HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 2505-4740CITY OF PALO ALTO
CITY COUNCIL
Monday, June 16, 2025
Council Chambers & Hybrid
5:30 PM
Agenda Item
20.SECOND READING: Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending: Chapter
18.14 (Housing Incentives) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Implement Program 3.4E
of the 2023-2031 Housing Element to Expand and Revise Regulations for the El Camino
Real Focus Area; Making Conforming Amendments to Chapter 16.58 (Development
Impact Fees) (FIRST READING: May 27, 2025; PASSED: 5-0-2, Lu, Veenker recused) Public
Comment
City Council
Staff Report
Report Type: CONSENT CALENDAR
Lead Department: City Clerk
Meeting Date: June 16, 2025
Report #:2505-4740
TITLE
SECOND READING: Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending: Chapter 18.14
(Housing Incentives) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Implement Program 3.4E of the 2023-
2031 Housing Element to Expand and Revise Regulations for the El Camino Real Focus Area;
Making Conforming Amendments to Chapter 16.58 (Development Impact Fees) (FIRST
READING: May 27, 2025; PASSED: 5-0-2, Lu, Veenker recused)
BACKGROUND
The City Council heard this item on May 27, 2025 for a first reading and approved it on a 5-0-2,
Lu, Veenker recused vote. The ordinance was updated to reflect the City Council’s motion and is
now before the City Council for a second reading. City staff will return to the City Council to
effectuate the remaining items in the motion at a future date:
•Modification of the Hansen Way special setback to 20-feet; and
•Rezoning the property behind 2999 El Camino Real from NV-R1 to an appropriate
transition for housing.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A - Amending Chapter 18.14 (Housing Incentives) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code
to Implement Program 3.4E of the 2023-2031 Housing Element to Expand and Revise
Regulations for the El Camino Real Focus Area; Making Conforming Amendments to Chapter
16.58 (Development Impact Fees)
APPROVED BY:
Mahealani Ah Yun, City Clerk
1
Ordinance No.
Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending: Chapter 18.14
(Housing Incentives) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Implement Program 3.4E
of the 2023-2031 Housing Element to Expand and Revise Regulations for the El
Camino Real Focus Area; Making Conforming Amendments to Chapter 16.58
(Development Impact Fees)
SECTION 1. Findings and Declarations. The City Council finds and declares as follows:
A. On May 8, 2023, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 10107, approving an Addendum
to the Comprehensive Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR), making various findings, and
adopting the 2023-2031 Housing Element for the City of Palo Alto.
B. On November 13, 2023, the City Council approved a Revised Addendum to the
Comprehensive Plan EIR and introduced Ordinance No. 5608, rezoning sites in the 2023-
2031 Housing Element Sites Inventory to accommodate the City’s Regional Housing Needs
Allocation.
C. On April 15, 2024, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 10155, making various findings,
adopting a Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element, and authorizing the Director of Planning
and Development Services to take further actions necessary to achieve certification of the
Housing Element by the California Department of Housing and Community Development
(HCD).
D. On August 19, 2024, HCD found that the Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element, as further
modified on July 17, 2024, was substantially compliant with state law.
E. Program 3.4E of the City’s Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element directs the City to expand
the geographic boundaries of the El Camino Focus Area to incentivize housing production
in appropriate locations.
F. On March 26, 2025, the Planning and Transportation Commission considered and
recommended that the City Council adopt this ordinance to implement the 2023-2031
Housing Element.
SECTION 2. Section 18.14.020 (Housing Element Opportunity Sites) of Chapter 18.14 (Housing
Incentives) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as
follows (additions underlined; deletions struck through; and unchanged text omitted with
bracketed ellipses):
18.14.020 Housing Element Opportunity Sites and Focus Areas
This subsection implements the rezoning required to meet the RHNA in the 2023-2031 Housing
Element, pursuant to Appendix D. Regulations identified in Table 1 and Table 2 modify and replace
development standards provided in base zoning district and applicable combining district
2
regulations. This section additionally provides regulations for Housing Focus Areas in portions of
El Camino Real and in the GM/ROLM districts that further the goals of the Housing Element.
3
units provided pursuant to this paragraph (C) shall be subject to payment of
development impact fees as set forth in Title 16 of this code.
(vi) Combining district design and development standards shall not apply to exclusively
residential projects on housing opportunity sites designated in Appendix D of the Housing
Element to accommodate lower income households.
[. . .]
Table 3
Site- Specific Development Standards (Stanford-Owned Sites & El Camino Real Focus Area)
Location Pasteur Dr. & 1100
Welch Rd. (1)(3)
(Figure 2)
El Camino Real Focus Area(1)
(Figure 3)
Minimum Setbacks (feet)
Setback lines imposed by a special setback map pursuant to Chapter
20.08 of this code may apply.
Minimum Front (7)
Setback
15 feet 0' - 10' to create a 12' effective sidewalk
width See base district regulations
Abutting low density residential (RE, R2,
NV-R2, RMD), R1, or NV-R1 zone district:
20’
Abutting other residential zone district:
10’
Rear and Interior
Side (8)
Abutting non-residential zone district: 10’
for residential use; none for non-
residential use
Street Side(7)
See base district
regulations: 18.13.040
5’
Maximum FAR (Total)3.5 (Total)Lot size => 10,000 sq. ft.: 4.0 (Total)
Lot size < 10,000 sq. ft.: 3.0 (Total)
Maximum FAR (Non-
Residential)
See base district
regulations: 18.13.040
See base district regulations, except:
1. An additional 5,000 square feet of
retail and retail-like uses may be
permitted, subject to Total FAR limits.
2. Hotel uses may exceed the base
district non-residential FAR provided
the project is a Housing Development
Project and subject to Total FAR limits.
Maximum Site/
Minimum
Landscape/Open
Space Coverage
See base district
regulations (2)
See base district regulations (2)
Maximum Lot
Coverage
60%Lot size => 10,000 sq. ft.: 80%
Lot size < 10,000 sq. ft.: 70%
Maximum Density None None
4
(du/ac)
Maximum Height(6)
(feet) for residential
portion
85 Lot size => 10,000 sq. ft.: 85
Lot size < 10,000 sq. ft.: 65
Maximum Height(6)
(feet) for non-
residential portion
50 50, except Hotel uses may reach 85 feet
Daylight Plane Sand Hill Rd. frontage
only: initial height 60
feet above grade at
the Sand Hill Rd.
setback line and a 45-
degree angle
For lot lines abutting an R1 or NV-R1
zoning district:
Initial height: 16 feet, measured at the
property line
Slope: 45 degrees
Other locations: See base district
regulations for standards for daylight
planes
Height Transitions n/a Within 100 ft. of low density residential
(RE, R2, or RMD) or R1 single family zone
district property line: 35 ft.
