing new trees and the building Landscape Plan with added trees for privacy, screening Updated Shadow Studies based on adding these trees. I am here and available for further dialog on this matter. Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 261 6 Charlene Kussner | V.P. of Development & Asset Management charlene@wqliving.com C: 951.757.2571 Corporate Office: 185 South State Street, Suite 1300, Salt Lake City, UT 84111 CA Office: Wellquest of Menifee Lakes, 29914 Antelope Road, Menifee CA 92586 “All that I have seen teaches me to trust the Creator for all I have not seen.” Ralph Waldo Emerson THIS MESSAGE CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION AND IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE INDIVIDUAL(S) NAMED. IF YOU ARE NOT THE NAMED ADDRESSEE(S) YOU SHOULD NOT DISSEMINATE, DISTRIBUTE OR COPY THIS E-MAIL. PLEASE NOTIFY THE SENDERIMMEDIATELY BY E-MAIL IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS E-MAIL BY MISTAKE AND DELETE THIS E-MAIL FROM YOUR SYSTEM. E-MAIL TRANSMISSION CANNOT BE GUARANTEED TO BE SECURE OR ERROR-FREE AS INFORMATION COULD BE INTERCEPTED, CORRU LOST, DESTROYED, ARRIVE LATE OR INCOMPLETE, OR CONTAIN VIRUSES. THE SENDER THEREFORE DOES NOT ACCEPT LIABILITY FOR ANY ERRORS OR OMISSIONS IN THE CONTENTS OF THIS MESSAGE, WHICH ARISE AS A RESULT OF E-MAIL TRANSMISSIONVERIFICATION IS REQUIRED PLEASE REQUEST A HARD-COPY VERSION. COPYRIGHT 2018. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED BY WELLQUEST LIVING,LLC, AND ITS AFFILIATES. Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 262 1 Kallas, Emily From:Charlene Kussner <charlene@wqliving.com> Sent:Monday, September 23, 2024 11:11 AM To:Kallas, Emily Cc:Daniel Bowman; Steve Sandholtz; Stephen Reller; Li Li Subject:FW: Palo Alto Commons Community Outreach Meeting updates CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. HI Emily, I have followed up a couple times with our neighbors, this has been our only response to date. (below) Avant Pipe/Exhaust update: We are working with our contractor, Vance Brown, to increase the exhaust pipe size to 5 inches, and then extend the pipe away from the resident property, around the corner of the building towards our courtyard. This should solve the issue, I have left two messages for that resident, Huibin Tang, with no response. I will document the new piping with photos and video prior to the Oct. 17th ARB meeting. Thank you! Charlene Kussner | V.P. of Development & Asset Management charlene@wqliving.com C: 951.757.2571 Corporate Office: 185 South State Street, Suite 1300, Salt Lake City, UT 84111 CA Office: Wellquest of Menifee Lakes, 29914 Antelope Road, Menifee CA 92586 “All that I have seen teaches me to trust the Creator for all I have not seen.” Ralph Waldo Emerson THIS MESSAGE CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION AND IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE INDIVIDUAL(S) NAMED. IF YOU ARE NOT THE NAMED ADDRESSEE(S) YOU SHOULD NOT DISSEMINATE, DISTRIBUTE OR COPY THIS E‐MAIL. PLEASE NOTIFY THE SENDER IMMEDIATELY BY E‐MAIL IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS E‐MAIL BY MISTAKE AND DELETE THIS E‐MAIL FROM YOUR SYSTEM. E‐MAIL TRANSMISSION CANNOT BE GUARANTEED TO BE SECURE OR ERROR‐FREE AS INFORMATION COULD BE INTERCEPTED, CORRUPTED, LOST, DESTROYED, ARRIVE LATE OR INCOMPLETE, OR CONTAIN VIRUSES. THE SENDER THEREFORE DOES NOT ACCEPT LIABILITY FOR ANY ERRORS OR OMISSIONS IN THE CONTENTS OF THIS MESSAGE, WHICH ARISE AS A RESULT OF E‐MAIL TRANSMISSION. IF VERIFICATION IS REQUIRED PLEASE REQUEST A HARD‐COPY VERSION. COPYRIGHT 2018. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED BY WELLQUEST LIVING,LLC, AND ITS AFFILIATES. From: Kevin Ji <kevinji2021@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, September 22, 2024 9:42 PM To: Charlene Kussner <charlene@wqliving.com> Subject: Re: Palo Alto Commons Community Outreach Meeting: Tree Screening Discussion Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 263 2 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi Charlene, Thanks for reaching out. GIve me a couple days to chat with the neighbors and I'll circle back with you. Sincerely, Kevin On Thu, Sep 19, 2024 at 2:57 PM Charlene Kussner <charlene@wqliving.com> wrote: HI Kevin, just following up on this. Any further comments we need to incorporate? Please let me know. Thanks so much~ Charlene Kussner | V.P. of Development & Asset Management charlene@wqliving.com C: 951.757.2571 Corporate Office: 185 South State Street, Suite 1300, Salt Lake City, UT 84111 CA Office: Wellquest of Menifee Lakes, 29914 Antelope Road, Menifee CA 92586 “All that I have seen teaches me to trust the Creator for all I have not seen.” Ralph Waldo Emerson THIS MESSAGE CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION AND IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE INDIVIDUAL(S) NAMED. IF YOU ARE NOT THE NAMED ADDRESSEE(S) YOU SHOULD NOT DISSEMINATE, DISTRIBUTE OR COPY THIS E‐MAIL. PLEASE NOTIFY THE SENDER IMMEDIATELY BY E‐MAIL IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS E‐MAIL BY MISTAKE AND DELETE THIS E‐MAIL FROM YOUR SYSTEM. E‐MAIL TRANSMISSION CANNOT BE GUARANTEED TO BE SECURE OR ERROR‐FREE AS INFORMATION COULD BE INTERCEPTED, CORRUPTED, LOST, DESTROYED, ARRIVE LATE OR INCOMPLETE, OR CONTAIN VIRUSES. THE SENDER THEREFORE DOES NOT ACCEPT LIABILITY FOR ANY ERRORS OR OMISSIONS IN THE CONTENTS OF THIS MESSAGE, WHICH ARISE AS A RESULT OF E‐MAIL TRANSMISSION. IF VERIFICATION IS REQUIRED PLEASE REQUEST A HARD‐COPY VERSION. COPYRIGHT 2018. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED BY WELLQUEST LIVING,LLC, AND ITS AFFILIATES. Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 264 3 From: Daniel Bowman <dbowman@ipaoc.com> Sent: Monday, September 9, 2024 9:43 AM To: Charlene Kussner <charlene@wqliving.com>; Kevin Ji <kevinji2021@gmail.com> Cc: Tim Davis <tim@wilsondavisassociates.com>; jennyslchen@yahoo.com; tee_lilyning@yahoo.com; yanfengwang2@yahoo.com Subject: RE: Palo Alto Commons Community Outreach Meeting: Tree Screening Discussion CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Kevin, The existing shade plans are on the sheets above the proposed shade plans. It is the one without the green and red areas. Green being the impact from the added trees and red being the impact from the building areas. Below is the square footages for the proposed added shade at the dates and times that are on the shade plans. Since the sun is always moving, these times are a snapshot of the shadows throughout the year. Dec 21 having the most shade impact during the year and June 21 having the least shade impact. 