HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 278-10TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CITY MANAGER
DATE: JUNE 14, 2010
REPORT TYPE: CONSENT
DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
CMR: 278:10
SUBJECT: Approval of a Conditional Use Permit and a Record of Land Use Action to
allow a Pediatric Dental Office on the second floor of an existing office
building at 2345 Yale Street.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The recommended Conditional Use Permit (CUP) would allow a pediatric dental office on the
second floor of an existing building which has contained both first and second floor office space
for forty years. The dental business is relocating to 2345 Yale Street, since they must vacate their
current address on Welch Road. The Planning and Transportation Commission, after
considering neighborhood residents' comments about parking, signage, and the office on the first
floor of the building, found that the required CUP approval findings could be made, subject to
conditions of approval to install parking signage; bike ratio, and to require an amendment for any
intensification of use.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff and the Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC) recommend that the City
Council (Council) approve the attached Record of Land Use Action (RLUA) approving the
Conditional Use Permit (CUP).
BACKGROUND
the CUP approval is requested by Edward Davidovits on behalf of S. Brian Liu, DDS, MS to
allow a pediatric dental office to be located on the second floor of the existing office building at
2345 Yale Street. The first floor of the office building is still occupied with a legal non
conforming use.
On April 1, 2010, the Director of Planning and Community Environment tentatively approved
the CUP request along with the Architectural Review (AR) application, based on the required
findings criteria pursuant to the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Chapter 18.76 (Permits and
Approvals). Within the prescribed timeframe, on April 9, 2010, a neighbor requested a hearing of
the CUP by the P&TC.
CMR:'278:10 Page 1 of4
COUNCIL REVIEW AUTHORITY
An Architectural Review Board (ARB) hearing of the AR application was held on May 6, 2010
and the Planning Director approved the AR application on May 10, 2010. The AR approval was
not appealed prior to the end of the appeal period, May 25,2010.
Section 18.77.060 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) provides for a Council "call up"
review of CUP applications that have been reviewed by the P&TC. Instead of the project
automatically being heard by Council, the recommendation of the P&TC is placed on the consent
calendar of the City Council within 30 days of the P&TC's review. A minimum of three Council
Member votes are required to remove the item from the consent calendar and schedule it for a
subsequent City Council meeting. Otherwise, the recommendation of the P&TC stands and no
hearing is held. If the Council votes to hear the item, a hearing shall be scheduled as soon as
practicable.
DISCUSSION
This project does not involve an increase in building floor area nor any decrease in the number of
parking spaces. The building and site improvements, as conditioned, will result in improved
parking lot striping meeting the required parking space and drive aisle widths, and additional
landscaping within the parking lot and in front of the existing building. The proj ect will allow an
existing Palo Alto-based pediatric dental business to remain in Palo Alto, and conditions of
approval associated with the CUP have been designed to address concerns expressed by
neighbors.
COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS
On May 19, 2010, the P&TC reviewed the project and recommended that the City Council
uphold the Director of Planning and Community Environment's decision to approve the
application pursuant to PAMC Section 8.76.030, subject to additional conditions. The vote was
5-1-1 (Keller opposed, Tuma absent).
Two members of the public who reside in the College Terrace neighborhood presented their
concerns and provided written statements to the P&TC (Attachment G). The residents spoke
about parking lot signage and the appropriateness of existing and proposed uses. The applicant
and property/business owner spoke to clarify the business operations and modifications to the
project to address concerns. The P&TC added conditions of approval to staff-recommended
conditions. The additional conditions recommended by the P&TC were as follows:
1. Install visible (directional) signage at both Yale Street and Cambridge Avenue to
inform clients/patients of the parking lot provided for their use;
2. Any intensification of use shall require an amendment to the Conditional Use
Permit; and
3. Install bicycle racks for three bicycles on the site.
The P&TC also encouraged the applicant to include on the dentist's website information about
the rear parking lot so that clients use the parking lot rather than street parking, and to work with
the residents to ensure signage information will address their concerns. These suggestions have
been incorporated into the RLUA.
CMR: 278:10 Page 2 of4
On May 20, 2010, the Architectural Review Board subcommittee reviewed items satisfying their
approval conditions and also recommended that the bicycle parking be located underneath the
exterior stair, and that both the directional signage and the final bike parking design be reviewed
by staff rather than by the ARB. The P&TC's bicycle rack condition was modified in the RLUA
to reflect the ARB's preference for location under the stair.
RESOURCE IMPACTS
The dental business owner recently purchased the subject property, resulting in title transfer fees,
and the proposed building and site improvements will increase the property's taxable value. The
relocation of an existing Palo Alto-based pediatric dental office business to the second floor of
an existing office building would not result in any cost and/or revenue impacts to the City. All'
development review costs have been recovered through permit fees.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The proposed use, as conditioned, is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in that the business
will provide dental service to local residents, consistent with the intent of the property's
Neighborhood Commercial land use designation.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA).
PREPARED BY:
DEPARTMENT HEAD:
CURTIS WILLIAMS
Director of Planning and Community Environment
CITY MANAGER APPROV AL: (_ ~~p.p.~ -t;c/J=--'::I--' -:--. ------C.U~ENE 1 r City Manager
ATTACHMENTS
A. Record of Land Use Action
B. Planning and Transportation Commission Staff Report; May 19, 2010
C. Excerpt of the Draft Planning & Transportation Commission Minutes, May 19, 2010
D. Correspondence Requesting Public Hearings
E. Project Description, Received February 16,2010
F. Project Plans, Received February 16,2010
CMR: 278:10 Page 3 of4
G. Correspondence Presented to P&TC May 19,2010
H. Questions from Commissioners and Staff Responses May 19, 2010
COURTESY COPIES
Edward Davidovits, Applicant
S. Brian Lieu, DDS, MS, Owner
Joy Ogawa, Neighbor requesting hearing
College Terrace Residents' Association
CMR: 278:10 Page 4 of4
ATTACHMENT A
APPROVAL NO. 2010-1
RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
LAND USE APPROVAL FOR
2345 YALE STREET: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 10PLN-00058
(Edward Davidovits, APPLICANT)
On .June 14, 2010, the Council approved the Conditional Use
Permit to allow a Dental Office (Medical Office Use Category) in
the second floor of an existing office building with minor exterior
changes and parking lot landscaping (no increase in square footage
is proposed), making the following findings, determination and
declarations:
SECTION 1.
Palo Alto ("City
follows:
Background. The City Council of the City of
Council") finds, determines, and declares as
A. On February 16, 2010, Edward Davidovits applied on
behalf of S. Brian Lieu, DDS, MS, for a Conditional Use Permit and
Minor Architectural Review to allow a Dental Office (Medical Office
Use Category) in the second floor of an existing office building
with minor exterior changes' and parking lot landscaping (no
increase in square footage is proposed) .
B. The project was deemed complete on March 26, 2010. A
tentative Director's Decision was prepared approving the
conditional use permit and minor architectural review on April 1,
2010. A hearing before the Planning & Transportation Commission
("PTC") was requested on April 9, 2010. The PTC held a public
hearing on May 19, 2010 to consider the application. The PTC voted
to recommend approval of the conditional use permit. A hearing
before the Architectural Review Board (ARB) was held May 6, 2010
and the ARB recommended that the Director approve the Architectural
Review (AR) component of the application. On May 10, 2010, the
Director issued his approval of the AR application, a decision
which was not appealed to City Council.
SECTION 2. Environmental Review.
categorically exempt from the provisions
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
of
The
the
SECTION 3. Conditional Use Permit Findings
proj ect is
California
1. The proposed use, at the proposed location, 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.
1
This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the
proposed use is a neighborhood serving dental practice
within an existing office building. The proposed use has
equal parking requirements to the office use which was
previously in this location and is allowed without the
requirement of or controls of a Conditional Use Permit.
Condi tions of approval have been imposed to ensure the
proj ect conforms to the submitted plans and that the
restriping of the parking lot includes the planting of new
landscaping and an additional tree to increase the
property's conformance with the City's parking lot
landscaping requirements. Additional landscaping along the
front fa9ade of the existing building has also been agreed
upon and included in the conditions of approval.
2. The proposed use will be located and conducted in a
manner in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and the
purposes of the Zoning Ordinance.
This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the
proposed dental office is designed to follow the
Comprehensive Plan policies which encourage small local
serving businesses that reuse vacant sites. The proposed
project will include only minor exterior changes to the
building, but has' included improvements to the parking lot,
including additional tree shading.
SECTION 4. Conditional Use Permit Granted. Conditional
Use Permit No. is granted to allow a Dental Office (Medical
Office Use Category) in the second floor of an existing office
building with minor exterior changes and parking lot landscaping
(no increase in square footage is proposed).
SECTION 5. Conditions of Approval.
Department of Planning & Community Environment
1. The proposed dental office use shall operate in substantial
conformance with the project description and plans stamped
received February 16, 2010, on file with the City in planning
application no. 10PLN-00058.
2. A copy of this approval letter shall be printed on the first
page of the plans submitted for building permit. The building
permit will not be approved without this letter printed on the
plan set.
3. The Director of Planning and Community Environment shall have
continuing j u'risdiction over this Conditional Use Permit and
2
reserves the right to revoke or terminate this permit,
reaffirm this permit or modify the conditions or impose new
conditions with respect to this permit.
4. New rear entrance door shall be of materials and design to
match existing.
5. Install visible (directional) signage at both Yale Street and
Cambridge Avenue to inform clients/patients of the parking lot
provided for their use. The signageplans shall be reviewed by
Planning staff prior to installation and after consideration
by the applicant of neighbor's suggestions.
6. Any intensification of use shall require an amendment to the
Conditional Use Permit.
7. Install bicycle racks for three bicycles on the site; if
feasible, locate the racks under the new exterior stairway.
8. The applicant is encouraged to include on the business'
website information about rear parking lot so that clients
use the parking lot rather than street parking.
9. The final Plans submitted for building permit shall include
the following information and notes on the relevant plan
sheets:
(a) Sheet T-l Tree Protection-it's Part of the Plan
(http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/environment/urbancanopy.asp ),
Applicant shall complete the Tree Disclosure Statement.
Inspections and monthly reporting by the project arborist are
mandatory. (All projects: check #1)
(b) Protective Tree Fencing Type. Delineate on grading plans,
irrigation plans , site plans and utility plans, Type II
fencing around Street Trees and Type I fencing around
Protected/Designated trees as a bold dashed line enclosing the
Tree Protection Zone (all permeable ground area surrounding
the trunk) per instructions on Detail #605, Sheet T-l, and the
City Tree Technical Manual, Section 6.35-Site Plans.
10. The parking lot plans shall be revised to remove one parking
space and replace it with one planting island. The island
shall be at least 6 feet in width, and shall be located
approximately half way along the rear property line to bring
the existing parking lot into greater conformance with parking
lot shading requirements since the proposal is for greater
than 11 parking spaces in a row without a planting island. The
planting island will contain one 24 inch box tree, species
Chitalpa, or similar with approval of City Arborist.
