[{"_1":2,"_123":-5,"_124":-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",[32,75,87,99,111],{"_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",6551901,"mediaKeyId","5322907-5165cde9ec744c1041d10756d3b4ec37","parentId",5322907,"title","Palo Alto residents urge city action after gun attack in Washington, D.C.; call for permit enforcement and rejection of hateful slogans","audioSeconds",41,"startMs",923000,"endMs",964000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5322907-5165cde9ec744c1041d10756d3b4ec37&start=923&end=964","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5322907-5165cde9ec744c1041d10756d3b4ec37/thumbnail_923000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6551901/Palo-Alto/Santa-Clara-County/California/Palo-Alto-residents-urge-city-action-after-gun-attack-in-Washington-DC-call-for-permit-enforcement-and-rejection-of-hateful-slogans","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6551901-5e5b576bb61d4f7521460af5f7bc9b3e/orig.mp4?Expires=1771159844&Signature=mYPcJURL81TGCuVdN8uw6HwkkXIahrxPMEa0AspiLc-UeHAvGHDqxf5JnKq1Ok4MkltLH23xHJAKkDs1BAeEKgnfxkWfw0xOMD2TpmcLpVf7bXK7RgaosTtCHWU0ybGkDUgAXnuIEat-~TdUOw~C2rPIhxbZDCoKAGiwUFlFOxCmj48JrYo8FR37uHv~JWUoH0PhDVypR6VG9cMkCSacFHbXicZ3XA3cbujZyJzYe0nioJoodNBEl4~Wlm0o~60rGIC2dpAUOgYn55AIpULwSGKIqKRH5VLXBuhMrXLgYAdskSye9Ckl-fdLHxPUtTUU3AstL2xqdTk2UNYXAjKaBA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City of Palo Alto","date","2025-07-08T00:30:35Z","article","Palo Alto — Several residents used the May 27 council meeting public‑comment period to express alarm about recent murders in Washington, D.C., and to ask the city to take stronger steps to enforce permit conditions and to speak out against rhetoric they said had helped fuel violence.

Members of Palo Alto’s Jewish community and other speakers recounted national incidents and linked them to local demonstrations, asking the city to enforce time‑place‑and‑manner restrictions, require permit holders to abide by event terms and to avoid sponsoring events connected to groups that promote or tolerate hate.

What commenters said

Sarit S. told the council that a gunman murdered two people at the Capitol Jewish Museum and that slogans heard at some demonstrations — for example, references to globalizing an ‘intifada’ — should be treated as violent calls, not harmless protest language.

“We are heartbroken and terrified,” Sarit said. “These slogans, … are not metaphors. Whether or not the people yelling them mean them that way, they are heard as a permission slip for violence against Jews.”

Robin M. said some local events have included rhetoric she described as antisemitic and cited a recent incident at a Palo Alto plaza where she said a speaker denounced Jews as violent colonizers. She urged strict enforcement of permit terms and said some groups should not be supported by city resources.

Alan C., representing another group of residents, asked the council to take three steps: enforce permit time‑place‑and‑manner rules, decline to support events tied to groups that promote hate, and publicly reject slogans that incite violence.

Why it matters

Speakers said national violence has local echoes and asked the city to be proactive in preventing incitement from turning into local attacks. Council and staff did not take action during the public‑comment period but acknowledged the comments and said the city already enforces event permit conditions and will look into enforcement questions raised by residents.

Ending

Speakers urged the council to be explicit in rejecting violent rhetoric and to ensure that event permits are enforced and monitored; several speakers said stronger action was needed to protect local Jewish residents.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","City Council Meeting May 27, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Multiple residents used the council’s public‑comment period to decry recent anti‑Jewish violence in Washington, D.C., to demand enforcement of permit rules for public events, and to ask city leaders to reject slogans and rhetoric they said amounted to antisemitic incitement.","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},6551906,"Council amends El Camino Real focus‑area zoning to boost housing: expanded boundaries, tiered standards, and affordable‑unit incentives",6452,14713000,21165000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5322907-5165cde9ec744c1041d10756d3b4ec37&start=14713&end=21165","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5322907-5165cde9ec744c1041d10756d3b4ec37/thumbnail_14713000.jpg","/articles/6551906/Palo-Alto/Santa-Clara-County/California/Council-amends-El-Camino-Real-focusarea-zoning-to-boost-housing-expanded-boundaries-tiered-standards-and-affordableunit-incentives","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6551906-5493bc76a67ca5321daa4e09ace166c0/orig.mp4?Expires=1771159844&Signature=NF-MYLWiHH-MmuM7aRaH6yzKTixolH9JruLwrWbB4-nzbJOq-fs9vF3zZAqbA4QYMi8P-7Nd6nvVYsP7Ui3ZSPOvyaasOQmxrT5aAKAPL1zRTRhtIev2l0OJMwwol9ngzXTmBqBDWuzj4o7~ewBE9JWI3NGZTHC-8OzOfTCemURTp~N7NG4GtlY07YTt1~2Im98esRe3bm2tsjyGdEg2dG4HLUVMZy9c-7aTWavWc4yakKcEH-BNZkuOFaFL6K2hCSpK1dhF63vkKGHo5n1IIfTSql072SbyBdSuhlkq7k9SUsoK5lyW3eJNLRovBglXWwAlp239cNM2SKMTnhWeVw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Palo Alto — The City Council on May 27 adopted a package of zoning changes to the El Camino Real housing focus area designed to speed housing production and provide clearer development incentives for consolidated sites.

