HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-06-29 City Council (11)City of Palo Alto
City Manager’s Report
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
CITY MANAGER
10
DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
JUNE 29,~ 1998 CMR:289:98
4100-4120 EL CAMINO REAIJ: ZONE CHANGE APPLICATION BY
CLASSIC COMMUNITIES TO REZONE THE PROPERTY FROM
RM-15 AND RM-30 TO A PLANNED COMMUNITY (PC) ZONE TO
ALLOW THE DEMOLITION OF AN EXISTING VACANT FORMER
"CARD CLUB" AND ACCESSORY BUILDINGS TOTALING 4,850
SQUARE FEET AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 26-UNIT
RESIDENTIAL TOWNHOUSE DEVELOPMENT AND RELATED
SITE IMPROVEMENTS
RECOMMENDATION
Staff, the Architectural Review Board, and the Planning Commission recommend that the
City Council:
1.Approve the attached Mitigated Negative Declaration (Attachment 1), finding that the
proposed project will not result in any significant environmental impacts if certain
mitigation measures and conditions of approval are imposed; and
2.Approve the proposed project for construction of the 26-unit townhouse development
and related site improvements, consisting of a Planned Community rezoning (see
proposed ordinance, in Attachment 2) and subject to the attached conditions
(Attachment 3).
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant has requested approval of a rezoning of the property at 4100-4120 El Camino
Real (see Attachment 4, Location Map) to Planned Community (PC) consistent with the
plans titled "Planned Community Application, Classics at Barron Park," dated April 22,
1998, to allow the construction of 26 townhouses. A Design Enhancement Exception (DEE)
CMR:289:98 Page 1 of 4
to accommodate a special covered parking arrangement and minor intrusions into daylight
planes was granted by the Architectural Review Board on April 2, 1998.
The project would be accessed from three interior streets: a primary access road generally
perpendicular to E1 Camino Real, a shorter road forming a "T" with the primary access road
towards the rear of the property, and a third interior road running adjacent and parallel to El
Camino Real, resulting in seven project units facing the site’s E1 Camino Real frontage. A
median with sidewalk, a double row of trees, granite monoliths with a hedge growing
between them to form a living fence, benches, a kiosk, and landscape strips are proposed to
separate the interior street from E1 Camino Real.
The units are designedto resemble traditional row houses and would appear to be attached,
although a six-inch separation would be provided between each unit. Twenty-three of the
units would be approximately 1,600 square feet and three stories. Units 1, 9, and 14 would
be approximately 1,300 square feet and two stories. All units are proposed to have individual
fenced back yards. All of the units would have two car garages, 16 of them in a tandem
arrangement. The architectural style is intended to resemble a traditional architectural style
found in.some portions of the Barron Park neighborhood.
An approximately 2,000-square-foot public open space has been provided between Units 21
and 22 that includes a barbeque, landscaping, and a fountain. A pedestrian connection to the
residential project on Goebel Avenue that was recently approved by the Architectural Review
Board is also provided.
The project is consistent with all the site development requirements of the PC district except
the daylight plane intrusions addressed in the application for a DEE approved by the ARB.
An application for a tentative map to subdivide the property into 26 lots, all fronting on a
commonly held private access road, has been made separate from this request for a PC
rezoning.
BOARD AND COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The project was reviewed by the Planning Commission at a public hearing on January 28,
1998 (see Attachment 5, January 28, 1998 Planning Commission staff report; and
Attachment 6, January 28, 1998 Planning Commission minutes). The Planning Commission
recommended that the project be sent forward to the ARB. The ARB reviewed and
recommended approval of the project, subject to conditions, on April 2, 1998 (see
Attachment 7, April 2, ,1998 ARB staff report, and Attachment 8, April 2, 1998 ARB
minutes). The Planning Commission reviewed the project again on May 13, 1998 and
recommended approval of the project, subject to conditions (see Attachment 9, May 13, 1998
Planning Commission staff report, and Attachment 10, May 13, 1998 Planning Commission
CMR:289:98 Page 2 of 4
minutes). All conditions of project approval by the ARB and Planning Commission that
require physical changes to the project have been incorporated into a revised site plan.
Significant issues raised by the project have included intrusions into daylight planes, the
provision and location of public open space, the amount of back-up space provided for
parking, the location of garbage storage, and the pedestrian and bicycle connection to the
adjoining, recently-approved development on Goebel Avenue. All of these issues have been
resolved to the satisfaction of the Planning Commission, the Architectural Review Board,
and. City staff.
The proposed public benefits have been supported by both staff and the Planning
Commission and include the following: 1) the provision of a traffic reduction program
intended to encourage the use of alternative travel modes, 2) additional landscape treatment
along El Camino Real to improve the pedestrian quality of the project frontage, and 3) the
provision of 1.4 extra BMR units beyond those which are required.
CITY COUNCIL .TIMELINE
City Council action on the PC Zone change is final. The application for the accompanying
Tentative Map is tentatively scheduled for July 8, 1998 at the Planning Commission and
August 3, 1998 at City Council.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The project is subject to environmental review under provisions of the Califomia
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). An environmental impact assessment was prepared for
the project and determined that the project would have a less than significant impact on the
environment and that a Mitigated Negative Declaration should be prepared. The Mitigated
Negative Declaration was made available for public review from January 8, 1998 through
January 28, 1998 and can be found in Attachment 1.
ATTACHMENTS/EXHIBITS:
Attachment 1:
Attachment 2:
Attachment 3:
Attachment 4:
Attachment 5:
Attachment 6:
Attachment 7:
Attachment 8:
Attachment 9:
Attachment 10:
Attachment 11 :
Plans (City
Mitigated Negative Declaration
Proposed PC Ordinance
Proposed Conditions of Approval
Location Map
January 28, 1998, Planning Commission StaffReport
January 28, 1998 Planning Commission Minutes
April 2, 1998 Architectural Review Board Staff Report
April 2, 1998 ARB Review Minutes
May 13, 1998 Planning Commission Staff Report
May 13, 1998 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Findings of Consistency with the El Camino Real Design Guidelines
Council Members only)
CMR:289:98 Page 3 of 4
PREPARED BY: Brian Dolan, Senior Planner
DEPARTMENT HEAD:
ANNE CRONIN MOORE
Interim Director of Planning and
Community Environment
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
EMIL~ HARI~ON
Assistant City Manager
Courtesy Copies:
Barron Park Neighborhood Association, Will Beckett, 4189 Baker Avenue, Palo Alto, CA,
94306
Barron Square Homeowners, PML Mgrnt. Corporation, 655 Mariners Island Blvd., San
Mateo, CA, 94404
Palo Alto School District, Business Manager, 25 Churchill Avenue, Palo Alto, CA, 94306
Classic Communities, 1068 East Meadow Circle, Palo Alto, CA, 94303
Trapani Family Trust, C\O Bay 101, 1801 Bering Drive, San Jose, CA 95112
Rick Hansen (Blockbuster Video), 4102 E1 Camino Real, Palo Alto, CA 94306
Janet Stone, Mid-Peninsula Housing Coalition, 658 Bair Island Road #300, Redwood City,
CA 94063
Jeffrey Levin, 350 Second Street, Suite 7, Los Altos, CA, 94022
CMR:289:98 Page 4 of 4
ATTACHMENT 1
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
1, Project Title:
2. Lead Agency Name and Address:
Classics at Barron Park
City of Palo Alto Planning Division
250 Hamilton Avenue, Fifth Floor
Palo Alto CA 94301
3. Contact Person and Phone Number:Brian Dolan, Senior Planner
(415) 329-2149
4. Projec{ Location:4100-4120 El Camino Real
5. Application Number(s):97-ZC-10, 97-ARB-13,97-DEE-6, & 97-EIA.-38
6. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address:Classic Communities
1068 East meadow Circle
Palo Alto, CA 94303
7. General Plan Designation:Multiple Family Residential
8. Zoning:RM-30 and RM-15
Description of the Project: The applicant has requested approval of a rezoning of the
property to Planned Community (PC) consistent with the development plan titled
"Conceptuai Site Plan, Classics at Barron Park," dated November 11, 1997.
The proposed project would contain 27 townhouses designed to resemble traditional
row houses. Each unit would contain a small front porch and a fenced back yard,
accessed from the garage or from stairways from the second story living area. All
units would be three stories, contain three bedrooms, and would be approximately
1,600 square feet.
Six of the units would contain typical two car garages while the remainder would
contain tandem garages that would appear to be one car garages from the street.
Twelve uncovered guest parking spaces are proposed to be located scattered
throughout the site.
Se~en of the units would face El Camino Real and would be accessed by a 17-18
foot wide frontage road. The remaining 20 units would be accessed from two
S:\EA.\41 OOEICamino.EIA
Page 1
97-EA.-38
interior onsite roads.
The proposed on-site access road (i.e. the frontage road) would be separated from
El Camino Real by.a 15 foot wide median containing a four foot wide sidewalk and
landscape strips on each side. Each strip would contain a row of street trees with
staggered spacing approximately 25 feet apart and additional landscaping. A row of
granite monoliths are proposed along the western edge of the sidewalk, and benches,
an information kiosk, and a seating area with trellis are proposed along the median.
A row of screen trees and a six foot fence are proposed to be located around the
edge of the project in back yards of the individual units. Rows of trees are proposed
to be planted in the front yards of each unit to serve as interior street trees. Each
unit would also include additional landscaping in their front yards.
10.Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The project site is comprised of three flat lots,
is generally "L"-shaped, and contains 1.52 acres. It has approximately 260 feet of
frontage on El Camino Rea!. The site currently contains the structure .that was
previously occupied by the Cameo Club card room and a smaller accessory structure.
The old Cameo Club structure is located within a few feet of the El Camino Real
street frontage and the accessory structure is located towards the rear of-the
property along the northern property line. Both structures are dilapidated and are
proposed to be removed. Most of the site is paved and striped for parking but the
pavement is in disrepair. Surrounding land uses include several retail stores across
El Camino Real to the east, a condominium development to the south on El Camino
(Barron Square), single family homes on Verdosa Drive to the west, a proposed new
single family subdivision to the north on Goebel Avenue, and a Blockbuster Video
Store on El Camino Real to the north.
11.Other public agencies whose approval is required: Access onto El Camino Real and
improvements in the right-of-way will require review and approval by Caltrans.
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project as
indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Land use and Planning
Population and
Housing
Geological Problems
Biological Resources X
Energy and Mineral
Resources
Aesthetics
Cultural Resources
Hazards Recreation
S:\EA.\4100EICamino.EIA
Page 2
97-EA.-38
X
Air Quality
X Transportation and
Circulation
Noise
Public Services
Utilities and Service
Systems
Mandatory Findings of
Significance
S :\EA.\4100EICamino. EIA
Page 3
97-EA.-38
DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment,
and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described
on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at
least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to
apphcable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the
earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant
Impact" or "Potentia!ly Significant Unless Mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a signifi.cant effect on the environment,
there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects
(1) have been analyzed in an earlier EIR "pursuant to applicable standards and (2) have been
avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures
that .are imposed upon the proposed project.
X
ject
Director of Planning & Community Environment Date
S :\EA.\4100EICamino.EIA
Page 4
97-EA.-38
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
b)Conflict with apphcable environmental plans or policies
adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project?
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?
d)Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impact
to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land
uses)?
e)Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or
minori.ty community)?
2, POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a)Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population
projections?
b)Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area
or major infrastructure?
c)Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing?
1,2
1
3
3
3
3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving:
3,4
3,4
3,4
3,4
3,4
a) Fault rupture?
b) Seismic ground shaking?
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard?
e) Landslides or mudflows?
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
x I
X
X
S:\EA,\4100EICamino.EIA
Page 5
97-EA.-38
f Erosion, cr~anges in topography or unstable soil 3,4 X
conditions from excavation, grading or fill?
g Subsidence of the land?3,4 X
h Expansive soils?3,4 X
I1 Unique geologid or physical features?3,4 X
4.WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a)Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the 3 X
rate and amount of surface runoff?
b)Exposure of people or property to water related hazards 3,4 X
such as flooding?
3 Xc)Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality, including but not limited to
temperature, dissolved oxygen, turbidity or other
typical storm water pollutants (e.g. sediment and
debris from construction, hydrocarbons and metals
from vehicle use, nutrients and pesticides from
landscape maintenance?
d)Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
body or wetland?
e}Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements, in marine or freshwater, or wetlands?
f)Change in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or through"
interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or
through substantial loss of groundwater recharge
capability?
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
h)Impacts to groundwater quality through infiltration of
reclaimed water or storm water runoff that has
contacted pollutants from urban or industrial activities?
Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for~ public water supplies?
j)Alteration of wetlands in any way?
3
3
3
3
3
3
.3
5.AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a)V=olate any air quality standard or contribute to an
exiting or projected air quality violation?
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
S:\EA.\4100EICamino.EIA
Page 6
97-EA.-38
Ib) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants 3 X I
c~ Alter a~" movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause 3 X I
any change in chmate?
I
d., Create objectionable odors?3 X I
6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion?3,6,8 X
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp 3 X
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g. farm equipment))?
c)Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby 3 X
uses?
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?3,6 X
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?3 X
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative 3 X
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts?3 X
7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result reduction or interference in:
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats 3 X
(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects,
animals or birds)?
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?3,7.X
c)Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak 3 X I
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)?
~) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool?3 X
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors?3 X I
8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?3 X
b)Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and 3 X
inefficient manner?
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral 3 X
resource that would be of future value to the region
and the residents of the State?
9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
S:\EA.\4100EICamino.EIA
Page 7
97-EA.-38
a~A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous
substances (including, but not limited to: oil,
pest~cicles, chemicals or radiation)?
b;Possible in[erference with an emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan?
The creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazard?
d)Exposure of people" to existing .sources of potential
health hazards?
e)Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass of trees?
3
3
X
X
10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increase in existing noise levels?
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
3
3,5 X
11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result inaneed for new or altered
government services in any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection?3 X
b) Police protection?3 X I
c) Schools?3,4 X
d)Maintenance of public facilities, including roads or 3 X I
storm drain facilities?
e) Other governmental services?3 X I
12.UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or
substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas?3 X
b) Communications systems?3 X
c)Local or regional water treatment or distribution 3 X
facilities?
d) Sewer or septic tanks?3 X
e) Storm water drainage or storm water quality control?3 X
f) Solid waste disposal?3 X
g) Local or regional water supplies?3 X
S:\EA.\4100EICamino.EIA
Page 8
97-EA.-38
13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect?3
c) Create hght or glare?3 X
14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources?3,4 X
b) Disturb archaeological resources?3,4 X
c) Affect historical resources?3,4 X
d)Have the potential to cause a physical change which 3,4 X
would affect unique ethnic cultural values?
e)Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the 3,4 X
potential impact area?
15. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a)Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks 3,4 X
or other recreational facilities?
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities?3 X
16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a)Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality
of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a
fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population
tO drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate
a plant or animal community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal
or eliminate important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
b)Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term,
to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals?
c)Does the project have impacts that are individually
hmited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection with
the effects of the past projects, the effects of other
current projects, and the effects of probable future
projects)
X
X
S:\EA.\4100ElCamino.EIA
Page 9
97-EA.-38
d) Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either d~rectly or indirectly?
S:\EA.\4100EICamino.EIA
Page 10
97-EA.-38
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1. Land Use
c) Conflict with surrounding land uses
The project is surrounded by residential development and commercial development which are generally
not incompatible with medium density housing. Proposed project fencing and landscape screening
fencing would prevent significant land use conflicts.Potential conflicts relating to lighting are
discussed below under Light and Glare.
Mitigation. None required.
2. Geologic Problems.
a} Subject to fault r~pture. No known faults cross the project site and therefore_fault rupture on the
site is unlikely.
Mitigati.on measures. None required.
b) Subjec~..~o groundshaking.
The entire state of California is in a seismically active area, and the site is located in an area subject
to strong groundshaking in the event of an earthquake. All new construction will be subject to the
provisions of the most current Uniform Building Code (UBC) which are directed at minimizing seismic
risk and preventing loss of life and property in the event of an earthquake.
Mitigation Measures. None required.
c) Sub_iect...to seismic ground failure.
Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction and subsidence of the land are’ possible, but not likely
at this site. All new construction will be subject to the provisions of the most current Uniform Building
Code (UBC) which are directed at minimizing seismic risk and preventing loss of life and property in
the event of an earthquake.
Mitigal;ion Measures. None required.
4.a Water
Change in absorption r~tes, drainage pa!;1;ern~
The proposed project would result in a similar amount of impervious surface as the existing site and
therefore would not substantially increase the amount of surface runoff. The standard conditions of
approval would require that a drainage plan be submitted which includes drainage patterns on the site
and from adjacent properties.
S :\EA,\4100EICamino.EIA
Page 11
97-EA.o38
Mitiqatior~ measures. None required.
b. Exposure to floodinq.
The project site is not located in a Special Flood Hazards Area (SFHA).
Mitigation measures. None required.
c. Alteration of surface water auality
The addition of automobile traffic and human activity to the site, as well as disturbance to the site
during construction wouldl increase the potential for pollutants to be introduced into surface runoff.
Standard drainage System requirements imposed by the City of Palo Alto Public Works Department
would prevent these increases from becoming significant adverse impacts. Standard conditions of
approval would also require the construction contractor to incorporate best management practices for
stormwater pollution prevention in all construction operations, in conformance with the Sarita Clara
Valley Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program.
Mitiqation measures. None required.
5. Air Quality
a. Contribute to current ai.r quality standard
Project automobile trip generation and related emmissions would be not be considered a significant
impact because they would not exceed thresholds established by the Santa Clara County Congestion
Management Agency (CMA) and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Standard conditions
of approval for construction projects will require that dust control measures be employed at the site
to reduce dust emissions to less than significant levels.
Mitiqation.measures. None required.
6. Transportation/Circulation
a. Increased vehicle trips or congestion
The project Traffic Study prepared by Meyer, Mohades Associates for the applicant and review by the
City of Palo Alto Transportation Division, estimates that the project would generate approximately 20
AM peak hour and 27 PM peal hour trips to the local road system. This level of traffic will have no
significant adverse effect on the operation of the local circulation system.
Mitiqation. None required.
d. Insufficient p...arkincj
Page 12
S :\EA.\4100EIC amino. EIA 97 -EA .-38
The guest parking stall at the north end of the frontage road, and the four perpendicular guest spaces
are are unacceptable due to inadequate back up space.
Because these spaces are not acceptable, the project would have inadequate project unit and guest
parking, which would be a significant adverse impact. There appears to be sufficient room to provide
the additional back up space on the site.
Mitigation Measure. The project must be revised to provide adequate backup space for all parking
spaces.
7. Biolo.gical Resources
The project contains fourteen trees of various species and sizes. None of the species is rare or
endangered or otherwise locally protected. While all but three of the trees will be removed, their
removal does not comprise a significant adverse environmental impact.
10. Noi,.s,e
b. Exposure to noise
The proposed development is located along El Camino Real which generates average noise levels of
approximately 69 decibels at the proposed setback of the units. Future noise levels along El camino
are expected to reach 70 decibels. Compliance with City and State standards for residential interior
noise can beacheived acheived by using sound rated windows (minmum Sound Transmission clasds
rating of 31 ) for those rooms facing El Camino Real. Exterior noise levels in the back yards of the units
can meet the City Standard for exterior noise in residential land uses primarily due to buffering of the
yards by the units themselves. The yards for Units 1, 2, 23, and 27 should be fenced with a six foot
high solid fence (designed per project noise study) td prevent noise flanking around the sides of the
units into the yards.
Mitigation Measures: Implement the recommendations of the project noise study (prepared by Charles
M. Salter Associates, August 1997) relating to sound rated windows, ventilation systems, and noise
walls/fences.
11. Public Services
Impact to schools
Based on PAUSD student generation factors, the project is anticipated to generate approximately eight
elementary school student, three middle school students, and three high school age children. The
project will be required to pay a school impact fee to the Palo Alto School District that will partially
offset the impact of the additional enrollment to less than significant levels.
Mitigation Measures. None required
13. Aesthetics
S :\EA.\4100EICamino.EIA
Page 13
97-EA.-38
b, Cr#at.e liqht ,or glare
Exterior lighting from the the individual project units, security lighting in guest parking areas, and
street lighting on interior project streets may be visible from adjacent residential development to the
south, west, and northwest. No specific lighting plan has been prepared at this time so the extent
of such. impacts is unknown. It is possible that the effects of such lighting could be considered a
significant averse impact to project neighbors.
Mitigation Measure: All lighting street and individual street lighting for the project should be designed
to illuminate only the project site. Proposed lighting should be designed to be sheilded from view from
surrounding residential uses.
15. Recreation
a. Increased demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities
The proposed project would provide housing for approximately 81 residents based on City average
persons per household. This minor increase in population would not generate significant needs for
additional park land.
The Comprehensive Plan standard for distance from neighborhood parks is one half mile. The p~oject
site is located approximately one half mile from Briones Park on Maybell Avenue. It is also within
approximately one half mile of Don Secundino Robles Park on the opposite side of El Camino Real.
Mitigation Measures. None required.
INITIAL STUDY ,,SOURCE LIST:
1)City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, 1980-1995
2)City of Palo Alto Zoning Ordinance
3)Planner’s knowledge of the project and area of proposed development
4)City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update Draft Environmental Impact Report
5)Cameo Club Residential Development Noise study, Charles M. Salter Associates, August 1, 1997
6)Classics of Palo Alto Residential Traffic Study Final Report, Meyer, Mohades Associates,
November 5, 1997
7) Analysis of the Health and Structure of Trees At 4100-4120 El Camino Real, Palo Alto, Barrie D.
Coate and Associates, May 1, 1997
8) Transportation Division Staff’s knowledge of the project area and proposed development
S:\EA.\41 OOEICamino.EIA
Page 14
97-EA.-38
ATTACHMENT 2
ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
AMENDING SECTION 18.08.040 OF THE PALO ALTO
MUNICIPAL CODE (THE ZONING MAP) TO CHANGE THE
CLASSIFICATION OF PROPERTY KNOWN AS 4100 AND 4120
EL CAMINO REAL FROM RM-15 and RM-30 TO PC-PLANNED
COMMUNITY
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as
follows:
SECTION I.
(a) The Planning Commission, after a duly noticed public
hearing held May 13, 1998, and the Architectural Review Board, upon
consideration at its meeting of April 2, 1998, have recommended
that Section 18.08.040 (the Zoning Map) of the Palo Alto Municipal
Code be amended as hereinafter set forth.
(b) The Council, after due consideration of the
recommendations, finds that the proposed amendment is in the public
interest and will promote the public health, safety and welfare, as
hereinafter set forth.
SECTION 2 Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal
Code, the "Zoning Map," is hereby amended by changing the zoning of
certain property known as 4100 and 4120 E1 Camino Real (the
"subject property") from "RM-15 Low Density Multiple Family
Residence District" and "RM-30 Medium Density Residence District"
to "PC Planned Community." The subject property, consisting of
approximately 1.52 acres, is shown on the map labeled Exhibit "A,"
attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
SECTION 3. The City Council hereby finds with respect to
the subject property that:
(a) The site is so situated, and the uses and
improvements proposed for the subject property are of such
characteristics that the application of general districts or
combining districts will not provide sufficient flexibility to
allow the proposed residential development, in that neither the
existing RM-15 and RM-30 zoning districts, nor any other
residential zone, allow a residential project of this design.
Specifically, the conventional zoning districts cannot accommodate
the proposed setbacks or units from the proposed project lot lines,
the proposed intrusions into daylight planes on the interior lot
lines, and the proposed lot sizes and widths.
980506 apc 0051974
(b) Development of the site under the provisions of the
PC Planned Co~unity District will result in public benefits not
otherwise attainable by application of general districts or
combining districts, as follows:
(i) The provision of a Traffic Reduction Program
that will encourage residents of the development to use alternative
methods of transportation.
(ii) Pedestrian-Oriented Landscape Treatment on E1
Camino Real. The project will provide a reconfigured street tree,
sidewalk, and landscape treatment along the El. Camino Real
frontage, which goes beyond the scope and type of landscape work
which would ordinarily be required of such a project. This
treatment will include a landscape strip on each side of the
sidewalk, granite monoliths, and a double row of street trees.
This treatment will replace the single row of street trees in the
existing tree wells along the project’s E1 Camino Real frontage.
(iii) BMRunits. The project as developed under the
PC Planned Community District will provide a total of four (4)
Below Market Rate (BMR) housing units. The BMR requirement for
this twenty-six unit project is 2.6 units. The additional 1.4 BMR
units represents a public benefit.
(c) The uses permitted and the site development
regulations applicable within the district are consistent with the
Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, and with the mix of uses which
presently exist in the surrounding neighborhood. Specifically, the
project would be consistent with the following portions of the Palo
Alto Comprehensive Plan:
(i) Housing Element Policy #3: "Protect and enhance
those qualities which make Palo Alto’s neighborhoods especially
desirable." The project is located in a neighborhood that features
a mix of single and multiple family residences and commercial uses.
The project will provide additional housing opportunities within
walking distance to commercial services in the area and near a
major transit corridor on E1 Camino Real.
(ii) Housing Element Policy #7: "Encourage and
foster the development of new and existing housing units affordable
to the low, moderate, and middle-income households, especially
those with children." The project will provide Below Market Rate
units that will contribute to the supply of affordable housing.
(iii) Housing Element Policy #13: "Increase funding
sources used to provide affordable housing." The project will
provide Below Market Rate (BMR) units that will contribute to the
980506 ape 0051974
2
supply of affordable housing. Specifically, the project would
provide four (4) three-bedroom units for f~Lilies.
(iv) Urban Design Element, Objective, page 42,
"Promote the orderly and harmonious development of the City and the
attainment of the most desirable land use and improvements through
the review of new development.." The site is designated Multiple
Family Residential and is suitable for this use. The site is
adjacent to and compatible with a variety of multiple family
residential and single family developments in the vicinity. The
site plan provides setbacks and screening, using fences and
landscaping, to buffer the project from adjacent residential and
other~uses.
(v) Urban Design Element, Policy 3, "Promote visual
aesthetics through tree planting, landscaped areas, and removal of
visually disruptive elements on major city streets." The project
provides a substantial increase in street trees and landscaping,
and would replace a highly visible dilapidated structure and
unmaintained lot on E1 Camino Real.
SECTION 4. Those certain plans entitled "Classics at
Barron Park Planned Community Application," prepared by
Bassenian/Lagoni Architects, dated April 22, 1998, and approved by
the Architectural Review Board on April 2, 1998, copy on file in
the Planning Division office, and to which copy reference is hereby
made, are hereby approved as the Development Plan .for the subject
property, pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.68.120.
Said Development Plan is approved for the following uses, and
subject to the following conditions:
(a) Permitted ..Uses. The permitted uses shall be limited
to single family use (and permitted accessory uses allowed in the
RM-30 zone), including twenty-six (26) residential units totaling
approximately 44,000 square feet, private residential yards, public
open space, guest parking, and interior circulation.
(b)
permitted.
Conditional Uses.No conditional uses shall be
(c) Site Development Regulations. All improvements and
development shall be substantially in accordance with the approved
Development Plan and the Conditions of Project Approval adopted by
the Council in conjunction with approval of this ordinance. The
following are site development regulations which establish rules
for modifications or additions to any building, accessory structure
or landscaping on the subject property. Definitions of terms used
shall be in accordance with Chapter 18.04 (Definitions) of Title 18
(Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code.
980506 apc 0051974
3
(i) Final plans, including materials and colors,
complete lighting and photometric plans, detailed landscaping and
irrigation plans encompassing on- and off-site plantable areas, and
signs shall be reviewed and approved by the Architectural Review
Board ("ARB") prior to issuance of building permits. All utility
meters, lines, transformers, backflow preventers, electric panel
switchboards, and any other required utilities shall be shown on
the final plans and shall show that no conflict will occur between
the utilities and landscape materials and shall be screened in a
manner which respect the building design and setback requirements.
(ii) Any other exterior changes .to the buildings
or any new construction not specifically permitted by the
Development Plan~ or by these site development regulations shall
require an amendment to this Planned Community Zone or, if
eligible, approval under Chapter 18.99 of the Municipal Code.
