HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 274-10TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CITY MANAGER
DATE: JUNE 14, 2010
REPORT TYPE: ACTION
DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
CMR: 274:10
SUBJECT: Approval of a Vesting Tentative Map and Record of Land Use Action
to Create Five Condominium Units on a 6,000 Square Foot Lot at 420
Cambridge Avenue
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In 2008, the City Council had approved a rezoning to Pedestrian Transit Oriented Development
(PTOD) zone to accommodate the mixed use project at 420 Cambridge Avenue, which was then
approved through the Architectural Review Board (ARB) process on March 11, 2010. This
Vesting Tentative Map is proposed for condominium purposes. The proposal is consistent with
the ARB approved project and with all applicable regulations for subdivisions per the Palo Alto
Municipal Code (P AMC). The findings for subdivision approval are phrased in the negative,
such that if they are made affirmatively, the subdivision can be denied. The Planning and
Transportation Commission has unanimously recommended approval of the map. Council's
review authority is limited to making the same subdivision findings. Council reviewed and
approved the site layout in the PTOD zoning in 2008.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff and the Planning and Transportation Commission recommend that the City Council
approve the proposed Vesting Tentative Map and adopt the findings and conditions contained
within the Record of Land Use Action (Attachment A).
BACKGROUND
The project site is located in the California Avenue Shopping District and is one block north of
California Avenue. After Council-approved the PTOD zoning for the site in 2008 (CMR:436:08),
the ARB reviewed the development plans and recommended approval by the Director of
Planning and Community Environment. The Director approved the ARB application March 11,
2010. The project was subject to appeal and none was filed. The approved project includes
1,449 square feet of commercial space, residential parking, storage, mechanical room,
recycling/trash and residential entry lobby on the ground floor, and four, three-story residential
units (approximately 1,485 square feet each) above. The applicant's intention for condominiums
CMR: 274:10 Page 1 of3
has been clear throughout the process, but the City requires the process to occur subsequent to
ARB approval. Additional background information related to the project's details and history are
included in the Record of Land Use Action, and in the Applicant's Project Description
(Attachment C).
Vesting Tentative Map regulations are set forth in PAMC Chapter 21.13. Vesting Tentative
Maps confer a vested right to proceed with development in substantial compliance with the
ordinances, policies and standards in effect at the time that an application is determined to be
complete by the City, provided that any fees required as a condition of approval of a vesting
tentative map, unless otherwise specified, shall be payable at the rates in effect at the time
building permits are issued.
DISCUSSION
The proposed Vesting Tentative Map is to subdivide one existing 6,000 square foot parcel to
establish five condominium units (four residential units and one commercial unit). The common
areas of this development include (1) the undesignated areas of the parking garage that include
the mechanical room, recycling/trash area, and access areas; (2) the open patio areas on the Plaza
level; and (3) the access bridges on the third level of the residential units. The private areas
include the individual units and the private patios directly adjacent to them, parking spaces
allotted to each unit, and designated storage units in the garage. The Covenants, Conditions and
Restrictions (CC&R's) for this development outline the responsible parties for maintenance and
general upkeep. The Vesting Tentative Map includes information on the existing parcels and
onsite conditions.
City staff has determined that the Vesting Tentative Map application is in compliance with
zoning, subdivision, and other codes and ordinances. The map contains all information and
notations required to be shown on a Vesting Tentative Map (per PAMC Sections 21.12.040 and
21.14.020). The required findings are included in the Record of Land Use Action (Attachment
A). Pursuant to the State Subdivision Map Act, the required findings are stated in the negative
such that if any of the findings are made the map shall be denied. Staff believes none of the
findings can be made to require denial of the map.
COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS
On May 26, 2010, the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) conducted a public
hearing and recommended (6-0-0-1) that the City Council approve the Vesting Tentative Map.
No members of the public gave testimony at the hearing. Draft minutes from the PTC hearing are
included in Attachment E.
RESOURCE IMPACTS
As reported in CMR: 436:08 for the PTOD rezoning, the project is expected to result in $5,600
in annual property and utility user tax revenue for the City. Since the commercial floor area will
likely consist of a personal service use, there will be no sales tax revenue. Once the four
residential units are sold, an estimated $10,600 in one-time documentary taxes will be realized.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The proposed subdivision is consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
The residential and "Personal Service" commercial use of the development are consistent with
CMR: 274:10 Page 2 of3
the associated land use designation of Regional/Community Commercial use and with the ARB
approved plans.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed project is subject to environmental review under provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). A Mitigated Negative Declaration was adopted November
17, 2008 for this proposed project.
PREPARED BY:
CLARE CAMPBELL
Planner
DEPARTMENT HEAD:
CURTIS WILLIAMS
Director of Planning and Community Environment
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A:
Attachment B:
Attachment C:
Attachment D:
Attachment E:
Attachment F:
Attachment G:
Draft Record of Land Use Action
Location Map
Applicant's Project Description and Supplemental Information*
May 26,2010 Planning and Transportation Commission Staff Report (w/o
attachments)
May 26, 2010 Planning and Transportation Commission Excerpt Minutes
ARB Plan Sheets, for Information Only (provided to Council Members,
Libraries, Development Center, and 5th floor of City Hall only)
Vesting Tentative Map* (Provided to Council Members, Libraries,
Development Center, and 5th floor of City Hall only)
*prepared by applicant
COURTESY COPIES
Nicole Gittleson, Clarum Homes [nicole@clarum.com]
CMR: 274:10 Page 3 of3
ATTACHMENT A
ACTION NO. 2010-xx
RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO OF LAND USE ACTION
FOR 420 CAMBRIDGE AVENUE: VESTING TENTATIVE MAP 10PLN-00092
(CLARUM HOMES, APPLICANT)
On June 14, 2010, the City Council of the City of Palo Alto
approved the Vesting Tentative Map to subdivide one parcel to
create five condominium units (four residential and one
commercial), making the following findings, determination and
declarations:
SECTION 1. Background.
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto ("City Council") finds,
determines, and declares as follows:
A. On March 15, 2010, Clarum Homes applied for a Vesting
Tentative Map to subdivide one existing 6,000 square foot parcel
for the development of five condominium units comprised of 1,449
square feet of commercial space (personal Service) and residential
parking on the ground floor and four three-story residential units
above, approximately 1,485 square feet each ("the Project") .
B. Following staff review, the Planning and
Transportation Commission ("Commission") reviewed the Project. on
May 26, 2010 and voted [6-0-0-1] to recommend that Council approve
the project. The Commission's actions are contained in the CMR:
XXX:10.
C. The Vesting Tentative Map plan set dated April 14,
2010 (received April 15, 2010) includes information on the existing
parcels, and onsite conditions. These drawings are in compliance
with the applicable provisions of the City's Subdivision Ordinance.
These plans contain all information and notations required to be
shown on a Vesting Tentative Map (per PAMC Sections 21.12), as well
as the design requirements concerning the creation of lots,
streets, walkways, and similar features (PAMC 21.20) .
SECTION 2. Environmental Review.