Key changes the council approved include expanding the geographic focus area, creating two tiers of development standards to encourage lot consolidation, standardizing a 45‑degree daylight plane for upper‑story massing next to single‑family neighborhoods, simplifying upper‑story stepbacks on primary frontages, and updating in‑lieu and fee exemptions tied to below‑market‑rate units. The motion passed 5–0 with two council members recusing themselves.

Why it matters

The focus area program, adopted previously as part of the housing element and targeted to transit corridors, offers greater height and floor‑area incentives in exchange for on‑site affordable units. The amendments are intended to make it more feasible to build dense housing near transit, provide a clearer set of objective standards for builders, and bring existing builder‑remedy applications into alignment with city rules.

Major provisions adopted or directed

- Boundaries expanded: The ordinance adds parcels around California Avenue and includes two builder‑remedy proposals at the southern end of El Camino. The council also directed staff to include three tier‑2 parcels (2905, 2951 and 2999 El Camino) for further consideration.

- Two‑tier incentives: Larger consolidated lots (tier 1) can access the most favorable standards (up to 4.0 FAR and a top height objective); smaller parcels have a different tier with lower incentives to encourage consolidation for efficient circulation and parking.

- Daylight plane and upper story massing: Council adopted a standard 45° daylight plane beginning at 16 feet for upper‑story massing where buildings abut R‑1 zones; the ARB/PTC had debated a steeper 30° option but the 45° standard passed.

- Stepbacks and façade rules: The ordinance simplifies the front‑facing upper‑story stepback rule (reducing the prescriptive average requirement and setting a 10‑foot minimum stepback) to maintain some relief from bulk while reducing complexity for applicants.

- Affordable unit incentives and fee exemptions: For projects using the focus‑area incentives and proposing at least 20% lower‑income units on‑site, the council approved exemptions from certain development impact fees for those units to improve financial feasibility.

- Hansen Way setback and special easement: The council directed staff to study and pursue reducing the special 50‑foot Hansen Way setback to roughly 20–30 feet (staff will refine this with the transportation office), after hearing that the 50‑foot setback, combined with a utilities easement, constrains development at one research‑park corner.

- Hotels and non‑residential uses: The council asked staff to accommodate hotel uses more flexibly than standard office limits in some focus‑area locations, and to return specific zoning language that allows hospitality FAR/height parity in appropriate locations.

Public and developer input

Developers and property owners who testified urged flexibility (height, FAR and clear objective standards) to make projects financially feasible; one applicant told the council that without fee relief for below‑market‑rate units the project would not be feasible. Neighborhood groups and some commissioners pressed for stronger daylight, stepback and transition controls to protect adjacent single‑family neighborhoods.

What happens next

Staff will return the final ordinance language for second reading incorporating the council’s direction on the Hansen Way setback, the tier‑2 parcel inclusions and context‑specific rules for below‑grade setbacks and hotels. The adopted changes will be folded into the housing‑element implementation and the city’s design guidelines.