Landscaping in rear yards, spas, patios covering less than fifty
percent (50%) of the rear yard, decks no greater than two (2) feet
above grade, building colors, and skylights, may be installed
and/or modified without approval by the Architectural Review Board.
(iii) The approved Development Plan permits some
tree removal and requires the preservation and protection of
specified trees within the development. No future development or
improvement proposed for the subject property following initial
construction authorized by Architectural Review Approval shall
result in the removal or destruction of trees without the approval
of the City of Palo Alto in accordance with applicable procedures.
(d) Parking and Loading Requirements The parking for
the subject property shall be in accordance with the approved
Development Plan.
(e)Special,,Conditions.
(i) Traffic.Reduction Program. The applicant shall
provide a traffic reduction program as specified in the Program
Development Statement and which shall include, at a minimum,
provision of each home buyer with a one-year VTA pass and a new
bicycle.
(ii) Street Trees ..and Landscaping. This project
was approved in part because that it will provide a pedestrian-
oriented landscape treatment along the E1 Camino Real frontage
which is intended to enhance the pedestrian environment in front of
~ the project. The special landscape treatment is shown on the
Landscape Concept Plan, prepared by Gates and Associates, revised
April 15, 1998. In addition to the row of street trees and
landscape strip that would normally be required along the project
frontage, the special treatment includes a second landscape strip
980506 a~ 0051974
and row of street trees on the project side of the sidewalk,
granite monoliths, two or more wood benches, an information kiosk,
and a special colored concrete treatment of the sidewalk.
(iii) Below Market Rate (BMR) Housing Requirement.
In conformance with the City’s Below Market Rate (BMR)
requirements (Program #13, Housing Element, Palo Alto Comprehensive
Plan), the project shall provide four (4) three-bedroom units to be
included in the City’s BMR program, and subject to the standard
requirements and deed restrictions applicable to for sale units
placed in the BMR program. The units shall be units 4, 7, 20 and
24 as shown on the "Conceptual Site Plan Cameo Club," prepared by
Bassenian/Lagoni Architects, dated July 2, 1997. The units shall
also be shown on the final subdivision map prior to consideration
by City Council.
The design, construction, materials, finishes,
windows, hardware, light fixtures, landscaping, irrigation,
appliances and like features of the BMR units shall be comparable
to all other units in the project. The owners of the BMR units
shall have access to all facilities, amenities, parking and storage
as provided to other owners in the project.
The initial sales price of each of the three-
bedroom units shall be $187,550. These prices were determined
utilizing the City of Palo Alto current Housing Price Guidelines
(effective May I, 1996). The price list is adjusted annually. The
greater of the sales prices set forth above or the applicable
prices in effect at the time of final map approval shall be the
initial sales price of the BMR units. The price and terms
(including buyer qualification) of subsequent sales shall be
subject to the requirements of the BMR deed restrictions.
The provisions of this condition e.(iii) have
been negotiated between the City and the project applicant, and are
based upon that letter from the Director of Planning and Community
Environment to Scott Ward dated September 7, 1997, and signed by
Mr. Ward on February 5, 1998. In the event of conflict between the
letter and this Ordinance, the terms of this Ordinance shall
prevail. The provisions were negotiated based upon the
understanding that the project will consist of for-sale residential
units. In the event that the project is to be used for rental
purposes a new BMR agreement must be negotiated with the City prior
to occupancy.
(f) Development Schedule. Construction of the project
shall commence on or before July i, 1998, and shall be completed
and ready for occupancy on or before September I, 2001.
980506 apc 0051974
(g) Mitigation Measures. All mitigation measures
described in the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project
shall be implemented as conditions of project approval, and the
Mitigation Reporting and Monitoring Program shall be implemented.
SECTION 5. The Council finds that this project, as
mitigated, will not have a significant environmental effect.
SECTION 6. This ordinance shall be effective on the
thirty-first day after the date of its adoption.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:APPROVED:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
Mayor
City Manager
Interim Director of Planning
and Community Environment
980506 ap0 0051974
6
ATTACHMENT 3
CONDITIONS OF PROJECT APPROVAL
4100-4120 EL CAMINO REAL
The project Grading and Drainage Plan shall be revised to reflect the following
changes to the satisfaction of the Public Works-Engineering Division, prior to
scheduling the application for hearing with the City Council.
a.Fossil filters shall be installed in catch basins located in paved areas.
The Grading and Drainage Plan shall show spot elevations of existing grades
on adjacent properties to show how drainage patterns work in the
neighborhood. Design of the grading and drainage shall not interfere with the
existing drainage patterns on adjacent properties.
Drain inlets must be placed in each lot. A private drainage easement will be
required to maintain the existence of these facilities.
The Conceptual Site Plan shall be revised subject to the approval of the Planning
Division to eliminate the raised curb between the parking space and the El Camino
Real property line to provide more back-lap space and easier access to and from the
parking space.
s:\plan\pladiv\PCSR\4100ecr.bd 01-28-98
PF
ATTACHMENT 4
ect: 4100-A120 El Camino Real
..-, RM-15
RM-30
73¢
Graphic Attachment
to Stzff Report
pC-2656
ATTACHMENT 5
PLANNING DIVISION
MEMORANDUM
TO:PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM:Brian Dolan DEPARTMENT: Planning
AGENDA DATE:January28,1998
SUBJECT:4!00-4.120. El Camino Real: Preliminary review of an
application for a Zone Change to the Planned Community
(PC) Zone to allow the demolition of an existing vacant
former "Card Club" and accessory building totaling 4,850
square feet and construction of a new 27 unit residential
townhouses and related site improvements. File Nos. 97-
ARB-137; 97-ZC-10; 97-EIA-38, 97-DEE-6.
RECOMMENDATION
Staffrecommends that the Planning Commission proyide comments on the project and
forward the application to the Architectural Review Board for review and comment.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant has requested approval of a rezoning of the property at 4100-4120 El
Camino Real (see Attachment 1" Location Map) to Planned Community (PC) consistent
with the development plan titled "Conceptual Site Plan, Classics at Bah’on Park," dated
November 11, 1997, to allow the construction of 27 townhouses. A Design Enhancement
Exception (DEE) to accommodate a special covered parking arrangement has also been
requested.
The proposed project would contain 27 townhouses designed to resemble traditional row
houses. Seven of the units would face El Camino Real and would be accessed by an
interior road parallel to El Camino Real (similar to a frontage road). The remaining 20
units would be accessed from the project’s primary interior road that would be generally
perpendicular to and providing access fromEl Camino Real, and a third interior road
forming a "T" at the end of the primary access road along the rear of the property. (See
S:IPIanIPIadivIPCSR!4100ecr.bd 01-28-98
Page I
attached plans).
The proposed access road parallel to El Camino Real would be separated from El Camino
Real by a 15 foot wide median containing a four foot wide sidewalk and three foot
landscaped strips on each side. Each landscape strip would contain a row of street trees
(London Plane Trees ) with staggered spacing approximately 25 feet apart and additional
landscaping. A row of 30 inch high granite monoliths are proposed along the western
edge of the sidewalk, and benches, an information kiosk, and a seating area with trellis
are proposed along the median.
The project would maintain two existing mature walnut trees on the site located on the
rear portion of the property.. An existing mature palm tree will be relocated on the site. A
row of screen trees (Australian Willows and FlaxleafPaperback) and a six foot wood
fence are proposed to be located around the edge of the project in the back yards of the
individual units. Trees are proposed to be planted in the front yards of each unit (Cajeput,
Sour Gum, and Fern Pine trees) to serve as interior street trees. Each unit would also
include additional landscaping in the front yard.
All units would be three stories (35 feet high) and would be approximately 1,600 square
feet. Each unit would contain three bedrooms, two baths, kitchen, living room with
dining area, and family room. Each unit would contain a small raised front porch and a
fenced back yard, accessed either from the garage or from stairways from the second
story living area. Six of the units would contain typical two car garages while the
remainder would contain tandem garages that would appear to be one car garages fi’om
the street. (A DEE has been requested to allow this parking arrangement).
Twelve uncovered guest parking spaces are proposed to be located throughout the site.
Information regarding the applicant, owner, assessor’s parcel number, Comprehensive
Plan designation, zoning district, existing land use, and parcel size is shown below in
Table 1. Please refer to the applicant’s plans and written description for further details
regarding the project.
S :[PlanIPladivlPCSRf4100ecr.bd 01-28-98
Page 2
TABLE !: PROJECT INFORMATION
Applicant:
Owner:
Assessor’s Parcel Numbers:
Comprehensive Plan Designation:
Zoning District:
Surrounding Land Use:
Parcel Size:
Classic Communities
Trapani Family Trust
137-23-12, 24,.and 3t
Multiple Family Residential
l~M-30 and RM-15(Multiple Family
Residential)
North: Blockbuster Video, Apartments on
Vista, Single family on Goebel
South: Barton Square Condominiums
East: Restaurant across El Camino
West: Single family on Goebel and
Verdosa
66,2114 s.f. or 1.52 acres
Site InformaIi0Ia
The project site is comprised of three generally flat lots, which together form an
approximately 1.5 acre,"L"-shaped site. It has approximately 260 feet of frontage on E1
Camino Real. The site currently contains the structure that was previously occupied by
the Cameo Club card room and a smaller accessory structure. Both structures are
dilapidated. Most of the site is paved and striped for parking but the pavement is in
disrepair. The site contains approximately 14 trees, the most notable of which are two
mature black Walnut trees and a Canary Island Palm. Surrounding land uses are
described in Table 1. A single family subdivision has been proposed to replace some of
the existing single family dwellings on Goebel Avenue northwest of the site.
Project History_
The site has been vacant for over five years. The site was rezoned to RM-30 in 1978 as a
part ofa Citywide effort to identify more housing sites.
The Architectural Review Board conducted a pi’eliminary review of the proposed project
on August 21, 1997. The ARB generally supported the project but made several
recommendations. Their concerns included the need for some variation in the units,
S:lPlanlPladivlPCSR{4100eer.bd 01-28-98
Page 3
particularly at the end of rows (the applicant has responded to this comment with revised
plans showing several end units with two car garages), the adequacy of parking space
backup, the reduction in curb cuts on El Camino Real (the applicant has responded to this
comment with revised plans showing only one curb cut), and reco~o~nition in the site plan
design that the interior streets will serve as a secondary activity area within the
development.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
Comprehensive Plan
The project is consistent with the Policies and Programs of the existing Comprehensive
Plan as found in the land use, housing, urban design, schools and parks, transportation,
and environmental resource elements. The project specifically facilitates implementation
of Urban Design Element Policy 3:
Promote visual aesthetics through tree planting, landscaped areas, and removal of
visually disruptive elements on major City Streets.
Although the new Comprehensive Plan has not yet been adopted, the project is consistent
with the proposed polices of the tentatively approved plan.
El Camino Real Desi_ma Guidelines
The project is generally consistent with the requirements of the E1 Camino Real Design
Guidelines.
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ISSUES
The staff analysis for this project relates to site planning, architectural design:
landscaping, traffic, parking, noise, zoning compliance, public benefit, and City
departmental comments.
Primary site planning issues discussed below include the use of the front access road
element parallel to E1 Camino Real, the quality and safety of the pedestrian environment
on the proposed median between the front access road and E1 Camino Real, the usability
of the project streets as a project activi .ty area, and the relationship of the project to
adjoining properties. The adequacy of parking on the site is discussed below under a
separate heading.
Front Access Road. Staffsupports the proposed front access road design over alternative
S:IPIaniPIadivIPCSRI4 | 00ecr.bd 01-28-98
Page
designs which would turn the backs of the units to El Camino. The design is consistent
with the urban design concepts discussed in the Comprehensive Plan Update workshops
for South El Camino Real and illustrated in the sketch on Page L- 24 of the Public
Review Draft of the Comprehensive Plan Update. The proposed design PrOvides a more
interesting streetscape than a development with its back (and most likely a noise wall)
facing E1 Camino Real. The approach is also favored over providing auto access to the
units facing E1 Camino Real from the rear. That design would significantly reduce the
viability of.back yards for these units, and would require the units to be moved closer to
the noise on E1 Camino Real.
Pedestrian Environment. The proposed improvements on the median (e.g., the double
row of trees, the landscape strips, monoliths, benches, between the front access road and
El Camino Real) would be a substantial improvement over the current pedestrian
environment along the site, and that of most segments along south El Camino Real. The
environment could be further improved if the sidewalk were widened to five feet or more,
and further separated from El Camino Real by additional distance and/or other physical
buffers. The location of the proposed monoliths may be more appropriate on the east side
of the sidewalk to provide a better sense of separation from the heavy traffic on El
Camino Real.
Usability of Interior Streets. Members of the ARB concluded that the interior streets of
the project would inevitably be used as secondary outdoor space for recreation and other
activities. They commented that design does nothing to facilitate such use and that the
shadows created from the southernmost units may detract from this use. The applicants
have since revised the plans to provide special paving for the interior streets which can
soften the character of the space. The site plan could be revised to incorporate a small
tot lot or seating area in the interior of the project as a community gathering place (
perhaps in lieu of the extra guest parking). The proposed seating area on the median
along El Camino Real would not be hospitable due to heavy traffic. It is also intended to
serve pedestrians along El Camino Real and not the project community. A bus stop is
locate approximately 100 feet north of the project site in front of Blockbuster Video. The
proposed project seating is not close enough to the bus stop to serve bus riders.
Relationship to Surrounding Properties. The project would be buffered from surrounding
uses by a six foot fence, a row of screen trees, and setbacks from the property line.
These features should provide adequate buffering, although all project lighting should be
shielded in a manner as to eliminate glare and light spillover beyond the perimeter of the
development.
S:{PlanIPIadivlPCSR}4 i 00¢¢r.bd
Architectural Design
The building architecture is a modem interpretation of the row house design with front
doors and mostly single car garage doors facing the project streets. The units facing the
proposed front access road would face El Camino Real as well. The architectural style is
intended to reflect the farmhouse architectural character found in portions of the Barron
Park neighborhood. The design of the project is not similar to any specific nearby
development along El Camino Real. The area contains a variety of architecture with no
clear pattern.
Proposed variation in roof height, ( i.e., three stories in the front with two stories at the
rear), alternating roof line design, covered front porches, and architectural details
including use of scalloped shingle facades, hardboard siding, wood trim windows, and
decorative wood shutters would provide some visual interest. Although the individual
units would be constructed with a small amount of air space between each unit (for legal
and insurance reasons), they would appear to be connected. The mass created by the
grouping of Units 3 through 8, 9 through 14, and 15 through 22 is larger than the forms
in the surrounding area. For example, the mass created by Units 15 through 22 would
be up to 35 feet high and approximately 210 feet long. Greater architectural articulation,
or minor variation in setbacks of individual units could reduce the visual bulk of the these
groups of units.
Landscaping
The major landscaping components of the project are the trees and other plantings on the
median between the frontage road and El Camino Real, the row of buffer trees proposed
around the perimeter of the project, and the internal tree planting pattern. Staff’s primary
concern relative to landscaping is that the front median be designed such that the
pedestrian experience is pleasant and safe, and that the landscaping is significant enough
to provide a ptiysical and visual break between El Camino Real and the front access road.
Additional width may be required for the proposed four foot wide sidewalk and the three
foot wide planting strips on the median. This need is in conflict with the need for
additional back up space for Units 1, and 24 through 26 described below..
The Planning Arborist has also raised several concerns relating to the landscaping plan
including the following:
The proposal does not comply with Section 8.04.0230 a. (3) of the Palo Alto
Municipal Code which, as interpreted by the Public Works Department, requires
that all tree wells be at least 10-feet from the curb cut or street radius.
S:IPIanlPIadivIPCSR}4100ecr.bd 01-28-98
Page 6
Staffwould like to continue discussions with the applicant regarding species
selection.
The proposed planting size of the interior street trees will require several years
before reaching substantial size. Staff recommends that interior street trees be 24
inch box size.
The project is not expected to result in a significant impact on traffic congestion.
A traffic report prepared for the applicant and reviewed by the City of Palo Alto
Transportation Division Staff, estimated that the project would generate approximately 20
AM peak hour and 27 PM peak hour vehicle trips. This level of traffic generation would
have no significant impacts on the operation of the surrounding street system.
Parking
Back up space for resident parking in the garages of Units 1, 24, 25 and 26 is not
adequate. A minimum of 20 feet back up space must be provided in the access aisle for
these spaces. The necessary extra space appears to be available for Units 24, 25, and 26
by shortening their front yards. Although the aisle in front of Unit 1 is 20 feet wide, its
angle with respect to the driveway reduce the available back up distance. Again, the extra
space appears to be available by shortening the front yard. In addition, the access aisle in
front of Unit 1 must extend a minimum of eight feet beyond the south end of the south
edge of the stall to provide adequate backup space for Unit 1.
Back up space for the four perpendicular guest parking spaces near Unit 23 and the guest
parking space at the north end of the frontage road is not adequate. Because the
perpendicular spaces are located adjacent to each other and parked cars backing out can
not begin to turn until they clear the adjacent car, 25 feet of back up space is needed.
These spaces need to be redesigned. The problem may be resolved through elimination
of the three extra guest parking spaces proposed for the project. The guest parking space
at the north end of the frontage road must have a full 20 feet of back up space in the aisle.
In addition, the aisle must extend at least eight feet beyond the north end of the parking
space.
A noise study prepared for the project by Charles M. Salter Associates indicates that State
noise standards for interior residential environments (i.e., L10 of 45 dBA) can be met by
providing noise rated windows on units 1, 2, and 23 through 27 (Sound Transmission
Class rating of 31). Alternative ventilation systems would also be required for these
S:IPIanIPIadivlPCSRt4100ecr.bd 01-28-98
Page 7
units. The remainder of the units would meet the interior noise requirement by virtue of
their distance from the noise on El Camino Real or the noise buffer provided by the units
towards the front of the property. City exterior noise standards for residential uses (i.e.,
L 10 of 65 dBA) could be met in the back yards of each of the units provided that the
exterior sides of yards Of 1, 2, 23, and 27 be surrounded with a six foot tall masonD’ wall
or solid wood fence, provided that the wood fence be a~ least one foot thick, airtight with
no cracks or gaps. and constructed of overlapping rather than butted boards.
Zoning Ordinance Compliance
The project relationship to the requirements of the existing site zoning and the proposed
PC zoning are shown below in Table 2.
Table 2: PROJECT
Allowable Floor
Area for project
site
Floor Area Ratio
Maximum Height
Site Coverage
Automobile
Parking
-Resident Parking
-Guest Parkin~
Total Parking
Bicycle Parking
- resident spaces
- guest spaces
Total spaces
COMPARISON WITH ZONING REQUIREMENTS
PROPOSED
PROJECT
43,659 ~.f.
.66:1
35 feet
approximately
35%
54 spaces
(42 ta~idem)
12 spaces
66 spaces
none
RM-15/30
(Existing Zoning)
33,106/49,659 s.f.
.5:1L75:1
30/35 feet*
35/40%
54 spaces
9 spaces
63,spaces
27 Class I
~ III
30 spaces
PC
n/a
35 feet*
n/a
54 spaces
9 spaces
63 spaces
none required for
single family
homes
S:{PIaa[Pladiv{PCSR 4100ecr.bd 01-28-98
Page 8
Setbacks
- front-El Camino
- Rear
- Interior: North
- Interior: South
25 feet+/-
20 feet
10-20 feet
20 feet
25
10 **
10 **
10 **
23/45
25
20
6
6
# Dwelling Units 27 n/a
BMR.Units 4 2.7 2.7
Common Open >5 %35/30%n/a
Space
RecYcling Storage none proposed Required Required
* The site is adjacent to a residential zoning district and is subject to daylight plane height restrictions
in addition to height limits of 35 feet for RM-30, 30 feet for RM-15 and 35 feet for PC.
** Side and rear yard setbacks are 20 feet for any portion of a structure above the first floor when
located adjacent to a single family district.
The applicant is requesting rezoning to the Planned Community (PC) District because
the proposed project does not meet the site development regulations of the RM-15
zoning district for FAR or setbacks, or the RM-30 zoning district regulations for
usable open space and setbacks. In addition, the project may not meet daylight plane o,"-
recycling storage requirements. These issues are discussed below.
Floor Area and FAR. The PC zoning district does not establish limits for either floor
area or FAR, therefore, the project would meet these provisions of the PC District if
the site were to be rezoned. The 43,659 square feet of project floor area and the
proposed .65:1 FAR exceeds the 33,106 square feet of floor area and .5:1 FAR
allowed within-the existing RM-15 district, but, is within the 49,659 square feet of
floor area and .75:1 FAR (for projects with attached garages) of the RM-30 zoning
district.
Setbacks. The project would not meet all of the applicable setback requirements of
the RM-30 and RM-15 zoning districts. The interior side and rear yards (for a site
adjacent to a residential district) are required to be 10 feet for the first story and 20 feet
for the portion of the structure over one story. The proposal calls for the north interior
side setback to be 10 feet at minimum for all stories.
Usable Open Space. The PC district does not have a requirement for usable open
S:IPIanIPIadivIPCSR!4 ! 00ecr.bd 01-28-98
Page 9
space. The project includes individual back yards and does not propose any common
usable open space with the exception of the seating areas on the median along El
Camino Rea!. The RM-15 and RM-30 zoning districts require 30 and 35 percent
usable open space, respectively. A portion of this open space is required to be in
common. Because this project is single family rather than multiple family, it appears
reasonable to eliminate common usable open space.
Daylight Plane. The daylight plane limits for a PC development are a 45 degree plane
beginning at a point ten feet above the subject property line. The applicant has not
submitted plans showing compliance with the daylight plane requirements. Staff
believes that the daylight plane requirements may not be met in some locations of the
project.
Recycling Storage. The PC, RM 15, and RM 30 districts all require designated
enclosed or interior locations for recycling storage. No recycling storage area has been
proposed. The site plan must be revised to show the location of recycling storage.
Approval of the requested PC zone change would require that public benefit findings be
made. The public benefits should go beyond the minimum zoning ordinance
requirements and compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Public policy relating to
PC zone change approvals has generally included the assumption that benefits should be
commensurate with the request to exceed normal regulatory requirements. To this end,
the applicant proposes the following public benefits:
1. The proposed pedestrian landscape strip along the E1 Camino Real frontage
including benches, monoliths, a seating area, and a kiosk.
2. The provision of Below Market Rate Housing Units. The provision of BMR units
is required by the City Comprehensive Plan. The City BMR unit requirement for
sites under five acres is ten percent of the total proposed units, or 2.7 units for this
27 unit project. The applicant proposes to include 4 BMR units (to be sold for
about $164,700) which represents 15 percent of the total units or 1.3 units above the
Comprehensive Plan policy requirement. These units will be provided onsite which
relieves the City from accepting offsite units or in lieu fees.
3. The provision of a traffic mitigation plan that will encourage residents of the
development to utilize alternative methods of transportation. The details of this plan
are contained in the applicant’s development statement.
S:IPIanlPIadivlPCSRI4100ecr.bd 0 I-28-98
Page 10
Item 1 may not constitute a significant public benefit in that some of the landscaping of
the type proposed could be required of standard residential development projects.
Item 2 qualifies as a significant public benefit because the applicant proposes to deliver
a greater number of BMR units than is required by the City.
The specifics of the mitigation program in Item 3 have little or no record of success
and, therefore, may or may not result in the intended benefit.
Department Comments
Transportation. In addition to the comments referenced above under the discussion of
parking, the Transportation Division points out the following:
¯The proposed 20 foot wide entry curb on E1 Camino is the minimum acceptable. A
22 to 24 foot wide entry is recommended.
The parking for Units 3-22 has back up distances which are less than normally
acceptable (i.e., 25 feet): These spaces have been determined to be marginally
acceptable because additional length is provided in the driveway aprons. These
aprons are next to landscaping, not other cars, and therefore drivers can begin to
make their turns before reaching the back up space provided in the interior road
aisle.
Units 9 and 14 have limited back up space and will probably result in drivers
backing through the " T" intersection. This situation is not desirable but
acceptable.
Units 2, 23, and 27 have only 18 feet of back up space. This is marginally
acceptable because the two garages allow for more freedom of movement on the
driveway aprons.
The landscaping and streetscape improvements in the median along E1 Camino Real
within the 100 feet north of project entrance should not exceed a height of three feet
to ensure adequate sight distance. This requirement applies to shrubs, monoliths,
signs, and other obstacles, but not trees.
Planning Arborist. In addition to the comments incorporated into the discussion of.
landscaping, the Planning Arborist agrees with the proposal to remove all the trees
except the two mature black walnuts noted to remain on the plan. The proposed tree
S:IP|antPIadivlPCSRt4100ecr.bd 01-28-98
Page 11
protection detail is not consistent with City requirements. It should be replaced with
the standard City detail. The proposed palm tree replanting plan is acceptable to the
City. The Planning Arborist also has several required notes to be included on the
grading and construction plans to ensure adequate protection of trees to remain on the
site during and after construction.
Utilities. The Utilities Department requires that space for two or more single phase pad
mount transformers must be provided on the site.
Others. Public Works, Utilities, Marketing, and the Fire Department have submitted
several other r.outine comments and standard conditions which would be required
should the project be approved. These comments have been passed on to the applicant.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The project is subject to environmental review under provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). An environmental impact assessment was
prepared for the project and determined that the project would have a less than
significant impact on the environment and that a Mitigated Negative Declaration should
be prepared. The Mitigated Negative Declaration was made available for public review
from January 8, 1998 through January 21, 1998 and is attached to this staff report (see
Attachment #2).
NEXT STEPS
Following the Planning Commission public hearing, the project is tentatively scheduled
to be considered by the Architectural Review Board ata public hearing on February 19,
1998, by the Planning Commission at a second public hearing on March 25, 1998, and
by the City Council at a public hearing on April 4, 1998.
Staff recommendations for a PC ordinance, .findings, and conditions will be presented if
the Commission directs that the project return to the Planning Commission, after
review by the ARB.
ATTACHMENTS/EXHIBITS:
Attachment #1: Location Map
Attachment #2: EIA
Attachment #3: Program DevelOpment Statement
Attachment #4: Minutes of Preliminary ARB Review
Plans (Planning Commission members only)
S:IPIanIPladivIPCSR[4100ecr.bd 01-28-98
Page 12
COURTESY. COPIES:
Barron Park Neighborhood Association, Will Beckett, 4189 Baker Avenue,
Palo Alto. CA, 94306
Barron Square Homeowners, PML Mgmt. Corporation, 655 Mariners Is. Blvd.,
San Mateo, CA, 94404
Palo Alto School District, Business Manager, 25 Churchill Avenue, Palo Alto,
CA, 94306
Classic Communities, 1068 East Meadow Circle, Palo Alto, CA, 94303
Trapani Family Trust, C\O Bay 101, 1801 Bering Drive, San Jose, CA 95112
Rick Hansen, (Blockbuster Video), 4102 E1 Camino Real, Palo Alto, CA 94306
Janet Stone, Mid-Peninsula Housing Coalition, 658 Bair Island Road #300,
Redwood City, CA 94063
Jeffrey Levin, 350 Second Street, Suite 7, Los Altos, CA, 94022
Prepared by:Brian D~la~,~
Division Head Approval:
Eric Riel, Jr.g Official
S:]PlanIPIadivIPCSRt4 ! 00ecr.bd 01-28-98
Page 13
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
MEETINGS ARE CABLECAST LIVE ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL 16
Wednesday, January 28, 1998 ATTACHMENT 6
Regular Meeting
ROLL CALL
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS
PUBLIC HEARINGS
2
me 4100-4120 EL CAMINO REAL: Preliminary review of an application
for a zone change from RM-15 and RM-30 to a Planned Community
Zone (PC) to allow the demolition of an existing, vacant, former card
club and accessory building totaling 4,850 square feet and constr~ction
of a new 27-unit residential development and related site improvements
designed to resemble traditional row houses. Environmental
Assessment: A negative declaration has been prepared. File Nos. 97-
ARB-137, 97-ZC-10, 97-EIA-38, 97-DEE-6.
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
2
19
REPORTS FROM OFFICIALS
COMMISSION MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS
2.Discussion of Items for Planning Commission Retreat on February 5, 1998.
3.Presentation of Planning Commission Agenda Format Changes.
