HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 2605-6397CITY OF PALO ALTO
CITY COUNCIL
Special Meeting
Monday, June 01, 2026
Council Chambers & Hybrid
5:30 PM
Agenda Item
17.Receive Update and Provide Direction to Staff on the Implementation of Senate Bill 79
(SB 79) and the Work Related to the Downtown Housing Plan. Adoption of Two
Temporary Ordinances Implementing SB 79, Adopting a Transit Oriented Development
Combining District, Excluding Certain Sites from Government Code Section 65912.157,
and Authorizing the Planning and Development Services Director to Make
Corresponding Updates to the Zone Map. CEQA Status: Exempt Under Government
Code section 65912.161(c)(2). At-Places Supplemental Report added, Public Comment,
Staff Presentation
CITY COUNCIL
Staff Report
From: City Manager
Report Type: ACTION ITEMS
Lead Department: Planning and Development Services
Meeting Date: June 1, 2026
Report #: 2605-6397
TITLE
Receive Update and Provide Direction to Staff on the Implementation of Senate Bill 79 (SB 79)
and the Work Related to the Downtown Housing Plan. Adoption of Two Temporary Ordinances
Implementing SB 79, Adopting a Transit Oriented Development Combining District, Excluding
Certain Sites from Government Code Section 65912.157, and Authorizing the Planning and
Development Services Director to Make Corresponding Updates to the Zone Map. CEQA Status:
Exempt Under Government Code section 65912.161(c)(2).
RECOMMENDATION
Staff and the SB 79 / Downtown Housing Plan Ad Hoc recommend that the City Council:
1. Receive an update on the approaches for the implementation of Senate Bill (SB)
79 (2025) and work related to the Downtown Housing Plan;
2. Introduce a temporary ordinance (Attachment B) excluding historic
resources designated on the City’s local register as of January 1, 2025, from the
development standards otherwise applicable under SB 79, through one year following
adoption of the City’s 7th Housing Element;
3. Introduce a temporary ordinance (Attachment C) establishing development standards
for all transit-oriented development (TOD) eligible parcels subject to SB 79 at 50 percent
of the otherwise allowable development capacity authorized under State law, and
simultaneously exempting those properties from default SB 79 standards through one
year following adoption of the City’s 7th Cycle Housing Element;
4. Direct staff to return with interim urgency versions of the above ordinances to be
introduced and adopted on June 15, 2026, when the above ordinances are agendized
for second reading.
5. Direct staff to prepare permanent ordinances to be presented to the Planning and
Transportation Commission, incorporating the provisions of the interim ordinances and
any additional provisions necessary and beneficial in implementation of SB 79.
6. Direct staff to continue work to advance and complete the Downtown Housing Plan and
amend the scope of work as appropriate to take into consideration implementation of
SB 79.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This item was originally scheduled for the March 9, 2026, City Council meeting and was
rescheduled to the May 4, 2026, City Council meeting, and subsequently to the June 1,
2026, City Council meeting.
SB 79 will take effect on July 1, 2026. The legislation is intended to facilitate the development of
multi-family housing on land located in proximity to qualifying transit stations, thereby
promoting transit-oriented development through the establishment of new minimum
standards for building height, residential density, and floor area. In the City of Palo Alto,
numerous parcels are located within the influence areas of three qualifying transit stations: two
Caltrain stations within the City of Palo Alto and one Caltrain station in the City of Mountain
View adjacent to Palo Alto.
This report provides an overview of the implications of SB 79, outlines the next potential steps
for the citywide implementation of state law through ordinances and policy options for City
Council consideration and direction.
BACKGROUND
SB 79, codified in Government Code Section 65912.155, et seq., supersedes locally adopted
standards for density, floor area ratio (FAR), and height in TOD zones. These new standards are
for housing projects proposed on qualifying sites located within one-half mile of a TOD stop,
provided the development meets specified statutory requirements. Local jurisdictions may
adopt an ordinance to exempt historic properties or may prepare a TOD Alternative Plan that
modifies applicable development standards, subject to review and approval by the California
Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). Sites within the SB 79 influence
areas zoned at 50 percent of the standards in State law may also be exempted until one year
after the adoption of the 7th cycle Housing Element amendment (January 31, 2032).
On October 22, 20251, staff provided the City Council an update on the Downtown Housing Plan
and an overview of SB 79 and requested direction on the implementation of the State law. The
classification of qualifying transit stops, and key statutory provisions discussed in that
report are highlighted below:
1 October 22, 2025, City Council Staff
Report https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=18007
Distance from Pedestrian Access Point to a TOD Stop
Tier 1 TOD Stop (Caltrain)Development
Standard Up to ¼-mile Up to ½-mile
“Adjacent”
(within 200’)
Bonus Height,
Density, and
Residential FAR
Height3 75'65'95'
Density 120 du/ac 100 du/ac 160 du/ac
Residential
Floor Area
Ratio (FAR)
3.5 3.0 4.5
The City Council appointed a SB 79 / Downtown Housing Plan Ad hoc Committee
(Councilmembers Burt and Lauing) to further evaluate the implications of SB 79. Staff met with
the Ad hoc Committee three times (January 27th, March 25th, and April 21st) since it was
formed and presented information on areas affected by SB 79, projected residential
development, and policy options for Council consideration.
Staff prepared the May 4, 20264, staff report outlining potential approaches for implementing
State law and identifying options available for the Downtown Housing Plan based on direction
from the Ad hoc Committee. The staff report also presented the Ad hoc Committee’s
recommendations for Council consideration. The discussion was rescheduled at the Council’s
direction. Staff now advise that the Council should select one of the options for addressing SB
79, which requires a local ordinance, that the Council adopt both the urgency and non-urgency
ordinances prior to July 1, 2026. Delaying adoption of the ordinances would create a gap
between the implementation date of SB 79 and the adoption of a local exclusion authorized in
the law.
ANALYSIS
SB 79 implementation is limited to sites that meet specific statutory eligibility criteria, including
applicable zoning designations and proximity to qualifying transit stops (Attachment A).
Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), the region’s designated Metropolitan Planning
3 Note that a qualifying project may use the standards in SB 79 as its base density under state density bonus law;
however, if the project exceeds the City’s height limit due to the provisions of SB 79, the City is not required to
grant an additional height waiver.
4 May 04, 2026, City Council Staff Report
https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Public/CompiledDocument?meetingTemplateId=18711&compileOutputType
=1
Organization, is required to prepare and publish official maps identifying applicable TOD zone
boundaries. Staff has seen preliminary drafts that are generally aligned with staff expectation.7
SB 79 significantly reshapes development near transit:
SB 79 establishes state-mandated maximums for height, density, and FAR on qualifying
parcels near Caltrain stations, substantially limiting the City’s discretion under existing
zoning and adopted planning frameworks. Cities can adopt an Ordinance temporarily
exempting sites that are: within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, subject to
Flooding, are Historic Resources listed in the local register, or that are zoned for high
density residential use providing at least 50% of the capacity required by SB 79.
Downtown Housing Plan Scope Is Smaller Than SB 79 Impact Area:
While the University Avenue/Downtown Priority Development Area encompasses
approximately 206 acres, the Downtown Housing Plan covers only 76 acres. In contrast,
SB 79 affects a much larger area; approximately 325.23 acres, around the
Downtown/University Avenue Caltrain Station. This includes the Downtown Housing
Plan area, South of Forest Avenue (SOFA) areas, the transit center, and Stanford
Shopping Center.
Historic resources require consideration:
Downtown Palo Alto and the San Antonio Road area contain a high concentration of
historic properties or properties within historic districts. SB 79 includes limited
provisions for the protection of historic resources on the local register. The City is
allowed to adopt an ordinance to temporarily ensure these resources are protected.
Ongoing protection is achievable only by adopting, prior to January 31, 2032, a TOD
Alternative Plan; even then, protected historic resources cannot exceed 10% of the area
7 https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/934f95609d6b45c5be0f8f0030c01436?draft=true
of a TOD zone under the current law. SB 79 currently does not provide express guidance
on the treatment of historic districts on the State or the National registers, but it
appears that a local ordinance may protect historic districts in addition to individual
historic structures. This is subject to change with additional guidance from HCD.
Small parcel sizes limit realistic redevelopment potential:
Feasibility analysis indicates that parcels smaller than approximately 5,200 square feet
are less likely to redevelop, unless multiple parcels are combined. This reduces
development potential particularly in the Downtown/University Avenue area, limiting
the number of sites that can realistically take advantage of SB 79 standards. Historically,
there has been little interest for lot consolidation in Palo Alto, even with development
incentives.
Redevelopment is likely to occur on a limited subset of eligible land:
Although SB 79 enables substantial theoretical housing capacity across all three station
areas, the realistic capacity is substantially lower and difficult to translate into future
unit production. To illustrate potential housing growth over the next 25 years within
these TOD areas, staff conducted a screening-level analysis that excluded parcels less
likely to redevelop, including those with historic resource designations, properties
redeveloped within the last 25 years, small lots that would not support feasible
redevelopment or meet SB 79 unit density standards, public facility and planned
community zoned properties, transit-owned land, sites with condominium subdivision
maps, and properties with office development exceeding 1.5 times the parcel area.
After applying these filters, staff estimates a more realistic picture of developable
property as follows:
o Downtown/University Avenue Transit Station Area: Approximately 163 acres
o California Avenue Transit Station Area: Approximately 222 acres
o San Antonio Transit Station Area: Approximately 32 acres
Further discounting is necessary, however, because redevelopment is costly and carries
risk for developers. Many property owners will be satisfied leaving their properties as-is
despite the potential for increased housing development. Staff anticipates that the vast
majority of single-family homeowners are unlikely to pursue apartment buildings on
their property, although some may choose to do so. A review of development activity
over the past 25 years shows that only ten percent of all parcels were redeveloped, with
exceedingly few single-family zoned properties converting to multifamily housing.
Applying a ten percent redevelopment factor consistent with this historical activity, and
a one percent factor for single-family zoned property, staff can estimate a theoretical
range of future housing production from SB 79 for each transit station area over the
next 25 years. These figures are not a projection or formal estimate; they are simply a
calculation based on screening criteria and existing baseline data and are subject to
numerous variables that cannot be fully accounted for through this type of screening-
level analysis.
o Downtown/University Avenue Transit Station Area: Approximately 1600 units
o California Avenue Transit Station Area: Approximately 900 units
o San Antonio Transit Station Area: Approximately 200 units
The above analysis does not account for recent changes to state law that promote
greater development potential including exemptions to the California Environmental
Quality Act, allowances for taller buildings, greater floor area, reduced parking
requirements, and state density bonus concessions and waivers and application
streamlining. These measures add greater predictability to the development process
and may encourage additional property owners to consider redevelopment. During
discussions with the Council Ad hoc Committee, it was recognized that the city can
reasonably anticipate greater housing production over the next 25 years than it has
experienced historically, due in large part to state mandates promoting increased
housing production. In reviewing projected housing demand, the Ad Hoc considered a
realistic capacity up to 20% increase – a potential doubling of the initial staff estimate.
California Avenue faces the greatest zoning shift:
The California Avenue SB 79 area contains a substantial proportion of single-family
zoned property, including larger 10,000 square foot lots in the Old Palo Alto
neighborhood that would not require land consolidation to support apartment
development. New construction built to SB 79 standards may appear contextually
inconsistent with the historic development pattern northeast of the Caltrain station.
The commercial areas along and near California Avenue have seen little significant
redevelopment in recent years, due in part to small lot sizes and the former
requirement for on-site parking, both of which made redevelopment economically
impractical. The interaction of SB 79 with other state laws could catalyze future housing
or mixed-use development, with uncertain implications for the area's retail
environment. New development may also lack coordinated design or placemaking, with
larger parcels likely proving more attractive for redevelopment than smaller ones.
San Antonio Road area raises unique historic district uncertainties:
San Antonio Road area includes large concentrations of Eichler homes and a designated
historic district listed on the National Register. SB 79’s treatment of historic districts,
where individual properties are not separately listed, may be the subject of additional
guidance from HCD. Because exclusion of historic sites is limited to 10% of TOD land
area after January 31, 2032, not all historic sites can be protected in the long term.
The Economic Feasibility Analysis prepared for the Downtown Housing Plan remains rele
vant:
While SB 79 provides development opportunities to owners of qualifying properties, the
feasibility of such projects depends on market conditions, broader market trends, site
constraints, competing uses, impact fees, and inclusionary housing requirements. This is
outlined in the Economic Feasibility Analysis prepared for the Downtown Housing Plan,
which was included as Attachment A to the October 22, 2025, City Council Staff Report9.
State Density Bonus Law:
SB 79 projects are eligible to use State Density Bonus Law to seek a density bonus,
incentives or concessions, waivers or reductions for development standards and parking
ratios10. The density allowed under SB 79 serves as the base density for calculating the
density bonus. However, a project proposing a height allowed by SB 79 that is more
than the local height limit is ineligible for a waiver for additional height beyond that
specified in SB 79. This does not apply for 100% affordable projects located within one-
half mile of a major transit stop.