Ending

Councilmembers said the revisions aim to strike a balance between adding housing near transit and protecting residential neighborhoods. The ordinance passed 5–0 with two recusal votes recorded on the final roll call.","Palo Alto’s City Council adopted code changes expanding the El Camino Real housing focus area, adding tiered lot‑size incentives, standardizing a 45° daylight plane, adjusting upper‑story stepbacks and directing staff to study a reduced Hansen Way special setback and other refinements. The council vote was 5–0 with two recusals.",{"_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},6551910,"Council sends Palo Alto Commons expansion back to commission after neighbors raise daylight, parking and trust concerns",3735,10482000,14217000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5322907-5165cde9ec744c1041d10756d3b4ec37&start=10482&end=14217","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5322907-5165cde9ec744c1041d10756d3b4ec37/thumbnail_10482000.jpg","/articles/6551910/Palo-Alto/Santa-Clara-County/California/Council-sends-Palo-Alto-Commons-expansion-back-to-commission-after-neighbors-raise-daylight-parking-and-trust-concerns","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6551910-0e47b409147307727685fa8fdb5b3ee7/orig.mp4?Expires=1771159844&Signature=h~ERSnVMyEwk5cs45kx4qlp4WiBvQkODFQFTxfS8BxtJUaNezDXln-QCVyVaEgcrYuaSZiJVkIpWsR4N~Kmi3vt8Kt-tJtaa8O2dUuAUd9zfivMDMmPGEH2Reujz0qrHI2HsByVk2wg94KA769LsUn5iFAg8J2FhDfW5xHiYnsD0qG6jzGHfVh-q40PfSEQWlzyPbBIc9iynRur9muCbT8L84dRDQKwUCf3GYZj0Wsl-EyEf0SQoa1FW0bRQ6LvQpK7W74zZkt33TrBfGRAHLcSMhmSfWuDBbg5OfhmfFBNUKzDXLCDQtFGsWwnYywfcSOf5rUL08c3BGjE46HbJ1w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Palo Alto — The City Council on May 27 voted 4–3 to refer back to the Planning & Transportation Commission (PTC) a revised proposal for the Palo Alto Commons campus at 4075 El Camino Way after hearing months of neighbor complaints about parking, daylight impacts and management trust.

The applicant, identified in staff materials as Wellquest, sought to add 16 assisted‑living units to an existing planned community. The PTC had recommended a smaller addition located away from the backyard neighbors; staff recommended the larger 16‑unit plan. Council’s substitute motion sent a scaled revision back to PTC for review, asking the applicant to explore a reduced set of new units that would avoid the rear property line adjacent to Wilkie Way.

Vote and immediate outcome

A substitute motion to refer the project back to PTC for revisions passed 4–3. Roll call in the record showed: Council member Lythcott Haines — yes; Vice Mayor Venker — yes; Council member Rekdal — no; Council member Burt — yes; Mayor Loughing — no; Council member Stone — no; Council member Liu — yes.

Why the council referred the proposal back

Neighbors and some council members questioned several aspects of the applicant’s submission, including:

- Daylight plane and massing. Neighbors and some commissioners argued the project’s proposed upper‑story additions would encroach on a more restrictive daylight plane that exists at the rear property line facing single‑family backyards. Staff said the project complied with the PC (planned community) ordinance as written, but appealed to council for the final determination.

- Parking and TDM compliance. Residents said employees and visitors have repeatedly parked on nearby residential streets; some said previous conditions and a TDM (transportation demand management) plan were not enforced. Staff said the property’s current TDM is newly drafted and will be subject to annual monitoring and reporting, but neighbors pushed for enforceable penalties and earlier compliance documentation.

- Loss of trust. Several neighbors said historic management lapses — including periods when garage access was not managed and a disabled parking space was temporarily blocked by a cone — have eroded confidence in promises of mitigation.

Council direction and suggested revisions

The substitute motion sent the application back to PTC with instructions to develop a revised plan removing the most intrusive additions along Wilkie Way and to explore alternatives that place additional units on the El Camino side or otherwise reduce impacts to the neighbors. Council members also asked staff and the applicant to strengthen TDM monitoring, include enforceable compliance mechanisms and to incorporate a Palo Alto resident preference for available units where that provision applies.

Applicant perspective

Applicant representatives said earlier staff work found the proposed 16 units feasible and that alternative construction options (for example, adding a full fourth floor toward El Camino Real) would be impractical or would require extended displacement during construction. The applicant said they had already implemented some parking management changes including key‑card garage access and temporary valet services, and that they would continue to refine operational practices.

What’s next

The PTC will reexamine a revision that the substitute motion requested; staff estimated the revision and commission process could take several months to return to council. The council’s action preserves the existing PC ordinance and does not approve the 16‑unit amendment tonight.

