HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-10-03 Architectural Review Board Agenda PacketARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
Special Meeting
Thursday, October 03, 2024
Council Chambers & Hybrid
10:00 AM
Architectural Review Board meetings will be held as “hybrid” meetings with the option to attend
by teleconference/video conference or in person. To maximize public safety while still
maintaining transparency and public access, members of the public can choose to participate
from home or attend in person. Information on how the public may observe and participate in the
meeting is located at the end of the agenda. Masks are strongly encouraged if attending in
person. T h e m e e t i n g w i l l b e b r o a d c a s t o n C a b l e T V C h a n n e l 2 6 , l i v e o n
YouTube https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofpaloalto, and streamed to Midpen Media
Center https://midpenmedia.org. Visit https://bit.ly/PApendingprojects to view project plans
and details. Board member names, biographies, and archived agendas and reports are available
at https://bit.ly/paloaltoARB.
VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION CLICK HERE TO JOIN (https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/96561891491)
Meeting ID: 965 6189 1491 Phone: 1(669)900‐6833
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Public comments will be accepted both in person and via Zoom for up to three minutes or an
amount of time determined by the Chair. All requests to speak will be taken until 5 minutes
after the staff’s presentation. Written public comments can be submitted in advance to
arb@CityofPaloAlto.org and will be provided to the Board and available for inspection on the
City’s website. Please clearly indicate which agenda item you are referencing in your subject
line.
Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as
present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson's presentation will be allowed up to
fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members
agree not to speak individually. The Chair may limit Public Comments to thirty (30) minutes for
all combined speakers. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak for Study Sessions and
Action Items to two (2) minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
PowerPoints, videos, or other media to be presented during public comment are accepted only
by email to arb@CityofPaloAlto.org at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. Once received,
the Clerk will have them shared at public comment for the specified item. To uphold strong
cybersecurity management practices, USB’s or other physical electronic storage devices are not
accepted.
Signs and symbolic materials less than 2 feet by 3 feet are permitted provided that: (1) sticks,
posts, poles or similar/other type of handle objects are strictly prohibited; (2) the items do not
create a facility, fire, or safety hazard; and (3) persons with such items remain seated when
displaying them and must not raise the items above shoulder level, obstruct the view or
passage of other attendees, or otherwise disturb the business of the meeting.
CALL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALL
PUBLIC COMMENT
Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker.
AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS
The Chair or Board majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management.
CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS
1.Transmittal of 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, 2) Tentative Future
Agenda Items and 3) Recently Submitted Projects
STUDY SESSION
Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.
2.Study Session to Review Potential Amendments to the Regulations for the Housing
Incentive Program (HIP) in Title 18 (Zoning Ordinance) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to
Implement Program 3.4 of the Adopted 2023‐2031 Housing Element.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.
3.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for September 5, 2024
BOARD MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE MEETINGS AND
AGENDAS
Members of the public may not speak to the item(s).
ADJOURNMENT
PUBLIC COMMENT INSTRUCTIONS
Members of the Public may provide public comments to teleconference meetings via email,
teleconference, or by phone.
1. Written public comments may be submitted by email to arb@cityofpaloalto.org.
2. Spoken public comments using a computer will be accepted through the
teleconference meeting. To address the Board, click on the link below to access a Zoom‐
based meeting. Please read the following instructions carefully.
You may download the Zoom client or connect to the meeting in‐ browser. If using
your browser, make sure you are using a current, up‐to‐date browser: Chrome 30,
Firefox 27, Microsoft Edge 12, Safari 7. Certain functionality may be disabled in
older browsers including Internet Explorer.
You may be asked to enter an email address and name. We request that you
identify yourself by name as this will be visible online and will be used to notify you
that it is your turn to speak.
When you wish to speak on an Agenda Item, click on “raise hand.” The Clerk will
activate and unmute speakers in turn. Speakers will be notified shortly before they
are called to speak.
When called, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted. A timer will be
shown on the computer to help keep track of your comments.
3. Spoken public comments using a smart phone will be accepted through the
teleconference meeting. To address the Board, download the Zoom application onto your
phone from the Apple App Store or Google Play Store and enter the Meeting ID below.
Please follow the instructions above.
4. Spoken public comments using a phone use the telephone number listed below. When
you wish to speak on an agenda item hit *9 on your phone so we know that you wish to
speak. You will be asked to provide your first and last name before addressing the Board.
You will be advised how long you have to speak. When called please limit your remarks to
the agenda item and time limit allotted.
CLICK HERE TO JOIN Meeting ID: 965 6189 1491 Phone: 1‐669‐900‐6833
Americans with Disability Act (ADA) It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to offer its public
programs, services and meetings in a manner that is readily accessible to all. Persons with
disabilities who require materials in an appropriate alternative format or who require auxiliary
aids to access City meetings, programs, or services may contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at
(650) 329‐2550 (voice) or by emailing ada@cityofpaloalto.org. Requests for assistance or
accommodations must be submitted at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or
service.
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARDSpecial MeetingThursday, October 03, 2024Council Chambers & Hybrid10:00 AMArchitectural Review Board meetings will be held as “hybrid” meetings with the option to attendby teleconference/video conference or in person. To maximize public safety while stillmaintaining transparency and public access, members of the public can choose to participatefrom home or attend in person. Information on how the public may observe and participate in themeeting is located at the end of the agenda. Masks are strongly encouraged if attending inperson. T h e m e e t i n g w i l l b e b r o a d c a s t o n C a b l e T V C h a n n e l 2 6 , l i v e o nYouTube https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofpaloalto, and streamed to Midpen MediaCenter https://midpenmedia.org. Visit https://bit.ly/PApendingprojects to view project plansand details. Board member names, biographies, and archived agendas and reports are availableat https://bit.ly/paloaltoARB. VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION CLICK HERE TO JOIN (https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/96561891491)Meeting ID: 965 6189 1491 Phone: 1(669)900‐6833PUBLIC COMMENTSPublic comments will be accepted both in person and via Zoom for up to three minutes or anamount of time determined by the Chair. All requests to speak will be taken until 5 minutesafter the staff’s presentation. Written public comments can be submitted in advance toarb@CityofPaloAlto.org and will be provided to the Board and available for inspection on theCity’s website. Please clearly indicate which agenda item you are referencing in your subjectline.Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified aspresent at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson's presentation will be allowed up tofifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking membersagree not to speak individually. The Chair may limit Public Comments to thirty (30) minutes forall combined speakers. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak for Study Sessions andAction Items to two (2) minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers.PowerPoints, videos, or other media to be presented during public comment are accepted onlyby email to arb@CityofPaloAlto.org at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. Once received,the Clerk will have them shared at public comment for the specified item. To uphold strongcybersecurity management practices, USB’s or other physical electronic storage devices are notaccepted.
Signs and symbolic materials less than 2 feet by 3 feet are permitted provided that: (1) sticks,
posts, poles or similar/other type of handle objects are strictly prohibited; (2) the items do not
create a facility, fire, or safety hazard; and (3) persons with such items remain seated when
displaying them and must not raise the items above shoulder level, obstruct the view or
passage of other attendees, or otherwise disturb the business of the meeting.
CALL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALL
PUBLIC COMMENT
Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker.
AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS
The Chair or Board majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management.
CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS
1.Transmittal of 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, 2) Tentative Future
Agenda Items and 3) Recently Submitted Projects
STUDY SESSION
Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.
2.Study Session to Review Potential Amendments to the Regulations for the Housing
Incentive Program (HIP) in Title 18 (Zoning Ordinance) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to
Implement Program 3.4 of the Adopted 2023‐2031 Housing Element.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.
3.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for September 5, 2024
BOARD MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE MEETINGS AND
AGENDAS
Members of the public may not speak to the item(s).
ADJOURNMENT
PUBLIC COMMENT INSTRUCTIONS
Members of the Public may provide public comments to teleconference meetings via email,
teleconference, or by phone.
1. Written public comments may be submitted by email to arb@cityofpaloalto.org.
2. Spoken public comments using a computer will be accepted through the
teleconference meeting. To address the Board, click on the link below to access a Zoom‐
based meeting. Please read the following instructions carefully.
You may download the Zoom client or connect to the meeting in‐ browser. If using
your browser, make sure you are using a current, up‐to‐date browser: Chrome 30,
Firefox 27, Microsoft Edge 12, Safari 7. Certain functionality may be disabled in
older browsers including Internet Explorer.
You may be asked to enter an email address and name. We request that you
identify yourself by name as this will be visible online and will be used to notify you
that it is your turn to speak.
When you wish to speak on an Agenda Item, click on “raise hand.” The Clerk will
activate and unmute speakers in turn. Speakers will be notified shortly before they
are called to speak.
When called, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted. A timer will be
shown on the computer to help keep track of your comments.
3. Spoken public comments using a smart phone will be accepted through the
teleconference meeting. To address the Board, download the Zoom application onto your
phone from the Apple App Store or Google Play Store and enter the Meeting ID below.
Please follow the instructions above.
4. Spoken public comments using a phone use the telephone number listed below. When
you wish to speak on an agenda item hit *9 on your phone so we know that you wish to
speak. You will be asked to provide your first and last name before addressing the Board.
You will be advised how long you have to speak. When called please limit your remarks to
the agenda item and time limit allotted.
CLICK HERE TO JOIN Meeting ID: 965 6189 1491 Phone: 1‐669‐900‐6833
Americans with Disability Act (ADA) It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to offer its public
programs, services and meetings in a manner that is readily accessible to all. Persons with
disabilities who require materials in an appropriate alternative format or who require auxiliary
aids to access City meetings, programs, or services may contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at
(650) 329‐2550 (voice) or by emailing ada@cityofpaloalto.org. Requests for assistance or
accommodations must be submitted at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or
service.
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARDSpecial MeetingThursday, October 03, 2024Council Chambers & Hybrid10:00 AMArchitectural Review Board meetings will be held as “hybrid” meetings with the option to attendby teleconference/video conference or in person. To maximize public safety while stillmaintaining transparency and public access, members of the public can choose to participatefrom home or attend in person. Information on how the public may observe and participate in themeeting is located at the end of the agenda. Masks are strongly encouraged if attending inperson. T h e m e e t i n g w i l l b e b r o a d c a s t o n C a b l e T V C h a n n e l 2 6 , l i v e o nYouTube https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofpaloalto, and streamed to Midpen MediaCenter https://midpenmedia.org. Visit https://bit.ly/PApendingprojects to view project plansand details. Board member names, biographies, and archived agendas and reports are availableat https://bit.ly/paloaltoARB. VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION CLICK HERE TO JOIN (https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/96561891491)Meeting ID: 965 6189 1491 Phone: 1(669)900‐6833PUBLIC COMMENTSPublic comments will be accepted both in person and via Zoom for up to three minutes or anamount of time determined by the Chair. All requests to speak will be taken until 5 minutesafter the staff’s presentation. Written public comments can be submitted in advance toarb@CityofPaloAlto.org and will be provided to the Board and available for inspection on theCity’s website. Please clearly indicate which agenda item you are referencing in your subjectline.Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified aspresent at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson's presentation will be allowed up tofifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking membersagree not to speak individually. The Chair may limit Public Comments to thirty (30) minutes forall combined speakers. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak for Study Sessions andAction Items to two (2) minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers.PowerPoints, videos, or other media to be presented during public comment are accepted onlyby email to arb@CityofPaloAlto.org at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. Once received,the Clerk will have them shared at public comment for the specified item. To uphold strongcybersecurity management practices, USB’s or other physical electronic storage devices are notaccepted.Signs and symbolic materials less than 2 feet by 3 feet are permitted provided that: (1) sticks,posts, poles or similar/other type of handle objects are strictly prohibited; (2) the items do notcreate a facility, fire, or safety hazard; and (3) persons with such items remain seated whendisplaying them and must not raise the items above shoulder level, obstruct the view orpassage of other attendees, or otherwise disturb the business of the meeting.CALL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALLPUBLIC COMMENT Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker.AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONSThe Chair or Board majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management.CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS1.Transmittal of 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, 2) Tentative FutureAgenda Items and 3) Recently Submitted ProjectsSTUDY SESSIONPublic Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.2.Study Session to Review Potential Amendments to the Regulations for the HousingIncentive Program (HIP) in Title 18 (Zoning Ordinance) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code toImplement Program 3.4 of the Adopted 2023‐2031 Housing Element.APPROVAL OF MINUTESPublic Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.3.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for September 5, 2024BOARD MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE MEETINGS ANDAGENDASMembers of the public may not speak to the item(s).
ADJOURNMENT
PUBLIC COMMENT INSTRUCTIONS
Members of the Public may provide public comments to teleconference meetings via email,
teleconference, or by phone.
1. Written public comments may be submitted by email to arb@cityofpaloalto.org.
2. Spoken public comments using a computer will be accepted through the
teleconference meeting. To address the Board, click on the link below to access a Zoom‐
based meeting. Please read the following instructions carefully.
You may download the Zoom client or connect to the meeting in‐ browser. If using
your browser, make sure you are using a current, up‐to‐date browser: Chrome 30,
Firefox 27, Microsoft Edge 12, Safari 7. Certain functionality may be disabled in
older browsers including Internet Explorer.
You may be asked to enter an email address and name. We request that you
identify yourself by name as this will be visible online and will be used to notify you
that it is your turn to speak.
When you wish to speak on an Agenda Item, click on “raise hand.” The Clerk will
activate and unmute speakers in turn. Speakers will be notified shortly before they
are called to speak.
When called, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted. A timer will be
shown on the computer to help keep track of your comments.
3. Spoken public comments using a smart phone will be accepted through the
teleconference meeting. To address the Board, download the Zoom application onto your
phone from the Apple App Store or Google Play Store and enter the Meeting ID below.
Please follow the instructions above.
4. Spoken public comments using a phone use the telephone number listed below. When
you wish to speak on an agenda item hit *9 on your phone so we know that you wish to
speak. You will be asked to provide your first and last name before addressing the Board.
You will be advised how long you have to speak. When called please limit your remarks to
the agenda item and time limit allotted.
CLICK HERE TO JOIN Meeting ID: 965 6189 1491 Phone: 1‐669‐900‐6833
Americans with Disability Act (ADA) It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to offer its public
programs, services and meetings in a manner that is readily accessible to all. Persons with
disabilities who require materials in an appropriate alternative format or who require auxiliary
aids to access City meetings, programs, or services may contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at
(650) 329‐2550 (voice) or by emailing ada@cityofpaloalto.org. Requests for assistance or
accommodations must be submitted at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or
service.
Item No. 1. Page 1 of 2
Architectural Review Board
Staff Report
From: Planning and Development Services Director
Lead Department: Planning and Development Services
Meeting Date: October 3, 2024
Report #: 2409-3481
TITLE
Transmittal of 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, 2) Tentative Future
Agenda Items and 3) Recently Submitted Projects
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) review and comment as appropriate.
BACKGROUND
The attached documents are provided for informational purposes. The Board may review and
comment as it deems appropriate. If individual Board members anticipate being absent from a
future meeting, it is requested that this be brought to staff’s attention when considering this
item.
The first attachment provides a meeting and attendance schedule for the current calendar year.
Also included are subcommittee assignments, which are assigned by the ARB Chair as needed.
The second attachment is a Tentative Future Agenda that provides a summary of upcoming
projects or discussion items. The hearing dates for these items are subject to change. The
attachment also has a list of pending ARB projects and potential projects.
Approved projects can be found on the City’s Building Eye webpage at
https://paloalto.buildingeye.com/planning. Any party, including the applicant, may request a
hearing by the ARB on the proposed director’s decision(s) within the 10-day or 14-day appeal
period by filing a written request with the planning division. There shall be no fee required for
requesting such a hearing. However, there is a fee for appeals.
Pursuant to 18.77.070(b)(5) any project relating to the installation of cabinets containing
communications service equipment or facilities, pursuant to any service subject to Palo Alto
Municipal Code Chapter 2.11, Chapter 12.04, Chapter 12.08, Chapter 12.09, Chapter 12.10, or
Chapter 12.13 is not eligible for a request for hearing by any party, including the applicant.
Item 1
Staff Report
Packet Pg. 4
Item No. 1. Page 2 of 2
No action is required by the ARB for this item.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: 2024 & 2025 Meeting Schedule & Assignments
Attachment B: Tentative Future Agenda and New Projects List
AUTHOR/TITLE:
ARB Liaison1 & Contact Information
Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Manager of Current Planning
(650) 329-2575
Jodie.Gerhardt@CityofPaloAlto.org
1 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@CityofPaloAlto.org.
Item 1
Staff Report
Packet Pg. 5
Architectural Review Board
2024 & 2025 Meeting Schedule & Assignments
2024 Meeting Schedule
Meeting Dates Time Location Status Planned Absences
1/4/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Cancelled
1/18/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular
2/1/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Cancelled
2/15/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular
2/29/2024 9:00 AM Hybrid Retreat
3/7/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular
3/21/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Canceled
4/4/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular
4/18/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular
5/2/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular
5/16/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular Rosenberg
6/6/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular Chen
6/20/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular Adcock, Rosenberg
7/4/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Cancelled
7/18/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular
8/1/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Canceled
8/15/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular
9/5/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular
9/19/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular
10/3/2024 10:00 AM Hybrid Special
10/17/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular
11/7/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular
11/21/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular
12/5/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular
12/19/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular
2024 Ad Hoc Committee Assignments
Assignments will be made by the ARB Chair
January February March April May June
Hirsch, Adcock 4/4 Baltay,
Hisrch 6/6
July August September October November December
Hirsch, Adcock 8/15
Item 1
Attachment A: 2024 &
2025 Meeting Schedule &
Assignments
Packet Pg. 6
Architectural Review Board
2024 & 2025 Meeting Schedule & Assignments
2025 Meeting Schedule
Meeting Dates Time Location Status Planned Absences
1/2/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Cancelled
1/16/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular
2/6/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular
2/20/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular
3/6/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular
3/20/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular
4/3/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular
4/17/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular
5/1/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular
5/15/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular
6/5/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular
6/19/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular
6/20/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular
7/3/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular
7/17/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular
8/7/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular
8/21/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular
9/4/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular
9/18/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular
10/2/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular
10/16/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular
11/6/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular
11/20/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular
12/4/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular
12/18/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular
Item 1
Attachment A: 2024 &
2025 Meeting Schedule &
Assignments
Packet Pg. 7
Palo Alto
Architectural Review Board
Tentative Future Agenda
The following items are tentative and subject to change:
Meeting Dates Topics
November 7, 2024 •762 San Antonio: Architectural Review (1st hearing)
•4075 El Camino Way: Planned Community Zoning Amendment (2nd hearing)
November 21, 2024 •824 San Antonio Road: Architectural Review (2nd hearing)
Pending ARB Projects
The following items are pending projects and will be heard by the ARB in the near future. The projects can be viewed via their project webpage at
bit.ly/PApendingprojects or via Building Eye at bit.ly/PABuildingEye.
