Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-09-25 Planning & Transportation Commission Agenda PacketPLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Regular Meeting Wednesday, September 25, 2024 Council Chambers & Hybrid 6:00 PM Planning and Transportation Commission meetings will be held as “hybrid” meetings with the option to attend by teleconference/video conference or in person. To maximize public safety while still maintaining transparency and public access, members of the public can choose to participate from home or attend in person. Information on how the public may observe and participate in the meeting is located at the end of the agenda. Masks are strongly encouraged if attending in person. The meeting will be broadcast on Cable TV Channel 26, live on YouTube https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofpaloalto, and streamed to Midpen Media Center https://midpenmedia.org. Commissioner names, biographies, and archived agendas and minutes are available at http://bit.ly/PaloAltoPTC.  VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION CLICK HERE TO JOIN (https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/91641559499) Meeting ID: 916 4155 9499    Phone: 1(669)900‐6833 PUBLIC COMMENTS Public comments will be accepted both in person and via Zoom for up to three minutes or an amount of time determined by the Chair. All requests to speak will be taken until 5 minutes after the staff’s presentation. Written public comments can be submitted in advance to Planning.Commission@CityofPaloAlto.org and will be provided to the Commission and available for inspection on the City’s website. Please clearly indicate which agenda item you are referencing in your subject line. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson's presentation will be allowed up to ten (10) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. The Chair may limit Public Comments to thirty (30) minutes for all combined speakers. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak for Study Sessions and Action Items to two (2) minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers. PowerPoints, videos, or other media to be presented during public comment are accepted only by email to Planning.Commission@CityofPaloAlto.org at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. Once received, the Clerk will have them shared at public comment for the specified item. To uphold strong cybersecurity management practices, USB’s or other physical electronic storage devices are not accepted. Signs and symbolic materials less than 2 feet by 3 feet are permitted provided that: (1) sticks, posts, poles or similar/other type of handle objects are strictly prohibited; (2) the items do not create a facility, fire, or safety hazard; and (3) persons with such items remain seated when displaying them and must not raise the items above shoulder level, obstruct the view or passage of other attendees, or otherwise disturb the business of the meeting. TIME ESTIMATES Listed times are estimates only and are subject to change at any time, including while the meeting is in progress. The Commission reserves the right to use more or less time on any item, to change the order of items and/or to continue items to another meeting. Particular items may be heard before or after the time estimated on the agenda. This may occur in order to best manage the time at a meeting or to adapt to the participation of the public. CALL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALL PUBLIC COMMENT  Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS The Chair or Commission majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management. CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS 1.Director's Report, Meeting Schedule and Assignments STUDY SESSION Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker. 2.Study Session to Review Potential Amendments to the Regulations for the Affordable Housing Incentive Program (AHIP) and Housing Incentive Program (HIP) in Title 18 (Zoning Ordinance) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Implement Programs 3.3 and 3.4 of the Adopted 2023‐2031 Housing Element 6:10 PM – 8:10 PM APPROVAL OF MINUTES Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker. 3.Approval of Planning & Transportation Commission Draft Summary Minutes of May 29, 2024 4.Approval of Planning & Transportation Commission Draft Verbatim & Summary Minutes of June 26, 2024 5.Approval of Planning & Transportation Commission Draft Summary Minutes of April 24, 2024 COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE MEETINGS AND AGENDAS Members of the public may not speak to the item(s). ADJOURNMENT PUBLIC COMMENT INSTRUCTIONS Members of the Public may provide public comments to teleconference meetings via email, teleconference, or by phone. 1. W r i t t e n   p u b l i c   c o m m e n t s  m a y   b e   s u b m i t t e d   b y   e m a i l   t o planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.org. 2. Spoken public comments using a computer will be accepted through the teleconference meeting. To address the Commission, click on the link below to access a Zoom‐based meeting. Please read the following instructions carefully. You may download the Zoom client or connect to the meeting in‐ browser. If using your browser, make sure you are using a current, up‐to‐date browser: Chrome 30, Firefox 27, Microsoft Edge 12, Safari 7. Certain functionality may be disabled in older browsers including Internet Explorer. You may be asked to enter an email address and name. We request that you identify yourself by name as this will be visible online and will be used to notify you that it is your turn to speak. When you wish to speak on an Agenda Item, click on “raise hand.” The Clerk will activate and unmute speakers in turn. Speakers will be notified shortly before they are called to speak. When called, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted. A timer will be shown on the computer to help keep track of your comments. 3. Spoken public comments using a smart phone will be accepted  through the teleconference meeting. To address the Commission, download the Zoom application onto your phone from the Apple App Store or Google Play Store and enter the Meeting ID below. Please follow the instructions above. 4. Spoken public comments using a phone use the telephone number listed below. When you wish to speak on an agenda item hit *9 on your phone so we know that you wish to speak. You will be asked to provide your first and last name before addressing the Commission. You will be advised how long you have to speak. When called please limit your remarks to the agenda item and time limit allotted. CLICK HERE TO JOIN    Meeting ID: 916 4155 9499   Phone:1‐669‐900‐6833  Americans with Disability Act (ADA) It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to offer its public programs, services and meetings in a manner that is readily accessible to all. Persons with disabilities who require materials in an appropriate alternative format or who require auxiliary aids to access City meetings, programs, or services may contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at (650) 329‐2550 (voice) or by emailing ada@cityofpaloalto.org. Requests for assistance or accommodations must be submitted at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or service. PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSIONRegular MeetingWednesday, September 25, 2024Council Chambers & Hybrid6:00 PMPlanning and Transportation Commission meetings will be held as “hybrid” meetings with theoption to attend by teleconference/video conference or in person. To maximize public safetywhile still maintaining transparency and public access, members of the public can choose toparticipate from home or attend in person. Information on how the public may observe andparticipate in the meeting is located at the end of the agenda. Masks are strongly encouraged ifattending in person. The meeting will be broadcast on Cable TV Channel 26, live onYouTube https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofpaloalto, and streamed to Midpen MediaCenter https://midpenmedia.org. Commissioner names, biographies, and archived agendas andminutes are available at http://bit.ly/PaloAltoPTC. VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION CLICK HERE TO JOIN (https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/91641559499)Meeting ID: 916 4155 9499    Phone: 1(669)900‐6833PUBLIC COMMENTSPublic comments will be accepted both in person and via Zoom for up to three minutes or anamount of time determined by the Chair. All requests to speak will be taken until 5 minutesafter the staff’s presentation. Written public comments can be submitted in advance toPlanning.Commission@CityofPaloAlto.org and will be provided to the Commission and availablefor inspection on the City’s website. Please clearly indicate which agenda item you arereferencing in your subject line.Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified aspresent at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson's presentation will be allowed up to ten(10) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree notto speak individually. The Chair may limit Public Comments to thirty (30) minutes for allcombined speakers. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak for Study Sessions andAction Items to two (2) minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers.PowerPoints, videos, or other media to be presented during public comment are accepted onlyby email to Planning.Commission@CityofPaloAlto.org at least 24 hours prior to the meeting.Once received, the Clerk will have them shared at public comment for the specified item. Touphold strong cybersecurity management practices, USB’s or other physical electronic storagedevices are not accepted.Signs and symbolic materials less than 2 feet by 3 feet are permitted provided that: (1) sticks, posts, poles or similar/other type of handle objects are strictly prohibited; (2) the items do not create a facility, fire, or safety hazard; and (3) persons with such items remain seated when displaying them and must not raise the items above shoulder level, obstruct the view or passage of other attendees, or otherwise disturb the business of the meeting. TIME ESTIMATES Listed times are estimates only and are subject to change at any time, including while the meeting is in progress. The Commission reserves the right to use more or less time on any item, to change the order of items and/or to continue items to another meeting. Particular items may be heard before or after the time estimated on the agenda. This may occur in order to best manage the time at a meeting or to adapt to the participation of the public. CALL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALL PUBLIC COMMENT  Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS The Chair or Commission majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management. CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS 1.Director's Report, Meeting Schedule and Assignments STUDY SESSION Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker. 2.Study Session to Review Potential Amendments to the Regulations for the Affordable Housing Incentive Program (AHIP) and Housing Incentive Program (HIP) in Title 18 (Zoning Ordinance) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Implement Programs 3.3 and 3.4 of the Adopted 2023‐2031 Housing Element 6:10 PM – 8:10 PM APPROVAL OF MINUTES Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker. 3.Approval of Planning & Transportation Commission Draft Summary Minutes of May 29, 2024 4.Approval of Planning & Transportation Commission Draft Verbatim & Summary Minutes of June 26, 2024 5.Approval of Planning & Transportation Commission Draft Summary Minutes of April 24, 2024 COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE MEETINGS AND AGENDAS Members of the public may not speak to the item(s). ADJOURNMENT PUBLIC COMMENT INSTRUCTIONS Members of the Public may provide public comments to teleconference meetings via email, teleconference, or by phone. 1. W r i t t e n   p u b l i c   c o m m e n t s  m a y   b e   s u b m i t t e d   b y   e m a i l   t o planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.org. 2. Spoken public comments using a computer will be accepted through the teleconference meeting. To address the Commission, click on the link below to access a Zoom‐based meeting. Please read the following instructions carefully. You may download the Zoom client or connect to the meeting in‐ browser. If using your browser, make sure you are using a current, up‐to‐date browser: Chrome 30, Firefox 27, Microsoft Edge 12, Safari 7. Certain functionality may be disabled in older browsers including Internet Explorer. You may be asked to enter an email address and name. We request that you identify yourself by name as this will be visible online and will be used to notify you that it is your turn to speak. When you wish to speak on an Agenda Item, click on “raise hand.” The Clerk will activate and unmute speakers in turn. Speakers will be notified shortly before they are called to speak. When called, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted. A timer will be shown on the computer to help keep track of your comments. 3. Spoken public comments using a smart phone will be accepted  through the teleconference meeting. To address the Commission, download the Zoom application onto your phone from the Apple App Store or Google Play Store and enter the Meeting ID below. Please follow the instructions above. 4. Spoken public comments using a phone use the telephone number listed below. When you wish to speak on an agenda item hit *9 on your phone so we know that you wish to speak. You will be asked to provide your first and last name before addressing the Commission. You will be advised how long you have to speak. When called please limit your remarks to the agenda item and time limit allotted. CLICK HERE TO JOIN    Meeting ID: 916 4155 9499   Phone:1‐669‐900‐6833  Americans with Disability Act (ADA) It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to offer its public programs, services and meetings in a manner that is readily accessible to all. Persons with disabilities who require materials in an appropriate alternative format or who require auxiliary aids to access City meetings, programs, or services may contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at (650) 329‐2550 (voice) or by emailing ada@cityofpaloalto.org. Requests for assistance or accommodations must be submitted at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or service. PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSIONRegular MeetingWednesday, September 25, 2024Council Chambers & Hybrid6:00 PMPlanning and Transportation Commission meetings will be held as “hybrid” meetings with theoption to attend by teleconference/video conference or in person. To maximize public safetywhile still maintaining transparency and public access, members of the public can choose toparticipate from home or attend in person. Information on how the public may observe andparticipate in the meeting is located at the end of the agenda. Masks are strongly encouraged ifattending in person. The meeting will be broadcast on Cable TV Channel 26, live onYouTube https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofpaloalto, and streamed to Midpen MediaCenter https://midpenmedia.org. Commissioner names, biographies, and archived agendas andminutes are available at http://bit.ly/PaloAltoPTC. VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION CLICK HERE TO JOIN (https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/91641559499)Meeting ID: 916 4155 9499    Phone: 1(669)900‐6833PUBLIC COMMENTSPublic comments will be accepted both in person and via Zoom for up to three minutes or anamount of time determined by the Chair. All requests to speak will be taken until 5 minutesafter the staff’s presentation. Written public comments can be submitted in advance toPlanning.Commission@CityofPaloAlto.org and will be provided to the Commission and availablefor inspection on the City’s website. Please clearly indicate which agenda item you arereferencing in your subject line.Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified aspresent at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson's presentation will be allowed up to ten(10) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree notto speak individually. The Chair may limit Public Comments to thirty (30) minutes for allcombined speakers. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak for Study Sessions andAction Items to two (2) minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers.PowerPoints, videos, or other media to be presented during public comment are accepted onlyby email to Planning.Commission@CityofPaloAlto.org at least 24 hours prior to the meeting.Once received, the Clerk will have them shared at public comment for the specified item. Touphold strong cybersecurity management practices, USB’s or other physical electronic storagedevices are not accepted.Signs and symbolic materials less than 2 feet by 3 feet are permitted provided that: (1) sticks,posts, poles or similar/other type of handle objects are strictly prohibited; (2) the items do notcreate a facility, fire, or safety hazard; and (3) persons with such items remain seated whendisplaying them and must not raise the items above shoulder level, obstruct the view orpassage of other attendees, or otherwise disturb the business of the meeting.TIME ESTIMATES Listed times are estimates only and are subject to change at any time, including while the meeting is in progress. The Commission reserves the right to use more or less time on any item, to change the order of items and/or to continue items to another meeting. Particular items may be heard before or after the time estimated on the agenda. This may occur in order to best manage the time at a meeting or to adapt to the participation of the public. CALL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALL PUBLIC COMMENT  Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS The Chair or Commission majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management. CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS 1.Director's Report, Meeting Schedule and Assignments STUDY SESSION Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker. 2.Study Session to Review Potential Amendments to the Regulations for the Affordable Housing Incentive Program (AHIP) and Housing Incentive Program (HIP) in Title 18 (Zoning Ordinance) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Implement Programs 3.3 and 3.4 of the Adopted 2023‐2031 Housing Element 6:10 PM – 8:10 PM APPROVAL OF MINUTES Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker. 3.Approval of Planning & Transportation Commission Draft Summary Minutes of May 29, 2024 4.Approval of Planning & Transportation Commission Draft Verbatim & Summary Minutes of June 26, 2024 5.Approval of Planning & Transportation Commission Draft Summary Minutes of April 24, 2024 COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE MEETINGS AND AGENDAS Members of the public may not speak to the item(s). ADJOURNMENT PUBLIC COMMENT INSTRUCTIONS Members of the Public may provide public comments to teleconference meetings via email, teleconference, or by phone. 1. W r i t t e n   p u b l i c   c o m m e n t s  m a y   b e   s u b m i t t e d   b y   e m a i l   t o planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.org. 2. Spoken public comments using a computer will be accepted through the teleconference meeting. To address the Commission, click on the link below to access a Zoom‐based meeting. Please read the following instructions carefully. You may download the Zoom client or connect to the meeting in‐ browser. If using your browser, make sure you are using a current, up‐to‐date browser: Chrome 30, Firefox 27, Microsoft Edge 12, Safari 7. Certain functionality may be disabled in older browsers including Internet Explorer. You may be asked to enter an email address and name. We request that you identify yourself by name as this will be visible online and will be used to notify you that it is your turn to speak. When you wish to speak on an Agenda Item, click on “raise hand.” The Clerk will activate and unmute speakers in turn. Speakers will be notified shortly before they are called to speak. When called, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted. A timer will be shown on the computer to help keep track of your comments. 3. Spoken public comments using a smart phone will be accepted  through the teleconference meeting. To address the Commission, download the Zoom application onto your phone from the Apple App Store or Google Play Store and enter the Meeting ID below. Please follow the instructions above. 4. Spoken public comments using a phone use the telephone number listed below. When you wish to speak on an agenda item hit *9 on your phone so we know that you wish to speak. You will be asked to provide your first and last name before addressing the Commission. You will be advised how long you have to speak. When called please limit your remarks to the agenda item and time limit allotted. CLICK HERE TO JOIN    Meeting ID: 916 4155 9499   Phone:1‐669‐900‐6833  Americans with Disability Act (ADA) It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to offer its public programs, services and meetings in a manner that is readily accessible to all. Persons with disabilities who require materials in an appropriate alternative format or who require auxiliary aids to access City meetings, programs, or services may contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at (650) 329‐2550 (voice) or by emailing ada@cityofpaloalto.org. Requests for assistance or accommodations must be submitted at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or service. PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSIONRegular MeetingWednesday, September 25, 2024Council Chambers & Hybrid6:00 PMPlanning and Transportation Commission meetings will be held as “hybrid” meetings with theoption to attend by teleconference/video conference or in person. To maximize public safetywhile still maintaining transparency and public access, members of the public can choose toparticipate from home or attend in person. Information on how the public may observe andparticipate in the meeting is located at the end of the agenda. Masks are strongly encouraged ifattending in person. The meeting will be broadcast on Cable TV Channel 26, live onYouTube https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofpaloalto, and streamed to Midpen MediaCenter https://midpenmedia.org. Commissioner names, biographies, and archived agendas andminutes are available at http://bit.ly/PaloAltoPTC. VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION CLICK HERE TO JOIN (https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/91641559499)Meeting ID: 916 4155 9499    Phone: 1(669)900‐6833PUBLIC COMMENTSPublic comments will be accepted both in person and via Zoom for up to three minutes or anamount of time determined by the Chair. All requests to speak will be taken until 5 minutesafter the staff’s presentation. Written public comments can be submitted in advance toPlanning.Commission@CityofPaloAlto.org and will be provided to the Commission and availablefor inspection on the City’s website. Please clearly indicate which agenda item you arereferencing in your subject line.Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified aspresent at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson's presentation will be allowed up to ten(10) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree notto speak individually. The Chair may limit Public Comments to thirty (30) minutes for allcombined speakers. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak for Study Sessions andAction Items to two (2) minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers.PowerPoints, videos, or other media to be presented during public comment are accepted onlyby email to Planning.Commission@CityofPaloAlto.org at least 24 hours prior to the meeting.Once received, the Clerk will have them shared at public comment for the specified item. Touphold strong cybersecurity management practices, USB’s or other physical electronic storagedevices are not accepted.Signs and symbolic materials less than 2 feet by 3 feet are permitted provided that: (1) sticks,posts, poles or similar/other type of handle objects are strictly prohibited; (2) the items do notcreate a facility, fire, or safety hazard; and (3) persons with such items remain seated whendisplaying them and must not raise the items above shoulder level, obstruct the view orpassage of other attendees, or otherwise disturb the business of the meeting.TIME ESTIMATESListed times are estimates only and are subject to change at any time, including while themeeting is in progress. The Commission reserves the right to use more or less time on any item,to change the order of items and/or to continue items to another meeting. Particular items maybe heard before or after the time estimated on the agenda. This may occur in order to bestmanage the time at a meeting or to adapt to the participation of the public.CALL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALLPUBLIC COMMENT Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker.AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONSThe Chair or Commission majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management.CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS1.Director's Report, Meeting Schedule and AssignmentsSTUDY SESSIONPublic Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.2.Study Session to Review Potential Amendments to the Regulations for the AffordableHousing Incentive Program (AHIP) and Housing Incentive Program (HIP) in Title 18(Zoning Ordinance) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Implement Programs 3.3 and 3.4of the Adopted 2023‐2031 Housing Element6:10 PM – 8:10 PMAPPROVAL OF MINUTESPublic Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.3.Approval of Planning & Transportation Commission Draft Summary Minutes of May 29,20244.Approval of Planning & Transportation Commission Draft Verbatim & Summary Minutesof June 26, 20245.Approval of Planning & Transportation Commission Draft Summary Minutes of April 24,2024COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE MEETINGS ANDAGENDAS Members of the public may not speak to the item(s). ADJOURNMENT PUBLIC COMMENT INSTRUCTIONS Members of the Public may provide public comments to teleconference meetings via email, teleconference, or by phone. 1. W r i t t e n   p u b l i c   c o m m e n t s  m a y   b e   s u b m i t t e d   b y   e m a i l   t o planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.org. 2. Spoken public comments using a computer will be accepted through the teleconference meeting. To address the Commission, click on the link below to access a Zoom‐based meeting. Please read the following instructions carefully. You may download the Zoom client or connect to the meeting in‐ browser. If using your browser, make sure you are using a current, up‐to‐date browser: Chrome 30, Firefox 27, Microsoft Edge 12, Safari 7. Certain functionality may be disabled in older browsers including Internet Explorer. You may be asked to enter an email address and name. We request that you identify yourself by name as this will be visible online and will be used to notify you that it is your turn to speak. When you wish to speak on an Agenda Item, click on “raise hand.” The Clerk will activate and unmute speakers in turn. Speakers will be notified shortly before they are called to speak. When called, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted. A timer will be shown on the computer to help keep track of your comments. 3. Spoken public comments using a smart phone will be accepted  through the teleconference meeting. To address the Commission, download the Zoom application onto your phone from the Apple App Store or Google Play Store and enter the Meeting ID below. Please follow the instructions above. 4. Spoken public comments using a phone use the telephone number listed below. When you wish to speak on an agenda item hit *9 on your phone so we know that you wish to speak. You will be asked to provide your first and last name before addressing the Commission. You will be advised how long you have to speak. When called please limit your remarks to the agenda item and time limit allotted. CLICK HERE TO JOIN    Meeting ID: 916 4155 9499   Phone:1‐669‐900‐6833  Americans with Disability Act (ADA) It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to offer its public programs, services and meetings in a manner that is readily accessible to all. Persons with disabilities who require materials in an appropriate alternative format or who require auxiliary aids to access City meetings, programs, or services may contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at (650) 329‐2550 (voice) or by emailing ada@cityofpaloalto.org. Requests for assistance or accommodations must be submitted at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or service. Item No. 1. Page 1 of 2 Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report From: Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: September 25, 2024 Report #: 2409-3473 TITLE Director's Report, Meeting Schedule and Assignments RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) review and comment as appropriate. BACKGROUND This document includes the following items: Upcoming PTC Agenda Items PTC Meeting Schedule PTC Representative to City Council (Rotational Assignments) Commissioners are encouraged to contact Veronica Dao (Veronica.Dao@CityofPaloAlto.org) to notify staff of any planned absences one month in advance, if possible, to ensure the 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 (https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/City-Hall/City-Council/Council-Agendas-Minutes) for the months of their respective assignments to verify if attendance is needed or contact staff. Prior PTC meetings are available online at https://midpenmedia.org/category/government/city- of-palo-alto/boards-and-commissions/planning-and-transportation-commission. UPCOMING PTC ITEMS October 9, 2024 Stream Corridor Protection Ordinance update recommendations Item 1 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 5     Item No. 1. Page 2 of 2 October 30, 2024 Draft Ordinances for Dark Skies/Lighting and Bird-Friendly Design ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: 2024 Meeting Schedule & Assignments Attachment B: 2025 Meeting Schedule AUTHOR/TITLE: Jennifer Armer, AICP, Assistant Director Item 1 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 6     Planning & Transportation Commission 2024 Meeting Schedule & Assignments 5 5 8 9 2024 Schedule Meeting Dates Time Location Status Planned Absences 1/10/2024 6:00 PM Hybrid Canceled 1/31/2024 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 2/14/2024 6:00 PM Hybrid Canceled 2/28/2024 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 3/13/2024 5:00 PM Hybrid Special Joint Meeting w/ HRC 3/27/2024 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular Hechtman 4/10/2024 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 4/15/2024 5:30 PM Hybrid Joint Meeting w/ Council 4/24/2024 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 5/8/2024 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular Lu 5/29/2024 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 6/12/2024 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 6/26/2024 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 7/10/2024 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 7/31/2024 6:00 PM Hybrid Canceled 8/14/2024 5:30 PM Hybrid Special 8/28/2024 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 9/11/2024 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 9/25/2024 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 10/9/2024 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 10/30/2024 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 11/13/2024 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 11/20/2024 6:00 PM Hybrid Tentative Special 11/27/2024 6:00 PM Hybrid Canceled 12/11/2024 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 12/25/2024 6:00 PM Hybrid Canceled 2024 Assignments - Council Representation (primary/backup) January February March April May June Cari Templeton Keith Reckdahl Bart Hechtman Doria Summa Bryna Chang George Lu Doria Summa Allen Akin Keith Reckdahl Cari Templeton George Lu Bryna Chang July August September October November December Allen Akin Bart Hechtman Doria Summa George Lu Cari Templeton Keith Reckdahl Bart Hechtman Bryna Chang George Lu Bart Hechtman Doria Summa Cari Templeton Item 1 Attachment A: 2024 Meeting Schedule & Assignments     Packet Pg. 7     Planning & Transportation Commission 2025 Meeting Schedule 5 5 9 0 2025 Schedule Meeting Dates Time Location Status Planned Absences 1/8/2025 6:00 PM Hybrid Canceled 1/15/2025 6:00 PM Hybrid Special 1/29/2025 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 2/12/2025 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 2/26/2025 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 3/12/2025 5:00 PM Hybrid Regular 3/26/2025 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 4/9/2025 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 4/30/2025 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 5/14/2025 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 5/28/2025 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 6/11/2025 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 6/25/2025 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 7/9/2025 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 7/30/2025 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 8/13/2025 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 8/27/2025 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 9/10/2025 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 9/24/2025 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 10/8/2025 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 10/29/2025 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 11/12/2025 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 11/26/2025 6:00 PM Hybrid Canceled 12/10/2025 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 12/31/2025 6:00 PM Hybrid Canceled Item 1 Attachment B: 2025 Meeting Schedule     Packet Pg. 8     Item No. 2. Page 1 of 21 1 6 9 4 Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report From: Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: September 25, 2024 Report #: 2408-3325 TITLE Study Session to Review Potential Amendments to the Regulations for the Affordable Housing Incentive Program (AHIP) and Housing Incentive Program (HIP) in Title 18 (Zoning Ordinance) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Implement Programs 3.3 and 3.4 of the Adopted 2023-2031 Housing Element RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) conduct a study session to review a summary of issues and recommendations, and provide feedback on approaches to amending the Affordable Housing Incentive Program (AHIP) and Housing Incentive Program (HIP) in Title 18 (Zoning Ordinance) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC), with the objective of supporting housing affordability and production, and improving financial feasibility. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The 2023-2032 Housing Element, adopted by the City Council on April 15, 2024, and certified by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) on August 20, 2024, includes two key programs to support affordable and other multifamily housing development. These two programs are excerpted in Attachment A and summarized below: Housing Element Program 3.3 calls for amendments to the Affordable Housing Incentive Program (AHIP) to streamline, incentivize, and improve project feasibility of affordable housing projects. This includes extending the program to apply to a broader set of sites, modifying development standards to allow for more housing units on a given site (e.g., allowing up to 60 feet of building height for projects with affordability levels below 60% of area median income), and reducing the number of Architectural Review Board hearings to no more than two. This task does not include implementation of Program 3.3C regarding State Density Bonus Law updates, which will proceed through a separate work plan. Housing Element Program 3.4 seeks to expand development incentives in the Housing Incentive Program (HIP) and extend the program to multifamily residential districts (i.e., RM districts and portions of the Research Office and Limited Manufacturing (ROLM) and Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 9     Item No. 2. Page 2 of 21 1 6 9 4 General Manufacturing (GM) Districts) to facilitate housing production. Program 3.4 also calls for preparation of a feasibility study to analyze physical feasibility of current zoning standards to achieve different housing types (e.g., townhomes, apartments) and financial feasibility of these resulting prototypical housing types. This task does not include implementation of Program 3.4E regarding the El Camino Real Focus Area expansion, which will proceed through a separate work plan. Zoning changes to implement Housing Element Program 3.3 are straightforward and well- specified in the Housing Element. This report analyzes potential effects of changes to the AHIP including a comparison to other programs available under State Law to confirm that an amendment to the AHIP provides a true incentive. Housing Element Program 3.4 is somewhat less specific. It calls for both specific zoning changes and for more generalized changes to development standards that necessitate additional analysis. This report presents this analysis of physical and financial feasibility of existing and potential standards described in Housing Element Program 3.4 and concludes that: 1. Base zoning standards (exclusive of recent amendments that modify standards for Housing Element opportunity sites) favor townhome development and are less conducive to stacked flats (e.g., apartments, condominiums) or mixed-use development with ground-floor retail. This is problematic since market rate townhomes have higher rent and sales price than apartments and stacked flat condos, and are out of reach for many households. 2. The housing types that result from current zoning standards (applicable to sites that are not Housing Element opportunity sites) may not be financially feasible in all locations. Collectively, the current zoning standards may result in housing types with too few units to overcome the cost of demolition and construction. 3. To implement Housing Element Program 3.4, the City would need to consider modifications to various physical development standards to allow more residential units, enable the development of stacked flats and residential mixed-use development, and improve financial feasibility. Generally, this represents an additional 1.0 to 2.0 FAR and 10-20 feet of building height. The purpose of the study session is to review the background, research, and options associated with these Zoning Ordinance amendments. Based on feedback from PTC and the Architectural Review Board (ARB), City staff and consultants will prepare an ordinance for the PTC’s consideration later this fall. Importantly, the information included in this report is intended to serve as a starting point discussion for potential changes to the City’s development standards to promote greater housing production. To some degree, changes to one development standard can impact another. For instance, further reduction in parking requirements may facilitate a reduction in height or, if there is greater interest in preserving daylight plane or building adjacencies to Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 10     Item No. 2. Page 3 of 21 1 6 9 4 lower density zoning districts, more ground floor coverage or reduced setbacks may be required. Staff anticipates making refinements to the A/HIP programs based on community and board/commission feedback. BACKGROUND The City of Palo Alto Draft 6th Cycle Housing Element aims to implement State Housing Element law, including meeting the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) and affirmatively furthering fair housing in Palo Alto. Housing Element Programs, 3.3 (AHIP) and 3.4 (HIP) aim to provide incentives for affordable and multi-family housing. Although State Housing Element law requires cities to demonstrate physical availability of sites to meet the RHNA, it does not necessarily require demonstration of financial feasibility. However, the State requires that the Housing Element include programs that would encourage housing production and eliminate constraints. To that end, the City engaged planners, architects, and economic analysts at Lexington Planning, Urban Field Studio, and Keyser Marston Associates to analyze the physical and financial feasibility of current and potential zoning standards. These results are highlighted in Attachment B and C which illustrate the physical models and report the financial feasibility findings of this analysis, respectively. Attachment D is a map that identifies the locations where the applicability of the HIP is proposed to be extended. The Housing Element calls for an extension of the AHIP so that it applies by-right to all Housing Element opportunity sites which meet the eligibility criteria. The opportunity sites are also shown on the map in Attachment D. Previous Planning & Transportation Commission Review On June 28, 2023, the PTC discussed a work plan to implement key Housing Element programs: Program 1.1 (Adequate Sites Inventory) and Program 3.4 (Housing Incentive Program). The status of these programs and the PTC’s feedback are summarized below. As described above, Program 3.3 implementation is being added to this discussion for efficiency purposes and since it is related to Program 3.4. Housing Element Program 1.1A & 1.1B implementation is now complete. The City Council adopted amendments to the Zoning Ordinance on December 18, 2023, to modify development standards for Housing Element opportunity sites. Housing Element Program 3.4 (HIP) implementation is underway as part of tonight’s meeting. In June 2023, the PTC discussed the need for coordination with developers; and broader neighborhood planning beyond just housing to consider the need for parks, open space, street trees/landscaping, and transportation infrastructure; especially in the San Antonio corridor and GM/ROLM Focus Area. Housing Element Program 3.3 (AHIP) implementation has been added to this discussion since the changes are aligned with the HIP effort. Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 11     Item No. 2. Page 4 of 21 1 6 9 4 Housing Incentive Program The HIP was enacted in 2019 as a local alternative to the State Density Bonus law. It provides development incentives including no residential density restrictions, increased floor area ratios, and increased lot coverage. It requires full Architectural Review, but provides for use of the new streamlined review process (one study session with the ARB) when a project meets objective design standards. The HIP does not require additional below-market rate units beyond the City’s existing inclusionary housing requirement. Currently, the only eligibility criterion is that the HIP is only applicable in certain commercial mixed-use districts and locations: CD-C zone (Downtown); CC(2) zone (California Avenue); CN or CS zoned sites on El Camino Real; CS zoned sites on San Antonio Road between Middlefield Road and East Charleston Road; and North Ventura (NV) zones (final Council action pending). With the exception of the NV zones (not yet in effect), the HIP code sections will be relocated from Ch. 18.16.060(k) and 18.18.060(l), revised, and consolidated into the placeholder code section in 18.14 (Housing Incentives) as a way to streamline and better highlight the incentive opportunity. The City has approved two development projects that utilized the HIP to create a total of 105 residential units.1 However, given recent changes in State Density Bonus Law and other streamlining bills, changes to the HIP are warranted to make sure that the program is providing a real incentive compared to State laws. 1 17PLN-00305, a mixed-use project with 3 units at 3585 El Camino Real was the first HIP project. The second HIP project was 19PLN-00079, a 102-unit project at 788 San Antonio Road. Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 12     Item No. 2. Page 5 of 21 1 6 9 4 A 102-unit residential mixed-use development was approved by the City at 788 San Antonio Road. The project, which includes 16 below-market rate units, was awarded additional residential density through the HIP. Affordable Housing Incentive Program The Affordable Housing Overlay was enacted in 2018 to promote 100% affordable housing development. The Affordable Housing Overlay was a legislative zoning map amendment that required ARB, PTC, and Council review and approval. In July 2022, the City modified the Affordable Housing Overlay district into the Affordable Housing Incentive Program (AHIP) to streamline the approval process. Currently, eligible projects achieve increased density, taller heights, and reduced parking ratios, among other benefits. These projects are reviewed by the ARB and approved by the Planning Director, thereby eliminating the legislative change that require review and action by the PTC and Council and allowing AHIP projects to be eligible for processing under Senate Bill 330. Still, eligibility is currently limited; an AHIP project must be: 100% affordable rental housing (up to 120 percent of Area Median Income [AMI]); and Located within ½ mile from CalTrain or ¼ mile from a bus transit corridor; and Located in the CD, CC, CN, CS or North Ventura zoning districts. The City has received only one development project application, utilizing the AHIP (see below). Use of this program has been limited by the narrow eligibility criteria of just a handful of zoning districts. Further, given recent changes in State Density Bonus Law and findings from the analyses herein, changes to the HIP are warranted to make sure that the program is providing a real incentive for affordable housing development compared to State law. Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 13     Item No. 2. Page 6 of 21 1 6 9 4 Wilton Court, at 3705 El Camino Real, used the AHIP to increase residential density otherwise allowed at the site and construct 59 units affordable to low-income households. State Streamlining Incentives In recent years, new State laws offer qualifying development projects streamlined review, often with limited public hearings and/or subject to ministerial approvals. The City originally developed the HIP and AHIP incentive programs to retain Architectural Review with the ARB in exchange for relaxed development standards. However, for these local programs to be effective and used, they must provide incentives for developers that exceed what is attainable under State law. Recent and commonly used State law programs are summarized here and compared to the HIP and AHIP in the analysis section below: State Density Bonus Law (Gov. Code Section 65915): This law gives developers the right to build additional dwelling units and obtain flexibility in local development requirements, in exchange for building on-site affordable or senior housing. To support the development of affordable and senior housing, projects can receive “waivers” and “concessions” to modify applicable regulations. This could include standards such as height, setbacks, parking, and ground-floor retail requirements. The handout in Attachment E includes a more thorough description of State Density Bonus Law and how it applies in Palo Alto. SB 35 Streamlining for Affordable Housing (Gov. Code Section 65913.4): Effective since 2018, this law allows housing development projects that meet certain physical and Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 14     Item No. 2. Page 7 of 21 1 6 9 4 affordability criteria to undergo expedited project review and ministerial approval. Palo Alto is subject to SB 35 based on the City’s limited progress toward meeting the City‘s low-income housing targets in its RHNA. To be eligible for SB 35 streamlining in Palo Alto, a project must provide at least 50% of their residential units at a rate affordable to low-income households. SB 35 projects are frequently combined with State Density Bonus Law to achieve density bonuses and waivers/concessions. SB 4 Streamlining for Higher Education & Faith-Based Institutions (Gov. Code Section 65913.16): Effective January 2024, this law offers an expedited review and ministerial approval process for 100% affordable projects located on land that was owned by an independent institution of higher education or religious institution on or before January 1, 2024. This law allows multi-family housing even in locations/zoning districts where this use is not permitted and stipulates density and parking requirements that may be more generous than the standards of the zoning district. DISCUSSION This discussion section includes a summary of the recent zoning changes adopted pursuant to Housing Element Program 1.1, followed by a summary of the physical and financial feasibility analysis detailed in Attachment B and C, respectively. Next, it distinguishes between planned zoning changes (specific zoning changes to the AHIP and HIP called out in the Housing Element Program 3.3 and 3.4) and potential zoning changes (generalized changes to the HIP described in Program 3.4). While planned changes are straightforward and may not require substantial discussion, the potential changes require input from the PTC and review of the findings presented here. Program 1.1 (RHNA Rezoning) in January 2024 In January 2024, revised zoning standards went into effect on Housing Element Opportunity sites, pursuant to Housing Element Program 1.1: RHNA Rezoning. These changes included modest increases in residential density, FAR, and lot coverage in most zoning districts that allow multi-family housing, as well as increases in building height and reductions in parking in the GM and ROLM districts. However, these changes did not go beyond what was needed to reduce constraints and achieve the densities required by the RHNA. Moreover, these standards only applied to Housing Element opportunity sites; other sites in the City still have lower density limits. As a result, these zoning modifications may not go far enough on non-Housing Element opportunity sites to incentivize a property owner to redevelop a site with additional housing. Although the changes under Housing Element Program 1.1 represent an important and successful first step to meet Housing Element law and RHNA requirements, development standards in other parts of the City may not generate projects that are financially feasible in the housing market. Chapter 3 of the Housing Element reveals that many of the projects recently entitled or proposed in Palo Alto actually exceed the density allowed under the Zoning Code (see Housing Element Table 3-2: Entitled and Proposed Developments). This is because projects are using the HIP or State Density Bonus Law to obtain density bonuses. Modifying Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 15     Item No. 2. Page 8 of 21 1 6 9 4 development standards, as called for in Housing Element Program 3.4, can improve the physical and financial feasibility of development, match the housing types that developers are building in the market, and improve predictability for community members and decision-makers about the types of development that the City can expect. A 129-unit affordable housing project approved at 3001-3017 El Camino Real uses State Density Bonus Law to achieve an effective density of 113 dwelling units per acre (du/ac), substantially higher than what is typically achievable in the CS zoning district. Physical and Financial Feasibility Studies to Evaluate Potential Changes to the HIP As required by Housing Element Program 3.4, City staff and consultants prepared physical and financial feasibility studies to determine the types and densities of housing that current zoning standards2 produce and to determine whether these housing types are likely to be financially feasible for a developer to build. Attachment B illustrates the physical models prepared by architects at Urban Field Studio and planners at Lexington Planning. It reports the high-level financial feasibility findings prepared by economic consultants, Keyser Marston Associates (KMA). Attachment C is the detailed report 2 Notably, these analyses exclude zoning changes that went into effect in January 2024 on Housing Element opportunity sites. These recent changes improve physical and financial feasibility on opportunity sites only. Modifications to the HIP are expected to assist developers/property owners of sites that are not listed as opportunity sites, but will also further improve feasibility on opportunity sites. Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 16     Item No. 2. Page 9 of 21 1 6 9 4 on KMA’s financial feasibility findings.3 Figure 1 (below) summarizes this process and the outcome of the studies. Figure 1: Feasibility Analysis – Process and Outcome Figure 2 (below) illustrates an example of the physical feasibility analysis detailed in Attachment B. Architects modeled what existing standards yield (image and column at left) and then modified various standards to try to increase yield (image and column at right). In general, this process aimed to keep building height increase to no more than 10-20 feet (one to two stories) 3 Financial feasibility findings are based on assumptions about costs, land values, and profits that are averages, and represent KMA’s local research and professional opinions. These assumptions may not reflect the economic situations and assumptions for individual sites and developers, based on their specific values and priorities. Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 17     Item No. 2. Page 10 of 21 1 6 9 4 and retain on-site parking. However, zoning standards are interconnected; there are tradeoffs that the City can consider when evaluating changes to standards. For example, reducing parking can free up space at the ground-level for housing units or commercial spaces without substantial changes to building height. If side/rear setbacks and daylight planes are priorities, then building heights may need to be higher and front/street side setbacks lower to achieve sufficient yields. In the example in Figure 2, the architects increased building height, reduced the rear setback, modestly reduced the parking requirement, met the open space requirement on top of the podium, and substantially increased the FAR. This results in a shift from four townhome units to 15 apartment units, a change in both density and building type. Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 18     Item No. 2. Page 11 of 21 1 6 9 4 Figure 2: Excerpt from Physical Feasibility Report (see Attachment B) Planned HIP Zoning Changes Program 3.4 states the following specific changes to HIP regulations that will be brought forward to the PTC and City Council: Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 19     Item No. 2. Page 12 of 21 1 6 9 4 1. Modify Retail Preservation Ordinance requirements: Retain retail requirements in the GF- and R-combining districts (i.e., Downtown, California Avenue) and nodes on El Camino Real, consistent with the South El Camino Real Design Guidelines. Waive the retail preservation requirement on housing opportunity sites. Reduce the retail preservation replacement floor area requirement in other locations (e.g. reduce by half). Note that developers may still choose to provide a mix of uses based on market conditions. 2. Modify HIP parking requirements, consistent with what is allowed under State Density Bonus law: 1 space per studio and 1-bedroom units (same as PAMC standard). 1.5 spaces per 2- and 3-bedroom units (vs. 2 spaces in PAMC). Note that developers may still choose to provide parking in excess of minimum requirements or even if parking is not required, depending on market demand. 3. Expand applicability of the HIP to the RM districts, ROLM, and GM districts (in the northeast portion of the City nearest the Bayshore Freeway and generally bounded by East Charleston Road to the east and Loma Verde Avenue), to allow for this incentive in key locations where multifamily housing is allowed and encouraged. These new locations are shown in Attachment D. Potential HIP Zoning Changes Attachment B describes the range of changes that the City could make to HIP zoning regulations to support housing production, improve financial feasibility, and increase predictability. The discussion below summarizes options that the PTC could consider to modify development standards and then compares the relative benefits and drawbacks of the HIP vs. State Density Bonus Law. City staff and consultants invite the PTC to consider modifying development standards in the HIP, including: (1) increasing FAR, lot coverage, and building height; and (2) reducing daylight plane, setback, and open space requirements. Collectively, these standards are currently supporting livable spaces and respecting adjacent uses, but may also limit development to townhomes and prevent sufficient unit yields to support financially feasible projects. While Housing Element Program 3.4D calls for these modifications, it does not identify precise changes. Staff is seeking the PTC’s feedback on the potential standards described in the report in Attachment B. Table 1 summarizes the potential height and density changes to the HIP, also illustrated in Attachment B. It distinguishes between sites that are designated or not designated as Housing Element opportunity sites. These potential standards are at the higher end of the residential density and residential FAR necessary to support development. Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 20     Item No. 2. Page 13 of 21 1 6 9 4 To facilitate administration by City staff and decision-makers, standards will likely be simplified to allow an additional 2.0 FAR and 1 story/10 feet, etc. in specific zones, as shown in the last column of Table 1. No changes are proposed to the HIP standards for the San Antonio Road (CS zone) or the CD-C (Downtown) zoning districts because both of these areas are, or will, soon initiate a comprehensive community engagement effort to identify new development standards for housing development, among other land uses. Staff seeks PTC endorsement for this approach or feedback if these two districts should be incorporated into this effort. Table 1: Comparison of Existing vs. Potential HIP Maximum Building Height and Residential FAR/Density Standards, by Housing Element Opportunity Site Status Housing Incentive Program (Residential FAR and Building Height Standards – NOTE: this is in addition to allowed commercial floor area) Zoning District Base Standards (Residential FAR and Building Height) Existing (All Sites)Potential Standards Potential Change (from Base Zoning) CD-C 2.0 FAR (HE Opp Site) 1.0 FAR (Non-Opp Site) 3.0 FAR w/ TDR 50-foot height 3.0 Total FAR 50-foot height None proposed due to Downtown Housing Area Plan study N/A CC(2) 1.5 FAR (HE Opp Site) 0.6 FAR (Non-Opp Site) 37-foot height 2.0 FAR 50-foot height 3.5 FAR (HE Opp Site) 2.6 FAR (Non-Opp Site) 60-foot height + 2.0 FAR + 23 feet CS (El Camino) 1.25 FAR (HE Opp Site) 0.6 FAR (Non-Opp Site) 50-foot height 1.5 FAR 50-foot height 3.5 FAR (HE Opp Site) 2.85 FAR (Non-Opp Site) 60-foot height + 2.25 FAR + 10 feet CS (San Antonio) 1.25 FAR/30-40 du/ac (HE Opp Site) 0.6 FAR/30 du/ac (Non-Opp Site) 50-foot height 2.0 FAR 50-foot height None proposed due to San Antonio Corridor Coordinated Area Plan N/A CN (El Camino) 1.25 FAR (HE Opp Site) 0.5 FAR (Non-Opp Site) 40-foot height 1.5 FAR 50-foot height 3.25 FAR (HE Opp Site) 2.5 FAR (Non-Opp Site) 50-foot height + 2.0 FAR + 10 feet ROLM 2.5 FAR/60 ft (Focus Area) 1.5 FAR/45 ft (HE Opp Site) 0.6 FAR/35 ft (Non-Opp Site) N/A 3.5 FAR/60 ft (Focus Area) 2.5 FAR/45 ft (HE Opp Site) 1.6 FAR/35 ft (Non-Opp Site) + 1.0 FAR No height change RM-40 40-50 du/ac (HE Opp Site) 40 du/ac (Non-Opp Site) 1.0 FAR (All Sites) 40-foot height N/A No density limit 3.0 FAR 50-foot height No density limit + 2.0 FAR + 10 feet RM-30 30-50 du/ac (HE Opp Site) 30 du/ac (Non-Opp Site) 0.6 FAR (All Sites) 35-foot height N/A No density limit 2.5 FAR 40-foot height No density limit + 1.4 FAR + 5 feet Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 21     Item No. 2. Page 14 of 21 1 6 9 4 RM-20 20-50 du/ac (HE Opp Site) 20 du/ac (Non-Opp Site) 0.5 FAR (All Sites) 30-foot height N/A No density limit 2.0 FAR 40-foot height No density limit + 1.5 FAR + 10 feet The HIP can still reflect transition areas, such as areas where these higher density zones abut R- 1 zones, by continuing to enforce daylight plane and height transition standards. However, to accommodate taller heights, daylight planes would need to be adjusted to allow daylight planes to start higher (e.g., raising from 10 feet above grade to 20 feet above grade). PAMC Chapter 18.24 (Objective Standards) provides a model for how to create transitions between lower-height buildings and taller new buildings by requiring a daylight plane that starts at a taller initial height (in this example, 25 feet above grade). Figure 3: Height Transitions and Daylight Planes Table 2 explores the tradeoffs between the HIP and State Density Bonus Law. The HIP provides greater predictability for what community members can expect from housing projects. By comparison, State Density Bonus law offers more flexibility in terms of modifying development standards and other concessions, and therefore less predictability. However, the HIP allows developers of rental housing to pay the affordable housing fee in-lieu of on-site below market rate housing; this is generally preferred by market rate developers and therefore a strong incentive. For ownership housing, developers are required to include below-market rate units on site. As a result, the City is likely to see ownership projects continue to utilize State Density Bonus Law. More flexibility in development standards is required to encourage use of the HIP over State Density Bonus law. With implementation of Housing Element Program 3.4, there would be no Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 22     Item No. 2. Page 15 of 21 1 6 9 4 difference in review process since HIP projects would be eligible for Streamlined Review (i.e., one study session with the ARB). This will remove a key aspect of the original purpose of the HIP, which was to retain Architectural Review, though objective standards would continue to provide more certainty. There is little room to further streamline the HIP process, without allowing for a ministerial review process (i.e., review for compliance only, not subject to CEQA). Table 2: Comparison Between Modified HIP and State Density Bonus Law Palo Alto Housing Incentive Program State Density Bonus Law Benefits + Inclusionary housing fee in-lieu of on-site affordable housing (rental housing only) + Higher density + More predictability (for City/ community members) + Unlimited waivers from standards that physically limit housing units + Specified number of concessions for cost reductions Drawbacks - Limitations on development standards - On-site affordable housing required As noted above, the payment of in-lieu fees is a key difference and potential advantage of the HIP compared to projects proposed under State Density Bonus Law. Currently, the City requires that ownership housing projects set aside at least 15% of units for below-market rate housing at moderate income levels. Rental projects are permitted to pay a fee in lieu of this requirement. The City then uses these funds to partner with affordable housing providers to build 100% affordable projects. During the 5th Housing Element cycle, the City committed approximately $40 million, primarily from in-lieu and impact fees, to support affordable housing projects; roughly half of these impact fees were from residential versus commercial projects. Specific projects funded for lower income and special needs populations include the following: 525 E. Charleston Avenue (50 units of Low- and Very Low-Income housing for persons with developmental disabilities); 231 Grant Avenue (110-unit affordable teacher housing); Wilton Court Apartments (58 units of Low- and Very Low-Income housing and serving persons with disabilities); and Preservation of Buena Vista Mobile Home Park (105 unit/spaces).4 4 2023-2031 City of Palo Alto Housing Element. Certified August 20, 2024. p. 3-78 – 3-79. Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 23     Item No. 2. Page 16 of 21 1 6 9 4 Table 3 illustrates some of the key benefits and drawbacks to each method of implementation. This analysis suggests that both methods are valid and helpful in supporting a range of affordable housing in various locations, income levels, and contexts. Table 3: Benefits and Drawbacks of On-Site Affordable Housing vs. Collecting Funds In-Lieu On-Site Affordable Housing Affordable Housing Funds In-Lieu Benefits + Creates housing projects at broader range of income levels + Incremental economic equity and diversity in smaller increments, within a specific project or block + Creates affordable units more quickly + Accommodate very-low and extremely-low income households, and supportive housing for special needs populations (e.g., formerly homeless, people with disabilities) + Provides on-site property managers and supportive services (e.g., job, food and health care assistance) + Can be leveraged on a 4:1 or 5:1 basis to access state, federal, and bond funds + Can produce 2-4x more affordable units in the long-term Drawbacks - Only accommodates moderate income households, not very-low and extremely-low income households (for-sale projects) - More time needed to generate in-lieu fees and coordinate with affordable housing providers and other stakeholders Planned AHIP Zoning Changes The Housing Element is specific about proposed changes to the AHIP regulations. Table 4 outlines these planned changes and compares them to State Density Bonus law and SB 35 streamlining. Key advantages and disadvantages are analyzed below: SB 35: For a project that is proposed with 100% affordable units, the key advantages of the SB 35 process are: o Expedited timelines for review and approval: the required timeline for review and approval is 90 to 180 days following compliance review. o Ministerial action: because SB 35 projects are approved ministerially, they are not subject to CEQA. However, SB 35 does have specific eligibility requirements. For example, clean-up sites on the Cortese list (e.g., former gas stations sites) would not be eligible. State Density Bonus Law: For 100% affordable projects, when combined with SB 35, a developer can obtain both process streamlining and more flexible standards. Key advantages of State Density Bonus Law for 100% affordable projects are as follows: o No residential density limit, with limited waivers. Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 24     Item No. 2. Page 17 of 21 1 6 9 4 o Alternatively, standard density bonuses, with waivers from development standards that physically preclude housing units (e.g., setbacks, building height). o Concessions from certain fees and regulations that result in actual cost savings (e.g., ground-floor retail requirements). AHIP: The AHIP offers more predictability about what to expect in a housing project, since compliance with objective standards is required. But, from a developer perspective, the key advantage of AHIP is for projects that do not qualify under these State law programs, including: o Sites that are not eligible for SB 35 streamlining; for example, due to environmental site factors (e.g., 100% BMR project at 3001 El Camino Real which was located on a site with potential hazardous materials could have used this program). o “Missing middle” income projects that are proposed at moderate income levels up to 120% which do not qualify for SB 35 nor for the highest density bonuses afforded by State Density Bonus Law. Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 25     Item No. 2. Page 18 of 21 Table 4: Existing vs. Planned AHIP Regulations Compared to State Law Standard Existing Regulations Planned Modifications (as stipulated in Program 3.3) State Density Bonus Law SB 35 Applicability Sites zoned CD, CN, CS, and CC, but excluding shopping centers Sites within ½-mile of a major transit stop or ¼-mile of a high-quality transit corridor (i.e., Caltrain stations, intersecting bus lines with headways <15 minutes) Add all Housing Element opportunity sites, including those owned by Faith-Based Institutions in the R-1 Zone Any site with Zoning or General Plan compliance Eligibility based on specific environmental factors and physical conditions and Zoning or General Plan compliance Affordability Eligibility 100% affordable rental housing projects at or below 120% of the area median income No specific changes identified, except for height bonus related to deeper affordability Minimum 5% affordability at or below 50% of AMI or 10% at 80% of AMI to qualify for minimum 20% bonus Minimum 50% on-site affordability in Palo Alto currently, at or below 80% of AMI Review/ Approval Process Architectural Review (up to three meetings with the ARB) Projects that meet objective standards pursuant to Ch. 18.24, allow Streamlined Review Process (i.e., one study session with the ARB) Per local requirements Ministerial: no hearings required (though permitted if based on objective standards and completed within expedited timelines) Environmental Review Subject to CEQA Subject to CEQA, though streamlining may be available for Housing Element opportunity sites Subject to CEQA No CEQA since ministerial action. Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 26     Item No. 2. Page 19 of 21 Standard Existing Regulations Planned Modifications (as stipulated in Program 3.3) State Density Bonus Law SB 35 Maximum Residential Density None in commercial mixed- use zones. Reduced density provision for R-1 Zoned Faith Based Sites 100% affordable projects (at least 80% at 80% of AMI and up to 20% at 120% of AMI): no density limit Per local requirements Maximum Floor Area Ratio Residential: 2.0 Non-Residential: 0.4 Total: 2.4 Allow up to 2.4 Residential FAR (without requiring commercial uses, except in - GF and -R combining districts). Reduced density provision for R-1 Zoned Faith Based Sites. 100% affordable projects (at least 80% at 80% of AMI and up to 20% at 120% of AMI): no density limit for projects that only regulate FAR and not residential density Per local requirements Maximum Building Height 50 feet Allow up to 60 feet for projects at or below 60% of Area Median Income, with reduced density/height provision for R-1 Zoned Faith Based Sites. 100% affordable projects (at least 80% at 80% of AMI and up to 20% at 120% of AMI): up to 3 additional stories or 33 feet (above base height limit) Per local requirements Minimum Parking Ratio 0.75 spaces/unit 100% affordable within ½- mile of transit: None Otherwise: 1 sp. per studio, 1-bed 1.5 sp. per 2-, 3-bed 2.5 sp. per 4+bed None if located within ½ mile of transit; otherwise maximum 1 space/unit Other Development Standards Max. Lot Coverage: 100% Min. Usable Open Space: 25- 50 sq. ft./unit Per Program 3.3B: “The City will modify AHIP development and parking standards commensurate with FAR increases” 100% affordable projects within ½-mile of transit: five concessions/incentives Per local requirements Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 27     PTC Discussion Topics City staff asks the PTC to consider whether it supports the following changes as generally directed by Program 3.4: Modifications to one or more of the following development standards in the HIP to promote housing production: 1. Increase building heights by 5 to 23 feet over existing standards, depending on the district. 2. Increase FAR by 1.4 to 2.25 over existing standards, depending on the district, to support building height and density increases. 3. Eliminate maximum residential density (i.e., dwelling units/acre) as a standard. 4. Reduce setbacks, especially street-facing setbacks. 5. Increase maximum site/lot coverage. 6. Modify daylight plane limitations, to start step-backs higher up in the building. 7. Allow more flexibility in how open space is provided (e.g., on podiums, rooftops, balconies). 8. Allow the San Antonio Corridor Coordinated Area Plan and Downtown Housing Plan Study process to advise on modified HIP standards for the CS and CD(C) zones, respectively. 9. Decrease minimum parking requirements, beyond State Density Bonus Law standards. STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT Preparation of the Housing Element included a range of community outreach methods, including surveys, Working Group meetings, community workshops, and public hearings. Hundreds of community members have participated in the Housing Element update over the course of the project. City staff and consultants are working with developers and architects familiar with the City’s regulations to test potential standards. Community members have an opportunity to provide feedback on the draft standards at PTC, ARB, and City Council study sessions and public hearings. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW On April 15, 2024, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 10155, approving an Addendum to the Comprehensive Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The addendum analyzed potential environmental impacts of the 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element. This includes implementation of Housing Element Programs 3.3 and 3.4 and associated increase in housing production including and beyond what was projected by the RHNA and Housing Element sites inventory. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Excerpt from 2023-2031 Adopted Housing Element Program - 3.3: Affordable Housing Incentive Program (AHIP) 3.4: Housing Incentive Program (HIP) Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 28     Attachment B: Physical Feasibility Analysis Report (Executive Summary with link to full report5) Attachment C: Financial Feasibility of Multifamily Housing Typologies Attachment D: Existing vs. Proposed HIP Eligible Locations Map Attachment E: State Density Bonus Law Handout AUTHOR/TITLE: Jean Eisberg, Consultant 5 Full report: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/planning-amp-development-services/long- range-planning/kma-housing-incentive-program-report_complete.pdf Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 29     5-15 Time Frame: Complete and implement studies by September 2024. Complete additional study by 2025. Amend fee schedule by September 2026. Primary Associated Goals and Policies Goals: 3, 4 Policies: 3.1, 4.1 PROGRAM 3.2: MONITOR CONSTRAINTS TO HOUSING The Constraints chapter of the Housing Element identifies several conditions and practices that act to constrain housing development. By addressing these conditions and practices, the City can streamline development processes, and promote future residential development. The City will continue to monitor its policies, standards, and regulations to ensure the City’s regulatory framework facilitates residential and balanced mixed-use development in the community. Responsible Agency: Planning and Development Services Funding Sources(s): General Fund Implementing Objectives: A. Monitor new local policy initiatives for effectiveness in combatting identified constraints to housing development. B. When new land use regulations, impact fees or procedural changes are being considered by the Planning and Transportation Commission and City Council, the City shall prepare an analysis in the accompanying staff report detailing how the regulation may impact housing production, if at all, and recommended solutions to address those impacts. C. Monitor application of the Municipal Code standards for constraints to housing projects and recommend changes annually, as appropriate, to enhance the feasibility of affordable housing. Time Frame: Complete review and implementation of required edits once during the planning period, by January 2027. Primary Associated Goals and Policies: Goals: 2, 4 Policies: 2.1, 2.3, 4.2 PROGRAM 3.3: AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES The Planning and Development Services Department, in its review of development applications, market conditions and through conversations with non-profit housing providers, has identified certain changes in development standards that will encourage the development of low- and moderate-income housing. The City has already adopted an affordable housing incentive program (AHIP) that includes flexible development standards, streamlined application review processes, direct financial assistance and other incentives to encourage affordable housing. These initiatives will be extended through this Program to reduce constraints and expand the opportunity for below-market rate housing. Responsible Agency: Planning and Development Services Funding Sources(s): General Fund Implementing Objectives: A. Amend the municipal code to extend the affordable housing incentive program to apply to all housing opportunity sites identified in the Housing Element and zoned for commercial, industrial or multi-family Item 2 Att A_Program 3.3 & 3.4     Packet Pg. 30     5-16 residential use. Update AHIP regulations for religious institution sites located in the R1 district with a reduced density provision. B. Amend the affordable housing overlay (incentive program) regulations to allow housing projects to achieve a residential floor area ratio of 2.4:1.0 without requiring commercial floor area (except where required on University and California Avenues). The City will modify AHIP development and parking standards commensurate with FAR increases, and, for housing projects income restricted to 60 percent of the area median income level or below, allow up to sixty (60) feet in height on all opportunity sites. C. Amend Zoning Code to incorporate all recent changes to State density bonus law and develop summary materials to promote the use of density bonuses. Time Frame: Complete zoning changes by December 31, 2024 Quantified Objective: Amend the zoning code and comprehensive plan as necessary to extend the provision of affordable housing incentive program to sites in the housing inventory and codify additional incentives described herein. D. Amend the PAMC to streamline all 100 percent affordable housing development projects. Implement a procedure that prioritizes affordable housing projects for staff resources and, if applicable, hearing dates, above other projects, regardless of submission date. Time Frame: Complete by December 2024. Quantified Objective: The timeframes associated with permit processing can be viewed as a constraint to affordable development. The City aims to complete the processing of planning entitlements for affordable housing projects exempt from environmental review within 90 days from application submittal. Primary Associated Goals and Policies: Goal: 2, 3, 4 Policies: 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 3.2, 4.2 PROGRAM 3.4: HOUSING INCENTIVE PROGRAM (HIP) The HIP was enacted in 2019 as an alternative to the State Density Bonus law and provides development incentives including no housing density restrictions, increased floor area ratios and increased lot coverage. This program seeks to expand the suite of development incentives and extends the program to additional zoning districts that are not identified in the Site Inventory. Responsible Agency: Planning and Development Services Funding Sources(s): General Fund Implementing Objectives: A. HIP qualifying projects that also comply with City approved objective standards shall be administratively reviewed with one courtesy meeting before the Architectural Review Board. Time Frame: Revise review process instructions by December 2024. Item 2 Att A_Program 3.3 & 3.4     Packet Pg. 31     5-17 Quantified Objective: Monitor projects for compliance with desired review schedule, track application processing timelines and number of applications appealed to Council; use data to inform future modifications to the HIP program. B. Amend the local Housing Incentive Program to include specific expanded development standards, as an alternative to state density bonus provisions. Reduce barriers by removing Planning Director discretion to define applicable standards in each instance. C. Allow for sites subject to the City’s retail preservation ordinance – except in the ground floor (GF) and retail (R) combining districts and strategic locations generally depicted in the draft South El Camino Real Design Guidelines – to have a reduction in the amount of retail replacement floor area needed for redevelopment and waive the retail preservation requirement for identified housing opportunity sites. D. Extend the local Housing Incentive Program to the multi-family residential districts (RM-20, RM-30, and R-40).as well as the ROLM and GM district focus area The Housing Incentive Program development standards shall be amended to increase height and floor area allowances for housing projects; reduce parking requirements to match or improve upon state density bonus, and adjustment to other development standards to enable greater housing production. Time Frame: Complete Municipal Code amendments by December 31, 2024. Quantified Objective: Amend the municipal code and comprehensive plan to codify implementing objective with the goal of encouraging the development of approximately 550 units over the planning period. E. Expand the geographic boundaries of the El Camino Real Focus Area (adopted in 2023) to incentivize housing production at appropriate locations. Increase building height and floor area ratios and apply other objective standards, such as transitional height restrictions, to address single family zoning district adjacencies. The proposed standards will be an alternative to the state density bonus. Time Frame: Complete municipal code amendments by June 30, 2025. Quantified Objective: Amend municipal code with the goal of encouraging development of approximately 500 units over the planning period. Primary Associated Goals and Policies: Goal: 2, 3, 4 Policies: 2.2, 3.1, 3.2, 4.2, 4.4 PROGRAM 3.5: ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT (ADU) FACILITATION This program aims to annually monitor provisions made to ADU legislation and amend the City’s Zoning Ordinance as necessary to ensure compliance with State law. Furthermore, the City is committed to encouraging a greater range of housing types, reducing barriers to alternative types of housing such as ADUs, and promoting income integration across the City. In recent years, multiple bills have added requirements for local governments related to ADU ordinances. The 2016 and 2017 updates to State law included changes pertaining to the allowed size of ADUs, Item 2 Att A_Program 3.3 & 3.4     Packet Pg. 32     Housing Incentive Program (HIP) Amendments to Implement the 6th Cycle Housing Element Physical Feasibility Analysis Report Revision Date: May 3, 2024July 10, 2024 Item 2 Att B_UFS Physical Feasibility Site Tests     Packet Pg. 33     Physical Feasibility Analysis Report 1 Overview This report helps implement Program 3.4 of the Housing Element, which requires that the City amend the Housing Incentive Program based on findings of a feasibility analysis. This report analyzes the physical feasibility of current zoning standards to achieve different housing types (e.g., townhomes, apartments). Architects prepared prototypical site and unit plans based on the City’s development standards, including building height, density, setbacks, open space, and parking requirements. Then, the architects adjusted various zoning levers, modifying zoning standards to increase unit yield and further support housing production and affordability. This analysis is accompanied by Keyser Marston Associates’ (KMA) financial feasibility analysis to determine whether the prototypes resulting from existing and modified zoning standards are financially feasible. Purpose & Findings 50’-0” 14’-0” 25’-0” 36’-0” 40’-0” 50’-0” 40’-0”Height Limit Buffer Modified CD-C ZoningExisting CD-C Zoning 60’-0” 60’-0” Item 2 Att B_UFS Physical Feasibility Site Tests     Packet Pg. 34     City of Palo Alto Housing Incentive Program (HIP) Amendments to Implement the 6th Cycle Housing Element2 Mixed-Use Zones RM Zones Zoning Designation CD-C CN CC(2) RM-20 RM-30 RM40 ROLM (RM-30) Site 635 High Street 3700 El Camino Real 310 California Avenue 680 University Avenue 355 College Avenue Typical Interior Lot 1035 E Meadow Circle Lot Size 50’x102’150’x106’90’x125’100’x100’50’x132’50’x100’300’x145’ Square feet 5,125 15,761 11,250 10,000 6,626 5,000 43,560 Existing Retail No Yes Yes No No No No Test Sites RM-20 CD-C RM-30 ROLM CN RM-40 CC(2) Item 2 Att B_UFS Physical Feasibility Site Tests     Packet Pg. 35     Physical Feasibility Analysis Report 3 Key Findings Existing zoning standards generally support townhome development with surface or tuck-under parking. This is largely due to low lot coverage allowances and densities/FARs, deep setbacks, and relatively high parking and landscaping requirements. Townhomes are a fine prototype, but limited in their ability to produce affordable and market rate housing. Existing standards generally do not support