HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 13864
City of Palo Alto (ID # 13864)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 1/24/2022
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Council Review of Changes to Height Transitions
Title: Public Hearing: Adoption of Ordinance Clarifying Ambiguities in Height
Transitions and Amending the Setback for the RM-40 Zone District
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Development Services
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that Council consider proposed changes to height transitions and other
development standards (Attachment A), take public comment, and adopt the ordinance.
Staff will return to Council at a future hearing with changes to objective design standards and
other zoning regulations based on feedback from the Council at previous meetings. These
documents would modify Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC).
Executive Summary:
The objective standards project aims to respond to State law by making changes to the Zoning
Ordinance (Title 18) to transform subjective findings and context-based design criteria into
objective design standards and streamline other Sections of Title 18 to encourage housing
production. This report is a next step in the Council’s review of objective standards, based on
feedback received on October 4 and November 8, 2021.
The issue of height transition development standards is tangential to the objective standards
project. However, it was included in the preliminary ordinance, reviewed by the Planning &
Transportation Commission (PTC), as a clarifying update to improve usability of the code. This
report and draft ordinance is the first of two ordinances expected in the first half of the year as
part of the objective standards project.
This report provides an overview of height transitions, including how they apply to different
districts and uses. It presents two key issues. First, that the language governing height
transitions varies across districts and is sometimes ambiguous; this has resulted in the code
City of Palo Alto Page 2
being interpreted and implemented differently over time. Second, community members have
expressed concern that these lower height limits generally do not apply to the RM-40 district
which is a high-density district.
Staff recommends a moderated approach to modifying the ambiguous code to codify a clear
objective standard and avoid creating non-complying facilities. This moderated approach sets
the horizontal measurement at the far end of the range—150 feet—but allows for reduction by
the Planning Director, upon recommendation by the ARB. This avoids creating non-complying
facilities for previously- and legally-approved projects and allows applicants to ask the ARB to
take a more nuanced look at height transitions based on context.
Additionally, this report proposes changes to the RM-40 front and side setbacks to be
consistent with all RM zones and to transform the subjective variable setbacks to objective
standards. This change is being made at this time since it was a straightforward request by the
Council and relates to the development standards tables already being modified herein.
A near-future second ordinance will address all other aspects of the objective standards
project, based on feedback received from the Council on October 4 and November 8, 2021.
Background:
The California State legislature has made several changes to State housing laws in recent years
to streamline housing approvals. These steps include reducing the amount of subjective
discretion jurisdictions have to deny or reduce the density of residential and residential mixed-
use projects. Instead, in many contexts, jurisdictions must rely solely on objective design and
development standards. The objective standards project aims to respond to State law by
making changes to the Zoning Ordinance (Title 18).
Relationship to State Housing Laws
SB330 Permit Review
Effective January 1, 2020, SB330 made several changes to existing State housing law, including
the Housing Accountability Act and Permit Streamlining Act. The two most notable aspects of
the bill for this report’s purposes are as follows:
1. No Loss in Intensity of Housing: SB330 prohibits jurisdictions from enacting
development policies, standards or conditions that would change current zoning and
land use designations where housing is an allowable use. In such cases, jurisdictions
cannot lessen the intensity of housing—such as reducing height, density, or floor area
ratio, requiring new or increased open space, lot size, setbacks, or frontage, or limiting
maximum lot coverage; effectively, this clause prohibits downzoning, though the City
City of Palo Alto Page 3
may rebalance density between districts (Gov. Code 66300(b)(1)(A)); and
2. Uniformly Verifiable Standards: SB330 defines the meaning of “objective” as “involving
no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and being uniformly verifiable by
reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by
both the development applicant or proponent and the public official” (Gov. Code
65589.5 (h)(8). “Housing development projects” undergoing streamlined review are only
required to meet objective standards. Therefore, standards that are ambiguous may not
be considered objective standards, requiring compliance.
Summary of Public Hearings
The topic of height transitions was discussed with the Architectural Review Board (ARB) on April
15, 2021 and Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) on March 10 and June 9, 2021, as
part of the objective standards project.
ARB Review
At its April 1, 2021 meeting, the ARB voted to recommend City Council approval of the objective
standards project in a 4-1 vote, following 13 meetings with the full ARB or Ad Hoc Committee.
Additionally, the ARB discussed two aspects of height transition requirements between lower
and higher density zoning districts during a study session on April 15th. First, the ARB discussed
proposed text modifications recommended by City staff and later, by the PTC. Second, the ARB
held a more holistic discussion of height transitions, focused on the best ways to regulate
height and massing across districts in order to mitigate potential impacts while maintaining
architectural quality and development feasibility.
PTC Review
At its June 9, 2021 meeting, the PTC made a motion to recommend that City Council adopt the
objective standards project on a 4-1-1 vote, following two study sessions to review the
objective standards. The PTC unanimously supported the draft objective design standards.