Assembly Bill (AB) 130 (2025):
AB 130 (2025)11 significantly streamlines housing development approvals in urban
communities by creating a new statutory exemption from CEQA for qualifying infill
residential projects. This means that qualifying residential or mixed-use infill projects
(generally up to 20 acres) that are consistent with either applicable Comprehensive Plan
or zoning regulations (as modified by SB 79 and/or state density bonus law) could
bypass CEQA review entirely, with an accelerated permitting timeline. The exemption
applies to projects meeting minimum density thresholds, and site qualifications (i.e., not
located in floodplains, fault zones, wetlands, or very high fire severity zones, not a
hazardous waste site, and not demolishing a historic structure).
AB 130 amends the Permit Streamlining Act by imposing strict timelines for City review
and approval. If the City does not act within 30 days following its objective standards
review and the required tribal consultation, a project may be deemed automatically
approved. This substantially reduces staff’s ability to present projects for review by the
ARB, PTC, or City Council.
9 October 22, 2025, City Council Staff
Report: https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=18007
10 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=65915&lawCode=GOV
11 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB130
Developers must comply with the new labor standards for 100% affordable housing
projects and buildings over 85 feet in height, meet air quality requirements, and
perform contamination cleanup as appropriate. The law does not alter State Density
Bonus Law provisions, including waivers and parking reductions. This means that in
addition to the increased FAR permitted under SB 79, developers could seek to waive
maximum lot size limitations in residential zones, setbacks, open space requirements,
site coverage, daylight plane requirements, or even retail preservation requirements
through the State Density Bonus Law.
Assembly Bill (AB) 2097 (2022): AB 2097 (2022)15:
Eliminates minimum parking requirements for new development (residential,
commercial, and most other uses) located within one-half mile of high-quality transit
service (i.e., major transit stops such as the Caltrain Station). This essentially prohibits
local governments from enforcing minimum parking requirements for qualifying
projects. In Palo Alto, the State law is applicable to all properties that lie within one-half
mile radius of the University Avenue, California Avenue, and San Antonio Road Caltrain
Stations.
Assembly Bill (AB) 2576 (2026): AB 2576 (Harabedian):
Currently under consideration in the California Legislature, proposes amendments to
the provisions of SB 79. As currently drafted, AB 2576 would expand the definition of
eligible historic resources to expressly include resources in the local and State registers.
Additionally, it would remove the existing limitation that restricts the exclusion of
historic resource sites to no more than 10 percent of the total TOD zone area. At the
time of this report, AB 2576 remains pending in the State Legislature and has not been
enacted.
Other bills under consideration during this legislative session that would amend SB 79 do not
have any impact to Palo Alto at this time but could be further amended before this session
ends.
SB 79 Implementation Options:
On January 27, 2026, staff presented four potential approaches to implementing SB 79 based
on what the State law permits to the Ad hoc, each reflecting varying levels of effort and scope.
These approaches considered:
Existing and ongoing planning initiatives;
15 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220AB2097
Anticipated additional workload and its potential impact on City Council priorities for
the current year;
Expected near term planning initiatives;
Staff capacity and available resources;
Fiscal implications;
Opportunities for community engagement; and
Review and approval timeline established by HCD pursuant to the state law.
While all four approaches advance the State’s pro-housing objectives, they differ in the degree
to which the City exercises local control. The City may choose to allow SB 79 to preempt local
codes, adopt an ordinance clarifying how SB 79 applies locally, including exclusion of historic
properties, adopt an ordinance upzoning and temporarily exempting non-historic parcels in the
TOD zones, and/or prepare a Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Alternative Plan, based on
the considerations outlined above. A TOD Alternative Plan requires environmental assessment
and is subject to HCD review.
In addition, the Ad Hoc reviewed options related to the Downtown Housing Plan and
consideration of whether this effort should continue in light of SB 79 broader reach over the
Downtown area. Discontinuing work on the Downtown Housing Plan would not require the City
to return MTC grant funds that have already been paid to the City.
Four SB 79 implementation approaches are listed below. The Ad Hoc recommends a
combination of Approach 2 and 3 below.
Approach 1: No action on SB 79
Under this approach, the default development standards established by SB 79 would
take effect on July 1, 2026, for all qualifying TOD zones. This approach requires no action
by the City and no review by HCD, resulting in automatic compliance with State law.
However, it provides the least amount of local control and community input and does
not protect historic resources.
Approach 2: Adopt a Local Implementing Ordinance / Protect Historic Resources
Under this approach, the default SB 79 standards would still take effect on July 1, 2026,
but the City would adopt an ordinance clarifying the application of SB 79 locally and
identify sites that are exempt. This approach provides additional local control and
community input and allows for the temporary exemption of historic resources.
Adoption of the ordinance would be subject to HCD review; however, prior approval is
not required. If this option were selected, staff recommend adoption of both a
temporary ordinance and an interim urgency ordinance, with the first reading of the
temporary ordinance at tonight’s meeting, followed by a second reading on the consent
calendar on June 15, 2026, at which time the interim urgency measure would also be
introduced and adopted. This approach ensures that there is no “gap,” after July 1, 2026
and before the temporary ordinance becomes effective, where historic resources are
not protected. The permanent ordinance adoption through the Planning and
Transportation Commission (PTC) and City Council will happen later in the year. SB 79
includes a statutory exemption from CEQA review for ordinances that implement the
new state law. All ordinances implementing SB 79 are subject to review and approval by
HCD.
Approach 3: Rezone all TOD eligible sites to allow 50 percent of the SB 79 development p
otential
Pursuant to Government Code Section 65912.161(b), sites can be exempted from SB 79
default standards through January 31, 2032, if they allow at least 50 percent of SB 79
base density standards. Under this approach, the City would amend the zoning to allow
TOD-eligible sites to meet this 50% threshold standard and subsequently exempt those
sites from SB 79 until January 31, 2032. This option provides the city approximately six
years to consider advancing a TOD Alternative Plan to address future housing
production and plan for infrastructure upgrades in anticipation of future growth. The
cities of Los Angeles and San Francisco are both reportedly exploring this option17.
Should the Council select this approach, staff recommend adoption of both a temporary
ordinance and an interim urgency ordinance as explained for Approach 2 above.
Approach 4: Prepare a TOD Alternative Plan
Under this approach, the default SB 79 standards would take effect on July 1, 2026,
while the City concurrently prepares a TOD Alternative Plan applicable to all TOD zones.
The TOD Alternative Plan could include targeted development standards, infrastructure
planning, and a structured community outreach process. Adoption of a TOD Alternative
Plan would render planning efforts such as the Downtown Housing Plan redundant and
may overlap to some degree with other work related to Housing Element Program 3.7:
Objective Design Standards for the SOFA area. The approach, however, provides greater
local control and public input, but would require several hundred thousand dollars for
consultant work and significant staff resources, both of which are currently
unaccounted for and resourced. The TOD Alternative Plan would be subject to HCD
review and approval. The other options do not preclude the Council from adopting a
TOD Alternative Plan in the future, however, selecting Approach 4 without combining it
with Approach 2 and/or 3 would allow for development under the state standards until
17 Cal Matters article, dated April 15, 2026: https://calmatters.org/housing/2026/04/sb-79-implementation/
the TOD Alternative Plan is adopted, potentially creating inconsistencies in development
patterns.
Options for the Downtown Housing Plan:
As noted above, continuing with the Downtown Housing Plan with SB 79 Implementation
Approach 4 is not recommended, but remains an option for the other approaches.
The Council Ad Hoc recommends Option B to continue work on the Downtown Housing Plan.
Option A: Refocus the Downtown Housing Plan on Development Standards:
Redirect the Downtown Housing Plan effort toward developing objective standards for
the downtown area and exploring lot consolidation opportunities. This option would
produce updated development standards but not a completed area plan policy
document. It utilizes existing grant funding productively; supports future objective
standards for SOFA II; allows for nuanced solutions addressing small lot sizes and other
downtown constraints.
Option B: Resume and Complete the Downtown Housing Plan:
Resume the full Downtown Housing Plan effort, modeling the plan on SB 79 standards
while addressing other local considerations. This option results in a completed area plan
policy document.
Option C: Discontinue the Downtown Housing Plan:
Discontinue work on the Downtown Housing Plan, recognizing that SB 79 largely
establishes development potential for the area. This approach recaptures approximately
$378K to the General Fund. Not recommended in part due to concerns expressed about
San Antonio Area Plan and increased housing production in that area but also has
reputational considerations that may impact future funding opportunities.
Proposed Ordinances
Since the May 4, 2026, City Council discussion of this item was continued to a later date. Staff
has identified a potential timing issue associated with implementation of the proposed local
ordinances prior to SB 79’s July 1, 2026, effective date. Specifically, because ordinances are
generally subject to two readings and a 30-day referendum period, an ordinance introduced at
this hearing would not be effective until July 16, 2026, approximately two weeks after SB 79
goes into effect. To address this issue, staff recommends that the City Council adopt interim,
urgency ordinances, which go into effect immediately, on June 15, 2026, as well as the
temporary ordinances provided with this report.
Historic Resource Exemption Ordinance
Add Section 18.14.070 to the PAMC establishing a TOD Combining District;
Apply the TOD Combining District to all sites within a TOD zone except sites excluded
from SB 79 as local historic resources;
Establish development standards for sites subject to the TOD Combining District that
permit development capacity equal to at least 50 percent of the default SB 79
standards;
Temporarily exclude TOD eligible parcels subject to the TOD Combining District from
application of the Government Code Section 65912.157 through one year following
adoption of the City’s seventh cycle Housing Element; and,
Authorize corresponding zoning map updates identifying sites subject to the standards
of the TOD Combining District and sites excluded from SB 79.
The proposed development standards for the TOD combining district are as follows, unless the
underlying zoning is more permissive:
For sites within one-quarter mile of a TOD stop, a maximum floor area ratio of 1.75:1;
For sites located between one-quarter mile and one-half mile of a TOD stop, a maximum
floor area ratio of 1.5:1;
For sites adjacent to a TOD stop, a maximum floor area ratio equal to the greater of
2.25:1;
Minimum setbacks consisting of ten-foot front and rear setbacks and four-foot side
setbacks; and,
Daylight plane standards starting at a height of 16 feet at the property line and
extending at a 45-degree angle.
The TOD Combining District would generally retain underlying zoning district standards
except where modified by the interim TOD development standards.
Relationship Between Temporary/Urgency Ordinances and Future Permanent Zoning
Ordinances
Staff anticipates that the temporary and interim urgency ordinances and companion zoning
ordinances would operate together as a phased implementation framework. The temporary
and urgency ordinances would provide immediate interim protections and development
standards necessary as of July 1, 2026, while the permanent zoning ordinances could allow
more nuanced standards if warranted, and review by the Planning and Transportation
Commission.
This phased approach is intended to:
Avoid a regulatory gap between SB 79’s effective date and completion of local zoning
amendments;
Preserve local planning authority to the maximum extent permitted under State law;
Provide certainty to property owners, residents, and the development community;
Maintain consistency with the City’s ongoing Downtown Housing Plan work program;
and,
Allow additional time for evaluation of whether preparation of a TOD Alternative Plan
is warranted.
NEXT STEPS
If the City Council proceeds with the phased implementation strategy, staff will:
Return for second reading of the temporary ordinances for historic sites and 50% SB 79
capacity on June 15, 2026, as well as interim urgency ordinances covering the same
subject matter;
Prepare permanent ordinances for review by the Planning and Transportation
Commission;
Continue work on the Downtown Housing Plan and coordinate future public
engagement and Planning and Transportation Commission review processes.
FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
ATTACHMENTS
APPROVED BY:
***NOT YET APPROVED***
1
0160153_kb2_20240829_ay
Ordinance No. _____
Interim, Urgency Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Excluding from
the Effect of Government Code Section 65912.157 Those Properties Designated
as Local Historic Resources Pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.49
and Amending the Zoning Map (Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.08.040)
The Council of the City of Palo Alto ORDAINS as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings and Declarations. The City Council finds and declares as follows:
A. On October 10, 2025, the Governor of the State of California signed Senate Bill 79 (SB 79),
which adopted California Government Code sections 65912.155 through 65912.162 and
requires local agencies, effective July 1, 2026, to permit high density residential
development in designated transit-oriented development (TOD) zones within one-half
mile of certain TOD stops.
B. There are three TOD zones in Palo Alto, centered on the Palo Alto, California Avenue, and
San Antonio Road Caltrain stations.
C. California Government Code section 65912.157 sets forth residential development
standards that apply to housing development projects within TOD zones, such as a height
of 75 feet, density of 120 dwelling units per acre, and floor area ratio of 3.5 for projects
within one-quarter mile of a Caltrain station.
