HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 2503-4305CITY OF PALO ALTO
CITY COUNCIL
Special Meeting
Tuesday, May 27, 2025
Council Chambers & Hybrid
5:30 PM
Agenda Item
7.FIRST READING: Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Palo Alto Municipal Code Titles 18
(Zoning) and 16 (Building Regulations) to Modify the El Camino Real Focus Area,
Implementing Program 3.4E of the Housing Element, and Updating the Housing Incentive
Program. CEQA Status: the Addendum to the Comprehensive Plan Environmental Impact
Report (EIR), Considered by the City Council on April 15, 2024, Analyzed Potential
Environmental Impacts of the 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element Including Program 3.4E.
Staff Presentation, Public Comment
City Council
Staff Report
From: City Manager
Report Type: ACTION ITEMS
Lead Department: Planning and Development Services
Meeting Date: May 27, 2025
Report #:2503-4305
TITLE
FIRST READING: Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Palo Alto Municipal Code Titles 18
(Zoning) and 16 (Building Regulations) to Modify the El Camino Real Focus Area, Implementing
Program 3.4E of the Housing Element, and Updating the Housing Incentive Program. CEQA
Status: the Addendum to the Comprehensive Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR),
Considered by the City Council on April 15, 2024, Analyzed Potential Environmental Impacts of
the 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element Including Program 3.4E.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt an ordinance amending Chapters 18.14 and 16.58
of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) (Attachment A) to implement Program 3.4E of the
Housing Element regarding the El Camino Real Focus Area expansion and modification of
development standards.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Adopted in December 2023, the El Camino Real Focus Area establishes more flexible
development standards for a limited number of parcels fronting El Camino Real near Page Mill
Road. In exchange, qualifying projects must provide at least 20 percent of residential units at or
below 80 percent of the Area Median Income (AMI). The Focus Area was developed as an
alternative to State Density Bonus Law and as a response to filed Builder’s Remedy applications.
This report describes the implementation of Housing Element Program 3.4E, which calls for
targeted amendments to the El Camino Real Focus Area. The proposed amendments include
two primary changes:
1.Geographic Expansion – Extending the boundaries of the Focus Area to include
additional eligible parcels; and
2.Development Standards Modifications – Adjusting standards to support feasible and
context-sensitive development, considering adjacent land uses and proximity to transit
and essential services.
The draft ordinance also introduces additional incentives to encourage lot consolidation, the
provision of below-market-rate housing, and utilization of the Focus Area program in lieu of
pursuing State Density Bonus Law or Builder’s Remedy pathways.
BACKGROUND
Expand the geographic boundaries of the El Camino Real Focus Area (adopted in 2023)
to incentivize housing production at appropriate locations. Increase building height and
floor area ratios and apply other objective standards, such as transitional height
restrictions, to address single family zoning district adjacencies. The proposed standards
will be an alternative to the state density bonus.
“tiers,” with Tier 1 representing the highest potential for
inclusion in the expanded Focus Area and Tier 4 having the lowest potential. The sites were
arranged into tiers based on the following criteria: lot size/shape, lot consolidation potential,
developer interest, Housing Element opportunity site status, proximity to public transit, and
lack of R-1 zone adjacencies.
Architectural Review Board (ARB) Feedback
In contrast with the PTC, the ARB supported expansion to Tiers 1, 2, 3, and 4.
ARB members were split between modulating standards for smaller lot sizes and in the
middle of the corridor vs. maintaining the same standards throughout the whole
corridor.
ARB members generally agreed on refining the daylight plane standard to an initial
height of 16 feet and 45 degrees.
ARB members generally agreed that the daylight plane should regulate transitions and
that the height transition standard should be removed.
ARB members supported refining the upper story stepback (on the El Camino Real
frontage) to: 10 feet over 75% of facade above 55 or 65 feet in height.
Generally supported expansion within Tier 1 and Tier 2 sites.
Recommended modulated standards for different locations.
Recommended providing incentives for lot consolidation.
Supported modifications to height transition standards to allow more massing, while
still creating transitions to lower height structures.
Supported maintaining adequate sidewalk widths and bike facilities.
Commissioners supported the geographic expansion of the Focus Area, removal of the
height transition standard, including standardized setbacks, lot consolidation incentives,
fee waivers for lower income below-market rate units, and limiting office uses based on
base district regulations (Motion #1: 6-0).
Commissioners were split on how to adjust the daylight plane. They agreed on making it
stricter in the absence of a height transition standard, but disagreed whether it should
be lowered from 60 degrees to 45 degrees or 30 degrees (i.e., more restrictive) (Motion
#2: 3-3). (See daylight plane discussion below.)
A majority of Commissioners supported the simplified upper story stepback in the draft
ordinance (Motion #3: 4-2).
Commissioners supported revisions to the on-site below-market rate requirements
within the Focus Area to match AB 1893/Housing Accountability Act provisions, for
existing Builder’s Remedy projects only (Motion #4: 6-0).
Commissioners also expressed interest in expanding Focus Area standards to other sites
on El Camino Real in the future.
Commissioners did not make a recommendation about the Hansen Way special
setbacks. They were open to changes to the setback if acceptable to the Transportation
Division and Stanford. This topic is further discussed in Attachment B.
Commissioners recommended that any zoning changes to 470 Olive Avenue be made as
part of a development project. This rezoning is not included in the draft ordinance.
For further background information on the El Camino Real Focus Area and discussion of
potential tiers for expansion, see the December 17, 2024 PTC staff report.1
ANALYSIS
The draft ordinance in Attachment A expands the geographic reach of the Focus Area and
adjusts development standards in a manner that will encourage participation in the Housing
Focus Area program and maintain the City’s design priorities.
Geographic Expansion of the Focus Area
The draft ordinance expands the Focus Area to include sites with the highest potential for
development based on site conditions and location, and sites with active Builder’s Remedy
applications. These sites could generate approximately 500 dwelling units based on the draft
zoning standards (depending on the number of sites that turn over). As shown in Figure 1, these
sites are close to services and Caltrain, several have developer interest and/or Housing Element
opportunity site status, and several sites exceed ½ acre, which allows for higher density
projects with parking.
1 December 17, 2024 PTC staff report:
https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/meetings/ItemWithTemplateType?id=6713&meetingTemplateType=2&comp
iledMeetingDocumentId=12701
Figure 1: Existing and Proposed El Camino Real Focus Area
Further Geographic Expansion--NVCAP and Beyond
Notably, since adoption of the original Focus Area, the North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan
(NVCAP) has been approved and sites in the plan area have been upzoned to allow higher
densities and building heights. NVCAP sites are not included in the proposed expansion of the
Focus Area consistent with the PTC’s recommendation. However, the Council could consider
including the following NVCAP parcels within the Focus Area: 2951, 2905, and 2999 El Camino
Real. Although currently owned by three different entities, the property owner of 2951 El
Camino Real has been in discussions about site acquisition and lot consolidation to a form an
approximately 1-acre parcel. Moreover, they have developed concept plans for these sites,
which were reviewed by the City Council over two prescreenings in 2021.
Three parcels were preliminarily identified as “Tier 2” sites for potential inclusion in the El
Camino Real Focus Area. These sites demonstrated some, but not all, of the established criteria:
they are of interest to developers but are adjacent to R-1 zoning districts and are relatively
small unless consolidated. During study sessions, both the Planning and Transportation
Commission (PTC) and the Architectural Review Board (ARB) generally supported the inclusion
of all Tier 1 and Tier 2 sites.
However, due to limitations on the total development capacity analyzed in the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Addendum prepared for the Housing Element, only the Tier 1
sites have been included in the draft Focus Area boundary. As such, the PTC did not evaluate
the Tier 2 sites as part of its March 21 action.
Attachment C includes correspondence from the property owner of 2951 El Camino Real
expressing interest in being included in the Focus Area. Separately, this property owner has also
indicated interest in rezoning their adjacent parcel at 470 Olive Avenue, which is currently
zoned R-1 and located behind the El Camino Real–fronting sites.
The Council could add 2951, 2905, and 2999 El Camino Real to El Camino Real Focus Area within
the CEQA review completed in the Addendum. The addition of the Focus Area could help
facilitate site acquisition and lot consolidation and offer the property owner a development
process more attractive than State Density Bonus Law by allowing additional density. Compared
to Density Bonus Law, the Focus Area allows more design predictability by eliminating the
option for waivers from objective standards and requires more affordable housing to be located
on-site.
Further expansion of the Focus Area would trigger additional environmental review and add
approximately 10 months to the schedule, extending the timeline of implementation of
Program 3.4E beyond the June 2025 deadline in the Housing Element. This potential work effort
could be incorporated into a future area plan for El Camino Real, as previously directed by the
Council.
Remove Height Transition, but Decrease Daylight Plane: The height transition has been
removed and replaced with standards that rely on setbacks and a stricter daylight plane
to facilitate height transitions. The draft ordinance shows a decrease in the daylight
plane from 60 degrees to 45 degrees (decreased angle makes it more restrictive). With
an initial height of 16 feet at the property line, this will allow for two stories of building
height (approximately 20 feet) abutting an R-1 zoning district, which has a height limit of
30 feet. For adjacencies to other zoning districts, the current regulations for daylight
planes will continue to apply.
Figure 2: Existing and Proposed Daylight Plane Options
Simplify Upper Story Setback: The upper story stepback standard was modified to
require a 10-foot stepback above 55 feet in building height along at least 70% of the
façade rather an average 20-foot stepback. This revision allows more massing on the El
Camino Real frontage, while still requiring relief above the fifth story. Some developers
within the Focus Area have expressed concerns that upper story setbacks will reduce
the number of units feasible on a site and add costs due to construction inefficiencies
and waterproofing needs.
Standardize Setbacks: The front, side, and rear setbacks are standardized for the Focus
Area (generally consistent with typical El Camino Real standards for the CN/CS zones),
rather than deferred to the underlying base district standards which have a broad range.
Provide Incentives for Consolidation: Two sets of FAR and building height standards,
depending on lot size are proposed, to acknowledge that larger sites can accommodate
more density and building height and to provide incentives for lot consolidation.
Provide Incentives for BMR Units: For projects with at least 20% of units at below-
market rate levels, lower income BMR units would be exempted from development
impact fees.
Streamlined Review: Projects that meet the City’s objective design standards may be
processed through Streamlined Review (i.e., one study session with the ARB).
Alternatively, projects may choose to meet the City’s context based design criteria and
go through Architectural Review (i.e., up to three hearings with the ARB).
