The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutStaff Report 2607-6531CITY OF PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL Special Meeting Wednesday, September 09, 2026 Council Chambers & Hybrid 5:00 PM Agenda Item 12.PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 470 Olive Avenue [25PLN-00228]: Recommend City Council Adopt an Ordinance Amending the Zoning Map to Change the Zoning District for 470 Olive Avenue from NV-R1 (Single-Family Residential) to NV-MXM (Medium Density Mixed Use) and Adopt a Resolution Changing the North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan (NVCAP) Land Use Designation from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Mixed Use to Align it With the NVMXM Zoning of the Adjacent and Connected Parcel at 2951 El Camino Real. This Action Supports a Staff Determination to Add 470 Olive Avenue as a Housing Inventory Site to Address No Net Loss Requirements. CEQA Status: Statutorily Exempt per Public Resources Code Section 21080.085. Staff Presentation, Applicant Presentation, Public Comment CITY COUNCIL Staff Report From: City Manager Report Type: ACTION ITEMS Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: September 9, 2026 Report #: 2607-6531 TITLE PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 470 Olive Avenue [25PLN-00228]: Recommend City Council Adopt an Ordinance Amending the Zoning Map to Change the Zoning District for 470 Olive Avenue from NV-R1 (Single-Family Residential) to NV-MXM (Medium Density Mixed Use) and Adopt a Resolution Changing the North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan (NVCAP) Land Use Designation from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Mixed Use to Align it With the NVMXM Zoning of the Adjacent and Connected Parcel at 2951 El Camino Real. This Action Supports a Staff Determination to Add 470 Olive Avenue as a Housing Inventory Site to Address No Net Loss Requirements. CEQA Status: Statutorily Exempt per Public Resources Code Section 21080.085. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommend the Council: 1. Adopt the Resolution in Attachment B amending the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation from NVCAP Low Density Residential to NVCAP Medium Density Mixed Use; and 2. Adopt the Ordinance in Attachment C amending the Zoning Map to rezone the subject parcel from NV-R1 to NV-MXM consistent with previous City Council direction. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Draft Resolution (Attachment B) amends the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation Map to change the land use designation of the subject property from NVCAP Low Density Residential to NVCAP Medium Density Mixed Use. The Draft Ordinance (Attachment C) amends the zoning map to change the zoning designation of the site from North Ventura Single- Family Residential District (NV-R1) to North Ventura Medium Density Mixed Use (NV-MXM). These actions are consistent with the City Council motion on May 27, 2025, “Direct staff to return to Council with a proposal for Rezoning the property behind 2999 [El Camino Real] from R1 to an appropriate transition for housing.” The NV-MXM development standards include provisions to facilitate a transition between medium density mixed use and abutting single- family. These actions also support a staff determination to add 470 Olive Avenue (APN 132-37- BACKGROUND 1 2: Discussion on El Camino Real Focus Area 1 City Council Action Minutes from May 27, 2025 (Item 7, on Page 4): https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=43272&dbid=0&repo=PaloAlto 2 Link to the May 27, 2026 City Council Staff Report: https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=83418&dbid=0&repo=PaloAlto. January 19, 20215: Prescreening for Planned Home Zoning project October 5, 20206: Prescreening for Planned Community project October 2, 20177: Prescreening for Zone Change from R-1 to CS PTC:July 8, 20268,9: Recommendation on Zone Change from NV-R1 to NV-MXM December 17, 202410: Discussion on El Camino Real Focus Area October 30, 201911: Consideration of non-conforming use exception HRB:None ARB:December 19, 202412: Discussion on El Camino Real Focus Area July 8, 2026 PTC Hearing On July 8th, the PTC made a motion to move the project forward for Council consideration with a split recommendation after the commission was unable to reach a majority recommendation to approve or deny the rezoning request. Two of the Commissioners who voted against the rezoning specified they would be willing to reconsider the proposal if it was concurrent with a proposal for a housing project. A majority of the Commissioners agreed that they were concerned about how the NV-MXM development standards could be exceeded utilizing State laws such as State Density Bonus Law. For example, it was discussed that the property would be subject to the R-1 daylight plane as it is adjacent to NV-R1 zoned properties, but a proposed development utilizing State Density Bonus could request a waiver from the daylight plane requirement. One Commissioner also noted this rezoning should have been requested at the time the NVCAP was being drafted. 5 Link to the January 19, 2021 Council Staff Report: https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Public/CompiledDocument?meetingTemplateId=3577&compileOutputType= 1 6 Link to the October 5, 2020 Council Staff Report: https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Public/CompiledDocument?meetingTemplateId=2947&compileOutputType= 1 7 Link to the October 2, 2017 Council Staff Report: https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Public/CompiledDocument?meetingTemplateId=1939&compileOutputType= 1 8 Link to the July 8, 2026 PTC Staff Report and Supplemental Report: https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=20326 9 Link to the July 8, 2026 PTC Summary Minutes (Item 2, on Page 1): https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Public/CompiledDocument?meetingTemplateId=20330&compileOutputType =1 10 Link to the December 17, 2024 PTC Staff Report: https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=16861 11 Link to the October 30, 2019 PTC Staff Report: https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Public/CompiledDocument?meetingTemplateId=5776&compileOutputType= 1 12 Link to the December 19, 2024 ARB Staff Report: https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=13947 Commissioners who did support the rezoning cited this as a good location for a potential housing project, that Council supported a rezoning, that a new building would have a greater setback from the adjacent single-family homes than the existing building, and expressed concern that if redevelopment along El Camino Real did not include this parcel it may be forgotten and left between housing developments. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 9 The property owner further detailed the request in a letter (Attachment E). It was determined in staff’s review that a Comprehensive Plan land use map amendment is also required to align the proposed zoning with the underlying Comprehensive Plan land use designations. No formal development application has been submitted at this time, however this rezoning facilitates opportunities for future development at this and the adjacent parcel under same ownership. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Amendment: The steps for processing a request for a Comprehensive Plan amendment are set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapter 19.04. The PTC considers the amendment and forwards its recommendation to the City Council for final action. This may be done in in parallel with the Zoning Map Amendment. The Draft Resolution Amending the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map is included in Attachment B. Zoning Map Amendment: The process for evaluating this type of application is set forth in PAMC Chapter 18.80. The application will be considered by the PTC, who will make a recommendation to City Council for adoption of an Ordinance to modify the Zoning Map and must find that the proposed zoning is appropriate for the site. The Draft Ordinance Amending the Zoning Map is included in Attachment C. ANALYSIS same zoning as the abutting properties fronting El Camino Real, and it will facilitate the desired future redevelopment of the site with housing. FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The City has reviewed the proposed ordinance in accordance with that authority and criteria set forth in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The City, as the lead agency, anticipates that this ordinance will be exempt from CEQA in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21080.085. This exemption applies to rezoning of sites to address No Net Loss Law (Gov Code Section 65863). The City, in approving the 2100-2300 Geng Road project on March 16, 2026, as well as in approving the 3606 El Camino Real Project on April 13, 2026 made findings identifying the need to add sites to the housing inventory in order to provide an adequate number of sites planned for moderate income units (RLUA 2026-01) to address No Net Loss Law. If Council supports the rezoning of this property, staff intends to place 470 Olive Avenue on the City’s housing inventory along with adjacent sites along El Camino Real, to address the shortfall of moderate income units within 180 days. Rezoning of this site is necessary for the site to accommodate moderate income units. The City sent notification letters in accordance with SB 18 (California Government Code § 65352.3), inviting California Native American tribes to participate in consultation regarding the project. The City received one request for consultation from the Tamien Nation. Following consultation, the Tribe agreed that the existing tribal cultural resource mitigation measures adopted for future development on this site as part of the NVCAP environmental review were sufficient. Tribal consultation was completed on April 2, 2026. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Location Map Attachment B: Draft Resolution Amending the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation of 470 Olive Avenue Attachment C: Draft Ordinance Amending the Zoning District for 470 Olive Avenue Attachment D: Zoning Comparison Table Attachment E: Letter from the Applicant Attachment F: Public Comments Attachment G: COI Map 470 Olive – No Conflict APPROVED BY: Jonathan Lait, Planning and Development Services Director 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 115.7' 119.7' 115.7' 139.5' 50.0' 139.5' 50.0' 66.9' 200.0' 66.9' 200.0' 50.0' 134.7' 50.0 134.7' 50.0' 134.7' 50.0' 134.7' 50.0' 134.7' .' 