3
11. Automatic irrigation shall be provided to all trees and new
landscaping. For trees, PW Detail #513 shall be included on
the irrigation plans and show two bubbler heads mounted on
flexible tubing placed at the edge of the root ball. Bubblers
shall not be mounted inside an aeration tube. The tree
irrigation system shall be connected to a separate valve from
other shrubbery and ground cover, pursuant to the Ci ty' s
Landscape Water Efficiency Standards. Irrigation for other
landscaping shall also include bubblers, PW Detail #513.
12. The plans submitted for building permit shall include a
landscaping plan showing details of new parking lot tree and
new landscaping along the building frontage. Landscaping strip
in front of building shall be planted with two Burgundy Flax,
one on either end, and a 24-inch box Burgundy Japanese Maple
located in the center on top of an 8" mound covered in mulch.
Alternate planting may be approved with review of City
Arborist. Irrigation per condition of approval 6 is required.
13. All of the parking stalls, with the exception of the ADA
accessible space #1 7 should be reduced to 17' -6" depth,
resulting in a 25'-0" (except for at the ADA space where it
would be 24'-6").
14. Spaces #14 and #15 shall be at least 9'-0" wide, and space #16
shall be as wide as possible given the extra space from the
planting island, but no less than 9' -0". With 9' -0" wide
stalls, 24' aisle width would be acceptable.
15. New rear entrance door shall be of materials and design to
match existing.
16. Per PAMC Section 18.23.050 (Visual, Screening and Landscaping)
and PAMC Section 18.23.060 (Noise and Vibration), all new
rooftop equipment installed for this dental office shall be
screened from public view and shall comply with Chapter 9.10
of the PAMC (the Noise Ordinance) .
utilities Department -Electric Engineering Division
17. The applicant shall comply with all the Electric Utility
Engineering Department service requirements noted during plan
review.
18. Applicant/Developer must notify Utilities Engineering
(Electric) if the proposed renovation/change of use has any
impact on the existing electrical service size, voltage, or
location. If there are any changes, the Utilities will provide
4
comments and/or conditions along with any applicable fees and
cost estimate.
utilities Department -Water Gas Wastewater Division
19. 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 existing
and new information requested for utility service demands
(water in fixture units/g.p.m., gas in b.t.u.p.h, and sewer in
fixture units/g.p.d.).
20. The applicant shall submit improvement plans for any utility
construction. The plans must show the size and location of all
underground utilities within the development and the public
right of way including meters, backflow preventers, fire
service requirements, sewer mains, sewer cleanouts, sewer lift
stations and any other required utilities.
21. Utility vaults, transformers, utility cabinets, concrete
bases, or other structures can not be placed over existing
water, gas or wastewater mains/services. Maintain l'
horizontal clear separation from the vault/cabinet/concrete
base to existing utilities as found in the field. If there is
a conflict with existing utilities, Cabinets /vaul ts /bases
shall be relocated from the plan location as needed to meet
field conditions.
22. The applicant shall be responsible for installing and
upgrading the services as necessary to handle anticipated peak
loads. This responsibility includes all costs associated with
the design and construction for the installation/upgrade of
the utility services.
23. Sewer drainage piping serving fixtures located less than one
foot above 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.
24. Flushing of any fire system to sanitary sewer shall not exceed
30 GPM. Higher flushing rates shall be diverted to a
detention tank to achieve the 30 GPM flow to sewer.
25. Sewage ejector pumps shall meet the following conditions:
(a) The pump (s) be limited to a total 100 GPM capacity or
less.
5
(b) The sewage line changes to a 4" gravity flow line at
least 20' from the City clean out.
(c) The tank and float is set up such that the pump run time
not exceed 20 seconds each cycle.
26. 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 Al to Utili ties. The
approved relocation of services, meters, hydrants, or other
facilities will be performed at the cost of the person/entity
requesting the relocation.
27. Each unit or place of business shall have its own water and
gas meter shown on the plans. Each parcel shall have its own
water service, gas service and sewer lateral connection shown
on the plans.
28. An approved reduce pressure principle assembly (RPPA backflow
preventer device) is required 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, within 5' of the property line. 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. The applicant shall provide the
City with current test certificates for all backflows.
29. An approved reduced pressure detector assembly is required for
any existing or new water connection for the fire system to
comply with requirements of California administrative code,
ti tIe 17, sections 7583 through 7 605 inclusive. Reduced
pressure detector assemblies shall be installed on the owner's
property adj acent to the property line, wi thin 5' of the
property line. Show the location of the reduced pressure
detector assembly on the plans. Inspection by the utilities
cross connection inspector is required for the supply pipe
between the City connection and the assembly.
30. All utility installations shall be in accordance with the City
of Palo Alto utility standards for water, gas & wastewater.
Fire Department
31. A permit will be required to install the medical gas system. A
hazardous materials registration form shall be submitted.
Contact Hazardous Materials Inspector Joe Afong (650-329-2665)
for details.
6
Building Department
32. The project is currently comprised of two lots.
Prior to issuance of building permits, the lots shall be merged
to create a single parcel.
SECTION 6. Term of Approval. If the Conditional Use
Permit granted is not used within one year of the date of council
approval, it shall become null and void, pursuant to by Palo Alto
Municipal Code Section 18.77.090(a).
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Senior Asst. City Attorney
PROJECT DESCRIPTION REFERENCED:
APPROVED:
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
1. The one page project description and nine page plan set prepared
by Edward Davidovits, dated received February 16, 2010.
7
TO:
FROM:
Attachment B
PLANNING &TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
Jennifer Cutler
Planner
DEPARTMENT: Planning and
Community Environment
AGENDA DATE: May 19,2010
SUBJECT: 2345 Yale Street: Review and recommendation to the City Council
regarding a Conditional Use Permit allowing a Dental Office on the
se.cond floor of an existing office building. Environmental Assessment:
Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to section
15301 -Existing Faci1itie~ .. Zoning: CN.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC) recommend that
the City Council (Council) approve the Record of Land Use Action (ROLUA) for a Conditional
Use Permit (CUP) allowing a Dental Office on the second floor of an existing office building,
based upon th~ findings and conditions of approval in the RLUA (Attachment A). . .
BACKGROUND
A conditional use permit and minor architectural review application was received on February 16,
2010 and tentatively approved by the Planning Man~ger, on behalf of the Director of Planning and
Community Environment, on April 1 , 2010. On April 9 ,2010, within the request for hearing period,
a request for hearing was made by Joy Ogawa.
Comments from two members of the public were received during the 21-day comment period after
City of Palo Alto Page 1
2:
the receipt of application. A request for this hearing was received from one of these neighbors (Joy
Ogawa) after the tentative approval was published. The hearing request was related to the Director's
tentative decision Qn the CUP as well as the minor architectural review, though there were no
specific comments about the architectural review. The Architectural Review Board (ARB) is
conducted a public hearing on May 6, 2010 on the proposed exterior modifications to the building
and site. The ARB recommended approval with one additional condition:
Revised plans shall return to the ARB subcommittee to address four items:
(1) show detail for the awning and modifY the color to be compatible with the building
paint color,
(2) revise the site plan to show the planting island (and location of gas cylinder),.
(3) provide material and color details for the new exterior stairway,
(4) provide a landscape and irrigation plan incorporating revised plantings in the front
landscape strip~
The Director followed the ARB's recommendation and approved the minor architectural review on
May 10,2010. Neighbor concerns are summarized below and included as Attaclnnent E .
. Project Description
The CUP application requests a permit to allow a Dental Office on the second floor of an existing
office building. Associated with this CUP is an application for Architectural Review of several
minor exterior changes and parking lot landscaping. The exterior modifications were included in the
Director's tentative approval issued April 1, 2010, based upon CUP and Architectural Review
findings and subject to approval conditions set forth in the approval letter (Attaclnnent D).
The exterior changes include a new door to the rear parking lot, a new awning over that door, and a
restriping of the parking lot to provide the required accessible space an~ bringing the remaining
parking spaces up to current code requirements. No in~rease in floor area is proposed, and the
number of parking spaces are intended to be increased by one space, as set forth in the applicant's
project description (Attachment C). The Director's tentative decision was conditioned upon the
planting of a tree in a new planting island within the parking lot, enhancing its confonnance with the
City of Palo Alto Page 2
City's parking lot shading requirements. Because of the space needed for planting of the tree, the
. resulting parking lot has no net increase or decrease in the existing number of p~rking spaces. The
conditions of approval also included a requirement for additional landscaping along the front fa~ade
of the building. The applicant agreed to these conditions of approval, which are included in the draft
Record of Land Use Action (Attachment A).
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION REVIEW:
Conditional Use Permit
The action required of the P&TC is a recommendation on the CUP. A Conditional Use Permit is
required for Medical Office in the Neighborhood Comm~rcia1 zone, as shown in P AMC Section
18.16.040, Table 1. This dental office is categorized as medical office, a use category which has the
same parking requirements as the existing professional office use c~tegory.
Procedure for review by the Commission upon request for hearing is as follows: .
(1) Within 45 days foliowing the filing of a timely hearing request of a proposed director's decision
or revised proposed director's decision the planning and transportation commission shall hold a
hearing on the application, unless the request is withdrawn as described above.
(2) Notice of the revised director's decision shall be given by mail to owners and residents of.
property within 600 feet of the property, by publication, by e .. mail, and by posting in a public
place. Notice shall include the address of the property, a brief description of the proposed
project, and the date, time and location of the hearing.
(3) Following the hearing, the planning and transportation commission shall make a
recommendation on the application, which shall be forwarded to the city council.
(Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMe) Section 18.77.060(e»
Procedure for review by the Council upon recommendation from the Commission is as follows:
City of Palo Alto Page 3
The recommendation of the planning and transportation commission on the
application shall be placed on the consent calendar of the council within 30 days. The
council may:
(1) Adopt the findings and recommendation of the planning and transportation
commission; or
(2) Remove the recommendation from the consent calendar, which shall require . .
three votes, and:
(A) Discuss the application and adopt findings and take action on the
application based upon the evidence presented at the hearing· of the
planning and transportation commission; or
(B) Direct that the application be set for a new hearing before the city council,
following which the city council shall ad~pt findings and take action on
the application.
(Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 18.77.060(t)
Architectural Review Status
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 approvai associated with the
tentatively approved application for a CUP and Architectural Review. The ROLUA wasl adjusted
following the ARB hearing, on May 6, 20l0, and the Director's action following the ARB's
recommendation. The Director's approval of the Architectural Review component occurred on May
10,2010, during the week of the P&TC's packet containing this staff report. The approval letter is
included as attachment F. The appeal period fo~ a Director's .decision following ARB
recommendation is 14 days, so the appeal period will not have ended prior to the P&TC hearing.
