HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-08-29 Planning & transportation commission Agenda Packet_______________________
1. 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.
2.The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3.The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to two minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Planning & Transportation Commission
Regular Meeting Agenda: August 29, 2018
Council Chambers
250 Hamilton Avenue
6:00 PM
Call to Order / Roll Call
Oral Communications
The public may speak to any item not on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,2
Agenda Changes, Additions, and Deletions
The Chair or Commission majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management.
City Official Reports
1.Assistant Directors Report, Meeting Schedule and Assignments
Action Items
Public Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Fifteen (15) minutes, plus three (3) minutes rebuttal.
All others: Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,3
2.PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 3877 El Camino Real [17PLN-00321]:
Recommendation on Applicant's Request for Approval of a One Lot Vesting Tentative
Map to Divide an Existing 0.75 Acre Parcel into 17 Residential Condominiums and one
Commercial Condominium. Environmental Assessment: Mitigated Negative
Declaration Adopted by Council on September 18, 2017. Zoning Districts: CS and RM-
30. For More Information, Contact the Project Planner Sheldon Ah Sing at
sahsing@m-group.us.
Study Session
Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,3
3.Implementing the Council Housing Work Plan Referral: Framework for the 2018
Comp Plan Implementation and Housing Ordinance
Approval of Minutes
Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,3
_______________________
1. 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.
2.The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3.The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to two minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
4.June 27, 2018 Draft Planning & Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes
5.July 25, 2018 Draft Planning & Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes
Committee Items
Commissioner Questions, Comments, Announcements or Future Agenda Items
Adjournment
July 25, 2018 Draft
Minutes
June 27, 2018 Draft
Minutes
_______________________
1. 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.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to two minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Palo Alto Planning & Transportation Commission
Commissioner Biographies, Present and Archived Agendas and Reports are available online:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/boards/ptc/default.asp. The PTC Commission members are:
Chair Ed Lauing
Vice Chair Susan Monk
Commissioner Michael Alcheck
Commissioner Przemek Gardias
Commissioner William Riggs
Commissioner Doria Summa
Commissioner Asher Waldfogel
Get Informed and Be Engaged!
View online: http://midpenmedia.org/category/government/city-of-palo-alto/ or on Channel
26.
Show up and speak. Public comment is encouraged. Please complete a speaker request card
located on the table at the entrance to the Council Chambers and deliver it to the Commission
Secretary prior to discussion of the item.
Write to us. Email the PTC at: Planning.Commission@CityofPaloAlto.org. Letters can be
delivered to the Planning & Community Environment Department, 5th floor, City Hall, 250
Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301. Comments received by 2:00 PM two Tuesdays preceding
the meeting date will be included in the agenda packet. Comments received afterward through
2:00 PM the day of the meeting will be presented to the Commission at the dais.
Material related to an item on this agenda submitted to the PTC after distribution of the
agenda packet is available for public inspection at the address above.
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.
Planning & Transportation Commission
Staff Report (ID # 9518)
Report Type: City Official Reports Meeting Date: 8/29/2018
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
(650) 329-2442
Summary Title: City Official Report
Title: Assistant Directors Report, Meeting Schedule and Assignments
From: Jonathan Lait
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) review and
comment as appropriate.
Background
This document includes the following items:
PTC Meeting Schedule
PTC Representative to City Council (Rotational Assignments)
Tentative Future Agenda
Commissioners are encouraged to contact Yolanda Cervantes
(Yolanda.Cervantes@CityofPaloAlto.org) of any planned absences one month in advance, if
possible, to ensure availability of a PTC quorum.
PTC Representative to City Council is a rotational assignment where the designated
commissioner represents the PTC’s affirmative and dissenting perspectives to Council for quasi-
judicial and legislative matters. Representatives are encouraged to review the City Council
agendas (http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/agendas/council.asp) for the months of their
respective assignments to verify if attendance is needed or contact staff. Prior PTC meetings are
available online at http://midpenmedia.org/category/government/city-of-palo-alto/boards-
and-commissions/planning-and-transportation-commission.
The Tentative Future Agenda provides a summary of upcoming projects or discussion items.
Attachments:
Attachment A: August 29, 2018 PTC Meeting Schedule and Assignments (DOCX)
Draft Planning & Transportation Commission
2018 Meeting Schedule & Assignments
2018 Schedule
Meeting Dates Time Location Status Planned Absences
1/10/2018 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular Riggs, Waldfogel
1/17/2018 6:00 PM Council Chambers Special
1/31/2018 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular
2/14/2018 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular
2/28/2018 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular Cancelled
3/14/2018 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular
3/28/2018 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular Riggs
4/11/2018 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular
4/25/2018 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular Lauing, Riggs
5/09/2018
5/22/2018
6:00 PM
6:00 PM
Council Chambers
Council Chambers
Regular
Special
Cancelled(Alcheck,
Lauing, Monk, Riggs)
Alcheck
5/30/2018 6:00PM Council Chambers Regular
6/13/2018 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular Alcheck, Riggs
6/27/2018 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular Alcheck
7/11/2018 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular Cancelled
7/25/2018 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular Gardias, Riggs
8/08/2018 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular Cancelled
8/29/2018 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular
9/12/2018 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular
9/26/2018 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular
10/10/2018 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular
10/31/2018 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular Cancelled
11/14/2018 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular
11/28/2018 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular
12/12/2018 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular
12/26/2018 6:00 PM Council Chambers CANCELLED
2018 Assignments - Council Representation (primary/backup)
January February March April May June
Ed Lauing Susan Monk Doria Summa Przemek Gardias Michael Alcheck Billy Riggs
Asher Waldfogel Michael Alcheck Przemek Gardias Susan Monk Ed Lauing Doria Summa
July August September October November December
Asher Waldfogel Ed Lauing Przemek Gardias Susan Monk Michael Alcheck Asher Waldfogel
Billy Riggs Michael Alchek Asher Waldfogel Doria Summa Przemek Gardias Ed Lauing
Draft Planning & Transportation Commission
2018 Tentative Future Agenda
August 13, 2018 Draft-All Dates and Topics Subject to Change
The Following Items are Tentative and Subject to Change:
Meeting Dates Topics
September 12, 2018 Housing Work Plan Ordinance
CEQA Ordinance
PAMC Title 8 Revisions
September 26, 2018 Housing Work Plan: Recommendation on Draft Ordinance
874 Boyce Road Preliminary Parcel Map
October 10, 2018 TMA Study Session
2018 Comp Plan Implementation/Housing Ordinance
285 Hamilton Ave-Houzz Roof Deck
October 31, 2018 Cancelled
Planning & Transportation Commission
Staff Report (ID # 9356)
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 8/29/2018
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
(650) 329-2442
Summary Title: 3877 El Camino Real: Tentative Condo Map
Title: PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 3877 El Camino Real
[17PLN-00321]: Recommendation on Applicant's Request for
Approval of a One Lot Vesting Tentative Map to Divide an
Existing 0.75 Acre Parcel into 17 Residential Condominiums
and one Commercial Condominium. Environmental
Assessment: Mitigated Negative Declaration Adopted by
Council on September 18, 2017. Zoning Districts: CS and RM-
30. For More Information, Contact the Project Planner Sheldon
Ah Sing at sahsing@m-group.us.
From: Jonathan Lait
Recommendation
Staff recommends the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) take the following
action(s):
1. Recommend approval of the Vesting Tentative Map to the City Council based on the
attached findings and conditions.
Report Summary
The applicant proposes a condominium subdivision that would allow for the single parcel
division of airspace in conjunction with the development of 11 townhouse units and a mixed-
use building with 4,027 square feet of commercial space and six residential flats on a 32,825
square foot “L” shaped lot with street frontage along El Camino Real and Curtner Avenue.
The project site was the subject of Site and Design Review and Design Enhancement
applications that were approved by the City Council on September 18, 2017. The intent of the
subdivision request is to implement the approved project allowing for the private ownership of
each unit/space.
Background
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2
Project Information
Owner: Zijin, LLC c/o Ran Lin
Architect: EID Architects, LLC c/o Stuart Welte
Civil Engineer: Langan c/o Vitina Mandella
Representative: Brandon Arioli, Nuvera Homes
Legal Counsel: Not applicable
Property Information
Address: 3877 El Camino Real
Neighborhood: Ventura
Lot Dimensions & Area: 313 feet deep x 77 feet wide (El Camino Real) + 53 feet wide x 164
deep (Curtner) 32,825 square feet
Housing Inventory Site: Not applicable
Located w/in a Plume: Not applicable
Protected/Heritage Trees: Not applicable
Historic Resource(s): Not applicable
Existing Improvement(s): 5,860 square feet 2-stories & 22-feet tall (1938)
Existing Land Use(s): Vacant restaurant and parking lot
Adjacent Land Uses &
Zoning:
North: RM-30 (residential multi-family)
West: CS & CN (Commercial Uses), Oil change shop, coffee shop,
restaurants.
East: CS (Commercial Uses) Gas station, credit union
South: CN (Commercial Uses)
Special Setbacks: Not applicable
Aerial View of Property:
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3
Source: DigitalGlobe, US Geological Survey, USDA Farm Service Agency, Google 2018
Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans/Guidelines
Zoning Designation: CS & RM-30
Comp. Plan Designation: Service Commercial and Multiple Family Residential
Context-Based Design: Yes. However, not applicable with this request
Downtown Urban Design: Not applicable
SOFA II CAP: Not applicable
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4
Baylands Master Plan: Not applicable
ECR Guidelines ('76 / '02): Yes
Proximity to Residential
Uses or Districts (150'): Yes
Located w/in AIA
(Airport Influence Area): Not applicable
Prior City Reviews & Action
City
Council:
Site and Design Review on September 18, 2017 (14PLN-00464)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwaAr3z6X60&start=4777&width=420&height=315
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=59481
PTC: Site and Design Review on March 8, 2017 (14PLN-00464)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_BLBoO7LpE&start=11347&width=420&height=315
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=56281
HRB: None.
ARB: Preliminary Review on December 19, 2013 (13PLN-00439)
http://midpenmedia.org/watch/pacc_webcast/December/PAARB_12
1913.html
Architectural Review on April 6, 2017 (14PLN-00464)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ferj66yQ0Lg&start=14426&width=420&height=315
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=56818
Architectural Review on May 18, 2017 (14PLN-00464)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tay6Ssk7q0o&start=510&width=420&height=315
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/57841
Project Description
The applicant requests approval of a Vesting Tentative Map for condominium purposes to
create one 4,026 square feet commercial condominium, six residential flats in a mixed-use
building, and 11 townhouse units over a basement garage. The commercial space and each
residential unit will be individually owned with the land and improvements being in common
ownership. Attachment C provides a summary of the project’s compliance with the zoning
standards.
Requested Entitlements, Findings and Purview:
The following discretionary applications are being requested and subject to PTC purview:
Subdivision (Tentative Map): The process for evaluating this type of application is set
forth in Title 21 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and Government Code Section 66474.
Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 21.12.090 requires the Commission to review whether
the proposed subdivision complies and is consistent with the Subdivision Map Act (in
particular Government Code 66474), Title 21 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, the Palo
Alto Comprehensive Plan, and other applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Municipal
Code and State law. The Commission’s recommendation is forwarded to the City Council
for final approval. The findings to approve a Subdivision are provided in Attachment B.
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5
Analysis1
Consistency with Application Findings
The necessary findings for approval of the Tentative Map are contained in State law and
incorporated into Title 21 of the Municipal Code. Under the Subdivision Map Act, the PTC and
Council must make a series of “reverse” findings to justify approval. If the findings cannot be
made, the subdivision must be approved. In particular, under Government Code Section 66474,
the PTC shall recommend denying a Tentative Map if it makes any of the following findings:
a) That the proposed map is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans.
b) That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with
applicable general and specific plans.
c) That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development.
d) That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development.
e) That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely to cause
substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife
or their habitat.
f) That the design of the subdivision or type of improvements is likely to cause serious
public health problems.
g) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict with
easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property
within the proposed subdivision.
Some relevant factors are discussed below and a detailed review of the proposed project’s
consistency with applicable Title 21 findings has been performed and can be found in
Attachment B.
Neighborhood Setting and Character
The project site is mid-block on El Camino Real. A coffee shop (Starbucks) is located
immediately east of the project site and an automobile service use (Nine Minute Oil & Lube) is
immediately west. A medical office (Agile Physical Therapy) is on the corner of El Camino Real
and Curtner Avenue. A multi-family residential development is located to the north of the
commercial properties that front on El Camino Real. Land uses on the southern side of El
Camino Real are similar, with commercial properties fronting El Camino Real and multi-family
and single-family residential properties to the south.
1 The information provided in this section is based on analysis prepared by the report author prior to the public
hearing. Planning and Transportation Commission in its review of the administrative record and based on public
testimony may reach a different conclusion from that presented in this report and may choose to take an
alternative action from the recommended action.
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6
Within the vicinity of the site, buildings are generally low, one to two-story buildings. Buildings
are located along the sidewalk, however, the sidewalk within the vicinity is not wide. The
project proposes development that is consistent with the zoning code development standards
and the vision of the South El Camino Real Design Guidelines. This includes providing the wide
sidewalk, where none exists now and providing the build-to setback as encouraged in the
guidelines.
Zoning Compliance2
A detailed review of the proposed project’s consistency with applicable zoning standards has
been performed. A summary table is provided in Attachment C. The proposed project complies
with all applicable codes.
State Density Bonus / Below Market Rate Housing
Ownership housing projects with three or more units are required to meet the City’s Below
Market Rate Housing Program (BMR). In accordance with PAMC Section 18.14.030, this
project’s total BMR requirement is 2.55 units. When the BMR requirement results in a
fractional unit, an in-lieu payment to the Residential Housing Fund may be made for the
fractional unit instead of providing an actual BMR unit. Pursuant to project conditions of
approval established during the review of the Site and Design Review, the project will enter into
an affordable housing agreement with the City to meet these obligations.
Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Area Plans and Guidelines3
The project site has two land use designations. The El Camino frontage is Service Commercial,
while the Curtner Avenue frontage is Multi-Family Residential.
The proposed tentative map is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, in that the site allows
mixed-use development and residential development. Review of the project finds it consistent
with several Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies, as further described in Attachment B.
Multi-Modal Access & Parking
The proposed map is consistent with the previous approvals and implements the conditions of
approval from the Site and Design Review. A public access easement is required as a condition
of approval with this Tentative Map, and will be dedicated to the City with the proposed Final
Map, to create a 12-foot wide sidewalk along the El Camino Real.
The below-grade garage will be held in common ownership for use by all condominium owners
and parking spaces will be allocated as described in the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions
and Restrictions (CC&Rs). In general, the CC&Rs state that 40 of the 61 total parking spaces will
be reserved for the residential uses and 21 parking spaces will be reserved for commercial uses.
The draft CC&R document may be found on the project website at http://bit.ly/3877ECRmap.
2 The Palo Alto Zoning Code is available online: http://www.amlegal.com/codes/client/palo-alto_ca
3 The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan is available online:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/projects/landuse/compplan.asp
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 7
Environmental Review
The subject project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained
in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the
environmental regulations of the City. Specifically, the project is covered by the previous Initial
Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the Site and Design application (File No.
14PLN-00464) adopted on September 18, 2017. The adopted Mitigation Monitoring and Report
Program (MMRP) with identified mitigation for nesting birds is provided in Attachment E.
Public Notification, Outreach & Comments
The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires notice of this public hearing be published in a local paper
and mailed to owners and occupants of property within 600 feet of the subject property at least
ten days in advance. Notice of a public hearing for this project was published in the Palo Alto
Weekly on August 17, 2018, which is 12 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing
occurred on August 22, 2018, which is seven in advance of the meeting.
Public Comments
As of the writing of this report, no project-related, public comments were received.
Alternative Actions
In addition to the recommended action, the Planning & Transportation Commission may:
1. Approve the project with modified findings or conditions;
2. Continue the project to a date (un)certain; or
3. Recommend project denial based on revised findings.
Report Author & Contact Information PTC4 Liaison & Contact Information
Sheldon S. Ah Sing, AICP, Contract Planner Jonathan Lait, AICP, Assistant Director
(408) 340-5642 (650) 329-2679
sahsing@m-group.us jonathan.lait@cityofpaloalto.org
Attachments:
Attachment A: Location Map (PDF)
Attachment B: Draft Record of Land Use Action (DOCX)
Attachment C: Zoning Comparison Table (DOCX)
Attachment D: Applicant's Project Description (PDF)
Attachment E: Mitigation Monitoring and Report Program (PDF)
Attachment F: Project Plans (DOCX)
4 Emails may be sent directly to the PTC using the following address: planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.org
1
ATTACHMENT B
ACTION NO. 2018-XX
DRAFT RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO LAND USE ACTION FOR
3877 EL CAMINO REAL: VESTING TENTATIVE MAP, 17PLN-00321
(BRANDON ARIOLI, APPLICANT)
At its meeting on ______, 2018, the City Council of the City of Palo Alto (“City
Council”) approved the Vesting Tentative Map for the development of a two-lot subdivision
project making the following findings, determinations and declarations:
SECTION 1. Background.
A. On August 31, 2017, Brandon Arioli applied for a Vesting Tentative Map for
the development of a one parcel condominium subdivision project with 17 residential units and
4,676 square feet of commercial space (“The Project”).
B. The project site is comprised of one existing lot (APN No. 132-41-091) of
approximately 0.75-acres with two separate zoning districts (CS and RM-30). The site contains
one existing commercial structure. Commercial land uses are located adjacent to the lot to the
north, south and west. To the project’s east are residential land uses.
C. Following staff review, the Planning and Transportation Commission
reviewed the project and recommended approval on August 29, 2018, subject to conditions of
approval.
SECTION 2. Environmental Review.
The City as the lead agency for the Project has determined that the project is subject to
environmental review under provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
under Guideline section 15070, Decision to Prepare an Initial Study-Mitigated Negative
Declaration (IS-MND). An initial study was prepared for the project and it has been determined
that there is potential for significant impacts that would require mitigation measures to reduce
them to a less than significant level. These include mitigations for protection for nesting birds.
The IS-MND was made available for public review beginning March 6, 2017 for 20 days, and
adopted by the City Council on September 18, 2017. The Initial Study and Negative Declaration
are contained as Attachment G in the September 18, 2017, City Council staff report (ID #8458).
SECTION 3. Vesting Tentative Map Findings.
A legislative body of a city shall deny approval of a tentative map, if it makes any of the
following findings (California Government Code Section 66474). The City Council cannot make
these findings for the following reasons:
2
1. That the proposed map is not consistent with applicable general and specific
plans as specified in Section 65451:
The site is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as described below.
2. That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent
with applicable general and specific plans:
The Project is consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan policies:
Policy L-1.3 Infill development in the urban service area should be compatible with its
surroundings and the overall scale and character of the city to ensure a compact,
efficient development pattern.
Policy L-2.6 Create opportunities for new mixed-use development consisting of housing
and retail.
Policy L-2.11 Encourage new development and redevelopment to incorporate greenery
and natural features such as green rooftops, pocket parks, plazas and rain gardens.
Policy L-3.4 Ensure that new multi-family buildings, entries and outdoor spaces are
designed and arranged so that each development has a clear relationship to a public
street.
Policy L-4.2 Preserve ground-floor retail, limit the displacement of existing retail from
neighborhood centers and explore opportunities to expand retail.
Policy L-6.1 Promote high-quality design and site planning that is compatible with
surrounding development and public spaces.
Policy L-6.7 Where possible, avoid abrupt changes in scale and density between
residential and non-residential areas and between residential areas of different
densities. To promote compatibility and gradual transitions between land uses, place
zoning district boundaries at mid-block locations rather than along streets wherever
possible.
The project includes a mixed-use building with frontage along El Camino Real with townhouse
style residential buildings for the balance of the property. Parking is provided below grade and
therefore allows for the integration of open space and plazas at-grade. The project
complements the surrounding development and is consistent with the land-use designations
for the property. The project was reviewed by the ARB, Planning & Transportation Commission
and the City Council previously for design review.
3. That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development:
3
The site is an “L” shape lot with frontage on two streets. The design of the site includes
appropriate separation between the mixed-use building and the solely residential component
and the adjacent multi-family properties. The project is consistent with the City’s Performance
Standards set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) 18.23, ensuring compatibility between
commercial and residential uses. Proposed lighting is directed downward to prevent spillover to
adjacent properties. Trash enclosures are located in the basement of the project. The project
provides the required setback above ground and includes vegetation and tree plantings within
the setback and open spaces. Mechanical equipment areas are screened appropriately.
The site circulation facilitates access for all modes of transportation. The project includes short-
term and long-term bike parking. On-site vehicular traffic will be directed underground, leaving
the aboveground for pedestrians and bicyclist. Wide walkways and plazas surround the
commercial areas and provide connectivity to the residential areas.
4. That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of
development:
The allowed residential density for the site is 30 dwelling units per acre (Both CS
and RM-30 districts), which based on the project site acreage amounts to 22 dwelling units that
would be allowed. However, the project only proposes 17 dwelling units. The project is
consistent with the maximum Floor Area Ratio and does qualify for an affordable housing
density bonus. The density bonus floor area is applied to the below-market-rate units in
accordance with the City’s Municipal Code.
5. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely to
cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or
their habitat:
As conditioned in the Final IS-MND approved by the City Council on
September 18, 2017, the Project will not cause environmental damage or injure fish, wildlife, or
their habitat, in that property is not adjacent to sensitive habitat areas and would incorporate
mitigation measures to reduce impacts to nesting birds to a less than significant level.
6. That the design of the subdivision or type of improvements is likely to cause
serious public health problems:
An environmental analysis identifies potentially significant impacts related to
the associated development project’s improvements that would require mitigation measures to
reduce them to a less than significant level. These include mitigations for protection for nesting
birds as reported in the Final IS-MND approved by the City Council on September 18, 2017.
7. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict
with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within
the proposed subdivision. In this connection, the governing body may approve a map if it finds
that alternate easements, for access or for use, will be provided, and that these will be
substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This subsection shall apply
4
only to easements of record or to easements established by judgment of a court of competent
jurisdiction and no authority is hereby granted to a legislative body to determine that the public
at large has acquired easements for access through or use of property within the proposed
subdivision.
The design of the subdivision will not conflict with any easements for access
through or use of the property. A public access easement will be dedicated with the Final Map
to the provide an additional four feet of sidewalk between the front property line and back of
walk along the El Camino Real frontage to create a 12-foot effective sidewalk width.
SECTION 4. Vesting Tentative Map Approval Granted.
Vesting Tentative Map Approval is filed and processed in accordance to PAMC Section
21.13.020 and granted by the City Council under PAMC Sections 21.12 and 21.20 and the
California Government Code Section 66474, subject to the conditions of approval in Section 7 of
this Record.
SECTION 5. Final Map.
The Final Map submitted for review and approval by the City Council shall be in substantial
conformance with the Vesting Tentative Map prepared by Langan titled “Vesting Tentative Map
3877 El Camino Real for Condominium Purposes,” consisting of seven (7) pages, stamped as
received January 23, 2018, except as modified to incorporate the conditions of approval in
Section 6. A copy of the Vesting Tentative Map is on file in the Department of Planning and
Community Environment, Current Planning Division. Prior to the expiration of the Vesting
Tentative Map approval, the subdivider shall cause the subdivision or any part thereof to be
surveyed, and a Final Map, as specified in Chapter 21.08, to be prepared in conformance with
the Vesting Tentative Map as conditionally approved, and in compliance with the provisions of
the Subdivision Map Act and PAMC Title 21 and submitted to the City Engineer (PAMC Section
21.16.010[a]).
SECTION 6. Conditions of Approval.
Planning Division
1. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM. Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program (MMRP), prepared for this project in compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), shall be incorporated by reference as conditions of
approval. The applicant shall comply with all specified mitigation measures in the
timelines outlined in the project’s MMRP. Prior to requesting issuance of any related
demolition and/or construction permits, the applicant shall meet with the Project
Planner to review and ensure compliance with the MMRP, subject to the satisfaction of
the Director of Planning of Planning and Community Environment.
2. BELOW MARKET RATE (BMR) HOUSING. A Density Bonus Developer and Regulatory
Agreement in a form acceptable to the City Attorney for the two (2) BMR units shall be
executed and recorded prior to final map approval or building permit issuance,
5
whichever occurs first. In addition, the payment for the 0.55 fractional unit shall be paid
to the Residential Housing Fund prior to issuance of any building permits for the project;
provided, however, that prior to issuance of the first building permit for the project, the
applicant may elect to provide one additional inclusionary unit instead of paying the
fractional in lieu payment (PAMC Section 16.65.060).
3. All BMR units constructed under this condition shall be in conformance with the City’s
BMR Program rules and regulations. A BMR Agreement in a form acceptable to the City
Attorney for the 2.55 BMR units shall be executed and recorded prior to final map
approval or building permit issuance, whichever occurs first. Failure to comply with the
timing of this condition and any adopted BMR Program rules and regulations shall not
waive its later enforcement.
4. ESTIMATED IMPACT FEE. Development Impact Fees, currently estimated in the amount
of $311,130.37 plus the applicable public art fee, per PAMC 16.61.040, shall be paid
prior to the issuance of the related building permit.
5. IMPACT FEE 90-DAY PROTEST PERIOD. California Government Code Section 66020
provides that a project applicant who desires to protest the fees, dedications,
reservations, or other exactions imposed on a development project must initiate the
protest at the time the development project is approved or conditionally approved or
within ninety (90) days after the date that fees, dedications, reservations or exactions
are imposed on the Project. Additionally, procedural requirements for protesting these
development fees, dedications, reservations and exactions are set forth in Government
Code Section 66020. IF YOU FAIL TO INITIATE A PROTEST WITHIN THE 90-DAY PERIOD
OR FOLLOW THE PROTEST PROCEDURES DESCRIBED IN GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION
66020, YOU WILL BE BARRED FROM CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OR REASONABLENESS
OF THE FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS, AND EXACTIONS. If these requirements
constitute fees, taxes, assessments, dedications, reservations, or other exactions as
specified in Government Code Sections 66020(a) or 66021, this is to provide notification
that, as of the date of this notice, the 90-day period has begun in which you may protest
these requirements. This matter is subject to the California Code of Civil Procedures
(CCP) Section 1094.5; the time by which judicial review must be sought is governed by
CCP Section 1094.6.
Public Works Engineering Department
6. OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS: Submit a copy of the off-site improvement plans that
includes the replacement of curb, gutter, sidewalk, utilities, landscape, etc. Provide
Caltrans standard details along the project frontage. Plans shall include the proposed
public access easement, grades along the conforms.
a. STREET LIGHTING: The applicant is required to replace the existing street lights
along the El Camino Real sidewalk project frontage. New pedestrian-scale
6
luminaires, poles and bases shall be centered between the roadway lighting to
provide a combined spacing of roughly 60-ft O.C. Decorative roadway and
pedestrian scale lighting standards are available from Public Works staff. Plot
and label the new lights on the proposed Site Plan.
b. SIDEWALK, CURB & GUTTER: As part of this project, the applicant must replace
all existing sidewalk, curbs, gutters and driveway approaches in the public right-
of-way along the frontage(s) of the property. The 4-foot wide extended sidewalk
area along the El Camino Real property frontage shall be paved with City
standard concrete and clear of obstruction such as planter or structures of any
kind. On the Curtner Avenue frontage, the monolithic sidewalk, rolled curb and
gutter shall be replaced in kind with any new street trees planted between the
back of walk and the property line. Any existing non-compliant curb ramps
adjacent to the required resurfacing work shall also be replaced. The site plan
submitted with the building permit plan set must show the extent of the
replacement work (at a minimum all curb and gutter and sidewalk along the
project frontage) The plan must note that any work in the right-of-way must be
done per Public Works’ standards by a licensed contractor who must first obtain
a Street Work Permit from Public Works at the Development Center. Include the
12-foot wide dimension on the plans and verify that the sidewalk is
unobstructed.
7. Subdivider shall prepare and submit documents per PAMC 21.16.020 along with the
Final Map.
8. Subdivider provide closure calculations and cost estimate for the off-site improvements
described above.
9. PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENT: Owner or designee shall create a public access easement for
the additional area behind the property line needed to create a 12-foot wide sidewalk
along El Camino Real. Plot and label the Public Access Easement along El Camino Real
that provides the 12-foot wide sidewalk.
10. A Subdivision Improvement Agreement is required to secure compliance with condition
of approval and security of improvements onsite and offsite per PAMC Section
21.16.220.
11. The Final Map shall include CITY ENGINEER STATEMENT, CITY SURVEYOR STATEMENT,
BENEFICIARY STATEMENT, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
STATEMENT and CITY CLERK.
12. The City of Palo Alto does not currently have a City Surveyor. The City retains the
services of a contractor to review and provide approval on behalf of the City. The
7
contractor will be reviewing, signing and stamping the Final Map associated with your
project.
In effort to employ the services of the contractor, and as part of the City’s cost recovery
measures, the applicant is required to provide payment to cover the cost of the
contract’s review.
Our intent is to forward your Final Map to the contractor for an initial preliminary
review of the documents. The contractor will then provide a review cost amount based
on the complexity of the project and the information shown on the document. We will
share this information with you once we receive it and ask that you return a copy
acknowledging the amount. You may then provide a check for this amount as payment
for the review cost. The City must receive payment prior to beginning the final review
process.
13. Subdivider shall provide electronic copies of the documents provided.
PRIOR TO FINAL MAP RECORDATION.
14. The subdivider shall submit wet signed and stamped mylar copy of the Final Map to the
Public Works for signature. Map shall be signed by Owner, Notary and Surveyor prior to
formal submittal.
15. The subdivider shall provide a signed Subdivision Improvement Agreement and Security
Bonds as described per PAMC 21.16.230.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT OR GRADING AND EXCAVATION PERMIT
16. A Final Map shall be recorded with County Recorder by the owner or designee.
SECTION 7. Term of Approval. Vesting Tentative Map. All conditions of approval of the Vesting
Tentative Map shall be fulfilled prior to approval of a Final Map (PAMC Section 21.16.010[c]).
Unless a Final Map is filed, and all conditions of approval are fulfilled within a two-year period
from the date of Vesting Tentative Map approval, the Vesting Tentative Map shall expire and all
proceedings shall terminate. An extension of time may be granted by the city council after
recommendation of the planning commission, upon the written application of the subdivider,
prior to the expiration of the Vesting Tentative Map approval, or any previous extension
granted. Such extension(s) shall be subject to the maximum limitations set forth in the
Subdivision Map Act.
PASSED:
AYES:
8
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
_________________________ ____________________________
City Clerk Interim Director of Planning and
Community Environment
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________
Deputy City Attorney
PLANS AND DRAWINGS REFERENCED:
Those plans prepared by Langan titled “Vesting Tentative Map 3877 El Camino Real for
Condominium Purposes, City of Palo Alto, Santa Clara County, California” consisting of seven (7)
pages, stamped, January 23, 2018.
ATTACHMENT C
ZONING COMPARISON TABLE
3877 El Camino Real, File No. 17PLN-00321
Tentative Map
Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.13 (RM-30 DISTRICT)
Regulation Required Existing Proposed
Minimum Site Area 8,500 square feet
21,867.8 sf (0.50 ac)
21,867.8 sf (0.50 ac)
Minimum Site Width (2) 70 feet 55 feet 55 feet
Minimum Site Depth 100 feet 180 feet 180 feet
Table 2: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.16 (CS DISTRICT)
Regulation Required Existing Proposed
Minimum Site Area None
10,957.5 sf (0.25 ac)
10,957.5 sf (0.25 ac)
Minimum Site Width (2) None 74 feet 74 feet
Minimum Site Depth None 140 feet 140 feet
August 31, 2017
City’s Current Planning Manager
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94303
Nuvera Homes
7041 Koll Center Parkway Suite #170
Pleasanton, CA 94566
Letter of Application
For
3877 El Camino Real (14PLN-00464)
Dear City’s Current Planning Manager,
On May 18th, 2017,the Architectural Review Board (ARB) recommended approval of the Site
and Design Review and Design Enhancement Exception applications for the demolition of a
5,860 square foot commercial building and construction of a new mixed-use project. The project
includes a three-story 35-foot tall, 4,027 square foot mixed use building and 17 two-story (29’-
8”) dwelling units (flats and townhouses). Parking for the project is provided in a basement and
includes 62 parking spaces on a 32,825 square foot lot having two zoning districts (CS and RM-
30). The project also includes a reduction in a rear setback for the basement from 10 feet to 6’-
2”. The City Council made its determination by making the following findings, determination and
declarations
The proposed subdivision complies with the design criteria of PAMC Chapter 21.20 and 21.28 in
the following ways:
1) The design of the proposed seventeen-unit mixed use development is consistent and
compatible with applicable elements of the City's Comprehensive Plan in that the site is
designated on the Comprehensive Plan land use map as Service Commercial and Multiple Family
Residential and is located within the Service Commercial (CS) and Residential Multi-Family (RM-
30) zoning districts and the Comprehensive Plan Table indicates compliance with applicable
policies.
2) The design is compatible with the immediate environment of the site in that the proposed
building is located within a CS and RM-30 zone district where other mixed-use buildings are
common;
3) The design is appropriate to the function of the project in that the design makes the most
functional use possible given the narrow constraints of “L” shaped parcel (0.75 acres) with street
frontage on both El Camino Real (CS zoning district) and Curtner Avenue(RM-30).
4) The design promotes harmonious transitions in scale and character in areas between
different designated land uses in that the scale of the proposed project creates a buffer
between the commercial-properties along El Camino adjacent to the west of the project and the
lower scale residential neighborhood to the east of the project; '
5) The design is compatible with approved improvements both on and off the site in that the
proposed residential use of the building will be compatible with the other mixed-use buildings in
the area;
6) The planning and siting of the various functions and buildings on the site create an internal
sense of order and· provide a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and the general
community in that the proposed design makes good use of the available space on this narrow
lot, accommodating the requirements for open space, parking and sufficient vehicular access;
7) The amount and arrangement of open space are appropriate to the design and the function
of the structures in that ample open space is provided in the form of private patio areas and
multiple balconies for each of the seventeen dwelling units as well as common open space along
the commercial side of the property;
8) Sufficient ancillary functions are provided to support the main functions of the project in that
the proposal includes sufficient parking and areas to accommodate trash and recycling needs of
the development;
9) Access to the property and circulation thereon are safe and convenient for pedestrians,
cyclists and vehicles in that adequate parking areas are proposed despite the narrowness of the
lot;
10) Natural features are appropriately preserved and integrated with the project in that the
proposal will ensure the preservation of existing trees;
11) The landscape design concept for the site, as shown by the relationship of plant masses,
open space, scale, plant forms and foliage textures and colors create a desirable and functional
environment in that the remaining open areas are fully planted and the utility equipment is
screened as best is possible;
12) Plant material is suitable and adaptable to the site, capable of being properly maintained on
the site, and is of a variety, which would tend to be drought resistant and to reduce
consumption of water in its installation and maintenance;
In conclusion, the proposed project is consistent for all of the reasons and findings specified
above.
3877 El Camino Real Project
Mitigation Monitoring Program
3877 El Camino Real Project Page 1 Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program February 2017
INTRODUCTION
Section 15097 of the Guidelines for the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires
that, whenever a public agency approves a project based on a Mitigated Negative Declaration
(MND) or an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), the public agency shall establish a mitigation
monitoring or reporting program to ensure that all adopted mitigation measures are
implemented.
This Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) is intended to satisfy this requirement of the
CEQA Guidelines as it relates to the 3877 El Camino project. This MMP would be used by City
staff and mitigation monitoring personnel to ensure compliance with mitigation measures
during project implementation. Mitigation measures identified in this MMP were developed in
the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project.
As noted above, the intent of the MMP is to ensure the effective implementation and
enforcement of all adopted mitigation measures. The MMP will provide for monitoring of
construction activities, as necessary, and in the field identification and resolution of
environmental concerns.
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The City of Palo Alto will coordinate monitoring activities and ensure appropriate
documentation of mitigation measure implementation. The table below identifies each
mitigation measure for the 3877 El Camino Real Project and the associated implementation,
monitoring, timing and performance requirements.
The MMP table presented on the following pages identifies:
1. the full text of each applicable mitigation measure;
2. the party or parties responsible for implementation and monitoring of each measure;
3. the timing of implementation of each mitigation measure including any ongoing
monitoring requirements; and
4. performance criteria by which to ensure mitigation requirements have been met.
Following completion of the monitoring and documentation process, the final monitoring
results will recorded and incorporated into the project file maintained by the City’s Department
of Planning and Community Environment.
The mitigation measure numbering reflects the numbering used in the Initial Study prepared
for the 3877 El Camino Real (Dudek 2016).
3877 El Camino Real Project
Mitigation Monitoring Program
3877 El Camino Real Project Page 2 Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program February 2017
No mitigation measures are required for the following resources:
Aesthetics
Agricultural Resources
Air Quality
Cultural Resources
Geology, Soils, and Seismicity
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Hydrology and Water Quality
Land Use and Planning
Mineral Resources
Noise
Population and Housing
Public Services
Recreation
Transportation and Traffic
Utilities and Service Systems
Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Monitoring Responsibility Timing Performance Evaluation Criteria
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Mitigation Measure BIO-1: If feasible, vegetation on the project site shall be removed outside of the bird-nesting season. If the start of site clearing, tree removal, or building demolition occurs between February 1 and August 31, a pre-construction survey for nesting birds protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to identify the location of nests in active use that were established prior to the start of project implementation activities. The pre-construction survey shall take place no more than 7 days prior to initiation of construction. All trees and shrubs on the site shall be surveyed, with particular attention to any trees or shrubs that would be removed or directly disturbed. Further, the project applicant shall retain a qualified biologist to perform additional nesting bird surveys at least every 2 weeks during all phases of construction that occur during the nesting season. If an active nest of a protected bird is found on site at any time, the biologist shall, in consultation with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), determine whether construction work would affect the active nest or disrupt reproductive behavior. Criteria used for this evaluation shall include presence of visual screening between the nest and construction activities, and behavior of adult
Applicant City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment
Prior to issuance of demolition permit Pre-construction survey is completed prior to demolition.
Surveys are repeated throughout construction.
Protection measures are implemented during demolition and construction.
Nesting birds are not disturbed until young have fledged.
3877 El Camino Real Project
Mitigation Monitoring Program
3877 El Camino Real Project Page 3 Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program February 2017
Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Monitoring Responsibility Timing Performance Evaluation Criteria
raptors in response to the surveyors or other ambient human activity. If construction could affect the nest or disrupt reproductive behavior, the biologist shall, in consultation with CDFW, determine an appropriate construction-free buffer zone around the nest to remain in place until the young have fledged or other appropriate protective measures are taken to ensure no take of protected species occurs.
If it is determined that construction will affect an active raptor nest or disrupt reproductive behavior, then avoidance is the only mitigation available. Construction shall not be permitted within 300 feet of such a nest until a qualified biologist determines that the subject nests are no longer active.
Prior to issuance of a demolition permit, the City of Palo Alto (City) shall verify that pre-construction surveys have been conducted within 7 days of the proposed start of demolition. If active bird nests are present, the City shall verify that CDFW has been consulted and either determined that construction will not affect an active bird nest or that appropriate construction-free buffer zones have been established or other appropriate protective measures have been taken.
Mitigation Measure BIO-2: A pre-construction survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist (i.e., a biologist holding a California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) collection permit and a Memorandum of Understanding with CDFW
allowing the biologist to handle bats) no earlier than 30 days prior to initiation of construction and demolition activities to
determine if active bat roosts or maternal colonies are present on or within 300 feet of the construction demolition area. Surveys shall include the structures proposed for demolition.
Should an active maternity roost be identified, the roost shall
not be disturbed, and demolition and construction within 300 feet of the maternity roost shall be postponed or halted until the
juveniles have fledged and the roost is vacated, as determined by a qualified biologist. Consultation with CDFW shall also be
Applicant City of Palo Alto Department of
Planning and Community Environment
Prior to issuance of demolition permit Pre-construction survey is completed
prior to demolition.
Avoidance measures are implemented during demolition and construction.
Nonbreeding bat hibernacula may be
safely evicted under the direction of a
qualified bat biologist and with
3877 El Camino Real Project
Mitigation Monitoring Program
3877 El Camino Real Project Page 4 Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program February 2017
Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Monitoring Responsibility Timing Performance Evaluation Criteria
initiated. Under no circumstance shall an active roost be directly disturbed.
If nonbreeding bat hibernacula are found on the project site, the individuals shall be safely evicted under the direction of a qualified bat biologist and with consultation with CDFW. These actions shall allow bats to leave during nighttime hours, increasing their chance of finding new roosts with a minimum of potential predation during daylight.
If it is determined that demolition or construction will not affect roosting behavior or disrupt a maternal colony, demolition or construction may proceed without any restriction or mitigation measure.
If it is determined that demolition or construction will affect an active bat roost or disrupt reproductive behavior, then avoidance is the only mitigation available. Under no circumstance shall an active roost be directly disturbed. Demolition or construction within 300 feet shall be postponed or halted until the roost is naturally vacated as determined by a qualified biologist.
Prior to issuance of a demolition permit, the City of Palo Alto (City) shall verify that pre-construction surveys have been conducted within 30 days of the proposed start of demolition. If bats are present, the City shall verify that CDFW has been consulted and either determined that construction will not affect an active bat roost or disrupt a maternal colony or that individuals in a nonbreeding bat hibernacula have been safely evicted.
Due to regulations from the California Department of Public Health, direct contact by construction workers with any bat is
not allowed.
consultation with CDFW.
Attachment F
Project Plans
Hardcopies of project plans are provided to Commission members. These plans are available to
the public online and/or by visiting the Planning and Community Environmental Department on
the 5th floor of City Hall at 250 Hamilton Avenue.
