Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2002-05-13 City Council (9)
City of Palo Alto City-Manager’s Report 11 TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DATE: SUBJECT: MAY 13, 2002 CMR:246:02 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, the Architectural Review Board and the Planning and Transportation Commission recommend that the Council introduce for first reading an Ordinance of the City Council 0f the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 18.08.040 of. the Palo Alto Municipal Code (the Zoning Map) to Change the Classification of the Property Known as 2051 E1 Camino Real from CN Neighborhood Commercial to PC Planning Community (Oak Shadows LLC, Applicant). The ordinance is Attachment C to fhis report and incorporates the necessary findings for approval of a PC district. BACKGROUND On February 4, 2002, the City Council voted 8-1 not to deny the project, and referred the project to the Architectural Review Board (ARB) for review. Minutes of the Council meeting are attached (Attachment E). On September 24, 2001, the City Council had previously reviewed an earlier version of the project, a Site and Design and Variance application, and had continued that review. Those applications were withdrawn when the Planned Community application was submitted. The current project description and changes made sin~e the last City Council review of this project are described in the attached Planning and Transportation Commission staff report (Attachment F). In summary, the project revisions are: ¯Landscaping was added to enhance the pedestrian experience, including two additional street trees and enhanced plantings adjacent to the building CMR:246:02 Page 1 of 5 The exterior finish and color were changed to reduce the apparent mass The stairway in front of the oak trees was partially opened up to improve visibility The garage door will remain open during business hours Shared parking during business hours would allocate five spaces to commercial tenants and visitors, and two spaces to residential tenants (one parking space for each residential tenant). A Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program encouraging business tenants to use alternate modes of transportation is also required. The applicant’s development program statement and schedule have also been revised (see Attachment D). DISCUSSION Findings for the Planned Community and ARB approvals (Attachment A) were supported by. both the Architectural Review Board and Planning and Transportation Commission. The findings for the Planned Community, with specific references to Comprehensive Plan Policies and Programs, are included in the Draft Planned Community (PC) Ordinance (Attachment C). The Draft PC ordinance also briefly describes: ¯The project ¯The public hearings leading to Council decision ¯The zoning map change from C-N District to PC District ¯Uses.and site development regulations ¯Special conditions which are the below market rate rental unit and transportation demand management components ¯Development schedule ¯Restrictions for hours Of trash/recycling pickups and deliveries to reduce potential noise impacts on adjacent properties, consistent with Comprehensive Plan Policy N-42. The Below Market Rate (BMR) letter of agreement for one BMR unit is attached to this report as Attachment I. The vehicle and bicycle parking facilities and shared parking proposal are described in the Planning and Transportation Commission Report (Attachment F, page 6). In summary, the residential tenants would each have one parking space during business hours, leaving five spaces for use by the building~s commercial tenants during business hours, which .is two spaces short of the requirement per the ratio for commercial parking facilities set forth in PAMC Chapter 18.83. The property owner is required to enter into an agreement with the City to reduce the number of on site parking spaces used by the building’s commercial tenants. The Transportation Demand Management (TDM) agreement will need to incorporate flexibility to allow the Transportation Division to adjust the transportation demand management program as needed. The City will explore CMR:246:02 Page 2 of 5 the Planning Commission’s suggestion for timed curbside parking adjacent tO the project to facilitate convenient retail customer parking on the street. The recently adopted libraries, parks and community facilities impact fees, and increased housing fees that apply to this project are included .in the conditions of approval. BOARD AND COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS Planning and Transportation Commission On May 1, 2002, the Planning and Transportation Commission (Commission) reviewed the revised project and staff report (Attachment F), which reiterated the reasons the Commission had recommended denial on November 28, 2001. The Commission voted 4- 2-0-1 to recommend approval of the proposed project, based upon the draft findings and subject to staff recommended conditions of approval. The Commission added conditions that the retail store cannot be operated by appointment only and that the term "neighborhood" be added to the Planned Community ordinance to describe certain permitted uses for the second floor commercial space. The two Commissioners who voted no expressed their concerns about the reduced number of parking spaces and suggested a further reduction in the office floor area to reduce the parking demand by one space. Commissioners stated their concern regarding the TDM program, in that it could result in the unintended consequence of residents parking a second car on the street during business hours while they take public transit. The Commission also noted that staff’s conditions that restrict trash and recycling pickups, and interior lighting may be .too restrictive. Staff, however, recommended restrictions on trash and recycling collection because of the close proximity of residential uses. The Commission discussion concluded that the project is consistent with the E1 Camino Real guidelines and is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. The Commission also determined that the improvements added to the project during the ARB review will effectively reduce the apparent massing. Commissioners observed that the oak trees will help mitigate the new building’s height and mass and represent a special circumstance on the site. Commissioners noted their appreciation for the placement of parking behind the building, the provision of. ground floor retail, and the overall project, which is a more intense, urban development along the transit corridor of E1 Camino Real. During the meeting, one Commissioner questioned staff about including personal services as a permitted use in the second floor commercial space. Personal services are listed as a permitted use for the first floor in the proposed Planned Community Ordinance. Although the use would also seem appropriate for the second floor, the parking ratio would be one space per 200 square feet compared to an office parking ratio of one space per 250 square feet. Therefore, personal services on the second floor are not CMR:246:02 Page 3 of 5 included in the draft Planned .Community Ordinance attached. The City Council may wish to add personal services to the permitted uses on the second floor. The Commission meeting minutes (Attachment G) include a record of the public testimony. Two members of the public spoke in favor of the project, and one of them submitted a letter of support. A third member of the public spoke against the project. A fourth member of the public, who arrived after the close of public testimony, submitted comments in writing criticizing staff’s determination that the project is categorically exempt from CEQA. The two letters are attached to this report, as is a complete copy of the text of CEQA Guideline 15303, and other letters received prior to the printing of this report (Attachment J). Architectural Review Board The ARB reviewed the revised project on March 21, 2002, and requested that the applicant explore ways to reduce the apparent massing through architectural approaches, adding street trees, and changing the exterior colors and materials. The applicant revised the project to address the ARB’s concerns and the revised project was reviewed on April 4, 2002 by the ARB, which noted its appreciation of the architectural changes and additional landscaping, and recommended approval on a 3-0 vote (2 .absent). The remaining items for ARB consent calendar review are to review the garage door material, green building features, and locations of utilities and mechanical equipment. The specific ARB conditions are included in Attachment B, and the ARB meeting minutes, are attached to this report as Attachment H. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Findings for approval of PC District and ARB applications Attachment B: Conditions of approval Attachment C: Draft Planned Community Ordinance Attachment D: Development Program Statement and Development Schedule Attachment E:City Council minutes of 2/4/02 Attachment F:Planning and Transportation Commission Report of 4/10/02 Attachment G:Planning and Transportation Commission minutes of 5/1/02 Attachment H:Architectural Review Board minutes of 3/21/02 and 4/4/02 Attachment I:Below Market Rate Agreement Attachment J:Letters from public and CEQA Section 15303 Current project plans (Council Members only) PREPARED BY: Senior Planner CMR:246:02 Page 4 of 5 DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW: Director of Planning and Community Environment CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: EMILY ~ON ¯ Assistant City Manager COURTESY COPIES Mehmood Taqui, Oak Shadows LLC, 1336 Tasso Street, Palo Alto; CA 94306 Carrasco Associates, 120Hamilton 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:246:02 Page 5 of 5 ATTACHMENT A Findings for Approval of Planned Community (PC) District and ARB applications 2051 E! Camino Real 01-PC-04, 01-ARB.136 PC Al~Droval Findings 1. 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. The City Council could not support the previous project under the CN zone, for reasons including residential density and retail area size. 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 the public 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. 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 are consistent with this land use designation, which allows for residential and mixed-use projects. 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 space: (1) retail services (not liquor stores), (2) neighborhood 2051 El Camino Real Planning and Transportation Commission Report 4/10/02 Page 9 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. o 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. o 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. 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. 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 street trees. 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. 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 2051 El Camino Real Planning and Transportation Commission Report 4/10/02 Page 10 necessary for their survival, and the deck areas are appropriate for the tenant use. 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, bicycle parking as required under PAMC 18.83, and shared vehicle parking spaces. 10. 11. 12. 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 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 standard/finding #4 is not applicable to the project. 2051 El Camino Real Planning and Transportation Commission Report 4/10/02 Page ATTACHMENT B .2051 E! Camino Real Conditions of Planned Community and ARB Approval Files 01-PC-04 and 01-ARB-136 The plans submitted for Building Permit shall be in substantial conformance with plans dated February 28, 2002, 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 shali include existing and proposed drainage patterns on site and from adjacent properties. The plan shall show that pre-existing drainage pattems 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 2051 El Camino Real Planning and Transportation Commission Report 4/10/02 " Page 12 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 2051 El Camino Real Planning and Transportation Commission Report 4/10/02 Page 13 . 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 # 16 & # 18. 2.9 2.10 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. 2.11 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. 2.12 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. 2.13 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. 2.14 If the customer’s total load exceeds 2500kVA, service shall be provided at the 2051 El Camino Real Page 14 Planning and Transportation Commission Report 4/10/02 2.15 2.16 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 BUILDING 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 incliades sidewalks, driveways and planter strips. ~ 2.19 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 wi[h white paint. All USA markings shall be removed by the customer or contractor when construction is complete. 2.20 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 2051 El Camino Real Planning and Transportation Commission Report 4/10/02 Pago 15 the off-site substructure work may be constructed by the Applicant. Utilities Rule & regulation # 16. 2.21 2.22 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 runsover 500 feet in length require additional pull boxes. 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 2.25 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. 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. 2051 El Camino Real Planning and Transportation Commission Report 4/10/02 Page 16 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 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. 2.31 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. Water Gas and Wastewater Division PRIOR TO SUBMITTAL FOR BUILDING .PERMIT 3.1 The applicant shall submit a completed water-gas2wastewater 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 utility construction. The plans must show the size and location of all underground utilities within the development and the public right of way including meters, backflow preventers, fire service requirements, sewer mains, sewer cleanouts, sewer lift stations and any other required utilities. 2051 El Camino Real Planning and Transportation Commission Report 4/10/02 Page 17 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 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. 3.8 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. 2051 El Camino Real Planning and TransPortation Commission Report 4/10/02 Page 18 This meter shall be designated as an irrigation account and no other water service will be billed on the account. .3.10 3.11 3.12 3.13 3.14 3.15 A new water service line installation for domestic usage is required. Show the location of the new water service and meter on the plans. A new waterservice line installation for irrigation usage is required. Show the location of the new water service and meter on the plans. 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. 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 onthe 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. 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. 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. 2051 El Camino Real Planning and Transportation Commission Report 4/10/02 Page 19 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 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 cor~nections 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 the City of Palo Alto Utilities. 3.23 The applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from Caltrans for all utility work in the E1 Camino Real right-of-way. The applicant must provide a copy of the permit to the WGW engineering section. 3.24 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. 3.25 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. 3.26 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 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 2051 El Camino Real Planning and Transportation Commission Report 4/10/02 Page 20 performed by authorized utilities depart, ment 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. 3.28 3.29 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 ANSI/AWWA C65 l- latest edition. 3.30 3.31 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 engineeringsection before making any change. All improvements to the gas system will be performed by the City of Palo Alto Utilities. 3.32 m 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 4.1 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 g~ater 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. 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 2051 El Camino Real Planning and Transportation Commission Report 4/10/02 Page 21 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 separate submittal to the Fire Prevention Bureau. (PAMC 15.04.083) NOTE: Fire Department approval will be withheld until Utilities Department and Public Works Department requirements have been met. . 5.3 5.4 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. (PAMC 15.04.083). 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 6.Building Division 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 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 provider (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.Transportation Division 7.1 e One Class I space per multifamily residential unit is required. Planning Arborist 8.1 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 2057 El camino Reel Planning and Transportation Commission Report 4/10/02 Page 22 used). The appraisal shall be performed in accordance with the current edition of the Guide for PlantAppraisal~ under the auspices of the Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers. 8,2 The grading plans shall,specify critical information outlined in the arborist’s 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 DivisionArborist. 8.3 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. 8.4 8.5 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 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: All existing trees identified both to be retained and removed including street trees. b.Complete plant list indicating tree and plant species, quantity, size, and locations. f. go c.Irrigation schedule and plan. d.Fence locations. e.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. 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 2051 El Camino Real Planning and Transportation Commission Report 4/10/02 Page 23 8.6 8.7 jo ko 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. ao 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. Tree Protection and Preservation Plan. All specifications recommended in the arborist report shall be implemented (Ray Momeau 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 number. 8.8.Root buffering specified root zone areas specified in the arborist report is mandatory. 2051 El Camino Real Page 24 Planning and Transportation Commission Report 4/10/02 8.9. 8.10. 8.11. 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, Erosions etc.); Demolition; Staging; Building; Landscape, Planting and Irrigation Plans. The Tree Protection and Preservation sheet shall also contain the following notes: Conditions 0fApproval #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 Momeau 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. 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. 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 andnon-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 t0-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 2051 El Camino Real Planning and Transportation Commission Report 4/10/02 Page 25 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 .0 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. " 8.12 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. 8.!3 8.14 8.15 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: c. Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and maintained as necessary to 2051 El Camino Real Planning and Transportation Commission Report 4~10/02 Page 26 ensure survival. 8.16 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 Intemational Society of Arboriculture (WC-ISA) Guidelines; Standard Practices for Tree Care Operations outlined in the ANSI A300-1995; ANSI Z 133-1994 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. 8.17 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. 8.18 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. 8.19 Front Landscape Planter ¯ The planter area shall incorporate a slight (2-4")berm along the center to differentiate the sidewalk grade from the planter and to enhance drainage. The planter shall also incorporate a raised border of brick, tile or other permanent material. Two 15-gallon box sizeRed Japanese Maples (Acerp. ’Bloodgood’) shall be located 2’ from each edge of the planter. A mix of three shorter (2-3’ high) shrubs (such as Trollius chinensis, Globeflower, Cercis occidentalis, Western Redbud or approved equivalent) shallbe planted between the maples in the center to contribute visual attraction to the retail window and signage. Decorative boulders (color and size to be selected by the Landscape Architect) shall be artfully placed as accents. 2051 El Camino Real Planning and Transportation Commission Report 4/10/02 Page 27 8.20 Ground cover shall 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 areas not planted with shrubbery. Street Trees. Three Yarwood London Plan trees shall be 2~" box size with one irrigation bubbler each, planted per Public Works Detail #503. Trees shall be installed in the following locations: one tree adjacent to the north property line, one tree approximately eight feet from the south property line, and one tree off-site at least five feet south of the neighboring driveway curb cut. All street trees shall be irrigated. A .Public Works Encroachment Permit shall be obtained before doing any work in the rightrof-way. Note: Location. of the street trees on Landscape,and Irrigation Plans shall match the locations shown on the Site Plan dated March 28, 2002. 8.21 ¯Tree grates (4’ x4’) shall be installed, with the grate design approved by Public Works. A manufacturer’s cut sheet shall be printed on the plans. ¯Engineered structural soil shall be installed under the public sidewalk a minimum of 24-inches deep in front of the subject property only to the City’s specifications. Vines. The Boston Ivy shall be changed to Creeping Fig, Ficuspumila. Planning ARB 9.1 The plans submitted for building permit shall include double-glazed windows for the residential unit. 9.2 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. 9.3 No highly reflective surfaces/glazing shall be installed on the rear elevation facing residential. 9.4 Roof protrusions shall be obscured from public view by roof screen or proper placement. 9.5 Commercial truck deliveries shall be prohibited before 8:00 AM and after 7:00 PM 2051 El Camino Real Planning and Transportation Commission Report 4/10/02 Page 28 and no trash and recycling pickups shall be allowed before 6:30 AM. 9.6 The project will substantially comply with the Below Market Rate (BMR) rental guidelines to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Community Environment. 9.7 The project shall meet the requirements of the noise ordinance and meet Comprehensive Plan Policy N-39, which states: "The guideline for maximum outdoor noise levels in residential areas is an Ldn of 60 dB...However, this level is a guideline which cannot necessarily be reached in all residential areas within the constraints of economic or aesthetic feasibility. The noise level in outdoor areas intended for recreational use should be reduced to as close to the standard as feasible through project design. Indoor noise levels (where the units are exposed to an exterior Ldn of 60 dB or greater) must not exceed an Ldn of 45 dB in multiple family dwellings, with a maximum instantaneous noise level of 50 dB in the bedrooms and 55 dB in other rooms.~’ 9.8 9.9 The project shall pay all applicable development impact fees in effect at the time of issuance of building permits. The projectwill be subject to (1) housing fees at $15.00 per square foot for the commercial floor area, and (2) fees for parks, community centers and libraries at $3.75 per square foot for the commercial floor area and $6,930 per square foot for each residential unit. The garage door shall remain open during business hours. 9.10 Future signage plans (other than window decals for the.retail store) shall be submitted for review by the Architectural Review Board. 9.11 Prior to submittal of the building permit application, the applicant shall provide the planning department with the following items for the ARB to review and provide comments on consent calendar: Indicate the sizes and locations of utilities and mechanical equipment. Provide a list of environmental "green building" program for construction. Provide a detail of the garage door material after carefully considering the material, with a suggestion that some transparency be incorporated into the door material. 9.12 Prior to painting the entire building with the submitted colors (Faded Rose P&L 1875 on the element above the residential entry, Armory P&L 2310 on stucco walls), the applicant shall provide "brush-outs" of these colors on the building. 2051 El Camino Real Planning and Transportation Commission Report 4/10/02 Page 29 Once applied, the applicant shall contact the ARB Liaison, who will notify the Architectural Review Board (ARB) for their individual review on site, and who will schedule the item for the next available ARB meeting on consent calendar. 9.13 A Transportation Demand Management (TDM).program shall be implemented to provide incentives for tenant use of altemative modes of transportation and to include lease restrictions to limit the storage of automobiles owned by residential tenants to two cars on the property during business hours. 2051 El Camino Real Planning and Transportation Commission Report 4/10/02 Page 30 ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING SECTION 18.08.040 OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL, CODE (THE ZONING MAP) TO CHANGE THE CLASSIFICATION OF PROPERTY KNOWN AS 2051 EL CAMINO REAL FROM CN NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL TO PC PLANNED COMMUNITY (OAK SHADOWS LLC, APPLICANT) Attachment The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION i. (a) Oak Shadows LLC ("the Applicant") applied on October 17, 2001 to the City for approval the rezoning of a 4,938 square foot parcel from CN (neighborhood commercial) to PC (Planned Community) to construct a 4,555 square foot, three story building to contain two residential units (2,511 sq.ft.) 