Following the P&TC hearing and at the end of the ARB appeal period, the project will be forwarded
to the City Council for placement on its consent calendar. Three members of the City Council would
be ~equired to pull the item off the consent calendar and schedule a public hearing.
SUMMARY OF KEY ISSUES:
City of Palo Alto Page 4
Neighbor Concerns
The concerns expressed by the residential neighbors adjacent to this project include increased
activity over the, previous office use and concerns over the existing use on the ground floor. These
comments, as well as the letter received requesting a public hearing, are included as Attachment E.
, Parking Facilities
The existing office building parking lot provides 21 automobile parking spaces where current code
requirements for office would result in a requirement for 24 spaces. ,The restriping of the parking lot
will not decrease the number of parking spaces, and the proposed medical office use would not
require an increase in the number of off-street parking spaces for use by the building tenants and
visitors. Because the zoning code only requires t~at a new use provide parking for any increase in
square footage or intensification, this use change does not require any additional parking be ,
provided.
Standards of Review
The draft Record of Land Use Action (Attachment A), includes a determination ~hat the proposed
project, as conditioned, meets all requirements of the City's Municipal Code and Comprehensive
Plan. The following findings must b~ met to grant the conditional use pennit. Staff believes that
both findings can be made and each is discussed below:
1, The proposed use, at the proposed location, will not b.e detrimental or injurious to property or
improvements in the vicinity, and will not be, detrimental to the public health, safety, general
welfare, or convenience ..
This finding can be made in the' affirmative in that the proposed use is a neighborhood serving
dental practice within an existing office building. The proposed use has parking requirements
equal to the offi~e use which was previously in this locat~on and is allowed without the '
requirement or controls of a Conditional Use Permit. Conditions of approval have been imposed
to ensure the project conforms to the submitted plans and that the restriping of the parking lot
City of Palo Alto Page 5
includes the planting of new landscaping and an additional tree to increase the property's
I
conformance with the City's parking lot landscaping requirements. Additional landscaping along
the front faQade of the existing building has also been agreed upon and included in the conditions
of approval.
2. The proposed use will be located and conducted in. a manner in accord with the Palo Alto
Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance.
This finding. can be made in the affirmative in that the proposed dental office is designed to
follow the Comprehensive Plan policies which encourage smalllocal .. serving businesses that
reuse vacant sites. The proposed project includes minot exterior changes. to the building and
improvements to the parking lot, including additional tree shading.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
The proposed project is consistent with the Compre~ensive Plan and staffbelieves there are no other
substantive policy implications.
TIME LINE:
Application Received:
Application Deemed Complete:
Tentative Approv.al:
. Hearing Requested:
End of Hearing Request Period:
ARB Hearing:
Director's ARB Decision:
P&TC Hearing:
City of Palo Alto
Date:
February 16,2010
March 26, 2010
April 1 ~ 2010
April 9, 2010
April 15, 2010
May 6,2010
May 10,2010·
May 19,2010
Page 6
End of ARB appeal period: May 25,2010
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: ".
The project is cat«gorically exempt from environmental review under. provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Section 15, Class 1, renovation of existing
facilities.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Draft Record of Land Use Action
B. Location Map
C. Project Description*
D. Tentative Approval Letter
E. Comment & Request for Hearing CorrespOlidence
. F. ARB Approval Letter
G. Project Plans*
*provided by applicant
COURTESY COPIES:
Edward Davidovits, Applicant
S. Brian Lieu, DDS, MS, Owner
Joy Ogawa, Neighbor requesting hearing
Prepared by: Jennifer Cutler, Planner~?
Reviewed by: Amy French, Manager of Current Planning
DepartmentIDivision Head APproval: __ D:~~:looI,;:=-': ;:..:;.::....0. ~\~~,... .. ~~...;x.Ao\~CIo!: ...... ~~ _______ _
Curtis Williams, Director of Planning
City of Palo Alto Page 7
"
;
Attachment C
1 Special Meeting o/Wednesday, May 19,2010
2 Council Chambers, Civic Center, 1st Floor
3 250 Hamilton Avenue
4 Palo Alto, California 94301
5
6
7 DRAFT MINUTES
8 EXCERPT RE: 2345 Yale Street
9
10
11 AT 6:00PM
12
13 NEW BUSINESS.
14 Public Hearing:
15
16 2345 Yale Street: Planning and Transportation Commission Review of a Request for
1 7 Hearing on a Request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a Dental Office on the second
18 floor of an existing office building. Zoning: CN.
19
20 Ms. Jennifer Cutler, Planner: Yes. Good evening Commissioners. This project involves the
21 Conditional Use Permit to allow a dental office on the second floor of an existing office
22 building. The applicant also included minor architectural review for minor exterior changes
23 to the building and restriping of the existing parking lot.
24
25 A hearing was requested on the tentative Director's Decision on both the Conditional Use
26 Permit and the architectural review. A public hearing was held on the architectural review
27 elements of the applicant on May 6 with the Architectural Review Board, and the Director
28 has approved those aspects of the project based on their recommendation. If no appeal is
29 filed then that decision will become effective on May 24, next week.
30
31 The applicant for the Conditional Use Permit under review tonight is for Dr. Liu, who
32 currently has a pediatric dental practice on Welch Road. This is a solo practice as described
33 in the Staff s response to Commissioners comments, which is available at places and at the
34 table at the rear of Chambers.
35
36 One concern that was posed about this proj ect by the neighbor who requested this hearing is
37 the existing use of the first floor of the same building. However, Staff has conducted
38 additional research on this subject and has found that the use was established in early 2006
39 with a City issued Use and Occupancy Permit, which is different from a Conditional Use
40 Permit.
41
42 At that time, the beginning of 2006, a Conditional Use Permit was not required for any office
43 uses in the CN zone including medical office. They were allowed by right. It was a
44 permitted use. Therefore, this use is in conformance with the code. It is an existing legal
45 use.
46
City of Palo Alto May 19,2010 Page 1 of21
1 The second issue that was brought up was in regard to reserving specific parking spaces for
2 patients. The City's zoning code requires a certain number of parking spaces per square foot
3 of floor area. It does not require any reserved parking for this particular use. The
4 Transportation Division has reviewed the plans and provided conditions of approval to
5 ensure that the plans will meet the parking requirements in terms of dimensions and travel
6 space in between.
7
8 Staff recommends that the Commission recommend approval with the conditions proposed in
9 Attachment A. The applicant and property owner are here to answer any questions you may
10 have. I believe the neighbor requesting a hearing is also here as well. ~hank you.
11
12 Chair Garber: Thank you. Forgive me City Attorney. I am forgetting our protocol here
13 given that this· is a Request for Hearing as opposed to an application. We will open the
14 public hearing and then we will hear people in that way. So let us open the public hearing.
15 Our first speaker of the evening will be Joy Ogawa followed by Doria Summa. We will give
16 you five minutes.
17
18 Ms. Joy Ogawa, Palo Alto: Thank you for the five minutes. I should have enough time I
19 guess. I prepared for three but I will probably go over the three.
20
21 So I hope that you have been able to look over the materials that I have submitted, especially
22 the letter in the packet, which lists the conditions that the neighbors have requested. Also,
23 there is an additional modification that I submitted today by email. That modification is just
24 specifically asking that signage be displayed at the entrance to the parking lot driveway that
25 identifies the occupants of the building. There is signage right now for Lucile Packard but
26 the reason I am asking this is I remembered the time before that sign got put up when Lucile
27 Packard had moved in there were a lot of cars coming into our driveway because they didn't
28 know which driveway to go in and our driveway was the first one on Yale Street, the first
29 one on Cambridge after turning off of Yale Street so they would tum into our driveway. So
30 we had a lot of that going on. So I think it is very important to have appropriate signage at
31 the entrance to that parking lot driveway saying what that parking lot is for. It is for that
32 2345 building and who the occupants of that building are, whether it is a dentist or whoever
33 is going to occupy that ground floor. It is not clear who is going to be occupying that ground
34 floor in the future.
35
36 So I am not going to repeat everything that I submitted. I do want to ask the question, how is
37 it that this application was not only deemed complete by Planning Staff it actually got
38 approved by Planning Staff considering the condition that the application was in? I
39 submitted a copy to you. The document that I presume comprises the application is missing
40 a ton of important information, a lot of blanks there, and it has incorrect information. It was
41 really disturbing to me when I looked at the document because it is really important
42 information that is missing and that somehow it just got deemed complete and got processed
43 by Planning Staff and got approved by Planning Staff. So I find it is really disturbing to me
44 that this happens. I hope that Planning Commission will look into the criteria that Planning
45 Staff applies to determining when an application is deemed complete.
46
City of Palo Alto May 19,2010 Page 2 of21
1 I also want to emphasize that this application is for a Conditional Use Permit. Now, a
2 medical office use may have been a permitted use in 2006 but it is no longer a permitted use
3 it is a conditional use. It seems to me that the whole approach that Staff has taken has been
4 as though it were a permitted use. They looked at the parking requirement as though the
5 proposed use were a permitted use. It is like oh, it's a permitted use, that's fine it is all
6 grandfathered in, no problem. Then they approve the CUP without considering the real
7 concerns about impacts of the specific type of medical use involved here without considering
8 the potential of expansion of the use, and without making sure to prevent inappropriate uses.
9
10 So the zoning code says that a CUP can only be approved if it will not be detrimental to the
11 neighbors, and only if it is in accord with the Comprehensive Plan, and the purposes of the
12 zone. So a CUP in the CN zone can only be granted for a neighborhood serving use. That is
13 the purpose of the CN zone.
14
15 What the neighbors are asking is simply that all necessary and reasonable conditions be put
16 in place that minimize negative impacts to the neighbors and assure that the conditional use
17 is an appropriate neighborhood serving use and stays that way. Now, a solo dental practice
18 might be considered a neighborhood serving use. A larger multiple dentist practice might
19 not. I am asking please don't be afraid of being overly restrictive. This CUP would not shut
20 the door permanently on what can ever be done on this property. An amendment to the CUP
21 can always be applied for in the future. At that time an evaluation can be made on how well
22 the existing CUP has worked. By tightly restricting the CUP for now it gives the property
23 owner incentive to be a good neighbor and win the support of residential neighbors for any
24 future amendments to the CUP.
25
26 So I am asking the Commission to include conditions that ensure minimum negative impacts
27 to the neighbors and maximum accord with the Comprehensive Plan arid purposes of the CN
28 zone.
29
30 Chair Garber: Thank you. Doria Summa.
31
32 Ms. Doria Summa, Palo Alto: Hi, thank you for letting me speak tonight on behalf of the
33 College Terrace Residents Association Board of Directors. I serve on that as a city observer.
34 We emailed a letter in to you and I just wanted to go through it quickly.
35
36 The College Terrace Residents Association Board of Directors identified as one of our goals
37 this year to work to preserve and revitalize the Neighborhood Commercial District in College
38 Terrace. The municipal code describes the CN zone as a neighborhood commercial district
39 intended to create and maintain neighborhood shopping areas primarily accommodating retail
40 sales, personal service, eating and drinking, and office uses of moderate size serving the
41 immediate neighborhood under regulations that will assure maximum compatibility with
42 surrounding residential areas.
