Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-10-20 City Council (32)City of Palo Alto City Manager’s Report. TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM: DATE: CITY MANAGER October 20, 1997 DEPARTMENT: Planning and Community Environment CMR:427:97 SUBJECT:REVIEW OF A SITE AND DESIGN APPLICATION FOR THREE MIXED-USE COMMERCIAL/RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS AT 1865, 1885 AND 1895 EL CAMINO REAL FOR A TOTAL OF 10,450 SQUARE FEET, 22 PARKING SPACES, LANDSCAPING AND RELATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS; VARIANCES FOR AN ARTERIAL FRONT YARD SETBACK, SIDE YARD SETBACK, OPEN SPACE, PARKING, PERIMETER LANDSCAPE STRIP AND INTERIOR LANDSCAPING; AND CONSIDERATION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION. RECOMMENDATIONS The Planning Commission, Architectural Review Board (ARB) and staff recommend that the City Council: Approve the attached Mitigated Negative Declaration (Attachment 3 of the attached September 10, 1997 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 Approve the proposed Site and Design application and variances for construction of three mixed-use commercial! residential buildings with a total of 10,450 square feet, 22 parking spaces, landscaping and related site improvements, based on the attached fmdings and conditions (see Attachments 2, 3, 4 and 5 of this staff report). CMR:427:97 Page 1 of 5 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant, Carrasco & Associates, is proposing to construct three modern live-work style commercial/residential structures. The project is located at the corner of E1 Camino Real and Leland Avenue (see Attachment 1 - Site Location map). The property is zoned CN (Neighborhood Commercial). Under the provisions of the CN zone, mixed use development must also comply with RM-15 site development regulations. The proposed live-work development requires sixteen minor variances (5 on each of two lots and 6 on one lot) to accommodate the living units on the site. With the exception of the front setback variances, the variances are not needed for the commercial portions of the structures. The attached Planning Commission staff report includes more detailed project and site information (see Attachment 6 - September 10, 1997 Planning Commission staff report). SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ISSUES The significant issues related to this project include: use; site planning; parking; access from Leland Avenue; and Zoning Ordinance compliance and the number of minor variances required for the residential portion of the project. Use~ The applicant has characterized the proposed project as a live-work development. Although the City of Palo Alto does not have a codified defmition of live-work, a general discussion of the concept was presented recently for a project in the downtown area. That discussion referred to the concept of live-work as one which incorporates both land use and building regulations that permit one or more individuals to live in the same building or on the same property where they conduct their., livelihood, usually professional office or personal service (e.g., art/design studios), which does not involve the use of hazardous materials. ’ The project falls within the concept of live-work as discussed in previous development application reviews and the Draft Comprehensive Plan. The project further contributes to the practicality and likelihood that the use will actually be live-work in that the only access to the living units is through the work space on the first floor. This feature of the interior floor plan helps increase the possibility that someone will both live and work in the building. As further assurance that the living area will remain such, conditions are proposed for both the Site and Design approval and the variance approvals requiring the living units to remain and requiring the internal connection from the work area to living area to remain. These conditions would be monitored through the building permit process. Any future internal or external construction will require building permits and review by the Planning Division. The building permit would not be approved if conversion of the residential area to commercial area is part of the application or if reconfiguration of the interior space is such that the internal connection would be eliminated. CMR:427:97 Page 2 of 5 Site Planning: The live-work proposal is an appropriate use for the site because it provides a critical transition from the commercial use on E1 Camino Real to the residential uses located behind the site, and because it meets many of the Housing, Transportation, Employment and Urban Design objectives of the existing Comprehensive Plan. The proposed Comprehensive Plan retains the site designation as Neighborhood Commercial. This land use designation continues to allow mixed use projects with non-residential intensity up to .4 Floor Area Ratio (FAR). If the proposed Comprehensive Plan is adopted, the live-work concept proposed as part of this development would continue to be appropriate. In order to provide residential and commercial uses on the site and locate parking behind the building, it is necessary to place the building ten feet from the front property line rather than the 25 feet typically required from a major arterial. Staff, the Planning Commission and the ARB support the proposed location of the buildings and the approval of variances for all three sites, given the fact these commercial lots vary from 114 to 140 feet in depth and are situated at an angle to E1 Camino Real, so that it is impossible to maintain the minimum 25- foot setback and locate parking behind the buildings. The proposed ten-foot setback is consistent with the prevailing setback along this portion of E1 Camino Real and enhances the pedestrian environment by bringing the buildings and entry features closer to the street. The front setback variance is the largest of the variances requested, and is the most important one needed to achieve a project that will be compatible with the E1 Camino Real Design Guidelines. Parking: The proposal does not provide the amount of parking required by the Off-Street Parking Ordinance (Chapter 18.83 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code). The proposal is deficient by three spaces. The lot at 1885 E1 Camino Real is deficient by one space and the lot at 1895 E1 Camino Real is deficient by two spaces. Staff, the Planning Commission and ARB recommend approval of the variances for parking because the project includes live-work space in which the living space can only be accessed from the work area on the ground floor. It is unlikely that anyone not intimately connected to the work area would fmd the living areas desirable. Since one or two people could be living and working in the same building, it appears reasonable to vary the parking requirement by one to two spaces on two of the sites. Access to the Site from Leland Avenue: The project is accessed from Leland Avenue, which is a street with bollards that prevent access into the adjacent residential neighborhood. The proposed access to the development on the subject site is designed to accommodate the existing bollards on Leland Avenue. The applicant explored an alternative on-site access configuration, but was not able to provide a revised design due to the location of an existing driveway for a single-family house on the north side of the bollards. Transportation Division staff supports the proposed location of the driveway access because: 1) the proposed driveway exceeds the minimum required width CMR:427:97 Page 3 of 5 (20 feet); 2) only large-size vehicles would experience any conflict when trying to exit or enter the site at the same time another vehicle is exiting or entering; 3) there are no sight distance obstructions in this area; and 4) Leland Avenue is a dead-end street and would not have a significant amount of traffic on it that would be disrupted by a minimal wait to access the subject,site. Zoning Ordinance Compliance and the Need for Variances: The project requires five variances on two sites, 1865 and 1885 E1 Camino Real, and six variances on 1895 El Camino Real. These variances are needed so that the project can include residential use. Staff, th~ Planning Commission and ARB are supporting the variances so that housing can be accommodated. The primary reasons for supporting the variances include the unusually small size of the lots, their orientation at an angle to E1 Camino Real and the uneven depth of the lots. F.indings for variance approval are included in Attachment 3 of this report. BOARD/COMMISSION ACTION Planning Commission: On September 10, 1997, the Planning Commission reviewed the project and unanimously recommended approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration, the Site and Design application and accompanying variances. The primary issue discussed was the live-work ¯ concept. The Planning Commission stated that although the conditions of approval are designed to ensure the retention of the live-work concept, there is no absolute guarantee that the living space will not be converted to commercial use. The Commission further stated that approving the use as proposed with staffrecommended conditions is a risk well worth taking and that the site is an excellent one for testing the live-work concept. The Commission was also in support of the front setback variance so that parking can be located behind the buildings and the minor variances needed to accommodate the residential portion of the project (see Attachment 7 - Planning Commission minutes for additional detail). The Commission recommended minor modifications to the below market rate housing (BMR) condition of approval and the condition of approval addressing the retention of the living traits. The modifications recommended by the Planning Commission are shown in italics in the attached conditions of approval (see Attachment 5). Architectural Review Board: The ARB reviewed the project on September 18, 1997, and unanimously recommended approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Site and Design application and variances. The primary issues discussed were the changes that had been made to the access drive off of Leland Avenue and changes to the site improvements such as landscaping, courtyards, building materials and parking layout. The Board supported the concept of live-work at the subject location and was enthusiastic about the overall project (see Attachment 8 - ARB minutes for additional detail). PREPARED BY: Lisa Grote, Zoning Administrator CMR:427:97 Page 4 of 5 R~VIEWED BY:Eric Riel, Chief Planning Official DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW: KENNETH R. SCHREIBER Director of Planning and Community Environment CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: ~ EMILY HARRISON Assistant City Manager Attachments: 1.Site location Map 2.Site and Design Findings 3.Variance Findings 4.ARB Findings 5 Conditions of project approval 6.Planning Commission staff report, dated September 10, 1997 Attach. 2: Applicant’s project descriptions for 1865, 1885 and 1895 E1 Camino Real Attach. 3: EIA Attach. 4: Architectural Review Board meeting minutes dated May 1, 1997 Attach. 9: Public Works Department’s standard specification detail #504 Attach. 10: Public Works Department’s standard specification detail #505 7.Planning Commission minutes, dated September 10, 1997 8.ARB minutes, dated September 18, 1997 9.Plans (City Council Members only) Architectural Review Board Planning Commission Carrasco & Associate,120 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 HillviewLand, LLC, 120 Hamilton Avenue, PaloAlto, CA 94301 Bill Nasbu, Property Manager, 911 Avon Street, Belmont, CA 94002 CMR:427:97 Page 5 of 5 1865-85-95 El Camino Real ,.’¯ -~ Stanford am us Graphic Attachment to Staff Report DaLe: 8-27-97 File #: 97-ARB-118, 97-D-6,97-EIA-12 Scale: 1" = 400’ North ATTACHMENT #2 FINDINGS FOR SITE AND DESIGN (97-D-6) 1865, 1885 and 1895 E! Camino Real a. The use will be constructed and operated in a manner that will be orderly, harmonious, and compatible with existing or potential uses of adjoining or nearby sites in that the proposed mixed-use development provides a harmonious transition from the commercial use on E1 Camino Real to the residential use located behind and adjacent to the subject property. The proposed mixed-use commercial and residential buildings are similar in size, scale and design with other buildings located in the area and the project has been design so as not to impact the adjacent residential neighbor’s privacy or enjoyment of their property. b. The project will-ensure the desirability of investment, or the conduct of business, research of educational activities, or other authorized occupations, in the same or adjacent areas in that the project will provide an unique oppommity to live and work in the same building and the proposed design of the mixed-used development and related site improvements are generally consistent with the development on E1 Camino Real, and the construction of the development will be governed by the current Uniform Building Code and other applicable codes, to assure safety and a high quality of development. c.Sound principles of environmental design and ecological balance will be observed with this project in that this project has been designed to be consistent with the Site and Design Criteria adopted by the City Council as well as the E1 Camino Real Design Guidelines and the Architectural Review Board standards for review. The buildings have been designed to relate to the unique configuration of the site and the diverse visual styles in the surrounding area. The project will not have a significant environmental impacts as indicated by the mitigated Negative Declaration. d The use will be in accordwith the PaloAlto Comprehensiveplan; in that the project will meet the goals and objectives of polices in the Housing Element, the Urban Design Element, the Employment Element and the Transportation Element of the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, as outlined in the Policy Implications section of this staff report, and the proposed residential use and related improvements comply with the Site and Design development regulations and conform to the intent of the CN mixed used development land use regulations, which support mixed-use projects that include residential uses. ATTACHMENT #3 VARIANCE FINDINGS FOR 1865 El Camino Real 97-V-14 Variance for a 10’-0" front yard set back where a 25’-0" minimum arterial front yard setback is required. (a)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 subject lot is substantially smaller than surrounding lots; the subject lot is 5,377 square feet compared with the 12,000 to 19,000 square foot commercial parcels to the east and west of the site and the standard 7,500 SF parcel size in the Evergreen Park Neighborhood noi~ah of the site. The proposal places the building footprint in the arterial front yard setback to locate the building and entry features closer to the street, which enhances the pedestrian environment and allows parking to be located behind the building. In addition, the building location is consistent with the prevailing setback along E1 Camino Real and creates a design solution that results in a more livable floor plan for the residential unit than would otherwise be attainable without the variance. ®)The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship in that the strict compliance with the front yard arterial setback would unreasonably reduce the usable area of the site and preclude a design solution that allows for both residential and commercial uses on the site, both of which are property rights within the zoning’ district. The purpose of the arterial front yard setback is ’to encourage appropriately scaled building massing at the street and a sense of openness on E1 Camino Real. The small size and scale of the proposed building satisfies this intent while bringing pedestrian activity closer to the street. (c)The granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience in that the proposal will maintain the character, livability and scale of development on abutting properties. The variance approval would not prevent the basic intent of the zoning regulation from being met because adequate setbacks for privacy, solar access and physical separation between buildings will be maintained. s :Xplan~pladiv~pesr\1865 ecr,vcpd Page 1 t o Variance for no interior side yard setback where the required interior side setback is 15’6" (PAMC 18.22.050(e)(2)). (a)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 subject lot is substantially smaller than surrounding lots; the subject lot is 5,377 square feet compared with the 12,000 to 19,000 square foot commercial parcels to the east and west of the site and the standard 7,500 SF parcel size in the Evergreen Park Neighborhood nortli of the site. The 50 foot width of the subject site and the 15’6" side setbacks would result in a living unit 20 feet wide. (b)The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship in that strict compliance with the side yard setback would produce a residential unit 20 feet in width, which would not meet contemporary living needs. The required side yard setback unreasonably restricts the small site and the proposed residential use. (c)The granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience in that the proposal will maintain the character, livability and scale of development on abutting properties. The variance approval would not prevent the basic intent of the zoningregulafion from being met because adequate setbacks for privacy, solar access and physical separation between buildings will be maintained. Variance for 24% open space where 35% minimum lot area open space is required (PAMC 18.22.0500)(1)). (a)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 subject lot is substantially smaller than surrounding lots; the subject lot is 5,377 square feet compared with the 12,000 to 19,000 square foot commercial parcels to the east and west of the site and the standard 7,500 SF parcel size in the Evergreen Park Neighborhood north of the site. In addition, the live/work nature of the use with just one residential unit on the site results in less demand for common usable open space than would a traditional multifamily development for which the common usable open space requirements were designed. Page 2 (b)The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property fight of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship in that strict compliance with the common usable open space requirement unreasonably restricts the small site and will produce a project with excessive usable open space in relation to the need for such space and a project which can not meet other necessary site development requirements. (c)The granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience in that the proposed amount of private and usable open space together will provide residents on the site a viable area to recreate and privately enjoy outdoor area. The common usable open space provided will maintain the character, livability and scale of development on abutting properties. The variance approval would not prevent the basic intent of the zoning regulation from being met because adequate private usable open space is provided and users of the site will have outdoor space to use. Variance for a 2-1/2-foot perimeter landscape strip where a the required 5-foot perimeter landscape strip is required at the northwest property line (PAMC, Section 18.83.100 (a)). (a)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 individual site is considerably smaller than surrounding commercial sites and the parking for all three parcels involved in the project has to be designed as one parking area so that access to the parking for all three sites can be assured. Access to the parking area for the remaining two parcels could not be obtained if perimeter landscaping is provided on the northwest property line of this site. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship in that strict compliance with the perimeter landscaping requirement unreasonably restricts the small site and will produce a project that effectively prevents access to the remaining two parcels that are part of the overall project. Requiring the standard amount of per miter landscaping would prevent the efficient design of the parking area for the subject site as well as the other two sites that are part of the overall project. (c)The granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience in that a two foot to ten foot landscape strip will be provided around the perimeter of the entire site, which includes three parcels, and will buffer the buildings from adjacent residential and commercial uses. Variance for the required 5% interior landscaping within the parking area (PAMC, Section 18.83.100 (b)). (a)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 physically constrained by its small size and angled orientation to E1 Camino Real. The irregular length of the side property lines does not provide enough depth on the site to accommodate the interior landscaping in the parking area as well as the other site development requirements. (b) (c) The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property fight of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship in that strict compliance with the interior parking area landscaping requirement unreasonably restricts the small site and will produce a project that effectively prevents access to the remaining two parcels that are part of the overall project. Requiring the standard amount of interior parking area landscaping would prevent the efficient design of the parking area for the subject site as well as the other two sites that are part of the overall project. The granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience in that interior parking lot landscaping is provided on the two remaining sites that are part of the overall development and a seven foot landscape strip is provided on the back (north) property line which will buffer the parking area on the subject site from the adjacent residential uses. s Aplan\pladiv~pesr\ 1865 ecr.wpd Page 4 VARIANCE FINDINGS FOR 1885 E! Camino Real 97-V-14 Variance for a 10’-0" front yard set back where a 25’-0" minimum front yard arterial setback is required; (PAMC, Section 18.22.050(d)). (a)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 subject lot is substantially smaller than surrounding lots; the subject lot is 6,045 square feet compared with the 12,000 to 19,000 square foot commercial parcels to the east and west of the site and the standard 7,500 SF parcel size in the Evergreen Park Neighborhood north of the site. The proposal places the building footprint in the arterial front yard setback to locate the building and entry features closer to the street, which enhances the pedestrian environment and allows parking to be located behind the building. In addition, the building location is consistent with the prevailing setback along E1 Camino Real and creates a design solution that results in a more livable floor plan for the residential unit than would otherwise be attainable without the variance. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship in that the strict compliance with the front yard arterial setback would unreasonably reduce the usable area of the site and preclude a design solution that allows for both residential and commercial uses on the site, both of which are property rights within the zoning district. The purpose of the arterial front yard setback is to encourage appropriately scaled building massing at the street and a sense of openness on El Camino Real. The small size and scale of the proposed building satisfies this intent while bringing pedestrian activity closer to the street. (c)The granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience in that the proposal will maintain the character, livability and scale of development on abutting properties. The variance approval would not prevent the basic intent of the zoning regulation from being met because adequate setbacks for privacy, solar access and physical separation between buildings will be maintained. s Aplankpladiv~pcsr\ 1865 ¢¢r.wpd Page 5 o Variance for no interior side yard setback where setback is 15’6" (PAMC 18.22.050(e)(2)). the required interior side (a)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 subject lot is substantially smaller than surrounding lots; the subject lot is 5,377 square feet compared with the 12,000 to 19,000 square foot commercial parcels to the east and west of the site and the standard 7,500 SF parcel size in the Evergreen Park Neighborhood north of the site. The 50 foot width of the subject site and the 15’6" side setbacks would result in a living unit 20 feet wide. (b)The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship in that strict compliance with the side yard setback would produce a residential unit 20 feet in width, which would not meet contemporary living needs. The required side yard setback unreasonably restricts the small site and the proposed residential use. (c)The granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the .vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience in that the proposal will maintain the character, livability and scale of development on abutting properties. The variance approval would not prevent the basic intent of the zoning regulation from being met because adequate setbacks for privacy, solar access and physical separation between buildings will be maintained. Variance for 29% open space where 35% minimum is required (PAMC, Section 18.22.0500)(1)). (a)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 subject lot is substantially smaller than surrounding lots; the subject lot is 6,045 square feet compared with the 12,000 to 19,000 square foot commercial parcels to the east and west of the site and the standard 7,500 SF parcel size in. the Evergreen Park Neighborhood north of the site. In addition, the live/work nature of the use with just one residential unit on the site results in less demand for common usable open space than would a traditional multifamily development for which the common usable open space requirements were designed. s Aplan~pladiv~p ¢sr\ 18 6 5 eer .~x’p d Page 6 o (b)The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship in that strict compliance with the common usable open space requirement unreasonably restricts the small site and will produce a project with excessive usable open space in relation to the need for such space and a project which can not meet other necessary site development requirements. (c)The granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience in that the proposed amount of private and common usable open space together will provide residents on the site a viable area to recreate and privately enjoy outdoor area. The common usable open space provided will maintain the character, livability and scale of development on abutting properties. The variance approval will not prevent the basic intent of the zoning regulation from being met because adequate private usable open space is provided and users of the site will have outdoor space to use. Variance to allow 8 parking spaces where a minimum of 9 parking spaces are required; (PAMC, Section 18.83.050o) (a)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 lot is substantially smaller than surrounding commercial sites and the proposed use is based on a live/work concept, which requires fewer parking spaces and generates fewer vehicle trips than the typical multiple-family residential or commercial use. (b)The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property fight of the applicmat, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship in that strict compliance with the on-site parking requirement will produce a project with excessive and unnecessary parking given the live/work nature of the use. (c)The granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience in that the reduced on-site parking corresponds to the reduced need for parking and the reduced number of vehicle trips generated by the live/work use. The number of parking spaces provided will be sufficient for the live/work use that is proposed. s:\plankpladiv\pesr\ 1865 ecr.wpd Page 7 Variance for the required 5% interior landscaping within the parking area (PAMC, Section 18.83.100 (b)). (a)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 physically constrained by its small size and angled orientation to E1 Camino Real. The irregular length of the side property lines does not provide enough depth on the site to accommodate the interior landscaping in the parking area as well as the other site development requirements. (b)The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship in that strict compliance with the interior parking area landscaping requirement unreasonably restricts the small site and will produce a project that effectively prevents access to the remaining two parcels that are part of the overall project. Requiring the standard amount of interior parking area landscaping would prevent the efficient design of the parking area for the subject site as well as the other two sites that are part of the overall project. (c)The granting of the applicationwill not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience in that interior parking lot landscaping is provided on the two remaining sites that are part of the overall development and a seven foot landscape strip is provided on the back (north) property line which will buffer the parking area on the subject site from the adjacent residential uses. s:\plan~pladiv~pesr\l 8 6 5 ecr.wpd Page 8 VARIANCE FINDINGS FOR 1895 E! Camino Real 97-V-14 Variance for a 12’-0" front yard set back where a 25’-0" minimum arterial front yard setback is required. (a)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 subject lot is substantially smaller than surrounding lots; the subject lot is 6,710 square feet compared with the 12,000 to 19,000 square foot commercial parcels to the east and west of the site and the standard 7,500 SF parcel size in the Evergreen Park Neighborhood north of the site. The proposal places the building footprint in the arterial front yard setback to locate the building and entry features closer to the street, which enhances the pedestrian environment and allows parking to be located behind the building. In addition, the building location is consistent with the prevailing setback along E1 Camino Real and creates a design solution that results in a more livable floor plan for the residential unit than would otherwise be attainable without the variance. (b)The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship in that the strict compliance with the front yard arterial setback would unreasonably reduce the usable area of the site andpreclude a design solution that allows for both residential and commercial uses on the site, both of which are property rights within the zoning district. The purpose of the arterial front yard setback is to encourage appropriately scaled building massing at the street and a sense of openness on E1 Camino Real. The small size and scale of the proposed building satisfies