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, requires that a
Lead Agency examine the potential environmental impacts of the
'whole of an action' which has the potential to physically change
the environment, directly or indirectly, and not just the act of
merely subdividing a parcel to create condominium units. In this
case, the subdivision would ultimately facilitate the construction
of mixed use development which is not exempt from CEQA
requirements.
An environmental impact assessment was prepared for the project at
the time of the rezoning and architectural review, and it was
determined that, with the implementation of mitigations, no
Page 1 of5
potentially adverse impacts would result from the development and,
therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact on
the environment. The Mitigated Negative Declaration was adopted
November 17, 2008 in accordance with the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA).
SECTION 3. Tentative Map Findings.
A legislative body of a city shall deny approval of a Vesting
Tentative Map, if it makes any of the following findings
(California Government Code Section 66474) :
1. That the proposed map is not consistent with
applicable general and specific plans as specified in Section
65451:
This finding can not be made in the af~irmative. The
site does not lie within a specific plan area and is consistent
with the provJ.sJ.ons of the Comprehensive Plan. The land use
designation in the area of the subdivision is Regional/Community
Commercial which allows mixed use development and the zoning
designation is PTOD. The proposed development is consistent with
the land use and zoning designations of the site.
2. That the design or improvement of the proposed
subdivision is not consistent with applicable general and specific
plans:
This finding can not be made in the affirmative. The
map is consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan policies:
(1) Policy L-l -Limiting future urban development to currently
developed lands within the urban service area; and (2) 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.
3. That the site is not physically suitable for the type
of development:
This finding can not be made in the affirmative. The
site can accommodate the proposed development. The site is adjacent
to established commercial development and multi-family development.
The site is relatively flat and regular in shape. The site is
close to the California Cal Train station and is currently served
by water, gas, wastewater, electric, and communication services.
The site also has standard access for ,emergency service delivery.
4. That the si te is not physically sui table for the
proposed density of development:
This finding can not be made in the affirmative. The
subdivision would be consistent with the site development
regulations of the PTOD zone district. The proposed density of
Page 2 of5
development is not considered growth inducing as indicated in the
project's Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration.
I
5 . Tha t the design of the subdi vi sion or the proposed
improvements is likely to cause substantial environmental damage or
substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their
habi tat:
This finding can not be made in the affirmative. The
project is an infill site surrounded by development and in a
commercial shopping district. The proj ect' s Initial Study and
Mitigated Negative Declaration state that there are no significant
impacts to existing sensitive wildlife and plants.
6. That the design of the subdivision or type of
improvements is likely to cause serious public health problems:
This finding can not be made in the affirmative. The
subdivision will not cause serious public health problems. The
resulting mixed use development will, not cause a public health
problem in that it is designed to provide access for emergency
services, will supply necessary utility services, such as
sanitation, and is designed per City and State standards to ensure
public safety.
7. That the design of the subdivision or the type of
improvements will conflict with easements, acquired by the public
a t large, for access through or use of, property wi thin the
proposed subdivision. In this connection, the governing body may
approve a map if it finds that alternate easements, for access or
for use, will be provided, and that these will be substantially
equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This
subsection shall apply only to easements of record or to easements
established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction and no
authority is hereby granted to a legislative body to determine that
the public at large has acquired easements for access through or
use of property within the proposed subdivision.
The subdivision of the existing parcel will not
conflict with easements of any type, in that the subdivision is
compatible with the emergency vehicle access and any utility
easements that would be required to serve the proposed
developments.
SECTION 4. Approval of Tentative Map.
Vesting Tentative Map approval is granted by the City Council under
Palo Alto Municipal Code ("PAMC") Sections 21.13 and 21.20 and the
California Government Code Section 66474, subject to the conditions
of approval in Section 7 of this Record.
Page 3 of5
SECTION 5. Final Map Approval.
The Final Map submitted for review and approval by the City Council
of the City of Palo Alto shall be in substantial conformance with
the Vesting Tentative Map prepared by Giuliani & Kull, Inc titled
"Vesting Tentative Map for Condominium Purposes Tract No. __ "
consisting of one page, dated April 14, 2010 (received April 15,
2010), except as modified to incorporate the conditions of approval
in Section 6.
A copy of this Tentative Map is on file in the Department
of Planning and Community Environment, Current Planning Division.
Within two years of the approval date of the Vesting
Tentative Map, the subdivider shall cause the subdivision or any
part thereof to be surveyed, and a Final Map, as specified in
Chapter 21.08, to be prepared in conformance with the Vesting
Tentative Map as condit~onally approved, and in compliance with the
provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and PAMC Section 21.16 and
submitted to the City Engineer (PAMC Section 21.16.010[a]).
SECTION 6. Conditions of Approval.
Department of Planning and Community Environment
Planning Division
1. A Final Map, in conformance with the approved Vesting.
Tentative Map, all requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance
(PAMC Section 21.16), and to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer, shall be filed with the Planning Division and the
Public Works Engineering Division within two years of the
Tentative Map approval date (PAMC 21.13.020[c]).
2. The project shall comply with the previous Conditions of
Approval associated with the rezoning and architectural review
approvals (08PLN-00020 and 09PLN-00064) .
SECTION 8. Term of Approval.
Tentative Map. All conditions of approval of the Tentative
Map shall be fulfilled prior to approval of a Final Map (PAMC
Section 21.16.010 [c]).
Unless a Final Map is filed, a~d all conditions of approval
are fulfilled within a two-year period from the date of Tentative
Map approval, or such extension as may be granted, the Tentative
Map shall expire and all proceedings shall terminate, Thereafter,
no Final Map shall be filed without first processing a Tentative
Map (PAMC Section 21.16.010[d]).
Page 4 of5
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Asst. City Attorney
PLANS AND DRAWINGS REFERENCED:
APPROVED:
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
Those plans prepared by Giuliani & Kull, Inc titled "Vesting
Tentative Map for Condominium Purposes Tract No. ____ " consisting
of one page, dated April 14, 2010 (received April 15, 2010).
Page 5 of5
I
ATTACHMENT B
LOCATION MAP
* 420 Cambridge Avenue
ATTACHMENT C
, ----
r-------
1(.~LARLI!'0 He )MES
Environmental Innovalfons In Homebuilding
420 CAMBRIDGE AVE. PRELIMINARY ARB
Steven Turner
Senior Planner
17 January 2008
Department of Planning and Community Development
City of Palo Alto
1'ENT"4,...,e MAP .t1 AI()
RE: Preliminary Architectural Review Board Meeting and Zoning Request for
420 Cambridge Ave.
Mr. Turner:
Clarum Homes has prepared documents for a Preliminary Architectural Review Board
Meeting and PTOD zoning of420 Cambridge Avenue. We would appreciate your
scheduling the proposed project for the next available Preliminary Architectural Review
Board Meeting and re-zoning hearing. The project is preliminary in nature; and we are happy
to present you with an architectural design that intends to offer interest & vitality to the
integrated California Commercial & Pedestrian-Transit Oriented districts.