43
44 In general, lax adherence to zoning regulations creates a situation where developers are able
45 to circumvent the zone regulations resulting in uses that are inconsistent with the spirit and
46 intention of the CN zone. Medical office uses in particular have been identified as an area of
City of Palo Alto May 19,2010 Page 3 0/21
1 concern in a neighborhood survey conducted in December 2008. Residents expressed a
2 strong concern about the negative impacts of medical office uses in our CN zone. Part of that
3 concern comes from the potential migration of medical offices that are more regional in
4 nature. Projects in the CN zone that propose medical office use should be carefully reviewed
5 to assure adherence to the code and maximum compatibility with surrounding residential
6 areas.
7
8 We do not object to a sole dental practitioner on the second floor of2345 Yale Street, but we
9 urge the City require that the first floor reverts to general office and remains that way, and
10 that the appropriate conditions are put in place to minimize parking and traffic impacts.
11 Thank you very much.
12
13 Chair Garber: Thank you. Is there anyone else from the public that would like to speak?
14 We will keep the public hearing open if there is. Is the applicant here? Would you like to
15 speak? If you would like to speak please fill out a card. I have it? I apologize. Brian Liu.
16 Thank you.
17
18 Mr. Brian Liu, Palo Alto: Thanks for the opportunity to speak to you. Basically I just
19 wanted to give you a little bit of background of myself. I am originally from Taiwan. I got
20 my dental education from Taiwan. After dental school I applied to UCSF for specialty
21 training for three years. I am a board certified pediatric dentist and I still maintain my
22 teaching professor job at UCSF. So the office I have right now is at 750 Welch Road. I have
23 been practicing there since February of 2000. So it has been there for more than ten years
24 already. I have been serving the community for more than ten year. More than 80 percent of
25 my patient pool is from Palo Alto. The reason I moved my office is because Welch Road has
26 been taken by the Stanford Hospital and for that reason a lot of people have to move out of
27 Welch Road. I will be very sad for my patients if I have to move out of Palo Alto City
28 because it is very hard to find a medical location for a dental office.
29
30 I want to talk about my office. Because of my education as a professor at UCSF I have not
31 high quantity office. It is a high quality office. So I don't see a lot of patients. I see 20-plus
32 patients. Usually we have patient appointments for one hour so we don't have a lot of
33 patients coming in every day. So the impact of traffic I don't think is going to be a major
34 issue. Plus, we have enough parking for all patients. So I just wanted to have a chance to let
35 everybody know it is very nice to practice in Palo Alto City and I will be really sad to move
36 out of Palo Alto City. Thank you.
37
38 Chair Garber: Thank you. Commissioners, questions, or comments? Commissioner Lippert.
39
40 Commissioner Lippert: So in the Staff Report and what you have described to us this is
41 really a legally existing nonconforming use. Is that correct?
42
43 Ms. Cutler: You are referring to the first floor?
44
45 Commissioner Lippert: Yes. I am referring to the zone that this building is in. It is in the
46 CN zone.
City of Palo Alto May 19,2010 Page 4 of21
1
2 Ms. Cutler: Office is an allowed use in the CN zone. When the ground floor use was
3 established that included office as well as medical office, professional office. Since then the
4 code has been changed so that medical office now is an allowed use but a Conditional Use
5 Permit is required.
6
7 Commissioner Lippert: Okay, so at the time the building was built. ..
8
9 Ms. Cutler: 1969.
10
11 Commissioner Lippert: It was a permitted use in there.
12
13 Ms. Cutler: Yes.
14
15 Commissioner Lippert: Okay. Then in 2006 we changed the rules.
16
17 Ms. Cutler: In 2007 the rules were changed. Office is still allowed but medical office
18 specifically got pulled out and a Conditional Use Permit is now required for any new medical
19 office established in the CN Zone.
20
21 Commissioner Lippert: That is in all CN zones.
22
23 Ms. Cutler: Correct.
24
25 Commissioner Lippert: Okay. The question I have I guess is for the City Attorney. When
26 does something like that become a downzoning? Would there physically always have to
27 have been -if there was a dental office in there obviously it would be a downzone if we
28 didn't allow another dentist to go into that building.
29
30 Mr. Larkin: As long as the medical use is continuous and doesn't expand that medical office
31 can continue in that location. They can't increase the intensity of the use. They can't do a
32 lot to expand that use but they can keep that medical use on the ground floor as long as they
33 are in continuous use doing that, and as long as the City doesn't decide that they want to
34 amortize that use out of existence. Otherwise they are okay there in perpetuity. Downzoning
35 or up-zoning those are not necessarily well defined terms.
36
37 Commissioner Lippert: Well, I guess where my line of questioning goes is when are we
38 taking away property rights because that is really where the rub is?
39
40 Mr. Larkin: If we were to say not only is it nonconforming but that we were going to create
41 a date certain in which that use could no longer be done on that property then that would be
42 where that would take place. Then we would have to do an amortization study so that the
43 owners of the business would be able to obtain the value of their improvements to the
44 business.
45
City of Palo Alto May 19,2010 Page 5 of21
1 Ms. French: I would like to add something too. When our attorney says continuous use, in
2 our Nonconforming Use Regulation, Chapter 18.70 it does state that for a period of 12
3 months or more if the nonconforming use vacates then it needs to be replaced by a
4 conforming use. So there could be a period of several months where it was vacant where
5 they could still come back and do a medical office use on the first floor. We are talking
6 about the first floor right now.
7
8 Commissioner Lippert: Correct. When did the Lucile Packard vacate?
9
10 Ms. French: They have not vacated.
11
12 Commissioner Lippert: Oh, they are still there.
13
14 Ms. French: They were issued a permit in January of2007 and they are still there.
15
16 Commissioner Lippert: So they have whatever their rights are by the fact that they are there
1 7 even though the zoning on it or the rules for them have changed as well. So they are a
18 legally existing nonconforming use as well.
19
20 Ms. Cutler: Correct.
21
22 Commissioner Lippert: Okay. I may have additional questions.
23
24 Chair Garber: Commissioner Martinez, then Keller, and Fineberg.
25
26 Commissioner Martinez: One thing when we get small applications or for smaller projects
27 like this is I feel like we get kind of hand-me-down drawings with it. I would have liked to
28 have seen the site plan that showed the setbacks, that showed the width of the street, that
29 showed that we had on-street parking, that showed the distance to public transportation, the
30 things that we really care about on the Commission rather than a building plan. Are you
3 1 going to correct me? Is it there?
32
33 Just as a general thing when we look at projects that are alterations in nature we don't really
34 care about the size of the elevator so much as we do sort of the neighborhood uses like what
35 is next door, what is across the street, how far is it to these properties, things like that. I think
36 that would give us more of a flavor of sort of the neighborhood and the consequence than an
37 architectural plan.
38
39 First before I forget, I really want to say this. I really want to thank Dr. Liu for choosing to
40 stay within Palo Alto. I think you should be commended for that. I think a thriving practice
41 could move to Menlo Park and your patients would follow you I am sure. So I am happy
42 about that. No, I am not suggesting that. I am just saying you had a choice and you made the
43 right choice.
44
45 One of the issues is that as urbanists we all love these kinds of mixed use neighborhoods
46 where you walk down the street and there is a sleepy little business you didn't know about.
City of Palo Alto May 19,2010 Page 60f21
1 You walk a little bit further and there is a cafe, and there is a house that has been there for 50
2 years, and there is something else like a duplex next to that. There is this rich texture that we
3 just adore in this city. I think College Terrace is my favorite neighborhood for that reason.
4 But when there is a change it is like all hell breaks loose. It is like this is going to change the
5 neighborhood for the worst. An office use is somehow now a dental use and this is going to
6 really start the downward slide of our neighborhood. That probably isn't true. I think this is
7 a small use with a small consequence. I think anything where there are children involved and
8 the practice is children's dentistry, there is an opportunity to add more life to it. It is near
9 public transportation. Teenagers can come on their own as mine used to do. There are kids
10 walking to and for with their bikes. There is added life to the neighborhood and there is no
11 reason to see this in the context that it is a negative addition to the neighborhood.
12
13 In addition, I think the parking is set at a fairly high bar, 250 square feet per parking place is
14 about as stringent as it gets. So I think we have some safeguards in the applicant's proposal
15 for a fairly small use of a second floor of a building. He is actually reducing the amount of
16 square footage in adding the elevator and equipment room to the project. So I think we as
1 7 neighbors I think we need to like take a deep breath and look at this in the context of a very
18 rich urban environment that is half a block to EI Camino Real that really can be something
19 that really isn't a big outside use, but is really something that very quickly is going to become
20 a part of your neighborhood. Thank you.
21
22 Chair Garber: Commissioner Keller and then Fineberg.
23
24 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. So my first question is we have a building that has been
25 there for a long time. There is a legal nonconforming use on the first floor. There are
26 representations that at some point in time it is expected that that legal nonconforming use
27 may end, and we have a Conditional Use Permit application for a new use in the same
28 building. Is it legal to condition the new use, the Conditional Use Permit, occupancy based
29 on the vacancy if you will of the nonconforming use on the first floor and discontinuance of
30 that nonconforming use?
31
32 Mr. Larkin: I think that if the Commission wanted to say that the new use couldn't come in
33 as long as the existing nonconforming use is there that could be a condition that the
34 Commission could decide to impose.
35
36 Commissioner Keller: We could allow construction to happen just not occupancy until the
37 current legal nonconforming use were terminated without requiring an additional Conditional
38 Use Permit for it to recur?
39
40 Mr. Larkin: Yes, if the condition thought that the combination of having the dental office on
41 the top floor along with the medical office on the ground floor was too much of a
42 concentration of medical then you could condition the new use couldn't come in as long as
43 the old use was there.
44
45 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. Also, to Commissioner Martinez, you might want to look
46 at Attachment B to the Staff Report. Well, it doesn't have setbacks but it does give a context.
City of Palo Alto May 19,2010 Page 7 of21
1 I am actually personally very familiar with this building because I have in past patronized not
2 the Lucile Packard on the first floor but the intellectual property services, Lumen Intellectual,
3 that used to occupy the second floor. I guess this is the first time I have heard that they
4 moved or are about to move or something to that effect.
5
6 So what is interesting about this is that there is this letter from Joy Ogawa dated Saturday,
7 May 15, at 3:38 PM has attached to it an application for a Conditional Use Permit to locate
8 an 8,270 square foot professional office. What I am curious about is the building appears to
9 be 6,000-something or other. I am wondering what the discrepancy is between because it
10 does indicate that it is an existing structure. So does anybody have an answer as to why Lisa
11 Grote's comments were referencing an 8,270 square foot professional office while the new
12 building is somewhere just over 6,000?