3 times are taken at noon and 1 at 4pm near sunset (at sunset its 100% shade by definition). The area of all of the properties along Wilkie Way is 57,110 sf. So the worst case shade impact of these times would add shade to 0.29% of the property areas. All of which will be on roofs for that time (dec 21st at 4 pm). Square Footages of Shade Impact on Neighbor’s Property Dates and Times Area of Added Shade From building addition From proposed trees Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 265 4 March 21st at 12 PM 0 sf 28 sf June 21st at 12 PM 0 sf 0 sf Dec 21st at 12 PM 43 sf (37 sf on roofs) 86 sf Dec 21st at 4 PM 157 sf (all on roofs) 7 sf (all on roofs) DANIEL BOWMAN, NCARB IRWIN PARTNERS ARCHITECTS 245 Fischer Avenue, Suite B2 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 714.557.2448 | dbowman@ipaoc.com | ipaoc.com From: Charlene Kussner <charlene@wqliving.com> Sent: Monday, September 9, 2024 7:40 AM To: Kevin Ji <kevinji2021@gmail.com>; Daniel Bowman <dbowman@ipaoc.com> Cc: Tim Davis <tim@wilsondavisassociates.com>; jennyslchen@yahoo.com; tee_lilyning@yahoo.com; yanfengwang2@yahoo.com Subject: RE: Palo Alto Commons Community Outreach Meeting: Tree Screening Discussion Yes, we do. Daniel can send to you this morning. Charlene Kussner | V.P. of Development & Asset Management Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 266 5 charlene@wqliving.com C: 951.757.2571 Corporate Office: 185 South State Street, Suite 1300, Salt Lake City, UT 84111 CA Office: Wellquest of Menifee Lakes, 29914 Antelope Road, Menifee CA 92586 “All that I have seen teaches me to trust the Creator for all I have not seen.” Ralph Waldo Emerson THIS MESSAGE CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION AND IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE INDIVIDUAL(S) NAMED. IF YOU ARE NOT THE NAMED ADDRESSEE(S) YOU SHOULD NOT DISSEMINATE, DISTRIBUTE OR COPY THIS E‐MAIL. PLEASE NOTIFY THE SENDER IMMEDIATELY BY E‐MAIL IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS E‐MAIL BY MISTAKE AND DELETE THIS E‐MAIL FROM YOUR SYSTEM. E‐MAIL TRANSMISSION CANNOT BE GUARANTEED TO BE SECURE OR ERROR‐FREE AS INFORMATION COULD BE INTERCEPTED, CORRUPTED, LOST, DESTROYED, ARRIVE LATE OR INCOMPLETE, OR CONTAIN VIRUSES. THE SENDER THEREFORE DOES NOT ACCEPT LIABILITY FOR ANY ERRORS OR OMISSIONS IN THE CONTENTS OF THIS MESSAGE, WHICH ARISE AS A RESULT OF E‐MAIL TRANSMISSION. IF VERIFICATION IS REQUIRED PLEASE REQUEST A HARD‐COPY VERSION. COPYRIGHT 2018. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED BY WELLQUEST LIVING,LLC, AND ITS AFFILIATES. From: Kevin Ji <kevinji2021@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, September 7, 2024 10:21 AM To: Daniel Bowman <dbowman@ipaoc.com> Cc: Tim Davis <tim@wilsondavisassociates.com>; Charlene Kussner <charlene@wqliving.com>; jennyslchen@yahoo.com; tee_lilyning@yahoo.com; yanfengwang2@yahoo.com Subject: Re: Palo Alto Commons Community Outreach Meeting: Tree Screening Discussion CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi All, Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 267 6 Thanks for this information. I was wondering if you have a shade analysis not against what is being proposed to be built, but what is currently there. Is there any way we can get the square footage of new shade caused by the new construction? It is hard to measure this with these paper print outs. Thanks, Kevin On Wed, Sep 4, 2024 at 9:37 AM Daniel Bowman <dbowman@ipaoc.com> wrote: The shadow study drawings are on 11x17 sheets. If you print it on 8 1/2x11 (standard) you can either scale it down 50% (so the scale of the drawing would be 1”=100’) or you can print it on two 8 1/2x11 sheets to keep it at 1”=50’. Sheet 1: Sheet 2: DANIEL BOWMAN, NCARB IRWIN PARTNERS ARCHITECTS 245 Fischer Avenue, Suite B2 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 714.557.2448 | dbowman@ipaoc.com | ipaoc.com Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 268 7 From: Tim Davis <tim@wilsondavisassociates.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 4, 2024 8:03 AM To: charlene@wqliving.com; Kevin Ji <kevinji2021@gmail.com> Cc: jennyslchen@yahoo.com; tee_lilyning@yahoo.com; yanfengwang2@yahoo.com; Daniel Bowman <dbowman@ipaoc.com> Subject: RE: Palo Alto Commons Community Outreach Meeting: Tree Screening Discussion Charlene, Here are the tree descriptions. As for the height when planted that would depend on the size of the tree we intend to install. Most likely it will take 5‐10 years to provide the privacy they are hoping for. Cheers! Tim Davis, ASLA Wilson Davis Associates 2825 Litchfield Dr. Riverside, CA 92503 Ph. (951) 353‐2436 ext. 1001 Cell (951) 255‐0402 tim@wilsondavisassociates.com “The bitterness of poor quality is remembered long after the sweetness of low price has faded from memory” From: Charlene Kussner <charlene@wqliving.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 4, 2024 6:53 AM To: Kevin Ji <kevinji2021@gmail.com> Cc: jennyslchen@yahoo.com; tee_lilyning@yahoo.com; yanfengwang2@yahoo.com; Daniel Bowman <dbowman@ipaoc.com>; Tim Davis <tim@wilsondavisassociates.com> Subject: RE: Palo Alto Commons Community Outreach Meeting: Tree Screening Discussion Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 269 8 Good Morning! Thank you for your response. Daniel and Tim can provide these answers for you. Charlene Kussner | V.P. of Development & Asset Management charlene@wqliving.com C: 951.757.2571 Corporate Office: 185 South State Street, Suite 1300, Salt Lake City, UT 84111 CA Office: Wellquest of Menifee Lakes, 29914 Antelope Road, Menifee CA 92586 “All that I have seen teaches me to trust the Creator for all I have not seen.” Ralph Waldo Emerson THIS MESSAGE CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION AND IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE INDIVIDUAL(S) NAMED. IF YOU ARE NOT THE NAMED ADDRESSEE(S) YOU SHOULD NOT DISSEMINATE, DISTRIBUTE OR COPY THIS E‐MAIL. PLEASE NOTIFY THE SENDER IMMEDIATELY BY E‐MAIL IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS E‐MAIL BY MISTAKE AND DELETE THIS E‐MAIL FROM YOUR SYSTEM. E‐MAIL TRANSMISSION CANNOT BE GUARANTEED TO BE SECURE OR ERROR‐FREE AS INFORMATION COULD BE INTERCEPTED, CORRUPTED, LOST, DESTROYED, ARRIVE LATE OR INCOMPLETE, OR CONTAIN VIRUSES. THE SENDER THEREFORE DOES NOT ACCEPT LIABILITY FOR ANY ERRORS OR OMISSIONS IN THE CONTENTS OF THIS MESSAGE, WHICH ARISE AS A RESULT OF E‐MAIL TRANSMISSION. IF VERIFICATION IS REQUIRED PLEASE REQUEST A HARD‐COPY VERSION. COPYRIGHT 2018. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED BY WELLQUEST LIVING,LLC, AND ITS AFFILIATES. From: Kevin Ji <kevinji2021@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 3, 2024 11:12 PM To: Charlene Kussner <charlene@wqliving.com> Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 270 9 Cc: jennyslchen@yahoo.com; tee_lilyning@yahoo.com; yanfengwang2@yahoo.com; Daniel Bowman <dbowman@ipaoc.com>; Tim Davis <tim@wilsondavisassociates.com> Subject: Re: Palo Alto Commons Community Outreach Meeting: Tree Screening Discussion CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi Charlene, Thanks for sending this over to me. I had a couple of follow up questions. 1. Can you help me understand the scaling on the shadow study? I see that it says 1" = 50'. But how large of a surface is this printed out on? If I were to print this out on a standard letter size paper, I imagine it would be much smaller than if I were to print it out on a large poster board size. 2. Can you attach the blow up on the information about these trees? The information on the plant schedule and the species is too small to see on a computer. 