However, several Commissioners had concerns about the issue of height transitions between
lower and higher density districts. Public comments focused on concerns about modifications
to the height transition language across several of district regulations’ chapters. Specifically,
community members expressed concern that the existing code does not require height
reductions for new projects adjacent to RM-40 districts. These participants were concerned
about privacy, light, and air impacts. As described in the analysis below, height transitions are
not currently required for projects adjacent to RM-40 zoned sites; this is because the RM-40 is
already a high-density district with some of the tallest permitted heights in the city at 40 feet.
Therefore, modifications in the draft ordinance did not include changes that would impact the
RM-40 district.
City of Palo Alto Page 4
Community Webinar
At the request of the PTC, staff held a community webinar on July 19, 2021, to discuss the topic
of existing height transitions and proposed modifications. Approximately 27 residents attended
the online discussion. Many participants advocated for adding a height transition standard for
the RM-40 district and generally for light, air, and privacy protections.
Records from previous meetings described above and the other 13 ARB meetings and 3 PTC
meetings focused on objective standards can be found on the project webpage:
bit.ly/ObjectiveStandards
City Council
The City Council reviewed the objective standards project over the course of two meetings:
October 4 and November 8, 2021 (continued without discussion from September 27 and
October 25, respectively). Given the public interest in the topic of height transitions, staff
proposed to maintain the status quo and did not include the proposed changes to height
transitions in the draft ordinance to the Council. As part of its November 8th motion, the Council
voted 5-2 to include it (see item G in Table 1 below) along with other standards that would
increase privacy and reduce the height of new buildings when adjacent to lower height
residences.
As a result, staff has revived amendments to height transition standards and included them
here in a stand-alone ordinance that only addresses development standards’ tables in Title 18.
In response to community members and decision-makers’ requests, staff proposed a more
moderated interpretation of ambiguous language.
Still, staff recommends revisiting the broader topic of height transitions as a substantive policy
discussion in the near future, through the Housing Element update process. At that time, the
City could consider more nuanced approaches that balance supporting high-density housing in
appropriate locations with privacy/light/air access for existing residential uses.
Table 1 states the November 8th Council motion and identifies when the issue could be taken
up: through the draft ordinance in Attachment A as part of this report, or a near future
ordinance that brings back objective design standards and revisions to Title 18, or a different
process. The table also identifies design-related topics that require work with the ARB to refine.
A schedule for community meetings (Motion Item E) will be presented verbally at the Council
hearing.
Table 1: November 8, 2021 Council Motion and Next Steps for Amendments
Motion #/Topic
Tonight
(January 24th)
Near Future
Ordinance Other
City of Palo Alto Page 5
Motion #/Topic
Tonight
(January 24th)
Near Future
Ordinance Other
A. Take Council feedback on overlays and then take to
housing element working group and return to Council for
further discussion;
n/a n/a
Referred
to Housing
Element
B. Direct Staff to retain current Context-Based Design
Criteria and Chapter 18 laws for development applications
that do not fall under the State housing laws requiring
objective standards;
✓
C. Direct Staff to return with proposed objective standards
and intent statements and to provide: ✓
i. A detailed side-by-side comparison of the existing
Context-Based Design Criteria and the proposed new
laws;
✓
ii. Adoptable changes to existing and proposed laws
that would provide standards for privacy and other
protections for all residents, regardless of their zones.
Regarding privacy, to come back with stronger
protections for elevated floors looking into neighboring
lots. Stronger definitions of sight lines and how this
applies. Address concerns about allowing 15% windows.
In RM-40, retain 25’ front set back;
✓
(RM-40
setback)
✓
(window
and privacy
standards)
Pending
Review
with ARB
iii. Refer to the S/CAP Ad Hoc Committee on the
evaluation of approximate GHG impacts in
construction;
n/a n/a
Referred
to S/CAP
Ad Hoc
D. Prior to any rezoning of PF to workforce housing, the
City Council would re-examine the affordability threshold
of workforce housing;
n/a n/a
Defer to
Housing
Element
E. Hold at least two meetings on the proposed changes
before the next Council session for free-form discussion by
the general public;
n/a n/a February
and March
F. In Building Massing / Facades sections where there is a
menu of choices, increase the number of required choices
per category;
✓
Pending
Review
with ARB
G. Put in place a temporary height transition backstop.
Initial ordinance should include objective height transition
language, for example “No part of the building can be
more than X’ higher than the lowest adjacent building, up
to the applicable height limit”. Come back with a specific
proposal along these lines for adoption this year and Staff
can then propose additional amendments in the future;
and
✓
(height
transition
development
standards)
✓
(other
height
transitions
standards)
Pending
Review
with ARB
City of Palo Alto Page 6
Motion #/Topic
Tonight
(January 24th)
Near Future
Ordinance Other
H. Evaluate and return with strengthened language to use
“design standards” instead of “design intents”; ✓
I. Evaluate whether "decision by director" option
throughout objective standards puts those at risk and
should be changed /remove; and
✓
J. On appeal, consider sending directly to Council if
required to meet streamlining requirements. ✓
Additionally, Table 2 begins to respond to City Council comments on the objective standards
project during its October 4, 2021 hearing. The table is divided into two sections, based on the
level of consensus among Council members:
• Tier 1 issues mentioned or agreed upon by several Council members
• Tier 2 issues mentioned by just one or two Council members
Feedback on these topics will inform changes to the draft ordinance which the City Council will
consider in the near-future ordinance.