The following items are included with the submittal:
• Project Description
• Drawing Set
I
Please let us know if there is anything else that is required to proceed with the Preliminary
Architectural Review Board Meeting and PTOD re-zoning. We look forward to hearing
from you and moving this project one step closer to completion.
RECEIVED
420 Cambridge Prelim ARB Letter 01112008
Sincerely,
;MAR 152010
Department of Planning &
Stuart Welte, AIA Communtty Environment
Clarum Homes
V.P. Architecture & Development
(650) 793-2856
599 College A "enlle, r' Floor, Palo Alto, Callfomia 94306
(650) 322-7069 Fat (650) 322·4550 Page 1 of J
1(~CAf~L 1M HCJMCS
L . _ _ ___________ ~¥ ~
lintJIroumenlallllnovatfons In Homebuilding
420 CAMBRIDGE AVE. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Project Description
420 Cambridge Avenue
17 January 2008
. ~ ".. ~. # ."... I~· •• II ... '.
CIa rum Homes is a Palo Alto based company that 'specialize's in near-zero energy green building. We at
Clarum Homes have been building green since 1999 and have been awarded the California Governor's
Award for Sustainability in 2006. We would like to continue our tradition of building highly energy
efficient, award winning, environmental1y friendly buildings by developing 420 Cambridge Avenue in Palo
Alto.
The site at 420 Cambridge Ave. is currently vacant. Clarum Homes is the owner and would like to develop
the property as part of the California Avenue Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Combining District (PTOD),
zone CC (2) and the Califolllia Avenue Parking Assessment District. The California Avenue Caltrain
Station is just a few blocks from the site and can be walked to in five minutes. We plan to offer Personal
Services on the ground floor and Residential Condominiums on the podium above. Clarum Homes desires to
develop this infill site in a way that compliments nearby businesses, residences and transportation hubs.
Clarum Homes has created a number of drawings to clarify the proposed design. The design is intended to
conform to the guidelines and requirements of the City of Palo Alto. Effort has been made to make the
project an attractive addition to Cambridge Avenue and the surrounding neighborhood. The site is located
close to Caltrain and major bus stops. Close access to public transportation will make both the residential
units and the personal services business easily accessible by public transportation. Clarum Homes would
like to have the California Avenue PTOD overlay zoning applied to this parcel and is applying to do so. This
document and the accompanying drawings is intended to provide enough information for the Architectural
Review Board to provide preliminary comments on the design and for the PTOD zoning to be approved.
A list of design parameters is shown in Table 1: Taylor Zoning lnformation in order to show how this project
conforms to city regulations. A more complete list of applicable zoning ordinances, including cross
references to the Palo Alto Municipal Code, is included in Appendix A.
420 Cambridge Project Description.Prelim ARB
01112008
599 Co/Jese Awnue, r Floor. Palo A 110, California 94306
(650) 322-7069 Fax (650) 322-4550 Page 1 of4
f
' . . .-'". . ----. -.----------.. ----
tCLARLIM HOMES;
Environmental Innovations in Homebulfdlng
420 CAMBRIDGE AVE. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
T bl 1 T I Zo' I ~ t' a e : aYJor nIDI! norma Ion
Item Required! Allowed Actual
Zone CC(2)
Parking Assessment District Calif. Ave. Area Parking
Assessment District
PTOD Calif. Ave. PTOD
Commercial Use Retail and Personal
Serv ices, Eating and
Drinking Services
Max Site Coverage 100% = 6000 sf 6000 sf
Commercial Square Min .25:1 FAR = 1500 sf 1500 sf
Footage
Residential Square Footage Max 1:1 FAR = 6000 sf 6000 sf
Total FAR 1.25:1 FAR = 7500 sf 7500 sf
BackYard 0 0
Side Yard 0 0
Landscape/Open Space 20%= 1200 sf 3050 sf
Coverage
Usable Open Space 200 sq ft per unit for 5 or 1400 sf
fewer units := 800 sf
Maximum Height 40' 40'
Daylight Plane at Back No Requirement
Number of Residences 5 4
Parking Exempt Floor Area Ground Floor Area = 1500 1500 sf
sf
Residential Parking Stalls 2 per2BR= 8 8 i 4 x 2 stacked)
Guest Parking Stalls 33% of Units = 1.33 1
Accessible Stalls 1 van accessible 1 van accessible
Loading Parking 0 0
Bicycle Parking Stalls 5 5
BMR Units 0 0
Ground Floor
The ground floor consists of 1500 square feet of commercial space utilized for personal services or eating
and drinking services. The ground floor is 5' below gtade. The below grade level is reached by a driveway
and pedestrian ramp leading to the back of the garage and stairs and an elevator at the front of the building.
All of the floor space on the ground floor is exempt from parking, as the total floor space is less than 0.5
FAR, and the building is in the California Avenue Parking Assessment District. There are a total of 10
parking spaces on the ground floor, one is a van accessible handicapped parking space, one is a guest parking
420 Cambridge Project Description-Prelim ARB
01112008
599 College Avenue, rt Floor, Palo Alto, Cali[omia 94306
(650) 322-7069 FCC( (650) 322-4550 Page 2 of4
. ~ ~ -----. -----~ -. -
:(~LAI\lIM I-IC)MES
• ~ T' _. _ ••
Envlronmentallutl-ovations III Homebuilding
420 CAl\-IBRIDGE AVE. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
space and the remaining eight parking spots are provided via four stalls, each with a car stacker. Each
residential unit will be assigned a parking stall with a car stacker. The car stackers enable residents to safely
park one car on top of another. Thus each two bedroom unit is being provided with two parking spots. All
parking that is required by code is provided. A skylight brings light into the parking area and rear of the
cOlnmercial unit.
Bicycle parking is provided with bicycle lockers on the ground floor in two locations.
The commercial space has windows on the front and back of the unit. A ramp leads from the front sidewalk
down to the back entrance of the commercial space. The commercial space can also be accessed at the front
of the building, either through the elevator, or by descending stairs. The commercial unit has one accessible
unisex restroom. Trash, utility, mechanical, recycling and ground floor storage spaces are shared \vith
residential units. Portions of the back wall of the bottom floor and the garage door are open and allow the
passage of air through the garage.
Two sets of stairs connect the ground floor to the residence plaza level. One set of stairs is near the front of
the property, the other set of stairs is at the back of the property. The same elevator that a] lows access to the
commercial unit is used to access the plaza level of the residences. Separate key codes will offer security &
control access.
Plaza '
The plaza is located one floor above the garage. The plaza is open in the center with four loft style
townhouse residential units, one in each comer of the plaza. Gardens, planters, patios and the open plaza area
create open space for the residents. Two sets of stairs connect the plaza level with the ground floor along
with an elevator. A skylight at the plaza level gives light to the garage below. A trash/recycling chute gives
residents access to the conection area located on the ground floor.
Residential Units
Four townhouse residential units are situated at the plaza level. A courtyard separates all four units.
Windows occur on three sides of each unit, giving each unit abundant natural light and ventilation. Each
townhouse is 3 stories. The ends of the units that face the front and back of the lot are set back and angled
back from the property line. Each unit has patios and garden areas for open space. The midpoint of the roofs
is at 40 feet.
