Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Staff Report 2411-3799
CITY OF PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL Monday, May 05, 2025 Council Chambers & Hybrid 5:30 PM Agenda Item 14.PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 4075 El Camino Way [23PLN-00202]: Adoption of 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). Staff Presentation, Applicant Presentation, Public Comment City Council Staff Report From: City Manager Report Type: ACTION ITEMS Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: May 5, 2025 Report #:2411-3799 TITLE PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 4075 El Camino Way [23PLN-00202]: Adoption of 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 Staff recommends the City Council take the following actions: 1. Find the project exempt from CEQA in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15301; 2. Adopt the ordinance in Attachment B, amending Planned Community Ordinance 5116; and 3. Approve the Record of Land Use Action in Attachment C based on findings and subject to conditions of approval. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The applicant requests approval of an amendment to the existing Planned Community (PC) Zone District (PC-5116) to allow a 16-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. In accordance with the PC process, Council held an initial prescreening to provide feedback on a conceptual plan. The Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) also reviewed a conceptual plan and provided initial feedback. Following these early hearings and staff’s review of the project, the Architectural Review Board (ARB) and PTC provided formal recommendations to Council. The ARB unanimously recommended approval of the proposed project. The PTC voted (3-2-2, Commissioners Hechtman and Templeton voting no, Commissioners Reckdahl and Lu recusing) and recommended approval of only a portion of the proposed project. Commissioners that dissented in this vote recommended approval of the project as proposed (no reduction in units). •Enhancing privacy through strategic landscaping for adjacent residents Staff does not support adding measures to address noise. At the PTC meeting, two neighbors stated occasionally being able to hear residents of Palo Alto Commons from their backyards. The PTC considered incorporating this into their motion, but ultimately did not gain majority support to do so. In June 2024, the California Supreme Court heard Make UC A Good Neighbor v. Regents of the University of California, and in their decision on the case determined that "social noise," from residents of a potential project is not considered a significant environmental effect and therefore not subject to CEQA analysis for residential projects. As a part of this determination, Staff cautions against requiring any measures designed to insulate against “social noise”. The ARB held public hearings on July 18 and October 17, 2024.4 The applicant modified landscape screening in response to individual neighbor feedback, revised window placement and sizing to comply with Objective Design Standards and finalized the TDM plan. The ARB concluded that the project met privacy standards and was appropriately scaled to its surroundings, including with respect to daylight plane compliance. On October 17, the ARB unanimously recommended approval without further changes. The project returned to the PTC on December 11, 2024, for further review as required under the PC process.5 The 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 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. Commissioners Reckdahl and Lu recused due to their recent election to Council. Project Description The applicant requests an amendment to the existing PC Zone District (PC-5116) to allow 16 additional assisted living units and 172 square feet of staff office space within the Palo Alto Commons facility. Nine of the proposed units would face the adjacent single-family neighborhood. 4 July 18, 2024 Report: https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=13877 October 17, 2024 Report: https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=13919 5 December 11, 2024 Report: https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=13772 Requested Entitlements, Findings and Purview: The following discretionary applications are being requested and subject to PTC purview: •Planned Community/Planned Housing Zone (PC/PHZ): As defined in PAMC 18.38, this zoning process allows for comprehensively planned developments that offer public benefits not otherwise achievable under existing zoning. Applications must be reviewed by the PTC and ARB before final action by the City Council. ANALYSIS The proposed project has been analyzed in accordance with all relevant plans, policies, and regulations adopted by the City. Staff’s review finds the project consistent with all relevant plans, policies, and regulations, as detailed throughout this report, and therefore recommends approval of the project as proposed. The ARB concurred and their recommendation is consistent with the staff recommendation. The PTC differed, and their recommendation reduces the project scope from the staff recommendation. Neighborhood Setting and Character Palo Alto Commons is on the same parcel as the Avant Independent Living Facility. The neighborhood includes residential (RM-20) to the west, single-family (R-1) residential to the north, and the Goodwill store (CN) to the east. Across El Camino Way, West Meadow Drive, and El Camino Real there are other multi-family and commercial uses. Heights in the area range from one to three stories and include a variety of architectural styles. The proposed addition would not change the overall height of the building. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Area Plans, and Guidelines6 The site has a Comprehensive Plan land use designation that includes both Multiple-Family Residential, for a portion of the site adjacent to single-family, and Neighborhood Commercial for the portion towards El Camino Way. Multiple-Family Residential land use designation permits densities ranging from 8 to 40 units and 8 to 90 persons per acre and indicates that densities should be on the lower end of the scale next to single-family residential areas. Neighborhood Commercial land use designation includes shopping centers as well as street- front stores serving the immediate neighborhood. Higher density residential and mixed-use projects may be allowed in specific locations. Although assisted living units are not counted toward the City’s regional housing needs assessment or RHNA, they nonetheless have many characteristics of a "residential” use. The project provides senior living facilities that align with the multiple-family and neighborhood commercial land use designations. The project includes the addition of senior living units to an existing facility. Therefore, no change is proposed to the existing land use. 6 The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan is available online: bit.ly/PACompPlan2030 On balance, staff find that the project is consistent with the policies in the Comprehensive Plan and therefore fulfills the goals of the Plan as well. A detailed staff review of the project’s consistency with the Comprehensive Plan is provided in Attachment C. Zoning Compliance7 Attachment D provides a detailed review of the proposed project’s consistency with the existing zone district, PC-5116. Because the existing Planned Community zone district ties to the specific existing development, which included specifications for the number of allowed units, the proposed project modifications, which add 16 units to the site plan, would require an amendment to the existing PC Ordinance. The following key modifications are proposed to the existing PC Ordinance and associated development plan: •The density and 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. Daylight Plane The applicable daylight plane regulation has been a point of contention throughout the application review process for area residents. 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. Staff believes the R-1 side daylight plane was chosen at the time because the property contains street frontage on West Meadow Drive, making the side adjacent to the Wilkie Way neighbors an interior side yard. The proposed addition complies with the R-1 side daylight plane. In its review of the project, the ARB agreed that this daylight plane standard was appropriate for the project this determination and that the proposed scale of the addition overall was compatible to the surrounding neighborhood. However, several PTC Commissioners disagreed and favored a more restrictive daylight plane standard, citing PAMC Chapter 18.38 daylight plane for PC projects that are less than 60% residential and adjacent to single-family neighborhoods, or the PAMC Chapter 18.12 R-1 rear daylight plane as more appropriate standards. This more restrictive standard would require a 7 The Palo Alto Zoning Code is available online: bit.ly/PAZoningCode minimum 10 foot setback from the R-1 zoned property with an approximately 30% daylight plane starting at ten feet in height. The proposed project does not meet this more restrictive standard. The PTC discussed other nuances related to the daylight plane but ultimately, the original PC ordinance established the standard that staff used to evaluate the proposed addition. The City Council, in its review of the project may consider the appropriateness of the standard used to evaluate the project. Privacy Many of the neighboring residents along Wilkie Way have expressed concerns regarding privacy, specifically from the nine units along the rear of the building. Proposals for privacy treatment were described as balancing the need for privacy with livability for the residents. Through the review process, staff and the ARB encouraged modifications to the design to conform to the objective design standards for privacy. All of these units in the current plans provide windows that meet the Objective Design Standards in PAMC 18.24.050(2)(C) and (D), primarily utilizing five-foot sill heights or having the angles at a 45-degree angle to the property line, or by being more than 30 feet away from the nearest window it is facing. Boardmembers noted a perspective that the zig-zag design of the building and the proposed tree planting in particular effectively address privacy. Noise The Noise Study (linked in Attachment F, and CEQA document Attachment A) prepared for the project found the existing Palo Alto Commons building and proposed addition comply with PAMC Chapter 9.10 Noise. As a part of the public hearing process, a neighbor identified a noise issue associated with the water heater system at the Avant building. A Code Enforcement case is open and a building permit application to address the issue is under review. Staff does not consider this case as relevant to the proposed project scope, as it is located in a different building. Shade and Landscaping Neighbors have expressed concern about an increase in shade from the building additions and the landscaping. In response to PTC and ARB feedback, the applicant held a neighborhood meeting on August 22, 2024, to discuss landscaping with individual neighbors. Based on feedback from the neighbors, six evergreen trees and two deciduous trees have been proposed to fill gaps in the existing landscape screen. Sheet A1.6 of the plans in Attachment F show the revised landscaping plan. The plans also include an extensive shadow study (sheets A5.21- A5.24) showing an increase in shade would be minimal and limited to the winter months. Public Benefit The project provides additional assisted living units, providing services to more seniors who need a high level of care. Although these units are not considered as dwelling units towards the City’s RHNA, they provide a safe place for seniors to live. These units themselves are therefore proposed as the public benefit associated with this PC amendment and were considered so during the initial PC application. PC-5116 for the existing development provided three public benefits: 1) rental senior assisted housing (with provisions for aging in place); 2) Roadway, pedestrian and bus stop improvements; and 3) A contribution of $100,000 to Avenidas to be ear-marked for the age at home program for low-income seniors. The PTC asked for these items to be removed from the PC Ordinance as the right of way improvements and Avenidas payment were all completed over ten years ago. However, Staff recommends they be maintained as a part of the record, by incorporating them into the PC Ordinance. Multi-Modal Access and Parking Neighbors have consistently commented on parking and traffic impacts. Additionally, the PC- 5116 and preceding PC-3775 conditions of approval both required TDM plans that were not sufficiently maintained in the past. As such, a new TDM plan has been prepared and will be monitored as a condition of approval, with specific deliverables that must be provided to the City to document compliance. Elements from the TDM plan have already been implemented, and annual reporting