this intent while bringing pedestrian activity closer to the street. (c)The granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience in that the proposal will maintain the character, livability and scale of development on abutting properties. The variance approval would not prevent the basic intent of the zoning regulation from being met because adequate setbacks for privacy, solar access and physical separation between buildings will be maintained. s Aplan~pladiv~pcsr\ 18 6 5 eer.wpd Page 9 Variance for no interior-side yard setback where the required interior side setback is 15’6" (PAMC 18.22.050(e)(2)). (a)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 subject lot is substantially smaller than surrounding lots; the subject lot is 5,377 square feet compared with the 12,000 to 19,000 square foot commercial parcels to the east and west of the site and the standard 7,500 SF parcel size in the Evergreen Park Neighborhood north of the site. The 50 foot width of the subject site and the 15’6" side setbacks would result in a living unit 20 feet wide. (b)The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property fight of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship in that strict compfiance with the side yard setback would produce a residential unit 20 feet in width, which would not meet contemporary living needs. The required side yard setback unreasonably restricts the small site and the proposed residential use. (c)The granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience in that the proposal will maintain the character, livability and scale of development on abutting properties. The variance approval would not prevent the basic intent of the zoning regulation from being met because adequate setbacks for privacy, solar access and physical separation between buildings will be maintained. Variance to allow 6 parking spaces where a minimum of 8 parking spaces are required; (PAMC, Section 18.83.050.) (a)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 lot is substantially smaller than surrounding commercial sites and the proposed use is based on a live/work concept, which requires fewer parking spaces and generates fewer vehicle trips than the typical multiple-family residential or commercial use. (b)The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, and to prevent. unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship in that strict compliance with the on-site parking requirement will produce a project Page 10 with excessive and unnecessary parking given the live/work nature of the use. (c)The granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience in that the reduced on-site parking corresponds to the reduced need for parking and the reduced number of vehicle trips generated by the live/work use. The number of parking spaces provided will be sufficient for the live/work use that is proposed. Variance for no perimeter landscape strip on the west property line where a 5- foot perimeter landscape strip is required (PAMC, Section 18.83.100 (a)). (a)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 individual site is considerably smaller than surrounding commercial sites and the parking for all three parcels involved in the project has to be designed as one parking area so that access to the parking for all three sites can be assured. Access to the parking area for the remaining two parcels could not be obtained if perimeter landscaping is provided on the northwest property line of this site. (b)The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship in that strict compliance with the perimeter landscapingrequirement unreasonably restricts the small site and will produce a project that effectively prevents access to the remaining two parcels that are part of the overall project. Requiring the standard amount of per miter landscaping would prevent the efficient design of the parking area for the subject site as well as the other two sites that are part of the overall project. (c)The granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience in that a two foot to ten foot landscape strip will be provided around the perimeter of the entire site, which includes three parcels, and will buffer the buildings from adjacent residential and commercial uses. sflplan~pladivkpcsr\1865ecr.wpd Page 11 Variance for the required 5% (PAMC, Section 18.83.100 (b)). interior landscaping within the parking area (a)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 physically constrained by its small size and angled orientation to E1 Camino Real. The irregular length of the side property lines does not provide enough depth on the site to accommodate the interior landscaping in the parking area as well as the other site development requirements. (b)The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship in that strict compliance with the interior parking area landscaping requirement unreasonably restricts the small site and will produce a project that effectively prevents access to the remaining two parcels that are part of the overall project. Requiring the standard amount of interior parking area landscaping would prevent the efficient design of the parking area for the subject site as well as the other two sites that are part of the overall project. (c)The granting of the application, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience in that interior parking lot landscaping is provided on the two remaining sites that are part of the overall development and a seven foot landscape strip is provided on the back (north) property line which will buffer the parking area on the subject site from the adjacent residential uses. Variance to allow 33% usable open space where 35% is required. (a)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 subject lot is substantially smaller than surrounding lots; the subject lot is 6,045 square feet compared with the 12,000 to 19,000 square foot commercial parcels to the east and west of the site and the standard 7,500 SF parcel size in the Evergreen Park Neighborhood north of the site. In addition, the live/work nature of the use with just one residential unit on the site results in less demand for common usable open space than would a traditional multifamily development for which the common usable open space requirements were designed. s:kplanXpladiv\pesr\ 1865 ecr.vcpd Page 12 (b) (c) The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship in that strict compliance with the common usable open space requirement unreasonably restricts the small site and will produce a project with excessive usable open space in relation to the need for such space and a project which can not meet other necessary site development requirements. The granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience in that the proposed amount of private and common usable open space together will provide residents on the site a viable area to recreate and privately enjoy outdoor area. The common usable Open space provided will maintain the character, livability and scale of development on abutting properties. The variance approval will not prevent the basic intent of the zoning regulation from being met because adequate private usable open space is provided and users of the site will have outdoor space to use. sAplan~pladiv~pcsr\1865ecr.wpd Page 13 ATTACHMENT #4 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD REVIEW/FINDINGS 1865, 1885 and 1895 E! Camino R_eal ARB Standards per Chapter 16.48 of the PAMC. The proposed project will meet the goals and purposes of the Architectural Review ordinance in that it will promote the orderly and harmonious development of the city by providing a harmonious transition from the commercial uses on El Camino Real to the residential uses located behind and adjacent to the subject site. The project will enhance the desirability of residence or investment in the city by providing an unique opportunity to live and work in the same building and will encourage the attainment of the most desirable use of land and improvements by providing a uniquely designed project that will relate to the unusual characteristics of the subject sites as well as to the eclectic visual surroundings. It will enhance the desirabiBty of living conditions upon the site or in adjacent areas by developing a currently vacant site that has had little or no maintenance over the years. It will provide living units on the site that will be compatible with surrounding residential uses while still relating to the commercial uses along E1 Camino Real. The project will promote a visual environment which is of high aesthetic quality and variety and which at the same time is considerate of other uses by using high quality materials that are compatible with surrounding residential and commercial uses. The design is consistent and compatible with appficable elements of the city’s comprehensive plan (Standard #al). The proposal is compatible with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan as discussed in the "Policy" Section of this report. The design is compatible with the immediate environment of the site (Standard #a2). The design compatible with the immediate environment of the site, in that the design of the building reduces visual impacts, maintains overall neighborhood appearance and preserves the character of the surrounding building and zone district. The design is appropriate to the function of the project (Standard #a3). The proposed design is appropriate to the function of the project, in that it provides an adequate transition from the live-work use to the residential use on the lot abutting the rear of the subject site. The design is compatible with a unified design character or historical character. (Standard #a4). The subject property is not located in an area which has a unified design or historical character. The design promotes harmonious transitions in scale and character in areas between different designated land uses (Standard #a5). The proposal breaks the mass of the three live-work buildings with wall and roof plane changes that create a harmonious transition in scale and character from the commercial use on El Camino Real to the residential uses located behind the site. s Aplan\pladivkpcsr\ 1865 eer.wpd Page 1 The design is compatible with approved improvements both on and off the site (Standard #a6). The design of the project is compatible with the existing improvements both on and off the site, in that the proposal does not negatively impact the adjacent side and rear residential uses. The planning and siting of the various functions and buildings on the site create an internal sense of order and provide a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and the general community (Standards #a7). The proposal creates an intemal sense of order and provides a desirable environment, by integrating the functions of live-work on the site and locating the residential further away from El Camino Real and using the office use as a buffer from the street. The amount and arrangement of open space are appropriate to the design and the.function of the structures (Standards #a8). The proposal adequately integrate the outdoor spaces with internal living spaces of the commercial and residential use; The proposal provides a shared courtyard space for the commercial use and a private deck for the residential use. The sufficient ancillary functions are provided to support the main functions of the project and whether the same are compatible with the project’s design concept (Standards #a9). The proposed pedestrian pathways and interior courtyards that reinforces open space and pedestrian circulation on the site. The access to the property and circulation thereon are safe and convenient for pedestrians, cyclist and vehicles (Standards #10). The proposed design provides a safe access and circulation for pedestrians, cyclist and vehicles. The proposed preserves natural features that are appropriately preserved and integrated (Standard #11). The proposed design preserves and integrates existing street trees into the project. The materials, texture, colors and details of construction and plant material are appropriate expression to the design and function and whether the same are compatible with the adjacent and neighboring structures, landscape elements and functions (Standard #a12). The design incorporates architectural details including eaves, overhangs, window detailing wall treatments that give the building a coherent architectural vocabulary. The landscape design concept for the site, as shown by the relationship of plant masses, open space, scale, plant forms and foliage textures and colors create a desirable and functional environment and whether the landscape concept depicts an appropriate unity with various buildings on the site (Standard #a13). The proposal utilize adequate landscaping to screen and soften the wide street frontage. The major and secondary landscape dements could provide an effective screening from El Camino Real and Leland Avenue. The plant material is suitable and adaptable to the site, capable of being properly maintained on the site, and is of a variety which wouM tend to be drought-resistant and to reduce consumption of water in its installation and maintenance (Standards #a14). The proposed plant materials are drought resistant and an irrigation plan will be required for the final submittal. s:~plan~pladivkpesr\ 18 6 5 eer.wpd Page 2 The design is energy efficient and incorporates renewable energy design elements (Standards #a15). The proposed building will be designed for energy efficiency to include such features as dual glazing and insulation. s:~plaa~pladiv~pcsr\ 1865 eer.wpd Page 3 ATTACHMENT #5 SITE AND DESIGN CONDITIONS FOR PROJECT APPROVAL FOR 1865, 1885 and 1895 E! Camino Real Planning Prior to Issuance of Building Permit The applicant shall provide and record an easement agreement in a form satisfactory to the City Attorney between the property owners of 1865, 1885 and 1895 E1 Camino Real for driveway access to the parking areas and the placement of public utility laterals originating from utility mains on Leland Avenue. The applicant shall provide and an easement agreement in a form satisfactory to the City Attorney between the property owners of 1865, 1885 and 1895 E1 Camino Real for access to the trash and recycling areas. The proposal shall incorporate additional noise mitigation measures to protect residential units from traffic noise on E1 Camino Real that includes double glazed windows and a 5-foot high wall around the roof deck as noted on Page 1 of the acoustical analysis prepared by Salter Associates, dated August 4, 1997. The revised plans incorporating these modifications shall return to Planning staff for review and approval. Below Market Rate housing requirement In conformance with the City’s Below Market Rate (BMR) requirements (Program #13, Housing Element, Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan), a lump sum payment in-lieu of provision of BMR housing shall be pa~d to City for deposit in the Housing Resuerve Fund. This payment shall be calculated based on the actual sales value or the appraised fair market rental value of only the residential protion of the project, whichever is greater, and applying a rate of 3.25% times the value. An Agreement, satifaetory to the City Attorney, shall be prepared and executed by the project owners prior to issuance of any Buidling Permits for the project. s AplankpladivXocsr\ 1865 ecr.wpd Page 1 On-Going The sites shall retain the residential component of the project at all times as shown on plans dated June 5, 1997. No conversion of these areas to other uses shall be allowed. The interior connection between the living units and the work areas shall remain, and at least one occupant of the living unit shall work in the commercial space within the same building and the living unit and work area shall not be rented separately. s:~lanXpladiv~csr\ 18 6 5 ecr, wpd Page 2 VARIANCE CONDITIONS FOR 1865, 1885 and 1895 El Camino Real Prior to Issuance of Building Permit Planning Arborist All neighboring trees that overhang the project site shall be protected from construction impacts. A tree protection plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning A~borist depicting how trees on adjacent sites shall be protected. Protection methods can be included, but are not limited to, fencing and wrapping of trunks and limbs. The applicant shall be responsible for the repair and replacement of any publicly 9wned trees that are damaged during the course of construction, pursuant to PAMC, Sec. 8-04- 070. The two London Planes to be retained, as shown on tlie approved landscape plan shall be protected during construction. The following tree protection measures must be implemented and included in construction/demolition plans and contracts. Any modifications to these requirements must be approved, in writing, by the Planning Arborist. The following tree preservation measures apply to all trees to be retained: All trees to be preserved shall be protected with six-foot-high chain link fences. Fences are to be mounted on two-inch diameter galvanized iron posts, driven into the ground to a depth of at least 2-feet at no more than 10-foot spacing. The fences shall enclose the entire area under the dripline of the trees*. The fences shall be erected before construction begins and remain in place until final inspection of the building permit, except for work specifically required in the approved plans to be done under the trees to be protected. This detail shall appear on grading and construction plans (see Attaclunent # 8). *If the above will block the. sidewalk or street right of way, the entire planting strip may be enclosed by the above fencing to allow pedestrian traffic to use the sidewalk. *If the trees are in a small tree well, the trees must be wrapped with 2-inches of orange plastic fencing from the ground to the first branch with 2-inch thick wooden slats bound securely with additional orange plastic fencing. They shall not be allowed to dig into the bark. While this protects the trunk, caution must be used not to damage any branches. Major seaffoM limbs may require the same treatment as the above or as directed by the City Arborist. s Aplan~pladiv~pcsr\ 1865 ecr.wpd Page 3 o o The Planning Arborist shall be in receipt of a statement from the developer or project Arborist verifying that the tree fencing is in place before demolition and construction permit issuance unless otherwise approved. Before the protective tree fencing is installed, all trees to remain shall be pruned in compliance with the following standards; All specifications for working on trees to be retained shall be written and administered by a qualified Arborist. All tree work performed within the City of Palo Alto shall be in accordance with the industry Standard Practices for Tree Care Operations outlined in the ANSI A300-1995 and ANSI Z133-1994. c.The following tree preservation measures apply to all trees to be retained: 1)No storage of material, topsoil, vehicles or equipmem shall be permitted within the tree enclosure area. 2)The ground around the tree canopy area shall not be altered. 3)Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and maintained as necessary to ensure survival. 4)All street trees shall receive monthly watering. 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 is approved. do All new trees shall be planted as per Public Works Standard Tree Well Diagram #504 (see Attachment # 9) and have the tree pit dug at least twice the diameter of the root ball. This diagram shall be shown on Landscape Plans. 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 of Arboriculture (WC-ISA) Guidelines for Certified Arborists and Tree Workers (see Appendix B). lmgation shall be supplied to all street trees. Details shall specify an inline loop of drip tubing placed around the top of the rootball at a point one-third of 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 s:\plan\pladiv~pcsr\ 18 6 5 ecr, wpd Page 4 the City of Palo Alto (V-C)(o). Revised landscape plans showing the irrigation details shall be submitted to the Planning Arborist for review and approval. Utility Marketing Services 7.The applicant shall provide a completed Landscape Water Use Statement, Water Use Calculations, grading plan and Statement of Design Intent. These plans should be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and qualified irrigation consultant. Building 8.The project shall comply with Table 5-A in the Uniform Building Code for location of 1 hour wall and protection of openings. Transportation 9. All garage doors shall be at least 8-1/2 feet wide. 10.The location of trash and recycling bins shall be modified so that they do not require access from the handicapped parking stall. Site plans showing the revised location shall be subject to review and approval by Planning Division staff. 11.The plans shall indicate the main entrance to the office areas on the floor plan and bike racks shall be provided at that location. 12.The bollards separating the on-site driveway from the sidewalk must be placed behind the sidewalk, with no portion of them on the sidewalk. In addition, at least one additional bollard must be installed behind the sidewalk opposite the northerly edge of the driveway curb cut, so that vehicles do not encroach on the sidewalk beyond the width of the curb cut. Fire 13. 14. 15. An Automatic Sprinkler System shall be provided throughout the buildings (NFPA-13 light hazard) residential areas NFPA-13R modified; plans and permit required on underground fire service line and automatic sprinkler system. The location of a knox box shall be indicated on the site plan. If the sprinkler system serves 100 or more it shall be supervised by central station for water flow and value temper trouble. s :~plan~pladiv~pcsr\ 18 6 5 ecr.wpd Page 5 Utilities Engineering Electrical 16.A padmount transformer and a P.U.E. shall be required to provide electric service to the new development; 17.Since the site includes three parcels, a common P.U.E. measuring 10 feet wide shall be provided around the three lots to give flexibility in designing the new electric distribution system and the location of the transformer pad on site. Three-phase power is available across the street. Service voltage shall be 120/208V based on information submitted so far. Size of transformer shall be determined upon review of actual load data submitted. 18. All on-site and off site substructure work shall be done by applicant. Utilities Engineering The applicant shall submit a completed WATER-GAS-WASTERWATER SERVICE CONNECTION APPLICATION - LOAD SHEET for the City of Palo Alto Utilities. The applicant must provide all the information requested for utility service demands (water.in G.P.M., gas in B.T.U.P.H. and sewer in G.P.D.) 20.The applicant shall submit improvement plans for utility construction. The plans must show the size and location of all underground utilities within the development and the public right of way including meters, backflow preventers, fire service requirements, sewer mains, sewer cleanouts, sewer lift stations and any other required utilities. 21.The applicant must show on the site plan the existence of any water well, or auxiliary water supply. 22.The applicant shall be responsible for installing and upgrading the existing water and sewer mains and/or services as necessary to handle anticipated peak loads. This responsibility includes the design and all the cost associated with the construction for the installation/upgrade of the water and sewer mains and/or services. 23.The applicant’s engineer shall submit water flow calculations which will show that the site and off-site water distribution system will provide the domestic, irrigation, and fire flow water demands needed to service the development and adjacent properties during anticipated peak flows demands. Field test may be required to determined current flows and water pressures on existing main. Calculations must be stamped by a registered civil engineer. s Aplan\pladivkpesr\l 865 ecr.wpd Page 6 24.The applicant shall submit to the WGW Engineering Division of the Utilities Department four copies of the installation of water and sewer utilities off-site improvement plans in accordance with the Utilities Depamnent Design Criteria. All utility work within the public fight-of-way shall be clearly shown on the plans that are prepared and stamped by a registered civil engineer. 25.The applicant shall provide to the Engineering Department a copy of the plans for fire systems including all Fire Department’s requirements. 26.The approved relocation ofservice, meters, hydrants, or other facilities will be performed at the cost of the person requesting relocation. During Construction 27.Each unit, parcel or place of business shall have its own water, gas meters and sewer lateral connection. 28.A separate water meter shall be installed to irrigate the approved landscape plan. This meter shall be designated as an irrigation account an no other water service will be billed on the account. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. An approved Reduce Pressure Principle Assembly (Backflow Preventer Device) shall be installed for all existing and new water connections from Palo Alto Utilities to comply with requirements of California Administrative Code, Title 17, Section 7583 through 7605 inclusive. The Reduce Pressure Principle Assembly shall be installed on the owner’s property and directly behind the water meter. Inspection by the Utilities Cross Connection Inspector is required for the supply pipe between the meter and the assembly. An Approved Single Check Valve shall be installed for the existing or new water connections for the fire system to comply with requirements of California Administrative Code, Title 17, Sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive. A new gas service line installation is required to furnish customer’s demand specified in the load sheet presented with this project. A new 4" sewer lateral install per lot is required. The applicant’s contractor will not be allowed to begin improvement plan have been approved by the Water, Engineering Division and all utilities conditions are met. work until the utility Gas and Wastewater s:~lan~ladivkpesr\ 1865 ecr.wpd Page 7 34. 35. 36. The applicant shall provide a Public Utilities Easement for facilities installed in private property. The applicant’s engineer shall obtain, prepare, record with the County of Santa Clara, and provide the Engineering Division with copies of the public utilities easement across this parcel or the adjacent parcels as is necessary to serve the applicant. All utility installations shall be in accordance with the City of Palo Alto Utility Standards for Water, Gas & Wastewater. The applicant shall obtain an Encroachment Permit from CALTRANS for all utility work in the E1 Camino Real right-of-way. The applicant must provide a copy of the permit to the WGW Engineering Department. 37. 38. The applicant shall pay the connection fees associated for the installation of the new water service/s to be installed by the City of Palo Alto Utilities. The contractor shall furnish to the Utilities Department a complete schedule of work and method of construction. 39.The contractor shall submit for approval by the Utilities Engineering Department the manufacture’s literature on the materials to be used. 40. 41. 42. 43. The applicant shall provide meter protection for gas meters subject to vehicle damage. The applicant shall pay cost associated with the required improvements to on-site and off-site gas main and services. All improvements to the gas system will be performed by the City of Palo Alto Utilities. No water valve or other facilities owned by Utilities Department shall be operated for purpose by the applicant’s contractor. All required operation will be performed only by authorized Utilities Department Personnel. The applicant’s contractor shall notify the Utilities Department no less than forty-eight (48) hours in advance of the time that such operation is required. All utility work shall be inspected and approved by the WGW Utilities Inspector. Inspection costs for any work done before 8:00 A.M. or 4:30 P. M. on a regular work day, or on Saturdays or Holidays shall be paid by the applicant’s contractor. Schedule WGW utilities inspections at 650/329-2691 five working days before start of constructions. s:kplan~pladiv~pesr\l 865 ecr.wpd Page 8 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. The applicant’s contractor shall immediately notify the Utilities Department (650) 496-6032 OR (650) 329-2413 if the existing water or gas mains are disturbed or damaged. The contractor shall not disconnect any part of the existing water main except by expressed permission of the utilities chief inspector and shall submit a schedule of the estimated shutdown time to obtain said permission. The water main shall not be turned on until the service installation and the performance of chlorination and bacteriological testing have been completed. The contractor’s testing method shall be in conformance with ANSFAWWA C651-86. All backflow preventer devices shall be approved by the WGW Engineering Division, inspected by the Utilities Cross Connection Inspector and tested by a licensed tester prior to activation of the water service. All customer piping shall be inspected and approved by the Building Department before gas service is instituted. Gas meters will installed three working days after the building piping passes fmal inspection. Uflity service connections will be installed between 30 and 45 days following receipt of full payment. Large developments .must allow sufficient lead time (6 weeks minimum) for utility construction perform6d by the City of Palo Alto Utilities. The customer shall give the City written notice of any material changes in size, character, or extend of the equipment or operations for which the City is supplying utility service before making any such. Rules and Regulations 3 D. The Permittee is required to submit a drainage plan showing existing and proposed drainage of the site. This plan shall show the existing affected off-site storm drainage and provide showing how this system will handle the proposed site run off. This plan should show spot elevations of existing and proposed grades showing how drainage patterns work. Existing drainage from adjacent properties shall be maintained. The Applicant shah contact the Public Works Department to coordinate a meeting to discuss the production of these plans. The Applicant shall include the design of a Bioswell to located along the back of the properties adjacent to the parking lot. The applicant shall coordinate a meeting with the Public Works Department for discussion of the production of this design. s:kplan~pladivkpcsr\ 1865 ecr.wpd Page 9 Police 53.All non-residential construction activities shall be subject to the requirement of the City’s Noise Ordinance, Chapter 9.10 PAMC, which requires, among other things, that a sign be posted and that construction times be lindted as follows: 8:00 AM to 8:00 PM Monday thru Friday 9:00 AM to 8:00 PM Saturday 10:00 AM to 6:00 PM Sunday. .....