Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 155-06TO: FROM: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL CITY MANAGER 7 DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DATE: SUBJECT: MARCH 13, 2006 CMR: 155:06 260 HOMER AVENUE [05-PLN-00383]: REQUEST BY MARTIN PARISSENTI, BKF ENGINEERS ON BEHALF OF TALL TREE PARTNERS I, LLC FOR A TENTATIVE MAP FOR A PROPOSED MIXED-USE INFILL DEVELOPMENT. THIS MAP IS REQUIRED IN ORDER TO MERGE FIVE PARCELS INTO ONE PARCEL (APPROXIMATELY .71 ACRES) FOR A MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT WITH COMMERCIAL OFFICE USE ON THE GROUND AND SECOND FLOORS, AND FOUR RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM UNITS ON THE THIRD FLOOR. AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) WAS PREPARED FOR THE SOFA CAP INCLUDING THIS PROJECT. RECOMMENDATION Staff and the Plamaing and Transportation Commission (PTC) recommend the City Council approve the proposed Tentative Map to merge five parcels (approximately .71 acres) and create one parcel for a mixed-use development with commercial office use on the ~ound floor and second floors, and four residential condominium units on the third floor, based upon the findings and conditions contained within the Record of Land Use Action (Attachment A). COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION At the public hearing held on Wednesday, February 8, 2006, the PTC voted (6-0-0-1) to accept staff’s recommendation with additional conditions. No members of the public provided testimony. Staff responded to questions asked by the Commission. Prior to the PTC meeting, staff received questions emailed from Commissioner Cassel. Answers to the questions were provided in staff’s oral report to the Commission at the meeting. Modifications were made to the recommended Conditions of Approval, contained ~vithin Section 6 of the Record of Land Use Action document. The PTC staff report and meeting minutes for this hearing have been provided as Attachments B and C. CMR:140:05 Page 1 of 2 DISCUSSION The City Council must approve the Tentative Map as long as the map, the design, and the improvement are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, as long as the site is physically suitable for the type and density of development, as long as the subdivision and the proposed improvements are not likely to cause environmental damage or serious public health problems, and as long as the subdivision or the proposed improvements will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large. The following items have been provided for the Council as background information: o ARB architectural plans for informational purposes only (Attachment D) to aid in the review of the Tentative Map plan set; and . TentativeMapplanset(Attachmentt~). , /1~’~ ~ Contract Planner DEPARTMENT HEAD: CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: STEVE Director of Planning and Community Environment EMIL~ HARRISON ~ Assistant City Manager ATTACHMENTS A.Record of Land Use Action B.Plamaing and Transportation Commission Staff Report dated February 9, 2006 (w/o attachments) C.Planning and Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes Excerpt dated February 9, 2006 D.ARB plans (Council Members Only) E.Vesting Tentative Map (Council Members Only) COURTESY COPIES: Martin Parissenti, BKF Engineers, Project Applicant Jane Vaughan, Tall Trees Partners I, Property O~vner CMR: 140:05 Page 2 of 2 ATTACHMENT A APPROVAL NO. 2006-? RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO LAND USE ACTION FOR 260 HOMER AVENTJE: TENTATIVE MAP 05-PLN-00383 (BKF ENGINEERS, APPLICANT/TALL TREE PARTNERS I, LLC, PROPERTY OWNER) At its meeting on March 13, 2006, the City Council of the City of Palo Alto approved the Tentative Map to merge five parcels into one parce! approximately .71 acres) and create a mixed-used office and residential deve!opment with four condominium units, making the following findings, determination and declarations: SECTION I. Background. The City Council of the City of Pa!o Alto ("City Counci!") finds, determines, and declares as follows: A. Proposed by Tall Tree Partners I, LLC, this project involves merging the five existing parcels into one developable site, the demolition of the existing buildings, and the construction of one office building and four condominium units. The density of this residential infill development would be 5.71 dwelling per acre, under the maximum limitation set by the AMF/MUO (Attached Multiple Family Residentia! with Mixed Use Overlay zone district) per the South of Forest Area (SOFA) Coordinated Area Plan Phase I. Three (3) separate floor plans are proposed within the four multi-unit condominium building. The building houses one floor of residentia! units and two floors of commercial office use above the underground garage. The overal! height of the building proposed is 41’-2" at the top of parapet and 44’-6" at top of tower, within the maximum height limit of 45 feet, and the non- residential portion of the building is proposed at 29 feet to the top of offices where 30 feet is the maximum allowed by the zone district. The unit sizes, proposed one and two bedrooms, range from the smallest at 1,390 square feet to the largest at 2,126 square feet. B. The Tentative Map plan set includes information on the existing parcels and onsite conditions (Sheet 2); the layout of the merged parcels into one new parcel (Sheet 