Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Staff Report 2505-4640
CITY OF PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL Special Meeting Monday, August 11, 2025 Council Chambers & Hybrid 5:30 PM Agenda Item 1.4256 El Camino Real [25PLN-00095]. Request for Council Prescreening to Rezone the Subject Property from Commercial Services to Planned Community/Planned Home Zoning and to Allow Construction of a Multi-Family Apartment Complex with 120 Units in a Six-Story Structure on a 25,950-Square-Foot (0.6 Acre) Site. CEQA Status: Not a Project. Public Comment, Staff Presentation, Applicant Presentation City Council Staff Report From: City Manager Report Type: STUDY SESSION Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: August 11, 2025 Report #:2505-4640 TITLE 4256 El Camino Real [25PLN-00095]. Request for Council Prescreening to Rezone the Subject Property from Commercial Services to Planned Community/Planned Home Zoning and to Allow Construction of a Multi-Family Apartment Complex with 120 Units in a Six-Story Structure on a 25,950-Square-Foot (0.6 Acre) Site. CEQA Status: Not a Project. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that Council conduct a prescreening and provide informal comments regarding the applicant’s request to rezone 4265 El Camino Real from Service Commercial (CS) to Planned Community/Planned Home Zoning (PHZ).1 Comments provided during the prescreening process are not binding on the City nor the applicant. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This prescreening is a request by the applicant to rezone the subject property, which is currently zoned Service Commercial (CS) to “Planned Home Zoning (PHZ).” The project site is 25,950 square feet, and currently has a valid Planning Entitlement for a five-story hotel. The new project includes construction of a 92,700-square-foot building (3.57:1 Floor Area Ratio) with 120 residential rental units. In accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 18.79.030(A), a prescreening review is required for legislative changes, including rezoning, prior to submittal of a formal application. Prescreenings are intended to solicit early feedback on proposed projects and, like all study sessions, cannot result in any formal action. Since this proposal may return to the City Council as a formal application, Councilmembers should refrain from forming firm opinions supporting or opposing the project. Following this prescreening, the applicant may choose to file a formal application to amend the zoning for the site. Planned Community Rezoning applications require an initial review by the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) followed by a formal recommendation from the 1 Referred to in this report as "Planned Home Zoning" to emphasize the focus on housing as the benefit to the community. PAMC Section 18.38, which outlines the requirement and process for Planned Community (PC) Zoning, remains the underlying code supporting application of this policy. Architectural Review Board, a formal recommendation from the PTC, and Council’s final decision as set forth in PAMC Chapter 18.38. BACKGROUND The building and demolition permits for the hotel project were issued in 2023 and demolition work is complete. Therefore, the site is currently vacant. The building permits for the approved hotel will expire in September 2025 and may apply for a 180-day extension prior to then. The permit cannot be further extended beyond March 2026. Surrounding Uses ANALYSIS City’s Regional Housing Allocation Needs (RHNA) buffer. A 3.57:1 FAR where a maximum of 0.6 FAR is allowed for residential use (2.85 is allowed under the HIP; 3.5 would be allowed under the HIP if the it were a Housing Element opportunity site); An 87% lot coverage where up to 50% is allowed (100% is allowed under the HIP); 79 feet, six inches height where up to 50 feet is allowed (60 feet is allowed under the HIP); No retail-like use(s), where 3,300 square feet of retail-like use(s) is required (see further discussion below); 121 square feet of useable open space per unit where minimum of 150 square feet are required. The CS district allows for this to be a combination of private and shared open space. 100 parking spaces where 140 parking spaces are required, prior to adjustments (125 would be required under the HIP); and No loading space is proposed. Stepback (PAMC 18.24.050(b)(1)): The building massing as proposed is not stepped back where it is more than 20 feet taller the average height of an adjacent building. This step back would start within two vertical feet of the height of the adjacent building. The step back would be a minimum depth of six feet along both the façade on the primary building frontage and the facing façade of the adjacent building, and the step shall occur for a minimum of 70% of each façade length. Façade Modulation (PAMC 18.24.050(b)(3)): Additional information would be needed to analyze the façade modulation depth; however, it appears that the recesses may need to be deeper in some areas Parking Location/Screening (PAMC 18.24.060(b)(7)(B)): This project proposes ground- level parking rather than underground. In order to do so, it must also be lined with commercial or habitable uses with a minimum depth of 20 feet along the street frontage. The alternative is to fully underground the parking (PAMC 18.24.060(c)(7)). Privacy and Transitions to Residential Uses (PAMC 18.24.050(b)(2)(D) and (E)): The proposed balconies and windows within 30 feet of windows, balconies, and private open space at Palo Alto Redwoods do not utilize privacy measures such as high sills, obscured glazing, or angling away from the property lines. A sight line analysis will be required in the formal submittal. Miscellaneous: Some details, particularly regarding landscaping, are not included in the conceptual plans. As the project moves forward to the formal review, additional Objective Design Standards may be identified. Not all projects are required to meet the Objective Design Standards, as a project may opt to use the subjective Contextual Design Criteria instead. Retail Preservation Prior to the demolition associated with the current entitlement, this property was the location of Su Zhe Eatery. The previous building was 3,300 square feet. The approved hotel is a retail- like use, and therefore the hotel entitlement was consistent with the Retail Preservation requirements (PAMC 18.40.180). However, the proposed residential project would not be consistent with the City’s Retail Preservation requirements, as it is not eligible for the Housing Element Opportunity Site exemption. Prior to April 2025, it could have been allowed to replace only 1,500 as a HIP project. At this time, under the most recent code change that exemption was removed for non-Housing Element Sites along El Camino Real (as part of an “interim retail node”). If retained in a Retail Preservation Node, this project would need to provide approximately 3,300 square feet of a retail or retail-like use. However, a revised El Camino Real Retail Node map has been prepared and recommended by the PTC. The revised map recommended by PTC does not include this site in a Retail Preservation Node and is expected to be considered by Council prior to submittal of a formal application on this project. PC Special Requirements The project would be subject to one of the special standards for PCs as set forth in PAMC Section 18.38.150, as there is one R-1 zoned property within 150 feet of the project site. However, the R-1 zoned property is located approximately 149 feet from the site; therefore, all portions of the proposed improvements are outside the 150 foot setback and are not subject to the height limitations required for structures within 150 feet of properties zone R-1. The site is also not abutting an RE, R-1, R-2, RMD, RM, or residential PC district. Therefore, the other special requirements for setbacks and daylight plane do not apply. Parking Enclosure as defined in PAMC 18.54.060(a)(2)(B). Twelve short-term bicycle stalls will also be available, consistent with the zoning code. 2 provides greater weight and flexibility towards providing very-low income units, however this proposal falls short of that with a weighted value of only 17.1% and would need to be adjusted to meet the 20% threshold. 4256 El Camino Real Below Market Rate Unit Calculation Income Level Area Median Income Weighted Value Number of Units % of Actual Units Weighted % Extremely-low Income 16-30%1.9 0 0.0%0% Very-low Income 31-50%1.9 1 0.8%2% Low Income 51-80%1.2 14 11.7%14%Below Market Rate Units Moderate Income 81-120%0.6 3 2.5%2% Typical Units Above Moderate & Market Rate 121% +0 102 0% Total 120 15.0%17.1% POLICY IMPACT FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT 2 June 23, 2020 Council staff report. https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/agendas-minutes- reports/reports/city-manager-reports-cmrs/year-archive/2020/id-10715.pdf potential transient occupancy tax revenue that may have been obtained through development of the hotel. However, there would be no loss in existing revenue as the site is currently vacant. STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT Increased traffic congestion Not enough parking for the proposed number of units, as well as the parking spaces proposed in parking lift systems A lack of setbacks and/or stepbacks from the neighboring residences Privacy between the Palo Alto Redwoods residences and the proposed projects’ Importance of protecting existing redwood trees, including for privacy ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ATTACHMENTS APPROVED BY: Jonathan Lait, Planning and Development Services Director Crowne Plaza Cabana Hotel Palo Alto_Redwoods Sky Ranch Motel ' 113.2' 57.0' 57.0'71.6' 108.4'75.0' 108.9' 60.0' 50.4' 110.9' .4' 9.6' 49.6' 10.4' 110.4' 0' 110.9' 60.0' 109.9'60.0' 110.4' 60.0' 109.4'60.0' 109.9' 60.0' 108.9'60.0' 109.4' 173.5' 16.2'14.0' 20.0'14.0' 83. 1 147.3' 163.5' 29.0' 95.2' 29.0' 78.3' 15.7' 80.0' 60.0' 125.0' 60.0' 125.0' 358.7 27.9' 173.5' 16.2' 14.0' 20.0'14.0' 30.2' 151.2' 40.2' 10.0' 19.0' 10.0' 17.0' 53.0' 11.3' 25.0' 10.5' 91.2' 12.6' 34.1' 12.7' 16.0' 109.7' 23.0' 40.2' 9.1' 24.3' 6.0' 126.8' 30.2' 151.2' 40.2' 10.0' 19.0' 10.0' 17.0' 53.0' 11.3' 25.0' 10.5' 91.2' 12.6' 34.1' 12.7' 16.0' 109.7' 23.0' 40.2' 9.1' 24.3' 6.0' 126.8' 30.2' 151.2' 40.2' 10.0' 19.0' 10.0' 17.0' 53.0' 11.3' 25.0' 10.5' 91.2' 12.6' 34.1' 12.7' 16.0' 109.7' 23.0' 40.2' 9.1' 24.3' 6.0' 126.8' 30.2' 151.2' 40.2' 10.0' 19.0' 10.0' 17.0' 53.0' 11.3' 25.0' 10.5' 91.2' 12.6' 34.1' 12.7' 16.0' 109.7' 23.0' 40.2' 9.1' 24.3' 6.0' 126.8' 30.2' 151.2' 40.2' 10.0' 19.0' 10.0' 17.0' 53.0' 11.3' 25.0' 10.5' 91.2' 12.6' 34.1' 12.7' 16.0' 109.7' 23.0' 40.2' 9.1' 24.3' 6.0' 126.8' 30.2' 151.2' 40.2' 10.0' 19.0' 10.0' 17.0' 53.0' 11.3' 25.0' 10.5' 91.2' 12.6' 34.1' 12.7' 16.0' 109.7' 23.0' 40.2' 9.1' 24.3' 6.0' 126.8' 30.2' 151.2' 40.2' 10.0' 19.0' 10.0' 17.0' 53.0' 11.3' 25.0' 10.5' 91.2' 12.6' 34.1' 12.7' 16.0' 109.7' 23.0' 40.2' 9.1' 24.3' 6.0' 126.8' 30.2' 151.2' 40.2' 10.0' 19.0' 10.0' 17.0' 53.0' 11.3' 25.0' 10.5' 91.2' 12.6' 34.1' 12.7' 16.0' 109.7' 23.0' 40.2' 9.1' 24.3' 6.0' 126.8' 30.2' 151.2' 40.2' 10.0' 19.0' 10.0' 17.0' 53.0' 11.3' 25.0' 10.5' 91.2' 12.6' 34.1' 12.7' 16.0' 109.7' 23.0' 40.2' 9.1' 24.3' 6.0' 126.8' 30.2' 151.2' 40.2' 10.0' 19.0' 10.0' 17.0' 53.0' 11.3' 25.0' 10.5' 91.2' 12.6' 34.1' 12.7' 16.0' 109.7' 23.0' 40.2' 9.1' 24.3' 6.0' 126.8' 30.2' 151.2' 40.2' 10.0' 19.0' 10.0' 17.0' 53.0' 11.3' 25.0' 10.5' 91.2' 12.6' 34.1' 12.7' 16.0' 109.7' 23.0' 40.2' 9.1' 24.3' 6.0' 126.8' 30.2' 151.2' 40.2' 10.0' 19.0' 10.0' 17.0' 53.0' 11.3' 25.0' 10.5' 91.2' 12.6' 34.1' 12.7' 16.0' 109.7' 23.0' 40.2' 9.1' 24.3' 6.0' 126.8' 30.2' 151.2' 40.2' 10.0' 19.0' 10.0' 17.0' 53.0' 11.3' 25.0' 10.5' 91.2' 12.6' 34.1' 12.7' 16.0' 109.7' 23.0' 40.2' 9.1' 24.3' 6.0' 126.8' 30.2' 151.2' 40.2' 10.0' 19.0' 10.0' 17.0' 53.0' 11.3' 25.0' 10.5' 91.2' 12.6' 34.1' 12.7' 16.0' 109.7' 23.0' 40.2' 9.1' 24.3' 6.0' 126.8' 30.2' 151.2' 40.2' 10.0' 19.0' 10.0' 17.0' 53.0' 11.3' 25.0' 10.5' 91.2' 12.6' 34.1' 12.7' 16.0' 109.7' 23.0' 40.2' 9.1' 24.3' 6.0' 126.8' 30.2' 151.2' 40.2' 10.0' 19.0' 10.0' 17.0' 53.0' 11.3' 25.0' 10.5' 91.2' 12.6' 34.1' 12.7' 16.0' 109.7' 23.0' 40.2' 9.1' 24.3' 6.0' 126.8' 30.2' 151.2' 40.2' 10.0' 19.0' 10.0' 17.0' 53.0' 11.3' 25.0' 10.5' 91.2' 12.6' 34.1' 12.7' 16.0' 109.7' 23.0' 40.2' 9.1' 24.3' 6.0' 126.8' 30.2' 151.2' 40.2' 10.0' 19.0' 10.0' 17.0' 53.0' 11.3' 25.0' 10.5' 91.2' 12.6' 34.1' 12.7' 16.0' 109.7' 23.0' 40.2' 9.1' 24.3' 6.0' 126.8' 30.2' 151.2' 40.2' 10.0' 19.0' 10.0' 17.0' 53.0' 11.3' 25.0' 10.5' 91.2' 12.6' 34.1' 12.7' 16.0' 109.7' 23.0' 40.2' 9.1' 24.3' 6.0' 126.8' 30.2' 151.2' 40.2' 10.0' 19.0' 10.0' 17.0' 53.0' 11.3' 25.0' 10.5' 91.2' 12.6' 34.1' 12.7' 16.0' 109.7' 23.0' 40.2' 9.1' 24.3' 6.0' 126.8' 30.2' 151.2' 40.2' 10.0' 19.0' 10.0' 17.0' 53.0' 11.3' 25.0' 10.5' 91.2' 12.6' 34.1' 12.7' 16.0' 109.7' 23.0' 40.2' 9.1' 24.3' 6.0' 126.8' 30.2' 151.2' 40.2' 10.0' 19.0' 10.0' 17.0' 53.0' 11.3' 25.0' 10.5' 91.2' 12.6' 34.1' 12.7' 16.0' 109.7' 23.0' 40.2' 9.1' 24.3' 6.0' 126.8' 30.2' 151.2' 40.2' 10.0' 19.0' 10.0' 17.0' 53.0' 11.3' 25.0' 10.5' 91.2' 12.6' 34.1' 12.7' 16.0' 109.7' 23.0' 40.2' 9.1' 24.3' 6.0' 126.8' 225.2' 60.0' 38.5' 29.0' 53.7' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9' 5.0'30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 153.2' 151.2' 40.2' 10.0' 19.0' 10.0' 17.0' 53.0' 11.3' 25.0' 10.5' 225.2' 60.0' 38.5' 29.0' 53.7' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9' 5.0'30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 153.2' 151.2' 40.2' 10.0' 19.0' 10.0' 17.0' 53.0' 11.3' 25.0' 10.5' 225.2' 60.0' 38.5' 29.0' 53.7' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9' 5.0'30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 153.2' 151.2' 40.2' 10.0' 19.0' 10.0' 17.0' 53.0' 11.3' 25.0' 10.5' 225.2' 60.0' 38.5' 29.0' 53.7' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9' 5.0'30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 153.2' 151.2' 40.2' 10.0' 19.0' 10.0' 17.0' 53.0' 11.3' 25.0' 10.5' 225.2' 60.0' 38.5' 29.0' 53.7' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9' 5.0'30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 153.2' 151.2' 40.2' 10.0' 19.0' 10.0' 17.0' 53.0' 11.3' 25.0' 10.5' 225.2' 60.0' 38.5' 29.0' 53.7' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9' 5.0'30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 153.2' 151.2' 40.2' 10.0' 19.0' 10.0' 17.0' 53.0' 11.3' 25.0' 10.5' 225.2' 60.0' 38.5' 29.0' 53.7' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9' 5.0'30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 153.2' 151.2' 40.2' 10.0' 19.0' 10.0' 17.0' 53.0' 11.3' 25.0' 10.5' 225.2' 60.0' 38.5' 29.0' 53.7' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9' 5.0'30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 153.2' 151.2' 40.2' 10.0' 19.0' 10.0' 17.0' 53.0' 11.3' 25.0' 10.5' 225.2' 60.0' 38.5' 29.0' 53.7' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9' 5.0'30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 153.2' 151.2' 40.2' 10.0' 19.0' 10.0' 17.0' 53.0' 11.3' 25.0' 10.5' 225.2' 60.0' 38.5' 29.0' 53.7' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9' 5.0'30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 153.2' 151.2' 40.2' 10.0' 19.0' 10.0' 17.0' 53.0' 11.3' 25.0' 10.5' 225.2' 60.0' 38.5' 29.0' 53.7' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9' 5.0'30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 153.2' 151.2' 40.2' 10.0' 19.0' 10.0' 17.0' 53.0' 11.3' 25.0' 10.5' 225.2' 60.0' 38.5' 29.0' 53.7' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9' 5.0'30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 153.2' 151.2' 40.2' 10.0' 19.0' 10.0' 17.0' 53.0' 11.3' 25.0' 10.5' 225.2' 60.0' 38.5' 29.0' 53.7' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9' 5.0'30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 153.2' 151.2' 40.2' 10.0' 19.0' 10.0' 17.0' 53.0' 11.3' 25.0' 10.5' 225.2' 60.0' 38.5' 29.0' 53.7' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9' 5.0'30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 153.2' 151.2' 40.2' 10.0' 19.0' 10.0' 17.0' 53.0' 11.3' 25.0' 10.5' 225.2' 60.0' 38.5' 29.0' 53.7' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9' 5.0'30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 153.2' 151.2' 40.2' 10.0' 19.0' 10.0' 17.0' 53.0' 11.3' 25.0' 10.5' 225.2' 60.0' 38.5' 29.0' 53.7' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9' 5.0'30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 153.2' 151.2' 40.2' 10.0' 19.0' 10.0' 17.0' 53.0' 11.3' 25.0' 10.5' 225.2' 60.0' 38.5' 29.0' 53.7' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9' 5.0'30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 153.2' 151.2' 40.2' 10.0' 19.0' 10.0' 17.0' 53.0' 11.3' 25.0' 10.5' 225.2' 60.0' 38.5' 29.0' 53.7' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9' 5.0'30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 153.2' 151.2' 40.2' 10.0' 19.0' 10.0' 17.0' 53.0' 11.3' 25.0' 10.5' 225.2' 60.0' 38.5' 29.0' 53.7' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9' 5.0'30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 153.2' 151.2' 40.2' 10.0' 19.0' 10.0' 17.0' 53.0' 11.3' 25.0' 10.5' 225.2' 60.0' 38.5' 29.0' 53.7' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9' 5.0'30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 153.2' 151.2' 40.2' 10.0' 19.0' 10.0' 17.0' 53.0' 11.3' 25.0' 10.5' 225.2' 60.0' 38.5' 29.0' 53.7' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9' 5.0'30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 153.2' 151.2' 40.2' 10.0' 19.0' 10.0' 17.0' 53.0' 11.3' 25.0' 10.5' 225.2' 60.0' 38.5' 29.0' 53.7' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9' 5.0'30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 153.2' 151.2' 40.2' 10.0' 19.0' 10.0' 17.0' 53.0' 11.3' 25.0' 10.5' 225.2' 60.0' 38.5' 29.0' 53.7' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9' 5.0'30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 153.2' 151.2' 40.2' 10.0' 19.0' 10.0' 17.0' 53.0' 11.3' 25.0' 10.5' 225.2' 60.0' 38.5' 29.0' 53.7' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9' 