D. Government Code section 65912.161, subdivision (b), permits local agencies to exclude
certain properties from compliance with Government Code section 65912.157 by
adopting an ordinance implementing SB 79, including:
a. A site that permits density and residential floor area ratio at no less than 50
percent of the standards specified under Government Code section 65912.157.
b. Sites with a historic resource designated as of January 1, 2025, on a local register.
E. The City Council desire to adopt an ordinance pursuant to Government Code section
65912.161, excluding sites designated as local historic resources on the Palo Alto Historic
Resources Inventory pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapter 16.49.
F. SB 79 charges the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD)
with promulgating regulations relating to the bill by July 1, 2026. SB 79 further chargers
metropolitan planning organizations with creating maps of TOD stops and zones in
accordance with HCD guidance.
G. HCD issued a set of “advisory clarifications on definitions for Metropolitan Planning
Organizations” on March 23, 2026. The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC),
***NOT YET APPROVED***
2
0160153_kb2_20240829_ay
the metropolitan planning organization for the San Francisco Bay Area, released preliminary draft
maps on April 8, 2026.
Pursuant to Government Code section 65912.161, subdivision (b)(1), sites
designated as local historic resources on the Palo Alto Historic Resources Inventory as of January
1, 2025 are hereby temporarily excluded from the application of Government Code section
65912.157. These sites shall be excluded until one year following the adoption of the City’s
seventh cycle Housing Element.
The Director of Planning and Development Services is hereby authorized
and directed to update Section 18.08.040 (the Zoning Map) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto
Municipal Code to indicate which sites within the TOD zones are and are not covered by
Government Code section 65912.157, including sites excluded pursuant to this Ordinance.
Commented [AY1]: Only for urgency.
***NOT YET APPROVED***
3
0160153_kb2_20240829_ay
SECTION 5. The Council finds that the Ordinance is not a project under the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Government Code section 65912.160,
subdivision (c)(2), because it makes the City’s zoning code consistent with the provisions of SB
79 by implementing Government Code section 65912.161, subdivision (b) and amending the
zoning map to indicate which sites are and are not subject to Government Code section
65912.157.
SECTION 6. This Ordinance shall be effective upon adoption by a four-fifths vote
of the City Council and shall expire 45 days thereafter.
OR
This Ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first date after the date of its adoption.
INTRODUCED and PASSED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
____________________________ ____________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
____________________________ ____________________________
Assistant City Attorney City Manager
____________________________
Director of Planning and
Development Services
***NOT YET APPROVED***
3
0160153_kb2_20240829_ay
***NOT YET APPROVED***
4
0160153_kb2_20240829_ay
EXHIBIT A – ZONING MAP
***NOT YET APPROVED***
1
0160153_kb2_20240829_ay
Ordinance No. _____
Interim, Urgency Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Excluding from
the Effect of Government Code Section 65912.157 Those Properties Designated
as Local Historic Resources Pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.49
and Amending the Zoning Map (Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.08.040)
The Council of the City of Palo Alto ORDAINS as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings and Declarations. The City Council finds and declares as follows:
A. On October 10, 2025, the Governor of the State of California signed Senate Bill 79 (SB 79),
which adopted California Government Code sections 65912.155 through 65912.162 and
requires local agencies, effective July 1, 2026, to permit high density residential
development in designated transit-oriented development (TOD) zones within one-half
mile of certain TOD stops.
B. There are three TOD zones in Palo Alto, centered on the Palo Alto, California Avenue, and
San Antonio Road Caltrain stations.
C. California Government Code section 65912.157 sets forth residential development
standards that apply to housing development projects within TOD zones, such as a height
of 75 feet, density of 120 dwelling units per acre, and floor area ratio of 3.5 for projects
within one-quarter mile of a Caltrain station.
D. Government Code section 65912.161, subdivision (b), permits local agencies to exclude
certain properties from compliance with Government Code section 65912.157 by
adopting an ordinance implementing SB 79, including:
a. A site that permits density and residential floor area ratio at no less than 50
percent of the standards specified under Government Code section 65912.157.
b. Sites with a historic resource designated as of January 1, 2025, on a local register.
E. The City Council desire to adopt an ordinance pursuant to Government Code section
65912.161, excluding sites designated as local historic resources on the Palo Alto Historic
Resources Inventory pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapter 16.49.
F. SB 79 charges the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD)
with promulgating regulations relating to the bill by July 1, 2026. SB 79 further chargers
metropolitan planning organizations with creating maps of TOD stops and zones in
accordance with HCD guidance.
G. HCD issued a set of “advisory clarifications on definitions for Metropolitan Planning
Organizations” on March 23, 2026. The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC),
***NOT YET APPROVED***
2
0160153_kb2_20240829_ay
the metropolitan planning organization for the San Francisco Bay Area, released preliminary draft
maps on April 8, 2026.
Section 18.14.070 (Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Combining
District) of Chapter 18.14 (Housing Incentives) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code
is hereby added to read:
18.14.070 Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Combining District
Commented [AY1]: Only for urgency.
***NOT YET APPROVED***
3
0160153_kb2_20240829_ay
(1) For sites within ¼ mile of a TOD stop, unless the underlying district is more
permissive:
Maximum Floor Area Ratio 1.75:1
Minimum setbacks (feet)
Front and rear 10
Side 4
Daylight Plane for lot lines
abutting a low density
residential district (RE, R1,
NV-R1, R2, NV-R2, RMD)
Initial height: 16 feet,
measured at the property line
Slope: 45 degrees
Maximum density None
(2) For sites further than ¼ mile but within ½ mile of a TOD stop, unless the
underlying district is more permissive:
Maximum Floor Area Ratio 1.5:1
Minimum setbacks (feet)
Front and rear 10
Side 4
Daylight Plane for lot lines
abutting a low density
residential district (RE, R1,
NV-R1, R2, NV-R2, RMD)
Initial height: 16 feet,
measured at the property line
Slope: 45 degrees
Maximum density None
(3) For sites adjacent to a TOD stop, Maximum Floor Area Ratio shall be the greater
of 2.25 or the FAR provided in the underlying zone.
SECTION 3. Pursuant to Government Code section 65912.161, subdivision (b)(1), sites
subject to the TOD Combining District are hereby temporarily excluded from the application of
Government Code section 65912.157. These sites shall be excluded until one year following the
adoption of the City’s seventh cycle Housing Element.
SECTION 4. The Director of Planning and Development Services is hereby authorized
and directed to update Section 18.08.040 (the Zoning Map) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto
Municipal Code to indicate which sites within the TOD zones are and are not covered by
Government Code section 65912.157, including sites excluded pursuant to this Ordinance.
SECTION 5. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is
for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent
jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this
Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each
and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not declared invalid or
***NOT YET APPROVED***
4
0160153_kb2_20240829_ay
unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of the Ordinance would be
subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional.
***NOT YET APPROVED***
4
0160153_kb2_20240829_ay
***NOT YET APPROVED***
5
0160153_kb2_20240829_ay
Attachment
Fee Category and Fee Title FY 2026 Recommended Fee Unit Note:
Building Permit Fees
Alternative Fee Arrangement If project is out of scope from a traditional building structure and/or
additional services are required, then an alternative fee
arrangement may be established by the Chief Building Official to
achieve cost recovery. This exception may apply in cases when
construction valuation (commercial), square footage (residential), or
stand-alone fees are not practicable for the project.
Construction and Demolition
Demolition Permit 1,195 per permit Price does not include C&D Fees
Noise Exception 211 each
Electrical Permits
Energy Storage System - Single-Family System 450 per permit
Energy Storage System - Multi-Family / Commercial System 1,000 per permit
Electrical Service - New or Replacement: 400 amp and Greater 958 each
Electrical Service - New or Replacement: Less than 400 amp 621 each
SolarAPP+PV and ESS 450 per permit Available as instant permit
SolarAPP+PV 450 per permit Available as instant permit
Electrical Permits - Electrical Vehicle Charging Stations
Single-Family (Level 1 and 2) 1,327 per station
Single-Family (Level 3) 1,527 per station
Multi-Family / Commercial (Level 1 and 2): 1-6 Stations 4,326 for 1-6 stations
Multi-Family / Commercial (Level 1 and 2): Each addl 6 stations 1,134 for each additional station
Multi-Family / Commercial (Level 3 and 4): 1-6 Stations 5,238 for 1-6 stations
Multi-Family / Commercial (Level 3 and 4): Each addl 6 stations 1,134 for each additional station
Electrical Permits - Photovoltaic Systems
Multi-Family / Commercial System (10kW or less) 1,000 per permit
Multi-Family / Commercial System (11kW-49kW) 1,000 per permit
Multi-Family Commercial System (50kW or greater) 1,000 per permit Plus an additional $7 per kw>51k but less than 250k, $5 per kw>250k.
Single-Family Systems (10kW or less) 450 per permit
Single-Family Systems (greater than 10kW) 450 per permit Plus an additional $15/kw > 15.
Single-Family Systems (Reinstallation) 450 per permit
Mechanical Permits
HVAC Systems (i.e., Air Conditioners, Heat Pumps, Air Handling
Unit): Multi-Family / Commercial (Groups of 5): Direct replacements
902 per permit
HVAC Systems (i.e., Air Conditioners, Heat Pumps, Air Handling
Unit): Multi-Family / Commercial (Groups of 5): New - with curb
1,539 per permit
HVAC Systems (i.e., Air Conditioners, Heat Pumps, Air Handling
Unit): Multi-Family / Commercial (Groups of 5): New - without curb
1,232 per permit
HVAC Systems (i.e., Air Conditioners, Heat Pumps, Air Handling
Unit): Single-Family
714 per permit
Plumbing Permits
Solar Hot Water System 450 per permit
Subdivision - Four or Less Parcels
Conditional Use Permit - Day Care Center 219 each
***NOT YET APPROVED***
5
0160153_kb2_20240829_ay
***NOT YET APPROVED***
6
0160153_kb2_20240829_ay
Item No. 17. Page 1 of 2
1
0
1
0
3
City Council
Supplemental Report
From: Jonathan Lait, Planning and Development Services Director
Meeting Date: June 1, 2026
Item Number: 17
Report #:2605-6428
TITLE
Receive Update and Provide Direction to Staff on the Implementation of Senate Bill 79 (SB 79)
and the Work Related to the Downtown Housing Plan. Adoption of Two Temporary Ordinances
Implementing SB 79, Adopting a Transit Oriented Development Combining District, Excluding
Certain Sites from Government Code Section 65912.157, and Authorizing the Planning and
Development Services Director to Make Corresponding Updates to the Zone Map. CEQA Status:
Exempt Under Government Code section 65912.161(c)(2).
RECOMMENDATION
Staff and the SB 79 / Downtown Housing Plan Ad Hoc recommend that the City Council:
1. Receive an update on the approaches for the implementation of Senate Bill (SB) 79
(2025) and work related to the Downtown Housing Plan;
2. Introduce a temporary ordinance (revised Attachment B) excluding historic resources
designated on the City’s local register as of January 1, 2025, from the development
standards otherwise applicable under SB 79, through one year following adoption of the
City’s 7th Housing Element;
3. Introduce a temporary ordinance (revised Attachment C) establishing development
standards for all transit-oriented development (TOD) eligible parcels subject to SB 79 at
50 percent of the otherwise allowable development capacity authorized under State
law, and simultaneously exempting those properties from default SB 79 standards
through one year following adoption of the City’s 7th Cycle Housing Element;
4. Direct staff to return with interim urgency versions of the above ordinances to be
introduced and adopted on June 15, 2026, when the above ordinances are agendized
for second reading.
5. Direct staff to prepare permanent ordinances to be presented to the Planning and
Transportation Commission, incorporating the provisions of the interim ordinances and
any additional provisions necessary and beneficial in implementation of SB 79.
Item No. 17. Page 2 of 2
1
0
1
0
3
6. Direct staff to continue work to advance and complete the Downtown Housing Plan and
amend the scope of work as appropriate to take into consideration implementation of
SB 79.
BACKGROUND
Following publication of the staff report for this item, staff discovered that preliminary draft
documents had been inadvertently included as Attachments B and C. These documents were
incomplete and included internal comments that were not intended for publication. The
correct attachments are provided with this supplemental memo.
The correct documents include the following, minor changes to regulations for the proposed
TOD Combining District, which were not part of the preliminary drafts:
1. The district does not apply to City-owned properties. Although this allows SB 79’s
default standards to go into effect for such sites, the City retains ultimate control as
the property owner.
2. The ordinance clarifies that the alternative development standards are for transit-
oriented housing development projects and adds a minimum density of 30 du/ac or
5 units, consistent with SB 79 requirements. This makes clear that the overlay
standards cannot be used to construct a single family home.
Notably, the correct attachments are temporary ordinances proposed for two readings, not
interim, urgency ordinances that become effective immediately. While staff does recommend
that the City Council also adopt urgency ordinances, these are proposed to be introduced and
adopted on June 15, 2026.
These attached ordinances are substantially similar to the drafts that were submitted to HCD on
May 28, 2026, in accordance with Government Code section 65912.160(d)(1)(A).
