[{"_1":2,"_111":-5,"_112":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6588669,"mediaKeyId","5560363-89edcce2356dc930be217bb4b239162e","parentId",5560363,"title","Council adopts weed‑abatement assessment list after no objections","audioSeconds",566,"startMs",13549000,"endMs",14115000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5560363-89edcce2356dc930be217bb4b239162e&start=13549&end=14115","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5560363-89edcce2356dc930be217bb4b239162e/thumbnail_13549000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6588669/Palo-Alto/Santa-Clara-County/California/Council-adopts-weedabatement-assessment-list-after-no-objections","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6588669-7985cb9bf9880680d63010a9f4bc2f96/orig.mp4?Expires=1771025968&Signature=IAICSZfrgVcYqzHkkmqN8aIxTUB3B5nIaEgRUvGXbk-Ea1g5jwEv0FSSU-5FdXKAYAv8ExW4poEhYXOXmQKi7MX3tCUDQAKeDjTONlhv3EeYKSwRRBoPNggr-XnQdhhYaBnKA4XHPMWqfFxWTsbY0UZBhGO7-YFEWygdZXZBep71l4lH4Iy37Qc8pVCWgNQZrZ2a53mIMLF8b97Xyj2L9cUR8vfUTgPfJT0c6oR6vbYHebwR2~jt4gI5LJrBJS9RPE8wYCCoWJXtQJZn2-N0uiYeQ~8vmTcHeOwNdnvhln6r4ec~X5UbTRJhX5b4JZyTmtXtq85kr5tn0Q73WsdKZQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City of Palo Alto","date","2025-08-12T05:20:49Z","article","Palo Alto City Council adopted a resolution on Aug. 11 approving the list of properties subject to weed‑abatement assessments for work performed by Santa Clara County under the city’s nuisance abatement program.

Fire Marshal Tammy Jasso explained the process: the city declared weed abatement a nuisance in December, property owners were offered hearings in February and the county performs abatement when properties fail inspection; costs are then placed on an assessment list. The county’s program administrator confirmed the list covers privately owned properties only. No members of the public objected at the Aug. 11 meeting.

A motion to approve the list passed unanimously among the six members present (6–0, one absence). The resolution directs staff to proceed with assessments for properties that failed abatement and have been placed on the county’s list.

Ending: No appeals were made at the meeting; assessments will be processed as listed.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","City Council Meeting - August 11, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The City Council adopted the annual weed‑abatement assessment list; staff said property owners listed received hearings earlier this year and no objections were raised at the Aug. 11 meeting.","taxTitle","Palo Alto, Santa Clara County, California","taxId",3867,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6588673,"City council approves amendments to SFPUC wholesale water agreement after regional negotiations",2986,13744000,16730000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5560363-89edcce2356dc930be217bb4b239162e&start=13744&end=16730","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5560363-89edcce2356dc930be217bb4b239162e/thumbnail_13744000.jpg","/articles/6588673/Palo-Alto/Santa-Clara-County/California/City-council-approves-amendments-to-SFPUC-wholesale-water-agreement-after-regional-negotiations","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6588673-f8ed1acda5f120e37ab93f0e7962b432/orig.mp4?Expires=1771025968&Signature=FRCzDZNwnVf49cwp1VfI3q~~8Pq6wMnfDhwmjKm~7n0IOPcqak9YjxN2DnIVMBqTLZGnIS4nrCURTJ~GSOXDhLSnHXcjmlKh5JWy3HVy80S6ps3rz7mDUxeviONO377u4VhtD5UGaN5ilFIFIDTtePsJATMqA3vJPNwHMoXNhWtRfyhTi69zuFelZC9wqCN3eyoDQwLVjR23XgyGUfPokWfVD4PAta5vv4~R5lnGObOLciIywOZZ~TMl7RNH91b~ScuAc89NmyBj1kRNPiGga5uu1km9HP3CB-IhfSWEoBTk20jrYVVDQgNCufsfXClKWxJlaVVEkrGEOpzscsES~A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Palo Alto City Council voted 6–0 (one absence) on Aug. 11 to approve two resolutions amending the city’s wholesale water supply contract with the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission and to adopt a revised methodology for allocating wholesale‑system shortages among Bay Area agencies.

