Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 283-06City of Palo Alto City Manager’s Report TO: FROM: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL 12 CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING & COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DATE:JULY 10, 2006 CMR: 283:06 SUBJECT: 2825/2865 EL CAMINO REAL [05PLN-00300]: RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL OF A REQUEST BY JAMES BAER ON BEHALF OF MORRIS ASSOCIATES FOR A SITE AND DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION TO CONSTRUCT A 13,988 SQUARE FOOT MIXED-USE BUILDING ON A 22,491 SQUARE FOOT PARCEL; DESIGN ENHANCEMENT EXCEPTIONS TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED SIDE YARD AND FRONT YARD SETBACKS, AND TO EXCEED THE ALLOWABLE ENCROACHMENT INTO THE SIDE YARD DAYLIGHT PLANE; AND A VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF USABLE COMMON OPEN SPACE. RECOMMENDATION Staff, the Architectural Review Board (ARB), and the Planning and Transportation Commission (Commission) recommend the City Council approve the project at 2825/2865 E1 Camino Real based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained in the draft Record of Land Use Action (Attachment A). The action includes: (1) approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration (Attachment M), with a finding that the project would not result in significant environmental impacts, (2) approval of the Site and Design Review application to allow the construction of a new mixed-use building and related site improvements in the CS Service Commercial District, (3) approval of all requested Design Enhancement Exceptions (DEE’s), and (4) approval of the Variance for a reduction in the amount of usable common open space. BACKGROUND The proposed project to construct a 13,988 square foot mixed-use building and related site improvements is described in Attachment E to this report, submitted by the applicant, and in plans provided to Council (Attachment N). The project’s potential environmental impacts are summarized in the Initial Study and Mitigated CMR: 283:06 Page 1 of 4 potential environmental impacts are summarized in the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND). The project would not conform to all of the zoning standards of the CS zoning district, set forth in Attachment C to this report. The applicant is requesting DEE’s from the CS Zone development standards for reductions in the required front yard and side yard building setbacks and exceeding the allowable encroachment into the side yard daylight plane. A variance is requested for the reduction in the amount of required usable common open space. Full descriptions of the requested exceptions are contained in the Planning and Transportation Commission staff report (Attachment J). Staff, the ARB, and the Commission have determined the project to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan policies as set forth in Attachment D to this report. The draft Record of Land Use Action contains Architectural Review findings, DEE findings, Variance findings, Site and Design Review findings and recommended conditions of approval for Council consideration. BOARD/COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS Planning and Transportation Commission The Commission reviewed the application at its January 25, 2006 meeting. The Commission was supportive of the design of the proposed project and recommended that the Council approve the application and the Mitigated Negative Declaration, adding a condition to supplement staff-recommended conditions of approval requiring the applicant to submit a Transportation Demand Management Program for review by the Transportation Division prior to the issuance of a building permit. The action of the Commission is included in the Record of Land Use Action. Meeting minutes reflecting the Commission discussion are found in Attachment G, and the Commission staff report is included as Attachment J. Architectural Review Board Preliminary project plans had been reviewed by the ARB on May 19, 2005. Generally supportive of the project, the ARB focused on opportunities for: (1) increased massing of the building, (2) enhanced pedestrian experience along E1 Camino Real, (3) maximized percentage of shared parking, (4) increased architectural interest, and (5) creative use of reusable building materials and renewable energy sources for the project’s construction. On March 2, 2006, after Commission review, the ARB reviewed the formal project plans and continued its review to allow for plan revisions to address its concerns. On May 18, 2006, the ARB reviewed the revised project. The May 18 staff report (Attachment L) lists the applicant’s responses to ARB concerns. The ARB recommended the Council approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Site and Design application and added conditions to those recommended by staff and the Commission. The action of the ARB is included in the Record of Land CMR: 283:06 Page 2 of 4 Use Action. Meeting minutes reflecting the action of the ARB are found in Attachment H. The ARB requested several items return to the ARB Subcommittee prior to the submittal of a building permit application. Condition #8 in the Record of Land Use Action lists those items for ARB Subcommittee follow-up, to finalize awning, eave, fence and art details. The ARB has not yet reviewed the carport design, so staff added this item to the list of items in Condition #8. The applicant’s original submittal did not include covered residential parking, for which a Variance was requested. Since staff could not support the parking Variance, the applicant revised the plans to include a carport, which the ARB reviewed on March 2, 2006. The ARB determined the proposed carport design was architecturally incompatible with the building design and recommended the applicant redesign the carport. The applicant deleted the carport from plans presented to the ARB on May 18, 2006. The ARB supported its deletion due to the urban context; however staff informed the applicant the project would need to include a parking Variance, requiring Commission review prior to Council review, since the covered parking had been reviewed and recommended by the Commission. The applicant decided to include the covered parking as part of the project, rather than approach the Commission with a parking Variance request. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The proposed project is subject to environmental review under provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). An Environmental Impact Assessment (Attachment M) was prepared for the project. It was determined that the project could have potentially significant aesthetic and noise impacts. The project however, would include mitigation measures to reduce these impacts to a less than significant level. A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared. PREPARED BY: DEPARTMENT HEAD: C~lan Riordan, Senior Planner 4te-ve Em[ie~ - Director of Planning and Community Environment CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: EMI SON Assistant City Manager CMR: 283:06 Page 3 of 4 ATTACHMENTS Attachment A:Draft Record of Land Use Action Attachment B: Attachment C: Attachment D: Attachment E: Attachment Attachment Attachment Attachment Attachment Attachment Attachment Attachment Attachment Location map Zoning table (prepared by staff) Comprehensive Plan table (prepared by staff) Applicant submittal including project description (prepared by Premier Properties and DES Architects) F:List of Proposed Sustainability Measures (prepared by Premier Properties) G:Minutes of P&TC meeting of January 25, 2006 H:Sense minutes of ARB meeting of May 18, 2006 I:Preliminary ARB Staff Report dated May 19, 2005 (without attachments) J:Planning and Transportation Commission staff report dated March 2, 2006 (without attachments). K:ARB staff report dated March 2, 2006 (without attachments) L:ARB staff report dated May 18, 2006 (without attachments) M:Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) N:Project Plans (Council Members Only) COURTESY COPIES: Ken Hayes, Hayes Group Morris Associates James Baer, Premier Properties CMR: 283:06 Page 4 of 4 Attachment A ACTION NO. 2005-12 RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO LAND USE ACTION FOR 2825/2865 EL CAMINO REAL MIXED USE BUILDING IN THE CS ZONE DISTRICT 05PLN-00300 (JAMES BAER, APPLICANT) SECTION i. Background. The City Council of the City of Palo Alto ("City Council") finds, determines, and declares as follows: A. Jim Baer on behalf of Morris Associates, property owner, has requested the City’s approval of a Site and Design Review application for the construction of a new mixed-use project in the CS zone district (The Project). B. The project would include the demolition of the existing restaurant and the construction of an approximately 13,998 square foot, three story, 35-foot tall mixed use building consisting of a third floor with two residential units, second floor office, and ground floor office and retail space. The surface parking facility would provide 38 on site parking spaces. The project f!oor area requires that 41 off-street parking spaces be provided; including one covered parking stall for each of the two residential units. The applicant is requesting a 9% reduction (three spaces) in the number of required parking spaces because it is a mixed-use building with staggered parking demands. C. The project would also include a request for a Variance and Design Enhancement Exceptions (DEE) from the CS Zone development standards for mixed-use buildings. These DEE would include reductions in the required front yard and side yard setbacks and exceeding the allowable encroachment into the side yard daylight plane. The Variance is requested to reduce the amount of required open space. D. Following Staff review, the Planning and Transportation Commission (Commission) reviewed the Project and recommended approval on January 25, 2006. The Commission’s recommendations are contained in CMR: [Number] and the attachments to it. E. Following Commission review the Architectural Review Board (ARB) recommended approval of (A-C) on May 18, 2006. The ARB’s recommendations are contained in CMR: [Number] and the attachments to it. SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The City as the lead agency for the Project has determined that the project is subject to environmental review under provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Guideline section 15070, Decision to Prepare a Negative or Mitigated Negative Declaration. An Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) was prepared for the Page 1 project and it has been determined that, with the implementation of mitigation measures, no potentially adverse impacts would result from the development, therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact on the environment. The Negative Declaration was available for public review beginning January 3, 2006 through January 23, 2006. The Environmental Impact Assessment and Mitigated Negative Declaration are contained in CMR: [Number]. The project is subject to environmental review under provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) . An environmental impact assessment was prepared for the project and it has been determined that, with the implementation of mitigation measures, no potentially adverse impacts would result from the development, therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact on the environment. SECTION 3.Architectural Review Findings i. The design is consistent and compatible with applicable elements of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. The proposed project satisfies specific programs, policies and goals, including: Policy L-6: Where possible, avoid abrupt changes in scale and density between residential and non-residential areas and between residential areas of different densities; Policy L-48: Promote high quality, creative design and site planning that is compatible with surrounding development and public spaces; Policy L-70: Enhance the appearance of streets and other public spaces by expanding and maintaining Palo Alto’s street tree system; Policy L- 75: Minimize the negative physical impacts of parking lots. Locate parking lots behind buildings or underground wherever possible; Policy L-78: Encourage development that creatively integrates parking into the project; Policy H-4: Encourage mixed use projects as a means of increasing the housing supply while promoting diversity and neighborhood quality; and Policy N-15: Require new commercial projects to provide street trees and related irrigation systems. 2. The design is compatible with the immediate environment of the site. The three-story building will be located in a Service Commercial district with a variety of architectural styles and masses. The new building would add mass and establish a new architectural presence on a visible site on E1 Camino Real. The new building will be taller and longer than the buildings on adjacent sites, but wil! nevertheless be compatible with these buildings. The project is required to meet the provisions of Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 18.64, Additional Site Development and Design Regulations for Commercial and Industrial Districts. Page 2 3. The design is appropriate to the function of the project. Each use, retail, office, and residential are located on separate floors, which provide independent operation of each use. Both elevators and stairs provide access to each floor. 5. The design promotes harmonious transitions in scale and character in areas between different land uses; The project would be setback 75 feet from the R-I zone to the east and would conform to rear daylight plane requirements limiting buildings height adjacent to a residential zone. 6. The design is compatible with approved improvements both on and off the site; The project will be reviewed by the City of Palo Alto Utilities Department and Department of Public Works to ensure compatibility with improvements. 8. The amount and arrangement of open space are appropriate to the design and the function of the structures. Mixed-use projects in the CS zone are required to provide a minimum of 30% of the lot area developed .into permanently maintained usable open space as measured on the ground floor only. The proposed project would include 5,583 square feet of usable open space, which is 1,164 feet less than the minimum requirement (6,747 square feet). Each unit is required to have a private balcony of at least 50 square feet and the proposed project would exceed this requirement. DEE’s cannot be used to reduce the overall area of required open space therefore, a Variance has been requested. i0. Access to the property and circulation thereon are safe and convenient for pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles. Vehicles will enter the site from E1 Camino Real to access the at- grade parking facility; bicyclists will have access to bicycle parking at the front of the site near the entrance; pedestrians may enter the site from the sidewalk or from the parking lot. Access is also available to all floors via a staircase at the side of the building. 12. The materials, textures, colors and details of construction and plant material are appropriate expression to the design and function and whether are compatible with the adjacent and neighboring structures, landscape elements and functions. The building materials would include integral colored, smooth cement plaster, clear glass anodized aluminum window frames and shading fins. The parking lot would have colored permeable pavers. All of these materials would complement neighboring structures. Page 3 13. 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 functional environment and whether the landscape concept depicts an appropriate unity with the various buildings on the site. The landscape plan brings plants, shrubs, and trees to the site that have not previously existed, and the landscape concepts depicts an appropriate unity with the building on the site in that the amount or types of planting does not overwhelm, but supports the building design. 14. Plant material is suitable and adaptable to the site, capable of being properly maintained on the site, and is of a variety, which would tend to be drought-resistant and to reduce consumption of water in its installation and maintenance. The Planning Arborist has reviewed all plant materials and in addition, water conserving irrigation system has been proposed for the site. 15. The design is energy efficient and incorporates renewable energy elements including but not limited to: Roof overhangs to reduce heat gain into the residential units. A deep roof overhang and horizontal window fins incorporated into the window framing system to shade the southwest retail glass window wall. Photovoltaic rooftop panels to be considered for use on the south facing roof area. ARB standards #’s 4, 7, 9, and ii would not apply to this project SECTION 4.Design Enhancement Exception Findings. I. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the site improvements involved that do not apply generally to property in the same district. The project includes DEE requests for reduced front setback, reduced left sideyard setback, and increases in the amount of daylight plane encroachment. Front Setback E1 Camino Real is designated in the Comprehensive Plan (Map T-8) as an arterial street. The minimum front setback as measured from the property line for a mixed use building on a CS zoned site located adjacent to an arterial street is 25 feet for all floors. All floors of the of proposed project would have an approximately four foot front setback. Section 3.1.1. (Effective Sidewalk Width) of the South E1 Camino Real Design Guidelines (Guidelines) recommend that buildings should Page 4 be set back from E1 Camino Real a sufficient distance to maintain a 12 foot wide sidewalk (as measured from face of curb), inclusive of the existing width of the public sidewalk. The Guidelines also state that buildings should be built up to the sidewalk to reinforce the "definition and importance" of the street. The DEE would allow the project to conform to the building siting requirements contained in the South E1 Camino Design Guidelines. Interior Side Setback The CS zone district has no requirement for sideyard setbacks. The RM-30 zone specifies a minimum interior side and rear yards for a structure over one story to be a minimum of ten feet for the first story and one-half of the actual height of the structure, but not less than ten feet for the portion of the structure over one story. The proposed building would be 35 feet in height so therefore; the setback of the second and third stories should be a minimum of 17.5 feet. The building would not have a left sideyard setback. The Guidelines recommend that buildings along E1 Camino Rea! have increased building mass. These requirements are incongruent with the CS and RM-30 zone district. The DEE would allow the design of the building to conform to the Guidelines. Daylight Plane The CS zone district does not have a daylight plane requirement unless a project is adjacent to a residential zone. The adjacent property to the right of the subject site is zoned CS. The RM-30 regulations state that no structure shall extend above a daylight plane having a height of five feet at each side or rear property line and an angle of 45 degrees. The left side of the building would have an approximately 65-foot wide encroachment into the daylight plane. The Guidelines (Section 4.1.2) recommend that buildings not be required to conform to side daylight planes. Not adhering to the daylight plane requirement would warrant a DEE to increase the mass and reduce the articulation of buildings on E1 Camino Real. 2. The granting of the application will enhance the appearance of the site or structure or improve the neighborhood character of the project and preserve an existing or proposed architectural style, in a manner, which would not otherwise be accomplished through strict application of the minimum requirement of PAMC Chapter 18 and the ARB findings. The project is subject to the South E1 Camino Real Design Guidelines. These Guidelines are intended to implement the vision of E1 Camino Real as a vibrant corridor by providing design direction for a range of site planning and building design components, including facades, setbacks, overall building form, parking location, and signage. The CS and RM-30 zone district requirements of increased setbacks and daylight plane requirements make it difficult to design a project that would conform to the Guidelines. The Design Enhancement Exceptions will enhance the Page 5 design and improve the building’s relationship to the predominantly urban character and visual relationship of the immediate area. Furthermore, the exeptions will not decrease the opportunities for light and air of the immediate adjacent properties due to the projects siting, the proximity of surrounding structures, and the project location on this busy section of E1 Camino Real near Page Mill Road. The exceptions would also allow for a building design that would be compatible with a site on E1 Camino Real and that would help to implement the future vision of this busy, wide, corridor as described in the Guidelines. 3. The exception is related to minor architectural feature or site improvement that 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. The proposal will meet all zoning requirements other then those exceptions as granted with the proposed Design Enhancement Exceptons. The proposed project will be subject to review by the Building Department. Further, the proposed project must be constructed and operated in compliance with all applicable health and safety regulations. SECTION 5.Variance Findings. 1. Because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, the strict application of the requirements and regulations prescribed in this title substantially deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and in the same zoning district as the subject property. The RM-30 zone requirements require the project to provide 30% (6,747 square feet) of the site devoted to usable common open space as measured on the ground floor only. The proposed project would provide 5,583 square feet of open space, which is 1,164 square feet less than the minimum requirement. Combined balcony private open space totaling 526 square feet would be provided as private open space for the two third floor residents when only 50 square feet for each is required. The CS zone district does not have a usable common open space requirement for non-residential projects. Relief from the strict application of the RM-30 usable open space requirements would allow for a true mixed-use project on E1 Camino Real and one that would be compatible with the South E1 Camino Rea! Design Guidelines. 2. The granting of the application shall not affect substantial compliance with the regulations or constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and in the same zoning district. Page 6 The project site is subject to the same regulations that apply to other CS parcels in the vicinity. The granting of the Variance does not affect substantial compliance with the CS development regulations and allows the project site to develop in a manner consistent with the surrounding parcels. 3. The granting of the application is consistent with the Palo A1 to Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of the zoning ordinance. The proposed project is consistent with the goals of Comprehensive Plan Policy L-6, L-48, and H-4. The project is designed to be compatible with future vision of E1 Camino Real as specified in the South E! Camino Real Design Guidelines. The project would also be compatible with the Comprehensive Plan Policy that encourages the development of mixed-use projects. The proposed use does not conflict with the promotion and protection of public health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, convenience, and general welfare. 4. The granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity will not be detrimental to the public heal th, safety, general welfare, or conveni ence. The requested variance will not substantially impact the aesthetic qualities of the site in a negative manner. The project shall be constructed to meet al! the City’s development regulations (Planning, Building, Fire, etc.) and therefore will not be detrimental to public health, safety, and welfare. SECTION 6. Site and Desiqn Review Findinqs. I. 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. The project, as conditioned, 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. The project proposal wil! be compatible with existing nearby commercial and residential uses and the site planning and proposed design of the building will not detract from the natural character of a site. The siting of the proposed improvements would result in no negative impact(s) to neighboring properties. 2. The project is consistent with the goal of ensuring the desirability of investment, or the conduct of business, research, or educational activities, or other authorized occupations, in the same or adjacent areas. The project will maintain desirability of investment in the same and adjacent areas, the proposed design and related improvements Page 7 are generally consistent with the existing structures on E1 Camino Real, and the construction of all improvements will be governed by the regulations of the current Zoning Ordinance, the Uniform Building Code, and other applicable codes to assure safety and a high quality of development. 3. Sound principles of environmental design and ecological balance are observed in the project. The new building would be conditioned to incorporate sustainable building objectives and materials to reduce energy needs and increase the recycled content of the building. The project would not create significant environmental impacts on the environment as indicated by the Negative Declaration prepared for this project. 4. The use will be in accord with the Compreh ensi ve P1 an. Palo Alto The project proposal as conditioned complies with the policies of the Land Use, Transportation, Community Design, and the Natural Environment elements of the Comprehensive Plan. SECTION 7.SITE AND DESIGN APPROVALS GRANTED. Site and Design Approval is granted by the City Council under Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.82.070 for application 05PLN-00300, subject to the conditions of approval in Section 6 of the Record. SECTION 8.Conditions of Approval. Department of Planning and Community Environment Planning Division o o o Project landscaping shall be maintained per approved plans. Any changes shall be subject to architectural review. The project would be subject to a community facilities fee payable in full prior to the issuance of a building permit. This fee is currently estimated at $113,952.85, which includes impact fees for parks (estimated at $29,503.27), community centers (estimated at $3,997.17), libraries (estimated at $2,015.21) and housing (estimated at $78,437.20). A wall is to be constructed along the common property line with the R-I property to the rear. This wall must be between five and eight feet in height. Its construction details are to be added to the proposed landscape plan prior to the Architectural Review Board’s (ARB) review of the project. The plans submitted to obtain all permits through the Building Inspection Division shall be in substantial conformance with the plans, project details and materials received on January i0, 2006, except as modified to incorporate these conditions of approval. The applicant shall submit a Transportation Demand Management Page 8 o o Program (TDM) for the project. The TDM shall be reviewed and approved by the Transportation Division prior to the issuance of a building permit. Visual impacts from both interior and exterior lighting sources shall be minimized, with no unnecessary continued exterior illumination, using the lowest intensity and energy use feasible. No highly reflective surfaces/glazing shall be installed on the rear elevation facing the residential properties. The following items shall be reviewed by the ARB Subcommittee prior to application for a building permit. ¯ The awning over the front entry as shown on the building elevations should be the same as depicted in the colored rendering. ¯The eve over at the south corner of the building as shown on the building elevations should be the same as depicted in the colored rendering. ¯Increased details of the fence along the north property line ¯The art that is proposed on the northeast building elevation. ¯The design of the carport. Planning Arborist PRIOR TO DEMOLITION, BUILDING OR GRADING PERMIT ISSUANCE i0. Street Trees. The cutout area for new and existing trees shall conform to the E1 Camino Real Master Plan (ECRMP), Section 5.4.2. New tree wells should be a minimum 4-foot by 6 foot and 3 feet deep. Tree grate alternatives shall be approved by Public Works as to size and type. For trees to remain, after sidewalk is removed Remedial Action to Improve Health of Existing Trees, ECRMP 5.4.2, shall be implemented (planting well extension 8-10 feet; vertical drilling through impervious layers, etc.). For new trees see Civil Plans/sidewalk condition below. Applicant and Public Works shall clarify whether one street tree should be relocated or replaced with a new tree. New Street trees shall be planted with a spacing of 22-33 feet on center where feasible. Civil Plans, New Sidewalk and Parking Lot Paving. It is critical that enough volume and depth be provided for the new street trees in areas under sidewalk and driveway. ¯ In the vicinity of new street trees and near existing street trees, the civil plans shall specify new base course of Engineered Structured Soil fill (SS) a minimum of 24 inches deep, with 36 inches the preference. ¯For the finger island trees, all parking spaces along the south property line shall be provided with the SS base. Specifications for the mix are available from Planning staff. Page 9 ¯Drainage swales and curbs shall reflect discontinuous areas to allow water passage into the landscape. In the vicinity of the oak, provide a section of existing and proposed base material, paving, and tree root and trunk area. Any excavation of existing base material shall require an arborist tree preservation report, recommendations and inspection printed on the Palo Alto Tree Protection Instructions Sheet T-I (see below). ii. Utility trenching access shall be identified. If the route crosses adjacent property with an easement, a Tree Preservation Report shall accompany the building permit submittal to protect all trees. Above ground utilities shall be located on the site in such a way that landscape screening can grow adequately to interrupt direct view from street frontages. 12.Landscape plan submitted for ARB review shall reflect the following requirements and specifications: ¯Specify the minimum size for all trees as 24" box, standard or multi-stem. ¯Chinese Elm variety shall specify ’Athena Elm’ ¯Delete root barrier comments. ¯Identify color of hardscape and surface materials 13.A detailed landscape and irrigation plan shall be submitted encompassing on-and off-site plantable areas out to the curb for review and approval by the Architectural Review Board. A Landscape Water Use statement, water use calculations and a statement of design intent shall be submitted for the project. A licensed landscape architect and qualified irrigation consultant should prepare these plans. Landscape and irrigation plans shall include: a. All existing trees identified both to be retained and removed including street trees. b. Complete plant list indicating tree and plant species, quantity, size, and locations. c. Irrigation schedule and plan. d. Fence locations. e. Lighting plan with photometric data. f. Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and maintained as necessary to ensure survival. g. All new trees planted within the public right-of-way, as shown on the approved plans, shall be installed per Public Works Standard Tree Well Diagram #504, shall have a tree pit dug at least twice the diameter of the root ball. The Public Works Detail #504 shall be shown on Landscape Plans. h. Landscape plan shall include planting preparation details for trees specifying digging the soil to at least 30-inches deep, backfilled with a quality topsoil and dressing with 2-inches of wood or bark mulch on top of the root ball keeping clear of the trunk by 1-inch. i. Automatic irrigation shall be provided to all trees. For trees, details on the irrigation plans shall show two bubbler heads mounted on flexible tubing placed at the edge Page 10 of the root ball for each tree that is 15 gallon in size or larger. Bubblers shall not be mounted inside the aeration tube. The tree irrigation system shall be connected to a separate valve from other shrubbery and ground cover, pursuant to the City’s Landscape Water Efficiency Standards. Irrigation in the right-of-way requires a street work permit per CPA Public Works standards. j.Landscape Plan shall ensure the backflow device is adequately obscured with the planting of appropriate screening (shrubbery, fitted with dark green wire cage, painted dark green, false rock covering, etc) to minimize visibility. 14.Site Plan Requirements. The Site Plans shall denote tree protection (Type III fencing around street trees and Type I around the Protected oak), as a bold dashed line enclosing the presence Tree Protection Zone (as !ocated in the approved Tree Protection Report) as shown on Detail #503, Sheet T-I, and the City Tree Technical Manual, Section 6.35-Site Plans. 15. The approved plans submitted for building permit shall include the following information: ¯Sheet T-I Tree Protection-it’s Part of the Plan (http://www~city.palo- a!to.ca.us/arb/planninq forms.html), complete the Tree Disclosure Statement and Inspection(s) #1-6 shall be checked. ¯Include on Sheet T-I all pages of the Tree Preservation Report (if required for oak or neighboring trees), approved by staff. A note shall be applied to the site plan stating, "All measures identified in the Tree Protection Report on Sheet T-! and the approved plans shall be implemented, including inspections and required watering of trees. 15.All civil plan sheets shall include a note applying to the trees to be protected, including neighborhood trees stating:"Regulated Tree--before working in this area contact the Project Arborist at 650-593-4400" 16.All Planning Department conditions of approval for the project shall be printed on the p~ans submitted for building permit. 17.These conditions shall be verified by Planning staff prior to issuance of any permit. DURING CONSTRUCTION 18.Tree Protection Statement. A written statement from the contractor verifying that the required protective fencing is in place shall be submitted td the Building Inspections Division prior to demolition, grading or building permit issuance. The fencing shall contain required warning sign and remain in place until final inspection of the project. Tree fencing shall be adjusted after demolition if necessary to increase the tree protection zone as required by the project arborist. Page 11 19. 20. The applicant shall be responsible for the repair or replacement of any publicly owned trees that are damaged during the course of construction, pursuant to Section 8.04.070 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. The following general tree preservation measures apply to all trees to be retained: No storage of material, topsoil, vehicles or equipment shall be permitted within the tree enclosure area. The ground under and around the tree canopy area shall not be altered. Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and maintained as necessary to ensure survival. POST CONSTRUCTION 21.Maintenance. For the life of the project, all landscape shall be well maintained, watered, fertilized, and pruned according to Nursery and Best Management Practices-Pruning (ANSI A300- 2001). Any vegetation that dies shall be replaced or failed automatic irrigation repaired by the current property owner within 30 days of discovery. Building Division 22.The plans submitted for the building permit shall include the full scope of the construction including all site development, utility installations, architectural, structural, electrica!, plumbing and mechanica! work associated with the proposed project. 23.The design of building components that are not included in the plans submitted for building permit and are to be deferred shall be limited to as few items as possible. The list of deferred items shall be reviewed and approved prior to permit application. 24.The plans submitted with the permit application for the shell building shall include the complete design for disabled access and exiting for the entire site, building entrances and parking garage. Disabled access features and exiting within the unimproved offices spaces may be deferred to future tenant improvement permits. 25.The location of the building’s electrical service shall require prior approval by the Building Division and shall be located at an exterior location or in a room or enclosure accessible directly form the exterior. 26.The plans submitted with the permit application for the new building shall include the complete design for the interior of the residential units. 27.An acoustical analysis shal! be submitted and the plans shall incorporate the reports recommendations needed to comply with the sound transmissions requirements in CBC Appendix Chapter 12. 28.A demolition permit shall be required for the removal of the existing buildings on the site. Removal of the existing buildings and final of the demolition permits is to be Page 12 29. completed prior to issuance of the permit for the new building. 8. The lots comprising the site shall be merged. The parcel map or certificate of compliance shall be recorded prior to permit issuance. A single address shall be assigned for the new development. The applicant shall submit a "Change of Address Request" form and the single address issue shall be resolved prior to the submitting for the building permit. Department of Public Works Engineering Division Prior to ARB approval 30. STREET TREES: All plans involving street trees, including relocation, removal, planting new trees, or any excavation within I0 feet of a street tree, must be approved by Public Works’ arborist, Dave Sandage (phone: 496-6905). The existing street tree at the new driveway is noted to be relocated, but it may be better to dispose of this tree and plant a new one. 31.CALTRANS ROW: Caltrans must review and approve of the new access point/driveway to the site off of E! Camino Real. Include in submittal for a building permit 32. 33. 34. 35. GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN: The plan set must include a grading & drainage plan that includes existing and proposed spot elevations and drainage flow arrows to demonstrate proper drainage of the site. Downspouts and splashblocks should be shown on this plan. Note that new development is not al!owed to increase drainage onto, nor block existing drainage from, neighboring properties. Public Works encourages the deve!oper to detain and treat rainwater on-site as much as feasible by directing runoff to landscaped and other pervious areas of the site. Consider using a permeable surface for the parking lot. The Proposed Grading and Drainage Plan has been reviewed and is approved. On the building permit submittal, include the !ocation of downspouts and relocate the velocity reduction box onto private property. This project may be subject to new storm water regulations. Attached is an informational sheet explaining the new regulations. It appears that the surface parking lot exceeds i0,000 sf and, if so, the new regulations will be applied if the building permit application is deemed complete on or after October 13, 2005. STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION: The City’s full-sized "Pollution Prevention - It’s Part of the Plan" sheet must be included in the plan set. Copies are available from Public Works at the Development Center or on our website. Also, include the following note on the appropriate sheet (usually the site plan), "The contractor is responsible for ensuring that no dirt or construction debris enters the City storm drain system. To accomplish this, pay close attention to the Page 13 36. 37. 38. requirements on the "Pollution Prevention - It’s Part of the Plan" sheet in this plan set. Furthermore, if any of the construction will occur during the wet season (October 1 through April 15), then the contractor is also responsible for: ¯installing the appropriate Best Management Practices (BMP’s) to prevent storm water pollution prior to October 1 or the start of construction ¯calling the City’s Environmental Compliance Division at 650-329-2598 for an inspection of the BMP’s prior to October 1 or the start of construction ¯maintaining and adjusting the BMP’s as necessary throughout the project ¯removing the BMP’s upon completion of the project Substantial fines may be levied by the City and/or the Regional Water Quality Control Board if failure to comply with these requirements results in the release, or the threatened release, of polluted water from the site." WORK IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY: For work to be conducted in the public right-of-way, such as sidewalk, driveway approach, curb, gutter, or utility lateral work, the plans must clearly indicate the work and include notes that the work must be done per Public Works standards and that any contractor performing work in the right-of-way must obtain a Permit for Construction in the Public Street from Public Works at the Development Center prior to issuance of a demolition or building permit. In the public right-of-way (ROW) between the site and E1 Camino Real, abandoned driveways shall be replaced, a new driveway installed, and the sidewalk along the entire frontage shall be replaced, all per City standards. The dimensions and !ocations of the tree wells must be approved by Dave Sandage. Tree well grates may be required. LOGISTICS PLAN: A logistics plan will be required as part of the Permit for Construction in the Public Street and shall include a construction schedule, work hours, best management practices for storm water pollution prevention, a demolition plan, traffic control, pedestrian protection, truck haul routes, noise control, dust control, contractor’s parking, a staging area, a plan for concrete pours and crane operations, and a plan for noticing al! affected nearby property owners. Work should be confined to the site as much as practical and with as little impact to the public right-of-way as possible. IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA: The proposed development will result in a change in the impervious surface area of the property. The applicant shall provide calculations of the existing and proposed impervious surface areas with the building permit application.The Impervious Area Worksheet for Land Developments form and instructions are available at the Development Center or on Public Works website, www.cityofpaloalto.org/publicworks/engineering/documents/Imper viousAreaCalculationWorksheet.pdf. Page 14 39. 40. PACEL MAP: A parcel map is probably required for this project as the site consists of multiple parcels and lots and the project includes residential units (which I assume are "for sale" units). Also, public utilities easements may be required. The parcel map must be recorded prior to issuance of demolition, grading and building permits. TRASH ENCLOSURE: The trash enclosure must be covered. Public Works Operations/Recycling Division 41. 42. 43. 44. Size of recycling and trash enclosure should accommodate receptacles with the following dimensions: Garbage: Contact PASCO 493-4894 for appropriate size receptacle for service Recycling: qty i- 2 cubic yard bin for the collection of cardboard for recycling; bin dimensions 81"w x 38"d x 46"h qty 4- 96 gallon wheeled cart for mixed recycling (paper, can, bottles); wheeled cart dimensions- 28"w x 39"h x 26"d Interior spaces of retail, office, and residential should be designed to accommodate temporary storage of recyclables prior to transfer to exterior trash/recycling enclosure. To avoid additional garbage/recycling service charges for service beyond the standard service leve!, enclosure must be designed so that PASCO has unrestricted access, including but not limited to pull-out distance of receptacle, paths/driveways leading to enclosure, vertical clearance and turnaround of service vehicles. Enc!osure guidelines attached. Contact PASCO at 493-4894 for questions regarding service. To assist the City in State-mandated requirements (AB939) to reduce waste sent to landfills, the following is encouraged: Use of recycled content building materials (ex. fly ash concrete, wallboard, tile, paint, etc) . A recycled content building materials database is available at www.ciwmb.ca.gov/RCP Use Green Building Principles: Leadership in Energy and Environmenta!Design Green Building Rating System. www.usgbc.org WATER QUALITY CONTROL 45. 46. 47. Newly constructed or improved buildings with all or a portion of the space with undesignated tenants or future use will need to meet al! requirements that would have been applicable during design and construction. If such undesignated retail space becomes a food service facility the following requirements must be met. A grease interceptor shall be installed with a minimum capacity of 750 gallons. The grease interceptor must be sized in accordance with Appendix H of the Uniform Plumbing Code. The sizing calculation must be submitted with the plans. After January i, 1996, new buildings constructed to house food Page 15 48. 49. service facilities shall include a covered area for a dumpster. The area shall be designed to prevent water run-on to the area and runoff from the area. Drains that are installed beneath dumpsters serving food service facilities shall be connected to a grease removal device. The installation of a garbage grinder at any food service facility is prohibited after January i, 2003. The kitchen cannot utilize a garbage grinder for food waste disposal to the sanitary sewer. Food service facilities shall have a sink or other area for cleaning floor mats, containers, and equipment, which is connected to a grease interceptor and the sanitary sewer. UTILITIES DEPARTMENT Utilities - Water, Gas, Wastewater 50.The applicant shall submit a request to disconnect all utility services and/or meters including a signed affidavit of vacancy. Utilities will be disconnected or removed within I0 working days after receipt of request. The demolition permit will be issued by the building inspection division after all utility services and/or meters have been disconnected and removed. 51.The applicant shall submit a completed water-gas-wastewater service connection application - load sheet for 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.). 52.The applicant shall submit improvement plans for utility construction. The plans must show the size and location of al! 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. All WGW utilities shall be connected to mains in Park Avenue. New sewer laterals shall be connected to the adjacent manhole in Park Avenue. Only plastic sewer laterals may be reused, older sewer laterals shall be replaced (show sewer laterals to be replaced on the plans). 53.Sewer drainage piping serving fixtures located below the next upstream sewer main manhole cover shall be protected by an approved backwater valve per California Plumbing Code 710.0. The upstream sewer main manhole rim elevation shall be shown on the plans. 54.The applicant must show on the site plan the existence of any water well, or auxiliary water supply. 55.The applicant shall be responsible for installing and upgrading the existing utility mains and/or services as necessary to handle anticipated peak loads. This responsibility includes all capacity fees and costs associated with the design and construction for the installation/upgrade Page 16 56. of the utility mains and/or services. For contractor installed water and wastewater mains or services, the applicant shall submit to the WGW engineering section of the Utilities Department four copies of the installation of water and wastewater utilities off-site improvement plans in accordance with the utilities department design criteria. All utility work within the public right-of- way shall be clearly shown on the plans that are prepared, signed and stamped by a registered civil engineer. The contractor shall also submit a complete schedule of work, method of construction and the manufacture’s literature on the materials to be used for approval by the utilities engineering section. The applicant’s contractor will not be allowed to begin work until the improvement plan and other submittals have been approved by the water, gas and wastewater engineering section. 57.The applicant shall pay the capacity fees and connection fees associated with the installation of the new utility service/s to be installed by the City of Palo Alto Utilities. The approved relocation of services, meters, hydrants, or other facilities will be performed at the cost of the person/entity requesting the re!ocation. Any WGW utility main or valve located in the street right of way paved area that would end up under the new sidewalk treatment or gutter shall be relocated to paved area. 58.Each unit shall have its own water and gas meter shown on the plans. 59.A separate water meter and backflow preventer shall be installed to irrigate the approved landscape plan. Show the location of the irrigation meter on the plans. This meter shall be designated as an irrigation account an no other water service will be billed on the account. The irrigation and landscape plans submitted with the application for a grading or building permit shall conform to the City of Palo Alto water efficiency standards. 60.An approved reduce pressure principle assembly (RPPA 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, sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive. The RPPA shall be installed on the owner’s property and directly behind the water meter. Show the location of the RPPA on the plans. Inspection by the utilities cross connection inspector is required for the supply pipe between the meter and the assembly. 61.An approved double detector 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. Double check detector check valves shall be installed on the owner’s property adjacent to the property line. Show the location of the double detector check assembly on the plans. Inspection Page 17 64. by the utilities cross connection inspector is required for the supply pipe between the City connection and the assembly. 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 section. The applicant’s engineer shall submit flow calculations and system capacity study showing that the on-site and off-site water and sanitary sewer mains and services will provide the domestic, irrigation, fire flows, and wastewater capacity needed to service the development and adjacent properties during anticipated peak f!ow demands. Field testing may be required to determined current flows and water pressures on existing water main. Calculations must be signed and stamped by a registered civil engineer. The applicant may be required to perform, at his/her expense, a flow monitoring study of the existing sewer main to determine the remaining capacity. The report must include existing peak flows or depth of flow based on a minimum monitoring period of seven continuous days or as determined by the senior wastewater engineer. The study shall meet the requirements and the approval of the WGW engineering section. No downstream overloading of existing sewer main will be permitted. Existing wastewater laterals that are not plastic (ABS, PVC, or PE) shall be replaced at the applicant’s expense. Utilities Marketing Services 67.Prior to issuance of either a Building Permit or Grading Permit, the Utilities Marketing Services division of the Utilities Department shall approve all common area. landscaping. The landscape shall conform to the Landscape Water Efficiency Standards of the City of Palo Alto. For projects with more than 1500 square feet of landscaped area, a water budget shall be assigned to the project and a dedicated irrigation water meter shall be required. Call the Utility Marketing Services at 650-329-2417. Utili ties Engineering 68.Adequate clearance and a public utility easement for installing a padmounted transformer and associated substructure shall be provided on the site. Applicant needs shall inform Utilities whether they will bring the primary conduits up to the new padmounted transformer from E1 Camino Real side or from the rear side along neighbor’s property. If this option does not work then primary conduits shal! be brought from E1 Camino Real side. Applicant will be responsible for all substructure work on E1 Camino Real as well as pulling permits from relevant authorities. Any Page 18 extension of existing distribution lines or relocation of equipment will be at Customer/Developer’s expense. Cost estimate and detailed comments will be provided when plans are submitted to the Building Department for review and approval. These are only preliminary comments and should not be construed as final comments or approval for the project. Applicant must schedule a meeting with Utilities Engineering @650-566-4516/4533 and obtain all service requirements prior to submitting the plans to the Building Department. FIRE DEPARTMENT 69.Provide sprinklers for Trash Enclosure if provided with a roof. 70.An approved access walkway shall be provided to each egress/rescue window 71.Elevator car shal! be sized for Fire Department gurney access requirements based on gurney dimensions of 24 in. x 82 in. plus a minimum of two emergency response personnel. 72.A fire sprinkler system shall be provided which meets the requirements of NFPA Standard No. 13, 1999 Edition. Fire Sprinkler system installations or modifications require separate submittal to the Fire Prevention Bureau. 73.An exterior bel! shall be provided, and an approved audible sprinkler flow alarm to alert the occupant shal! be provided in the interior of the building in an approved location.) Fire Alarm system installations or modifications require separate submittal to the Fire Prevention Bureau. 74.Underground fire supply system installations or modifications require separate submittal to the Fire Prevention Bureau as well as the Public Works Department and the Water/Gas/Wastewater Section of the Utilities Department. SECTION 9.Term of Approval. Site and Design Approval. In the event actual construction of the project is not commenced within two years of the date of council approval, the approval shall expire and be of no further force or effect, pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.82.080. PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: Page 19 ATTEST:APPROVED: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Director of Planning and Community Environment Senior Deputy City Attorney PLANS AND DRAWINGS REFERENCED: I.Development Plans prepared by DES Architects consisting of 18 pages, received June 8, 2006. Page 20 Attachment B The City of Palo Alto Mixed Use Project 2825 & 2865 E1 Camino Real This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS Attachment C Feature Minimum Site Area PAMC 18.24. 050(a) Min. Site Width PAMC 18.24. 050(’o) Min. Site Depth PAMC 18.24. 050(c) Front Setback PAMC 18.24.50(j) Left Side Setback PAMC 18.24. 050(e) (2) Rear Setback PAMC 18.24. 050(e) (2) Floor Area Ratio PAMC 18. 45. 050(g) (3) Site Coverage 18.24.050(h)(1) Usable Open Space PAMC 18.24. 0500") Building Height PAMC 18.24. 050(g) Daylight Plane PAMC 18.24. 050(g) Project’s Conformance with Zoning Code Regulations 2825 El Camino Real (05PLN-00300) Table 1: CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.45 (CS DISTRICT) and RM-30 District by Reference Regulation 8,500 sq. ft. 70 ft. 100 ft. 25 ft. arterial street setback 10 ft. for 1 st Story 19.5 ft. for 2nd ~; 3ra stories 10 ft. for 1 st Story 19.5 ft. for 2nd & 3~d stories Res. (.6) 13,495 sq. ft. Non Res. (.4) 8,996 sq. ft. (.40) 8,996 sq. ft. 6,747 sq. ft. common space and 100 sq. ft. private open space for a total of 6,847 sq. ft. of usable open space. 35ft Ten feet at side property lines and angle of 45 degrees Proposed 22,491 sq. ft. 150 ft. 123 ft. 76 ft. Res. 4,992 sq. ft. Non. Res. 8,996 sq. ft. 4,639 sq. ft. 5,583 sq. ft. of common open space and 526 sq. ft. of private open space for a total of 6,109 sq. ft of usable open space 35ft. 65 ft. wide encroachment on left side Conformance Conforms Conforms Conforms Does not conform (DEE Requested) Does not conform (DEE Requested) Conforms Conforms Conforms Does not conform (Variance requested for reducing the required usable open space by 966 sq. ft.) Conforms Does not conform (DEE Requested) Table 2: CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.83 (parking/landscape) Parking Spaces Parking for Non-Res Parking for Retail Use Parking for Residential Accessible Parking Covered Parking PAMC 18.24. 070(’o) Bicycles Parking Required/Allowed 28 spaces Total of 41 10 spaces spaces are 4 spaces required 3 accessible parking stalls (1 Van) for 38 spaces. Two covered parking spaces 10% of auto parking for four spaces Proposed 38 spaces Three shown at grade None 2 Racks/2 Lockers Conformance Adjustment for joint use facilities requested Conforms Conforms Conforms Landscape feature % interior plantings Islands (5’ x 5’ min.) # interior trees in surface parking lot Perimeter plantings Tree, shrub size Required 660 sq. ft. (5%) One per ten parking spaces in a row Six Trees 5 ft. wide 15 gal. Trees req., 25% 24" box, 5 gal shrubs 5O% Proposed 924 sq. ft. (7%) Three landscaped islands separating rows of parking spaces Six Trees Min 5 ft. wide minimum perimeter parking lot landscaping provided All trees to be 24" box. 50% of shrubs will be 5 gallon. Conformance Conforms Conforms Conforms Conforms Conforms Attachment D COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TABLE 2825-2865 El Camino Real The project would be consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan Polices Policy L-6: Where possible, avoid abrupt changes in scale and density between residential and non-residential areas and between residential areas of different densities. Policy L-48: Promote high quality, creative design and site planning that is compatible with surrounding development and public spaces. Policy L-70: Enhance the appearance of streets and other public spaces by expanding and maintaining Palo Alto’s street tree system. Policy L-75: Minimize the negative physical impacts of parking lots. Locate parking lots behind buildings or underground wherever possible. Policy L-78: Encourage development that creatively integrates parking into the project Policy H-4: Encourage mixed use projects as a means of increasing the housing supply while promoting diversity and neighborhood quality. Policy N-15: Require new commercial...projects to provide street trees and related irrigation systems. The building will be located at least 75 feet away from R-1 zone to the northeast The project is subject to review by the Architectural Review Board, to ensure the building design will be aesthetically appropriate and compatible with the site and surrounding development, and the site improvements will be harmonious and appropriate to the building. The project will remove one existing Sycamore street tree for construction of the driveway and two new Sycamore street trees would be planted. The trees would be planted per conditions implementing E1 Camino Real Master Plan and Guidelines. The 38-space parking lot will be placed behind and adjacent to the proposed building. Additional screening of the parking lot would be provided by two 12’- 6" tall stonewalls located on both sides of the driveway. Both walls would be planted with vines. The project will take advantage of the allowable parking reduction for mixed-use projects by requesting a 9% parking reduction. The mixed-use project would provide two additional housing units. The retail and office uses could also provide a benefit for the neighborhood. The project would provide new street trees. Irrigation for these trees will be automatic. Attachment E DES ARCHITECTS ENGINEERS April 18, 2006 Mr. Christopher A. Riordan Planner City of Pat0 Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Project:Architectural Review Application for 2825-2865 El Camino Real, Palo Alto. 05PLN-00300 Dear Mr. Riordan: Enclosed is a revised submittal for 2825-2865 El Camino Real. Below is a list of modifications that we have made to the drawings in response to the Architectural Review Boards comments at the March 2, 2006 hearing. Site 1.The covered parking has been removed as was discussed by ARB members. We are requesting a variance from the request for 2 covered parking spaces. The variance findings are attached. A 6’-0" wood fence has been added at the rear property line. Details are shown on page 18 of the revised drawing set. The ARB commented on the appropriateness of a wood fence. 3.SF Rima Permeable Pavers have been added in Lieu of the decorative pavers proposed at the parking in front of the main building entry as requested by ARB members The bike rack has been moved away from the El Camino frontage and further into the site adjacent to the stair tower and lobby as requested by ARB members. A stamped concrete band has been added at the El Camino drive to enliven the entry as requested by ARB members. Arched wall features at the drive way entry have been removed and replaced with the following: The trash enclosure has been moved back to make room for a monument sign at the driveway entry. Tall shrubs and trees are proposed as a backdrop for the monument sign to help screen the parking and the trash enclosure and to narrow the experience of the driveway entry. 399 Bradford Street Redwood City, California 94063 Tel 650-364~6453 Fax 650-364-2618 www.des-ae.com 2825-2865 El Camino Real, Palo Alto April 18, 2006 Page 2 qf3 At the building side of the driveway we are proposing an art piece with associated flatwork and planting. The final design of this art piece is to be determined, with the expectation that the art would be a large collection of natural stone sculpture. Since the preliminary review of the project we have elongated the building along El Camino to the greatest extent possible given requirements for a two-way drive entry. There is no further practical design solution that would further narrow the El Camino entry while satisfying impress/egress and parking standards. The applicant hopes to participate in the re-development of both neighboring properties, which would then enable a further reduction of building "voids" along this important frontage. Floor Plans 1. The master bedroom of the rear living unit has been reconfigured to add a balcony on the east elevation as requested by ARB members. 2.In the front living unit a balcony has been added off the living space on the south elevation as requested by ARB members. Elevations 1. The height of the mechanical equipment screen has been reduced to 5’-0" as requested by ARB Members 2.Lintels have been added at all second floor windows as requested by ARB members 3.Arched windows have been added at the first floor on the east elevation for consistency with all other elevations. ARB members commented on the need to "finish" the rear elevation with greater detail. The north elevation has become more geometrically organized with balconies at each corner of the third floor. We have added deep stucco score lines and we are proposing an art piece mural on this wall, the design is to be determined. These changes are as requested by the ARB members. Design for the trash enclosure and fence at the rear property line are included on page 18 of the drawing set, details of which were requested by ARB members. Sunshade Study 1. We have included sunshade studies for both the south and west elevations in summer and winter to show the effectiveness of the sunshades at the second floor as requested by ARB members DES Architects + Engineers, Inc.P: \ Morris \ 2825 EICa \ 9603.01 \ Adrnin \ Corresp \ City \ ARB CornmentsO6-O410.doc ©2003 2825-2865 El Camino Real, Palo Alto April 18, 2006 Page 3 of 3 Sketches 1.Revised sketch of building to show new driveway entry design and art features. 