Architectural Style
The architectural style for the project is Eco-Functionalism. The project incorporates many ecologically
friendly components and incorporates them in a functional and attractive manner.
Green Features
Clarum Homes takes a sustainable approach to building all of its projects. This project is likely to employ
many of the following sustainable practices and products.
420 Cambridge Project Description-Prelim ARB
01112008
599 CQI/ege Arenlle, 21>.1 Floor, Polo AlIo, California 94306
(650) 322-7069 Fat (650) 322-4550 Page 3 of4
Environmental Innovations In Homebulldf1Jg
420 CAMBRIDGE AVE. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
• Recycle 85% of Construction Waste
• High Efficiency Heating and Cooling Systems
• Passive & Mechanical Ventilation for Indoor Air Quality
• Plentiful Daylighting
• Tankless or High Efficiency Water Heaters
• On-Demand Hot Water Recirculation PUlnps
• Photo Voltaic Panels on Roofs
• South Oriented Roofs for Solar Efficiency
• Drought Tolerant Landscaping
• Radiant Barrier Roofing
• Use of Fly Ash in Concrete
• Use of Recycled Rebar
• 15% or Better Improved Energy Performance than required by T-24
Preliminary Architectural Review Board Guidance
Clarum Homes feels that the proposed project will be a welcome addition to Cambridge Avenue. We have
been careful to accommodate the City of Palo Alto's requirements into the proposed project. We appreciate
the Architectural Review Board's consideration of this project. We appreciate receiving all possible
guidance on this project that will allow for a successful subsequent full review by the Architectural Review
Board.
PTOD Zoning
Clarum Homes believes that the proposed design very closely fits the intended purposes of the California
Avenue Pedestrian Transit Oriented District Zoning. The personal services portion of the project enhances
the business atmosphere of the area and the residential portion offers housing that is close to public
transportation. The project is built sustainably,\is attractive and functional. . We feel comfortable that the
City of Pa10 Alto can confidently approve the prOD zoning overlay.
420 Cambridge Project Description.Prelim ARB
01112008
Stuart Welte,
Clatum Homes
\~P. Architecture & Development
(650) 793-2856
599 College Al'elllle, 2rJ Floor, Palo Allo. CaJi,fomia 94306
(650) 322·7069 Fax (650) 322-4550 Pagc40f4
TO:
FROM:
Attachment D
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
Clare Campbell, Planner DEPARTMENT: Planning and
, Community Environment
AGENDA DATE: May 26,2010
SUBJECT: 420 Cambridge Avenue [lOPLN-00092J: Request by Clarum Homes, on
behalf of Lucco Inc., for approval of a Vesting Tentative Map to subdivide
one existing parcel to establish five condominium units (four residential units
and one commercial unit). Zone: PTOD. Environmental Assessment: A
Mitigated Negative Declaration was adopted November 17, 2008 In
accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission recommend that the City
Council approve the Record of Land Use Action (Attachment A) and proposed Vesting Tentative
Map to create five condominium units at 420 Cambridge Avenue.
BACKGROUND
Background information related to the project's details and history has been included within the
Record of Land Use Action, which contains findings and conditions of approval. The Vesting
Tentative Map drawings are in conformance with the requirements set forth in Chapter Title 21
(Subdivisions), Chapter 21.13 (Vesting Tentative Maps), and Chapter Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo
Alto Municipal Code (P AMC). The action requested of the Planning and Transportation
Commission (Commission) is a recommendation on the Vesting Tentative Map.
On November 17, 2008, City Council approved the rezoning of the property from Community
Commercial (2) to Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Development, and on. April 16, 2009 the site
design and architecture for the mixed use project were reviewed and recommended for approval by
the Architectural Review Board (ARB). The applicant returned to the ARB on March 4, 2010 for
City of Palo Alto Page 1
2
review of final details, and tThe Director of Planning and Community Environment (Director)
approved the ARB application on March 11,2010.
Project Description
The proposed Vesting Tentative Map is to subdivide one existing parcel to establish five
condominium units (four residential units and one commercial unit). The project site is located in the
California Avenue Shopping District and is one block north of California Avenue. The project parcel
is 6,000 square feet and the proposed approved development includes 1,449 square feet of
commercial space (Personal Service), now proposed as a for-sale commercial condominium unit for
personal service use, and residential parking on the ground floor, now proposed as a common area
for parking, storage and recycling/trash needs consistent with the approved ARB application, and
four, three-story residential units above (approximately 1,485 square feet each) on the two floors
above the common area, now proposed as individual residential condominium units with the podium
level designated as common area. The Vesting Tentative Map includes information on the existing
parcels and onsite conditions. Additional project information is included in Attachment C.
Scope of Commission Review
The scope of the Commission's review for the purposes of this Vesting Tentative Map application is
limited to the "design" and "improvement" of the proposed subdivision. In this context, the terms
"design" and "improvement" are defined in the Subdivision Map Act as follows:
"Design" means: (1) street alignments, grades and widths; (2) drainage and sanitary
facilities and utilities, including alignments and grades thereof; (3) location and size of
all required easements and rights-of-way; (4) fire roads and firebreaks; (5) lot size and
configuration; (6) traffic access; (7) grading; (8) land to be dedicated for park or
recreational purposes; and (9) other specific physical requirements in the plan and
configuration of the entire subdivision that are necessary to ensure consistency with, or
implementation of, the general plan or any applicable specific plan as required pursuant
to Section 66473.5. (Government Code, section 66418)
(a) "Improvement" refers to any street work and utilities to be installed, or agreed to be
installed, by the subdivider on the land to be used for public or private streets,
highways, ways, and easements, as are necessary for the general use of the lot owners
in the subdivision and local neighborhood traffic and drainage needs as a condition
precedent to the approval and acceptance of the final map thereof.
(b) "Improvement" also refers to any other specific improvements or types of
improvements, the installation of which, either by the subdivider, by public agencies,
by private utilities, by any other entity approved by the local agency, or by a
combination thereof, is necessary to ensure consistency with, or implementation of, the
general plan or any applicable specific plan.
(Government Code, section 66419)
The design and improvement of the subdivision should be distinguished from the design of the
approved structures to be located within the subdivision. The approved ARB plans (Attachment D)
are provided to Commissioners for information only.
City of Palo Alto Page 2
SUMMARY OF KEY ISSUES
Vesting Tentative Maps confer a vested right to proceed with development in substantial compliance
with the ordinances, policies and standards in effect at the time that an application is determined to
be complete by the City, provided that any fees required as a condition of approval of a vesting
tentative map, unless otherwise specified, shall be payable at the rates in effect at the time building
permits are issued.
City staffhave determined that the Vesting Tentative Map application is in compliance with zoning,
subdivision, and other codes and· ordinances. The map contains all information and notations
required to be shown on a Vesting Tentative Map (per PAMC Sections 21.12.040 and 21.14.020).