Staff described the package as a three‑part agreement negotiated among the Bay Area wholesale customers (the Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency, BOSCA, member agencies) and San Francisco. Carla Daley, assistant director of utilities, told council the amendments reset minimum purchase obligations for four wholesale agencies that had been obligated to buy fixed minimum volumes, establish a transitional mechanism that eases those obligations following drought years, and create a “family plan” so that penalties apply at the collective level rather than automatically to an individual agency if the group meets its combined minimums.

Daley said the change recognizes that conservation measures and local supply projects have reduced demand since the contract quantities were set and that the amendment includes a 10‑year review to revisit the minimums.

The package also includes a tier‑1 amendment that says wholesale agencies will not face excess use penalties from San Francisco if the wholesale group as a whole remains below the wholesale allocation during a mandatory cutback. Finally, BOSCA member agencies negotiated and staff recommended council adopt a revised tier‑2 sequential allocation formula — the methodology used to divide the wholesale group’s allocation among the 26 wholesale customers during shortages. Staff said the new tier‑2 approach prioritizes basic indoor needs, aims to minimize economic harm and provides greater predictability compared with the formula used in a recent shortage year.

City staff projected fiscal impacts from the change in penalties would be small for Palo Alto (an estimated maximum rate effect of well under 1 percent in the highest modeled case), while noting the financial effect is a function of regional purchases and how other agencies behave.

The package had mixed reception among advisory groups and members of the public. The Utilities Advisory Commission did not deliver a formal recommendation to council after a split vote; individual commissioners and public commentators urged caution and requested additional data from SFPUC about the agency’s drought modeling and the assumptions behind a “design drought” used in regional planning. Several speakers, including Mountain View Mayor Pat Showalter and BOSCA general manager Tom Smagel, urged passage and lauded lengthy interagency negotiations that resulted in the agreement.

Commissioner Chris Tooker and others urged the council to press SFPUC for more transparent demand and drought projections before approving investments in large alternative supplies. Utsav Gupta, a UAC member, asked council to defer action until SFPUC provides updated drought forecasts and sensitivity analyses; he warned of the risk of shifting fixed system costs to remaining purchasers if many wholesale agencies reduce purchases by building local supplies.

Council members said they were sympathetic to calls for more SFPUC transparency and urged continued work with BOSCA and other cities, but several members also said the package before council addresses immediate fairness concerns over long‑standing minimum purchase penalties and offers a predictable, improved drought allocation method compared with the system used in 2021–22. Council member Stone moved the staff recommendation; Council member Burke seconded. The motion carried 6–0‑1.

Ending: Council approved the amendments and directed staff to continue engagement with BOSCA and SFPUC on drought scenario modeling, transparency and regional long‑term supply planning while implementing the agreed contract changes.","Palo Alto joined other wholesale agencies to approve amendments that reset minimum purchase obligations, add a ‘family plan’ for penalties, and adopt a revised method for dividing wholesaler allocations during shortages; council members urged continued scrutiny of SFPUC drought modeling and alternative‑supply planning.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6588678,"Developer unveils 82‑unit Forest Commons for 332 Forest Ave.; neighbors split over scale",4164,7330000,11494000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5560363-89edcce2356dc930be217bb4b239162e&start=7330&end=11494","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5560363-89edcce2356dc930be217bb4b239162e/thumbnail_7330000.jpg","/articles/6588678/Palo-Alto/Santa-Clara-County/California/Developer-unveils-82unit-Forest-Commons-for-332-Forest-Ave-neighbors-split-over-scale","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6588678-1c86fd814878cee65008333bfe644a5f/orig.mp4?Expires=1771025968&Signature=R7b2kwfl99JH2FJIYqQbmyNXYQRsNJIr5OvyfFUVeCyOOiU~KYGQwpQsJTMSDlnS8P4sGmnV09OxS4Q0p8mPXrws1v70Kuez3hYUEylgq1WEEwr5r~0-4ruW1fmHMvKvQ5uBEEciy4i2OPMVoOaWJz2iQrZ0BNdAl7R2Mz4dzYiuxVNHr3pTUyMxdrUenLWI-4KlWBwN1Kh7AjVRRilvLdUq9e11rKvLAd7VArFKpalS04qXOee9KUpodcLG~ebxu7g2bbmhKMK07z0lji2bpdmb5epVYWTw-xPVWYXTlhq2gbQ6eOMuZNDxDSFy7pb~ln4wDxADQuv1Hn-Al3C1UA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","A conceptual plan to build an 82‑unit rental building called Forest Commons at 332 Forest Avenue drew mixed reactions at a second study session on Aug. 11, where the developer and architect emphasized transit‑oriented infill and shared open space while immediate neighbors warned about scale, daylighting and traffic impacts.

