Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-10-12 Planning & Transportation Commission Agenda PacketPLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Regular Meeting Wednesday, December 10, 2025 Community Meeting Room & Hybrid 6:00 PM   Planning and Transportation Commission meetings will be held as “hybrid” meetings with the option to attend by teleconference/video conference or in person. To maximize public safety while still maintaining transparency and public access, members of the public can choose to participate from home or attend in person. Information on how the public may observe and participate in the meeting is located at the end of the agenda. Masks are strongly encouraged if attending in person. The meeting will be broadcast on Cable TV Channel 26, live on YouTube https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofpaloalto, and streamed to Midpen Media Center https://midpenmedia.org. Commissioner names, biographies, and archived agendas and minutes are available at http://bit.ly/PaloAltoPTC. VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION CLICK HERE TO JOIN (https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/91641559499 ) Meeting ID: 916 4155 9499 Phone: 1(669)900-6833   PUBLIC COMMENTS Public comments will be accepted both in person and via Zoom for up to three minutes or an amount of time determined by the Chair. All requests to speak will be taken until 5 minutes after the staff’s presentation. Written public comments can be submitted in advance to Planning.Commission@paloalto.gov and will be provided to the Commission and available for inspection on the City’s website three days before the meeting. Please clearly indicate which agenda item you are referencing in your subject line. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson's presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. The Chair may limit Public Comments to thirty (30) minutes for all combined speakers. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak for Study Sessions and Action Items to two (2) minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers. PowerPoints, videos, or other media to be presented during public comment are accepted only by email to Planning.Commission@paloalto.gov at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. Once received, the Clerk will have them shared at public comment for the specified item. To uphold strong cybersecurity management practices, USB’s or other physical electronic storage devices are not accepted. Signs and symbolic materials less than 2 feet by 3 feet are permitted provided that: (1) sticks, posts, poles or similar/other type of handle objects are strictly prohibited; (2) the items do not create a facility, fire, or safety hazard; and (3) persons with such items remain seated when displaying them and must not raise the items above shoulder level, obstruct the view or passage of other attendees, or otherwise disturb the business of the meeting.   CALL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALL   AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS The Chair or Board majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management.   PUBLIC COMMENT Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker.   CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS   1.Director's Report, Meeting Schedule, and Assignments ACTION ITEMS Public Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Fifteen (15) minutes, plus three (3) minutes rebuttal. All others: Five(5) minutes per speaker. 2.PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 2100-2400 Geng Road [24PLN-00356]: Recommendation on Site and Design, Conditional Use Permit, and Vesting Tentative Map Applications to Demolish Four Existing Commercial Buildings and Construct 65 Three- Story Buildings Containing 145 For Sale Townhome Units. Thirteen Percent (19) of the Units Would Be Deed Restricted to Low Income Households. The Vesting Tentative Map Would Merge Two Parcels and Re-Subdivide For Condominium Purposes. The Project is Proposed in Accordance with Builder’s Remedy (California Government Code Section 65589.5(d)(5)). A Senate Bill 330 Pre-Application was Filed on July 8, 2024. CEQA Status: Exempt from CEQA in Accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 (Comprehensive Plan Consistency). Zoning District: ROLM (E)(D)(AD) -Research, Office and Limited Manufacturing (Embarcadero) with Site and Design and Automobile Dealership Combining Districts. 3.Request for the Planning and Transportation Commission to Recommend the City Council Adopt the Draft Ordinance Adding a New Section 18.40.280 (Bird-Friendly Design) to Chapter 18.40 (General Standards and Exceptions) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code; CEQA Status: Exempt Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15308 (Actions for Protection of the Environment). APPROVAL OF MINUTES Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.   4.Approval of Planning & Transportation Commission Draft Summary & Verbatim Minutes of September 24, 2025 5.Approval of Planning & Transportation Commission Draft Summary & Verbatim Minutes of October 8, 2025 COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE MEETINGS AND AGENDAS Members of the public may not speak to the item(s).   ADJOURNMENT   OTHER INFORMATION The materials below are provided for informational purposes, not for action or discussion during this meeting’s agenda. Written public comments may be submitted in advance and will be provided to the Commission and available for public inspection on the City’s website three days before the meeting. A.Public Comments PUBLIC COMMENT INSTRUCTIONS Members of the Public may provide public comments to teleconference meetings via email, teleconference, or by phone. 1.Written public comments may be submitted by email to Planning.Commission@paloalto.gov. 2.Spoken public comments using a computer will be accepted through the teleconference meeting. To address the Commission, click on the link below to access a Zoom-based meeting. Please read the following instructions carefully. ◦You may download the Zoom client or connect to the meeting in- browser. If using your browser, make sure you are using a current, up-to-date browser: Chrome 30, Firefox 27, Microsoft Edge 12, Safari 7. Certain functionality may be disabled in older browsers including Internet Explorer. ◦You may be asked to enter an email address and name. We request that you identify yourself by name as this will be visible online and will be used to notify you that it is your turn to speak. ◦When you wish to speak on an Agenda Item, click on “raise hand.” The Clerk will activate and unmute speakers in turn. Speakers will be notified shortly before they are called to speak. ◦When called, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted. A timer will be shown on the computer to help keep track of your comments. 3.Spoken public comments using a smart phone will be accepted through the teleconference meeting. To address the Commission, download the Zoom application onto your phone from the Apple App Store or Google Play Store and enter the Meeting ID below. Please follow the instructions above. 4.Spoken public comments using a phone use the telephone number listed below. When you wish to speak on an agenda item hit *9 on your phone so we know that you wish to speak. You will be asked to provide your first and last name before addressing the Commission. You will be advised how long you have to speak. When called please limit your remarks to the agenda item and time limit allotted. CLICK HERE TO JOIN Meeting ID: 916 4155 9499 Phone:1-669-900-6833 Americans with Disability Act (ADA) It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to offer its public programs, services and meetings in a manner that is readily accessible to all. Persons with disabilities who require materials in an appropriate alternative format or who require auxiliary aids to access City meetings, programs, or services may contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at (650) 329-2550 (voice) or by emailing ada@paloalto.gov. Requests for assistance or accommodations must be submitted at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or service. Item No. 1. Page 1 of 2 Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report From: Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: December 10, 2025 Report #: 2512-5621 TITLE Director's Report, Meeting Schedule, and Assignments RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) review and comment as appropriate. BACKGROUND This document includes the following items:  Upcoming PTC Agenda Items PTC Meeting Schedule  PTC Representative to City Council (Rotational Assignments)  Commissioners are encouraged to contact Samuel Tavera (Samuel.Tavera@PaloAlto.gov) to notify staff of any planned absences one month in advance, if possible, to ensure the availability of a PTC quorum.   PTC Representative to City Council is a rotational assignment where the designated commissioner represents the PTC’s affirmative and dissenting perspectives to Council for quasijudicial and legislative matters. Representatives are encouraged to review the City Council agendas (https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/City-Hall/City-Council/Council-Agendas-Minutes) for the months of their respective assignments to verify if attendance is needed or contact staff.  Prior PTC meetings are available online at https://midpenmedia.org/category/government/city- of-palo-alto/boards-and-commissions/planning-and-transportation-commission.   UPCOMING PTC ITEMS December 17, 2025 – Tentative Special Meeting - Cancelled Item 1 Item 1 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 5     Item No. 1. Page 2 of 2 December 31, 2025 – Cancelled Due to Holiday South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity ATTACHMENTS AUTHOR/TITLE: Item 1 Item 1 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 6     Planning & Transportation Commission 2025 Meeting Schedule 8 0 2 8 2025 Schedule Meeting Dates Time Location Status Planned Absences 1/8/2025 6:00 PM Hybrid Canceled 1/15/2025 6:00 PM Hybrid Special 1/29/2025 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 2/12/2025 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 2/26/2025 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular Templeton 3/12/2025 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 3/26/2025 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 4/9/2025 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 4/30/2025 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 5/14/2025 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 5/28/2025 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 6/11/2025 6:00 PM Hybrid Canceled 6/25/2025 6:00 PM Hybrid Canceled 7/9/2025 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 7/30/2025 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 8/13/2025 6:00 PM Hybrid Canceled 8/27/2025 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 9/6/2025 6:00 PM Hybrid Special Retreat 9/10/2025 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular Hechtman 9/24/2025 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 10/8/2025 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular James 10/29/2025 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 11/12/2025 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 11/26/2025 6:00 PM Hybrid Canceled 12/10/2025 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 12/31/2025 6:00 PM Hybrid Canceled 2025 Assignments - Council Representation (primary/backup) January February March April May June Bryna Chang Bart Hechtman Allen Akin Doria Summa Doria Summa Cari Templeton Bart Hechtman Forest Peterson Cari Templeton Kevin Ji Bryna Chang Todd James July August September October November December Council Summer Break Allen Akin Forest Peterson Kevin Ji Bryna Chang Todd James Allen Akin Forest Peterson Cari Templeton Bart Hechtman Kevin Ji Item 1 Attachment A - 2025 PTC Schedule & Assignments     Packet Pg. 7     Planning & Transportation Commission 2026 Meeting Schedule 9 0 2 6 2026 Schedule Meeting Dates Time Location Status Planned Absences 1/14/2026 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 1/28/2026 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 2/11/2026 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 2/25/2026 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 3/11/2026 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 3/25/2026 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 4/8/2026 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 4/29/2026 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 5/13/2026 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 5/27/2026 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 6/10/2026 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 6/24/2026 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 7/8/2026 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 7/29/2026 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 8/12/2026 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 8/26/2026 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 9/9/2026 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 9/30/2026 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 10/14/2026 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 10/28/2026 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 11/11/2026 6:00 PM Hybrid Cancelled 11/18/2026 6:00 PM Hybrid Special 11/25/2026 6:00 PM Hybrid Cancelled 12/9/2026 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 12/30/2026 6:00 PM Hybrid Cancelled 2026 Assignments - Council Representation (primary/backup) January February March April May June Bryna Chang Allen Akin Bart Hechtman Kevin Ji Todd James Forest Peterson Todd James Forest Peterson Cari Templeton Bryna Chang Allen Akin Bart Hechtman July August September October November December Council Cari Templeton Bryna Chang Allen Akin Bart Hechtman Kevin Ji Summer Break Kevin Ji Todd James Forest Peterson Cari Templeton Bryna Chang Item 1 Attachment B - 2026 PTC Schedule & Assignments     Packet Pg. 8     Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report From: Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: December 10, 2025 Report #: 2510-5377 TITLE PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 2100-2400 Geng Road [24PLN-00356]: Recommendation on Site and Design, Conditional Use Permit, and Vesting Tentative Map Applications to Demolish Four Existing Commercial Buildings and Construct 65 Three-Story Buildings Containing 145 For Sale Townhome Units. Thirteen Percent (19) of the Units Would Be Deed Restricted to Low Income Households. The Vesting Tentative Map Would Merge Two Parcels and Re-Subdivide For Condominium Purposes. The Project is Proposed in Accordance with Builder’s Remedy (California Government Code Section 65589.5(d)(5)). A Senate Bill 330 Pre-Application was Filed on July 8, 2024. CEQA Status: Exempt from CEQA in Accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 (Comprehensive Plan Consistency). Zoning District: ROLM (E)(D)(AD) -Research, Office and Limited Manufacturing (Embarcadero) with Site and Design and Automobile Dealership Combining Districts. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) take the following actions: 1. Consider the project exempt from CEQA in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 (Comprehensive Plan Consistency) as documented in Attachment G; and 2. Recommend approval of the Site and Design, Conditional Use Permit, and Vesting Tentative Map Applications to the City Council based on findings and subject to conditions of approval in the Draft Record of Land Use Action (RLUA) in Attachment B. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The application proposes an exclusively residential project including 145 for sale townhome units with thirteen percent of the units (19 units) deed restricted to serve low income households. The project would be located on two contiguous parcels located at 2100-2400 Geng Road. A Vesting Tentative Map is also requested to merge these parcels and for a condominium subdivision for the 145 units. The project would replace four existing office buildings on the project site, which are currently occupied by multiple office tenants. The applicant filed a compliant pre-application in accordance with Senate Bill (SB) 330 on July 8, 2024 (24PLN-00181). Therefore, the project analysis is based on the applicable standards at the time the compliant SB 330 pre-application was submitted. In addition, the project is considered a Item 2 Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 9     “builder’s remedy project” as defined in the recently adopted Assembly Bill (AB) 1893. Accordingly, the project may not be denied on the basis of inconsistency with the Zoning Ordinance or Comprehensive Plan land use designation. The project is further afforded numerous protections detailed below. BACKGROUND Adjacent Land Uses & Zoning: North: Public Facility (PF), Baylands Park West: Public Facility (PF), Post Office, & ROLM (E)(D)(AD), Offices East: ROLM (E)(D)(AD), Offices South: ROLM (E)(D)(AD), Offices Item 2 Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 10     Item 2 Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 11     Item No. 2. Page 3 of 12 Aerial View of Property: Source: Google Satellite Maps Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans Comp. Plan Designation: Research/Office Park (RO) Zoning Designation: Research, Office and Limited Manufacturing (Embarcadero) (Site & Design) (Automobile Dealership) Combining District [ROLM (E)(D)(AD)] Yes Yes Yes Baylands Master Plan/Guidelines (2008/2005) El Camino Real Guidelines (1976) Housing Development Project Downtown Urban Design Guidelines (1993) South El Camino Real Guidelines (2002) Utilizes Chapter 18.24 - Objective Standards Individual Review Guidelines (2005) Within 150 feet of Residential Use or District Context-Based Design Criteria applicable SOFA Phase 1 (2000)Within Airport Influence Area Annual Office Limit SOFA Phase 2 (2003)Housing Incentive Program Prior City Reviews & Action ARB:The ARB held a hearing on October 16, 2025, to review the plans and provide early feedback noting refinements to materials, lighting, building types, grade changes, retaining walls, and rooftop decks. Item 2 Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 12     Item No. 2. Page 4 of 12 Following said feedback, the applicant resubmitted revised plans on November 25, 2025. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project is a request for approval of a Site and Design application, Conditional Use Permit, and Vesting Tentative Map for development of 65 three-story buildings containing 145 for sale townhome units. Thirteen percent of the units (19 units) would be deed restricted to serve households meeting low income or below. The project would replace the four existing office buildings currently located on the project site. The vesting tentative map would merge two existing lots to create a single 480,230-square-foot (approximately 11-acre) parcel and re- subdivide that lot for condominium purposes. A Conditional Use Permit is required for the residential use within the ROLM(E) Zone District. The project site has frontage on Geng Road and an easement connecting to East Bayshore Road. Driveways are proposed at both locations, each providing ingress and egress to the site. Associated site improvements include rooftop amenity spaces, common open spaces, landscaping, and utility improvements. The applicant submitted a SB 330 pre-application on July 8, 2024 (24PLN-00181). Therefore, the project analysis is based on the applicable standards at the time the compliant SB 330 pre- application was submitted. The project is also being proposed in accordance with California Government Code Section 65589.5(d)(5) (also known as Builder’s Remedy) and qualifies for additional protections as a “builder’s remedy project,” under AB 1893. The applicant’s project description is provided in Attachment F and includes a list of requested waivers requested in accordance with State Density Bonus Law. As detailed further in this report, if the project is designed to comply with all relevant objective standards, after application of density bonus incentives, concessions, and waivers, the City cannot impose conditions that would preclude construction of the project as proposed. Requested Entitlements, Findings, and Purview The following discretionary applications are being requested and are subject to the PTCs purview: Site and Design Permit: The process for evaluating this type of application is set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapter 18.30(G). Site and Design is intended to provide a review process for development in environmentally and ecologically sensitive areas, including established community areas which may be sensitive to negative aesthetic factors, excessive noise, increased traffic or other disruptions, in order to assure that use and development will be harmonious with other uses in the general vicinity, will be compatible with environmental and ecological objectives, and will be in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. If recommended for approval, the project requires review before the Architectural Review Board before the project is forwarded to the City Council for final action of all requested entitlements. Site and Design applications are evaluated to specific findings. All findings must be made in the affirmative to approve the project. Item 2 Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 13     Item No. 2. Page 5 of 12 Conditional Use Permit (CUP): The process for evaluating this type of application is set forth in PAMC Section 18.77.060. CUP applications are reviewed by staff and the Director will prepare a written decision to approve, approve with conditions, or deny the application based on the Findings set in PAMC Section 18.76.010(c). Notwithstanding, in accordance with PAMC 18.40.170 the Director may forward the decision to Council. Although PTC’s review of a CUP is not required, a CUP appeal is subject to the PTC’s review and their recommendation is forwarded to Council for a final decision. Therefore, the findings for approval of a CUP are included in Attachment B for the PTC’s review. Vesting Tentative Map: The process for evaluating this type of application is set forth in Title 21 of the PAMC and California Government Code 66474. The process for approval of a Vesting Tentative Map for a condominium subdivision is outlined in PAMC Sections 21.12.010 and 21.13.020. Vesting Tentative maps require PTC review. The PTC reviews whether the amended subdivision is consistent with the Subdivision Map Act (in particular, Government Code 66474), Title 21 of the PAMC, the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, and other applicable provisions of the PAMC and State Law. The PTC’s recommendation is forwarded to the City Council for final approval. The following discretionary applications are being requested and are not subject to the PTC’s purview: Park Improvement Ordinance: The project would also require a Park Improvement Ordinance for impacts to trees within dedicated parkland. This process requires a recommendation by the Parks and Recreation Commission, which is forwarded to City Council for final action. The PTC’s purview of the formal application is limited by the following State law in the following ways: Housing Accountability Act (Government Code 65589.5): The project constitutes a “housing development project,” as well as “housing for very low, low-, or moderate- income households” under the Housing Accountability Act. The Housing Accountability Act Section 65589.5(d) states that a city cannot deny such a project or impose conditions of approval that would render it infeasible unless it makes specified findings. Among those findings are: (1) that the project would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety that cannot be mitigated. Because the project is a “builder’s remedy project,” as defined in AB 1893, the City is further limited to only enforcing those objective standards that exist in a zone district or land use designation that allows the density requested. If there are no such zoning districts or general plan designations in the City, then the applicant may identify any City standards that facilitate the project and only those standards shall apply. If the project meets these identified standards, the City cannot impose conditions of approval that preclude the project from being constructed as proposed by the applicant. Item 2 Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 14     Item No. 2. Page 6 of 12 Because the project is a “builder’s remedy project,” as defined in AB 1893, the “base density” for purposes of State Density Bonus Law shall be the maximum density permitted for builder’s remedy projects (e.g. three times the density permitted in the zoning code or general plan). The project applicant is also able to utilize incentives, concessions, and waivers under State Density Bonus Law when demonstrating compliance with the enforceable standards. ANALYSIS Staff evaluated the project in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and other applicable goals and policies of the City and found the project consistent or otherwise deviate in a manner permissible under State law. Neighborhood Setting and Character The project site is located on the eastern side of Highway 101 adjacent to the Baylands Nature Preserve (Baylands). The Baylands is an approximately 1,976-acre open space located along the edge of San Francisco Bay (Bay) including multiple habitats and a wide variety of recreational and educational benefits. Approximately 90 acres of industrial research, office, and commercial uses are concentrated along Embarcadero Road and East Bayshore frontage road. In the surrounding vicinity of the project site there is a Post Office, International School of the Peninsula, two automobile agencies, and office uses. To the north of the project site is the Baylands Athletic Center that offers softball/baseball lighted fields on a six-acre facility. Adjacent uses to the south, east, and west are office buildings. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Area Plans, and Guidelines1 The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the project site is Research/Office Park, which states: "Office, research and manufacturing establishments whose operations are buffered from adjacent residential uses… in some locations, residential and mixed-use projects may also locate in this category. Maximum allowable FAR ranges from 0.3 to 0.5, depending on site conditions. Consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, multifamily housing may be allowed in specific locations.” Because a portion of the site is identified as a Housing Inventory site in accordance with the City’s adopted Housing Element, the proposed land use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Though the project exceeds the floor area ratio allowance set forth for this land use designation the proposed application was filed in accordance with the Builder’s Remedy provision in the Housing Accountability Act. This provision applies to jurisdictions where a compliant Housing Element has not been adopted by the jurisdiction and certified by the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). Although the City has an adopted and certified Housing Element as of August 2024, the compliant SB 330 pre-application was filed on January 9, 2024, and therefore froze development standards in effect at the time of submittal. Therefore, this Comprehensive Plan inconsistency is not a basis for denial of a project. The project is seeking a 1 The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan is available online: bit.ly/PACompPlan2030 Item 2 Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 15     Item No. 2. Page 7 of 12 waiver of FAR limitations pursuant to State Density Bonus Law. Therefore, the project is considered consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Housing Element Consistency One of the two parcels on which the proposed project would be located is identified as a housing inventory site. The Housing Element anticipated the development of 175 units on this proposed site at moderate income limits. The project is a 145-unit development, of which 126 units will be market rate (above-moderate income) and nineteen units (13%) are designated to be provided at below-market rate (BMR) at a rate affordable to low-income households. Because none of the units would be provided at moderate income, as anticipated in the Housing Element, approval of this project would likely result in a shortfall of capacity for moderate income units in the Housing Element sites inventory that exceeds the City’s “buffer” for that income level. As a result, if the project is approved, the City will likely need to identify alternative sites for moderate income units within 180 days following the approval. Baylands Master Plan and Bayland Design Guidelines The project is located within the boundaries of the Baylands Master Plan on the area identified as Private Lands. The following are Bayland Master Plan policies that affect sites within the Private Lands designation of this Master Plan: Item 2 Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 16     Item No. 2. Page 8 of 12 is not subject to the second policy. Nevertheless, the project includes extensive tree planting especially along the perimeter of the property. Site Assessment and Design Guidelines The Site Assessment and Design Guidelines, Palo Alto Baylands Nature Preserve, developed in 2005, are intended to be used when designing or reviewing projects located in any part of the Baylands—including projects on privately-owned land. Conformance with these guidelines will help to ensure compatibility with the special aesthetic qualities and environmental conditions unique to the Baylands. The following design principles are suggested to reflect and preserve the Baylands’ unique landscape character and have been used to review this application: Use only muted, natural colors. Choose materials and finishes that will weather without degrading. Preserve the horizon line with low and horizontal elements. Mount fences, enclosures, and identity signs low to the ground. Reduce the size and mounting heights of regulatory sign. Palo Alto Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan (CLUP) The CLUP is intended to be used to safeguard the general welfare of the inhabitants within the vicinity of an airport. The project site is located within the Traffic Pattern Zone, a portion of the airport area routinely overflown by aircraft operating in the airport traffic pattern. The potential for aircraft accidents is relatively low and the need for land use restrictions is minimal. Santa Clara County planning staff confirmed that Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) referral is not required for the project. The proposed 145-unit townhome development would not exceed density requirements as set forth in the adopted Comprehensive Plan and zoning and there are no limits on residential units within the Traffic Pattern Zone. Further, the development would be subject to a maximum height limit of 154 feet. Item 2 Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 17     Item No. 2. Page 9 of 12 standards prescribed for the RM-20 zoning district found in PAMC Chapter 18.13. The project is inconsistent with the following standards: Floor Area Ratio (FAR) (0.97:1 where 0.5:1 maximum is allowed for ROLM(E) residential uses) Height (42 feet where 30 feet maximum is allowed) Front Setback (16.5 feet where a minimum 20 feet is required) PAMC 18.04.030(a)(iii): All fixtures shall not intersect a plane measured at a forty-five- degree angle from the edge of the building starting at the rooftop garden surface sloping upward and inward toward the center of the property. The applicant is requesting a waiver to this to allow a wider rooftop garden space. Multi-Modal Access & Parking Valley Transit Authority (VTA) bus line 81 and ACE transit AE-F line are the nearest bus lines to the project site. The California Avenue Caltrain Station is located approximately 2.2 miles from the project site and nearby bicycle lanes are located on Embarcadero Road. Item 2 Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 18     Item No. 2. Page 10 of 12 Title 8 Consistency (Trees) Due to the site’s location in a flood zone, the development will need to raise the site to meet floodplain requirements. This will require trees on the parcel and adjacent to the parcel on the City property to be removed. The Revised Preliminary Arborist Report prepared by HortScience and Bartlett Consulting in August 2025 (Appendix A2 of the Environmental Document) identifies the removal of 218 on-site trees, 83 of which are protected, due to low suitability for preservation with construction activities. In addition, 52 off-site trees are identified for removal, 46 of which are protected and located on City property at the Baylands Athletic Center. The project proposes 648 new trees within open areas, over which 50 percent would be California native species, and 57 percent would be coast live oaks and valley oaks. Tree replacement mitigation values for the project are further detailed in the Tree Disposition Table (L 6.1) of the plan set, see Attachment G. Item 2 Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 19     Item No. 2. Page 11 of 12 Private Street Width The proposed project includes new private streets that do not meet the minimum width of 32 feet set forth in PAMC Section 21.20.240. The applicant requested a waiver from this development standard in accordance with State Density Bonus Law to allow for a private street that is 26 feet in width. The project, with the proposed 26-foot street width, would comply with all safety requirements, including, but not limited to, fire safety and traffic safety. Parkland Dedication PAMC Chapter 21.50 provides that as a condition of approval of new condominiums or single- family subdivisions in Palo Alto, the City requires that the impact on the Palo Alto parks system be addressed either through dedication of additional parkland, or payment of fees in-lieu of dedication. The required land to be dedicated would be 336 square feet per unit (145) for a total of 48,720 square feet. The fee is equivalent to the value of the land that the City would otherwise require be dedicated. The square footage required is calculated as specified above. The City uses a default land value of $5.7 million per acre, when calculating fees, but the land value may also be determined by an appraisal of the parcel being developed. Although parkland dedication requirement would apply to this site and payment of in-lieu fee as an alternative would typically be subject to Council’s discretion, as a builder’s remedy project the applicant is proposing to satisfy this requirement through the payment of in-lieu fees. In-lieu fees for the project total approximately $6,372,600. FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT Item 2 Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 20     Item No. 2. Page 12 of 12 Public Comments The City has received several comments from interested stakeholders, all of which are included in Attachment F of this report. Overall, most of the comments are inquiries about status updates on the project. One public comment voiced support of the project providing housing for the community. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW CEQA Guidelines section 15183, the IS Checklist found that the Project is consistent with a Community Plan or Zoning with any project related effects substantially mitigated under uniformly applicable development policies or standards, see Attachment G. The IS Checklist was published on December 3, 2025. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS ATTACHMENTS Report Author & Contact Information Steven Switzer, Senior Historic Planner   (650) 329-2321   Steven.Switzer@PaloAlto.gov PTC3 Liaison & Contact Information Jennifer Armer, Assistant Director (650) 329-2191 Jennifer.Armer@PaloAlto.gov 3 Emails may be sent directly to the PTC using the following address: PTC@PaloAlto.gov Item 2 Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 21     Gas Station #1 EMB 4 EMB-3 EMB-2 EMB-1 U.S. Post Office 717.7' 404.1' 98.4' 153.7' 5.2'19.5'26.6' 377.7' 693.0' 303.6' 330.0' 117.5' 198.0' 475.0' 290.4' 273.9' 175.0' 20.1' 345.2' 7.6' 172.1' 17.8' 31.4' 168.2' 99.8' 7.3' 60.5' 60.0' 31.4' 70.0' 72.0' 63.1' 19.3' 88.1' 30.0' 290.6' 52.3' 17.9' 207.4' 25.0' 103.7' 5.0' 191.2' 60.0' 73.2' 68.3'77.6'5.2'19.5' 124.0' 587.5' 349.6' 25.0' 278.9' 94.8' 349.6' 119.7' 58.3' 163.8' 187.2'45.7'25.0' 103.7' 132.8' 312.2' 272.9' 278.9' 262.6' 20.3' 747.80 169.0' 104.4' 1181.7' 587.5' 94.8' 30.0'28.0' 240.7 52.3' 26.8' 35.2' 27.3' 61.6' 14.8' 187.5' 6.3' 248.8' 236.4' 139.0' 18.7' 139.8' 162.5' 207.7' 168.3' 279.4' 240.6' 72.8' 46.7' 123.8' 175.0' 20.1' 418.5' 20.0' 452.1' 420.5' 345.2' 7.6' 241.3' 393.7' 230.0' 47.1' 129.2' 25.1' 84.3' 18.7' 139.0' 206.3' 312.7' 341.8' 229.3' 30.1' 358.7' 59.7' 115.1' 437.7' 149.5' 159.5' 57.6' 153.2' 281.9' 1.9' 89.8' 48.4' 39.5' 16.4' 386.6' 167.3' 171.5' 115.1' 59.7' 386.6' 169.1' 368.1' 32.7' 526.8' 265.6' 175.1' 248.8' 24.4' 76.5' 153.7' 77.6' 68.3'3.0' 108.7' 119.5' 148.9' 59.5' 108.7' 20.5' 41.1' 42.1' 161.9' 119.5' 66.5' 572.4' 1178.7' 150.6'377.7' 693.0' 303.6' 330.0' 117.5' 198.0' 475.0' 290.4' 273.9' 188.6' 159.5' 57.6' 153.2' 281.9' 438.6' 71.9' 148.9' 59.5'3.0' 73.2' 162.5' 207.7' 204.1' 89.1' 279.8' 47.1' 129.2' 25.1' 95.2' 38.9' 76.5' 38.9' 29.1'47.7' 42.1' 41.1' 393.7' 251.5' 42.8' 3.5'17.8' 172.1' 589.5' 180.0' 40.2' 50.5' 100.0' 1717 1731 1755 1766 2100 Bldg 1 2200 Bldg 2 2300 Bldg 3 2400 Bldg 4 2191 2197 2275 2479 2085 2225 2452 2450 2525 2370 1700 1735 1730 2000 1900 EAST BAYSHORE ROAD BAYSHORE FREEWAY EMBARCADERO ROAD EAST BAYSHORE ROAD WATSON COURT LAURA LANE GENG ROAD BAYSHORE FREEWAY BAYSHORE FREEWAY BAYSHORE FREEWAY O'BRINE LANE WEST BAYSHORE ROAD WEST BAYSHORE ROAD PF PC-4847 CS(D) GM ROLM (E)(D)(AD) PC-4846 ROLM (E)(D)(AD) ROLM (E)(D)(AD) ROW Baylands Athletic Center Tom Casey Field 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 0' 309' Attachment A Location Map 2100-2400 Geng Rd CITY OF PALO ALTO I NCO R P O R A TE D CALI FORNIA P a l o A l t o T h e C i t y o f APRI L 1 6 189 4 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto sswitze, 2025-10-08 06:58:18 (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Personal\Planning.mdb) Item 2 Attachment A - Location Map     Packet Pg. 22     1 4 9 8 4 ACTION NO. 2026-__ On _________, 2026, the City Council of the City of Palo Alto (“City Council”) approved a Site and Design application, Conditional Use Permit, and Vesting Tentative Map for development of 145 for sale townhome units (“the Project”). In approving the application, Council makes the following findings, determinations, and declarations: SECTION 1. Background. A. On July 8, 2024, Strada Investment Group filed a compliant pre-application in accordance with Senate Bill (SB) 330 and with California Government Code Section 65589.5(d)(5) (also known as Builder’s Remedy). B. On December 18, 2024, Strada Investment Group filed a Site and Design and Conditional Use Permit application (24PLN-00356) for 145 for sale townhome units to allow for the proposed multi-family development and use of the site. In addition, Strada Investment Group filed an application for a Vesting Tentative Map (24PLN-00357) to merge two existing lots to create a single resulting 480,230-square-foot parcel (11.02 acres) and to re-subdivide the lot for condominium purposes for 145 townhome units. The project includes the following density bonus waivers and concessions in accordance with State Density Bonus Law, and additional protections as a “builder’s remedy project,” under AB 1893: Waiver 1: Floor Area Ratio (0.97:1 where 0.5:1 maximum is allowed) Waiver 2: Height (42 feet where 30 feet maximum is allowed) Waiver 3: Front Setback (16.5 feet where 20 feet is required) Waiver 4: Rooftop Garden Width (Railings intersect a plane measured at a forty-five degree angle from the edge of the building sloping upward and inward toward the center of the unit) Waiver 5: Private street width (26 feet where 32 feet is required) Concession 1: Distribution of below market rate units. C. The project site is comprised of two existing lots (APN 008-02-035, Approximately 239,800 square feet and APN 08-02-036, Approximately 240,430 square feet). The site contains four existing office buildings. To the north of the project site is the Baylands Athletic Center that offers softball/baseball lighted fields on a six-acre facility. Adjacent uses to the south, east, and west are office buildings. D. Following staff review, the Architectural Review Board held a duly noticed public hearing to review the Site and Design application at an initial hearing on October 16, 2025, to provide feedback on the design. Item 2 Attachment B - Draft Record of Land Use Action     Packet Pg. 23     2 4 9 8 4 E. Following staff review of the Site and Design application, Conditional Use Permit, and Vesting Tentative Map, the Planning and Transportation Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to review the project and recommended approval on December 10, 2025, subject to conditions of approval. F. Following the Planning and Transportation Commission’s review of the project, the Architectural Review Board held a duly noticed public hearing to review the Site and Design application and recommended __________on ____________, 2026, subject to conditions of approval. G. On December 16, 2025 the Parks and Recreation Commission considered the associated Park Improvement Ordinance required for the project and recommended __________. H. On ___________, 2026 the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing at which evidence was considered and all persons were afforded an opportunity to be heard in accordance with the City Council’s policies and procedures. SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The City, acting as the lead agency for the Project, has determined that the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in accordance with CEQA Guideline section 15183. An Initial Study (IS) Checklist to determine consistency with the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (State Clearinghouse [SCH] #2014052101) certified in 2017 (“2017 EIR”) for the City of Palo Alto’s 2030 Comprehensive Plan found that the Project is consistent with a Community Plan or Zoning with any project related effects substantially mitigated under uniformly applicable development policies or standards. Documentation to support the exemption is available as part of the public record on file with the Planning and Development Services Division. SECTION 3. Site and Design Review Objectives. The design and architecture of the proposed improvements, as conditioned, comply with the Site and Design Objectives as required in Chapter 18.30.060(G) of the PAMC. 1. Objective (a): To ensure construction and operation of the use in a manner that will be orderly, harmonious, and compatible with existing or potential uses of adjoining or nearby sites. The proposed project is located on two contiguous parcels located at 2100-2400 Geng Road. To the north of the project site is the Baylands Athletic Center that offers softball/baseball lighted fields on a six-acre facility. Adjacent uses to the south, east, and west are office buildings. While surrounding uses differ from the proposed residential use, the project site allows residential development with a conditional use permit. The colors and materials of the project are consistent with the Baylands Design Guidelines, such as using muted colors. Lighting would be downcast and the proposed landscaping would provide long-term visual screening along the property line abutting the Baylands Athletic Center. Item 2 Attachment B - Draft Record of Land Use Action     Packet Pg. 24     3 4 9 8 4 The project would not conflict with the City’s airport operations and is consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan. Therefore, the project is consistent with this objective. 2.Objective (b): To ensure the desirability of investment, or the conduct of business, research, or educational activities, or other authorized occupations in the same or adjacent areas. 3.Objective (c): To ensure that sound principles of environmental design and ecological balance shall be observed. 4. Objective (d): To ensure that the use will be in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. Comp Plan Goals and Policies How project adheres or does not adhere to Comp Plan Item 2 Attachment B - Draft Record of Land Use Action     Packet Pg. 25     4 4 9 8 4 opportunity site. The proposed multi-family use is allowed within this land use designation. Housing Element Policy 4.3 Implement development standards, objective design standards, and architectural and green building standards that encourage new high-quality rental and ownership housing. The project complies with the implemented standards except where requests for waivers or concessions in accordance with state density bonus law is provided. The project provides the necessary upgrades to infrastructure on the site to provide new high-quality ownership units. The project complies with all required green building requirements in accordance with state law and the city’s local reach code. Land Use and Community Design Element Policy L-9.2 Encourage development that creatively integrates parking into the project, including by locating it behind buildings or underground wherever possible, or by providing for shared use of parking areas. Encourage other alternatives to surface parking lots that minimize the amount of land devoted to parking while still maintaining safe streets, street trees, a vibrant local economy and sufficient parking to meet demand. 290 spaces would be provided in the townhome garages (70 tandem spaces) and 43 parking spaces would be provided along the private streets, including 4 accessible spaces. The frontage still provides a sidewalk, street trees and other greenery for an inviting streetscape. Policy L-9.4 Treat residential streets as both public ways and neighborhood amenities. Provide and maintain continuous sidewalks, healthy street trees, benches and other amenities that promote walking and “active” transportation. The project includes private streets lined with trees as well as new short-term bicycle parking within the common area and bicycle parking in garage fronting the streets to promote active transportation. This improves the current office park design, which provides surface level parking along the project frontage. Transportation Element Policy T-3.7 Encourage pedestrian-friendly design features such as sidewalks, street trees, on-street parking, gathering spaces, gardens, outdoor furniture, art and interesting architectural details. The project includes direct connections to the sidewalk that help to activate the frontage along Geng Road in addition to new street trees and plantings. Policy T-3.9 Support citywide sustainability efforts by preserving and enhancing the tree canopy where feasible within the public right-of- way, consistent with the Urban Forest Management Plan, as amended. The project meets the tree canopy replacement requirements through on site planting. The project includes removal of 218 trees and replaces with 648 trees, over which 50 percent would be California native species, and 57 would be coast live oaks and valley oaks. SECTION 4. Conditional Use Permit Findings. Conditional Use Permit approval is based on the findings indicated under PAMC Section 18.76.010: 1. The proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience. Item 2 Attachment B - Draft Record of Land Use Action     Packet Pg. 26     6 4 9 8 4 A Conditional Use Permit is required for a residential use within the ROLM(E) Zone District. In the surrounding vicinity of the project site, there is a Post Office, International School of the Peninsula, two automobile agencies, and office uses. To the north of the project site is the Baylands Athletic Center that offers softball/baseball lighted fields on a six-acre facility. Adjacent uses to the south, east, and west are office buildings. With the conditions set forth in this record of land use action, which reduce lighting impacts of the proposed project within the Baylands setting, the project would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience to other property improvements in the vicinity. 2. The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance. 1. The design is consistent with applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, coordinated area plans (including compatibility requirements), and any relevant design guides. The project applicant has identified incentives, concessions, and waivers under State Density Bonus Law to demonstrate compliance with the enforceable standards as detailed in Section 1 of this record of land use action. This finding can be made in the affirmative because the project is consistent with applicable Comprehensive Plan goals and policies as summarized above in Section 3, Site and Design Findings, and Section 4, Conditional Use Item 2 Attachment B - Draft Record of Land Use Action     Packet Pg. 27     7 4 9 8 4 Permit Findings, and the relevant findings can be made in the affirmative. The project is consistent with the Baylands Design Guidelines, as applicable to the proposed project, in that the project uses muted colors and the height is consistent with the requirements for the Palo Alto Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan. The proposed 145-unit townhome development would not exceed density requirements as there are no limits on residential units within the Airport Traffic Pattern Zone and the project is consistent with the allowed density set forth in the Zoning and Comprehensive Plan. 2. The project has a unified and coherent design, that: a. creates an internal sense of order and desirable environment for occupants, visitors, and the general community, b. preserves, respects and integrates existing natural features that contribute positively to the site and the historic character including historic resources of the area when relevant, c. is consistent with the context-based design criteria of the applicable zone district, d. provides harmonious transitions in scale, mass and character to adjacent land uses and land use designations, e. enhances living conditions on the site (if it includes residential uses) and in adjacent residential areas. There is internal order between the pedestrian entries, car entry, and open spaces on the project site. There are three building typologies provided, detached townhomes, row townhomes, and duplex townhomes, that each have varying defined entrances for residents. There is no historic character to preserve. The project is designed consistent with the Baylands Design Guidelines with the use of muted colors. While the project mostly complies with the applicable objective standards applied to housing development projects within the ROLM(E) Zone District, the applicant has identified waivers under State Density Bonus Law as detailed in Section 1. SECTION 6. Vesting Tentative Map Findings. A legislative body of a city shall deny approval of a Parcel Map, if it makes any of the following findings (California Government Code Section 66474). The City Council cannot make these findings for the following reasons: 1. That the proposed map is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans as specified in Section 65451: The site is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as described below. .That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans: There is no adopted specific plan for this project site. The proposed vesting tentative map and related improvements is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in that it facilitates housing development on a site designated for multi-family use within the urban services area, consistent with Goal 2 of the Housing Element and Goal L1.2 of the Land Use Element. The Item 2 Attachment B - Draft Record of Land Use Action     Packet Pg. 28     8 4 9 8 4 proposed density (13 DU/AC) is consistent with the allowance for multifamily residential in specified locations in the Research/Office Park land use designation of the Land Use Element. The project replaces four existing office buildings with 145 for sale townhome units with thirteen percent of the units (19 units) deed restricted to serve low income households. Nineteen (19) units (13%) are designated to be provided at below-market rate (BMR) at a rate affordable to low-income households (80% of Area Median Income or below). The project improves the city’s jobs housing imbalance consistent with the Transportation Element’s goals and policies. 3. That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development: 4. That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development: 5. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat: The project site is located on the eastern side of Highway 101 adjacent to the Baylands Nature Preserve. The Baylands is an approximately 1,976-acre open space located along the edge of San Francisco Bay (Bay) including multiple habitats and a wide variety of recreational and educational benefits. However, the project site is located in an area of approximately 90 acres of industrial research, office, and commercial uses that are concentrated along Embarcadero Road and East Bayshore frontage road. The project design would incorporate lighting reduction design features to reduce the spillover of lighting or glare/increased luminance perceived by birds and other wildlife, in compliance with recommendations by the International Dark-Sky Association. Though the project proposes the removal of 218 on-site trees, the proposed project would also include the planting of 651 trees, which would gradually replace the existing Item 2 Attachment B - Draft Record of Land Use Action     Packet Pg. 29     9 4 9 8 4 foraging habitat on the site for native migratory birds as these trees gradually mature. The increase in the number of trees on site would also provide valuable foraging resources for migrating birds. Thus, in the long term, the project will continue to support foraging habitat for migrating birds along the San Francisco Bay. With incorporation of the standard conditions of approval, the project would have less than significant impacts on biological resources, the same as those identified in the 2017 EIR. Therefore, the project would not cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. 6. That the design of the subdivision or type of improvements is likely to cause serious public health problems: 7. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. In this connection, the governing body may approve a map if it finds that alternate easements, for access or for use, will be provided, and that these will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This subsection shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction and no authority is hereby granted to a legislative body to determine that the public at large has acquired easements for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. vacated and new utility easements created as part of the mapping process to reflect modifications to the location of utility infrastructure. Item 2 Attachment B - Draft Record of Land Use Action     Packet Pg. 30     10 4 9 8 4 subdivision or any part thereof to be surveyed, and a Final Map, as specified in Chapter 21.08, to be prepared in conformance with the Vesting Tentative Map as conditionally approved, and in compliance with the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and PAMC Title 21 and submitted to the City Engineer (PAMC Section 21.16.010[a]). PLANNING DIVISION A copy of this cover letter and conditions of approval shall be printed on the second page of the plans submitted for building permit. line between the project and Baylands Athletic Center shall be planted at a minimum height of 8 feet and maintained as a landscape screen for the life of the project in accordance with the code requirements for objective standards. 6. NOISE THRESHOLDS ON RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. In accordance with PAMC Section 9.10.030, No person shall produce, suffer or allow to be produced by any machine, animal or device, or any combination of same, on residential property, a noise level more than six dB above the local ambient at any point outside of the property plane. 7. OPEN AIR LOUDSPEAKERS (AMPLIFIED MUSIC). In accordance with PAMC Section 9.12, no amplified music shall be used for producing sound in or upon any open area, to which the public has access, between the hours of 11:00pm and one hour after sunrise. Item 2 Attachment B - Draft Record of Land Use Action     Packet Pg. 31     11 4 9 8 4 8. PG&E ENCROACHMENT PERMIT. An encroachment permit is required prior to any temporary work or permanent improvements within PG&E easement. The project shall comply with any and all requirements of the encroachment permit. experience and familiarity with historic-period and prehistoric archaeological resources in the region. The Qualified Archaeologist or other designated archaeologist working under the direction of the Qualified Archaeologist shall conduct full-time monitoring within native sediments to the project’s proposed maximum depths of disturbance. In general, archaeological monitoring shall be limited to initial ground disturbance which is defined as construction-related earthmoving of sediments from their native place of deposition and does not include any secondary movement of sediment that might be required for the project. The Qualified Archaeologist may adjust monitoring efforts as needed (increase, decrease, or discontinue monitoring frequency) based on the observed potential for construction activities to encounter archaeological deposits. The archaeological monitor shall maintain daily monitoring logs. Following the completion of construction, the Qualified Archaeologist shall prepare an archaeological monitoring report for submittal to the lead agency and the NWIC with the results of the archaeological monitoring program. Item 2 Attachment B - Draft Record of Land Use Action     Packet Pg. 32     12 4 9 8 4 12. STANDARD REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PROTECTION OF NESTING BIRDS. As detailed in the project description and per the City’s standard conditions, vegetation or tree removal shall be prohibited during the general avian nesting season (February 1 – August 31), if feasible. If nesting season avoidance is not feasible, the applicant shall retain a qualified biologist, as approved by the City of Palo Alto, to conduct a preconstruction nesting bird survey to determine the presence/absence, location, and activity status of any active nests on or adjacent to the project site no more than 14 days prior to scheduled vegetation clearance and/or demolition activities. If nesting birds are found to be present, a suitable buffer (typically a minimum buffer of 50 feet for passerines and a minimum buffer of 250 feet for raptors) as determined appropriate by the biologist, shall be established around such active nests and no construction shall be allowed within the buffer areas until a qualified biologist has determined that the nest is no longer active (i.e., the nestlings have fledged and are no longer reliant on the nest). 13. STANDARD REQUIREMENTS FOR PM10 and PM2.5 Emissions. The following conditions shall be implemented during all phases of construction to control dust and exhaust at the project site in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan Policy N-5.5: Water all exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) two times per day. Cover all haul trucks transporting soil, sand, and other loose material off-site. Remove all visible mud or dirt track out onto adjacent public roads at least once per day using wet power vacuum street sweepers. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited. Limit all vehicle speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour. Pave all new roadways, driveways, and sidewalks as soon as possible. Lay building pads as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. Suspend all excavation, grading, and/or demolition activities when average wind speeds exceed 20 miles per hour. Wash off all trucks and equipment, including their tires, prior to leaving the site. Post a publicly visible sign with the name and phone number of an on-site construction coordinator to contact regarding dust complaints. The on-site construction coordinator shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The sign shall also provide the City’s Code Enforcement Complaints email and number and the Air District’s General Air Pollution Complaints number to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. Item 2 Attachment B - Draft Record of Land Use Action     Packet Pg. 33     13 4 9 8 4 14. CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT. All construction equipment larger than 25 horsepower used at the site for more than two continuous days or 20 hours total shall meet U.S. EPA Tier 4 Final emission standards for particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5), if feasible. If Tier 4 Final equipment is not available for a particular piece of equipment, then use equipment that meets U.S. EPA emission standards for Tier 3 engines and include PM emissions control equivalent to CARB Level 3 verifiable diesel emission control devices that altogether achieve an 80 percent reduction in PM exhaust in comparison to uncontrolled equipment. Smaller equipment (less than 18,000 pounds) shall be used near the property lines adjacent to sensitive buildings to minimize vibration levels to 0.3 in/sec PPV or less. For example, a smaller vibratory roller similar to a Caterpillar model CP433E vibratory compactor could be used when compacting materials within 20 feet of the adjacent conventional building. The smaller equipment intended to implement this requirement shall be individually identified among the list of equipment required under the above condition as the subset of equipment allowed for use at the property lines. Select demolition methods that do not involve large impact tools such as hoe- rams within 20 feet of the adjacent conventional building. Portable jackhammers, saws, or grinders shall be used to minimize impacts to the ground. Avoid dropping heavy equipment and use alternative methods for breaking up existing pavement, such as a pavement grinder, instead of dropping heavy objects, within 20 feet of the adjacent conventional building. Designate a Disturbance Coordinator responsible for registering and investigating claims of excessive vibration. The contact information for the responsible party shall be clearly posted on the construction site. 16. SITE MANAGEMENT PLAN. The project applicant shall retain a qualified environmental consultant, California Professional Geologist (PG) or California Professional Engineer (PE), to prepare a Site Management Plan (SMP) prior to construction. The SMP, or equivalent document, will be prepared to address onsite handling and management of impacted soils, soil vapor, groundwater, or other impacted wastes, and reduce hazards to construction workers and offsite receptors during construction. The plan shall establish remedial measures and/or soil management practices to ensure construction worker safety, the health of future workers and visitors, and the off-site migration of contaminants from the project site. These measures and practices may include, but are not limited to: a. Stockpile management, including stormwater pollution prevention and the Item 2 Attachment B - Draft Record of Land Use Action     Packet Pg. 34     14 4 9 8 4 installation of BMPs b. Proper disposal procedures of contaminated materials c. Monitoring, reporting, and regulatory oversight notifications d. A health and safety plan for contractors working at the project site that addresses the safety and health hazards of each phase of site construction activities with the requirements and procedures for employee protection e. The health and safety plan will also outline proper soil handling procedures and health and safety requirements to minimize worker and public exposure to hazardous materials during construction. 17. TREE CANOPY REPLACEMENT. Replacement of the tree canopy for the two trees proposed to be removed is required in accordance with Chapter 8 of the municipal code and the City’s Tree Technical Manual. 18. REFUSE. All trash areas shall be covered and maintained in an orderly state within private garages to prevent water from entering into the garbage container. No outdoor storage is allowed/permitted except when brought out to the street for pickup as shown in the plan set. Trash areas shall be maintained in a manner to discourage illegal dumping. 19. BELOW MARKET RATE (BMR) HOUSING. This project is proposed as a Builder’s Remedy project, as defined in AB 1893, and is providing thirteen percent of the proposed units at prices affordable to lower income households. The project shall conform to the approved regulatory agreement, which shall be recorded prior to issuance of building permit or final map, whichever occurs first. All BMR units constructed under this condition shall be in conformance with the City’s BMR Program rules and regulations, as modified by the concession granted pursuant to State Density Bonus Law regarding unit distribution. Failure to comply with the timing of this condition and any adopted BMR Program rules and regulations shall not waive its later enforcement. 20. FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION NOTICE OF PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION. The applicant shall notify the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) as required by FAR Part 77, Subpart B on FAA Form 7460-1, Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration, for the proposed project including temporary construction equipment, such as cranes. A copy of the submitted form shall be submitted to the City of Palo Alto Planning Division as well as a copy of the FAA’s response to this form. 21. ESTIMATED IMPACT FEE. Development Impact Fees, currently estimated in the amount of $17,378,126.19 plus the applicable public art fee, per PAMC 16.61.040, prior to the issuance of the related building permit(s). Impact fees may be paid at occupancy in accordance with the requirements under PAMC 16.64.030. 22. IMPACT FEE 90-DAY PROTEST PERIOD. California Government Code Section 66020 provides that a project applicant who desires to protest the fees, dedications, reservations, or other Item 2 Attachment B - Draft Record of Land Use Action     Packet Pg. 35     15 4 9 8 4 exactions imposed on a development project must initiate the protest at the time the development project is approved or conditionally approved or within ninety (90) days after the date that fees, dedications, reservations or exactions are imposed on the Project. Additionally, procedural requirements for protesting these development fees, dedications, reservations and exactions are set forth in Government Code Section 66020. IF YOU FAIL TO INITIATE A PROTEST WITHIN THE 90-DAY PERIOD OR FOLLOW THE PROTEST PROCEDURES DESCRIBED IN GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66020, YOU WILL BE BARRED FROM CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OR REASONABLENESS OF THE FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS, AND EXACTIONS. If these requirements constitute fees, taxes, assessments, dedications, reservations, or other exactions as specified in Government Code Sections 66020(a) or 66021, this is to provide notification that, as of the date of this notice, the 90-day period has begun in which you may protest these requirements. This matter is subject to the California Code of Civil Procedures (CCP) Section 1094.5; the time by which judicial review must be sought is governed by CCP Section 1094.6 23. ENTITLEMENT EXPIRATION. The project approval shall be valid for a period of two years from the date of issuance of the entitlement. If within such two-year period, the proposed use of the site or the construction of buildings has not commenced, the Planning entitlement shall expire. Application for a one-year extension of this entitlement may be made prior to expiration. 24. FINAL INSPECTION. A Planning Division Final inspection will be required to determine substantial compliance with the approved plans prior to the scheduling of a Building Division final. Any revisions during the building process must be approved by Planning, including but not limited to; materials, landscaping and hard surface locations. Contact your Project Planner, Steven Switzer at Steven.Switzer@PaloAlto.gov to schedule this inspection. 25. INDEMNITY. To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”) from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside or void, any permit or approval authorized hereby for the Project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City for its actual attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its own choice. Public Art 26. The applicant has selected to pay the public art in-leiu fee as an alternative to constructing public art on site. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall pay the required in-lieu contribution to the Public Art Fund. The Public Art Program team will need to verify the Construction Valuation with an outside consultant. Contact the Public Art Program at the time you apply for Building permit to begin this verification process. All information and application materials may be found at paloalto.gov/public art under the Policies and Item 2 Attachment B - Draft Record of Land Use Action     Packet Pg. 36     16 4 9 8 4 Documents tab. PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING 27. PUBLIC WORKS APPLICATIONS, FORMS, AND DOCUMENTS: Applicant shall be advised that most forms, applications, and informational documents related to Public Works Engineering conditions can be found at the following link: https://www.paloalto.gov/Departments/Public-Works/Engineering-Services/Forms-and- Permits 28. STREETWORK PERMIT: The applicant shall obtain a Streetwork Permit from the Department of Public Works for all public improvements. 29. UPGRADE OF EXISTING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS: As part of the plan review for improvements within the public right-of-way, any existing improvements to be re-used by the project, which are not to current City standards and are not specifically in these project conditions (such as streetlights, utility covers and lids, etc.), shall be upgraded to current City standards as required by the Director of Public Works and the Director of Utilities. 30. MODIFICATIONS TO EXISTING PUBLIC UTILITIES: The Developer is responsible for any changes or modifications to existing utilities, streets, and public infrastructure within or adjacent to the project site. This includes, but is not limited to, the relocation of utility facilities, conduits, or vaults required due to grade changes in the sidewalk area resulting from the development. 31. DAMAGE TO EXISTING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS: The Developer is responsible for repairing any damage to existing public improvements fronting or adjacent to the project site caused by construction, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department. 32. EXISTING UTILITY ABANDONMENT AND/OR RELOCATION: The Developer is responsible for researching all existing utility lines to ensure there are no conflicts with the project. Any existing utility lines (public or private) or their appurtenances that conflict with the project or do not serve it must be capped, abandoned, removed, relocated, or disposed of to the satisfaction of the City. 33. RE-USE OF EXISTING STORM DRAINS: The re-use of existing City storm drain service lines and appurtenances is subject to City review and approval. The Developer’s contractor shall expose the existing storm drain facilities during construction for City inspection or provide video documentation of their condition. Any deficient facilities, as determined by Public Works, must be replaced by the Developer. 34. STORM DRAIN TRIBUTARY PATTERN: This project must follow the existing storm drain tributary pattern. Any deviations require additional analysis and approval by Public Works Item 2 Attachment B - Draft Record of Land Use Action     Packet Pg. 37     17 4 9 8 4 during building plan review. The project shall not negatively impact the drainage pattern for adjacent properties. 35. GRADING AND EXCAVATION PERMIT: A Grading Permit is required per PAMC Chapter 16.28. The permit application and all applicable documents (see Section H of application) shall be submitted to Public Works Engineering. Add the following note: “THIS GRADING PERMIT WILL ONLY AUTHORIZE GENERAL GRADING AND INSTALLATION OF THE STORM DRAIN SYSTEM. OTHER BUILDING AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS ARE SHOWN FOR REFERENCE INFORMATION ONLY AND ARE SUBJECT TO SEPARATE BUILDING PERMIT APPROVAL.” 36. ROUGH GRADING: provide a Rough Grading Plan for the work proposed as part of the Grading and Excavation Permit application. The Rough Grading Plans shall including the following: pad elevation, elevator pit elevation, ground monitoring wells, limits of over excavation, stockpile area of material, overall earthwork volumes (cut and fill), temporary shoring for any existing facilities, ramps for access, crane locations (if any), tree protection measures, etc. 37. CIVIL ENGINEER CERTIFICATION: Upon completion of the rough grading work and at the final completion of the work, applicant shall provide an as-graded grading plan prepared by the civil engineer that includes original ground surface elevations, as-graded ground surface elevations, lot drainage patterns and locations and elevations of all surface and subsurface drainage facilities. The civil engineer shall certify that the work was done in accordance with the final approved grading plan. 38. SOILS ENGINEER CERTIFICATION: Upon completion of the rough grading work and at the final completion of the work, applicant shall provide a soil grading report prepared by the soils engineer, including locations and elevation of field density tests, summaries of field and laboratory tests and other substantiating data, and comments on any changes made during grading and their effect on the recommendations made in the soils engineering investigation report. The soils engineer shall certify as to the adequacy of the site for the intended use. 39. DIRECT CONNECTIONS TO STORM DRAIN SYSTEM: If the project proposes to replace and/or add connections to the City maintained storm drain system, then the applicant may be responsible for improvements to the system. These improvements may include, but not limited to, upsizing the storm drain facility, replacing or adding City standard catch basins, pipes and manholes. THIS MAY INCLUDE REPLACING BRICK AND MORTAR MANHOLES. The extent of required improvements will be at the public works staff discretion and shall be consistent with Storm Drain Master Plan and Public Works Construction Standards. Any work on the city's storm drain systems requires permits and inspection by Public Works inspectors. Item 2 Attachment B - Draft Record of Land Use Action     Packet Pg. 38     18 4 9 8 4 40. CCTV OF STORM DRAIN SYSTEM: Post construction the applicant may be required to provide CCTV inspection of the City’s storm drain facilities to verify that any lines were not broken, cracked or damaged during construction. The video shall be high resolution and done by professional who is familiar with the process and meticulous. A CCTV inspection video is required for new storm drain connection (s) to verify proper connections were made into the City’s system and that no construction material was left behind. Videos of storm drain system may also be required where construction occurred less than 5-ft from the city’s storm drain system. Videos shall be provided from structure to structure, such as manhole to manhole. Contractor may want to conduct their own inspection in advance of construction to verify the existing pipe integrity. If existing damages are located, they shall be reported to Public Works inspectors prior to the start of construction. If not reported, the contractor may be responsible to restore the pipe segment as determined by Public Works prior to final. 44. CLOMR-F: Evidence that this document has been executed shall be provided prior to building permit issuance. 45. ENCROACHMENT PERMIT: Prior to any work in the public right-of-way, the applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from the Public Works Department for any work that encroaches onto the City right-of-way. 46. LOGISTICS PLAN: A construction logistics plan shall be provided addressing all impacts to the public including, at a minimum: work hours, noticing of affected businesses, bus stop relocations, construction signage, dust control, noise control, storm water pollution Item 2 Attachment B - Draft Record of Land Use Action     Packet Pg. 39     19 4 9 8 4 prevention, job trailer, contractors’ parking, truck routes, staging, concrete pours, crane lifts, scaffolding, materials storage, pedestrian safety, and traffic control. All truck routes shall conform to the City of Palo Alto’s Trucks and Truck Route Ordinance, Chapter 10.48, and the route map. NOTE: Some items/tasks on the logistics plan may require an encroachment permit. 47. STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION: All improvement plan sets shall include the “Pollution Prevention – It’s Part of the Plan” sheet. 48. C.3 THIRD-PARTY CERTIFICATION: Applicant shall provide certification from a qualified third-party reviewer that the proposed permanent storm water pollution prevention measures comply with the requirements of Provision C.3 and Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.11. Submit the following: a. Provide a stamped and signed C.3 data form (April 2024 version) from SCVURPPP. https://scvurppp.org/2024/09/19/provision-c-3-data-form-2024/ b. Final stamped and signed letter confirming which documents were reviewed and that the project complies with Provision C.3 and PAMC 16.11. 49. C.3 STORMWATER AGREEMENT: The applicant shall enter into a Stormwater Maintenance Agreement with the City to guarantee the ongoing maintenance of the permanent storm water pollution prevention measures. The City will inspect the treatment measures yearly and charge an inspection fee. The agreement shall be executed by the applicant team prior to building permit final. 