134.7' 50.0' 134.7'134.7' 50.0' 50.0' 65.7' 119.7'119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50. 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 47.9' 150.0' 47.9' 150.0' 95.7' 150.0' 95.7' 150.0' 95.7' 150.0' 95.7' 150.0' 200.0' 72.6' 200.0' 72.6' 119.5' 119.5' 119.5' 119.5' 119. 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 2. 109.8' 150.0' 420 412 461 451 431 3017 441 430 440 450 460 470 411 421 431 471 470 456 450 440 441 451 461 430 2999 2951 2905 3001 431A 456A OLIVE AVENUE PEPPER AVENUE EL This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend Project Site Current Features 0' 50' Location Map 470 Olive Avenue CITY OF PALO ALTO I NC O R P O R A TED CALIFORNIA P a l o A l t o T h e C i t y o f APRIL 1 6 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors. ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto ekallas, 2026-06-26 13:50:56 Attachment A. Location Map (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Personal\Planning.mdb) ***NOT YET APPROVED*** 1 0160201_20260701_ay16 Resolution No. ____ Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Changing the Land Use Designation of 470 Olive Avenue from “North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan (NVCAP) Low Density Residential” to “NVCAP Medium-Density Mixed-Use.” R E C I T A L S A. 470 Olive Avenue, (the “subject property”, as further described in Exhibit A) B. On September 15, 2025, Jessica Agramonte, on behalf of Agramonte Property LLC (“Applicant”) submitted an application for a Zone Change for 470 Olive Avenue from NV-R1 to NV-MXM (the “Project”) at 470 Olive Avenue (the “Subject Property”, as further described in Exhibit A). C. To align the planned rezoning with the underlying Comprehensive Plan land use designation, the project requires an amendment to the Land Use Map. D. Whereas the Planning and Transportation Commission, after a duly noticed public hearing on July 8, 2026, recommended that the City Council amend the Land Use Map of the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan as set forth below. E. Whereas the City Council considered said recommendation after a duly noticed public hearing held on________ and now desires to amend the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map as set forth below. NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto RESOLVES as follows: SECTION 1. The City Council finds that the public interest, health, safety and welfare of Palo Alto and the surrounding region would be furthered by an Amendment to the Land Use and Community Design Element Land Use Map. SECTION 2. The proposed Land Use Map Amendment is consistent with the following goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan: Policy L-1.3: Infill development in the urban service area should be compatible with its surroundings and the overall scale and character of the city to ensure a compact, efficient development pattern. The proposed land use designation better facilitates opportunity for infill development, particularly in combination with the adjacent properties on El Camino Real. Policy L-1.6: Encourage land uses that address the needs of the community and The proposed amendment takes into consideration the existing non-residential use, ***NOT YET APPROVED*** 2 0160201_20260701_ay16 manage change and development to benefit the community. and shared ownership with 2951 El Camino Real, and aligns 470 Olive with 2951 El Camino Real. Policy L-2.6: Create opportunities for new mixed-use development consisting of housing and retail. The comprehensive plan amendment would allow for a mix of uses on a site where currently only residential uses are allowed. SECTION 3. The City Council hereby amends the Land Use Map in the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Land Use and Community Design Element as follows: Change the land use designation of 470 Olive from NVCAP Low Density Residential to NVCAP Medium-Density Mixed-Use. SECTION 4. In conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the environmental impacts of this Resolution were evaluated and found to be statutorily exempt per CEQA Guideline 21080.085. 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*** 3 0160201_20260701_ay16 EXHIBIT A (Legal Description) *** NOT YET APPROVED *** 0160200_20260701_ay16 1 Ordinance No. ____ Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (The Zoning Map) to Change the Zoning District Boundaries of 470 Olive Avenue from NV-R1 to NV-MXM 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 May 27, 2025, the City Council directed staff to rezone 470 Olive Avenue from NV-R1 to a more appropriate zoning for housing transition. B. On September 15, 2025, Jessica Agramonte, on behalf of Agramonte Property LLC submitted an application to rezone the property located at 470 Olive Avenue (“Property”, more particularly described in Exhibit A) from NV-R1 to NV-MXM (“Project”). C. To align the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map with the proposed zoning designation, the planning commission recommended, and Council adopted, Resolution _____amending the land use designation of the site from NVCAP Low Density Residential to NVCAP Medium Density Mixed-Use. D. Following Staff Review, the Planning and Transportation Commission (“PTC”) held a duly noticed public hearing on July 8, 2026, and recommended ________ of the Project to the City Council. E. On _______, following a duly noticed public hearing, Council determined that the rezoning is appropriate because it aligns with the adjacent NV-MXM zoned properties along El Camino Real, but provides a transition from those neighboring parcels, which are within the El Camino Real Focus area, to the adjacent lower density residential neighborhood northeast of the subject property. F. The rezoning supports placement of the subject property on the housing inventory site to address no net loss requirements for the Regional Housing Needs Assessment, as required pursuant to state law. SECTION 2. Amendment of Zoning Map. Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, the “Zoning Map,” is hereby amended by changing the zoning of the Property from North Ventura Single-Family Residential NV-R1 to North Ventura Medium-Density Mixed-Use NV-MXM, as shown in Exhibit B. *** NOT YET APPROVED *** 0160200_20260701_ay16 2 SECTION 4. Environmental Review. The Council finds that the Ordinance is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 21080.085. This exemption applies to rezoning of sites to address No Net Loss Law (Gov Code Section 65863). Staff intends to place 470 Olive on the City’s housing inventory along with adjacent sites along El Camino Real, to address the shortfall of moderate-income units. Rezoning of this site is necessary for the site to accommodate moderate income units. SECTION 5. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first day after the date of its adoption (second reading). 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 *** 0160200_20260701_ay16 3 EXHIBIT A Legal Description ATTACHMENT D 470 Olive Avenue, 25PLN-00228 Select standards reflect portions of 470 Olive which abut a NV-R1 low density residential zoning district. With the SB 79 (TOD) Overlay, the more permissive of the base zoning or overlay standards apply. Maximum Height 35 feet 55 feet 50-85 feet depending on proposed use Maximum Site Coverage SB 79 (TOD): 70% 100%Lot size => 10,000 sq. ft.: 80% Lot size < 10,000 sq. ft.: 70% Maximum Total FAR SB 79 (TOD): 1.5:1 2.0:1 Lot size => 10,000 sq. ft.: 4.0 Lot size < 10,000 sq. ft.: 3.0 Minimum Setbacks SB 79 (TOD): 4 ft side, 10 ft front and rear SB 79 (TOD): 4 ft side, 0 front, 10 ft rear 20 feet for rear and interior sides Minimum Density SB 79 (TOD): greater of 30 du/ac or 5 units 31 du/ac None Daylight Plane - Side SB 79 (TOD): Initial height: 16 feet, measured at the property line Slope: 45 degrees SB 79 (TOD): Initial height: 16 feet, measured at the property line Slope: 45 degrees Initial height: 16 feet, measured at the property line Slope: 45 degrees Other Upper floor stepbacks apply August 10, 2026 Thomas G. Agramonte tgrant.agramonte@gmail.com Jessica Rose Agramonte jessicaroseagramonte@stanford.edu Palo Alto City Council 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Via email: city.council@cityofpaloalto.org Re: 470 Olive Avenue [25PLN-00228]: Dear Mayor Veenker, Vice Mayor Stone, and City Councilmembers: On behalf of the Agramonte Family, a four-generation Palo Alto family and landowners of 2951 El Camino Real (ECR) and 470 Olive Avenue, we are writing to respectfully request that the City Council adopt the Planning staff recommendation regarding 470 Olive Avenue to change the Zoning District from NV-R-1 to NV-MXM and the land use designation from NVCAP Low Density Residential to NVCAP Medium Density Mixed, and the site be added to the City’s Housing Element to allow for the appropriate development of high quality housing in Palo Alto. The City Council’s May 27, 2027 hearing action was “to direct staff to return to Council with a proposal for Rezoning the property behind 2999 [El Camino Real] (470 Olive) from R1 to an appropriate transition for housing.” Consistent with staff’s analysis, we would like to provide additional contextual information supporting staff’s recommendation and address concerns expressed by some of the Planning Commissioners regarding daylight plane and respecting existing single-family homes per the NVCAP, and those expressed by the owner of 471 Pepper Avenue. Existing Neighborhood & Zoning/LU Context • 470 Olive is directly across from the 3001-3017 El Camino Real (Mike’s Bikes) 129-unit project which is zoned NV-MXM and designated NVCAP Medium Density and property lines align. See Attachment 1. • There is an existing single-family home located east of the 3001 ECR project, similar context with the redevelopment of 470 Olive and adjacent ECR parcels. See Attachment 2. • 470 Olive’s approximately 19’ high building walls are located on the property lines abutting 471 Pepper Avenue and 456 Olive Avenue R-1 lots impacting the current daylight onto those single-family properties. See Attachment 3 showing the existing walls. • 456 Olive Avenue is currently under construction with a new 30’ high 2-story home including a 2320 SF house, attached 747 SF ADU, and a 224 SF garage. The owner was disclosed that a rezoning and multifamily development