The findings allowing for Council approval of the map are included in the Record of Land Use
Action (Attachment A). Pursuant to the State subdivision Map Act, the required findings are stated
in the negative such that if any of the findings are made the map shall be denied. Staffbelieves none
of the findings can be made to require denial of the map, so it must be approved.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The proposed subdivision is consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. The
residential and "Personal Service" commercial use of the development are consistent with the
associated land use designation of Regional/Community Commercial use.
TIMELINE
Upon recommendation by the PTC, the project application will be forwarded to City Council for
final action, tentatively scheduled for June 14,2010.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed project is subject to environmental review under provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). A Mitigated Negative Declaration was adopted November 17,
2008 for this proposed project, which anticipated subdivision for condominium purposes.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A: Draft Record of Land Use Action
Attachment B: Location Map
Attachment C: Applicant's Project Description and Supplemental Information*
Attachment D: ARB Plans for Information Only (Commissioners Only)
Attachment E: Vesting Tentative Map (Commissioners only)*
*Prepared by Applicant
COURTESY COPIES:
Nicole Gittleson, Clarum Homes [nicole@clarum.com]
Prepared by: Clare Campbell, Planner
City of Palo Alto Page 3
Prepared by: Clare Campbell, Planner
Reviewed by:
ransportation Official
City of Palo Alto Page 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
ROLL CALL: 6: 00 PM
Commissioners:
Daniel Garber -Chair
Attachment E
Special Meeting of Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Council Chambers, Civic Center, 1st Floor
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, California 94301
Staff:
Samir Tuma -V Chair ( absent)
Susan Fineberg
Julie Caporgno, Chief Plan. & Transp. Official
Melissa Tronquet, Senior Deputy City Attorney
Steven Turner, Advance Planning Manager
Amy French, Current Planning Manager Eduardo Martinez
Arthur Keller Clare Campbell, Planner
Lee 1. Lippert Lisa Green, Admin. Assoc.
Greg Tanaka
AGENDIZED ITEMS:
1. Comprehensive Plan Update
2. 420 Cambridge Ave.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Special Meeting on May 12.
22 Chair Garber: I would like to call to order this Wednesday, May 26 meeting of the Palo Alto
23 Planning and Transportation Commission. Would the Secretary please call roll? Thank you.
24
25 Who do we have today as our Vice Chair? Commissioner Martinez you are to be the Vice Chair
26 today.
27
28 Now would be the time for anyone that would like to speak to the Commission on items that are
29 not on our agenda. We have no cards for those that would like to speak to us on items not on our
30 agenda.
31
32 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS. Members of the public may speak to any item not on the agenda
33 with a limitation of three (3) minutes per speaker. Those who desire to speak must complete a
34 speaker request card available from the secretary of the Commission. The Planning and
35 Transportation Commission reserves the right to limit the oral communications period to 15
36 minutes.
City of Palo Alto May 26, 2010 Page 1 of76
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS. The agenda may have additional items
added to it up until 72 hours prior to meeting time.
Chair Garber: We will have one change of our agenda, which is the order. We will do item
number two before item number one. Would Staff care to make a presentation? Commissioner
Fineberg has now joined us.
NEW BUSINESS.
Public Hearing:
2. 420 Cambridge Ave.: Request by Clarum Homes, on behalf of Lucco Inc., for approval
of a Vesting Tentative Map to subdivide one existing parcel to establish five
condominium units (four residential units and one commercial unit). Zone: PTOD.
Environmental Assessment: A Mitigated Negative Declaration was adopted November
17, 2008 in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Ms. Clare Campbell, Planner: Good evening Commissioners. The proposed Vesting Tentative
Map is subdivide one existing 6,000 square foot vacant parcel located in the California Avenue
Shopping District to establish five condominium units, four residential units approximately 1,485
square feet each, and one 1,449 square foot c,ommercial unit.
23 The project has completed the Architectural Review and the rezoning process, and now lastly the
24 subdivision is the last step in the entitlements.
25
26 The approval of a Vesting Tentative Map shall confer a vested right to the applicant to proceed
27 with approved development in substantial compliance with the ordinances, policies, and
28 standards in effect at the time the application is approved. That is the difference between a
29 Vesting Tentative Map and just a regular Tentative Map.
30
City of Palo Alto May 26, 2010 Page 20/76
1 City Staff has determined that the Vesting Tentative Map application is in compliance with
2 zoning, subdivision, and other codes and ordinances. Pursuant to the state Subdivision Map Act
3 the required findings are stated in the negative such that if any of the findings are made the Map
4 shall be denied. Staff believes that none of the findings can be made to require denial of this
5 Map.
6
7 Also, for your reference I have put at places the Architectural Review Board and the PTOD
8 rezoning findings for you to refer to for Comprehensive Plan policies that support the project that
9 is here today. The applicant is present and available for questions. Thank you.
10
11 Chair Garber: Actually, the applicant may make a presentation. They will have up to 15
12 minutes if you would like. You don't have to. You can simply ask for questions, your choice.
13
14 Mr. Stuart Welte, Project Architect: Good evening. We have made so many presentations on the
15 project that I would be very happy to do so but thinking of you I would say that if you have any
16 questions I am more than happy to answer them. The owner is here as well. So to spare you yet
17 another presentation of this project, which has been here and developed through your guidance,
18 City Council's guidance, Architectural Review Board's guidance, Planning Staff's guidance, and
19 actually every department in the building like engineering, etc. we feel that the project is
20 fantastic at this time and we are just really anxious to get under construction. So with that I am
21 more than happy again to answer any questions you may have, and I will just take a seat until
22 you do so. Thank you.
23
City of Palo Alto May 26, 2010 Page 3 of 76
1 Chair Garber: Thank you. I don't believe we have any cards from the public for item number
2 two, but we will open the public hearing. If anyone comes in from the public and would like to
3 speak we will recognize them as we need to.
4
5 Commissioners, back to us for questions or comments? I have lights from Commissioner Keller
6 and then Fineberg. Commissioner Keller.
7
8 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. I notice that in the Staff Report and also in the Record of
9 Land Use Action in particular in Section 1, paragraph (a) it references that the commercial
10 spaces for personal service. I am not sure the extent to which this is in the conditions of
11 approval. It probably was but I notice that the attached CC&Rs do not make reference to the
12 nature of the uses allowed for the first floor commercial space. I am wondering whether the
13 CC&Rs should make reference to the allowed uses so that not only is it an enforcement issue for
14 the City but also since it affects the residential portion of the building whether the condo
15 association that is formed should have some purview over that usage.
16
17 Ms. Amy French, Current Planning Manager: I just was going to mention that I just had a quick
18 look through the findings that were used for approval of the PTOD and the Architectural Review
19 and the reference in the findings for approving that project refer to commercial use. The project
20 was not approved based on findings that it was personal service as a specific commercial use,
21 though the plans did note personal service on the approved plans. I am just bringing that up just
22 if that has any bearing on your thinking.
23
City of Palo Alto May 26, 2010 Page 4 of 76
1 As far as CC&Rs, would CC&Rs normally state what type of commercial use would be on the
2 ground floor?
3
4 Ms. Melissa Tronquet, Senior Deputy City Attorney: For the City's purposes I think you are
5 saying the zoning limits it to commercial uses.
