HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 9890
City of Palo Alto (ID # 9890)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 12/3/2018
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: 2018 Comp Plan Implementation/Housing Ordinance (First
Reading)
Title: PUBLIC HEARING: Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Various Sections
of Title 18 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Related to Residential and Mixed -
use Development Standards Including, but not Limited to, Minimum and
Maximum Unit Density, Unit Size, Floor Area Ratio, Height, and Open Space
Including Rooftop Gardens; Parking Requirements Including, but not Limited
to, Regulations Related to In-lieu Parking for Downtown Commercial Uses
and Retail Parking for Mixed Use Projects; Exclusively Residential Projects in
Certain Commercial Zoning Districts; Ground-floor Retail and Retail
Preservation Provisions; the Entitlement Approval Process; and Other
Regulations Governing Residential, Multi-family Residential and Commercial
Zoning Districts, all to Promote Housing Development Opportunities in These
Zoning Districts in Furtherance of Implementation of the Comprehensive
Plan. CEQA: Determination of Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Certified and Adopted on November 13,
2017 by Council Resolution No. 9720. The Planning and Transportation
Commission Recommended Approval of the Proposed Ordinance on October
10, 2018 (Continued From November 26, 2018)
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Find the proposed ordinance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Update Final
Environmental Impact Report.
2. Adopt the attached ordinance (Attachment A)
City of Palo Alto Page 2
Executive Summary
The draft ordinance is intended to create additional opportunities for new housing production
to complement other policy initiatives approved by the City Council this year. While significant
changes are proposed to advance housing goals, this set of policy changes alone is not expected
to create the number of annual housing units anticipated from the Comprehensive Plan update.
Existing policies and market conditions continue to favor commercial development over
housing particularly downtown and in the California Avenue area. Additional gains in housing
development can be achieved with additional changes to parking, floor area and height
standards. However, such modifications would benefit from additional public comment.
The value of the proposed ordinance is that it streamlines project review, increases unit
density, adjusts parking requirements to be more aligned with industry standards and modifies
other development regulations that constrain housing development. It increases floor area for
housing projects (on par with existing floor area standards for commercial development) and
preserves local control of the design review process. The building volume that exists in the code
today with respect to setbacks, height, and daylight plane are generally preserved.
In short, the proposed ordinance makes gains toward increased housing production while
balancing interests to preserve neighborhood character. This report summarizes work
completed over the past year to develop the 2018 Comprehensive Plan Implementation/
Housing Ordinance.
1. The Background section of this report summarizes the following items:
a. The purpose of the Housing Work Plan
b. Work completed by the Architectural Review Board and Planning &
Transportation Commission on drafting the 2018 Comprehensive Plan
Implementation/Housing Ordinance
c. Findings and outcomes from advisory meetings with developers and architects,
and with the community at-large
d. Findings from an evaluation of parking demand and supply in multifamily
developments in Palo Alto.
2. The Discussion section presents zoning revisions identified in the ordinance in
Attachment A that meet the intent of the Housing Work Plan and describes the
rationale for each zoning change.
3. The Analysis section analyzes potential impacts of the draft zoning revisions, including
how the revisions would increase housing production and affordability, and implications
City of Palo Alto Page 3
under State Density Bonus Law and SB35 streamlining provisions. Additionally, massing
models of how hypothetical sites could buildout under existing and proposed standards
are provided in Attachments B and C.
The ordinance proposes a variety of changes to the multifamily zoning districts and certain
commercial zoning districts in Palo Alto as well as some broader citywide changes, all to
encourage housing production. Due, in part, to the scope of the ordinance, potential conflicts
of interest are implicated for several members of the Council with respect to different portions
of the ordinance. This necessitates the structuring of the Council’s consideration of the
ordinance as follows: after the staff presentation of the entire ordinance and public comment,
the Council’s discussion, deliberation and vote on the ordinance will be segmented to allow
Councilmembers to participate in those portions for which they do not have a conflict;
specifically, the Council will be asked to segment the matter into four parts: (a) proposed
changes specific to the Downtown CD-C zoning district, (b) proposed changes specific to the
California Avenue CC(2) zoning district and sites on El Camino Real zoned Neighborhood
Commercial CN and Service Commercial CS, (c) proposed changes specific to the Multi-family
Residential RM zoning district, and (d) proposed citywide changes. During each of the first
three portions, the conflicted Councilmember(s) will leave the public hearing. Thereafter, the
Council as a whole will consider the fourth part, the proposed citywide changes. While this may
appear cumbersome, this is necessitated by the conflict of interest rules while maximizing
Councilmember participation as allowed and feasible.
Background
On February 12, 2018, the City Council approved a Housing Work Plan, which outlined steps to
implement the City’s vision and adopted policies and programs for housing production,
affordability, and preservation. The Work Plan included select policies and programs from the
adopted Comprehensive Plan, adopted Housing Element, and a City Council colleagues’ memo
issued on November 6, 2017.
February 5, 2018 City Council Staff Report and City Council Colleagues’ Memo
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/63054
Draft Housing Work Plan (February 2018)
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/63027
February 12, 2018 (as continued) City Council Action Minutes:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/63659
The Work Plan describes the City’s progress towards the housing production goals at various
income levels (i.e. Regional Housing Needs Assessment, or RHNA). The Work Plan also explains
the City’s progress towards the housing projections developed during preparation of the
updated Comprehensive Plan (i.e., 3,545-4,420 new units between 2015 and 2030). In both
City of Palo Alto Page 4
cases, the City is behind in its effort to meet these goals. The approved Housing Work Plan
indicates what action is needed to spur housing production.
This report and the draft ordinance attached for the Council’s consideration represents one
aspect of the Work Plan.
PTC and ARB Referral
The City Council referred specific Work Plan items to the PTC that would be included in the
subject ordinance. The PTC held seven meetings to analyze various aspects of the Work Plan
and to consider possible zoning changes to facilitate implementation of both the Work Plan and
(by extension) the Comprehensive Plan housing production targets. The Architectural Review
Board (ARB) also reviewed draft open space standards. A summary of previous study sessions is
provided with links to the staff reports and attachments:
1. March 14th: The PTC discussed the Work Plan goals, timeline, and the PTC’s role in
implementation. Staff report and attachments:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/63859
Minutes: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/64589
2. April 25th: The PTC discussed key issues in the zoning code as they relate to the Council
referral, including issues regarding development standards and the entitlement process.
Staff report and attachments:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/64680
Minutes: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/65784
3. May 30th: The PTC discussed parking topics as they relate to housing production,
including a new study of parking occupancy in multi-family residential developments in
Palo Alto. Staff report and attachments:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/65225
Minutes: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/66124
4. August 29th: The PTC discussed a conceptual framework for the ordinance, including
ideas for zoning changes to development and parking standards, use regulations, and
the public review process. Staff report and attachments:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/66513
Minutes: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/67075
5. September 20th: The ARB reviewed draft standards and guidelines for rooftop open
spaces. Staff report and attachments:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/66725
Minutes: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/67283
City of Palo Alto Page 5
6. September 26th: The PTC reviewed refinements to the conceptual framework for the
ordinance. Staff report and attachments:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/66826
Minutes: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/67266
7. October 10th (continued): The PTC recommended that the City Council adopt a draft
ordinance. The ordinance provided to the Council in Exhibit A represents this ordinance
with the PTC’s recommended modifications. (See details in the Discussion section
below.) Staff report and attachments:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/67132
Minutes: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/67665
The PTC endorsed the subject ordinance by a 5-1 vote (Commissioner Summa dissenting and
Commissioner Riggs absent). This outcome was the result of several focused meetings that
facilitated broad discussion and opportunities to focus on areas of shared support and
disagreement. Throughout the process, Commissioners addressed the clear mandate from the
Council and deliberated thoughtfully and at times compromising to advance the policy
objectives. There are aspects of the ordinance that each Commissioner individually objected to
and supported. The attached ordinance reflects the Commission’s final recommendation. This
report also includes site massing models requested by the Commission to illustrate how actual
sites could build out under the revised zoning regulations.
Community Outreach
Staff conducted two complementary community outreach
efforts, as directed by the City Council as part of Work Plan
implementation: (1) meetings with individuals who regularly
use the City’s zoning code; and (2) a community meeting with
the public at-large. Findings from these efforts are described
below.
(1) Advisory Meetings. City consultants conducted 16 meetings
with 22 individuals (primarily architects and developers) in April
and May 2018. Key findings were as follows:
• Generally, developers and architects agreed with the
direction of the Council referral, including streamlining
the review process and reducing zoning constraints.
• Density and parking were cited as the major constraints
to configuring a site in terms of site planning, massing, and the number of units
attainable.
• There was a general sense that the current zoning does not support the City’s stated
goals of multi-family housing, and a recommendation that the City instead allow the
City of Palo Alto Page 6
types of developments that it wants “by right” and/or through modifications to density,
parking, and related standards.
• Developers and architects expressed frustration about the length of time the
entitlement process takes due to multiple reviewing bodies and instead recommended
having one review body conduct design review based on a clear set of standards.
A more detailed summary and list of advisory groups can be found in the September 29th PTC
report, linked above.
(2) Community Open House. On June 28, 2018, the City held a community open house on
housing topics to describe the Housing Work Plan, present ideas for its implementation, and
solicit feedback from community members on proposed ideas. Over 30 community members
attended the meeting, which included a presentation, an open house of “idea stations” that
allowed participants to interact with staff and other participants one-on-one or in small groups,
and a debrief to share community members’ comments. The presentation, idea station boards,
and detailed feedback (in the form of notes taken by staff and individual feedback forms) may
be reviewed on the project website:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pln/long_range_planning/housing_programs_and_p
olicies/housing_work_plan.asp
Key findings are summarized below:
• Participants expressed a range of perspective on housing needs and ideas to spur
housing production. There was little consensus about how to implement the adopted
goals of the Comprehensive Plan, Housing Element and direction proposed in the
Housing Work Plan.
• While some participants supported revisions to development standards and review
processes to streamline housing production, others were concerned about impacts of
new development on existing neighborhoods, traffic, and services.
• Ideas for revisions to parking regulations had the greatest range in perspectives: some
participants were concerned that reductions in parking requirements would lead to
spillover parking in neighborhoods; others supported requirements that more closely
matched demand, especially for populations with lower parking demand such as
seniors, homeless, and low income households.
A more detailed summary can be found in the September 29th PTC report, linked above.
Evaluation of Parking Supply and Demand in Multifamily Housing Developments The City
engaged Fehr & Peers to study parking demand in multi-family developments in Palo Alto,
including market rate, affordable, and senior housing projects located at varying distances to
City of Palo Alto Page 7
transit. The purpose of the study was to provide another data point in the ongoing discussion
regarding the relationship between parking demand and parking supply (i.e., is the amount of
parking that the City is requiring and/or that developers are building too much, about right, or
too little).
Fehr & Peers, in coordination with City staff, selected nine sites/developments to observe. They
counted occupied spaces at three time periods (midday, evening, and late night) on weekdays
and at two time periods (midday and late night) on weekends. The report also reviews six other
recent South Bay and statewide studies of parking demand and supply, including studies that
made observations at other Palo Alto housing developments, and describes standard parking
ratios issued by the Institute of Transportation Engineers.
The PTC expressed two concerns about the first
draft of the report. First, that it did not survey
on-street parking spaces adjacent to each
development. Second, that it did not consider
residents behaviors to understand where
residents park and why.
In response, Fehr & Peers revised the study and
conducted new surveys at eight of the nine
apartment complexes to measure peak parking
demand for both off-street and on-street
spaces.1 Most of the complexes demonstrated
similar or slightly lower on-site parking demand
between the previous surveys and the new
surveys. In addition, Fehr & Peers conducted intercept surveys at one of the complexes, the
Marc, to determine residents’ perspectives on parking conditions.2 Residents at this complex
generally parked in the on-site garage since they have assigned spaces, feel safe, and can avoid
the hassle of on-street parking. However, the sample size of one complex is too small to draw
conclusions. Although anecdotally interesting, the supplemental parking information it fell
short of the PTC’s expectations to better understand tenants’ perspectives.
In conclusion, the study observed the following trends:
1 One apartment complex had been sold since Fehr & Peers conducted the original survey; the new owners did not
want to participate in the updated survey.
2 For this in-person survey, Fehr & Peers intercepted residents in and near the project garage to ask questions
about their perspectives on parking inside the project versus outside on the street. Only one property
manager/owner allowed Fehr & Peers to conduct the intercept survey; the other eight declined to participate.
The Marc, located 0.7 miles from the
Downtown Caltrain station. The project
provides 0.92 parking spaces per bedroom, but
has peak demand of 0.58 spaces per bedroom,
suggesting an oversupply of parking.
City of Palo Alto Page 8
• On a per bedroom basis, the affordable and senior housing sites had comparable
demand rates while market rate units had the highest rates.
• Resident experiences at The Marc indicated that residents prefer to park at the
apartment complex instead of on the street and that residents view having available
parking/empty spaces any time of day as the “right amount of parking.”
• Parking supply exceeded peak parking demand in the developments surveyed.
The study helped inform the revised parking regulations presented in the draft ordinance,
including reductions for senior housing based on evidence of lower demand. Coincidently, the
revised parking requirements generally equate to those standards allowed under State Density
Bonus Law.
The complete parking report was presented to the PTC on September 29th and is directly
available online: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/67711.
Discussion
These zoning revisions are proposed in parallel with several other zoning and policy changes to
achieve Housing Work Plan, Comprehensive Plan, and Housing Element goals. Specifically,
changes to local implementation of State Density Bonus Law, an updated Accessory Dwelling
Unit Ordinance, an Affordable Housing Overlay, and a Workforce Housing Overlay are intended
to facilitate affordable housing at varying income levels and market rate housing opportunities,
consistent with the City’s adopted policy.
As these zoning changes are implemented through individual development projects, the City
will continue to evaluate the effects of the code change, and make additional revisions over
time, as necessary.
Overview of Ordinance Organization and Purpose
The ordinance proposes zoning changes by location and/or zoning district for:
• Citywide – all districts where multifamily uses are permitted
• Multi-family Residential districts - RM districts
• Downtown – CD(C)
• California Avenue – CC(2)
• El Camino Real – CS and CN
Revisions aim to increase housing production and shift redevelopment interests toward
housing. The recommendations represent a modest step in that direction. However, City policy
on commercial development, high property values, commercial rents, construction costs and
other market influences may restrict efforts to expand housing opportunities without
significant concessions on housing density and parking. The proposed suite of amendments is
City of Palo Alto Page 9
intended to be considered as a complete package. Each concept is interrelated to site planning
and housing production objectives, and eliminating one concept could limit the ordinance’s
effectiveness.
The passage of SB 35 and other housing reforms requires careful examination of how changes
in local housing policy may result in development that is larger than anticipated and permitted
by-right. The recommendations below are intended to support State and regional housing
policy interests, while ensuring Palo Alto retains local control of development with
opportunities for analysis of project related impacts.
Consistent with the 2018 Work Plan, the recommendations promote market rate and
affordable housing unit production. Commercial floor area is not decreased, but residential
uses may apply unused commercial floor area toward housing. Future policy direction may
consider further incentives for housing by reducing the amount of commercial floor area that
can be achieved. For example, on California Avenue, commercial land uses today can reach a
2.0 FAR. Raising the residential FAR from 0.6 to 2.0 FAR (as proposed) is helpful but is not likely
to persuade a land owner redeveloping their property to build residential housing instead of
commercial. Decreasing office floor area or significantly increasing residential FAR and likely
height limits are standards that could be adjusted further in the future if the proposed changes
and market conditions do not result in new housing projects.
Summary of Proposed Zoning Code Amendments3
Proposed zoning changes are described below. Detailed analysis of these concepts, including
the rationale behind the changes, is provided in the Analysis section of the report.