Between 100 and 150 ft. of low density or
R1 zone district property line: 45 ft.
Upper Story Step Back None El Camino Real frontage above 55 feet in
height: minimum 10 6 foot step-back from
lower facade, for a minimum 70% of the
facade length.; and average setback from
the property line for the entire facade
shall be 20 feet(7).
See Figure 4.
Minimum Usable
Open Space
100 sq. ft./unit (any
combination of
common and/or
private)
100 sq. ft./unit (any combination of
common and/or private) (2)
Minimum Residential
Parking(5)
0.5 spaces/unit 1 space/unit
(Per AB2097: 1 0 space/unit within ½ mile
of Caltrain)
Other Development
Standards
See base district
regulations: 18.13.040
See base district regulations
Design
Criteria/Standards
Compliance with
Objective Design
Standards pursuant to
18.24(4)
Architectural Review Streamlined Housing
Development Project Review and
compliance with either Objective Deign
Standards pursuant to Chapter 18.24 or
Architectural Review and compliance with
Context-Based Design Criteria pursuant to
base district regulations(4).
5
Notes:
[. . .]
(2) Permitted Landscape/open space may be provided above the ground-floor. For sites
containing a naturalized creek, up to 50% of the landscape/open space and minimum usable
open space requirements may be satisfied by open space within the creek area (as defined by
the top of bank). If standard is not specified, refer to base district regulations.
[. . .]
(4) Except, the following objective design standards shall be modified to meet the realistic
capacity identified in the Housing Element:
(a) 18.24.050(b)(5): Diversity of Housing Types shall not apply.
(b) 18.24.060(b)(7): Parking/Loading/Utilities, shall be replaced with the following standard:
Above grade structured parking levels facing a public right-of-way or publicly accessible open
space/path with the exception of vehicular alleys, shall compose no more than 50% of any public
frontage. Garage facades fronting on public right-of-way shall be screened with decorative
architectural screening (e.g. perforated metal panels, murals), lined with habitable uses, or
screened with landscaping (e.g., green wall, climbing vines).
(c) 18.24.050(b)(1): Upper Floor Step Backs & Daylight Planes shall not apply.
[. . .]
(7) Average setback from the property line may be calculated by taking the area between the
property line and the upper facade. This area, in square feet, shall be greater than or equal to the
facade length multiplied by 20. Example: 200-foot facade length x 20-foot average setback +
minimum 4,000 sq. ft. area of setback per floor. For purposes of this calculation, portions of the
upper facade with a setback greater than 40 feet shall be treated as if the facade is located at 40
feet from the property line. For purposes of this calculation, roof projections and eaves up to
four feet in depth shall be excluded.
For the purposes of this development standards table, the following definitions apply:
“Abutting” refers to parcels that share a property line, exclusive of parcels with intersecting
corners, parcels separated by a street, or parcels under common ownership.
“Lot Size” refers to the total lot area of a proposed project, which may be composed of one or
more parcels, generally under common ownership, which may include parcels developed in
phases over time.
“Front Setback” for properties on El Camino Real means the setback from El Camino Real.
“Street Side Setback” for properties on El Camino Real means the setback from a street that
intersects El Camino Real.
(8) Below-grade encroachment into rear and interior side setbacks is permitted for the site at
3300 El Camino Real.
[. . .]
6
Figure 3: El Camino Focus Area
7
Figure 4: Upper Story Step Back (El Camino Real Focus Area)
portions of buildings more than 49 feet from the property line shall be counted as 40 feet
Figure 4b
8
SECTION 3. Section 16.58.030 (Exemptions) of Chapter 16.58 (Development Impact Fees) of Title
16 (Building Regulations) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows
(additions underlined):
16.58.030 Exemptions.
The provisions of this chapter shall not apply to the following:
(a) City buildings or structures;
(b) Public school buildings or structures;
(c) Residential housing, either for sale or rental, which, by recordable means, is permanently
obligated to be 100% affordable, as defined in Section 18.14.040(c);
(d) Retail service, eating and drinking service, personal service, or automotive service when
the total additional square footage is 1,500 square feet or less. This exemption shall apply
only when the additional square footage of new development does not exceed 1,500
square feet. New development that is larger than 1,500 square feet shall pay a fee for all
square footage, including the first 1,500 square feet;
(e) Day care centers used for child care, nursery school or preschool education;
(f) Below market rate housing units above and beyond the minimum number required for
projects subject to the City's Below Market Rate (BMR) Housing program or other housing
incentive programs. The additional units must be offered and constructed in a manner
consistent with all requirements of the BMR program;
(g) Accessory dwelling units (ADU) less than 750 square feet in size. Any impact fees to be
charged for an accessory dwelling unit of 750 square feet or more shall be proportional to
the square footage of the primary dwelling unit;
(h) Junior accessory dwelling units (JADU);
(i) Any residential subdivision for which land dedication or fees in lieu thereof are required
pursuant to Chapter 21.50 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. This exemption shall only apply
to the park development fee described in Section 16.58.020(a).
(j) Below market rate housing units affordable to lower income households constructed
pursuant to the El Camino Focus Area standards pursuant to Section 18.14.020, subdivision
(c)(v)(B), of the Palo Alto Municipal Code.
9
SECTION 4. Section 18.14.030 (Housing Incentive Program) of Chapter 18.14 (Housing Incentives)
of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows
(additions underlined; text unchanged and omitted indicated by bracketed ellipses):
18.14.030 Housing Incentive Program
Table 6
FAR and Building Height Standards, by Eligible Zone District
SECTION 5. If any section, subsection, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to
be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion or sections of the
10
Ordinance. The Council hereby declares that it should have adopted the Ordinance and each
section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or
more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid.
SECTION 6. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City prepared
an Addendum to the 2017 Comprehensive Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR), analyzing the
potential environmental impacts of the 2023-2031 Housing Element. On May 8, 2023, the City
Council adopted Resolution No. 10107, and on November 17, 2023, the City Council approved a
Revised Addendum, finding that the Addendum, as revised, and the 2017 EIR adequately analyzed
the environmental impacts of the Housing Element, including the Programs implemented by this
ordinance.
SECTION 7. This Ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first day after the date of its adoption.