Implications for Mixed Use Projects
As written, the draft ordinance allows mixed use projects that are at least 2/3 residential use
(i.e., a housing development project as defined by State law) to utilize Focus Area standards.
This means that office, retail, and hotel uses may take advantage of these standards as long as
they are proposed as part of a single project, even if there are multiple parcels and structures
build out in phases over time. The draft ordinance applies specific limits for non-residential FAR
and building height. Non-residential uses are limited to 50 feet in building height and the
maximum FAR identified in the base zoning district (e.g., 0.4 FAR in the RP zone). To incentivize
ground-floor retail, the draft ordinance allows up to 5,000 sq. ft. of retail floor area beyond this
FAR limit, as long as the project as whole does not exceed 4.0 FAR. For potential projects with
hotel and office uses, this flexibility in the zoning may provide an incentive to use the Focus
Area standards over Builder’s Remedy.
7% of units are affordable to extremely low-income households (<30% AMI)
10% of units are affordable to very low-income households (<50% of AMI)
13% of units are affordable to lower-income households (<80% of AMI)
100% of units are affordable to moderate-income households (<120% of AMI)
inconsistencies include: daylight plane and setbacks at the interface with R-1 and R-1 zoning
districts; open space/landscape coverage standards; upper story stepbacks on El Camino Real;
special setbacks; and non-residential FAR and building height. These applicants would need to
choose to modify their projects to meet the Focus Area standards in order to comply with and
utilize this alternate process.
FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
Notice of a public hearing for this project was published in the Daily Post on May 15, 2025,
which is 12 days in advance of the meeting.
City staff and consultants have met with eight property owners and developers within the
existing and proposed El Camino Real Focus Area and, in other portions of El Camino Real
where the Focus Area could apply, to gauge the viability of the program, including the
development standards and affordability requirements. These stakeholders have expressed
support for the overall policy initiative and for the height and density standards, but concerns
over the following regulations in the current Focus Area: height transitions and daylight planes,
setbacks especially abutting R1 and R2 zoning districts, upper story stepbacks, and affordability
requirements.
Additionally, as detailed in Attachment B, Stanford University, the property owner at 3300 El
Camino Real, and Sand Hill Properties, the lessee at the site, advocate for removal of the 50-
foot special setback on Hansen Way. They indicate that if the current 50-foot setback remains,
it is unlikely that the area between the utility easement and the setback can be developed into
any use, whether it be residential or commercial. They state that this would reduce the
developable area of the site, as well as negatively impact the aesthetic appeal of the El Camino
Real/Hansen gateway.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
On April 15, 2024, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 10155, approving an Addendum to
the Comprehensive Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The addendum analyzed potential
environmental impacts of the 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element. This includes implementation of
Housing Element Program 3.4E and associated increase in housing production including the
RHNA, Housing Element sites inventory, and other Housing Element programs. Specifically,
Housing Element Program 3.4E indicates that an additional 500 units could be generated
through expansion of the Focus Area. Buildout of the proposed expanded Focus Area falls
within this threshold.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Amendments to Title 18 to Implement Housing Element Program 3.4E
Attachment B: Hansen Way Special Setbacks
Attachment C: 2951 ECR Multifamily Development Letter
APPROVED BY:
Jonathan Lait, Planning and Development Services Director
1
Ordinance No.
Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending: Chapter 18.14
(Housing Incentives) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Implement Program 3.4E
of the 2023-2031 Housing Element to Expand and Revise Regulations for the El
Camino Real Focus Area; Making Conforming Amendments to Chapter 16.58
(Development Impact Fees)
SECTION 1. Findings and Declarations. The City Council finds and declares as follows:
A. On May 8, 2023, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 10107, approving an Addendum
to the Comprehensive Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR), making various findings, and
adopting the 2023-2031 Housing Element for the City of Palo Alto.
B. On November 13, 2023, the City Council approved a Revised Addendum to the
Comprehensive Plan EIR and introduced Ordinance No. 5608, rezoning sites in the 2023-
2031 Housing Element Sites Inventory to accommodate the City’s Regional Housing Needs
Allocation.
C. On April 15, 2024, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 10155, making various findings,
adopting a Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element, and authorizing the Director of Planning
and Development Services to take further actions necessary to achieve certification of the
Housing Element by the California Department of Housing and Community Development
(HCD).
D. On August 19, 2024, HCD found that the Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element, as further
modified on July 17, 2024, was substantially compliant with state law.
E. Program 3.4E of the City’s Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element directs the City to expand
the geographic boundaries of the El Camino Focus Area to incentivize housing production
in appropriate locations.
F. On March 26, 2025, the Planning and Transportation Commission considered and
recommended that the City Council adopt this ordinance to implement the 2023-2031
Housing Element.
SECTION 2. Section 18.14.020 (Housing Element Opportunity Sites) of Chapter 18.14 (Housing
Incentives) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as
follows (additions underlined; deletions struck through; and unchanged text omitted with
bracketed ellipses):
18.14.020 Housing Element Opportunity Sites and Focus Areas
This subsection implements the rezoning required to meet the RHNA in the 2023-2031 Housing
Element, pursuant to Appendix D. Regulations identified in Table 1 and Table 2 modify and replace
development standards provided in base zoning district and applicable combining district
2
regulations. This section additionally provides regulations for Housing Focus Areas in portions of
El Camino Real and in the GM/ROLM districts that further the goals of the Housing Element.
3
units provided pursuant to this paragraph (C) shall be subject to payment of
development impact fees as set forth in Title 16 of this code.
(vi) Combining district design and development standards shall not apply to exclusively
residential projects on housing opportunity sites designated in Appendix D of the Housing
Element to accommodate lower income households.
[. . .]
Table 3
Site- Specific Development Standards (Stanford-Owned Sites & El Camino Real Focus Area)
Location Pasteur Dr. & 1100 Welch
Rd. (1)(3)
(Figure 2)
El Camino Real Focus Area(1)
(Figure 3)
Minimum Setbacks (feet)
Setback lines imposed by a special setback map pursuant to Chapter
20.08 of this code may apply
Minimum Front (7)
Setback
15 feet 0' - 10' to create a 12' effective
sidewalk width See base district
regulations
Abutting low density residential (RE,
R2, NV-R2, RMD), R1, or NV-R1 zone
district: 20’
Abutting other residential zone
district: 10’
Rear and Interior
Side
Abutting non-residential zone
district: 10’ for residential use; none
for non-residential use
Street Side(7)
See base district
regulations: 18.13.040
5’
Maximum FAR (Total)3.5 (Total)Lot size => 10,000 sq. ft.: 4.0 (Total)
Lot size < 10,000 sq. ft.: 3.0 (Total)
Maximum FAR (Non-
Residential)
See base district
regulations: 18.13.040
See base district regulations, except
that an additional 5,000 square feet
of retail and retail-like uses may be
permitted, subject to Total FAR limits.
Maximum Site/
Minimum
Landscape/Open
Space Coverage
(2)(2)
Maximum Lot
Coverage
60%Lot size => 10,000 sq. ft.: 80%
Lot size < 10,000 sq. ft.: 70%
Maximum Density
(du/ac)
None None
Maximum Height(6)
(feet) for residential
85 Lot size => 10,000 sq. ft.: 85
Lot size < 10,000 sq. ft.: 65
4
portion
Maximum Height(6)
(feet) for non-
residential portion
50 50
Daylight Plane Sand Hill Rd. frontage only:
initial height 60 feet above
grade at the Sand Hill Rd.
setback line and a 45-
degree angle
For lot lines abutting an R1 or NV-R1
zoning district:
Initial height: 16 feet, measured at
the property line
Slope: 45 degrees
Other locations: See base district
regulations for standards for daylight
planes
Height Transitions n/a Within 100 ft. of low density
residential (RE, R2, or RMD) or R1
single family zone district property
line: 35 ft.
Between 100 and 150 ft. of low
density or R1 zone district property
line: 45 ft.
Upper Story Step Back None El Camino Real frontage above 55
feet in height: minimum 10 6 foot
step-back from lower facade, for a
minimum 70% of the facade length.;
and average setback from the
property line for the entire facade
shall be 20 feet(7).
See Figure 4.
Minimum Usable
Open Space
100 sq. ft./unit (any
combination of common
and/or private)
100 sq. ft./unit (any combination of
common and/or private)
Minimum Residential
Parking(5)
0.5 spaces/unit 1 space/unit
(Per AB2097: 1 0 space/unit within ½
mile of Caltrain)
Other Development
Standards
See base district
regulations: 18.13.040
See base district regulations
Design
Criteria/Standards
Compliance with Objective
Design Standards pursuant
to 18.24(4)
Architectural Review Streamlined
Housing Development Project Review
and compliance with either Objective
Deign Standards pursuant to Chapter
18.24 or Architectural Review and
compliance with Context-Based
Design Criteria pursuant to base
district regulations(4).
Notes:
5
[. . .]
(4) Except, the following objective design standards shall be modified to meet the realistic
capacity identified in the Housing Element:
(a) 18.24.050(b)(5): Diversity of Housing Types shall not apply.
(b) 18.24.060(b)(7): Parking/Loading/Utilities, shall be replaced with the following standard:
Above grade structured parking levels facing a public right-of-way or publicly accessible open
space/path with the exception of vehicular alleys, shall compose no more than 50% of any public
frontage. Garage facades fronting on public right-of-way shall be screened with decorative
architectural screening (e.g. perforated metal panels, murals), lined with habitable uses, or
screened with landscaping (e.g., green wall, climbing vines).
(c) 18.24.050(b)(1): Upper Floor Step Backs & Daylight Planes shall not apply.
[. . .]
(7) Average setback from the property line may be calculated by taking the area between the
property line and the upper facade. This area, in square feet, shall be greater than or equal to the
facade length multiplied by 20. Example: 200-foot facade length x 20-foot average setback +
minimum 4,000 sq. ft. area of setback per floor. For purposes of this calculation, portions of the
upper facade with a setback greater than 40 feet shall be treated as if the facade is located at 40
feet from the property line. For purposes of this calculation, roof projections and eaves up to
four feet in depth shall be excluded.
For the purposes of this development standards table, the following definitions apply:
“Abutting” refers to parcels that share a property line, exclusive of parcels with intersecting
corners, parcels separated by a street, or parcels under common ownership.
“Lot Size” refers to the total lot area of a proposed project, which may be composed of one or
more parcels, generally under common ownership, which may include parcels developed in
phases over time.
“Front Setback” for properties on El Camino Real means the setback from El Camino Real.
“Street Side Setback” for properties on El Camino Real means the setback from a street that
intersects El Camino Real.