1. CITYWIDE REVISIONS
a. Open Space. Establish a consistent open space requirement for multi-family
housing units in multi-family residential and commercial districts of 150 square
feet (current code ranges from 100 to 200 square feet depending on the number
of units provided). Micro units, defined herein as units with less than 450 square
feet, are proposed to have a commensurate requirement of 40 square feet/unit.
(See Table 4 in Analysis section.)
3 Detailed analysis of these concepts provided in the Analysis section of the report.
City of Palo Alto Page 10
b. Review Process. Eliminate Site & Design Review, which currently applies to
residential and residential mixed-use projects with 10 more units in commercial
zones. Site & Design applications are reviewed by the PTC, ARB and City Council.
By contrast, commercial-only development projects and housing projects in
multi-family zones are reviewed only by the ARB. The amendment makes the
review of housing projects (including mixed-use development) no more
burdensome than the review process for commercial projects and retains
options for appeals to Council.
c. Retail Preservation. Exempt 100% affordable housing projects (120% AMI and
below) from the retail preservation requirement except in the Ground Floor (GF)
and Retail (R) combining districts, and on El Camino Real.
d. Parking. Adjust multifamily parking requirements based on maximum anticipated
demand. Coincidentally, the changes generally reflect the standards permitted
by State Density Bonus Law. Other changes are proposed to incentivize
affordable housing and reflect lower parking demand near transit. (See Table 2 in
Analysis section.)
2. MULTI-FAMILY ZONES (RM-15, RM-30, RM-40)
a. Unit Density. Replace RM-15 zoning designation, which allows 15 units per acre
with a RM-20 designation that allows 20 units per acre, to align with Housing
Element density allowance.
b. Minimum Density. Establish a minimum unit density as provided below. Allow
fewer units when determined by the Planning Director, after review by the ARB,
that existing site improvements or parcel constraints preclude meeting this
minimum standard:
• RM-20: 11 units/acre
• RM-30: 16 units/acre
• RM-40: 21 units/acre
c. Non-complying Unit Density. Allow redevelopment and replacement of legally
established residential housing units that exceed the maximum unit density
allowed for the parcel, subject to the following criteria:
i. Other than unit density, the project complies with all applicable
development standards.
ii. The project is a residential rental project.
iii. The development shall not be eligible for a density bonus pursuant to
PAMC Chapter 18.15. The applicant must elect whether to utilize state
density bonus law or the exception described herein as an alternative to
state density bonus law.
City of Palo Alto Page 11
d. Administrative Code Clean Up. Modify PAMC Section 18.13.040(g) regarding
below market rate (BMR) housing units to reflect regulatory requirements of
Chapter 16.65 of Title 16.
3. DOWNTOWN CD-C ZONING DISTRICT
a. Unit Density. Eliminate the unit density requirement restricting the maximum
density to 40 units per acre. With the proposed amendment, unit density would
be controlled by other existing development standards, such as height, floor
area, parking requirements, etc. (See Table 3 in Analysis section.)
b. Unit Size. Establish a maximum average housing unit size of 1,500 square feet,
(weighted average by the number of bedrooms).4
c. Retail Parking. Exempt the first 1,500 sq. ft. of ground-floor retail from parking
requirements within residential mixed-use buildings.
d. Driveway Approach. Reinforce existing city policy and guidelines to preclude curb
cuts on University Avenue, except for City-owned parcels or City-sponsored
projects.
e. Residential Only Development. Allow housing-only projects to be constructed
downtown, except in the ground floor (GF) combining district. Retail
preservation ordinance standards apply for market rate housing projects. Note,
current zoning standards permit housing only when part of a commercial, mixed-
use development or on housing opportunity sites (i.e., in the Housing Element).
f. Open Space. Allow rooftops to qualify for up to 75% of the usable open space
requirement for the multi-family residential portion of a project, subject to
objective performance standards (see draft ordinance for details).
g. Housing Incentive Program (HIP). Establish a process that would allow property
owners to apply to receive greater floor area than otherwise allowed under the
zoning code and under State Density Bonus Law through waivers granted by the
Director of Planning after review by the ARB. This program would be an
alternative to the State Density Bonus Law and SB 35 streamlining, since it allows
for more density. Components of the HIP include the following:
i. FAR waiver to increase residential FAR from 1.0 up to 3.0, except for
portion of FAR required to remain commercial by the requirements of the
retail preservation ordinance or GF combining district. (See Table 4 in
Analysis section for detailed standards and discussion of how this FAR
value puts residential development potential on par with non-residential
development.)
ii. No TDRs may be used in conjunction with a qualifying HIP project.
4 For example, a project with ten 800-square foot 1-bedroom units, eight 1,200 square-foot 2-bedroom units, and
two 1,800-square foot 3-bedroom units would have a weighted (by # of bedrooms/unit size) of 1,060 square feet
[((10x800)+(8x1,200)+(2x1,800))/(10+8+2)]. This weighted average more accurately represents the average unit
size across all units in a development.
City of Palo Alto Page 12
iii. Require discretionary architectural review consistent with PAMC
18.76.020 (Architectural Review)
4. CALIFORNIA AVENUE CC(2) ZONING DISTRICT
a. Unit Density. Eliminate the unit density requirement restricting the maximum
density, which currently ranges from 30 to 50 dwelling units per acre. With the
proposed amendment, unit density would be controlled by other existing
development standards, such as height, floor area, parking requirements, etc.
(See Table 3 in Analysis section.)
b. Residential Only Development. Allow housing only projects to be constructed,
except on properties in the retail shopping (R) combining district. Current zoning
standards permit housing only when part of a commercial, mixed-use
development.
c. Retail Parking. Exempt the first 1,500 sq. ft. of ground-floor retail from parking
requirements within residential mixed-use buildings to facilitate ground-floor
retail.
d. Driveway Approach. Reinforce existing City policy and guidelines to preclude
curb cuts on California Avenue, except for City-owned parcels or City-sponsored
projects.
e. Open Space. Allow rooftops to qualify for up to 60% of the usable open space
requirement for the multi-family residential portion of a project, subject to
objective performance standards.
f. Housing Incentive Program (HIP). Establish a process that would allow property
owners to apply to receive greater floor area than otherwise allowed under the
zoning code through waivers granted by the Director of Planning after review by
the ARB. This program would be an alternative to the State Density Bonus Law
and SB 35 streamlining, since it allows for more density. Components of the HIP
include the following:
i. FAR waiver to increase residential FAR from 0.6 up to 2.0, except for that
portion of the commercial FAR required to remain commercial by the
requirements of the retail preservation ordinance or R combining district.
(See Table 4 in Analysis section for detailed standards and discussion of
how this FAR value puts residential development potential on par with
non-residential development.)
ii. Require discretionary architectural review consistent with PAMC
18.76.020 (Architectural Review)
5. PROPERTIES ADJACENT TO EL CAMINO REAL IN THE CN AND CS ZONING DISTRICTS
City of Palo Alto Page 13
a. Unit Density. Eliminate the unit density requirement restricting the maximum
density, which currently ranges from 30 to 50 dwelling units per acre. With the
proposed amendment, unit density would be controlled by other existing
development standards, such as height, floor area, parking requirements, etc.
(See Table 3 in Analysis section.)
b. Open Space. Allow rooftops to qualify for up to 60% of the usable open space
requirement for the multi-family residential portion of a project, subject to
objective performance standards.
c. Retail Parking. Exempt the first 1,500 sq. ft. of ground-floor retail from parking
requirements within new residential mixed-use buildings that are subject to the
d. Ground Floor Residential Design Standards. Adopt objective design standards to
create an attractive active appearance for residential development on the
ground-floor, while also maintaining privacy for residents:
i. Individual dwelling units shall not be permitted on the ground-floor
fronting El Camino Real. Instead, the ground-floor frontage on El Camino
Real may include common areas, such as lobbies, stoops, community
rooms, and work-out spaces with windows and architectural detail to
create visualize interest. Ground floor residential would be permitted
beyond the common areas or if set back away from El Camino Real.
ii. Parking shall be located behind buildings or below grade, or, where those
options are not feasible, screened by landscaping, low walls, or
structured garages with architectural detail.
e. Housing Incentive Program (HIP). Establish a process that would allow property
owners to apply to receive greater floor area than otherwise allowed under the
zoning code through waivers granted by the Director of Planning after review by
the ARB. This program would be an alternative to the State Density Bonus Law
and SB 35 streamlining, since it allows for more density. Components of the HIP
include the following (see Table 4 in Analysis section for detailed standards.):
i. FAR waiver to increase residential FAR from .5 (CN) and .6 (CS) up to 1.5,
except for that portion of FAR required to remain commercial by the
requirements of the retail preservation ordinance or other district
requirements. (See Table 4 in Analysis section for detailed standards and
discussion of how this FAR value puts residential development potential
on par with non-residential development.)
ii. Waiver to eliminate or reduce the 50% lot coverage requirement and
instead rely on site planning, landscape and setback requirements.
iii. Require discretionary architectural review consistent with PAMC
18.76.020 (Architectural Review)
City of Palo Alto Page 14
PTC Modifications at October 10th Hearing
The PTC made the following changes to the ordinance and/or staff recommendation at the
October 10th hearing. These changes have been integrated into the draft ordinance herein,
except as noted below where Council input is requested:
1. Increase the maximum average unit size Downtown from 1,350 to 1,500 sq. ft.
2. Remove 100% affordable housing projects on El Camino Real from the proposed
exemption from the Retail Preservation Ordinance.
3. Through the proposed Housing Incentive Program, allow 100% affordable housing
projects to utilize the development standards established in the Affordable Housing
Combining District when the project qualifies for federal tax credits. Qualifying projects
would be processed through a discretionary review and would not require the legislative
approval for a combining district.
4. Disallow in-lieu parking for commercial land uses above the ground floor. Ground-floor
commercial could still take advantage of the program.
5. Consider retaining a separate guest parking requirement; discuss with Council (not
included in draft ordinance; see discussion in Analysis section).
Analysis
Floor area, density allowance and parking are three of the greatest drivers influencing unit
yield. According to feedback from developer advisors, these standards—in addition to the
project review process—affect a property owner’s decision to redevelop a property.
The proposed amendments do not fundamentally change the buildable envelope of projects in
the affected zoning districts. There are no recommended changes to height5, setbacks, and
transitional height limits (daylight plane)6. The revisions propose increases to floor area and
changes to open space requirements, which may result in bigger buildings, but the
development envelope is not proposed to change. Moreover, the proposed FAR thresholds are
maximums and not guaranteed to be achieved on every property being redeveloped.
Changes in market conditions, state-mandated regulations, or other external factors will also
influence housing production in the future. Other factors, many of which are addressed in the
proposed amendments, support land use decisions that can spur housing development. Lot
5 This report asks the Council to explore whether increased height for 100% affordable housing projects is
appropriate Downtown and around California Avenue.
6 Along El Camino Real, changes are recommended to lot coverage.
City of Palo Alto Page 15
consolidation, not addressed in the proposed amendments, is another area that requires
further exploration and should be considered in phase 2 of this multi-year housing work plan.
State Density Bonus Law and SB 35 (Housing) Streamlining
A key consideration of the recommendations is the inter-relatedness between the City’s
existing and proposed standards; bonuses, waivers and incentives authorized by the State
Density Bonus program; and application of State law, notably SB 35, which is described in the
text box below.
The City’s existing density, height, and other development standards represent the “base” or
“floor” standards for a project proposed under SB 35 and State Density Bonus Law. Under State
Density Bonus Law, an applicant can achieve up to 35% additional density bonus (i.e., increased
FAR from 1.0 to 1.35 or 2.0 to 2.7) in exchange for providing affordable housing on site. The
provision of 11% of units at Very-Low Income levels or 20% of units at Low Income levels qualify
a project for the 35% density bonus. Many residential projects in Palo Alto—which are subject
to the City’s 15% inclusionary housing ordinance—could automatically qualify for such a bonus.
The State Density Bonus Law and the City’s density bonus ordinance provide developers an
opportunity to seek development incentives or concessions that support the construction of
the affordable housing units. The staff proposed Housing Incentive Program (HIP) aims to
create a local alternative to the State Density Bonus that allows for more floor area, while also
retaining an opportunity for architectural review. Electing to participate in the HIP means that
an applicant is not eligible for State Density Bonus law and no additional waivers or incentives.
The developer could opt not to apply for the HIP and use the base zoning standards in
conjunction with State law, but those standards and incentives yield less floor area and
therefore would be a less attractive alternative.
City of Palo Alto Page 16
By right housing development in accordance with SB 35 has occurred in some jurisdictions in
the Bay Area. Some of the provisions included in the City’s proposed ordinance are intended to
introduce objective standards that would apply to by-right housing development, such as
clarification of curb cuts on California and University Avenues. As directed by the Council
through its adopted Housing Work Plan, staff is concurrently working on other changes to the
zoning code. This will introduce more objective standards into the code that can be applied to
future housing projects, including SB 35 development. None of the recommendations in this
report preclude SB 35 or State Density Bonus development.
Analysis of Specific Zoning Changes
The balance of this report provides information analyzing the key zoning changes in the
proposed ordinance.
Parking
The parking demand and supply study described in the Background section of this report found
that parking supply exceeds demand across each product type studied: market rate, senior, and
affordable multifamily housing. This suggests that there are opportunities to reduce parking
requirements without creating spillover impacts or an undersupply of available parking. Existing
regulations and proposed changes are shown in Table 1.
The current code provides an opportunity to reduce parking for affordable housing projects up
to 40%. This represents a discretionary request, which complicates application processing for
affordable housing providers. The ordinance recommends removing discretion and applying the
City’s existing standard by right, based on deed restricted household income levels.
SB 35 Streamlining
Effective January 1, 2018, SB 35, the “by right” housing bill, allows residential or residential
mixed use projects that meet certain criteria to secure a streamlined review process (90 to
180 days depending on the project size). No CEQA review is required and no discretionary
review (e.g., ARB, PTC or Council review) is permitted beyond advisory comments. Projects
near transit may take advantage of zero parking requirements. Projects must be at least two-
thirds residential, meet certain affordability requirements, and consistent with the City’s
zoning and other “objective standards.” Currently, in Palo Alto, housing projects with 50% or
more housing units affordable at low-income levels (up to 80% AMI) may be eligible for SB 35
streamlining. Other criteria apply in order to qualify for a SB 35 project.
State Density Bonus Law
California’s Density Bonus Law gives developers the right to build additional dwelling units
and obtain flexibility in local development requirements, in exchange for building affordable
or senior housing. State Density Bonus Law may be used in combination with SB35.
City of Palo Alto Page 17
Similarly, the zoning code also allows for a 20% parking reduction for housing units located near
fixed rail. Staff recommends applying that standard by right, eliminating the controversy that
often surrounds requests for parking reductions. In exchange for using this proposed standard,
property owners would be required to provide a (Caltrain) transit pass with each dwelling unit
or implement a demonstrably equivalent measure.
Additionally, the zoning changes include an exemption for the first 1,500 sq. ft. of ground-floor
retail from parking requirements. According to the developers and architects interviewed, the
provision of parking for the commercial portion of mixed use residential buildings can be a
challenge to making a project viable. This exemption would help to relieve physical and
financial constraints, and provide an incentive for including retail uses in a project. The 1,500-
square foot number in particular reflects the current trend toward smaller retail spaces.
Aligning parking supply and demand sets the right amount of parking based on use and
location, and frees up space to be used for additional housing units, community space, or other
amenities. However, developers have told staff that the proposed parking standards are still
challenging to accommodate new housing development, particularly given the small lots
Downtown. At this time, staff is not prepared to make further reductions, based on the
available data. Exploring options for small lot consolidation in the future may help address this
perceived constraint.
Table 1: Existing and Proposed Parking Standards
Use/Unit Type Existing
Proposed
Citywide
Within ½-Mile of
Fixed Rail Station*
Micro Unit (<450 sq. ft.) No current standard 1 0.5
Studio 1.25 1 0.8
1 Bedroom 1.5 1 0.8
2+ Bedroom 2 2 1.6
Guest 1+10% of total units included above
Senior Housing up to 50% reduction from
existing standard
0.75 per unit
No additional parking reduction.