Permit Type Submitted Permit # Project Mgr.Address Type Work Description Assigned Ad
Hoc
AR Major -
Board
9/16/20 20PLN-
00202
CRAYBOU 250
Hamilton
Ave.
Bridge On-hold for redesign - Allow the removal and
replacement of the Pope-Chaucer Bridge over San
Francisquito Creek with a new structure that does not
obstruct creek flow to reduce flood risk. The project will
also include channel modifications. Environmental
Assessment: The SFCJPA, acting as the lead agency,
adopted a Final EIR on 9/26/19. Zoning District: PF.
__
AR Major -
Board
Zone Change
12/21/21 21PLN-
00341
EKALLAS 660
University
Mixed use ARB 1st formal 12/1/22, ARB recommended approval
4/22; Applicant is revising project plans - Planned
Community (PC), to Combine 3 Parcels (511 Byron St,
__
Item 1
Attachment B: Tentative Agenda and
Future Projects
Packet Pg. 8
24PLN-
00239
680
University
660 University Ave, 680 University Ave/500 Middlefield
Rd), Demolish Existing Buildings (9,216 SF Office) and
Provide a New Four Story Mixed-Use Building with
Ground Floor Office (9,115 SF) and Multi-Family
Residential (all floors) Including a Two Level Below-Grade
Parking Garage. Proposed Residential Proposed
Residential (42,189 SF) Will Include 65 Units (47 Studios,
12 1-Bedroom, 6 2-Bedroom).
On-hold, staff working on 660 University project.
Request for Major Architectural Review to Allow
SB330/Builder’s Remedy project and construct a new six
(6) story mixed-use building. The proposal includes
ground floor non-residential (5,670 SF), ground and sixth
floor office (9,126 SF), multi-family residential (all floors),
and a two level below-grade parking garage. Proposed
residential will include 88 units with 20% on-site BMR.
Major
Architectural
Review
6/8/2023 23PLN-
00136
23PLN-
00277
(Map)
23PLN-
00003
and -
00195 –
(SB 330)
24PLN-
00230
(Code
compliant
version)
24PLN-
00231
(Map)
GSAULS 3150 El
Camino
Real
Housing -
380 units
Focus Area Compliant Application Filed 8/7/24; NOI
Sent 9/7/24. Pending Resubmittal. Tentative ARB
11/7/2024. Request for Major Architectural Review for
construction of a 380-unit Multi-family Residential Rental
Development with 10% Below Market Rate. The project
includes a 456,347 square foot apartment building with a
171,433 square foot garage that extends to 84 feet in
height. Staff is reviewing the project to ensure the
requested concessions and waivers are in accordance
with the State Density Bonus laws.
Rosenberg,
Hirsch
Reported out
5/4 on SB
330
Rosenberg,
Hirsch
Reported out
on 8/17
Major
Architectural
Review
7/19/2023 23PLN-
00181
EKALLAS 824 San
Antonio
Road
Housing – 16
senior units,
12
convalescent
units
12/21/23 ARB hearing; Revised Plans resubmitted
9/25/24; Tentative ARB Scheduled 11/7. Request for
Major Architectural Review to allow the Demolition of an
existing 2-Story office building and the new construction of
a 4-Story private residential senior living facility, including
15 independent dwelling units, 12 assisted living dwelling
units and 1 owner occupied unit. Common space
amenities on all floors, underground parking, and ground
___
Item 1
Attachment B: Tentative Agenda and
Future Projects
Packet Pg. 9
floor commercial space. Zoning District: CS (Commercial
Services).
PC
Amendment
8/9/2023 23PLN-
00202
EKALLAS 4075 El
Camino
Way
Commercial -
16 additional
convalescent
units
Community Meeting in October. 2/28/24 and 6/12/24
PTC hearing, 7/18/24 ARB hearing, tentative 10/17/24,
future PTC and Council hearings needed. Request for a
Planned Community Zone Amendment to Allow New
Additions to an existing Assisted Living and Memory Care
Facility consisting of 121 Units. The additions include 16
Additional Assisted Living Dwelling Units; 5 Studios and 9
One Bedrooms. Zoning District: PC-5116
Baltay, Chen
reported out
6/1
Major
Architectural
Review
1/10/2024 24PLN-
00012
GSAULS 3265 El
Camino
Real
Housing NOI Sent 1/10/24. PTC 4/10/24; ARB 4/22/24; Applicant
submitted revised project 9/13/24 with 55 Units;
Tentative ARB December 2024. Request for rezoning to
Planned Community (PC)/Planned Home Zoning (PHZ).
New construction of a 5-story 100% affordable multifamily
housing development with 44 dwelling units and ground
level lobby and parking. Zoning District: CS.
Rosenberg,
Thompson
reported out
8/17 on
prescreening
Rosenberg/
Hirsch
Major
Architectural
Review
3/6/2024 24PLN-
00064
CHODGKI 640
Waverley
Mixed-Use NOI Sent 4/5/24. ARB 6/6/24. Pending Resubmittal;
Preparing 15183 Exemption. Tentative ARB January
2025. Request for a Major Architectural Review Board
application to allow the construction of a new four-story,
mixed use commercial and residential building with below
grade parking. The ARB held a preliminary review on
6/15/23. Environmental Assessment: Pending. Zoning
District: CD-C(P).
Rosenberg,
Hirsch
Minor - Board
Level
Architectural
Review
3/7/2024 24PLN-
00066
THARRISO
N
180 El
Camino
Real
Restaurant NOI Sent 4/10. Pending Resubmittal. Minor Board Level
Architectural Review to allow exterior upgrades for a
restaurant tenant (Delarosa); to include new exterior
pergola over seating and planters in existing location. New
metal awnings over main entrance to replace existing
acrylic and new metal awning at rear to replace existing
fabric awning. New signage and replace existing light
fixtures. Environmental Assessment: Pending. Zoning
District: (CC)
Major
Architectural
Review –
Builder’s
Remedy
4/02/2024 24PLN-
00100
24PLN-
00223
(Map)
CHODGKI 156
California
Mixed-Use NOI Sent 5/2/2024; 60-day Formal Comments sent 6/1;
Resubmitted, Request for Supplemental Info Sent
7/11; Pending Resubmittal. Request for Major
Architectural Review in accordance with California
Government Code 65589.5(D)(5) “Builders Remedy"
which proposes to redevelop two lots located at 156
California Avenue and Park Blvd. Lot A, 156 California
Ave ( 1.14 ACRE) is situated at the corner of Park and
Baltay,
Adcock
Item 1
Attachment B: Tentative Agenda and
Future Projects
Packet Pg. 10
California, Lot B, Park Blvd. (0.29 ACRE) is at the corner
of Park and Cambridge Avenue; the reinvention of both
sites will include the conversion of an existing parking lot
and Mollie Stone's Grocery Store into a Mixed Use Multi
Family Development. This project consists of three
integrated structures; (1) 7 Story Podium Building with 5
levels of TYPE IIIB Construction over 2 levels of TYPE I
Construction, 15,000 square feet will be dedicated to the
Mollie Stone Grocery Store, (1) 17 Story Tower, (1) 11
Story Tower, both Towers will be proposed and
conceptualized as TYPE IV Mass Timber Construction.
Environmental Assessment: Pending Zoning District:
CC(2)(R)(P) and CC(2)(R) (Community Commercial)
SB 330 Pre-app submitted 11/21/24
Zone Change 03/28/2024 24PLN-
00095
EKALLAS 70 Encina Housing-
10 Units
NOI Sent 4/28/2024. PTC 9/11/24, Plans Pending
Resubmittal, Tentative 1st ARB November 2024.
Request for Planned Community Zone Change (PHZ) to
allow construction of a new 3-story, 22,552 sf building
(1.86 FAR); to include ten (10) residential condominium
units organized around a common access court that
provides both vehicular and pedestrian access and full site
improvements to replace the existing surface parking
area. Environmental Assessment: Pending. Zoning
District: CC, (Community Commercial). ARB prelim held
12/7
Hirsch,
Adcock
Major
Architectural
Review –
Builder’s
Remedy
4/23/2024 24PLN-
00120
EKALLAS 762 San
Antonio
Housing -198
Units
NOI Sent 5/23/2024. Tentative ARB October 2024.
Request for Major Architectural Review to Allow CA GOV
CODE 65589.5(D)(5) “Builders Remedy" which proposes
the demolition of three existing commercial buildings and
the construction of a 7-story multi-family residential
building containing 198 rental apartments. This is 100%
Residential Project. Environmental: Pending. Zoning
District: (CS) AD.
Baltay, Chen
Housing-
Streamlined
Housing
Development
Review
5/28/2024 24PLN-
00152
24PLN-
00023
(Prelim)
EKALLAS 4335-
4345 El
Camino
Housing-29
Units
NOI Sent 6/27/2024. ARB 9/19/24. Pending Resubmittal
of Plans. Request for Major Architectural Review to allow
a housing development project on two noncontiguous lots
(4335 & 4345 El Camino Real) including the demolition of
an existing commercial building (4335 El Camino Real)
and an existing motel building (4345 El Camino Real) and
construction of 29 three-story attached residential
townhome-style condominiums with associated utilities,
private streets, landscaping, and amenities. Environmental
Assessment: Pending. Zoning District: CS (Service
Commercial).
Hirsch,
Baltay
reviewed
prelim
Item 1
Attachment B: Tentative Agenda and
Future Projects
Packet Pg. 11
Major
Architectural
Review –
Builder’s
Remedy
6/10/2024 24PLN-
00161
24PLN-
00048
(SB 330)
SSWITZER 3781 EL
CAMINO
REAL
Housing 177
units
NOI Sent 7/10/2024. Request for Major Architectural
Review to demolish multiple existing commercial and
residential buildings located at 3727-3737 & 3773-3783 El
Camino Real, 378-400 Madeline Court and 388 Curtner
Avenue to construct a new seven-story multi-family
residential housing development with 177 units. Two
levels of above ground parking, rooftop terraces, and
tenant amenities are proposed. Environmental
Assessment: Pending. Zoning District: CN & RM-30.
(Previous SB 330 and Builder’s Remedy: 24PLN-00048)
Major
Architectural
Review –
Builder’s
Remedy
6/10/2024 24PLN-
00162
24PLN-
00047
(SB 330)
GSAULS 3606 EL
CAMINO
REAL
Housing; 335
Units
NOI Sent 8/1/2024. Request for Major Architectural
Review to demolish multiple existing vacant, commercial,
and residential buildings located at 3508, 3516, 3626-
3632 El Camino Real, and 524, 528, 530 Kendall Avenue
to construct a new seven-story, multi-family residential
housing development project with 335 units. The new
residential building will have a two levels of above ground
parking, ground floor tenant amenities, and a rooftop
terrace facing El Camino Real and Matadero Avenue.
Environmental Assessment: Pending. Zoning District: CN,
CS, RM-30, RM-40. For More Information (SB 330 and
Builder’s Remedy: 24PLN-00047)
Major
Architectural
Review –
Builder’s
Remedy
7/17/2024 24PLN-
00184
24PLN-
00232
(Map)
GSAULS 3400 EL
CAMINO
REAL
Housing (231
units) and
Hotel (192
rooms)
NOI Sent 8/16/2024 and 9/12/2024; Pending
Resubmittal. Major Architectural Review of a Builder's
Remedy application to demolish several low-rise retail and
hotel buildings located at 3398, 3400, 3450 El Camino
Real and 556 Matadero Avenue and replace them with
three new seven-to-eight story residential towers, one new
seven-story hotel, one new three story townhome, and two
new underground parking garages. Three existing hotel
buildings will remain with one being converted to
residential units. 231 total residential units and 192 hotel
rooms. Environmental Assessment: Pending. Zoning
District: various (SB330)
Minor Board
Level
Architectural
Review and
Conditional
Use Permit
9/24/2024 24PLN-
00263
CHODGKI 3950
Fabian
Way
Private
Education
Request for Minor Board Level Architectural Review for
exterior modifications to an existing 32,919 square foot,
2-story commercial building, site modifications and a new
approximately 4200 sf addition to the North side. The
project also includes a Request for a Conditional Use
Permit for the change of use to private education to
accommodate Girls Middle school. Environmental
Assessment: Pending. Zoning District: GM.
Item 1
Attachment B: Tentative Agenda and
Future Projects
Packet Pg. 12
Potential Projects
This list of items are pending or recently reviewed projects that have 1) gone to Council prescreening and would be reviewed by the ARB once a
formal application is submitted and/or 2) have been reviewed by the ARB as a preliminary review and the City is waiting for a formal application.
Permit Type Submitted Permit
#
Project
Mgr.Address Type Work Description Assigned Ad-
Hoc
Preliminary
Architectural
Review
7/6/2023 23PLN-
00171
CHODGKI 425 High
Street
Commercial Preliminary Hearing Held 9/7; waiting on formal
application submittal. Request for Preliminary
Architectural Review to provide feedback on a
proposal to add a new 4th floor (2,632 square feet)
for either a new office use (existing hotel to remain)
or to provide eight new guest rooms to the existing
three-story Hotel Keen structure. Environmental
Assessment: Not a Project. Zoning District: CD-C
(P) (Downtown Commercial-Community with
Pedestrian Combining District).
Preliminary
Architectural
Review
8/29/2023 23PLN-
00231
CHODGKI 616 Ramona Commercial Preliminary ARB hearing held 11/2; waiting on
formal application submittal. Request for
Preliminary Architectural Review to Allow the Partial
Demolition and remodel of an Existing 8,357 square
foot, Commercial Building with addition using TDR
and exempt floor area earned from ADA Upgrades.
Preliminary
Architectural
Review
12/19/2023 23PLN-
00339
EKALLAS 1066 E
Meadow
Private
School
ARB Hearing 1/18/24; pending formal
application. Request for Preliminary Architectural
Review to Consider the Deconstruction of an
Existing 35,000 Square Foot Commercial Building,
and Construction of a new 2-Story, 46,000 sf
School Building. It Will Contain Classrooms,
Administrative Offices, and a Multi-Purpose Room.
Site Improvements Include Parking, a Play Area,
and a Rooftop Garden. Zoning District: ROLM
Rosenberg,
Adcock
SB 330 Pre-
Application
4/10/2024 24PLN-
00107
GSAULS 531 Stanford Housing SB 330 Pre-Application for a housing
development project that proposes 30 new
detached single-family homes and six new below-
market-rate units in a standalone multi-family
building on the approx. 1.18-acre project site at the
intersection of Stanford Avenue and El Camino
Real. 20% of the units would be deed restricted for
lower-income households. Zoning: RM-30.
Environmental Assessment: Pending.
Item 1
Attachment B: Tentative Agenda and
Future Projects
Packet Pg. 13
SB 330 Pre-
Application
4/15/2023 24PLN-
00111;
24PLN-
00112
GSAULS 3997 Fabian Housing – up
to 350 units
SB 330 Pre-Application - Request for a 292 or
350-unit apartment development in an 8-story
structure. Environmental Assessment: Pending.
Zoning District: GM (General Manufacturing).
Note: project has not changed but previous SB 330
pre-apps expired.
Chen, Hirsch
reported out
8/17
SB 330 Pre-
Application
6/19/2024 24PLN-
00171
GSAULS 4015 Fabian SB 330 Pre-Application - Housing development
project including demolition of existing structures
and development of 100 residential apartment units
with supporting use, including amenity spaces,
lobby, leasing office, and a parking garage with one
space per unit. Zoning District: GM (General
Manufacturing). Proposed project consists of 100
for-rent residential apartment units with supporting
use that include amenity spaces, lobby, leasing,
and parking in a garage at one space per unit.
SB 330 Pre-
Application
7/8/2024 24PLN-
00181
JGERHAR 2300 Geng SB 330 Pre-Application - Housing development
project including demolition of existing structures
and development of 159 residential units located at
2100-2400 Geng Road. Zoning District:
ROLM(E)(D)(AD).
Item 1
Attachment B: Tentative Agenda and
Future Projects
Packet Pg. 14
Item No. 2. Page 1 of 13
Architectural Review Board
Staff Report
From: Planning and Development Services Director
Lead Department: Planning and Development Services
Meeting Date: October 3, 2024
Report #: 2409-3506
TITLE
Study Session to Review Potential Amendments to the Regulations for the Housing Incentive
Program (HIP) in Title 18 (Zoning Ordinance) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Implement
Program 3.4 of the Adopted 2023-2031 Housing Element.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) conduct a study session to review a
summary of issues and recommendations, and provide feedback on possible changes to
development standards and applicability set forth in the Housing Incentive Program (HIP) in
Title 18 (Zoning Ordinance) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC), with the objective of
supporting housing production and improving financial feasibility.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The 2023-2032 Housing Element, adopted by the City Council on April 15, 2024, and certified by
the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) on August 20, 2024,
includes Program 3.4: Amendments to the Housing Incentive Program (HIP). This program calls
for modifying development standards and extending the program to multifamily residential
districts (i.e., RM districts and portions of the Research Office and Limited Manufacturing
(ROLM) and General Manufacturing (GM) Districts) to facilitate housing production. Housing
Element Program 3.4 also calls for preparation of a feasibility study to analyze physical
feasibility of current zoning standards to achieve different housing types (e.g., townhomes,
apartments) and financial feasibility of these resulting prototypical housing types.