From:Genna.Yarkin@hklaw.com
To:Council, City
Cc:Sar Peruri; Ted O"Hanlon; Yang, Albert
Subject:Public Comment on Item 20 for June 16th Council hearing
Date:Friday, June 13, 2025 5:02:29 PM
Attachments:Creekside Letter to City Council 6-13-2025.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Good evening Council Members,
On behalf of our client SF Creekside, LLC, attached please find stakeholder comments on agenda
Item 20 in front of you on June 16th, the second reading of amendments to the El Camino Real Focus
Area.
Thank you,
Genna Yarkin | Holland & Knight PRIDE
She/Her/Hers
Partner
Holland & Knight LLP
560 Mission Street, Suite 1900 | San Francisco, California 94105
Phone 415.743.6990 | Fax 415.743.6910
genna.yarkin@hklaw.com | www.hklaw.com
________________________________________________
Add to address book | View professional biography
NOTE: This e-mail is from a law firm, Holland & Knight LLP ("H&K"), and is intended solely for the use of the
individual(s) to whom it is addressed. If you believe you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender
immediately, delete the e-mail from your computer and do not copy or disclose it to anyone else. If you are not an
existing client of H&K, do not construe anything in this e-mail to make you a client unless it contains a specific
statement to that effect and do not disclose anything to H&K in reply that you expect it to hold in confidence. If you
properly received this e-mail as a client, co-counsel or retained expert of H&K, you should maintain its contents in
confidence in order to preserve the attorney-client or work product privilege that may be available to protect
confidentiality.
560 Mission Street, Suite 1900 | San Francisco, CA 94105 | T 415.743.6900 | F 415.743.6910
-743-6990
Atlanta | Austin | Birmingham | Boston | Century City | Charlotte | Chattanooga | Chicago | Dallas | Denver | Fort Lauderdale
Houston | Jacksonville | Los Angeles | Miami | Nashville | Newport Beach | New York | Orlando | Philadelphia | Portland
#523307400_v1
June 13, 2025
ent via email to: City.Council@PaloAlto.gov
Re: SF Creekside, LLC’s Stakeholder Comments on Item 20 Regarding
Amendments to the El Camino Real Focus Area
Dear Councilmembers:
We represent SF Creekside, LLC, an Oxford Capital Group-led joint venture (the “Applicant”) in
connection with its application to redevelop and revitalize the approximately 3.6-acre property at
3398, 3400, and 3490 El Camino Real (the “Property”), including work to demolish and replace
several low-rise buildings with 295 residential units including 20% low income units, hotel use,
and updating the existing structures to remain (the “Project”).
As you know, the Applicant provided comments on the first reading of the Ordinance that is in
front of you on June 16 for a second reading, amending the El Camino Real Focus Area. We deeply
appreciate the Council’s careful consideration of our comments during its March 26 hearing. We
also can appreciate that the City is faced with a Housing Element deadline to complete these
amendments, by June 30. However, the Applicant has remaining concerns with development
standards in the El Camino Real Focus Area, which (absent any other flexibility such as a reduction
in fees, which we understand the City will be considering in connection with Housing Element
implementation, but the details of which are not yet available) may keep the Applicant from being
able to proceed under the standards instead of relying on the Builder’s Remedy, and will likely
impact the success of the adoption of the El Camino Real Focus area in that these are concerns
other applicants share. The concerns we specifically want to highlight for Council are as follows:
1. 45 Degrees Daylight Plane
A 60-degree daylight plane has been utilized in the Project’s current site plan. Without a 60 degree
daylight plane, this Project’s Building A would lose 16 total units and also result in fewer 3
bedroom units. Because the current regulations would disallow additional height, and the Project
May 24, 2025
Page 2
#523307400_v1
site is impacted by the Creek, there is simply no other space on this site to accommodate the
proposed density. Applying a strict 45-degree daylight plane requirement may keep this Project
from proceeding under the El Camino Real Focus Area.
2. 10 Foot Upper Story Step Back
We estimate the 10 foot step back would reduce the Project’s unit count by 4-5%, an impact that
may keep it and other similarly situated projects from proceeding under the El Camino Real Focus
Area. We are aware that this standard in particular is one that the 3150 El Camino Real project
communicated in detail with the City on, and that the previous 6-foot requirement was applied in
large part because they represented that a 10-foot stepback would result in an infeasible project.
We feel the City should recognize the same with regard to the Applicant’s Project and others like
it, so that all developments that hope to take advantage of the El Camino Real Focus Area standards
have the same considerations applied to them.
Thank you for considering the Applicant’s concerns and the future of this Project.
Sincerely,
HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
Genna Yarkin
Cc: Sar Peruri SPeruri@oxford-capital.com
Ted O'Hanlon tedohanlon@gmail.com
From:Yang, Albert
To:Laura Bowser; Council, City; Lait, Jonathan; Armer, Jennifer
Subject:RE: Second Reading of an Ordinance to Amend the El Camino Real Focus Area (June 16, 2025 - Agenda Item
#20)
Date:Friday, June 13, 2025 1:04:04 PM
Hi Laura,
Understood and sorry for the misunderstanding.
Albert S. Yang | Assistant City Attorney
250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301
P: 650.329.2171 | E: albert.yang@paloalto.gov
This message contains information that may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the
addressee, you may not use, copy or disclose the message or any information contained in the
message. If you received the message in error, please notify the sender and delete the message.
From: Laura Bowser <lbowser@shpco.com>
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2025 1:00 PM
To: Yang, Albert <Albert.Yang@paloalto.gov>; Council, City <city.council@PaloAlto.gov>; Lait,
Jonathan <Jonathan.Lait@paloalto.gov>; Armer, Jennifer <Jennifer.Armer@paloalto.gov>
Subject: RE: Second Reading of an Ordinance to Amend the El Camino Real Focus Area (June 16,
2025 - Agenda Item #20)
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Hi Albert,
Thanks for your note. Sand Hill has worked with the City for multiple years to include 3300 El Camino
in the Housing Element and to develop Focus Area standards. Our intent has always been to pursue a
code-compliant project in collaboration with the City – not a builder’s remedy project that bypasses
zoning and public process. Therefore, 3300 El Camino does not have a pending builder’s remedy
application.
It is unreasonable for 3300 El Camino to be held to a 20% on-site LI requirement (which has
previously been deemed infeasible by the City) because we chose to work with the City, while other
neighboring sites who submitted builder’s remedy projects must only provide 13% on-site LI. Our
letter requests that, at a minimum, we be held to the same 13% LI BMR requirement as sites with
pending builder’s remedy applications for consistency and fairness.