[. . .]
//
//
//
//
6
Figure 3: El Camino Focus Area
7
Figure 4: Upper Story Step Back (El Camino Real Focus Area)
portions of buildings more than 49 feet from the property line shall be counted as 40 feet
Figure 4b
8
SECTION 3. Section 16.58.030 (Exemptions) of Chapter 16.58 (Development Impact Fees) of Title
16 (Building Regulations) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows
(additions underlined):
16.58.030 Exemptions.
The provisions of this chapter shall not apply to the following:
(a) City buildings or structures;
(b) Public school buildings or structures;
(c) Residential housing, either for sale or rental, which, by recordable means, is permanently
obligated to be 100% affordable, as defined in Section 18.14.040(c);
(d) Retail service, eating and drinking service, personal service, or automotive service when
the total additional square footage is 1,500 square feet or less. This exemption shall apply
only when the additional square footage of new development does not exceed 1,500
square feet. New development that is larger than 1,500 square feet shall pay a fee for all
square footage, including the first 1,500 square feet;
(e) Day care centers used for child care, nursery school or preschool education;
(f) Below market rate housing units above and beyond the minimum number required for
projects subject to the City's Below Market Rate (BMR) Housing program or other housing
incentive programs. The additional units must be offered and constructed in a manner
consistent with all requirements of the BMR program;
(g) Accessory dwelling units (ADU) less than 750 square feet in size. Any impact fees to be
charged for an accessory dwelling unit of 750 square feet or more shall be proportional to
the square footage of the primary dwelling unit;
(h) Junior accessory dwelling units (JADU);
(i) Any residential subdivision for which land dedication or fees in lieu thereof are required
pursuant to Chapter 21.50 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. This exemption shall only apply
to the park development fee described in Section 16.58.020(a).
(j) Below market rate housing units affordable to lower income households constructed
pursuant to the El Camino Focus Area standards pursuant to Section 18.14.020, subdivision
(c)(v)(B), of the Palo Alto Municipal Code.
9
SECTION 4. Section 18.14.030 (Housing Incentive Program) of Chapter 18.14 (Housing Incentives)
of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows
(additions underlined; text unchanged and omitted indicated by bracketed ellipses):
18.14.030 Housing Incentive Program
Table 6
FAR and Building Height Standards, by Eligible Zone District
SECTION 5. If any section, subsection, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to
be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion or sections of the
10
Ordinance. The Council hereby declares that it should have adopted the Ordinance and each
section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or
more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid.
SECTION 6. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City prepared
an Addendum to the 2017 Comprehensive Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR), analyzing the
potential environmental impacts of the 2023-2031 Housing Element. On May 8, 2023, the City
Council adopted Resolution No. 10107, and on November 17, 2023, the City Council approved a
Revised Addendum, finding that the Addendum, as revised, and the 2017 EIR adequately analyzed
the environmental impacts of the Housing Element, including the Programs implemented by this
ordinance.
SECTION 7. This Ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first day after the date of its adoption.
Hansen Way Special Setbacks
Southwest of the Focus Area, on Stanford University Lands, the City’s zoning map requires
special setbacks of 50 feet on numerous streets in the Research Park, as shown in Figure
B-1 below. These setbacks are intended to preserve right-of-way for future circulation,
including vehicle travel lanes, and pedestrian and bicycle facilities. The project sponsors at
3300 El Camino Real received approval for an office development in 2023, but based on the
Focus Area opportunity are considering a revised development application that would add
multifamily housing to the site in addition to the proposed office use.
50-foot special setback symbolized with dotted green line along Hansen Way. Note small
text along the Hansen Way frontage of the 3200 El Camino Real property which reads:
NO_SPECIAL_SETBACK_FOR_MIXEDUSE_HOTEL_USES_3200_ECR_PAMC 20.08.20
Figure B-1: Excerpt of Palo Alto Zoning Map (p. 8): Hansen Way Special Setbacks
As shown in Figure B-2, the northern (plan left) portion of the site is constrained by both the
50-foot special setback and a PG&E no-build easement that crosses the site. Reducing or
removing this special setback would improve feasibility for the site. In response to an
inquiry by the PTC, City staff contacted representatives from Stanford Real Estate to get
their opinion on the special setback. Both the property owner, Standford University, and the
property lessee and project sponsor, Sand Hill Properties, advocate for removal of this
special setback. Stanford Real Estate representatives do not have an alternative use
envisioned for the setback area. They indicate that Hansen Way has sufficient width for
vehicular and bicycle connectivity, is currently improved with an existing Class IIb buffered
bicycle lane, providing a safe path of travel for bicyclists. They do not see a need to
continue to hold an additional 50-foot setback for some other future use.
Source: Sand Hill Properties
Figure B-2: 3300 El Camino Real Site Constraints
As noted on Figure B-1 and the accompanying caption, there is precedent for removing this
setback. It does not apply to mixed-use hotel uses on the opposite side of the street at
3200 El Camino Real. Approaching the intersection with El Camino Real, this segment of
Hansen Way measures 40 feet curb -to-curb. Westbound, it includes one travel lane and a
buffered bicycle lane; eastbound, it includes on travel lane and a shared right-turn
lane/shared bicycle route. As a result, Hansen Way is shown as a bicycle facility in the
February 2025 Draft Bicycle Plan.
Jean Eisberg <jean@lexingtonplanning.com>
2951 ECR Multifamily Residential Development
Jessica Rose Agramonte <jessicaroseagramonte@gmail.com>Wed, Apr 30, 2025 at 3:21 PM
To: Jean Eisberg <jean@lexingtonplanning.com>
Cc: "Jonathan.Lait@CityofPaloAlto.org" <Jonathan.Lait@cityofpaloalto.org>, Stephen Siri <stephen@themartingroup.com>,
Thomas Agramonte <tgrant.agramonte@gmail.com>, Will Agramonte <willjagramonte@gmail.com>
Jean,
Thank you so much for your time this morning and walking us through draft Focus Area standards. We have not yet
studied these standards with our architect. However, in the interest of time and in order to maintain optionality of
entitlement paths, please include 2951/2905/2999 El Camino Real parcels within the Housing Focus Area. Given the long
history of 470 Olive, we understand this could not be included within the housing focus area at this time but, we will want
to discuss a collaborative approach for including this property within the larger development property at a later date.
Please let us know if you need anything else from us at this time and we appreciate your support. When the June meeting
is set, we will plan on attending.
Regards,
Jessica
May 27, 2025
HOUSING ELEMENT
IMPLEMENTATION
Program 3.4E:
El Camino Real Focus Area
City Council Hearing
Presenter: Jean Eisberg, Lexington Planning
2
BACKGROUND: EL CAMINO REAL FOCUS AREA
●More generous development standards (e.g., 4.0 FAR, 85-foot
height limit, 1 space/unit minimum parking).
●Requires 20% of residential units at up to 80% of AMI.
●Excellent access to transit, jobs, shopping, services; few
adjacencies/existing residents; taller height context.
●Developed as an alternative to State Density Bonus Law and
Builder’s Remedy.
3
PROPOSED/
APPROVED
PROJECTS
4
BACKGROUND: HOUSING ELEMENT PROGRAM
3.4E
1.“Expand the geographic boundaries of the El Camino
Real Focus Area (adopted in 2023) to incentivize
housing production at appropriate locations.
2.Increase building height and floor area ratios and
apply other objective standards, such as transitional
height restrictions, to address single family zoning
district adjacencies. The proposed standards will be an
alternative to the state density bonus.”
5
Consider draft ordinance:
1.Proposed expansion areas;
2.Development regulation changes; and
3.Affordable housing requirements.
MEETING PURPOSE
6
PROPOSED EXPANSION AREA
1.Cal Ave. & Tier 1 & 2 Builders’ Remedy.
2.Covered by Addendum to the Comprehensive Plan EIR prepared for the Housing Element.
3.PTC and ARB support for further expansion along corridor.
4.Council direction to prepare an El Camino Real area plan.
7
PROPOSED EXPANSION AREA
1.Property owner at 2951 El Camino Real/470 Olive Avenue requests inclusion in the Focus Area to incentivize lot consolidation.
2.Not identified as “Tier 1” due to R-1 adjacencies and lot size/ownership.
3.2021 City Council pre-screenings.
4.Covered by Addendum to the Comprehensive Plan EIR.
8
MODIFIED DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS
Standards Existing
Proposed
<10,000 sq. ft.=>10,000 sq. ft.
Max. Floor Area Ratio 4.0 3.0 4.0
Max. Building Height 85 ft.65 ft.85 ft.
Max. Lot Coverage 70%70%80%
Setbacks Defer to base zoning Standardize based on CN/CS zones
Except for height and
FAR limitations on
non-residential uses
9
MODIFIED DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS
Standards Existing Proposed
Height Transition (Abutting
R-1, RE, R-2, RMD)
Within 100 ft.: 35 ft.
B/w 100 and 150 ft.: 45 ft.None
Daylight Plane (Abutting R-
1 Zones)
See base district regulations
Initial height: 16 feet
Slope: 45 degrees
Daylight Plane (Abutting
Other Zones)
See base district regulations
Upper Story Stepback (El
Camino Real Frontage)
Above 55 feet in height: min. 6-foot
stepback from lower facade, for a
minimum 70% of the facade
length, and 20-foot avg. setback
Above 55 feet in height: min.