3); proposed site and grading with building footprint, driveway, curb and gutter, accessible ramp, and sidewalk (Sheet 4); and proposed utilities (Sheet 5). These drawings are in compliance with the applicable provisions of the City’s Subdivision Ordinance. These plans contain all information and notations required to be shown on a Tentative Map (per PAMC Sections 21.12 and 21.13), as well as conform to the design requirements concerning the creation of a !ot, streets, walkways, and similar features (PAMC 21.20). The plan set also conforms to the approved Architectural Review Board/ Historic Resources SOFA Board approved site plan, provided as reference (see Attachment E) . Because the request is to construct office space and four condominium units, this request cannot be processed administratively through the Director and requires review by the Planning and Transportation Commission (Commission) and City Counci! approval (PAMC 21.08.010). C. Architectura! Resources Board/Historic Resources SOFA Board approval, granted by the Director on December 5, 2005, addressed the project’s compliance with zoning and architectura! regulations. The Tentative Map application has been reviewed by staff and City departments for compliance with zoning, subdivision, and other codes and ordinances and received Commission review on February 8, 2006. The Commission recommended approval on a 6-0-0- l(Sandas absent) vote. SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The City as the lead agency prepared an Environmenta! Impact Report (EIR) for the South of Forest Area (SOFA) Coordinated Area Plan. The EIR was reviewed and certified by the City Council on March 27, 2000. This project, as proposed, has been reviewed in comparison with the project that was evaluated in the EIR. It has been determined that the proposed project is consistent with that evaluated in the EIR. SECTION 3. Tentative Map Findings. A legislative body of a city shall deny approval of a Tentative Map, if it makes any of the fol!owing findings (California Government Code Section 66474): i. That the proposed map is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans as specified in Section 65451: The site lies within the South of Forest Area (SOFA) Coordinated Area Plan and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the SOFA Coordinated Area Plan. 2. That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans : The map is consistent with Comprehensive Plan policies related to the change in land use (housing element and policies L- 8, L-9, L-25, L-48, L-49, H-2, H-4, and B-21) . In addition, this design furthers the intent of the South of Forest Area (SOFA) Coordinated Area Plan policies related to land use, open space, housing, aesthetics, public right-of-way design, street trees, 2 historic resources, and building design (policies L-2, L-6, L-8, H- I, H-I!, T-7, T-!7, DC-3, DC-8, DC-19, DC-21, and D-22) . 3. That the site is not physically suitable for the type of devel opmen t : The site is located within the South of Forest Area (SOFA) Coordinated Area Plan, with existing development on individual parcels. This mixed-use commercial and residential infill project is a suitable use at this location and permissible under the existing zone district and supported by land use policies within the Comprehensive Plan, as indicated above in Finding No. 2. The design promotes harmonious transitions in scale and character between different designated land uses in that it would now serve as a mixed-use deve!opment with commercial office and residential condominiums within the existing neighborhood. 4. That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development: The purpose for the Tentative Map is to merge the five existing parcels and create a mixed-use commercial office building with four residential condominium units. In doing so, the site would remain within the permissible density allowed by the current MUO/AMF zone district: A maximum site density of 4 total units or 5.71 dwelling units per acre. As proposed, this map would enact 4 dwelling units, an amount under the amount permissible. Moreover, Comprehensive Plan policy L-25 indicates to enhance the character of the South of Forest Area (SOFA) as a mixed-use area. 5. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habi tat : The merger of parcels and creation of commercial office space and residential condominium units wil! not cause environmental damage or injure fish, wildlife, or their habitat, as no habitat for endangered, rare, threatened, or other sensitive species is present on site. Al! new deve!opment would occur within the areas of pre-existing development, which currently consist of commercial and church buildings and surface parking areas. 6. That the design of the subdivision or type of improvements is likely to cause serious public health problems: The merger of parcels and creation of commercial office space and four condominium units will not cause serious public health problems, as no increases in traffic or noise or significant effects to air or water quality would result in developing this site for commercial office and residential use. 7. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. In this connection, the governing body may approve a map if it finds that alternate easements, for access or for use, will be provided, and that these will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This subsection shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction and no authority is hereby granted to a legislative body to determine that the public at large has acquired easements for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. There are no existing public easements on this property. Therefore, the design does not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large. However, the design accommodates public access to parking spaces are required by the deve!opment agreement for this project. Additionally, the design of the lot merger also provides a public plaza at the corner of Homer Avenue and Bryant Street. The applicant and the City are to record a Public Use and Access and Private Maintenance Agreement providing public access to the plaza portion of the project and obligating the owner of the project to maintain this public area in perpetuity as a public open space. SECTION 4.Tentative Map Approval Granted. Tentative Map approval is granted by the City Council under Palo Alto Municipal Code ("PAMC") Sections 21.13 and 21.20 and the California Government Code Section 66474, subject to the conditions of approva! in Section 6 of this Record. SECTION 5.Final Map Approval. The Final Map submitted for review and approval by the City Counci! of the City of Palo Alto shall be in substantial conformance with the Tentative Map prepared by BKF Engineers, Surveyors, and Planners titled "260 Homer Avenue Tentative Map, consisting of 5 pages, dated October 17, 2005 and received October 24, 2005, except as modified to incorporate the conditions of approval in Section 6. A copy of this map is on file in the Department of Planning and Community Environment, Current Planning Division. 4 Within two years of the approval date of the Tentative Map, the subdivider shall cause the subdivision or any part thereof to be surveyed, and a Final Map, as specified in Chapter 21.08, to be prepared in conformance with the Tentative Map as conditionally approved, and in compliance with the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and PAMC Section 21.16 and submitted to the City Engineer (PAMC Section 21.!6.010[a]) . SECTION 6.Conditions of Approval. Department of Planning and Community Environment Planning Division I. A Final Map, in conformance with the approved Tentative Map, al! requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance (PAMC Section 21.16), and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, shall be filed with the Planning Division and the Public Works Engineering Division within two years of the Vesting Tentative Map approval date (PAMC 2i.13.020[c] ) . 2. A preliminary copy of restrictive covenants (CC&Rs) shall be submitted for review at the time of Final Map submittal. Prior to Submittal of Final Map Planning Division 3. Prior to approval of the Tentative Map by the City Council, the applicant shall submit a revised Sheet of 3 of 5/Tentative Map with correction that the two existing buildings, the French Laundry Building and AME Zion Church shal! remain (they are not proposed for remova!). 4. The Final Map shall be crosschecked for compliance with the ARB/HRB SOFA Design Review Board and the Tentative Map approved plans and conditions. Department of Utilities 5. In consultation with the Departments of Utilities and Planning and Community Environment, Public Utility Easements for installation and maintenance of water meters, gas lines, gas meters, and pad-mounted transformers with associated substructures shall be designated on the Final Map. Department of Public Works Engineering Division 6. All required agreements shall be recorded concurrently with the final map. If easements are to be recorded under a separate instrument/s, those instrument/s must be recorded concurrently with the final map. Prior to Submittal of Final Map. 7. A Subdivision Agreement is required to secure compliance with conditions of approval and security of improvements onsite and offsite. No grading or building permits will be issued until the Final Map and al! associated agreements and easements are recorded with County Recorder. 8. The applicant shall arrange a meeting with Public Works Engineering, Utilities Engineering, Planning, Fire, and Transportation Departments after approval of the Tentative Map and prior to submitting the improvement plans. This meeting shall determine the scope of all work required and related to offsite improvements. The improvement plans must be completed and approved by the City prior to submittal of the Final Map. 9. The project subdivision includes significant complexity involving, final map, and coordination of infrastructure design and construction. Deve!oper shall appoint a Project Manager to coordinate with City, Public Works and Utility, engineering staff. Public Works will conduct daily and longer term communication with appointed project manager in order to facilitate timely review and approval of design and construction matters. i0. Prior to Final Map approval, the applicant shall enter into a Subdivision Improvement Agreement. This agreement is required to secure compliance with the conditions of ARB/HRB SOFA Design Review Board and Tentative Map approvals and the security of on and offsite improvements. Improvement plans shall be submitted in relation to this agreement. No grading or building permits shall be issued until the Final Map is recorded with the County of Santa Clara, Office of the County