Housing Element Program 3.4 identifies both specific zoning changes and more generalized
changes to development standards that necessitate additional analysis. This report presents
this analysis of physical and financial feasibility of existing and potential standards described in
Housing Element Program 3.4 and concludes that:
1. Base zoning standards (exclusive of recent amendments that modify standards for
Housing Element opportunity sites) favor townhome development and are less
Item 2
Staff Report
Packet Pg. 15
Item No. 2. Page 2 of 13
conducive to stacked flats (e.g., apartments, condominiums) or mixed-use development
with ground-floor retail. This is problematic since market rate townhomes have higher
rent and sales price than apartments and stacked flat condos and are therefore out of
reach for many households.
2. The housing types that result from current zoning standards (applicable to sites that are
not Housing Element opportunity sites) may not be financially feasible in all locations.
Collectively, the current zoning standards may result in housing types with too few units
to overcome the cost of demolition and construction.
3. To implement Housing Element Program 3.4, the City would need to consider
modifications to various physical development standards to allow more residential
units, enable the development of stacked flats and residential mixed-use development,
and improve financial feasibility. Generally, this represents an additional 1.0 to 2.0 FAR
and 10-20 feet of building height.
The purpose of the study session is to review the background, research, and options associated
with these Zoning Ordinance amendments. Based on feedback from Planning and
Transportation Commission (PTC) and the ARB, City staff and consultants will prepare an
ordinance for the PTC’s consideration later this year.
BACKGROUND
The City of Palo Alto Draft 6th Cycle Housing Element aims to implement State Housing Element
law, including meeting the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) and affirmatively
furthering fair housing in Palo Alto. Housing Element Program 3.4 aims to provide incentives for
multi-family housing. Although State Housing Element law requires cities to demonstrate
physical availability of sites to meet the RHNA, it does not necessarily require demonstration of
financial feasibility. However, the State requires that the Housing Element include programs
that would encourage housing production and eliminate constraints.
To that end, the City engaged planners, architects, and economic analysts at Lexington
Planning, Urban Field Studio, and Keyser Marston Associates to analyze the physical and
financial feasibility of current and potential zoning standards. These results are highlighted in
Attachment B and C which illustrate the physical models and report the financial feasibility
findings of this analysis, respectively. Attachment D is a map that identifies the locations where
the applicability of the HIP is proposed to be extended.
On September 25, 2024, the PTC discussed these potential amendments in a study session. The
Commission generally supported modifications to the HIP to facilitate multifamily housing and
improve feasibility. The Commission asked for careful consideration of modifications to
standards that relate to neighboring properties, such as rear yard setbacks and daylight planes.
The Commission also supported retaining retail requirements in key locations, including on
South El Camino Real.
Item 2
Staff Report
Packet Pg. 16
Item No. 2. Page 3 of 13
Housing Incentive Program
The HIP was enacted in 2019 as a local alternative to the State Density Bonus law. It provides
development incentives including no residential density restrictions, increased floor area ratios,
and increased lot coverage. It requires full Architectural Review but provides for use of the new
streamlined review process (one study session with the ARB) when a project meets objective
design standards. The HIP does not require additional below-market rate units beyond the
City’s existing inclusionary housing requirement. Currently, the only eligibility criterion is that
the HIP is only applicable in certain commercial mixed-use districts and locations:
•CD-C zone (Downtown);
•CC(2) zone (California Avenue);
•CN or CS zoned sites on El Camino Real;
•CS zoned sites on San Antonio Road between Middlefield Road and East Charleston
Road; and
•North Ventura (NV) zones (final Council action pending).
The City has approved two development projects that utilized the HIP to create a total of 105
residential units.1 However, given recent changes in State Density Bonus Law and other
streamlining bills, changes to the HIP are warranted to make sure that the program is providing
a real incentive compared to State laws.
A 102-unit residential mixed-use development was approved by the City at 788 San Antonio
1 17PLN-00305, a mixed-use project with 3 units at 3585 El Camino Real was the first HIP project. The second HIP
project was 19PLN-00079, a 102-unit project at 788 San Antonio Road.
Item 2
Staff Report
Packet Pg. 17
Item No. 2. Page 4 of 13
Road. The project, which includes 16 below-market rate units, was awarded additional
residential density through the HIP.
A three-story approximately 6,252 square foot mixed-use building, including three residential
units and 3,126 square feet of office space. This project at 3585 El Camino Real was awarded
additional gross floor area.
DISCUSSION
This discussion section includes a summary of the recent zoning changes adopted pursuant to
Housing Element Program 1.1, followed by a summary of the physical and financial feasibility
analysis detailed in Attachment B and C, respectively. Next, it distinguishes between planned
zoning changes (specific zoning changes to the HIP called out in Housing Element Program 3.4)
and potential zoning changes (generalized changes described in Housing Element Program 3.4).
While planned changes are straightforward and may not require substantial discussion, the
potential changes require input from the ARB and review of the findings presented here.
Program 1.1 (RHNA Rezoning) in January 2024
In January 2024, revised zoning standards went into effect on Housing Element Opportunity
sites, pursuant to Housing Element Program 1.1: RHNA Rezoning. These changes included
modest increases in residential density, FAR, and lot coverage in most zoning districts that allow
multi-family housing, as well as increases in building height and reductions in parking in the GM
and ROLM districts. However, these changes did not go beyond what was needed to reduce
constraints and achieve the densities required by the RHNA. Moreover, these standards only
applied to Housing Element opportunity sites; other sites in the City still have lower density
Item 2
Staff Report
Packet Pg. 18
Item No. 2. Page 5 of 13
limits. As a result, these zoning modifications may not go far enough on non-Housing Element
opportunity sites to incentivize a property owner to redevelop a site with additional housing.
Although the changes under Housing Element Program 1.1 represent an important and
successful first step to meet Housing Element law and RHNA requirements, development
standards in other parts of the City may not generate projects that are financially feasible in the
housing market. Chapter 3 of the Housing Element reveals that many of the projects recently
entitled or proposed in Palo Alto actually exceed the density allowed under the Zoning Code
(see Housing Element Table 3-2: Entitled and Proposed Developments). This is because projects
are using the HIP or State Density Bonus Law to obtain density bonuses. Modifying
development standards, as called for in Housing Element Program 3.4, can improve the physical
and financial feasibility of development, match the housing types that developers are building
in the market, and improve predictability for community members and decision-makers about
the types of development that the City can expect.
A 129-unit affordable housing project approved at 3001-3017 El Camino Real uses State Density
Bonus Law to achieve an effective density of 113 dwelling units per acre (du/ac), substantially
higher than what is typically achievable in the CS zoning district.
Physical and Financial Feasibility Studies to Evaluate Potential Changes to the HIP
As required by Housing Element Program 3.4, City staff and consultants prepared physical and
financial feasibility studies to determine the types and densities of housing that current zoning
Item 2
Staff Report
Packet Pg. 19
Item No. 2. Page 6 of 13
standards2 produce and to determine whether these housing types are likely to be financially
feasible for a developer to build.
Attachment B illustrates the physical models prepared by architects at Urban Field Studio and
planners at Lexington Planning. It reports the high-level financial feasibility findings prepared by
economic consultants, Keyser Marston Associates (KMA). Attachment C is the detailed report
on KMA’s financial feasibility findings.3 Figure 1 (below) summarizes this process and the
outcome of the studies.
2 Notably, these analyses exclude zoning changes that went into effect in January 2024 on Housing Element
opportunity sites. These recent changes improve physical and financial feasibility on opportunity sites only.
Modifications to the HIP are expected to assist developers/property owners of sites that are not listed as
opportunity sites, but will also further improve feasibility on opportunity sites.
3 Financial feasibility findings are based on assumptions about costs, land values, and profits that are averages, and
represent KMA’s local research and professional opinions. These assumptions may not reflect the economic
situations and assumptions for individual sites and developers, based on their specific values and priorities.
Item 2
Staff Report
Packet Pg. 20
Item No. 2. Page 7 of 13
Figure 1: Feasibility Analysis – Process and Outcome
Figure 2 (below) illustrates an example of the physical feasibility analysis detailed in Attachment
B. Architects modeled what existing standards yield (image and column at left) and then
modified various standards to try to increase yield (image and column at right). In general, this
process aimed to keep building height increase to no more than 10-20 feet (one to two stories)
and retain on-site parking. However, zoning standards are interconnected; there are tradeoffs
that the City can consider when evaluating changes to standards. For example, reducing parking
can free up space at the ground-level for housing units or commercial spaces without
substantial changes to building height. If side/rear setbacks and daylight planes are priorities,
then building heights may need to be higher and front/street side setbacks lower to achieve
sufficient yields. In the example in Figure 2, the architects increased building height, reduced
Item 2
Staff Report
Packet Pg. 21
Item No. 2. Page 8 of 13
the rear setback, modestly reduced the parking requirement, met the open space requirement
on top of the podium, and substantially increased the FAR. This results in a shift from four
townhome units to 15 apartment units, a change in both density and building type.
Figure 2: Excerpt from Physical Feasibility Report (see Attachment B)
Item 2
Staff Report
Packet Pg. 22
Item No. 2. Page 9 of 13
Planned HIP Zoning Changes
Program 3.4 states the following specific changes to HIP regulations that will be brought
forward to the PTC and City Council:
1. Modify Retail Preservation Ordinance requirements:
•Retain retail requirements in the GF- and R-combining districts (i.e., Downtown,
California Avenue) and nodes on El Camino Real, consistent with the South El
Camino Real Design Guidelines.
•Waive the retail preservation requirement on housing opportunity sites.
•Reduce the retail preservation replacement floor area requirement in other
locations (e.g. reduce by half).
Note that developers may still choose to provide a mix of uses based on market
conditions.
2. Modify HIP parking requirements, consistent with what is allowed under State Density
Bonus law:
•1 space per studio and 1-bedroom units (same as PAMC standard).
•1.5 spaces per 2- and 3-bedroom units (vs. 2 spaces in PAMC).
Note that developers may still choose to provide parking in excess of minimum
requirements or even if parking is not required, depending on market demand.
4. Expand applicability of the HIP to the RM districts, ROLM, and GM districts (in the
northeast portion of the City nearest the Bayshore Freeway and generally bounded by
East Charleston Road to the east and Loma Verde Avenue), to allow for this incentive in
key locations where multifamily housing is allowed and encouraged. These new
locations are shown in Attachment D.
Potential HIP Zoning Changes
Attachment B describes the range of changes that the City could make to HIP zoning regulations
to support housing production, improve financial feasibility, and increase predictability. The
discussion below summarizes options that the PTC and ARB could consider to modify
development standards and then compares the relative benefits and drawbacks of the HIP vs.
State Density Bonus Law.
City staff and consultants invite the ARB to consider modifying development standards in the
HIP, including: (1) increasing FAR, lot coverage, and building height; and (2) reducing daylight
plane, setback, and open space requirements. Collectively, these standards are currently
supporting livable spaces and respecting adjacent uses, but may also limit development to
townhomes and prevent sufficient unit yields to support financially feasible projects. While
Housing Element Program 3.4D calls for these modifications, it does not identify precise
changes. Staff is seeking the ARB’s feedback on the potential standards described in the report
in Attachment B. Table 1 summarizes the potential height and density changes to the HIP, also
Item 2
Staff Report
Packet Pg. 23
Item No. 2. Page 10 of 13
illustrated in Attachment B. It distinguishes between sites that are designated or not designated
as Housing Element opportunity sites. These potential standards are at the higher end of the
residential density and residential FAR necessary to support development.
To facilitate administration by City staff and decision-makers, standards will likely be simplified
to allow an additional 2.0 FAR and 1 story/10 feet, etc. in specific zones, as shown in the last
column of Table 1.
No changes are proposed to the HIP standards for the San Antonio Road (CS zone) or the CD-C
(Downtown) zoning districts because both of these areas are or will soon initiate a
comprehensive community engagement effort to identify new development standards for
housing development, among other land uses.
Table 1: Comparison of Existing vs. Potential HIP Maximum Building Height and Residential
FAR/Density Standards, by Housing Element Opportunity Site Status
Housing Incentive Program
(Residential FAR and Building Height Standards – NOTE: this is in
addition to allowed commercial floor area)
Zoning
District
Base Standards (Residential FAR and
Building Height)
Existing (All
Sites)Potential Standards
Potential Change
(from Base
Zoning)
CD-C
2.0 FAR (HE Opp Site)
1.0 FAR (Non-Opp Site)
3.0 FAR w/ TDR
50-foot height 3.0 Total FAR
50-foot height
None proposed due to
Downtown Housing Area Plan
study N/A
CC(2)
1.5 FAR (HE Opp Site)
0.6 FAR (Non-Opp Site)
37-foot height
2.0 FAR
50-foot height
3.5 FAR (HE Opp Site)
2.6 FAR (Non-Opp Site)
60-foot height
+ 2.0 FAR
+ 23 feet
CS (El
Camino)
1.25 FAR (HE Opp Site)
0.6 FAR (Non-Opp Site)
50-foot height
1.5 FAR
50-foot height
3.5 FAR (HE Opp Site)
2.85 FAR (Non-Opp Site)
60-foot height
+ 2.25 FAR
+ 10 feet
CS (San
Antonio)
1.25 FAR/30-40 du/ac (HE Opp Site)
0.6 FAR/30 du/ac (Non-Opp Site)
50-foot height
2.0 FAR
50-foot height
None proposed due to San
Antonio Corridor Coordinated
Area Plan N/A
CN (El
Camino)
1.25 FAR (HE Opp Site)
0.5 FAR (Non-Opp Site)
40-foot height
1.5 FAR
50-foot height
3.25 FAR (HE Opp Site)
2.5 FAR (Non-Opp Site)
50-foot height
+ 2.0 FAR
+ 10 feet
ROLM
2.5 FAR/60 ft (Focus Area)
1.5 FAR/45 ft (HE Opp Site)
0.6 FAR/35 ft (Non-Opp Site)
N/A
3.5 FAR/60 ft (Focus Area)
2.5 FAR/45 ft (HE Opp Site)
1.6 FAR/35 ft (Non-Opp Site)
+ 1.0 FAR
No height change
RM-40
40-50 du/ac (HE Opp Site)
40 du/ac (Non-Opp Site)
1.0 FAR (All Sites)
40-foot height
N/A No density limit
3.0 FAR
50-foot height
No density limit
+ 2.0 FAR
+ 10 feet
RM-30
30-50 du/ac (HE Opp Site)
30 du/ac (Non-Opp Site)
0.6 FAR (All Sites)
N/A
No density limit
2.5 FAR
40-foot height
No density limit
+ 1.4 FAR
+ 5 feet
Item 2
Staff Report
Packet Pg. 24
Item No. 2. Page 11 of 13
35-foot height
RM-20
20-50 du/ac (HE Opp Site)
20 du/ac (Non-Opp Site)
0.5 FAR (All Sites)
30-foot height
N/A No density limit
2.0 FAR
40-foot height
No density limit
+ 1.5 FAR
+ 10 feet
The HIP can still reflect transition areas, such as areas where these higher density zones abut R-
1 zones, by continuing to enforce daylight plane and height transition standards. However, to
accommodate taller heights, daylight planes would need to be adjusted to allow daylight planes
to start higher (e.g., raising from 10 feet above grade to 20 feet above grade).
PAMC Chapter 18.24 (Objective Standards) provides a model for how to create transitions
between lower-height buildings and taller new buildings by requiring a daylight plane that starts
at a taller initial height (in this example, 25 feet above grade).
Figure 3: Height Transitions and Daylight Planes
ARB Discussion Topics
City staff asks the ARB to consider whether it supports the following changes as generally
directed by Housing Element Program 3.4:
Modifications to one or more of the following development standards in the HIP to promote
housing production:
1. Increase building heights by 5 to 23 feet over existing standards, depending on the
district.
Item 2
Staff Report
Packet Pg. 25
Item No. 2. Page 12 of 13
2. Increase FAR by 1.4 to 2.25 over existing standards, depending on the district, to
support building height and density increases.
3. Eliminate maximum residential density (i.e., dwelling units/acre) as a standard.
4. Reduce setbacks, especially street-facing setbacks.
5. Increase maximum site/lot coverage.
6. Modify daylight plane limitations, to start step-backs higher up in the building.
7. Allow more flexibility in how open space is provided (e.g., on podiums, rooftops,
balconies).
8. Decrease minimum parking requirements, beyond State Density Bonus Law
standards.
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
Preparation of the Housing Element included a range of community outreach methods,
including surveys, Working Group meetings, community workshops, and public hearings.
Hundreds of community members have participated in the Housing Element update over the
course of the project. City staff and consultants are working with developers and architects
familiar with the City’s regulations to test potential standards. Community members have an
opportunity to provide feedback on the draft standards at PTC, ARB, and City Council study
sessions and public hearings.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
On April 15, 2024, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 10155, approving an Addendum to
the Comprehensive Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The addendum analyzed potential
environmental impacts of the 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element. This includes implementation of
Housing Element Program 3.4 and associated increase in housing production including and
beyond what was projected by the RHNA and Housing Element sites inventory. Specifically,
Housing Element Program 3.4 indicates that an additional 550 units could be generated through
modifications to the HIP.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Excerpt from 2023-2031 Adopted Housing Element Program 3.4: Housing
Incentive Program (HIP)
Attachment B: Physical Feasibility Analysis Report (Executive Summary with link to full report4)
Attachment C: Financial Feasibility of Multifamily Housing Typologies
Attachment D: Existing vs. Proposed HIP Eligible Locations Map
Attachment E: State Density Bonus Law Handout
4 Full report: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/planning-amp-development-services/long-
range-planning/kma-housing-incentive-program-report_complete.pdf
Item 2
Staff Report
Packet Pg. 26
Item No. 2. Page 13 of 13
Report Author & Contact Information ARB5 Liaison & Contact Information
Jean Eisberg, Consulting Planner Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager
(415) 516-4479 (650) 329-2575
Jean@Lexingtonplanning.com
jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org
5 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org
Item 2
Staff Report
Packet Pg. 27
5-16
PROGRAM 3.4: HOUSING INCENTIVE PROGRAM (HIP)
The HIP was enacted in 2019 as an alternative to the State Density Bonus law and provides development
incentives including no housing density restrictions, increased floor area ratios and increased lot coverage.