10-foot stepback from
lower facade,for a minimum
70% of the facade length
10
HEIGHT TRANSITIONS & DAYLIGHT PLANE
PTC split motion:
change to 45 degrees
vs. 30 degrees
11
UPPER STORY STEPBACK (EL CAMINO REAL FRONTAGE)
Current Standard Proposed Standard
12
HANSEN WAY SPECIAL SETBACK
●50-foot setbacks throughout Standford properties/Research Park for future circulation
●Setback already removed across the street at 3200 El Camino Real
●Setback and PG&E easement constrain site design
13
Current builders’ remedy projects would need to modify project design to
meet Focus Area and other development standards, such as:
●Daylight plane and setbacks at the interface with R-1 and R-2 zones
●Open space/landscape coverage standards
●Upper story stepbacks on El Camino Real
●Special setbacks
●Non-residential FAR and building height
●Objective design standards (if seeking streamlined review)
BUILDERS REMEDY PROJECT COMPLIANCE
14
TWO PROCESS OPTIONS
Streamlined
Review
(1 ARB Study
Session)
Architectural Review w/ ARB Findings
(up to 3 ARB hearings)
Objective Design
Standards
Context-Based
Design Criteria
15
AFFORDABLE REQUIREMENTS
AB 1893 (eff. January 1, 2025)
Modified “Builder’s Remedy”
provisions of the Housing
Accountability Act to require
zoning compliance, but reduce
affordability requirements
% of Units Area Median Income Level
Current El Camino
Focus Area Requirement 20%Lower Income (<80%)
New Builders’ Remedy
Requirements
7%Extremely Low (<30%)
10%Very Low (<50%)
13%Lower (<80%)
100%Moderate (<125%)
Draft ordinance matches AB1893 requirements for current Builder’s Remedy projects
16
AFFORDABLE REQUIREMENTS
Draft ordinance exempts inclusionary units from impact fees when a project
provides at least 20% of total units on-site as income-restricted housing
affordable to households earning up to 80% of AMI
17
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Recommend the City Council amend PAMC Chapter 18.14:
1.Discuss:
a.Development regulation changes
b.Proposed expansion areas, including NVCAP request
c.Affordable housing requirements
d.Specific standards: daylight plane, special setbacks on Hansen Way
2.Adopt Ordinance
From:Tiny Home Lady
To:Council, City
Subject:Urge you to Rezone El Camino
Date:Tuesday, May 27, 2025 11:39:45 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Hello esteemed council members. As someone who has been an advocate for more housing in
the Bay Area for 7 years, I strongly urge you to revision and rezone the El Camino Real. After
visiting Europe recently and seeing how they live in smaller homes and in more centralized
areas Palo Alto and the El Camino with all it's access and urban could follow suit and create a
thriving area offering housing, commerce and community.
On a typical day, commuters traveling into Palo Alto account for approximately 6.6 million
vehicle miles, representing about 80% of the city's total daily VMT. This substantial figure
underscores the city's traffic challenges and the environmental impact of inbound commuting.
To mitigate these VMT challenges, Palo Alto has set ambitious targets within its Sustainability
and Climate Action Plan (S/CAP). By 2030, the city aims to reduce total VMT by 12%
compared to 2019 levels. This includes a 20% reduction in commute-related VMT, a 10%
decrease in visitor VMT, and a 6% cut in resident VMT. Additionally, the city seeks to
increase the share of active transportation (walking, biking) and transit use from 19% to 40%
of local work trips.
My question is how are you going to achieve this without adding more housing? We can't
keep passing the preverbial challenge from one council to another we need to enact change
now and the rezoning of El Camino to allow for more housing and more community is where
to start.
Sincerely,
--
Lindsay Wood
Founder | The Tiny Home Lady
California | (415) 378-8398
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
TheTinyHomeLady.com
thetinyhomelady@gmail.com
Instagram | LinkedIn | Facebook
Book Your Discovery Call
From:Thomas Agramonte
To:Council, City
Subject:Item 7: May 27 City Council Meeting
Date:Tuesday, May 27, 2025 10:58:35 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Hello Palo Alto City Council,
On behalf of the Agramonte Family, a four-generation Palo Alto family and landowners of
2951 El Camino Real (ECR) and 470 Olive Avenue. We are writing regarding Agenda Item 7
of the May 27th City Council Meeting. We ask the City Council to extend the Housing Focus
Area to include 2951 El Camino Real and adjacent parcels in the Housing Focus Area
expansion, as recommended by the Department of Planning & Transportation. We encourage
you to collaboratively work with landowners, developers, and the community to find a balance
for the City of Palo Alto that respects the desperate need for housing by making guidelines
that support economically viable multifamily residential development.
I am 32 years old and grew up in this community playing sports and I do not have a single
friend or teammate that can afford to live here. We need more housing to allow the people
who grew up in this community and who work and provide for this community, a place to live
in this community.
We request the City of Palo Alto expand the Housing Focus Area on the East side of El
Camino to promote high-density multifamily development, which would include 2905 El
Camino, 2951 El Camino, 2999 El Camio, and 470 Olive (the “Project”). Implementing this
Housing Focus Area supports the City of Palo Alto’s Housing Element objectives, including
high-density multifamily housing located along transit corridors, within ½ mile of Caltrain,
and on underutilized sites.
We strongly recommend the City of Palo Alto implement a Housing Focus Area for the East
side of El Camino, including this Project, in support of the Housing Element objectives to
create over 6000 new housing units by 2031
Thank you!
Best,
Thomas
From:Palo Alto Forward
To:Council, City
Cc:PAHousingElement
Subject:Item #7 - El Camino Focus Area
Date:Tuesday, May 27, 2025 10:50:38 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Honorable Mayor Lauing and City Councilmembers,
Tonight's El Camino Real Focus Area expansion builds on the collaborative efforts between
the city and home builders that will bring large numbers of housing units online in the near
term. This rezoning of approximately 20 parcels will further shape El Camino Real into the
Grand Boulevard envisioned for the last three decades!
Please ensure that the Focus Area becomes a housing success story for our city. We ask you to
consider the following in your motion:
The 45-degree daylight plane is adequate for neighboring residential
protection. Experts on the ARB and city staff agree that this is the best option.
Eliminate dated-looking, prescriptive stepbacks for upper floors -- there is no
"canyon effect" to be wary of. A noticeable canyon effect only occurs when
buildings are significantly taller than the right-of-way between them. The El
Camino right-of-way (measured to the back of sidewalk) is over 100 feet in
every location considered for rezoning. Stepbacks are "water-proofing,
fire proofing, unit-eating nightmares" and make for-sale condominium units all but
impossible to build. They also significantly shrink upper floor unit sizes.
We already have modulation, massing, window penetration, roofline, vertical and
horizontal break requirements; as well as texture, material, color, and pattern-change
requirements to articulate building facades as part of our city's objective standards. We
urge you to allow architects to be creative with design, instead of mandating a cookie-
cutter building envelope with stepbacks.
Study extending the Focus Area zoning to more parcels. We crunched our
housing numbers below. These zoning changes are what make housing a
reality (as opposed to years-long PHZ rezoning processes). These Focus Area
zoning regulations are effective, and if we are serious about housing, we should
do even more!
This is a pivotal action in our city’s efforts to ease our massive housing shortage, while
simultaneously addressing our climate crisis, supporting businesses on California Avenue and
El Camino Real with new customers, upgrading our aging rental housing stock, and fostering a
renewed sense of vibrancy in Palo Alto.
Thank you for your consideration,
--
Amie Ashton
Executive Director, and on Behalf of the Board
Palo Alto Forward
650-793-1585
From:Steve Levy
To:Council, City; Lait, Jonathan
Subject:ECR focus area expansion
Date:Tuesday, May 27, 2025 7:11:14 AM
Dear Mayor Lauing, council members and staff,
I encourage you to go big on expanding the focus area. Please include Tiers 1 and 2 and the area around ECR and
San Antonio as it perfectly matches the criteria as the ARB noted.
With regard to development standards, please take note of stated concerns of potential applicants as noted in the
staff report.
While the city has a large pipeline, most of these projects are not moving forward.
On the other hand, several developers have expressed strong interest in ECR sites that when included can move
quickly with the focus area incentives.
I believe this will send a clear signal to residents and HCD that Palo Alto is serious about meeting our Housing
Element goals and promises
Thank you
Stephen Levy
Sent from my iPad
From:Genna.Yarkin@hklaw.com
To:Council, City
Cc:Ted O"Hanlon; Sarang (Sar) Peruri (speruri@oxford-capital.com); Yang, Albert; Arellano, Caio
Subject:Stakeholder public comment on Item 7 for May 27th Council agenda - SF Creekside LLC
Date:Monday, May 26, 2025 8:51:59 PM
Attachments:Creekside Letter to City Council 5-26-2025 FINAL.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Good evening Councilmembers,
On behalf of our client SF Creekside LLC, attached please find public comment on Item 7 on your
agenda for tomorrow evening, regarding proposed amendments to the El Camino Real Focus Area
standards.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Genna Yarkin | Holland & Knight PRIDE
She/Her/Hers
Partner
Holland & Knight LLP
560 Mission Street, Suite 1900 | San Francisco, California 94105
Phone 415.743.6990 | Fax 415.743.6910
genna.yarkin@hklaw.com | www.hklaw.com
________________________________________________
Add to address book | View professional biography
NOTE: This e-mail is from a law firm, Holland & Knight LLP ("H&K"), and is intended solely for the use of the
individual(s) to whom it is addressed. If you believe you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender
immediately, delete the e-mail from your computer and do not copy or disclose it to anyone else. If you are not an
existing client of H&K, do not construe anything in this e-mail to make you a client unless it contains a specific
statement to that effect and do not disclose anything to H&K in reply that you expect it to hold in confidence. If you
properly received this e-mail as a client, co-counsel or retained expert of H&K, you should maintain its contents in
confidence in order to preserve the attorney-client or work product privilege that may be available to protect
confidentiality.
This message needs your attention
This is their first mail to some recipients.
Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast
560 Mission Street, Suite 1900 | San Francisco, CA 94105 | T 415.743.6900 | F 415.743.6910
-743-6990
Atlanta | Austin | Birmingham | Boston | Century City | Charlotte | Chattanooga | Chicago | Dallas | Denver | Fort Lauderdale
Houston | Jacksonville | Los Angeles | Miami | Nashville | Newport Beach | New York | Orlando | Philadelphia | Portland
#522110181_v2
May 26, 2025
ent via email to: City.Council@PaloAlto.gov
Re: SF Creekside, LLC’s Stakeholder Comments on Item 7 Regarding Amendments
to the El Camino Real Focus Area
Dear Councilmembers:
We represent SF Creekside, LLC, an Oxford Capital Group-led joint venture (the “Applicant”) in
connection with its application to redevelop and revitalize the approximately 3.6-acre property at
3398, 3400, and 3490 El Camino Real (the “Property”), including work to demolish and replace
several low-rise buildings with 295 residential units including 20% low income units, hotel use,
and updating the existing structures to remain (the “Project”).
The Project is protected by the Housing Accountability Act (the “HAA”) inclusive of the
“Builder’s Remedy” and was also applied for under the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (“SB 330”).
While the Applicant has used these processes to safeguard its rights under the law, the Applicant
has a track record of listening to City feedback about development on this Property, much of which
has shaped the Project as it exists today. The most significant feedback the Applicant has heard
and implemented is to maintain the existing hotel use, proceeding with a mixed-use project. City
feedback also influenced circulation design – since 2022 the Applicant has shifted proposed
driveway access away from Matadero and instead placed this access on El Camino Real, resulting
in a three-fold benefit to the adjacent R1 properties: (1) shifting the primary access, (2) maintaining
the integrity of Matadero as a Safe Route to School, and (3) breaking up Project massing. The
creation of this break is achieved by shifting the primary access to El Camino Real that splits the
residential and continued hotel uses. Finally, to address feedback about this Project potentially
creating a “food desert”, the Applicant is maintaining at least two existing food and beverages uses
that will serve future residents, hotel guests, and the neighborhood.