Clerk-Recorder. Prior to Recordation of Final Map Ii. The subdivider shall post a bond prior to the recording of the Final Map to guarantee the completion of the on and offsite condition(s) of approval. The amount of the bond shall be determined by the Planning, Utilities, and Public Works Departments. SECTION 7.Term of Approva!. Tentative Map. All conditions of approval of the Tentative Map shall be fulfilled prior to approval of a Final Map (PAMC Section 21.16.010[c]) . Unless a Final Map is filed, and all conditions of approval are fulfilled within a two-year period from the date of Vesting Tentative Map approval, or such extension as may be granted, the Vesting Tentative Map shal! expire and all proceedings shall terminate. Thereafter, no Fina! Map shal! be filed without first processing a Tentative Map (PAMC Section 21.16.010[d]) . PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST:APPROVED: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Director of Planning and Community Environment Senior Asst. City Attorney PLANS AND DRAWINGS REFERENCED: Those plans prepared by BKF Engineers, Surveyors, and Planners titled "260 Homer Avenue Tentative Map", consisting of 5 pages, dated October 17, 2005 and received October 24, 2005. Attachment B PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT TO: FROM: PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Lorraine Weiss DEPARTMENT:Planning and Community Enviromnent AGENDA DATE:February 8, 2006 SUBJECT:260 Homer Avenue~ [05-PLN-00383]: Request by Martin Parissenti, BKF Engineers on behalf of Tall Tree Partners I, LLC for a Tentative Map for a proposed mixed-use infill development. This map is required in order to merge five parcels into one parcel (approximately .71 acres) for a mixed-use development with commercial office use on the ground and second floors, and four residential condominium units on the third floor. Envirormaental Assessment: An environmental impact report (EIR) was prepared for the SOFA CAP including this project. Zone District: MUO/AMF. RECOMMENDATI ON: Staff requests that the Planning and Transportation Commission (Commission) recommend that the City Council approve the proposed Tentative Map, in order to merge five parcels into one parcel (approximately .71 acres) and construct a mixed-use development with office use on the ground and second floors, and four residential condominium units on the third floor, based upon the findings and conditions contained within the Record of Land Use Action (Attachment A). SUMMARY OF LAND USE ACTION: Background information related to the project’s details and history has been included within the Record of Land Use Action (Attachment A). The site design and architecture were subject to approvals by the Architectural Review Board/Historic Resources Board SOFA Design Review Board and the Director of Planning and Community Environment (Director). The Tentative Map drawings, provided as Attachment F, are in general conformance with the plans reviewed by the Architectural Review Board/Historic Resources SOFA Board (Attachment G) and approved with conditions by the Director, and comply with the requirements set forth in Chapter 21 (Subdivisions) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC). Code requirements on this application from various City departments have also been incorporated into the draft conditions of approval. The full set of approved Architectural Review Board/Historic Resources SOFA Board plans and project details/materials are available upon request. The only action required of the Planning and Transportation Commission is a recommendation on the Tentative Map. City of Palo Alto Page 1 SUMMARY OF KEY ISSUES: In order to carry out the proposed project, the applicant must obtain two discretionary permits, as required by City ordinances: Major architectural review, which is within the purview of the Director of Planning and Community Environment (Director) with recommendation from the Architectural Review Board/Historic Resources SOFA Board; and a Tentative Map, which is within the purview of the City Council with recommendation from the Commission. On December 5, 2005, the Director approved the ARB application, since the project was found to comply with zoning and architectural regulations. The Tentative Map application has been reviewed by staff and City departments for compliance with zoning, subdivision, and other codes and ordinances. The scope of the Commission’s review for the purposes of this Tentative Map application should be limited to the "design" and "improvement" of the proposed subdivision. In this context, the terms "design" and "improvement" are defined in the Subdivision Map Act as follows: "Design" means: (1) street alignments, grades and widths; (2) drainage and sanitary, facilities and utilities, including alignments and grades thereof; (3) location and size of all required easements and rights-of-way; (4) fire roads and firebreaks; (5) lot size and configuration; (6) traffic access; (7) grading; (8) land to be dedicated for park or recreational purposes; and (9) other specific physical requirements in the plan and configuration of the entire subdivision that are necessary to ensure consistency with, or implementation of, the general plan or any applicable specific plan as required pursuant to Section 66473.5. (Goverranent Code, section 66418) (a) "Improvement" refers to any street work and utilities