The applicant described the site as unusually large for Downtown Palo Alto and proposed an eight‑story building with below‑grade and at‑grade parking. The project team said the proposal would pair a new building with the adjacent historic Casa Real under common ownership and would create a large shared open space between the two properties. The developer said the project would provide 16 deed‑restricted affordable units in perpetuity and full, “real” parking for each unit (not mechanical lifts), as well as long‑ and short‑term bicycle parking and a bike maintenance area.

Architect Rob Steinberg said the new building is designed as a “sibling” to Casa Real and that massing details would be shaped to transition to adjacent buildings: “Sculpting the massing of the building gracefully to transition to adjacent buildings will be critical to the new building success,” he told council.

Public comment split along neighborhood lines. Supporters, including downtown residents, said the location is suitable for higher density because it is walkable and within a half‑mile of the University Avenue Caltrain station. One supporter noted that nearby buildings already exceed base zoning heights and densities and that downtown residents have lower car‑ownership rates.

“Site is close to Caltrain, bus lanes, bike lanes, services, retail, jobs — all the good stuff,” said Amy A., a downtown resident. “It is exactly this kind of project that enables more of our residents to live a healthy, enjoyable, and sustainable lifestyle.”

Opponents, including residents of 707 Bryant and 315 Homer, said the proposal would create an imposing wall directly adjacent to two‑ and three‑story buildings and could cause daylight loss, privacy impacts and driveway safety issues where construction, a new garage ingress and increased traffic intersect a bike boulevard. One resident said property values have already been affected by the pending proposal.

Several neighbors asked for clearer sidewalk/driveway geometry and for step‑backs on the elevations facing Bryant and Homer. Staff noted the project currently proposes 110 parking spaces where a base requirement would be about 137; the site is within the half‑mile zone around downtown transit but will need a parking analysis. Staff also noted two conflicting historic evaluations exist for the site and said a peer review of any applicant study would be performed if a formal application is filed.

Council members praised the concept of combining the Casa Real grounds with new housing and asked for clearer design responses to adjacent low‑rise properties. Several members said the project presents a rare opportunity for substantial downtown housing and urged attention to bicycle parking, step‑backs and careful setbacks for the building façade closest to homes on Bryant and Homer. Council member Stone said the project “completes the corner” and encouraged the team to continue working with neighbors.

No formal action was taken. Staff will expect a formal application to include a peer‑reviewed historic resources analysis, a parking plan that meets code or documents any durable off‑site parking agreements, full bicycle parking and a daylighting/arborist analysis as needed. If the applicant proceeds, the formal application will be subject to CEQA and public hearings.

Ending: Council voiced support for pursuing a careful design that balances downtown housing goals with protections for immediate neighbors; next steps will require the applicant to return with more detailed studies and a formal submittal.","A proposed 82‑unit, eight‑story apartment building paired with the historic Casa Real drew both support and objections at an Aug. 11 prescreening. Supporters said the parcel is a rare opportunity for transit‑oriented housing downtown; opponents worried about an eight‑story wall, daylight impacts and parking access for adjacent low‑rise buildings.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6588683,"Neighbors oppose 6‑story 120‑unit proposal at 4256 El Camino Real during Palo Alto prescreening",2424,2986000,5410000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5560363-89edcce2356dc930be217bb4b239162e&start=2986&end=5410","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5560363-89edcce2356dc930be217bb4b239162e/thumbnail_2986000.jpg","/articles/6588683/Palo-Alto/Santa-Clara-County/California/Neighbors-oppose-6story-120unit-proposal-at-4256-El-Camino-Real-during-Palo-Alto-prescreening","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6588683-b1a8cc235a193c696305d8259f24644f/orig.mp4?Expires=1771025968&Signature=DFSX2wILuLRyR4-sSZlqX2suRvHSdWjFdoETOlAjBIiB4XKDvQ5kEzGTvY2ArWwBAY5ZMbS2sTt5uDJSmdJn6utfvrM5SHQ~qFB5f89Rk5h9MHw9SxM~ohSRaW1wKTYD1jVPwWwV-cXCAu4-n-KeSLR9hL~pOVmJ2EqoG0mTVXS-kNQd72laKDt0tEF7IEC9VgSpZTz5Vh7BjM7xUr0f-dVtKazpWVFyxC~LylBYfFHVyc8~G~pY3hGocQKfrW9NKPIaCNxyHDj7uaG4wkvIxvSfNEmLgTKIAWMFdrnOrG68GA~D0sw9pjpI1J7YQqszm1PCWczevwgec--1FvU7iQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","A proposal to rezone 4256 El Camino Real from Commercial Services to Planned Home Zoning and build a six‑story, 120‑unit rental building drew heavy public opposition and detailed questions from council during a study‑session prescreening on Aug. 11.

