HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 2604-6318CITY OF PALO ALTO
CITY COUNCIL
Special Meeting
Monday, May 18, 2026
Council Chambers & Hybrid
5:30 PM
Agenda Item
14.Update Regarding the Builder’s Remedy Project at 156 California Avenue and
Consideration of Adding Lot B (APN 124-28-003) Associated with the Development to
the City’s Housing Element Sites Inventory. Public Comment, Staff Presentation
CITY COUNCIL
Staff Report
From: City Manager
Report Type: ACTION ITEMS
Lead Department: Planning and Development Services
Meeting Date: May 18, 2026
Report #: 2604-6318
TITLE
Update Regarding the Builder’s Remedy Project at 156 California Avenue and Consideration of
Adding Lot B (APN 124-28-003) Associated with the Development to the City’s Housing Element
Sites Inventory.
RECOMMENDATION
The 156 California Avenue Ad Hoc Committee recommends that the City Council consider
directing the Planning and Development Services Director to add Lot B (APN 124-28-003) to the
Housing Element Sites Inventory.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report provides an update on the proposed Builder's Remedy mixed-use development at 156
California Avenue and presents an alternative concept for City Council consideration to the
originally filed application. The City Council’s action to add Lot B to the Housing Element Sites
Inventory, or not, likely determines which project will move forward. The original project, filed
by Redco Development under California Government Code Section 65589.5(d)(5), proposes 382
residential units (20 percent affordable) across three integrated structures with a maximum
height of 177 feet. Following a threat of litigation, the City Council’s Ad Hoc committee,
comprised of Vice Mayor Stone and Councilmember Lauing, engaged in negotiations with the
applicant, resulting in a revised conceptual project consisting of three towers with 390 residential
units (50 affordable, or 13 percent) and a maximum height of 144 feet.
On May 4, 2026, the City Council authorized staff to enter into a settlement agreement with the
applicant to resolve the threatened litigation and set forth a process for public consideration of
the revised conceptual project. The agreement between the City and the applicant represents a
conditional release of claims and does not predetermine any Council action or project outcome.
The Council’s decision on whether to add Lot B to the Housing Element Sites Inventory will signal
its interest in pursuing the revised project; if the Council declines, the applicant would likely
proceed with the originally filed application.
BACKGROUND
In March 2023, Redco Development submitted an SB 330 Preliminary Application establishing
vesting rights under the Housing Accountability Act for a Builder's Remedy project. A formal
Major Architectural Review application was filed in April 2024 that is substantially consistent with
the Preliminary Application in scope, unit count, building configuration, and affordability
commitment. A Tentative Parcel Map application for a vertical airspace subdivision was filed in
August 2024.
Comparison of Original Project and Revised Concept
1
Category BR 1.0 (Original Application)BR 2.0 (Revised Concept)Change
Configuration Two towers and a podium Three towers -
Stories 17 / 11 / 7 (podium)12 / 14 / 12 -
Maximum height 177 feet 144 feet -33 ft
Site area 1.436 acres 1.436 acres -
Total residential units 382 390 +8
Affordable (BMR) units 78 (20%)50 (13%)-28
Market-rate units 304 340 +36
Density (combined,
DU/acre)
267.1 271.6 +4.5
Development impact fees
(see Fiscal Impact section)
Full payment required Exempt the 50 BMR units; fees
for Public Art not on-site paid
to Affordable Housing Fund
-
Grocery store 14,519 SF 15,260 SF +741 SF
Bar/restaurant 2,570 SF (Level 17, Tower A) Level 14, Tower 2 -
Retail 1,624 SF None -1,624 SF
Proposed parking stalls 290 266 -24
1 View the Original Project (Builder’s Remedy 1.0) plans and revised conceptual project (Builder’s Remedy 2.0) at:
https://www.paloalto.gov/Departments/Planning-Development-Services/Current-Planning/Projects/156-
California-Avenue.
project, and the City would have approximately 60 to 90 days to act on the project after the
application is deemed complete. In accordance with state law (AB 130), the project would be
statutorily exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) as an urban infill housing development project.
ANALYSIS
received from the Board. The project would then be presented to the City Council for final action
with findings and conditions of approval.
FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
ATTACHMENTS
APPROVED BY:
Builder’s Remedy 1.0 Project – Viewed from Park Boulevard
3
Builder’s Remedy 2.0 Project – Viewed from California Avenue
4
From:Marty Keller
To:Council, City
Cc:Planning Commission
Subject:Item 14 Public Comment: Support For Housing at Mollie Stone"s Option #2
Date:Monday, May 18, 2026 8:34:24 AM
Good afternoon council members, my name is Marty Keller and I live in Midtown.
Please embrace new housing at the Mollie Stone's site. I support the option that provides more affordable housing as
the difference between 17 and 14stories is not descernable. I don’t think the other option does anything meaningful
except lower the amount of affordable units. I do think parking has to be increased.
Thank you for your consideration,
Marty Keller
From:Jeremy Levine, Palo Alto Forward
To:Council, City
Subject:Support for Mollie Stone’s option #2 (agenda item 14 public comment)
Date:Monday, May 18, 2026 8:26:00 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Good morning Palo Alto city council,
On behalf of Palo Alto Forward, I am writing in support of the Mollie Stone’s project. Though
both options would be a great addition to our city—transit-oriented, mixed-use, with more
deed-restricted homes that many publicly funded projects—we would prefer the council
support Option #2.
Option 2 reflects the negotiated solution between the city and developer, which the city should
honor. It will include a more appealing Mollie Stone’s store front while reflecting the true
demand for commercial space, which would otherwise risk sitting vacant. And it provides
more homes overall. We appreciate the hard work of Vice Mayor Stone and Council Member
Lauing to negotiate an updated project, and we hope the council will wholeheartedly support.
Both options illustrate the benefits of density near commercial areas and public transit. They
will bring customers to a struggling commercial corridor, provide affordable housing at no
cost to the city, and pay dramatically more in property taxes than the old Mollie Stone’s
building. SB 79 implementation provides an opportunity for Palo Alto to proactively plan for
more projects like this in similar locations like the transit center and other transit-oriented
locations.
Regards,
Jeremy
--
Jeremy Levine (he • him)
Executive Director, Palo Alto Forward
(650) 485-0127
From:Patty Irish
To:Council, City
Subject:Action Item 14 156 California Ave Building Housing and Commercial
Date:Sunday, May 17, 2026 11:20:34 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Mayor Veenker and City Council,
I strongly support this housing including option #2.
This is a perfect place for more people to live. It is near
transportation, commercial businesses, jobs, schools and all that
makes living in Palo Alto great.
It is also a place where local businesses will benefit as well as
schools, jobs and all the ways our city will benefit from new
residents.
I hope you will work with the developer to make this happen as
quickly as possible.
California Avenue needs this to reinvigorate its businesses also.
Thank you for your commitment to housing for all and as infill so
you provide locations that serve many interests.
Patty Irish
850 Webster
Palo Alto 94301
--
Patty Irish
850 Webster St. #628
Palo Alto, CA 94301
650-324-7407
650-245-3906 cell
How do you tell a story that has been told the wrong way for so long?
Virus-free.www.avast.com
From:Andrea Allais
To:Council, City
Cc:Planning Commission
Subject:Item 14 Public Comment: Support For Housing at Mollie Stone"s Option #2
Date:Saturday, May 16, 2026 7:33:26 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Good afternoon council members, my name is Andrea Allison and I live in University South.
Please embrace new housing at the Mollie Stone's site. Though I support either proposal,
option #2 would bring more housing overall and provide a nicer store front for the grocery
store. It also reflects a strategic negotiation by the city, which we should honor. This project
reflects the future I would like to see in our transit-oriented neighborhoods.
I am lucky enough to live near a Caltrain station and I want more people to enjoy the same
benefits
Thank you for your consideration,
Andrea Allais
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first mail to some recipients.
Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
From:hglann@gmail.com
To:Council, City
Cc:Planning Commission
Subject:Item 14 Public Comment: Support For Housing at Mollie Stone"s Option #2
Date:Friday, May 15, 2026 7:56:43 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Hello Council Members:
I wanted to express my support for housing development at the Mollie Stone’s site. While I
support either option, I do like the new enhancements to the grocery store, which will make it
more vibrant and hopefully have more shoppers support it. I also am excited about more
housing near transit, because it makes transit a much more attractive option for new residents.
Sincerely,
Hilary Glann
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first mail to some recipients.
Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
From:Joyce Beattie
To:Council, City
Cc:Planning Commission
Date:Friday, May 15, 2026 7:08:36 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear council members,
Re: Item 14 Public Comment: Support For Housing at Mollie Stone's Option #2
Hi, I live in Stevenson House Senior Apartments now, and had moved to Palo Alto in the Fall of 1970.