This program seeks to expand the suite of development incentives and extends the program to additional
zoning districts that are not identified in the Site Inventory.
Responsible Agency: Planning and Development Services
Funding Sources(s): General Fund
Implementing Objectives: A.HIP qualifying projects that also comply with City approved objective
standards shall be administratively reviewed with one courtesy meeting
before the Architectural Review Board.
Time Frame: Revise review process instructions by December 2024.
Excerpt from Adopted Palo Alto Housing Element 2023-2032, certified August 20, 2024
Item 2
Attachment A: Program
3.4_Housing Element 07-
17-24 Excerpt
Packet Pg. 28
5-17
Quantified Objective: Monitor projects for compliance with desired review
schedule, track application processing timelines and number of applications
appealed to Council; use data to inform future modifications to the HIP
program.
B.Amend the local Housing Incentive Program to include specific
expanded development standards, as an alternative to state density
bonus provisions. Reduce barriers by removing Planning Director
discretion to define applicable standards in each instance.
C.Allow for sites subject to the City’s retail preservation ordinance –
except in the ground floor (GF) and retail (R) combining districts and
strategic locations generally depicted in the draft South El Camino Real
Design Guidelines – to have a reduction in the amount of retail
replacement floor area needed for redevelopment and waive the retail
preservation requirement for identified housing opportunity sites.
D.Extend the local Housing Incentive Program to the multi-family
residential districts (RM-20, RM-30, and R-40).as well as the ROLM and
GM district focus area The Housing Incentive Program development
standards shall be amended to increase height and floor area allowances
for housing projects; reduce parking requirements to match or improve
upon state density bonus, and adjustment to other development
standards to enable greater housing production.
Time Frame: Complete Municipal Code amendments by December 31, 2024.
Quantified Objective: Amend the municipal code and comprehensive plan
to codify implementing objective with the goal of encouraging the
development of approximately 550 units over the planning period.
E.Expand the geographic boundaries of the El Camino Real Focus Area
(adopted in 2023) to incentivize housing production at appropriate
locations. Increase building height and floor area ratios and apply other
objective standards, such as transitional height restrictions, to address
single family zoning district adjacencies. The proposed standards will be
an alternative to the state density bonus.
Time Frame: Complete municipal code amendments by June 30, 2025.
Quantified Objective: Amend municipal code with the goal of encouraging
development of approximately 500 units over the planning period.
Primary Associated Goals
and Policies:
Goal: 2, 3, 4
Policies: 2.2, 3.1, 3.2, 4.2, 4.4
Item 2
Attachment A: Program
3.4_Housing Element 07-
17-24 Excerpt
Packet Pg. 29
Housing Incentive Program (HIP) Amendments to Implement the
6th Cycle Housing Element
Physical Feasibility Analysis Report
Revision Date: May 3, 2024July 10, 2024
Item 2
Attachment B: Physical
Feasibility Analysis Report
Executive Summary
Packet Pg. 30
Physical Feasibility Analysis Report 1
Overview
This report helps implement Program 3.4 of the Housing Element, which requires that the City amend the Housing Incentive Program based on findings of a feasibility analysis. This report
analyzes the physical feasibility of current zoning standards to achieve different housing types (e.g., townhomes, apartments).
Architects prepared prototypical site and
unit plans based on the City’s development standards, including building height, density, setbacks, open space, and parking requirements. Then, the architects adjusted various zoning levers, modifying zoning
standards to increase unit yield and further support housing production and affordability.
This analysis is accompanied by Keyser
Marston Associates’ (KMA) financial feasibility
analysis to determine whether the prototypes resulting from existing and modified zoning standards are financially feasible.
Purpose & Findings
50’-0”
14’-0”
25’-0”
36’-0”
40’-0”
50’-0”
40’-0”Height Limit Buffer
Modified CD-C ZoningExisting CD-C Zoning
60’-0” 60’-0”
Item 2
Attachment B: Physical
Feasibility Analysis Report
Executive Summary
Packet Pg. 31
City of Palo Alto Housing Incentive Program (HIP) Amendments to Implement the 6th Cycle Housing Element2
Mixed-Use Zones RM Zones
Zoning Designation CD-C CN CC(2) RM-20 RM-30 RM40 ROLM (RM-30)
Site 635 High
Street
3700 El Camino
Real
310 California
Avenue
680 University
Avenue
355 College
Avenue
Typical Interior
Lot
1035 E Meadow
Circle
Lot Size 50’x102’150’x106’90’x125’100’x100’50’x132’50’x100’300’x145’
Square feet 5,125 15,761 11,250 10,000 6,626 5,000 43,560
Existing
Retail
No Yes Yes No No No No
Test Sites
RM-20
CD-C
RM-30
ROLM
CN
RM-40
CC(2)
Item 2
Attachment B: Physical
Feasibility Analysis Report
Executive Summary
Packet Pg. 32
Physical Feasibility Analysis Report 3
Key Findings
Existing zoning standards generally support townhome development with surface or tuck-under parking. This is largely due to low lot coverage allowances and densities/FARs,
deep setbacks, and relatively high parking and landscaping requirements. Townhomes are a fine prototype, but limited in their ability to produce affordable and market rate housing. Existing standards generally do not support
apartments and condominiums in “stacked flats” configuration or mixed-use development with ground-floor retail.
To achieve these higher densities,
opportunities for more affordable housing, and
more financially feasible development, the modified zoning standards explore adjustments to several zoning levers:
• Reducing setbacks, especially on the street
side• Increasing lot coverage, FAR, and density• Increasing height limits and adjusting daylight plane requirements
• Reducing landscaping coverage and
allowing flexibility in the placement of common open space• Reducing parking requirements, consistent with State law allowances
• Reducing ground-floor retail requirements
outside of neighborhood commercial centers
Item 2
Attachment B: Physical
Feasibility Analysis Report
Executive Summary
Packet Pg. 33
City of Palo Alto Housing Incentive Program (HIP) Amendments to Implement the 6th Cycle Housing Element4
Retail Preservation
Requirements Revisions
• Revise use requirements for retail• Do not require one-for-one replacement: allow minimum FAR standard for retail
• Revise Retail preservation applicability
• Only require retail at key nodes. Allow 100% residential in between nodes on commercial corridors, and Housing Element opportunity sites
• Clarify that Retail Preservation replacement
is allowed on two floors
Objectives
• Support affordable and market rate
housing production goals, as specified in the Housing Element• Allow for apartment housing formats• Accommodate stacked flats and mixed-use
development
• Enable financial feasibility • Retain Palo Alto design values
50’-0”
14’-0”
25’-0”
36’-0”
40’-0”60’-0”Redefine maximum height
of buildings to measure to
top of structure, rather
than top of parapet to
allow a more reasonable
fit within the height limit.
Decrease parking
requirements, consistent
with State law
allowances: The space
taken up by parking
compared to housing can
be close to 1:1.
✓X
2-Bedroom Unit
828 sf
2 parking spaces required 558 sf+ guest parking (1 per project, plus 10% of total number of units)
= 837 sf12’-0’ Circulation(aisle width)
19’ x 9’
Parking Space
Guest Parking
23’ x 36’
Item 2
Attachment B: Physical
Feasibility Analysis Report
Executive Summary
Packet Pg. 34
Physical Feasibility Analysis Report 5
Ground Floor
Upper Level
Development Standard
Revisions
• Increase or eliminate maximum residential densities, which do not directly affect building massing
• Increase FAR and building height
• Revise the Daylight Plane to allow for at least two stories of development• Revise height buffer in CD-C district: 150 feet is too far from “adjacent” residential to
create a meaningful transition
• Revise Height Limit Buffer to apply only when the entire site is within the buffer• Revise Height Limit Buffer to apply to area within 10 feet of a visible property line
(thus defining a setback)
Lot Standard Revisions
• Decrease landscape/open space
coverage. The Ground Floor is a contested
space. The more Landscape/Open Space is required, the smaller the podium. It’s a big trade-off.• Allow landscape/open space to be
counted above the ground floor on small
sites (e.g, at the podium level)• Reduce setbacks, especially on the street side which tend to be deep even though this does not affect neighbors.
• Allow zero setbacks or mixed-use citywide
or on commercial streets like California Avenue, University Avenue, and El Camino Real• Reduce rear setback near roads. Count
the alleyways/lanes/service roads in lieu of
rear setback
Revise the daylight plane
to allow at least two
stories at the edges of
sites.
Allow the landscape/open
space requirement to be
met on upper levels to
free up contested space
at the ground level.
Ground Floor
Item 2
Attachment B: Physical
Feasibility Analysis Report
Executive Summary
Packet Pg. 35
City of Palo Alto Housing Incentive Program (HIP) Amendments to Implement the 6th Cycle Housing Element6
CD-C District
Alle
y
50’
-
0
”
102’-6
”
Alle
y
Prim
a
r
y
S
t
r
e
e
t
Modified CD-C Zoning
15 Apartments
Existing CD-C Zoning
4 Townhomes
The Height Limit Buffer and requirement for open space at the ground floor limit the amount of housing potential on the site.
Housing capacity almost quadruples when allowing 10 more feet of height, eliminating the height buffer, and open space requirements to met on top of podiums.
Prim
a
r
y
S
t
r
e
e
t
Item 2
Attachment B: Physical
Feasibility Analysis Report
Executive Summary
Packet Pg. 36
Physical Feasibility Analysis Report 7
Existing CD-C Zoning Modified CD-C Zoning
Setback: Front N/A N/A
Setback: Interior Side N/A N/A
Setback: Rear 10 feet for residential portion 5 feet for residential portion
Setback: Street Side Yard N/A N/A
Build-to-Lines: Frontage N/A N/A
Build-to-Lines: Side Street N/A N/A
Height Limit Buffer Yes (40 feet)No
Height Limit 50 feet 60 feet
Daylight Plane N/A N/A
Maximum Site Coverage N/A N/A
Minimum Landscape/Open Space Coverage 20% on ground 20% on ground and/or upper level
Parking: Studio/1BR 1 1
Parking: 2+ BR 2 1.5
Maximum FAR Overall 2.0 4.0
Maximum Residential FAR 1.0 4.0
Maximum Commercial FAR 1.0 0.0
Parking Required 2 per unit8 spaces 1.5 per unit17.5 spaces
Total Number of Units 4 units 15 units
Average Unit Size 1,575 sf 1,003 sf
Density 34 du/ac 125 du/ac
FAR Overall 1.23 FAR 4.16 FAR
Parking Provided (spaces)8 spaces 18 spaces
Parking Type Covered, tandem Podium, tandem
50’-0”
14’-0”
25’-0”
36’-0”
40’-0”
60’-0”
50’-0”
40’-0”Height Limit Buffer
Modified CD-C ZoningExisting CD-C Zoning
PR
O
T
O
T
Y
P
E
R
E
S
U
L
T
S
STA
N
D
A
R
D
S
Modified standards indicated in red.
60’-0” Height Limit
Item 2
Attachment B: Physical
Feasibility Analysis Report
Executive Summary
Packet Pg. 37
City of Palo Alto Housing Incentive Program (HIP) Amendments to Implement the 6th Cycle Housing Element8
Retail
l/wk
l/wk
l/wk
l/wktrash
Retail
Open
S
p
a
c
e
Ramp
150’-0
”
106
’
CN District
Existing CN Zoning
12 Apartments
A height limit buffer, maximum height limit, and daylight plane apply to this site. With a 35% minimum landscape/open space coverage, there is not much left space left for mixed use development. Underground parking is therefore required.
Modified CN Zoning
35 Apartments
More housing is possible by raising the height limit, allowing modest changes to the setbacks, and allowing the landscape/open space to be located on upper levels. Parking is accommodated at grade using mechanical lifts.
Prima
r
y
S
t
r
e
e
t
Prima
r
y
S
t
r
e
e
t
Alley
Alley
Side
S
t
r
e
e
t
Ramp
Side
S
t
r
e
e
t
Item 2
Attachment B: Physical
Feasibility Analysis Report
Executive Summary
Packet Pg. 38
Physical Feasibility Analysis Report 9
Existing CN Zoning Modified CN Zoning
Setback: Front 0-10’ for sidewalks 0-10’ for sidewalks
Setback: Interior Side 10 feet 5 feet
Setback: Rear 10’ for residential portion 5’ for residential portion
Setback: Street Side Yard 5 feet 5 feet
Build-to-Lines: Frontage 50%50%
Build-to-Lines: Side Street 33%33%
Height Limit Buffer Yes (35 feet)Daylight plane in-lieu of buffer
Height 40 feet 50 feet
Daylight Plane 16 feet height, 60 degrees 16 feet height, 60 degrees
Maximum Site Coverage 50%100%
Minimum Landscape/Open Space Coverage 35% on ground 35% on ground and/or upper level
Parking: Studio/1BR 1 1
Parking: 2+ BR 2 1.5
Maximum FAR Overall 1.5 FAR 3.5 FAR
Maximum Residential FAR 1.5 FAR 3.5 FAR
Maximum Commercial FAR 0.4 FAR 0.4 FAR
Minimum Mixed-Use Ground Floor Commercial FAR 0.15 FAR 0 FAR
Parking Required 21 spaces 42 spaces
Total Number of Units 12 units 35 units
Average Unit Size 735 sf 742 sf
Retail Preservation 2900 sf 0 sf
Density 33 du/ac 97 du/ac
FAR Overall 1.04 FAR 2.19 FAR
Parking Provided 21 total spaces 46 spaces
Parking Type Underground, tandem Podium, mechanical
16’-0”6020’-0”
30’-0”
50’-0”
40’-0”
Modified CN Zoning
16’-0”60
35’-0”
20’-0”
30’-0”
35’-0”
Existing CN Zoning
35’-0” Height
Limit Buffer 16’-0”16’-0”60°
40’ Height Limit
Day
l
i
g
h
t
P
l
a
n
e
Day
l
i
g
h
t
P
l
a
n
e
PR
O
T
O
T
Y
P
E
R
E
S
U
L
T
S
STA
N
D
A
R
D
S
Modified standards indicated in red.
50’-0” Height Limit
Item 2
Attachment B: Physical
Feasibility Analysis Report
Executive Summary
Packet Pg. 39
City of Palo Alto Housing Incentive Program (HIP) Amendments to Implement the 6th Cycle Housing Element10
CC(2) District
Existing CC(2) Zoning
3 Townhomes
Building height, setbacks, lot coverage, parking requirements, and FAR maximums apply to this site. Two levels of underground parking is required to meet minimum parking standards, which is costly. Existing residential FAR limits and setbacks limit the housing to 3-stories and to only 3 units.
Modified CC(2) Zoning
34 Apartments
More housing is possible by raising the height limit, eliminating setbacks, allowing the landscape/open space to be located on upper levels and increasing the FAR. Retail parking is not provided onsite but in district commercial parking structures. Residential parking is provided onsite in mechanical lifts.
Prim
a
r
y
S
t
r
e
e
t
Prim
a
r
y
S
t
r
e
e
t
Side S
t
r
e
e
t
Side S
t
r
e
e
t
Alle
y
125’-0
”
90’
-
0
”
Alle
y
Ramp
Ret
a
i
l
Open
S
p
a
c
e
Ret
a
i
l
Open
S
p
a
c
e
Item 2
Attachment B: Physical
Feasibility Analysis Report
Executive Summary
Packet Pg. 40
Physical Feasibility Analysis Report 11
Existing CC(2) Zoning Modified CC(2) Zoning
Setback: Front 0-10’ for sidewalks 0 feet
Setback: Interior Side 10 feet 0 feet
Setback: Rear 10’ for residential portion 0 feet
Setback: Street Side Yard 5 feet 0 feet
Build-to-Lines: Frontage 50%50%
Build-to-Lines: Side Street 33%33%
Height Limit Buffer Not Applicable Not Applicable
Height 37 feet 60 feet
Daylight Plane Not Applicable Not Applicable
Maximum Site Coverage 100%100%
Minimum Landscape/Open Space
Coverage
20% on ground
(23% shown)
20% (on any level)
Parking: Studio/1BR 1 0.5
Parking: 2+ BR 2 1.0
Parking: Retail 1 per 250 sfFirst 1,500sf exempt 0offsite with district parking
Maximum FAR Overall 2.0 FAR 3.5 FAR
Maximum Residential FAR 1.5 FAR 3.5 FAR
Maximum Commercial FAR 0.4 FAR 0.4 FAR
Minimum Mixed-Use Ground Floor Commercial FAR 0.25 FAR 0.25 FAR
Total Number of Units 3 units (tuck under parking)34 units
Average Unit Size 1,800 sf 902 sf
Retail Preservation 10,700 2,812 sf
Density 11 du/ac 97 du/ac
FAR Overall 1.43 FAR 3.56 FAR
Residential FAR 0.47 FAR 3.75 FAR
Commercial FAR 0.96 FAR 0.25 FAR
Parking Provided 38 commercial spaces 27 residential spaces
Parking Type 2 levels underground Podium, mechanical
PR
O
T
O
T
Y
P
E
R
E
S
U
L
T
S
STA
N
D
A
R
D
S
Modified standards indicated in red.
37’ Height Limit
Existing CC(2) Zoning Modified CC(2) Zoning
60’-0” Height Limit
Item 2
Attachment B: Physical
Feasibility Analysis Report
Executive Summary
Packet Pg. 41
City of Palo Alto Housing Incentive Program (HIP) Amendments to Implement the 6th Cycle Housing Element12
Prima
r
y
S
t
r
e
e
t
Side
S
t
r
e
e
t
Prima
r
y
S
t
r
e
e
t
Side
S
t
r
e
e
t
RM-20 District
Existing RM-20 Zoning
4 Apartments
The daylight plane, height limit, setbacks, and maximum site coverage limit unit yield on this site.
