HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-01-22 City Council (4)TO:
City of Palo Alto
City Manager’s Report
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
6
FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
DATE:
SUBJECT:
JANUARY 22, 2002 CMR:ll9:02
2051 EL CAMINO REAL [01-PC-04]: REQUEST BY MEHMOOD
TAQUI ON BEHALF OF OAK SHADOWS LLC TO REZONE A
4,938 SQUARE FOOT PARCEL FROM CN DISTRICT TO PC
DISTRICT TO CONSTRUCT A 4,555 SQUARE FOOT, THREE
STORY, MIXED USE BUILDING
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council refer the project to the Architectural Review
Board (ARB) for review pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapters 18.68 and
16.48. The Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC) recommends denial of the
proposed project without further ARB review as reflected in its meeting minutes~,
Attachment C.
BACKGROUND
On September 24, 2001, the Council reviewed the applicant’s request for variances and
design enhancement exceptions in conjunction with a Site and Design Review. The City
Council voted, on a 6-2 vote, to continue its review of the project. The City Council was
concerned about the building’s compatibility with the neighborhood, and directed the
applicant to revise the plans and go back to the P&TC and ARB prior to appearing again
before the City Council. A description of Council’s concern and the project’s response to
that concern appear in the P&TC report (Attachment F, pages 3 and 9).
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed 4,555 square foot building includes retail (now 511 square feet), office
(now 1,191 square feet), a below market rate rental residential unit (1,107 square feet),
and a market rate residential unit (1,404 square feet). Another 342 square feet is
comprised of stairways measured at each of two floors, and a ground floor restroom for
the retail tenants’ and customers’ use. Since the September 24 Council meeting, the floor
area has been increased by 295 square feet (comprised of a 200 square foot increase in
CMR: 119:02 Page 1 of 6
ground floor retail area and a 214 square foot increase in residential floor area offset by a
119 square foot reduction in second floor office area). The attached P&TC report
describes the project revisions in more detail (on pages 4 and 5).
The applicants have submitted a Planned Community (PC) rezone application primarily
to increase allowable residential density on the site, but also to permit exceeding the FAR
by 111 square feet, reducing the front and side yard setbacks (16 foot encroachment at
front, and 10 foot encroachment at first floor sides) and side daylight planes, increasing
the lot coverage by 19 percent, and reducing the parking requirement by four spaces.
The currently proposed uses, set forth in the applicant’s Development Program Statement
(Attachment D), are consistent with the site’s Neighborhood Commercial designation,
which allows for residential and mixed-use projects. As part of the Planned Community
(PC) District application review process, the City Council can specify what types of uses
are appropriate on this site and approve a list of uses and conditional uses at the adoption
of the PC District.
Public Benefit
A Public Benefit is required in conjunction with the PC application. The applicant
proposes to provide a three bedroom, below market rate rental housing unit. The
applicant’s preference is to provide the housing unit for emergency and service workers
who work in the City of Palo Alto. The City’s "Below Market Rate Rental Guidelines",
as amended, will provide the basis for this BMR unit and staff would be able to work
with the applicant to address any specific conditions for implementation.
BOARD AND COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Planning and Transportation Commission
At its meeting on November 28, 2001, the Planning and Transportation Commission
recommended denial of the PC rezone application, on a 4-2-0-1 vote (see Attachment C).
Commissioner Cassel and Commissioner Griffin voted against the recommendation, and
Commissioner Schmidt was absent. The reasons set forth by the Commission for the
recommendation for denial were as follows:
The building is too large for the site and is out of compliance with the
Comprehensive Plan regarding transitions between land uses and the project is
trying to do too much on a small lot.
The parking deficit is too large and sharing parking would be difficult.
Viability of the retail space as currently configured in this application is
questionable.
Public benefits do not seem to outweigh the potential detriments.
The meeting minutes (Attachment C) include a record of the public testimony.
CMR:119:02 Page 2 of 6
Architectural Review Board
As set forth in the Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 18.68, Section 18.68.065, a PC
Rezone/ARB application is forwarded to the Architectural Review Board for review only
if the Planning and Transportation has acted favorably at its first review. Otherwise, the
PC application is forwarded directly to the City Council, bypassing the Architectural
Review Board review. Should the City Council disagree with the Planning and
Transportation Commission’s recommendation for denial, staff recommends that the
project be forwarded to the ARB for review.. Under the provisions of Section 16.48.050
(b), the ARB and Planning and Transportation Commission must attempt to resolve their
differences before the matter comes back to the Council for final action.
DISCUSSION
Development Impact Fees
The City Council is considering adopting development impact fees to address Palo
Alto libraries and Community Services. To ensure that these fees, when implemented,
will be applied to this project, staff is recommending that the PC ordinance contain
the following provision: "The property owner shall be responsible for paying all
development fees in place at the time of issuance of building permits." Also under
consideration is an increase to housing fees and the threshold size of development
upon which these fees are imposed. Since the net new floor area is less than 20,000
square feet, it is currently not subject to the imposition of housing mitigation fees.
Shared Parking
During the September 24 meeting, the Council stated that shared parking facilities could
be reasonable on this site. To allow shared parking on this site the City Council may
approve modifications to the City’s off-street parking and loading regulations as allowed
through the PC district application process. The City’s parking regulations allow for a
20% reduction in parking spaces in shared parking lots of 30 spaces or more, but a 36%
reduction in parking is requested in this case. The applicant’s shared parking proposal is
described in the parking feasibility statement (Attachment E). At the P&TC meeting, the
applicant stated that the garage could remain open during the daytime hours to allow for
easy access by retail and office visitors, and be closed after business hours. The P&TC
report (page 7) describes the parking spaces required and proposed. In summary, the need
for parking spaces has increased by two and one-half spaces in the revised project, due to
the increase in retail area and additional residential unit. However, there is one fewer
parking space than previously proposed.
Staff has concluded that shared parking may be feasible if commercial and residential
tenants use the lot at different times of the day as suggested by the applicant. City
enforcement of alternate hours for each use is not feasible. The City can require the hours
of use of each parking space to be posted on the site and the property owner can place"
lease restrictions on the number of residential tenant cars allowed on the property during
CMR: 119:02 Page 3 of 6
commercial business hours. Also, public transit passes could be provided by the property
owner to the below market rate rental unit tenants, which could be monitored by the
Housing Authority. In addition, the office space lease agreement could include wording
regarding carpools and bicycle use. Finally, there are alternative transportation programs
available, including proximity to the bus line along E1 Camino Real and bicycle
transportation (a bike rack for two bicycles is proposed on the site).
Alternative projects
The P&TC asked about the feasibility of alternative projects at its November 28 meeting.
Therefore, staff explored the feasibility of alternative projects on this site, including
retail/residential, office/residential and non-residential projects. These are presented here
for Council consideration.
Retail/Residential Project
It would be impossible to build a retail/residential mixed-use building on this site that
included a viable ground floor retail component of 511 square feet and one residential
unit, unless a variance for parking or front setback encroachment were granted. The
reason is that a building with a residential component must have a 25-foot front setback
within which no parking spaces are permitted. A ground floor retail space of between
511 and 600 square feet (if the restroom were included) set back 25 feet from the front
property line would allow approximately four parking .spaces at the rear. However, these
spaces would not meet the parking requirements for both the retail (2.5 to 3 spaces) and
the residential (two spaces) uses. In order to provide required rear yard parking for both
uses without obtaining a parking vari, ance, the retail unit would need to be reduced to 200
square feet.
Office/Residential
A mixed-use building that provided office and residential uses could be accommodated
on the site. This would be the same mix of uses proposed in the applicant’s first submittal
to the ARB. The first submittal, which did not meet the 25 foot front setback, contained
1,820 square feet of office area and one residential unit on the second and third floors,
with a garage only on the first floor, plus a basement storage area. In order to meet the 25
foot front setback and the other setbacks, such a building could contain up to 1500 square
feet of office area and one residential unit on the second and third floors, and still meet
the parking requirements for those uses. However, the views of the site from a
pedestrian level would be of an open garage, so the front setback area would need to be
extensively landscaped, and there would be no ground floor retail, which was requested
during the preliminary ARB reviews and enlarged after the City Council review.
Non-residential
If the residential component of the project were eliminated, the project would be subject
only to Architectural Review Board review and Director’s Hearing for any variances.
The zoning allows a 25 foot high, 1975.2 square foot commercial building. An office
building of that size would require eight parking spaces on the site, and would cover less
CMR: 119:02 Page 4 of 6
than the 50 percent allowed lot coverage on the site. If an office-only building were to
meet the ten foot front setback requirement, there appears to be room on the site for eight
parking spaces, but only if office space is located at the second floor level and the first
floor is only a garage. Without a garage, given the lO-foot front setback and parking
requirements, there may be room dn the site for an office/retail building at the front of the
site and six parking spaces to the rear. Such a building could have approximately 511
square feet of viable retail floor area at the ground floor and 875 square feet of office
floor area at the second floor.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A:
Attachment B:
Attachment C:
Attachment D:
Attachment E:
Attachment F:
Attachment G:
Findings for approval of PC District and ARB applications
Conditions of approval
Planning and Transportation Commission minutes of 11/28/01
Development Program Statement
Tentative Development Schedule and Parking Feasibility Plan
Excerpt of City Council minutes of 9/24/01
Planning and Transportation Commission Report of 11/28/01
Current project plans, revised Arborist’s report and previous project minutes (9/01 City
Council plus 7/01 P&TC and ARB) provided to Council Members only. Copies of these
minutes and the report are available for public review in the offices of the Department of
Planning and Community Environment.
PREPARED BY:
Senior Planner
DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW:
Interim Director
Planning and Community Environment
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL :~~, dg’l~-a_~t- %
EMIISY HARRIS ON
Assistant City Manager
CMR: 119:02 Page 5 of 6
COURTESY COPIES
Mehmood Taqui, Oak Shadows LLC, 1336 Tasso Street, Palo Alto, CA 94306
Carrasco Associates, 120 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301
Joy Ogawa, 2305 Yale Street, Palo Alto, CA 94306
John Baca, 484 Oxford Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94306
Lynn Chiapella, 631 Colorado Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94306
Dave Mampel, 2721 Midtown Court #1120, Palo Alto, CA 94306
Dorothy Bender, 591 Military Way, Palo Alto, CA 94306
Dennis Decker, 2073 E1 Camino Real, Palo Alto, CA 94306
Heidi Huber, 482 Oxford Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94306
John Ciccarelli, 2065 Yale Street, Palo Alto, CA 94306
CMR: 119:02 Page 6 of 6
Attachment A
ATTACHMENT A
Findings for Approval of Planned Community (PC) District and ARB applications
2051 El Camino Real
01-PC-04, 01-ARB-136
PC Approval Findings
1. The site is so situated, and the us.e or uses proposed for the site are of such
characteristics that the application of general districts or combining districts will not
provide sufficient flexibility to allow the proposed development. The City Council
could not support the previous project under the CN zone, for reasons including the
variances that were requested, that the residential density was limited to one unit, and
that the retail area was not "viable" because of the small site and parking
" requirements. The PC District rezoning provides a method to allow the City Council
to permit the revised project, which includes two residential units including a Below
Market Rate rental unit, more retail area and less office area.
Development of the site under the provisions of the PC planned community district
will result in public benefits not otherwise attainable by application of the regulations
of general districts or combining districts. In making the findings required by this
section, the planning commission and city council, as appropriate, shall specifically
cite thepublic benefits expected to result from use of the planned community district.
The applicant proposes to provide a three-bedroom, below market rate rental housing
unit. The applicant’s preference is to provide the housing unit for emergency and
service workers who work in the City of Palo Alto. The City’s "Below Market Rate
Rental Guidelines", as amended, will provide the basis for this BMR unit and staff
will work with the applicant to address any specific conditions for implementation.
The use or uses permitted, and the site development regulations applicable within the
district shall be consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, and shall be
compatible with existing and potential uses on adjoining sites or within the general
vicinity. The General Plan land use designation for the project site is Neighborhood
Commercial. The proposed uses ~ire consistent with this land use designation, which
allows for residential and mixed-use projects. The proposed non-residential floor area
ratio would be 0.3:1, which is less than the non-residential floor area ratio of 0.4:1 for
Neighborhood Commercial land use. The applicant’s proposal is in conformance with
the goals of the Business and Economics Element of the Comprehensive Plan. These
goals can be summarized as: providing a thriving business environment that is
compatible with Palo Alto’s residential character; providing a diverse mix of uses;
providing for new businesses that provide needed local services and municipal
revenues, contribute to economic vitality and enhance the community’s physical
environment; and providing attractive vibrant business centers. The uses permitted
,in this project are two residential units and the following uses for the commercial
Cir. of Palo Alto Pag~ 13
space: (1) retail services (not liquor stores), (2) neighborhood business services, (3)
personal services, and (4) professional offices serving the neighborhood.
ARB Standards/Approval Findings
The proposed project, as conditioned, furthers the goals and purposes of the ARB
Ordinance (Chapter 16.48 of the PAMC) as it complies with that ordinance’s Standards
for Review as follows:
The design is consistent and compatible~ with applicable elements of the city’s
Comprehensive Plan. The proposed project, as conditioned,, is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan designation of Neighborhood-Commercial, in that the uses are
consistent with those uses allowed under this designation.
The design is compatible with the immediate environment of the site. The proposed
project, as conditioned, is compatible with the immediate environment of the site
since the existing Oak trees Will be preserved, adequate side and rear setbacks are
provided to buffer the adjoining residential properties, and the third floor is set back
to lessen the apparent mass on the small site.
The design is appropriate to the function of the project. The proposed project, as
conditioned, is appropriately designed to provide ground floor retail, second floor
neighborhood commercial and upper floor residential functions.
o The design promotes harmonious transitions in scale and character in areas between
different designated land uses in that the building, landscaping and parking areas are
integrated in a unified design that allows for harmonious transitions.
o The design is compatible with approved improvements both on and off the site in
that the project includes an adequate front yard setback to provide for a future 12-
foot wide sidewalk on E1 Camino Real, and a street tree.
The planning and siting of the various functions and buildings on the site create an
internal sense of order and provide a desirable environment for occupants, visitors
and the general community in that suitable vehicular circulation and shared parking
are provided for residents, employees and visitors, and separate staircases are
provided to guide residents and commercial space tenants to their respective spaces,
in an ordered and harmonious layout.
o The amount and arrangement of open space are appropriate to the design and the
function of the structures in that the open areas near the oak trees is appropriate and
necessary for their survival, and the deck areas are appropriate for the tenant use.
City of Palo Alto Page 14
Sufficient ancillary functions are provided to support the main functions of the
project and these’functions are compatible with the project’s design concept in that
the building would have a separate ground floor ADA restroom available to all
building tenants, and bicycle parking and vehicle parking may be shared by all
building tenants.
10.Access to the property and circulation thereon are safe and convenient for
pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles in that the front setback provides visibility for
vehicles exiting the driveway.
Natural features are appropriately preserved and integrated with the project in that
’the existing healthy oak trees will be preserved and integrated with the building.
The materials, textures, colors and details of construction and plant material are
appropriate expressions to the design and function and are compatible with the
adjacent and neighboring structures, landscape elements and functions in that, as
conditioned, the plant materials and details will be compatible.
13.The landscape design concept for the site, as shown by the relationship of plant
masses, open space, scale, plant forms and foliage textures and colors create a
desirable and functional environment and the landscape concept depicts an
appropriate unity with the various buildings on the site.
14,The plant material is suitable and adaptable to the site, capable of being properly
maintained on the site, and is of a variety that would tend to be drought-resistant and
to reduce consumption of water in its installation and maintenance.
15.The design is energy efficient and incorporates renewable energy design elements
including, but not limited to:
(A) Exterior energy design elements, operable windows, sun shading and recessed
windows
(B) Internal lighting service and climatic control systems, which shall be shown in
tenant improvement plans and
(C) Building siting and landscape elements.
ARB standards/findings #4 is not applicable to the project.
Cir. of Palo Alto Page 15
ATTACHMENT B
2051 El Camino Real
Conditions of Planned Community and ARB Approval
Files 01-PC-04 and 01-ARB-136
Attachment B
The plans submitted for Building Permit shall be in substantial conformance with plans dated
October 16, 2001, except as modified by these conditions of approval. The designs shall
incorporate the directives of these conditions where applicable, and these conditions which shall
" be printed on the cover sheet of the plan set submitted with the Building Permit application.
Public Works Department Conditions
1.Public Works Engineering Division
INCLUDE WITH SUBMITTAL FOR BUILDING PERMIT
1.1 The Applicant shall submit a final Grading and Drainage Plan with the Building Permit
submittal. This plan shall include existing and proposed drainage patterns on site and
from adjacent properties. The plan shall show that pre-existing drainage patterns to and
from adjacent properties are not altered.
1.2 The sidewalk in the E1 Camino Real frontage shall be removed and replaced to City of
Palo Alto standards. Any new or relocation of the driveway approach and installation of
any utilities in the E1 Camino Real frontage will require the approval by the State of
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). Evidence of this approval shall be
provided at the Building Permit submittal.
1.3 The proposed development may result in a change in the impervious area of the property.
The applicant shall provide calculations showing the adjusted impervious area with the
Building Permit application.
1.4 A Construction Logistics Plan shall be provided with the Building Permit submittal,
addressing at minimum parking, truck routes and staging, materials storage, and the
provision of pedestrian and vehicular traffic adjacent to the construction site. All truck
routes shall conform with the City of Palo Alto’s Trucks and Truck Route Ordinance,
Chapter 10.48.
1.5 To address potential storm water quality impacts, the Grading and Drainage Plan shall
identify the Best Management Practices (BMP’s) to be incorporated into the Storm Water
Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that will be required for the project. The SWPPP
shall include both temporary BMP’s to be implemented during construction and
permanent BMP’s to be incorporated into the site to protect storm water quality.
Utilities Department
2.Utilities Electrical Division
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF DEMOLITION PERMIT
2.1 The Permittee shall be responsible for identification and location of all utilities, both
public and private, within the work area. Prior to any excavation work at the site, the
Permittee shall contact Underground Service Alert (USA) at 1-800-227-2600, at least 48
hours prior to beginning work.
2.2 The Applicant shall submit a request to disconnect all existing utility services and/or
meters including a signed affidavit of vacancy, on the form provided by the Building
Inspection Division. Utilities will be disconnected or removed within 10 working days
after receipt of request. The demolition permit will be issued after all utility services
and/or meters have been disconnected and removed.
PRIOR TO SUBMITTAL FOR BUILDING PERMIT
2.3 A completed Electric Load Sheet and a full set of plans must be included with all
building permit applications involving electrical work. The load sheet must be included
with the preliminary submittal.
2.4 Industrial and large commercial customers must allow sufficient lead-time for Electric
Utility Engineering and Operations (typically 8-12 weeks after advance engineering fees
have been paid) to design and construct the electric service requested.
2.5 Only one electric service lateral is permitted per parcel. Utilities Rule & Regulation #18.
2.6 This project requires a padmount transformer unless otherwise approved in writing by the
Electric Utility Engineering Department. The location of the padmount transformer shall
be shown on the site plan and approved by the Utilities Department and the Architectural
Review Board. Utilities Rule & Regulations #3 & #16.
2.7 The developer/owner shall provide space for installing padmount equipment (i.e.
transformers, switches, and interrupters) and associated substructure as required by the
City. In addition, the owner shall grant a Public Utilities Easement for facilities installed
on private property as required by the City.
2.8 The customer shall install all electrical substructures (conduits, boxes and pads) required
from the service point to the customer’s switchgear. All conduits must be sized
according to National Electric Code requirements and no ½-inch size conduits are
permitted. Conduit runs over 500 feet in length require additional pull boxes. The design
and installation shall also be according to the City standards. Utilities Rule &
Regulations #I6 & #18.
2.9
2.10
2.11
2.12
2.13
2.14
2.15
2.16
Location of the electric panel/switchboard shall be shown on the site plan and approved
by the Architectural Review Board and Utilities Department.
All utility meters, lines, transformers, backflow preventers, and any other required
equipment shall be shown on the landscape and irrigation plans and shall show that no
conflict will occur between the utilities and landscape materials. In addition, all
aboveground equipment shall be screened in a manner that is consistent with the building
design and setback requirements.