We still recommend the City allow all sites in the Focus Area the option to follow existing PAMC
Chapter 16.65 Citywide BMR Affordable Housing Requirements, which allows in-lieu fee payment
instead of providing units on-site. The City has proven this is a feasible standard, which will allow
developers to move forward projects to create much needed housing in the Focus Area.
Let me know if you’d like to have a call to discuss further.
Best,
Laura
From: Yang, Albert <Albert.Yang@paloalto.gov>
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2025 9:18 AM
To: Laura Bowser <lbowser@shpco.com>; Council, City <city.council@PaloAlto.gov>; Lait, Jonathan
<Jonathan.Lait@paloalto.gov>; Armer, Jennifer <Jennifer.Armer@paloalto.gov>
Subject: RE: Second Reading of an Ordinance to Amend the El Camino Real Focus Area (June 16,
2025 - Agenda Item #20)
Good morning Laura,
I’m writing to bring your attention to a provision (PAMC 18.14.020(c)(5)(C)) at the bottom of
page 2 of the proposed ordinance that offers the 13% on-site LI option to projects on a site
with a pending builder’s remedy application. I hope this addresses your concern. Please feel
free to reach out if you have any questions.
Best,
Albert S. Yang | Assistant City Attorney
250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301
P: 650.329.2171 | E: albert.yang@paloalto.gov
This message contains information that may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the
addressee, you may not use, copy or disclose the message or any information contained in the
message. If you received the message in error, please notify the sender and delete the message.
From: Laura Bowser <lbowser@shpco.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2025 6:17 PM
To: Council, City <city.council@PaloAlto.gov>; Lait, Jonathan <Jonathan.Lait@paloalto.gov>; Armer,
Jennifer <Jennifer.Armer@paloalto.gov>; Yang, Albert <Albert.Yang@paloalto.gov>
Subject: Second Reading of an Ordinance to Amend the El Camino Real Focus Area (June 16, 2025 -
Agenda Item #20)
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Councilmembers of the City Council,
Please see attached for our comments regarding the amendments to the El Camino Real Focus Area
under consideration at Tuesday’s meeting.
Best,
Laura
Laura Bowser
Sand Hill Property Company
2600 El Camino Real, Suite 410
Palo Alto, CA 94306
Tel. +1 650 344 1500
018002.0006 4916-8308-0267.7
June 12, 2025
City of Palo Alto
City.Council@PaloAlto.gov
Development
Re: Second Reading of Ordinance to Amend El Camino Real Focus Area (City Council
Hearing June 16, 2025 – Agenda Item 20)
Dear Jonathan, Jennifer, and Councilmembers:
On behalf of Sand Hill Property Company (SHP), I am writing to follow up on our May 22, 2025
letter regarding the pending amendments to the El Camino Real Focus Area regulations to reiterate
the importance of removing the 20% on-site inclusionary requirement.
We largely support the proposed revisions to the El Camino Real Focus Area as reflected in
the draft Ordinance. These changes are a meaningful step toward making housing development
in the Focus Area more feasible, increasing the potential for much-needed housing production in
Palo Alto.
However, the on-site BMR requirement greatly compromises the feasibility of delivering a
viable project, and we strongly urge the Council to address this issue before the Ordinance
is adopted on second reading.
Option to Pay BMR In-Lieu Fee
Our prior letter raised the serious concern that a 20% on-site BMR requirement will render projects
in the El Camino Real Focus Area infeasible. Unlike other parts of the City, the Focus Area
requires on-site affordable units with no option to pay an in-lieu fee. We request that the City
Council allow payment of an in-lieu fee consistent with the citywide inclusionary housing
ordinance. The City has proven through studies that the current in-lieu fee is feasible and allows
housing projects to move forward.
The proposed Focus Area Ordinance gives relief to sites that have submitted builder’s remedy
projects, requiring them only to provide 13% BMR on-site. We question why the City is requiring
a more burdensome 20% BMR on-site requirement for sites that did not submit builder’s remedy
projects and instead worked with the City throughout the housing element process. This unfairly
2
burdens certain sites in the Focus Area, especially as the City has not provided any analysis
demonstrating that the 20% on-site requirement is financially feasible. At a minimum, the City
should reduce the on-site requirement for code-compliant projects to 13% BMR – this is a simple
request to be treated the same as other sites within the Focus Area.
Under State law, the City is at risk that HCD will require the City to perform an economic study
to prove that a 20% on-site BMR requirement is financially feasible if the Ordinance passes in its
current form. Under Government Code § 65850.01(a), HCD can require such a study for any
jurisdiction with an inclusionary housing rate of more than 15% if that jurisdiction has not met at
least 75% of its above-moderate RHNA requirement over the past five years. As of its 2024
Housing Element Annual Progress Report, Palo Alto no longer meets this requirement. As a result,
if the Ordinance is enacted as currently drafted, we expect that HCD will require the City to prove
that a 20% on-site BMR requirement is economically feasible. The City would likely be unable to
make that showing, as the City’s own 2020 Financial Feasibility Report prepared by Strategic
Economics already found that a 20% on-site BMR requirement was not financially feasible, and
market conditions have not improved since that time. If the City cannot demonstrate that its 20%
requirement is feasible, it cannot enforce it. The likely outcome will be that this Ordinance is
ultimately deemed unenforceable but reaching that conclusion would require a formal process with
HCD and the preparation of a new study. That process can be avoided by revising the Ordinance
now.
We respectfully request that El Camino Real Focus Area standards be revised to allow for
the option of paying an in-lieu housing impact fee consistent with the City’s PAMC Chapter
16.65 Citywide BMR Affordable Housing Requirements, as allowed in the remainder of the
City, rather than mandating 20% BMR units on-site. This change, along with the revised
development standards in the Focus Area, would make housing projects feasible, and allow
developers like us to move forward, contributing to the City’s affordable housing goals. If
the City decides that BMR units must be provided on-site, we request that the BMR
requirement for code compliant projects be made equal to sites with previous Builder’s
Remedy projects at 13% LI.
* * *
Thank you for your time and attention to this issue. We look forward to continuing to work with
Planning staff and decisionmakers to implement the El Camino Real Focus Area, all in the aim of
creating a more vibrant, diverse and sustainable El Camino Real corridor.
Sincerely,
Laura Bowser
Director, Development
Sand Hill Property Company
From:Laura Bowser
To:Yang, Albert; Council, City; Lait, Jonathan; Armer, Jennifer
Subject:RE: Second Reading of an Ordinance to Amend the El Camino Real Focus Area (June 16, 2025 - Agenda Item
#20)
Date:Friday, June 13, 2025 1:00:31 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Hi Albert,
Thanks for your note. Sand Hill has worked with the City for multiple years to include 3300 El Camino
in the Housing Element and to develop Focus Area standards. Our intent has always been to pursue a
code-compliant project in collaboration with the City – not a builder’s remedy project that bypasses
zoning and public process. Therefore, 3300 El Camino does not have a pending builder’s remedy
application.