19
19
A:iPCMinsSlpc0128.reg Page 1
The Planning Commission met in a regular meeting on Wednesday, January 28, 1998 at 7 p.m. in
the Council Chambers with Chairman Schink presiding.
ROLL CALL
Present:Commissioners Beecham, Bialson, Byrd, Cassel, Schink and Schmidt
Abse None
Staff Present:Debra Cauble, Senior Assistant City Attorney
Brian Dolan, Senior Planner
Eric Riel Jr., Chief Planning Official
Kenneth R. Schreiber, Director of Planning and Community Environment
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Chairman Schink: This is the time on the agenda for members of the public to address us on an
item which is specifically not on the agenda. You have five minutes to speak. Seeing no one, I
will close the Oral Communications portion and move on to Agenda Changes, Additions and
Deletions.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
4100-4120 EL CAMINO REAL: Preliminary review of an application
for a zone change from RM-15 and RM-30 to a Planned Community
Zone (PC) to allow the demolition of an existing vacant former card club
and accessory building totaling 4,850 square feet and construction of a
new 27-unit residential development and related site improvements
designed to resemble traditional row houses. Environmental
Assessment: A negative declaration has been prepared. File Nos. 97-
ARB-137, 97-ZC-10, 97-EIA-38, 97-DEE-6.
(Commissioner Byrd stated that he will not be participating in this item as he has a conflict.)
Chairman Schink: Would staff like to introduce this item?
Mr. Dolan: Yes. This is 4100-4120 El Camino Real. It is a preliminary review of an application
for a zone change to a Planned Community Zone to allow the demolition of an existing, vacant
card club and accessory structure totaling 4,850 square feet and to construct a 27-unit residential
towrthouse project and related site improvements. Staff recommends that the Planning
Commigsion provide comments on the project and forward the application to the Architectural
Review Board for review and comment.
A:[PC/vlins8[pc0128.reg Page 2
I have one minor change to the staff report. On Page 10, in the discussion of the daylight plane,
the requirement .for a daylight plane in the PC zone is not stated correctly. The requirement is
actually a one-to-two slope from ten feet above the property line, as opposed to the 45-degree
plane stated in the report. It is a little more difficult to meet. The general conclusion remains the
same, which is that we have not seen specific drawings that show how their units will relate to
those. They may have a slight problem in meeting the daylight plane requirement.
Secondly, we did receive one piece of correspondence today from the Palo Alto Housing
Corporation generally in support of the project. They are particularly in support of the use of the
BMR units as the public benefit requirement. I received one additional phone call from a
member of the public who is a resident of the condominium project immediately to the south.
He spoke in support of the project.
Chairman Schink: When you said one-to-two for the daylight plane, could you be a little more
descriptive? Is that up one foot and in two feet?
Mr. Dolan: It is in two feet for every one foot that you go up. So 22-1/2 degrees as opposed to
45 degrees (half of 45 degrees).
Commissioner Beecham: I met with the applicant earlier this week, and today, I received by
FAX a revised plan. I don’t know if more than a majority of the commission got it, so I wanted
to advise staff about it.
Chairman Schink: Seeing no further questions or comments from commissioners, I will open the
public hearing.
Scott Ward, 1068 East Meadow Circle. Palo Alto: Chairman Schink and commissioners, I am
representing Classic Communities, the project applicant. I am here to urge you to approve the
concept plan for thisdevelopment. We are confident that the plan represents a balanced,
reasonable approach to the development of this property, an approach that is responsive to the
needs of the immediate neighbors of the site, the preferences of the larger Barron Park
neighborhood, the city’s stated objectiv, es and goals for the El Camino corridor, the urban village
concepts emerging from the Comprehensive Plan review process, the housing goals as stated in
the city’s general plan, and finally, the new home marketplace. We believe that in working with
the neighbors, we have successfully met the challenge of respecting the objectives of each of
these stakeholders and reckoning appropriate tradeoffs that sometimes have to be made between
conflicting sets of goals.
We first want to place the concept plan in context. This site features a dilapidated, abandoned
building and an obsolete, and now illegal use. Except for a transient population that the
neighbors tell us may be increasing, the property has been unoccupied for over four years.
During this four-year period, the housing values in Palo Alto have escalated significantly. New
home production in ever3" price category under seven figures has continued to be very limited.
A:lPCMins81pc0128.reg Page 3
The shortage of moderately priced housing in Palo Alto has intensified to the point where most
major employers identify the shortage of reasonably priced housing as one of the two primary
impediments to the continued economic health of the area.
(A siteplan &projected) This concept plan consists of 27 single-family row homes that are sited
so as to front either on E1 Camino or on a private, central drive, and they are designed to ensure
privacy with respect to the neighboring properties, and they are expected to meet a need in the
marketplace for moderately priced housing of a sufficient size to accommodate families. While
at approximately 17 units per acre, this development has a higher density than most of the other
residential developments in this portion of the E1 Camino corridor. The density is less than what
is allowed under the existing zoning. In fact, the 27 units proposed represent only 84% of the 32
units allowed under existing zoning, and at 17 units per acre, clearly this is not 40 units per acre
at El Camino and Page Mill Road, nor is it 30 units per acre as at the Rudolfo site on El Camino,
about one-quarter mile away. This is the first residential development on this corridor to have
homes fronting on El Camino, which will make a significant improvement to the pedestrian
environment on E1 Camino to resist the temptation to turn its back on the street and/or to erect a
masonry wall to shield the homes from E1 Camino. It is therefore the first project to implement
both the general Urban Village Design concepts expressed in the draft Comprehensive Plan and
the specific design recommendations that emerged from the South Palo Alto workshops
conducted in the CPAC process.
It is also one of the few developments that attempts a contextual architectural design for Bah’on
Park, in our opinion, by overlaying the rural character identified in the city’s Residential Design
Guidelines as the appropriate idiom for Barron Park [ "in"] the more traditional Victorian row
home design. We were very encouraged that the Architectural Review Board recognized these
elements of this concept plan, and enthusiastically supported them.
In addition, these homes have been carefully designed so that they are sensitive to neighboring
properties and to privacy issues. While the’homes are three stories at the front, either on E1
Camino where the three-story scale is appropriate, or on the central drive where the three-story
elements relate to each other, they are two stories in the rear along each of the property lines.
Moreover, the floor plans support this type of use for the homes, that is, the more formal,
inactive part of the home is to the rear by the neighboring properties, and the more informal,
active area of the home is to the front, to the interior of the site.
A number of the features of this development, like those I just described, have been incorporated
pursuant to a series of meetings that we have had with neighborhood leaders. We have met with
the leadership of both the Barton Square Homeowners Association, the Interdale Homeowners
Association, both of which are located to the south of the property, and with the Barton Park
Neighborhood Association. We have also presented to the full membership of the Barron Park
Association. Generally, we have met with favorable reception, and we expect that our dialogue
with the neighbors will continue to be positive.
A:lPCMins81pc0128,reg Page 4
With respect to the public benefit issue, we would first note that it continues to be our belief that
public benefit should be commensurate with public burden, and it is unclear to us how this
development imposes a public burden. It is no more dense than what is allowed under current
zoning. The floor area is no larger; building coverage is no greater; perimeter setbacks are no
less. Nonetheless, the public benefit program presented here is, in our opinion, having done a
series of these in the last several years, the most generous that has ever been provided for a
residential project. It is clear that the below-market-rate element of the program is extraordinary.
We do not believe that it is constructive for staffto dismiss the other two elements of the
program. We think they are significant, meaningful, and creative. In fact, in an environment
where traffic concerns are paramount (traffic being the other of the two primary impediments to
what most employers identify), it is mystifying to us that we would offer to test the utility of
facilitating alternative transportatfon modes and that staff would reject it out of hand as an
unproven program. If staff and the commission do not find the other t~vo elements to be
meritorious, then we would respectfully request that you eliminate them and let us save the
considerable amount of money that we were prepared to invest in them.
We are aware that some of you and some of the neighbors may have some concerns about the
particulars of the plan. While we were somewhat reluctant to address this in the context of a
conceptual review, we would say that we are sympathetic to the concern regarding the location of
the common green space, and that we have developed an alternative that effectively addresses
this concern. That is the site plan that Commissioner Beecham alluded, to. In addition, this
alternative incorporates a more centrally green space, it preserves the character of the
development, and has some ancillary benefits in terms of the vehicular circulation. To the extent
that you think it is important at this conceptual stage, we are happy to share this alternative with
you in this format. I await your direction on that.
We were not so sympathetic with respect to certain more technical issues like sidewalk widths,
tree species, and design style. We think these matters are more appropriately addressed by .the
ARB in the next round of review. With that we conclude our comments, and are happy to
answer any questions you may have of us. We would encourage you to support this at the
conceptual stage, and we are happy to review in more detail the alternative plan. Thank you.
Commissioner Schmidt: I would like to see the alternative plan that you have referred to.
(The alternative plan is displayed on the projector screen.)
Mr. Ward: This is the existing plan, and the alternative that we think has merit. We had an 8-
unit building here on the original plan, Units 15-22. What we think has merit is to break that into
two buildings. We were able to introduce what could serve as a common green space between
Lots 17 and 18 for the portion that is between the buildings, which is about 20 feet in width. It
would extend to about 25 feet in width at the rear for a depth of about 20 feet, as in the typical
rear yard case. The depth of these buildings is about 37 feet, so all told, it is something on the
order of 20 to 25 feet by about 55 feet. We have also introduced a parking space in that zone, or
A:lPCMins8ipc0128.reg Page 5
alternatively, a space that could serve as a duck-out space if there are the occasional conflicts in
terms of circulation with respect to garbage trucks, moving vans, etc., that would then provide an
opportunity so that that kind of use would not obstruct other movements in the development,
although we do not anticipate that happening as a common practice. It should be a relatively rare
occurrence.
From a market perspective, we have the vie~v that end units tend to command a premium price.
This also has three more side-by-side parking garages that tend to command a premium in the
marketplace and tend to be a little easier for most households to use, so it tends to also lower
concern about the utility of the tandem garages. We do, however, lose a unit with this option.
We have not spent a great deal of time on design of the space and how it might-be utilized. We
tend to see it as more of a passive kind of gathering place rather than an active recreational area.
Commi,ssioner Schmidt: Is the property that has the parking places at the ends of the T held in
common, versus belonging an individual who buys there?
Mr. Ward: The spaces between Lots 14 and 15’? (Yes) No, those are common.
Commissioner Schmidt: I noticed, in driving around the neighborhood, that around that location,
there is a street that comes in from the other side - Goebel Avenue. There was some reference in
our documentation to a project that might be in that location. I was wondering if anyone had
investigated whether there was any opportunity to make any sort of pedestrian or vehicular link
between this project and whatever else is on that side?
..Mr,...Ward: We had taken a look at that, but the drives do not align so as to facilitate a vehicular
connection. I think there is potential for a pedestrian connection, assuming the owner of that
property is agreeable. We would not have an objection to that.
Commissioner Schmidt: A question for staff. Is that the property that is referred to in the staff
report as the single-family development on Goebel Avenue that is happening in the future?
There are existing small houses there currently.
Mr........Dolan: It is unclear to me, just in looking at that tonight, whether that would abut that new
project or the existing apartment building.
Mr. Ward: It does abut the proposed development. That much I can confirm.
Commissioner Ca.ssel: You have indicated that there would be a bench and kiosk, etc., up
around Unit #26. Is that going to be faced out so that it could be used by people walking along
the sidewalk?
Mr. Ward: To the extent that this seemed to be the preferred plan, we would anticipate that the
other gathering place that we had designed for the area at Lot 26 would probably go away. Some
A:[ PCMins8ipc0128.reg Page 6
concerns have been expressed about the difficulty of defining that as a pri.vate space that would
be designed to support the homeo’~aaers of this development, that is, it is in a somewhat remote
location. It aligns with the public right-of-way. It would be difficult to provide enough cues in
terms of the design of that space to m~ike it clear that it was a private space. The neighbors have
suggested to us that we might want to rethink that.
Commissioner Cassel: All right. I have another question. I cannot tell from the site plan where
the entryway to El Camino is there. I believe I do, but the trees seem to be in the way. Exactly
how is that angled in?
Mr. Ward: It is designed to intersect El Camino at a 90-degree right angle. There was a
comment in the staff report regarding the placement of the trees with respect to that connection.
I think the issue was raised as to whether or not we ~vere in compliance the code requirement
regarding the distance of plantings from this intersection. That is something we will have to look
at.
Commissioner Cassel: I realize that those details can be worked out later. I just needed to see
where the street is.
Commissioner Schmidt: A couple of the ARB members suggested that you evaluate a style that
is less traditional, since this is a less traditional housing type. You said in your comments earlier
this evening that you do not intend to do that, and that the traditional style you are showing here
tonight is the appropriate way to gg. I just wanted to clarify that.
Commissioner Beecham: One thing we talked about when we met yesterday was that the width
of the street internally was a rather narrow street. I think the city’s position, too, is that it is
narrow, but is marginally acceptable. What options are there for you to make that wider?
Mr. Ward: The option would be to reduce the rear yard setback, which is currently 20 feet. It is
our view that that setback is important, given the fact that we have neighbors on each edge of this
development, with the exception of E1 Camino. Also, we will have balconies that will project off
of the rear of the homes that will occupy a portion of that setback area, making the ground floor
portion of the yard a little less usable than it might be without the balconies. We do not share the
view that the drive is too narrow. I am not sure that the transportation department understands
that we have clearly 10-foot aprons, plus a 20-foot driveway width in which to negotiate the
backing movement. Typically, when Transportation seeks a 25-foot backing distance, it is from
garage face to garage face. We have 40 feet, garage face to garage face here. You are well out of
your garage, and you have adequate flexibility to execute that backing maneuver, so we think the
space is appropriately sized, and we think it is responsive to the direction of the Comprehensive
Plan, among others.
Commissioner Beecham: Today, I went out to the Times Tribune site where you built houses
earlier. I went into the alleyway and tried to turn around between the garages. I was able to do
A:IPCMins8ipc0128.reg Page 7
that. Can you tell me ho~v wide that is versus the proposal here?
Mr. Ward: At the Times Tribune site, it is 26 feet, garage door to garage door.
Commissioner Beecham: So these would be 14 feet more.
Commissioner Cassel: I have a question relating to the front yard. In looking at the drawings, I
was having a little trouble. When you go up to the first level, are those porches big enough so
that you can put a chair out there, or are they really just covered entryways?
Mr. Ward: Most of them are more covered entryways. The design here is to have the exterior
space that is not at grade be living off the rear of the homes as opposed to the front of the home,
primarily. We do expect there to be some social interaction at the back of these homes from
balcony tO balcony. That is typical where these homes have been built particularly on the eastern
seaboard and in other locations over a long-term period.
Commissioner Cassel: So you expect the social interaction to take place in the balcony areas at’
the rear rather than at the front. (Yes) And you do not expect much interaction going on at a’ll in
the front?
Mr, Ward: There may be some, but I think there will be more extensive and meaningful
interaction in the back. Folks are going to have to figure out how to move their cars, and there
will be the cursory greeting, but in terms of actually interacting with someone, I think that will
take place at the rear.
Commissioner Cassel: How will the children get to school from here?
Mr. Ward: I will defer to the president of the Barron Park Association on that one. That issue
was raised at our meeting last week, and he is much more qualified to respond to that than I am.
Will Beckett, 4189 Baker Avenue, Palo Alto: Of course, it depends upon the school you are
going to. If their school is in Barron Park, then it is Briones or the new Barron Park School, and
is probably going to be via Vista or Maybell Avenue. Vista is the closest, and they will just walk
along E1 Camino to that. The other option is going to be JLS and the other schools across El
Carnino and Alma. The only option, really, is Maybell, although we do have a lot of Vista
crossers right now that are mostly JLS students. As you know, Vista does not go all the way
across, but there is a crosswalk there.
Chairman Schink: You make the comment in your development statement that you need to
pursue the PC because the zoning that is allowed under RM-15 or RM-30 does not suit your
housing objectives. Could you give us some specifics as to what is wrong with the zoning
ordinance or where the problems lie?
A:lPCMins8ipc0128.reg Page 8
Mr. Ward: In particular, we intend to sell these homes as single-family with the lots in fee -
four walls, the lot and an interest in a common space which will include the drive and any open.
space. Our reading of the ordinance is that you would be made to comply with building-to-
building setback requirements as specified in the ordinance, lot by lot. That would defeat our
objective of transferring these in fee as individual homes. That is the primary difficulty.
Chairman Schink: Thank you. The next speaker is Bob Moss.
Bob Moss, 4010 Orme, Palo Alto: Thank you, Chairman Schink and Commissioners. I was at
the meeting of the Barron Park Association when this presentation was made, and I also had
talked to the developer earlier last year when it was kind of a concept, so I am familiar with this
project. I have a couple of things that trouble me about it. The first is the very fact that it is a
PC. Just the idea that somebody has to come in with a PC instead of a straight development, the
same problem that you had, Jon, concerns me.
Since we have aPC, and then we have the second catch, and that is, if you have a PC, you have
to have some kind of a benefit. Developers always thrash around and try to come up with
something that they can justify as a benefit. I have seen many, many, many PCS over the years,
and there is absolutely no consistency to what the public benefits are, and what people are asked
to do or not do on any particular project. I know. that one time, there was a study that the staff
did, which, as far as I know, has never been officially released, which found that there were, in
fact, significant inconsistencies from project to project and from design to design. So I was quite
concerned when I saw that this was going tO be another one of those stupid PCS, and we were
going to have to thrash around and figure out why it is a public benefit. I looked at the benefits,
and quite frankly, they are pretty thin. The only one of any substance at all is that you are getting
one additional BMR. When we started with the BMR project, the BMR would sell for
something like $30,000 to $40,000. Seeing something called a BMR that is selling for about
three times what I paid for my house awhile ago is kind of shocking. So I am not sure that the
justification can be made, and I am not sure it is the developer’s fault. I think it is the system,
frankly. I am actually quite conflicted by this, because I would like to see a clean, straight
development that falls within the zoning ordinance, and you did not have to go through this
rationalization of what you are doing and why you are doing it. If you look at the other projects
around it, Villas de las Plazas just to the north and Barton Square just to the south, those were
also built as PCS, even though they look very much like standard developments.
So I would suggest that you take another look at what you are getting in terms of a PC. Is this
realistic? Is this reasonable? Is this consistent with other residential PCS that have been granted
in the last four or five years, and make adjustments accordingly. One of the things that you
might take a look at adjusting (I’d like the 26-unit development, by the way, better than 27) is
that there is no public general open space.
Regarding the question that Phyllis asked about where are the people going to interact, the
answer is, they really aren’t. If you go down to the other projects along E1 Camino -- Bah’on
A:lPCMins8lpc0128.reg Page 9
Square, Villas de las Plazas, the only place where people actually interact is at the pool or tennis
courts, or where there is an open area where they can get together and the kids can run around
and you can actually see your neighbors. You are not going to have the people in Units 3
through 8 interacting an awful lot from the back of their yards with the people in Units 9 through
149 or 15 through 26. You might get the peopie in 21 and 22 and 23 interacting because they all
kind of come together in a little point. Otherwise, you are going to have a bunch of people who
don’t talk to each other, who don’t see each other, and it’s not going to be a real community. So
I think you need some kind of a community location, some kind of an open space, some kind of a
meeting place, even if it is just a little fountain and some benches where people can sit around in
some shade and maybe look at some goldfish in a pond. I think you need something there to get
people together, to get them to think of it as a community, not just a bunch of walled buildings.
The other thing that’concerns me is that you look at it, and it is all paving. You don’t see any
greenery until you get into the back yard. There is a little slice in the front yard, but basically,
what you are seeing is a very, very urbanized landscape, and that is not Barron Park. So I just
don’t feel that it gives the right feeling. I don’t believe that it is laid out to be user-friendly, and I
don’t think it is obvious that the PC public benefits are, in fact, appropriate benefits. Thank you.
.Commissioner Schmidt: I asked earlier about the possibility of having a pedestrian connection
through the top of that T to Goebel Avenue. If this project were to go ahead, is that something
that you personally think would be attractive?
.Mr. Moss: Oh, I think that would be lovely, but you have a developer next door, and he has his
thing, and you would have to tie the two of them together. My experience has been that you can
have properties adjacent being developed simultaneously, and they don’t want to talk to each
other, let alone cooperate by having a path through. But ideally, that would be a great way to go.
Mary_anne We!ton, 660 Kendall Avenue, Palo Alto: As a resident of Barron Park and a member
of the BPA, I attended the presentation that Mr. Ward’s firm made to us last week. I want to say
that I was very favorably impressed by the sensitive site planning that he has done on-this
project. I feel that the way the row houses face El Camino is a big plus. The project does not
turn its back on the city, like a lot of other projects do that I have seen. The way the units toward
the back. step down in scale from the third floor to a two-story height is sensitive to the single-
family homes on the back side.
I think the design imagery is somewhat appropriate to Barron Park. Bah’on Park does not have a
really strong design image. I was very glad to see that it was not peach colored stucco. At least,
we have some siding and some colors. He said there would be various colors on the elevations
of the different houses. My one comment on the design that I would like to see improved is
something that was brought up about the front porches. I wish the front porches were big enough
to have more than just a chair sitting out there, and really provide that transition between public
space and private space, so that there is that semi-private realm where the neighbors would have
social interaction. Other than that, I think it is a good project, definitely an improvement to our
A:lPCMins81pc0128.reg Page I 0
neighborhood, and I see it as a role model for other residential development along El Camino
Real.
Ruth Lox~T, 551 Thain Way, Palo Alto: I live in the Barron Square development, and I, too, was
at the meeting last week at the presentation for Barron Park. I personally was very impressed
with this development. I like the rendering that I am seeing tonight better than the earlier one,
because I do like the introduction of the open space. I like the fact that what seemed to be two
solid buildings with a wall is going to open up the space a little bit.
I also had a concern about that gazebo on the top corner for the same reason that was earlier
expressed. That is, if I were the person living in the end building, I might have some concerns
about people that I did not know coming in and using that as a public place. So I would hope
that maybe something else could be done about it.
The idea about putting a pedestrian or a bicycle lane to go out the back end I think would be
really good. That was something that I thought about last week. Children especially going to the
grade schools, and even older children, could avoid traveling on El Camino, even though they
may not have to cross the street.. I think we would be able to keep a lot of children off that main
thoroughfare.
My last comment is on the driveway in and out of the development on El Camino. I hope that it
will be wide enough so that people do not have to make a sharp right angle turn to get in and out.
If you think about it, there might be people coming and going simultaneously, and you would
like to be able to have both in and out taking place without having to pass each other too closely
in their cars. Thank you.
Jeffrey Levin, 683 Shady Creek Lane, Los Altos: I am the developer on the adjacent property
that you keep referring to. I was not going to speak this evening, but since you kept bringing up
that question, I thought I would get up and respond. There is not an opportunity to have a
pedestrian walkway through that other property. It is designed and ready for approval. It is not
going through the PC process. It is going through straight zoning. Directly on the other side of
the wall, there is some guest parking, and there aren’t any sidewalks. It really is not suitable to
go through there.
I like the design of the project. I think it is very nice. My concerns would be that since those
back units do front along the development I am putting in on Goebel Lane, Units 15 through 21,
I would be a little bit concerned with the height and the imposing straight line of the structures,
versus something that is a little more free-form or maybe if the buildings were turned in different
directions so that rather than looking like a straight wall, you would be a little more free form or
some space between the units. Also, it would be nice to see some large screen trees in the back
there also. Goebel Lane will be modified. It will be a curving road instead of the way it is fight
now. It will dead-end right to the back of their Units 15 through 21. We are doing some
landscaping there at the back, and it would be nice for them to additionally do some landscaping
A:[PCMinsStpc0128.reg Page 11
on their side, if the design does stay the way it is. Other than that, I have no comments.
Commissioner Schmidt: You said that the design is final and there isn’t any room to try and
make a pedestrian connection.
Mr. Levin: Well, it is final from the standpoint that it has been through pre-ARB, it’s been
through ARB, and now we are right down to some minor changes in some materials. Other than
that, that project is coming up for a final ARB hearing on March 5th. In terms of the roads, they
are designed and the engineering is done, and there isn’t any flexibility on our end as far as
changing street designs.
Mr. Riel: Mr. Levin’s project went to the ARB approximately two weeks ago, and was
continued. It is going back, as Mr. Levin indicated, on March 5th, but there still is an
opportunity to interject any changes, if the commission so desires. We can transfer that
information on to the ARB.
Commissioner Schmidt: Then you can probably guess that I would encourage the developers to
think about that possibility. We have some properties in Palo Alto that are kind of islands that
face only onto a busy street like E1 Camino, and there are not a lot of opportunities to make those
connections. Here, it seems like there is a possibility, and it would be nice to at least bring a
pedestriardbicycle link through.
Mr. Levin: At the end of Goebel, at the very end of the street, the same width of the street, we
are required by the existing zoning (and again, we did not go through a PC, we went through
straight zoning), and I might add that we do have large p~ortions in the front that are eight by ten
feet, almost the size of living rooms in the homes, for community interaction. At the very end of
Goebel, we are required to have guest parking. So the end of that street will be filled by parking
spaces. So even if someone were to walk through, they would have to try to wriggle between
cars.
Commissioner Schmidt: But there still might be a way to design a little space for a path in there,
just something to think about.
Chairman Schink: Having no additional cards, we normally give the applicant five minutes to
make some closing comments.
Mr. Ward: I hope not to take five minutes. With respect to a couple of technical points, there are
roughly 65 trees that we are planning to plant in front of these homes. Throughout the perimeter
of the site, as this landscape plan demonstrates, there will be extensive plantings to serve as a
butter for this development. Obviously, we present drawings that are designed to show
architecture for you and others to observe the architecture, and they are not overlaid by
landscaping, so it does appear to be a little Spartan, but that is due to the nature of the
presentation.
A:[PCMins81pc0128.reg Page 12
We will do what we can to explore the potential of expanding the porches. There are some
physical limitations, however. The porch enters a half level up on the fagade of the home, and
we have the garage that is immediately adjacent to it. There are some limitations in terms of the
extent to which we can project the porch. We cannot obstruct the garage, and there is no grade
change to get the porch over around the garage.
We share the concern about the turning movement onto E1 Camino. We are prepared to ensure
that that will be wide enough to make that a smooth movement. We would be happy to explore
the potential of facilitating some sort of pedestrian connection, to the extent that it is practicable
with respect to Mr. Levin’s property. The actual property line kind of projects from Unit 17 or
so, and the buildings shown here as Lots 18 through 21 do not side onto his property. So
theoretically, there could be a couple of points of connection to explore. We are prepared to
make a good faith effort to explore that. I do not want to presume that the outcome of that will
be successful. I know that Mr. Levin has spent a lot of time and effort in getting his development
to the stage that it is. It is my hope that we can work something out, and I will make a good faitla
effort to do that.
Chairman Schink: If there are no further comments, we can begin our commentary.
Commissioner Schmidt: To begin with, I basically like the project. I think that this developer
has indeed tried to explore different kinds of housing projects in Palo Alto, and they have been
successful. As we "know, housing is needed, and it is needed more and more. In our packets
tonight, we had the population projections for Santa Clara County. They are somewhat amazing,
so any good housing projects that we can get will be a benefit.
In reading through the staff report, I feel that the changes that the developer has made between
the initial meeting with the ARB and the presentation here tonight are improvements. Those
included closing offa second entrance onto El Camino, making the driveways within the project
more people-friendly by making pavement that is not an asphalt paving but is a textured type of
paving, and making a different type of unit on the end unit, giving some variety and a little better
design to the project, rather than just having blocks with essentially flat ends.
Regarding some of the things that we have discussed and some that were shown here tonight, I
think it is really important to have some public space in this project. It is a very landlocked piece
of property. I know that at this moment, it is wishful thinking that there could be at least a
pedestrian and bicycle link to the adjacent property on Goebel. That would be a great addition,
but because it is landlocked, it is especially important to look at the public opportunities within
the project. I realize that what you have shown us tonight is a first pass, and I am sure you will
take the time between now and the p~esentation to the ARB to think about this more, but I think
that losing one unit (I don’t know if you can lose two units) to make more public space, I think it
is really necessary to have something that is not just street that is within the project so that people
at least feel that they can get together. I am sure they will use the street, however, to get
together.