-t-ll .,-.r~r~ p,ili, iViU Public Works 54.This plan has been reviewed for compliance with applicable codes, but the design remains the responsibility of the architect/engineer who prepared it. 55.Any changes to these plans, other than those provided within, must be reviewed by the Public Works Engineering Division. 56. 57. The movement of the traffic barriers on Leland Avenue shall be reviewed by the Public Works Department. The applicant shall provide more detailed plans for the location and construction of these new barriers. The construction costs for new barriers shall be funded by the applicant. Any bollards placed on the Leland Avenue frontage must be placed in back of the City sidewalk. The proposed development will result in a change in the impervious area of the property. The applicant shall provide calculations showing the adjusted impervious area with the building permit application. A storm drainage fee adjustment will take place in the month following the fmal approval of the construction by the Building Inspection Division. 58. 59. Permittee must obtain a grading permit from the City of Palo Alto Building Inspection Division if excavation exceeds 100 cubic yards. A construction logistics plan shall be provided, addressing at minimum parking, truck routes and staging, materials storage, and the provision of pedestrian and vehicular traffic adjacent to the construction site. All truck routes shall conform with the City of Palo Alto’s Trucks and Truck Route Ordinance, Chapter !0.48, and the attached route map which outlines truck routes available throughout the City of Palo Alto. s:Xplan~pladiv~pcsr\ 1865 ecr.wpd Page 10 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. The applicant shall obtain a Permit for construction in a Public Street from Public Works Engineering for coiastruction proposed in the City right-of-way. To reduce dust levels, it shall be required that exposed earth surfaces be watered as necessary. Spillage resulting from hauling operations along or across any public or private property shall be removed immediately and paid for by the contractor. Dust nuisances originating from the contractor’ s operations, either inside or outside of the right-of-way shall be controlled at the contractor’s expense. The contractor must contact the CPA Public Works Inspector at (650-496-6929) prior to any work performed in the public right-of-way. Sec. 12.08.060. All Construction within the City right-of-way, easements or other property under City jurisdiction shall conform to Standard Specifications of the Public Works and Utility Departments. Sec. 12.08.060. All sidewalks bordering the project shall be repaired and!or removed and replaced in compliance with Public Works approved standards. Sec. 12.08.010. Only standard sidewalk construction and materials are allowed in the public sidewalk area on the Leland and E1 Camino Real frontage. No special paving will be allowed. ’These acceptable standards may be obtained from the Public Works Department. Construction conducted within the city right-of-way must have a Permit for Construction in the Street must be obtained from the CPA Public Works Department prior to commencement of work. Any construction within CPA right-of-way or easements must conform to standards established in the CPA Standard Specification for the Utilities Department and the Public Works Department. The Applicant will be required to obtain an Encroachment Permit from the California Department of Transportation if any lane closures are needed on E1 Camino Real in performance of this work. Proposed development will result in a change in the impervious area on the property which would affect the monthly storm drainage fee. The Applicant must provide calculations showing the impervious area with the building permit application. The fee adjustment will take place in the month following the final approval of the construction by the Building Inspection Division. 70,The site shall be fine graded to provide a minimum 2% slope away from the building perimeter and adjacent property lines. In no case shall the final grading increase the sheet flow onto adjacent properties. 71.No storage of construction materials is permitted in the street or on the sidewalk without prior approval of Public Works Engineering. 72.The developer shall require its contractor to incorporate best management practices (BMP’s) for stormwater pollution prevention in all construction operations, in conformance with the Santa Clara Valley Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program. The Inspection Services Division shall monitor BMP’s with respect to the developer’s construction activities on public property. It is tmlawfifl to discharge any construction debris (soil, asphalt, sawcut slurry, paint, chemicals, etc.) Or other waste materials into gutters or storm drains. (Federal Clean Water Act) Ongoing 73.All three sites shall retain the residential use in the buildings at all times as shown on plans dateddune 5, 1997. These areas shall not be converted to any other use. The interior connections between residential and commercial areas shall remain, and at least one occupant of the living unit shall work in the commercial space within the same building and the living unit and work area shall not be rented separately. 74.Fire extinguishers shall be located inside the building at all times. s:~lan~pladivkpcsr\ 1865 ecr.wpd Page 12 TO: BOARDS & Attachment 6 COMMISSIONS STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD FROM: AGENDA DATE: SUBJECT: Phillip Woods DEPARTMENT: Planning September 10, 1997 Site & Design Application for three mixed-use commercial/residential buildings at 1865, 1885 and 1895 El Camino Real for a total of 10,450 square feet, 22 parking spaces, landscaping and related site improvements; Variances for an arterial front yard setback, side yard setback, open space, parking, perimeter landscape strip and interior landscaping and to consider a Mitigated Negative Declaration. File Nos. 97-ARB-118; 97-EIA-12; 97-D-6; 97-V-14. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Site and Design application and Variances to the City Council based on the attached findings and conditions and forward the application to the Architectural Review Board for review. BACKGROUND/PROJECT INFORMATION On May 1, 1997, the Architectural Review Board reviewed the proposal in a preliminary review. The ARB was in general support of the live-workproposal on this site and provided comments to the applicant (see Attachment #4 - 5/1/97 ARB minutes). PROJECT INFORMATION/DESCRIPTION The applicant, Carrasco & Associates, is proposing to construct three modern live-work style commercial/residential structures for a total 10,450 square feet, 22 parking spaces, landscaping and related site improvements. The project is located at 1865, 1885 and 1895 El Camino Real on the coruer of El Camino Real and Leland Avenue (see Attachment # 1). 09-10-97 S: [ Plan I Pladiv [ PCSR [ 1865ecr.sr Page 1 The property is zoned CN. Under the provisions of the CN Zone, mixed use developments must also comply with RM-15 site development regulations. The proposed live-work development requires sixteen Variances (5 on two lots and 6 on one lot). The variances are needed to accommodate the living units on the site, not the commercial structures. This report analyses the need for the variances and the required site and design findings (see Issues and Analysis section of this report and Attachments 5 and 6). Site Description The site is a vacant parcel that was previously occupied by a Shell gas station at the comer of E1 Camino Real between Leland Avenue and Park Avenue. Nearby businesses are the Sundance Mine Company and Fosters Freeze. The development abuts an apartment building to the rear and a single family residence on the interior side. There is a traffic barrier on Leland Avenue that separates the commercial and residential portions of that street. The applicant has filed a Certificate of Compliance with Public Works to reestablish underlying lot lines. The owner intends to develop all three parcels at the same time. The project will require an easement to access the parking, open space area, trash and recycling areas of 1865 and 1885 E1 Camino Real from 1895 E1 Camino Real. Site Information Site information regarding the applicant, owner, assessor’s parcel number, Comprehensive Plan designation, zoning district and existing land use is shown below in Table 1. S: I Plan I Pladiv I PCSRI 1865ecr.sr 09-10-97 Page 2 TABLE 1: PROJECT INFORMATION Applicant:Carrasco & Associates Owner: Assessor’s Parcel Number: Comprehensive Plan Designation. Zoning District: Surrounding Land Use: Hillview Land (LLC) 124-30-044 Commercial/Residential CN Neighborhood Commercial North: Multi-family Residential use South:E1 Camino Real, State Highway 82 East: Sundance Mine Company West:Single Family Residential use and Fosters Freeze POLICY IMPLICATIONS The project must be determined to be consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, E1 Camino Real Design Guidelines, the ARB standards for review and the Zoning Ordinance. The following Comprehensive Plan objectives, policies and programs apply to this project: Urban Design Element Policy #3: "Promote visual aesthetics through tree planting, landseaped areas and removal of visually disruptive elements on major City Streets." The project provides a row of street trees along E1 Camino Real and landscaping on the site along the project frontage. The proposed landscaping will enhance the appearance of the existing site from E1 Camino Real. It will also provide a 7-foot perimeter landscape strip along the back (north side) of the three parcels, which will enhance the appearance of the site from the multiple family residences to the north. Urban Design Element. Objective, p.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 subject site is a designated CN zone district and the proposed commercial/residential facility is compatible with this land use designation of the Comprehensive Plan. 09-10-97 S: I Plan I Pladiv I PCSR I 1865ecr.sr Page 3 Urban Design Element, Objective, p.42: "Promote visual environments which are of high aesthetic quality and variety and considerate of each other. The proposed mixed-used commercial building features high quality materials and attractive landscaping and the building is architecturally compatible with neighboring buildings. The proposed design has a human scale that is visually attractive from E1 Camino Real. Urban Design Element, Objective, p. 42: "Encourage maintenance of trees and planting of new trees. " The proposed project includes the planting of new trees on site and in the public right-0f-way and retention of other existing trees. Urban Design Element, Policy 3, p.44: "Promote visual aesthetics through tree planting, landscape areas, and removal of visually disruptive elements on major City Streets. " The proposed project will include the planting of trees and landscape within the site interior and in the public right-of-way along the project frontages. Existing trees to be retained will be required to have tree protection. Transportation Element, Program 36, page 36: "Continue to require facilities for storing and locking bicycles at business and employment centers, multiple-family developments, transfer points and recreational facilities." As a requirement of the Off-Street Parking Ordinance, the project will be designedto accommodated bicycle facilities. ’ J Housing Element, Policy 6: "Maintain at least the present number of multiple-family rental units while working to increase the overall supply of rental housing. "Although the proposed units could either be rented or owned, the proposed project would contribute three additional units to the overall housing supply. Housing Element, Policy 14: "Support the mixing of residential uses in commercial and industrial areas. "The proposed project would meet this objective in that it combines residential and commercial uses within the same building as well as within a larger area that has both commercial and residential uses. Employment Element, Policy 2: "Encourage the construction of more housing primarily on or near industrial and eommereial sites. "As stated above, the proposed project would meet this objective in that it combines residential and commercial use within the same building. S: I Plan I Pladiv I PCSR I 1865ecr.sr 09-10-97 Page 4 10.Environmental Resources Element, Policy 13, Program 43: "Mitigate impacts of air quality problems due to stationary and vehicular sources. Implement programs to reduce total transportationrelated emissions through the development of additional housing close to employment centers. "The proposed project meets this goal in that it combines living units and employment opportunities within the same building thereby reducing the number of vehicle trips to and from the site and the need for on- site parking. DISCUSSION Issues and Analysis Site and Design Required Mixed-use, commercial and residential, development in the CN zoning district requires Site and Design review (18.41.050(n) of the PAMC). The purpose of Site and Design is to provide a review process for projects proposed in environmentally and ecologically sensitive areas, including established community areas which may be sensitive to negative aesthetic factors, excessive noise, increased traffic or other disruptions ( 18.82.010 of the PAMC). Site and Design review ensures that the project will be harmonious and compatible with surrounding uses in the general vicinity and in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. There are four basic objectives regarding harmonious construction, desirabili,ty of investment, principles of environmental design and compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, that must be addressed as part of a Site and Design review (Section 18.82.060 of the PAMC). These objectives are discussed within the context of the issues outlined below in the Issues/Analysis section of this report and are addressed in the findings presented in Attachment 5 of this report. Variances Needed The project requires five variances on two sites, 1865 and 1885 E1 Camino Real and six variances on 1895 E1 Camino Real. These variances are required so that the project can include residential use. Generally, staff is supporting the variances so that the housing can be accommodated. It should be noted that these variances would not be required, with the exception of the intrusion into the front setback, to accommodate the commercial use. The following list outlines the variances needed on each site. 09-10-97 S: [ Plan [ Pladiv [ PCSR I 1865ecr.sr Page 5 1865 ECR -1.Ten foot front setback from major arterial where a 25 foot setback is required. 2.No second story interior side setbacks where 15’6" setbacks are required. 3.Twenty-four percent private and common usable open space where 35% required 4.Two and one half foot perimeter landscape strip where 5’ required along the east property line. 5.Two percent parking lot landscaping where 5% required. 1885.ECR -1.Ten foot front setback where 25’ is ordinarily required. 2.No second story interior side setbacks where 15’6" setbacks are ordinarily required. 3.Twenty-nine percent private and common usable open space where 35% required. 4.Eight parking spaces, where 9 are required. 5.Three percent parking lot landscaping where 5% required. 1895 ECR -1.Twelve foot front setback where 25’ is ordinarily required. 2.No second story interior side setbacks where 15’6" setbacks are required. 3.Six parking spaces where 8 are required. 4.No perimeter landscape strip where 5’ are required on west property line. 5.Two percent interior parking lot landscaping where 5% required. 6.Thirty-three percent usable open space where 35% required. The Site and Design and Variance issues are presented in the.following discussion, which includes the topics of: use; site planning; architectural design; landscaping; traffic; acoustics; zoning compliance and parking. Use: The applicant has characterized the proposed project as a "live/work" development. Although the City of Palo Alto does not have a codified definition of"live/work", a general discussion of the concept was presented for a project in the downtown area. That discussion referred to the concept of "live/work" as one which incorporates both land use and building regulations that permit one ormore individuals to live i6 the same building or on the same property where they conduct their livelihood, usually professional office, and personal service (e.g., art/design studios) which do not involve the use of hazardous materials. S: I Plan I Pladiv IPCSR11865ecr.sr 09-10-97 Page 6 Staff believes that the proposed project falls within the concept of"live/work" as discussed in Palo Alto to-date. The project further contributes to the practicality and likelihood that the use will actually be "live/work" in that the only access to the living units is through the work space on the first floor. This feature of the interior floor plan helps increase the possibility that someone will both live and work in the building. As further assurance that the living area will remain such, conditions are proposed for both the Site and Design approvals and the variance approvals requiring the living units to remain and requiring the internal connection from work area to living area to remain. These conditions would be monitored through the building permit process. Any future internal or external construction will require buildingpermits and review by the Planning Division. The building permit would not be approved if conversion of the residential area to commercial area is part of the application or if reconfiguration of the interior space is such that the intemal connection between commercial and residential areas would be eliminated. Site Planning: Staff finds the live-workproposal an appropriate use for the site because it provides a critical transition from the commercial use on E1 Camino Real to the residential uses located behind the site and because it meets many of the Housing, Transportation, Employment and Urban Design objectives of the existing Comprehensive Plan. In order to provide residential and commercial uses on the site and locate parking in back of the buildings, it is necessary to place the building ten feet from the front property line rather than the 25 feet typically required from a major arterial. Staff supports the proposed location and the approval of variances for all three sites because on commercial lots that vary from 114 to 140 feet deep and that sit at angles to the adjacent street, as these lots do, it is virtually impossible to maintain the 25 foot setback and put parking in back of the building. In addition, the ten foot setback is consistent with the prevailing setback along this portion of E1 C amino Real and enhances the pedestrian environment by bringing the buildings and entry features closer to the street. This is the largest of the variances requested and is the most important one needed to achieve a project that will be compatible with the El Camino Real Design Guidelines. Architectural Design: The proposal locates the office uses closer-to E1 Camino Real and sets the residential units further back to provide a sound buffer for the residential use. The office and residence on each site are to be used by the same occupant group and the entrances and staircases are to be shared. The proposed mixed-use commercial/residentialbuildings are three story in height with the third story stepping back from E1 Camino Real. The offices are located on the first and second floors and feature a two story high space with windows on three sides. The roof of the office space is flat and the roof of the residence is curved. The .proposed building creates shared courtyards along their common, side property lines to S: I Plan [ Pladiv I PCSR [ 1865ecr.sr 09-10-97 Page 7 provide open space and bring in additional natural light. In addition, a water fountain is provided in each courtyard to provide ambient noise, and give visual interest to the sites. The residential portion of all three buildings intrude into the side daylight planes and require variances to be located as proposed. Staffsupports these variances because as the buildings are designed, there are insets in each that allow light to enter the living area from all sides, even those that protrude into the dayligh.t plane. In addition, the protrusions are only an issue because the RM-15 regulations require larger setbacks for residential uses than for commercial uses. The relatively narrow width (51 feet) of each site renders it virtually impossible to design a living unit that meets contemporary needs and the setback requirements. Meeting the side setback and daylight plane requirements would result in a 20 foot wide residential unit, which would prevent a livable unit from being designed. The architecture of the project is contemporary and incorporates a stucco exterior finish and commercial grade aluminum windows with black enamel. The glazing is a combination of clear and sand blasted glass. Also, the proposal incorporates a horizontal, metal screen awning on the E1 Camino Real elevation. Landscaping." The proposal incorporates a western garden theme and the proposed plant selection will work together well. However, there seems to be a vast area of Manzantia that appears to be excessive. Because this plant requires full sun, it may not perform very well in the predominant shade of the large London Planes on Leland Avenue; an additional shrub should be sought to compliment some of these areas. The existing trees on E1 Camino Real are preserved and integrated into the landscape themes. There are five street trees in the publicly owned right-of-way; two Glossy Privet (Ligustrum lucidum) are on E1 Camino Real and three large London Plane (Plantanus acerifolia) are on Leland Ave. To promote consistency and spacing of the five new London Plane on E1 Camino Real, the removal of the two Glossy Privets in poor condition is approved by the Planning Arborist. Traffic: The vehicular access will be provided to the buildings from Leland Avenue. The parking will be located at the back of the lot and will be a combination of enclosed garage and exterior parking. The project is not expected to result in a significant impact on traffic congestion nor result in the creation of any significant impact. No traffic mitigation measures are required as a result of the project. Palo Alto Transportation Planning staff has confirmed the traffic analysis and agrees that no traffic mitigation is required. Parking; The proposal does not provide the amount of parking required by the Off-Street Parking Ordinance as noted in Tables 2,3, and 4. The current proposal is deficient by 3 parking spaces. The lot at 1885 E1 Camino Real is deficient by one space and the lot at 1895 S: [Plan I Pladiv [PCSR [ 1865ecr.sr 09-10-97 Page 8 E1 Camino Real is deficient by two spaces. Staffbelieves that variances for parking can be supported because the project includes live/work space in which the living space can only be accessed from the work area on the ground floor. It is unlikely that anyone not intimately connected to the working area would find the living space desirable. Since one or two people could be living in the upstairs unit and working downstairs,, it appears reasonable to allow the parking requirement to be reduced by one or two spaces on two of the sites. Draft Findings for variance approval are included in Attachment 6. The conditions of variance approval have also included a condition requiring the living unit and interior connection between work and living spaces to remain (Attachment 6). The current design of the on-site drive aisles is proposed to accommodate the bollards on Leland Avenue which prevent access into the residential neighborhood behind the subject sitel The applicant explored another alternative on-site configuration, but was not able to provide a revised design because of the location of an existing driveway for a single-family house on the north side of the bollards. The proposed configuration as shown on the site plan is acceptable to TransportationPlanning for the following reasons;" 1) the proposed driveway on the subject site exceeds the minimum required width (20 feet); 2) the conflict would occur only for large-size vehicles; 3) there are no sight distance obstructions in this area; and 4) Leland Avenue is a dead-end street and would not have a significant amount of traffic on it that would be disrupted by a minimal wait to access the subject site. Acoustical Treatments: Noise generated by traffic on E1 Camino Real may have a potential impact on indoor and outdoor areas of the residential units. An acoustical study prepared in conjunction with the project indicates that future noise levels in the required private open space for the residential units can be mitigated to within acceptable levels in accordance with the City’s noise standard. The proposal will incorporate a five foot high fence or wall around roof decks as a condition of project approval. Bicycle Parking.’_ Bicycle parking is required per Chapter 18.83 of the PAMC, which requires Class I parking for tenants and Class II parking for visitors. The number of bicycle spaces is based on 10% of the number of required automobile spaces (see Tables 1, 2 & 3). The bicycle parking is located near the appropriate respective doorways and complies with the required amount of bike parking. D_P_gll.~L~: The proposed common open space on each of the three lots varies between 24 and 33% which does not meet the 35% required common open space requirement. It should be noted that the private usable open space dimensional requirements are met on all three sites, which means that the residents of the individual units will have sufficient private area to use. The proposal utilizes the fiat roof area over each of the commercial areas as a rooftop S: I Plan [ Pladiv I PCSR [ 1865ecr.sr 09-10-97 Page 9 garden to provide private open space for each residential unit. Staff supports variances for the common usable open space based on the nature of the uses proposed. The common usable open space requirement is based upon solely residential use of a site. With a mixed-use site, where the majority of the use is commercial it is unlikely that open space will be as greatly needed as it would be in a residential only project. Proposed Variance findings for the usable open space requirement are included in Attachment 6 of this staff report. Trash/Recycling Enclosure(s): Section 18.60.080 of the PAMC requires trash/recycling area(s) on site. Structures are pe .rmitted in setbacks. To be adequate, the enclosure must provide space for different types of material, (i.e. garbage, cardboard, white paper, mixed paper, newspaper, aluminum and glass) and comply with the design guidelines adopted by the ARB and approved by the City Council. The size of the enclosure and bins has not ben noted on the drawings. The final details for the enclosure shall return to Planning and Public Works staff for final review and approval. Below Market Rate housing requirement Under Program 13 of the Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan, the project is subject to a 10 percent Below Market Rate housing requirement. For a project of three units, the BMR requirement is an in-lieu fee based on 3.25 percent of the appraised value of the residential portion of the project. The fee is due and payable at occupancy of any of the structures and shall be based on an appraisal prepared by a certified appraiser by the City and paid for by the applicant. Zoning Ordinance Compliance The proposed mixed-use project consisting of commercial and residential uses is permitted in the CN, Neighborhood Commercial District. The residential use is subject to the RM-15 Low Density Multiple-Family Residence District Regulations. The proposed project has been reviewed for compliance with the requirements of the CN district Chapter 18.41 and, RM-15 Chapters 18.22 and 18.28 and Site and Design development regulations Chapter 18.82. The proposal requires variances for arterial front yard and interior side setbacks, open space, parking, perimeter and interior landscaping. A comparison of the proposed project to the CN district regulations and RM-15 district regulations is provided in the following Tables 2, 3, and 4. 09-10-97 S: I Plan I Pladiv I PC SRI 1865ecr.sr Page 10 TABLE 2 PROJECT COMPARISON WITH CURRENT ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR 1865 EL CAMINO REAL REGULATION Site Area (sq. ft.) Site Width SETBACKS -Front -Streetside -Interior Side -Rear Office Floor Area FAR Floor Area Ratio Site coverage Height Parking required Open space CN ZONE REQUIREMENTS No requirement No requirement *25 feet N/A No requirement No requirement 2,500 sq. ft.(max) .4to 1 50 % 25 feet *** 7 parking spaces N/A RM 15 ZONE REQUIREMENTS 8,500 sq. ft. 70 feet *25 feet N/A *’15.5 feet 16 feet N/A 0.5 to 1 35% 35 feet **** 1.25 parking spaces *****35% PROPOSED 5,377 sq. ft. (E) 50 feet (E) 10 feet (requires Variance for setback) N/A 0.0 feet (requires Variance) 47 feet 2,006 sq. ft. Office - 37% Residence - 24% 30% Total 31 feet 8 spaces 24% (requires Variance for open space) A building on property adjacent to an arterial street shall be set back a minimum of 25’ along E1 Camino Real. Section 18.22.050(0 The minimum interior side and rear yards for a structure over one story shall be one-half of the actual height of the structure, but not less than ten feet, for the portion of the structure over one story. Section 18.22.050(e)(2) 1 space for each 250 sq.ft, of gross floor area. Section 18.83(b) 1.25 per studio unit. Section18.83. 35% lot area open space in ground floor plane, a portion of which is common usable space. Section 18.22.0500)(1) 09-10-97S: I Plan I Pladiv I PCSR I 1865ecr.sr Page 11 TABLE 3 " PROJECT COMPARISON WITH CURRENT ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR 1885 EL CAMINO REAL REGULATION CN ZONE RM 15 ZONE PROPOSED REQUIREMENTS REQUIREMENTS Site Area (sq. ft.)No requirement 8,500 sq. ft.6,043 sq. ft. (E) Site Width No requirement 70 feet 50 feet (E) Setbacks -Front *25 feet *25 feet 10 feet (requires variance for setback) -Street side N/A N/A N/A -Interior Side No requirement ** 15.5 feet 0.0 feet (requires variance for setback) -Rear No requirement 16 feet 47 feet Office Floor Area 2,500 sq. ft. (max.)N/A 2,223 sq. ft. FAR .4 to 1 0.5 to 1 Office - 35% Floor Area Ratio Residence - 23% Site coverage 50 %35 %31% total Height 25 feet 35 feet 31 feet Parking required ***8 parking spaces ***’1.25 spaces 8 parking spaces (requires variance for 1 parking space) Open space S: I Plan I Pladiv [ PCSR I 1865ecr.sr N/A 35%29% A building on property adjacent to an arterial street shall be set back a minimum of 25’ along El Camino Real. Section 18.22.050(t3 The minimum interior side and rear yards for a structure over one story shall be one-half of the actual height of the structure, but not less than ten feet, for the portion of the structure over one story. Section 18.22.050(e)(2) 1 space for each 250 sq.ft, of gross floor area. Section 18.83(b) 1.25 per studio unit. Sectionl 8.83. 