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 (~the Project"). A previous application made by the Applicant for this property,- which included a request for variances and design enhancement exceptions, was withdrawn on October i0, 2001. (b) On November 29, 2001, after a .duly noticed public hearing, the Planning and Transportation Commission recommended denial of the project. On February 4, 2002, the. City Council rejected the commission recommendation and forwarded the project to the Architectural Review Board for further review. (c) On March 21, 2002 and April 4, 2002, the Architectural Review Board (ARB) reviewed the Project and the Applicant made certain changes to the project so that revised plans and materials submitted prior to April 4, 2002 were reviewed and recommended for approval by-the ARB. (d) The Planning Commission, after a duly noticed public hearing held May i, 2002, recommended that Section 18.08.040 (the Zoning Map) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code be amended to permit construction of the Project, with two additional changes to Section 4 concerning permitted uses. Those changes have been incorporated herein. 020508 syn 0090888 (d) The Council, after due consideration of the recommendations, finds that the proposed amendment is in the public interest and will promote the public health, safety and welfare, as hereinafter set forth. SECTION 2. Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, the "Zoning Map," is hereby amended by changing the zoning of certain property known as 2051 E1 Camino Real (the "subject property") from CN Neighborhood Commercial to "PC Planned Community." The subject property, .consisting of approximately 4,938 square feet, is shown on the map labeled Exhibit "A," attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 3. The City Council hereby finds with respect to the subject property that: (a) The site is so situated and the 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 in that the proposed residential density, -building setbacks, daylight plane, lot coverage and parking facilities are inconsistent with the CN Neighborhood Commercial District development standards. (b) 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 cof6bining districts in that the Project includes the following public benefit that .is inherent to the Project and above those required by city zoning districts: (i) An undeveloped lot will be developed with a residential/retail/office building in a mixed use area that is within walking distance of the California Avenue Business District and in close proximity to public transit. The project will provide two, smaller housing units on the parcel instead of one larger one permitted by the existing zoning. This mixed use project furthers the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. (2) The Project will provide a three-bedroom Below Market Rate rental housing unit where no such unit would be required by the City’s housing programs. The Project’s owner has executed an Agreement to Provide Below Market Rate Housing with City dated which will be recorded upon final passage of this ordinance. (c) The uses permitted and the site development regulations applicable within the District are consistent with 020508 syn 0090888 2 the Comprehensive Plan and are compatible with the existing and potential uses on the adjoining si-tes or within the general vicinity in that the Project would be consistent with the fol.lowing Comprehensive Plan policies: (i) Local Land Use Policy L-9: Enhance desirable characteristics in mixed- use areas. Use the planning and zoning process to create opportunities for new mixed use development. The Project is a mix of residential, office, and retail uses. (2) Policy H-4: Encourage mixed use projects as a means of increasing, the housing supply while promoting diversity and neighborhood vitality. The Project includes two apartment units that will increase the supply of rental housing, which is scarce in the area. (3) Program L-10 notes that new mixed use zoning standards should be created and applied, including a "Residential/Office", "Residential/Retail" and "Retail/Office" designations. No .new standards have been adopted to date. Program L-10 also states: Develop design standards for all mixed use designations providing for buildings with one to three stories, rear parking or underground parking, street-facing windows and entries, and zero setback along the street, except that front gardens may be provided for ground floor residential uses. The project includes rear parking, street-facing windows and entries. It does have a small front setback, which is desirable for this portion of E1 Camino Real, with plantings in front of the retail store. (4) Policy L-75 states: ¯ 020508 syn 0090888 Minimize the negative physical impacts of parking lots. Locate parking behind buildings or underground wherever possible. 3 The rear parking lot conforms to Policy L-75. Since an underground parking facility is infeasible for a site of this size, and development is further constrained by the presence of protected oak trees, the Project includes a partially covered 7-space ground floor parking facility behind the front portion of the building. It is screened from the street. (5) Policy L-5 states: Maintain the scale and character of the City. Avoid land uses that are overwhelming and unacceptable due to their size and scale. Although the proposed building will change the character and apparent scale of the streetscape in the immediate vicinity, the size and scale of the proposed building is consistent with other commercial buildings on E1 Camino Real.It is also well-scaled to E1 Camino Real itself. (6) Program T-2 states: Promote mixed use development to provide housing and commercial services near em~loyment centers, thereby reducing the necessity of driving. The project is near employment centers. (7) Policy N-17 states: Preserve and protect heritage trees, including native oaks and other significant trees, on public and private property. The healthy oak trees on the property will be preserved. Unhealthy trees with structural deficiencies will be removed. (8) Policy N-22 states: Limit the amount of impervious surface in new development or public improvement projects to reduce urban runoff into storm drains, creeks and San Francisco Bay. Pervious turf block paving will be used on all parking spaces. 020508 syn 0090888 (9) Policy N-39 states: Encourage the location of land uses in areas with compatible noise environments. Use the ~uidelines in the table "Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environment" to determine compatibility.- ¯The ~uideline for maximum outdoor noise levels in residential areas is an Ldn of 60 dB.. This level is a ~uideline for the design and location of future development and a goal for the reduction of noise in existing development. However, 60 Ldn is a ~uideline which cannot necessarily be reached in all residential areas within the constraints of. economic or aesthetic. feasibility.This ~uideline will be primarily applied where outdoor use is a major consideration (e.g. backyards in single family housing developments, and recreational areas in multiple family housing projects.) Where the City determines that providing an Ldn of 60 dB or lower outdoors is not feasible, the noise level in outdoor areas intended for recreational use should be reduced to as close to the standard as feasible through project design. ¯The indoor noise level as required by the State of California Noise Insulation Standards must not exceed an Ldn of 45 dB in multiple family dwellings .... ¯Interior noise levels in new single family and multiple family residential units exposed to an exterior Ldn of 60 dB or greater should be limited to a maximum instantaneous noise level of 50 dB in the bedrooms [and 55 dB in other rooms.]. . . The City’s Comprehensive Plan indicates that the prevailing noise level on E1 Camino Real properties are high (70 dBA). The parapet will reduce noise levels on the rooftop deck to as close to the 60 dB standard as feasible. (i0) Policy N-42 states: 020508 syn 0090888 The City may require proposals to reduce noise impacts of development on adjacent properties through appropriate means including but not limited to the following~ Construct noise walls when compatible with aesthetic concerns. ¯Screen and control noise sources such as parking, outdoor activities and mechanical equipment. ¯Increase setbacks for noise sources from adjacent dwellings. ¯Whenever possible, retain fences, walls or landscaping that serve as noise buffers although design, safety and other impacts must be addressed. ¯Use soundproofing materials and double- glazed windows. including to mlnlmlze ¯Control hours of operation, deliveries and trash pickup, impacts. Double-glazed windows will be incorporated into the Project and limitations on hours of deliveries and trash will be set by the Planned Community standards in this ordinance. SECTION 4. Those certain plans entitled "Oak Shadows" prepared by Carrasco & Associates Architects dated March 28, 2002, and consisting of ten (I0) sheets, a copy of which is on file in the Department of Planning and Community Development, and to which reference is hereby made, are hereby approved as the Development Plan for the subject property, pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.68.120. Said Development Plan is approved for the following uses, and subject to the following conditions: (a) fOllows : Permitted Uses.The permitted uses shall be as (i) Multiple Family Residential Use: In those areas designated on the Development Plan as "Residential", two dwelling units and uses customarily incidental to residential uses. Each unit shall be a rental unit, and they shall not be merged, consolidated, or connected. In any individual unit, home occupations accessory to the residential use of that unit are permitted subject to Palo Alto Municipal Code provisions regulating home occupations. 020508 syn 0090888 (2) Office: .In those areas designated on the Development Plan as "Office", professional offices, gcncral neiqhborhood business services, and private educational facilities. (3) Retail: In those areas designated on the Development Plan as "Retail," neighborhood-serving eating and drinking services, personal services, and retail services exceDt aDpointment-onl¥ retail services. (4). Parking facilities: The parking facilities shall be owned and operated by the owner of the Project. There shall be a minimum of seven (7) spaces. Two (2) spaces shall be reserved for the use of residential tenants and shall be allocated by the owner of the Project. The balance of the parking spaces shall be managed as parking for the retail and office tenantsj and visitors during business hours. The garage shall be open during business hours. (b) Conditional Uses. Child-care facilities may be allowed with a conditional use permit. (c) Site Development Regulations. All improvements and deveiopment shall be substantially in accordance with the approved Development Plan. The following are site development regulations which establish rules for modifications or additions to any building,accessory structure or landscaping on the subject property.Definitions of terms used shall be in accordance with Chapter 18.04 (Definitions) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code as it exists at the time of adoption of this Ordinance. (i) Any future plan revisions shall require an amendment to this Planned Community Zone or, if eligible, approval under Chapter 18.99 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. (2) The approved Development Plan permits some tree removal and requires the preservation and protection of specified existing trees within the development. No future development or improvement proposed for the subject property following initial construction authorized by Architectural Review Approval shall result in the removal or destruction of trees without the approval of the City of Palo Alto. (d) Special Conditions. 020508 syn 0090888 7 (i) Below Market Rate (BMR) Housing Requirement. The Project shall provide one three-bedroom unit to be included in the City’s Below Market Rate ("BMR") program. The unit shall be in conformance with the City’s BMR program and subject to the restrictions applicable to rental units placed in the BMR program. The unit shall be the second floor unit specified on the approved plans. If prior to the issuance of a building permit for the Project, the Project Owner and the City Manager determine and agree that the goals of the City’s below-market rate housing program are better-met if the space allocated to BMR unit is reconfigured to provide more units or a different allocation of bedrooms, they may do so by amending the Agreement Regarding Provision of Below Market Rate Housing described below. The provisions of this condition (i) have been agreed to by the Project’s owner and are set forth in an Agreement Regarding Provision of Below Market Rate Housing to be executed and recorded prior to the final passage of this ordinance.The zoning for the Project does not permit conversion .of the residential units to condominiums.If an .amendment to the zoning is sought to permit such a conversion, a new BMR agreement must be negotiated with the City prior to such amendment.~ (2) Transportation Demand Management Program. Project’s owner shall implement a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program to reduce the number of parking spaces used by individuals working in the office and retail portions of this site.- The owner shall enter into an agreement with City describing the methods for reducing demand, requiring the appointment by the owner of a TDM manager/commute coordinator, providing for the monitoring of parking space use by individuals working at 2051 E1 Camino Real, and establishing performance standards and action to be taken if the goals of the TDM are not met. The agreement shall be approved by the Director of Planning and Community Environment and executed and recorded prior to issuance of the first building permit for the Project. (e) Development Schedule. Construction of the Project shall commence on or before January 6, 2003, and shall be completed and ready for occupancy on or before July i, 2003. (f) Hours of Delivery. Commercial deliveries shall be limited to the hours of 8:00 A.M. to 7 P.M. Monday through Friday. 020508 syn 0090888 8 (g) Trash/Recycling Pickups. No trash/recycling pickups shall be permitted at the site before 6:30 A.M. (h) City Right to Inspect. The applicant and all successors in interest shall take all steps necessary to assure actual residential use of the portion of the premises designated ~Residential." The applicant and all successors in interest shall permit City inspection of the premises to assure actual residential use of the premises as approved. Inspections may occur and shall be permitted on an annual or more frequent basis, at reasonable times of day and upon reasonable notice, without need for inspection by the City. The applicant shall record a deed restriction or other appropriate notice in a form acceptable to the City Attorney in order to provide record notice of this condition to all successors in interest. The applicant shall also include this condition and restriction in all leases or other conveyances of any interest or tenancy in the property. SECTION 5. The project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15303. SECTION 6. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first day after the date of its adoption. INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSTENTIONS: ABSENT: ATTEST:APPROVED: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Senior Asst. City Attorney 020508 syn 0090888 Mayor City Manager Director of Planning and Community Environment "Exhibit iA" The City o~" Palo A1 to PLANNING DI VISION Planned Community, 01-PC-04 ’ 2051 El Camino Real s:\Pla n\Pladlv\Cu rrentPlan nlng~Sl~e_LocaUon_M aps\EICa mlno205 J._2.00scale.al To: City of Palo Alto Planning~ ~L~ ARCHITECTS Projecti Mixed Use Project 2051 E1 Camino Real 00-PAR-09 Zone: PC (Currently CN) Attachment D Date: Mar. 28, 2002 DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM STATEMENT 2051 E1 Camino Real is a flat, appr0,x.imately 50’ x 100’ loL 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. -. This property is a substandard lot - smaller in width and area than currently allowed. In.addition, it is considered greatly desirable by both the .City and the developer to retain the large ex.isting oak trees near the east and north property lines. This condition results in a lack o£fle:dbility 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 1oL and ctmply with all the CN &RM-15 site development regulations that would apply to the mixed use proposal. During the City hearings, the n.eighborhood 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 solutionwhich 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 foruse by Firemen, Police personnel, teachers who are serving the PaloA1to Community with dedication and cannot afford to live in the city. The configuration of the 3 bedroom BlVI~ unit results in a reduction of office space from 1280 to 1191 s.f. 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 apartment owner occupied. ¯, The building height and the floor plans (and floor area) have remained unchanged from the previous submittal. At the east side of the E1 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 stai~vay entrance will. be a.t the west edge, and the office stairway will be at the east edge. The d_tveway will be on the western side, between the residential entrance and the retail, and will lead back to seven parking spaces behind the retail and at the rear of the lot. All of the e.’dsting trees will be prese~wed, except one (not an oak) that the arborist states is in poor condition. After Conferring with the ARB Subcommittee, the front elevation has been revised, to being a hard surfaced modernist faqade with stucco masses on both sides. The office stairs will have stucco walls on both sides, and be covered by a sloping s~light rooJ~ and the ground floor screen and the landing guardrails overlooking the sidewalk will be perforated sheet metal In order to visually reduce the size of the central front fagade, the third story g~tardrail will be frameless glass supported by metal rails, and will extend down in front of the aluminum panel wall. Following the recommendations of the ,tpcoming South E1 Camino Real Design Guidelines, the aluminum sunscreen louvers have been deleted. Instead, the third story residential deck will overhang and provide shading for the second sto~. glass office wall overlooking El Camino Real. Also three perforated metal fin walls will project vertically in line with the primary window mullions. The mefal grate remains below the second story~ windows, to 120 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 * 650 322 2288 ~ FAX: 650 322 2316 o email: architects@carrasco.com A Professional Corporation May-0B-02 10:43A P.02 provide a pla~orm.for window wa,’hing as well as ~hading over the ground floor r~taii windows. The aecond atory wall below the window,~ will ai~o be clad in aluminum panel Mding. On th~ other side of lhe~ont elba,alien, second sto~ projecfon abow,.lhe ~s~dential enl~ will al,~ be stucco. ~ side ~d rear walls wt# be ~lu~o. A# the ~tucco throughout the enffre building will be pain!edify, e~epl for Ihe p~jecllon over the ~idential enlrywhi~h will be u l~a cott~ color, which will also wrap around the corner unffl the f!~st ~ntroljoint, ,SYiding glass doors will occess the office and rear.residential deck.s’, The residential lhird slo~ ~ali.v, mt back~om the edg~ of lhe .~nd ~to~ on thee ,~id~s w form horl~ont~ wood ParkingFeasibility l~lan There is only space for the seven proposed parking spaces, and the parking ordinance nornmlly requires ~lev©n, This submittal proposes a shared parkh}g arrangcmcnl in which the parking spaces will be occupied by diffcrcm cars- rcsidcmiai cars al nigh{ and commercial cars during Ihe day. The garage door will remain open during the day. Wifl~ the spaces being available to both employees and customers of’the re~lil and Office spaces. A! night the . commercial cars will Ioav~ and !he residential.cars will return. The metal roll-up garage door will normally be ClOSed at night - each of the r¢$idenl8 will have a door operator to provide access. The offic~ will receive 5 operators and the retail will receive Ol~e, in case riley arrive early, before the door is opened. Tentative Development Schedule Mar, 27, 2002 Planning Commission Hearing May |, 2002 Archil~’turdl Review Board May 13, 2002 City Council Meeting May 15, 2002 Begin Construction DOcuments preparation, (if projec! is approved by City Council) Aug. 15, 2002 Submi! for Plan Chock 15, 2002 Receive plan check commenls back from City Nov, 1, 2002 "Submit plan check respoase De~. 15, 2002 Receive Building Pcmfit Jan, 6, 2003 Beg~n Constn~ction July 1, 2003 Complete Shell Conslruclion an~ occupy " This is not a large buildin$- there will no phasing of construction. Tim tentative scltedule is possibly based On wishful thinking, ,and could b¢ d¢layc, d ifwork doc$ not pro!,q’ess as fast as hoped. However, the philosophy will be to move as fast as possible to complete the building. Attachment E CiTY GOUNUiL, M-I N UTE S CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS ARE CABLECAST LIVE ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL 16 AND BROADCAST ON KZSU, 90.1 FM. Special Meeting February 4, 2002 Joint Meeting with the Planning and Transportation Commission 328 ADJOURNMENT: The.meeting adjourned at 7:05 p.m ..................328 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ......... ............. ..........................329 i.Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan .....~ ............329 Appointment of Candidates to the Library Advisory Commission " ’ 337 (Old Item No.7) PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider if an. application by Mehmood Taqui on behalf of Oak Shadows LLC for review and rezoning of a 4,938 square-foot parcel from CN (Neighborhood Commercial) to.PC (Planned Community) to construct a 4,370 square-foot, three-story building to contain two residential units (2,511 square feet) including a below market rate unit, retail area (511 square feet) and office area (I.,191 square feet) for property located at- 2051 .El Camino. Real should be denied or .whether it should be forwarded to the Architectural Review Board for. review ...................... 338 APPROVAL OF MINUTES ............................. ¯ ................ 344 o Resolution 8125 entitled "Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adopting a Compensation Plan for Palo Alt0 Fire Chiefs’ Association Management Personnel and Rescinding Resolution No. 8011 ...............345 Amendment No.i. to Existing Contract No. C135651 Between the City of Palo Alto and Planergy International in the Amount of $140,000 for the Emergency Rental of a 5-Megawatt Backup Diesel Generator ..................................................345 02/04/02 93-326 o Council Approval of Disposition and Development Agreement Between the City of Palo Alto, Palo Alto Housing Corporation,and Oak Court Apartments, LOP., including a Budget Amendment Ordinance to fuDd a development subsidy loan ($1,960,000) and certain property holding and clearing costs ($143,000)"345 Contract Between.the City of Palo Alto and DelC0nte’s Landscaping, Inc.~ in the Amount of $164,190for Bol Park Facilities and Irrigation Improvements ........ .........345 Mayor Ojakian and Vice Mayor Mossar .re Consideration of a Resolution in Support of Proposition 40, the California Clean Water, Clean Air, Safe Neighborhood ~Parks, and Coastal Protection Act of 2002, and Proposition 42, the Transportation Congestion Improvement Act ................................. ~ ....... .... 346 Conference with City Attorney - Existing Litigation ........346 CONTINUED DISCUSSION OF ITEM.NO. 1 ................... ...........346 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting, adjourned at 11:20 p.m .................355 02 104/02 93-327 Lytle, Morton,Mossar, Oj akian VOTING FOR MARY JEAN PLACE:Beecham, Burch,Freeman, Kleinberg, Lytle,Morton, Mossar, Ojakian VOTING FOR SHELBY ANN VALENTINE: Freeman, Kishimoto, Lytle VOTING FOR THOMAS WYMAN:Beecham, Bu~ch, Freeman, Kishimoto, Kleinberg, Lytle, Morton, Mossar, Ojakian CityClerk Donna Rogers announced that Sandra Hirsh with 7 votes, Lenore Jones with 9 votes,. Mary Jean Place with 8 votes, and Thomas Wyman with 9 votes were appointed on the first ballot. 9:20 P.M. - 9:25 P.M. 2A.(Old Item No.7) PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider if an application by Mehmood Taqui on behalf of Oak Shadows LLC for review and rezoning of a 4,938 square-foot parcel f~om CN (Neighborhood Commercial) to PC (Planned Community) to construct a 4,370 square-foot, three-st0rY building to contain two residential units (2,511 square feet) including a below market rate unit, retail- area (511 square feet) and office area (11191 square feet) for property located at 2051 E1 Camino Real should be denied or whether it should be forwarded to the Architectural Review Board for review under Section 18.68.065 of the Palo .Alto Municipal Code. (continued from 1/22/02) Assistant Planning Official John Lusardi said the item before the Council was a project that was heard by the City Council in September 2001. It was then a review of a site and design under the Neighborhood Commercial (CN) Zone District. It included .variance and design enhancement exceptions along with the proposed mixed-use project. The City Council requested that the applicant address specific issues related to the proposal, such as the preservation and maintenance of the oak trees on the site, an increase in the proposed retail space, and the reduction in the five-bedroom unit. The applicant had addressed those 02/04/02 93-338 issues. The. most significant change was-the addition of another residential unit to the project that necessitated converting the application to a Planned Community (PC) rezoning. The applicant had also proposed that the added residence be a Below-Market-Rate (BMR) unit to provide for public benefit of the project. The PC Zoning project included the following: i) preservation of the oak trees and the provi~sion of a maintenance program; 2) reduction of one five-bedroom unit to a two-bedroom unit with mitigation of the .privacy issue for adjoining residential properties; 3) the addition of a three bedroom BMR unit; 4) increased retail space by approximately 200 square feet; 5) reduced office space by 119 square feet; and provided for neighborhood-serving uses in offices as part of the PC Zone all6wed uses. Seven onsite-parking spaces would be provided. There was also an increase in the front yard setback to allow for a 10-foot sidewalk. The Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC) reviewed the PC zoning proposal in November 2001, and then forwarded the recommendation for denial to the City Council without further review from the Architectural Review Board (ARB). Staff would recommend that the Council refer the project back to the ARB for final design review. That recommendation was based on the finding that the project’s. revised design and rezoning met the Council’s .direction from the September 2001 review. ¯ Planning and Transportation Commissioner Michael Griffin, said the P&~C Commission found the project to be too large for the site, out of the compliance with the Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan) regarding transitions between land uses, and the project was trying to do too much on a small lot.