Table 2: October 4, 2021 Council Discussion and High-Level Responses
Topic City Staff Response
Tier 1: Issues Mentioned Or Agreed Upon By Several Council Members
1. Meet Narrowest
Application of
State
Requirements
The draft ordinance herein does not go beyond the minimum requirements of
State law. The near-future objective design standards are proposed to apply to
a narrow set of “housing development projects” as defined by the State (i.e.,
3+ unit multifamily residential, mixed use with 2/3 residential floor area, and
supportive/transitional housing).
2. Show
Transformation of
Design Criteria
City staff and consultants will include additional code citations in the crosswalk
of existing context-based design criteria and proposed objective standards
previously provided for consideration.
3. Prevent Privacy,
Light and Air
Impacts
The near-future ordinance and supporting staff report will highlight how the
code includes privacy protections, including minimizing sight lines between
neighboring properties, limiting shade impacts, daylight plane requirements,
and screening through landscaping and fencing. These standards will be
reviewed with the ARB prior to the Council’s consideration.
4. Clarify Terms, in
Particular
“Adjacent”
The near-future ordinance will clarify the terms adjacent and abutting.
5. Clarify Height
Transitions
This issue is addressed in this staff report through proposed changes to
eliminate ambiguities in the code.
City of Palo Alto Page 7
Topic City Staff Response
Tier 2: Questions/Comments Posed by Just One or Two Council Members
6. Applicability to
Faith-Based
Institutions
Most faith-based institutions are located in R-1 districts that do not allow
multi-family housing. However, new regulations in Government Code Section
65913.5 allow religious institutions to develop at higher densities. Specifically,
religious institutions can develop 100% affordable housing in a residential or
mixed use zone at densities up to 20 du/ac (even in an R-1 district), if the
project meets objective standards. Currently, draft objective design standards
do not apply in the R-1 district, since the existing Context-Based Design Criteria
do not apply in the R-1. However, the Council could consider applying the
objective design standards in this circumstance.
7. Relationship to
Draft Tree
Ordinance
City staff will add a reference to the proposed tree ordinance in Title 18, when
the former is complete.
8. Standards for
Rooftop Open
Spaces
Title 18 currently allows rooftop gardens to satisfy a portion of the open space
requirement in the CD-C (Downtown),CN/CS (El Camino Real Only) and CC(2)
(Cal Ave.) districts. 15-25% of rooftop open space is required to be landscaped.
No changes are proposed as part of the draft objective standards ordinance,
except to relocate the code section. Rooftop decks may be built in all zones, as
long as they are designed under height limit, but can only count toward the
open space requirement in the narrow circumstances described above. The
Council could consider adding criteria to increase privacy on rooftop decks.
9. Relationship to
Historic Resources
Historic or eligible historic resources are unlikely to be able to meet objective
standards in the case of rehabilitation proposals. Such projects would go
through the typical discretionary review process subject to review and
approval by the Historic Resources Board and/or Architectural Review Board.
Historic resources on the National, State, or local register (i.e., Class 1 through
4 structures) are not eligible for streamlining under SB35. However, “eligible”
but not “listed” historic resources following a State streamlining review
process are currently not protected from demolition and new construction.
The Council could direct staff to proceed with Comprehensive Plan program
7.1.1 to place properties deemed “eligible” for the National and State registers
on the City’s local historic inventory, requiring HRB review and
recommendations to Council.
10. Reduce Rooftop
Equipment
Height
Title 18 currently allows rooftop equipment to exceed height requirements up
to 15 feet to allow for mechanical equipment. This standard is currently
duplicated in PAMC Sections 18.23.050: Visual, Screening and Landscaping and
PAMC Section 18.40.090: Height Exceptions. Proposed code revisions maintain
the height exception in Section 18.40.090 only and consolidate screening
requirements into a new subsection 18.40.230 so that screening applies to all
City of Palo Alto Page 8
Topic City Staff Response
projects, not just those adjacent to lower density residential districts. The
Council could consider reducing the 15-foot allowance, but this could make
several existing structures legal non-conforming.
11. Relationship to
Baylands Master
Plan
Objective design standards would apply to ROLM-zoned sites within the
Baylands Master Plan area, since the ROLM district allows multifamily housing.
Discretionary projects require Site and Design Review with the ARB, PTC and
Council. The Baylands Master Plan primarily includes subjective guidelines,
which can only provide guidance for projects that are only required to meet
objective standards.
12. Bird Safe Glass
Regulations
The City does not have bird safe glass regulations. However, the City has been
enforcing good practices to limit bird strikes through architectural review
findings and discretionary review of projects in the Baylands (e.g., auto
dealerships with large expanses of glass) and projects with curtain walls (i.e.,
floor to ceiling windows) throughout the City. Requirements have included
fritted glass or similar treatments, and reduced night lighting. The Council may
wish to develop an objective standard that codifies this practice.