35% lot area open space in ground floor plane, a portion of which is common usable space. Section 18.22.0500)(1) 09-10-97 Page 12 TABLE 4 PROJECT COMPARISON WITH CURRENT ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR 1895 EL CAMINO REAL REGULATION Site Area (sq. ft.) Site Width SETBACKS -Front -Streetside -Interior Side -Rear Office Floor Area FAR Floor Area Ratio Site coverage Height Parking required Open space CN ZONE REQUIREMENTS No requirement No requirement *25 feet 20 feet No requirement RM 15 ZONE REQUIREMENTS 8,500 sq. ft. 70 feet 50 % 25 feet *****7 parking spaces *25 feet 16 feet *’15.5 feet PROPOSED 6,708 sq ft. (E) 50 feet (E) * 12 feet (requires variance for setback) 20 feet 0.0 feet (requires variance for setback) No requirement 16 feet 47 feet 2,500 sq. ft. (max.)N/A 2,326 sq. ft. .4 to 1 0.5 to 1 Office - 35% Residence - 21% 30% Total 31 feet 35% 35 feet * *** 1.25 parking spaces N/A *****35% 6 parking spaces provided (requires variance for 2 parking spaces) 33% A building on property adjacent to an arterial street shall be set back a minimum of 25’ along El Camino Real. Section 18.22.050(0 The minimum interior side and rear yards for a structure over one story shall be one-half of the actual height of the structure, but not less than ten feet, for the portion of the structure over one story. Section 18.22.050(e)(2) ***1 space for each 250 sq.ft, of gross floor area. Section 18.83(b) ****1.25 per studio unit. Section18.83. *****35% lot area open space in ground floor plane, a portion of which is common usable space. Section 18.22.0500)(1) 09-10-97 S: ] Plan I Pladiv [ PCSR 11865ecr.sr Page 13 E! Camino Real Design Guidelines Consistency: The 131 Camino Real Design Guidelines are considered an incentive and guide for redevelopment, rather than policy, and provide for continued development of the 131 Camino Real District. The guidelines for this district which apply to this site include the following: LandscapedStreet Theme: One 15 gallon street tree will be required for every 25 to 30feet offrontage on El Camino Real or streets intersecting E1 Camino Real. The proposal has a combined 150 feet of frontage on E1 Camino Real and 140 feet of frontage on Leland Avenue. There are currently two existing trees along the E1 Camino Real frontage. The proposal complies with the guideline, in that it provides three additional street trees. There arecurrently two existing street trees along the Leland Avenue frontage. The guideline would require three additional street trees. However, the existing tree canopies and proposed location of driveway would prevent planting additional trees. Landscaping and Paving: Provide landscaping adjacent to and within parking areas in order to screen vehicles from view. Trees and shrubs should be grouped together. Existing trees should be protected. Landseaping shall be installed in buffers between commercial and residential lots. The project meets all of these landscaping guidelines in that adequate perimeter and on-site landscaping is provided, parking areas are screened from Leland Avenue and El Camino Real, and a sufficient number of street trees are provided along both street frontages. Architecture, Site Plan: Buildings should be set back from the front property line; parking and trash areas should be screened," and driveways should be minimized. The project meets guidelines in that the buildings are set back a minimum 10 feet from the property line and the area is landscaped; The parking areas are located to the rear and side of the property and are screen from E1 Camino Real, the trash and recycling area is screened behind the garage at 1865 E1 Camino Real; and there is only one driveway from Leland Avenue. PUBLIC NOTICE Public Notice of the project was provided by publication of the agenda in a local newspaper of general circulation and public notice cards were sent to property owners and utility customers within 300 feet of the site. 09-10-97 S: I Plan I Pladiv ] PCSR I 1865ecr.sr Page 14 FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS Recommended findings for Site and Design (Attachment #5), Variances (Attachment #6), Architectural Review Approval (Attachment # 7) and Conditions of Project Approval (Attachment #8) are attached. FISCAL IMPACT There is no direct fiscal impact to the City from this proposal. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT The project is subject to environmental review under provision 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 provided that certain mitigations were included in the project. The Mitigated Negative Declaration was made available from August 6, 1997 to August 26, 1997 (see Attachment #3). NEXT STEPS Following the Planning Commission public hearing, the project is tentatively scheduled to be considered by the ArchitecturalReview board at a public hearing on September 18, 1997, and by the City Council at a public hearing on October 20, 1997. Attachment # 1: Attachment #2:¯Attachment #3: Attachment #4: Attachment #5: Attachment #6: Attachment #7: Attachment #8: Attachment #9: ATTACHMENTS Location Map Applicant’s project descriptions for 1865, 1885 ao, d 1895 E1 Camino Real EIA Architectural Review Board meeting minutes dated May 1, 1997. Site and Design Findings Variance Findings Architectural Review Board Findings Conditions of Project Approval Public Works Department’s standard specification detail #504 Attachment # 10: Public Works Department’s standard specification detail #505 Plans (Planning Commission members only) COURTESY COPY: Carrasco & Associate, 120 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Hillview Land, LLC, 120 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Bill Nasbu, Property Manager, 911 Avon Street, Belmont, CA 94002 S: I Plan t Pladiv ] PCSR 1865ecr.sr 09-10-97 Page 15 Prepared by:Phillip Woods, Planner Reviewed by:Lisa Grote, Zoning Administrator Division/Department Head Approval: .. James E. Gilliland Acting Chief Planning Official S: I Plan ] Pladiv I PCSR [ 1865ecr.sr 09-10-97 Page 16 H I T E C T S ¯P L A N N E R S June 5, 1997 Live-Work at 1865 El Camino Real Project Description: ConcelX This project tries to address the changing relationship between living and working - by combining the home and the office. People in Silicon Valley work long hours. And due to the jobs-housing imbalance in the area, many have to add a couple of hours of commuting time to their day. Live-Work means more time for work and leisure because the commute is eliminated. For the city, Live-Work provides an additional housing unit and reduces one commuter on our already congested roads. So why can’t the home and office be combined? Palo Alto’s CN zoning technically allows mixed-use projects, but the zoning requirements are extremely difficult and expensive to meet. The applicant hopes to work with the city to develop a better process for future Live-Work projects. The applicant believes that a Live-Work use will help to revitalize E1 Camino Real. Neighborhood commercial is difficult on El Camino for several reasons. First, the street is not friendly to pedestrians. Second, there is a lot of competition from the downtown districts and shopping centers. Third, the trend in retailing is toward big-box stores. The applicant believes that small Live-Work spaces for people like graphic designers and computer programmers is a suitable use for E1 Camino that will not be detrimental to adjacent residential areas. The project is a 3,287gsfbuilding that contains a 1,775gsfcommercial space for professional offices, a 1,050gsf residential studio with a loR for an employee, and a 462gsf two car garage. Both once and residence are to be used by the same occupant group - the entrances and the staircase are shared. This is different from a mixed-use building which has multiple, different occupants separated in one building. 120 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 ¯ 415 322 2288 o FAX 415 322 2316 CARRASCO &AKSOCIATK The site is located on El Camino Real between Leland Avenue and Park Avenue. Stanford University’s Escondido Village is located on the southwest side of El Camino Real. Nearby businesses are the Sundance Mine Company and Fosters Freeze. A single family house abuts the northwest property line,, and an apartment building abuts the rear property line The site is one of three parcels previously occupied by a Shell gas station at the corner of E1 Camino Real and Leland Avenue. No records have been found regarding the merging of parcels, and the owner has filed a Certificate of Compliance with Public Works. The owner intends to develop all three parcels at the same time. There are no existing buildings. Zoning The site is zoned CN Neighborhood Commercial. The site abuts CN and RM- 15 zoning. The CN zone allows commercial and residential development, but mixed-use projects must also comply with RM-15 zoning, Mulfifamily District Design Guidelines, and Site and Design Review. The proposed professional office will not require a conditional use permit. The proposed project requires variances for RM-15 front setbacks, RM-15 side yard setbacks, RM-15 side yard daylight plane, RM-15 two story height limit, 35% common open space and 5’ perimeter landscaping. See the variance application for more information. Building Desi_ma The proposed project has been designed with the two other parcels of the former gas station. The buildings work together to form shared courtyards along their common, side property lines. The courtyards provide open space which enables the occupants of each building the opportunity to interact with their neighbors. The space of the courtyards extends inside through large windows and two story high spaces. Mutual access agreements and easements will be made between properties regarding the courtyards. 120 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 o 415 322 2288 ¯ FAX 415 322 2316 A ~ C h i T E C T S P L L N N E R S The building is located close to E1 Camino Real, with parking in the back of the lot. The office, located on the first and second floors, features a two story high space and windows on three sides. The office also functions as a buffer between E1 Camino Real and the residence. The residence has a garage on the first floor, a living area on the second floor, and a loft and a rooftop terrace on the third floor. Although the residence is located on the side property line, it has been designed to provide light, air, and privacy. Large windows on the north and south sides prov.ide light and cross ventilation. The south window looks out to a private roof terrace, and the north window looks out to the rear yard, which is set back 46’. The architectural style is modem. Different setbacks and heights create an interesting architectural form. The building structure is wood and steel stud framing on a concrete slab. The roof is a combination of a flat membrane for the office and curved zinc for the residence. The flat roof features a redwood deck for the residence. The windows are commercial grade aluminum frames with black enamel. The glazing is a combination of clear and sandblasted glass. A horizontal, metal screen awning on the E1 Camino elevation provides solar screening to the office space. The finish material is combination of white and gray painted stucco. A veneer of corrugated siding on the rear facade of the residence provides texture and scale. Access and Parking The parking facility is located in the back of the property with access from the segment of Leland Avenue that connects to El Camino Real. The parking facility requires access across #1885 and #1895 of this development. The traffic barrier on Leland Avenue must be redesigned in order to provide access to the rear of the property. Mutual acce:~s agreements and easements wi!l be made for the parking. An existing curb cut on El Camino Real will be removed. A total of eight parking spaces are required: seven for the office (1 per 250gsf) and one covered parking space for the residence (1.25 per studio). Eight spaces are provided: seven parking spaces and two garage spaces. A variance is required for the 5’ perimeter landscaping. One bicycle space is required for the office (10% of 7). One class I locker and one class II rack are provided. 120 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 ¯ 415 322 2288 ° FAX 415 322 2316 Lm~dscaping Two new sycamore street trees planted 30 feet apart replace a small privet tree. A new sidewalk with larger tree wells replaces the existing. The existing landscaping on site consists of small, deciduous trees and oleander shrubs along the rear property line. The trees and shrubs are in poor condition and are to be replaced. The new landscaping is primarily low-water use and native plants. A small crape myrtle tree in the front yard provides summer color. The ground is carpeted with a manzanita ground cover. A low hedge of autumn sage planted in front of a wire screen fence creates a threshold for the entrance and screens the bicycle parking. The walkways and courtyard are surfaced in slate. A path of concrete pavers connects the front entrance and the side courtyard. The path is lined with pacific coast iris. The rear elevation of the building that is most visible to the neighboring house is covered with a creeping fig vine. The rear setback of landscaping is designed as an evergreen landscaped screen of madrone trees. In addition, chinese pistache trees provide seasonal color. New four and seven feet tall redwood fences replace the existing three and six feet tall wood fence along the side property line and the six feet tall chain link fence along the rear property line. WIN3,1/MSWORKS/1865ECR2.WPS 120 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 o 415 322 2288 ° FAX 415 322 2316 ~:K C H I T E C T S P L A N ~X E R S June 5, 1997 Live-Work at 1885 El Camino Real Project Description: Concept This project tries to address the changing relationship between living and working - by combining the home and the office. People in Silicon Valley work long hours. And due to the jobs-housing imbalance in the area, many have to add a couple of hours of commuting time to their day. Live-Work means more time for work and leisure because the commute is eliminated. For the city, Live-Work provides an additional housing unit and reduces one commuter on our already congested roads. So why can’t the home and office be combined? Palo Alto’s CN zoning technically allows mixed-use projects, but the zoning requirements are extremely difficult and expensive to meet. The applicant hopes to work with the city to develop a better process for future Live-Work projects. The applicant believes that a Live-Work use will help to revitalize E1 Camino Real. Neighborhood commercial is difficult on E1 Camino for several reasons. First, the street is not friendly to pedestrians. Second, there is a lot of competition from the downtown districts and shopping centers. Third, the trend in retailing is toward big-box stores. The applicant believes that small Live-Work spaces for people like graphic designers and computer programmers is a suitable use for E1 Camino that will not be detrimental to adjacent residential areas. The project is a 3,61 l gsf building that contains a 1,992gsf commercial space for professional offices, a 1,157gsfresidential studio with a loft for an employee, and a 462gsf two car garage. Both office and residence are to be used by the same occupant group - the entrances and the staircase are shared. This is different from a mixed-use building which has multiple, different occupants separated in one building. 120 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 ¯ 415 322 2288 ¯ FAX 415 322 2316 CARRASCO A R C H I T ~ C T S o P L A f\ k, E R S The site is located on E1 Camino Real between Leland Avenue and Park Avenue. Stanford University’s Escondido Village is located on the southwest side of E1 Camino Real. Nearby businesses are the Sundance Mine Company and Fosters Freeze. An apartment building abuts the rear property line -. The site is one of three parcels previously occupied by a Shell gas station at the corner of E1 Camino Real and Leland Avenue. No records have been found ~egarding the merging of parcels, and the owner has filed a Certificate of Compliance with Public Works. The owner intends to develop all three parcels at the same time. There are no existing buildings. Zoning The site is zoned CN Neighborhood Commercial. The site abuts CN and RM- 15 zoning. The CN zone allows commercial and residential development,, but mixed-use projects must also comply with RM-15 zoning, Multifamily District Design Guidelines, and Site and Design Review. The proposed professional office will not require a conditional use permit. The proposed project requires variances for RM-15 front setbacks, RM-15 side yard setbacks, RM-15 side yard daylight plane, RM-15 two story height limit, 35% common open space, Off-street Parking Requirements for one parking space, and the 5’ perimeter landscape strip. See the variance application for more information. Building Desi~ The proposed project has been designed with the two other parcels of the former gas station. The buildings work together to form shared courtyards along their common, side property lines. The courtyards provide open space which enables the occupants of each building the opportunity to interact with their neighbors. The space of the courtyards extends inside through large windows and two story high spaces. Mutual access agreements and easements will be made between properties regarding the courtyards. 120 Hamdton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 o 415 322 2288 ¯ FAX 415 322 2316 The building is located close to El Camino Real, with parking in the back of the lot. The office, located on the first and second floors, features a two story high space and windows on three sides. The office also functions as a buffer between E1 Camino Real and the residence. The residence has a garage on the first floor, a living area on the second floor, and a loft and a rooftop terrace on the third floor. The residence has been designed to provide light, air, and privacy. Large windows on the north and south sides provide light and cross ventilation. The south window looks out to a private roof terrace, and the north window looks out to the rear yard, which is set back 46’. The architectural style is modem. Different setbacks and heights create an interesting architectural form. The building structure is wood and steel stud framing on a concrete slab. The roof is a combination of a flat membrane for the office and curved zinc for the residence. The flat roof features a redwood deck for the residence. The windows are commercial grade aluminum frames with black enamel. The glazing is a combination of clear and sandblasted glass. A horizontal, metal screen awning on the E1 Camino elevation provides solar screening to the office space. The finish material is combination of white and gray painted stucco. A veneer of corrugated siding on the rear facade of the residence provides texture and scale. Access and Parking The parking facility is located in the back of the property with access from the segment of Leland Avenue that connects to E1 Camino Real. The parking facility requires access across #1895. Also, #1865 requires access across the property for its parking. Mutual access agreements and easements will be made for the parking. The traffic barrier on Leland Avenue must be redesigned in order to provide access to the rear of the property. An existing curb cut on El Camino Real will be removed. A total of nine parking spaces are required: eight for the office (1 per 250gsf) and one covered parking space for the residence (1.25 per studio). Eight spaces are provided: six parking spaces and two garage spaces. The proposed parking facility requires a variance for one parking space and for the 5’ perimeter landscape strip. One bicycle space is required for the office (10% of 7). One class I locker and one class II rack are provided. 120 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 ¯ 415 322 2288 ¯ FAX 415 322 2316 Landscaping Two new sycamore street trees planted 30 feet apart replace a small privet tree on El Camino Real, A new sidewalk with large tree wells replaces the existing, The existing landscaping on site consists of small, deciduous trees and oleander shrubs along the rear property line. The trees and shrubs are in poor condition and are to be replaced. The new landscaping is primarily low-water use and native plants. A small crape myrtle tree in the front yard provides summer color. The ground is carpeted with a manzanita ground cover. A low hedge of autumn sage planted in front of a wire screen fence creates a threshold for the entrance and screens the bicycle parking. The walkways and courtyards are surfaced in slate. A path of concrete pavers connects the front entrance and the side courtyard. The path is lined with pacific coast iris. The courtyards feature small water fountains which will mask the sound of the traffic on E1 Camino Real. The rear elevation of the building that is most visible to the neighboring house is covered with a creeping fig vine. The rear setback of landscaping is designed as an evergreen landscaped s’creen,of madrone trees. In addition, chinese pistache trees provide seasonal color. A new seven feet tall redwood fence replaces the six feet tall chain link fence along the rear property line. WIN3.1/MSWORKS/1885ECR2.WPS 120 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 ¯ 415 322 2288 ° FAX 415 322 2316 A ~C H ;T E C T S P L A N N E R S June 5, 1997 Live-Work at 1895 El Camino Real Project Description: Concept This project tries to address the changing relationship between living and working - by combining the home and the office. People in Silicon Valley work long hours. And due to the jobs-housing imbalance in the area, many have to add a couple of hours of commuting time to their day. Live-Work means more time for work and leisure because the commute is eliminated. For the city, Live-Work provides an additional housing unit and reduces one commuter on our already congested roads. So why can’t the home and office be combined? Palo Alto’s CN zoning technically allows mixed-use projects, but the zoning requirements are extremely difficult and expensive to meet. The applicant hopes to work with the city to develop a better process for future Live-Work projects. The applicant believes that a Live-Work use will help to revitalize E1 Camino Real. Neighborhood commercial is difficult on El Camino for several reasons. First, the street is not friendly to pedestrians. Second, there is a lot of competition from the downtown districts and shopping centers. Third, the trend in retailing is toward big-box stores. The applicant believes that small Live-Work spaces for people like graphic designers and computer programmers is a suitable use for E1 Camino that will not be detrimental to adjacent residential areas. The project is a 3,552gsfbuilding that contains a 1,847gsf commercial space for professional offices, a 1075gsf residential studio with a loft for an employee, and a 630gsf carport/garage. Both office and residence are to be used by the same occupant group - the entrances and the staircase are shared. This is different from a mixed-use building which has multiple, different occupants separated in one building. 120 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 ¯ 415 322 2288 ¯ FAX 415 322 2316 The ske is located on E1 Camino Real between Leland Avenue and Park Avenue. Stanford University’s Escondido Village is located on the southwest side of El Camino Real. Nearby businesses are the Sundance Mine Company and Fosters Freeze. An apartment building abuts the rear property line The site is one of three parcels previously occupied by a Shell gas station at the comer of El Camino Real and Leland Avenue. No records have been found regarding the merging of parcels, and the owner has filed a Certificate of Compliance with Public Works. The owner intends to develop all three parcels at the same time. There are no existing buildings. Zoning The site is zoned CN Neighborhood Commercial. The site abuts CN, RM-15, and RM-30 zoning. The CN zone allows commercial and residential development, but mixed-use projects must also comply with RM-15 zoning, Multifamily District Design Guidelines, and Site and Design Review. The proposed professional office will not require a conditional use permit. The proposed project requires variances for RM-15 front setbacks, RM-15 side yard setbacks, RM-15 side yard daylight plane, RM-15 two story height limit, Off-street Parking Requirements for one parking space, and the 5’ perimeter landscape strip. See the variance application for more information. Building Desi~ The proposed project has been designed with the two other parcels of the former gas station. The buildings work together to form shared courtyards along their common, side property lines. The courtyards provide open space which enables the occupants of each building the opportunity to interact with their neighbors. The space of the courtyards extends inside through large windows and two story high spaces. Mutual access agreements and easements will be made between properties regarding the courtyards. 120 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 ¯ 415 322 2288 o FAX 415 322 2316 CARRASCO ,~F C H I T E C T S 15 l_ A k k E R S The building is located close to E1 Camino Real, with parking in the back of the lot. Tile office, located on the first and second floors, features a two story high space and windows on three sides. The office also functions as a buffer between El Camino Real and the residence. The residence has a garage on the first floor, a living area on the second floor, and a loft and a rooftop terrace on the third floor. Although the residence is located on the side property line, it has been designed to provide light, air, and privacy. Large windows on the north and south sides provide light and cross ventilation. The south window looks out to a private roof terrace, and the north window looks out to the rear yard, which is set back 46’. The architectural style is moderu. Different setbacks and heights create an interesting architectural form. The building structure is wood and steel stud framing on a concrete slab. The roof is a combination of a flat membrane for the office and curved zinc for the residence. The flat roof features a redwood deck for the residence. The windows are commercial grade aluminum frames with black enamel. The glazing is a combination of clear and sandblasted glass, A horizontal, metal screen awning on the El Camino elevation provides solar screening to the office space. The finish material is combination of white and gray painted stucco. A veneer of corrugated siding on the rear facade of the residence provides texture and scale. Access and Parkin~ The parking facility is located in the back of the property with access from the segment of Leland Avenue that connects to E1 Camino Real. #1865 and #1885 require access across the property. Mutual access agreements and easements will be made for the parking. The traffic barrier on Leland Avenue must be redesigned in order to provide access to the rear of the property. A 4 feet tall fence screens the parking area from Leland Avenue. Three existing curb cuts on El Camino Real will be removed. A total of eight parking spaces are required: seven for the office (1 per 250gsf) and one covered parking space for the residence (1.25 per studio). Seven spaces are provided: five parking spaces and two carport/garage spaces. The proposed parking facility requires a variance for one parking space and for the 5’ perimeter landscaping. One bicycle space is required for the office (10% of 7). One class I locker and one class II rack are provided. 120 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 o 415 322 2288 ¯ FAX 415 322 2316 CARRASCO A new sycamore street tree shall be planted. A new sidewalk replaces the existing. The existing landscaping on site consists of small, deciduous trees and oleander shrubs along the rear property line. The trees and shrubs are in poor condition and shall be replaced. The new landscaping is primarily low-water use and native plants. A small crape myrtle tree in the front yard provides summer color. The ground is carpeted with a martzanita ground cover. A low hedge of autumn sage planted in front of a wire screen fence creates a threshold for the entrance and screens the bicycle parking. The walkways and courtyard are surfaced in slate. A path of concrete pavers connects the front entrance and the rear parking area. The path is lined with pacific coast iris. The rear elevation of the building that is most visible to the neighboring house is covered with a creeping fig vine. The rear setback of landscaping is designed as an evergreen landscaped screen of madrone trees. In addition, chinese pistache trees provide seasonal color. New four and seven feet tall redwood fence replaces the existing six feet tall chain link fence along the rear property line. WIN3.1/MSWORKS/1895 ECR2.WPS 120 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 ¯ 415 322 2288 ¯ FAX 415 322 2316 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM Project Title: Lead Ageficy Name and Address: 1865, 1885, 1895 El Camino Real City of Palo Alto - Planning Division 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 m Contact Person and Phone Number:Phillip Woods, Planner 650-329-2230 Project Location:1865, 1885, 1895 El Camino Real Palo Alto, CA 5.Application Number(s):97-ARB-118; 97-EIA-12; 97-V-14; 97-D-6 o Project Sponsor’s Name and Address:Carrasco and Associates 120 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 General Plan Designation:Commercial/Residential Zoning’CN, Neighborhood Commercial Description of the Projeot: Review of an application for Site and Design, variances for arterial front yard setback, side yard setbacks, parking, 5 foot perimeter landscaping, and 5% interior landscaping to allo~v the construction of three separate mixed-used commercial/residential buildings for a total 10,450 square feet, with 23 parking spaces, landscaping and related site improvements. 10.Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:North: Residential Use South: ElCamino Real, State Highway 82 East: Sundance Mine Company West: Residential Use and Foster Freeze S:\PLAN\PLADIV\1865ECR\EIA Page 1 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1 1. Other public agencies whose approval is required. None. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS.POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least’one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Land Use and Planning Population and Housing Geological Problems Biological Resources Energy and Mineral Resources Hazards Water X Noise Air Quality Transportation and Circulation Public Services Utilities and Service Systems Aesthetics Cultural Resources Recreation Mandatory Finding~ of Significance S:\PLAN\PLADIV\1865ECR\EIA Page 2 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 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. XI 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 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 applicable 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 "Potentially 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 significant 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. Project Planner Date Director of Planning & Community Environment Date S:\PLAN\PLADIV\1865ECR\EIA Page 3 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1)A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e. g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e. go the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2)All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3)"Potentially Significant Impact’ is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is sibnificant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4)"Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 17, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross- referenced). 