6
7 Ms. French: Yes, well it is ground floor commercial use in a district that has limitations on
8 ground floor uses. So what Commissioner Keller is referencing is something about code
9 enforcement. We do have purview over saying what can go on the ground floor. What it was
10 approved for was personal services though it is referenced as commercial use in a more generic
11 fashion in the findings for those previous approvals.
12
13 Ms. Campbell: I can clarify something too for that. In the PTOD Ordinance itself it does call
14 out the uses that are allowed and it does say personal service in the PTOD Ordinance itself for
15 this project.
16
17 Commissioner Keller: Well, what I am wondering is there are multiple uses that are allowed.
18 When this project was brought before us there was a specific mention that there would be
19 personal services and not any of the other allowed uses. I am not worried about whether
20 personal services are allowed. I am concerned about whether other uses -in other words, this
21 project was proposed as personal services for the first floor. I am wondering what enforcement
22 there will be that is in fact as represented to us as personal services. In fact, it is mentioned in
23 the drawings as personal services. It is mentioned in parenthesis in Section 1, paragraph (a). I
City of Palo Alto May 26, 2010 Page 5 of 76
1 am wondering to what extent does that have force of law, and whether by putting it in the
2 CC&Rs, and 1 am not sure whether this is the purview of the Commission or not, but by putting
3 it in the CC&Rs then the other owners of the building, the people who live there, would have say
4 over the use of this space, while otherwise only the City has say over the use of the space.
5
6 Chair Garber: A question perhaps and 1 am not exactly sure if it is to Commissioner Keller or to
. /
/
7 Staff. The use as far as the Commission would be concerned or maybe as far as the City is
8 concerned would be anything that would be allowed as part of the PTOD that the project went
9 through two years ago. Correct?
10
11 Ms. Tronguet: Right. The City would be able to enforce any requirements that are in that zone
.12 as well as any requirements that are in the conditions of approval. So to the extent that is what
13 you are talking about that is what the City would be able to enforce.
14
15 Chair Garber: So let me just ask Commissioner Keller though, you are concerned about the
16 specific use is what, or how does it play into the question of the Map?
17
18 Commissioner Keller: Well, my concern is that this project was represented to us as personal
19 services be on the ground, and 1 am wondering whether that was along the way a condition of
20 approval. Also the issue is that right now the way that the CC&Rs read, by the way the CC&Rs
21 do have a comment in here in terms of ... 1 am trying to find it.
22
City of Palo Alto May 26, 2010 Page 6 of 76
1 Chair Garber: As Commissioner Keller is looking for the quote let me just ask the attorney. The
2 approval of the Map is irrespective of the specific CC&Rs that may be in place, is that the case?
3
4 Ms. Tronguet: Right, it is a little bit outside the purview of what you are looking at in terms of
5 the subdivision map. What you are looking at for the subdivision map is design and
6 improvements. For the Map Act that means elements related really to Public Facilities. It is
7 outlined in your Staff Report but it is things like whether the site is physically suitable for the
8 type of development, things like that.
9
10 Chair Garber: To the Commissioner's other line of questioning though which is was there a
11 condition of approval though that specified this particular use? One moment, let's let Staff and if
12 we need some support we will do that. Was there any specific condition of approval that
13 specified that particular use that we should be concerned about here?
14
15 Ms. French: The ARB approval did not contain a condition that said it must be personal service
16 use on the ground floor. Clare has said that the ordinance for the PTOD referenced the personal
17 service as the ground floor use. So being that it was in that.
18
19 Chair Garber: The question was is it allowed or required as part of the PTOD?
20
21 Ms. French: It was the basis for which the parking was calculated, etc.
22
City of Palo Alto May 26, 2010 Page 7 of 76
1 Chair Garber: I think germane to Commissioner Keller's question here the way that that PTOD
2 Ordinance is written is the personal services a required use or is that one of many uses that can
3 be located on the ground floor?
4
5 Ms. Campbell: For this particular ordinance it was limited to personal service. There was not
6 the full array of available uses that were listed in the PTOD code. So it is like a PC Ordinance
7 where it lists specifically these are the allowable uses.
8
9 Commissioner Keller: So what you are basically saying is that the ordinance that allowed for the
10 PTOD limited it to personal services. So the only kind of use, obviously it could be vacant if
11 nobody rents it, but the only kind of use allowed is personal services. Is that correct?
12
13 Ms. Campbell: That is my recollection, yes.
14
15 Commissioner Keller: Okay. In that case, then we understand what the City's point of view is.
16 I found the thing. It is basically Article 7, Use Restrictions, on page 25 of the CC&Rs. There is
17 a detailed description for use restrictions. Later on there are restrictions on hours in terms of
18 some restriction of hours of the commercial condominium, in particular page 30 has Commercial
19 Condominium Hours and Parking Restrictions. There is no corresponding restriction on use for
20 the commercial condo to personal services. That seems to be an omission that probably should
21 be corrected in the CC&Rs.
22
City of Palo Alto May 26, 2010 Page 8 of 76
1 Whether the Commission has purview over that I am not sure but the issue is that if I were
2 considering living in that condo association and I knew that it was supposed to be restricted to
3 personal services I would want some right of action for that.
4
5 Chair Garber: City Attorney.
6
7 Ms. Tronguet: I think that is fine. I think the applicant can take that comment and consider it.
8 What is important for the City is really the ordinance and our ability to enforce is based on the
9 'ordinance. So the City, regardless of what the CC&Rs say, the City would still be able to
10 enforce the requirement for personal service that is in the ordinance.
11
12 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. So let me give that then as instructions, if I may, to the
13 applicant that I would encourage you to modify the CC&Rs to put the limitation to personal
14 services in the CC&Rs as a limitation on use for the commercial condo. Then you have belts and
15 suspenders. Thank you.
16
17 Chair Garber: Thank you. Commissioner Fineberg.
18
19 Commissioner Fineberg: I have a question regarding the growth-inducing impacts. If you look
20 at Attachment A, the Record of Land Use Action, page 2 of 5, Section 4, could Staff please give
21 me a quick list of what potential growth-inducing impacts could be? Not necessarily limited to
22 the scope of this project. The reason I am asking that is it talks about growth-inducing with
23 respect to service and utilities infrastructure. I am wondering whether there are other growth-
City of Palo Alto May 26, 2010 Page 9 of 76
1 inducing impacts of a project like changes in population, or demand for parking. What are the
2 other hypothetical growth-inducing impacts that are not mentioned?
3
4 Ms. French: I am probably not going to answer your question. This is a finding that is in the
5 negative. If you find that it is not physically suited for this proposed density then that would be
6 contrary to the approved project that the Planning Commission recommended to the Council,
7 which then approved, and then ARB approved this project with this density. So I guess maybe
8 your question goes to a larger concept.
9
10 Commissioner Fineberg: Let me try and get at this from a different direction. Let's say there are
11 20 potential things that could be growth-inducing from having built a project. If we are having
12 to make a finding that says the site is not suitable, and then if we found that we would deny it.