~ There were alsQ~difficulties with the~ shared parking aspects of the project, as well as questions of the viability of the retail space being only 511 square feet. In the final analysis, the public-benefits did not seem to outweigh the potential detriments. Mayor Ojakian declared the Public Hearing open at 9:34 p.m. Mehmood Taqui, Applicant, said he took the directives and .suggestions from the September 2001 meeting, and made the effort to incorporate all the guidelines given to him by the Council. He could not understand why the P&TC denied the present project, when the previous proposal had been approved by the P&TC. The present envelope of the .design was smaller than the one previously approved. By elevating 02/04/02 93-339 the deck in the rear of the property and reducing the dimensions in the front, he had met the guidelines for E1 Camino Real by 12 feet. He reduced the office space from 1232 square feet to 1191 square feet, and increased the retail space, as suggested, from 311 square feet with a bathroom to 511 square feet without the bathroom. The BMR unit was reduced from five bedrooms to two bedrooms.. The second unit of three-bedrooms that was provided behind the office area would also become a BMR unit to prevent office space from being developed there in the future. He re- addressed the health of the oak trees by appointing Mr. Ray Morneau, the consulting arborist, to condu, ct another study and prepare the report that was provided to the Council and staff for review. In brief, the report reconfirmed that the construction of the building would not have detrimental effects on the health of the trees as soon as the required pruning was done. The safety and health of the trees was also reviewed by City Arborist Dave Dockter.. Mayor Ojakian noted that the item was a quasi-judicial matter and the Council needed to disclose any communications. Council Members Lytle, Morton, Burch, Vice Mayor Mossar and Mayor. Ojakian disclosed that they had met with the applicant and the neighborhood. Council Member Kleinberg disclosed that she met with applicant, the architect, the neighborhood, and received telephone calls. Council Members Freeman and Kishimoto disclosed that they had both met with the applicant and two neighbors. Council Member Beecham disclosed that he met with the applicant. Council Member Freeman asked Architect Tony Carrasco whether the stairway that ascended to the office space could be moved from its current side to somewhere else. Tony Carrasco, Architect for the Applicant, 120 Hamilton Avenue, said because of the code requirements for mixed-use projects required the two.stairways to remain half of the diagonal of the building apart. 02/04/02 93-340 Council Member Freeman asked whether the building cQuld be designed for an alleyway or parking for the group of buildingtenants fo[-the potential increase in retail space where the garage would be located. Mr. Carrasco said yes. It would be complicated in terms of how that would be done. David Schrom, President of Evergreen Park (EP) Neighborhood Association, 381 Oxford Avenue, said that 138 neighborhood residents signed a petition objecting to the prior incarnation of the proposed project. FrQm the perspective of the neighborhood, the one affordable unit was not an offsetting benefit for the costs thatwould be imposed.upon the residents, such as additional commercial and non- residential development. John Baca, 484 Oxford Avenue, opposed the project because of probable impacts to the EP neighborhood. The PC-3 finding that the project would be consistent and compatible with potential and.existing uses on adjoining sites was not possible. One way for the applicant to develop .the site was to. build three residential units, one of which would be the BMR unit. That would require six parking spaces and would not impact the neighborhood. Lynn Chiapella, 631 Colorado Avenue, said the project was overbearing for the neighborhood. It was a three-story project in aneighborhood of one-story residences. Although the ARB stated they wanted to see the development on that block of E1 Camino Real, she did not believe that CN zoning was appropriate in a neighborhood that was already impacted. Joy Ogawa, 2305 Yale Street, said the project did not fit into the CN zone. The rezone to PC was not consistent’with the Comp Plan. The project did not support a PC zoning. Council Member Freeman asked whether there was any significant depreciation in the amount of daylight going to the existing residences on the south side of the property with the development. Mr. Lusardi said that by shifting the building toward the north side and retaining the trees, the travel of the sun was such that there was no significant reduction of daylight into those adjoining prQjects. The canopy of the 02/04/02 93-341 oak trees provided as much shading from the sun as would the building. Council Member Lytle asked how the project would affect the retail protection requirement, and whether the 500 square feet being proposed was a viable neighborhood-serving ¯ retail configuration on E1 camino~Real~ ~ Ms. Grote said the project did comply with the retail preservation ordinance since it was previously a vacant site and the new building¯ would have retail on the ground floor.. Council Member Lytle clarified that the 500 square feet was a viable neighborhood-servingretail space.. Ms. Grote said yes. Although it was small, it was still a viable retail space. Council Member Lytle asked staff to clarify whether the project would create an impact on the jobs/housing imbalance. Mr. Lusardi said that question was subjective to .an application of that size-, Staff would conclude that it was pretty much a wash. Council Member Lytle asked whether the project was subject to the placeholder impact fee. Mr. Lusardi said yes. Council Member Lytl.e asked Mr. Taqui whether it was economically justifiable to have a mixed-use project with ground floor retail~and housing above it. Mr. Taqui said that was not a pleasant .economic solution for him. ¯Council Member Lytle asked whether unpleasant meant an unviable option. Mr. Taqui said it was still viable if he cut down his profit margins. He would rather have the small office space for neighborhood-serving use. It would not be a general7 purpose office. 02/04/02 93-342 Council Member Morton asked how important it was that the site have parking when the’bathroom was in the parking lot. Mr. Lusardi said the bathroom was a requirement of the building code and it had to be accessible to the disabled. Council Member Morton asked ’whether the bathroom had to be " separated from the retail space. Mr. Lusardi said no. The original project had the bathroom attached to the retail space, but in order to enlarge the space at the request of the Council, the. bathroom had to be moved. I~ the retail space were enlarged with the bathroom attached, the project would have further intruded into.the oak’trees area. Council Member Morton asked Mr. Lusardi whether he was aware o~ any other project wherethe bathroom was separated from the usable space. Mr. Lusardi said it was not a convenient method but it served the building code and the retail use. Council Member Morton clarified his concern was parking on the site. Mayor 0jakian interjected that what was before the Council was a recommendation to refer the Item to the ARB Board. Some of .the issues being raised that evening would get flushed out with the ARB. Council Member Morton said he was proposing to add the additional questions to the ARB to be addressed. Mayor 0jakian declared the Public Hearing closed at 10:05 Council Member Burch understood that Mr Taqui wanted to build something with mixed use and live in it himself. He did not believe that sending the item back to the ARB was useful and moved to deny the project in its present form. MOTXONz Council Member Burch moved, seconded by Kishim6to, to deny the project and not refer the project back to the Architectural Review Board. 02/04/02 93-343 Council Member Kishimoto Said she was open to other uses for the site, such as residential over retail or all residential. She agreed with the P&TC that the project was trying to do too much with a small lot. Council Member Beecham said. the Council gave clear indications .to the applicant at the previous meeting, what he needed to do, such~ as .separate the one large housing unit &nto two units, and add retail space. It would be breaking the faith of Council direction to deny the project at that point. SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Council Member Beecham moved, seconded by Mossar, to approve the staff recommendation to refer the project to the Architectural Review Board (ARB) for review pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapters 18.68 and 16.48. Vice Mayor Mossar said the project was a difficult one that caused a great deal of concern, interest, and focus among all parties. The applicant had met the criteria set out by the Council and assured the Council that the oak trees would be safe. SUBSTITUTE MOTION PASSED 8-1, Kishimoto ~’no." BY A CONSENSUS OF THE COUNCIL it was determined that they would complete the remainder of the-regular Agenda first, and then return to the discussion of Item No. i. APPROVALOF MINUTES MOTION: Council Member B~rch moved, seconded by Beecham,. to approve ’the Minutes of December i0 and 17,2001,as submitted. MOTION PASSED 9L0. CONSENT CALENDAR Council Member Morton would not participate in Item No. 5 due to a conflict of interest because he had been an Auditor in the Palo Alto Housing Corporation. MOTION: Council Member Beecham moved, seconded by Mossar, to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 3-6. 02/04/02 93-344 LEGISLATIVE Resolution 8125 entitled ~Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adopting a Compensation Plan for Palo Alto Fire Chiefs’ Association Management Personnel and Rescinding Resolution No. 8011" Resolution 8126 entitled ~Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 1801 of the Merit System Rules and Regulations Regarding the Memorandum of Agreement Between the. City of Palo Alto and the Palo Alto Fire Chiefs’ Association" ADMINISTRATIVE o Amendment No.1 to Existing. Contract No. Between the City .of Palo " Alto and International in the Amount of $140,000 Emergency Rental of a 5,Megawatt Backup Generator C135651 Planergy for .the Diesel Council Approval of Disposition and Development Agreement Between .the City of Palo Alto, Palo Alto Housing Corporation,and Oak Court Apartments, L.P., including a Budget Amendment Ordinance to fund a development subsidy loan ($1,960,000) and certain .property holding and clearing costs ($143,000) Ordinance 4735 entitled. ~Ordinance .of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for Fiscal Year 2001-02 to Provide an Appropriation of $1,960,000 from the Commercial Housing In-Lieu Fund for a Loan to ¯ the Oak Court~ Affordable Housing Project and $143,000 from the Residential Housing In-Lieu Fund. for various Expenses Related to City’s Option to Acquire the Housing Site" Disposition and Development Agreement Between the City of Palo Alto, .the Palo Alto Housing Corporation, and Oak Court Apartments, L.P. Contract Between the.City of Palo Alto and Del Conte’s Landscaping, Inc., in the Amount of $164,190 for Bol Park Facilities and Irrigation Improvements MOTION PASSED 9-0 for Item Nos. 3, 4, and 6. 02/04/02 93-345 Attachment F PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT TO:-PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION FROM: AGENDA DATE: Amy French Apfill0,2002 DEPARTMENT: Planning and Community Environmem SUBJECT:2051 El 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 4,555 square foot, three story building to contain two residential units (2,511 sq.ft.) 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 personai services. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning and Transportation Commission recommend approval of the Planned Community District rezone and development to the City Council, based upon the attached Findings (Attachment A) and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval (Attachment B) and draft Planned Community Ordinance (Attachment C). PROJECT DESCRIPTION Site and Project Information The site information was presented in previous staff reports to the Planning and Transportation Commission, on file in the Planning Division. The project plans were 2051 El Camino Real Planning and Transportation Commission Report 4/10/02 Page revised after.the February 4, 2002 City Council meeting and further plan revisions have been made to address concerns recently raised by the Architectural Review Board, as discussed below under Significant Issues. The revised Development Program Statement and Development Schedule are attached to this report (Attachment D). In summary, the Planned Community (PC) rezone application was submitted to increase allowable residential density on the site. The applicant proposes to provide a three- bedroom, two-bathroom, below-market-rate (BMR), rental housing unit to meet the public benefit requirement. 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, provides the basis for the BMR unit. Staff is preparing a BMR unit agreement and is able to work with the applicant to address any specific donditions for implementation. The PC zone also provides a mechanism for the City to allow the project to differ from the CN Zone (PAMC Chapter 18.41) development standards (incorporating RM=I 5Zone standards where applicable) and to modify the Parking regulations (PAMC Chapter 18.83). The project includes shared parking for five of the Seven spaces and includes a Transportation Demand Management component. Project History_ Previous Applications The Planning and Transportation Commission reviewed the Site and Design Review applicatibn and requests for Variances and Design Enhancement Exceptions on July 11, 2001. The ARB reviewed preliminary plans for this site in.meetings on January 18 and April 5, 2001 and reviewed the Site and Design Review application on July 12, 2001. Recommendations for approval from the ARB and PT&C were forwarded on September 24, 2001, to the City Council, which continued its review of the project to allow the applicant to address their concerns prior to appearing again before the City Council. The Variance and Site and Design application was withdrawn on October 10, 2001. Current Applications Requests for a rezone to Planned Community and Architectural Review were submitted on October 17, 2001. On November 28, 2001, the P&TC recommended denial (4-2) for. the reasons set forth in Attachment E of this report. The project was forwarded without the Architectural Review Board’s input to the City Council, pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 18.68, Section 18.68.065. On February 4, 2002, the City Council reviewed the project.A Planning Commissioner speaking on behalf of the Planning and Transportation Commission stated why denial of the project had been recommended, namely (1) the buildingis too large for the site and is out of compliance with the Comprehensive Plan regarding transitions between land uses and the 2051 El Camino Real Planning and Transportation Commission Report 4/10/02 Page 2 project is trying to do too much on a small lot, (2) the parking deficit is too large and sharing parking would be difficult, (3) viability Of the retail space as currently configured in this application is questionable and (4) public benefits do not seem. to outweigh the potential detriments. Four members of the public spoke in opposition to the project. The City Council discussed the office stair location, viability of the retail space, jobs/housing balance, required impact fees, location of the retail bathroom, parking and uses. The Council noted that the applicant had met the criteria set forth by the Council and had .responded to the Council’s direction by dividing the one housing unit into two residential units, adding retail floor area, and ensuring the protection of the oak trees. It was also noted during the motion that (1) the project fits into the commercial district of E1 Camino Real, and (2) although it is true there is a lot going on at the project site and parking concerns are real, the Council should resist decisions based on how to park the automobile (and instead focus on how people move around n6t relying on cars.) Given that, the .Council agreed to accept the project rather than deny the project and voted (8-1) for the staff recommendation to refer the application to the ARB (see City Council meeting minutes, Attachment F). On March 21, 2002, the Architectural Review Board (ARB) reviewed the project plans, which included front fagade revisions made after the City Council review. A letter from a neighbor submitted to the ARB is attached to this report (Attachment H). The.ARB continued their review to April 4, 2002 to allow the applicant to return with revisions, including Sections and Details, addressing their concerns regarding the garage door operation, ADA space, planting area and street trees, building color palette and wall treatment. The ARB was also concerned about the potential placement of signs for the commercial uses. The applicant’s statement (Attachment D) describes the garage door operation (open during business hours) and the ADA parking space requirement is discussed below. On April 4, 2002, the ARB recommended approval of the project as revised with conditions as recommended by staff, plus additional conditions to review the exterior color "brush-outs". on site, any signage other than retail window decals, and the final material selected for the garage door. There were no public speakers. The Commissioners’ packets include the revised plans .and colored rendering reviewed during the April 4, 2002 ARB meeting. POLICY IMPLICATIONS Comprehensive Plan The project is in conformance with the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan policies and the commercial uses would be consistent with land uses of the CN District. The applicable Comprehensive Plan policies and programs are included in the Planned Community Ordinance, attached to this report asAttachment C. 2051 El Camino Real Planning and Transportation Commission Report 4/10/02 Page 3 E1 Camino Real Design Guidelines The existing E1 Camino Real Design Guidelines are considered an incentive -and guide for redevelopment, rather than policy, and provide for continued development of the E1 Camino RealDistrict. The project is consistent with the E1 Camino Real Design Guidelines I, II, IV, V and VI. In particular: ¯Two Street trees wili be provided in front of the project site along the El Camino Real frontage to meet Guideline I, Landscaped Street Theme, which requires one 15 gallon street tree for every 30 feet of frontage on E1 Camino Real. The existing street light location does not allow the exact spacing of 30 feet. The applicant has offered to place a third tree in the frontage of the adjacent multi-family residential site, to establish regular tree spacing and improve the streetscape, discussed below under Significant Issues. ¯The existing oak trees in the perimeter of the parking lot will meet the requirement of one 15-gallon tree per 25 foot length of parking lot perimeter, per Guideline V, Buffers, Parking Lots. ¯The oaks will provide a visual buffer for the adjacent existing single family and multi- family developments, and will enhance privacy for residents of the proposed project. Parking will be screened from the street, the design is pedestrian oriented, and the mechanical equipment will not be visible from E1 Camino Real, meeting Guideline IV, Architecture, Site Plan. ¯The lighting on the rear wall of the second floor residential unit is compatible with the City’s standards andwith the overall design, meeting Guideline VI, Lighting. SIGNIFICANT ISSUES PC Zoning The standards for development on this site in conjunction with this PC Rezone include: ¯ a Floor Area Ratio of .92:1 (111 square feet over CN District’s 4,444 square feet allowed for mixed use, or an FAR increase of .02), ¯a front setback of 3’7 ½" at the first floor, one foot at the second floor and 10 feet at the third floor (10 feet front setback for all floors required in CN zone, 25 foot setback for all floors if residential use is included in the project), ¯side yard setbacks of 0’ except 16’ and 20’ setbacks at second and third floors facing the residential apartment site (RM-15 requires 10’ first floor setbacks and 20’ upper floor setbacks), ¯approximately 37% open space area (6% over the RM-15 stanadard) comprised Of 22% at grade and 15% as private deck area (130 s.f. deck for BMR unit; over 600 s.f. deck for third floor unit), ¯54% lot coverage (19% over the 35% RM-15 standard), and ¯seven parking spaces (four spaces less than set forth in Chapter 18.83), two of which 2051 El Camino Real Planning and Transportation Commission Report 4/10/02 Page 4 would be designated only for residential use (one for each unit), and the remainder (five spaces) to be shared during business hours by the commercial space tenants and visitors. Uses. The proposed uses 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 onthis site and approve a list of uses and conditional uses at the adoption of the PC District. The attached ordinance (Attachment C) sets forth the uses-for this Planned Community District, which include two residential units, ground floor retail and neighborhood serVing second floor uses. Architectural Design " The changes made to the project serve to reduce the apparent mass and allow increased visibility of the oak trees, and are supported by the Architectural Review Board. The following changes have been made to plans since the last Planning and Transportation Commission review. To reduce the apparent mass and adjust the exterior finish and color, the applicant has: ¯ deleted the metal sunscreen louvers, provided alternative sun shading via the third floor deck overhang, second floor metal grate and vertical stucco fin walls. ¯ ¯replaced the solid third floor deck railing with frame!ess, blue glass panels that continue down over the parapet, ¯exposed operable office windows (blue glass) above fixed windows (the retail space will have clear glass), ¯replaced the white color previously on the parapet wall with a gray color, ¯replaced the yellow color on the vertical feature above the residential entry with a terra cotta color, and ¯proposed a stucco finish painted gray on the concrete walls facing the property lines. Additionally, it is anticipated that the applicant will incorporate a certain transparency into the garage door for a final ARB review on consent calendar. To. improve visibility of the oak trees from E1 Camino Real, the applicant has: ¯ opened up the perforated aluminum panel above railing height at each floor level of the south stairs (to the right of the retail space as seen on the front facade), ¯rever;ed the orientation of the south stairs to allow the required stair roof to slope away from the street and employed a sloped, blue glass roof (with the exception of a small~ non-combustible flat roof portion is proposed over the third floor stair landing~ beginning approximately 15 feet from the front property line.) 2051 El Camino Real Planning and Transportation Commission Report 4/10/02 Page 5 Landscaping The landscaping plan has been revised to enhance the pedestrian experience, including: ¯ The addition of two street trees for a total of three street trees, one of which will be installed in front of the adjacent residential site to the south, ¯A change to Creeping Fig vines onthe walls adjacent to the garage driveway, and ¯The addition of Japanese Maple trees and flowering shrubs in the retail space planter, in addition to. flowering gr0undcover. Multiple Family Guidelines (Chapter 18.28) Although the project does not meet theZoning Code definition of multi-family residential land use (three or more units), it conforms to Chapter 18.28 Multiple Family Guidelines provision;, since it includes: ¯Pedestrian.protection fr0mwater atthe entries, ¯Accessible and screened trash and recycling area, ¯Textured paving on driveways, ¯Rooftop equipment screening, ¯Common outdoor area specialpaving, ¯No illumination in parking areas and common open space, ¯Textured paving on all parking spaces in the rear parking lot. ¯Adequate insulation and double glazed windows (by condition of approval). Parking Facilities The.project still includes a roll-up garage door for security reasons, but the applicant now proposes that the door remain open during business hours and a condition of approval requires this (Condition 9.9). Therefore, disabled retail shoppers could access the accessible parking space with greater ease. Seven parking spaces are proposed including an ADA space, which is required since the parking lot has more than five parking spaces. The ADA access aisle would also provide a turnaround area for cars exiting the lot. Four bicycle parking spaces are provided, including one locker space for each residential tenant, and two rack spaces for the commercial uses. Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 18283 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 applicant now proposes that five of the seven spaces would be available for commercial tenants and visitors, and two spaces would be designated for residential tenants (at one space for each unit). During non-business hours, residents would have access to two additional parking spaces. Therefore, the parking deficiency for commercial uses is only two parking spaces. 2051 El Camino Real Planning and Transportation Commission Report 4/10/02 Page 6 Modifications to the ,parking regulations for this site are allowed through the Planned Community (PC) District review process. !n addition, the applicant is working with City Transportation Division staff to prepare a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program to include incentives for tenant use of alternative.modes of transportation. Condition of approval 9.13 requires implementation of the TDM program including lease restrictions limiting the number of residential vehicles allowed on the property during business hours. Also, the TDM project component h~s been included in the draft PC Ordinance. Again, it should be noted that the Comprehensive Plan Business and Economics Element, PolicY B-17 encourages relaxing parking standards, giving credit for on-street parking and increasing allowable floor area to "stimulate redevelopment or contribute to housing or community design goals." Noise The residential units would not be air-conditioned, but the commercial spaces would be air-conditioned. Three HVAC (Heating Venting Air Conditioning) unit locations, are shown on the third floor plan. The parapet wall would provide visual screening and some noise attenuation. The owner has retained an acoustical consultant to evaluate the commercial air conditioning unit(s) and equipment housing and provide recommendations so the City’s regulations (Municipal Code and Comprehensive Plan) for noise limits can be met. A condition of approval to address this is included in Attachment B, and additional conditions of approval restrict hours of trash and recycling pickups and commercial deliveries. Adjoining Multi-Family Residential Site The adjoining multi-family residential site does not have street trees. In order to contir~ue , the street tree spacing to improve the streetscape, the applicant has agreed to install an additional street tree in the non-driveway frontage area of the adjoining residential apartment Site. The garages on the adjoining site have been cleared of storage items. If the residents in the apartment building use the garages for parking their vehicles, a reduction in the daily demand for on-street parking should occur. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The project is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, in accordance with Section 15303, as it is the new construction of a small structure. NEXT STEPS This is the second review of the PC application by the Planning and Transportation Commission. If the Planning and Transportation Commission recommends approval or approval with additional conditions, the project application will be forwarded to the City 2051 El Camino Real Planning and Transportation Commission Report 4/10/02 Page 7 Council. If the Planning and Transportation Commission still cannot provide a positive recommendation to the Council on the project, staff may arrange a joint meeting of the ARB and P&TC, pursuant to the provisions of Section 16.48.050 (b). The project is tentatively scheduled for City Council final review on May 13, 2002. ATTACHMENTS/EXHIBITS: Ao B. C. D. E. F. G. H. Findings for Approval Conditions of Approval Draft Planned Community Ordinance Development Program Statement and Development Schedule ¯ Planning and Transportation Commission Minutes of November 28, 2001 City Council Minutes of February 4, 2002 ARB meeting minutes of March 21, 2002 and summary of April 4, 2002 ARB. Letter from John Baca COURTESY COPIES: Mehmood Taqui, Oak Shadows LLC, 1336 Tasso Street, Palo Alto, CA 94306 Carrasco Associates, 120 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 John Baca, 484 Oxford Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94306 .Joy Ogawa, 2305 Yale Street, 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 David Schrom, 381 Oxford Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94306 Prepared by: Amy French, Senior Plannerl~- Reviewed by: John Lusardi, Current Planning Manager Department/Division Head Approval: ~~4__~~ Lisa Grote, Chief Planning Official 2051 El Camino Real Planning and TransP0rtation,Commission Report 4/10/02 Page 8 Attachment G .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 :MEETINGS ARE CABLECAST LIVE ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL 26: May 1, 2002 SPECIAL MEETING-6:30 PM City Council Conference Room Civic Center, 1st Floor 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, California 94301 ROLL CALL: 6:45 PM Commissioners: Patrick Burt, Chair Bonnie Packer, Vice-Chair Karen Holman Kathy Schmidt Michael Griffin - 7:00 pm Phyllis Cassel conflict with Item 3. Annette Bialson - absent Staff: Steve Emslie, Planning Director Julie Caporgno, Advance Planning Manager John Lusardi, Current Planning Manager Amy French, Senior Planner . Zariah Betten, Executive Secretary Chair Burr: Good evening. At this time we would like to convene the Planning and Transportation Commission meeting for May 1, 2002. Would the Secretary call the roll? Thank you. At this time we have an opportunity for Oral Communication. 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 fight to limit the oral communications period to 15 minutes. Chair Burt: I do not have any cards. 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. City of Palo Alto Page I 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 Public Hearings: Other ltems: None. Chair Burr: So we will proceed to the first agenda item which is 2051 E1 Camino Real, a Planned Community Zone. Would Staff like to make a presentation? NEW B USINESS. Public Hearings: 2051 El Camino Real*: [01-PC-04; 01-ARB-136] Request by Carrasco Associates on behalf of Mehmood Taqui for the rezone of a 4,938 square foot parcel from CN (Neighborhood Commercial) to PC (Planned Community) and construction of a 4,555 square foot, three story building to contain two residential units (2,511 square feet) including abelow market rate unit, ground floor retail space (511 square feet) and second floor office (1,191 square feet). Environmental Review: Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. (This item was continued from the April 10, 2002 meeting and is now continued to the June 5 Special Meeting). .Mr. John Lusardi, Current Planning Manager: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, I simply want to add that this is a project that the Commission has seen previously under two applications. One was a previous site and design under existing zoning and the second was under a Planned Community Zoning. The Commission has made a recommendation to the Council, the Council reviewed that recommendation and forwarded back to the Architectural Review Board and back to the Planning Commission for review and comment and recommendation back to the Council. I would like to introduce the Project Manager, Amy French to give a brief presentation. Ms. Amy French, Senior Planner: To reiterate what John said, the Council heard the Planning Commission’s concerns. Michael Griffin was attending and put forth those concerns before the Council. The Council then reviewed several issues. They were looking at the viability of the retail space, job/housing balance and other things such as impact fees, parking and uses. The Council noted that the applicant has met the criteria that they had set forth and had responded to Council’s direction by dividing the one housing unit into two residential units, adding retail floor area and ensuring the protection of the oak trees. Those were their concerns. They did note during the motion that they seemed to think that the project fit into the commercial district of El. Camino Real. They had some thoughts regarding how the Council should resist decisions based on how to park the automobile and instead focus on how people move around not relying on cars. Given that, the Council decided that they would not deny the application but would rather send it back to the Architectural Review Board. Actually, it was the Architectural Review Board’s first time with the Planned Community Zone application. We did take it to the Architectural Review Board at the end of March. They continued it to a meeting in April. The ARB had some concerns regarding the apparent massing and landscaping and they directed the applicant to explore some options. The applicant did do that and came back with a revised colored elevation and details describing how they would treat the front fagade differently to reduce the apparent mass. Also they came back with some additional street trees, actually one in front of the residential units to the right of the project or south of the project and then another one on the project frontage. That was something that the ARB was pleased 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 about. The ARB also wanted to see the colors, which have changed, and materials. They want to see the colors painted on the building in patches, they call them brush outs, before they go ahead and paint the whole building. That was their suggestion so they could see how those colors would work fight there on the site in the sunlight. There is one issue and that is, if the Planning Commission is concernedabout their issues I can go over again what issues were identified last time. If the Planning Commission is not satisfied with the apparent massing of the building, that is something that they and the ARB would then go ahead and have a joint meeting to discuss. The other issues that the Planning Commission brought up were about parking, the viability of the retail space and public benefit. Those are, I believe, more Council related issues, but that would be up for discussion. I don’t know if John wants to add any more. The applicant is here and has a presentation and will show you the three faces of this project, where it started, the interim look of it, and then finally what the ARB has recommended for approval. With that I am available for questions. Mr. Lusar’di: ¯ Just one final point procedurally, the Architectural Review Board .did make a ¯ recommendation that the project be approved as it is contained in your packet. The Staff and the Architectural Review Board are recommending that the Planning Commission forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council. Should the Planning Commission decide not to forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council then per the PC Ordinance we will be required to have a joint hearing between the ARB and the Planning and Transportation .Commission to resolve any differences between the Board and the Commission before it goes back to the City Cotmcil. Thank you. Chair Burt: Phyllis. : Commissioner Cassel: If it. has nothing to do with the parking issue or Something of that sort that the ARB doesn’t deal with what is the point of our having a meeting? Is it just because it is required? Mr. Lusardi: I’m sorry? Commissioner Cassel: If it gets turned down for any reason does that mean that it has to go back to ARB no matter what the reasons are? Mr. Lusardi: If the Planning and Transportation Commission makes a recommendation to approve the project with conditions or is different than what the project is before you, that recommendation along with the Architectural Review Board recommendation will go to the City Council. If the Planning and Transportation Commission recommends denial of the project then what the Staff has to do is conduct a public hearing, a joint hearing, of the "Planning and Transportation Commission and the Architectural Review Board." Commissioner Cassel: No matter what the.reasons? Mr. Lusardi: That is the way the Ordinance is interpreted, yes. Even though they might be minute differences or no differences at all we are required to hold a joint hearing. City of Palo ARo Page 3 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 from Commissioners prior to hearing from the applicant? Would the applicant like to make a presentation at this time? You have up to 10 minutes. Mr. Mehmood Taqui, Applicant: Thank you very much Chairman Burt. I am back again in front of you with a similar drawing that I presented you some time back. I want to show you a couple of things. Number one, I have gone through about four phases of the drawing and about six meetings with the ARB and two meetings with yourselves. Chair Burt: Just for the record, could you identify yourself. Mr. Taqui: My name is Mehmood Taqui, I am the managing partner for Oak Shadows. My address is 1226 Tasso Street. Thank you. Then when we last came to you and it was denied by you and the City Council directed it back to the ARB. I have gone back to Amy French and she has correctly pointed out the changes of what is fr6nt of you right now. The only thing that you will see quite differently is one point here which I will show you. You have this here, this back fagade. You will see that this makes the building very, very heavy and that was a big concern to the ARB for the height. The height here is only 25 feet, eight inches and compared to the other buildings on the street south of here, I have some pictures if you wouldlike to see them, most of them are about 29 or 30 feet for two floors only. On the third floor as you see here it is set well back and you can only see it if you go across the~ street and that also only the roofline. So the massing is not a very good criteria, I believe. At the same time to lookat the setback on the site of this property it is 18 feet except for the retail, the depth of which is the depth of the garage. It does not block any windows. The depth of the retail is the depth of the garage. When the ARB wanted the building to look less massive than .what it was here we had the joint meeting and a study session with them and we came back with the suggestion here that we make the parapet very low and the glass parapet as you can see through. We made this completely over so you can see through the staircase and all the Oak. So we have nothing here except this stainless steel mesh. I will pass the mike to Ted Suen and you can ask him any technical questions that you have. Mr. Ted Suen, Carrasco and Associates: Do you have questions? Commissioner Packer: Where the stairway is. Mr. Suen: There is another stairway here which goes up. Commissioner Packer: The mesh, does the mesh go all the way down to the ground level and would light come through it from the back? Mr. Suen: Yes. Light will come through it down to the ground because up to the guardrail height of the first stairway and it opens up and then it starts again at the floor level of the second stair landing and goes up to the guardrail height. The guardrail height is 42 inches from the landing. 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 Commissioner Packer: And behind the stairs is there another ball or anything? Mr. Suen: The guardrails is here. Commissioner Packer: So if you were walking by could you see all the way through to the trees, all the way down? Mr. Such: Yes. This area and this area are open there is no mesh. Chair Burt: It’s okay on the poster. We were actually blessed with a laser pointer. Mr. Taqui: The other thing I would add if it is okay with you is that the steps also, I plan to use no riser so you 0nly have the track and you will see the track between them. Chair Burr: Let the record show that Commissioner Griffin has joined us now. Phyllis. Commissioner Cassel: I think I don’t have this quite clear where the building line is on the south side. It looks to me as if the stairway area goes back as far as the garage and then it steps in some distance and then it steps in again. So it isn’t that the retail area goes all the way back to the garage but the entryway area goes back. Mr. Suen: That’s right. Commissioner Cassel: I want it shown on the record that the area in which you have essentially a zero property line there is along the garages for the steps not the retail space. Mr. Suen: Correct. Mr. Taqui: I want to add one thing there. The reason is that that it curves around and because of the neighbors and increases the retail. Chair Burt: Karen. Commissioner Holman: I have a’question about the screen. You have to educate me here. When I look at that it doesn’t look... Mr. Suen: Which? Commissioner Holman: The screen, the sample. When I look at that it doesn’t appear to me that it is going to have this kind of open look so you really will see the trees behind it. Mr. Suen: ’ This is not continuous all the way from the ground all the way up to the top. It will be from here to here on the picture and from here to here. An area here and an area here which is open. Commissioner Holman: Okay but the intention is for this area that does have the screening on it, the mesh on it, that that is to have an open appearance too to cut down the mass though, fight? 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 32 331 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 Mr. Suen: Yes. Commissioner Holman: So.my question is, will this have as open an appearance, as is depicted here? Mr. Suen: You can to a certain extent see through this. Commissioner Holman: I understand. Could Staff enlighten me on that because it is a fairly solid. Mr. Suen: I could take it off. Commissioner Holman: I don’t think taking it off is going to answer my question. Ms. French: For the record I want to.be clear that there is space where there is no screen as... Chair Burt: Other questions? Kathy. Commissioner Schmidt: I have a small internal question. Just out of curiosity there is central stairway and it goes .from the second floor up to the third floor. It looks like, in order to work, it will be a three piece stairway. Mr. Su~n: Yes. Commissioner Schmidt: And there is enough headroom to have it go around? Mr. Suen: Ihave a section back at the office. Commissioner Schmidt: That’s fine. Chair Burt: Other questions? Commissioner Cassel: I have a question about the fence in the back. A6 shows the panels for the fence and fence detail. The top of this fence, does it have prongs that stick up in or out or is it a finished.edge at the top? This gives the feeling that is has prongs that go up .to keep people out. Mr. Suen: I am not sure. I this probably is a group of wire along the top accordingto this photograph. Commissioner Cassel: .It is not planned to have a sharp edge that .goes out or in? Mr. Suen: No. Commissioner Cassel: That edge should be firm, not just a thin wire, but a fm-n top edge? Mr. Suen: Absolutely. 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 Chair Burt: Other questions at this time? Okay, well.thank you very much. We will go on to hear the public. We have two cards So far. The first one is Bob Parsons to be followed by B.B. Patel. Each speaker will have up to five minutes to speak. Mr. Bob Parsons, 871 Southampton Drive, Palo Alto: Thardc you. I actually think I want say something onbehalf of the Planning Commission. I live over near Jordan, which is a long way from this project. I actually first fouod out about this project several months ago through a friend who is here tonight. I guess he is going to speak. He lives adjacent to the project. He asked me to attend the last meeting because he was not able to and I was going to speak on his behalf. Of course what I ended up doing was listening to three and one-half hours on the Edgewood project, which I found Very interesting. I have a question because I can’t understand why anyone would ever want to be on the Planning Commission. Do you guys ever go to bed? During the meeting I read the letters that had been submitted for and against this thing and it took me back..I just want to recount this brief story. I went to Stanford during the 1960s. I was in - engineering and during that time we actually attended Planning Commission and Council meetings up and down the Peninsula on two issues, one was believe it or not, Whiskey Gulch, they were going to develop it and two was BART. There was a big issue on should you get the right-of-way to take BART all the way around the Bay and come down the Peninsula. My fellow students and I, we neverdid understand how a Planning Commission could make a decision based on the merits of the project as opposed to the objections of the individuals who were going to be impacted by the project. Up and down the Peninsula, no, BART is a bad deal, traffic, not enough places to park and when they build the train stations it is going to ruin our neighborhood. East Palo Alto, no way they can develop Whiskey Gulch. There were even people in Palo Alto who said the shadows from the buildings would impact their property. Well, both those projects were defeated in the 1960s of course and history has shown, at least for me, who left the area and moved back 20 years later, I really do wish BART went around the Bay Area. East Palo Alto, I will tell you the Whiskey Gulch development today is an order of magnitude bigger than anything they were talking about in the 1960s. When I read the letters it struck as d6jit vu. Parking spaces, traffic, too big a building and the thing that struck me as I learned more about the project, especially if it came from you, I wanted to compliment you. Palo Alto does need these structures that are multi use. I have never seen one like this. What a great concept. A little bit of office building, a little bit ofretail and I really like that rental space. I assume that that i~ for teachers or fire-people or police, people who can’t afford to live here. What a great concept for E1 Camino. It just struck me, here we go again, you guys have to make a decision based on the betterment of the community and that means everybody including the people who live next door and then there are the objections of people who don’t want it, there are people who do want it and I don’t have a clue how you are going to make your decision. But good ¯luck, I hope it is the right one. I keep going and looking at that vacant lot and I sure don’t ¯ like it as a vacant lot. I hope something goes up there that has this multi use. Was that the Planning Commission’s idea, by the way? Is that where it came from? Chair Burt: I will say briefly it is part of the Comprehensive Plan concepts tohave multi use. Mr. Parsons: What a great idea. I will tell you in lhe 1960S already they were talking about where would the teachers live. As near as I can.tell nobody really did anything about it for 30 years. Anyway, I like the project but I live over near Jordan. Thank you, City of Palo Alto Page 7 1 2 3 4 5 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 Burr: Thank you. B.B. Patel to be followed by John Baca. Mr. B.B. Pate1, 4290 E1 Camino Real, Palo Alto: I also developed another project, 1895 E1 Camino Real which is a new office downstairs and residential upstairs. I want to pa.ss out my comments. Chair Burt: Thank you. Do you Wish to make any additional oral comments? Mr. Patel: No, thanks. ChairBurt: Okay. Thank you. Our final speaker is John Baca. Mr. John Baca, 484 Oxford, Palo Alto: Commissioners, I live adjacent to this proposed project. You have heard from me before. Let me say one thing briefly about the open space in back of. the retail and the stairway. Now it is going to be filled up with the cars’ that are parking there. ’That is basically going to be a parking lot fight up against the oak tree thinks. What I want to say first is-thatthis.proposal has been in the works for quite awhile and I don’t think that the time that has been involved in deciding this can be a factor in your decision. I knowthat the applicant has put in a lot of time and effort. I think that the changes he has made in terms of the design, I have no problem with them. They would 10ok great in a different place. However, if he wguld only decrease the size of the project a little bit, this thing could be settled. It would have been settled months ago. He has chosen not to do that. He has chosen to increase the size of the project. That would be like, what about the Hyatt project, what if they decide to incrgase the amount of FAR on that? The project calls for a FAR of .88, for this project it is .92. Iam not sure what Albertson’s is.but is Nlbertson’s going to be increasing the size of its project? No. 800 High Street? No. Here we are with a project that the proposal is to increase the size of the project and it makes no sense. That’s why 138 people signed the petition saying that they did not think that the project was suitable for the neighborhood. It doesn’t fit in, it is not harmonious withthe existing uses. I think you have heard all my arguments before. Thank you very much. Chair Burt: Thank you. That concludes our public testimony. Now we have the opportunity for the Commission to ask additional questions of Staff and discuss the project. Phyllis. Commissioner Cassel: One additional question. Where is the ADA bathroom entrance located? Mr. Suen: The ADA bathroom is on the ground floor across the driveway from the retail. The retail is here the ADA bathroom is here. ChairBurt: Michael. MOTION Commissioner Griffin: I am.going to make a motion that we accept the Staff findings and we approve this project. Do I need to elaborate any further on that? SECOND Commissioner Cassel: Second. 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 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 Chair Burr: We have a sec, ond and if you would like to speak further to your motion go ahead. Commissioner Griffin: There are a lot of things to be said pro and con on this project and we have discussed it long enough it seems to me. Despite the fact that the project in fact does back up against the neighborhood, this project is in a commercial district that is predominantly surrounded by neighborhood serving shops. I spent some time down on the E1 Camino the other day taking photographs just to be sure of my self that I was saying this correctly. So these are my photos and I guess ! could pass them down for you. These are photographs of adjacent uses as well as across the street. You can see all of the different commercial land uses that are involved. Nice shots of the asphalt on the E1 Camino. I did this project to better envision tonight what exactly is the context of this project because I have read comments that it is in the neighborhood and I guess after a certain amount of time I finally have come to the. conclusion that it is in the neighborhood but it is a commercial district. It is the El’ Camino. Secondly, the transition, I found, between the land uses is not in my opinion out of compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. That the height and the mass of the project is overwhelmingly obscured by landscaping provided by protected oak trees when viewed from the south side of the project. Again, I went back and took pictures of that. That shows the oak trees. That view was taken from the residential side of the project looking back up into it. Again, from my point of view I think the oak trees, obscure the project. As far as the single story commercial site on the north side, and I do have photographs of that as well, there is one of the Coin-0p, I am going to say that these are likely to be somewhat . temporary in light of the upgrading now taking place on the E1 Camino, specifically the new bank building and other nearby improvements that I observed while gathering this evidence. The project is consistent with the E1 Camino Real guidelines for design standards. Fourthly, the applicant has made numerous changes per suggestions of City Council, ARB and Staff in regard .to planting of street trees, the redesign of the fagade and stairs, garage door operation and rearrangement of interior residential and ~office spaces2 So lastly, I agree with both the PC approval finding on page 9 of the Staff Report and the APd3 findings on page 10. Chair Burt: Does the Seconder have anything to add? Commissioner Cassel: The only thing I would add is to remind people that the special circumstances on this site are those oak trees. It is a narrow site, only 50 feet wide, and we are trying to preserve the oak trees which take a great deal more out of the space. We want parking behind and it must have a certain amount of driveway space. That leaves very little space for any kind of retail or anything else on the first floor. So if you don’t put anything on the first floor we now have a stilt building and we don’t want that either. So I find this building meets all of the requirements as so eloquently spoken by Michael and feel that this project should be. approved. The only other comment I would llke to make is I look at that blank wall that goes up and keep thinking about that wonderful artist in town who does those wonderful murals, and would add a beautiful public benefit to this. ChairBurt: Okay. Kathy. 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 Schmidt: I think just an outstanding job of describing the rationale of really putting together a good analysis of the location. I completely agree that this is an appropriate site to do Something like this. I appreciate that the applicant has responded to ARB. recommendations. I think that makes it a better project. I like having a BMR unit in the building. I initially had concerns that these units might really just be used for office space but with a BMR unit it would have some oversight, I presume; by the City we will guarantee having someone live there.