50. C.3 FINAL THIRD PARTY CERTIFICATION PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY: Within 45 days of the installation of the required storm water treatment measures and prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit for the building, the third-party reviewer shall submit to the City a certification verifying that all the permanent storm water pollution prevention measures were installed in accordance with the approved plans. WASTE-GAS-WATER UTILITIES 51. All CPAU redline comments in planning permit plans shall be incorporated prior to building permit approval. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF DEMOLITION PERMIT (if required) 52. The applicant shall submit a request to disconnect utility services and remove meters. The utilities demo is to be processed within 10 working days after receipt of the request. The demolition permit will be issued by the building inspection division after all utility services and/or meters have been disconnected and removed. 53. The applicant shall submit a completed water-gas-wastewater service connection application - load sheet for the City of Palo Alto Utilities. The applicant must provide all the information requested for utility service demands (water in fixture units/g.p.m., gas in b.t.u.h, and sewer in fixture units/g.p.d.). The applicant shall provide the existing (prior) Item 2 Attachment B - Draft Record of Land Use Action     Packet Pg. 40     20 4 9 8 4 loads, the new loads, and the combined/total loads (the new loads plus any existing loads to remain). 54. The applicant shall submit improvement plans for utility construction. The plans must show the size and location of all underground utilities within the development and the public right of way including meters, backflow preventers, fire service requirements, sewer mains, sewer cleanouts, sewer lift stations, and any other required utilities. Plans for new wastewater laterals and mains need to include new wastewater pipe profiles showing existing potentially conflicting utilities especially storm drain pipes, electric and communication duct banks. Existing duct banks need to be daylighted by potholing to the bottom of the duct bank to verify cross section prior to plan approval and starting lateral installation. Plans for new storm drain mains and laterals need to include profiles showing existing potential conflicts with sewer, water, and gas. 55. The applicant must show on the site plan the existence of any auxiliary water supply, (i.e. water well, gray water, recycled water, rain catchment, water storage tank, etc). 56. The applicant shall be responsible for installing and upgrading the existing utility mains and/or services, laterals as necessary to handle anticipated peak loads. This responsibility includes all costs associated with the design and construction for the installation/upgrade of the utility mains and/or services/laterals. 57. An approved reduced pressure principle assembly (RPPA backflow preventer device) is required for all existing and new water connections from Palo Alto Utilities to comply with requirements of California administrative code, title 17, sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive. The RPPA shall be installed on the owner's property and directly behind the water meter within 5 feet of the property line. RPPA's for domestic service shall be lead free. Show the location of the RPPA on the plans. 58. An approved reduced pressure detector assembly (RPDA backflow preventer device, STD. WD-12A or STD. WD-12B) is required for all existing and new fire water connections from Palo Alto Utilities to comply with requirements of California administrative code, title 17, sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive. The RPDA shall be installed on the owner's property and directly behind the City owned meter, within 5' (feet) of the property line or City Right of Way. 59. All backflow preventer devices shall be approved by the WGW engineering division. Inspection by the city inspector is required for the supply pipe between the meter and the assembly. 60. The applicant shall pay the capacity fees and connection fees associated with new utility service/s or added demand on existing services. The approved relocation of services, meters, hydrants, or other facilities will be performed at the cost of the person/entity requesting the relocation. Item 2 Attachment B - Draft Record of Land Use Action     Packet Pg. 41     21 4 9 8 4 61. If a new water service line installation for fire system usage is required. Show the location of the new water service on the plans. The applicant shall provide to the engineering department a copy of the plans for fire system including all fire department's requirements. 62. Each unit or building shall have its own water meter and gas meter shown on the plans. Each parcel shall have its own water and gas service and sewer lateral connection shown on the plans. 63. A sewer lateral per lot is required. Show the location of the new sewer lateral on the plans. A profile of the sewer lateral is required showing any possible conflicts with storm, electric/communications ductbanks or other utilities. 64. All existing water, and gas. and wastewater services/laterals that will not be reused shall be abandoned at the main per the latest WGW utilities standards. 65. Utility vaults, transformers, utility cabinets, concrete bases, or other structures cannot be placed over existing water, gas, or wastewater mains/services. Maintain 1' horizontal clear separation from the vault/cabinet/concrete base to existing utilities as found in the field. If there is a conflict with existing utilities, Cabinets/vaults/bases shall be relocated from the plan location as needed to meet field conditions. Trees may not be planted within 10 feet of existing water, gas, and wastewater mains/laterals/water services/or meters. New water or wastewater services/laterals/meters may not be installed within 10' of existing trees. Maintain 10' between new trees and new water and wastewater services/laterals/meters. 66. The following requirements apply for the offsite improvements of the City of Palo Alto water distribution system (including but not limited to water main, meter, hydrant, services, etc.). 67. Third-Party Beneficiary: the City of Palo Alto shall be a Third-Party Beneficiary of this Project. 68. Before building application approval, developer must prepare a hydraulic model of the planned drinking water utility improvements, and the developer shall complete the water system planning review application and submit to CPAU WGW development services group. 69. Before building application approval, the developer must submit detailed design plans for the new public water main on street B shown on the preliminary utility plan dated September 26, 2025 to the City of Palo Alto Utilities (CPAU) for review and approval. 70. Before building application approval, design plans must adhere to CPAU standards, guidelines, and revision comments set forth by the CPAU WGW Engineering Division. Incorporate CPAU’s design comments into revised plans and resubmit for final approval. Item 2 Attachment B - Draft Record of Land Use Action     Packet Pg. 42     22 4 9 8 4 71. Before building application approval, develop and submit for approval a phasing plan detailing construction of the new public water main, and abandonment of the existing public water main located in the existing easement adjacent to the Baylands Athletic Center. Phasing plan shall include work activities for abandonments, maintaining water service, and protection of public water mains. 72. The existing public water main located in the existing easement adjacent to the Baylands Athletic Center provides critical water flow and fire flow to the nearby City water distribution network. A public water main with the existing capacity shall always be in service during all phases of construction. 73. Permittee/Contractor warranty and “Guarantee to Repair Period a. In addition to the guarantee to repair referenced below and any specific warranty mentioned in the Project specifications, Permittee’s Contractor warrants that all materials and equipment used in or incorporated into the Project will be of good quality, new and free of liens, Claims and security interests of third parties; that all labor, installation, materials and equipment used or incorporated into the Project will be of good quality and free from defects; and that the Project will conform with the requirements of the Permit Documents and Applicable Code Requirements. If required, Permittee/Contractor shall furnish satisfactory evidence as to the kind and quality of materials and equipment. Manufactured items installed in the Project and not specifically covered in the Contract Documents are to be installed in strict accordance with manufacturers' current printed instructions. b. The Guarantee to Repair Period will commence upon the first dates of actual occupancy or use of portions of the Project, as reflected in the City's final notice of acceptance. c. City of Palo Alto “Guarantee to Repair Period”: Permittee/Contractor shall: i. Correct defective work that becomes apparent during the progress of the work or during the Guarantee to Repair Period (one year from the City's Final Notice of Acceptance); and ii. Replace, repair, or restore to City's satisfaction any other parts of the work and any other real or personal property which is damaged or destroyed as a result of defective work or the correction of defective work, without any expense whatsoever to City. City will give notice of observed defective work with reasonable promptness to the Permittee/Contractor, and Permittee/Contractor shall promptly commence such correction, replacement, repair or restoration upon notice from City, but in no case later than seven (7) Days after receipt of such notice. The Permittee/Contractor shall diligently and continuously prosecute such correction to completion. The Permittee/Contractor shall bear all costs of such correction, replacement, repair, or restoration and all losses resulting from such defective work, including additional testing, inspection and Item 2 Attachment B - Draft Record of Land Use Action     Packet Pg. 43     23 4 9 8 4 compensation for City's services and expenses. The Permittee/Contractor shall perform corrective work at such times that are acceptable to City and in such a manner as to avoid disruption, to the extent practicable. Ordinary wear and tear, unusual abuse, or neglect are excepted from this guarantee. Permittee/Contractor shall notify City upon completion of repairs. The Insurance requirements from the City's Street Work Permit will apply throughout the Permittee/Contractors Guarantee to Repair period. PUBLIC WORKS ELECTRIC UTILITIES 74. UTILITY EASEMENT REQUIRED. Prior to energization, a public utility easement is required to provide access to the proposed transformers. This can either be provided through separate instrument and documented on the tentative and final map or dedicated through the tentative and final map process. 75. UTILITIES APPLICATION. Changes to existing electric utilities equipment on site, such as the transformer, will require a utilities application. Submit a utilities application and obtain City of Palo Alto Utilities Electrical Engineering approval for the modifications to the electrical system. 76. UTILITY DISCONNECT. The applicant shall submit a request to disconnect all existing utility services proposed for removal, including a signed affidavit of vacancy, on the form provided by the Building Inspection Division. Utilities will be disconnected or removed within 10 working days after receipt of request. The demolition permit will be issued after all utility services and/or meters have been disconnected and, as applicable, removed. 77. UTILITIES SHOWN ON LANDSCAPE PLANS. All utility meters, lines, transformers, backflow preventers, and any other required equipment shall be shown on the landscape and irrigation plans and shall show that no conflict will occur between the utilities and landscape materials. In addition, all aboveground equipment shall be screened in a manner that is consistent with the building design and setback requirements. 78. PERMIT. Contractors and developers shall obtain permit from the Department of Public Works before digging in the street right-of-way. This includes sidewalks, driveways and planter strips. 79. UNDERGROUND SERVICES ALERT. At least 48 hours prior to starting any excavation, the customer must call Underground Service Alert (USA) at 1-800-227-2600 to have existing underground utilities located and marked. The areas to be checked for underground facility marking shall be delineated with white paint. All USA markings shall be removed by the customer or contractor when construction is complete. 80. CITY STANDARDS. All new underground conduits and substructures shall be installed per City standards and shall be inspected by the Electrical Underground Inspector before backfilling. Item 2 Attachment B - Draft Record of Land Use Action     Packet Pg. 44     24 4 9 8 4 PUBLIC WORKS ZERO WASTE 81. REQUIRED DECONSTRUCTION. In conformance with PAMC 5.24, deconstruction and source separation are required for all residential and commercial projects where structures (other than a garage or ADU) are being completely removed, demolition is no longer allowed. Deconstruction takes longer than traditional demolition, it is important to plan ahead. For more information, visit www.paloalto.gov/deconstruction. 82. SALVAGE SURVEY FOR REUSE. A Salvage Survey is required for deconstruction permit applications. The survey shall be conducted by a City approved reuse vendor. The survey submittal shall include an itemized list of materials that are salvageable for reuse from the project. The applicant shall source separate and deliver materials for reuse. Certification is required indicating that all materials identified in the survey are properly salvaged. Contact The ReUse People to schedule this FREE survey by phone (888) 588-9490 or e-mail info@thereusepeople.org. More information can be found at www.TheReusePeople.org. Please upload a completed copy to the deconstruction permit. 83. SOURCE SEPARATION FOR RECYCLING. The applicant shall source separate deconstruction materials into specific categories for recycling. Additional staging areas for source separated materials will need to be considered. All materials shall be delivered to one of the City approved materials recovery facilities listed in Green Halo, all records shall be uploaded to www.greenhalosystems.com. For more information, refer to www.paloalto.gov/deconstruction. PUBLIC WORKS WATER QUALITY PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY BUILDING PERMIT: 84. Stormwater treatment measures: a. All Bay Area Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit requirements shall be followed. b. Refer to the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program C.3 Handbook (download here: http://scvurppp-w2k.com/c3_handbook.shtml) for details. 85. Stormwater quality protection: a. Temporary and permanent waste, compost and recycling containers shall be covered to prohibit fly-away trash and having rainwater enter the containers. b. Drain downspouts to landscaping (outward from building as needed). c. PAMC 16.09.180(b)(5) Condensate from HVAC -Condensate lines shall not be connected or allowed to drain to the storm drain system. Drain HVAC fluids from roofs and other areas to landscaping. d. Offsite downgrade storm drain inlets shall also be identified on this plan set and protected. If City staff removes protection from an inlet in the ROW during a rain Item 2 Attachment B - Draft Record of Land Use Action     Packet Pg. 45     25 4 9 8 4 event, the contractor shall replace the inlet protection by the end of the following business day. PUBLIC WORKS URBAN FORESTRY 86. PLAN SET REQUIREMENTS. The final Plans submitted for building permit shall include a. SHEET T-1, BUILDING PERMIT. The building permit plan set will include the City’s full- sized, Sheet T-1 (Tree Protection-it's Part of the Plan!), available on the Development Center website at http://www. paloalto.gov/civicax/filebank/documents/31783. The Applicant shall complete and sign the Tree Disclosure Statement and recognize the Project Arborist Tree Activity Inspection Schedule. b. The Tree Preservation Report (TPR). All sheets of the Applicant’s TPR approved by the City for full implementation by Contractor shall be printed on numbered Sheet T-1 (T- 2, T-3, etc) and included in the sheet index for the plans submitted for building permit. 87. PLANS--SHOW PROTECTIVE TREE FENCING. The Plan Set (esp. site, demolition, grading & drainage, foundation, irrigation, tree disposition, utility sheets, etc.) must delineate/show Type I or Type II fencing around each Regulated Trees, using a bold dashed line enclosing the Tree Protection Zone as shown on Standard Dwg. #605, Sheet T- 1, and the City Tree Technical Manual, Section 6.35-Site Plans; or using the Project Arborist’s unique diagram for each Tree Protection Zone enclosure. 88. SITE PLAN REQUIREMENTS. The following notes shall be included on the site plan for the plans submitted for building or grading permits: i. Note #1. Apply to the site plan stating, "All tree protection and inspection schedule measures, design recommendations, watering and construction scheduling shall be implemented in full by owner and contractor, as stated on Sheet T-1, in the Tree Protection Report and the approved plans”. ii. Note #2. All civil plans, grading plans, irrigation plans, site plans and utility plans and relevant sheets shall add a note applying to the trees to be protected, including neighboring trees stating: "Regulated Tree--before working in this area contact the Project Site Arborist at 650-654-3351"; iii. Note #3. Utility (sanitary sewer/gas/water/backflow/electric/storm drain) plan sheets shall include the following note: “Utility trenching shall not occur within the TPZ of the protected tree. Contractor shall be responsible for ensuring that no trenching occurs within the TPZ of the protected tree by contractors, City crews or final landscape workers. See sheet T-1 for instructions.” iv. Note #4. “Pruning Restrictions. No pruning or clearance cutting of branches is permitted on City trees. Contractor shall obtain a Public Tree Permit from Urban Forestry (650-496- 5953) for any work on Public Trees” 62. TREE PROTECTION VERIFICATION. Prior to demolition, grading or building permit issuance, a written verification from the contractor that the required protective fencing is in place Item 2 Attachment B - Draft Record of Land Use Action     Packet Pg. 46     26 4 9 8 4 shall be submitted to the Building Inspections Division. The fencing shall contain required warning sign and remain in place until final inspection of the project. DURING CONSTRUCTION 63. EXCAVATION RESTRICTIONS APPLY (TTM, Sec. 2.20 C & D). Any approved grading, digging or trenching beneath a tree canopy shall be performed using ‘air-spade’ method as a preference, with manual hand shovel as a backup. For utility trenching, including sewer line, roots exposed with diameter of 1.5 inches and greater shall remain intact and not be damaged. If directional boring method is used to tunnel beneath roots, then Table 2-1, Trenching and Tunneling Distance, shall be printed on the final plans to be implemented by Contractor. 64. PLAN CHANGES. Revisions and/or changes to plans before or during construction shall be reviewed and responded to by the (a) project site arborist, or (b) landscape architect with written letter of acceptance before submitting the revision to the Building Department for review by Planning, PW or Urban Forestry. 65. TREE PROTECTION COMPLIANCE. The owner and contractor shall implement all protection and inspection schedule measures, design recommendations and construction scheduling as stated in the TPR & Sheet T-1, and is subject to code compliance action pursuant to PAMC 8.10.080. The required protective fencing shall remain in place until final landscaping and inspection of the project. Project arborist approval must be obtained and documented in the monthly activity report sent to the City. The mandatory Contractor and Arborist Monthly Tree Activity Report shall be sent monthly to the City (pwps@paloalto.gov) beginning with the initial verification approval, using the template in the Tree Technical Manual, Addendum 11. 66. TREE DAMAGE. Tree Damage, Injury Mitigation and Inspections apply to Contractor. Reporting, injury mitigation measures and arborist inspection schedule (1-5) apply pursuant to TTM, Section 2.20-2.30. Contractor shall be responsible for the repair or replacement of any publicly owned or protected trees that are damaged during the course of construction, pursuant to Title 8 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, and city Tree Technical Manual, Section 2.25. 67. GENERAL. The following general tree preservation measures apply to all trees to be retained: No storage of material, topsoil, vehicles or equipment shall be permitted within the tree enclosure area. The ground under and around the tree canopy area shall not be altered. Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and maintained as necessary to ensure survival. POST CONSTRUCTION 68. MAINTENANCE. All landscape and trees shall be maintained, watered, fertilized, and pruned according to Best Management Practices-Pruning (ANSI A300-2008 or current version) and the City Tree Technical Manual, Section 5.00. Any vegetation that dies shall be Item 2 Attachment B - Draft Record of Land Use Action     Packet Pg. 47     27 4 9 8 4 replaced or failed automatic irrigation repaired by the current property owner within 30 days of discovery. SECTION 10. Conditions of Approval Conditional Use Permit. Planning 1. CONFORMANCE WITH PLANS. Construction and development shall conform to the approved plans entitled, "2100-2400 Geng Road, Palo Alto, CA” stamped as received by the City on November 25, 2025, on file with the Planning Department, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California except as modified by these conditions of approval. 2. BUILDING PERMIT. Apply for a building permit and meet any and all conditions of the Planning, Fire, Public Works, and Building Departments. 3. BUILDING PERMIT PLAN SET. A copy of this cover letter and conditions of approval shall be printed on the second page of the plans submitted for building permit. 4. NUISANCES AND NOISE. Noise levels shall not exceed the maximum level established in the PAMC Chapter 9.10. 5. LIGHTING. The owner or designee shall ensure that lighting is the minimum necessary and shielded downward to avoid light spillover as shown in the approved plan set. 6. COMMON AREA LIGHTING. Light fixtures shall come on at dusk and off at dawn. Lighting shall have continuous dimming capability to maintain design footcandles when areas are occupied or not. 7. REVOCATION OF APPROVAL. The director may issue a notice of noncompliance for any failure to comply with any condition of this permit approval, or when a use conducted pursuant to a Conditional Use Permit is being conducted in a manner detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare. 8. INDEMNITY. To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”) from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside or void, any permit or approval authorized hereby for the Project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City for its actual attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its own choice. 9. FINAL INSPECTION. A Planning Division Final inspection will be required to determine substantial compliance with the approved plans prior to the scheduling of a Building Division final. Any revisions during the building process must be approved by Planning, Item 2 Attachment B - Draft Record of Land Use Action     Packet Pg. 48     28 4 9 8 4 including but not limited to; materials, landscaping and hard surface locations. Contact your Project Planner, Steven Switzer at steven.switzer@paloalto.gov to schedule this inspection. SECTION 11. Conditions of Approval Vesting Tentative Map. Planning 1. PROJECT PLANS. The Vesting Tentative Map submitted for review and approval by the City Council shall be in substantial conformance with the Vesting Tentative Map titled “Vesting Tentative Map 2100-2400 Geng Road For Condominium Purposes City of Palo Alto, California”, prepared by CBG Civil Engineers and submitted November 25, 2025, except as modified to incorporate the conditions of this approval. 2. FINAL MAP COVER PAGE. At such time as the Final Map is filed, the cover page shall include the name and title of the Director of Planning and Development Services. 3. STANDARD CC&R REQUIREMENTS. Section 16.38 of Palo Alto’s Municipal Code provides that all condominium and other “community housing projects” shall submit Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R’s) to the City Attorney for approval before issuance of the Final Map. The City Attorney has developed the following standard covenants which shall be included in all CC&R’s. a. PROPERTY SHALL COMPLY WITH CITY ZONING ORDINANCES. The property, including all common areas within the property, shall at all times comply with the City’s Zoning Code and shall not be used for any purpose other than as permitted in the City Zoning Code. Item 2 Attachment B - Draft Record of Land Use Action     Packet Pg. 49     29 4 9 8 4 e. PROTECTION OF STORM WATER FACILITIES. Neither the association, its residents, nor their agents, employees, representatives, invitees, licensees, customers, or contractors shall alter or modify any storm water facilities in any way including but not limited to placing, maintaining, constructing, or planting any improvements, landscaping or other items, including without limitation decks, stairs, walls, irrigation systems, trees, or any vegetation on any storm water facilities. f. TRASH DISPOSAL AND RECYCLING AREAS SHALL COMPLY WITH CITY ORDINANCES. All trash disposal and recycling areas shall be kept in a clean and sanitary condition and shall comply with all applicable City Ordinances. g. PROHIBITION AGAINST AIR AND WATER POLLUTION. Neither the association, its residents, nor their agents, employees, representatives, invitees, licensees, customers, or contractors shall use the property in any way which emits pollution into the atmosphere in excess of environmental standards set forth by City, State, and Federal laws, ordinances, and regulations. Neither the association, its residents, nor their agents, employees, representatives, invitees, licensees, customers, or contractors shall discharge garbage, trash, waste, or any other substance or materials of any kind into any private or public sewer or waterway on the property in violation of any regulations of any private or public body having jurisdiction over such matters. h. AMENDMENTS TO ORGANIZATION DOCUMENTS REQUIRE CITY APPROVAL. Any amendments or modifications to the organizational documents shall be submitted to the city attorney for approval. No amendment or modification to the organizational documents shall be effective without prior written consent of the city attorney. Item 2 Attachment B - Draft Record of Land Use Action     Packet Pg. 50     30 4 9 8 4 any remedy provided for in the organizational documents shall not, under any circumstances, be construed as a waiver of the remedy. l. SEVERABILITY. Invalidation of any one of the City’s required covenants or restrictions by judgment or court order shall in no way affect any other provisions which shall remain in full force and effect. 4. ADDITIONAL CC&R REQUIREMENT. The CC&Rs shall also include a provision that dictates the responsibilities of residents for the trash pickup for the townhomes as shown in the approved plan set. 5. AVIGATION EASEMENT. Dedication of an avigation easement to the County of Santa Clara shall be required prior to building permit issuance. All such easements shall be similar to that shown as Exhibit 1 in Appendix A of the Palo Alto Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP). https://plandev.santaclaracounty.gov/hearings-and-committees/airport-land-use- commission 6. AVIGATION DEED NOTICE. Prior to building permit issuance a deed notice shall be required to be recorded with the County Clerk-Recorder disclosing that the property is subject to routine overflights and associated noise and other impacts by aircraft operating at a nearby airport. The deed notice shall be similar to that shown in Exhibit 2 in Appendix A of the Palo Alto Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP). https://plandev.santaclaracounty.gov/hearings-and-committees/airport-land-use- commission 7. DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES. The Property Owner or their designee shall pay all applicable development impact fees associated with the proposed development and subdivision, as detailed in the Site and Design Approval Conditions. At the time of the final map. parkland dedication in-lieu fees shall be required to be paid or may be deferred to occupancy in accordance with the requirements under PAMC 16.64.030. 8. INDEMNITY. To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”) from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside or void, any permit or approval authorized hereby for the Project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City for its actual attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its own choice. Public Works Engineering 9. PUBLIC WORKS APPLICATIONS, FORMS, AND DOCUMENTS: Applicant shall be advised that most forms, applications, and informational documents related to Public Works Item 2 Attachment B - Draft Record of Land Use Action     Packet Pg. 51     31 4 9 8 4 Engineering conditions can be found at the following link: https://www.paloalto.gov/Departments/Public-Works/Engineering-Services/Forms-and- Permits 10. SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT: The applicant shall execute a Subdivision Improvement Agreement and provide improvement securities (Bonds) for all proposed public improvements. THE AGREEMENT SHALL BE EXECUTED PRIOR TO MAP RECORDATION OR ISSUANCE OF ANY PERMITS FOR CONSTRUCTION, ONSITE AND OFFSITE. ADVISORY -- The applicant shall provide a detailed itemized stamped and signed engineer's estimate for all off-site public improvements which will be reviewed to determine the security amount. 11. FINAL MAP: This project is subject to, and contingent upon the approval of a tentative map and recordation of a Final Map. The submittal, approval and recordation of the Map shall be in accordance with the provisions of the California Subdivision Map Act and Palo Alto Municipal Code Title 21 Subdivision requirements. All existing and proposed property lines, easements, dedications shown on the tentative map are subject to City’s technical review and staff approval during the map process prior to issuance of any construction permits. 12. STREETWORK PERMIT: The applicant shall obtain a Streetwork Permit from the Department of Public Works for all public improvements. 13. UPGRADE OF EXISTING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS: As part of the plan review for improvements within the public right-of-way, any existing improvements to be re-used by the project, which are not to current City standards and are not specifically in these project conditions (such as streetlights, utility covers and lids, etc.), shall be upgraded to current City standards as required by the Director of Public Works and the Director of Utilities. 14. MODIFICATIONS TO EXISTING PUBLIC UTILITIES: The Developer is responsible for any changes or modifications to existing utilities, streets, and public infrastructure within or adjacent to the project site. This includes, but is not limited to, the relocation of utility facilities, conduits, or vaults required due to grade changes in the sidewalk area resulting from the development. 15. DAMAGE TO EXISTING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS: The Developer is responsible for repairing any damage to existing public improvements fronting or adjacent to the project site caused by construction, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department. 16. EXISTING UTILITY ABANDONMENT AND/OR RELOCATION: The Developer is responsible for researching all existing utility lines to ensure there are no conflicts with the project. Any existing utility lines (public or private) or their appurtenances that conflict with the Item 2 Attachment B - Draft Record of Land Use Action     Packet Pg. 52     32 4 9 8 4 project or do not serve it must be capped, abandoned, removed, relocated, or disposed of to the satisfaction of the City. 17. RE-USE OF EXISTING STORM DRAINS: The re-use of existing City storm drain service lines and appurtenances is subject to City review and approval. The Developer’s contractor shall expose the existing storm drain facilities during construction for City inspection or provide video documentation of their condition. Any deficient facilities, as determined by Public Works, must be replaced by the Developer. 18. STORM DRAIN TRIBUTARY PATTERN: This project must follow the existing storm drain tributary pattern. Any deviations require additional analysis and approval by Public Works during plan review. The project shall not negatively impact the drainage pattern for adjacent properties. 19. GRADING AND EXCAVATION PERMIT: A Grading Permit is required per PAMC Chapter 16.28. The permit application and all applicable documents (see Section H of application) shall be submitted to Public Works Engineering. Add the following note: “THIS GRADING PERMIT WILL ONLY AUTHORIZE GENERAL GRADING AND INSTALLATION OF THE STORM DRAIN SYSTEM. OTHER BUILDING AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS ARE SHOWN FOR REFERENCE INFORMATION ONLY AND ARE SUBJECT TO SEPARATE BUILDING PERMIT APPROVAL.” 20. ROUGH GRADING: provide a Rough Grading Plan for the work proposed as part of the Grading and Excavation Permit application. The Rough Grading Plans shall including the following: pad elevation, elevator pit elevation, ground monitoring wells, limits of over excavation, stockpile area of material, overall earthwork volumes (cut and fill), temporary shoring for any existing facilities, ramps for access, crane locations (if any), tree protection measures, etc. 21. CIVIL ENGINEER CERTIFICATION: Upon completion of the rough grading work and at the final completion of the work, applicant shall provide an as-graded grading plan prepared by the civil engineer that includes original ground surface elevations, as-graded ground surface elevations, lot drainage patterns and locations and elevations of all surface and subsurface drainage facilities. The civil engineer shall certify that the work was done in accordance with the final approved grading plan. 22. SOILS ENGINEER CERTIFICATION: Upon completion of the rough grading work and at the final completion of the work, applicant shall provide a soil grading report prepared by the soils engineer, including locations and elevation of field density tests, summaries of field and laboratory tests and other substantiating data, and comments on any changes made during grading and their effect on the recommendations made in the soils engineering investigation report. The soils engineer shall certify as to the adequacy of the site for the intended use. Item 2 Attachment B - Draft Record of Land Use Action     Packet Pg. 53     33 4 9 8 4 23. DIRECT CONNECTIONS TO STORM DRAIN SYSTEM: If the project proposes to replace and/or add connections to the City maintained storm drain system, then the applicant may be responsible for improvements to the system. These improvements may include, but not limited to, upsizing the storm drain facility, replacing or adding City standard catch basins, pipes and manholes. THIS MAY INCLUDE REPLACING BRICK AND MORTAR MANHOLES. The extent of required improvements will be at the public works staff discretion and shall be consistent with Storm Drain Master Plan and Public Works Construction Standards. Any work on the city's storm drain systems requires permits and inspection by Public Works inspectors. 24. CCTV OF STORM DRAIN SYSTEM: Post construction the applicant may be required to provide CCTV inspection of the City’s storm drain facilities to verify that any lines were not broken, cracked or damaged during construction. The video shall be high resolution and done by professional who is familiar with the process and meticulous. A CCTV inspection video is required for new storm drain connection (s) to verify proper connections were made into the City’s system and that no construction material was left behind. Videos of storm drain system may also be required where construction occurred less than 5-ft from the city’s storm drain system. Videos shall be provided from structure to structure, such as manhole to manhole. Contractor may want to conduct their own inspection in advance of construction to verify the existing pipe integrity. If existing damages are located, they shall be reported to Public Works inspectors prior to the start of construction. If not reported, the contractor may be responsible to restore the pipe segment as determined by Public Works prior to final. 25. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER STATEMENT: The grading plans shall include the following statement signed and sealed by the Geotechnical Engineer of Record: “THIS PLAN HAS BEEN REVIEWED AND FOUND TO BE IN GENERAL CONFORMANCE WITH THE INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT”. 26. SWPPP: This proposed development will disturb more than one acre of land. Accordingly, the applicant shall apply for coverage under the State Water Resources Control Board’s (SWRCB) NPDES general permit for storm water discharge associated with construction activity. A Notice of Intent (NOI) shall be filed for this project with the SWRCB in order to obtain coverage under the permit. The General Permit requires the applicant to prepare and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The applicant is required to submit two copies of the NOI and the draft SWPPP to the Public Works Department for review and approval prior to issuance of the building permit. The SWPPP should include both permanent, post-development project design features and temporary measures employed during construction. 27. FLOOD ZONE: This project is in a FEMA Special Flood Hazard Area and shall comply with the requirements in Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.52 and the California Residential Code Section 322 (CRC 322). Item 2 Attachment B - Draft Record of Land Use Action     Packet Pg. 54     34 4 9 8 4 28. CLOMR-F: Evidence that this document has been executed shall be provided prior to building permit issuance. 29. ENCROACHMENT PERMIT: Prior to any work in the public right-of-way, the applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from the Public Works Department for any work that encroaches onto the City right-of-way. 30. LOGISTICS PLAN: A construction logistics plan shall be provided addressing all impacts to the public including, at a minimum: work hours, noticing of affected businesses, bus stop relocations, construction signage, dust control, noise control, storm water pollution prevention, job trailer, contractors’ parking, truck routes, staging, concrete pours, crane lifts, scaffolding, materials storage, pedestrian safety, and traffic control. All truck routes shall conform to the City of Palo Alto’s Trucks and Truck Route Ordinance, Chapter 10.48, and the route map. NOTE: Some items/tasks on the logistics plan may require an encroachment permit. 31. STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION: All improvement plan sets shall include the “Pollution Prevention – It’s Part of the Plan” sheet. 32. C.3 THIRD-PARTY CERTIFICATION: Applicant shall provide certification from a qualified third-party reviewer that the proposed permanent storm water pollution prevention measures comply with the requirements of Provision C.3 and Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.11. Submit the following: c. Provide a stamped and signed C.3 data form (April 2024 version) from SCVURPPP. https://scvurppp.org/2024/09/19/provision-c-3-data-form-2024/ d. Final stamped and signed letter confirming which documents were reviewed and that the project complies with Provision C.3 and PAMC 16.11. 33. C.3 STORMWATER AGREEMENT: The applicant shall enter into a Stormwater Maintenance Agreement with the City to guarantee the ongoing maintenance of the permanent storm water pollution prevention measures. The City will inspect the treatment measures yearly and charge an inspection fee. The agreement shall be executed by the applicant team prior to building permit final. 34. C.3 FINAL THIRD PARTY CERTIFICATION PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY: Within 45 days of the installation of the required storm water treatment measures and prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit for the building, the third-party reviewer shall submit to the City a certification verifying that all the permanent storm water pollution prevention measures were installed in accordance with the approved plans. SECTION 9. Terms of Approval. Item 2 Attachment B - Draft Record of Land Use Action     Packet Pg. 55     35 4 9 8 4 1. Site and Design Application. In the event actual construction of the project is not commenced within two years of the date of council approval, the approval shall expire and be of no further force or effect. An extension may be granted in accordance with the allowances set forth in the municipal code. 2. Conditional Use Permit. The project approval shall be valid for a period of two years from the original date of approval. In the event the use does not commence within the time limit specified above, the approval shall expire and be of no further force or effect. An extension may be granted in accordance with the allowances set forth in the municipal code. Additionally, following commencement, a Use Permit that has not been used for a period of one (1) year or more shall become null and void (PAMC 18.77.100). 3. Vesting Tentative Map. All conditions of approval of the Vesting Tentative Map shall be fulfilled prior to approval of a Final Map (PAMC Section 21.16.010[c]). Unless a Final Map is filed, and all conditions of approval are fulfilled within a two-year period from the date of Vesting Tentative Map approval, the Vesting Tentative Map shall expire and all proceedings shall terminate. An extension may be granted in accordance with the allowances set forth in the municipal code and the Subdivision Map Act. // // // INTRODUCED: Item 2 Attachment B - Draft Record of Land Use Action     Packet Pg. 56     36 4 9 8 4 ___________________________ ___________________________ Assistant City Attorney City Manager ____________________________ Director of Planning and Development Services PLANS AND DRAWINGS REFERENCED: Those plans titled “C5_2100-2400 Geng Road” consisting of 101 pages, dated and submitted November 25, 2025. Those plans titled “C5_2100-2400 Geng Road VTM PLANS ” consisting of 12 pages, dated and submitted November 25, 2025. A copy of these plans are on file with the Department of Planning and Development Services. Item 2 Attachment B - Draft Record of Land Use Action     Packet Pg. 57     ATTACHMENT C 2100-2400 Geng Road, 24PLN-00356 Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.20 (ROLM (E) DISTRICT) Note: Exclusively residential uses are subject to RM-20 District standards. Regulation Required Proposed Minimum/Maximum Site Area, Width and Depth 8,500 sf area, 70 foot width, 100 foot depth APN 008-02-035: Approximately 748 feet wide, 300 feet deep, 239,800 square feet APN 08-02-036: Approximately 1178 feet wide, 500 feet deep, 240,430 square feet Total: 480,230 square feet (~11 acres) Minimum Front Yard 20 feet 16.5 feet Rear Yard 10 feet 10 feet Street Side Yard 16 feet N/A Interior Side Yard (for lots greater than 70 feet in width) 10 feet 10 feet Max. Building Height 30 feet 42 feet Max. Site Coverage 35% (plus an additional 5% for covered patios or overhangs)29% Max. Total Floor Area Ratio 0.5:1 0.97:1 Residential Density 11 to 20 units per acre (5 to 10 units)18 DU on 11 acres = 145 units per acre Minimum Site Open Space 35%44% Minimum Usable Open Space 150 sf per unit (21,750 sf)91,672 sf Minimum Common Open Space 75 sf per unit (10,875 sf)22,292 sf Minimum Private Open Space 50 sf per unit (7,250 sf)63,380 sf Item 2 Attachment C - Zoning Consistency     Packet Pg. 58     Table 2: CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.52 (Off-Street Parking) for Multiple-Family Residential Type Required Proposed Housing 2 per 2-bedroom or larger unit = 290 spaces Tandem parking allowed for any unit requiring two spaces (one tandem space per unit, associated directly with another parking space for the same unit, up to a maximum of 25% of total required spaces for any project with more than four (4) units) 145 units (2-bedroom or more); 290 spaces Includes: 70 Tandem spaces (24%) 43 additional on-street spaces 4 Accessible stalls Vehicle Parking Total 290 Residential 333 Residential Bicycle Parking One (1) per unit; 145 Long-Term 1 space per 10 units; 14 guest parking (Short-term) 145 Long-term (In garages) 16 short-term Item 2 Attachment C - Zoning Consistency     Packet Pg. 59     City of Palo Alto - Objective Design Standards Checklist Page 1 Objective Design Standards Checklist The Objective Design Standards Checklist is a tool to evaluate a project’s compliance with the Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 18.24). The Checklist is not the Zoning Ordinance. Applicants shall be responsible for meeting the standards in the Zoning Ordinance. To simplify evaluation of the Zoning Ordinance, language in the Checklist may vary from the Zoning Ordinance. (Note: sf = square feet) If a standard is not applicable to applicant’s project, please write N/A in Applicant’s Justification column. 18.24.020 Public Realm/Sidewalk Character Check Standard Sheet # Applicant’s Justification (b)(1) Sidewalk Widths ☐ • Commercial Mixed-Use District: CN, CS, CC, CC(2), CD-C, CD-S, CD-N, PTOD: 10 ft • El Camino Real: 12 ft • San Antonio Road, from Middlefield Road to East Charleston Road: 12 ft And consists of: Pedestrian clear path width of 8 foot minimum: feet Landscape or furniture area width of 2 foot minimum: feet ☐ If the existing public sidewalk does not meet the minimum standard, a publicly accessible extension of the sidewalk, with corresponding public access easement, shall be provided. ☐ through lot with a public access easement, leading to a commercial entry) must ☐ (C) The width of walkways designed to provide bicycle access (e.g. pathway to bike racks/lockers) must be at least 12 feet wide, consisting of: Pedestrian clear path width (8 feet min.): ft allowed): ft & ft N/A as property is within the ROLM zone, not within a Commercial Mixed-Use District, not along El Camino Real, and not along San Antonio Road N/A as no public sidewalks or walkways will connect through the property; private walkways will be provided. N/A see above N/A see above N/A see above Two of the bike racks are located immediately adjacent to the main circulation drive so 12' pedestrian access is not required. The 4 bike racks on the central green is connected by a 8' wide walkway with min 2' buffers on either side. L1 8 2 2 Item 2 Attachment D - Objective Standards Consistency Analysis     Packet Pg. 60     City of Palo Alto - Objective Design Standards Checklist Page 2 Check Standard Sheet # Applicant’s Justification (B)(2) Street Trees ☐ 1. One street tree provided for every 30 linear feet of public sidewalk length and located within six feet of the sidewalk. a. Length of parcel frontage/public sidewalk length: ft b. Street Trees required (i.e. frontage/30 feet): ft c. Street Trees provided: ft (B)(3) Accent Paving ☐ • Brick paving at corners • Brick trim mid-block ☐ (B)(4) Mobility Infrastructure Pi c k On e ☐ (A) On-site micromobility infrastructure (e.g. bike racks/lockers) is located within 30 feet of the primary building entry and/or on a path leading to the primary OR ☐ Existing micromobility infrastructure (e.g. bike racks/lockers) is already located within 50 feet of project site and located in a public right-of-way. Pi c k On e ☐ (B) Primary building entries shall provide at least one seating area or bench within 30 feet of building entry and/or path leading to building entry. On arterials (see Map T-5), except Downtown, seating areas or benches shall not ☐ Existing seating areas or benches that are already located in the public right-of-way within 50 feet of the building entry. N/A as the project does not abut University Avenue parking is provided in the garages. Bike paths to building entries so that they 154 5 5 ( two existing + 3 new ) Applicable frontage length 154' (north of the project entry). L1 L1.0 L1.1 L1.1 N/A - see above N/A - see above N/A as the project does not abut University Avenue Item 2 Attachment D - Objective Standards Consistency Analysis     Packet Pg. 61     City of Palo Alto - Objective Design Standards Checklist Page 3 18.24.030 Site Access Check Standard Sheet # Applicant’s Justification (b)(1) Through Lot Connections ☐ Through lots located more than 300 feet from an intersecting street or pedestrian walkway shall provide a publicly accessible sidewalk or pedestrian walkway (with public access easements) connecting the two streets. (b)(2) Building Entries ☐ public right-of-way adjacent to the building, entries shall be located from a private (b)(3) Vehicle Access ☐ ☐ parking, off-street vehicle loading (delivery trucks), and vehicular circulation areas (b)(4) Loading Docks and Service Areas Loading and service areas shall be integrated into building and landscape design and located to minimize impact on the pedestrian experience as follows: ☐ (A) Loading docks and service areas shall be located on façades that do not face a primary building frontage ☐ screened by a solid fence, or wall, or dense landscaping and separated from pedestrian access to the primary building entry to avoid impeding pedestrian N/A as the site is not a through lot located more than 300 feet from an intersecting street or pedestrian walkway N/A as no loading docks or service areas required or provided N/A - see above A.5.2 All homes are connected from a private street or a pedestrian walkway A.5.1, A.5.2 Item 2 Attachment D - Objective Standards Consistency Analysis     Packet Pg. 62     City of Palo Alto - Objective Design Standards Checklist Page 4 18.24.040 Building Orientation and Setbacks Check Standard Sheet # Applicant’s Justification (b)(1) Building Corner Elements (less than 40 feet in height) Corner buildings less than 40 feet in height and end units of townhouses or other attached housing products that face the street shall include all of the following features on their secondary building frontage: Ch e c k Al l ☐ (A) height and width of corner element shall have a ratio greater than 1.2:1. For townhomes, the width would be equal to the smaller side of one unit? a. Secondary building frontage height: feet b. Secondary building frontage length: feet c. Secondary building frontage height to width ratio: ☐ (B) minimum of 15% fenestration area. a. Total secondary building frontage façade area: sf b. Secondary building frontage façade fenestration area: sf c. Percent of fenestration area % ☐ (C) At least one facade modulation with a minimum depth of 18 inches and a minimum width of two feet. (b)(2)(A) & (B) Treatment of Buildings Corners on Corner Lots (40+ feet in height) Corner Buildings 40 feet or taller in height shall include at least one of the following special features: Ch e c k On e or Mo r e wi t h i n A o r B A. Street wall is located at the minimum front yard setback or build-to line for a minimum aggregated length of 40 feet on both facades meeting at the corner and includes one or more of the following building features: ☐ i. An entry to ground floor retail or primary building entrance located within 25 feet of the corner of the building. ☐ ii. A different material application and/or fenestration pattern from the rest of the façade. ☐ iii. A change in height of at least 4 feet greater or less than the height of the adjacent/abutting primary façade. N/A as project heights exceed 40 feet. A.10&A.22 N/A as project heights exceed 40 feet. N/A as project heights exceed 40 feet. Item 2 Attachment D - Objective Standards Consistency Analysis     Packet Pg. 63     City of Palo Alto - Objective Design Standards Checklist Page 5 Ch e c k O n e o r Mo r e wi t h i n A or B B. An open space with a minimum dimension of 20 feet and minimum area of 450 sf. The ☐ i. A publicly accessible open space/plaza. ☐ ii. A space used for outdoor seating for public dining. ☐ iii. A residential Common Open Space adjacent to a common interior space (i.e. lobby, retail, etc.) and less than two feet above adjacent sidewalk grade. The primary building entry meets at least one of the following standards: Ch e c k On e or Mo r e ☐ A. Faces a public right-of-way. ☐ B. Faces a publicly accessible pedestrian walkway. ☐ C. Is visible from a public right-of-way through a forecourt or front porch that meets the following standards: i. For residential buildings with fewer than seven units, building entry forecourts or front porch minimum dimensions of (min. 36 sf and min. seven or more units, building entry forecourts or front porch minimum dimensions of (min. 100 sf and a min. width of 8 feet required): sf and ft. min. width (b)(4) Ground Floor Residential Units A. Finished Floor Height for Ground Floor Units ☐ The finished floor of ground floor residential units, when adjacent to a public right-of- way, must be within the minimum and maximum heights according to setback distance from back of walk identified in Figure 2a and 2b of the Zoning Ordinance. Calculate minimum ground floor finished floor height: A.6 A.5.2 Item 2 Attachment D - Objective Standards Consistency Analysis     Packet Pg. 64     City of Palo Alto - Objective Design Standards Checklist Page 6 Ch e c k Al l th a t Ap p l y ☐ Setback adjacent to public right of way: feet ☐ Minimum ground floor finished floor height: feet 𝟒𝟒𝟒𝟒 𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏 𝒚𝒚𝒚𝒚 = �− � (𝒙𝒙𝒙𝒙) + 𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏 𝟑𝟑𝟑𝟑 where 𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥 = setback length from back of walk, in feet and 𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦 = ground floor finished floor height, in feet ☐ Sites with slopes greater than 2% along building façade – Average height of finished floor: feet ☐ Sites located in flood zones – the minimum ground floor finished floor height shall be defined by FEMA, less flood zone elevation: feet B. Setback Trees ☐ Ground floor units with a setback greater than 15 feet must have at minimum an average of one tree per 40 linear feet of facade length, within the setback area. Facade length: feet Trees required: tree(s) (i.e. façade length / 40) Trees provided: tree(s) C and D. Front Setback Pi c k On e ☐ C. Ground floor residential entries are setback a minimum of 10 feet from the back of public sidewalk; OR ☐ D. Where no minimum building setback is required, all ground floor residential units must be set back a minimum 5 feet from back of public sidewalk. 20 0 A5.1 and C2.0 The site is in a flood zone and there the finished floor height is determined by FEMA. the proposed finished floor height and not by the elevation of Geng Road ( public road) since the road is within the floodplain. 11 Ground floor units are setback greater than 15' only along Geng avenue 47'8" 2 8 Item 2 Attachment D - Objective Standards Consistency Analysis     Packet Pg. 65     City of Palo Alto - Objective Design Standards Checklist Page 7 Check Standard Sheet # Applicant’s Justification E. Unit Entry ☐ A minimum 80% of ground floor residential units that face a public right-of-way or publicly accessible path, or open space shall have a unit entry with direct access to the sidewalk, path, or open space for minimum. a. Total number of ground floor residential units facing a public right-of-way, publicly accessible path, or open space: units b. 80% of total units in (a): units sidewalk, path, or open space: entries public and private space. The following standards apply, based on intended use and exclusive of areas devoted to outdoor seating, front porches, door swing of building entries, and publicly Ch e c k Al l th a t Ap p l y ☐ (A). Ground-floor retail or retail like uses have a minimum of 10% of the required setback as landscape or planters. ☐ (B). Ground-floor residential uses have a minimum of 60% landscaped area in the required setback area. (b)(6) Side Yard Setback Character ☐ wide, between the house and fence or other structure, to provide outdoor passage 145 116 145 3,121 SF L1 15' or greater setback only occurs on the front along Geng Road. A5.1 complies Item 2 Attachment D - Objective Standards Consistency Analysis     Packet Pg. 66     City of Palo Alto - Objective Design Standards Checklist Page 8 18.24.050 Building Massing Check Standard Sheet # Applicant’s Justification (b)(1) Upper Floor Step Backs and Daylight Planes ☐ (A) When the height of the subject building is more than 20 feet above the average height (i.e. average of low and high roof elevations) of an adjacent building(s), an upper floor step back shall start within two vertical feet of the average height of the adjacent building. The step back shall be a minimum depth of six feet along both the façade on the primary building frontage and the façade facing the adjacent building, and the step shall occur for a minimum of 70% of i. Proposed building height: feet ii. Average building height of the adjacent building(s): feet iii. Building height where upper floor step back begins: feet ☐ (B) Notwithstanding, subsection (A), when adjacent to a single-story building, the upper floor step back shall occur between 33 and 37 feet in height. ☐ (C) If a project meets the following criteria, a daylight plane with an initial height of 25 feet above grade at the property line and a 45-degree angle shall be required. This daylight plane is required if all of these criteria are met: i. The project is not subject to a daylight plane requirement, pursuant to district regulations in Title 18; and ii. The project proposes a building which is more than 20 feet above the average height (i.e., average of low and high roof elevations) of an adjacent building(s); and iii. The project abuts residential units in the side or rear yard. (b)(2) Privacy and Transitions to Residential Uses shall break down the abutting façade and maintain privacy by meeting all of the following: N/A since there are no adjacent residential units N/A Proposed buildings are no more than 20 feet above the average height of adjacent commerical buildings N/A Proposed buildings are not adjacent to residential structures N/A since there are no adjacent residential units 42'2" 27 Item 2 Attachment D - Objective Standards Consistency Analysis     Packet Pg. 67     City of Palo Alto - Objective Design Standards Checklist Page 9 Ch e c k Al l ☐ (A) Landscape Screening. A landscape screen that includes a row of trees with a minimum one tree per 25 linear feet and continuous shrubbery planting. This screening plant material shall be a minimum 72 inches (6 feet) in height when ☐ (B) Façade Breaks. A minimum façade break of 4 feet in width, 2 feet in depth, and 32 sf of area (i.e. 8 ft tall minimum) for every 36 to 40 feet of façade length ☐ (C) Maximum Amount of Transparent Windows. Within 40 feet of an abutting structure, no more than 15% of the facing façade area shall be windows or other glazing. Additional windows are allowed in order to maintain light, if fixed and common space windows) or private open space on an adjacent residential building, facing windows on the subject site shall meet the following: (i) Window sills at and above the 2nd floor shall be at least five feet above finished floor; or (ii) Windows shall have opaque or translucent glazing at or below five feet above finished floor; or (iii) Windows shall be angled up to 30 degrees (parallel to window) to face away from the adjacent privacy impacts; and (iv) Landscape screening shall be 24-inch box size or larger and eight+ feet height at planting; 50% evergreens; and located to align with proposed space windows) or private open space on an adjacent residential building, balconies and decks on the subject site shall be designed to prevent views: (i) No sight lines to the adjacent property window or open space are permitted within five feet above the balcony or deck flooring and a 45- degree angle downward from balcony railing. (ii) Submit section view of proposed balcony/deck and abutting residential windows and/or private open space. (iii) Provide balcony/deck design measure which may include: a. Minimum 85% solid railing b. Obscure glass railing Item 2 Attachment D - Objective Standards Consistency Analysis     Packet Pg. 68     City of Palo Alto - Objective Design Standards Checklist Page 10 (b)(3)(A) & (B) Maximum Façade Length - facing a street or public path Pi c k O n e Ca t e g o r y Buildings 70 feet in length or greater and greater than 25 feet in height ☐ For building facades 70 feet in length or greater and facing a public street, right- of-way, or publicly accessible path shall not have a continuous façade plane greater than 70% of the façade length without an upper floor modulation, of at least 2 feet in depth Largest façade length featuring continuous plane: feet Total Façade length: feet ☐ (A) Buildings 250 feet in length or greater, which face a public street, right-of- way, or publicly accessible path, shall have at least one vertical façade break with a minimum area greater than 400 sf and a width greater than or equal to two times the depth Total Building length: feet Number of vertical façade breaks: area Width: feet, Depth: feet, Area: sf ☐ (B) Buildings 150 to 250 feet in length, which face a public street, right-of-way, or publicly accessible path, shall have at least one vertical façade break with a minimum area greater than 64 sf and a minimum width of 8 feet and minimum depth of 4 feet. Total Building length: feet Number of vertical façade breaks: area N/A see above N/A see above N/A as buildings along Geng Road are not longer than 70' Item 2 Attachment D - Objective Standards Consistency Analysis     Packet Pg. 69     City of Palo Alto - Objective Design Standards Checklist Page 11 Check Standard Sheet # Applicant’s Justification (b)(4) Special Conditions: Railroad Frontages Ch e c k Al l ☐ (A) A minimum facade break of at least 10 feet in width and six feet in depth for every 60 feet of façade length. ☐ (B) For portions of a building 20 feet or greater in height shall not have a continuous façade length that exceeds 60 feet. (b)(5) Diversity of Housing Types ☐ A diversity of housing types (e.g. detached units, attached rowhouses/townhouses, condominiums or apartments, mixed use) are required for projects on large lots: • Less than one acre lots: minimum 1 housing types • 1 to 2-acre lots: minimum 2 housing types; or • More than 2-acre lots: minimum 3 housing types 18.24.060 Façade Design Check Two or Standard Sheet # Applicant’s Justification (c)(1) Base-Middle-Top ☐ middle or body, and a top, cornice, or parapet cap. Each of these elements shall be distinguished from one another for a minimum of 80% of the façade length through use of three or more of the following four techniques: ☐ of the façade length feet, and shall include one or more of the following building features. A.6 Pullapart townhomes - Alley Townhomes- Alley N/A see above Item 2 Attachment D - Objective Standards Consistency Analysis     Packet Pg. 70     City of Palo Alto - Objective Design Standards Checklist Page 12 Ch e c k on e or mo r e if se l e c t e d ☐ a. Horizontal shifts. Changes in floor plates that protrude and/or recess with a minimum dimension of 2 feet from the primary facade. ☐ b. Upper floor step backs. A horizontal step back of upper-floor façades with a minimum 5 foot stepback from the primary façade for a minimum of 80% of ☐ c. Ground floor step back. A horizontal shift of the ground floor facade with a minimum depth of 2 feet for a minimum 80% of the length of the façade. ☐ ii. Variation in Façade Articulation: Façade articulation modulation shall include one or more of the following building features. Ch e c k on e or mo r e if se l e c t e d ☐ a. Horizontal and/or Vertical Recesses or Projections. Recesses or projections such as a pattern of recessed grouping of windows, recessed panels, bay windows or similar strategies. The recess or projection shall be a minimum 4 ☐ b. Horizontal and/or Vertical Projections. Projections such as shading, weather protection devices, decorative architectural details, or similar ☐ c. Datum Lines. Datum lines that continue the length of the building, such as parapets or cornices, with a minimum 4 inches in height or a minimum 2 and ☐ iii. Variation in two of the following: Ch e c k tw o if ☐ a. Fenestration Size ☐ b. Fenestration Proportion ☐ c. Fenestration Pattern ☐ d. Fenestration Depth or Projection ☐ iv. Variation in two of the following: Ch e c k tw o if ☐ a. Façade Material ☐ b. Facade Material Size ☐ c. Façade Texture and Pattern ☐ d. Façade Color A.9- A.26 A.9- A.26 A.9- A.26 A.9- A.26 A.9- A.26 A.9- A.26 A.9- A.26 Item 2 Attachment D - Objective Standards Consistency Analysis     Packet Pg. 71     City of Palo Alto - Objective Design Standards Checklist Page 13 (c)(2) Façade Composition Building facades shall use a variety of strategies including building modulation, fenestration, and façade articulation to create visual interest and express a variety of scales through a variety of strategies. All facades shall include a minimum of three of the following façade articulation strategies to create visual interest: Ch e c k Th r e e or Mo r e ☐ A. Vertical and horizontal recesses such as a pattern of recessed grouping of windows or recessed panels. The recess shall be a minimum 4 inches in depth. ☐ B. Vertical and horizontal projections such as shading and weather protection devices or decorative architectural details. Projections shall be a minimum 4 inches in depth. ☐ C. Datum lines that continue the length of the building, such as cornices, with a minimum 4 inches in depth, or a minimum 2 inches in depth and include a change in ☐ D. Balconies, habitable projections, or Juliet balconies (every 20 to 40 feet) with a minimum 4 inches in depth. ☐ E. Screening devices such as lattices, louvers, shading devices, or perforated metal screens. ☐ F. Use of fine-grained building materials, such as brick or wood shingles, not to exceed 8 inches in either height or width. ☐ G. Incorporate a minimum of three colors, materials, and/or textures across the whole building. (c)(3) Compatible Rhythm and Pattern (A) Buildings shall express a vertical rhythm and pattern that reflects the size and scale of a housing unit and/or individual rooms and spaces. This may be achieved with building modulation to create vertically oriented façades (height greater than the width of the façade), façade articulation and fenestration repetitive vertically oriented patterns. Depending on the length of the façade, the following standards apply: ☐ oriented patterns of vertical recesses or projections, façade articulation, and/or fenestration. Ch e c k On e ☐ a. A vertical recess or change in façade plane with a minimum 2 feet deep vertical shift modulation for a minimum 4 feet in width to establish a vertical rhythm between 20 to 50 feet in width; OR A.9- A.26 A.9- A.26 A.9- A.26 A.9- A.26 Item 2 Attachment D - Objective Standards Consistency Analysis     Packet Pg. 72     City of Palo Alto - Objective Design Standards Checklist Page 14 ☐ b. A vertical recess or projection with a minimum depth of 2 feet that establishes the vertical rhythm between 10 to 16 feet in width Ch e c k On e or Mo r e ☐ i. Vertical Patterns and Modulation: Façades shall use vertical patterns of building modulation, façade articulation, and fenestration. ☐ ii. Horizontal Patterns and Modulation: Façades that use horizontal articulation and fenestration patterns shall use a vertical massing strategy with a minimum 4 feet wide and 2 feet deep vertical shift in modulation at least once every 50 feet of ☐ Storefront uses must express a vertical rhythm not to exceed 30 to 50 feet in width. the number of people served (amount of floor-area or number of units accessed). Building entries shall meet the following minimum dimensions: Ch e c k Al l ☐ a. Individual residential entries: 5 feet in width ☐ b. Shared residential entry, such as mixed-use buildings: 8 feet in width ☐ c. Commercial building entry: 20 feet in width ☐ d. Storefront entry: 6 feet in width (ii) Primary building entries (not inclusive of individual residential entries) shall include a façade modulation that includes at least one of the following: Ch e c k On e or ☐ a. Recess or projection from the primary façade plane (minimum 2 feet). ☐ b. Weather protection that is a minimum 4 feet wide and 4 feet deep by recessing the entry, providing an awning or using a combination of these methods (c)(5) Storefront/Retail Ground Floors A. Ground floor height shall be a minimum 14 feet floor-to-floor OR shall maintain a 2nd floor datum line of an abutting building. a. Ground floor height (minimum 14 feet): feet; OR b. Height of 2nd floor datum line of abutting building: feet N/A as all entries are private entries N/A as the project is not a mixed use N/A as the project is not a mixed use A.31- A.39 N/A as the project is not a mixed use Item 2 Attachment D - Objective Standards Consistency Analysis     Packet Pg. 73     City of Palo Alto - Objective Design Standards Checklist Page 15 ☐ B. Transparency shall include a minimum 60% transparent glazing between 2 and 10 feet in height from sidewalk, providing unobstructed views into the commercial space. a. Façade area between 2 feet and 10 feet: sf b. Transparent glazing area between 2 feet and 10 feet: sf c. Percentage of transparent glazing (minimum 60%): % ☐ ☐ a. Weather protection width (minimum 6 feet): feet b. Weather protection depth (minimum 4 feet): feet ☐ display windows, awnings, canopies and similar, weather protection elements shall be installed between transom and display windows. These elements should allow for light to enter the storefront through the transom windows and allow the weather protection ☐ OR Pi c k On e ☐ Ground floor height (minimum 14 feet): feet; OR ☐ Height of 2nd floor datum line of abutting building: feet ☐ Façade area between 4 feet and 10 feet: sf Transparent glazing area: sf Percentage of transparent glazing (minimum 50%): % ☐ Weather protection width (minimum 6 feet): feet Weather protection depth (minimum 4 feet): feet N/A as the project is not a mixed use Item 2 Attachment D - Objective Standards Consistency Analysis     Packet Pg. 74     City of Palo Alto - Objective Design Standards Checklist Page 16 (c)(7) Parking/Loading/Utilities (A) Entry Size ☐ carports, surface parking, loading entries, or utilities access. On sites with less than 100 Site frontage: feet (B) Above Ground Structured Parking ☐ open space/path, with the exception of vehicular alleys, must be lined with commercial or habitable uses with a minimum depth of 20 feet (C)&(D) Partially Sub-Grade Structured Parking ☐ ☐ 18.24.070 Residential Entries Pick One or More Standard Sheet # Applicant’s Justification (b)(1) Ground Floor Unit Entries Where ground floor residential unit entries are required, one or more of the following entry types shall be provided: ☐ N/A as no structured parking provided A.5.1, C2 204 12.3 N/A as no structured parking provided Item 2 Attachment D - Objective Standards Consistency Analysis     Packet Pg. 75     City of Palo Alto - Objective Design Standards Checklist Page 17 Ch e c k Al l if ☐ (i) Stoops provide entry access for a maximum of two ground floor units. ☐ (ii) Stoop heights are within one step of finished floor height of adjacent unit. ☐ (iii) Stoop entry landings are a minimum 5 feet in depth ☐ (iv) The maximum stoop height from the back of sidewalk grade is 5 feet. ☐ (B) Porch Ch e c k Al l if ☐ (i) Porches provide entry access for a maximum of one ground floor unit. ☐ (ii) Porch heights are within one step of finished floor height of adjacent unit. ☐ (iii) Porches are large enough so a 6-foot by 6-foot square can fit inside ☐ (iv) The maximum porch height from the back of sidewalk grade is 5 feet. ☐ (C) Patio Entry Ch e c k Al l if Se l e c t e d ☐ (i) Patio entries provide access for a maximum of two ground floor units. ☐ (ii) Patio entries are large enough so a 5-foot by 5-foot square can fit inside of the patio for each unit ☐ (iii) The patio shall include at least one of the following features to define the transition between public and private space: Pi c k On e or Mo r e ☐ a. Row of shrubs: not exceeding 42 inches in height located between the sidewalk and the patio. One gallon size and max 3 feet on center ☐ b. Fence: not to exceed 36 inches in height located between the sidewalk and the patio with a gate or fence opening to provide access ☐ c. Metal, Wood, or Stone Wall: not to exceed 36 inches in height located between the sidewalk and the patio with gate or opening, AND a minimum 18-inch landscape strip is located between the wall and the abutting pedestrian way and entirely landscaped ☐ (D) Terrace Ch e c k Al l if ☐ (i) Terraces provide entry access for multiple ground floor units. ☐ (ii) Terraces are a maximum height of 30 inches above the grade of the back of the adjacent sidewalk or accessway. ☐ (iii) Walls, fences and hedges on Terraces are a maximum of 42 inches tall and have a minimum transparency of 40%. A.31- A.39 A.31- A.39 A.31- A.39 A.31- A.39 Item 2 Attachment D - Objective Standards Consistency Analysis     Packet Pg. 76     City of Palo Alto - Objective Design Standards Checklist Page 18 ☐ (E) Frontage Court Ch e c k Al l if Se l e c t e d ☐ (i) Frontage courts provide entry access for multiple ground floor units. ☐ (ii) The minimum frontage court width along a primary frontage is 25 feet. ☐ (iii) The maximum frontage court width along a primary frontage is 50% of the facade length or 80 feet, whichever is less. ☐ (iv) The minimum Frontage Court depth is 25 feet. ☐ (v) The maximum Frontage Court depth is 50 feet or a ratio not to exceed 2:1 depth to width. 18.24.080 Open Space Check Standard Sheet # Applicant’s Justification (b)(1) Private Open Space ☐ (A) Floor area includes clear space with a minimum dimension of a circle with a six- foot diameter. ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ 8 feet for at least 75% of the area. ☐ least 75% of the area ☐ height for ground floor residential standards in section 18.24.040(b)(4) N/A as property is not within the RM-40 district N/A as project doesn't provide ground floor private open space N/A as project doesn't provide ground floor private open space. Private open space provided on roofs. A.35-A.43 A.31- A.39 A.31- A.39 A.31- A.39 A.31- A.39 Item 2 Attachment D - Objective Standards Consistency Analysis     Packet Pg. 77     City of Palo Alto - Objective Design Standards Checklist Page 19 (b)(2) Common Open Space ☐ ☐ ☐ minimum dimension of 40 feet and have a minimum courtyard width to building ☐ (E) Common open space provides seating. ☐ (F) Common open space has a minimum 20% of landscaping. ☐ 18.24.090 Materials Check Standard Sheet # Applicant’s Justification ☐ (b)(1) Primary, secondary, and accent materials are allowed or prohibited as in the Residential and Residential Mixed-use Material List, which may be updated from time to time by the Director of Planning with a recommendation by the ARB. See webpage for list - https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/News-Articles/Planning-and-Development- 18.24.100 Sustainability and Green Building Code Check Standard Sheet # Applicant’s Justification ☐ (b) See Chapter 16.14: California Green Building Standards additional requirements for green building and sustainable design. Notwithstanding Section 18.24.010(c), these N/A as courtyard is not above grade N/A as courtyard not enclosed A.6 A.6 A.26 -A.30 A.57 L1 L1 Item 2 Attachment D - Objective Standards Consistency Analysis     Packet Pg. 78     From:Adam Schwartz To:Planning Commission Cc:Council, City; Architectural Review Board; ParkRec Commission; Planning Commission Subject:Please support new homes at 2100 Geng Road Date:Sunday, November 30, 2025 1:35:26 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Greetings to the Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Committee: I'm Adam Schwartz and I live in Palo Alto in University South. I write to urge you to please support the new homes proposed for 2100 Geng Road. Our wonderful community's biggest problem is the shortage of new homes for all kinds of people at all price points. The solution must include building new homes. I'd like to see 145 new townhomes (including 19 affordable) at 2100 Geng Road. I hope the PTC will vote to move this project forward as quickly as possible. Thank you for supporting more homes in our community. Sincerely, Adam Schwartz 523 Channing Ave. This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first mail to some recipients. Mark Safe Report Item 2 Attachment E - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 79     &nbsp; From:Switzer, Steven To:"Steve Saffold" Subject:RE: 2100 Geng Road Date:Thursday, November 13, 2025 3:13:00 PM Attachments:image001.png image002.png Hi Steve, You are correct. We are still evaluating the project. The webpage will be updated once we have some further movement on that environmental analysis. Steven Switzer Senior Historic Planner Planning and Development Services Department 650-329-2321 | Steven.Switzer@PaloAlto.gov www.PaloAlto.gov From: Steve Saffold <saffold@theagencyre.com> Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2025 1:02 PM To: Switzer, Steven <Steven.Switzer@paloalto.gov> Subject: 2100 Geng Road CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hi Steven, I'm just reaching out to inquire about this project. The planning website says the city is preparing an initialCEQA checklist, just wanted to see if that is current, or what the status is. Thank you in advance for any help you can offer. Steve THEAGENCYRedefining r ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ i This message needs your attention This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report CGBANNERINDICATOR Hi Steven, I'm just reaching out to inquire about this project. The planning website says the city is preparing an initial CEQA checklist, just wanted to see if that is current, or what the status is. Powered by Mimecast Item 2 Attachment E - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 80     Thank you in advance for any help you can offer. Steve THE AGENCY Redefining real estate STEVE SAFFOLD Managing Director New Development - Bay Area 510-282-9169 TheAgencyRE.com Steve Saffold Item 2 Attachment E - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 81     From:Chris Douvos To:Switzer, Steven Subject:Re: 2100 Geng Date:Monday, October 27, 2025 10:24:41 AM Attachments:image001.png image002.png image003.