will begin one year from project approval. Typically, a TDM plan is prepared to allow a reduction in the number of parking spaces provided or to reduce peak single occupancy vehicle trips. However, the property contains a sufficient number of spaces for the expanded use. Therefore, this TDM plan facilitates transit alternatives, and is focused on better utilization of existing spaces, including providing direction for staff and visitors to park on site instead of in the neighborhood. The applicant has provided a revised TDM and a new Parking Plan (Attachment F). The Parking Plan reinforces the parking procedures the applicants have provided verbally at previously meetings, and the TDM plan, and provides assurance that parking on adjacent streets is discouraged moving forward. Compliance with the TDM plan and Parking plan are included in the Conditions of Approval. Conformance with Prior Approvals and Existing Ordinance As a part of the project analysis, it came to the attention of Staff that the existing conditions of Ordinance 3775 have not been consistently applied over the years. In addition to the TDM plan as discussed, Palo Alto Commons is required to provide preference to residents of Palo Alto and their families (Ord. 3775 Section 3(a)(9)), as well as an annual report regarding building occupancy (Ord. 3775 Section 3(d)). All prior conditions apply to the existing and proposed project. Specifically, the annual report requires the following data to be disclosed: •Occupancy/vacancy status •Number and age of occupants •Number of employees •Number of residents and employees who use parking spaces •Copy of Renewal License for Residential Care Facility Staff recommends Council consider the purpose and benefit of this information. If annual reports are considered necessary, then Staff recommends removing “age of occupants” from the annual report requirements for privacy reasons. The Planning Department does not have records of an annual report being submitted in any prior years, however staff acknowledges this is out of compliance with the Conditions of Approval, and Palo Alto Commons shall provide annual reports moving forward, unless this requirement is modified or removed. Consistency with Application Findings 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 Attachment C (record of land use action). 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 based on the criteria discussed in this report. 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 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 $382,000. STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires notice of this public hearing be published in a local paper and mailed to owners and occupants of property within 600 feet of the subject property at least ten days in advance. Notice and postcard mailing in advance of a public hearing for this project was published in the Daily Post on April 23, 2025, which is 12 days in advance of the meeting. Public Comments 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 •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, City Council may: 1. Approve the project with modified findings or conditions; 2. Continue the project to a date (un)certain; or 3. Deny project based on revised findings. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Location Map Attachment B: Draft PC Ordinance Attachment C: Draft Record of Land Use Action Attachment D: Zoning Consistency Analysis Attachment E: Public Comment Attachment F: Link to Project Plans and Environmental Analysis APPROVED BY: Jonathan Lait, Planning and Development Services Director Palo Alto 4075 El Camino Way PC-5116 Attachment A 4075 El Camino Way Location Zoning Map 0.17 () 0.35 0.7 Miles * NOT YET APPROVED * 0290163_kb2_20241204_ms29 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 (Commission) 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 Planning and Transportation Commission 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 Commission for approval, revising the Findings to reflect the Commission’s recommendation, and removing consideration of past public benefits from the PC Ordinance. F.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”). G.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. * NOT YET APPROVED * 0290163_kb2_20241204_ms29 2 H. The City, in compliance with CEQA, determined the project to be Categorically Exempt from CEQA per Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines (Existing Facilities). I. The Council is the decision-making body for approval of the Planned Community Project. J. 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. K. 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. L. 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: (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 16 additional assisted living units (approximately 6,720 square feet) and 172 square feet of additional support space. SECTION 4. Land Uses. (a) The following land uses shall be permitted: * NOT YET APPROVED * 0290163_kb2_20241204_ms29 3 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 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 * NOT YET APPROVED * 0290163_kb2_20241204_ms29 4 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. 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). // // // // * NOT YET APPROVED * 0290163_kb2_20241204_ms29 5 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 Page 1 of 2 ORDER NO. : 0623019724 EXHIBIT A The land referred to is situated in the County of Santa Clara, City of Palo Alto, State of California, and is described as follows: PARCEL ONE: A portion of Lots 4, 5, 6 and 10, as shown upon that certain map entitled, "The J.J. Morris Real Estate Co. Subdivision of the Cogan Tract", which map was filed for record in the Office of the Recorder of the County of Santa Clara, State of California on November 5, 1907 in Book "M" of Maps, Page 3, and all of Parcel 1, as shown on Parcel Map filed February 24, 1989 in Book 596 of Maps, at Page(s) 36, Santa Clara County Records and more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a point on the Northerly line of West Meadow Drive (70' wide) (formerly Diss Rd.), said point also being the Southeasterly corner of Parcel 1, as shown on Parcel Map filed February 24, 1989 in Book 596 of Maps, at Page(s) 36; Thence along the Northerly line of West Meadow Drive North 33° 31' 45" East, 91.03 feet to the Easterly corner of said Parcel 1; Thence leaving Northerly line of West Meadow Drive along the Northerly line of said Parcel 1, North 56° 30' 25" West, 449.00 feet to