A:lPCMinsStpc0128.reg Page 13
I think the density of the project is appropriate in this location. Someday, we will have a
different ordinance that does not require that there be a PC in order to try and do something
slightly different for housing. Someday, we will have a Planned Development Ordinance or
something that will accommodate this, but at the present time, we do not.
The public benefit providing an additional 1.3 BMR units is an excellent public benefit. In
addition, I think it is very important and useful that these units are actually built and on the
property and is not a contribution to fund a later development elsewhere.
I also feel that it is reasonable to try some sort of traffic mitigation program. The developer
might want to think further about that, and that there might be some education that should go
with it, or if there is anything else, but it is important to try and change people’s attitudes about
the use of public transportation. I think that is a very reasonable thing to do.
My last comment is that I agree with several of the comments from the ARB that it would have
been nice to see architecture that might also be something to explore a little further, as the
housing type is an exploration of something different. Sometimes, architecture in small pieces
like this can end up looking like a stage set, a false front, unless it is done very, very well. So
exploring something a little less traditional might have been nice. I still think you can do a good
job with this, but I think it is really important to be careful about the detailing and what it looks
like.
Commissioner Bialson: I ~vant to acknowledge that I met with Mr. Ward and Jim Baer on
Monday of this week. I know this is just a conceptual review, so I will keep my comments at
that level. I was attracted to the project, because it is certainly an improvement over what is
there now, and I certainly understand how the neighbors would feel that this would be a nice
addition to their neighborhood. I like the housing, and I like the fact that we have houses facing
on El Camino and not turning their back. I appreciate the comments that Commissioner Schmidt
made. I am attracted to the design because it is somewhat akin to the neighborhood in which I~
was raised in New York City. It has a lot of the same sort of feeling, but unlike that
neighborhood, it does not have front stoops or sitting area, which did enhance the sense of
community. I have raised this point before, and I hear you with regard to the porch not really
being able to be changed, but it would be something that would certainly make it more desirable
for me.
I appreciate the removal of one house and the addition of the common space towards the center
of the project. A lot of my comments that I was prepared to make essentially went to the fact
that I did not feel that the project would work as a community, given the place that you used for
the common area. I think the place you have now is certainly an improvement. I do not have a
sense for how you are going to design it, what you are going to put there, what plantings are
going to be there, etc., and I certainly would be interested in seeing more detail with regard to
that.
A:lPCMins8lpc0128.reg Page 14
In going about the neighborhood, including some similar projects, I was struck by the fact that
children often play on these interior streets, whether they drag out portable basketball hoops,
which I did see, or toddlers trying out their tricycles, and children with two-wheelers with
training wheels. I see that as something that you might plan for in that common area somewhat.
I don’t know" how you would do that or how you would make the street somewhat attractive for
that sort of use, aside from the use ofb~:ick pavers, or at least accommodating that type of use. I
think that we have less of a bowling alley kind of look now that you have the common area
somewhat in the center of the project.
With regard to how the project fits in the neighborhood, I think you have Walgreen’s nearby, and
you are going to have people walking to that location. I would like to see some way to enhance
the walkabilitY. I like the idea of a path, and certainly hope you can pursue that. I am concerned
about pedestrian use of crosswalks or something of that sort for children and others to cross E1
Camino, and hopefully, what the CPAC committee saw as the ability to use the El Camino Way
island there as some sort of community center. I see people crossing El Camino, so I would like
to see some thought given to that.
With regard to the public benefit, I certainly find the ability to have four units on site dedicated
to BMR a great benefit. I would look forward at some point to having a planned development
type of concept that we could apply, rather than going with a PC zone. In general, I am in favor
of the project, with perhaps some improvement that would be akin to what Commissioner
Schmidt has indicated.
Commissioner Cassel: Unfortunately, I was not able to get out to the slte. So I was limited to
looking at the Zoning ordinance for the exact location. Obviously, I have been up and down this
street many times. I basically want to reinforce what Commissioner Schmidt said, rather than
repeating it. I have a couple of other thoughts, as well. One is that I am not sure this common
space that everyone is talking about is the best. The actual best space (and I am not sure it would
work) is between Units 21 and 22, where people will actually tend to be walking by and
gathering in. I have in my neighborhood a unit that does not have the piece along the street but
goes straight back, and there are two open spaces opposite each other, and I have never seen
anyone in them. It is just dead space. It does not seem to work. I would rather see a house there
and the open space somewhere else, if that were possible. I am just throwing that out here as a
xvay to look at that and see if it is an option. It is just that people will walk in both directions that
way.
I am pleased with the public benefit that includes the extra units.
We have not mentioned the tandem parking. That is unusual. I think one of the things that is
going to make tandem parking work is storage space in these smaller units that we are building.
We do not normally talk about what goes inside the architecture, but what we have been doing in
California, since most of us do not have basements, is using our garages for storage space. When
we lose the garage space, then what do we do with our storage stuff?. That really becomes the
A:[PCMins8]pc0128.reg Page 15
problem. We all need some space for Aunt Jane’s old chair that we inherited last month and
have not yet figured out what to do with it. So if there are ways of thinking ab’out storage space,
~vhether it goes over the front of a car area where the car tucks under? Is there some other way to
think about the comers of these buildings, the odd spots in these buildings, that add storage space
that may, indeed, help people to be able to tandem park or use their garages for the garages they
are expected to.
When a project comes back, we often still do not have where these pad mounted transformers are
going to be located. That continues to bug the Planning Commission, as you know. Yesterday,
as I was walking in my neighborhood, I noticed that a low brick wall which had been put in place
essentially as the screening had a big hole cut out of it. The pad mounted transformer had been
placed in such a way that the door to open it would not allow the wall to be built. I am sure it
was an accident, but it would be awfully nice, when this comes back, that we know where these
pad mounted transformers are going to be, how they are going to be placed, and how they are
going to be screened. I would think that at that stage, you would certainly be ready to indicate
that. Thank you.
Commissioner Beecham: This is a very creative presentation by the developer to put individual
houses on the streetscape on El Camino, and to have these be sold, not rented. I think this is a
very useful new concept for us to consider here. There are a number of things I like about it.
First of all is that as far as the El Camino streetscape, there is no noise wall. That is something
we have worked hard for before, and not necessarily satisfactorily, so I look forward to this
option.
I think the separate access from El Camino ~vill be very useful to help in making this more
residential for the people who do live here.
There were comments on public benefits by one speaker, Bob Moss, and there is always the
question as to what is an appropriate public benefit. I think Bob mentioned that as you look
through what has been required before goes all over the place, and I think that is because it is
very hard to quantify what are you benefitting against. That is, what is the application requiring
beyond what would be provided, or how is it imposing on the community that more so than
otherwise would be allowed. I think that in this case, as was discussed, is that the public benefit
is primarily because of the lot lines as an issue, as the staff re.port mentions. Also, there is
another issue I think they would want to address, and that certainly is, how to manage open
space, perhaps handling the daylight plane, and so on. I think that overall, the impact on the
community of this project is not negative, if at all. With a PC, we do require a public benefit,
and I certainly think that the extra BMR is appropriate. The applicant also has a couple of other
items in there for transportation. They are nice ideas. A bicycle and rail pass are nice, but it
would not count significantly in the public benefit requirement. In any case, I think the public
benefit is acceptable here.
Another issues is the density. On one hand, we often want as much as possible in high density
A:[PCMins8lpc0128.reg Page 16
areas to do that, to support transportation hubs and to do our fair share of housing. I think what
is going in here is an appropriate density - 26 or 27 units is certainly a reasonable number for
the site. So that, to me, fits.
My biggest concern in the project is the interior street. Early on in my review, I was concerned
about its being wide enough. I now do not have much concern on that. I would like it to be
more of a residential streetscape, but that is very difficult in this configuration, given the other
compromises one has to make. I don’t think it is appropriate to push the houses back and
sacrifice rear yards to get a bit more streetscape, so I would not urge that to be done.
I do follow the other discussions on porches. I think that wider porches would be useful. One
reasons to go against deleting a unit is that in doing so, you will be picking up two units that
have double-wide garages. I think that is less desirable in here, both because you have wide
garages as a streetscape and also, in that design, your porches are on the side, not at the front. It
still may be better, overall, to have a gap in there, and it also helps from the perspective of
Goebel Lane, because it does break up their view of the sections. It does give you some common
space, but I think the two-car garages will be a bit of a negative there.
Staff had some comments on landscaping. I think the landscaping, as presented, ig generally
adequate. Also, staff raised an issue of the sidewalk on El Camino being four feet, wishing it to
be wider. I think four feet may be adequate there. I do not see a lot of people walking down the
sidewalk arm in arm. In that section, staff mentions that it is 100 feet away from the nearest bus
stop, so the benches there are not useful to the bus stop. I think that in the same breath says that
you will not have a lot of people strolling down there very often, so I think four feet is probably
adequate.
On the architectural design, I, too, am not real comfortable with a general farmhouse approach. I
think that on E1 Camino, something a bit more sophisticated may be appropriate..
Staff mentions the requirements for bicycle parking and recycling centers. I would agree with
that, and I believe they are required by ordinance anyway.
Staff indicates a desire for a wider curb cut on El Camino. I would support that. I think it is
going to be a bit difficult for people leaving and turning in at the same time. That would be
beneficial to have .it be a bit wider.
Chairman Schink: Staff has asked us to comment on this project, and then forward it to the
Architectural Review Board. I think it would be appropriate to have a motion forwarding the
application to the Architectural Review Board.
Commissioner Schmidt: I first have a question for staff. On Page 8 of the staff report, it
mentions that the city exterior noise standards require that certain, units have a six-foot-tall
masonry or solid wood fence. Here it says, Units 1, 2, 23 and 27, which probably becomes 22
A:!PCMins81pc0128.reg Page 17
and 26 in this particular plan. I was just wondering where those fences would go. Are they
internal to the project at all, or are they facing E1 Camino? Where would they be?
Mr. Dolan: They would just wrap around the sides of those yards that are exposed to El Camino.
Take, for example, Unit 22, the south side wall. The south side of the back yard and side yard
are exposed somewhat to the noise emanating from E1 Camino, and the wall is necessary just in
those areas. Conversely, on the north side, the same with Unit 26, previously #27. It is basically
a wrap around the side of the end units.
Commissioner Schmidt: I am sure they will be located the next time the project comes through.
I was concerned about their kind of breaking things up, but I see that they are required by the
noise ordinance. It would seem like they are being protected from traffic noise from inside the
project, to a certain extent.
Mr. Dolan: It is just as the noise would curl around the side of the building. Being on the end,
they are going to get some noise in the backyard.
Commissioner Schmidt: So you are looking at the project not just as the number of feet from
noise on E1 Camino, but as it does curl around.
Mr. Dolan: It is a visibility issue. If you can see El Camino from a particular location, you can
hear the noise. These are incorporated from the applicant’s own noise study, so they are
agreeable to it.
Commissioner Beecham: One other thing I would also comment to the ARB that if, in fact, it is
possible to provide some sort of walking connection to Goebel Avenue, that is desirable.
Commissioner Schmidt: I also need to comment that I met with Scott Ward and Jim Baer on
Monday and reviewed this. I also had a call from Jim Baer today about the proposed change
projected up there.
Commissioner Bialson: I also want to comment on the public benefit. The applicant asked if we
could tell them whether they could avoid two of the expensive public benefits as he described
them. In my mind, I think the SamTrans pass is an important way of introducing public
transportation to the buyers and occupants of this project. I must say that I am not really taken
with the provision for the bicycle. That, to me, is of no great moment.
Commissioner Cassel: I have one further comment on the sidewalks. Two years ago, there were
some questions coming up under the ADA about keeping sidewalks clear of a certain width of
space, and I am not sure whether that was three feet or five feet, in which there were no obstacles
in that distance. That may need to be checked out, as it may be coming up. It was going to be
part of a national law that never got passed at that time. It would be a shame to get this all in and
discover we need another foot of width.
A:lPCMms8ipc0128.reg Page 18
Chairman Schink: Would the Planning Commission like to forward this to the Architectural
Review Board?
MOTION: Commissioner Beecham: I so move.
SECOND: By Commissioner Bialson.
MOTION PASSES: Chairman Schink: Is there any further, discussion on this motion? All those
in favor, say aye. All opposed? That passes on a vote of 5-0-1-0 with Commissioner Byrd
absent.
Mr. Schreiber: From the standpoint of process, we have indicated in the staff report that this
very likely will go to the Architectural Review Board on February 19th. What we will do to
facilitate the board’s discussion of the bicycle path issue is to put both the Goebel Lane project,
even if the response to the original board comments are not completed, on the same agenda with
this project. The board can then look at them, side by side, with both applicants there, and talk
about that issue. That will facilitate at least a good discussion of the issue, and hopefully, some
direction from the board on that.
Chairman Schink: That concludes this item.
(Commissioner Byrd returns to the hearing.)
~ORTS OF COMMITTEES - None.
REPOR~OM OFFICIALS - None.
Cornel: I have alreaily, g~ven you my list, but there was one other item that came
to mind. We probably should spend a lil~ime in getting to know each other. I have not had a
chance to get to know Eric very well, and it ~a,~d be nice to have a few moments to have him
tell us a little bit about who he is other than in thi’~rmal setting. And he may want to know a
little bit about us.
Chairman Schink: Does anyone else ha~e it~ms for ~iscussi~~etreat?-
Commissioner Schmidt: What is on the list_that We have so fal from p~
Chairman Schink: I do not have her list with mention is that she"f’Ks.t wanted to
discuss meeting procedures and the Planning Commission role.
A:IPCMinsSIpc0128.reg Page 19
ATTACHMENT 7
Architectural Revtew Board
Staff Report
Item No. 9
Agenda Date: April 2, 1998
To:Architectural Review Board
From:
Subject:
Brian Dolan, Senior Planner Department: Planning
4100-4120 E! Camino Real
File Nos. 97-ARB-137, 97-ZC-10, 97-EIA-38, 97-DEE-6
REQUEST
Review of an application for a Zone Change from Multiple Family Residential (RM- 15, RM-
30) to the Planned Community (PC) Zone to allow the demolition of existing vacant
structures totaling 4,850 square feet and construction of a 26-unit three story townhouse
complex, and related site improvements, and an application for a Design Enhancement
Exception (DEE) to allow tandom parking and intrusions into the required daylight plane.
File Nos. 97-ARB-97; 97-ZC-8; 97-DEE-6, 97-EIA-10.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Architectural Review Board:
Recommend that the City Council approve the attached Mitigated Negative Declaration
(Attachment #3 in the Planning Commission Staff Report), finding that the proposed
project will not result in any significant environmental impacts, if certain conditions of
approval are imposed; and
°Recommend that the City Council approve the proposed project, as revised, for
construction of a 26-unit three story townhouse bomplex, 65 parking spaces, public
open space, and related site improvements based on the attached findings and
conditions.
SlPlanlPladivlARBI4100 ecr.sr Page 1
PROJECT DESCRIPTIO.N
The applicant has requested approval of a rezoning of the property at 4100-4120 E1 Camino
Real to Planned Community (PC) consistent with the development plan titled "Conceptual
Site Plan, Classics at Barron Park," dated March 12, 1998, to allow the construction of 26
townhouses. A Design Enhancement Exception (DEE) to accommodate a special covered
parking arrangement, and intrusions into required daylight planes has also be~n requested.
The project would be accessed from three interior stree~ts: a primary access road generally
perpendicular to El Camino Real, a shorter road forming a "T" with the primary access road
towards the rear of the property, and a third interior road running adjacent and parallel to El
Camino Real resulting in seven project units facing the site’s El Camino Real frontage. A
median with side walk, a double row of trees, granite monoliths, benches, and landscape
strips are proposed to separate the interior street from E1 Camino Real.
The units are designed to resemble traditional row houses and would appear to be attached,
although a six-inch separation would be provided between each unit. Twenty-four of the
units would be approximately 1,600 square feet, and three stories. Units 9 and 14 would
be approximately 1,300 square feet and two stories. All units would have individual fenced
back yards. All of the units would have two car garages, 17 of them in a tandem
arrangement. The architectural style is intended to resemble the farmhouse style found in
some portions of the Barron Park neighborhood.
A public open space has been provided towards the rear of the property that includes a
pedestrian connection to the recently approved project on Goebel Avenue.
The project is consistent with all the site development requirements of the PC district except
the daylight plane intrusions, and the requirement to provide space for recycling storage.
The applicant intends to subdivide the property into 26 lots all fronting on a commonly held
private access road.
BACKGROUND
The project underwent Preliminary ARB review on August 21, 1997. The project had
general support although concerns where raised relating to the lack of variety of unit types,
the number of driveways onto El Camino Real, the selected architectural style of the project,
the adequacy of backup space from parking spaces, and the lack of public open space in the
project. The project was revised to address all of these issues to some extent with the
exception of the architectural style issue.
SlPlanlPladiv[ARBI4100 ecr.sr Page 2
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the project on January, 28 1998. (See
minutes in Attachment #2). The Commission was also generally supportive of the project.
Concerns expressed by members of the Commission and the applicants response to date are
described below:
Two members shared the ARB’s concern that the architectural style could be less traditional.
The applicant is opposed to changing the proposed architectural style.
Several members asked that the front porches be enlarged to make them more than "covered
entrances" for the purpose of increasing their use and facilitating socialization within the
project in the front of the units. The dimensions of the front porches have been changed from
4’ by 12’ to 5’ by 11’ in response to this concern.
Almost all members spoke in support of an interior open space included in an alternative
26-unit site plan presented by the applicant at the hearing. The open space was located on
the north side of the primary access road approximately halfway into the site. One member
thought the open space would be more appropriately located at the comer of the primary
access road and the interior road paralleling El Camino Real. The project has since been
revised to include a public open space in a new location at the west end of the primary access
road.
Several members were in favor of a pedestrian and/or bicycle connection to the adjacent
proposed residentialproject on Goebel Avenue. The project has been revised to include such
a connection.
One member felt that the backup spaces provided between units was adequate if the solution
to widening them meant losing depth of the rear yards. No substantial changes to the amount
of back up space provided for parking have been made Since the Planning Commission
hearing.
One member concurred with staff that the driveway opening to E1 ~Camino Real should be
widened. No changes to the width of the driveway have been proposed.
One member expressed concern over the design and location of the noise walls necessary
to protect the back yards of the Units 1, 2, 22, and 26 from noise on El Camino Real. It was
requested that these walls be designed and located on the plans prior to the project’s return
to the Planning Commission. No such plans have been submitted to date.
SUMMARY OF.. ISSUES AND CONCERNS
The primary issues of concern with the project since the Planning Commission Public
SlPlanlPladivlARBI4100 ecr.sr Page 3
Hearing have been the project’s ability to meet daylight plane requirements, and the location
of the public open space requested by the ARB and the Planning Commission. The public
open space issue has been resolved to the satisfaction of staff. The daylight plane issue is
addressed in the following discussion.
Daylight plane requirements apply to any property line that is adjacent to R-1, R-2, or RaM
property or any residential PC zone. The basic daylight plane for any PC begins at a point
10 feet above the property line and extends inward increasing in height one foot for every
two feet from the property line. This basic requirement may be superseded by using the most
restrictive daylight ’ plane requirements of any residential zone adjacent to a particular
property line. The applicable daylight plane requirements for each side of the project site
are presented in the following table. The attached plans show the applicants interpretation
of the daylight plane requirements with respect to the project. It should be noted that the
applicable daylight plane for the side yard of Unit 1 is the more restrictive basic PC
requirement, not the RM-30 requirement shown on the plans.
Location
El Camino Real frontage
northern property line adjacent to RM-
30,(curTently Blockbuster video )
western properb.’ line next to RM
15(existing apartments)
northern property line adjacent to RM-
15 (existing apartments, and Goebel
Avenue project)
western propert)’ line adjacent to R-I
(on Verdosa Drive)
southern property line adjacent to PC
(BarTon Square condominiums)
Daylight plane requirement
none
a two to one angle beginning 10 feet
above the property line (pc)
a 45-degree angle beginning 5 feet
above the property line (RM-15)
a 45-degree angle beginning 5 feet
above the property line (RM-15)
a two to one angle beginning 10 feet
above the property line.(PC)
a two to one angle beginning 10 feet
above the property line (PC)
Compliance
not applicable
Unit 26 has six foot intrusion on side
yard
Units 23 through 26 comply
Units i 5 and 21 have one foot intrusion
in rear, Units 16 through 20 comply in
rear, Unit 14 has a five foot intrusion
Units 9 and 14
have a less than one foot intrusion,
units 10 to 13 have a four and one half
foot intrusion.
Unit 9 has a five foot intrusion, Units 3
and 8 have a four and one-half foot
intrusion
(dormers only), Units 4 through 7 have
a two and one-half foot intrusion, Unit
1 as proposed has a 15 foot
intrusion.
The applicant has proposed a DEE (as authorized by Palo Alto Municipal Code Section
16.48.135) to allow for the proposed intrusion into daylight planes. A DEE allows minor
exceptions to the site development regulations, when such exceptions will enhance the
appearance and design of development, if the exception would not result in an increased floor
SlPlanlPladivlARBI4100 ecr.sr Page 4
area, and if three required findings can be made. These findings as summarized are: 1) that
there are exceptional circumstances applicable to the property,-2) that the granting of the
exception will enhance the appearance of the structure or improve the neighborhood
character in a manner that could not be achieved without the exception, and 3) that the
exceptions are related to a minor architectural feature or site improvement that will not be
detrimental or injurious to property to or improvements in the vicinity and will not be
injurious to the public health, safety, general welfare, and convenience.
The applicant has submitted a supplement to their Program Development Statement
documenting their rationale for use of the DEE process to allow these encroachments into
the daylight plane (Attachment 3).
Staff concludes that the requested exceptions meet the criteria for a DEE, and that the
required findings can be made (see Attachment 4), with the exception of the 15 foot daylight
plane intrusion on the side yard of Unit 1. This proposed intrusion can not be classified as
"minor," and therefore is not eligible for a DEE. RecommendedPlanning Division Condition
1 requires that Unit 1 be redesigned to resemble proposed two story Units 9 and 14 (floor
plan 3). Staff acknowledges that this redesign may require up to a three foot first floor
intrusion into the required 10 foot setback. This intrusion could be considered "minor" and
would be eligible for a DEE.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS
The Planning Commission recommended that the project be forwarded to the ARB for
review.
ALTERNATIVES
The applicant has submitted an alternative Conceptual Site Plan illustrating how the project
could be designed to better meet daylight plane requirements. The applicant suggests and
staff concurs that the proposed project is superior to the alternative Conceptual Site Plan
with respect to its appearance from E1 Camino Real, its internal circulation, and its
distribution of building mass on the site.
FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS
Recommended DEE findings (Attachment #4), ARB findings
conditions of project approval (Attachment #6) are attached.
(Attachment #5), and
ATTACHMENTS/EXHIBITS
Attachment # 1: Planning Commission Staff Report
Attachment #2: January 28, 1998, Planning Commission Public Hearing Minutes
SIPlanIPladivlAP, BI4100 ecr.sr Page 5
Attachment #3: Supplement to Program Development Statement
Attachment #4: Draft DEE Findings
Attachment #5: Draft Findings for ARB Approval
Attachment #6: Draft Conditions of Project Approval
Plans (Architectural Review Board members only)
COURTESY COPIES:
Barron Park Neighborhood Association, Will Beckett, 4189 Baker Avenue,
Palo Alto, CA, 94306
Barron Square Homeowners, PML Mgmt. Corporation, 655 Mariners Is. Blvd.,
San Mateo, CA, 94404
Palo Alto School District, Business Manager, 25 Churchill Avenue, Palo Alto,
CA, 94306
Classic Communities, 1068 East Meadow Circle, Palo Alto, CA, 94303
Trapani Family Trust, C\O Bay 101, 1801 Bering Drive, San Jose, CA 95112
Rick Hansen, (Blockbuster Video), 4102 El Camino Real, Palo Alto, CA 94306
Janet Stone, Mid-Peninsula Housing Coalition, 658 Bair Island Road #300,
Redwood City, CA 94063
Jeffrey Levin, 350 Second Street, Suite 7, Los Altos, CA, 94022
Prepared By:Brian Dolan, Senior Planner
Manager Review:Lisa Grote, Zoning Administrator
SlPlanlPladivlARBI4100 ecr.sr Page 6
Attachment 3
SUPPLEMENT TO PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT STATEMENT
4120 EL CAMINO REAL
CLASSICS AT BARRON PARK
The purpose of this document is to update and supplement the Program
Development Statement for 4120 E1 Camino Real. This Supplement
addresses a few issues raised by: (i) the Planning Commission during its
conceptual review and approval on January 28, 1988; (ii) the Planning Staff in
its Staff Report and Project Review; and (iii) meetings with neighborhood
associations and community leaders. A modified Plan is provided with this
Supplement.
Elimination of One Unit -- Increased Shared Open,Space and
Pedestrian Connection
The Project has been modified to provide 26 rather than 27 row homes.
The Planning Commission and neighbors indicated a preference for a
Modified Plan with one fewer unit and more shared open space for
residents. There were several alternatives available for locating the
open space. We have placed this public area in a location that would
allow a generously sized bicycle and pedestrian connection to the
proposed development to be known as Wisteria Lane. Neighborhood
associations and the Planning Commission expressed a desire for
pedestrians and bicyclists (including school children) to be able to travel
to Vista (to the North), via a route other than on E1 Camino. Given
the location of our proposed public space, there is an overlapping area
with the proposed adjacent Wisteria project of about 25 feet in width,
making a safe and convenient connection/passage way easy and
practical. This also creates a common green area of sufficient size and
scale to meet the needs of the residents of this community and the
"gathering place" objectives of the Planning Commission.
Reduction of Size of Two Units From Three-Story to Two-Story
Units #9 and #14 have been substantially modified to make them two-
story rather than three-story in order to reduce the side yard daylight
plane intrusion. The roof lines and floor layouts of several other
units have been modified to reduce daylight plane impacts.
Supplement to Program Development Statement
Page Two
3.Reduced Density. Floor Area Ratio and Site (~overage
Elimination of 1 unit and modification of Units #9 and #14 to two-
story units, reduces project density, floor area ratio and site
coverage in ways supported by the Planning Commission and
neighbors. The site coverage is approximately 30% and the floor area
ratio is approximately 60%.
The Project Provides Substantially More Than Required Parkin~
The Project provides 52 covered on-site spaces and 12 guest spaces, fora
total of 64 spaces. This exceeds the number of required parking spaces
by a minimum of 12 spaces.
5.Preservation of 4 BMR Units
We have committed to provide 4 BMR Units, even with 26 rather than
27 homes in the Project.
6.PC Zone i8 Required
The proposed Project would be consistent with the RM-15 and RM-30
Zones applicable to the property based on density, site coverage and
floor area ratio of the project. If the proposed development were
processed under the RM-15 and RM-30 Districts, it would require a
number of variances. Variances would be necessary for reductions in
side yard setbacks, minimum parcel size and width, and side yard
daylight plane. These variances arise due to the character of small-lot,
single-family homes which are not covered by RM-15 or RM-30 Zone
Districts. Because of these required variances, this Project proceeds as a
PC Zone Application under Section 18.68 of the Municipal Code.
Section 18.68.150(e) [Special Requirements] of the PC District requires
that certain daylight plane conditions be satisfied. 19 of the 26 Units
satisfy these Special Requirements. 8 of the Units, #1, #3, #8, #10, #11,
#12, #13 and #26, require a Design Enhancement Exception for minor
intrusions into the daylight plane. Of these 8 Units, 7 are intrusions of
less than 3 feet and are consistent with daylight plane intrusions
approved for 425-435 Sheridan and 440-460 Page Mill, which is a PC
Zone approved in 1997. While Unit #1 is a more substantial intrusion,
it is less than the daylight intrusion approved as a minor exception for
Vista Gable/Wisteria Lane, which was approved by the ARB with a
Staff recommendation on March 5, 1998.
Supplement to Program Development Statement
Page Three
o Daylight Plane - Design Enhancement Exception:
We request a Design Enhancement Exception (DEE) under Chapters
16.48.135 and 18.91 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code for this Daylight
plane intrusion. This DEE satisfies the requirements of DEE: (i) this
exception involves a minor change to the daylight plane, an exception
specifically provided for in Chapter 18.91.020; and (ii) this exception
involves roof design and eaves, as specifically provided for in Chapters
16.48.135(a) and 18.91.010; (iii) this exception will not increase the floor
area of the project, a requirement of Chapters 16.48.135(b) and 18.91.020;
and (iv) this exception will not be detrimental to properties in the
vicinity of the Project and this exception enhances the appearance and
design of the Project as further described below.