5.0'30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 153.2' 151.2' 40.2' 10.0' 19.0' 10.0' 17.0' 53.0' 11.3' 25.0' 10.5' 225.2' 60.0' 38.5' 29.0' 53.7' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9' 5.0'30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 153.2' 151.2' 40.2' 10.0' 19.0' 10.0' 17.0' 53.0' 11.3' 25.0' 10.5' 225.2' 60.0' 38.5' 29.0' 53.7' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9' 5.0'30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 153.2' 151.2' 40.2' 10.0' 19.0' 10.0' 17.0' 53.0' 11.3' 25.0' 10.5' 225.2' 60.0' 38.5' 29.0' 53.7' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9' 5.0'30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 153.2' 151.2' 40.2' 10.0' 19.0' 10.0' 17.0' 53.0' 11.3' 25.0' 10.5' 225.2' 60.0' 38.5' 29.0' 53.7' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9' 5.0'30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 153.2' 151.2' 40.2' 10.0' 19.0' 10.0' 17.0' 53.0' 11.3' 25.0' 10.5' 225.2' 60.0' 38.5' 29.0' 53.7' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9' 5.0'30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 153.2' 151.2' 40.2' 10.0' 19.0' 10.0' 17.0' 53.0' 11.3' 25.0' 10.5' 225.2' 60.0' 38.5' 29.0' 53.7' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9' 5.0'30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 153.2' 151.2' 40.2' 10.0' 19.0' 10.0' 17.0' 53.0' 11.3' 25.0' 10.5' 113.2' 240.2' 24.3'9.1' 40.2' 23.0' 109.7' 16.0'12.7'34.1'12.6' 144.9' 113.2' 240.2' 24.3'9.1' 40.2' 23.0' 109.7' 16.0'12.7'34.1'12.6' 144.9' 113.2' 240.2' 24.3'9.1' 40.2' 23.0' 109.7' 16.0'12.7'34.1'12.6' 144.9' 113.2' 240.2' 24.3'9.1' 40.2' 23.0' 109.7' 16.0'12.7'34.1'12.6' 144.9' 113.2' 240.2' 24.3'9.1' 40.2' 23.0' 109.7' 16.0'12.7'34.1'12.6' 144.9' 113.2' 240.2' 24.3'9.1' 40.2' 23.0' 109.7' 16.0'12.7'34.1'12.6' 144.9' 113.2' 240.2' 24.3'9.1' 40.2' 23.0' 109.7' 16.0'12.7'34.1'12.6' 144.9' 113.2' 240.2' 24.3'9.1' 40.2' 23.0' 109.7' 16.0'12.7'34.1'12.6' 144.9' 113.2' 240.2' 24.3'9.1' 40.2' 23.0' 109.7' 16.0'12.7'34.1'12.6' 144.9' 113.2' 240.2' 24.3'9.1' 40.2' 23.0' 109.7' 16.0'12.7'34.1'12.6' 144.9' 113.2' 240.2' 24.3'9.1' 40.2' 23.0' 109.7' 16.0'12.7'34.1'12.6' 144.9' 113.2' 240.2' 24.3'9.1' 40.2' 23.0' 109.7' 16.0'12.7'34.1'12.6' 144.9' 113.2' 240.2' 24.3'9.1' 40.2' 23.0' 109.7' 16.0'12.7'34.1'12.6' 144.9' 113.2' 240.2' 24.3'9.1' 40.2' 23.0' 109.7' 16.0'12.7'34.1'12.6' 144.9' 113.2' 240.2' 24.3'9.1' 40.2' 23.0' 109.7' 16.0'12.7'34.1'12.6' 144.9' 113.2' 240.2' 24.3'9.1' 40.2' 23.0' 109.7' 16.0'12.7'34.1'12.6' 144.9' 113.2' 240.2' 24.3'9.1' 40.2' 23.0' 109.7' 16.0'12.7'34.1'12.6' 144.9' 113.2' 240.2' 24.3'9.1' 40.2' 23.0' 109.7' 16.0'12.7'34.1'12.6' 144.9' 113.2' 240.2' 24.3'9.1' 40.2' 23.0' 109.7' 16.0'12.7'34.1'12.6' 144.9' 113.2' 240.2' 24.3'9.1' 40.2' 23.0' 109.7' 16.0'12.7'34.1'12.6' 144.9' 113.2' 240.2' 24.3'9.1' 40.2' 23.0' 109.7' 16.0'12.7'34.1'12.6' 144.9' 113.2' 240.2' 24.3'9.1' 40.2' 23.0' 109.7' 16.0'12.7'34.1'12.6' 144.9' 113.2' 240.2' 24.3'9.1' 40.2' 23.0' 109.7' 16.0'12.7'34.1'12.6' 144.9' 113.2' 240.2' 24.3'9.1' 40.2' 23.0' 109.7' 16.0'12.7'34.1'12.6' 144.9' 113.2' 240.2' 24.3'9.1' 40.2' 23.0' 109.7' 16.0'12.7'34.1'12.6' 144.9' 113.2' 240.2' 24.3'9.1' 40.2' 23.0' 109.7' 16.0'12.7'34.1'12.6' 144.9' 113.2' 240.2' 24.3'9.1' 40.2' 23.0' 109.7' 16.0'12.7'34.1'12.6' 144.9' 113.2' 240.2' 24.3'9.1' 40.2' 23.0' 109.7' 16.0'12.7'34.1'12.6' 144.9' 113.2' 240.2' 24.3'9.1' 40.2' 23.0' 109.7' 16.0'12.7'34.1'12.6' 144.9' 113.2' 240.2' 24.3'9.1' 40.2' 23.0' 109.7' 16.0'12.7'34.1'12.6' 144.9' 225.2' 60.0' 38.5' 29.0' 53.7' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9' 5.0'30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 153.2' 151.2' 40.2' 10.0' 19.0' 10.0' 17.0' 53.0' 11.3' 25.0' 10.5' 113.2' 240.2' 24.3'9.1' 40.2' 23.0' 109.7' 16.0'12.7'34.1'12.6' 144.9' 175.2' 94.1' 80.0' 15.6' 78.3' 29.0' 41.5' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9'5.0' 30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 175.2' 94.1' 80.0' 15.6' 78.3' 29.0' 41.5' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9'5.0' 30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 175.2' 94.1' 80.0' 15.6' 78.3' 29.0' 41.5' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9'5.0' 30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 175.2' 94.1' 80.0' 15.6' 78.3' 29.0' 41.5' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9'5.0' 30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 175.2' 94.1' 80.0' 15.6' 78.3' 29.0' 41.5' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9'5.0' 30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 175.2' 94.1' 80.0' 15.6' 78.3' 29.0' 41.5' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9'5.0' 30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 175.2' 94.1' 80.0' 15.6' 78.3' 29.0' 41.5' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9'5.0' 30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 175.2' 94.1' 80.0' 15.6' 78.3' 29.0' 41.5' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9'5.0' 30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 175.2' 94.1' 80.0' 15.6' 78.3' 29.0' 41.5' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9'5.0' 30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 175.2' 94.1' 80.0' 15.6' 78.3' 29.0' 41.5' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9'5.0' 30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 175.2' 94.1' 80.0' 15.6' 78.3' 29.0' 41.5' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9'5.0' 30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 175.2' 94.1' 80.0' 15.6' 78.3' 29.0' 41.5' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9'5.0' 30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 175.2' 94.1' 80.0' 15.6' 78.3' 29.0' 41.5' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9'5.0' 30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 175.2' 94.1' 80.0' 15.6' 78.3' 29.0' 41.5' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9'5.0' 30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 175.2' 94.1' 80.0' 15.6' 78.3' 29.0' 41.5' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9'5.0' 30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 175.2' 94.1' 80.0' 15.6' 78.3' 29.0' 41.5' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9'5.0' 30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 175.2' 94.1' 80.0' 15.6' 78.3' 29.0' 41.5' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9'5.0' 30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 175.2' 94.1' 80.0' 15.6' 78.3' 29.0' 41.5' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9'5.0' 30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 175.2' 94.1' 80.0' 15.6' 78.3' 29.0' 41.5' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9'5.0' 30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 175.2' 94.1' 80.0' 15.6' 78.3' 29.0' 41.5' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9'5.0' 30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 175.2' 94.1' 80.0' 15.6' 78.3' 29.0' 41.5' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9'5.0' 30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 175.2' 94.1' 80.0' 15.6' 78.3' 29.0' 41.5' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9'5.0' 30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 175.2' 94.1' 80.0' 15.6' 78.3' 29.0' 41.5' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9'5.0' 30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 175.2' 94.1' 80.0' 15.6' 78.3' 29.0' 41.5' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9'5.0' 30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 175.2' 94.1' 80.0' 15.6' 78.3' 29.0' 41.5' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9'5.0' 30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 175.2' 94.1' 80.0' 15.6' 78.3' 29.0' 41.5' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9'5.0' 30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 175.2' 94.1' 80.0' 15.6' 78.3' 29.0' 41.5' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9'5.0' 30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 175.2' 94.1' 80.0' 15.6' 78.3' 29.0' 41.5' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9'5.0' 30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 175.2' 94.1' 80.0' 15.6' 78.3' 29.0' 41.5' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9'5.0' 30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 175.2' 94.1' 80.0' 15.6' 78.3' 29.0' 41.5' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9'5.0' 30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 175.2' 94.1' 80.0' 15.6' 78.3' 29.0' 41.5' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9'5.0' 30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 175.2' 94.1' 80.0' 15.6' 78.3' 29.0' 41.5' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9'5.0' 30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 35.7' 51.3'51.3' 101.6' 72.7'72.7' 67.2' 82.7' .' 81.6'81.6' 34.8' 87.7' 102.0' 67.4' 72.4'72.4' 34.3' 87.6' 120.0'189.9' 189.9' 189.9' 189.9' 189.9' 189.9' 189.9' 149.5' 149.9' 112.1' 100.0' 100.0' 112.1' 4232 4250 4275 0 62 563 553 550 4230 4234 4238 4235 4245 4251 4257 4265 4269 4256 4260 4290 4249 6A EL CAMINO REAL EL CAMINO REALT C T S (L) CS PC-4448 C This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend Project Site Current Features 0' 70' Attachment A: Location Map4256 El Camino Real CITY OF PALO ALTO INCOR P ORATED CALIFORNIA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f APRIL 1 6 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors. ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto ekallas, 2025-06-12 15:23:51 Attachment A. Location Map (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Personal\Planning.mdb) 8 3 4 1 ATTACHMENT B 4265 El Camino Real, 25PLN-00095 Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.16 (CS DISTRICT), 18.14 (HOUSING INCENTIVE PROGRAM (HIP)) and 18.38.150 (PC SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS) Development Standards Regulation Required Proposed Residential Project Minimum Site Area, width and depth None 25,950 square feet (0.6 acres) Minimum Front Yard 0-10 feet to create an 8- to 12- foot effective sidewalk width (1), (2), (8) Varies 5 feet 9 inches to 16 feet 8 inches Rear Yard 10 feet for residential uses 10 feet 2 inches Interior Side Yard None 6 feet Min. yard for lot lines abutting or opposite residential districts or residential PC districts 10 feet (2) Does not apply as the abutting properties are zoned CS Not Applicable Build-to-lines 50% of frontage built to setback on El Camino Real Complies Max. Site Coverage 50% (12,975 square feet) 100% for HIP 87% (22,550 square feet) CS Max. Building Height (5) 50 feet 35 feet for portions of a site within 150 feet (or 50 feet (5)) of an abutting residential district. 60 feet for HIP 79 feet 6 inches PC Special Requirements for height 35 feet when within 150 feet of R- 1, no restriction otherwise. 79 feet 6 inches CS Daylight Plane for lot lines abutting one or more residential zone districts other than an RM- 40 or PC Zone None, as the abutting properties are zoned CS Not Applicable PC Special Requirements for Daylight Plane None, as the abutting properties are zoned CS Not Applicable Max. Floor Area Ratio (FAR)0.4:1 (10,380 square feet) for residential use, plus non- residential uses up to a total of 1.0:1 2.85:1 for HIP (73,957 square feet) 3.57:1 (92,700 square feet) 100% residential 8 3 4 1 Residential Density 30 du/ac per CS Zone No maximum density per HIP 200 du/ac (120 units proposed) Minimum Useable Open Space 150 square feet per unit Common Open Space Provided: 3,170 + 5,520 = 8,690 square feet or 72.4 square feet per unit Private Open Space: 5,840 square feet or 48.7 square feet per unit Average total per unit 121.1 square feet Minimum Mixed-use Ground Floor Commercial FAR This property is subject to Retail Preservation. Previous restaurant was 3,300 square feet. 0 square feet (1) No parking or loading space, whether required or optional, shall be located in the first 10 feet adjoining the street property line of any required yard. (2) Any minimum front, street side, or interior yard shall be planted and maintained as a landscaped screen excluding areas required for access to the site. A solid wall or fence between 5 and 8 feet in height shall be constructed along any common interior lot line.. (5) Distance shall be measured from the property line of the subject site. 150-foot measurement may be reduced to 50 feet at minimum, subject to approval by the Planning Director, upon recommendation by the Architectural Review Board pursuant to criteria set forth in Chapter 18.76. (6) The initial height and slope shall be identical to those of the most restrictive residential zone abutting the site line in question. (7) 25 foot driveway access permitted regardless of frontage, build-to requirement does not apply to CC district. (8) A 12 foot sidewalk width is required along El Camino Real frontage Table 2: CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.52 (Off-Street Parking and Loading) Type Required Proposed Vehicle Parking 1 per unit 1 bedroom or Studio 2 per unit 2+ bedroom 140 spaces total 100 spaces proposed Bicycle Parking 1 LT space per unit (120) 1 ST space per 10 units (12) 120 long term 12 short term Loading Space 1 loading space for a building with 50+ units None From:Kristi Bascom To:Kou, Lydia; Stone, Greer; Burt, Patrick; Lauing, Ed; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Tanaka, Greg; Vicki.Veemker@cityofpaloalto.org; Clerk, City Cc:Sharlene Carlson; a_m_mason@yahoo.com; Julie Baskind; Laura D. Beaton Subject:Request for action on 11/13/2023 City Council Meeting Agenda Item 9 Date:Tuesday, November 7, 2023 12:56:44 PM Attachments:image001.png PAR letter to PACC re Agenda Item 9 for 11.13.2023.pdf You don't often get email from kbascom@smwlaw.com. Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers, Please accept the attached request for Council action on Item #9 on the 11/13/2023 CityCouncil agenda (Ordinance Implementing Program 1.1A and 1.1B of the Housing Element,Including: 1) New Chapter 18.14: Housing Incentives, and 2) Modifications to Base ZoningDistricts Throughout Title 18). We represent the Palo Alto Redwoods Homeowner’s Association (PAR), a community of117 market rate and affordable condominiums located at 4250 El Camino Real. For sometime, PAR has been exploring ways to ensure that their wholly-residential communityreceives protection from the impacts of neighboring commercial uses such as late nightnoise, impacts to privacy, and protection of the daylight plane. To achieve this goal forPAR, and to also benefit other existing and future residential communities in the City facingsimilar issues, we have identified a few minor zoning text amendments. The details areexplained in the attached letter, but in short, PAR is requesting Council’s support tosupplement the zoning text amendments proposed by Staff in Agenda Item #9 with theadditional language we’re proposing. We believe our amendments can be added to theOrdinance that the Council is considering for adoption which is already amending relevantsections of Title 18. We believe these additional amendments can help demonstrate Palo Alto’s commitment tosupporting residential neighborhoods. Thank you in advance for your consideration. Sincerely,Kristi Bascom Kristi Bascom Urban Planner Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger LLP 396 Hayes Street San Francisco, CA 94102-4421 p: 415/552-7272 x 202 | c: 925/872-6327 www.smwlaw.com | A San Francisco Green Business November 7, 2023 Via Electronic Mail Only Honorable Mayor Lydia Kou and Members of the City Council City of Palo Alto E-Mail: Lydia.Kou@cityofpaloalto.org, Greer.Stone@cityofpaloalto.org, Pat.Burt@cityofpaloalto.org, Ed.Lauing@cityofpaloalto.org, Julie.LythcottHaims@cityofpaloalto.org, Greg.Tanaka@cityofpaloalto.org, Re: 11/13/2023 City Council Meeting Agenda Item 9: Ordinance Implementing Program 1.1A and 1.1B of the Housing Element, Including: 1) New Chapter 18.14: Housing Incentives, and 2) Modifications to Base Zoning Districts Throughout Title 18 Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the Palo Alto City Council: I am writing on behalf of the Palo Alto Redwoods Homeowners Association (“PAR”) to propose a few minor but important revisions to the Title 18 Zoning Ordinance Amendment you are considering at the Council meeting on November 13, 2023. These revisions will help ensure that higher density housing constructed on properties zoned for commercial uses will be treated like the residential uses they are. These proposed revisions will apply to new housing development as well as existing residential properties that have been built in commercial zones. The revisions will demonstrate Palo Alto’s commitment to ensuring that new neighborhoods – often created in non-traditional areas – are buffered from impacts created by commercial neighbors such as noise, reduction in access to daylight, and impacts to privacy. The specific zoning ordinance revisions proposed by PAR are shown in redline in Attachments 1 and 2 to this letter. Generally speaking, the text revisions extend protections that currently apply to “residentially zoned property” and apply them to “exclusively residential uses” as well. This means that whether a property is zoned residential, commercial, or mixed use, if the property is developed with a wholly residential use, it will be provided the same protection from inadvertent impacts. The proposed amendments are to PAMC Section 18.16.040(b), which protects residential uses from the impacts of late night activities, and to PAMC Section 18.16.060, which includes development standards for mixed-use and non-residential uses including requirements for setbacks, building height, and daylight plane. Honorable Mayor Lydia Kou and Members of the City Council November 7, 2023 Page 2 The proposed changes would not only provide these basic protections to the Palo Alto Redwoods community, but it would also apply other existing residential communities. Likewise, it would apply to the thousands of future residential units that the City is incentivizing through implementation of the Housing Element, many of which are likely to be sited on commercially- zoned land. Simply put, it