was proposed via the posted signage onsite. • The 471 Pepper Avenue home was completed and sold after the NVCAP process was well underway and the Auto Collision Repair at 2905 ECR was still in operation. • 470 Olive Avenue is located in a mixed-use area with multiple commercial businesses, consistent with the original commercial development of and CS zone designation of the property. • 470 Olive is within ½ mile of the California Avenue CalTrain Station. SB 79 Transit Oriented Development Combining District Zoning • Since the July 8th Planning Commission hearing, the 470 Olive Avenue property has become eligible to use the City’s SB79 Alternative Transit Oriented Development Combining District Zoning and associated development standards. These standards are more generous (or less restrictive) than those under MXM and require a minimum 5-unit project. • The 470 Olive Avenue property is 50 feet wide by 119.7 feet deep. Any subsequent development under TOD CD will be required to have a minimum 4-foot setback and adhere to a 45-degree daylight plane starting at 16 feet up along the northern and western sides of the property. Please see Attachment 4 depicting the overlapping impact of the daylight plane and setbacks on the 470 Olive parcel relative to the adjacent 471 Pepper and 456 Olive properties. In summary, together with staff’s report and the physical and statutory context above, we believe that the proposed recommendation of MXM is the appropriate response to the City Council’s direction on May 27, 2025. In addition, in response to Planning and Transportation Commission meeting on this rezoning application and certain comments, we would also like to document the timeline and details of the zoning history and our family’s now nine years of working collaboratively with the City of Palo Alto to create housing on this ideal location and support of staff’s recommendation to change the site’s zoning and land use designation. Zoning History – Summary This building on 2951 ECR and 470 Olive Avenue is a single building that spans both parcels that was originally zoned and operated as CS, but was rezoned, likely inadvertently, into two different zone designations in 1978 that changed 470 Olive Avenue to R1. A prior owner applied for an Exception from the Non-conforming Use Termination requirement, which was unanimously approved, however, they did not follow up on landscaping required for the approval and sold it as CS zoning without disclosing the zoning issues. It was built as a commercial building and always used as commercial, and office through multiple generations of owners, prior to it being sold to my family in 1993. My father ran his Veterinary practice there. Once we discovered the undisclosed zoning issue, we alerted the City Planning of it and have been working earnestly with the City of Palo Alto since 2017 to accommodate the city’s housing priorities in this ideal location, walking distance from transit. On the prescreening on October 2, 2017, some of the Council members posited that the 1978 rezoning of 470 Olive Avenue from CS to R-1 was likely done mistakenly. Approval of this application for rezoning of 470 Olive Avenue to realign it with 2951 ECR, both corrects this zoning while directly addressing the urgent need of providing viable multifamily housing development on this ideally located site, walking distance to Caltrans and Cal Ave. 470 Olive Avenue Zoning History: • Based on City of Palo Alto documents, a review of historical aerials and permit history, 470 Olive Avenue is part of a two-parcel, single commercial building in Palo Alto, built and permitted for commercial use in 1968, the building spans both parcels: 2951 El Camino Real (APN# 132-37- 052) and 470 Olive Ave (APN# 132-37-029). 470 Olive Avenue has always been structurally and operationally linked to 2951 El Camino Real, sharing a single building built with a connecting doorway, and a single drive-through parking lot. As described above, the building is zero-lot line along the western and northern property lines with the building connection between the two parcels following the offset lot lines and accommodating parking and circulation. • 470 Olive Avenue was originally built and zoned CS. The first occupants were Carnes Piano in 1968, where customers walked through the entire building spanning 2951 El Camino and 470 Olive. However, the section of the building located on 470 Olive Avenue was re-zoned in 1978 to R-1, during a City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. As noted by the City Council on October 2, 2017, this splitting of a single building into two different zones may have been done inadvertently, in error. The parcels located directly across from on Olive Avenue and two parcels adjacent to 470 Olive on ECR are zoned CS. We believe that the original CS zone designation of 470 Olive Avenue was appropriate and the subsequent rezoning to R1 was not. The rezoning to R1 created a noncompliant building on 470 Olive; it was designed to meet CS requirements, not R1 requirements. The entire building has always operated as commercial use. • In 1987, a prior owner applied for an Exception from the Non-conforming Use Termination requirement, which was unanimously approved by the City Council. On July 16, 1992, the City of Palo Alto confirmed in a letter to the owner that this action allowed the existing non-conforming use to continue indefinitely, subject to site improvement. The letter suggested an option of applying for a zone change to change zoning of 470 Olive from R-1, back to CS, Service Commercial’. Unfortunately, the prior owner did not follow up or disclose this when we purchased the building in 1993. We were never notified by the City of Palo Alto regarding this issue. However, since becoming aware of this situation, we immediately brought it to the attention of the city, and we have taken proactive steps to resolve it and to accommodate priorities of the City of Palo Alto. • In 1993 Superfund ground water quality test wells were installed in the parking lot of 470 Olive Avenue. Access to these wells could be provided within a multifamily residential development, located in the parking garage. The cost to comply with both R1 zone and the Superfund water quality well access, if at all possible, would be financially and space prohibitive. • On October 2, 2017, the Palo Alto City Council conducted a rezoning prescreening and suggested the Code Amendment Application as a solution. We were advised by the City Council during the prescreening on October 2, 2017 to request an Exception to the Non-conforming Use Amortization Code section 18.70.070 to match Commercial use of the structurally and functionally linked parcel, 2951 El Camino (zoned CS) and the single building that spans both parcels. On October 30, 2019, the Planning and Transportation Commission reviewed the request for a 5-year Exception favorably, and the concept of a Multifamily Residential Development was discussed and initiated. We appreciated the prescreening with City Council in 2020 and 2021. Development was pursued; however a formal application was not submitted as the project was unfortunately deemed financially infeasible at the time. Our family’s collaboration with the City of Palo Alto to provide housing on this ideal location: • Nearly a decade ago, in 2017 we brought this zoning issue to the attention of the City. Through working with staff, they recommended pursuing multifamily development on this location to address the zoning issue, as it presented a “win, win” in terms of providing housing and addressed the zoning. Since then, we have continued to follow the requests and guidance from the City. •When the City required us to stop renting out 470 Olive Avenue in 2017 until the zoning was resolved and recommended that we pursue multifamily development to resolve both the housing need and the zoning, we agreed and have been consistently working towards this goal since. •We attended the NVCAP working group meetings and listened to the neighborhood priorities. When we requested for our rezoning to be addressed through NVCAP, Jonathan Lait requested that we pursue zoning through a development application instead as the NVCAP was on a short deadline and they didn’t want to risk missing the deadline. For the benefit of the City, we agreed and immediately continued to work toward this goal of multifamily housing on this site. •This brings us to where we are today, nine years later still doing our best, working earnestly and diligently with the City to get much needed housing on this site. We care about this community and the people in it. We feel we have demonstrated this through our interactions with the City. Rezoning this site is a necessary step to get housing on the site that can integrate and benefit the community. Thank you for taking time to review our application and we request that the 470 Olive Avenue rezoning be approved and added as a Housing Element Site, allowing for the appropriate provision of housing in an ideal location in Palo Alto. Please feel free to contact us: tgrant.agramonte@gmail.com and jessicaroseagramonte@gmail.com. Sincerely, Thomas G. Agramonte Jessica Rose Agramonte Attachments Cc: Jonathan Lait, City of Palo Alto Jennifer Armer, City of Palo Alto Emily Kalla, City of Palo Alto Attachment 1 – 470 Olive Avenue across from 3001-3017 (Mike’s Bikes) NV-MXM MIKE’S BIKES 470 OLIVE Attachment 2 – 3001-3017 El Camino Real (Mike’s Bikes) NV-MXM next to existing single-family home 471 Pepper Avenue 456 Olive Avenue Attachment 3 – 470 Olive Avenue Building Wall on 471 Pepper and 456 Olive Property Lines Attachment 4 – SB 79 TOD CD Daylight Plane & Setback Required From:Velasquez, Ingrid To:Lait, Jonathan; Tran, Vickie; Kallas, Emily Cc:Nose, Kiely; Gaines, Chantal; City Mgr Subject:FW: 2951 Date:Tuesday, July 7, 2026 9:36:53 AM Attachments:image001.png image002.png image003.png Hello, Forwarding the thread below for awareness. Thanks, Ingrid Ingrid Velásquez Administrative Assistant Office of the City Manager (650) 329-2354| Ingrid.Velasquez@PaloAlto.gov www.PaloAlto.gov From: Matthew Bryant <vacationmatt@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, July 6, 2026 10:17 AM To: Jason Robinson <robinson.jason.c@gmail.com>; Council, City <city.council@PaloAlto.gov> Cc: David Adams <david_94306@yahoo.com>; Jeff Levinsky <jeff@levinsky.org>; peplive- residents@googlegroups.com; Rebecca Sanders <rebsanders@gmail.com>; David Adams <guitarchap@gmail.com>; Anupa Bajwa <anupabajwa@gmail.com>; Marvin Jing Woo <marvin.woo@gmail.com>; Candy Tsourounis <vacationcandy@yahoo.com>; Shirley Yeh <yaojuan123@gmail.com>; jieming lin <lin_jieming@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: 2951 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hi Jason and everyone included on this note, Thank you for your input. I plan to submit a version of this letter to the City Council (city.council@paloalto.gov ) and Emily Kallas (emily.kallas@paloalto.gov) on the PTC. Also, it would be great to get everyone to show up or call into the PTC meeting o i This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first mail to some recipients.  