5)Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). Earlier analyses are discussed in Section 17 at the end of the checklist. 6)Lead agencies are encouraged, to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 7) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different ones. S:\PLAN\PLADIV\1865ECR\EIA Page 4 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) b) c) d) e) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impact to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority community)? 1 2 1 3 3 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? 3 3 3 3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEIVIS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture?4 X b) Seismic ground shaking? c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? e) Landslides or mudflows? f)Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from e~cavation, grading or fill? g) Subsidence of the land? h) Expansive soils? 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X S:\PLAN\PLADIV\1865ECR\EIA Page 5 Issues end Supporting Information Sources ~our~ea P otentl ally Significant Issues Potentlatiy Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact b) c) Unique geologic or physical features? WATER. Would the proposal result in: Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? 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? 3,7, 4,5 X X 3,17 X d)Changes in the amount of surface water in any water 3 X body or wetland? e)3,17 -X 3 Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements, in marine or freshwater, or wetlands? X 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? AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an exiting or projected air quality violation? X 6,8,9 g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?3 X’ h) Impacts to groundwater quality through infiltration of 6, 17 X reclaimed water or storm water runoff .t;hat has ~.I contacted pollutants from urban or industrial activities? i)Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater 3 X otherwise available for public water supplies? j)A~teration of wetlands in any way?"3 X 5. a) S:\PLAN\PLADIV\1865ECR\EIA Page 6 Issues end Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant ~ssues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants c)Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? d) Create objectionable odors?6,8,9 6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) b) c) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment))? Inadequate emergency access, or access to nearby uses? d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? f)Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic.impacts? 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. a) 10 10 10, 11, 12 3,10 10 10 b) c) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals or birds)? Would the proposal result in reduction or interference in: 8,16 Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vern,al pool)? e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? 8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES.-Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? II 8 8 8,16 8 0 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X S:\PLAN\PLADIV\1865ECR\EIA Page 7 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact b) c) b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? HAZARDS. Would the proposat involve: A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? c)]’he 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 or trees? 10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: 13 11, 12, 13 3, 12, 13 3, 1’2 X X X X X X X a) Increase in existing-noise levels?6, 8,X 14 b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels?.14,18 X 11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the fo|li~wlng areas: a) Fire protection?8, 12 X b) Police protection?8, 11 X c) Schools?8 X d)Maintenance of public facilities, including roads or 8 X storm drain facilities? e) Other governmental services?8 X S:\PLAN\PLADIV\1865ECR\EIA Page 8 Issues ~nd Supporting Information Sources Source8 Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact 12.Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, orUTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. substantial alterations to the following utilities: 15 15 15 a) Power or natural gas? b) Communications systems? c)Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? d) Sewer or septic tanks? e) Storm water drainage or storm water quality control? f) Solid waste disposal? g) Local or regional water supplies? 15 15 15 15 13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? c) Create light or glare? 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? b) Disturb archaeological resources? c) Affect historical resources? d)Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural val~es? e)Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? 15. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a)Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? X X 3 3 3 X 8 8 8 8 8 8 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X S:\PLAN\PLADIV\1865ECR\EIA Page 9 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact 16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. Xa) 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? cl Doe’s th-~ project have impacts that are individually limited, 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) d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? X X X 17. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). In this case a discussion should identify the following items: a) Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier an’alyses and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.’ c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions of the project. S:\PLAN\PLADIV\1855ECR\EIA Page 10 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Significant Impact Authority: Public Resources Code Sections 21083 and 21087. Reference: Public Resources Code Sections 21080 (c), 21080.1, 21080.3, 21082.1, 21083, 21083.3, 21093, 321094, 21151; Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino, 202 Cal. App. 3d 296 (1988); Leonofff v. Monterey Board of Supervisors, 222 Cal. App. 3d 1337 (1990). 18. SOURCE REFERENCES 1 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan 1980- 1995, February 2, 1981 (as amended) 2 City of Palo Alto, Zoning Ordinance, Title 18, Chapter 18.49 3 Planner’s general knowledge of the project and area of proposed development. 4 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update: Geology and Seismic Technical Background Report, August 1994 5 FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map, Cotnmunity Panel Number 060348-5, Map Revised September 6, 1989. 6 City of Palo Alto Standard Conditions of Approval 7 City of Palo Alto Public Works Engineering Department 8 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update: Existing Setting Memorandum, August 1994 9 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update: Air Quality Technical Background Report, August 1994 10 City of Palo Alto Transportation Division 11 City of Palo Alto Police Department 12 City of Palo Alto Fire Department 13 City of Palo Alto Fire Department, Hazardous Materials Division 14 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update: Noise Technical Background Report, August 1994 15 City of Palo Alto Utilities Department 16 Fish & Game Code of California, "Chapter 1.5, Endangered Species", Sections 2050 through 2098 17 santa Clara County Water District, Ordinance 83-2, as amended October 11, 1985 18 Charles M. Salter Associates, Noise Analysis dated August 4, 1997. S:\PLAN\PLADIV\1865ECR\EIA Page 11 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact 19. EXPLANATIONS FOR CHECKLIST RESPONSES 4 a,b,h GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS The entire state of California is in a seismically active area and the site is located in a strong seismic risk area, subject to very strong ground shaking in the event of an earthquake. Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction and subsidence of the land are possible, but not likely at the site. No known faults cross the project site, therefore fault rupture at the site is very unlikely, but theoretically possible. 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. Construction of the project will increase the amount of landscaping on site and slightly incr~a-~e the amount of impervious surface area without significant changes to site topography. Site soil modifications are not expected to result in significant environmental impacts. The City’s required standard conditions of approval ensure that potential impacts on erosion and soil will not be significant. Project conditions of approval will require the applicant to submit a final grading and drainage plan subject to review by the Department of Public Works prior to issuance of any grading and building permits. Mitigation Measures: None required. WATER This site is in Flood Zone X which is within the 500-year flood zone; areas of 100-y~ar flood with average depths of less than 1 foot or with drainage areas less than 1 square mile. Therefore, the project will not result in any significant impact on flooding. During construction activities, stormwater pollution could result. Runoff from the project site flows to San Francisco Bay via the local storm drain system. Non p~int source pollution is a serious problem for wildlife dependent on waterways and for people who live near polluted streams or baylands. Construction debris is a source of this pollution. ,~ With the City’s required conditions of approval, the water impacts of the project will not be significant and by project completion, there .will not be significant additional runoff from the Site due to the decrease in amount of impervious surfaces compared with the existing use. The standard conditions of approval will require that a drainage plan be submitted which includes drainage patterns on the site and from adjacent properties. The construction contractor will be required to incorporate best management practices (BMPs) for stormwater pollution prevention in all construction operations, in conformance with the Santa Clara Valley Nonpoint Source,Pollution Control Program. Mitigation Measures: None required. S:\PLAN\PLADIV\1865ECR\EIA Page 12 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Significant a Impact 5 6 AIR QUALITY The project is not expected to result in a significant impact on air quality. The new mixed-use commercial/ residenital buildings will generate more vehicle trips than the existing vacant use, although this increase is not considered a significant impact because it does not exceed thresholds established by the Santa Clara County Congestion Management Agency (CMA), the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, and the City of Palo Alto. The standard conditions of approval will require that dust control measures will be employed at ~’he site to reduce dust emissions to acceptable levels during construction. The proposed mixed-use commercial/residential building, therefore, will not have a significant’effect on air quality. Mitigation Measures: None required. TRANSPORATION/CIRCULATION The project is not expected to result in a significant impact on traffic congestion. The new mixed-use commercial/residential complex will generate more vehicle trips than the existing vacant use, although this increase is not considered a significant impact because it does not exceed thresholds established by the Santa Clara County Congestion Management Agency (CMA) and the City of Palo Alto. The City Transportation Department has reviewed the proposal and has concluded that the standard (ITE) trip generation rates for small offices are: daily: 25 trips/lO00 square feet, PM peak hour: 3.4 trips/lO00 square feet. For single-family residential (the highest residential rate, to be conservative): daily: 9.6 trips/unit, PM Peak hour: 1.05 trips/unit.- Home-based work trips account for approximately 25 percent of daily traffic and 33 percent of peak hour traffic. Because home-work trips will not be vehicle trips in this live-work project, those deductions can.be made from the above trip rates. The following project trip generation therefore results: total daily traffic (ADT): 190 trips; PM peak hour traffic: 23 trips. This traffic will be assigned on El Camino Real approximately 40 percent to the north and 60 percent to the south, resulting in the following PM peak hour trip assignments: El Camino Real north: 9 trips; El Camino Real south: 14 trips. This number of PM peak hour trips is insignificant compared to existing PM peak hour volumes at major intersections such as El Camino Real/Page Mill Road, El Camino Real/Embarcadero, or Alma/Churchill, resulting in no change to level of service at these locations, nor causing the peak hours entering volumes to exceed the Citywide approved build out entering volumes, and thus crea.ting no significant impact. Therefore, no significant traffic impacts would be generated by the project and no mtigation measures are necessary. Mitigation Measures: None Required. S:\PLAN\PLADIV\1865ECR\EIA Page 13 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Significant a Impact 10a,b 11 a,b,c 12 a,e NOISE Noise generated by traffic on El Camino Real will have an impact on proposed residential units facing El Camino Real. An acoustical study prepared in conjunction with the project indicates that potential noise impacts can be mitigated to acceptable levels in accordance with the City’s noise standards. In order to reduce traffic noise to acceptable levels, the noise study includes one mitigation measure including a five- foot high wood fence that would provide an acoustically effective barrier for the residential units along the El Camino Real.) 3"he Noise Study conducted by Charles M.Salter Associates, Inc. (August 4~ 1997) indicates that the mitigations specified on page 1of the report will reduce noise levels in interior.and exterior living spaces in compliance with City noise standards. These mitigations will be included as conditions of project approval and, therefore, the project will not have a significant noise impact. Construction activities will result in temporary increases in local ambient noise levels. With the City’s required standard conditions of approval, noise impacts during construction should not be significant. The standard conditions of approval will require the applicant to comply with the requirements of the Pale Alto Noise Ordinance, Chapter 9.10 of the Pale Alto Mun’icipal Code. Mitigation Measures: Acoustically effective barriers as specified .on page 1 of the noise study by Charles M. Salter (August 4, 1997). PUBLIC SERVICES The proposed project will incrementally increase the need for municipal services, such as police, fire, schools, solid waster and maintenance. The project will be conditioned to ensure that adequate mitigation for public service impacts is obtained through payment of required school fees, installation of fire protection and security devises as may be required by the Police and Fire Departments and payment of other fees and taxes to the City for maintenance of public facilities. Mitigation Measures: None required. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS A padmount transformer is required on-site for this project. As a standard condition of approval, a utilities easement will be required for installing the transformer at this location, installing the existing primary stub conduit, and extending the primary conduit to the new transformer location. Future access to the transformer for maintenance may become a problem should’any portion of the property that is now used for parking be developed. Should ~his occur, the owner of the proposed project would be required to relocate the transformer when needed. As a condition of project approval, the property owner will be required to address the situation in writing. Mitigation Measures: None required. S:\PLAN\PLADIV\1865ECR\EIA Page 14 13 AESTHETICS Development of the site may result in a negligible increase in light and glare generated from lighting of the site and glazing on the building, but will not have an adverse impact on surrounding uses. With the project’s conditions of approval, the light and glare impacts of the project will not be significant. A detailed lighting plan which is sensitive to existing uses will be required as a condition of approval. The condition of approval will require the shielding of lighting such that the light does not extend beyond the site, the lighting will be directional, and that the source of light is not directly visible. Mitigation Measures: None required, S:\PLAN\PLADIV\1865ECR\EIA page 15 WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, HEREBY ATTEST THAT WE HAVE REVIEWED :I’HIS NEGATIVE DECLARATION, DATED ~Z~LU..~J~J~_~ PREPARED FOR THE PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT OF PROPERTY KNOWN AS 1865. 1885. 1895 EL CAMINO RE~A!~, PAI~O ALTO. CALIFORNIA. AND AGREE TO IMPLEMENT ALL MITIGATION MEASURES CONTAINED HEREIN. Applicant’s Signature Date 4 August 1997 Tony Carrasco Carras¢o & Associates 120 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 via fax (650) 322-2316 1865, 1885 and 1895 El Camino llousing -- Acoustical Consulting CSA Project ~N0.9"/-308 Dear Tony: This letter addresses the City requirements for limiting noise exposure in outdoor use spaces. ~}~sed on rny consideration of the distances between traffic on El Camino and the outdoor deck, the ~stimate of the existing noise level, and the shielding effect of’the building facade itself, I am confident’that a five-foot high correctly built "wood fence will adequately control the exterior noise on the deck to at or below the City noise standard of 65 riB. During the construction d~cuments phase of this project. "we will provide construction details for this fence. This completes my comments on the subject project. "Please call if you have any questions. Sincerely yours, ’ CHARLES M. SALTER ASSOCIATES, INC, Charles M. Salter, PE President CMS/esd JL31CMS ATTACHMENT#4 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD May 1, 1997 Draft Excerpt 1865-1895 El Camino Real Carrasco & Associates 97-ARB-61 Application for Architectural Review Board preliminary review to allow construction of three live/work buildings for a total of 10,237 square feet, 25 parking spaces and related site improvements. Chairman Ross: Since this is a preliminary review, we will not be taking any action. May we have the applicant’s presentation? Tony Carrasco: I am representing Hillview Lands, Grace Wu. I also want to introduce the team. Alex Lew, who helped with the zoning ordinance issues .and the conceptual design. Andreas Mede, who did the design details, and Duncan Grier, who built the model. This is a small project, not a huge one, but I think it is one of significance. The proposal is three live/work buildings, an appropriate land use, and that is the reason why we have chosen to go through an elaborate process rather than an easy one, which is just doing commercial. There are three lots on an existing gas station site surrounded by a rear portion of a single-family lot that extends from the street back there, which I believe is Emerson, all the way to E1 Camino Real, and an apartment building here, and the Sundance Mine Company there. There used to be a gas statiofi there, and we decided to do three live/work units. We had an altemative of not doing the "live" part in all three of these and doing just commercial instead. The way in which the ordinance is written is complicated, and we want to go through that at the end of my presentation on design and what we think the uses are going to be. When I first started my office, we tried to find a small commercial space, but could not find any. This kind of design is geared to a use such as an engineering company that is just starting up or an architect, accountant or lawyer. As .you know, you work almost 18 hours sometimes, and you need a place to sleep, or in the middle of day, you need to take a rest. So the use is anticipated to be both a living and a work space. The ordinance, as I read it, is not geared to this kind of use. The design is one of simplicity, purely describing the user and how that user is going to use the space. We decided to do courtyards in between the property lines so that you get light and air from those spaces. We also decided to keep the front entries along E1 Camino, doing a joint easement at the back’to keep the parking at the back. That is the basic design idea. I will not elaborate any further, but if you have questions, I can answer them. A: IARBVerbMins [ 1865ecr.417 Page 1 04-17-97 I would next like to go to the ordinance issues which have made this project enormously complicated, not complicated from a design point of view, but complicated from just making things work. That is about it. Alex Lew: If you have the staff report, there is an attachment at the back which shows graphic representation of some of the early studies that we did. We went through several different schemes looking at a mixed use and a live/work or all commercial or all residential. The first page shows it following RM- 15 strictly. Then we have another scheme that was all commercial. So what happened was that under RM-15, we had pretty much of a house-shaped form in the daylight plane. In the commercial zoning, we just got a tall street wall with parking at the back. Both of those follow the zoning regulations and would not require any variances. With the first one, what happens is that I think it is really bad urban design form. You will have a smaller, house-shaped form behind a large sound wall. From an urban design viewpoint, I don’t think any developer is going to do that, just because of the size of the project is so small. Also, from an urban design point of view, this is effective use of the lot. The all-commercial design would actually be contextual with some of the smaller commercial developments on E1 Camino with small lots with dry cleaners and video stores. I think that this live/work is actually a much more interesting design. You have a lot more variation of space. From the street point of view, instead of having a wall, there is a broken plane. What happens is that when you add a residential unit and an office in the RM- 15 zone. That is where we got into complications, because then we have the daylight plane requirements, the 35% open space requirement, and the 25-foot arterial street setback. Also, in RM-15, they allow a 30-foot building, but only two stories. What we have with this project is a garage and two floors of living, but it is within 30 feet. So this project is going to require variances. If you are saying that this project has to follow all of the RM-15 requirements strictly, we would have to have a variance from the arterial street setback, so we are actually going to follow more the CN commercial zone. That is 10 feet, although it does vary between 10 and 20 feet due to the angle of the street. Regarding the sideyard setbacks, some of these are actually built up to a zero lot line. As for the 35% open space, we are talking about rooftop terraces instead of providing ground plane open space. There are courtyards, and there might be fountains to mask the noise of E1 Camino. The other issue is parking. The way we have it now is that overall, we have fit in all of the spaces, but the staff report said that some of the spaces are not usable and not completely functional. I think they have enough leeway to make it work, or another thing we can do is to apply for a variance as a mixed use project, allowing a reduction of one space, since the person who is living here is also working here. That would justify the reduction of one space. Then we can meet all of the parking requirements. A: [ARBVerbMins I 1865ecr.417 Page 2 04-17-97 Mr. Carrasco: So it is a complicated project. Each unit is only 600 to 700 square feet, but we felt it was important to go through this kind of process, because I think that in the future, through the Comprehensive Plan, you will be thinking about revising the ordinance, and that is an important exercise for all of us to go through. Chairman Ross: Are there questions for the applicant? Mr. Alfonso: I immediately can appreciate the complexity. It sounds like we are talking about 20 different things at the same time. One question that I have for staff is whether this type of project has come before you in the past. Ms. Grote: No, it has not, especially not on E1 Camino. We have had a couple of live/work proposals in the downtown area, which have not gone forward. They have been modified after initial approval. This is the first one on E1 Camino Real. It is something that the Comprehensive Plan and the E1 Camino Design Guidelines really promote. The city as a whole would like to see this kind of use on E1 Camino. This is the first time we have tried to fit it into all of the regulations. Mr. Alfonso: Is the concept for the project, Tony, that an individual would purchase one of these buildings? (Yes) So for the sake of discussion, let’s take the first unit on the far left. If someone were to purchase one entire unit, would it be the same individual who would use it, or could he have the option to rent it? Mr. Carrasco: Yes, he would have the option to rent it, but hopefully, the person who buys it will also use it. Mr. Alfonso: Would each unit have its own private outdoor space on the rooftop? (Yes) This is the kind of transitional project that bridges commercial and residential ideas. In the form of the building, I see a differentiation, a gentler residential area and a little bit sharper cornered commercial component, and they are linked quite intimately. Then, on a building level, on a site level, how is this transition taking place, from your concept, from the E1 Camino end to the residential in the back? Mr. Carrasco: I would have to explain it with the plans. For the street courtyards, there are two courtyards and open space here. Each of the courtyards penetrate into the office space, bringing light into the office space and creating an intermediate space which is described best in this first drawing here. The courtyard extends into the office space. Mr. Alfonso: Do I understand that you are essentially layering the concept from E1 Camino back so that there is kind of a lateral relationship of commercial in the front with these courtyard links? Then there is the residential in the rear which does not have a lot of length. A: [ARBVerbMins [ 1865ecr.417 Page 3 04-17-97 Mr. Carrasco: The residential spaces are accessed off of that courtyard and into that lighter space. The user of the residential space would be the same user of the front space. We have only one staircase. So yes, in that sense, we are layering it in the sense that it is sharper and harder, wider and tougher, with industrial sash on the E1 Camino side. It is a little softer but not much softer in the residential portion. That is our residential unit designed to RM-15 zoning. Does that answer your question? Mr. Alfonso: Yes. Dave Ross: Tony, you did not mention the sound wall and the noise issue. Mr. Carrasco: E1 Camino is noisy, and the idea of the sound wall was to prevent the noisefrom infiltrating. This, we believe, will solve that problem. It will buffer the residential from a harsher environment. Ms. Piha: Did you consider any finish materials? Mr. Carrasco: Yes, we have. We have thought about that as a reasonably simple but hard material such as stucco painted white. The whole project would be painted white, both the residential and the commercial. Ms. Piha: Was there any consideration given to signage? Mr. Carrasco: We think that this location is more appropriate for an office use than retail, although it would be great to get a little comer store there, but we are not limiting it to that. The signage will be on the doors, and very small. The people coming to this space will be more attracted by its address than attracted by signage. Ms. Piha: Are there any landscape concepts that you have? You touched upon a fountain. You have some nice trees shown in the model. Mr. Carrasco: We have been talking to Tom Richman, and Alex has put in the conceptual plan. Dr. David Sharong earlier this week suggested that we do two oak trees here, and I think that will be a good idea to have that at the back. The courtyard will be paved with low shrubs and the fountain. Mr. Lew: Tony and I incorporated some of the urban ideas and had Tom Richman do some informal studies of E1 Camino. Just from an urban design level, the problem with El Camino is that there are too many different things happening on that street, so it is a very chaotic urban form. So we are going to do one.of the contextual landscaping ideas with sycamore trees that would replace the privet trees on the street. That will help it tie in with that Duncan Insurance Building down the street, and also there is an office across the street on Park Boulevard with A: ] ARBVerbMins ] 1865ecr.417 Page 4 04-17-97 sycamore trees and manzanita landscaping. So we are thinking that the trees will be out on the street and the landscaping would be mostly drought-tolerant plants, native plants similar to those at Stanford Research Park, that kind of look, low maintenance. As for color, we are thinking that the walkways should be something like slate. So in terms of color, it will mostly be gray, black, white and the sandblasted glass. For the back portion, just by zoning, we really need an evergreen screen to screen this project from the neighborhood residential uses. So in the landscaping plan, we are talking about evergreen trees here, and some smaller accent trees in the parking lot. If the neighborhood association thinks that is okay. Mr. McFall: I have a few questions for staff, one of which is on Page 11. It did not make sense to me about the issue as to whether there is adequate space to get in and out of the garage for Space #7 opposite that. Ms. Grote: The end spaces would not be usable because there is not enough back-up space. Mr. McFall: The other question for staff has to do with the zoning. When residential enters into it, is it reviewed as an RM-15 project? Ms. Grote: The RM-15 requirements apply, however, for the height limit, it does have a special section in the CN zone that says the height can go up to 35 feet if a portion of the project is residential, so they actually have a 35-foot height limit for the residential portion. They do not actually need a variance for height. Unless it is specifically called out otherwise, the RM-15 requirements hold. Mr McFall: So in the two tables that are put together that talk about FAR allowable in CN and in RM-15, the first property at #1865, there is 0.4 and a 0.5 FAR. The