Directions to review Project plans online:
1. Go to: bit.ly/PApendingprojects
2. Scroll down to find “3877 El Camino Real” and click the address link
3. On this project specific webpage you will find a link to the project plans and
other important information
A direct link to the project page is also provided here:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=4333
Planning & Transportation Commission
Staff Report (ID # 9218)
Report Type: Study Session Meeting Date: 8/29/2018
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
(650) 329-2442
Summary Title: Framework for the 2018 Comp Plan/Housing Ordinance
Title: Implementing the Council Housing Work Plan Referral:
Framework for the 2018 Comp Plan Implementation and
Housing Ordinance
From: Jonathan Lait
Recommendation
Staff recommends the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC):
1. Review the framework for housing-related zoning changes to encourage production of a
diversity of housing types in appropriate locations, as specified by the Council referral of
2018 Housing Work Plan items; and
2. Provide input to staff regarding possible zoning changes to inform preparation of a draft
ordinance.
Report Summary
The Background section of this report summarizes work completed to date, including PTC study
sessions, meetings with stakeholders who regularly use the zoning code, and a community
open house on housing held in June 2018. The background section also provides updated
findings from the Fehr & Peers’ study of parking occupancy rates at multi-family residential
developments in Palo Alto. The revised study includes an intercept survey to obtain resident
perspectives on parking conditions and availability, as well as an analysis of on-street parking
surrounding the surveyed sites.
The Discussion/Analysis section of this report:
identifies existing zoning regulations and how they relate to housing production;
offers ideas for zoning revisions;
details how the revisions would increase housing production and/or affordability; and
analyzes how the revisions fit in with the specific implementation items identified in the
Council’s Housing Work Plan referral.
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2
The PTC is requested to provide comments on the draft ideas for zoning revisions. This input
will inform staff’s preparation of a draft ordinance for PTC and Council consideration this fall.
Background
On February 12, 2018, the City Council approved a Housing Work Plan, which outlines steps to
implement the City’s vision and adopted policies and programs for housing production,
affordability, and preservation. The Work Plan includes select policies and programs from the
adopted Comprehensive Plan, adopted Housing Element, and a City Council colleagues’ memo.
The Work Plan describes the City’s progress towards the housing production goals at various
income levels (i.e. RHNA) identified in the Comprehensive Plan Housing Element. The Work Plan
also explains the City’s progress towards the housing projections developed during preparation
of the updated Comprehensive Plan (i.e., 3,545-4,420 new units between 2015 and 2030). In
both cases, the City is behind in its effort to meet these goals. The approved Housing Work Plan
indicates what action is needed to spur the production of housing.
The City Council referred to the PTC specific Work Plan items related to a 2018 zoning
amendment ordinance. The PTC has held three study sessions to analyze various aspects of the
Work Plan and to consider possible zoning changes to facilitate implementation of both the
Work Plan and (by extension) the Comprehensive Plan housing production targets. A summary
of previous study sessions is provided, as follows:
March 14th: The PTC discussed the Work Plan goals, timeline, and the PTC’s role in
implementation.
April 25th: The PTC discussed key issues in the zoning code as they relate to the Council
referral, including issues regarding development standards and the entitlement process.
May 30th: The PTC discussed parking topics as they relate to housing production,
including a new study of parking occupancy in multi-family residential developments in
Palo Alto.
The purpose of the August 29th study session is to receive public input and Commission
feedback on the conceptual framework of zoning changes to inform preparation of an
ordinance for PTC and Council consideration.
The City is pursuing these zoning updates in parallel with several other zoning and policy
changes to achieve Work Plan, Comprehensive Plan, and Housing Element goals. Specifically,
changes to local implementation of State Density Bonus Law, an updated Accessory Dwelling
Unit Ordinance, a new Affordable Housing Overlay, and a new Workforce Housing Overlay are
intended to facilitate affordable housing at varying income levels and market rate housing
opportunities, consistent with the City’s adopted policy.
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3
As these zoning changes are implemented through individual development projects, the City
will continue to evaluate the effects of the code change, and make additional revisions over
time, as would be necessary.
Community Outreach. As Council directed for the Work Plan implementation, the City has
conducted two complementary community outreach efforts: (1) meetings with stakeholders
who regularly use the City’s zoning code; and (2) a community meeting with the public at-large.
Findings from these efforts are described below.
(1) Stakeholder Meetings. Consultants conducted 16 meetings with 22 individuals (primarily
architects and developers) in April and May 2018. Attachment A provides a summary of these
meetings. Key findings were as follows:
Generally, stakeholders agreed with the direction of the Council referral, including
streamlining the review process and reducing zoning constraints.
Density and parking were cited as the major constraints to configuring a site in terms of
site planning, massing, and the number of units attainable.
There was a general sense that the current zoning does not support the City’s stated
goals of multi-family housing, and a recommendation that the City instead allow the
types of developments that it wants “by right” and/or through modifications to density,
parking, and related standards.
Stakeholders expressed frustration about the length of time the entitlement process
takes due to multiple reviewing bodies and instead recommended having one review
body conduct design review based on a clear set of standards.
(2) Community Open House. On June 28, 2018, the City held a community open house on
housing topics to describe the Housing Work Plan, present ideas for its implementation, and
solicit feedback from community members on proposed ideas. Over 30 community members
attended the meeting, which included a presentation, an open house of “idea stations” that
allowed participants to interact with staff and other participants one-on-one or in small groups,
and a debrief to share community members’ comments. The presentation, idea station boards,
and detailed feedback (in the form of notes taken by staff and individual feedback forms) may
be reviewed on the project website:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pln/long_range_planning/housing_programs_and_p
olicies/housing_work_plan.asp
Attachment B provides detailed notes from the open house; key findings are summarized
below:
Participants expressed a range of perspective on housing needs and ideas to spur
housing production. There was little consensus about how to implement the adopted
goals of the Comprehensive Plan, Housing Element and direction proposed in the
Housing Work Plan.
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4
While some participants supported revisions to development standards and review
processes to streamline housing production, others were concerned about impacts of
new development on existing neighborhoods, traffic, and services.
Ideas for revisions to parking regulations had the greatest range in perspectives: some
participants were concerned that reductions in parking requirements would lead to
spillover parking in neighborhoods; others supported requirements that more closely
matched demand, especially for populations with lower parking demand such as
seniors, homeless, and low income households.
Revised Parking Study. At the May 30, 2018 PTC meeting, a few Commissioners expressed
concerns about the parking study prepared by Fehr & Peers, which assessed parking occupancy
at nine multi-family housing sites throughout the city. Specifically, Commissioners wanted to
understand the relationship between Census data and the empirical study conducted by Fehr &
Peers; the PTC suggested that the study account for tenants parking on City streets, and asked
for qualitative perspectives to understand where residents are parking and why.
Based on additional data collection, Fehr & Peers has revised the parking study, which is
provided in Attachment C. In June and July, 2018, they conducted new surveys at eight of the
nine apartment complexes to measure peak parking demand for both off-street and on-street
spaces.1 Most of the complexes demonstrated similar or slightly lower on-site parking demand
between the previous surveys and the new surveys. In part, this may be due to summertime
schedules and vacations. The updated report suggests reductions to parking requirements to
better align parking supply with demand, as shown in the parking subsection below (see idea
#6).
In addition, Fehr & Peers conducted intercept surveys at one of the complexes, the Marc, to
determine residents’ perspectives on parking conditions.2 Residents at this complex generally
parked in the on-site garage since they have assigned spaces, feel safe, and can avoid the hassle
of on-street parking. However, the sample size of one complex is too small to draw conclusions.
Although anecdotally interesting, it falls short of staff’s expectations for data collection to meet
the PTC’s interest in understanding tenants’ perspectives.
Chart 1 responds to Commissioners’ questions about the relationship between Census data and
the Fehr & Peers findings. It also provides data by tenure (rental vs. ownership-occupied
households) as a proxy for income, in response to at least one Commissioner’s interest in the
effects of income on vehicle ownership. The Fehr & Peers study analyzed parking occupancy for
multi-family, renter-occupied households only. On the other hand, American Community
Survey (ACS) data, gathered by the U.S. Census, takes a sample of all households, including
1 One apartment complex had been sold since Fehr & Peers conducted the original survey; the new owners did not
want to participate in the updated survey.
2 For this in-person survey, Fehr & Peers intercepted residents in and near the project garage to ask questions
about their perspectives on parking inside the project versus outside on the street. Only one property
manager/owner allowed Fehr & Peers to conduct the intercept survey; the other eight declined to participate.
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5
renters, owners, and occupants of both single- and multi-family homes. Chart 1 reports the ACS
data, which demonstrate that renters in Palo Alto have substantially fewer vehicles compared
to owners. Accordingly, one might expect lower vehicle ownership rates among households in
the sites surveyed by Fehr & Peers compared to the vehicle ownership rates among the total
population citywide.
Highest and Best Use: Office vs. Residential Development
At least one Commissioner has asked whether bringing standards on par for these different use
types would affect the feasibility of residential uses and a property owner’s decision-making
about what type of project to pursue. The highest and best use of a property is determined by
four key factors:
1. Legal permissibility (is it permitted by zoning and other regulations);
2. Physical possibility (do site specific features make development impossible or too
costly);
3. Financially feasibility (does the potential use have value commensurate with its costs);
and
4. Maximal productivity (the use that produces the highest “residual land value,” a metric
of the value of the use, less the cost expended to build it).
Currently, office, hotel, and multi-family residential (when part of a mix of uses) are legally
permitted uses in most of the CD(C), CC(2), CS, and CN districts. However, as was documented
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6
in the April 25th study session and summarized in Idea #11 below, district regulations favor
office and other non-residential uses versus residential uses through more generous
development standards (e.g., parking standards, FARs), which affect the physical possibility of
multi-family development. (See Attachment D for a comparison of how different use types can
buildout in the CD(C) and CS districts.) While an office and multi-family use may both be
financially feasible, an office use is often the maximally productive use, given higher densities,
lower construction and operating costs, and higher lease rates, as shown in Chart 2 below.
In order to change this equation to tip the balance toward multi-family residential uses, a
change in the market and/or policy interventions are required. Modifications to development
standards and use regulations affect physical possibilities and legal permissibility, respectively.
While changes in construction costs, demand, and lease rates affect financial feasibility.
During stakeholders interviews, a couple of developers indicated that the market for office uses
in Palo Alto is softening. This statement is supported by data that shows a modest reduction in
lease rates since the last quarter of 2017 (Chart 2) and the highest office vacancy rates in the
last three quarters that the city has seen in the last four years in which data were available
(Chart 3). In part, this may be due to the City’s policy interventions to reduce office
construction and a greater market trend of companies and their employees wanting to locate in
more urban locations, specifically San Francisco and Oakland, which are experiencing office
construction booms.3
3 For example, see Newmark Knight Frank, 2018. Greater Oakland Office Market. Research 2Q 2018
http://www.ngkf.com/Uploads/FileManager/2Q18%20Greater%20Oakland%20Office%20Report.pdf and Newmark
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 7
While the City’s decision-makers cannot control market factors, they can affect physical
feasibility through zoning modifications. Ideas for these modifications are detailed in the
section below.
Discussion/Analysis
This section presents a framework for the Comprehensive Plan Implementation and Housing
Ordinance. With the exception of ideas presented in the “other” subsection below, all of these
ideas have previously been reviewed by the PTC and/or by the community open house
participants. Conceptual ideas are presented as a starting place for discussion purposes. Based
on the Commission’s and community’s feedback, this list will be refined in preparation of an
ordinance. Chapter numbers refer to subsections of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC).
A. Density and Intensity Standards
Current density/intensity maximums are one of the major items restricting housing production,
according to architects and developers interviewed, and to the quantitative analysis of housing
opportunity sites completed for Downtown.4 The following zoning revisions seek to remove
constraints and provide incentives for residential development.
1. Modify PAMC Chapters 18.16 (Neighborhood, Community and Service Commercial
District), 18.18 (Downtown Commercial District), 18.34 (Pedestrian and Transit
Oriented Development [PTOD] Combining District) to eliminate residential density
standards in the CD-C, CC(2), CN, CS, and PTOD districts
Knight Frank, 2018. Greater San Francisco Office Market. Research 2Q 2018
http://www.ngkf.com/Uploads/FileManager/2Q18-San-Francisco-Office-Market_1.pdf. 4 Dyett & Bhatia and EPS. “Downtown Development Evaluation: Residential Capacity and Feasibility Analysis”
October 30, 2017. <https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/64477>
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 8
Current Standard: The zoning code currently regulates density in two ways: residential density
(dwelling units/acre) and intensity (FAR). Maximum residential density standards for the City’s
commercial districts are shown in Table 1.
Table 1: Existing and Proposed Residential Density Standards, by Commercial Zoning District
Maximum Residential
Density (du/acre)
CD-C
(Downtown)
CC(2)/PTOD
(Cal Ave.)
CN District
(El Camino)
CS District
(El Camino)
Existing 40
40 (50 w/BMR
units)
15 (20 for Housing
Element sites) 30
Proposed -- -- -- --
Source: City of Palo Alto Municipal Code and Planning and Community Environment (PCE) Department,
August 2018.
The following Housing Element policy supports Idea #1:
H2.2.8: Assess the potential of removing maximum residential densities (i.e. dwelling
units per acre) in mixed use zoning districts to encourage the creation of smaller housing
units within the allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR), and adopt standards as appropriate.
How the Current Standard Affects Development: Residential density can be an imperfect metric
on which to consider a project’s potential impact, since density values vary based on the
number of units. These values do not reflect the unit size or number of bedrooms in a project—
metrics that relate more closely to population density. As a result, a proposed development
that may otherwise fit into the allowable developable envelope (i.e., based on lot coverage,
setbacks, and height and other standards) may have to propose larger units and/or more
bedrooms in order to meet the density standard, as alluded to in the Downtown Development
Cap residential study and described by stakeholders.5 This can directly affect affordability since
larger units and lower density projects carry higher rents.
Potential Benefits and Impacts: Eliminating residential density standards would allow more
flexibility for developers to increase the overall unit count without affecting the massing or
design of a project. A density standard would still be retained in the form of FAR. As a metric,
FAR values can be more easily illustrated and compared between projects to demonstrate the
relationship between total floor area and the site area, and the resulting massing. This change
could modestly increase the number of units proposed and the affordability of those units
without impacting the massing and bulk of a project.
As an alternative, the City could require a minimum density threshold. Such a standard could
ensure that a minimum number of units can be achieved, but it could also prevent a site from
developing altogether if the minimum density is not achievable.
5 Dyett & Bhatia and EPS, 2007; and City of Palo Alto. Housing Work Plan 2018 Comp Plan/Housing Ordinance:
Stakeholder Interview Summary, June 2018 (Attachment A)
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 9
2. Modify PAMC Chapter 18.13 (Multiple Family Residential) to establish a minimum
density of 8 du/acre and increase the maximum density standard in the RM-15 district
from 15 to 20 du/acre to match the Housing Element standard
Current Standard: The RM-15 district allows a maximum density of 15 units per acre, and does
not regulate a minimum density. For example, on sites that are 5,000 square feet or greater,
two units are allowed. However, the Housing Element identifies a realistic capacity of 20 units
per acre for RM-15 sites, meaning that Housing Element sites that are zoned RM-15 must
achieve a minimum density of 20 units per acre unless other sites (or replacement units) are
identified.
The following Housing Element policy supports Idea #2:
Policy H2.1.3: Amend the zoning code to specify the minimum density of eight dwelling
units per acre in all RM-15 districts. Consider amending the zoning code to specify
minimum density for other multifamily zoning districts, consistent with the multi-family
land use designation in the Comprehensive Plan.
How the Current Standard Affects Development: As described in idea #1 above, residential
density maximums may constrain both unit yield and affordability.
Potential Benefits and Impacts: Increasing the residential density maximum would make the
allowed densities in the Housing Element and district regulations consistent and provide an
opportunity for some increased density. Setting a low floor for the minimum density at eight
dwelling units per acre ensures that sites will not be underutilized, while not creating a burden
on property owners and developers. This change could incrementally increase the number of
units proposed and the affordability of those units, without impacting the massing and bulk of a
project.
3. Modify PAMC Chapters 18.16 (Neighborhood, Community and Service Commercial
District)and 18.18 (Downtown Commercial District) to allow residential development
to utilize all existing FAR allowance (i.e., including existing non-residential allocation)
Current Standard: The zoning code currently regulates allowable development intensity
separately for residential and commercial uses, and generally allows the highest intensities for
hotel and commercial uses, as shown in Table 2. In the Downtown and California Avenue areas,
these commercial uses can achieve twice as much FAR as residential uses can.
The code also requires a certain amount of ground-floor commercial development in each
district. In the CD-C district, there is no specified FAR standard for the commercial component.
However, in the CD-C/Ground Floor (GF) combining district, all ground-floor frontage must be
commercial; residential is not permitted on the ground floor.
The Comprehensive Plan and Housing Element provide policy support for Idea #3:
Program L2.4.4 Assess non-residential development potential in the Community
Commercial, Service Commercial and Downtown Commercial Districts (CC, CS and CD)
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 10
and the Neighborhood Commercial District (CN), and convert non-retail commercial FAR
to residential FAR, where appropriate. Conversion to residential capacity should not be
considered in Town and Country Village.6
Policy L-2.4.7: Explore mechanisms for increasing multi-family housing density near
multimodal transit centers.
Policy H2.1.1: To allow for higher density residential development, consider amending
the Zoning Code to permit high-density residential in mixed use or single use projects in
commercial areas within one-half a mile of fixed rail stations and to allow limited
exceptions to the 50-foot height limit for Housing Element Sites within one-quarter mile
of fixed rail stations.
Table 2: Existing and Proposed FAR Standards, by Commercial Zoning District
Maximum Intensity (FAR)
CD-C
(Downtown)
CC(2)/PTOD
(Cal Ave.)
CN District
(El Camino)
CS District
(El Camino)
EXISTING
Residential Mixed Use
Residential 1.0 1.0 0.5 0.6
Commercial (Max.) 1.0 0.25-0.35 0.5 0.4
Ground Floor
Commercial (Min.)
n/a (except GF
overlay) 0.15-0.25 0.15 0.15
Subtotal Mixed Use 2.0 1.25 1.0 1.0
Non-Residential
Commercial FAR 1.0 2.0 0.4 0.4
Hotel FAR 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Bonus and/or TDR 1.0 0.5 N/A N/A
Total Maximum FAR 3.0 1.5 0.9 1.0
PROPOSED
Residential Mixed Use
Residential 2.0 1.1 1.0 1.0
Commercial (Max.) No Change
Ground Floor
Commercial (Min.)
n/a (except GF
overlay) 0.15-0.25 0.0 0.0
Subtotal Mixed Use No Change
Non-Residential
Hotel FAR No Change
Commercial FAR No Change
Bonus and/or TDR No Change
Total Maximum FAR No Change
6 Town and Country Village is located in the CC district and would not be affected by the proposed change.
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 11
Source: City of Palo Alto Municipal Code and Planning and Community Environment Department, August
2018.
How the Current Standard Affects Development: The Downtown Development Cap residential
study identified FAR standards as one of the greatest obstacles to residential development.
Current market trends support higher density residential uses. However, ground-up new
construction will need to support the high cost of construction, as well as overcome the value
of any existing use on the site. The report concludes that a ground-up project generally must at
least double the existing residential density/intensity to overcome the high value of simply
maintaining and earning income from an existing use.7 Stakeholders generally agreed with this
assessment; FAR was cited by stakeholders as one of the top two constraints to development.8
Potential Benefits and Impacts: This idea would allow residential development to achieve the
total FAR that is currently allowed for mixed use projects. It would not reduce the amount of
commercial FAR allowed in a non-residential only development, nor would it affect ground-
floor retail and/or commercial requirements in the Downtown or California Avenue areas,
which have the highest concentrations of retail. Idea #11, below, explores a concept that would
eliminate the ground-floor commercial requirement and retail preservation requirements on El
Camino Real in certain locations between key retail nodes.
Allowing residential FAR to compose the entire mixed use FAR allowance would remove some
of the disincentive that currently exists for residential development compared with commercial
development, due to construction costs, lease rates, and development standards. This change
would not increase the total amount of development currently allowed by the code, but may
incrementally increase the amount of future residential development, and therefore decrease
the amount of new commercial development.
B. Open Space Standards
On-site open space is an important factor in supporting livability in higher density residential
areas, but current standards are applied inconsistently across districts and housing types.
Standardization can clarify what is expected of developers, while flexibility in where open space
may be located can provide opportunities to develop sites with the allowable massing and unit
density.
4. Modify PAMC Chapters 18.16 (Neighborhood, Community and Service Commercial
District) and 18.18 (Downtown Commercial District) to allow rooftop open space to
qualify as usable open space for multi-family residential or residential mixed-use
projects in the CD-C, CC(2), CN and CS districts (El Camino only), except on sites
abutting single-family residential uses or zoning districts.
Current Standard: The zoning code requires open space for residential uses in the City’s
commercial district. The code defines usable open space to include outdoor areas on the
7 Dyett & Bhatia and EPS, 2007. 8 Stakeholder Interview Summary, 2018.
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 12
ground floor, roof, balcony or similar locations. However, the code explicitly excludes rooftop
gardens from qualifying as open space in the CD-C, CC(2), CN and CS districts.
The Housing Element generally supports more flexible development standards to facilitate
innovative housing solutions:
Program H3.1.7: Ensure that the Zoning Code permits innovative housing types such as
co-housing and provides flexible development standards that will allow such housing to
be built, provided the character of the neighborhoods in which such housing is proposed
to be located is maintained.