For services larger than 1600 amps, the customer will be required to provide a transition
cabinet as the interconnection point between the utility’s padmount transformer and the
customer’s main switchgear. The cabinet design drawings must be submitted to the
Electric Utility Engineering Department for review and approval.
No more than four 750MCM conductors per phase can be connected to the transformer
secondary terminals; otherwise, bus duct must be used for connections to padmount
transformers. If customer installs a bus duct directly between the transformer secondary
terminals and the main switchgear, the installation of transition cabinet will not be
required.
The customer is responsible for sizing the service conductors and other required
equipment according to the National Electric Code requirements and the City standards.
Utilities Rule & Regulation #18.
If the customer’s total lohd exceeds 2500kVA, service shall be provided at the primary
voltage of 12,470 volts and the customer shall provide the high voltage switchgear and
transformers. Utilities Rule & Regulation #3.
For primary services, the standard service protection is a padmount fault interrupter
owned and maintained by the City, installed at the customer’s expense. The customer
must provide and install the pad and associated substructure required for the fault
interrupter.
Projects that require the extension of high voltage primary distribution lines must be
coordinated with the Electric Utility. Additional fees may be assessed for the
reinforcement of offsite electric facilities.
2.17 Any additional facilities and services requested by the Applicant that are beyond what the
utility deems standard facilities will be subject to Special Facilities charges. The Special
Facilities charges include the cost of installing the additional facilities as well as the cost
of ownership. Utilities Rule & Regulation #20.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDE’,IG PERMIT
2.18 The applicant shall comply with all the Electric Utility Engineering Department service
requirements noted during plan review.
DURING CONSTRUCTION
2.18 Contractors and developers shall obtain a street opening permit from the Department of
Public Works before digging in the street right-of-way. This includes sidewalks,
driveways and planter strips.
2.19
2.20
At least 48 hours prior to starting any excavation, the customer must call Underground
Service Alert (USA) at 1-800-227-2600 to have existing underground utilities located and
marked. The areas to be checked by USA shall be delineated with white paint. All USA
markings shall be removed by the customer or contractor when construction is complete.
The customer is responsible for installing all on-site substructure (conduits, boxes and
pads) required for the electric service. No more than 270 degrees of bends are allowed in
a secondary conduit run. All conduits must be sized according to National Electric Code
requirements and no ½-inch size conduits are permitted. All off-site substructure work
will be constructed by the City at the customer’s expense. Where mutually agreed upon
by the City and the Applicant, all or part of the off-site substructure work may be
constructed by the Applicant. Utilities Rule & regulation #16.
2.21 All primary electric conduits shall be concrete encased with the top of the encasement at ¯
a depth of 30 inches. No more than 180 degrees of bends are allowed in a primary
conduit run. Conduit runs over 500 feet in length require additional pull boxes.
2.22 All new underground conduits and substructures shall be installed per City standards and
shall be inspected by the Electrical Underground Inspector before backfilling. Rule &
Regulation #16.
2.23 The customer is responsible for installing all underground electric service conductors, bus
duct, transition cabinets, and other required equipment. The installation shall meet the
National Electric Code requirements and the City standards.
2.24 Prior to fabrication of electric switchboards and metering enclosures, the customer must
submit switchboard drawings to the Electric Metering Department at 3201 East Bayshore
Road, Palo Alto 94303 for approval. The City requires compliance with all applicable
EUSERC standards for metering and switchgear.
2.25 All new underground electric services shall be inspected and approved by both the
Building Inspection Division and the Electrical Underground Inspector before energizing.
Utilities Rule & regulation #18.
AFTER CONSTRUCTION & PRIOR TO FINALIZATION
2.26 The customer shall provide as-built drawings showing the location of all switchboards,
conduits (number and size), conductors (number and size), splice boxes, vaults and
switch/transformer pads.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING OCCUPANCY PERMIT
2.26 The applicant shall secure a Public Utilities Easement for facilities installed on private
property for City use. Utilities Rule & Regulations #16.
2.27 All required inspections have been completed and approved by both the Building
Inspection Division and the Electrical Underground Inspector.
2.28 All fees must be paid.
2.29 All Special Facilities contracts or other agreements need to be signed by the City and
applicant.
2.30
2.31
The developer/owner shall provide space for installing padmount equipment (i.e.
transformers, switches, and interrupters) and associated substructure as required by the
City. In addition, the owner shall grant a Public Utilities Easement for facilities installed
within the subdivision as required by the City.
The civil drawings must show all existing and proposed electric facilities (i.e. conduits,
boxes, pads, services, and streetlights) as well as other utilities.
2.32 The developer/owner is responsible for all substructure installations (conduits, boxes,
pads, streetlights system, etc.) on the subdivision parcel map. The design and installation
shall be according to the City standards and all work must be inspected and approved by
the Electrical Underground Inspector. Rule & Regulation # 16-A(2).
2.33 The developer/owner is responsible for all underground services (conduits and
conductors) to single-family homes within the subdivision. All work requires inspection
and approval from both the Building Department and the Electrical Underground
Inspector.
3.W.ater Gas and Wastewa,ter Division
PRIOR TO SUBMITTAL FOR BUILDING PERMIT
3.1 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.).
3.2 The applicant shall submit improvement plans for u~tility 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.
3.3 The applicant must show on the site plan the existence of any water well or auxiliary
water supply.
3.4 The applicant shall be responsible for installing and upgrading the existing utility mains
and/or services as necessary to handle anticipated peak loads. This responsibility includes
all costs associated with the design and construction for the installation!upgrade of the
utility mains and/or services.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT
3.5 The applicant’s engineer shall submit flow calculations and system capacity study
showing that the on-site and off-site water and sanitary sewer mains and services .will
provide the domestic, irrigation, fire flows, and wastewater capacity needed to service the
development and adjacent properties during anticipated peak flow demands. Field-testing
may be required to determined current flows and water pressures on existing main.
Calculations must be signed and stamped by a registered civil engineer.
"3.6 For contractor installed water and wastewater mains or services, the applicant shall
submit to the WGW engineering section of the Utilities Department four copies of the
installation of water and wastewater utilities off-site improvement plans in accordance
with the utilities department design criteria. All utility work within the public right-of-
way shall be clearly shown on the plans that are prepared, signed and stamped by a
registered civil engineer. The contractor shall also submit a complete schedule of work,
method of construction and the manufacture’s literature on the materials to be used for
approval by the utilities engineering section. The applicant’s contractor will not be
allowed to begin work until the improvement plan and other submittals have been
approved by the water, gas and wastewater engineering section.
3.7
3.8
The applicant shall pay the connection fees associated with the installation of the new
utility service/s to be installed by the City of Palo Alto Utilities. The approved relocation
of services, meters, hydrants, or other facilities will be performed at the cost of the
person/entity requesting the relocation.
Each unit, parcel or place of business shall have its own water meter, gas meter and sewer
lateral connection shown on the plans.
3.9 A separate water meter and backflow preventer shall be installed to irrigate the approved
landscape plan. Show the location of the irrigation meter on the plans. This meter shall
be designated as an irrigation account and no other water service will be billed on the
account.
3.10 A new water service line installation for domestic usage is required. Show the location of
the new water service and meter on the plans.
3.11 A new water service line installation for irrigation usage is required. Show the location
of the new water service and meter on the plans.
3.12 A new water service line installation for fire system usage is required. Show the location
of the new water service on the plans. The applicant shall provide to the engineering
department a copy of the plans for fire system including all fire.department’s
requirements.
3.13 An approved reduce pressure principle assembly (RPPA backflow preventer device) shall
be installed for all existing and new water connections from Palo Alto Utilities to comply
with requirements of California administrative code, title 17, sections 7583 through 7605
inclusive. The RPPA shall be installed on the owner’s property and directly behind the
water meter. Show the location of the RPPA on the plans. Inspection by the utilities
cross connection inspector is required for the supply pipe between the meter and the
assembly.
3.14 An approved detector check valve shall be installed for the existing or new water
connections for the fire system to comply with requirements of California administrative
code, title 17, and sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive. Double check detector check
valves shall be installed on the owner’s property adjacent to the property line. Show the
location of the detector check assembly on the plans. Inspection by the utilities cross
connection inspector is required for the supply pipe between the City connection and the
assembly.
3.15 A new gas service line installation is required. Show the new gas meter location on the
plans. The gas meter location must conform to utilities standard details.
3.16 A new sewer lateral installation is required. Show the location of the new sewer lateral
on the plans
DURING CONSTRUCTION
3.17 The contractor shall contact underground service alert (800) 227-2600 one week in
advance of starting excavation to provide for marking of underground utilities.
3.18 The applicant shall provide protection for utility lines subject to damage. Utility lines
within a pit or trench shall be adequately supported. All exposed water, gas, and sewer
lines shall be inspected by the WGW Utilities Inspector prior to backfilling.
3.19 The contractor shall maintain 12" clear, above and below, from the existing utilities to the
new underground facilities.
3.20
3.21
3.22
3.23
3.24
3.25
3.26
If the Contractor elects to bore new pipes or conduits, the pilot bore hole shall be 24"
clear from any existing utility pipes and all existing utility crossings shall be potholed
prior to starting,~work.
All utility installations shall be in accordance with the City of Palo Alto utility standards
for water, gas & wastewater.
Utility service connections will be installed between 30 and 40 days following receipt of
full payment. Large developments must allow sufficient lead-time (6 weeks minimum)
for utility construction performed by theJCity of Palo Alto Utilities.
The applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from Caltrans for all utility work in
the El Camino Real right-of-way. The applicant must provide a copy of the permit to the
WGW engineering section.
All utility work shall be inspected and approved by the WGW utilities inspector.
Inspection costs shall be paid by the applicant’s contractor. Schedule WGW utilities
inspections at 650/566-4504 five working days before start of constructions.
The applicant’s contractor shall immediately notify the Utilities Department (650) 496-
6982 or 650/329-2413 if the existing water or gas mains are disturbed or damaged.
All backflow preventer devices shall be approved by the WGW engineering division,
inspected by the utilities cross connection inspector and tested by a licensed tester prior to
activation of the water service.
3.27
3.28
3.29
3.30
No water valves or other facilities owned by Utilities Department shall be operated for
any purpose by the applicant’s contractor. All required operation will only be performed
by authorized utilities department personnel. The applicant’s contractor shall notify the
Utilities Department not less than forty-eight (48) hours in advance of the time that such
operation is required.
The contractor shall not disconnect any part of the existing water main except by
expressed permission of the utilities chief inspector and shall submit a schedule of the
estimated shutdown time to obtain said permission.
The water main shall not be turned on until the service installation and the performance
of chlorination and bacteriological testing have been completed. The contractor’s testing
method shall be in conformance with ANSUAWWA C65 l-latest edition.
Changes from the utility standards or approved submittals will require new submittals, as
specified above, showing the changes. The new submittals must be approved by the
utilities engineering section before making any change.
3.31 All improvements to the gas system will be performed by the City of Palo Alto Utilities.
3.32 All customer piping shall be inspected and approved by the building inspection division
before gas service is instituted. Gas meters will be installed within five working days
after the building piping passes final inspection and the building inspection division sends
the set tag to the Utilities Department.
Utilities Marketing Division
Prior to issuance of either a Building Permit or Grading Permit, all common area
landscaping shall be approved by the Utilities Marketing Services division of the Utilities
Department. The landscape shall conform to the Landscape Water Efficiency Standards
of the City of Palo Alto. A water budget shall be assigned to the project and a dedicated
irrigation water meter shall be required. Call the Landscape Plan Review Specialist at
650.329.2549 for additional information.
5.Fire Department Conditions
5.1 A fire sprinkler system shall be provided for each building which meets the requirements
of NFPA Standard No. 13 - 1996 Edition. Fire Sprinkler system installations require
separate submittal to the Fire Prevention Bureau. (PAMC 15.04.083) NOTE: Building
plans will not be approved unless complete sprinkler coverage is indicated.
5.2 Sprinkler system(s), and shall meet the requirements of NFPA Standard No. 24 - 1996
Edition. Fire supply system installations require sep,arate submittal to the Fire Prevention
Bureau. (PAMC15.04.083) NOTE: Fire Department approval will be withheld until
Utilities Department and Public Works Department requirements have been met.
5.3 An approved audible sprinkler flow alarm to alert the occupant shall be provided in the
interior of the building in an approved location. (98CBC904.3.2) Fire Alarm system
installations require separate submittal to the Fire Prevention Bureau. (PAMC1-5.04.083).
5.4 Residential smoke detection (with primary power from the building wiring and equipped
with battery backup) is required on all residential floors per CBC 310.9.1.
Planning and Community Environment Department
e
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
Building Division
Open parking garages (5-4 occupancies) are not permitted in Type V-N building. (The
materials of the construction must be changed to meet code).
The electrical service shall be located at an exterior location or in a room directly
accessible from the exterior.
The second floor office area is not required to be accessible by an elevator provided that
it shall never be occupied by a health care provi~ter (doctor, dentist, etc.) per CBC Section
1103.1.
The three story stair must be enclosed (exterior stair not permitted where protection of
openings is required.)
7.2
7.3
7.4
8.2
8.3
8.4
Transportation Division
More detail is needed for the bike rack locations showing that sufficient clearance is
provided to park on both sides of the racks. It is not clear what some of the shaded areas
near the bike rack represent on Sheet A1. Bikes are six feet long and a minimum of 2 feet
of access space is needed on each side of the rack that will be used. More space than 2
feet next to the wall would be preferred.
One Class I space per multifamily residential unit is required, but does not seem to be
provided.
The minimum required sight distance triangle at the exit side of the garage is not
provided (refer to PAMC 18.83.110). This is required so pedestrians walking on the
sidewalk near the edge of the building do not encounter a blind comer with no warning
that a vehicle is exiting the garage. There is a door to the sidewalk immediately next to
the garage exit, so pedestrians will be in this area. This will be exacerbated in the future
if/when the widened sidewalk is continued when neighboring properties are redeveloped,
and the sidewalk next to the building becomes more continuous.
The presence of the bathroom in the garage removes five feet from the required aisle
width of 24 feet for drivers to enter the first two or three parking s~alls. It does not affect
drivers backing out of the stalls. The entry maneuver will be difficult for full-sized
vehicles, which may have to jockey back and forth an extra time to enter the stalls
without hitting the adjacent columns or vehicles.
Planning Arborist
Tree Appraisal. In addition to the Tree Inventory and Protection Plan, the
applicant shall submit a tree appraisal or replacement value of all site trees to be
removed and trees to be preserved (each tree listed separately and formula used).
The appraisal shall be performed in accordance with the current edition of the
Guide for Plant Appraisal, under the auspices of the Council of Tree and
Landscape Appraisers.
The grading plans shall specify critical information outlined in the arborist report,
such as root buffer zones, tree protection fencing, wearing surface material for the
driveway and parking areas over the tree roots, aeration systems, etc. Cut sheet
details shall be provided and approved by the Planning Division Arborist.
To avoid root-severing excavation, standard curb and gutter construction shall not
be used. The final plans shall employ on-grade asphalt berm or surface-set wheel
blocks.
All utilities, both public and private, requiring trenching or boring shall be shown-
on the landscape and irrigation plans and shall show that no conflict will occur
8.5
8.6
between the utilities and any landscape or trees to be retained. This shall include
publicly owned trees within the right-of-way.
Landscape and irrigation plans encompassing plantable areas out to the curb shall
be submitted to and approved by the Planning Division and Architectural Review
Board. A Landscape Water Use statement, water use calculations and a statement
of design intent shall be submitted for each project. A licensed landscape
architect and qualified irrigation consultant should prepare these plans.
Landscape and irrigation plans shall include:
ao
go
jo
All existing trees identified both to be retained and removed including street trees.
Complete plant list indicating tree and plant species, quantity, size, and locations.
Irrigation schedule and plan.
Fence locations.
Lighting plan with photometric data.
Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and maintained as necessary to
ensure survival.
Specify quantity, size and spacing of Boston ivy plantings.
Ceanothus (sun-loving) vegetation shall be replaced with a shade tolerant variety
compatible with the predominantly covered area.
All new trees planted within the public right-of-way, as shown on the approved
plans, shall be installed per Public Works Standard Tree Well Diagram #503, shall
have a tree pit dug at least twice the diameter of the root ball. The Public Works
Detail #503 shall be shown on Landscape Plans. A Four foot square tree grate
approved by Public Works Engineering Department shall be installed.
Automatic irrigation shall be provided to all vegetation and new trees. For trees,
details on the irrigation plans shall show two bubbler heads mounted on flexible
tubing placed at the edge of the root ball for each tree street tree. Bubblers shall
not be mounted inside the aeration tube. The tree irrigation system shall be
connected to a separate valve from other shrubbery and ground cover, pursuant to
the City’s Landscape Water Efficiency Standards. Irrigation in the right-of-way
requires a street work permit per CPA Public Works standards.
The Landscape Plan shall ensure the backflow preventer is adequately obscured
by planting the appropriate size and type shrubbery, fitted with green wire cage,
or painted dark green to minimize visibility.
Approved Planting Soil Mix. The planting soil in the planter areas shall show a uniform
soil mix to a 24-inch depth. Prior to planting, the contractor shall provide soils lab report
to the City Arborist verifying that the following soil mix has been delivered to the site.
a. Palo Alto Soil Mix by volume (pre-mix off site)
*65% sandy loam (mostly medium to coarse grade)
*15% clay
*10% 1/4-inch fir bark
*10% volcanic rock
¯Fertilizer. Combine Osmocote 18-6-12 or equivalent at label rates per yard
in the 12-inch area surrounding each root ball.
8.7 Tree Protection and Preservation Plan. All specifications recommended in the arborist
report shall be implemented (Ray Morneau Arborist, dated April 26, 2001). The grade of
the existing oak roots shall be determined and evaluated to establish the grade of
proposed improvements, aeration of the critical root zone and to enable the health and
long term viability of the oak trees. A Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) for each tree to be
retained in which no soil disturbance is permitted shall be established and be clearly
designated on all improvement plans, including grading, utility and irrigation, and show
that no conflict occurs with the trees. The plan shall specify, but not be limited to,
monthly arborist inspections, and pruning, protective fencing, grading limitations and any
other measures necessary to insure survival of the trees. Key elements of this plan shall
be printed on the Tree Protection Instructions sheet with the Project Arborist contact
numb or.
8.8.Root buffeting specified root zone areas specified in the arborist report is mandatory.
8.9.All recommendations specified in the Tree Preservation Report for the project shall be
implemented and maintained throughout the course of construction. A separate TREE
PROTECTION AND PRESERVATION INSTRUCTIONS sheet shall accompany the
plans submitted for building permit and referenced on all Civil drawings (Utility, Storm,
Grading, Erosion, etc.); Demolition; Staging; Building; Landscape, Planting and
Irrigation Plans. The Tree Protection and Preservation sheet shall also contain the
following notes: Conditions of Approval #1-9 listed below and the arborist report (Ray
Morneau Arborist, dated April 26, 2001). This sheet shall clearly show the tree protection
zone, indicating where the fencing will be placed and denote all trees to be retained and
those to be removed. (Ray Morneau Arborist, dated April 26, 2001). The grade of the
existing oak roots shall be determined and evaluated to establish the. grade of proposed
improvements, aeration of the critical root zone and to enable the health and long term
viability of the oak trees.
8.10.Tree Protection Statement: A written statement shall be provided to the Building
Department verifying that protective fencing for the trees is in place before demolition,
grading or building permit will be issued, unless otherwise approved by the City Arborist.
8.11.Fencing - Protected Trees, Street Trees, or Designated Trees. Fenced enclosures shall be
erected around trees to be protected to achieve three primary functions, 1) to keep the
foliage canopy and branching structure clear from contact by equipment, materials and
activities; 2) to preserve roots and soil conditions in an intact and non-compacted state
and 3) to identify the Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) in which no soil disturbance is
permitted and activities are restricted, unless otherwise approved.
Size, type and area to be fenced. All trees to be preserved shall be protected with five
or six (5’ - 6’) foot high chain link fences. Fences are to be mounted on two-inch
diameter galvanized iron posts, driven into the ground to a depth of at least 2-feet at no
more than 10-foot spacing.