ATTACHMENTS
Supplemental Attachment B: Revised Draft Ordinance Historic Resource Exemption
Supplemental Attachment C: Revised Draft Ordinance 50 Percent SB 79 Development Standards
APPROVED BY:
Jonathan Lait, Planning and Development Services Director
***NOT YET APPROVED***
1
0160191_kb2_20250529_ay
Ordinance No. _____
Temporary Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Excluding from the
Effect of Government Code Section 65912.157 Those Properties Designated as
Local Historic Resources Pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.49 and
Amending the Zoning Map (Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.08.040)
The Council of the City of Palo Alto ORDAINS as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings and Declarations. The City Council finds and declares as follows:
A. On October 10, 2025, the Governor of the State of California signed Senate Bill 79 (SB 79),
which adopted California Government Code sections 65912.155 through 65912.162 and
requires local agencies, effective July 1, 2026, to permit high density residential
development in designated transit-oriented development (TOD) zones within one-half
mile of certain TOD stops.
B. There are three TOD zones in Palo Alto, centered on the Palo Alto, California Avenue, and
San Antonio Road Caltrain stations.
C. California Government Code section 65912.157 sets forth residential development
standards that apply to housing development projects within TOD zones, such as a height
of 75 feet, density of 120 dwelling units per acre, and floor area ratio of 3.5 for projects
within one-quarter mile of a Caltrain station.
D. Government Code section 65912.161, subdivision (b), permits local agencies to exclude
certain properties from compliance with Government Code section 65912.157 by
adopting an ordinance implementing SB 79, including:
a. A site that permits density and residential floor area ratio at no less than 50
percent of the standards specified under Government Code section 65912.157.
b. Sites with a historic resource designated as of January 1, 2025, on a local register.
E. The City Council desire to adopt an ordinance pursuant to Government Code section
65912.161, excluding sites designated as local historic resources on the Palo Alto Historic
Resources Inventory pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapter 16.49.
F. SB 79 charges the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD)
with promulgating regulations relating to the bill by July 1, 2026. SB 79 further chargers
metropolitan planning organizations with creating maps of TOD stops and zones in
accordance with HCD guidance.
G. HCD issued a set of “advisory clarifications on definitions for Metropolitan Planning
Organizations” on March 23, 2026. The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC),
***NOT YET APPROVED***
2
0160191_kb2_20250529_ay
the metropolitan planning organization for the San Francisco Bay Area, released
preliminary draft maps on April 8, 2026.
H. Due to the short time between the issuance of guidance from HCD and MTC and the July
1, 2026 effective date of Government Code section 65912.157, there is insufficient time
for the amendments to the zoning map proposed in this ordinance to be presented for
review by the Planning and Transportation Commission.
I. The City Council finds and declares that the implementation of Government Code section
65912.157 on July 1, 2026 will create significant incentive for redevelopment of
properties in the TOD zones, including projects that would result in the loss of historic
resources. Accordingly, pursuant to PAMC section 18.80.090, the City Council adopts this
ordinance as a temporary measure to preserve the public health, safety, or welfare.
SECTION 2. Pursuant to Government Code section 65912.161, subdivision (b)(1), sites
designated as local historic resources on the Palo Alto Historic Resources Inventory as of January
1, 2025 are hereby temporarily excluded from the application of Government Code section
65912.157. These sites shall be excluded until one year following the adoption of the City’s
seventh cycle Housing Element.
SECTION 3. The Director of Planning and Development Services is hereby authorized
and directed to update Section 18.08.040 (the Zoning Map) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto
Municipal Code to indicate which sites within the TOD zones are and are not covered by
Government Code section 65912.157, including sites excluded pursuant to this Ordinance.
SECTION 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is
for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent
jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this
Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each
and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not declared invalid or
unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of the Ordinance would be
subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION 5. The Council finds that the Ordinance is not a project under the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Government Code section 65912.160,
subdivision (c)(2), because it makes the City’s zoning code consistent with the provisions of SB
79 by implementing Government Code section 65912.161, subdivision (b) and amending the
zoning map to indicate which sites are and are not subject to Government Code section
65912.157.
//
//
//
***NOT YET APPROVED***
3
0160191_kb2_20250529_ay
SECTION 6. This Ordinance shall be effective on the 31st day following its adoption
and shall expire on July 1, 2027 unless extended or superseded.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
____________________________ ____________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
____________________________ ____________________________
Assistant City Attorney City Manager
____________________________
Director of Planning and
Development Services
***NOT YET APPROVED***
1
0160153_kb2_20240829_ay
1
1
8
0
3
Ordinance No. _____
Temporary Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Excluding from the
Effect of Government Code Section 65912.157 Those Properties Designated as
Local Historic Resources Pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.49 and
Amending the Zoning Map (Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.08.040)
The Council of the City of Palo Alto ORDAINS as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings and Declarations. The City Council finds and declares as follows:
A. On October 10, 2025, the Governor of the State of California signed Senate Bill 79 (SB 79),
which adopted California Government Code sections 65912.155 through 65912.162 and
requires local agencies, effective July 1, 2026, to permit high density residential
development in designated transit-oriented development (TOD) zones within one-half
mile of certain TOD stops.
B. There are three TOD zones in Palo Alto, centered on the Palo Alto, California Avenue, and
San Antonio Road Caltrain stations.
C. California Government Code section 65912.157 sets forth residential development
standards that apply to housing development projects within TOD zones, such as a height
of 75 feet, density of 120 dwelling units per acre, and floor area ratio of 3.5 for projects
within one-quarter mile of a Caltrain station.
D. Government Code section 65912.161, subdivision (b), permits local agencies to exclude
certain properties from compliance with Government Code section 65912.157 by
adopting an ordinance implementing SB 79, including:
a. A site that permits density and residential floor area ratio at no less than 50
percent of the standards specified under Government Code section 65912.157.
b. Sites with a historic resource designated as of January 1, 2025, on a local register.
E. The City Council desire to adopt an ordinance pursuant to Government Code section
65912.161, excluding sites designated as local historic resources on the Palo Alto Historic
Resources Inventory pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapter 16.49.
F. SB 79 charges the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD)
with promulgating regulations relating to the bill by July 1, 2026. SB 79 further chargers
metropolitan planning organizations with creating maps of TOD stops and zones in
accordance with HCD guidance.
G. HCD issued a set of “advisory clarifications on definitions for Metropolitan Planning
Organizations” on March 23, 2026. The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC),
***NOT YET APPROVED***
2
0160153_kb2_20240829_ay
1
1
8
0
3
the metropolitan planning organization for the San Francisco Bay Area, released preliminary draft
maps on April 8, 2026.
Section 18.14.070 (Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Combining
District) of Chapter 18.14 (Housing Incentives) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code
is hereby added to read:
18.14.070 Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Combining District
***NOT YET APPROVED***
3
0160153_kb2_20240829_ay
1
1
8
0
3
Daylight Plane for lot lines
abutting a low density
residential district (RE, R1,
NV-R1, R2, NV-R2, RMD)
Initial height: 16 feet,
measured at the property line
Slope: 45 degrees
Maximum density None
Minimum density Greater of:
30 du/ac or 5 units
(2) For sites further than ¼ mile but within ½ mile of a TOD stop, unless the
underlying district is more permissive:
Maximum Residential Floor
Area Ratio 1.5:1
Minimum setbacks (feet)
Front and rear 10
Side 4
Daylight Plane for lot lines
abutting a low density
residential district (RE, R1,
NV-R1, R2, NV-R2, RMD)
Initial height: 16 feet,
measured at the property line
Slope: 45 degrees
Maximum density None
Minimum density Greater of:
30 du/ac or 5 units
(3) For sites adjacent to a TOD stop, Maximum Residential Floor Area Ratio shall
be the greater of 2.25 or the FAR provided in the underlying zone.
SECTION 3. Pursuant to Government Code section 65912.161, subdivision (b)(1), sites
subject to the TOD Combining District are hereby temporarily excluded from the application of
Government Code section 65912.157. These sites shall be excluded until one year following the
adoption of the City’s seventh cycle Housing Element.
SECTION 4. The Director of Planning and Development Services is hereby authorized
and directed to update Section 18.08.040 (the Zoning Map) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto
Municipal Code to indicate which sites within the TOD zones are and are not covered by
Government Code section 65912.157, including sites excluded pursuant to this Ordinance.
SECTION 5. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is
for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent
jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this
Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each
and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not declared invalid or
unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of the Ordinance would be
subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional.
***NOT YET APPROVED***
4
0160153_kb2_20240829_ay
1
1
8
0
3
SECTION 6. The Council finds that the Ordinance is not a project under the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Government Code section 65912.160,
subdivision (c)(2), because it makes the City’s zoning code consistent with the provisions of SB
79 as set forth in Government Code section 65912.161, subdivision (b), and by amending the
zoning map to indicate which sites are and are not subject to Government Code section
65912.157.
SECTION 7. This Ordinance shall be effective on the 31st day following its adoption
and shall expire on July 1, 2027 unless extended or superseded.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
____________________________ ____________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
____________________________ ____________________________
Assistant City Attorney City Manager
____________________________
Director of Planning and
Development Services
From:Ali Sapirman
To:Council, City; Burt, Patrick; Lauing, Ed; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer;
Veenker, Vicki
Subject:Re: Oppose Ordinances Delaying SB 79
Date:Monday, June 1, 2026 10:53:46 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Reupping this letter for tonight's council meeting.
On Mon, May 4, 2026 at 12:58 PM Ali Sapirman <ali@housingactioncoalition.org> wrote:
Dear Mayor and City Council,
Please see the attached letter on behalf of The Housing Action Coalition on the Council's
decision on how to implement SB 79.
--
Ali Sapirman | Pronouns: They/Them
Advocacy & Policy Manager| Housing Action Coalition
555 Montgomery St, San Francisco, CA 94111
Cell: (407) 739-8818 | Email: ali@housingactioncoalition.org
To opt out of all HAC emails, respond to this email with "unsubscribe all".
--
Ali Sapirman | Pronouns: They/Them
Advocacy & Policy Manager| Housing Action Coalition
555 Montgomery St, San Francisco, CA 94111
Cell: (407) 739-8818 | Email: ali@housingactioncoalition.org
To opt out of all HAC emails, respond to this email with "unsubscribe all".
From:slevy@ccsce.com
To:Council, City
Cc:Lait, Jonathan; Knight, Julia
Subject:Daily Post headline on SB79 agenda item
Date:Monday, June 1, 2026 10:42:15 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
The headline says "Scramble to block tall buildings"
I hope the "block tall buildings" is not correct, more about that below.
But it does look like a "scramble" to me undercutting the claim to have an open and
transparent process inviting public discussion.
This could have been heard and discussed over the past two months if council and staff had
considered it "urgent" enough to schedule the item when it would be heard and at a time
when most people could participate.
This did not happen not once or twice but not three times so I do not accept that council
finds this "urgent"
With regard to "block tall buildings" I hope the council does not completely undercut the fine
work done to get a pro-housing designation approved.
While I favor option 4, if the council approves option 3, please change the language to "at
least 50%" and direct staff to come back with a large set of adjacent sites for which full SB
79 density isapproved.
Stephen Levy
From:Clerk, City
To:Council, City
Subject:FW: Support SB 79
Date:Monday, June 1, 2026 10:02:42 AM
From: Nicholas Feinberg <noreply@adv.actionnetwork.org>
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2026 5:11 PM
To: Clerk, City <City.Clerk@PaloAlto.gov>
Subject: Support SB 79
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Palo Alto Palo Alto City Clerk,
I'm a lifelong South Bay resident who commuted to work in Palo Alto for many years. I'm
asking that you support the housing requirements for SB 79, rather than attempting to
implement an emergency stop.
This entire region has been in a massive housing crisis for over a decade now.
Homelessness is rife, and many people are being driven out. We need more housing so that
people can continue to live in this wonderful area, and we should not be overly precious
about the status quo. Today's eyesore is tomorrow's heritage, etc.
For the sake of my children, please support high density housing. Allow SB 79 to proceed as
enacted.
Thanks!
Nicholas Feinberg
nick.feinberg@gmail.com
Mountain View, California 94041
From:Clerk, City
To:Council, City
Subject:FW: Don"t delay SB 79!
Date:Monday, June 1, 2026 10:02:27 AM
From: Mary Stimmler <noreply@adv.actionnetwork.org>
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2026 5:23 PM
To: Clerk, City <City.Clerk@PaloAlto.gov>
Subject: Don't delay SB 79!
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Palo Alto Palo Alto City Clerk,
I'm writing to urge the Council not to proceed with ordinances delaying implementation of SB
79 (Wiener), and to raise two concerns about the process recommended in Staff Report
#2603-6132.
Palo Alto has both the opportunity and the obligation to add housing near transit. As a major
employment center well-served by Caltrain and key bus corridors, SB 79 offers a framework
for doing so with objective standards that reduce delays and uncertainty. Delaying that
framework undermines the region's housing and climate goals.