13 Then what is it that you are considering to say it is not suitable? So if we say it is suitable
14 because it doesn't do bad things on two parameters, therefore we don't make the finding, but are
15 we considering those eight other parameters? So for instance let's look at population growth.
16 We have a Comprehensive Plan that says we build roughly 2,400 units anything in excess of that
17 is growth-inducing and not analyzed in our Comprehensive Plan. I realize this is only four units
18 but I want to bring it up as a question of cumulative impacts. Four units here, 100 units
19 somewhere else, 50 units somewhere else, and we have exceeded the amount of cumulative
20 units. We are into growth inducements in population. Yet, the finding that we cannot make it in
21 the affirmative is because we are only saying it is not growth-inducing with respect to service
22 and utility infrastructure. What about population? What about school? What about traffic?
City of Palo Alto May 26,2010 Page 10 of 76
1 What about public infrastructure? Four plus 100, ten times cumulatively it is growth-inducing.
2 So where are we on this?
3
4 Ms. French: Perhaps you want to add a period after the word 'inducing,' so you are not having
5 to list the myriad potential.
6
7 Chair Garber: I do~'t know if this will help. This finding usually relates to, and Staff can
8 correct me, circumstances where for instance the proposal has somehow worked its way through
9 Staff to us and there are more units than you can fit, which· would require the project to be taller
10 or have greater mass, or to infringe upon a setback or something of that sort, using a really
11 obvious example. Then you would be able to make a very obvious finding that it is bigger than a
12 breadbasket. The sorts of things that you are talking about are not found on a project basis but
13 they would be found as part of the analysis that would have gone into the creation of the PTOD
14 Overlay initially. That sort of analysis would have been done relative to the overall
15 infrastructure that is being provided to the district as opposed to this specific project site. Is that
16 fair?
17
18 Ms. French: So cumulative impacts would have been addressed for the project with the
19 environmental document that was prepared.
20
21 Ms. Julie Caporgno, Chief Planning and Transportation Official: I think growth-inducing
22 normally is interpreted as you have to· increase for instance the sewage capacity. So in other
23 words, what this project would do is you would approve this project and then other projects
City of Palo Alto May 26, 2010 Page 11 of76
1 could be added to the population or employment. So it is not that four units are growth-inducing.
2 Obviously there is some growth occurring but it is that it is going to induce additional growth.
3 That is what growth-inducing usually is.
4
5 Chair Garber: So by way of example, let's say that the allowable uses included, I am making
6 something up here, but laundering that let's say requires a tremendous amount more water than is
7 currently being delivered to site and a lot more waste being taken away from the site that would
8 cause impacts to infrastructure that is currently serving that site. That would be then a flag for
9 the City to come back and say you are beyond what the findings currently allow you need to
10 either submit or you are not allowed or we need to look at this as a variance or something of that
11 sort. Am I roughly in line there? Is any of this helping?
12
13 Commissioner Fineberg: It is but I am still struggling with why are we only saying it is not
14 growth-inducing with respect to service and utIlity infrastructure? There is so much beyond the
15 scope of just those two items. It is just sort of like why did we pick -that is why I started with
16 my question of what are the hypothetical 20 things that could be supported or required to be
17 improved if there was growth. I understand this is not a huge project. This is a small project.
18 This is only four residential units. When do we cumulatively look at the sum total of all the
19 projects that are growth-inducing? When do we look at our schools? We are having to build
20 new schools and new classrooms. Our streets? We are having more and more intersections
21 failing. Our parking on northern California is short. It is only four units and one commercial
22 space but cumulatively it is all together growth-inducing, and all we are saying here is but that is
23 okay because we don't have to build a new sewer, and what services are needed it is so small?
City of Palo Alto May 26, 2010 Page 12 0/76
1 But cumulatively our Public Safety Building, this plus all 100 other projects that are moving
2 through the pipeline, all of it together we don't have the service. We are having to build lots of
3 stuff. Our infrastructure backlog is getting bigger and bigger, and yet we are saying it is not
4 growth-inducing on the utilities infrastructure. So when do we stop growing so we can catch up?
5 It is only a small project, I firmly get that. Why are we only looking at just those two growth-
6 inducing impacts when there are 20 of them? I guess where I am going is I would like to see in
7 this a statement that says it is not going to impact schools. It is not going to impact demand on
8 public safety. It is not going to impact demand on streets. It is not going to impact demand on
9 parking. Because I am not sure we could say all those things but yet we are not saying it is
10 impacting parking, it is impacting schools, but we can't consider that.
11
12 Ms. Caporgno: Just to clarify, I think what Amy had suggested is probably by singling out these
13 two aspects of what could be considered growth-inducing you are probably right. It sounds like
14 it probably should have said the proposed density of development is not considered growth-
15 inducing, and the CEQ A document that was prepared in conjunction with this demonstrates that
16 that is not the case. I guess it was unwise to have identified just the two elements.
17
18 Commissioner Fineberg: Okay, that would satisfy me. Also, I looked down briefly and I have
19 been harping on the two, the service and the utility infrastructure, but if you also look it
20 continues with 'or with respect to access.' So there are sort of three things, but there could have
21 been 20 that we would have found the negative for. So I would be satisfied that saying it is not
22 growth-inducing period.
23
City of Palo Alto May 26, 2010 Page 13 of 76
1 Chair Garber: Nice catch. Commissioner Lippert.
2
3 Commissioner Lippert: I just want to make a quick comment regarding Commissioner Keller's
4 previous comment with regard to the CC&Rs and limiting it to the personal services on the
5 ground floor. I am not in agreement with Commissioner Keller with regard to giving direction to
6 the applicant to include that in the CC&Rs, and for very good reason. Number one, when
7 somebody moves into that ground floor space they are going to have a Use and Occupancy
8 Permit. It is going to be very clear as directed by Staff when they go in for that it is going to
9 have to justify that it is in fact a personal service use that is going in on the ground floor. So if a
10 retail use tried to go in there, if an office use tried to go in there, they would be denied day one
11 that they went in. Number two, we are going through a very tough economic crisis right now.
12 By putting it in the CC&Rs it may be a belt and suspenders approach but it may be in fact instead
13 o~ keeping the pants up it may be keeping the developer or the person from actually taking their
14 pants off at all. What I mean by that, is the issue is that in this tough economic crisis if for
15 instance they were not able to get a personal services use in there on the ground floor all the
16 applicant would really need to do is come back before the Commission and the City Council and
17 ask that that space be rezoned. If they put it in the CC&Rs they have to get agreement from the
18 entire building and undo the CC&Rs. If residents in the building had a problem with that ground
19 floor use they could always remedy it by addressing it through us at the time that there was a
20 public hearing. So there is adequate process here. I am concerned about belt and suspenders
21 during tough economic times I think may in fact be doing us a disservice because what we want
22 to see is somebody in that ground floor space.
23
City of Palo (\lto May 26, 2010 Page 14 of 76
1 Chair Garber: I think the Commissioner was not making it a requirement but making it a
2 suggestion.
3
4 Commissioner Lippert: Okay, I am putting it on the record in case City Council picks this up
5 and does make it a requirement. I am cautioning against that.