Discussion
This section provides an overview of height transitions, including how they apply to different
districts and uses. It presents two key issues. First, height transitions vary across districts and
are sometimes ambiguous. Second, they generally do not apply to the RM-40 district which is a
high-density district. The discussion then offers a recommended approach to remove ambiguity
and codify a clear objective standard for when height transitions apply, by district and use.
Additionally, this report responds to one component of Motion Cii, identified in Table 1. It
recommends a change to the RM-40 front setback to be consistent with all RM zones.
Height Transitions Overview
Title 18 currently includes two sets of height standards within most zoning districts. First, a
general height standard. Second, a lower height standard for multifamily and commercial
mixed-use districts when located abutting and within a certain horizontal distance from a
residential district (typically, excluding RM-40 or PC zones).
Figure 1 illustrates the general concept for how height transitions are regulated in Title 18.
Most zoning districts specify the following measurements which correspond to Figure 1:
City of Palo Alto Page 9
(A) horizontal distance from a residential zone;
(B) reduced height limit within A; and
(C) standard height limit beyond A.
Figure 1: Prototypical Transitional Height Standard, Existing
Variation by Zoning District
Table 3 reports height standards, by district. (Circled letters in the header row correspond to
the labels on Figure 1.) Depending on the district, the height limits can also vary by use (non-
residential only vs. residential/mixed use). The table reveals two issues:
(1) Different Zones Identify Different Horizontal Height Transition Zones.
For example, in Downtown, the transition zone is clearly within 150 feet of an abutting
residential district; height transitions are required within this horizontal distance, except in the
RM-40 and PC zones. The regulations are also clear in the Office/Research/Manufacturing
zoning districts where regulations express three layers of height transition: a standard height, a
reduced height within 150 feet of a residential district, and a further reduced height within 40
feet of a residential district. However, this district does not specify that the lower height only
applies to “abutting” lots. As a result, the standard could theoretically be interpreted to apply
City of Palo Alto Page 10
to sites separated by a street or even another lot. In practice, City staff have historically
interpreted the standard to only apply to abutting parcels.
In contrast, height limits in the CS/CC/CN mixed use districts and Workforce Housing (WH)
overlay are ambiguous. These standards refer to a 50-foot distance, a 150-foot distance and
refer to distances relative to the “site” and the “side” of the abutting parcel, further adding to
interpretation challenges.
Ambiguity in the regulations are problematic for several reasons. First, they are difficult for City
staff and decision-makers to implement consistently. Notably, height standards in these
districts have been interpreted and implemented inconsistently over time. This creates a
problem for property owners and developers who are considering whether to make significant
investments in Palo Alto. Second, ambiguity presents a challenge in light of recent changes in
State law which—as described in the description of SB330 above—require standards to be
“uniformly verifiable” and “involving no personal or subjective judgement” if the standards are
going to be enforced for projects undergoing streamlined review (Gov. Code 65589.5 (h)(8).
(2) The RM-40 district is treated differently than other residential zones.
Reduced heights are many times not required when abutting the RM-40 district. In fact, the
code allows taller heights adjacent to the RM-40, up to 50 feet in some districts. Presumably
this is because the RM-40 district is considered high density in that it allows heights up to 40
feet. As a result, a 50-foot building adjacent to a site that allows a 40-foot building represents
similar massing potential, with only a 10-foot difference in the height allowance. As noted
throughout this report, there are many other development standards and performance
standards that require modulation of the massing, privacy and light protection, including:
daylight plane, setbacks, screening, landscaping, and fencing.
Table 3: Existing Height Standards, by Zoning District
Zoning District (Use)
General Vertical
Height Standard
Reduced Height Limit
Height Within Horizontal
Feet of Residential Zone
Horizontal Feet
Distance Threshold
Multifamily Residential Districts
RM-20 30 N/A N/A RM-30 35
RM-40 40 35, Except RM-40 or PC 50
Commercial/ Mixed Use Districts
CD-C/
CD-S
Non-Residential Only 50 Max. height of abutting
residential district 150 Residential/Mixed
Use 50 40
50, abutting RM-40/PC
City of Palo Alto Page 11
Zoning District (Use)
General Vertical
Height Standard
Reduced Height Limit
Height Within Horizontal
Feet of Residential Zone
Horizontal Feet
Distance Threshold
CD-N
Non-Residential Only 25 Max. height of abutting
residential district
Residential/Mixed
Use 35 40
50, abutting RM-40/PC
CN
Non-Residential Only 25 N/A N/A
Residential/Mixed
Use 35 (40 on ECR) 35, Except RM-40 or PC
50 or 150
(Ambiguous)
CC/CS
Non-Residential Only 50 35, Except RM-40 or PC
Residential/Mixed
Use 50 35
50, abutting RM-40/PC
CC(2)
Non-Residential Only 37 35, Except RM-40 or PC
Residential/Mixed
Use 37 35
50, abutting RM-40/PC
Office/Research/Manufacturing Districts
MOR
Non-Residential Only 50 35 40
35 150
Residential/Mixed
Use
35 N/A N/A
ROLM
Non-Residential Only 35 25 40
35 150
Residential/Mixed
Use
35 N/A N/A
ROLM(E)
Non-Residential Only 35 25 40
35 150
Residential/Mixed
Use
30 N/A N/A
RP
Non-Residential Only 35-40 25 40
35 150
Residential/Mixed
Use
35 30, Except all RMs and
similar density PCs
150
Overlay/Other Districts
PF 50 35, Except PC 150
WH 50 35, Except RM-40 or PC 50 or 150
(Ambiguous)
AH 50 35, Except RM-40 or PC 50, Director may
waive
PTOD 40 N/A N/A
Determining an Appropriate Threshold
City of Palo Alto Page 12
If Council agrees the standard should be made unambiguous and objective, the next question is
what is the appropriate standard? This is a policy question that needs to balance State law
requirements, flexibility for new housing design, and access to light/air/privacy for existing
adjacent uses.