Mark Safe Report CGBANNERINDICATOR Hi Jason and everyone included on this note, Thank you for your input. I plan to submit a version of this letter to the City Council (city.council@paloalto.gov ) and Emily Kallas (emily.kallas@paloalto.gov) on the PTC. Also, it would be great to get everyone to show up or call into the PTC meeting on Wednesday, 8Jul26 at 6pm to reject this rezoning of 470 Olive Ave. As a reminder, the newly adopted NVCAP continues to include 470 Pepper Ave as part of the R-1 zoning (https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/2/planning-amp- development-services/north-ventura-cap/nvcap-reports/adopted_nvcap_8_26_24.pdf). Best regards, Matt On Jul 1, 2026, at 12:18 AM, Jason Robinson <robinson.jason.c@gmail.com> wrote: Matt, David, Thanks for your notes. I'll send an email shortly. See below. My argument is to consider it holistically. These projects typically involve piecemeal considerations and multiple variances. The impact may be larger. More housing is fine, but planning is paramount. Matt -- In the past, some noted that operating a commercial business in earnest on residentially-zoned property allegedly violates Palo Alto code and incurs a $1,000 daily fine. $365k/year. That may not be covered by the plans. SUBJECT: PUBLIC COMMENT Re: Piecemeal Rezoning (470 Olive Ave / 2951 El Camino Real Corridor) -- Cumulative Infrastructure Impact Concerns Powered by Mimecast BODY: Dear Mayor, Council Members, and Commissioners, We are writing to express clear and pressing concerns regarding the proposed rezoning of 470 Olive Ave and 2951 El Camino Real from R-1 to a higher-density mixed-use designation. We also note that this topic has come up before, and it didn't proceed for reasons: [e.g., https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/agendas- minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/planning-and-transportation- commission/2019-agendas-minutes-and-staff-reports/ptc-12.11.19-470- olive.pdf ]. While everyone understands the state-mandated pressure to fulfill the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), approving this rezoning without a holistic, corridor-wide cumulative impact analysis introduces massive safety and infrastructure liabilities to Ventura and surrounding neighborhoods. The current planning approach evaluates this block entirely in a piecemeal fashion (i.e., each project's study typically concludes that their specific project alone won't significantly degrade the surrounding intersection to a point of total failure), creating a dangerous blind spot regarding localized gridlock: Compounding Localized Density: This specific stretch of El Camino Real (SR 82) will bear the weight of multiple massive redevelopments, including the 368-unit project at the former Fish Market/McDonald’s site, the 5-story 129-unit housing development at the former Mike’s Bikes site, and another 113 units at 2951 El Camino / 470 Olive. And what happens when the Fry's site blossoms? This combination obviously risks overwhelming this single micro-corridor, therefore, development must proceed with care to prevent expensive mistakes. The Page Mill Bottleneck: The intersection of Page Mill Road and El Camino Real is currently being reconfigured after the permanent redesign to remove street parking and accommodate bike lanes. Backups at that intersection are commonplace. Combined with eliminating the right-on-red option, this actively reduces vehicular lane capacity and impacts business and neighborhood parking. Traffic spills into the arteries. The Page Mill crosswalk in front of Ash is more dangerous with increased traffic. Time will tell whether the new reconfiguration mitigates these issues. Gridlock of Neighborhood Side-Streets: Because 470 Olive Ave connects to El Camino Real via an un-signaled stop sign on the side street, the compounding traffic from these projects can effectively trap neighborhood residents. When El Camino backs up due to the restricted Page Mill intersection, turning left into or out of Olive Avenue becomes physically impossible and creates a severe hazard for emergency vehicle access. Our Request to the Council and Commission: We urge you to conduct a sober, realistic Cumulative Traffic and Safety Infrastructure Study that explicitly evaluates the combined impact of the Fish Market/McDonald's site, the Mike’s Bikes site, 2951 El Camino/470 Olive, the old Fry's site, and other projects within a reasonable (e.g., 0.75-mi) radius working in tandem against the reduced road capacity from the new El Camino/Page Mill configuration including the wholesale removal of street parking. The study may not be free, but it would likely be much cheaper than fixing the resulting mistakes later. Palo Alto plays a dangerous game by continuing to approve massive, isolated density increases block-by-block while actively dismantling the very road infrastructure meant to support them. Thank you for your time and consideration of Palo Alto's neighborhoods' long-term safety and efficient transportation. Regards, ... cc: Becky Jason On Tue, Jun 30, 2026 at 7:11 PM David Adams <david_94306@yahoo.com> wrote: + Pepper/Olive residents some of whom live at that end. Does anyone have a good case against this rezoning? With what's been going on around here it would seem the forces are against us. Regards David On Tuesday, June 30, 2026 at 06:22:46 PM PDT, Matthew Bryant <vacationmatt@yahoo.com> wrote: Need your help again to stop 470 Olive Ave rezoning . We have mixed use on both ends of our blocks. Help preserve the few R1 single family homes we have left. Best regards, Matt On May 6, 2023, at 19:08, Matthew Bryant <vacationmatt@yahoo.com> wrote: Turns out that the Acclaim Property did buy 2951. They are going to renovate it and turn into commercial. It’s up for soft sale if anyone is interested (not listed but shopping it around). The fish house project is a Stanford collaboration includes McDonald’s. The vet (now bmnt) pulled out of the old 2951 plan, and it is done. I talked with Lydia Kou at the May fête parade today. I thanked her for promoting bikes and asked her to help out the NVCAP. I said the building heights are too tall and she agreed. She said she is looking out for Venturans! Cheers, Matt Sent from Outer Space On May 6, 2023, at 17:04, Jeff Levinsky <jeff@levinsky.org> wrote: There's no new project submitted for that address. See https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Planning-Development-Services/Current- Planning/Projects/2951-El-Camino-Real, but what's there is the 2020 project that didn't go forward. We were told the developer and the four different owners back then couldn't agree on things. That developer opted instead to work on the Fish Market project on the other side of El Camino. 2951 El Camino's last transfer date was in 2017 per the County. See attached assessment. Of course, the various owners can always launch a new effort to build something there and it could be much bigger than the prior plans, thanks to state laws. ----- Original Message ----- From: Matthew Bryant To: Rebecca Sanders Cc: David Adams ; Anupa Bajwa ; Marvin & Jing Woo ; Candy Tsourounis ; Shirley Yeh ; Jeff Levinsky ; robinson.jason.c@gmail.com Sent: Friday, May 5, 2023 10:20 AM Subject: 2951 On another note, the Akins auto body is moving out of 2951 El Camino Real (at Pepper Ave). I think the property was sold in 2022 and the new owner raised the rent on Akins. Akins has decided to move out by May 20. Today, I noticed three well-dressed individuals walking around the 2951 property and looking longingly at its future. I wonder if these are real estate developers looking to build another high- rise commercial/residential like Acclaim Properties proposed a few years ago. Does Jeff Levinsky or anybody know anything about 2951 ECR? I tried to find information about a property sale online. Best regards, Matt 471 Pepper Ave On May 1, 2023, at 7:13 PM, Rebecca Sanders <rebsanders@gmail.com> wrote: Dear David and Matt: I am cc'ing Anupa, since she is right there. Is there anyone else that should be on this thread? I emailed Jeff Levinsky about this massive building being grossly under-parked. He was aware of it. You guys know him, right. He's PAN's land use guru and super helpful when it comes to reading zoning laws. Jeff Levinsky says it would really help if neighbors wrote letters or better yet spoke at the ARB meeting Thursday. Neighbors rarely show up and when they do, ARB tends to listen. Here's some other stuff he said to me. I hope this helps: "The overview suggests the project is using its full count of four exemptions under SB 330. I think that leaves them still subject to our other rules that protect sight-lines into neighboring properties and require screening, plantings, and things like that. I'd recommend the neighbors go to the ARB and ask for every bit of that -- and the project should have to provide it as it has no exemptions left. That might give some relief. 