It is unreasonable for 3300 El Camino to be held to a 20% on-site LI requirement (which has
previously been deemed infeasible by the City) because we chose to work with the City, while other
neighboring sites who submitted builder’s remedy projects must only provide 13% on-site LI. Our
letter requests that, at a minimum, we be held to the same 13% LI BMR requirement as sites with
pending builder’s remedy applications for consistency and fairness.
We still recommend the City allow all sites in the Focus Area the option to follow existing PAMC
Chapter 16.65 Citywide BMR Affordable Housing Requirements, which allows in-lieu fee payment
instead of providing units on-site. The City has proven this is a feasible standard, which will allow
developers to move forward projects to create much needed housing in the Focus Area.
Let me know if you’d like to have a call to discuss further.
Best,
Laura
From: Yang, Albert <Albert.Yang@paloalto.gov>
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2025 9:18 AM
To: Laura Bowser <lbowser@shpco.com>; Council, City <city.council@PaloAlto.gov>; Lait, Jonathan
<Jonathan.Lait@paloalto.gov>; Armer, Jennifer <Jennifer.Armer@paloalto.gov>
Subject: RE: Second Reading of an Ordinance to Amend the El Camino Real Focus Area (June 16,
2025 - Agenda Item #20)
Good morning Laura,
I’m writing to bring your attention to a provision (PAMC 18.14.020(c)(5)(C)) at the bottom of
page 2 of the proposed ordinance that offers the 13% on-site LI option to projects on a site
with a pending builder’s remedy application. I hope this addresses your concern. Please feel
free to reach out if you have any questions.
Best,
Albert S. Yang | Assistant City Attorney
250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301
P: 650.329.2171 | E: albert.yang@paloalto.gov
This message contains information that may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the
addressee, you may not use, copy or disclose the message or any information contained in the
message. If you received the message in error, please notify the sender and delete the message.
From: Laura Bowser <lbowser@shpco.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2025 6:17 PM
To: Council, City <city.council@PaloAlto.gov>; Lait, Jonathan <Jonathan.Lait@paloalto.gov>; Armer,
Jennifer <Jennifer.Armer@paloalto.gov>; Yang, Albert <Albert.Yang@paloalto.gov>
Subject: Second Reading of an Ordinance to Amend the El Camino Real Focus Area (June 16, 2025 -
Agenda Item #20)
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Councilmembers of the City Council,
Please see attached for our comments regarding the amendments to the El Camino Real Focus Area
under consideration at Tuesday’s meeting.
Best,
Laura
Laura Bowser
Sand Hill Property Company
2600 El Camino Real, Suite 410
Palo Alto, CA 94306
Tel. +1 650 344 1500
From:slevy@ccsce.com
To:Council, City; Lait, Jonathan
Subject:Stepbacks in ECR expansion area
Date:Friday, June 13, 2025 10:49:14 AM
Attachments:Letter to Planning and Transportation Commission-3_12_25_Meeting (3).pdf
Creekside Letter to City Council 5-26-2025 FINAL (1).pdf
Mrn View resi.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
!
Dear Mayor Lauing, council members and staff,
I have followed the ECR expansion discussions and note the 2 attached letters from owners.
I believe we are at risk not only from losing units toward our housing goal, and possibly
making projects no longer feasible, and also note that currently these mixed use projects
are our lost likely and feasible
opportunities to increase our stock of deed restricted BMR units, given the enormous
funding challenges facing 100% BMR projects.
I support approaches that allow applicants to address the concerns about massing without a
rigid 10 foot stepback.
Both the letters from Giovanotto and Creekside letters identify ways to meet the goals of
the stepbacks without the rigid requirement.
And the attached report from Mountain View identifies another flexible approach.
The potential loss of valuable units is very concerning to me especially considering how far
behind our multiple housing goals we are currently.
I know it is a long shot but I encourage council to move this item from consent and add
flexibility to addressing the concerns about massing.
Stephen Levy
This message could be suspicious
The sender's email address couldn't be verified.
Mark Safe Report
Page 1 of 4
Letter to the Planning and Transportation Commission
March 12, 2025, 6pm
To the Members of the Planning and Transportation Commission,
My name is Alex Giovannotto and my family owns several parcels which are under
consideration for inclusion in the El Camino Real Focus Area expansion. We have owned many
of these parcels for over 30 years. We recognize the City's urgent need for housing and share
the vision for a more vibrant, housing-available El Camino Real. To help contribute to this goal,
we have active applications in process to develop two multifamily projects at 3606 and 3781 El
Camino Real, which in total would create over 500 new housing units for Palo Alto.
Our projects are vested under SB330 and Builder’s Remedy. We worked hard to create a project
plan that is viable, can actually be built, and will provide housing for people within the next few
years. That said, the economic challenges facing privately funded housing construction in Palo
Alto are substantial, so much so that, even with our longstanding ownership, an effective
design, and a 13% low-income component under SB330 and Builder’s Remedy, the project only
narrowly crosses the threshold of economic feasibility.
We are excited about being included in the Focus Area expansion, and thank you for
considering our sites. Along with our enthusiasm for being included, we have concerns that
two of the proposed objective design standards would significantly reduce the housing that our
project could provide: (I) the 70% lot coverage maximum, and (II) the 10’ stepback above 55’
along the El Camino Real frontage. We respectfully request the following sensible adjustments
to the proposed standards, which we believe will enhance the community benefit and the
feasibility of our projects within the expanded Focus Area.
Requests for your consideration:
I. Consider an increase of maximum lot coverage from 70% to 80%.
II. Consider that instead of the 10’ step-back requirement, explore the use of material
changes or a smaller step-back to break up the building massing.
Below is a description of the challenges to our project posed by these two currently proposed
objective design standards, along with our recommendations to ensure that the Focus Area
supports housing development and construction feasibility.
I. Lot Coverage Maximum
It is our understanding that the proposed maximum lot coverage is 70%. We are concerned that
this limit significantly reduces the amount of developable space, and the number of achievable
housing units. For example, our proposed project at 3606 ECR, currently designed with 79% lot
coverage, would see a reduction in the number of housing units by 45 if restricted to 70%
coverage. Below is a diagram illustrating how this change would impact the design of 3606 ECR,
which is a 7-story building.