The Applicant remains open to City feedback and specifically to transitioning its Builder’s
Remedy Project to an alternative City process, so long as it is feasible and beneficial for both the
May 26, 2025
Page 2
#522110181_v2
City and the Applicant. Specifically, the Applicant team is hopeful that it may be able to use the
El Camino Real Focus Area development standards while still providing the requisite low income
housing, and taking advantage of the City’s “Streamlined Housing Development Project Review
Process.” We understand that the City has a preference for applicants to pursue this route, rather
than using the “Builder’s Remedy.”
On May 27th, the Council will be considering amendments to its Zoning Code and Building
Regulations to modify the El Camino Real Focus Area. While the Applicant’s team is still
evaluating overall feasibility of transitioning to the Focus Area standards for the Project, we have
identified four of the specific recommended updates that would certainly jeopardize the
Applicant’s ability to transition its Project away from the Builder’s Remedy.
On behalf of the Applicant, we therefore request that Council consider modifying these specific
four items during its hearing on the 27th, or delaying its decision until a later date while it further
considers our requested changes. Further details on each of the four items follow.
1. Daylight Plane – 60 Degrees Instead of 45 Degrees, or Consider Averaging/Allowing
Encroachments
We request that a 60-degree daylight plane be applied – this commonly used standard is critical to
achieving enough residential units to maintain the economic feasibility of the Project. A 60-degree
daylight plane has been utilized in the Project’s current site plan. Alternatively, we request that if
Council does impose the 45 degree requirement, that it consider allowing some mitigation factors,
such as: (1) that the daylight plane be averaged over a site; (2) that certain development features
be permitted to encroach into the daylight plane; or (3) allowing a greater than 45-degree daylight
plane even where a site is adjacent to R1 parcel, so long as the applicant can demonstrate negligible
differences in solstice and equinox shadowing over the adjacent parcels.
For sites like this Property (and any others within the Focus Area that are similarly affected by the
Creek), there are development limitations already imposed by the Creek, and an additional 45
degree daylight plane would greatly compromise efficient utilization of the Property and others,
including ability of this Project to meet parking requirements and usable open space requirements.
The Applicant has thus far determined that without a 60 degree daylight plane, this Project’s
Building A would lose 16 total units and also result in fewer 3 bedroom units. There is simply no
other space on this site to accommodate the density needed to maintain the Project’s feasibility.
2. Maximum FAR (Non Residential) – Modify/Reconsider this Restriction
Since receiving City feedback in 2022 to continue a hotel use on this Property, the Applicant
returned with a formal application in 2024 with a mixed use, residential and hotel project that
follows the at least 2/3 residential requirement to qualify for HAA protections. As proposed, the
Project’s hotel component is a combination of new FAR and 2 reused buildings, and together
encompasses less than 1/3 of the proposed FAR.
May 26, 2025
Page 3
#522110181_v2
However, the staff report’s proposal to limit non-residential use to underlying zoning (for this
Property that translates to a 2.0 FAR and 50 foot height limit), would significantly reduce the
proposed hotel FAR for this Project by 40%. As the Project’s feasibility is dependent on both the
residential and hotel uses (and City feedback thus far has been to maintain the hotel use), we
hereby request that the City consider one of a few options to modify this restriction.
First, the restriction on non-residential use could be narrowed to specific commercial uses such as
office use (which we understand to be the intended target of this restriction). Hotel is an existing
use on the Property, and an active revenue generator for the City. Hotel uses are also quasi-
residential in nature, offering transient habitation, thus not entirely a non-residential use of the
property, when compared to other non-residential uses. Forcing a dramatic reduction in the
Project’s hotel use to qualify for use of the Focus Area standards, would not allow the Applicant
to do its part to support expanded food and beverage offerings at this site either, as the assumption
that such uses could be supported is underpinned by the proposal for a specific density of hotel
beds.
Alternatively, Council could reconsider imposing this requirement at all, and instead maintain the
overall 4.0 FAR requirement for the Focus Area, perhaps while instead requiring a 2/3 residential
to commercial balance, to better align proposals with the HAA while achieving the intent of this
restriction.
3. Upper Story Step Back – Consider Alternatives to the 10 Feet
The staff report proposes a 10 foot step back at 55 feet in height – this will greatly reduce density,
whereas other considerations, which could offer a wider variety of solutions while maintaining
“objective” language, can provide similar visual variation but maintain density. For example, we
estimate the 10 foot step back would reduce the Project’s unit count by approximately 4-5%, an
impact that would effectively make the Project economically infeasible in this financial
environment. Further, when combined with a building taking advantage of the full, allowable 85’
limit beginning the step back at a relatively lower 55’ also results in an awkward building
proportion.
Alternatively, to maintain needed density we propose that the City either (1) instead of imposing
a one-size stepback, provide a menu in the Focus Area standards of specific design elements and
articulation methods that achieve visual breaks in the upper floors, such as balconies and other
variations; or (2) imposing a stepback that is more shallow than 10 feet and that only applies if a
building is higher than 5 stories, and only applies to the top 2 stories of any given project, because
of the more harmonious proportions associated with the resultant upper and lower stories.
Finally, the City could consider relaxing this requirement where a building “reads” as transparent,
such as with the use of glazing, glass or otherwise open railings in upper stories. In the Applicant’s
case, the Project designs can be enhanced to feel light despite its number of stories, through
generous use of glazing and balcony articulation.
May 26, 2025
Page 4
#522110181_v2
4. Open Space
The Focus Area standard for open space of 100 square feet per unit is cumbersome. The Project
has already incorporated very large balconies and decks, which add to building articulation across
El Camino Real as well as the sides and rear building facades. The Project goes out of its way to
maximize open space for the enjoyment of all residents by concentrating open space at the
Creekside and on the ground level, and by pushing parking underground. We believe these
qualities are worth far more than meeting an open space standard and will therefore be a more
marketable and successful project when we dedicate project development area to private living
space.
Accordingly, we request that the Focus Area standards allow a “credit”, or usable open space
reduction of 1:1 but no more than 50% of the total requirement, where improvements such as
vegetated areas, park space, naturalized creeks, or other community areas are improvements made
as part of a project. The intent of this language is to acknowledge that the Water District’s creek
will be naturalized as part of the Project (and any others on sites affected by the presence of the
Creek), and that this creates a public benefit and satisfies the intent of the open space requirement.
Thank you for considering our requests and the future of this Project.
Sincerely,
HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
Genna Yarkin
Cc: Sar Peruri SPeruri@oxford-capital.com
Ted O'Hanlon tedohanlon@gmail.com
From:Leela Hebbar
To:Council, City
Subject:Amending Palo Alto Municipal Code Titles 18 (Zoning) and 16 (Building Regulations)
Date:Monday, May 26, 2025 2:30:38 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Hi,
I am writing in support of changing the zoning of the El Camino Real Focus Area to allow for
multi-family housing developments (i.e. apartments).
I especially support the creation of more units that are for sale to families. My family has been
renting in Palo Alto for about 15 years because we cannot afford a house. But we probably
could afford an apartment. Families owning apartments is very common in European cities
and towns, and I wish it was more common here in Palo Alto.
Please support the change in zoning, encourage units for sale and/or a co-op model, and
to keep the units affordable do not require additional design requirements. The additional
requirements would make building the housing more expensive.
Thank you for your attention to this important topic,
Leela Hebbar
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to you.
Mark Safe Report
From:Tom Harris
To:Council, City
Subject:In support of Rezoning Parcels on El Camino Real
Date:Monday, May 26, 2025 8:30:01 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Council Members,
I am writing to express support for the rezoning of El Camino Real to support housing development. In particular
please
Expand the proposed development standards to all the Tier 1 areas that can be accommodated within the current
Environmental Impact Report.
Lessen or remove the 10’ stepback above 55’ along the El Camino Real frontage. Stepbacks inefficiently consume
more land; require costly structural support,waterproofing, and fire rating; shrink overall unit count and unit size
(i.e. force more, smaller studio units); and give buildings a “dated” look.
Remove the Hansen Way special setback for all projects, not just for hotels. A sidewalk, trees, and a protected bike
lane already exist. This area should be made vibrant and useful.
Provide direction to staff to further study the remainder of the corridor (i.e., the rest of Tier 2, 3, and 4 parcels and
470 Olive).
Thank you.
--
Rev. Tom Harris
Pastor
First Presbyterian Church Palo Alto
If you need me urgently please call or text my cell phone. I check and respond to email less
frequently from Thursday evening to Monday.
This message needs your attention
This is their first email to you.
Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast
From:Alexandra Konings
To:Council, City
Subject:Supporting easier housing development along El Camino
Date:Sunday, May 25, 2025 3:47:33 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear City Council,
As a College Terrace homeowner, I'm writing in favor of the proposed rezone of the parcels
along El Camino Real, (item #7 on Tueday's agenda) expanding the Focus Area so that these
parcels can be used for housing. I support this rezoning in part because our city desperately
needs more housing to be built - so that it can be a place where all can afford to live, but also
to provide much-needed customers for Palo Alto's local businesses (including those along
nearby California Avenue).
As such, I hope the city council can make building housing in the new Focus Area as easy as
possible within the current Environmental Impact Report, including removing the special
setback along Hansen Way.
Thank you,
Alexandra Konings
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
From:Jeffrey Lu
To:Council, City
Subject:comment on 27-May agenda item 7 (El Camino Real)
Date:Saturday, May 24, 2025 4:15:47 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
City Council members,
We are writing to comment on agenda item 7 regarding rezoning several parcels on El Camino
Real for housing. Our household is supportive of rezoning to enable additional infill housing
in Palo Alto, particularly in job, amenity, and transit rich areas such as the El Camino Real
corridor.
Infill housing is an especially important tool as we continue addressing our housing crisis and
the negative impacts of decades of misguided planning decisions that have made living in the
Bay Area unaffordable for most. Infill housing is a smart way to provide additional housing
supply for those who work in or otherwise support our communities. Infill housing can help
support more vibrant neighborhoods for current or future residents, and is also important for
mitigating transportation and infrastructure impacts.
We urge the city council to move forward with rezoning parcels along El Camino Real for
housing without adding new requirements that make housing more difficult to build.
Thank you.