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Thanks! CD From: Switzer, Steven <Steven.Switzer@paloalto.gov> Sent: Monday, October 27, 2025 9:54 AM To: Chris Douvos <chris@ahoycap.com> Subject: RE: 2100 Geng Hi Chris, The project located at 2100-2400 Geng Rd is still under review. We are anticipating taking the project to the Planning Commission in December 2025 and then on to the Architectural Review Board and City Council in early/spring 2026. Hopefully that helps. Steven Switzer Senior Historic Planner Planning and Development Services Department 650-329-2321 | Steven.Switzer@PaloAlto.gov www.PaloAlto.gov From: Chris Douvos <chris@ahoycap.com> Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2025 3:27 PM To: Switzer, Steven <Steven.Switzer@paloalto.gov> Subject: 2100 Geng CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Item 2 Attachment E - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 82     Hi! I apologize for bothering you, but I'm a PA resident who has an office at 2100 Geng Road and I was looking up the status of the project planned for this location and your name was listed as the city contact. I was wondering if you might be able to share the status of the project? My office lease expires at some point soon and I'm wondering if I should start looking for new space (the Regus from whom we sublease is pretty tight lipped on the topic, although one of their people told me a year ago that they expected us to get kicked out sometime in 2026.) Thanks for any insight you can share, Chris ___________ Chris Douvos Founder 2100 Geng Road, Suite 210 Palo Alto, CA 94301 chris@ahoycap.com (650) 384 9434 www.ahoycap.com Item 2 Attachment E - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 83     From:Janet L. Billups To:Switzer, Steven Cc:Barbara Greiner; Mathieu Farrugia; Mindie S. Romanowsky Subject:2100 Geng Road. 24PLN-00356 project Date:Monday, September 22, 2025 4:16:38 PM Attachments:image001.png Importance:High CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Hi Steven, I hope this email finds you well. I’m writing to request that the persons named below be added to the mailing list and/or notification system related to the project at 2100 Geng Road, 24PLN- 00356. We would appreciate receiving meeting notices, updates, or any relevant documentation as it becomes available. Please let me know if there is a form or procedure to complete to be included. Thank you in advance for your time and consideration. Notices to: Barbara Greiner, Head of School Silicon Valley International School 151 Laura Ln, Palo Alto, CA 94303 barbaragreiner@svintl.org Mathieu Farrugia mathieu@svintl.org Mindie Romanowsky, Esq. msr@jsmf.com Kind regards, Janet Billups This message needs your attention This is their first mail to some recipients. Mark Safe Report Item 2 Attachment E - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 84     Janet L. Billups, Legal Assistant to Mindie S. Romanowsky, Esq. Jorgenson, Siegel, McClure & Flegel, LLP 1100 Alma Street, Suite 210 | Menlo Park, CA 94025 Office: (650) 324-9300 x1230 Email: jlb@jsmf.com | Website: www.jsmf.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachments are for the sole use of the intended recipients and contain information that may be confidential or legally privileged. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message. Any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of this communication by someone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. Item 2 Attachment E - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 85     From:Mark Millet To:Switzer, Steven Subject:Re: questions about conditional use permit for 2100 Geng Road project Date:Monday, March 31, 2025 5:49:21 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Confirmed 10 am, please call my cell Mark Millet (650) 303 2394 > On Mar 31, 2025, at 5:40 PM, Switzer, Steven <Steven.Switzer@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote: > > Hi Mark- > > Would 10:00 AM work? > > > Steven Switzer > Historic Preservation Planner > Planning and Development Services Department > 650-329-2321 | Steven.Switzer@CityofPaloAlto.org > www.cityofpaloalto.org > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Mark Millet <mmillet10@gmail.com> > Sent: Monday, March 31, 2025 5:39 PM > To: Switzer, Steven <Steven.Switzer@CityofPaloAlto.org> > Subject: Re: questions about conditional use permit for 2100 Geng Road project > > CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. > > I am available before noon Tuesday, when is good for you? > > Thank you for the quick response, > > Mark > > Mark Millet > (650) 303 2394 > >> On Mar 31, 2025, at 5:33 PM, Switzer, Steven <Steven.Switzer@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote: >> >> Hi Mark- >> >> Feel free to give me a call or send your questions to me via email for a written response. >> >> For the time being, follow the link to view more about the Conditional >> Use Permit Process: Item 2 Attachment E - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 86     >> https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/2/planning-amp-de >> velopment-services/file-migration/current-planning/forms-and-guideline >> s/cup-process-09-26-24.pdf >> >> I should have some availability tomorrow morning and later this week. >> >> Looking forward to connecting with you on this. >> >> >> Steven Switzer >> Historic Preservation Planner >> Planning and Development Services Department >> 650-329-2321 | Steven.Switzer@CityofPaloAlto.org >> www.cityofpaloalto.org >> >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Mark Millet <mmillet10@gmail.com> >> Sent: Monday, March 31, 2025 4:34 PM >> To: Switzer, Steven <Steven.Switzer@CityofPaloAlto.org> >> Subject: questions about conditional use permit for 2100 Geng Road >> project >> >> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. >> >> Steven, >> >> I had a couple of questions about the process for conditional use permit and residential conversion. >> >> Thank you, >> >> Mark. >> >> Mark Millet >> 650 303 2394 (c) >> mmillet10@gmail.com > Item 2 Attachment E - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 87     201 Spear Street, Suite 1650 San Francisco, CA 94105 P: 415.263.9151 www.stradasf.com September 26, 2025 Claire Raybould, AICP Manager of Current Planning, City of Palo Alto 285 Hamilton Avenue, Suite 100 Palo Alto, CA 94301 Email: Claire.Raybould@CityofPaloAlto.org Re: 2100 – 2400 Geng Road, Planning Application resubmittal Dear Claire: Please find included in this submittal the following documents associated with our resubmittal of the application for the housing development project located at 2100 – 2400 Geng Road. We have filed several applications associated with this project. Our SB 330 pre-application dated 7/8/24 is number 24PLN-00181. Our site and design / CUP / planning application originally dated 12/18/24 is 24-PLN-00356. Our vesting tentative map application originally dated 12/18/24 is number 24-PLN- 00357. We received comments from the City on 1/17/25 and 1/24/25. We then resubmitted C2 materials on 4/16/25 and received additional comments on C2 on 5/22/25. We then resubmitted C3 materials on 7/25/25 and received additional comments on C3 on 8/29/25. The updated materials in this submittal are in response to those City Comments. These materials replace and supersede the materials previously submitted, although certain project documents that did not change have not been updated and included in this submittal. As requested in the City Comments, the materials will be submitted in three PDF documents – one for the project plans, one for the supporting documents, and one for the response to City comments. Project Plans: 1. Architecture Plans 2. Civil Plans 3. Landscape Plans (Including Preliminary Arborist Report) Supporting Documents: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. a. b. Item 2 Attachment F - Applicant’s Project Description     Packet Pg. 88     201 Spear Street, Suite 1650 San Francisco, CA 94105 P: 415.263.9151 www.stradasf.com Response to City Comments: 1. Response to City Comments dated 8/29/25 * * * additional discussion and engagement about the project. Sincerely, Strada PA Manager, LLC, Authorized Signatory Item 2 Attachment F - Applicant’s Project Description     Packet Pg. 89     201 Spear Street, Suite 1650 San Francisco, CA 94105 P: 415.263.9151 www.stradasf.com September 26, 2025 Jonathan Lait Director, Planning & Development Services City of Palo Alto 285 Hamilton Avenue, Suite 100 Palo Alto, CA 94301 Email: Jonathan.Lait@CityofPaloAlto.org Re: Proposed Mixed-Income Housing Project at 2100 – 2400 Geng Road, Palo Alto Dear Mr. Lait: Strada PA Manager, LLC is pleased to resubmit updated application materials for our proposed mixed-income housing project at 2100-2400 Geng Road, which will transform an existing low-density office development into much needed sustainable housing in the City of Palo Alto and region. This resubmittal follows our SB 330 preliminary application submitted to the City on July 8, 2024, our original entitlement and vesting tentative map applications submitted on December 18, 2024, our C2 resubmittal on April 18, 2025, and our C3 resubmittal on July 25, 2025. We are committed to working in partnership with the City and the broader Palo Alto community to achieve the following goals and Project objectives. Overall Goals and Project Objectives B , re-purposing low-and . H , low-density into a new for-sale medium-density new homeownership , through an environmentally sustainable design. Build family-sized townhouses –- and seniors downsizing. Support Palo Alto’s 6th Cycle Housing Element and RHNA goals by delivering new market and below- market rate (BMR) . housing streamlining tools at the local and state level to increase deliver new housing as soon as possible. , including but not limited to: o ng the Project site’s proximity to the Baylands Nature Preserve and Palo Alto airport; o space and trails, and a 10-and o . Housing Program Overview The Project consists of 145 for-sale townhomes, with new internal streets and pedestrian paths, open space, and new utility infrastructure. The townhome units will have a range of three- and four bedrooms to accommodate larger family-size and multigenerational households. These for-sale units will provide new homeownership Item 2 Attachment F - Applicant’s Project Description     Packet Pg. 90     2100-2400 Geng Road – Mixed-Income Housing Project | Cover Letter 2 opportunities for families looking to establish or maintain their roots in the Palo Alto community. The Project is specifically designed to accommodate growing families and first-time home buyers. The Project was identified in the City’s recently approved 6th Cycle Housing Element as an appropriate site for residential development and the proposed project will bring this vision to reality while helping the City meet its ambitious State-mandated housing production goals. Importantly, the project will incorporate 19 BMR housing units onsite, providing an enhanced opportunity for homeownership at affordable pricing that is largely missing from City and region, resulting in the benefits of homeownership for working families who otherwise would be priced out of the community. The Project BMR units will be offered for-sale to low-income households, which, based on Santa Clara County current area median incomes, would have annual incomes of up to $157,000 for a household of four. For-sale BMR units affordable to families at these income levels are rare in Palo Alto and will allow for new residents working for local government, healthcare, non-profits, or in other essential roles to live near their jobs. These 19 BMR units represent 13 percent of the 145 total units in the Project. This level of affordability is authorized under Assembly Bill (AB) 1893, a state law that became effective January 1, 2025, that is designed to facilitate approval and construction of housing development projects that have submitted SB 330 preliminary project applications in advance of a local jurisdiction receiving its Housing Element certification. While the 13 percent low-income allocation authorized under AB 1893 is lower than the 20 percent BMR that otherwise would be required by the City’s Municipal Code, the 19 BMR units are more deeply affordable than those required by the City’s Code, meaning they will be affordable to families with more modest incomes. This proposed BMR program under AB 1893 results in a Project that is financially viable and financeable, and thus, much more likely to be built quickly under current and foreseeable economic conditions. Site and Neighborhood Context The existing use of the Project site is a low-density office complex, consisting of four, two-story office buildings. Under current conditions, the existing office project is not fully leased and given the current office space supply and demand in Palo Alto, an aging office project is not the highest and best use of an 11-acre site in this location without significant near-term reinvestment. Overall, the current market conditions and the City’s 6th Cycle Housing Element’s identification of the Project site for housing makes this the appropriate time to pursue conversion of the existing office use to new residential use, which will also further help address Palo Alto’s historic jobs-housing imbalance. The Project site’s location east of 101 is in an area of Palo Alto that has not historically had housing; the Project provides an opportunity to bring new residents to this area who will contribute positively to the neighborhood by increasing bike and foot traffic, activating the area, and supporting local businesses. Sustainability and Resilience In keeping with the Project’s commitment to environmental sustainability, the Project will feature all-electric design with no natural gas service; incorporate solar panels and electric car charging connections for all units; utilize modern high-efficiency water fixtures; and store and treat stormwater onsite to reduce impacts on the City’s existing stormwater system. The existing Project site (and much of the area east of 101) lies in a FEMA flood zone of AE-11. To address this risk, the Project will raise the site finished grade to a level that will be safe from flooding and will set a standard for climate-sensitive development in Palo Alto, paving the way for a more resilient City. Item 2 Attachment F - Applicant’s Project Description     Packet Pg. 91     2100-2400 Geng Road – Mixed-Income Housing Project | Cover Letter 3 One consequence of this necessary flood protection is that the grade of the entire Project site area will need to be raised by adding multiple feet of soil, which will impact many of the trees on site. While our view is that tree removal should be a strategy of last resort, based on the Flood Zone conditions, there is no feasible way to change the grade of the Project site without severely impacting the roots of existing trees. The weight of the additional soil will negatively impact the existing trees’ root systems, ultimately adversely affecting tree health and resulting in tree death. To respond to this flood zone mitigation and resulting tree removals, the Project has prioritized replacing and ultimately improving the tree density and eventual mature tree canopy on site. By replacing the existing surface parking lots with a new network of green vegetative areas that connect future residents to the internal open spaces, the Project will more than double existing tree quantities. While many of the existing trees are non-native or even invasive, the proposed trees will be mostly native and adapted drought tolerant species that will bolster native tree species quantities for the City, ensure replacement habitat for birds, and reduce irrigated water demand. At the same time, the trees will be selected to enhance the Project neighborhood and adjacent Baylands Athletic Center public open spaces with tree character, color, texture and form. In addition to new tree plantings, the Project will create new roads and pedestrian paths to allow connections across and through the site. Additionally, the Project will create new open spaces, including a central green with a large lawn and other amenities to serve as a gathering point for the Project community. The Project is also exploring the potential to accommodate a future connection to the San Francisquito Creek trail, which lies north of the Project site. Additional Benefits Finally, the Project will positively contribute to the Palo Alto community through creating opportunities for future residents. These families will start and work at Palo Alto businesses, will increase the tax base through their property and sales taxes, will shop at local businesses such as those at Edgewood Plaza, and will send their children to Palo Alto schools. The transformation of 2100-2400 Geng Road from an underutilized office complex to a thriving, family-oriented residential community will provide broad and diverse benefits to the City of Palo Alto. * * * We look forward to continuing working with the City to deliver this Project and advancing the City’s important goal of bringing viable residential projects to fruition. Sincerely, Nikolas Krukowski Strada PA Manager, LLC, Authorized Signatory Item 2 Attachment F - Applicant’s Project Description     Packet Pg. 92     2100-2400 Geng Road Project Description Updated: 9/26/2025 The proposed project would transform an existing underutilized business park located at 2100- 2400 Geng Road into a new residential neighborhood with 145 multifamily townhome units and community open spaces. All units will be offered for-sale with either three-bedroom or four- bedroom configurations, providing both much-needed housing and new homeownership opportunities in the city and region. Section I of this project description provides an overview of the project site and existing conditions; Section II describes the project land use program and site plan features; Section III describes the project’s affordability and State Density Bonus Law strategy, including information regarding the project site’s Housing Element site inventory status. I. Project Site Overview The project site totals approximately 11-acres and is comprised of two parcels: APN 008-02-035 (addressed as 2100-2200 Geng Road, totaling approximately 5 acres) and APN 008-02-036 (addressed as 2300-2400 Geng Road, totaling approximately 6 acres). The property is zoned ROLM (E)(D)(AD), in which multifamily development is permitted subject to the RM-20 district development standards. A portion of the project site is also identified in the City’s 6th Cycle Housing Element as a housing opportunity site, as further described in Section III below. The project site is currently improved with four, two-story office buildings and surface parking. In connection with development of the proposed project, the existing buildings will be demolished, and necessary site improvements will be undertaken to redevelop the property. The project site is bounded by Geng Road to the east, the Baylands Athletic Center to the north, and office buildings to the west and south. Primary access to the property is from Geng Road, with secondary access (via an adjacent property) from East Bayshore Road. II. Proposed Project & Land Use Program Overview The proposed project includes 145 multifamily residential units comprised of seven different townhome unit types. Along the northern boundary, adjacent to the Baylands Athletic Center, are 22 front-loaded pull-apart (detached) townhomes, in two different unit plans. These homes feature backyards that transition to the parkland, creating a buffer between the development and the park. Across the street from these units are 26 alley-loaded pull-apart (detached) townhomes, in two different unit plans. The remaining units consist of traditional attached townhomes arranged in clustered buildings of five, six, and eight units, comprised of three different unit plans. The site plan layout is designed to minimize visibility of alleys from public viewpoints. The variety of housing types is cohesively arranged around shared green spaces and connected by pedestrian paseos. The project design features contemporary architectural design that blends well with the surrounding context while setting a precedent for the transformation of predominantly office- oriented uses in the East of 101 area into residential neighborhoods. Item 2 Attachment F - Applicant’s Project Description     Packet Pg. 93     2100-2400 Geng Road | Project Description Site Circulation Primary access to the project will be from Geng Road, with a clearly defined major circulation loop providing access to all areas of the site. Secondary access (via an adjacent property) is provided from East Bayshore Road. Offsite parking is provided within each unit. On-street parking is strategically placed along this loop to provide convenient access for visitors. Building entries and porches are oriented towards this loop road to create a pedestrian-friendly streetscape. Project Open Space & Pedestrian Circulation At the center of the site is a large communal central open space surrounded by residential units. This central open space will serve as the community's focal point and is within easy walking distance for all residents. Guest parking is located along the edges of the green space to provide convenient access for visitors. A fully landscaped pedestrian network will connect the housing to the central open space and provide a natural and green environment throughout the project site. The central open space will provide passive and programmed uses for the residents including quiet seating areas and outdoor cooking and dining areas. The programmed areas will be distributed around a large central lawn area that can be used by residents for a variety of purposes, including outdoor games and picnics. The planting character throughout the site will consist of drought tolerant, native, and adapted species of a variety of shape, sizes, and colors. All buildings are three stories tall (approximately +/- 42’-2” in height), with living areas complemented by balconies and roof decks. The combination of individual balconies, roof decks and backyards ensure ample private outdoor space, while the central green space offers a communal gathering area for all residents. Utilities & Services The project will have electricity service from City of Palo Alto, and the proposed project site plan allows ample space for meter and utility connections. The project will be “electric only,” and will not have gas service. The project will have water, wastewater, and sanitary sewer service from the City of Palo Alto. The project will utilize solid waste service from GreenWaste of Palo Alto. The HOA will contract with a service to collect trash, recycling and compost from each unit and bring it to a central enclosure where it will be stored until picked up by GreenWaste. Sustainability A key project objective is to provide modern, energy-efficient and sustainable housing units that limit new emissions and natural resource usage. To that end, the project incorporates a range of sustainability features, including solar photovoltaic panels on building roofs, cool roofs, electric vehicle charger ready garages, energy efficient fixtures and appliances, low-water use fixtures, construction waste reduction, low VOC materials, and both private and shared bicycle parking on site. The project landscaping and tree placement planting plan focuses on incorporation of native and drought tolerant species, with an anticipated tree planting plan that yields over 50% California native species. The project would result in a net increase in landscaped areas and pervious surface at buildout, reducing the heat island effect of the site which is currently improved with significant surface parking. Tree and plant species have additionally been selected to help create a high-quality habitat that will support biodiversity and bird populations. Item 2 Attachment F - Applicant’s Project Description     Packet Pg. 94     2100-2400 Geng Road | Project Description In recognition of the project site’s proximity to the San Francisquito Creek and Baylands Nature Preserve and Shoreline Park, the project design also incorporates lighting reduction design features to reduce the spillover of lighting or glare/increased luminance perceived by birds and other wildlife, all of which follow recommendations by the International Dark-Sky Association. Project Affordability & Density Bonus Law Relief The project includes 19 affordable for-sale units on-site (13% of the total units) that will be restricted to low-income households. This onsite affordability percentage meets the requirements of the Housing Accountability Act as amended by AB 1893 that went into effect as of January 1, 2025 (see Gov. Code Section 65589.5(h)(3)(C)(i)(II)). Under the Housing Accountability Act, as amended, the project is entitled to utilize this reduced affordability percentage, along with the other associated amendments to the Housing Accountability Act, because it meets the definition of a builder’s remedy project (see Gov. Code Section 65589.5(f)(7)(A)). The State Density Bonus Law applies to the Project because it is a housing development project that proposes to include a qualifying percentage of units onsite as affordable to low-income households. The project’s density of 145 units (approximately 13 dwelling units per acre) is within the 11 du/a minimum density and 20 du/a maximum density allowed under the applicable RM-20 zoning requirements, no bonus residential density is required. However, the project will utilize waivers or reductions of development standards and is also entitled to three incentives/concessions. One incentive/concession is provided under the State Density Bonus Law for projects proposing at least ten percent of total units for low-income households (see Gov. Code Section 65915(d)(2)), and two additional incentives/concessions are provided pursuant to the Housing Accountability Act as amended by AB 1893 (see Gov. Code Section 65589.5(f)(6)(C)). Density Bonus Waivers/Reductions Under the State Density Bonus law, the project is entitled to a waiver of all development standards that would physically preclude the development at the density permitted and with the concession(s) granted. The project is requesting the following waivers/reductions of development standards. The project reserves the right to identify additional waivers as the project advances through the entitlement process. Chapter 18.13 – RM-20 Development Standards 1. Maximum FAR (0.5:1) Waiver requested to exceed the maximum FAR allowance to achieve the proposed residential density, which is consistent with the applicable residential zoning density controls. Maintaining a 0.5 FAR would physically preclude the density of the project as proposed. Proposed project FAR is 1.0:1. 2. Height (30’ max.) Waiver requested to exceed the height allowance. The proposed height of each residential building is approximately +/- 42’ -2”. The proposed project uses compact footprints to achieve the proposed density, which requires additional height to accommodate the proposed project unit types and bedroom counts. Maintaining the 30’ height limit would physically preclude the density of the project as proposed. Item 2 Attachment F - Applicant’s Project Description     Packet Pg. 95     2100-2400 Geng Road | Project Description Chapter 18.24 – Contextual Design Criteria and Objective Design Standards 3. Mobility Infrastructure – Proximity to Primary Building Entry Under PAMC 18.24.020(b)(4)(A), micromobility infrastructure, such as locations to lock bicycles and scooters, shall be located within 30 feet of the primary building entry and/or a path leading to the primary building entry. This standard may be satisfied by existing infrastructure already located within 50 feet of the project site and located in the public right-of-way. Based on the project’s townhome unit type configurations, the project has one primary entry per unit, and providing bike racks within 30 feet of all entries would physically preclude the project as proposed. However, the project would provide bike racks in the community open space area, which is centrally located and accessible from all units. By providing the bike racks in a central location, the project meets the intent of the standard to provide bike racks in a convenient location that is easily accessible by all users and visitors. 4. Detached Unit Side Yards Under PAMC 18.24.040(b)(6)(A), each detached dwelling unit shall have at least one usable side yard, at least six feet wide, between the house and fence or other structure, to provide outdoor passage between the front and rear yards. Some of the project’s pull- apart townhomes have side yards of four feet. The project is requesting a waiver from this development regulation as increasing the side yard to six feet would physically preclude the project as proposed. Chapter 18.40 – General Standards and Exceptions 5. Height Limits on Rooftop Garden Fixtures Under PAMC 18.40.230, certain permanent fixtures on the rooftop may exceed applicable height limits, however, the Code provides that such fixtures “shall not intersect a plane measured at a forty-five-degree angle from the edge of the building starting at the rooftop garden surface sloping upward and inward toward the center of the property.” The project is requesting a waiver from the requirement as this would require the units to be much wider than currently planned and therefore would physically preclude the project as proposed. Chapter 21.20 – Subdivision Design 6. Private Street Width Requirement Under PAMC 21.20.240, private streets serving five or more lots are required to maintain a street width of thirty-two feet, whereas private streets serving four or less lots are required to maintain a street width of twenty-two feet. The project proposes a private street loop that will range in width from 26’ wide in certain areas to 35’ wide in other areas. The project is requesting a waiver from this PAMC 21.20.240 development regulation as increasing the streets and alleys to 32’ would reduce the allowable buildable area and thus Item 2 Attachment F - Applicant’s Project Description     Packet Pg. 96     2100-2400 Geng Road | Project Description physically preclude the project as proposed. The proposed onsite private street allows day to day traffic, service, and emergency vehicles. Incentives/Concessions The project is entitled to three concessions pursuant to State Density Bonus Law and AB 1893. Under the State Density Bonus law, the City can only deny a concession if it finds that it would not result in identifiable and actual cost reductions; would have an unmitigable/unavoidable specific, adverse impact on public health and safety or any real property listed on the California Register of Historical Resources; or would violate state or federal law. With respect to identifiable and actual cost reductions, applicants do not bear the burden to prove that incentives would result in actual cost reductions; rather, requested incentives are presumed to result in cost reductions, and local governments must either accept this presumption or make written findings based on substantial evidence to the contrary. At this time the project is requesting the following concession: Chapter 16.65.075 – Distribution of Affordable Units Under PAMC 16.65.075(a)(2), affordable units “shall be reasonably dispersed” within the residential project, with unit locations “comparable” to those of the market-rate units. Further, affordable units must have a comparable number of bedrooms to the market rate units. PAMC 16.65.075(a)(2) also allows for the Planning Director to approve clustering of BMR units within the residential project “when this furthers affordable housing opportunities.” The proposed site plan proposes larger, four-bedroom pull-apart townhouse units in the northern section of the site and smaller, three- and four-bedroom attached townhouse units in the balance of the site. The project’s 19 BMR units have been well distributed throughout the attached townhouse buildings and are all located within Unit Plan 11 units – a three-bedroom unit type with a two-car tandem garage. The project’s proposed BMR distribution plan is provided on Sheet A.7 of the plan sets and is intended to meet the City’s distribution standard. However, we understand that Planning staff have indicated that the BMR distribution as proposed may not meet its PAMC 16.65.075(a)(2) requirement. As a result, if staff ultimately determines that the proposed BMR distribution plan does not meet its PAMC 16.65.075(a)(2) standard, the project seeks a concession for this requirement. This request meets the State Density Bonus Law requirements for issuance of a concession, as further detailed below. The project development costs are significantly reduced by providing the required BMR units in Unit Plan 11 units. It would cost considerably more to build these BMR units as pull-apart, detached townhouses or as larger, four-bedroom units in attached townhouse buildings. Construction costs scale directly with square footage: larger units require more framing, drywall, finishes, HVAC ducting, and flooring than smaller units. Detached units additionally require construction of significantly more building envelope without the cost efficiencies of shared walls because they are fully detached. Additionally, the project relies on reasonable market returns in order to be financially feasible to construct. Because the pull-apart units and four-bedroom townhome units will sell at a premium to the Unit Plan 11 three-bedroom attached townhouse units, selling larger units at BMR prices would significantly reduce the sales revenue relative to the proposed plan of selling Unit Plan 11 attached townhouse units at BMR prices. This reduced sales revenue will directly reduce the Item 2 Attachment F - Applicant’s Project Description     Packet Pg. 97     2100-2400 Geng Road | Project Description financial viability of the project, resulting in a delayed financing process, additional construction cost escalation, and increased costs to deliver the on-site affordable housing. The project reserves the right to identify and utilize the available two additional incentives/concessions as the project advances through the entitlement process. Housing Inventory Site Status As described above, the project is comprised of two parcels. One of the parcels, APN 008-02-035 (~5 acres) is listed in the City’s 6th Cycle Housing Element as a Housing Inventory Site with a target yield of 175 units. The other parcel, APN 008-02-036 (~6 acres), is not listed as a Housing Inventory Site. The project is proposing to provide 145 units, which is below the target yield of 175 units for APN 008-02-035. Based on the information provided in the Housing Element, it is not clear how a determination of 175-unit yield for APN 008-02-035 was made; however, there are several reasons why the project is unable to meet the target unit yield and why the proposed 145 units is the appropriate density for the project site: • The project seeks to be consistent with the existing zoning density of 11 du/a – 20 du. Height, setback, lot coverage, and FAR maximums in the ROLM(E) district, pursuant to the RM-20 district standards that apply to residential development in the ROLM(E) district, limit density and development potential and thus limit the feasibility of achieving the target unit yield. While the project utilizes Density Bonus Law waivers to achieve relief from some of these standards, the project seeks to minimize deviations from these standards wherever possible. • An important design consideration for the project is to be sensitive to the context of the site and surrounding uses. The project is adjacent to low office buildings, the Baylands Athletic Center, and more generally is in the vicinity of San Francisquito Creek and the Baylands. Keeping the buildings to three stories in height ensures that the project maintains a context-sensitive design and minimizes visual impacts of the project. • A key goal of the project is to provide family sized units, including on-site BMR family sized units, to help meet the needs of the residents of Palo Alto. One consequence of providing larger units is that the project ends up providing fewer units in the same amount of development area. • Achieving a unit yield of 175 units on just a five-acre portion of the site would require utilization of a construction typology that is far more expensive to build on a per square foot basis as compared to townhome construction costs. Because of this, a denser project that meets the prosed target unit yield would reduce the project’s financially feasibility, and thus be less likely to be financed and built than the proposed, lower density townhome project. By including on-site affordable units and offering a range of housing types, the project’s mixed- income units provide the "missing middle" housing needed by the Palo Alto community, offering new opportunities for home ownership, which will be a valuable addition to the housing fabric of Palo Alto. Item 2 Attachment F - Applicant’s Project Description     Packet Pg. 98     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@paloalto.gov Project Plans In order to reduce paper consumption, a limited number of hard copy project plans are provided to Commission members for their review. The same plans are available to the public, at all hours of the day, via the following online resources. Environmental Document An Initial Study (IS) Checklist (CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Exemption) to determine consistency with the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (State Clearinghouse [SCH] #2014052101) certified in 2017 (“2017 EIR”) for the City of Palo Alto’s 2030 Comprehensive Plan was prepared for the project. The environmental document is available at: https://www.paloalto.gov/Departments/Planning- Development-Services/Current-Planning/Projects/2100-Geng-Road Directions to review project plans and environmental documents online: 1. Go to: bit.ly/PApendingprojects 2. Scroll down to find “2100 Geng Rd” 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/2100-Geng-Road Item 2 Attachment G - Project Plans and Environmental Review     Packet Pg. 99     Item No. 3. Page 1 of 10 Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report From: Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: December 10, 2025 Report #: 2507-4959 TITLE Request for the Planning and Transportation Commission to Recommend the City Council Adopt the Draft Ordinance Adding a New Section 18.40.280 (Bird-Friendly Design) to Chapter 18.40 (General Standards and Exceptions) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code; CEQA Status: Exempt Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15308 (Actions for Protection of the Environment). RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) recommend that City Council adopt the Draft Ordinance adding a new Section 18.40.280 (Bird-Friendly Design) to Chapter 18.40 (General Standards and Exceptions) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, with modifications based on the considerations discussed in this report: (1) exemption for single-family homes; (2) modifications to the Bird Sensitive Area definition; and (3) revisions to alternative compliance requirements. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Bird-Friendly Design Ordinance implements Comprehensive Plan Program L6.3.1, which directs staff to develop guidelines that minimize hazards for birds, and has been a City Council Priority objective for several years. The Draft Ordinance (Attachment A) incorporates modifications directed by the PTC following its meeting on October 30, 2024, including expanding applicability, revising bird-friendly treatment requirements and definitions, and changing alternative compliance criteria. A key focus of this report is the cost and availability of bird-friendly glazing, particularly its impact on single-family homes. Staff research, including conversations with manufacturers, architects, and local glass retailers, revealed no established residential market for bird-friendly glazing, forcing homeowners to potentially use more costly commercial-rated glass or non- permanent films for compliance. Local retailers are often unaware of or do not stock bird- friendly glass, which may lead to significant project delays. Staff recommend that the PTC consider some modifications to their prior recommendation, including consideration of an Item 3 Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 100     Item No. 3. Page 2 of 10 exemption for single-family homes, modifications to the Bird Sensitive Area definition, and revisions to alternative compliance requirements. BACKGROUND 1 following previous PTC direction to simplify the requirements for easier implementation. 1 Planning and Transportation Commission Hearing Agenda on October 30, 2024 (Agenda Item #2): https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=13744 Item 3 Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 101     Item No. 3. Page 3 of 10 San Francisco. San Francisco adopted its “Standards for Bird-Safe Buildings” in 2011.3 Their ordinance focuses on requirements based on location and building features. The bird glazing is required for the buildings facing and in close proximity to parks, open space, or waterbodies. From the ground up to 60 feet of a building height, 90% of all glazing must be treated. In addition, any architectural features made of glazing, including but not limited to glass railing on exterior staircases and balconies, that are unbroken and 24 square feet or bigger in size are required to provide bird safe treatment. The ordinance exempts buildings under 45 feet in height in residential zoning districts; however, bird treatment is required for glazing that is 24 square feet or larger in size if any building elevation is designed with more than 50% of glazing. Although single-family homes are exempt from location-based requirements in San Francisco, they still need to comply with feature-based requirements. The cost of specialized glazing is often double that of standard glazing. Many homeowners choose to either change their building materials to non-glazing or design glazing smaller than the size threshold to avoid the additional expense. This approach tries to balance the homeowner’s desire for flexibility to enjoy their homes while naturally incentivizing smaller window sizes that reduce the risk of bird collisions. Cupertino. Cupertino adopted their Bird Safe ordinance in 2021.4 Their ordinance primarily uses a height of 60 feet as a threshold to determine how much bird safe treatment needs to be provided for each elevation. The amount of bird safe treatment requirement becomes more stringent for façade area located above 60 feet compared to the area below. A Bird-Sensitive Area was established as part of the ordinance to identify areas prone to more bird activity. The ordinance exempts different types of development like historic buildings and retail display area, as well as single-family homes outside of the Bird-Sensitive Area. Single family homes are still required to comply with the requirements if they are proposed within the Bird-Sensitive Area Cupertino established. However, Cupertino only requires new construction of primary and accessory buildings to comply with their Bird Safe ordinance. Berkeley. Berkeley has one of the most recent ordinances which regulates building design for bird safety; adopted in 2023.5 Berkeley uses overall size of the development as well as the height to determine where the bird treatment needs to be provided. For residential development, the ordinance requires bird treatment for projects that are bigger than 10,000 square feet in size and over 35 feet in average height, which essentially exempts single-family homes and other lower density residential development. In addition to patterned glazing patterns with permanent markers, 3 City and County of San Francisco’s Standards for Bird-Safe Buildings: https://sfplanning.org/standards-bird-safe- buildings 4 City of Cupertino’s Bird Safe and Dark Sky Ordinance: https://www.cupertino.gov/Your- City/Departments/Community-Development/Planning/Non-Residential/Ordinances/Bird-Safe-and-Dark-Sky 5 Berkeley’s Bird Safe Building Ordinance: https://berkeley.municipal.codes/BMC/23.304.150 Item 3 Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 102     Item No. 3. Page 4 of 10 Berkeley allows applicants to choose other options like Threat Factor Rating or other exterior features like screens, shutters, or shading devices. Like other cities, Berkeley applies Bird Safe Building requirements only to new construction. Staff found that the limited availability of specialized glazing for smaller scale projects, like single-family homes, makes it cost-prohibitive to apply these requirements to retrofit or window replacement projects. ANALYSIS The updated Draft Ordinance (Attachment A) incorporates language to implement the direction received from the PTC at its last hearing on this item in October 2024. The motion included a set of modifications to the Draft Ordinance, including expansion of the applicability, modifications to where and how much bird-friendly treatment need to be provided, revisions to several definitions (including the Bird Sensitive Area), and changing the criteria for alternative compliance. As directed by the PTC, the current draft applies to new construction, major remodels, and all new glazing installation or replacement projects, mandating treatments for any unbroken glazing that are 24 square feet or larger. The required extent of bird-friendly coverage varies significantly based on whether the structure is residential or non-residential and its location within or outside the Bird Sensitive Area. Furthermore, the ordinance provides a few exemptions for some structures, including historic buildings and 100% affordable housing projects. The following sections provide additional information for the PTC’s consideration. They include details staff has gathered, present staff's concerns regarding the implementation of the PTC’s direction, and offer staff recommendations and other options for the PTC to review. Cost and Availability of Bird Safe Glass During development of the revised ordinance language staff became concerned with the cost impact and availability of bird-friendly glazing. To further understand the situation staff reached out to several professionals with experience using bird-friendly glazing, as well as to a manufacturer, local glass retailers, and other City staff. This outreach sought to determine the cost and availability of these products and evaluate how the requirements would impact applicant budgets and project timeline, especially for single-family homeowners. Conversation with a Glass Manufacturer. Staff found that there is no industry for the residential market for the bird-friendly glazing. The recommendation from the manufacturer’s bird specialists for single-family homes or other lower density residential buildings was either using films to create the same effects as permanent bird-friendly glazing, or to use exterior features like insect screens, which is one of the cheapest options to achieve the intent of the ordinance. Although they have not provided cost information, due to too many variations of a panel that would impact the cost, they have acknowledged that installing bird-friendly glazing would be costly for single-family Item 3 Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 103     Item No. 3. Page 5 of 10 or low-density residential projects, not just because of the bird-friendly markers but also because they would have to use commercial rated glazing on residential projects. Staff found that individual homeowners or applicants would not be able to request bird- friendly glazing directly from manufacturers, and they would have to go through architects or other contractors to request those products. This could lead to higher costs and have potential impacts for project timelines. Conversation with Architects. Discussions with architects in Palo Alto and the Bay Area highlighted that bird-safe films generally offer a more viable solution for single-family and low-density residential projects compared to manufactured bird-friendly glazing. While manufactured bird-friendly glazing offer more visibility of the outdoors even with permanent markers, it is frequently ruled out for budget-constrained projects like public facilities due to significant lead times and a glass unit cost increase of approximately $7 to $10 per square foot over commercial rates, which generally start at a higher price point compared to residential rates. For smaller scale projects like single-family homes, specialized glazing may be a better option aesthetically (compared to other options like non-permanent markers and exterior features like insect screens), but the overall cost for glazing might be more than double that of standard glazing, making the manufactured glazing cost prohibitive for residential use. Compared to manufactured glazing, films are readily available through retailers at $4 to $15 per square foot, not including labor costs for professional installation. Relying on films has some drawbacks including the fact that bulk purchasing is often required and self installation can be difficult and time consuming. When exterior features like insect screens are architecturally incompatible and manufactured glazing is cost prohibitive, films serve as the only option for compliance, though it presents environmental concerns. Conversation with Other Cities. Staff reached out to other cities to find out the status of implementation. Staff found out from a San Francisco staff member that because their ordinance essentially exempts single-family homes, they do not see many residential projects or applications requiring bird-friendly glazing; most of their residential applications are submitted because they need to comply with their feature-based requirements (e.g. clear exterior railing on stairways or balconies) rather than location- based requirements (installation of bird-friendly glazing on building elevations). As mentioned before, these projects might be redesigned so that features like railings are either eliminated or made with non-glazing materials, or to reduce the size of the glazing under the established size threshold, in order to mitigate the cost impact. In correspondence with Cupertino, staff found that they see insect screens on their residential development or mixed-use development to meet the bird-friendly requirements, and alternative compliance requests are rare. Item 3 Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 104     Item No. 3. Page 6 of 10 Other cities, recognizing cost and availability issues, provide some flexibility to single- family homes or exempt them altogether. The cost and availability factors also led them to apply the requirements only to new construction, which can better absorb the higher cost compared to window replacements or retrofits. Conversation with Local Glass Retailers. Staff reached out to several glass retailers in the beginning of this process to find out whether glazing with bird-friendly treatment is readily available for Palo Alto residents. Staff found out that most of the local glass retailers or installation services were not aware of glass with bird-friendly glazing, and therefore those were not readily available for someone to pick up or requested to be installed. One local glass retailer was aware of the bird-friendly gazing option, but they were more familiar with privacy screens. As the bird-friendly glazing option is not readily available, if anyone requests one, the retailer would have to special order from manufacturer or supplier, which would delay homeowners or applicants to proceed with their projects. Since windows often must be ordered months before home construction begins, due to long manufacturing lead times and the need to finalize dimensions early, imposing additional bird-safe design requirements in areas lacking a readily available supply of compliant products introduces further challenges to an already time-sensitive procurement process. Modifications for PTC Consideration With the additional information described above, staff recommend the PTC to consider the following topics to provide additional direction: Single-Family Homes. Single-family homes may be disproportionately impacted by the Bird-Friendly Design standards compared to other project types, especially if the requirements are applied to the replacement of existing fenestration (windows). Requiring the replacement of existing fenestration not only raises aesthetic inconsistency issues (if only one window is broken and therefore required to have the treatment) but also forces homeowners to opt for non-permanent treatments, such as films, due to both the significant cost impact and limited product availability. These films and other non-permanent markers, however, have some environmental and sustainability concerns. The films themselves are non-permanent and they typically degrade after several years, requiring continuous removal and replacement. Additionally, the ongoing application of these materials creates plastic waste from both the worn-out films and the packaging associated with them. This unintentionally undermines the City’s goals of environmental preservation and sustainability. Staff therefore recommend PTC consider an exemption for single-family homes due to significant concerns regarding the cost and availability of compliant products for Item 3 Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 105     Item No. 3. Page 7 of 10 homeowners, as well as regarding environment and sustainability. Alternatively, the following revisions could be used to reduce the burden on homeowners: o Remove the requirement for the replacement of existing fenestration to comply with the bird-friendly design requirements. o Apply a size threshold (e.g., 24 square feet or larger in size and unbroken glazing) to the applicability provision, requiring bird-friendly treatment only for new or replacement fenestration that is larger than that specific threshold. Bird Sensitive Area. In addition to the Baylands and Foothills areas, the PTC directed staff to modify the definition of Bird Sensitive Area to add areas that are in close proximity to natural creeks (300-foot buffer from the centerlines of natural creeks). The addition of this area greatly expands the number of single-family homes that would be subject to the stricter measures. Because the Bird Sensitive Area would include the entire property if the buffer touches just a little corner of the property, this may be perceived as disproportionate or unfair to require the same bird-friendly glazing for windows not facing a creek, or for buildings on a large lot built well away from the buffer area. Staff recommend removing the 300-foot buffer element from the definition of the Bird Sensitive Area, making implementation and identification of the Area clearer for property owners. The definition then would only encompass the area west of Foothill Expressway and the Baylands areas where its natural environmental conditions with its close proximity to large water bodies and expansive vegetated area make them environmentally sensitive and prone to attract more avian species. Alternatively, the PTC could consider adding (to the Hillsides and Baylands) only the properties abutting a natural creek in the definition of Bird Sensitive Area, though this would not address some concerns received from those property owners. Alternative Compliance. The PTC directed staff to revise the requirements on Alternative Compliance section to be consistent with the suggestions from the Santa Clara Valley Bird Alliance. The suggestion included adding accreditation as one of requirements and also adding five years of experience in bird-friendly building design for qualified professionals preparing alternative compliance analysis and recommendations. Staff recommend removing the requirement for accreditation in Bird-Friendly Design because no such accreditation is currently available outside of Canada. Although a similar accreditation program is under development by the American Bird Conservancy, the timeline for its availability remains unknown. Additionally, staff also recommends removing the requirement for a minimum of five years of experience in bird-friendly building design because it would restrict the pool of qualified professionals capable of providing the necessary expertise, potentially hindering project approvals and creating unnecessary delays. The condition of five years is also vague. Even if a qualified Item 3 Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 106     Item No. 3. Page 8 of 10 professional was involved throughout the entire process to provide expertise on how to reduce bird collisions for a project, that project could have taken multiple years to complete. Their five years of experience assisting bird-friendly design projects might represent only one or two projects. POLICY IMPLICATIONS Adopting the Bird-Friendly Design Ordinance directly implements Comprehensive Plan Policy L- 6.3 and Program L6.3.1, established in 2017. This ordinance minimizes hazards for birds, reducing collisions within the city. Furthermore, it streamlines the entitlement process by establishing clear bird-friendly design standards, promoting efficient development, and enhancing the aesthetic appeal of the city streets and public spaces. As part of the implementation of Program 3.2 (Monitor Constraints to Housing) of the Housing Element, the City needs to prepare an analysis in staff reports for initiatives proposing new regulations. This analysis should detail how the regulations may impact housing production, if at all, and recommend solutions to address any adverse impacts. The Bird-Friendly Design ordinance, as explained above, will directly impact housing production by definitively increasing construction costs associated with specialized glazing and materials, in addition to delayed timeline adding to the project budget. This mandatory increase in material and labor costs constrains housing production by reducing project viability and potentially delaying approval for critical housing units. To mitigate the significant cost burden of specialized glazing, the draft ordinance allows less expensive alternatives such as films, decals, or other similar markers, or exterior features like insect screens to treat fenestration for residential development and the residential portion of mixed-use development. While these markers and insect screens represent a reduced financial impact compared to treated glass, they still increase cost for materials and installation that is not currently required in standard construction. Therefore, the ordinance could result in higher construction costs, confirming its adverse impact on housing production. FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT The implementation of the proposed ordinance is not anticipated to have any direct fiscal impact on the City budget; the costs for installing bird-friendly design elements would be borne entirely by applicants. The marginal effort of staff to review plans and permit applications for compliance with bird-friendly design requirements is expected to be minimal. STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT Staff conducted two study sessions, one in February and another in July 2024, through the ARB’s regular meeting schedule to provide a platform for community members to express their views and concerns regarding the proposed ordinance. In addition, staff engaged with representatives from the Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society and Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter to solicit their input on the proposed ordinances. Item 3 Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 107     Item No. 3. Page 9 of 10 Staff received numerous comment letters from the Santa Clara Valley Bird Alliance (formerly known as the Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society) and Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter on various versions of the draft ordinance presented to the ARB and PTC. The public comments included specific modification recommendations on the multiple versions of the draft Bird- Friendly Design ordinance, which some of feedback were incorporated throughout the process. Staff also received two public comment letters from two different residents. The residents were particularly concerned about the PTC decision to modify the Bird Sensitive Area definition by adding areas within 300 feet from the centerlines of natural streams. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Item 3 Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 108     Item No. 3. Page 10 of 10 The City has reviewed the proposed ordinance in accordance with the authority and criteria set forth in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The City, as the lead agency, anticipates that the ordinance will be exempt from CEQA in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15308, which includes actions by regulatory agencies for the protection of the environment. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS ATTACHMENTS AUTHOR/TITLE: Item 3 Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 109     *** NOT YET APPROVED *** 1 0160179_20251124_ay16 Ordinance No. _____ Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 18.40 (General Standards and Exceptions) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Adopt Bird Friendly Design Standards The Council of the City of Palo Alto ORDAINS as follows: SECTION 1. Findings and Declarations. The City Council finds and declares as follows: A. On November 13, 2017, the City Council adopted the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The plan included a policy encouraging bird-friendly design and a program to develop guidelines for bird-friendly building design that minimizes hazards for birds and reduces the potential for collisions. B. On January 29, 2024, the City Council selected four City Council priorities, one of which is “Climate Change & Natural Environment – Protection & Adaptation.” This priority includes an objective to approve a bird-safe glass and wildlife light pollution protections ordinance. C. On February 14, 2024, and July 18, 2024, the Architectural Review Board conducted study sessions and provided feedback on this ordinance. D. On August 14, 2024, the Planning and Transportation Commission reviewed the draft ordinance, provided feedback, and continued the hearing to a date uncertain. E. On October 30, 2024, the Planning and Transportation Commission recommended approval of the ordinance. F. This Ordinance is intended to reduce bird mortality rates by reducing the possibility of bird collisions with buildings, contributing to a healthier and more resilient environment. G. This Ordinance provides clear and consistent standards, streamlining the approval process by reducing the need for case-by-case review of individual projects. SECTION 2. Section 18.40.280 (Bird-Friendly Design Standards) of Chapter 18.40 (General Standards and Exceptions) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code added to read as follows: 18.40.280 Bird-Friendly Design Standards (a) Purpose. The intent of this chapter/section is to establish bird-friendly design standards for glass to minimize hazards for birds and to reduce the potential for collisions. (b) Definitions. The following terms are defined for the purposes of this section: (1) “Bird Sensitive Area” means: (A) areas located east of Highway 101, (B) areas located west of Foothill Expressway, and (C) areas within 300 feet of the centerline of natural streams between Highway 101 and Foothill Expressway. Item 3 Attachment A - Draft Ordinance     Packet Pg. 110     *** NOT YET APPROVED *** 2 0160179_20251124_ay16 (2) “Bird-Friendly Treatment” means permanent treatment to glass glazing that provides visual cues to birds and reduces the likelihood of bird collisions by incorporating one of the following:. (A) Patterned Treatment, Permanent. Glazing shall be permanently translucent or obscured, or include patterns are etched, fritted, stenciled, silk-screened, or otherwise permanently incorporated into the transparent material. (i) For patterns using dots or other isolated solid shapes, each dot or shape must be at least a 1/4 inch in diameter and be no more than 2 inches apart in any direction. (ii) For patterns using lines, they must be at least 1/8 inch in width and spaced no more than 2 inches apart. (iii) Frit, ceramic ink, or other marker types must be obscured and permanent unless an alternative compliance method is chosen as outlined in Section 18.40.280(e). (B) Patterned Treatment, Limited. Films, decals, or other similar markers may be used only for residential development or the residential portion of mixed-use development. These Limited Patterned Treatment shall have the same visual cues or patterns as Permanent Patterned Treatment under 18.401280(b)(2)(A) and be applied to outer surface to the extent as possible. (B)(C) Exterior Features. Panes with exterior screens, shutters or shading devices installed permanently over windows, structures, or building features such that there is no gap larger than 9 inches in one dimension. Exterior features include, but are not limited to, metal screens, insect screens, shutters, window grilles, fixed solar shading such as louvres, and exterior insert, brise soleil, or solar screens. (3) “Bird Hazard Installations” are defined as monolithic visually unbroken, exterior glazing and/or glass panels that are reflective or transparent that provides a clear line of sight through the glazed elements to porches, courtyards, water features, trees, vegetation, landscaping, or the sky on the other side of the glazed such elements, including, but not limited to: (A) Glass Ffree standing features such as transparent awnings, (B) Glass Transparent handrails and guards, (C) Glass Transparent wind break panels, acoustic barriers, bus, or weather shelters, other free-standing transparent walls, and or see-through building protrusions; (D) Glass acoustic barriersTransparent skyways or walkways;, (E) Two or more Pparallel glass transparent elements with a distance of 17 30 feet or less between them, whenre at least one or both of of the parallel panes isare 24 square feet or larger;, or (F) Glass glassTwo or more transparent elements on opposing sides and within 12 feet of a glass corner (perpendicular, acute, or obtuse) when at least one of thethat include panels is 24 square feet or larger. Item 3 Attachment A - Draft Ordinance     Packet Pg. 111     *** NOT YET APPROVED *** 3 0160179_20251124_ay16 (4) “Elevation” means any exterior walls of a building or structure, as seen from a two- dimensional perspective like the front, side, or rear. (5) “Fenestration” means the openings in a building’s façade, such as door, skylights, and windows. (6) “Glazing” means the reflective, transparent or translucent materials that fill openings in a building’s exterior walls. This typically includes glass but can also encompass other materials like plastic or acrylic sheets that allow light transmission. (c) Applicability. For the purposes of this section, When a permit is otherwise required, the following projects shall comply with the bird-friendly design requirements set forth in this section: (1) All newly constructed structures and buildings within the Bird Sensitive Area; (2) Substantial Remodel, as defined in Section 16.14.070 of the Code, within the Bird Sensitive Area; or (3) Any new or replacement fenestration or Bird Hazard Installations that is unbroken and 24 square feet or larger. (d) Bird-Friendly Design Requirements. (1) Basic Requirement. Bird-Friendly Treatment is required for all Bird Hazard installations and all glazing on an elevation of a building or structure that is unbroken and 24 square feet or larger in size. (2) Rresidential and the residential portion of mixed-use development. (A) Within the Bird Sensitive Area, in addition to the requirements of (d)(1), no more than ten percent of an elevation of any structure or building shall be untreated glazing. (A)(B) Outside of the Bird Sensitive Area, in addition to the requirements of (d)(1), no more than 40 percent of an elevation of any structure or building shall be untreated glazing. (3) Nonresidential and the non-residential portion of mixed-use development. In addition to the requirements of (d)(1), no more than ten percent of an elevation of any structure or building shall be untreated glazing. (d)(e) Alternative Compliance. Property owners or applicants may request an alternative means of compliance to with requirements established in Sections 18.40.280(d) and 18.40.280(de), recommended in a report by a qualified biologist or ornithologist to meet the requirements and intent of this section. The qualified biologist or ornithologist shall be accredited in Bird-Friendly Design or have a degree in wildlife biology or specialization in ornithology. In addition, the qualified biologist or ornithologist shall and have at least five Item 3 Attachment A - Draft Ordinance     Packet Pg. 112     *** NOT YET APPROVED *** 4 0160179_20251124_ay16 years of experience in bird-friendly building design. The alternative compliance shall be subject to approval by the Director approval. (e)(f) Lighting. All projects shall comply with the outdoor lighting requirements pursuant to Section 18.40.250 of the Municipal Code. (f)(g) Exemptions. The following types of projects shall be exempt from Section 18.40.280(d): (1) Any historic structure located within the City’s Historic Districts or listed on the City’s Historic Inventory or the State or National Historical Registers, except for new additions where treatment conforms to Secretary of Interior Standards for Rehabilitation of Historic Properties,. (2) The first floor of commercial uses facing a public street, up to 14 feet in height, within the following districts: (A) Retail Shopping (R) Combining District (B) Pedestrian Shopping (P) Combining District (C) Ground Floor (GF) Combining District (D) North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan Districts (1)(3) 100% affordable housing projects as defined in Section 18.32.030. (4) Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units pursuant to Chapter 18.09. (g)(h) California Building Code. All windows, doors, or other features must comply with the requirements of the California Building Code including the fire hazard severity zone regulations in California Green Buildings Standards Code (CALGreen). Should a conflict exist with the provisions of this section, the standards in the California Building Code shall prevail. SECTION 3. If any section, subsection, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion or sections of the Ordinance. The Council hereby declares that it should have adopted the Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. SECTION 4. The Council finds that this project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), pursuant to Section 15061 of the CEQA Guidelines, because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the ordinance will have a significant effect on the environment and Section 15308, as an action by a regulatory agency to protect the environment. SECTION 5. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first day following its adoption. Item 3 Attachment A - Draft Ordinance     Packet Pg. 113     *** NOT YET APPROVED *** 5 0160179_20251124_ay16 SECTION 6. Pipeline Projects. This Ordinance shall not apply to any project application deemed complete prior to the effective date of this Ordinance. Any project completed pursuant to such application shall be deemed a legal non-conforming structure and/or use, subject to the provisions of Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 18.70. INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: NOT PARTICIPATING: ATTEST: ____________________________                     ____________________________ City Clerk                                                             Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM:                                    APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: ____________________________                     ____________________________ Assistant City Attorney                                    City Manager                                                                             ____________________________                                                                    Director of Planning & Development Services Item 3 Attachment A - Draft Ordinance     Packet Pg. 114     Item 3 Attachment B - Bird Sensitive Area Maps     Packet Pg. 115     Item 3 Attachment B - Bird Sensitive Area Maps     Packet Pg. 116     Staff Response to PTC Motion from October 30, 2024 Bird-Friendly Design Ordinance PTC Motion Staff Response Ordinance Reference may be untreated for all applicable residential development within the Bird Sensitive Area and all commercial e. Ordinance in Attachment A of the report. may be untreated for all applicable residential development outside of . Ordinance in Attachment A of the report. Eliminate the window size threshold This was removed. Consider bird hazard installation definitions from Santa Clara Valley Bird Alliance comment letter; Modify the definition of “Bird Sensitive Area” to add the areas within 300 feet from the centerlines of natural streams. and incorporated into the Draft Ordinance in Attachment A of the report. • for Bird Hazard Installation • 18.40.280(b)(1) for Bird Sensitive Area Add that no untreated glazing that are unbroken shall be allowed to be greater than 24 square feet. Ordinance in Attachment A of the report. 18.40.280(d)(1) Alliance suggestion on the “Alternative Compliance” and remove exemption on new additions to historic resources. • Alternative Compliance has been modified to match the suggested language from the Santa Clara Valley Bird Alliance. • The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (SOI) requires that new work be differentiated from the old to avoid invoking a false sense of history by making an addition appear original. However, creating something entirely in a different architectural style is unacceptable; the new work must be compatible with the old. The exemption on historic buildings were modified to reference • for Alternative Compliance • 18.40.280(g)(1) for exemption on historic structures Item 3 Attachment C - Staff Response to the PTC Motion from October 30, 2024     Packet Pg. 117    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`a bcd`e fg`h`idjbk lgfc fmja`kb fl j_b fghdi`ndj`fio pb qdmj`fma fl frbija dik qe`qs`ih fi e`isaov v}~ xv€w ‚€}uƒ}u~ ‚|v‚ ‚|u ˆ‰‚ ‰y ‚w‰}Š ‹Œ‹ Ž ‚€ €wˆu v ˆwuu €w~‰}v}ˆu ‚|w€†Š| ‚|u ‘‡v}}‰}Š v€} {€””‰yy‰€} ‚|v‚ ‰”“vˆ‚y ‚|u •v‡†u v}~ yuˆ†w‰‚ € €†w |€”uy €} –~Šu—€€~ t  žŽ™ ‹¡ Ž¢œ™ ›š £›¤¤œŽ ™¥ ›œ™šž‹£šz v}~ ‚|v‚ ‡vy‚ }‰Š|‚ ˆ‰‚ y‚v wuˆ€””u}~u~ ‚|u ‘’{ v““w€•u v }u— ¦€}‰}Š €w~‰}v} ‚|v‚ —€†‡~ wu®†‰wu “w€“uw‚‰uy —‰‚|‰} ¯«« uu‚ € v ˆwuu |v•u €“v®†u —‰}~€—y v}~‡z² ³‚ v““uvwy ‚|u ˆ‰‚ §vŠv‰}­ y€‡‰ˆ‰‚u~ ‚|u ´†~†°€} €ˆ‰u‚ v}~ ‰uwwv {‡†° ‰}ˆu v}~ ‰y wu‡‰}Š €} ‚|u‰w “†w“€w‚u~ ±uµ“uw‚‰yuz² ¶°•‰€†y‡ƒ ‚|uyu u}•‰w€}”u}‚v‡ Šu}~v v}~ }€ ˆ€}ˆuw} €w ‚|u wuy‰~u}‚y· ‰}v}ˆ‰v‡ ‰}‚uwuy‚ €w yuˆ†w‰‚z xuv}—|‰‡uƒ ‰~u}‚y ‰”“vˆ‚u~ ° ‚|u €w~‰}v}ˆu ‰} ‚|u ~vw z ’|uwu —vy }€ €†‚wuvˆ|ƒ }€‚ u•u} vˆ†‡vw‡ € u}y‰•u °uˆv†yu ˆ‰‚ y‚v }€—y ‚|v‚ u•uw€}u €} ‚|‰y u”v‰‡ ‰y v} ‰}‚uwuw ±ˆ€ww‰~€w² ˆwuu €w~‰}v}ˆuz“v®†u —‰}~€—y € v} v”€†}‚ v‡€}Š –~Šu—€€~ tw‰•u —‰‡‡ ”v‚uw‰v‡‡ ~uŠwv~u ‚|u €†w “w€“uw‚‰uyz „u }uu~ ‚€ °u v°‡u ‚€ yuu €†‚ € €†w |€”uyz ’—€ ~vy vŠ€ƒ v |u ˆwuu u}ˆv”“”u}‚ …†”“u~ €†w °vˆ u}ˆu v}~ ‚w‰u~ ‚€ y‚uv‡ v ¸»Šv‡‡€} ˆ€}‚v‰} —u yv— |‰” ‚|w€†Š| €†w ½¾¿ÀÁÂÃÀ¿ÄÁ¾½ —‰}~€—y v}~ ˆ€} w€}‚u~ |‰”z Åu ‡u ‚ ‚|u—} –~Šu—€€~ —|uwu |u —vy ‰}‚uwˆu“‚u~ ° ‘v‡€ ´‡‚€ ‘€‡‰ˆuz Ɖ u —‰‚| ‚|u ±ˆ€ww‰~Šu—€€~ tw‰•u y|€†‡~ °u uµˆ‡†~u~ w€” ‚|‰y €w~‰}v}ˆu ~†u ‚€ €†w †}‰®†u ˆ‰wˆ†” €} ‚|u °€w~uw € –‘´ƒ —|uwu ‚|uwu vwu }€ °vww‰uwy ‚€ vˆˆuyy ‚|u ˆwuu ƒ }€ ”uv}‚ v}~ €}Š€‰}Š ˆw‰”‰}v‡ v}~ “€‡‡†‚‰•u vˆ‚‰•‰‚z Item 3 Attachment D - Public Comments received after October 30, 2024     Packet Pg. 118                                                  !  "# $     !    !   !  !           !     %  &'(')*'+,,-.,/0,1.2345678./',-'9:0(3;<(0'2381=/(''>?(302.2/'?2-?83*2,08@80/(''>?(302.2/'@,-'0B7./,'3('+03'2,+.(''2C.C'302B'',02C+A0,-/0,12'(+@.23-?B'?A2'(027*,@.8?2CA0,-,-'0B7./,?2+'/*(0,1@,('+7.++.23,0D'+@.('/?2+03'('3     !QRRSTPQRRSULMNVLWXSYZ[NRY\RXYUY]^_fgXYhQ]ijOklkminkm[ortQrTeMNrtQrVuMvRRwUgYu_xyXYrQOz]QQ]Tz]QQ]UyXYrQVLWXSYZ[NRY\RXYUY]^_x{QrWroSYZQwNUY]^_xPQ|Wr{Q}WtT~RQ}WtVgWXSYZQwNUY]^_QuNrTLYRQuNrUd]Wg~VLWXSYZ[NRY\RXYUY]^_xqNYO Q]YrWgNT Q]YrWgNUqNYVLWXSYZ[NRY\RXQ]T‚QrrWZQ]U\]uQ]VLWXSYZ[NRY\RXYUY]^_xoWgMNQR‚UoQSQ]TuƒuQSQ]VwNghQRRUrQX_xPQNghQRRUrQX_x‚NuQtNreLNXMSy„rT…NuQtUt„rj†V^uNWRUgYu_x…QeQRuNri‡ˆ†V^uNWRUgYNWRUgYuxX}QM]uNrV^uNWRUgYux‰Qr‰NRRT‰QrU‰NRRVLM„]gMYZ‚Qt„tLM]WtXUY]^_x{WŠN‹eQV^uNWRUgYu_xqQ\rrNsNrtQrŒekMNrtQrVSNMYYUgYu TekMNrtQrVSNMYYUgYu_xoWgM]NreVWgRY„eUgYu_x…QŽUtMY]QVgYugNtXUrQX[]YwYtQeLMNr^QtXYyX]QNuLY]]WeY][]YXQg“YrtYrO]SY„]QuNWRNregYuuQrXtYrXMQ‹e^Q}YYew]YwQ]“QtWr]QRN“YrXYXMQY]eWrNrgQ„weXMQeQRNSWruS]QtwYrtQUe^QXMNXXMQY]eWrNrgQ„weNXQRNg~Qet„—gWQrXw„hRWgY„X]QNgMNregYuu„rWXSQr^N^QeXYWuw]Y|Wr^XMWtw]YgQttNreN]Qg„]]QrXRSwRNrrWr^Z„]XMQ]gYuu„rWXSQr^N^QuQrXYY]QWrZY]uN“YrYrXMQw]Y…QgXNre]QgQW|QNeeW“YrNRZQQehNg~USY„]QuNWRNee]QttONt}QRRNtXMYtQgg™eWrSY„]QuNWROXYXMQw]Y…QgX™tWrXQ]QtXQewN]“QXMWtRWtX}WRR]QgQW|QNrrY„rgQuQrXtNhY„XZ„X„]Qw]Y…QgX„weNXQtOWrgR„eWr^WrZY]uN“Yruu„rWXSQr^N^QuQrXNg“|W“QtNreMQN]Wr^tgMQe„RQUW˜QrgYuuQrXtXYXMQ[RNrrWr^Nre”]NrtwY]XN“YrLYuuWttWYrŒ[”L OwRQNtQQuNWR£ž¤¤ž¢š¥¡ž¦§¢¨šœ›¢©›¦¢ ¢ªŸU\RRgYuuQrXtOQ|QrXMYtQrYX]QRNXQeXYN^QreWŠQeWXQutOXMQQr“]QLYuuWttWYrU Item 3 Attachment D - Public Comments received after October 30, 2024     Packet Pg. 119                  ! "#! $%&#!'(&)*+,(- 001213432 5632 7/: ;!< $;!<+9&'9 <=7>+?@-A B!: C?!!? $C?!!?+B!'9 <=7>+?@-A D!  /!@?', <=!*+?@-A ;!E  D!F # $!F #', <=!*+?@-A 7 @ 9(( ##  @+9(( ## ', <=*+?@-A G? ,: 9!( $9!