- I am sort of amazed that the applicant has been so tenacious with such a tiny project. He keeps coming back again and again for it. I do support it. I do have a couple of questions for Staff. This project is 4,500 square feet roughly and we have almost 20 pages of conditions on the.project. It seems like there is a lot going on there and a couple of things I would ask about are would we need to restrict hours of trash and recycling pickups and commercial deliveries for a project that is on E1 Camino with other commercial buildings across the street and down the street as Michael has pointed out? On another topic it is useful to think about how people will travel to .the site since tliere.is limited parking appropriate. to do a TDM plan for such a tiny building. I don’~ know the answer to that.. Also, restricting interior lightingor.minimizing interior lighting, aga’m we are on E1 Camino and we have got a glass fagade and office and retail that faces out there. I am guessing that you want to restrict it more to the sides but there are fewer windows on the sides and back. Again, I am just generally asking do we need to have so many conditions on such a small project. Mr. Lusardi: The first question and comment about the length of conditions is the Stafftries to be as comprehensive as possible with conditions on a project. We hear everything from the ARB, Council approval to building permits. So that accounts for the extensive comments. The real bulk of the comments on this project relate to the preservationand the maintenance of the trees. So the substantial comments are there, conditions are there relative to the trees. That is a specific Council direction that we also responded to. With respect to the three elements that you spoke to, number one is we are trying to be respectful of the residents in the neighborhood, the adjoining residents, and the fact that if a site on the other side gets redeveloped and there is residential in there we want to be respectful of that. The delivery hours, we tried to be as confining as possible and be reasonable. What we want to prohibit is if the office use was an office use and they started wanting overnight deliveries and they were coming in late at night we wanted to have the ability to restrict that kind of an intrusion if that was the case with respect to the neighborhood. So those are really why we tried to get as specific as we can on this and comprehensive as we can with respect to these kinds of conditions.. Chair Burt: Karen. Commissioner Holman: I have some questions and concerns. One of them maybe is for the applicant. Parking on page 7 of the report. It is talking about a TDM on the top of the page. It says it requires implementation of the TDM program including lease restrictions limiting the number of residential vehicles allowed on the property during business hours. My concern about that is while well intent[oned that it could send those residential cars out onto the .street and make retail less likely. One of my concerns about doing the shared parking at this site is because it is very close to the train station and it is on a bus line. So I questioned all along about reducing the parking because of the accessibility to transit. So it is a situation that is kind of opposite of what we usually have. So given that, if people are taking the bus or taking the train and leaving their 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 3o 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 cars home, might they not just be forced by this to put their cars on the street thus making it that much more difficult for retail to survive here? Ms. French: I can certainly understand that scenario. It is a possibility. What we, in discussion with the Transpogation Department and the applicant, were intending Was providing eco-passes or something to the residents but it does not say you only can have so many cars to your name or where to park them. It is a good question. The idea was to try to limit it to two parking spaces onsite during business hours for residential and the remaining five parking spaces could then be open for office and retail. We were just trying to find a solution that would allow more commercial parking on the site. Everyone was concerned about that. There could be unintended consequences. Chair Burt: Bonnie. Commissioner Packer: As a possible solution, at the moment is there unlimited parking time there? Can you park there a month at a time? Mr. Lusardi: On the street? Commissioner Packer: On the street at the moment. Mr. Lusardi: Yes. Ms. French: Yes, it is not a restricted hourly. Commissioner Packer: I was just wondering if there was a concern about the residents using the street parking as their permanent parking to ask the police department to put some kind restrictive parking along there so that it would be more likely used by retail. Mr. Lusardi: I think that is a very good suggestion. What Staff would recommend is that you make that recommendation to the E1 Camino Corridor Study that is currently being done and the committee that is working on that. I know they are looking at on street parking and impacts of on street parking. That is a very good suggestion to pass on to them and we will certainly do that. Chair Burt: John orAmy, I had a follow up to Karen’s question. From a practical standpoint how do you envision this aspect of limiting the number of residential vehicles allowed on the property during business hours? And that would be limited via lease restrictions. How would that function? I am just not envisioning the practical aspect of it. Mr. Lusardi: Let me first say that when you are dealing with a parking structure and a number of stalls of this small size trying to do a TDM program like that is difficult. Typically we work with TDM and share partnership with parking structures with 30 or more spaces. So it is a difficult dilemma. I think what we were.trying to achieve through the TDM is measures that the applicant will have to enf0rde or even measures that we have or tools that we have the ability to ensure that if there is a spillover out into the street that we have an ability to address that. I would rather look at the TDM program.as a flexible program, as.something that I think if we had a TDM program in the project and if it doesn’t work we have the flexibility to adjust it so it does work. " City of Palo Alto Page 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 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 So your concerns about that kind of spillover I think are very legitimate. I think what we probably need to do in the context of the TDM program is maybe focus more on the public transit and the mass transit and see if we can enhance that aspect. I think the applicant is certainly willing to do that in that respect. So we can look at that with our TDM coordinator and see if we can build on that as far as the TDM program goes. Chair Burr: I think that sounds good. Commissioner Holman: While you are here John, can you also respond to question? For the retail sake, I am concerned about those cars being moved to the street. Then the other piece of that is that those cars then could be moved into the neighborhood. I know that neighborhood has a crush of commercial parking in the neighborhood too. So I am having a real hard time getting comfortable with this. I have a Couple other aspects of it where I wasn’t before but this is one where I am still struggling with it’s success. Mr. Lusar~ti: I think it is an honest concem. The Council also kind of struggled with it too but they took a slightly different approach. They took the approach that the project shouldn’t be constrained by the amount of parking that is normally required by the Zoning Ordinance. When you are on E1 Camino and you have the opportunity for public transit then you do have public parking on the street. That is an opportunity for people who go to the retail, up to the office to utilize it. I think we can look at hours of restriction on that kind of parking. Let me add too with respect to the impact on the residential project the adjoining residential project, those parking units which were illegally converted to storage units have been cleared out and they are now parking that is available for that residential building. So that has been dedicated with respect to this process. I think again, I would if I was the Commission, you might want to recommend that [he TDM program we look at it and have some flexibility and be enabled to either build on it or control it if that becomes an issue and that it just isn’t just confined to what’s parked onsite. We can certainly look at that with the applicant and continue to address that. Chair Burt: Phyllis. Commissioner Cassel: Karen, would you be more comfortable if there wasn’t a restriction on only one residential car per unit onsite? Would that make you happier? Commissioner Holman: I’m not comfortable wi~h it either way because it is still fewer parking units. I think I would be more comfortable if weren’t a requirement. Chair Burt: I have something I would be more comfortable with, I think that it is appropriate for us to have relaxed parking on a site like this but having a shortfall of four spaces out of 11 is exceeding what I would consider to be a reasonable relaxation. I think there is too much of a parking deficit on the site. When we last discussed this we were looking at discussing recommendations on the margins here. If we had a project that even though the prescribed parking for a three bedroom unit is the same as a two, in reality the smaller unit would potentially have less parking. If it was a BMR unit that was reduced from three bedrooms to two then the subsidy that is really provided by the developer f~r the BMR could allow the developer in theory to have a little less office demand and thereby one fewer space of parking shortfall. I think, Citywide having three bedroom BMRs are very important and they are family oriented BMRs. This has been one of the reasons that we’ve had this physical but I frankly don’t think City of Palo Alto Page 12 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 that on E1 Camino is the ideal site for a family BMR. I would be comfortable with a two bedroom BMR and 200 square feet less office thereby reducing the parking deficit and also giving some flexibility to reduce the mass and scale of the building. I think they have done a ¯ very admirable job of working within the design constraints that they have for a building of this scale for this site. Commissioner Cassel: But reducing the three bedroom to two bedrooms does not change the parking requirement. Chair Burt: I already said that. It doesn’t reduce the mandated parking requirement. It may have a practical impact on reducing the actual parking demand from the number of residents that are there. In any event, the point I was making is that if the BMR which is the primary public benefit of the site, were reduced in size then the subsidy that the developer is providing for the BMR would be less subsidy required for the project and therefore the amotmt of commercial space that.is, needed to offset the subsidy of the BMR would be reduced. Commissioner Cassel: I have a different opinion or understanding about the subsidy. I’m not sure of this. It isnot necessarily a negative amount of money that comes into his pocket it is simply a lot less than he would have gotten otherwise. Chair Burt: If profit were to be made by BMRs without subsidies we would be having them built all over the City. Unfortunately we don’t get that unless there are subsidies from government sources or other sources. Kathy has a lot more expertise in that. But withoutsupplemental funding of one sort or another which can include additional office space which essentially supports the cost of subsidizing BMR. Commissioner Cassel: What you are saying is you would like to see this project have less square footage. Chair Burt: Yes. And it would allow greater flexibility on the project design and allow a bit less of a parking deficit and not a radical change in it. Commissioner Cassel: Okay. Chair Burt: Bonnie. Commissioner Packer: I would like to put another spin on the parking problem. Along E1 Camino Real which has buses often near Stanford which has Marguerite I wanted to ask is the’re room downstairs in the parking for bikes? Mr. Suen: Yes, it does, Commissioner Packer: Whenever there is a problem people adjust to it. So somebody is going to decide to live in this building. We only have one possible tenant, right? They are going to make a choice to live there and say there is only one space for me to park a car. Only those people who choose to have one car are going to choose to rent this spot. So it will work out. It is kind of like when Iused to work in San Francisco and there was no parking I wouldn’t drive there. You adjust to situations. I don’t think the fact that these living units won’t have as much City of Palo Alto Page 13 1 parking space.as a R-1 house on a huge lot. I think we really have to think about our parking 2 requirements and parking for apartments shouldn’t have to be the same as parking for a suburban 3 home, not near buSes. 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: My recommendation was not to mandate City parking requirements it was to reduce the parking deficit by one space. Commissioner Packer: I understand that but I was just giving a different spin as the location on the transit road and the decisions that the tenant will make based on the resources available. Chair Burt: Kathy. Commissioner Schmidt: I would support Bonnie’s comments too. This is a transit corridor. These are the kinds .of places where we want to encourage .people to take public transit and reduce par.king. If reduced parking works for the building which I think it does in this case I believe this is a supportable thing. Again, it is a transit corridor, people who work there can take transiti People who shop there can take transit. Chair Burt: I don’t think we are in disagreement on the ability to have flexibility in a transit corridor on parking. But we aren’t talking about having zero parking, onsite, we are not talking about having four spaces. We are talking about where we draw the line. .. Commissioner Schmidt: I would most definitely support having a three bedroom BMR unit. BMR units are hard to come by. We have a three bedroom, let’s go for it and the size of the office and retail, the whole project, really would financially support a unit of that size anyway. So it is indeed a public benefit to have a BMR unit there. Chair Burt: I certainly consider it to be a good public benefit. Bonnie. Commissioner Packer: I want to speak to a proposition on this. I am going to support the motion which is a change from my position the last time this was before us. I think finally with all the work.that has gone into this and all of the concerns we had, and we said it was too much for the site and everything, I was going back and saying this is a good example of an infill development that we need. It is on a transit corridor and the applicant/architect have done the best that they can with a very difficult site. I’m pleased with the design elements that reduce the massing. I have a feeling that this will be a first step in many on that block to improve it. Somebody said the coin wash will probably be temporary, that will be replaced by something that will look nicer and perhaps be more functional. Change is difficult. We are going to have more intense development on E1 Camino. It is somewhat inevitable. It is goiiag to become more urban but it is important to have mixed uses. So it fits in with the new urban design discussions that we have heard about as best as it can. The driveway is not that pretty but there is no way you can get around that if you want to have parking. It is not perfect but I’m going to vote for it because it has gotten a lot better. Chair Burt: Karen. Commissioner Holman: I applaud your efforts, Pat, because I’m not opposed to shared parking it is just the amount of it in this situation and I’ve stated my concerns about that. I have another City of Palo Alto Page 14 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 question for Staff. On the front page of the Staff Report it says in the last line of the subject it says, "1,191 square feet for neighborhood business and personal service." Previously that had been office and yet if you go back into the plans I read it as office. If you go to page 7 of the Ordinance at the top it says office and says, "in those areas designated in the development plan as office, business offices, administrative offices, general business." In other words they are not what is described on the front as neighborhood serving business and personal services. So is it constrained to what is indicated on the front page or is general office being allowed? Would you clarify that, please? Ms. Frenchl The intent in the Ordinance should be reflecting that the office space would be for neighborhood office. We look at that in terms ofsay architectural firms, something along those lines as opposed to say a corporate office for some regional large firm. That is the intent. Personal services are allowed and should be reflected in the Ordinance when it goes to Council. If its not reflected there, that would be an allowed use. It is a permitted use in the CN district which is the underlying district here. Commissioner Holman:- Permitted but according to the Ordinance not required. Ms. French: Personal services would not be required. Commissioner Holman: So what is On the front page is not consistent with the Ordinance, that is my point. Ms. French: Yes it is consistent. Neighborhood business-is office. Chair Burr: Are other offices that.are not neighborhood businesses allowed by the Ordinance? Ms. French: No. Neighborhood business includes an office that is neighborhood in nature as well as. other neighborhood businesses. It .could be anything from... Commissioner Holman: So maybe I’m the one being the blockhead here, So as I read the Ordinance then it does say both professional and general business offices. I read that as any kind of general office.and not just neighborhood businesses and personal services. Ms. French: We could certainly insert the work neighborhood into the Ordinance if that would help. Commissioner Holman: if I chip away at this would the maker and seconder of the motion accept that as a friendly amendment? Commissioner Cassel: If that is your intent, yes. Commissioner Holman: I was also wondering in deference to Kathy’s number of conditions on the project, the retail, I know the signage hasn’t been determined yet but it talks a fair amount about the landscape planter but I’m wondering what is going to tell the public that this is a retail space and not an office space. I’m wondering if it would be reasonable to have a condition of the project to have retail displays in the window so people clearly will know that it is retail and not 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 48 office. Just as a comfort level because signage hasn’t been particularly determined but it just says something about an interior window decal, which is not much of an indication. Ms. French: What I would say is that I think what we see on El Camino is more of.tendency to overdo signage and we are constantly in the Planning Department trying to scale that back and have less signage. So I think someone who does go to that space as retail if they are coming with a window decal it will be as large as they can make it, 20% of the window. If they come in with an alternate type of sign that would go through the review process including ARB review. So we would look at that at the time. I don’t think a retail tenant there will minimize their signage. CommissionerHolman: So my argument is not for larger signage. My argument is more for window display and not larger signage. That is the direction I’m headed. Ms. French: I wouldn’t recommend putting a condition requiring a display. Chair Burt: Kathy. Commissioner Schmidt: I think any retail business would do everything tl~ey can to draw people into the store. I don’t think we would have a problem with them displaying what they are trying to sell that would warrant having another condition. Chair Burt: I concur. If for example it were a deli you wouldn’t necessarily want window displays you would want tables sitting there and advertising the function and by nature of the service they are providing. Commissioner Holman: So that leads to the next one which is about hours of operation. Is there any consideration given to hours of operation for the retail on the ground floor? Mr. Lusardi: No, there are no specific hours of operation for retail. You an include that in the Ordinance. We would encourage you to do it in such a way that it wouldn’t restrict a retailer, especially a neighborhood serving retailer like a caf~ or something to have evening or weekend hours. If you want to restrict it to midnight or 11:00 PM I am sure you could do that or if you want to say that you want to restrict it to no kind of night club hours or something like that. You could put that kind of specific.restriction in there. So anything that is related out-call serving or those kinds of opportunities would require an additional hearing by the Planning Department with respect to those kinds of.operations. If you want to put in restrictions because of the hours of operation you could do that with a recommendation simply to do it in a way that doesn’t restrict the neighborhood serving retail uses. Commissioner Holman: I was thinking more in terms of minimum number of hours not maximum because I understand about neighborhood serving and that sort of thing. So I was thinking minimum number of hours because we are looking for services that help provide " services for that neighborhood. Maybe this will come automatically but I don’t know that it absolutely will so I wanted to at least explore that. Mr. Lusardi: I think that is something that is best done as a comment to the applicant that you want to encourage this to neighborhood serving retail that serves retail and serves the neighborhood and has those kinds of hours of operation. What you might want to add to this is City of Palo Alto Page 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 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 an is.sue that we have with the Downtown and that is the definition of retail in the Downtown does not restrict the fact that it can be appointment only retail. In bringing that up what you might want to add to this is that it cannot be appointment 9nly, it has to be open to the public and take walk-in. That is a restriction that you might want to add to this. Commissioner Holman: I’ll ask again, the maker and seconder of the motion, would you accept, you worded that so well, John. Chair Burt: Accept a restriction against appointment only retail? Commissioner Griffin: I would accept it. Commissioner ~assel: Yes. Chair Burr: .Anymore comments? I will just summarize mine. My position on this hasn’t really changed from the few times that wehave seen it. I think in concept the mixed use function of this property is a very good concept. It is the right location for it. Having retail, office and residential in the same unit is very favorable. I think a single BMR in this project is a very favorable public benefit. My concern has been that too much is being crammed on such a small site that with modest modifications we would help address the concerns of the neighborhood. In our last meeting, really our previous two meetings, that position was in the majority. I think my. position hasn’t really changed and I can count noses, it is now in the minority. So having said that we can call the vote. MOTION PASSED All those in favor? (ayes) Opposed? (nay) That passes by a vote of four to two with Commissioners .Holman and Burt in opposition. Thank you very much and good luck to you. Chair Burt: that brings us to our final item. First Commissioner Holman wanted to add a comment on the last item. Commissioner Holman: Thank you, Pat. I really wanted to make sure that it was noted that it is much, much appreciated that Amy French, in preparing the Staff Report and describing the PC project at 2051 E1 Camino that she did a comparison of what the project was and what would be allowed under other zonings. It is really appreciated for us to compare and it is also really appreciated because it is really important to have an historical record when working on the Zoning.Ordinance Update and going back to see what PCs were and why they were appioved and what constraints-they passed. There was not much record to go back and refer to so this is really, really important and I just can’t thank her enough and really want to express an appreciation that she did that for us. Chair Burr: Great. Then we are going to be continuing Item 2 until next Wednesday, May 8, that is the Capital improvement Plan for years 2002-2007 and the Comprehensive Plan Implementation Schedule. City of Palo Alto Page 17 City of Palo Alto Architectural Review Board 2051 E1 Camino Real March 21, 2002 Attachment H Verbatim minutes of March 21, 2002, ARB review ofproiect at 2051 E1 Camino Real Chair Bellomo: (The Chairman first confirmed that the item is New Business). You have 10 minutes for the presentation. It is Item #1, 2051 E1 Camino Real, 01-PC-04, 01-ARB-136, request by Carrasco Associates on behalf ofMehmood Taqui for the rezone of a 4,938 square foot parcel from C-N (neighborhood commercial) to PC (Planned Community) and cosntruction of a 4555 square foot, three-story building to contain two residential units, 2,511 square feet, including a below market rate unit, ground floor retail space, 511 square feet and second floor office, 1,191 square feet. Staffs recommendations? Staff Frertch: Yes, first of al!, I want to make one point. The agenda is correct as to the title of the project, but the title on the report, unfortunately, is in error - the same error as on a previous report - I must have cut and paste this. The report title says "service commercial" and it’s "neighborhood commercial". So, my mistake. Moving on. This project has been changed since your last review, which was quite a while ago, July 12th of last year The project is now a Planned Community rezone, which is different than the Site and Design project reviewed before. With the Planned Community rezone, there’s no variances connected with that. The Planned Community zone handles whatever differences from the C-N district regulations that there are in the project. The project did go before the City Council recently and they did direct the project to come back to the ARB, or rather, to come to the ARB for the first time, which is why it’s New Business. The Planning Commission had recommended denial to the City Council on the project, but the City Council did not take action on that recommendation and did refer it back through the process. So, the goal here is for you to review it and then we would be taking it back to the Planning Commission one more time, and then up to the Council. That’s the process that we’re in. The applicant will be prdsenting the changes made since the City Council meeting, which are basically facade changes and some materials changes on the staircase to the right. I’m sure you’re