Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors split as Palo Alto council weighs 70‑unit Webster Street concept; council asks applicant to address step‑down and daylight impacts
Summary
At a council study session the proposed 70‑unit, seven‑story pre‑screening for 910 Webster drew praise for design and sustainability from supporters and sharp criticism from adjacent homeowners worried about height, shadows, traffic and loss of existing naturally affordable rentals. Council asked the applicant to analyze west‑side stepbacks, daylight plane impacts and parking/EV measures before any formal application.
A proposed seven‑story, 70‑unit project at 910 Webster Street prompted a heated study‑session discussion April 20 as the council weighed design intent against neighborhood compatibility concerns.
Applicant Prabash Kuwal and architect Tony Krasco presented a concept that emphasizes an interior courtyard, community areas and underground parking. “The idea is that it's not only a dining place but also a place where people can sit around and play chess,” the architect said, describing a multi‑purpose common room intended as a shared amenity for residents.
The proposal would replace an existing 24‑unit rental property with a new building proposing roughly 130 vehicle stalls and 119 bicycle stalls and an FAR around 2.7. The applicant said the design uses setbacks, tree protection and shadow studies intended to protect neighbor sunlight between about 10 a.m. and 3 p.m.
But neighbors and several council members urged more work on compatibility. David G., an adjacent resident, told the council the project “really towers over the neighboring homes” and argued the planned daylight plane deviates from the lower adjacent single‑family scale. Other commenters cited increased traffic on streets used for school drop‑offs, strain on neighborhood parking and potential noise.
Council members said they welcomed the architectural quality and the inclusion of more housing near jobs and transit, but uniformly asked for a redesign that better steps down to the single‑family blocks on the west side, more explicit shadow and daylight plane analysis, a clearer plan for EV charging and bicycle parking, and more detail on unit mix and affordable housing commitments if the project advances. Several members also flagged the relocation impacts of removing 24 existing rental homes and urged the developer to clarify relocation payments and whether units would be for sale or for rent.
What happens next: Staff emphasized that pre‑screening feedback is nonbinding. The applicant was asked to return with revisions or to file a formal application; councilmembers signaled they wanted improved step‑backs and clearer daylight/sun‑shadow analysis before endorsing higher massing near low‑rise homes.
Why it matters: The project demonstrates the tension facing many California cities: adding housing capacity near transit and jobs while preserving the character and sunlight of established low‑rise neighborhoods. Council direction focused on compatibility and practical design revisions ahead of any zoning or entitlements vote.