13
14 Ms. Cutler: I do believe that that was in reference to an entirely different site on College
15 Avenue.
16
17 Chair Garber: About a block and a half away.
18
19 Ms. Cutler: Right. So it is a totally different location. It is actually a very different kind of
20 situation and not the building on this site.
21
22 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. Because I am familiar with driving to this place it took
23 me awhile to even know.that there was a parking lot behind the building. I would have to say
24 that the first few times I visited Lumen Intellectual Property Services I parked. on Yale
25 because I was not aware of a parking lot around the comer. So I think that certainly is an
26 Issue.
27
28 There was reference by Commissioner Martinez to the fact that this is a pediatric dentist
29 location and that there would be potential for bikes. Is there any provision for bike parking
30 as far as this? I am not sure if I saw it.
31
32 Ms. Cutler: I believe the applicant is indicating that it could be added if that was desirable.
33
34 Commissioner Keller: Perhaps the applicant might want to say where it would go because I
35 can't figure out where it would go other than blocking a walkway or something.
36
37 Chair Garber: Is it important to know where other than to know that it should exist? It is
38 fine if it does.
39
40 Commissioner Keller: Well, the reason I would like to know where is because if the
41 alternative is removing a parking space that has its own risks.
42
43 Chair Garber: Okay, so maybe that is the question to be answered. Please identify yourself.
44
45 Mr. Edward Davidovits, Applicant: I am the applicant on behalf of Dr. Liu. We were not
46 aware of a requirement of bicycle parking but there are a couple of places where it could be
City of Palo Alto May 19,2010 Page 8 of21
1 added. One would be under the stairs, the emergency stairs leading to the second floor on the
2 right side of the bUilding. The other location could be at the entrance to the building from
3 Yale. There is plenty of landscape and a walkway where we could create a small area for
4 bicycle parking there too.
5
6 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. None of those would require reducing any parking
7 spaces. I do believe that staircase has space underneath if I remember correctly. What is the
8 code requirement for how many bicycle parking spaces might be required? I apologize for
9 not bringing this up in advance. Maybe we can defer that so you can answer that while you
10 are doing that. Shall I make comments or come back later?
11
12 Chair Garber: You can make comments. I think that is fine.
13
14 Commissioner Keller: I think that we should not allow the Conditional Use Permit without
15 requiring a termination of the nonconforming use on the first floor because it exacerbates a
16 problem that -we should not exacerbate a problem particularly with the nature of medical
17 office.
18
19 The second thing is I think that conditioning it on appropriate signage indicating the parking
20 being around the corner is an issue. I have noticed that myself. I would like to see an
21 appropriate condition on a certain amount of bike parking added as well.
22
23 Chair Garber: Commissioner Fineberg.
24
25 Ms. French: To respond, two bicycle parking spaces would be needed for 5,000 square feet
26 of medical office in this district. So for 7,500 you would need three. So it is basically two
27 spaces.
28
29 Commissioner Keller: Thank you.
30
31 Chair Garber: Thank you. Commissioner Fineberg and then Tanaka.
32
33 Commissioner Fineberg: I would like to first thank Dr. Liu for making the decision to stay in
34 Palo Alto. It is great to keep our local businesses local and to have our service providers be
35 here within town where they are walkable and accessible. Despite all the technicalities and
36 the hoops we put up I would like to echo Commissioner Martinez's thanks that you are
37 staying here in Palo Alto.
38
39 I am also concerned about the impact of the building on the neighbors, most specifically the
40 immediate neighbors, and then the greater neighborhood, which is undergoing a kind of de-
41 retailization. Ten years ago you used to be able to walk up and down the side streets there
42 and there was retail. Now it is not retail and dropping fast. So asa matter of planning just
43 beyond just this project looking at what is happening in the neighborhood points towards
44 maintaining neighborhood serving retail as a priority to honor the zoning in the
45 neighborhood. That said I am completely confused by our City Attorney's answers to
46 Commissioner Lippert and Commissioner Keller. Because from Commissioner Lippert's
City 0/ Palo Alto May 19,2010 Page 9 0/21
1 questions I thought that if we said ground floor can no longer be a nonconforming medical
2 use that would be downzoning, which we can't do unless we have studies that you talked
3 about. Then with Commissioner Keller's questions it sounded like we can but we just link it
4 to the approval of a CUP. So did I get that right?
5
6 Chair Garber: Just before you respond let me just make a general announcement. We are
7 going to allow this item to pass beyond the seven 0' clock deadline to complete it before we
8 start the next item, which is High-Speed Rail and due to start at seven. So if anyone is here
9 for High-Speed Rail we will be starting that item a little later.
10
11 Mr. Larkin: That is fine. Technically what you would be doing is continuing it. To answer
12 Commissioner Fineberg's question we can't put a condition on the ground floor business to
13 cease existing. We can put a condition on the new proposed use on the second floor to not
14 start until that use is discontinued. So you are putting the condition on the new use not on the
15 old use.
16
17 Commissioner Fineberg: So we can't require the owner of the building to require Stanford to
18 vacate. If the owner chose to renew the lease let's say then the second floor Conditional Use
19 Permit couldn't begin operations.
20
21 Mr. Larkin: Yes, a condition of that use beginning in order to get their occupancy permit that
22 would be a legal condition. I am not suggesting this is what the Commission do. I am saying
23 that that would be a legal condition to impose.
24
25 Commissioner Fineberg: Okay, that creates - I have no idea what the owner of the building
26 and Stanford -that is beyond the purview of this hearing tonight, but that condition could
27 , potentially subject the dentist office to a huge risk if they were to start construction until they
28 had some kind of legal guarantee that the medical office use on the ground floor would be
29 vacated. So that creates a pretty scary situation.
30
31 Mr. Larkin: Again, I am not recommending that condition. The question was whether it
32 could be imposed and the answer is yes.
33
34 Commissioner Fineberg: Okay, but you are saying that we cannot permit the dentist use on
35 the second floor with a requirement that medical cease on the first floor.
36
37 Mr. Larkin: I am saying that you can condition the second floor use on the discontinuance of
38 the first floor use.
39
40 Chair Garber: You simply cannot specify when that would occur.
41
42 Commissioner Fineberg: Yes. Okay. I am trying to figure out which comes first.
43
44 Mr. Larkin: You could put an end date on the condition.
45
City of Palo Alto May 19,2010 Page 10 of21
1 Chair Garber: On the condition but in terms of Commissioner Fineberg's thread here what
2 the City would have no input on is when the bottom tenant would vacate.
3
4 Mr. Larkin: That's right.
5
6 Chair Garber: So therefore there would be no way that the City would also be able to allow
7 or define when the second floor tenant could occupy. So to your point Commissioner
8 Fineberg you are absolutely correct. You are creating a large ambiguity that would not be
9 able to be resolved by the City but could only be resolved by the relationship between the
10 tenant and the owner.
11
12 Commissioner Fineberg: I am not sure yet whether that condition is a good thing or a bad
13 thing. I am just seeing that for any business, ambiguity, especially that kind of ambiguity, is
14 not easy for business to live with.
15
16 When we are looking at what should be on the first floor do we have the ability in making the
1 7 decision about that kind of condition to look at what might be feasible or viable as a business
18 on the first floor? Is that space something that is so constrained that it would work
19 beautifully for general office use but there is no way it could be retail, there is no way it
20 could be other conforming uses? Do we have any sense of that?
21
22 Ms. Cutler: It is a little bit beyond the subject of this hearing, but general office is a use that
23 is permitted without any additional requirements in terms of Conditional Use Permit or
24 anything like that on the ground floor. The only thing that is a little bit weird about the
25 current use on the ground floor is the fact that if they came in today they would be required
26 to get a Conditional Use Permit before they went in. When they did come in and establish
27 that use they were as office is today allowed in that location.
28
29 Ms. French: Further, that the building, I think you were asking basically does it lend itself to
30 retail? I would say no. It was constructed in 1969 as an office building and that is exactly
31 the use it portrays. Maybe in architectural terms there is a better way.
32
33 Chair Garber: You are doing fine.
34
35 Commissioner Fineberg: Okay, great. Thank you. A couple of other quick comments then.
36 I would absolutely support Ms. Ogawa's request that there be good signage on the driveway
37 to lead patients to the parking. I would also suggest that the applicant and business owner be
38 good neighbors, work with the neighbors, reach out make sure if this does go ahead that the
39 parking issues, the tenants pulling in, whatever it is a lot of times just open lines of good
40 communication fix problems or avoid problems. So that would be important. Not something
41 I think that we could condition necessarily though.
42
43 As far as Ms. Suma's request that we condition that the first floor revert back to the eN zone
44 I think our discussion has been pretty clear that we don't have the legal authority to do that,
45 but we can condition the occupancy of the second floor as a way of accomplishing that. I
46 would concur with the comments that there be a requirement condition for bike parking. I
City of Palo Alto May 19,2010 Page 11 0/21
1 would also like to ask Staff to address some of the questions raised, I believe it was by Ms.
2 Ogawa, about how the applicant was deemed complete and approved with partial
3 information, some misinformation, and what looked like not complete information on the
4 forms.
5
6 Ms. Cutler: I believe that the form that was attached to that specific letter that she sent in
7 was one form that we do ask them to fill out. We make sure that the relevant information
8 that we need for our evaluation is available there. There were also additional documents
9 submitted including two separate project description letters, one from the applicant and one
10 from the doctor describing the use, the fact that was a sole practitioner use, and some
11 additional details. So we did find that it had sufficient information for us to move forward
12 and recommend to the Director that it be approved.
13
14 Commissioner Fineberg: Okay, I appreciate that. One last question if I could. She just
15 touched on that it is a sole practitioner use. Is there anything, given the way the application
16 has been submitted that requires it remain a sole practitioner, or can the office bring in
1 7 multiple assistants, multiple other partners? Is that within the purview of what we review or
18 solely a business operating decision?
19
20 Ms. Cutler: One of the first conditions of approval that is part of any of these applications is
21 that the use be in substantial conformance with the letters and plans submitted as part of the
22 application. So the project description letter that describes it as a sole practitioner. We have
23 also received from the applicant more detailed information as we included in our response to
24 Commissioner questions that gave more specificity as to the fact that there is an orthodontist
25 who comes in three days a week, in terms of the number of staff. I believe that the doctor
26 would like to have a little bit of room to expand to have some flexibility in his practice but as
27 it stands I believe it is supposed to meet the description in that project description letter.
28
29 Commissioner Fineberg: Thank you.
30
31 Chair Garber: Commissioners Tanaka, Garber, and then Lippert. Then let's see if we can
32 get to a motion.
·33
34 Commissioner Tanaka: First I wanted to thank the applicant for coming out and trying to
35 stay in Palo Alto. I agree with my fellow Commissioners comments. I also want to thank the
36 residents for coming out and speaking and sending us information. This is very useful.