As indicated earlier in this Supplement, daylight plane intrusions
comparable to, or greater than, this Project have been deemed to be
minor, resolving findings (i) and (ii) above. Finding (iii) is factual and
not disputed by Staff -- the Project does not exceed FAR requirements
and this DEE does not result in increased floor area. Finding (iv), in
part, requires that the DEE is not detrimental to properties in the
vicinity of the Project. The greatest daylight plane intrusion is Unit #1,
which is adjacent to the tennis court for Barron Square, which was a PC
Zone project approved in 1997.
Units #10, #11, #12 and #13 are adjacent to an R-1 Zone and have a
daylight plane intrusion of less than 3 feet on the porch and eaves, and
an open stair from the porch to the back yard -- a feature requested by
the ARB during its preliminary review.
Units #3 and #8 are adjacent to a PC Zone (the Barron Square project)
and have double dormers which project about 3 feet into the daylight
plane. Were the Barron Square project an RM-15 Zone, the daylight
plane intrusion would be a roof line intrusion of less than 1 foot.
Were the Barron Square project an RM-30 Zone, there would be no
daylight plane intrusion. Barron Square was a PC Zone because at the
time of its approval in 1977 (after annexation of Barron Park) a
moratorium on E1 Camino was in effect, except for PC Zone projects.
Otherwise, Barron Square would be RM-30 near E1 Camino and RM-15
for Units #3 and #9.
Unit #26 is adjacent to the Blockbuster Video parking lot. There is no
detrimental impact.
Supplement to Program Development Statement
Page Four
The second element of finding (iv) is that the DEE enhances the
appearance and design of the Project.
There are several design enhancement justifications for the Project:
First, the 1978 E1 Camino Real Design Guidelines and the South E1
Camino Real Design Workshop of June, 1994, sponsored by CPAC,
advocate the improvement of South E1 Camino with residential
developments. In particular, planning policies favor a variety of
housing types, such as the small lot, single-family homes presented in
this Project. Further, design goals encourage housing that fronts on E1
Camino, rather than a project turning its back on E1 Camino. The
proposed Project fulfills this goal, as no other E1 Carnino ownership
residential project has, by placing 7 units fronting onto E1 Camino.
This approach was approved by the Architectural Review Board in its
preliminary review on August 21, 1997, and by the Planning
Commission during its conceptual review on January 28, 1998. Other
projects place sound walls, tennis courts, guest parking, tall hedges and
extended driveways along E1 Camino. By placing 7 homes fronting on
E1 Camino, by preserving the trees requested by the Planning
Department Arborist and by developing the type of single family
housing as opposed to podium condominium units, the approval and
design of the Project is enhanced relative to placement of units in
different locations, which could avoid the minor daylight plane
intrusions of this Project.
Second, placement of open space (which is now adjacent to Unit #15)
could be relocated next to Umts #1 and #26, eliminating the dayhght
plane intrusion -o but this would result in the placement of open space
in a location that would make the open space undesirable for use by
property owners.
Third, the rear stairs of Units #10, #11, #12 and #13 could be
eliminated. These rear stairs were requested by the ARB at its
preliminary review.
Fourth, some ~of the excess guest parking spaces could be eliminated
with Units shifted to eliminate the minor daylight plane intrusions.
Any of these modifications would diminish the quality and design of
the Project.
Supplement to Program Development Statement
Page Five
Neighborhood Mcetin!~s
We have participated in the neighborhood outreach described below:
1.May 8, 1997:
2.May 22, 1997:
3.May 29, 1997:
4.June 6, 1997:
5.June 8, 1997:
6.January 13, 1998:
7.January 20, 1998:
8.February. 5, 1998:
Will Beckett and Bob Moss -- Barron Park
Neighborhood Association.
Jay Chiles -- Barron Square Association.
Forrest Preston -- Interdale Association.
Will Beckett.
Jay Chiles.
Barron Park Board of Directors’ Meeting.
Barron Park Neighborhood Meeting.
Barron Square Association Meeting.
Note: All Members of Barron Square received a Project description
before the January 28, 1998 Planning Commission Hearing. Project
information was posted on the Barron Park Web Site before the
January 28, 1998 Planning Commission Hearing.
Attachments:
1.Site Plan identifying adjacent Zoning Districts.
2.Design Enhancement Exception Findings
3.Diagrams
FINDINGS FOR DESIGN ENHANCEMENT EXCEPTION
4120 EL CAMINO REAL
RECOMMENDED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL
FINDINGS:
1. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions
applicable to the property involved that do not apply generally to property in
the same district, in that the site is located on E1 Camino Real and consists of
multiple parcels sharing an RM-15 and RM-30 Zoning designation. The
shape of the parcel is extraordinary, with a wide E1 Camino Frontage
narrowing for the rear 75% portion of the Project. Further, the property is
adjacent to four separate Zones: R-l, RM-15, RM-30 and the PC Zone of the
Barton Square project.
2. The granting of the Application will enhance the design, appearance
and placement of common area open space of the Project improve the
neighborhood character of the Project and preserve an existing or proposed
architectural style in a manner which would not otherwise be accomplished
through strict application of the minimum requirements of Title 18 and the
standards for review set forth in Chapter 16.48, in that the encroachment is
minor, will enhance the design of the Project, and is needed to preserve the
quality of living spaces within the Project.
Units #10, #11, #12 and #13 are adjacent to an R-1 Zone and have a
daylight plane intrusion of less than 3 feet on the porch and eaves, and an
open stair from the porch to the back yard -- a feature requested by the ARB
during its preliminary review.
Units #3~and #8 are adjacent to a PC Zone (the Barron Square project)
and have a rear yard daylight plane intrusion at the roof line of between 3 and
5 feet. Were the Barron Square project an RM-15 Zone, the daylight plane
intrusion would be a roof line intrusion of less than 1 foot.
Were the Barron Square project an RM-30 Zone, there would be no
daylight plane intrusion. Barron Square was a PC Zone because at the time of
its approval in 1977 (after annexation of Barron Park) a moratorium on E1
Camino was in effect, except for PC Zone projects. Otherwise, Barron Square
would be RM-30 near E1 Camino and RM-15 for Units #3 through #9.
Unit #1 is adjacent to the tennis court at Barron Square.
Findings for Design Enhancement Exception
Page Two
Unit #26 is adjacent to the Blockbuster Video parking lot.
3. The exception is related to a minor architectural feature that will not be
detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and
will not be detrimental tothe public health, safety, general welfare or
convenience, in that the proposed exception relates to the neighborhood
character of the Barton Park neighborhood.
03/11/98 16:15 "~650 493 9050 MOZART [~002!007
-0-,0 !
00/11/98 16:17 ~650 493 9050 HOZ.,.L.RT ~007/00?
03/ii/9~ 18:15 ~650 9050 MOZART 003/007
<~
ATTACHMENT 4
FINDINGS FOR DESIGN ENHANCEMENT EXCEPTION
4100-4120 El Camino Real
97-ARB-137~ 97-ZC-10; 97-EIA-38; 97-DEE-6
Findings for request for tandem parking:
1. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions on the site that do not
apply generally to property in the same district in that this residential property is located on
highly visible E1 Camino Real. Furthermore, the shape of the property is extraordinary with a
wide El Camino frontage (260 feet) and a relatively narrow rear portion (160 feet). The "L"
shape of the parcel is unusual and limits the design options of the site at the allowed density.
2. The granting of the exception to allow tandem parking garages will enhance the appearance of
the project by reducing the number of two car garages as the prominent element of front
elevations, which is generally considered to be undesirable. The appearance of having a one car
garage is consistent with the historical rowhouse style after which the project is modeled.
3. The granting of the exception to allow tandem garages is related to a minor architectural
feature of the project design. The substantially improved appearance of the project created by
this exception will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or
convenience. The required number of parking spaces are provided, but in a different
configuration.
Findings for request to intrude in the daylight plane:
1.’ There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions on the site that do not
apply generally to property in the same district. The project site is located on E1 Camino Real
which demands sensitive urban design treatment. The site consists of multiple parcels sharing
an RM-15 and RM-30 zoning designations that create unusual limitations on the design of
development on the site. The shape of the ~ite is extraordinary, with a wide E1 Camino frontage
and a narrow rear portion that also adds to the difficulty of designing development for the site.
Further, the property is adjacent to four separate zones: R-l, R.M-15, RM-30, and PC, all of
which have different daylight plane requirements.
2. The granting of the application for an exception to the applicable daylight plane requirements
will enhance the appearance of the project structures by allowing consistent roof angles and
greater articulation of roof design creating more visual interest.
-1-
3. The requested intrusions into the required daylight planes are caused by minor intrusions of
roofs, eaves, and dormers. Several intrusions are less than two feet and no intrusion is greater
than six feet. The proposed intrusions into the daylight plane will not create adverse conditions
for adjacent property related to shadows or invasions of privacy.
-2-
ATTACHMENT 5
FINDINGS FOR ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW APPROVAL
4100-4120 E! Camino Real
97-ARB-137; 97-ZC-10;, 97-EIA-38~ 97-DEE-6
The following findings for the Standards for Architectural Review have been prepared by staff in
support of the project alternative as amended by the Conditions of Approval:
1. The project is consistent with the land use designation of the Comprehensive Plan (Standard
# l) in that it is a multiple family residential use and is within the density allowable on the site.
The project is consistent with and furthers the City’s interest with respect tO the following
specific Comprehensive Plan policies:
Housing Element Policy #3: "Protect and enhance those qualities which make Palo
Alto’s neighborhoods especially desirable. "This project is located in a neighborhood
that features a mix of multiple and single family residences, and commercial uses.
The proposed project will provide additional housing opportunities within walking
distance to commercial services in the area and near a majoi~ transit corridor on El
Camino Real.
Housing Element Policy # 13: "Increase funding sources used to provide affordable
housing. "The project will provide Below Market Rate (BMR) units that will
contribute to the supply of affordable housing. The project would provide 4 three-
bedroom BMR units for families.
Urban Design Element, Objective, page 42, "Promote the orderly and harmonious
development of the City and the attainment of the most desirable land use and
improvements through the review of new development. "The site is designated
Multiple
Family Residential and is suitable for this use. The site is adjacent to and compatible.
with a variety of multiple family residential and single family developments in the
vicinity. The proposed site plan provides setbacks, and screening from fences and
landscaping to buffer the project from adjacent residential and other uses.
Urban Design Element Policy 3, "Promote visual aesthetics through tree planting,
landscaped areas, and removal of visually disruptive elements on major City
Streets." The project provides substantial increase in tree planting and landscaping
and would replace a highly visible dilapidated structure and an unmaintained lot on
-1-
E1 Camino Real.
2. The design is compatible with ’the immediate environment of the site (Standard #2) in that the
site is surrounded by existing single and multiple family residential uses and commercial uses.
The project meets all setback requirements from adjacent uses (except as recommended in
Planning general Condition of Approval #1), and provides for screening from adjacent uses by
a six foot high fence and a continuous row of screen trees around the perimeter of the project.
The height of the proposed units steps down to two stories at the perimeter of the project in most
locations to be consistent with and sensitive to adjacent development. As conditioned,
intrusions into the required daylight plane are minor and meet the required findings for a DEE.
The proposed residential units facing E1 Camino Real would provide visual interest to both
pedestrians and motorists. The proposed landscaping and streetscape on El Camino would
provide a buffer from El Camino Real for the residential units, an improved pedestrian
environment for pedestrians along E1 Camino.
3. The building would fimction well for residential use (Standard #3) in that the design provides
a healthy, safe, and comfortable living environment including individual back yards.
4. The subject property is not located in an area which has a unified design or a historical
character (Standard #4). However, the project design is in keeping with the variety of
architectural designs in the surrounding area.
5. The proposed project promotes harmonious transitions in scale and character to the
surrounding neighborhood (Standard #5) in that the project density is compatible with
neighboring residential projects. The height of the proposed units at the. perimeter of the project
(two stories) is generally consistent with surrounding development.
6. The design is compatible with approved improvements both on- and off-site in that the
architectural improvements are generally consistent with the scale and design of the existing and
adjacent buildings in the vicinity along El Camino Real and in the residential developments to
the south and west of the site (Standard #a6), and the access from E1 Camino Real is
appropriately located.
7. The plarming and siting of the proposed townhomes, on-site parki’ng, interior road system and
landscaping would create an internal sense of order and provide a desirable environment for
occupants, visitors, and the community in that the project includes interior streets attractive for
pedestrian use, porches and decks and an outdoor public space that would provide opportunities
for socialization, adequate visitor parking, an improved pedestrian environment along E1
Camino Real, and an attractive appearance from E1 Camino Real. (Standard #a7)
8. The proposed amount and arrangement of open space provided by porches, decks, and back
yards, and the proposed public open space is appropriate to the design and function of the
-2-
project. (Standard #aS).
9. The outdoor public space and guest parking spaces provide sufficient ancillary functions
compatible with and supportive of the main function of the project’s design concept (Standard
#a9).
10. Access to the property and circulation for both drivers and pedestrians would be provided in
a safe and convenient manner. Vehicular access is limited to one driveway off El Camino Real
reducing the opportunity for conflicting automobile movements. Pedestrian access to the project
is safely provided from the sidewalk along E1 Camino Real, and from the potential pedestrian
connection to the new project on Goebel Avenue. Interior project traffic would be light enough
to allow safe and convenient pedestrian and bicycle access to individual units on interior project
streets. (Standard #al 0).
11. Natural features are appropriately preserved and integrated into the project in that the
landscape plan provides for the preservation of two mature walnut trees, the replanting of an
existing mature palm tree, a double row of street trees along El Camino Real, perimeter
landscape screening, interior street trees, and additional landscaping along E1 Camino Real and
in the front yards of each unit. (Standard #al 1)
12. The proposed traditional architecture and building materials are appropriate for this building
style and are compatible with the mix of architecture styles found in other residential projects in
this area. Proposed landscaping is appropriate in quantity, location, size, and species for use in
this residential project and the region, and is consistent with that in adjacent neighborhoods
(Standard # 12).
13. The proposed landscape design provides a buffer from E1 Camino Real, a canopied sidewalk
in front of the project, interior street trees and additional planting to break up the mass of the
proposed units, screening from adjacent properties, and strategically located accent planting for
additional visual interest, all of which add to the desirability and functionality of the project
environment. (Standard #a13).
14. The proposed plant material is suitable and adaptable to the region and the site and can be
properly maintained on the site. The proposed plantings are appropriate for outdoor use and
include a mix of trees, shrubs and groundcover suitable for residential developments in Palo Alto
(Standard #al 4).
15. The project design is energy efficient in that the site plan takes good advantage of southern
exposure and the project would meet all energy requirements of the City. (Standard #al 5.)
-3-
ATTACHMENT 6
CONDITIONS OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL
4100-4120 El Camino Real
97-ARB-137~ 97-ZC-10~ 97-EIA~38; 97-DEE-6
General
Planning
1. The project plans shall be revised subject to the review and approval of the Planning Division,
to show that Unit 1 has been redesigned to a two-story unit similar to proposed Units 9 and 14.
Any intrusions into the daylight plane must be designed so as to be eligible for a DEE.
2.The location and screening of required padmount transformers shall subject to the review and
approval of the Planning Division.
3. The applicant shall provide plans showing the location and design of the proposed noise wall,
subject to review and approval of the Planning Division, prior to second review of the Planning
Commission.
4. A location for required recycling storage must be located on the property subject to the review
and approval of the Planning Division.
5. The tree protection detail on the landscape plans shall be replaced with Public Work’s
Department standard specification detail #505.
6. The project landscape plan should be revised to show the 36 imerior street trees (comprised
of three species) to be of 24-inch box size.
7. The required fence enclosure protecting trees shall be shown on the grading plans as a bold
dashed line at the dripline of the trees or as specified by the project arborist.
8. The plans shall comply with Section 8.04.030 of the PAMC with respect to distance between
tree wells and curb cuts.
9. The Site and Grading plans shall show each tree location by number and correlate with the
arborist tree inventory. The plans shall accurately indicate the tree diameter and leaf canopy of
each tree to be retained, including trees on neighboring property within 30 feet of each side of the
project.
-I-
Transportation
1. The site plan shall be revised to provide a minimum of 20 feet back up space in the
access aisle for Units 1, 23, 24 and 24. The necessary extra space may be obtained by
shortening the front yards of these units.
2. The site plan shall be revised to widen the access aisle behind the guest parking
space near unit 26 to 20 feet to provide additional back up space, and to extend the back
up area a minimum of eight feet beyond the northwest edge of the parking stall.
3. The site plan shall be revised to provide a minimum of 25 feet back up space beyond
the end of the parking space for the four perpendicular guest parking spaces between
Units 21 and 22.
4. The site plan shall be revised to provide a minimum of 25 feet back up space for the
guest parking space closest to Unit 15.
5. The site plan shall be revised to show a minimum 22 foot wide driveway curb cut on
El Camino Real.
Utilities Engineering Electrical
1. Space for two or more single phase padmount transformers are required. The location of
transformers will be determined when design of new electric distribution begins.
2. Primary underground substructure will be required from Goebel Avenue to El Camino Real. ¯
3. All secondary and splice boxes shall be installed in a public utility easement and not in the
street.
4. A secondary box will be required in front of every transformer.
5. Utility has final decision on location and distribution of transformers on the site.
Utilities Engineering (WGW)
1.Standard Utility conditions IDP 1,4; SBP 30-34; IBP 25-28, 30, 34-37, 43-45; DC 13, 15,
and 21, and RFM 4 shall be met.
-2-
Prior to Issuance of a Building Permit
Planning
1. An exterior lighting plan should be submitted to the Planning Division for review and
approval. All exterior lighting should be designed to eliminate glare and spillover beyond the
perimeter of the development.
2. All new trees shall be planted as per Public Works Standard Tree Well Diagram #504 and
have the tree pit dug at least twice the diameter of the root ball. This diagram shall be shown on
the landscape plans.
3. The Planning Arborist shall be in receipt of a statement from the applicant or project arborist
verifying that the protective tree fencing is in place before demolition and construction permit
issuance unless otherwise approved.
4. Before the protective tree fencing is installed, all trees to remain shall be pruned in
compliance with the following industry standards:
a.All specifications for working on protected trees shall be written and administered by a
qualified arborist.
b.All work on protected trees shall be in accordance with the industry Standard Practices
for Tree Care Operations outlined in the ANSI A300-1995 and ANSI Z133-1994.
All specified tree work shall be designed to promote practices which encourage the
preservation of tree structure and health, according to the Western Chapter of the
International Society ofArboriculture (WC-ISA) Guidelines for Certified Arborists and
Tree Workers.
Public Works Engineering
1. The applicant shall submit a conceptual grading and drainage plan for Public Works
Engineering (PWE) approval. In order to assess the potential storm water quality impacts, the
plan shall identify the Best Management Practices (BMPs) to be incorporated into the Storm
Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that will be required for the project. The SWPPP
shall include both temporary BMP’s to be implemented during construction and permanent
BMPs to be incorporated into the project storm water quality. The PWE approved conceptual
grading and drainage plan shall be incorporated into building permit plans.
2. A Public Improvement Plan must shall be submitted to PWE for all work in the public right
of way.
-3-
3. The applicant shall submit a drainage plan showing existing and proposed drainage of the site.
This plan shall show the existing affected off-site storm drainage and how the system will
accommodate the proposed site runoff. This plan shall show spot elevations of existing and
proposed grades illustrating how the proposed drainage will work. Existing drainage patterns on
adjacent properties shall be not be adversely affected.
4. Construction conducted within the sidewalk area must have a Permit for Construction in the
Street from the City of Palo Alto. This permit must be obtained from the Public Works
Department prior to commencement of work.
5. Any excavation or grading of more than 100 cubic yards, or an excavation deeper than three
feet will require an approved Grading and Excavation Permit from the Building Inspection
Division.
6. The placement of the driveway approach for the proposed street will require the approval of
the Califomia State Department of Transportation (Caltrans). The existing driveway approach
will be required to be removed and replaced with standard sidewalk and curb.
7. A permit must be obtained from Caltrans prior to commencement of any work in the E1
Camino Real right of way.
8. A logistics plan for the construction of this project must be submitted with the Building
Permit application. This plan shall include construction parking, truck routes and staging,
materials storage, and provisions for the maintenance of pedestrian, and vehicular traffic adjacent
to the construction site.
9. The applicant must have written approval from the City Arborist for proposed street tree
removal or installation, and for any excavation work within 10 feet of a street tree. This written
approval shall be available at the time of the Building Permit submission.
10. All sidewalks bordering the project shall be required to be replaced.
Utilities Marketing Services
1. Landscape plans must be reviewed and approved by the City of Palo Alto Utilities Marketing
Services Division. Submittal must include a statement of design intent, a landscape water use
statement, water use calculations, and a grading plan.
Fire
1. A residential automatic sprinkler system must be provided (’NFPA-13 R modified).
2. A fire alarm system is required.
-4-
3. Sprinkler and fire alarm systems must be supervised by central station.
4. Onsite fire hydrants (model 76) must be provided every 300 feet.
5. A graphic Annunciator (site plan with LED of alarm devices) must be provided.
6. Residential smoke detectors with battery backup in accordance with UBC must be provided.
7. Fire department access in accordance with Article 9 of UBC must be provided.
8. Portable fire extinguishers must be provided.
9. Class C roofing cover must be provided.
10. Permits from the Palo Alto Fire Department are required for sprinkler, underground fire
service line, onsite hydrants, and fire alarm system.
During Construction
Planning/Zoning
1. All tree removals must be ground to a depth of 24 inches below grade, the chips removed, and
the pit backfilled with quality topsoil.
2. No storage of material, topsoil, vehicles, or equipment shall be permitted within the tree
enclosure area of any tree to be retained.
3. The ground around the tree canopy of any tree to be retained shall not be altered.
4. Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and maintained as necessary to ensure survival.
5. All street trees shall receive monthly watering. A written log of each application shall be kept
updated at the site construction office. The log shall be forwarded to the Planning Arborist
before final sign off.
6. Project construction shall include installation of irrigation supply to meet all street trees.
Details shall specify an inline loop of drip tubing placed around the top of the rootball at a pont
one-third of the rootball diameter. All tree irrigation shall be connected to a separate valve from
other shrubbery and ground cover as required in Landscape Water Efficiency Standards for the
City of Palo Alto (V-C)(o).
Public Works Engineering
1. Protection to City trees at the work site shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City of
Palo Alto Arborist.
-5-
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
April 2, 1998
ATTACHMENT 8
4100 El Camino Real 97-ARB-137, 97-ZC-10
97-EIA-38, 97-DEE-6
Application of Classic Communities for a zone change from RM-15 amd RM-30 zone to the
Planned Community (PC) zone to permit the construction of a new, 26-unit residential
development and related site improvements. A Design Enhancement Exception (DEE) has been
requested to allow tandem garages and to allow intrusions into the required setbacks and daylight
planes. Environmental Assessment: A negative declaration has been prepared. This item is
tentatively scheduled for final Planning Commission review on April 29, 1998 at 7 p.m. and for a
City Council public hearing on May 18, 1998 at 7 p.m. in the City Council Chambers.
Chair Piha: Brian Dolan will give the introduction.
Mr. Dolan: I am in the planning division, but I am in the long range planning section, so you
will not see me very frequently. When this applicant came in, we were a little short-handed. I
will make the recommendation and then we can hear from the applicant. We recommend that the
ARB recommend to the City Council that they approve the attached negative declaration with the
finding that it will not result in any significant environmental impacts if certain conditions of
approval are proposed. Also we recommend that the ARB recommend to the City Council the
proposed project, as revised, for consmaction of a 26-unit three-story, townhouse complex and
related site improvements per the attached findings and conditions.
Chair Piha: Are there.any questions from the board for staff?.
Unknown board member: How is the guest parking typically figured out for a project for this?
Mr. Dolan: I do not know the formula for guest parking offhand. The unit parking requirements
are based on a number of spaces per unit, and the requirement varies by the number of
bedrooms.
There are a few changes to the staff report. In the Conditions of Approval, which is Attachment
6, Condition #4 relates to recycling of garbage, and should be deleted. The developer feels, and
staff concurs, that this can operate as a single-family development, and there should not be a
joint recycling of garbage requirement.
Also in Condition #2, there is a word missing. "The transformer shall be..." Also on the next
page, under the Transportation Division Conditions of Approval, Condition # 1, there is a
reference to 1.3.4 and (inaudible) should be .5..
Chair Piha: Are there any further questions for staff?.
Mr. Lippert: This is currently zoned PC? (Yes) With regard to the daylight plane, (inaudible)
Mr....Dolan: The unit, as proposed, extends into the required daylight plane by 15 feet. There are
several more minor intrusions into the required plane at other points in the project, all of which
we felt met the requirements for the DEE, so that we can grant an exception to the daylight plane
for this minor intrusion.
Mr. Lippert: What is staff’s feeling about the daylight plane intrusion for unit 1?
Mr. Dolan: We understand that it might not be assignificant as the intrusions in other areas
because it abuts the tennis court, but we do not have an opportunity to override the zoning
requirements.
Mr. Lippert: Wouldn’t the projection into the daylight plane be even deeper because of the way
that it is below the grade of the project site?’
.Mr. Dolan: Correct.
Mr. Lippert: Since this is being approved for a PC, there are certain public benefits that are
supposed to be given. Do you know what those are?
Mr..Dolan: We have not necessarily negotiated all of the public benefits yet.. Staff is
recommending approval of the public benefit as proposed, and I will defer to the applicant to
describe those in detail. Generally and quickly, it includes an additional BMR unit, and there is a
proposal for providing a bicycle and also a bus pass to create some traffic reduction. Then there
is what the applicant has described as supplemental landscaping along E1 Camino Real.
Jim Baer, 532 Channing, Palo Alto: The one that the Planning Commission most responded to
as satisfying their sense that this was an added public benefit is that we are providing four below-
market-rate units. There are two other ways to satisfy the BMR obligation. Frequently, in
projects like this, there are single-family homes, and you can make an in-lieu, dollar contribution
by formula rather than providing any units. Alternatively, the maximum that would be required
of the applicant would be to provide two units, and make a .6 contribution. Here we are
providing four units, and it is not as if there is a BMR row. These four are scattered throughout
the project, and this was an early element in the negotiation with planning staff. At the Planning
Commission heating, there was a letter from the Palo Alto Housing Corporation saying that they
really recognized this as being extraordinary, receiving this many family-size units on a transit
corridor.
The second public benefit is the enhanced landscaping along E1 Camino, and the third one is
innovative traffic mitigation measures that are of two types. One is bus passes for Santa Clara
County buses to be given to all residents, and third is a program that Classic Communities
worked out in Menlo Park where they were able to buy a year pass. They are going to do that in
Santa Clara County, and then provide a bicycle for each resident. Planning staff, in their report
to the Planning Commission, said that they did not recognize other than the BMR units and
landscaping as significant public benefit. Am I misstating that?
Mr. Dolan: They thought they were good ideas, but did not have any evidence of potential
success in terms of numbers.
Mr. Baer: But the question put to the Planning Commission specifically was, "If you do not
think these are meaningful, then we won’t do it. We will put those dollars into something else in
the project." The Planning Commission said they thought the public benefit package was good,
and they felt they should encourage these kinds of alternative transportation, but they didn’t
know if they were successful. Those are the three elements of the public benefit.
Mr. Lippert: In terms of affordable housing that you supposed to be providing, what amount of
the 4 proposed BMR housing units are the applicants required to provide.
Mr. Dolan: The project is required to provide 10 percent BMR units. For 26 units this would be
2.6 units. The additional 1.4 units are offered as a public benefit.
Chair Piha: Any further staff questions? Seeing none, we will have the presentation.