the Northerly corner of said Parcel 1, said point also lying on the dividing line between said Lots 10 and 11 of said J.J. Morris Subdivision; Thence along said dividing line between said Lots 10 and 11, North 33° 31' 45" East, 20.22 feet to the most Southerly corner of that certain parcel of land conveyed from Ida Catherine Miller, also known as Ida C. Miller to Tom L. Jones et ux, by Deed dated January 22, 1968 and recorded February 8, 1968 in Book 8019 of Official Records, Page 539, Santa Clara County Records; Thence along the Southwesterly line of said parcel of land conveyed to Tom L. Jones et ux, North 56° 31' 00" West, 120.00 feet to the most Westerly corner thereof, said point also lying on the dividing line between Lots 9 and 10 of said J.J. Morris Subdivision; Thence along said dividing line between Lots 9 and 10 of said J.J. Morris Subdivision South 33° 31' 45" West, 78.00 feet to the common corner for Lots 5, 6, 9 and 10 of said J.J. Morris Subdivision; Thence along the dividing line between said Lots 6 and 9 North 56° 25' 15" West, 16.00 feet; Thence leaving said last named dividing line and parallel with the dividing line between said Lots 5 and 6, South 33° 31' 45" West, 150.91 feet to the Northerly line of that certain parcel as acquired by the City of Palo Alto, a municipal corporation, by Final Judgment of Condemnation Action No. P13260 Issued Out of Line, Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Santa Clara, a certified copy of which was recorded June 26, 1968 in Book 8170 of Official Records, Page 298, Santa Clara County Records; Thence, along the Northerly boundary of said parcel as acquired by the City of Palo Alto, along a non-tangent curve to the left having a radius of 112.00 feet, a central angle of 30° 29' 56", a tangent length of 30.53 feet, the long chord of which bears South 24° 32' 12" East for a distance of 58.92 feet with a radial line in of North 80° 42' 46" East and a radial line out of South 50° 12' 50" West for an arc length of 59.62 feet to a point; Thence South 33° 31' 45" West, 0.77 feet to the Northeasterly line of El Camino Way, formerly LEGAL DESCRIPTION Page 2 of 2 Thence along said Northeasterly line of El Camino Way South 56° 25' 15" East, 326.10 feet to the corner of said Parcel 1, as shown on Parcel Map filed February 24, 1989 in Book 596 of Maps, at Page(s) 36, said corner is also the Southernmost corner of Parcel A, as shown on Parcel Map filed September 26, 1986 in Book 565 of Maps, Page 19, Santa Clara County Records; Thence along the lines of said Parcel 1, as shown on Parcel Map filed February 24, 1989 in Book 596 of Maps, at Page(s) 36 North 33° 33' 21" East, 150.42 feet and South 56° 25' 15" East, 208.83 feet to the point of beginning. This legal description is pursuant to "Certificate of Compliance (Lot Line Adjustment - Merger)" recorded July 26, 2012 as Instrument No. 21764853 of Official Records. PARCEL TWO: A non-exclusive easement for ingress and egress and the installation and maintenance of public utilities over the Northwest 9 feet of Parcel A, as reserved in the Deed from Rufus A. Tracy Jr., et al to Rick’s Swiss Chalet, a California corporation, recorded August 18, 1970 in Book 9023 at Page 592, Santa Clara County Official Records. APN: 132-43-177 San Francisco-San Jose Road; Page 1 of 11 6 1 4 9 APPROVAL NO. 2024-____ 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 May 5, 2025, the City Council of the City of Palo Alto (“City Council”) adopted Ordinance ____ approving an amendment to Planned Community (PC) 5116 to allow a 16-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 16-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 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 May 5, 2025, 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 Page 2 of 11 6 1 4 9 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 16 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 16 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 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. Page 3 of 11 6 1 4 9 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. 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. Page 4 of 11 6 1 4 9 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 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: Page 5 of 11 6 1 4 9 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 79 pages, uploaded to Accela Citizen Access on October 4, 2024, 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 the Palo Alto Online Permitting Services Citizen Portal on October 4, 2024, 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. Page 6 of 11 6 1 4 9 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.ENTITLEMENT EXPIRATION. The project approval shall be valid for a period of two years from the date of issuance of the entitlement. If within such one/two years period, the proposed use of the site or the construction of buildings has not commenced, the Planning entitlement shall expire. Application for a one year extension of this entitlement may be made prior to expiration. 6.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. 7.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. 8.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. 9.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. 10.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. Page 7 of 11 6 1 4 9 11.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. 12.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. 13.ESTIMATED IMPACT FEE: Development Impact Fees, currently estimated in the amount of $381,959.69 shall be paid prior to the issuance of the related building permit. Fees are subject to change per annual Municipal Fee Schedule. 14.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. 15.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. 16.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 Page 8 of 11 6 1 4 9 17. A building permit is required for the scope of work shown. 18. At building permit submit the following: a. Structural calculations b. Green building compliance 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.) 19. 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 20. 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. 21. 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. 22. Refuse truck pull-out spot shall contain signage notifying tenants and other users that parking is not allowed during trash pickup days. 23. 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 Page 9 of 11 6 1 4 9 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 24. 