Type I Tree Protection
The fences shall enclose the entire area under the canopy dripline or TPZ of the tree(s)
to be saved throughout the life of the project. Parking areas: fencing must be located on
paving or concrete that will not be demolished, the posts may be supported by an
appropriate grade level concrete base.
Type II Tree Protection
For trees situated within a narrow planting strip, only the planting strip shall be
enclosed with the required chain link protective fencing in order to keep the sidewalk and
street open for public use.
Type III Tree Protection
Trees situated in a small tree well or sidewalk planter pit, shall be wrapped with 2-
inches of orange plastic fencing from the ground to the first branch and overlaid with 2-
inch thick wooden slats bound securely (slats shall not be allowed to dig into the bark).
During installation of the plastic fencing, caution shall be used to avoid damaging any
branches. Major scaffold limbs may also require plastic fencing as directed by the City
Arborist
8.12
8.13
8.14
8.15
Duration. Tree fencing shall be erected before demolition, grading or construction
begins and remain in place until final inspection of the project, except for work
specifically allowed in the TPZ. Work in the TPZ’requires approval by the project
arborist or City Arborist (in the case of work around Street Trees).
’Warning’ sign. A warning sign. shall be prominently displayed on each fence at 20-foot
intervals. The sign shall be a minimum 8.5-inches x 11-inches and clearly state:
"WARNING - Tree Protection Zone - This fence shall not be removed and is subject to
a fine according to PAMC Section 8.10.110."
During construction,the project arborist shall perform a site inspection to monitor tree
condition on a minimum of four-week intervals. The Planning Arborist shall be in receipt
of the inspection report during the first week of each month until completion at fax #
(650) 329-2154.
During construction, all neighbors’ trees that overhang the project site shall be protected
from impact of any kind.
During construction, the applicant shall be responsible for the repair or replacement of
any publicly owned trees that are damaged during the course of construction, pursuant to
Section 8.04.070 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code.
During construction, the following tree preservation measures apply to all trees to be
retained:
a.No storage of material, topsoil, vehicles or equipment shall be permitted within the tree
enclosure area.
b. The ground under and around the tree canopy area shall not be altered.
Co
8.16
8.17
8.18
8.19
¯
¯
8.20
Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and maintained as necessary to ensure
survival.
During construction, and prior to the installation of the required protective fencing, any
necessary pruning work on trees to remain shall be performed in accordance with the
following:
a. All work on Protected Trees shall be done in a manner that preserves the tree
structure and health, pursuant to the Western Chapter of the International Society of
Arboriculture (WC-ISA) Guidelines; Standard Practices for Tree Care Operations
outlined in the ANSI A300-1995; ANSI Z133-1994 and Chapter 8.10 of the Palo
Alto Municipal Code.
b.Any work on trees within the right-of-way must first be approved by Public Works’
at (650) 496-6974.
Landscape Architect .Inspection prior to Occupancy. The contractor shall call for an
inspection by the Landscape Architect, and provide written verification to the Planning
Department that all trees, shrubs, planting and irrigation are installed and functioning as
specified in the approved plans.
Post Construction Maintenance. For the life of the project, all landscape shall be well-
maintained, watered, fertilized, and pruned according to Nursery and American National
Standards for Tree, Shrub and Other Woody Plant Maintenance- Standard Practices
(ANSI A300-1995). Any vegetation that dies shall be replaced or failed automatic
irrigation repaired by the current property owner within 30 days of discovery.
Front Landscape Planter
The planter area should incorporate a slight (2-4") berm along the center to differentiate
the sidewalk grade from the planter and to enhance drainage. The planter shall
incorporate a raised border of brick, tile or other permanent material.
Two Red Japanese Maples (Acerp. ’Bloodgood’) located 2’ from each edge of the planter.
Three shorter (2-3’ high) color areas or shrubs (such as Trollius chinensis, Globeflower or
Galkdia grandiflora "Goblin Yellow’) should be planted in the center to contribute visual
attraction to the retail window and sinage. The three trees shall be 24" box size with one
irrigation bubbler each. Beneath the trees, a two-foot diameter root area shall be free of
other plantings and covered with mulch.
Decorative boulders could be artfully placed as accents.
Ground cover should consist of dark green Lili Turf (Liriope muscari) around the
border and lighter green variegated lily turf (Liriope muscari ’Varigata’) on the
interior, planted 12" o.c. in all remaining areas.
9.2
9.3
9.4
9.5
9.6
Planning Division
The plans submitted for building permit shall include double-glazed windows for the
residential unit.
Visual impacts from both interior lighting sources and exterior lighting sources shall be
minimized, with no unnecessary continued exterior illumination, using the lowest
intensity and energy use feasible.
N~ highly reflective surfaces/glazing shall be installed on the rear elevation facing
residential.
Roof protrusions shall be obscured from public view by roof screen or proper placement.
Truck deliveries shall be prohibited before 8:00 AM and after 7:00 PM.
Prior to submittal for building permits, the applicant shall provide the planning
department with materials for the ARB to review and provide comments. The items are
as follows:
9.9
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
o
Physical materials board, including color of the cast in place concrete walls.
Tree maintenance and protection plan.
Location of utilities and mechanical equipment.
Study and detailing of entry element to garage, including signage.
Landscaping and hardscape materials.
Final color elevations.
Final design of balcony screening, louvers, and structural design for the front
fagade.
List of environmental "green building" program for construction.
Prior to review of this application by the City Council, the applicant shall provide a
revised landscape plan including the front setback planting.
Prior to review of this application by the City Council, the applicant shall provide an
amended arborist’s report including recommendations for mitigating any potential impact
from the increased retail area.
The project will substantially comply with the Below Market Rate (BMR) rental
guidelines to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Community Environment.
Attachment C
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
:MEETINGS ARE CABLECAST LIVE ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL 26
November 28, 2001
REGULAR MEETING - 7:00 PM
City Council Conference Room
Civic Center, 1st Floor
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, California 94301
ROLL CALL: 7:05 PM
Commissioners:
Patrick Burt, Chair
Bonnie Packer, Vice-Chair
Karen Holman
Kathy Schmidt - absent
Michael Gt’iffin
Phyllis Cassel
Annette Bialson
Staff:
Lisa Grote, Chief Planning Official
John Lusardi, Current Planning Manager
Amy French, Senior Planner
Zariah Betten, Executive Secretary
Chair Burt: This is the Planning and Transportation Commission Meeting of November 28,
2001. Please call the roll.
Thank you. At ~his time we have Oral Communications for anyone wishing to speak,on an item
that is not on the agenda.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS. Members of the public may speak to any item not on the agenda
with a limitation of three (3) minutes per speaker. Those who desire to speak must complete a
speaker request card available from the secretary of the Commission. The Planning and
Transportation Commission reserves the right to limit the oral communications period to 15
minutes.
Chair Burt: I see none.
We have no Minutes to approve this evening so we move on to an item of new business.
City of Palo Alto Page 1
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
47
CONSENT CALENDAR. Items will be voted on in one motion, unless removed from the
calendar by a Commission Member.
AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS. The agenda may have additional
items added to it up until 72 hours prior to meeting time.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS.
Public Hearings:. None.
Other Items: None.
Chair Burt: We have a PC application for 2051 E1 Camino Real. Do we have a staff report at
this time?
NEW BUSINESS.
Public Hearings:
2051 El Camino Real (01-PC-04~ 01-ARB-136)*: Request by Mehmood
Taqui on behalf of Oak Shadows LLC for review and rezoning of a 4,938
square-foot pared from CN (Neighborhood Commercial) to PC (Planned
Community) to construct a 4,347 square-foot three-story building to contain
two residential units (2,373 square feet) including a below market rate unit,
retail area (511 sq.ft.) and office area (1,235 sq.ft.). This item has been
tentatively scheduled to be heard at a public hearing with the Architectural
Review Board on December 6, 2001 and with the City Council on January 7,
2002.
Ms. Amy French, Senior Planner: Good evening Chairman Burt and Planning Commissioners.
must mention that you have at-your places correspondence from John Baca that was received
yesterday.
The project before you tonight has been changed from the earlier project that was presented to
many of you back in July of this year. The previous project was submitted in the form of a site
and design review and variance applications. The Planning and Transportation Commission
forwarded the project to the City Council who expressed concerns about the development and
referred the project back to the Planning Commission and Architectural Review Board to explore
other alternatives. The purpose of tonight’s meeting, which is the first of two Planning and
Transportation Commission meetings on this application, is to review the project as it has been
revised and determine whether this Planned Community application should be forwarded to the
Architectural Review Board for further review. Staff feels the merit of this project warrant a
favorable review by the ARB and Planning and Transportation Commission since the applicant
has responded to the City Council’s concerns by increasing the residential density on the site to
two units, including a below market rate unit, and increasing the retail floor area to 511 square
feet. The current version of this project is a Planned Community rezone application in order to
increase the residential density on the site beyond the one unit that was permitted underthe
existing zoning, which is CN.
City of Palo Alto Page 2
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
47
The staff report documents the changes made to the project since the City Council review back in
September and sets forth the components of the PlannedCommunity District. Again, if the
Planning and Transportation Commission is in favor of the project proceeding, Staff
recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission forward the project to the ARB.
The Planning and Transportation Commission will get another chance to review the particulars
of this project at a second meeting, tentatively scheduled for December 12, before sending their
recommendation to the City Council. The property owner is here tonight to give a presentation.
Thank you.
Chair Burt: Thank you. Are there questions of Staff at this time? Seeing none, would the
applicant like to speak?
Mr. Mehmood Taqui, Applicant, 1336 Tasso Street, Palo Alto: Good evening members of the
Planning Commission. As you all know the size of this property is very, very small and the oak
trees present certain restrictions on development. However, the beautiful oak trees were one of
the major attractions for acquiring this property for myself. Once the development is complete I
will be living on the top floor and the oak trees are one of the main reasons for my wishing to
live there. The design reflects the future look of E1 Camino, the neighborhood and complies with
the E1 Camino guidelines currently under study by the City of Palo Alto. The present zoning for
the property, CN, is very complicated when you try to design within the zoning codes and
incorporate a residential unit. As directed by the Council the PC Zoning up right here will allow
a second residential unit, a unit of three bedrooms, 1,107 square feet and is proposed to be used
as a BMR unit. With the present request the concerns of the City Council and the neighbors
have been addressed to a great extent. That is, by increasing the retail component by 200 square
feet clear making a total of 511 square feet excluding the bathroom which has been relocated to
another location, office size has been reduced by 120 square feet and above all, a three bedroom
BMR residential unit has been provided behind the office for the use of City employees like the
fire fighters, police or the teachers. I have considered the views and concerns and suggestions of
the City Council, ARB, Planning Commission and the neighbors to achieve the optimum design
and comply with those requests. Also, I am within the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan for mixed
use on E1 Camino and the business element and the current development of the Comprehensive
Plan. I believe the BMR unit will meet those requirements. Concerns about the privacy at the
rear have been addressed by removing the deck on the top residential unit and increasing the
bedroom without encroaching on the required back space.
The commercial space allowed is 2,000 square feet in the CN Zone and in the present proposal
the area is 1,702 square feet. The alternative without the PC Zoning and without the variances,
which were requested in the last application, is to build an office building with more residential
and retail and as desired by the neighbors and the Comprehensive Plan. To construct an office
building without any residential or retail would be heartbreaking since I’m proposing a building
which includes two residential units and retail on the ground floor. Basement parking was
originally considered but found to be unviable due to the small lot size and the ramps would take
up all the area and the oak trees would have sustained damage to the roots since the building
would extend from end of one property line to the other. Thank you.
Chair Burt: Thank you. Any questfons for the applicant at this time? Karen.
City of Palo Alto Page 3
1
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
47
48
Commissioner Holman: I have a question on the plans. The trees as shown on the plans, for
instance on A-3, are these trees actual size and to scale of what the proposed building would be?
Mr. Taqui: The actual setting of the trees has been done and that is part of the submission that I
have made with the Arborist’s report. There are two arborist reports from our side, which clarify
what needs to be done and how to protect them.
Commissioner Holman: My question is, on the drawings if the height of the trees has been
determined and how they relate to the building.
Mr. Taqui: The height has not been shown on the drawings because they have not been
measured but they have been measured physically by the arborist who was with me two weeks
back. He took physical measurements to see how much of the part of grooming was done and
the building has been mocked out on the property.
Chair Burt: Bonnie.
Commissioner Packer: I was wondering about the office space. Is the size or the existence of
the office space essential for the economic viability of this project?
Mr. Taqui: With the BMR unit it is a very, very thin economical line right now. Initially, as you
know, I was going to occupy all the residential area but now I believe the BMR unit is the right
way to go and to make it economically viable I need to have that.
Chair Burt: I have one question.. The BMR unit is actually proposed as a three-bedroom unit,
which is very commendable and yet the building size is even somewhat larger than the original
proposal. If the BMR unit were reduced to a two-bedroom unit would the economics of the
project allow you to proportionately reduce the office space and thereby have less of a parking
deficit than is currently proposed?
Mr. Taqui: I have looked into thatbut it doesn’t work out to me because dropping the rent from
the BMR unit doesn’t work for me. There is. a big drop for a two-bedroom unit compared to a
three-bedroom unit.
Chair Burt: Karen.
Commissioner Holman: Since you applied for a PC, had you considered this property being
developed as two-story building with a donation to the housing fund?
Mr. Taqui: I do not understand your question.
Commissioner Holman: The proposal is for a three-story building. I was wondering if you had
considered a two-story building with a donation into the Palo Alto Housing Fund as opposed to
the BMR unit.
Mr. Taqui: I had not considered that.but I don’t think it will work because of the economics of
the whole project.
City of Palo Alto Page 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19.
20
21
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
47
48
Chair Burt: Any other questions? Thank you very much.
At this time we have speakers from the public. The first speaker is John Baca.
Mr. John Baca, 484 Oxford, Palo Alto: Hello folks. The first thing I am passing around to you a
picture of the six ground floor windows of the tenants adjoining the property on the east, the
second is two parts, one is a picture taken from across E1 Camino and then the overlay shows
how massive the project would.look. The third is the petition with the 103 signatures on it. This
project has quite a bit of opposition in the neighborhood, I would say overwhelming opposition
in the neighborhood. A lot of it has to do with parking. Some of it has to do with the use of
office, some of it has to do with the jobs/housing imbalance and it still seems like this project is
too large. I don’t know about the economics of a parcel that was bought for $375,000 and what
is economically feasible given that purchase price. What makes a project worthwhile I’m not
sure how much of a margin you need in order to complete a two-story project or three story
residences. I feel that with the findings that there is a public benefit, definitely. I personally
don;t feel it is enough of a public benefit given the fact that there will also be negative public
benefits in terms of increasing parking deficit. In terms of compatibility with the existing or
future uses in that neighborhood I also don’t feel like you can make that finding. Thank you
very much.
Chair Burr: Thank you. Karen, did you have a question?
Commissioner Holman: Yes, before you leave. The photo that you passed around, can you tell
me if that building height is relative to the tree height?
Mr. Baca: It is relative to the tree height but you have a prelapsed perspective. You have an
angle so that it’s the front of the property that is relative to the tree height. I could also say that
the trees have been pruned up to about 16 feet so any further pruning, and there will be further
pruning, was going to form a tree kind of like me with my head like this and my branches down
here. There will be a bunch of funny looking oak trees. ¯
Chair Burt: Thank you. Our next speaker is Joy Ogawa.
Ms. Jog Ogawa, 2305 Yale Street, Palo Alto: I live in College Terrace across E1 Camino from
this project. Many Palo Altans have grown to look upon a Planned Community or PC
application with great distrust. I think this application is a good example of why we have such
distrust. The previous application was sent back by Council, effectively denied by Council, so
what does this applicant do? Well, he brings back a similar application with an even bigger
building and more floor area and they are still asking for a rezone to a PC. As to public benefit I
agree with John Baca. I agree there is overall public benefit but I think there is a net negative
public benefit because of the parking impacts but also because they are basically removing these
oak trees from public view. They are going to be blocked by this stairwell. This eyesore of a
stairwell. I don’t think that doing so is consistent with the El Camino guidelines, which actually
suggest having a public plaza or good landscaping. So when the Council sent this project back it
gave some specific directions. One of Council’s directions was to make more room for the oak
trees and we can see this on the last page of the Council Minutes. Make more room for the oak
trees. But instead of providing more room for the oak trees the application proposes less room
for the oak trees. They have included some mitigation measures. What part of "make more
City of Palo Alto Page 5
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
47
48
room for the oak trees" does the applicant or Staff, not understand? Council considered the oak
trees and proposed explanations and the mitigations in great depth before giving the explicit
direction, "more room for the oak trees."
The parking feasibility plan proposed by the applicant, Attachment H on the last page of the staff
report, was grossly inadequate. By increasing the floor area and uses from the previous
application the applicant are now proposing an increase in what will be required on-site parking
spaces from nine to 11 spaces. Demand is increasing by two parking spaces and yet they are
proposing to decrease the number of provided parking spaces from eight to seven. Applicants
are proposing that the residents use the parking at night and commercial use the parking during
the day but there are so few parking spaces if there is any overlap in parking usage-between
residential and commercial then is simply will not work. There are only six non-ADA parking
spaces proposed. If four of these spaces are taken up by residents then that leaves only two
regular parking spaces to be divided between retail and office use. Guess who is going to be
monopolizing the available parking? It is not going to be available to retail. I think City Council
suggested consideration of tandem parking and designated parking. I see no evidence that these
measures were given serious consideration by the applicant and I strongly feel that any parking
plan needs to designate at least two regular parking spaces for use by retail customers during
business hours otherwise that retail has no chance. How are retail customers supposed to access
the on-site parking? The parking feasibility plan says that the retail will have a door operating
that the garage door will be able to be manually operated by retail employees. Are the retail
customers supposed to pull into the driveway and honk their horns so the retail workers can buzz
them in? I don"t think that’s going to work.
Council also gave explicit direction to require more retail space by decreasing the office space.
Council asked for a showing of evidence and viability for the retail space pursuant to other
neighborhood commercial. Well, the applicant has somewhat increased the retail space. They
have not offset that increase by a comparable reduction in the office space. They have increased
the retail space by reducing the amount of on-site parking by one space. As to a showing of
retail viability, I don’t see any evidence presented that a 511 square foot space along this section
of E1 Camino will be a viable retail space. John Baca has said there is a number of differences
along this section of E1 Camino, they range in size from 1,200 square feet to 5,000 square feet.
The only examples of smaller retail I can think of are not on E1 Camino but maybe the California
Avenue business district, which is a totally different situation. They have public parking lots and
there is foot traffic. It is not the same as E1 Camino Neighborhood Commercial. So where is
this showing the viability for retail that Council asked for? Remember that parking is really
essential for retail to be viable.
This property is currently zoned CN and Neighborhood Commercial is supposed to be for the
purpose of providing neighborhood serving retail. As to a lack of an elevator, I saw a project
recently being discussed by the ARB and it was the new building to replace Kirk’s on California
Avenue where the Old Pro will be at the bottom and then there would be housing in two floors
above i~. The applicant said they were being required to provide an elevator. So I don’t get it,
why is that project required to provide an elevator and this project is not? I just don’t understand
the interpretation of the codes by Staff.
Finally, as for the economic benefit, I was just listening to the applicant talk about why
economically it wouldn’t be feasible now that a BMR unit is being provided. That doesn’t make
City of Palo Alto Page 6
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
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
any sense to me because his previous proposal was receiving no rent. Now it maybe BMR but
there is some rent. So I don’t understand the logic in that argument. I guess I don’t understand
how Staff can recommend approval of this application when Council direction it seems to me
hasn’t been adequately addressed. I think this application for a PC rezone should be denied.
Thank you.
Chair Burt: Thank you. Do we have any other public speakers this evening? Lynn Chiapella.
Ms. Lynn Chiapella, 631 Colorado Avenue, Palo Alto: I want to concur with what Ms. Ogawa
said. I was here for the original review and I’m a little confused. I guess the ADA is now off.
The ADA is not a required space because I couldn’t find it over there. However, I did question
on the original one that if you have an ADA parking space in a non-accessible building do you
need an ADA parking space? I really would appreciate an answer from Staff on that since I have
read the California regulations on that. I can’t really tell if the ADA is there or not but I would
appreciate clarification of the ADA situation where you have a non-accessible building and you
have ADA requirements.