2.New sketch of south elevation at building main entry. 3.New sketch of pedestrian experience on El Camino Real in front of the building. 4.Revised color site plan is included. Details 1.Details of windows, sunshades, material transitions and railings have been included on page 17 of the drawing set as requested by ARB members Lighting 1.Revised lighting plan to show zero light trespass at property lines as required by city guidelines Please feel free to call me if you have additional questions. I can be reached 650.364.6453 extension 465. Sincerely, DES Architects + Engineers, Inc. Dawn Harness cc:Jeff Morris Jim Baer DES Architects + En~neers, Inc.P: \ Morris \ 2825 EI Ca \ 9603.01 \ A dmin \ Corresp \ City \ ARB CommentsO6-O410.doc @2003 PREMIER PROPERTIES MANAGEMENT AttachmentE JAMES E. BAER December 5, 2005 VIA HAND DELIVERY Mr. Chris Riordan Planning Department City of Palo Alto Re: 2825 E! Camino Real:Site and Design Review for Mixed-Use Proiect Dear Chris: This letter supplements our earlier submittal for 2825 E1 Camino. DES has provided revised plans and drawings to address questions raised during your review of the project. With this letter I have attached an updated Arborist Report and an analysis prepared by Fehr & Peers with respect to daily and peak hour trips for the proposed project compared with current land uses. We will reduce daily trips by over 400 per day. DES will provide one sketch revision that can be added to the package: We will provide two parking spaces covered with a trellis car-port structure directly behind the building at spaces we identify as #15 and #16. I am assisting Jeff Morris with the development of two parcels "known as 2825 and 2865 El Camino Real. 2825 E1 Camino Real is in the CS Zone District with a Comprehensive Land Use designation as Service Commercial which specifically states: "In some locations, residenlial and mixed-use projects may be appropriate.." The two parcels 2825 E! Camino and 2865 E1 Camino will be merged with the combined parcels referred to as "2825 El Camino Real". A Project Description is provided by DES Architects with extensive design materials and plans. This letter provides a brief historical background and describes the project in context of current and pending zoning regulations and the El Camino Real Design Guidelines. A few minor Design Enhancement Exceptions are required as is the case for Chris Riordan December 5, 2005 Page 2 any mixed-use project that includes residential units in a commercial zone such as 2825 E1 Camino. 1. BACKGROUND & EXISTING CONDITIONS The site is located on the east side of E1 Camino Real one parcel south of Page Mill Road. The site consists of two parcels that will be merged into a single parcel with tota! area of 22,491 square feet. The 2825 E1 Camino parcel has been vacant since 1999 and is used occasionally for surface parking. The 2865 E1 Camino parcel is the location of the Old Pro Sports Bar and Restaurant and warehouse space. The Old Pro building is a Quonset hut structure that cannot be upgraded to satisfy current building codes. The existing building will be demolished. We have been working with the Old Pro since 1998 to support its successful relocation within the Palo Alto community. In 2003 we acquired the property located at 361 California on behalf of, and in partnership with, the Old Pro. Subsequently the Old Pro has relocated to the historic building at 541 Ramona Street where it has thrived. We are assisting with renovation and expansion of the Old Pro at 541 Ramona with an application that is on file with the City. The major reason for relocation of the Old Pro has been its inability to utilize the entire existing building at 2865 El Camino. Due to parking, zoning, building and fire codes, the Old Pro has been able to occupy 0nly 2,000 square feet of the building for restaurant and dining purposes. The remainder of the building has been reserved for warehouse and storage. Since 2001 the City has carefully monitored and enforced limitations on the operations of Old Pro on El Camino. On July 20, 2000, a previous mixed-use application for 2825 El Camino received Site and Design Approval from the City Council following support from the Architectural Review Board and the Planning & Transportation Commission. A Building Permit for the project was received in 2001 just as the Silicon Valley real estate economy, and leasing environment entered into a recessive period. As a result of the economic downturn, the previously approved project was not constructed. Previous approvals have all expired. We now return with a better project. 2. FLOOR AREA RATIO AND MIXED USES This project is a true mixed-use project combining retail, office and residential uses. The site area is 22,491 square feet. The initial office uses are expected to be professional offices. 2,000 square feet of retail area will be preserved on the ground floor in compliance with current zoning Chris Riordan December 5, 2005 Page 3 A. Proposed Building FAR and Uses: Under the CS Zone, total building area of 22,49! square feet is allowed while this application proposes only 13,988 square feet, or a FAR of 0.62:1 where 1:1 is allowed. Building Areas are as follow: Retail Office Residential 2,000 sf (9% FAR Replacing 2,000 sf of Existing Retail Area) 6,996 sf (31% FAR Consistent with CS Zone) 4,992 sf (22% FAR while CS Zone allows 60% FAR) B. Density -- Two Residential Units: There are 2 three-bedroom residential units, each of which consists of approximately 1,700 habitable square feet (exclusive of stairs and elevator). This density is below the density allowed under the CS Zone. The unit sizes are appropriate for families seeking housing near Stanford University, California Avenue and the Stanford Research Park employment centers. E. Office Area Limitation: The CS Zone limits office space to no more than 5,000 square feet per parcel. Were 2825 E1 Camino Real and 2865 E1 Camino Real developed separately, the two parcels would be allowed up to 10,000 square feet of office area. As two combined parcels, 2825 El Camino Real will create two commercial condominiums (one for each of the first floor and the second floor) with each commercial condominium unit having less than 5,000 square feet of office area. Planning Staff has approved this approach based on the 2003 precedent for the 940 Emerson Street project sponsored by Steve Pierce. 3. PARKING The areas and parking requirements are summarized below: Retail Area =2,000 sf @ 1 Space Per 200 sf: Office Area =6,996 sf @ 1 Space Per 250 sf: Two Residential Units = SUBTOTAL: Waiver of Shared Use Spaces REQUIRED PARKING TOTAL: 10 Spaces 28 Spaces 3 Spaces 41 SPACES (3) Spaces 38 SPACES Chris Riordan December 5, 2005 Page 4 PAMC 18.83.120(c) allows the Director of Planning to grant a 20% parking reduction for mixed-use projects involving over 30 parking spaces where the hours of demand for parking among the mix of uses are in conflict. The mix of retail/office!residential uses qualifies for waiver of up to 20% of the parking required. This would entitle the project to a reduction of 8 spaces (20% of 41 spaces), leaving a parking requirement for 33 spaces. We are providing 38 spaces. The only spaces for which we seek relief are the three residential spaces. The parking demand of the proposed office and retail uses will not conflict with parking demand of the two residential units. In addition, the former businesses located at the site provided three large driveway entries from E1 Camino Real. The new project will provide only one driveway. PRECEDENT: The previous project approval for the Mixed-Use 2825 E1 Camino project from 2000, and the 2005 Mixed-Use projects for each of1795 E1 Camino and 1805 E1 Camino have been approved with support for the waiver of parking for the small residential component of these projects under the zoning policy and practical aspects of Shared Use Parking. All Three of these projects received unanimous approval from the City Council, establishing policy for the waiver of residential parking spaces. 4. CS ZONING WITH RM-30 MIXED-USE OVERLAY 2825 E1 Camino Real is proposed for development during a time period when there is extensive legislative activity related both to Mixed-Use projects on E1 Camino Real, and with adoption of Design Guidelines for E1 Camino Real. Mixed-Use developments in the CS Zone District apply the RM-30 provisions of PAMC 18.24, not only to the residential component of the project, but to the entire project, including the commercial area. This means that setback requirements for a residential project apply to the commercial portions of the project that cannot be satisfied. This outdated zoning model has been recognized by the City Council, ,Architectural Review Board, Planning Department and Transportation Commission with Site and Design approval in 2005 of applications for 1795 E1 Camino and 1805 E1 Camino and in 2000 for the previous application for 2825 El Camino and in 2001 for the project at 4131 E1 Camino. Chris Riordan December 5, 2005 Page 5 The City has acknowledged for many years that the Zoning Ordinance is outdated, with respect to any small-parcel mixed-use project. Program H-16 of the Comprehensive Plan specifically recognizes problems with mixed-use zoning regulations: ’Ms part of the Zoning Ordinance Update process, evaluate and improve incentives that encourage mixed uses (with a residential component)... The City’s current zoning regulations have been ineffective in encouraging significant numbers of mixed-use projects... Typically projects require many Variances from current development standards. " These defects in the current Zoning Ordinance are being addressed in the Zoning Ordinance Update. Similarly, the E1 Camino Real Design Guidelines impose guidelines that will result in E1 Camino becoming more suitable for pedestrians by having buildings address E1 Camino Real rather than recede from E1 Camino Real. Setback provisions have been modified that are currently inconsistent with current CS Zone requirements. We embrace the E1 Camino Real Guidelines with the support of Staff and the Architectural Review Board. IN 2005, during its formal review of !795 E1 Camino and 1805 E1 Camino, and preliminary review of 2825 E1 Camino, the ARB forcefully stated that it would recommend all Design Enhancement Exceptions for a mixed-use project on E1 Camino in order to satisfy the E1 Camino Real Design Guidelines. More particularly, at the May 19, 2005 Preliminary ARB Review of 2825 E1 Camino Real, the ARB directed the Applicant to: (i) elongate the building frontage addressing E1 Camino Real by eliminating the setback on the north property line; and (ii) bring the building forward along El Camino by reducing the entire building front setback. We have complied with the ARB request with thedesign now presented. Modification of these setbacks as requested by the ARB, require Design Enhancement Exceptions for setback and daylight plane. On September 19, 2005 the City Council approved the Site and Design applications for 1795 E1 Camino and 1805 E1 Camino both by 9-0 votes. These City Council actions have provided clarity for Planning Staff and applicants that Design Enhancement Exceptions will be granted with respect to daylight plane, setbacks and minor modifications in height if project applications are otherwise in compliance with the E1 Camino Real Design Guidelines. Variances were granted for open space deficiencies because of the nature of the E1 Camino units that are designed as urban units for professionals and not for young families. Chris Riordan December 5, 2005 Page 6 (a) (b) (c) Street Frontage Setback: CS Zone PAMC 18.45.050(d) requires no front yard setback. The RM-30 overlay (PAMC 18.24.050(d)) requires a setback of 20 feet for the entire building when a residence is included. The E1 Camino Real Design Guidelines propose a 12-foot setback along El Camino, The entire building is setback 12 feet from back of curb, as is consistent with the E1 Camino Real Guidelines. A DEE is required for the E1 Camino setback because of the anomaly in applying RM-30 standards in the CS Zone and by overriding direction from the E1 Camino Real Design Guidelines. North Interior Side Yard Setback: CS Zone PAMC 18.45.050(f)(1) requires no interior side yard setback. RM-30 Zone 18.24.050(e)(2) establishes a setback of 17.5 feet (one-half the building height). 2825 El Camino shares its northern property line with a commercial building and surface parking lot with no setback as requested by the ARB. A DEE is required enabling the building to address E1 Camino, to place all parking behind the building, and to resolve the anomalous mixed-use provision of the current zoning ordinance. North Side Yard Daylight Plane. CS Zone PAMC 18.45.070 does not require any daylight plane except adjacent to a sensitive R Zone that is not applicable to 2825 E1 Camino. RM-30 PAMC 18.24.050(g) establishes a side yard daylight plane for all projects that is 10 feet at the property line increasing at a 45-degree angle. We do not satisfy the daylight plane as no setback is provided on the North Side Yard as requested by the ARB. A DEE is required in order to comply with the requirements of the E1 Camino Guidelines and to address the anomalous mixed-use zoning. All other daylight plane and setback requirements are satisfied. At 35’ tall, the building complies with CS Zoning for building height. 5. DESIGN ENHANCEMENT EXCEPTION FINDINGS Section 18.76.050 provides for a Design Enhancement Exception to permit a minor exception to the zoning regulations. A few minor Design Enhancement Exceptions are required for 2825 E1 Camino Real, all of which are related to adding two third-floor residential units. A. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property or site improvements involved that do not apply generally to Chris Riordan December 5, 2005 Page 7 property in the same zone district ..... 2825 El Camino Real is a merged parcel near the corner of El Camino and Page Mill Road, one of the most urban locations in the City of Palo Alto.. 2825 is unique in that it is one of the few parcels to undergo construction of a new building during this tim-e period when the ZOUproposals and the El Camino Real Design Guidelines are inconsistent with current zoning. B. The granting of the application will enhance the appearance of the site or structure, or improve the neighborhood character .... The neighborhood character is improved by developing a mixed-use three-story building on this blighted site. The three- story building will buffer rear yard residential neighbors from the noise of El Camino. Complying with the El Camino Real Design Guidelines enhances the appearance of the site and the neighborhood character. We have received support from our immediate neighbors at 2805 El Camino, 2875 El Camino and 471 Page Mill Road. C. The exception is related to a minor architectural feature or site improvement that 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 .... The only sensitive neighboring properties are the rear R-) and RM-30 neighbors who benefit from the 80-foot setback, new required wall and planting setback area of] O feet none of which are provided by the current use of the site. The property located north of 2825 El Camino is a commercial building with a surface parking lot that is not negatively impacted by the 2825 El Camino project. In the context of the project, developing two third-floor residential units and complying with the El Camino Real Guidelines the setback and daylight plane exceptions are minor. 6. VARIANCE FINDINGS FOR OPEN SPACE The proposed project is unable to satisfy the Open Space requirement under the applicable RM-30 overlay zone. The CS Zone has no open space requirement associated with a commercial building. Once a project strives to provide housing and become a mix-ed use project, all of the limitations of the RM-30 multiple family residential zone become applicable, including the requirement that the project provide 30% of the parcel as open space. Open Space required is 6,847 square feel while the project provides Only 5,881 square feet. The total residential unit sizes are 4,992 square feet such that the open Chris Riordan December 5, 2005 Page 8 space exceeds the residential building area. Each residential unit has use a proportionate use 2,941 square feet. The parcel would be allowed 12 units under the RM-30 zone which would mean each of the 12 units would have 490 square feet of allocable open space. Our project provides 2,941 square feet of open space per unit. The open space challenge for this project is one of zoning anomaly and not practical satisfaction of the policy objective that residents enjoy greenery, balconies, and pleasant landscaped areas. (a) (b) There are special circumstances applicable to the property. 2825 E1 Camino is a mid-block parcel approximately 150’ wide along E1 Camino and 150’ deep. During a Preliminary ARB Review, the ARB forcefully directed the applicant to elongate the building along E1 Camino with parking to the rear of the site. This project is one of only a few projects that will receive approvals under the existing CN Zone, the anticipated Zoning Ordinance Update and the E1 Camino Real Design Guidelines with the project in substantial compliance with all three sets of policies. Granting the variance shall not affect substantial compliance with zoning regulations. The approved project will be in substantial compliance with both the CN Zone and the E1 Camino Real Design Guidelines. (c) (d) Granting of the variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan encourages mixed-use retail, office and residential uses along this portion of E1 Camin0. Granting of the variance will not be injurious to other properties in the vicinity and shall not be detrimental to the health, safety or welfare of the general community. Our project is respectful of neighboring R-1 and RM-30 properties to the east with a setback of 80’. We have received strong support from our El Camino neighbors at 2805 E1 Camino and 2875 E1 Camino as well as from the owner of 671 Page Mill Road. Chris Riordan December 5, 2005 Page 9 7.SUSTAINABLE DESIGN FEATURES Attached to this letter is a schedule of Sustainable Design Features fulfilling the objectives of City and ARB policies. We hope that this letter, and the accompanying materials from DES enable this project to move forward with staff support for Site and Design Review with Design Enhancement Exceptions. Thank you for your help and guidance. Sincerely yours. Enclosures Jim Morris Jeff Morris Dawn Harness, DES 2825 EL CAMINO SUSTAINABILITY LEADERSHIP This schedule consists of a statement of sustainable features for the proposed Mixed-Use project at 2825 E1 Camino Real. Below is a list of sustainable features from the LEED project checklist that we have divided into those features that are mandatory and those that are voluntary: MANDATORY OR CIRCUMSTANTIAL COMPONENTS ¯Urban infill with density near public ,ransportation ¯Reduced light pollution beyond the project site ¯20% water use reduction ¯Reduced ozone depletion through use of refrigerator equipment that does not contain HCFC’s ¯Salvaging of construction and demolition materials ¯Use of locally / regionally available materials VOLUNTARY COMPONENTS ¯Alternative Transportation- bicycles and public transportation ¯Reduced site disturbance ¯R-19 installation using recycled contents ¯Low E Insulated Glass ¯Passive Solar Shading using sun shades, overhangs and recessed windows ¯Retain a LEED accredited professional to consult for working drawings ¯Energy Star appliances for the residential uses ¯Certified lumber and wood products will be specified where feasible not to exceed 10% of standard lumber and wood product costs ¯Building will aspire to exceed Title 24 value standards by 10%; Residence will exceed Title 24 standards by 10% ¯Combination of landscaping, bioswate and pervious pavers to absorb storm runoff ¯Consider photovoltaic installation for the residences ¯Enhanced Canopy for E1 Camino with new trees and structural soil for root growth August19,2005 ATTACHMENT C DES ARCHITECTS ENGINEERS Chris Riorden City of Palo Alto Planning Division 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Project:2825-2865 El Camino Real, Palo Alto 9603.01 Re:Site and Design Review Submittal Dear Chris: Enclosed please find (6) six full size and (9) nine half-size sets of the Site and Design Review submittal for the project located at 2825-2865 El Camino Real. See below for a brief project description: PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2825-2865 El Camino Real is a mixed use, 3-story, office/retail and residential building at an important location close to the intersection of El Camino and Page Mill Road. The building is located prominently on the site at the southeast corner to give maximum visibility from El Camino Real. The first floor retail space is 2,000 SF; we have included a small entry plaza on El Camino from which the retail space can be accessed. The remainder of the first floor and the entire second floor will be used as office space; the total area for office is 6,996 SF. The third floor is residential use consisting of 2 units with private balconies. The total proposed building area is 13,988 SF. Based on the feedback from the Architectural Review Board at the preliminary hearing on May 19, 2005 we have made the following design changes to the project.¯Increased building presence on El Camino o Modified building shape to increase the facade length on El Camino. o Added arcade wall features at the parking lot entrance to screen the parking from the street and give a more urban feel the project. o Pulled the building forward reducing the setback from 12’-0" to 4’-0" o Eliminating the additional 12’-0" setback at the third floor creating a 3 story fagade on El Camino ¯Revised skin design to give the building a more contemporary feel that follows the South El Camino Real urban design guidelines We have chosen to use stone for the first and second floors with integral color cement plaster for the remainder of the building. The arcade walls that flank the driveway will also be clad in stone to match the building with "green screen" trellis work with vines in 399 Bradford Street Redwood City, California 94063 Tel 650-364-6453 Fax 650-364-2618 ww’w.des-ae.com 2825-2865 El Camino Real, Palo Alto August 19, 2005 Page 2 of 2 the arched opening to screen the parking from the street. We are proposing clear glass with anodized mullions. Metal sunshades have been incorporated into the design at the second floor on the south and west elevations. Please feel free to call if you require any additional information. Sincerely, DES Architects + Engineers, Inc. Dawn Harness cc: Jim Baer, Premier Properties Jeff Morris, The Jeffrey A. Morris Group, Inc. DES Architects + Engineers, Inc~P: \ Morris \ 2825 Et Ca \ 9603.01 \ A drnin \ Corresp \ City \ Si teD~sig~05-0819.doe ©2003 2825-2865 El Camino Real DES ARCHITECTS ENGINEERS STATEMENT OF LANDSCAPE DESIGN INTENT The plant materials are arranged to bring the architecture of the building into the landscape while providing necessary functions to enhance the quality of the site. The trees in the parking lot were chosen because of their large canopies at maturity to provide shade while the trees along the east side of the lot are evergreen and were chosen to screen the building from the neighboring residential area. A mixture of water conserving ornamental shrubs and groundcovers provide greenery around the building and enhance the aesthetics of the parking lot areas. The vegetative swale along the east side of the parking lot is lined with grasses so that it blends in with the landscape while continuing to function for drainage. September 12, 2005 399 Bradford Street Redwood City, California 94063 Tel 650-364-6453 Fax 650-364-2618 wam~.des-ae.com Attachment 2825 EL CAMINO SUSTAINABILITY LEADERSHIP This schedule consists of a statement of sustainable features for the proposed Mixed-Use project at 2825 E1 Camino Real. Below is a list of sustainable features from the LEED project, checklist teat we have divided into those features that are mandatory and those that are voluntary: MANDATORY OR CIRCUMSTANTIAL COMPONENTS ¯Urban infill with density near public transportation ¯Reduced light pollution beyond the project site ¯20% water use reduction ¯Reduced ozone depletion through use of refrigerator equipment that does not contain HCFC’s ¯Salvaging of construction and demolition materials ¯Use of locally / regionally available materials VOLUNTARY COMPONENTS ¯Alternative Transportation- bicycles and public transportation ¯Reduced site disturbance ¯R-19 installation using recycled contents ¯Low E Insulated Glass ¯Passive Solar Shading using sun shades, overhangs and recessed windows ¯Retain a LEED accredited professional to consult for working drawings ¯Energy Star appliances for the residential uses ¯Certified lumber and wood products will be specified where feasible not to exceed 10% of standard lumber and wood product costs ¯Building will aspire to exceed Title 24 value standards by 10%; Residence will exceed Title 24 standards by 10% ¯Combination of landscaping, bioswale and pervious pavers to absorb storm runoff ¯Consider photovoltaic installation for the residences ¯Enhanced Canopy for E1 Camino with new trees and structural soil for root growth Attachment G Wednesday, January 25, 2006 REGULAR MEETING at 7:00 PM Council Chambers Civic Center, 1st Floor 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, California 94301 NEW BUSINESS: Public Hearings. 2825 & 2865 El Camino Real [05PLN-00107]*: Request by Premier Properties on behalf of Morris Associates for a Site and Design review application to allow the construction of a 13,988 square foot mixed-use building on a 22,491 square foot parcel in the CS zoning district. Design Enhancement Exceptions are requested to reduce the required side yard and front yard setbacks and exceed the allowable encroachment into the side yard daylight plane. A variance is requested to reduce the amount of usable common open space. Environmental Assessment: An Initial Study has been prepared and a Mitigated Negative Declaration is proposed in accordance with CEQA guidelines. Zone District: CS. Mr. Chris Riordan, Planner: Yes, thank you. Good evening Chair Burt and members of the Commission. The project before you this evening is located at 2825 and 2865 E1 Camino Real. It is approximately a 22,000 square foot, three story, mixed use project with ground floor commercial, second story office and third floor residential. The project does include a request for a Design Enhancement Exceptions and Variances. The Director could approve these exceptions and variances. However, it is standard Staff practice to defer all associated applications to the City Council when a discretionary project would require final review by the Council. The project is subject to the South El Camino Real Design Guidelines. These guidelines provide design direction for a range of site planning and building designs including fagades, setbacks, overall building form, parking location and signage. As noted in the Staff Report some of the guidelines are not congruent with existing development standards of the CS zone district. The Zoning Ordinance Update would address these inconsistencies in the updated ordinance. This applicant is applying for DEEs and a variance to meet the guidelines as follows: reducing the required 25 foot arterial street front setback from 25 feet to four feet; reducing the left side setback of 10 feet for the first story and 17.5 feet for the second and third stories to zero feet for all stories; increasing the maximum allowable daylight plane encroachment for the left side of the building and reducing the required amount of usable open space from 30 percent to 25 percent. The project would require 41 off-street parking spaces and 38 are being provided. The applicant is requesting a reduction in the number of required parking spaces due to the mix of the proposed uses on the site. The Director of Planning and Community Environment has the discretion to reduce the number of required parking spaces by 20 percent on any site with a Joint Use Parking Facility exceeding 30 spaces. Parking for the residential uses would be in a carport located in the parking lot at the rear of the building as shown on sheet 17 of the development plans but is not shown on other site plans. Staff will require that all site plans be consistent prior to ARB review of the project. Access to the parking lot will be from a new driveway on E1 Camino Real. As an all-new project on E1 Camino Real Caltrans approval is required is required before improvements are made in the right-of-way. Condition number 28 of Attachment A mentions this requirement. The parking lot would include some permeable pavers that will serve two functions. They will assist in breaking up the expanse of asphalt as well as help reduce the offsite drainage. The site plan contained in the plan set does indicate more permeable pavers than presently proposed. The site plan on page four of the plan set is the current proposal. A valley gutter located in the parking lot will help direct drainage into a bioswail at the rear of the property. Proposed utilities will be screened. The site plan indicates that a pad-mounted transformer will be located behind the building. All other electrical services will be undergrounded. The backflow preventer is proposed to be located behind the trash enclosure. It will be hidden from direct view but will be visible at an oblique angle. ARB will determine if this screening is adequate. Before I conclude I would like to make some clarifications to the Staff Report. The project description included in the Staff Report as Attachment C was prepared by the applicant. The project background, Attachment F, was prepared by Staff. Mitigation measures listed in bold on page 21 of the Mitigated Negative Declaration were mis- numbered there are only three mitigation measures and not five. Page 24 of the Report does include the correct sequencing. The copy of the Draft Record of Land Use Action, Attachment A of the Staff Report, wasn’t complete. It was an early version of the document that was included with the Report in error. A corrected copy was emailed to you last evening and is also at places. It contains the Architectural Review findings, the DEE findings and the Variance findings. The Comprehensive Plan Table included as Attachment D has an incomplete statement. Policy L-78 should read, "Encourage development that creatively integrates parking into the project by providing for shared use of parking areas." In conclusion, Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission recommend the City Council approve the requested Mitigated Negative Declaration, Site and Design Review application, DEE exceptions and the Variance based upon the findings and conditions of approval contained in the Draft Record of Land Use Action. Chair Burt: Just before we continue I want to make sure that all the members have the copy of the complete Record of Land Use Action that was at our places and emailed. Everyone has it? Great, thank you. Ms. Am7 French, Current Planning Manager: 1 just want to add that I have some responses for lighting and parking and I can address requests on the E1 Camino Real Guidelines that may come up. I will just hold off until your questions if that works for you and let the applicant present. Chair Burt: Great. Lee. Commissioner Lippert: I need to state for the record that I have reviewed a similar project at the same site while I was a member of the Architectural Review Board and have gone over my records, the previous Staff Report, and it has been determined that the project is significantly different enough that I don’t have to step down from this action. Chair Burt: Okay. Do Commissioners have any questions of Staff before hearing from the applicant? So at this time we would like to give the applicant their initial opportunity to speak up to 15 minutes. Then at the end of our hearing if there are responses you have