37 Thank you.
38
39 To me when I looked at this project it seemed that the central issue is about parking, whether
40 the residential streets were going to be filled with nonresident parking perhaps that would
41 impact on the residents in that area. So I wanted to ask Staff a few questions to see if I could
42 get a better understanding. So for the current project as it is with Lucile Packard on the first
43 floor and the current business, is the top floor empty right now? It is empty?
44
45 Ms. Cutler: That is my understanding.
46
City of Palo Alto May 19,2010 Page 12 of21
1 Commissioner Tanaka: Okay. So with this Lucile Packard in peak time how many parking
2 spaces are free or are used with Lucile Packard? Do you know?
3
4 Ms. Cutler: I would actually defer that to the applicant and see if they have that information.
5
6 Commissioner Tanaka: Does the applicant know?
7
8 Chair Garber: Please identify yourself again.
9
10 Mr. Davidovits: I was there a couple of times. I would say midmorning one day and the
11 other was mid-afternoon. The parking lot looked like more than half empty and there were
12 several vacant stalls as well on the street in front of the building and across the street as well.
13 So I don't think the Lucile Packard tenant has a huge amount of vehicles coming in.
14
15 Commissioner Tanaka: Chair, may I ask one of the residents for their perspective since they
16 are there all the time?
17
18 Chair Garber: You may.
19
20 Commissioner Tanaka: Joy.
21
22 Ms. Ogawa: Actually I brought a photo. Fourteen cars Lucile Packard. This is last month
23 after Lumen had moved out so the second floor is empty. I would say at peak, 14 are about
24 peak, but it is a 21-space parking lot. Fourteen is more than half. There are certain times of
25 day, it depends on the time of day that he showed up, it is going to look pretty empty. At
26 lunchtime it kind of empties out and early morning it is emptier, and later afternoon it is
27 emptier. During the peak time if you want to see the photo I have a photo.
28
29 Commissioner Tanaka: Ms. Ogawa since you are up there or maybe Staff can answer. Do
30 you have any idea how much of the street parking is due to Lucile Packard or nonresidential
31 parking on Cambridge or Yale?
32
33 Ms. Ogawa: Well, I would say that patients maybe half of the patients will park on the street.
34 I kind of don't mind that so much because it is there for an hour and it is convenient for them
35 to get to the front door. That is the interesting thing, for Lucile Packard there are 14 cars, but
36 I don't think they have a lot of patients at anyone time. They maybe have like one or two
37 patients at anyone time. So really those 14 cars are like staff filling up the parking space.
38 Then they will have one or two patients and they often park on the street. At the moment
39 there is very little parking, I mean the staff don't park on the street anymore because there is
40 permit parking so they can't park for more than two hours on Yale Street anyway. I don't
41 pay too much attention to Cambridge but Cambridge gets a lot of parking from all over
42 because a lot of it is not permit parking. So it gets parking from the business districts all
43 over.
44
45 Commissioner Tanaka: So on Yale, the residential street, is that street okay then in terms of
46 parking or are there parking issues?
City of Palo Alto May 19,2010 Page 13 of21
1
2 Ms. Ogawa: We are worried about parking issues. What is concerning is there are ten
3 dentists here. If you have three or four patients an hour why do you need ten dental chairs?
4 So my concern is that there are going to be ten patients plus and maybe more because you
5 have ten dental chairs, you have patients in the waiting room, and in that case there are going
6 to be a lot of patients, lots of parking on the street, and that is going to be mostly patient
7 parking because it is a two hour limit. So that is our concern that there are going to be a lot
8 of patient parking because of this use. As I say, ten dental chairs and three or four patients, I
9 don't know.
10
11 Commissioner Tanaka: Okay, thank you. So if I can continue? I have some questions for
12 Staff.
13
14 Chair Garber: Excuse me, unless you are recognized you many not speak. Commissioner
15 Tanaka.
16
17 Mr. Davidovits: The issue about the parking I understand the concern but the code requires
18 the same amount of parking for office or medical use. So the fact that it is a dental office or
19 is a high-tech company like Facebook taking the space and packing the people in little cubes
20 of one by five, you could end up having more people using the building on a full-time basis
21 than a doctor seeing two or three patients an hour. That is all I wanted to say.
22
23 Commissioner Tanaka: Thank you, I appreciate that. Thank you Ms. Ogawa for your
24 comments as well. Thank you. I have a question for Staff. I want to understand the scope of
25 our authority on this. Is the scope of our authority just purely on this project site or can we
26 make restrictions on the street as well for parking?
27
28 Ms. French: Street parking is available for as it is marked. So if it is marked for two hour
29 parking then there is nothing about who can use that two-hour parking.
30
31 Chair Garber: It cannot be assigned.
32
33 Commissioner Tanaka: And we can't make any restrictions about parking must be in the
34 parking lot? Is that something that we can do?
35
36 Mr. Larkin: Under California law the streets belong to all the people of the State of
37 California. So we can't restrict people from parking in the streets other than restrictions that
38 apply across the board to anybody who might park there.
39
40 Commissioner Tanaka: How about signage? Can signage be put along let's say both
41 Cambridge and Yale alerting people of parking or this is where parking should be but not
42 necessarily enforcement?
43
44 Mr. Larkin: The City could put in parking sign.
45
46 Commissioner Tanaka: We could ask the applicant to pay for that.
City of Palo Alto May 19,2010 Page 14 of21
1
2 Mr. Larkin: Or the applicant could put in parking signs probably easier done onsite. If there
3 was a request to put in like you see in the cities with the big P and the arrows that is
4 something that could be done.
5
6 Commissioner Tanaka: Okay, great. I guess my comment though is while I understand that
7 an office would have perhaps the same amount of parking the difference is that because of
8 the residential permit parking program, which restricts two hour parking, it is hard for an
9 office worker to run out there every two hours and move their car. So I guess I would think
10 having a little signage about the parking would be one possible solution. Those are all the
11 questions I have for now. Thank you.
12
13 Chair Garber: Myself and then Commissioners Lippert and then Keller. I don't have a lot to
14 say. I will align myself with the comments of Commissioner Martinez who I think was
15 eloquent and sums up my feelings. Commissioner Lippert.
16
1 7 Commissioner Lippert: Getting back to the Conditional Use Permit here. Because we have
18 an existing office use on the ground floor even if they were to vacate that underlying use is
19 permitted to remain there and another office can move in. The issue is with regard to another
20 medical use moving in and if I understand correctly, and correct me if I am wrong, the dental
21 office would not be able to occupy their space until the first floor tenant is vacant. Is that
22 what is going on?
23
24 Ms. Cutler: That is only if you as the Commission recommend and the City Council
25 approves that as a condition of this approval.
26
27 Commissioner Lippert: I am kind of lost as to why we would condition something that way.
28 What we are basically zoning for is vacant space then.
29
30 Chair Garber: So you wouldn't support that.
31
32 MOTION
33
34 Commissioner Lippert: I find that very perplexing. Don't we have enough vacancy in this
35 city right now? That is not a criticism there. I think I have enough information here. I am
36 going to make a motion. I am going to move with the Staff recommendations here and the
37 conditions said in there with one additional recommendation or condition in there, which is
38 that there be some visible signage for the parking lot so it is known that that is the parking for
39 this address. That signage I believe can be reviewed at Staff level.
40
41 Chair Garber: Do I hear a second?
42
43 SECOND
44
45 Commissioner Martinez: Second.
46
City of Palo Alto May 19,2010 Page 15 of21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Chair Garber: Commissioner Martinez seconds. Would the maker like to speak to their
motion?
Commissioner Lippert: Yes. I am very sympathetic to what the neighborhood is going
through here and the reason for bringing this forward. I think these are very, very tough
economic times and we really with the Conditional Use Permit and everything it went
through the appropriate process. I agree that not every 'i' was dotted and every 't' was
crossed in terms of the completion of the application, but I fill out these applications on a
regular basis and there is a lot of information that just is not relevant to an existing building.
In fact, I was looking through and there were utility loads in there, and electrical, and water
I
usage, and either it wasn't relevant or it was covered in another application. So even though
it was left out it was covered somewhere else. So I look at this application as being very
complete for the level of review that this had to go through. If this was a brand new building
perhaps some of those blanks might have had to be filled in but an existing building where
we are really trying to make things work during these tough economic times I think is more
than adequate.
As for the conditional use here I think it is very appropriate. It is not on the ground floor. In
fact, the application triggers something very interesting that no one has even picked up on
which is that it requires that it have accessibility. It is very expensive to retrofit existing
buildings for accessibility particularly with an elevator. I know that from my own experience
in doing renovation work. What is being done here is that the building is being re-improved
which tells me that there is an investment in this building and that it is going to be retained,
and we are not going to see an intensification of that use with regard to perhaps a new project
or a bigger building. What we are in essence doing here by approving a Conditional Use
Permit for the second floor is that we are saying we are preserving the building here. At the
time that the building was built medical, dental, office use was something that was permitted.
The other general comment I just wanted to make is regarding the bicycle parking. I think
the bicycle parking is desirable but that is not within the purview of the Planning and
Transportation Commission. That is something that should have been picked up I believe
during the architectural review of the project when they were looking at the number of
parking spaces and the configuration of the parking. That is something that we generally do
not get involved in.
As I said, it is desirable. This is a building that is located within two important things public
transit, it is right off El Camino Real, and it is near a bus line, and it is also within walking
distance of the train. It is within half a mile of the Caltrain station, which makes it I think in
my opinion a building that people that are working there might very well take the train or
take the bus and then walk the rest of the way. So as far as I can see perhaps parking
reduction is appropriate here. Again, that is something that the Architectural Review Board
gets involved in not necessarily this body. So I am just going to cut it off at this point. I
think you have enough information there and perhaps my seconder has some more things to
add.
Chair Garber: Would the seconder like to speak to their second?
City of Palo Alto May 19,2010 Page 16 of21
1
2 Commissioner Martinez: I completely agree with Commissioner Lippert and his comments
3 and couldn't support any conditions on the ground floor. I am glad we are moving away
4 from that.
5
6 Obviously parking is really not completely known. My experience, I recall now it has been a
7 few years, with taking children to children dentistry is that traffic really picks up after three
8 0' clock when the kids get out of school. Ms. Ogawa said that is when the downstairs traffic
9 lightens up. So there may be an opportunity here to work out a parking plan that is a win/win
10 for both tenants.
11
12 I think it is a great use. I think the transportation adjacency is an added bonus. I am going to
13 vote for approval.
14
15 Chair Garber: Discussion. Commissioner Keller and then Fineberg.
16
1 7 Commissioner Keller: First of all I did not hear Ms. Ogawa saying anything about the
18 parking lightening up for downstairs occupancy after three 0' clock. I heard her say that it
19 varies from time to time and it is as many as 14 cars. So I am not sure if I can ask Ms.
