HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-12-08 City Council EmailsDOCUM ENTS IN THIS PACKET INCLUDE:
LETTERS FROM CITIZENS TO THE
MAYOR OR CITY COUNCIL
RESPONSES FROM STAFF TO LETTERS FROM CITIZ ENS
ITEMS FROM MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
ITEMS FROM OTHER COMMITTEES AND AGENC IES
ITEMS FROM CITY, COUNTY, STATE, AND REGIONAL AGENCIES
Prepared for: 12/8/2025
Document dates: 12/1/2025 - 12/8/2025
Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet reproduction
in a given week. 701-32
From:McMurray, Lee
To:Council, City
Subject:Palo Alto Airport Automated Weather Observation System
Date:Monday, December 8, 2025 11:44:53 AM
Attachments:Outlook-mfhiddbb.png
Outlook-jybgmqyi
Outlook-t01usyuf.png
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Palo Alto City Council Members,
I am writing on behalf of Stanford Medicine Life Flight to express our strong support for the
FAA-funded project to install a 24/7 Automated Weather Observation System (AWOS) at Palo
Alto Airport (PAO).
As the Program Manager for Stanford Life Flight, I consulted with our aviation staff regarding
the operational impact of this installation. From an aviation safety and patient care
perspective, the 24/7 AWOS would provide critical benefits to our air ambulance operations:
Enhanced Safety and Decision-Making:
We would receive more accurate, real-time weather data specific to our instrument
departure and approach procedures
Currently, when Palo Alto Airport is closed, we must rely on Moffett Airfield weather
data, which is less representative of actual conditions at Stanford
After-hours, we are required to increase our landing minimums due to the lack of local
weather reporting
The AWOS would provide better data for critical go/no-go decisions during time-
sensitive medical missions
Improved Patient Care:
When flying back into Stanford and the local area, our flight crews could easily access
accurate local weather data via phone or electronic means
Better weather information enables safer, more informed decisions about whether we
can safely transport critically ill or injured patients
This installation would serve as an important safety resource for our mission while
serving the patients and communities of the Bay Area and beyond.
This message needs your attention
This is their first email to you.
Mark Safe Report
Thank you for your consideration of this valuable safety enhancement.
Respectfully,
lee mcmurray
Program Manager
Stanford Life Flight
lmcmurray@stanfordhealthcare.org
Upcoming OOO/PTO:
Book time to meet with me
Wellbeing Note: This email was sent at a time that was convenient for my schedule and may be outside normal
working hours. Please ensure your work-life balance, and do not feel obligated or expected to respond outside of your
own work schedule.
Confidential Information: This communication and any attachments may contain confidential or privileged information for the
use by the designated recipient(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have
received this communication in error and that any review, disclosure, dissemination, distribution or copying of it or the
attachments is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please contact me and destroy all copies of
the communication and attachments. Thank you
From:Melissa Borgesi
To:Council, City
Cc:Jane Mark; Ana Ruiz; Susanna Chan
Subject:12/8/25 City Council Meeting Agenda ITEM 15: REINTRODUCED FIRST READING: Adoption of an Ordinance
Updating Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.40.250 (Lighting)
Date:Monday, December 8, 2025 10:46:40 AM
Attachments:image001.png
Midpen Ltr_Palo Alto Lighting Ordinance 20251208.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear City Council Members and Staff,
Please find attached our agency’s comments regarding the draft ordinance updating the Palo
Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 18.40.250 (Lighting) of Chapter 18.40 (General Standards
and Exceptions) and Amending Chapters 18.10, 18.12, 18.28, and Section 18.40.230 of Title 18
(Zoning) to Adopt New Outdoor Lighting Regulations, which will be discussed at this evening’s
City Council meeting.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposed ordinance language.
Sincerely,
Melissa
Melissa Borgesi
Planner III
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
5050 El Camino Real, Los Altos, CA 94022
(650) 625-6531 Direct
openspace.org
This message needs your attention
This is their first mail to some recipients.
Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast
December 8, 2025
City of Palo Alto City Council
City Hall
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
SENT VIA E-MAIL TO: city.council@CityofPaloAlto.org
Subject: Adoption of an Ordinance Updating Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 18.40.250 (Lighting) of
Chapter 18.40 (General Standards and Exceptions) and Amending Chapters 18.10, 18.12, 18.28, and Section 18.40.230
of Title 18 (Zoning) to Adopt New Outdoor Lighting Regulations
Dear Palo Alto City Council,
On behalf of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (Midpen), we respectfully submit the following
comments regarding the revised lighting ordinance.
Comprised of over 70,000 acres of acquired and protected open space on the San Francisco Peninsula, Midpen is one
of the largest regional open space districts in California. Our mission is to acquire and preserve a regional greenbelt
of open space land in perpetuity, protect and restore the natural environment, and provide opportunities for
ecologically sensitive public enjoyment and education. Within the City of Palo Alto’s jurisdiction, Midpen owns and
manages Monte Bello Open Space Preserve (Preserve).
Midpen appreciates the City of Palo Alto utilizing “dark sky” principles in developing the lighting ordinance update,
particularly in the areas that serve as wildlife refuge sites including creek and riparian corridors, large open spaces,
and the Baylands. The clear guidance for light direction, intensity and color in the current ordinance draft will assist
with protecting these sensitive resource areas. Midpen supports approval of such an ordinance with consideration
for any suggested revisions to improve the ordinance from a perspective of ecological value and benefit. We
recognize that the City will rely on a community-based approach for compliance and commend the City’s efforts with
developing educational and outreach materials to communicate the importance of protecting a “dark sky” and
complying with wildlife light pollution protections standards.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this ordinance revision. Should you have any questions about this
letter, please contact me at (650) 625-6563 or via email at jmark@openspace.org.
Sincerely,
Jane F. Mark, AICP
Planning Manager
CC: Ana Ruiz, General Manager
Susanna Chan, Assistant General Manager
From:Robert Marinaro
To:Lauing, Ed; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Veenker, Vicki; Burt, Patrick; Lu, George; Stone, Greer
Cc:Council, City
Subject:Palo Alto RV Count Update (as of 12/3/25)
Date:Sunday, December 7, 2025 12:40:21 PM
Attachments:RV Inventory_03Dec25.xlsx
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear OSV Ad Hoc Committee and City Council,
In advance of tomorrow’s (12/8) Council Meeting I thought I would provide you with my latest (Bob’s PTT) count of the RVs on Plao Alto streets. I wanted to take this snapshot before the street sweeping
commenced in the E. Embarcadero corridor. I’m sure we all will be interested in the outcome of the street sweeping to see if it has any long rage impacts or it is just another inconvenience like the 72 hour
regulation.
It is unfortunate to note that number of streets that RVs (OSVs) reside on has increased from 21 to 23 (see yellow cells). Hopefully, current street sweeping actions will not just move the RVs to additional Palo
Alto streets and closer to residents. I have already cautioned the manager of an apartment complex that borders the north edge of Greer Park (Amarillo Ave.) about the RV that has begun parking there.
Here are a few photos from yesterday (except photo #1)…
East Embarcadero before street sweeping
East Embarcadero after street sweeping
E. Embarcadero after street sweeping - - Imaging riding your bike down this street unimpeded
E. Embarcadero
Faber Place - - Earning for the Street Sweeper
Faber Place - - Just one small example
Palo Alto On Street RV Count
Street Segment RVs RVs RVs RVs RVs RVs RVs RVs
10/21/25 &11/2 &11/10 &11/19 &12/3
10/22/2025 11/3 11/11 11/20
1 Fabian Way Between E. Charleston & E. Meadow 17 17 17 17 17
2 Fabian Way Between E. Charleston & San Antonio Rd.9 8 7 8 8
3 E. Meadow Circle Off of E. Meadow Dr.52 52 52 56 53
4 East Meadow At Intersection with Fabian Way 0 0 0 0 1
5 Industrial Ave.Between E. Charleston & Transport St.1 2 1 1 1
6 Transport St.Between E. San Antonio & Industrial Ave.12 12 12 11 11
7 San Antonio Rd.Between E. Charleston & Transport St.13 12 13 13 15
8 Commercial St.Between E. Charleston & Transport St.12 14 14 15 15
9 Elwell Ct.Dead End Off of E. Bayshore Rd.15 10 10 10 10
10 Corporation Way Dead End Off of E. Bayshore Rd.12 12 12 12 13
11 Colorado Ave.Colorado Ave. & W. Bayshore Rd.5 5 5 6 6
12 Amarillo Ave.Bordering North Edge of Greer Park 0 0 0 0 1
13 E. Embarcadero Rd.East of 101 13 13 12 15 8
14 Embarcadero Way Dead End off of Embarcadero Rd.14 13 10 10 11
15 Faber Pl.Dead End off of Embarcadero Rd.25 23 23 23 25
200 193 188 197 195
16 Park Blvd.South of Page Mill 6 3 3 3 4
17 Lambert Ave.Between El Camino & Park Blvd.1 1 1 1 2
18 Ash St.Between Oregon Expressway & Olive Ave.1 1 2 0 0
19 Poratge Ave.Between El Camino & Park Blvd.4 4 4 6 4
20 Olive Ave.Between El Camino & Park Blvd.1 2 2 2 2
21 Sheridan Ave.Between Park Blvd & Caltrain Parking Lot 6 6 6 6 6
22 Orinda St.Between Fernando Ave. & Wilton Ave.1 1 1 1 1
23 Matadero Ave.Between El Camino & Park Blvd.0 1 1 1
20 18 19 19 19
Total:220 211 207 216 214
San Antonio Rd.East of 101 (PA/MV Border)7
Yellow RVs on New Street
Ventura Area
C:\Users\stavera\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\05N9IUBJ\RV Inventory_03Dec25 12/8/2025 12:43 PM
From:Zhenshu Zhao
To:Council, City
Cc:Raybould, Claire
Subject:Public Comment for 2451 Cowper St — Appeal Hearing on December 8
Date:Friday, December 5, 2025 6:18:16 PM
Attachments:2451_Cowper_Zhao_Letter_to_Council_2024-12-08.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Council Members,
My name is Zhenshu Zhao, the homeowner of 2451 Cowper St. This project is my family
home.
I learned from Claire yesterday that the Council packet has already been published, so the one-
page summary I prepared could not be included.(Please see it attached) I’m therefore sending
the content directly to you here for your consideration ahead of the December 8 hearing.
(Here is the summary I had hoped to include in the packet):
• Over the past year, I have followed all City procedures and made every revision requested by
staff, including adjustments to height, privacy, and massing.
• The project fully complies with Palo Alto’s development standards and received Planning
Director approval after extensive review.
• Throughout the process I have been cooperative, responsive, and committed to ensuring the
design fits well within the neighborhood.
• The appeal has caused significant delay despite the project meeting all requirements.
I respectfully ask the Council to uphold the Director’s approval so that the project can move
forward without further delay. This project's intention has always been to build a safe and
comfortable living environment for my family—not a commercial or speculative project. I
also respectfully hope that the City continues to uphold a fair and consistent process for
homeowners who follow the rules and work closely with staff.
Thank you very much for your time and attention.
Best,
Zhenshu Zhao
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first mail to some recipients.
Mark Safe Report
Support Upholding the Director’s Decision –
2451 Cowper Street
Dear Mayor and Council members,
My name is Zhenshu Zhao, owner of 2451 Cowper Street. Thank you for your time and for the
City’s thorough work throughout the Individual Review (IR) process. I respectfully request that
the Council uphold the Director’s decision approving the project.
1. The project fully complies with all applicable Codes and IR Guidelines
Planning Staff and the Director completed a detailed review and confirmed that the project:
•Meets all zoning standards (height, setbacks, daylight plane, FAR);
•Satisfies all IR Guidelines regarding privacy, massing, and neighborhood compatibility;
•Reflects adjustments incorporated through the City review process.
The project aligns with the City’s objective and consistently applied requirements for single-
family homes.
2. Construction-related impacts are already governed by enforceable regulations
I will fully comply with all required City, State, and BAAQMD regulations, these standards
provide clear, enforceable protections for neighbors and the public.
3. The appellant’s requested conditions fall outside the City’s enforcement
framework
Some requested conditions—such as extended construction limitations, continuous monitoring,
or private enforcement mechanisms—are not part of Palo Alto’s standard practice, and:
•Are not feasible or enforceable for a single-family residence;
•Would shift public enforcement authority to a private party;
•Would create an inconsistent precedent, potentially encouraging future appeals on
otherwise compliant projects.
Maintaining objective, City-administered standards is essential for fairness and predictability.
4. Good-faith participation in the City process
Throughout the review, I have followed all formal procedures, adopted required adjustments, and
remained open to participating in City-facilitated mediation if helpful. My goal has been to move
the project forward under the City’s established, objective standards.
5. Request
For these reasons—documented compliance, existing regulatory protections, and the
inappropriateness of private, non-standard conditions—I respectfully ask the Council to uphold
the Director’s approval.
Thank you for your time and consideration, and for supporting a fair and consistent process for
all Palo Alto homeowners.
Sincerely,
Zhenshu Zhao
Owner, 2451 Cowper Street
650-505-6666
zhaozhenshu@gmail.com
From:Clerk, City
To:M. R. Wolfe & Associates, PC; Clerk, City
Cc:Council, City
Subject:RE: Appeal of Director"s Decision to Approve an Individual Review Application, 2451 Cowper St. -- Dec. 8, 2025
Council Meeting, Agenda Item No. 5
Date:Friday, December 5, 2025 4:34:37 PM
Attachments:Letter to Council re 2451 Cowper Appeal_12-5-25.pdf
image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
image006.png
image007.png
Hello Ms. Kim,
Thank you for reaching out. Your correspondence has been received and distributed to the
City Council. It will also be included in our Public Comment Packet, which will be published on
Monday 12/8.
Best,
Nicole Bissell
Deputy City Clerk
Office of the City Clerk
P: 650.329.2267 | E: Nicole.Bissell@PaloAlto.gov
www.PaloAlto.gov
From: M. R. Wolfe & Associates, PC <admin@mrwolfeassociates.com>
Sent: Friday, December 5, 2025 2:30 PM
To: Clerk, City <City.Clerk@PaloAlto.gov>
Cc: Council, City <city.council@PaloAlto.gov>
Subject: Appeal of Director's Decision to Approve an Individual Review Application, 2451 Cowper St.
-- Dec. 8, 2025 Council Meeting, Agenda Item No. 5
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
To the City Clerk: Attached is correspondence addressed to the City Council concerning 2451 Cowper Street- Appeal by John Zhang of Director's Decision to Approve an Individual Review Application. This matter currently appears on the Consent Calendar for the December 8, 2025 Counc
i
This message needs your attention
This is their first mail to some recipients.
Mark Safe Report
CGBANNERINDICATORTo the City Clerk:
Powered by Mimecast
Attached is correspondence addressed to the City Council concerning 2451 Cowper Street-
Appeal by John Zhang of Director's Decision to Approve an Individual Review Application.
This matter currently appears on the Consent Calendar for the December 8, 2025 Council
Meeting as Agenda Item 5.
Please distribute the attachment to Councilmembers in advance of the meeting, and please also
include it in the administrative record for the matter.
I would be grateful if you could acknowledge receipt of this email at your convenience.
Thank you very much.
________________________
Sharon Kim
M. R. Wolfe & Associates, P.C | Attorneys
Land Use | Environmental Law | Government
580 California Street | Suite 1200 | San Francisco, CA 94104
415.369.9400 | Fax: 415.369.9405 | www.mrwolfeassociates.com
The information in this e-mail may contain information that is confidential and/or subject to the attorney-
client privilege. If you have received it in error, please delete and contact the sender immediately. Thank you.
December 5, 2025
By Email
Mayor Ed Lauing and Members of the City Council
c/o City Clerk
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
City.Clerk@PaloAlto.gov
Re: Appeal of Planning Director’s Decision - 2451 Cowper Street
Individual Review Application 25PLN-00102
Request to Remove Appeal from Consent Calendar
Dear Mayor Lauing and Councilmembers:
This firm represents John X. J. Zhang, the immediately adjacent neighbor at
2450 Tasso Street, in his appeal of the Planning Director’s decision upholding the
Individual Review approval for demolition and reconstruction at 2451 Cowper Street.
Pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code (“PAMC”) § 18.78.040, an appeal placed on
the consent calendar may receive full Council review only if three Councilmembers
vote to remove it from consent. We respectfully urge you to do so. Please note that
this appeal in no manner seeks to block or delay the project. Mr. Zhang seeks only
reasonable, standard health and safety protections that the City indisputably has both
authority and obligation to impose, as explained further below.
I. BACKGROUND
In September 2025, the Planning Department tentatively approved Individual
Review Application No. 25PLN-00102 for demolition of an existing 1,286 square
foot residence built in 1938 and construction of a new 2,380 square foot two-story
residence with attached ADU. Mr. Zhang timely requested a Director’s Hearing,
Palo Alto City Council
December 5, 2025
Page 2
raising concerns about the absence of enforceable conditions to protect his family,
including a prematurely born infant, a one-year-old, and a three-year-old, from
exposure to hazardous materials, construction dust, diesel particulate matter, and
excessive noise during demolition and construction. (See request, Attachment 1.) His
children’s bedrooms and primary play areas are located close to the shared property
line, placing them in close proximity to demolition activities.
Specifically, Mr. Zhang advised the Planning Director that:
• No asbestos or lead survey has been required, despite the age of the structure
and the high likelihood that both hazardous materials are present;
• No enforceable dust-control, perimeter monitoring, containment, or diesel-
emissions reduction measures have been identified or imposed;
• No enforceable construction-noise mitigation has been imposed, even though
PAMC §§ 9.10.010 and 9.10.030 obligate the City to protect residents from
excessive and unreasonable noise; and
• The City’s reliance on a categorical exemption under CEQA Guidelines §
15303 is not adequately supported by substantial evidence in light of “unusual
circumstances,” namely the presence of sensitive receptors feet away from
demolition of a pre-1940 building containing potential hazardous materials
with no documented mitigation.