Please endorce the new housing plans at the Mollie Stone's site.
I support either proposal, but option #2 would bring more housing overall and providea nicer store front for the grocery store.
It's transit-oriented, keeps needed retail and is an enhancement to our neighborhood.
Thank you for your consideration,
Joyce Beattie
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
Mark Safe Report
From:Susan Setterholm
To:Council, City
Cc:Planning Commission
Subject:Item 14 Public Comment: Support For Housing at Mollie Stone"s Option #2
Date:Friday, May 15, 2026 4:21:19 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking
on links.
Good afternoon council members, my name is Susan Setterholm and I lived in downtown and Ross near Loma
Verde.
Please embrace new housing at the Mollie Stone's site. Though I support either proposal, option #2 would bring
more housing overall and provide a nicer store front for the grocery store. It also reflects a strategic negotiation by
the city, which we should honor. This project reflects the future I would like to see in our transit-oriented
neighborhoods.
I have always dreamed of living in an apartment near the California Avenue train station I believe a high rise
housing development over Mollie Stone’s is an excellent use of land that will make housing available to the more
affluent parts of the middle class.
Thank you for your consideration,
Susan Setterholm
From:Bill Fitch
To:Council, City
Cc:Planning Commission
Subject:Item 14 Public Comment: Support For Housing at Mollie Stone"s Option #2
Date:Friday, May 15, 2026 3:55:59 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking
on links.
Good afternoon council members, my name is Bill Fitch and I have lived in Evergreen Park for 50 yrs
Please embrace new housing at the Mollie Stone's site. Though I support either proposal, option #2 would bring
more housing overall and provide a nicer store front for the grocery store. It also reflects a strategic negotiation by
the city, which we should honor. This project reflects the future I would like to see in our transit-oriented
neighborhoods.
I strongly support the Molly Stone site for housing both because we need the housing but also because this project
helps increase funds for continuing Caltrain. Calave will benefit from a larger population to support small
businesses.
Thank you for your consideration,
Bill
From:Barb V
To:Council, City
Cc:Planning Commission
Subject:Item 14 Public Comment: Support For Housing at Mollie Stone"s Option #2
Date:Friday, May 15, 2026 3:02:23 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Good afternoon council members, my name is Barb Voss and I live in Palo Alto Redwoods,
4250 El Camino Real.
Please embrace new housing at the Mollie Stone's site. Though I support either proposal,
option #2 would bring more housing overall and provide a nicer store front for the grocery
store. It also reflects a strategic negotiation by the city, which we should honor. This project
reflects the future I would like to see in our transit-oriented neighborhoods.
Accessible and affordable housing near transit is especially important for people with
disabilities, many of whom are unable to drive. Housing right near the CalTrain station will
also take cars off the road and encourage environmentally sustainable public transit.
Thank you for your consideration,
Barb Voss
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
From:Adam Schwartz
To:Council, City
Cc:Planning Commission
Subject:More homes please! Yes to Mollie Stone"s option #2 (Item 14 Public Comment)
Date:Friday, May 15, 2026 2:55:39 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Hello members of the Palo Alto City Council:
My name is Adam Schwartz, and along with my family I am a ten-year
resident of Palo Alto's University South neighborhood.
I write in strong support of option #2 for new homes at the Mollie Stone's
site. It would provide more overall homes, and a nicer store front. It also
reflects a strategic negotiation by the city, which we should honor.
The Mollie Stone's site is the dictionary definition of a great place for
homes like these. It is right next to CalTrain, and wonderful amenities on
California Avenue.
This issue is very important to me, because many of my friends and family
members want to move to the bay area or stay here, and find it very
difficult to do so because of the shortage of homes.
Thank you for all you do,
Adam Schwartz
University South
From:Garrett Clark
To:Council, City
Cc:Planning Commission
Subject:Item 14 Public Comment: Support For Housing at Mollie Stone"s Option #2
Date:Friday, May 15, 2026 2:40:37 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking
on links.
Good afternoon council members, my name is Garrett Clark and I live in Downtown North.
Please approve new housing at the Mollie Stone's site. Though I support either proposal, option #2 would bring
more housing overall and provide a nicer store front for the grocery store. It also reflects a strategic negotiation by
the city, which we should honor. This project reflects the future I would like to see in our transit-oriented
neighborhoods.