The ARB held a study session on April 15, 2021 to discuss height transitions generally and its
implications for design. The majority of ARB members agreed with staff’s recommendations,
outlined in a March 18, 2021 memo1 to the ARB, as to how to streamline this Code language for
ease of interpretation. Board members believed that the height limits and densities in the
surrounding context mattered, concluding that the 150-foot threshold is likely too deep in
places like Downtown, but that other locations may warrant transition areas in excess of 50
feet. Board members also suggested that setback and daylight plane requirements—which are
already codified in Title 18--are better methods for regulating this transition area than a
horizontal threshold.
Recommendation
To resolve the ambiguity at this time and respond to community and Council feedback, staff
recommends a moderated approach. In the districts with ambiguous language--the CN, CC,
CC(2), and CS districts and WH overlay--require a lower height standard abutting and within the
150 horizontal feet (rather than the 50 feet threshold as originally proposed to the PTC), but
allow for a reduction up to 50 horizontal feet by the Planning Director, upon recommendation
by the ARB.
The draft ordinance also recommends clarifying that the reduced height limit only applies to
abutting conditions. This is consistent with how City staff have historically interpreted the
standard. The lower height limit is not intended to apply to situations where parcels are
separated by another lot or by a street. Most zoning districts with the lower height standard
already include this “abutting” condition. However, to bring consistency and eliminate
ambiguity across Title 18, the draft ordinance adds the term “abutting” to the lower height
standard in the following zones: RM-40, ROLM, AH overlay, and PC.
Staff believes the 150-foot horizontal measurement is supportable under SB330 prohibitions on
limited density, since the standard has been interpreted inconsistently over the years.
Moreover, development (i.e., building footprint and massing) is still permitted within the 150-
foot distance, just at lower limits. No changes are proposed to height limits overall; nor do
changes propose extending lower height limits to projects adjacent to a RM-40 zoned site.
1 bit.ly/HeightTransitionMemo
City of Palo Alto Page 13
This moderated approach serves two purposes. First, it avoids creating non-conforming
conditions for residential, commercial, and mixed-use projects that were previously approved
with standard height limits within 150 feet of a lower density residential district. These legally-
approved projects would not be considered non-conforming and would be eligible for
modifications, subject to review by the ARB.
Second, it allows for development--most importantly multifamily residential and residential
mixed-use projects that are supported by the Comprehensive Plan and Housing Work Plan--to
be feasibly developed at the heights and densities permitted by the zoning district. Requiring
review by the ARB to reduce the 150-foot threshold allows for the City’s qualified architectural
reviewers to take a more contextual approach to evaluating height transitions.
The Council could consider reducing heights adjacent to the RM-40 district. However, this
would be a substantive policy change to Title 18, beyond the scope of the objective standards
project. For residential uses, such a change would need to be evaluated under the “no net loss”
provision of the City’s Housing Element and State law, since it could reduce developable area
for housing projects. The Council could consider reducing heights adjacent to RM-40 for non-
residential uses only, which are not regulated by State law.
Notably, qualifying housing development projects that propose using State Density Bonus Law,
may seek to use waivers or concessions to exceed the height standard (both the general height
standard and the lower standard when adjacent to a lower density residential use).
Additionally, staff expects that the Housing Element update process will look at height
standards—both overall height limits and these transitional height standards. Further changes
are likely to be recommended through that process.
Finally, the near-future objective standards ordinance will further expand privacy, light, and air
protections to all residentially zoned properties, based on feedback from the Council and
ongoing work with the ARB.
RM-40 Setback Requirements
As noted in Table 1, Motion Item Cii, the Council moved to change the RM-40 front setback
from a variable 0-25 feet to a standard 25 feet. This motion item is being taken up here, since it
is a straightforward change and modifies the development standards table being modified as
part of the height transitions regulations described above. In the same vein, City staff
recommend a change to the RM-40 variable side setback standard of 0-16 feet, to a standard
16 feet, consistent with the RM-20 and RM-30 zones.