an additional up to three minutes. Mr. Baer. Mr. Jim Baer, Applicant: Thank you Chair Burt and Commissioners. Quickly on the background of this property it is two parcels, one on which is a vacant parking lot, 2825 E1 Camino and adjacent to that is the Old Pro and a Quonset hut. In 2000 an application went though Site and Design Review and was approved by City Council with some DEE findings at that time for a two story building on the vacant lot only with three residential units on top. It was a challenge. It was a lot to put on one site. We have worked since 1999 with Old Pro and what I mean by work with is we acquired 361 California for a group called OPI Partners which was a group of Old Pro supporters to build a building for them that then was one that they chose not to occupy, that a new building wouldn’t be suitable for their image. We then helped them with the building where they are now located at 541-545 Ramona which has a complete application for an historic renovation of that beautiful building on Ramona to cut through what was an optical store with where the Old Pro is now revealing much of the interior not unlike the Blue Chalk Caf~ kind of space. We have really been diligent in trying to make sure that that good user was preserved. One of the challenges they faced was they not only couldn’t adequately park a full service restaurant and bar in that location and have created problems for the neighbors over the years but you cannot seismic upgrade a Quonset hut anymore than you can a bicycle wheel. It really is structurally not a device that lends itself to bring to current code as you intensify use, as Old Pro would have requested. So following that approval in 2000 and in the same time period a Ken Hayes project that is now the Starbuck’s building near E1 Camino Way on E1 Camino was occupied went through a similar how do you add residential units through Design Enhancement Exceptions? And, the dot.com bust really hit the opportunity for small parcels on E1 Camino to go through what we think is a natural progression of redevelopment of old and obsolete parcels not unlike this property. Last year you saw, reviewed and recommended approval to City Council for two projects on Park avenue, 1795 and 1805 E1 Camino, two story buildings with two residential units on top and probably those went to City Council with no members of the public speaking and received 9-0 approvals. The same issues that were discussed by Commission at length apply here. I think policy was established through the discussion, not precedent, but policy indication when the DEEs and Variances were discussed for those other two projects. They were these, ARB is not timid in saying we will grant and recommend all DEEs necessary to bring you into compliance with the E1 Camino Real Design Guidelines. Not only that, we will not approve you if you have substantial deviation from the E1 Camino Real Design Guidelines. Where that hits most for a project is they define a 12-foot setback from face of curb. So in a first preliminary review of this building we had the building a little bit further setback from El Camino and the residential units deeply setback. The answer was no, this is a boulevard, we want to bring our buildings forward. We want to elongate them along E1 Camino so you want longer narrower buildings so that E1 Camino really has a scale to create an edge for E1 Camino. So this project in its preliminary Architectural Review Board was asked to get rid of your setbacks, put it up against the north property line, stretch it out and this is what we have as our vision for the redevelopment of E1 Camino. We have the good fortune to be able to work with two adjacent properties. The Stanford Cleaners on Pepper and what has been Polly & Jake’s owned by the same family that owned Polly & Jake’s now occupied by ATT&T. We have been working with the Lee family who own the Stanford Cleaners property and with the representatives of the AT&T building as well as an option holder there to see how over some period of time that front could be continued in an appropriate way. So the first issue is that AR~ really are asking support of applicant, Staff and therefore for Site and Design Review Commission and Council to make real the El Camino Real Design Guidelines as this project now does. The two issues that came up for Planning Commission at the Park avenue location for both properties was open space and shared parking. For open space the answer that may be not entirely satisfactory but requires support from Commission on this distinction those who will buy units in this kind of a location aren’t in need of a tot lot, these are expensive transit oriented locations. By that I mean the buyers of these kinds of units are employed near that location, are not raising school-age children on the Page Mill/El Camino corridor so the open space while we have 25 percent here it is a soft 25 percent. You have to have landscaping and edges against a residential neighbor. The area in front of the bike lockers counts as open space. We don’t suggest that this is recreational open space and the Planning Commission and City Council accepted that the Variance for open space was appropriate in this kind of a location. We don’t think that creates a danger for larger parcels that are truly multiple family. The second issue was when is it appropriate to apply the opportunity to waive a portion of the parking requirement. It requires 30 spaces or more. The Director has the ability to recommend a reduction of 20 percent. We all agree that that doesn’t make sense that if you add two residential units you can park less than the office and retail and building alone would be required to park. We would suggest that that not be something that we would put forward or request or that we would expect to be approved. The principle being that the waiver is because residential users in this location, and there is a three-car requirement for two units, when you have three units it goes to four-plus guests but for two units it is three, that it does make sense that in this kind of a location the residences will be using their parking spaces in hours where the users of the two story commercial building, office and retail, will not. The reality is to surface park a building you wouldn’t be able to create residential units on locations like these. If you look at our site plan there is not another way to get a surface parking space and the loss would be the loss of residential units not reduction of the commercial units on these E1 Camino locations. The third is the Retail Conversion Ordinance protects the 2,000-plus square feet occupied by the Old Pro must be retained and we have done that. We think this is a good project. We expect that we will have a rigorous second review by Architectural Review Board. I am glad to answer any questions and do think that this...and because of the concern about housing and imp.act on budget and school-age population this really is a good kind of product for E1 Camino because it is one that is low friction on residential traffic and unlikely to yield a school- age population. I would expect you will see quite a number of these for small parcels where large parcels can’t be assembled that this is the kind of product that we hope would be encouraged along E1 Camino and that this is a good representative of that. I am glad to answer any questions. Chair Burt: Thank you. Do Commissioners have questions at this time? Phyllis. Commissioner Cassel: Are you going to have a color board or a materials board? Mr. Baer: I am sure we do. We do have one and I am sorry whether I didn’t bring it or it was an oversight. Chair Burt: Okay, while they are looking for that are there other questions by Commissioners? Amy also had some supplemental information. Should we go ahead and have Amy share that with us and then hit our questions? Ms. French: Okay, just a few things. As Jim noted both the ARB and the prelim review of this and the applicant’s submittal which began as a prelim with the mix of uses you see today as what they are proposing the South El Camino Real Guidelines have played significantly into the kinds of discussions that have taken place. For this corner, Page Mill and E1 Camino Real, it is a prominent corner we are supposed to look towards anchoring the intersection, a lot of windows, pedestrian features, seating and planters. It is a boulevard. The buzzwords in the E1 Camino Real Guidelines are substantial in character and scale, dignified in character, strong presence and a street edge. So these are the goals that we are trying to reach with development near this very prominent corner. With regards to lighting there were some questions about that. You will notice in the environmental document it was a discussion point and a mitigation measure to address parking lot lighting and interior lighting. It did note that timing and shading devices would be required with tenant improvements. The initial study also references conditions of approval for interior lighting and shading systems. This has been what we have been doing for a lot these mixed use, ! can think of four or five mixed-use projects along E1 Camino where we have begun doing this as a standard condition basically. It is helpful because often times we see shell developments and later on they come in with tenant improvement and then Staff is right there with these conditions saying this is what you agreed to, even though you are the tenant we still need to see some shading devices and catch it. Another way of doing it is to have them show the mitigation and plans going to the ARB with this project. So trying to show the solution to shielding the interior second and third floor lighting to prevent the visibility of light sources to the residential neighbors to the east or north as it were and asking for photometric plans and making sure that the trees that are planted along and the buffer area are substantial enough to provide some mitigation for the lighting. So suffice it to say there is a mitigation measure that addresses lighting, we also address this with standard conditions of approval. Regarding the parking a question has been raised by a Commissioner about precedent and are we bound by precedent? For instance 2825 the project that was here before did have a reduction. It was a very different project. They incorporated eight bike lockers to take the place of one parking space. They are not doing that in this case it is much less of a percentage, only nine percent where they could ask for 20 percent. But bottom line is we do this on a case-by-case basis looking at a project as it come forward, looking at the mix of uses. So there isn’t a precedent per se. It is a case-by-case situation but it definitely has been requested in the mixed-use projects along E1 Camino. I think that brings us to material boards. Chair Burt: Okay, who would like to ask questions first? Paula? Don? Mr. Don Larkin. Senior Deputy City Attorney: We probably just want to state for the record that there are no members of the public here to speak. Chair Burt: Okay. We have no members of the public who have requested to speak on this subject. So at this time we will proceed with questions from Commissioners. Paula and then Lee. Commissioner Sandas: My needle is stuck just a little bit. Mr. Baer when you brought up.the topic of a reduced amount of open space because the residential units, there are two, and they would most likely not be something that families would live in. My needle is stuck there because actually my house, we are a family of four, and my house is about that size or smaller. So I am thinking to myself that a family of four could easily live in one of those three bedroom units. So by necessarily reducing the size of the open space because we probably won’t have families living there aren’t we kind of keeping families out of there? Is that okay? Chair Burt: So you are directing that question to the applicant? Okay. Mr. Baer, would you like to take a stab at that? Mr. Baer: It is not the size of the units clearly these are large enough to have young and high school age size children. They are generous units. It is more that the sense is that at that location that is not where you would choose to .... given that these will also not be inexpensive units your choice for a unit of the same cost if you had young children would probably find you elsewhere in Palo Alto even in North Palo Alto if you were wanting to provide play area for your children. Two tradeoffs and we will ask for Planning Commission guidance on this although express a preference. The Staff are pretty rigorous when these kinds of tight sites come up to ask that we look carefully at the size of balcony space. So we exceed the minimums that are required for private open space on pretty much all of these mixed use projects, on the two previous and this one as well. So here is the kind of tradeoff an owner/applicant wouldn’t want to do is to lose two parking spaces and create more greenery. Again, I would say an applicant wouldn’t want to do that because the vitality of your building not just for the residential residences but that you are adequately parked in that location for the use - a nice part about the parking metric is in these kinds of locations tenants won’t rent the building if they think their parking demand is greater. So to reduce the number of parking to create an open reserve or a landscape reserve in order to create more open space has this problem with it in addition to leasability to a good tenant. It is really still not going to be recreational space on this site in that location. It is going to be loud. It is going to be with high vehicular traffic. So our sense is this is the right mix and that this is the kind of product that wouldn’t encourage young age children it wouldn’t preclude older children. Of course we have the whole policy debate about whether we want to increase the school-age population and if so where in the City. I hope that answers with what our choices would be and what Staff’s choices would be. Do we come back in with 30 percent by reducing parking which the Commission and Council and Staff can recommend as a landscape reserve in a location like this and we come out and hope Staff does as well and Commission and Council do as well that in these kinds of sites that wouldn’t be appropriate. As Amy indicated in terms of precedent value near Barron Park you may go exactly the other direction and say no we would insist on meeting the open space requirement because a buyer of the residential property in that location might have a different choice by proximity to schools and other children. Commissioner Sandas: Can I hear from the Staff on this same issue, briefly? Ms. French: Well of course this is not the first mixed use project on E1 Camino that has had a shortage of open space that is usable. Often there is a tradeoff. We see as a common practice more space being provided at the balcony or in the private realm rather than at the ground floor or at grade because generally those spaces go kind of unused in a setting like this. Whereas the open space in the private balconies if they are oriented correctly to the sun, etc. and with privacy those can be more beneficial to upper floor units. Mr. Baer: Ken Hayes wasn’t here to whisper in my ear and he is beyond being at the top of anyone’s game in terms of understanding land use. He was the architect for both 1795 and 1805 E1 Camino. While this same debate was going on with more vigor in that location because it was the first time you had seen that in a while, he whispered to me and we didn’t have a further chance to answer the question and ! just about forgot it. The open space percentage of parcel size would be if you were building the maximum density. So let’s say that in a 22,500-foot parcel we could build seven units. Those seven units would command 30 percent of the 25,000-foot lot or 7,500 feet. If two units are providing 7,000 square feet, 3,500 feet each, his point was there should also be a scale that says did you provide enough adequate open space as a percentage of the site or in relationship to the number of families that would be using the open space? I am glad to have been able to catch my breath to say that because it is a really smart distinction he makes that on a per unit basis this greatly exceeds the open space that would be available if we were able to develop more. If we weren’t building the commercial and we were building seven or eight residential units only boy the open space would really come into play but only be a few hundred feet more than what we have offered. Chair Burt: Is it Staff’s intention that when we receive the commercial section of the Zoning Ordinance Update and we would at that time begin to address the E1 Camino Guidelines and incorporating them into the zoning code that there may be recommendations made distinguishing how much public open space is appropriate in certain locations versus others? It may not be something that would be uniform across the City on even comparable mixtures of development. It may be location dependent somewhat. Mr. Steve Emslie, Planning Director: Yes, that is the intent. In fact we have done that in a couple of locations when we have done some more specific planning like the SOFA II plan had that flexibility. So that is something that we will be looking at. Chair Burt: Thank you. Lee. Commissioner Lippert: I was going to follow up. My line of questioning is the same thing, which is that first of all in the D&E Committee meeting, we have looked at open space and open space does compete with parking and that’s a real issue. With regard to this we are on the cusp of what we are trying to create as a pedestrian transit development zone. Wouldn’t it be highly appropriate to have an even larger parking reduction because of the fact that we are right on the cusp or right on the edge of that? This Report allows for a reduction up to 20 percent of the parking spaces why not just say to the applicant here put it in landscape reserve and if you need it it’s available but you have to landscape it from day one? Ms. French: Well certainly the decision-makers as they look at this can recommend that. We have never been in a position where we forced somebody to do landscape reserve. It is always something that has been requested of us to be resolved later if they do need those spaces. But if the applicant is interested and the decision-makers are so inclined I don’t see why not. Mr. Baer: Here is the risk in some of these kinds of locations. We now have a protect retail policy and this is an absolutely appropriate location where there will be the need for some retail service in this location. What you don’t want to do is Chop Keenan’s language is always what we want is retailers without customers because if you have retailers that are successful...AT&T so exceeds the parking in that little lot. So we have to balance the open space where the primary use is not residential and the residential uses as part of a policy encouraging this is a good location for employment based housing choice you wouldn’t want to have three more spaces in open space reserve to create open space for the residences and then limit the success of your retailer. In this location, again I really get that bigger parcels a block east or three blocks south that you have a really different dynamic. Staff will certainly with this kind of a debate are going to make it appropriately painful for applicant to balance these issues each time they come forward with a project. Commissioner Lippert: If that is the case maybe the whole idea of having additional residential is a bit forced here. I know we like to encourage it but what I hear from you is well, you know, maybe a family but not with kids but maybe with older kids. Older kids start out as younger kids and younger kids need play space. It is right on the edge of Pepper Avenue which is a residential neighborhood and we are encouraging this pedestrian transit oriented overlay district to encourage more housing why not include the amenities of housing? Or say, well, maybe this isn’t the right place for housing? Mr. Baer: Since we don’t have another item on the agenda if you don’t mind this is a wonderful debate and it is one that really does formulate for Staff and an applicant and other applicants how this discussion unfolds. The Park avenue location, me bristling a little bit as the open space discussion continues, which is absolutely right. I get the importance that we want to create really livable spaces where we are inviting people to live and choose to be in Palo Alto. We want them to be comfortable in their environment. There my comment was you have 300 acres right across the street that are the Stanford Arboretum. So are they going to use an extra 400 feet in the doctor’s parking lot or are they going to take their walk and run and dogs across the street? By circumstance we have the six-acre playing fields that are a half-block away. Now, let me come back to another one. Lee, you spoke at the City Council hearing on October 11 and I was proud of your speech-making there when you said how can you put aside 30 years of Comprehensive Plan policy that we encourage housing in every zone? The Council without giving Planning Commission the opportunity to debate it and define what would be appropriate conditions to impose on housing legislated that in the LM zones it would conditional and in the GM zones it would be prohibited. Your comment was, this is such an important policy change we need to bring this back to Planning Commission. I don’t mean to be cute, I mean to be admiring of that policy statement that you made and a lot of us feel strongly about. So to look at this and say here we are a block away from 12 million square feet of high productive, high income based employment that what we do want to encourage is that -you don’t want to discourage the two units and you don’t want to discourage the opportunity for successful retail where this really is a jobs/housing inversion model in a very little way but the people that choose to buy these units aren’t getting on the train to go to San Francisco or Sunnyvale. They are buying these units to work in the Research Park or at Stanford. That was maybe a little jumbly but we are all sophisticated in this debate I know you can pick the pieces of it you think are compelling and the ones that are soft. I think we should encourage housing along this part of E1 Camino without full open space and with as full parking as can be accommodated on the site so we create the opportunity for successful retail. Chair Burt: Thank you, Mr. Baer. Just so that we keep a proper sense of order throughout the rest of the meeting even though we only have one person speaking from the public we still want to make sure that you" are called upon to speak before going forward. It is easy for us to slip into informality just because of who is here tonight. Who would like to go next? Phyllis? Commissioner Cassel: I don’t have any questions. The ones I had have been answered. I am ready for discussion. Chair Burr: Okay. Dan. Commissioner Garber: For the applicant, if I have a family with kids there is nothing that keeps me from purchasing one of the units in this project is there? A nod is fine. A question for the Staff regarding the E1 Camino Guidelines. Is there anything in the Guidelines that defines use or are they primarily architectural? Ms. French: Primarily architectural urban design. Commissioner Garber: One more for the applicant. You had noted that the amount of retail that you included in the project was defined by the amount of carryover from the Old Pro that was there. I am just curious as to how you allocated the division between retail and the office space that is in there. How did you arrive at that split? Mr. Baer: Old Pro is in a building that is a little under 4,000 feet with about 2,400 feet or 2,000 feet that are occupied as restaurant and bar. The record on this is really good because there were enforcement actions because they without building permits expanded into what was classified as warehouse/storage. So the Fire Department and the Planning Department have a good record on saying you have 2,000 feet of retail and you can store furniture, you can store kegs but you can’t store bodies who are buying meals. So we have an artificial demarcation of 2,000/2,400 feet split parallel with E1 Camino. If an appropriate retail user came and wanted the whole first floor we would be open to that. They would look at what is the parking available to them about whether that was a good choice or not and so would we. That 4,000-foot restaurant would destroy parking ability in that site. Some other types of 4,000-foot retailers would be just right with that high parking and traffic demand. For now, we haven’t started a leasing effort. There is a high possibility that there will be something greater than 2,000 feet in other than office use on the ground floor. Commissioner Garber: For the Staff a quick follow up. How do you, and forgive me for not knowing the answer already but that is why I am asking you. How do you police the various eventual leases that go in to "know to recalculate the parking calculation, etc.? How do you get informed of that? Is that simply through the permitting process? Ms. French: If this were a PC and we were nailing them down to exactly this mix of office and retail then they would have to do some kind of an amendment regarding the uses. With a standard development that is not a PC there is some flexibility there to adjust the percentages of those. Commissioner Garber: Is the applicant responsible for coming up with the calculation and determine whether they have the right number of parking spaces? Ms. French: Yes in combination with Staff. We would look at their proposal and determine if there is a loss of parking what the adjustment and again the Director could determine that there could be a further adjustment up to 20 percent total if necessary. Commissioner Garber: But you would be constrained by how much. I mean you have a maximum of what is there now. So in a circumstance where the applicant would need to have more parking the Planning Department would have to catch that somewhere. Ms. French: Yes, either the applicant would figure it out and come forward with that or when they come in the Staff would need to do a little research and figure out what the change of use is. We have a little flexibility in our code when there is a change of use. But again the flexibility includes the ability for the Director to adjust so that you basically say it is okay to not have enough parking up to a 20 percent reduction. Commissioner Garber: Thank you. Chair Burt: Karen, you had a follow up on that? Vice-Chair Holman: Yes, I think this is for Staff. So the Old Pro the restaurant part was 2,000 square feet and then they had some storage that I presume was for the restaurant. So is what’s used to calculate the amount of retail that is being displaced the 2,000 square feet or the 4,000 square feet since I presume the storage is part of the retail function? I don’t know how it is calculated exactly. Mr. Riordan: The 2,000 square feet of the Old Pro retail space is the space that the applicant referred to as the retail preservation that they are retaining. It is just the retail or the restaurant space. Vice-Chair Holman: So in calculating what serves as retail we only calculate what is the sales space, if you will, for retail but not the support storage? I think the applicant wants to respond to that too but I would like to know what Staff has to say about it too. Mr. Riordan: Well, the applicant correctly said it was warehousing space for the restaurant. So actually 2,000 square feet was reserved for the restaurant proper but there was extra warehouse space that they had used just for that storage for the restaurant. It goes back down to, as the applicant said, about the building being nonconforming and expanding the restaurant. So they worked out some kind of code enforcement issue where as long as they used it just for the warehouse for the restaurant then they could maintain the 2,000 square feet of the restaurant space. Vice-Chair Holman: So the reason the 2,000 square feet is being used as retail is because the other was not actually legal and it was just kind of a worked out situation. I am just trying to get clarity on this. Mr. Riordan: It wasn’t defined as retail. It was defined as warehouse. So the applicant in this current proposal was maintaining that 2,000 square feet for this project. Vice-Chair Holman: Is that typical because all restaurants have to have a certain amount of storage space? Mr. Emslie: That amount of storage space is not typical. This was a solution that was worked out to resolve a code enforcement. I have been in there, I have seen that area is physically walled off from the rest of the restaurant and that amount of storage space is not typical for retail. It would be much smaller than that to maintain back of the house supplies for a restaurant or any other retail space. Vice-Chair Holman: But we are not counting any warehouse space towards the retail for this particular? Mr. Emslie: No, because they essentially expanded the restaurant illegally and the solution we worked out was to have them retract that and that the only thing they could use it for was a low intensity use such as storage. When I saw that area it was largely not utilized while there may have been some kegs and extra chairs stored in there it wasn’t necessary for them to support the restaurant. Vice-Chair Holman: It seems like Mr. Baer is chomping at the bit to respond to this. Chair Burt: Jim, go ahead. Mr. Baer: For years the Old Pro did not use the back warehouse space. Without a building permit they expanded, ancillary uses is what the zoning code calls them, ancillary to the restaurant use that included some storage of chairs but also some seating. Son of a gun if our 1999 application for the building we were doing at 2825 didn’t stimulate appropriate Staff inspection of the facility and as well as a couple of neighbors saying what’s going on? It really created a terrible circumstance for Old Pro not undeservedly but the Fire Department came in and made them wall off, there is no seating allowed in that back area. The most important answer to the question I think you are asking is if you had a 2,000 foot dining area for restaurant and 2,000 feet of locker rooms, showers, employee restrooms and cook line is the restaurant 2,000 feet that you have to preserve or the whole building? It is the whole space. So Mike’s on Middlefield can’t just count its seating area and say that is what is being preserved by the ordinance it is the whole facility. This one really did have that extraordinary record that it was leased to a separate operator as warehouse. Its use permits were always as warehouse and these guys snuck in. It was a problem because when you exceed 49 seats you also have a building code, fire code, change in occupancy. So this one really has a papered record. If I can also answer Dan’s question. When we submit for building permits Staff has to review that building permit and that triggers your parking compliance. There is no sneaking in our good database of how you monitor building permit issuance. So we could not put a restaurant in this location. It would not be able to park adequately not a full service restaurant. So the ability to create a parking nightmare doesn’t exist accidentally. It would have to be a serious cheat to get by Staff review of a building permit. Vice-Chair Holman: To finish up on that the applicant said that they have not started looking yet for tenants so there are a number of exceptions for a variety of reasons being asked for for this project. Does the Commission have any leeway in requiring, pick a number, 4,000 square feet of retail and less non-retail of the commercial space? Do we have any leeway in that? A restaurant wouldn’t work obviously because of parking as they said. Mr. Larkin: They would have to comply with the retail protection but that is probably the only condition that we can put on this project. To condition the Variance there would have to be a nexus between the Variance and the condition that