Following a hearing held September 10, 2025, the Planning Director upheld
the approval without adding any new conditions of approval. (See Decision Letter,
Attachment 2.) The Director’s decision letter vaguely asserted that “conditions
related to hazardous material compliance, specifically asbestos and lead-based paint,
are addressed at building permit in accordance with state and federal regulations,”
and that “standard measures for dust control are also applied during earthmoving
activities in accordance with Bay Area Air Quality Management District [BAAQMD]
requirements.” However, the decision failed to identify what these “conditions” and
“measures” actually were; failed to cite the applicable provisions of the PAMC or
BAAQMD Guidance; and failed to impose any enforceable permit conditions.
Mr. Zhang timely appealed the Director’s decision to the City Council
pursuant to PAMC Section 18.77.075. That appeal is scheduled to appear on the
Palo Alto City Council
December 5, 2025
Page 3
consent calendar for the December 8, 2025 Council meeting. Under PAMC Section
18.78.040(a)(2), removal from the consent calendar requires three votes.
II. The Appeal Raises Substantial Issues of Public Health, Safety, and
Municipal Code Compliance That Warrant a Hearing by the City
Council.
A. Documented Vulnerability of Sensitive Receptors
Attached hereto is a letter from Mr. Zhang’s children’s pediatrician, Dr. Yi
Ding, M.D., FAAP, of the Palo Alto Medical Foundation Department of Pediatrics.
(Attachment 3.) Dr. Ding’s letter provides medical documentation that infants and
young children are significantly more vulnerable to environmental exposures than
adults due to: (1) developing lungs and immune systems; (2) more rapid breathing
rates resulting in greater inhalation of airborne particles per body weight; and (3)
increased risk of respiratory irritation, infection, and long-term pulmonary
complications from dust, particulate matter, and asbestos exposure. Dr. Ding further
emphasizes that demolition and construction noise occurring during daytime hours
pose a significant risk of disrupting the essential sleep cycles of the infant and
toddlers, cycles that are medically documented as critical for neurological
development, growth, and immune function.
Dr. Ding specifically recommends enhanced dust control measures, stricter
containment of hazardous materials, efforts to minimize noise during critical sleep
hours, and prompt communication about construction timelines. This medical
evidence confirms that Mr. Zhang's children constitute “sensitive receptors” as
defined by the California Air Resources Board1 and creates a factual record that
cannot be dismissed with vague, unspecific assurances of future regulatory action “at
the building permit stage.”
1 CARB defines “sensitive receptors” as including “children, elderly, asthmatics and others
whose are at a heightened risk of negative health outcomes due to exposure to air pollution.” (See
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/capp/cst/rdi/sensitive-receptor-assessment .)
Palo Alto City Council
December 5, 2025
Page 4
B. The Director’s Decision Acknowledges Health and Safety Issues
But Provides Only Vague, Non-Enforceable Assurances.
The Planning Director’s decision (Attachment 2) repeatedly defers protection
of these documented sensitive receptors to an unspecified “building permit stage” (see
p. 2), but fails to provide any transparency or accountability regarding what
protections will actually be required. Specifically, the decision:
• Asserts that hazardous material conditions will be “addressed at building
permit in accordance with state and federal regulations,” but does not cite or
identify which regulations;
• States that dust control measures will be “applied during earthmoving
activities in accordance with Bay Area Air Quality Management District
requirements,” but does not cite or identify which BAAQMD requirements;
• Provides no citations to specific PAMC sections, state statutes, federal
regulations, or BAAQMD rules;
• Imposes no project-specific, enforceable conditions despite documented
presence of sensitive receptors and virtual certainty of lead-based paint and
asbestos being present in the 1938 structure;
• Leaves Mr. Zhang, the public, and the Council with no ability to determine
what protections will be required or how compliance will be verified and
enforced.
This approach violates basic principles of land use approval transparency and
public participation. Once demolition begins, any failure to require surveys,
containment procedures, or noise controls in advance becomes irreversible. If City
Planning Staff knows what requirements will apply “at the building permit stage,”
those requirements should be disclosed now and written into enforceable conditions
of approval with specific regulatory citations. If the City does not know what
requirements will apply, then the approval is premature and the environmental review
inadequate.2
2 Please also note that during administrative communications in July, City staff acknowledged
an offer by the applicant to install a sound-dampening barrier along the shared property line. This
commitment, however, was omitted from the final conditions of approval without explanation,
leaving no enforceable requirement for a measure that staff previously viewed as appropriate.
Palo Alto City Council
December 5, 2025
Page 5
C. The Director’s Decision Ignores Applicable Requirements of the
Palo Alto Municipal Code.
PAMC Section 9.10.010 declares it City policy to protect residents from
“excessive, unnecessary and unreasonable noises from any and all sources in the
community,” and that “[i]t is the intention of the city council to control the adverse
effect of such noise sources on the citizen under any condition of use, especially
those conditions of use which have the most severe impact upon any person.” Here,
no enforceable noise controls have been identified or imposed on the project, despite
documented presence of noise-sensitive toddlers and an infant immediately adjacent.
Additionally, PAMC Section 18.12.110(e) expressly authorizes the Director to
impose “reasonable conditions or restrictions” in individual review approvals “if
appropriate or necessary to protect the public health, safety, general welfare, or
convenience.” Here, the Director declined to exercise this authority despite clear need
and documentation of vulnerability.
These are not minor technical issues. They go to the fundamental question of
whether the City will require meaningful, enforceable protections for documented
sensitive receptors as required by the PAMC, or simply approve projects with
unspecified assurances that “it will all be handled later.”
D. CEQA Compliance Concerns
The project relies on a Class 3 categorical exemption under CEQA Guidelines
Section 15303. However, the “unusual circumstances” exception of Guidelines
Section 15300.2(c) likely applies here due to sensitive receptors (infant and toddlers)
residing immediately adjacent to the demolition site, which almost certainly contains
lead-based paint and asbestos-containing materials given its age; the fact that no
investigation or documentation of the presence or absence of hazardous materials has
occurred; and no enforceable conditions have been imposed to prevent exposure to
lead, asbestos, fugitive dust, diesel particulate matter, or excessive noise.
These circumstances create a reasonable possibility of significant adverse
environmental impacts to sensitive receptors, rendering the categorical exemption
Palo Alto City Council
December 5, 2025
Page 6
inapplicable. At a minimum, the Council should hear evidence on this issue before
allowing the exemption to stand.
III. The Council Should Remove the Appeal from Consent to Ensure
Transparency, Public Participation, and a Legally Adequate Record.
Again, Mr. Zhang is not seeking to stop or delay the project. He is requesting
that the City impose standard best management practices as enforceable conditions
of approval before demolition begins. Specifically:
1. Pre-Construction Meeting with Neighbors: Require a meeting between
the City inspector, contractor, and adjacent neighbor to review the schedule, high-
noise activities, dust controls, construction management plan, haul routes, and
complaint protocol. Deliverables should include a one-page contact sheet with a 24/7
site supervisor phone number and email.
2. Temporary Acoustic Barrier: Install a continuous sound wall along the
shared property line prior to demolition and framing, at least 10 feet tall with a
surface density ≥ 1.0 psf (or STC/NIC ≥ 25), with no gaps at seams or grade.
Verified with dated photos and product specs submitted to the City.
3. Best Practices for Noise Control: Use broadband backup alarms,
prohibit unmuffled compressors or generators, and locate stationary equipment away
from the shared property line. Limit high-noise activities such as demolition, saw-
cutting, and hammering to 10:00 a.m.–1:00 p.m. where practicable, with 72-hour
advance notice to neighbors. Prohibit construction activities on weekends and
holidays.
4. Dust, Lead, and Asbestos Control Measures:
a. Require licensed asbestos and lead surveys before permit issuance.
b. Mandate licensed abatement contractors with third-party clearance
reports filed with the City.
c. Require BAAQMD demolition/renovation notifications and disposal
manifests.
Palo Alto City Council
December 5, 2025
Page 7
d. Implement Dust Control Measures per BAAQMD guidelines
(continuous wet methods, haul truck covers, track-out prevention, no
visible dust crossing the property line).
e. Conduct perimeter PM2.5 spot monitoring at the shared property line
during demolition/major grading, with daily logs submitted to the City
and neighbors.
5. Traffic, Staging, and Public Safety: Submit a Construction Management
Plan identifying haul routes, staging, dumpster and concrete washout locations on-
site, and protections to ensure the shared fence remains undamaged.
6. Communication, Complaints, and Enforcement: Post a 24/7 site
supervisor phone number at the site, maintain a complaint/response log available to
the City, and authorize the City to issue stop-work orders for material or repeated
violations.
These measures represent standard industry practices for demolition of pre-
1940 structures adjacent to occupied residential properties. They are not unusual or
unreasonable. They should be written into the conditions of approval as enforceable
permit requirements - not left to hope and assumption about what might happen at
an unspecified future “building permit stage.”
V. Conclusion
We respectfully request that the Council vote to remove this appeal from the
consent calendar and schedule it for full hearing. The appeal raises important policy
questions appropriate for Council resolution, not consent calendar approval. Mr.
Zhang and his children deserve more than vague assurances that their health will be
protected at some unspecified future “building permit stage.” Like all Palo Alto
residents, they deserve specific, enforceable conditions written into the permit before
demolition begins, based on standard best practices and the City's own Municipal
Code requirements.
Palo Alto City Council
December 5, 2025
Page 8
Thank you for your consideration of this request.
Most sincerely,
M. R. WOLFE & ASSOCIATES, P.C
Mark R. Wolfe
On behalf of John Zhang
MRW:
attachments
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 1
September 9, 2025
By Email
Jonathan Lait, Planning Director
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
pdsdirector@paloalto.gov
Re: 2451 Cowper Street (25PLN-00102); Director’s Hearing on
Individual Review Application
Dear Mr. Lait:
This office represents John X. J. Zhang, the owner of the residence at 2450
Tasso Street, immediately adjacent and to the rear of 2451 Cowper Street. Mr. Zhang
requested a Director’s Hearing following the Planning Department’s July 3, 2025
tentative approval of the Individual Review application for the above-referenced
development project (“Project”). As explained in the body of this letter, the tentative
approval fails to impose enforceable conditions to protect nearby residents, including
Mr. Zhang’s newborn infant and one- and three-year old children, from exposure to
hazardous pollutant emissions and excessive noise during demolition and
construction of the project. Furthermore, the Project appears not qualify for the
Class 3 categorical exemption from the environmental review provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) due to the presence of unusual
circumstances. We therefore respectfully request that you DENY the application at
this time, and instead direct your staff to develop adequate, enforceable mitigation
measures as set forth further below.
In their current form, the proposed conditions of approval focus largely on
landscaping, tree protection, parking, and design conformance. They do not require
the applicant to implement standard measures for dust-control, asbestos and lead
abatement, or diesel particulate matter (“DPM”) emissions reduction in accordance
with guidance from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (“BAAQMD”).
Jonathan Lait
September 9, 2025
Page 2
The existing structure was built in 1938 and therefore is likely to contain both lead-
based paint and asbestos-containing materials. In addition, the foreseeable use of
diesel-powered construction equipment and trucks at the Project site will result in
emissions of DPM, which the California Air Resources Board (“CARB”) has
classified as a cancer-causing toxic air contaminant.
As a result, in the absence of clearly defined and enforceable mitigation
measures leaves Mr. Zhang’s family and other sensitive receptors1 in the vicinity
vulnerable to exposure to:
• Lead particles from disturbance of painted building surfaces during
demolition.
• Asbestos fibers from potential asbestos-containing materials in the existing
home.
• Fugitive dust/PM10 emissions from excavation, grading, and hauling
activities.
• Emissions of DPM a known carcinogen.
• Construction noise at levels likely to exceed Palo Alto’s municipal code
standard of no more than 6 dBA above ambient (PAMC § 9.10.030), adversely
affecting the health and safety of nearby sensitive receptors, particularly
infants.
Please note that Palo Alto Municipal Code (“PAMC”) Section 18.40.270
requires that air contaminants such as smoke, dust, and odors be controlled and
prevented from leaving the property, and authorizes the City to require applicants to
demonstrate methods to minimize such contaminants. There is no indication that the
City has required such a demonstration from the applicant here.
Likewise, PAMC Section 9.10.010 declares that it is City policy to protect
residents’ peace, health, and welfare from “excessive, unnecessary and unreasonable
noises” from any source, and emphasizes control of noise under those conditions of
use that most severely impact nearby persons. Allowing demolition and heavy
1 Sensitive receptors include “residences, schools, community resource centers, childcare
facilities, parks, playgrounds, health care facilities, hospitals, nursing homes, live-in housing, and any
building housing a business open to the public.” (CARB, SB 1137 Frequently Asked Questions, July
2025.)
Jonathan Lait
September 9, 2025
Page 3
construction immediately adjacent to a home with small children and an infant,
without imposing enforceable noise controls, violates both the spirit and the letter of
this policy.
The proposed conditions of approval further fail to require compliance with
best management practices for handing standard hazardous materials when older
structures are demolished or deconstructed. These include:
• Inspect: Before demolition, a trained professional must inspect pre-
1980s structures for asbestos, lead, and other hazardous materials. The
subject home was built in 1938, yet there is no evidence that such an
inspection has been conducted.
• Protect: During removal, hazardous wastes must be segregated from
other construction debris, with precautions to protect residents,
neighbors, and workers from contaminated dust. No conditions of
approval require protective measures such as containment, labeling, or
safe on-site storage.
• Dispose: Hazardous wastes must be lawfully disposed of under state
and federal requirements to avoid environmental releases and liability.
The City’s approval is silent on disposal procedures, tracking, or
manifests, leaving a significant enforcement gap.
These omissions leave adjacent residents, including sensitive receptors, even
further at risk.
We would also dispute the City’s determination that the project is categorically
exempt from CEQA based on the Class 3 categorical exemption established by
Section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines. The “unusual circumstances” exception of
section 15300.2 likely applies here. Sensitive receptors live immediately adjacent to
the demolition site; there is no documentation of the presence or absence of
hazardous materials in the existing 1938 structure; and the City has imposed no
enforceable conditions to prevent exposure to lead, asbestos, fugitive dust, DPM, or
excessive noise. These circumstances create a reasonable possibility of significant
adverse environmental impacts, rendering the categorical exemption inapplicable.
Jonathan Lait
September 9, 2025
Page 4
Finally, while the July 3 tentative approval concludes that the Project meets all
five of the City’s Individual Review (IR) Guidelines, staff’s own review flagged
inadequate privacy screening (Guideline 5), and insufficient side/rear yard buffering
under Guideline 1 (site planning). Unless these inconsistencies corrected with
enforceable conditions, the project fails to satisfy the IR Guidelines. Moreover, staff’s
IR comments explicitly recommended taller evergreen screening trees along the side
and rear lot lines (e.g., Arbutus ‘Marina’ or Cherry Laurel) to protect privacy.
Fortunately, the Planning Director has clear authority to impose additional
mitigation requirements to rectify these omissions. PAMC Section 18.12.110(e)
makes clear that in granting individual review approvals, “reasonable conditions or
restrictions may be imposed if appropriate or necessary to protect the public health,
safety, general welfare, or convenience.” Accordingly, to address the foregoing
concerns and to establish an evidentiary record sufficient to support an overall
finding of compliance with the PAMC, we respectfully request that the Planning
Director deny the current application at this time, and subsequently impose the
following enforceable mitigation measures in any future approval:
1. Pre-Construction Meeting with Neighbors: Require a meeting between
the City inspector, contractor, and adjacent neighbor to review the schedule, high-
noise activities, dust controls, construction management plan, haul routes, and
complaint protocol. Deliverables should include a one-page contact sheet with a 24/7
site supervisor phone number and email.
2. Temporary Acoustic Barrier: Install a continuous sound wall along the
shared property line prior to demolition and framing, at least 10 feet tall with a
surface density ≥ 1.0 psf (or STC/NIC ≥ 25), with no gaps at seams or grade.
Verified with dated photos and product specs submitted to Planning.
3. Best Practices for Noise Control: Use broadband backup alarms,
prohibit unmuffled compressors or generators, and locate stationary equipment away
from the shared property line. Limit high-noise activities such as demolition, saw-
cutting, and hammering to 10:00 a.m.–1:00 p.m. where practicable, with 72-hour
advance notice to neighbors. Prohibit construction activities on weekends and
holidays.
Jonathan Lait
September 9, 2025
Page 5
4. Dust, Lead, and Asbestos Compliance (Inspect / Protect / Dispose):
a. Require licensed asbestos and lead surveys before permit issuance.
b. Mandate licensed abatement contractors with third-party clearance
reports filed with the City.
c. Require BAAQMD demolition/renovation notifications and disposal
manifests.
d. Implement Dust Control Measures per BAAQMD guidelines
(continuous wet methods, haul truck covers, track-out prevention, no
visible dust crossing the property line).
e. Conduct perimeter PM2.5 spot monitoring at the shared property line
during demolition/major grading, with daily logs submitted to the City
and neighbors.
5. Traffic, Staging, and Public Safety: Submit a Construction Management
Plan identifying haul routes, staging, dumpster and concrete washout locations on-
site, and protections to ensure the shared fence remains undamaged.
6. Communication, Complaints, and Enforcement: Post a 24/7 site
supervisor phone number at the site, maintain a complaint/response log available to
the City, and authorize the City to issue stop-work orders for material or repeated
violations.
7. Privacy Screening and Landscaping: Require installation of 12–15 ft
evergreen screening trees (minimum 24-inch box size, e.g., Arbutus ‘Marina’, Cherry
Laurel, or equivalent) along the rear and side lot lines to provide lasting privacy
protection, consistent with staff’s IR recommendations.
Imposition of the foregoing conditions will ensure adequate compliance with
CEQA, BAAQMD Guidance, and the City’s own municipal code.
We therefore once again respectfully request that the Planning Director deny
the application at this time, and impose the foregoing mitigation requirements as
enforceable conditions in any future approval.
Jonathan Lait
September 9, 2025
Page 6
Thank you for your consideration of these concerns.
Most sincerely,
M. R. WOLFE & ASSOCIATES, P.C
Mark R. Wolfe
On behalf of John X. C. Zhang
MRW:
cc: Claire Raybould, Manager of Current Planning (Claire.Raybould@paloalto.gov)
Bhavani Potharaju, Project Planner (bpotharaju@m-group.us)
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 2
cc: John XJ Zhang Attachment: Conditions of Approval
Property Owner
September 17, 2025
Mike Ma
MArch Design
569 Clyde Avenue, Unit #520
Mountain View, CA 94043
SUBJECT: 2451 Cowper Street- Individual Review Application 25PLN-00102
On September 17, 2025, the Director of Planning and Development Services conditionally approved
Single Family Individual Review application 25PLN-00102 for a new two-story residence at 2451
Cowper Street. This approval was granted pursuant to the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Sections
18.12.110 and 18.77.075. The conditionally approved project plan set received April 15, 2025, meets
the Palo Alto Single Family Individual Review Guidelines, and complies with the R-1 zone district
regulations and other applicable City regulations for development as conditioned.