Lu Family
Midtown
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
From:Phyllis Brown
To:Council, City
Subject:zoning changes for new housing
Date:Saturday, May 24, 2025 11:26:27 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear members of the Palo Alto CIty Council,
As a Palo Alto resident, I strongly support new City efforts to increase housing supply in
ways that will make living in Palo Alto more affordable for workers–teachers, firefighters,
police officers, and others in the service sector. I also believe it is important for the new
housing to be near public transportation and safe paths for biking and walking. I hope
rezoning will make it easier for quality, lower-cost housing to be built throughout the city.
The proposals and requests for amendments for building in the San Antonio Road Area, on
El Camino, and on Forest Avenue all are promising.
Modified zoning related to parking will be particularly important, but it must be accompanied
by improved public transportation options. Research showing that younger adults more
often than in the past prefer not to own cars should factor into decisions.
Attention to Palo Alto fire stations, vehicles, and staff will also be important since fire
dangers in new housing proposed will be different from current dangers.
Phyllis Brown
451 Adobe Place
Palo Alto CA 94306
pbrown@scu.edu
This message needs your attention
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast
From:Susan Hartzell
To:Council, City
Subject:Re: Housing item on May 27 agenda
Date:Friday, May 23, 2025 4:04:33 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
To Members of the City Council:
I strongly support efforts to increase the housing supply in Palo Alto.
Housing near transportation, jobs, and shopping is particularly important.
So is streamlining the process so that construction can begin and housing become available
soon.
Our neighboring communities can do it. We should too!
Sincerely,
Susan Hartzell
Susan and Harry Hartzell
850 Webster Street Apt 430
Palo Alto, CA 94301
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
From:Deborah Goldeen
To:Council, City
Subject:Zoning Changes for El Camino Real
Date:Friday, May 23, 2025 2:14:12 PM
If I was a betting woman, I’d wager that council will approve the requested zoning changes unanimously. I assume
discussion in mandatory, but the proposed changes are so overwhelmingly positive and so long overdue, you all
could probably skip the discussion and nobody would bat an eye.
My personal sentiment is that I am embarrassed for our city. I feel, when it comes to housing and to housing people,
we could have done a lot better. Hopefully, for the sake of the people who are going to have to live there, the
apartments that will be built will have ample, secure bike parking, are finished on their interiors with compounds
that contain a minimal amount of volatile organic compounds so that they aren’t toxic, and have robust sound
proofing.
Thank you for considering, Deborah Goldeen, Birch St., 94306
From:A M
To:Council, City; Clerk, City; Architectural Review Board; Switzer, Steven
Subject:Subject: Concerns Regarding Proposed Project and Rental Practices
Date:Friday, May 23, 2025 1:19:54 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking
on links.
To the Architectural Review Board and City Council,
This letter addresses concerns regarding a proposed project that,
while potentially a wonderful idea, presents two essential problems
that need to be addressed before moving forward.
First, the reputation of the company responsible for renting
apartments within this project is not great. As of today, VRENT holds
a Google rating of 2.7 stars from 79 reviews. This indicates a
significant number of renters have had negative experiences, which is
a serious concern for any new housing development in our city.
Secondly, the city needs to implement effective rent control measures
before we can trust in huge new projects that could further impact
housing affordability. Without such protections, large developments
risk exacerbating existing housing challenges for current and future
residents.
Sincerely,
Grant D.
From:Meri Gruber
To:Council, City
Subject:Support for rezoning of El Camino Real
Date:Friday, May 23, 2025 1:14:37 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Palo Alto City Council,
I am writing in advance of your meeting on Tuesday, May 27, 2025, item # 7.
As a longtime resident of Palo Alto, I support the rezoning of El Camino Real for housing
because it’s a necessary step toward a more inclusive, sustainable, and vibrant community. El
Camino is a major corridor with access to transit, jobs, and services—exactly the kind of place
where housing makes sense.
Thank you for your service to our community.
Best regards,
Meri Gruber
4123 Briarwood Way, Palo Alto, CA 94306
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to you.
Mark Safe Report
From:Joy Sleizer
To:Council, City
Subject:The Commons
Date:Friday, May 23, 2025 10:30:16 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear City Council Members,
I am Joy Sleizer & have lived in Palo Alto since 1962. For the last 13 years, I have
lived at Channing House.
I urge you to support the addition of 16 units at The Commons.
I attended the May 5 Council meeting & heard the negative concerns of neighbors
& friends of neighbors.
The Commons is locally owned, and has made changes to
accommodate the neighbors concerns, including hiring a valet service & opening
the garage to visitors. I'm not sure the comments I heard on May 5 took into account
the changes that have been made. I am hoping you have notes from previous
meetings that will help you make an informed decision.
Being a Sr citizen & living at Channing House, I am acutely aware of the need for
housing for those folks who need AL & Memory Care.
Thank you for serving on the City Council!
Respectfully yours,
Joy Sleizer
850 Webster Street Apt 706
Palo Alto, CA 94301
650-324-7425
650-353-4481 cell
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
From:Laura Bowser
To:Council, City; Lait, Jonathan; Armer, Jennifer; Yang, Albert
Subject:First Reading of an Ordinance to Amend the El Camino Real Focus Area (May 27, 2025 - Agenda Item #7)
Date:Thursday, May 22, 2025 5:41:38 PM
Attachments:SHP Letter re ECR Focus Area - May 22 2025.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Councilmembers of the City Council,
Please see attached for our comments regarding the amendments to the El Camino Real Focus Area
under consideration at Tuesday’s meeting.
Best,
Laura
Laura Bowser
Sand Hill Property Company
2600 El Camino Real, Suite 410
Palo Alto, CA 94306
Tel. +1 650 344 1500
This message needs your attention
This is their first mail to some recipients.
Mark Safe Report
018002.0006 4914-2961-9005.6
May 22, 2025
Jonathan Lait
Director, Planning & Development Services
Email: Jonathan.Lait@CityofPaloAlto.org
Councilmembers of the City Council,
City of Palo Alto
City.Council@PaloAlto.gov
Jennifer Armer
Asst. Director, Planning & Development
Services
City of Palo Alto
Email: Jennifer.Armer@CityofPaloAlto.org
Re: Ordinance to Amend El Camino Real Focus Area (City Council Hearing May 27, 2025
– Agenda Item 7)
Dear Jonathan, Jennifer, and Councilmembers:
On behalf of Sand Hill Property Company (SHP), I am writing regarding the pending amendments
to the El Camino Real Focus Area regulations and area boundary. As you know, SHP has a
longstanding working relationship with the City and is committed to delivering high quality
projects that help achieve the City’s goals of both delivering more housing while also preserving
and providing a home for the vibrant R&D and technology communities.
SHP currently ground leases from Stanford several properties within the Stanford Research Park,
including the three contiguous sites addressed at 3300 El Camino Real, 607 Hansen Way and 811
Hansen Way. 3300 El Camino Real is within the existing El Camino Real Focus Area boundary,
whereas the 607 Hansen Way and 811 Hansen Way sites next door are currently outside of the El
Camino Real Focus Area.
For the last several years, SHP has spent considerable efforts and resources on developing a
feasible mixed-use housing project proposal for the 3300 El Camino Real site. In connection with
the City’s 6th Cycle Housing Element, SHP worked with the City to successfully include 3300 El
Camino Real as a housing opportunity site under the Housing Element’s housing inventory list.
We have engaged a design team to develop a project proposal that would maintain the allowable
0.4 FAR of office development in the Stanford Research Park (this being one of the few remaining
undeveloped parcels in the City), while also incorporating new housing opportunities that will
contribute to the City’s regional housing allocation goals.
We greatly appreciate the City’s current efforts to update the El Camino Real Focus Area standards
to improve the feasibility of delivering housing, as well as Staff’s work in engaging with the
development community to better understand and respond to the existing El Camino Real Focus
Area constraints.
2
We largely support the proposed revisions to the El Camino Real Focus Area development
standards as reflected in the draft Ordinance. However, as detailed in this letter, there are
several outstanding issues related to both development standards and the on-site BMR
requirements that affect the feasibility of delivering a viable mixed-use project. We
respectfully request that these issues be addressed in the Ordinance currently being
considered by the City Council.
Option to Pay BMR In-Lieu Fee
The El Camino Real Focus Area was created to incentivize the development of housing along the
El Camino Real corridor, which is well-served by transit and amenities. However, the current
ordinance imposes a 20% on-site BMR requirement at low-income (LI) rents, with no option to
pay an in-lieu fee, unlike all other areas of the City. Not affording the option to pay an in-lieu fee
disincentivizes housing development within the El Camino Real Focus Area, including at 3300 El
Camino Real, because projects cannot achieve financial feasibility while providing 20% of their
units at LI rents.
Mandatory 20% BMR on-site requirements without any option to pay an in-lieu fee have been
repeatedly deemed infeasible by Bay Area cities. This is especially true in the current economic
environment in which residential projects are already struggling with high interest rates, record
high construction costs and lack of funding. We are not aware of the City conducting any feasibility
analysis that demonstrates the viability of a 20% BMR on-site requirement in today’s economic
climate, nor do we believe that such a finding could be made.
Multifamily rental developments in the remainder of the City – everywhere other than the El
Camino Real Focus Area – are able to pay a BMR in-lieu fee per PAMC Chapter 16.65 Citywide
BMR Affordable Housing Requirements (i.e., 15% of units for projects on sites less than 3 acres,
such as the 3300 El Camino Real site), as opposed to providing BMR housing on-site. Unlike
developments in the remainder of the City, El Camino Real Focus Area projects also forgo the
right to use the State Density Bonus Law (SDBL) to utilize concessions and waivers to reduce
residential project costs of expensive development and open space standards. Under the SDBL, a
project including 20% LI units would qualify for two concessions and unlimited waivers.
Restricting El Camino Real Focus Area developers from utilizing the SDBL while also imposing
a 20% on-site BMR requirement effectively imposes a double penalty that will likely prevent
residential projects from moving forward and will inadvertently undermine the City’s present
efforts to incentivize development within the El Camino Real Focus Area.