is most fair and efficient to treat all exclusively residential properties similarly. Further, not adopting the changes could easily result in an increased burden on the City when future residents on commercially-zoned properties appeal or otherwise contest adjacent commercial development to try to get the same projections that residentially-zoned properties enjoy. In light of the City’s current efforts to update its zoning code, PAR believes this is an ideal opportunity for the City to consider these minor changes. We submitted a letter to the Planning and Transportation Commission when they reviewed the Ordinance Amending the Palo Alto Municipal Code Title 18 (Zoning) to Implement Housing Element Programs 1.1A and 1.1B at their meeting on October 11, 2023 and asked for their consideration, but they were not able to act on the request (see Attachment 3). The City Council, however, can choose to do so. PAMC Section 18.80.100 (Action by City Council) states: “After consideration of the recommendation of the planning commission, and the completion of a public hearing, if any, the council may approve, modify, or disapprove the proposed change of-district boundaries or change of any other provisions of this title. Should the council determine that a change of district boundaries or change of any other provisions of this title shall be appropriate, such change shall be accomplished by ordinance.” Therefore, PAR respectfully requests that the City Council incorporates these additional zoning text amendments into the Title 18 ordinance being considered in Item 9 at the November 13, 2023 public hearing. We believe that PAR’s proposed amendments are covered under the public noticing completed for Item 9, as it broadly described the project as an “Ordinance Implementing Program 1.1A and 1.1B of the Housing Element, Including: 1) New Chapter 18.14: Housing Incentives, and 2) Modifications to Base Zoning Districts Throughout Title 18.” The amendments proposed by PAR fit within this description. Furthermore, PAR’s proposed text amendments will not result in an increase in housing production or other impacts beyond the text amendments already identified by City Staff. We believe that the CEQA documentation identified in the staff report that covers the proposed Amendments to Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) will cover these additional text amendments as well and no additional CEQA documentation should be required. We believe that these requested amendments are aligned with the Housing Element efforts the City is currently implementing and are not incongruous with the zoning ordinance amendments the City Council is considering in Item 9. If PAR had to apply for this zoning text Honorable Mayor Lydia Kou and Members of the City Council November 7, 2023 Page 3 amendment in a separate process, the cost would be at least $30,000 1, and would involve additional City Staff time and effort to process the application. Because these amendments will benefit all exclusively residential uses that have been, or will be, developed on commercially- zoned land and are adjacent to commercial properties, it seems reasonable to think that the City Council would prefer to incorporate these minor changes now. If the City Council decides to not incorporate the proposed revisions at this time, PAR requests that the Council direct staff to study and initiate amendments to Sections 18.16.040(b) and 18.16.060 to incorporate the changes shown in Attachments 1 and 2. PAMC Sections 18.80.080 (a) and (b) allows the Council to make a motion to initiate changes to the provisions of Title 18 of their own accord. On behalf of PAR, we truly appreciate the City Council’s consideration of this request to incorporate the text amendments shown in Attachments 1 and 2 into the Title 18 Zoning Ordinance Amendment being considered at the November 13, 2023 public hearing. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions regarding this request or if we can provide any further information that will help with the City Council’s decision. We look forward to the Council’s discussion and deliberations at the meeting on the 13th. Very truly yours, SHUTE, MIHALY & WEINBERGER LLP Kristi T. Bascom, AICP Attachments: 1: Proposed revisions to PAMC Section 18.16.040(b) 2: Proposed revisions to PAMC Section 18.16.060 3: Letter submitted by PAR to the Planning and Transportation Commission dated October 10, 2023 1710592.2 1 According to the City’s Fee Schedule: $4,484.53 deposit for the prescreening, $1,345.00 public noticing fee, $9,144.54 deposit for Zone Change (Regular and Text Amendments), and $14,957.00 for the legal review of legislative/zone change. The schedule also notes that “all fees will be recovered”, so those that are a deposit are likely to increase with no cap to the potential costs incurred by the Applicant. 1 18.16.040 Land Uses (b) Late Night Use and Activities The following regulations restrict businesses that operate or have associated activities at any time between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m., where such site abuts or is located within 50 feet of residentially zoned properties or properties with exclusively residential uses. (1) Such businesses shall be operated in a manner to protect residential properties from excessive noise, odors, lighting or other nuisances from any sources during those hours. (2) For properties located in the CN or CS zone districts, businesses that operate or have associated activities at any time between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. shall be required to obtain a conditional use permit. The director may apply conditions of approval as are deemed necessary to assure that the operations or activities are compatible with the nearby residentially zoned property or property developed with exclusively residential uses. 1 18.16.060 Development Standards (a) Exclusively Non-Residential Uses Table 3 specifies the development standards for exclusively non-residential uses and alterations to non-residential uses or structures in the CN, CC, CC(2) and CS districts. These developments shall be designed and constructed in compliance with the following requirements and the context-based design criteria outlined in Section 18.16.090, provided that more restrictive regulations may be recommended by the architectural review board and approved by the director of planning and development services, pursuant to Section 18.76.020. Table 3 Exclusively Non-residential Development Standards CN CC CC(2) CS Subject to regulations in Section Minimum Site Specifications Site Area (ft 2 ) Site Width (ft) Site Depth (ft) None required Minimum Setbacks Front Yard (ft) 0 - 10' to create an 8' - 12' effective sidewalk width (1), (2), (8) None Required (8) 0 - 10' to create an 8' - 12' effective sidewalk width (1), (2), (8) 0 - 10' to create an 8' - 12' effective sidewalk width (1), (2), (8) Setback lines imposed by a special setback map pursuant to Chapter 20.08 of this code Rear Yard (ft) None required Interior Side Yard (ft) Street Side Yard (ft) 20' (2) None required Minimum Yard (ft) for lot lines abutting or opposite residential districts or residential PC districts or properties developed with exclusively residential uses 10’ (2) 10’ (2) 10’ (2) 10’ (2) 2 CN CC CC(2) CS Subject to regulations in Section Build-To-Lines 50% of frontage built to setback (7) 33% of side street built to setback (7) Minimum setbacks from alleys for structures other than public parking garages (ft) (3) Corner lots, from rear lot line on the alley Not applicable 8’ Not applicable Corner lots, from side lot line on the alley None All lots other than corner lots 20’ Maximum Site Coverage 50% None required Maximum Height (ft) 18.08.030 Standard 25' and 2 stories 50’ 37’ (4) 50’ Portions of a site within 150 ft. of an abutting residential district (other than a PC zone) or within 150 ft. of an abutting property developed with exclusively residential uses. (9) 35’ 35’ 35’ Maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 0.4:1 2.0:1 0.4:1 18.18.060(e) Maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for Hotels N/A - (5) 2.0:1 2.0:1 18.18.060(d) Daylight Plane for lot lines abutting one or more residential zone districts other than an RM-40 or PC zone or for lot lines abutting a property developed with 3 CN CC CC(2) CS Subject to regulations in Section uses. Initial Height at side or rear lot line (ft) - (6) - (6) - (6) - (6) Slope - (6) - (6) - (6) - (6) (1) No parking or loading space, whether required or optional, shall be located in the first 10 feet adjoining the street property line of any required yard. (2) Any minimum front, street side, or interior yard shall be planted and maintained as a landscaped screen excluding areas required for access to the site. A solid wall or fence between 5 and 8 feet in height shall be constructed along any common interior lot line. (3) No setback from an alley is required for a public parking garage. (4) As measured to the peak of the roof or the top of a parapet; penthouses and equipment enclosures may exceed this height limit by a maximum of five feet, but shall be limited to an area equal to no more than ten percent of the site area and shall not intrude into the daylight plane. (5) See additional regulations in subsection (e) of this Section 18.16.050. (6) The initial height and slope shall be identical to those of the most restrictive residential zone abutting the site line in question. (7) Twenty-five-foot driveway access permitted regardless of frontage; build-to requirement does not apply to CC district. (8) A 12-foot sidewalk width is required along El Camino Real frontage. (9) Distance shall be measured from the property line of the subject site. 150-foot measurement may be reduced to 50 feet at minimum, subject to approval by the Planning Director, upon recommendation by the Architectural Review Board pursuant to criteria set forth in Chapter 18.76. (b) Mixed Use and Residential Table 4 specifies the development standards for new residential mixed use developments and residential developments. These developments shall be designed and constructed in compliance with the following requirements and the objective design standards in Chapter 18.24. Non-Housing Development Projects and Housing Development Projects that elect to deviate from one or more objective standards in Chapter 18.24 shall meet the context-based design criteria outlined in Section 18.16.090, provided that more restrictive regulations may be recommended by the architectural review board and approved by the director of planning and development services, pursuant to Section 18.76.020. 4 Table 4 Mixed Use and Residential Development Standards CN CC CC(2) CS Subject to regulations in: Minimum Site Specifications Site Area (ft2) None required Site Width (ft) Site Depth (ft) Minimum Setbacks Setback lines imposed by a special setback map pursuant to Chapter 20.08 of this code may apply Front Yard (ft) 0' - 10' to create an 8' - 12' effective sidewalk width (8) None Required (8) 0' - 10' to create an 8' - 12' effective sidewalk width (8) 0' - 10' to create an 8' - 12' effective sidewalk width (8) Rear Yard (ft) 10' for residential portion; no requirement for commercial portion Rear Yard abutting residential zone district or a property developed with exclusively residential uses (ft) 10’ abutting residential zone district or a property developed with exclusively residential uses (ft) 10’ Street Side Yard (ft) 5’ Built-to-Lines 50% of frontage built to setback (1) 33% of side street built to setback (1) Permitted Setback Encroachments Balconies, awnings, porches, stairways, and similar elements may extend up to 6' into the setback. Cornices, eaves, fireplaces, and similar architectural features (excluding flat or continuous walls or enclosures of interior space) may extend up to 4' into the front and rear setbacks and up to 3' into interior side setbacks Maximum Site Coverage 50% 50% 100% 50% Minimum Landscape/Open Space Coverage 35% 30% 20% 30% 5 CN CC CC(2) CS Subject to regulations in: (Private and/or Common) 150 sq ft per unit (2) 18.16.090 Maximum Height (ft) Standard 35’ (4) 50’ 37’ 50’ 150 ft. of an abutting residential district (other than an RM-40 or PC zone) or within 150 ft of an abutting property developed with exclusively residential uses. 35’ 35’ 35’ 35’ 18.08.030 Daylight Plane for lot lines abutting one or more residential zoning districts or abutting a property developed with exclusively residential uses. Daylight plane height and slope shall be identical to those of the most restrictive residential zoning district abutting the lot line. If no residential zoning district abuts the lot line, the daylight plane and slope shall be identical to that of any exclusively residential use abutting the lot line. Residential Density (net)(3) 15 or 20 (9) See sub- section (e) below No maximum 30 18.16.060(i) Sites on El Camino Real No maximum No maximum Sites on San Antonia Rd between Middlefield Rd and E. Charleston Rd. 15 or 20 (9) No maximum Maximum Residential Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 0.5:1(4) 0.6:1 0.6:1 18.16.065 Maximum Nonresidential Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 0.4:1 2.0:1 0.4:1 Total Mixed Use Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 0.9:1 (4) 2.0:1 1.0:1 18.16.065 Minimum Mixed Use Ground Floor Commercial FAR(6) 0.15:1 (10) 0.15:1 (10) 0.25:1 (7) (10) 0.15:1 (10) Parking See Chapters 18.52 and 18.54 (Parking) 18.52, 18.54 (1) Twenty-five-foot driveway access permitted regardless of frontage; build-to requirement does not apply to CC district. (2) Required usable open space: (1) may be any combination of private and common open spaces; (2) does not need to be located on the ground (but rooftop gardens are not included as open space except as provided below); (3) minimum private open space dimension six feet; and (4) minimum common open space dimension twelve feet. 6 For CN and CS sites on El Camino Real and CC(2) sites that do not abut a single- or two- family residential use or zoning district, rooftop gardens may qualify as usable open space and may count as up to 60% of the required usable open space for the residential component of a project. In order to qualify as usable open space, the rooftop garden shall meet the requirements set forth in Section 18.40.230. (3) Residential density shall be computed based upon the total site area, irrespective of the percent of the site devoted to commercial use. (4) For CN sites on El Camino Real, height may increase to a maximum of 40 feet and the FAR may increase to a maximum of 1.0:1 (0.5:1 for nonresidential, 0.5:1 for residential). (5) Distance shall be measured from the property line of the subject site. 150-foot measurement may be reduced to 50 feet at minimum, subject to approval by the Planning Director, upon recommendation by the Architectural Review Board pursuant to criteria set forth in Chapter 18.76. (6) Ground floor commercial uses generally include retail, personal services, hotels and eating and drinking establishments. Office uses may be included only to the extent they are permitted in ground floor regulations. (7) If located in the California Avenue Parking Assessment District. (8) A 12-foot sidewalk width is required along El Camino Real frontage. (9) Residential densities up to 20 units/acre are allowed on CN zoned housing inventory sites identified in the Housing Element. Other CN zoned sites not located on El Camino Real are subject to a maximum residential density of up to 15 units/acre. (10) In the CC(2) zone and on CN and CS zoned sites on El Camino Real, there shall be no minimum mixed use ground floor commercial FAR for a residential project, except to the extent that the retail preservation requirements of Section 18.40.180 or the retail shopping (R) combining district (Chapter 18.30(A)) applies. October 10, 2023 Via Electronic Mail Only Jonathan Lait, Planning Director City of Palo Alto E-Mail: jonathan.lait@cityofpaloalto.org City of Palo Alto Planning & Transportation Commission Re: Proposed Changes to the Palo Alto Zoning Code to Incorporate Residential Protections for the Palo Alto Redwoods Community Dear Mr. Lait and Planning and Transportation Commissioners: I am writing on behalf of the Palo Alto Redwoods Homeowners Association (“PAR”) to suggest a few minor but important updates to the City’s zoning code. The 117-unit Palo Alto Redwoods condominium complex located at 4250 El Camino Real, includes a diverse group of residents, with both market-rate and deed-restricted below- market-rate homes. As you may be aware, the land where Palo Alto Redwoods is located is currently zoned as commercial. The land surrounding Palo Alto Redwoods is also zoned as commercial. Consequently, Palo Alto Redwoods – despite being a property with only residential uses – does not enjoy some of the protections that other residentially zoned properties in Palo Alto receive with respect to buffering of incompatible land uses. PAR has explored rezoning the land where Palo Alto Redwoods is located to a high-density residential district, which would allow the community to benefit from the zoning code’s buffering protections. But City staff informed PAR in February of this year that the rezoning process could potentially cost thousands of dollars with no guarantee of success. In light of the City’s current efforts to review its zoning code, however, PAR believes there is an opportunity for the City to consider some minor changes that could Jonathan Lait October 10, 2023 Page 2 benefit Palo Alto Redwoods and similarly situated communities. These changes would afford our residents many of the protections that the City’s other residentially zoned properties currently enjoy. I have reviewed the City’s zoning code and identified two sections of the Municipal Code that that could be revised to achieve PAR’s goals with minimal changes. These sections currently set standards for hours of operation, minimum setbacks, building height, and daylight plane for commercially zoned properties located close to residentially zoned land. By changing the refences in these code sections from “residential zoning” to “residential uses,” the zoning code would provide Palo Alto Redwoods residents similar protections as other residential zones, even though Palo Alto Redwoods is located on commercially zoned land. This proposed change would not only provide basic protections to the Palo Alto Redwoods community. It would likewise benefit other existing and the 6,000 to 20,000 future residential properties that the City will be approving through implementation of the housing element, which are likely to be sited on commercially-zoned land. By including PAR’s proposed change in the City’s upcoming zoning changes, it would support residential uses in commercial zones by ensuring that such residential developments enjoy the same protections as residential uses on residentially zoned land. Further, not adopting the changes could easily result in an increased burden on the City when future residents on commercially zoned properties appeal or otherwise contest adjacent commercial development to try to get the same projections that residentially zoned properties enjoy. Simply put, it is most fair and efficient to treat all residential properties similarly. I have attached redlined versions containing proposed changes to the two referenced code sections—section 18.16.040, governing hours of operation, and section 18.16.060, governing building setbacks, building height, and daylight plane. We appreciate the Planning Commission’s consideration of these changes and hope the Commission will include these minor amendments with other the other zoning changes it is currently considering. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or if I can provide any further information. Jonathan Lait October 10, 2023 Page 3 Very truly yours, SHUTE, MIHALY & WEINBERGER LLP From:rdmto@aol.com To:Council, City Subject:4256 El Camino Real Council pre-screening meeting Date:Sunday, July 27, 2025 11:23:59 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments andclicking on links. i Subject: Oppse 4256 El Camino Real : poorly designed housing project Dear Vice Mayor Vicki Veenker and council members Pat Burt, George Lu, Julie Lythcott-Haims, Keith Reckdahl, Ed Lauing, Carlos Romero, and Webster Lincoln, I am writing to express my concerns regarding the 4256 Elcamino Real poorly designed housing project. As a resident of the neighborhood, I believe this matter could significantly affect the immediate community in terms of congextive traffic, high desnity living conditon with studio and one bedroom units, inadequate parking spaces in proposal. Concern: Tracffic congestion on already crowded Major road: El Camino Real . There are only 100 parking spaces for 100 units. Units breakdown: 44 studios 44 one bedroom units 8 two bedroom units 4 three bedroom units ----------------------------------- 100 total units. Puzzle Lift Stacker parking style: Each Puzzle module can hold 6-50 cars. Drivers park their car in entry platform, and lifted to available spot. Only one car can go in and out of the system - commute hours will create problems for residents. Need to empty grocery, backpacks or furniture before car enters platform (takes time). During power outage, no car can go in or out. Imagine during busy time to go to work or school, you have to load everything into your care before driving away from the platform. Please remember On El Camino Real where we have designated bike lanes,there is no parking on the street where you can load or unload your stuff from your car before you enter or exit the car platform. This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report Please STOP this poorly designed project. __________________________________________________________________________________ No Plaza, rest area or clubhouse or swimming pool either, for the well- being of the residents who live in a small cram space:studios or one bedrooms......... We need to have quality housing - not boxed homes like in the slump areas or housing projects in SAn Francisco. We need livable housing. Please don't give up quality of living in Palo Alto for Quantity housing projects in government subsidized areas. Thank you very much for your time. I believe addressing these 2 main concerns will lead to better outcomes for both current and futrue residents. I appreciate your attention to this matter and encourage the city council to take these concerns into careful consideration. Sincerely, Mary Young Charleston Meadow resident rdmto@aol.com From:JS To:Council, City Subject:4256 El Camino Real Council pre-screening meeting Date:Sunday, July 27, 2025 11:30:04 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments andclicking on links. i Subject: Oppse 4256 El Camino Real proposal Dear Mayor Stone, Vice Mayor Vicki Veenker, Pat Burt, George Lu, Julie Lythcott-Haims, Keith Reckdahl, Ed Lauing, Carlos Romero, and Webster Lincoln, I am writing to express my concerns regarding the 4256 El Camino Real poorly designed housing project. As a resident of the neighborhood, I believe this matter could significantly affect the immediate community in terms of congextive traffic, high desnity living conditon with studio and one bedroom units, inadequate parking spaces in proposal. Concern: 1. Puzzle Lift Stacker parking style: Each Puzzle module can hold 6-50 cars. Drivers park their car in entry platform, and lifted to available spot. Only one car can go in and out of the system - commute hours will create problems for residents. Need to empty grocery, backpacks or furniture before car enters platform (takes time). During power outage, no car can go in or out. Imagine during busy time to go to work or school, you have to load everything into your care before driving away from the platform. Please remember On El Camino Real where we have designated bike lanes,there is no parking on the street where you can load or unload your stuff from your car before you enter or exit the car platform. Please ask developer to add more parking spaces. 2. No Plaza, rest area or clubhouse or swimming pool either, for the well- being of the residents who live in a small cram space:studios or one bedrooms......... We need to have quality housing - not boxed homes like in the slump areas or housing projects in SAn Francisco. We need livable housing. Please don't give up quality of living in Palo Alto for Quantity housing projects in government subsidized areas. This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report Thank you very much for your time. I believe addressing these 2 main concerns will lead to better outcomes for both current and futrue residents. I appreciate your attention to this matter and encourage the city council to take these concerns into careful consideration. Sincerely, Jee Smith Ventura resident Jeesm5@aol.com From:Diane Walker To:Council, City Cc:Diane Walker Subject:4256 El Camino Project Review Date:Sunday, July 27, 2025 6:47:14 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Hello: I am concerned about proposed plan for 4256 El Camino because it is totally oversized for this small / shallow parcel of land. The Redwoods condominium complex next door is primarily 3 stories height with only 4 set-back units at 4 stories. The plan for new construction is a 6 story design with no set-backs to allow light. The proposed height will block sunlight and open sky to PARedwoods residences & endanger the heritage trees on our property. We need more housing in Palo Alto, but please, let's consider a plan that is scaled to be harmonious with neighborhood. Thank you, Diane Walker 4250 El Camino Real C224, Palo Alto, CA 94306 This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report From:Armer, Jennifer To:Kallas, Emily; Raybould, Claire Cc:Tran, Vickie Subject:Fw: Public comment on 4256 El Camino Real proposal (2025) Date:Monday, July 28, 2025 8:25:09 AM Attachments:image002.png image003.png Outlook-Logo__Desc.png Outlook-5ms2a114.png Emily and Claire, See public comment below. Sincerely, Jennifer JENNIFER ARMER, AICP Assistant Director Planning and Development Services Department (650) 329-2191 | jennifer.armer@paloalto.gov www.paloalto.gov From: Velasquez, Ingrid <Ingrid.Velasquez@paloalto.gov> Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 8:18 AM To: Lait, Jonathan <Jonathan.Lait@paloalto.gov>; Armer, Jennifer <Jennifer.Armer@paloalto.gov>; Tran, Vickie <Vickie.Tran@paloalto.gov> Cc: Nose, Kiely <Kiely.Nose@paloalto.gov>; Gaines, Chantal <Chantal.Gaines@paloalto.gov>; McDonough, Melissa <Melissa.McDonough@paloalto.gov>; City Mgr <CityMgr@paloalto.gov> Subject: FW: Public comment on 4256 El Camino Real proposal (2025) Hello, Forwarding the comment below for awareness. Thanks, Ingrid Ingrid Velásquez Administrative Assistant Office of the City Manager (650) 329-2354| Ingrid.Velasquez@PaloAlto.gov www.PaloAlto.gov From: Neil Murphy <wnmurphy@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2025 12:28 PM To: Council, City <city.council@PaloAlto.gov> Subject: Public comment on 4256 El Camino Real proposal (2025) CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Members of our City Council, I am writing to submit public comments regarding the proposed development project at 4256 El Camino Real. While I support the addition of housing in our community, this proposal has some irreconcilable flaws: Parking issues: Total dependency on mechan i This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to you. Mark Safe Report CGBANNERINDICATOR Members of our City Council, I am writing to submit public comments regarding the proposed development project at 4256 El Camino Real. While I support the addition of housing in our community, this proposal has some irreconcilable flaws: Parking issues: Total dependency on mechanical stacking. 96/100 stalls are puzzle-lift type. High maintenance, low throughput, prone to downtime. Accessible parking deficiency. Only 5 accessible stalls—exactly 5%—bare minimum, no margin for future ADA upgrades or aging tenants. Ingress/egress conflict. Entry/exit drive aisle intersects lobby access and elevator zone. Pedestrian-vehicular conflict risk. Powered by Mimecast Circulation problems. No turnaround space; if lifts fail, no alternate parking path or egress loop. No EV chargers indicated. Noncompliant with California CALGreen for new residential. Traffic circulation issues: No affordance for service vehicles or rideshares. No internal holding area, forcing double-parking on El Camino. For reference, our comparable facility of 117 units has continuous delivery trucks and vans, two garbage trucks, constant rideshare pickup/dropoff, a daily mail truck. The developer appears to intend to use a lane of public traffic on ECR to get a loading zone for free, to the detriment of public use and safety. If the intention is for all service vehicles to park in the first lane of traffic on ECR, this will continually halt the flow of traffic on ECR and obstruct bike lanes. Curbside congestion. No designated loading zone or lay-by for rideshare, deliveries, garbage, or mail. Conflicts inevitable with protected bike lanes. Protected bike lane barrier. Direct curb access from El Camino is blocked; vehicles must cross bike lanes, creating dangerous conflict points for cyclists. Service vehicle access. Turning radius insufficient for dual garbage trucks and delivery vans without obstructing traffic/bike lanes, assuming the intention is for these vehicles to enter the site. Entry bottleneck. Single narrow driveway (approx. 20’) shared for all vehicle types. High conflict, inefficient throughput. Traffic will back up onto ECR. Design issues: Single stair access. West wing lacks compliant second stair; trap risk in fire event. Trash room access. Some residents will need to carry dripping garbage ~150 ft to the trash chute. Light/air deficiency. North-facing interior units (~460 SF studios) face a narrow courtyard (~31’ wide), risking inadequate natural light/ventilation. Units facing only into 41’ wide courtyard may not meet CBC 1202.5 for natural light/ventilation due to limited sky exposure. Elevator location. Poor central access; far from western units. Poor accessibility, move-in/out logistics. Elevator redundancy. When one elevator goes down, how are elderly or disabled residents meant to exit the facility? Neighbor privacy. Exterior balconies on W and S faces look directly into our own balconies, bedrooms, and living rooms. I urge the City to carefully consider these points in evaluating the project. Thank you, Neil Murphy 650-504-4433 4250 El Camino Real From:Maggie Bening To:Council, City Subject:4256 El Camino Real - Proposed Housing Project - August 11 City Council Agenda Item Date:Monday, July 28, 2025 7:31:58 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Palo Alto City Council Members, I am writing to express my concerns regarding 4256 El Camino Real, Palo Alto. As a resident and current VP of the Board of Directors at the Palo Alto Redwoods, I believe this matter will significantly affect our communities quality of life in many different ways. Concerns: The proposed development will increase traffic congestion on El Camino, making it unsafe for pedestrians and cyclists. I also have concerns with fire safety and access of emergency vehicles since the proposed setbacks do not appear to be adequate to allow for service vehicles to access the property. I Urge the City Council To: Conduct a thorough traffic and environmental impact study. Ensure that the project design respects the privacy and character of existing neighborhoods and is harmonious with the rest of the neighborhood. Provide sufficient infrastructure and parking to accommodate new residents and minimize spillover. Maintain open communication with residents and local organizations during all phases of planning and construction. While I am not opposed to new housing units in Palo Alto I believe addressing these concerns will lead to better outcomes for both current and future residents. I appreciate your attention to this matter and encourage the City Council to take these points into careful consideration. Thank you for your service and commitment to our community. This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to you. Mark Safe Report Sincerely, Maggie Bening 4250 El Camino Real, C324 Palo Alto, CA 94306 From:Sharlene Carlson To:Council, City Subject:Resident memo re: 4256 El Camino Real pre-screening August 11, 2025 Date:Monday, July 28, 2025 8:05:53 PM Attachments:SHC letter to CC 072825.pdf 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 providing my resident input regarding the proposed rezoning of 4256 El Camino Real to allow for dense housing that has been agendized for your August 11 meeting. Please review and consider my concerns and include my memo in your agenda packet. Thank you, Sharlene Carlson 650 269-6467 if you have questions This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report MEMORANDUM To: Palo Alto City Council members From: Sharlene Carlson 4250 El Camino Real, Unit B112, Palo Alto, CA 94306 (650) 269-6467 Date: July 28, 2025 Subject: City Council Meeting August 11, 2025 agenda item Prescreening of design concept for 4256 El Camino Real Proposed zoning change for a dense condominium complex I am writing to express my deep concerns about the proposed rezoning of 4256 El Camino Real (4256) from Commercial Services to Planned Home Zone to allow a dense, 100 unit, 6 story tall condominium complex on this 6/10 acre parcel. I have lived in Palo Alto for 55 years and have owned and lived in a unit in Palo Alto Redwoods (PAR) for 28 years. We have 117 condominium units situated on a 2 2/3 acre parcel with beautiful grounds and trees next door to and behind 4256. As a retired senior, my plan has been to age in place at PAR because it has always been a beautiful and safe place to live a high quality life, but now my future is threatened. I served on my condominium board as president during the time (starting 8 years ago) that a hotel was proposed and ultimately approved by the city to replace Su Hong restaurant. I spoke frequently at ARB hearings to urge a design that concentrated massing along El Camino Real and stepped down massing closer to our residences to protect our privacy. We urged that Redwood trees on both properties be protected. We urged that traffic safety be prioritized and that adequate parking for hotel staff, guests, service and delivery vehicles be assured so traffic would not negatively impact our ability to safely get in and out of our property, since our only driveway is on El Camino. We recognized that an owner has a right to build something so long as it is reasonable and within limits, respecting residents in neighboring properties. Ultimately there was a plan that we could live with after many design and provider changes, but following city approval the owner did not (maybe could not afford to?) build the hotel. This was before street parking was banned and bicycle lanes installed along the El Camino Real transit corridor. Now the first of three developer representatives returns proposing a massive structure that does not include any of the understandings we previously achieved over the years. These are my concerns: SAFETY: As a senior, I have major concerns about my personal safety driving in and out of PAR and any impacts that construction and traffic will have on my health. The proposed development will dramatically increase traffic congestion along El Camino Real because of the increased number of resident vehicles coming in and out of 4256 and likely delays in moving vehicles into and out of the proposed puzzle lift parking system during peak times due to sequential entry and retrieval. I rely on a car for transportation and am concerned that many vehicles will be backed up in car and bike lanes in front of PAR and 4256 waiting to access puzzle parking and blocking vision for vehicles entering and exiting PAR, including resident, guest, service and delivery vehicles. And there is no place for guest, service or delivery vehicles to park in the 4256 garage, which will cause significant safety issues for all. o Traffic - I urge you to conduct a thorough traffic and environmental impact study before any decision is made. I also urge you to require the developer to provide sufficient infrastructure and parking to accommodate resident, guest, service and deliver vehicles within the property