Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 369-05Architectural Review Board The ARB reviewed the application during its meeting on August 4, 2005. The ARB recommended the Council approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Site and Design application and added additional conditions to supplement staff and the Commission's recommended conditions. The action of the ARB is included in the Record of Land Use Action. Meeting minutes reflecting the action of the ARB are found in Attachment G, and the ARB staff report is included as Attachment I. In an attempt to reduce the height of the building as suggested by Commission, the applicant presented two alternative roof designs to the ARB, including a hipped roof option and a mansard roof option. Hip roofs are measured to the average height of the highest gable, resulting in a building height of approximately 38 feet. Mansard roofs are measured to the deck line resulting in a building height of approximately 36 feet. The ARB preferred the hipped roof design, indicating that since the maximum height of the hipped roof would be at the center of the building, the height of the building would not be perceivable by a person at street level. The ARB also reconfirmed its opinion that, due to the width of El Camino Real, building heights in excess of 35 feet are acceptable. A Design Enhancement Exception is still recommended to exceed the maximum 35-foot building height limit. The approved motion included a statement that the design of the project is well- conceived and is an example of projects that should be built on El Camino Real. It included conditions of approval that the following items return to the ARB on consent for further review prior to the issuance of a building permit: • A solution to shield the interior second and third floor interior lighting sources to prevent visibility of the light sources and to prevent glare and light spillover beyond the property line. • Revised photometric plans evaluating the proposed parking lot lighting with the intent of eliminating glare and light spillover onto adjacent residential uses. • All trees to be planted along the rear property line should be a minimum of 24- inch box in size. • To reduce the effect of a large expanse of parking lot asphalt, a revised landscape plan should change the paving material under the 11 parking spaces along the rear of the parking lot to "Grass crete" or an alternative permeable paving material other than asphalt should be proposed. • The applicant is to return to the ARB one year after securing a certificate of occupancy to provide a post-construction feedback report regarding the effectiveness and success of the sustainability program. CMR: 337:05 Page 3 of5 ~ f "t Attachment M: Project Plans (Council Members Only) COURTESY COPIES: Ken Hayes, Hayes Group James Newman James Baer, Premier Properties CMR: 337:05 Page 5 of5 , . , . 41. To assist the City in State-mandated requirements (AB939) to reduce waste sent to landfills, the following is encouraged: Use of recycled content building materials (ex. fly ash concrete, wallboard, tile, paint, etc). A recycled' content building materials database is available at www.ciwmb.ca.gov/RCP Use Green Building Principles: Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design Green Building Rating System. www.usgbc.org WATER QUALITY 42. No Copper Roofing Materials PAMC 16.09.160(b) On and after' January I, 2003, copper metal roofing, copper granule containing asphalt shingles and copper gutters shall not be permitted for use on any residential, commercial or industrial building for which a building permit is required. Copper flashing for use under tiles or slates and small copper ornaments are exempt from this prohibition. Replacement roofing and gutters on historic structures are exempt, provided that the roofing material used shall be prepatinated at the factory. For the purposes of this exemption, the definition of "historicn shall be limited to structures designated as Category 1 or Category 2 buildings' in the current edition of the Palo Alto Historical and Architectural Resources Report and Inventory. Zinc, and Lead (terne plating) roofing material should also be avoided. Trash Enclosures PAMC 16.09.106(e) 43. New dumpster areas shall be covered,. The area shall be designed to prevent water run-on to the area and run'-off from the area. 44. If the retail space is used for a food service facility then all applicable requirements must be met including installation of a grease interceptor. UTILITIES DEPARTMENT Utilities -Water, Gas, Wastewater 45. The applicant shall submit a request to disconnect all utility services and/or meters including a signed affidavit of vacancy. Utilities will be disconnected or removed within 10 working days after receipt of request. The demolition permit will be issued by the building inspection division after all utility services and/or meters have been disconnected and removed. 46. The applicant shall submit a completed water-gas-wastewater service connection application -load sheet for City of Palo Alto Utilities. The applicant must provide all the information requested for utility service demands (water in g.p.m., gas in b.t.u.p.h, and sewer in g.p.d.). Page 16 Attachment D COMPREHENSIVE.PLAN TABLE 1795 EL CAMINO REAL (05PLN-00106) Policy L-6: Where possible, avoid abrupt changes in scale and density between residential and non-residential areas and between residential areas of different densities. Policy L-48: Promote high quality, creative design and site planning that is compatible with surrounding development and public spaces. Policy L-70: Enhance the appearance of streets and other public spaces by expanding and maintaining Palo Alto's street tree system. Policy L-75: Minimize the negative physical impacts of parking lots. Locate parking lots behind buildings or underground wherever possible. Policy L-78: Encourage development that creatively integrates parking into the project Policy T -35: Reduce neighborhood street and intersection width and widen planting strips as appropriate. Policy H-4: Encourage mixed use projects as a means of increasing the housing supply while promoting diversity and neighborhood quality. Policy N-15: Require new commerciaL .. projects to provide street trees and related irrigation systems. The building will be located at least 60 feet away from R-l zone to the north. The project is subject to review by the