We understand that the ECR Focus Area’s 20% on-site BMR requirement was originally adopted
to provide an alternative to many builder’s remedy projects, which at the time required 20% LI
units on-site. However, under recently passed State law, builder’s remedy projects now only need
to provide 13% of units as LI. The state law allows jurisdictions to adopt more restrictive
affordability requirements for builder’s remedy projects if they provide an analysis indicating that
the more restrictive standards do not make projects financially infeasible. Rather than conducting
such an analysis to see whether the more restrictive affordability standards were feasible, the PTC
recommended reducing the required BMR requirement for builder’s remedy projects to 13% LI to
match the statewide standards. This leaves only projects attempting to follow the Focus Area
standards to bear the burden of providing 20% of their on-site units at BMR rents with no
3
confirmation from the City that this set-aside is financially feasible. We support the City’s goal of
providing a greater level of affordable housing, but request that it at least allows projects to pay an
in-lieu fee to meet the BMR requirement. If the City decides that BMR units must be provided on-
site, we request that the BMR requirement for code-compliant projects be made the same as
builder’s remedy projects at 13% LI to hold Focus Area sites to the same standard.
We appreciate the City’s recommendation to exempt BMR units themselves from development
fees. This is consistent with other cities’ fee policies and is a policy that the City should apply to
all sites that provide any percentage of affordable housing as a means of incentivizing on-site
affordable housing. Unfortunately, this change alone has a minimal impact on the feasibility of
building housing projects within the El Camino Real Focus Area when there is a 20% on-site BMR
requirement.
We respectfully request that El Camino Real Focus Area standards be revised to allow for
the option of paying an in-lieu housing impact fee consistent with the City’s PAMC Chapter
16.65 Citywide BMR Affordable Housing Requirements, as allowed in the remainder of the
City, rather than mandating 20% BMR units on-site. This change would make housing
projects feasible and more likely to move forward, while still contributing to the City’s
affordable housing goals. If the City decides that BMR units must be provided-onsite, we
request that the BMR requirement for code compliant projects be made equal to builder’s
remedy projects at 13% LI. Leaving the 20% on-site BMR policy threatens the viability of
projects and the entire policy of promoting housing in the Focus Area.
Further Revisions to El Camino Real Focus Area Development Standards
We request that the City Council consider the following revisions to the Ordinance in connection
with the other proposed updates to the El Camino Real Focus Area development standards.
These changes are particularly important given that all applicable El Camino Real Focus Area
standards – including the City’s Objective Design Standards (PAMC Chapter 18.24) – cannot be
otherwise modified by using SDBL waivers and concessions that other housing development
projects utilize because the Focus Area program prohibits the use of the SDBL.
1. Clarify Height Limits for Nonresidential Uses
We appreciate staff addressing the Ordinance’s ambiguity on which height limit applies to
nonresidential uses within a mixed-use project. To qualify as a “housing development project” that
can take advantage of the Focus Area standards, two-thirds of the total area of the mixed-use
project must be dedicated to residential use. Staff has also interpreted the base zoning FAR 0.4:1
for 3300 El Camino Real as continuing to apply to office uses. We agree with these restrictions on
office area as long as the height limit of nonresidential uses is set at a minimum of 50 feet to allow
for additional residential to be produced on site. If 3300 El Camino Real instead had to abide by
the 35-foot height limit of the RP zone, nonresidential uses would need to build wider to achieve
4
0.4 FAR, covering more of the lot area and thereby reducing the lot space available for housing
development. Less lot area for housing development means less housing units can be built on site.
Additionally, we request that rooftop occupancy be permitted beyond the imposed height limit to
allow for more outdoor space. This does not impact the overall building bulk and provides office
tenants an increasingly sought after area to gather more safely post-COVID, both formally and
informally.
We support the El Camino Real Focus Area allowing nonresidential uses to build up to at
least 50 feet and further encourage the City Council to allow rooftop occupancy above the
height limit to promote the provision of outdoor amenity space.
2. Remove Hansen Way Special Setback
We strongly support the removal of the 50-foot Hansen Way special setback. We urge City Council
to reincorporate the removal of the setback into the El Camino Real Focus Area zoning
amendments after the issue was tabled by the PTC. The existing setback is no longer necessary,
and should be removed. Removing the Hansen Way special setback will facilitate more housing
on 3300 El Camino Real and will result in better street frontage activation at the corner of El
Camino Real and Hansen Way, consistent with the El Camino Real Focus Area goals.
Unless the Hansen Way setback is removed, developing the corner of El Camino Real and Hansen
Way at 3300 El Camino Real will be infeasible, reducing the amount of lot area available for
development on site. As depicted in Figure B-2 of the staff report, there is an existing utility
easement running diagonally across 3300 El Camino Real that cannot be relocated. If the 50-foot
setback along Hansen Way is maintained, development between the easement and Hansen Way
will not be feasible due to the constrained buildable area, leaving the corner of Hansen Way and
El Camino Real undeveloped. If the setback is removed, 3300 El Camino Real can develop the
area between the easement and Hansen Way rather than having the street corner remain vacant.
Removing the setback would facilitate the addition of 50 housing units or a retail component to
the corner of El Camino Real and Hansen Way.
The Hansen Way setback was originally envisioned to provide for bicycle connectivity along
Hansen Way through the Stanford Research Park. However, Hansen Way already includes an
existing Class IIb buffered bicycle lane that provides a safe bike path for bicyclists. The City’s
pending Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan Update shows that the existing Class IIb
buffered bicycle lane would be maintained, indicating there is no further need for the extensive
50-foot setback.
To avoid delaying forward progress on the redevelopment of 3300 El Camino Real, we
respectfully request that the Hansen Way special setback be removed in the proposed
Ordinance, rather than deferring this decision to a future date.
3. Clarify No Below Grade Setbacks
We also strongly support staff’s recommendations to establish rear and interior side yard setbacks
that allow for RP zoned sites within the El Camino Real Focus Area (such as 3300 El Camino
5
Real) to better utilize available site area to deliver housing. However, in a multi-building, mixed-
use context as is proposed for 3300 El Camino Real, it is important that these rear and interior side
yard setbacks not be applied to below-grade parking structures.
To accommodate adequate parking for both the contemplated office and residential uses on the
Property, it is likely that the proposed project will incorporate below-grade parking. Application
of the rear and interior side yard requirements to the below-grade structure would considerably
reduce the below-grade buildable area, limiting parking and therefore housing, yet it would not
serve a purpose since there would be no visible structure in the setback area.
As such, we respectfully request that the Ordinance clarify that the proposed rear and
interior side yard setbacks do not apply to below-grade structures.
Request for Future Incorporation of 607 Hansen and 811 Hansen Way Properties into El
Camino Real Focus Area
Lastly, as the City continues to consider expansion of the El Camino Real Focus Area in a
future study, SHP requests that the properties immediately adjacent to and south of the 3300
El Camino Real site at 607 and 811 Hansen Way be included in the Focus Area to facilitate
development of housing on these sites.
Given that these sites are contiguous with 3300 ECR and are located at similar distances from El
Camino Real as other sites already included in the Focus Area, it would be appropriate to include
both additional sites. While these sites are located adjacent to R-1 zones, those lower density
residential sites are already proximate to existing office development and the transition to mixed-
use or higher density residential would be an appropriate land use transition in these locations.
However, to allow for existing housing proposals, including 3300 El Camino Real, to proceed at
this time, SHP supports staff’s suggestion that the further El Camino Real Focus Area expansion
be considered separately from the current proposed Ordinance to allow for any necessary CEQA
review to proceed on a separate timeline.
* * *
Thank you for your time and attention to these issues. We look forward to continuing to work with
Planning staff and decisionmakers to implement these refinements to the El Camino Real Focus
Area development standards, all in the aim of creating a more vibrant, diverse and sustainable El
Camino Real corridor.
Sincerely,
Laura Bowser
Director, Development
Sand Hill Property Company
From:Leslie Hsu
To:Council, City
Subject:California Avenue
Date:Thursday, May 22, 2025 3:43:30 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking
on links.
Hello,
I am a long-time patron of businesses on California Avenue. The diversity of retail offerings, the fact they’re all
small businesses, the sense it’s a community of hard-working “regular people” without pretension have combined to
make it a treasured neighborhood.
The pandemic shutdown necessitated drastic measures, which included closing the street off from El Camino and
prohibiting vehicle traffic. The current vibe of pedestrians and cyclists is pleasant, but I sense it as a neighborhood
in sad decline. I think the small businesses have suffered from the loss of access and visibility, and many are on the
brink. It would be a real loss for many of us if that commercial district dies. Pretty restaurants on a pedestrian street
have a definite appeal, but we’d lose the vitality of services supporting real life. Is there a way to support those
businesses in the next incarnation of the street? Perhaps California Avenue could be one way, open from El
Camino, with signs indicating parking off California.
Cities are now limiting airbnb’s because catering to tourism and entertainment has turned out to displace residents’
real lives. I’d hate for California Avenue to do the same.
Thank you for your consideration,
Leslie Hsu
318 Miramontes Road
Woodside CA 94062
From:Lois Fowkes
To:Council, City
Subject:New units at the Commons, rezoning along El Camino
Date:Thursday, May 22, 2025 8:47:43 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear City Council,
I do not usually attend Council meetings, nor write letters, but the housing issue in Palo Alto
should not be opposed at every turn. Palo Alto, with its aging population, needs to do its fair
share.
So I attended the May 5 Council meeting, and here I am, writing a letter. I presently live at
Channing House, but lived in south Palo Alto from 1962-2019. When we first moved in, I
heard the train at night—for about a week. I would guess that also to be true of the Wilkie
Way opponents of the Channing House expansion, so it is hard to understand their
opposition to the 16 new units proposed by the Commons, which will be considerably quieter
than trains. (The residents there are not known for all-night carousing!)
My mother lived at the Commons for four years, and we found them to be caring and
considerate of neighbors in every way. I was given my mother's spot in the basement garage
so I wouldn't add to the parking problem. The Commons has already made significant
adjustments to their building plans, and I believe they should be allowed to go ahead.
The residents on Wilkie Way, whom I listened to carefully, did not always state how long they
have lived in that neighborhood, but I believe they knew it was a busy one when they moved
in. I also believe their arguments to be classic NIMBY ones.
I urge Council to give the Commons the go-ahead, and also to approve the rezoning along El
Camino to accommodate the great housing need in our city.
Thank you for your consideration,
Lois Fowkes
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
From:Michael Terndrup
To:Council, City
Subject:ECR Housing - 5/27
Date:Wednesday, May 21, 2025 10:14:28 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Hello,
My name is Michael. I've lived in the peninsula for almost my entire life and I've lived in Palo
Alto with my wife and children for 10 years. I strongly support the proposal to lessen the
restrictions on housing along El Camino. The city needs more housing and locating it on/near
El Camino close to transit and within walking distance of Palo Alto's many amenities as other
local cities have done is essential for us to do as well. I hope that the following goals of Palo
Alto Forward will be strongly considered and approved at the upcoming hearing (below).