to minimize vehicle spillover onto El Camino Real. Street parking is no longer an option for any vehicles. o Environment - I urge you to require strong noise and dust control during construction and assure that equipment is quiet and non-polluting during construction and as the building functions and is maintained. TREE PROTECTION: PAR's Redwood trees are our most valuable assets, and we have arborists regularly feed and prune them. Some Redwoods are on the 4256 property and they provide a visual barrier between properties. They get the benefit of the care we provide our trees as nothing has been done on the 4256 property to protect their Redwoods over the past 8 years. The proposed condominium building appears to be taller than our Redwood trees so adequate sunlight is a concern. I urge you to require a study on how all Redwoods will be impacted, kept and optimally maintained with regular arborist care. PRIVACY, MASSING, ZONING: PAR felt that we were able to live with the height and massing design of the approved hotel, so we likely can live with something similar in a housing complex. We understand that the city must approve new housing units per state mandates. But we urge you not to allow zoning changes but rather consider housing with the same massing as the approved hotel, which means less density, building height reductions, and greater setbacks to preserve privacy. Please ensure that the project design respects the privacy and character of our existing residential community. OPEN COMMUNICATION: So far we have had no communication from the city or the developer. We learned about the condominium proposal in local newspapers and learned about the August 11 prescreening conceit agenda item coming before City Council because we monitor Palo Alto's Buildingeye. I urge you to require open communication with PAR residents during all phases of planning and construction. Thank you for your service and commitment to residents of Palo Alto. I deeply appreciate your attention to this matter and encourage you to carefully consider these points. From:McKenzie White To:Council, City Subject:Concerns About the Proposed 4256 El Camino Project Date:Tuesday, July 29, 2025 4:26:56 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Palo Alto City Council, My name is McKenzie White, and as of December 2024, I am a new homeowner in the Palo Alto Redwoods complex at 4250 El Camino Real. I moved across the country and found a sense of home in this unique, close-knit community. I was recently made aware of the proposed 100-unit development at 4256 El Camino Real, and I’m writing to express serious concerns about the project’s scale and its potential impact on our neighborhood. At six stories tall, the proposed building would tower over the existing streetscape - larger than any nearby structure. It would obstruct views, block natural sunlight, and cast a shadow over shared spaces like our pool area. Several units in our complex would have their balconies facing directly into the new development, stripping us of privacy and diminishing the character of our community. Beyond the visual and spatial concerns, this project would significantly increase local traffic, noise, and congestion. Emergency response times may suffer, and the overall quality of life for residents in the immediate area could decline. While we understand that development is inevitable - and even welcome thoughtful growth - we urge the City to reconsider the current scale of this project. We ask that you conduct thorough impact studies on traffic, parking, privacy, property values, and the environment, and consider reducing the size to better align with the surrounding neighborhood. Thank you for your time and for giving our community a voice. I look forward to the August 11th meeting at 5:30 PM. Sincerely, McKenzie White 4250 El Camino Real, Unit B417 Palo Alto, CA 94306 From:Jean Kvasnica To:Council, City Subject:4256 El Camino Real - Multi Family Development - concerns Date:Tuesday, July 29, 2025 5:36:59 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Subject: 4256 El Camino Real - MultiFamily Development Dear Palo Alto City Council Members, I am writing to express my concerns regarding the 4256 El Camino Housing Development. As a resident and homeowner at Palo Alto Redwoods 4250 El Camino, I believe this matter could significantly impact our community in terms of the density, safety and quality of life we have and for our surrounding neighbors. Concern: * The proposed development will increase traffic congestion on El Camino, making it unsafe for pedestrians and cyclists. * We have a large community here of various ages, some who bike to school, walk along El Camino to local stores, or walk for exercise. * The density and robustness of the building will also greatly impact the families that live directly next to and behind this proposed project where the building butts right up against the property line * I am also concerned about fire safety and emergency vehicle access due to inadequate setbacks for service vehicles. I Urge the City Council To: * Conduct a thorough traffic and environmental impact study. * Ensure that the project design respects the privacy and character of existing neighborhoods This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report * Provide sufficient infrastructure and parking to accommodate new residents and minimize spillover * Maintain open communication with residents and local organizations during all phases of planning and construction While we support new housing in Palo Alto, I believe addressing these concerns will lead to better outcomes for both current and future residents. I appreciate your attention to this matter and encourage the City Council to take these points into careful consideration. Thank you for your service and commitment to our community. Sincerely, Jean Kvasnica 4250 El Camino Real # D233 Palo Alto, 94306 jean.kvasnica@gmail.com July 29, 2025 City Council City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: August 11, 2025 Pre-Screening of condominium at 4256 El Camino Real Honorable Mayor Lauing, Vice Mayor Veenker and City Council Members, I write to comment on the proposed 6 story, 120 unit condominium development at 4256 El Camino Real. I ask you to consider the effects on the neighbors and residents of Palo Alto. The same applicant is in possession of a building permit for a 5 story hotel which doesn’t expire until 9/22/2025. One has to wonder why that project has only accomplished the demolition of the existing one story restaurant after 6 years. This leaves an empty lot, which blights South El Camino Real since 2020. The proposal on the agenda for the Pre-Screening not only calls for building a condominium, but also calls for a zone change from CS (Commercial Services) to PHZ (Planned Housing Zone). Without the PHZ zone, both the height and the floor area ratio (FAR) would be cut in half, back to what the CS zone and the existing hotel building permit allows. I care about this proposal as my property is located in the Palo Alto Redwoods (PAR) at 4250 El Camino Real, which is adjacent to 4256 ECR on three sides. The PAR community is 100% residential (117 units) in a CS zone and over 200 people live here. My building is about 10 feet from the tallest portion (91 feet) of the proposed building labeled “South Elevation”. I have windows that will be facing 75 windows and 35 full balconies. I ask you to think about the idea of a 90 foot tall wall of windows and balconies blocking all light and views of the sky from your property. I ask you to imagine the invasion of privacy that would entail. Never being able to see outside without other people staring back at you. The proposed condominium has minuscule setbacks of 6 feet from the property line in order to utilize the PHZ FAR of 3.57. To achieve this, there are 4 coast redwood trees on the 4256 ECR property that will have to be removed, despite being “protected” trees in Palo Alto. Below I attach a Table from the hotel proposal’s Appendix C Tree Protection Plan from October of 2018. Trees #13, #14, #15 and #16 are on 4256 ECR property on the side labeled “West Elevation”. Those 4 (soon to be absent) coast redwoods provided my community with shade and privacy. It took decades, if not centuries, for those 4 coast redwoods to mature, but it only takes a single day to fell them. We will never recover the natural amenities of sunlight, beautiful coast redwood trees and privacy if the City allows the proposed extremely massive, dense and intrusive building as it is currently designed. Residential uses mean human beings will reside in those buildings. As a neighbor already residing in Palo Alto, I ask your support for a more reasonable development. Sincerely yours, Anne Mason From:Julie Baskind To:Council, City Cc:Clerk, City; Kallas, Emily Subject:August 11th Prescreening of Proposed Condo Complex - 4256 ECR Date:Wednesday, July 30, 2025 1:43:11 PM Attachments:Julie"s Balcony_#2.png IMG_3435.HEIC IMG_3434.HEIC CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i City Council City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Ave Palo Alto CA 94301 Dear City Council Members: I am a longtime homeowner (37 years) of the Palo Alto Redwoods, located at 4250 ECR. Our community totals 117 units with about 250 residents. My condo looks directly onto the empty lot where a 6-story (91 ft) housing development has been proposed. Attached are 3 photos from my deck, two with a current view of the trees and skylight, and one which includes the proposed building. My home, and those of approximately 50 other families that face east, will be directly impacted by the loss of light and privacy. This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report Reply Reply all Forward If you need assistance reviewing the above documents, please contact the Project Planner or call the Planner-on-Duty at 650-617-3117 or email planner@cityofpaloalto.org Project Plans In order to reduce paper consumption, a limited number of hard copy project plans are provided to Council members for their review. The same plans are available to the public, at all hours of the day, via the following online resources. Directions to review Project plans and environmental documents online: 1. Go to: bit.ly/PApendingprojects 2. Scroll down to find “4256 El Camino” and click the address link 3. On this project-specific webpage you will find a link to the project plans and other important information Direct Link to Project Webpage: https://www.paloalto.gov/Departments/Planning-Development-Services/Current- Planning/Projects/4256-El-Camino-Real-Pre-Screening From:Serena Chen To:Council, City Cc:Mike Wang Subject:Objection to 4256 El Camino Real Project – Legal and Community Concerns Date:Monday, August 11, 2025 11:24:30 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear City of Palo Alto, We are writing to reiterate and formally document our strong opposition to the proposed development at 4256 El Camino Real. This project raises serious legal, zoning, and community-impact concerns that were also reported in the Palo Alto Online article (August 5, 2025), City leans on once controversial zoning tool for new housing proposals. Approving this project in its current form would set a dangerous precedent — effectively opening a backdoor for an unethical developer to bypass the City’s established planning rules, to the detriment of our community. Key Legal and Zoning Compliance Concerns 1. Required Zoning Exemptions The proposal seeks numerous deviations from standard zoning requirements, including: Height increases far beyond the legal limit Residential density greater than what is allowed by current zoning Waivers eliminating the requirement for on-site retail space Reductions in required parking and open space Alterations to landscaping and other design standards 2. Housing Element Non-Compliance The site, formerly the Su Hong restaurant, is not included in Palo Alto’s official Housing Element — the state-mandated plan that outlines where new housing can be legally built. As such, it can only be counted as a “buffer” site, not a planned housing location. Approving it would undermine the integrity of the City’s Housing Element and could open the door to further opportunistic developments outside the City’s stated strategy. This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report Community Impacts Granting such broad exemptions would directly harm neighboring residents by encouraging over-scaled construction that threatens privacy, sunlight access, traffic safety, and neighborhood character. More importantly, it sends the message that developers can sidestep planning law with enough political leverage — eroding public trust in the City’s zoning process. We urge the City to reject any attempt to use controversial rezoning tools or special exemptions to push this project forward. Doing so would reward unethical practices, weaken legal safeguards, and set a harmful precedent for future development across Palo Alto. Sincerely, Serena Chen, Mike Wang, Palo Alto Residents From:Annette Glanckopf To:Council, City Subject:pre-screening for 4256 ECR Date:Saturday, August 9, 2025 7:32:24 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor Lauing and Council Members, I am writing to express my concerns regarding the proposed development at 4256 El Camino Real. The development was discussed at a PAN meeting, and I am sympathetic with the plight of the neighbors. This is overdevelopment is the worst way. It is my understanding that the Redwoods property used to be a redwood nursery, thus the beautiful trees. When the Redwoods complex was built, it was carefully constructed around the redwoods to preserve them and to provide a peaceful environment. Now this is threatened. The proposed boxy, out of scale, oversized building at 4256 El Camino Real will negatively impact the values all Palo Altans want to enjoy: privacy, daylight plane, sight lines, and adequate setbacks to allow for light and air and minimize congestion. As you know, the development proposal is for a 6 story, 80 + foot high project next to the Redwoods complex. It is hard to believe that the setbacks, next to the neighbors, are only 6 feet with no daylight plane requirement. Just imagine living next to that a few feet away from your home. Furthermore it is my understanding that 4 HERITAGE redwoods would have to be removed for the development. These beautiful trees need to be preserved. Please ensure that full residential protections be applied to the Redwoods - limit the height, daylight planes, and additional aspects of what can be built near them. Please listen to neighbor's concerns and insist that the developer go back to the drawing board and adjust the proposal to something we can all be proud of. Thank you. Annette Glanckopf Midtown From:Pat Markevitch To:Council, City Subject:Proposed development on the former Su Hong site Date:Saturday, August 9, 2025 4:38:27 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor Lauing and Council Members: I am writing to express my concerns regarding the proposed development at 4256 El Camino Real. This development is an out of scale, oversized building which will negatively impact the lives of the residents who reside at the Palo Alto Redwoods due to lack of adequate parking (leading to spillover). It will block open sky views, overlook their homes and pool, and is out of scale with the surrounding neighborhood. Thank your for your time. Pat Markevitc From:paloaltoy@gmail.com To:Council, City Subject:4256 El Camino – Proposed Housing Project Date:Saturday, August 9, 2025 1:14:35 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Palo Alto City Council Members, I am writing with a heartfelt plea regarding the proposed development at 4256 El Camino Real. When I moved to this neighborhood in the spring of 2025, one of the greatest joys in choosing my home was being surrounded by the beautiful, mature trees that have stood here for decades. They are a source of daily peace and a constant reminder of the balance between city life and nature. My hope has been to spend many years here—growing older in this place, contributing to the community, building relationships with neighbors, and living each day close to these trees. Losing even a part of this tree canopy would mean losing a piece of what makes our neighborhood whole. These trees are not replaceable in our lifetime; once gone, they are gone forever. Their shade, their role in cleaning our air, and the sense of belonging they create cannot be replicated by new plantings or design features. I understand that Palo Alto needs housing, but I urge the City to protect what makes this place worth living in. Any development should be approached with the highest level of care to ensure these trees are preserved and the neighborhood’s character is not diminished. Please, let us not trade away the living treasures that make Palo Alto special for short-term gains. This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to you. Mark Safe Report Thank you for your attention to this urgent matter. Sincerely, Sohyang Yoon 4240 El Camino Real A208, Palo Alto CA 94306 From:Mariia Vainer To:Council, City Subject:4256 El Camino Real - Proposed Housing Project - PA City Council Agenda Item for August 11 Meeting Date:Saturday, August 9, 2025 12:18:13 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear City Council, I am writing to express my concerns regarding: 4256 El Camino Real - Proposed Housing Project. As a resident of Palo Alto Redwoods, I believe this matter could significantly affect our community in terms of safety, quality of life, and the environment. Concern: The proposed development will increase traffic congestion on El Camino, making it unsafe for pedestrians and cyclists. The proposed development could potentially damage the Palo Alto Redwoods because of the very high building with parking on such a small perimeter. I Urge the City Council To: Conduct a thorough traffic and environmental impact study. Ensure that the project design respects the privacy and character of existing neighborhoods. Provide sufficient infrastructure and parking to accommodate new residents and minimize spillover. Maintain open communication