Housing near transit will enable us to reach our environmental and climate goals, allow residents the option to avoid
fueling oil wars in the Middle East, and create vibrant communities that are accessible to more people.
Thank you for your consideration,
Garrett Clark
From:Reid Kleckner
To:Council, City
Cc:Planning Commission
Subject:Item 14 Public Comment: Support For Housing at Mollie Stone"s Option #2
Date:Friday, May 15, 2026 2:05:29 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Good afternoon council members, my name is Reid Kleckner and I live in Midtown.
Please embrace new housing at the Mollie Stone's site. Though I support either proposal,
option #2 would bring more housing overall and provide a nicer store front for the grocery
store. It also reflects a strategic negotiation by the city, which we should honor. This project
reflects the future I would like to see in our transit-oriented neighborhoods.
Mollie Stone's is my primary grocery store. I bike there every week. I've written to you
previously about GK Pastry opening in the Cal Ave shopping district and then closing a few
months later. Retail needs customers, not parking stalls that sit empty most of the day. This
development has the potential to secure and revitalize an important neighborhood amenity,
and hopefully support new ones. I urge you to leave behind the lengthy Palo Alto process and
embrace the city-of-yes mindset, so we can make room for the next generation of Palo Altans.
Thank you for your consideration,
Reid Kleckner
From:Milo Trauss
To:Council, City
Cc:Planning Commission
Subject:Item 14 Public Comment: Support For Housing at Mollie Stone"s Option #2
Date:Friday, May 15, 2026 1:05:38 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Good afternoon council members, my name is Milo.
Please embrace new housing at the Mollie Stone's site. Though I support either proposal,
option #2 would bring more housing overall and provide a nicer store front for the grocery
store. It also reflects a strategic negotiation by the city, which we should honor. This project
reflects the future I would like to see in our transit-oriented neighborhoods.
The more housing the better, so that families like mine can afford to have a place to live in this
community.
Thank you for your consideration,
Milo Trauss
This message needs your attention
No employee in your company has ever replied to this person.
This is a personal email address.
Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
From:rachel heller
To:Council, City
Cc:Planning Commission
Subject:Item 14 Public Comment: Support For Housing at Mollie Stone"s Option #2
Date:Friday, May 15, 2026 12:14:45 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Good afternoon council members,
My name is Rachel Miller and I live in Downtown North. Please embrace new housing
at the Mollie Stone's site. Though I support either proposal, option #2 would bring
more housing overall and provide a nicer store front for the grocery store. It also
reflects a strategic negotiation by the city, which we should honor. This project
reflects the future I would like to see in our transit-oriented neighborhoods.
This site is right next to the California Ave. Caltrain station - perfect for dense
housing. The addition of new neighbors in this location would be a boon for the
businesses in the California Ave. area, including the Mollie Stones that would be right
downstairs! Those that complain about the impact on parking in this area always
ignore the new multi-story parking garage at Sherman Ave. and Birch St. that is never
full, even on Saturday nights and farmers market days. In particular, the disabled
parking on the ground floor of the garage is never full and very convenient to
California Ave. I know because I often have lunch with my 85 year old mother at
Joanie's Cafe and her access is fine. Let's get this great new housing project built!
Thank you for your consideration,
Rachel Miller
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
From:Amie Ashton
To:Council, City
Cc:Planning Commission
Subject:Item 14 Public Comment: Support For Housing at Mollie Stone"s l
Date:Friday, May 15, 2026 12:14:24 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Mayor Veenker and City Council,
I proudly applaud recent actions by the city to bring new housing online, especially new
housing near transit, jobs, and retail/services. I especially support new housing at the Mollie
Stone's site. Though I fully support either proposal, option #2 reflects a strategic negotiation
by the city - which we should honor.
This project reflects the future and will create an ideal transit-oriented neighborhood.
Residents could live a healthy, joyful car-fee or car-light lifestyle (as I do as a downtown
resident). Housing at this location would provide new customers for Cal Ave businesses.
Putting these units housing near Palo Alto's job centers (i.e., the Research Park and Stanford)
would reduce area-wide traffic and greenhouse gas emissions.
Tell our children that the community that raised them wants them here. Revitalize Cal Ave in
a meaningful way. Show the rest of the Bay Area that Palo Alto is ready to lead and be
innovative on every front, including on housing.
Thank you for your consideration,
Amie Ashton
From:Steven Atneosen
To:Council, City
Cc:Planning Commission
Subject:Item 14 Public Comment: Support For Housing at Mollie Stone"s Option #2
Date:Friday, May 15, 2026 11:34:07 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Council Members,
We live in the College Terrace neighborhood of Palo Alto.