Affordable Housing Potential reduction by
income level:
40% for extremely low
30% for very low
20% for low income
Allow existing reductions by right
* Projects that qualify for this standard must provide annual transit passes (ie; Go Passes) to each
tenant.
City of Palo Alto Page 18
Project Review Process/Application Processing Time
The public review process provides opportunities for community input and feedback from
decision-makers, but also adds time, expense, and uncertainty from the perspective of
applicants.
Streamlining the review process by maintaining Architectural Review and eliminating Site &
Design Review would maintain the following processes, but eliminate the burden placed on
projects to undergo review by three separate bodies:
1. Staff review of zoning compliance
2. Public noticing and public comment at ARB hearings
3. Project review of context-based design criteria by the ARB
4. Opportunity for appeal to the City Council
Notably, the proposed revision represents the same process that currently exists for most
project types in the city, including commercial development, multi-family residential projects in
the RM districts, and residential or mixed-use projects with fewer than 10 units. Site & Design
Review was originally created to address environmental issues, such as in the Baylands or
Foothills and was later applied to review mixed-use projects when that concept was relatively
new.
This change makes the review of housing projects no more burdensome than the review
process for commercial office buildings.
Density and Intensity Standards
Current density/intensity maximums are one of the major items restricting housing production,
according to architects and developers interviewed, and to the quantitative analysis of housing
opportunity sites completed for Downtown.7
Unit Density
Eliminating residential density standards in commercial mixed-use districts would allow more
flexibility for developers to increase the overall unit count without affecting the massing or
design of a project. (See Table 2.) A density standard would still be retained in the form of FAR.
As shown in Figure 1, residential density can be an imperfect metric on which to consider a
project’s potential impact. FAR values can be more easily illustrated and compared between
projects to demonstrate the relationship between total floor area and the site area, and the
resulting massing. This change could modestly increase the number of units proposed and the
affordability of those units without impacting the massing and bulk of a project.
7 Dyett & Bhatia and EPS. “Downtown Development Evaluation: Residential Capacity and Feasibility Analysis”
October 30, 2017. <https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/64477>
City of Palo Alto Page 19
Figure 1: Residential Density vs. FAR
Residential Density Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
Hypothetical 1-Acre Project
Senior Housing Student Housing
• 50 units
• Studios and
1-bedrooms
• 50 bedrooms
= 50 units/acre
• 10 units
• 5-bedroom
suites
• 50 bedrooms
= 10 units/acre
(Sou
rce: City of Seattle Land Use Code)
Residential density values vary based on the
number of units and do not reflect the unit
size or number of bedrooms in each unit.
Equal FAR values can appear as very different massing
and height configurations, but are independent of unit
count and bedroom sizes.
Existing regulations and proposed changes are shown in Table 2.
Table 2: Existing and Proposed Residential Density Standards, by Commercial Zoning District
Maximum Residential
Density (du/acre)
CD-C
(Downtown)
CC(2)
(Cal Ave.)
CN District
(El Camino)
CS District
(El Camino)
Existing 40
40 (50 w/BMR
units)
15 (20 for Housing
Element sites) 30
Proposed -- -- -- --
Residential Density in the RM Districts Size
Setting reasonable minimum densities on conforming lots ensures that sites will not be
underutilized, while not creating a burden on property owners and developers. This change
could incrementally increase the number of units proposed and the affordability of those units,
without impacting the building envelope already permitted pursuant to current regulations.
Increasing the residential density maximum in RM-15 district from 15 to 20 (and renaming the
district accordingly) would make the allowed densities in the Housing Element and district
regulations consistent and provide an opportunity for some increased density. The proposed
zoning change contemplates circumstances where a property owner is not able to meet the
City of Palo Alto Page 20
minimum density standards and establishes a review and approval process to permit fewer
units if warranted due to site constraints.
Commercial Floor Area May be Used for Residential Projects
The proposed amendments generally seek to allow residential development to achieve the
total FAR that is currently allowed for non-residential projects through the Housing Incentive
Program, or HIP, waiver. Existing regulations and proposed changes are shown in Table 3.
The examples below describe how sites could build out, based on the draft proposed
regulations (also see the site massing models in Attachment B and C):
• In the Downtown CD(C) district, a 100% residential project (e.g., on a Housing Element
opportunity site) could develop at up to the proposed maximum FAR allowance of 3.0.
However, most CD(C) sites also contain the GF overlay and/or would be subject to the
Retail Preservation Ordinance requirements. As a result, a residential mixed use project
with ground-floor retail is a more likely scneario. For example, a mixed use project could
be developed at 0.5 retail FAR and 2.5 residential FAR--not to exceed 3.0.
• Similarly, on California Avenue and El Camino Real, 100% residential projects could
achieve 2.0 and 1.5 FAR in the CC(2) or CN/CS districts, respectively. However, given
district requirements for ground-floor residential, R overlay standards, and Retail
Preservation Ordinance requirements, mixed use projects are still often required in
these districts. A more likely scenario is for a residential mixed use project to develop
with ground-floor retail. For example, a mixed use project could be developed at 0.25
retail FAR and up to 1.75 residential FAR (not to exceed 2.0 total) on California Ave. and
0.15 retail FAR and up to 1.35 residential FAR (not to exceed 1.5 total) on El Camino
Real.
Allowing residential FAR to compose the
entire mixed-use FAR allowance (where
retail is not required) would remove
some of the disincentive that currently
exists for residential development
compared with commercial
development, due to construction costs,
lease rates, and development standards.
This specific change would not increase
the total amount of development
currently allowed by the code, but may
incrementally increase the amount of
future residential development, and potentially decrease new commercial development.
In the CS District, hotels are permitted 2.0 FAR, while
residential uses are permitted only 0.6 FAR. This
discrepancy has provided an incentive for hotel
development in the district.
City of Palo Alto Page 21
Table 3: Existing and Proposed FAR Standards, by Commercial Zoning District
Maximum Intensity (FAR)
CD-C
(Downtown)
CC(2)
(Cal Ave.)
CN District
(El Camino)
CS District
(El Camino)
EXISTING
Residential Mixed Use
Residential 1.0 1.0 0.5 0.6
Commercial (Max.) 1.0 0.25-0.35 0.5 0.4
Ground Floor
Commercial (Min.)
n/a (except GF
overlay)
0.15 or 0.25
(dep. on location) 0.15 0.15
Subtotal Mixed Use 2.0 1.25 1.0 1.0
Non-Residential
Commercial FAR 1.0 2.0 0.4 0.4
Hotel FAR 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Bonus and/or TDR 1.0 0.5 N/A N/A
Total Maximum FAR 3.0 2.0
2.0 (hotel)
1.0 (other)
2.0 (hotel)
1.0 (other)
PROPOSED
Residential Mixed Use
Residential (Max.) 3.0 2.0 1.5 1.5
Commercial (Max.) No Change (see above)
Ground Floor
Commercial (Min.)
n/a (except GF
overlay)
n/a (except R
overlay)
0.0-0.15 (dep.
on location)
0.0-0.15 (dep.
on location)
Subtotal Mixed Use 3.0 2.0 1.5 1.5
Non-Residential
Hotel FAR No Change
Commercial FAR No Change
Bonus and/or TDR No Change
Total Maximum FAR 3.0 2.0
2.0 (hotel)
1.5 (other)
2.0 (hotel)
1.5 (other)
In its review of the proposed changes, the City Council may want to consider whether the floor
area dedicated to housing projects in the CN and CS districts ought to be consistent with the
floor area granted to hotel development as there may be policy reasons to support this change.
However, not all properties may be able to achieve the 2.0 floor area maximum due to other
development constraints. The PTC supported increasing the FAR by .5 to achieve a 1.5 FAR, but
it did not consider an increase to 2.0 during its review.
Maximum Average Unit Size
The City has seen several large penthouse dwelling units constructed in Downtown in recent
years as a result of parking requirements and high rental rates. When a developer has a 12,000
City of Palo Alto Page 22
square foot floor plate, they could choose to develop 12 units at 1,000 square feet. This would
require 26 parking spaces or 3 units at 4,000 square feet each that requires only 6 parking
spaces. Without the benefit of an in-lieu parking fee, residential parking spaces must be
provided on site.
Developers say they cannot fit many parking spaces on site without going underground, which
is expensive. As a result, the developer builds a few luxury units rather than 12 moderately-
sized units. This new standard of a maximum average unit size of 1,500 square feet is intended
to eliminate the former option Downtown. Combined with reduced parking requirements
(including for micro units), this standard would provide an incentive for small and moderate-
sized units in the City’s most walkable transit-oriented core.
Open Space
On-site open space is an important factor in supporting livability in higher density residential
areas, but current standards are applied inconsistently across districts and housing types.
Standardization can clarify what is expected of developers, while flexibility in the location of
open space can provide opportunities to develop sites with the allowable massing and unit
density.
Using Building Rooftops as Open Space
The zoning code requires open space for residential uses in the City’s commercial districts. In
areas of the city designated for higher density multi-family housing, options to configure the
massing and site plan for a project can help maximize the number of appropriate units for a
site. Rooftop decks in a climate such as Palo Alto can offer an amenity for residents to take
advantage of views and community outdoor space. The ordinance includes a range of standards
and guidelines to address issues of privacy, noise, visibility, odors, and safety.
Standardized Requirements
A single standard for each district—regardless of how many units are on the site—simplifies the
code and eliminates any bias for projects that are choosing between proposing five or six units.
No changes are proposed to required landscaping areas (i.e., green space) or dimensional
requirements. The proposed ordinance also contemplates micro-units with a maximum floor
area of 450 square feet. While open space is an important component for any dwelling unit, the
150 square foot approach is excessive for these units; the ordinance instead proposes 40
square feet. Existing regulations and proposed changes are shown in Table 4.
City of Palo Alto Page 23
Table 4: Existing and Proposed Open Space Standards, by Commercial Zoning District
CD-C
(Downtown)
CC(2)/PTOD
(Cal Ave.)
CN District
(El Camino)
CS District
(El Camino)
Existing <5 units: 200 sq. ft./du
6+ units: 150 sq. ft./du
<5 units: 200 sq. ft./du
6+ units: 100 sq. ft./du
or less w/BMR units
<5 units: 20 sq. ft./du
6+ units: 150 sq. ft./du
<5 units: 20 sq. ft./du
6+ units: 150 sq. ft./du
Proposed
(Dwelling
Units)
150 sq. ft./du 150 sq. ft./du 150 sq. ft./du 150 sq. ft./du
Proposed
(Micro
Units)
40 sq. ft./du 40 sq. ft./du 40 sq. ft./du 40 sq. ft./du
Retail Incentives and Preservation
The Retail Preservation Ordinance has the
benefit of preventing the conversion of retail
uses and precluding office uses from occupying
these spaces. However, the ordinance may also
frustrate City efforts to enhance housing
production by retaining retail in areas that do
not have a strong retail environment and where
a housing provider is unable or unwilling to
include new retail floor area in their project due
to financing, constructions costs (more required
parking) or other market considerations.
Staff recommends a narrow exemption to the Retail Preservation Ordinance for 100%
affordable housing developments on sites outside of the GF and R overlays in Downtown and
California Avenue, respectively. This change seeks to balance the tradeoff between housing
production and retail preservation.
The PTC recommended retaining El Camino Real as a location where the Retail Preservation
Ordinance for affordable housing developments would continue to apply and this change is
reflected in the ordinance.
Ground Floor Retail Parking Reduction
To support continued retention of ground floor retail uses while recognizing the challenges
developers have making a mixed-use housing project viable, staff recommends exempting the
first 1,500 square feet of a retail or retail-like use within a residential mixed-use development
from vehicle parking requirements. This change would reduce a retail use’s requirement by
801 Alma was originally conceived to include
ground-floor retail. However, the financing and
logistics proved too complicated; ultimately, a 100%
residential project was approved and constructed.
City of Palo Alto Page 24
approximately 8 parking spaces and a restaurant use’s requirement by 18 spaces (6 spaces
within the parking district).
In Lieu Parking
Non-residential uses have the option of paying into the Parking In-Lieu Fund in-lieu of providing
parking on site (at a rate of $70,094/space), subject to certain findings. Given the high cost of
land and the value of office lease rates, developers often choose to pay this fee and maximize
their leasable area. Residential uses do not have this option; moreover, they likely cannot
afford the per space rate, as it is currently set.
At one point over the course of the Commission’s discussion of possible zoning code changes,
staff presented the concept of allowing residential properties to participate at a subsidized rate
in the in-lieu parking program. This was not supported by a majority of the Commission and
there was some discussion about the program as it relates to commercial development.
When testing some of the zoning ordinance concepts with developers, it became clear to staff
that the in-lieu parking program did create a significant incentive that supported commercial
development over housing. This presented a challenge that touched on varied community
interests to promote housing while also allowing for moderate commercial growth against the
backdrop of parking complaints downtown and related traffic congestion. Staff explored these
issues with the Commission, which ultimately supported a motion to restrict commercial uses
from participating in the in-lieu parking program above the first floor. The PTC minority view on
this motion expressed opposition to this action, noting the lack of outreach to the business
community and property owners, and that this fell outside of the Commission’s scope or review
for the Council-directed housing workplan.
Staff acknowledges that there is no reference to the in-lieu parking program in the housing
workplan, but also notes the significance of this program as it relates to choices property
owners make on how to redevelop property. While modification of this program may not be
ripe for action at this time, staff supports a future community conversation that engages
downtown property owners and businesses to explore whether modification to the program is
warranted.
Since the ordinance reflects the Commission’s recommendation, changes to the in-lieu parking
program have been incorporated into Attachment A. If Council supports the Commission
recommendation, no change is needed. If Council does not support action at this time, a motion
can be made to strike Sections 8 from the attached ordinance (related to changes in to PAMC
section 18.18.090(d). This would effectively retain the existing in-lieu parking program
unchanged.
Remove Legislative Requirement for the Affordable Housing Overlay
City of Palo Alto Page 25
The PTC motion included a request to eliminate the legislative requirement for 100% affordable
housing projects seeking to take advantage of the recently adopted Affordable Housing
Combining District. The PTC would apply this to housing projects that qualify for federal income
tax credits and not affordable housing projects up to 120% of the area median income, which is
the current provision in the combining district. Staff supports this request and has included as a
waiver that could be requested through the proposed Housing Incentive Program.
The Affordable Housing Combining District still has applicability in other parts of the city not
affected by the proposed ordinance.
Additional Considerations
Consider Reinstating Guest Parking – PTC Request
As noted in the draft ordinance and parking discussion above, the revised parking standards are
inclusive of guest parking. This change is based on findings from the empirical parking study and
related literature review. The PTC recommended that the Council consider reinstating a
requirement for guest parking stalls. The City’s current guest parking requirement is 1 space,
plus 10% of the required parking spaces for the residential development. Staff does not support
this PTC recommendation as parking is a key driver in decisions to not only establish housing
but also the size of the units and unit density. To achieve more housing, the zoning standards
need to more accurately reflect the relationship between demand and supply, which is lower
than what the current ordinance requires.
Increase Affordable Housing Density and Height Downtown – PTC – No Consensus
The PTC also discussed but did not make a motion to support additional incentives for 100%
affordable housing development in high-amenity transit-oriented locations (i.e., Downtown and
California Avenue). Staff explored a concept to increase FAR and allow an additional 10-feet in
height to allow for an additional floor of residential. This included the following:
• In Downtown, allow 100% affordable housing projects at a specified area median
income (AMI) percentage to achieve a 4.0 FAR and 10 additional feet in height (up to 60
feet) when located within .5 miles of the Caltrain station.
• Around California Avenue, allow 100% affordable housing projects at a specified AMI
percentage to achieve a 2.5 FAR (whereas 1.5 FAR is allowed for BMR today) and extend
to 50 feet in height when located within .5 miles of the Caltrain station. The current
pedestrian and transit overlay district (PTOD) standard allows up to 50 feet in height
when applied to below-market rate projects within the PTOD boundary.