we are putting on and I can’t think of any nexus between the Variances that are being requested and a condition of more retail space. Chair Burt: I have Dan and then Lee. Commissioner Garber: Are there performance criteria that are active in this site in this particular zone? The circumstance that I am thinking about is the mitigation that talks about light. Actually the project has been very careful to be considerate to the adjacent R-1 property. But in a circumstance say where there is illumination at night of say signage on the wall that is in that back portion the elements of that light certainly would not be seen by the R-1 property, however, it would be illuminating the side of the building which would then create a light source. Is that an issue? Ms. French: Again, with the mitigation measure referring to that it doesn’t specifically mention glare bouncing off the wall but it certainly is a part of what the intent is here to have mitigation and even when the tenants come in and there is signage, etc. The other thing is just to answer directly your question about performance criteria. In the code, Chapter 18.64 applies to commercial sites that are within 150 feet of residential. So we do need to follow those guidelines in addition to the E1 Camino Guidelines, which also have performance criteria for lighting and noise and this other stuff. So we are bound by a couple of documents as well as the mitigation measure and conditions that we are proposing. Commissioner Garber: Thanks. Chair Burt: Lee. Commissioner Lippert: I just wanted to go back to the issue of the parking. Did you look at all at a traffic management demand program similar to what the Research Park has? Mr. Baer: We would be glad to introduce one if that is made condition of approval. We have done them for several other projects and they are a smart source of information for whoever occupies as well as reporting to Staff. Commissioner Lippert: Staff, would that be an appropriate way for them to reduce parking? Mr. Emslie: Very much so. We would support adding a TDM condition in this approval. Commissioner Lippert: Then the second question I wanted to just make a comment with regard to Commissioner Holman’s question. I believe there is a nexus and the nexus would be that retail versus office the demand of parking and because in this case they can’t make compliance with the amount of open space we have all three of those competing. So we would want to find the right balance of parking, office and retail in order to be able to bring it closer to complying with the parking requirements and open space. Chair Burt: Paula. Commissioner Sandas: Thanks. I have two questions for Staff. The first one is about the trees. I am glad to see that there was the request that the trees be planted 22 to 33 feet and that the soil is going to be amended properly and deeply enough, etc., etc. I just am guessing and want to hear the answer that these are going to be London Plains following the Street Tree Plan on El Camino. Yes, good. The second question is just another thing that is bothering me. It is not anything conditional. It is a digressive kind of question. Being that it is written down and it is out in the public, not that we have a lot of people here tonight, I am just wondering about Walgreen’s on Middlefield Road. I believe that that was a Quonset hut that was redeveloped. Not that I want the Old Pro Quonset hut to be redeveloped that is not what I am saying. My curiosity is how was that one able to be redeveloped and the Quonset hut that houses the Old Pro not able to be redeveloped to meet the earthquake standards? Not that I am suggesting that it is. Chair Burt: I will take a stab. That was an old Purity store which were not quonset hut per se but were half cylindrical buildings I think built considerably different from the old World War II type quonset hut. Mr. Emslie: Yes, thank you, that is a good cue. It was a rainbow type roof not a quonset hut on that building which is a different structure. Chair Burt: I have a couple. Mr. Baer earlier you had alluded to the likelihood that the residents would be taking advantage of transit and the PTOD either working within walking distance or using transit and then subsequent to that you alluded to that the parking requirement would be reduced because they wouldn’t be parking there during the day. If they are taking the train or walking to work wouldn’t their cars be staying there ¯ during the day? So maybe from Mr. Baer and Staff I wanted to get an understanding of how we reconcile those two different aspects. Mr. Baer: It is a challenging policy quandary that affluent people even when. they choose to walk to work on a sunny day and have chosen to live in a home that is near where they work because they can afford to you are right they are going to have a vehicle and where will that vehicle be? Isn’t it a challenge of how we balance the communication of policy to Staff and applicants when there are these many close calls and misfires and on balance how do you approve any project. Honestly, I have to say when I am sitting here in the audience bringing forward what I think should be an absolutely uncontroversial project consistent with Comprehensive Plan in all ways that will get knocked around as it should by ARB until it presents a modernist interpretation of contemporary materials of appropriate scale that I am just astonished at whether we are a clear shot, thank you for bringing this project, make sure that you enforce the retail, if you can get retail greater than 2,000 feet without destroying the ability to park and ingress/egress on E1 Camino great. Thank you for bringing us two units. Thank you for building a building that in Palo Alto it is lucky if you break even or can yield a five percent return on investment. To have it move into a debate of get rid of parking, don’t get rid of parking. The only reason DEEs are necessary or Variance is because we have added housing units. We should just be clear on that. Only by adding residences are we even appearing before you. So if we put it in the context rather than complicating about of course we would like to see every ground floor space to whatever depth that could be parked as retail whether they had customers or not. I know that debate. Here, just to put it in context, do you don’t you want projects along E1 Camino of this size to add to residential units or not when they can park within standards that were established by this Planning Commission and City Council and the ordinance and in the Comprehensive Plan? That is really the question. None of us want to go through what is eventually a two-year process to get an approval for a project and have the question whether we should have embarked on adding the two units. We would be deeply under construction if we hadn’t tried to add the two units. I am really sorry, I guess I have been doing this so long that I feel the arrogance to say I am really confused when we think we are doing what has been asked of us historically through lots of public testimony and lots of deliberation by Planning Commission and lots of deliberation by Council to then have the issues kind of confused about whether you want the residences or not. I can add one that if this is the right policy direction, we did this at Park avenue. There are ways to do parking lifts that need single operator. You lower a parking car, drive in, you don’t have to have somebody there to back the car out because you are suspended in the air. If the tolerance of policy-makers to adding residential units is keep your open space and meet your parking requirement then those devices are available to us. If that’s the policy I suppose we would say we would add lifts sufficient to add the several hundred feet of deficit of open space and not ask for the waiver of parking if that is what is appropriate. But I would really say this, it is not this project, what are you telling to every applicant on E1 Camino because I don’t know what Staff or an applicant would take away. Chair Burt: Mr. Baer, I think we value your insights, your input, you haven’t heard our comments on the project as a whole. You are doing your job to answer questions, to present as good of a project that meets the Comprehensive Plan and the guidelines as well as possible. The Commission’s job is to ask their questions. Why don’t you be patient and wait until you hear our discussion before you leap to conclusions on where we are headed or mis-headed. Mr. Baer: Thank you for the correction. I accept that. I apologize. Chair Burt: Okay. Other questions from the Commission? So we can have comments briefly before entertaining a motion. Karen and then Paula. Vice-Chair Holman: I have just a couple of questions. A global question. We did look at a couple of projects on Park Boulevard and at the time in saying yea on those I said I felt pretty schizophrenic because we have the design guidelines, I think it is good to have this in the record it doesn’t hurt, we have the E1 Camino Design Guidelines and we have development standards for E1 Camino. It is an odd situation where we haven’t updated the Zoning Ordinance Update yet so we have guidelines that are superceding code. So we are looking at Design Enhancement Exceptions and those are supposed to be for minor exceptions but these are for major exceptions. So could Staff kind of edify all of us together and for the public and the public record say more about that and what is the situation we are in and why it is that we are doing this the way that we are doing it? I think that would be really helpful. Mr. Emslie: Just real briefly the situation exists because the state-of-the-art of urban design is reflected in the guidelines is the current and the better of the practice than what is reflected in our actually development standards. The standards are counterproductive in achieving the kind of urban design result. In Palo Alto and in most cities it is more expeditious to adopt guidelines in that the zoning standards are more cumbersome to update. So in this case we have adopted current, modem standards that achieve the proper urban design objective for E1 Camino. The standards will need to catch up to those. They are on schedule to be modified this year under the zoning code update and they will be brought into compliance with the zoning standards. So this problem of having to use DEEs in the future will be corrected but for the time being we urge and will continue to urge the Commission through our recommendations to support the design guidelines because they are achieving the appropriate urban design result which will add enhancement to E1 Camino that we will not get through the implementation of the out- moded standards that the design guidelines will eventually serve to update. Vice-Chair Holman: Thank you, I think that is very helpful. One other question is in a couple of previous projects I can think of we have had comments that we wanted forwarded to ARB when they were doing their next review or further review of a project. Would Staff think that the best time to integrate any of those would be as a part of the motion or ask questions now about the applicability of those? What would Staff think would be the better way to pursue that? Mr. Emslie: I think you would want to do that as part of your discussion and eventually in the motion. I think that would probably be the most efficient way to do that. We would defer to the Chair of course. Chair Burt: Paula. Commissioner Sandas: One more strange niggling question. I am looking at the sustainability, leadership and talking about the use of sustainable features. Under the category of Mandatory or Circumstantial Components the third item is a 20 percent water use reduction. From what to what? I don’t understand. We are comparing apples and organs so what are we reducing 20 percent? I am not sure who would answer that question. Mr. Baer: I am not able to and I don’t know whether that means that we are mandatory in backflow preventers on irrigation systems, low flush toilets, those are now code some of them are Palo Alto only and some of them are CBC. We have used that same language a number of times and I don’t know what it means other than we are doing our best and it is mandated. Chair Burr: Somehow it is referenced in the letter from the applicant. Okay. Amy. Ms. French: I just wanted to add that the ARB of course is looking at these a lot, LEAD checklists and it is something that they are comfortable in discussing and Jim can be prepared at that meeting to address that question if it comes up. Chair Burt: Annette and then Lee. Commissioner Bialson: I don’t have any questions I would like to get on to the discussion. My comments are that maintaining a position of a policy level discussion I think this project is a good project. I think that in dealing with E1 Camino properties we did go through a process of determining what sort of structures we wanted there and essentially we wanted sort of urban city type, large anchoring type of projects located in spaces such as this one is to be located. I think that we should encourage this type of development. I think it will be a good anchor so to speak as further development goes on around it. I do not support reducing parking because .I am very aware of the impact on the residents on Pepper Avenue. Anything we do to reduce parking on this particular parcel is just going to result in a greater likelihood of overflow parking being pushed over to Pepper. I think the mixed use component, the idea of putting residence in addition to the retail and possible office space is something again that we should encourage. I do think that while we are a suburban city there are parts of our city that really are more urban and should be acknowledged to be such. I do feel that individuals choose the places that are best for them and their families should the families move into them. I think that what this is will be quite evidem to those people who look at the project. I will be supporting this project. Chair Burt: Lee. Commissioner Lippert: Well, I see it a little bit differently than my colleague. I have looked at this project here and one of the things that I find is that over the weeks we have debated the Pedestrian Transit Oriented Development overlay and this is right on the edge if not adjacent to that gerrymandered zone. There is an incredible opportunity here for taking advantage of not only parking reduction but also people being able to commute to work via public transportation and be in their office there and not be hassled by it. America is going through a tremendous crisis right now with regard to higher energy costs and not only that emissions from automobiles. I know that this problem is going to just get worse. So because of its proximity to the California Avenue transit center and that we are beginning to look at this Pedestrian Transit Oriented Development overlay zone and we don’t have it in place there are other vehicles and other tools that we have at our disposal to reduce parking. In this case I did a quick calculation and in order for them to make the open space they need to reduce it by an additional six spaces. Now unfortunately that would put them at fewer spaces than the 20 percent. I think at the very least we could encourage through a Transit Demand Management program similar to what is in the Research Park and other office buildings in proximity to reduce that parking down to at least the 20 percent, maybe increase it a little bit more to 25 or 30 percent. But there is a way to get to that open space number and reduce parking and get people that are working in the office to commute by public transportation. So as I said I see this a little bit different than my colleague here. I also did a very quick calculation if we did increase retail space it would actually increase the number of vehicles there and I don’t think that that’s the direction that we want to go in either. So I can support this project and I would ask that we make a condition of approval that some of those spaces be put into landscape reserve meaning that they would be landscaped and used as open space until such time that the building owner or tenant needed those spaces. Chair Burt: If I might follow up on that and ask Staff if there were a TDM program would you envision that that would obviate the need for some of the parking that is currently designed in the project and enable some of the parking to go into landscape reserve? Ms. French: Certainly some of the parking could go that way. In the Research Park with these larger companies they have their own, this may sound like a departure but I hope not, there are transit coordinators, people that are really working with the employees. In a smaller project like this with possibly multiple tenants it becomes more challenging for a TDM. I know it is a good idea but the implementation of that and having City monitoring of that situation becomes a little more challenging because it is a smaller project and possible several tenants rather than one large tenant. Mr. Emslie: The one word of caution we would give you is because there is retail and we hope a very strong retail component here that drives parking needs that unfortunately the retail is going to be auto oriented so parking is going to be a pretty key component. Really whether we require the parking or not it is really ultimately the tenants that are going to decide if they have adequate parking. We think having enough flexibility to provide the parking to attract the quality retailer there is going to be important. Chair Burt: Phyllis. Commissioner Cassel: I like this project but I have a couple of comments. One is of course these units are going to be available in a nondiscriminatory basis for all the reasons we do nondiscriminatory units. They may not attract people with children but of course they can. The open space requirement is awkward because we have a mixed-use development. We would not expect any open space for the retail or the office space and none of the space on the first floor is very usable for tenants anyway. When we do a multiple family project we expect the 30 percent because we expect some use of that space but the amount of space per unit if you divided this and say it was six units is much reduced per unit. So I think that we should go ahead with the Variance for the open space. If you wanted to do some kind of a TDM program and reduce parking that should be irrelevant to the open space requirement. Then if you needed the parking you need the parking and it is not going to be open space. The swail edge along the edge is not playable area it is just plants. So adding a few more plants are fun but they don’t meet the requirement that we are thinking of in terms of open space for the families that are living on the top floor. We have talked long and hard about getting mixed use projects in and the complications that come with combining the two different zones. So I think that we should continue to have the Variance for the open space. I will let other people talk. There are a number of other items I basically agree with what Annette saying. Chair Burt: Dan. Commissioner Garber: I too support the project, the mixed use, and the exceptions that are being asked for. I find Commissioner Lippert’s discussion about the parking compelling however I would argue this project needs as much parking as it can get because of its size and because you are immediately adjacent to the R-1 district. So the degree that we can get as much parking into the project as we can we protect that Rol district from having overflow parking going into it. I think the opportunities to create meaningful open space in this small of a site is pretty small and I would be far more compelled to pursue it on a larger parcel or a differently located one that had a different relationship to the R-1 adjacency there. Those are my comments. Chair Burt: Karen. Vice-Chair Holman: It is the awkwardness of the situation that we are in but I do support the project with the same schizophrenia that I had with the E1 Camino and Park Boulevard project and with a couple of comments if I might. On the drawing that shows the, these are comments for the ARB which hopefully will get included into the motion or at least forwarded as comments. On the retail spaces we just recently had a joint meeting with the ARB and we talked about how retail spaces that the entryways needed to be obvious. What I find in looking at this is that all of the ground floor openings are identical and while there is signage above the retail space it really doesn’t call out and if the trees overgrow that it really doesn’t call it out. So however that is to be accomplished if it is a different size or a space between, it could be a recessed opening or whatever but I think there needs to be better definition of the retail opening. That is one. Another one has to do with the sustainability aspect of it. I would like other Commissioners to consider this too. The operable windows are only on the third floor and I can appreciate why perhaps on the front of the building on E1 Camino you wouldn’t want to have operable windows but certainly on the back of the building or perhaps even on the sides it might be most especially on the back though it might be very advisable to have operable windows for circulation rather than relying on again more energy to heat and cool a building when it is really not necessary given the climate we live in. So those I hope will be included as comments for the ARB to consider. Chair Burt: Paula. Commissioner Sandas: I had a series of unusual oddball questions tonight but I haven’t had a chance to make my comments. I do want to say that my questions were adequately answered by Staff and the applicant this evening. I also support this project. I think one of the great things about it is that it fits in with our pending E1 Camino Real Design Guidelines and while the Old Pro is a quaint feature in Palo Alto I am really excited about the idea of modernizing and enhancing E1 Camino. I think that the project being that it is mixed use is a good way to get our toe into the Pedestrian Transit Oriented Design. So I think this helps us bring that about. It will I think help our case in working on the PTOD. Thank you very much. Chair Burt: Okay. I also support the project in general. First I realize that I neglected to ask Staff for their expounding on one aspect and that has to do with consistency with Comp Plan Policy L-6, which is to avoid abrupt changes in scale and density between residential and nonresidential areas. Then the Staff comment was that it is at least 75 feet away from an R-1 zone. So we have a three story mixed use building within the 75 feet of what I think are one story R- 1. Can Staff comment a little bit more on why they think that’s adequate compatibility of scale and density? Ms. French: Well, certainly there are a number of ways to consider transition. That Comp Plan policy is about both scale and density so basically pushing it as far forward to E1 Camino as the applicant has done the conformance or consistency with the E1 Camino Real Guidelines certainly is one way to work at that transition. Or if you will, in this case it is a buffer to have that much separation. Then if you look at the vegetation proposed along the back that is another mitigation or buffer provided. So transitions can be accomplished in scale by stepping a building up or by pushing it as far away as you can. So I would say that this does provide a transition in scale, transition in density would be the same I would say with the two units versus the single family. Chair Burt: Okay. Then there was quite a bit of discussion on the parking versus open space and the TDM. I think the condition of a TDM would be a right thing to do. I concur with several of my colleagues that unfortunately I think that the parking demand for this project may need the TDM to really have adequate parking with the way it is designed. For the reasons I was pointing out earlier frankly what we have a good change of having are residential cars that will be idle and consuming parking spaces during the day. We might have avoided trips, which are one of the objectives, or maybe the primary objective in the PTOD area is to reduce the car trips. So that objective may very well be met by this sort of project but the parking reduction may in reality not be achieved unless we have the TDM component added to the project, which fortunately the applicant was receptive to including. Another reason that I am less concerned with the open space aspect and as a number of Commissioners know this has been something that in other projects has been a significant concern for me is not only the location of this project on E1 Camino but in addition to the Mayfield we did a very good job I think on the Sunrise Development project. Some of the new Commissioners weren’t there but we have quite a lot of public open space that was incorporated into that project and that is a very short distance away from this one. I think that in essence we have created some public parkland at the Sunrise Development location and I think that will help mitigate the lack of open space in terms of the usable open space as opposed to the visual characteristic on the site. One minor correction for the Staff Report I think. Commissioner Sandas had brought up that these were London Plain trees and I think in the Staff Report they are alluded to as elms. Okay, I saw something and it was the ones that are on the property that are elms. Very good. I will at this time be welcome to entertaining a motion. Commissioner Bialson. MOTION Commissioner Bialson: I would like to move Staff’s recommendation. The Commission recommends that the City Council approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration with a finding that the project will not result in significant environmental impacts and approve the Site and Design Review application, the Design Enhancement Exceptions and Variance as requested based on findings and conditions of approval contained in the Record of Land Use Action with the addition that the applicant be required to provide TDM program and with respect to the comments made by Commissioner Holman. SECOND Commissioner Cassel: Second. Chair Burt: Seconded by Commissioner Cassel. Comments on your motion? Commissioner Bialson: I think we have discussed this. I do want to say that with regard to the comments that Karen made with regard to the design of the building both with regard to the visibility of retail and the operable windows I feel that that’s something that we should leave to the architectural design professionals. I think the comments-can be forwarded to the Architectural Review Board but I do not want them included in the motion. Chair Burt: Do you care just for the record as part of your motion to allude to compliance with the necessary findings? Commissioner Bialson: If you would like so, yes. Chair Burr: I think the City Attorney has encouraged us to make sure in the past that .... Mr. Larkin: Where the findings are different than the findings contained in the Record of Land Use Action that is attached to the Report. Occasionally the Commission will make additional findings. Chair Burt: Okay, so in this case since we are finding consistency with it we don’t have to allude to it. Thank you. Does the seconder wish to speak? Commissioner Cassel: For the purpose of sort of summarizing some comments in case someone is reading the motion or wanting to know why the reduced parking. This site is close to bus transit not just the 22 but others. It is on the edge as was alluded to earlier of the PTOD that we are working on. It is not very far from the train. It is an easy walk to the Marguerite and it is an easy walk to the California Avenue business district which should allow it to have a small reduction in its parking. The setback from the E1 Camino meets the ARB guidelines. Previously we have approved similar setbacks in other developments along E1 Camino and the sidewalk meets the 12 feet back from the edge of E1 Camino as per the E1 Camino Guidelines. The setback to what I call the northwest side along the lot line, the side that is near Oregon, is needed to meet the parking requirements that we have. That is a CS development on that side. The site has a zero setback but so won’t the other site. It is likely that the site to the northwest will continue to have a driveway down that side for access to that site although that may not happen. Then the open space issue we discussed with several of us having different ideas on that but basically my view is a few extra square feet on the ground floor will not give us usable open space and that we have larger balcony space up above than we normally would have. I also have read the findings and agree with those findings as presented. Chair Burt: Thank you. Lee. Commissioner Lippert: First of all I will support the motion I appreciate my colleague including the concept of Transportation Demand Management program in there. ! feel that it probably is because they are small offices and retail space that probably the best vehicle for achieving that would be through the building management company. Whoever is the owner of the building could probably be the administrator of that program. I do appreciate it being included and I think that it makes this project a very appealing project with regard to transit oriented development as well as having mixed use with housing. Thank you. Chair Burt: Karen. Vice-Chair Holman: Commissioner Bialson suggested that forwarding the comments about operable windows and making the retail space more obvious were agreeable. I wanted to make sure that that was the sense of the Commission. Commissioner Bialson: I do not support them myself that’s why I did not want to include them in the motion. I think if you want those forwarded to the ARB as your personal observations that’s fine or if you want to have other people indicate that. I believe that is not within our purview to go into those details. I maintain that we should be at a policy level when it comes to these matters and we are not the body that is best prepared or qualified to deal with such issues as operable windows or visibility for retail. Vice-Chair Holman: Well recently, and I think you were absent, we did review just such things as retail and whether retail was obvious or not. So I think that is trying to ensure the success of retail so I think that is a part of our purview and sustainability is an adjunct to all of our review projects especially Site and Design. Anyway, I would like to have a sense of the Commission if they want those comments forwarded or if Staff is just going to take those forward to the ARB. Chair Burt: I will say that I agree with Commissioner Bialson that the operable windows are probably not within our purview even though I would like to just lend as a comment that I hope that the ARB will further explore that issue. I think the prominence of retail presence is within our purview and I would support requesting that the ARB give additional attention to reviewing that aspect but I would defer to them to do that rather than incorporate it in the motion. Other than that I don’t have other comments. Does anyone else wish to comment on those or other subjects? Lee. Commissioner Lippert: Well, I can tell you as a former member of the ARB that that is on their agenda and I know that they probably will look at those whether we forward those comments or not because that is what they have been inclined to do for the last five or six years. With regard to the street presence I happen to agree but there also happens to be standards that they will do when they do their review with the Standards of Review and look at street presence of retail. MOTION PASSED (7-0-0-0). Chair Burt: Okay. At this time I would like to restate the motion and then call the question. So basically the motion was to support the Staff recommendation and as stated in the Staff Report, and I won’t read it all, with the addition of a TDM program and I think that is the essence. Okay. All those in favor? (ayes) Opposed? That passes unanimously on a seven to zero vote. So thank you to the applicants and to the Staff. Attachment H Excerpt Minutes of May 18, 2006 Architectural Review Board Meeting 2825-2865 El Camino Real [05PLN-00300]: Request by James Baer on behalf of Morris Associates for a Site and Design Review application to construct a 13,988 square foot mixed-use building on a 22,491 square foot parcel in the CS zoning district. Design Enhancement Exceptions are requested to reduce the required side and front yard setbacks and exceed the allowable encroachment into the side yard daylight plane. Variances are requested to not provide the required two covered vehicle parking spaces and to reduce the amount of usable common open space. Environmental Assessment: An initial study has been prepared and a Mitigated Negative Declaration is proposed in accordance with CEQA guidelines. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) support the project revisions and forward the project and the associated Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) (Attachment G) to the City Council with a recommendation for approval of the Site and Design Review application as conditioned based upon the findings and subject to the conditions in the Record of Land Use Action (Attachment A). Staff also recommends the ARB support the Design Enhancement Exceptions as requested and the variance allowing 708 square feet less open space than required. Staff does not support the variance for non- covered residential parking. Bob Moss, Palo Alto: Stated his concern regarding the parking variance for the project. Architectural Review Board Action: The Board recommended approval of the project, (5-0-0-0, Board member Solnick moved, seconded by Board member Wasserman) with the following items to return to the ARB subcommittee: ¯Recommendation to remove condition #8 from the conditions of approval that requires the project to provide two covered vehicle parking spaces. ¯The awning over the front entry as shown on the building elevations should be the same as depicted in the colored rendering. The eve over at the south comer of the building as shown on the building elevations should be the same as depicted in the colored rendering. ¯Increased details of the fence along the north property line ¯The art that is proposed on the northeast building elevation. Attachment I Architectural Review Board Staff Report Agenda Date: To: From: Subject: May.19, 2005 Architectural Review Board Christopher Alan Riordan, Planner Department: Planning and Community Environment 2825 & 2865 El Camino Real [05PLN-00107]: Request by Premier Properties on behalf of Morris Associates for Preliminary Review of demolition of the existing one-story, old pro restaurant and construction of a mixed-use building comprising 14,786 square feet (retail 2,000 square feet, office 6,996 square feet and two residential units, each 1900 square feet) on a 22,491 square feet on a CS parcel with at grade parking and related site improvements. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) conduct a preliminary review of the proposed project and provide comments to staff and the applicant. No formal action may be taken at a preliminary review; comments made at a preliminary review are not binding on the City or the applicant. SUMMARY OF LAND USE ACTION Background The project site includes two separate parcels. 2825 E1 Camino Real is a vacant parcel and 2865 E1 Camino Real is developed with an approximately 4,400 square foot Quonset hut building containing the Old Pro restaurant and warehouse space. In July 2000 the City Council approved a three story, 35-foot tall, 10,150 square foot mixed-use office and residential building on 2825 E1 Camino Real. The project .was not constructed due to local economic changes, and all development approvals have since expired. The project is located one parcel south from Page Mill Road and on the north side of E! Camino Real. The site is bounded to the West and East by commercially zoned CS properties and to the north by both a CN (Neighborhood Commercial) and a R-1 property. El Camino Real borders the front property line to the south. Project Description The project would include demolition of the existing restaurant and parking lot and the construction of an approximately 14,786 square foot, three story mixed use building consisting of 2825-2865 El Camino Real 05PLN-00107 a third floor with two residential units, second floor office, and ground floor office and retail space. The surface parking facility would provide 38 on site parking spaces. The project would include a request for Design Enhancement Exceptions from the CS Zone development standards for mixed-use buildings. The applicant has described the project as having "clean lines and materials to give a more contemporary feel". The proposed exterior building materials are listed on the development plans and described in the architect’s project description (Attachment B). The materials would include beige colored limestone for the first and second story and integral colored plaster for the remainder. The first and second floor windows would have champagne colored aluminum mullions with clear glass. The third floor windows for the residential units would be wood windows with clear glass. The roof material would be metal. The applicant will present material samples at the meeting. An existing 12" Oak tree at the rear of the site would be retained. Two Yarwood street trees are located in front of the site. The street tree on the right would be relocated 17 feet to the west to provide clearance for the proposed driveway. An additional Yarwood street tree would be located between the existing and relocated street trees. A location map and photos of the site are included as Attachment A. The applicant has also submitted a listing of sustainability measures proposed for the project. (Attachment D). These would include mandatory measures, such as a reduction in water use and salvaging of construction materials, as well as voluntary ones such as operable windows, passive solar shading, the use of Certified lumber and wood products, and installed electrical conduit for the future possible use ofphotovoltaic panels for the residential units. DISCUSSION The site is zoned CS (Neighborhood Service). Since the proposed project includes a third floor residential use, it would be subject to the applicable regulations and guidelines in PAMC Chapters 18.24 (RM-30) and 18.28 (multiple-family guidelines), as well as Site and Design review by the Planning and Transportation Commission, the ARB, and the City Council. The project would also be subject to PAMC 18.64 (Additional Site Development and Design Regulations for Commercial and Industrial Districts). These regulations are intended to reduce the lighting, noise, and visual impacts of the project on adjacent residential uses. Amongst the issues to be considered would the location of trash enclosures, subdued building colors and materials, light spillover from the building and parking lot, and loss of privacy. The project is subject to the South E1 Camino Real Design Guidelines (Guidelines). These Guidelines are intended to implement the vision of E1 Camino Real as a vibrant corridor by providing design direction for a range of site planning and building design components, including facades, setbacks, overall building form, parking location, and signage. Some of the design 2825-2865 El Camino Real 05PLN-00107 suggestions contained in the Guidelines are not compatible with the existing development standards of the CS zone district. As noted, the project would not conform to all of the development standards of the CS Zone nor those of the RM-30 zone by reference (see Attachment C) and the applicant would request several exceptions to these provisions. These exceptions are discussed below: Height The building height limit in the CS zone is 50 feet. The RM-30 development regulations limit the building height to 35 feet. Height is measured to the average height of the highest gable of a pitched roof or hipped roof or the deck line of a mansard roof. The project applicant has described the building as having a mansard roof. The plans indicate a proposed building height of 37"-6" as measured from the top of the eave. The project plans show a pitched roof and staff estimates the midpoint of the roof at 39 feet, four feet above the maximum building height. Setbacks, Daylight Plane, and Usable Open Space Front Setback E1 Camino Real is designated in the Comprehensive Plan (Map T-8) as an arterial street. The minimum front setback for a mixed use building on a CS zoned site located adjacent to an arterial street is 25 feet for all floors. The commercial floors of the project would have a minimum 12 front setback whereas the residential floor would have a 25-foot minimum front setback. Left Side Setback The minimum interior side and rear yards for a structure over one story are required to be a minimum of ten feet for the first story and one-half of the actual height of the structure, but not less than ten feet for the portion of the structure over one story. As noted above, plans submitted to date show a pitched roof and staff calculates a height of 39 feet, so the required setback of the second and third floors would be a minimum of 19.5 feet. The plans show a 10-foot left side setback for the first and second floors and a 20-foot setback for the third floor. Daylight Plane The RM-30 regulations state that no structure shall extend above a daylight plane having a height of 10 feet at each side or rear property line and an angle of 45 degrees. The left side of the building would have an 86-foot wide encroachment into the side daylight plane. The Guidelines (Section 4.1.2) recommend that buildings not be required to conform to side daylight planes. Usable Open Space RM-30 regulations require that not less than 30% (6,747 square feet) of the lot area be developed into permanently maintained common usable open space as measured in the ground floor only. The project would include 28% (6,344 square feet) of usable open space. 2825-2865 El Camino Real 05PLN-00107 Parking The project floor area requires that 42 off-street parking spaces be provided; including one covered parking stall for each of the two residential units. The project would include seven covered spaces beneath the second floor at the rear of the building. The proposed project would include a total of 38 off street parking spaces. The applicant is requesting a 9% reduction (four spaces) in the number of required parking spaces. PAMC Section 18.83.120 allows the Director of Planning and Community Environment the discretion to reduce the number of required parking spaces up to 20% on any site with a joint use parking facility having 30 or more spaces. The Transportation Division would support this reduction. The site plan does not show dimensions of the parking stalls and aisle widths. Based on the noted scale, the parking stalls do not meet the minimum dimensions. The Transportation Division has included the required parking dimensions in their comments (Attachment F). Miscellaneous ¯ Transformers and backflow preventor locations would need to be identified on plans submitted for Site and Design review. ¯A trip generation comparison between the existing and proposed use would be required. ¯A parcel map or certificate of compliance to merge the lots shall be submitted. ¯The trash enclosure shall be relocated as far away from the R-1 zoned property as reasonably possible. It would be recommended that this trash enclosure be moved to the north corner of the site and adjacent to other commercial uses. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW No environmental review is required for this Preliminary Review application, as it is not considered a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). When a the Site and Design application is filed, staff will develop the Initial Study in compliance with CEQA guidelines and public comment period would be followed by the first public hearing before the Planning and Transportation Commission. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Location Map and Site Photographs Attachment Attachment Attachment Attachment Attachment Attachment B:Applicant and Architects Project Description C Project’s Conformance with CS & RM-30 District Regulations D:Suggested Sustainability Measures prepared by applicant E:Comprehensive Plan Policies F:Draft Department Comments G:Preliminary Development Plans (Board Members Only) 2825-2865 El Camino Real 05PLN-00107 COURTESY COPIES DES Architects Morris Associates, Property Owners Jim Baer, Premier Properties _ Prepared By: Christopher Alan Riordan, AICP, Planner~~~-~ Manager Review:Amy French, AICP, Manager of Current Planning 2825-2865 El Camino Real 05PLN-00107 Attachment F Attachment J PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT TO:PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION FROM:Christopher Alan Riordan DEPARTMENT: Planning and Community Environment AGENDA DATE: January 25, 2006 SUBJECT:2825-2865 El Camino Real [05PLN-00300]: Request by James Baer on behalf of Morris Associates for a Site and Design review application to construct a 13,988 square foot mixed-use building on a 22,491 square foot parcel in the CS zoning district. Design Enhancement Exceptions are requested to reduce the required side and front yard setbacks and exceed the allowable encroachment into the side yard daylight plane. A Variance is requested to reduce the amount of usable common open space. Environmental Assessment: An initial study has been prepared and a Mitigated Negative Declaration is proposed in accordance with CEQA guidelines. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning and Transportation Commission recommend the City Council approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration (Attachment G), with a finding that the project will not result in significant environmental impacts, and approve the Site and Design Review application, the Design Enhancement Exceptions (DEE), and Variance as requested based upon the findings and conditions of approval contained in the Record of Land Use Action (Attachment A). SUMMARY OF KEY ISSUES: The applicant’s project description and project background information are provided as Attachments C and F to this report. City of Palo Alto Page 1 The site is zoned CS (Service Commercial), a zone which allows the proposed retail (2,000 square feet), office (6,996 square feet), and multiple-family uses (4,992 square feet). Since the proposed project includes two third floor residential units, it is subject to the applicable regulations and guidelines in PAMC Chapters 18.24 (RM-30) and 18.28 (multiple-family guidelines). Attachment E is a table indicating the project’s conformance with these regulations along with parking regulations in PAMC Section 18.83. Attachment D is a table of Comprehensive Plan Policies that are applicable to this project. The project is subject to the South E1 Camino Real Design Guidelines (Guidelines) recommended by the Architectural Review Board (ARB) in 2002. These Guidelines are intended to implement the vision of E1 Camino Real as a vibrant urban corridor by providing design direction for a range of site planning and building design components, including facades, setbacks, overall building form, parking location, and signage. It is important to note that some of the design suggestions contained in the Guidelines are not in congruence with the development standards of the CS zone district (i.e. 25 foot front yard building setbacks). The Zoning Ordinance Update team is addressing those inconsistencies in the updated ordinance. This applicant is applying for DEE’s in an effort to conform to the intent of the Guidelines. The project is also subject to the City Council adopted El Camino Real Design Guidelines of 1979. These particular guidelines include sign and street tree spacing standards applicable to the project. The project is subject to PAMC Chapter 18.64 (Additional Site Development and Design Regulations for Commercial and Industrial Districts). These regulations are intended to reduce the lighting, noise, and visual impacts of the project on adjacent residential uses. Such issues to be considered are the location of the trash enclosure, subdued building colors and materials, fencing, light spillover from the building and parking lot, and loss of privacy. The project includes a request for an adjustment to parking requirements for a joint-use facility per PAMC 18.83.120(c). The proposed uses would require 41 parking spaces to be provided and 38 are being proposed. The project would not conform to all of the development standards of the CS Zone nor those of the RM-30 zone by reference. The applicant is requesting three DEE’s. These exceptions are discussed below: Parking The proposed project would include a total of 38 off street parking spaces. The project’s floor area requires that 41 off-street parking spaces be provided; including one covered parking stall for each of the two residential units. A carport located in the rear parking lot and not visible from the street would provide covered residential parking. City of Palo Alto Page 2 The applicant is requesting a 9% reduction (three spaces) in the number of required parking spaces. PAMC Section 18.83.120 allows the Director of Planning and Community Environment the discretion to reduce the number of required parking spaces up to 20% on any site with a joint use parking facility having 30 or more spaces. Staffwould support the 9% reduction given the staggered parking demand of the proposed uses (retail, office, and housing) and proximity to transit. Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) bus routes 22 and 522 are located on E1 Camino Real in front of the site. Setbacks Front Setback E1 Camino Real is designated in the Comprehensive Plan (Map T-8) as an arterial street. The minimum front setback as measured from the property line for a mixed use building on a CS zoned site located adjacent to an arterial street is 25 feet for all floors. All floors of the proposed project would have an approximately four-foot front setback. Section 3.1.3 (Build- To-Lines) of the Guidelines does recommend that buildings should be built up to the sidewalk to reinforce the definition and importance of the street. On May 19, 2005 the Architectural Review Board (ARB) conducted a preliminary review of the project. The design they reviewed was very similar to the current project but it did include an increased front setback for the third floor residential portion of the building. The ARB commented on the mass of the building fronting E1 Camino Real and made the suggestion that locating the third floor closer to the street could increase the mass. Section 3.1.1. (Effective Sidewalk Width) of the Guidelines recommend that buildings should be set back from E1 Camino Real a sufficient distance to maintain a 12 foot wide sidewalk (as measured from face of curb), inclusive of the existing width of the public sidewalk. The Guidelines also state that buildings should be built up to the sidewalk to reinforce the "definition and importance" of the street. The CS development standards and the South E1 Camino Real Guidelines have conflicting setback requirements and recommendations. The width of the project site along E1 Camino Real is approximately 150 feet. The project would include an approximately 80-foot wide building mass near the sidewalk on E1 Camino Real (53% of the site’s width). The project would have a four-foot front setback thereby providing the desired 12-foot building setback from the El Camino Real curb line. The South E1 Camino Real Design Guidelines also identify this area as the Cal Ventura "Node". The Guidelines recommend that new buildings within this area should front E1 Camino Real with prominent facades. The proposed building’s four-foot setback, 80-foot width and 35 foot height would create a predominate fagade thereby meeting the intent of the Guidelines. Therefore, staff supports the requested DEE for front setbacks. City of Palo Alto Page 3 Interior Side Setback The minimum interior side and rear yards for a structure over one story per the RM-30 development regulation are required to be a minimum often feet for the first story and one- half of the actual height of the structure, but not less than ten feet for the portion of the structure over one story. The proposed building would be 35 feet in height so therefore; the setback of the second and third stories should be a minimum of 17.5 feet. The Service Commercial (CS) development standards do not include a minimum side setback. The proposed project would not include a left side yard setback. The guidelines recommend that buildings along E1 Camino Real have increased building, mass; therefore, staff supports this DEE as requested. Daylight Plane The CS zone has a daylight plane requirement for projects adjacent to residential zones. The project meets rear daylight plane requirements so the R-1 property behind the subject property would not be impacted. The adjacent properties to the left and right of the subject site are zoned CS. The RM-30 regulations state that no structure shall extend above a daylight plane having a height often feet at each side or rear property line and an angle of 45 degrees. The left side of the building would have an approximately 65-foot wide encroachment into the daylight plane. The Guidelines (Section 4.1.2) recommend that buildings not be required to conform to side daylight planes so as to increase the mass and reduce the articulation of buildings on E1 Camino Real. Therefore, staff supports this DEE as requested. ~ Usable Open Space Mixed-use projects in the CS zone are required to provide a minimum of 30% of the lot area developed into permanently maintained usable open space as measured on the ground floor only. The proposed project would include 5,583 square feet of usable open space, which is 1,164 feet less than the minimum requirement (6,747 square feet). Each unit is required to have a private balcony of at least 50 square feet and the proposed project would exceed this requirement. DEE’s cannot be used to reduce the overall area of required open space pursuant to 18.76.050(b)(4); therefore, a Variance has been requested. Variance findings prepared for this reduction in required ground floor open space focus on the mix of uses and small number of residents who would use such space. Fencing Projects in the CS zone district abutting any residential zone district require the construction of a solid wall or fence of between five and eight feet in height along the common property line (PAMC 18.45.070(b)(1)). An R-1 property is located to the northeast (rear) of the site. The proposed project plans do indicate that an 8-inch wide retaining wall would be built along the rear property line for site drainage purposes but its proposed height is not specified. City of Palo Alto Page 4 A condition of approval has been added that requires a wall to be constructed along the common property line with the R-1 property to the rear. This wall must be between five and eight feet in height. Its construction details are to be added to the proposed landscape plan prior to the Architectural Review Board’s (ARB) review of the project. Street Trees and Landscape Plan As noted, street tree spacing standards are contained in the 1979 El Camino Real guidelines, with spacing of one tree for every 30 feet of frontage for non-parking lot frontage and one tree for every 25 feet of parking lots. In addition, the E1 Camino Real Master Plan also cites tree spacing ranging 22-33 feet on center. The project indicates a street tree spacing of 43 feet. Condition #5 included in the Record of Land Use Action (Attachment A) requires that the street trees be spaced from 22-33 feet on center where feasible and shall be shown on the proposed landscape plan prior to ARB review. RESOURCE IMPACT: The project would not have a significant economic impact to the City’s General Fund. The project site is servided by City’s utilities and would not have a detrimental effect on city resources. Development Impact Fees currently estimated at $113,952.85 would be paid to the City prior to the issuance of a building permit for the mixed-use building. TIMELINE: Application Received: Application Deemed Complete: Negative Declaration Public Review Period: P&TC Meeting ARB Meeting Required Action by Council: Date: August 19, 2005 December 14, 2005 January 3 - January 23, 2006 January 25, 2006 TBD TBD ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The project is subject to environmental review under provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). An environmental impact assessment was prepared for the project and it has been determined that, with the implementation of mitigation measures, no potentially adverse impacts would result from the development; therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact on the environment. The Negative Declaration was available for public review beginning January 3, 2006 through January 23, 2006, and is attached to this staff report (Attachment G). ATTACHMENTS: A.Record of Land Use Action B.Location Map City of Palo Alto Page 5 Co Do E. F. G. H. Applicant Submittal ¯Project Description (prepared by DES Architects). ¯Statement of Landscape Design Intent (prepared by DES Architects). ¯Project Description (prepared by Premier Properties). ¯Proposed Sustainability Measures (prepared by Premier Properties). Comprehensive Plan Table Zoning Table Project Background Environmental Documentation Development Plans (Commissioners Only) COURTESY COPIES: James Baer, Premier Properties Morris Associates Prepared by:Christopher Alan Riordan, AICP, Project Planner Reviewed by: Department~ivision Head Approval: Amy French, AICP, Manager of Current Planning ~tev~e~ mslie ¯ Director of Planning and Community Environment City of Palo Alto Page 6 Attachment K Architectural Review Board Staff Report Agenda Date: To: March 2, 2006 Architectural Review Board From: Subject: Christopher Riordan, Planner Department: Planning and Community Environment 2825-2865 El Camino Real [05PLN-00300]: Request by James Baer on behalf of Morris Associates for a Site and Design Review application to construct a 13,988 square foot mixed-use building on a 22,491 square foot parcel in the CS zoning district. Design Enhancement Exceptions are requested to reduce the required side and front yard setbacks and exceed the allowable encroachment into the side yard daylight plane. A Variance is requested to reduce the amount of usable common open space. Environmental Assessment: An initial study has been prepared and a Mitigated Negative Declaration is proposed in accordance with CEQA guidelines. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) forward the project and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) (Attachment I) to the City Council with a recommendation for approval of the Site and Design Review application as conditioned for a new three story mixed- use building with at grade parking and related site improvements, based upon the findings and subject to the conditions in the Record of Land Use Action (Attachment A). BACKGROUND The project site includes two separate parcels. 2825 E1 Camino Real is a vacant parcel and 2865 E1 Camino Real is developed with an approximately 4,000 square foot Quonset hut building containing the Old Pro restaurant and warehouse space. In July 2000 the City Council approved a three-story, 35-foot tall, 10,150 square foot mixed-use office and residential building on 2825 E1 Camino Real. The project was not constructed due to local economic changes, and all development approvals have since expired. The project is located one parcel south from Page Mill Road and on the north side of E1 Camino Real. The site is bounded to the West and East by commercially zoned CS properties and to the north by both a CN (Neighborhood Commercial) and an R-1 property. E1 Camino Real borders the front property line to the south. 2825-2865 El Camino Real [05PLN-00300] Proiect Description The project would include demolition of the existing restaurant and parking lot and the construction of an approximately 13,988 square foot, three story mixed use building consisting of a third floor with two residential units, second floor office, and ground floor office and retail space. The surface parking facility would provide 38 on site parking spaces. The project would include a request for Design Enhancement Exceptions from the CS Zone development standards for mixed-use buildings. Full descriptions of the requested exceptions are contained in the Planning and Transportation Commission Staff Report (Attachment F). The applicant has described the proposed project as having "clean lines and materials to give it a more contemporary feel". The proposed exterior building materials are listed on the development plans and described in the architect’s project description (Attachment E). In general, the materials would include beige colored stone for the first and second stories and integral colored plaster for the remainder. The arcade walls that flank the driveway will be clad in stone to match the building with a "green screen" trellis in an arched opening to aid in screening the parking lot from the street. All windows would have champagne colored aluminum mullions with clear glass with only the third floor windows for the residential units being operable. The applicant has submitted a material samples board. These samples will be available at the meeting. An existing 12" Oak tree at the rear of the site would be relocated to a parking lot planter. Two Yarwood street trees are located in front of the site. The street tree on the right would be removed to provide clearance for the proposed driveway. Two new Sycamore street trees would be planted. The applicant has also submitted a listing of sustainability measures proposed for the project (Attachment E). These would include mandatory measures, such as a reduction in water use and salvaging of construction materials, as well as voluntary ones such passive solar shading, low E insulated glass, the use of Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) Certified lumber and wood products, exceeding Title 24 requirements by 10%, and installed electrical conduit for the future possible use ofphotovoltaic panels for the residential units. Preliminary ARB Review The Architectural Review Board (ARB) reviewed the proposed project during a Preliminary Review on May 19, 2005. The ARB was generally in support of the project and commented on the following: ¯The massing of the building facing the street should be increased since E1 Camino Real is a wide street that can tolerate buildings with increased mass. The building’s third floor should be moved forward and closer to E1 Camino Real. The design of the building cannot seem too big given its location. The project could have the potential to set the design tone for future buildings to be constructed on E1 Camino Real. ¯Mixed-use buildings are a positive. ¯The project should enhance the pedestrian experience. ¯Design Enhancement Exceptions would be supported so the project can conform to the South E1 Camino Real Design Guidelines. 