with residents and local organizations during all phases of planning and construction. I believe addressing these concerns will lead to better outcomes for both current and future residents. I appreciate your attention to this matter and encourage the City Council to take these points into careful consideration. Thank you for your service and commitment to our community. Sincerely, This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report Mariia Vainer 4250 El Camino Real, Apt A306, Palo Alto, CA, 94306 Cell phone: 510 -358-1072 From:Rebecca Sanders To:Council, City Subject:4256 El Camino Real - Proposed Development Date:Saturday, August 9, 2025 8:41:18 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor Lauing and Council Members: I am writing to express my concerns regarding the proposed development at 4256 El Camino Real. The development was discussed at the recent PAN meeting and even though I don’t live in the Redwoods I am sympathetic with their plight. A boxy, out of scale, oversized fortress is being proposed which will negatively impact the values all Palo Altans want to enjoy: privacy, daylight plane, sight lines, and adequate setbacks to allow for light and air and minimize congestion. I also understand that the parking will be three stories of mechanical lifts which as we know from other projects in Palo Alto can be notoriously unreliable. Please listen to their concerns and insist that the developer adjust the proposal to something we can all be proud of. Thank you. Becky Sanders Ventura Neighborhood From:Nikolay Moroz To:Council, City Subject:Subject - 4256 El Camino - Proposed Housing Project - Agenda Item - August 11, 2025 Date:Friday, August 8, 2025 10:26:40 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Palo Alto City Council Members, I am writing as a deeply concerned resident of 4250 El Camino Real, to express my serious objections to the proposed development at 4256 El Camino Real. This project, as currently designed, presents significant and unaddressed threats to our neighborhood's safety, livability, and character. My primary concerns are not just speculative; they are based on the direct and foreseeable impacts on our immediate community: Public Safety and Traffic Congestion: El Camino Real is already a heavily traveled thoroughfare. Adding a high-density development without robust traffic mitigation will create a dangerous environment for everyone, particularly for the pedestrians and cyclists who use this street daily. This is not just an inconvenience—it's a serious public safety hazard. Emergency Access: The proposed design appears to have woefully inadequate setbacks. This could critically impede emergency vehicles, including fire trucks and ambulances, from gaining necessary access. A delay of even a few minutes in a medical or fire emergency could have tragic consequences. Erosion of Neighborhood Character and Privacy: The scale and density of this project are out of character with the surrounding residential buildings. It will directly and negatively impact the privacy and quality of life for current residents, including myself, by introducing excessive light, noise, and visual intrusion. Infrastructure Strain: The plan lacks sufficient parking and infrastructure to support the new residents. This will inevitably force vehicles onto our neighboring streets, overwhelming an already strained parking situation and creating further congestion. I implore the City Council to take a responsible and proactive approach. I urge you to: Commission a comprehensive, independent traffic and environmental impact study to truly This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to you. Mark Safe Report understand this project's full consequences. Mandate a redesign that ensures adequate emergency vehicle access and sufficient setbacks. Require the developer to provide robust infrastructure and parking to prevent negative spillover effects on existing residential areas. Prioritize transparent and continuous communication with local residents like myself throughout the entire process. While I support responsible growth and new housing in Palo Alto, it cannot come at the expense of our community's safety and well-being. Please ensure that this development is a benefit, not a burden, to our city. Thank you for your time and consideration of these critical issues. Sincerely, Nikolay Moroz Apartment B318 4250 El Camino Real Palo Alto, CA 94306 From:etecm@aol.com To:Council, City Cc:rdmto@aol.com Subject:Proposed 6 Story, 100 units building depvelopment - SHOULD NOT APPROVE Date:Friday, August 8, 2025 4:06:00 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i As a long time resident at 4250 El Camino Real which will be directly impacted by this huge and compressed development. My unit oversee this piece of land from my living room since decades and decades. It used to be a one level restaurant building ran by Dennys then So Hung restaurant. The surrounding of its building were ample parking for the business. Peaceful and quiet and limited to restaurant daily patron visit. Adjacent to this is also a piece of land at the moment owns by a real estate office and is two stories high. The proposed development not only changed the landscape of our community but created a big mass of residents on this once small business lot. It impacts peace, quiet and privacy at our community, added at least 150 vehicle traffic on this first block of Arastedero/El Camino Real and more importantly blocked views of our property affecting many residence facing this side of street. It impacts our safety walking around this stretch of community. It depreciates our property at 4250 El Camino Real. Seriously, it is a very bad proposal that impact our living here in every aspect. Please retain the two level building height policy for this land whether it is business or residential development. Compressed living is not a way to improve lives for Palo Altans. We don't need more high rise in Palo Alto. Sincerely, Teck Yong This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report From:Marshall Blanchard To:Council, City Cc:Maggie Bening; a_m_mason@yahoo.com; julie.baskind@gmail.com; marshallblanchard2@gmail.com Subject:4256 El Camino Real development proposal, public comment Date:Friday, August 8, 2025 8:38:22 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i August 7, 2025 TO: Palo Alto City Council Members RE.: 4256 El Camino Real development proposal, public comment As a resident of the Palo Alto Redwoods condo complex at 4250 El Camino Real, I am writing to express my serious concerns about the new development proposal for the adjacent property at 4256 El Camino Real. While I recognize the need for more housing in Palo Alto, the proposed six-story 100-unit residential building is extremely out-of-scale for the size of the currently vacant lot. The submitted plans indicate that the building’s volume extends very close to the property line on all sides, with only about 6 feet of space on two sides between the building and the existing fence, and only slightly more space at the rear of the building. This wouldn’t leave room for the trees (including redwoods) that exist along the sides and back of the 4256 property; the building volume would even encroach on the canopy area of redwood trees on our side of the fence. I’ve looked at the volume of recently constructed buildings along El Camino relative to their respective lot size—they all seem to have reasonable air space on all sides. The submitted plans for this project lack provision for reasonable space between the project and adjacent buildings. One problem of maximizing the volume of the building on the lot is that in the case of fire, the fire department would not have adequate access on the sides and back of the building—they couldn’t even set up a ladder, let alone drive the firetruck close to where it might be needed. [A better model is the Hilton Garden Inn, which has a driveway on the sides and back of their This message needs your attention No employee in your company has ever replied to this person. This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report building (aside from firetruck, delivery truck, tour bus, and garbage truck access, it also affords generous airspace around the building).] Moving around to the front of the proposed building, it doesn’t seem like the developer has thought through the logistical deficits of the current design. There is only a central entrance into the first floor mechanical-stacking parking area; there is no dedicated zone at the front where ride-share cars, delivery vans, mail trucks, (etc.) could temporarily park. I don’t know how garbage trucks and recycling trucks will maneuver on this property. Inevitably, there will be traffic backups along El Camino when residents wait their turn for the puzzle-lift mechanical stacking parking system; the bicycle lane cannot be used for drivers waiting to turn into the garage, so they’ll need to block an active traffic lane on El Camino. The extreme density and 6-story height of this proposed building should not be given a variance. Squeezing 100 residential units into this building reminds me of the density of old tenement buildings in New York. Some of the apartments that face into the narrow interior courtyard won’t get adequate sun exposure and ventilation. I live in a second-floor unit in the B-section of the Palo Alto Redwoods that directly faces the 4256 El Camino property. If the proposed 6-story residential building is constructed, my present sightlines will be blocked by the 6-story mass, eliminating my view of the sky and severely decreasing ambient light (because of the orientation of the B-section of our condo complex, I receive only a sliver of direct sunlight during the early morning and then late in the afternoon); with a huge building blocking my view, my unit will become very dark and depressing. Our condo property values will be affected. The windows in the new building would face directly into my bedroom and living room and rob me of privacy. The proximity of the new building is way too close. In Palo Alto neighborhoods with one-story single-family homes, there have been restrictions on the building of multi-story homes that would loom over neighboring homes; shouldn't the same standards apply if a proposed new construction would similarly affect the quality of life of neighboring condo owners? Having a solid corridor of hotels, residence inns, and apartment & condo buildings along El Camino is creating a soulless “canyon” which does nothing for the quality of life of nearby residents; there are fewer and fewer shops and affordable restaurants along this section of El Camino in Palo Alto. I would recommend that any new development reserve space on the first floor (fronting on El Camino) for small commercial spaces, shops, cafés, (etc.) and reserve some space for parking (since the bicycle lane has eliminated parking for quick stops). When the City Council and Architectural Review Board eventually examine hard plans for whatever will be constructed on the 4256 El Camino property, I hope they will advocate for a more human-scale development that will be a better fit to co-exist with the neighboring Palo Alto Redwoods. The present proposal is oppressive. I believe the same developer was involved with a prior proposal for this property (a boutique hotel), so they are aware of issues (shadow casts, the trees, etc.) that seem to have been ignored in the new proposal. I hope their strategy isn’t to attempt to push something through using the “builder’s remedy.” At least the hotel proposal gave a nod to setbacks as the building moved deeper into the lot (most of the 5-story volume fronted on El Camino). I do support Palo Alto’s master plan and its aim to add more housing by encouraging denser construction along transportation corridors such as El Camino, and I trust that each proposal will be carefully examined. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Marshall Blanchard Palo Alto Redwoods 4250 El Camino Real, Unit B-215 Palo Alto, CA 94306 <marshallblanchard2@gmail.com> From:amy wang To:Council, City Subject:Proposed Development at 4256 El Camino Real Date:Thursday, August 7, 2025 11:16:27 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Palo Alto City Council Members, I am a resident of the Palo Alto Redwoods condominium complex, writing to strongly oppose the proposed six-story, 100+ unit building at 4256 El Camino Real. This project would have a serious and permanent negative impact on our entire community. The new building would be right in front of our complex, completely blocking the open view and natural light we now enjoy. All units on all floors — from level 1 to level 4 — would be affected, not just a few. This is not a small issue. It changes the entire face of our building. Right now, we face beautiful redwood trees and an open space that brings light and life to our homes. If this project goes forward, that will be replaced by a tall wall — like putting a jail wall right in front of our homes. That’s how it feels. We live here, and this project would take away something very important from all of us. The size, height, and scale of this building do not fit the neighborhood, and they do not respect the existing residents. I urge you to reject this proposal and protect the quality of life for current homeowners. This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report Sincerely, Amy Wang Resident, Palo Alto Redwoods From:Jonathan Hull To:Council, City Cc:Maggie Bening Subject:4256 El Camino - Proposed Housing Project - Agenda Item - August 11, 2025 Date:Thursday, August 7, 2025 3:06:13 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Palo Alto City Council Members, I am writing to express my concerns regarding the proposed development at 4256 El Camino Real, Palo Alto that is being rushed through Council under the Planned Home Zoning (PHZ) process "... a Palo Alto zoning mechanism that fell out of favor a decade ago, shortly after voters rejected a 'planned community' zone change that would have facilitated the construction of a 60-apartment complex for low-income seniors on Maybell Avenue. The following year, the City Council agreed not to use the process anymore, citing public disillusion with it" [Palo Alto Online 8/5/25]. Since the planned community zoning change was rejected when it affected Maybell Ave., residents of El Camino Real deserve the same protection. The increased height and density limits and reduced parking and open space requirements that are possible under PHZ will cause increased traffic congestion on El Camino, as described below, and cause an unfair taking of two of our guest parking spots. This project will significantly restrict traffic on El Camino and make it difficult for residents of our community to exit onto El Camino. This is because of the lack of parking for delivery trucks and other service vehicles and the proposed curb cut for their garage that will begin near our driveway. This means that trucks of all types will frequently block the right-most lane of traffic on El Camino. This problem will be exacerbated by the recently implemented bike lane that cannot be used for parking. Please note that we have ample space for large delivery trucks to drive onto our property and turn around before exiting onto El Camino. As we all know, with the increased usage of ecommerce in the last few years, those trucks are coming and going all day. The 4256 project does not have a similar driveway. The result will be a constant obstruction of traffic on El Camino that will negatively impact the thousands of vehicles that drive down El Camino every day. Not just those of me and my neighbors. Also, guests of the multifamily development at 4256 El Camino Real will need a place to This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report park. The plan set only depicts 110 spaces, one for each resident. No spaces are provided for guests and there are no parking spaces on El Camino because of the bike lane. There are two parking spaces in the front of our community that are currently used by our guests. Undoubtedly, despite the whatever signage is posted near our spaces, our parking spaces will be used by guests of the 4256 property. This will be an unfair loss of use caused by the lack of adequate parking at the proposed project. Furthermore, the 6 story condominium and apartment complex proposed at 4256 El Camino Real will tower over us and negatively impact us in many ways. It is too massive and will block light, increase noise levels, pose public health risks, create traffic safety issues, and permanently reduce the quiet enjoyment of our homes and common areas. Considering the issues raised above, I urge the City Council to: Conduct a thorough traffic and environmental impact study. Ensure the project design respects the privacy and character of the existing neighborhood. Provide sufficient infrastructure and parking to prevent spillover onto neighboring properties. Maintain open communication with local residents and organizations during planning and construction. While I support new housing in Palo Alto, I believe addressing these concerns will lead to better outcomes for both current and future residents. Sincerely, Jonathan J. Hull, owner 4250 El Camino Real B120 Palo Alto, CA 94306 From:Jee-Young Park To:Council, City Cc:Nam-Mok “Steve” Zo Subject:4256 El Camino Real– Proposed Housing Project Date:Thursday, August 7, 2025 1:06:41 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Palo Alto City Council Members, My name is Jee-Young Park, and I live at 4250 El Camino Real, directly next to the proposed site at 4256 El Camino Real. When I moved into my unit last July, I was immediately struck by how much I loved the neighborhood—especially the natural light streaming into my home, the greenery surrounding the area, and the open, airy feel that made this place so livable. It brought me a deep sense of peace and well-being. That’s why I was shocked to learn that a six-story building is planned right next door— something I was completely unaware of when I moved in. A structure of that size and scale will dominate the space, block sunlight, and fundamentally alter the atmosphere of Palo Alto that so many of us treasure. I am genuinely worried about the impact this will have on our daily lives. This is not just about aesthetics—it’s about losing natural light, the sense of openness, and the balance between built and natural environments that makes this neighborhood special. I respectfully urge the City Council to reconsider the scale of this development. A building limited to three stories would still provide housing, but in a way that respects the existing character of the neighborhood and preserves a livable environment for current residents. Please also ensure that concerns about traffic, emergency access, and environmental impact are carefully studied and addressed. Most importantly, I ask that the voices of those who live right next to this project be included meaningfully in the process moving forward. Thank you for your attention and for your service to our community. Sincerely, Jee-Young Park This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report 4250 El Camino Real A207 Palo Alto From:James Wang To:Council, City Subject:Re: Proposed Six‑Story Building at 4256 El Camino Real (120 Units, ~91 ft tall) Date:Wednesday, August 6, 2025 11:26:08 PM Attachments:Re- Proposed Six Story Building at 4256 El Camino Real (120 Units, ~91 ft tall).docx CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i This message needs your attention The subject has non-English characters. This is a personal email address. This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report Dear Council Members: As a resident of the adjacent Palo Alto Redwoods condominium complex, I write to express strong concern regarding the proposed six‑story residential development at 4256 El Camino Real. 1. Privacy, Light & View Impacts The proposed project, rising approximately 79.5 feet (extending to 91 feet including mechanical equipment), would loom over our complex and blocks sky views from multiple units. Local neighbors poignantly capture this impact: “I ask you to think of the idea of a 90 foot tall wall of windows and balconies blocking all light and views… invasion of privacy…” Wikipedia+12Palo Alto Online+12San Francisco YIMBY+12Ceqanet+2CEQAnet+2CEQAnet+2CEQAnet+2 2. Traffic & Parking Stress Adding up to 120 units next door will significantly increase vehicular and pedestrian traffic on already-congested El Camino Real. Despite assurances from the developer of a 1:1 parking ratio with nearby arrangements, spillover and cut-through traffic remain serious concerns for resident safety and street parking availability Palo Alto Online. 