pretty familiar with the plans. The difference between the last time you saw it and now is that they’ve added the Below Market Rate unit on the second floor. So there are now two units - one on the top floor for the owner, and the Below Market Unit on the second floor. The office space has been reduced down to just over 1,000 square feet, and the retail area has been increased. The parking situation has gotten reduced - there are less parking spaces on the site. And that’s pretty much the summary. I’ll let the applicant present his changes. I forgot to mention that we did get an e-mail from Mr. John Baca, I believe it’s at places, regarding the project, and he did make a comment about the decrease in the amount of deck area, which is true. About 60 square feet has been removed from the second floor deck. However, the project does still provide the open space required by the RM--15 regulations. Vice Chair Lippert: I have a couple of questions with regard to the process here. What weire doing is we’re reviewing this for the quality and character, so to speak. When Council took their action, did they - at that point, has the site been changed into a PC, or is now considered a PC, was that the action that was taken? City of Palo Alto Architectural Review Board 2051 E1 Camino Real March 21, 2002 2 StaffLusardi: The Council acted on the PC Zoning. It was a PC Zoning at the time the Council heard it. What the Council was actually responding to was the direction that they had given the applicant under the Site and Design previously about adding a residential unit, looking at other issues. Council, in your consideration and comments, felt that the applicant had achieved their direction and responded to their direction. And that’s why they did not concur with the Planning Commissions recommendation for denial and referred it back through the process. Vice Chair Lippert: Okay, so the things that are set in place, that are hard and fast, are public benefit, square footage, but not necessarily the configuration or massing of the building? StaffLusardi: Essentially, that’s why the Council referred it back to the process for essentially the design review process. I think the Council essentially concurred with the uses that were being proposed in the revisions to the project with respect to that. But they referred it back through the design process, which also regarded the Planning Commission review. Vice Chair Lippert: So, it’s Use Zoning and the punic benefit had basically been approved? StaffLusardi: I think that’s what the Council, they didn’t actually approve it. What they basically did is they supported that direction that the applicant had made. They have to take another action at the end of this process themselves, with respect to the project. Vice Chair Lippert: Okay, thank you. Chair Bellomo: Is the applicant here for his presentation Of 10 minutes? Mehmood Taqui, Applicant: Thank you, good moming. I’m in front of you with almost a similar design as far as the layout is concerned. The changes that have taken place have been explained . in.detail by Amy. The front of the building, the elevation has been changed by me in collaboration with the new guidelines for the E1 Camino Real, which enhances the area based on the future look. And I have a copy of the guidelines and I’m also on the Advisory Committee of the E1 Camino Real guidelines. So, taking the recommendations of the guidelines, we have proposed this new elevation. And we believe that as far as the energy usage is concerned or energy consumption is concerned, I have carried out a new design study for this, based on the new design and based on the old design. And the new design is slightly better based on double-glazing, sun shading and louvers from inside. And since the office space has gone down slightly, the energy use on the air-conditioning is a little bit less and the cost is less per year. Just to give you a figure, I’ll give you a copy here. It’s about $3,300 a year on the first design, and $2,780 on the second design. City of Palo Alto Architectural Review Board 2051 E1 Camino Real March 21, 2002 3 And regarding the staircase, due to the requirement of the code, the roof has been made slanting to not come into view from E1 Camino, and just the area of the landing had been made into a concrete roof to comply with the code. Thank you. Chair Bellomo: Thank you, we’ll have questions for you. Judith, would you like to start? BM Wasserman: Okay, thank you. Thanks for coming back. I have a couple of detailed questions. Are the residential units air-conditioned or just the office? Mehmood Taqui, Applicant: Just the office, Ma’am. BM Wasserman: Thank you. Is there any landscaping in the front of the building? I know you moved the building back to make the sidewalk wider because of the El Camino guidelines. Is there any landscaping in the front of the windows at all? Mehmood Taqui, Applicant: .Yes. That has been shown in the drawing as requested by the City Arborist. And I have provided for that and also, .there is a tree that will. be planted in the front. Also, we have been discussing, maybe if there is a need, we will plant one more tree. BM Wasserman: These landscape drawings are a little sketchy. In front of the windows, you’ve got four panels across the front. The one on the left is the door then there are three windows, there’s something planted in front of those. Mehmood Taqui, Applicant: Right in front of the window, Ma’am. BM Wasserman: Okay. That answers that question. Could you tell me how you arrived at the decision to paint this building white, rather than any of the 40,000 other colors you could have painted it? Mehmood Taqui, Applicant: Oh, you mean the yellow? BM Wasserman~. No, the white. The yellow is interesting. Why is the rest of it white? Mehmood Taqui, Applicant: Because I think the area needs to be uplifted in my view and this is the decision made by the architects, I am a qualified architect but I did not totally design the building and that I left it to Carrasco and Associates. Maybe if you like, I will let him speak on that subject. But I think personally, I like that white color. It’s the stucco. BM Wasserman: It’s very reflective and glaring. Mehmood Taqui, Applicant: We can also look into that, Ma’am. City o~" Palo Alto Architectural Review Board 2051 E1 Camino Real March 21, 2002 BM Wasserman: I would be happy to hear what your architect had to say. I had one other question, I think perhaps the other question is for the architect as well. Mehmood Taqui, Applicant: Okay, Ma’am. Thank you. BM Wasserman: Thank you. Ted Suen, Carrasco and Associates: I’m Ted Suen from Carrasco and Associates. BM Wasserman: Hi. I had two questions about the architecture. One was about the color. And the other was about the stairwell wall, which is the largest thing visible from the south, coming north on E1 Camino. Have you investigated the enhancement.of that wall, because that’s what’s right next to these residential units? Ted: First of all, the white color is the designer’s modernistic dogmatic tendency. He believes white is the default color and you have to justify some other color. As far as the stairwell wall, there’s only 18 feet wide. I mean, it’s pretty high. We think that it’ll be smooth concrete and we like smooth concrete. We think smooth concrete looks good. BM Wasserman: Okay, well, if you need.an excuse for other than white wall, would an ARB recommendation do it for you? Ted: Yes. BM Wasserman: Thank you. Vice Chair Lippert: I want to continue along the lines of color. Why ye110w and why such competing colors? Ted: I believe the designer just decided that he thought that was a good color for an interesting contrast. But why that particular color, I couldn’t say. Vice Chair Lippert: Are you aware that the current E1 Camino Real guidelines talks about, I believe it’s complementary colors, colored palettes that are supposed to be working together, whereas these seem to be in contradiction with each other. Are you aware of that? Ted: No, but we don’t think.that contrast necessarily is contradictory to complement. Vice Chair Lippert: Okay. Did you know also, in the E1 Camino Real guidelines that it really discourages the use of primary colors as well? Ted: No. City of Palo Alto Architectural Review Board 2051 E1 Camino Real March 21, 2002 Vice Chair Lippert: Okay. What happens to the fins? Originally, there were fins that were,. horizontal fin shields. Ted: In the upcoming E1 Camino guidelines, they specifically discouraged sort of attached sun control devices.and they asked for transparency so you can see into the building or see through~ the building. They specifically discouraged reflective glass, for example, as well as physical devices. Vice Chair Lippert: You know, I haven’t seen these guidelines, so I don’t know if they’ve been finalized or what. What is the status of these guidelines? Staff French: The guidelines have not been adopted. They are in the process and I believe, Steven, you can correct me if I’m wrong, members of the ARB were going to be a part of that review. I believe that two members have been selected. Vice Chair Lippert: We have and I’m very. surprised to hear that in a draft report, there are things that we haven’t had an opportunity tO comment on, that we’d have to deal with architecture and here we’re using those guidelines to rule on a project or review a project that may not happen. If you remember from the SOFA 1 and SOFA 2, which used to be 1 SOFA coordinated a plan, there were many guidelines and elements in there that the working group, after massaging and looking at and reviewing pitche’d: Staff French: IfI may? I didn’t put any of the proposed guidelines in the reportr This is the applicant talking to you with their knowledge of the draft guidelines. I have not included this and stated this in the report as a "must do." They still provide sun shading. They’ve come forward with this plan - we did not coach them to remove the other sun shading, although there was some .adverse reaction to. the horizontal look that was on the building before. Some of the Commissioners did not like that look. And I don’t think the applicant did either. And so, they’ve come back, They do have vertical fins and they have the overhangs which they feel will provide the sun-shading that the ARB was looking for before. As to the Staffs involvement in sharing the guidelines with the applicant, Staff has been discussing with them the need for a setback because that’s the kind of thing, it’s kind of a permanent siting of a building, trying to provide additional setback on the front. Vice Chair Lippert: Getting back to my line of questioning, I guess. Talk a little bit about the Below Market Rate Housing unit. Is it on the third floor?. Mehmood Taqui, Applicant: On the second floor, Sir. Vice Chair Lippert: Okay, the second floor is the Below Market Rate unit? Mehmood Taqui, Applicant: Yes, just behind the office, Sir. City of Palo Alto Architectural Review Board 2051 E1 Camino Real March 21, 2002 6 Vice Chair Lippert: Okay. How is that going to be managed and handled? Mehmood Taqui, .Applicant: There is a section in the City, I believe that looks after that, Below Market and they recommend the person or the family that will be occupying it. The owners have no say in that. Vice Chair Lippert: Okay, so it willbe a rental unit, not a for sale unit? Mehmood Taqui, Applicant: That’s right, Sir. Vice Chair Lippert: And how long does that entitlement or addition remain on the property? Staff Lusardi: As long as it’s a resident unit, it’s for the life of the project. And the City has an administrative contract with Palo Alto Housing Corporation, which would manage that. And part of that would be an annual certification of the residents that they meet the income requirements. Vice Chair Lippert: Okay. So that condition remains on the project as long as the building remains. Okay. And. one last question, with regard to signage for the building. There is going to be retail tenant. There is going to be an office tenant. Has any thought gone into how signage is going to work with this facade? Mehmood Taqui, Applicant: Not yet, Sir. But we will come back to you and show it to you and take an approval on that, Vice Chair Lippert: Well, we’re approving a facade. R would be a good idea to see how suggested signage would work, regardless of what the name of the company would be. Is it going to happen on the parapet panel up above the offices? Is it going tO happen at the horizontal band between the retail space and the office space on the front? How is it going to work? Mehmood Taqui, Applicant: I’m assuming the office who’ll be coming here, Sir, because there is a number here, we can put here. And the name of the retail could be just above the glass, below the line 0fthe band, which is in the code acceptable without the glare lights and all that. Vice Chair Lippert: Okayl so the preference is that the signage would happen for the company that would be occupying the office space to the left of their door or there are steps to go up there. Mehmood Taqui, Applicant: Right here, Sir. Vice Chair Lippert: Okay. And then for the retail tenant, it would happen right above.the storefront? City of Palo Alto Architectural Review Board 2051 E1 Camino Real March 21, 2002 Mehmood Taqui, Applicant: On the glass, Sir. Vice Chair Lippert: On the glass. Okay. No further questions~ thank you. Chair Bellomo: Thanks, Lee. Drew? BM Maran: What are the uses of the garages directly the right of the property, the adjoining property? Staff French: Well, the intended use is for parking forthe residential units adjacent. I don’t know if w.e have a status update on whether they’re actually filled with storage or open at this point. Staff Lusardi: They are required to be parking for the residential uses on the site. However, Staffs investigation code enforcement has discovered that they are actually being used as storage units, rental storage units. We have taken the code enforcement action on the property owner. It is an out of town property owner and the response on this has been very slow. We’re continuing to pursue that through code enforcement. BM Maran: So you’re saying, it’s for parking the same property? I see. I hope this isn’t too broad a question for the applicant. What do you think the main reason for the objection to this project is? What are the main objectiQns? Staff French: Are you asking Staff to answer that? BM Maran: No, the applicant. Mehmood Taqui, Applicant: Can I hear the question, Sir? BM Maran: What are the main objections to this project? What’s keeping it from moving forward? What do you feel has been the main problem with this project? It seems like it’s really taking a long time to get approved. Mehmood Taqui, Applicant: The main thing that I have found, Sir, there is a conflict in the Zoning code from whenit was under C-N and you want to make a Mixed Use building. And when you try to put a residential along with the office, the setbacks that come into play are based on RM- 15 zone standards. And on a lot of this size, it is impossible to make a Mixed Use building, Sir. I believe the code is at this moment being restudied to address these concerns. BM Maran: So, would you sum it up as because of the existing Zoning, the use of this property creates conflicts that people outside of this project are objecting to it. Is that the main thing? I’ll take help from Staff, if I can. City of Palo Alto Architectural Review Board 2051 E1 Camino Real March 21, 2002 8 I think there are two principal concerns that were raisedStaff Lusardi: Let me address that also. with respect to the project. First concern was generally by the community and that is the general massing in size of the project, with respect to having to add a residential unit and the size, in relation to the existing properties that are out there, the existing buildings. The Council’s concern was more specific. The Council’s concern was they wanted to see more retail and more residentia! in the project. What the restriction was on the C-N because of the C- N Zone, you could only get because of the density requirement is one unit. That’s actually what triggered the PC Zoning what has allowed the applicant to add a second residential unit and not have that density restriction p!aced on the project. BM Maran: Thanks for that. That’s all I have. Chair Bellomo: Okay, just a couple of questions, I think for the architect. The yellow panel, I think this was talked about before. I noticed on the model it looks like you maybe had the yellow wrapping around. Is this panel wrapped to this corner?. It looks like something was torn off or maybe not. I’m not sure what’s going on. Mehmood Taqui, Applicant: There is a small wrap,around, Sir, and also the wrap-ar0und goes around the other side of the window, Sir. Chair Bellomo: So, this panel is not stand-alone here, whatever color this turns into. This wraps around? Mehmood Taqui, Applicant: No, just up to this point, Sir. And then it wraps around here, Sir. Chair Bellomo! I see. And what is this panel? Mehmood Taqui, Applicant: It’s just stucco, Sir. Chair Bellomo: And how is that line formed? A reveal? Mehmood Taqui, Applicant: Yes. Chair Bellomo: And this is smoo~h stucco? Mehmood Taqui, Applicant: Yes, Sir, smooth. Chair Bellomo: So this is smooth. And this wall, it shows a reveal, is this concrete or is this stucco now? Mehmood Taqui, Applicant: I think it will be concrete. It is not decided yet. But whatever the material is, concrete or block, I have to finish it on this. City of Palo Alto Architectural Review Board 2051 E1 Camino Real March 21, 2002 Chair Bellomo: So, you’re going to apply the reveals to the concrete and stucco it? Mehmood Taqui, Applicant: Yes, Sir. Chair Bellomo: And plaster it? Mehmood Taqui, Applicant: It depends on the structural requirements. Chair Bellomo: And this is the same, whatever this is? Mehmood Taqui, Applicant: Yes. Chair Bellomo: Okay, and thenthe perforated panels are at this point here at this level? Mehmood Taqui, Applicant: That’s right, Sir. No, the perforated panels are these, Sir. Chair Bellomo: So what isthis? Mehmood Taqui, Applicant: That’s a solid thing as a sun shade, Sir. Chair Bellomo: This is solid? Mehmood Taqui, Applicant: Yes Sir, with grill on top of it. Chair Bellomo: With a grill. So if there’s water coming, dri~,ing in here, that water will drip off this edge? " Mehmood Taqui, Applicant: Yes, Sir. The reason for that grill, I presume is that when they go out to clean the windows, they can walk on it. Chair Bellomo: You can stand on here? Mehmood Taqui, Applicant: That’s right, Sir. Chair Bellomo: Okay, got it. And this is a solid soffit? Mehmood Taqui, Applicant: That’s right, Sir. Chair Bellomo: It’s a solid box because it’s changed. It was more grid-like before. Mehmood Taqui, Applicant: Yes, Sir. City of Palo Alto Architectural Review Board 2051 E1 Camino Real March 21, 2002 Chair Bellomo: These are perforated doors? Mehmood Taqui, Applicant: Yes, Sir. All the way up. Sir, this material here. Chair Bellomo: Okay. So you can actually, this will breathe? Mehmood Taqui, Applicant: You can see through, Sir. Chair Bellomo: You can see through, this is not a conditioned space? Mehmood Taqui, Applicant: No, Sir. Chair Bellomo: So, you have glass here and perforation here? 10 This hollow part here, this is perforated, Mehmood Taqui, Applicant: The glass is here at this point, and then at this point, above the landing is solid as the code requires which is not shown here but is shown in the drawings, Sir. Chair Bellomo: So these are solid stucco panels? Mehmood Taqui, Applicant: Yes, Sir. Chair Bellomo: Okay. Staff French: Can we just make sure that that’s actually the case, Mehmood, because the drawings and everything that I assumed when I wrote this report was that what you’re saying is solid is actually the perforated aluminum. And then it’s actually open air in between. Mehmood Taqui, Applicant: It is open on the top, yes. But this is_open with perforation. Staff French: Okay. Chair Bellomo: These are perforated doors, door frames. In other words, these aren’t glass, these are perforated material in a frame? Mehmood Taqui, Applicant: Aluminum. Staff French: Now, you’re asking about the doors down below? Chair Bellomo: I’m asking about where this perforation occurs in these doors, in these openings. City of Palo Alto Architectural Review Board 2051 E1 Camino Real March 21, 2002 11 What I had understoodStaff French: Okay, because that’s different than what I had understood. was that basically the balcony railings at each level were the perforated aluminum. And then above that, it was going to be open, nothing. Chair Bellomo: Where were you assuming the balcony rail was? Staff French: At the landings of each of the stairs~ " ’ Chair Bellomo: Inside? Staff French: At the outside there. show. Chair Bellomo: I see, I see what you’re saying. There’s a little bit of a conflict between the section. This is what I’m trying to get to. There’s a bit of a conflict between this section and this model. Mehmood Taqui, Applicant: Can I clarify that with the architect for a moment, please? Chair Bellomo: Of course. Staff French: I apologize that we weren’t shown the model that came in this morning with the change on it. Chair Bellomo: So if you look at this section, you can see this glass, which I’m not sure how supportive is on this section. It looks like it’s an awning or something. Ted: Well, it’d be supported span between a wall here and this concrete wall. Chair Bellomo: The model shows it solid. Ted: No, that’s actually opera It’s just because of our model making capabilities. Chair Bellomo: Oh, okay, got it. So this is open? Ted: Yes, on the front wall above the guard rails is open. And this is the perforation? According to the drawings, that’s what I believe the drawings Got it. And thisis open again and these doors here are perforated? Chair Bellomo: Ted: Yes. Chair Bellorno: City of Palo Alto Architectural Review Board 2051 E1 Camino Real March 21, 2002 12 Ted: Yes. Chair Bellomo: And in a steel frame? Ted: Yes. Steel or aluminum, but probably steel. Chair Bellomo: Okay. And this will be the edge of this concrete wall? .Ted: Yes, well, the face of the concrete wall. Chair Bellomo: And then that plaster is returning back inside this building at this point? Because you really do see that plaster return back. Ted: I don’t think we’re having any plaster on this wall. I think it’s just a concrete walt here. Okay. I was asking him about is this plaster a concrete but it’s in concrete?Chair Bellomo: Ted: Yes. Chair Bellomo: Ted: Chair Bellomo: Ted~. Yes. Chair Bellomo: Ted: With reveals? Well, some sort of joint there. I see. It could be just the expression of the panel of plywood? Chair Bellomo: Ted: No. Chair Bellomo: Ted: Yes. Chair Bellomo: I got it. So this is painted and then you’re going to stucco over concrete? We were thinking of just leaving is bare concrete. Okay, so the concrete .is not part of the palette here? Okay. So this is concrete and this would be concrete. And then the stucco stops to here. So you’re going to have concrete, stucco, brown stucco, and then whoops (broken model), and then yellow? Ted: No, I was thinking this would be yellow, this mass would all be yellow. City of Palo Alto Architectural Review Board 2051 E1 Camino Real March 21, 2002 13 Chair Bellomo: So this yellow wraps around to the concrete? Ted: Yes. Chair Bellomo: Okay. Thanks for your clarifications. I appreciate it. BM Wasserman: I had a question about the parking. You’re down to six spaces now, is that correct? Ted:. Seven spaces. One of those spaces is a handicap space. BM Wasserman: Right. And how do you anticipate the parking process to work? Are you going to have a roll-up door? Or is this going to be an open space? Ted: I think we’re going to have a roll-up door which hasn’t been decided whether it will be open during the day, or open all the time during the day or merely or be some sort of key card or something. BM Wasserman: Is there a way that it can be configured so that the retail space can use that, I mean, customers for the retail space can use that parking during the day? I mean, the accessible space seems to be of use only for the retail since there’s no elevator. So technically speaking, neither the housing nor the office has use of that accessible space. So then you’re left with the retail. Is there a way that that space can be used purposely? Ted: Yes, if it’s decided that the roll-up door will be left open during the day, then a retail customer could driv~ in there. They could use the other spaces also if they happen to be vacant. BM Wasserman: Okay, so you can end up with a sign somewhere that says parking for this restaurant or whatever inside so that person would not, people who use the retail wouldn’t have to park on the street? Ted: Yes. BM Wasserman: And then the housing and the office parking are being shared? Ted: Yes, presumably the cars belonging to the housing residents would leave during the day and then the office cars would come in during the day. The office cars would leave during the night and the residential cars would come back. BM Wasserman: Hmm, I guess the City Council has said that’s all right, yeah? ¯ Ted: I believe so. City of Palo Alto Architectural Review Board ¯ 2051 E1 Camino Real March 21, 2002 14 BM Wasserman: City Council thinks it’s okay? Staff Lusardi: I think they’re in general support of the parking arrangement. Let me clarify that you are correct. That handicap space has to be accessible to anyone who’s going to the retail space. So, we do have to work that out so it is accessible at any time a customer or someone who’s going into the retail space. BM Wasserman: Yes. There was a lot of discussion in some report about ringing the bell and having somebody come and open the thing. Please, do better than that. Thank you. All right, that’s it. I,think that’s my question. Chair Bellomo: I have one other question for the architect. Is it the proposal that this sloped parapet wall be continuous concrete to this edge? Ted: Yes. Ctiair Bellomo: Okay, so this line here is an A cap of structure? Ted: No. Chair Bellomo: So the idea is to pour that to that line? Ted: Yes. Chair Bellomo: Okay. One speaker is here to speak to this item. Lynn Chiapella, you have 3 minutes. Lynn Chiapella: I find this a rather harsh building. It’s better than it was; I guess. I don’t find a great difference from this to what we’ve ended up with On Cambridge..So the areas that I think, " the color I find difficult because I find it very harsh, as you said. I guess the windows are green, that’s the color he shows on there. I don’t know if they’re green or not but I guess they’re green- colored so-that from the street, they’ll look green. My concem is that it is south facing. So probably like Feshbach’s, you’re just going to stick a great big curtain and have it closed all the time on those windows. And from the street side, the pedestrian side sometimes it looks rather harsh because it’s always closed-in looking. So I would hope at least on the retail there would be some adjustment so that you don’t just have a closed-in look. I assume the retail person doesn’t want that. I hope that you would require that the garage be or remain open. If it’s closed, it’s going to be a massive effect on the pedestrian. And the planter, which is not shown on here but shown up