How the Current Standard Affects Development: Current standards necessitate that open space
is located on the ground floor, balconies, or similar locations that could be used for other uses,
including residential space. Along with other development standards, such requirements can
reduce the development “envelope” available on a site, especially on small sites, which can
make site planning a challenge.
Potential Benefits and Impacts: In areas of the City designated for higher density multi-family
housing, options for how to configure the massing and site plan for a project can help maximize
the number of units that are appropriate for a site. Moreover, rooftop decks in a climate such
as Palo Alto can offer an amenity for residents to take advantage of views and community
outdoor space.
To address issues of privacy, noise, visibility, odors, and safety, the following standards and
guidelines are proposed for consideration by the public, Architectural Review Board (ARB) and
PTC. Staff intends to discuss these design-related concepts with the ARB in late
September/early October:
Setbacks: Set back open space and required railings a minimum of 5 feet from all edges
of the building to reduce visibility from the public right-of-way and adjacent buildings,
and minimize privacy impacts.
Access: Locate access/means of egress (i.e., stairway and/or elevator penthouse) away
from the building edge to the extent feasible or sufficiently screen to minimize visibility
from the public right-of-way and adjacent buildings, and reduce privacy impacts.
Lighting: Any lighting shall be provided with cutoff fixtures that cast downward-facing
light or low-level string lights. Photometric diagrams must be submitted for review by
staff or decision-makers to ensure no spillover impacts into windows or openings of
adjacent properties. Rooftop lighting shall not be visible from the ground level. (Also,
note existing performance standards in PAMC Chapter 18.23.)
Flexibility in how open space is configured provides options for site planning and may
incrementally increase unit yield and, in turn, affordability.
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 13
5. Modify PAMC Chapters 18.16 (Neighborhood, Community and Service Commercial
District) and 18.18 (Downtown Commercial District) to eliminate tiering of open space
requirements; provide a single requirement, regardless of the number of units.
Current Standard: As shown in Table 3, the CN, CS, and CC(2)/PTOD districts identify tiered
standards for open space based on the number of units in the residential project, with a
substantial jump for projects with six or more units. The CD-C and CC(2)/PTOD districts tier the
standards inversely, with a larger standard for smaller projects, for reasons that are not clear.
The existing code provides some flexibility in that usable open space may be provided in any
combination of private and common open space. The code also requires a minimum dimension
of six feet for private open space and 12 feet for common open space, to ensure that spaces are
truly usable. (No changes to these minimum dimensions are proposed.)
Table 3: Existing and Proposed Open Space Standards, by Commercial Zoning District
CD-C
(Downtown)
CC(2)/PTOD
(Cal Ave.)
CN District
(El Camino)
CS District
(El Camino)
Existing
Open Space <5 units: 200 sq. ft./du
6+ units: 150 sq. ft./du
<5 units: 200 sq. ft./du
6+ units: 100 sq. ft./du
or less w/BMR units
<5 units: 20 sq. ft./du
6+ units: 150 sq. ft./du
<5 units: 20 sq. ft./du
6+ units: 150 sq. ft./du
Proposed
Open Space 100 sq. ft./du 100 sq. ft./du 150 sq. ft./du 150 sq. ft./du
Existing
Landscaping
(Minimum)
20% n/a 35% 30%
Proposed
Landscaping
(Minimum)
No change
Source: City of Palo Alto Municipal Code and Planning and
Community Environment Department, August 2018.
How the Current Standard Affects Development: Layers
of development standards make interpreting the City’s
code complicated and may reduce the development
“envelope” available on a site. While these regulations
are based on reasonable community desires (e.g.,
providing access to light, air, landscaping, and outdoor
space), in combination they have the drawback of
constricting the developable site area and therefore potential unit yield on a site.
Potential Benefits and Impacts: Providing a single standard for each district—regardless of how
many units are on the site—simplifies the code and eliminates any bias for projects that are
choosing between proposing five or six units. This concept maintains required landscaping
areas, reduces the requirement in the Downtown and for small projects on California Avenue
District, and increases the requirement for small projects on El Camino Real. Smaller open
spaces in the Downtown and California Avenue District reflect higher land values in these
Example Standards from Other Cities
Mountain View: 40 sq. ft./du
Emeryville: 60 sq. ft./du
Redwood City: 300 sq. ft./du
San Carlos: 100 sq. ft./du (private);
15% of site area (common)
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 14
locations and existing access to other amenities include existing parks, streetscapes, and
community services.
C. Parking Requirements
Parking supports the convenience of getting to and from work, home, shopping, and other
destinations. However, the findings in the Fehr & Peers study suggest that the City’s local
parking requirements may be set too high for multi-family housing. To better align incentives
for residential development, these revisions seek to better match supply with actual demand.
6. Modify PAMC Chapter 18.52 (Parking and Loading Requirements) to adjust parking
requirements as follows:
a. Align multi-family residential parking requirements with anticipated demand
based on empirical data (see Table 4)
b. Maintain parking requirements for single- and two-family residential uses.
Current Standard: Parking standards are regulated by use, not district, such that the multi-
family residential uses are the same across each residential and commercial district. As shown
in Table 4, standards do vary by unit size (i.e., number of bedrooms) and use type (see bullet list
below). The one location-based adjustment is for projects in proximity to transit.
As noted in Table 4, specific project types are eligible for reductions:
Senior Housing: up to 50% reduction, subject to approval of a parking analysis;
Affordable Housing: up to 40% reduction depending on level of affordability and
proximity to transit, support services and traffic demand management (TDM) measures;
Housing Near Transit: up to 20% reduction with approval of a TDM program;
Mixed Use Projects: up to 20% reduction with approval of shared parking; and
These reductions may be combined as long as in total no more than a 30% reduction of
the total parking demand otherwise required occurs, or no less than a 40% reduction for
affordable housing projects, or no less than 50% reduction for senior housing projects.
TDM plans are required to reduce and manage single-occupant vehicle trips of an applicant in
the following circumstances:
Projects that generate 50+ net new weekday or weekend peak hour trips;
Projects claiming a reduction in net new trips due to proximity to public transit or the
implementation of a TDM plan; and
Projects requesting a parking reduction, including for affordable housing and housing
near transit, as described above.
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 15
Table 4: Existing and Proposed Parking Standards for Multi-family Residential Uses
Use/Unit Type Existing Proposed
State Density
Bonus Law (1)
Studio 1.25 1 1
1-Bedroom 1.5 1 1
2+ Bedroom 2 2 2
Guest 1+10% of total units included above n/a
Senior Housing up to 50% reduction 0.75/unit,
plus up to 50% reduction
0.5
Affordable Housing 20-40% reduction no change to reduction;
reserved parking, if provided,
limited to 1 space/du to
maximize availability
see above
Housing Near Transit up to 20% reduction no change 0.5-1
Mixed Use Projects up to 20% reduction no change n/a
(1) SDBL defines housing near transit; where ranges are reported, ratio depends on bedroom count.
Source: City of Palo Alto Municipal Code and Planning and Community Environment Department, August
2018; Fehr & Peers, City of Palo Alto Multi-Family (Rental) Residential Development Parking Rate Study,
July 2018.
The following Housing Element policy supports Idea #6:
Policy H3.3.7: Prepare a local parking demand database to determine parking standards
for different housing uses (i.e. market rate multifamily, multifamily affordable, senior
affordable, emergency shelters etc.) with proximity to services as a consideration. Adopt
revisions to standards as appropriate.
How the Current Standard Affects Development: According to developers and architects that
are active in Palo Alto, parking requirements are one of the standards with the greatest effects
on site planning and creating viable projects in Palo Alto due to a combination of required
number of spaces, drive aisle width, and back-up distance. These stakeholders believe that the
City’s multi-family housing parking ratios require parking supplies that exceed demand.9
These qualitative findings are corroborated by quantitative analysis. The City engaged Fehr &
Peers, a transportation consulting firm, to conduct a study of parking demand in multi-family
rental developments in Palo Alto. These developments included market rate, affordable, and
senior housing projects at sites located at varying distances to transit. The updated report is
included as Attachment C.
The study observes the following trends:10
The lowest per bedroom parking demand rates were observed at the senior housing and
affordable complexes and the highest at a market rate complex.
9 Stakeholder Interview Summary, 2018. 10 Fehr & Peers. City of Palo Alto Multi-Family (Rental) Residential Development Parking Rate Study. July 2018.
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 16
Nearly all of the sites surveys have fewer parking spaces than are required by the code
(based on code-permitted reductions); yet supply still exceeds demand.
Parking requirements exceed peak parking demand in the developments surveyed.
Potential Benefits and Impacts: Finding the right balance between parking demand and supply
helps to ensure sufficient parking availability, without causing spillover impacts into
surrounding neighborhoods. Housing developments that have more parking than is needed add
unnecessary construction costs and therefore contribute to the cost of housing. Efforts to
better align parking to housing type, proximity to transit, and geography, could reduce these
costs and increase housing opportunities without impacting surrounding neighborhoods from
spillover parking. Coincidentally, these parking requirements are generally in line with State
Density Bonus Law parking allowances, as shown in Table 4.
While unbundled parking—where parking spaces are required to be leased separately from
units—is often used as a way to discourage car ownership or attract tenants that do not own
cars, it is not proposed here. Due to community concerns about spillover parking onto the
street, the City’s policy should not discourage tenants from parking within their residential
complex.
Aligning supply and demand would help set the right amount of parking based on use and
location, and free up space to be used for additional housing units, community space, or other
amenities.
7. Modify PAMC Chapter 18.52 (Parking and Loading Requirements) to exempt the first
1,500 sq. ft. of ground-floor retail from parking requirements citywide to relieve
physical and financial constraints of providing retail.
Current Standard: Most residential uses are required to be part of mixed use developments in
the CD-C, CC(2), CS, and CN districts. Typically, this commercial component is ground floor retail
use, given the Retail Preservation Ordinance and especially, given retail requirements of the GF
combining district. The parking requirements for ground-floor retail are as follows for citywide
locations, Downtown, and California Avenue:
Retail: 1/200 – 1/350 sq. ft.
Eating and Drinking Services: 1 space for each 60 gross sq. ft. of public service area, plus
1 space for each 200 gross sq. ft. for all other areas.
California Avenue Assessment District: 1/240 to 1/350 spaces/sq. ft. for retail and 3/100
to 1/155 spaces/sq. ft. for Eating and Drinking Services
Downtown Assessment District only: blended rate of 1/250 sq. ft. for all non-residential
uses
How the Current Standard Affects Development: According to the stakeholder interviews,
provision of parking for the commercial portion of mixed use residential buildings can be
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 17
challenge to making a project viable.11 Assuming a typical, moderately-sized 2,000-square foot
tenant space, these parking requirements would necessitate six to ten spaces for a retail tenant
and 24 spaces for a sit-down restaurant tenant (assuming 60% of the tenant space is used for
public service). Given parking dimension requirements in Section 18.54.070 of the City’s code,
as well as drive aisle and backing out requirements (totaling approximately 300 square
feet/space), a 2,000-square foot tenant space could necessitate an additional 1,700 to 7,000
square feet of area to accommodate these parking needs depending on the use and parking
configuration—potentially more than two or three times the size of the tenant space itself.
Structured parking areas are generally not leasable area, and therefore take the place of space
that could be used for leasable retail, residential, or other uses.
Potential Benefits and Impacts: Exempting a portion of ground-floor retail from parking
requirements would help to relieve physical and financial constraints, and instead provide an
incentive for including retail uses in a project. This concept minimizes spillover parking impacts
by limiting the exemption to 1,500 sq. ft. (which could equate to four spaces for a retail use to
18 spaces for a high-intensity eating and drinking establishment).
D. Project Review Process
How a use is approved by the City, whether it is permitted through an administrative (staff-
level) approval or a public review process, can present an incentive or disincentive to its
development. These revisions seek to streamline the review process, while still providing
opportunities for public and decision-maker input.
8. Modify PAMC Chapters 18.16 (Neighborhood, Community and Service Commercial
District) and 18.18 (Downtown Commercial District) to eliminate Site & Design Review
with the PTC and Council for residential and residential mixed use projects:
a. Require Architectural Review by the Architectural Review Board.
b. Maintain staff review, and the noticing and appeal hearing process to provide
opportunities for public input.
Current Standard: Currently, residential mixed
use projects of ten or more dwelling units in
the Downtown and on El Camino Real require
Site and Design Review which includes design
review by the Architectural Review Board
(ARB) and PTC, who each make a
recommendation to the City Council.
The Architectural Review process includes consideration of a project with respect to Context-
Based Design Criteria that seek to address the following items when reviewing proposed
development:
11 Stakeholder Interview Summary, 2018.
Residential Design Review Process
Downtown and El Camino Real (CD-C, CN, CS):
Mixed use projects with fewer than 10
units: Architectural Review w/ ARB
All other projects: Site & Design Review w/
PTC, ARB, and Council
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 18
Relationship between the site's development to adjacent street types, surrounding land
uses, and on-site or nearby natural features;
Scale and mass consistent with the pattern of achieving a pedestrian oriented design;
Design that promotes pedestrian walkability, a bicycle friendly environment, and
connectivity through design elements;
Usable open space for residents and visitors; and
Parking areas that do not overwhelm the character of the project or detract from the
pedestrian environment.
Site and Design Review is also used to evaluate projects in environmentally sensitive areas.
Development east of Highway 101 is subject to the Site and Design Review provisions of the
zoning code, including performance criteria related lighting, noise, and landscaping. These
criteria and the review process with decision-makers aim to maintain and restore
environmental quality of the Baylands, ensure fencing, signage, materials and colors are
compatible with the area, and preserve views of the horizon line.
How the Current Standard Affects Development: The public review process provides
opportunities for community input and feedback from decision-makers, but also adds time,
expense, and uncertainty from the perspective of applicants, which may affect their decision to
pursue a development in Palo Alto.
The combination of Site & Design Review and Architectural Review requires at least three
meetings, though five meetings are typical for substantial projects. Applicants can expect this
process to take 9 to 15 months; then, they can start the building permit review process. One
exception to this procedure is for residential mixed use projects with nine or fewer units, which
only require Architectural Review by the ARB (at least one meeting, though three meetings are
typical for substantial projects).
Potential Benefits and Impacts: Streamlining the review process by maintaining Architectural
Review and eliminating Site & Design Review would maintain opportunities for public input and
maintain project review of context-based design criteria, but eliminate the burden placed on
projects to undergo review by three separate bodies. Opportunities for appeal would be
maintained.
9. Modify PAMC Chapter 18.16 (Neighborhood, Community and Service Commercial
District) to incorporate bonus height and density provided in Chapter 18.34
(Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Development [PTOD] Combining District) for certain
types of projects:
a. 100% affordable housing projects at a maximum of 80% of Area Median
Income (excluding manager’s unit and any incidental community, non-profit, or
commercial retail space)
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 19
Current Standard: Around the California
Avenue District, if property owners want to
increase the intensity of a site and pursue the
PTOD overlay, first they must undergo a
rezoning to define the uses and intensities.
The overlay application is reviewed and
approved by the PTC and Council.
Concurrently, the ARB conducts Architectural
Review of the project design.
How the Current Standard Affects Development: To pursue this process, at a minimum, there
are three public meetings, though again, five meetings could be expected. Only two applicants
have sought out this rezoning since its inception in 2006 and the resulting projects provided
very few housing units (a total of 12 dwellings).
Potential Benefits and Impacts: This concept aims to allow 100% affordable housing projects at
a maximum of 80% of Area Median Income to receive the density and height benefits of the
PTOD designation by right. In other words, this density and height increases would be codified
in the base zoning district rather than requiring a separate legislative action by the PTC and
Council to apply the overlay.
The Architectural Review process by the ARB would be maintained to allow opportunities for
public input and maintain project review of context-based design criteria. However, the process
would provide an advantage to affordable housing projects by eliminating the burden of
legislative action. Opportunities for appeal would be maintained.
Notably, for a project proposing bonus density under State Density Bonus Law, this would
increase the FAR for the base project on which the bonus density is assessed, such that FAR
could be somewhat higher for a density bonus project. Likewise, this would increase the
maximum FAR allowable for a project seeking streamlined review under SB35, which requires a
City to ministerially approve projects that are consistent with the zoning code and that meet
certain affordability requirements.
E. Use Regulations/Mixed Use Requirements
Residential uses are generally only permitted as part of mixed use developments in the
Downtown, California Avenue, and many places along El Camino Real. This presents a challenge
to affordable and market-rate housing developers who are not in the retail business from both
financial and physical development standpoints. While ground-floor retail has been identified
as a clear priority by the City Council, these revisions seek to identify project types and
locations where 100% residential projects could be prioritized.
California Avenue CC(2)/PTOD Process
Rezoning to PTOD: PTC recommends and
establishes limits on allowable or required
uses, and intensity.
Council approves rezoning
Major architectural review w/ ARB
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 20
10. Consider modifying Chapter 18.40.180 (Retail Preservation) to exempt the following
types of projects from the Retail Preservation Ordinance:
a. 100% affordable projects (excluding manager’s unit)
Current Standard: In 2017, the City Council adopted a Retail Preservation Ordinance that
protects retail and retail-like uses from conversion to non-retail uses on a citywide basis. The
purpose of the ordinance is to retain neighborhood-serving retail for residents, avoid the loss of
sales tax revenue, prevent the higher lease rates from office uses from driving up lease rates for
retail uses, and prevent private ground-floor office uses from detracting from neighborhood
retail environments.
In general this means that retail space must be replaced on an equal square foot basis when a
property redevelops. The zoning code allows for waivers and adjustments, subject to approval
by the Planning Director, for reasons of economic hardship or demonstration of an alternative
viable active use.
How the Current Standard Affects Development: According to market rate and non-profit
developers, retail requirements can present a challenge to affordable and market-rate housing
developers who are not in the retail business—from both a financial standpoint—their
financing often does not include commercial development—and physically, since retail and
residential have different building code requirements, necessitating additional ingress/ egress,
mechanical and plumbing systems, and separate access and circulation for residents’ security.
These factors can reduce residential unit yield on a given site, which makes a project more
expensive and therefore reduces affordability.12
Staff and consultants conducted 24 informal
interviews between November 2016 and
January 2017 with developers/property
owners, small retail/personal service business
owners or store managers, architects, and
residents to solicit feedback on retail
preservation policies. Many stakeholders
tended to favor more flexibility in finding
tenants, based on current market conditions,
and expressed concern about a proliferation
in vacant spaces. Several stakeholders
thought that protections should only be
placed on University Avenue and the
intersecting side streets Downtown and
potentially on California Avenue, where the
retail markets are strongest. Property owners
12 Stakeholder Interview Summary, 2018.
801 Alma, a 50-unit affordable housing
development, was originally conceived to include
ground-floor retail. However, the financing and
logistics proved too complicated; ultimately, a
100% residential project was approved and
constructed.
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 21
and developers interviewed and/or who had requested waiver/exceptions have identified
challenges in leasing retail spaces in less prime locations, including areas further from the main
corridors of University Avenue, and on El Camino Real, despite at times lowering lease rates.13
Potential Benefits and Impacts: These retail protections have the benefit of preventing the
conversion of retail uses and therefore preclude office uses from occupying these spaces, which
was a key intent of the ordinance. However, the ordinance has an unintended consequence of
preventing ground-floor residential uses where they may be viable and in some cases a better
use than retail. Retail protection and affordable housing production are two key policy priorities
in the city. To balance this tradeoff, this idea would provide a narrow exemption of the Retail
Preservation Ordinance for affordable housing developments on sites outside of the GF overlay
Downtown and which do not front California Ave.
11. Consider modifying PAMC Chapters 18.40.180 (Retail Preservation) and 18.16
(Neighborhood, Community and Service Commercial District) to allow 100%
residential uses on El Camino Real between commercial nodes, consistent with the
South El Camino Real Design Guidelines:
a. Provide standards/guidelines for how to maintain ground-level interest
b. Consider exempting these sites from the Retail Preservation Ordinance
Current Standard: Use regulations in the zoning code
generally only permit multi-family residential uses as
part of mixed use developments in the Downtown,
California Avenue, and many places along El Camino
Real. The requirement for mixed use was a result of a
fairly recent zoning text change; previously, multi-
family residential housing use was allowed as a
stand-alone use in some commercial zones, such as
the CS zone along El Camino Real.
The Housing Element provides support for high
density nodes, though it is not explicit about types of
uses. The Comprehensive Plan identifies an approach
that is potentially inconsistent with the idea proposed here:
Policy L-4.4: Sites within or adjacent to existing commercial areas and corridors are
suitable for hotels. Give preference to housing versus hotel use on sites adjacent to
predominantly single-family neighborhoods.
Program H2.1.10: As a part of planning for the future of El Camino Real, explore the
identification of pedestrian nodes (i.e. “pearls on a string”) consistent with the South El
Camino Design Guidelines, with greater densities in these nodes than in other areas.
13 City of Palo Alto. City Council Staff Report: Retail Preservation Ordinance (First Reading). February 13, 2017
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/55798
South El Camino Real Design Guidelines’ nodes
and corridors concept
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 22
How the Current Standard Affects Development: See Idea #10 above.