to be installed, or agreed to be installed, by the subdivider on the land to be used for public or private streets, highways, ways, and easements, as are necessary for the general use of the lot owners in the subdivision and local neighborhood traffic and drainage needs as a condition precedent to the approval and acceptance of the final map thereof. (b) "Improvement" also refers to any other specific improvements or types of improvements, the installation of which, either by the subdivider, by public agencies, by private utilities, by any other entity approved by the local agency, or by a combination thereof, is necessary to ensure consistency with, or implementation of, the genera! plan or any applicable specific plan. (Government Code, section 66419) It should also be noted that, when processing a subdivision map for a mixed-use development project, the Subdivision Map Act does not require that the division of airspace be shown on the map. City of Palo Alto Page 2 The design and improvement of the subdivision should be distinguished from the design of the proposed structures, which were already reviewed and approved pursuant to the City’s ARB process. The Tentative Map plan set includes infom~ation on the existing parcels and onsite conditions (Sheet 2); the layout of the merged parcels into one new parcel (Sheet 3); proposed site and ~ading with building footprint, driveway, curb and gutter, accessible ramp, and sidewalk (Sheet 4); and proposed utilities (Sheet 5). These drawings are in compliance with the applicable provisions of the City’s Subdivision Ordinance. These plans contain all information and notations required to be shown on a Tentative Map (per PAMC Sections 21.12 and 21.13), as well as conform to the design requirements concerning the creation of lots, streets, walkways, and similar features (PAMC 21.20). The plan set also conforms to the approved Architectural Review Board/Historic Resources SOFA Board site plan, provided as reference (see Attachment H). Because the request is to create more than four condominium units, this request cannot be processed administratively ttzrough the Director and requires review by the Commission and City Council approval (PAMC 21.08.010). For information purposes only, the following have been included as attachments: o The applicant’s project correspondence (Attachment B) o ARBiHRB SOFA Design Review Board approval letter and findings (Attachment C); .ARB/HR~ SOFA Design Review Board staff report and minutes from the final Architectural Review board meeting (Attachments D and E); and ARB/HRB SOFA Design Review Board approved architectural plans (Attachment G) to aid in the Commission’s review of the Tentative Map plan set (Attachment F). TIMELINE: Action: Preliminary ARB Meeting: ARB Application Received: ARB Application Deemed Complete: First Formal ARB/HRB Hearing: Final ARB/HRB Hearing: Director’s Approval of ARB Application: Tentative Map Application Received: Tentative Map Application Deemed Complete: P&TC Meeting on Tentative Map: Action by Council on Tentative Map: Date: April 19, 2005 March 28, 2005 July 20, 2005 September 1, 2005 December 1, 2005 December 5, 2005 October 24, 2005 December 23, 2005 February 8, 2006 TBD ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: An environmental impact report (EIR) was prepared for the SOFA CAP including the project. The EI~ was reviewed and certified by the City Council on March 27, 2000. The project, as currently proposed, has been reviewed in comparison with the project that was evaluated in the EIR. Staffhas determined the current project is consistent with that evaluated in the EIR, and, therefore, no subsequent environmental analysis is required. Copies of the ElY, and the findings City of Palo Alto Page 3 made by the City Council pursuant to CEQA (Resolution No. 7950) are available for public review in the Planning Department on the Fifth Floor of City Hall. ATTACHMENTS: B. C. D. E. F. G. Record of Land Use Action Applicant’s Project Correspondence ARB/HRB SOFA Design Review Board Approval Letter and Findings ARB/HRB SOFA Design Review Board Staff Report, dated December t, 2005 ARB/HRB SOFA Design Review Board Final Hearing Minutes. Tentative Map Plan Set (Commission Members Only) ARB/HRB SOFA Design Review Board Plans (Commission Members Only) COURTESY COPIES: Martin Parissenti, BKF Engineers, Project Applicant Jane Vaughan, Tall Trees Partners I, Property Owner PREPARED BY:Lorraine Weiss, Contract Planner REVIEWED BY: DEPARTMENT/DIVISION HExad) APPROVAL: Amy French, AICP, Manager of Current Planning Andy Interim Deputy Director City of Palo Alto Page 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 ATTACHMENT C Wednesday, February 8, 2006 REGULAR MEETING at 7:00 PM Council Chambers Civic Center, 1st Floor 250 Hamilton A yen ue Palo Alto, California 94301 ROLL CALL: 7:05 PM Contmissioners: Patrick Burt - Chair Karen Holman - I,~Chair Lee 1. Lippert Paula Sandas - absent Ph),llis Cassel Daniel Garber Annette Bialson Staff: Steve Emslie, Planning Director Donald Larkin, Senior Deputy CiO, Attorney Andy Coe, Interim Deputy Director Amy French, Current Planning Manager Susan 3Jickelsen, _Planner Clare Campbell, Associate Planner Lorraine Weiss, Contract Planner John Lusardi, Planner Manager Zariah Betten, Executive Secretary AGENDIZED ITEMS: SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DA Y- Resolution of Appreciation for John Lusardi, Planning Manager for Special Projects and ZOU. 1.260 Homer Avenue 2.850 Webster Street-Channing House 3.2460 High Street APPROVAL OFMINUTES: Minutes of the January 11, 2006 Regular Meeting REPORTS FROM OFFICIALS/COMMITTEES- Planning Director’ s Report on Status of Retail Action Plan. Chair Butt: We will now convene the Planning and Transportation Commission meeting for Wednesday, February 8, 2006. Will the Secretary call the roll? Thank you. 34 35 Our first agenda item is comments from the public on items that are not scheduled on the agenda. 