The PTC, while conceptually interested in additional incentives, requested massing models to
better understand how increases in height and FAR would fit in with the downtown. The PTC
City of Palo Alto Page 26
also requested that massing models be presented to the Council that showed what
construction would look like with the proposed standards on El Camino Real and near California
Avenue. Staff was able to have these illustrations prepared for Downtown and El Camino Real
at the time this report was prepared; see Attachment B and C. These massing models are
illustrative and accurate relative to existing and proposed development standards.
If the Council is not interested in pursuing these additional incentives at this time, no further
action is required. If, however, the Council would like to introduce these standards, then
incorporating this direction in a motion supporting the attached ordinance would be necessary.
Staff would adjust the ordinance and the language would be provided to Council on the second
reading of the ordinance.
Policy Implications
Relationship to Housing Work Plan/Council Referral
Table 5 analyzes how each of the ordinance provisions fits into the Housing Work Plan.
Table 5: Relationship between Work Plan Items and Proposed Ordinance
Work Plan Items Key Ordinance Provisions
2.1 Identify By Right Project Procedures (SB
35)
Ongoing – not included in this ordinance
2.2 Strengthen objective standards Ongoing – not included in this ordinance
2.3 Comp Plan and SOFA plan changes to
strengthen objective standards
Ongoing – not included in this ordinance.
2.4 Provide incentives and remove
constraints for multifamily housing in the
Downtown (CD-C), Cal Ave (CC(2)/PTOC), and
El Camino Real (CN and CS) districts,
including:
2.4.1 Review and revise development
standards (e.g. landscaping, open space)
• Allow rooftop gardens to qualify as usable
open space
• Simplify open space standards
• Eliminate the 50% lot coverage
requirement on El Camino Real
2.4.2. Consider eliminating dwelling unit
densities and relying on FAR and average
unit sizes
• Eliminate residential density standards in
the CD-C, CC(2), and CN, CS districts
• Establish a maximum average unit size
Downtown
2.4.3 Review and revise permitted uses • Provide exemptions from the Retail
City of Palo Alto Page 27
Work Plan Items Key Ordinance Provisions
and use mix (e.g. allow 100% residential
w/ground floor retail)
Preservation Ordinance for 100%
affordable projects
• Allow 100% residential projects in the CD,
CC2, and on El Camino Real in the CN and
CS districts, except in all cases, where
precluded by ground floor retail
protections.
2.4.4 Review and revise level of permitting
and plan review required
• Eliminate Site & Design Review
• Provide Housing Incentive Program as an
alternative to State Density Bonus Law
2.4.5 Allow parking reductions based on
TDM plans and on payment of parking in
lieu fees for housing (Downtown and Cal
Ave). Update the TDM Ordinance to the
extent that it does not already include
metrics of measurements,
accomplishments, and enforcement,
include these metrics.1
• The Office of Transportation is currently
updating guidelines for administering,
monitoring and enforcing TDM programs
(not part of draft ordinance)
2.4.6 Convert some non-residential FAR to
residential FAR
• Allow residential development to utilize all
existing FAR allowance, except where
precluded by ground floor retail
requirements.
2.4.7 Remove constraints to special needs
housing2
• Special needs housing is a defined term in
the housing element and more work is
needed to address certain housing
populations. However, the ordinance
includes the following provisions that may
address other housing needs:
o Removes the legislative requirement to
establish the Affordable Housing
Combining District, adjusting the %
AMI levels to match federal tax credit
standards
o Creates an incentive for micro units
near fixed rail transit.
o Reduces by-right parking standards for
affordable and senior housing
2.4.8 Increase Floor Area Ratio (FAR) in • FAR increases through the Housing
City of Palo Alto Page 28
Work Plan Items Key Ordinance Provisions
the Downtown, California Avenue, and El
Camino Real areas
Incentive Program
2.5 Support multifamily housing in the
multifamily (RM) zoning districts by:
i. Consider establishment of minimum
densities in all RM zones
ii. Allow redevelopment (replacement) of
existing residential units on sites that
are nonconforming because of the
number of units or FAR
• Minimum residential density standards
proposed in the RM districts
• Opportunity to rebuild legally established
housing units that presently exceed
permitted density allowances.
2.6 Provide incentives and remove
constraints in all zoning districts, including:
2.6.1 Adjustment to parking requirements
to reduce costs (based on an ongoing
study of parking demand by housing type
and location); identify the appropriate
amount of parking for various housing
types and locations, taking into account
parking mitigations
• Adjust parking requirements based on
parking demand/supply analysis
• Exempt 1,500 s.f. of ground floor retail
from parking requirements
1 A provision to allow residential uses to pay a fee in lieu of providing parking on site in Downtown and
around California Avenue was considered and rejected by the PTC. Instead, the PTC action supported
eliminated the in-lieu parking payment Downtown for commercial uses above the ground floor.
2 Staff were not able to develop a strategy for teacher housing opportunities within Fair Housing Laws,
but has considered possible changes to the Workforce Housing Overlay to support a possible housing
project on Santa Clara County owned land near the courthouse. The PTC considered and rejected fee
waivers for special needs housing.
Source: Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment, November 2018
Resource Impact
Most of the recommendations in this report do not have significant budget or fiscal impacts. If
the in-lieu parking program is modified to preclude commercial development from participating
in the program above the ground floor, the City would likely see a reduction in in-lieu parking
fees over time.
Timeline
A timeline for development of the ordinance is provided in Table 6.
Table 6: Project Timeline
Meeting Type Topic Date
City of Palo Alto Page 29
Meeting Type Topic Date
PTC Study Session Review objectives for housing work plan and city
council direction
March 14
PTC Study Session
Overview of issues, including key findings from an
analysis of residential capacity in Downtown
April 25
PTC Study Session
Parking, including key findings from an analysis of
residential parking demand
May 30
Community Meeting Present and receive feedback on ordinance
framework ideas
June 28
PTC Study Session Framework for ordinance August 29
ARB Hearing Review of rooftop open space design standards September 20
PTC Hearing Revised framework for ordinance September 26
PTC Hearing Recommendation on Draft Ordinance October 10
City Council Hearing Draft Ordinance (First Reading) November 26
Environmental Review
The City Council certified a Final EIR (http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/wp-
content/uploads/2017/08/PaloAltoCompPlanFEIR_Aug2017.pdf) on November 13, 2017 to
analyze potential impacts associated with the updated Comprehensive Plan. The 2018
Comprehensive Plan Implementation and Housing Ordinance is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan and its Final EIR. At this time, no substantially greater or more severe
impacts are anticipated and no development is proposed, beyond what is allowed by the
Comprehensive Plan.
Report Author & Contact Information PTC8 Liaison & Contact Information
Jean Eisberg, Consultant Planner Jonathan Lait, AICP, Interim Director
(415) 841-3539 (650) 329-2679
jean@lexingtonplanning.com jonathan.lait@cityofpaloalto.org
Attachments:
Attachment A: 2018111402 ORD Draft 2018 Housing Work Plan Ordinance for CC v 11-13-18
(PDF)
Attachment B: CD-C Downtown Massing Model_11-09-18 (PDF)
Attachment C: CN ECR Massing Model_11-09-18 (PDF)
8 Emails may be sent directly to the PTC using the following address: planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.org
Not Yet Approved
1 2018111402
Ordinance No. ____
Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Title 18 (Zoning) of
the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Including Chapters 18.04 (Definitions), 18.13
(Multiple Family Residential RM-15, RM-30 and RM-40) Districts), 18.16
(Neighborhood, Community, and Service Commercial (CN, CC, and CS) Districts),
18.18 (Downtown Commercial (CD) District), 18.40 (General Standards and
Exceptions), and 18.52 (Parking and Loading Requirements), to Establish or
Modify Development Standards for Residential and Mixed-Use Projects
Including, But Not Limited to, Minimum and Maximum Unit Density, Unit Size,
Floor Area Ratio, Height, and Open Space Including Rooftop Gardens, to Modify
Parking Requirements and Adjustments, to Limit In-Lieu Parking for Downtown
Commercial Uses Above the Ground Floor, to Allow Exclusively Residential
Projects in Certain Commercial Zoning Districts, to Exempt Certain Affordable
Housing Projects from Retail Preservation, to Simplify the Entitlement Process
Removing Site and Design Review for Residential and Mixed-Use Projects, and to
Make Other Technical Corrections and Clarifications, All to Promote Housing
Development Opportunities in the Multi-Family Residential Zoning Districts and
Commercial Zoning Districts in Furtherance of Implementation of the
Comprehensive Plan
The Council of the City of Palo Alto ORDAINS as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings and Declarations. The City Council finds and declares as follows:
A.California is in the midst of a housing crisis due to a severe shortage of housing
that is affordable to large segments of the population, including above-moderate and moderate
income households and, most acutely, lower-income households. According to the California
Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), throughout the State, housing
production averaged less than 80,000 new homes over the last 10 years, and ongoing
production continues to fall far below the projected need of 180,000 additional homes
annually. The lack of supply, with a deficit that deepens each year, has been a key driver of the
lack of affordability for millions of households throughout the State. The majority of Californian
renters pay more than 30 percent of their income toward rent, and nearly one-third pay more
than 50 percent of their income toward rent.
B.In the nine-county Bay Area, which contains job centers that have produced a
substantial number of new jobs, the lack of housing affordability is even more severe. The Bay
Area continues to produce housing units in insufficient numbers to adequately house both
existing and projected populations. Between 2011 and 2015, the Bay Area added 500,000 jobs
but built only 65,000 new homes. Limited housing, with increasing demand and constraints on
Attachment A
Not Yet Approved
2 2018111402
production, have resulted in high housing cost burdens that fall most heavily on lower income
households who are more likely to be renters. Between 2000 and 2016, rents increased 24
percent while renter incomes rose just 9 percent. Six of every 10 economically insecure
residents are renters and 75 percent of them pay more than 30 percent of their income for
housing.
C. For Palo Alto, as a job center with among the highest housing prices and greatest
jobs to housing imbalances in the Bay Area, the housing shortage threatens the city’s
prosperity, diversity, stability, environment, quality of life, and community character.
D. The cost pressures associated with substantially increased housing prices and
rents have resulted in displacement and contributed to homelessness, separated families, and
loss of diversity. Residents in search of affordability are driven to move to far outlying areas,
requiring longer commutes to job centers in the Bay Area, including Palo Alto. According to a
recent report by the Bay Area Economic Council, more than 100,000 Bay Area mega-commuters
travel 90 minutes or more to reach their jobs, contributing to a 78 percent increase since 1990
in the number of mega-commuters crossing county and regional boundaries to get to work. Of
the nearly 200,000 commuters crossing regional boundaries in 2013, 69 percent were
commuting into the Bay Area for work. This results in health and quality of life impacts to
individuals, as well as community-wide and region-wide impacts in terms of increased traffic
congestion, air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. Without the construction of more
housing near urban centers and jobs, the State’s ability to achieve its climate change goals is in
jeopardy.
E. In November 2017, the City adopted an updated Comprehensive Plan that
projected 3,545 to 4,420 new housing units between 2015 and 2030, and included policies to
encourage housing production. The Council subsequently approved a Housing Work Plan with
a recognition that if Palo Alto remains on its current course, the City will fall short of meeting its
Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocation of 1,988 units at varying levels of
affordability and the goals inherent in the Comprehensive Plan policies. The Housing Work Plan
detailed the actions needed to spur the production of housing, and included the proposed
zoning changes reflected in this Ordinance to remove barriers and disincentives to housing
development at higher densities where appropriate near transit, jobs and services, and that is
affordable for a range of income levels.
Not Yet Approved
3 2018111402
SECTION 2. Subsection (a)(142) of Section 18.04.030 of Chapter 18.04 (Definitions) of Title 18
(Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) is amended to read as follows:
18.04.030 Definitions
. . .
(142) “Usable open space” means outdoor or unenclosed area on the ground, or on a roof,
balcony, deck, porch, patio or terrace, designed and accessible for outdoor living, recreation,
pedestrian access, or landscaping, but excluding parking facilities, driveways, utility or service
areas, or areas with mechanical equipment. Usable open space may be covered if at least 50%
open on the sides. Usable open space shall be sited and designed to accommodate all groups
including children, seniors, and other adults, different activities, groups, including active and
passive recreation and uses, and should be located convenient to the intended users (e.g.,
residents, employees, or public). Any usable open space that is not landscaped shall be
developed to encourage outdoor recreational use and shall include elements such as decks,
seating, decorative paved areas and walkways which do not serve as an entrance walkway.
Usable open space shall be screened from utility or service areas, and areas with mechanical
equipment. Parking, driveways and required parking lot landscaping shall not be counted as
usable open space.
SECTION 3. The title of Chapter 18.13 of Title 18 (Zoning) of the PAMC is amended to read as
follows:
Chapter 18.13
MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RM-2015, RM-30 AND RM-40) DISTRICTS
SECTION 4. Section 18.13.010 (Purposes) and Section 18.13.040 (Development Standards) of
Chapter 18.13 (Multiple Family Residential RM-15, RM-30 and RM-40) Districts) of Title 18
(Zoning) of the PAMC are amended as follows:
18.13.010 Purposes
This section specifies regulations for three multiple family residential districts.
(a) RM-2015 Low Density Multiple-Family Residence District [RM-2015]
The RM-2015 low-density multiple-family residence district is intended to create,
preserve and enhance areas for a mixture of single-family and multiple-family housing
which is compatible with lower density and residential districts nearby, including single-
family residence districts. The RM-2015 residence district also serves as a transition to
moderate density multiple-family districts or districts with nonresidential uses. Permitted densities in the RM-2015 residence district range from eight to fifteen twenty dwelling units per acre, with no required minimum density.
Commented [LS1]: These amendments clarify the generally applicable attributes of “usable open space,” consistent with the
purpose and requirements included in the discussion of rooftop usable open space. 3.f, 4.e, 5.b
Commented [LS2]: The amendments to this Section, together with those to Table 2 of Section 18.13.040 that immediately follows, would establish a minimum density for each of the multi-
family residential subdistricts and increase the maximum density in RM-15 (re-named RM-20) from 15 to 20 dwelling units/acre. The latter change and the proposed 8 units/acre minimum for RM-15 are a Housing Element program. 2.a, 2.b
Not Yet Approved
4 2018111402
(b) RM-30 Medium Density Multiple-Family Residence District [RM-30]
The RM-30 medium density multiple-family residence district is intended to create, preserve and enhance neighborhoods for multiple-family housing with site development standards and visual characteristics intended to mitigate impacts on nearby lower density residential districts. Projects at this density are intended for larger parcels that
will enable developments to provide their own parking spaces and to meet their open
space needs in the form of garden apartments or cluster developments. Permitted
densities in the RM-30 residence district range from sixteen to thirty dwelling units per
acre, with no required minimum density.
(c) RM-40 High Density Multiple-Family Residence District [RM-40]
The RM-40 high density multiple-family residence district is intended to create, preserve and enhance locations for apartment living at the highest density deemed appropriate for Palo Alto. The most suitable locations for this district are in the downtown area, in
select sites in the California Avenue area and along major transportation corridors which
are close to mass transportation facilities and major employment and service centers.
Permitted densities in the RM-40 residence district range from thirty-one to forty
dwelling units per acre, with no required minimum density.
Section 18.13.040 Development Standards
(a) Site Specifications, Building Size and Bulk, and Residential Density
The site development regulations in Table 2 shall apply in the multiple-family residence
districts, provided that more restrictive regulations may be recommended by the
Architectural Review Board and approved by the Director of Planning and Community
Environment, pursuant to the regulations set forth in Chapter 18.76, performance
criteria set forth in Chapter 18.23, and the context-based design criteria set forth in
Section 18.13.060.