The reason I came tonigh~ is I think this sets a very poor example for the development of that
area in that it is a parking space short, we’ve reduced the parking spaces while increasing the
square footage. I don’t think that the public benefit, as Ms. Ogawa said, is actually worth it. I
think there are other things that could be done with that. I frankly think that he bought an
extremely small piece of property for a rather low price at that time but I think that he really has
to develop something within the framework of the CN Zone. I do not think that this piece of
property justifies a PC. If you do justify a PC on this I do believe you need to do it for the
Laundromat and every single little piece of property there, exacerbating the parking and the
accessibility. The original plan I saw had a door that prevented you from going into the garage
unless you had a special entry. So if that door is now there I think it needs to be removed. I
could not find it on the plans.
I don’t fmd that these two reports match. Originally it said there were 433 square feet of viable
commercial and now there is 511 and that is not 200 square feet more. I have both reports in
front of me. The office decrease I think is problematic and there will not be enough parking in
general and there are double the employees in that size retail, where they say there will be four
employees there are generally six. So I think that you are just exacerbating the problems on E1
Camino. I would suggest that this PC, though well intentioned, is not really appropriate for such
a small piece of property. Thank you.
Chair Burt: Thank you. At this time would Staff care to comment on any of the issues raised by
the public?
Ms. French: In order of presenters, Mr. Baca’s superimposing the elevation on to a perspective
is misleading. The third floor would not been seen because it is setback from the street rather
significantly. I can tell you the actual number it is in the report. It would not be seen as it is seen
on an elevation. So this is misleading.
The second speaker, Ms. Ogawa, does correctly state that the City Council did at one point say
make more room for the oak trees. There was some confusion regarding what the impact to the -
oak trees would be. We are confident, our Arborist has reviewed the proposal that the applicant
City of Palo Alto Page 7
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
47
48
has presented to us, that has a special type of foundation that would be a floating platform
foundation over those roots. Even with the increase of the retail area, which is as Lynn stated
has changed, that is accurate. Five hundred eleven square feet is now proposed. The foundation
would be built up floating over those roots. It would not impact those roots. The second thing is
the Arborist’s report has been appended with a revised report that presents what would have to
be done with the trees as far as the pruning. It is not significant pruning. So I think with that
expert review by a qualified Arborist we are confident that the building would not harm the oak
trees and they would be viable and survive.
As far as the parking feasibility plan there is a garage door, which would require any
handicapped customer who wanted to park in that handicap space to be buzzed in, and they
would need to pull into the area in front of the garage door. A retail employee would have to
buzz them in on the rare occasion that that would take place. That is the plan anyway. It is a
shared parking plan.
They have decreased the office area by 119 square feet and increased the retail by 200 square
feet. This is not an equal amount. There are differences in parking requirements for office and
retail. Ms. Chiapella mentioned the ADA space. There is still a parking space on the site for
disabled persons and there is still a restroom on the ground floor that would accommodate a
handicapped person. So there are still provisions for handicapped persons as required by the
Uniform Building Code. We are available for questions or other comments.
Mr. John Lusardi, Current Planning Manager: Mr. Chair, if I can comment I was the Staff
person at the City Council meeting when they heard this and referred it back to the Planning
Commission and the Architectural Review Board. The oak trees were one of their concerns.
Their concern was the oak trees being protected enough at the root system and would there be
too much pruning that would significantly impact the oak trees. The Arborist report has been
revised and looked at by an arborist and basically revisited and the priming of the oak trees
would not be significant enough to impact the oak trees in a harmful way. That was number one
but the Council also raised several other concerns. The other concerns that they thought that the
project had were that the project should have more residential use it should have greater retail
use. In order to achieve that kind of mixed use because of the density requirements under the
CN Zone we had to revert this to a PC Zone to add another residential unit. Under the CN Zone
the applicant does have thee right to build a strictly office building. They can propose an office
building of similar and in some cases slightly larger size than what is being proposed with this
project. A similar office building was proposed and approved by the Director after ARB review
on E1 Camino Real about a month ago. So the applicant does have a right to build a strictly
office building under the CN Zone subject to ARB review. I think the Council’s direction was
try to find some solutions to the mixed use project that makes it a little bit more viable and adds
more residential use and addresses the concern that they had about the size of the retail and
ensure that the oak trees would not be significantly impacted. I think this project addresses those
concerns that the ~ouncil directed.
Chair Burt: Bonnie.
Commissioner Packer: The kind of commercial building that is permitted here under CN,
wouldn’t it have to comply with the special regulations that apply when it is within 150 feet of a
residential district?
City of Palo Alto Page 8
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
47
48
Mr. Lusardi: It has requirements for setbacks. This is an R-2 use so it would have a 20-foot
setback which this project respects in the rear yard and 10 foot side yard setbacks on both sides.
You could still build an office building and have those setbacks.
Commissioner Packer: Right. So it would be like 30 feet wide by whatever deep but only 25
feet high, is that correct? The height would be only 25 feet as opposed to 35 feet.
Mr. Lusardi: That’s correct, ye.s.
Commissioner Packer: So a purely office or commercial building potentially be a smaller
building than what is before us.
Mr. Lusardi: But it would be a lot more office square footage than what this building is
proposing.
Comrnissioner Packer: I understand.
Chair Burt: John, at our first go around of this when it was with a variance I had asked a similar
question and you had spoken about the various setbacks and I appreciate you weren’t speaking
literally but you said with these setbacks you would effectively reduce the building envelope
almost down to a postage stamp. It sounds like you are envisioning something bigger than a
postage stamp would be allowed. What would be allowed if we conceive of the existing zoning
requirements and the setbacks? I think we are struggling to have a concept of that.
Mr. Lusardi: I think part of the dilemma here is that the setbacks that would apply to any project
whether it was a mixed use project, which the previous project had to address, or whether it is a
strictly office project is the setback would significantly restrict the size of the building. The
point being that you could build an office building on here, you may have to get some variances
for daylight plane or setbacks but you could build a strictly office building here as opposed to a
mixed use building with a residential or retail component.
Chair Burt: Phyllis.
Commissioner Cassel: Let me ask a question in a little different way. You had another building
go through the system on a similar size lot. Did it have oak trees that it was trying to preserve
roots, did it put its parking underground? Part of the problem here is you have to get the parking
on the site.
Mr. Lusardi: No, it didn’t have any oak tree constraints but it did have parking that the lot size
did require surface parking similar to this one.
Commissioner Cassel: Was that in the front or the back?
Mr. Lusardi: It was similar to this. It was under the building and in the back.
Chair Burt: Karen.
City of Palo Alto Page 9
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
47
Commissioner Holman: To follow up on Pat’s line of question. Can you give us an idea of yes
there are constraints, there were variances applied for before and there is the CN Zoning so if this
was a different project, can you give us an idea of how many square feet of office could be built?
Ms. French: I can answer that. I believe about 2,000 square feet of office area, which would
accommodate all of the parking on site. Not to disagree with my boss here but the CN District
does say that for setbacks if it is adjacent to a zone that is any of the list of R zones then there
would be a required setback on the side. In this case, the apartments next door are still zoned CN
so technically there would not be a side yard setback on that side. There would also not be a side
yard setback on the side of the commercial where the Laundromat is.
Mr. Lusardi: The property to the rear is zoned R-2 and that triggers a side yard setback of 10
feet.
Chair Burt: Karen.
Commissioner Holman: Can I ask then is your 2,000 square foot office calculation with or
without the residential setback?
Ms. French: That is just a square footage count based on the parking, how much parking can
physically fit on this site, you could get 2,000 square feet to office.
Commissioner Holman: Would that actually then work? They can get that much parking on
there.
Ms. French: Yes, they could get the eight parking spaces on the site and with that they could put
a building that would be 25 feet in height maximum.
Commissioner Holman: That would satisfy the setbacks?
Ms. French: That’s correct.
Commissioner Bialson: I would like to run through that. We could have floor space at how
many square feet per floor? We would have how many stories?
Ms. French: Two stories are allowed.
Commissioner Bialson: And we have a 20-foot setback and we’d have a building that is at
maximum 30 feet wide, correct?
Ms. French: The site is 50 feet.
Commissioner Bialson: Right, and we have 10-foot setbacks on either side. So that leaves us a
30 foot wide building, two stories.
Ms. French: We may need to get back to you on this.
City of Palo Alto Page 10
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
47
48
Mr. Lusardi: What I would suggest, Mr. Chair,.is if the Commission wants to see that kind of an
alternative analysis that when this project comes back to the Planning and Transportation
Commission we can give you an analysis of what kind of office building could be built there if it
was strictly an office building and what the setbacks would be, what could be probable variances
that would be required with a strictly office building. We did do that for the last project and we
did do the exhibits we just didn’t bring them. We can do that analysis included in the next staff
report for you.
Commissioner Cassel: You mean this?
Mr. Lusardi: It was a different exhibit for the Council review.
Chair Burt: That sounds great. Michael.
Commissioner Griffin: If we have ventilated this particular subject enough and if I understand it
correctly we could go ahead and ask John and Amy to provide us with a theoretical approach that
would show us the alternative size office building. Can we make that request now?
Chair Burt: Yes, John said he would be glad to provide it at our next review.
Commissioner Griffin: I would like to request that you folks do produce such a document. Then
after that I would like to carry on with another aspect of this. Like a number of the speakers
tonight, I too share concern about the viability of the retail. I did talk this afternoon to Susan
Arpan here on Staff. My concern was the 500 square foot size of the retail. She confirmed in
fact that’s pretty borderline. I’m curious to know what kind of retail does the applicant have in
mind. I can think of a barbershop or maybe an ice cream parlor or something like that but I’d be
interested in knowing if the applicant or the applicant’s architect has some ideas of what type of
retail would be viable there and it would be retail as I understand it that would not be parked.
We would have total walkup type clientele here because there is not onsite parking. If you
couldn’t find a place to park on the street yo.u would have to walk up.
I hope I haven’t complicated that question too much. I would like to know what the applicant’s
concept of retail is.
Ms. Lisa Grote, Chief Plarming Official: I would like to note that you did not close the public
hearing. So if you do want to ask questions of either the applicant or other speakers you can still
do so because you did not close the public hearing.
Chair Burt: Great. If the applicant would like to respond to that it would be appreciated.
Mr. Taqui: We have considered what kind of retail we can put there and probably it will be a
take out place. The food will be supplied and the people will come and buy and go away.
Maybe just one table inside and that would be it. Basically there will be no cooking there.
Commissioner Griffin: I’m sorry there would be no what?
Mr. Taqui: No cooking.
City of Palo Alto 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
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Commissioner Griffin: I’m interested in what types of retail you are envisioning for this 500
square foot space.
Mr. Taqui: As I explained sir, it will be a take out place for sandwiches or whatever is ready-
made. Maybe a coffee or tea place just for take away during the lunchtime or evening time and
breakfast. That is what we are hoping. I’m not in the retail business but I have looked into it.
Commissioner Griffin: Thank you.
Chair Burt: Can I ask one question of Staff related to Michael’s question? Regardless of what
retail tenant the applicant may have in mind this would be mandated as retail, it could not be
changed to some other purpose, is that correct?
Mr. Lusardi: That is correct. It being a PC zoning it would be specific that it be a retail use. I
think the Staff has also addressed types of uses that might be in there. Let me also just address
part,of the Commissioner’s comments too. This retail use is being viewed as a neighborhood
serving retail use. It is a retail use that residents could walk to and not necessarily be a
destination by vehicle type of use but something that the residents could utilize and walk to.
That’s part of its location and size too.
Commissioner Griffin: It seems to me like they would have to in fact walk to it.
Chair Burt: Phyllis.
Commissioner Cassel: In this plan you have excluded medical offices. I know there has been
some discussion but I have not been privy to tMt. Since this is a specific site you can know
answer the question of why medical offices are so offensive.
Mr. Lusardi: It is not that they are offensive, it is if you have a medical office in there you do
have to provide handicap access to that office space. You would have to provide an elevator. So
the fact that the project does not have an elevator in it automatically excludes medical office as a
use there by building code.
Commissioner Cassel: Let’s go back to that elevator question. In Planning there are
requirements in the Building Department that we don’t always deal with. Are these people going
to get to Building Department and find out that they are required to have an elevator?
Mr. Lusardi: No, the only requirement would be is that they could not have a medical office use
in there. That would be the restriction for not having an elevator. This has been reviewed by the
Building Department.
Chair Burt: Other questions? Bonnie.
Commissioner Packer: This is a generic question on PC Zones. Are there any PCs that are
under 5,000 square feet in Palo Alto?
Ms. Grote: Not to my knowledge but we are in fact, in preparation of your study session on
December 12 on PCs and PDs are, doing some research into our past Planned Communities. So
City of Palo Alto Page 12
i
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
47
48
we could have an answer for you on December 12 regarding that question. Most of them I
believe are bigger than 5,000 square feet but there might be some older ones that are small.
Chair Burr: Phyllis.
Commissioner tassel: The question is if we have any smaller but is the purpose of a PC Zone
not to work with a site that doesn’t fit the well known bonds? Here we have trees that we are
trying to preserve and site issues.
Ms. Grote: The PC Zoning Ordinance doesn’t require a minimum size, doesn’t discuss size of
the parcel at all. In fact it is intended to provide some flexibility when you have a number of
features on the site that would preclude the underlying zoning from being applied in a reasonable
manner. So the PC is an attempt to provide some flexibility for an applicant who is dealing with
an unusual site.
Chair Burt: Karen.
Commissioner Holman: A couple of questions. I just want to make sure of one thing. If all this
is a PC application all the exceptions that they asked for in the previous application all still
apply?
Ms. Grote: In a PC the underlying zoning effectively disappears so there isn’t corresponding site
development requirements. I think what you are saying though is those dimensions are still the
same and those angles which would have required a daylight plane encroachment are still the
same and I believe that is correct. It is just that they no longer require variances because in a’ PC
those similar development requirements.
Commissioner Holman: That was understood, I just want to make sure that all the same
conditions existed and that none of those had gotten relief. I just want to make sure that’s clear
and on the record that none of those conditions had gotten relief during the transition to a PC
process.
Mr. Lusardi: That is true, however, the building has been pulled back from the front yard
setback in order to widen potentially the sidewalk in the future. It would not meet the CN front
yard setback zone but it has been pulled back from the previous application submittal.
Commissioner Holman: Thank you for the clarificati~)n. I’d like to ask another question. In the
Comprehensive Plan it is very clear about compatibility and about transition. I have a hard time
justifying how jumping to a 33 foot high building in the midst of single story buildings that there
is any transition issue addressed here. Could Staff address that please?
Mr. Lusardi: I’ll take a stab at it and then letAmy add to it if she wants to. I think what we are
dealing with is a transitional area. I don’t think the anticipation is that all of those single story
buildings will remain single story buildings, that they will be redeveloped also. In that context
we are doing an E1 Camino corridor study and guidelines and we have reviewed this project in
the midst of that guideline development. This project m~ets those guidelines. The one area
where it didn’t meet the direction of those guidelines was the setback where the thinking was that
we should proTide for a future wider sidewalk. When those other properties are also developed
City of Palo Alto Page 13
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
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
they would probably be asked to pull back too. So I think the answer to your question is we
anticipate redevelopment of a lot of the older buildings there in the future. So that issue of
compatibility is a tough one to address in just the existing conditions. I think you have to also
look at it in the context that future development will occur on other sites. In that context the E1
Camino guidelines are being developed to address redevelopment of projects too. This project is
compatible with the direction those guidelines are going.
Commissioner Holman: To follow up on that, I struggle with that because I see that some of
these buildings are not in the best repair however the former tire shop is being rehabilitated and
it’s single story. I struggle with yes, there is probably going to be redevelopment here but to go
to something that is this, in my mind, incompatible is kind of if you will "betting on the come."
It is establishing zoning before the zoning is in place. I struggle with that.
Chair Burt: We can debate it when we get to our discussion. Other questions? Michael.
Commissioner Griffin: Getting into the details of the parking garage and looking at the plan that
shows the layout of the parking spaces, it appears that space number six on the back side of the
structure is hidden almost behind a supporting column. I’m wondering about the parking
viability or the usage of that spot. It would seem to be largely negated by that pillar. Am I
reading that plan correctly?
Ms. French: I’d like to address that. If you are looking at the north elevation, the rear elevation,
it appears to come up with that idea. I believe that is representing a tree.
Cormnissioner Griffin: Actually it is A-1 that I am looking at spot number six. It is marked out
eight feet wide and it appears to be about eight feet iia front of a major support column for the
structure.
Ms. French: Those are light fixtures. Look down to the next line’.
Commissioner Griffin: I’ve got it, thank you. So this would be clear then. There would not be
anything in here that would be in the way.
Ms. French: No obstructions to the parking spaces,
Commissioner Griffin: Thank you for the clarification.
Chair Burt: Another question, Bonnie?
Commissioner Packer: I’m going back to the PC application and the context that we are in. In a
sense we have essentially a lump of clay we can mold in terms of use and development
guidelines because once we are free of all the other restrictions and we can say if this is going to
be a PC, here are the uses that would work and here is some guidance on how it should look or
how it should be built.
Ms. Grote: There are some parameters that you do need to be aware of and one is a 50-foot
height limit which cannot be exceeded. There are other things that you may want to consider
such as the applicant’s proposal and how what some ofyot~r vision and direction might effect
City of Palo Alto Page 14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
/9
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
47
48
that proposal. So in essence you still are responding to a proposal so you would need to get that
input from the applicant.
Chair Burt: Annette.
Commissioner Bialson: With regard to BMR unit, who would be administering that BMR unit?
Mr. Lusardi: Essentially the qualifications for a BMR resident would be administered through
the Palo Alto Housing Corporation, which the City has a contract with. They would be the
organization that would certify the tenant as being meeting the below market rate qualifications
and they would be re-certified on an annual basis.
Chair Burt: A follow up question on the BMR unit. When I asked the applicant whether a
reduction.in the size of the BMR would be less of an economic burden on the project which
would allow for some corresponding reduction in the office area which consequently, hopefully
would allow or create less demand for the parking, the applicant had indicated that. economically
a three bedroom BMR was a greater return on investment and going to a two bedroom BMR
would not be economically feasible. I didn’t understand that since my understanding is that the
developer is essentially subsidizing a BMR construction so the more BMR the greater the
subsidy from the developer. Do you have any comments on that?
Mr. Lusardi: I’ll try to address that. I’d like the opportunity to come back to the Commission
with a little more clarification on that also. I think what the point is, is that a three bedroom unit
even with a below market rate ,rental income you would get more rental income for a three
bedroom unit than you would for a two bedroom unit. What that difference is I can’t honestly
tell you but we could come back and give you that kind of information and whether that really
does change the dynamics of the economics of the project. We could look at that. I can’t tell
you specifically. I think it is a nominal amount but I’m not sure.
Chair Burt: That would be great, thank you. Michael.
Commissioner Griffin: On this subject of BMR units I’m wondering, Amy perhaps you could
address this, what is the market out there for three bedroom apartments as opposed to two
bedroom apartments? What I’m getting at is if the objective of this public benefit is to enhance
the housing availability one of the things that comes to mind is that we might ask the applicant to
consider splitting that three bedroom units into a pair of one-bedroom units for example. So I’m
wondering what the market demand is for that.
Mr. Lusardi: Mr. Chair, I would like to address that. We did talk to the Housing Staff today
about that very option. We talked to the applicant also about that option. If you were to go to
for instance two one-bedroom units or a two-bedroom unit and possibly a one-bedroom unit you
wouldn’t change the parking requirement. We were afraid that we would add more parking
demand. You would not do that. With respect to the market, overall in the City of Palo Alto the
greatest demand for affordable housing is for family affordable housing. That is the single
greatest demand, however, the Housing Staff has indicated that along E1 Camino probably the
most viable affordable housing projects may be one bedroom and not family units given the
location and everything. So it is conceivable that two one-bedroom units could be as viable if
not more viable than one family unit in this particular location. So it is something that we would
City of Palo Alto Page 15
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
47
like to explore. The only answer we don’t have to that is in converting it to two units what kind
of design constraints we run into in doing that and providing more utilities and everything. If
this Commission desires we can come back at the next meeting and look at what two units would
do here and how that may look and how that might work. We can do that alternative analysis for
you.