there, I hope you would require that that be a seasonal planting with color at all times. As you " know, those planters frequently turn into empty boxes of dirt. If you come to mid-town you’ll see City of Palo Alto Architectural Review Board 2051 E1 Camino Real March 21, 2002 15 that they’ve now become where places people stick their A-frame signs and the.plants are dead. These are small details but as time goes by, these properties often deteriorate somewhat. The third thing is the handicap space. Oh. I wondered if there was a way to put a small decorative tree. I know it’s a tight space, like a myrtle tree or something to get a little bit more color on the streetscape. It’s a very long, not very exciting area there. And I don’t know if that’s a. possibility. The signage and the lights, etc. I hope would be turned off at night when there’s no one there particularly in the back of the building which we don’t see. The big windows facing the residences from the offices. There should be covering or have them off at night. There’s no windows? Maybe I misinterpreted what that was. And I did some research on the handicap space as per John’s direction last meeting we had sometime ago. And the ADA as you know does not require that parking space because the building is too small. So I did what he said. I went to the Uniform Building Code, which has 3 books of which I could only find 2. And again, the building is rather small. I could not find the ADA requirement. So,.I’d appreciate knowing where that ADA requirement is.because that’s an extra parking space, if in fact, it’s optional. Now, you heard from one 0fthe applicants (I’m not sure what building, but I think 3294 E1 Camino Real) that, in fact, .handicap spaces are optional on these small buildings. So, I do think that still needs a clarification as to where it is in the code and exactly what it says. Thanks. chair Bellomo: Thank you. Okay. We can now return back as we see no other speakers. We’ll return back to the Board for comments. Judith? BM Wasserman: I know this building has been here a lot but I think we’ve been focusing on the ftmction and the square footage and variances and all that stuff and I think we haven’t had enough time to spend on the architecture until today. So, it may sound like late in the game for some of these suggestions but in fact, we haven’t really talked about it. I would like to recommend that the colors be restudied. I find that the white is very reflective and it’s very glare-y. AS you come down the street, from across the street from driving on the street, it does have the modernist look but that was a century ago. You’ve got to try something different. I also think that the concrete needs some relief. I think a large expanse of gray concrete tends to look unfinished, like you’re waiting for the next lot line building to go up against you. And that it needs to have some attention paid to it. This might be a time to have an artist look at putting something inside your form boards that would make it an actual advantage to your building rather than a detriment. I agree with the speaker about the colored planting. I know it says daisies. I don’t know the blooming period for those daisies but it would be good to have color in that planter all year round and as many trees as possible. And what I said before about the parking, I think that any parking City of Palo Alto Architectural Review Board 2051 El CaminoReal March 21, 2002 16 that’s accessible for the retail space is a benefit to the project and a benefit to the retail space. And the vitality of that retail space is what we’re really fighting for on that streetscape. And so, the office will take care of itself and the BMR unit is going to be managed by the City. And I understand that the owner is actually going to live in the apartment above. So, it’s the retail space that We really have to fight for here. And so the planting, the signage, the parking, the street trees are all to the benefit of the retail and I would encourage it as much as you can for that. Thank you. Chair Bellomo: Thanks, Judith. Lee? Vice Chair Lippert: First of all, I want to thank you for coming back before us. I know it’s a difficult process to go through and your patience is appreciated. I feel very much the same way about this project as when I initially had seen it and I’m going to voice those comments and concerns again. Number one, I have real concerns with regard to the massing. I still believe that the building does look shoe-homed into the space when compared to the adjacent sites, that it is too big for the site. But I don’t get to make that decision. That’s a City Council decision. They get to decide those things. I do have some concems with the main facade. I agree with Judith with regard to the colors and that they really need to be looked at again. I’m not in support of the look of the building, that what it is, is it becomes an attention-getting device for the building and that’s specifically addressed in the current E1 Camino Real guidelines. In addition to that, colored palettes are also addressed in the E1 Camino Real guidelines and they need to be incorporated into this design. One of the things about the design that’s very deceptive is that in looking at this, it actually looks like a relatively small building. But when you begin to look at it at the adjacent retail properties that are adjacent to it to the left, you see that the retail space that’s been allocated in this building is almost the same size as the adjacent retail tenants. And if you look at them by going out to the site, you’ll notice that they are rather large. Those buildings are rather large. And so, I want or - very much. like to see ways of visually reducing the massing of the building. And I think that a couple of ways that that can happen is Number one: the horizontal parapet really makes the building look much taller than it really is. There are a couple of things, I think that can be done to help reduce that. One being that maybe the use of a horizontal handrail with some sort of perforations or something that you can see through rather than this horizontal panel might assist. And also, that element can be brought around so the other sides of the building, again, reducing it visually from the sideas to how tall this building actually reads. I also think that there are too many things going on with this building. It’s very disjointed. The facade and what happens on the side of the building and the back of the building aren’t necessarily compatible and are not working together. And so what I would look for is something that works completely around the building in terms of a uniform look or appearance or s.tyle. So, City of Palo Alto Architectural Review Board 2051 E1 Camino Real March 21, 2002 17 those are my comments. I can’t support this today. The way it is right now, I couldn’t approve it: So, if this came to a vote, I would probably continue the project. Chair Bellomo: Drew? BM Maran: Thanks for the re-presentation. I wish we had a limit per square foot per minute. I can’t believe how much time we can spend with this. Even the process can occupy on a small project relative to some of the larger projects that we’ve approved or that we review.¯ So, I guess I’ma little bit baffled by how difficult it is to get a small project like this approved. I’m in general support of the project. There seem to be underlying some issues here that I’m having a little difficulty with in regards to the massing and to the density andto the future of E1 Camino Real, especially in this neighborhood. I think this neighborhood is a combination of some really ugly buildings and some moderately ugly buildings and a few older buildings that have some true character. And I think some of those are to be found just to the left as you face this project. And I think those are interesting. I think residential garages on El Camino Real are to be found just to the fight of this building make absolutely no sense to me. I don’t know why we would use that as any kind of standard for anything other than hopefully that will go away really soon. And in that regard, I don’t really see E1 Camino as a pedestrian friendly street. And as I’ve said before, I don’t think any street with lots of driveway cuts on it is or will ever be pedestrian friendly. I think we sort of talked out of both sides of our mouths on this type of project. One is, we want it to be pedestrian accessible and friendly. On the other hand, we talk about how ¯ important the parking for the retail is within the project itself or the parking for the residential within the project itself, which means, cars have to cut in and Out of the building. So, I don’t think you can resolve both. I don’t think you can have pedestrian friendly and you can have cats cutting across ¯the sidewalk. I think there’s some inherent problems with the design and principles on E1 Camino. In that sense, I do believe that E1 Camino is a good place to start putting taller buildings, higher density buildings, buildings that come right up to.the sidewalk, and I think it’s a lot better place to do it than in quiet neighborhoods that ate designed more for residential and for peaceful living. Again, as I’ve said before, I think if we don’.t do it here then what we do is we encourage suburban sprawl in other communities and we encourage or force tl~e kind of density away. from downtowns and commercial neighborhoods and that, therefore, means that we’re building into currently existing greenbelts or agricultural lands and places like that. So, what I’m saying in a nutshell, is I think we need to examine our urban plans and look at creating higher density and taller buildings in these areas, not because I support intrusion into air space, but because I don’t see us having a better solution for where to put taller buildings. ¯And it is a vision of the future that I think that we have to have. I don’t think we have a choice. I’m a little concerned about the urge, it seems to come especially from this letter that we have received on our desks, that somehow we have to stick to what was the appearance of this neighborhood 50 City of Palo Alto Architectural Review Board 2051 E1 Camino Real March 21, 2002 18 or 80 years ago when it was first developed and I just don’t think that’s possible. And I also don’t think it’s consistent with our overall goal of creating denser urbma centers. I also think, from an architectural standpoint, I’m having a little trouble of getting a grip on what this building is really going to look like. It’s rather difficult. In the previous submittals, it seemed as if it was a very unusual.building with louvers and sun shades and I wasn’t really wild ¯ about it but it looked really unusual, which I thought was pretty interesting and in that sense attractive because I think we nee~t more unusual buildings. And again, I think just because a building doesn’t match the buildings directly adjacent to it or some sort of general perception of what the styles are, I don’t think that makes it incompatible with the neighborhood. And I think, in fact, I think it’s really interesting to bring forward a building that has such interesting details as perforated metals and yellow stucco. And I think the thrust here, and I’m really glad to see the Staff supporting this project or recommending approval, I think the thrust is to (ake these unusual directions and materials and architecture and promote it and make it sort .of a centerpiece of a changing neighborhood and encourage the variation or the different schemes that are available within a neighborhood like this. So, I’m in support of the project and I am in support of the architect working closely with us and with the City to refine the details and make it even more attractive. Thanks. Chair Bellomo: Thank you, Drew. I have a few comments. First of all, from my previous comments on this project, I am in support of it. I am in support of the preservation of the oak trees which I assume are still under Dave Doctor’s watch and care and that is a huge plus, and what I like about it is that as well as the density achieved with this project. So; having said that, I really think it does come down to the architecture. ¯I ¯think achieving the density, you have mass concerns and constraints. I think the key is, this is really a definedproject for the sub-committee to really dig in on because I really think that this project is going to be defined by the architectural character and detailing because the edges, are unclear to me at this time. I had started questioning transition at corners, because really you see this building as you proceed north and southbound on E1 Camino, not really as we see it as in this rendering. So rm very concerned about its kind 0fvehicular, pedestrian vantage points from E1 Camino. I really think I’m not clear on how this building is transitioning to property line walls. I see in the model, there’s a little bit of discrepancy from plaster to concrete. I think all the building materials are beautiful in themselves which is how they are put together in a palette, organic material is beautiful. So, having said that, I’m going to fall back to the front of this building. I was intrigued with kind of this horizontal louvering because I felt that those devices really brought the building back or set the mass behind it, really you’re looking through kind of facades and then the decreasing, the apparent Weight of the front facade. So I thought I really was intrigued with some of the original character. I know there’s been comments just heard that, well, the weight of the building, the front parapet could be reduced to some type of transparent balcony or more transparency in the balcony materials, reducing that, I agree with that. But I think the original design, I see it in front of me with the louvers was really trying to accomplish kind of a lightning, in a sense, of the top floor, or the second floor mass and bringing more attention to the glazing at the ground floor. So, City of Palo Alto Architectural Review Board 2051 E1 Camino Real March 21, 2002 19 some type of screen, some type of materials can work. AndI do think, I agree, I think Lee made this comment about this upper white band as we see now, it is heavy. And I think that weight really brings more attention to the upper mass. Not that that’s bad, I’m just thinking that you were originally on to something. Architecturally though, it might scare people and look different, that’s okay, that’s not a bad thing to get a reaction from a design. It doesn’t mean it’s bad or good. It means that you get a reaction, which means it might tend to be architecture. So, I would like to see the architect really, what is it that you want here to see? Because I find that it’s trying to solve a problem and maybe not really solve it architecturally but solve it in the minds of the Board’s. And I really think that this needs to be an architectural solution and I thought, I.felt really good about where it was going and I feel a little bit disjointed where it’s ending, it’s getting watered down and that’s how I feel about it. But I think that this is something that I could feel that after listening to all the other Board Members but I think this could be approved, it could go to a sub-committee, but I would really want it to be a rigorous sub- committee review, something that was really taken back to maybe where the architect really wants us to go. But I could support a motion that we re-look at this in its architectural form, really strip it down that front and look at it in detail, clarifying the sections, clarifying elevations, really clarifying the edges of this, really showing us how this building really does look from different angles clearly, because I think it’s not clear quite yet. So, having said that, I like a motion. BM Wasserman: Okay, I think I can make a motion to continue this with 5 conditions. One is that the garage be kept open and the handicap parking be investigated. The second is that if you can get two trees and that the planting be seasonal. That the apparent massing of the building including an investigation of the parapet be done. That the color palette be investigated and the nature of the concrete surface be examined. I think that’s five. Vice Chair Lippert: When you said that the massing of thebuilding be looked at, that it be reduced? BM Wasserman: The apparent massing. Yes. Vice Chair Lippert: Okay. Chair Bellomo: I’d like to add the sections and details are clarified. BM Wasserman: Absolutely. Chair Bellomo: I just want clarity on this apparent massing that we’re not suggesting a reduction of height but we’re really suggesting architectural approaches to reducing the apparent massing, correct? BM Wasserman: Correct. City of Palo Alto Architectural Review Board 2051 E1 Camino Real March 21, 2002 20 Chair Bellomo: Okay. Again, is this something that you’d like to be brought back to the Board as a whole? Is that your motion? BM Wasserman: I think that our previously established procedures that this go to the sub- committee and when the sub-committee is satisfied then it comes to the Board for approval. Is that what we’ve established in the new procedure? Staff Lusardi: Mr. Chair, what I would suggest, what Staff would suggest is that you add to the motion that you refer these architectural issues to the sub-committee to be worked with the applicant., I think you’re raising concerns in a broad sense and yet there’s some specificity there we’re not getting a clear handle on, to be honest with you. And I think we need to_ work with some of the Board Members in order to address those. So, I’d like you to refer that to the sub- committee but I think you .are raising issues that are substantive enough that this project would have to come back to the full Board. "Chair Bellomo: Yes, absolutely. BM Wasserman: I think the sub-committee is fine. I think one of the things that you’re hearing is that there is not a lot of agreement on the Board about the way we would like the building to go. I mean, there are the pro-louver people and the anti-louver people. And so, it’s going to be up to the architect to come forward with a strong enough statement to convince three of us. Chair Bellomo: Also we need to add to this. Staff Lusardi: I’m assuming you’re adding to the motion that it be referred to the sub-committee and you continue this item to a date certain. The next Board meeting We’ll try and get together and resolve the issues, if not we will set another meeting date. BM Wasserman: Yes, all of that can be incorporated into the motion. Chair Bellomo: Someone would like to read the motion back? Steven, can you continue reading this motion back? Steven Turner: We have a motion by Board Member Wasserman to continue this project to the April 4th ARB meeting with a referral to the sub-committee to look at the following items: Item number one is to have the garage to remain open and do an investigation for the accessible parking space. Number two was the addition of two trees planted. BM Wasserman: I think they have one, so it would be one additional tree so it would be two, total. City of Palo Alto Architectural Review Board 2051 El Camino Real March 21, 2002 21 Steven Turner: It will be a total of two trees, one additional tree planted and maintain seasonal planting, year-round. Reduce the apparent massing of the building and do a study of the parapet. Return with a study of alternative color scheme. And there was one other portion regarding the, I guess the cement treatment. BM Wasserman: In enhancement and perhaps artistic treatment of the concrete walls. The side concrete walls. Chair Bellomo: Steven Turner: Chair Bellomo: All: Aye. Chair Bellomo: Motion I Will second that. The motion has been seconded. It’s been seconded. All those in favor? ~asses, 4-0 with one absence. Thank you. Architectural Review Board Review April 4, 2002 Summary of ARB review of 2051 E1 Camino Real, file 01-PC-04 Staff presentation Staff briefly described the revisions, stated that the landscape and irrigation plans, materials board and colored elevation were delivered after the staff report was prepared, and suggested alterations to update conditions 9.11, 8.19, and 8.20 accordingly. Staff also noted the applicant, had previously indicated retail signage would be located on the inside of the glass, and this is not normally reviewed by the ARB, so that condition 9.10 could also berevised by the ARB. Questions Wasserman asked about the revised color scheme. Bellomo asked about detail on the new glass rail, specifically the glass separation, distance between glass and structure, and how glass would be kept clean and what is the signage concept. Applicant noted the glass needed to provide noise attenuation from E1 Camino Real traffic noise so the glass panels would be butted together. Applicant noted decal signage would be place inside retail window, and office signage would be attached on the office stairway’s metal door. Bellomo asked about the transition of the terra cotta wall edge. Applicant responded that the terra cotta would return to the first control joint. Bellomo asked about the garage door design. Applicant responded, other than the warning tube atthe front, it would be a solid metal door, brushed anodized finish, unless a mural is painted on it. Lippert noted that the colors do not feel resolved, that he would like to see the brush-outs on the site before the building is painted. Motion and Action Lippert moved to recommend approval with the staff recommendations and conditions, with an additional condition 9.12 and modification to conditions 9.4 and 9.5 in the staff report. . Future signage plans (other than window decals for the retail store) shall be submitted for review by the Architectural Review Board. 9.5 Prior to submittal of the building permit application, the applicant shall provide the planning department with the following items for the ARB to review and provide comments on consent calendar: ° Indicate the sizes and locations of utilities and mechanical equipment. Provide a list of environmental "green building" program for construction. Provide a detail of the garage door material after carefully considering the material, with a suggestion that some transparency be incorporated into the door material. 9.12 Prior to painting the entire building with the submitted colors (Faded Rose P&L 1875 on the element above the residential entry, Armory P&L 2310 on stucco walls), the applicant shall provide "brush-outs" of these c~lors on the building. Once applied, the applicant shall contact the ARB Liaison, who will notify the Architectural Review Board (ARB) for their individual review on site, and who will schedule the item for the next available ARB meeting on consent calendar. Vote on Lippert’s Motion was 3-0.2 (Kornberg and Maran absent) May 8, 2002 Citv of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment Attachment I Divisions Inspection Services Planning Transportation Mehmood Taqui Oak Shadows LLC 1336 Tasso Street Paio Alto, CA 94306 Subject:Below Market Rate (BMR) Agreement for One BMR Unit at 2051 E1 Camino Real (01-PC-04; 01-ARB-136) Dear Mr. Taqui: This letter summarizes the agreement reached between you and Planning Division staff regarding the three-be~oorn, two-bath, BMR rental housing unit you are.proP0sing to construct as a public b, gnefit within the proposed mixed-use development at 2051 E1 Camino Real. You andthe D~p~artment of Planning and Co.unity Environment have discussed and neg6.ti~ate_d the te~s 0f~this agreement, and your signature on tNS letter confirms that yoUagree:to.these provisions. The site is curre~ntty vacant and the’Project includes: ¯51 t S¢lug~e feet of retail space on the ground floor.- ¯1,191;~ Square feet of commercial office space On tti~-2na floor ¯1,702 Tota.l,non-residential square footage ¯One lhree-~droom, two-bath BMR rentai dfiiilbf"~;i07 square feet located on the 2na floor ’)::- <’.:~ ’=~!!: . ¯ One three-bedroom, two-bath market-rat4 r~idential unit Of 1,404 square feet locatedon the3~afloor ~: :.. :.: . , ¯ Severl’parki~;i~paces on the ground flo6r .~ :i..ii::i .~:: :.:;.i-" ". You have request~ City Council approval for a z~e<~i~:~n~frd~:Seighborhood Commercial (CN)}o Planned Community (PC) Zoi~;~in 0r~rl[o devek;p the Project. The principal reason for the~ PC z0~; is:to pe~t two residenti~i;i~iits. The Pe.z0ne" ~hange requires a.provision of piiblic’;benefits. :You have Offered to provide one of the.residential units as a BMR rental unit tO satisfythe public benefit requirements. Under Program H- 20 of the Housing Element~ ofthe Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, a BMR unit or i~n-lieu fee is not required for this Project because Program H-20 does not apply to rental projects of less than four units. 250 Han~ilton Avenue P.O. Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 650.329.2404 650.329.2154 fax Mehmood Taqui May 8, 2002 Page 2 Application of Commercial Housing In-lieu Fee per Chapter 16.47 of the Municipal Code: Because this project includes office and retail space, it is also subject to housing impact mitigation requirements under.Chapter 16.47 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code - Approval of Projects With Impacts on Housing. However, Section 16.47.040 (h) provides that a mixed-use project must satisfy the greater of the fee due under 16.47 or the BMR requirement per Program H-20. Because the Project does not have a required BMR component under Program H-20, as explained above, the fee due per 16.47 is the greater amount. On.March 25, 2002, Council adopted amendments to 16.47 that increase the commercial housing fee to $15.00 per net new square feet and eliminate minimum square footage thresholdsl These amendments will be effective 30 days after the second reading of the ordinance; the effective date is expected to be May 9, 2002. Projects ¯ rec.eiving final entitlement approvals on or after May 9 must pay the commercial housing fee at the new rate. Therefore, the total fee due under the amended 16.47 is $25,539 (1,702 square feet of new commercial space times $15.00); The total fee is due prior to issuance-of the building permit for the Project. BMR Agreement to Be Recorded: The general terms of this letter will be incorporated into the Project’s conditions of approval and the Planned Community Zone ordinance. In addition, a detailed BMR Regulatory Agreement shall be prepared in a form satisfactory to the City Attorney, executed by the Owner and the City, and recorded against the property prior to issuance of the first building permit for the project. The Regulatory Agreement will include the provisions for the rent, occupancy and operation of the BMR unit. The Regulatory Agreement will be a contractual obligation of the Owner and its successors in interest and shall run with the land. Term of Agreement: The term of the Regulatory Agreement shall be 59 years from the date of first occupancy of any portion of the project, or as 10ng as the Planned Community Zone is in effect, whichever is longer. Construction, Finishing, Amenities: The BMR unit shall be comparable in all aspects to the market-rate housing unit including, but not limited to, construction quality, appliances, cabinets, kitchen and bathroom fixtures, appearance, flooring materials, finish work, amenities, storage units, parking spaces, and access to all facilities. The Owner maY request permission from the Planning Division to use different interior finishes, appliances and fixtures in the BMR unit than in the market-rate unit. Such substitute materials and equipment must still be of very good quality and durability. Any such request should be submitted to the City at least 60 days prior to issuance of the project’s building permit. The City must approve substitute materials in writing. Parking spaces for the residents of the BMR shall be assigned, or available, on an equal basis with.the parking spaces for the market rate unit. Definition of BMR Rent and Initial Rent: The BMR rent is the total maximum monthly charge for occupancy of the BMR unit and shall include any charges for parking, storage, utility charges that are not separately metered or other fees. The Base BMR rent Mehmood Taqui May 8, 2002 Page 3 (established as of the date of tile first building permit for the project, which shall be called the "Start Date") shall be the lesser of: 1) A rent equal to the HUD Section 8 Fair Market Rent (FMR) for 3-bedroom units in effect as of the Start Date (currently, as of April 2, 2002, the Section 8 FMR for a 3- bedroom unit is $2,182), or 2) A rent equal to 70% of the most recently available 3-bedroom rent for households at 100% of the median income in Santa Clara County as published by the California Tax Credit AIlocation Committee, as of the Start Date (currently the 70%, 3-bedroom rent is $1,747). ~ The Base BMR Rent shall be the initial rent charged to the first BMR unit tenant. Rent Increases: Increases in the BMR rent shall be calculated annually in order to become effective each July 1. The annual rent increase shall not exceed an amount equal to one-half of the percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers, Rent Residential, San Francisco Oakland area (CPI) from the prior year’s base CPI to the latest index available as of the Calculation Date. Following is a sample, hypothetical calculation of an annual rent increase: CPI - Rent Residential Index Available as of April 1:242.5 Less - CPI - Rent Index as of prior year’s April 1:225.2 Difference 17.3 17.3 / 225.2 = .00767 = 7.67% / 2 (one-half) = 3.8% equals the rent increase percent Current rent paid by tenant - $1,747 times 3.8% = $67.00 maximum rent increase New maximum rent = $1,814.00 The Owner shall contact the City for the determination of annual rent increases on April 1 of each year. The City will calculate the new maximum allowable rent using the above formula and notify Owner of the permitted maximum rent increase. If the City does not notify Owner by April 30 of the new maximum rent, Owner may implement a rent increase that complies with the formula in the Regulatory Agreement. For the initial years after completion and occupancy of the BMR unit, the annual rent increase percentage shall be prorated from the Start Date to the following April 1, as necessary to account for the first period of CPI index changes being more or less than 12 months. The resulting BMR rent is the maximum applicable as the lease expires or a new tenant moves in to the BMR unit o’~er the 12-month period following the annual anniversary of the each rent change.. There is no cap on the amount of the annual rent adjustment. No negative rent adjustments are required. Mehmood Taqui May 8, 2002 Page 4 In addition, the rent for an existing BMR tenant maynot be increased more than once in any 12-month period regardless of whether the tenant is renting under a month-to-month rental agreement or an annual lease. TheOwner must provide the BMR tenant with a 60- day minimum notification of any rent increases. Rents less than the maximum allowed may be charged for the BMR.unit, at the Owner’s discretion. However, Owner may not increase rent for an existing BMR tenant in excess of the amount allowed by the above CPI change formula in order to catch for rent increases not taken in prior years. When the BMR unit is vacated, Owner may rent the unit to a new BMR tenant at- a rent that includes prior years rent increases that were not previously implemented. Compliance with Other Laws: All applicable State and local laws and ordinances affecting the operation of rental housing apply to the operation of the BMR unit. Notwithstanding any language to .the contrary in Section 9.68.020(d) of the PAMC, the provisions of PAMC Chapter 9.68, including the requirement to offer the tenant a one- year lease, shall apply to the BMR unit. Eligible Households: To be eligible for initial rental of the BMR unit, a household must have been certified by the City as having a gross annual household income below 80 per cent of the then-current HUD median income for Santa Clara County, adjusted for household size. The Owner shall give priority to households that have at least one member who lives or works within the city limits of Palo Alto. Each BMR tenant’s household income must be recertified annually according to the procedures of the HUD Section 8 rental assistance program, or successor program. The Owner shall have applicants and tenants prepare documentation .of income for review by City. The City will review and approve the documentation of the income certifications and annual recertifications and make the final determination of eligibility. The Owner shall be responsible for the actual selection of BMR tenants, including conducting the Owner’ s normal tenant Screening process, and enforcement of the terms of the tenancy or lease. Allowable Ho.usehold Sizes: Because the BMR unit is three bedrooms, it may only be rented to a household of 3, 4, 5, 6 or 7 persons. Tenants Who Become Ineligible Because of Increased Household Income: BMR tenants whose incomes upon recertification exceed one hundred percent (100%)of the then- current median income for Santa Clara County, adjusted for family size, will no longer qualify to pay BMR Rent or occupy a BMR unit. The Owner shall give such tenant written notification to that effect, advising the tenant that: (1) The rent will be increased in sixty (60) days in a specified amount (to be determined by the Owner but not exceeding the rents for comparable market-rate units in the vicinity); and (2) That the tenant must vacate the unit within six (6) months of the date of the notice of ineligibility, or at the end of the current lease term, whichever is later. Mehmood Taqui May 8, 2002 Page 5 When the BMR unit is vacated, the Owner must rent the unit to a qualified.tenant from ¯ the waiting list. The conditions and restrictions applicable specifically to BMR tenancy shall be given in writing to prospective BMR tenants at the time of tenant application. This includes but is not limited to the current BMR rent, the.allowed adjustment to BMR rent, the requirement to offer a one-year lease, the 80% median income limit on initial occupancy and the requirement to vacate if income exceeds 100% of median. The.BMR conditions and restrictions shall be incorporated into the tenant’ s rental agreement. The owner shall be responsible for maintaining a waiting list for the BMR unit, providing information to prospective BMR applicants. Owners may choose to advertise or establish preferences for certain classes of Palo Alto’s work force such as teachers: Records, Monitoring and Reports: The Owner shall maintain records, in a form satisfactory to the City, to demonstrate compliance with the BMR agreement. Owner shall prepare and submitto the City, or the City’s designee, an annual report in a form specified by City on the status of the BMR unit and compliance with the requirements of the BMR program and this Agreement. The City reserves the right to review these records and monitor compliance of the BMR agreement at any time. Informational Materials: Owner shall provide information in writing to interested. households and to prospective BMR tenants at the time of submittal of an application foi: tenancy regarding the conditions and restrictions applicable to occupancy of BMR unit. The information shall include the current BMR Rent, the formula for calculation of annual rent increases, minimum and maximum occupancy standards for BMR units, the qualifying income limits and the requirement for an initial and annual income certification, the offer of a one-year lease, the priority for Palo Alto households and the ¯ Owner’s waiting list procedures and standards for tenant screening, and other relevant information. Penalties for noncompliance with the BMR program roles and requirements during the household’s tenancy shall be explained in the informational materials provided by Owner. Owner shall submit all informational materials and forms of its rental agreements and leases for the BMR unit to the City for approval prior to use. City=s Program Administrator: The BMR program is administered by the Department of Planning and Community Development. The City’s contract program administrator for the BMR program is currently the Palo Alto Housing Corporation. The City may assign any or all of the administrative duties including review, approval and monitoring functions to its program administrator. Enforcement of the BMR Agreement and Penalties for Noncompliance: The recorded Regulatory Agreement will include procedures by which the Owner shall enforce tenant compliance with the requirements for occupancy of BMR unit. The Regulatory Agreement will also contain penalties and enforcement provisions that the City may use Mehmood Taqui May 8, 2002 Page 6 to enforce compliance by Owner witti the rent an~d occupancy restrictions of the Regulatory Agreement. Guidelines, Administrative Procedures and Interpretations: The City may from time to time .during the term of the Regulatory Agreement adopt or approve guidelines, procedures and interpretations affecting the implementation of the BlVlR rental program in general and its implementation in the Project in particular. The Owner shall follow such revised guidelines, procedures and instructions from City except that the calculation of the maximum BMR Rent shall not be changed without an amendment to the Regulatory Agreement which shall require the consent of Owner and City. Please sign this letter where shown below and return to me, indicating that we have ¯ reached agreement regarding BMR unit public benefit contribution. Sinc, e Emslie Director of Planning and Community Environment Wynne Furth, Senior Assistant City Attorney Cathy Siegel, Housing Coordinator Amy French, Senior Planner Marlene Prendergast, Executive Director, Palo Alto Housing Corporation I agree to provide a Be~w Market rate unit at 2051 E1 Camino Real as described in this Letter. o~~02. Mehmoo ner, for Oak Shadows LLC, Owner May 8, 2002 French, Am~/ From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachment J MampelD@aol.com Wednesday, May 01, 2002 5:08 PM info@city.palo-alto.ca, us please approve bldg. @ 2051 El Camino To Palo Alto City Planners and building Commission: My name is Dave Mampel and I live at 2721 .Midtown Court in Palo Alto. I have been to two CitY Council meetings and have submitted at letter of recommendation to the City Council for approval of building project at 2051 El Camino Real. I see no reason why the ARB, City Council, or City Planners should reject this plan. It falls into the scope of Palo Alto’s overall building plan and requirements. Many people have supported this project..It is meets requirements, provides below market housing for our city employees, and does not harm the environment or neighbors in any significant way. I usually am very skeptical of gratuitous urban growth, but one must strike a balance and be realistic. This project fits nicely into the El Camino and the develbper has already spent thousands of dollars, time and evergy to go beyond the call of duty to improve on the stringent requirements of the planners and city council. Again I request that you please support this project and the overall plan of building in Palo Alto for all. Thank You. Dave Mampel Council, Cit~ From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: john baca [verdosa@hotmail.com] Wednesday, May 08, 2002 12:07¯ PM city_council@city.palo-alto.ca.us city_clerk@city, palo-alto.ca.us. 2051 el camino CITY OF L-"ALU AL~’0, ~,ACITY CL.ERt~’S OFFICE Nay 8, 2002. Palo Alto-City Council Re: 2051 E1 Camino [01-PC-04] Dear Councilmembers, This is a PC application; there are no time limits, and the .uniquenature of the application means that it should not beapproved until it is done right. Ks proposed, it is-not done right. There are VIABLE projects that can be built on. this site; there are several options t~at do not have such a negative i.mpact-on the neighborhood. .One option, stated by the applicant at the Feb. 4, 2002. council meeting ms that retail/residential without office is viable. Another option is residential only. Another option expressed by PTC chair Pat Burt on May I, 2002 is to decreise thesize of the office use and decrease the BMR unit to 2 bedrooms. All of these options will work better for Palo Alto than the applicant’s proposal. I don’t have the official minutes of the PTC meeting on May i, only the Videotape (thanks to city staff). The videotape shows that staff introduced the item early in the presentation with "...We did take itto ~he Architechtural Review Boarrd..." in an implicit acknowledgement of a bias in favor of the the applicant by saying "we". Like saying staff and the applickant are the same entity. Commissioner Griffin’s motion was carried even though he failed to distinguish between the site CN zoning and the CC(2) zoning south of College alongthe east side of-E1 Camino. There is no way that E1 Camino can be considered as a homogenous area. Basically, the PTC and city. staff said that this.is for’the city council to decide. And I can understand that staff has a vested intereest in the project, as do I. in a different way. The Aug. 6,.2001 CMR:335:01has an enormous list ofvariances and exceptions; all of which would be good for the developers, but bad for the neighbors and bad for the city. That Was the last report listing all the problems with the underlying CN zoning. The underlying zoning relates to the current PC zoning application. According to the minutes of the Sep. 24 council meeting (contained in CMR:I19:02): "CouncilMember Mossar moved, seconded by Burch, to deny the project for the following reas0ns...2) the Concern about the edges of the project with the R-I properties behind the projec~ and the residential.units to the South.f.and 4) the City needed to acknowledge that building office space created jobs and increased demand for housing in the community." "Council Member Burch said the p~0ject concerned him as a precedeent for any project on E1 Camino Real. The retail.represented approximately 8 percent of the total sqaure footage.of the the project. The City needed affordable, attainable houses. He would rather see a p~oject that provided two, three, or fourhomes on the site." . "Vice Mayor Ojakian asked’whetherthere would be sufficient space for parking if the project were strictly residentia!." Mr. Lusardi said "the ’ property would have to be rezoned..." Duh! Please guess if the property is proposed to be rezoned. In fact, it is possible to do residential parking with 2 or 3 housing units. It would still require a PC, but it would be better than the applicant’s project, and the neighborhood and Palo Alto ~ould be better off. "Council Member Fazzino supported Council Member’s Lytle’s motion, noting concerns about the ttrees, 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." The planning staff has not looked carefully at the broader issues of mixed use on E1 Camino and it is regrettable that their concerns are concentrated on this small lot without regard to the adjoining small lots. The city is not prepa.red to deal with This is a different city council. How will the current¯ council respond to the voters that elected you? Any graphics that you will be shown need to be understood from the perspectiveof the 8 foot.hig~ level of the gutter level of the adjacent southerly adjacent affordable units. Mr. Lusardi said that no shadow studies were-presented¯to the ARB in response to Council Member Wheeler’s q~estion. Oak trees and the city tree ordinance does not mean that special treatment for this project is justifiable as reason for approval. I don’t think that the PC Approval Findings are logically founded: i. "The site is so situated, and the use or uses proposed for the site are of’such characteristics that the ~ppplication of’general districts or combining districts will not provide sufficient flexibility to all’ow the proposed development." Yes, although alternate projects would be accomodated without requiring PC zoning, and more~reasonable projects would be acceptable to the neighborhood residents. The applicant¯has chosen to push for an overly large project, and has been encouraged to do so ¯by staff. Why not ask for a 4 story project and no parking on-site? Seems to me like the approach is to push¯ size to the max and hope that maybe the city council will approve¯not even a smaller project! 2. "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..." Sure, no applicant is going to propose a BMR unit of their own free wiil! However, the negative public benefits include a huge parking deficit that will impact the neighborhood severely, meaning that there is a very real possibility¯of the neighborhood losing the local laundromat. 3. "The use or uses permitted, and the site development regulations applicable within the district...shall be compatitible wi~h existing and potential uses on adjoining sites or within the general vicinity." How can anyone think that the uses permitted will be compatible with existing uses? Is the council going to ignore existing, uses, destroy neighboring existing uses such as 12 affordable units and a laundromat? In order to fulfill some chimera of a vision for a full-on urban Palo Alto? Staff stated their concern for parking problems at the PTC hearing, as well. as Commissioners Holman and Butt. I hope that the "small size of a PC application and the time involved so far is not a factor in making your decision. This project will not be good for Palo Alto. Only a scaled-back project could possibly prevent much more severe parking problems, failure of adjacent neighborhood-serving businesses, and loss of the 12 adjacent affordable housing units. - PLEASE HELP the. voters in the College Terrace, Evergreen Park, and Southgate neighborhoods, that will be affected by this decision.¯ John Baca P.O. Box 18527., Stanford, CA 94309 verdosa@hotmail.com 650/473-0996 Council, From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: john baca [verdosa@hotmail.com]: .i --~. :. Thursday, May 02, 2002 12:02 AM 0~ H~Y -3 ~H;iOiil~i9 zariah_b~tten@¢ity.palo-alto.ca.us steve_emslie@ci)y.p.alo-alto.ca.us; frank_benest@city.palo-alto.ca.us; city_council.@city.palo- alto.ca.us PTC videotape on 2051 May ! ¯ ¯ Zariah, Because. 2051 E1 Camino will be heard by the city council on May 13, and because the PTC meeting tonight Was not broadcast on local cable, I need to see the videotape of tonight’s, meeting very quickly. How soon can I borrow the tape? If you can’t make a copy soon as you said to me tonightthat you needed to, I will make you a copy since I have 2 vcrs. My letter to the council would have to be delivered next Wed. and I NEED the videotape before I can write ~he letter. I’m surprised that you will have the minutes of .the meeting prepared before the council packet deadline. Since there is no time limit on PC applications, couldn!t, the city council meeting about the project just get postponed? PC applications should not be rushed through even though this one may be of a small size. I believe that tonight a eommissioner madethe statement that the laundromat next door to 2051 will soon be gone and I am VERY interested in hearing that comment. A lauDdromat .represents a quintessentia! "neighborhood serving" use and replacing it with another use is not a great idea unless the neighborhood will use public transportation to take their laundry to another laundromat. It would be inappropriate to assume such a decision. I would like to pick up a copy of the videotape on Friday, at least to borrow it overthe weekend. Thank you, John Baca P.O. Box 18527, Stanford, CA 9-4309 verdosa@hotmail.com 650/~73-0996 Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http.://messenger~msn.com B.B. Patel Cabana, 4290 El Camino Real, Palo Alto, CA 94306 May 1, 2002 Hon Chair Hon Vice Chair and Honorable Members Planning Commission City of Palo Alto Subject: 2051 E1 Camino Real Palo Alto, CA Mixed-use building: Planned Community Honorable members: I have studied the new plans for the mixed-use building submitted for approval. I have been following the approval process for this project closely over several months. I support the project and the zone change to planned community. The Architecture is good and the building is functional. I am also aware that in the previous application the applicant had tried to comply and be within the zoning as CN zoning was not clear and he had to request for variances. The ARB and the planning commission had approved his request for the same building but with one residential unit. The City Council directed the applicant to restudy the project and return incorporating more hou.sing and retail for neighborhood. The applicant complied and proposed a three bedrooms, 2 bathroom BMR unit for the use of Firemen, Police or City Employees of Pal0 Alto. The retail was increased. And to accommodate these changes, the applicant ¯ requested for a PC and was accepted by the City Council and he was requested to submit the same for ARB and planning commission approval. The ARB has approved the project and the height is within the 35 feet limit allowed in the CN zoning for mixed-use building and the project is in compliance with the Palo Alto Comprehensive plan. In the light of the above facts, I sincerely request the Planning Commission to approve this project. Thank you, B.B. Patel TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Planning and Transportation Commission, City of Palo Alto Joy Ogawa, 2305 Yale Street, Palo Alto, CA 94306 May 1, 2002 2501 El Camino Real [01-PC-04, 01-ARB-136] - Environmental Review Under CEQA Is Required Staff claims that this project is "Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, in accordance with Section 15303, as it is the new construction of a small structure." Staff is mistaken. This project is not categorically exempt, and environmental review under CEQA is required. This project does not fall within any of the categorical exemptions listed under Section ¯ 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines. In order to qualify for a class 3 categorical exemption under CEQA, new construction must either be (a) a single family residence, (b) a duplex or similar multi-family residential structure, totaling no more than four. dwelling units, (c) a commercial structure not exceeding 2500 square feet in floor area, (d) a utility extension, (e) an accessory structure, or (f) an accessory steam sterilization unit for the treatment of medical waste. (Title 14, California Code of Regulations, Chapter 3. Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (hereinafter, "CEQA Guidelines") Section 15303. New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures). This project, which is a mixed residential and commercial building totaling 4,555 square feet, does not fall under any of these listed categorical exemptions under the CEQA Guidelines. Even if the project could be found to fall within a listed class of categorical exemptions, Section 15300.2 of the CEQA Guidelines makes clear that a categorical exemption does not apply when the project has a significant effect or a cumulative impact. This project has several obvious significant effects as well as cumulative impacts. Inadequate parking is a significant impact. In CMR:218:02 dated April 25, 2002, which reports the criteria used by the Palo Alto city staffto evaluate environmental impacts, the listed criteria under the category of Transportation includes the following: "For the purposes of this project, a traffic impact is considered significant if the project would... [r]esult in inadequate parking capacity ...." Page 1 Therefore, under the City’s current criteria, inadequate parking is a significant impact. This project results in inadequate parking capacity because, under current zoning, the project is required to provide 11 parking spaces, but is providing only seven. The project is located in an area where parking demand already exceeds available street parking. The inadequate parking included in this project further exacerbates the parking demand, and is a cumulative impact. Furthermore, under current zoning, this project violates daylight plane, setback and landscaping requirements. These violations of current zoning requirements also result in significant environmental impacts. ~..~ This. project is not exempt ~om CEQA, it will have significant environmental impacts, even ulader staff’s current criteria. Therefore, an environmental review of this project is required under CEQA, and must be carried out. The significant environmental knpacts mUst either be mitigated to lessthan significant, or an Environmental Impa#~t ~[t, eport must be prepared. Page 2 ¯ 15303. New Construction or Conversion of Sn~alli Structures, Class 3 consists of construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures; installation of small new equipment and facilities in .small structuresi-and the conversion of existing small structures from one use to. another where only minor modifications are made in the exterior of the structure. The numbers of structures desc’ribed in this section are the maximum allowable on any legal parcel. Examples of this exemption include, but are not limited to: (a) One single-family residence, or a second dwelling unit in a residential zone. In urbanized areas, up to three single-family residences.may be constructed or converted under this exemption. " (b) A duplex or similar multi-family.residential structure totaling no more than four dwelling units. In urbanized areas, this exemption applies to apartments, duplexes, and similar strictures designed for not more than six dwelling Units. (c) A store, motel, office, restaurant or similar structure not involving the Use of significant amounts of hazardous substances, and not exceeding 2500 square feet in floor area. In urbanized areas,.the exemption also applies to up ~:o four such commercial buildings not exceeding 10,000 square feet in floor area on sites zoned for such use, if not in.volving the use of significant amounts of hazardous substances where all necessary public services and facilities are available and the surrounding area is. not environmentally sensitive. . ’ ’ operated in accordance with the Medical Waste Management Act (Section 117600, of the Health and Safety Code) and accepts no offsite waste. (d’) Water main, sewagel electrical, gas, and other utility extensions, including street improvements, of reasonable length to serve such construction. (e) Accessory (appurtenant) structures including garages, carports, patiosswimming pools, and fences, ’ (f) An accessory.steam sterilization unit for the treatment of medical wasteat a facility occupied by a medical waste generator, prdvided that the unit is installedand et seq.,