Architectural Review Board, to ensure the building design will be aesthetically appropriate and compatible with the site and surrounding development, and the site improvements will be harmonious and appropriate to the building. The existing two street trees that do not conform to the South El Camino Design Guidelines will be removed and replaced with three London Plane City approved street trees .. The trees would be planted per recommendations' in the South El Camino Design Guidelines. The 21-space parking lot will be placed behind the building to minimize aesthetic impacts. Access will be from Park Avenue The project will take advantage of the allowable parking reduction for mixed-use projects by requesting a 9% parking reduction. The project would include the narrowing of the Park Avenue' roadway pavement width by widening the existing sidewalk by six feet thereby increasing the width of the sidewalk along the Park Avenue frontage to 18 feet. A development proposal for a mixed-use project for the vacant site at 1795 El Camino Real is also proposing to increase the width of the sidewalk in the same mariner. That project would widen the existing sidewalk on the east side of Park A venue and narrow the roadway pavement width by approximately 14 feet. The mixed-use project would provide two additional housing units. The project would provide three new street trees. Irrigation for these trees will be automatic. Amy French & Chris RiolUdn March 28, 2005 Page 2 EXISTING CONDITIONS The site, on the northeast comer of Park Avenue and El Camino Real, is zoned CN and has an area of 12,282 SF. It is currently vacant, having been used as a gasoline service station site years ago. For over twenty years the site has been an "eye sore" with petroleum vaporizing equipment necessary to clean the site, which has now been completed. Park Avenue leads to a residential neighborhood. However, since the City permanently blocked Park Avenue (about twenty years ago) with bollards to prevent vehicular access to this residential neighborhood from El Camino, Park Avenue is seldom used -only providing vehicular access to the subject site, one house and the commercial site on the opposite comer at 1805 El Camino. Pedestrians and bicyclists are able to use Park A venue for connection to El Camino and Stanford University across the street. FLOOR AREA RATIO AND MIXED USES This project is a true mixed-use project, combining retail, office and residential uses. The site area is 12,282 square feet; excluding any portion of pedestrian portions of Park Avenue. The initial office use is expected to be medical office for doctors relocating from Welch Road. . 1. Existing Use: This former gasoline service station has been vacant for over 20 years, undergoing decontamination efforts visible on site with evaporation towers and testing apparatus. 2. Proposed Building and Uses: Under the CN Zone, total building area of 11,054 square feet is allowed, while this application proposes only 9,510 square feet, or an FAR of .077:1.0 Building Areas are as follow: Retail Office Residential 1,842 sf 3,071 sf 4,597 sf (15% FAR consistent with CN Zone) (25% FAR consistent with CN Zone) (37% FAR while CN Zone allows 50% FAR) This project satisfies FAR requirements of the CN Zone. There are two units each with about 1,500 habitable sf (exclusive of stairs and elevator). This density is allowed under the CN Zone, and the unit sizes are appropriate for families seeking attainable housing near Stanford University and other employment centers. Amy French & Chris RiulUan March 28, 2005 PC\ge6 A DEE is required in order to comply with the requirements of the EI Camino Guidelines and to address the anomalous mixed-use zoning. (i) Open Space. CN Zone (P AMC 18.41) does not require open space. RM- 15 Zone P AMC 18.22.050(j) requires Private Open Space of 50 feet for each residence (100 feet for both residences) and Common Open Space equal to 35% of the site area, 'or 4,299 square feet. Private Open Space can be substituted for Common Open Space. Private Open Space on the third floor is 514 square feet and Common Open Space on the ground floor is 3,039 square feet (for a total of 3,553 square feet), while 4,299 square feet is required. A DEE is required so that residential units can be added in the CN Zone. No mixed-use project could satisfy the open space requirements at this location in the CN Zone. DESIGN ENHANCEMENT EXCEPTION FINDINGS Section 18.76.050 provides for a Design Enhancement Exception to permit a minor exception to the zoning regulations. A few minor Design Enhancement Exceptions are required for 1795 EI Camino, all of which are related to adding two 3rd floor residential units. A Design Enhancement Exception may be granted when doing so will "Enhance the design of a proposed project without altering the function or use of the site, or its impact on surrounding properties." The daylight plane and setback encroachments do not impact any surrounding property since the building is placed at the EI Camino frontage, away from the R-1 and RM- 15 neighbors at the rear of the property. Section 18.76.050 provides that Design Enhancement Exceptions are available for minor changes "to the setback daylight plane ... " and other minor features. The findings necessary for a Design Enhancement Exception are satisfied by the application for 1795 EI Camino: (1) There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances, or conditions, applicable to the property or site improvements involved that do not apply generally to property in the same zone district ..... "1795 El Camino is unique as a corner property on Park Avenue and El Camino Real, with Park Avenue closed to vehicular access near the rear o/the subject property. This circumstance makes 1795 El Camino uniquely able to provide pedestrian amenities while narrowing Park Street and advancing the El Camino Real Guidelines. Only a corner property such as 1795 El Camino is able to develop a three-story mixed-use project in a CN Zone without interfering with neighbors. " , . To achieve these goals, the building is placed along the ECR frontage, reinforcing the ECR edge while screening the parking area located behind the building. Access to the parking area is from Park Avenue. Park Avenue will be narrowed at EI Camino Real where a new street bulb is proposed with landscaping and sidewalk areas. An entrance court is proposed on the corner of Park and ECR where users can access the