Chair Burt: Phyllis.
Commissioner Cassel: Another question on the BMR issue. You have indicated that you want
this for City emergency personnel and I know this has been a hot issue. It sounds all very nice. "
In the past when they have done some surveys they discovered that many staff people we want to
have here for emergencies are actually earning incomes that are too high to qualify for BMR
units or just don’t want to be here for a variety of reasons. What happens if we don’t have
people who want to use this unit who are part of the emergency staff?
Mr. Lusardi: The way I believe it is expressed, and the way the project is conditioned, is that is a
preference, it is not a requirement. We understand that there are constraints and we may not be
able to meet that specific. So we phrased it as a preference. What is our standards for BMR for
rentals is that preference is given to people who work or live in Palo Alto. That is the number
one preference that we apply. The applicant certainly has the ability to come forward with a
tenant that might meet the requirements of an emergency worker or something like that but it
would still have to meet the affordability requirements also and be certified by the Palo Alto
Housing Corporation. Secondly, the Palo Alto Housing Corporation maintains a list of potential
tenants or people who want housing and we would revert back to that list if we couldn’t find
someone who qualified. The one preference that we would apply is someone who lives or works
in Palo Alto. If we can satisfy the preference of the applicant for an emergency worker or
someone like that we will certainly try to do that but it is not a requir, ement.
Chair Burt: Thank you. Karen.
Commissioner Holman: I have a question about parking. The supposition here is that there
would be daytime users of parking and nighttime users of parking. I understand that typically
that is granted for lots of 30 cars or more. I’m wondering if there is anything that can happen to
guarantee that is daytime/rfighttime use. The reason I’m going there is because if you have 30
parking spaces it is a practical number to use because you are going to have more coming and
going. If you have this limited number of parking spaces it seems like if you get a couple of
tenants that work at home the whole theory is just shot. So is there anyway to manage that?
Mr. Lusardi: Perhaps the applicant can address that. The only thing I can think of quickly is if
you were to limit either the office hours or the retail hours so you wouldn’t have that overlap of
when potentially the residents were home. The other thing we can do is a monitoring program
with the applicant to make sure that that’s being fulfilled. I’m not sure what our recourse would
be if it is not being fulfilled. So I’m not sure ifi hm)e a real straight or clear answer to that
question. The theory is the same as with a 30-space lot. It is a shared parking and you are right a
30-space lot would typically provide for more availability or more of that flexibility. But it is the
same application where you have a residential evening and weekend use coupled with a daytime
workday use. There should be adequacy for shared parking to operate. In a parking lot like this,
Ctty of Palo Alto Page 16
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
47
48
it would probably have to be somewhat managed and we could look at a condition that would try
to manage it in that vein.
Commissioner Holman: So on the E1 Camino Plan that is being devised now is E1 Camino being
looked at as nighttime pedestrian too? You are saying curtail the use or have hours of use for the
retail. Would that be consistent with what is being proposed for E1 Camino?
Ms. Grote: I don’t think we are looking at hours of operation for businesses as part of the design
guidelines for E1 Camino. Where we may look at some potential changes to parking would be in
the Zoning Ordinance Update. We have talked about having shared facilities for smaller parking
lots than 30 spaces. Currently, you are right, it just references 30 or more. So we have identified
that as one of the parking issues to be addressed in the Zoning Ordinance Update but it is not
addressed as far as shared use in the design guidelines. That is more of a locational issue.
Chair Burt: I have a follow up question or two on parking. When we look at calculations for the
parking requirements and the retail we have a requirement for retail customers, what about the
retail employees? How is that factored in?
Ms. Grote: It is actually based on a square footage calculation and that takes into account
employees as well as customers. So it is one space for every 60 square feet for restaurants and
then for other types of retail it varies depending on the square footage but it is supposed to cover
both employees and patrons.
Chair Burt: Do we have any other examples in the City where the retail parking has a restricted
access like what is proposed here?
Ms. Grote: Ndt that I recall. There was a project on either Cambridge or California Avenue that
was approved with restricted parking, with a gate essentially, but that was an office project. I
don’t think there was retail. I can check but I don’t think was retail as part of that.
Chair Burt: Given that this project is being proposed with a parking deficit, I can envision that
the employee parking for the retail might utilize that restricted area but it does seem unlikely that
it would be a common occurrence for a retail patron to use the restricted area. Is that a concern
that Staff has had in looking at this parking deficit that it is not only a deficit but in a retail sense
functionally an even greater deficit than we have on paper?
Mr. Lusardi: I think it is something that we’ve looked at and I think given the location of this
and that there is on-street parking, and again to emphasize that we view the way this retail is set
up that it’s neighborhood serving, that it would probably be more pedestrian oriented than having
customers or patrons arriving by car. I can tell you we have had this discussion with the
Architectural Review Board and they do feel that there is a need on these kinds of projects there
is justification for reducing the parking that you do not have to have a full parking when you
have on-street parking and you have neighborhood serving retail. I go back to the City Council
discussion on this project when they raised some concerns and Staff did respond that to the
extent they were looking at different types of uses that we would have parking constraints.
Again, Staff got the sense from the Council that they were less concerned about the parking
constraints that the project develop as much as adding another residential unit and increasing the
retail space. That is the best I can answer you with respect to this specific project and area.
City of Palo Alto Page 17
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
3O
31
32
33
34
35
~36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Chair Burt: Phyllis.
Commissioner Casset: A different parking question. This ADA spot inside being accessed by
someone who is a retail person, I don’t quite envision how a person who is in a car who doesn’t
have someone else with them is supposed to get notice to the person in the retail store to open
this gate. It would almost seem better to put the ADA space on the street which is an area that
does not have an ADA spot at this time. It just doesn’t seem feasible as proposed and would
give more flexible space inside.
Mr. Lusardi: I think Staff concurs with your concern with respect to that. What is requiring the
ADA space is the Building Code. It requires that ADA space be onsite. You cannot satisfy the
Building Code by having the ADA space as an on-street parking. Staff would certainly be
willing to talk with Transportation Planning and try to put an ADA space on the street. That is
certainly viable if you can justify that you need that ADA space. ADA street parking is done
throughout the City and that is something that we would be more than willing to pursue.
Ms. French: I can also say with respect to how would somebody get noticed, previously the
applicant had stated there might be a button if someone was able enough to get out of their car
and push a button to operate the gate or some kind of code. It is an awkward situation, you are
correct, but they were exploring some other alternatives like that. As long as it would
functionally be as approximate as it could be then it would be acceptable.
Commissioner Cassel: Perhaps something can be arranged where you take a little card when you
go into a parking space and you have to pull a little piece out. I suppose something of that sort
could be there so you could actually reach it.
Chair Burt: Annette.
Commissioner Bialson: I really don’t have any further questions. I would like to move towards
a motion but if my fellow Commissioners do, go ahead.
Chair Burt: I have just one brief one for clarification regarding the retail. When we first
reviewed this as a variance application I think that it was indicated that the retail square footage
was around 430 square feet and it was subsequently changed to a 300 square f0ot baseline.
Could you clarify that?
Ms. French: That was once you backed out the hallway that led to the parking lot that led also to
the restroom. Once you backed out the restroom and that hallway you were left with the
approximately 300 square feet. Now, because they have removed the restroom from the equation
and put it across the parking lot we are just now left with the shell of 511 square feet and it
doesn’t get complicated with hallways and bathrooms.
Mr. Lusardi: Mr. Chair, that was my error at the Planning Commission stating that I was reading
the plans wrong. That was clarified at the City Council meeting what the actual retail space was
for the Council.
Chair Burt: Great, thank you. Karen, last question?
City of Palo Alto Page 18
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
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Commissioner Holman: Yes, I just have one more question. Was there any exploration done of
doing any kind of offsite parking arrangement since parking is a difficulty here?
Mr. Lusardi: I don’t believe we have. I don’t think the applicant pursued anything of that
nature. Staff has not looked at anything.
Chair Burt: Now that we have completed our question phase I would like to make sure that I
understand that our purpose tonight is to give conceptual guidance on this project, it will then go
to ARB and then return to us for a formal review and acceptance or not based upon when it
returns to us. Correct? So we have the prerogative of some latitude on how we want to approach
this. Annette, you have a concept?
Ms. Grote: IfI could interject, you do need to close the public hearing.
Chair Burt: Thank you. At this time the public hearing is closed.
Commissioner Cassel: A procedural question. The applicant normally makes a presentation,
does he also want a few minutes to respond?
Chair Burt: Would the applicant like to respond to any issues or questions raised?
Mr. Taqui: The argument or discussion that we had about the parking, there are other options, .
which are we could leave the gate open during the day and in the evening it could be controlled
by the tenants. That is another option that could be looked into and that could work very well
too. Thank you.
Chair Burr: Thank you. Karen.
Commissioner Holman: Just a minor procedural thing.’ I wasn’t on the Commission when this
was reviewed before s.o just to keep the record straight I did visit the site some time ago and
again today and did speak with one of the other tenants on that strip.
Chair Burt: Thank you. Annette.
Commissioner Bialson: I wasn’t at the previous Commission meeting with regard to this project
back in July but I did also visit the site. I don’t think I spoke to anyone though, I think I tried to
but I didn’t get anywhere.
I would just like to kick offour discussion by giving my feeling about this project. I have
wrestled with it long and hard. I’m generally in favor of mixed use but what we are doing here I
think is doing violence to a community. I am very concerned about the building size. I
recognize that this is an area in transition. I recognize that many of the uses adjacent to this
particular project site are going to be changed within the next few years, certainly perhaps the
landowner who is using his garages for purposes other than allowing his tenants to park will have
some other use for his building. But as I look at this we seem to be running away from office use
at almost any cost. What I think we do end up with is the possibility of an office building of
approximately 2,000 square feet, maybe, depending on what sort of office space it is which is
City of Palo Alto Page 19
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
4o
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
1 only 800 feet more than what we already have in front of us in a building that has a lot of
2 problems with regard to the amount of parking that it provides, the viability of the retail which I
3 think is supposed to be neighborhood serving but what we have here is something that is
4 insufficient to be neighborhood serving. I think it probably will end up sometl~.ng like the
5 applicant described and that is a sandwich Shop of some sort or other although there seem. to be
6 plenty in the area already. So the combination of the building size, the parking issues and the
7 viability of the retail lead me to believe that while I’d love to have another BMR unit this doesn’t
8 justify doing violence to the neighborhood. Maybe something else can be brought up to us that
9 would be viable and would result in somei~hing where we didn’t have to monitor parking and
10 wouldn’t have to jump through as many hoops as this particular project seems to require. What
obviously would be better is if we had some of the adjacent landowners working with thi~
landowner and coming forward with a project that is hopefully large enough. We are dealing,
right now, with a redevelopment district that is being caused by having too many small parcel
owners not getting together to develop their property and to administer it. We are having
something similar to that here, maybe. That is my general feeling.
Chair Burt: Other general comments by Commissioners before we consider a motion? Karen.
Commissioner Holman: Yes, I have much the same thought that Annette does. I feel like while
I really, really like the mix of uses here I feel like this one parcel is just trying to accomplish way
too much. There are other things that I have concerns about but with the parking concern and the
size of the retail when it comes down to it if I had to say just one thing about what I find
problematic about the project is the viability of the success of the building. That is what it comes
down to., Housing is to my mind a benefit but just to have it on the record I’d like to see the City
address housing as a benefit in a very consistent fashion and I believe there are some areas where
the City doesn’t do that at the moment.
Chair Burt: Bonnie.
Commissioner Packer: I agree with Annette and with Karen.. I also struggle with this project. I
remember when it was here before us with the variances I had approved the variances under a
misunderstanding that what would go in instead would be worse but I realize now that because it
is near a residential area that setbacks would be required and it wouldn’t have been necessarily
an uglier building. Now I understand it better. I find that the building is trying to do too much
for such a small space. As Annette said, if the alternative is simply something like a 2,000
square foot office building that can go in without variances and without anything else to come
before the Planning Commission it would still give something to the owner and wouldn’t be
taking anything away by not approving this application.
The other possibility is if this were to continue to be a PC and it would just be purely residential
with some parking underneath. I don’t know why we have to go through all the hoops just for a
little tiny piece of retail. If it is the applicant’s desire to live with the oak trees that is certainly
possible in another kind of PC. I think we need to respect what is existing there now and even
though it is not zoned residential right next door is quite a large group of small units and there
are people living there that would be negatively impacted by such a humungous building.
Whatever goes in there we would have to respect the residential uses on two sides of that lot.
Those are my concerns. I could not, at this point, make any of the three findings that would be
required for a PC. I do find it ironic that where there was no additional rental unit in the first
City of Palo Alto Page 20
1
2
3
4
5-
6
7
8
9
lO
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
47
48
application there is now another rental unit. I don’t know how much below market is below
market it is a kind of a benefit but it is a questionable benefit in my mind.
Chair Burr: Michael.
Commissioner Griffin: I’d like to know what the alternatives are. John, you said that.you could
come back with some sort of a presentation that would give us an idea of what this office
building would look like, for example. I’d like to see that. I’d also like to see this project come
back with a concept of a pair of one-bedroom apartments for the BMR units to enhance the
public benefit. This gets into an architectural issue but I’m not very keen on the look of this
building at all, I don’t think it is attractive. I may be getting into an ARB area here but the
aluminum slats for sun control just seem to leave a lot to be desired. If we were to look at this
again I’d like to see an alternative approach to sunlight control on that side of the building. I’d
also like to know what impact on the on-street parking would better code enforcement produce in
terms of the garages that are next door. For example, when I made my site visit the garages were
all locked up. Amy, you said in your report that there was a problem in that they were being
used as storage units instead of proper garage spaces. Would more code enforcement free up
spaces along the street front or are we still going to look at pretty much the same thing? There is
no law that says you have to park your car in a garage, right? So whether the landlord is renting
these units out as storage units or whether the tenant himself decides to fill his garage full of
furniture it seems to me that is not going to affect the street side parking at all one way or the
other.
Ms. Grote: In answer to your question, there is a code enforcement action in progress regarding
those garages. We have notified the owner that she does need to make them available forher
tenants. It increases the likelihood that a tenant could then park in their own garage but it
doesn’t require them to.
Commissioner Griffin: I’m finished, Pat.
Chair Burt: Thank you. Phyllis.
Commissioner Cassel: I voted in favor of this project in the first place. The concern I had was
that the single apartment was designed in such a way that it would probably have a lot of adults
having cars in it, which I didn’t mention at the time. Then the other concern that had been
discussed at that meeting was that it would be very easy to convert that into office space and
have no one really know. So I’m pleased that that space is becoming an apartment. The
requirements to make a one-bedroom unit probably would be greater space than this particular
unit because you have kitchen space and common space and hall space and all of that.
The original application that was put out for this project was residential/office and the neighbors
asked that this retail space be placed there. So it is there at the neighborhood request and at the
r,equest of other public people rather than at the original request of the owner.
The lot size is awkward. It is 50 feet wide, it has partic.ular setbacks that are required, these trees
exist, we cannot do underground parking here because of the trees and root placements and that
puts special constraints on that and those constraints are placed by the City. The City put this
requirement in and there are a lot of oak trees involved in this particular site that if it was a new
City of Palo Alto Page 21
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
47
48
site it would have new trees planted and would not have that special requirement. So I felt that
there were special needs on this site. In addition to that we have allowed people the right to, and
I thought this was a right, to go to a mixed use, which gave them the extra height. That this was
not something, in my understanding of the Zoning Ordinance, that we simply now say no you
can’t put a mixed-use site in there. So under those circumstances my understanding was it
became mixed use and it goes to two stories above the ground because we can’t put the space on
the ground. We can’t put very much of anything on the ground and still have parking space.
Now, if we want more parking space and we give up the retail, we can park this site with the
parking on the ground level and put the office and the other space upstairs. I just felt that we
were dealing with some constraints that are special constraints on this site for a zoning that was
allowed. I felt that the oak trees were being cared for. So I don’t think that situation has
changed much and I think that the City Council asked us to deal with making sure the oak trees
were okay, making sure we had two units, you can’t stay in that zoning and have two units.
They did not want a building that was all office and they wanted some retail space. This meets
those requirements. The front of the building facade is not our responsibility. It is the ARB
responsibility. We don’t have to like it.
Chair Burt: I think first that I’d like to commend the applicant for a number of aspects of this
project that we felt were favorable the first time that we reviewed it under a variance and that
some of the aspects are even more improved today. It is a mixed use project, which is something
that the Comprehensive Plan advocates, that we have an improved balance of retail, residential
and commercial uses cornpared to the origina! variance application and that we have a significant
public benefit of a BMR unit. For a small project like this and having only initially one
residential unit and adding a second one that is a BMR compared in proportion to other PCs that
have gone before the City and been approved in the past that is proportionately a significant
benefit. I think the applicant should be commended for that.
On the other hand I continue to have concerns that I had when we reviewed it as a variance
request. Basically, we have a project size that significantly exceeds the available parking. If we
were only having a nominal deficit in the parking I think that the public benefit would potentially
offset that deficit in the parking. In addition we have a building whose size and scale is
imposing on the neighbors. Even if we have some anticipation of eventual transformation of
surrounding properties that is not what exits today. We have neighbors who live there who may
have lived there for some time and may live there for a good while in the future and I don’t think
we can minimize those impacts because we anticipate that there may be an eventuality of some
redevelopment of some of those adjacent properties. We can have that as a consideration but I
think as presently proposed this project is very .large in its size and it does have impositions on
neighbor privacy. The Council had set forth several different changes that they would like to see
and we have seen the applicant address some of them but at the same time we have actually
ended up with a larger project with even a greater parking deficit.
So part of what I was exploring earlier was how could this project be scaled down in a way that
would still be economically viable for the applicant and still be able to retain a BMR unit.
Certainly we value a three-bedroom unit. There is a real shortage of three bedroom BMR units
in the City but as Staff clarified, at this location, it is not necessarily an ideal location for a three-
bedroom BMR unit. As much as I’d like to see a larger BMR unit or even ideally two smaller
B~ts, if we are trying to strike a-balance between the interests of the surrounding
neighborhood and neighbors and some City-wide public benefits of a BMR unit I think the
City of Palo Alto Page 22
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
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
project needs to be scaled down in a way that would still allow the retention ofa BMR unit,
hopefully with less office space and a smaller BMR unit and less of a parking deficit. In
reducing the size of the entire building I think a lot of the other issues could then be addressed.
There might be some more latitude on mitigating the oak tree issues, the neighbor privacy issues
and the parking issues. They could all be addressed more effectively if the overall size of the
structure were reduced. So that is my inclination. I don’t know how the other Commissioners
feel about that.
Karen.
Commissioner Holman: As Pat was indicating the massing of the building was something that
Council had brought as an issue too. One other point of clarification too, in talking about
potentially 2,000 square feet of office that is kind of like a worst case scenario not a desire
because yes, the neighborhood did want retail. I’m wondering if Staff could explore with the
applicant, who has responded in some areas as Pat indicated and others not so much, retail on the
ground floor with housing above and a two story size thus reducing the massing and increasing
the compatibility. Also if it is two stories what do you think the likelihood is of being able to get
any BMR at all whether it be a traditional mixed use of residential over retail?
Mr. Lusardi: If you were to do this under a PC you have to come up with a public benefit by the
PC requirements and the only viable PC benefit here would be a BMR unit. Whether that makes
a retail and residential project viable I don’t know, I can’t answer that. You could do a retail and
residential under the CN Zoning. So you might be going back and revisiting this project under
the CN Zone if that’s the approach to go. But then you back to restricting your unit size so we
are back to the PC dilemma. It is a struggle. It is something we will talk to the applicant about if
that is the desire of the Commission.
Chair Burt: Phyllis.
Commissioner Cassel: We cannot have more than one unit on this site unless we have a PC
Zone. That is the only way we can do it.
Chair Burt: Michael.
Commissioner Griffin: I would support this project despite all of the difficulties that clearly it
does have if we could get two BMR units as opposed to one. That is where I’m coming from.
Chair Burt: Bonnie.