3. What are the growing schedules of these trees? How tall will they start out as and how long will it take them to grow to a height where it will actually provide shade/privacy? Thanks, Kevin On Fri, Aug 30, 2024 at 7:46 AM Charlene Kussner <charlene@wqliving.com> wrote: Good Morning Neighbors on Wilkie Way~ Thank you for coming to the Community meeting last week to discuss planting trees to add more privacy/screening the building from your rear yards. As we discussed, some residents wanted trees against the building and some did not want added shade in their rear yards. Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 271 10 We have added some trees up against the building, to screen the new units from view. These trees do not add any significant shade impacts, and there is only one tree which adds just a little shade at the fence line, at 4076 Wilkie Way address. We can certainly remove this tree if no added shade is requested. We appreciate your feedback on this matter. Please see the attached exhibits as you requested: 3D landscape rendering showing new trees and the building Landscape Plan with added trees for privacy, screening Updated Shadow Studies based on adding these trees. I am here and available for further dialog on this matter. Charlene Kussner | V.P. of Development & Asset Management charlene@wqliving.com C: 951.757.2571 Corporate Office: 185 South State Street, Suite 1300, Salt Lake City, UT 84111 CA Office: Wellquest of Menifee Lakes, 29914 Antelope Road, Menifee CA 92586 “All that I have seen teaches me to trust the Creator for all I have not seen.” Ralph Waldo Emerson THIS MESSAGE CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION AND IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE INDIVIDUAL(S) NAMED. IF YOU ARE NOT THE NAMED ADDRESSEE(S) YOU SHOULD NOT DISSEMINATE, DISTRIBUTE OR COPY THIS E‐MAIL. PLEASE NOTIFY THE SENDER IMMEDIATELY BY E‐MAIL IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS E‐MAIL BY MISTAKE AND DELETE THIS E‐MAIL FROM YOUR SYSTEM. E‐MAIL TRANSMISSION CANNOT BE GUARANTEED TO BE SECURE OR ERROR‐FREE AS INFORMATION COULD BE INTERCEPTED, CORRUPTED, LOST, DESTROYED, ARRIVE LATE OR INCOMPLETE, OR CONTAIN VIRUSES. THE SENDER THEREFORE DOES NOT ACCEPT LIABILITY FOR ANY ERRORS OR OMISSIONS IN THE CONTENTS OF THIS MESSAGE, WHICH ARISE AS A RESULT OF E‐MAIL TRANSMISSION. IF VERIFICATION IS REQUIRED PLEASE REQUEST A HARD‐COPY VERSION. COPYRIGHT 2018. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED BY WELLQUEST LIVING,LLC, AND ITS AFFILIATES. Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 272 11 Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 273 From:Lily Lee To:Kevin Ji; Kallas, Emily Subject:Re: Palo Alto Commons project - Timeline? Applicable landscaping/privacy requirements? Date:Tuesday, September 24, 2024 9:49:49 PM Attachments:image006.png image004.png image003.png image002.png image001.png image007.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hi Emioly, Thank you for this information. I was wondering if this is still the plan? Lily On Wednesday, August 28, 2024 at 11:29:38 AM PDT, Kallas, Emily <emily.kallas@cityofpaloalto.org>wrote: Hi Lily, Yes, that timeline is accurate to the process. Currently, assuming the fastest possible timeline, it would look like this: ARB 10/17 – this is tentatively scheduled and likely to remain on this date PTC 11/13 Council 12/16 – this is the last one of 2024 There’s a lot of factors that go into this, but this at least gives a sense of what is possible. Many items, such as review of the TDM plan, could delay this schedule. This schedule would not be affected by the election, but if it becomes certain that the PTC would be in 2024 and Council would be in 2025, then any PTC members who win the Council election may choose to recuse themselves from the PTC vote since they can only vote once as either PTC or Council. Thanks,Emily Emily Kallas, AICP Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 274 Planner Planning and Development Services Department (650) 617-3125 | emily.kallas@cityofpaloalto.org www.cityofpaloalto.org Parcel Report | Palo Alto Zoning Code | Online Permitting System | Planning Forms & Applications | Planning Applications Mapped From: Lily Lee <lee_lilyning@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 4:59 PM To: Kevin Ji <kevinji2021@gmail.com>; Kallas, Emily <Emily.Kallas@cityofpaloalto.org> Subject: Re: Palo Alto Commons project - Timeline? Applicable landscaping/privacy requirements? CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of openingattachments and clicking on links. Hi Emily, Thank you for your speedy and substantive response! I am attaching the 1st fil as a Word doc. I'm sorry this link did not work for you. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1IX-3UxhfHq1EfNYf3d4tordXKVtnTwQYT1oCoOkLozg/edit?usp=sharing On Monday, August 26, 2024 at 09:19:42 AM PDT, Kallas, Emily <emily.kallas@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote: Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 275 Hi Lily, I’m happy to provide a project update, and please feel free to share my response with other neighbors. 1. Thank you for sending over the documents, unfortunately I was only able to open 2nd link with the meeting notes, and not the 1st link? If you could please download it and resend it as a Word doc, that would be great. 2. In terms of the 2nd link, thank you very much for the summary since I was unable to attend the meeting. I have a couple additional notes to add: The Planning Dept. would also prefer screening landscaping to be evergreen, however we are open to neighbor preferences. The allowed residential fence height is 7 ft (not 6 ft, also this is inclusive of any lattice). 8 ft is allowed where residential abuts non-residential, and with Staff approval. It would be possible to rebuild the 8ft fence, though it cannot be any taller. There may be Fire Code/egress issues with only having 5ft sill windows in a unit, I will follow up on this. Secondary windows may have a 5ft sill, but I believe each sleeping room is required to have at least 1 egress window. 