I hope you have a wonderful day and I look forward to the Council hearing.
Expand the proposed development standards to all the Tier 1 areas that can be accommodated
within the current Environmental Impact Report.
Lessen or remove the 10’ stepback above 55’ along the El Camino Real frontage. Stepbacks
inefficiently consume more land; require costly structural support,waterproofing, and fire
rating; shrink overall unit count and unit size (i.e. force more, smaller studio units); and give
buildings a “dated” look.
Remove the Hansen Way special setback for all projects, not just for hotels. A sidewalk, trees,
and a protected bike lane already exist. This area should be made vibrant and useful.
Provide direction to staff to further study the remainder of the corridor (i.e., the rest of Tier 2,
3, and 4 parcels and 470 Olive).
Michael Terndrup, AIA
Architect and Principal
EAG STUDIO
direct: 415.580.2413 | office: 415.300.0816 | studio address: 1553 Folsom Street, San Francisco, CA 94103
ARCHITECTURE | INTERIOR DESIGN | INTERIORS | LANDSCAPE DESIGN | CONSTRUCTION
PLANNING
FACEBOOK INSTAGRAM VIMEO HOUZZ
This message needs your attention
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast
From:Elan Loeb
To:Council, City
Subject:housing
Date:Wednesday, May 21, 2025 8:14:44 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
I'm writing in support of zoning changes. Housing is so important, please do not water down
the rezoning with additional design requirements (like parking or percentage low income
housing) that make building housing infeasible. We need to move away from cars & building
high density housing near transit is the key. More housing now! I grew up in Palo Alto, but it
is hard for me to live here.
--
Thanks,
Elan Loeb
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
From:Michelle Oberman
To:Council, City
Subject:Better zoning
Date:Wednesday, May 21, 2025 8:07:41 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Hi there,
I'm writing to express my support for the rezoning of several parcels of land along El Camino Real to
permit the creation of affordable housing. As a long-time Palo Alto resident, I've been alarmed at the
decline in affordable housing for those wishing to work at local businesses, whose jobs pay too little to
permit them to rent homes in this area. New housing is needed, and will benefit all of us in a wide range of
ways.
Please do not limit the potential reach and impact of this rezoning by adding additional design
requirements that make housing financially infeasible. we need to build, asap. It is my top priority.
Thank you,
Michelle
--
Michelle Oberman | Katharine and George Alexander Professor of Law
Santa Clara University School of Law | 500 El Camino Real, Santa Clara, CA 95050
tel: 408-551-7104 | pronouns: she, her, hers
articles | ssrn
My recent articles: Recalibrating Risk Under Dobbs; Doctors' Duty to Share Abortion
Information; How Abortion Laws Do & Don't Work
My book: Her Body, Our Laws: On the Front Lines of the Abortion War from El Salvador to
Oklahoma
“It’s not hard to imagine future generations one day asking: ‘When there was so much at stake for our country,
what did you do?’ The only acceptable answer is: ‘Everything we could.’”
--Cecile Richards
This message needs your attention
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast
From:Annette Isaacson
To:Council, City
Subject:More affordable housing, please
Date:Wednesday, May 21, 2025 7:39:52 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking
on links.
Dear City Council Members,
I know Palo Alto can't solve the nation's problems, but we have so many
people living in their vehicles or having to commute from far places
like Los Banos or Pittsburg just to work here that we need to build
affordable housing for them.
Since the 1950s and 1960s institutional racism created barriers to home
ownership for people of color, and then cities put restrictions on
multi-family units, creating a shortage of housing. It is our duty to
make more housing available to try to ameliorate this housing shortage
that we have created.
Please rezone the parcels on El Camino for housing and not just say we
want more housing. We need to make it less difficult to actually build
affordable housing.
Sincerely,
Annette Isaacson
2550 Webster St.
(Midtown)
From:Susan Setterholm
To:Council, City
Subject:Housing on El Camino Real
Date:Wednesday, May 21, 2025 5:25:29 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking
on links.
Council Members,
I lived and worked in Palo Alto for years in the ‘70s and ‘80s. I even played soccer on a women’s team there. I
appreciated the opportunities to contribute to the community.
But even then I was impacted by the housing shortage. I had to leave the community I loved to move southward in
Santa Clara County.
Please help build more housing, especially along ECR with its public transportation.
New residents will be customers for the businesses along ECR and in the city of Palo Alto.
Please do not water down zoning with extra design requirements.
With respect,
Susan Setterholm
From:Sarah Levine
To:Council, City
Subject:More housing in Palo Alto
Date:Tuesday, May 20, 2025 11:58:52 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
To the City Council:
I am a Palo Alto resident. I am writing to encourage you to build more housing in Palo Alto to
make housing affordable for teachers, public service workers, and all who wish to make their
home here.
I support housing near jobs, shopping, and transit--that's what Palo Alto residents need. More
housing in Palo Alto will make for more customers, more workers, and more students for PA
schools currently experiencing declining enrollments.
Please do not add more requirements to EL Camino Housing area, or anywhere else. Palo Alto
will be twice as wonderful when it offers more housing so that people can live and work
locally.
Thank you
--
Sarah Levine
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
'Stop the Red Tape' Protest in L.A.
For the first anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court oral arguments in the Grants
From:Mary Gallagher
To:Council, City
Subject:Housing for All
Date:Tuesday, May 20, 2025 1:00:15 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Council Members:
I listened to a discussion by the council meeting about leasing to folks who have been
incarcerated.
Of course, this is a concern with multiple stakeholders and points of view.
As a renter and former resident property manager, sometimes the felon is the landlord. In
2006, I served a landlord who had been incarcerated for laundering HUD money.
Our real estate system is broken. Job security or a minimum wage is not guaranteed. Rents are
more often driven by greed not need.
How can we as a society fulfill the need for housing as a human right?
It’s a complex problem with no one answer, but we must house humans and meet their basic
needs one by one.
Respectfully,
Mary Gallagher, B.Sc.
Long term Resident of Palo Alto, CA
650-683-7102
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
Pass case, which allowed for the criminalization of the unhoused community,
Housing Is A Human Right and the Los Angeles office of the National Coalition
for the Homeless will take part in a national day of action on April 22 to demand
“Housing Now” for unhoused communities across the country by surrounding
L.A. City Hall in red tape ribbon.
The red tape represents the years of delayed construction of permanent housing
for homeless and low-income communities caused by L.A. government
bureaucracy. HHR and NCH will be joined by more than 100 advocates.
For more details, click on this link. If you're in L.A., feel free to join us! Please
share and like this post to spread the word.
Alert: Call Your Congress Member Now!
The New York Times has reported that the Trump administration may replace
the crucial Section 8 voucher program with block grants to states, rather than
directly funding housing agencies. Section 8 helps low-income individuals and
families to pay sky-rocketing rents -- and keeps people out of homelessness.
This harmful policy change goes along with the 48 percent reduction of staff in
the federal Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Public Housing branch,
which administers Section 8 vouchers to local housing authorities. The block
grants and reduced workforce will cause serious, life-altering problems for low-
income people struggling to pay excessive, unfair rents. Please call your
Congress member now, telling him or her to protect the Section 8 voucher
program and to stop the reduction of HUD's workforce. Click on this link to find
your federal representative and that person's contact information. Thanks!
Fighting the Oligarchs in L.A.
Last Saturday, Housing Is A Human Right took part in the "Fight the Oligarchy"
rally in Downtown Los Angeles. Billionaire corporate landlords are part of that
dangerous oligarchy, so we showed up to represent housing justice activists and
inform people about our issues. More than ever, Americans need rent
regulations to protect them against corporate landlords' predatory greed. Share
and like our post to show your support.
About
Housing Is A Human Right is the housing advocacy division of AIDS
Healthcare Foundation — the world’s largest HIV/AIDS medical-care
nonprofit, serving more than two million patients in 47 countries.
Throughout the U.S., AHF clients have been negatively impacted by rising
housing costs and gentrification, which threaten their health. HHR
advocates for the "3 Ps": protect tenants, preserve existing affordable
housing, and produce new affordable and homeless housing.
To learn more about AHF's history, go to the AHF Timeline. Watch the
short documentary "The People's Hope" about AHF's life-saving work in
South Africa.
Mary Gallagher
From:Diana O"Dell
To:Council, City
Cc:Nose, Kiely; Frick, Coleman; Tiffany Griego; Kelly Kline; Ramya Subramanian; Shweta Bhatnagar; Armer,
Jennifer; Lait, Jonathan
Subject:May 27, 2025 Palo Alto Council Meeting - #7 El Camino Real Focus Areas (Stanford Comment)
Date:Monday, May 19, 2025 1:56:19 PM
Attachments:2025-05-19__Stanford Comment Letter on ECR Focus Area Update.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Good afternoon,
Please see the attached comment letter regarding El Camino Real Focus Areas (Agenda Item #7) at the
upcoming City Council meeting of May 27, 2025.
We are happy to answer any questions you might have.
Diana O’Dell
Director, Land Use Planning
Stanford | Land, Buildings & Real Estate
408.839.9135
May 19, 2025
City of Palo Alto
City Council of City of Palo Alto
285 Hamilton Avenue, Suite 100,
Palo Alto, CA 94301
VIA EMAIL DELIVERY
Re: City Council Consideration of El Camino Focus Areas at their May 27th meeting
Dear Members of the City Council,
As a landowner of Stanford Research Park sites that are along the El Camino Real corridor, Stanford
University is in support of increasing housing and mixed-use opportunities to advance the City’s
intention to provide additional density on El Camino Real Focus Area sites.
Stanford supports the removal of the 50-foot Hansen Way special setback under the current El Camino
Real Focus Area update. Reducing this restrictive setback now will increase buildable area and create
more opportunities for additional housing. Changing this setback now will increase the feasibility of
future development that supports city goals.
In addition to the removal of the Hansen Way Special Setback, we also support Sand Hill Properties’
request to remove the below grade setbacks, add the option of paying a housing impact in-lieu fee,
and incorporate 607 Hansen and 811 Hansen Way properties into a future El Camino Focus Area, as
noted in their most recent letter to the City Council
We appreciate the City Council’s thoughtful consideration of our comments. Please reach out to our
team with any questions.
Sincerely,
Tiffany Griego,
Senior Managing Director, Commercial Real Estate Team
Stanford Real Estate, Stanford University
tgriego@stanford.edu
cc: Jonathan Lait, Director of Planning and Development Services
Jennifer Armer, Assistant Director, Planning and Development Services
Coleman Frick, Long Range Planning Manager, Planning and Development Services