20 Ogawa to verity that statement. Ms. Ogawa, could you please come to the microphone and
21 indicate your statement whether it does lighten up downstairs after three or not?
22
23 Ms. Ogawa: Well, the downstairs stays pretty busy I would say between ten and close to
24 five. After close to five it lightens up. So it is difficult to say. There is a peak time kind of
25 close to the middle of the day and then it lightens up after 12:30 maybe when the staff goes
26 out to lunch. But as I say it has a lot to do with - I don't know what their exact schedule is.
27
28 Commissioner Keller: So after lunch does it become busy again?
29
30 Ms. Ogawa: Yes, it becomes busy after lunch and then in the . late afternoon it is difficult for
31 me to say because ..... .
32
33 Commissioner Keller: Okay. I think that's fine.
34
35 Chair Garber: I think let's move on.
36
37 Commissioner Keller: Okay, thank you. Do we know who currently owns the building?
38 Well, there is a lease from awhile ago but I am not sure who currently owns the building.
39 Could you speak on the microphone and identify yourself, please?
40
41 Dr. S. Lieu, Building Owner: I am the doctor there. I am the owner of the building.
42
43 Commissioner Keller: So you purchased the building?
44
45 Dr. S. Lieu, Building Owner: Yes.
46
City of Palo Alto May 19,2010 Page 170/21
1 Commissioner Keller: Okay. So you were the one who represented that the downstairs
2 people were possibly moving out, correct?
3
4 Dr. S. Lieu, Building Owner: Can you say again?
5
6 Commissioner Keller: Did you represent that Lucile Packard Children's Hospital occupancy
7 was going to end?
8
9 Dr. S. Liu, Building Owner: That was told by the sales agent. That was before I purchased
10 the building because I don't have any right to check with them, but the agent told me that.
11
12 Commissioner Keller: When you purchase the building did the property tax considerably
13 increase from your purchase of the building?
14
15 Dr. S. Liu, Building Owner: I don't know the property tax before.
16
17 SUBSTITUTE MOTION
18
19 Commissioner Keller: Well, I believe that the property tax when you purchase a building
20 would considerably increase when you purchase the building. I actually read the details as
21 much as I could read minus the addendum of the lease agreement for the downstairs as
22 provided by Ms. Ogawa. It indicated that there is a triple-net lease or at least a lease for
23 which the occupant of the downstairs pays the property tax, and therefore their rent is
24 automatically going to go up because they are paying an increased rent, unless the addendum
25 says otherwise which I don't have a copy of. So it is probably in the interest of the
26 downstairs occupant either to leave because their rent is going to shoot through the roof with
27 an increased amount of, or to renegotiate the rent. Therefore, since Mr. Liu is the owner he
28 does not take additional risk there because he can rent it out to somebody else. He has
29 control of that risk.
30
31 So I am going to make a substitute motion. Thank you sir. The substitute motion is that we
32 approve the Conditional Use Permit with the following four conditions. First that as stated in
33 the response to how many dentists will practice at the location that the occupancy be a sole
34 proprietor dentist, up to one consulting orthodontist, and up to four of the staff. Two that the
35 occupancy of the second floor conditional use be conditioned on the discontinuance of the
36 nonconforming use on the first floor unless there is a Conditional Use Permit granted there
37 too. So in other words, the first floor has to vacate prior to occupancy of the second floor
38 use. Three, that there be signage on Yale indicating parking is located on Cambridge, and
39 that there be parking on the Cambridge driveway indicating the offices to which that parking
40 is assigned. Fourth that there be at least three parking spaces provided onsite for the users of
41 this building. Thank you.
42
43 Chair Garber: That there are three assigned patient parking spaces, say.
44
45 Commissioner Keller: No three bicycle parking spaces.
46
City of Palo Alto May 19,2010 Page 18 of21
1 Chair Garber: I am sorry.
2
3 Commissioner Keller: Three bicycle parking spaces on this site for use of the occupants.
4
5 Chair Garber: Does the substitute motion have a second? I think the motion dies for lack of
6 a second.
7
8 Commissioner Keller: Okay.
9
10 Chair Garber: Well, we would return to the, underlying motion that is in place.
11 Commissioner Keller or Commissioner Fineberg if you like you could offer those as either
12 substitute motions or as amendments to the motion.
13
14 Commissioner Fineberg: Can I offer as a friendly amendment Commissioner Keller's one,
15 three, and four, which is substantively the removal of the condition of the reversion of the
16 first floor to CN, and it is really the addition of insertion of language relating to sole
17 practitioner, which Staff has said is in the report but I am not seeing, and then also the
18 addition of the requirement for the bikes.
19
20 Chair Garber: The first was that the occupancy of the second floor be restricted to a sole
21 practitioner, correct? The second is that the occupancy of the second floor being medical be
22 conditioned by the ground floor not being medical.
23
24 Commissioner Fineberg: Excuse me, that one I am not supporting.
25
26 Chair Garber: The third one was signage on Cambridge and Yale indicating the parking lot.
27 The fourth one that there be three parking places for bicycles.
28
29 Commissioner Lippert: I can't accept all of them. There are some of them that I can accept.
30
3 1 Commissioner Fineberg: Can you accept the first one, which would be the insertion of the
32 language of sole proprietor plus the consulting orthodontist and four other staff?
33
34 Commissioner Lippert: I have a problem with the first one because business entities change
35 all the time. What we are actually doing is tying this person's business to a Conditional Use
36 Permit and basically what it means is if the guy gets sick and he has to sell his practice who
37 knows who is going to buy it and if it turns out to be a partnership or somebody else he loses
38 his rights, and he has put all that investment into the building. I am a sole practitioner and
39 the thing that scares me is if something should happen to me well I have to unload my
40 practice somewhere. I think that this is difficult when especially he has investment in
41 equipment, a lease, and staff.
42
43 Mr. Larkin: Just as a suggestion because I think rather than dictate the form of business
44 entity I think what you could say is that any intensification of the use would require a new
45 Conditional Use Permit. That is what the code says anyway but if you make that explicit in
46 the conditions that should go someway towards alleviating the concern.
City of Palo Alto May 19,2010 Page 19 of21
1
2 Commissioner Lippert: I don't have a problem with that because that is tied to the square
3 footage and the square footage is really tied to the intensity of the site.
4
5 Chair Garber: So you are accepting that as the first condition. The second one was signage
6 and the third one was the bikes.
7
8 Commissioner Lippert: No problem with those.
9
10 Chair Garber: The seconder?
11
12 Commissioner Martinez: Yes, that is fine.
13
14 Chair Garber: Anything else Commissioner Fineberg?
15
16 Commissioner Fineberg: No~ thank you.
17
18 Chair Garber: Commissioner Tanaka.
19
20 Commissioner Tanaka: Thank you. So I have a friendly amendment to the friendly
21 amendment and it is a small one so I hope this is okay. I think I have two small suggestions.
22 The first one is that the applicant and the City as they craft the signage work with the nearby
23 residents so that it makes sense. The residents since they live there probably will understand
24 what makes sense.
25
26 The second suggestion is that how people advertise to their customers how to get to a
27 business could also have a big impact on traffic as well. So perhaps encouraging people to
28 go down Cambridge to get there versus Yale I think would also make a difference. So if that
29 could also be part of the amendment, Commissioner Lippert, I would appreciate it. Thank
30 you.
31
32 Commissioner Lippert: I don't have a problem with that language. Thank you.
33
34 Chair Garber: The seconder?
35
36 Commissioner Martinez: I accept it as well.
37
38 Chair Garber: May I just ask, Commissioner Tanaka, how you were imagining the second of
39 your friendly amendment to work? If I am understanding you correctly you are trying to find
40 a way to indicate to patients that they approach the building in a particular way. How would
41 they know?
42
43 Commissioner Tanaka: Good questions. So for instance someone goes to the doctor's
44 website or the dentist's website and it says how to get here. It wouldn't tell them go down
45 California, turn on Yale, turn on Cambridge, go in. It would be like go down EI Camino,
46 turn left on Cambridge, enter or something like that. So it would be more of a suggested
City of Palo Alto May 19,2010 Page 200f21
1 route. Also there is a lot of traffic calming stuff in that area so I think it would be to the
2 interest of the dentist to do that as well.
3
4 Chair Garber: So your language is to ask the applicant or to make the suggestion to the
5 applicant that this be the way to approach the building as opposed to a requirement.
6
7 Commissioner Tanaka: Let's make it a suggestion that is probably better. I think it is good
8 business sense anyway so it is probably going to happen.
9
10 Chair Garber: Are the maker and seconder okay with that?
11
12 Commissioner Lippert: Yes, as long as it is a suggestion.
13
14 MOTION PASSED (5-1-0-1, Commissioner Keller against and· Commissioner Tuma
15 absent)
16 .
17 Chair Garber: Okay, I am not seeing any more lights. Let's vote on the motion as it has been
18 stated with the five, actually four and one-half friendly amendments. All those in favor say
19 aye. (ayes) All those opposed? (nay) One nay. Motion passes with Commissioners
20 Tanaka, Martinez, Garber, Fineberg, and Lippert voting yea and one nay from Commissioner
21 Keller, and Commissioner Tuma absent.
22
City of Palo Alto May 19,2010 Page 21 of21
Joy Ogawa
2305 Yale Street, Apt. 1
Palo Alto, CA 94306-
April 9, 2010
Curtis Williams, Director
Attachment D
Department of Planning and Community Environment
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto. CA 94301
fiECEjVED
APR 0' 2010 t;rl-
DC;Jart 08fit of Piannina &
('<..i;11r"~i.~f ::'1.y C.tN(~·Gjlm:'(:~
Hand Delivered
RE: 2345 Yale Avenue (sic) -Request for Hearing re Director's Approval of CUP
Dear Director Williams:
Pursuant to SectionI8.77.060 c(4) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code ("PAMC"), I am
requesting a hearing of the Planning and Transportation Commission on the proposed
Director's decision for the project proposed at 2345 Yale Avenue [sic]. (Please note that
the correct project address is 2345 Yale Street. not Yale Avenue). I received a notice of
the proposed Director's Decision postmarked April 1, 2010. I understand that my request
will be deemed timely if filed by April 15.2010, which corresponds to 14 days after the
notice was mailed to me. For your reference. I am attaching a copy of the notice I
received.
I believe that a full public hearing is the best way to review my concerns about the
project, in the context of the communications that have taken place between myself. my
neighbors, and the Planning Department regarding this project, and to consider the
elements contained or lacking in the Director's proposed decision. It is unfortunate that
the project's neighbors were not given an opportunity for a hearing prior to the Director's
reaching the proposed decision.
Sincerely,
'::-9;-~. 0 0 __
L
Joy M. Ogawa
encl: Notice of Proposed Director's Decision
'.
\
'.' •.• I
. . ~ :;", ....