3. Yes, we are currently anticipating the project will go back to the ARB in October. It is tentativelyscheduled for 10/17, though this is subject to change. It does not make sense to return to ARB until wehave the revised landscape design, since the ARB specifically asked for that. 4. As a Planned Community Project, the project is not required to meet the code requirements of PAMC 18.24 or 18.40. However, those are starting points for the ARB, PTC, and Council to use to determine if what the applicants are asking for is reasonable and should be approved. Thanks, Emily Emily Kallas, AICP Planner Planning and Development Services Department (650) 617-3125 | emily.kallas@cityofpaloalto.org www.cityofpaloalto.org Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 276 Parcel Report | Palo Alto Zoning Code | Online Permitting System | Planning Forms & Applications | Planning Applications Mapped From: Lily Lee <lee_lilyning@yahoo.com> Sent: Sunday, August 25, 2024 3:53 PMTo: Kallas, Emily <Emily.Kallas@cityofpaloalto.org>; Kevin Ji <kevinji2021@gmail.com>Subject: Palo Alto Commons project - Timeline? Applicable landscaping/privacy requirements? CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Hi Emily, I hope you are well! Some neighbors have requested more information about the bigger picture timeline. I drafted a summary to help them. Would you mind reviewing this and making any corrections or additions? I hope all of us will be less confused that way: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1IX-3UxhfHq1EfNYf3d4tordXKVtnTwQYT1oCoOkLozg/edit?usp=sharing Also, Charlene told me that she expects to go back to the ARB in 45 days, which means October. I thought they would revise the landscape plan first based on the comments that we gave them. But maybe they do not think they need to make much change? In addition, here are some notes I took from the 8/22 meeting. I asked the neighbors to add/edit based on what theyremember from the meeting. I may not have remembered correctly what Charlene said about a back fence heightrestrictions and the option for increasing the height if a request for a special permit is granted. I would appreciateyour help with making sure I have the right information about that too. 2024-08-22 Landscape architects Mtg Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 277 2024-08-22 Landscape architects Mtg Wellquest Living meeting with Landscape Architects Plans to expand Palo Alto Commons 8/22, 6 pm, 4071 El Camino... Finally, thank you for the 2 links below. I wanted to clarify - does that mean that the 2 links I looked up do not apply to this project? 18.40.260 Visual Screening and Landscaping Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 278 18.40.260 Visual Screening and Landscaping Legal publisher offering ordinance codification services for local governments, specializing in providing codes ... And this? 18.40.130 Landscaping 18.40.130 Landscaping Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 279 Legal publisher offering ordinance codification services for local governments, specializing in providing codes ... I know you are busy. Please do not feel any urgency to respond this week (or even next week) to these questions. But maybe in the next month, if you have some quiet time, I would appreciate your advice. You can respond piece by piece as you have time. And if it is easier for you, of course, call any time. Again, thank you very much for your help! I have learned a lot from you! Lily 650-815-9749 ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: Kallas, Emily <emily.kallas@cityofpaloalto.org> To: Lily Lee <lee_lilyning@yahoo.com>; Kevin Ji <kevinji2021@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, July 22, 2024 at 09:29:30 AM PDT Subject: RE: Summary of Board Member Baltay's conversation with Wilkie Way residents Hi Lily, Thank you for the summary. The existing privacy standards are located in two places: 18.24.050(b)(2) Privacy and Transitions to Residential Uses. I would specifically look at subsection (D) – the section starting with “Windows: within 30 feet of facing residential windows…” Individual Review Guidelines Guideline 5 (pages 14-15). These are the ones the PTC cited, though the ARB discussed/determined 18.24 would be more appropriate to apply. Thanks, Emily Emily Kallas, AICP Planner Planning and Development Services Department (650) 617-3125 | emily.kallas@cityofpaloalto.org Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 280 www.cityofpaloalto.org Parcel Report | Palo Alto Zoning Code | Online Permitting System | Planning Forms & Applications | Planning Applications Mapped From: Lily Lee <lee_lilyning@yahoo.com> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2024 6:20 PM To: Kallas, Emily <Emily.Kallas@cityofpaloalto.org>; Kevin Ji <kevinji2021@gmail.com>Subject: Summary of Board Member Baltay's conversation with Wilkie Way residents CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Hi Emily, Thank you for helping us understand the process. You requested a Summary of Board Member Baltay'sconversation with Wilkie Way residents. As I said he reiterated several things he said during the meeting. I did nottake notes, but below is what I remember. Kevin, plese add/correct: He thanked us for our input. He said the ARB is taking our concerns seriously and that is why it asked the applicant to come back with many additional tasks and changes in design. He appreciated Kevin's thorough research. Although he does not agree with some of Kevin's interpretation, using the existing code and other guidelines is the best way to influence the process. In that spirit, he recommended looking at the existing privacy standards, which is what he asked the applicant to apply. He said the ARB takes seriously the impacts on parking, noise, privacy, and visual impact. That is why it went beyond usual requirements to recommend no noise producing equipment in the 10 foot setback. Emily, is this what he was talking about? 18.40.260 Visual Screening and Landscaping Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 281 18.40.260 Visual Screening and Landscaping Legal publisher offering ordinance codification services for local governments, specializing in providing codes ... And this? 18.40.130 Landscaping Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 282 18.40.130 Landscaping Legal publisher offering ordinance codification services for local governments, specializing in providing codes ... Thank you again! Lily We removed a file from this message Your organization's email policy doesn't permit this type of file. If you need it, please contact your administrator. Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 283 File Details image006.emz (1783 bytes) © 2003 - 2019 Mimecast Services Limited. We removed a file from this message Your organization's email policy doesn't permit this type of file. If you need it, please contact your administrator. Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 284 File Details image008.emz (1547 bytes) © 2003 - 2019 Mimecast Services Limited. Item 3 Attachment E - Public Comments Packet Pg. 285 If you need assistance reviewing the above documents, please contact the Project Planner or call the Planner-on-Duty at 650-617-3117 or email planner@cityofpaloalto.org Project Plans In order to reduce paper consumption, a limited number of hard copy project plans are provided to Council members for their review. The same plans are available to the public, at all hours of the day, via the following online resources. Directions to Review Project Plans and Environmental Document Online: 1. Go to: bit.ly/PApendingprojects 2. Scroll down to find “4075 El Camino” and click the address link 3. Click on “Tell me more about 4075 El Camino Way” 4. On this project-specific webpage you will find a link to the project plans and other important information Direct Link to Project Webpage: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Planning-Development-Services/Current- Planning/Projects/4075-El-Camino-Way Item 3 Attachment F - Project Plans and Environmental Analysis Packet Pg. 286 245 Fischer Avenue, Suite B-2 Costa Mesa CA 92626(714) 557 2448 www.ipaoc.comA R C H I T E C T