(+G? ,'9 <=7>+?@-A  , $H!? ,+'9 <=7>+?@-A >?(!?: I! =!? $I! =!?+>?(!?'9 <=7>+?@-&! I+ /!<!? $(J(!<!?'*,K!+!-A ;!  /!<!? $! F! '*,K!+!-A I(!# % 9&< B!#+#M5'@( +,(-A L!%!(0NO5'@( +,( $L!%!(0NO5'@( +,(-A <&F@'@(F@'@( +,(-A F!&?('@( +,( $F!&?('@( +,(-A P! P+P'9&?,&=I!##9&? #+?@-A D Q R%!( $ Q!%!('@( +,(-A !> "#!#!'<&+,(T $%3&#!'<&+,(-A / ,&! P?% $( ,&!23K?%' ,%+,(-A#&?!',(,#+! $L!==+#&?!',(,#+!-A ? # #'<&+,( $? # #'<&+,(- ',#+#=?%+!% $= ',#+#=?%+!%-A *?E <'@( +,(*?E <'@( +,(-A #*?NM'@( +,( $#*?NM'@( +,(-A %E!@??'@( +,(E!@??'@( +,(-A G?!,! B $=?!,!#'#=?%( +?@-A ! # U #&F'@( +,(-A > ?( C* $ ?(J@*'<&+,(-A P&# C*#+@*'@( +,(-Y^_` abc_d ef_g_hciaj kfeb eli`_ja ek i^a efgch_mci_ehn oa pcli_el` ek eqahi` chj pd_pr_hg eh d_hr`nu| v € ‚v vt„…€y ‰vuƒŠ ‹Œ v‰ ƒv t~‰…€Ž v‰ ~u~ ty w vt Š{u~ ~ ty {tŠ{tv ‘ ~‰ ‘x u~‰ ‰ vx uv| ‰ Šx| ’uvtvx| “…u”t v ‰t u…x| Š{t vtx‚…Š x Š{t xu’t • „u–‚t~txxy xŠuƒƒ‡x ‰tx v „Š ~ ƒ Š{t v‰ ~u~ t xu€x x’u……tv ‘ ~‰ ‘x uvt t˜t’„Š u~‰ Š{t v‚ …‰ ~“x ‘ Š{ ™š x–‚uvt ƒttŠ v ’ vt ƒ ‚~Œv t~ “…uxx| Š{uŠ x ~ Š ‘{uŠ Š{t v‰ ~ux ~ t˜t’„Š ~ ƒ v x’u……tv ‘ ~‰v ‘x v { ’tx ‘ Š{ …txx Š{u~ ™š x–‚uvt ƒttŠ ƒ ‚‚ vtˆ xt Š{t v‰ ~u~ t| € ‚ x{ ‚…‰ ~x ‰tv Šx u Š‚u… x „t ~ ˆ t‘ ƒ ‘{uŠ ‘ux u~‰ ‘{uŠ ’utx xt~xt ƒ v ‚vŒu~ { ’tx ~ ‘{ { xt ‚v Š€ x „uvu’ ‚~Šyvtxt~Št‰ Š{t ƒ …… ‘ ~“› ¢£¤¥ ¦£¢§¨¤¨©¡ª «£§¦£§¬­¡® ¯§£¢°±£§¡¨¢²³ ´¡¤®µ£¡® §¨  §¶ °£§®· ¤£¡¤® ¸§ž  ²¤¬¦¨®¹ ¸ §²¡ ¡º¡´«¬¨¶ ®´¤²²¡£ ¸§¨¢¦¸®¹ ´¦£¡ ©¦´´¦¨ ±¦£ £¡®§¢¡¨¬¤² «£¦§­¡ ž ¡ §´«¤©ž ¦¨  ¦´¡¦¸¨¡£® ¤¨¢  ¦µ®§¨¶ ¢¡¼¡²¦«¡£®½¾ Item 3 Attachment D - Public Comments received after October 30, 2024     Packet Pg. 120                                 !      "#$      %  & '(  )        (   ! *!  (          !  #  !          (   )          !   %   (!       (899:;7899:<345=3>?:@AB59@C9?@<@DEF:6N@O8PQ8DR6STSRUTVRWCKL[8L;M45L[8L=P4\99]<^@PF_`?@L86aD88D;aD88D<`?@L8=3>?:@AB59@C9?@<@DEF_b8L>LK:@A8]5<@DEF_78O>Lb8c>[;d98c>[=^>?:@A8]5<@DEF8P5L;3@98P5L<gD>^d=3>?:@AB59@C9?@<@DEF_Y5@6h8D@L>^5;h8D@L>^5<Y5@=3>?:@AB59@C9?8D;i8LL>A8D<CDP8D=3>?:@AB59@C9?@<@DEF_K>^4589i<K8:8D;PjP8:8D=]5^Q899<L8?F_785^Q899<L8?F_i5P8[5LM35?4:`kL;l5P8[<[kLmn=EP5>9<^@PF_l8M89P5LUoWn=EP5>9<^@5>9<^@P_?c84DP5L=EP5>9<^@P_p8Lp599;p8L<p599=34kD^4@Ai8[k[34D>[?<@DEF_b>q5rM8=EP5>9<^@PF_Y8CLL5Z5L[8LsMS45L[8L=:54@@<^@Pt;MS45L[8L=:54@@<^@PF_K>^4D5LM=>^9@kM<^@PF_l8u<[4@D8=^@P^5[?<L8?_B95LL>LE3@PP>[[>@LPP>[[>@L=^>?:@A]59@59?@<@DEFBD@]@[8M345LE8[?@`?D85P3@DD>M@DBD@?8^z@L[8L6D:@kD^@PP8L?[<T6STSR6?48B95LL>LE5LM{D5L[]@D?5z@L3@PP>[[>@LsB{3t^@L[>M8D8M5MD5}@A?48p>DMD8^@PP8LM8M[8O8D59P@M>~^5z@L[6>L^9kM>LE5D8^@PP8LM5z@L?45??48p>DM`8L[>z>L^9kM85nTT\A@@?Qku8DAD@PL5?kD59^D88d[<p8^5k[8@A?4>[65LM@?48DD8^@PP8LM8MM8O89@]5D8O>[8M@DM>L5L^8<€48L3>?:3@kL^>9^@L[>M8D[5M@]z@L@A?48p>DM\gD>8LM9:5D: g8QDk5D:STS‚t6?48:c>9945O8?48@]z@L?@>L^9kM8@D@P>??4>[5MM>z@L595D85<€8??48MD5}@DM>L5L^8?@[88?48Pk9z]98@]z@L[A@DP5d>LEc>LM@c[Q>DM\AD>8LM9:6P@[>?4@k?P5d>LE?485u8^?8Mc>LM@c[@]5ƒk8<„@k^5LD8O>8c?48[?5uD8]@D?6MD5}p>DM5L^865LM@?48D5…5^4P8L?[48D8V†‡ˆ‰Š‹‹Œ Ž ‘ˆ’“ ’“Ž ”ˆ• –—˜ ™”Œ –‹š •Ž’“‹›——œš˜ž“’Ž— ¡¢£¤¥¦¦sCE8LM5§?8P¨St<8`?D85P3@DD>M@DBD@?8^z@L|DM>L5L^86[?5u>[]D8]5D>LEA@D5^@PPkL>?:P88zLE>LD8A@DP@D8^@PPkL>?:8LE5E8P8L?<{@5O@>M^@L©>^?[c>?4?484@9>M5:[85[@L65LM8L[kD@D^@PPkL>?:>L]k?6?48P88zLEc>99Q8489M>L95?8i5Lk5D:<`?5uc>99]D@O>M8P@D8>LA@8zLE5[M8?5>9[5D8~L59>q8M<„@kc>99D8^8>O85L8P5>95LL@kL^8P8L?5Q@k??4>[^@PPk@k5D8>L^9kM8M@L?48>L?8D8[?8M]5Dz8[9>[?A@D?48]D@l8^?< Item 3 Attachment D - Public Comments received after October 30, 2024     Packet Pg. 121                  !"#$"%&"#$"'()*)#"&+,*-,.112324543674380<=->%=->*:;#':$>&8#?*+@.$"A#%+$)$")#'>#;*( .EJKLMNOKPQRKSKTOUMVWRQNQXULKVMQWUJMQRSOTKYOUKQTZ[M\OXUKQXLQWQ]MTULOTV\PK\^KTSQTPKT^LZ#7a#+-+-)$,-")#",b+b-+>`"-+)$":+-)(-"8#+*c-b+-d$)>);#+-,`-+)&;-8#""$"@e+#")b+#$": $))$"f8:g+bb)$$";-b$,+8+-($"+,$"#"(-$"+--+&(h-+i<4543*?)> $@;$ #@$h)-j-">-#+"&`$"@;-(h-+k5<45438: --$"@;#+b+b-;-b+b)-,"-`q$+,!+$-",>_-)$@"A#",#+,)+-#-,h$,$"@)"-#++-@$)-++)+-")hp-($";-"-`b+b)-,q$+,!+$-",>_-)$@";-+,$"#"(-);,"h-)(b-,$"(,-,-d-b-,+h#"#+-#))(;#)b+-($"@h$+,)$"+h#"#+-#)$)"--,-,<`;>$);-h+,-"$ $-,">#&s-j$+$"@tq$+,!+$-",>+-# -")u,+# #$(#>+-,(-);-,-)$+#h$$><d#b-+$-)$ b#(-,h>;-)-+-j$+- -")$";$))-$"@*a$);#+,$ #@$"-$d;#,-d-b-,#+-#<)()-"-&;-q#>?+-#v)b+$ #+>&+--`#>)<>-h-+(-,`$",`)*!$"#><;--w+- -"#+-&;$)b+b)-,"-`+,$"#"(-$)#$d->$ b#(;)$"@d#-)h -#"$"@&>)bb+-))&+-$ b+d- -"),*c$;#"#@$"@b+b-+>h#)-<`-&-#+`"-+)`$b+-&-+#`b+b-+$-)#;-+;#")#(+$&$(-;-$+#h$$>;#d-"+ #`$",`)*;-(,-#)`+$-"-&++h#"#+-#)*c-+-)b-(&>#))#&&#,,+-));-)(b-#",)-d-+$>)$"b+-b#+$"@)#&&v)+-b+#",;-,+#&+,$"#"(-&+;-:$>:"($x## #bb+b+$#->(#b+-;--w+- ->)+"@bb)$$"&; -`"-+);$);#d-+#+->)--"#( "$>h#",@-;-+)j$(>&$@;#(#+,$"#`#")$ $#+>+-@$)-++bb)$$";-b+b)-,"-`_#+A>s-@#&+-)b")$h-,+$@;$"@b+#($(-)$"@-"-+#<;-+,$"#"(-b+b)-,$)$d-$";-$@;$"@)#",#+,)+-j$+-,*!++b+b-+>$"b#+$(#+<;-$@;$@"$&$(#">+-,(-;-)#&->&+b+b-+>*;$)$)-)b-($#>#(-@$d-";";)-,b-+)")<$"-"$"##",2+#(($,-"#`$,&$+-)$";-(+--<#",$"(+ Item 3 Attachment D - Public Comments received after October 30, 2024     Packet Pg. 122                                                                                                                             ! " #                                      &  # Item 3 Attachment D - Public Comments received after October 30, 2024     Packet Pg. 123    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`a bcd`e fg`h`idjbk lgfc fmja`kb fl j_b fghdi`ndj`fio pb qdmj`fma fl frbija dik qe`qs`ih fi e`isao|}~ƒw †€u wu‡ˆ‚y ‰Š ‚ƒ„ wu|ƒ Š{‹uw †€u Œ{w‹ …w{u ‹ˆ‚ ƒw‹{ v |u~ ‡ˆuvŠu |ƒ Š{‹uw †€u …ƒ|ˆƒŠuˆ‚ v† Ž€‚ ’„ ‚“vˆu”Š •– „ v {—ƒ„Šˆ‚ wu˜u|†u‹ †€u Šv—u ƒw‹{ v |u …ƒw ˆv|{…{| ŒvŠ{Š ›v „vw‚ œš~ žŸœ ~ †€u •ˆv { –ƒ——{ŠŠ{ƒ |ƒ Š{‹uwu‹ †€u {†u— v† v ƒ†{|u‹ ‡„Œ¡¢£¤¥ ¦§¨§©ª¢¦«¬­ £¢ ®¤¯¢ªª¤§¥ £°¨£ £°¤ ±©£­ ±¢¦§¯©¬ §¢£ ²¦®«¦¤ ³©®¥´«¨µ¤¬©§¤« ¢® ®¤·¦©®¤ª¤§£« ¦§£©¬ ª¢®¤ «¯©¤§£©µ©¯ ©§µ¢®ª¨£©¢§ ©« ¨¡¨©¬¨³¬¤ ¨³¢¦£ £¯£ ³¦©¬¥©§¶« ©§ ¸¦§§­¡¨¬¤ °¨¡¤ ¢§ ³©®¥ ²¢²¦¬¨£©¢§«y¹ ¿½ÀÁÁÂÃÄÅÆÇÄÈÅÆÉʽ»ÄËÈÇÌÍ¿ÎÆÉʽÅÄ»ÊÌÁÏÆ»ÄÊÅÈĽ¼ÐÑÒÏÓÔÕÖ×ÔÔØÙÚÛÒÏÓàØØÝãàâäåáàÖãæßãßã×ãÝæáÙæÀÅÅçÆлÓÔé Š|{u †{…{| Š†„‹{uŠ ƒ Œ{w‹Š { •vˆƒ ‰ˆ†ƒ ƒw { †€u Œv‚ vwuv Š€ƒŽ{ |ƒˆˆ{Š{ƒ Š vwu uvw Žv†uwŽv‚Šy €u šŸŸ …ƒƒ† Œ„……uw êƒ u †€v† †€u ‰„‹„Œƒ ’ƒ|{u†‚ wuˆ{uŠ ƒ ƒw{ ìvˆu Š†„‹‚ ƒ… …ƒ„w Œ{w‹Š~ †Žƒ …wƒ— …vw—ˆv ‹ v ‹ †Žƒ …wƒ— …ƒwuŠ†Šy ív†uwŽv‚Š vwu îuwu {Š †€u Š†„‹‚ º»»¼½¾¿¿ÅÊÁïȽ¼ËÊÁÉÆËÈÇÌÍ¿ÄË»ÊÇÅÆ¿ÔßÈÔßß忽ÔßÕÕÕàßÔåàäÜåÜàÔ|ˆƒŠuˆ‚ v† Ž€‚ ’v zwv |{Š|ƒ”Š Œ{w‹ Šv…u ƒw‹{ v |u uð|ˆ„‹uŠ wuŠ{‹u †{vˆ €ƒ—uŠ ˆuˆˆ v ‹ Ž{†€ ŽvˆˆŠ ƒ… ˆuŠŠ †€v ñŸò ˆvŠŠy ¿¿ÇÌóÆÅÊôËÄËÂÈÄÍÅÆÉÄÅÈÇÌÍ¿ÇÌóƽ¿½ÄÁõöËÄÁÇʽÇÌ¿ÅĻƽ»¿½öõ¼ÅÄÁÁÊÁÉ¿ßàßàßàÔ×ÕØÖy ‰ˆ{}uŽ{Šu ƒ ˆ‚ v‡‡ˆ{uŠ †ƒ Œ„{ˆ‹{ Š ƒ“uw šñ …uu† €{ € v ‹ Ž{†€ v Žvˆˆ ƒ… ñŸò ƒw —ƒwu uˆˆ ž€šñ‘‰êxêì†tz—ì’Ÿñ——‘›€xì x Žšt€x‰„‰‰‰‰‰‰ü{tv šƒwòžü  œùœŸ Item 3 Attachment D - Public Comments received after October 30, 2024     Packet Pg. 124                                                                                                    !       " #  $    %           &     56789: ;456789:<./012=40>?5@A965B6>5<5/CD?3 M9:J9/? N3 OPOQ ORSQ AT:K7: ;LX9:K7:=8XY66Z<158D:019 ;]7/5:019<V95=40>?5@A965B6>5<5/CD^ _7`0: a7b0K ;267b0K=10>?5@7Z9<5/CD^ a7:0: T?5@7Z9<5/CD^ 4X93 _766? ;_766?<4X9=40>?5@A965B6>5<5/CD^ B/87/3 M7::0@7/7/=40>?5@A965B6>5<5/CD^ T01X976 M< T7?7/ ;8c87?7/=Z91d766<:7>D^ _7025 T7?7/91d766<:7>D^ M987K 9:L 49>X? eJ: ;f987K<KJ:gS=C8906<158D^ f7L7689:hiNS=C8906<15906<158^ >b7X/89:=C8906<158^ j7: j966 ;j7:<j966=4XJ/1X5@M7KJK4X/0K><5/CD^ a0k9 lL7=C8906<158D^ V7B::9 W9:K7: mLOX9:K7:=?9X55<158n ;LOX9:K7:=?9X55<158D^ T01X/9:L=0165JL<158D^ f7p<KX5/7=15819K><:7>A/5Z5K7L 4X9:C7K >5 e>/798 45//0L5/ A/5>71u5:5: T/< W9:K7:3/ ?5J/ 0:xJ0/?< IX7 40>? 45J:106 L9>7 @5/ >X7 d0/L @/07:L6? 5/L0:9:17 X9K :5> d77: y:960k7LK 85:>X< IX7 0>78 b066 85K> 60276? C5 >5 45J:106 0: T9/1X >5 9665b u87 @5/ 9LL0u5:96 9:97 9d67 >5 Z/5`0L7 9 >7:>9u`7 L9>7 0: 79/6? .7d/J9/?<5`7L 45J:106878d7/ e>5:7 9:L >X7 A69::0:C 45880KK05: C7:7/96 78906 9LL/7KK >5 j44|}~€ ‚ ƒ„…†‡ˆ‰Š‹ Œ Š‹Ž ŠŠ‘Š‹ ’ Š ‹Ž“ ŠŠ‘Š‹ Š” •Ž–Ž ‰—˜ŽŠ™ •Ž— “™˜ŽŠ™š›œšž Ÿ Ÿ¡¢Ÿ¢£ ¤ ¥¦§¨©ª«¬­®¯¥°±¥¯²³¦­´ª§¦ª§²¦¬¦®µ¶¶¶·¸‘™¹‰º— ‰ ™‰·‰“‹ Item 3 Attachment D - Public Comments received after October 30, 2024     Packet Pg. 125                   !" #$%$ &'()% *+'()%,(-./0/126786797: ;<=5 >?B C)D *C)D0A-$,.$$0EF2) I *+-,(-./0/12J A-)K3LE M$LE */$LE,(N4K(O0/12J A$LN4/) PLH$)HLH$)H,(-./0/12TYZ[ \]^Z_ `aZbZc^d\e fa`] `gd[Ze\ `f dY\ `ab^cZh^dZ`ci j\ k^gdZ`g[ `f `l\cd[ ^ce k_ZkmZcb `c _Zcm[izy {v||q}~ v} ~€q v~q}~oxr ‚oyƒ x„q vyƒo}x}{q… †€qq {v||q}~ xyq ‚xqƒ v} wq €xƒ wo~€ x} x‡ox} qˆ qy~t xy{€o~q{~t x}ƒ {v}~yx{~vy…q Š}vw o„ svz‹ƒ roŠq ~v Œq~ v} x {xrr ~v „zy~€qy ƒo{z… uoyƒ Žq}o~o‡q yqxŒo}Œ ~€q ƒq„o}o~ov} v„ ‘uoyƒ Žq}o~o‡q yqx’ ~v xƒƒ xyqx wo~€o} “”” „qq~ „yv| ~€q { o ‡qys yq~yo{~o‡q x}ƒ €vzrƒ ‚q yq{v}oƒqyqƒ x}ƒ yqq‡xrzx~qƒ ‚s x} x‡ox} qˆ o~s rvvŠ ~v o}{rzƒq x} xyqx yq–zoyq|q}~ xƒ—x{q}~ ~v ~yqx| ˜„vy qˆx| rqt ~€q ~€q} ~€x~ €vzrƒ v}rs o}{rzƒq ~yqx| w€qyq z‚~x}~oxr x‡ox~ov} x{~o‡o~s o roŠqrs… rqt ›x~xƒqyv yqqŠ o o}~qy|o~~q}~ ~v qyq}}oxr ƒq q}ƒq}~ v} yq{o o~x~ov} rq‡qr~vys o o}„rzq}{qƒ ‚s xƒ—x{q}~ zy‚x} ƒq‡qrv |q}~ {v}o~o}Œ v„ |v~rs }v}œ}x~o‡ ~€x~ yqƒz{q €x‚o~x~ –zxro~s… †€zt ~€qyq o }v €x‚o~x~ {v}ƒo~ov} ~v wxyyx}~ qrq‡x~ {v}{qy} ‚qsv}ƒ zy‚x} ƒq‡qrv |q}~ x}ƒ ~€qyq o }v —z~o„o{x~ov} „vy {yqx~o}Œ x q}o~o‡q yqx xyvz}ƒ o~…|’ €vzrƒ ‚q {rqxyrs ƒq„o}qƒ x ~€o worr o| x{~ |x}s v„ ƒq‡qrv x‚rq o~q o} ~€qvxƒ… ~€x~ ‘uoyƒ Žq}o~o‡q yqx’ v}rs o}{rzƒq ~€q xyqx v„ x o~q wo~€o} ~€q ƒo~x}{q „yv|q q}~oyq o~q o„ x vy~ov} v„ ~€q o~q o xƒ—x{q}~ ~v x ~yqx|… †€o o}{rzƒq v}rs {qy~xzorƒo}Œ |xs ‚q z‚—q{~ ~v uoyƒ Žq}o~o‡q yqx yq–zoyq|q}~… †€q yv vqƒ ‰† yqv |vyq ~€x} š” qy{q}~ v„ „xžxƒq |xs ‚q z}~yqx~qƒ „vy xrr x ro{x‚rq yqoƒq}~oxrv |q}~ vz~oƒq v„ ~€q uoyƒ Žq}o~o‡q yqx’ o qˆ~yq|qrs x}ƒ z}}q{qxyors yq~yo{~oxrrs v} rxyŒqy o~q… †€q ‰† yv vqƒ rx}ŒzxŒq worr yqƒz{q ~€q x‚oro~s ~v ƒq‡qrv ‰† yq{v||q}ƒx~ov} €vzrƒ ‚q yq‡oqwqƒ ‚s z‚—q{~ |x~~qy qˆ qy~ x}ƒ q}zy v} x |x~qyoxr {v}{qy} x}ƒ yq–zoyq|q}~…oyo}Œ ‚oyƒ x„q Œrx v} x}s qˆo~o}Œ ‚zorƒo}Œ o„ ~€q Œrx yq rx{q|q}~ o  š Žš vyzyƒq}v|q ~v yv qy~s vw}qy… †€q Œrx wvzrƒ }v~ |x~{€ ~€q yq|xo}ƒqy v„ ~€q Item 3 Attachment D - Public Comments received after October 30, 2024     Packet Pg. 126                                  !    "      # $                 % &            (  ' *     *        &         $             /0   /0  ) * 1 /0        2*       *      *  *3  $      3 (         44.$   $                    ( 5      6 5% 7 ' 6  9(  9     : ;6FGHIJEKLMNOPQRSPTUVNWVNXYabcD_Jdebfgfhijgek^amKrQLLsWtTuSUuLNuLvNWwNxYGKMTNSPTUVNWVNXY}mnoJ~€G_ ‚C_ mKVvuƒwSPv„…†Nv‡PˆWVNXY}nC_`‰ŠJ‹G_{CqJ{PTUVNWVNXYn‰’aG“kCqG”q’G•–|kF‰E`€E‰J_`qa—JI‰ _      :*   JqqaKrQLLsWtTuSUuLNuLvNWwNxYabcD_Jdebfgfhfjfgk^IJEKLMNOPQRSPTUVNWVNXYGKMTNSPTUVNWVNXY}noJ~€G_ ‚C_ KVvuƒwSPv„…†Nv‡PˆWVNXY}nC_`‰ŠJ‹G_{CqJ{PTUVNWVNXYn‰’aG“kCqG”q’G•–|kF‰E`€E‰J_`qa—JI‰ _ Item 3 Attachment D - Public Comments received after October 30, 2024     Packet Pg. 127             ! "  #$ %  "  &'(()*+,-'./0/-'./12)*(-34.35667879:9;9<=6>?BC.+0C.+4@A)1D))4/E5F@.-B@'+0@'+4@.-1>)G4/E5F>)**'*/@HH'22'***'*/4@HH'22'*1>)G4/E5.)KA)*)/)-02AJ.)L12)*(-34.35FM')*)NM.033.12)*(-34.35FO.)*,4I*'3.-'3.-12)*(-34.35FC.+C'*.0A'*.12)*(-34.35FO)H'.I4O)-E'20PP)-E'212)*(-34.350P'*/'212)*(-34.35AH.*S6:;CKT:8VV@HH.*W-K'-3X-'.*3+M.2'/*UI)*(-3Y*'E.-2'+4D3(F]bcdefgchijckclgmenojifipmdcneiombeijkglcqgmcilrsetgpmcipdioiuelmdglnthctvclkilhclvdr}€ y€‚ƒx„…xz †‡ˆ|x‰Šy€€}€‹{†„„} }†€Œx€ Š† x‚Žˆy€‡†z‚ €} xz }ˆ‘’  †„„x€ˆ zxŠyˆx‚ˆ†ˆ|x“}z‚”z}x€‚Š‘wx }‹€•z‚‡†z‚–x xyz |‰yz—€y‚ y€ x‡†z‘†™zx‡‡†zˆ ˆ†zx š†€‚ˆ†ˆ|x x †„„x€ˆ — ™…„}ˆˆx‚Œ‹†y‹}€‹w}zx ˆ†zŒŽˆy€‡†z‚–x xyz |‰yz¢£š¤Ÿ¥¦¥§¨£¨š¢©ª¥¨£š£«¥¢ª¨¥¤¨š¬©­´¯µ´¶·y xz } x†‡Žˆy€‡†z‚–x xyz |‰yz Item 3 Attachment D - Public Comments received after October 30, 2024     Packet Pg. 128     1 of 1 November 4, 2025 Palo Alto Planning & Transportation Commission City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: Planning & Transportation Commission (PTC) Consideration of the Bird Ordinance VIA EMAIL kelly.cha@cityofpaloalto.org Dear Chair Akins and fellow PTC Commission members: We would like to extend our sincere thanks to the PTC for the opportunity to provide feedback on the proposed Bird-Friendly Design Ordinance. In October, we attended the webinar outreach meeting that was organized by the Palo Alto Chamber and City staff to engage with business owners. We echo many of the concerns shared by fellow owners and tenants during the discussion that the ordinance is overly broad and not calibrated to local conditions. As the landowner of the Stanford Research Park, we are concerned that the proposed ordinance poses substantial design and implementation challenges for both the University and our tenants in the Research Park area. While we understand that the ordinance is intended to minimize bird collisions, we think that more data is needed to understand the scope of the problem. We are unaware of any reports of bird collisions in Stanford Research Park. Most of our buildings are 2-stories and not on a flyway or riparian corridor. We believe that a data-driven assessment of local collision frequency, risk factors, and expected outcomes is needed to justify the breadth and cost of the requirements. Therefore, we request that the city conduct a study before adopting a restrictive and costly ordinance. In addition, bird-friendly glass significantly alters the experience of building users with highly visible lines and dots on windows, and makes buildings less attractive in a challenging real estate market without clear evidence that it would deliver a meaningful local benefit. Specifically, the ordinance only allows 10% untreated glazing on any non-residential elevation in the city. For commercial buildings, that means “permanent treatment to glass, in patterns no more than two inches apart in any direction, that provide visual cues to birds and reduces likelihood of bird collisions.” While we share the value of reducing bird collisions, we feel this restrictive and broadly applied requirement fails to balance other goals such as overall benefit, occupant experience, and construction cost. We also ask the city to consider an approach that focuses on higher-risk conditions and allows for practical alternatives, rather than imposing blanket restrictions across all non-residential buildings. The requirement is not tailored to meet the variety of conditions that exist throughout the city. These new requirements would add construction costs and would significantly impact the user experience from inside the building. Item 3 Attachment D - Public Comments received after October 30, 2024     Packet Pg. 129     We want to encourage the city to keep Palo Alto attractive to business and explore bird-friendly design options that are similar to what is required in neighboring jurisdictions. We appreciate your consideration, and please let me know if you have further questions at tgriego@stanford.edu Sincerely, Tiffany Griego, Senior Managing Director, Commercial Real Estate Team Stanford Real Estate, Stanford University tgriego@stanford.edu cc: Jonathan Lait, Director of Planning and Development Services Jennifer Armer, Assistant Director, Planning and Development Services Coleman Frick, Long-Range Planning Manager, Planning and Development Services Kelly Cha, Senior Planner, Planning and Development Services Item 3 Attachment D - Public Comments received after October 30, 2024     Packet Pg. 130              ! "# $%&'()%&*(&+,-%&*(&./-0123/467878797:7;6<=>&'&@A//'**'&+=%&&'&@2A//'**'&.=%B2@C4DA-%EF(G+F(G2A-%.1%%2@C4(IEJ(&&'K(I+J(&&'K(I2BI/(I.1%%2@C4DL-'%,%EM,+M,2L-'%,%.1%%2@C4DL/1E>G2L/1.1%%2@C4DN%'EJ&%-%&+J&%-%&2N%'.1%%2@C4DOI%&3'*E>%-(POI%&3'*.I%&23/4DN%&K(I/%&E$%C',+$N%&K(I/%&.I%&23/4-/(&QR>ST,U('@-VI-,B'%&3(N((IW(@%I,'&@S'I,0OI'(&,G$(*'@&I,'&%&3(21,KD[`abcdeafghaiajekclmhgdgnkbalcgmk`cghiejaoekagjpqcrenkagnbgmgscjkbejlrfartajigjfajtbp}{~€v ‚vxƒ„…†zv‡ˆw~~{~‰w~Š‹xw~ƒŒ„x†w†{„~y„ {ƒƒ{„~w~Š€ƒ yzw†zvw††wŽzvŠˆv††vxƒ ‚ {††vŠ„~‚vzwˆ…„…†zv Š‰v‘„„Š’v{‰z‚„xz„„Š|ˆˆ{w~ŽvxŠ“{xŠ”•x{v~Šˆ–uvƒ{‰~—†w~ŠwxŠƒ˜xŠ{~w~Žv™š› œš ž›šŸ ƒv~ Item 3 Attachment D - Public Comments received after October 30, 2024     Packet Pg. 131     December 2, 2025 VIA E-MAIL [Planning.Commission@paloalto.gov and kelly.cha@paloalto.gov] Honorable Allen Akin, Chair and Members of the Planning & Transportation Commission City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Kelly Cha Senior Planner City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: Proposed “Bird-Friendly Design Standards” Ordinance (18.40.280) Dear Chair Akin and Members of the Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Commission and Ms. Cha: We, the Edgewood Neighborhood Alliance, are writing in objection to the proposed “Bird- Friendly Design Standards” ordinance (18.40.280). Our objections focus on application of the proposed ordinance to urban residential properties, particularly those within 300 feet of a natural stream. It is worth highlighting that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) recommended the ordinance NOT apply to residential homes because of the increased cost of compliance and hindrance to housing development.1 Given their expertise in design and access to construction data, the ARB members’ recommendation should be given substantial weight. In fact, it would seem appropriate to invite ARB members to attend the upcoming hearing on the ordinance to comment. Draft Ordinance Although the revised draft of the ordinance is not yet available, Staff describes the proposed ordinance restrictions on residential property that emerged from the October 30, 2024, PTC meeting as this: •Bird-friendly treatment is required for any unbroken glazing 24 square feet or larger. •For residential buildings: o Within the Bird Safe Area, no more than 10% of an elevation can be untreated. 1 Staff Report #: 2404-2883 for ARB dated July 18, 2024, page 2 (emphasis added). See also Palo Alto Online Article, “Board Slams Palo Alto’s Plan for Bird-Safe Buildings.” (Feb. 17, 2024) Item 3 Attachment D - Public Comments received after October 30, 2024     Packet Pg. 132     Honorable Chair and Members of the Planning and Transportation Commission December 2, 2025 Page 2 o Outside of the Bird Safe Area: no more than 40% of an elevation can be untreated. •“Bird Safe Area” means: areas located east of Highway 101, west of Foothill Expressway and within 300 feet of the centerline of natural streams.2 Summary of Objections We want to emphasize at the outset our objections are not about hating birds. Nobody likes seeing birds die, whether against a window or by other means. Our positions are about balancing the burden of this ordinance on residential homeowners against the actual bird collision risk posed by houses. 1.No Data or Studies Support the Ordinance. There are no studies or data of birds in Palo Alto colliding with buildings, whether commercial or residential. Nor are there studies showing houses in Palo Alto (or anywhere else) within 300 feet of a natural stream have a higher propensity for collision with birds compared to those more than 300 feet away. California Academy of Science researchers confirm that to evaluate bird collision risk of a building, one must (1) identify the relevant bird species, (2) assess their propensity to collide with windows under the circumstances, and (3) evaluate their conservation risk. An ordinance of this nature should be backed by data on local birds, not broad platitudes. We live in a scientific community with access to independent experts who can run these studies. 2.The Burden of Compliance is Substantial. As Staff and the Architectural Review Board found, bird-safe glass is not commercially available for residential homes except on a custom-order basis, which is prohibitively expensive. A report cited by Staff shows an increased cost up to 10%. Covering windows with permanent metal screens or metal shades is expensive, blocks visibility, is not aesthetically pleasing, and is a fire escape hazard. Covering glass with plastic dots and films (which are made from polyvinylchloride and polyethylene), is impractical, expensive, blocks visibility and pollutes the environment with microplastics and PFASs. The requirements combine to reduce market appealability and value. The increased cost of construction will slow housing development, contrary to Palo Alto housing goals. 3.Urban Residential Properties Should be Excluded. In view of the burden of compliance and reduction to housing development, urban residential properties should be excluded until local bird collision studies are completed and bird-safe residential windows are available without additional cost. This follows the recommendation of the ARB. The city of Mountain View likewise excludes single- and multi-family housing from its bird-safe glass requirements. 4.At Minimum, Treat All Residential Properties the Same. Imposing higher (e.g., 90% coverage) restrictions on urban properties near streams is uniquely unfair and not supported 2 Palo Alto Bird-Friendly Design Ordinance website. https://www.paloalto.gov/Departments/Planning-Development- Services/Current-Planning/Ordinances-Maps-Guidelines-Standards/Bird-Friendly-Design-Ordinance (accessed Dec. 2, 2025) Item 3 Attachment D - Public Comments received after October 30, 2024     Packet Pg. 133     Honorable Chair and Members of the Planning and Transportation Commission December 2, 2025 Page 3 by bird-collision studies or scientific data. If the ordinance applies to any residential properties in urban Palo Alto, it should apply to all of them equally. This will avoid an unfair burden of increased construction costs and reduced market value on a few homeowners, whose houses pose no more risk to birds than those across the street. [Yale researchers on bird-safe legislation recommend against distinguishing areas as “bird- sensitive” because birds make diffuse use of all parts of urban and suburban environments.] 5.Guidelines, not Restrictions, are Appropriate for Residential Properties. The Commission should recommend guidelines for urban residential construction, instead of zoning restrictions, to give time for window manufacturing to catch up and bird collision studies to be completed. This is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, which contains a single reference to bird-safe building design: “Develop guidelines for bird-friendly building design that minimizes hazards for birds and reduces the potential for collisions.”3 6.The Proposed Ordinance Language is Confusing and Unsupported. The requirements that bird protective glass cover no less than 40% or 10% of façades are confusing. Is the 40% or 10% coverage on a per-window or per façade basis? What about angled walls and roofs? The 40% threshold advocated by the Audubon Society originates (incredibly) from heating and air-conditioning requirements, and the 10% is based on nothing more than the statement it gives “some flexibility.” The 300-foot “buffer” likewise has no basis in bird- collision science. The coverage thresholds and “buffer” (if they apply) should be rooted in local bird analysis and collision propensity, not heating and air-conditioning standards or unsupported statements by advocates. 7.No Residential Outreach. Staff openly relied on environmental advocates in drafting and revising the ordinance but made no outreach to impacted residents and held no community meetings. This is an unfair process in view of the compliance cost and impact to market value to residential homes, particularly in light of the absence of bird-collision data. Staff should be directed to reach out to affected residents and hold a community meeting on the subject before this ordinance proceeds further. 8.Follow the Lead of San Francisco, Richmond, Alameda and Berkeley. If residential restrictions are required, the Commission should follow the lead and weight of authority of San Francisco, Richmond, Alameda and Berkeley. These cities exclude residential homes unless over 45 or 35 feet and with a facade of 50% or more glass, in which case, the bird- safe requirements apply to large glass panels (e.g., 24 square feet or more). These ordinances reflect a measured balance of benefit against burden. 9.To Ease the Burden, Phase in the Ordinance. If restrictions are required for urban residential homes, the Commission should phase in the regulation over a period of time, e.g., 5-10 years, to give time for bird collision studies to be conducted and residential window manufacturing technology to catch up. Berkeley’s ordinance, for instance, which 3 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Program L6.3.1. It is well understood that “guidelines” are non-binding recommendations. Item 3 Attachment D - Public Comments received after October 30, 2024     Packet Pg. 134     Honorable Chair and Members of the Planning and Transportation Commission December 2, 2025 Page 4 applies to residential properties that are over 10,000 square feet and 35 feet high, phases in compliance over several years. 10.San Francisquito Creek Along Edgewood is not a “Natural Stream.” At minimum, San Francisquito Creek along Edgewood should be excluded because it is not a “natural stream.” The creek in the Edgewood area is subject to encampments, human waste, trash, stolen property, trespass and crime. The creek is lined with concrete bags, has concrete banks and is bounded by concrete bridges. Soon the creek will undergo substantial flood abatement, including a new bridge at Newell Road and the channel will be excavated, widened and shored up. It is not natural. 11.Edgewood Properties Should be Exempt for Safety and Security. Because of the encampments, trespass and crime in and around San Francisquito Creek, the properties on Edgewood need clear and unobstructed windows for our safety and security. An exception should be added for Edgewood properties for safety and security, like the Council approved for the “Dark Sky” ordinance. Safety is the City’s paramount duty to its residents and properties along Edgewood are particularly vulnerable. 12.Regulate Cats, Not Buildings. Smithsonian and US Fish & Wildlife authors confirm that free-ranging domestic cats kill at least four times more birds than buildings. Cats are the number one human-caused mortality for birds. To make a real difference for birds, the PTC should recommend banning the feeding of feral cats and requiring domestic cats that go outside wear bells. Feeding feral cats in Palo Alto is legal except in parks and public lands, and cats are the sole exception from the City’s ban against allowing animals to stray. It is time to rein in cats in, for the birds’ sake. I. Absence of Bird-Collision Studies Not All Birds Collide with Windows. Research confirms that not all birds have the same vulnerability to collide with windows – their propensity varies by species.4 Some species have a high vulnerability, what the experts call “super-colliders.” Per east-coast studies, these are primarily certain species of hummingbirds, swifts and warblers.5 On the other end of the spectrum are “super-avoiders,” bird species with a low vulnerability to collision. The groups of super-avoiders include birds we see every day, such as ducks, geese, swallows, upland game birds and blackbirds.6 4 Loss, Will, Loss, Mara, Bird–building collisions in the United States: Estimates of annual mortality and species vulnerability, 2014 (the “Smithsonian Paper”), page 21 (“our results illustrate that not all species are equally vulnerable to building collisions, and because considerable uncertainty remains regarding species- specific mortality and population abundance, the actual impacts of collisions on population abundance are uncertain.”), https://repository.si.edu/bitstream/handle/10088/25413/NZP_Marra_2014- Birdbuilding_collisions_in_the_United_States_Estimates_of_annual_mortality_and_species_vulnerability.pdf?seque nce=1&isAllowed=y 5 Id. at 17, Table 4. 6 Id. at 18. Item 3 Attachment D - Public Comments received after October 30, 2024     Packet Pg. 135     Honorable Chair and Members of the Planning and Transportation Commission December 2, 2025 Page 5 To assess whether residential buildings in Palo Alto pose a risk to birds, one must first identify the species of birds in the area, determine their vulnerability to collide with windows and evaluate their conservation risk. Circumstances of the building also matter, including age of the home, time of year, window size and reflectivity, presence of vegetation and whether the property has bird feeders.7 Studies show that bird feeders, for instance, increase the risk of collision by 2x.8 As the researchers at the California Academy of Science put it: “Understanding which birds strike and why is important for guiding management decisions to prevent window strikes at existing buildings and to minimize collisions at newly designed buildings. Costly mitigation efforts can be more appropriately targeted and be more effective if we know more about which birds strike, at what times of year, during which times of day, and against what types of windows.”9 As part of the analysis, the conservation risk of the relevant bird species needs to be evaluated to determine if mitigation steps are required. By way of example, in the 2020 study by H.T. Harvey & Associates of a Google building at 600 Clyde Avenue in Mountain View,10 a five- story all-glass commercial building, the ecologists analyzed the birds that fatally struck the building (35 over 18 months),11 and concluded the building did not pose a conservation risk to any native bird species at the local level and recommended no further corrective action.12 No Palo Alto Bird Collision Data. Staff have presented no studies of bird collisions with residential buildings in Palo Alto (or anywhere else in the Bay area), and no such studies exist. Nor are there studies showing houses in Palo Alto within 300 feet of a natural stream have a higher propensity for bird collision than houses further away. We live in an “urban forest” with countless trees and habitat and houses 300 feet from stream centerlines are no different than those 301 feet away. We have the same houses, neighborhoods and backyards as everyone else in urban Palo Alto. 7 Id. at 9, 20. 8 Id. Table 2. 9 Kahle, Flannery and Dumbacher, Bird-Window Collisions at a West-Coast Urban Park Museum: Analyses of Bird Biology and Window Attributes from Golden Gate Park, San Francisco, 2016 (the “California Academy Study”), p.2/22 https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0144600#:~:text=We%20have%20since%20accum ulated%20data,territorial%20tendencies%20and%20increased%20movement 10 See H.T. Harvey & Associates, 600 Clyde Avenue Avian Collision Monitoring Final Summary Report (the “Google Study”), attached to email from Shani Kleinhaus dated May 4, 2024, accessible in ARB Public Comments published with ARB’s HTML agenda for May 16, 2024. https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=13849 11 Id. at A-4, Table 2. 20 of 35 (57%) were Anna’s Hummingbirds. The other birds identified were two Pine Siskins, one Yellow Warbler, one House Finch, one Brown Creeper, one Lincoln’s Sparrow, one Ruby-crowned Kinglet, one Orange-crowned Warbler, one unidentified hummingbird, four unidentified passerines and one unidentified bird. Id. 12 Id. at A-13. The report concludes, “In our opinion, the monitoring data indicate that the 600 Clyde office building does not pose a conservation risk to any native bird species at the local level. Thus, no corrective actions are necessary under the Plan.” Item 3 Attachment D - Public Comments received after October 30, 2024     Packet Pg. 136     Honorable Chair and Members of the Planning and Transportation Commission December 2, 2025 Page 6 Nor is there any evidence of bird collision propensity or conservation risk of the species at issue. Instead of data and science on local birds, Staff relies on broad platitudes, like “high risk areas with large glass installations”13 and single-family homes are “less likely to cause bird collisions.”14 No Bird “Hot-Spots” in Palo Alto Streams. In Palo Alto, there are no bird “hot-spots” in San Francisquito Creek or any other creeks in the urbanized area under the eBird website (https://ebird.org/hotspots). See the screenshot of the eBird website for Palo Alto attached at Exhibit A. This site is managed by a team at the Cornell Lab of Ornithology and identifies bird “hot spots” in the US where a particular number of bird species are observed. Ecologists rely on eBird data in identifying species when evaluating potential commercial building design for bird collision risk.15 The only hot-spots in the urbanized area in Palo Alto are in parks, and they are colored blue, indicating fewer species. The primary “hot-spots” for bird species in Palo Alto on eBird – those colored yellow and red – are east of the 101 freeway and west of Foothill Expressway, outside the urbanized areas. See Exhibit A. The Commission Should Follow a Science-Based Approach We live in a scientific community and have access to independent experts. Before imposing the burden of bird-friendly restrictions on residential properties, especially in the urban areas, City Staff should be tasked to identify, with the help of independent experts, the species of birds in Palo Alto, their propensity to strike windows under the circumstances of the buildings, and their conservation risk. The circumstances should include windowpane size and reflectivity, presence of vegetation, location of the property, and whether the house has bird feeders. It is time to slow down and do this right. Sunnyvale’s City Council considered a similar ordinance and unanimously rejected it for lack of studies of bird collisions with buildings in Sunnyvale.16 The Sunnyvale council encouraged the environmental advocates to return with relevant studies but so far, they have not. The city later 13 Staff Report #: 2409-3472 for PTC dated October 30, 2024, pages 6-7. 14 Staff Report #: 2404-2883 for ARB dated July 18, 2024, page 10. 15 See, e.g., H.T. Harvey & Associates’ report dated Oct 18, 2022, on 777 Airport Boulevard – Updated Avian Collision Risk Assessment (HTH #4583-01). In this report, the ecologists evaluated the proposed design and lighting of a 194-foot building in Burlingame and its proximity to the San Franciso Bay, being located on the Burlingame Lagoon, and the expected bird species from the eBird site. 16 See Report to Sunnyvale City Council, Jan 28, 2014. The Sunnyvale Planning Commission “voted unanimously to recommend that the City Council not pursue bird-safe guidelines or requirements until more scientific information is available about the real impact buildings in Sunnyvale have on bird populations.” https://sunnyvaleca.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=1638114&GUID=5CAC105A-E0AB-44C2-B97E- 32F020282CFE&FullText=1 Item 3 Attachment D - Public Comments received after October 30, 2024     Packet Pg. 137     Honorable Chair and Members of the Planning and Transportation Commission December 2, 2025 Page 7 adopted guidelines for construction.17 Sunnyvale’s approach should be followed here for residential properties. No Community Outreach. Awareness and feedback on this ordinance have been hindered by Staff’s failure to do any community outreach. This ordinance started with a presentation by the Audubon Society and has been overrun by the environmental advocates. City Staff says it met with the environmental advocates numerous times in drafting the ordinance.18 Staff affirmatively solicited the input of the Audubon Society and Sierra Club in revising the ordinance for the PTC.19 Yet Staff have made no outreach to impacted residents. No cards were sent out to property owners within 300 feet of a creek, like was done with the Streamside Corridor Ordinance. Nor has Staff held any community meetings on the ordinance. This over-reliance on environmental advocates and lack of community outreach is unfair in view of the compliance cost and impact to market value to residential homes, particularly in light of the absence of bird-collision data. Staff should be directed to reach out to affected residents and hold a community meeting on the subject before the ordinance proceeds further. II. The Burden of Compliance on Homeowners is Substantial The burden on homeowner compliance with the proposed ordinance is substantial in increased cost of construction, reduced market value and obscuration of windows impacting safety and security. Increased Cost Residential windows with bird-safe glass are not commercially available and would need to be custom produced.20 A report cited by Staff says this would increase the cost of new residential construction from 2 to 10 percent.21 Any increase in the cost of construction and resulting delays will reduce the future availability of housing, particularly for low-income housing, contrary to the goals of City Council. 17 See Sunnyvale Bird Safe Building Design Guidelines https://www.sunnyvale.ca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/1542/638273438333130000 18 Staff Report #: 2401-2568 for ARB dated Feb. 15, 2024, pages 2, 11; Staff Report #: 2404-2883 for ARB dated Jul. 18, 2024, page 2; Staff Report #: 2402-2652 for PTC dated Aug. 14, 2024, page 3; Staff Report #: 2409-3472 for PTC dated October 30, 2024, page 3. 19 Staff Report #: 2409-3472 for PTC dated October 30, 2024, page 8. 20 As Staff reported: “From conversations with glass retailers, suppliers, and manufacturers, staff found that Bird- Safe Treatments are rarely requested for residential buildings. A few local retailers were aware of bird-safe standards (such as fritted glazing or obscure patterned glass) but confirmed that these are not readily available and must be ordered from suppliers and manufacturers with specific designs to be laminated or baked onto glass.” Staff Report #: 2404-2883 for ARB dated July 18, 2024, page 10 (emphasis added). 