Please actively support new housing at the Mollie Stone’s site. Though we support either
proposal, option #2 would bring more housing and provide a more welcoming and pedestrian-
oriented storefront for the grocery store. It also reflects a strategic negotiation by the City,
which should be honored. This project reflects the kind of future we would like to see in Palo
Alto’s transit-oriented neighborhoods.
We strongly support housing near transit because Palo Alto has an opportunity to evolve into
a more sustainable, accessible, and community-oriented city. Concentrating housing near
Caltrain, California Avenue, and neighborhood-serving retail allows more people to live close
to work, schools, restaurants, parks, and daily necessities without depending on long car
commutes. This reduces congestion and emissions while strengthening local businesses and
creating more vibrant streets and public spaces.
Importantly, successful cities around the world have shown that walkable, bicycle-friendly,
mixed-use neighborhoods consistently outperform car-centric development patterns.
Pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure generate stronger local commerce because businesses
benefit from increased foot traffic, more frequent visits, and active street life. By contrast,
excessive parking requirements consume valuable land, increase construction costs,
discourage housing creation, and undermine the density that supports thriving neighborhood
retail.
The Mollie Stone’s project represents an opportunity for Palo Alto to move toward a more
modern and economically resilient model of urban planning—one more aligned with
successful European-style “15-minute cities,” where residents can comfortably access daily
needs by foot, bicycle, or transit. Palo Alto already has the foundations for this vision; projects
like this help bring it to life.
We hope the Council will support option #2 and continue prioritizing thoughtful transit-
oriented housing that strengthens both our community and our local economy.
Thank you for your consideration,
Steven Atneosen and Caroline Dahllof
atneosen@hotmail.com
From:Mert Dikmen
To:Council, City
Cc:Planning Commission
Subject:Item 14 Public Comment: Support For Housing at Mollie Stone"s Option #2
Date:Friday, May 15, 2026 11:30:21 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Good afternoon council members, my name is Mert Dikmen and I live in Crescent Park.
Please embrace new housing at the Mollie Stone's site. Though I support either proposal,
option #2 would bring more housing overall and provide a nicer store front for the grocery
store. It also reflects a strategic negotiation by the city, which we should honor. This project
reflects the future I would like to see in our transit-oriented neighborhoods.
I support all projects increasing housing and retail footprint throughout the town not just in
existing commercial corridors but everywhere. I urge you to consider removing as many
restrictions as possible from holding back Palo Alto from growing.
Thank you for your consideration,
Mert Dikmen
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
From:slevy@ccsce.com
To:Council, City
Cc:Lait, Jonathan; Armer, Jennifer; Raybould, Claire
Subject:156 California Avenue
Date:Friday, May 15, 2026 10:50:19 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
!
Dear Mayor Veenker and council members,
I believe this site is an excellent place to add housing in the Cal Ave area.
So I am pleased and want to congratulate council members Lauing and Stone for working
with the applicant to reach a new plan for the site that is mutually agreeable with the
participants.
I am aware that there are probably areas in the negotiation and litigation discussions that I
am not aware of.
But I want to support the process that Ed Lauing, Greer Stone and the applicant have
brought to a compromise solution.
I encourage you, therefore, to add this site (lot B) to the housing element sites inventory
and allow the B.R. 2 proposal to move forward for public review and discussion.
Stephen Levy
This message could be suspicious
The sender's email address couldn't be verified.
Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
From:mike.forster@alumni.usc.edu
To:Council, City
Subject:Does Mollie Stone"s project violate daylight planes for College Avenue R-1 properties?
Date:Tuesday, May 12, 2026 9:49:59 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
May 12, 2026
I will be unable to attend the May 18 City Council meeting regarding the
Mollie Stone's project. But I would like one question to be answered:
Does the Builder's Remedy allow a developer to override Palo Alto's city
ordinance regarding the 10-foot/45-degree daylight plan for R-1 properties?
It appears that city code sections 18.13.040 and 18.20.040 require that the R-1
daylight plane regulations apply to this project. The now 12-story Cambridge
parking lot tower would violate the daylight plane regulations for at least the
four R-1 properties on College Avenue closest to Park Blvd. That tower would
have to be reduced to 6 stories to comply.