Staff recommends a clear front setback standard of 20 feet, rather than 25 feet, to be
consistent with the RM-20 and RM-30 districts. As part of the Housing Element update, staff
expects that some RM-30 zoned parcels will be up-zoned to RM-40. A front setback of 20 feet
City of Palo Alto Page 14
will eliminate issues of non-conformity on existing properties and provide a consistent standard
for all RM zones. Moreover, the code will still allow for adjustments—above and below 20
feet—based on a recommendation from the ARB and in some cases, to meet special setbacks
described on zoning maps. This is important since in more urban conditions, a reduced setback
may be more appropriate to maintain a street wall, whereas larger sites in more suburban parts
of the city may support deeper landscaped setbacks.
Stakeholder Engagement
As with all citywide projects, the eight (8) ARB hearings and the three (3) PTC hearings were
noticed in the Daily Post. The ARB Ad Hoc meetings were not publicly noticed meetings. On
January 22nd, March 23rd, May 10th, July 22nd, and September 15th, 2021, staff sent an email to a
wide range of architect and consultants that have worked with the City in the recent past on
development projects to solicit comments on the draft objective standards; six out of 30
stakeholders provided feedback.
Detailed comments can be found in the October 4, 2021 City Council staff report:
• Public Comments: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes-
reports/public-letters-to-council/2021/20211004-oct-4/20211004plccs-item-aa1.pdf
• Stakeholder Comments (Attachment E) :
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas-
minutes/city-council-agendas-minutes/2021/10-october/20211004/20211004pccsm-
amended-linked.pdf
Several members of the public addressed the PTC at its June 9, 2021 hearing regarding height
transition language, as summarized above. On July 19, 2021, staff held a webinar to discuss the
topic of height transitions. Approximately 27 residents attended the online discussion.
Environmental Review
The ordinance revisions represent implementation of adopted plans and policy. Therefore, the
revisions are exempt under CEQA and covered by the CEQA documents prepared for the
Comprehensive Plan. The project aims to facilitate implementation of State law. The project
does not propose to increase development beyond what was analyzed in the Comprehensive
Plan.
Attachments:
Attachment A: Ordinance Amending Title 18 to Clarify Transitional Height Standards and
Update Setbacks for RM-40 Zone District (PDF)
*NOT YET ADOPTED*
1
0160063_2022013_ay16
Ordinance No. ____
Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Various Chapters of
Title 18 (Zoning) to Clarify Transitional Height Standards and Update Setbacks for
the RM-40 Zone District
The Council of the City of Palo Alto ORDAINS as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings and Declarations.
A. Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code contains development standards
governing the maximum height of structures in close proximity to lower density
residential zones. The purpose of these development standards is to ensure the
harmonious transition between lower and higher intensity development.
B. The existing language on height transitions has created confusion among the public,
project applicants, and City staff. This confusion, in turn, has resulted in differing
interpretations of the law over the years.
C. The City Council now wishes to clarify the zoning code with respect to height transitions.
The clarifications to height transition standards contained in this ordinance are
declarative of existing law.
SECTION 2. Section 18.08.030 (References to Districts) of Chapter 18.08 (Designation and
Establishment of Districts) of Title 18 (Zoning) is amended as follows (new text underlined):
18.08.030 References to Districts
Reference within this title to residential districts generally and as a grouping, includes all
districts identified in this section. Where references are made to more restrictive or less
restrictive residential districts, such references shall apply sequentially between the most
restrictive and the least restrictive.
Residential District Restrictive Reference
RE Most Restrictive
R-1 (20,000)
R-1 10,000)
R-1 (8,000)
R-1 (7,000)
R-1
*NOT YET ADOPTED*
2
0160063_2022013_ay16
R-2
Least Restrictive
RMD
RM-20
RM-30
RM-40
SECTION 3. Section 18.13.040 (Development Standards) of Chapter 18.13 (Multiple Family
Residential (RM-20, RM-30 and RM-40) Districts) of Title 18 (Zoning) is amended as follows
(new text underlined and deletions struck-through; omissions are noted with [. . .] for large
sections of unchanged text):
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 Development Services, 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-20 RM-30 RM-40 Subject to
regulations
in:
[. . .] [. . .] [. . .] [. . .] [. . .]
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 0-2520 (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)
*NOT YET ADOPTED*
3
0160063_2022013_ay16
Maximum Height (ft) 30 35 40
Maximum height for those portions of a
site w Within 50 feet of a more
restrictive abutting residential district
or a site containing a residential use in
a nonresidential district
35 18.08.030
[. . .] [. . .] [. . .] [. . .] [. . .]
Footnotes:
(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
in Section 18.13.060. Arterial roadways, do not include residential arterials. In the RM-40
district, lesser setbacks may be allowed by the Planning Director, upon recommendation by
the Architectural Review Board pursuant to criteria set forth in Chapter 18.76. Special
setbacks of greater than 25 feet may not be reduced except upon approval of a design
enhancement exception or variance.
(2) Lesser setbacks may be allowed by the Planning Director, upon recommendation
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 18.76and the context-based criteria outlined in Section 18.13.060.
[. . .]
(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. A site with an existing single-family use or two-family use may be
redeveloped at the existing density, either single-family or two-family as applicable. An
existing or replaced single-family or two-family residence shall not be considered a
nonconforming use, and the provisions of Chapter 18.70 shall not apply, solely based on the
minimum density requirement.