36 37 38 39 40 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS. Members of the public may speak to any item not on the agenda with a limitation of three (3) minutes per speaker. Those who desire to speak must complete a speaker request card available from the secretary of the Commission. The Planning and Transportation Commission reserves the right to limit the oral communications period to 15 minutes. City of Palo Alto Februa~ 8, 2006 Page ] of 76 ! 2 4 6 7 8 9 I0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS. The agenda may have additional items added to it up until 72 hours prior to meeting time. Chair Burr: Our next item is 260 Homer. It is a request by Martin Parissenti, BKF Engineers on behalf of Tall Tree Partners for a Tentative Map for a proposed mixed-use infill development. Would Staff like to make a presentation? NEW BUSINESS: Public Hearings. 260 Homer Avenue (05PLN-00000-00383)*: Request by Martin Parissenti, BKF Engineers on behalf of Tall Tree Partners I, LLC for a Tentative Map for a proposed mixed- use infill development. This map is required in order to merge five parcels into one parcel of approximately .7! acres for a mixed-use development with commercial office use on the ground and second floors, and four residential condominium units on the third floor. Zone District: MUO/AMF Environmental Assessment: An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for the SOFA CAP including this project. Mr. Emslie: Before I call on Lorraine Weiss, our contract planner, to give you the history and background I just would like to make a few comments regarding the Planning Commission’s purview tonight on the Tentative Map. You have been in this situation before and I just wanted to remind you this is an example of some of the vagaries of our process in that two different bodies namely in this case the Joint ARB/HRB Board configured for the SOFA coordinated area plan area has already approved the project. The appeal period has run. The project was not appealed so therefore their Design Review approval stands. The code requires that the Planning Commission approve the Tentative Map for this and this is the subdivision map that would enable the reconfiguration of the lots for eventual sale. So your review this evening is limited to compliance with the plans that have City of Palo Alto February 8, 2006 Page 6 of 76 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 already been approved by the Joint ARB/HRB Board, compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and compliance with the City’s objectives for location of our infrastructure and other of those. kind of broad brush considerations. This is not an opportunity for the Commission to review or comment on the approval as that is already a part of the record and currently stands as approved. Ms. Lorraine Weiss, Contract Planner: Good evening Chair and members of the Commission. First I would like to give you some background on the project. The City Council originally approved the Development Agreement back on March 27, 2000 and it allowed construction of commercial and residential uses that were consistent with the development regulations of the MUO AMF district. The Development Agreement stipulated a number of restrictions for future use of the property including rehabilitation of two historic buildings, limitations on floor area, on height and parking. The ARB and the HRB did approve a similar project to this back in the year 2001 and the applicant did submit a preliminary parcel map in 2003, they went through the plan check process for Building, Fire and Public Works. They were all completed but the map approva! and Development Agreement execution had expired. So what has occurred since then is that the applicant submitted earlier last year an application for a similar project. In December of this ),ear the ARB and HRB Board recommended approval of the project and the Director signed off on the approval with a number of conditions. The conditions included stipulations regarding the Development Agreement. Tonight before you is the Tentative Map for the project and that was submitted in October of last year. Staff as well as City Departments have reviewed tbr compliance zoning, subdivision Ci.ty of Palo Alto February 8. 