Modified RM-20 Zoning
7 Apartments
Adjustements to zoning allow the development envelope to be more flexible and doubles the amount of housing possible on the site.
Item 2
Attachment B: Physical
Feasibility Analysis Report
Executive Summary
Packet Pg. 42
Physical Feasibility Analysis Report 13
Existing RM-20 Zoning Modified RM-20 Zoning
Setback: Front 20 feet 10 feet
Setback: Interior Side 10, 6 feet 5 feet
Setback: Rear 10 feet 5 feet
Setback: Street Side Yard 16 feet 5 feet
Build-to-Lines: Frontage N/A N/A
Build-to-Lines: Side Street N/A N/A
Height Limit Buffer N/A N/A
Height 30 feet 40 feet
Daylight Plane 10 feet, 45 degrees 2 story residential edges or 16 feet, 45 degrees
Maximum Site Coverage 35%65%
Minimum Landscape/Open Space
Coverage
35% on ground 35% on ground and/or
upper level
Parking: Studio/1BR 1 1
Parking: 2+ BR 2 1.5
Maximum Density 20 du/ac No maximum
Maximum FAR Overall 1.0 FAR 2.0 FAR
Parking Required 8 spaces 10.5 spaces
Total Number of Units 4 units 7 units
Average Unit Size 2,500 sf 2,341 sf
Density 18 du/ac 32 du/ac
FAR Overall 1.0 FAR 1.21 FAR
Parking Provided (spaces)8 spaces 11 spaces
Parking Type Tuck under Tuck under
10’-0”10’-0”
30’-0” Height Limit 30’-0” Height Limit
Dayl
i
g
h
t
p
l
a
n
e
Dayli
g
h
t
p
l
a
n
e
45degrees45
degrees
Modified RM-20 ZoningExisting RM-20 Zoning
30’-0” Height Limit
10’-0”
Dayl
i
g
h
t
P
l
a
n
e
16’-0”
45°45°
Dayl
i
g
h
t
P
l
a
n
e
40’-0” Height Limit
PR
O
T
O
T
Y
P
E
R
E
S
U
L
T
S
STA
N
D
A
R
D
S
Modified standards indicated in red.
Item 2
Attachment B: Physical
Feasibility Analysis Report
Executive Summary
Packet Pg. 43
City of Palo Alto Housing Incentive Program (HIP) Amendments to Implement the 6th Cycle Housing Element14
RM-30 District
Existing RM-30 Zoning
4 Apartments
The daylight plane and maximum site coverage limits development to the extent that the prototype does not reach the limits of the building envelope.
Modified RM-30 Zoning
7 Apartments
Modification of the daylight plane and the maximum site coverage allows for development to fill the building envelope while still maintaining the daylight plane.
Side S
t
r
e
e
t
Side S
t
r
e
e
t
Prim
a
r
y
S
t
r
e
e
t
Prim
a
r
y
S
t
r
e
e
t
Item 2
Attachment B: Physical
Feasibility Analysis Report
Executive Summary
Packet Pg. 44
Physical Feasibility Analysis Report 15
16’-0”45
40’-0” Height Limit
Dayli
g
h
t
p
l
a
n
e
10’-0”45
35’-0” Height Limit
degreesDayli
g
h
t
p
l
a
n
e
Existing RM-30 Zoning Modified RM-30 Zoning
Setback: Front 20 feet 10 feet
Setback: Interior Side 10, 6 feet 5 feet
Setback: Rear 10 feet 5 feet
Setback: Street Side Yard 16 feet 5 feet
Build-to-Lines: Frontage N/A N/A
Build-to-Lines: Side Street N/A N/A
Height Limit Buffer N/A N/A
Height 35 feet 40 feet
Daylight Plane 10 feet, 45 degrees 2 story residential edges or 16 feet, 45 degrees
Maximum Site Coverage 40%65%
Minimum Landscape/Open Space
Coverage
30%30%
Parking: Studio/1BR 1 1
Parking: 2+ BR 2 1.5
Maximum Density 30 du/ac No maximum
Maximum FAR Overall 1.0 FAR 2.5 FAR
Parking Required 8 spaces 10.5 spaces
Total Number of Units 4 7
Average Unit Size 1,650 sf 1,457 sf
Density 27 du/ac 47 du/ac
FAR Overall 1.0 FAR 1.62 FAR
Parking Provided 8 spaces 11 spaces
Parking Type Tuck under, driveway Tuck under, tandem
Modified RM-30 ZoningExisting RM-30 Zoning
35’-0”
10’-0”16’-0”
45°45°
Daylight
Plane
Daylight
Plane
PR
O
T
O
T
Y
P
E
R
E
S
U
L
T
S
STA
N
D
A
R
D
S
Modified standards indicated in red.
40’-0” Height Limit
Item 2
Attachment B: Physical
Feasibility Analysis Report
Executive Summary
Packet Pg. 45
City of Palo Alto Housing Incentive Program (HIP) Amendments to Implement the 6th Cycle Housing Element16
RM-40 District
Existing RM-40 Zoning
4 Townhomes
The setbacks and daylight plane on this small (and typical) site limit the shape of the building reducing the amount of housing possible on the site. The daylight plane rules prevent a
development from meeting the district height
limit. This site test assumes no parking.
Stre
e
t
F
r
o
n
t
a
g
e
Stre
e
t
F
r
o
n
t
a
g
e
50’
-
0
”
50’
-
0
”
100’-0
”
100’-0
”
Existing RM-40 Zoning - No Parking
8 Apartments
To better understand the maximum development possible within this limited building envelopment, the site test was run again without parking requirements.
Item 2
Attachment B: Physical
Feasibility Analysis Report
Executive Summary
Packet Pg. 46
Physical Feasibility Analysis Report 17
Modified RM-40 Zoning - 10,000sf site
21 Apartments
The width of two typical lots allows the layout of podium parking to be more efficient. Parking was also modified to 1 space per unit minimum. The number of units is still limited by the
modified parking required, resulting in three
stories over podium parking.
Stre
e
t
F
r
o
n
t
a
g
e
Modified RM-40 Zoning
16 Apartments
Revising setbacks to be more uniform with other zoning districts and removing the daylight plane allows a regularly shaped building and more capacity of housing. This allows for four
stories of housing on top of the podium if
only the building envelope was considered, excluding limits on FAR, density, or parking.
Item 2
Attachment B: Physical
Feasibility Analysis Report
Executive Summary
Packet Pg. 47
City of Palo Alto Housing Incentive Program (HIP) Amendments to Implement the 6th Cycle Housing Element18
Existing RM-40 Zoning Existing RM-40 Zoning
Setback: Front 20 feet 20 feet
Setback: Interior Side 10, 6 feet 10, 6 feet
Setback: Rear 10 feet 10 feet
Setback: Street Side Yard 16 feet 16 feet
Build-to-Lines: Frontage N/A N/A
Build-to-Lines: Side Street N/A N/A
Height Limit Buffer N/A N/A
Height 40 feet 40 feet
Daylight Plane 10 feet, 45 degrees 10 feet, 45 degrees
Maximum Site Coverage 45%45%
Minimum Landscape/Open Space
Coverage
30%30%
Parking: Studio/1BR 1 0
Parking: 2+ BR 2 0
Maximum Density 40 du/ac No maximum
Maximum FAR Overall 1.0 FAR 1.0 FAR
Parking Required 7 spaces 0 spaces
Total Number of Units 4 units 8 units
Average Unit Size 1,009 sf 644 sf
Density 34 du/ac 67 du/ac
FAR Overall 0.88 FAR 1.0 FAR
Parking Provided 7 spaces 0 spaces
Parking Type Podium N/A
50’-0” Height Limit
35’-0” Height @ intersection of the daylight planes
10’-0”
45 de
g
r
e
e
d
a
y
l
i
g
h
t
p
l
a
n
e
50’-0” Height Limit
35’-0” Height @ intersection of the daylight planes
10’-0”
45 de
g
r
e
e
d
a
y
l
i
g
h
t
p
l
a
n
e
Modified RM-40 ZoningExisting RM-40 Zoning
40’-0” Height Limit 40’-0” Height Limit
35’-0” Intersection of daylight planes35’-0” Intersection of daylight planes
10’-0”
30’-0”30’-0”
10’-0”
45°45°
PR
O
T
O
T
Y
P
E
R
E
S
U
L
T
S
STA
N
D
A
R
D
S
Modified standards indicated in red.
Item 2
Attachment B: Physical
Feasibility Analysis Report
Executive Summary
Packet Pg. 48
Physical Feasibility Analysis Report 19
Modified RM-40 Zoning Modified RM-40 Zoning
Setback: Front 10 feet 10 feet
Setback: Interior Side 5 feet 5 feet
Setback: Rear 5 feet 5 feet
Setback: Street Side Yard 5 feet 5 feet
Build-to-Lines: Frontage N/A N/A
Build-to-Lines: Side Street N/A N/A
Height Limit Buffer N/A N/A
Height 50 feet 50 feet
Daylight Plane N/A N/A
Maximum Site Coverage 70%70%
Minimum Landscape/Open Space
Coverage
20%20%
Parking: Studio/1BR N/A 1
Parking: 2+ BR N/A 1
Maximum Density No maximum No maximum
Maximum FAR Overall N/A 2.5 FAR
Parking Required N/A 21 spaces
Total Number of Units 16 units 21 units
Average Unit Size 644 sf 734 sf
Density 130 du/ac 91 du/ac
FAR Overall 2.8 FAR 2.3 FAR
Parking Provided 6 spaces 21 spaces
Parking Type Podium Podium, mechanical
45’-0”45’-0”45’-0”45’-0”45’-0”45’-0”45’-0”45’-0”
45’-0”45’-0”
45’-0”45’-0”45’-0”45’-0”45’-0”45’-0”45’-0”45’-0”
45’-0”45’-0”45’-0”45’-0”45’-0”45’-0”45’-0”45’-0”
45’-0”45’-0”45’-0”45’-0”45’-0”45’-0”45’-0”45’-0”
Modified RM-40 Zoning (10,000 sf lot)Modified RM-40 Zoning
50’-0” Height Limit50’-0” Height Limit
40’-0”
50’-0”
PR
O
T
O
T
Y
P
E
R
E
S
U
L
T
S
STA
N
D
A
R
D
S
Modified standards indicated in red.
Item 2
Attachment B: Physical
Feasibility Analysis Report
Executive Summary
Packet Pg. 49
City of Palo Alto Housing Incentive Program (HIP) Amendments to Implement the 6th Cycle Housing Element20
ROLM District
Existing ROLM Zoning
16 Apartments
The existing height limit restricts the housing typology to townhomes. The potential is much higher at this site. The 40% maximum site coverage is also a constraint on housing
potential for stacked flats.
Modified ROLM Zoning
130 Apartments
More housing is possible If the height limit and maximum site coverage is revised to allow for apartments. Allowing the landscape/open space requirement to be met on upper levels
also contributes to efficient use of the site.
Prim
a
r
y
S
t
r
e
e
t
Prim
a
r
y
S
t
r
e
e
t
304’
293’
145
’
Item 2
Attachment B: Physical
Feasibility Analysis Report
Executive Summary
Packet Pg. 50
Physical Feasibility Analysis Report 21
Existing ROLM Zoning Modified ROLM Zoning
Setback: Front 20 feet 10 feet
Setback: Interior Side 10, 6 feet 5 feet
Setback: Rear 10 feet 5 feet
Setback: Street Side Yard 16 feet 5 feet
Build-to-Lines: Frontage N/A N/A
Build-to-Lines: Side Street N/A N/A
Height Limit Buffer N/A N/A
Height 35 feet 60 feet
Daylight Plane N/A N/A
Maximum Site Coverage 40%70%
Minimum Landscape/Open Space
Coverage
30% on ground 20% on ground and/or
upper level
Parking: Studio/1BR 1 1
Parking: 2+ BR 2 1
Maximum FAR Overall 0.6 FAR 2.5 FAR
Parking Required 32 spaces 130 spaces
Total Number of Units 16 units 130 units
Average Unit Size 1,633 sf 760 sf
Density 16 du/ac 130 du/ac
FAR Overall 0.6 FAR 2.7 FAR
Parking Provided 32 spaces 139 spaces
Parking Type Surface and tuck under Podium, Mechanical
58’-0”
60’-0” Height Limit
58’-0”58’-0”
65’-0”65’-0”
35’-0”35’-0”
Existing ROLM Zoning Modified ROLM Zoning
35’-0” Height Limit
PR
O
T
O
T
Y
P
E
R
E
S
U
L
T
S
STA
N
D
A
R
D
S
Modified standards indicated in red.
30’-0”
Item 2
Attachment B: Physical
Feasibility Analysis Report
Executive Summary
Packet Pg. 51
City of Palo Alto Housing Incentive Program (HIP) Amendments to Implement the 6th Cycle Housing Element22
Recommendations
Potential Changes to Enable Feasibility
Already Planned/Underway
• Increase residential densities (on specific sites in Housing Element Sites Inventory)
• Decrease parking requirements to match
standards permitted under State law
• AB2097 eliminates parking within ½
mile of Caltrain
• State Density Bonus law allows reduced
parking
Additional Changes to Achieve Financial
Feasibility and Stacked Flats/Mixed Use
• Increase FAR and density
• Increase building height
• Reduce setbacks (esp. front/street side)
• Increase maximum site coverage
• Decrease landscape/open space coverage
and allow more flexibility in open space
• Revise retail preservation applicability
Development standards work in unison. Other
changes will be necessary to complement
changes in density and parking.
Other Changes to Consider to Enable
Feasibility
• Simplify and reduce requirements for open
space
• Modify the daylight plane for small lots or lots that have 100 foot depths or bigger
• Reduce parking requirements for lots smaller than 10,000sf, “small lot program”
• Modify height buffer (i.e., within 150 ft. of a residential use)
• Allow height definition to exclude parapet height and rooftop mechanical
• Exclude mechanical rooms from FAR so that building systems are not undersized
Item 2
Attachment B: Physical
Feasibility Analysis Report
Executive Summary
Packet Pg. 52
Physical Feasibility Analysis Report 23
Mixed-Use Zones RM Zones
Zoning
Designation CD-C CN CC(2) RM-20 RM-30 RM40 ROLM (RM-30)
Residential Units 4 12 3 4 4 4 16
Parking Spaces 8 21 38 8 8 7 32
Residential Density (du/ac)34 33 11 18 27 34 16
FAR 1.23 1.04 1.43 1.0 1.0 0.88 0.6
Building Height (feet)40 30 37 30 30 30 30
Typology Town Homes Town Homes Town Homes Town Homes Town Homes Town Homes Town Homes
Financially
Feasible?X X X X X X X
Current Zoning Standards Yield
Mixed-Use Zones RM Zones
Zoning Designation CD-C CN CC(2) RM-20 RM-30 RM40 ROLM (RM-30)
Residential Units 15 35 34 7 7 16 130
Parking
Spaces 18 46 27 11 11 6 139
Residential Density (du/ac)125 97 130 32 47 130 130
FAR 4.16 2.19 3.56 1.21 1.62 2.8 2.7
Building Height (feet)60 50 60 40 40 50 58
Typology Apartments Apartments Apartments Town Homes Town Homes Apartments Apartments
Financially Feasible?✓✓✓✓✓✓✓
Modified Zoning Standards Yield
Item 2
Attachment B: Physical
Feasibility Analysis Report
Executive Summary
Packet Pg. 53
City of Palo Alto Housing Incentive Program (HIP) Amendments to Implement the 6th Cycle Housing Element24
Mixed-Use Zones RM Zones
Zoning Designation CD-C CN CC(2) RM-20 RM-30 RM40 ROLM (RM-30)
Development Intensity
FAR 2.0 4.0 1.5 3.5 2.0 3.5 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.5 1.0 3.0 0.6 3.5
Res FAR 1.0 4.0 1.5 3.5 2.0 3.5 2.25 2.25 2.5 2.25
Minimum Mixed Use Ground Floor Commercial FAR
N/A 0.15 0.0 0.25 0.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Residential Density Max (du/ac)No max No max No max 20 No Max 30 No Max 40 No Max 30 No Max
Residential Density Min (du/ac)N/A N/A N/A 11 16 21 16
Maximum Building Heights
Height Limit Buffer Yes (50') Yes (40')No No No No No
Height (feet)40 60 35 50 37 60 30 40 35 40 40 50 35
60
Daylight Plane
(* for side and rear
abutting R, lots less than 70 feet)
N/A 16 feet
height, 60
degrees (in lieu of buffer)
N/A 10 16
feet, 45
degrees
10 16
feet, 45
degrees
10 feet, 45
degrees
N/A
N/A
Item 2
Attachment B: Physical
Feasibility Analysis Report
Executive Summary
Packet Pg. 54
Physical Feasibility Analysis Report 25
Setbacks
Setback: Front N/A 0-10' for sidewalks 0-10' for sidewalks 0
20 10 20 10 20 10 20 10
Setback: Interior Side N/A 10 5 10 0 10, 6 5 10, 6 5 10, 6 5 10, 6 5
Setback: Rear 10' 5 for residential portion
10' 5 for residential portion
10' for residential portion 0
10 5 10 5 10 5 10 5
Setback: Street Side Yard N/A 5 5 0 16 5 16 5 16 5 16 5
Mixed-Use Zones RM Zones
Zoning Designation CD-C CN CC(2) RM-20 RM-30 RM40 ROLM (RM-30)
Max Site Coverage N/A 100%100%35% 65%40% 65%45% 70%40% 70%
Landscape/Open
Space Coverage
20%35%20%35%30%20%30%
Landscape/Open
Space Location
Ground floor only Ground floor and upper stories
Parking Requirements
Parking: Studio/1 BR 1 1 1 0.5 1 1 1 1
Parking: 2+ BR 2 1.5 2 1.5 2 1.0 2 1.5 2 1.5 2 1 2 1
Item 2
Attachment B: Physical
Feasibility Analysis Report
Executive Summary
Packet Pg. 55
HOUSING INCENTIVE PROGRAM STUDY:
TESTING THE FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY OF
MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING TYPOLOGIES
Prepared for:
City of Palo Alto
Prepared by:
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
June 13, 2024
Item 2
Attachment C_Financial
Feasibility of Multifamily
Housing Typologies
Packet Pg. 56
Housing Incentive Program Study Page i
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. 2405001v2.PA / 17125.015.001 June 13, 2024
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................... 1
A. FINANCIAL EVALUATION METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................. 1
B. BASE ZONING PROTOTYPE ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................ 1
C. PROPOSED ZONING PROTYPE ANALYSIS .................................................................................................... 4
D. ADDITIONAL POLICY CONSIDERATIONS ..................................................................................................... 6
II. FINANCIAL EVALUATION METHODOLOGY .................................................................................. 8
A. ANALYSIS OF BASE ZONING PROTOTYPES .................................................................................................. 8
B. ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED ZONING PROTOTYPES ........................................................................................... 8
C. FINANCIAL EVALUATION ORGANIZATION ................................................................................................... 9
D. PRO FORMA ASSUMPTIONS ................................................................................................................. 10
III. ANALYSIS OF BASE ZONING PROTOTYPES ................................................................................ 12
A. SITE A: CD-C ZONE.......................................................................................................................... 12
B. SITE B: CN ZONE .............................................................................................................................. 13
C. SITE C: CC(2) ZONE .......................................................................................................................... 16
D. SITE D: RM-20 ZONE ........................................................................................................................ 18
E. SITE E: RM-30 ZONE ........................................................................................................................ 20
F. SITE F: RM-40 ZONE ......................................................................................................................... 21
G. CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................................... 23
IV. ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED ZONING PROTOTYPES ....................................................................... 25
A. SITE A: CD-C ZONE ........................................................................................................................... 25
B. SITE B: CN ZONE .............................................................................................................................. 27
C. SITE C: CC(2) ZONE .......................................................................................................................... 29
D. SITE D: RM-20 ZONE ........................................................................................................................ 32
E. SITE E: RM-30 ZONE ........................................................................................................................ 34
F. SITE F: RM-40 ZONE ......................................................................................................................... 35
G. CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................................... 42
V. POLICY CONSIDERATIONS ........................................................................................................ 44
A. APPLICABILITY OF ZONING MODIFICATIONS TO SMALL SITES ....................................................................... 44
B. APPLICABILITY OF ZONING MODIFICATIONS TO LARGER SITES ...................................................................... 44
C. CURRENT CITY PERMITS AND FEES ......................................................................................................... 45
D. CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................................... 45
Item 2
Attachment C_Financial
Feasibility of Multifamily
Housing Typologies
Packet Pg. 57
Housing Incentive Program Study Page ii
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. 2405001v2.PA / 17125.015.001 June 13, 2024
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1: Base Zoning Prototype Analyses
Appendix A: Site A – CD-C Zone
Appendix B: Site B – CN Zone
Appendix C: Site C – CC(2) Zone
Appendix D: Site D – RM-20 Zone
Appendix E: Site E – RM-30 Zone
Appendix F: Site F – RM-40 Zone
Attachment 2: Proposed Zoning Prototype Analyses
Appendix A: Site A – CD-C Zone
Appendix B: Site B – CN Zone
Appendix C: Site C – CC(2) Zone
Appendix D: Site D – RM-20 Zone
Appendix E: Site E – RM-30 Zone
Appendix F: Site F – RM-40 Zone
Attachment 3: Background Information
Appendix A: Market Surveys
Exhibit I Resale Home Survey
Exhibit II New Home Sales
Exhibit III Apartment Rent Survey
Appendix B: Affordable Sales Price Calculations
Item 2
Attachment C_Financial
Feasibility of Multifamily
Housing Typologies
Packet Pg. 58
Housing Incentive Program Study Page 1
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. 2405001v2.PA / 17125.015.001 June 13, 2024
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of Palo Alto (City) is considering modifications to the Zoning Ordinance to create incentives for
multi-family and affordable housing development. The intent of the revised zoning standards is to
enable multi-family housing typologies that are both physically feasible and financially feasible.