6
7 Chair Garber: I think the City Attorney essentially said it is outside of our purview relative to
8 the Map Act that we have to take action on this evening, but just to clarify.
9
10 Commissioner Lippert: It is. Then I just wanted to make one other comment with regard to
11 Commissioner Fineberg's comments with regard to growth-inducing. My interpretation of that
12 is that the city built with excess capacity to address a certain amount of growth. When they put
13 in a sewer line, when they put in a water line in your street, and I think Julie had mentioned that
14 using the analogy with the waste line it is meant to take a certain amount of effluent. If we
15 needed to enlarge that sewer service then that is growth that needs to be addressed. In this case,
16 we have zoned for higher density when they met the requirements ()f PTOD. So what we are
17 actually doing is encouraging more density near where there is transit. That is why we have the
18 PTOD zone. What we are saying is we want to see higher density here and that the city
19 infrastructure can handle it and we don't want to see higher density in other areas, and that is
20 why we have zoning. So from that point of view I think it is just taking up some of the excess
21 capacity that the infrastructure already holds.
22
23 Chair Garber: Commissioner Keller, and then let's see if we can get to an action.
City of Palo Alto May 26, 2010 Page 15 of 76
1
2 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. First, with all due respect to my fellow Commissioner
3 Lippert I would be really pissed off if I bought into this condo knowing the City requirements
4 were such that only personal services were allowed, and because of somebody going to the
5 Planning Commission and City Council that got changed, and my property rights got changed,
6 and I had no say over it through CC&Rs, which is why I think that that should be the case that
7 people should do that. It is in the interest of the residents of the building who are owners of their
8 condos to have a viable building that does not have a vacant space on the ground floor, I would
9 assume. So they would be concerned about that.
10
11 The second thing is I paraphrase Commissioner Fineberg's comment. It is sort of if you will the
12 Redwood City salt works project. It is both a large amount of growth and it is also growth-
13 inducing because of the increases in capacity that will be supplied in order to handle that such as
14 increases in water, sewage, supply and order. So those increases in themselves beyond that
15 growth could be further growth-inducing. I think that is the nature of what it is.
16
17 I liken Commissioner Fineberg's question as sort of when do we look at a project and say this is
18 not one more thin mint, in the Monty Python reference for those of you who understand that.
19
20 MOTION
21
22 So with that being said I move the Staff recommendation that the Planning and Transportation
23 Commission recommend that the City Council approve a Record of Land Use Action,
City of Palo Alto May 26, 2010 Page 16 of76
1 Attachment A, and proposed Vesting Tentative Map to create five condominium units at 420
2 Cambridge Avenue.
3
4 SECOND
5
6 Commissioner Lippert: I will second that.
7
('
8 Chair Garber: A second from Commissioner Lippert. Would the maker like to speak to their
9 motion?
10
11 Commissioner Keller: Yes. So I think that this project has been before us and we have reviewed
12 it and we considered it favorably. I personally would like to see PTOD Ordinance in the future
13 changed so that there would be smaller units. What we approved here is what we got back and
14 therefore I think it is reasonable to deal with that. In the future if our objective is to meet the
,15 Housing Element we can do so more effectively with smaller units in the PTOD district which
16 would have less impact on our schools and would provide the kind of housing that we have not
17 provided in the last eight or so years. Basically, most of the housing that we have provided is
18 large units. So therefore we have a shortage of small units developed in the city. So I would
19 encourage us to direct ourselves in that direction in the future.
20
21 Basically, this is under the current ordinance, which allows this. We did review this and on that
22 basis I am happy to forward it onto the City Council.
23
City of Palo Alto May 26, 2010 Page 17 of 76
1 Chair Garber: Commissioner Lippert, would you like to speak to your second?
2
3 Commissioner Lippert: When I reviewed this the first time around I believe I voted in support of
4 the project, but I had major concerns with it. Tonight in seconding the motion I am in agreement
5 with this. I think that the PTOD process is an excellent process. It is one that we have adopted
6 for this area of the city. It is a process that is definitely needed and I really think that this can be
7 an example by which other developers can go and rezone the property and make use of higher
8 density in meeting some really badly needed higher density development in the California
9 Avenue area. I think that this is almost like a world premier of a movie, this is our first one.
10 This is our premier project here, and I hope it winds up being a flagship project as far as setting
11 the bar for other projects like this.
12
13 Chair Garber: Thank you. Commissioner Fineberg, a friendly amendment?
14
15 Commissioner Fineberg: Yes, I would like to offer a friendly amendment. We have already
16 discussed it. In the Record of Land Use Action on page 2 of 5, Section 4, that bottom paragraph
17 reads: The proposed density of development is not considered growth-inducing, period. We
18 delete the next two lines.
19
20 I suggest that because we are not approaching this Record of Land Use Action and the Map from
21 a scatological planning view. There is a lot more there other than sewer and water. So I think
22 we need to just put a period and delete the remainder.
23
City of Palo Alto May 26, 2010 Page 180/76
1 Chair Garber: Will the maker accept the amendment?
2
3 Commissioner Keller: I am wondering if there was a Negative Declaration maybe instead of
4 saying period it should make reference to the Negative Declaration. So in other words, the
5 proposed density of development is not considered growth-inducing as per the Negative
6 Declaration. Would that make more sense or not? Was there a Negative Declaration?
7
8 Ms. Campbell: Yes there was. We can make a reference to that if that is your desire.
9
10 Commissioner Keller: Is that acceptable to Commissioner Fineberg?
11
12 Commissioner Fineberg: Yes, Ijust don't want it hyper-focused on three narrow areas when
13 there are potentially other areas that might be perceived as growth-inducing and we are not
14 mentioning them, and focusing on three things that have no rationale. So that would be fine.
15
. ....
16 Commissioner Keller: So I am going to suggest that the wording be: The proposed density of
17 the development is not considered growth-inducing as per the Negative Declaration.
18
19 Ms. Caporgno: Maybe you could say as per the findings in the Negative Declaration, because
20 there is a mandatory finding of significance for cumulative impacts. We determined that it was
21 less than significant.
22
23 Commissioner Keller: Okay, as per the finding of the Negative Declaration. Thank you.
City of Palo Alto May 26, 2010 Page 19 of 76
1
2 Ms. French: Mitigated Negative Declaration.
3
4 Commissfoner Keller: As per the finding of the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Thank you.
5
6 Chair Garber: The seconder?
7
8 Commissioner Lippert: I will accept Commissioner Keller's amendment.
9
10 MOTION PASSED (6-0-01, Commissioner Tuma absent)
11
12 Chair Garber: If there is no more discussion. I am seeing no more lights. Commissioner
13 Fineberg? No. All right, let's vote on the action as amended. All those in favor of the motion
14 say aye. (ayes) All those opposed? The motion passes with Commissioners Tanaka, Fineberg,
15 Garber, Martinez, Keller, and Lippert all voting aye and no nays, with Commissioner Tuma
16 absent.
17
City of Palo Alto May 26, 2010 Page 20 of 76