Potential Benefits and Impacts: The South El Camino Real Design Guidelines acknowledge that a
continuous pedestrian-oriented environment along the 2+-mile corridor of El Camino Real is
unrealistic.14 Instead, the guidelines describe a “node” concept to focus investment in areas
with existing pedestrian amenities, retail uses, and good transit access.
To create an attractive, active appearance for residential development on the ground-floor,
while also maintaining privacy for residents, design standards and guidelines would be
required. For examples, lobby, stoops, community spaces, and work-out spaces could be
located on the ground floor to create visualize interest; individual units would not be permitted
to front El Camino Real.
F. Other Ideas Contemplated
Staff presents additional ideas for the PTC’s consideration below to facilitate Work Plan and
Comprehensive Plan goals. The PTC has either reviewed these ideas at a cursory level or not at
all. Some of these ideas would take more research and work on the part of staff and
consultants than can be completed before year’s end when the subject ordinance is slated for
approval. Staff is looking to gauge the Commission’s interest in carrying any of these ideas
forward for inclusion in a future ordinance.
12. Waive fees for developments that include at least 10% of housing units designated for
individuals/households with special needs at below-market levels. 15
The City already exempts 100% affordable housing projects and below-market rates units
beyond City requirements from various development fees: all development impact fees,
including new parks, community facilities, and traffic fees. Based on the City’s current fee
schedule, these fees total $12,783 per multi-family unit.16 This idea seeks to create an incentive
for below-market rate units for households with special needs by expanding the fee exemption.
For a 30-unit development, this could save a project, $383,500.
13. Modify PAMC Chapters 18.16 (Neighborhood, Community and Service Commercial
District) and 18.18 (Downtown Commercial District) to provide a bonus of up to 0.75
FAR and 10 feet of building height in the CD-C, CC(2)/PTOD and a bonus of up to 0.5
FAR in CN and CS districts on Camino Real, only for the following project/property
types:
a. 100% affordable housing projects (excluding manager’s unit)
14 City of Palo Alto. South El Camino Real Design Guidelines. May 2012: 13. 15 The Housing Element defines special needs groups as including disabled households, senior households, female-
headed households, single-parent households, large family households, overcrowded households, farm worker
households and homeless. City of Palo Alto. 2015-2023 Housing Element. November 10, 2014: 28. 16 City of Palo Alto. Development Impact and In-Lieu Fees. July 1, 2018.
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 23
b. Consolidation of two or more lots resulting in a parcel in excess of 10,000
square feet, but no more than 0.5 acres, to enable the residential development
of small sites.
Current Standard: Currently, the primary way for an affordable housing development to obtain
a density and/or height bonus is to propose a project under State Density Bonus Law. Existing
height standards are shown in Table 5; density and FAR standards are shown in Table 2, above.
According to stakeholders and the Downtown Development Cap residential analysis,
development is often limited by parcel size.17 Standards such as setbacks and open space that
require specific numerical metrics (e.g., 10 foot rear setback) affect small sites more acutely. As
noted in the study, many multi-family residential development examples found in the market
are located on large parcels, of which there are few remaining.
The following Housing Element policy supports this idea:
H2.1.6: Consider density bonuses and/or concessions including allowing greater
concessions for 100% affordable housing developments.
Table 5: Existing Height Standards, by Commercial Zoning District
Standard
CD-C
(Downtown)
CC(2)/PTOD
(Cal Ave.)
CN District
(El Camino)
CS District
(El Camino)
Maximum Height (feet) 50 40 (or 50 w/ BMR
units or hotels)
40 50
w/in 150’ of res. zone 40 n/a 35 35
Abutting RM-40 or res. PC 50 n/a 35 50
Source: City of Palo Alto Municipal Code, August 2018.
How the Current Standard Affects Development: Stakeholders acknowledge that small sites can
be difficult to develop since they cannot always achieve a unit yield that makes a site viable for
development. Stakeholders expressed reluctance to propose projects under State Density
Bonus Law, for fear that higher densities and heights would not be supported; rather, they
generally prefer to propose projects that are consistent with the zoning code in order to move
through the entitlement process more quickly.18
Potential Benefits and Impacts: Assembling parcels is challenging in Palo Alto, given the price of
land and disparate ownership stakes throughout the city. An FAR of 0.5 to 0.75 and/or 10-foot
height bonus would allow for an additional floor of residential development and may provide a
real incentive to complete a deal for a site that is appropriate for development.
Notably, for an applicant proposing a bonus density under State Density Bonus Law, this would
increase the FAR for the base project on which the bonus density is assessed, such that FAR
could be even higher for a density bonus project. Likewise, this would increase the maximum
17 Dyett & Bhatia and EPS, 2007. 18 Stakeholder Interview Summary, 2018.
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 24
FAR allowable for a developer seeking streamlined review under SB35, which requires a City to
ministerially approve projects that are consistent with the zoning code and that meet certain
affordability requirements.
To alleviate concerns about heavy massing on small sites, and related traffic and parking
concerns, the lot consolidation incentive is bracketed to encourage assembly of sites that
results in a site greater than 10,000 sq. ft., but no more than 0.5 acres in size.
According to stakeholders, on El Camino Real, it is challenging for residential developers to get
to the height limits of 40 and 50 feet in the CN and CS districts, respectively, based on the 50%
lot coverage limit and the FAR limits of 0.5 and 0.6, respectively. Allowing an additional 0.5 FAR
for these specific types of projects could allow a developer to actually achieve the height limit
allowed, while not affecting daylight plane and other height requirements adjacent to
residential zones.
These changes could facilitate the development of sites that are currently non-viable for
residential projects based on their small size and unit yield, in addition to affordable housing
project specifically.
14. Within one-half mile of a fixed rail station, count multi-family residential uses or the
residential component of a mixed use development at 50% square footage (i.e.,
effectively doubling the FAR). Notably, a project would still need to fit within the
envelope determined by other required development standards.
This new idea seeks to provide an incentive for residential use over the development of office
or other non-residential uses. Offering double FAR can help to overcome the lower construction
costs and higher lease rates of office uses.
15. Modify the Workforce Housing Overlay to accommodate a potential teacher housing
project.
This idea would need to be explored further as the potential project progresses.
16. Consider allowing residential uses to pay a fee in lieu of providing parking on site:
c. Consider allowing housing developments to participate in the in-lieu parking
program for the Downtown Parking Assessment District.
d. Consider establishing a parking in-lieu fee program for California Avenue.
The City’s district regulations create some bias toward development of non-residential uses
over residential uses. In terms of parking, non-residential uses have the option of paying into
the Downtown Parking Assessment District in lieu of providing parking on site. Given the high
cost of land and the value of office lease rates, developers often choose to pay into the District
and maximize their leasable area. Residential uses do not have this option.
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 25
Commissioners have expressed mixed support for this idea. Additionally, some stakeholders
have suggested that the current in-lieu fee would be too high for a residential developer to
bear and would need to be reduced from $70,094/space in order to be a viable option. A similar
parking in-lieu fee could be developed for California Avenue for both residential and non-
residential uses.
Relationship to Housing Work Plan/Council Referral
The table below analyses how each of the ordinance framework items fits into the Housing
Work Plan referral to the PTC.
Table 6: Relationship between Work Plan Items and Proposed Ordinance Framework
Ordinance Framework Ideas Work Plan Items Referred for PTC Input
2.4 Provide incentives and remove constraints for
multifamily housing in the Downtown (CD-C), Cal Ave
(CC(2)/PTOC), and El Camino Real (CN and CS) districts,
including:
#4: Allow rooftop gardens to qualify as usable
open space
#5: Simplify open space standards
2.4.1 Review and revise development standards
(e.g. landscaping, open space)
#1: Eliminate residential density standards in
the CD-C, CC(2), CN, CS, and PTOD districts
2.4.2. Consider eliminating dwelling unit densities
and relying on FAR and average unit sizes
#10: Provide exemptions from the Retail
Preservation Ordinance for 100% affordable
projects
#11: Allow 100% residential projects on El
Camino Real, outside activity nodes
2.4.3 Review and revise permitted uses and use mix
(e.g. allow 100% residential w/ground floor retail)
#8: Eliminate Site & Design Review
#9: Streamline PTOD regulations for 100%
affordable projects
2.4.4 Review and revise level of permitting and plan
review required
*16: Allow residential uses to pay a fee in lieu
of providing parking on site in Downtown and
California Ave.
*Other: Transportation Division staff are
currently updating guidelines for
administering, monitoring and enforcing TDM
programs
2.4.5 Allow parking reductions based on TDM plans
and on payment of parking in lieu fees for housing
(Downtown and Cal Ave). Update the TDM
Ordinance to the extent that it does not already
include metrics of measurements,
accomplishments, and enforcement, include these
metrics.
#3: Allow residential development to utilize all
existing FAR allowance
2.4.6 Convert some non-residential FAR to
residential FAR
*#12: Waive fees for special needs housing
*#15: Modify Workforce Housing Overlay to
accommodate a potential teacher housing
project
2.4.7 Remove constraints to special needs housing
*#13: Provide density bonuses for 100% 2.4.8 Increase Floor Area Ratio (FAR) in the
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 26
Ordinance Framework Ideas Work Plan Items Referred for PTC Input
affordable projects and lot consolidation
*#14: Provide bonus density for all multi-
family residential projects
Downtown, California Avenue, and El Camino Real
areas
#2: Modify residential density standards in the
RM-15 district
2.5 Support multifamily housing in the multifamily
(RM) zoning districts by:
i. Consider establishment of minimum densities in all
RM zones
ii. Allow redevelopment (replacement) of existing
residential units on sites that are nonconforming
because of the number of units or FAR
2.6 Provide incentives and remove constraints in all
zoning districts, including:
#6: Adjust parking requirements based on
empirical study
#7: Exempt 1,500 s.f. of ground floor retail
parking
2.6.1 Adjustment to parking requirements to reduce
costs (based on an ongoing study of parking
demand by housing type and location); identify the
appropriate amount of parking for various housing
types and locations, taking into account parking
mitigations
* = Ideas listed as “Other Items for Consideration” above which would need to be pursued through
separate initiatives or ordinance due to time, resource, or other constraints.
Source: Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment, August 2018
Environmental Review
The City Council certified a Final EIR (http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/wp-
content/uploads/2017/08/PaloAltoCompPlanFEIR_Aug2017.pdf) on November 13, 2017 to
analyze potential impacts associated with the updated Comprehensive Plan. The 2018
Comprehensive Plan Implementation and Housing Ordinance will be evaluated pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) once a draft ordinance is prepared. It is anticipated
that the Ordinance will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and its Final EIR. At this
time, no substantially greater or more severe impacts are anticipated and no development is
proposed, beyond what is allowed by the Comprehensive Plan.
Next Steps
An anticipated timeline for development of the ordinance is provided in the table below.
Table 7: Project Timeline
Meeting Type Topic Date
PTC Study Session Review objectives for housing work plan and city
council direction
March 14
(completed)
PTC Study Session
Overview of issues, including key findings from an
analysis of residential capacity in Downtown
April 25
(completed)
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 27
PTC Study Session
Parking, including key findings from an analysis of
residential parking demand
May 30
(completed)
Community Meeting Present and receive feedback on ordinance
framework ideas
June 28
(completed)
PTC Study Session Framework for ordinance August 29
ARB Hearing Review of rooftop open space design standards September 20
PTC Hearing Review Draft Ordinance September 26
PTC Hearing
(continued, if needed)
Recommendation on Draft Ordinance (as revised) October 10
City Council Hearing Draft Ordinance (First Reading) November 13
Report Author & Contact Information PTC19 Liaison & Contact Information
Jean Eisberg, Consultant Planner Jonathan Lait, AICP, Assistant Director
(415) 841-3539 (650) 329-2679
jean@lexingtonplanning.com jonathan.lait@cityofpaloalto.org
Attachments:
Attachment A: Housing Work Plan_Stakeholder Summary (DOCX)
Attachment B: Housing Work Plan_Community Open House Summary (DOCX)
Attachment C: Revised Multifamily Parking Report (PDF)
Attachment D: Massing Studies by Use (PDF)
19 Emails may be sent directly to the PTC using the following address: planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.org
1
City of Palo Alto - Housing Work Plan
2018 Comp Plan/Housing Ordinance
STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEW SUMMARY
This memo summarizes findings from 16 stakeholder meetings (22 individuals) conducted in
April and May 2018. The list of stakeholders is provided in Appendix A. An overarching
summary and key findings by topic are provided below, along with excerpted quotations
from the interviews.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
Generally, stakeholders agreed with the direction of the Council referral, including
streamlining the review process and reducing zoning constraints. Density and parking were
cited as the major constraints to configuring a site in terms of site planning, massing, and the
number of units attainable. There was a general sense that the current zoning does not
support the City’s stated goals of multifamily housing, and a recommendation that the City
instead allow the types of developments that it wants “by right” and/or through
modifications to density, parking, and related standards. Stakeholders expressed frustration
about the length of time the entitlement process takes due to multiple reviewing bodies and
instead recommended having one review body conduct design review based on a clear set of
standards.
FINDINGS BY TOPIC
The following represent key findings from the stakeholder meetings. Unless otherwise
indicated, these findings represent areas of consensus and/or reflect the perspectives of the
majority of stakeholders.
Development & Design Standards
Need more zoning flexibility, especially on small sites
There is no zoning designation that allows multifamily residential development at an
economy of scale; sites are too small or standards do not allow viable densities
Parking and floor area ratio tend to be the development standards that are the most
limiting to site planning and unit yield
FAR is more relevant than residential density; the latter—in addition to parking and
other development standards—leads to larger units, which are less affordable; the
two standards tend to complete with one another
2
Perspectives on height as a limiting factor
were mixed—some stakeholders ran into
limitations presented by height limits, while
others were not able to achieve the height
limit due to other development standard
constraints; several stakeholders remarked
that height can be an issue if they are trying
to build a taller first floor height for retail
Desire for more flexibility in how open space
requirements can be achieved—through
rooftops, common, or private spaces; noise
and screening can be handled
Densities and heights could be higher along
University Ave., California Ave., and El
Camino Real; some stakeholders also
mentioned Alma Street
Perspectives on the context-based design
criteria were mixed; while some stakeholders
find them to be subjective and not
necessarily aligned, others think that they provide flexibility for the designer and are
not overly prescriptive compared to other nearby communities
A few stakeholders noted site planning constraints when addressing city transformer
location requirements and removal of specimen trees.
Parking
Required parking ratios do not reflect demand
Parking requirements are high compared to nearby communities and tend to drive
site planning, commercial floor area, and unit yield
Parking ratios should account for proximity to Caltrain stations and reductions for
bike parking and shared parking
Parking requirements should be more flexible in Downtown and Cal Ave. where
there is less demand and higher costs; ideas include: shared parking, tandem
configurations, off-site locations, allowing projects to pay into the assessment
districts and encouraging use of parking lifts
In addition to the number of stalls required, drive aisle requirements, back-up
distances, stall sizes that can make site planning challenging
Excerpts from the Interviews
“Fundamental issue is disconnect between a
desire for housing production in certain locations
and what the zoning allows”
“To meet the Housing Work Plan goals, the
City needs to make it feasible; currently, it’s
not.”
“We don’t have zoning in this town to make
multifamily development work”
“Not every unit of housing is the type of housing
that you would want to live in, like a micro
unit; likewise some people do not want a single-
family home with a yard that they have to
maintain.”
“We don’t need to build parking for people who
don’t have cars”
3
Parking becomes a major expense when its required to go underground
Many people living in multifamily housing use alternate travel modes—Caltrain,
Uber, Marguerite shuttle, etc.; they don’t need parking spaces
Project Review Process
Generally, developers try to conform to the
zoning standards to avoid any discretionary
review, but do not have the sense that it
reduces the time it takes to work through the
entitlement process
Planning staff are helpful in helping applicants
navigate the entitlement process
Perspectives on the Architectural Review
Board (ARB) review were mixed; while many
stakeholders stated that the ARB review tends to be subjective, unpredictable, and
does not always provide clear direction, others acknowledge receiving useful feedback
Hearing process is too long and unpredictable; the back-and-forth between ARB,
Planning & Transportation Commission (PTC) and City Council is frustrating and
time-consuming; process often leads to arbitrary requests and added requirements
Commissions have too much discretion about elements unrelated to the code;
hearing bodies focus on elements outside their purview
The entitlement process takes so long that the market has changed 2 to 4 years later; a
project may no longer be feasible between changes in the market, construction costs,
and additional requirements applied during the entitlement process
Process is too onerous to go through for small projects; need to have a sizeable
project to make it worthwhile
Staff Department Review Committee happens too early in the process and tends to
be boilerplate comments
On the other hand, pre-application review process and early meeting with the ARB is
generally seen as valuable
Several stakeholders suggested having a staff member act as point person (across
departments) to shepherd the project through the entitlement process while staying
focused on the big picture project purpose
Excerpts from the Interviews
“I spend 10x time on my Palo Alto project
compared to projects in other cities and it’s not
making the project better [just more expensive]”
“Construction hard costs have gone up 35%
since the project started; we’re on the fence about
whether it made sense to build what’s been
approved”
4
Uses, including Retail Protections and Office Market
Commercial, office and R&D markets are
softer than they used to be; housing demand
tends not to waver, making it a good long-
term investment
Little desire to participate in office cap
contest; office cap may have had an effect on
applications, but office market is reaching its
capacity
Ground-floor retail requirements are
challenging; reasons cited include: high
parking requirements, displaces potential
units, hard for affordable housing developers
seeking tax credits; changing nature of retail
makes finding a viable tenant difficult
Retail Protection Ordinance does not make sense, since it’s not market driven; tenant
spaces may stay vacant
Several stakeholders recommended consolidating retail in key locations, rather than
requiring it everywhere
Excerpts from the Interviews
“Residential development doesn’t pencil in the
Downtown right now: the sites are too small, you
need separate egress, stairs, and access to do
residential and retail; let residential come down
to first floor or office on the ground floor [which
pays the rent]”
“Office development is lucrative, but well-
capitalized investors don’t need a quick return;
developers here are in it for the long haul and
will respond to the City’s pro-housing policies”
5
Appendix A: Stakeholders Interviewed
1. Architarian Design
2. Bentall Kennedy
3. Center for Continuing Study of the CA Economy
4. Eden Housing
5. FGY (Fergus, Garber, Young) Architecture
6. Golden Gate Homes
7. Hayes Group
8. Lighthouse Public Affairs
9. Mid Pen Housing
10. Palo Alto Housing
11. Sand Hill
12. Sobrato Organization
13. SV@Home
14. Thoits Brothers
15. TOPOS Architecture
16. Windy Hill
1
City of Palo Alto - Housing Work Plan
2018 Comp Plan/Housing Ordinance
COMMUNITY OPEN HOUSE SUMMARY
This memo summarizes findings from the community open house on housing, held on June
28, 2018 at the Downtown Public Library. Over 30 community members attended the
meeting which included a presentation, open house of “idea stations” that allowed
participants to interact with staff and other participants one-on-one or in small groups, and a
debrief to share community members’ comments.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
Participants expressed a range of perspective on housing needs and proposed ideas to spur
housing production. There was little consensus about the adopted goals of the Comp Plan,
Housing Element and direction proposed in the Housing Work Plan. While some
participants supported revisions to development standards and review processes to
streamline housing production, others were concerned about impacts of new development
on existing neighborhoods, traffic, and services.
Ideas for revisions to parking regulations were the most controversial topic: some
participants were concerned that reductions in parking requirements would lead to spillover
parking in neighborhoods; others supported requirements that more closely matched
demand, especially for populations with lower parking demand such as seniors, homeless,
and low income households. There was more consensus about ideas about how to balance
housing and retail; participants were generally supportive of allowing more 100% residential
projects and letting retail develop where it makes sense (i.e., Downtown, Cal Ave. and other
significant corridors or nodes), rather than requiring it everywhere. Likewise, while the
majority of participants seemed to agree with ideas for how to streamline project review for
projects that were consistent with the zoning ordinance, some participants wanted to
maintain the current project review process.
MEETING NOTES
Density and Development Standards
Support higher density near public transportation
Consider more multi‐generational housing and consider more floor area for that type
of housing
Increase floor area, height, density; especially for Below Market Rate housing but
maintain high quality of architecture
2
Supportive of higher density but not at the expense of higher parking needs that can’t
be met or higher open space ratios that can’t be met without rooftop open space
(note: rooftop open space not great in small lot areas)
Modify R‐1 zoning to have flexibility to construct multifamily project that’s walkable
to commercial/amenities
On large residential lots, have incentives to build smaller residential units (i.e. ADU)
Supportive of height increases – especially for projects with grand floor retail
preservation or affordable. President’s hotel a great example of high density, taller
building that works.
Rooftop open space
London – upper most floor has to be available to general public as open space
Supportive of eliminating density and increasing FAR to allow for more floors
Use FAR as metric to determine how many units are allowed
Zone for multifamily and reduced unit sizes for new demographics: fewer 4 or more
person families and more 2 or even 1 person households
Map affordable housing combining district overlay onto candidate areas of city
Raise height limit! Allow 5 or 6 stories on El Camino. At least 4 stories on corridors.