2825-2865 El Carnino Real [05PLN-00300] The percentage of shared parking should be maximized. The architectural design could be more interesting. The project should be creative in the use of reusable building materials and renewable energy sources. These energy sources could include photovoltaic cells as well as the use of solar energy for heating water. In response to the preliminary comments provided by the ARB, the applicant modified the design of the project to include the following: Increased building mass by shifting the third floor towards E1 Camino Real and lengthening the fagade. ¯Decreased front building setback from 12 feet to 4 feet. ¯Addition of an arcade at the parking lot entrance to help screen the parking area from El Camino Real. Planning and Transportation Commission Review The Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) reviewed the project at their meeting of January 25, 2006. The PTC was supportive of the design of the proposed project. The PTC recommended approval (7-0-0-0) of the Site and Design Review application, the requested Design Enhancement Exceptions (DEE), and Variance to the City Council. The PTC added an additional condition of approval requiring the applicant to submit a Transportation Demand Management Program for review by the Transportation Division prior to the issuance of a building permit. The draft verbatim minutes of the PTC meeting are included with this report as Attachment G. Street Trees and Landscape Plan As noted in the PTC staff report (Attachment F), street tree spacing standards are contained in the 1979 E1 Camino Real guidelines, with recommended spacing of one tree for every 30 feet of frontage for non-parking lot frontage and one tree for every 25 feet of parking lots. In addition, the E1 Camino Real Master Plan also cites tree spacing ranging 22-33 feet on center where feasible. The project indicates a street tree spacing of 43 feet. Condition #8 included in the Record of Land Use Action (Attachment A) requires that the street trees be spaced from 22-33 feet on center where feasible. Revised tree spacing should have been shown on the project plan set (Attachment J) for ARB review but the spacing on the plans has not yet been modified by the applicant. The applicant will present a revised site plan and landscape plan at the hearing for ARB review. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The proposed project is subject to environmental review under provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). An Environmental Impact Assessment (Attachment I) was prepared for the project. It was determined that the project could have significant biological and cultural impacts however, the project would include mitigation measured to reduce these impacts to a less than significant level. A Mitigated Negative Declaration will be prepared. 2825-2865 El Camino Real [05PLN-00300] If the ARB recommends approval or approval with additional conditions, the project application will be forwarded to the City Council for final action. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A:Record of Land Use Action Attachment B:Location Map (prepared by Staff) Attachment C:Zoning Conformance Table (prepared by Staff) Attachment D:Comprehensive Plan Conformance Table (prepared by Staff) Attachment E:Applicant Submittal ¯Project Description prepared by Premier Properties ¯List of Proposed Sustainability Measures prepared by Premier Properties ¯Project Description prepared by DES Architects Attachment F:Planning and Transportation Commission Staff Report dated January 25, 2006 (without attachments) Attachment G:Draft Minutes of the January 25, 2006 Planning and Transportation Commission meeting Attachment H:Preliminary ARB Staff Report dated May 19, 2005 (without attachments) Attachment I:Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration and Environmental Impact Assessment Attachment J:Project Plan Set (Board Members Only) COURTESY COPIES DES Architects James Baer, Premier Properties Morris Associates c/o Premier Properties Prepared by: Manager Review: Christopher A. Riordan, AICP, Planner ~~ Amy French, AICP, Manager of Current Plannin~ 2825-2865 El Camino Real [05PLN-00300] Attachment L Architectural Review Board Staff Report Agenda Date:May 18, 2006 To:Architectural Review Board From: Subject: Christopher Riordan Senior Planner Department: Planning and Community Environment 2825-2865 El Camino Real [05PLN-00300]: Request by James Baer on behalf of Morris Associates for a Site and Design Review application to construct a 13,988 square foot mixed-use building on a 22,491 square foot parcel in the CS zoning district. Design Enhancement Exceptions (DEE) are requested to reduce the required side and front yard setbacks and exceed the allowable encroachment into the side yard daylight plane. Variances are requested to 1) not provide the required two covered vehicle parking spaces and 2) to reduce the amount of usable common open space. Environmental Assessment: An initial study has been prepared and a Mitigated Negative Declaration is proposed in accordance with CEQA guidelines. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) support the project revisions and forward the project and the associated Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) (Attachment G) to the City Council with a recommendation for approval of the Site and Design Review application as conditioned based upon the findings and subject to the conditions in the Record of Land Use Action (Attachment A). Staff also recommends the ARB support the Design Enhancement Exceptions as requested and the variance allowing 708 square feet less open space than required. Staff does not support the variance for non-covered residential parking. BACKGROUND Proiect Description The project would include demolition of the existing restaurant and parking lot and the construction of an approximately 13,988 square foot, three story mixed use building consisting of a third floor with two residential units, second floor office, and ground floor office and retail space. The surface parking facility would provide 38 on site parking spaces. The project includes a request for Design Enhancement Exceptions from the CS Zone development standards 2825-2865 El Camino Real [05PLN-00300] for mixed-use buildings. Full descriptions of the requested exceptions are contained in the Planning and Transportation Commission Staff Report (Attachment I). Previous ARB Review On March 2, 2006, the ARB reviewed the original proposal for the project as described in the preceding paragraphs. The recommendation at that time was for a continuance (by a vote of 4-0- 0-1), to allow the applicant an opportunity to revise the submittal package so as to address the comments made by the board during the hearing. PROJECT REVISIONS Variance for Non-Covered Residential Parking Spaces When the project was originally submitted in August 2005, it included a request for a variance to not provide the required covered parking for the two residential units. After reviewing the project and variance request, staff notified the applicant that the project would not receive a positive recommendation as the findings for the variance could not be made. The applicant responded by revising the project to include a carport in the rear of the parking lot. This metal trellis carport with a standing seam metal roof was reviewed by the ARB during the March 2, 2006 review of the project. During the Board’s discussion of the project, the Board expressed concern that the design of the carport appeared to be forced and it was not architecturally compatible with the rest of the project. During the discussion some members of the board mentioned that they would support eliminating the carport from the project. This view was not supported by all members of the Board and the motion for continuance included a recommendation that the carport be redesigned to be integrated within the project. The revised project plans do not include a carport as part of the project as the applicant has reapplied for the variance to not provide it. The applicant’s variance findings are included in Attachment E to be reviewed by the City Council. As mentioned in the applicant’s letter, the decision to not include the carport was based on the comments made by the some members of the Board during the discussion of the project. However, variances are not typically reviewed by the ARB. The exceptions the ARB does review are DEE’s. Staff maintains that covered parking for the two residential units is necessary and required by the zoning regulations. Variance for Open Space Mixed-use projects in the CS zone are required to provide a minimum of 30% of the lot area developed into permanently maintained usable open space as measured on the ground floor only. The proposed project would include 5,583 square feet of usable open space, which is 1,164 feet less than the minimum requirement (6,747 square feet). Each unit is required to have a private balcony of at least 50 square feet (a total of 100 square feet of private space). The proposed revisions to the project increase the combined private balcony open space from 298 square feet to 526 square feet square feet, an increase of 228 square feet. DEE’s cannot be used to reduce the overall area of required open space pursuant to 18.76.050(b)(4); therefore, a Variance has been requested. Staff Variance findings prepared for this reduction in required ground floor open space focus on the mix of uses and small number of residents who would use such space. 2825-2865 El Camino Real [05PLN-00300] Resubmittal On April 18, 2006, the applicant submitted a written response to the ARB’s comments (Attachment E) and has revised the plans to incorporate the changes noted in their letter. The following is a list of the ARB’s comments and a short description of how the applicant modified the plans in response to each. Operable windows should be included on the second floor The anodized aluminum windows for the second story offices would be operable. Reconfigure the floor plan of the rear residential unit by relocating the closet of the master bedroom to increase the opportunity to enlarge the deck. The closet has been shifted towards the south and now occupies the area that was previously proposed for the 80 square feet balcony. An approximately 160 square foot balcony would be constructed on the east elevation. The north elevation is unorganized - consider the use of artwork. The north elevation has become more geometrically balanced with the addition of the balcony as mentioned above. The applicant is proposing a mural for the north elevation with details of the design to be determined at a later date. The height of the pedestrian overhang on the east elevation could be lowered to make it more pedestrian in scale. The 12’ height of the pedestrian overhang has not been modified. ¯Lintels should be included on both the second and third floors. Stone lintels have been added above all second floor windows. The covered parking in the rear parking lot appears to be a forced gesture and is not architecturally compatible with the building. The covered parking shall be integrated into the project design. The carport that provided covered parking for the two residential units has been removed from the plans. The applicant has applied for a variance to not include covered parking as part of the project. Staff does not support a variance to exclude the covered parking. The entrance of the parking lot could be pavers and paving alternatives for the rest of the parking lot should be evaluated. The first 30 feet of paving at the entrance to the parking lot would be stamped colored concrete. The paving for the eight parking spaces located near the front entrance have been changed from decorative pavers to permeable pavers. The remainder of the parking lot would be concrete. 2825-2865 El Camino Real [05PLN-00300] Consider relocating the bicycle racks from near the parking lot entrance to the south elevation. The two bicycle racks have been located to the right of the south elevation adjacent to the stairwell. A balcony should be added offthe living room of the front residential unit. A balcony has been added to the south elevation with access from the living room of the front residential unit. Reconsider the height of the entrance trellis. The metal entrance trellis has been removed from the project. Reconsider the height and overall size of the mechanical screening. The height of the mechanical screening has been reduced in height by five feet as stated in the applicant’s letter. A design for the trash enclosure is to be included in the plans. Elevations of the proposed trash enclosure have been included on page 18 of the development plans. The nine foot tall enclosure would be made of masonry blocks and covered with stucco to match the building with a corrugated metal roof. Metal doors with horizontal louvers would provide access. A cable trellis with flowering vines would be attached to the sides of the enclosure. Submit a shading and sun angle study. Colored drawings have been added to the first eight pages of the plan set. Included with these are shading studies depicting the effectiveness of the window sunshades on the south and west elevation during both the summer and winter. The height and scale of the entrance archways are not large enough to accomplish the attempt of widening the appearance of the building along E1 Camino Real. The design of the building should be integrated along the E1 Camino Real frontage with an architectural solution proposed to widen the building. The two archways that were previously proposed on either side of the entrance driveway have been removed from the project plans. The width of the building has not been changed. Residential open space shall be enlarged where possible. Residential balconies have been both enlarged and added. The combined private open space for the two residential units has increased from 298 square feet to 526 square feet, an increase of 228 square feet. 2825-2865 E1 Camino Real [05PLN-00300] The design of the east elevation of the building should be complete. Arched windows were added on the first floor to increase compatibility with the reminder of the building. the east elevations’ Colored drawings should be submitted. Depict how the proposed building will affect the pedestrian experience on E1 Camino Real. Colored drawings have been added to the project plan set. These drawing include the following: 1. Landscape plan. 2. View of the proposed project as seen from El Camino Real. 3. View of the entry and south elevation as seen from the parking lot. 4. Illustration of the pedestrian experience adjacent to the front of the building as viewed from the sidewalk facing north. Submit details of the rear fence and details of the materials where there are changes in plane. The fence should be good quality an integrated with the design of the building. Details of the windows, sunshades, glass railings, metal fascia, soffit, and corbel and details of the fence along the rear property line have been added to page 17 and 18 of the project plan set, respectively. ATTACHMENTS A: Record of Land Use Action B: Location Map (prepared by Staff) C: Zoning Conformance Table (prepared by Staff) D: Comprehensive Plan Conformance Table (prepared by Staff) E: Applicant Submittal ¯ Applicant’s discussion of project revisions based on comments received by the Board during the March 2, 2006 ARB meeting. ¯Project Description prepared by Premier Properties ¯List of Proposed Sustainability Measures prepared by Premier Properties ¯Project Description prepared by DES Architects F:Major ARB StaffReport dated March 2, 2006 (without attachments) G:Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration and Environmental Impact Assessment H:Project Plan Set (Board Members Only) The following additional background documents are available on the City of Palo Alto Website at www.citgofpaloalto.org/citvagenda!publish/arb-mtgs.html. I.Planning and Transportation Commission StaffReport dated January 25, 2006 J.Minutes of the January 25, 2006 Planning and Transportation Commission meeting K.Preliminary ARB Staff’Report dated May 19, 2005 2825-2865 E1 Camino Real [05PLN-00300] COURTESY COPIES DES Architects James Baer, Premier Properties Morris Associates c/o Premier Properties Prepared by:Christopher A. Riordan, AICP, Senior Planner Manager Review: Amy French, AICP, Manager of Current Planning 2825-2865 El Camino Real [05PLN-00300] Attachment M City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment California Environmental Quality Act MI TI GA TED NEGATIVE DECLARATION I.DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT Date:December 8, 2005 Application Nos.:05PLN-00300 Address of Project:2825/2865 E1 Camino Real Assessor’s Parcel Number:132-37-010,011 Applicant/Owner:Morris Associates 2500 Sand Hill Road Suite 240 Menlo Park, CA 94025 Project Description and Location: The project site consists of two CS (Service Commercial) zoned parcels located at 2825 and 2865 E1 Camino Real. The site is located one parcel south from Page Mill Road and on the north side of E1 Camino Real. The site is bounded to the West and East by commercially zoned CS properties and to the north by both a CN (Neighborhood Commercial) and a R-1 property. E1 Camino Real borders the front property line to the south. The parcel at 2825 E1 Camino Real is approximately 11,250 square feet. This site is presently vacant but was formerly occupied by Burnett’s British Automotive Service. This automotive repair use was located on the site since the early 1960’s and was discontinued in February 1999. The City of Palo Alto Fire Department approved a Hazardous Materials Facility Closure Application in August 2000. The parcel located at 2825 E1 Camino Real is approximately 11,250 square feet and contains an approximately 4,000 square foot Quonset hut building constructed in 1946, according to Santa Clara County records. The Old Pro Sports Bar and Restaurant presently occupies approximately 2,000 square feet of this Quonset hut building while the remainder is used as warehouse space. The Old Pro has been relocated to 845 Ramona Street but is still in operation on the site. This building would be removed as part of the project. The project would include the construction of an approximately 13,988 square foot, 35-foot tall mixed use building consisting of a third floor with two residential units, second floor office, and ground floor retail and office space. The surface parking facility would provide 38 on site S:kPLAN~LADIV~Currem Planning2EIAhMIGDEC.,MLk2825 El Camino Real.doc parking spaces including two covered parking spaces set aside for use by the residents. The proposed uses would require that 41 parking spaces be provided for on site. The applicant is requesting a 9% reduction (three spaces) in the number of required parking spaces since it is a mixed-use building with time staggered parking demands. The applicant is requesting Design Enhancement Exceptions from the CS Zone development standards for reductions in the required front and side yard setbacks as well as exceeding the allowable encroachment into the side yard daylight plane. A variance is requested for the reduction in the amount of required open space. The applicant has described the project as having "clean lines and materials to give a more contemporary feel". The materials would include beige colored limestone for the first and second story and integral colored plaster for the remainder. The first and second floor windows would have champagne colored aluminum mullions with clear glass. The third floor windows for the residential units would be wood windows with clear glass. The roof material would be metal. An existing 12" Oak tree at the rear of the site would be relocated to a parking lot planter. Two Yarwood street trees are located in front of the site. The street tree on the right would be removed to provide clearance for the proposed driveway. Two new Sycamore street trees would be planted. The applicant has also submitted a listing of sustainability measures proposed for the project. These would include mandatory measures, such as a reduction in water use and salvaging of construction materials, as well as voluntary ones such passive solar shading, low E insulated glass, the use of Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) Certified lumber and wood products, exceeding Title 24 requirements by 10%, and installed electrical conduit for the future possible use ofphotovoltaic panels for the residential units. II.DETERMINATION In accordance ~vith the City of Palo Alto’s procedures for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City has conducted an Initial Study to determine whether the proposed project located at 1795 El Camino Real could have a significant effect on the environment. On the basis of that study, the City makes the following determination: The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION is hereby adopted. X Although the project, as proposed, could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect on the environment in this case because mitigation measures for traffic impacts have been added to the project and, therefore, a MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION is hereby adopted. S:’tPLANkPLADIV~Cun-ent PlanningXEIALM1GDEC.MLL2825 El Camino Real.doc The attached initial study incorporates all relevant information regarding the potential environmental effects of the project and confirms the determination that an EIR is not required for the project. In addition, the following mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project: Mitigation Measure #1: Parking lot lighting shall be shielded such that the light will not extend beyond the site and the source of light will not be directly visible from adjoining properties and roadways. Interior lighting systems that employ timing and shading devices to meet City requirements shall be installed in conjunction with tenant improvements. Mitigation Measures #2: The proposed residential uses will include 42-inch high solid glass balcony railings pursuant to the Noise Assessment Study recommendations. The balcony would reduce roadway noise for a seated person on the balcony to approximately DNL 65 dB, which approaches the City’s outdoor goal of DNL 60 dB per Comprehensive Plan Policy N-39. Where the City determines that providing an Ldn of 60dB or lower outdoors is not feasible, the noise level in outdoor areas intended for recreational use shall be reduced to as close to the standard (60dB) as feasible through required design changes. These design changes would be reviewed by the Architectural Review Board. Mitigation Measures #3: Windows with sound transmission ratings in the range of STC 32 to 36 would be required in rooms of the dwelling unit facing E1 Camino Real in order to meet the City and State interior noise goal of DNL 45 dB. Windows in the other dwelling unit could achieve the DNL goal with STC 29 windows. Windows with higher sound insulation ratings would be required to reduce the interior single-event goals of 50 dBA in bedrooms and 55 dBA in other habitable rooms. Project Planner Date Director of Planing and Community Environment Date S:~PLANLPLADIV~Current PlanningYEIA~MIGDEC.MLk2825 El Camino Reat.doc ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment 1.Project Title:Mixed-use building Lead Agency Name and Address:City of Palo Alto - Planning Division 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 3.Contact Person and Phone Number:Christopher A. Riordan, AICP 650/329-2149 o Project Location: Application Number(s): Project Sponsor Name and Address: 2825-2865 E1 Camino Real (APN 132-37-010,011) 05PLN-00300 Premier Properties 172 University Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 t Property Owner:Morris Associates 2500 Sand Hill Road Suite 240 Menlo Park, CA 94025 General Plan Designation: Zoning: Service Commercial CS (Service Commercial) 10.Project Description: The parcel located at 2825 E1 Camino Real is approximately 11,250 square feet. This site is presently vacant but was formerly occupied by Burnett’s British Automotive Service. This automotive repair use was located on the site since the early 1960’s and was discontinued in February 1999. Such uses have the potential for soil contamination due to the use of hazardous materials associated with automobile servicing. The City of Palo Alto Fire Department approved a Hazardous Materials Facility Closure Application for the site in August 2000. The parcel located at 2865 E1 Camino Real is approximately 11,250 square feet and contains an approximately 4,000 square foot Quonset building constructed in 1946, according to Santa Clara County records. The Old Pro Sports Bar and Restaurant presently occupies approximately 2,000 square feet of this Quonset building while the remaining square footage is used for warehouse space. This building would be removed as part of the project. The project would include the construction of an approximately 13,988 square foot, 35-foot tall mixed use building consisting of a third floor with two residential units, second floor office, and ground floor retail and office space. The surface parking facility would provide 38 on site parking spaces including two covered parking spaces set aside for use by the residents. The proposed uses would require that 41 parking spaces b provided for on site and 38 spaces are being provided. The applicant is requesting a 9% reduction (three spaces) in the number of required parking spaces since it is a mixed-use building with time staggered parking demands. Two of the existing three driveways "curb cuts" would be removed yielding three additional on- street parking spaces for a total of six on-street parking spaces in front of the site. The applicant is requesting Design Enhancement Exceptions from the CS Zone development standards for reductions in the required front and side yard setbacks as well as exceeding the allowable encroachment into the side yard daylight plane. A variance is requested for the reduction in the amount of required open space. The applicant has described the project as having "clean lines and materials to give a more contemporary feel". The materials would include beige colored limestone for the first and second story and integral colored plaster for the remainder. The first and second floor windows would have champagne colored aluminum mullions with clear glass. The third floor windows for the residential units would be wood windows with clear glass. The roof material would be metal. An existing 12" Oak tree at the rear of the site would be relocated to a parking lot planter. Two Yarwood street trees are located in front of the site. The street tree on the right would be removed to provide clearance for the proposed driveway. Two new Sycamore street trees would be planted. The applicant has also submitted a listing ofsustainability measures proposed for the project. These would include mandatory measures, such as a reduction in water use and salvaging of construction materials, r well as voluntary ones such passive solar shading, low E insulated glass, the use of Forest Stewardship, Council (FSC) Certified lumber and wood products, exceeding Title 24 requirements by 10%, and installed electrical conduit for the future possible use ofphotovoltaic panels for the residential units. 11.Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The project site consists of two CS (Service Commercial) zoned parcels located at 2825 and 2865 E1 Camino Real. The site is located one parcel south from Page Mill Road and on the north side of E1 Camino Real. The site is bounded to the West and East by commercially zoned CS properties and to the north by both a CN (Neighborhood Commercial) and a R-1 property. E1 Camino Real borders the front property line to the south. 12.Other public agencies whose approval is required: CalTrans 13.Date Prepared: December 8, 2005 14.Public Review Period: January 3, 2006 - January 23, 2006 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project as indicated by the checklist on the following pages: X Aesthetics Agriculture Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology/Soils Hazards & Hazardous Materials Hydrology/Water Quality Land Use/Planning Mineral Resources X Noise Population!Housing Public Services Recreation Transportation!Traffic Utilities/Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance 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. 1 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 revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. 1 find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact 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. 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, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. / Steve Ems~ e Director of Planning & Community Environment Date 1 Date X EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1) 2) 3) 4) 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.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 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 ~vell as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With 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). Earlier analysis may be used ~vhere, 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)). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify 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 Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures, which ~vere incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 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. 7)Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8)This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project’s environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance 5 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sougees Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 1.AESTHETICS. Would the project: a)Have a substantial adverse affect on a scenic vista? b)Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c)Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? 1,2 1,2, 8 1,2,3 X d)Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which 1,3 X would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? II. X X AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: 1) 2) 3) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? 1,2 X X X III. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) b) c) d) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Expose sensitive receptors (residential, school) to substantial pollutant concentrations? 1,2 1,2 1,2 1,2 X X X X Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Issues and Supporting Information Sources Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigated e)Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number 1, 2 X of people? IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a)X b) c) d) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? 1,2 (N-l) 1,2 (N-I) 1,2 (N-l) 1,2 (N-l) X X X e)Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting 1,2,3,X biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or 8 ordinance? f)Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat 1,2 X Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan,(N-l) or other approved local, regional or state conservation plan? V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a)Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an 1, 2 X historical resource pursuant to 15064.5?(L-7) b)Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an 1, 2 X archaeological resource pursuant to 15064.5?(L-8) c)Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological 1,2 X resource or site or unique geologic feature? Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Issues and Supporting Information Sources Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigated d)Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside 1, 2 X of formal cemeteries?(L-8) VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: a)Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse 4 X effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i)XRupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii)Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? 2 (N-S), 5 2 (N-5, N-~0), 4 2 (N-5, N-8, N- 10), 4 X X iv) Landslides?1,2 (N- 5), 4 X b)Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?2 X c)X d) e) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off- site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? 2 (N-5), 4 2 (N- 5), 4 n/a Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-I-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? 1,2 X X a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routing transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: X Issues and Supporting Information Sources b) c) d) e) g) h) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Emit hazardous ~missions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile (1,320’) of an existing or proposed school? Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working the project area? Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wiidlands? Sources 1,2 1,2 1,2 n/a n/a 1,2 (N-7), 10 Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact X X 1,2 (N-2) X X X X X VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge 1, 2 X requirements? b)XSubstantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? 