Ending

Council members said they seek a compromise that adds units to support senior housing supply while preserving light, privacy and parking stability for long‑term neighbors. The applicant may return with a revised plan after PTC review.","Council voted 4–3 to send the applicant back to the Planning & Transportation Commission to refine a proposed 16‑unit addition at 4075 El Camino Way; commissioners recommended a smaller number and neighbors said parking and privacy problems persist despite earlier mitigation efforts.",{"_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},6551914,"Palo Alto council directs city attorney to join San Francisco lawsuit over federal immigration enforcement threats",61,9047000,9108000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5322907-5165cde9ec744c1041d10756d3b4ec37&start=9047&end=9108","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5322907-5165cde9ec744c1041d10756d3b4ec37/thumbnail_9047000.jpg","/articles/6551914/Palo-Alto/Santa-Clara-County/California/Palo-Alto-council-directs-city-attorney-to-join-San-Francisco-lawsuit-over-federal-immigration-enforcement-threats","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6551914-f1b43550feb8e783e8795417cce8bb3d/orig.mp4?Expires=1771159844&Signature=Ig-lkLBPAWlWVYKvKeFsLVMgWLFOyYo0dH14bX6aYj3VaVtHEcS7LmZlA2XjGzWl2tvoq07BD~fCLS6VrWVdCaw~cjAG3WXzvfCyt0CND6JMX0zeZrfNuDwHJsBOQGz9i3jBwWhoulhnsmR66Dvp89U4ysRDSXtEnSWe4Bod5hbF0ceZoMaZuxaOB2sZUdT1KP9gSPt52z9DRnSTpVtRzFgDFuwwAJL9gAZ6EJ-90Gb~6s5CmdOmmmY2N~giYKAnnMRudY~aef2yf8bMb6XK2icKX5NQaykhJjzRk4E0HbbnGgUZlGAT-pgxqjQ9B97T7yO3mb~gf9mXVDrlqiqOhA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Palo Alto — After a closed-session discussion on potential litigation, the Palo Alto City Council unanimously directed the city attorney on May 27 to take steps to join the City and County of San Francisco in a federal lawsuit challenging recent federal executive actions that the city says threaten to withhold federal funds and seek enforcement against jurisdictions limiting cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.

Council took the action under the framework of the California Values Act. The vote in closed session was 7–0.

Why it matters: The litigation aims to challenge federal administrative directives that seek to condition federal funds on local cooperation with immigration enforcement. Joining the San Francisco case aligns Palo Alto with other California jurisdictions that support sanctuary‑style local policies under state law.

What the council did

At the closed session’s public report, Mayor (reported) said: “The council has directed the city attorney to take necessary steps to join the case of City and County of San Francisco versus Trump... This challenges federal executive orders and administrative directives that threaten to withhold federal funds and initiate enforcement action against state and local government entities, which limit local cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. This is action taken in compliance with the California Values Act, and the vote was 7‑0.”

Speakers and attribution

The closed‑session report summarizing the council’s direction was read into the public record after the closed session; a formal public statement said the vote was unanimous. The meeting transcript does not include an extended public debate on this item, because the discussion occurred in closed session, but the public record includes the council’s direction and the vote tally.

Procedure and next steps

Under California law, councils may report limited information after closed session. The council’s public report names the case (City and County of San Francisco v. Trump, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Case No. 25‑cv‑01350) and records the council’s instruction to the city attorney to join the challenge. The city attorney’s office will take the administrative and legal steps necessary to join as a plaintiff or as an amicus as appropriate.

Ending

The council’s unanimous vote signals alignment with other California cities in defending state law protections limiting collaboration with federal immigration enforcement. The city attorney’s filing approach and any public‑facing legal briefs will be published as the process moves forward.","After a closed session, Palo Alto’s City Council voted unanimously to have the city attorney join the City and County of San Francisco’s lawsuit challenging federal orders that threaten to withhold funds from jurisdictions limiting cooperation with federal immigration enforcement; the action was taken under the California Values Act.",{"_33":112,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":113,"_41":114,"_43":115,"_45":116,"_47":117,"_49":118,"_51":119,"_53":120,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":121,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":122,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6551919,"Palo Alto council interviews six candidates for Architectural Review Board, seeks clearer design guidance for downtown housing",3620,131000,3751000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5322907-5165cde9ec744c1041d10756d3b4ec37&start=131&end=3751","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5322907-5165cde9ec744c1041d10756d3b4ec37/thumbnail_131000.jpg","/articles/6551919/Palo-Alto/Santa-Clara-County/California/Palo-Alto-council-interviews-six-candidates-for-Architectural-Review-Board-seeks-clearer-design-guidance-for-downtown-housing","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6551919-9825130dfa043d3b47c64a324533e66a/orig.mp4?Expires=1771159844&Signature=OSiLiPxpZQGcnW-UvCZ9ngMSUdd-AYwMCMV5nUha-zqu~BQ2CplKAm6rTmp7LiamShZGuOuerxPHoWtrXyTysCHjnNKj07SFfZ1Kg2VaXBgA73pGJqVdGdHLr7lRhPUR3dX~Ofw2kokx~0i-76kAzkJksfr4RXiKkOy8l5s-iFylUccAqf3Ojunsns4PdmalSVUq4BTsNsTYNb97z79L4tKCk5xus8EwhkRBRnVGcITiOBxjr8opj5uM12VIo30ixfgoyOThxCU5xu3X3YA4w8Z3Km6sK2sP1SHvWiN7qriAcQTn9-abO~Ew4Sfa9IerJcK1OGdZ8cZCIy9UBBB7Mg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Palo Alto — The City Council on May 27 interviewed six finalists for three open seats on the Architectural Review Board, hearing consistent calls for clearer, locally specific guidance for architecture in Palo Alto and for better public access to past award-winning projects.