ground floor retail space through one entrance and the remaining floors of the building via secondary entrance and feature stair. The building massing reinforces the ECR edge with a stone wall with a rhythm of deep recesses consistent with the adjacent building along ECR. The building steps back at the second floor forming a base for the residential units on the third floor that are defined by a window-lined loggia, a sloping roof and terraces. A simple, architectural style was chosen for the project, consisting of heavy, solid elements defining the base and circulation features contrasted with recesses of windows and voids. Solar shading is provided to the residential units by the sloping roof form and deep overhangs. Other window elements are shaded by deep recesses and shading fins integrated into the window system. High performance glazing systems consisting of dual-glazed, clear glass, and dual glazed, ceramic frit glass are used throughout. Materials include a body of cut stone and integral colored, smooth cement plaster, metallic-painted aluminum window frames, shading fins, metal panels and exposed steel. The residential roof material is flat tile with metal panel soffit and gutter line. The courtyard space and paved areas adjacent to the pedestrian walkway will be integral colored, sandblasted concrete that will create a greatly enhanced pedestrian experience and resting place. The parking area incorporates pervious pavers PARKINGfTRASH/RECYCLING Parking, trash/recycling areas for the project are provided at grade, at the rear of the property, screened from ECR and accessed from the Park Avenue. Twenty-one parking spaces are required for the commercial areas of the project and 3 spaces are required for the two residential units for a total of twenty-four spaces. Because this project will be joined shortly by another project directly across Park Avenue at 1805 EI Camino Real that is also a mixed-use residential building of similar size, we are applying the parking reduction available for mixed-use projects in accordance with PAMC 18.83.120. We propose that this reduction for mixed-use projects lowers the required parking to twenty-one spaces. Twenty-one spaces are provided. Nearly half of the parking is covered either in an enclosed garage or tuck-under style. We are submitting this package for your review and approval. We look forward to a positive response so that we may proceed with implementation of this project. Please feel free to call me if you have any questions. Sincerely, C1AWlf-l Ken Hayes, AlA Principal cc Dr. Jim Newman Jim Baer, Premier Properties 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 4'5 46 i There are two successful precedents for this kind of off site improvements that incorporate public uses and public easements and incorporate them in private land. One ofthose is 531 Cowper, California Pizza Kitchen where there is ail arcade leading from parking lot J where there had previously not been sidewalk wider than four feet. We now have a 12~foot wide sidewalk and landscaping. We even moved the driveway to straighten it out, ithad bent previously, and that is under a maintenance agreement with the owner having obligation for maintenance of that area. The other is 250 University at Ramona and University where that whole alley system involved private/public relationships with the City. Both of those, one well maintained, worked well and we think this will also. We give public rights to use ofthe plazas beyond the 12-foot width that we are widening for the City. The Architectural Review Board final approval will include benches and lights and amenities that serve the public both on the public land and on the private land in the courtyard. ) So if we next look at site and landscape plan. Any time a mixed use project is presented the litany of exceptions needed that sounds as if they are violations need this clarification. The two stories of commercial buildings other than for the El Camino Real Design Guidelines asking for 12-foot from face of curb so that the landscaping and sidewalks are widened are entirely in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. So when you hear something that says a 25-foot setback on an arterial where four foot is now provided it is only for the residential component where any of those apply. On every single one of these daylight plane, setback, all of those features that are identified as exceptions are identified as exceptions for what is identified in the Comprehensive Plan as something in need of fix which is that we create a mixed use zone and then we make it . impossible because by adding residential units the entire building has to satisfy the residential mixed use components. It so happens that in SOFA and in the CDC zone the CDC zone apply the residential features only to the residential component of a project. In SOFA all of that was opened up to say allow a high level of [ air] be under Director discretion to evaluate how the setbacks, daylight planes and those features work in a mixed use project. So what I want to show you here is with the benefit of multiple ARB review is that the building is doing what's asked of the urban design guidelines which is to come and approach El Camino, to provide a wider sidewalk and landscaping features to put all, the parking to the rear and to elongate a building so it is longer along El Camino and narrow in its depth both to create a sense of building rather than parking lot and. design features rather than parking lot and to put the parking in the rear. I need to go back to the bulb out and we come to DEEs and parking in just a second. . Now if we go to sustainability elements. The ARB under the leadership of Drew Marin and followed by Staff have after several years of prodding arrived successfully at this kind of a circumstance. We now do this for every project that we do before the ARB and we will have 15. projects before the ARB this year and three that come before you. We now have this kind of list of voluntary components of sustainability. Of course the highest merit in sustainability is to combine uses but where you combine residential use with commercial uses that is the highest aspiration for mixed use that you are truly creating sustainability when you create that kind of environment. I wanted to show this just to compliment Staff and ARB on the work they have done. There has been a lot of ARB debate where the applicants scratch their heads and say we are not quite sure what you mean and we think this kind of approach and how sustainability features are defined are helpful in setting this as a threshold standards. Page 4 1 elevator, corridor, bathroom these are 2,500-foot footprints that we are managing and fully 2 parking those. The challenge then would be the consequences that would wish to be avoided 3 aren't addressed by"adding the two residential units. Meaning that what we are doing is adding 4 two residential units and that is what would be eliminated if we were not given the opportunity 5 for DEEs or shared parking. 