U R E P L A N N I N G C O N S U L T I N G A6.1 First Floor Plan9/17/2025 PALO ALTO COMMONSWellquest Living4075 El Camino Way, Palo Alto, CA 94306PROJECT NO: 21003 FLOOR PLAN LEGEND AREA OF WORK (SHADED) 1 2 3 El Cam i n o Way Wilk i e Way Neig h b o r s W Mea d o w Dr 1First Floor Plan1" = 40' Item 3 Attachment G - Additional Exhibit Packet Pg. 287 245 Fischer Avenue, Suite B-2 Costa Mesa CA 92626(714) 557 2448 www.ipaoc.comA R C H I T E C T U R E P L A N N I N G C O N S U L T I N G A6.2 Second Floor Plan9/17/2025 PALO ALTO COMMONSWellquest Living4075 El Camino Way, Palo Alto, CA 94306PROJECT NO: 21003 FLOOR PLAN LEGEND AREA OF WORK (SHADED) UP UP UP F 4 9 10 5 6 7 8 El Cam i n o Way Wilk i e Way Neig h b o r s W Mea d o w Dr 1Second Floor Plan1" = 40' Item 3 Attachment G - Additional Exhibit Packet Pg. 288 245 Fischer Avenue, Suite B-2 Costa Mesa CA 92626(714) 557 2448 www.ipaoc.comA R C H I T E C T U R E P L A N N I N G C O N S U L T I N G A6.3 Third Floor Plan9/17/2025 PALO ALTO COMMONSWellquest Living4075 El Camino Way, Palo Alto, CA 94306PROJECT NO: 21003 FLOOR PLAN LEGEND AREA OF WORK (SHADED) 11 12 13 El Cam i n o Way Wilk i e Way Neig h b o r s W Mea d o w Dr 1Third Floor Plan1" = 40' Item 3 Attachment G - Additional Exhibit Packet Pg. 289 245 Fischer Avenue, Suite B-2 Costa Mesa CA 92626(714) 557 2448 www.ipaoc.comA R C H I T E C T U R E P L A N N I N G C O N S U L T I N G A6.11 Exterior Building Sections - Daylight Plane9/17/2025 PALO ALTO COMMONSWellquest Living4075 El Camino Way, Palo Alto, CA 94306PROJECT NO: 21003 10'- 0 " 25'- 0 " 16'-0" 45° 45° DAYLIGHTPLANE 38.4'40.15' 60.23' 3:6DAYLIGHTINGPLANE (E) RESIDENT UNIT (E) RESIDENT UNIT CORRIDOR PROPERTYLINE CORRIDOR CORRIDOR 3rd FLRREMOVEDFROM PROPOSAL 10'-0 " 25'- 0 " 10'-3"12'-3" 45° 45° DAYLIGHTPLANE 38.6'40.15' 51.08' 3:6DAYLIGHTINGPLANE (E) RESIDENT UNIT (N) RESIDENT UNIT (E) RESIDENTUNIT STAIRS STAIRS STAIRS PROPERTYLINE (E) RESIDENTUNIT (E) RESIDENTUNIT 3rd FLRREMOVEDFROM PROPOSAL 5 10'- 0 " 25'- 0 " 27'-0" 45° 45° DAYLIGHTPLANE 38.5'40.14' 60.23' 3:6DAYLIGHTINGPLANEPROPERTYLINE (E) RESIDENT UNIT (E) RESIDENT UNIT (N) RESIDENT UNIT 3rd FLR27' FROM PL 12 10'- 0 " 25'- 0 " 20'-1" 45° 45° DAYLIGHTPLANE 38.3'40.11' 60.25' 3:6DAYLIGHTINGPLANE PROPERTYLINE (E) RESIDENT UNIT CORRIDOR CORRIDOR CORRIDOR (E) RESIDENT UNIT EXT. 3rd FLRREMOVEDFROM PROPOSAL 2SECTION B1/16" = 1'-0" 1SECTION A1/16" = 1'-0"3SECTION C1/16" = 1'-0" 4SECTION D1/16" = 1'-0" Per PAMC 18.38.150(e),our daylighting plane is at45 degrees. See notes onA6.13 for more details. Per PAMC 18.38.150(e),our daylighting plane is at45 degrees. See notes onA6.13 for more details. Per PAMC 18.38.150(e),our daylighting plane is at45 degrees. See notes onA6.13 for more details. Per PAMC 18.38.150(e),our daylighting plane is at45 degrees. See notes onA6.13 for more details. Item 3 Attachment G - Additional Exhibit Packet Pg. 290 245 Fischer Avenue, Suite B-2 Costa Mesa CA 92626(714) 557 2448 www.ipaoc.comA R C H I T E C T U R E P L A N N I N G C O N S U L T I N G A6.12 Exterior Building Sections - Daylight Plane9/17/2025 PALO ALTO COMMONSWellquest Living4075 El Camino Way, Palo Alto, CA 94306PROJECT NO: 21003 10'- 0 " 25'- 0 " 13'-4" 45° 45° DAYLIGHTPLANE 38.3'40.11' 51.23' 3:6DAYLIGHTINGPLANE PROPERTYLINE CORRIDOR CORRIDOR CORRIDOR (E)RESIDENTUNIT (E)RESIDENTUNIT (E)RESIDENTUNIT (N)RESIDENTUNIT 3rd FLRREMOVEDFROM PROPOSAL 6 10'- 0 " 25'- 0 " 34'-6" 45° 45° DAYLIGHTPLANE 38.2'40.11' 60.27' 3:6DAYLIGHTINGPLANE PROPERTYLINE (E) RESIDENTUNIT (E) RESIDENTUNIT (E) RESIDENTUNIT 3rd FLR34'-6" FROM PL 13 10'-0 " 25'-0 " 23'-0" 45° 45° DAYLIGHTPLANE 38.7'40.09' 60.27' 3:6DAYLIGHTINGPLANE PROPERTYLINE (E) RESIDENT UNIT CORRIDOR CORRIDOR CORRIDOR (E) RESIDENT UNIT (E) BASEMENT 3rd FLRREMOVEDFROM PROPOSAL 10'- 0 " 25'- 0 " 10'-0"12'-7" 45° 45° DAYLIGHTPLANE 38.9'40.09' 51.18' 3:6DAYLIGHTINGPLANE PROPERTYLINE (E) RESIDENTUNIT CORRIDOR CORRIDOR CORRIDOR (E) BASEMENT (N) RESIDENTUNIT 3rd FLRREMOVEDFROM PROPOSAL 7 1SECTION E1/16" = 1'-0" 2SECTION F1/16" = 1'-0" 3SECTION G1/16" = 1'-0" 4SECTION H1/16" = 1'-0" Per PAMC 18.38.150(e),our daylighting plane is at45 degrees. See notes onA6.13 for more details. Per PAMC 18.38.150(e),our daylighting plane is at45 degrees. See notes onA6.13 for more details. Per PAMC 18.38.150(e),our daylighting plane is at45 degrees. See notes onA6.13 for more details. Per PAMC 18.38.150(e),our daylighting plane is at45 degrees. See notes onA6.13 for more details. Item 3 Attachment G - Additional Exhibit Packet Pg. 291 245 Fischer Avenue, Suite B-2 Costa Mesa CA 92626(714) 557 2448 www.ipaoc.comA R C H I T E C T U R E P L A N N I N G C O N S U L T I N G A6.13 Exterior Building Sections - Daylight Plane9/17/2025 PALO ALTO COMMONSWellquest Living4075 El Camino Way, Palo Alto, CA 94306PROJECT NO: 21003 10'-0 " 25'-0 " 10'-3"12'-7" 45° 45° DAYLIGHTPLANE 38.0'39.37' 51.19' 3:6DAYLIGHTINGPLANE (E) RESIDENT UNIT (N) RESIDENT UNIT CORR. CORR. PROPERTYLINE (E) BASEMENT 8 1SECTION J1/16" = 1'-0" 18.38.150 Special requirements. Sites abutting or having any portion located with 150 feet of any RE, R-1, R-2, RMD, RM, or any PC district permitting single-familydevelopment or multiple-family development shall be subject to the following additional height and yard requirements: (e) Sites sharing any lot line with one or more sites in any RE, R-1, R-2, RM or any residential PC district shall be subject to amaximum height established by a daylight plane beginning at a height of ten feet at the applicable side or rear site lines and increasingat a slope of three feet for each six feet of distance from the side or rear site lines until intersecting the height limit otherwiseestablished for the PC district; provided, however, that for a use where the gross floor area excluding any area used exclusivelyfor parking purposes, is at least sixty percent residential, the daylight planes may be identical to the daylight planerequirements of the most restrictive residential district abutting each such side or rear site line until intersecting the heightlimit otherwise established for the PC district. If the residential daylight plane, as allowed in this section, is selected, the setbackregulations of the same adjoining residential district shall be imposed. 73.5% of our building's floor area will be residential units. So per PAMC 18.38.150(e) we are to use adaylighting plane that is pulled from the R-1 zoning. Since the area along the Wilkie Way residents isconsidered a side yard per the PAMC, we use the R-1 side yard daylighting plane. Which is: Initial Height: 10'Angle (degrees): 45° Per PAMC 18.38.150(e),our daylighting plane is at45 degrees. See notes onA6.13 for more details. Item 3 Attachment G - Additional Exhibit Packet Pg. 292 Planning & Transportation Commission Supplemental Memo From: Office of Transportation Director Lead Department: Office of Transportation Meeting Date: September 24, 2025 Report #: 2509-5245 TITLE Review of the Final Conceptual Design for the Permanent Installation of the Crescent Park Traffic Calming Project – Bulbout on Southwood and East Crescent Drive. CEQA Status: Exempt under CEQA Guidelines Section 15301. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) review the final concept design for the permanent installation of the Crescent Park Traffic Calming Project bulbout, located on East Crescent Drive and Southwood Drive, pursuant to City Council direction. DISCUSSION The following information and clarification is provided in response to questions from Commissioners. Study Session The Crescent Park Traffic Calming Project is being presented as a Study Session, instead of an action item, because staff have clarified that no action is needed. The PTC recommended moving forward with the proposed improvements for permanent installation in June 2023, a recommendation that was subsequently approved by City Council in November 2023. The Council motion directed staff to seek input from the community and adjacent property owners, but did not require further review by the PTC. Speed Humps vs. Bulbout vs. No Project Given the extremely large corner radius (of more than 100 feet) prior to the pilot project, the curb extension reconfigures East Crescent Drive to create a perpendicular corner. This change Item 2 Item 2 Supplemental Report Packet Pg. 293 provides clearer visual cues for drivers by realigning the three-legged intersection into a T- shaped intersection. It also reduces the corner radius to within the range (10 feet to 20 feet) recommended for facilitating safe turning movement speeds.1 This roadway realignment therefore reduces cut-through traffic and unsafe vehicle speeds where it is most needed: as drivers make right and left turns to/from East Crescent Drive and cross paths with pedestrians, bicyclists and other motorists. Speed humps, by contrast, are designed to manage vehicle speeds within the roadway segments and are not effective at intersections. As such, speed humps would not achieve the intended safety and traffic-calming goals for this location and are not considered an appropriate measure at intersections, where collision risk is highest. Speed bumps were previously reviewed as part of the initial traffic calming process and after analysis, community input and feedback, intersection realignment with a curb extension (bulbout) was selected. Staff does not recommend removal of the bulbout without other improvements. If the bulbout were removed, the existing ramps on both sides of E. Crescent and Southwood would still need to be brought up to ADA standards and, based on Assembly Bill (AB) 413, parking and passenger loading would not be permitted within 20 feet of the ramps. The recommended traffic calming devices were selected with community input and supported by a community vote in accordance with the City’s Traffic Calming Program. The concept designs were subsequently reviewed and recommended for permanent installation by PTC and subsequently approved by City Council. Updating the Existing Ramps The existing ramps at the corner of East Crescent and Southwood Drive are not ADA compliant and need to be updated to the current ADA standards. As stated above, the City is not permitted to carry out work to remove the existing facilities without upgrading to current ADA standards. Were there stop signs on East Crescent and Southwood previously? There was only a single stop sign at the intersection; there were no stops signs on East Crescent or eastbound Southwood Drive prior to this project. Additional Public Comments 1 See National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) Urban Street Design Guide, p 117. Item 2 Item 2 Supplemental Report Packet Pg. 294 The only communication City staff have received since the last PTC meeting are several phone calls from residents who were concerned and strongly opposed to further delays to the project, and a single letter from May 14, 2025, that was unintentionally omitted from the staff report. The same letter was resent today and is now provided as Attachment C. Status of Traffic Circle Improvements In order to provide efficient delivery of improvements, the consultant contract for implementation of this work covers the preparation of final design and construction documents for both locations, therefore implementation will not proceed on either until both are ready. Delay in Project Review The Office of Transportation (OOT) has a vacancy rate of approximately 30 percent with all staff working on multiple projects as well as recruitment efforts. Given scheduling conflicts and recent staff transitions, the item could not be placed on an earlier agenda. Next Steps Council has already approved the final concept plans for the permanent installation of traffic calming improvements at both locations. The next step will be Council’s review and approval of the construction contract for the project. ATTACHMENTS Attachment C: Public Comment AUTHOR/TITLE: Report Author & Contact Information PTC3 Liaison & Contact Information Shahla Yazdy, Project Engineer Jennifer Armer, Assistant Director (650) 617-3151 (650) 329-2191 shahla.yazdy@paloalto.gov jennifer.armer@paloalto.gov 3 Emails may be sent directly to the PTC using the following address: planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.org Item 2 Item 2 Supplemental Report Packet Pg. 295 Outlook Fwd: Complaint Regarding Office of Transportation and Request for Neutral Investigation From N G <nitagoggins@yahoo.com> Date Wed 5/14/2025 1:08 PM To Planning Commission <Planning.Commission@PaloAlto.gov>; Planning Commission <Planning.Commission@PaloAlto.gov> 1 attachment (67 KB) Ltr to Palo Alto City Manager 5.14.25.pdf; CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Begin forwarded message: From: N G <nitagoggins@yahoo.com> Subject: Complaint Regarding Office of Transportation and Request for Neutral Investigation Date: May 14, 2025 at 3:53:16 PM EDT To: Ed.Shikada@paloalto.gov, CityMgr@paloalto.gov Cc: "Planning.Commission@cityofpaloalto.gov" <Planning.Commission@CityofPaloAlto.gov>, city.attorney@paloalto.gov, Lisa Lawson <lisalawson@lawson2.com>, Jim Girand <jimbluedevil@gmail.com>, John Hanna <jhanna@hanvan.com> Dear Mr. Shikada, Please see attached letter of Complaint Regarding Office of Transportation and Request for Neutral Investigation. Juanita Goggins 590 East Crescent Drive Palo Alto, CA 94301 Item 2 Attachment C - Public Comment Packet Pg. 296 Juanita G. Goggins 590 E. Crescent Drive · Palo Alto · California · 94301 May 14, 2025 Via Email City Manager's Office City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 RE: Formal Complaint Regarding the Conduct of the Office of Transportation Dear Mr. Shikada, We are writing as co-owners of the home located at 590 East Crescent Drive to raise serious concerns regarding the conduct of the City of Palo Alto’s Office of Transportation (OT) in connection with the planning, decision-making, and communication related to the temporary berm installed at the intersection of East Crescent Drive and Southwood Drive— directly in front of our home. We believe the Office of Transportation has acted in a manner that is dismissive of resident concerns, unaccountable to governing bodies, and, at times, deliberately misleading. What follows is a troubling chronology of how the OT has failed to uphold the standards of