If the Council is nonetheless inclined to proceed, I raise two concerns:
First, the public deserves more information before the Council acts. Staff Report #2603-6132
does not provide sufficient information to evaluate the proposed ordinances. The public
should have access to the actual number of locally designated historic resources within SB
79's TOD Eligibility Areas, and current allowable densities and heights across SB 79-eligible
sites — without which no one can assess what it means to cap development at 50% of SB
79's minimum densities.
Second, an emergency ordinance is not the appropriate vehicle. Under California
Government Code Section 65858(a), emergency land use ordinances exist to protect public
safety, health, and welfare. New housing near transit does not meet that bar. Any ordinance
delaying SB 79 should go through the normal legislative process, with adequate time for
public input.
California's housing challenges require urgency. I urge you to allow SB 79 to take effect as
intended.
Mary Stimmler
mary.kate.stimmler@gmail.com
Palo Alto, California 94301
From:Clerk, City
To:Council, City
Subject:FW: Don"t delay SB 79!
Date:Monday, June 1, 2026 10:02:12 AM
From: Rachel Gilbert <noreply@adv.actionnetwork.org>
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2026 5:40 PM
To: Clerk, City <City.Clerk@PaloAlto.gov>
Subject: Don't delay SB 79!
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Palo Alto Palo Alto City Clerk,
I'm writing to urge the Council not to proceed with ordinances delaying implementation of SB
79 (Wiener), and to raise two concerns about the process recommended in Staff Report
#2603-6132.
Palo Alto has both the opportunity and the obligation to add housing near transit. As a major
employment center well-served by Caltrain and key bus corridors, SB 79 offers a framework
for doing so with objective standards that reduce delays and uncertainty. Delaying that
framework undermines the region's housing and climate goals.
If the Council is nonetheless inclined to proceed, I raise two concerns:
First, the public deserves more information before the Council acts. Staff Report #2603-6132
does not provide sufficient information to evaluate the proposed ordinances. The public
should have access to the actual number of locally designated historic resources within SB
79's TOD Eligibility Areas, and current allowable densities and heights across SB 79-eligible
sites — without which no one can assess what it means to cap development at 50% of SB
79's minimum densities.
Second, an emergency ordinance is not the appropriate vehicle. Under California
Government Code Section 65858(a), emergency land use ordinances exist to protect public
safety, health, and welfare. New housing near transit does not meet that bar. Any ordinance
delaying SB 79 should go through the normal legislative process, with adequate time for
public input.
California's housing challenges require urgency. I urge you to allow SB 79 to take effect as
intended. Thank you.
Rachel Gilbert
rgilbert66@hotmail.com
Mountain View, California 94043
From:Clerk, City
To:Council, City
Subject:FW: Don"t delay SB 79!
Date:Monday, June 1, 2026 10:01:28 AM
From: Naphtali Knox <noreply@adv.actionnetwork.org>
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2026 6:36 PM
To: Clerk, City <City.Clerk@PaloAlto.gov>
Subject: Don't delay SB 79!
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Palo Alto Palo Alto City Clerk,
Dear Councilmembers,
Please do NOT proceed with ordinances delaying implementation of SB 79 (Wiener).
We have both the need and the opportunity to add housing near transit. I have lived in Palo
Alto 54 years. Our city is a major employment center well-served by Caltrain and key
buseays. SB 79 offers a way for us to add housing strategically using objective standards
that reduce delays and uncertainty. Delay in implementing SB79 we’ll only undermine our
housing goals and aspirations.
Naphtali Knox
knoxnaph@gmail.com
Palo Alto, California 94301
From:Clerk, City
To:Council, City
Subject:FW: Don"t delay SB 79!
Date:Monday, June 1, 2026 10:01:17 AM
From: Blair MacDonald <noreply@adv.actionnetwork.org>
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2026 8:47 PM
To: Clerk, City <City.Clerk@PaloAlto.gov>
Subject: Don't delay SB 79!
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Palo Alto Palo Alto City Clerk,
I'm writing to urge the Council not to proceed with ordinances delaying implementation of SB
79 (Wiener), and to raise two concerns about the process recommended in Staff Report
#2603-6132.
Palo Alto has both the opportunity and the obligation to add housing near transit. As a major
employment center well-served by Caltrain and key bus corridors, SB 79 offers a framework
for doing so with objective standards that reduce delays and uncertainty. Delaying that
framework undermines the region's housing and climate goals.
If the Council is nonetheless inclined to proceed, I raise two concerns:
First, the public deserves more information before the Council acts. Staff Report #2603-6132
does not provide sufficient information to evaluate the proposed ordinances. The public
should have access to the actual number of locally designated historic resources within SB
79's TOD Eligibility Areas, and current allowable densities and heights across SB 79-eligible
sites — without which no one can assess what it means to cap development at 50% of SB
79's minimum densities.
Second, an emergency ordinance is not the appropriate vehicle. Under California
Government Code Section 65858(a), emergency land use ordinances exist to protect public
safety, health, and welfare. New housing near transit does not meet that bar. Any ordinance
delaying SB 79 should go through the normal legislative process, with adequate time for
public input.
California's housing challenges require urgency. I urge you to allow SB 79 to take effect as
intended.
Blair MacDonald
blair.michael.macdonald@gmail.com
, 94043
From:Rob Nielsen
To:Council, City
Cc:Planning Commission
Subject:SB 79 Implementation (Item 17)
Date:Monday, June 1, 2026 12:29:41 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
My name is Rob Nielsen. I live in Midtown and support efforts to promote more
homes.
On the issue of SB 79 implementation, I request that you modify the emergency
ordinances to allow SB 79 to go into effect in places where the city already plans for
new homes. These would include the Downtown Housing Plan area, along El Camino
Real and California Ave, the Transit Center, and the San Antonio area as well as
Housing Element sites.
Much work has been put into identifying these areas and in garnering public support
for these choices. There is no need to delay action for a few years if a good SB79-
aligned proposal comes in for such a site.
If Palo Alto wants to be considered a pro-housing city, we should embrace state law
in the places near transit where we want more homes.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely yours,
Rob Nielsen
From:Jeff Levinsky
To:Council, City
Subject:Possible Flaws in Proposed Ordinance for SB 79 (Item #17 on June 1, 2026 Agenda)
Date:Sunday, May 31, 2026 9:42:45 PM
Dear City Council Members:
Here are some concerns about the proposed ordinance in Attachment C on Monday’s agenda
regarding SB 79 (Item #17):
1) Upzones Non SB-79 Projects: The proposed ordinance will add a new section 18.14.070
into our Municipal Code to offer 50% of the upzoning SB 79 allows, enabling us to forestall the
full SB 79 upzoning until 2032. However, the text of the proposed ordinance appears to offer
this upzoning to projects ineligible for SB 79.
It’s important to remember that SB 79 only upzones projects that contain at least five
residential units at a minimum density of at least 30 units per acre (California Government
Code section 65912.157(a)(1)), are no larger than 1,750 square feet on average (California
Government Code section 65912.157(a)(2)) are not hotels and the like (California Government
Code section 65912.156(g)), and meet other requirements as well.
Without these restrictions being clearly echoed or referenced in the proposed ordinance, it
appears we will upzone for all projects within the ½ mile radius. For example, the ordinance
appears to allow an R-1 parcel within ¼ mile of a train station to build a single residence at
1.75 FAR (that’s 8,750 square feet on a 5,000 square foot lot), even though SB 79 itself would
not allow this and it is many times larger than we permit today.
Perhaps the proposed ordinance language should clearly state it only applies to housing
development projects as defined by SB 79.1
2) Unnecessary Daylight Plane Changes: The same proposed ordinance text alters our
daylight plane rules and eliminates them entirely in some cases. Yet SB 79 does not require
this. Rather, it only states that a “local government shall not enforce any other local
development standard or combination of standards that would physically preclude achieving a
residential floor area ratio” allowed by the law.(California Government Code section
65912.157(a)(3)(C) et. al.).
In practice, this could mean that if applicants claim they cannot fit a building with the allowed
floor area into the daylight plane and the City verifies this is true, the City could have a waiver
process to accommodate relaxed daylight planes. This verification and waiver allowance could
be inserted into the proposed ordinance.
3) Unnecessary Setback Changes: By the same argument, there is no need to change the
minimum setbacks in the ordinance. The same verification and waiver process could be used
for projects unable to accommodate our current setback laws.
4) Unnecessary Maximum Density Elimination: The proposed ordinance eliminates our
maximum density standards, but SB 79 itself does not. Rather it establishes maximum
densities, as noted in the table on page 3 of the staff report. Why not just have our proposed
ordinance set the maximums to half of the densities allowed under SB 79?
---
Apart from the above comments on the proposed ordinance, please note that the discussion
in the staff report about AB 2097 says we cannot enforce minimum parking requirements
within ½ mile of our train stations. As I think the Council knows, AB 2097 does allow us to
enforce (and we do!) minimum requirements for both accessible parking and electric vehicle
charging stations. Our rules for this are at §18.52.040(a)(1)B.
Thank you,
Jeff Levinsky
1Technical Note: The proposed ordinance relies on California Government Code section
65912.161(b)(1)(A), which allows for the temporary exemption from SB 79 for “A site that has
been identified by the local jurisdiction which permits density and residential floor area ratio
at no less than 50 percent of the standards specified under subdivision (a) of Section
65912.157.” That referenced subdivision contains the requirements noted above that the
project have at least five units averaging no more than 1,750 square feet each, etc. It provides
no standards for projects that do not comply with those requirements. So unless there is
reason to think otherwise, our local ordinance can parallel the state law, namely allow SB 79-
eligible projects to have density and residential floor area of 50% of what SB 79 otherwise
allows and not upzone projects ineligible for SB 79.
From:Amy Krystosik
To:Council, City
Subject:Item 17/sb79
Date:Sunday, May 31, 2026 2:36:40 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Please cooperate with sb79
I am a mother with a young family.
Amy krystosik
309 Grant Ave
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to you.
Mark Safe Report
From:Elizabeth Greenfield
To:Council, City
Subject:Item #17 at 6/1 City Council Mtg: SB 79 implementation comment
Date:Saturday, May 30, 2026 2:35:53 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
To the Palo Alto City Council:
I support permitting 5-7 story buildings within 0.5 miles of both of the Caltrain stations. Those
are the places where we should densify in the City. Many people of my demographic (I'm 29)
would love to be in an apartment next to Caltrain, and would be less likely to need to own a
car. This is great for the city, the world (greenhouse gas emissions), and the people who get to
live there.
5-7 stories are not like the 12 and 14 story towers that have recently been approved on the
Mollie Stones site. 5-7 stories is low enough that it feels like a community, but significantly
more dense than most of the buildings now. Think of downtown Sunnyvale.
I live at 3476 Waverley St, where I have lived the majority of my life. I have a masters in
urban planning.
Best,
Elizabeth Greenfield
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to you.
Mark Safe Report
From:Business TAB + CCS
To:Council, City
Subject:Urgent matter for Monday June 1st meeting. Item #17
Date:Saturday, May 30, 2026 12:24:01 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Members of the City Council,
I urge the Council to adopt a more nuanced approach regarding SB79, rather than applying
broad-stroke legislation across Palo Alto. It is essential to examine how this bill impacts
specific areas differently, particularly by distinguishing between residential neighborhoods
adjacent to single-family homes and the urban core.
I believe that redevelopment in the core of Palo Alto, specifically in areas like California
Avenue, is vital for its recovery and long-term success. Further development will bring new
life to the area, supporting all local businesses and providing Palo Alto with a prestigious,
positive destination. Encouraging growth in this urban center will foster community
participation and create a necessary foundation for the rest of the city to thrive.This growth is
critical for existing businesses and essential for bringing new business to the area.
While I recognize that less urban areas should maintain lower density, allowing for strategic
growth in our more urbanized zones will serve as a strong foundation for the future of
California Avenue and the entire Palo Alto community.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Best regards,
Dritan Azemi of Casual Chic Salon
Sent from Dritan (Dri) Azemi’s iPhone
For further inquiry call or text:
Business Line # (1) 650.272.6833 (Text/Call)
Business Line # (2) 650.382.2263 (Text/Call)
Non Business Personal Line 650.656.5223 (Text/Call)
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
From:Gina Dalma
To:Council, City
Cc:Planning Commission
Subject:SB 79 Implementation (Item 17) + Expansion of the Rental Registry (Item 3) Public Comment
Date:Saturday, May 30, 2026 11:15:49 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
My name is Gina Dalma and I live in Midtown. I support efforts to promote more homes and
protect tenants.
re SB 79 implementation, please modify the emergency ordinances to allow SB 79 to go into
effect in places where the city already plans for new homes: The Downtown Housing Plan
area, along El Camino Real and Cal Ave, the Transit Center, San Antonio, and other areas. I
want to live in a diverse and inclusive community. We need to embrace state law in the places
near transit where we want more homes.
re Tenant Protections and the rental registry, please plan to revisit expansion of the rental
registry next year, as opposed to deferring it indefinitely. Single family homes make up a
growing share of the rental market, and having more data about them can help the city make
more informed decisions about tenant protections.