6 7 I am really sympathetic with the problems that exist in CN neighborhoods in general along El 8 Camino, Midtown "and in this neighborhood. I have a lot of sad memories, nine invetros, in this 9 building that had three, four or five parking spaces and the medical building next to it also under- 10 parked. If we could redo those nonconforming uses, some of those exist in RM zones where 11 medical or dental offices with under-parked or inadequate parking it would certainly be a relief 12 to the neighborhood. This happens to be a project that is fully parked. We think it is a really 13 good one. 14 15 Ken, can you go to site plan? Thank you. We are 72 feet with extensive trees. This is the plan 16 that is showing a fully developed landscape plan, this plan we are only showing the corner but 17 there are extensive trees in this location as well as here but we are 72 feet from that property line 18 to the building. So that is not 150 feet which is necessary to exceed 35 feet but I am saying the 19 buildings really do for the setback and daylight plane exceptions that we are seeking had nothing 20 to do with adjacency with the residential neighborhoods. This building is at the property line 21 with the commercial building and then they have interior side yards and EI Camino. Those are 22" where the setback arid daylight plane issues are. 23 24 'The complex issues I am really sympathetic with neighbors who experience under parking. If 25 the petite size of these and the number of bodies who would occupy them and the type of ground 26 "floor uses that will be able to succeed there are not traffic generators it is what we talked "about in 27 SOFA which is what we want is retail arid personal services without customers. In fact these are 28 "likely to be those type in order to succeed in this type of a location. But I am happy to answer 29 questions. I know there are a lot of policy issues and direction to give the applicant and Staff and 30 I look forward to those questions. 31 32 Chair Cassel: Thank you. Let me bring it back to the Commission and see what we have. Do 33 yo:u have a question, Bonnie? 34 35 Vice Chair Packer: This is sort of a technical one. In the conditions the Transportation 36 Department raised some issues about the width of the parking spaces and isles and the 37 dimensions for the Hfts.Would the changes that you may have to make in response to those 38 affect the number of parking spaces in any way or in any way affect the overall plans? 39 40 Mr. Baer: I wish we could answer that with a firm no today. I don't think we are given the 41 opportunity to lose parking spaces without something else taking place. So we are going to have 42 to satisfy those widths and the isle depths before Staff will endorse and approve our project. If 43 three is the only justification for shared parking because that is the residential component then 44 we are going to have to solve that problem somehow. 45 Page 9 • > 1 2 Mr. Baer: Correct. So if the question is aren't the retail or office users occupying their share and 3 a large share of the open space then isn't there even a greater deficit for the residences. If that is 4 your question then the answer would be yes that the park benches and the plaza areas will be 5 enjoyed by the nonresidential users as well as residential users. Does that answer your question? 6 That will do? 7 8 . Chair Cassel: Karen. 9 10 Commissioner Holman: I asked some questions earlier about DEEs and the El Camino 11 Guidelines. One of the questions was have the El Camino Guidelines been adopted by Council? 12 If I could get a clarification on that. Another is what constitutes major versus minor exceptions 13 to development standards? 14 15 Mr. Larkin: The answer to the first question is no and Lisa can elaborate on that. The answer to 16 . the second question is in terms of major versus minor the code doesn't talk about what is a minor 17 modification because it is somewhat site sp·ecific. The Commission is encouraged to look at the 18 site relative to its location and factors to consider are whether it falls within in this case it would 19 be whether it falls within the design guidelines on the E1 Camino area and other factors. So it is 20 a very site specific analysis and looking at all of the various factors in context if the Coinmission 21 . doesn't think that they are minor then the recolll11l:endation would be to go back for a Variance. 22 23 Commissioner Holman: Following up on that. I'm sorry. 24 25 Ms. Grote: Thank you. I was just going to add that the Architectural Review Board or 26 Architectural Review Ordinance allows the Board to adopt design guidelines in specific 27 instances when specifically it says to promote internal integrity of the design ofprojects to. assure 28 compatibility of the proposed design with its site and surroundings and to minimize 29 environmental effects. Those design guidelines are adopted only by the Board they are not 30 required to go through Planning Commission or City Council review that is pent of the 31 Architectural Review Board's purview. Then again in response to areas of the code that 32 reference minor projects in relation to Design Enhancement Exceptions those are in 18.76.040 33 Bl,2 and 3 and it specifically outlines the types of elements that can be considered as part of a 34 Design Enhancement Exception and it is landscape modifications, exchange of private open 35 space and public open space, parking lot configuration, minor changes in height. So it lists those 36 things that are eligible for DEE consideration. 