2006 Page 7 of 76 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 2t 22 23 codes, ordinances and the Development Agreement. The design and improvement of the subdivision should be distinguished between that of the design of the proposed structures, which has already been approved. I would like to mention a few items. In terms of conctitions of approval of the Tentative Map you have as part of the Record of Land Use Action in Attachment A, Tentative Map Conditions. I woulcl like to add one additional condition to stipulate that prior to approval of the Tentative Map by the City Council the applicant shall submit a revised Sheet 3 of 5 of your Tentative Map with correction that the two existing buildings being the French Laundry building and the AME Zion Church remain as they are not proposed for removal. I also woulct like to clari~ several other items. The Tentative Map request is to merge five parcels into one parcel as a result of the proposed development for the commercial building and four residential units. The design and the architecture of the entire project has already been approved as I mentioned before by the ARB/HRB SOFA Board and the Director of Planning and Community Environment. It is actually the Palo Alto Municipal Code and the Subdivision Ordinance that requires that the We units being the commercial space and the four condominium units be approved by the Planning and Transportation Commission and the City Council and that is what your purview is tonight. I would also like to clari~, a couple of parking issues. Condition number 56 of the ARB!HRB Board requires that 60 public parking spaces and 20 stalls be designated for residents of the Oak Court housing project and that they be designated literally signed on the spot. The same City of Palo Alto Februa~ 8, 2006 Page 8 of 76 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 I should also indicate that any other requirements such as park requirements have already been satisfied. The City Council did dictate the shared ramp access with the Palo Alto Housing Corporation as a way to decrease curb cuts into the public streets, which are beneficial to both pedestrians and bicyclists. Staff is recommending that the Planning and Transportation Commission recommend to the City Council approval of the Tentative Map in order to merge five parcels into one and it would be subject to any conditions listed in the Record of Land Use Action. I would happy to answer any questions of the Commission. Chair Burr: Thank you. Do Commissioners have any questions of Ms. Weiss at this time? Karen. Vice-Chair Holman: A clarification on sheet three of Tentative Map that will be resubmitted correctly, t guess the question is this went through a lot of channels and ended up here so as a statement or condition that we will be assured that this sheet gets replaced with a new sheet and who checks that finally? Ms. Weiss: The project planner and in this case that would be me. Vice-Chair Holman: Okay, great. Thank you. City of Palo Alto February 8, 2006 Page ]0 of 76 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1t 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Mr. Emslie: There is a two-step process. There is the Tentative Map and then there is a Final Map and that has to go to the City Council. So that will be the time when all the conditions of the Tentative Map are checked and verified that they have been corrected or any other conditions have been applied to the Final Map. So there is really another Map that has yet to go. Chair Burt: Lee and then Dan. Commissioner Lippert: I have one minor question and it has to do with compact versus standard parking stalls. With regard to that there are some difficulties with oversized vehicles parking in the compact stalls. How" will that be monitored or maintained? Ms. Weiss: I think generally speaking I know that one of the conditions of project approval is that building management has an onsite transportation coordinator who is supposed to deaI with such things as how and where people are parking, use of tandem spaces and I would imagine if there are complaints that oversized vehicles are parking in compact stalls that management would deal with that. It is one of those internal logistical concerns that they will have to deal with as each case rises. Chair Butt: Dan. Commissioner Garber: Is it the applicant’s intent that the church will be utilized as a church? Ms. Weiss: No, the church is not going be utilized as a church. City of Palo Alto February 8, 2006 Page ]] of 76 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 I3 14 15 16 17 I8 19 20 21 22 23 Commissioner Garber: Do we know what the use will be? Ms. Weiss: I believe it is going to be used for office space. Commissioner Garber: Thank you. Chair Bun: Karen. Vice-Chair Holman: Just one last one about the ARB/HRB conditions. Could you run by again the conditions for the public parking places? I find on Attachment C about the affordable housing parking but I did not identify, the public parking. Ms. Weiss: Just one moment. Condition number 56 on page 11 of the Conditions of Project Approval, which is Attachment C, indicate that they have to identi~, 60 stalls specifically for public use. It is in the same condition that talks about the 20 stalls for the Oak Court housing project. Vice-Chair Holman: Thank you for the clarification. I found the affordable housing ones earlier too. Thank you. There is no determination about what kinds of public use or what usage or hours or anything of that nature that are associated with this approval? Ms. Weiss: Actually, the hours for the public parking spaces are listed in condition number 112, City of Palo Alto Februarj., 8, 2006 Page 12 of 76 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 !4 15 16 17 18 t9 20 21 22 23 which is on page 19 of the Conditions of Project Approval. So basically the underground parking spaces that would be 60 public parking spaces would be available between 6:00 and I0:00 PM on weekdays and between 8:00 and 10:00 