Prior to the approval becoming effective, a timely request for Director’s Hearing was received and a
Director’s Hearing was held on September 10, 2025. On September 15, 2025, the Director of
Planning and Development Services upheld the conditionally approved project.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposal is a request by Mike Ma of MArch Design for Single Family Individual Review to allow
deconstruction of an existing 1,286 square foot one-story residence and a detached garage, and to
allow the construction of a new 2,380 square foot two story single -family residence with attached
one car garage and 799 square foot attached Accessory Dwelling Unit in the R1 zoning district , as
shown on the plans received on June 9, 2025.
DIRECTOR’S HEARING
John XJ Zhang, residing at 2450 Tasso Street, requested a hearing within the 14-day hearing request
period. Mr. Zhang expressed concern regarding noise impacts during construction, noting that they
have a newborn baby arriving this fall and that the construction noise will impact their baby. Mr. Zang
requested that construction hours be limited to 10AM -3PM with noon breaks to accommodate his
newborn child’s nap schedule and that construction begin no earlier than March 2026. At the hearing,
the appellant’s representative expressed concern that the City’s tentative approval did not protect
nearby residents, especially young children, from hazardous materials and excessive noise. They
argued that demolition of the 1938 structure could release lead, asbestos, dust, and diesel emissions,
and that no enforceable conditions had been imposed to mitigate these risks. They also disputed the
City’s reliance on a CEQA exemption and noted the project did not fully meet Individual Review
Guidelines on privacy and buffering, urging denial until stronger safeguards were required.
DECISION AND FINDINGS
Docusign Envelope ID: 32A497DE-F299-408C-8FA5-B3462A4A97C9
2451 Cowper Street approval
Individual Review 25PLN-00102
Page 2 of 9
The Director of Planning and Development Services finds that the project, as submitted on June 09,
2025 and as conditioned here, is in compliance with both the Municipal Code and the Individual
Review Design Guidelines. The requirement to provide 24-inch box privacy screening trees on the
rear and side yard property lines is already reflected in the approved plan set and reinforced in
condition of approval #13 in the previously issued conditions of approval. Conditions related to
hazardous material compliance, specifically asbestos and lead-based paint, are addressed at building
permit in accordance with state and federal regulations. Standard measures for dust control are also
applied during earthmoving activities in accordance with Bay Area Air Quality Management District
requirements. Therefore, the addition of conditions of approval to address these requirements are
not warranted. The project is required to comply with municipal code requirements for construction
hours and noise levels.
No new conditions of approval were added as a result of the Director’s Hearing. However, the
Director modified three conditions below for clarity and accuracy, including removing a standard
privacy related condition of approval for balconies (no balconies are proposed as part of this project),
clarifying a condition relating to maintaining the ADU path of travel while also maintaining a planting
area for the side yard screening trees, and revising the condition related to impact fees to remove
references to public art fees, which are not required for accessory dwelling units.
This approval will become effective 14 calendar days from the postmark date of this letter, unless
an appeal is filed, as provided by Chapter 18.77.075 of the PAMC. An appeal may be filed by
written request with the City Clerk before the date the Director’s decision becomes final. The
written request shall be accompanied by a fee, as set forth in the municipal fee schedule. Only an
applicant, or the owner or tenant of an adjacent property may appeal. As the plans may have been
revised since the original submittal, interested parties may wish to review the tentatively approved
plans online at the City’s Planning webpage bit.ly/PaloAltoProjects. If you need assistance reviewing
the plans, you may visit the City’s Development Center at 285 Hamilton Avenue.
A copy of this letter shall accompany all future requests for City permits relating to this approval.
This approval expires in 12 months from the effective date.
Should you have any questions regarding this approval, please feel free to contact Claire Raybould at
claire.raybould@cityofpaloalto.org.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Lait, AICP
Director of Planning and Development Services
Attachment A: Conditions of Approval
cc: John XJ Zhang, 2450 Tasso Street, Palo Alto, CA 94303
Docusign Envelope ID: 32A497DE-F299-408C-8FA5-B3462A4A97C9
2451 Cowper Street approval
Individual Review 25PLN-00102
Page 3 of 9
Attachment A
INDIVIDUAL REVIEW CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
2451 Cowper Street 25PLN-00102
September 12, 2025
1. CONFORMANCE WITH PLANS. Construction and development shall conform to the approved
plans entitled, " ZHAO RESIDENCE, New Single Family Residence + Attached ADU, 2451 Cowper
Street, Palo Alto,” uploaded to the Palo Alto Online Permitting Services Citizen Portal on June 09,
2025, 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. Project plans submitted
for Building permits shall incorporate the following changes:
a. Privacy trees as described in COA #13 as shown on Sheet A1.4, shall be minimum 24-
inch box trees and at least 8 feet tall at the time of planting.
b. Minimum 18 inches of planter area shall be provided between the fence line and the
concrete walkway along the right side easternmost property lot line.
c. Clearly delineate a walkway leading to the ADU entry Show the edge of the walkway
next to the ADU and paved parking area next to the garage on the site plan with
dimensions and/or notes for the 18-inch planting area along the fence line.
4. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS. All modifications to the approved project shall be submitted for review
and approval prior to construction. If during the Building Permit review and construction phase,
the project is modified by the applicant, it is the responsibility of the applicant to contact the
Planning Division/project planner directly to obtain approval of the project modification. It is the
applicant’s responsibility to highlight any proposed changes to the project and to bring it to the
project planner’s attention.
5. OBSCURED/TRANSLUCENT GLAZING. All obscure glazing, as shown on the plan set, shall be
permanent in nature and shall remain for the life of the structure. Obscure glazing is either
decorative glazing that does not allow views through placed into the window frame or acid etched
or similar permanent alteration of the glass. Films or like additions to clear glass are not permitted
where obscure glazing is shown. Obscure glazing shall not be altered in the future and shall be
replaced with like materials if damaged. If operable, these windows shall open towards the public
right-of-way.
6. PRIVACY SCREENING. All screening, as shown on the plan set, shall be permanent in nature and
shall remain for the life of the structure. Screening shall be a maximum of 15 percent open.
Screening shall not be altered and shall be replaced with like materials if damaged.
Docusign Envelope ID: 32A497DE-F299-408C-8FA5-B3462A4A97C9
2451 Cowper Street approval
Individual Review 25PLN-00102
Page 4 of 9
7. REQUIRED PARKING. All single-family homes shall be provided with a minimum of one covered
parking space (10-foot by 20-foot interior dimensions) and one uncovered parking space (8.5 feet
by 17.5 feet).
8. UTILITY LOCATIONS. In no case shall utilities be placed in a location that requires equipment
and/or bollards to encroach into a required parking space. In no case shall a pipeline be placed
within 10 feet of a proposed tree and/or tree designated to remain.
9. BAY WINDOWS. The four proposed bay windows shall have an interior base at least 1 8 inches
above the floor joists, have no exterior skirt wall, projecting no more than two feet, shall have an
interior height of no more than 7.5 feet (measured from the window seat to the underside of the
roof), and with more than 50% window surface. Bay windows that do not meet this definition will
be counted towards the homes floor area ratio (FAR), which may cause the home to be out of
compliance with required Zoning standards. Any changes to proposed bay windows must first be
reviewed and approved by the Director of Planning and Community Environment.
10. NOISE PRODUCING EQUIPMENT. All noise producing equipment shall be located outside of
required setbacks, except they may project 6 feet into the required street side setbacks. In
accordance with 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.
11. DAYLIGHT PLANE. The daylight plane must clear the point where the wall plane intersects the top
of the roof material.
12. IMPERVIOUS SURFACE. A minimum of 60 % of the required front yard shall have a permeable
surface that permits water absorption directly into the soil (Section 18.12.040 (h)). The building
permit plan set shall include a diagram demonstrating compliance.
13. REQUIRED IRLANDSCAPING/CANOPY REPLACEMENT TREES. The following landscaping is required
to ensure the project’s conformance with the City’s IR Guidelines and/or the City’s tree canopy
replacement requirements and therefore must remain for the life of the structure. The required
screening trees and shrubs shall be a minimum size of 24-inch box and measure at least eight (8)
feet tall at planting.
a. Four 24-inch box trees shown as 16 on sheet A1.4, shall be planted and maintained at
left side of the rear yard of the property.
b. Two 24-inch box trees shown as 5 on sheet A1.4, shall be planted and maintained at
the rear yard of the property.
c. Four 24-inch box trees shown as 17 on sheet A1.4, shall be planted and maintained at
right side of the rear yard of the property.
14. LANDSCAPING. All existing landscaping shall remain unless approved for removal in the approved
plan set. Show tree protection fencing to all trees and shrubs intended to remain on site and for
the street trees. The tree protection shall be shown in the plans submitted for building permit, as
Docusign Envelope ID: 32A497DE-F299-408C-8FA5-B3462A4A97C9
2451 Cowper Street approval
Individual Review 25PLN-00102
Page 5 of 9
shown on Sheet A1.4 and shall be installed at the beginning of construction. Landscape planting
shall be installed as shown in the approved plans. Modifications to the landscaping plan shall be
approved by Planning and Urban Forestry.
15. FENCES. Fences and walls shall comply with the applicable provisions of Chapter 16.24, Fences, of
the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC). Heights of all new and existing fencing must be shown on
the Building Permit plans.
a. Where an existing fence is non-compliant, a new Code compliant fence shall be
constructed in its place.
16. ESTIMATED IMPACT FEE. Development Impact Fees, currently estimated in the amount of
$18,004.02 plus the applicable public art fee, per PAMC 16.61.040, shall be paid prior to the
issuance of the related building permit.
17. IMPACT FEE 90-DAY PROTEST PERIOD. California Government Code Section 66020 provides that a
project applicant who desires to protest the fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions
imposed on a development project must initiate the protest at the time th e 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 judici al review
must be sought is governed by CCP Section 1094.6.
18. PLANNING 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, fenestration and hard surface locations. Contact the planning department at 650 -
617-3117 or email Planner@CityofPaloAlto.org to schedule this inspection.
19. PERMIT EXPIRATION. The project approval shall be valid for a period of two years from the
original date of approval. Application for a one year extension of this entitlement may be made
prior to expiration, by emailing the Planning department at Planner@CityofPaloAlto.org. If a
timely extension is not received, or the project has already received an extension and the
applicant still wishes to pursue this project, they must first file for a new Plann ing application and
pay the associated fees. This new application will be reviewed for conformance with the
regulations in place at that time.
Docusign Envelope ID: 32A497DE-F299-408C-8FA5-B3462A4A97C9
2451 Cowper Street approval
Individual Review 25PLN-00102
Page 6 of 9
20. 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 author ized 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.
URBAN FORESTRY
21. Please add a column in the Arborist report for tree removal to identify which of the non-
protected trees are proposed for removal so that a no-net-loss of tree canopy replacement
quantity can be calculated by Urban Forestry. Insufficient space for all replacement trees may be
replaced by in-lieu fees in the amount of $650 per unplanted 24" box tree.
22. URBAN FORESTRY 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 Protection Zone (TPZ). The ground under and around the tree canopy area shall not be
altered. No waste material or construction byproducts are allowed within the TPZ. Trees to be
retained shall be irrigated, aerated, and maintained as necessary to ensure survival.
23. TREE DAMAGE. Tree Damage, Injury Mitigation and Inspections apply to the Contractor.
Reporting, injury mitigation measures and arborist inspection schedule apply pursuant to TLTM
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 and Landscape Technical Manual , Section 3.02.
24. TPZ EXCAVATION RESTRICTIONS APPLY - TLTM, Sec. 3.03.6 - B5,6: Any approved grading, digging,
potholing, or trenching within the TPZ of a protected tree shall be performed using ‘air-spade’
method as a preference, with manual hand shovel as a backup. (TPZ= 10x the tree diameter at
54" above grade) For utility trenching, including sewer line, roots exposed with a diameter of 2
inches and greater shall remain intact and not be damaged. If directional boring method is used
to tunnel beneath roots, then CPA Standard Detail #504 shall be printed on the final plans and
the buffer distances in TLTM Table 3-4, Trenching and Tunneling Distance, shall be implemented
by Contractor. Contractor must notify the Urban Forestry Section at (650) 496-5953 in advance of
conducting any approved excavation within 10-feet of any street trees (or for any protected tree
on EVSE projects). Urban Forestry may choose to monitor or review the work for compliance with
the City’s Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) excavation standards.
25. TREE PROTECTION COMPLIANCE: The owner and contractor shall implement all protection and
inspection schedule measures, design recommendations and con struction scheduling as stated in
the Tree Preservation Report and/or Sheet T-1 and is subject to code compliance action pursuant
to PAMC 8.10.080. The required protective fencing shall remain in place until final landscaping or
Urban Forestry inspection of the project is completed.
Docusign Envelope ID: 32A497DE-F299-408C-8FA5-B3462A4A97C9
2451 Cowper Street approval
Individual Review 25PLN-00102
Page 7 of 9
26. NO NET LOSS OF CANOPY. In order to comply with the City’s no net loss of canopy policy (PAMC
8.10.055; Urban Forest Master Plan Goals 6.A, 6.B, & 6.C; Comprehensive Plan, Natural
Environment Chapter Goal N-2) all trees 4 inches DBH and larger are subject to replacement to
avoid a loss of canopy at the neighborhood level. Replacement ratios are determined by table 3 -1
in the Tree and Landscape Technical Manual, Section 3.02. New landscape tree plantings (24 inch
box or larger) count towards the replacement total. Screening trees may also count toward the
total depending on size and species selected. If unable to plant the required number of trees on
site (our preferred solution) there is the option of paying in -lieu fees per each 24 inch box tree
into the forestry fund. [Note: A replacement at ratio of 1:1 for trees listed as exempt species
under PAMC 8.10.020 is recommended. Exempt trees may require full replacement on parcels
zoned other than R1, RE, R-2, or RMD].
27. 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 Planning and Development Servi ces
Department for review by Planning, Public Works, or Urban Forestry.
ZERO WASTE
28. 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.cityofpaloalto.org/deconstruction.
29. 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.
30. 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.cityofpaloalto.org/deconstruction
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITION OF APPROVAL
Docusign Envelope ID: 32A497DE-F299-408C-8FA5-B3462A4A97C9
2451 Cowper Street approval
Individual Review 25PLN-00102
Page 8 of 9
The following shall be addressed prior to issuance of a Building Permit, Excavation and Grading
Permit, Certificate of Compliance, Street Work Permit and/or Encroachment Permit.
31. PUBLIC WORKS STANDARD CONDITIONS SHEET: The Department of Public Work’s full-sized
"Standard Conditions" sheet shall be included in the improvement p lans and the applicant shall
comply with all conditions listed in the sheet. The sheet can be obtained at the following link:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/public-works/engineering-
services/webpages/forms-and-permits/pw-conditions-sheet-alternative-update-8.7.18.pdf
32. SIDEWALK, DRIVEWAY, CURB & GUTTER: The applicant shall meet with a Public Works inspector
by calling 650-496-6929 to determine portions of sidewalk, curb, gutter, and driveway
approaches that shall be replaced along the project frontage. These portions shall be indicated
on the site improvement plans. In addition, a Site Inspection Directive sheet shall be completed,
signed by the inspector, and scanned onto the plan set. The sheet can be obtained from a staff
member of Public Works Engineering Services or at the following link:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/public-works/engineering-
services/webpages/forms-and-permits/other-guidelines/pwe-site-inspection-directive_rev-
2021.pdf
33. DRIVEWAY APPROACHES: The applicant shall comply with all regulations in PAMC Chapter 12.08
for driveway approaches. A summary of those regulations can be obtained at the following link:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=69580.09&BlobID=66035
34. STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION SHEET: The City's full-sized "Pollution Prevention - It's
Part of the Plan" sheet shall be included in the improvement plans. The sheet can be obtained at
the following link:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/publicworks/engineering-
Services/webpages/forms-and-permits/rwq_stormwater_plansheet_final_bw.pdf
35. IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA WORKSHEET: The applicant shall fill out the Impervious Area
Worksheet for Land Developments at the link below. The sheet shall be both emailed to
pwecips@cityofpaloalto.org and included with the building permit submittal:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/public-works/engineering-
services/webpages/forms-and-permits/impervious-area-worksheet-fillable.pdf
36. GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN: The improvement plans shall be compliant with the “Grading &
Drainage Guidelines for Residential Developments”. The sheet can be obtained at the following:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/public-works/engineering-
services/webpages/forms-and-permits/grading-drainage-residential-guidelines.pdf
37. C.3 STORMWATER REGULATIONS: This project creates or replaces over 2,500 square feet of
impervious surface area. The applicant shall implement one or more of the following site design
measures on improvement plans:
a. Direct roof runoff into cisterns or rain barrels for reuse.
Docusign Envelope ID: 32A497DE-F299-408C-8FA5-B3462A4A97C9
2451 Cowper Street approval
Individual Review 25PLN-00102
Page 9 of 9
b. Direct roof runoff onto vegetated areas.
c. Direct runoff from sidewalks, walkways, and/or patios onto vegetated areas.
d. Direct runoff from driveways and/or uncovered parking lots onto vegetated areas.
e. Construct sidewalks, walkways, and/or patios with permeable surfaces.
f. Construct driveways, and/or uncovered parking lots with permeable surfaces.
38. STREETWORK PERMIT: All improvement plans shall include the following note adjacent to
proposed work in the public right-of-way. “Any construction within the public right-of-way
requires an approved Street work Permit from Public Works Engineering”.
39. DEMOLITION PLAN: The following note shall be placed adjacent to all affected trees on the
Demolition Plan: “Excavation and trenching is restricted within the Tree Protection Zone (refer to
T-1 Tree Protection Sheet) or as approved by the Urban Forestry Division at 650-496-5953. Any
changes shall be approved by the same”.