Cal Ave, University, Hamilton, Lytton, Alma. Allow more mass up to 50 or 100 yards
in from corridors
Zone a lot of areas in city to support multifamily. Allow duplexes and triplexes on
previously only – R1 lots to help “missing middle”.
Allow higher FAR for multifamily and main + ADU
I would support offering bonus for affordable projects especially to meet the needs
of Developmentally Disabled
Support the ideas here, great to offer incentives + bonuses in support of affordable
developments or based on percentage/level of affordability
Density in “transit rich” areas sounds good, but very few Palo Altans would brag that
any part of our city (w/possible exception of University Station) is transit rich
People with intellectual + developmental disabilities would benefit from an incentive
to build affordable units for extremely low income individuals, but would need open
floor plans to navigate their space
3
Stanford GUP updated DEIR shows that residential uses require much more diverse
access to other parts of town (school, childcare, grocery, etc.) for which our transit
options are meager. How will densities be tied to more appropriate transportation
options for residential projects DEIR also concluded that TDM is not very effective
for those residential transportation needs. Solving the transportation problem must
either precede or go in tandem with dense housing development.
To encourage housing, don’t use 2 standards, FAR + units/acre. Too restrictive.
Allow FAR to be the constraint not units/acre. But really need more FAR + height
to accommodate more units + affordable units
Rezone office to housing. Keep 50’ height limit and sufficient parking
Housing in Stanford Research Park and Shopping Center
Wish there was an opportunity for general public to get a primer on what the impacts
of reduced standards are. How can they assess whether certain incentives are
worthwhile when they only hear the benefits and not the costs/impacts?
Why aren’t ALL development/density standard reductions tied to PRIORITY project
types? Impacts are born by neighbors. Why are zoning “subsidies” offered evenly to
all project types, regardless of connection to community needs?
Against raising 50’ height limit in City. Maintain this throughout City. Adding density
without adding the proper infrastructures (road improvements, water systems, etc.) –
and schools – is bad for everyone.
Strong housing overlay to incentivize housing development over office. Keep 50’
height limit, keep parking
Housing and Retail
Require housing with commercial development
Less constraints on 100% affordable residential - No requirement for retail
Need to be cautious when near Single-Family neighborhood
o No parking reductions
o Under parked currently
Utilize RPP in appropriate places
It would be preferable to have people live and work in Palo Alto, if not then you
can’t live in Palo Alto
Strict monitoring of concessions
4
Protect retail
Exempt parking requirements for commercial use in mixed use
Encourage mixed use
Encourage 100% residential
Discourage exclusive 100% commercial
Strive for building jobs/housing balance
Mixed use or small mall between Page Mill and Charleston
Don’t let parking limit housing. Should not be driver
Increase height max
Don’t support retail that isn’t supported by market
Consider allowing denser residential density in R-1 zoning near transit Community
Notes
Save President Housing!
Allow more mixed use developments – people living over retail or commercial
Do not require retail for housing other than in commercial/transit served centers
such as Cal Ave, University/Hamilton/Lytton. Do not spread up and down El
Camino where retail will increase parking requirements that will escalate cost of
housing.
Limit ground floor retail exceptions to narrowly defined housing affordability @ up
to 80% AMI is our most needed supply. Save incentives (form of public subsidy) for
most needed housing.
As we incentivize housing (of any price) via our zoning code, do we have any
mechanism to reign it back in if necessary? We went “big” on office last decade and
now we’ve created a new “crisis” for housing. How do we avoid careening from crisis
to crisis?
Do not force retail sake. The market will dictate what works and what will die.
Forcing grocery stores as a requirement is not a good idea – College Terrace Market
was a prime example. Put retail in the places, not all places
Compact/dense Housing is needed when office expands.
o Existing housing needs to be protected because it already houses the mix
which is needed for effective balance of skills
o Does City have interest in retaining existing or only propose new ones?
5
Maintain the apartments at the President Hotel
Be more creative with mix use development
Strongly support Idea #1 (priority locals for retail). Identify where retail is viable,
consider both affordable and market rate housing in entirety on mixed use sites
Keep the apartments at President Hotel as residential units! They provide retail
below, housing for 80+ people and have historic character!
o YES!!
I support the Retail Preservation Ordinance. We need to support retail – small
business in town. In North Ventura there might be places for 100% residential but
not along major roads (Park Blvd.)
Retail requirements only make sense if the market will support. They required a
grocery at College Terrace, no one shopped there it closed. Lack of housing, much
more important than forcing unsupported retail.
Require developers to provide housing for a significant % of new development
It is my opinion that structures in the City of Palo Alto that fit within the concept
and vision of housing and retail should be focused on and guided towards the City’s
stated goals and visions. Example: Presidential Hotel at 488 University Avenue
o It has retail
o It has residential (affordable)
o It could have a few floors of Hotel. That seems like multi use without
compromise!
If require ground floor retail for affordable housing, must allow more
height/mass/units and fund parking and fill funding gaps lost because retail and extra
parking eliminate eligibility for tax credits. Same for ground floor office. Eliminate
retail/office and “excel” parking requirements for affordable.
Parking Requirements
Concern about subsidizing public parking when residents don’t park in garage or
projects do not provide sufficient parking
Housing people is more important than parking cars
Need to provide housing and accommodate parking
Need realistic regulations – don’t over park
6
Look into incentivize foot traffic residents or individuals who don’t use cars to get to
work
Housing for people who don’t want to use cars, example: The President Hotel
Reduce parking
Concern about spillover parking in neighborhood
Extremely low income households don’t have cars/demand
Provide transit passes
Residents parking on-street not in their single-family home garages, reducing parking
supply
Add loading space for Uber/Lyft pick-up for multi-family/disabled housing
How to deal with rental housing with more than one or two renters – where do 5
renters park? Single vs multifamily
Please don’t pretend poor people won’t own cars or won’t have visitors
Yes to using surveyed parking demand rate rather than old numbers!!! For instance,
DD only use 3 (including staff & parent use)
Do not increase parking requirement for residential by requiring ground-level retail
except perhaps in retail business centers such as Cal Ave &
University/Hamilton/Lytton
Allow more car share cars (Zip Car) around denser areas of town so families can get
rid of their second car
Don’t provide less parking than needed
How did traffic consultants decide on their recommendations? Did they survey
current residents?
We need to build more for people not for cars. People’s habits are and will continue
to change. Traditional parking requirements are no longer applicable and severely and
negatively affect housing opportunities. Parking needs to be relaxed in the right
locations, near transit.
Understanding impacts on on-street parking is fundamentally important
o If impact from studied sites is low now, how will that change with cumulative
additional demands created by new developments?
o How does “unbundling” impact up take of on-street parking use” doesn’t it
incentivize on-street parking?
7
Parking study should also account for overlap of parking claims?
o Can a tenant reject unbundled parking cost in favor of an RPP permit?
o Do they claim both?
Parking permit programs for new development areas:
1. People parking for their job will take fewer spaces that belong to residents
2. Residents will have to think about owning 2‐3 cars because they need to pay $X
per year for each car. This is especially true for developments near public
transportation
How is it possible to expand Commercial & Retail and not provide an abundance of
parking?
o Answer: provide mass transit from choke points:
o Provide an abundance of Uber/Lyft/pickup transitional transit
o On call services?
o Reducing lanes does not work. But continues traffic jam longer/smog
Don’t change parking requirements. I live in a multi-residential complex at Cal
Avenue – we need more parking – not less! We need at the very least one parking
space for every unit
The City should care more about housing humans than cars. The City should make
walkable communities that have higher density housing near transit. Disincentivise
car ownership by charging for parking. Free parking adds to traffic and is bad policy
No! Have you been to Los Robles Avenue after Buena Vista put requirements on
resident parking? The street is full of cars for blocks in either direction
Parking requirements keep Palo Alto from meeting its housing goals
Free parking for all developments. Residents should not have to pay for more under
parked projects
Explore dincentivizing driving
Project Review Process
Combine roles of ARB and PTC and ensure no loss of oversight
Yes, do things to help housing to move through the process faster
Yes, but make sure that it is for projects that are increasing housing supply (more
units than any lost onsite)
8
Please consider ways of not promoting displacement of existing residents (ex,
President Hotel)
PTOD projects can be helpful to individuals with developmental disabilities who are
extremely low-income and rely on public transportation
Think about those with disabilities who may benefit from PTOD housing
Send notices on new housing projects to people on the affordable housing waiting list
Streamline and speed up review of single-family housing
4 years is too long! Just ARB is good because they get into site and design too! Most
projects have many hearings anyway!
Yes to PTOD bonus for affordable housing. Also allow for project with say, 50%
VLI or ELI
If ADU’s are actually a priority reduce fees and process so average homeowners can
feasibly build them
Give developer the option for one-stop or multi-step process
Streamlining approval of housing is important to meeting goals of adding to PA’s
housing stock market rate and affordable
Providing incentives for affordable developments (include 100% affordable) to
streamline or increase density is important
Streamlining should be careful not to hurt neighbors or quality
Allow 4 families to purchase a tear down single-family home and build a 4-unit condo
together. Change zoning near train stations to allow these
o $3M teardown + $2M to build 4 units = $5M/4 families = $1.25M/family =
attainable housing!
Streamline even more – still a hard process for projects to get through!
Speed up the review process for residential developments that increase supply
Increase barriers for development that eliminates or decreases housing supply
Do reduce process requirements. If project meets zoning, facilitate speed
Developers want new process – better process
Look at bigger picture – 3 boards is a lot – but we do good things!
Support streamlining so long as no big downside to quality of development. Still
needs to meet zoning
9
Process is intimidating – not incentivizing! Need constructive, focused criticism
process
Does City concern itself with existing dense housing which could be changed for
Commercial/Hotel/Office? If 2nd story gets a special review why does city architect
gets to dictate only his ideas, shouldn’t he be a local architect retained?
#1 NO!! Process should not be eliminated!!
No, absolutely not! This attempts to subvert feedback and review at the expense of
devel9per expedience. What projects would actually benefit?
Eliminate process! Good authoritarian IDEA. Trump would agree
Streamlining the review process strictly for the benefit of developers is bad. The City
should be serving its residents first. Citizen input is vital on projects that affect their
neighborhood
No on #2 (PTOD by right). Important for people to input on PTOD projects – not
by right
Other
Need more senior housing
Displacement is a concern of people with disabilities
Prioritize housing for people that live and work in Palo Alto
Stronger tenant laws
City needs to stand behind tenants
Rent control & stabilization
Rental units
Affordable housing preservation
Please for “In-laws” and ADU’s lowering the cost of putting in sewer lines, etc. that
can be actually “add-ons” to existing. $20,000 many years ago stopped my mother
from completing an ADU which a family member could be using now. $20k is too
HIGH we don’t have it!
City of Palo Alto
Multi-Family Residential Development
(Rental) Parking Rate Study
Prepared for:
City of Palo Alto
August 2018
SJ16-1668
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................ 1
1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 1
2. Available Reports and Studies ........................................................................................................... 3
3. Parking Surveys .................................................................................................................................. 9
Previous Parking Surveys ..................................................................................................................................... 9
New Parking Surveys .......................................................................................................................................... 14
Selected Survey Sites .................................................................................................................................. 14
Methodology & Results ............................................................................................................................... 18
Data Analysis ............................................................................................................................................... 22
General Observations .................................................................................................................................. 24
4. Conclusions ......................................................................................................................................25
Appendices
Appendix A: Summary Tables from Previous Parking Studies
Appendix B: New Parking Survey Results
Appendix C: Resident Intercept Survey Results
List of Figures
Figure 1: Previous Parking Survey Locations ........................................................................................................... 13
Figure 2: New Parking Survey Locations .................................................................................................................. 15
List of Tables
Table 1: Available Multi-Family Residential Parking Survey Results ...................................................................... 10
Table 2: Selected Multi-Family Complexes .............................................................................................................. 14
Table 3: Parking Inventories at Survey Sites............................................................................................................ 19
Table 4: New Multi-Family Residential Parking Survey Results .............................................................................. 21
Table 5: Peak Parking Demand Rates by Housing Type.......................................................................................... 24
Palo Alto Multi-Family Residential Development (Rental) Parking Rate Study
August 2018
i
This page is intentionally left blank.
Palo Alto Multi-Family Residential Development (Rental) Parking Rate Study
August 2018
ES-1
Executive Summary
Fehr & Peers conducted this study to provide the City of Palo Alto with parking demand rate data for rental
multi-family residential developments (apartments) including market rate, affordable, and senior housing
projects at sites located at varying distances to fixed rail transit stations and/or major bus routes. The
following was observed regarding the nine sites in Palo Alto and the survey results:
· The Affordable Housing complexes have a higher proportion of two and three-bedroom units, the
Market Rate complexes generally have more one-bedroom than two+ bedroom units, and the
Senior Housing complexes are comprised of primarily one-bedroom units.
· On a per-unit basis, the lowest parking demand rates were observed at the Senior Housing
complexes and the highest at Affordable Housing complexes. On a per bedroom basis, the
Affordable and Senior Housing sites had comparable rates while Market Rate units had the highest
rates.
· Resident experiences at The Marc indicate that residents prefer to park at the apartment complex
instead of on the street and that residents view having available parking/empty spaces any time of
day as the “right amount of parking.” (Therefore, a complex where the supply is closer to the peak
demand may be viewed as having “too little” parking since vacant spaces may be hard to find or
inconvenient.)
Fehr & Peers used the survey results to develop parking supply rates. A conservative approach was taken
to develop the rates to reflect community concerns regarding neighborhood parking intrusion.
Affordable Housing:
· 1.0 parking space per studio and per 1-bedroom unit
· 2.0 parking spaces per 2-bedroom or larger unit
Reserved parking, if provided, could be limited to one space per unit to maximize parking space availability.
Market Rate Housing:
· 1.0 parking space per studio and per 1-bedroom unit
· 2.0 parking spaces per 2-bedroom or larger unit
Reserved parking, if provided, could be limited to one space per unit to maximize parking space availability.
Senior Housing:
· 0.75 spaces per unit
ES-2
This page is intentionally left blank.
Palo Alto Multi-Family Residential Development (Rental) Parking Rate Study
August 2018
1
1. Introduction
This study was conducted to provide the City of Palo Alto with parking rate data for rental multi-family
residential developments (apartments) including market rate, affordable, and senior housing projects at
sites located at varying distances to fixed rail transit stations and major bus routes. This study includes
information from available reports, documents, studies, and the results of surveys conducted as part of this
study. Fehr & Peers obtained the results of previous surveys conducted at various apartment complexes in
the South Bay, and included them for informational purposes. Parking supply rates based on the Palo Alto
survey results are provided at the conclusion of this report.
2
This page is intentionally left blank.
Palo Alto Multi-Family Residential Development (Rental) Parking Rate Study
August 2018
3
2. Available Reports and Studies
Fehr & Peers reviewed several reports and studies that included parking demand rates for multi-family
market rate, affordable, and senior residential developments in the Bay Area near rail stations (Caltrain, Bay
Area Rapid Transit (BART), and light rail transit (LRT)). Industry standard parking generation sources and
studies from Los Angeles and San Diego that include parking data for affordable housing were also
reviewed. These reports and studies are:
· Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority’s (VTA’s) A Parking Utilization Survey of Transit-
Oriented Development Residential Properties in Santa Clara County
· Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s (MTC’s) Reforming Parking Policies to Support Smart
Growth
· Transform’s GreenTRIP Parking Database
· Robert Cervero, et al, University of California Transportation Center, UCTC Research Paper No. 882
Are TODs Over-Parked?
· Los Angeles Department of City Planning’s Local Trip Generation Study
· City of San Diego’s San Diego Affordable Housing Parking Study
· Institute of Transportation Engineers, Parking Generation, 4th edition
These reports and the general results that are applicable to parking demand rates for the City of Palo Alto
are summarized in the following sections.
A Parking Utilization Survey of Transit-Oriented Development
Residential Properties in Santa Clara County
This research project was completed by Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) and San Jose
State University in 2010. Twelve TOD residential properties near light rail and Caltrain stations in Santa Clara
County were surveyed as part of the study. (A table from this report summarizing the results included in
Appendix A.) The study does not specify whether the surveyed properties are market rate, affordable, or
senior housing; it is likely that they are market rate properties. The parking supply rates ranged from 1.31
to 2.31 spaces per unit with an average of 1.68 spaces per unit, whereas the peak parking demand rates
ranged from 0.84 to 1.54 spaces per unit with an average of 1.31 spaces per unit. The study found that the
parking supply exceeded the parking demand at every site surveyed indicating that the code requirements
for the city they are located in may be too high. This research project shows overall that parking demand at
residences near a transit station is less than current zoning code requirements.
4
Reforming Parking Policies to Support Smart Growth
The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) developed this handbook to help city officials,
politicians, and planners with the planning and implementation of parking policies and programs that will
support transit–oriented development (TOD). The document is intended to allow users to explore potential
parking strategies that have been shown to work in different types of communities, identify best practices
about policies and programs, and establish implementation guidelines to best gain the support of the
public. It includes representative parking requirements for four types of land uses in five different location
types. The rates for residential units in suburban centers/town centers range from 1.00 to 1.50 spaces per
unit. Although the report does not differentiate among market rate, affordable, or senior housing, it is likely
that these rates are for market rate properties.
TransForm’s GreenTRIP Parking Database
TransForm’s GreenTRIP Parking Database (http://database.greentrip.org/) is a compilation of data gathered
at approximately 80 multi-family residential sites in the San Francisco Bay Area. It includes the building
location, place type (e.g. transit town center or city center), type of residence (family, senior, diverse abilities,
condominium), percent of units below market rate, number of units, number of parking spaces, parking
utilization, parking supply rate, parking demand rate, and traffic reduction strategies in place. The database
can provide insight into why parking use fluctuates based on location, transit access, and TDM strategies.
The GreenTRIP Parking Database allows data filtering for the study site parameters listed above. For the all-
residential, senior housing study sites in Santa Clara County, parking demand rates range from 0.27 to 0.71
spaces per unit. For the all-residential, non-senior housing study sites that are 50 to 100% below market
rate (affordable housing) in Santa Clara County, parking demand rates range from 0.96 to 1.34 spaces per
unit.
Some other relevant example results are:
· 801 Alma in Palo Alto (0.3 miles from a Caltrain station) with 50 units, 60 parking spaces (1.20 spaces
per unit), and a peak parking demand of 1.02 spaces per unit,
· Madera Apartments in Mountain View (0.1 miles from a Caltrain station) with 203 units, 279 parking
spaces (1.37 spaces per unit), and a peak parking demand of 0.88 spaces per unit, and
· Arbor Terrace Apartments in Sunnyvale (0.2 miles from a VTA Rapid 522 stop) with 175 units, 359
parking spaces (2.05 spaces per unit), and a peak parking demand of 1.37 spaces per unit
Palo Alto Multi-Family Residential Development (Rental) Parking Rate Study
August 2018
5
Are TODs Over-Parked
Robert Cervero at the University of California Transportation Center (UCTC) led this study with the University
of California, Berkeley. The study finds that parking demand rates for residential units at transit-oriented
developments (TODs) in the San Francisco Bay Area ranged from 0.74 to 1.69 spaces per unit, averaging
1.20 spaces per unit. For all surveyed sites, the average parking supply was 1.59 spaces per dwelling unit. (A
table from this report summarizing the results is included in Appendix A.) The study does not specify
whether the surveyed properties are market rate, affordable, or senior housing; based on a review of the
survey locations, most, if not all, are market rate properties. Varying development contexts explains the
range in peak parking demand rates. Well-established sites with complementary land uses (such as office,
restaurant, health club, hotel, and retail uses) had lower parking demand rates, while less dense and less
diverse sites had higher parking demand rates.