37 38 Commissioner Holman: So that addresses what can be considered for a DEE but I guess 39 procedurally, and my comments are not intended to be any kind of a comment on the project, my 40 comments are strictly procedural. So that addresses what a DEE can address but it still doesn't 41 really answer the major versus minor. When you are saying that ARB can adopt specific 42 guidelines for specific sites the guidelines that we are talking about are for all ofE1 Camino. So 43 is what you are saying is the ARB can pick up the El Camino Design Guidelines even though 44 those are intended for the full ofEI Camino and adopt those guidelines for just these two specific 45 sites? 46 Page 11 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 · . Commissioner Burt: Just a couple small questions for Staff. At the top of page three is says wider sidewalks would provide the opportunity for the project to include additional landscaping, public seating, etc. Is it a project requirement or merely an opportunity? Mr. Riordan: It is an opportunity it is also encouraged with the El Camino Design Guidelines to have pedestrian amenities in the plaza areas and building comers. Commissioner Burt: But is it nota condition of approval of this project? Mr. Riordan: There is not a condition of approval for the project to provide outside amenities. They are showing some types of plantings or walls on the plans and that is what would be approved would be on the plans. The guidelines just speak to it provides the opportunity to provide pedestrian amenities such as you mentioned but they are not expressly conditioned in the reports. Ms. Grote: To add to that 1 believe it is part of the applicant's proposal, they are shown on the plans. So once the plans are approve then it becomes required because you are approving a development plan. . Commissioner Burt: Great. That is what I was assuming and thank you for that clarification. Then down at the bottom of page three it says that the guidelines, this is referring to the South El Camino Guidelines I believe, encourage additional height on El Camino. So Staff supports the DEEJor the requested four increase in height. I didn't reread the entire guidelines but I couldn't fmd the part of the South El Camino Guidelines that Staff was alluding to and what I was trying to understand in it is we know that. the guidelines encourage additional height above single story, they put a minimUm of25 feet but then we have in code a 35 foot limit. So I wanted to find the language in here that was the basis for the inference that the guidelines are encouraging something above 35 feet, which is the way I read the Staff Report. Ms. French: In general, and Chris I believe is looking for the specific section, with the 120 foot Wide right-of-way that I think that is what the right-of-way is for El Camino Real in general it encourages to reduce for traffic calming purposes, to be in proportion with that extreme width to have taller buildings is desirable. That is a general statement I know in the plan. Here we go. So there is a section on page 25 of the El Camino Guidelines that say the minimum height should be 25 feet in order to provide a presence and scale with'El Camino Real. It was discussed during the adoption of these that it is even desirable to go even much higher than that because so many studies have been done to say that you want to have more proportional height on the larger width road. Lee Lippert may remember because he was here when we passed this through the ARB. 42 Commissioner Burt: So I did recall the 25-foot minimum I think that is a good concept. Really, 43 my question is whether there was discussion and I guess there is nothing in the guidelines that 44 'indicates that the intention was to be above 35 feet. Lisa, did you have something to add? 45 Page 14 · . 1 relative to the deck and at 35 feet depending on the type of roof you can do mechanical 2 equipment as well. I want to respect that this is a threshold question for adjacency and we would 3 welcome stick at 35 feet unless you can really in minutia show why the 35 feet wouldn't 4 succeed. We would welcome that condition. 5 6 . Chair Cassel: Bonnie. 7 8 Vice Chair Packer: I have a couple of questions for Staff. One is an easy one. In the Mitigated 9 Negative Declaration for each of the properties there are three and five mitigations for each one. 10 I didn't see those reflected in the conditions. Will those be put in the conditions, the mitigations? 11 12 Mr. Riordan: Yes, ifit wasn't included in the Record of Land Use Action it would have been an 13 oversight on my pa:rt and I will make sure that before it goes to ARB they are actually made 14 conditions of approval. 15 16 Vice Chair Packer: Okay. My second one is a little bit more difficult. I really like this project 17 and I think that these kinds of guidelines I hope we eventually incorporate in the CN zone when 18 we get to that. I imagine that that is going to be happening and it is just that we haven't gotten 19 there yet in the Zoning Ordinance Update. This is the kind of urban design we ought to be 20 seeing. But we are accomplishing it through a series of DEEs and I ·am struggling with the 21 findings that we are supposed to make for the DEEs especially the first one where you have to 22 make a finding that the site has exceptional or extraordinary circumstances. In the 23 documentation that we are asked to recommend approval for the findings are just stated that well 24 the guidelines are cool and the DEEs meet the guidelines so therefore we can make the fmding. I 25 thought that there was a letter from Mr. Baer that had a different kind of expression of that 26 exceptional circumstance for finding number one and that is on page six of the March 28 letter, 27 Attachment C. I think there is a similar one for 1795 and 1805 that it is unique as a corner 28 property on Park Avenue and EI Camino with Park Avenue closed, etc., etc. As Staff had you 29 considered that as an appropriate kind of finding to be able to make a finding that this is an 30 exceptional site and would that be appropriate for us as Commissioners to recommend that the 31 finding be expressed with that language in addition to the language in the Staff Report? 32 33 Ms. Grote: The Commission if as a group, as a whole, you feel that you want to add that kind of 34 language that is appropriate. Anything that sets these sites apart from the Qther CN district sites. 35 So it doesn't have to be just sites along EI Camino it can be sites within the same district which 36 are located in other parts of town. You are really evaluating these applications in terms of the 37 entire CN district and its development standards and characteristics. 