apartments and condominiums in “stacked flats” configuration or mixed-use development with ground-floor retail. To achieve these higher densities, opportunities for more affordable housing, and more financially feasible development, the modified zoning standards explore adjustments to several zoning levers: • Reducing setbacks, especially on the street side• Increasing lot coverage, FAR, and density• Increasing height limits and adjusting daylight plane requirements • Reducing landscaping coverage and allowing flexibility in the placement of common open space• Reducing parking requirements, consistent with State law allowances • Reducing ground-floor retail requirements outside of neighborhood commercial centers Item 2 Att B_UFS Physical Feasibility Site Tests     Packet Pg. 36     City of Palo Alto Housing Incentive Program (HIP) Amendments to Implement the 6th Cycle Housing Element4 Retail Preservation Requirements Revisions • Revise use requirements for retail• Do not require one-for-one replacement: allow minimum FAR standard for retail • Revise Retail preservation applicability • Only require retail at key nodes. Allow 100% residential in between nodes on commercial corridors, and Housing Element opportunity sites • Clarify that Retail Preservation replacement is allowed on two floors Objectives • Support affordable and market rate housing production goals, as specified in the Housing Element• Allow for apartment housing formats• Accommodate stacked flats and mixed-use development • Enable financial feasibility • Retain Palo Alto design values 50’-0” 14’-0” 25’-0” 36’-0” 40’-0”60’-0”Redefine maximum height of buildings to measure to top of structure, rather than top of parapet to allow a more reasonable fit within the height limit. Decrease parking requirements, consistent with State law allowances: The space taken up by parking compared to housing can be close to 1:1. ✓X 2-Bedroom Unit 828 sf 2 parking spaces required 558 sf+ guest parking (1 per project, plus 10% of total number of units) = 837 sf12’-0’ Circulation(aisle width) 19’ x 9’ Parking Space Guest Parking 23’ x 36’ Item 2 Att B_UFS Physical Feasibility Site Tests     Packet Pg. 37     Physical Feasibility Analysis Report 5 Ground Floor Upper Level Development Standard Revisions • Increase or eliminate maximum residential densities, which do not directly affect building massing • Increase FAR and building height • Revise the Daylight Plane to allow for at least two stories of development• Revise height buffer in CD-C district: 150 feet is too far from “adjacent” residential to create a meaningful transition • Revise Height Limit Buffer to apply only when the entire site is within the buffer• Revise Height Limit Buffer to apply to area within 10 feet of a visible property line (thus defining a setback) Lot Standard Revisions • Decrease landscape/open space coverage. The Ground Floor is a contested space. The more Landscape/Open Space is required, the smaller the podium. It’s a big trade-off.• Allow landscape/open space to be counted above the ground floor on small sites (e.g, at the podium level)• Reduce setbacks, especially on the street side which tend to be deep even though this does not affect neighbors. • Allow zero setbacks or mixed-use citywide or on commercial streets like California Avenue, University Avenue, and El Camino Real• Reduce rear setback near roads. Count the alleyways/lanes/service roads in lieu of rear setback Revise the daylight plane to allow at least two stories at the edges of sites. Allow the landscape/open space requirement to be met on upper levels to free up contested space at the ground level. Ground Floor Item 2 Att B_UFS Physical Feasibility Site Tests     Packet Pg. 38     City of Palo Alto Housing Incentive Program (HIP) Amendments to Implement the 6th Cycle Housing Element6 CD-C District Alle y 50’ - 0 ” 102’-6 ” Alle y Prim a r y S t r e e t Modified CD-C Zoning 15 Apartments Existing CD-C Zoning 4 Townhomes The Height Limit Buffer and requirement for open space at the ground floor limit the amount of housing potential on the site. Housing capacity almost quadruples when allowing 10 more feet of height, eliminating the height buffer, and open space requirements to met on top of podiums. Prim a r y S t r e e t Item 2 Att B_UFS Physical Feasibility Site Tests     Packet Pg. 39     Physical Feasibility Analysis Report 7 Existing CD-C Zoning Modified CD-C Zoning Setback: Front N/A N/A Setback: Interior Side N/A N/A Setback: Rear 10 feet for residential portion 5 feet for residential portion Setback: Street Side Yard N/A N/A Build-to-Lines: Frontage N/A N/A Build-to-Lines: Side Street N/A N/A Height Limit Buffer Yes (40 feet)No Height Limit 50 feet 60 feet Daylight Plane N/A N/A Maximum Site Coverage N/A N/A Minimum Landscape/Open Space Coverage 20% on ground 20% on ground and/or upper level Parking: Studio/1BR 1 1 Parking: 2+ BR 2 1.5 Maximum FAR Overall 2.0 4.0 Maximum Residential FAR 1.0 4.0 Maximum Commercial FAR 1.0 0.0 Parking Required 2 per unit8 spaces 1.5 per unit17.5 spaces Total Number of Units 4 units 15 units Average Unit Size 1,575 sf 1,003 sf Density 34 du/ac 125 du/ac FAR Overall 1.23 FAR 4.16 FAR Parking Provided (spaces)8 spaces 18 spaces Parking Type Covered, tandem Podium, tandem 50’-0” 14’-0” 25’-0” 36’-0” 40’-0” 60’-0” 50’-0” 40’-0”Height Limit Buffer Modified CD-C ZoningExisting CD-C Zoning PR O T O T Y P E R E S U L T S STA N D A R D S Modified standards indicated in red. 60’-0” Height Limit Item 2 Att B_UFS Physical Feasibility Site Tests     Packet Pg. 40     City of Palo Alto Housing Incentive Program (HIP) Amendments to Implement the 6th Cycle Housing Element8 Retail l/wk l/wk l/wk l/wktrash Retail Open S p a c e Ramp 150’-0 ” 106 ’ CN District Existing CN Zoning 12 Apartments A height limit buffer, maximum height limit, and daylight plane apply to this site. With a 35% minimum landscape/open space coverage, there is not much left space left for mixed use development. Underground parking is therefore required. Modified CN Zoning 35 Apartments More housing is possible by raising the height limit, allowing modest changes to the setbacks, and allowing the landscape/open space to be located on upper levels. Parking is accommodated at grade using mechanical lifts. Prima r y S t r e e t Prima r y S t r e e t Alley Alley Side S t r e e t Ramp Side S t r e e t Item 2 Att B_UFS Physical Feasibility Site Tests     Packet Pg. 41     Physical Feasibility Analysis Report 9 Existing CN Zoning Modified CN Zoning Setback: Front 0-10’ for sidewalks 0-10’ for sidewalks Setback: Interior Side 10 feet 5 feet Setback: Rear 10’ for residential portion 5’ for residential portion Setback: Street Side Yard 5 feet 5 feet Build-to-Lines: Frontage 50%50% Build-to-Lines: Side Street 33%33% Height Limit Buffer Yes (35 feet)Daylight plane in-lieu of buffer Height 40 feet 50 feet Daylight Plane 16 feet height, 60 degrees 16 feet height, 60 degrees Maximum Site Coverage 50%100% Minimum Landscape/Open Space Coverage 35% on ground 35% on ground and/or upper level Parking: Studio/1BR 1 1 Parking: 2+ BR 2 1.5 Maximum FAR Overall 1.5 FAR 3.5 FAR Maximum Residential FAR 1.5 FAR 3.5 FAR Maximum Commercial FAR 0.4 FAR 0.4 FAR Minimum Mixed-Use Ground Floor Commercial FAR 0.15 FAR 0 FAR Parking Required 21 spaces 42 spaces Total Number of Units 12 units 35 units Average Unit Size 735 sf 742 sf Retail Preservation 2900 sf 0 sf Density 33 du/ac 97 du/ac FAR Overall 1.04 FAR 2.19 FAR Parking Provided 21 total spaces 46 spaces Parking Type Underground, tandem Podium, mechanical 16’-0”6020’-0” 30’-0” 50’-0” 40’-0” Modified CN Zoning 16’-0”60 35’-0” 20’-0” 30’-0” 35’-0” Existing CN Zoning 35’-0” Height Limit Buffer 16’-0”16’-0”60° 40’ Height Limit Day l i g h t P l a n e Day l i g h t P l a n e PR O T O T Y P E R E S U L T S STA N D A R D S Modified standards indicated in red. 50’-0” Height Limit Item 2 Att B_UFS Physical Feasibility Site Tests     Packet Pg. 42     City of Palo Alto Housing Incentive Program (HIP) Amendments to Implement the 6th Cycle Housing Element10 CC(2) District Existing CC(2) Zoning 3 Townhomes Building height, setbacks, lot coverage, parking requirements, and FAR maximums apply to this site. Two levels of underground parking is required to meet minimum parking standards, which is costly. Existing residential FAR limits and setbacks limit the housing to 3-stories and to only 3 units. Modified CC(2) Zoning 34 Apartments More housing is possible by raising the height limit, eliminating setbacks, allowing the landscape/open space to be located on upper levels and increasing the FAR. Retail parking is not provided onsite but in district commercial parking structures. Residential parking is provided onsite in mechanical lifts. Prim a r y S t r e e t Prim a r y S t r e e t Side S t r e e t Side S t r e e t Alle y 125’-0 ” 90’ - 0 ” Alle y Ramp Ret a i l Open S p a c e Ret a i l Open S p a c e Item 2 Att B_UFS Physical Feasibility Site Tests     Packet Pg. 43     Physical Feasibility Analysis Report 11 Existing CC(2) Zoning Modified CC(2) Zoning Setback: Front 0-10’ for sidewalks 0 feet Setback: Interior Side 10 feet 0 feet Setback: Rear 10’ for residential portion 0 feet Setback: Street Side Yard 5 feet 0 feet Build-to-Lines: Frontage 50%50% Build-to-Lines: Side Street 33%33% Height Limit Buffer Not Applicable Not Applicable Height 37 feet 60 feet Daylight Plane Not Applicable Not Applicable Maximum Site Coverage 100%100% Minimum Landscape/Open Space Coverage 20% on ground (23% shown) 20% (on any level) Parking: Studio/1BR 1 0.5 Parking: 2+ BR 2 1.0 Parking: Retail 1 per 250 sfFirst 1,500sf exempt 0offsite with district parking Maximum FAR Overall 2.0 FAR 3.5 FAR Maximum Residential FAR 1.5 FAR 3.5 FAR Maximum Commercial FAR 0.4 FAR 0.4 FAR Minimum Mixed-Use Ground Floor Commercial FAR 0.25 FAR 0.25 FAR Total Number of Units 3 units (tuck under parking)34 units Average Unit Size 1,800 sf 902 sf Retail Preservation 10,700 2,812 sf Density 11 du/ac 97 du/ac FAR Overall 1.43 FAR 3.56 FAR Residential FAR 0.47 FAR 3.75 FAR Commercial FAR 0.96 FAR 0.25 FAR Parking Provided 38 commercial spaces 27 residential spaces Parking Type 2 levels underground Podium, mechanical PR O T O T Y P E R E S U L T S STA N D A R D S Modified standards indicated in red. 37’ Height Limit Existing CC(2) Zoning Modified CC(2) Zoning 60’-0” Height Limit Item 2 Att B_UFS Physical Feasibility Site Tests     Packet Pg. 44     City of Palo Alto Housing Incentive Program (HIP) Amendments to Implement the 6th Cycle Housing Element12 Prima r y S t r e e t Side S t r e e t Prima r y S t r e e t Side S t r e e t RM-20 District Existing RM-20 Zoning 4 Apartments The daylight plane, height limit, setbacks, and maximum site coverage limit unit yield on this site. Modified RM-20 Zoning 7 Apartments Adjustements to zoning allow the development envelope to be more flexible and doubles the amount of housing possible on the site. Item 2 Att B_UFS Physical Feasibility Site Tests     Packet Pg. 45     Physical Feasibility Analysis Report 13 Existing RM-20 Zoning Modified RM-20 Zoning Setback: Front 20 feet 10 feet Setback: Interior Side 10, 6 feet 5 feet Setback: Rear 10 feet 5 feet Setback: Street Side Yard 16 feet 5 feet Build-to-Lines: Frontage N/A N/A Build-to-Lines: Side Street N/A N/A Height Limit Buffer N/A N/A Height 30 feet 40 feet Daylight Plane 10 feet, 45 degrees 2 story residential edges or 16 feet, 45 degrees Maximum Site Coverage 35%65% Minimum Landscape/Open Space Coverage 35% on ground 35% on ground and/or upper level Parking: Studio/1BR 1 1 Parking: 2+ BR 2 1.5 Maximum Density 20 du/ac No maximum Maximum FAR Overall 1.0 FAR 2.0 FAR Parking Required 8 spaces 10.5 spaces Total Number of Units 4 units 7 units Average Unit Size 2,500 sf 2,341 sf Density 18 du/ac 32 du/ac FAR Overall 1.0 FAR 1.21 FAR Parking Provided (spaces)8 spaces 11 spaces Parking Type Tuck under Tuck under 10’-0”10’-0” 30’-0” Height Limit 30’-0” Height Limit Dayl i g h t p l a n e Dayli g h t p l a n e 45degrees45 degrees Modified RM-20 ZoningExisting RM-20 Zoning 30’-0” Height Limit 10’-0” Dayl i g h t P l a n e 16’-0” 45°45° Dayl i g h t P l a n e 40’-0” Height Limit PR O T O T Y P E R E S U L T S STA N D A R D S Modified standards indicated in red. Item 2 Att B_UFS Physical Feasibility Site Tests     Packet Pg. 46     City of Palo Alto Housing Incentive Program (HIP) Amendments to Implement the 6th Cycle Housing Element14 RM-30 District Existing RM-30 Zoning 4 Apartments The daylight plane and maximum site coverage limits development to the extent that the prototype does not reach the limits of the building envelope. Modified RM-30 Zoning 7 Apartments Modification of the daylight plane and the maximum site coverage allows for development to fill the building envelope while still maintaining the daylight plane. Side S t r e e t Side S t r e e t Prim a r y S t r e e t Prim a r y S t r e e t Item 2 Att B_UFS Physical Feasibility Site Tests     Packet Pg. 47     Physical Feasibility Analysis Report 15 16’-0”45 40’-0” Height Limit Dayli g h t p l a n e 10’-0”45 35’-0” Height Limit degreesDayli g h t p l a n e Existing RM-30 Zoning Modified RM-30 Zoning Setback: Front 20 feet 10 feet Setback: Interior Side 10, 6 feet 5 feet Setback: Rear 10 feet 5 feet Setback: Street Side Yard 16 feet 5 feet Build-to-Lines: Frontage N/A N/A Build-to-Lines: Side Street N/A N/A Height Limit Buffer N/A N/A Height 35 feet 40 feet Daylight Plane 10 feet, 45 degrees 2 story residential edges or 16 feet, 45 degrees Maximum Site Coverage 40%65% Minimum Landscape/Open Space Coverage 30%30% Parking: Studio/1BR 1 1 Parking: 2+ BR 2 1.5 Maximum Density 30 du/ac No maximum Maximum FAR Overall 1.0 FAR 2.5 FAR Parking Required 8 spaces 10.5 spaces Total Number of Units 4 7 Average Unit Size 1,650 sf 1,457 sf Density 27 du/ac 47 du/ac FAR Overall 1.0 FAR 1.62 FAR Parking Provided 8 spaces 11 spaces Parking Type Tuck under, driveway Tuck under, tandem Modified RM-30 ZoningExisting RM-30 Zoning 35’-0” 10’-0”16’-0” 45°45° Daylight Plane Daylight Plane PR O T O T Y P E R E S U L T S STA N D A R D S Modified standards indicated in red. 40’-0” Height Limit Item 2 Att B_UFS Physical Feasibility Site Tests     Packet Pg. 48     City of Palo Alto Housing Incentive Program (HIP) Amendments to Implement the 6th Cycle Housing Element16 RM-40 District Existing RM-40 Zoning 4 Townhomes The setbacks and daylight plane on this small (and typical) site limit the shape of the building reducing the amount of housing possible on the site. The daylight plane rules prevent a development from meeting the district height limit. This site test assumes no parking. Stre e t F r o n t a g e Stre e t F r o n t a g e 50’ - 0 ” 50’ - 0 ” 100’-0 ” 100’-0 ” Existing RM-40 Zoning - No Parking 8 Apartments To better understand the maximum development possible within this limited building envelopment, the site test was run again without parking requirements. Item 2 Att B_UFS Physical Feasibility Site Tests     Packet Pg. 49     Physical Feasibility Analysis Report 17 Modified RM-40 Zoning - 10,000sf site 21 Apartments The width of two typical lots allows the layout of podium parking to be more efficient. Parking was also modified to 1 space per unit minimum. The number of units is still limited by the modified parking required, resulting in three stories over podium parking. Stre e t F r o n t a g e Modified RM-40 Zoning 16 Apartments Revising setbacks to be more uniform with other zoning districts and removing the daylight plane allows a regularly shaped building and more capacity of housing. This allows for four stories of housing on top of the podium if only the building envelope was considered, excluding limits on FAR, density, or parking. Item 2 Att B_UFS Physical Feasibility Site Tests     Packet Pg. 50     City of Palo Alto Housing Incentive Program (HIP) Amendments to Implement the 6th Cycle Housing Element18 Existing RM-40 Zoning Existing RM-40 Zoning Setback: Front 20 feet 20 feet Setback: Interior Side 10, 6 feet 10, 6 feet Setback: Rear 10 feet 10 feet Setback: Street Side Yard 16 feet 16 feet Build-to-Lines: Frontage N/A N/A Build-to-Lines: Side Street N/A N/A Height Limit Buffer N/A N/A Height 40 feet 40 feet Daylight Plane 10 feet, 45 degrees 10 feet, 45 degrees Maximum Site Coverage 45%45% Minimum Landscape/Open Space Coverage 30%30% Parking: Studio/1BR 1 0 Parking: 2+ BR 2 0 Maximum Density 40 du/ac No maximum Maximum FAR Overall 1.0 FAR 1.0 FAR Parking Required 7 spaces 0 spaces Total Number of Units 4 units 8 units Average Unit Size 1,009 sf 644 sf Density 34 du/ac 67 du/ac FAR Overall 0.88 FAR 1.0 FAR Parking Provided 7 spaces 0 spaces Parking Type Podium N/A 50’-0” Height Limit 35’-0” Height @ intersection of the daylight planes 10’-0” 45 de g r e e d a y l i g h t p l a n e 50’-0” Height Limit 35’-0” Height @ intersection of the daylight planes 10’-0” 45 de g r e e d a y l i g h t p l a n e Modified RM-40 ZoningExisting RM-40 Zoning 40’-0” Height Limit 40’-0” Height Limit 35’-0” Intersection of daylight planes35’-0” Intersection of daylight planes 10’-0” 30’-0”30’-0” 10’-0” 45°45° PR O T O T Y P E R E S U L T S STA N D A R D S Modified standards indicated in red. Item 2 Att B_UFS Physical Feasibility Site Tests     