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 25. 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. 26. 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 27.Show outline of tree protection fencing in a boxed off dashed line for tree to be protected as specified in the consulting Arborist report. 28.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 Page 10 of 11 6 1 4 9 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. 29. 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. 30. 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. 31.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. 32. 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. 33. 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. _____. // // // // Page 11 of 11 6 1 4 9 INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: 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 79 pages, uploaded to Accela Citizen Access on October 4, 2024, except as modified to incorporate the conditions of approval in Section 6. 6 1 4 8 ATTACHMENT D ZONING COMPARISON TABLE 4075 El Camino Way, 23PLN-00202 Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.16 (CN DISTRICT) AND 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 (90,379 sf) Assisted Living (Palo Alto Commons) 1.25:1 (137,906 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. 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 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 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. 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 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. 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 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 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 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 2 360 Maclane St. Palo Alto, CA 94306 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 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 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. 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 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 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 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- 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 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. 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!!! 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 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. 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 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 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 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. 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 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. 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 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) 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) 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. 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 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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³6XEMHFW 3URSHUW\´ )RUWKHUHDVRQVVWDWHGLQWKLV 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´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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 HQDFWPHQWDQGDPHQGPHQWRI]RQLQJRUGLQDQFHVDQGWKHDGRSWLRQ 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´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³H[LVWLQJ IDFLOLWLHV´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³PLQRUDOWHUDWLRQRI DQH[LVWLQJVWUXFWXUH´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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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¶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±3URMHFW3ODQQHU YLDHPDLORQO\ HPLO\NDOODV#FLW\RISDORDOWRRUJ 6HDQ$&RWWOH 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 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. 2 Sincerely, Daniel 4060 Wilkie Way Resident To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. ᐧ 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 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. 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. 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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> 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). 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 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 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. 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 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. 4 Sincerely, Kevin 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 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 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 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 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 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. 3 4 5 6 7 8 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 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 2 Sincerely, Shashank Divekar (650) 681-7494 Jayashree Divekar (650) 681-7495 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 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. 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> > 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 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 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 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. 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. 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. 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 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. 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 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 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, 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 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 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> 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. 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. 11 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 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: 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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. 