'A more sophisticated argument is that the state parking exemptions don't apply if a city can show it would create safety problems. Normally the City had to be prepared to make such an argument, but neighbors might hire a lawyer to help pursue that. At a minimum, they could certainly mock the developer's attempt to take over the street for its own parking." I also asked Jeff about whether it will automatically go to Council. He's not sure. Various rules generally require PTC and Council meetings for large projects, even if using SB 330. But if it doesn't go to Council, it can be appealed to the Council, although the SB 330 limit on five meetings may create problems and the Council may not be able to overturn anything unless it relates to compliance with objective standards. This Thursday's meeting is the third hearing for this project. Jeff's see one can explicitly appeal per 18.15.090(d) for the density bonus aspects. (I haven't look it up.) More direct quotes from Jeff: "The ARB staff report claims the project is subject neither to the new objective standards protecting neighbors nor the older ones if they're not objective. I can't see it hurting the neighbors to ask for anything they feel would help...The City could have objected to the massive parking reduction, but opted not to. The City definitely does not have to grant any special rights to the building for street parking, of course." By the way,Charities Housing is run by a 501(c)3 non-profit, so it could well stay low income forever. If they eventually sell, the funds they raise would have to be used for something else consistent with their non-profit charter. Anyway, does anyone over there have a plan to go to the ARB? I'm happy to lend my voice to yours. Is there any one else we can muster? Best to all, Becky <2951 El Camino Assessment.pdf> From:Matthew Bryant To:Planning Commission; Council, City; Kallas, Emily Cc:Matt Bryant; Candy Tsourounis Subject:470 Olive Ave rezoning opposition Date:Monday, July 6, 2026 12:09:45 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear distinguished Palo Alto City Council, PTC members, and project planner Emily Kallas, I am writing this letter to express my opposition with the rezoning request by 470 Olive Ave, which is an existing R-1 zoning that is shown to be part of the R-1 zoning per the existing and updated 2024 NVCAP (https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/2/planning-amp-development-services/north- ventura-cap/nvcap-reports/adopted_nvcap_8_26_24.pdf). Per the existing NVCAP zoning ordinances the 470 Olive Ave parcel is R-1 and should not be permitted to become a medium density mixed use for a multitude of reasons. It should be noted that 470 Olive Ave is currently non conforming and has previously attempted to rezone in 2019 and it was not allowed to proceed for reasons: [e.g., https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas- minutes/planning-and-transportation-commission/2019-agendas-minutes-and-staff-reports/ptc- 12.11.19-470-olive.pdf ]. In 2019, 470 Olive Ave had been noted to be non conforming and operating a commercial business in earnest on residentially-zoned property which allegedly violates Palo Alto code and incurs a $1,000 daily fine or $365,000/year. It is unknown whether the fines been paid to the City of Palo Alto. It should further be noted that there is a new R-1 single family residential currently under construction next door at 450 Olive Ave which is conforming and will help to enhance the NVCAP R-1 zoning as designed and agreed to in the updated 2024 NVCAP. Also, recent ADU have been built on R-1 zones at 461 Pepper Ave, 295 Olive Ave, and 305 Olive Ave which helps fulfill further housing needs in Palo Alto. We and our Pepper and Olive Street neighbors are writing to express clear and pressing opposition and concerns regarding the proposed rezoning of 470 Olive Ave from R-1 to a medium-density mixed-use designation. While everyone understands the state-mandated pressure to fulfill the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), approving this rezoning without a holistic, corridor-wide cumulative impact analysis introduces massive safety and infrastructure liabilities to Ventura and surrounding neighborhoods. This message needs your attention Some Recipients have never replied to this person. This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast The current planning approach evaluates this block entirely in a piecemeal fashion (i.e., each project's study typically concludes that their specific project alone won't significantly degrade the surrounding intersection to a point of total failure), creating a dangerous blind spot regarding localized gridlock: Compounding Localized Density: This specific stretch of El Camino Real (SR 82) of South Palo Alto will bear the weight of multiple massive redevelopments, including the 368-unit project at the former Fish Market/McDonald’s site, the 5-story 129-unit housing development at the former Mike’s Bikes site, and other nearby construction such as the 80-plus condos at former Fry's Cannery site. This combination obviously risks overwhelming this single micro-corridor, therefore, development must proceed with care to prevent expensive mistakes. The Page Mill Bottleneck: The intersection of Page Mill Road and El Camino Real is currently being reconfigured after the permanent redesign to remove street parking and accommodate bike lanes. Backups at that intersection are commonplace. Combined with eliminating the right-on-red option, this actively reduces vehicular lane capacity and impacts business and neighborhood parking. Traffic spills into the arteries. The Page Mill crosswalk in front of Ash is more dangerous with increased traffic. Time will tell whether the new reconfiguration mitigates these issues. Gridlock of Neighborhood Side-Streets: Because 470 Olive Ave connects to El Camino Real via an un-signaled stop sign on the side street, the compounding traffic from these projects can effectively trap neighborhood residents. When El Camino backs up due to the restricted Page Mill intersection, turning left into or out of Olive Avenue becomes physically impossible and creates a severe hazard for emergency vehicle access. Our Request to the Council and Commission: We urge you to oppose the 470 Olive Ave rezoning request and furthermore conduct a sober, realistic Cumulative Traffic and Safety Infrastructure Study that explicitly evaluates the combined impact of the Fish Market/McDonald's site, the Mike’s Bikes site, the Fry's Cannery site, and other projects within a reasonable (e.g., 0.75-mi) radius working in tandem against the reduced road capacity from the new El Camino/Page Mill configuration including the wholesale removal of street parking. The study may not be free, but it would likely be much cheaper than fixing the resulting mistakes later. Palo Alto plays a dangerous game by continuing to approve massive, isolated density increases block-by-block while actively dismantling the very road infrastructure meant to support them. Thank you for your time and consideration of Palo Alto's neighborhoods' long-term safety and efficient transportation. Sincerely, Matthew Bryant, PharmD 471 Pepper Ave, Palo Alto, CA 94306 From:Pepper Person To:Kallas, Emily Cc:Rebecca Sanders Subject:Fwd: PUBLIC COMMENT Re: Piecemeal Rezoning (470 Olive Ave / 2951 El Camino Real Corridor) -- Cumulative Infrastructure Impact Concerns Date:Tuesday, July 7, 2026 8:35:03 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Ms. Kallas, We're forwarding our note ahead of tomorrow's PTC meeting, given its relevance. Warm regards, Jason Robinson, PhD, MBA Jieming Robinson, MS, Economics cc: Rebecca Sanders, Ventura Neighborhood Association ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Pepper Person <pepperxigua@gmail.com> Date: Wed, Jul 1, 2026 at 12:18 AM Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT Re: Piecemeal Rezoning (470 Olive Ave / 2951 El Camino Real Corridor) -- Cumulative Infrastructure Impact Concerns To: <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>, Rebecca Sanders <rebsanders@gmail.com> Dear Mayor, Council Members, and Commissioners, We are writing to express clear and pressing concerns regarding the proposed rezoning of 470 Olive Ave and 2951 El Camino Real from R-1 to a higher-density mixed-use designation. We also note that this topic has come up before, and it didn't proceed for reasons: [e.g., https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas- minutes/planning-and-transportation-commission/2019-agendas-minutes-and-staff-reports/ptc- 12.11.19-470-olive.pdf ]. While everyone understands the state-mandated pressure to fulfill the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), approving this rezoning without a holistic, corridor-wide cumulative impact analysis introduces massive safety and infrastructure liabilities to This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first mail to some recipients. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast Ventura and surrounding neighborhoods. The current planning approach evaluates this block entirely in a piecemeal fashion (i.e., each project's study typically concludes that their specific project alone won't significantly degrade the surrounding intersection to a point of total failure), creating a dangerous blind spot regarding localized gridlock: Compounding Localized Density: This specific stretch of El Camino Real (SR 82) will bear the weight of multiple massive redevelopments, including the 368-unit project at the former Fish Market/McDonald’s site, the 5-story 129-unit housing development at the former Mike’s Bikes site, and another 113 units at 2951 El Camino / 470 Olive. And what happens when the Fry's site blossoms? This combination obviously risks overwhelming this single micro-corridor, therefore, development must proceed with care to prevent expensive mistakes. The Page Mill Bottleneck: The intersection of Page Mill Road and El Camino Real is currently being reconfigured after the permanent redesign to remove street parking and accommodate bike lanes. Backups at that intersection are commonplace. Combined with eliminating the right-on-red option, this actively reduces vehicular lane capacity and impacts business and neighborhood parking. Traffic spills into the arteries. The Page Mill crosswalk in front of Ash is more dangerous with increased traffic. Time will tell whether the new reconfiguration mitigates these issues. Gridlock of Neighborhood Side-Streets: Because 470 Olive Ave connects to El Camino Real via an un-signaled stop sign on the side street, the compounding traffic from these projects can effectively trap neighborhood residents. When El Camino backs up due to the restricted Page Mill intersection, turning left into or out of Olive Avenue becomes physically impossible and creates a severe hazard for emergency vehicle access. Our Request to the Council and Commission: We urge you to conduct a sober, realistic Cumulative Traffic and Safety Infrastructure Study that explicitly evaluates the combined impact of the Fish Market/McDonald's site, the Mike’s Bikes site, 2951 El Camino/470 Olive, the old Fry's site, and other projects within a reasonable (e.g., 0.75-mi) radius working in tandem against the reduced road capacity from the new El Camino/Page Mill configuration including the wholesale removal of street parking. The study may not be free, but it would likely be much cheaper than fixing the resulting mistakes