To that end, the City engaged Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. (KMA) to evaluate the financial
characteristics associated with prototypical residential projects. The intent of this financial analysis is
to ensure that the proposed zoning modifications allow for financially feasible multi-family residential
projects. The following report discusses the financial analyses prepared by KMA.
A. Financial Evaluation Methodology
KMA utilized the following methodology to evaluate the financial feasibility of each prototype:
1. KMA prepared pro forma analyses based on the scopes of development that were provided by
Urban Field Studio.
2. The pro forma analyses were used to compare the value supported by the prototype project to
the project’s development cost plus a standard developer profit.
3. If the project’s estimated value was less than the estimated costs plus developer profit, the
project was deemed not likely to be built.
B. Base Zoning Prototype Analysis
As the first step in the process, Urban Field Studio and Lexington Planning created prototype
development scenarios for six sites that comport with the City’s current development standards. For
the purposes of this KMA analysis, “current” and “base” development standards refer to the base
zoning standards applicable citywide, but do not take into account increased density standards
available to Housing Element opportunity sites (adopted December 2023) or those available per State
of California (State) Density Bonus Law. As described in Attachment 1, KMA evaluated the financial
feasibility of each “Base Zoning Prototype.”
Item 2
Attachment C_Financial
Feasibility of Multifamily
Housing Typologies
Packet Pg. 59
Housing Incentive Program Study Page 2
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. 2405001v2.PA / 17125.015.001 June 13, 2024
As can be seen in Attachment 1, each of the Base Zoning Prototypes was found not likely to be
developed under the City’s current zoning standards. The results of the KMA analyses of the Base
Zoning Prototypes are presented in the table on the following page.
Item 2
Attachment C_Financial
Feasibility of Multifamily
Housing Typologies
Packet Pg. 60
SITE C SITE F
CC(2) Zone RM-40 Zone
I.Site Area (Sf)11,250 5,000
II.Development Scope
A.Unit Type Townhome Apartment Townhome Townhome Townhome Townhome
B.Unit Mix
Studio Units 0 3 0 0 0 1
One-Bedroom Units 0 1 0 0 0 0
Two-Bedroom Units 0 12 3 0 0 3
Three-Bedroom Units 4 0 0 2 4 0
Four-Bedroom Units 0 0 0 2 0 0
Total Units 4 16 3 4 4 4
B.Unit Sizes
Studio Units 0 360 0 0 0 360
Live/Work One-Bedroom Units 0 0 0 0 0 0
One-Bedroom Units 0 528 0 0 0 0
Two-Bedroom Units 0 828 1,810 0 0 1,120
Three-Bedroom Units 1,575 0 0 1,891 1,429 0
Four-Bedroom Units 0 0 0 2,791 0 0
Net Living Area 6,300 11,544 5,430 9,364 5,716 3,720
Average SF/Unit 1,575 722 1,810 2,341 1,429 930
Retail GBA 0 2,900 10,784 0 0
Gross Building Area (Sf)6,300 19,701 18,230 9,364 5,716 3,720
Floor Area Ratio (FAR)1.23 1.22 1.53 0.94 0.86 0.74
Density (Units/Acre)34 44 12 17 26 35
III.Estimated Development Cost
A.Land Value $1,614,000 $4,965,000 $3,544,000 $3,150,000 $2,087,000 $1,575,000
B.Direct Costs $2,387,000 $8,902,000 $9,571,000 $3,690,000 $2,284,000 $1,528,000
Per Sf of Net Saleable Area $379 $771 $1,763 $394 $400 $411
C.Public Permits & Fees $384,000 $1,392,000 $387,000 $412,000 $380,000 $364,000
Per Unit $96,000 $87,000 $129,000 $103,000 $95,000 $91,000
D.Indirect + Financing Costs $1,600,000 $3,515,000 $3,933,000 $2,505,000 $1,603,000 $1,146,000
As a % of Direct Costs 67%39%41%68%70%75%
Total Development Cost $5,985,000 $18,774,000 $17,435,000 $9,757,000 $6,354,000 $4,613,000
Per Square Foot of GBA $950 $953 $956 $1,042 $1,112 $1,240
IV.Projected Revenues
A.Residential Revenue $7,005,000 $781,000 $6,101,000 $9,575,000 $6,356,000 $4,164,000
Per Market Rate Unit $1,751,300 $4,300 $2,033,700 $2,393,800 $1,589,000 $1,041,000
Per Affordable Unit $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
B.Net Sales Revenue / Value
Residential Component $6,620,000 $5,765,000 $9,048,000 $6,006,000 $3,935,000
Retail Component 10,283,000
Total Net Sales Revenue / Value $6,620,000 $15,151,000 $16,048,000 $9,048,000 $6,006,000 $3,935,000
V.
$794,000 $1,515,000 $1,720,000 $1,086,000 $721,000 $472,000
VI.Net Surplus/(Cost)
A.Net Sales Revenue / Value $6,620,000 $15,151,000 $16,048,000 $9,048,000 $6,006,000 $3,935,000
B.Revenue Offsets
Total Development Cost $5,985,000 $18,774,000 $17,435,000 $9,757,000 $6,354,000 $4,613,000
Threshold Developer Profit 794,000 1,515,000 1,720,000 1,086,000 721,000 472,000
Total Revenue Offsets $6,779,000 $20,289,000 $19,155,000 $10,843,000 $7,075,000 $5,085,000
VII.Net Surplus/(Cost)($159,000)($5,138,000)($3,107,000)($1,795,000)($1,069,000)($1,150,000)
$15,151,000
Threshold Developer Profit @ 12%
Net Residential Sales Revenue or
10% of Apt Value
SUMMARY OF BASE ZONING PROTOTYPES
CD-C Zone CN Zone RM-20 Zone RM-30 Zone
5,125 15,761 10,000 6,626
SITE A SITE B SITE D SITE E
Item 2
Attachment C_Financial
Feasibility of Multifamily
Housing Typologies
Packet Pg. 61
Housing Incentive Program Study Page 4
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. 2405001v2.PA / 17125.015.001 June 13, 2024
C. Proposed Zoning Protype Analysis
Subsequent to the analysis of the Base Zoning Prototypes, Urban Field Studio and Lexington Planning
created prototype development scenarios that modified current development standards (Proposed
Zoning Prototypes). The purpose of modifying current development standards was to create zoning
requirements that allow for the development of multi-family projects that are both physically and
financially feasible.
Modifications were made to a variety of development standards such as: reduced parking ratios,
increased building height, increased floor-area-ratios (FAR), reduced setbacks, modified daylight
planes, reduced lot and landscape coverage and changes to ground floor retail requirements.
Specifically, the modifications were intended to allow for additional units to be constructed on each of
the development sites (e.g., increased FAR) and/or to reduce the costs associated with developing
residential units (e.g. reduced parking requirements). These factors have a direct impact on the
financial feasibility of each development prototype.
The Proposed Zoning Prototypes evaluated in this analysis are the result of an iterative process
between KMA, Urban Field Studio, Lexington Planning and the City. A number of potential
modifications were tested for each of the sites in order to develop prototypes that were both
physically and financially feasible. In particular, for the RM-40 Zone site, three scenarios for proposed
modifications were evaluated in this analysis.
The KMA financial analyses of the Proposed Zoning Prototypes are presented in Attachment 2. As
shown, each of the Proposed Zoning Prototypes was found to be financially feasible under the
proposed zoning modifications.
The results of the KMA analyses of the Proposed Zoning Prototypes are presented in the table on the
following page.
Item 2
Attachment C_Financial
Feasibility of Multifamily
Housing Typologies
Packet Pg. 62
SITE A SITE B SITE C SITE D SITE E
No Parking
Limited
Parking 10,000 SF Lot
I.Site Area (Sf)5,125 15,761 11,250 10,000 6,626 5,000 5,000 10,000
II.Development Scope
A.Unit Type Condo Apartment Apartment Townhome Townhome Apartment Apartment Apartment
B.Unit Mix
Studio Units 0 0 8 0 0 4 3 0
Live/Work One-Bedroom Units 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0
One-Bedroom Units 10 11 6 0 0 4 3 2
Two-Bedroom Units 1 18 16 2 0 0 6 16
Three-Bedroom Units 4 0 4 5 7 0 0 3
Total Units 15 33 34 7 7 8 12 21
B.Unit Sizes
Studio Units 0 0 514 0 0 415 450 0
Live/Work One-Bedroom Units 0 1,050 0 0 0 0 0 0
One-Bedroom Units 751 528 713 0 0 678 637 625
Two-Bedroom Units 1,240 828 1,066 1,593 0 0 740 971
Three-Bedroom Units 1,500 0 1,302 1,795 1,457 0 0 1,250
Net Living Area 14,746 24,912 30,654 12,163 10,199 4,370 7,701 20,540
Average Square Feet / Unit 983 755 902 1,738 1,457 546 642 978
Gross Building Area (Sf)20,841 33,240 42,895 12,163 10,199 5,016 10,725 26,114
Floor Area Ratio (FAR)4.07 1.94 0.94 1.22 1.54 1.00 2.15 5.22
Density (Units/Acre)127 91 132 30 46 70 105 183
III.Estimated Development Cost
A.Land Value $1,614,000 $4,965,000 $3,544,000 $3,150,000 $2,087,000 $1,575,000 $1,575,000 $3,150,000
B.Direct Costs $7,724,000 $12,553,000 $15,434,000 $4,614,000 $3,763,000 $1,895,000 $3,959,000 $9,727,000
Per Square Foot $524 $504 $503 $379 $369 $434 $514 $474
C.Public Permits & Fees $1,425,000 $2,805,000 $2,958,000 $686,000 $665,000 $656,000 $1,008,000 $1,827,000
Per Unit $95,000 $85,000 $87,000 $98,000 $95,000 $82,000 $84,000 $87,000
D.Indirect + Financing Costs $3,138,000 $5,250,000 $6,007,000 $2,222,000 $1,764,000 $915,000 $1,616,000 $3,864,000
As a % of Direct Costs 41%42%39%48%47%48%41%40%
Total Development Cost $13,901,000 $25,573,000 $27,943,000 $10,672,000 $8,279,000 $5,041,000 $8,158,000 $18,568,000
Per Square Foot of GBA $667 $769 $651 $877 $812 $1,005 $761 $711
IV.Projected Revenues
A.Residential Revenue $17,097,000 $1,741,000 $1,168,000 $12,863,000 $10,220,000 $363,000 $622,000 $1,234,000
Per Market Rate Unit $1,246,800 $4,500 $4,200 $2,060,700 $1,620,200 $3,700 $4,200 $5,100
Per Affordable Unit $444,500 NA NA $499,000 $499,000 NA NA NA
B.Total Net Sales Revenue / Value $16,157,000 $28,825,000 $31,327,000 $12,156,000 $9,658,000 $5,925,000 $10,325,000 $20,650,000
V.
$1,939,000 $2,883,000 $3,133,000 $1,459,000 $1,159,000 $593,000 $1,033,000 $2,065,000
VI.Net Surplus/(Cost)
A.Net Sales Revenue / Value $16,157,000 $28,825,000 $31,327,000 $12,156,000 $9,658,000 $5,925,000 $10,325,000 $20,650,000
B.Revenue Offsets
Total Development Cost $13,901,000 $25,573,000 $27,943,000 $10,672,000 $8,279,000 $5,041,000 $8,158,000 $18,568,000
Threshold Developer Profit 1,939,000 2,883,000 3,133,000 1,459,000 1,159,000 593,000 1,033,000 2,065,000
Total Revenue Offsets $15,840,000 $28,456,000 $31,076,000 $12,131,000 $9,438,000 $5,634,000 $9,191,000 $20,633,000
VII.Net Surplus/(Cost)$317,000 $369,000 $251,000 $25,000 $220,000 $291,000 $1,134,000 $17,000
Threshold Developer Profit @ 12%
Net Residential Sales Revenue or
10% of Apt Value
SUMMARY OF PROPOSED ZONING PROTOTYPES
SITE F
CD-C Zone CN Zone CC(2) Zone RM-20 Zone RM-30 Zone
RM-40 Zone
Item 2
Attachment C_Financial
Feasibility of Multifamily
Housing Typologies
Packet Pg. 63
Housing Incentive Program Study Page 6
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. 2405001v2.PA / 17125.015.001 June 13, 2024
D. Additional Policy Considerations
The following section provides additional policy considerations for the City:
APPLICABILITY OF ZONING MODIFICATIONS TO SMALL SITES
The City is also interested in understanding the impact on financial feasibility if the reductions in
required parking ratios and/or building height and FAR are less substantial than those applied in the
Proposed Zoning Prototypes analysis. A key factor that should be considered in the decision making
process is that many of the sites evaluated in this analysis are fairly small – consisting of between 5,000
and 15,000 square feet of land area. For a development on a small site to achieve financial feasibility it
is necessary to be able to create an extremely efficient design.
Parking Standards
The proposed reduction in the parking requirements significantly enhances the potential for financially
feasible residential uses to be developed. A change to the proposed parking standard would require
more site area to be dedicated for parking spaces, which would materially reduce the site’s buildable
area. Given the limited number of units that each site can support a loss of even a few units on each
site results in a significant impact on financial feasibility.
Height and FAR Standards
The achievable building footprint on a small site is disproportionately lower than the footprint that can
be accommodated on a more typically sized development site. The proposed increases in FAR and
height are necessary to compensate for this limitation. Recognizing the small number of units that can
be accommodated per floor, even the reduction of one floor of building area has a significant impact
on financial feasibility.
APPLICABILITY OF ZONING MODIFICATIONS TO LARGER SITES
As discussed above, this analysis primarily focuses on small sites. The site sizes were intended to be
representative of typical parcel sizes within each zoning designation. However, the proposed zoning
Item 2
Attachment C_Financial
Feasibility of Multifamily
Housing Typologies
Packet Pg. 64
Housing Incentive Program Study Page 7
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. 2405001v2.PA / 17125.015.001 June 13, 2024
modifications may be applied to sites of all sizes within each zoning designation. Therefore, a
developer may utilize the proposed zoning modifications on sites larger than evaluated in this analysis.