Mr. Baer: After I speak to you, Henry Fisher of Classic Communities will follow me. I will
briefly describe what have been the approval efforts taken since we first visited and had a
conceptual review with the Architectural Review Board last August and our Planning
Commission conceptual review in January. The primary issues that were focused upon at the
Architectural Review Board in the August heating were that this was the first time that a project
had proposed single-family homes with this kind of frontage on E1 Camino. So what we were
seeking guidance from the ARB about was whether this is an appropriate site planning device. It
received good support from both the Architectural Review Board and Planning Commission.
There was a drive lane at the north end of the project, and there were concerns about conflict
between pedestrians and vehicles. We closed that. There were concerns about whether this
would be a problem for the fire department, and while not mandated, Classic Communities has
now volunteerd to fire sprinkler all of the units and treat then as single buildings rather than as
single-family homes. The fire marshal was very’ pleased with that result, which enabled the
closing of the second drive.,
Several members of the Architectural Review Board said that we have created an interior and
unfriendly asphalt environment. Our response to that was more intensive landscaping and a
decorative concrete paver system.
The Architectural Review Board also spoke of two other things specific to the housing units. It
was that there were many comer units, and the comer units were undifferentiated in that they
were all facing forward without side differentiation. Now, all of the side units, with the
exception ofNos. 9 and 14, have more elaborate stairs, doors and windows opening to the side.
Another housing element feature was that the access to the back yards from the units was not
direct, so stoops and steps have been added to get to the back yards, when some of the units did
not have that access to the,back yard. We feel that we have listened to the Architectural Review
Board about what were its principal concerns.
The Planning Commission provided very positive, generalized comments, approved the public
benefit, approved the site layout, and they also supported the E1 Camino approach. Their
concern was that even though this is a single-family home product, there was an absence of
sufficient public open space. It was all dedicated back yards. So the request was to reduce one
unit and to have a place where there would be benches, a barbeque, a gathering place, so that
people were not just seeing one another at the mail box. That is part of the no-front-yard
experience. So according to the Planning Commission recommendation, one unit has been
eliminated, which does not show on this drawing, and in your plans, what you will see is that
there are two parking spaces at the front of that. One thing we would suggest is that if the ARB
and Planning Commission would prefer a deeper public space and a loss of those two guest
parking spaces, we are amenable to that. There is always a conflict between whether there is
adequate guest parking and open space. The applicant is willing to be guided on that.
There was also a request that there be a connection to Wisteria Lane, which the ARB apparently
asked for with the Wisteria Lane project within the last month. We are offering to make that
connection. There are backup lane issues in the conditions by the Transportation Division. Scott
Ward, who is in Europe this week and next, is the expert on this aspect. So we are going to say
that we cannot be persuasive about why those conditions are not successful for the applicant, but
for the record for the Planning Commission, we wanted to say that those are issues we would like
to be able to raise when Scott can address those issues, as he is more familiar with them. Henry
is here to answer questions about the homes and the layouts and the materials.
But first, one issue that Lee raised and which Brian discussed, is about Unit 1 and the
recommendation that that not be granted a DEE. It is next to a tennis court and it is a tennis
court and a PC zone. So for the tennis court to be relocated, you would need a major
modification of that PC zone, so it is not as if it could disappear tomorrow. We have struggled
with this issue, and Bran has been very helpful in helping us to work through the DEE issues.
The issue is, as Brian responded earlier, that the DEE is appropriate for a minor intrusion, not a
major intrusion. This exceeds what staff previously identified as a minor intrusion. It is not
minor because the zoning of the adjacent property is PC bycircumstance, not by legal
requirement. A PC zone is a one and two daylight plane. RM-30 is a two to one. An RM-15 is
a one to one. In 1977, when the adjacent project was approved, all projects on El Camino had to
be by PC zone, because Barron Park had just been annexed and there was a moratorium on
development, except by PC zone. So we are at an RM-15, and we qualify for a minor. So the
question we would like the ARB to address is, if you think it is appropriate to have that be a 3-
story home for consistency of the frontage along E1 Camino, that you ask staff to help us find
what would be the solution by the time we get to the Planning Commission. The alternative is
either a DEE or a variance, and both of those have elements of unpleasant findings that staff does
not like. But where there’s a will, there’s a way. Ira three-story home in that location is
preferred, it would be helpful if you would speak to that, and that would give us the opportunity
to work with staff on how we might address that.
Henry_ Fisher, Classic Communities: I know there are a number of issues that are in question,
and were raised in the staff report, in particular, such as what to do with garbage and recycling.
Also, some board members have asked about lighting, and I am also going to address exterior
materials for you to show you what we want to do. I will take the first two issues first.
As far as garbage goes, although I believe the PC calls for a common area for recycling, we feel
that these live as single-family houses. Therefore, it is probably most appropriate to keep the
garbage and recycling activities within each building. You can see from the way these tandem
garages are laid out that there is quite a large space to provide for that. This is the predominant
condition. There is an opportunity with this garage to open up an area under the stair after we
come up about 10 risers which we will open up for recycling, so we will take advantage of that.
Plan 3 has a very large notch off of it, as well. When you refer to that plan, you will see that
there is an opportunity within that garage, as well.
As far as street lighting is concerned, it has been our experience in past developments that there
is a tension between the need for light for security and being able to find your way home, and the
need for people to get to sleep at night. One method that we found that has worked very well,
which has been put into practice at the Times Tribune development at the back alley there, is that
we are proposing that each house have a light on it that is directed toward the roadway and
toward their driveway. It is hard-wired on and has a photocell anda low wattage bulb. That
seems to be the most effective way to light these units. It keeps the light level low, and it spreads
a lot of lights out over the area so that instead of having a bunch of glaring street lights that get
into individual bedroom windows, we have small lights that are driven off of photo ceils. That
proposal is that those lights go out the front stoop or over the garage and be low wattage.
Mr. Peterson: Building mounted?
Mr. Fisher: Yes, building mounted, so each resident would have one light that would contribute
to the lighting of the area as a whole.
As for building materials, we are continuing to propose a sort of rustic-sided house which is
consistent with the conceptual plans for this area. I would like to add that apparently, when we
presented this to the neighbors, the overwhelming response from the neighborhood was "How
wonderful. Not another stucco box." So we will continue to show that style. With the
horizontal siding, we have three altematives. (Terrible buzz on the rest of this tape)
They are smooth and a very gentle texture. I would defer to your judgment as to which one we
should pursue, but probably a combination of the fiat and the cedar mill, which would be the
smoothest and of a medium texture. This siding has a couple of benefits over the traditional,
masonite siding that we have used before. It is more rigid, which allows for us to do
(Inaudible comments)
Because of the density of the material, it has much better sound characteristics than
about a factor of twice the density of Masonite, and almost a factor of three times the density of
Given the proximity of El Camino Real and the traffic, anything
we can do to increase the mass of the building wall is another feature of this.
We are showing a rough sawn trim on this. It is what our builder typically puts on, but we
actually are suggesting that we would go with a product that we are trying out at other projects.
It is a mitered, smooth corner that we would use for the corners. Or in lieu of this, we would also
consider using a braced corner that uses a metal element. Two pieces come together and you
would brace it with a piece of metal. We have done that on houses at Everett Court which you
are probably familiar with. The advantage of that is that it reduces the verticality of these edges.
If we brace this corner, we would not have this vertical line, and it would emphasize the
horizontal lines. It would help to cut down on the three-story aspect of the buildings.
I know that the board tends to want to see windows with more depth and detail to them, so we
are proposing a window made by Eagle that can accomplish the same STC rating and has
exterior moldings This is actually a wooden window, as you can see. It has an
integral cladding on it. The manufacturer has styles __slide a
piece of aluminum an gives it more rigidity. As far as we are concerned, it makes it more
dimensionally stable and one that so that it protects
(inaudible questions from the board)
Mr. Fisher: In the courtyard homes we have built, people are doing that. They are also looking
at their recycling bins in the garages, as well.
(Questions)
Mr. Fisher: This is a tuming area, a 20-foot drive, and is more than sufficient for the trash truck
to come in and do a hammerhead turnaround here. The practice of Palo Alto Sanitation is that
they have these large bins on rollers on the front, and on the night before garbage day, typically
people will put their garbage out on their apron, and the sanitation truck will come in, pull into
this intersection, and rtm up and down with the rolling bins to collect the garbage. Then the
truck can easily make this turning movement and exit.
(Questions)
Mr. Fisher: I have seen them stop at once place in a city block and roll up and down the block.
(Questions)
Mr. Fisher: Not to my knowledge. This meets their turnaround criteria.
(Questions)
Mr. Fisher: That has not been mentioned, to my knowledge. The typical building code provides
for three-foot separation between houses and property line before they start getting into some
serious fire lanes, which implies that if you have 40 feet, which is what we have done from
building face to building face, I believe there should be sufficient to transit that.
(Questions)
Mr. Fisher: That is correct, with the exception of the sidewalk, of course.
(Questions)
,Mr....Fisher: We have l~oked at all materials, and we continue to look at new materials, old
materials, to see how they function. This particular material is something we have started using
in the last year-and-a-half at the suggestion of Menlo Park, actually, and we found that it has
performed quite well for us.
(Questions)
Mr. Fisher: Certainly. This looks a little funny in the elevation, but in fact, this is a large cricket
that allows the water to -- are you familiar with what that is? By the time you get to the front
edge here, you are perhaps a foot back from the comer, and it is a low enough slope that it would
be very difficult to see this unless you are on the second story of the building across the way.
(Questions)
Mr. Fisher: It is just a California term. A cricket would be wood. Because of the fire code, we
will need to put in a fire wall, but you will not see it.
(Questions)
Mr..Fisher: They are connected only at the roof level. We have been having some discussions
with the attorney This is done all the time, for instance, in some buildings
downtown, and in San Francisco.
(Questions)
Mr. Fisher: A larger deck? That is not really meant to be a deck. It is meant to be a landing.
The yards themselves are small. It is a tradeoff. We have contemplated ofedng as an option to
a buyer that we would build out more of the deck, however, I think you start having problems
with cutting light off from the unit below, and you start to encroach on your neighbor’s privacy if
you are one story up and you have a large deck, and you are getting within ten feet of the
property line. Pretty soon you are leaning over the railing into the neighbor’s back yard. So
there are tradeoffs there, and we thought this was the best solution.
(Questions)
Mr. Fisher: We have had some feedback. People wonder what the tombstones are for. The
intent is that the hedges between them will grow up, creating a fence that goes sort of monolith
to monolith with a hedgerow in between, once it is established. I think that is going to create a
good look, but it will take some time to establish it.
(Questions)
Mr. Fisher: The idea is to make a barrier that is not as designed for a concrete
wall. It is a little softer edge. What we are doing here is that we are going literally from a state
highway of two travel lanes and a parking lane, transitioning to the front porches of houses.
David’s idea here is to create layers to do that. We have a layer of parked cars, and we have two
rows of trees and a sidewalk, and then we have the monolithic hedge, and then we have a very
minor roadway. It is more like a driveway or an alley. Then we have a level change at the front
porch, and then we get inside of the houses. So we are really taking quite a risk here, putting the
houses up against the road, so it is trying to mitigate that as we come from the highway to the
interior of the house. That is part of that transition. It is just one zone in there. If you want us to
eliminate them, I am certainly happy to do that and just have a hedge there.
Mr. Lippert: I wish to state for the record that I was contacted by the applicant, and I do believe
the applicant is To continue with my line of questioning, regarding the daylight
plane issue on Unit No. 1, what is your feeling with regard to that? It is a major daylight plane
encroachment. How would you mitigate that or change that Unit #1 if that was not o-.
Mr. Fisher: I can let Jim speak to some of it, but I would like to step back and look at the project
as a whole. Again, this is a very busy edge. The intention here is to create an urban edge, three
stories, and at a visceral level, we feel like it is the right thing to do, to have a three-story house
in this location. We understand that there are some conflicts with the code. We would like to
find a way to get that done. If it is absolutely impossible to do that, there is a modified unit in
the back that meets the daylight plane. That unit certainly could be sited there. It would violate
the setback by about two feet only on the first floor. That, I believe, would fall within the
allowances of the code, but I feel it would be unfortunate to do that. You would be losing that
nice edge that holds that very busy street. If you want more of a technical answer, I am sure Jim
can address the code issues.
Mr. Lippert: I am interested in the approaches that you would be taking.
Mr. Baer: The magnitude of the intrusion is dictated by the adjacency of the zoning, not by the
atrocity of the building. Notwithstanding that, we have really worked diligently with Brian and
Lisa Grote, and feel very satisfied that where they have would up, because of the adjacent
zoning, this cannot be called a minor intrusion. The alternative is that a variance finding requires
a substantial loss of a property right. The argument that the applicant would make about the
substaniial loss of a property right is that by having to go from three to two stories in this
circumstance would lose FAR. It is tough, because it is occasional that boards trivialize findings
for the quality of the project. I know of no other way to say it, other than that we like the project
and want to make this finding, and we do not want to feel legally constrained by "Let’s find a
way to make the finding." Here, it may be from my readings, that the substantial loss of a
property right is an easier trivilization than what is major or minor. I don’t think the city wants
to be in the position where 15 feet becomes acceptable as a minor intrusion for buildings that are
next to R-1. That, then, becomes a threshold and we have a precedent of 15 feet being minor,
and the adjacent zoning is what dictated it. So again, what we are saying is that to defeat the
three-story strength along E1 Camino is a very unfortunate outcome, and Henry and Scott both
felt very strongly about this. We would probably write an alternative finding for the Planning
Commission, if we were supported by the Architectural Review Board, saying that we either
want to make this finding, or in the alternative, we want to say we want that building to be three
stories. That certainly gives us the opportunity to work with staff further. I hope that is clear.
Mr. Lippert: I want to talk a little about materials. Have you looked at using aluminum siding at
all?
Mr. Fisher: That is always an option, but this town is fairly aggressive in its conservation
practices, and that does not seem to marry well with the town’s attitude towards conservation,
nor do we feel it is necessary, given the quality of alternative materials that are available.
Obviously, there are different views on this. I think that the product we are showing here
produces a high quality finish, and the differences between this and real wood are really not
material. The answer is yes, we have considered it, but we don’t think it is appropriate, given the
number of trees that would perish to allow us to build these.
Mr. Lippert: With regard to the doors, you have described the windows and the siding, but you
did not describe the doors.
Mr...Fisher: The door we use is a solid core door, typically six panels. In some of these cases,
we are showing two or four lights in the door. We have been using a door made by Peachtree, I
believe, that has a synthetic skin on it. Again, we are quite exposed to long-term liability issues
in this state, and doors and windows are a big issue for us. Some materials, over time, given
changes in aspect -- moisture, sunlight, rain -- do not wear well. We have a ten-year implied
warranty in this state, and we need to produce a product that will stand up to that. The Peachtree
doors we have been using there are the same doors that were used on the Everett Court project,
and they have held up very well. They are dimensionally stable, and we feel that they look good,
so those are the doors we propose to use here.
Mr. Lippert: So it would not be a stamped metal door.
Mr. Fisher: Oh God, no, we never use a metal door. The problem that we find with a metal door
is that it dents. It looks terrible after a few years. This is a wood door, but it has a synthetic skin
on it, essentially a fiberglas sheath over it. The problem with a metal sheath door is that they just
do not hold up well. They are great as far as weather goes, but aesthetically, they look terrible.
Mr. Lippert: Can you talk a little bit about the material on the underside of the overhangs at the
each of the entrances there?
Mr. Fisher: Sure. Typically, we use a resawn plywood for that, and we bevel back the edges so
that the edges are eased and are just butted together, and painted out.
Mr. Lippert: Please clarify for me about the lighting for the street. What you are proposing are
bell type fixtures, the flood lights that we generally see?
Mr. Fisher: No, they would not be flood lights. They are a surface-mounted fixture and would
be more of a globe or a lantern type that would cast light. The bell type fixture would just cast
light down. This would cast light out, as well. A carriage light type of fixture.
Mr. Alfonso: Can you point out for us on the site plan exactly where you would connect to those
neighboring projects? Would it occur along the road or along that space where --
Mr. Fisher: Unfortunately, I do not have their layout, but my understanding is that it ends up
here. The developer of that project is with us. Can you speak to that?
Developer: The gate is on the right-hand side of our driveway, so we are going to propose --
Mr. Fisher: Your driveway comes down here.
Developer: The homes that we have have a bigger front yard on that side than they do on the
other side.
Mr. Fisher: Do you know the dimension of your property line from here to here, or what the
depth of that lot would be, in order to get an idea?
Developer: The road right there is 20 feet and ends in a square. There are parked cars along the
side.
Mr. Fisher: Do you recall the depth of the lot that abuts up to that? I think it is similar to ours,
or perhaps slightly deeper. The entrance would be on this side of the park.
Mr. Alfonso: I am mainly trying to establish if it occurs where you have removed the unit on the
comer there, or if it occurs along the roadway there.
..Mr. Fisher: I think the answer is depending upon wfiere it is placed in relation to his road. It
could fall within this parking space instead of within the park area itself. As Jim mentioned,
depending upon your view of how much guest parking is needed, there is an opportunity to lose
either these two spaces or these two. We would be very supportive of that. It adds more green
space, but again, it is that tension between guest parking and green space.
Mr. Baer: And I have closely observed it. I have seen the diagrams for working through that
connection. It clearly falls within the driveway.
Mr. Fisher: It falls over here. I think there is an opportunity to get it in here, but from what I am
hearing, it is not desirable.
Developer: I would certainly.like to see it on this side. There is a green area there, and you
would be walking through a nice green area, not into parking spaces.
Mr. Alfonso: I have another question that deals with Units 1 and 2. As I recall in the
preliminary heating, I brought up the issue of utilizing a different unit height at these various
points. I see that you have addressed that in Units 8, 15, 21 and 22. Have you looked at all at
trying to create a different type altogether that would include Units 1 and 2 as a completely
different building type in that area? I understand that you are trying to create a street frontage
that is of a consistency in mass, yet you do have a large break right there which, in effect, makes
sort of an island, if you will.
Mr. Fisher: Perhaps giving us the opportunity to change the style there.
Mr. Alfonso: Yes, and perhaps gives you the opportunity to do something completely different
there that would mitigate some of these concerns that have been addressed. My question is, have
you looked at something there?
Mr. Fisher: We have looked at a lot of alternatives there, but please understand the constraints.
When you look at the lot dimensions, you need to get a rear yard, you need a certain amount of
width to achieve -- a small bedroom is ten feet wide. To get the program into the houses, you
really are stuck with the width that we have here as a minimum. Then you are also stuck with
having to get your vehicles in front. So you are not left with a lot to play with. You end up with
a three-story unit that has a front entry garage and a 20 or 25 foot rear yard. The dimensions you
have to work .with are fairly defined. It drives us back towards this type unit. We have tried to
play with it, and I am open to suggestions if you have some.
Mr. Alfonso: Let me take it a bit further. It seems as though in the overall number of units, you
have elected to remove one unit from that one location to accommodate that open space. Is there
some sort of formula in the overall site plan that can accommodate a unit without that private
open space that can meet these requirements of a house with a roof deck rather than an actual
back yard? Something that is much more urban in nature than trying to force a suburban model in
this diagram? That is really the kind of thinking I am looking at, rather than simply forcing the
types that you have studied only, really look at --if you are going to give up a whole unit there,
what about having a smaller type of unit and another unit that perhaps does not have a back yard
to accommodate a little more open space. That is really the kind of thinking I am talking about.
Mr. Fisher: I understand. The elimination of a unit was primarily to get enough room to create
open space that is far enough away from El Camino that it would not be so put upon by the
traffic that you couldn’t use it. That is why we have concentrated the gains of losing one unit
back here. I am not quite sure I understand. Are you saying that we might be able to borrow
some of that space and perhaps create more of an opportunity down here, or add another smaller
unit to the project, getting our unit count up by one, and be able to have two smaller units
forward?
Mr. Alfonso: That would be
Mr. Fisher: We have played with a lot of altematives. We actually have a site plan that would
conform, ,but it lacks a lot of the benefits of this site plan, such as the open space, the aspect to
the street. We can turn a side to the street. We can get our program on here, but we lose a lot in
doing so. So we have been wrestling with it. Again, if somebody can show me a solution, we
are happy to take a look at it.
Mr. Alfonso: In your analysis of how this would work in terms of community, I was reading
through the Planning Commission minutes, and there were several ideas that were being
proposed. I would like to hear what your views are insofar as where the outdoor space would be
most beneficial to the project as a kind of concentrated area, other than the various porches and
the actual driveways.
Mr. Fisher: Are you referring to private outdoor space or public outdoor space? (Inaudible
response) In our reworking of the plan to meet the comments of this board and of the
commission, we looked at putting this space in different locations. We looked at sliding the units
down and having them in this area. We looked at splitting them apart and putting them in
between. The net result of all of that is that we felt the farther away we can get it from E1
Camino, the more usable it was going to be. Then, of course, there is the added benefit of the
connection to the project next door, which is what really solidified us on this location.
Mr. Alfonso: Then how would an individual in Unit 25 or 26 utilize that space?
Mr. Fisher: They would have to walk over there. I take it from yore- question that your worry is
that it is not equidistant from all units or some units.
Mr. Alfonso: It tends to be very remote to the location of your units.
Mr. Fisher: Do you think it will become the area that is used for this half and not for the other
half2. There is an opportunity, in fact, if you look at David Gates’ plan up there, there is a little
area that has been developed up here that has an opportunity for outdoor use. But again, I am not
going to kid you into thinking that this is not going to be impacted by E1 Camino. We have to
deal with the fact that people are very proximate to a very busy street. To get open space that is
also proximate to them, by definition, it is going to have to be next to E1 Camino, and that has
some problems associated with it.
Mr. Alfonso: The other question I have is in regard to the implied landscape species here. Why
are we limited so strongly to landscape here and use of
palms ......
Mr. Fisher: I would have to defer to the landscape architect on that, and he is not here.
Mr. Boer: These go back to the earlier renderings when we had comments from the Architectural
Review Board initially. I sense that there was some interest by the planning arborist, and if that
is not so, we would certainly be glad to get a response from planning staff, if that is not so,
because of the specimen palm right now being preserved, and then creating a matching
anchoring.
Mr. Fisher: There is a specimen in this area that will be moved here. The top right plan shows
where it is to be relocated. That-is a large palm. There are none here now. We surmise that the
planning arborist may have given us some sort of direction, because that tree is already there.
Mr. Dolan: If I can clarify staff’s position, the arborist recommended that the one existing palm
tree be retained somewhere on site. The proposed location of the matched pair is a design
element introduced by the landscape architect.
Chair Piha: Seeing no further questions, I will open the public hearing. Are there any members
of the public who wish to speak?
Jeffrey Levin: I am the owner/developer of the Wisteria project. I have some concerns and some
comments. In terms of the overall look, I think one of my concerns, in viewing the project, is
that it is five feet over the normal height. I guess it is proposed at 35 feet, which is fairly
imposing. I know that the look they are trying to get is a row of housing, but it would have been
nice to see some staggered roof heights or roof pitches, something to break up the constant repeat
of the same style, unit after unit, particularly, at that height. Also, I cannot tell if there is much
articulation there in terms of the units from the fronts, but maybe a little bit more articulation
there, as well. Also, a little bit more of a varied design in the front just in terms of whether it be
maybe different window configurations or something so that every unit does not look like a
repeat of the next unit, other than just a difference of color. I see there is a little difference in the
overhang over the front porches, over the stairs. Those are comments in terms of the front.
Also, the only other concern I have in terms of the massing is the setback, the deviation from
code, which the PC allows, and is the setback on the second story.. Rather than being set back, it
continues it at ten feet rather than going to 20. In terms of materials, I know from past
experience that there has been a concern on behalf of the board in terms of the artificiality of
materials. As one side comment, I think that all developers need to be held to the same standards
in terms of materials. In terms of the project’s being so prominent on E1 Camino, in making a
statement as to this is what multiple-family residential housing can be on El Camino, it would be
nicer to see a little higher quality of materials, in particular, the siding going from the hardy
plank to the wood. I have no problem with the windows, since they are the same windows that
we are using! I think the windows are nice. Everything else is fine in terms of materials, but
again, regarding the siding, I think the standard should be held to wood on that.
I would like to hear a little more feedback and comment on the screen trees in the back, the ones
that are be tween Wisteria Lane and this project, particularly because we are being required to
put screen trees there. I don’t know if they are also being required to put in screen trees, but
there should be some coordination as to the trees so that we all don’t put in a bunch of screen
trees there, bumping into each other, of different varieties. If they, in fact, are the same trees, not
different trees, then maybe there should be some expense shared on the screen trees so that we
could get some bigger and larger trees, rather than both of us putting in smaller trees.
The same thing applies on the back fence. There really has been no comment or discussion on
the back wall separating the two projects, and there is not point in our putting in a fence and their
putting in a fence. It should be a nice wall, and again, maybe it should be a shared expense, and
we probably should have some conversation on that.
I personally would like to hear more about the greenbelt area. I think there needs to be some
comment and decisions in that area. I wish I were better prepared. If I had known, I would have
brought a set of plans along. But to encourage my excitement about having the pedestrian
walkway through the two projects, I would like to see a nice, devoted green space there so that
the residents of the Wisteria project would feel compelled to want to walk through the wall. The
compelling argument is that the residents of the Classics will want to walk through, because it
accesses Wisteria, but I think there needs to be some encouragement for residents who want to
walk through the Classics. The encouragement there is probably a nice green area with benches
and a little park area, etc., particularly since We had proposed a little park in our project, but we
had to end up putting in the guest parking spaces there instead, so it would be nice to have a park
on the other side of that wall. That completes my comments.
Chair..Piha: If there are no other members of the public who wish to speak, the applicant has
three minutes for closing comments.
Mr. Baer: I know that Scott Ward has met with Mr. Levin previously, and this was not the
agenda. Part of that is the unforttmate timing of the projects. Ken Schreiber, at the Planning
Commission hearing for this project, specifically asked that they be heard at the same time. One
reason is so that you do not get adjacent properties taking pot shots at one another. Certainly, the
demeanor of the meeting that took place before Mr. Levin’s final Architectural Review Board
hearing bore no relationship ~to what we heard today. So if it feels as if we have not been
responsive to a neighbor’s comments, it is because they were not forthcoming. You can
understand why. There would have been a Classics Communities representative here to provide
criticisms at the minutiae level of the inadequacies of that project. So this is really just to say
that this is a little slap in the head, and is not the way adjacent developers normally deal with one
another, and you are aware of that in your dealings in your Own projects. You can see this for
what it is.
Chair..Piha: With that, we will close the public hearing, and return to the board for comments.
Mr. Lippert: I am generally in support of the project. You have done a really nice job, and I
really like the way the development looks. The character of it is very well defined. I do have a
couple of concerns, and the most pressing one is probably the encroachment into the daylight
plane of Unit #1. My basic concern is that I would really say that it encroaches. It is
not a problem, except that in addition to the encroachment, there is a precipitous dropoff into the
tennis court, so it really really makes that unit even taller. So it really is projecting into the
daylight plane apparently much more. If that were not the case, I would be inclined to just say,
fine. But in this case, no.
I think there is a way to mitigate or solve that by coming up with either another building type, or
stealing one of your other building types and making it work on that site, or you can rearrange
your natural configuration of housing in that area. The other minor intrusion into the daylight
plane I really do not have a problem with. I think the design wan’ants those intrusions.
With regard to the materials, we did review the adjacent Wisteria project relatively recently, .
about two years ago. One of our comments was with regard to the artificiality of the materials.
We really pressed that owner to come back with some much more authentic materials, one that
spoke towards the type of architecture. I would prefer to see siding with neutral to natural to real
siding material, maybe even going to some cedar siding, something that is a little more genuine
instead of this artificial material.
With regard to the design itself, I do not have a problem with the row house approach. I wish
there were a little more articulation to the fagades, if they could have just gone a little bit further.
Probably the part that troubles me the most is the line of covered porches that just go boom,
boom, boom. I would prefer seeing one or two go a little more vertically, and perhaps have some
masterbathrooms in these units stick out a little more above the porch below. That might create
the verticality or the articulation that is necessary. I think that would help the street faqade from
appearing rather bland.
My last concern is in regard to street lighting. I do not see the lighting on the buildings
necessarily providing adequate street lighting. I would prefer to see some sort of lighting plans
for these l:figher sites, perhaps some sort of street poles or maybe a decorative light in a couple of
units that would provide street lighting so that people can use that space during the summertime.