project has a 30% and a 28% FAR. Does this conform? Ms. Grote: Yes, it does. Mr. McFall: Does that mean that the total FAR is 58% for the project? I was wondering if you can add the two FARs together. It looks like that has been done. Ms.Grote: Yes, that is how we calculated it and determined that it was conforming. Mr.Peterson: Then does that mean that they could have a 0.9 FAR? Ms.Grote: The maximum floor area is 0.91, based on combining those two FARs. A: IARBVerbMins I 1865ecr.417 Page 5 04-17-97 Mr. McFall: What is it for a straight CN? Ms. Grote: For a straight CN that is exclusively non-residential, it is 0.4 to 1. For residential, it is 0.5 to 1. So when you add those together, you can get up to a 0.9 to 1. Mr McFall: So if you just have a commercial building on the property, it is 0.4 to 1. Ms. Grote: And that is dependent upon being able to meet the other requirements, too, such as parking, open space, landscaping, that kind of thing. Mr. McFall: On your site plan, I take it that the double turn off of Leland is to deal with the issue of the islands that are there. Is that the reason why the Z is required? Mr. Carrasco: Yes, that is the reason why. Over the past week, we started talking to neighbors and David Sharong about doing a better island and coming up with a better solution, but we have not solved that yet. But the answer to your question is yes, it is in response to having the street blocked off there. Mr.McFall: Does each of the units require a’van-accessible space? Mr.Carrasco: Yes, unfommately, I mean fortunately, yes. Mr.McFall: Is that because they are separate parcels? (Yes) That completes my questions. Mr. Peterson: I have a couple of questions. Is there some efficiency in the use of the parking in terms of shared parking? Ms. Grote: Yes, there can be. Really both uses need to have their parking requirement met. We do not have a live/work parking requirement listed in the code. So I think there are some grounds for a variance. Usually, it is virtually impossible to get parking variances granted, as there are not any grounds for them. But in this case, since it is a live/work space, it is intimately tied. You cannot get to that living area unless you go through the work space, so that is going to pretty much dictate who lives there and whether or not they would be driving to the site separately as an employee. I don’t think they would be, therefore I think there are grounds for a shared parking arrangement. It would still require a variance. Mr. Peterson: So that is the vehicle for getting that. There is nothing in the zoning now that allows you to share that. Ms. Grote: Well, under M-18.83, there are some possibilities for shared facilities. It is usually for commercial facilities, and it is going to come up on a project for you later today. You can make arrangements for shared facilities, but usually commercial, not residential. A: [ARBVerbMins [ 1865ecr.417 Page 6 04-17-97 Mr. Peterson: One reason I raise that is that Menlo Park has a zone like this, and they specifically allow some sharing, so applicants do not have to go through this. Ms. Grote: Under M-18.83, 120(c), Joint Use Parking Facilities, "For any site with multiple uses where the application requires 30 or more parking spaces, the planning director can reduce the overall requirement by up to 20%." Mr. Peterson: But that does not apply here, since we are under that amount. Ms. Grote: That is correct, so that gets us back to the variance procedure. But based on use, there are some grounds for the variance. Mr. Peterson: I have some circulation questions. If a client came to one of these buildings, would they park in the rear and walk around to the sidewalk and enter through the front door? Mr. Carrasco: Based on our typical client, say it is a large meeting, there would be about three or four cars, even downtown, they do not seem to have a problem with parking on the street. We are closing offthree driveways and relocating one. There seems to be about eight parking spaces available on the street, which I think we make use of. In addition, the amount of parking at the back is far more than what we have available, so using that as a rough number, I think the parking should work from a functional point of view. Mr. Peterson: I am not so concemed about the adequacy. I agree with you on that. It is the confusion of which door they should go in, depending on where they park. Obviously, if they park out front, they will go in through the front door. Parking in the back, they may be mystified as to where to go. Mr. Carrasco: At the back, each of the entries goes into a courtyard. The entries from the courtyard will be marked with the street address. Mr. Peterson: If they enter into the courtyard, how do they get into the office space? Is that the same, whether they come from the front or the rear? Mr. Carrasco: No, in front, they use the front door. The courtyard door is a side door. The receptionist area is about the same in all three of them. You can get to the receptionist from either the front door or the side door. Mr. Peterson: I also have a question about the landscaping there in the back, or lack of it, right along the building and at the entry. What are your thoughts on that? I’m sure you are trying to juggle the available space to get enough parking. There seems to be hard surface against the building. A: [ARBVerbMins ] 1865ecr.417 Page 7 04-17-97 Mr. Carrasco:. For the hard surfaces, we are using permeable concrete or asphalt to let water percolate into the soil. So from an ecological point of view, we are going to let the rain water drain naturally. We are not going to export water into the storm sewer. Mr. Peterson: It is really a question of the visual aspect. Mr. Carrasco: We have started a dense landscape screen at the back with oleanders. We will supplement that with trees and the two oak trees, so visually, as you walk through this space, there should be enough landscaping in the vertical plane. In the horizontal plane, we will hopefully mitigate that with good paving materials that are pervious. Mr. Peterson: Where are those? Mr. Lew: They are very small, but there are two here, and we think they could be creeping fig. We have 30-foot blank walls, and the creeping fig could easily cover them which buffer and cover up these walls here. Mr. Carrasco: Again, from the experience from our back yard, we have a 50-foot-high blank wall, and we have a really beautiful, landscaped wall there. Mr. Peterson: Right. I have seen that. What about the roofing materials on the curved roof’?. Mr. Carrasco: It is probably going to be metal. We do not know what color. Maybe a dark gray. Mr. Peterson: What about the use of the front courtyard. It is walled now. Do you picture anyone going out there? Mr. Carrasco: Yes, we do. We work on the outside of our little court in the back. Much of this comes from our experience with our little space. We think that someone might take a little table out there and use it. Chairman Ross: Lisa, is there a requirement for a sound wall at the rear, or does that depend upon the final zoning designation? Ms. Grote: It is not a sound wall at the rear, but it is a separation between residential and non- residential uses~ It is actually at the rear and along the side. It does have to be a minimum of five feet tall, maximum of eight feet tall. It does not have to be to sound specifications. Chairman Ross: So it could be more like a fence, then, or a concrete block wall or precast wall. Ms. Grote: Yes. A: [ ARBVerbMins [ 1865ecr.417 Page 8 04-17-97 Chairman Ross: In commercial development now, there is a lot of ancillary space that provides amenities for the office users without the extra parking requirement, i.e., showers, ltmch rooms, etc. Conceptually, is there any way to call the living unit accessory to the commercial space, thereby qualifying it without additional parking under those regulations? Ms. Grote: We had not considered that. Usually in a commercial project, it is assumed that people will not be there on a 24-hour basis. We do give the reduction or bonus for having cafeterias and other employee amenities in a commercial or industrial building because it reduces vehicle trips, but we assume that someone is not going to be there 24 hours a day. With this application, we know that the intent is to have someone there 24 hours a day, so I don’t think we would give that same bonus. It is really a living unit, and we know that someone is going to be there. Chairman Ross: If you know that the same person is going to be there, however, then you also know that there will not be a separate car for the live/space. Ms. Grote: Right, and that is why .there are grounds for a Variance. But at this point, we do not have a mechanism for approving that without a variance, so even though I think your logic makes sense, we do not have it spelled out that way in the code. Chairman Ross: In our discussion of the Comprehensive Plan and its implications to zoning changes, we noted that there was going to be a transition period during-which time, in order to comply with the new policies in the Comprehensive Plan, variances would be required from our existing zoning laws. We talked about suggesting some mechanisms for helping applicants in that regard so that they would not have to go through a complicated process in order to provide something that is promoted in the Comprehensive Plan. This project probably precedes that process a little bit, but I am curious as to whether there has been any discussion at the staff level or at council about that transition mechanism? It could be years before the zoning laws catch up with the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Grote: It probably will be. To my knowledge, there has not been discussion of that, especially in any regard to this project. The other part of this is that there will be variances required for other aspects of the project, so the applicant can wrap those variances in together and be heard at one public hearing rather than going through a series of public hearings on each variance. That is something available to him. There has not been any other discussion as to how to approach it, other than a variance. There isn’t anything else in place that we can use. Overall, I don’t know what the discussions have been about implementation of the Comprehensive Plan in the interim. Chairman Ross: The live/work component is probably one of the major changes to the body of zoning laws that is promoted in the new Comprehensive Plan. So I hope that it gets early attention. Tony, did the owner consider combining the parcels and doing a condominium A: [ARBVerbMins [ 1865ecr.417 Page 9 04-17-97 subdivision, rather than this approach? Mr. Carrasco: Yes, we did. Gray can talk about that. The owners felt that it was important to subdivide it into smaller uses to supply that market that does not address this product in most of Palo Alto. Also, he will probably get a higher rate per square foot by selling this in smaller chunks rather than as one whole piece. Chairman Ross: It would have eliminated some of the internal property line issues like the daylight plane, setbacks, etc., which will now require a variance. But I can understand. What about some of the zero lot line conditions that you have here? Since they are separate units, are you concerned at all about building codes? Are there any worries there, such as fire walls? Mr. Carrasco: Yes, there are fire walls and we are concerned about building code issues and have considered them in the design of this product. As you know, there have been live/work zero lot line buildings in the downtown for 15 years now. I know how that technology works, and we have applied that to this project. Mr. Peterson: I guess it is a little different for residential than for commercial. Mr. Carrasco: May I make a comment on the process? (Yes, please) I think this process is working well. I just think that the staff’s very understanding of the problems, this process works fine, and it should work well. The proposal goes to the Architectural Review Board and then before the Planning Commission and City Council. There are changes that need to be done with changing guidelines. To address all of the different issues and plans and lot involved, I think variances will release the zoning administrator to make some less stringent findings should work fine. Chairman Ross: That completes the board questions. I will open the public hearing for anyone who wishes to speak to this item. There does not appear to be anyone, so I will close the public hearing and bring this back to the board for comments. Mr. Peterson: I think it is a terrific project, and I am very aware of the complications of these zonings. The high-density residential, because of its requirements, almost precludes you from doing the intent of those regulations. So they really need to be changed, although I do not know how best to do that. I think this is an excellent solution to a very complicated and difficult project, and I am in complete support of it. I have just a couple of comments to follow up on one of my questions. I think the landscaping is absolutely crucial here, although I probably say that every time, because I feel it is crucial on every project. It really is important on the street side to soften E1 Camino, and this would go a long way to do that in setting back the buildings. I think the sawtooth setback here is very attractive on E1 Camino. It is kind of a large-scale rhythm that goes on here that relates to the A: ! ARBVerbMins I 1865ecr.417 Page 10 04-17-97 street and the autos, and that is very nice. On the other side, you really have established a residential street on the back, and that is appropriate, also. I would hope that you will use good quality materials on the horizontal surfaces which will help establish that residential street kind of feel, maybe introducing a sidewalk kind of feeling along there. That would work very nicely. The scale is very subtle, and the drop of that roof on the residential side is very effective in relating to the residential on the back. I think that works very nicely. My last comment is on the color. I try to keep out of the colors, but I always make a comment on it anyway, so I will do it here, too. It seems to me that some variety of color might be nice, rather than all one color. But I say that with reservations. I can imagine it both ways. You have thought of it, I am sure, but you might consider some subtle variation from building to building to give them a little more definition. But overall, I think it is a terrific project. Chairman Ross: Thank you Bob. Mr. McFall: I am excited about the project. I drive by this site just about daily, and it is definitely an eyesore, so I am excited to see some chance for development here. I like the concept of the live/work unit. I hope it works here. We have had at least two projects downtown recently that have not worked out. I guess this has to. I guess it has to be used for residential if. the city approves it as such, which is encouraging, so I am pleased about that. Architecturally, I like the idea of the different roof forms and noting the different uses such as the curved roof over the residential. I could certainly support the notion that the raised outdoor space would suffice for the units as their outdoor space. In fact, I think it is very nice here, particularly with the restaurant nearby. In the evenings, it would be nice to have the vertical separation of your outdoor space from the traffic of the restaurant, so I think that is definitely appropriate. On the buildings, I think contemporary architecture is definitely the way to go. I support that and consider it a good design for-that reason. At the same time, I want to encourage some attention to detail, to going a little bit beyond the verey austere, plain box approach. A number of things can be done to add some vitality and interest there, which I would definitely encourage. Also, I would follow up on Bob’s comment about the landscaping. I like the separation from the adjacent residential at the back, but I would certainly like to see something against the buildings to soften the horizontal plane of the parking area where it hits the buildings. The one little pocket on each building does not seem adequate. It would be nice to get something out at the face of the buildings along the driveway. I am not particularly concerned about the issue staff raises regarding views into the adjacent property sideyard. It is a very small yard, and I think the issue is mitigated by having the separation of this project from the property line by the parking area. So I do not share that s ,a~ne concern about the back. The trees will also screen it, as well. A: [ARBVerbMins [ 1865ecr.417 Page 11 04-17-97 I like the offset of the buildings. I think that adds a lot of interest to E1 Camino. The issues I see relate primarily to the back of the building., and cars, specifically. The parking is very tight, and staff has pointed out a number of issues about inadequate access to parking spaces. I share those concerns, and that needs to be looked at. Access to the recycling and trash areas looks difficult, which was pointed out. Also, the initial access, which we really did not talk about. It is very circuitous, and due entirely to the blocking off of the street at its present location. So I am very uncomfortable with having that big Z in the driveway. I hope there is a way to simplify that. It is going to be difficult for first-time visitors to find that, to know where they are going if they cannot park on the street. That points out a problem that is very typical on most projects, and that is one of space on the site. This is not a big project, although for the site, I think it is fairly large. I am not suggesting that it be smaller, but it is generally the parking that drives the parking. It is a big problem that may impact how much of a building you can get. I am not sure that the proposed parking layout will be approved, based on what staff has found. So certainly, attention to the parking issues needs to be made. But in conclusion, I think it is a great first step, and I am very excited about it. Ms. Piha: I, too, am very excited about the project and am in support of what you are trying to accomplish here in terms of combining the residential and commercial spaces. The variances that you are asking for in terms of setback requirements are well founded. I wish you luck with the city in trying to work through those issues. You have the support of the board. So far, it sounds like we are in unanimous support of your project. I am also very pleased with the massing and the variety of spaces that you have created and your attention to daylighting options and availability inside of your interior spaces. The model has been a very helpful tool in understanding your concept and what you are trying to present. So I feel the presentation materials have really been excellent. I have two things that are of concern. One is that I would really encourage that you do a detailed signage program so that you do not have any surprises from tenants that want to do something that is going to take away from your carefully articulated forms and design, since you are combining residential units with potential retail or office space, so I do encourage a signage program in the design. My other concern is with the white stucco finishes of all the exterior sides. My knowledge is that Richard Meyer is one of the few architects that can do white buildings successfully, and I don’t think he very often works in stucco. I think he works in a variety of white materials, but not usually stucco. I think you are trying to achieve something pretty challenging with stucco. ! am concerned that you have some very broad, 30-foot, flat sides in just a stucco finish. White is also a highly reflective material in our sunny environment. I don’t know that you could even look at that side without even being blinded. I would just encourage you to give some more thought to A: I ARBVerbMins [ 1865ecr.417 Page 12 04-17-97 that material choice. I really like a contemporary feeling. I feel that that is appropriate, but that is one area that you perhaps have not studied enough. I would encourage some other options to be explored there and to take some of these things into consideration. I think it is important for these buildings to feel contemporary but not clinical and not cold and uninviting. And you have accomplished that. The forms are terrific. Mr. Alfonso: I~ too, am in support of this project. I think it is a very nice proposal, a very appropriate one, and I support what you are trying to do here with the live/work arrangement. I think it is a very nice combination of forms along the E1 Camino frontage, as well as the general form that the building is articulating in its form as to what is residential and what is commercial. Along with that statement, I would add that having taken that first step in creating the form and differentiating the form, I think there is a great opportunity here to keep with that idea and differentiate in color and material along with it, to follow with some of the previous comments made by my fellow board members. Certainly, as Cheryl mentioned, having white in this climate and in this environment, it would be very difficult to keep white stucco looking sharp over a period of time. I think that if there were variation in color, not necessarily within the property but perhaps within the building itself, I think that would be appropriate. I have a couple of harsher criticisms having to do with the entries. I find that the entries are conceptually viable, but I am not sure how they would feel if I were to come in from the parking lot with this 30-foot wall fight next to it. I understand there is a trellis piece being introduced to down-scale that. I would encourage looking at extending that trellis device along the rear line to down-scale, as well, some of those tall fagades. I find the idea of a street concept really quite intriguing, but I feel that there is not enough of a depth to that rear to be able to handle that tall, single plane. Perhaps there is a way that that trellis device can spill out in an effort to down-scale some of that. I would also encourage variable landscaping in the back, perhaps larger trees in some cases. That would also down-scale the space and the buildings as perceived from the residential areas. There are certain pockets where I feel that would work well. I would not necessarily encourage oaks, as I think they would not do well in a parking setting like this. They are very, very slow growing. As Jim pointed out, I think it would be far better if you did not have to have that Z entry there. It would be nice to be able to hold that back and have a cleaner entry. So the pedestrian issue of how you move into that space from the rear, primarily, is my biggest concern, but I really am happy to see what is being proposed, and I support what he is trying to do. Chairman Ross: I like this project a great deal, also. It is also something in the nature of a great public service to bring a project like this forward intentionally through this process in order to help define how we might address this zoning type in the future. It is obviously not a new concept. This may be the oldest concept in the world -- shared housing, and work space. But our A: IARBVerbMins [ 1865ecr.417 Page 13 04-17-97 current zoning laws, of course, do not allow for that, and we will have to grapple with that as we try to implement the new Comprehensive Plan. So it is a great test project for how those regulations might be crafted to make something like this work and to even encourage, making it easy to do instead of hard to do. So I think it is a wonderful thing that you and the applicant are doing here. One thing about shared work and living space for people who work 18 hours a day, one thing you learn is that it becomes more important in the way that the living space becomes a place of refuge from the place where you work. It could really grind on you if you were spending all of your time, all of your life in the same place, working and living. After awhile, it is hard to distinguish between the two, and I don’t think you get much rest. So personally, I think it is important here to distinguish between the work space and the living space internally, which is something that I think you can do. In that way, people would feel like they are getting away from the work space even though they are only taking a few steps. I think that would be very important, and that will have as much to do with the interiors as it will the exteriors. That is not really in our purview, but I think it is something to think about. There may be some materials and wall treatments that you can do to different parts of the exterior to help encourage that, too. I see the balcony space on the roof as being a very informal and relaxing sort of space, hopefully, so maybe there is a way that you can move it from the crisp formality of the front facade and the side fagade commercial form to a very relaxed, residential feel when you are up there on top, so that from the outside it looks commercial, but from the inside, you feel like you are at home rather than at work. That could perhaps be through the balcony rail treatment. The fagade of the living area in the back could be of different materials from the commercial, because I don’t think you are actually going to see those from the ground. They are set back far enough that you do not have them relating closely to each other. So I would encourage that differentiation there, which is along the lines of what Frank was saying. Even minor things like the detailing of doors and windows and hardware so that you will know when you have crossed that boundary, from the office to the home. As Bob was saying, in the rear, it seems fairly clear to me that the people who are going to be parking in the rear are not the visitors to the business. That is going to be handled along the street front, or it may be some very friendly business associate who has an informal relationship with the business operator who might park in the back. It really is a very different sort of place in the back than in the front, maybe less formal and more residential. I am not at. all concerned about making a commercially-oriented parking lot back there, because I don’t think that is what it is going to be used for. People parking back there are mostly going to be the people who work and live in these spaces, so that area back there and the entrance, in my view, should relate a little more to the residential feel rather than to the commercial feel. I actually like the idea of a fairly light, if not pure white, stucco look, although I think that it will actually get softened by the rubber dust and road grime that flies off of E1 Camino. It won’t stay white for long. If you can select a color that is compatible with the natural graying of the A: IARBVerbMins I 1865ecr.417 Page 14 04-17.97 surface, it will reach a patina. That is something to think about there. If the effect you are trying to achieve is heightened by the brilliance of the color, then that is not going to last very long. You just have to take that into account on E1 Camino. On the roofing materials, your description of a sort of medium gray or lighter material reminds me of zinc, of which I am a big fan. So if you have not thought about that material, it would be something to look at, and I think it is very compatible with stucco. There are a lot of very successful European buildings that combine stucco with zinc, and it is actually in residential projects. So it is a look that I can imagine very easily flying well on this site. I wish you well in going through the process, and I think you have heard from all of us that we support whatever modifications to the Leland Avenue barriers are required to maintain the for the neighborhood, but at the same time, make your entry work a little better. So Thanks very much for bringing this forward. I look forward to seeing it built. A: ]ARBVerbMins [ 1865ecr.417 Page 15 04-17-97 ATTACHiVIEN 1 ~t Trim stakes to height just ~above ties. Flexible or plastic tree ties, fasten to stakes oneabove the other at 1/2 tothe height of the tree Place 3" of mulch with wood chips in planter pit over soil backfill City Sidewalk 24" high root barrier place 2.5" deep Tree stoke (typ.) L Center rootball between back of curb and front of sidewalk Back of sidewalk Front of sidewalk rER STRIP location of soil berm (typical) 4’-6" (typ)~ -I r-~i I I~I / R°°*~ball\lI I I I~1II I P~NTER STRIP /--o Facef curb ,,PLAN VIEW .Tree as specified by City 4" drain cop (typ.) place 1" above mulch level 2" dia, tree stakes, treated with copper nopthonate. Diagramatlc only, rotate 90 degrees per Plan View. 4" dia perforated plastic flexible drain pipe with filter fabric wrap. Cop pipe ends with perforated end plugs or grates, PCC Curb and Gutter Top of root- boll to be flush with I sidwalk /_I I I I-- t--~nsto, tree stokes ’,I / A_A,,,, ~ a rain. 12" into ,~’1 t /I Iundisturbed solidi I/I I~1/~ Do not disturb "soil~.~/ v under rootboll-~’~ECTION Limits of excavation Backfill with o mixture of mixed orlgin.ol soil and approved loom topsoil around rootboll and water at time of planting, Jet with water to settle soil and remove air spaces, Rev By Date Scale: NTS 24" high PVC tree root barrier, place 25" deep from top of curb NOTESI. Contact Underground Service Alert (USA) @ (800) 642-2444 at least 48 hours prior to beginning excavation work to locate existing utilities. 2. Build soil berm rain. 4" high and .3’ from tree trunk in planter strip. Provide loom topsoil needec to form berm and fill holes. .3. Soil, concrete and other materials spilled on street, sidewalk, and planting area shall be cleaned up immediately by Contractor. 4. If tree plontlng is delayed after tree wells ore constructed, holes will be filled in with soll until trees ore available. Tree Well Detail Planter Strip City of Palo Alto Standard PE No.~’- ;2~/658 Date_ 12/14/92 Dwg 504No. SD50400 ATTACHMENT TILE. AIR YENT Perforated file laid on orlglnal ground, covered with draln rock. Draln to suitable outlet. DRAIN ROCK PRUNING may be necessary to facilitate removal of dead wood, conflict with new structure, or redu~:e stress - shall be carried out by qual- ified arborist and subject ~o approval and direction City Arborist.’ FENCE the peri- meter of drip line with 5-foot chain link fence or approved equal BORING of utility lines Is less v =POSSIBLE "BUILDING WALL :Provide surface--drainage of low -points to -prevent stog- :nant saturated = o~IG\NAL Provide TILE DRAIN wllh suiloble outlet damaging to trees than trenching FILL (When raising grade is unavoidable) drying EXCAVATION (When lowering grade is unavoldable) EXCAVATING AND TRENCHING within site of tree (LAST RESORT): a. Cut as few roots as posslble and cut them cleon b. Po\nt cut roo~s ~i~h opprove~ ~ress~,n9 ¢. Backfill as soon as possible to avoid roots o Large amount of fill will inhibit delicate balance between roo~s and soil. o To limit serious damage or death to tree, provide gravel and system to drain. o Avoid any pending by draining low points. Rev By Date 0 DWH 12/14/92 Scale: NTS Tree During Provide adequate retalnlng wall -no closer than drip line. ADDITIONAL PRECAUTIONS ~ Provide fences and barricades around tree. install prior 1o grading. ~ Fertilize and water to minimize shock - asLdirecled by qualified arborist. " ~ Ap~-oved ~ / Date 12/14/92_ DwgCity of Palo Alto Standard No. 505 SD50500 Protection Construction EXCERPT of the minutes of the Palo Alto Planning Commission meeting of September 10, 1997.Attachment 7 The Planning Commission met in a regular meeting on Wednesday, September 10, 1997 at 7 p.m. in the Council Chambers with Chairman Schink presiding. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Commissioners Bialson, Byrd, Cassel, Ojakian, Schink and Schrnidt Commissioner Beecham StaffPresent:Debra Cauble, Senior Assistant City Attorney Lisa Grote, Zoning Administrator Kenneth R. Schreiber, Director of Platming and Community Environment Phillip Woods, Planner ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Chairman Schink: This is the time on our agenda where we allow for oral communications. If there is a member of the public who wishes to address us on an item which is not specifically covered on the agenda, you have five minutes to speak. Seeing no one, I will close the Oral Communications portion and go on to Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions. (There were none.) A:lPCMins8[PC0910.reg Page 2 09-10-97 UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1865 EL CAMINO REAL: Site and design application to construct three mixed use commercial/residential buildings for a total of 10,450 square feet, 23 parking spaces, landscaping and related site improvements. Variances required on each parcel for an arterial front yard setback, side yard setback, open space, perimeter landscaping, interior landscaping for parking area and parking spaces. Environmental Assessment: A negative declaration has been prepared. File Nos. 97-ARB-118, 97-EIA-12, 97-D-6, 97-V-14. (Commissioner Cassel is now present.) Chairman Schink: Is there a staff presentation for this item? Ms. Grote: Thank you, Chair Schink. Yes, very briefly, this is an application for a site and design and variance application on three lots, 1865, 1885 and 1895 E1Camino Real. These lots are located in the CN district, a Neighborhood Commercial zone. However, it is a mixed use project which includes residential use, so per the CN zoning requirements, the residential portion of the project must meet RM-15 zoning requirements, and the commercial portion must meet the CN requirements. All mixed use projects along E1 Camino Real do go through the site and design review process. That is to ensure compatibility with scale and intensity of the use with neighboring uses, as well as to ensure an environmentally sensitive design. That environmental sensitivity can be the result of unusual susceptibility to noise or traffic such as along El Camino Real, or it can be such as in the foothills for other environmental reasons. In addition to the site and design review, all three lots do have variance requests accompanying them, anywhere from five to six minor variances for the site development requirements, primarily associated with the RM-15 requirements. The variances are needed to accommodate the residential uses as opposed to the commercial uses, with the exception of the front setback variance request, which is requesting anywhere from a 10- to 12-foot front setback rather than 25 feet. Staffis supportive of all of the variance requests because of the odd shape of the lots and the angle at which they sit to El Camino Real. The lots are actually quite shallow in comparison to other commercial and residential development sites. So we feel that it is virtually impossible to get the parking behind the buildings for any of the uses and still maintain that 25-foot front setback and some of the other development requirements. In addition to the unique shape of the sites, there is also a unique use associated with this project. The applicant has categorized this use as a live/work use which has an integral tie to the residential portion of this use from the commercial portion. So there is virtually no physical separation between those two uses. That is partially why staffis supporting the minor parking variances on two of the sites, one for two parking spaces and one for one. parking space, based on that unique use. A:IPCMins8IPC0910.reg Page 4 09-10-97 Staffis supporting the project overall because we do feel, as outlined in the staffreport, that it meets many of the housing and urban design environmental elements, objectives, goals and policies in the current Comprehensive Plan and that it does provide an environmentally sensitive design in that it does contribute to a reduction in trips and a reduced need for parking on the site. So we are in support of the variances, as well as the site and design application. Phillip Woods, the project planner, is here tonight. He did the background work, and he worked with the applicant on this project. That concludes the staffreport. Chairman Schink: We have at our places a memo dated September 10, "Reasons why the residences cannot be converted to offices." Has staff seen this memo? Ms. Grote: Yes, we have seen it, and that was prepared by the applicant. Chairman Schink: Are there questions for staff?. Commissioner Ojakian: I was going to ask a general question, and that was, I am curious about how long this CNiRM-15 relationship has been in place? Is this something we have had around for awhile, or are some of the restrictions that are in here things that are more recent? Mr. Schreiber: The inclusion of residential development potential and regulations in the commercial zones was part of the 1978 zoning ordinance. In the mid-1980s, the city redid its multiple-family zones, and that created the RM-15 regulations which were then substituted for the earlier regulations. So the actual combination of CN and RM-15 has existed for about ten to twelve years. Chairman Schink: Other questions for staft? Ms. Cauble: Mr. Chair, I do not know if planning staffwants to raise this tonight or will be working on language to go to council, but they are going to be proposing some minor changes in language to the BMR condition and the condition that requires the units to remain as live/work with a component of residential and commercial to ensure that that mixed use continues since, as Lisa pointed out, that is the basis for the variance. So there are going to be some minor recommended changes to that language. The BMR condition should note that prior to issuance of a building permit, an agreement that is recorded will be required to be signed in order to ensure compliance. So those are a couple of minor changes. If staffis not ready with the language tonight, it will go to the council. They are not substantive changes. We just wanted you to be aware that there is still a little bit of fine tuning to be done on those two conditions. Chairman Schink: Did you want to share some language with us tonight? Ms. Grote: I do have some draft language that I could read to you on the BMR requirement. It says that "In conformance with thecity’s below-market-rate requirements, Program 13, Housing Element, Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, a lump sum payment in lieu of provision of BMR A:IPCMins8IPC0910.reg Page 5 09-10-97 housing shall be paid to the city for deposk in the Housing Reserve Fund. This payment shall be calculated based on the actual sales value or the appraised fair market rental value of only the residential portion of the project, whichever is greater, and applying a rate of 3.25% times the value. An agreement satisfactory to the city attorney shall be prepared and executed by the project owner prior to the issuance of any building permits for the project." So that is a slight modification to what was in your report. On the live/work portion, under the ongoing conditions for the site and design conditions, Condition #5 of Attachment 8 would say, "The sites shall retain the residential component oft he project at all times, as shown on theplans dated June 5. 1997. No conversion os these areas to other uses shall be allowed. The interior connection between the living units and the work areas shall remain, and at least one occupant of the living unit shall work in the commercial space within the same building." Or you may want to say, "The interior connection between the living units and the work areas shall remain and not be rented separately." The two uses or two areas should not be rented separately. Chairman Schink: Other questions for sta~. Commissioner Cassel: Since this is a combined project, is there some reason why the Class One bicycle space could not be considered, the garage could not be considered that space so that you would not need the extra structure on the outside? Ms,. Grote: I would need to coordinate with the Transportation Planning Staff, but that is a possibility. I don’t think they have discussed that, to date. Commissioner Cassel: Usually, we have flee-standing for other reasons, but most garages will accommodate that space. Ms. Grote: I would need to check the interior dimension of the garage to see if it is big enough. I believe they need a two by six dimension or something like that for bicycle parking. We could coordinate with Transportation Planning on that. Commissioner Cassel: Also, you are reducing the parking some, but do we even need as many parking spaces as we are requiring? People will actually be living in the units, and it looked like if you dropped it two more spaces, you would meet the CN requirement and the whole site would be more comfortable. Ms.’Grot__e_e: The parking was calculated based on traditional parking requirements. That is, the commercial portion needed to be completely met, and the residential portion needed to be completely met. Then as a result, since they could not put all the spaces on the site and the use seemed to suggest that not that many spaces would really be needed, there is justification for a minor variance to the parking. Given the unique nature and the inexperience that we have with live/work, I do not know that you would want to reduce the parking even further. I don’t know A:IPCMins8[PC0910.reg Page 6 09-10-97 that there is justification for that. One or two spaces may make sense, because one or two people could be working in the work area on the first level. I don’t know that it would make sense to reduce it more than that. Chairman Schink: If there are no other questions, we will go to the applicant. Tony Carrasco, Carrasco & Associates, 120 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto: I am representing Hillview Land. Lisa has described to you more adequately than I can all of the complexities that are involved with this project, and Alex Lew who looked at the zoning issues will further describe the complexities and why we have come to the solution that we did. What we looked at here initially is whether this is an appropriate use for E1 Camino in general. That is why we decided to experiment with this project and bring it before you. As you can see, the residential portion of this project is only about 700 square feet per lot in the three lots. It is a time-consuming process, but I think it is an appropriate one. It may be that we can think about changing zoning ordinances down the road. Our motivation was experimental to see how this kind of product could work along El Carnino or in other parts of the city. We think that this is an appropriate transition from commercial to the residential behind it. It produces a barrier that decreases noise, and it transitions commercial to live/work to purely residential. Therefore, it is a good transition. The easy thing to have done would have been to just do a commercial project. It would have been uninteresting, but it would not have required any variances nor our coming before the Planning Commission. It would have been a simple ARB project. From a policy point of view, as I participated in the Comprehensive Plan, there seemed to be a lot of interest in doing something that is a little more elaborate and a little more interesting, and therefore, this project. So from your point of view, I felt you would ask, how would this residential portion of the project be enforced? How do you keep it residential? That would be the issue. From a building code point of view, it is impossible to change these units to commercial. That has been outlined in a report that is in front of you. If someone were to wake up in the morning and work on his lap top or design something on the terrace, that is almost an impossible thing to police, so that is a complication that you might need to worry about in approving a live/work project. I can go into the architecture later if you want to and have questions about it. It is a fairly modem kind of structure. The ARB had several comments about fine tuning and looking at walls and scaling them down by adding trellises, also color changes and material changes that are reflected on the colored elevations posted. Some of the ARB comments have been incorporated into that latest plan. At this point, I will turn this over to Alex to describe the complications on the zoning. Alex Lew, 1470 Dana Avenue, Palo Alto: A:lPCMins8lPC0910.reg Good evening.I am a designer for Carrasco & Page 7 09-10-97 Associates. I worked on the zoning aspects of this project. Tony is going to project some overhead transparencies that describe how we got to this point today with an explanation of why we are asking for certain variances. The site is zoned CN, and if we were to do all commercial, this is a typical plan that could be configured on the site with the parking in the rear. The next view shows that urban designwise, it would be just a solid, two-story wall facing El Camino. In the next view, what I added was a residential unit to the site following the requirements of RM-15. So once you add a residential use in the CN zone, you have to follow a lot of the RM-15 regulations. From a design point of view, we did not really like it. First of.all, urban designwise, I thought it was pretty terrible. There was a sound wall facing El Camino to provide the buffer for the residents..Also from a developer’s point of view, it was too small and was economically unfeasible. What we have today, after a lot of meetings with the zoning administrator and others, is to propose one unit in the rear of the site, and have the offices serve as the buffer to E1 Camino. Instead of the daylight plane and height restrictions in RM-15, what we have done is to provide courtyards which would have mutual access agreement between the properties. They will provide light and air in lieu of the daylight plane to the residents and the users of the office space. We think it is much more interesting from an urban design point of view, facing E1 Camino. The. variances that we are asking for are fairly minor in terms of the setbacks and the parking. It is a tight site and small lots with irregular shapes. This was pretty much the best way that we could fit in the maximum amount of use inside the most interesting spaces. That completes my presentation. Chairman Schink: Are there any questions? Commissioner Schmidt: I do not have any zoning questions, but Tony, would you explain how you envision that this would work? I believe in the ARB minutes, it says that it is envisioned that these units would be sold, so there would be individual owners for each of the three’units. Is it then envisioned that one person or a couple of people would live there, and there could be others who would also come and work there, as in a small architect’s firm or a small design firm, something of that nature? Mr. Carrasco: That is correct, Kathy. The intent is that some people would live there, or perhaps a family, but more likely, two individuals would share the living unit and would work in the office downstairs. Commissioner Schmidt: Then it is possible that other people would come in and work there also~ Mr. Carrasco: Yes, other people would come in and work there. Commissioner Schmidt: So therefore, having the parking in back is probably a reasonable thing. A:]PCMins8IPC0910.reg Page 8 09-10-97 Mr. Carrasco: Yes, the parking in the back is more for the people who work there. It is modeled after an office for a small architect or a software designer, someone who has a small office use that works a lot. Commissioner Schmidt: Would you also describe a little bit about the architecture and the differences that are shown on the colored elevations posted? I know that the ARB commented about the use of just a plain white building. It looks like it is no longer plain white, and there might be some variation in materials. Mr. Carrasco: I think the ARB spoke about important issues in that regard that first, from a practical point of view, they talked about stucco not being able to withstand the dust and grime of E1 Camino. That is a very good point, and we took that into consideration and toned the building down to a grayish beigy white rather than the pure white that we had before. They also talked " about differentiating the living space from the work space, so we have that rear part in shingles, making it feel a little bit more homey than the hard stucco that faces E1 Camino. In any event, staff also encouraged us to move the parking to the rear. That is another reason that causes us to move the buildings to the front and the easements behind to share that rear parking lot. It will probably be shared by the three businesses. Or it could be one business, Kathy. Commissioner Schmidt: So all three buildings could be one business? Mr, Carrasco: All three buildings could be bought by one company, or else by three companies. We have not really decided that. We think it is more geared to a small architect’s office or landscape architect’s office with about eight people working in each one of these buildings. That is the most likely market. Commissioner Schmidt: But it would be sold to whomever -wants to buy it, and use it per the live/work requirements. Commissioner Ojakian: Why don’t we continue on with this a little bit. I think you have somewhat alluded to my answer, and that is, what do you expect the demand to be on these units? Mr. Carrasco: Our gut feel’when we started this project was there are enough people out there who want small offices that are not being accommodated downtown becaflse of prices, etc. So I think there is a demand, but it is not a proven product right now in Palo Alto. In San Francisco, there is much more good data, but we do not have good data on how well this is going to work. Grace Wu is here, and she is a realtor who could probably answer that question better than I can. So I will turn it over to her. Grace Wu, 4168 King Arthur Court, Palo Alto: From my realtor viewpoint, after this article appeared in the newspaper, lots of people responded and were put on a waiting list. Several people in my office are bugging me as to when this project is going to be finished. A:IPCMins8IPC0910.reg Page 9 09-10-97 Commissioner Ojakian: be units for sale, Tony. Thank you.That answers my question.It sounds like these are going to Mr. Carrasco: Yes, most likely, but they could be rented. We have not done our homework in that regard yet to find out whether we can hold them or sell them. Commissioner Ojakian: But in either case, it sounds like you are willing to meet the BMR requirements. Mr. Carrasco: I just had a very brief c0nversation with Jim Gilliland, and as I understand it, it is the appraised value of the units at the back times 3.2%, and that is acceptable to me. I really do not know why three individual lots have to have a BMR requirement, but personally, as a developer, we are committed to the BMR program, and that is why we do not question it. Commissioner Ojakian: So you do not find that a hardship, per se? Mr. Carrasco: I do not know how to answer that question. We believe in the BMR program. Commissioner Cassel: The Architectural Review Board asked you to think about signage and how that would go. I know they had something to say on that, but I wondered if you have thought about that more. Mr. Carrasco: Most likely, this project will be used by small professional users, so I would imagine that the signage would be very minimal and 6n the door. It would be more address- driven than signage-driven, unless it is a small retail store, which we feel is unlikely. Commissioner Byrd: Tony, I would like to return to this issue of conversion. The arguments in the memo based both on the zoning and on the building code presume good faith compliance. As you know, code enforcement in our community is on a complaint basis only, so at a practical level, what is to prevent an owner who moves in in good faith and wants to do live/work and whose business succeeds so that he can now afford to buy a larger place elsewhere, to maintain this as his or her office and just quietly start using the residential portion as the executive office of the growing small business. Mr. Carrasco: Owen, I have thought about that issue from several different angles, and I have tried to find mechanisms that would prevent that, but I cannot come up with any. It is an experiment that needs to h~ve that question answered, but I do not have a good answer for it. Commissioner Byrd: Okay. Commissioner Schmidt: Along the line of what Owen has said, I am wondering if you have checked with projects in San Francisco where they have done live/work to see if they have created some way to maintain residents in a building like this. A:[PCMins8IPC0910 .reg Page 10 09-10-97 Mr. Carrasco: I have, Kathy, but the ones I have checked on are more the conventional live/work situation which is a loft type of unit, and the work part of it is incidental to the living part. This project is the opposite. It is a Silicon Valley type of place that is mainly work-oriented, and the living portion is incidental. Commissioner Cassel: I have one of our standard questions. Where does the transformer and the bacldlow preventer go? Mr. Carrasco: We still have to work those out with Public Works. We thought we would bring this concept through the commission and council, and work out those details with the Architectural Review Board. Chairman Schink: Seeing no other speakers, if Tony has no further comments in his five minutes allotted for rebuttal, I will close the public hearing and return this item to the commission. Are there questions for stat~. Commissioner Ojakian: Yes, I wanted to know from staffin looking at the work piece in this project, what is allowable? What types of businesses could go in here? What are the parameters? Ms. Grote: The types of businesses would be those that are allowed in the CN zone. So that is retail, professional office, personal service, which would be beauty and barber shops, etc., so it would be retail, office and personal service. Those parking requirements are met on the site. That is what the parking requirement was based on for that square footage. Commissioner Ojakian: So retail, professional office, barber shops, just general office. Commissioner Schmidt: I assume that since this is public heating, that neighbors were notified of this project. We observe that no one has shown up to say. anything about it. Ms. Grote: That is correct. Commissioner Cassel: I have a’ couple of picky things. Under construction times, you have listed the times for the commercial and the times for the residential. I feel that we have to pickone or the other. They are different, not by much, but I don’t think they are going to build the commercial separate from the residential. Ms. Cauble: That is just reciting what the code says, and it is an error. I think staffneeds to suggest whether they are recommending whether the residential or the commercial times be followed for this, given the location. Ms Grote: I would recommend that the commercial times be followed, given the location, and also, that is the predominant use of the buildings. A:lPCMins8lPC0910.reg Page 11 09-10-97 Ms. Cauble: If the commission goes with that recommendation, what you would do would be to strike the last sentence of Condition #53. Commissioner Cassel.: Is it possible, if you do not take those two parking spaces and eliminate them entirely, that you could put them in a reserve area so that they could be used if you needed them? Ms. Grote: I don’t believe there is any area available for reserve. Commissioner Cassel: You would just. take the parking spaces and reserve them in some other format. Ms. Grot~e: So you would be reducing it even further than what is on the site now? Commissioner Cassel: Right. Ms. Grote: Based on the previous discussion, I would not recommend that. I don’t think we have enough data to show that they need even fewer than what they have shown. I think one or two is reasonable, given the residential or live/work component, but I would not recommend reducing it any further. Commissioner Cassel: Okay. Chairman Schink: I have a question for staff, and maybe Ken could put it into historic perspective about other mixed use projects which have had some shared parking relationships. I know it has been allowed in the past on projects such as Palo Alto Central where you allowed the residential units to piggyback on some of the commercial, and I think there may be a few other examples. Have we found that to be problematic, or has it worked out? Mr. Schreiber: The situations that we have had primarily occurred in the late 1970s and early 1980s, and they involved primarily residential and office. At California Avenue and Park Boulevard, you have a situation where there is some retail as well as office and residential. Those situations have tended to work. With the mixed use projects on Forest, which are predominantly office and residential, the parking demands between the residential and the office tend to offset each other timewise, somewhat. You do not have a large weekend and evening office parking requirement. I am not aware of any complaints about those projects. With the California Avenue and Park Boulevard location, you have some overflow parking area that is technically distinct from the CalTrain parking lot. Again, that situation seems to be working well, at least, I am not aware of any complaints in those areas. Those are all larger projects, which probably gives more flexibility in terms of uses, hours, etc. There is the possibility that when you have a more intense use, it is balanced-out by a less intense use. A:IPCMins8[PC0910.reg Page 12 09-10-97 What we are talking about tonight are, of course, much smaller facilities. The staff still feels that the parking can work, but we do fed that the amounts we are talking about really are the minimum amounts, and should not be reduced further because of the potential to have the conflicts, and also, if there are conflicts, you have easily available neighborhood parking. We do not want to create a situation of an actual or perceived parking shortfall, because it will encourage people to park in the ndghborhood. Chairman Schink: Let us begin the discussion of the project. Commissioner Bialson: I find this to be a very interesting project, and I would like to support it. I do think that it is somewhat experimental in our area. You do have some unusual sites here which are, as you described, tight with small lots and strange shapes. I think it would add to the vitality of this area of E1 Camino, which is very much needed, and I think it is going to provide some visual interest for the people who walk. Hopefully, we will have more pedestrians on E1 Camino as a result of the project, and for those who drive down E1 Camino. I think the risk of having the living spaces converted sometime in the future, as Commissioner Byrd mentioned, is there, but if this is a desirable place to live (and I think that it is, due to its proximity to the residential areas and proximity to the services on California Avenue, a number of factors,) I think this project, more so than other live/work projects that I have thought about as being appropriate for other sites, is one where the live/work concept is viable. So we do have to look at putting these projects where we might have more difficulty having things that are, say, just office space or CN space, and just having the boxes as Tony described, as you drove along E1 Camino, would not necessarily be attractive. I don’t think they would add very much to the vitality of the city, so I would like to support the project, and I find it to be quite a commendable project. Commissioner Byrd: I think the project involves a leap of faith, and one that is well worth making. I am extremely supportive. I think the opportunities presented to meet a range of Comprehensive Plan goals, from Transportation to Housing to Community Building, is substantial. I purposely wanted to ask the applicant the question to see if the conversion issue can be made bulletproof, and it cannot. I think we need to go ahead and support the project with the clear understanding that the risk is well worth taking because of the other potential benefits. I think Ms. Wu’s statement about the level of interest already expressed suggests the demand that. is out there in the marketplace. I hop~ that if this project can be a pioneer and help demonstrate to other developers that there is demand, we may see more clever designs like this allowing for live/work opportunities dsewhere in the community. So I think the developer should be congratulated on leading the charge. Commissioner Schmidt: I, too, support the project and agree with the comments made by Commissioners Bialson and Byrd... There is somewhat of a leap of faith, as Owen noted, with a project that is slightly different from traditional live/work. It is more an individual living and working in a combined open space. This, as Tony noted, is more work with live as an accessory. A:lPCMins8lPC0910.reg Page 13 09-10-97 But I agree that it is a risk well worth taking to try this. It could be quite a.unique and very desirable thing in Silicon Valley, especially in the climate that we have at the moment where people are clamoring for both work space and residential in Palo Alto. So I would think it would be well worth trying. I also very much like the design of it. I am happy to see something other than Spanish, as I often say. This is very nicely done, and I also am happy to see the response to the ARB comments that a pure white building might indeed have been a bit stark in that environment. With some of the tones that are shown now and some variation in materials, I think this will be quite appropriate. This is definitely a nice transition. The area surrounding has both residential and commercial. It has Stanford across the street, which is more residential, and people living and working in this location will actually have lovely views out in many directions, especially on the upper levels. There are mature trees all around, and the sickly privet trees will be removed, which is nice, and more sycamores will be added. There are a couple of beautiful sycamores on the site already, so I think it will be quite a nice place. I really like the human scale of the project. I am glad that we have discussed the parking issue. I like the possibility of reducing the parking, but since we do not know quite how this project will work, I think it is reasonable to leave the amount of parking that is there. Perhaps as these projects