Item 20 Public Comment — Palo Alto City Council, June 16, 2025

From: [email protected]
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 cautious of 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
[email protected]
| 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 Holland & Knight LLP | www.hklaw.com
Genna Yarkin
+1 415-743-6990
[email protected]

Sent via email to: [email protected]
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 ends

#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 [email protected]
Ted O'Hanlon [email protected]

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: [email protected]

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 <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2025 1:00 PM
To: Yang, Albert <[email protected]>; Council, City <[email protected]>; Lait, Jonathan <[email protected]>; Armer, Jennifer <[email protected]> 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 cautious of 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 <[email protected]
>
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2025 9:18 AM
To: Laura Bowser <[email protected]>; Council, City <[email protected]>; Lait, Jonathan <[email protected]>; Armer, Jennifer <[email protected]> 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: [email protected]

From: Laura Bowser <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2025 6:17 PM
To: Council, City <[email protected]>; Lait, Jonathan <[email protected]>; Armer, Jennifer <[email protected]>; Yang, Albert <[email protected]> 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 cautious of 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
Jonathan Lait
Director, Planning & Development Services
Email: [email protected]
Councilmembers of the City Council,
City of Palo Alto
[email protected]
Jennifer Armer
Asst. Director, Planning & Development
Services
City of Palo Alto
Email: [email protected]

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 t he 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 afford able 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 B uilder’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 cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.

Hi Albert,

Let me know if you’d like to have a call to discuss further.

Best,
Laura

From: Yang, Albert <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2025 9:18 AM
To: Laura Bowser <[email protected]>; Council, City <[email protected]>; Lait, Jonathan <[email protected]>; Armer, Jennifer <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Second Reading of an Ordinance to Amend the El Camino Real Focus Area (June 16, 2025 - Agenda Item #20)

Good morning Laura,

Best,

Albert S. Yang | Assistant City Attorney
250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301
P: 650.329.2171 | E: [email protected]

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of 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: [email protected]
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 cautious of 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
Powered by Mimecast

Page 1 of 4 ends

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 ends

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 articulated 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 ends

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 ends

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 Holland & Knight LLP | www.hklaw.com
Genna Yarkin
+1 415-743-6990
[email protected]

Sent via email to: [email protected]
Re: SF Creekside, LLC’s Stakeholder Comments on Item 7 Regarding Amendments to the El Camino Real Focus Area
Dear Councilmembers:

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 tod ay. 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 ends

#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 27
th, 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 c ompromise 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 P roperty, 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 ends

#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 design s can be enhanced to feel light despite its number of stories, through generous use of glazing and balcony articulation.

May 26, 2025

Page 4 ends

#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 P roject 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 th ese 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 ar ea 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 W ater District’s creek will be naturalized as part of the P roject (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 [email protected]
Ted O'Hanlon [email protected]

103
City 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.
105
City 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
Credit: Van Meter Williams Pollack
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,

Best,

Albert S. Yang | Assistant City Attorney
250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301
P: 650.329.2171 | E: [email protected]

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of 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 cautious of 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

Palo Alto City CouncilJune 16, 2025

Palo Alto City Council
June 16, 2025