Candidates said the ARB should do more to document the city’s design standards and to help developers interpret subjective criteria so projects meet community expectations faster.

“I find that the contextual design criteria and objective design standards written in the municipal code help projects clear a certain minimum bar,” said candidate Martin Jodrick, “yet we end up with some projects that stay at that minimum bar. One reason is developers struggle to interpret some of the wording, especially contextual design criteria: what does ‘craftsmanship’ mean?”

Why it matters: City staff and several candidates said a downtown housing plan is nearing decisions that could add housing near Caltrain. Council members and the ARB will be asked to weigh in on design details that affect pedestrian scale, transit access and neighborhood compatibility.

What candidates told the council

Martin Jodrick, a local design-build practitioner, said he would push the ARB to document what “good architecture” looks like in Palo Alto and to publicize past award-winning projects so outside architects understand locally-admired precedents.

“Those projects already contain many of the elements that make Palo Alto a special place,” Jodrick said. “If an architect who is not from Palo Alto is trying to submit a project and wants to know what kinds of projects the ARB or the city will like, they’re going to have a really hard time finding them.”

Architect Ashutosh Gupta, joining by video, recommended design approaches to reduce perceived massing on multi‑story buildings and emphasized layered indoor‑outdoor connections and shade in the Bay Area climate.

Kalen Putt, a resident applicant who said he has a technology and business background, described using data and augmented-reality tools to help residents and officials visualize proposals and scale impacts.

Naveen Govind, who holds degrees in architecture and urban design and serves as a senior project manager in Mountain View Public Works, cited his experience on Fremont’s historical review board and stressed balancing character preservation with city housing goals.

Bai Shu, a licensed California architect who said she led entitlement work on large mixed‑use buildings in San Francisco, said Palo Alto’s standards are stricter than many Bay Area cities and that adaptive reuse and public engagement often lead to better design outcomes.

Grace Lee, a longtime Palo Alto resident and former ARB member, emphasized landscape and street‑level experience — the “human scale” — and urged ARB members to consider block‑level and area‑plan context, not only building details.

Council focus and next steps

Council members asked candidates how they would steer technical conversations on the ARB and how they would weigh street‑level impacts and privacy in dense projects. Several council members asked candidates to explain how they would use objective design standards versus contextual, discretionary criteria.

City Clerk Veronica (staff) told the council that the ARB recruitment drew eight applicants; two were not interviewed at this meeting (one withdrew, one did not appear). Appointments are scheduled for the June 2 council meeting, when council will vote on three seats.

Speakers and evidence

The statements above come from candidate presentations and council questioning recorded during the May 27 council special meeting (candidate opening statements and Q&A). The city clerk confirmed at the end of the session that eight candidates had been invited and six were interviewed; Matthew Kelly had formally withdrawn and staff was following up with an absent applicant.

Ending

Council members said they will review the candidate statements and staff materials before formal votes on June 2. The ARB openings have full terms through March 31, 2028.","The council interviewed six candidates for three open seats on the Architectural Review Board (ARB). Candidates emphasized clearer guidance for contextual design, accessibility and neighborhood compatibility ahead of planned downtown housing changes; appointments are scheduled for the June 2 council meeting.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Palo Alto residents urge city action after gun attack in Washington, D.C.; call for permit enforcement and rejection of hateful slogans

Council amends El Camino Real focus‑area zoning to boost housing: expanded boundaries, tiered standards, and affordable‑unit incentives

Council sends Palo Alto Commons expansion back to commission after neighbors raise daylight, parking and trust concerns

Palo Alto council directs city attorney to join San Francisco lawsuit over federal immigration enforcement threats

Palo Alto council interviews six candidates for Architectural Review Board, seeks clearer design guidance for downtown housing