transparent, data-driven, and community-centered planning: 1. Lack of Notification and Input Throughout the process of identifying the site at East Crescent/Southwood location and determining what would be installed, the residents of 590 East Crescent Drive were never notified or consulted. We first learned of the project on the day the berm was constructed in front of our home four years ago. 2. Misrepresentation of Safety Data to the Planning Commission and City Council Traffic consultants hired by the OT concluded that the data collected to evaluate the berm’s efficacy was "inconclusive" and that “sufficient safety data is not available to assess the effects of the project quantitatively”—an unsurprising result given the shifts in traffic patterns before and after the COVID-19 pandemic. (See 11.21.22 “Post Pilot Memo” from Fehr & Peers to Chirag Panchal, Shahla Yazdy, and Ripon Bhatia.) Despite this, the OT did not disclose this finding to the Planning Commission or City Council, choosing instead to present a narrative that supported their preferred outcome. In direct contradiction of its own consultants’ report, the OT falsely represented to the Planning Commission (multiple times) and the City Council that the consultants’ “analysis showed significant improvements in cut-through traffic and vehicle speeds, successfully achieving the project’s goals.” (See, e.g., 4.9.25 Staff Report to Planning Commission.) 3. Failure to Disclose to City Council the Objections of the Planning Commission During the June 14, 2023 Planning Commission hearing regarding the berm, the Planning Commission expressed serious concerns regarding the berm at 590 E. Crescent Drive. The Item 2 Attachment C - Public Comment Packet Pg. 297 Juanita G. Goggins 590 E. Crescent Drive · Palo Alto · California · 94301 commissioners described the berm as “ugly”, “bizarre”, “large and visually distracting from the beauty of the landscaping of the home”, an “eyesore”, and “not acceptable.” They told the OT: “Mr. Girand’s bulb-out needs to be rethought completely.” (See 6.14.23 Transcript from Hearing.) However, the report submitted by the OT for the November 6, 2023 City Council meeting did not reflect ANY of these comments or concerns. The Planning Commission observed at the April 9, 2023 hearing that no meaningful changes had been made to the plans they previously deemed unacceptable. 4. Failure to Consider Less Invasive Alternatives At no point did the OT explore or test simpler and more conventional traffic-calming measures —such as stop signs or speed bumps—before installing the berm with the stop signs. None of these less invasive solutions would choke off the flow of traffic the way the berm does. These alternative solutions are less obtrusive, less expensive, and would have been welcome alternatives. 5. Ignoring Evidence of Safety Hazards The oversized berm has made the intersection more dangerous, not less. It severely constricts the already narrow neighborhood streets, making it impossible for two vehicles to pass simultaneously and creating unsafe turning conditions. This was clearly demonstrated at the April 16, 2025 on-site meeting, where drivers honked, shouted, and exited their vehicles to complain directly to OT staff—who were visibly identifiable in bright yellow vests. Rather than acknowledge the problem witnessed first hand and redesign the plans, the OT chose to ignore it. The intersection has remained in this hazardous state for four years. 6. Disregard for Evidence-Based Decision Making When questioned about moving forward with the permanent berm despite inconclusive data from their own consultants, OT civil engineer Ms. Yazdy acknowledged that the data does not support their claims of improved safety but stated that she didn’t need empirical evidence because she simply “knew” the berm would work. This is an unacceptable standard for any public infrastructure decision. 7. Disability and Accessibility Concerns Ignored Our father, who is elderly and disabled, has struggled daily to safely access the front entrance of our home since the berm’s installation. Recently, he suffered a serious fall just feet from the berm. Captured on security cameras, the footage shows him unable to get up and forced to crawl to the front door. When we shared news at the April 16, 2025 in person meeting of his fall and his confusion associated with his ability to access his home, OT staff members appeared indifferent and did not ask any questions about how the berm was complicating our father's mobility and his access to the front of his house. 8. Inappropriate Behavior During Meetings During that same meeting, Mr. Bhatia claimed he was there to photograph the site for reference. Instead, he began photographing my sister, Lisa Lawson, and me while we were speaking. When we objected to his taking pictures of us, he had no explanation. Moreover, he took no pictures of the site throughout the hour-long meeting. He and Ms. Yazdy Item 2 Attachment C - Public Comment Packet Pg. 298 Juanita G. Goggins 590 E. Crescent Drive · Palo Alto · California · 94301 defended the behavior by claiming it is “common practice” for them to take photos of people during meetings—a justification we find highly questionable and intrusive. 9. Contradictory Statements Regarding Drainage At the April 16, 2025 in-person meeting, the OT staff admitted to us that installing the berm would result in rainwater pooling in front of our property due to inadequate grading. This directly contradicts assurances made to the Planning Commission at its April 9, 2025 meeting, where the OT stated that drainage would not be an issue. 10. Dismissal of Planning Commission Directives On April 9, 2025 the Planning Commission rejected the OT’s proposed design for the permanent berm and directed the department to work collaboratively with us to address concerns regarding accessibility and aesthetics. Comments included, "I am not going to approve anything that prevents an elderly, disabled man from accessing his home", "meet with the homeowner", "come to an agreement", "listen", and "I am expecting design changes to incorporate outstanding issues". (See Transcript from 4.9.25 Planning Commission Meeting.) Yet at the April 16, 2025 in-person site meeting, OT staff told us that they were under no obligation to incorporate input from either us or the Planning Commission, citing prior City Council approval. They showed up at the meeting without any copies of the plans and stated that they were only there to “answer any questions” we had about the plans. The plans the OT sent subsequent to our April 16, 2025 meeting reflect none of our concerns. On 5.14.24, Ms. Yazdy conclusively informed us no changes would be made to the plans. This blatant disregard for oversight and community engagement is deeply troubling. It should be noted that when adjacent neighbors who were directly impacted by a proposed “traffic calming” measure for the intersection of University and Crescent complained about the design, the OT abandoned the project at that intersection entirely. We do not understand why we have not been afforded the same respect and have instead been forced to spend countless hours trying to make our concerns heard and addressed. Conclusion The Office of Transportation has failed in its responsibility to engage constructively with residents, to be transparent with city leadership, and to base its decisions on reliable data. The lack of accountability, empathy, and professionalism shown by OT staff during this process is unacceptable. We respectfully request that the City Manager’s Office take the following actions: 1. Immediately halt any further construction related to the berm at East Crescent Drive and Southwood. 