Commissioner Packer: I think you described the problem very well, Pat. I too would like to see
a smaller building and the uses will have to be what is best for both the applicant and the
neighborhood. Maybe we need to go back and see where did that original request for retail come
from and whether there can be more discussions about essential that is. Is it going to be retail or
is it better to have no retail and a smaller building? There are lots of things that have to be
discussed. I think what really bothers us is the size of the building for that size parcel. It is just
such a small parcel. We just can’t solve all the City’s problems or try to do everything in one
place. We have to make sbme choices. To keep it in the PC context would be great because it
could give us that flexibility, as I mentioned the lump of clay that could be molded and could
City of Palo Alto Page 23
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
47
48
make the best of all worlds so long as we are really being serious about compatibility with the
existing uses regardless of what they are zoned as. It is residential there. If these are neighbors
who signed this petition and they oppose the large building, one of the reasons the building is
large and has these problems is because you also wanted retail. So maybe another discussion
needs to happen about the retail. Yes, it would be nice if there were BMR units but if you can’t
do it because you want a smaller building, a smaller building might be better in that spot.
Commissioner Bialson: I really don’t have anything more to say. I think everyone is in general
agreement that this project has to be reworked and brought back to us.
Chair Burt: Staff, do you need greater clarity from the Commission on the direction that we
would like to see it move prior to our subsequent review?
Mr. Lusardi: I think we have heard all the Commissioners and can collect all the Commission’s
comments and concerns and try to bring those together with the applicant and redress some of
the issues. I think what we would like to see is a motion by the entire Commission with s’ome
specific entailed. I think the applicant deserves that given all the work they’ve put into this
project in trying to address the Council’s concerns. I think if you want us to redress some of
these issues we would much prefer that you be specific. Then refer to the ARB and we will
determine when and in what form it has to go to the ARB after working with the applicant.
Chair Burt: Thank you. Does anyone have a motion that they would like to propose to reflect
the consensus of the Commission?
Commissioner Bialson: Do we need to make a motion?
Chair Burt: That was the request of Staff and that applicant deserves that clarity, so they really
know the direction they are being asked to proceed.
Mr. Lusardi: Just for clarity too, one the Commission’s options this evening are to forward this
to the ARB with it coming back to the Planning Commission with ARB comments and the
Planning Commission making a recommendation to the City Council. If you do not think the
project has merit you can forward it directly to the Council with a recommendation that you do
not support the project and the Council will hear it with that recommendation without it going to
the ARB. Staff would prefer that you give us some direction as explicit as you can and give us
the option to go to the ARB to see if we need to redress some of the issues and bring it back to
this Planning Commission. I think there are some things that you’d like to see come back as far
as alternatives. I think you should give the applicant that option to be able to do that.
Chair Burt: John, is there a value to it going to the ARB if it leaves here with a request for
substantive changes that are going to need our review? Is that a concern that that it may be
unproductive effort?
Mr. Lusardi: Mr. Chair, what I’m hearing is some of the changes you are looking for are perhaps
some design changes, some massing and size changes. I think the ARB should have the
opportunity to address that in that respect. What you can do, I imagine and I’ll look to Lisa, is
continue this item as it is and we can bring back further information and alternatives to this
Commission before you refer it to the ARB. If you are going to work with the design of the
City of Palo Alto Page 24
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
4-3
44
45
46
47
building and the massing and the scale of the building I do think you should give the ARB, at
some point, an option to look at that and give you comments back on that.
Ms. Grote: That is correct. Your third option would be to continue this hearing to a date certain
and have the applicant be able to respond to your specific comments. I would, however, make
those comments in the form of a motion so that they can very clearly understand why it is being
continued and what you would like them to reconsider when it comes back.
Chair Burt: Thank you. First, we can decide which process we would like to utilize and then the
specifics of the motion or we can go in either order on those. Yes, Phyllis.
Commissioner Cassel: I would prefer that this be continued. I think the owner has put a great
deal of effort into this. I felt that I was missing some Staff people and some comments and I
would prefer that this be continued so that we can get a response with different Staff and the
owner having some professional assistance as well.
Chair Burt: So when you say Staff you mean consultants to the owner as opposed to City Staff’?.
Commissioner Cassel: In some cases the City Staff. We don’t have an attorney here for some of
the comments, we don’t have an arborist and we continue to ask and argue about this. I’m not
sure who might be brought forward.
Ms. Grote: I didn’t hear specific legal questions that we would need to have the attorney here
for. Our Arborist has reviewed the application.
Commissioner Cassel: I understand that but if Staff has a continuation then people can make
comments that people seem to be uncomfortable with.
Chair Burt: Amaette.
Commissioner Bialson: I don’t want to encourage the Palo Alto process to fully.blossom in this
situation and I am somewhat afraid of that. I also am sensitive to the applicant spending money
to satisfy some our intellectual curiosity and I think we have got to stay aware of how much it
costs to come back and respond to some of the questions that have been posited by us. I for one
am very concerned about the scale of this building. I think I could sit here and redesign another
building but I don’t know if I’d be happy with that one either and that is not my role. If the
applicant wants to withdraw his application and come forward again that’s fine. My feeling at
this point is to forward this on to the City Council with a recommendation not to approve.
Otherwise the applicant keeps coming back, keeps spending more and more money and we as
human beings start feeling sorry and concerned about the process he is going through and we
start in some way compromising our reaction because he has reappeared and reappeared and
reappeared before us. So I am conflicted and would rather not go through continuing this matter
or sending it back to the ARB. I think we have been relatively clear as to what our concerns are
and now it is up to the applicant to take in all that information, consult with his advisors and see
if he can come up with something that meets the concerns that we have. That’s the way I feel
about it.
City of Palo Alto Page 25
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
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Chair Burt: Would Staff like further comment on the pros and cons of that approach? Basically,
we do have concerns for both the applicant’s expenses and Staff time and expenses and we don’t
want to have a process that is going to prolong unnecessarily this project.
Ms. Grote: If you were to make a motion to forward this to the City Council with a
recommendation essentially for denial it would go to the Council, I would not anticipate the
applicant would make changes to the project at that point, it would go to the Council as you have
seen it tonight with your comments and recommendation. They would then have the option of
either upholding that recommendation and denying the project, or if they felt there was
additional work that could be done they would have the option to refer it back to you and back to
the Architectural Review Board. So when it got to them they may in fact refer it back to you
anyway or they may deny it. If you are to make a recommendation to forward it on to the ARB
then it would be beneficial to the applicant to incorporate most if not all of the changes you have
recommended, have those considered by the ARB, then it would come back to you for a final
recommendation and be forwarded on to the City Council. If you do make that recommendation
I think it is tentatively scheduled for the Council in January on the 21 st. I don’t know that they
would make that with the ARB date of December 6 and then back to you by December 12. I
think these changes would require more time than that so it may end up coming back to you
sometime in January and on to the City Council in February. So there is potential for a lengthy
process no matter which option you take.
Chair Burt: Okay, so it sounds like our prerogatives are to continue this to a date certain and
allow the applicant to attemPt to respond to the comments tonight or to make our
recommendations up or down on the project as proposed.
Ms. Grote: You may want to consult with the applicant as to what their preference might be.
Chair Burt: Would we like to hear from the applicant on that? I certainly would.
Would the applicant like to speak on that?
Mr. Taqui: I cannot answer the questions that you have raised today neither can I work out the
economic feasibility of the project at this stage. As you have correctly mentioned the cost is a
very important factor to me and my options are very limited from what I hear right now. To
make it a feasible project by reducing the building is one option and to make it economically
viable is another option, which doesn’t seem to be coming forth very well now. The last option,
which I hate to take, is to make a building of 2,000 square feet and go through more of the
process and you have a parking structure below with a box above. So I would like to continue
but I do not think at this moment I can assure you that I will come back with a smaller building.
Thm~k you.
Chair Burt: Thank you. Do we have a motion?
MOTION
Commissioner Bialson: I would move that we forward this matter to Council with a
recommendation for denial. I’m doing so in recognition that that still leaves the applicant the
ability not to move it forward’ if he so desires he can withdraw it and redesign it, do whatever he
City of Palo Alto Page 26
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
47
48
wishes to do, but I think he deserves a right to have Council speak to this matter rather than
having it go through a loop back to us.
Chair Burt: Do I have a second?
Commissioner Holman: I have a question. If we do that though we should do it with, as a part
of the motion, our concerns?
Ms. Grote: I would include your concerns in the motion so that the Council has a clear idea as to
why you are recommending denial.
Chair Burt: Annette, would you like to add a summary of the concerns to the motion?
AMENDED MOTION
Commissioner Bialson: I’d be happy to express some concerns and if people would like to add
some that would be fine. A main concern is the building size is too large for the site. There is a
structural parking deficit, which does not recognize that the sharing of parking is extremely
difficult in this situation. We are concerned about the viability and whether or not the retail use
that would be put into that space would be neighborhood serving. In essence coming down to an
issue in which the public benefits do not seem to outweigh the detriments.
I’m open to having some other comments put in. I just think it is unnecessary to go into too
much detail because I think that Staff will have in their report to Council a lot dur thoughts
expressed in there.
Chair Burt: Do we have a second to the motion?
SECOND
Commissioner Packer: I’ll second that.
Chair Burr: Bonnie, do you wish to speak to the second?
Commissioner Packer: I agree with what Annette says. I think this also does give the applicant
an opportunity to do many things and it saves the trouble of coming back here again and again
and again and may get some more constructive input from Council. I also agree with the items
that you raise. I think that covers most of the issues.
Chair Burt: Michael.
Commissioner Griffin: I could support the motion if it is possible to amend it by also adding on
your list of concerns the desirability for having a pair of one-bedroom BMR units as opposed to
the three bedroom BMR unit that is ctwrently proposed.
Commissioner Bialson: As the maker I would prefer not to go into those specifics and start
putting conditions on upon which we would view this project a little more beneficially. I think
expressing that we do not see a sufficient public benefit leaves enough room. I think we get into
City of Palo Alto Page 27
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
47
too much detail if we start going into some of the things you were saying. It is not to say that I
don’t feel similarly, I just don’t think it belongs in th~ motion and could be read in our minutes
or expressed in the staff report. I would not accept that.
Chair Burt: I would concur that the applicant is going to have a challenge to make a viable
proposal with a BMR unit at all. I have hesitation about attempting to load additional
requirements on the applicant if we are hoping that he can still come forward with an alternative
project within the recommendations that we have made.
Karen.
AMENDED MOTION
Commissioner Holman: If it is okay with Annette I’d like to embellish her comment about the
building size being too large. I’d like to reference that to the Comp Plan to issues of transition
and compatibility. Perhaps it might be helpful, I’ll leave this to Annette to decide, to note that as
a part of this motion that the building is just trying to do too much on a small lot.
Chair Burt: Is that proposed as a friendly amendment? Annette, would you like to speak to that?
Commissioner Bialson: I would accept that amendment and look to the seconder.
Commissioner Packer: The seconder accepts the amendment.
Chair Burt: Other comments?
I have one br.ief one. The motion did include a. concern about the viability of the retail. I would
feel comfortable with accepting the project developer’s determination of a retail element on the
ground floor and it would be zoned as retail and we can certainly hope that it would be most of
all neighborhood serving but I would be pleased to retain a retail element without the express
concern that it may not be viable because that would be up to the landlord to identify tenants that
would fill that occupancy.
Commissioner Bialson: Is that being offered as a friendly amendment?
Chair Burt: It is being offered.
Commissioner Bialson: I certaiN}’ understand you intent but I do not think I would accept that
mainly because there are too many spaces that have retail space, which is left vacant. I don’t
think that serves the community surrounding it. I would be concerned that this would be left
vacant. I’m not so much concerned with the economic viability for purposes of the developer.
They could certainly make the calculations and take the risk themselves but I don’t want to see
that space either and that is what I am afraid would happen. So that’s why I expressed the
question of viability. I would prefer to keep the language in there.
Chair Burt: Karen.
City of Palo Alto Page 28
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
47
Commissioner Holman: I do have a question about that. Is there a way that you, Annette, could
see phrasing this so that it doesn’t come across as perhaps we are contrary to the retail but just
that we are concerned about the viability of retail as it is configured here?
AMENDED MOTION
Commissioner Bialson: How about using, "viability of the retail as it is configured here?" I like
that language. I will accept your language.
Commissioner Packer: Second.
Chair Burt: Any other comments? ,Phyllis.
Commissioner Cassel: I guess I get to speak against the motion. I think we are expressing many
conflicting ideas. We are not going to have the retail space on the first floor and meet the
parking requirements unless you want to go up with the parking and we know better than that in
terms of the financial cost. So we are not being consistent with our desires and the realities of
the space. We are not going to have a retail space on the first floor, stay away from the oak trees
with a 16 to 20 foot setback from those oak trees and have a building that doesn’t need any
zoning changes, any PC or anything on this site. It just isn’t realistic and I think we are not
facing the awkwardness of the site.
Chair Burt: Maybe we can have a clarification here. I didn’t understand the direction of the
Commission to either preclude a PC for this site nor to mandate full parking. Maybe the
Commission would want to make clear the intentions of the motion in these two areas that
Phyllis just raised. As I understand it Phyllis’ concern that the motion on the floor would be
intending to have any future proposal be fully parked and I didn’t understand that to be the
intention.
Commissioner Bialson: That was not the intention.
Chair Burt: Okay. Any other comments?
MOTION PASSES
All in favor? (ayes) Opposed? (nay) Commissioners Griffin and Cassel opposed and
Commissioners Packer, Holman, Bialson and Burt in favor.
Thank you. Thank you to the applicant and public for your participation tonight.
At this time we have Reports From Committees.
REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES.
Chair Burt: Commissioner Packer would like to report from the Housing Corporation and the
Zoning Ordinance Update.
City of Palo Alto Page 29
CARRASCD &ASSOCLA2T_S
To: City ofPaloAltoPlanningDept. ~ ~ c ~ I r ~ c ~ s
Project: Mixed Use Project
2051 El Camino Real
00-PAR-09
Zone: PC (Currently CN)
Attachment D
Date: Nov. 14, 2001
2051 El Camino Real is a flat, approximately 50’ x 100’ lot, currently undeveloped, with several large
trees, both oak and other species, near the north and east property lines. A Laundromat is located to the west of the
property, and ground floor level housing is located to the east. All the existing trees shall remain.
This property is a substandard lot - smatler in width and area than currently allowed. In addition, it is
considered greatly desirable by both the City and the developerto retain the large existing oak trees near the east and
north property lines. This condition results in a lack of flexibility and space to provide both the retail uses desired
by the neighborhood residents and parking for the proposed occupancies. Several variances and design
enhancement exceptions were included in the previous application, because it was impossible to both provide the
building area to make it worthwhile to develop the lot, and comply with all the CN & RM-15 site development
regulations that would apply to the mixed use proposal. During the Cib’ hearings, the neighborhood residents
expressed their desire to have an even larger retail component, and more residential units than are allowed by the
RM-15 density regulation. This desire was also conveyed by the city council members.
To be able to achieve the difficult objective, we have proposed a solution which will allow the requirements
to be incorporated in the new design with an application for a Planned Community and zone change for the property
and providing a three bedroom apartment for Below market Rate for use by Firemen, Police personnel, teachers
who are serving the Palo Alto Community with dedication and cannot afford to live in the city. The configuration of
the 3 bedroom BIVIR unit results in a reduction of office space from 1280 to 1191 s.£
As a PC, this application proposes the following uses:
First floor Retail 511 square feet
Second floor office 1191 square feet
Second floor residential 1107 square feet
Third floor residential 1404 square feet
First floor Toilet and
Stairways 342 square feet
Total square feet 4555 square feet.
$3.50 per square feet
$3.50 per square feet
Three bedroom apartment Below market Rate as
per City Schedule
Two bedroom apamnent owner occupied.
There are open decks at the 2"d floor office and both residences. There is also, an exterior open staim, ay.
Seven parking spaces are proposed.
At the east side of the El Camino Real frontage, ground floor retail space will be set back 12’ from the
edge of curb, with glazing along the entire front wall. The residential stainvay entrance will be at the west edge, and
the office stairway will be at the east edge. The driveway will be on the western side, between the residential
entrance and the retail. It will lead back to seven parking spaces behind the retail and at the rear of the lot. All.of
the existing trees will be preserved, except one (not an oak) that the arborist states is in poor condition.
The office stainvell, which will be hidden behind a perforated metal screen, will lead up to the second story
office. The glass office wall overlooking El Camino Real will be set behind a grill of horizontal metal louvers for
sun protection. Except for the concrete property line wails, the ground & second story walls will be clad in white
stucco. Sliding glass doors will access the office and rear residential decks. The residential third story walls, set
back from the edge of the second story on tkree sides to form a deck, will be clad in horizontal wood siding.
120 HamlltonAvenue, Palo Alto, CA94301 ¯ 650322 2288 ° FAX: 650 3222316 ° email" architects@carrasco.com
A Professional Corporabon
Oak Shadows
2051 El Camino Real
Palo Alto
Tentative Development Schedule
Nov. 28, 2001
Dec. 6, 2001
Dec. 1~ 2001
Jan. 1 2002
Jan. 15, 2002
Mar. 15, 2002
May. 15, 2002
June 1, 2002
June 15, 2002
Aug. 1, 2002
April 1, 2003
Attachment E
Planning Commission Hearing
Architectural Review Board
Planning Commission Hearing
City Council Hearing
Begin Construction Documents preparation, (if project is approved
by City Council)
Submit for Plan Check
Receive plan check comments back from City
Submit plan check response
Receive Building Permit
Begin Construction
Complete Shell Construction and occupy
This is not a large building - there wiIl no phasing of construction. The tentative
schedule is possibly based on wishful thinking, and could be delayed if work does not
progress as fast as hoped. However, the philosophy will be to move as fast as possible to
complete the building.
Parking Feasibility Plan
The idea behind the shared parking is that the cars of the residents will be
occupying the parking spaces at night, and leave during the day as the residents go about
their business, leaving the spaces open for the commercial occupants. The garage door
will normally be closed. Each of the residents will have a door operator. The office will
receive 5 operators and the retail will receive one. The garage door will also be able to
be manually operated by the retail employees, allowing a handicapped customer to use
the handicapped parking space.
Attachment F
~~a~ked Chief Grijalva for what the Fire
De~ w~y planned a dedication of an
the
victims of the September ii, 2001, attack. "
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
i.PUBLIC HEARING : The Palo Alto City Council will
consider a request by Carrasco & Associates and
Mehmood Taqui on behalf of Joe and Evelyn Bradford.for
Site and Design Review of a new 4,325 square foot,
three story building for property located at 2051 E1
Camino Real to contain ground floor retail (433
sq. ft.), second floor office (i,232 sq.ft.) and second
and third floor residential (1,944 sq.ft.) uses plus
stairway area (573 square feet) , on a 4,938 square
foot parcel in the CN District.Variances are
requested for (I) encroachments intofront and side
setbacks and side daylight planes, (2) increased lot
coverage (5% above CN District, 20% above RM-15), and
(3~) a reduction in required parking spaces by one
parking space (a total of eight parking spaces are
proposed where nine are required) . A Design
Enhancement Exception is requested for (a) a partially
covered residential parking space where one fully
covered residential parking space is required, and (b)
a four foot wide perimeter planting area on west side
of parking stall #8 where a five foot wide planting
area is required. Environmental Assessment : Exempt
from the California Environmental Quality Act.
(Continued from 8/06/01)
This item is quasi-judicial and subject to Council’s
Disclosure Policy
Current Planning Manager John-Lusardi said the application
was a site and design review for a new mixed-use project on
E1 Camino Real. The staff report (CMR:335:01) contained
descriptions of the proposed project, sets of development
.plans, and an exhibit that delineated the location and
described the variances and exceptions being requested. The
Architectural Review Board (ARB)and Planning and
Transportation Commission reviewed the project and
recommended the Council approve theproject as proposed.
The project was a mixed-use development for retail, office,
and residential in the (CN) Neighborhood Commercial zone.