It is a private driveway. I can see kids out there playing ball into the late summer evenings, and
it is really a great place for the neighborhood to congregate, so lighting needs to be addressed as
a street feature.
Mr. Peterson: Let me touch on a couple of specifics here. I like the idea of lace comer boards, in
terms of detail. I think that looks better, even though I do not think the metal is great. I would
like it better on comer boards. I do not like the idea of trash in the garage. Recycling works just
fine, but trash in the garage - you open the door, and whew, it smells bad. I don’t know what
your solution for that is, but it seems to me that these will be used as individual houses, and they
ought to take care of their own trash, rather than some community location. I don’t know how
you are going to solve that, but I don’t particularly like the idea of trash in the garage.
If I were to choose from these three, I would certainly choose the smooth board. It is a smooth
board, and the other is really fake, and it looks fake when you paint it. I think there really is a
strong case for coordinating screen trees, fencing, and the connection, all of those things along
the common property lines. ! am sure the two developers can work that out. There is no point in
doubling up on that.
I think your picking up on what was probably Frank’s suggestion of changing those units at the
comers and getting a different orientation works very well. You have done a very good job on
that. I would support the major intrusion into the daylight plane. It seems to me that you have
been caught by the vagaries of zoning here, and the three-story appearance on the front is very
attractive. This is a somewhat courageous site planning building type that you are doing here,
and I really support it. I wish it were not this kind of style. I wish it were more contemporary,
but I have had that discussion many times, and I understand why you are where you are. I
commend you for what you are doing, and I support it. I did meet with the applicant.
.Chair Piha: I, too, met with the applicant.
Mr. Lippert: I also met with the applicant.
Mr. Bellomo: I am generally in support of the project. I appreciate the effort set forth. I, too,
would like a more modem approach, but I understand what the marketability is in Palo Alto, and
this texture and design are popular.
Also, I do like the height. Unfortunately, on such a tight site, again, there is not a whole lotto do
with the massing to take these buildings in and out of one another. I certainly would have liked
to see it, but I understand. Again, I like the hardy board smooth, and if, in fact, other materials
cannot be suggested or looked at, then maybe exposures might be looked at. I know there has
been a movement to look at exposures on the site, and just break it up a little more. You do have
a condition of buildings interconnecting, and are those boards lined up? Or are they not lined up?
It is something to look at. I would recommend that that is done. Trash in the garage is a
concern. I would not want my trash in the garage, but that is a tough problem.
Frank brought up the point of open space. I sure would like to see that open space celebrated
somehow, not around the comer, just a simple idea to possibly look at in the street condition of
open space. It would be really inviting, and would remind everyone driving in that there is open
space. I am not sure how to do it. I know it is tight. I am not sure if a house could be put here
and taken out here. It is something to look at. I would sure like to see it as a reminder that this
open space exists. I also notice that with some parking spaces, I don’t think you have the
required 24 or 25 feet. I see 20 feet. That is something to look at.
I am in support of the three-story building in that daylight plane area. Lastly, the coordination
with the screen trees with the adjacent property owner and the fencing is a goal I would like to
recommend for everyone working together on. Thanks for a well put together project.
Mr. Alfonso: I will begin my comments with the landscaping and site plan. First of all, I have to
say that I feel strongly that the two palms are not well placed. I feel that the nature of that type
of tree is quite unfriendly to the pedestrian level. The bark is uninteresting, and it is rather rough
so that it can be appreciated more. I think you can still use it on
the house integrated on site, or perhaps integrated with scale, such as markers on the comer
(inaudible) along E1 Camino, something that can achieve the columnar nature impact of the tree
but not be so close to where people are walking. I think a more appropriate thing there would be
a broader leaf shade tree that would soften those comers, making it a little friendlier to
pedestrians.
I think, too, that the designated open space on the project is both the lower part of the
property, in general, too much. I find that to be problematic. I think that the exposure is less
than ideal, and the only benefit that I see is that you are barred visually from the actual roadway.
I would have preferred to have seen that open space occur either at the knuckle point of the
project or be close to E1 Camino, or as just suggested by Joe, someplace where the entire
community’can easily visually connect with it and not have it be a conscious effort to go out
there, because I just don’t think it is going to be used.
I agree with Phyllis Cassel’s comments during the Planning Commission hearing to consider this
little point here as a possible location. If that could be achieved by moving down some of these
units, I think that would actually be a good location.
Sound mitigation and privacy issues can be dealt with with low plantings, low walls, etc. I think
it becomes an important part of the overall site. I, too, concur with Bob that both property
owners need to resolve how that common property line is going to be dealt with with respect to
fences and plant materials. I would propose that the actual connection on this side of the project
be dealt with with an equal landscape treatment as to what is being done on the Wisteria side so
that there really is a continuity there that is pleasant for the pedestrian, even if it means giving up
those two parking spaces, or perhaps one parking space. That would be my feeling about it.
I am really at kind of a loss about this frontage on E1 Camino. I feel that the precedent you are
trying to set with the row houses fronting on El Camino, in my mind, falls apart once it gets to
Units 1 and 2, primarily for the same reason that was being argued why the might
better be changed on the other side, which is that the suggestion of Units 1 and 2 that there will
be some kind of continuum at a later point in time. Given the topographic change there, and
given the unlikelihood of that’s being developed, I just do not see that happening. So I really see
Units 1 and 2 as a terminus io the new project. Having that kind of a situation that the site is
constraining you on these two units, ! find that situation here not being addressed appropriately
by Units 1 and 2. Not being the architect on the project, but having worked on projects like this,
! do think that there are solutions that you can find for that area from an architectural standpoint.
Regarding the zoning thing, you are really caught with respect to the 50-foot . But I
think the spirit of this architecture is trying to do something that I don’t think will eventually be
carried out. simply because of the adjacency conditions on that site.
I am also quite troubled by garbage in the garage. I have seen that fail miserably in two places
where I have lived. I think it is pretty hard to make sure that that works, in the long run. I don’t
have an immediate solution, but one thing I have seen done is that under rear decks, there are
shelters that you can create that are properly ventilated so that you can at least store garbage in
that area. There is nothing to keep unit owners from not storing it in the garage, but as a general
rule, it is preferable to have it so that it is constantly ventilated, and then it is protected from the
elements in the rear area.
As far as the other fiat work, etc., I think that you are trying to pack it in, and you are doing that.
I think, that the struggle here has been how to create quality outdoor space. It is unfommate that
that has to be a struggle. In my opinion, the character of the architecture is fine, and is what the
market is apparently desirous of. I find that to be really at the heart of what is being proposed
here. So in general, I feel that you have done a good job in trying to do what you are trying to
do, although I am not completely in support of the quality of your outdoor space at this time.
Chair Piha: I am in general support of what you are proposing here, and I just want to comment
on a couple of things. IfI may break the tie here on Unit #1 in terms of the daylight plane
intrusion, I am in Frank and Lee’s camp. I really do think that Units 1 and 2 could be planned a
little bit differently, and I think they should step down and respect the neighbors and the current
zoning laws that exist. I think we are only kidding ourselves to try and beat around the existing
laws. It is a tennis court today, but it may not always be a tennis court. I think there certainly are
some compromises. You mentioned yourselves that you havea compromise situation. I guess if
I need to break the tie here, I would go in support that Unit 1 does need to respect the daylight
plane issues per the current zoning laws. It is too much of an intrusion.
I would lose the two guest parking spots for extra green area. It can always be converted to
parking, but it is very hard to go in the opposite direction, so I would try it as green space. Also,
in commenting on the landscape plan, I think the two palm trees at the entrance to the site are
inappropriate. I think you could find a better location to relocate that existing palm and use
something more Palo Altan, rather than something that looks like Southern California or the
Stanford campus. That would be my encouragement there.
Regarding the lighting plan, I am satisfied with what you are proposing, and I think it is certainly
worth trying. I would rather see it at low lighting levels than overlit. I think you have tested this
solution in other areas and it works there, so I think it could work in this area, as well.
In terms of the quality of the materials, I do believe that this Board makes a very conscious effort
to hold all developers to the same standards. The hardy plank has been approved on other
projects in Palo Alto. It is the combination of what is used with it and the quality of the other
materials that are being used with it that we take into consideration so that it is the full package
of materials. It is not isolated to making a decision about accepting wood siding versus non-
wood siding. So I am satisfied with the materials that you have presented. I would prefer a
variety of the hardy plank finishes so that you do not have just one standard finish, making it a
cookie cutter type solution on all of your units. I would even encourage a variety at the comer
detail that you have proposed, some raised boards, some of the other materials so that you do not
get a repetitive cookie cutter look. That would be my encouragement that you do not select one
standard but that you use a variety.
I, too, would support the coordination of landscaping efforts with your neighbor’s exterior
project. I think that was a good suggestion, if you could make that happen successfully.
Regarding the trash and the recycling, I, too, do not feel that that is resolved adequately, although
I am not sure what to suggest there. I think you need to go a little bit further with that. Those are
my comments. I will have a little bit of a challenge here in drafting a motion, but there is general
support, and we just need to work out the details.
MOTION: Mr. Peterson: I move that we recommend to the City Council approval of the
mitigated negative declaration and also approval of the proposed project as revised, with the
following conditions. We need some restudy of the landscaping elements, specifically, the palm
trees, and a restudy of the common open space, perhaps both in character and location, and we
have made some good suggestions there. Also a restudy of the solution for trash location so that
it is fully ventilated. Also coordination of the common property line elements with the adjacent
development for fences, trees and the pedestrian connection.
Chair Piha: What about Unit #1?
Mr. Peterson: By saying nothing, we come down on the side of the zoning.
Mr. Fisher: What about the removal of the recycling storage?
Mr. Peterson: I would include the changes that staffmade.
Chair Piha: We have a motion and second. All those in favor? Opposed? That passes 5-0-0-0.
(Do not know who seconded the motion)
ATTACHMENT 9
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
TO:PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM:
AGENDA DATE:
SUBJECT:
Brian Dolan DEPARTMENT: Planning
May 13, 1998
4100-4120 E! Camino Real: Review of an application for a
Zone Change to the Planned Community (PC) Zone to
allow the demolition of an existing vacant former "Card
Club" and accessory building totaling 4,850 square feet
and construction of a new 26 unit residential townhouses
and related site improvements. A Design Enhancement
Exception (DEE) to allow tandem parking in garages and
to allow minor intrusions into the daylight plane is also
requested. File Nos. 97-ARB-137; 97-ZC-10; 97-EIA-38,
97-DEE-6.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission :
1. Recommend that the City Council approve the attached Mitigated Negative
Declaration (attached to the ARB staff report), finding that the proposed project will not
result in any significant environmental impacts, if certain mitigation measures and
conditions of approval are imposed; and
2. Recommend that the City Council approve the proposed project for construction of the
26-unit townhouse development, and related site improvements, consisting of a Planned
Community rezoning (Attachment B), and associated Design Enhancement Exceptions
for minor encroachments into the daylight planes, based on the attached findings
(attached to the ARB staff report) and subject to the attached conditions (Attachment C).
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant has requested approval of a rezoning of the property at 4100-4120 El
Camino Real (see Attachment A: Location Map) to Planned Community (PC) consistent
April 9, 1998, to allow the construction of 26 townhouses. A Design Enhancement
Exception (DEE) to accommodate aspecial covered parking arrangement and minor
intrusions into daylight planes has also been requested.
The project would be accessed from three interior streets: a primary access road generally
perpendicular to E1 Camino Real, a shorter road forming a "T" with the primary access
road towards the rear of the property, and a third interior road running adjacent and
parallel to E1 Camino Real resulting in seven project units facing the site’s E1 Camino
Real frontage. A median with side walk, a double row of trees, granite monoliths with a
hedge growing between them to form a living fence, benches, a kiosk, and landscape
strips are proposed to separate the interior street from E1 Camino Real.
The units are designed to resemble traditional row houses and would appear to be
attached, although a six-inch separation would be provided between each unit. Twenty-
three of the units would be approximately 1,600 square feet, and three stories. Units 1,
9, and 14 would be approximately 1,300 square feet and two stories. All units would
have individual fenced back yards. All of the units would have two car garages, 16 of
them in a tandem arrangement. The architectural style is intended to resemble the
farmhouse style found in some portions of the Barron Park neighborhood.
An approximately 2,000 square foot public open space has been provided between Units
21 and 22 that.includes a barbeque, landscaping, and a fountain. A pedestrian
connection to the recently approved project on Goebel Avenue is also provided.
The project is consistent with all the site development requirements of the PC district
except the daylight plane intrusions.
The applicant intends to subdivide the property into 26 lots all fronting on a commonly
held private access road.
Project History
The site has been vacant for over five years. The site was rezoned to RM-30 in 1978 as a
part of a Citywide effort to identify more housing sites.
The project underwent Preliminary ARB review on August 21, 1997, initial Planning
Commission Review and public hearing on January 28, 1998, and official ARB review
on April 2, 1998. The project has consistently had general support and has evolved in
response to specifc staff, Planning Commission, and Architectural Reviw Board concerns.
S:IPIanlPIadivlPCSR[4100ecr.bd 01-28-98
Page 2
Primary concerns of members of the Planning Commission when the project was last
before them included a desire to incorporate less traditional architecture, larger porches,
a public open space, and a pedestrian and bicycle connection between the project and the
adjacent project on Goebel Avenue. All of these concerns, with the exception of the issue
related to architectural style, have been addressed in the revised plan before the Planning
Commission.
The Architectural Review Board recommended approval of the project on April 2, 1998
subject to the conditions recomended in the ARB staff report (Attachment D) with
additional conditions (see ARB minutes in Attachment E) summarized as follows:
1) The public open space should be relocated to an area more acessible to the
entire project.
2) The landscaping and fence improvements between the project and the recently
approved project on Goebel Avenue should be revised to avoid duplication of
improvements between the two projects.
3) The two proposed palm trees should not be located near the project entrance.
The replanting of the existing palm tree should occur elesewhere on the site.
4) A better solution for the location of the garbage should be found. The location
of the garbage in the garage is not acceptable due to odor concerns.
The site plan has been revised to incorporate all the conditions of ARB approval.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
Comprehensive Plan
The project is consistent with the Policies and Programs of the existing Comprehensive
Plan as found in the land use, housing, urban design, schools and parks, transportation,
and environmental resource elements. A detailed evaluation of the project with respect to
specific Comprehensive Plan policies are included in the Findings for Architectural
Review Approval found in the attached ARB staff report (See Attachment D).
Although the new Comprehensive Plan has not yet been adopted, the project is consistent
with the proposed polices of the tentatively approved plan.
E1 Camino Real Design Guidelines
S:[Plan[PladivlPCSRl4100ecr.bd 01-28-98
Page 3
The project is consistent with the requirements of the El Camino Real Design Guidelines.
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ISSUES
Remaining significant issues associated with the project include the amount of
automobile back up space provided for the parking for units 23, 24, and 25; the relocation
of guest parking spaces; the location of recycling and garbage storage within individual
units; and the revised location of the public open space.
Parkin~
The project provides 17-18 feet of back up space beyond the driveways of Units 22
through 26. This is adequate for units with traditional two car garages as they can use
their wide driveways to begin a turning movement, but 17 feet is not sufficient backup
for the units which have tandem parking and narrow driveways. Transportation Division
staff consider 18 feet to be the minimum acceptable backup space for Units 23, 24, and
25. The applicant has submitted an alternative site plan showing a 20 foot wide access
driveway which eliminates one of the planting strips and one row of proposed street
trees. Staff continues to recommend that the additional back up space be provided by
reducing the depth of the front yards where necessary, which would not result in the loss
of the planting strip or the proposed row of street trees.
Revisions to the plan have relocated guest parking spaces on the site plan. The proposed
guest parking space’ in front of Units 22 and 23 is unacceptable because it blocks fire
access. The guest parking space next to Unit 1 has inadequate turning radius access and
needs to be reconfigured. The guest parking space adjacent to Unit 25 has inadequate
back up space and needs to be reconfigured. There .appears to be adequate room within
the site plan to accomplish each of these modifications. The proposed guest parking
spaces at each end of the "T" at the rear of the site are only 16 feet deep. These are one
and one half feet shorter than typically required, and longer vehicles may extend into the
16 foot wide driveways of Units 1 and 9. While this arrangement may cause an
inconvenience for homeowners when larger vehicles are parked in the guest parking
spaces, it would not create a safety hazard, and is acceptable to staff.
Garbage Storage
Recycling storage is proposed to be accommodated within the garages of individual units.
The applicant also proposed that garbage storage also be located in garages. However, in
response to ARB members concerns about garbage storage in the garage, the applicants
have designated locations in the rear yards of each units for garbage storage. This
location would require that garbage containers be brought through the garage for pick-up
in front of the unit. Staff would prefer that the garbage storage be incorporated into the
S:[PlanlPladivlPCSR[4100ecr.bd 01-28-98
Page 4
unit and be accessible to the front, however, the rear yard storage is acceptable.
Relocation of the Public Open Space
Following suggestions by the Planning Commission at the January 28, 1998 public
hearing, the applicants revised the site plan to include a public open space in the rear of
the project site in the location of proposed Unit 15. In response to ARB concems that the
open space should be more visible and accessible to all homes in the development, the
site plan has been revised to locate a larger public open space toward the front of the
project between proposed Units 21 and 22. Staff concurs that this is the preferable
location and design of the public open space for both visual and accessibility reasons,
provided that the noise from E1 Camino Real can be reduced to acceptable levels. The
applicants have submitted a letter from Charles M. Salter and Associates, dated April 24,
1998 (Attachment F), which states that the design and location of the open space behind
the homes along E1 Camino Real, and the inclusion of a 5 foot high noise wall as shown
on the project Landscape Concept Plan, will create a noise environment meeting the City
standard of 65 DB for outdoor residential spaces. The proposed inclusion of a fountain in
the open space would also improve the noise environment of the open space.
Public Benefit
Approval of the requested PC zone change would require that public benefit f’mdings be
made. The public benefits should go beyond the minimum zoning ordinance
requirements and compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. The applicant proposes
the following public benefits:
1. The proposed pedestrian landscape strip along the E1 Camino Real frontage in
front of the site including benches, monoliths, a seating area, and a kiosk.
2. The provision of Below Market Rate Housing Units. The provision of BMR units
is required by the City Comprehensive Plan. The City BMR unit requirement for
sites under five acres is ten percent of the total proposed units, or 2.6 units for this
26 unit project. The applicant proposes to include 4 BMR units within the project
(to be sold for about $164,700) which represents 15 percent of the total units or 1.4
units above the Comprehensive Plan policy requirement. These units will be
provided onsite which relieves the City from accepting offsite units or in lieu fees.
The BMR agreement is included as Attachment G.
3. The provision of a Transportation Demand Management plan that will encourage
residents of the development to utilize alternative methods of transportation. The
details of this plan are contained in the applicant’s development statement.
S:IPIan[Pladiv[PCSRI4100ecr.bd 01-28-98
Page 5
Staff supports the proposed public benefit package.
TIMELINE
Following the Planning Commission public hearing, the project is tentatively scheduled
to be considered by the City Council at a public hearing on June 29, 1998.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The project is subject to environmental review under provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). An environmental impact assessment was
prepared for the project and determined that the project would have a less than
significant impact on the environment and that a Mitigated Negative Declaration should
be prepared. The Mitigated Negative Declaration was made available for public review
from January 8, 1998 through January 21, 1998 and is attached to the ARB staff report.
ATTACHMENTS/EXHIBITS:
Attachment A: Location Map
Attachment B: Proposed PC Ordinance
Attachment C: Proposed Conditions of Approval
Attachment D: Architectural Review Board Staff Report
Attachment E: Minutes of April 2, 1998 ARB Review
Attachment F:Letter from Charles M. Salter Associates, Inc., April 24, 1998
Attachment G: BMR Agreement
Plans (Planning Commission members only)
COURTESY COPIES:
Barron Park Neighborhood Association, Will Beckett, 4189 Baker Avenue,
Palo Alto, CA, 94306
Barron Square Homeowners, PML Mgmt. Corporation, 655 Mariners Is. Blvd.,
San Mateo, CA, 94404
Palo Alto School District, Business Manager, 25 Churchill Avenue, Palo Alto,
CA, 94306
Classic Communities, 1068 East Meadow Circle, Palo Alto, CA, 94303
Trapani Family Trust, C\O Bay 101, 1801 Bering Drive, San Jose, CA 95112
Rick Hansen, (Blockbuster Video), 4102 E1 Camino Real, Palo Alto, CA 94306
Janet Stone, Mid-Peninsula Housing Coalition, 658 Bair Island Road #300,
Redwood City, CA 94063
Jeffrey Levin, 350 Second Street, Suite 7, Los Altos, CA, 94022
S:IPIanlPladivlPCSRI4100ecr.bd 01-28-98
Page 6
Prepared by:Brian Dolan
Division Head Approval"
Eric Riel, Jr. Chief Official
S:[Plan[PladivlPCSRt4100ecr.bd 01-28-98
Page 7
ATTACHMENT C
CONDITIONS OF PROJECT APPROVAL
4100-4120 EL CAMINO REAL
1. All plans shall be revised to reflect the Conceptual Site Plan approved by the Planning
Commission prior to scheduling the application for hearing with the City Council.
2. The project Grading and Drainage Plan shall be revised to reflect the following
changes to the satisfaction of the Public Works Engineering division, prior to scheduling
the application for hearing with the City Council.
a. Fossil_filters shall be installed in catch basins located in paved areas.
b. The Grading and Drainage Plan shall show spot elevations of existing grades on
adjacent properties to show how drainage patterns work in the neighborhood. Design of
the grading and drainage shall not interfere with the existing drainage patterns on
adjacent properties.
c. Drain inlets must be placed in each lot. A private drainage easement will be required
to maintain the existence of these facilities.
3. The Conceptual Site Plan shall be revised to eliminate the guest parking space in front
of Unit 24 and 25.
4. The Conceptual Site Plan shall be revised to show the front access road to be a
minimum of 18 feet wide at all locations. This supersedes the ARB condition that the
access road be 20 feet wide.
5. The Conceptual Site Plan shall be revised to show the back up space for the guest
parking space adjacent to Unit 26 shall extend a minimum of six feet beyond the northem
edge of the parking space. This condition supersedes the ARB condition that the back up
space extend eight feet beyond the edge of the parking space.
6. The Conceptual Site Plan shall be revised subject to the approval of the Planning
Division to eliminate the raised curb between the parking space and the El Camino Real
property line to provide more back up space and easier access to and from the parking
S:[PlanlPladivlPCSRJ4100ecr.bd 01-28-98
Page 8
space.
S:IPIan[PladivIPCSRI4100ecr.bd 01-28-98
Page 9
.Charles M Salter
t30 SuRer Street
San Fmnc~o
California 94104
Tel. 415 397 0442
Fax 415 397 0454
crnsatler t~ cmsalter.oom
wwv/crr.satte r.¢om
24 April 1998
Scott Ward
Classic Communities, inc.
1068 East Meadow Circle
Pale Alto, CA 94303 (fax: 6501493.9050)
Subject:Cameo Club/Barren-Park Residential Development
Acoustical Cons.lti.g
CSA Project No: 97-293
Dear Scott:
At your request, we have reviewed the revised layout of the project’s common outdoor use
space. Almost all of’this space would be shielded by the first row of homes and a 5-foot-
high "wing" wall extending southeast from the corner of the home on Lot 22. This
acoustical shielding would be adequate to reduce the outdoor noise levels to the City’s
"acceptable" outdoo|’ noise level of L~0 65 dBA. ~ Only the area directly adjacent to the
sidewalk/parking would be exposed to noise levels up to 3 dB higher than this outdoor
noise goal. The wing wall should be masonry or wood with a minimum surface density of
2 pounds-per-square-foot with no cracks or gaps.
This concludes our current comments. If you have any questions, please call.
Sincerely yours,
CHARLES M. SALTER ASSOCIATES, INC.
Harold S. Goldberg, P.E.
Principal Consultant
HSG/ck
)LI0-The sotmd level in dBA dmt was equaled or exceeded 10 percent of the time: L1,L50, and Lg0 are the levels equaled or exceeded I. 50, and 90 percc.t of the time,
respectively,
zoo/zoo~
~ e~d ~N~NN~d <- 0~06
Og06 ~6~ 099~ 6I:0T 96/LO/gO
September 17, 1997
City of Palo Alto
I~rtment ~fPlanning and
munity Environment
ATTACHMENT G
Classic Communities, Inc.
ATTN: Scott Ward
1068 East Meadow Circle
Pal0 Alto, CA 94303
Planning Division SUBJECT:Below Market Rate (BMR) Agreement for 27-Unit Condominium
Project at 4!20 El Camino Real in Palo A!to
Dear Mr Ward:
This letter summarizes the agreement reached between you and Planning Division staff
regarding satisfaction of the provisions of the City of Palo Alto Below Market Rate
(BMR) Program. The requirements for a BMR component are contained in Program 13
of the Housing Element of the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. This letter relates
to the proposed 27-unit for sale Planned Community Development project at 4120 E1
Camino Real in Palo Alto. Program 13 requires a 10 percent BMR component or 2.7
units.
You intend to obtain City Council approval of a final subdivision map for the project that
will allow for the future sale of individual units. The terms of this letter of agreement
shall be incorporated into the Subdivision Agreement that must be completed and signed
prior to the final map being considered by the City Council. The terms of this agreement
shall also be included in the conditions of approval of the Planned Community zone.
City policy is to require on-site units scattered throughout the project and provided in the
same proportional unit types and sizes as other units in the project. We have agreed that
you will provide four BMR units. Since all the units in the project are three-bedroom
units, the BMR units shall also be three-bedroom units. Should the unit mix or design
change, this agreement shall be modified accordingly. It is recognized that the additional
1.3 units, over the required 2.7 units, may be considered, as a public benefit to your
proposed Planned Community Zoning for the project. Accordingly, the City proposes the
250HamiltonAvenue
P.O. Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA94303
415. 329.2441
415.329.2240 Fax
Scott Ward
September 1"/, 1997
Page 2’ of 3
following specific provisions for the BMR agreement:
The four BMR units shall be units 4, 7, 20 and 24 as shown on that set of plans
dated July 2, 1997, prepared by Bassenian/Lagoni Architects, and titled
"Conceptual Site Plan Cameo Club." The designated BMR units shall be.
specified on the plans, and shown on the Subdivision Map, prior to consideration
by the City Council.
The design, square footage, construction, materials, finishes, windows, hardware,
light fixtures, landscaping, irrigation, appliances and like features of the BMR
units shall be comparable to all other units in the project. The BMR owners shall
have access to all facilities, amenities, parking and storage as that provided to
other owners in the project.
The initial sales price of each of the three-bedroom BMR units shall be $187,550.
This price was reached utilizing the City of Palo Alto current BMR Housing Price
Guidelines (effective July 22, 1997).’ The price guidelines are adjusted annually.
The greater of $187,550, or the three-bedroom BMR price in effect as of the date
of final map approval, shall be the initial sales price of the BMR units.
The Palo Alto Housing Corporation (PAHC) is the City’s designated
representative to administer the sale of the BMR units.
Thank you for your cooperation during the planning process on this project. If you agree
with this revised proposal, you may sign this letter indicating that we have reached "
agreement regarding the BMR component for your project.
Sincerely,
KENNETH R. SCHREIBER
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
Scott Ward
September 17, 1997
Page 3 of 3
I agree to provide a Below Market Rate component for the project at 4120 E1 Camino
Real as described in this letter dated September 17, 1997.
Date
CC:Marlene Prendergast, Palo Alto Housing Corporation
Debra Cauble, Assistant City Attorney
Jim Gilliland, Assistant Planning Official
s:\PLAN\PLADIV\SHARE\Itbmrccl.wpd
ATTACHMENT 10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
MEETINGS ARE CABLECAST LIVE ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL 16
May 13, 1998
REGULAR MEETING - 7:00 PM
City Council Chambers
Civic Center, 1st Floor
250 Hamilton A venue
Palo Alto, California 94301
ROLL CALL:
Meeting called to order at 7:15 P.M.
Commissioners:
Jon Schink, Chairman
Owen Byrd- absent
Bern Beecham - absent
Annette Bialson - absent
Phyllis Cassel
Kathy Schmidt
Staff."