Table 2
Multiple Family Residential Development Table
RM-2015 RM-30 RM-40
Subject to
regulations
in:
Minimum Site Specifications
Site Area (ft2) 8,500
Site Width (ft) 70
Site Depth (ft) 100
Not Yet Approved
5 2018111402
RM-2015 RM-30 RM-40
Subject to
regulations
in:
Substandard Lot Specifications
Site Area (ft2) Less than 8,500 square feet and/or
less than 70 feet in width
Site Width (ft)
Minimum Setbacks
Setback lines imposed by a special
setback map pursuant to Chapter
20.08 of this code may apply
Front Yard (ft) 20 20 0-25 (1)
18.13.040(b)
On arterial roadways(1) 0-20 (1) 0-20 (1) 0-25 (1)
Interior Side Yards (ft)
For lots with width of 70 feet or greater 10 10 10
For lots with width of less than 70 feet 6 feet
Interior Rear Yards (ft)3 10 10 10
Street Side and Street Rear Yards (ft) 16 16 0-16(2)
Maximum Height (ft) 30 35 40
Maximum height for those portions of a site
within 50 feet of a more restrictive residential
district or a site containing a residential use in a
nonresidential district
35
Daylight Planes(7)
• Daylight Plane for side and rear lot lines for
sites abutting any R-1, R-2, RMD, or RM-2015
district or abutting a site containing a single-
family or two-family residential use in a
nonresidential district:
Initial Height (ft) 10
Angle (degrees) 45
• Daylight Plane for side and rear lot lines for
sites abutting a RM-30, RM-40, Planned
Community, or nonresidential district that does
Commented [LS3]: This reflects the existing code, but is not reflected in the web version and requires an update.
Not Yet Approved
6 2018111402
RM-2015 RM-30 RM-40
Subject to
regulations
in:
not contain a single-family or two-family
residential use:
For lots with width of 70 feet or greater None
For lots with width of less than 70 feet, limited to
the first 10 feet from the property line (no
daylight plane beyond 10 feet):
Initial Height (ft) 10
Angle (degrees) 45
Maximum Site Coverage:
Base 35% 40% 45%
Additional area permitted to be covered by
covered patios or overhangs otherwise in
compliance with all applicable laws
5% 5% 5%
Maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR)(4) 0.5:1 0.6:1 1.0:1
Maximum Residential Density (units)
Maximum number of units per acre(3) 2015 30 40 18.13.040(g)
Minimum Residential Density (units)
Minimum number of units per acre(8) 11 16 21
Minimum Site Open Space(5) (percent) 35 30 20 18.13.040(e)
Minimum Usable Open Space (sf per unit)(5) 150200 150 150100
Minimum common open space (sf per unit) 75100 75 7550 18.13.040(e)
Minimum private open space (sf per unit) 50 50 50
Performance Criteria See provisions of Chapter 18.23 Ch. 18.23
Landscape Requirements 18.40.130
Parking(6) See provisions of Chapter 18.52 Ch. 18.52
(1) Minimum front setbacks shall be determined by the Architectural Review Board upon
review pursuant to criteria set forth in Chapter 18.76 and the context-based criteria outlined
Commented [LS4]: This amendment, together with the same change to other Chapters, would establish a consistent open space standards for multi-family and residential mixed-use projects in multi-family residential and commercial zoning districts. 1.a
Not Yet Approved
7 2018111402
in Section 18.13.060. Arterial roadways do not include residential arterials.
(2) Minimum street side setbacks in the RM-40 zone may be from 0 to 16 feet and shall be
determined by the Architectural Review Board upon review pursuant to criteria set forth in
Chapter 18.76 and the context-based criteria outlined in Section 18.13.060.
(3) Provided that, for any lot of 5,000 square feet or greater, two units are allowed, subject to
compliance with all other development regulations.
(4) Covered parking is not included as floor area in multi-family development, up to a maximum
of 230 square feet per required parking space that is covered. Covered parking spaces in
excess of required parking spaces count as floor area.
(5) Subject to the limitations of Section 18.13.040(e). Usable open space is included as part of
the minimum site open space; required usable open space in excess of the minimum
required for common and private open space may be used as either common or private
usable open space; landscaping may count towards total site open space after usable open
space requirements are met.
(6) Tandem parking is allowed for any unit requiring two parking spaces, provided that both
spaces in tandem are intended for use by the same residential unit. For projects with more
than four (4) units, not more than 25% of the required parking spaces shall be in a tandem
configuration.
(7) Each daylight plane applies specifically and separately to each property line according to the
adjacent use.
(8) The minimum density for a site may be reduced by the Director if, after the proposal is
reviewed by the Architectural Review Board, the Director finds that existing site
improvements or other parcel constraints, preclude the development from meeting the
minimum density.
(b) Setbacks, Daylight Planes and Height - Additional Requirements and Exceptions
(1) Setbacks
(A) Setbacks for lot lines adjacent to an arterial street, expressway or freeway, as
designated in the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, shall be a minimum of
twenty-five feet (25'), except that lesser setbacks may be allowed or required
by the Planning Director, upon recommendation by the Architectural Review
Board, where prescribed by the context-based criteria outlined in Section
18.13.060. Special setbacks of greater than 25 feet may not be reduced
except upon approval of a design enhancement exception or variance.
Not Yet Approved
8 2018111402
(B) Required parking spaces shall not be located in a required front yard, nor in
the first ten feet (10') adjoining the street property line of a required street
side yard.
(C) Projections into yards are permitted only to the extent allowed by Section
18.40.070 of this code.
(2) Height and Daylight Planes
(A) Exceptions to maximum height limitations are permitted only to the extent
allowed by Section 18.40.090 of this code.
(B) The following features may extend beyond the daylight plane established by
the applicable district, provided that such features do not exceed the height
limit for the district unless permitted to by Section 18.40.090 of this code:
i. Television and radio antennas;
ii. Chimneys and flues that do not exceed 5 feet in width, provided that
chimneys do not extend past the required daylight plane a distance
exceeding the minimum allowed pursuant to Chapter 16.04 of this
code.
iii. Cornices and eaves, excluding flat or continuous walls or enclosures of
usable interior space, provided such features do not extend past the
daylight plane more than 4 feet, and so long as they do not encroach
into the side setback greater than 2 feet.
. . .
(e) Usable Open Space
The following usable open space regulations shall apply:
(1) Required Minimum Site Open Space. Each site shall, at a minimum, have a portion of
the site, as prescribed in Table 2, developed into permanently maintained open
space. Site open space includes all usable open space plus landscape or other
uncovered areas not used for driveways, parking, or walkways.
(2) Usable Open Space (Private and Common). Each project shall, at a minimum, have a
portion of the site, as prescribed in Table 2, developed into permanently maintained
usable open space, including private and common usable open space areas. Usable
open space shall be located protected from the activities of commercial areas and
adjacent public streets and shall provide noise buffering from surrounding uses
Not Yet Approved
9 2018111402
where feasible. Parking, driveways and required parking lot landscaping shall not be
counted as usable open space.
(A) Private Usable Open Space. Each dwelling unit shall have at least one private
usable open space area contiguous to the unit that allows the occupants of the
unit the personal use of the outdoor space. The minimum size of such areas shall
be as follows:
(i) Balconies (above ground level): 50 square feet, the least dimension of
which shall is 6 feet.
(ii) Patios or yards in the RM-2015 and RM-30 districts: 100 square feet,
the least dimension of which is 8 feet for at least 75% of the area.
(iii) Patios or yards in the RM-40 district: 80 square feet, the least
dimension of which is 6 feet for at least 75% of the area.
(B) Common Usable Open Space. The minimum designated common open
space area on the site shall be 10 feet wide and each such designated area shall
comprise a minimum of 200 square feet. In the RM-30 and RM-40 districts, part
or all of the required private usable open space areas may be added to the
required common usable open space in a development, for purposes of
improved design, privacy, protection and increased play area for children, upon a
recommendation of the Architectural Review Board and approval of the Director.
(f) Personal Services, Retail Services, and Eating and Drinking Services in the RM-30 and
RM-40 Districts
Within a single residential development containing not less than 40 dwelling units,
personal services, retail services, and eating and drinking services solely of a
neighborhood-serving nature to residents in the development or in the general vicinity
of the project may be allowed upon approval of a conditional use permit, subject to the
following limitations and to such additional conditions as may be established by the
conditional use permit:
(1) Total gross floor area of all such uses shall not exceed 5,000 square feet or three
percent of the gross residential floor area within the development, whichever is
smaller, and may not occupy any level other than the ground level or below grade
levels.
(2) A maximum of 2,500 square feet of retail and/or service and/or eating and drinking
uses shall be allowed per establishment.
Commented [LS5]: This was added to the usable open space
definition.
Not Yet Approved
10 2018111402
(3) Personal services, retail services, and eating and drinking services provided in
accordance with this section shall not be included in the gross floor area for the
site.
(4) The conditional use permit for the project may preclude certain uses and shall
include conditions that are appropriate to limit impacts of noise, lighting, odors,
parking and trash disposal from the operation of the commercial establishment.
The hours of operation shall be limited to assure compatibility with the residential
use and surrounding residential uses.
(5) Allowable Neighborhood-Serving Uses. A neighborhood-serving use primarily serves
individual consumers and households, not businesses, is generally pedestrian
oriented in design, and does not generate noise, fumes or truck traffic greater than
that typically expected for uses with a local customer base. A neighborhood-serving
use is also one to which a significant number of local customers and clients can
walk, bicycle or travel short distances, rather than relying primarily on automobile
access or the provider of the goods or services traveling off-site. Allowable
neighborhood-serving personal services, retail services and eating and drinking
services may include, but are not limited to, "agent" dry cleaners, flower shops,
convenience grocery stores (excluding liquor stores), delicatessens, cafes, fitness
facilities, day care facilities, and similar uses found by the Planning Director to be
compatible with the intent of this provision.
(6) Sign programs, including size, number, color, placement, etc. shall be permitted
only as specified in the conditional use permit and by the Planning Director upon
recommendation of the Architectural Review Board
(7) Off-street parking and bicycle facilities, in addition to facilities required for
residential uses, shall be provided as may be specified by the conditional use
permit. However, there shall not be less than one parking space for each employee
working or expected to be working at the same time.
(8) For any project, other than a 100% affordable housing project, containing forty (40)
or greater units and located more than 500 feet from neighborhood commercial
services, as determined by the Director, a minimum of 1,500 square feet of
neighborhood serving retail, personal service, and/or eating or drinking uses shall
be provided, subject to the above limitations. No conditional use permit is required,
but the commercial use shall be reviewed by the Architectural Review Board as part
of the architectural review approval. A minimum of one parking space for each
employee working or expected to be working at the same time shall be provided. A
“100% affordable housing project” as used herein means a multiple-family housing
project consisting entirely of affordable units, as defined in Section 16.65.020 of
Commented [LS6]: These revisions would exempt 100% affordable housing projects from the retail requirement in the RM
district.
Not Yet Approved
11 2018111402
this code, available only to households with income levels at or below 120% of the
area median income for Santa Clara County, as defined in Chapter 16.65, except for
a building manager’s unit.
(g) Below Market Rate Units and Rental Housing Protection
(1) In developments of five or more units on sites of less than five acres, not less than
fifteen percent (15%) of the units shall be provided at below-market rates (BMR) to
very-low, low and moderate income households in accordance with Program H-36 of
the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Housing Element. In developments of five or more
units on sites of five acres or more, not less than twenty percent (20%) of the units
shall be provided at below-market rates (BMR). Specified percentages are applied to
all proposed units in a project, including those designated as BMR units.
(2) Further details of the BMR program requirements, including their applicability to
subdivisions and for density bonus purposes, are found in the discussion of
Programs H-36 and H-38 of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Housing Element.
(3) Below market rate units shall be fully integrated into the development unless good
cause is shown for an exception.
(g) Redevelopment of Sites with Non-complying Density
For a parcel with a residential use that exceeds the maximum unit density of the
applicable zoning district, the Director may grant an exception to the maximum unit
density standard and allow the parcel to be redeveloped to replace the legally
established residential units at the existing density, subject to all of the following:
(1) The applicant must make the request for exception under this provision at the time
of project application;
(2) The project is a residential rental project;
(3) The project complies with all other applicable development standards; and
(4) The project shall not be eligible for a density bonus under Chapter 18.15 (Density
Bonus). The applicant must elect whether to utilize state density bonus law or the
exception described herein as an alternative to state density bonus law.
(h) Performance Criteria
Commented [LS7]: This deletion is an administrative clean-up, as the BMR program is now addressed in Chapter 16.65 of the code. 2.d
Commented [LS8]: This new subsection would authorize the Director to grant a zoning exception to allow residentially used sites in the multi-family zoning district that exceed the density standard to be redeveloped as a residential rental project with the same
number of units. This option would be an alternative to state density bonus law. 2.c
Not Yet Approved
12 2018111402
In addition to all other provisions of this chapter, all multi-family development shall
comply with applicable provisions of Chapter 18.23 (Performance Criteria for Multiple
Family, Commercial, Industrial and Planned Community Districts).
SECTION 5. The Residential Uses portion of Table 1 of subsection (a) of Section 18.16.040 (Land
Uses) of Chapter 18.16 (Neighborhood, Community, and Service Commercial (CN, CC, and CS)
Districts) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the PAMC is amended as follows:
Section 18.16.040 Land Uses
The uses of land allowed by this Chapter in each commercial zoning district are identified in the
following tables. Land uses that are not listed on the tables are not allowed, except where
otherwise noted. Where the last column on the following tables (“Subject to Regulations in”) includes a section number, specific regulations in the referenced section also apply to the use; however, provisions in other sections may apply as well.
(a) Commercial Zones and Land Uses
Permitted and conditionally permitted land uses for each commercial zone are shown in
Table 1:
TABLE 1
CD PERMITTED AND CONDITIONALLY PERMITTED USES
P = Permitted Use CUP = Conditional Use Permit Required
LAND USE CN(4) CC, CC(2) CS(4) Subject to Regulations In:
. . .
RESIDENTIAL USES
Multiple-Family P(1) P(1) P(1) 18.16.060(b) and (c)
Home Occupations P P P
Residential Care Homes P P P
. . .
(1) Residential is only permitted: (i) as part of a mixed use development, pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.16.060(b), or (ii) on sites designated as Housing Opportunity Siteshousing inventory sites in the Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan, (iii) on CN or CS sites on El
Camino Real, or (iv) on CC(2) sites outside of the retail shopping (R) combining district, all
pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.16.060(b) and (c).
. . .
Commented [LS9]: These amendments, together with other
changes to the commercial zoning chapter 18.16, would allow residential only development in certain parts of the commercial zoning district, specifically in the CC(2) subdistrict and on CN or CS sites on El Camino Real. 4.b; 5.d
Not Yet Approved
13 2018111402
SECTION 6. Subsections (b) and (c) of Section 18.16.060 (Development Standards) of Chapter
18.16 (Neighborhood, Community, and Service Commercial (CN, CC, and CS) Districts) of Title
18 (Zoning) of the PAMC are amended as follows:
Section 18.16.060 Development Standards
. . .
(b) Mixed Uses and Residential
Table 4 specifies the development standards for new residential mixed use
developments and residential developments. These developments shall be designed and
constructed in compliance with the following requirements and the context-based design criteria outlined in Section 18.16.090, provided that more restrictive regulations may be recommended by the architectural review board and approved by the director
of planning and community environment, pursuant to Section 18.76.020.