Please support more homes for all in our community,
Gina
From:Garrett Clark
To:Council, City
Cc:Planning Commission
Subject:SB 79 Implementation (Item 17) + Expansion of the Rental Registry (Item 3) Public Comment
Date:Friday, May 29, 2026 5:13:49 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking
on links.
My name is Garrett Clark and I live in Downtown North. I support efforts to promote more homes and protect
tenants.
re SB 79 implementation, please modify the emergency ordinances to allow SB 79 to go into effect in places where
the city already plans for new homes: The Downtown Housing Plan area, along El Camino Real and Cal Ave, the
Transit Center, San Antonio, and other areas. If Palo Alto wants to be considered a pro-housing city, we should
embrace state law in the places near transit where we want more homes.
re Tenant Protections and the rental registry, please plan to revisit expansion of the rental registry next year, as
opposed to deferring it indefinitely. Single family homes make up a growing share of the rental market, and having
more data about them can help the city make more informed decisions about tenant protections.
Thank you for your leadership to support homes for all in our community,
Garrett Clark
From:Jeremy Levine, Palo Alto Forward
To:Council, City
Cc:Scottoneil; Chao Lam
Subject:Public Comment Agenda Item 17: Implementing SB 79 Effectively and Legally
Date:Friday, May 29, 2026 5:07:37 PM
Attachments:2026.5.29 Public Comment on SB-79 Implementation.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Good afternoon Mayor Veenker and the Palo Alto City Council,
Please see the attached comment with Palo Alto Forward's perspective regarding the
implementation of SB 79. The letter includes legal language to amend Attachment C in the
staff report such that it would better promote housing in the places where the City has already
planned for it.
We hope the city will leverage the law strategically to address our housing needs, promote
homes near transit, and build a more inclusive community.
Thank you for your consideration. I'd love to see you all at our Cal Ave Housing Walking
Tour this Sunday,
Jeremy
--
Jeremy Levine (he • him)
Executive Director, Palo Alto Forward
(650) 485-0127
May 29, 2026
Palo Alto City Council
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
RE: Agenda Item 17, Implementation of SB 79
To the Palo Alto City Council,
Palo Alto Forward works to expand housing and transportation choices in our community. In
furthering our mission, we want the city to implement SB 79 in a way that maximizes housing
options near transportation in our community, promoting housing affordability, walkability, and
transit access.
Though Palo Alto Forward would support the city implementing SB 79 as written, we do not
object to the City Council moving forward with legislation that “right-sizes” application of SB 79
in Palo Alto, focusing housing opportunity in the places we want it to go and limiting the impact
on historic sites.
To promote housing in the places that make the most sense, the City should allow SB 79
to go into effect in select areas where plans for denser homes are already under way.
Long run, these are the places where Palo Alto will likely plan for denser housing in its local
alternative plans. Short run, SB 79 provides a tool to further transit-oriented homes in places
that Palo Alto has already approved or been planning for higher-density zoning such as the
Downtown Housing Plan, the University Station Transit Center, El Camino Real, the San
Antonio Road Area Plan, and the Cal Ave corridor.
In the appendix below, we suggest specific language modifying Attachment C, an urgency
ordinance that would zone all sites within the half mile of Palo Alto’s Caltrain stations to 50% of
the SB 79 standards. Our suggested language would allow SB 79 to go into full effect in specific
areas that align with the City’s preexisting housing plans and housing element site inventory.
Allowing SB 79 to take full effect in the listed areas will further the city’s preexisting housing
goals and its application for the Pro-Housing Designation, reflecting the improving reputation of
Palo Alto as a community that embraces new homes.
Furthermore, by allowing SB 79 to go into effect in areas near transit where the city already
planned for new homes, Palo Alto would strengthen the findings of its urgency
ordinance—which are otherwise unconvincing pretenses. Both state and local law only allow
urgency ordinances upon findings that the ordinance is necessary to “preserve the public health,
safety, or welfare.” Housing near transit—especially when required by the state’s own
legislature, much of it in locations for which the City already planned for additional homes—is
not a threat to public health, safety, or welfare; rather, such homes bring broad community
benefits, including customers to local stores, riders to public transit, employees near jobs.
Overall, we do not understand the logic behind a legally dubious urgency ordinance for a 50%
reduction in SB 79 densities as opposed to allowing the law to go into effect and then pursuing a
full local alternative plan. Other cities nearby, including Menlo Park and Mountain View, have
opted to exempt historic sites but otherwise allow SB 79 to go into effect. If Menlo Park can
embrace SB 79, then so can our community.
However, Palo Alto Forward sees our proposed language as a compromise solution. Not only
will it show the State that the City is serious about facilitating new housing development in areas
of the City already identified for higher density housing, but it will also bolster urgency findings
for limiting SB 79, such as "unanticipated strain” on public infrastructure, when that suspension
is being applied only in areas of Palo Alto that weren’t already viewed as suitable for
higher-density housing by the city’s own planning efforts.
We hope the City will begin working on a local alternative plan that maximizes the benefits of SB
79 as soon as possible. In the interim, we urge the City to support SB 79 in the locations where
it already anticipates growth, balancing housing needs with other city priorities.
Thank you for your consideration,
Jeremy Levine
Executive Director, Palo Alto Forward
[SUGGESTED EDITS TO DRAFT ORDINANCE IN RED TEXT BELOW]
Ordinance No. _____
Interim, Urgency Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Excluding from
the Effect of Government Code Section 65912.157 Those Properties Designated
as Local Historic Resources Pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.49
and Amending the Zoning Map (Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.08.040)
The Council of the City of Palo Alto ORDAINS as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings and Declarations. The City Council finds and declares as follows:
A. On October 10, 2025, the Governor of the State of California signed Senate Bill 79 (SB 79),
which adopted California Government Code sections 65912.155 through 65912.162 and
requires local agencies, effective July 1, 2026, to permit high density residential development in
designated transit-oriented development (TOD) zones within one-half mile of certain TOD stops.
B. There are three TOD zones in Palo Alto, centered on the Palo Alto, California Avenue, and
San Antonio Road Caltrain stations.
C. California Government Code section 65912.157 sets forth residential development standards
that apply to housing development projects within TOD zones, such as a height of 75 feet,
density of 120 dwelling units per acre, and floor area ratio of 3.5 for projects within one-quarter
mile of a Caltrain station.
D. Government Code section 65912.161, subdivision (b), permits local agencies to exclude
certain properties from compliance with Government Code section 65912.157 by adopting an
ordinance implementing SB 79, including:
a. A site that permits density and residential floor area ratio at no less than 50 percent of
the standards specified under Government Code section 65912.157.
b. Sites with a historic resource designated as of January 1, 2025, on a local register.
E. The City Council desire to adopt an ordinance pursuant to Government Code section
65912.161, excluding sites designated as local historic resources on the Palo Alto Historic
Resources Inventory pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapter 16.49.
F. SB 79 charges the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD)
with promulgating regulations relating to the bill by July 1, 2026. SB 79 further chargers
metropolitan planning organizations with creating maps of TOD stops and zones in accordance
with HCD guidance.
G. HCD issued a set of “advisory clarifications on definitions for Metropolitan Planning
Organizations” on March 23, 2026. The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), the
metropolitan planning organization for the San Francisco Bay Area, released preliminary draft
maps on April 8, 2026.
H. Due to the short time between the issuance of guidance from HCD and MTC and the July 1,
2026 effective date of Government Code section 65912.157, there is insufficient time for the
amendments to the zoning map proposed in this ordinance to be presented for review by the
Planning and Transportation Commission. Accordingly, pursuant to PAMC section 18.80.090,
the City Council adopts this ordinance as a temporary measure to preserve the public health,
safety, or welfare.
I. The City Council finds and declares that the implementation of Government Code section
65912.157 on July 1, 2026 will create significant incentive for redevelopment of properties in the
TOD zones that the City has not already identified as being suitable locations for
higher-density development, allow at densities that would create unanticipated strain on
public infrastructure and cause additional points of conflict between vehicles and bicycles or
pedestrians in the effected areas. The rezoning and exclusion actions set forth in this ordinance
would reduce these impacts for a temporary period, during which the City may plan for
increased demands on infrastructure and transportation resources. Accordingly, this ordinance
is necessary as an emergency measure pursuant to PAMC section 2.04.270 to preserve the
public peace, health, or safety.
J. Additionally, the City Council finds and declares that the impacts described above present a
current and immediate threat to the public health, safety, or welfare that would be realized by
approval of projects under the standards set forth in Government Code section 65912.157.
There are no pending project applications that would be impacted by this ordinance and this
ordinance would not have the effect of denying any approvals needed for the development of
projects containing multifamily housing. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, this
ordinance is necessary as an interim, urgency measure pursuant to Government Code section
65858 to protect the public health, safety, or welfare.
SECTION 2. Section 18.14.070 (Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Combining District) of
Chapter 18.14 (Housing Incentives) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is
hereby added to read:
18.14.070 Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Combining District
(a) Purpose. The purpose of the TOD Combining District is to implement Senate Bill 79 (2025),
California Government Code sections 65912.155 through 65912.162. For purposes of this
section, definitions in California Government Code section 65912.156 shall apply.
(b) Applicability. The TOD Combining District shall apply to all sites within a TOD zone, except:
(i) sites designated as local historic resources on the Palo Alto Historic Resources Inventory as
of January 1, 2025; (ii) sites located in the Downtown Housing Plan Assessment Area; (iii)
sites with frontages on California Avenue between El Camino Real and the Caltrain
right-of-way; (iv) the Palo Alto Transit Center (95 University Avenue); (v) sites with
frontages on El Camino Real; and (vi) sites with frontages on Alma Street; (vii) sites with
frontages on Cambridge Avenue, New Mayfield Avenue, Jacaranda Lane, and Sherman
Avenue; and (viii) sites with frontages on San Antonio Road.
[NO COMMENTS ON REMAINDER OF DRAFT ORDINANCE]
From:Rachel Miller
To:Council, City
Cc:Planning Commission
Subject:SB 79 Implementation (Item 17) Public Comment
Date:Friday, May 29, 2026 4:24:38 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking
on links.
My name is Rachel Miller and I live in Downtown North. I support efforts to promote more homes.
re SB 79 implementation, please modify the emergency ordinances to allow SB 79 to go into effect in places where
the city already plans for new homes: The Downtown Housing Plan area, along El Camino Real and Cal Ave, the
Transit Center, San Antonio, and other areas. If Palo Alto wants to be considered a pro-housing city, we should
embrace state law in the places near transit where we want more homes.
Thank you for your leadership to support homes for all in our community,
Rachel Miller
Sent from my iPhone
From:Jean Pressey
To:Council, City
Cc:Planning Commission
Subject:SB 79 Implementation (Item 17) + Expansion of the Rental Registry (Item 3) Public Comment
Date:Friday, May 29, 2026 4:12:49 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
My name is Jean Pressey and I live in downtown. I very strongly support efforts to promote
more homes.
re SB 79 implementation, please modify the emergency ordinances to allow SB 79 to go into
effect in places where the city already plans for new homes: The Downtown Housing Plan
area, along El Camino Real and Cal Ave, the Transit Center, San Antonio, and other areas.
Palo Alto should embrace state law in the places near transit where we want more homes.
Near transit is the logical place. We should be spending city dollars on more effective ways to
implement this law, rather than fighting it.
We often hear arguments that new housing creates more traffic, but that is not true. The
number of cars that drive into Palo Alto every day for jobs exceeds the available housing by a
vast number. If we have more housing, it will mean fewer cars and parking issues,
especially if it is near transit.
re Tenant Protections and the rental registry, please plan to revisit expansion of the rental
registry next year, as opposed to deferring it indefinitely. Single family homes make up a
growing share of the rental market, and having more data about them can help the city make
more informed decisions about tenant protections. In fact, what we need is an effort to make
more homes available for rent by legislating against "ghost" homes that have been
purchased purely for investment without any intent to live in them. I'm sure we all can name a
few; I personally could point out three. This is an outrage and harmful for neighborhoods.
Thank you for supporting homes for all in our community,
Jean Pressey
850 Webster
Palo Alto
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
From:Scott.Gesundheit@hklaw.com
To:Council, City; Clerk, City
Cc:Ryan.Leaderman@hklaw.com; Ah Yun, Mahealani; Reckdahl, Keith; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Lu, George; Lauing,
Ed; Burt, Patrick; Stone, Greer; Veenker, Vicki; HAUPortal@hcd.ca.gov; housing@doj.ca.gov;
Chris.Jensen@cityofpaloalto.org; Arellano, Caio; megan.kirkeby@hcd.ca.gov
Subject:Item 17 — Opposition to Draft Ordinance Establishing 50 Percent SB 79 Development Standards (Attachment C);
June 1, 2026 City Council Hearing
Date:Friday, May 29, 2026 2:27:43 PM
Attachments:05.29.26 Letter to Palo Alto City Council on 414 California Avenue.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 find the attached letter on Item 17, in advance of Monday’s City Council hearing.