Los Angeles Trip Generation Study
In 2015 Fehr & Peers conducted a parking study in conjunction with a trip generation study for the Los
Angeles Department of City Planning. The study surveyed 42 affordable housing sites inside and outside
Transit Priority Areas (TPAs) in Los Angeles (20 inside a TPA, 22 outside a TPA). The study compared the
observed parking demand rates to the Los Angeles Municipal Code (LAMC) parking requirements. All
observed parking demand rates were lower than LAMC requirements. (A table from this report summarizing
the results is attached.) Some relevant parking rates and results are:
· Affordable family housing within a TPA (8 surveyed) have a parking supply rate of 1.15 spaces per
unit and a peak parking demand rate of 0.85 spaces per unit
· Affordable family housing outside a TPA (6 surveyed) have a parking supply rate of 1.17 spaces per
unit and a peak parking demand rate of 0.82 spaces per unit
· Affordable senior housing within a TPA (5 surveyed) have a parking supply rate of 0.60 spaces per
unit and a peak parking demand rate of 0.44 spaces per unit
· Affordable senior housing outside a TPA (8 surveyed) have a parking supply rate of 0.70 spaces per
unit and a peak parking demand rate of 0.48 spaces per unit
San Diego Affordable Housing Parking Study
In 2011 the City of San Diego conducted a parking study for affordable housing in various contexts
throughout the city. The study documented parking rates for 21 housing developments to develop a
citywide parking demand model. Variables considered includes walkability, access to transit, and housing
type (e.g. single-family, senior, etc.). The parking study concluded that parking demand for affordable
projects is about one half of typical rental units in San Diego, with almost half of all units surveyed having
6
no vehicle. Higher parking demand was generally associated with larger unit size and higher income for
affordable housing developments. (A table from this report summarizing the results is attached.) In all
projects surveyed, the amount of peak parking used was less than the amount supplied. Some relevant
parking rates are:
· Villa Harvey Mandel Affordable Rentals located 1,500 feet from the 12th & Imperial Transit Center
in San Diego with 90 units, 26 parking spaces (0.29 spaces per unit), and a peak parking demand of
0.28 spaces per unit
· Windwood Village Apartments in San Diego (not located near major transit service) with 92 units,
195 parking spaces (2.10 spaces per unit), and a peak parking demand of 1.56 spaces per unit
· Renaissance Senior Apartments in San Diego with 96 units, 103 parking spaces (1.07 spaces per
unit), and a peak parking demand of 0.39 spaces per unit
Parking Generation, 4th Edition
The Institute of Transportation Engineers published Parking Generation, 4th edition in 2004 to provide
parking demand rates for various land uses based on survey data collected in primarily suburban, low-
density areas. While the report does not provide authoritative findings, recommendations, or standards on
parking demand, it is often referenced by planners and designers in making parking supply estimations and
decisions. Some relevant results are:
· Low/Mid-Rise Apartment (Land Use 221) has an average weekday peak parking demand of 1.23
spaces per dwelling unit in suburban context and 0.42 spaces per dwelling unit in urban context
· Residential Condominium/Townhouse (Land Use 230) has an average peak parking demand of 1.38
spaces per dwelling unit in suburban context
· Senior Adult Housing – Attached (Land Use 252) has an average peak period parking demand of
0.59 spaces per dwelling unit
City of Palo Alto Municipal Code
The City of Palo Alto Municipal Code, Chapter 18.52 Parking and Loading Requirements outlines the current
parking supply requirements for multi-family residential units. Based on Table 1 in Section 18.52.040 Off-
Street Parking, Loading and Bicycle Facility Requirements, market-rate multi-family residential complexes
should have:
· 1.25 parking spaces per studio unit,
· 1.5 parking spaces per 1-bedroom unit,
· 2 parking spaces per 2-bedroom or larger unit, and
· 1 guest parking space per project plus 10% of total number of units (for projects exceeding 3 units).
Palo Alto Multi-Family Residential Development (Rental) Parking Rate Study
August 2018
7
Additionally, the following parking supply reductions may be taken:
· Housing for seniors may be reduced by up to 50% of the total spaces required for the site, subject
to submittal and approval of a parking analysis justifying the reduction.
· Affordable housing may be reduced by up to 20% for low income units, up to 30% for very low
income units, and 40% for extremely low income and single room occupancy units. The reduction
shall consider proximity to transit and support services and traffic demand management measures
may be required.
· Up to 20% reduction for housing near transit facilities and approval of a Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) program.
8
This page is intentionally left blank.
Palo Alto Multi-Family Residential Development (Rental) Parking Rate Study
August 2018
9
3. Parking Surveys
Fehr & Peers gathered the results of previous parking surveys for multi-family residential developments
within and near Palo Alto and conducted new parking surveys. This section presents the survey
methodology and results.
Previous Parking Surveys
The results of previous parking surveys conducted for multi-family developments in the South Bay from
other Fehr & Peers studies, TransForm, and studies conducted by other consultants were compiled.
Available information about each site, such as the number of units, walking distance to the nearest rail
station, type of rail service, peak parking demand, and parking supply and demand rates, is presented in
Table 1. Figure 1 shows the locations of each development. All developments are market-rate, except for
Madera Apartments in Mountain View which has seven affordable-housing units and 196 market-rate units.
Some of the developments may not be directly applicable to Palo Alto but the information can be used for
comparison purposes. The parking supply rates ranged from 0.92 to 2.09 spaces per unit and the parking
demand rates ranged from 0.56 to 1.41 spaces per unit, which indicates that the developments generally
had enough parking to meet demand. The highest parking demand rate is from a complex that is not near
a rail station or major bus route, suggesting that complexes far from transit may require more parking than
those close to transit.
The peak demands were approximately 20 percent lower than the parking supply for all but one of the
complexes, Avalon Towers on the Peninsula. It has a low parking supply rate of 1.24 spaces per unit and is
0.8 miles from the closest Caltrain station. Several complexes had parking supplies that are 40 to 60 percent
higher than their peak demands.
10
Table 1: Available Multi-Family Residential Parking Survey Results
Name of
Complex Address
Distance
to Rail
Station
Type of Rail
Number of Units
No. of
Occupied
Units
Supply Demand Over-
supply
1 1 BR 2 BR 3+
BR
Total Units
(Bedrooms)
No. of
Spaces
Rate
Per
Unit
Rate Per
Bedroom
Peak
Parking
Demand
Rate
Per
Unit
Rate Per
Occupied
Unit
Rate Per
Bedroom
801 Alma
801 Alma
St., Palo
Alto
0.3 miles Caltrain
(Palo Alto) 10 24 16 50
(106) 50 60 1.20 0.57 51 1.02 1.02 0.48 18%
Park Place
Apartments
851 Church
St.,
Mountain
View
0.7 miles
Caltrain/
LRT
(Mountain
View)
181 186 6 373
(571) n/a 511 1.37 0.89 339 0.91 n/a 0.59 51%
Avalon
Mountain
View
1600 Villa
St.,
Mountain
View
0.8 miles
Caltrain/
LRT
(Mountain
View)
117 75 56 248
(435) n/a 426 1.72 0.98 301 1.21 n/a 0.69 42%
AvalonBay
Creekside
151
Calderon
Ave.,
Mountain
View
0.4 miles
Caltrain/
LRT
(Mountain
View)
n/a n/a n/a 294
(n/a) 288 436 1.48 n/a 365 1.24 1.27 n/a 19%
Avalon
Towers on
the
Peninsula,
(ATOP)
2400 West
El Camino
Real,
Mountain
View
0.8 miles
Caltrain/
LRT
(Mountain
View)
90 115 6 211
(338) 203 262 1.24 0.78 258 1.22 1.27 0.76 2%
Madera
Apartments
455 W.
Evelyn Ave,
Mountain
View
0.2 miles
Caltrain/
LRT
(Mountain
View)
116 87 0 2032
(290) n/a 342 1.68 1.18 214 1.05 n/a 0.74 60%
Palo Alto Multi-Family Residential Development (Rental) Parking Rate Study
August 2018
11
Table 1: Available Multi-Family Residential Parking Survey Results
Name of
Complex Address
Distance
to Rail
Station
Type of Rail
Number of Units
No. of
Occupied
Units
Supply Demand Over-
supply
1 1 BR 2 BR 3+
BR
Total Units
(Bedrooms)
No. of
Spaces
Rate
Per
Unit
Rate Per
Bedroom
Peak
Parking
Demand
Rate
Per
Unit
Rate Per
Occupied
Unit
Rate Per
Bedroom
Central Park
Apartments
100 N.
Whisman
Rd.,
Mountain
View
0.3 miles LRT
(Whisman) 68 204 82 354
(722) n/a 696 1.97 0.96 490 1.38 n/a 0.68 42%
Kensington
Apartments
1220 N.
Fair Oaks
Ave.,
Sunnyvale
0.2 miles LRT (Fair
Oaks) n/a n/a n/a 186
(n/a) 182 317 1.70 n/a 262 1.41 1.44 n/a 21%
Park Central
Apartments
1050
Benton St.,
Santa Clara
0.7 miles
Caltrain/LRT
(Santa
Clara)
85 88 0 173
(261) n/a 345 1.99 1.32 219 1.27 n/a 0.84 58%
Mansion
Grove
Apartments
502
Mansion
Park Dr.,
Santa Clara
0.9 miles LRT
(Orchard) 502 494 4 1,000
(1,502) n/a 1,670 1.67 1.11 1,317 1.32 n/a 0.88 27%
Ironworks
Apartments
(North)
457 E.
Evelyn
Ave.,
Sunnyvale
0.4 miles Caltrain
(Sunnyvale) 7 72 38 117
(265) n/a 244 2.09 0.92 148 1.26 n/a 0.56 65%
Ironworks
Apartments
(South)
388 E.
Evelyn
Ave.,
Sunnyvale
0.4 miles Caltrain
(Sunnyvale) 44 23 0 67
(90) n/a 109 1.63 1.21 54 0.81 n/a 0.60 91%
12
Table 1: Available Multi-Family Residential Parking Survey Results
Name of
Complex Address
Distance
to Rail
Station
Type of Rail
Number of Units
No. of
Occupied
Units
Supply Demand Over-
supply
1 1 BR 2 BR 3+
BR
Total Units
(Bedrooms)
No. of
Spaces
Rate
Per
Unit
Rate Per
Bedroom
Peak
Parking
Demand
Rate
Per
Unit
Rate Per
Occupied
Unit
Rate Per
Bedroom
Montrose
Apartments
1720 W. El
Camino
Real,
Mountain
View
1.4 miles
Caltrain/LRT
(Mountain
View)
148 80 0 228
(308) n/a 354 1.55 1.15 219 0.96 n/a 0.71 62%
Source: Fehr & Peers, TransForm, and Hexagon Transportation Consultants.
1. Oversupply = (Supply – Demand) / Demand
2. Madera Apartments has seven affordable-housing units and 196 market-rate units.
S
S
a
n
A
n
t
o
n
i
o
R
d
Ta smanDr
Brokaw R d
Fremont Ave
N Mathilda Ave
Tasman Dr
El Camino Real
JuniperoSerraBlvd
OregonExpy
FoothillExpy
Page
M
i
l
l
R
d
Monta g u e E x p y
Lawrence Expy
N 1
S
t
S
t
Alm
a
S
t
El Camino Real
Central Expy
San Thomas Expy
San
A
n
t
o
n
i
o
A
v
e
|}82
|}237
|}87
|}237
|}85
|}85
|}82
£¤101
£¤101
£¤101
!"#880
!"#880
!"#280
Palo Alto Station
California Station
San AntonioStation
Mountain ViewTransit Center
Sunnyvale Station
Santa ClaraStation
Whisman LightRail Station
Fair Oaks Light Rail Station Orchard LightRail Station
801 Alma
MaderaApartments
AvalonBayCreekside
Park PlaceApartments
MontroseApartments
AvalonMountain View
Mansion GroveApartmentsAvalon Towers
Central ParkApartments
IronworksApartments
KensingtonApartments
ParkCentral
Los AltosHills
Palo Alto
San Jose
East PaloAltoMenlo Park
Sunnyvale
Mountain View
Mountain View
Los Altos
Santa Clara
Fremont
MilpitasStanford
San Jose
\\Fpsj03.fpainc.local\data\Projects\_SJ16_Projects\SJ16_1668_Palo_Alto_On_Call\Phase 12 - TO11, Multifamily Parking Demand\Graphics\GIS\MXD\SJ16_1668_Fig0x_Parking Study Locations.mxd
Previous Parking Study LocationsFigure 1
Light Rail Train (901)
Surveyed Sites LRT Station
Light Rail Train (902)
Caltrain Station
Caltrain Route
14
New Parking Surveys
During November and December, 2017, surveys were conducted at nine apartment complexes in Palo Alto
to measure their parking demand during various days of the week and times of day. The sites were re-
surveyed in June and July, 2018.
Selected Survey Sites
The nine multi-family complexes were selected in concert with City staff based on development type (i.e.
Market Rate, Affordable Housing, or Senior Community) and distance from transit, where transit is defined
as fixed rail stations (primarily Caltrain stations) and/or major bus routes (primarily El Camino Real) so that
the effects of transit proximity can be discerned. Table 2 lists the locations of the properties along with
their types and distance-to-transit categories. Table 3 shows their locations in relation to nearby Caltrain
stations (Palo Alto, California, and San Antonio). Distances are based on the shortest pedestrian or bicycle
route measured from the complex to the nearest Caltrain station as calculated by Google Maps (typically
from the middle of the apartment complex to the closest pedestrian/bicyclist entrance of the Caltrain
station).
Table 2: Selected Multi-Family Complexes
Type Near Transit
(<0.5 miles)
Mid-Distance to Transit
(0.5 to 1.0 miles)
Far from Transit
(>1.0 miles)
Affordable Housing California Park Apartments
(2301 Park Boulevard)
Oak Court Apartments
(845 Ramona Street)
Colorado Park Apartments
(1141 Colorado Avenue)
Market Rate Housing2 -- The Marc
(501 Forest Avenue)
Midtown Court Apartments
(2721 Midtown Court)
Tan Plaza Apartments
(580 Arastradero Road)
Senior Housing Sheridan Apartments1
(360 Sheridan Avenue)
Lytton Gardens
(330 Everett Avenue)
Stevenson House
(455 E. Charleston Road)
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2018.
1. Sheridan Apartments is an affordable housing complex for senior & disabled residents. For the purposes of this analysis,
Sheridan Apartments was considered as a Senior Housing complex.
2. Distances thresholds for “Near Transit,” “Mid-Distance to Transit,” and “Far from Transit” categories were revised after selecting
the properties. Because of this revision, there are no Market Rate Housing complexes “Near Transit” and two Market Rate
Housing complexes “Far from Transit.”
Palo Alto Station
California Ave. Station
San Antonio Station
A
l
p
i
n
e
R
d
Oreg
o
n
A
v
e
SanAntonioRd
Sand H i l l Rd
SanAntonio
Ave
WElCaminoReal
FoothillExpy Centra
l
E
x
p
y
Oreg
o
n
E
x
p
y
PageMillRd
JuniperoSerraBlv
d
El Ca
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Alma St|}82
|}85
|}82
£¤101
£¤101
!"#280
California ParkApartments
Oak CourtApartments
The Marc
SheridanApartments
Tan PlazaApartments
Colorado ParkApartments
Midtown CourtApartments
StevensonHouse
LyttonGardens
Los Altos Hills
Palo Alto
Palo Alto
EastPalo Alto
Menlo Park
Sunnyvale
Mountain View
Los Altos
N:\Projects\_SJ16_Projects\SJ16_1668_Palo_Alto_On_Call\Phase 12 - TO11, Multifamily Parking Demand\Graphics\GIS\MXD\SJ16_1668_Fig0x_Parking Study Locations.mxd
New Parking Survey LocationsFigure 2
New Parking Survey Locations Caltrain Station
Caltrain RouteAffordable Housing
Market Rate Housing
Senior Housing
16
Each of the observed sites are described below:
· Affordable Housing
o California Park Apartments is directly west of the California Avenue Caltrain Station on Park
Boulevard. The complex is bordered by non-residential land uses, although single-family
and multi-residential units are nearby. The complex is also within walking and biking of
many restaurants, several grocery stores, and other amenities. The complex has unassigned,
uncovered parking spaces for residents only. Street parking is restricted to two hours
maximum between 8:00 am and 5:00 pm, Monday through Friday.
o Oak Court Apartments is in a residential area of Palo Alto south of the University Avenue
downtown area among other multi-family residential complexes and single-family homes.
The complex is within walking and biking distance of the University Avenue downtown area,
as well as other various grocery stores and amenities. Access to the Palo Alto Caltrain
Station is provided on both the east and west sides of the Caltrain tracks, and the station
is accessible via both local streets and bicycle and pedestrian paths. The complex has
assigned, underground parking for residents only. Street parking is available on most
adjacent blocks and is time-restricted for all users except those with residential permits.
(Permits are for multiple residential complexes including Oak Court Apartments.)
o Colorado Park Apartments is in a residential area of Palo Alto southeast of the US
101/Oregon Expressway interchange and is surrounded by single-family and multi-family
residential units. The complex is within walking and biking distance to several schools and
parks, but it is not within walking distance to any restaurants, grocery stores, or other
amenities. (The Midtown Shopping Center, the nearest shopping center, is approximately
0.7 miles from the complex.) The complex has assigned parking in a residents-only surface-
level lot. Most of the parking is covered, but a portion of the spaces are uncovered.
Colorado Avenue, the only street bordering the complex, has unrestricted street parking
near the site.
· Market Rate Housing
o The Marc is in a mixed residential/commercial area of Palo Alto near the University Avenue
downtown area. A mix of residential units and commercial units surround the complex. The
complex is within walking and biking distance of the University Avenue downtown are, as
well as other stores and amenities. Access to the Palo Alto Caltrain Station is provided on
both the east and west sides of the Caltrain tracks, and the station is accessible via both
local streets and bicycle and pedestrian paths. All parking spaces are assigned to residents,
although parking is partially in a gated garage and partially in a surface-level lot. Street
Palo Alto Multi-Family Residential Development (Rental) Parking Rate Study
August 2018
17
parking is restricted to two hours maximum between 8:00 am and 5:00 pm, Monday
through Friday.
o Midtown Court Apartments is directly north of the Midtown Shopping Center in Palo Alto.
The complex shares driveways with another apartment complex and is surrounded by both
residential units and commercial land uses. The complex is within walking and biking
distance of many restaurants, a grocery store, and other amenities. Access to the California
Avenue Caltrain Station is somewhat impeded because the complex is on the opposite side
of Caltrain tracks as the station. The complex has both assigned and unassigned parking
spaces in a surface lot, with both covered and uncovered spaces. Minimal street parking
surrounds the complex, although the parking lot at the Midtown Shopping Center does
not restrict parking outside of business hours.
o Tan Plaza Apartments is in a primarily residential area of Palo Alto near the intersection of
El Camino Real and Arastradero Road. The complex is near mostly residential buildings and
some hotel and retail land uses. The complex is within biking distance to select restaurants
and stores to the south along El Camino Real. The complex has a gated surface lot for
residents only, and all spaces are assigned and covered. Clemo Avenue south of the
complex has unrestricted street parking.
· Senior Housing
o Sheridan Apartments is in a residential area of Palo Alto to the south of the California
Avenue downtown area. The complex is near several multi-family residential complexes. It
is also within walking and biking distances to restaurants and various amenities on
California Avenue. The complex has a resident-only surface lot with assigned parking. Street
parking is available on most adjacent blocks and is time-restricted for all users except those
with residential permits. (Permits are for multiple residential complexes including Sheridan
Apartments.)
o Lytton Gardens is in a partially residential, partially commercial area of Palo Alto to the north
of the University Avenue downtown area. The complex is next to multi-family residential
areas, restaurants, and retail land uses. The complex is within walking and biking distance
to the University Avenue downtown area. The complex has gated, assigned, underground
parking for residents. Street parking is available on adjacent blocks and is time-restricted
for all users except those with residential permits. (Permits are for multiple residential
complexes including Lytton Gardens.) Additionally, there is a parking lot near the complex
that is reserved for other multi-family residential complexes and retail shops.
18
o Stevenson House is in a residential area of Palo Alto near the intersection of Charleston
Road and Middlefield Road. The complex is near primarily single-family residential homes
and elementary schools. A small shopping center with restaurants and a grocery store is
within walking and biking distance of the complex. The complex has assigned parking
spaces for residents in a surface lot. Some of the parking spaces are covered. Street-parking
is available on the east side of Charleston Road for residents with parking permits.
All observed sites have dedicated parking facilities for residents, visitors, and staff where the number of
parked vehicles could be counted (no private one and two-car garages). No observed sites offer unbundled
parking. The number of units by bedroom count, number of parking spaces, and parking supply rates per
unit and per bedroom are presented in Table 4. The properties also have at least 45 units, with unit
occupancy at or above 95%.
Methodology & Results
This section summarizes the survey methods and results.
Parking Inventories
A parking inventory was conducted at each selected survey site to verify the parking supply. The inventory
included counts of the numbers of spaces and how they were identified, e.g., reserved, visitor, staff, office,
Americans with disabilities Act (ADA)-compliant, etc. Spaces that had no identification were designated as
“general”. The parking inventories are presented in Table 3.
The parking requirements per City code are also presented. Many of the sites have fewer on-site spaces
than the code requirements. If complexes provide less parking than the code requirements and parking
occurs on adjacent streets, this may contribute to a perception of the city code being too low.
Palo Alto Multi-Family Residential Development (Rental) Parking Rate Study
August 2018
19
Table 3: Parking Inventories at Survey Sites
Name of
Complex
Number of Parking Stalls
Required
Parking
Supply1 General Reserved ADA-
Compliant Visitor
Office/
Staff/
Vendor
Future
Neighbor EV Total
Affordable Housing
California Park
Apartments 67 - 3 - - - - 70 762
Oak Court
Apartments - 85 2 20 - - - 107 872
Colorado Park
Apartments - 86 2 - 2 - - 90 992
Market Rate Housing
The Marc - 153 2 - - - 2 157 1723
Midtown Court
Apartments 58 10 - - 1 - - 69 83
Tan Plaza
Apartments 65 10 2 - 2 5 - 84 127
Senior Housing
Sheridan
Apartments - 20 1 - - - - 21 474
Lytton Gardens 3 38 5 5 - - - 51 424
Stevenson House 35 2 3 6 4 - - 50 974
Notes:
1. Required parking supplies were calculated using the City of Palo Alto’s parking requirements.
2. Per the City of Palo Alto’s parking requirements, a 20% parking reduction was applied to affordable housing with low income
units.
3. Per the City of Palo Alto’s parking requirements, a 20% parking reduction was applied to market-rate housing nearest to transit.