Without the physical constraints imposed by small sites, larger sites will likely be developed with more
efficiently designed projects. Therefore, it is possible that the proposed zoning modifications will have
a greater positive financial impact on larger sites.
CURRENT CITY PERMITS AND FEES
The pro forma analyses included in this report take into account the City’s current permits and impact
fees. Specifically, the development costs for each prototype include the following impact fees: parks
fee, community center fee, libraries fee, public safety facilities fee, general government facilities fee,
school district fee, and the in-lieu art fee. As such, the financial analyses demonstrate that Proposed
Zoning Prototypes are financially feasible with the City’s current impact fee schedule.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the financial analyses that KMA has prepared over the course of this engagement, it is our
opinion that the proposed modifications to the zoning standards are necessary to create sufficient
incentive to attract residential development on the prototypical sites evaluated in this analysis. This is
particularly true of the parking requirements and building height/FAR, all of which tend to have an
outsized impact on financial feasibility.
Item 2
Attachment C_Financial
Feasibility of Multifamily
Housing Typologies
Packet Pg. 65
To download the complete Keyser Marston Associates’ report, “Housing Incentive Program
Study: Testing The Financial Feasibility Of Multi-Family Housing Typologies,” please use the
link below:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/planning-amp-development-
services/long-range-planning/kma-housing-incentive-program-report_complete.pdf
Item 2
Attachment C_Financial
Feasibility of Multifamily
Housing Typologies
Packet Pg. 66
Middlefield Road
Cowper Street
Waverley Street
Alma Street
El Camino Real
Louis Road
Hy 101 South
Ross Road
Hy 101 North
Webster Street
Bryant Street
Channing Avenue East Bayshore Road
Sand Hill Road
Hamilton Avenue
Page Mill Road
Lincoln Avenue
San Antonio Road
University Avenue
Newell Road
Oregon Expressway
Seale Avenue
South Court
High Street
Charleston Road
Park Boulevard
East Meadow Drive
Stanford Avenue
Colorado Avenue
West Bayshore Road
Foothill Expressway
Hanover Street
Miranda Avenue
Arastradero Road
Fabian Way
Homer Avenue
Greer Road
Ramona Street
Edgewood Drive
Loma Verde Avenue
Everett Avenue
Churchill Avenue
Matadero Avenue
Lowell Avenue
Center Drive
Tennyson Avenue
Los Robles Avenue
California Avenue
Barron Avenue
Welch Road
Kingsley Avenue
Maybell Avenue
Wilkie Way
Hansen Way
Coleridge Avenue
Byron Street
Ely Place
Oregon Avenue
Marion Avenue
North California Avenue
Emerson Street
Pitman Avenue
Laguna Avenue
Grove Avenue
Ferne Avenue
Porter Drive
Castilleja Avenue
Hale Street
Chimalus Drive
College Avenue
Amherst Street
Seneca Street
Lane 66Bowdoin Street
Stockton Place
Harker Avenue
Embarcadero Road
Ames Avenue
El Dorado Avenue
La Para Avenue
Clark Way
Grant Avenue
Birch Street
Hawthorne Avenue
Clara Drive
Coyote Hill Road
Columbia Street
Georgia Avenue
Hillview Avenue
Rhodes Drive
San Antonio Avenue
Cambridge Avenue
Olive Avenue
La Donna Street
El Camino Way
Parkinson Avenue
Kipling Street
Pasteur Drive
Heather Lane
Kellogg Avenue
Alger Drive
Florales Drive
Forest Avenue
Monroe Drive
Greenwood Avenue
Boyce Avenue
Sherman Avenue
Oberlin Street
Nathan Way
Urban Lane
Harvard Street
Iris Way
Hopkins Avenue
Dana Avenue
Fulton Street
Sutherland Drive
Lambert Avenue
Vineyard Lane
Marshall Drive
Geng Road
Orme Street
El Carmelo Avenue
Parkside Drive
Walnut Drive
Maddux Drive
Sheridan Avenue
Wildwood Lane
Elsinore Drive
Fernando Avenue
Moreno Avenue
Sutter Avenue
Edlee Avenue
Ventura Avenue
Arbutus Avenue
Chaucer Street
Shopping Center Way
Walter Hays Drive
Jackson Drive
Kenneth Drive
Patricia Lane
Whitclem Drive
Cereza Drive
Towle Way
Guinda Street
Transport Street
Lane 21
Bruce Drive
Encina Grande Drive
Faber Place
Los Palos Avenue
Ruthven Avenue
Laguna Way
Whitsell Street
Janice Way
Bibbits Drive
Warren Way
Madrono Avenue
Mayview Avenue
Rorke Way Evergreen Drive
Stelling Drive
Ashton Avenue
McKellar Lane
Jefferson Drive
Santa Rita Avenue
Addison Avenue
Saint Claire Drive
Rinconada Avenue
Second Street
Encina Avenue
Silva Avenue
Quarry Road
Bryson Avenue
Fabian Street
Nevada Avenue
Southwood Drive
Lupine Avenue
Poe Street
Park Avenue
Portola Avenue
Suzanne Drive
Sycamore Drive
Washington Avenue
Manzana Lane
Ash Street
Portage Avenue
Elwell Court
Wellsbury Way
Pepper Avenue
Wells Avenue
Lane 7 East
Tasso Street
Lytton Avenue
Mark Twain Street
Maple Street
Laura Lane
Dinah's Court
Melville Avenue
Palm Street
Lane 30
Tioga Court
Shasta Drive
Diablo Court
Varian Way
Saint Francis Drive
Page Mill Road
Park Boulevard
Byron Street
South Court
Byron Street
Fulton Street
Lytton Avenue
Dana Avenue
Oregon Avenue
Bryant Street
Emerson Street
San Antonio Road
College Avenue
Ramona Street
Georgia Avenue
Oregon Avenue
Mountain ViewStanford University
Menlo Park
Atherton
East Palo Alto
Los AltosPortola Valley
Los Altos Hills
Stanford
Menlo Park
Mountain View
Los AltosLos Altos Hills
Atherton
Portola Valley
Cupertino
Stanford University
Redwood City
East Palo Alto
Sunnyvale
Woodside
Legend
Housing Incentive Program Parcels - Existing
Housing Incentive Program Parcels - ProposedHousing Inventory Sites 7/8/2024
NVCAP
£¤101
Item 2
Attachment D: Existing and Proposed
HIP Eligible Locations Map
Packet Pg. 67
Item 2
Attachment E: State Density Bonus
Law Handout
Packet Pg. 68
Item 2
Attachment E: State Density Bonus
Law Handout
Packet Pg. 69
Item 2
Attachment E: State Density Bonus
Law Handout
Packet Pg. 70
Item 2
Attachment E: State Density Bonus
Law Handout
Packet Pg. 71
Item No. 3. Page 1 of 1
Architectural Review Board
Staff Report
From: Planning and Development Services Director
Lead Department: Planning and Development Services
Meeting Date: October 3, 2024
Report #: 2409-3496
TITLE
Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for September 5, 2024
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) adopt the attached meeting minutes.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Minutes of September 5, 2024
AUTHOR/TITLE:
ARB Liaison1 & Contact Information
Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Manager of Current Planning
(650) 329-2575
Jodie.Gerhardt@CityofPaloAlto.org
1 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@CityofPaloAlto.org.
Item 3
Staff Report
Packet Pg. 72
Page 1 of 13
Architectural Review Board Meeting
Draft Summary Minutes: 09/05/24
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
DRAFT MINUTES: September 5, 2024
Council Chamber & Zoom
8:30 AM
Call to Order / Roll Call
The Architectural Review Board (ARB) of the City of Palo Alto met on September 5, 2024, in Council
Chambers and virtual teleconference at 8:34 AM
Present: Chair Kendra Rosenberg, Vice Chair Yingxi Chen, Boardmember Mousam Adcock,
Boardmember Peter Baltay, Boardmember David Hirsch
Absent: None.
Oral Communications
None.
Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions
None.
City Official Reports
1. Transmittal of 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, 2) Tentative Future Agenda
items and 3) Recently Submitted Projects
Jodie Gerhardt, Manager of Current Planning, went over the calendar of future meetings. She spoke
about the September 19 meeting to review the 4335-4345 El Camino Real project and Housing Incentive
Program and proposed changes. She stated there were no new addresses on the pending projects. She
mentioned 660 University where a Builder’s Remedy had been filed. She provided information about a
code compliance submittal for 3150 El Camino Real.
Boardmember Hirsch queried if 3150 El Camino Real fell into the housing sites they would be discussing
the following week.
Ms. Gerhardt confirmed that 3150 El Camino Real was a Housing Inventory Site with at least 113 units
allocated to it.
Action Item
Item 3
Attachment A: Minutes of
September 5, 2024
Packet Pg. 73
Page 2 of 13
Architectural Review Board Meeting
Draft Summary Minutes: 09/05/24
2. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 180 El Camino Real [23PLN-00323]: Recommendation on
Applicant’s Request for Approval of a Major Architectural Review of exterior storefront revisions
and improvements including a redesigned outdoor dining area, façade revisions, new signage and
updated lighting for an existing restaurant tenant, The Melt (Space #705A, Building E), at the
Stanford Shopping Center. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from CEQA per Section 15301
(Existing Facilities). Zoning District: CC (Community Commercial).
Chair Rosenberg, Vice Chair Chen, Boardmember Hirsch and Boardmember Mousam Adcock all
disclosed having visited the site.
Boardmember Baltay disclosed he had visited the site earlier in the week. He noticed that the Pacific
Catch Restaurant has now placed a series of umbrellas along the sidewalk in a manner that narrows the
width of the sidewalk to less than eight feet.
Tamara Harrison provided a slide presentation discussing The Melt in the Stanford Shopping Center at
180 El Camino Real including the project location, overview of Master Tenant Façade and Sign Program,
project overview, existing versus proposed façade, colors and materials board, signage considerations,
key considerations and conditions and the recommended motion.
Aliana Ramos talked about her participation in the project and gave a background of the development of
the concept. She discussed the proposed changes providing slides for visuals.
PUBLIC COMMENT
None.
Boardmember Adcock wanted to know where the one new bike rack would be located.
Ms. Harrison explained that the City and Stanford had been working on an existing Bike Plan Layout for
the overall Stanford Center that shows where the upcoming stalls versus the existing stalls would be.
Boardmember Baltay wanted clarification on how many new bicycles spaces were being added due to
this project and where they are going.
Ms. Harrison replied this project was only required to add one bicycle space per the size of the tenant
space. As the new ARB projects come forward at Stanford, the practice has been to condition them
according to the size of the tenant space. The 24 spaces that were shown were from previous ARB
approvals in the past.
Jason Smith added there was an overall exhibit identifying where all the bicycle parking spaces were
located.
Boardmember Adcock queried if there would be a separate project to add these bike parking spaces.
She had questions about the finishes including the trim, the existing white tile, the bottom area, the
spacing of the slats, the fence and the light fixture proposed.
Item 3
Attachment A: Minutes of
September 5, 2024
Packet Pg. 74
Page 3 of 13
Architectural Review Board Meeting
Draft Summary Minutes: 09/05/24
Ms. Harrison explained as part of the building permit process, staff would make sure that the bike
parking location is shown consistent with the bike parking layout they had been working on for the
Center. Prior to final occupancy, a final planning inspection would be required to ensure everything to
be consistent with what had been approved. That would be checked as a part of that inspection process
and if everything is consistent and in place, then it will be signed off on.
Ms. Ramos commented the trim across the top would be removed and patched as needed but the
overall texture above that thin brick would remain the same and get painted. She stated the existing
white tile that looks like a brick pattern would be pulled out and new brick would be glued in place. The
bottom area that looked like concrete would be painted a dark gray. The slats were going to be
horizontal planks set to achieve 42 inches above the ground. The final details will have to get
coordinated for that piece as it is custom. The plan is for it to be about 20 percent open. The fence will
be located in the same place as the current white fence. She pointed out an area to the north that
would be getting closed off but the layout of the patio would remain the same. She said that the light
fixture proposed would be relocated into the interior to make sure the sidewalk had enough clear space.
Boardmember Baltay had questions about the brick wainscot being replaced, the existing trim around
the arched openings, what new trim was being added, the material behind the glass on the spandrel
panel, the ceiling and the new signage over the entry door.
Chair Rosenberg asked about the dimensions of the sign and wanted to know if it was in compliance.
Ms. Ramos stated the brick wainscot was being coordinated with the existing height of the tile so the
texture difference would not be noticeable. She believed they were keeping the same profile around the
arched openings but paint it a darker gray. They are proposing the spandrel to make sure the interior
can function well. It will be like a matte black on the interior. The glass will be seen from the outside but
it will not be transparent. The dimension between the M and the T of the sign would be 18 inches.
Kate Culley-Rapata stated they proposed some small flex trim profiles to supplement the original arch
profile. It would all be painted and be applied to look as if it is a part of the arch. It is meant to highlight
the arch. It would be applied to both sides of the arch. She provided a slide for visuals. The reason for
changing the spandrel from metal was an effort to unite all three arches with the same treatment. The
ceiling below the level of the arch infill is a drop ceiling. She said the signage was individual letters and
discussed how they were separated. They come out the same distance from the wall and have LEDs
within with the amber acrylic rod. She agreed to come back with the dimensions of the sign.
Ms. Harrison confirmed the sign measurements were in compliance.
Vice Chair Chen wanted clarity about the elevation design above the entrance door. She wanted
explanation about the permanently covered area counting toward the grass floor area and wondered if
it mattered whether it was fully covered. She observed there should be an update on packet page 19.
Ms. Ramos pointed out renderings that accurately depicted the design.
Ms. Culley-Rapata understood that the letters could be mounted directly and coordinated from the back
of the store after demo. The intent was to have a solid panel. The elevation without the reveal line was
correct with the letters on the top part of the plate.
Item 3
Attachment A: Minutes of
September 5, 2024
Packet Pg. 75
Page 4 of 13
Architectural Review Board Meeting
Draft Summary Minutes: 09/05/24
Ms. Harrison remarked that the proposed trellis would be considered remaining 50 percent open and
would not have any kind of covered gross floor area. The proposed outdoor seating area would not
count toward the glass floor area. She confirmed packet page 19 required an update.
Boardmember Baltay queried how an outdoor area qualifies as covered and counting toward floor area.
He wanted to know the intent of the roof covering.
Ms. Gerhardt explained if the trellises are 50 percent open they are not considered to be covered. The
same is true for standard umbrellas. A 100 percent solid cover would be considered floor area. She
stated there are some trellis type features where the slats move locations and would be considered
covered.
Ms. Ramos said the intent of the roof covering was for the two umbrellas that can be shifted down or
tilted. The slatted area would not have any additional covering over it.
Vice Chair Chen mentioned the two canopies on the right attached to the wall which is glazing and has
glass on it. She wanted to know if the grass floor area will be reduced if that is removed.
Ms. Ramos answered the two canopies on the right were not glass. The glass one is over the front door.
Ms. Gerhardt added the original front door would not be considered floor area because it is not being
used for tables. The other two canopies are permanently covered and there are tables under them the
square footage would be reduced.
Chair Rosenberg asked for confirmation that the wood color of the fencing would be Spanish walnut
that was represented in the sample.
Ms. Culley-Rapata confirmed the wood color to be Spanish walnut. She added the lighting affected the
appearance of the color in the renderings.
Boardmember Hirsch questioned the function of having a garage door that opens up into the ceiling.
He speculated during cold or rainy weather, entry would be through a double door that opens out. He
asked if the reflected ceiling plan was taken into consideration that it will close over existing lighting on
the inside of the building. He asked about the brick and siding turning the corner between Sushi Roku
and the Melt. He queried the post/sidewalk lighting would be replacing a fixture on the perimeter at the
roadway edge. He wanted to know who would maintain the lighting fixtures. He asked if they would be
modulated.
Ms. Ramos answered that the intent was that it would provide an indoor-outdoor open space
depending on the weather. She stated the ceiling plane would coordinate with where the ceiling is being
dropped down. It would be developed with the interior package. She explained how the brick would be
transitioned to match. She said that Planning wanted a more open sidewalk so they decided to pull the
light fixture into the patio space. She stated the light fixtures would not be modulated because they are
so tall. The photometric engineer has determined them to be adequate.
Ms. Culley-Rapata confirmed Boardmember Hirsch’s speculations about the main entry stating that
was the only placed to get into the patio and property. The elevation shown on the right is a garage door
with a breakaway to the side for egress. It is not the main entry or exit but would be operable as a
Item 3
Attachment A: Minutes of
September 5, 2024
Packet Pg. 76
Page 5 of 13
Architectural Review Board Meeting
Draft Summary Minutes: 09/05/24
second means of egress if the garage door is closed due to the weather. She added that the existing light
poles were noncompliant with the eight-foot required clearance.
Mr. Smith explained the shopping center would maintain the two light fixtures.
Boardmember Baltay questioned if there was a consistent plan for sidewalk lighting on this edge of
the shopping center. He asked if getting the shopping center to provide a long-term plan for the lights
would be something that could be put as a condition. He asked how the width was interpreted regarding
ADA ramps projecting into the walkway. He wondered if there were plans to change the canopy at the
service entrance to the shopping center just right of The Melt to make it more compatible.
Mr. Smith answered no overall plan has been put in place yet to relocate the shopping center light. It
will be on a case-by-case basis when it impedes pedestrian flow in front of patio areas. He said regarding
the ADA ramps projecting into the walkway, they chamfered the corners of the patio area for the egress
coming into the space. The entry to the right of The Melt was updated recently during another project
approval that came through the Board and there is no plan to further update at this time.
Ms. Gerhardt stated the long-term plan for lights could be handled similar to how they are handing
bicycles. She stated the eight-foot width for ADA ramps was an unofficial policy but has been
consistently applied in the last many years to try to keep the eight-foot clearance for pedestrians around
all the tenant spaces.
Boardmember Hirsch asked if the lighting diagrams met standards appropriate for outdoor eating.
Ms. Culley-Rapata replied a lighting designer had been consulted on this project who checked and
performed photometrics and agreed the lighting was sufficient.