[. . .]
SECTION 4. Section 18.16.060 (Development Standards) of Chapter 18.16 (Neighborhood,
Community, And Service Commercial (CN, CC And CS) Districts) of Title 18 (Zoning) is amended
as follows (new text underlined and deletions struck-through; omissions are noted with [. . .] for
large sections of unchanged text):
18.16.060 Development Standards
(a) Exclusively Non-Residential Uses
Table 3 specifies the development standards for exclusively non-residential uses and
alterations to non-residential uses or structures in the CN, CC, CC(2) and CS districts. These
*NOT YET ADOPTED*
4
0160063_2022013_ay16
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 development services, pursuant to Section 18.76.020.
Table 3
Exclusively Non-residential Development Standards
CN
CC
CC(2)
CS
Subject to
regulations in
Section
[. . .] [. . .] [. . .] [. . .] [. . .] [. . .]
Maximum Height (ft)
Standard
25' and 2
stories
50' 37' (4) 50'
Within 150 ft. of an
abutting residential
district (other than an
RM-40 or PC zone) (9)
abutting or located within
50 feet of the site
35'
35'
35'
18.08.030
[. . .] [. . .] [. . .] [. . .] [. . .] [. . .]
Footnotes:
(1) No parking or loading space, whether required or optional, shall be located in the first 10
feet adjoining the street property line of any required yard.
[. . .]
(9) 150-foot measurement may be reduced to 50 feet at minimum, subject to approval by
the Planning Director, upon recommendation by the Architectural Review Board pursuant to
criteria set forth in Chapter 18.76.
(b) Mixed Use 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 development services,
pursuant to Section 18.76.020.
*NOT YET ADOPTED*
5
0160063_2022013_ay16
Table 4
Mixed Use and Residential Development Standards
CN CC CC(2) CS Subject to
regulations in:
[. . .] [. . .] [. . .] [. . .] [. . .] [. . .]
Maximum Height (ft)
Standard 35'(4) 50' 37' 50'
Within 150 ft. of an abutting
residential zone district (other
than an RM-40 or PC zone) (5)
abutting or located within 50
feet of the side
35'
35'(5)
35'(5)
35'(5)
18.08.030
[. . .] [. . .] [. . .] [. . .] [. . .] [. . .]
Footnotes:
(1) Twenty-five-foot driveway access permitted regardless of frontage; build-to requirement
does not apply to CC district.
[. . .]
(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.150-foot measurement may be
reduced to 50 feet at minimum, subject to approval by the Planning Director, upon
recommendation by the Architectural Review Board pursuant to criteria set forth in Chapter
18.76.
[. . .]
(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.
(1) 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.
(2) Residential mixed use development is prohibited on any site designated with an
Automobile Dealership (AD) Combining District overlay.
(c) Exclusively Residential Uses
[. . .]
*NOT YET ADOPTED*
6
0160063_2022013_ay16
SECTION 5. Section 18.18.060 (Development Standards) of Chapter 18.18 (Downtown
Commercial (CD) District) of Title 18 (Zoning) is amended as follows (new text underlined and
deletions struck-through; omissions are noted with [. . .] for large sections of unchanged text):
18.18.060 Development Standards
(a) Exclusively Non-Residential Use
Table 2 specifies the development standards for new exclusively non-residential uses and
alterations to non-residential uses or structures in the CD district, including the CD-C, CD-S, and
CD-N subdistricts. These developments shall be designed and constructed in compliance with
the following requirements and the context-based design criteria outlined 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 development services, pursuant to
Section 18.76.020:
Table 2
Exclusively Non-Residential Development Standards
CD-C
CD-S
CD-N
Subject to regulations
in Section:
[. . .] [. . .] [. . .] [. . .] [. . .]
Maximum Height (ft)
Standard 50 50 25
Within 150 ft. of an abutting
residential zone district
– (3) – (3) – (3) 18.08.030
[. . .] [. . .] [. . .] [. . .] [. . .]
(b) Mixed Use and Residential
Table 3 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 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 development services,
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:
[. . .] [. . .] [. . .] [. . .] [. . .]
Maximum Height (ft)
Standard 50' 50' 35' 18.08.030
*NOT YET ADOPTED*
7
0160063_2022013_ay16
Within 150 ft. of an
abutting residential zone
district (other than an
RM-40 or PC zone)
40'(4) 40'(4) 35'(4) 18.08.030
[. . .] [. . .] [. . .] [. . .] [. . .]
Footnotes:
(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 CN and CS sites on El Camino Real, CS sites on San Antonio Road between Middlefield
Road and East Charleston Road 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 18.40.230.
[. . .]
(4) Reserved. 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)+(8x1,200)+(2x1,800)) ÷ (10+8+2) = 1,060 square feet.
[. . .]
SECTION 6. Section 18.20.040 (Site Development Standards) of Chapter 18.20 (Office,
Research, And Manufacturing (MOR, ROLM, RP And GM) Districts) of Title 18 (Zoning) is
amended as follows (new text underlined and deletions struck-through; omissions are noted
with [. . .] for large sections of unchanged text):
18.20.040 Site Development Standards
Development in the office research, industrial, and manufacturing districts is subject to the
following development standards, provided that more restrictive regulations may be required
as part of design review under Chapter 18.76 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code.