Page 2 of 4
Recommendation for Consideration: We recommend that the City adopt an objective design
standard allowing for up to 80% lot coverage. Our design team has demonstrated that 80% lot
coverage accommodates all C3 stormwater requirements, required setbacks, and additional
exterior building amenities such as bike racks. Given the City’s goal of creating an urban corridor
along El Camino Real, adopting an 80% lot coverage standard would provide sufficient space for
effective stormwater treatments, urban-scale setbacks, and additional on-site housing, all while
aligning with the City’s housing objectives.
II. El Camino Real Stepback
We understand that one of the objective design standards under consideration would require
75% of the building facade along El Camino Real to be set back 10 feet from the primary facade
plane above 55 feet. While we appreciate the intent to create articula ted facades with
appropriate massing, this requirement severely impacts the upper-floor units, reducing the
achievable unit count and increasing construction costs, thereby threatening project feasibility.
Stepbacks introduce internal design challenges. A typical unit in a double-loaded corridor
building has a depth of approximately 30 feet. A required stepback forces significant design
changes, reducing the usable depth of affected units by 10 feet or more. Additionally,
introducing substantial setbacks necessitates a transition from wood -frame to the
incorporation of steel, which is significantly more expensive. Given the scale of these impacts,
the financial feasibility of projects that must conform to these stepback is challenged.
At 3606 El Camino Real, requiring a
maximum of 70% lot coverage
would result in a loss of 45 units. 7
units would be affected on 5 stories.
Note there are 5 stories of housing
over 2 stories of parking.
Page 3 of 4
Recommendations for Consideration: We recognize and support the goal of designing visually
interesting and appropriately scaled buildings along El Camino Real. However, given the width
of the corridor and the nature of the traffic, we believe this area fundamentally supports an
urban condition without the need for significant setbacks.
1. Exterior Material Change: At ‘The Huckley’, a building designed by Studio T Squared in
Redwood City and located on El Camino Real, a transition from brick to stucco at the
third floor along El Camino Real creates the appearance of an upper-story setback
without reducing unit count.
2. Smaller Setback: The minimal 2-foot setbacks used at ‘The Martin’ in Sunnyvale
effectively break up the building volume while preserving the number of achievable
housing units.
3. Tiered Stepback Approach: If a building extends to the property line, a larger stepback
could be required to reduce visual impact and maintain proportionality. Conversely, if a
building is set back from the property line, a smaller stepback could be applied.
At 3606 El Camino Real, a 10-foot setback
on 75% of the façade above 55 feet will
affect 24 units.
Page 4 of 4
We are enthusiastic about the Focus Area expansion and believe it is the right tool to transform
El Camino Real into a vibrant corridor that supports the City’s housing goals. Objective design
standards are a powerful tool for guiding design and creating great places. However, to fully
realize the vision set forth by the City, we urge you to consider a property owner’s perspective
and assess how the proposed lot coverage maximum and the El Camino Real stepback
challenge the feasibility of projects that could otherwise provide substantial housing
opportunities along El Camino Real.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Alex Giovannotto
560 Mission Street, Suite 1900 | San Francisco, CA 94105 | T 415.743.6900 | F 415.743.6910
-743-6990
Atlanta | Austin | Birmingham | Boston | Century City | Charlotte | Chattanooga | Chicago | Dallas | Denver | Fort Lauderdale
Houston | Jacksonville | Los Angeles | Miami | Nashville | Newport Beach | New York | Orlando | Philadelphia | Portland
#522110181_v2
May 26, 2025
ent via email to: City.Council@PaloAlto.gov
Re: SF Creekside, LLC’s Stakeholder Comments on Item 7 Regarding Amendments
to the El Camino Real Focus Area
Dear Councilmembers:
We represent SF Creekside, LLC, an Oxford Capital Group-led joint venture (the “Applicant”) in
connection with its application to redevelop and revitalize the approximately 3.6-acre property at
3398, 3400, and 3490 El Camino Real (the “Property”), including work to demolish and replace
several low-rise buildings with 295 residential units including 20% low income units, hotel use,
and updating the existing structures to remain (the “Project”).
The Project is protected by the Housing Accountability Act (the “HAA”) inclusive of the
“Builder’s Remedy” and was also applied for under the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (“SB 330”).
While the Applicant has used these processes to safeguard its rights under the law, the Applicant
has a track record of listening to City feedback about development on this Property, much of which
has shaped the Project as it exists today. The most significant feedback the Applicant has heard
and implemented is to maintain the existing hotel use, proceeding with a mixed-use project. City
feedback also influenced circulation design – since 2022 the Applicant has shifted proposed
driveway access away from Matadero and instead placed this access on El Camino Real, resulting
in a three-fold benefit to the adjacent R1 properties: (1) shifting the primary access, (2) maintaining
the integrity of Matadero as a Safe Route to School, and (3) breaking up Project massing. The
creation of this break is achieved by shifting the primary access to El Camino Real that splits the
residential and continued hotel uses. Finally, to address feedback about this Project potentially
creating a “food desert”, the Applicant is maintaining at least two existing food and beverages uses
that will serve future residents, hotel guests, and the neighborhood.
The Applicant remains open to City feedback and specifically to transitioning its Builder’s
Remedy Project to an alternative City process, so long as it is feasible and beneficial for both the
May 26, 2025
Page 2
#522110181_v2
City and the Applicant. Specifically, the Applicant team is hopeful that it may be able to use the
El Camino Real Focus Area development standards while still providing the requisite low income
housing, and taking advantage of the City’s “Streamlined Housing Development Project Review
Process.” We understand that the City has a preference for applicants to pursue this route, rather
than using the “Builder’s Remedy.”
On May 27th, the Council will be considering amendments to its Zoning Code and Building
Regulations to modify the El Camino Real Focus Area. While the Applicant’s team is still
evaluating overall feasibility of transitioning to the Focus Area standards for the Project, we have
identified four of the specific recommended updates that would certainly jeopardize the
Applicant’s ability to transition its Project away from the Builder’s Remedy.
On behalf of the Applicant, we therefore request that Council consider modifying these specific
four items during its hearing on the 27th, or delaying its decision until a later date while it further
considers our requested changes. Further details on each of the four items follow.