later. Palo Alto plays a dangerous game by continuing to approve massive, isolated density increases block-by-block while actively dismantling the very road infrastructure meant to support them. Thank you for your time and consideration of Palo Alto's neighborhoods' long-term safety and efficient transportation. Regards, Jason Robinson, PhD, MBA Jieming Robinson, MS, Economics cc: Rebecca Sanders, Ventura Neighborhood Association El Camino Real Ramos Way (Private) nsen Way Gra nt Avenu Sherida n Avenue El Ca mino Real Sherma Ash Street Page Mill Road P Pepper Avenue Olive Avenue Acacia Avenue Page Mill Road Ash Street irch Street 2501 2904 2650 408 425 444 455 469 200 425 755 2675 2701 2805 2825 3000 260 345 360 398 410 435 399 407 425 445 630 2700 Bldg A 2700 Bldg B 2865 303- 315 309- 315 3111- 3159 446- 464 31703160 3150 3128 3200 420 412 461 451 431 421 411 405 399 435 395 375 365 385 395 3017 441 411 345 430 420 440 450 460 470 461 2875 411 421 431 471 470 456 450 440 441 451 461 430 2999 775 250 4 250 6250 2 250 8 405 409 3 466 0 29512905 2755 450 3001 402 406408 412 400 370 2700 2473 306 322 320 8 314 312 334336338340 342 344 261 2360358356 354352350348346 332 330328 264 845 835 600 620 2650 404 404 431A BLDG 1 BLDG 2 BLDG 3 422424426428430 101 103 100 101 102 103 104 105 108 107109 456A 473 George Lu PTC This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend City Jurisdictional Limits Conflict-Of-Interest, Architectural Review Board Conflict-Of-Interest, City Attorney Conflict-Of-Interest, City Council Main Residence Conflict-Of-Interest, City Council Other Property Interest Conflict-Of-Interest, City Manager Conflict-Of-Interest, Historic Resources Board Conflict-Of-Interest, PCE Staff Conflict-Of-Interest, Public Art Program Director Conflict-Of-Interest, Planning and Transportation Commission Assessment Parcel Current Features 0' 168' COI Map 470 Olive CITY OF PALO ALTO I NC O R P O R A TED CALIFORNIA P a l o A l t o T h e C i t y o f APRIL 1 6 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors. ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto ekallas, 2026-07-28 15:34:23 COI map All Bodies (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Personal\Planning.mdb) 470 Olive AvenueZoning and Land Use Map Amendment Presented by Emily Kallas, AICP, Senior Planner September 9, 2026 www.PaloAlto.gov 2 Prior Council Direction Direction from City Council: •Motion from El Camino Real Focus Area Plan adoption in May 2025 •This property was discussed, but ultimately not selected for inclusion in the El Camino Real Focus Area based on its context adjacent to a single -family neighborhood. •Propose rezoning to appropriately transition from single -family neighborhood to El Camino Real Focus Area housing 3 PTC Discussion Split Vote: •Main concern was regarding how state laws could exceed local development standards (such as waivers) •Specifically as it relates to "respecting" the R1 neighborhood, as stated in the NVCAP •2 Commissioners expressed a preference for this request being in tandem with a housing proposal o Applicant expressed that the rezoning has to happen first for funding •Concern about request timing •Support for a housing project at this location 4 Project Site 5 Proposed Rezoning 6 Comparison of Development Standards Development Standard Current NV-R1 (TOD) Zoning 18.29.060 Table 1 Proposed NV-MXM (TOD) Zoning 18.29.060 Table 3 Maximum Height 35 feet 55 feet Maximum Site Coverage 70%100% Maximum Total FAR 1.5:1 2.0:1 Minimum Setbacks, adjacent to R1 4 ft side 10 ft front and rear 4 ft side 10 ft rear Daylight Plane Initial height: 16 feet at property line Slope: 45 degrees Initial height: 16 feet at property line Slope: 45 degrees •This table includes the current and proposed zoning, with the temporary 50% SB 79 Ordinance in effect. 7 Analysis •NV-MXM zoning includes development standards that provide an appropriate transition between the adjacent single-family and the El Camino Real Focus Area on the other adjacent parcels. •NV-MXM offers an increase in height and FAR from the NV -R1 zoning, while maintaining a daylight plane and setbacks. •Differences between NV-R1 and NV-MXM development standards, such as the daylight plane, are reduced with implementation of the 50% SB 79 temporary ordinance and may be further modified by State Density Bonus Law. •Rezoning facilitates the applicant's interest in redeveloping the property in tandem with adjacent parcels. •Any proposed development will be subject to further review. 7 CEQA Status •This rezoning is exempt from CEQA in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21080.085. •Applies to rezoning of sites to address No Net Loss Law (Gov Code Section 65863). •If Council supports the rezoning of this property, staff intends to place 470 Olive Avenue on the City’s housing inventory. 8 Next Steps Staff recommends that Council: 1.Adopt the Resolution in Attachment B amending the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation from NVCAP Low Density Residential to NVCAP Medium Density Mixed Use; and 2.Adopt the Ordinance in Attachment C amending the Zoning Map to rezone the subject parcel from NV-R1 to NV-MXM consistent with previous City Council direction. EMILY KALLAS, AICP Senior Planner Planning & Development Services Emily.Kallas@PaloAlto.gov 470 Olive2951 ECR View From Parking Lot Existing Building Spans 2951 ECR and 470 Olive Since Construction in 1968 & Share a Parking Lot Aerial SHAC Apartment Communities is a subsidiary of The Marcus & Millichap Company and a strategic development partner of Pacific Urban Investors draws upon a 50-year heritage of developing, owning, and managing multifamily communities throughout California & Pacific Northwest. SHAPARTMENTS.COM 2024 NAHB The Nationals Gold Award - Community of the Year The Nationals Silver - Community of the Year The Nationals Silver - Best Multifamily Community Design The Nationals Silver - Best Landscape of a Community The Nationals Silver - Best Use of Technology 2024 BIA Bay Area MAME Award Community of the Year - Attached Best Amenity Space Multifamily Community Sale/Rent Best Leasing Office Design 2025 CoStar Impact Award Winner Multifamily Development of the Year 2023 NAHB The Nationals Silver-Best Sales/Leasing Center The Nationals Silver-Best Community Amenity (Work from Home spaces) The Nationals Silver-Best Landscape of a Community The Nationals Silver-Multifamily Community of the Year -4 stories and above Best in American Living Gold - Best Development 4-7 Stories, For Rent 2023 PCBC, Gold Nugget Award of Merit Best Multi-Family Housing Community – 100 du/acre Best Infill Site Plan Solution 2022 BIA Bay Area MAME Award Community of the Year Best Amenity Space of a Multifamily Community (Clubhouse) Best Leasing Office Design Best Architectural Design of a Multifamily Community 2025 NAHB The Nationals Silver-Best Landscape Design The Nationals Silver-Multifamily Community of the Year -4 stories and above 2025 BIA Bay Area MAME Award Community of the Year Best Leasing Office Design Best Amenity Space of a Multifamily Community (Work From Home) 2026 PCBC, Gold Nugget Award Best Infill Community Awards of Merit Best Landscape Architecture for a Community Multi-Family Community of the Year Award Winners 2023 NAHB The Nationals Silver - Community of the Year – 4 Stories and above The Nationals Silver - Best Landscape of a Community The Nationals Silver - Best Community Amenity (Podium Deck) 2022 BIA Bay Area MAME Award Best Sales/Leasing Office Design 2023 NAHB The Nationals Silver – Best Signage The Nationals Silver - Best Multifamily Project The Nationals Silver - Best Multifamily Community of the Year – 4 Stories & above 2022 BIA Bay Area MAME Award Best Signage 11 EL CAMINO REAL, SAN CARLOS El Camino Real Experience 4 California Avenue Caltrain Station 456 OLIVE 440 OLIVE 450 OLIVE 430 OLIVE 420 OLIVE 412 OLIVE OLIVE AVENUE | MIXED USE STREETSCENE 470 OLIVE NV-R1 (TOD) 470 Olive Ave. ~20’ Building Wall on 471 Pepper + 456 Olive Property Lines 456 OLIVE 471 PEPPER 2905 ECR Existing Wall Existing Wall SB 79 TOD DISTRICT DAYLIGHT PLANE & SETBACK REQUIRED THANK YOU! S H A PA R T M E N T S . C O M 470 Olive Avenue across from 3001-3017 (Mike’s Bikes) NV-MXM MIKE’S BIKES 470 OLIVE 461 OLIVE 3001 ECR (MIKE’S BIKES) 3001-3017 El Camino Real (Mike’s Bikes) NV-MXM Next to 461 Olive Single Family Home From:Jeremy Levine To:Council, City Cc:Burt, Patrick; Lauing, Ed; Veenker, Vicki; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Lu, George; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer; Lait, Jonathan; Sauls, Garrett; Armer, Jennifer Subject:Public Comment: Agenda Item 11, ADU ordinance; and Agenda Item 12, Rezoning 470 Olive Ave. Date:Friday, September 4, 2026 3:19:24 PM Attachments:2026.9.9 Public Comment CITY COUNCIL Agenda Item 11 on ADUs; and Item 12 on Rezoning 470 Olive Street (1).pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. ! Good afternoon Palo Alto City Council members, Please see the attached comment in support of rezoning 470 Olive Avenue, as proposed by staff. We also are requesting that council pull item 11, an update to the ADU ordinance, to make amendments to the "Main Home Penalty," which will arbitrarily punish homeowners who have built ADUs or plan to build them in the future. Have a great weekend, Jeremy This message could be suspicious The sender's email address couldn't be verified. Mark Safe Report September 9, 2026 Palo Alto City Council 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 RE: Agenda Item 11, ADU ordinance update; and Agenda Item 12, Rezoning 470 Olive Avenue Dear Mayor Veenker, Vice Mayor Stone, and Members of the Palo Alto City Council, Palo Alto Forward supports policies to further housing affordability and multi-mobility accessibility in Palo Alto. To that end, we have supported ADUs in Palo Alto to create more affordable options for seniors to downsize, children to move home, and essential workers to live in our community. In order to promote ADUs, please remove Item 11 from consent to amend footnote 7 of Table 1. This footnote codifies a “Main Home Penalty” in Palo Alto’s ADU ordinance, which would punish homeowners who have built an ADU or plan to build one without demolishing their primary home. We agree with staff that the ADU ordinance should be changed to add clarity around square footage exemptions, but the current proposed change penalizes homeowners who have built ADUs and does not reflect recent permitting practices for ADUs. To avoid penalizing homeowners who build an ADU, Palo Alto should amend Table 1 to include the same Square Footage Exemption as Table 2 (see below) and amend footnote 7 of Table 1 to read: “Square footage of an ADU under this section shall not reduce the allowable square footage of a proposed single-family home any primary dwelling.” The Table 2 language we want inserted into Table 1: Square Footage Exemption when in conjunction with a single family home1 Up to 800 sf The context: ● As currently written, the ADU ordinance adds footnote 7 of Table 1, which reads “Square footage of a detached ADU under this section shall not reduce the allowable square footage of a proposed single-family home.” The word “proposed” has big implications: 1 New text for footnote 7 of Table 1 in the ordinance: “Square footage of an ADU under this section shall not reduce the allowable square footage of any primary dwelling.” 