Thanks for your attention.
Best,
Scott
Scott Gesundheit | Holland & Knight
Associate
Holland & Knight LLP
560 Mission Street, Suite 1900 | San Francisco, California 94105
Phone +1.415.743.6917 | Fax +1.415.743.6910
scott.gesundheit@hklaw.com | www.hklaw.com
________________________________________________
Add to address book | View professional biography
NOTE: This e-mail is from a law firm, Holland & Knight LLP ("Holland & Knight"), and is intended solely for the use of
the individual(s) to whom it is addressed. If you believe you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender
immediately, delete the e-mail from your computer and do not copy or disclose it to anyone else. If you are not an
existing client of Holland & Knight, do not construe anything in this e-mail to make you a client unless it contains a
specific statement to that effect and do not disclose anything to Holland & Knight in reply that you expect it to hold in
confidence. If you properly received this e-mail as a client, co-counsel or retained expert of Holland & Knight, you
should maintain its contents in confidence in order to preserve the attorney-client or work product privilege that may be
available to protect confidentiality.
This message needs your attention
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
560 Mission Street, Suite 1900 | San Francisco, California 94105 | T +1.415.743.6900 | F +1.415.743.6910
Algiers | Atlanta | Austin | Birmingham | Bogotá | Boston | Century City | Charlotte | Chattanooga
Chicago | Dallas | Denver | Fort Lauderdale | Houston | Jacksonville | London | Los Angeles | Mexico City
Miami | Monterrey | Nashville | Newport Beach | New York | Orlando | Philadelphia | Portland | Richmond
May 29, 2026
via email (city.council@paloalto.gov)
Mayor and Members of the City Council
City of Palo Alto
Re: Item 17 — Opposition to Draft Ordinance Establishing 50 Percent SB 79
Development Standards (Attachment C); June 1, 2026 City Council Hearing
Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council:
This firm represents 414 California Ave., LLC (the "Applicant"), the owner of real property
located at 414 California Avenue, Palo Alto, California (APN 124-32-040) (the "Project
Site"). The Project Site, which currently contains a shuttered bank building and a surface parking
lot, is presently planned for a mixed-use, transit-oriented housing project, consisting of multi-
family residential units, subterranean parking and ground-floor retail/restaurant uses (the
“Project”). The Project Site is located less than one-quarter mile from the pedestrian entrance to
the California Avenue Caltrain station. As such, the Project Site qualifies as a Tier 1 transit-
oriented development ("TOD") site under Senate Bill 79 ("SB 79"), codified at Government
Code Sections 65912.155 through 65912.162, which takes effect on July 1, 2026.
The Applicant urges the City Council not to adopt the draft ordinance presented as
Attachment C to the June 1, 2026 Staff Report (the "Draft Ordinance"). The Draft Ordinance
does not satisfy the statutory prerequisites for a local exclusion under Government Code Section
65912.161(b)(1) because it fails to provide at least 50 percent of the density capacity mandated
by SB 79. If the California Department of Housing and Community Development ("HCD")
determines that the Draft Ordinance is not in substantial compliance with state law, the local
exclusion will fall away and the full, unmodified SB 79 development standards will apply to all
eligible parcels in Palo Alto. This creates precisely the regulatory gap that the City's own staff
has warned against, and it is an outcome that does not serve the City or its residents.
May 29, 2026
Page 2
#539284517_v1
1. Statutory Framework
Government Code Section 65912.161(b) provides a narrow mechanism by which a local
government may temporarily exclude TOD-eligible parcels from the default SB 79 standards.
The statute permits exclusion only where local zoning allows "density and residential floor area
ratio at no less than 50 percent of the standards specified under Government Code section
65912.157."
As a reminder, local governments must submit draft ordinances to HCD at least 14 days before
adoption and again within 60 days after enactment, and HCD has 90 days (extendable to 120) to
review for substantial compliance. If HCD finds an ordinance non-compliant and the local
government fails to cure, HCD may notify the Attorney General, and the local exclusion ceases
to operate.
There is no evidence in the record that the City complied with the legal requirement to submit
the Draft Ordinance to HCD at least 14 days prior to the adoption. Government Code Section
65912.160(d)(1)(A). In approving a defective ordinance, the City may reasonably find itself in a
similar position to 2023-2024, when the City’s local zoning was superseded by state law via the
Builder’s Remedy. The Draft Ordinance, as proposed, plainly falls to allow at least “50 percent
of the standards specified” in SB 79, and it therefore exposes the City to exactly that risk.
2. The Draft Ordinance Runs Counter to the City’s Goals
Beyond its legal deficiencies, the Draft Ordinance fails on its own terms. The City has articulated
core objectives for its SB 79 implementation: “coordinated design and placemaking,” and the
protection of single-family neighborhoods from “contextually inconsistent” redevelopment. The
Draft Ordinance undermines each of them.
Coordinated design and placemaking. Staff has expressly warned that under a poorly
calibrated SB 79 implementation, "new development may also lack coordinated design or
placemaking, with larger parcels likely proving more attractive for redevelopment than smaller
ones." That warning unfortunately describes the Draft Ordinance itself.
By imposing a uniform placeholder density across the entire zone, regardless of whether a parcel
is more appropriate for redevelopment or less so, the ordinance applies a one-size-fits-all
envelope that ignores the very contextual differences staff has flagged as critical. That outcome
is doubly damaging on California Avenue, where placemaking depends on a specific economic
chain reaction. Real placemaking on the commercial corridor requires three elements working
together: active ground-floor uses, residential density above to support those uses and animate
the street, and pedestrian-oriented design. Without any one of these three legs, the corridor fails.
The Project's proposed ground-floor program, two fine-dining restaurants, a bakery, and
additional neighborhood-serving retail totaling approximately 10,000 square feet, is precisely the
type of placemaking use local zoning was designed to encourage. Ground-floor retail of this
May 29, 2026
Page 3
#539284517_v1
quality, however, is a loss leader for developers. Construction costs for restaurant-grade ground
floors — grease interceptors, hood ventilation, tenant improvement allowances, higher floor-to-
floor heights — substantially exceed those for residential floors, and retail rents in the California
Avenue district do not generate returns sufficient to justify such costs standing alone. The only
way to deliver and sustain high-quality ground-floor retail on California Avenue is to cross-
subsidize it with a sufficient mass of residential square footage above.
The residential program must be large enough to generate returns that offset the below-market
economics of the ground floor. This is the fundamental economics of urban mixed-use
development, and the City's own staff has acknowledged the challenge. The Draft Ordinance
strips that residential density out, leaving the City with two-thirds of a placemaking framework
and no economic engine to drive it. Put differently, when FAR is constrained, every square foot
must work as hard as possible economically. Developers will inevitably devote the limited
envelope to residential uses that generate market returns and will cut the ground-floor retail and
restaurant components, which do not. The Draft Ordinance therefore guarantees, as a matter of
basic development economics, the very loss of ground-floor activation the City is trying to
prevent. The result will be a residential-only project with no ground floor retail at all, which,
while providing necessary housing during a crisis, will deprive California Avenue of the
pedestrian vibrancy and engaging street life that all Palo Alto residents, and visitors from
elsewhere, appreciate so much about the corridor.
Protection of single-family neighborhoods from contextually inconsistent
redevelopment. Staff has also recognized that the California Avenue SB 79 area "contains a
substantial proportion of single-family zoned property, including larger 10,000 square foot lots in
the Old Palo Alto neighborhood that would not require land consolidation to support apartment
development," and that "new construction built to SB 79 standards may appear contextually
inconsistent with the historic development pattern northeast of the Caltrain station." If the City's
genuine concern is the contextual fit of new development in those single-family neighborhoods,
the policy response should be to concentrate density on the commercial spine, where it belongs,
where it advances placemaking, and where it does not disturb single-family blocks, and not to
suppress density uniformly across the entire TOD zone.
It bears emphasis that concentrating density on the California Avenue commercial corridor
carries none of the displacement or neighborhood-character concerns that often accompany infill
development elsewhere. The Project Site itself contains no housing, only a shuttered bank
building and a surface parking lot, so redevelopment will displace no existing residents. The
same is true of most of the California Avenue commercial spine, which is dominated by retail,
office, and surface parking uses rather than residential ones. Directing SB 79 density to this
corridor therefore adds housing without subtracting any, and does so on parcels where
redevelopment is most economically and physically appropriate. By contrast, the surrounding
single-family neighborhoods remain undisturbed when density is channeled to the commercial
corridor where it belongs. Concentrating capacity on California Avenue is thus the policy choice
May 29, 2026
Page 4
#539284517_v1
that simultaneously protects single-family neighborhoods and delivers the housing SB 79
requires.
Meanwhile, the Draft Ordinance does the opposite. A well-designed implementing ordinance
would instead concentrate the highest density on the commercial corridors closest to transit,
where SB 79's full standards are most appropriate and most easily absorbed, allowing the City to
use the 50-percent-capacity tools surgically to protect genuinely sensitive single-family contexts.
3. Consequences of Adopting the Draft Ordinance
If HCD determines that the Draft Ordinance is not in substantial compliance with Government
Code Section 65912.161(b)(1), because it does not genuinely deliver 50 percent of SB 79
density, the local exclusion falls away. The City would then face a period during which the full,
unmodified SB 79 development standards apply to every eligible parcel in the City. This is
precisely the "regulatory gap" the City's own staff warned against.
Once those full SB 79 standards take effect, qualifying projects would be protected by the
Housing Accountability Act ("HAA"). A project that complies with SB 79 and applicable
objective standards may only be denied upon a finding of a "specific adverse impact" on public
health or safety that cannot be mitigated in any other way — an extraordinarily high bar. AB 130
further streamlines review by creating a CEQA exemption for qualifying infill housing and
imposing a 30-day approval deadline after completion of objective standards review. The
combined effect of SB 79 and AB 130 is that, if the Draft Ordinance is invalidated by HCD,
developers on TOD sites could submit and vest their projects under the full SB 79 standards
before the City has any opportunity to adopt a replacement ordinance.
Ironically, the City will yield a better project at 414 California Avenue without the Draft
Ordinance. Under the Draft Ordinance, the Applicant is forced to choose residential viability
over ground-floor activation, and the corridor loses the very retail and placemaking that the City
says it wants to preserve. Under the full SB 79 standards, the Applicant can deliver what
California Avenue actually needs: meaningful housing in a transit-rich location, paired with the
active, pedestrian-oriented ground-floor uses that have always defined the corridor's character. A
workable residential envelope is the precondition for everything else the City says it values here,
and the Draft Ordinance takes that precondition away.
The Applicant respectfully urges the Council to reject the Draft Ordinance in its current form, to
confirm that SB 79 development standards remain available as the base density for State Density
Bonus Law incentives, concessions, and waivers on all sites, and to direct staff to return with an
implementation framework that genuinely delivers the 50 percent of SB 79 density and floor area
capacity that Government Code Section 65912.161(b)(1) requires.
The Applicant reserves all rights, including the right to submit additional objections in advance
of any urgency ordinance hearing, to seek administrative review by HCD's Housing
Accountability Unit, and to pursue any and all remedies available under the HAA, SB 79, the
May 29, 2026
Page 5
#539284517_v1
State Density Bonus Law, and applicable provisions of the Government Code if the Draft
Ordinance is adopted as presented.
The Applicant is committed to delivering high-quality, transit-oriented, mixed-use housing on
California Avenue, housing that includes meaningful ground-floor retail, complies with
affordability requirements, and advances the City's own planning objectives. The Council is
urged to ensure that its SB 79 implementing ordinance does not inadvertently prevent that
outcome.
Sincerely yours,
HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
Scott L. Gesundheit
cc: California Department of Housing and Community Development, Housing
Accountability Unit; Office of the Attorney General of California; City Attorney, City of
Palo Alto
From:Bill Fitch
To:Council, City
Cc:Planning Commission
Subject:SB 79 Implementation (Item 17) + Expansion of the Rental Registry (Item 3) Public Comment
Date:Friday, May 29, 2026 1:51:13 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking
on links.
My name is Bill Fitch and I live in Evergreen Park. I support efforts to promote more homes and protect tenants.
re SB 79 implementation, please modify the emergency ordinances to allow SB 79 to go into effect in places where
the city already plans for new homes: The Downtown Housing Plan area, along El Camino Real and Cal Ave, the
Transit Center, San Antonio, and other areas. If Palo Alto wants to be considered a pro-housing city, we should
embrace state law in the places near transit where we want more homes.
I spoke at city council some years back, in favor of then SB50. We should build housing near existing transit,
especially Caltrain.
re Tenant Protections and the rental registry, please plan to revisit expansion of the rental registry next year, as
opposed to deferring it indefinitely. Single family homes make up a growing share of the rental market, and having
more data about them can help the city make more informed decisions about tenant protections.