Packet Pg. 51     Physical Feasibility Analysis Report 19 Modified RM-40 Zoning Modified RM-40 Zoning Setback: Front 10 feet 10 feet Setback: Interior Side 5 feet 5 feet Setback: Rear 5 feet 5 feet Setback: Street Side Yard 5 feet 5 feet Build-to-Lines: Frontage N/A N/A Build-to-Lines: Side Street N/A N/A Height Limit Buffer N/A N/A Height 50 feet 50 feet Daylight Plane N/A N/A Maximum Site Coverage 70%70% Minimum Landscape/Open Space Coverage 20%20% Parking: Studio/1BR N/A 1 Parking: 2+ BR N/A 1 Maximum Density No maximum No maximum Maximum FAR Overall N/A 2.5 FAR Parking Required N/A 21 spaces Total Number of Units 16 units 21 units Average Unit Size 644 sf 734 sf Density 130 du/ac 91 du/ac FAR Overall 2.8 FAR 2.3 FAR Parking Provided 6 spaces 21 spaces Parking Type Podium Podium, mechanical 45’-0”45’-0”45’-0”45’-0”45’-0”45’-0”45’-0”45’-0” 45’-0”45’-0” 45’-0”45’-0”45’-0”45’-0”45’-0”45’-0”45’-0”45’-0” 45’-0”45’-0”45’-0”45’-0”45’-0”45’-0”45’-0”45’-0” 45’-0”45’-0”45’-0”45’-0”45’-0”45’-0”45’-0”45’-0” Modified RM-40 Zoning (10,000 sf lot)Modified RM-40 Zoning 50’-0” Height Limit50’-0” Height Limit 40’-0” 50’-0” PR O T O T Y P E R E S U L T S STA N D A R D S Modified standards indicated in red. Item 2 Att B_UFS Physical Feasibility Site Tests     Packet Pg. 52     City of Palo Alto Housing Incentive Program (HIP) Amendments to Implement the 6th Cycle Housing Element20 ROLM District Existing ROLM Zoning 16 Apartments The existing height limit restricts the housing typology to townhomes. The potential is much higher at this site. The 40% maximum site coverage is also a constraint on housing potential for stacked flats. Modified ROLM Zoning 130 Apartments More housing is possible If the height limit and maximum site coverage is revised to allow for apartments. Allowing the landscape/open space requirement to be met on upper levels also contributes to efficient use of the site. Prim a r y S t r e e t Prim a r y S t r e e t 304’ 293’ 145 ’ Item 2 Att B_UFS Physical Feasibility Site Tests     Packet Pg. 53     Physical Feasibility Analysis Report 21 Existing ROLM Zoning Modified ROLM Zoning Setback: Front 20 feet 10 feet Setback: Interior Side 10, 6 feet 5 feet Setback: Rear 10 feet 5 feet Setback: Street Side Yard 16 feet 5 feet Build-to-Lines: Frontage N/A N/A Build-to-Lines: Side Street N/A N/A Height Limit Buffer N/A N/A Height 35 feet 60 feet Daylight Plane N/A N/A Maximum Site Coverage 40%70% Minimum Landscape/Open Space Coverage 30% on ground 20% on ground and/or upper level Parking: Studio/1BR 1 1 Parking: 2+ BR 2 1 Maximum FAR Overall 0.6 FAR 2.5 FAR Parking Required 32 spaces 130 spaces Total Number of Units 16 units 130 units Average Unit Size 1,633 sf 760 sf Density 16 du/ac 130 du/ac FAR Overall 0.6 FAR 2.7 FAR Parking Provided 32 spaces 139 spaces Parking Type Surface and tuck under Podium, Mechanical 58’-0” 60’-0” Height Limit 58’-0”58’-0” 65’-0”65’-0” 35’-0”35’-0” Existing ROLM Zoning Modified ROLM Zoning 35’-0” Height Limit PR O T O T Y P E R E S U L T S STA N D A R D S Modified standards indicated in red. 30’-0” Item 2 Att B_UFS Physical Feasibility Site Tests     Packet Pg. 54     City of Palo Alto Housing Incentive Program (HIP) Amendments to Implement the 6th Cycle Housing Element22 Recommendations Potential Changes to Enable Feasibility Already Planned/Underway • Increase residential densities (on specific sites in Housing Element Sites Inventory) • Decrease parking requirements to match standards permitted under State law • AB2097 eliminates parking within ½ mile of Caltrain • State Density Bonus law allows reduced parking Additional Changes to Achieve Financial Feasibility and Stacked Flats/Mixed Use • Increase FAR and density • Increase building height • Reduce setbacks (esp. front/street side) • Increase maximum site coverage • Decrease landscape/open space coverage and allow more flexibility in open space • Revise retail preservation applicability Development standards work in unison. Other changes will be necessary to complement changes in density and parking. Other Changes to Consider to Enable Feasibility • Simplify and reduce requirements for open space • Modify the daylight plane for small lots or lots that have 100 foot depths or bigger • Reduce parking requirements for lots smaller than 10,000sf, “small lot program” • Modify height buffer (i.e., within 150 ft. of a residential use) • Allow height definition to exclude parapet height and rooftop mechanical • Exclude mechanical rooms from FAR so that building systems are not undersized Item 2 Att B_UFS Physical Feasibility Site Tests     Packet Pg. 55     Physical Feasibility Analysis Report 23 Mixed-Use Zones RM Zones Zoning Designation CD-C CN CC(2) RM-20 RM-30 RM40 ROLM (RM-30) Residential Units 4 12 3 4 4 4 16 Parking Spaces 8 21 38 8 8 7 32 Residential Density (du/ac)34 33 11 18 27 34 16 FAR 1.23 1.04 1.43 1.0 1.0 0.88 0.6 Building Height (feet)40 30 37 30 30 30 30 Typology Town Homes Town Homes Town Homes Town Homes Town Homes Town Homes Town Homes Financially Feasible?X X X X X X X Current Zoning Standards Yield Mixed-Use Zones RM Zones Zoning Designation CD-C CN CC(2) RM-20 RM-30 RM40 ROLM (RM-30) Residential Units 15 35 34 7 7 16 130 Parking Spaces 18 46 27 11 11 6 139 Residential Density (du/ac)125 97 130 32 47 130 130 FAR 4.16 2.19 3.56 1.21 1.62 2.8 2.7 Building Height (feet)60 50 60 40 40 50 58 Typology Apartments Apartments Apartments Town Homes Town Homes Apartments Apartments Financially Feasible?✓✓✓✓✓✓✓ Modified Zoning Standards Yield Item 2 Att B_UFS Physical Feasibility Site Tests     Packet Pg. 56     City of Palo Alto Housing Incentive Program (HIP) Amendments to Implement the 6th Cycle Housing Element24 Mixed-Use Zones RM Zones Zoning Designation CD-C CN CC(2) RM-20 RM-30 RM40 ROLM (RM-30) Development Intensity FAR 2.0 4.0 1.5 3.5 2.0 3.5 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.5 1.0 3.0 0.6 3.5 Res FAR 1.0 4.0 1.5 3.5 2.0 3.5 2.25 2.25 2.5 2.25 Minimum Mixed Use Ground Floor Commercial FAR N/A 0.15 0.0 0.25 0.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A Residential Density Max (du/ac)No max No max No max 20 No Max 30 No Max 40 No Max 30 No Max Residential Density Min (du/ac)N/A N/A N/A 11 16 21 16 Maximum Building Heights Height Limit Buffer Yes (50') Yes (40')No No No No No Height (feet)40 60 35 50 37 60 30 40 35 40 40 50 35 60 Daylight Plane (* for side and rear abutting R, lots less than 70 feet) N/A 16 feet height, 60 degrees (in lieu of buffer) N/A 10 16 feet, 45 degrees 10 16 feet, 45 degrees 10 feet, 45 degrees N/A N/A Item 2 Att B_UFS Physical Feasibility Site Tests     Packet Pg. 57     Physical Feasibility Analysis Report 25 Setbacks Setback: Front N/A 0-10' for sidewalks 0-10' for sidewalks 0 20 10 20 10 20 10 20 10 Setback: Interior Side N/A 10 5 10 0 10, 6 5 10, 6 5 10, 6 5 10, 6 5 Setback: Rear 10' 5 for residential portion 10' 5 for residential portion 10' for residential portion 0 10 5 10 5 10 5 10 5 Setback: Street Side Yard N/A 5 5 0 16 5 16 5 16 5 16 5 Mixed-Use Zones RM Zones Zoning Designation CD-C CN CC(2) RM-20 RM-30 RM40 ROLM (RM-30) Max Site Coverage N/A 100%100%35% 65%40% 65%45% 70%40% 70% Landscape/Open Space Coverage 20%35%20%35%30%20%30% Landscape/Open Space Location Ground floor only Ground floor and upper stories Parking Requirements Parking: Studio/1 BR 1 1 1 0.5 1 1 1 1 Parking: 2+ BR 2 1.5 2 1.5 2 1.0 2 1.5 2 1.5 2 1 2 1 Item 2 Att B_UFS Physical Feasibility Site Tests     Packet Pg. 58     HOUSING INCENTIVE PROGRAM STUDY: TESTING THE FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY OF MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING TYPOLOGIES Prepared for: City of Palo Alto Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. June 13, 2024 Item 2 Att C_KMA Financial Feasibility_ExecSumExcerpt     Packet Pg. 59     Housing Incentive Program Study Page i Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. 2405001v2.PA / 17125.015.001 June 13, 2024 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................... 1 A. FINANCIAL EVALUATION METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................. 1 B. BASE ZONING PROTOTYPE ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................ 1 C. PROPOSED ZONING PROTYPE ANALYSIS .................................................................................................... 4 D. ADDITIONAL POLICY CONSIDERATIONS ..................................................................................................... 6 II. FINANCIAL EVALUATION METHODOLOGY .................................................................................. 8 A. ANALYSIS OF BASE ZONING PROTOTYPES .................................................................................................. 8 B. ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED ZONING PROTOTYPES ........................................................................................... 8 C. FINANCIAL EVALUATION ORGANIZATION ................................................................................................... 9 D. PRO FORMA ASSUMPTIONS ................................................................................................................. 10 III. ANALYSIS OF BASE ZONING PROTOTYPES ................................................................................ 12 A. SITE A: CD-C ZONE.......................................................................................................................... 12 B. SITE B: CN ZONE .............................................................................................................................. 13 C. SITE C: CC(2) ZONE .......................................................................................................................... 16 D. SITE D: RM-20 ZONE ........................................................................................................................ 18 E. SITE E: RM-30 ZONE ........................................................................................................................ 20 F. SITE F: RM-40 ZONE ......................................................................................................................... 21 G. CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................................... 23 IV. ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED ZONING PROTOTYPES ....................................................................... 25 A. SITE A: CD-C ZONE ........................................................................................................................... 25 B. SITE B: CN ZONE .............................................................................................................................. 27 C. SITE C: CC(2) ZONE .......................................................................................................................... 29 D. SITE D: RM-20 ZONE ........................................................................................................................ 32 E. SITE E: RM-30 ZONE ........................................................................................................................ 34 F. SITE F: RM-40 ZONE ......................................................................................................................... 35 G. CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................................... 42 V. POLICY CONSIDERATIONS ........................................................................................................ 44 A. APPLICABILITY OF ZONING MODIFICATIONS TO SMALL SITES ....................................................................... 44 B. APPLICABILITY OF ZONING MODIFICATIONS TO LARGER SITES ...................................................................... 44 C. CURRENT CITY PERMITS AND FEES ......................................................................................................... 45 D. CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................................... 45 Item 2 Att C_KMA Financial Feasibility_ExecSumExcerpt     Packet Pg. 60     Housing Incentive Program Study Page ii Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. 2405001v2.PA / 17125.015.001 June 13, 2024 ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1: Base Zoning Prototype Analyses Appendix A: Site A – CD-C Zone Appendix B: Site B – CN Zone Appendix C: Site C – CC(2) Zone Appendix D: Site D – RM-20 Zone Appendix E: Site E – RM-30 Zone Appendix F: Site F – RM-40 Zone Attachment 2: Proposed Zoning Prototype Analyses Appendix A: Site A – CD-C Zone Appendix B: Site B – CN Zone Appendix C: Site C – CC(2) Zone Appendix D: Site D – RM-20 Zone Appendix E: Site E – RM-30 Zone Appendix F: Site F – RM-40 Zone Attachment 3: Background Information Appendix A: Market Surveys Exhibit I Resale Home Survey Exhibit II New Home Sales Exhibit III Apartment Rent Survey Appendix B: Affordable Sales Price Calculations Item 2 Att C_KMA Financial Feasibility_ExecSumExcerpt     Packet Pg. 61     Housing Incentive Program Study Page 1 Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. 2405001v2.PA / 17125.015.001 June 13, 2024 I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City of Palo Alto (City) is considering modifications to the Zoning Ordinance to create incentives for multi-family and affordable housing development. The intent of the revised zoning standards is to enable multi-family housing typologies that are both physically feasible and financially feasible. To that end, the City engaged Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. (KMA) to evaluate the financial characteristics associated with prototypical residential projects. The intent of this financial analysis is to ensure that the proposed zoning modifications allow for financially feasible multi-family residential projects. The following report discusses the financial analyses prepared by KMA. A. Financial Evaluation Methodology KMA utilized the following methodology to evaluate the financial feasibility of each prototype: 1. KMA prepared pro forma analyses based on the scopes of development that were provided by Urban Field Studio. 2. The pro forma analyses were used to compare the value supported by the prototype project to the project’s development cost plus a standard developer profit. 3. If the project’s estimated value was less than the estimated costs plus developer profit, the project was deemed not likely to be built. B. Base Zoning Prototype Analysis As the first step in the process, Urban Field Studio and Lexington Planning created prototype development scenarios for six sites that comport with the City’s current development standards. For the purposes of this KMA analysis, “current” and “base” development standards refer to the base zoning standards applicable citywide, but do not take into account increased density standards available to Housing Element opportunity sites (adopted December 2023) or those available per State of California (State) Density Bonus Law. As described in Attachment 1, KMA evaluated the financial feasibility of each “Base Zoning Prototype.” Item 2 Att C_KMA Financial Feasibility_ExecSumExcerpt     Packet Pg. 62     Housing Incentive Program Study Page 2 Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. 2405001v2.PA / 17125.015.001 June 13, 2024 As can be seen in Attachment 1, each of the Base Zoning Prototypes was found not likely to be developed under the City’s current zoning standards. The results of the KMA analyses of the Base Zoning Prototypes are presented in the table on the following page. Item 2 Att C_KMA Financial Feasibility_ExecSumExcerpt     Packet Pg. 63     SITE C SITE F CC(2) Zone RM-40 Zone I.Site Area (Sf)11,250 5,000 II.Development Scope A.Unit Type Townhome Apartment Townhome Townhome Townhome Townhome B.Unit Mix Studio Units 0 3 0 0 0 1 One-Bedroom Units 0 1 0 0 0 0 Two-Bedroom Units 0 12 3 0 0 3 Three-Bedroom Units 4 0 0 2 4 0 Four-Bedroom Units 0 0 0 2 0 0 Total Units 4 16 3 4 4 4 B.Unit Sizes Studio Units 0 360 0 0 0 360 Live/Work One-Bedroom Units 0 0 0 0 0 0 One-Bedroom Units 0 528 0 0 0 0 Two-Bedroom Units 0 828 1,810 0 0 1,120 Three-Bedroom Units 1,575 0 0 1,891 1,429 0 Four-Bedroom Units 0 0 0 2,791 0 0 Net Living Area 6,300 11,544 5,430 9,364 5,716 3,720 Average SF/Unit 1,575 722 1,810 2,341 1,429 930 Retail GBA 0 2,900 10,784 0 0 Gross Building Area (Sf)6,300 19,701 18,230 9,364 5,716 3,720 Floor Area Ratio (FAR)1.23 1.22 1.53 0.94 0.86 0.74 Density (Units/Acre)34 44 12 17 26 35 III.Estimated Development Cost A.Land Value $1,614,000 $4,965,000 $3,544,000 $3,150,000 $2,087,000 $1,575,000 B.Direct Costs $2,387,000 $8,902,000 $9,571,000 $3,690,000 $2,284,000 $1,528,000 Per Sf of Net Saleable Area $379 $771 $1,763 $394 $400 $411 C.Public Permits & Fees $384,000 $1,392,000 $387,000 $412,000 $380,000 $364,000 Per Unit $96,000 $87,000 $129,000 $103,000 $95,000 $91,000 D.Indirect + Financing Costs $1,600,000 $3,515,000 $3,933,000 $2,505,000 $1,603,000 $1,146,000 As a % of Direct Costs 67%39%41%68%70%75% Total Development Cost $5,985,000 $18,774,000 $17,435,000 $9,757,000 $6,354,000 $4,613,000 Per Square Foot of GBA $950 $953 $956 $1,042 $1,112 $1,240 IV.Projected Revenues A.Residential Revenue $7,005,000 $781,000 $6,101,000 $9,575,000 $6,356,000 $4,164,000 Per Market Rate Unit $1,751,300 $4,300 $2,033,700 $2,393,800 $1,589,000 $1,041,000 Per Affordable Unit $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 B.Net Sales Revenue / Value Residential Component $6,620,000 $5,765,000 $9,048,000 $6,006,000 $3,935,000 Retail Component 10,283,000 Total Net Sales Revenue / Value $6,620,000 $15,151,000 $16,048,000 $9,048,000 $6,006,000 $3,935,000 V. $794,000 $1,515,000 $1,720,000 $1,086,000 $721,000 $472,000 VI.Net Surplus/(Cost) A.Net Sales Revenue / Value $6,620,000 $15,151,000 $16,048,000 $9,048,000 $6,006,000 $3,935,000 B.Revenue Offsets Total Development Cost $5,985,000 $18,774,000 $17,435,000 $9,757,000 $6,354,000 $4,613,000 Threshold Developer Profit 794,000 1,515,000 1,720,000 1,086,000 721,000 472,000 Total Revenue Offsets $6,779,000 $20,289,000 $19,155,000 $10,843,000 $7,075,000 $5,085,000 VII.Net Surplus/(Cost)($159,000)($5,138,000)($3,107,000)($1,795,000)($1,069,000)($1,150,000) $15,151,000 Threshold Developer Profit @ 12% Net Residential Sales Revenue or 10% of Apt Value SUMMARY OF BASE ZONING PROTOTYPES CD-C Zone CN Zone RM-20 Zone RM-30 Zone 5,125 15,761 10,000 6,626 SITE A SITE B SITE D SITE E Item 2 Att C_KMA Financial Feasibility_ExecSumExcerpt     Packet Pg. 64     Housing Incentive Program Study Page 4 Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. 