40. CONSTRUCTION STAGING: All improvement plans shall include the following note on the Site
Plan and the Grading & Drainage Plan. “All construction materials and equipment shall be staged,
stored, and stockpiled onsite and not on any public street”.
GREEN BUILDING & ENERGY REACH CODE REQUIREMENTS:
41. The proposed project shall conform with PAMC Section 16.14 (Green Building code) Information,
ordinances and applications can be found at
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/ds/green_building/default.asp. If you have any
questions regarding Green Building requirements, please call the Green Building Consultant at
(650) 329-2179 or send an email to GreenBuilding@CityofPaloAlto.org.
Docusign Envelope ID: 32A497DE-F299-408C-8FA5-B3462A4A97C9
ATTACHMENT 3
ATTACHMENT 3
ATTACHMENT 3
ATTACHMENT 3
Name: Charles Zhang | DOB: 9/10/2025 | Legal Name: Charles Zhang
September 29, 2025
To Whom It May Concern,
I am the primary care physician for the Zhang family, who reside at 2450 Tasso Street in Palo Alto,
adjacent to the property scheduled for demolition and construction. The family includes three young
children: a newborn, a one-year-old, and a three-year-old.
From a medical standpoint, infants and young children are significantly more vulnerable to environmental
exposures compared to adults. Their lungs and immune systems are still developing, and they breathe
more rapidly, resulting in greater inhalation of airborne particles per body weight. Prolonged or repeated
exposure to dust, particulate matter, and potential contaminants such as asbestos can increase risks of
respiratory irritation, infection, and long-term pulmonary complications.
Additionally, continuous exposure to high levels of demolition noise poses concerns for this age group.
Excessive noise may disrupt essential sleep cycles, which are critical for neurological development,
growth, and immune function.
While I understand that the City requires adherence to standard noise, dust, and asbestos regulations
during demolition projects, I strongly recommend that additional precautions be considered in this case
given the heightened medical sensitivity of these young children. Specifically, I urge the City to require:
Enhanced dust control measures (e.g., continuous wetting, barriers, or filtration units near the
property line).
Stricter containment of potential hazardous materials, including asbestos.
Efforts to minimize noise during typical infant and toddler sleep hours.
Prompt communication with the family about timelines and high-impact activities so they may
take protective measures.
These additional steps would help mitigate preventable health risks to the children and ensure their
environment remains as safe as possible during the demolition period.
Thank you for your attention and consideration of this request. Please feel free to contact my office
should you need any further medical input or documentation.
Yi Ding, MD, FAAP
Department of Pediatrics, Camino Division
Palo Alto Medical Foundation
SUTTER PEDIATRICS - MOUNTAIN VIEW
701 E EL CAMINO REAL
MOUNTAIN VIEW CA 94040
Phone: 650-934-7956
Fax: 650-934-7953
10/3/25, 11:45 AM My Health Online - Letter Details
https://myhealthonline.sutterhealth.org/MHO/app/letters/details?letterId=WP-24cA9zZA6ehJXevzEntNS-2Fng-3D-3D-24OtAm6Y-2BO0Z4vsdnqltjJJu8ql4x-2BsRY…1/2
From:M. R. Wolfe & Associates, PC
To:Clerk, City
Cc:Council, City
Subject:Appeal of Director"s Decision to Approve an Individual Review Application, 2451 Cowper St. -- Dec. 8, 2025
Council Meeting, Agenda Item No. 5
Date:Friday, December 5, 2025 2:39:27 PM
Attachments:Letter to Council re 2451 Cowper Appeal_12-5-25.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
This message needs your attention
This is their first mail to some recipients.
Mark Safe Report
To the City Clerk:
Attached is correspondence addressed to the City Council concerning 2451 Cowper Street-
Appeal by John Zhang of Director's Decision to Approve an Individual Review Application.
This matter currently appears on the Consent Calendar for the December 8, 2025 Council
Meeting as Agenda Item 5.
Please distribute the attachment to Councilmembers in advance of the meeting, and please also
include it in the administrative record for the matter.
I would be grateful if you could acknowledge receipt of this email at your convenience.
Thank you very much.
________________________
Sharon Kim
M. R. Wolfe & Associates, P.C | Attorneys
Land Use | Environmental Law | Government
580 California Street | Suite 1200 | San Francisco, CA 94104
415.369.9400 | Fax: 415.369.9405 | www.mrwolfeassociates.com
The information in this e-mail may contain information that is confidential and/or subject to the attorney-
client privilege. If you have received it in error, please delete and contact the sender immediately. Thank you.
Powered by Mimecast
December 5, 2025
By Email
Mayor Ed Lauing and Members of the City Council
c/o City Clerk
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
City.Clerk@PaloAlto.gov
Re: Appeal of Planning Director’s Decision - 2451 Cowper Street
Individual Review Application 25PLN-00102
Request to Remove Appeal from Consent Calendar
Dear Mayor Lauing and Councilmembers:
This firm represents John X. J. Zhang, the immediately adjacent neighbor at
2450 Tasso Street, in his appeal of the Planning Director’s decision upholding the
Individual Review approval for demolition and reconstruction at 2451 Cowper Street.
Pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code (“PAMC”) § 18.78.040, an appeal placed on
the consent calendar may receive full Council review only if three Councilmembers
vote to remove it from consent. We respectfully urge you to do so. Please note that
this appeal in no manner seeks to block or delay the project. Mr. Zhang seeks only
reasonable, standard health and safety protections that the City indisputably has both
authority and obligation to impose, as explained further below.
I. BACKGROUND
In September 2025, the Planning Department tentatively approved Individual
Review Application No. 25PLN-00102 for demolition of an existing 1,286 square
foot residence built in 1938 and construction of a new 2,380 square foot two-story
residence with attached ADU. Mr. Zhang timely requested a Director’s Hearing,
Palo Alto City Council
December 5, 2025
Page 2
raising concerns about the absence of enforceable conditions to protect his family,
including a prematurely born infant, a one-year-old, and a three-year-old, from
exposure to hazardous materials, construction dust, diesel particulate matter, and
excessive noise during demolition and construction. (See request, Attachment 1.) His
children’s bedrooms and primary play areas are located close to the shared property
line, placing them in close proximity to demolition activities.
Specifically, Mr. Zhang advised the Planning Director that:
• No asbestos or lead survey has been required, despite the age of the structure
and the high likelihood that both hazardous materials are present;
• No enforceable dust-control, perimeter monitoring, containment, or diesel-
emissions reduction measures have been identified or imposed;
• No enforceable construction-noise mitigation has been imposed, even though
PAMC §§ 9.10.010 and 9.10.030 obligate the City to protect residents from
excessive and unreasonable noise; and
• The City’s reliance on a categorical exemption under CEQA Guidelines §
15303 is not adequately supported by substantial evidence in light of “unusual
circumstances,” namely the presence of sensitive receptors feet away from
demolition of a pre-1940 building containing potential hazardous materials
with no documented mitigation.
Following a hearing held September 10, 2025, the Planning Director upheld
the approval without adding any new conditions of approval. (See Decision Letter,
Attachment 2.) The Director’s decision letter vaguely asserted that “conditions
related to hazardous material compliance, specifically asbestos and lead-based paint,
are addressed at building permit in accordance with state and federal regulations,”
and that “standard measures for dust control are also applied during earthmoving
activities in accordance with Bay Area Air Quality Management District [BAAQMD]
requirements.” However, the decision failed to identify what these “conditions” and
“measures” actually were; failed to cite the applicable provisions of the PAMC or
BAAQMD Guidance; and failed to impose any enforceable permit conditions.
Mr. Zhang timely appealed the Director’s decision to the City Council
pursuant to PAMC Section 18.77.075. That appeal is scheduled to appear on the
Palo Alto City Council
December 5, 2025
Page 3
consent calendar for the December 8, 2025 Council meeting. Under PAMC Section
18.78.040(a)(2), removal from the consent calendar requires three votes.
II. The Appeal Raises Substantial Issues of Public Health, Safety, and
Municipal Code Compliance That Warrant a Hearing by the City
Council.
A. Documented Vulnerability of Sensitive Receptors
Attached hereto is a letter from Mr. Zhang’s children’s pediatrician, Dr. Yi
Ding, M.D., FAAP, of the Palo Alto Medical Foundation Department of Pediatrics.
(Attachment 3.) Dr. Ding’s letter provides medical documentation that infants and
young children are significantly more vulnerable to environmental exposures than
adults due to: (1) developing lungs and immune systems; (2) more rapid breathing
rates resulting in greater inhalation of airborne particles per body weight; and (3)
increased risk of respiratory irritation, infection, and long-term pulmonary
complications from dust, particulate matter, and asbestos exposure. Dr. Ding further
emphasizes that demolition and construction noise occurring during daytime hours
pose a significant risk of disrupting the essential sleep cycles of the infant and
toddlers, cycles that are medically documented as critical for neurological
development, growth, and immune function.
Dr. Ding specifically recommends enhanced dust control measures, stricter
containment of hazardous materials, efforts to minimize noise during critical sleep
hours, and prompt communication about construction timelines. This medical
evidence confirms that Mr. Zhang's children constitute “sensitive receptors” as
defined by the California Air Resources Board1 and creates a factual record that
cannot be dismissed with vague, unspecific assurances of future regulatory action “at
the building permit stage.”
1 CARB defines “sensitive receptors” as including “children, elderly, asthmatics and others
whose are at a heightened risk of negative health outcomes due to exposure to air pollution.” (See
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/capp/cst/rdi/sensitive-receptor-assessment .)
Palo Alto City Council
December 5, 2025
Page 4
B. The Director’s Decision Acknowledges Health and Safety Issues
But Provides Only Vague, Non-Enforceable Assurances.
The Planning Director’s decision (Attachment 2) repeatedly defers protection
of these documented sensitive receptors to an unspecified “building permit stage” (see
p. 2), but fails to provide any transparency or accountability regarding what
protections will actually be required. Specifically, the decision:
• Asserts that hazardous material conditions will be “addressed at building
permit in accordance with state and federal regulations,” but does not cite or
identify which regulations;
• States that dust control measures will be “applied during earthmoving
activities in accordance with Bay Area Air Quality Management District
requirements,” but does not cite or identify which BAAQMD requirements;
• Provides no citations to specific PAMC sections, state statutes, federal
regulations, or BAAQMD rules;
• Imposes no project-specific, enforceable conditions despite documented
presence of sensitive receptors and virtual certainty of lead-based paint and
asbestos being present in the 1938 structure;
• Leaves Mr. Zhang, the public, and the Council with no ability to determine
what protections will be required or how compliance will be verified and
enforced.
This approach violates basic principles of land use approval transparency and
public participation. Once demolition begins, any failure to require surveys,
containment procedures, or noise controls in advance becomes irreversible. If City
Planning Staff knows what requirements will apply “at the building permit stage,”
those requirements should be disclosed now and written into enforceable conditions
of approval with specific regulatory citations. If the City does not know what
requirements will apply, then the approval is premature and the environmental review
inadequate.2
2 Please also note that during administrative communications in July, City staff acknowledged
an offer by the applicant to install a sound-dampening barrier along the shared property line. This
commitment, however, was omitted from the final conditions of approval without explanation,
leaving no enforceable requirement for a measure that staff previously viewed as appropriate.
Palo Alto City Council
December 5, 2025
Page 5
C. The Director’s Decision Ignores Applicable Requirements of the
Palo Alto Municipal Code.
PAMC Section 9.10.010 declares it City policy to protect residents from
“excessive, unnecessary and unreasonable noises from any and all sources in the
community,” and that “[i]t is the intention of the city council to control the adverse
effect of such noise sources on the citizen under any condition of use, especially
those conditions of use which have the most severe impact upon any person.” Here,
no enforceable noise controls have been identified or imposed on the project, despite
documented presence of noise-sensitive toddlers and an infant immediately adjacent.
Additionally, PAMC Section 18.12.110(e) expressly authorizes the Director to
impose “reasonable conditions or restrictions” in individual review approvals “if
appropriate or necessary to protect the public health, safety, general welfare, or
convenience.” Here, the Director declined to exercise this authority despite clear need
and documentation of vulnerability.
These are not minor technical issues. They go to the fundamental question of
whether the City will require meaningful, enforceable protections for documented
sensitive receptors as required by the PAMC, or simply approve projects with
unspecified assurances that “it will all be handled later.”
D. CEQA Compliance Concerns
The project relies on a Class 3 categorical exemption under CEQA Guidelines
Section 15303. However, the “unusual circumstances” exception of Guidelines
Section 15300.2(c) likely applies here due to sensitive receptors (infant and toddlers)
residing immediately adjacent to the demolition site, which almost certainly contains
lead-based paint and asbestos-containing materials given its age; the fact that no
investigation or documentation of the presence or absence of hazardous materials has
occurred; and no enforceable conditions have been imposed to prevent exposure to
lead, asbestos, fugitive dust, diesel particulate matter, or excessive noise.
These circumstances create a reasonable possibility of significant adverse
environmental impacts to sensitive receptors, rendering the categorical exemption
Palo Alto City Council
December 5, 2025
Page 6
inapplicable. At a minimum, the Council should hear evidence on this issue before
allowing the exemption to stand.
III. The Council Should Remove the Appeal from Consent to Ensure
Transparency, Public Participation, and a Legally Adequate Record.
Again, Mr. Zhang is not seeking to stop or delay the project. He is requesting
that the City impose standard best management practices as enforceable conditions
of approval before demolition begins. Specifically:
1. Pre-Construction Meeting with Neighbors: Require a meeting between
the City inspector, contractor, and adjacent neighbor to review the schedule, high-
noise activities, dust controls, construction management plan, haul routes, and
complaint protocol. Deliverables should include a one-page contact sheet with a 24/7
site supervisor phone number and email.
2. Temporary Acoustic Barrier: Install a continuous sound wall along the
shared property line prior to demolition and framing, at least 10 feet tall with a
surface density ≥ 1.0 psf (or STC/NIC ≥ 25), with no gaps at seams or grade.
Verified with dated photos and product specs submitted to the City.
3. Best Practices for Noise Control: Use broadband backup alarms,
prohibit unmuffled compressors or generators, and locate stationary equipment away
from the shared property line. Limit high-noise activities such as demolition, saw-
cutting, and hammering to 10:00 a.m.–1:00 p.m. where practicable, with 72-hour
advance notice to neighbors. Prohibit construction activities on weekends and
holidays.
4. Dust, Lead, and Asbestos Control Measures:
a. Require licensed asbestos and lead surveys before permit issuance.
b. Mandate licensed abatement contractors with third-party clearance
reports filed with the City.
c. Require BAAQMD demolition/renovation notifications and disposal
manifests.
Palo Alto City Council
December 5, 2025
Page 7
d. Implement Dust Control Measures per BAAQMD guidelines
(continuous wet methods, haul truck covers, track-out prevention, no
visible dust crossing the property line).
e. Conduct perimeter PM2.5 spot monitoring at the shared property line
during demolition/major grading, with daily logs submitted to the City
and neighbors.
5. Traffic, Staging, and Public Safety: Submit a Construction Management
Plan identifying haul routes, staging, dumpster and concrete washout locations on-
site, and protections to ensure the shared fence remains undamaged.
6. Communication, Complaints, and Enforcement: Post a 24/7 site
supervisor phone number at the site, maintain a complaint/response log available to
the City, and authorize the City to issue stop-work orders for material or repeated
violations.
These measures represent standard industry practices for demolition of pre-
1940 structures adjacent to occupied residential properties. They are not unusual or
unreasonable. They should be written into the conditions of approval as enforceable
permit requirements - not left to hope and assumption about what might happen at
an unspecified future “building permit stage.”
V. Conclusion
We respectfully request that the Council vote to remove this appeal from the
consent calendar and schedule it for full hearing. The appeal raises important policy
questions appropriate for Council resolution, not consent calendar approval. Mr.
Zhang and his children deserve more than vague assurances that their health will be
protected at some unspecified future “building permit stage.” Like all Palo Alto
residents, they deserve specific, enforceable conditions written into the permit before
demolition begins, based on standard best practices and the City's own Municipal
Code requirements.
Palo Alto City Council
December 5, 2025
Page 8
Thank you for your consideration of this request.
Most sincerely,
M. R. WOLFE & ASSOCIATES, P.C
Mark R. Wolfe
On behalf of John Zhang
MRW:
attachments
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 1
September 9, 2025
By Email
Jonathan Lait, Planning Director
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
pdsdirector@paloalto.gov
Re: 2451 Cowper Street (25PLN-00102); Director’s Hearing on
Individual Review Application
Dear Mr. Lait:
This office represents John X. J. Zhang, the owner of the residence at 2450
Tasso Street, immediately adjacent and to the rear of 2451 Cowper Street. Mr. Zhang
requested a Director’s Hearing following the Planning Department’s July 3, 2025
tentative approval of the Individual Review application for the above-referenced
development project (“Project”). As explained in the body of this letter, the tentative
approval fails to impose enforceable conditions to protect nearby residents, including
Mr. Zhang’s newborn infant and one- and three-year old children, from exposure to
hazardous pollutant emissions and excessive noise during demolition and
construction of the project. Furthermore, the Project appears not qualify for the
Class 3 categorical exemption from the environmental review provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) due to the presence of unusual
circumstances. We therefore respectfully request that you DENY the application at
this time, and instead direct your staff to develop adequate, enforceable mitigation
measures as set forth further below.
In their current form, the proposed conditions of approval focus largely on
landscaping, tree protection, parking, and design conformance. They do not require
the applicant to implement standard measures for dust-control, asbestos and lead
abatement, or diesel particulate matter (“DPM”) emissions reduction in accordance
with guidance from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (“BAAQMD”).
Jonathan Lait
September 9, 2025
Page 2
The existing structure was built in 1938 and therefore is likely to contain both lead-
based paint and asbestos-containing materials. In addition, the foreseeable use of
diesel-powered construction equipment and trucks at the Project site will result in
emissions of DPM, which the California Air Resources Board (“CARB”) has
classified as a cancer-causing toxic air contaminant.
As a result, in the absence of clearly defined and enforceable mitigation
measures leaves Mr. Zhang’s family and other sensitive receptors1 in the vicinity
vulnerable to exposure to:
• Lead particles from disturbance of painted building surfaces during
demolition.