1. Daylight Plane – 60 Degrees Instead of 45 Degrees, or Consider Averaging/Allowing
Encroachments
We request that a 60-degree daylight plane be applied – this commonly used standard is critical to
achieving enough residential units to maintain the economic feasibility of the Project. A 60-degree
daylight plane has been utilized in the Project’s current site plan. Alternatively, we request that if
Council does impose the 45 degree requirement, that it consider allowing some mitigation factors,
such as: (1) that the daylight plane be averaged over a site; (2) that certain development features
be permitted to encroach into the daylight plane; or (3) allowing a greater than 45-degree daylight
plane even where a site is adjacent to R1 parcel, so long as the applicant can demonstrate negligible
differences in solstice and equinox shadowing over the adjacent parcels.
For sites like this Property (and any others within the Focus Area that are similarly affected by the
Creek), there are development limitations already imposed by the Creek, and an additional 45
degree daylight plane would greatly compromise efficient utilization of the Property and others,
including ability of this Project to meet parking requirements and usable open space requirements.
The Applicant has thus far determined that without a 60 degree daylight plane, this Project’s
Building A would lose 16 total units and also result in fewer 3 bedroom units. There is simply no
other space on this site to accommodate the density needed to maintain the Project’s feasibility.
2. Maximum FAR (Non Residential) – Modify/Reconsider this Restriction
Since receiving City feedback in 2022 to continue a hotel use on this Property, the Applicant
returned with a formal application in 2024 with a mixed use, residential and hotel project that
follows the at least 2/3 residential requirement to qualify for HAA protections. As proposed, the
Project’s hotel component is a combination of new FAR and 2 reused buildings, and together
encompasses less than 1/3 of the proposed FAR.
May 26, 2025
Page 3
#522110181_v2
However, the staff report’s proposal to limit non-residential use to underlying zoning (for this
Property that translates to a 2.0 FAR and 50 foot height limit), would significantly reduce the
proposed hotel FAR for this Project by 40%. As the Project’s feasibility is dependent on both the
residential and hotel uses (and City feedback thus far has been to maintain the hotel use), we
hereby request that the City consider one of a few options to modify this restriction.
First, the restriction on non-residential use could be narrowed to specific commercial uses such as
office use (which we understand to be the intended target of this restriction). Hotel is an existing
use on the Property, and an active revenue generator for the City. Hotel uses are also quasi-
residential in nature, offering transient habitation, thus not entirely a non-residential use of the
property, when compared to other non-residential uses. Forcing a dramatic reduction in the
Project’s hotel use to qualify for use of the Focus Area standards, would not allow the Applicant
to do its part to support expanded food and beverage offerings at this site either, as the assumption
that such uses could be supported is underpinned by the proposal for a specific density of hotel
beds.
Alternatively, Council could reconsider imposing this requirement at all, and instead maintain the
overall 4.0 FAR requirement for the Focus Area, perhaps while instead requiring a 2/3 residential
to commercial balance, to better align proposals with the HAA while achieving the intent of this
restriction.
3. Upper Story Step Back – Consider Alternatives to the 10 Feet
The staff report proposes a 10 foot step back at 55 feet in height – this will greatly reduce density,
whereas other considerations, which could offer a wider variety of solutions while maintaining
“objective” language, can provide similar visual variation but maintain density. For example, we
estimate the 10 foot step back would reduce the Project’s unit count by approximately 4-5%, an
impact that would effectively make the Project economically infeasible in this financial
environment. Further, when combined with a building taking advantage of the full, allowable 85’
limit beginning the step back at a relatively lower 55’ also results in an awkward building
proportion.
Alternatively, to maintain needed density we propose that the City either (1) instead of imposing
a one-size stepback, provide a menu in the Focus Area standards of specific design elements and
articulation methods that achieve visual breaks in the upper floors, such as balconies and other
variations; or (2) imposing a stepback that is more shallow than 10 feet and that only applies if a
building is higher than 5 stories, and only applies to the top 2 stories of any given project, because
of the more harmonious proportions associated with the resultant upper and lower stories.
Finally, the City could consider relaxing this requirement where a building “reads” as transparent,
such as with the use of glazing, glass or otherwise open railings in upper stories. In the Applicant’s
case, the Project designs can be enhanced to feel light despite its number of stories, through
generous use of glazing and balcony articulation.
May 26, 2025
Page 4
#522110181_v2
4. Open Space
The Focus Area standard for open space of 100 square feet per unit is cumbersome. The Project
has already incorporated very large balconies and decks, which add to building articulation across
El Camino Real as well as the sides and rear building facades. The Project goes out of its way to
maximize open space for the enjoyment of all residents by concentrating open space at the
Creekside and on the ground level, and by pushing parking underground. We believe these
qualities are worth far more than meeting an open space standard and will therefore be a more
marketable and successful project when we dedicate project development area to private living
space.
Accordingly, we request that the Focus Area standards allow a “credit”, or usable open space
reduction of 1:1 but no more than 50% of the total requirement, where improvements such as
vegetated areas, park space, naturalized creeks, or other community areas are improvements made
as part of a project. The intent of this language is to acknowledge that the Water District’s creek
will be naturalized as part of the Project (and any others on sites affected by the presence of the
Creek), and that this creates a public benefit and satisfies the intent of the open space requirement.
Thank you for considering our requests and the future of this Project.
Sincerely,
HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
Genna Yarkin
Cc: Sar Peruri SPeruri@oxford-capital.com
Ted O'Hanlon tedohanlon@gmail.com
103City of Mountain View
Chapter 4: Design Guidelines
1. Residential Integration. Where new
residential uses are built in close proximity
to employment uses, the site and building
orientation, setbacks and building materials
should establish buffers (e.g. streets,
landscaping, setbacks, and building design
considerations) to improve land use
compatibility and to avoid and mitigate
potential land use impacts such as noise, light,
and hazardous materials.
2. Ground-Floor Frontages. Residential
frontages should provide moderate
transparency, unit articulation, and clear
distinction between public and private space.
Examples of appropriate frontage types
include: Stoop, Entry Patio, Lobby Entry, and
Forecourt. Guidance for these residential
frontage types is located in the Building
Frontage Types section later in this chapter.
3. Ground-Floor Unit Access. All ground floor
units should have direct pedestrian access to
the adjacent street, sidewalk, path, or open
space. Doors are strongly encouraged to face
public spaces. Units without direct access
should have patios, balconies, or porches.
4. Common Spaces. Lobbies, common amenity
spaces, leasing offices, or similar spaces should
have transparent windows or storefronts.
These spaces should have direct access to
the adjacent street, sidewalk, paths, public
open space, or other publicly accessible areas.
Common spaces should be well lit and inviting.