Table 4
Mixed Use and Residential Development Standards
CN CC CC(2) CS Subject to regulations in:
Minimum Site Specifications
Site Area (ft2)
None required
Site Width (ft)
Site Depth (ft)
Minimum Setbacks
Setback lines imposed by a special
setback map pursuant to Chapter
20.08 of this code may apply
Front Yard (ft)
0' - 10' to
create an
8' - 12' effective sidewalk width (8)
None
Required
(8)
0' - 10' to
create an 8'
- 12' effective sidewalk width (8)
0' - 10' to
create an 8' -
12' effective sidewalk width (8)
Rear Yard (ft) 10' for residential portion; no requirement for
commercial portion
Rear Yard abutting residential zone district (ft) 10'
Interior Side Yard if abutting residential zone district (ft) 10'
Street Side Yard (ft) 5'
Not Yet Approved
14 2018111402
CN CC CC(2) CS Subject to regulations in:
Build-to-Lines 50% of frontage built to setback (1)
33% of side street built to setback (1)
Permitted Setback
Encroachments
Balconies, awnings, porches, stairways, and
similar elements may extend up to 6' into the
setback. Cornices, eaves, fireplaces, and similar
architectural features (excluding flat or
continuous walls or enclosures of interior space)
may extend up to 4' into the front and rear setbacks and up to 3' into interior side setbacks
Maximum Site Coverage 50% 50% 100% 50%
Landscape/Open Space
Coverage 35% 30% 20% 30%
Usable Open Space
20 sq ft per unit for 5 or fewer units
(2) , 150 sq ft per unit for 6 units or
more (2)
Maximum Height (ft)
Standard 35' (4) 50' 37' 50'
Within 150 ft. of a
residential zone district (other
than an RM-40 or PC zone)
abutting or located within 50
feet of the side
35' 35' (5) 35' (5) 35' (5)
Daylight Plane for lot lines abutting one or more
residential zoning districts
Daylight plane height and slope shall be identical
to those of the most restrictive residential zoning
district abutting the lot line
Residential Density (net) (3) 15 or 20 (9)
See sub-
section
(e) below
No
maximum
30
30 18.16.060(i)
Sites on El Camino Real No
maximum
No
maximum
Maximum Residential Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 0.5:1 (4) 0.6:1 0.6:1
Maximum Nonresidential
Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 0.4:1 2.0:1 0.4:1
Total Mixed Use Floor Area
Ratio (FAR) 0.9:1 (4) 2.0:1 1.0:1
Minimum Mixed Use Ground
Floor Commercial FAR (6) 0.15:1(10)
0.15:1(10)
0.25:1 (7)
(10)
0.15:1 (10)
Commented [LS10]: This change implements in this commercial zoning district the citywide modification to provide for a single open space requirement regardless of the number of multi-family units. 1.a
Commented [LS11]: This amendment would eliminate residential unit density maximums in the CC(2) subdistrict and on CS and CN sites on El Camino Real. 4.a; 5.a
Not Yet Approved
15 2018111402
CN CC CC(2) CS Subject to regulations in:
Parking See Chapters 18.52 and 18.54 (Parking) 18.52, 18.54
(1) Twenty-five-foot driveway access permitted regardless of frontage; build-to requirement does not apply to CC district.
(2) Required usable open space: (1) may be any combination of private and
common open spaces; (2) does not need to be located on the ground (but rooftop gardens are not included as open space except as provided below); (3) minimum private open space dimension six feet; and (4) minimum common open space dimension twelve feet.
For CN and CS sites on El Camino Real and CC(2) sites that do not abut a single-
or two-family residential use or zoning district, rooftop gardens may qualify as usable open space and may count as up to 60% of the required usable open space for the residential component of a project. In order to qualify as usable
open space, the rooftop garden shall meet the requirements set forth in Section
18.40.190.
(3) Residential density shall be computed based upon the total site area, irrespective of the percent of the site devoted to commercial use.
(4) For CN sites on El Camino Real, height may increase to a maximum of 40 feet
and the FAR may increase to a maximum of 1.0:1 (0.5:1 for nonresidential, 0.5:1
for residential). (5) For sites abutting an RM-40 zoned residential district or a residential Planned
Community (PC) district, maximum height may be increased to 50 feet.
(6) Ground floor commercial uses generally include retail, personal services, hotels and eating and drinking establishments. Office uses may be included only to the extent they are permitted in ground floor regulations.
(7) If located in the California Avenue Parking Assessment District.
(8) A 12-foot sidewalk width is required along El Camino Real frontage. (9) Residential densities up to 20 units/acre only are allowed on CN zoned housing
inventory sites identified in the Housing Element. Other CN zoned sites are
subject to a maximum residential density of up to 15 units/acre.
(10) In the CC(2) zone and on CN and CS zoned sites on El Camino Real, there shall be
no minimum mixed use ground floor commercial FAR for a residential project,
except to the extent that the retail preservation requirements of Section 18.40.180 or the retail shopping (R) combining district (Chapter 18.30(A)) applies.
Commented [LS12]: Changes to this footnote would allow rooftop open space to qualify as usable open space for multifamily residential or residential mixed-use projects in the CC(2) subdistrict and on CN and CS zoned sites on El Camino Real, subject to standards specified in new Section 18.40.190 (below) of this ordinance. 4.e; 5.b
Not Yet Approved
16 2018111402
(1) Residential and nonresidential mixed use projects shall be subject to site and design review in accord with Chapter 18.30(G), except that mixed use projects
with nine or fewer residential units shall only require review by the architectural
review board.
(12) Nonresidential uses that involve the use or storage of hazardous materials in
excess of the exempt quantities prescribed in Title 15 of the Municipal Code,
including but not limited to dry cleaning plants and auto repair, are prohibited in
a mixed use development with residential uses. (23) Residential mixed use development is prohibited on any site designated with an
Automobile Dealership (AD) Combining District overlay.
(c) Exclusively Residential Uses
Exclusively residential uses are generally prohibited in the CN, CS, and CC, and CC(2)
zone districts, except on housing inventory sites identified in the Housing Element,
subject to the standards in Section 18.16.060(b), and on CS and CN sites on El Camino Real, subject to the following. (1) On CS and CN sites on El Camino Real and on CC(2) sites, where the retail
shopping (R) combining district and the retail preservation provisions of Section
18.40.180 do not apply, exclusively residential uses are allowed subject to the
standards in Section 18.16.060(b) and the following additional requirements:.
(A) Residential units shall not be permitted on the ground-floor of
development fronting on El Camino Real unless set back a minimum of 15 feet from the property line or the 12-foot effective sidewalk setback along the El Camino Real frontage, whichever is greater. Common areas,
such as lobbies, stoops, community rooms, and work-out spaces with
windows and architectural detail are permitted on the ground-floor El
Camino Real frontage.
(B) Parking shall be located behind buildings or below grade, or, if infeasible,
screened by landscaping, low walls, or garage structures with
architectural detail.
. . .
(j) Housing Incentive Program
(1) For an exclusively residential or residential mixed-use project in the CC(2) zone
or on CN or CS zoned sites on El Camino Real, the Director may waive the
Commented [LS13]: This change would eliminate site & design review for residential and residential mixed use projects in the
commercial zoning district, and only apply the architectural review process like all other projects in this zoning district. 1.b
Commented [LS14]: These changes allow for exclusively residential uses in the CC(2) zone and CN or CS zoned sites on El Camino Real, except where the retail preservation ordinance or the retail shopping (R) combining distrct applies. The changes also
require that for frontages on El Camino Real, an exclusively residential project be designed to maintain ground-floor interest. 4.b, 5.d
Commented [LS15]: This new subsection would authorize the Director to grant zoning waivers to allow increased FAR for the residential portion of a project, and to waive other development
standards for a 100%affordable housing project, in the CC(2) subdistrict and on CN or CS zoned sites on El Camino Real, subject to architectural review. 4.f; 5.e
Not Yet Approved
17 2018111402
residential floor area ratio (FAR) limit and the maximum site coverage
requirement after the project with the proposed waiver or waivers is reviewed
by the Architectural Review Board, if the Director finds that a project exceeding
these standards is consistent with the required architectural review findings. In
no event shall the Director approve a commercial FAR that exceeds the standard
in Table 4 of Section 18.16.060(b) or a total FAR (including both residential and
commercial FAR) in excess of 2.0 in the CC(2) zone or 1.5 in the CN or CS zone.
(2) For a 100% affordable housing project in the CC(2) zone or on CN or CS zoned
sites on El Camino Real, the Director may waive any development standard
including parking after the project with the proposed waiver or waivers is
reviewed by the Architectural Review Board, if the Director finds that a project
with such waiver or waivers is consistent with the required architectural review
findings. In no event shall the Director approve development standards more
liberal than the standards applicable to the Affordable Housing (AH) Combining
District in Chapter 18.30(J). A “100% affordable housing project” as used herein
means a multiple-family housing or mixed-use project in which the residential
component consists entirely of affordable units, as defined in Section 16.65.020
of this code, available only to households with income levels at or below 120% of
the area median income, as defined in Section 16.65.020, with an average not to
exceed 60% of the area median income, except for a building manager’s unit.
(3) This program is a local alternative to the state density bonus law, and therefore,
a project utilizing this program shall not be eligible for a density bonus under
Chapter 18.15 (Density Bonus).
(j) Parking and Vehicular Access on California Avenue Restricted
Vehicular access to CC(2) zoned sites on California Avenue which requires vehicular
movement across the sidewalk on California Avenue shall be prohibited, except where
required by law and as applied to parcels owned, leased or controlled by the City.
SECTION 7. Subsections (b) and (c) of Section 18.18.060 (Development Standards) of Chapter
18.18 (Downtown Commercial (CD) District) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the PAMC are amended as
follows:
Section 18.18.060 Development Standards
. . .
(b) Mixed Use and Residential
Table 3 specifies the development standards for new residential mixed use developments and
Commented [LS16]: This new subsection would preclude curb cuts on California Avenue, except for City parcels. 4.d
Not Yet Approved
18 2018111402
residential developments. These developments shall be designed and constructed in
compliance with the following requirements and the context-based design criteria outlines in
Section 18.18.110, provided that more restrictive regulations may be recommended by the architectural review board and approved by the director of planning and community environment, pursuant to Section 18.76.020: TABLE 3
MIXED USE AND RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
CD-C CD-S CD-N Subject to regulations in Section:
Minimum Setbacks
Setback lines imposed by
a special setback map pursuant to Chapter 20.08 of this code may
apply
Front Yard (ft) None required 10'
Rear Yard (ft) 10' for residential portion; no requirement for commercial portion
Interior Side Yard (ft) No
requirement
10' if
abutting
residential zone
10' if
abutting
residential zone
Street Side Yard (ft) No
requirement 5' 5'
Permitted Setback
Encroachments
Balconies, awnings, porches, stairways, and
similar elements may extend up to 6' into
the setback. Cornices, eaves, fireplaces,
and similar architectural features
(excluding flat or continuous walls or
enclosures of interior space) may extend
up to 4' into the front and rear setbacks and up to 3' into interior side setbacks
Maximum Site Coverage No
requirement 50% 50%
Landscape Open Space
Coverage 20% 30% 35%
Usable Open Space 200 sq ft per unit for 5 or fewer units(1); 150 sq ft per unit for 6 units or more(1)
Maximum Height (ft)
Commented [LS17]: This change implements in the downtown commercial zoning district the citywide modification to provide for a single open space requirement regardless of the number of multi-family units. 1.a
Not Yet Approved
19 2018111402
CD-C CD-S CD-N Subject to regulations in
Section:
Standard 50' 50' 35'
Within 150 ft. of an abutting residential zone 40'(4) 40'(4) 35'(4)
Daylight Plane for lot lines
abutting one or more residential zoning districts or a residential PC district
Daylight plane height and slope identical to
those of the most restrictive residential
zone abutting the lot line
Residential Density (net)(2) 40 No
maximum 30 30
Maximum Weighted Average
Residential Unit Size(5)
1,500 sq ft
per unit
No
maximum
No
maximum
Maximum Residential Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 1.0:1(3) 0.6:1(3) 0.5:1(3)
Maximum Nonresidential
Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 1.0:1(3) 0.4:1 0.4:1
Total Floor Area Ratio (FAR)(3) 2.0:1(3) 1.0:1(3) 0.9:1(3) 18.18.070
Parking Requirement See Chapters 18.52 and 18.54 Chs. 18.52, 18.54
(1) Required usable open space: (1) may be any combination of private and common open spaces; (2) does not need to be located on the ground (but
rooftop gardens are not included as open space except as provided below); (3)
minimum private open space dimension 6'; and (4) minimum common open
space dimension 12'. For CD-C sites that do not abut a single- or two-family residential use or zoning
district, rooftop gardens may qualify as usable open space and may count as up
to 75% of the required usable open space for the residential component of a
project. In order to qualify as usable open space, the rooftop garden shall meet the requirements set forth in Section 18.40.190. (2) Residential density shall be computed based upon the total site area,
irrespective of the percent of the site devoted to commercial use. There shall be
no deduction for that portion of the site area in nonresidential use.
Commented [LS18]: This change implements a maximum average unit size for residential units in a project. 3.b
Commented [LS19]: Changes to this footnote would allow rooftop open space to qualify as usable open space for multifamily residential or residential mixed-use projects in the CD-C zone subject to standards specified in new Section 18.40.190 (below) of this ordinance. 1.a
Not Yet Approved
20 2018111402
(3) FAR may be increased with transfers of development and/or bonuses for seismic and historic rehabilitation upgrades, not to exceed a total site FAR of 3.0:1 in the CD-C subdistrict or 2.0:1 in the CD-S or CD-N subdistrict.
(4) For sites abutting an RM-40 zoned residential district or a residential Planned
Community (PC) district, maximum height may be increased to 50 feet.
(5) The weighted average residential unit size shall be calculated by dividing the sum of the square footage of all units by the number of units. For example, a
project with ten 800-square foot 1-bedroom units, eight 1,200-square foot 2-
bedroom units, and two 1,800-square foot 3-bedroom units would have a
weighted average residential unit size of ((10x800)+(8x1200)+(2x1800)) ÷ (10+8+2) = 1,060 square feet.
(1) Residential and nonresidential mixed use projects shall be subject to site and
design review in accord with Chapter 18.30(G), except that mixed use projects
with nine or fewer units shall only require review and approval by the
architectural review board.
(12) Nonresidential uses that involve the use or storage of hazardous materials in excess of the exempt quantities prescribed in Title 15 of the Municipal Code, including but not limited to dry cleaning plants and auto repair, are prohibited in
a mixed use development with residential uses.
(c) Exclusively Residential Uses
(1) Exclusively residential uses are allowed in the CD-C subdistrict, except in the
ground floor (GF) combining district.
(2) Exclusively residential uses are generally prohibited in the CD district and CD-N and CD-S subdistricts. Such uses are allowed, however, where a site is
designated as a Housing Opportunity Sitehousing inventory site in the Housing
Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Such sites shall be developed pursuant to
the regulations for the multi-family zone designation (RM-2015, RM-30, or RM-
40) identified for the site in the Housing Element.
. . .
(l) Housing Incentive Program
(1) For an exclusively residential or residential mixed-use project in the CD-C zone,
the Director may waive the residential floor area ratio (FAR) limit after the
project with the proposed waiver is reviewed by the Architectural Review Board,
if the Director finds that the project exceeding the FAR standard is consistent
with the required architectural review findings. In no event shall the Director
approve a commercial FAR in excess of 1.0 or a total FAR (including both
Commented [LS20]: This change would eliminate site & design review for residential and residential mixed use projects in the downtown commercial zoning district, and only apply the architectural review process like all other projects in this zoning district. 1.b
Commented [LS21]: This change would allow residential-only development in the downtown, except in the ground floor (GF) combining district. 3.e
Commented [LS22]: This new subsection would authorize the Director to grant zoning waivers to allow increased FAR for the residential portion of a project, and to waive other development
standards for a 100%affordable housing project, in the CD-C subdistrict, subject to architectural review. 3.h
Not Yet Approved
21 2018111402
residential and commercial FAR) in excess of 3.0. Nor shall the use of
transferable development rights under Section 18.18.080 be allowed to cause
the site to exceed a FAR of 3.0.