Boardmember Baltay felt it was not appropriate to condition The Melt with the light fixtures but it was
the wrong solution to put industrial level light fixtures right over the dining tables. He advised the
shopping center needs to have a fixture solution for what the standard thing is. He supported having
staff get that standard from them.
Chair Rosenberg thought it was a clever solution to shift the lights inboard. The question was if The Melt
would be satisfied with the street lamps that Stanford Shopping Center uses already. She thought that
once they get a comprehensive plan together for what fixtures they're going to use would be an
appropriate time for Stanford Shopping Center to switch them out but putting the onus on The Melt
seemed inappropriate. She was curious if they should have a meeting with Stanford Shopping Center to
discuss these items.
Ms. Gerhardt replied they could have a study session with the ARB.
Boardmember Baltay speculated that the lighting solution was not a thought through design. He
thought they should agree or not agree to have a condition of approval that this gets resolved
somehow. He wanted to see a real solution for safely and attractively lighting the sidewalk at this whole
edge of the shopping center.
Item 3
Attachment A: Minutes of
September 5, 2024
Packet Pg. 77
Page 6 of 13
Architectural Review Board Meeting
Draft Summary Minutes: 09/05/24
Ms. Gerhardt pointed out a similar situation where the lights were installed closer to the curb and
offered that as a solution. She suggested allowing a shorter encroachment in limited circumstances to
maintain consistency.
Chair Rosenberg thought it was more appropriate to have the light fixtures out toward the curb for
safety reasons. She cautioned the Board to be thoughtful about leaving this open-ended to find out
what the solution would be without holding up the potential development of the project.
Boardmember Adcock suggested conditioning the approval with not using street lights as part of the
lighting strategy for the outdoor dining.
Boardmember Baltay suggested informally stretching the policy to having up to a one-foot projection
would give them a solution and give staff something to run with. He thought the shopping center should
come to a solution with staff overall.
Chair Rosenberg thought this was an elevation in the design of this building. She preferred the oak color
of the rendering. She felt the gray color was complimentary with the neighbor.
Boardmember Hirsch said the brick was lightening up the whole façade so why not the outer element as
well. It seemed extremely heavy with the dark black walnut look.
Boardmember Adcock agreed going with the lighter color.
Boardmember Baltay did not understand how the flex trim application detail around the arch would
work. He thought it would be a mistake to change it. He recommended just painting what was there and
not adding the additional piece.
Boardmember Adcock was in agreeance and did not see a dimension to the existing molding. She did
not see how the add-on piece related to the existing molding. He thought the spandrel panels proposed
in the rendering were a mistake. He suggested metal panels might be a better solution. He observed
that having garage door next to a human door would impede in the dining area. He suggested
considering a folding door instead.
Boardmember Adcock thought spandrel glass with a black finish coating on number two surface would
read a lot better than film on the inside. She suggested an integrated folding door with the egress door
would be a nicer long-term solution.
Chair Rosenberg agreed that a bi-folding door would solve all the problems but did not see an issue with
the garage door.
Vice Chair Chen thought there could be refinements and details on the front elevations. She suggested
wrapping around the bricks to the Sushi Roku side.
Boardmember Baltay disagreed as he opined it would be a big impediment on the Sushi Roku side to
have the very distinctly different material impacting their dining area. He thought lining it up with the
Sushi Roku canopy going the length of a brick was an elegant solution. It would be painted to match.
Chair Rosenberg observed pain would best provide the transition between the tiles.
Item 3
Attachment A: Minutes of
September 5, 2024
Packet Pg. 78
Page 7 of 13
Architectural Review Board Meeting
Draft Summary Minutes: 09/05/24
MOTION: Boardmember Baltay moved to recommend approval of this project as presented with the
following modifications and seconded by Chair Rosenberg:
1. Eliminate the flex molding around the arch openings.
2. Use spandrel glass with a dark surface on the number two surface.
3. Do not relocate the existing streetlights into the dining area. Rather, allow streetlights to be
relocated such that a seven-foot clearance is maintained.
4. Change the color of the wood planks to match the coloring in the rendering on the patio wall.
5. Consider using bi-folding doors instead of overhead garage doors.
VOTE: Motion carried 5-0.
3. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. [23PLN-00110] 3000 El Camino Real (Palo Alto Square):
Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of a Major Architectural Review for facade
changes and site improvements associated with conversion of a vacant theater use to an office
use within Building 6. Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act in
accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 (new construction and conversion of small
structures). Zoning: PC-4648. For more information contact the project planner
Claire.Raybould@Cityofpaloalto.org.
Chair Rosenberg, Vice Chair Chen, Boardmember Baltay, Boardmember Hirsch and Boardmember
Adcock all disclosed having visited the site.
Chair Rosenberg announced they read through each email sent as public comment.
Claire Raybould, Principal Planner, brought a slide presentation discussing the 3000 El Camino Real
project including the project location, project overview, key considerations, feedback from public
comment and staff recommendation.
Krista Olson, HGA Architects, and Claire Adams, landscape architect at SWA, shared a slide presentation
of the project including an aerial view of the site, site plans, existing views, a rendering of the proposed
glazing, an illustrative site plan, landscape plan, tree protection zone, landscape palette, architectural
materials, ground floor plan, mezzanine floor plan, building sections, west elevation, north elevation,
east elevation and south elevation.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Item 3
Attachment A: Minutes of
September 5, 2024
Packet Pg. 79
Page 8 of 13
Architectural Review Board Meeting
Draft Summary Minutes: 09/05/24
Herb Borock believed the item should be continued until a proper environmental document was
presented for the entire project that would include amending that portion of the planned community
zone.
Boardmember Baltay wanted clarification that a sign on the site was not a requirement for proper
notification and if the language of the code stated that they could not recommend approval if they were
unable to find that the project is in compliance with applicable portions of the comprehensive plan.
Ms. Raybould explained that a sign on the site was not required for minor architecture review
applications. The applicant’s argument was that the project was a minor architecture review application.
The city stated that if the application was going to be processed, it would be moved to the Board, which
is within our purview if we feel that it requires a public hearing. The city also has the discretion to defer
the final decision to Council under the code from the director to the council, which they felt was
appropriate in this circumstance. She confirmed that the Board could not find that the project complies
with those things they could choose not to recommend if they found it not to be in compliance.
Ms. Gerhardt explained the comprehensive plan is a broad brush document. No project could adhere to
all of the different policies and programs that are in the comprehensive plan. Their analysis is usually
that on balance, a project conforms with the comprehensive plan. Zoning would need to adhere to all
zoning requirements.
Chair Rosenberg wanted clarification where the zoning stands for this property.
Ms. Raybould explained the applicant's position was that a zoning amendment was not required and
that they could submit an architecture review application and that they are consistent with the zoning
because the zoning allows for a mix of land uses of which office is included. It does not specify a specific
mix that has to be achieved on the site. There is additional language with respect to net leasable floor
area that is detailed in the staff report that they feel that they are compliant with.
Vice Chair Chen asked for clarification which code sections they could look into regarding adding square
footage on the second floor. She wanted to know if there were thoughts about shading consideration on
the west elevation or if there were additional architectural features to reduce glare inside. She observed
the two green walls on the south elevation were not symmetrical. She wanted to know the design intent
of the stairs. She wanted explanation as to why turf was being used. She asked for the scale of the
breeze block wall. She wanted explanation about the materials.
Ms. Raybould answered the PC zoning for the site was on packet page 61, Item number 3 under B,
Improvements. It states the 1 and 2 story buildings, which includes 4 of the 6 buildings on the property,
shall not exceed a total of 85,000 square feet of net rentable floor area with 65,000 square feet to be on
the ground floor. They are providing 67,000 square feet in total so they are under the 85,000 total. The
actual square footage was on page 44.
Ms. Adams stated they would not be adding any additional trees on the west side because they would
not fit on the sidewalk. She explained the decision to use turf was to keep material selection low water
usage and drought tolerant. She explained the breeze block feature wall would be CMU blocks, six
inches in height. It would be on the upper portion of the wall, around four inches in height. The
Item 3
Attachment A: Minutes of
September 5, 2024
Packet Pg. 80
Page 9 of 13
Architectural Review Board Meeting
Draft Summary Minutes: 09/05/24
materials were made of terracotta clay tiles. She thought they were four by six inch blocks and would be
stacked and mortar set on top of the CMU wall.
Ms. Olson added there would be some type of window shading devices inside. They had not proposed
anything to be added to the exterior of the building at that time in order to keep with the original
architectural features. The asymmetry of the south elevation had to do with what could be proposed on
the inside and where they would want the light coming in. She said there was no stair design yet.
Abigail Hammett, HGA Architects, suggested it would be helpful to look at the northwest rendering of
the breeze block wall.
Chair Rosenberg queried if there was any interior design plans for an elevator. She observed there was
discrepancy between the rendering that shows all of it being breeze block and some of the other images
show a bit more CMU and sort of a breeze block infill panel.
Ms. Olson answered there were no design plans for an elevator as it was not needed for code since they
were meeting the mezzanine code requirements.
Ms. Adams used a slide of the elevation to view the rendering and explained the one shown previously
was outdated. She explained it would be two layers of breeze block stacked on top of each other. The
total height would be 7 feet.
Boardmember Adcock had questions about the wall panels, glazing material and mullion pattern.
Ms. Olson replied a part of putting the glazing in would spark doing some structural seismic upgrades.
The mullion lines were lining up with the new doors that would be added to the backside and the doors
on the front side. The other mullions would try and mimic what exists on the front. There an eight-foot
horizontal mullion would loop back around to the existing entry doors. She said they would keep with
the bronze anodized mullion glazing and propose a more clear low E glass glazing, high performance to
meet title 24. It would be replaced with dual pane. They preferred the clear glazing for transparency.
Jared Willis, director of construction with Hudson Pacific, remarked they were precast concrete which
would be saw cut out and replace with a structural system on the inside to re-support the sheer activity
of the walls and replace the glazing in place.
Boardmember Hirsch did not see any cellar plans. He asked about the mechanical system. He asked if
the wall could be cut in a vertical panel.
Ms. Olson remarked the back stairs on the backside were egress doors from the theater. They were
proposing to remove or fill in the stairwells going down and it would become one level area. She said a
mechanical upgrade would have to be done. They would expand the mechanical screen on top to
accommodate additional mechanical equipment when the interiors are done. She thought it would be
kept open in order to keep the height. There would exposed ducts for the HVAC. The mechanical
equipment would be on the roof.
Mr. Willis explained the exact structural and demo requirements had not been fully explored at this
stage but the southern elevation wall would be cut into smaller sizes to reduce heat gain. They chose
smaller windows because of the less desirable view.
Item 3
Attachment A: Minutes of
September 5, 2024
Packet Pg. 81
Page 10 of 13
Architectural Review Board Meeting
Draft Summary Minutes: 09/05/24
Boardmember Adcock asked if the wall on the east side would have the floor line visible through or have
spandrel somewhere halfway up the glazing.
Mr. Willis used a slide to explain the mezzanine level was to the right on the bottom image and is not
intended to extend out past the last panel. On the parking lot side, it would be cut horizontally across
the windows with something to obscure the floor line.
Chair Rosenberg observed a space on the mezzanine level that had no space for windows which would
not allow for ventilation. She asked if there was any understanding of what the intent of this interior
upper mezzanine will be. She asked if it would be maintained so every office has a window. Her concern
was that the project had not be thought through. She asked to have the where the transition on the
ground floor would begin pointed out on the gridlines. She wanted to understand where the bronze
glazing would remain versus where the new glazing would come in and what they would do with the
infill panels. She asked if there were any potential landscaping that might be more conducive to just
blocking the doors off.
Mr. Willis answered they would have offices on the upper mezzanine area. He imagined the space
identified might be more support spaces but it was not yet determined. He did not know the final layout
of the offices and could not promise every single one had a window. He explained the transition on the
ground floor would begin roughly at the R line. He did not yet know the depth that would need to be
filled in. He said the doors that were becoming conference spaces in the front. There was just concrete
in front of the doors and they were not proposing any changes to the exterior property in that area.
Female stated they were going to try and match the infill panels.
Chair Rosenberg asked if they would be power washing or painting the building.
Mr. Willis answered the intent was to keep the original concrete and it would have to be cleaned to
remove the ivy.
Vice Chair Chen asked where the site plan showed the location of removal of 14 short-term bicycle
parkings.
Mr. Willis stated short term parking exists in the tree grove on the south side, which he thought would
need to be removed for the construction but there was no intention to delete bike parking.
Chair Roseberg asked if there was any pathing or progress for where the trash would be.
Mr. Willis stated there is a large trash enclosure on the south side next to the existing parking structure.
They would have standard office millwork trash cans.
Boardmember Baltay asked if he was correct that they have chosen to define the PC zone by the PC text.
He wondered how they could make a finding that it is compliant with zoning when the zoning was not
defined.
Ms. Raybould explained the development plan is the buildings and the PC language defines the uses that
are allowed on the site. She confirmed the project has been brought as an architecture review because
the physical buildings are being modified and were defined not by the text of the ordinance but rather
Item 3
Attachment A: Minutes of
September 5, 2024
Packet Pg. 82
Page 11 of 13
Architectural Review Board Meeting
Draft Summary Minutes: 09/05/24
by the existing buildings. She stated the recommendation was phrased so they would make a
recommendation with the caveat that that recommendation that if Council felt that the project to be
consistent with the zoning, they would make a decision to approve the project. If they fundamentally
felt it was not consistent with the zoning, then they would deny the project.
Ms. Gerhardt added all of their PCs have permitted and conditional uses. Over time the uses inside of
the structure are going to change so they write the PC in such a way to allow for changes of uses. The
code allows for minor changes to a PC through the staff level architecture review process.
Boardmember Hirsch asked how they would be treating the surfaces of the panels they would be
cutting.
Mr. Willis said they were leaving the existing concrete panels.
Chair Rosenberg thought the intent of the exterior design to be thoughtful. She had a concern with
approving something when they did not know what was happening inside. Keeping the bronze was
concerning to her. She personally had concern about whether more office space was needed. She was
uncomfortable with the building not having an elevator. She was concerned with all of the issues that
were left undecided.
Boardmember Hirsch agreed with Chair Rosenberg’s discomfort of approving something without
knowing about the interior.
Boardmember Adcock shared hesitation due to the lack of design of the interior that leads to lack of
exterior design.
Vice Chair Chen agreed a lot of things were pending.
Boardmember Baltay pointed out they had to make six findings to recommend approval. He did not
think they could make the last five findings because they did not have a complete enough design. He
opined they could continue this and get additional work done to make those findings. He was struggling
with number one related to zoning and the comprehensive plan. He discussed the Comprehensive Plan
Item Policy L1.6 that specifies the project should encourage land uses that address the need of the
community and manage change and development to benefit the community. He advised recommending
denial of the project based on not being able to make finding number one. He did not think the
proposed changes would allow them to make Policy Finding L1.6.
Boardmember Hirsch opined using the legalities of their zoning against the owner was unreasonable. He
thought Council should advise a replanning of the site rather than just not approving it. He felt that a
larger plan for the site was what was missing.
Chair Rosenberg wondered if they used the same proposal and façade but changed the use, would the
best path forward be to deny the application or continue to a date uncertain and allow them the
opportunity to figure out what they really want to use this space for. She agreed that finding number
one Policy L1.6 was not being met.
Item 3
Attachment A: Minutes of
September 5, 2024
Packet Pg. 83
Page 12 of 13
Architectural Review Board Meeting
Draft Summary Minutes: 09/05/24
Boardmember Adcock was in agreement with Chair Roseberg’s comments. She thought it was unclear if
it meets the zoning requirement and was the Council’s decision to make. She did not think it made sense
to completely deny it because they proposed an office.
Boardmember Baltay recalled recommending denial of a project in the past due to not meeting the
fundamental tenant in the comprehensive plan. The applicant proposed an alternate project that was in
compliance and the project moved forward. He said they should let Council know they could not make
finding number on.
Chair Rosenberg requested input from staff in regards of denial versus continuance and how that may
affect the process of the project. She wondered if it was for them to tell the current owners how to use
the site.
Ms. Gerhardt agreed that if they have architectural concerns would be a good reason to continue the
project but if they have concerns with finding number one, denial was the better course of action.
Ms. Raybould remarked the question for Council was if a change in the uses require a zoning
amendment if they are considering a mix of uses on the site if there's a list of permitted and
conditionally permitted uses.
MOTION: Chair Rosenberg moved to recommend denial of the project based on the proposed use not
meeting Finding #1, Policy L-1.6 of the Comprehensive Plan, seconded by Boardmember Baltay.
VOTE: Motion carried 5-0.
Approval of Minutes
4. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for July 18, 2024
MOTION: Boardmember Adcock moved to approve Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes
for July 18, 2024, as written, seconded by Chair Rosenberg.
VOTE: Motion carried 5-0.
5. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for August 15, 2024
Vice Chair Chen pointed out her name was misspelled in the roll call.
1.MOTION: Vice Chair Chen moved to approve the Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting
Minutes for August 15, 2024, with the change in spelling of her name from Ping to Ying, seconded
by Chair Rosenberg.
VOTE: Motion carried 5-0.
Item 3
Attachment A: Minutes of
September 5, 2024
Packet Pg. 84
Page 13 of 13
Architectural Review Board Meeting
Draft Summary Minutes: 09/05/24
Board Member Questions, Comments, Announcements Or Future Meetings And Agendas
Chair Rosenberg thanked the Board for their thoughtful, dedicated comments on both projects.
Boardmember Hirsch announced they finally approved the San Antonio project and agreed they could
do the garbage collection where they recommended it. They talked about other possibilities but would
lose bicycle space in one scheme and retail space in the other scheme.
Boardmember Adcock summarized that sticking with the original plan was particularly based on the fact
that it was not ideal for the people who have to deal with the trash on a weekly basis but any other
location was going to greatly impact a large number of residents.
Adjournment
Chair Rosenberg adjourned the meeting at 12:15 p.m.
Item 3
Attachment A: Minutes of
September 5, 2024
Packet Pg. 85