Architectural Review Board - October 3, 2024

Board urges higher building limits and lower parking requirements

Palo Alto’s Architectural Review Board urged staff to pursue higher building limits and lower parking requirements as the city revises its Housing Incentive Program, while requesting more analysis of replacing floor-area-ratio caps with other controls. The guidance was nonbinding study-session feedback, and the board took no formal vote.

The Housing Incentive Program is a local alternative to state density bonus law, with developers required to choose one program or the other. Potential amendments would expand eligibility, streamline review for projects meeting objective standards and revise rules governing height, floor area, setbacks, open space, parking and retail preservation. Staff and consultants said their testing indicated that existing standards often produced small townhouse projects unlikely to be financially feasible, while revised standards could support more apartment development.

Members generally supported adding 5 feet to the consultants’ proposed height limits while counting parapets within the maximum height. Several favored retaining a 65-foot limit in the CC-2 district on California Avenue rather than allowing 70 or 75 feet. Members were less settled on eliminating maximum floor-area ratios: a nonbinding straw poll found two in favor, two hesitant and Chair Kendra Rosenberg leaning in favor. Her closing summary described relying instead on height limits, setbacks and daylight planes, but the board requested further analysis before the city proceeds.

The board also discussed a 25-foot, 45-degree daylight plane generally and a lower 16-foot starting point next to low-density residential neighborhoods. Members emphasized privacy protections and objective landscaping standards, particularly where new housing would border lower-density homes. They supported allowing some rooftop open space while retaining at least half of required open space at ground or podium level and applying privacy safeguards.

On parking, members coalesced around requiring half a space per studio or efficiency unit and one space for other units. Staff and the Planning and Transportation Commission were asked to develop a separate guest and service-parking ratio, with some members favoring about one space per 10 units. The board also asked staff to preserve active street-facing ground floors as retail requirements are reduced and to examine whether ramp and dewatering rules could make underground parking more practical.

Public commenters generally supported stronger incentives to improve housing feasibility, while calling for additional modeling of larger sites and monitoring after implementation. Staff and consultants will convey the board’s feedback to the Planning and Transportation Commission and return with follow-up after its next hearing.

Primary sources

Watch the meeting on YouTube · Read the official meeting agenda