• Asbestos fibers from potential asbestos-containing materials in the existing
home.
• Fugitive dust/PM10 emissions from excavation, grading, and hauling
activities.
• Emissions of DPM a known carcinogen.
• Construction noise at levels likely to exceed Palo Alto’s municipal code
standard of no more than 6 dBA above ambient (PAMC § 9.10.030), adversely
affecting the health and safety of nearby sensitive receptors, particularly
infants.
Please note that Palo Alto Municipal Code (“PAMC”) Section 18.40.270
requires that air contaminants such as smoke, dust, and odors be controlled and
prevented from leaving the property, and authorizes the City to require applicants to
demonstrate methods to minimize such contaminants. There is no indication that the
City has required such a demonstration from the applicant here.
Likewise, PAMC Section 9.10.010 declares that it is City policy to protect
residents’ peace, health, and welfare from “excessive, unnecessary and unreasonable
noises” from any source, and emphasizes control of noise under those conditions of
use that most severely impact nearby persons. Allowing demolition and heavy
1 Sensitive receptors include “residences, schools, community resource centers, childcare
facilities, parks, playgrounds, health care facilities, hospitals, nursing homes, live-in housing, and any
building housing a business open to the public.” (CARB, SB 1137 Frequently Asked Questions, July
2025.)
Jonathan Lait
September 9, 2025
Page 3
construction immediately adjacent to a home with small children and an infant,
without imposing enforceable noise controls, violates both the spirit and the letter of
this policy.
The proposed conditions of approval further fail to require compliance with
best management practices for handing standard hazardous materials when older
structures are demolished or deconstructed. These include:
• Inspect: Before demolition, a trained professional must inspect pre-
1980s structures for asbestos, lead, and other hazardous materials. The
subject home was built in 1938, yet there is no evidence that such an
inspection has been conducted.
• Protect: During removal, hazardous wastes must be segregated from
other construction debris, with precautions to protect residents,
neighbors, and workers from contaminated dust. No conditions of
approval require protective measures such as containment, labeling, or
safe on-site storage.
• Dispose: Hazardous wastes must be lawfully disposed of under state
and federal requirements to avoid environmental releases and liability.
The City’s approval is silent on disposal procedures, tracking, or
manifests, leaving a significant enforcement gap.
These omissions leave adjacent residents, including sensitive receptors, even
further at risk.
We would also dispute the City’s determination that the project is categorically
exempt from CEQA based on the Class 3 categorical exemption established by
Section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines. The “unusual circumstances” exception of
section 15300.2 likely applies here. Sensitive receptors live immediately adjacent to
the demolition site; there is no documentation of the presence or absence of
hazardous materials in the existing 1938 structure; and the City has imposed no
enforceable conditions to prevent exposure to lead, asbestos, fugitive dust, DPM, or
excessive noise. These circumstances create a reasonable possibility of significant
adverse environmental impacts, rendering the categorical exemption inapplicable.
Jonathan Lait
September 9, 2025
Page 4
Finally, while the July 3 tentative approval concludes that the Project meets all
five of the City’s Individual Review (IR) Guidelines, staff’s own review flagged
inadequate privacy screening (Guideline 5), and insufficient side/rear yard buffering
under Guideline 1 (site planning). Unless these inconsistencies corrected with
enforceable conditions, the project fails to satisfy the IR Guidelines. Moreover, staff’s
IR comments explicitly recommended taller evergreen screening trees along the side
and rear lot lines (e.g., Arbutus ‘Marina’ or Cherry Laurel) to protect privacy.
Fortunately, the Planning Director has clear authority to impose additional
mitigation requirements to rectify these omissions. PAMC Section 18.12.110(e)
makes clear that in granting individual review approvals, “reasonable conditions or
restrictions may be imposed if appropriate or necessary to protect the public health,
safety, general welfare, or convenience.” Accordingly, to address the foregoing
concerns and to establish an evidentiary record sufficient to support an overall
finding of compliance with the PAMC, we respectfully request that the Planning
Director deny the current application at this time, and subsequently impose the
following enforceable mitigation measures in any future approval:
1. Pre-Construction Meeting with Neighbors: Require a meeting between
the City inspector, contractor, and adjacent neighbor to review the schedule, high-
noise activities, dust controls, construction management plan, haul routes, and
complaint protocol. Deliverables should include a one-page contact sheet with a 24/7
site supervisor phone number and email.
2. Temporary Acoustic Barrier: Install a continuous sound wall along the
shared property line prior to demolition and framing, at least 10 feet tall with a
surface density ≥ 1.0 psf (or STC/NIC ≥ 25), with no gaps at seams or grade.
Verified with dated photos and product specs submitted to Planning.
3. Best Practices for Noise Control: Use broadband backup alarms,
prohibit unmuffled compressors or generators, and locate stationary equipment away
from the shared property line. Limit high-noise activities such as demolition, saw-
cutting, and hammering to 10:00 a.m.–1:00 p.m. where practicable, with 72-hour
advance notice to neighbors. Prohibit construction activities on weekends and
holidays.
Jonathan Lait
September 9, 2025
Page 5
4. Dust, Lead, and Asbestos Compliance (Inspect / Protect / Dispose):
a. Require licensed asbestos and lead surveys before permit issuance.
b. Mandate licensed abatement contractors with third-party clearance
reports filed with the City.
c. Require BAAQMD demolition/renovation notifications and disposal
manifests.
d. Implement Dust Control Measures per BAAQMD guidelines
(continuous wet methods, haul truck covers, track-out prevention, no
visible dust crossing the property line).
e. Conduct perimeter PM2.5 spot monitoring at the shared property line
during demolition/major grading, with daily logs submitted to the City
and neighbors.
5. Traffic, Staging, and Public Safety: Submit a Construction Management
Plan identifying haul routes, staging, dumpster and concrete washout locations on-
site, and protections to ensure the shared fence remains undamaged.
6. Communication, Complaints, and Enforcement: Post a 24/7 site
supervisor phone number at the site, maintain a complaint/response log available to
the City, and authorize the City to issue stop-work orders for material or repeated
violations.
7. Privacy Screening and Landscaping: Require installation of 12–15 ft
evergreen screening trees (minimum 24-inch box size, e.g., Arbutus ‘Marina’, Cherry
Laurel, or equivalent) along the rear and side lot lines to provide lasting privacy
protection, consistent with staff’s IR recommendations.
Imposition of the foregoing conditions will ensure adequate compliance with
CEQA, BAAQMD Guidance, and the City’s own municipal code.
We therefore once again respectfully request that the Planning Director deny
the application at this time, and impose the foregoing mitigation requirements as
enforceable conditions in any future approval.
Jonathan Lait
September 9, 2025
Page 6
Thank you for your consideration of these concerns.
Most sincerely,
M. R. WOLFE & ASSOCIATES, P.C
Mark R. Wolfe
On behalf of John X. C. Zhang
MRW:
cc: Claire Raybould, Manager of Current Planning (Claire.Raybould@paloalto.gov)
Bhavani Potharaju, Project Planner (bpotharaju@m-group.us)
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 2
cc: John XJ Zhang Attachment: Conditions of Approval
Property Owner
September 17, 2025
Mike Ma
MArch Design
569 Clyde Avenue, Unit #520
Mountain View, CA 94043
SUBJECT: 2451 Cowper Street- Individual Review Application 25PLN-00102
On September 17, 2025, the Director of Planning and Development Services conditionally approved
Single Family Individual Review application 25PLN-00102 for a new two-story residence at 2451
Cowper Street. This approval was granted pursuant to the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Sections
18.12.110 and 18.77.075. The conditionally approved project plan set received April 15, 2025, meets
the Palo Alto Single Family Individual Review Guidelines, and complies with the R-1 zone district
regulations and other applicable City regulations for development as conditioned.
Prior to the approval becoming effective, a timely request for Director’s Hearing was received and a
Director’s Hearing was held on September 10, 2025. On September 15, 2025, the Director of
Planning and Development Services upheld the conditionally approved project.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposal is a request by Mike Ma of MArch Design for Single Family Individual Review to allow
deconstruction of an existing 1,286 square foot one-story residence and a detached garage, and to
allow the construction of a new 2,380 square foot two story single -family residence with attached
one car garage and 799 square foot attached Accessory Dwelling Unit in the R1 zoning district , as
shown on the plans received on June 9, 2025.
DIRECTOR’S HEARING
John XJ Zhang, residing at 2450 Tasso Street, requested a hearing within the 14-day hearing request
period. Mr. Zhang expressed concern regarding noise impacts during construction, noting that they
have a newborn baby arriving this fall and that the construction noise will impact their baby. Mr. Zang
requested that construction hours be limited to 10AM -3PM with noon breaks to accommodate his
newborn child’s nap schedule and that construction begin no earlier than March 2026. At the hearing,
the appellant’s representative expressed concern that the City’s tentative approval did not protect
nearby residents, especially young children, from hazardous materials and excessive noise. They
argued that demolition of the 1938 structure could release lead, asbestos, dust, and diesel emissions,
and that no enforceable conditions had been imposed to mitigate these risks. They also disputed the
City’s reliance on a CEQA exemption and noted the project did not fully meet Individual Review
Guidelines on privacy and buffering, urging denial until stronger safeguards were required.
DECISION AND FINDINGS
Docusign Envelope ID: 32A497DE-F299-408C-8FA5-B3462A4A97C9
2451 Cowper Street approval
Individual Review 25PLN-00102
Page 2 of 9
The Director of Planning and Development Services finds that the project, as submitted on June 09,
2025 and as conditioned here, is in compliance with both the Municipal Code and the Individual
Review Design Guidelines. The requirement to provide 24-inch box privacy screening trees on the
rear and side yard property lines is already reflected in the approved plan set and reinforced in
condition of approval #13 in the previously issued conditions of approval. Conditions related to
hazardous material compliance, specifically asbestos and lead-based paint, are addressed at building
permit in accordance with state and federal regulations. Standard measures for dust control are also
applied during earthmoving activities in accordance with Bay Area Air Quality Management District
requirements. Therefore, the addition of conditions of approval to address these requirements are
not warranted. The project is required to comply with municipal code requirements for construction
hours and noise levels.
No new conditions of approval were added as a result of the Director’s Hearing. However, the
Director modified three conditions below for clarity and accuracy, including removing a standard
privacy related condition of approval for balconies (no balconies are proposed as part of this project),
clarifying a condition relating to maintaining the ADU path of travel while also maintaining a planting
area for the side yard screening trees, and revising the condition related to impact fees to remove
references to public art fees, which are not required for accessory dwelling units.
This approval will become effective 14 calendar days from the postmark date of this letter, unless
an appeal is filed, as provided by Chapter 18.77.075 of the PAMC. An appeal may be filed by
written request with the City Clerk before the date the Director’s decision becomes final. The
written request shall be accompanied by a fee, as set forth in the municipal fee schedule. Only an
applicant, or the owner or tenant of an adjacent property may appeal. As the plans may have been
revised since the original submittal, interested parties may wish to review the tentatively approved
plans online at the City’s Planning webpage bit.ly/PaloAltoProjects. If you need assistance reviewing
the plans, you may visit the City’s Development Center at 285 Hamilton Avenue.
A copy of this letter shall accompany all future requests for City permits relating to this approval.
This approval expires in 12 months from the effective date.
Should you have any questions regarding this approval, please feel free to contact Claire Raybould at
claire.raybould@cityofpaloalto.org.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Lait, AICP
Director of Planning and Development Services
Attachment A: Conditions of Approval
cc: John XJ Zhang, 2450 Tasso Street, Palo Alto, CA 94303
Docusign Envelope ID: 32A497DE-F299-408C-8FA5-B3462A4A97C9
2451 Cowper Street approval
Individual Review 25PLN-00102
Page 3 of 9
Attachment A
INDIVIDUAL REVIEW CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
2451 Cowper Street 25PLN-00102
September 12, 2025
1. CONFORMANCE WITH PLANS. Construction and development shall conform to the approved
plans entitled, " ZHAO RESIDENCE, New Single Family Residence + Attached ADU, 2451 Cowper
Street, Palo Alto,” uploaded to the Palo Alto Online Permitting Services Citizen Portal on June 09,
2025, 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. Project plans submitted
for Building permits shall incorporate the following changes:
a. Privacy trees as described in COA #13 as shown on Sheet A1.4, shall be minimum 24-
inch box trees and at least 8 feet tall at the time of planting.
b. Minimum 18 inches of planter area shall be provided between the fence line and the
concrete walkway along the right side easternmost property lot line.
c. Clearly delineate a walkway leading to the ADU entry Show the edge of the walkway
next to the ADU and paved parking area next to the garage on the site plan with
dimensions and/or notes for the 18-inch planting area along the fence line.
4. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS. All modifications to the approved project shall be submitted for review
and approval prior to construction. If during the Building Permit review and construction phase,
the project is modified by the applicant, it is the responsibility of the applicant to contact the
Planning Division/project planner directly to obtain approval of the project modification. It is the
applicant’s responsibility to highlight any proposed changes to the project and to bring it to the
project planner’s attention.
5. OBSCURED/TRANSLUCENT GLAZING. All obscure glazing, as shown on the plan set, shall be
permanent in nature and shall remain for the life of the structure. Obscure glazing is either
decorative glazing that does not allow views through placed into the window frame or acid etched
or similar permanent alteration of the glass. Films or like additions to clear glass are not permitted
where obscure glazing is shown. Obscure glazing shall not be altered in the future and shall be
replaced with like materials if damaged. If operable, these windows shall open towards the public
right-of-way.
6. PRIVACY SCREENING. All screening, as shown on the plan set, shall be permanent in nature and
shall remain for the life of the structure. Screening shall be a maximum of 15 percent open.
Screening shall not be altered and shall be replaced with like materials if damaged.
Docusign Envelope ID: 32A497DE-F299-408C-8FA5-B3462A4A97C9
2451 Cowper Street approval
Individual Review 25PLN-00102
Page 4 of 9
7. REQUIRED PARKING. All single-family homes shall be provided with a minimum of one covered
parking space (10-foot by 20-foot interior dimensions) and one uncovered parking space (8.5 feet
by 17.5 feet).
8. UTILITY LOCATIONS. In no case shall utilities be placed in a location that requires equipment
and/or bollards to encroach into a required parking space. In no case shall a pipeline be placed
within 10 feet of a proposed tree and/or tree designated to remain.
9. BAY WINDOWS. The four proposed bay windows shall have an interior base at least 1 8 inches
above the floor joists, have no exterior skirt wall, projecting no more than two feet, shall have an
interior height of no more than 7.5 feet (measured from the window seat to the underside of the
roof), and with more than 50% window surface. Bay windows that do not meet this definition will
be counted towards the homes floor area ratio (FAR), which may cause the home to be out of
compliance with required Zoning standards. Any changes to proposed bay windows must first be
reviewed and approved by the Director of Planning and Community Environment.
10. NOISE PRODUCING EQUIPMENT. All noise producing equipment shall be located outside of
required setbacks, except they may project 6 feet into the required street side setbacks. In
accordance with 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.
11. DAYLIGHT PLANE. The daylight plane must clear the point where the wall plane intersects the top
of the roof material.
12. IMPERVIOUS SURFACE. A minimum of 60 % of the required front yard shall have a permeable
surface that permits water absorption directly into the soil (Section 18.12.040 (h)). The building
permit plan set shall include a diagram demonstrating compliance.
13. REQUIRED IRLANDSCAPING/CANOPY REPLACEMENT TREES. The following landscaping is required
to ensure the project’s conformance with the City’s IR Guidelines and/or the City’s tree canopy
replacement requirements and therefore must remain for the life of the structure. The required
screening trees and shrubs shall be a minimum size of 24-inch box and measure at least eight (8)
feet tall at planting.
a. Four 24-inch box trees shown as 16 on sheet A1.4, shall be planted and maintained at
left side of the rear yard of the property.
b. Two 24-inch box trees shown as 5 on sheet A1.4, shall be planted and maintained at
the rear yard of the property.
c. Four 24-inch box trees shown as 17 on sheet A1.4, shall be planted and maintained at
right side of the rear yard of the property.
14. LANDSCAPING. All existing landscaping shall remain unless approved for removal in the approved
plan set. Show tree protection fencing to all trees and shrubs intended to remain on site and for
the street trees. The tree protection shall be shown in the plans submitted for building permit, as
Docusign Envelope ID: 32A497DE-F299-408C-8FA5-B3462A4A97C9
2451 Cowper Street approval
Individual Review 25PLN-00102
Page 5 of 9
shown on Sheet A1.4 and shall be installed at the beginning of construction. Landscape planting
shall be installed as shown in the approved plans. Modifications to the landscaping plan shall be
approved by Planning and Urban Forestry.
15. FENCES. Fences and walls shall comply with the applicable provisions of Chapter 16.24, Fences, of
the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC). Heights of all new and existing fencing must be shown on
the Building Permit plans.
a. Where an existing fence is non-compliant, a new Code compliant fence shall be
constructed in its place.
16. ESTIMATED IMPACT FEE. Development Impact Fees, currently estimated in the amount of
$18,004.02 plus the applicable public art fee, per PAMC 16.61.040, shall be paid prior to the
issuance of the related building permit.
17. IMPACT FEE 90-DAY PROTEST PERIOD. California Government Code Section 66020 provides that a
project applicant who desires to protest the fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions
imposed on a development project must initiate the protest at the time th e 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 judici al review
must be sought is governed by CCP Section 1094.6.
18. PLANNING 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, fenestration and hard surface locations. Contact the planning department at 650 -
617-3117 or email Planner@CityofPaloAlto.org to schedule this inspection.
19. PERMIT EXPIRATION. The project approval shall be valid for a period of two years from the
original date of approval. Application for a one year extension of this entitlement may be made
prior to expiration, by emailing the Planning department at Planner@CityofPaloAlto.org. If a
timely extension is not received, or the project has already received an extension and the
applicant still wishes to pursue this project, they must first file for a new Plann ing application and
pay the associated fees. This new application will be reviewed for conformance with the
regulations in place at that time.
Docusign Envelope ID: 32A497DE-F299-408C-8FA5-B3462A4A97C9
2451 Cowper Street approval
Individual Review 25PLN-00102
Page 6 of 9
20. 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 author ized 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.