PM on weekends. Vice-Chair Holman: Thank you and I am impressed. Chair Burr: We don’t have any cards from the public and seeing none we will now close the public hearing and proceed with discussion among Commissioners. Commissioner Cassel: There is no applicant? Chair Burt: Excuse me. The applicant at this time has up to 15 minutes to speak. Normally the applicant would fill out a card. Mr. Martin Parissenti, Civil Engineer, BKF & Associates: We filled out the application. As the Staff has indicated the point of this whole process is to merge the five parcels into one. It is a relatively simple project. I would like to thank Lorraine for helping us through this whole process. If you have any question. Chair Burt: Thank you. Do Commissioners have any questions of the appIicant? Thank you very much. So now closing the public hearing again. Commissioners, do you have any further questions of Staff or the applicant before having discussion or hearing a motion? I will entertain a motion if anybody would like to. Phyllis. Czo, of Palo Alto Februao, 8, 2006 Page ]3 of 76 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 MOTION Commissioner Cassel: I would like to move the Staff recommendation. Staff requests that the Planning and Transportation Commission recommend that the City Council approve the proposed Tentative Map in order to merge five parcels into one parcel for the purpose of construction of a mixed-use development with office use on the ground and second floors and four residential condominium units on the third floor based upon the findings and conditions contained within the Record of Land Use Action and including the Staff recommendation for the additional condition of course. SECOND Commissioner Bialson: Second. Chair Burt: We have a second by Commissioner Bialson. Would the maker wish to speak to her motion? Commissioner Cassel: This is fairly simple. I reviewed everything very carefully and had a couple of questions, which were answered in the Staff Report. This has been a long time coming and it will be nice to see this last piece done. We were done with every/thing except the historic building next door and when that gets done that whole section will be finished, It will be very nice. It is exciting to see the two historic buildings done. CiO~ of Palo Alto Febrzcaw 8, 2006 Page ]4 of 76 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1t 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 Chair Burt: Commissioner Bialson. Commissioner Bialson: I am equally excited about this project and anxious to get it moving. Chair Burt: Great. I guess I would just like to comment as Vice-Chair Holman and I had served on the SOFA I Committee it is very nice to see that this is the last component to be constructed and that we have a comprehensive development that has occurred in that region with some very remarkable public benefits. I think that as much as it took a long time for the process to go through and that it takes awhile for the construction to be complete I have heard a lot of favorable comments from the public on the overall outcome of the SOFA I area. We should probably in the future reflect on what ways that process was successful and what ways we can build upon it and improve upon it in the future. Lee. Commissioner Lippert: I would just like to say that having worked on the SOFA ti Working Group this is really a fitting piece by which John Lusardi is departing. I know he has put in a tremendous number of hours in working with us on the standards for that neighborhood and seeing to it that that area looks as good as it does. So I am in support of this final piece as well. MOTION PASSED (6-0-0-I, Commissioner Sandas absent) Chair Burr: Great. So I guess we will take a vote. All those in favor? (ayes) Opposed? That City of Palo Alto Februa~ 8, 2006 Page I5 of 76 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 passes unanimously with Commissioner Sandas absent. Our next item, item number two, is 850 Webster Street!Charming House a request by Channing House for a Planned Community Zone Amendment to modify the permitted uses to include wireless telecommunications facilities. Would Staff like to make a presentation? 850 Webster Street-Channin~ House (05PLN-00000-00098)*: Request by Channing House for a Planned Community Zone Amendment to modify the permitted uses to include wireless telecommunications facilities. Zone District: PC 4048. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from CEQA per section 15301. Ms. Clare Campbell. Associate Planner: Good evening Commissioners. This project is a request for a Planned Community Zone Amendment to add utility facilities as a permitted use. The Commission reviewed this proposal on December 14, 2005 and recommended approval. Then the project went on January 19 to the Architectural Review Board and they also recommended approval of this PC Amendment. Staffhas not been contacted by members of the public with concerns on this project and no one spoke at either of these public hearings to raise any concerns. Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission again recommend that the City Council approve the Planned Community Zone Amendment as shown in the draft ordinance attached to the Staff Report. The representative of the applicant is here tonight to answer questions if you have any. That concludes my Staff Report. Thanks. C~ty of Palo Alto February 8, 2006 Page ]d of 76