3. Neighborhood Character & Property Value This oversized development feels inconsistent with the scale of the established four-story Redwoods community. Historical objections to five-story proposals in this area reflect community resistance: “We don’t want to live in Manhattan” San Francisco YIMBY. 4. Diminished Quality of Life Beyond light and view loss, neighbors fear a decline in open space, tree cover, and overall livability. The increase in units—from the original 100 to 120—is justified purely on financial grounds, rather than community benefit Palo Alto Online. Powered by Mimecast For City Council Consideration: Maintain lower height and unit count to better align with neighborhood context and preserve privacy, light, and tree canopy. Ensure truly adequate parking and traffic mitigation, not plan parking on off-site parcels. Strengthen design requirements, including setbacks, landscaping, and architectural transitions to protect adjacent residences. I urge the City Council to carefully consider these adverse impacts and work toward a scale and design that better respects the neighborhood and quality of life for existing residents. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Respectfully, James Wang 4250 El Camino Real, Unit B114 Palo Alto, CA 94306 James Wang Aug 6, 2025 4250 El Camino Real, Unit B114, Palo Alto, CA 94306 City Council Members City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: Proposed Six-Story Building at 4256 El Camino Real (120 Units, ~91 ft tall) Dear Council Members: As a resident of the adjacent Palo Alto Redwoods condominium complex 4250 , I write to express strong concern regarding the proposed six-story residential development at 4256 El Camino Real. 1. Privacy, Light & View Impacts The proposed project, rising approximately 79.5 feet (extending to 91 feet including mechanical equipment), would loom over our complex and blocks sky views from multiple units. Local neighbors poignantly capture this impact: “I ask you to think of the idea of a 90 foot tall wall of windows and balconies blocking all light and views… invasion of privacy…” Wikipedia+12Palo Alto Online+12San Francisco YIMBY+12Ceqanet+2CEQAnet+2CEQAnet+2CEQAnet+2 2. Traffic & Parking Stress Adding up to 120 units next door will significantly increase vehicular and pedestrian traffic on already-congested El Camino Real. Despite assurances from the developer of a 1:1 parking ratio with nearby arrangements, spillover and cut-through traffic remain serious concerns for resident safety and street parking availability Palo Alto Online. 3. Neighborhood Character & Property Value This oversized development feels inconsistent with the scale of the established four-story Redwoods community. Historical objections to five-story proposals in this area reflect community resistance: “We don’t want to live in Manhattan” San Francisco YIMBY. 4. Diminished Quality of Life Beyond light and view loss, neighbors fear a decline in open space, tree cover, and overall livability. The increase in units—from the original 100 to 120—is justified purely on financial grounds, rather than community benefit Palo Alto Online. For City Council Consideration: • Maintain lower height and unit count to better align with neighborhood context and preserve privacy, light, and tree canopy. • Ensure truly adequate parking and traffic mitigation, not plan parking on off-site parcels. • Strengthen design requirements, including setbacks, landscaping, and architectural transitions to protect adjacent residences. I urge the City Council to carefully consider these adverse impacts and work toward a scale and design that better respects the neighborhood and quality of life for existing residents. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Respectfully, James Wang (James.wang10@gmail.com) From:Hweiling Shu To:Council, City Cc:Hweiling Shu Subject:4256El Camino Real - Proposed Housing Project - PA City Council Agenda Item for August 11 Meeting Date:Wednesday, August 6, 2025 10:41:37 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear City Council, I am writing to express my concerns regarding the proposed housing project at 4256 El Camino Real. As a resident of the Palo Alto Redwoods, I believe this matter could significantly affect our community in terms of the quality of life, environment, etc. The proposed development will increase traffic congestion, the proposed height will block open sky views and overlook our homes and pool and is not harmonious with the neighborhood. I urge the City Council to: - Conduct a though traffic and environmental impact study. - Ensure that the project design respects the privacy and character of existing neighborhoods. - Provide sufficient infrastructure and parking to accommodate new residents and minimize spillover. - Maintain open communication with residents and local organizations during all phases of planning and construction. I believe addressing these concerns will lead to better outcomes for both current and future residents. I appreciate your attention to this matter and encourage the City Council to take these points into careful consideration. Thank you for your service and commitment to our community. Sincerely, Hweiling Shu Palo Alto Redwoods, 4250 El Camino Real, Palo Alto hweilingshu@gmail.com This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report From:Олег To:Council, City Subject:Public Comment on 4250 El Camino Real, Palo Alto, CA 94306 Date:Wednesday, August 6, 2025 6:14:14 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Council Members, I am a resident of Palo Alto Redwoods, located at 4250 El Camino Real, Palo Alto, CA 94306, directly adjacent to the site of the proposed development at 4256 El Camino Real, Palo Alto, CA 94306. I am writing to express my concerns regarding this project and to respectfully request that the perspectives of neighboring residents be carefully considered. Architectural and Neighborhood Character Palo Alto Redwoods is an award-winning residential complex recognized for its exceptional design, community integration, and contribution to the architectural landscape of Palo Alto. Specifically: Gold Nugget Award (1984): Recognized for excellence in design, planning, and development in the Western United States, particularly for its innovative approach to multifamily housing in harmony with the natural environment. Builders Choice Merit Award (1985): Honored for creative use of space, landscaping, and livability in medium-density residential design. Maybeck Award (2010–2011): Given by the American Institute of Architects to projects demonstrating significant contributions to California architectural heritage. These awards highlight the architectural and cultural significance of the complex. I live here and experience daily how thoughtfully it was integrated into the surrounding environment. It is a space full of light, trees, privacy, and respect for architectural heritage. El Camino Real is a historic corridor that gives the area its unique spirit and reflects a continuity of thoughtful design. New developments should contribute to this identity, not This message needs your attention No employee in your company has ever replied to this person. This is a personal email address. This person's name has non-English characters. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast Unfortunately, the proposed project’s facade appears generic and lacks distinction. It resembles high-density mass housing with no character. Its scale and appearance raise concern that it may visually overwhelm the surroundings and disrupt the architectural rhythm that defines our neighborhood. Concerns and Impacts on the Community 1. Privacy and Shadowing The proposed 6-story building with a rooftop terrace would block views and cast shadows on apartments, the pool, and the clubhouse of Palo Alto Redwoods, compromising both sunlight and privacy. 2. Excessive Density and Lot Coverage The project would cover 87% of the site, with no significant open green space or community-friendly landscaping. Plans show no trees, flowerbeds, or plantings. This level of density leaves almost no room for landscape design and creates a sense of crowding, which conflicts with principles of sustainable development. 3. No Renewable Energy Integration There is no mention of solar panels or other alternative energy sources, despite California’s climate and sustainability goals. 4. Limited Electrical Infrastructure Preparedness The plans provide no indication of power reserve capacity or electrical upgrades. With electric vehicle adoption increasing, the lack of preparation for EV charging — both for the project site and surrounding buildings — raises concerns about potential stress on the existing power grid. As more residents convert to electric vehicles, available electrical capacity must remain sufficient for future demands. 5. Wildlife Disruption Palo Alto Redwoods is home to a stable population of owls and other wildlife. In addition, the nearby Adobe Creek corridor supports various species of birds and small animals, creating a fragile ecosystem that could be threatened by increased noise, lighting, and activity. The proposal includes no mention of a biological survey or environmental protections. Given the site's proximity to green habitat, this omission poses a threat to local species and ecological balance. 6. Parking and Traffic With only 0.83 parking spaces per unit and no guest parking indicated, the project could push overflow parking into adjacent streets and compromise emergency access. No transportation mitigation plan has been presented. 7. Noise, Dust, and Construction Pollution The construction site is less than 50 feet from nearby residences, yet no health protections are described. Families and seniors living nearby will be directly impacted by dust, noise, and limited access during the construction phase. 8. Property Value and Tax Base Impact Reduced privacy, degraded views, noise, and congestion may lead to lower home values at Palo Alto Redwoods. This, in turn, could reduce the property tax base for Santa Clara County, affecting funding for schools, infrastructure, and emergency services. I respectfully request the Council to: Require an independent assessment of the project’s environmental and infrastructure impacts; Scale down the building’s height and density; Increase setbacks from neighboring properties; Require meaningful landscaping and renewable energy integration; Ensure full compliance with El Camino Real Design Guidelines. Best regards, Oleg Kharitonov Email: kharitonovkzn@gmail.com P.S. I kindly request confirmation that this comment has been received and that it will be included in the official record for the 4256 El Camino Real project. Thank you for your attention. From:rdmto@aol.com To:Council, City Subject:4256 El Camino Real Council pre-screening meeting Date:Wednesday, August 6, 2025 5:00:20 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Topic: crowded 4256 El Camino Real : project Why not build a hotel??? Dear city councilman, I am writing to express my concerns regarding the 4256 Elcamino Real poorly designed housing project. As a resident of the neighborhood, I believe this matter could significantly affect the immediate community in terms of congextive traffic, high desnity living conditon with studio and one bedroom units, inadequate parking spaces in proposal. Concern: Tracffic congestion on already crowded Major road: El Camino Real . There are only 100 parking spaces for 100 units. Units breakdown: 44 studios 44 one bedroom units 8 two bedroom units 4 three bedroom units ----------------------------------- 100 total units. Puzzle Lift Stacker parking style: Each Puzzle module can hold 6-50 cars. Drivers park their car in entry platform, and lifted to available spot. Only one car can go in and out of the system - commute hours will create problems for residents. Need to empty grocery, backpacks or furniture before car enters platform (takes time). During power outage, no car can go in or out. Imagine during busy time to go to work or school, you have to load everything into your care before driving away from the platform. Please remember On El Camino Real where we have designated bike lanes,there is no parking on the street where you can load or unload your stuff from your car before you enter or exit the car platform. Please STOP this project!! No Plaza, no playground, no gym, or clubhouse or swimming pool either, for the well- being of the residents who live in a small cram space:studios or one bedrooms......... We need to have quality housing - not boxed homes like in the slump areas or housing projects in San Francisco. We need livable housing in Palo Alto!! It’s our pride. Please don't give up quality of living in Palo Alto for Quantity housing projects in government subsidized areas. Thank you very much for your time. I believe addressing these 2 main concerns will lead to better outcomes for both current and futrue residents. I appreciate your attention to this matter and encourage the city council to take these concerns into careful consideration. Sincerely, Marie Deleon Resident behind Cabana hotel Jeesm5@aol.com From:rdmto@aol.com To:Council, City Subject:4256 El Camino Real Council pre-screening meeting Date:Wednesday, August 6, 2025 4:52:21 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of openingattachments and clicking on links. 