1 ○ If a single-family home owner demolishes their home and rebuilds it at the max FAR along with an 800 square foot Table 1 ADU, that ADU is exempt from the FAR under local zoning rules. ○ If a single-family homeowner remains in their more modest home and builds an 800 square foot Table 1 ADU, they would lose 800 square feet of FAR for their primary home under local zoning rules if they ever want to expand their house in the future. ● Staff argue that footnote 7—which was not present in the ordinance council reviewed on August 17—clarifies longstanding staff practice. However: ○ While a uniform square foot exemption has not been codified for Table 1, City Council had this exact discussion in 2020. Then, the staff report recommended a uniform exemption.2 ○ Operating under the assumption that there is uniform exemption, ADU builders have been submitting applications pursuant to Table 1 with the exemption. Staff has been processing Table 1 ADUs that include an 800 square foot exemption. ○ Furthermore, ADU permitting applications in Palo Alto do not distinguish between Table 1 and Table 2 ADUs. That means homeowners who have built an ADU don’t actually know which ADUs are Table 1 or Table 2 ADUs—and it’s not clear staff do either. The August 17 staff report claims staff have been informally counting Table 1 ADUs toward FAR; if that is the case, homeowners who have built ADUs using Table 1 are unaware. ADUs have formed an essential part of the City's housing strategy, consistently resulting in the permitting of more than 100 ADUs annually—even higher than the 64 ADUs projected in Palo Alto's housing element. State law has played an essential role complimenting Palo Alto’s local efforts. Palo Alto can continue building on its ADU success by amending footnote 7 to give Table 1 and Table 2 ADUs a uniform square footage exemption. Otherwise, the City risks penalizing modest homeowners who built an ADU or plan to in the future while remaining in their more modest homes. The Main Home Penalty should be removed entirely so that Palo Alto continues its leadership on ADU development. Separately, we support the staff recommendation to rezone 470 Olive Avenue from the NV-R1 designation to the NV-MXM medium-density designation. We also support staff’s intent to add this site to the Housing Element. 2 City of Palo Alto City Council Staff Report (ID # 11118): The report discusses “Providing a Uniform Exemption of ADU Square Footage from FAR, Lot Coverage, and Maximum House Size,” which staff recommended because “This approach could make it easier for the public to understand how these limits can impact what is allowed and make it easier for staff to implement. It also would remove a potential incentive to demolish an existing residence to max out FAR before building an ADU. Finally, this approach would allow a property owner seeking to build a larger ADU to do so if there is additional FAR available for the site.” 2 470 Olive Avenue already contains a defunct commercial business. The parcel is immediately next to the El Camino Real Focus Area. When creating the ECR Focus Area, council directed staff to independently evaluate whether the site would be sufficient for new multi-family housing. Having conducted their evaluation, staff now have proposed moving forward with a mixed-use designation better reflecting the property’s existing use and redevelopment potential. Palo Alto’s local zoning should broadly allow development on existing corridors. Most new development the City has approved in recent years has been proposed pursuant to state laws like the Builder ’s Remedy that circumvent local process; 470 Olive reflects an opportunity for the council to demonstrate local prerogative for new homes in the places where the City has stated it wants them. The structure for this business is built out to the lot limits on two sides. Replacing this with housing under NV-MXM zoning would give more separation, via setback requirements, to those two residential neighbors. In an SB 79 local alternative plan, Palo Alto should encourage additional height and density on this site. For now, however, the staff recommendation will best indicate the city’s intent to promote more homes in this location. Thank you for your consideration, Jeremy Levine Executive Director, Palo Alto Forward 3 From:LAKIBA PITTMAN To:Council, City Subject:Item 12 – 470 Olive Avenue Rezoning: Please Consider the Cumulative Impact on Our Neighborhood Date:Saturday, September 5, 2026 6:41:37 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Mayor Veenker and Members of the Palo Alto City Council, I am writing regarding Item 12 on the September 9 agenda, the proposed rezoning of 470 Olive Avenue from Single-Family Residential (NV-R1) to Medium Density Mixed Use (NV- MXM). I am a longtime resident of the neighborhood and recently appeared before the Council regarding the RV parking issue affecting Olive Avenue. I want to begin by thanking you for listening to residents' concerns and for voting to remove Olive Avenue, a residential street, from the proposed RV parking locations. I appreciated the Council’s responsiveness to our neighborhood. I find myself writing again because residents in this small area are experiencing multiple, overlapping changes at once. Each issue may appear discrete when it comes before the Council, but for those of us who live here, their effects are cumulative. This proposed zoning change is therefore not an abstract planning question for those of us who live here. We have the large commercial properties along Page Mill Road and El Camino Real, the parking structure and development immediately behind our neighborhood, and additional housing development planned nearby along Park Boulevard and the El Camino corridor. I understand Palo Alto’s need for additional housing, and I am not opposed to housing or thoughtful development. My concern is about the cumulative impact of continuing to increase density around one of the relatively small remaining pockets of single-family homes without adequately considering what that means for the people already living here. Olive Avenue is a particularly small and unusual residential area. There are only a handful of homes on portions of the street, alongside existing commercial uses and major development nearby. Rezoning 470 Olive is therefore not simply a change affecting one parcel. It could change the character and future development trajectory of this small residential enclave. I am especially concerned about traffic, parking, pedestrian and bicycle safety, emergency access, and the cumulative effects of projects already approved or underway in the immediate area. These impacts should be considered together rather than on a project-by-project basis, particularly given the significant changes that have occurred and continue to occur around El This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report Camino Real, Page Mill Road, Park Boulevard, Olive Avenue, and the surrounding Ventura neighborhood. I also understand that the Planning and Transportation Commission did not reach a majority recommendation on this rezoning. That alone suggests the questions raised by this proposal deserve careful consideration before a permanent zoning change is made. I respectfully ask the Council not to view 470 Olive Avenue in isolation. Please consider the cumulative development already affecting this small neighborhood, the experiences of the residents who live here, and whether sufficient analysis has been conducted on traffic, parking, safety, infrastructure, and the long-term consequences of extending mixed-use zoning further into the remaining residential portion of Olive Avenue. Housing and neighborhood preservation do not have to be opposing values. Thoughtful planning should address Palo Alto’s housing needs while also recognizing when a small, established residential neighborhood is bearing a disproportionate share of surrounding development impacts. I urge you to either decline the proposed rezoning at this time or postpone action until the cumulative impacts on the immediate neighborhood have been more fully evaluated. Thank you for your consideration and for listening to those of us who live with the consequences of these decisions every day. Sincerely, Lakiba Pittman Palo Alto resident Olive Avenue neighborhood From:Pepper Person To:Council, City; Burt, Patrick; Lauing, Ed; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer; Veenker, Vicki Subject:9/9/2026 City Council Meeting: [Item #12 / 470 Olive Zoning: The Record Does Not Justify NV-MXM] Date:Monday, September 7, 2026 9:48:53 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Mayor Veenker, Vice Mayor Stone, and Councilmembers, The proposed change of 470 Olive from NV-R1 to NV-MXM raises a critical question: What changed since NVCAP, and since Council revisited this boundary in May 2025, that warrants changing 470 Olive from NV-R1 to NV-MXM? The 2019 staff report makes the history exceptionally clear. In 1978, Council changed 470 Olive from CS to R-1 to achieve consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, after which the commercial use became nonconforming. In 1987, Council approved an exception subject to conditions; the prior owner did not implement them and in 1988 affirmatively declined to pursue the exception. After years of coordinated planning, NVCAP designated Olive/Pepper as an “area of stability” that would not experience a significant degree of change. Under the resulting zoning, 2951 El Camino is NV-MXM while 470 Olive remains NV-R1. Council revisited this boundary again in May 2025. It expanded the El Camino Focus Area to 2951 El Camino but left 470 Olive outside because of its zoning and concerns about impacts on adjacent residential properties. Now Council is being asked to walk back years of planning and decades of decisions to create a jagged boundary. The item before Council is framed in its title as “aligning” 470 Olive with the NV-MXM zoning of the adjacent and connected 2951 El Camino parcel. Instead of aligning, it would arbitrarily create an out-of-place notch in the established boundary. Rezoning 470 Olive would project MXM one parcel into the residential block. 