5. Transparency. Ground floors of residential
buildings should include windows and doors
overlooking the street, sidewalk, common
areas or public spaces. Ground floor common
rooms such as living, dining, family, or foyers
should be oriented towards these public or
common areas to allow visual interaction
between the unit and the sidewalk while
providing an appropriate degree of privacy for
ground-floor residences.
Residential ground floor that activates the pedestrian realm with
porches and other architectural interest
Direct pedestrian access between units and adjacent sidewalk
Well-lit and inviting ground floor residential lobby with direct
access to public space
6. Privacy. Landscaping, grade separation,
and interior shades or blinds should be used
to provide privacy for ground-floor units.
Residential frontages may provide landscaped
areas, stoops, terraces, and/or porches along
the sidewalk to delineate the transition from
public to private space.
4.1.3 Residential Design Guidelines
104 east whisman precise plan
7. Building Bottom, Middle, and Top. Buildings
should be designed with a defined base; middle
or body; and a top, cornice or parapet cap.
Building ground floors should provide a solid
base and strong frontage design. The middle
floors should provide well-proportioned sets
of windows and other elements framed within
the building’s top and bottom. The cornice or
top of the building should provide a strong
architectural termination, definition and visual
interest, and in some cases may include roof
terraces.
8. Façade Articulation. Residential buildings
should have more fine-grained articulation
than office buildings, and/or should include
design features at regular intervals along their
façades to reflect a residential rhythm and
scale. Long building facades should be visually
separated into smaller elements with major
massing breaks, offsets, recesses, staggered
walls, stepped walls, pitched or stepped
rooflines, and other elements as discussed
below.
a. Regular Massing Breaks. Breaks at
least 25’ across should be provided
approximately every 200’ of block face.
A “massing break” should be at least 15’
deep (behind the front façade) and may
include significant building articulation
or a common space such as a forecourt,
courtyard, paseo, or mews. Taller
residential buildings should have fewer
building façade increments than mid-rise
residential buildings.
b. Separate Masses. The mid-rise portion
of buildings should articulate into smaller
massing with breaks in the facade and
changes in the roof line in conjunction
with color and/or materials changes.
Each façade section should be visually
distinguishable from others. Vertical
projections and minor stepbacks at least 3’
deep should be used to visually separate
long facades into smaller intervals (at
intervals of 50’ to 100’).
c. Individual Unit Articulation. In low-rise
buildings, facades may be articulated
through unit-sized increments to express
the scale of individual residential units and
to reduce the apparent mass of the overall
building.
Separating building facades with articulation and design features
d. Roofline Articulation. Buildings should
avoid having a long unchanged roofline.
Building roofs should include regular
horizontal and/or vertical articulation and
varying materials. This can be accomplished
through architectural elements such as
parapets, varying cornices, reveals, and
varying roof height and/or form.
e. Vertical Massing. Residential building
massing may be accentuated with smaller-
scale vertically-oriented elements such as
bays or balcony stacks, emphasizing their
height and access to light and views while
providing a clearly residential building
scale and character.
9. Visual Variation. Variation in color and
materials should be used to create visually
engaging building facades. Projects should
generally use between two and four colors
and/or materials on facades facing streets,
public parks, and public access areas. Colors
and materials must be complimentary and
consistent with the overall architectural style
or theme of the project.
10. Roofs. Rooftops may be composed of common
usable space such as roof decks or terraces, or
cool roofing materials.
105City of Mountain View
Chapter 4: Design Guidelines
Vertical massing of residential buildings is accentuated with
smaller scale vertical elements, emphasizing their height and
access to light and views
Landscaping, low walls and stairs delineate public from private
areas
Appearance of separate massing achieved through change in
colors, materials, and vertical massing breaks
General design guidance for residential frontages
Cr
e
d
i
t
:
V
a
n
M
e
t
e
r
W
i
l
l
i
a
m
s
P
o
l
l
a
c
k
From:Yang, Albert
To:Laura Bowser; Council, City; Lait, Jonathan; Armer, Jennifer
Subject:RE: Second Reading of an Ordinance to Amend the El Camino Real Focus Area (June 16, 2025 - Agenda Item
#20)
Date:Friday, June 13, 2025 9:17:45 AM
Good morning Laura,
I’m writing to bring your attention to a provision (PAMC 18.14.020(c)(5)(C)) at the bottom of
page 2 of the proposed ordinance that offers the 13% on-site LI option to projects on a site
with a pending builder’s remedy application. I hope this addresses your concern. Please feel
free to reach out if you have any questions.
Best,
Albert S. Yang | Assistant City Attorney
250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301
P: 650.329.2171 | E: albert.yang@paloalto.gov
This message contains information that may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the
addressee, you may not use, copy or disclose the message or any information contained in the
message. If you received the message in error, please notify the sender and delete the message.
From: Laura Bowser <lbowser@shpco.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2025 6:17 PM
To: Council, City <city.council@PaloAlto.gov>; Lait, Jonathan <Jonathan.Lait@paloalto.gov>; Armer,
Jennifer <Jennifer.Armer@paloalto.gov>; Yang, Albert <Albert.Yang@paloalto.gov>
Subject: Second Reading of an Ordinance to Amend the El Camino Real Focus Area (June 16, 2025 -
Agenda Item #20)
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Councilmembers of the City Council,Please see attached for our comments regarding the amendments to the El Camino Real Focus Area under consideration at Tuesday’s meeting.Best,LauraLaura BowserSand Hill Property Company2600 El Camino Real, Suite 410Palo Alto, CA 94306Tel. +1 650
i
This message needs your attention
Some Recipients have never replied to this person.
Mark Safe Report
CGBANNERINDICATOR
Councilmembers of the City Council,
Please see attached for our comments regarding the amendments to the El Camino Real Focus Area
under consideration at Tuesday’s meeting.
Best,
Laura
Laura Bowser
Sand Hill Property Company
2600 El Camino Real, Suite 410
Palo Alto, CA 94306
Tel. +1 650 344 1500
From:Laura Bowser
To:Council, City; Lait, Jonathan; Armer, Jennifer; Yang, Albert
Subject:Second Reading of an Ordinance to Amend the El Camino Real Focus Area (June 16, 2025 - Agenda Item #20)
Date:Thursday, June 12, 2025 6:17:12 PM
Attachments:SHP Letter re ECR Focus Area - June 12 2025.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Councilmembers of the City Council,
Please see attached for our comments regarding the amendments to the El Camino Real Focus Area
under consideration at Tuesday’s meeting.
Best,
Laura
Laura Bowser
Sand Hill Property Company
2600 El Camino Real, Suite 410
Palo Alto, CA 94306
Tel. +1 650 344 1500