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. File Details image008.emz (1547 bytes) © 2003 - 2019 Mimecast Services Limited. 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 May 5, 2025 City Council 4075 EL CAMINO WAY Planned Community Addition Project 2 •Amendment of an existing Planned Community (PC) zone to allow for: o Construction of 16 additional Assisted Living units, and 172 square feet of support space, to an existing 121 unit Assisted Living and Memory Care facility, and site improvements including exterior color changes and landscaping o Prior approvals PC 5116 (The Avant) and 3775 (Palo Alto Commons) •Assisted Living use is not a Housing Development Project PROJECT OVERVIEW 3 PROJECT LOCATION 1 PC Process •Prescreening – August 2023 •Formal application – August 2023 •PTC hearings – Feb. and June 2024 •ARB hearings – July and Oct 2024 •ARB recommendation – October 17, 2024 •PTC recommendation – December 12, 2024 •Council decision Public comments are accepted at all public hearings, and through writing at any time throughout this process BACKGROUND / PROCESS 5 ARB AND PTC RECOMMENDATIONS •ARB recommended approval, noting that the scale and privacy measures for the additions were appropriate •PTC split their vote – 3 voted in support of a recommendation of approval for only the 7 units that do not face Wilkie Way. 2 voted against that motion, but confirmed they supported recommending approval of the full project. o Now-Councilmembers Lu and Reckdahl recused themselves from this hearing •PTC recommended conditions of approval to: o Return the TDM plan to the PTC for approval o Remove past public benefits of the existing PC from the Ordinance o Staff does not support these conditions 4 •Fills in 9 existing step-backed areas at 2-3 stories •Adds 1,186 sf to the ground floor, at a height of 1-3 stories, including 172 sf of ground floor office/admin space •Provides 16 new units, 6,891 sf total •Building is outside of the 45-degree daylight plane •No change to maximum building height or minimum setback adjacent to single-family homes PROJECT SITE PLAN 7 DAYLIGHT PLANE •PC Ordinance 3775 shows the existing Palo Alto Commons building was built with the R-1 45-degree at 10 ft. daylight plane as the requirement. •PAMC 18.38 requires a more restrictive 3:6 at 10 ft. daylight plane for non- residential buildings adjacent to residential zoning districts. •Neighbors and some PTC commissioners prefer applying the more restrictive daylight plane 8 PRIVACY MEASURES FOR UNITS FACING WILKIE WAY •All new windows meet the Objective Design Standards for multi-family windows facing single-family uses (PAMC 18.24.050(D)) o Strategies include high sills, angled windows, and increasing distance from windows to property lines o Some existing balconies are being removed o New landscaping proposed in existing gaps in the tree line 9 10 PARKING AND TDM PLAN •A TDM plan was prepared, and is required by the existing Conditions of Approval •A Parking Memo was prepared by Hexagon Transportation Consultants •Parking meets Zoning minimum requirements •Parking spaces have been designated as visitors, staff, and residents (11 Avant residents have cars) •Garage now has key card access for employees 11 PC SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS 18.34.150 Complies with Special Requirements for: •Height – Maximum height is 35 feet, proposed height is 32 feet 6 inches •Interior Setbacks – 10 feet required and proposed adjacent to single-family •Street-side setbacks – 10 feet required, no changes proposed 12 PUBLIC BENEFITS The existing PC included these public benefits: •Senior housing, and specialized care, with the intent for Palo Alto residents to “age in place” •Roadway, pedestrian, and bus stop improvements •A $100,000 donation to Avenidas The additions would add 16 more units. The Development Impact Fees associated with this is approximately $382,000. 13 NEIGHBOR COMMENTS Sixteen neighbors signed a petition sent to the PTC, ARB, and City staff on October 28, 2024, citing the following concerns: •Privacy towards the single-family neighborhood •Reduced natural sunlight •Staff and Visitors parking in the neighborhood •A desire for the addition to not request any exceptions from the Zoning Code •Concern that WellQuest is a for-profit company that does not care for the neighbors’ best interests •Lower Property Value and Quality of Life 14 5 NEIGHBOR COMMENTS Over 30 additional emails were also received, including: •Letters in support •Reiterating the neighborhood petition concerns •Concerns that the PC conditions of approval were not enforced 15 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW A Section 15301 (Existing Facilities) Categorical Exemption has been prepared. 16 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the City Council take the following actions: 1.Find the project exempt from CEQA in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15301; 2.Adopt the Ordinance, amending Planned Community Ordinance 5116; and 3.Approve the Record of Land Use Action based on findings and subject to conditions of approval. Emily Kallas, AICP Planner Emily.Kallas@cityofpaloalto.org Palo Alto Commons Proposed Colors Amendment to existing PC by asking for: •An increase in units & floor area •+16 additional units for a total of 137 Assisted Living and Memory Care units •+6,891 sf additional floor area •+0.07 FAR increase to 1.25 •2’ encroachment into setback on Goodwill side •Change in the exterior color scheme By Right Approval: •No encroachment into the existing daylighting plane •No encroachment into the existing setback along Wilkie Way residents •No height increase •No exception for the required parking spaces Parking Info Legend Car Bike Residents/Staff/Visitors 80 8 (ST) Staff Only -2 (LT) Visitors Only 17 - Total 97 10 Staff on Largest Shift Existing Adding Total Total 52 + 2 54 Commute by carpool, public transit, ride share (60%)31 +1 32 Commute by car (40%)21 +1 22 ST: Short Term LT: Long Term •All staff parking can be accommodated in the garages •17 spaces dedicated towards visitors •All other spaces are for a mix of residents, staff, and additional visitors if needed Required Parking – Per PAMC Required Res. Care Facility 141 beds 1 space per 2.5 beds 57 90 TotalIndependent Living 44 units 0.75 spaces per unit 33 Existing 102* Proposed 102* *Per PAMC ADA spaces count as 2 spaces Residents, Family, Staff, & Extra Visitors Visitors Hexagon Consulting has independently confirmed this info and found that we provide more parking than needed Parking Signage Signage onsite at surface parking lot and entry to underground parking gate indicating to call for parking assistance if needed Valet Parking •Valet parking available all day, with employee on staff to assist guests and residents •Receptionist script at front desk to guide responses to guests Surface Parking Existing Parking Gate •17 spaces before gate for visitors. •If visitors need more spaces, they can use wired phone that connects directly to front desk. •Front desk is always staffed during business hours. •Residents and staff have remotes. •Backup remote locked with code . Parking Guidelines Wilkie Way Wilkie Way Wilkie Way Wilkie Way Wilkie Way View from Wilkie Way Side EXISTING PROPOSED EXISTING PROPOSED TE N T D I A G R A M S No p r o t r u s i o n s i n t o t h e d a y l i g h t i n g p l a n e Existing Landscape Adjacent to Wilkie Way Residents Landscape Plan Privacy screening 2nd Floor Windows 3rd Floor Windows •Follows IR Guidelines set by the city of Palo Alto •Most windows are over 30’ from neighbor’s windows •45° or 5’ window sills or screened by trees •Neighbors' buildings that are closest to the property line are either sheds or ADUs March 21 - 12:00 pm - Existing March 21 - 12:00 pm - Proposed Shadow Study – March & June 21 June 21 - 12:00 pm - Existing June 21 - 12:00 pm - Proposed Dec 21 - 12:00 pm - Existing Dec 21 - 12:00 pm - Proposed Shadow Study – December 21 Dec 21 - 4:00 pm - Existing Dec 21 - 4:00 pm - Proposed 3D Elevations EXISTING PROPOSED EXISTING PROPOSED South East (Adj to Goodwill) South East (Adj to Goodwill) Entrance (South) Entrance (South) 3D Elevations EXISTING PROPOSED EXISTING PROPOSED North North North East North East Balcony Removal EXISTING PROPOSED North East North East 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 650 329-0484 650 537-9611 cell cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com 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 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 10:00:13 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. 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 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 1:51:31 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. 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 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 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) 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) 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. 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 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 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 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 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 From:Annette Glanckopf 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 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 3:44:21 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 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 From:slevy@ccsce.com To:Council, City; Lait, Jonathan Subject:4075 El Camino Way Date:Sunday, May 4, 2025 1:36:31 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 From:Kevin Ji To:Kallas, Emily Cc:Council, City Subject:4075 El Camino Way Zoning Comparison Table (Attachment D) Date:Saturday, May 3, 2025 12:22:15 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hi Emily, I noticed that this time, the staff zoning comparison table does not include the CN comparisonas it did in almost every other version of the staff report. Can you help me understand why this is? Thanks, Kevin From:Sheri Furman 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 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 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 From:Deborah Goldeen To:Council, City Subject:Palo Alto Commons Date:Friday, May 2, 2025 12:36:37 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 From:Daniel Pei To:Council, City Subject:Please Protect Wilkie Way Residents – Palo Alto Commons Expansion Date:Friday, May 2, 2025 8:01:31 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor Lauing and City Council Members, I’m writing to ask that you deny Palo Alto Commons’ current application and ensure that the daylight plane, privacy, and livability of the Wilkie Way residents are protected. Approving this kind of expansion—especially one that disregards original setbacks and addsto long-standing parking issues—sets a troubling precedent. It tells other businesses that community impact can be overlooked. Palo Alto Commons serves an important role, but the proposal needs to meet current buildingstandards and meaningfully address neighborhood concerns around privacy, congestion, and compliance. Please require them to come back with a more balanced plan. Sincerely, Daniel Pei From:yanfeng wang To:Council, City; Burt, Patrick; Lauing, Ed; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer;Veenker, Vicki Subject:meeting on 5/5/2025 Date:Thursday, May 1, 2025 9:36:04 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Ed Lauing, Dear Patrick Burt, Dear George Lu, Dear Julie Lythcott-Haims, Dear Keith Reckdahl, Dear Greer Stone, Dear Vicki Veenker, For about 50 years, it (Commons) has existed here as a commercial estate. The building covers about 90% of the land, three floors high, 10 ft to the fence. Now he ignores the PTC's Code, ignores the law, looks up at the sky, gloriously declared to the government officials and the citizens that it is a residential estate, and then submitted an intrusion addition plan. Please deny Palo Alto Commons its current application and ensure that the daylight plane and privacy are protected for the residents who live on Wilkie Way. When one business gets away with this kind of expansion it only encourages other businesses to do the same. Please ask Palo Alto Commons to come back with a proposal that meets our current building standards and addresses daylight plane, parking congestion and privacy. Thank you, Yanfeng Wang Ventura Neighborhood From:e2huang.sd@gmail.com To:Council, City Subject:Palo Alto Commons Date:Thursday, May 1, 2025 7:21:34 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor Lauing and City Council Members: Please deny Palo Alto Commons its current application and insure that the daylight plane and privacy are protected for the residents who live on Wilkie Way. When one business gets awaywith this kind of expansion it only encourages other businesses to do the same. Please ask Palo Alto Commons to come back with a proposal that meets our current building standards andaddresses daylight plane, parking congestion