4256 El Camino Real :housing project Dear city council members, I am writing to express my concerns regarding the 4256 Elcamino Real poorly designed housing project. As a resident of the neighborhood, I believe this matter could significantly affect the immediate community in terms of congextive traffic, high desnity living conditon with studio and one bedroom units, inadequate parking spaces in proposal. Concern: Tracffic congestion on already crowded Major road: El Camino Real . There are only 100 parking spaces for 100 units. Units breakdown: 44 studios 44 one bedroom units 8 two bedroom units 4 three bedroom units ----------------------------------- 100 total units. Puzzle Lift Stacker parking style: Each Puzzle module can hold 6-50 cars. Drivers park their car in entry platform, and lifted to available spot. Only one car can go in and out of the system - commute hours will create problems for residents. Need to empty grocery, backpacks or furniture before car enters platform (takes time). During power outage, no car can go in or out. Imagine during busy time to go to work or school, you have to load everything into your care before driving away from the platform. Please remember On El Camino Real where we have designated bike lanes,there is no parking on the street where you can load or unload your stuff from your car before you enter or exit the car platform. Please STOP this poorly designed project. No Plaza, rest area or clubhouse or swimming pool either, for the well- being of the residents who live in a small cram space:studios or one bedrooms......... We need to have quality housing - not boxed homes like in the slump areas or housing projects in SAn Francisco. We need livable housing. Please don't give up quality of living in Palo Alto for Quantity housing projects in government subsidized areas. Thank you very much for your time. I believe addressing these 2 main concerns will lead to better outcomes for both current and futrue residents. I appreciate your attention to this matter and encourage the city council to take these concerns into careful consideration. Sincerely, Mary Young Charleston Meadow resident rdmto@aol.com From:Kathleen Turner To:Council, City Subject:4256 El Camino Real Building Project - August 11 City Council Meeting Date:Wednesday, August 6, 2025 3:38:29 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear City Council, I am writing to express my concerns regarding the proposed building project at 4256 El Camino Real. I believe this matter could significantly affect our community in terms of traffic and safety, parking shortages, privacy and height, environmental impact and property values. The proposed development will increase traffic congestion on El Camino Real, making it unsafe for pedestrians and cyclists. And how will parking needs be accommodated, particularly now that the new bicycle lanes preclude any parking on El Camino Real? I'm also concerned about how the proposed height will impact the privacy of many of our units and block the light needed for our vegetation. I urge the City Council to: - Conduct a thorough traffic and environmental impact study. - Ensure that the project design reflects the privacy and character of existing neighborhoods. - Provide sufficient infrastructure and parking to accommodate new residents and minimize spillover. - Maintain open communication with residents and local organizations during all phases of planning and construction. I believe addressing these concerns will lead to better outcomes for both current and future residents. I appreciate your attention to this matter and encourage you to take these points into careful consideration. Sincerely, Kathy Turner Resident Palo Alto Redwoods 4250 El Camino Real, D229 Palo Alto, CA 94306 kathyturner231@gmail.com 650-283-9012 This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report From:Liza Baskind To:Council, City Subject:August 11th Pre-screening of project 4256 ECR Date:Wednesday, August 6, 2025 1:17:33 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear City Council Members, I am writing to express my concerns regarding the proposed development at 4256 El Camino Real, Palo Alto. As a neighbor, I believe this project will significantly affect our community’s quality of life. Concerns: The development will increase traffic congestion on El Camino, creating unsafe conditions for pedestrians and cyclists. I am also concerned about fire safety and emergency vehicle access due to inadequate setbacks for service vehicles. I urge the City Council to: Conduct a thorough traffic and environmental impact study. Ensure the project design respects the privacy and character of the existing neighborhood. Its current design is too massive for the parcel. Provide sufficient infrastructure and parking to prevent spillover onto neighboring properties. Maintain open communication with local residents and organizations during planning and construction. While I support new housing in Palo Alto, I believe addressing these concerns will lead to better outcomes for both current and future residents. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report Liza Baskind From:Anne-Marie Jumeau To:Council, City Subject:Fwd: Palo Alto City Council Letter re 4256 El Camino Real, Palo Alto, CA 94306 Date:Wednesday, August 6, 2025 10:32:18 AM Attachments:PA City Council Letter - 08-06-2025.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Jumeau, Anne-Marie <Anne-Marie.Jumeau@alston.com> Date: Wed, Aug 6, 2025 at 10:26 AM Subject: Palo Alto City Council Letter re 4256 El Camino Real, Palo Alto, CA 94306 To: Anne-Marie Jumeau <anniejumeau@gmail.com> Attached letter is for the Palo Alto City Council. Thank you! Anne-Marie Jumeau This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report August 6, 2025 Email: city.council@paloalto.gov Palo Alto City Council 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: 4256 El Camino Real, Palo Alto, CA 94306 Dear City Council, I am writing regarding the proposed building project on the vacant lot at 4256 El Camino Real. I understand that a large housing development has been proposed next to Palo Alto Redwoods, located at 4250 El Camino Real, where I am a resident. I believe that the proposed large project will have a negative effect on our quality of life, safety and property values. I respectfully request the City Council to: •Conduct both traffic and environmental studies; •Ensure that the project design respects the privacy and character of the existing structures surrounding the lot; and •Provide parking to accommodate all residents. Please take into consideration the above-mentioned so a better outcome is reached for both current and future residents. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Anne-Marie Jumeau 4250 El Camino Real, D132 Palo Alto, CA 94306 E-mail: anniejumeau@gmail.com From:Josh - To:Council, City Subject:4256 El Camino Letter Date:Wednesday, August 6, 2025 10:32:06 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Hello and thank you for reading. I am writing to express deep concerns about the scale and impact of this particular project, and to respectfully request that the Council require further study and modifications before moving forward. I support the broader goal of responsibly increasing housing availability in Palo Alto and would support thoughtful development of the 4256 site. The current proposed project would force our complex, along with nearby homes and businesses, to face various unmitigated impacts. They include: Traffic and Safety: Increased density at this location will exacerbate congestion along El Camino Real and side streets, especially during peak hours. Our community already experiences challenges with emergency vehicle access, which this development would worsen. As an example, the Hilton Garden Inn at 4216 El Camino Real has led to traffic issues despite impact studies, a clear indication that past traffic impact assessments have underestimated the results of increasing density along El Camino. Parking Overflow: The proposed on-site parking for the 4256 project is insufficient given the number of units. This will inevitably force overflow onto neighboring properties, potentially including our very limited guest parking areas. Privacy and Fit: A 91-foot-tall building looming over our homes and shared pool area would significantly reduce our privacy and obstruct natural light. The proposed height and massing are entirely out of scale with our residential neighborhood and will degrade the quality of life for existing residents. Construction Impacts: Prolonged construction would bring sustained noise, dust, debris, and access restrictions, affecting daily life for hundreds of nearby residents for years. I understand that some construction impact on neighbors is inevitable in a development situation, but it can be mitigated by adjusting the scale of the project and requiring proper precautions and clean up. Environmental Harm: Our complex 's redwood trees are a beautiful part of the local skyline and ecosystem. The project is likely to severely harm or kill some of our redwood trees. It This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report would be a great loss to our community, including birds like the owls that nest in these trees. The inevitable increase in stormwater runoff and degradation of local air quality also raise serious environmental concerns that have yet to be fully addressed. I am not not opposed to new housing. I hope to see the 4256 site developed into housing that will fit, and help improve, the surrounding community. Please take the time to carefully weigh the long-term impacts of this project and work toward a solution that respects both the city's housing goals and the wellbeing of neighboring residents and businesses. Thank you for your service and for your thoughtful consideration of this matter. Sincerely, Josh Knowles-Hinrichs Palo Alto Redwoods Homeowner 4250 El Camino Real D239 Palo Alto, CA 94306 From:Karen O"Rourke To:Council, City Cc:Karen O"Rourke Subject:4256 El Camino proposed building Date:Tuesday, August 5, 2025 5:52:25 PM Dear City Council Members, I am writing to express my strong objection to the new building proposal at 4256 El Camino Real. As a resident of the adjacent Palo Alto Redwoods community, I believe this project presents several significant concerns: * **Invasion of Privacy:** The proposed building's close proximity to my bedroom would result in a direct line of sight into and from units, compromising privacy for both parties. * **Increased Noise:** We have endured considerable noise from recent projects along El Camino Real, and the prospect of ongoing construction and increased activity from a new building is disheartening, as it would prolong the disruption. * **Dust and Air Quality:** Construction would undoubtedly generate substantial dust, making it difficult to enjoy my balcony and keep bedroom windows open during warmer weather, leading to additional cleaning burdens. * **Sunshine Blockage:** Having chosen my unit specifically for its abundant natural sunlight, a new building of this scale would likely block this essential amenity, negatively impacting my living experience. * **Potential Damage to Redwoods:** The beautiful redwood trees were a key reason for purchasing my home in this complex. I urge you to confirm whether a comprehensive study has been conducted to assess and mitigate any potential damage to these trees. * **Exacerbated Traffic:** El Camino Real already experiences significant traffic congestion. Adding an estimated 100 or more cars from a new development would further worsen traffic flow and make exiting our complex during peak hours even more challenging. * **Aesthetic Impact:** From an aesthetic perspective, the proposed building design is, in my opinion, unattractive and would detract from the overall appearance of the neighborhood. Beyond these immediate concerns, I anticipate that the aforementioned issues would negatively impact my property value. Instead of this proposal, I would like to suggest an alternative use for the property: a public fast electric charging station. Such a facility would address the current scarcity of fast chargers, benefiting many drivers, including residents of Palo Alto Redwoods. I envision people walking to nearby establishments like Dinah's and Hobee's while their vehicles charge, which could generate revenue for the city and support local businesses. Perhaps a small coffee shop could even be integrated into the design. I strongly urge you to reject this proposal. Sincerely, Karen O'Rourke From:Mary Lou Torre To:Council, City Subject:4256 El Camino Real [25PLN-00095] Date:Tuesday, August 5, 2025 4:52:50 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Subject - 4256 El Camino - Proposed Housing Project - Agenda Item - August 11, 2025 Dear Palo Alto City Council Members, I would like not only to express my support for additional housing in Palo Alto, but also to express my concerns regarding the proposed development at 4256 El Camino Real, Palo Alto. As a resident of the Palo Alto Redwoods at 4250 El Camino Real, I am happy to have housing built next door. I love living in the Redwoods and would welcome an attractive apartment complex at 4256 El Camino Real. However, I believe the size of the proposed project is out of scale with the size of the lot. 120 units in a six-story structure on a lot that once housed a single restaurant is like forcing a 300-pound linebacker to sit on a child's chair. It can be done, but it's not a good idea. Like my neighbors, I am concerned about traffic congestion, fire safety, and emergency vehicle access due to inadequate setbacks. Please, as you consider this project proposal, Conduct a thorough traffic and environmental impact study. Ensure the project design respects the privacy and character of the existing neighborhood. Ensure the project provides sufficient infrastructure and parking to prevent traffic hazards and parking spillover onto neighboring properties. Maintain open communication with local residents and organizations during planning and construction. While I most definitely support new housing in Palo Alto, I believe addressing these concerns will lead to better outcomes for both current and future residents. Thank you for your time and consideration. This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report Best regards, Mary Lou Torre From:CR Conroy To:Council, City Cc:Maggie Benning; Diane Walker Subject:Proposed development at 4256 El Camino Real - to be discussed at the City Council Meeting on Monday, August 11, 2025 Date:Monday, August 4, 2025 3:52:38 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Palo Alto City Council Members, I am writing to express my concerns regarding the proposed development at 4256 El Camino Real, Palo Alto. As an owner of a condominium unit at the Palo Alto Redwoods, I believe this project will significantly affect the safety and overall quality of life of the residents of the Palo Alto Redwoods and of the residents in the wider community. My concerns include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following: The development will increase traffic congestion on El Camino, creating unsafe conditions for pedestrians and cyclists and additional safety concerns for drivers. The setbacks are inadequate for service vehicles creating increased risks related to fire safety and emergency vehicle access. The project as currently proposed is too dense for the size of the lot to be built on and should be scaled back to minimize safety hazards and community impact. I urge the City Council to: Conduct a thorough traffic and environmental impact study. Ensure the project design respects the privacy and character of the existing neighborhood; ensure the project is “right-sized” for the size of the lot. Provide sufficient infrastructure and parking accommodate new residents and minimize spillover onto neighboring properties and nearby neighborhoods. Maintain open communication with local residents and organizations during all This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report While I support new housing in Palo Alto, I believe addressing these concerns will lead to better outcomes for both current and future residents. I appreciate your attention to this matter and encourage the City Council to take the points raised above into careful consideration. Thank you for your service and commitment to our community, and for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Christine Conroy Owner Unit C225 at the Palo Alto Redwoods, 4250 El Camino Real, Palo Alto, CA 94306 August 11, 2025 www.paloalto.gov 4256 El Camino Real Pre-screening City Council Presenter: Emily Kallas, Senior Planner 2 COUNCIL PRE-SCREENING PROCESS •Pre-Screening is required for legislative changes, including rezoning, prior to submittal of a formal application [PAMC Section 18.79.030(A)]. •Pre-Screenings are intended to solicit early feedback on proposed projects and cannot result in any formal action. •City Council Councilmembers should refrain from forming firm opinions supporting or opposing the project as the proposal may return as a formal application (quasi- judicial). 3 •Prescreening for a proposal to rezone from Commercial Service (CS) to Planned Home Zoning (PHZ) to allow for: o Construction of 120 rental units in a six-story structure with above grade parking o Replaces a Hotel project entitled in 2020 but never built. CONCEPTUAL PROJECT 4 PROJECT LOCATION Location •4256 El Camino Real •Nearest major intersection: El Camino at Charleston/Arastradero to the north •In the Housing Incentive Program (HIP) area Other nearby uses •Palo Alto Redwoods Condominiums •Single-family residences •Hotels, and Palo Alto Event Center Approximate R1 District Boundary SITE PLAN 6 Building Height: 79 ft 6 in proposed •Max 50 ft allowed •35 ft limit near R-1 zones Lot Coverage: 87% proposed •Max 50% allowed; Up to 100% under HIP FAR (Floor Area Ratio): 3.57:1 proposed •Max 0.6 for residential use (base zoning) •2.85 allowed under HIP •Up to 3.5 allowed for Housing Element sites Parking: 100 spaces provided •130 required (base zoning); 125 required under HIP Loading Space: None proposed; 1 required Open Space: 130 sf/unit proposed; 150 sf/unit required PROPOSED ELEVATION DRAWINGS 66 PROPOSED ELEVATION DRAWINGS 67 8 •El Camino Real Development: Large housing developments proposed along ECR that exceed base zoning due to Housing Focus Area or builder’s remedy. •Retail Preservation: The project excludes retail space, though 3,300 sf is currently required; upcoming Council review of map revisions may alter this. •PC Requirements: Nearest R-1 property with non-complying apartments is ~110 ft away; nearest single-family home is 150+ ft; applicant seeks to modify 35-ft height limit near R-1 through PHZ application. •Affordable Housing: While close, the conceptual project falls short of the 20% inclusionary at 80% AMI required for PHZ; deeper affordability or more BMR units would be needed KEY CONSIDERATIONS 9 NEIGHBOR COMMENTS •Several neighbor comments were received, primarily from residents in the Palo Alto Redwoods Condominiums •Common concerns include: o Increased traffic congestion o Not enough parking o A lack of setbacks and/or stepbacks from the neighboring residences o Privacy o Importance of protecting existing redwood trees 10 CEQA STATUS •No review under the California Environmental Quality Action (CEQA) is required for a preliminary review. •A full review in accordance with CEQA would be initiated with the formal filing of a development application. 11 RECOMMENDED MOTION Staff recommends that Council conduct a prescreening and provide informal comments regarding the applicant’s request to rezone the properties at 788-796 San Antonio from Service Commercial (CS) to a Planned Home Zoning (PHZ). Comments provided during the prescreening process are not binding on the City or the applicant. Emily Kallas, AICP Senior Planner Emily.Kallas@paloalto.gov 650-617-3125 4256 el camino real multifamily development Pa l o a lto, c a ArtX HOTEL 4256 El Camino Real, Palo Alto, CA 94306 LEVEL 1 11,142 SF 10 UNITS LEVEL 2 7,625 SF 16 UNITS LEVEL 3 10,411 SF 25 UNITS LEVEL 4 10,119 SF 24 UNITS LEVEL 5 8,974 SF 21 UNITS TOTAL 48,271 SF 96 UNITS UNDERGROUND 18,599 SF SECOND FLOOR PLAN SITE PLAN ROOF PLAN FLOOR PLANS 3-5 EAST ELEVATION (EL CAMINO REAL)NORTH ELEVATION WEST ELEVATION SOUTH ELEVATION Thank you 4256 el camino real multifamily development Pa l o a lto, c a