Eric Riel, Jr., Chief Planning Official
Lisa Grote, Zoning Administrator
Brian Dolan, Senior Planne?
Philip Dascombe, Associate Planner
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: Members of the public may speak to any item not on the agenda with a
limitation of three minutes per speaker. Those who desire to speak must complete a speaker’s request
card available from the secretary of the Commission. The Planning Commission reserves the right to
limit the oral communications period to 15 minutes.
Chairman Schink: The first item on our agenda is Oral Communications. This is an opportunity for
members of the public to address the Planning Commission on any item specifically not on the agenda.
Seeing no one rising to address us on oral communications, we will proceed to agenda changes,
additions and deletions.
AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS: The agenda may have additional items
added to it up to 72 hours prior to meeting time. - None.
Ct~.’ of Palo Alto Page 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
APPROVAL OFMINUTES. Approval of minutes of April 8, 1998.
Chairman Schink: Any comments on the minutes of April 8, 1998?
MOTION: Commissioner Schmidt: I move approval of the minutes of April 8.
SECOND: By Commissioner Cassel.
MOTION. PASSES: Chairman Schink: Is there any further discussion on this motion? All those in
favor, say aye. All opposed? That passes on a vote of 4-0-3-0, with Commissioners Beecham, Bialson
and Byrd absent.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS.
Public Hearings: None.
Other Items: None.
NEW BUSINESS.
Public Hearings:
am 2137-2171 El Camino Real/456 College Avenue [97-SUB-2, 97-EIA-35]: Application of
Ananda Church of Self-Realization for a tentative subdivision map approval to remove
seven exiting lot lines and adjust one lot line to convert ten lots into three lots for the
purpose of constructing additions to an existing religious facility. Environmental
Assessment: A negative declaration has been prepared.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend
that the City Council:
Approve the Negative Declaration, with a finding that the project will not result in
any significant environmental impacts.
Approve a tentative subdivision map based on the findings and conditions included in
the staff report.
Chairman Schink: Would staff like to introduce this item?
Ms. Grote: I want to introduce Phil Dascombe, our associate planner, who has been with us for awhile,
but this is his first time before the Planning Commission. He will be giving the staff report tonight.
Mr. Dascombe: This is an application for the Ananda Church of Self-Realization for a tentative
subdivision map approval to remove seven existing lot lines and adjust one lot line to convert ten lots
into three lots for purposes of constructing additions to an existing religious facility. The subdivision
City of Palo Alto Page 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
map application before you tonight was submitted in response to conditions of approval for a use permit
and ARB application for improvements to the Ananda Church located at the comer of E1 Camino Real
and College Avenue. These improvements include the construction of a new school building, the
relocation of existing classrooms, and modifications to the parking lot and landscaping. For your
reference, the Architectural Review Board approved plans are posted on the wall.
The lot merger is required in order to remove the lot lines that run under the existing buildings on the
site. By way of background, in 1996, the applicant received approval for a similar tentative map. The
map before you this evening is substantially the same as that one. The only difference is that Lot #15,
the site of the new school building, is not a part of this application. Lot #15 is located just to the north
of the site. Therefore, staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the City
Council approve the negative declaration with findings that the project will not result in any significant
environmental impacts. Also, approve the tentative subdivision map based on the findings in
Attachment A of the staff report, and subject to conditions listed in Revised Attachment B contained in
the memo from Lisa Grote at your places tonight.
Chairman Schink: Thank you. Questions for staff?. (None) I will open the public hearing.
Linda Lockhart, Ananda Church of Self-Realization, 2171 El Camino Real, Pz’lo Alt0: We are seeking
approval of the subdivision map, as Phil stated. I have nothing substantial to add to what he said.
Chairman.Schink: Any questions for the applicant? (None) Does anyone else wish to speak to this
item? (None) I will then close the public hearing and retum this item to the commission.
MOTION: Commissioner Schmidt: I will move the staff recommendation to approve the attached
negative declaration and approve the tentative subdivision map. We reviewed this project when it came
through several years ago. I do not recall the discussion exactly, but I don’t think we had any major
problems with it. This seems to be a minor change over what was approved previously. So I think it is
appropriate to approve it tonight.
Commissioner Cassel: Do we need to approve Attachment B?
Ms. Grote: Yes, you do, and it was at your places. We did receive a COulfle of conditions after the
preparation of the staff report, so those are included in that attachment.
SECOND: By Commissioner Cassel. I would like to state for the record that we have reviewed this
project previously, and there were no major problems with it at that time. This is a minor adjustment to
the lot line necessary to complete the project.
MOTION PASSES: Chairman Schink: Is there any further discussion on this motion? All those in
favor, say aye. All opposed? That passes on a vote of 4-0-3-0 with Commissioners Beecham, Bialson
and Byrd absent.
Cir.’ of Palo Alto Page 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
4100-4120 El Camino Real, Palo Alto [97-ARB-137, 97-ZC-10, 97-EIA-38, 97-DEE-6]~
Application of Classic Communities for a zone change to the Planned Community (PC)
Zone to allow the demolition of an existing vacant former "Card Club" and accessory
building totaling 4,850 square feet, and construction of a new, 26-unit residential
townhouse development and related site improvements. Environmental Assessment: A
mitigated negative declaration has been prepared.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission:
Recommend that the City Council approve the attached Mitigated Negative
Declaration finding that the proposed project will not result in any significant
environmental impacts, if certain mitigation measures and conditions of approval are
imposed.
t Recommend that the City Council approve the proposed project for improvements,
consisting of a Planned Community rezoning and assoicated Design Enhancement
Exceptions for minor encroachments into the daylight planes, based on the attached
findings and subject to the attached conditions.
Chairman Schink: Would staff make the presentation.
Mr. Riel: This is an application by Classic Communities for a zone change to a Planned Community
zone to allow demolition of an existing former card club and accessory building totaling 4,850 square
feet, and construction of a new, 26-unit residential townhouse development and related site
improvements. I would note that this item is scheduled on the agenda for a public hearing at the City
Council on June 15 but is actually scheduled for June 29.
Mr. Dolan: First, I will read the recommendation of staff, and make a few minor corrections to the staff
report. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve the
attached mitigated negative declaration finding that the proposed project will not result in any significant
environmental impacts if certain mitigation measures and conditions of approval are imposed.
Secondly, recommend that the City Council approve the proposed project for construction of a 26-.unit
townhouse development and related site improvements consisting of a Planned Community rezoning
and associated design enhancement exceptions for minor encroachments into the daylight planes based
on the attached findings and subject to the attached conditions.
I would like to point out the few changes. On Page 3 of the staffreportwhere we have summarized the
conditions of approval of the Architectural Review Board, below the four conditions, a statement is
made that "The site plan has been revised to incorporate all of the conditions of ARB approval." In fact,
that should read, "The site plan has been revised to meet all of the above conditions of ARB approval."
They are the ones that the ARB added. There are a few that have not been addressed on the site plan,
and they show up again in our conditions of approval recommended this evening.
City of Palo Alto Page 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
Secondly, on Page 4 in the discussion of Parking, second paragraph, reference is made to a guest parking
space adjacent to Unit 25. In fact, that should be Unit 26.
On Page 5, under the discussion of Public Benefit, the dollar amount associated with the BMR units is
incorrect. It is correct in the ordinance and in the BMR agreement attached to the staff report, but the
figure here should be $187,550 as opposed to $164,700.
Also, in the Conditions of Approval recommended for the project, Attachment C, Condition #5, which
recommends additional space that the site plan be revised to provide additional backup space for one of
the guest parking spaces, the staff report does not discuss the fact that that would eliminate a proposed
seating area along El Camino. It is an item that I believe the commission recommended to be removed,
anyway.
Finally, in the last Condition of Approval in Attachment C, Condition #6 should read as follows: "The
conceptual site plan shall be revised subject to the approval of the planning division to eliminate the
raised curb between the guest parking space adjacent to Unit #1’and the El Camino Real property line to
provide more backup space and easier access to and from the parking space." That completes my
comments.
Chairman Schink: Are there questions for staff?.
Commissioner $chmidt: In the staff report, it indicates that there is to be a connection between this
project and the project on Wisteria Drive. I did not see it in the conditions. Is that a condition, or is it
just a recommendation?
Mr. Dolan: It was a condition of approval of the ARB, and it is intended to be represented on the plans.
Chairman .Schink: When you say, "It is intended to be represented on the plans," does that mean that it
will be inserted in the plans in the future, or should we be able to find it on the plans now?
Mr. Dolan: My memory was that the plans did indicate the connection.
Commissioner Cassel: In my set of plans, there were some plans that were not quite congruous. One
appeared to have that on it, and another appeared to be an older, basic plan. Maybe that is part of the
problem.
Mr. Dolan: There are a few minor differences between the landscape plan and the site plan. They will
be required to be consistent by the time we are finished here. These PC applications represent kind of a
rolling, moving target as the project moves through the various boards.
Chairman Schink: As it should be.
Mr. Dolan: I want to make one final comment, and perhaps pose it as a question to the applicant. The
City of Palo Alto Page 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
original noise study prepared by the applicant’s consultant recommended that noise walls be added to
the project to protect back yards from noise on El Camino. The commission asked.that those walls be ¯
indicated on the plans before they returned. They are indicated on the landscape plan on three of the
four proposed locations recommended by the consultant. That is something I just noted, and would like
the applicant to comment on the third location, which is the north wall’of Unit #2 next to the guest
parking spaces.
Chairman Schink: I will open the public hearing. Mr. Ward, would you like to tell us about your project
and how it has changed over the past few months.
Scott Ward. Classic Communities: Under the circumstances, I will spare you my typically long-winded
presentation. Brian has done a good job of explaining the differences between what you approved
unanimously at the conceptual stage and what you have before you tonight. Primarily, we have
introduced a more centrally located mini-park between Lots 21 and 22, at a cost of one of the units. By
way of background, we had proposed placing the mini-park adjacent to Lot 15 to the ARB. The ARB
felt pretty strongly that it needed to be more centrally located. That elbow on the site plan was the
appropriate place to do that. In addition, we have introduced a new unit type at Lots 1, 9 and 14. It is a
full, two-story unit. In those locations, the setbacks are the narrowest on the site, and we did that in
order to bring the development, as a whole, into compliance with daylight plane requirements.
There is still an outstanding issue for us, and we would like to get your direction on how to resolve it
with respect to the backing dimension for Lots 22 through 26. We have proposed an access aisle that
varies from approximately 17 feet deep up to about 18 feet deep. That is from the curb to the
termination of the driveway apron. It is important to recognize that the car is already out of the garage
by the time it starts to deal with this backing maneuver. The transportation engineer feels that that is
insufficient backing distance. The traffic consultant for the project concluded that it was sufficient. It is
an important dimension, because those three or four feet enable us to do another planting strip at the
property line inside the sidewalk. We think that is important for creating a more hospitable pedestrian
environment along E1 Camino so that pedestrians are buffered by plantings on both sides. We feel that
that is more important than any inconvenience associated with backing for those few units. So we would
appreciate direction from you on that matter.
With respect to a couple of issues you raised tonight with staff, I am not sure about the landscape plan,
but I don’t think you will see the connection on the architectural site plan. That is an oversight. It
should be there. It is our intention to incorporate a gate, a connection. I have a transparency that will
show that it is physically possible. There is ten feet of overlap to accomplish that. We have had some
dialogue with the neighboring property owner regarding the connection.
I was unaware that we had missed one of the masonry walls with respect to noise mitigation, but it is our
intention to comply fully with the requirements. My understanding is that the return walls to the ends of
the front row ofunits that line El Camino need to be in masortry in order to comply with the noise
contours as recommended by the noise consultant. The overlap there is about ten feet, so there is plenty
of room to accomplish a gate for pedestrian access. We may need to clip the comer of the rear yard for
City of Palo Alto Page 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
# 15 as we think through how to provide for bicycle access. We heard you clearly in the conceptual
review, and we intend to incorporate that. We are happy to address any questions you may have for us.
Commissioner Butt: Mr. Ward, there is something that has come-up recently in the SOFA coordinated
area plan as a concept on how to better using some of the small bits of open space in higher density
projects. That is, the possibility of having a mini-shared garden or community garden within a
development. What are your thoughts on that? Is that something that might be able to be incorporated
in this? If so, are there possible locations for one?
Mr. Ward: I think there is potential for that. I do not have first-hand experience with community
gardens and the extent to which they facilitate community interaction. The more of those types of
facilities or amenities that we can provide on site to accomplish that goal within the limitations of sound
business practice, the better. It strikes me that that is one of the amenities that would not impose a
maintenance or liability burden on the homeowners association, which will be obligated to maintain that
area. The area that I think could work for that purpose is the same area that we had originally designated
for open space, aligning with El Camino adjacent to Lot 26. That is the same area that the commission
originally expressed concern about - the appropriateness of that area to serve as open space because of
the proximity to El Camino. Again, I do not have experience with community gardening, but I would
assume that the traffic, and to some extent, the inhospitable character of El Camino, is tolerable to the
typical community gardener. That space will be planted and maintained by the association, in any case,
to the extent that that would be an alternative use.
.Commissioner Cassel: I would like to return to the problem you are having with the driveways. If I
read the report correctly, it indicates that it was not really a serious problem when there were double-
wide driveways, because there was more turning space. The problem was with the single driveways.
That would mean that Units 22’ and 26 are not the problem for ~,ou. Is that correct? It is just that whole
row?
Mr....Ward: In the transportation engineer’s mind, it has been a problem consistently. We initially had
single-car or tandem garages at Nos. 22 and 26, and the same concern was expressed then. It is not clear
to me how the side-by-side driveway apron, in at least several cases, provides a better backing maneuver
than the single-car. It is true that you have a set of stairs to access the unit that comes into play for Lot
24, and you are presumably backing out to the east. But that would also be true for Lot 26 if you are
parked in the westerly spot. So I am not sure that I understand the transportation engineer’s comment on
that.
Mr....D01an: Maybe I can clarify the transportation division’s position. The access aisle along the front
of Units 22 through 26 ranges in width from 17 to 18 feet. Originally, they had requested that that be a
minimum of 20 feet. After a lot of discussion and actually having Carl Stoffel out in the field measuring
the turning radius of a city car, We convinced him to reduce that. He went down to 18 feet. So the
disagreement is only the small portion of the access aisle that reduces down to 17 feet,.and the
suggestion is that it come out of the front yards of the units as opposed to coming out of the planting
area along the sidewalk.
Cir.’ of Pa/o Alto Page 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
Commissioner Cassel: How deep are the front yards of the units?
Mr. Ward: Lots 22 and 23 would be affected by that, and it is the depth of the driveway apron, which is
18 feet. So unless the entire building cants and if you were to reduce that dimension, you would run the
risk that the car parked in the driveway apron would be sticking out into the access aisle. I am not sure
we are going to make an issue of it. It is only one foot we are talking about here for half of that distance.
I would like to believe we could work that out in the.final engineering.
Commissioner Schmidt: So you are saying that you can probably work that out and keep the two rows
of trees? (Yes) I personally think it would be preferable to maintain the trees on both sides of the walk.
On one of the landscape plans, it shows a paving pattern that goes down the main access road and the T,
but it looks like it does not extend along the road that is parallel to E1 Camino. Is it the case that you
would have different paving patterns there?
Mr. Ward: That is true. That was introduced pursuant to an ARB suggestion that we make the central
drive aisle more adaptable as a hardscape space that could be used as a secondary play area, and it would
be a little more inviting than blacktop. The thought about El Camino, however, was that it is not going
to serve that function in any case, so there was no need there for the access drive for Lots 1, 2 and 22
through 26.
Commissioner Schmidt: It notes in the staff report that we had talked about incorporating larger porches
on the houses. It says that this was done. I was wondering if you could give me an approximately aSrea
of increase or percentage of increase.
Mr. Ward: Originally, we had depths of only about 3½ feet and widths tha~ were about five feet. Our
depths are now about five feet, and in some cases, we have gotten the widths up to about seven feet.
Commissi.oner Cassel: There is a discrepancy between one or two of the maps between Lots 21 and 22,
whether that is going to be parallel parking or perpendicular parking, and how many spaces are there.
Mr. Ward: It will be three parallel spaces, as depicted, partly in response to the transportation division’s
concern about backing from head-in spaces. We will now have three parallel spaces, as opposed to four
head-in spaces, but we are still over the parking requirement.
Commissioner Schmidt: Would you describe a little more about the traffic mitigation idea you have as
one of the public benefits? I know it incorporates the idea of a transit pass and one bicycle per
household. (Yes) Would it also incorporate any sort of information and education about locations of
transit? Would it be something that would occur in the CC&Rs, at least the concept of what is trying to
be accomplished here so that when ownership passes on, the next owner would have an idea of what is
going on here?
Mr. Ward: We had not thought of it in terms of the CC&Rs or any covenant running with the property.
City of Palo Alto Page 8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
It is a one-yew pass unless someone vacates or turns the unit over within that period of time. They are
on their own from that point, in any case. Our hope is that this facilitates a transfer to transit. As a
resident is exposed to the transit alternative, they will come to value it enough to pay the freight
themselves. But I do think it would be helpful to provide the information along with the State
Department of Real Estate Requirements. We are transmitting volumes of information as it is, and it
would not be a problem to include some additional background information on the transit pass -- the
routes, the systems, the schedule and other background information. There is a bus station located right
at the westerly edge here, so clearly, we would lead them to that.
Chairman Schink: You are one of the few developers of whom we can ask this question. I know that
you personally have rather sophisticated, refined, architectural tastes leaning towards more
contemporary structures. Maybe you can enlighten us as to why, when you are doing a speculative
development like this, that you chose to go to something that I consider to be a little more "hokey." Do
you understand what I am saying? (Yes) I think it is good to have it on the record so that you can
explain to the community why you have gone in this direction.
Mr. Ward: As you well know, if it is not Rule #1 in the development business, certainly in the top three
or so is, don’t build to your own taste. Build to the market taste and demand. For whatever reasons, a
more traditional building type appears to be more responsive to a broader segment of the market
demand, at least, in our experience. There are other locations in Palo Alto where a more innovative
architectural design would be appropriate. We would like to try our hand at that too, but we do not think
this is the right site for that. In addition, for us, there is already a fair amount of innovation here. We
are on El Camino, a different part of Palo Alto, and this is the first time we have done an attached
building type. We would like to digest that level of creativity and be assured that there is a market for
that. Then, maybe we can continue to progress.
Chairman Schink: Thank you. Any other questions?
Commissioner Burt: Scott, can you comment on how this building style compares to the adjacent
neighborhoods?
Mr. Ward: Our direction to our architects was to take the traditional Victorian row home building mass
and overlay, it with the guidance that comes out of the single-family design guidelines, which, for Barron
Park, defines it as a rural neighborhood, so we gave them some farm house cues. I think that we have
been fairly successful in accomplishing that. We have met with a favorable reception from the Barton
Square Neighborhood Association and the larger Barron Park Neighborhood Association. We were
specifically advised by both of those groups to avoid the stucco building with a barrel tile roof. I think it
provides a little more variety there. There is a fair amount of shingle style buildings in that part of town,
and it does provide some variety in a way that is consistent with the character of Barron Park.
Commissioner Schmidt: In talking about the character here, I have a question about the kind of hedge
fence that you have across the front, the hedge and then the granite monolith. I like the idea of breaking
up the hedge, but I wonder how the granite monoliths go with thedesign that you have just described.
Cio’ of Palo Alto Page 9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
,43
Mr. Ward: We have had some recent experience with granite monoliths that were designed to be in-
filledwith hedges on Everett Court in the development that we did between Bryant and Waverley off o~"
Everett. We think it is not particularly successful. There is a little bit of a different scale here, but we
are rethinking that, based on that experience. It has not grown into itself in the way that we had
expected. We had expected the hedge to be the same height as the monoliths, and to date, at least, it has
not come to fruition. I am not persuaded that that is going to happen anytime soon. So we have fewer
monoliths in this instance. I think there are other ways to create that edge and define an entry from E1
Camino in a way that is probably a little softer, a little less imposing than the monoliths.
Chairman Schink: Seeing no other members of the public wishing to speak, I will close the public
hearing and return this item to the commission.
Commissioner Burt: I would like to suggest a condition to be added that the development include a
shared garden space, and that it be deferred to staff and the applicant to determine a location and size
that would be appropriate.
I thought that there were three possible locations for a small, shared space. One is to the north of Unit
26, which the applicant had mentioned as being a passive landscaping area currently, although I
understand that staff may have issues over whether that needs to be a vehicle backup area. Two other
spots would be between Units 8 and 9, or Units 14 and 15. As I understand it, there are two spaces in
the development that are not required by code, but staff believes may be appropriate for visitor parking.
The third spot that I think might be the best one is to the south of Unit 22. It is just to the east of the
mini-park, as I see it. It is a central spot. It is adjacent to the social gathering area, and it seems to have
¯ good sun exposure. Those are suggestions of possible locations.
Commissioner Cassel: My feeling on this is that that is a decision that the homeowners association
should make. IfI were designing it, I would put a kids’ space in that area at Unit 22. I feel that the
homeowners themselves should make that kind of choice, and they are free to do that. I think they are
going to need th~at parking space for their guests. I think they are going to find it very tight. Otherwise,
they will have to get out on E1 Camino. While I don’t want an overly large number, we are not able to
park in front of the units here at all. I think that space is going to be critical for the residents. I feel that
this is a decision that can be made by the homeowners association. If they want to use some of that area
at #22, they can, and if they want to use it for a tot lot, they can, and if they want to use it for passive use
or for a basketball court, that will give them the choices.
Commissioner Schmidt: On that particular issue, I agree with Phyllis’ comments. I think that should be
up to the people who live there.
Regarding the project, I like it. I have comments similar to what I said about it previously. I think the
density of this project in this location is appropriate. It is a bold move for the developer to try this sort
of housing product on El Camino and to try something different from what he has done before. I do
hope it is a success here.
Ct~.’ of Palo Alto Page 10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
I like the public benefits, especially the idea of having 1.4 extra BMR units and that all of the BMR units
are on site, and that they will be built, instead of making a contribution to the housing fund.
I like the idea of trying some sort of traffic mitigation. I will be interested in hearing how it works. We
probably will not get a report back, but in seeing you around, we will find out about that. I hope that
there is some way that the idea can be memorialized so that other residents, in the future, would know
the thought behind it. If it is not written down somewhere, obviously, it is not any kind of mandatory
thing, but just to have the thought behind it passed on to others or have the owners reminded of it from
time to time, since it is an idea and a goal and an intended benefit to go with the project. ~-
I think that the landscaping across the front will be a nice change of environment on El Camino there.
.The double row of trees is nice, with benches, and I am happy to hear that there will be some thought
given to the granite monoliths and the hedge there. The idea of trying to break it up is a good idea, and I
am sure you will come up with something that works. Personally, I think it would be nice if the paving
that you are using down the center of the project were used on all of the project. I think it would make it
more cohesive. This is obviously more of an ARB kind of suggestion, but it might be something to
think about.
I am very glad that one of the units was eliminated and that we do have publicspace. I don’t know if
there is a perfect place for it on this site, but since it is closer to El Camino, the sound and the sound wall
are somewhat of a detractor from it, but it is obviously going to be very visible. People are going to
know it is there. People are going to know if something is happening, because it is something that
everyone sees as they come in. I hope that it is a well used space.
I am also very glad to see that we have a connection to the adjacent property. That will benefit both
properties. It would have been nice if there were more space with a real path and some landscaping, but
at least the connection there means that people from each side can go through, making another
pedestrian and bicycle link. It does not require people to go to El Camino.
I also want to comment that we all appreciate the fact that the applicant has worked with the neighbors.
We do not have a room full of neighbors here tonight objecting to this. Again, I think this is a good
project, and I look forward to seeing it.
Chairman Schink: Brian, is there a condition that would address the 18-foot backup in the report?
Mr. Dolan: Yes, there is. It is in Attachment C, Condition #4.
Chairman Schink: I wanted to make sure it was in there before we approved the staff recommendations.
I would just add the comment that I agree with everything Kathy has said, with the exception that I feel
it would be a stronger project if we incorporated the concept that Commissioner Burt put forward of a
community garden area. In viewing these projects, I am often surprised at the small community space
that is allocated with a little table or patio area, and it does not get used. I think we need to explore more
creative ways to use that space, using it in a way that draws the community together. I think that a small
City of Palo Alto Page 11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
garden area might be a more successful endeavor than the space that is there. I can count, however, ann
two votes does not get it done here, so I will just close by saying that I agree with everything that Kath3)
has said tonight.
MOTION: Commissioner Cassel: I move the staff report, with Condition #4 as it is now written, that
the minimum is to be 18 feet wide, but my understanding is that the distance can be worked out with the
developer.
SECOND: By Commissioner Burr..
Commissioner Cassel: I would like to compliment the developer of the neighboring property for
working with Classic Communities to put the walkway through. That was done at the last minute when
he was in the process of completing his project. We encouraged that, and it happened, and not only does
Scott Ward deserve compliments on that, but so does the other developer, as well. If possible, our
appreciation for that should be communicated to him.
I like where the park is, considering the fact that it is small. That is one of the sites I suggested.
Otherwise, I support that Kathy has said. I think transit here is going to be easily available. This is
Route 22 that runs up and down El Camino, and it runs every 10 minutes during the day. It runs all
night, as well. It is a real handicap for public transit if it only runs during the daytime and you cannot
get to it at night or on the weekends. It runs all the way from the north end of the county to way down
south beyond San Jose. It is a big connector line, so this is a good option for transit at the site. It will
give people the ability to have a nice place near transit who do not have the ability to drive. We may see
some people selecting the site specifically for that reason.
Chairman Schink: I would only add that the staff report has done a good job of specifying the public
benefits for this project, as well as the findings. It gave us an opportunity tonight to focus more on
specifics of the project, and we did not need to discuss the findings and public benefits, as they are so
well addressed in the staff report.
MOTION PASSES: Chairman Schink: Is there any further discussion on the motion to approve the
staff report ? All those in favor, say aye. All opposed? That passes on a vote of 4-0-3-0 with
Commissioners Beecham, Bialson and Byrd absent.
REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES. None.
REPORTS FROM OFFICIALS.
¯ Discussion of agenda for June 8 Joint City Council/Planning Commission Meeting.
Chairman Schink: Can we have a discussion on this topic?
Cir.’ of Palo Alto Page 12
ATTACHMENT 11
FINDINGS OF CONSISTENCY WITH THE EL CAMINO REAL DESIGN
GUIDELINES
1. Landscaped Street Theme. Implementation of the proposed project landscape plan, including
but not limited to the dual row of street trees along the front of the project will result in
substantial improvement to the visual appearance of the E1 Camino Real frontage.
2. Landscaping/Paving. As described above, the project uses landscaping and site design to
minimize the visibility of parking; it uses tree and shrub groupings to provide strong accent
points at the project entrance and in from of individual project units; it provides for adequate
sight distance for motorists and pedestrians; it preserves several existing mature trees on the site
and requires their protection during construction ; it uses properly sized trees (i.e., 15 gallon) to
allow for a mature appearance within five years; it uses plant species determined to be
appropriate by the Planning Arborist, and provides a perimeter row of trees to create a buffer
between the project and adjacent land uses, including the adjacent commercial uses to the north
on E1 Camino Real.
3. Signs. Not applicable; no signs are proposed at this time.
4. Architecture/Site Plan. The traditional project architectural design will not attract undue
attention; it is not designed with excessive superfluous details, and does not include excessive
numbers of colors or excessively bright colors. Project structures are set back from E1 Camino
Real and several improvements are proposed to increase the desirability of the pedestrian
environment along the project frontage. Parking, mechanical equipment, and trash areas are
adequately screened. The project respects the rights of adjacent properties with related to light,
air and privacy through general compliance with the daylight planes requirements and provision
of landscape buffering around the project perimeter. The design of individual project units is
compatible with the rest of the project and the neighborhood.
5. Buffers/Parking Lot. The project does not expose substantial parking to view from E1
Camino Real in that all but two of the guest parking spaces are located in the center or rear of the
project. The two guest spaces that are located towards the front of the project are buffered from
El Camino Real by street trees and a planting median containing a dense hedge.
6. Lighting. All guest parking areas and walkways will contain adequate lighting for safety on
the project site but will not spill over onto adjacent properties.