and privacy. Thank you. E. HuangVentura Neighborhood From:Adam Schwartz To:Council, City Subject:Palo Alto Commons - please support on May 5! Date:Thursday, May 1, 2025 3:24:48 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i To the Palo Alto City Council: I write in strong support of building 16 new homes at the Palo Alto Commons, and I urge you to approve the necessary code changes. This is item #14 on the agenda for the upcoming May 5 meeting of the CityCouncil. This is personal for me. My wife and I have lived in Palo Alto for ten years and raised our kids here. My mother lives 3,000 miles away. At age 83,she increasingly needs my assistance, and she wants to move to the Bay Area. But our community is suffering from a housing shortage and extraordinarily expensive homes. We need to increase the supply here of homes for all kinds of people, including for assisted care and memory unitsin elder housing. Sixteen new homes at Palo Alto Commons would be a great start. I live in the shadow of Channing House. They are great neighbors. If theywanted to add 16 units, or 160 units, I would quickly sign a petition in support building new homes around the corner from me. Sincerely, Adam Schwartz 523 Channing Ave. This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast From:Susan Kemp To:Council, City Subject:No on Palo Alto Commons Expansion adversely affecting Wilkie Way neighbors Date:Thursday, May 1, 2025 12:09:41 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor Lauing and City Council Members: Please deny Palo Alto Commons its current application and insure that the daylight plane and privacy are protected for the residents who live on Wilkie Way. When one business gets away with this kind of expansion it only encourages other businesses to do the same. Please ask Palo Alto Commons to come back with a proposal that meets our current building standards and addresses daylight plane, parking congestion and privacy for the residents of Wilkie Way. Thank you. Susan Kemp Ventura neighborhood resident From:Kevin Ji To:Council, City; Clerk, City Cc:Kallas, Emily Subject:4075 El Camino Way Comments With Attachments Date:Tuesday, April 29, 2025 7:25:09 AM 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 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 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 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 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 ATTACHMENT A PC3775 (Original 1987 PC) ATTACHMENT B Construction Equipment in Parking Spaces over Several Months From:Kevin Ji To:Council, City; Clerk, City Cc:Kallas, Emily Subject:Re: 4075 El Camino Way Comments With Attachments Date:Tuesday, April 29, 2025 7:25:09 AM Attachments:City Council Attachments 24.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hi, Here is the second of 4 attachments. Sincerely, Kevin On Mon, Apr 28, 2025 at 6:40 PM Kevin Ji <kevinji2021@gmail.com> wrote: Hi Mahea, Emily has let me know that there was an issue with my public comment for 4075 El CaminoWay, an agendized item for 5/5. I've gone ahead and split them into smaller chunks. Hopefully they can get aggregated back into one larger comment. Below is my textcomment, 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 on behalf of a group? I want to submit a presentation and want to make sure that there isenough 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 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 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 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 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 ATTACHMENT C Cone Reserving Handicap Spot for Palo Alto Commons Bus ATTACHMENT D Palo Alto Commons Vehicles Illegally Parking From:Kevin Ji To:Council, City; Clerk, City Cc:Kallas, Emily Subject:Re: 4075 El Camino Way Comments With Attachments Date:Tuesday, April 29, 2025 7:23:50 AM Attachments:City Council Attachments 34.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hi, Here is the third of 4 attachments. Sincerely, Kevin On Mon, Apr 28, 2025 at 6:41 PM Kevin Ji <kevinji2021@gmail.com> wrote: Hi, Here is the second of 4 attachments. Sincerely, Kevin On Mon, Apr 28, 2025 at 6:40 PM Kevin Ji <kevinji2021@gmail.com> wrote: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 smallerchunks. Hopefully they 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 speakingon behalf 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 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 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 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 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 ATTACHMENT E Illegal Street Parking from Overflow Visitor Parking Parking on El Camino Way on the right side is illegal and only occurs in front of the Palo Alto Commons. ATTACHMENT F 1986/1987 Public Meeting Notes ATTACHMENT G Palo Alto Commons Bus on Wilkie Attachment H Palo Alto Commons Vehicles in Visitor Parking From:Kevin Ji To:Council, City; Clerk, City Cc:Kallas, Emily Subject:Re: 4075 El Camino Way Comments With Attachments Date:Tuesday, April 29, 2025 7:23:39 AM Attachments:City Council Attachments 44.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hi, Here is the fourth of 4 attachments. Sincerely, Kevin On Mon, Apr 28, 2025 at 6:42 PM Kevin Ji <kevinji2021@gmail.com> wrote: Hi, Here is the third of 4 attachments. Sincerely, Kevin On Mon, Apr 28, 2025 at 6:41 PM Kevin Ji <kevinji2021@gmail.com> wrote:Hi, Here is the second of 4 attachments. Sincerely, Kevin On Mon, Apr 28, 2025 at 6:40 PM Kevin Ji <kevinji2021@gmail.com> wrote: Hi Mahea, Emily has let me know that there was an issue with my public comment for 4075 ElCamino Way, an agendized item for 5/5. I've gone ahead and split them into smaller chunks. Hopefully they can get aggregated back into one larger comment. Below is mytext 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 on behalf of a group? I want to submit a presentation and want to make sure that there isenough 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 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 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 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 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 ATTACHMENT I Palo Alto Commons Staff in Neighborhood ATTACHMENT J Inconsistent Valet There is often no one at the valet stand. There is often no valet at all. ATTACHMENT K Avant Public Benefit (PC5116) ATTACHMENT L Current Public Benefit (6/12/24 PTC Packet Page 182)