38 39 Vice Chair Packer: So we could say that this site is unique because it is on EI Camino Real, 40 which has ARB guidelines that help govern development, etc. 41 42 Ms. Grote: Correct. I did want to return very briefly to Commissioner Burt's question on the 43 reasoning behind slightly higher height limits and it is a combination of two what are called 44 'guiding principles' in the Design Guidelines. The first is number five, which talks about the 45 two and three story heights. Then the second one is number ten which talks about proportionate 46 scale, buildings should be proportionate to the scale of the street and the importance of the street Page 16 1 2 Mr. Riordan: There is no condition that requires exploration of full parking. The conditions of 3 approval are technical in terms of just modifying the length <and width stalls. There is no 4 exploration as Commissioner Holman is requesting in the conditions put forth by Staff. 5 6 MOTION PASSED (5-0-0-2, Commissioners Bialson and Griffin absent) 7 8 Chair Cassel: You see Karen I have no second so this motion dies. Now are there any other 9 questions on the main motion? I will call the vote. All those in favor please say aye. (ayes) All 10 those opposed? The motion passes five to nothing. 11 12 Now we have another item before us and that is 1795 El Camino Real. Would someone make a . 13 motion? 14 15 Vice Chair Packer: Do you want me to make the motion? 16 17 Chair Cassel: That would be ·fine. 18 19 MOTION 20 21 Vice ,Chair Packer: I move that the Planning and Transportation Commission recommend to the 22 City Council to approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration or 1795 El Camino Real with the 23 finding that the project will not result insignificant environmental impacts and approve the Site 24 and Design Review application and six of the seven of the Design Enhancement Exceptions as 25 requested based on the flndings.and conditions of approval contained in the Record of Land Use 26 with the additional finding first finding for the DEE as found on page six of the March 28, 2005 27 letter from Premier Properties that 1795 El Camino Real is unique as a comer property on Park 28 Avenue and El <Camino, etc. and that the applicant attempt to redesign so that the building height 29 does not go up to 39 feet but attempts to be 35 feet. So this motion does not approve the DEE 30 for the height. That it would be subject to ,the mitigations that are in the Mitigated Negative 31 Declaration be in the conditions of approval. That it would be subject to adjustments in the 32 parking configurations as required by the Transportation Division and that again we look into the 33 lighting on the second floor perhaps spilling over into the residential area and that the applicant 34 will follow up with a Variance to request an adjustment in the ratio of the open space 35 requirements. . 36 37 SECOND 38 39 Commissioner Lippert: I will second that. 40 41 Ms. French: Before you go on, I know this is awkward, instead of six of the seven I think you 42 might mean five of the seven since height was one of the six. 43 44 Vice Chair Packer: That is exactly what I meant, five of the seven DEEs. 45 46 Commissioner Lippert: I still second that. Page 26 · , 1 2 Chair Cassel: The motion has been made and seconded to approve the Staff Report plus some 3 additional factors except that it will be five DEEs and they will be subject to the mitigations that 4 are in the Environmental Impact Report, there will be some adjustment in parking as per . 5 Transportation requirements, lighting on the second floor will be looked at and the applicant will 6 follow up with the Variance. Would you like to speak to that? 7 8 Vice Chair Packer: My comments with respect to 1805 El Camino equally apply to this and with 9 respect to the height we heard from the applicant earlier that they are willing to look at the design 10 to keep the height 35 feet. 11 12 Commissioner Lippert: My cominents are pretty much the same·as for the other project. Ijust .13 wanted to add that by Commissioner Packer including the height limit to 35 feet made it very 14 easy for me to be able to get behind this project. 15 16 MOTION PASSED (5-0-0-2, Commissioners Bialson and Griffin abs~nt) 17 18 ChairCassel: Anyone else wish to make comments? Pat? Karen?·. I think I should indicate that 19 I really like this project. I have a minor concern on the height of the wall at the back of the 20 project on the other side and that fact that there is no wall on this side between the walking area 21 and the parking and I forgot to mention that earlier. Basically I am pleased with the project, I am 22 pleased with the way we are trying to do it. I am glad we are trying to narrow the street here I 23 think it willlieip a great deal in making the area look better. This is a street that is essentially 24 dead end now and unless you go and park all the way around to the back you aren't going to park 25 back there. You have to know about it that could be an issue. We are now going to have parking 26 spaces and people can park on the street. I go up and down this area a lot and I see the area. not 27 parked on the street in front of these areas of these two buildings. So I think we are going to pick 28 up some street parking that will help us here. I am hoping that the increase in parking over what 29 there is in the neighboring buildings will help the neighbors so that it won't spill over to the· 30 back. 31 32 All those in favor please say aye. (ayes) Opposed? It passes five to nothing. 33 Page 27 Option One Shown on page A3.1a of the Development Plans, option one would include a hip roof. Hip roofs are measured to the average height of the highest gable. As depicted, the height of the building would'be approximately 38 feet. Option Two Shown on page A3.l b of the Development Plans, option two would include a mansard roof. Mansard roofs are measured to the deck line. As depicted, the height of the building would be approximately 36 feet. Three members of the public spoke during the public hearing. Their concerns primarily addressed the following issues: • The projects would not provide adequate parking due to the requested parking reductions allowable for mixed-use projects and that parked cars would overflow on to nearby residential streets; • Reducing the amount of usable open space should be carefully considered since "open space" can be a quality of life issue for residential tenants. • The lights in the second story offices could be left on during the evening, impacting adjacent residential properties. One of the, speakers at the public hearing submitted a letter reiterating his concerns about the possible traffic impacts of the project. The letter has been included as Attachment M. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The proposed project is subject to environmental review under provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). An Environmental Impact Assessment (Attachment I) was prepared for the proje~t. It was determined that the project could have significant biological and cultural impacts however, the project would include mitigation measured to reduce these impacts to a less than significant level. A draft Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared. If the ARB recommends approval or approval with additional conditions, the project application will be forwarded to the City Council for final action. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Record of Land Use Action Attachment B: Location Map Attachment C: Zoning Conformance Table (prepared by Staff) Attachment D: Comprehensive Plan Conformance Table (prepared by Staff) Attachment E: Applicant Submittal • Project Description prepared by Premier Properties • List of Proposed Sustainability Measures prepared by Premier Properties • Project Description prepared by Hayes Group • Variance Findings prepared by Hayes Group 1795 El Camino Real [05PLN-00 1 06] , . With both projects, a total roadway width of24 feet is proposed along Park Avenue with no on-street parking. Wider sidewalks would provide the opportunity for the project to include additional landscaping, public seating, and other amenities including public art and a pedestrian plaza and would accentuate the comer and pedestrian environment as called for in the South EI Camino Real Guidelines. The wider sidewalks will extend 56' along Park Avenue and then return to the existing sidewalk width of 12 feet. Parking The proposed project would include a total of 21 off street parking spaces where 24 off-street parking spaces are required; including one covered parking stall for each ofthe two residential units. Residential parking would be provided at the rear of the building in a garage with a metal roll up door. This garage would include four tandem-parking stalls so the project exceeds the residential tenant and guest-parking requirement. The commercial tenants would use the remaining 17 spaces. The applicant is requesting a 9% reduction (three spaces) in the number of required parking spaces. PAMC Section 18.83.120 allows the Director of Planning and Community Environment the discretion to reduce the number of required parking spaces up to 20% on any site with a joint use parking facility having 30 or more spaces. A mixed-use project with 22 on site parking spaces is proposed for the parcel at 1805 EI Camino Real. The applicant proposes that the city consider both the parking facility for this site and the site across the street on Park Avenue together. Combining the two, the project's parking facilities would exceed 30 spaces. The Director of Planning and Community Environment supports the 9% reduction in parking spaces subject to the condition of approval that prior to the ARB review, the applicant submit a draft Reciprocal Parking Agreement for the two parking facilities, thereby providing a total of 43 parking spaces on the two sites. The Transportation Division has reviewed the project and has requested additional information and/or modifications to the parking layout and provided the following comments: • The estimates ofproject trip generation during a weekday, as well as during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. The trips associated with the project would be based on the medical/dental use and the type of retail proposed for the ground floor. • The dimensions of some of the parking stalls and the aisle widths are not sufficient to meet the minimum dimensions required in P AMC Chapter 18.83 (Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations). See Attachment A, condition #'s 13-16. • Details ofthe proposed bike racks and bike lockers are to be submitted prior to ARB review. • Draft of the Shared Parking Agreement is to be submitted prior to ARB review Building Height The maximum building height in the CN zone district is 25 feet and is increased to 35 feet when at least one ofthe floors is devoted to residential use. The proposed building would be 39-feet tall as measured to the midpoint of the roof exceeding the maximum building height by four feet. The Guidelines encourage additional height on EI Camino Real so staff supports the DEE for the requested four-foot increase in height. The daylight plane requirement for sites adjacent to City of Palo Alto Page 3 Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Issues and Supporting Information Sources Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigated e) Create objectionable odors affecting a sUbstantial number 1,2 X of people? IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through 1,2 X habitat modifications, on any species identified as a (N-l) candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or 1,2 X other sensitive natural community identified in local or (N-l) regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected 1,2 X wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (N-l) (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native 1,2 X . resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with (N-l) established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? -, e) Conflict with. any local policies or ordinance.s protecting 1,2,3, X biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or 8 ordinance? ,1) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat 1,2 X Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, (N-l) or other approved local, regional or state conservation plan? V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an 1,2 X historical resource pursuant to 15064.5? (L-7) b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an 1,2 X archaeological resource pursuant to 15064.5? (L-8) c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological 1,2 X resource or site or unique geologic feature? 