URBAN FORESTRY
21. Please add a column in the Arborist report for tree removal to identify which of the non-
protected trees are proposed for removal so that a no-net-loss of tree canopy replacement
quantity can be calculated by Urban Forestry. Insufficient space for all replacement trees may be
replaced by in-lieu fees in the amount of $650 per unplanted 24" box tree.
22. URBAN FORESTRY 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 Protection Zone (TPZ). The ground under and around the tree canopy area shall not be
altered. No waste material or construction byproducts are allowed within the TPZ. Trees to be
retained shall be irrigated, aerated, and maintained as necessary to ensure survival.
23. TREE DAMAGE. Tree Damage, Injury Mitigation and Inspections apply to the Contractor.
Reporting, injury mitigation measures and arborist inspection schedule apply pursuant to TLTM
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 and Landscape Technical Manual , Section 3.02.
24. TPZ EXCAVATION RESTRICTIONS APPLY - TLTM, Sec. 3.03.6 - B5,6: Any approved grading, digging,
potholing, or trenching within the TPZ of a protected tree shall be performed using ‘air-spade’
method as a preference, with manual hand shovel as a backup. (TPZ= 10x the tree diameter at
54" above grade) For utility trenching, including sewer line, roots exposed with a diameter of 2
inches and greater shall remain intact and not be damaged. If directional boring method is used
to tunnel beneath roots, then CPA Standard Detail #504 shall be printed on the final plans and
the buffer distances in TLTM Table 3-4, Trenching and Tunneling Distance, shall be implemented
by Contractor. Contractor must notify the Urban Forestry Section at (650) 496-5953 in advance of
conducting any approved excavation within 10-feet of any street trees (or for any protected tree
on EVSE projects). Urban Forestry may choose to monitor or review the work for compliance with
the City’s Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) excavation standards.
25. TREE PROTECTION COMPLIANCE: The owner and contractor shall implement all protection and
inspection schedule measures, design recommendations and con struction scheduling as stated in
the Tree Preservation Report and/or Sheet T-1 and is subject to code compliance action pursuant
to PAMC 8.10.080. The required protective fencing shall remain in place until final landscaping or
Urban Forestry inspection of the project is completed.
Docusign Envelope ID: 32A497DE-F299-408C-8FA5-B3462A4A97C9
2451 Cowper Street approval
Individual Review 25PLN-00102
Page 7 of 9
26. NO NET LOSS OF CANOPY. In order to comply with the City’s no net loss of canopy policy (PAMC
8.10.055; Urban Forest Master Plan Goals 6.A, 6.B, & 6.C; Comprehensive Plan, Natural
Environment Chapter Goal N-2) all trees 4 inches DBH and larger are subject to replacement to
avoid a loss of canopy at the neighborhood level. Replacement ratios are determined by table 3 -1
in the Tree and Landscape Technical Manual, Section 3.02. New landscape tree plantings (24 inch
box or larger) count towards the replacement total. Screening trees may also count toward the
total depending on size and species selected. If unable to plant the required number of trees on
site (our preferred solution) there is the option of paying in -lieu fees per each 24 inch box tree
into the forestry fund. [Note: A replacement at ratio of 1:1 for trees listed as exempt species
under PAMC 8.10.020 is recommended. Exempt trees may require full replacement on parcels
zoned other than R1, RE, R-2, or RMD].
27. 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 Planning and Development Servi ces
Department for review by Planning, Public Works, or Urban Forestry.
ZERO WASTE
28. 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.cityofpaloalto.org/deconstruction.
29. 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.
30. 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.cityofpaloalto.org/deconstruction
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITION OF APPROVAL
Docusign Envelope ID: 32A497DE-F299-408C-8FA5-B3462A4A97C9
2451 Cowper Street approval
Individual Review 25PLN-00102
Page 8 of 9
The following shall be addressed prior to issuance of a Building Permit, Excavation and Grading
Permit, Certificate of Compliance, Street Work Permit and/or Encroachment Permit.
31. PUBLIC WORKS STANDARD CONDITIONS SHEET: The Department of Public Work’s full-sized
"Standard Conditions" sheet shall be included in the improvement p lans and the applicant shall
comply with all conditions listed in the sheet. The sheet can be obtained at the following link:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/public-works/engineering-
services/webpages/forms-and-permits/pw-conditions-sheet-alternative-update-8.7.18.pdf
32. SIDEWALK, DRIVEWAY, CURB & GUTTER: The applicant shall meet with a Public Works inspector
by calling 650-496-6929 to determine portions of sidewalk, curb, gutter, and driveway
approaches that shall be replaced along the project frontage. These portions shall be indicated
on the site improvement plans. In addition, a Site Inspection Directive sheet shall be completed,
signed by the inspector, and scanned onto the plan set. The sheet can be obtained from a staff
member of Public Works Engineering Services or at the following link:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/public-works/engineering-
services/webpages/forms-and-permits/other-guidelines/pwe-site-inspection-directive_rev-
2021.pdf
33. DRIVEWAY APPROACHES: The applicant shall comply with all regulations in PAMC Chapter 12.08
for driveway approaches. A summary of those regulations can be obtained at the following link:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=69580.09&BlobID=66035
34. STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION SHEET: The City's full-sized "Pollution Prevention - It's
Part of the Plan" sheet shall be included in the improvement plans. The sheet can be obtained at
the following link:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/publicworks/engineering-
Services/webpages/forms-and-permits/rwq_stormwater_plansheet_final_bw.pdf
35. IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA WORKSHEET: The applicant shall fill out the Impervious Area
Worksheet for Land Developments at the link below. The sheet shall be both emailed to
pwecips@cityofpaloalto.org and included with the building permit submittal:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/public-works/engineering-
services/webpages/forms-and-permits/impervious-area-worksheet-fillable.pdf
36. GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN: The improvement plans shall be compliant with the “Grading &
Drainage Guidelines for Residential Developments”. The sheet can be obtained at the following:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/public-works/engineering-
services/webpages/forms-and-permits/grading-drainage-residential-guidelines.pdf
37. C.3 STORMWATER REGULATIONS: This project creates or replaces over 2,500 square feet of
impervious surface area. The applicant shall implement one or more of the following site design
measures on improvement plans:
a. Direct roof runoff into cisterns or rain barrels for reuse.
Docusign Envelope ID: 32A497DE-F299-408C-8FA5-B3462A4A97C9
2451 Cowper Street approval
Individual Review 25PLN-00102
Page 9 of 9
b. Direct roof runoff onto vegetated areas.
c. Direct runoff from sidewalks, walkways, and/or patios onto vegetated areas.
d. Direct runoff from driveways and/or uncovered parking lots onto vegetated areas.
e. Construct sidewalks, walkways, and/or patios with permeable surfaces.
f. Construct driveways, and/or uncovered parking lots with permeable surfaces.
38. STREETWORK PERMIT: All improvement plans shall include the following note adjacent to
proposed work in the public right-of-way. “Any construction within the public right-of-way
requires an approved Street work Permit from Public Works Engineering”.
39. DEMOLITION PLAN: The following note shall be placed adjacent to all affected trees on the
Demolition Plan: “Excavation and trenching is restricted within the Tree Protection Zone (refer to
T-1 Tree Protection Sheet) or as approved by the Urban Forestry Division at 650-496-5953. Any
changes shall be approved by the same”.
40. CONSTRUCTION STAGING: All improvement plans shall include the following note on the Site
Plan and the Grading & Drainage Plan. “All construction materials and equipment shall be staged,
stored, and stockpiled onsite and not on any public street”.
GREEN BUILDING & ENERGY REACH CODE REQUIREMENTS:
41. The proposed project shall conform with PAMC Section 16.14 (Green Building code) Information,
ordinances and applications can be found at
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/ds/green_building/default.asp. If you have any
questions regarding Green Building requirements, please call the Green Building Consultant at
(650) 329-2179 or send an email to GreenBuilding@CityofPaloAlto.org.
Docusign Envelope ID: 32A497DE-F299-408C-8FA5-B3462A4A97C9
ATTACHMENT 3
ATTACHMENT 3
ATTACHMENT 3
ATTACHMENT 3
Name: Charles Zhang | DOB: 9/10/2025 | Legal Name: Charles Zhang
September 29, 2025
To Whom It May Concern,
I am the primary care physician for the Zhang family, who reside at 2450 Tasso Street in Palo Alto,
adjacent to the property scheduled for demolition and construction. The family includes three young
children: a newborn, a one-year-old, and a three-year-old.
From a medical standpoint, infants and young children are significantly more vulnerable to environmental
exposures compared to adults. Their lungs and immune systems are still developing, and they breathe
more rapidly, resulting in greater inhalation of airborne particles per body weight. Prolonged or repeated
exposure to dust, particulate matter, and potential contaminants such as asbestos can increase risks of
respiratory irritation, infection, and long-term pulmonary complications.
Additionally, continuous exposure to high levels of demolition noise poses concerns for this age group.
Excessive noise may disrupt essential sleep cycles, which are critical for neurological development,
growth, and immune function.
While I understand that the City requires adherence to standard noise, dust, and asbestos regulations
during demolition projects, I strongly recommend that additional precautions be considered in this case
given the heightened medical sensitivity of these young children. Specifically, I urge the City to require:
Enhanced dust control measures (e.g., continuous wetting, barriers, or filtration units near the
property line).
Stricter containment of potential hazardous materials, including asbestos.
Efforts to minimize noise during typical infant and toddler sleep hours.
Prompt communication with the family about timelines and high-impact activities so they may
take protective measures.
These additional steps would help mitigate preventable health risks to the children and ensure their
environment remains as safe as possible during the demolition period.
Thank you for your attention and consideration of this request. Please feel free to contact my office
should you need any further medical input or documentation.
Yi Ding, MD, FAAP
Department of Pediatrics, Camino Division
Palo Alto Medical Foundation
SUTTER PEDIATRICS - MOUNTAIN VIEW
701 E EL CAMINO REAL
MOUNTAIN VIEW CA 94040
Phone: 650-934-7956
Fax: 650-934-7953
10/3/25, 11:45 AM My Health Online - Letter Details
https://myhealthonline.sutterhealth.org/MHO/app/letters/details?letterId=WP-24cA9zZA6ehJXevzEntNS-2Fng-3D-3D-24OtAm6Y-2BO0Z4vsdnqltjJJu8ql4x-2BsRY…1/2
From:City Mgr
To:Council, City; Shikada, Ed
Cc:Executive Leadership Team; City Mgr; Clerk, City
Subject:Council Bundle - December 5, 2025
Date:Friday, December 5, 2025 11:19:23 AM
Attachments:RE AWOS Information Needed Prior to Council Review.msg
FW Response to Request for Action on RV and Trailer Parking Violations on Fabian Way .msg
RE Palo Alto Airport AWOS Project Meeting Follow up.msg
Fw IndustrialTransportCommercial Safety.msg
RE ADUJADU Report for Meeting of Dec 1.msg
RE Request for Immediate Review of Waymo Fleet Staging on Waverley Street (Professorville).msg
RE Petition for a 4-way stop at California Ave. Columbia St..msg
RE Request for reduction in solar permitting fees.msg
FW Fake survey Fwd Reminder The City of Palo Alto Water Division needs your feedback!.msg
RE El Dorado Bike Tunnel.msg
image001.png
image002.png
RE Follow-up question.msg
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
On behalf of City Manager Ed Shikada, please find attached staff responses to emails received in the
Council inbox through December 5, 2025.
Thank you,
Danille
Danille Rice
Administrative Assistant
City Manager’s Office|Human Resources|Transportation
(650) 329-2229 | danille.rice@PaloAlto.gov
www.PaloAlto.gov
From:GreenSpacesMV
To:Council, City
Subject:Support for a Strong Palo Alto Dark Sky Ordinance (Agenda Item 15 on 12/8 Agenda)
Date:Friday, December 5, 2025 8:21:41 AM
Attachments:GSMV letter to PA - Dark Sky.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Hello,
Please see the attached comment letter in support of a Strong Dark Sky Ordinance in Palo
Alto.
Thank you for your time,
Silja Paymer
GreenSpacesMV
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
December 5rd, 2025
Re: Support for a Strong Palo Alto Dark Sky Ordinance (Agenda Item 15 on 12/8 Agenda)
Dear Mayor Lauing and Palo Alto Councilmembers,
GreenSpacesMV is a volunteer-based community group advocating for parks, trees,
biodiversity, climate resilience, and nature-forward planning in Mountain View. Our members
have been deeply engaged in advancing responsible lighting practices in our own city, including
early outreach and policy recommendations that helped initiate Mountain View’s upcoming
citywide Dark Sky Ordinance process.
As neighbors who share the night sky, and are impacted by light that crosses city borders, we
strongly support the recommendations submitted by the Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter and
the Santa Clara Valley Bird Alliance. In particular, we urge Palo Alto to:
● Require all nonessential outdoor lighting to be turned off by 11:00 PM with
reasonable exceptions, rather than midnight.
● Require all new buildings, remodels, and fixture replacements to meet compliant
lighting standards.
● Apply the prohibition on blinking, flashing, rotating lights, as well as searchlights,
aerial lasers, and spotlights, citywide, including Edgewood.
● Require existing adjustable lighting to be compliant within one year of the
effective date of the ordinance.
Mountain View has recently launched community engagement for our own Dark Sky Ordinance,
with public updates and materials available at MountainView.gov/DarkSky. As neighboring
cities working toward regional ecological and climate resilience we hope Palo Alto will adopt a
strong ordinance that sets an example for other jurisdictions in the Midpeninsula.
Thank you for your leadership in reducing light pollution and protecting our shared night sky.
Sincerely,
Silja Paymer for
GreenSpacesMV
From:Dashiell Leeds
To:Council, City; Burt, Patrick; Lauing, Ed; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer;
Veenker, Vicki
Cc:advocate@scvbirdalliance.org; Clerk, City; Cha, Kelly; James Eggers; Mike Ferreira; Gita Dev; Barbara Muir; Wils
Cain
Subject:SCLP and SCVBA re December 8 Agenda Item 15 - Dark Sky (Outdoor Lighting) Ordinance
Date:Thursday, December 4, 2025 6:58:22 PM
Attachments:SCLP SCVBA Letter to Palo Alto re Dec 8 Dark Sky Ordinance.pdf
SCLP SCVBA Redlined Version of Palo Alto Draft Dark Sky Ordinance.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Mayor Lauing and Palo Alto City Councilmembers,
The Santa Clara Valley Bird Alliance and the Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter support the
adoption of Palo Alto’s Dark Sky (Outdoor Lighting) Ordinance, and suggest a few critical
corrections. We appreciate the extensive work by City staff, and the clear direction from the
Planning and Transportation Commission and Council to develop a measure that protects
migratory birds, nocturnal wildlife, and human health while conserving energy and restoring
the City’s night sky.
The ordinance follows best practices from DarkSky International and the Illuminating
Engineering Society by ensuring that lighting is shielded, directed, and used only where and
when needed. Please consider incorporating the five requests listed in the attached letter. We
have also attached a redlined version of the ordinance showing our suggested changes.
Sincerely,
Shani Kleinhaus
Environmental Advocate
Santa Clara Valley Bird Alliance
Dashiell Leeds
Conservation Coordinator
Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter
SAN MATEO, SANTA CLARA & SAN BENITO COUNTIES
December 4, 2025
Palo Alto City Council
250 Hamilton Ave
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Re: December 8 Agenda Item 15 - Dark Sky (Outdoor Lighting) Ordinance
Dear Mayor Lauing and Palo Alto City Councilmembers,
The Santa Clara Valley Bird Alliance and the Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter support the
adoption of Palo Alto’s Dark Sky (Outdoor Lighting) Ordinance, and suggest a few critical
corrections. We appreciate the extensive work by City staff, and the clear direction from the
Planning and Transportation Commission and Council to develop a measure that protects
migratory birds, nocturnal wildlife, and human health while conserving energy and restoring the
City’s night sky.
The ordinance follows best practices from DarkSky International and the Illuminating
Engineering Society by ensuring that lighting is shielded, directed, and used only where and
when needed. Please consider incorporating the following five requests. We have made
changes in blue since our November 10th letter to the City Council on this subject.
● Amend Sections 18.40.250(d)(4) and 18.40.250(e)(4)(A) to adjust the curfew start time
from 12 a.m. to 11 p.m.
● Amend Section 18.40.250(c)(3) to remove the phrase “If a building permit is required”
to apply the ordinance to all new installation, replacement, or modification of outdoor
luminaires,
● Amend Section 18.40.250(d)(7) to ensure that prohibited lighting types are not allowed in
the exempted Edgewood Drive properties,
● Remove 18.40.250(L)(2)(A)(B) and (3), removing retrofit requirements for existing
outdoor lighting, and
● Retain and shorten the compliance period in Section 18.40.250(L)(1) for easily adjustable
existing lighting fixtures to one year.
Request #1
Amend Sections 18.40.250(d)(4) and 18.40.250(e)(4)(A) to adjust the curfew start time from
12 a.m. to 11 p.m
Current text
Section 18.40.250(d) Exemptions. The following types of lighting are exempt from the
lighting requirements of the section:
(4) Seasonal lighting, subject to extinguishment at 12:00 a.m., during the period
of October 15 through January 15 of each year;
Section 18.40.250(e) Lighting Standards.
(4) Lighting Control.
(A) Lighting Curfew. Unlike other provisions in this section, the Lighting
Curfew shall apply to all outdoor luminaires for new and existing buildings
and structures, unless otherwise approved. All outdoor lighting shall be
fully extinguished or be motion sensor operated by 12:00 a.m., two hours
after the close of business, or when people are no longer present in
exterior areas, whichever is later.
Proposed Text
Section 18.40.250(d) Exemptions. The following types of lighting are exempt from the
lighting requirements of the section:
(4) Seasonal lighting, subject to extinguishment at 11:00 p.m. 12:00 a.m., during
the period of October 15 through January 15 of each year;
Section 18.40.250(e) Lighting Standards.
(4) Lighting Control.
(A) Lighting Curfew. Unlike other provisions in this section, the Lighting
Curfew shall apply to all outdoor luminaires for new and existing buildings
and structures, unless otherwise approved. All outdoor lighting shall be
fully extinguished or be motion sensor operated by 11:00 p.m. 12:00 a.m.,
two hours after the close of business, or when people are no longer
present in exterior areas, whichever is later.