. :' .. '<:~":~:»">" .. '
•••• ,".:. 'I : ', ... "', . ': .~: . ~ .
. : ':, ::, .... :.:." ..
I • .: ':: ~ .':,," '~~~ ... .I ' ...
. ':. "F~~~~ty;J:~~ 2QlO
.... . :., .. :: .':.
.... ' ....
',I ','
•.• ~:::~~5 yaie Street '. ..' . '.' .. '.:.
: :: ~ .. :': '.': .. :i;6Jtditlonal· U~e Permit Applicati~n
Attachment E
." "
, .... , :'" ::
,,:' '··f.',
~". '. . ' .
. 'I' ':-: ....... : ': .. .
'.',1,
••••• I.
· .
'. :"
. .', '" .. ~. , ; .
~.: :;', : ,:
:. .~
· ', ..... ,",
· .' '. ~ ," '. . . • :. :\.'.;::<,.;," . , •
T~. W~Q#fIt·May'Conc.~rn, .. . .: :' : '.-
...•. Tb.iS·:!~~i9~~hli;apPI~ fo~a G!ln~ijO,~ Use Permit that WillaIlQ~~~ ~xi~ng30+ year old building ::i.; .' ' .
. : pre~ently'b~lng·used.~s al). office' butldi~g to-.be convett~d. to a half offices-a:nd halfdent~l office for the .' '.,.'
....... ,rit?~~Hy~r:':: In'orderto supp~tt ihi~·n~s~,..the buildhJ.g wil~ b~t~~t;9;tit.~O,c.?~ply with.ADA··s~and~rd~:a~·: ::.:' .
. : .: '~'.' w.~l~ as.j~¢~ttip!ng t~e P~TkiI!g lot..to prQvi<:l.e· the required p~rkipg for a· !\1edicaJ office. according to· tilly' ::.'
. p~rc.~~( (~O~). ~fthe previou~ p.ar-king .s~and~rds of. 3/lbOO~ ¢ompar~d to '~he'-current standard of 411 O~O. . .. ~~:' .
. ~l~ase·.~~~·~~tachedcalcul.ations:on.flooi'plans·sheet,A1.2 ... '" -: ..... . ...'~ . . . .,' .;-.'.:',' .
'. ~e'~~iliilike to qladfy ~a~tAe&rarit~gQf~iS application ~~ ~otbe detrim~ntal iir inj~iQus to the'" ..• '
.-p~~oi?i~y:or 1~prove,nent jn't4e :Vlc~nity·.and Will rio~ be' d~tdtneritai t.O th~ p~biic health. s~fety, gener~l . ----.. : ., .. , .
. w~lfate,:Qi'" ~onvenience. Also 'the gtantiJ;lg of thf? app\ication -is .co.~sistent with the Palo Alto . . . -.'. --
. .' ·Co.mpr#peJl~i~e Plan'and the purposes ofTjtle 18 (zonfng).. ' ..... ' ... '.-'
t~ y~~:ba~~~y ~uesti()!Isphiasedo not hes~~fu to~a1L' . ., .' ..
. ' .. ',:': '. ~, ..." . ,) '. . . . . ,':.... .
. ". ; .
. -: . ~: ~. .
·::st~c.~~~.1Y,·.· ...... _ ..... '-....... '
.i.A,:h~~d~vlts & Co., Inc.
• '.: :"'. I',·
.'~'. :. :.'·'4j::.:~:,:,--.~ ... '. ::: _:' .·?~trk .... :. __ .~_~.J
-. 'Ed~Ji(fA>baVidovits'
'Pres14~nt . .... . : .... .
·.EAb;l{ .
"IIiI~::'··' . ' .. <.' .
. '·:1.":., '< .'.
:.,: " "
."
'. ~ ..
.... : ...
. '0 •
,--
• • I ..
" . • '0' I • " "l:
.'
'0,::
555 PIUlT 1\\'1 :-lUI, SUIII 200
R I IJ\\'OOI> CIl\ I Ct\ 9406")
LICI ,,'SI #708744
• : ,0, : •••• l :.l ' •. \'.' , '" .. ' .. ", ': .". ,',
. ~ (6$0) '~6'6~6068 t .. '~A:fc' (~50r 3~~~118'8 .. '.,'
.-', .
" . . . . ',' :' .'"
',' ....
, ,',
....
~~ -.:i>"
,"''''', '<@',':'
( .. ... :: .. : .... :. ,', ~ . ",' :. :,' .
J ariuary 26, 2010
Re: Use pennit '
Dear City of Palo Alto,
) Dentistl)' fol' Children mId Ac/o/estell's
750 Wclch Road, Suite 102
Palo Alto, CA 94304
Phone: (650) ~2 '~6448
Email: aands4kids@attglobal.llet ,
Website: www.kidstcethcare.com
My name is Su-Chieh Liu~ prospect owner, was graduated from Taipei Medical
University, School. of Dentistry with Doctor of Dental Surgery degree in 6/1992 and
earned a Master of Science degree in Oral Biology, and Certificate'in Pediatric
Dentistry from UC'SF in 6/1998. I have been practiced in current location, 750
Welch Rd., Palo Alto, since 2/2000.
Due to the expansion of Stanford Hospital and the termination of office lease in
2011, moving my practice to a new location, 2345 Yale St., Palo Alto, is essential.
, ,This practice will be a solo dental office sp~cialized in pediatric dentistry. Our
office hours will be 8 AM to 5 PM, Monday to Friday. We are planning to see
approximately 3 to 4 patients per hour and'about 20 to 30 patients per 'day.
, ,
Please use this information in determining office use permit. Should you have any
question, p~ease do not hesitate t~ ~ontact me. Thank you for considering this case.
Sincerely,
.~
S. Brian,Liu, DDS, MS
Diplomate of the American Board of Pediatric Dentistry
, S. Bdan Ltu, I).D.S., M.S. ,
Dip/olllate of the Ame,.ican Board of Pe(liatric Dellfistf)'
Member:
American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry
California Society of Pediatric Dentistt,y
American Society of Dentistry for Children
Attachment G
College Terrace Residents' Association
1 U I"". I .t
2331 Amherst Street, Palo Alto, California 94306
May 19,2010
Planning and Transportation Commission
. Re: Concer.ns Regarding CN Zone and 2345 Yale Street
The College Terrace Residents' Association (CTRA) Board of Directors identified as one of
our goals this year to work to preserve and revitalize the Neighborhood Commercial ("eN")
district in College Terrace.
Municipal Code 18.16.010 describes the purposes of the CN zone as follows:
(a) Neighborhood Commercial [eN]
The eN neighborhood commercial district is intended to create and maintain
neighborhood shopping areas primarily accommodating retail sales, personal
service, eating and drinking, and office uses of moderate size serving the
immediate neighborhood, under regulations that will assure maximum
compatibility with surrounding residential areas. .
In general, lax adherence to the zoning regulations creates a situation where developers are able
to circumvent the zone regulations resulting in uses that are inconsistent with the spirit and
intention of the CN zone. Medical office uses in particular have been identified as an area of
concern; in a neighborhood survey conducted in December 2008, residents expressed a strong
concern about the negative impacts of medical office uses in our eN zone. Part of that concern
comes from the potential migration of medical offices that are regional in nature.
Projects in the eN zoned that propose medical office use should be carefully reviewed to assure
adherence to the Code and maximum compatibility wit~ surrounding residential areas. While
we do not object to a sole dental practitioner on the second floor of 2345 Yale Street, we urge
the City require that the fIrst floor reverts to general office and remains that way, and that
appropriate conditions are put in place to minimize parking and traffic impacts.
Thank you,
Brent Barker, President
College Terrace Residents' Association
I
Attachment H
Staff Response to Commissioner Keller's Questions regarding Item #2, 2345 Yale:
1. Please make sure that the last page of the attached PDF file is not made pUblic. It
appears to be irrelevant and contains what appears to be personally identifying
information of people uninvolved with this case.
Staff Response: Cityemails are public records unless Attorney-client privileged
correspondence. Since the description of first floor use, "General Business Office with
Physical and Occupational Therapy," is on the first page, this is the relevant page for any
discussion. Commissioner Fineberg's questions below expand on the current use of first
floor space.
2. The addendum is missing from the contract. The pages of the PDF file labeled 12 and
13 are missing. Perhaps they are the addendum.
Staff Response: The relevant part of this document is page one.
3. Please have staff explain the applicable parking regulations that apply to this project.
Can staff comment on the appropriateness and legality of patient-only parking spaces,
and about the appellants request regarding the number of these patient-only parking
spaces. Can staff also comment on circulation and turnaround space for the proposed
parking lot re-striping.
Staff Response: Parking regulations require 1 parking space per 250 square feet of office
space, and do not require designation of patient spaces. Staff would support either
designation, or non-designation, which would allow flexibility for employees and clients
of the office spaces on both floors. Transportation staff reviewed the plans for circulation
and turnaround and included conditions of approval #8 and #9 to ensure appropriate
width and length of spaces and drive area. Specifically, condition of approval #9 requires
additional width for parking spaces #14 -16.
4. Please clarify the number of dentists that will practice at this location.
Staff Response: There are two "consulting offices" shown on the plan set. Staffhas
queried the dentist who is moving his office to determine the number of dentists. A total
of one dentist will operate from this space. Other staff in the office include a conSUlting
orthodontist who comes in three days a week, and four other staff, including receptionist,
accountant, and dental assistants.
5. Please clarify what assurances have been made about the first floor tenant's departure
and the timing of that departure. Can occupancy of the CUP be conditioned upon the
first floor tenant's departure, but allow construction to occur in the interim?
Staff Response: No assurances have been made to staff about the first floor tenant's
departure. See below discussion regarding the existing medical use which was a
permitted use at the time it was established in early 2006.
6. Please clarify the number of patient chairs.
Staff Response: A total of 10 chairs are shown in plans. Two of the chairs are within
offices, one labeled "quiet room". The remaining eight are in common patient areas.
Staff Response to Commissioner Fineberg's questions posed in the pre-commission
meeting: .
1. Use and Occupancy Permit:
The building at 2345 Yale was constructed in 1969 as an office building. Records on file
show Use and Occupancy Permits for offices through the 1980's; a tenant improvement
permit for the first floor was issued at the end of2005 for Lucile Packard Children's
Hospital and a Use and Occupancy Permit was issued in January 2006. Prior to
November 2006, "Medical Office" use was a permitted use in the CN zone.
2. Conditions requested by neighbors:
(a) Designate reserved parking spaces by number of chairs: The PTC and Council
could do so; however, the zoning regulations specify parking spaces by floor area
total. .(I
(b) Require annual inspection of number of chairs: If the PTC and Council add a
condition to designate parking spaces by number of chairs, this would become a
code enforcement concern.
(c) Lucile Packard should vacate the first floor prior to second floor occupancy for
dental office use: This should not be a requirement, since medical use was
allowed in 2006 when it was established.