21 Staff Report #: 2404-2883 for ARB dated July 18, 2024, page 10 (emphasis added). Item 3 Attachment D - Public Comments received after October 30, 2024     Packet Pg. 138     Honorable Chair and Members of the Planning and Transportation Commission December 2, 2025 Page 8 The Architectural Review Board was highly critical of the bird-friendly ordinance and recommended excluding residential homes and focusing instead on large buildings. As the staff summarized: “the ARB recommended exempting residential uses from the Bird Safe Design ordinance to avoid hindering housing production efforts with added high costs to features such as windows for multi-family uses and burdensome costs to small projects, such as single-family uses.”22 Occluded Windows are Unsafe Clear and unobstructed windows are essential for resident safety and security. Any obstruction to residential windows poses a risk and is distracting. Being able to see out windows is important to safety and security in all homes, not just along Edgewood. We need to keep an eye on our children, see who is in the yard, who is in the driveway and who or what is in the swimming pool. Commercial building windows, by contrast, serve primarily for light and do not have the same safety concerns as single family homes. Studies show that the human eye tends to focus on close objects (the dots) and place distant objects (people outside) out of focus.23 This is called attentional bias. It is the same phenomenon that causes drivers to be distracted by chips in windshields. Imagine your windshield covered with dots or stripes every two inches. To comply with federal law, damaged areas on a windshield, such as chips, cannot be closer than 3 inches and decals must be placed outside the driver’s sight lines.24 Staff have presented no reports or data on level of obscuration of the various window coverings, risks from obscuring windows or the fire escape hazard of permanent metal window coverings. Impaired Aesthetics Reduce Market Value. Aesthetics and curb appeal of residential property are critical to market value. No one wants to buy property where 60% of the glass is required to be covered with permanent metal screens or shades or have glazed and obscured windows. This is especially acute if properties are required to have 90% treated glass coverage. How many houses in Palo Alto do you see with 60% or 90% of their windows on every façade covered with obscured glass or permanent metal screens 22 Staff Report #: 2404-2883 for ARB dated July 18, 2024, page 2 (emphasis added). See also Palo Alto Online Article, “Board Slams Palo Alto’s Plan for Bird-Safe Buildings.” (Feb. 17, 2024) https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2024/02/17/board-slams-palo-altos-plan-for-bird-safe-buildings/ 23 See, e.g., Plewan, T., Rinkenauer, G. Allocation of attention in 3D space is adaptively modulated by relative position of target and distractor stimuli. Atten Percept Psychophys 82, 1063–1073 (2020). https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-019-01878-2 24 49 CFR Sec 393.60. https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/49/393.60. Also, it is illegal in California to drive when the driver’s vision is impaired by the damaged condition of the windshield. CA Vehicle Code Section 26710. https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/vehicle-code/veh-sect-26710/ Item 3 Attachment D - Public Comments received after October 30, 2024     Packet Pg. 139     Honorable Chair and Members of the Planning and Transportation Commission December 2, 2025 Page 9 or shades? This ordinance would reduce market value of residential property. This is an unfair burden in the absence of local bird-collision data. Permanent Metal Screens or Shades are not Practical or Safe It is not practical to cover home windows with permanent metal screens or shades, which, apart from blocking visibility and being aesthetically unappealing, pose an obvious fire escape hazard.25 Permanent metal screens come basically in two forms: burglar-proof screens and hurricane-proof screens, both of which are mounted to the structure. See examples at Exhibit B. These screens are bulky and difficult to see through with tight stainless-steel weaves. Most permanent metal shades are the “roll-down” variety for hurricane or crime protection with zero visibility. Others are metal slats designed mostly for sun protection that obstruct a large percentage of the window and have bulky exterior mounts. See examples at Exhibit C. None of the metal screens or shades are practical for everyday residential windows. They are also expensive, unappealing and overkill in this context. Plastics are Not the Answer. Covering windows and other fenestrations with decals and films containing dots or marks every 2 square inches26 is not an acceptable or viable option. The materials are expensive, difficult to apply, unappealing aesthetically, wasteful and pollute the environment. Attached at Exhibits D and E are images of the decals and films and their packaging. Applying these takes a large amount of time and precision in an ideal environment. Installing them on an exterior vertical window in the outside environment would be very difficult and time consuming. Note that these must be installed on the outside of a window to be effective bird deterrence. The “dot” decals are applied like tape across a window from a ¼” roll. Some dots tend to break or remain stuck to the roll when trying to peel them off or do not adhere to the glass surface completely. This requires backfilling and wasted time and material. If held vertically the tape will sag or if pulled it will stretch leaving the dots out of alignment. The plastic tape itself is waste that goes to the landfill. Each roll of decals cost about $20 plus shipping and would cover about 16 square feet of glass if every decal lifted and adhered as designed. The window films are split from a backing and wet with a soap spray solution while applying and then the liquid is squeegeed from the glass. In practice, the soap solution tends to run off the film before it is aligned, allowing the film to stick to itself or a window edge, which then becomes unusable. Also, the film tends to trap air bubbles, insects and other contaminants, 25 See PA Muni Code 16.06.165 and California Building Code R310 regarding egress window requirements. 26 Draft Ordinance Introducing Bird-Friendly Design Standards, Report #: 2410-3556 for PTC dated October 30, 2024, Attachment B, Packet Pg. 29, Section 18.40.280(d)(1)(A). Item 3 Attachment D - Public Comments received after October 30, 2024     Packet Pg. 140     Honorable Chair and Members of the Planning and Transportation Commission December 2, 2025 Page 10 further occluding visibility and aesthetics. The plastic film backing is waste that goes straight to the landfill, as is the box, tools and packaging. The window film costs approximately $30 per foot in a 60’ roll plus shipping. The “dot” decals are made of polyvinyl chloride blends (PVC),27 a prop-65 cancer plastic. The window films and backing are made from polyethylene (PE) and polyethylene terephthalate (PET), known dangers to humans.28 PVC, PE and PET materials yield toxic chemical byproducts during production, are produced with PFAS “forever” chemicals, and degrade into microplastics.29 These decals and films sit on the outside of windows exposed to sunlight, UV radiation and weather and will shed microplastics into the environment (e.g., into the creeks).30 They have a short warranted life span of 3 to 6 years31 and then end up in the landfill, and the whole process must be repeated. Cleaning windows with the dots or films poses a particular challenge to avoid removing the dots or scratching the films and shedding more microplastics. Palo Alto should be looking for ways to reduce plastic consumption, not increase it. Apart from plastic policy, material CEQA issues arise from adding plastics to the exterior of windows, especially in environmentally sensitive areas. These issues will need to be addressed legally if this ordinance proceeds in its current form. In short, the burden on homeowner compliance with the proposed ordinance is substantial in increased cost of construction, reduced market value and obscuration of windows impacting safety and security. Any ordinance of this nature should be deferred until residential bird-safe window glass is readily available and not materially more expensive than standard windows and bird-collision data is in hand to assess the actual risk posed by residential buildings. 27 See, e.g., dot material “vinyl” (https://www.amazon.com/Feather-Friendly%C2%AE-Collision-Deterrent-Small- scale/dp/B0CZM9D29V?th=1). 28 See, e.g., film material polyester (PET) or polyethylene (PE) (https://securityfilm.ca/services/bird-friendly-glass- window-film/). PVC and PET production are regulated in California and their components are known dangers to humans. See Department of Industrial Relations Article 110, Secs 5210 (Vinyl Chloride), https://www.dir.ca.gov/title8/5210.html. 29 “Occurrence, toxicity and remediation of polyethylene terephthalate plastics. A review,” National Library of Medicine, Jan 2022, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8755403/ 30 See, e.g., A.O. Nosova, M.V. Uspenskaya, Ecotoxicological effects and detection features of polyvinyl chloride microplastics in soils: a review, Environ. Adv., 13 (2023), https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666765723000959; B. Pinlova, B. Nowack, From cracks to secondary microplastics - surface characterization of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) during weathering, Chemosphere, 352 (2024), https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S004565352400198X 31 The warranty on the decals and window films varies from 3 to 6 years depending on the product. https://www.decorativefilm.com/warranty (5 years); https://featherfriendly.com/pages/warranty?srsltid=AfmBOoqfyCkE_MFRD0V8pQzdAlvieiVEKBBOUuXvqG7g9J dm6KAFC5tU (4-6 years); https://birdstrikewindowfilm.com/collections/all?srsltid=AfmBOooPyVeg8Zp6otxYaqqFhG-Mk0qfoJOqHtGS-Jb- pRqxHy58b6T- (3 years) Item 3 Attachment D - Public Comments received after October 30, 2024     Packet Pg. 141     Honorable Chair and Members of the Planning and Transportation Commission December 2, 2025 Page 11 The proposed exclusion of retail ground-floor windows only rubs salt in the wound. Staff seem to be of the view that unobscured windows are important for retail but not for residential homes. Residents’ interests, particularly in their safety and security, should not take a back seat to commercial interests. III. Urban Residential Properties Should be Excluded. In view of the absence of bird-collision studies, the burden of compliance and reduction to housing development, residential properties in the urban area should be excluded from the ordinance until such studies are completed and bird-safe residential windows are available without substantially additional cost. This follows the recommendation of the ARB. There is local precedent for this. Mountain View’s bird-safe ordinance excludes single- and multi-family residential properties from the bird-safe glass requirements.32 IV. Adopt Guidelines for Residential Construction, not Regulations To give time for residential window manufacturing technology to catch up and bird- building collision studies to be completed, the Commission should recommend guidelines for residential property compliance in urban areas, as have been adopted in Sunnyvale33 and San Jose.34 Guidelines are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, which contains a single policy and program for bird-safe design: “Policy L-6.3 Encourage bird-friendly design. “Program L6.3.1 Develop guidelines for bird-friendly building design that minimizes hazards for birds and reduces the potential for collisions.” Indeed, because the Comprehensive Plan is expressly limited to guidelines that encourage bird- friendly design, adoption of the proposed ordinance would be inconsistent with the Plan and illegal under applicable law.35 32 See Mountain View Code of Ordinances, Section 8.20.14, Table 101.10. Bird-safe glass on the exterior of the structure is “Not Required” for SFR/ADU/Duplex/Townhomes with attached private garages and Multi-Family 3 Units +. https://library.municode.com/ca/mountain_view/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=PTIITHCO_CH8BU_ARTIBU CO_DIVIIIGRBUCO 33 See Sunnyvale Bird Safe Building Design Guidelines https://www.sunnyvale.ca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/1542/638273438333130000 34 See San Jose Downtown Design Guidelines and Standards, section 4.4.2.b. https://www.sanjoseca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/38781/638058306327430000 35 To be a legal action, a city’s adoption of zoning and development ordinances must be consistent with its comprehensive plan. “The propriety of virtually any local decision affecting land use and development depends upon consistency with the applicable general plan and its elements.” (Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 570.) A city’s general plan is effectively the “constitution for future Item 3 Attachment D - Public Comments received after October 30, 2024     Packet Pg. 142     Honorable Chair and Members of the Planning and Transportation Commission December 2, 2025 Page 12 V. The Ordinance Should Apply to All Residences Equally. If regulation of urban residential properties proceeds, it should apply equally to all properties. Singling out some residential urban properties, e.g., those within 300 feet of a natural stream, results in increased financial and market value impact and is unfair. There is no evidence that residences within 300 feet of a creek centerline pose a higher risk to birds in Palo Alto than houses outside the 300 feet. In the absence of actual bird collision data, all urban residential properties should bear the burden of bird-friendly building design requirements equally. Environmental groups calling creeks “critical habitat” does not change bird collision data or risk presented by houses. All of Palo Alto is under an “urban forest” and the properties within 300’ of a creek are fully urbanized with houses and backyards just like all the others. Before the ARB, Staff highlighted the unfairness of treating residential properties differently saying, “bird-safe design could impose a disproportionate financial burden on homeowners” and “it may seem unfair for homes that are immediately adjacent to each other if one is required to comply with bird-safe design standards and the other is not.” 36 At its meeting on August 28, 2024, the Commissioners expressed concern about including the urban properties in the “bird-sensitive” areas and directed Staff to simplify the definition to ease implementation.37 Following that direction, Staff recommended that the urbanized areas be excluded from “bird-sensitive” areas at the October 30, 2024, PTC meeting.38 This is the correct approach. Yale researchers on bird-safe legislation recommend against identifying areas as “bird- sensitive” and treating them differently from other areas because “studies show that birds make diffuse use of all parts of urban and suburban environments.”39 development” in the community, and any zoning ordinance or other subordinate land use action must be consistent with the general plan. (Lesher Communications, Inc. v City of Walnut Creek (1990) 52 Cal.3d 531, 540, 545-546 [zoning amendment that was inconsistent with the general plan adjudged to be void ab initio].) In order to be deemed “consistent,” the zone change must actually be “compatible with the objectives, policies, general land uses, and programs specified in the general plan.” (Napa Citizens for Honest Government v. Napa County Board of Supervisors (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 342, 378-79 [county abused its discretion in adopting a specific plan that permitted development without “definite affirmative commitments to mitigate” impacts to traffic and housing contrary to policies and objectives set forth in its general plan].) 36 Staff Report #: 2404-2883 for ARB dated July 18, 2024, page 10. Staff wrote, “Given that single-family homes are less likely to cause bird collisions due to their smaller size and that bird-safe design could impose a disproportionate financial burden on homeowners, exempting such homes located outside designated Bird Sensitive Areas may be a reasonable solution. However, depending on how the buffer is drawn, it may seem unfair for homes that are immediately adjacent to each other if one is required to comply with bird-safe design standards and the other is not.” 37 Summary Minutes, PTC, Aug. 28, 2024, page 14. 38 Staff Report #: 2409-3472 for PTC dated October 30, 2024, p.8. 39 Barges M, Morris V. Building safer cities for birds: How cities are leading the way on bird-friendly building policy. Yale Bird-Friendly Building Initiative. 2023 August, p.5. https://abcbirds.org/wp- content/uploads/2023/08/2023-Yale-Report.pdf. Item 3 Attachment D - Public Comments received after October 30, 2024     Packet Pg. 143     Honorable Chair and Members of the Planning and Transportation Commission December 2, 2025 Page 13 VI. The Proposed Ordinance is Confusing and Unsupported. The proposed ordinance that emerged from the October 30 PTC meeting is confusing and the 300’/40%/10% thresholds lack scientific footing. Confusion It is not clear what “no more than 40% [or 10%] of an elevation can be untreated” means. Is the percentage measured on a per-window basis, i.e., 40% per window? On an aggregate glass basis, i.e., add all the windows together and take 40%? Or aggregate square footage including glass basis, i.e., 40% of the total façade square footage? How are angles on the façade, like roof lines, to be dealt with? Are percentages for fenestrations along angles to be measured in reference to the angle or the vertical plane? How does the 300-foot buffer apply with a meandering and varying width stream? Stream centerlines are not readily determinable and can change year to year. Is it enough that a property extends 1” into the buffer to be subject to the restrictions? Why should a property 1” into the buffer be treated different from the property next door that is not in the buffer? In contrast, San Francisco, Richmond, Alameda and Berkeley distinguish residential properties by height and total glass coverage and, if the bird-safe requirements apply, the entirety of the large panels must be covered. This is a less confusing and more appropriate way to craft legislation. It gives homeowners the choice of using large glass panels that would need to be covered with bird-safe screens or not. No Support in Science. The “300-foot” buffer, which originated with the Audubon Society, has no basis in bird collision science. The support cited by the Audubon Society for the buffer is the 1994 Riparian Corridor Policy Study for the City of San Jose.40 This report contains recommended guidelines for setbacks and construction along creeks in San Jose. It contains one reference to 300 feet – the recommended setback for equipment and chemical storage.41 The report has literally nothing to do with bird collisions with buildings or bird-collision “buffers.” The Audubon Society presented no studies of bird collisions within 300 feet of creek centerlines (and none exists). The “40%” coverage threshold, which originated with the Audubon Society, has no basis in bird collision science. The Audubon Society’s letter proposing 40% identified the source by saying this: 40See SCVBA Comments for PA BFD, attached to Shani Kleinhaus email dated October 29, 2024, (“SCVBA Comments”). The SCVBA Comments state, “The estimate of 300-ft comes San Jose’s “Riparian Corridor Study” which is a comprehensive study of riparian ecosystems in urban/suburban landscapes,” citing Riparian Corridor Policy Study for the City of San Jose. https://sj-admin.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/1994_SJRiparianStudy.pdf. 41 See Riparian Corridor Policy Study for the City of San Jose, page 35, Table 3. Item 3 Attachment D - Public Comments received after October 30, 2024     Packet Pg. 144     Honorable Chair and Members of the Planning and Transportation Commission December 2, 2025 Page 14 “The 40% suggestion is based on Standard 90.1 of the model energy code issued by that Heating, Refrigerating and Air-conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) prescriptive Window-to-Wall Ratio to balance energy use and lighting.”42 Obviously, heating and air-conditioning requirements have nothing to do with bird collisions or bird-safe glass. Likewise, the “10%” coverage threshold, which also originated with the Audubon Society, has no basis in bird collision science. The Audubon Society’s letter justified it simply by saying it “provides some flexibility.”43 The Audubon Society advocates arbitrarily selected the 300-foot buffer and both the 40% and 10% coverage thresholds. The buffer and thresholds, if there will be any, should be revisited in view of real Palo Alto bird-collision data. The Smithsonian Paper Projections Are Based on Speculative Mathematics. It is often said by environmental advocates that “up to one billion birds” are killed by buildings every year. These statements rely on a paper written in 2014 by authors from the Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.44 The authors reviewed eight prior studies with a total of 92,869 bird collisions and, applying extrapolation mathematics, projected between 365 million and 985 million birds are killed per year by buildings in the US.45 As any mathematician or engineer will tell you, it is highly speculative to take a sample size of 92,869, multiply it by 10,000 and attempt to draw conclusions with any remote precision. Yet, this paper is continuously cited as if these figures are fact. The data in the paper also suffer from selection bias because they came almost exclusively from East-coast studies with East-coast birds in specific seasons. The authors repeatedly highlight their data bias and say more bird-building collision studies in the West are needed.46 The data bias alone is enough to render the paper unusable for west-coast legislation reliance because bird collision risk is location- and circumstance-specific. 42 SCVBA Comments, p.3. 43 Id. 44 Loss, Will, Loss, Mara, Bird–building collisions in the United States: Estimates of annual mortality and species vulnerability, 2014 (the “Smithsonian Paper”), https://repository.si.edu/bitstream/handle/10088/25413/NZP_Marra_2014- Birdbuilding_collisions_in_the_United_States_Estimates_of_annual_mortality_and_species_vulnerability.pdf?seque nce=1&isAllowed=y 45 See Smithsonian Paper at p.15-16, Figure 2 46 For example, the authors say, “However, the data we analyzed overrepresented the eastern U.S. and underrepresented the Great Plains, Interior West, and West Coast.… In addition, our species vulnerability estimates do not cover species with a large proportion of their range in the West. Further research of bird–building collisions in areas west of the Mississippi River is needed to document whether per-building mortality rates differ consistently from those in well-studied regions of the east and to assess building collision vulnerabilities for western bird species.” See Smithsonian Paper, page 20. Item 3 Attachment D - Public Comments received after October 30, 2024     Packet Pg. 145     Honorable Chair and Members of the Planning and Transportation Commission December 2, 2025 Page 15 Continuing the speculation, the authors went on to project fatalities caused by building types. For buildings between 1 and 3 stories (what the authors called “Residences”), the authors projected 2.1 bird strikes per year per building.47 The authors projected buildings between 4 and 11 stories (what they called “Low-Rises”) would kill 16.3 birds per year per building or 27.1 if they limit the math to the four year-round studies reviewed, and buildings over 11 stories (termed “High-Rises”) would each kill 24.3 birds per year. Thus, buildings over 3 stories were projected to kill 8 to 13 times more birds than a residence: Building Type Projected Bird Mortality per Building per Year Residences (1-3 Stories) 2.1 Low-Rises (4-11 Stories) Between 16.3 and 27.1 Hi h-Rises (12+ Stories) 24.3 If these projections are to be believed, large buildings are the low-hanging fruit and cities should focus their mitigation efforts on buildings that are 4 stories or taller. VII.Follow the Lead of San Francisco, Richmond, Alameda and Berkeley If urban residences are to be regulated, Palo Alto should follow the lead and weight of authority of San Francisco, Richmond, Berkeley and Alameda. These cities distinguish residential properties based on size and glass coverage. They exclude residential homes unless over 45 or 35 feet in height and have large glass facades (e.g., 50% or more) and then the bird-safe glass requirements apply to large panels of glass (e.g., 24 square feet or more). These ordinances are logical, follow the findings of the California Academy of Sciences bird-collision study, and balance environmental benefit against the burden of compliance. The California Academy of Science building has a three-story glass exterior with a living roof of native plants. After it was opened in 2008, the Academy discovered bird collisions with the building, and researchers from its Department of Ornithology and Mammalogy conducted a study. That study, which ran for five years, concluded that reduction in pane size and lowering of exterior roll-down shades can reduce bird strikes.48 San Francisco’s bird-safe ordinance was adopted in 2011, three years into the California Academy study. It applies to newly constructed buildings and excludes residential buildings 47 See Smithsonian Paper, p.16, Table 3. 48 California Academy Study, p.20/22. “Our primary findings are that reduction in pane size and exterior shades can both reduce strikes, and these tools are applicable to other buildings.” The study found that, of the 308 bird strikes over five years, 52% (174) were hummingbirds (Anna’s and Allen’s Hummingbirds), 8.1% (25) were blackbirds and 7.1% (22) were sparrows. Id. at 10/22, Table 2. Item 3 Attachment D - Public Comments received after October 30, 2024     Packet Pg. 146     Honorable Chair and Members of the Planning and Transportation Commission December 2, 2025 Page 16 unless they exceed 45 feet in height or have facades of 50% or more glass (in which case unbroken glazed segments that are 24 square feet and larger need to comply).49 Richmond’s ordinance tracks San Francisco’s and excludes residential buildings unless they exceed 45 feet in height or have facades of 50% or more glass (in which case unbroken glazed segments that are 24 square feet and larger need to comply).50 Alameda’s ordinance applies to newly constructed buildings greater than 35 feet in height and with facades greater than 50% glass (in which case the bird-safe glazing requirement applies to windows or unbroken glazed segment with an area of twelve square feet or more).51 It also applies to the replacement of unbroken glazed segments twenty-four (24) square feet or more in size.52 Berkeley’s ordinance applies to new residential buildings or additions of over 10,000 square feet in floor area and with an average height greater than 35 feet and 30% or more glass facades starting in 2028.53 The common theme in these ordinances is that they apply to large residential buildings with significant amounts of glass. Palo Alto should follow these leaders as the weight of local authority. Accordingly, bird-safe restrictions, if they apply to residential property, should apply to buildings that are over 45 (or 35) feet in height and with 50% or more glass facades and the glass covering requirements should apply to large panels of 24 square feet or more of unbroken glass. Cupertino’s ordinance is an outlier. It excludes R1 residential development except those in “Bird-Sensitive Areas,” which are defined to include parcels that are in or within 300 feet of the Wildland Urban Interface, within 300 feet of watercourses, in Residential Hillside areas, and within 300 feet of public and private open spaces and parks that are dominated by vegetation, including vegetated landscaping, forest, meadows, grassland, or wetlands.54 In application, the definitional lines are hopelessly confusing, with words like “open spaces” and “dominated by vegetation.” It is not supported by any bird studies and not a logical or appropriate model to follow. 49 See San Francisco Planning Code Sec 139 (emphasis added). https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/san_francisco/latest/sf_planning/0-0-0-18643 50 Richmond Municipal Code 15.04.608.030, https://library.municode.com/ca/richmond/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=ARTXVZOSU_CH15.04ZOSURE_S ERIES_600GEST_ART15.04.608PEST_15.04.608.030BIFEBU 51 Alameda Municipal Code Section 30-5.16. https://library.municode.com/ca/alameda/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=CHXXXDERE_ARTIZODIRE_30- 5GEPREX_30-5.16PEST 52 Id. section 30-5.16(b)(2(c). 53 Berkeley Municipal Code 23.304.150. https://berkeley.municipal.codes/BMC/23.304.150(C)(2) 54 Cupertino Municipal Code section 19.102.030(E)(3). https://codehub.gridics.com/us/ca/cupertino#/d3ef8742- 594e-4e92-bb0d-0fbb09d855bd Item 3 Attachment D - Public Comments received after October 30, 2024     Packet Pg. 147     Honorable Chair and Members of the Planning and Transportation Commission December 2, 2025 Page 17 No other nearby city has adopted ordinances of the nature proposed here for urban residential properties. Not Redwood City, San Mateo, San Carlos, San Jose, Sunnyvale, or Portola Valley. VIII. To Ease Residential Burden, Phase in the Ordinance If residences are to be regulated, to ease the burden on homeowners and give time for window manufacturing technology to catch up, urban residential compliance should be phased in over a period of time, say 5-10 years. Berkeley’s ordinance (which applies to homes over 10,000 square feet floor area and 35 feet in height) likewise phases in residential compliance over several years.55 IX. San Francisquito Creek Along Edgewood is Not a “Natural Stream.” San Francisquito Creek is not a “natural stream” along Edgewood and should be excluded from any “bird-sensitive” area. The creek attracts encampments, trash, pollution and trespassers due to the lack of barriers to enter on the East Palo Alto side. The creek is lined with concrete bags in vast sections of its sides and bottom, the tops of banks themselves are solid concrete and the creek is bounded by concrete bridges and walls. See pictures at Exhibit F. The creek will soon undergo extensive transformation for flood control. The one-car bridge at Newell Road will be replaced with a 41-foot wide “super” bridge with two car lanes, two bike lanes, two sidewalks and lights. The creek will be further excavated, widened and shored up under the plans of the SFC Joint Powers Authority.56 There is no evidence that the properties near SFC pose a higher risk to bird collision than those on the neighboring streets. As noted above, San Francisquito Creek is not identified as a “hot-spot” for birds on Cornel’s website www.eBird.org. X. Safety and Security Require an Exemption for Edgewood Because of the encampments, trespass and crime in and around San Francisquito Creek, we need clear and unobstructed windows for our safety and security. An exception should be added for Edgewood Drive for safety and security, like was approved by Council for the Lighting Ordinance (PAMC 18.40.250). Edgewood Drive is Unique 55 Berkeley’s Bird-Safe Building ordinance, which applies to residential buildings over 10,000 square feet and 35 feet in height, exempts buildings where every façade’s total square footage consists of less than 30 percent transparent or reflective material through January 1, 2028. Berkely Municipal Code 23.304.150(B)(3)(c). https://berkeley.municipal.codes/BMC/23.304.150(C)(2) 56 SFC JPA Reach 2 Project. https://www.sfcjpa.org/reach-2-upstream-project Item 3 Attachment D - Public Comments received after October 30, 2024     Packet Pg. 148     Honorable Chair and Members of the Planning and Transportation Commission December 2, 2025 Page 18 As we have detailed in our letters to the Commission and Council,57 the characteristics of San Francisquito Creek along Edgewood Drive are unique in that on the other side is East Palo Alto, which has no barriers to access to the creek, no meaningful creek regulation, and limited resources for enforcement. There is literally nothing preventing people from entering the creek from the East Palo Alto side. As a result, Palo Alto homeowners along Edgewood Drive, and the larger neighborhood, contend with – and have for years – homeless encampments, noise, trash, human waste, trespass, fire risk and crime. Because of these issues, the properties on Edgewood need clear and unobstructed windows for our safety and security. We need to see who is in the yard, who is jumping the fence and, who is in the driveway. An exception should be added for Edgewood properties for safety and security, like the Council approved for the “Dark Sky” ordinance. Safety is the City’s paramount duty to its residents, and properties along Edgewood are particularly vulnerable. Palo Alto has previously recognized the unique circumstances of properties on Edgewood Drive. •The “Dark Sky” Lighting Ordinance (18.40.250) being considered by City Council on December 8, 2025, contains an express exemption for Edgewood Drive due to its special security needs, and was unanimously directed by the Council in April 2025. •The revised “Streamside” corridor ordinance (18.40.140) currently before the PTC includes an exemption for properties along Edgewood from the additional proposed setback. •The City’s fence ordinance allows 10-foot fences on Edgewood for security and privacy under certain development criteria. See PA Code 16.24.020(d). •Overnight parking restrictions were adopted in response to residents of Edgewood Drive and neighboring streets objecting to EPA residents crossing the Newell bridge and parking in the neighborhood. See PA Code 10.51 et seq. XI. Cats, Not Buildings, are the Real Enemy Domestic and feral cats are far more dangerous to birds than buildings. The Smithsonian and US Fish & Wildlife authors report studies showing free-ranging pet cats kill four times (4x) more birds than buildings and are the number one source of human-caused mortality for birds.58 Cats are efficient and indiscriminate killers. 57 See our letters dated Jan. 29, 2025, and Apr. 4, 2025. 58 Smithsonian Paper, Abstract, page 8. The authors say, ”building collisions are second only to feral and free- ranging pet cats, which are estimated to kill roughly four times as many birds each year, as the largest source of direct human-caused mortality for U.S. birds.” (Emphasis added). See also Loss et al. 2013: The impact of free- ranging domestic cats on wildlife of the United States, https://abcbirds.org/wp- Item 3 Attachment D - Public Comments received after October 30, 2024     Packet Pg. 149     Honorable Chair and Members of the Planning and Transportation Commission December 2, 2025 Page 19 To make a real difference for birds, the Commission should recommend a ban on feeding of feral cats and require domestic cats that go outside to wear bells. That is simple enough to accomplish and not unduly burdensome. Palo Alto’s current ban against feeding feral cats only applies within parks or open space lands,59 and its ban against allowing animals to stray expressly excludes cats.60 It is time to rein cats in. Sincerely, EDGEWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD ALLIANCE By, its representative, _____________________ Daniel Hansen cc: Matthew D. Francois, Rutan & Tucker, LLP David Lanferman, Rutan & Tucker, LLP Jonathan Lait, Director of Planning & Development Services Jennifer Armer, Assistant Director of Planning & Development Services Kelly Cha, Senior Planner Ed Shikada, City Manager Molly Stump, City Attorney content/uploads/2015/09/Loss_et_al._2013-Impacts_Outdoor_Cats.pdf (“We estimate that free-ranging domestic cats kill 1.3–4.0 billion birds and 6.3–22.3 billion mammals annually.”) 59 PAMC 22.04.270 (“No person shall feed, cause to be fed, scatter or leave food, seed or other matter edible to any wildlife animal, including any bird or feral animal, including any feral cat, in any park or open space lands or building located within a park or open space lands, without the written consent of the director.)” (Emphasis added). 60 PAMC 6.20.010 (“No person owning or having possession, charge, custody, or control of any animal, except cats, shall cause, permit or allow the animal to stray, run, or in any other manner to be at large in or upon any public street, sidewalk, park or schoolground, or upon any unenclosed lot or land.”)(Emphasis added). Item 3 Attachment D - Public Comments received after October 30, 2024     Packet Pg. 150     Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council December 2, 2025 Page 20 Exhibit A eBird Website Palo Alto Item 3 Attachment D - Public Comments received after October 30, 2024     Packet Pg. 151     Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council December 2, 2025 Page 21 Item 3 Attachment D - Public Comments received after October 30, 2024     Packet Pg. 152     Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council December 2, 2025 Page 22 Exhibit B Permanent Metal Screens Item 3 Attachment D - Public Comments received after October 30, 2024     Packet Pg. 153     Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council December 2, 2025 Page 23 Item 3 Attachment D - Public Comments received after October 30, 2024     Packet Pg. 154     Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council December 2, 2025 Page 24 Exhibit C Permanent Metal Shades Item 3 Attachment D - Public Comments received after October 30, 2024     Packet Pg. 155     Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council December 2, 2025 Page 25 Item 3 Attachment D - Public Comments received after October 30, 2024     Packet Pg. 156     Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council December 2, 2025 Page 26 Exhibit D Bird-Friendly Window “dots” Item 3 Attachment D - Public Comments received after October 30, 2024     Packet Pg. 157     Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council December 2, 2025 Page 27 Item 3 Attachment D - Public Comments received after October 30, 2024     Packet Pg. 158     Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council December 2, 2025 Page 28 Exhibit E Bird-Friendly Window Films Item 3 Attachment D - Public Comments received after October 30, 2024     Packet Pg. 159     Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council December 2, 2025 Page 29 Item 3 Attachment D - Public Comments received after October 30, 2024     Packet Pg. 160     Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council December 2, 2025 Page 30 Item 3 Attachment D - Public Comments received after October 30, 2024     Packet Pg. 161     Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council December 2, 2025 Page 31 Exhibit F San Francisquito Creek is Not Natural Item 3 Attachment D - Public Comments received after October 30, 2024     Packet Pg. 162     Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council December 2, 2025 Page 32 Item 3 Attachment D - Public Comments received after October 30, 2024     Packet Pg. 163     Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council December 2, 2025 Page 33 Item 3 Attachment D - Public Comments received after October 30, 2024     Packet Pg. 164     Item No. 4. Page 1 of 1 Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report From: Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: December 10, 2025 Report #: 2512-5631 TITLE Approval of Planning & Transportation Commission Draft Summary & Verbatim Minutes of September 24, 2025 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning & Transportation Commission (PTC) adopt the meeting minutes. BACKGROUND Draft summary and verbatim minutes for the September 24, 2025, Planning & Transportation Commission (PTC) meeting were made available to the Commissioners prior to the December 10, 2025, meeting date. The draft PTC minutes can be viewed online on the City's website at https://bit.ly/PaloAltoPTC ATTACHMENTS None AUTHOR/TITLE: Samuel Tavera, Administrative Associate III Item 4 Item 4 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 165     Item No. 5. Page 1 of 1 Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report From: Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: December 10, 2025 Report #: 2512-5633 TITLE Approval of Planning & Transportation Commission Draft Summary & Verbatim Minutes of October 8, 2025 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning & Transportation Commission (PTC) adopt the meeting minutes. BACKGROUND Draft summary and verbatim minutes for the October 8, 2025, Planning & Transportation Commission (PTC) meeting were made available to the Commissioners prior to the December 10, 2025, meeting date. The draft PTC minutes can be viewed on the City's website at https://bit.ly/PaloAltoPTC ATTACHMENTS None AUTHOR/TITLE: Samuel Tavera, Administrative Associate III Item 5 Item 5 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 166