(2) For a 100% affordable housing project in the CD-C zone, the Director may waive
any development standard including parking after the project with the proposed
waiver or waivers is reviewed by the Architectural Review Board, if the Director
finds that a project with such waiver or waivers is consistent with the required
architectural review findings. In no event shall the Director approve a FAR in
excess of 3.0 or approve other development standards more liberal than the
standards applicable to the Affordable Housing (AH) Combining District in
Chapter 18.30(J). A “100% affordable housing project” as used herein means a
multiple-family housing or mixed-use project in which the residential component
consists entirely of affordable units, as defined in Section 16.65.020 of this code,
available only to households with income levels at or below 120% of the area
median income, as defined in Section 16.65.020, with an average not to exceed
60% of the area median income, except for a building manager’s unit.
(3) This program is a local alternative to the state density bonus law, and therefore,
a project utilizing this program shall not be eligible for a density bonus under
Chapter 18.15 (Density Bonus).
(m) Parking and Vehicular Access on University Avenue Restricted
Vehicular access to CD-C zoned sites on University Avenue which requires vehicular
movement across the sidewalk on University Avenue shall be prohibited, except where
required by law and as applied to parcels owned, leased or controlled by the City.
SECTION 8. Subsection (d) of Section 18.18.090 (Parking and Loading) of Chapter 18.18
(Downtown Commercial (CD) District) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the PAMC is amended as follows:
Section 18.18.090 Parking and Loading
. . .
(d) In-lieu Parking Provisions
In connection with any expansion of the supply of public parking spaces within the CD
commercial downtown district, the city shall allocate a number of spaces for use as "in-
lieu parking” spaces to allow development to occur on sites which would otherwise be
precluded from development due to parking constraints imposed by monetary
contribution to the city to defray the cost of providing such parking. Contributions for
each required parking space shall equal the incremental cost of providing a net new
Commented [LS23]: This new subsection would preclude curb cuts on University Avenue, except for City parcels. 3.d
Not Yet Approved
22 2018111402
parking space in an assessment district project plus cost for the administration of the
program, all as determined pursuant to Chapter 16.57 of Title 16 of this code, by the
director of planning and community environment, whose decision shall be final. Only
sites satisfying one or more of the following criteria, as determined by the director of
planning and community environment, shall be eligible to participate in the in-lieu
parking program:
(1) Construction of on-site parking would necessitate destruction or substantial
demolition of a designated historic structure;
(2) The site area is less than 10,000 square feet, but of such an unusual
configuration that it would not be physically feasible to provide the required on-
site parking;
(3) The site is greater than 10,000 square feet, but of such an unusual
configuration that it would not be physically feasible to provide the required on-
site parking;
(4) The site is located in an area where city policy precludes curb cuts or
otherwise prevents use of the site for on-site parking; or
(5) The site has other physical constraints, such as a high groundwater table,
which preclude provision of on-site parking without extraordinary expense.
Commercial uses above the ground floor shall not be eligible to participate in the in-lieu
parking program.
SECTION 9. Section 18.40.180 (Retail Preservation) of Chapter 18.40 (General Standards and
Exceptions) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the PAMC is amended as follows:
Section 18.40.180 Retail Preservation
(a) Conversion of Retail and Retail-Like Uses Prohibited.
(1) Any ground floor Retail or Retail-Like use permitted or operating as of March 2,
2015 may be replaced only by another Retail or Retail-Like use, as permitted in
the applicable district.
(A) A ground floor Retail or Retail-Like use in the RT-35 district on properties with frontage on Alma Street between Channing Avenue and Lincoln Avenue may additionally be replaced by a Private Educational Facility
use, provided that such use shall not be thereafter replaced by an Office
use.
(2) The phrase 'use permitted or operating' as used in this section means:
Commented [LS24]: This change would restrict the use of in-lieu parking for commercial uses above the ground floor to further incentivize housing development.
Not Yet Approved
23 2018111402
(A) A lawfully established use conducting business, including legal non-
conforming uses.
(B) An established use conducting business without required city approvals, but is a permitted or conditionally permitted use in district. (C) For parcels vacant on March 2, 2015, the last use that was lawfully
established, or established without required permits, and permitted or
conditionally permitted in the district.
(b) Non-conforming Uses.
(1) The requirements imposed by subsection (a) shall not apply to Retail or Retail-like uses that are no longer permitted or conditionally permitted in the applicable district.
(2) Nothing in this section shall modify the provisions of Chapter 18.70 regarding the
expansion, change, discontinuance, or termination of a non-conforming use.
(c) Waivers and Adjustments; and Exemptions.
(1) Grounds. The following shall be grounds for a request for waiver or adjustment
of the requirements contained in this section:
(A) Economic Hardship. An applicant may request that the requirements of this
section be adjusted or waived based on a showing that applying the
requirements of this section would effectuate an unconstitutional taking of
property or otherwise have an unconstitutional application to the property;
or
(B) Alternative Viable Active Use. Except in the GF or R combining districts, an
applicant may request that the requirements of this Section 18.40.160 be adjusted or waived based on a showing that: the permitted retail or retail-like use is not viable; the proposed use will support the purposes of the
zoning district and Comprehensive Plan land use designation; and the
proposed use will encourage active pedestrian-oriented activity and
connections.
(2) Documentation. The applicant shall bear the burden of presenting substantial
evidence to support a waiver or modification request under this Section and
shall set forth in detail the factual and legal basis for the claim, including all supporting technical documentation. Evidence in support of a waiver under subsection (c)(1)(B) must demonstrate the viability of existing and future uses on
the site, based on both the site characteristics and the surrounding uses;
specifically whether a substitute use could be designed and/or conditioned to
Commented [LS25]: The changes to this subsection would
exempt 100% affordable projects (excluding manager’s unit) from the Retail Preservation Ordinance, except in the GF and R combining districts. 1.c
Not Yet Approved
24 2018111402
contribute to the goals and purposes of the zoning district. Examples of such
evidence include:
(A) A 10-year history of the site's occupancy and reasons for respective tenants vacating the site;
(B) A map that indicates all the existing surrounding uses, both residential and
non-residential, within one City-block; include the corresponding zone district on
the map;
(3) Any request under this section shall be submitted to the Director together with
supporting documentation. The Director, in his or her sole discretion, may act on a request for waiver or refer the matter to the City Council.
(A) A decision by the Director shall be placed on the City Council's consent
calendar within 45 days.
(B) Removal of the recommendation from the consent calendar shall require
three votes, and shall result in a new public hearing before the City Council,
following which the City Council shall take action on the waiver request.
(C) The decision of the Council is final.
(4) Exemptions. The provisions of this Chapter shall not apply to:
(A) A 100% affordable housing project not within the Ground Floor (GF) and/or
Retail (R) combining districts or on a site abutting El Camino Real . A “100%
affordable housing project” as used herein means a multiple-family housing
project consisting entirely of affordable units, as defined in Section 16.65.020
of this code, available only to households with income levels at or below
120% of the area median income, as defined in Chapter 16.65, except for a building manager’s unit. . . .
SECTION 10. Chapter 18.40 (General Standards and Exceptions) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the
PAMC is amended to add a new Section 18.40.190 (Rooftop Gardens) as follows:
Section 18.40.190 Rooftop Gardens
Where allowed under this Title, in order to qualify as usable open space, a rooftop garden shall
meet the following standards:
(a) Permanent fixtures on the rooftop shall be placed so as not to exceed height limit for the applicable zoning district, except:
Not Yet Approved
25 2018111402
(i) Elevators, stairs and guardrails may exceed the height limit to allow for access to the
rooftop useable open space as and to the extent required to comply with the Americans
With Disabilities Act (ADA). These fixtures shall be designed to the lowest height and size feasible. (ii) Permanent fixtures associated with the useable open space, such as trellises, shade
structures, furniture, and furnishings such as planters, lighting and heaters, may exceed
the height limit by up to 12 feet.
(iii) For the height limit exceptions in (i) and (ii) above, all fixtures shall not intersect a
plane measured at a forty-five degree angle from the edge of the building starting at the
rooftop garden surface sloping upward and inward toward the center of the property. (b) The rooftop garden may be located on the second or higher story or on a roof deck.
(c) The rooftop garden shall be accessible to all residents of dwelling units on the parcel,
but not to commercial tenants of a residential mixed-use development.
(d) Structures or fixtures providing a means of access or egress (i.e., stairway, elevator) shall
be located away from the building edge to the extent feasible or screened to minimize
visibility from the public right-of-way and adjacent buildings and privacy impacts. These
access structures or fixtures, when exceeding the height limit, shall be subject to the provisions of subsection (a)(iii) above.
(e) Any lighting shall have cutoff fixtures that cast downward-facing light or consist of low-
level string lights. Lights shall be dimmable to control glare and placed on timers to turn
off after 10:00 PM. Photometric diagrams must be submitted by the applicant to ensure
there are no spillover impacts into windows or openings of adjacent properties.
(f) At least 15% but no more than 25% of the rooftop shall be landscaped with raised beds
for gardening, C.3 stormwater planters, or other landscaping. All required landscaped areas shall be equipped with automatic irrigation systems and be properly drained.
(g) Rooftop equipment that emit noise and/or exhaust, including but not limited to vents,
flues, generators, pumps, air conditioning compressors, and other protrusions through
the roof, shall be directed away and screened from the useable open space areas.
(h) Rooftop open space noise levels shall not exceed exterior residential noise level as
defined by Section 9.10.030(a) of this code.
(i) The use of sound amplifying equipment shall be prohibited. Signs shall be affixed adjacent to access elevators and stairs within the rooftop garden providing notice of this
prohibition.
Not Yet Approved
26 2018111402
SECTION 11. Table 1 (Minimum Off-Street Parking Requirements) and Table 2 (Minimum Off-
Street Parking Requirements for Parking Assessment Districts) of subsection (c) of Section
18.52.040 (Off- Street Parking, Loading and Bicycle Facility Requirements) of Chapter 18.52
(Parking and Loading Requirements) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the PAMC are amended as follows:
Section 18.52.040 Off- Street Parking, Loading and Bicycle Facility Requirements
. . .
(c) Tables 1, 2 and 3: Parking, Bicycle, and Loading Requirements Tables 1 and 2 below outline vehicle and bicycle parking requirements in general and for
Parking Assessment Districts, respectively. Table 3 outlines loading requirements for
each land use. For mixed-use projects, the requirements for each land use shall be
applied and required for the overall project.
Table 1
Minimum Off-Street Parking Requirements
Use Vehicle Parking Requirement
(# of spaces)
Bicycle Parking Requirement
Spaces Class 1 Long Term (LT) and Short Term (ST)
RESIDENTIAL USES
Multiple-Family Residential
1 per micro unit (2)
1.25 per studio unit
1.5 per 1-bedroom unit
2 per 2-bedroom or larger unit
At least one space per unit
must be covered
Tandem parking allowed for
any unit requiring two spaces
(one tandem space per unit, associated directly with
another parking space for the
same unit, up to a maximum of 25% of total required spaces
for any project with more than
four (4) units)
1 per unit 100% - LT
Multiple-Family
Residential Near
Fixed Rail Station (3)
0.5 per micro unit (2)
0.8 per studio unit
Commented [LS26]: The changes to the Residential Uses in this Section implement reduced parking requirements for multifamily residential projects generally, and convert the parking adjustments available for senior housing, housing near transit, and affordable
housing into by-right reduced standards for senior housing, housing near a major fixed rail station and 100% affordable housing projects. 1.d
Not Yet Approved
27 2018111402
(7) 0.8 per 1-bedroom unit
1.6 per 2-bedroom or larger unit
(a) Guest Parking
No additional guest parking
required For projects
exceeding 3 units; 1 space plus 10% of total number of units, provided that if more
than one space per unit is
assigned or secured parking,
then guest spaces equal to
33% of all units is required.
1 space for each 10
units 100%-ST
100% Affordable Housing (4) (7)
a. 40% reduction in the
applicable parking
requirement for
Extremely Low Income
units
b. 30% reduction for Very
Low Income units
c. 20% reduction for Low Income units
1 per unit 100% - LT
Senior Housing (5) (7) 0.75 per unit
. . .
RETAIL USES (6)
Retail:
(a) Intensive (retail not defined as extensive)
1 per 200 sq. ft. of gross floor
area 1 per 2,000 sf 20% - LT 80%-ST
(b) Extensive (retail
with more than 75% of gross floor area used for display, sales
and related storage,
with demonstrably
low parking demand
1 per 350 sq. ft. of gross floor
area 1 per 3,500 sf 20% - LT 4080% - ST
Commented [LS27]: Alternative option: 0.75 per unit consistent with the residential parking standard for the Affordable Housing (AH) combining district
Not Yet Approved
28 2018111402
generation per square foot of gross floor
area)
(c) Open lot 1 space for each 500 square feet of sales, display, or
storage site area
1 per 5,000 sf 100%-ST
Drive-up windows
providing services to occupants in vehicles
Queue line for 5 cars, not
blocking any parking spaces, in addition to other applicable requirements
None additional
Eating and Drinking
Services:
(a) With drive-in or
take-out facilities
3 per 100 sq. ft. of gross floor
area 3 per 400 sf 40% - LT 60% - ST
(b) All others
1 space for each 60 gross sq.
ft. of public service area, plus
1 space for each 200 gross sq.
ft. for all other areas.
1 per 600 sf of
public service area,
plus 1 per 2,000 sf
for other areas
. . .
(1) Long Term (LT) and Short Term (ST) bicycle spaces as described in Section 18.54.060.
(2) A “micro-unit” as used herein means a residential unit of 450 square feet or less.
(3) These standards apply to housing projects, other than 100% affordable housing projects, on
parcels located within one-half mile radius of a major fixed rail transit station (as measured
from the platform). Projects that qualify for and utilize this reduced parking requirement
shall provide at least one annual transit pass (i.e., Caltrain go-pass) per unit to the unit
occupant on an ongoing basis or implement an equally effective measure approved by the
Director for the life of the project.
(4) Applies to 100% affordable housing projects and the residential component of 100%
affordable housing mixed-use projects. “100% affordable housing” as used herein means a
multiple-family housing project consisting entirely of affordable units, as defined in Section
16.65.020 of this code, available only to households with income levels at or below 120% of
the area median income, as defined in Chapter 16.65, except for a building manager’s unit.
Not Yet Approved
29 2018111402
(5) Senior housing for purposes of this provision means an independent living facility, not a
convalescent or residential care facility.
(6) For residential mixed-use developments in the CD-C zone, CC(2) zone, and on CN and CS
zoned sites abutting El Camino Real, the first 1,500 square feet of ground-floor retail uses
shall not be counted toward the vehicle parking requirement.
(7) Because these parking standards are reduced from the standards otherwise applicable to
multiple-family residential development, projects that utilize these reduced parking
standards shall not be eligible for further parking reductions through adjustments under
Section 18.52.050, Table 4.
Table 2
Minimum Off-Street Parking Requirements for Parking Assessment Districts
(IF USE IS NOT LISTED, REFER TO TABLE 1 FOR REQUIREMENTS)
Use Vehicle Parking
Requirement
(# of spaces)
Bicycle Parking Requirement
Class 1 Spaces
For Downtown University Avenue Parking Assessment District:
All uses (except
residential)2
1 per 250 square feet 1 per 2,500
square feet
40% - LT
60% - ST
For California Avenue Parking Assessment District:
. . .
Retail:2
(a) Intensive 1 per 240 sf of gross
floor area
1 per 2,400
sf
20% - LT
80% - ST
(b) Extensive 1 per 350 sf of gross floor area 1 per 3,500 sf
(c) Open Lot 1 for each 500 square
feet of sales, display, or
storage site area.
1 per 5,000
sf
100% - LT
. . .
1. Long Term (LT) and Short Term (ST) bicycle spaces as described in Section 18.54.060.
2. For residential mixed-use developments in the CD-C zone, CC(2) zone, and on CN and CS zoned
sites abutting El Camino Real, the first 1,500 square feet of ground-floor retail uses shall not be counted toward the vehicle parking requirement.