are used and after awhile, very little of the parking is needed, it seems like the owners could come back and request a change for a reduction of parking. I also like Phyllis’ question about whether the bicycle parking could possibly be accommodated in the garage. It would be nice not to have bicycle lockers in front of the buildings. They are never extremely attractive features, even though these would be hidden by landscaping and fencing, but I think it would be nice if we did not have to have them. Again, it is nice to have an interesting project like this come to us and not have any opposition whatsoever. So good luck. Commissioner Ojakian: I agree with Annette, Owen and Kathy. It is AOK. To add onto a few of the comments, one of the things I like about this project is that it is a project on E1 Camino. All of a sudden, after several years of not seeing things happening on El Camino, we have had sort of atrickle-through of different projects, including this one. This is a really attractive project, so it will be easy for me to support it. The reason why I asked the question about the zoning at the beginning of this is, when we look at areas like E1 Camino where it has been to build, we need to sometimes reflect on what we do require of people, and maybe step back and say to ourselves that certain areas of the town are different from others, and maybe we need to adjust our rules to conform with that so we can get different projects in that meet some of the other needs or demands that we have in the community. Although that is not an issue tonight, it is just something to think about. I am glad Owen raised the question about the living space and whether it would remain live space or not. In some ways, the ball is back in the applicant’s court, because there are some people, I A:IPCMins8IPC0910.reg Page 14 09-10-97 think, in this community who look and say, yeah, live/work, and it is just all going to be work. That is a concept that is being misrepresented, and maybe it shouldn’t happen, so I am hoping the applicant, especially knowing the applicant, that you step forward and make this work, because I think it is important to us to show that it can work. I am happy to hear about the demand. It did not surprise me, but it is nice to know that and hear that. As a little aside, and maybe this is a little politics in here, a little while back, we talked about BMR units and we got into the whole discussion about whether a BMR requirement should apply to three units or greater. Here is an example of where we are able to get a project built, and yet, the applicant is willing to meet the BMR. units, and he seems to think that that is still a profitable project to pull off, so I am actually happy to see that. On the issue of parking, I would agree with what Kathy just said. I think we need to leave the parking the way it is, especially in light of some of the possible uses we could have in the work area. I think we need to be safe instead of sorry. As a final comment sort of on a personal level, having myself been partially raised in the back room of a store in a little live area that my parents built in their business, thinking about the barber shop down the street from where I grew up, which was a setup where the barber shop was in front and the family, which was a family with six children, lived in the back. I know these types of arrangements can work, and in some ways, they are very enriching, so I am happy to see this happen. MOTION: Commissioner Cassel: i move the staff recommendation with the following changes: that we include the draft language that was proposed by Lisa for the BMR unit; that we allow the garages to be considered the equivalent of a Class One bicycle space, providing the square footage is there to do that. SECOND: By Commissioner Ojakian. Also under Condition #53, we delete the last sentence that the city attorney suggested. Chairman Schink: Is that acceptable to the maker of the motion? Commissioner Cassel: Yes, it is. Chairman Schink: Is there any further discussion on this motion? Commissioner Cassel: I support the project for all of the reasons that all of you have already done in your discussion. Regarding the parking, I thought we probably did not need the other two spaces that would make it a little easier on the site, but I am willing to go ahead with what you saying, that this is the first time we have done it and that the parking spaces have already been worked out, so let’s run with it and see what happens. A:[PCMins8[PC0910.reg Page 15 09-10-97 In doing the findings, I am a little uncomfortable with using the 50 feet on a narrow lot, but I agree with all of the findings and I can make all of the findings for this, based on the fact that we would really like to have this site meet the El Camino guidelines. We have been forcing them to meet our E1 Camino guidelines, and they cannot possibly put the parking in, so in terms of language, every time we say a lot is narrow for 50 feet, I get uncomfortable, because we have plenty of 50-foot-wide lots, but the lot is skewed, and it is positioned strangely, and we would like this to meet the El Camino guidelines, so the city is, in fact, forcing us to allow some variances to make this project work. And that is good. I am delighted with it. Commissioner Byrd: I would just like..to state for the record on the subject of findings that I, and I presume my fellow commissioners, have reviewed the site and design findings, the variance findings and conditions of project approval, and I certainly find them adequate for the project as stated. One final thought is that someone on the applicant team mentioned the challenges here posed by the zoning for a new type of development. We will be embarking upon rewriting our zoning code sometime in the near future, whenever the Comprehensive Plan is completed at the council. We hope that your office would be willing to lend some expertise when we get around to this subject, as there is clearly enthusiasm for this kind of development. We look forward to having you involved. 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 6-0 with Commissioner Beecham absent. A:[PCMinsS]PC0910.reg Page 16 09-10-97 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD HEARING September 18, 1997 Attachment 8 1865-1885-1895 EL CAMINO REAL Carrasco & Associates 97-ARB-118 97-EIA-12 97-V-14 Application for Architectural Review Board review and recommendation to the City Council for a site and design application to construct three mixed use commercial/residential buildings for a total of 10,450 square feet, 22 parking spaces, landscaping and related site improvements. Variances required on each parcel for an arterial front yard setback, side yard setback, open space, perimeter landscaping, interior landscaping for parking area and parking spaces. Environmental assessment: A negative declaration has been prepared. Chairman Ross: Are there any additional staff comments? (None) Any questions for staff?. Mr. McFall: I have one regarding the Planning Commission action. In your September 18 memo, you mention that they discussed the issue that the residential component could be converted to office space. I would anticipate that to mean that there would be additional parking requirements in that case. Then later on, there was discussion at the Planning Commission about the fact that because it has a residential component in the project, the need for parking is less than would otherwise be required. Those two statements seem to conflict with each other. Ms. Grote: The commission Was discussing whether or not that residential space could conceivably be converted to office space. They did not support it. They want it to remain as residential space. There are conditions in here that attempt to control use to make sure that it does remain residential, however, the commission did acknowledge that there was no way to absolutely guarantee that this would always remain as residential space. One of the things that could prevent it from being converted is the fact that the parking ratio would go up, and if someone came in for a variance in the future, that could be grounds for denial of the variance. Mr. McFall: A variance for what? Ms. Grote: A variance for parking. They would need more parking, so if they wanted to, say, convert toan office use and came in for a further reduction in the parking requirement through a variance, we could deny it. Mr. McFall: But the reality is that they will just stop living there and start working there and won’t ask anybody for a variance. Mr. Woods: Theoretically, there should be a city review if the use were to change. 1865ECR.drf Page 1 Ms. Grot+: That is correct. And there would always be a review of the building permit if they were going to convert space inside. It is not absolutely assured that it would not convert, but we have tried to build in conditions that would prevent it from converting. That was the discussion that the Planning Commission had. They were in no way in support of its ever converting. Chairman Ross: So Item 5 of Attachment #8 was modified by the Planning Commission to include a condition that prohibits the conversion of the living unit to commercial use. What you are saying is, that they are not personally concerned. Enforcement would only be through an application for something, whether it be an interior building permit to turn a bedroom into an office, or if someone wanted to make this into a conversion and actually came in for a use permit, that would trigger a review, and it would be denied, based on this condition. I assume this is purely for parking reasons. As I understand it, the residential component is not the required component in this. Ms. Grote: It is an allowed component in the zoning but it is not required. The parking variance is to reduce minimally parking on two lots. One lot is two spaces short, but it is to reduce the number if you use the traditional method of calculating parking because of the live/work component. There are grounds to do that because of the mixed use component, and because of the live/work component. Chairman Ross: And not just because of the living space and commercial space but that in fact, at least one occupant in the living unit will work in the. commercial space within the same building. That will be tough to enforce, I would .think. Ms. Grote: It will be. It does come with a certain amount of faith that the user of the building will do this. Chairman Ross: It would seem that the~e are strong incentives to do so. Mr. Alfonso: The issue of adding to what would then be an existing residential space, such as the owner would want to enclose the outdoor patio, for additional interior living space. Ms. Grote: They still need outdoor, usable, private open space. They would have to show us that there is someplace else on the site to put that open space. Mr. Alfonso: We had this same type of application for a porch recently. Mr. Peterson: What if this goes the other way -- the office portion goes away, and they occupy it for living space. Ms. Grote: Parking would depend upon the number of bedrooms. It is likely that parking would be met for a residential use. 1865ECR.drf Page 2 Chairman Ross: If there are no further questions, we will have the presentation. Tony Carrasco, 120 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto: I am representing the applicant this morning. I will go over the comments you have made individually, but first;I have three overriding issues or comments. The first relates to a softer building and softer landscaping. We have added landscaping along E1 Camino, putting a hedge in front of the landscaped wall. We have added landscaping along the rear vertical walls where we have a lattice and vines that will grow up on some of the walls. The second issue was articulating volumes and creating a more residential feel for the residential portion of the building so that it felt comfortable to walk into and live there. In that regard, we have changed the rear portion of the building, the residential portion, to a stained wood siding to be more compatible with the Sundance Mine Company building, not that is residential, but it maintains the feeling of wood that occurs along there. Lastly, the third major comment seemed to be the access into the parking lot and an inability to make turns. We have made rams into the parking lot because of the Z curve. We have explored with the adjacent neighborhood the possibility of relocating that traffic barrier, but with no success. It turns out that the property owner on the right hand side just east of the barrier backs out onto the street, and he could not make the turn with the cars that occupy that space. It turns out that is the only way he can access his property, by backing out. So we have to leave the traffic barrier there. We have worked with the transportation department, and we have resolved backup and turning space to their satisfaction. That shows up on the drawing posted. I can now go over individual issues, starting with Mr. Peterson. I believe that the landscaping is crucial, and I believe we covered that issue, having added a hedge and ground cover and street trees that are larger than the ones shown earlier. The street trees on E1 Camino are sycamores, and we believe that to be a good tree, and it is specified for E1 Camino. We want it to grow fast. We have increased the size of the tree we were going to put in there, because it faces west, particularly in summer, and the shade is needed on that fagade. You talked about the variety of color. We looked at the interior courtyard being of a slightly warmer color, and we therefore changed the color from white to an off white or a neutral, somewhat darker color, more of a gray tone, as I believe Frank suggested. Mr. McFall talked about the idea of the raised outdoor space, and you supported that idea. There was a concern on the part of staff that we could not make the sound calculation. We talked to Charles Salter’s office, and they suggested a detail that will mitigate the sound in the outdoor open space. I will pass that out for you to see. You were also concerned about the plain white box. We have articulated that in terms of color and landscaping. 1865ECR.drf Page 3 You wanted to see more landscaping in the back of the parking lot, and we have added that, as well. You felt that parking was too tight, and we have worked on that with the transportation division, and it meets with their approval at this point. Ms. Piha talked about encouraging a sign program. We have incorporated a sign program. We believe that the project will most likely be identified by the street number, and that is described on the elevation before you. You were also concerned about the white stucco, and we have changed that white stucco to a slightly darker color. Mr. Alfonso talked about variation in color, and we have covered that issue in the previous responses. Frank was concerned about the entries from the parking lot, and you talked about scaling down some of those entries. We are looking at a way to add a trellis, although we are not totally comfortable with adding a trellis at this point, but we are still looking at that issue, and we .may bring that back to you in detail. You also talked about caring about detail, as Jim did. We are looking at recessed windows, using a modem aesthetic, the aesthetic of simple forms with very little ins and outs. and projections and stuff. We want deeply recessed windows, and that shows up on the drawings in front of you. In all cases, we have moved that window wall farther inside than is usual for buildings, six to nine inches from the exterior surface. Chairman Ross talked about the white color of the building, and we have changed that. He also talked about the roofs being made of zinc, and we are looking at that. At the very least, it will be a metal roof with the zinc color. That completes my responses.. If you have questions, I could talk about the issue relating to the residential, but I believe Lisa has covered it with the Planning Commission. Chairman Ross: Are there any questions? Mr. Peterson: Tony, for clarification, regarding the entry in the patios, is this one shared? Mr. Carrasco: One is a single, and the other one is shared. The reason is that for the one that is not shared, the access also happens from the Leland side of that building. Mr. Peterson: On the paving material in both the courtyards and in the drive area, what do you plan for that? 1865ECR.drf Page 4 Mr. Carrasco: We do not know yet. I’m sorry. It will be some paving stone. It is a natural material, not asphalt. Mr. Peterson: Also, have you thought about incorporating some sense of pedestrian level materials here at the back? Mr. Carrasco: That is a good idea. We have not thought about that, and we should. Mr. Peterson: You briefly discussed the parking issue. I don’t know what choice you have, but are you satisfied that it will work? It seems to me to be very difficult to get in and out of there. Mr. Carrasco: We are still hoping to work with the neighborhood to come out directly, but it was not possible to get a conclusion on that one before coming to you today. We will continue to work on that issue. We still feel, as staff does, that it is important to keep parking at the back, so we will keep working on that issue. Mr. Peterson: Somewhat related to that, I notice you have some bollards here. Do you have other street furniture, and what do those bollards look like? There are some on that comer. Mr. Carrasco: It is just a typical bollard to protect the comer of the building from a vehicle getting too close to it. Mr. Peterson: I thought I saw some others here. What do those look like? Mr. Carrasco: I believe they are on the detail sheet that you have. If not, we can bring that back to you in the final landscape plan. Mr. Peterson: Also, how about the roofing materials? Mr. Carrasco: The roofing material is going to be a dark metal. For the zinc, we may have to get some of Dave Ross’ advice on the cost of zinc. It will definitely be a metal roof. Mr. McFall: There is a sun shade on the E1 Camino side at the second floor level. Can you describe that? Mr. Carrasco: That is an awning to cut out the sun, and it is painted steel. Mr. Alfonso: Tony, in this elevation, as it rams the comer, I notice that there is a change in material at the comer of the windows. Is that intended to simply stop within this realm, or is it intended to wrap around the comer. Mr. Carrasco: It will stop right at the stucco. It is just that little piece. 1865ECR.drf Page 5 Mr. Alfonso: Also, you mentioned that you were looking at ways to handle some of this scaling and canopying in these back areas. What things have you looked at there? Mr. Carrasco: We have looked at adding landscaping along the back wall. We were looking at adding a trellis at about two-thirds of the way up, either a metal trellis or a wood trellis that scales it down as you walk through that space, and similarly on this other end. We have not come to any detailing kind of conclusions. It mostly likely could look like the metal awning that sits outside that Jim asked about, but we are not totally comfortable with that. Mr. Alfonso: Have you looked at having the element to identify the pedestrian entrance? Also with respect to the paving, the landscape plan shows articulated paving shown up to this point. Can you describe this area here? Why stop there with this paving material? Mr. Carrasco.: I think that is the same point that Mr. Peterson brought up. We looked at that paving turning around the entire edge of the building. Mr. Alfonso: Were other things besides fountains considered for these courtyards? Mr. Carrasco: Yes, we looked at the idea of putting in a lacy, open leafed tree. We eventually decided that a fountain would be more appropriate, given the noise of El Camino and given the height of those walls, there would be enough shade in that courtyard so as to not need a tree. Mr. McFall: I want to ask about the sunshade color. Mr. Carrasco: We thought about it as being painted white, but again, we do not have a real handle on the colors of all of the details yet, and we probably should come back to you with those in the final landscape plan. Mr. McFall: In your color scheme, you showed the siding, and then the wall color, and then it says, "window color below." Is the window frame color to be the same as the wall color? Mr. Carrasco: No, the window frame is black. That is one point we are certain about! Chairman Ross: You have some pretty good trees in the parking lot at the rear. I guess they are Chinese Pistache? In almost exactly the same location in the parking lot, there are lighting standards, and thehead has a 12-foot height. I am wondering if you are concemed about the canopy of the tree and the light head competing with each other? And a related question that I will also ask about now is, I notice that some of the lighting levels there are up to five foot candles. That is pretty high, a lot higher than one. I wondered if you would comment on that. Mr. Carrasco: Alex did that! Chairman Ross: Two overlaps at two or two overlaps at three is pretty intense. Since they are right 1865ECR.drf Page 6 there in the tree canopy, that will cut down some on that. So what about the trees versus the lights? Mr. Carrasco: I think we will need to look at that again, too. Sorry about that. I have not reviewed the lighting pattern. We usually give it to an electrical engineer, because the conditions that you guys have imposed are so technical, rather than the average of one foot candle, which would be a better way to handle it. We would like to bring it down to that one foot candle average. Chairman Ross: This is somewhere between three and four. Mr. Carrasco: Yes, that is too bright. People will not be able to sleep. Chairman Ross: Related to that, would it possibly be appropriate in this setting to put those on a timer? Even fairly modest lighting there is likely to be brighter than E1 Camino. It is introducing it between two residential areas that are fairly close to each other. Maybe when you review that, you can take into consideration not having them on in the wee hours of the night. That is my only question. Are there any other questions? (None) Then I will open the public hearing and ask if there is anyone present to speak to this item. Eric Mortensen, 1236 Sargent Drive, Sunnyvale: I am the son of the owner of 441 to 447 Leland. I am representing him because he is out of town. I just wanted some clarification, after hearing Tony’s presentation. It sounds like the two triangular-shaped barriers at present are not going to be relocated, or are they still considering the different options on moving them and using a different style? Chairman Ross: The application in front of us is to not move them and to work around them. Mr. Mortensen: So there is no consideration for moving them or redesigning them at the present time? Chairman Ross: That is not part of the application we are .reviewing. That does not mean that it will not change in the future. Mr. Mortensen: I see. Thank you. Chairman Ross: Chairman Schink: Seeing no other speakers, I will close the public hearing and return this item to the board for comments. Ms. Piha: I really appreciate your response to all of the things we have talked about. Everything looks great. The part I am really excited about is the introduction of the wood material along with the stucco. I think that will go a long ways toward softening the building and creating a residential feel. My only one suggestion, which I would not make as a condition, is that I think the color transition shown in the rendering is more successful than what you actually have on the sample board. I think the sample board should reflect this. I think the rendering is more successful, but that 1865ECR.drf Page 7 is my only suggestion. Everything else looks great, and I certainly support the project. Mr. Peterson: It is a great concept, and I think the building forms are very handsome. The materials look very nice. I think that the zinc roof, and will look great on the building. I would encourage you to look at pedestrian materials at the back parking lot. I am sure you have already looked at that, but I do not have a full picture of what all of those colors will look like. I am not particularly worried about them, but I think we would like to see them. I am in complete support of this project. Mr. McFall: We have not discussed the issue of variances, of which there are a number that are required. The staff report indicates that there is only one that is not a result of the residential use. On that basis, I think because of the housing component, I certainly support the requested variances. I am appreciative of having housing here. I think the live/work concept is great, and I expect that is going to happen and will stay that way. I share the other comments you have heard regarding the architecture. I am excited about the geometric forms, the contemporary approach, and I would echo cheryl’s comment regarding color. I think that does need some attention. One other comment regarding trim, specifically the sun shade, as well as the window frames and hardware, which I had mentioned detailing in my earlier comments. In that reference, my thought is that that is how you get a little bit of sparkle. When there is a certain finish on the hardware, or the sun shades are in contrast to the wall color, again, I would not want to see everything being six shades of the same color. There is an opportunity there to accent it with perhaps a metal awning of a metal color, as well as the door and window hardware. I very much support the project. Mr. Alfonso: I think this is a very nice project, and I appreciate your coming before us previously, Tony, taking our comments and incorporating them as you have. I think the inclusion of this second material as shown here is really quite successful. It is hard for me to tell (and it is always difficult to tell) what this particular color combination will look like on site, not having the benefit of sunlight on it here. I don’t think it is going to be as contrasty as it appears on the material board here, once you have sunlight on it. At any rate, in general, I like the materials that are being proposed. There really is nothing else I can think of to contribute, other than perhaps some suggestions on a way to handle the trellis. One of the things you have done that has really opened a door to a new possibility is that as an outgrowth of this material, you may want to consider coming off of the building itself at the same or different heights with a cantilevered sort of canopy as an outgrowth of the wood material. It would not necessarily span all the way across but just enough to suggest a sense of an outdoor feeling. If you reduce the span, the longevity will be better. I think the opportunity of the wood material lends that possibility. I concur with Bob that it is really important that the perimeter of the building be treated in a flat work that is a little more articulate. I personally feel that it should be on some sort of a concrete base, as it does tend to wobble, especially if you are using brick or any other type of pavers. 1865ECR.drf Page 8 With respect to the courtyard features, I do not have any trouble with the fountain, although I do think it should be limited to a non-spray type, primarily something that would just create sound. Unfortunately, dark areas are not great places for water features, because you do not get the sparkle of the water, and it tends to feel a little cold, although I understand the concept of the sound. I cannot think of anything else rather than a non-spray or a non-jet type of fountain. In general, I am in support of the project, and feel it will be a wonderful addition to this site. It really looks good. Chairman Ross: This is a great concept, and well executed. Like my colleagues, I am very pleased with the wayyou used the preliminary review. It was a good project before, and it has improved. k is very nice. I think the fountains are a good idea, for the reason you have stated. I agree with Frank that it be something that is less formal, more like a babbling brook sort of thing, which would really help mask the El Camino noise and be very successful. On the zinc roofing, I happen to like that, but I am not trying to enforce something, as you know, since you have sathere. One thing you may take a look at there, and I don’t know how this is going through the process, but I think there are some upcoming restrictions on the use of unsealed, natural metal roofing products like copper and zinc, because of a concern over adding those metallic ions to the water runoffto the bay, although I have not seen any scientific study on that, and do not know if there is one. That doesn’t mean that you cannot have something that is sealed, but then you lose the natural weathering effect, which makes those natural materials so wonderful. I don’t know if there are actual policies or guidelines on that yet. Ms. Grote: There is nothing in place yet, but there is strong discouragement. Chairman Ross: Strong encouragement from me, but strong discouragement from the environmental portion of the staff. I like the landscaping a lot, as well as the hardscaping that you are do. I agree with Bob and Frank that it can only improve if you do a little refinement on the hardscape fiat work and keep the perimeters of the building landscaped. I know that you will review the exterior lighting levels and coordinate with the landscape. I think it is a very excitit~g project. MOTION: Chairman Ross: I will therefore make a motion for approval, with some conditions. I have to confess I have not studied the staff conditions, so maybe the rest of you can help me out with them. They all seem to be appropriate. First of all, there are a number of variance requests here. I will make a lump recommendation in support of all of the findings for all of the variances that are required. I think they are very much in keeping with the nature of this development, and actually improve the project well beyond what would be possible if the variances were not granted. These are very self-supporting variances. Items to return for this board’s review would be the exterior 1865ECR.drf Page 9 lighting, any trellis or sun shade detail refinements, and refinements for fiat work design. Mr. Peterson: Maybe colors? Chairman Ross: No, I do not mind having stafflook at those. I feel like Frank does, that it is a little hard to predict. I do not have a problem with these colors. Ms. Piha: I don’t think they need to come back, either. Chairman Ross: So let’s not make that a condition. Maybe the appropriate thing to do down the line would be to take a look at some samples in the field, if you wanted that feedback. That was particularly successful in one of the other projects where we all discovered that there was a better color scheme available than the one that we thought worked well in this room. So if you were willing to do that, I would not make it a requirement, but just a suggestion that the final color selection be reviewed in the field. SECOND: By Board member Piha. MOTION PASSES: Chairman Ross: Is there any further discussion on this motion? All those in favor, say aye. That passes unanimously. We really look forward to seeing this. 1865ECR.drf Page 10