Justification
The Lighting Curfew standards in this ordinance are incredibly flexible, allowing for lights to
remain on two hours after the close of business or when people are no longer present in exterior
areas, whichever is later. Adjusting the start time of the curfew will not affect luminaires that
remain illuminated at late hours for those reasons. Adjusting the curfew start time one hour
earlier, to 11:00 p.m. will allow the ordinance to maximize its light pollution reduction at key
nighttime hours while retaining the flexibility to allow residents and businesses to operate
normally.
Furthermore, the 11:00 p.m. time would correspond with the curfews of many other adopted
ordinances, such as those in Cupertino, Malibu, and Los Altos, which all use 11pm residential
curfews. Brisbane and Rancho Palos Verdes contain curfews which, at the latest, begin at 10 p.m.
Request #2
Amend Section 18.40.250(c)(3) to remove the phrase “If a building permit is required” to
apply the ordinance to all new installation, replacement, or modification of outdoor
luminaires.
Current text
(3) If a building permit is required: New installation of outdoor luminaires, replacement
of existing outdoor luminaires, or modifications to the lighting type or system.
Proposed Text
(3) If a building permit is required: New installation of outdoor luminaires,
replacement of existing outdoor luminaires, or modifications to the lighting type or
system.
Justification
Both the Planning and Transportation Commission (October 30, 2024) and the City Council
(April 7, 2025) explicitly directed that the lighting standards apply to all new and replacement
outdoor lighting. The April 7th City Council minutes1 and the staff report for Item 8 confirm this
directive, yet the draft ordinance retains the inconsistent “building permit” qualifier.
Limiting applicability to projects requiring a building permit creates a major loophole that
exempts most fixture replacements and new lighting installations. Since lighting installations do
not typically require permits, much new and replacement lighting would remain unregulated.
Removing the “building permit” qualifier will bring the ordinance into alignment with Council
direction and ensure it functions as intended.
Request #3
Amend Section 18.40.250(d)(7) to ensure that prohibited lighting types are not allowed in
the exempted Edgewood Drive properties.
1
https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Public/CompiledDocument?meetingTemplateId=16025&compileOutpu
tType=1
Current Text
“(7) Single family residential sites adjacent to San Francisquito Creek and fronting
on Edgewood Drive if the portion of the site subject to a permanent easement in
favor of the Santa Clara Valley Water District (or its successor in interest) for flood
control purposes is reconfigured after January 1, 2002. These sites shall be subject to
the requirements under Section 18.40.250(e)(4)(A).”
Proposed Text
(7) Single family residential sites adjacent to San Francisquito Creek and fronting on
Edgewood Drive if the portion of the site subject to a permanent easement in favor
of the Santa Clara Valley Water District (or its successor in interest) for flood control
purposes is reconfigured after January 1, 2002. These sites shall be subject to the
requirements under Sections 18.40.250(e)(4)(A) and 18.40.250(g).
Justification
While we appreciate that Section 18.40.250(e)(4)(A) applies the lighting curfew, the exemption
in (d)(7) inadvertently allows the use of prohibited lighting such as blinking, flashing, or
rotating lights, and searchlights, aerial lasers, or spotlights, all forms of illumination that are
unnecessary for safety and highly disruptive to wildlife. Safety can be achieved using fully
shielded, dark-sky-compliant luminaires. Extending the prohibited lighting clause to this area
will prevent excessive glare and protect one of Palo Alto’s most sensitive riparian corridors along
San Francisquito Creek.
Request #4
Remove 18.40.250(L)(2)(A)(B) and (3), removing retrofit requirements for existing outdoor
lighting
Current Text (Section 18.40.250(L)
“(L) Existing Nonconforming Lighting
(1) Within two years of [the effective date of this ordinance]: Where existing outdoor
luminaires have the ability to adjust (through existing dimmers, directional adjustability,
timers, etc.), the requirements under Section 18.40.140(e), except for the shielding
requirements under subsection 18.40.140(e)(1), shall apply.
(2) For all existing outdoor luminaires, the requirements under Section 18.40.140(e) shall
apply within the following timeframes from [the effective date of this ordinance]:
(A) Residential and Mixed Use Zoning Districts: Within ten years.
(B) Nonresidential Zoning Districts: Within five years.
(3) Any nonconforming lighting still in place after the compliance deadline shall remain
extinguished at all times until they are brought into compliance.
Proposed Revision
Keep (L)(1) to retain the requirement that all easily-adjustable luminaires be adjusted to
be compliant with the ordinance. We recommend adjusting the timing window of (l)(1),
as described below in Request #4.
Delete subsections (L)(2)(A) and (B) and (3), removing the retrofit schedule.
(2) For all existing outdoor luminaires, the requirements under Section 18.40.140(e) shall
apply within the following timeframes from [the effective date of this ordinance]:
(A) Residential and Mixed Use Zoning Districts: Within ten years.
(B) Nonresidential Zoning Districts: Within five years.
(3) Any nonconforming lighting still in place after the compliance deadline shall remain
extinguished at all times until they are brought into compliance.
Justification
Requiring retrofits for all existing lighting could be difficult to administer and monitor, and can
create hardship for residents and businesses. Applying the ordinance to all new, replacement, and
easily-modified lighting would achieve gradual citywide compliance through equipment turnover
while avoiding confusion and unnecessary administrative burden.
Retaining the hardship exemption (Section 18.40.250(j)) and clear applicability to all new and
replacement lighting ensures that future installations meet dark-sky standards without imposing
mandatory retrofits on existing luminaires.
Request #5
Retain and shorten the compliance period in Section 18.40.250(L)(1) for easily adjustable
existing lighting fixtures to one year
Current Text (Section 18.40.250(L)(1))
“(1) Within two years of [the effective date of this ordinance]: Where existing
outdoor luminaires have the ability to adjust (through existing dimmers, directional
adjustability, timers, etc.), the requirements under Section 18.40.140(e), except for
the shielding requirements under subsection 18.40.140(e)(1), shall apply.”
Proposed Text
“(1) Within one year two years of [the effective date of this ordinance]: Where
existing outdoor luminaires have the ability to adjust (through existing dimmers,
directional adjustability, timers, etc.), the requirements under Section 18.40.140(e),
except for the shielding requirements under subsection 18.40.140(e)(1), shall apply.”
Justification
A two-year grace period is unnecessarily long for fixtures that can be corrected through simple
adjustments such as dimming, re-aiming, or resetting timers. Comparable Dark Sky ordinances,
including Brisbane’s, require compliance within one year. A one year window provides sufficient
time for the City to distribute educational materials and for property owners to make
straightforward adjustments, achieving measurable reductions in light pollution much sooner.
In Conclusion
With the brief but critically important modifications we have suggested, Palo Alto’s dark sky
ordinance will reduce light pollution over time and improve public health and public safety and
protect migratory birds and wildlife. The provisions of this ordinance are in line with
successfully adopted dark sky ordinances throughout the nation. The requirements are extremely
flexible, ensuring that business in Palo Alto will not be impeded, and are robust enough to
protect residents and wildlife from the dangers of over-lighting. Please move to adopt this
ordinance, with the modifications we have suggested.
Sincerely,
Shani Kleinhaus
Environmental Advocate
Santa Clara Valley Bird Alliance
Dashiell Leeds
Conservation Coordinator
Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter
Note from SCLP and SCVBA: The text we recommend removing will be colored red and struck
through, and the text we recommend adding will be colored blue. All other non-colored
strikethroughs are those originally proposed by staff.
Ordinance No. _____
Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Repealing and Replacing Section 18.40.250
(Lighting) of Chapter 18.40 (General Standards and Exceptions) and Amending Chapters 18.10,
18.12, 18.28 and Section 18.40.230 of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to
Adopt New Outdoor Lighting Regulations
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. The term “dark sky” generally refers to achievement of significant reduction in light pollution
so that the sky returns or becomes closer to its natural nighƫme darkness.
B. Adhering to Dark Sky principles, which promote responsible outdoor lighting practices, can
significantly reduce light pollution and mitigate its harmful effects. These principles emphasize
using light only if it is needed, directing so that it falls only where it is needed, having lighting
only when it is necessary and no brighter than necessary, and using warmer lights.
C. On January 29, 2024, the City Council selected four City Council priorities, one of which is
the Climate Change & Natural Environment – Protection & Adaptation, and included an
objective to “approve a bird safe glass and wildlife light pollution protections ordinance.”
D. On February 14, 2024, and July 18, 2024, the Architectural Review Board conducted study
sessions and provided feedback on the concepts of the DarkSky regulations and draft
ordinance.
E. On August 14, 2024, the Planning and Transportation Commission reviewed the draft
ordinance, provided feedback and recommended that staff return with more information,
continuing the hearing to a date uncertain.
F. On October 30, 2024, the Planning and Transportation Commission recommended that City
Council adopt the ordinance.
G. The ordinance aligns with Dark Sky principles and is intended to reduce light pollution at
night, protecting wildlife and supporting a sustainable and resilient community.
SECTION 2. Section 18.40.250 (Lighting) of Chapter 18.40 (General Standards and Exceptions)
of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is repealed in its entirety and replaced with
a new Section 18.40.250 (Lighting) to read as follows:
18.40.250 Lighting
(a) Purpose. The intent of this section is to establish exterior lighting standards to reduce light
pollution. Exterior lighting of parking areas, pathways, and common open spaces, including
fixtures on building facades and free-standing lighting should aim to:
(1) Reduce light pollution and its adverse effects on the environment, wildlife habitat, and
human health through implementing Dark Sky Principles of responsible outdoor lighting
that are useful, targeted, low level, controlled, and warm colored;
(2) Minimize the visual impacts of lighting on abutting or nearby properties and from
adjacent roadways;
(3) Provide safe and secure access on a site and adjacent pedestrian routes;
(4) Achieve maximum energy efficiency; and
(5) Complement the architectural design of the project.
(b) Definitions. For purposes of this chapter, the following words and phrases are defined as
follows:
(1) “Correlated Color Temperature” or “Color Temperature” means a specification of the
color appearance of the light emitted by a light source, measured in Kelvin (K). Warmer
color temperatures are a lower number, and cooler color temperatures are a higher
number.
(2) “Fully Shielded” means a luminaire constructed and installed in such a manner that
all light emitted, either directly from the lamp or a diffusing element, or indirectly by
reflection or refraction from any part of the luminaire, is projected below the horizontal
plane extending from the bottom of the lamp.
(3) “Glare” means light entering the eye directly from a luminaire or indirectly from
reflective surfaces that causes visual discomfort or reduced visibility to a person.
(4) “Lamp” means, in generic terms, a source light, often called a “bulb” or “tube.”
Examples include incandescent, fluorescent, high-intensity discharge (HID) lamps, and
low-pressure sodium (LPS) lamps, as well as light-emitting diode (LED) modules and
arrays.
(5) “Light pollution” means the material adverse effect of artificial light, including, but not
limited to, glare, light trespass, sky glow, energy waste, compromised safety and
security, and impacts on the nocturnal environment, including light sources that are left
on when they no longer serve a useful function.
(6) “Lumen” means the common unit of measure used to quantify the amount of visible
light produced by a lamp or emitted from a luminaire (as distinct from “Watt,” a measure
of power consumption).
(7) “Luminaire” means outdoor illuminating devices, lamps, and similar devices, including
solar powered lights, and all parts used to distribute the light and/or protect the lamp,
permanently installed or portable.
(8) “Seasonal lighting” means lighting installed and operated in connection with holidays
or traditions within the time period specified in Section 18.40.250(d)(4). String lighting
used outside these periods is not considered seasonal lighting and shall be subject to
requirements in Section 18.40.250(f)(6).
(9) “String lighting” means light sources connected by free-strung wires or inside of
tubing resulting in several or many points of light.
(c) Applicability. Except as otherwise provided in subsections (d) and (e)(4)(A) below, the
outdoor lighting standards and guidelines set forth in this Section shall apply to the following
projects:
(1) All newly constructed structures and buildings; or
(2) Structures or buildings proposing a Substantial Remodel, as defined in Section
16.14.070; or
(3) If a building permit is required: New installation of outdoor luminaires, replacement of
existing outdoor luminaires, or modifications to the lighting type or system.
(4) All existing outdoor light fixtures installed prior to the effective date of this ordinance
shall conform to the provisions of this ordinance according to the compliance schedule
set forth in Section 18.40.250(l).
(d) Exemptions. The following types of lighting are exempt from the lighting requirements of the
section:
(1) Illuminated street numbers;
(2) Temporary construction or lighting for emergency personnel;
(3) Lighting authorized by a special event, special or temporary use permit;
(4) Seasonal lighting, subject to extinguishment at 11:00 p.m. 12:00 a.m., during the
period of October 15 through January 15 of each year;
(5) Lighting for Airport Operations. Nothing in this section shall be interpreted to restrict,
limit, or otherwise regulate lighting that, in the reasonable judgment of the Airport
Manager, is prudent or necessary for airport operations, airport safety, or air navigation
in connection with operations at the Palo Alto Municipal Airport; or
(6) Lighting for Emergency Shelters. Lighting for emergency shelters shall be subject to
PAMC 18.14.060.
(7) Single family residential sites adjacent to San Francisquito Creek and fronting on
Edgewood Drive if the portion of the site subject to a permanent easement in favor of the
Santa Clara Valley Water District (or its successor in interest) for flood control purposes
is reconfigured after January 1, 2002. These sites shall be subject to the requirements
under Section 18.40.250(e)(4)(A) and 18.40.250(g).
(e) Lighting Standards.
(1) Shielding
(A) All outdoor lighting shall be fully shielded and directed to avoid light trespass.
No lighting shall trespass more than 0.1-foot candle as measured at the property
line.
(B) Exceptions for shielding requirements shall be applied to the following types
of lighting:
(i) Low voltage landscape uplighting used to illuminate fountains,
shrubbery, trees, and walkways, outdoor art or public monuments
provided that they use no more than a 10-watt incandescent bulb or LED
equivalent or emit no more than 150 lumens. These luminaires may not
direct light towards the public right-of-way;
(ii) Sidewalk-facing lighting for zero lot line developments, provided the
luminaires are motion-activated and automatically extinguish within five
minutes without further activation; or
(iii) String lighting pursuant to Section 18.40.250(f)(5).
(2) Parking Lot Lighting Height.
(A) Exterior lighting fixtures shall be mounted less than or equal to 15 feet from
grade to top of fixture in parking lots in residential development and 20 feet in
parking lots with commercial and mixed-use development.
(3) Illumination Level and Color Temperature
(A) All light sources shall have a correlated color temperature of 2,700 Kelvin or
less.
(B) The maximum outdoor light intensity on a site shall not exceed an average
value of 5 foot-candles.
(4) Lighting Control.
(A) Lighting Curfew. Unlike other provisions in this section, the Lighting Curfew
shall apply to all outdoor luminaires for new and existing buildings and structures,
unless otherwise approved. All outdoor lighting shall be fully extinguished or be
motion sensor operated by 11:00 p.m. 12:00 a.m., two hours after the close of
business, or when people are no longer present in exterior areas, whichever is
later.
(B) All lighting activated by motion sensor shall be set up to extinguish after no
more than five minutes without further activation.
(C) All lighting shall be automatically extinguished using a control device or
system when there is sufficient daylight available, except for lighting under
canopies or lighting for tunnels, parking garages, or garage entrances.
(D) Exceptions for Lighting Control.
(i) Any lighting at building entrances, parking areas, walkways, and
driveways area;
(ii) Outdoor pathway lights that emit 25 lumens or less; or
(iii) Lighting that illuminates a pedestrian pathway (examples include
bollard, in-place step, or building mounted), provided that such lighting is
a maximum height of four (4) feet above the pathway and fully shielded.
(f) Special Purpose Lighting. The standards in this section shall prevail over any conflicting
standard in subsection (e).
(1) Low Density Residential Lighting. In addition to the lighting standards in the section,
the following lighting requirements shall be applicable to projects in R-1, R-2, RE, RMD,
NVR1, or NV-R2.
(A) When abutting any residential use, no spillover of lighting to adjacent
properties shall be allowed.
(B) A maximum of 1,260 lumens shall be allowed for each fully shielded outdoor
lighting. No more than 420 lumens shall be allowed for permitted non-shielded
outdoor lighting.
(C) Skylights shall limit illuminance and glare during night hours. Glare shall be
mitigated through the use of translucent glass, shading systems, and interior light
placement. Skylights shall not use white glass.
(D) Height for Recreational and Security Lighting. Free-standing lighting shall be
a maximum of twelve feet (12’) in height for those that were installed on or after
March 11, 1991.
(2) Athletic Facilities Lighting. Outdoor athletic facilities shall conform to the following
standards:
(A) Field lighting is provided exclusively for illumination of the surface of play and
viewing stands, and adjacent proximity areas for public safety.
(B) Illumination levels shall be adjustable based on the task (e.g., active play vs.
field maintenance).
(C) Off-site impacts of the lighting will be limited to the greatest practical extent
possible.
(D) Lights shall be extinguished by 10:30 p.m. except when the facilities are
being used for active play and maintenance before or after permitted events, and
the lights are equipped with a timer.
(E) Timers that automatically extinguish lights shall be installed to prevent lights
being left on accidentally overnight.
(3) Automobile Service Station Lighting
(A) Lighting fixtures in the ceiling of canopies shall be fully recessed or mounted
directly to the underside of the canopy. All luminaires shall be located so that no
lighting is directed towards the adjoining property or public rights-of-way.
(B) Luminaires are not permitted on top of the canopy fascia.
(C) The maximum light intensity under the canopy shall not exceed an average
footcandle of 12.5, when measured at finished grade.
(D) No free-standing lighting shall be higher than 15 feet above finished grade.
(E) The canopy fascia shall not be illuminated.
(4) Outdoor Space Above Ground Floor. These requirements apply to all outdoor spaces
located above ground level, including, but not limited to, rooftop gardens, rooftop
restaurants or bars, balconies, and decks.
(A) Any lighting shall be shielded from public views and any luminaires shall be
fully shielded and no uplighting shall be permitted.
(B) Lights shall be dimmable to control glare and placed on timers to turn off after
10:00 p.m. or as permitted pursuant to Section 18.40.250(e)(4)(D)
(C) No light trespass shall be allowed more than 0.1 foot-candle as measured
beyond the perimeter of the roof deck or other outdoor space above the ground
floor.