2405001v2.PA / 17125.015.001 June 13, 2024 C. Proposed Zoning Protype Analysis Subsequent to the analysis of the Base Zoning Prototypes, Urban Field Studio and Lexington Planning created prototype development scenarios that modified current development standards (Proposed Zoning Prototypes). The purpose of modifying current development standards was to create zoning requirements that allow for the development of multi-family projects that are both physically and financially feasible. Modifications were made to a variety of development standards such as: reduced parking ratios, increased building height, increased floor-area-ratios (FAR), reduced setbacks, modified daylight planes, reduced lot and landscape coverage and changes to ground floor retail requirements. Specifically, the modifications were intended to allow for additional units to be constructed on each of the development sites (e.g., increased FAR) and/or to reduce the costs associated with developing residential units (e.g. reduced parking requirements). These factors have a direct impact on the financial feasibility of each development prototype. The Proposed Zoning Prototypes evaluated in this analysis are the result of an iterative process between KMA, Urban Field Studio, Lexington Planning and the City. A number of potential modifications were tested for each of the sites in order to develop prototypes that were both physically and financially feasible. In particular, for the RM-40 Zone site, three scenarios for proposed modifications were evaluated in this analysis. The KMA financial analyses of the Proposed Zoning Prototypes are presented in Attachment 2. As shown, each of the Proposed Zoning Prototypes was found to be financially feasible under the proposed zoning modifications. The results of the KMA analyses of the Proposed Zoning Prototypes are presented in the table on the following page. Item 2 Att C_KMA Financial Feasibility_ExecSumExcerpt     Packet Pg. 65     SITE A SITE B SITE C SITE D SITE E No Parking Limited Parking 10,000 SF Lot I.Site Area (Sf)5,125 15,761 11,250 10,000 6,626 5,000 5,000 10,000 II.Development Scope A.Unit Type Condo Apartment Apartment Townhome Townhome Apartment Apartment Apartment B.Unit Mix Studio Units 0 0 8 0 0 4 3 0 Live/Work One-Bedroom Units 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 One-Bedroom Units 10 11 6 0 0 4 3 2 Two-Bedroom Units 1 18 16 2 0 0 6 16 Three-Bedroom Units 4 0 4 5 7 0 0 3 Total Units 15 33 34 7 7 8 12 21 B.Unit Sizes Studio Units 0 0 514 0 0 415 450 0 Live/Work One-Bedroom Units 0 1,050 0 0 0 0 0 0 One-Bedroom Units 751 528 713 0 0 678 637 625 Two-Bedroom Units 1,240 828 1,066 1,593 0 0 740 971 Three-Bedroom Units 1,500 0 1,302 1,795 1,457 0 0 1,250 Net Living Area 14,746 24,912 30,654 12,163 10,199 4,370 7,701 20,540 Average Square Feet / Unit 983 755 902 1,738 1,457 546 642 978 Gross Building Area (Sf)20,841 33,240 42,895 12,163 10,199 5,016 10,725 26,114 Floor Area Ratio (FAR)4.07 1.94 0.94 1.22 1.54 1.00 2.15 5.22 Density (Units/Acre)127 91 132 30 46 70 105 183 III.Estimated Development Cost A.Land Value $1,614,000 $4,965,000 $3,544,000 $3,150,000 $2,087,000 $1,575,000 $1,575,000 $3,150,000 B.Direct Costs $7,724,000 $12,553,000 $15,434,000 $4,614,000 $3,763,000 $1,895,000 $3,959,000 $9,727,000 Per Square Foot $524 $504 $503 $379 $369 $434 $514 $474 C.Public Permits & Fees $1,425,000 $2,805,000 $2,958,000 $686,000 $665,000 $656,000 $1,008,000 $1,827,000 Per Unit $95,000 $85,000 $87,000 $98,000 $95,000 $82,000 $84,000 $87,000 D.Indirect + Financing Costs $3,138,000 $5,250,000 $6,007,000 $2,222,000 $1,764,000 $915,000 $1,616,000 $3,864,000 As a % of Direct Costs 41%42%39%48%47%48%41%40% Total Development Cost $13,901,000 $25,573,000 $27,943,000 $10,672,000 $8,279,000 $5,041,000 $8,158,000 $18,568,000 Per Square Foot of GBA $667 $769 $651 $877 $812 $1,005 $761 $711 IV.Projected Revenues A.Residential Revenue $17,097,000 $1,741,000 $1,168,000 $12,863,000 $10,220,000 $363,000 $622,000 $1,234,000 Per Market Rate Unit $1,246,800 $4,500 $4,200 $2,060,700 $1,620,200 $3,700 $4,200 $5,100 Per Affordable Unit $444,500 NA NA $499,000 $499,000 NA NA NA B.Total Net Sales Revenue / Value $16,157,000 $28,825,000 $31,327,000 $12,156,000 $9,658,000 $5,925,000 $10,325,000 $20,650,000 V. $1,939,000 $2,883,000 $3,133,000 $1,459,000 $1,159,000 $593,000 $1,033,000 $2,065,000 VI.Net Surplus/(Cost) A.Net Sales Revenue / Value $16,157,000 $28,825,000 $31,327,000 $12,156,000 $9,658,000 $5,925,000 $10,325,000 $20,650,000 B.Revenue Offsets Total Development Cost $13,901,000 $25,573,000 $27,943,000 $10,672,000 $8,279,000 $5,041,000 $8,158,000 $18,568,000 Threshold Developer Profit 1,939,000 2,883,000 3,133,000 1,459,000 1,159,000 593,000 1,033,000 2,065,000 Total Revenue Offsets $15,840,000 $28,456,000 $31,076,000 $12,131,000 $9,438,000 $5,634,000 $9,191,000 $20,633,000 VII.Net Surplus/(Cost)$317,000 $369,000 $251,000 $25,000 $220,000 $291,000 $1,134,000 $17,000 Threshold Developer Profit @ 12% Net Residential Sales Revenue or 10% of Apt Value SUMMARY OF PROPOSED ZONING PROTOTYPES SITE F CD-C Zone CN Zone CC(2) Zone RM-20 Zone RM-30 Zone RM-40 Zone Item 2 Att C_KMA Financial Feasibility_ExecSumExcerpt     Packet Pg. 66     Housing Incentive Program Study Page 6 Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. 2405001v2.PA / 17125.015.001 June 13, 2024 D. Additional Policy Considerations The following section provides additional policy considerations for the City: APPLICABILITY OF ZONING MODIFICATIONS TO SMALL SITES The City is also interested in understanding the impact on financial feasibility if the reductions in required parking ratios and/or building height and FAR are less substantial than those applied in the Proposed Zoning Prototypes analysis. A key factor that should be considered in the decision making process is that many of the sites evaluated in this analysis are fairly small – consisting of between 5,000 and 15,000 square feet of land area. For a development on a small site to achieve financial feasibility it is necessary to be able to create an extremely efficient design. Parking Standards The proposed reduction in the parking requirements significantly enhances the potential for financially feasible residential uses to be developed. A change to the proposed parking standard would require more site area to be dedicated for parking spaces, which would materially reduce the site’s buildable area. Given the limited number of units that each site can support a loss of even a few units on each site results in a significant impact on financial feasibility. Height and FAR Standards The achievable building footprint on a small site is disproportionately lower than the footprint that can be accommodated on a more typically sized development site. The proposed increases in FAR and height are necessary to compensate for this limitation. Recognizing the small number of units that can be accommodated per floor, even the reduction of one floor of building area has a significant impact on financial feasibility. APPLICABILITY OF ZONING MODIFICATIONS TO LARGER SITES As discussed above, this analysis primarily focuses on small sites. The site sizes were intended to be representative of typical parcel sizes within each zoning designation. However, the proposed zoning Item 2 Att C_KMA Financial Feasibility_ExecSumExcerpt     Packet Pg. 67     Housing Incentive Program Study Page 7 Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. 2405001v2.PA / 17125.015.001 June 13, 2024 modifications may be applied to sites of all sizes within each zoning designation. Therefore, a developer may utilize the proposed zoning modifications on sites larger than evaluated in this analysis. Without the physical constraints imposed by small sites, larger sites will likely be developed with more efficiently designed projects. Therefore, it is possible that the proposed zoning modifications will have a greater positive financial impact on larger sites. CURRENT CITY PERMITS AND FEES The pro forma analyses included in this report take into account the City’s current permits and impact fees. Specifically, the development costs for each prototype include the following impact fees: parks fee, community center fee, libraries fee, public safety facilities fee, general government facilities fee, school district fee, and the in-lieu art fee. As such, the financial analyses demonstrate that Proposed Zoning Prototypes are financially feasible with the City’s current impact fee schedule. CONCLUSIONS Based on the financial analyses that KMA has prepared over the course of this engagement, it is our opinion that the proposed modifications to the zoning standards are necessary to create sufficient incentive to attract residential development on the prototypical sites evaluated in this analysis. This is particularly true of the parking requirements and building height/FAR, all of which tend to have an outsized impact on financial feasibility. Item 2 Att C_KMA Financial Feasibility_ExecSumExcerpt     Packet Pg. 68     To download the complete Keyser Marston Associates’ report, “Housing Incentive Program Study: Testing The Financial Feasibility Of Multi-Family Housing Typologies,” please use the link below: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/planning-amp-development- services/long-range-planning/kma-housing-incentive-program-report_complete.pdf Item 2 Att C_KMA Financial Feasibility_ExecSumExcerpt     Packet Pg. 69     Middlefield Road Cowper Street Waverley Street Alma Street El Camino Real Louis Road Hy 101 South Ross Road Hy 101 North Webster Street Bryant Street Channing Avenue East Bayshore Road Sand Hill Road Hamilton Avenue Page Mill Road Lincoln Avenue San Antonio Road University Avenue Newell Road Oregon Expressway Seale Avenue South Court High Street Charleston Road Park Boulevard East Meadow Drive Stanford Avenue Colorado Avenue West Bayshore Road Foothill Expressway Hanover Street Miranda Avenue Arastradero Road Fabian Way Homer Avenue Greer Road Ramona Street Edgewood Drive Loma Verde Avenue Everett Avenue Churchill Avenue Matadero Avenue Lowell Avenue Center Drive Tennyson Avenue Los Robles Avenue California Avenue Barron Avenue Welch Road Kingsley Avenue Maybell Avenue Wilkie Way Hansen Way Coleridge Avenue Byron Street Ely Place Oregon Avenue Marion Avenue North California Avenue Emerson Street Pitman Avenue Laguna Avenue Grove Avenue Ferne Avenue Porter Drive Castilleja Avenue Hale Street Chimalus Drive College Avenue Amherst Street Seneca Street Lane 66Bowdoin Street Stockton Place Harker Avenue Embarcadero Road Ames Avenue El Dorado Avenue La Para Avenue Clark Way Grant Avenue Birch Street Hawthorne Avenue Clara Drive Coyote Hill Road Columbia Street Georgia Avenue Hillview Avenue Rhodes Drive San Antonio Avenue Cambridge Avenue Olive Avenue La Donna Street El Camino Way Parkinson Avenue Kipling Street Pasteur Drive Heather Lane Kellogg Avenue Alger Drive Florales Drive Forest Avenue Monroe Drive Greenwood Avenue Boyce Avenue Sherman Avenue Oberlin Street Nathan Way Urban Lane Harvard Street Iris Way Hopkins Avenue Dana Avenue Fulton Street Sutherland Drive Lambert Avenue Vineyard Lane Marshall Drive Geng Road Orme Street El Carmelo Avenue Parkside Drive Walnut Drive Maddux Drive Sheridan Avenue Wildwood Lane Elsinore Drive Fernando Avenue Moreno Avenue Sutter Avenue Edlee Avenue Ventura Avenue Arbutus Avenue Chaucer Street Shopping Center Way Walter Hays Drive Jackson Drive Kenneth Drive Patricia Lane Whitclem Drive Cereza Drive Towle Way Guinda Street Transport Street Lane 21 Bruce Drive Encina Grande Drive Faber Place Los Palos Avenue Ruthven Avenue Laguna Way Whitsell Street Janice Way Bibbits Drive Warren Way Madrono Avenue Mayview Avenue Rorke Way Evergreen Drive Stelling Drive Ashton Avenue McKellar Lane Jefferson Drive Santa Rita Avenue Addison Avenue Saint Claire Drive Rinconada Avenue Second Street Encina Avenue Silva Avenue Quarry Road Bryson Avenue Fabian Street Nevada Avenue Southwood Drive Lupine Avenue Poe Street Park Avenue Portola Avenue Suzanne Drive Sycamore Drive Washington Avenue Manzana Lane Ash Street Portage Avenue Elwell Court Wellsbury Way Pepper Avenue Wells Avenue Lane 7 East Tasso Street Lytton Avenue Mark Twain Street Maple Street Laura Lane Dinah's Court Melville Avenue Palm Street Lane 30 Tioga Court Shasta Drive Diablo Court Varian Way Saint Francis Drive Page Mill Road Park Boulevard Byron Street South Court Byron Street Fulton Street Lytton Avenue Dana Avenue Oregon Avenue Bryant Street Emerson Street San Antonio Road College Avenue Ramona Street Georgia Avenue Oregon Avenue Mountain ViewStanford University Menlo Park Atherton East Palo Alto Los AltosPortola Valley Los Altos Hills Stanford Menlo Park Mountain View Los AltosLos Altos Hills Atherton Portola Valley Cupertino Stanford University Redwood City East Palo Alto Sunnyvale Woodside Legend Housing Incentive Program Parcels - Existing Housing Incentive Program Parcels - ProposedHousing Inventory Sites 7/8/2024 NVCAP £¤101 Item 2 Att D_Existing & Proposed HIP Applicability     Packet Pg. 70     Item 2 Att E_State Density Bonus Law Handout     Packet Pg. 71     Item 2 Att E_State Density Bonus Law Handout     Packet Pg. 72     Item 2 Att E_State Density Bonus Law Handout     Packet Pg. 73     Item 2 Att E_State Density Bonus Law Handout     Packet Pg. 74     Item No. 3. Page 1 of 1 Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report From: Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: September 25, 2024 Report #: 2409-3474 TITLE Approval of Planning & Transportation Commission Draft Summary Minutes of May 29, 2024 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning & Transportation Commission (PTC) adopt the meeting minutes. BACKGROUND Draft summary minutes from the May 29, 2024 Planning & Transportation Commission (PTC) meeting were made available to the Commissioners prior to the September 25, 2024 meeting date. The draft PTC minutes can be viewed online on the City’s website at bit.ly/PaloAlto PTC. ATTACHMENTS There are no attachments. AUTHOR/TITLE: Veronica Dao, Administrative Associate Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 75     Item No. 4. Page 1 of 1 Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report From: Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: September 25, 2024 Report #: 2409-3479 TITLE Approval of Planning & Transportation Commission Draft Verbatim & Summary Minutes of June 26, 2024 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning & Transportation Commission (PTC) adopt the meeting minutes. BACKGROUND Draft verbatim and summary minutes from the June 26, 2024 Planning & Transportation Commission (PTC) meeting were made available to the Commissioners prior to the September 25, 2024 meeting date. The draft PTC minutes can be viewed online on the City’s website at bit.ly/PaloAltoPTC. ATTACHMENTS There are no attachments. AUTHOR/TITLE: Veronica Dao, Administrative Associate Item 4 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 76     Item No. 5. Page 1 of 1 Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report From: Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: September 25, 2024 Report #: 2409-3491 TITLE Approval of Planning & Transportation Commission Draft Summary Minutes of April 24, 2024 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning & Transportation Commission (PTC) adopt the meeting minutes. BACKGROUND Draft summary minutes from the April 24, 2024 Planning & Transportation Commission (PTC) meeting were made available to the Commissioners prior to the September 25, 2024 meeting date. The draft PTC minutes can be viewed online on the City’s website at bit.ly/PaloAlto PTC. ATTACHMENTS There are no attachments. AUTHOR/TITLE: Veronica Dao, Administrative Associate Item 5 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 77