2. Conduct a neutral formal investigation into the Office of Transportation’s conduct in this matter, including staff behavior, community engagement, and data practices. We request that the City engage an objective, outside investigator who is experienced in similar Item 2 Attachment C - Public Comment Packet Pg. 299 Juanita G. Goggins 590 E. Crescent Drive · Palo Alto · California · 94301 matters to conduct the investigation. We request that relevant documents be reviewed and witnesses be interviewed. We also request that the City preserve all evidence that may be relevant to the above issues. 3. Implement formal protocols to ensure that future projects are based on sound evidence, include meaningful community input (which does not exclude those directly impacted by proposed projects), and respect the authority of oversight bodies like the Planning Commission. Thank you for your attention to this urgent matter. We are prepared to speak at your convenience to discuss a resolution that prioritizes safety, accountability, and respect for all Palo Alto residents. Sincerely, Juanita Goggins, Lisa Lawon, James Girand, Co-owners, 590 East Crescent Drive Item 2 Attachment C - Public Comment Packet Pg. 300 Planning & Transportation Commission Supplemental Report From: Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: September 24, 2025 Report #: 2509-5247 TITLE PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 4075 El Camino Way [23PLN-00202]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for an Amendment to a Planned Community Ordinance (PC-5116) to Allow for Modifications to an Existing 121-Unit Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in Accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Modifications to Existing Facilities). RECOMMENDATION It is recommended the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) take the following actions: 1. Recommend approval of an ordinance (Attachment B) amending PC-5116 to allow the proposed increase in units and associated modifications to the development plan; and 2. Recommend approval of the Record of Land Use Action (Attachment C) to Council based on findings and subject to conditions of approval. DISCUSSION Clarification of PTC Recommendation and Council Motion Staff recommends approval of the proposed project, which includes 13 units (previously 16). The staff report acknowledges that the PTC previously recommended approving only 7 of the proposed units, and the PTC may consider keeping this recommendation. Item 3 Item 3 Supplemental Report Packet Pg. 301 The Council motion, as recorded in the meeting minutes,1 stated: “Councilmember Burt moved, seconded by Councilmember Lu to refer this project back to the Planning and Transportation Commission for a review of a project between 11 to 13 units that would eliminate the 3rd floor units adjacent to Wilkie Way backyards.” This motion passed 4-3, Reckdahl, Lauing, and Stone dissented. Councilmembers Reckdahl and Stone dissented, as they believe even the motion’s proposed reduction would not sufficiently address neighbor concerns. Mayor Lauing dissented as he did not want to lengthen the review process. Mayor Lauing and Councilmember Stone supported a failed motion to approve seven of the units in keeping with the PTC’s recommendation, which also would not have required the project to return to PTC or Council. Councilmember Burt voted yes, but also noted that not fully removing all new third floor units may not sufficiently address neighbor concerns, this would require the number of proposed units to be 11 rather than 13. The revised project reduces the number of units in accordance with the Council direction, but retains two units on the third floor. Privacy concerns for those units are addressed through window orientation. Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan The TDM plan was primarily edited between November 2025 and January 2025 to address Staff comments. The methodology and data were refined to ensure the estimated trip reduction was accurate and achievable. The TDM plan is incorporated into the Conditions of Approval and oversight would be assigned to the Office of Transportation. Prior to the May 5, 2025 Council meeting, the applicant provided a Parking Plan which included an updated analysis of current parking use, and included several policies to ensure Palo Alto Commons employees and visitors park on-site. This plan is available in Attachment F of the staff report. Compliance with this parking plan is also incorporated into the Conditions of Approval. Daylight Plane The original PC (PC-3775), incorporates the R-1 side daylight plane as the standard requirement, measured at 10 feet vertical and a 45 degree angle at the property line, and the building is set back 10 feet. The code section, PAMC 18.38.150(e) was in effect and has not been modified since the PC’s original approval. It can be inferred that the site was considered 1 May 5, 2025 Council Minutes: https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Public/CompiledDocument?meetingTemplateId=16070&compileOutpu tType=1 Item 3 Item 3 Supplemental Report Packet Pg. 302 to be a residential use, and the R-1 daylight plane was applied. Additionally, the only R-1 daylight plane at the time of approval was the 10 feet and 45 degrees at the property line. The R-1 rear daylight plane measured at the 20-foot setback line, 16 feet tall and 60 degrees, was not incorporated into the Zoning Code until 1992 in Ordinance 4016. Since the proposed addition complies with the adopted daylight plane of the existing PC Ordinance, no modification to the PC Ordinance is needed for this aspect of the project, and it is in conformance with the existing Zoning. The applicant provided a supplemental exhibit provided as Attachment G to the Staff Report, showing both the 45 degree and 3:6 daylight planes. It should be noted that the existing building protrudes in several locations into the 3:6 daylight plane, as indicated in sections A, B, D, and G. Additionally, sections A, E, and H demonstrate that none of the proposed units, even on the second floor, would fit into the 3:6 daylight plane. ATTACHMENTS None AUTHOR/TITLE: Report Author & Contact Information PTC3 Liaison & Contact Information Emily Kallas, AICP, Senior Planner Jennifer Armer, Assistant Director (650) 617-3125 (650) 329-2191 emily.kallas@paloalto.gov jennifer.armer@paloalto.gov 3 Emails may be sent directly to the PTC using the following address: planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.org Item 3 Item 3 Supplemental Report Packet Pg. 303