(5) String Lighting.
(A) String lighting color temperature shall not exceed 2,700 Kelvin and no
individual lamp that is part of a string lighting installation shall exceed a rating of
42 lumens. No string lighting shall be blinking, flashing, or chasing.
(B) For commercial and mixed-use areas, string lighting shall be limited to
designated outside dining or display areas or common open space (i.e. courtyard
or patio).
(6) Parklets. Lighting for any parklets shall comply with the lighting standards established
in the Permanent Parklet Program.
(g) Prohibited Lighting. The following types of lighting are prohibited except when used by
emergency service personnel during an emergency:
(1) Outdoor lighting that blinks, flashes, or rotates; or
(2) Searchlights, aerial lasers, or spotlights.
(h) Lighting for Signs. See Chapter 16.20 for lighting requirements for signs.
(i) Additional Provisions and Conflict Precedence. Lighting required by the Building Code, Fire
Code, or state or federal law shall additionally comply with the requirements of this section,
unless these requirements necessarily conflict with the aforementioned Codes and laws. In the
event of a conflict, the standards in the applicable Codes and laws shall prevail.
(j) Hardship Exceptions. The Director may grant an exception from the requirements in Section
18.40.250, if a project applicant provides evidence demonstrating one of the following
hardships:
(1) Implementation of the lighting requirements in this ordinance would impair the
historical integrity and character-defining features of the building and create an adverse
impact to the building’s historical, architectural, and cultural significance; or
(2) Implementation of the lighting requirements in this ordinance would more than double
the cost of the project. This exception shall apply only for replacement of existing
outdoor luminaires or changing the lighting type or system that requires a building
permit.
(k) Public Facilities. Public Facilities, including City-owned and operated facilities, shall comply
with the outdoor lighting standards of this Section to the extent feasible. The Director may grant
adjustments to any applicable lighting standards for such facilities if the adjustment is necessary
for the efficient operation, maintenance, or safety of the facility, or to ensure public safety and
security; and is consistent with the overall intent and purpose of this Section. A written request
for an adjustment, including supporting documentation, shall be submitted and shall be
reviewed according to the applicable review procedures in PAMC Section 18.77 associated with
the proposed development.
(l) Existing Nonconforming Lighting.
(1) Within two years one year of [the effective date of this ordinance]: Where existing
outdoor luminaires have the ability to adjust (through existing dimmers, directional
adjustability, timers, etc.), the requirements under Section 18.40.140(e), except for the
shielding requirements under the subsection 18.40.140(e)(1), shall apply.
(2) For all existing outdoor luminaires, the requirements under Section 18.40.140(e) shall
apply within the following timeframes from [the effective date of this ordinance]:
(A) Residential and Mixed Use Zoning Districts: Within ten years.
(B) Nonresidential Zoning Districts: Within five years.
(3) Any nonconforming lighting still in place after the compliance deadline shall remain
extinguished at all times until they are brought into compliance.
SECTION 3. Subsection (e) of Section 18.40.230 (Rooftop Gardens) of Chapter 18.40 (General
Standards and Exceptions) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is amended to
read as follows (additions underlined; deletions struck-through):
(e) Any lighting shall be shielded from public views and have full cutoff fixtures that cast
downward-facing light, or consist of low-level string lights; no up-lighting is permitted. Lights
shall be dimmable to control glare and placed on timers to turn off after 10:00 p.m. Photometric
diagrams must be submitted by the applicant to ensure there are no spillover impacts into
windows or openings of adjacent properties. For lighting requirements, refer to Section
18.40.250.
SECTION 4. Subsection (g) of Section 18.10.040 (Development Standards) of Chapter 18.10
(Low Density Residential (RE, R-2 and RMD) Districts) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto
Municipal Code is amended to read as follows (additions underlined; deletions struck-through):
(g) Lighting in R-2 District
In the R-2 district, recreational and security lighting shall be permitted only so long as the
lighting is shielded so that the direct light does not extend beyond the property where it is
located. Free- standing recreational and security lighting installed on or later than March 11,
1991, shall be restricted to twelve feet (12') in height. For lighting requirements, refer to Section
18.40.250.
SECTION 5. Subsection (k) of Section 18.12.040 (Site Development Standards) of Chapter
18.12 (R-1 Single-Family Residential District) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal
Code is amended to read as follows (additions underlined; deletions struck-through):
(k) Lighting
Recreational and security lighting shall be permitted only so long as the lighting is shielded so
that the direct light does not extend beyond the property where it is located. Free-standing
recreational and security lighting installed on or later than March 11, 1991 shall be restricted to
twelve feet (12') in height. Direct light from outdoor fixtures shall only fall on the walls, eaves,
and yard areas of the site on which it is located. Outdoor fixtures shall have lens covers or
reflectors that direct the light away from the neighboring properties. For lighting requirements,
refer to Section 18.40.250.
SECTION 6. Subsection (n) of Section 18.28.270 (Additional OS District Regulations) of
Chapter 18.28 (Special Purpose Districts) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is
amended to read as follows (additions underlined; deletions struck-through):
(n) Light and Glare
Exterior lighting should be low-intensity and shielded from view so it is not directly visible from
off-site. The light emitted from skylights shall be minimal during the night hours. Utilizing
treatments such as translucent glass, shading systems, and interior light placement can reduce
the night glare. Skylights shall not use white glass. For lighting requirements, refer to Section
18.40.250.
SECTION 7. 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 8. 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 9. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first day following its adoption.
SECTION 10. This Ordinance shall not apply to any project application deemed complete prior
to the effective date of this Ordinance.
From:Emily Coren
To:Lauing, Ed; Veenker, Vicki; Burt, Patrick; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer
Cc:Council, City; Marc Chow
Subject:Santa Clara County Medical Association: Recommendation on the Use of Artificial Turf
Date:Thursday, December 4, 2025 5:27:20 PM
Attachments:Artificial Turf Policy Recommendation SCCMA Final 6824 .pdf
Palo Alto City Council - Artificial Turf Dec 4.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Palo Alto City Council,
Please see the attached letter regarding the Santa Clara County Medical Association's
recommendation on the use of artificial turf. Please let me know if you have any
questions.
Thank you,
Emily
Emily Coren
Director of Governance and Advocacy
Santa Clara County Medical Association
700 Empey Way, Suite 200
San Jose, CA 95128
P: (408) 998-8850 x3011
F: (408) 289-1064
www.sccma.org
Membership | Upcoming Events
LinkedIn | Facebook | Twitter
This message needs your attention
No employee in your company has ever replied to this person.
Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast
Policy Recommendation on the Use of Artificial Turf on
Landscapes, Schools and Playing Fields
Santa Clara County Medical Association
June 10, 2024
Purpose: To educate and provide recommendations to physicians, officials, school
administrators and teachers of the health risks and potential health and environmental hazards of
artificial turf and synthetic grass on landscapes, schools, playgrounds and playing fields.
Recommendations: After careful consideration of the current scientific evidence of plastic
and chemical contamination, sports injuries, urban heat effects, disposal, potential short and
long-term health effects, as well as direct and indirect environmental costs, the SCCMA believes
artificial turf is potentially harmful to both human and environmental health and is not a
sustainable option when compared with natural grass. Taking a precautionary approach for the
long-term protection of the children, the environment and public health, we recommend :
1) That artificial turf not be used on sports fields, playgrounds, landscaping, residential
lawns or in schools, but instead that natural grass turf be used, a choice that will serve to
benefit the health and safety of children, athletes and the environment, and
2) If artificial turf is in place, that at the end of its useful life it be replaced with natural
grass and not artificial turf.
SCCMA Goals: The support of public health measures to prevent environmentally-related
disease is a prime goal and objective of the Santa Clara County Medical Association (SCCMA).
This especially applies to children who have greater lifetime exposures to- and accumulation of-
toxins, and whose immune, cardiovascular, reproductive and neurologic systems are immature,
increasing their vulnerability to acute and chronic diseases related to toxic exposures.
Introduction:
Rethinking Artificial Turf
Artificial turf was introduced into the sports world in 1965. Currently there are approximately
13,000 synthetic turf sport fields in the U.S. While in the past artificial turf initially seemed to be
the better alternative due to reduced costs, reduced water usage and lower maintenance, newer
information has come to light regarding the direct and indirect environmental and health impacts
of synthetic grass, including a full life cycle analysis of costs. As more artificial turf fields are
installed, more long-term problems are being identified. Indeed, the environmental impacts of
artificial turf components are now recognized as a global problem (Armada 2022). We think that
artificial turf, based on available scientific studies, is not a sustainably safe alternative for
landscaping, nor for use on sport fields, particularly for children. In addition, much progress has
been made in developing state of the art drought resistant, water conserving grass fields that are
sturdy, can be used year-round in California, and can be watered with non-potable recycled
water. References follow.
Components of Artificial Turf
Artificial turf is a human-made surface of synthetic fibers, that was invented in the 1960’s to
look like and replace natural grass on sports fields and residential lawns. It consists of non-
biodegradable plastic turf “blades” and a non-biodegradable backing. In the 1990’s infill was
added between the blades to soften the fields during play. Turf blades are composed of
polyethylene, polypropylene or nylon.
The cushioning infill material is most often crumb rubber infill from crushed tires. Other
materials have been used, such as silica from crushed quartz, synthetic rubber, polymer-coated
sand, and other organic materials (cork and coconut fiber). However, these “eco-friendly”
alternatives are typically coated with stabilizers and plasticizers for durability. The primary
backing consists of woven or non-woven fabric made from high-strength polyester or
polypropylene. The secondary backing is applied to permanently stabilize and secure the tufts of
the artificial turf system. The most commonly used coating materials are latex and polyurethane.
Stated Benefits of Artificial Turf
The benefits widely promoted by the Synthetic Turf Council (STC) include less maintenance,
less cost, no mowing, none-to-minimal water usage, no discoloration yearlong, no weeds, no
allergies, no need for pesticides and durability, as the product withstands harsh weather
conditions thus extending the sports season. We will look at some of these issues in the sections
below.
Summary: Concerns about Artificial Turf
Chemical and Plastic Pollution
• Artificial turf and infill contain chemicals and heavy metals that are bio-accumulative,
and thereby, harmful to humans and to the environment. These include polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), phthalates, and perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl
“forever” substances (PFAS) (Ecology Center 2020; New Jersey State 2023; PEER
2024). Chemicals in artificial turf have a variety of biological effects and are known
carcinogens, neurotoxicants, mutagens, and endocrine disruptors . Heavy metals such as
arsenic, lead, chromium, zinc, antimony, and cadmium are also found in artificial turf
components. (Armada 2022; Celeiro 2018; Llompart M 2013; Zhang 2008; Winz 2023).
Some of the incorporated metals are found above regulatory limits (Negev 2022).
• Crumb rubber from crushed used tires is often used as infill, (well as on playgrounds) and
has a unique chemical risk profile for humans and the environment (Duque-Villaverde
2024; Frederico 2023; Mayer 2024; Murphy 2022).
• There is close and often repetitive contact of players with artificial turf surfaces and infill ,
especially for soccer and football players, with particles sticking to shoes and clothing
• There can be direct inhalation and ingestion or dermal uptake of chemicals from the
plastic grass and infill (Celeiro 2021).
• There can be leaching of harmful chemicals and microplastics into groundwater, drinking
water and soil, causing water contamination, as well as damage to the living soil and
organisms beneath them (Celeiro 2021; Armada 2022; Cui 2022; Zhong 2022).
• Many of the chemicals can be volatilized, and thus inhaled, especially with high
temperatures (Armada D 2022; Celeiro 2021, Llompart M 2013).
• Biocides and pesticides applied to artificial fields to kill bacteria, mold, viruses and
weeds can cause skin sensitization and may pose risks to the health of workers, children,
and surrounding ecosystems (Hahn 2010).
• Artificial turf contains microplastics which are considered contaminants of emerging
concern as they do not biodegrade, but do bioaccumulate in the environment, thus
creating harm at every stage of the plastic life cycle in their production, use, and
disposal (Landrigan 2023).
• Microplastics are inflammatory and also found in humans in the blood, brain, lungs, liver,
gut, testicular tissue, thrombi and placenta (Gaspar 2022; Leslie 2022; Ragusa 2021;
Danopoulos 2022; Wu 2023; Garcia MA 2024; Garcia MM 2024; Saha 2024; Hu 2024).
Polyethylene (used in artificial turf) has even been detected in atherosclerotic plaque in
58% of carotid artery specimens showing “visible, jagged-edged foreign particles” that
could contribute to vascular inflammation (Marfella 2024).
• Artificial turf adds to the plastic pollution crisis (IUCN 2022).
• Artificial turf microplastics have been found in 50% of urban waterways tested in Spain
and comprised 15% of plastic found in the water (deHaan 2023).
• Artificial turf components have been found to be toxic to earthworms (Pochron 2018),
aquatic organisms (Kruger 2013) and chick embryos (Xu 2019).
• Artificial turf infill components can reduce sport grass growth (van Kleunen 2019).
Increased Surface Runoff
• Artificial turf is impervious and increases surface runoff that carries microplastics into
storm water drains and local water bodies (de Haan 2023).
Increased Sports Injuries
• There is increased biomechanical stress on joints when playing on artificial turf fields
versus natural grass, causing an increase in lower extremity sports injuries particularly in
football and soccer (Gould 2023) and an increase in concussions because the artificial
turf is laid over concrete or compacted earth (Mack 2019) with a resultant increased
impact deceleration (Villanueva 2024).
• There is evidence of increased staphylococcus bacterial infections from turf abrasions
• Turf Toe injury is seen largely from artificial turf sports injury (Najefi 2018)
Athletic Preference for Natural Grass
• Athletes from high school to college to professional sports by far prefer to playing on
natural grass (Owen 2016; Dumas 2023; NFLPA).
• National Football League (NFL) players prefer natural grass due to increased injuries
from artificial turf (NFL Players Association).
Creation of Urban Heat Islands with Risk of Heat Injury
• Artificial turf can create harmful local heat islands with very high field surface
temperatures which range from 40 - 60 degrees °F higher than natural grass - even with
moderate air temperatures - causing poor athletic performance and heat related injury and
illness, such as burns, heat stress, heat stroke and heat exhaustion, making the fields
unusable (Mcfarlane 2015; Abraham 2019; Dujanovic 2017). In contrast natural grass
fields rarely get above 100 degrees F.
• Cleats can get hot and have been known to melt on artificial turf (Litman 2015; Nazareth
2016).
• High synthetic field surface temperatures increase volatility and absorption of harmful
chemicals from the synthetic turf (Armada D 2022; Llompart M 2013).
• A significant amount of water is used to manufacture, clean and cool synthetic sports
fields (Alm 2016; Kanaan 2020).
• There is an expected rise in extreme heat events with a rise in heat-related illnesses and
deaths in the next 20 years. Climate change will cause this to be more of an issue for
athletes and children (California report “Indicators of Climate Change”).
• With rising temperatures artificial turf fields are expected to be increasingly hotter for
longer periods, thereby reducing the number of days they can be used in warm or hot
weather compared to natural grass.
• Children are physiologically more vulnerable to heat-related illness, due to their greater
skin surface area in relation to their bodies, immature sweat glands and higher metabolic
rates (Bytomski 2003; Antoniades 2020; Malmquist 2021). Children can suffer a 24%
longer extreme danger duration on artificial turf during sunny days than on natural grass
(Liu and Kim).
• Parks with grass fields can be cooler than the surrounding urban environment by up to
7°C (Slater 2010).
Not Recyclable: Increasing Plastic Waste
• Artificial turf creates a significant waste problem at the end of its limited lifespan of 8-10
years, and it is difficult to recycle due to its complex plastic mixture. It often becomes
landfill waste or is dumped on private land with persistent soil and water contamination
leaching from the plastic, or is incinerated with accompanying adverse air quality
impacts.
• California does not recycle artificial turf and it has to be sent out of state to an “advanced
recycling” plant, however there is controversy over the true recyclability of artificial turf
and its carbon cost. Only recently has one plant in Texas opened for recycling, and the
results have not been measured. Many decades of artificial turf remain stocked in piles
above ground in the U.S. and abroad.
• Industry advertising claims stating that artificial turf is recyclable has been challenged in
a formal complaint (PEER 2022, York Daily Report 2019).
• A recent comprehensive report “The Fraud of Plastic Recycling” reveals that the plastic
industry and the oil industry knew for decades that plastic was not truly recyclable (The
Center for Climate Integrity 2024).
• Typical sports fields are about 80,000 square feet and contain about 40,000 pounds of
“grass” turf along with 240,000 to 720,000 pounds of infill according to the Synthetic
Turf Council.
Water Use
• Valley Water, headquartered in San Jose, notes that water conservation no longer
includes artificial turf as they recognize that, “there are healthier and more ecologically
sound alternatives”
• California Senate Bill 676, signed into law Oct 8, 2023 by Governor Newsom, specifies
“that drought-tolerant landscaping does not include the installation of synthetic grass or
artificial turf.”
• Water use on hot days is comparable for both natural grass and artificial turf that is
cooled with water to allow playability (Kanaan 2020).
• Manufacture of one artificial turf field uses the same amount of water needed to maintain
one natural grass field for 4 years (Alm 2016).
• Recycled water may not be suitable for use on artificial turf due to high salt content
which can break down artificial turf components (California Coastal Commission 2023).
However, natural grass turf can withstand the salts in recycled water (Evanylo 2010;
Hochmuth 2022)
Water Quality and Environmental Effects
• As artificial turf is used it degrades with wear and microplastic and chemicals leach into
the soil, water and air on fields and in disposal sites (Wik 2009; Bessa 2018; Celeiro
2018 & 2021; de Haan 2023).
• Water contamination from artificial turf is recognized as a global problem with
widespread pollutants in the aquatic environment. deHaan (2023) found artificial turf
plastics were found in 50% of river samples and comprised 15% of all plastics in the
water.
• Artificial turf is associated with a decline in diversity in soil and bird populations
(Bernat-Ponce 2020; Sanches-Sotomayer 2022; Valeriani 2019).
• Integrated Pest Management Policies, Programs and Ordinances have been successfully
implemented in many municipalities to reduce pesticide use on parks, landscapes and in
agriculture (IPM EPA 2023; IPM San Francisco ; IPM Santa Clara County; IPM Marin;