4. Per the City of Palo Alto’s parking requirements, a 50% parking reduction was applied to senior housing complexes.
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2018.
20
Parking Occupancy Surveys
Parking occupancy surveys were conducted in November and December, 2017 to count the numbers of
parked vehicles on-site by space type on a weekday (Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday) at three time
periods (midday, evening, and late night - after midnight) and on a weekend day at two time periods
(midday and late night). An additional round of parking occupancy surveys was conducted in June and July,
2018 on a weekday during the late-night period to capture total on-site and potential on-street parking
demand.
The summarized results showing the numbers of parked vehicles, parking demand rates per unit, per
occupied unit, and per bedroom are in Table 4. The peak (highest) on-site parking demand survey results
are shown. The peak demand rates are based on the highest observed on-site demand plus the highest
observed on-street demand. It should be noted that it is difficult to discern whether the vehicles parked on
street are associated with the apartment complex or with other homes or land uses in the area. All of the
on-street parked vehicles are included in the demand rates yielding conservative results. (More detailed
survey results are included in Appendix B.)
Most of the complexes achieved their peak parking demand on weekdays during the late night period. Two
had identical peak parking demands during the late night period on weekdays and on weekends (California
Park Apartments and Tan Plaza). One of the senior housing complexes reached its peak parking demand
during the late night weekend period (Stevenson House).
Only three of the complexes, Oak Court Apartments, Lytton Courtyard, and Stevenson House, have
designated visitor spaces. Oak Court Apartment has 20 visitor spaces and the number of vehicles parked in
those spaces remained at 6 or 7 throughout the survey period. Lytton Courtyard has 5 visitor spaces with 1
or 2 parked vehicles. The number of vehicle in the six visitor spaces at Stevenson House ranged from 2 to
5.
Palo Alto Multi-Family Residential Development (Rental) Parking Rate Study
August 2018
21
Table 4: New Multi-Family Residential Parking Survey Results
Name of
Complex
Distance to
Rail Station
(Nearest
Caltrain
Station)
Number of Units
No. of
Occupied
Units
Supply Peak
Demand
Demand Rates
(Per Unit) Demand Rates (Per Bedroom)
Over-
Supply
Range3,4 1
BR
2
BR
3+
BR
Total Units
(Total
Bedrooms)
No. of
Spaces
Supply
Rate per
Unit
Supply Rate
per
Bedroom
On-
Site
2
On-
Street
1,2
On-
Site 2
On-Site
& On-
Street2
Rate Per
Bedroom
(On-Site) 2
Rate Per
Bedroom (On-
Site & On-
Street)2
Affordable Housing
California
Park Apts.
0.1 mi.
(CA) 1 31 13 45 (102) 45 70 1.56 0.69 49 19 1.09 1.51 0.48 0.67 3-43%
Oak Court
Apts.
0.6 mi.
(PA) 9 18 26 53 (123) 53 107 2.02 0.87 66 12 1.25 1.47 0.54 0.63 37-62%
Colorado
Park Apts.
1.8 mi.
(CA) 8 24 28 60 (140) 60 90 1.50 0.64 78 13 1.30 1.52 0.56 0.65 0-15%
Market Rate Housing
The Marc 0.7 mi.
(PA) 70 44 4 118 (170) 114 157 1.33 0.92 93 5 0.82 0.86 0.55 0.58 60-69%
Midtown
Court Apts.
1.1 mi.
(CA) 31 15 0 46 (61) 44 69 1.50 1.13 46 13 1.05 1.34 0.75 0.97 17-50%
Tan Plaza
Apts.
1.5 mi.
(SA) 6 50 5 61 (121) 60 84 1.38 0.69 70 14 1.17 1.40 0.58 0.69 0-20%
Senior Housing
Sheridan
Apts.
0.3 mi.
(CA) 57 0 0 57 (57) 57 21 0.37 0.37 20 3 0.35 0.40 0.35 0.40 0-5%
Lytton
Gardens
0.5 mi.
(PA) 51 0 0 51 (51) 51 51 1.00 1.00 35 0 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.69 46%
Stevenson
House
1.2 mi.
(SA) 120 0 0 120 (120) 120 50 0.42 0.42 41 0 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 22%
Notes: Complexes are color coded by distance to transit, with darker colors indicating higher distance to transit.
1. Only a portion of the on-street parked vehicles are associated with the apartment complex.
2. On-site demand represents the higher peak demand observed of the two studies. On-street demand is from the new study only. Entire on-street demand included in demand rates.
3. Oversupply = (Supply – Demand) / Demand
4. Because it is not possible to determine how many on-street vehicles are generated by the complex, Oversupply Range represents the minimum (100% of on-street parking is generated by
the complex) and maximum (0% of on-street parking is generated by the complex) oversupplies. If no on-street parking was observed, one oversupply percent is given.
Sources: City of Palo Alto, Fehr & Peers.
22
Resident Intercept Surveys
The Planning and Transportation Commission requested that resident intercept surveys be conducted to
gauge residents’ perspectives on parking conditions. One property, The Marc, allowed Fehr & Peers staff to
conduct a survey on June 21, 2018. Two staff members went to the complex and recorded resident
responses to the following three questions:
· What is your overall sense of the parking supply at this complex? (Too much parking, too little
parking, or about the right amount of parking)
· How do you feel about parking in the garage compared to on-street parking/parking in
neighboring lots?
· How do you feel about using the parking structure/lot at this complex? Do you feel safe using the
parking structure/lot at this complex?
Seven residents (four female and three male) agreed to be interviewed. Overall, residents feel like the
parking supply at The Marc is about right, although one resident mentioned that the parking structure is
“packed” sometimes. All residents preferred parking in the complex instead of parking on the street. Several
residents mentioned that they prefer parking in the complex because they have their own reserved space,
while others stated that parking on the street is a “hassle.” All residents also reported that they feel safe
parking at the complex. One male resident mentioned that there is occasionally homeless activity near the
parking complex. Appendix C shows the full responses of the resident intercept surveys.
The Marc showed low parking lot occupancy during the previous (57%) and new (62%) parking surveys,
indicating that the parking supply is more than adequate. The Marc also had assigned parking for most
residents and showed the lowest number of on-street vehicles of all observed Market Rate and Affordable
Housing complexes.
Data Analysis
The parking occupancy surveys results were reviewed and statistical analyses were performed, including a
multi-variant linear regression analysis, to determine the correlation between the peak parking demand and
the number of dwelling units (categorized by number of bedrooms) and total number of bedrooms, and to
determine whether distance to transit had any statistical significance. In addition the highest peak demand
rates for each category were reviewed. The conversion of parking demand rates to parking supply rates is
discussed in the next chapter.
Palo Alto Multi-Family Residential Development (Rental) Parking Rate Study
August 2018
23
Statistical Analyses
The best statistical analysis results regarding peak parking demand compared to the number of units are
summarized below. These equations should be used with caution due to the low sample size.
Affordable Housing
Peak Parking Demand = 1.33 (X1) + 1.52 (X2+), where
X1 = Number of one-bedroom units and
X2+ = Number of two (or more)-bedroom units
The results are inconclusive regarding distance to transit.
Market-Rate Housing
Not accounting for distance to transit:
Peak Parking Demand = 0.56 (X1) + 1.42 (X2+), where
X1 = Number of one-bedroom units and
X2+ = Number two (or more)-bedroom units
Accounting for distance to transit:
Peak Parking Demand = 0.67 (X) + 27.88 (Y), where
X = Total number of units
Y = Walking distance to closest rail station in miles
Senior Housing
Peak Parking Demand = 0.40 (X1), where
X1 = Number of one-bedroom units
The results are inconclusive regarding distance to transit.
Highest Demand Rates
To ensure that a sufficient amount of parking is provided parking demand rates used in selecting the parking
supply are based on 85th percentile rates, not average rates. Since the number of survey sites is low, the
highest rate for each category would represent the 85th percentile rate. Therefore, the highest of the peak
24
parking demand rates for each category is used, not the average of the rates, to develop parking supply
rates. The highest rates and the range of rates for each category are presented in Table 5.
Table 5: Peak Parking Demand Rates by Housing Type
Housing Type
Range of Peak Parking Demand ratess Maximum Peak Parking Demand Rate
Spaces per Unit Spaces per Bedroom Spaces per Unit Spaces per Bedroom
Affordable Housing 1.47-1.52 0.63-0.67 1.52 0.67
Market Rate
Housing 0.86-1.40 0.58-0.97 1.40 0.97
Senior Housing 0.34-0.69 0.34-0.69 0.69 0.69
Source: Fehr & Peers.
General Observations
Some general observations regarding the survey sites and results are presented below:
· The Affordable Housing complexes have a higher proportion of two and three-bedroom units, the
Market Rate complexes have more one-bedroom then two+ bedroom units, and the Senior
Housing complexes are comprised of primarily one-bedroom units.
· On a per-unit basis, the lowest parking demand rates were observed at the Senior Housing
complexes and the highest at Affordable Housing complexes. On a per bedroom basis, the
Affordable and Senior Housing sites had comparable rates while Market Rate units had the highest
rate.
· Resident experiences at The Marc indicate that residents prefer to park at the apartment complex
instead of on the street and that residents view always having available parking/empty spaces as
the right amount of parking. (Therefore, a complex where the supply is closer to the peak demand
may be viewed as having “too little” parking.)
Palo Alto Multi-Family Residential Development (Rental) Parking Rate Study
August 2018
25
4. Conclusions
The information contained in this report, primarily the results of the parking surveys conducted at
complexes in Palo Alto, were used develop parking supply rates. The rates are based on the goal of the
parking supply being adequate to accommodate the peak demand on site to minimize intrusion into
surrounding neighborhoods. Parking supply rates are typically about 10 percent higher than the anticipated
peak demand to account for demand variations, to reduce the amount of vehicular circulation to locate the
last vacant spaces, and to limit over-supplies. Parking supply rates for each of the apartment categories
were selected based on the highest surveyed parking demand including both on-site and on-street spaces
and the statistical analysis results. These rates include guest parking. Applying the resulting supply rates to
the survey sites would result in supplies exceeding the parking demand by over 20 percent in most cases.
Therefore these supply rates would minimize parking intrusion.
The supply rates and discussions on how they were derived are presented below:
Affordable Housing:
· 1.0 parking space per studio and per 1-bedroom unit
· 2.0 parking spaces per 2-bedroom or larger unit
Reserved parking, if provided, could be limited to one space per unit to maximize parking space availability.
All three of the survey sites have similar parking demand rates on both a per-unit and per-bedroom basis.
The linear regression analysis indicates that the per unit demand rate is similar regardless of the number of
bedrooms. This is primarily due to the low proportion of one-bedroom units and higher number of two and
three-bedroom units to accommodate families (and their limited effect on parking demand). Therefore the
parking rate is 2.0 spaces per unit with two or more bedrooms to acknowledge the higher parking demand
associated with the larger units. The rate of 1.0 space per studio/one-bedroom unit was selected as it is the
minimum acceptable supply rate. A higher rate is not needed as it would result in an oversupply.
Market Rate Housing:
· 1.0 parking space per studio and per 1-bedroom unit
· 2.0 parking spaces per 2-bedroom or larger unit
Reserved parking, if provided, could be limited to one space per unit to maximize parking space availability.
26
The market rate sites showed more variation in parking demand rates, especially on a per-bedroom basis.
The linear regression analysis indicated demand rates in proportion with the number of bedrooms. On
average these complexes are an even mix of one and two-bedroom units with few three-bed-room units.
The parking rates of 1.0 space per studio/one-bedroom unit and 2.0 spaces per unit with two or more
bedroom, even though identical to the Affordable Housing rates, maintain the magnitude of rate increase
in the linear regression but set the minimum rate at 1.0 space per unit.
Senior Housing:
· 0.75 spaces per unit
All of the Senior Housing survey sites comprised one-bedroom units. The highest demand rate was 0.69
spaces per unit and per bedroom. This rate was used to develop the parking supply rate.
Palo Alto Multi-Family Parking Demand Rate Study
March 2018
Appendix A:
Summary Tables from Previous Parking
Studies
Summary Table from
“A Parking Utilization Survey of Transit-Oriented
Development Residential Properties in Santa Clara
County”
Summary Table from
“Are TODs Over-Parked?”
Summary Table from
“Los Angeles Trip Generation Study”
Summary Table from
“San Diego Affordable Housing Study”
Appendix B:
New Parking Survey Results
Stalls
Occupied
Parking
Occupancy
Demand
Rateb
Stalls
Occupied
Parking
Occupancy
Demand
Rateb
Stalls
Occupied
Parking
Occupancy
Demand
Rateb
Stalls
Occupied
Parking
Occupancy
Demand
Rateb
Off-Site
Parking
Demanda
Stalls
Occupied
Parking
Occupancy
Demand
Rateb
Stalls
Occupied
Parking
Occupancy
Demand
Rateb
California Park 45 45 70 1.56 1.09 19 0.27 0.42 28 0.40 0.62 41 0.59 0.91 49 0.70 1.09 19 27 0.39 0.60 41 0.59 0.91
Oak Court 53 53 107 2.02 1.25 36 0.34 0.68 43 0.40 0.81 66 0.62 1.25 62 0.58 1.17 12 46 0.43 0.87 59 0.55 1.11
Colorado Park 60 60 90 1.50 1.30 36 0.40 0.60 56 0.62 0.93 78 0.87 1.30 70 0.78 1.17 13 44 0.49 0.73 70 0.78 1.17
1.69 1.21 -- 0.34 0.57 -- 0.47 0.79 -- 0.69 1.15 -- 0.69 1.14 -- -- 0.43 0.73 -- 0.64 1.06
The Marc 118 114 157 1.33 0.82 59 0.38 0.52 64 0.41 0.56 90 0.57 0.79 93 0.59 0.82 5 59 0.38 0.52 79 0.50 0.69
Midtown Court 46 44 69 1.50 1.05 22 0.32 0.50 27 0.39 0.61 46 0.67 1.05 41 0.59 0.93 13 28 0.41 0.64 42 0.61 0.95
Tan Plaza 61 60 84 1.38 1.17 38 0.45 0.63 39 0.46 0.65 70 0.83 1.17 ------14 49 0.58 0.82 70 0.83 1.17
1.40 1.01 -- 0.38 0.55 -- 0.42 0.61 -- 0.69 1.00 -- 0.59 0.87 -- -- 0.45 0.66 -- 0.65 0.94
Sheridan 57 57 21 0.37 0.35 17 0.81 0.30 19 0.90 0.33 20 0.95 0.35 17 0.81 0.30 3 16 0.76 0.28 18 0.86 0.32
Lytton 51 51 51 1.00 0.69 31 0.61 0.61 26 0.51 0.51 25 0.49 0.49 31 0.61 0.61 0 23 0.45 0.45 35 0.69 0.69
Stevenson 120 120 50 0.42 0.34 33 0.66 0.28 39 0.78 0.33 41 0.82 0.34 35 0.70 0.29 0 35 0.70 0.29 36 0.72 0.30
0.60 0.46 -- 0.69 0.39 -- 0.73 0.39 -- 0.75 0.39 -- 0.71 0.40 -- -- 0.64 0.34 -- 0.75 0.43
Notes:
a. Only a portion of the on-street parked vehicles are associated with the apartment complex.
b. On-site demand rate per unit.
Late
Maximum
Demandb
Occupied
units
Market Rate Average:
Senior Average:
Affordable Average:
Weekday - (June & July 2018)
Late
Palo Alto Parking Survey Results (By Housing Type)
Midday Late
Weekend (November & December 2017)Weekday - (November & December 2017)
Supply
RateSite
Capacity
(Spaces)Total units
Midday Evening
Palo Alto Multi-Family Parking Demand Rate Study
March 2018
Appendix C:
Resident Intercept Survey Results
What is your overall sense of the
parking supply at this complex? (Too
much parking, too little parking, or
about the right amount of parking)
How do you feel about parking in the
garage compared to on-street
parking/parking in neighboring lots?
How do you feel about using the parking
structure at this complex? Do you feel
safe using the parking structure at this
complex?
Female Fine, has a reserved space In complex preferred, has own space Yes, feels safe
Male Fine, has a reserved space
In complex preferred, has own space,
really does not like street parking
Feels safe, sometimes homeless activity
around parking structure
Female Right amount
She lives here with a designated spot,
feels satisfied parking in structure Yes, positive
Female Right amount, has a reserved spot
Prefer to park in structure, on-street is a
hassle as you have to move it constantly Yes, positive
Male Right amount Prefer parking in garage Yes, it is safe
Male Right amount
Prefer parking at garage because of
designated spaces Yes, completely safe
Female
Sometimes it's packed, but most of the
time the right amount. Never felt it's
too little.
Prefers parking at garage, has a
designated space, wont' get into hassle
of finding on-street parking Yes, completely safe
Gender
Questions
Resident Intercept Surveys - The Marc, 6/21/2018
FRONT PERSPECTIVE
REAR PERSPECTIVE
10,000 ft2 Lot │ 10,000 ft2 Office Building│ 1.0 FAR │40 Off-Site Parking Spaces
100 ft100
f
t
50 ft
50
f
t
100 ft
25 ft
25 ft
UNIVE
R
S
I
T
Y
A
V
E
N
U
E
BACK
Y
A
R
D
SID
E
S
T
R
E
E
T
LO
T
L
I
N
E
100 ft
10
0
f
t
50 ft
100 ft
50
f
t
commercial
KEY
commercial
KEY
Zoning Requirements
• 50 ft height limit
• 1.0 max. FAR
• No setbacks
• No max. lot coverage
*images not to scale; numbers are approximate
CD-C DISTRICT (DOWNTOWN)
FRONT PERSPECTIVE
REAR PERSPECTIVE
10,000 ft2 Lot │ 20,000 ft2 of Mixed-Use│ 2.0 FAR │ 9 1BD & 2BD Units │ 10,000 ft2 of Retail │ 56 Parking Spaces
Zoning Requirements
• 10 ft rear setbacks
• 20% landscaping coverage
• 150 ft2 usable open space per unit
• 50 ft max. height
• 2.0 max. FAR
• 40 unit/acre density max.
CD-C DISTRICT (DOWNTOWN)
100 ft
residential
residential
KEY
KEY
retail
retail
parking
100 ft
55 ft
10
0
f
t
UNIVE
R
S
I
T
Y
A
V
E
N
U
E
SI
D
E
S
T
R
E
E
T
50 ft
45
f
t
9
0
f
t
*images not to scale; numbers are approximate
Parkin
g
Acces
s
FRONT PERSPECTIVE
REAR PERSPECTIVE
residential
residential
KEY
KEY
retail
retail
parking
parking
*images not to scale; numbers are approximate
10,000 ft2 Lot │ 13,500 ft2 of Residential│ 1.35 FAR │ 9 1BD, 2BD & 3BD Units │ 10 Parking Spaces
CD-C DISTRICT (DOWNTOWN)
Zoning Requirements
• 10 ft rear setbacks
• 20% landscaping coverage
• 150 ft2 usable open space per unit
• 50 ft max. height
• 35% FAR bonus
• 40 unit/acre density max.
• Reduced parking ratio (0.5 spaces/unit)
FRONT PERSPECTIVE
REAR PERSPECTIVE
30,000 ft2 Lot │ 60,000 ft2 Hotel │ 2.0 FAR │100 Guestrooms │ 100 Below Grade Parking Spaces
150 ft
20
0
f
t
165
f
t
125 ft
30 ft
30 ft
10 ft
10
f
t
15 ft
15 ft
25
f
t
EL CA
M
I
N
O
R
E
A
L
BACK
Y
A
R
D
SI
D
E
S
T
R
E
E
T
SID
E
Y
A
R
D
150
f
t
200
f
t
25 ft
125 ft
165
f
t
hotel
KEY
hotel
parking
KEY
Zoning Requirements
• 10 ft front setback
• 10 ft setback abutting residential
• 50% frontage build-to lines
• 33% side street build-to lines
• 35 ft height limit near residential
• 2.0 max. FAR
*images not to scale; numbers are approximate
Par
k
i
n
g
Acc
e
s
s
CS DISTRICT (EL CAMINO REAL)
FRONT PERSPECTIVE
REAR PERSPECTIVE
30,000 ft2 Lot │ 30,000 ft2 of Mixed-Use│ 1.0 FAR │ 15 1BD & 2BD Units │ 1,000 ft2 of Retail │ 25 Parking Spaces
CS DISTRICT (EL CAMINO REAL)
Zoning Requirements
• 10 ft front, rear and side yard setbacks
• 5 ft street side yard
• 50% max site coverage
• 30% landscaping coverage
• 150 ft2 usable open space per unit
• 35 ft height limit near residential
• 1.0 max. FAR
150 ftresidential
residential
KEY
KEY
retail
retail
parking
parking
100 ft
10
0
f
t
2
0
0
f
t
EL CAM
I
N
O
R
E
A
L
S
I
D
E
S
T
R
E
T
30 ft 10 ft
1
0
f
t
5
f
t
35ft
9
0
f
t
150 ft
20
0
f
t
BACK YARD
SI
D
E
Y
A
R
D
30 ft
100 ft
1
0
0
f
t
35ft
70ft
105ft
90
f
t
*images not to scale; numbers are approximate