The proposed residential use required the application of
the RM-15 development standards, which had a direct effect
EITY COUNCIL MINUTES
on the ability to design a residential use without creating
building issues subject to exceptions for the site. The
size and width of the lot, the need to preserve the mature
oak trees on site, and a desire to move the building
further away from the adjacent residential uses on one side
and to the rear accounted for the findings required to
grant the variances and exceptions. The project conformed
to the policies and programs of the Comprehensive Plan
(Comp Plan) to encourage mixed-use development with
residential along E1 Camino Real. Staff needed to clarify
an item regarding the ground floor retail use. The use was
recommended and encouraged by the staff and ARB to be
included in the project and was included in the revised
development after the ARB preliminary review, a total of
433 square feet. The actual retail space, not including the
handicapped restroom, was 313 usable square feet. The CN
and Comp Plan strongly encouraged neighborhood-serving
retail that enhanced the street vitality and pedestrian
activity along E1 Camino Real. The ARB worked with the
applicant for a ground floor retail element that reduced
the visual impact of the surface-parking opening from the
street and the sidewalk. The project proposed- one
residential unit, which was the maximum allowed under the
density requirements for the site area. Concerns were
raised regarding the potential conversion of the
residential use to office use in the future. That would not
be allowed under the Zoning Code because of the development
standards. To ensure such a conversion would not occur, the
City Attorney’s office prepared a recommendation for an
additional condition with respect to condition monitoring
on the residential unit. Staff recommended the Council
approve the project as proposed with the requested
variances and design exceptions based on the findings .and
conditions contained in the staff report (CMR:335:01) and
with the added condition to include condition monitoring
for the residential unit.
Tony Carrasco, Carrasco & Associates, 120 Hamilton Avenue,
applicant, said the property was small and the project was
carefully designed to let the oak trees survive. The
project went to the ARB three times to make it workable.
The idea of adding one more unit was appealing and
beneficial to Palo Alto’s housing shortage. If the project
were only a commercial project, the proposed building
envelope would fit within the heights and setbacks of a
commercia! zone. No variances were requested at the rear of
the property but were imposed because of the RM-15 zone.
09/24/01 92-436
Lighting and privacy issues for the neighbors
northern property line were considered.
on the
Mayor Eakins declared the Public Hearing open at 7:23 p.m.
John Baca, 484 Oxford Avenue, presented a digital
photograph showing what the building would look like. The
project was more massive than anything in the area. The oak
trees would be severely pruned and invisible from the
street. The daylight plane would shut off light into one of
the neighbor’s residences if the variances for daylight
plane exemption were granted.
~oy Ogawa, 2305 Yale Street, said CN zone was for
neighborhood-serving retail according to the Comp Plan. She
welcomed mixed residential and commercial uses in
neighborhood commercial zones, but the commercial component
needed to primarily be made up of neighborhood-serving
retail rather than office. Disincentives for offices should
be focused on. At the first ARB review, the applicant
presented plans for a three-story project with office and
residential on the second and third floors, with the ground
level devoted only to parking. The applicant returned to
the second preliminary review with plans similar to what
was before the Council in which 313 square feet of retail
was added. Adding retail space was a small step in the
right direction; however, the neighborhood was not served
by a small token amount of retail with no onsite parking
for-customers. That was a formula for failure of the retail
component. The neighborhood would not be served by empty
storefronts on the ground floor. The mix of uses and design
and size of the project needed to be appropriate for the
location of the project. A fully commercial building in a
CN zone was limited to a 25-foot height. The project was
allowed to be 33 feet high because of the residential
component.
Dave Mampel, 2721 Midtown Court, #ii0, said the project fit
with the Comp Plan and provided needed housing. He
supported the project.
Lynn Chiapella, 631 Colorado Avenue, did not see the
project as a vision for Palo Alto. The trade-off was that
the project allowed for one 2,292 square foot residential
unit, but a variance was needed for the side and front yard
setbacks as well as variances for daylight plane, to
increase the site coverage, and to reduce the parking. The
09/24/01 92-437
handicap parking space was unusable because the building
had no handicap accessibility to the offices or residential
components. A design enhancement to reduce the landscape
area from five feet to four feet was needed. She asked the
Council to reconsider the density of the building.
Providing seven parking spaces for the size of the building
was not practical.
Mr. Carrasco said the CN zone allowed a 35-foot height
limit and allowed the inclusion of the volume of building
he proposed.
Vice Mayor Ojakian asked about the handicap space and
access.
Mr. Carrasco said Title 24 that governed handicapped
accessibility did not require that a second story office be
accessible. Title 24 did require that a handicap space be
provided.
Mayor Eakins declared the Public Hearing closed at 7:37
p.m.
Council Members Beecham, Mossar and Wheeler, and Mayor
Eakins disclosed they individually met with Mr. Baca, Ms.
Ogawa, and immediate neighbors. Council Member Mossar said
she also had a brief discussion with Mr. Taka.
Vice Mayor Ojakian disclosed he had visited the site twice
and met with Ms. Ogawa and Mr. Baca.
Council Member Kleinberg disclosed she had visited the site
and spoke wish Mr. Taka.
Council Members Burch and Lytle disclosed they had visited
the site several times and had discussions with Mr. Baca,
Ms. Ogawa, and Mr. Carrasco.
City Attorney Ariel Calonne said condition 64, page 38 of
the staff report (CMR:335:01) talked about not requiring an
elevator for the second floor but resulted in a use
restriction in which the second floor could not be used for
health care providers.
Council Member Lytle said the oak tree appeared to require
severe pruning. She asked how the tree would survive under
that circumstance. ~
09/24/01 92-438
City Arborist Dave Dockter said a privately retained
project arborist commented on the adequacy of the project.
He requested that the project arborist specifically address
the.grading situation impact to the tree roots. An issue
existed as to the above ground impacts to the tree that the
project might have on the Oak trees. In evaluating the
impact to the Oak trees, the most important focus was
keeping below-grade impacts to a minimum. He felt
comfortable that all the Oaks would survive the project
with regard to the health of the tree. The above-ground
portion of the tree required semi-drastic pruning. The
neighboring property owner pruned the tree, which caused
misshaping to the tree. Drastic pruning was necessary on
~he project side. The oak tree would have a good shading
effect on the structures. In his report, the project
arborist outlined specific pruning. The intent was to prune
the branches with the new structure.
Council Member Beecham was concerned about the compaction
of cars and asked whether Mr. Dockter was comfortable that
the turf block and parking would not severely impact the
roots.
Mr. Dockter said the roots would be impacted. Keeping the
roots in place was important. Material would be added on
top of the existing roots, and compaction would occur.
Council Member Mossar asked what would happen to the trees
if a similarly scaled building were built on the property
to the south.
Mr. Dockter said the trees had grown up with the
foundations existing with the neighboring garage area, and
much root diversion had occurred. A new development on the
south side would have to respect a setback, and a new
foundation would be further away -than the existing
foundation.
Council Member Mossar asked whether there was room for all
the trees as they grew to full size.
Mr.-Dockter said there was room for the trees. The project
would require the trees to grow up.
Council Member Lytle asked whether underground parking was
considered for the property or did the City consider
switching the driveway curb cut to the other side of the
09/24/01 92-439
property. She asked whether there was any consideration for
additional retail in the project or whether there were any
architectural methods to improve light and air to the one
residence.
Mr. Lusardi said the narrowness of the site and the oak
trees prevented underground parking. Staff looked at moving
the driveway but that would place the driveway on the side
with the oak trees. The set back in the rear of the
property was greater than what was normally required. Staff
did not look at increasing the retail.
Council Member Kleinberg clarified the building extended
beyond the existing building line next door.
Mr. Lusardi said the proposed project was less than one
foot past the existing building line.
Council Member Kleinberg asked whether
allowance that was normally tolerated.
that was an
Mr. Lusardi said staff was exploring with the E1 Camino
corridor guidelines. Staff wanted to see a mixture,
eclecticism, and height variances.
Council Member Wheeler clarified Mr. Lusardi said even with
a building without any variances, a daylight planing issue
impact would occur on the adjacent residential property.
She asked whether the issue was exacerbated with the 33-
foot building.
Mr. Lusardi said staff and the ARB did not agree that
shifting the building created a greater plane impact.
Council Member Wheeler asked whether actual shadow studies
were presented to the ARB.
Mr.Lusardi said no shadow studies were presented.
Council Member Wheeler asked whether there was a way to
protect the City from the applicant asking for a conversion
if the residential unit remained vacant.
Mr. Calonne said the City would have to look at the
economic hardship at the time and make a judgment at that
time. The most important aspect was the idea that the
situation would be monitored. The Planning Department
09/24/01 92-440
discussed with him the idea of having regular inspections
of the property.
Mr. Lusardi said going from residential to commercial would
require onsite parking that would require a variance. He
did not believe the City would support a variance for less
parking to go from residential to office.
Architectural Review Board Member Judith Wasserman said the
residences were to the south of the building. The proposed
building would not throw a shadow to the south. The site
plan showed a dashed line showing the overhang of the
second floor. From the pedestrian point of view, there were
~setbacks.
Council Member Mossar said the drawings implied there were
no windows along the property to the south, but Mr. Baca
showed photographs indicating windows on the residential
units on the south. She asked whether there was any
discussion about the impact of the proposed building on the
residences.
Mr. Lusardi said the major concern with privacy was to try
to limit the amount of pedestrian activity on the site. The
ARB was explicit in wanting to see a careful lighting plan
that prevented lighting overflow onto the adjacent
properties.
Council Member Mossar clarified there was no fence between
the two properties.
Mr. Lusardi said a fence was not proposed.
Council Member Mossarasked about the size of the retail.
Mr. Lusardi said the retail was 313 square feet.
Council Member Mossar asked whether Mr. Lusardi had an idea
about the type of retail that would fit in such a small
space.
Mr. Lusardi said he envisioned a small caf4 or a pick
up/drop off dry cleaners.
Council Member Mossar asked whether any of the trees were
heritage oaks.
09/24/01 92-441
Mr. Dockter said four trees qualified as heritage oaks.
Mr. Calonne recalled the trees were at risk if they
impacted the allowed building area by 25 percent or more.
Council Member Mossar asked what mechanism the City had to
make sure the trees were cared for.
Mr. Dockter said the trees would be protected during
construction. The Tree Technical Manual, adopted by the
City Tree Preservation Ordinance, required the maintenance
of the trees adhere tO certain criteria. A condition would
be included in the Conditions of Approval that required the
continual maintenance of all the landscape, perpetually. It
was incumbent upon the property owner to maintain the trees
according to the standards in the Technical Manual.
Council Member Burch asked about the City’s record of
success for protecting trees when buildings were
constructed.
Mr. Dockter~ said the City’s success rate was about 95
percent. The most mortality occurred during transplants. A
condition could be added that required replacement of the
tree with as large a tree as possible if one of the oaks
died.
Mayor Eakins asked staff to describe the purpose of the 35-
foot height limit.
Mr. Lusardi said the requirements were in the CN zone. The
maximum height was 25 feet for anything that was
nonresidential. The maximum height for a mixed used project
in the RM-15 standards was 30 feet; however, maximum height
for a residential project in the CN zone was 35 feet.
Mayor Eakins asked why there was not more residential and
less or no office space.
Mr. Lusardi said the zoning allowed for office. The
residential was allowed but had a density requirement. The
density allowed less than 1.5 units on the property.
MOTION: Council Member Beecham moved to approve the staff
recommendation including the additional condition of the
City Attorney.
09/24/01 92-442
MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND
MOTION: Council Member Mossar moved, seconded by Burch, to
deny the project for the following reasons: i) the
inability to agree with the nexus that was used to permit
the variances required for this project - the preservation
of the oak trees; 2) the concern about the edges of the
project with the R-I properties behind the project and the
residential units to the South; 3) the aspects of the
project did-not conform to the newly adopted designed R-I
guidelines, such as balconies overlooking residential
areas; and 4)~ the City needed to acknowledge that building
office space created jobs and increased demand for housing
in the community.
Council Member Mossar said a smaller design might preserve
some of the trees. The preservation of the oak trees was
stretched too far to justify the project.
Council Member Burch said the project concerned him as a
precedent for any project on E1 Camino Real. The retail
represented approximately 8 percent of the total square
footage of the project. The City needed affordable,
attainable houses. He would rather see a project that
provided two, three, or four homes on the site.
Vice Mayor Ojakian asked whether there would be sufficient
space for parking if the project were strictly residential.
Mr. Lusardi said the surface parking under a building would
be the same, and the lot size allowed only one unit per the
density.
Vice Mayor Ojakian asked whether there was any way to get.
more than one residential unit on the project.
Mr. Lusardi said the property would have to be rezoned in
order to get additional residential units.
Council Member Wheeler had difficulty making finding 1 for
approval of the site and design permit. The inadequacy of
parking provided by t~e amount of development proposed was
a concern. Another concern was with the loss of privacy and
light and air circulation to the neighboring residential
property to the south. The heavy weighting of office versus
retail was a concern.
09/24/01 92-443
Council Member Lytle said the Council was in a dilemma
because the Comp Plan had a vision for mixed use along E1
Camino Real, and zoning that worked for the Comp Plan
vision was not in place. Mixed uses could not be
accomplished on parcels of such a size without numerous
variances. She suggested continuing the application to
allow for some reconsideration and redesign work,
addressing issues relating to the oaks, retail component,
and change zoning for more residential.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Council Member Lytle moved, seconded by
Kleinberg, to continue the project.
Council Member Fazzino supported Council Member Lytle’s
motion, noting concerns about the trees, the size, bulk,
and impact on neighboring properties. He suggested the
Planning staff look at the broader issues of mixed use on
E1 Camino Real.
Council Member Wheeler asked whether the Council needed the
applicant’s agreement to continue the item.
Mr. Calonne said the Council did not need the applicant’s
agreement. His concern with the motion was that staff
needed guidance on the ARB’s role. He suggested denial
without prejudice and suggested the Council provide
explicit instructions as to how it wanted the ARB to
interact on redesign.
Council Member Lytle said her motion was to continue the
-item with the consent of the applicant and include in the
motion.to have the project go through the ARB process.
Council Member Kleinberg was more comfortable having faith
in the architect and his skill. She favored affordable and
attainable housing but did not believe the Council wanted
to be in the position of requiring all housing in the City
to’ be affordable and attainable. A variety of housing was
needed.
Council Member Mossar preferred the suggestion made by the
City Attorney to deny the application without prejudice in
order for the applicant to return. The Council expressed
vague reasons why it was uncomfortable with the project.
The Council did not give clear direction to the.applicant
or~the ARB about the Council’s criteria.
09/24/01 92-444
Mayor Eakins agreed clear direction to the applicant was
needed.
Council Member Beecham opposed the motion. Council Member
Fazzino said the rules needed to be set up front. The
Council had criteria for approving variances, and the staff
report (CMR:335:01) made it clear the application met the
criteria. Council Member Mossar said the concerns of the
Council were vague in terms of what else to do. He agreed
with that. The main reasons he heard for not approving the
application were a dislike of offices, not enough retail,
concern about trees, and t-he housing was not affordable.
Those issues were not criteria for looking at the
variances.
Mr. Calonne clarified for Council Member Mossar that the
Council’s rules permitted an amendment to an amendment, and
a substitute was treated like an amendment.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Council Member Mossar moved, seconded by
Wheeler, to deny the motion without prejudice.
Mr. Carrasco stated he preferred a continuance with some
direction on processes.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBERS MOSSAR AND WHEELER WAS
WITHDI%AWN
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION BY THE MAKER AND SECONDER to:
Return the item to both the Architectural Review Board
and the Planning and Transportation Commission for
review.
¯Modify plan for more room for oak trees on site.
¯Require more viable retail space showing evidence of
retail space pursuant to other neighborhood commercial.
Make parking adjusments to include design of a parking
management system allowing mixed used on site.
¯Redesign using less office space.
Council Member Burch favored two smaller residences rather
than one large residence.
Council Member Mossar would not support the motion. The
Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC) and ARB
reviewed the project and raised questions about issues of
09/24/01 92-445
concern by the Council. Their interpretation was that the
project met the criteria before them. The Council’s job was
to agree with the ARB and P&TC or disagree and explain the
Council’s findings. The guidelines were nonspecific and
open to interpretation.
Council Member Kleinberg said the P&TC’s and ARB’s minutes
contained discussion of other ways to solve the site
problem, and there was room for the Planning and
Transportation Commission, .ARB, and staff to work with the
architect to accommodate the concerns in a constructive
way.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION PASSED 7-2, Beecham, Mossar, "no. "
2~. PUBLIC HEARING : The Palo Alto City Council will
~~er a-~--~appeal submitted by Roger Kohler of the
~y 3, 2001, decision of the Director of Planning, and
Co, unity Environment for property located at 2340
Bry~t Street in which a Home Improvement Exception
01-HIB~02 was denied. (Continued from 8/06/01)
This ~tem is quasi-judicial and subject to Council’s
Disclosu~<.~olicy
Senior Planner R~hel Adcox recommended the Council uphold
the decision of ~e Director of Planning and Community
Environment and den~ the appeal. The .Home Improvement
Exception (HIE) as pro~sed was to allow the enclosure and
extension . o_f the_ second~loor balcony at the rear of the
house, which would create~ second bathroom on the second
floor. The enclosure would "~crease the floor area of the
house by 99.8 square feet wh~ the house already exceeded
the maxi um m allowable floor ar~ by 187 square feet. The
application for the HIE was origi~lly submitted on January
22~.ruary. i, 2001, sta~ sent a letter to the
a~ informing him that staff w~ not able to support
the ~nd advising him~ to withdraw the
app l~~pp} i_ c_ant chose to. ~roceed with the
pro~draw at that time.~The Director of
Planning~ronment reviewed~he project at
th~n .April_ 19, _200_1, ah~.~ denied the
applicatio~as based on the fact t~t findings
uch as
r to
he~
was necessary to preserve the existing architectural styl
09/24/01 92-446
Attachment G
PLANNING DIVISION
TO:
Staff Rep.ort
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
FROM:Amy French
Senior Planner
DEPARTMENT:Planning
AGENDA DATE:
SUBJECT:
November 28, 2001, Planning and Transportation Commission
December 6,2001, Architectural Review Board .
2051 E1 Camino Real [01-PC-04, 01-ARB-136]: Request by
Mehmood Taqui on behalf of Oak Shadows LLC for Architectural
Review Board review and rezoning of a 4,938 square foot parcel
from C-N (neighborhood commercial) to PC (Planned Community)
to construct a 4,347 square foot, three story building to contain two
residential units (2,511 sq.ff.) including a below market rate unit,
ground floor retail space (511 sq.ft.) and second floor space (1,191
sq.ft.) for neighborhood business and personal services.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Plamxing and Transportation Commission and Architectural
Review Board recommend approval of the Planned Community District rezone and
developmem to the City Council, based upon the attached Findings (Attachment A) and
subject to the attached Conditions of Approval (Attachment B).
BACKGROUND
Public Notice Period for Current Applications
Pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapter 18.98, Amendments to Zoning
Map and Zoning Regulations, Section 18.98.060, the required twelve-day public notice
period for Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) review of a rezoning
application has beenmet for this hearing. Notice of the second PTC meeting, tentatively
scheduled on December 12, 2001, will be mailed and will appear in a local newspaper on
November 28, 2001.
The Architectural Review Board (ARB) hearing of this project began o.n November 1,
CiO, of Palo Alto Page I
2001, but was continued to December 6, 2001, to allow the initial PTC review and action
to occur prior to the ARB recommendation, Pursuant to PAMC Chapter 18.68, Planned
Community (PC) District Regulations, Section 18.68.065. The ARB will only review
and offer their recommendation to the Council regarding tl-ie project if the PTC "acts
favorably in its initial review of the PC application" on November 28, 2001.
Current Applications
The Variance application for the project was withdrawn on October 10, 2001, and the Site
and Design application was converted into a request for a rezone to Planned Community
and Architectural Review in an application submitted on October 17, 2001. Planned
Community (PC) District zoning allows a specific project to follow customized
development standards while providing a public benefit. The PC also provides the ability
to establish specific housing densities, specifically allowing for more housing units in the
project. Therefore, the previously requested Variances, Design Enhancement Exceptions
and Site and Design Review Approval are no longer applicable.