471 Pepper This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report this long-standing edge rather than extending MXM farther into Olive. Moreover, rezoning 470 Olive to MXM does not unlock multifamily housing. SB 79 already did that. Under today's zoning, 470 Olive (5,983 square feet), provides ~10,500 square feet (1.75 FAR, NV-R1(TOD)) of allowable multifamily floor area at. MXM increases that to ~12,000 square feet (2.0 FAR). The incremental base FAR is therefore ~1,500 square feet. Critically, this proposal is not presenting a choice between housing and no housing. PTC considered the request and split 3-3. And yet, where is the housing application? There is none. Instead, staff states that “potential development partners are waiting” and that rezoning first gives owners and investors greater certainty. That is about investors' needs. No housing project is being approved here. The entitlement value created by this vote is concrete. The claimed housing benefit remains undefined. Finally, while No Net Loss creates a legitimate City obligation, it does not itself select 470 Olive. Staff attributes the moderate-income capacity shortfall to approvals at Geng Road and 3606 El Camino. If this particular 5,983-square-foot parcel is needed to cure that citywide shortfall, the report should show the arithmetic and explain why moving this recently reaffirmed boundary is preferable to the available alternatives. It does not. In short: this boundary has been repeatedly considered; rezoning 470 to MXM does not unlock multifamily housing; and there is no housing project here before Council. The record establishes neither the need nor the planning basis for MXM here. We therefore urge Council to deny the NV-MXM rezoning and NVCAP amendment for 470 Olive. Thank you for your consideration, Jason Robinson, PhD, MBA Jieming Robinson, MA, Economics For the administrative record: We object to reliance on Public Resources Code § 21080.085 unless the record establishes that this specific NV-MXM rezoning implements the schedule of actions in the City's HCD-approved Housing Element, including Program 1.2(B). HCD's guidance states that a No Net Loss rezoning may qualify where the Housing Element contains a specific commitment and discrete timing, but the rezoning must implement that commitment. The record should therefore identify the remaining moderate-income capacity shortfall, the capacity attributed to 470 Olive under its existing NV-R1/TOD zoning and under proposed NV-MXM zoning, and why this particular rezoning is needed to maintain adequate sites. We further object that the record does not establish that the Comprehensive Plan as amended would remain internally consistent under Government Code § 65300.5. NVCAP's retained land-use framework describes the Olive/Pepper low-density residential area as an “area of stability” that will not experience a significant degree of change. The record should reconcile the proposed one-parcel Medium-Density Mixed Use designation with that retained framework and with the adjoining NV-R1 area. From:Matthew Bryant To:Council, City; Kallas, Emily Cc:Candy Subject:Oppose a zoning map amendment for 470 Olive Avenue (Project 25PLN-00228) Date:Monday, September 7, 2026 8:15:21 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Item 12 on the Palo Alto City Council Special Meeting agenda for Wednesday, September 9, 2026, is a public hearing regarding a zoning map amendment for 470 Olive Avenue (Project 25PLN-00228) Dear distinguished Mayor Veenker, Vice Mayor Stone, and City Councilmembers, We are writing to you once again to oppose the 470 Olive Ave rezoning application from single-family home (NV-R1) to medium-density mixed use (NV-MXM). 1) The Palo Alto City Council already rejected a 470 Olive redevelopment proposal in January 2021. 2) Last month, the Palo Alto PTC split 3–3 on this upzoning application: Kevin, Allen, and Bryna opposed it; Forest, Bart, and Cari supported it; and Todd was absent. As a result, the PTC recommended that the City Council make the final decision. We believe Todd would have opposed the application had he attended, and that if Forest had acknowledged his misconduct and resigned sooner, this matter would not have come before the City Council in this way. 3) The North Ventura coordinated area plan (NVCAP) was approved by Palo Alto City Council in 2018 and ratified again in 2024. It should be respected and it shows on Page 31, “Respecting single-family homes” pointing to Olive and Pepper Ave. Furthermore, Page 35 states “…being sensitive to the existing single-family neighborhood fabric -located along Pepper Avenue and Olive Avenue. This area of existing single-family homes has been designated as an area of stability and will not experience a significant degree of change.” 4) 470 Olive Ave has not complied with Palo Alto Municipal Code, existing building codes, and property zoning for decades since 1978. There are two similar style brick buildings at 440 Olive and 440 Pepper, both of which have compliant, single- family home residence. The current owner(s) of 470 Olive has never lived there and reside in Half Moon Bay, nor have they put it on the market to sell 470 Olive as a single-family home so another family could reside in our neighborhood. They also incorrectly misstate their two property buildings as being connected. The truth is there are two separate buildings with a 6 feet difference between roof heights and if they are adjoined by an opening then it was done without a building permit. Once again, the city continues to allow this non-compliance without fines and penalties continues. Why are 470 Olive Ave owners given special treatment and zoning exemption with impunity? 5) 470 Olive Ave intends to upzone to MXM, combine with 2951 El Camino Real (and likely 2999 El Camino Real) and sell for an estimated 10 million dollars to Summerhill Homes. Summerhill Homes recently reached out to Mark Johnson of Acclaim Properties and owner of 2905 El Camino Real to buy 2905 El Camino Real. He said the deal went cold after Summerhill would not pay the same price as 2951 El Camino Real. In summary, the 470 Olive/2951 El Camino Real owner and Summerhill corporation stand to make huge profits on this corporate real estate deal. The main issue here is the optics of a large corporation buying a single- family home and then upzoning it to commercial use. This is a bad look for Palo Alto. 6) There is a new single-family home currently being built at 460 Olive Ave (formerly known as 456 Olive Ave) next door to 470 Olive that includes a single-family home with ADU and junior ADU to make full use of providing additional housing within the R-1 building code. The 460 Olive owner clearly understands the single-family housing zoning and is following the building codes. This is a good neighbor. 7) Other single-family homes on Olive and Pepper Ave are adding ADU and junior ADU to provide additional residential housing within the R-1 single-family building code, including 461 Pepper Ave, 305 Olive Ave, and 295 Olive Ave to name a few. 8) The South Palo Alto and Ventura neighborhoods continue to take on the majority of the high- density housing projects with no signs of stopping new developments. Currently within one block of 470 Olive, there are high density developments at Acacia St (Dividend Properties, 16 new condos), The Cannery (3200 Park, Fry’s, 74 townhomes), 3001 El Camino Real (Charity/Mike’s Bikes, 130 apartments), 3150 El Camino Real (Fish Market/McDonald’s/Acclaim Properties, 368 apartments), 3265 El Camino Real (Half Dome Capital, 55 apartments, 75% PAUSD teacher), and 3225 El Camino Real (8 new apartments). There continues to be a mapping inequality and neighborhood redlining in South Palo Alto when compared to North Palo Alto neighborhoods. 9) This jeopardizes the Olive and Pepper Ave single-family home residence district formerly known as the Sunnyside District of Mayfield (Olive and Pepper Ave, now part of Ventura District). Once the City Council allows one single-family home to upzone, then anyone else could be allowed to upzone. 10) Per the building code, allowing a R-1 with 1-2 story single family home to dramatically upzone to a medium- density mixed use with 5-6 stories of apartments is egregious and should not be allowed adjacent to existing single-family homes (as detailed in the spirit of the NVCAP). 11) 471 Pepper Ave parcel will be mostly impacted by the upzoning as it will have two commercial use lots behind it and to the side of it. This unfairly and disproportionally devalues the single-family home residence.  12)When Emily Kallas, project planner, was asked about the privacy standards, she could not provide specific details of R-1 versus MXM. However, we know that a combined 470 Olive Ave/2951 El Camino Real higher-density mixed use property with bonus density could have far greater height allowance, with larger walls, balconies, and windows with direct line of sight into the adjacent single-family homes at 460 Olive Ave, 461 Pepper Ave, and 471 Pepper Ave. 13) We object to reliance on Public Resources Code § 21080.085 because the administrative record does not establish that the proposed rezoning implements a schedule of actions contained in a Housing Element that has been approved by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), as required by Government Code § 65583(c). In summary, we oppose the application to rezone 470 Olive Ave single family residence in a residential zone. Please urge the owner to comply with the Palo Alto Municipal Code and build a single-family home like the single-family homes that have been recently built around them. If they do not wish to comply with the single-family residential zoning, they should sell the property to another owner who will. We are asking the city to affirm the single-family residential zoning and the commitment the city made to honor and uphold the NVCAP and respect our neighborhood. Respectfully, Drs. Matt Bryant & Candy Tsourounis 471 Pepper Ave, Palo Alto