The developer presented a conceptual plan calling for a 79 foot, 6 inch building with 120 rental units, about 100 on‑site parking spaces using a mechanical/tandem system and additional off‑site parking under discussion. Staff told council the proposal would exceed several current development standards in the Commercial Services zone — including lot coverage (proposed 87% vs. 50% allowed), floor‑area ratio (3.57:1 proposed vs. 2.85:1 under the housing incentive program) and usable open space (130 square feet per unit proposed vs. 150 required by CS zoning). Senior planner Emily Callas said council feedback at prescreening is informal and would not bind later, formal review.

Neighbors said the project’s height and massing would overwhelm the adjacent Palo Alto Redwoods condominiums and threaten a grove of heritage redwood trees that several speakers said provide shade and privacy. Kevin Chung, president of the Powell to Redwoods Homeowners Association, said the homeowners association supports housing generally but “we want housing done right,” citing density, potential market impacts and tree health. Multiple residents described safety and circulation concerns, saying the plans lack a loading area and adequate guest parking and warn that construction and increased traffic would endanger cyclists and impede residents’ driveways.

“By adding 120 units right next to our door to an existing 117, we anticipate that our property values will further be harmed,” said Chung. Julie Baskin, a long‑time resident, said the building’s height would overshadow all but 10 of 29 named heritage trees in the bordering grove.

The applicant said the parcel was previously entitled for a 5‑story hotel approved in 2020 and that the proposed residential project would return the site to housing goals and provide deed‑restricted affordable units. Architect Jeff Potts and the team said the concept includes private decks, a level‑2 courtyard and a roof deck. The developer told council they can provide up to 18 affordable units (20% of 120) at a mix of very low, low and moderate incomes and described the remaining units as “affordable by design,” citing small unit footprints.

Council members pressed for clarifications. They asked whether the existing redwoods on the site would be removed; the applicant said no trees beyond what was already contemplated for the prior hotel design would be removed and that trees may be healthier without an underground garage. Staff said a project‑specific arborist analysis and a full CEQA review would be required if a formal application is filed. Staff confirmed the proposal currently shows 100 parking spaces on site while 125–130 would be required by code or by the housing incentive program standards; the applicant said it is negotiating off‑site parking with an adjacent owner but staff called that new information.

Several council members said they support housing on El Camino Real generally but want stronger protections for the redwood grove, durable commitments for off‑site parking if relied upon, and more modulation (step‑backs and façade articulation) on the portions of the building that face smaller, adjacent homes. Council members also asked staff to analyze whether deed‑restricted rents tied to bedroom count would meaningfully produce deeper affordability for the small studio units proposed.

No formal action was taken; staff recommended the prescreening proceed and the council provided informal direction and questions for the applicant to address in any formal submittal. Staff and the developer said they will return with required arborist studies, an exact inclusionary plan that meets PHZ requirements, parking agreements if used to meet code, and CEQA review if the project proceeds.

If the applicant pursues a formal PHZ rezoning application, that submittal will undergo public hearings and environmental review before the Planning Commission and council.

For now, neighbors were invited to continued meetings: members of the applicant team said they would meet with the Palo Alto Redwoods Homeowners Association and provide additional materials.

Ending: The project remains at prescreening; council did not vote. Staff listed the next steps to include more detailed studies on tree impacts, a finalized affordable‑housing plan that meets the PHZ 20% requirement, clarified parking calculations, and CEQA analysis once a formal application is filed.","A prescreening for a proposed rezoning at 4256 El Camino Real drew dozens of residents from the adjacent Palo Alto Redwoods condominiums who said the six‑story, 120‑unit rental building would harm privacy, heritage redwoods, and parking; developers defended the project as needed housing near transit and say they will preserve trees.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Council adopts weed‑abatement assessment list after no objections

City council approves amendments to SFPUC wholesale water agreement after regional negotiations

Developer unveils 82‑unit Forest Commons for 332 Forest Ave.; neighbors split over scale

Neighbors oppose 6‑story 120‑unit proposal at 4256 El Camino Real during Palo Alto prescreening