Previous Applications
Preliminary plans for this site were reviewed by the ARB in meetings on January 18,
2001 and April 5, 2001. Development plans and applications for Site and Design
Review, Variances, and Design Enhancement Exceptions were reviewed in public
hearings before the Planning and Transportation Commission on July 11,2001, the
Architectural Review Board on July 12, 2001, and the City Council on September 24,
2001. Available minutes of the formal hearings are attached to this report.
Planning and Transportation Commission Hearing
The Planning and Transportation Commission recommended approval on a 3-1-1-2 vote,
with the no vote (Burt) ~ue to "incompatibility of the building with surrounding
development." The Commission recommended that conditions be added to ensure oak
tree maintenance and screening of lights proposed in the project. Recognizing the Zoning
Code’s density limitation on the site, several Commissioners noted their desire for
increased residential density on the site. The Commission identified the need to support
the Comprehensive Plan for the area in providing retail and residential uses. The
Commission found that the site constraints of parcel size and the need to preserve the
mature oak trees warranted the need for the requested Variances.
The six public speakers included a resident of the adjacent apartment complex (2073 E1
Camino Real), who expressed concern regarding reduced sunlight into, and blocked view
from his apartment and the shortage of street parking. Another neighbor expressed her
view that there are existing parking problems in the vicinity. A speaker who lives in the
College Terrace neighborhood objected to the requested variances, as did another speaker
who lives in Midtown, and these speakers also raised concerns regarding exterior lighting
and the size of the project. Another College Terrace resident spoke about his support for
City of ]~alo Alto Page 2
ground floor, neighborhood serving retail and innovative housing projects. A final
speaker noted her concern about the precedent this project may set in changing the code
requirements without going through a proper policy procedure before the City Council.
Architectural Review Board Hearing
The ARB recommended approval of the project on a 5-0 vote, with a condition that
selected items return on consent calendar to the ARB for review. The items are as
follows:
1.Show a materials color board, including cast in place wall~ and hardscape
materials,
2.Submit a tree protection plan,
3.Clarify the mechanical fire utility equipment sizes and locationg,
4.Submit details of the entry element including signage and landscaping,
5.Submit a landscape plan that does not include Boston Ivy and augments plantings,.
6.Show 3-dimensional studies,
7.Submit a list of sustainable design!materials to be used in the project.
Two members of the public spoke regarding the project. A College .Terrace resident was
concerned about the requested DEE’s, landscape screening and parking, and a Midtown
resident was concerned about damage to the oak trees, project size, parking shortage and
light impacts upon neighbors.
City Council Hearing
The City Council recommended a continuance on a 6-2 vote to allow the applicant to
address the issues raised by the City Council with revised plans to be reviewed by the
Architectural Review Board prior to final review by the City Council. The Council was
concerned about the building’s compatibility with neighborhood. This concern included:
(1) the building size and neighbor privacy, (2) more housing, more viable retail space and
less office space, and (3) protection of the oak trees through development mitigation and
maintenance. The City Council recognized that parking facilities would be further
reduced if more viable ground floor office area were to be provided. Three members of
the public spoke to the Council in opposition to the project, while one speaker, who
voiced his support, noted that the project fits the Comprehensive Plan and housing goals.
Concerns expressed by the members of the public opposed to the project included: (1)
building mass, (2) oak tree pruning, (3) daylight for adjacent apartments, (4) requested
variances, (5) small size of retail, (6) ADA access, (7)j obs/housing imbalance, and (8)
office proposal.
REVISED PROJECT
The project plans have been revised since the September 24, 2001 City Council meeting,
as follows:
Cir.. of Palo Alto Page 3
1.Overall building floor area increased, office floor area reduced
The building floor area has increased by 295 square feet, represented by increases in the
residential units and the retail space, and offset by re,d.uet-i~n in the office space. The
retail area on the first floor has been increased nearl~200~.quare feet to 511 square feet,which does not include restroom or hallway space. Tfi~stroom that was behind the
retail space has been relocated to the opposite side of the garage, behind the
trashlrecycling facilities, and a parking space was eliminated. The office_f!oor, area on the
second floor has been reduced to 1,191 square feet. This is a reduction o~119 ~quare feet "
from the original proposal. -------
2. Front setback provided
A 3’7 W’ front yard setback at the ground floor is proposed. This would allow for a future
12-foot wide sidewalk along E1 Camino Real to be developed, with a small planting area
in front of the retail store. Santa Barbara Daisy is proposed in this front planting area. At
the upper floors, a zero setback is provided over the office entry only, but the remainder
of the upper floors are also set back 3’7 ½".
3.Below market rate residential unit provided, rear deck area reduced
A three-bedroom, two-b~ihroom, below-market-rate residential unit comprising 1,107
square feet is proposed on the second floor. This unit represents an increase in residential
density on the site, the reason for the Planned Community zone change request, and the
proposed Public Benefit associated with the Planned Community. The second floor rear
deck was reduced in area as one of the bedrooms has been increased in size.
4. Market rate unit floor area reduced and modified, rear deck eliminated-
The market rate unit is now entirely located on the third floor, and the unit has been
reduced to a two bedroom unit containing 1,404 square feet. Two of the bedrooms, the
study, and the third floor rear deck were eliminated.
5. Parking facilities reduced/extension of retail under oak tree canopy area
In order to increase the front setback and provide a larger retail space, one of the parking
spaces has been eliminated. The total parking spaces provided would be six standard
spaces and one van ADA space. The applicant has provided a parking feasibility plan for
shared parking, attached to this report as Attachment H. The retail space encroaches
further into the area under an oak tree. The applicant’s arborist has prepared a
supplementary report addressing the extension of the retail store under the oak tree
canopy area, attached to this report as Attachment G.
6.Low impact exterior light fixtures
The deck lighting is proposed on the inside of deck railing along the side property line .
facing the apartment building, at a height of 12 inches above the deck. The light fixtures
along the front deck railing are proposed at the deck level. The rear deck light fixture is
Ctty of Palo Alto Page
proposed at seven feet above the deck surface, but the front of the light is shielded.
7. Privacy
As noted above, the third floor rear deck was eliminated as the third floor bedrooms
increased to take over ~ihe deck area, and the second floor rear deck was reduced in size
by the increase of a bedroom taking over a portion of the deck area. Staff believes
bedroom windows are less intrusive on neighbors’ privacy than open deck area. The
office deck area (153 sq.ft.) over the retail store is larger than the original deck (140
sq.ft.), since the retail space is now proposed to be larger. This deck would face the
garages on the adjoining property and therefore does not impose upon the neighbors’
privacy.
SIGNIFICANT ISSUES
Comprehensive Plan
The General Plan land use designation for the project site is Neighborhood Commercial. The
proposed uses are consistent with this land use designation, which allows for residential and
mixed-use projects. The proposed non-residential floor area ratio would be 0.3:1, which is
less than the non-residential floor area ratio of0.4:1 permitted for Neighborhood Commercial
land use.
The Business and Economics Element of the Comprehensive Plan has broad goals for the
City that can be summarized as: providing a thriving business environment that is compatible
with Palo Alto’s residential character; providing a diverse mix of uses; providing for new
businesses that provide needed local services and municipal revenues, contribute to economic
vitality and enhance the community’s physical environment; and providing attractive vibrant
business centers. The emphasis is on economic vitality with a diversity of services while
maintaining compatibility with residential neighborhoods. The applicant’s proposal is in
conformance with the Business and Economics Element of the Comprehensive Plan.
The Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan Policy H-4 states, "Encourage mixed use
projects as a means of increasing the housing supply while promoting diversity and
neighborhood vitality." The City has encouraged the applicant to provide housing and
increase the number of housing units on this site, to increase the housing supply. Associated
Housing Element Programs H-8 is also applicable to this project. Program H-8 states,
"Evaluate the effectiveness of existing incentives that encourage mixed use and residential
development on commercially zoned land and determine additional incentives to be
provided." The site’s existing zoning designation, and variances needed to allow for mixed
uses including a residential component, is a disincentive to the project. A rezone to Planned
Community Program as a method to allow increased residential density on the site represents
an incentive the City can provide, consistent with this program.
City of Palo Alto Page 5
Zoning ,
CN Zoning vs. PC Zoning
The applicants have submitted a Planned Community (PC) rezone application in order to
increase allowable residential density on the site. The revised project would not have
required any additional variances beyond those previously requested to meet CN
development standards; however, the number of parking stalls have been reduced to
provide more retail area.
Uses
The underlying site is zoned Neighborhood Commercial (CN) district, which allows the
following permitted uses: animal care (not boarding and kennels), day care centers, large and
small day care homes, residential care homes, eating and drinking services (not drive-in and
take out), lodging, medical, professional, general business offices, personal services, retail
services (not liquor stores), reverse vending machines, residential uses, and neighborhood
business services. The currently proposed uses are two residences, including one below
market rate unit, office, and retail, as set forth in the applicant’s Development Program
Statement (Attachment E). These uses would be allowed on the CN zoned site.
However, as part of the Planned Community (PC) District application review process., the
Planning Commission can recommend what types of uses are appropriate on this site and
approve a list of uses and conditional uses at the adoptionof the PC District. Palo Alto
Municipal Code Chapter 18.68 states, "The Planned Community (PC) District is intended
to accommodate developments for residential, commercial, professional, research,
administrative, industrial, or other activities, including combinations of uses appropriately
requiring flexibility under controlled conditions not otherwise attainable under other
districts. The PC district is intended for unified, comprehensively planned developments
which are of substantial public benefit, and which conform with and enhance the policies
and programs of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan."
Staff suggests that the Planning Commission and Architectural Review Board recommend
City Council approval of two residential units, including one below market rate rental
unit, ground floor retail services (not liquor stores), and the following acceptable uses for
the second floor commercial space: (1) neighborhood business services, (2) personal
services, and (3) professional offices serving the neighborhood (except medical offices in
this case). The ordinance for the Planned Community District would list the proposed
permitted uses and conditional uses for the subject property.
Site Development Regulations "
The development plan for this application sets forth the development regulations for this
Planned Community District. The site development characteristics proposed include the
following:
City of Palo Alto Page 6
(1) Height: 33 feet
(2) Setbacks:
¯ On the front: a 3’-7 ½" setback at ground level, a zero setback at the second floor level,
and a 10’- ½" setback at the third floor level,
On the west side, a zero side setback for the first two levels, and a 4’-8" setback at the
third floor level,
¯On the rear: a 29’-6" setback at the ground level, a 22’ setback at the second floor level,
and and a 28’ setback at the third floor level.
¯On the east side: a zero side setback for the office stair, a 7’-2 ½" side setback to the retail
space, a 12’-8" setback to the garage posts, a 15’-9 ½" setback to the second floor
residence, and a 20’-7 ½" setback to the third floor residence.
(3)Site Coverage: 2680 sq.ft. (54%)6,,,°\(4)FAR: Residential FAR is .5:1, Commercial FAR is .34:1, Other FAR is .07:1 ~ ,
(5)Residential density: 2 units, including one Below Market Rate (BMR) rental unit.
(6)Residential open space: 854 sq.ft, residential deck areas, plus 1104 sq.ft, at grade.
Parking Regulations
The PC Zone regulations allow flexibility to modify the current off-street parking and
loading regulations used by all districts in the City. Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 18.83
requires seven spaces for the commercial uses (511 square feet retail requires 2.5 spaces,
1191 office requires 4.7 spaces) and four spaces for the residential units (two spaces for each
unit, including two covered spaces). The total number of parking spaces proposed is seven,
including an ADA space.
During their meeting on September 24, 2001, the City Council suggested that shared parking
facilities would be reasonable on this site. Normal!y, shared parking is allowed for parking
lots of 30 spaces or more. In this case, shared parking is feasible, given the typically different
hours of operation of commercial and residential uses. The applicant proposes shared
parking in that the four parking spaces available for the residential tenants at night could be
used by commercial tenants during the day, in addition to the three parking spaces provided
for the office and retail tenants. The applicant’s parking feasibility statement (Attachment
H) notes that five garage door openers would be provided to office tenants, and one garage
door opener would be provided to the retail tenant.
The Architectural Review Board and Planning "and Transportation Commission may
recommend modifications to the parking regulations for this site, as allowed through the PC
district application process. It should be noted that the Comprehensive Plan encourages
relaxed parking standards. The Business and Economics Element sets forth Policy B-17 that
states "where redevelopment is desired, encourage owners to upgrade commercial properties
through incentives such as reduced parking requirements, credit for on-street parking, and
increase in allowable floor area. Use such incentives only where they are needed to stimulate
redevelopment or contribute to housing or community design goals."
C.ity of Palo Alto Page 7
Another alternative is to lower the parking demand by changing the mix of uses. For
instance, the parking demand could be lowered by 1.3 spaces if the office use on the second
floor were to be replaced with.general business service (which has a ratio of 1 space to every
350 square feet of floor are.a). However, it may be difficult for the applicant to find such a
tenant for the second floor.
The issue of parking in the vicinity is larger than this site. Staff is pursuing code
enforcement on the adjoining apartment site to require the property owner to allow the
residents to use the garages on site for parking.
Development Schedule
The applicant’s development schedule, submitted in accordance with PAMC Chapter 18.68
Section 18.68.100, is attached to this report as Attachment H.
Planning Commission and Ci_ty Council Findings
In order to recommend approval on the project, the Architectural Review Board is required
to make the standard ARB findings (listed in Attachment A). In addition, the following
findings (also listed in Attachment A) must be made by the Planning Commission, prior to
any recommendation of approval for a PC district, and by the City Council, prior to any
approval of a PC District:
The site is so situated, and the use or uses proposed for the site are of such
characteristics that the application of general districts or combining districts will not
provide sufficient flexibility to allow the proposed development.
Development of the site under the provisions of the PC planned community district
will result in public benefits not otherwise attainable by application of the regulations
of general districts or combining districts. In making the findings required by this
section, the planning commission and city counci!, as appropriate, shall specifically
cite the public benefits expected to result from use of the planned community district.
The use or uses permitted, and the site development regulations applicable within the
district shall be consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, and shall be
compatible with existing and potential uses on adjoining sites or within the general
vicinity.
Public Benefit
A Public Benefit is required in conjunction with the PC application. The applicant
proposes to pr6vide a three-bedroom, below market rate rental housing unit. The
applicant’s preference is to provide the housing unit for emergency and service workers
who work in the City of Palo Alto. The City’s "Below Market Rate Rental Guidelines",
Cir., of Palo Alto Page 8
as amended, will provide the basis for this BMR unit and staff will work with the
applicant to address any specific conditions for implementation. Staff supports the BMR
unit as satisfying the public benefit for this project, however, the Planned Community
zoning probably can’t restrict the BMR unit to local workers.
City Council Issues
Building size
The building has not been reduced in overall floor area, and the total floor area has
increased slightly, primarily to provide a larger retail area. The second and third floor
increases allow larger bedrooms, but do not extend the building into the 20’ rear setback
of the underlying CN district. The incre.ase in mass would not be apparent from E1
Camin0 Real, since (1) the building is now set back from the right of way, (2) the
incre,.ased volumes are on the ground floor and on the rear portions of the second and third
floor. The walls and decks facing the residential apartment complex to the east (reference
east) remain unchanged from the previous project plans.
Retail vs. Office Use
The City Council is exploring Zoning Code revisions to retain neighborhood-serving
retail and other services and to discourage office use along E1 Camino real. One of their
chief concerns regarding the previous proposal was the amount of office space in the
building compared to the amount of retail space (which was approximately 8% of the
building). The retail space in the current proposal would provide at least 200 square feet
more than the previous proposal. It is now 11% of ~he total building area, and is more
"viable" for a retail tenant. The office space is approximately 26% of the total building
area.
Oak Trees
As noted, the ground floor retail space will extend further under an oak tree canopy, but
the arborist’s supplementary report dated November 12, 2001 (Attachment G of this
report) contains adequate mitigation measures to ensure the oak trees’ roots will not be
impacted (a suspended slab foundation will be used). The supplementary report also
notes that the percentages of oak tree pruning required to enable the project are low (two
trees require no pruning, one tree must be prtmed 5%, two trees must be pruned 10%, one
tree must be pruned 20%). The conditions of approval ensure that the arborist’s
recommendations will be implemented to protect the oak trees.
Front Facade
The City Council had reviewed a front elevation that included mostly fixed windows plus
two operable windows at the second floor office. The windows and the stucco plaster
panels above were covered by a 16" deep aluminum sun screen with a slight break in the
pattern to reveal a portion of the second floor windows. The most recent front fagade
revisions (project plans received October 30, 2001) still shows the aluminum sun screen
City of Palo Alto Page 9
with the break to reveal the windows, but there are now eight operable windows behind
the screen. The aluminum screen is only one possible solution to address solar orientation
issues. If the City Council approves the PC zone change and project, the owner plans to
explore other options to mitigate the sun exposure on these windows, and present any
changes to the front facade to the Architectural Review Board. Staff is of the opinion that
exposure of the windows could encourage additional retail or other non-office use of the .
second floor commercial space, but is supportive of the intent to mitigate sun exposure.
Lighting ’
The Planning Commission had expressed concern regarding the impacts of lighting upon
residential neighbors. An exterior lighting plan was submitted with the revised plans, and
the lighting as proposed would not impact residential neighbors. The current proposal
does not include parking lot lighting fixtures. However, timing devices are suggested for
interior office lights so that there is no unnecessary continued illumination onto the
apartments to the east. A condition of approval in Attachment B requires timing devices
and sensor lights to be used wherever feasible.
Rooftop Mechanical Noise
A rooftop HVAC unit is proposed west of the third floor unit. A roof screen must be
provided to mitigate visual and noise impacts. A condition of approval in Attachment B
requires a rooftop mechanical screen to be installed and that all systems to be designed .-
to minimize noise of roof-mounted equipment to meet City requirements.
School, Housing and Below Market Rate In Lieu Fees
The project would not generate a substantial increase of population and residents to Palo
Alto; however, a standard school impact fee of $.31 per square foot of net new floor area
is currently required, collected by the Palo Alto Unified School District. This fee is
subject to an increase, to meet current State minimum impact fee rate ($.33 per square
foot), pending completion of a justification report. Since the net new floor area is less
than 20,000 square feet, it is not subject to the imposition of housing mitigation fees.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMPLIANCE
The project is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan.
TIMELINE
Submittal o~ original project
Site & Design/Variance application complete
ARB review
Planning & Transportation review
City Council review
April 27, 2001
June 27, 2001
July 12, 2001
July 11, cont. to July 25, 2001
August 6, cont. to September 24, cont.
Cir. of Palo Alto Page 10
Withdrawal of Variance
Submittal of revised project (incomplete)
Review by ARB
Planning Commission first meeting
Planning Commission second meeting
Review by City Council tentatively scheduled
October 10, 2001
October 17, 2001
November 1 and December 6, 2001
November 28,2001
December 12, 2001
January 14, 2001
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, in accordance with
CEQA Guidelines Article 17, Section 15303, since it is a small structure.
PUBLIC NOTICE
Public notification of this hearing Was provided by publication of the agenda in a local
newspaper of general circulation and via mailed notifications to surrounding property
owners and occupants within 300 feet of the site. Mailed notifications were also provided
upon request to interested individuals residing beyond the 300-foot mailing radius.
COURTESY COPIES
Mehmood Taqui, Oak Shadows LLC, 1336 Tasso Street, Palo Alto, CA 94306
Carrasco Associates, 120 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301
Joy Ogawa, 2305 Yale Street, Palo Alto, CA 94306
John Baca, 484 Oxford Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94306
Lynn Chiapella, 631 Colorado Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94306
Dave Mampel, 2721 Midtown Court #1120, Palo Alto, CA 94306
Dorothy Bender, 591 Military Way, Palo Alto, CA 94306
Dennis Decker, 2073 El Camino Real, Palo Alto, CA 94306
Heidi Huber, 482 Oxford Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94306
John Ciccarelli, 2065 Yale Street, Palo Alto, CA 94306
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Findings for approval of PC District and ARB applications
Attachment B:
Attachment C:
Attachment D:
Attachment E:
Attachment F:
Attachment G:
Conditions of approval
ARB Meeting minutes
P&TC Meeting minutes
Development Program Statement
City Council minutes
Arborist’s Revision Impacts Report dated November 12, 2001
City of Palo Alto Page 11
Attachment H: Tentative Development Schedule and Parking Feas.ibility Plan
Project Plans: (ARB and PTC only)
Prepared By:Amy French, Senior Planner
Reviewed By:John Lusardi, Planning Manager
DEPARTMENT/DIVISION HEAD REVIEW:
LISA GROTE
CHIEF PLANNING OFFICIAL
City of Palo Alto Page 12 .