If the regulations apply, then it is the duty of the City to ensure that the
property rights of these R-1 properties owners are protected, and the project
must be modified to address this situation.
Mike Forster
420 Stanford Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94306
650 464 9425
mike@mikeforster.net
May 18, 2026 www.paloalto.gov
156 California
Project Update / Direction
Regarding Housing Sites Inventory
Presenter:
Jonathan Lait, Director
1
Purpose
•Provide update on the filed Builder’s Remedy project
•Present Ad Hoc negotiated revised concept plan
•Explain implications of adding Lot A to Housing Element Sites Inventory
•Receive public input
•Provide direction to staff
Key Decision
•Whether to add Lot A to the Housing Element Sites Inventory.
2
Project Location
3
Location:
156 California Avenue
Two lots (1.14 acres + 0.29 acres) at California & Park
Avenue, and Park & Cambridge Avenue.
CC(2)(R) Zoning District
Existing Uses:
Parking lot and Mollie Stone’s grocery store.
Proposed Use:
Mixed-use multifamily redevelopment replacing
existing uses.
Lot B
Lot A
Builder’s Remedy Background
4
Year Legislation Relevance
1982 Housing Accountability Act Foundation law
1990 HAA amendments Added noncompliant Housing
Element trigger
2017 SB 167 Strengthened enforcement
2019 SB 330 Expanded vesting protections
2024 AB 1893 Established Builder’s Remedy 2.0
2025 AB 130 Added CEQA infill exemptions
Legislative Context
State Certification Deadline: January 31, 2023
City of Palo Alto Housing Certified: August 20, 2024
156 California Avenue: Project Timeline
5
Date Milestone
March 2023 SB 330 Preliminary Application filed
April 2024 Major Architectural Review application filed
August 2024 Tentative Parcel Map filed
August 2025 – February 2026 Ad Hoc negotiations
May 4, 2026 Settlement agreement authorized
May 18, 2026 Council consideration of Lot A inventory action
6
Current Builder’s Remedy (1.0) Application
Original v. Revised Conceptual Project Comparison
9
Category BR 1.0 Original BR 2.0 Revised
Maximum Height 177 ft, 120 ft, 77 ft 144 ft, 129 ft, 124 ft
Stories 17 / 11 / 7 14 / 12 / 12
Total Units 382 390
Affordable Units 78 (20%)50 (13%)
Market Rate Units 304 340
Density 267 DU/ac 272 DU/ac
Grocery Store 14,519 SF 15,260 SF
Parking 290 266
4-A
Concept Builder’s Remedy (2.0) Project
11
12
What Changes if Lot A is Added
If Council Adds Lot A
•Applicant may pursue revised BR 2.0 concept
•Revised application due within 120 days
•Courtesy Architectural Review Board review
•Council consideration of final approvals
If Council Does Not Add Lot A
•Applicant likely proceeds with original BR 1.0 project
•Original project timelines resume
13
Adding Lot A to the
inventory allows for
greater floor area and
therefore increased
project density (unit
count).
Without this action, the
applicant cannot achieve
the unit density reportedly
needed to make the
project feasible.
Agreement Overview
Agreement Purpose: Resolve threatened litigation and establish framework for consideration of
revised concept.
Important Clarifications
•No project approval granted
•No predetermined Council outcome
•Conditional release of legal claims
Additional Terms
•Expedited processing (within 120 days of application submittal)
•Fee structure adjustments (no development impact fees applied to inclusionary units)
•CEQA exemption under AB 130
14
Affordable Housing and Fiscal Considerations
Additional Notes
•Estimates are preliminary
•Fees may be deferred to project completion
•In addition to above impact fees; applicant to pay housing inpact fees of approximately
$1.1M for difference between local affordability requirement and 13% inclusionary units
•Estimated contribution to housing fund is approximately $2.6M, including redirected art fees
15
Category Original Project Revised Project
Estimated Impact Fees $15.8M $14.1M
Affordable Units 78 50
Public Art Contribution Standard
Portion (~$1.5M)
redirected to Affordable
Housing Fund
Key Policy Considerations
•Relative merits of original vs. revised project
•Height and massing tradeoffs
•Affordability tradeoffs
•Fiscal implications
•Community objectives
16
Recommendation
Consider directing staff to:
•Add Lot A (APN 124-28-045) to the Housing Element Sites Inventory, which would enable
consideration of a revised Builder’s Remedy 2.0 project
17
Builder’s Remedy 2.0Builder’s Remedy 1.0