Thank you for your leadership to support homes for all in our community,
Bill Fitch
From:Mert Dikmen
To:Council, City
Cc:Planning Commission
Subject:SB 79 Implementation (Item 17) Public Comment
Date:Friday, May 29, 2026 12:33:59 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
My name is Mert Dikmen and I live in Crescent Park. I support efforts to promote more homes
and protect tenants.
Please modify the emergency ordinances to allow SB 79 to go into effect without any
restrictions or hurdles in places where the city already plans for new homes: The Downtown
Housing Plan area, along El Camino Real and Cal Ave, the Transit Center, San Antonio, and
strongly consider expanding it to the entirety of the city limits. If Palo Alto wants to be
considered a pro-housing city, we should embrace state law in the places near transit where we
want more homes.
Thank you for your leadership to support homes for all in our community,
Mert Dikmen
From:Mihai Fechete
To:Council, City
Subject:Fwd: Letter to city council
Date:Thursday, May 28, 2026 11:17:26 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: 414 California LLC <ask@414.info>
Date: Wed, May 27, 2026 at 3:08 PM
Subject: Letter to city council
To: nobhillhardware@gmail.com <nobhillhardware@gmail.co
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Members of the City Council,
We are writing as the owners of Nob Hill Hardware, located at 251 California Avenue and
as long-standing members of the local business community.
We understand that the Council is considering an emergency ordinance related to
California SB79 at the meeting on Monday, June 1. We respectfully urge the Council to
reconsider their approach and rather than applying broad restrictions uniformly across Palo
Alto, consider applying a more nuanced approach.
California Avenue is one of Palo Alto’s important commercial and mixed-use districts, and
its future depends on renewed investment, increased activity, and a stronger daytime
customer base.
Service businesses like ours rely on nearby residents, office workers, visitors, restaurants,
and other local businesses to keep the district vibrant. Strategic redevelopment in areas like
California Avenue can bring more people, more energy, and more consistent support for
the small businesses that serve this community every day.
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
Additional housing, thoughtful density, and new investment would not only help existing
businesses survive and grow, but also help attract new businesses that can strengthen
California Avenue as a lively and successful destination for Palo Alto.
We recognize that less urban residential neighborhoods may warrant a different approach.
However, California Avenue should be evaluated on its own terms, as an urban commercial
corridor where carefully planned growth can support both the business community and the
broader city. A one-size-fits-all policy risks limiting the very kind of investment needed to
help this district thrive.
We respectfully ask the Council to distinguish between Palo Alto’s residential
neighborhoods and its urban commercial centers, and to preserve the opportunity for
thoughtful redevelopment in areas like California Avenue.
Thank you for your time, consideration, and service to the city.
Sincerely,
June 1, 2026 www.paloalto.gov
Senate Bill (SB) 79 and Downtown Housing Plan Considerations
Vishnu Krishnan, Senior Planner
Background
•Initial findings presented to the Council on October 22, 2025.
•The Downtown Housing Plan/SB 79 Implementation Ad Hoc was formed in January 2026 and met
with staff on January 27, March 25, and April 21, 2026.
o Ad Hoc Members:
▪Councilmember Ed Lauing
▪Councilmember Patrick Burt
•The Ad Hoc considered the preliminary analysis and has recommendations on how the Council
could implement State law:
•Exempt historic resources within ½ mile through January 31, 2032, as allowed by the law
•Ensure qualifying properties meet 50% of the development potential of SB 79, as allowed by
law.
2
Purpose
•Receive update and provide direction to staff on the implementation of Senate Bill 79 (SB 79) and
the work related to the Downtown Housing Plan;
•Consider introduce for first reading two temporary ordinances implementing SB 79, adopting a
Transit Oriented Development Combining District, excluding certain sites from Government Code
Section 65912.157, and authorizing the Planning and Development Services Director to make
corresponding updates to the Zoning Map; and
•Consider directing staff to return on 6/15 with second reading of the temporary ordinances and
adoption of urgency/emergency versions of the ordinances.
3
SB 79 (2025) Objectives
•Increase housing supply near transit, lower housing and
transportation costs, and strengthen public transit
ridership and financial sustainability with expected
reductions in VMT and GHG emissions as outcomes.
•Mandates upzoning near rail stations and rapid bus
corridors, tiered by transit type and distance from
pedestrian access points.
44
SB 79: Transit-tiering and applicable standards
Distance from
TOD Stop
Minimum Height
Requirement
Residential Density
(du/ac)Residential FAR
Directly Adjacent Sites
(≤ 200 ft)
95 ft
(75 + 20 ft bonus)
160 du/ac
(120 + 40 bonus)
4.5
(3.5 + 1 bonus)
Within ¼ Mile 75 ft 120 du/ac 3.5
¼ – ½ Mile 65 ft 100 du/ac 3.0
•Allowable density cannot be reduced to less than 50 percent of the default standards for any
individual site.
•TOD projects are eligible for a density bonus and waivers of development standards except
height above the SB 79 standard.
•Inclusionary Housing requirements (one of the following):
•7% of units affordable to extremely low-income households;
•10% of units affordable to very low-income households; or
•13% of units affordable to lower-income households.
•Local inclusionary requirements that exceed these minimums can be enforced.
•Application processing generally unchanged:
•SB 79 does not modify CEQA requirements, though AB 130 may exempt many projects.
•SB 79 does not establish a new ministerial approval process, though other laws like SB 35 can
still be used.
5
SB 79: Exclusions
Until January 31, 2032, Palo Alto may exclude by ordinance:
•Sites zoned with capacity ≥50% of SB 79 default standards
•Sites in very high fire severity zones
•Sites subject to sea level rise risk
•Sites with a locally registered historic resource (as of January 1, 2025)
After January 31, 2032, excluded sites must meet SB 79 default density or
be incorporated into an Alternative Plan.
6
SB 79: Alternative Plans
Alternative Plans
Jurisdictions may redistribute density across TOD zones, subject to:
•Overall capacity across all TOD zones must be maintained
•Individual sites may not fall below 50% of SB 79 default (except fire,
sea level rise, or historic sites)
•Historic sites may not exceed 10% of the area within any single TOD
zone
•Individual sites may not be credited above 200% of SB 79 default
capacity
•Individual TOD zones may not fall below 50% of SB 79 default capacity
7
What might redevelop?
In addition to sites excluded by ordinance (i.e. due to hazards, historic protections), there are
additional sites across all three areas that have a very low likelihood to redevelop.
Sites excluded for the purpose of calculating staff's housing projections:
•Parcels developed within the last 25 years.
•Condominiums and Planned Communities (PC).
•Sites with existing Office-use and an FAR >= 1.50.
•Parcels less than 0.12 acre have low development feasibility. 0.12 -acre (~5200 sq. ft.) yields 6 to 8
smaller units (average unit size of 780 sq.ft.). SB 79 requires a minimum of 5 dwelling units for a
project to qualify.
Historical trends show roughly 10% of parcels citywide have redeveloped over the last 25 years; less
projected for R1-zoned properties – 1% (excluding single family home rebuilding and new accessory
units).
8
9
University Ave Caltrain Station
What can be excluded per SB 79?
•Very High Fire Severity Zone – not applicable
•Flooding – not applicable
•Historic Properties – 22.25%
SB 79 Area
Distance Acres
200 feet 52.86
200 feet – 0.25 mile 120.53
0.25 mile – 0.5 mile 151.85
Total 325.23
SB 79 Area – excluding PF, PC, and parcels <= 0.12 acre
Distance Acres
200 feet 0
200 feet – 0.25 mile 64.56
0.25 mile – 0.5 mile 66.64
Total 163.26
10
California Ave Caltrain Station
What can be excluded per SB 79?
•Very High Fire Severity Zone – not applicable
•Flooding – not applicable
•Historic Properties – 1%
SB 79 Area
Distance Acres
200 feet 48.38
200 feet – 0.25 mile 111.11
0.25 mile – 0.5 mile 324.18
Total 483.67
SB 79 Area – excluding PF, PC, and parcels <= 0.12 acre
Distance Acres
200 feet 0
200 feet – 0.25 mile 47.73
0.25 mile – 0.5 mile 141.35
Total 222.72
11
San Antonio Caltrain Station
What can be excluded per SB 79?
•Very High Fire Severity Zone – not applicable
•Flooding – not applicable
•Historic Properties – 17%
SB 79 Area
Distance Acres
200 feet 0
200 feet – 0.25 mile 27.39
0.25 mile – 0.5 mile 147.28
Total 174.28
SB 79 Area – excluding PF, PC, and parcels <= 0.12 acre
Distance Acres
200 feet 0
200 feet – 0.25 mile 0.65
0.25 mile – 0.5 mile 16.58
Total 32.79
Approaches – SB 79
The City can choose to allow State Law to go into effect as written, adopt an ordinance clarifying how
State Law applies locally, and/or propose a “transit -oriented development alternative plan”
(ordinances and plans are subject to State approval). Default SB 79 densities go into effect on July 1,
2026.
Note: An ordinance is required to exempt historic resources and requires HCD review.
•Approach 1: No action on SB 79.
•Approach 2: Adopt a local implementing ordinance to protect historic resources.
•Provides additional local control.
•Approach 3:Rezone all TOD eligible sites to allow 50 percent of the SB 79 development potential.
•Provides the City approximately six years to consider advancing a TOD Alternative Plan.
•Approach 4: Prepare a TOD Alternative Plan.
•Provides the City with maximum control through development standards, infrastructure plan, and
structured community outreach process.
12
Approaches – Downtown Housing Plan
•Option A: Refocus the Downtown Housing Plan on Development Standards.
o The Plan will produce updated development standards but may not result in a complete
Area Plan policy document.
•Option B: Resume and complete the Downtown Housing Plan.
o Model the Plan on SB 79 standards while addressing other local considerations.
•Option C:Discontinue the Downtown Housing Plan.
Except for SB 79 Approach 4, the Downtown Housing Plan can reasonably continue under other
options provided – or may be discontinued altogether if SB 79 is thought to address Downtown
Housing Plan's housing interests.
13
Staff / Ad Hoc Recommendation
•Introduce a temporary ordinance excluding historic resources designated on the City's local
register as of 1/1/2025 from applicable SB 79 standards;
•Introduce a temporary ordinance establishing development standards for all TOD -eligible parcels
at 50% of SB 79 standards;
•Direct staff to return with interim urgency versions of the above ordinances to be introduced
and adopted on 6/15/2026;
•Direct staff to prepare permanent ordinances to be presented to the PTC, incorporating
the provisions of the interim ordinances; and
•Direct staff to continue work to advance the Downtown Housing Plan and amend the scope
as appropriate.
14
Proposed Ordinance – Historic Resource
Exemption
Historic Resource Exemption Ordinance:
a.Temporarily exempts qualifying historic resources from default development SB 79 standards.
b.Authorizes PDS Director to update the Zoning Map to indicate sites and TOD areas subject to
default SB 79 standards.
15
Proposed Ordinance – 50% SB 79 Capacity
50 Percent SB 79 Development Standards Ordinance:
•Establishes PAMC Section 18.14.070: TOD Combining District that applies to all TOD -eligible sites
except sites excluded as historic resources.
•Establishes development standards equalling to at least 50 percent of default SB 79 standards.
•Where underlying zoning is more generous, those standards will apply (e.g. setback and
daylight plane in the commercial districts)
•Authorizes and direcirector to update the Zoning Map to indicate sites and TOD areas subject to
default SB 79 standards.
16
Distance from
TOD Stop
Minimum
Density
Residential
FAR
Minimum
Setbacks
Daylight
Plane
Directly Adjacent
Sites
(≤ 200 ft)
30 units/ acre or
5 units-
whichever is
greater
2.25 10' (front,
rear)
4' (side)
16' from
property line
and
extending at
a 45-degree
angle.
Within ¼ Mile 1.75
¼ – ½ Mile 1.5
17
Proposed Ordinance – Change to Qualifying R1 Properties
Achievable FAR 1.75
Lot Size (Typical)6,000 square feet (60' x 100')
Setback Proposed Current
Front 10 feet Contextual
Rear 10 feet 20 feet
Side 4 feet 6 feet
Daylight Plane Initial Height: 16'-0", measured
from property line. Slope: 45
degrees (modeled from HIP
provision)
Site Coverage 4,160 square feet
Total Floor Area
Floor 1 4,160 square feet
Floor 2 4,160 square feet
Floor 3 2,240square feet
Total 10,560 square feet
Council Direction / Next Steps
18
Based on the Ad Hoc recommendation:
1.Return for second reading of the temporary ordinances for historic sites and 50 percent SB 79
capacity on June 15, 2026, and interim urgency ordinances covering the same subject matter;
2.Prepare permanent ordinances for review by the PTC;
3.Continue work on the Downtown Housing Plan and coordinate with SB 79/ Downtown Housing
Plan Ad Hoc Committee through 2026 for additional guidance on both the Area Plan and
amendments to SB 79.
Vishnu Krishnan
Senior Planner
vishnu.krishnan@paloalto.gov
650.329.2425 19