1,2,9e)X Issues and Supporting Information Sources d) e) SOOFCeS Potentially Significant Potentially Significant Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoffin a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?. 1,2, 9 1,2, 9 ISSUES Unless Mitigated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact X X f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?1, 2 X g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped n/a X on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which 1, 2 X would impede or redirect flood flows?(N-6), 9 i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury 1, 2 ~ or death involve flooding, including flooding as a result of the (N-8) failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?1, 2 X IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community?1, 2 X b)1, 2, 3 XConflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c)Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or 1, 2 X natural community conservation plan? X. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource 2 X that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? 10 Issues and Supporting Information Sources B Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? SouFees Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated XI. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) b) c) d) e) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 1,2 (N- 3), 3, D 1,2,3 1,2,3 1,2,3 n/a X Less Than Significant Impact X f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would n/a the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Xll. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a)1, 2 XInduce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? n/a n/a b) e) lmN~.ct X X 11 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES. a)Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire Protection? Police protection? Schools? Parks? Other Public facilities? 10 1 1,2 1,2 2 Less Than Significant Impact a) No Impact 1,2 X X X X xIv.RECREATION XWould the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the n/a X construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: a)X1, 2 (T- 7, T-8), 11 1, 2,11 na Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? X X 12 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g.,1, 3, 11 X sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access?2,X f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?1, 2, 3,X g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting 1, 2, 11 [X alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a)Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the 1, 2 applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b)1, 2,12 c) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? d) 1, 2, 9 1,2, 9 1, 2, 12 1,2 1,2 e) g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? X X 13 XVII.MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. 15 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 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 past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 15 15 X X SOURCE REFERENCES: 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. Site visit, planner’s knowledge of project, review of project plans dated 11/01/2005 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan 1998-2010 & Maps L-7, L-8, L-9, N-l, N-2, N-3, N-5, N-6, N-8, N-10, T-7, T-8 Paio Alto Municipal Code, Title 18 (Zoning Ordinance) and Title 16 (Building Regulations) Uniform Building Code (UBC) AIquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map Tree Evaluation and Arborist Report, prepared by Ralph Osterling Consultants, March 28, 2005 Environmental Noise Assessment, prepared by Charles M. Salter Associates, Inc., May 18, 2005 City of Palo Alto Planning Arborist’s comments City of Palo Alto Public Works Department comments City of Palo Alto Fire Department comments City of Palo Alto Transportation Division comments City of Palo Alto Water Quality Control Plant comments Palo Alto Municipal Code Title 8 (Trees and Vegetation) Palo Alto Unified School District comments Answers substantiated through the responses provided in items I-XVI of this environmental checklist. ATTACHMENTS: A.Site Location Map B.Tree Evaluation and Arborist Report, prepared by Ralph Osterling Consultants, March 28, 2005. C.Geotechnical Investigation, prepared by Lowney Associates, September 27, 1999 D.Environmental Noise Assessment, prepared by Charles M. Salter Associates, Inc., March 21, 2000 14 EXPLANATION FOR CHECKLIST RESPONSES: I. Aesthetics The proposed three story mixed-use building will change the character of the site. The current land uses on the two adjacent sites are a vacant lot and an approximately 4,000 square foot Quonset building presently used as a restaurant and warehouse space with surface parking. The new building would add mass and establish a new architectural presence on a visible site near a comer. The new building will be taller and longer than the buildings on adjacent sites, but nevertheless would not be incompatible with these buildings. The project is subject to review by the Architectural Review Board to ensure the building design will be aesthetically appropriate and compatible with the site and surrounding development and that the site improvements will be harmonious and appropriate to the building. There is currently no significant glazing or lighting on the site. The development will result in an increase in light and glare from proposed parking lot lighting, glazing on the building and low-level lamps along the walkways adjacent to the street frontages, near the stairs and entrance. Five 15’ tall light standards are proposed to light the surface parking area. The effect of this lighting on the adjacent residentially zoned properties at the rear of the site will be.reduced by directing the light onto the subject site to reduce light spillover and with the proposed addition of eight new trees near the rear property line. The project is required to meet the provisions of Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 18.64, Additional Site Development and Design Regulations for Commercial and Industrial Districts. Section 18.64.030 (a)(2)(A) requires the elimination of light spillover beyond the perimeter of the development; however, the photometric lighting plan does indicate minor light spillover beyond the property perimeter. A condition of approval and the provisions of Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 18.28 Multiple-Family Residence District Guidelines would require these lights to be directed away from the residences. Section 18.28.030 (a)(3) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code requires the elimination of glare and light spillover beyond the perimeter of the project. Mitigation Measure # 1 would require parking lot light standards to employ "zero cutoff" of light at the property lines to ensure any light impacts from the project implementation would be reduced to a level of insignificance. Conditions of approval requiring submittal information regarding interior lighting systems and interior shading systems in conjunction with tenant improvement plans will ensure any light and glare impacts of the project will be reduced to a level of insignificance. Mitigation Measure #1: Parking lot lighting shall be shielded such that the light will not extend beyond the site and the source of light will not be directly visible from adjoining properties and roadways. Interior lighting systems that employ timing and shading devices to meet City requirements shall be installed in conjunction with tenant improvements. Residual Impact: None 15 II. Agriculture Resources The site is not located in a Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance area, as shown on the maps prepared for the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency. The site is not zoned as an agricultural use, and the Williamson Act does not regulate the site. Mitigation Measures: None Residual Impact: None III.Air Quality It is not anticipated that the project would affect any regional air quality plan or standards, or result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant. The extent of the effects on air quality will predominantly be during the period of site preparation and construction. The City of Palo Alto utilizes the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s (BAAQMD) thresholds of significance for air quality impacts, as follows: Construction Impacts: The proposed project will involve demolition, grading, paving, and landscaping which has the potential to cause localized dust related impacts resulting in increases in airborne particulate matter. Dust related impacts are considered potentially significant but can be mitigated with the application of standard dust contro! measures. Long Term/Operational Impacts: Long-term and operational project emissions would stem primarily from motor vehicles associated with the proposed project. The project is not expected to result in a significant number of new vehicle trips. Therefore, long-term air-quality impacts related to motor vehicle operation are expected to be less than significant. The proposed project consists of retail, office, and residential uses. These uses do not typically create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. The proposed project is not expected to create objectionable odors when it is complete. The project would be subject to the following City’s standard conditions of approval: The following controls shall be implemented for the duration of project construction to minimize dust related construction impacts: ¯All active construction areas shall be watered at least twice daily. ¯All trucks hauling soil, sand, and loose materials shall be covered or shall retain at least two feet of freeboard. ¯All paved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at the construction site shall be swept and watered daily. ¯Submit a plan for the recovery/recycling of demolition waste and debris before the issuance of a demolition permit. ¯Sweep streets daily if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets. Mitigation Measures:None required Residual Impact:None 16 IV. Biological Resources No endangered, threatened, or rare animals, insects and plant species have been identified at this site. Gill Mitchell of Tree Health Professionals prepared a tree survey of the site on June 14, 1999 and again on November 25, 2005 (included with the report as Attachment A). Among the 18 trees located on the project and adjacent site that were surveyed by the arborist, five will be removed and one will be relocated. The five on site trees to be removed include a Monterey Pine, Holly Oak, Ash, Sycamore, and two Fan Palms. None of the trees to be removed are designated as protected trees other than the sycamore, which is a protected street tree. The Coast Live Oak will be kept and relocated on site. The planning arborist has reviewed the arborist report and agreed with the conclusions that the trees to be removed were in poor health and could be replaced with trees more appropriate for the site. The project applicant is proposing to replace two existing street trees with two additional street trees planted per recommendations in the South E1 Camino Design Guidelines. The two additional street trees plus the existing street tree would result in a total of three street trees. The South E1 Camino Design Guidelines require that one 15 gallon street tree is to be planted for every 30 feet of site frontage on E1 Camino Real. The length of site frontage could accommodate two additional street trees resulting in five street trees with an approximate spacing of 30 feet. A condition of approval will be added to the project with a requirement that the proposed landscape plan include two additional street trees and that the street trees be planted with a 30-foot spacing. Adherence to all recommendations in the arborist report for preservation of the relocated oak tree which will reduce biological resource impacts to a level of insignificance have been reviewed and accepted by the City’s Planning Arborist and have been included as a project condition of approval. Mitigation Measures: None required Residual Impact: None V. Cultural Resources The project site is located in an area of extreme sensitivity, as indicated in the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, 1998-2010. The site has been disturbed by past and current development. The proposed project does not include a basement and site preparation would not include digging to a significant depth. If approved, the project would contain conditions in the form of instructions in the case of the discovery of any cultural resources during demolition or construction. The following standard conditions would result in impacts that are less than significant. ¯ If during grading and construction activities, any archaeological or human remains are encountered, construction shall cease and the Santa Clara County Medical Examiner’s office shall be notified to provide proper direction on how to proceed. If any Native American resources are encountered during construction, construction shall cease immediately until a Native American descendant, appointed by the Native American Heritage Commission of the State of California, is able to evaluate the site and make further recommendations and be involved in mitigation planning. The Director of Planning and Community Environment will decide the significance of an archaeological discovery and necessary mitigation measures. Mitigation Measures:None required Residual Impact:None 17 VI. Geology and Soils The entire state of California is in a seismically active area and the site is located in a seismic risk area, subject to strong ground shaking in the event of an earthquake. Seismic ground failure is possible but not likely to cause any problems with the facility. No known faults cross the project site. Lowney Associates prepared a Geotechnical Investigation for the site (Attachment C). This report analyzed the sites potential geological and seismicity hazards and includes construction method recommendations to reduce the significance of geological hazards on the proposed construction. All new construction will be required to comply with recommendations contained in the geotechnical report as well as the provisions of the most current Uniform Building Code (UBC), portions of which are directed at minimizing seismic risk and preventing loss of life and property in the event of an earthquake. The City’s required standard conditions of approval ensure that potential impacts on erosion and soil will not be significant. Site soil modifications are not expected to result in significant adverse environmental impacts. 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. Adherence to all recommendations included in the Geotechnical report been reviewed and accepted by the City’s Building and Public Works department, included as a project condition of approval, will reduce biological resource impacts to a level of insignificance. Mitigation Measures:None required Residual Impact:None VII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials The project site is not designated as a high fire hazard within the City and is not designated as a wildland. The new construction and site design shall be required to comply with the City’s building permit approval standards and fire equipment and fire protection coverage standards as conditions of project approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. The project will include both commercial and residential uses, which are not expected to include the use of hazardous materials This site is presently vacant but formerly occupied by Burnett’s British Automotive Service. Automotive uses have the potential to contaminate groundwater. This automotive repair use was located on the site since the early 1960’s and was discontinued in February 1999. During the facility closure process, soil samples were taken and analyzed by Entech Analytical Labs, Inc. on November 9, 1998. The report analyzed the potential for toxic substances to have been spilled on site. The report indicated that trace amounts of motor oil as well as various metals such as chromium, nickel, and zinc were present. The City of Palo Alto Fire Department and the Regional Water Quality Control Board determined that the amount of spilled chemicals were not significant and approved a facility closure application. Mitigation Measures: None required Residual Impact: None 18 VIII. Hydrology and Water Quality The site is in.Flood Zone X, which is not a special flood hazard zone. It is in an area of moderate flooding, outside the 100-year flood zone, but inside the 500-year flood zone. During demolition, grading and construction, storm water pollution could result. Runoff from the project site flows to the San Francisco Bay without treatment. Non-point source pollution has the potential to be a problem for wildlife dependant on the waterways and for people who live near polluted streams or Baylands. City development standards and specific conditions of project approval would reduce potential negative impacts of the project to less than significant. Mitigation Measures: None required Residual Impact: None IX. Land Use and Planning The General Plan and zoning designation for this site is Service Commercial. The RM-30 zoning regulations are applicable due to the proposed residential component of the project. Located near the comer of E1 Camino Real and Page Mill Road at 2825 and 2865 E1 Camino Real, one parcel south from Page Mill Road and on the north side of E1 Camino Real consisting of two CS (Service Commercial) zoned parcels. The site is bounded to the West and East by commercially zoned CS properties and to the north by both a CN (Neighborhood Commercial) and a R-1 property. E1 Camino Real borders the front property line to the south. The project meets all development standards set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapters 18.45, 18.24, and 18.28 with the following exceptions: Front yard setback and side yard setbacks, daylight plane encroachments, and reductions in the minimum square footage of ground floor open space. The Architectural Review Board will review the appropriateness of these exceptions. Joint use parking facilities are proposed and in conjunction with the proposed mixed uses, a 9% reduction in the number of required parking spaces is requested pursuant to PAMC section 18.83.120 item (c) Joint Use Parking Facilities. The project’s conformance with the provisions of Chapter 18.83, Parking Requirements, is addressed under the Transportation/Traffic section of this Initial Study. Mitigation Measures: None required Residual Impact: None X. Mineral Resources The California Department of Conservation (DOC), Division of Mines and Geology (DMG), has classified the City of Palo Alto as a Mineral Resource Zone 1 (MRZ-1). This designation signifies that there are no aggregate resources in the area. The DMG has not classified the City for other resources. There is no 19 indication in the 2010 Comprehensive Plan that there are locally or regionally valuable mineral resources within the City of Palo Alto. Mitigation Measures: None required Residual Impact: None XI. Noise The Traffic Noise Assessment Study (Attachment D) prepared for the project indicates that E1 Camino Real is the primary noise source. The report does not list Average Daily Traffic volumes but states that traffic may increase as a result of future growth. The California Department of Transportation assumes the long-term trend to be an increase in traffic. Assuming a 1.5 percent annual increase, noise from traffic would increase by 1 dB over the next ten years. The portion of the building facing E1 Camino Real could be exposed to day/night average sound level (DNL) of up to 71 dB. The remaining portions of the building would be exposed to a DNL of 68 dB or less depending on location. Policy N-39 of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan encourages the location of land uses in areas with compatible noise environments. The guideline for maximum outdoor noise levels in residential areas is an Ldn of 60 dB. The goal of DNL 60 dB for outdoor use areas "... is a guideline which cannot necessarily be reached in all residential areas within the constraints of economic or aesthetic feasibility." Where providing a DNL of 60 dB ,- lower outdoors is not feasible, the noise level in outdoor areas intended for recreational use should be reduced t~ as close to the standard as feasible. The City’s maximum noise level for exterior residential required open space (60 dB DNL) would be exceeded for the street-facing balcony unless mitigated as suggested in the Study, using 42" high acoustically effective balcony railings with a l/4-inch thick plastic panel at the balcony facing E1 Camino Real. This would reduce outdoor noise levels to 67, which still exceeds the goal of Policy N-39, but does meet the intent of Policy N-39, which is to reduce outdoor noise levels to a goal of 60 dB. The City’s maximum interior noise level is 45 dB. To achieve this goal, sound rated windows would be required. The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan includes an additional goal that maximum noise levels not exceed 50 db in bedrooms and 55 db in other habitable rooms. Demolition of the existing development and construction of the new building will result in temporary increases in local ambient noise levels. Typical noise sources would include mechanical equipment associated with demolition, excavation, grading and construction noise, which will be short term in duration. Long-term noise associated with the new building will be produced by rooftop mechanical equipment for the HVAC system. The project would include noise control measures such as roof screens, operational controls, and the selection of quiet equipment. The City’s standard conditions of approval will be applied to the project to ensure the construction noise and rooftop mechanical equipment noise impacts will be mitigated to a level of insignificance. 2O Mitigation Measures: To mitigate the potential adverse impact to a level of insignificance and meet the City’s land use regulations, Mitigation Measure #4 and 5 must be incorporated into the project. Mitigation Measures #2: The proposed residential uses will include 42-inch high solid glass balcony railings pursuant to the Noise Assessment Study recommendations. The balcony would reduce roadway noise for a seated person on the balcony to approximately DNL 67 dB, which approaches the City’s outdoor goal of DNL 60 dB per Comprehensive Plan Policy N-39. Where the City determines that providing an Ldn of 60dB or lower outdoors is not feasible, the noise level in outdoor areas intended for recreational use shall be reduced to as close to the standard (60dB) as feasible through required design changes. The Architectural Review Board would review these design changes. Mitigation Measures #5: Windows with sound a transmission rating of STC 35 would be required in rooms of the dwelling unit facing E! Camino Real in order to meet the City and State interior noise goal of DNL 45 dB. Remaining windows could achieve the goal with STC 32 windows. Windows with higher sound insulation ratings would be required to reduce the interior single-event goals of 50 dBA in bedrooms and 55 dBA in other habitable rooms. Residual Impact: None XII.Population and Housing Population in Palo Alto’s sphere of influence in 1996, according to Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan was 58,000 people. This is projected to increase to 62,880 by 2010. The project, by adding to the housing stock by 2 units, would cumulatively contribute to population in the area. The average household size in Palo Alto is 2.24 persons, which would mean the project could generate an average of 5 people given the proposed two units. The projects cumulative impacts for the purposes of CEQA are also considered to be less than significant, as the impact (an average of 5 persons) from the project alone is not "considerable", and is di minimus, as environmental conditions would essentially be the same whether or not the project is implemented (as per CEQA Guidelines §15355 and § 15064). This small increase in population generated by the proposed project is not considered a significant impact. Mitigation Measures: None required Residual Impact: None XIII. Public Services Fire The proposed project would not impact fire service to the existing residential area. The site is not located in a high fire hazard area. 21 Police The site is located within the jurisdiction of the Palo Alto Police Department. itself result in the need for additional police officers, equipment, or facilities. The project would not by Schools The Palo Alto Unified School District student generation rates of .276 elementary students per residential unit, .088 middle school students, and .095 high school students, the project would generate 1 additional student. Current enrollment in the School District is beyond stated capacity, and so this project would increase overcrowding. However, the California appellate court has stated that overcrowding is not considered a significant effect under CEQA [Goleta Union School District v. The Regents of University of California, 35 Cal. App. 4Ih ]121(1995)]. Rather, the increase in students from a project is only significant if such a school would create significant environmental effects, such as impact from constructing a new school. This increase would not create any environmental impacts: no school would need to be constructed, and the increase would not even be enough to warrant the construction of a portable classroom. Therefore, the project would result in a less than significant impact. Parks Impact fees to address impacts on parks were adopted by the Palo Alto City Council in March of 2002. Prior to receiving a building permit, the project applicant will be required to pay a one-time development impact fee for parks of $29,503.27. The fee will be used to offset impacts on park facilities as a result of this project. Therefore, the project would result in a less than significant impact. Other Public Facilities Impact fees to address impacts on community centers and libraries were adopted by the Pato Alto City Council in March of 2002. Prior to receiving a building permit, the project applicant will be required to pay a one-time development impact fee for community centers and libraries of$6,012.38. The fee will be used to offset impacts on community centers and library facilities as a result of this project. Therefore, the project would result in a less than significant impact. Mitigation Measures: None required Residual Impact: None XIV. Recreation Palo Alto follows the National Recreation and Park Association Standards as guidelines for determining parkland needs. This requires two acres of parkland for each 1,000 people. The project would generate up to 5 additional Palo Alto residents, resulting in a demand for 0:010 acres of parkland. This increase in parkland is not a considerable amount and is a less than significant impact. Mitigation Measures:None required Residual Impact:None XV. Transportation~raffic Access/Traffic Increase Access to and from the site would be provided from one driveway on E1 Camino Real. The proposed mixed-use project would generate 413 fewer daily trips, 14 more AM peak hour trips (11 inbound and 3 outbound), and 30 22 fewer PM peak trips (26 inbound and 4 outbound) than the existing restaurant use. The project is considered a small project that is not expected to result in a significant increase in traffic nor significant impact on traffic congestion because it does not exceed thresholds established by the Santa Clara County Congestion Management Agency (CMA) and the City of Palo Alto. Parking Spaces/Landscaped Parking Areas The project floor area requires that 41 off-street parking spaces be provided; including one covered parking stall for each of the two residential units. The project would provide 38 on site parking spaces. The two covered parking spaces would be provided by carport located in the parking lot behind the building. The applicant is requesting a 9% reduction (three spaces) in the number of parking spaces required for the residential units (two tenant and one guest space). PAMC Section 18.83.120 allows the Director of Planning and Community Environment the discretion to reduce the number of required parking spaces up to 20% on any site with a joint use parking facility having 30 or more spaces. Considering the project is located along public transportation routes and that additional on street parking spaces would be created in front of the project by the removal of the existing driveways on E1 Camino Real, the request for reduction is reasonable. Mitigation Measures: None required Residual Impact: None XVI. Utilities and Service Systems The proposed project would not significantly increase the demand on existing utilities and service systems, or use resources in a wasteful or inefficient manner. As standard conditions of approval, the applicant shall be required to submit calculations by a registered civil engineer to show that the on-site and off site water, sewer and fire systems are capable of serving the needs of the development and adjacent properties during peak flow demands. Trash and recycling facilities are proposed in the project to accommodate the expected waste and recycling streams that would be generated by the expected uses within the building. Residual Impact: Less than Significant Mitigation Measures: None required MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE The project would not have an impact on fish or wildlife habitat, nor would it impact cultural or historic resources. The uses are appropriate for the site and the development would not result in an adverse visual impact. There is nothing in the nature of the proposed development and property improvements that would have a substantial adverse effect on human beings, or other life or environmental impacts, given that mitigation measures 1-5 are incorporated into the project by reference. WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, HEREBY ATTEST THAT WE HAVE REVIEWED THIS INITIAL EVALUATION/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PREPARED FOR THE 23 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF PROPERTY KNOWN AS 2825-2865 El CAMINO REAL (05PL~ 0300), PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA, AND AGREE TO IMPLEMENT ALL MITIGATION MEASURES AS LISTED BELOW: Applicant’s Signature Date Summary of Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure #1: Parking lot lighting shall be shielded such that the light ~vill not extend beyond the site and the source of light will not be directly visible from adjoining properties and road~vays. Interior lighting systems that employ timing and shading devices to meet City requirements shall be installed in conjunction ~vith tenant improvements. Mitigation Measures #2: The proposed residential uses will include 42-inch high solid glass balcony railings pursuant to the Noise Assessment Study recommendations. The balcony would reduce roadway noise for a seated person on the balcony to approximately DNL 67 dB, which approaches the City’s outdoor goal of DNL 60 dB per Comprehensive Plan Policy N-39. Where the City determines that providing an Ldn of 60dB or louver outdoors is not feasible, the noise level in outdoor areas intended for recreational use shall be reduced to as close to the standard (60dB) as feasible through required desi~_ changes. The Architectural Review Board would review these design changes. Mitigation Measures #3: Windows with sound a transmission rating of STC 35 would be required in rooms of the dwelling unit facing El Camino Real in order to meet the City and State interior noise goal of DNL 45 dB. Remaining windows could achieve the goal with STC 32 windows. Windows with higher sound insulation ratings would be required to reduce the interior single-event goals of 50 dBA in bedrooms and 55 dBA in other habitable rooms. 24