(a) Development Standards for Non-Residential Uses
*NOT YET ADOPTED*
8
0160063_2022013_ay16
Table 2 shows the site development standards for exclusively non-residential uses in the
industrial and manufacturing districts.
TABLE 2
INDUSTRIAL/MANUFACTURING NON-RESIDENTIAL SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
MOR
ROLM
ROLM(E)
RP
RP(5)
GM
Subject to
Regulations in
Chapter:
[. . .] [. . .] [. . .] [. . .] [. . .] [. . .] [. . .] [. . .]
Maximum Height (ft)
Standard 50 35(4) 35(4) 50
Within 150 ft. of an
abutting residential zone
(5)
35 35 35 35 18.08.030
Within 40 ft. of an abutting
residential zone(5)
35 25 25 35 18.08.030
[. . .] [. . .] [. . .] [. . .] [. . .] [. . .]
[. . .]
SECTION 7. Section 18.30(J).090 (Development Standards) of Subchapter 18.30(J)
(Affordable Housing (AH) Combining District Regulations) of Chapter 18.30 (Combining Districts)
of Title 18 (Zoning) is amended to read as follows (new text underlined and deletions struck-
through; omissions are noted with [. . .] for large sections of unchanged text):
18.30(J).090 Development Standards
The following development standards shall apply to projects subject to the AH affordable
housing combining district in lieu of the development standards for the underlying zoning
district, except where noted below:
Table 1
Development Standards
AH Combining District (1)
Minimum Site Specifications Subject to regulations in:
[. . .] [. . .] [. . .]
Maximum Height (ft) 50'
Within 50 ft of an abutting
residential district (other than an
RM-40 or PC zone) R1, R-2, RMD,
RM-20, or RM-30 zoned property
35'(3) 18.08.030
*NOT YET ADOPTED*
9
0160063_2022013_ay16
[. . .] [. . .] [. . .]
[. . .]
SECTION 8. Section 18.30(K).070 (Development standards) of Subchapter 18.30(K)
(Workforce Housing (WH) Combining District Regulations) of Chapter 18.30 (Combining
Districts) of Title 18 (Zoning) is amended to read as follows (new text underlined and deletions
struck-through; omissions are noted with [. . .] for large sections of unchanged text):
18.30(K).070 Development Standards
(a) Where the WH combining district is combined with the public facilities district, the
following development standards shall apply for workforce housing projects, including
permitted incidental uses, in lieu of the development standards for the underlying PF zoning
district:
Table 1
Development Standards
WH Combining District
Minimum Site
Specifications
Subject to regulations in:
[. . .] [. . .] [. . .]
Maximum Height (ft)
Standard 50'
Within 150 ft. of an abutting
residential district (other than
an RM-40 or PC zone) abutting
or located within 50 feet of
the site
35', except as limited by
applicable daylight plane
requirements
18.08.030
[. . .] [. . .] [. . .]
[. . .]
SECTION 9. Section 18.38.150 (Special requirements) of Chapter 18.38 (PC Planned
Community District Regulations) of Title 18 (Zoning) is amended to read as follows (new text
underlined and deletions struck-through; omissions are noted with [. . .] for large sections of
unchanged text):
18.38.150 Special requirements.
Sites abutting or and having any portion located with one hundred fifty 150 feet of any RE, R-1,
R-2, RM, or any PC district permitting single-family development or multiple-family
development shall be subject to the following additional height and yard requirements:
*NOT YET ADOPTED*
10
0160063_2022013_ay16
(a) Parking Facilities. The maximum height shall be equal to the height established in the
most restrictive adjacent zone district.
(b) All Other Uses. The maximum height within one hundred fifty 150 feet of any abutting RE,
R-1, R-2, RM-20, or applicable PC district shall be thirty-five 35 feet; provided, however,
that for a use where the gross floor area excluding any area used exclusively for parking
purposes, is at least sixty 60 percent residential, the maximum height within one hundred
fifty 150 feet of an abutting RM-4 30 or RM-5 40 district shall be fifty 50 feet.
[. . .]
SECTION 10. 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 11. 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 12. The Council finds that the Ordinance is within the scope of and in furtherance of
the Comprehensive Plan 2030 which was evaluated in that certain Final Environmental Impact
Report certified and for which findings were adopted by Council Resolution Nos. 9720 and 9721
on November 13, 2017, all in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. The
Ordinance does not propose to increase development beyond what was analyzed in the
Comprehensive Plan. Pursuant to Section 15168 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City has
determined that no new effects would occur from and no new mitigation measures would be
required for the adoption of this Ordinance.
//
//
//
//
//
*NOT YET ADOPTED*
11
0160063_2022013_ay16
SECTION 13. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first date after the date of its
adoption.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
____________________________ ____________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
____________________________ ____________________________
Assistant City Attorney City Manager
____________________________
Director of Planning & Development
Services