5 Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Issues and Supporting Information Sources Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigated b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment 1,2 X through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely 1,2 X hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile (1,320') of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous 1,2 materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code X Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, nla X where such a plan has not been adopted, within two niiles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? 1) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would nla X the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an 1,2 (N-X adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation 7),10 plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, 1,2 X injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where (N-7), wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where 10 residences are intermixed with wildlands? VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge 1,2 X requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere 1,2 X substantially with groundwater recharge such that there (N-2) would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or 1,2,9 X area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site? 7 " Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Issues and Supporting Information Sources Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigated d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., 1,3,11 X sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? 2, X 11,12 t) Result in inadequate parking capacity? 1,2,3, X 1 g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting 1,2,11 X alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the 1,2 X applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or 1,2,12 X wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water 1,2,9 X drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project 1,2,9 X from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment 1,2,12 X provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? t) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to 1,2 X accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations 1,2 X related to solid waste? 11 EXPLANATION FOR CHECKLIST RESPONSES: I. Aesthetics The proposed three story mixed-use building will change the character ofthe vacant site. The new building would add mass and establish a new architectural presence on a visible comer site. The new building will be taller and longer than the buildings on adjacent sites, but will nevertheless be compatible with these buildings. The project is subject to review by the Architectural Review Board, to, ensure the building design will be aesthetically appropriate and compatible with the site and surrounding development, and the site improvements will be harmonious and appropriate to the building. There is currently no significant glazing or lighting on the site. The development will result in an increase in light and glare from parking lot lighting, glazing on the building and low-level lamps along the walkways adjacent to the street frontages, near the stairs and the entrance plaza. Two 15' high light standards are proposed to light the surface parking area. The project is required to meet the provisions of Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 18.64, Additional Site Development and Design Regulations for Commercial and Industrial Districts. Section 18.64.030 (a)(2)(A) requires the elimination oflight spillover beyond the perimeter ofthe development; however, the photometric lighting plan indicates some minor light spillover beyond the rear property perimeter. Two pole lights will be located at the rear ofthe parking lot adjacentto residentially zoned properties. A condition of approval and the provisions of Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 18.28 Multiple-Family Residence District Guidelines would require these lights to be directed away from the residences. Section 18.28.030 (a)(3) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code requires the elimination of glare and light spillover beyond the perimeter ofthe project. Mitigation measure #1 requires parking lot light standards employ "zero cutoff' of light at the property lines to ensure any light impacts from the project implementation will be reduced to a level of insignificance. Conditions of approval requiring submittal information regarding interior lighting systems and interior shading systems in conjunction with tenant improvement plans will ensure any light and glare impacts of the project will be reduced to a level of insignificance. Mitigation Measure #1: Parking lot lighting shall be shielded such that the light will not extend beyond the site and the source of light will not be directly visible from adjoining properties and roadways. Interior lighting systems that employ timing and shading devices to meet City requirements shall be installed in conjunction with tenant improvements. Residual Impact: None II. Agriculture Resources The site is not located in a Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance area, as shown on the maps prepared for the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency. The site is not zoned as an agricultural use, and the site is not regulated by the Williamson Act. Mitigation Measures: None Residual Impact: None III. Air Quality It is not anticipated that the project would affect any regional air quality plan or standards, or result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria PQllutant. The extent of the effects on air quality will be during the period of site preparation and construction. The City of Palo Alto utilizes the Bay Area Air Quality Management District's (BAAQMD) thresholds of significance for air quality impacts, as follows: Construction Impacts: The proposed project will involve demolition, grading, paving, and landscaping which has the potential to cause localized dust related impacts resulting in increases in airborne particulate matter. Dust related impacts are considered potentially significant but can be mitigated with the application of standard dust control measures. Long Term/Operational Impacts: Long-term and operational project emissions would stem primarily from motor vehicles associated with the proposed project. The project is not expected to result in a significant number of new vehicle trips. Therefore, long-tenn air- 13