Commented [LS28]: The changes to the Retail Uses in this Section would exempt the first 1500 sf of ground-floor retail from parking requirements citywide to relieve physical and financial constraints of providing retail. 3.c, 4.c, 5.c
Not Yet Approved
30 2018111402
SECTION 12. Table 4 (Allowable Parking Adjustments) of Section 18.52.050 (Adjustments by the
Director) of Chapter 18.52 (Parking and Loading Requirements) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the
PAMC is amended as follows:
Section 18.52.050 Parking and Loading Requirements
Automobile parking requirements prescribed by this chapter may be adjusted by the director in
the following instances and in accord with the prescribed limitations in Table 4, when in his/her
opinion such adjustment will be consistent with the purposes of this chapter, will not create undue impact on existing or potential uses adjoining the site or in the general vicinity, and will be commensurate with the reduced parking demand created by the development, including for
visitors and accessory facilities where appropriate. No reductions may be granted that would
result in provision of less than ten (10) spaces on a site. The following are adjustments that
apply to developments not located within a parking assessment district. Adjustments within
the parking assessment districts are contained in Section 18.52.080. The decision of the
regarding parking adjustments may be appealed as set forth in Chapter 18.78 (Appeals).
Table 4 Allowable Parking Adjustments
Purpose of
Adjustment
Amount of Adjustment Maximum Reduction 2a
On-Site Employee
Amenities
Square footage of commercial or
industrial uses to be used for an on-site
cafeteria, recreational facility, and/or
day care facility, to be provided to
employees or their children and not open to the general public, may be exempted from the parking requirements
100% of requirement for
on-site employee
amenities
Joint Use (Shared) Parking Facilities For any site or sites with multiple uses where the application of this chapter
requires a total of or more than ten (10)
spaces, the total number of spaces
otherwise required by application of
Table 1 may be reduced when the joint
facility will serve all existing, proposed,
and potential uses as effectively and
conveniently as would separate parking
facilities for each use or site. In making such a determination, the director shall
consider a parking analysis using criteria
developed by the Urban Land Institute
(ULI) or similar methodology to estimate
20% of total spaces
required for the site
Commented [LS29]: These changes remove parking reductions
available because these reductions will become by-right parking standards for the specific types of developments referenced. 1.d
Not Yet Approved
31 2018111402
Purpose of Adjustment Amount of Adjustment Maximum Reduction 2a
the shared parking characteristics of the
proposed land uses. The analysis shall
employ the city's parking ratios as the basis for the calculation of the base parking requirement and for the
determination of parking requirements
for individual land uses. The director
may also require submittal and approval
of a TDM program 1 to further assure
parking reductions are achieved.
Housing for Seniors The total number of spaces required may be reduced for housing facilities for
seniors, commensurate with the
reduced parking demand created by the
housing facility, including for visitors
and accessory facilities, and subject to
submittal and approval of a parking
analysis justifying the reduction proposed.
50% of the total spaces required for the site
Affordable Housing
Units and Single Room
Occupancy (SRO) Units
(3)
The total number of spaces required
may be reduced for affordable housing
and single room occupancy (SRO) units,
commensurate with the reduced
parking demand created by the housing facility, including for visitors and accessory facilities. The reduction shall
consider proximity to transit and
support services and the director may
require traffic demand management
measures1 in conjunction with any
approval.
a. 40% for
Extremely Low
Income and SRO
Units
b. 30% for Very Low Income Units c. 20% for Low
Income Units
Housing Near Transit
Facilities (3) The total number of spaces required
may be reduced for housing located
within a designated Pedestrian/Transit
Oriented area or elsewhere in
immediate proximity to public
transportation facilities serving a significant portion of residents, employees, or customers, when such
reduction will be commensurate with
the reduced parking demand created by
the housing facility, including for visitors
and accessory facilities, and subject to
20% of the total spaces
required for the site.
Not Yet Approved
32 2018111402
Purpose of Adjustment Amount of Adjustment Maximum Reduction 2a
submittal and approval of a TDM
program.1
Transportation and
Parking Alternatives
Where effective alternatives to
automobile access are provided, other
than those listed above, parking requirements may be reduced to an extent commensurate with the
permanence, effectiveness, and the
demonstrated reduction of off-street
parking demand effectuated by such
alternative programs. Examples of such
programs may include, but are not
limited to, transportation demand
management (TDM) programs or
innovative parking pricing or design solutions.1 (note: landscape reserve requirement is deleted).
20% of the total spaces
required for the site
Combined Parking Adjustments
Parking reductions may be granted for any combination of the above
circumstances as prescribed by this
chapter, subject to limitations on the
combined total reduction allowed.
a. 30% reduction of the total parking demand
otherwise required
b. 40% reduction for
affordable housing
projects
c. 50% reduction for
senior housing projects
Modification to Off-
Street Loading
Requirements
The director may modify the quantity or
dimensions of off-street loading
requirements for non-residential
development based on existing or proposed site conditions; availability of alternative means to address loading
and unloading activity; and, upon
finding that: 1) the off-street loading
requirement may conflict with
Comprehensive Plan goals and policies
related to site design planning,
circulation and access, or urban design
principles; and 2) the use of shared on-
street loading would not conflict with Comprehensive Plan goals and policies related to site design planning,
circulation and access or urban design
One loading space may
be waived
Not Yet Approved
33 2018111402
Purpose of Adjustment Amount of Adjustment Maximum Reduction 2a
principles; maximum reduction in one
loading space.
1. See Section 18.52.050(d) below regarding requirements for TDM programs.
2. No parking reductions may be granted that would result in provision of less than ten (10) parking
spaces on site.
3. No parking reductions may be granted for projects that are entitled to the reduced parking standards
in Table 1 of Section 18.52.040 for multiple-family residential near a major fixed rail station, 100%
affordable housing and senior housing.
(a) Combining Parking Adjustments
Parking reductions may be granted for any combination of circumstances, prescribed by
this chapter, so long as in total no more than a 30% reduction of the total parking
demand otherwise required occurs, or no less than a 40% reduction for affordable
housing projects (including Single Room Occupancy (SRO) units), or no less than 50% reduction for senior housing projects. . . .
SECTION 13. Subsection (c) of Section 18.52.070 (Parking Regulations for CD Assessment
District) of Chapter 18.52 (Parking and Loading Requirements) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the PAMC
is amended as follows:
Section 18.52.070 Parking Regulations for CD Assessment District
. . .
(c) In-lieu Parking Provisions
Within the CD commercial downtown district, the provisions of Section 18.18.090(d) shall apply.
In connection with any expansion of the supply of public parking spaces within the CD
commercial downtown district, the city shall allocate a number of spaces for use as "in-
lieu parking” spaces to allow development to occur on sites which would otherwise be
precluded from development due to parking constraints imposed by monetary
contribution to the city to defray the cost of providing such parking. Contributions for
each required parking space shall equal the incremental cost of providing a net new
parking space in an assessment district project plus cost for the administration of the
program, all as determined pursuant to Chapter 16.57 of Title 16 of this code, by the
Commented [LS30]: The changes to this subsection would incorporate the new restriction on the use of in-lieu parking for commercial uses above the ground floor in Chapter 18.18 above,
and would remove the repetition of the in-lieu parking provisions in Chapter 18.52, instead simply referencing the provisions as previously stated in Chapter 18.18. Even if the substantive change to Section 18.18.090(d) is not
approved, staff recommends approval of the proposed change here as an administrative clean-up to remove unnecessary repetition of the in-lieu parking provisions.
Not Yet Approved
34 2018111402
director of planning and community environment, whose decision shall be final. Only
sites satisfying one or more of the following criteria, as determined by the director of
planning and community environment, shall be eligible to participate in the in-lieu
parking program:
(1) Construction of on-site parking would necessitate destruction or substantial
demolition of a designated historic structure;
(2) The site area is less than 10,000 square feet, but of such an unusual
configuration that it would not be physically feasible to provide the required on-
site parking;
(3) The site is greater than 10,000 square feet, but of such an unusual
configuration that it would not be physically feasible to provide the required on-
site parking;
(4) The site is located in an area where city policy precludes curb cuts or
otherwise prevents use of the site for on-site parking; or
(5) The site has other physical constraints, such as a high groundwater table,
which preclude provision of on-site parking without extraordinary expense.
SECTION 14. Any provision of the Palo Alto Municipal Code or appendices thereto inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance, to the extent of such inconsistencies and no
further, is hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary to effect the provisions of this
Ordinance.
SECTION 15. This Ordinance shall not apply to any project for which the application has been
deemed complete as of the effective date of the Ordinance, for the last required discretionary
approval for the project. However, the project applicant may elect to be subject to this
Ordinance in which case the Ordinance in its entirety shall apply to the project.
SECTION 16. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any
reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent
jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this
Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each
and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not declared invalid or
unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of the Ordinance would be
subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION 17. The Council finds that the potential environmental impacts related to this Ordinance were analyzed in the Final EIR for the Comprehensive Plan Update, which was certified and adopted by the Council by Resolution No. 9720 on November 13, 2017. The
Ordinance is consistent with and implements the program evaluated in the EIR.
Not Yet Approved
35 2018111402
SECTION 18. This Ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first date after the date of its
adoption.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES: ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
NOT PARTICIPATING:
ATTEST:
____________________________ ____________________________ City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
____________________________ ____________________________
Assistant City Attorney City Manager
____________________________ Director of Planning & Community
Environment
Palo Alto Zoning Analysis | 11.09.2018
pg 1
CD-C Downtown Zoning Analysis
High/Hamilton Parking Lot
Parcel Size:
150' x 100'15,000 sf 0.34 acres
Zoning Analysis Study
1) Existing Mixed-Use Zoning
2) Proposed 100% Residential, 50' Height, 3.0 FAR Max
3) Proposed 100% Affordable Residential, 60' Height, 4.0 FAR Max
150'100'High St
University Ave Emerson St
Hamilton Ave
Site Diagram
Palo Alto Zoning Analysis | 11.09.2018
pg 2
High St
University Ave
Emerson St
Hamilton Ave
Existing Standards:Height:50 ft
Res FAR:1.0
Com FAR:1.0
FAR:2.0 max
Statistics:Height:50 ft, 4 stories
Res FAR:1.0
Comm. FAR:1.0
Parking FAR:0.34 (not counted in total FAR)
FAR:2.0
Retail:4,300 sf
Office:10,700 sf
Residential:10 units
Avg Unit:1,116 sf
Density:29 du/a
Res. Parking:20 sp
Comm. Parking:35 sp **55 required, 20 located offsite, $70,000 in-lieu fee would be
required per space
Massing Diagram
Building Section
Basement Levels (B1 + B2)
1st Floor
2nd Floor
Floor Plans
CD-C Downtown Zoning AnalysisExisting Mixed-Use Zoning
3rd Floor
4th Floor
Alley
Alley
Office Space
Retail
Palo Alto Zoning Analysis | 11.09.2018
pg 3
CD-C Downtown Zoning AnalysisExisting Mixed-Use Zoning
Statistics:
Massing in Context:
High St
University Ave
Emerson St
Hamilton Ave
Palo Alto Zoning Analysis | 11.09.2018
pg 4
High St
University Ave
Emerson St
Hamilton Ave
Proposed Standards:Height:50 ft
Res FAR:3.0
Tot FAR:3.0 max
Statistics:Height:50 ft, 4.5 stories
Res FAR:2.82
Parking FAR:0.10 (not included in Total FAR)
FAR:2.82
Residential:36 units
Avg Unit:881 sf
Density:104 du/a
Parking:39 sp (1.08:1) *includes puzzle lifts
Project Qualifies for reduced parking standards due to proximity
to fixed rail transit.
Caltrain Go Passes required for each unit.
($285/user or $23,940, whichever is greater)
Massing Diagram
Building Section
Basement
Ground Floor
2nd Floor
Floor Plans
CD-C Downtown Zoning AnalysisProposed: 50' Height - 3.0 FAR - 100% Residential
3rd/4th Floors
Roof
Alley
Alley
Palo Alto Zoning Analysis | 11.09.2018
pg 5
Statistics:
CD-C Downtown Zoning AnalysisProposed: 50' Height - 3.0 FAR - 100% Residential
Massing in Context:
High St
University Ave
Emerson St
Hamilton Ave
Palo Alto Zoning Analysis | 11.09.2018
pg 6
High St
University Ave
Emerson St
Hamilton Ave
Massing Diagram
Building Section
Basement (B1 + B2)
Ground Floor
2nd Floor
Floor Plans
CD-C Downtown Zoning AnalysisProposed: 60' Height - 4.0 FAR - 100% Affordable Residential
3rd/4th/5th Floors
Roof
Proposed Standards:Height:60 ft
Res FAR:4.0
Tot FAR:4.0 max
Statistics:Height:60 ft, 5.5 stories
Res FAR:3.41
Parking FAR:0.10 (not included in Total FAR)
FAR:3.41
Residential:41 units (affordable)
Avg Unit:971 sf
Density:119 du/a
Parking:52 sp (1.27:1)
Project Qualifies for reduced parking standards due to
proximity to fixed rail transit. A further reduction in parking
standards is possible with a 100% affordable project.
Alley
Alley
Palo Alto Zoning Analysis | 11.09.2018
pg 7
Statistics:
CD-C Downtown Zoning AnalysisProposed: 60' Height - 4.0 FAR - 100% Affordable Residential
Massing in Context:
High St
University Ave
Emerson St
Hamilton Ave
Palo Alto Zoning Analysis | 11.09.2018
pg 1
CN ECR Zoning Analysis
3720 El Camino Real, Palo Alto CA
Parcel Size:
150' x 106'15,775.8 sf 0.362 acres
~3,100 sf Retail
0.2 FAR
Zoning Analysis Study
1) Existing Mixed-Use Zoning, 35' Height, 1.0 FAR (0.5 Res. Max)
2) Proposed Mixed-Use Zoning, 40' Height, 1.5 FAR (1.5 Res. Max)
Barron Ave
El Camino Real
Site Diagram
150'106'Alley (20' wide)
La Selva Dr
Curtner Ave
Palo Alto Zoning Analysis | 11.09.2018
pg 2
El Camino Real
Alley (20' wide)La Selva Dr
Barron Ave
Existing Standards:Height:35 ft
Res FAR:0.5
Com FAR:0.15-0.5
FAR:1.0 max
Statistics:Height:35 ft, 3 stories
Res FAR:0.5
Com FAR:0.2 (retail)
FAR:0.7
Retail:3,000 sf
Residential:3 units
Avg Unit:1722 sf
Density:8.3 du/a
Res. Parking:6 sp (2.0:1) +2 sp (guest)
Comm. Parking:15 (1:200sf)
Massing Diagram
Building Section
Ground Floor
1st Floor
2nd Floor
Floor Plans
CN ECR Zoning AnalysisExisting Mixed-Use Zoning (3720 ECR)
60 degdaylight plane
Roof
Palo Alto Zoning Analysis | 11.09.2018
pg 3
CN ECR Zoning AnalysisExisting Mixed-Use Zoning (3720 ECR)
Statistics:
Massing in Context:
Palo Alto Zoning Analysis | 11.09.2018
pg 4
Proposed Standards:Height:40 ft
Res FAR:1.5
Tot FAR:1.5 max
Statistics:Height:40 ft, 3 stories
Res FAR:1.25
Comm. FAR:0.25
Parking FAR:0.36 (Commercial Parking)
FAR:1.5
Retail:4,000 sf
Residential:14 units
Avg Unit:1,065 sf
Density:39 du/a
Res. Parking:22 sp (1.6:1)
Comm. Parking:13 (1:200sf, first 1,500 sf exempt)
Massing Diagram
Building Section
Ground Floor
2nd Floor
CN ECR Zoning AnalysisProposed: 40' Height - 1.5 FAR (3720 ECR)
El Camino Real
Alley (20' wide)La Selva Dr
Barron Ave
3rd Floor
Roof
Basement
Floor Plans
60 degdaylight plane
Palo Alto Zoning Analysis | 11.09.2018
pg 5
Statistics:
CN ECR Zoning AnalysisProposed: 40' Height - 1.5 FAR (3720 ECR)
Massing in Context: