HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-08-06 City Council (9)City of Palo Alto
City Manager’s Report
TO:
FROM:
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
DATE:AUGUST 6, 2001 CMR:335:01
SUBJECT:2051 EL CAMINO REAL [01-D-5, 01-V-9, 01-DEE-I]: REQUEST BY
CARRASCO & ASSOCIATES AND MEHMOOD TAQUI ON
BEHALF OF JOE AND EVELYN BRADFORD FOR SITE AND
DESIGN REVIEW OF A NEW THREE-STORY, MIXED-USE
BUILDING TO CONTAIN GROUND FLOOR RETAIL, SECOND
FLOOR OFFICE AND SECOND AND THIRD FLOOR
RESIDENTIAL USES IN THE CN DISTRICT.
VARIANCES ARE REQUESTED FOR ENCROACHMENTS INTO
FRONT AND SIDE SETBACKS AND SIDE DAYLIGHT PLANES,
INCREASED LOT COVERAGE, AND A REDUCTION IN
REQUIRED PARKING SPACES BY ONE PARKING SPACE.
A DESIGN ENHANCEMENT EXCEPTION IS REQUESTED FOR A
PARTIALLY COVERED RESIDENTIAL PARKING SPACE
WHERE ONE FULLY COVERED RESIDENTIAL PARKING
SPACE IS REQUIRED, AND A REDUCED PERIMETER
PLANTING AREA.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff, the Planning & Transportation Commission and Architectural Review Board
recommend that the City Council approve the proposed project, based upon Site and
Design findings, Variance and Design Enhancement Exception findings and subject to
the recommended conditions of approval (Attachment B).
PRO~ECT DESCRIFFION
The site, shown on the attached location map (Attachment A) is located on the north side
of E1 Camino Real between Stanford Avenue and Oxford Avenue, north of the Multi-
CMR:335:01 Page 1 of 5
Neighborhood Center known as the Cal-Ventura Mixed Use Area. This area is identified
in the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, which designates this site for Neighborhood
Commercial uses.
The 4,938 square foot site is below the typical lot size for parcels in the area, and the
vacant lot contains major vegetation with three mature coast live oaks in good condition
and one oak tree in fair condition. The fifth oak tree is in poor condition, as is the Tree of
Heaven. The tree trunks are located very close to the side and rear property lines, and the
canopies extend across a significant portion of the site and adjacent sites.
A laundromat is located within the one-story building on the parcel to the north and one-
story residential units with detached garages are located on the parcel to the south. The
garages for these residential units front E1 Camino Real. The parcel to the east is
developed with a single-family residence with a detached garage located directly behind
the subject property.
The proposed three-story building includes retail area at the ground floor, office on the
second floor, and one residential unit on the second and third floor. Separate staircases
are proposed for the office area and residential unit. Both the residential and office
staircases would be accessible from the parking area and from the E1 Camino Real
sidewalk. The retail and residential entries would be recessed 3 feet 6 inches from the
front property line. Behind the retail space, a restroom and covered access-way to the
parking area is proposed, which are included in the 433 square foot total retail floor area.
The second floor office area, which includes two restrooms, is proposed to be 1,311
square feet. The residential unit would occupy the rear portion of the second floor (1,020
square feet), and the third floor (1,262 square feet) for a total residential use of of 2,282
square feet. The owner has stated that he plans to live in the residential unit. The third
story would be stepped back from the second floor on all sides, and an open deck area for
the residential unit would be provided on the roof of the second floor.
All parking spaces would be located behind the front portion of the building, partially
covered by the building and accessed from the ground floor. The driveway curb cut and
opening of the "garage" are 18 feet wide and a roll-up vehicle door is proposed at a
distance of 18 feet from the front property line. Eight of the nine required parking spaces,
including one American Disability Act space and two residential spaces, would be
provided as partially covered spaces on site. The parking spaces would be surfaced in
turf-block to allow water to reach the roots of the protected oak trees, and wheel stops
would be installed to prevent vehicles from hitting the oak trees. All healthy existing
mature trees (that is, those in "good" and "fair" condition) would be retained. A street
tree (london plane) will be included in the project
CMR:335:01 Page 2 of 5
The development standards from the RM-15 Zoning District are applied for this project
in accordance with the CN District Regulations for mixed-use projects. Variance and
Design Enhancement Requests are addressed through the Zoning Ordinance (Chapters
18.90 and 18.91). The application includes a Variance request for: side and front setback
encroachments, and side daylight plane encroachments; increased lot coverage (20
percent beyond the 35 percent maximum permitted in RM-15 District regulations, 5
percent beyond the 50 percent maximum permitted in CN District regulations); and eight
parking spaces where 9 spaces are required. A Design Enhancement Exception is
requested to allow partially covered residential parking spaces, and a four foot wide
perimeter planting buffer between the reference west property line and parking space #8,
where a five foot wide planter is required.
The applicant had included a request for increased height in the Variance request for a
building height of 33 feet. The CN District site development regulations, 18.41.050(i)
states the following: "The maximum height shall be 7.6 meters (twenty-five feet). Where
the principal facility has one or more floors in residential use the maximum height shall
be 10.7 meters (thirty-five feet)." When the CN District explicitly calls out a
development standard for residential uses, that standard is applied. In all other
applications, the standards for the RM-15 District are used. Therefore, the project does
not require a height variance because it is below the thirty-five foot height requirement
for residential use in the CN District.
BOARD AND COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Architectural Review Board
The Architectural Review Board (ARB) reviewed initial preliminary development plans
on January 18, 2001. Revised preliminary plans were reviewed by the ARB on April 5,
2001.
On July 12, 2001 the Architectural Review Board (ARB) unanimously recommended
approval of the project with a recommendation that the project return to the ARB for its
review and comment on specific design areas described in condition No. 9.6. The ARB
agreed that the design of the project had made significant progress from the preliminary
reviews and that the project achieves the goals of the Comprehensive Plan to provide
quality mixed-use development on E1 Camino Real. The revised project improved the
street level interest where it fronts on E1 Camino Real and the proposed ground floor
retail added to the pedestrian vitality. With the existing site constraints and the desire for
mixed use, the ARB supported the scale and height of the proposed project and design,
including the need for Variances and Design Enhancement Exceptions. Four members of
the community addressed the ARB regarding .the project. The principal concerns that
were raised included the size and scale of the project in relation to the existing
development, sunlight impacts on adjacent residential uses, and the request for reduced
parking.
CMR:335:01 Page 3 of 5
Planning and Transportation Commission
On July 11, 2001, the Planning and Transportation Commission recommended approval,
on a 3-1-1-2, Burt, no; Byrd, not participating; Bialson and Schink, absent). The
Commission recognized the difficulty of developing mixed use projects in the CN
District, specifically when the RM-15 District development standards are required to be
applied. However, the Commission identified the need to support the Comprehensive
Plan for the area in providing retail and residential uses. The Commission found that the
site constraints of parcel size and the need to preserve the mature oak trees warranted the
need for the requested variances. Commissioner Burt supported .the mixture of uses,
however, he could not support the project because he felt that the building design was not
compatible with the surrounding development.
Six members of the community spoke during the Commission review of the project. The
speakers addressed different areas of the project. There was concern that the existing
shortage of parking would be further impacted by the project. One adjacent resident was
concerned about the building height and the impact on daylight for his residence. This
residence is located on the adjacent side yard, where the row of existing mature oak trees
which shade the area are located. The minimum building setback for the project is 16
feet at the second story and 20 feet at the third story. The project architect explained that
the new building orientation and daylight would affect the adjacent residence in the
evening, when the sun reached its low horizon. The speakers also raised concerns about
the exterior lighting affecting adjacent residential uses, the number of required variances,
the size of the project, and compatibility with existing development. Speakers advised
the Commission that the garages next to their site are not available for parking.
Where the Commission shared the concern regarding the number of variances, it was
generally recognized that they were necessary for the type of mixed use development
desired on E1 Camino Real, and that the project was designed to adequately address the
impacts on the adjacent residences and to preserve the oak trees. The Commission
recommended that the final project review by staff include a lighting design plan to
address adjacent residences and that conditions be added to ensure that the oak trees be
maintained to the satisfaction of the Planning Department.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Location Map
Attachment B:Site and Design, Variance,
findings and conditions.
and Design Enhancement Exceptions
CMR:335:01 Page 4 of 5
Attachment C:Planning and Transportation Commission!Architectural Review Board
Staff Report, July 11 and July 12, 2001.
Attachment D:Planning and Transportation Commission minutes, July 11, 2001
Attachment E:Architectural Review Board minutes, July 12, 200i.
Attachment F:Applicant’s statement.
Plans (Council Members only)
PREPARED BY:
;ARDI
Current Planning Manager
DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW:
~kEeDctoWrAo~piG~A~ ~~~ mmunity Environment
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
EMILY HARRISON
ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER
CMR:335:01 Page 5 of 5
"r i~ e city of
Palo Alto
File No(s):01-D-5
01 -V-9
01-DEE-1
Date: 7/30/01
0’ 100’ 200’
Attachment B
o
Attachment 1: Findings for Approval of Site and Design Permit
2051 E1 Camino Real (01-D-5)
The proposed construction and operation of the use will be conducted in a manner
that will be orderly, harmonious, and compatible with existing or potential uses of
adjoining or nearby sites, in that conditions of approval ensure that lighting, noise,
construction hours and delivery hours will be coordinated to create harmony with
residential neighbors.
The project will ensure the desirability of investment, or the conduct of business,
research, or educational activities, or other authorized occupations, in the same or
adjacent areas, in that the proposed commercial and residential uses will ensure
the desirability of investment and conduct of business and residential uses in
adjacent areas.
Sound principles of environmental design and ecological balance have been
observed in the project design, in that the existing healthy Oak trees will be
preserved and sun shades will be provided on the south facing elevation.
This mixed use project would be in conformance with the Palo Alto
Comprehensive Plan and meets the Comprehensive Plan Policies and Programs
Attachment 2: Draft Variance Findings
2051 Camino Real (01-V-9)
Setbacks and Daylight Plane Encroachments
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL OF VARIANCE FOR ENCROACHMENT
INTO FRONT AND SIDE YARD SETBACKS, AND PROTRUSIONS INTO
SIDE DAYLIGHT PLANES
There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable
to the property involved that do not apply generally to property in the same
district, in that:
A.The lot (4,938 square feet) is smaller than most C-N lots along E1 Camino Real but is
not legally substandard, because the C-N district does not have minimum lot sizes or
dimensions. The lot is 20 feet narrower than the minimum width, and approximately
one foot shorter than the minimum depth necessary for multiple family residential
development (RM-15 district regulations, incorporated into C-N district regulations
by reference for mixed-use projects, require a minimum lot size of 70’ x 100’).
B. The lot contains healthy, mature Oak trees that must be protected in accordance with
Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 8.10, Tree Preservation and Management
Regulations. These Oak trees severely limit the site area and location available for
construction. Construction cannot extend farther than 15’9 ½" towards the
southeasterly (reference east) side property line across a depth of 74’2" (measured
from the rear property line toward the front property line) or farther than 20’ 10:’
toward the rear property line. Therefore, construction is forced toward the reference
west-side property line and front property line.
C. The zoning standards (Chapter 18.41) and design guidelines for E1 Camino Real do
not permit parking to be placed in the required front yard of a parcel and the
Comprehensive Plan discourages parking in the front yard on E1 Camino Real and
encourages parking to the rear of a building.
D. Mixed-use projects in the C-N district are required to have covered parking facilities
for the residential parking spaces (one covered parking space is required for one
residential unit in this case) and screened parking facilities for the commercial parking
spaces along E1 Camino Real. However, underground parking cannot be constructed
because of the Oak tree root system and narrow site width. The only alternative is
ground-level, partially covered parking. To address the visual impact of a large
parking entrance opening at the pedestrian level, the building (parking entrance door)
must extend across the width of the parcel at the front of the parcel. The structure
must encroach into the required 10-foot reference west side setback at the ground
level. (The proposed stalls along the reference east property line are 18 feet deep, the
proposed drive aisle width is 25 feet, the Oak tree protection area width is 2’ 1 ½" and
the trash and stair area width is just under 5 feet). Since the lot is only 50 feet wide,
no width is left to meet the 20-foot combined side setback requirements.
H.Because of the need to allow space for parking, the stairways must be located within
the set back areas to provide required access to the upper stories, to meet Uniform
Building Code exiting requirements.
I.Underground parking cannot be constructed because of the lot size and oak trees. The
height of the resulting taller building (33 feet), which is below the permitted 35 foot -
height for a mixed-use residential element in the CN zone. Reduction in retail or
office space would still require a three story building.
J. Again, because of the need for surface level parking, the uncovered site area at the
rear of the subject property is not well suited to open space recreational use.
Therefore, balconies and decks provide more usable outdoor space for commercial
and residential tenants.
K. The one-story commercial building to the reference west of the subject property is
constructed at the property line, so that a zero setback at the reference west side of the
proposed building would not impact the daylight or functions of the adjacent building.
L. The total floor area that can be constructed on the site does not meet the City’s
minimum threshold to allow shared parking facilities on the project site (where
parking spaces would be used alternately by residential and commercial tenants).
M. The proposed rear setback at the ground floor is larger than required (20 feet where 10
feet is required) and the reference east side setback is larger than required (15’9 ½"
where 10 feet is ~’equired) in order to accommodate the required parking spaces and
protect the Oak trees.
N. Due to the narrow width of the subject parcel, the 16’6" setback required at the
second floor is more restrictive than the side daylight plane restriction at that level.
Since the proposed office floor, discounting the stair, essentially meets the reference
east side daylight plane requirement, the side setback at the office floor level are
unnecessarily restrictive.
2.The granting of the Variances for setback and daylight plane encroachments is
necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of
the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary
hardship, in that:
A.Encroachments into the front and side setbacks to protect the Oak trees are necessary
to make mixed-use development feasible on this parcel.
B.Encroachments into the front and side setbacks to accommodate minimum dimensions
for a screened, ground floor parking lot are necessary to make mixed-use
development feasible on this parcel.
C. Shared parking is not allowed by the City’s regulations, because the proposed floor
area is smaller than required by the Zoning Code to participate in a shared parking
arrangement. Furthermore, there is no available area on the adjoining parcels to
accommodate additional vehicle parking spaces. This is a hardship for the creation
of a mixed-use project on this property.
3
Do
mo
Bo
Co
Do
Eo
The 25-foot front setback required for residential development along a major arterial
street, the 20-foot rear setback and 16’6" side setbacks required at the upper floors
results in an allowable building envelope of only approximately 17 feet in width and
53 feet in length. This would allow for only 901 square feet of building envelope
(18% coverage of the 4,938 square foot site) and make a mixed use project unfeasible
on this parcel.
The granting of the Variances for encroachments into front and side yard
setback and side dayh’ght plane will not be detrimental or injurious to property
or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health,
safety, general welfare or convenience, in that:
The adjacent buildings provide less than 10 feet setbacks from the front property
line, so the proposed reduced front setback for the subject property will not be
detrimental or injurious to these properties, nor to the health safety, general
welfare or convenience of the public.
On the reference east side: Since the proposed zero lot line wall (at the staircase)
has no openings, and since the residential garage on the commercial site to the
south is less than one foot from the shared property line, the site to the east may
still be further developed in the future. Furthermore, there are no windows in the
first floor restroom!hallway that would face the reference east side (set back 7’2
½"). Therefore, the proposed reduced setback will not negatively impact the
adjoining commercial property to the south.
On the reference west side: The commercial site to the north is much narrower
than the subject property, so that it is unlikely that third floor residential
development will ever be developed on that property. Any commercial
redevelopment on the site to the west would not be impacted by the proposed
project’s setback encroachments.
The provision of ground floor retail and residential housing is encouraged in the
Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan,
The requirement to retain mature healthy Oak trees on site limits the available
width and depth of the building, and
The requirement for screened, surface-level parking facilities severely limits the
available location for the desired ground floor retail component.
4
II.
Attachment 3: Draft Variance Findings
2051 Camino Real (01-V-9)
Lot Coverage Increase
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL OF INCREASE IN LOT COVERAGE TO
55%
There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable
to the property involved that do not apply generally to property in the same
district in that:
Ao
B.
C.
D.
2.
Ao
Bo
Do
Eo
The allowable lot coverage for commercial uses on a CN parcel is 50%, which
would be 2,469 square feet of the 4,938 square foot site.
Since a residential unit is proposed above commercial uses, the lot coverage is
limited by RM-15 regulations to 35% of 4,938 square feet, or 1,728.3 square feet.
The oak trees on the site restrict the height of construction on certain portions of
the site, so that the proposed building covers more of the site.
Underground parking is unfeasible on the site due to the small size of the property.
The alternative that conforms to the policies of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan
is to provide parking facilities behind the building so they are adequately screened.
The granting of the requested Variance for increase in lot coverage is necessary
.for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the
applicant.
The site is currently vacant and the provision of ground floor retail and residential
housing is encouraged in the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan.
The proposed lot coverage is 2,713 square feet, which is 244 square feet greater
than the maximum lot coverage available to construct an entirely commercial
project on the site. This is a minor increase in the 50% commercial lot coverage to
establish commercial land use on the site.
The residential unit as proposed would cover less than 35% of the lot if the
commercial component were removed. The 35% lot coverage restriction is too
restrictive to establish commercial uses on the site, due to the reasons in Finding
#1.
The necessity to provide screened, surface-level parking facilities on this site
severely limits the available location for the desired ground floor retail component.
Having three pedestrian doors for three different uses at the front property line
increases the pedestrian amenities on the site.
The granting of the Variance for increase in lot coverage will not be detrimental
to the adjacent properties.
Bo
Co
The adjacent property to the east is a multi-family residential development. Since
the multi-family development is located along the property line and the proposed
building is set back from the east property line, there will be no detrimental impact
from the increased lot coverage.
The adjacent property to the north is a single-family residential development.
Since the rear daylight plane restriction and setback will be met, there will be no
detrimental impact from the increased lot coverage.
The adjacent property to the west is a single story commercial building located
along the common property line. There will be no detrimental impact from the
increased lot coverage.
III.
Attachment 4: Draft Variance Findings
2051 Camino Real (01-V-9)
Reduction in Parking Spaces
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL OF REDUCTION IN ON-SITE PARKING
SPACES FROM NINE TO EIGHT PARKING SPACES.
There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable
to the property involved that do not apply generally to property in the same
district.
A.The zoning standards (Chapter 18.41) and design guidelines for E1 Camino Real do
not permit parking to be placed in the required front yard of a parcel and the
Comprehensive Plan discourages parking in the front yard on E1 Camino Real and
encourages parking to the rear of a building.
B. Since the parking spaces must not be placed in the front setback, and due to the small
size of the property and need to provide a handicapped van space, no more than eight
parking spaces, including a handicapped van space, can be placed on the site.
C. Mixed-use projects in the C-N district are required to have covered parking facilities
for the residential parking spaces and screened parking facilities for the commercial
parking spaces along E1 Camino Real. However, underground parking cannot be
constructed because of the Oak tree root system and narrow site width. The only
altemative is ground-level, partially covered parking.
The granting of the requested Variance for a reduction by one parking space is
necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of
the applicant.
The applicant’s original proposal was for ten parking spaces, including front yard
parking spaces. Due to design and land use considerations expressed by the ARB
and staff, the project was modified to include a retail component and to screen the
parking spaces with a building along the front property line, which eliminated the
available area to provide the ninth parking space.
The granting of the Variance for a reduction by one parking space would not be
detrimental to the adjacent property.
Ao The adjacent property to the east provides garage parking (four garages) for the
residents. Residents’ guests would typically use on street parking at night.
The adjacent property to the west does not provide on site parking. The
laundromat patrons would typically use on street parking.
The parking needs of office and retail tenants and customers are typically business
hours, whereas the parking needs of residential tenants and guests would typically
be after business hours, so the sharing of the eight space parking lot is likely to be
successful.
(a)
Attachment 5: Design Enhancement Exception Findings
2051 El Camino Real (01-DEE-I)
Partially Covered Parking Space and Perimeter Planting Strip Width
A partially covered residential parking space where one fully covered residential
parking space is required. One covered Residential parking space is required. The
requested exception can be approved based upon the following Design
Enhancement Exception Findings:
There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable
to the property or site improvements involved that do not apply generally to
property in the same zone district.
One fully covered residential parking space is required for the residential unit.
Five partially covered spaces are provided. Due to the size of the Oak trees, it
would not be possible to provide completely covered parking on the site, unless
the driveway were located adjacent to the easterly property line under the Oak tree
canopy and five of the parking spaces were located entirely in the covered garage
area.
The granting of the application will enhance the appearance of the site or
structure, or improve the neighborhood character of the project and preserve an
existing or proposed architectural style, in a manner which would not otherwise
be accomplished through strict application of the minimum requirements of
Title 18 and the standards for review set forth in this chapter in that.
The proposed design for partially covered spaces is the best altemative because the
other alternative (placement of the driveway next to the east side property line
would be problematic because: (1) the proximity of the driveway on the adjacent
site to the east, presents a safety hazard, (2) the rear parking spaces would be
reduced from three to two spaces, resulting in a greater parking deficiency, (3) the
parking lot would provide less vehicle maneuverability, and (4) the distinctive
office stair element would be eliminated.
The exception is related to a minor architectural feature or site improvement
that will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the
vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare
or convenience in that
(b)Perimeter planting area width less than five feet adjacent to west-side property
line. The requested exception can be approved based upon the following Design
Enhancement Exception Findings:
2.
There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable
to the property or site improvements involved that do not apply generally to
property in the same zone district.
The site is too narrow to accommodate three parking spaces, oak tree preservatio.n
area and five-foot wide planting beds along both east and west property lines.
The granting of the application will enhance the appearance of the site or
structure, or improve the neighborhood character of the project and preserve an
existing or proposed architectural style, in a manner which would not otherwise
be accomplished through strict application of the minimum requirements of
Title 18 and the standards for review set forth in this chapter.
The decreased planting area width west of parking space #8 (representing a loss of
19 square feet of planting area) is minor. In order to provide the five feet in that
location, the width of the planting area in front of parking spaces #1-#5 would
have to be reduced from five feet to four feet across a greater length of planter,
representing a loss of 74 square feet of planting area. It is preferable to have the
five foot wide planting strip along the east side property line, since more
landscaping is gained on the site.
The exception is related to a minor architectural feature or site improvement
that will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the
vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare
or convenience.
The project plans include a perimeter fence and vine plantings along the fence~, so
the parking area will be sufficiently screened from the adjoining properties, so as
not to be a detriment to views from adjoining properties.
Attachment 6
2051 El Camino Real
Conditions of Site and Design Approval
File 01-D-05
The plans submitted for Building Permit shall be in substantial conformance with plans
dated ., 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
1.2
1.3
1.4
The Applicant shall submit a final Grading and Drainage Plan with the Building
Permit submittal. This plan shall include existing and proposed drainage patterns
on site and from adjacent properties. The plan shall show that pre-existing
drainage patterns to and from adjacent properties are not altered.
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.
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. ~.
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.
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 Permit-tee 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
.
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
2.9
2.10
2.11
2.12
2.13
2.14
2.15
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.
Location of the electric panel/switchboard shall be shown on the site plan and
approved by the Architectural Review Board and Utilities Department.
All utility meters, lines, transformers, backflow preventers, and any other required
equipment shall be shown on the landscape and irrigation plans and shall show
that no conflict will occur between the utilities and landscape materials. In
addition, all aboveground equipment shall be screened in a manner that is
consistent with the building design and setback requirements.
For services larger than 1600 amps, the customer will be required to provide a
transition cabinet as the interconnection point between the utility’s padmount
transformer and the customer’s main switchgear. The cabinet design drawings
must be submitted to the Electric Utility Engineering Department for review and
approval.
No more than four 750MCM conductors per phase can be connected to the
transformer secondary terminals; otherwise, bus duct must be used for connections
to padmount transformers. If customer installs a bus duct directly between the
transformer secondary terminals and the main switchgear, the installation of
transition cabinet will not be required.
The customer is responsible for sizing the service conductors and other required
equipment according to the National Electric Code requirements and the City
standards. Utilities Rule & Regulation # 18.
If the customer’s total load exceeds 2500kVA, service shall be provided at the
primary voltage of 12,470 volts and the customer shall provide the high voltage
switchgear and transformers. Utilities Rule & Regulation #3.
For primary services, the standard service protection is a padmount fault
interrupter owned and maintained by the City, installed at the customer’s expense.
The customer must provide and install the pad and associated substructure
required for the fault interrupter.
2.16 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
includes 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 with 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
the off-site substructure work may be constructed by the Applicant. Utilities Rule
& regulation # 16.
2.21 All primary electric conduits shall be concrete encased with the top of the
encasement at a depth of 30 inches. No more than 180 degrees of bends are
allowed in a primary conduit run. Conduit runs over 500 feet in length require
additional pull boxes.
2.22 All new underground conduits and substructures shall be installed per City
standards and shall be inspected by the Electrical Underground Inspector before
backfilling. Rule & Regulation # 16.
3.4
2.23 The customer is responsible for installing all underground electric service
conductors, bus duct, transition cabinets, and other required equipment. The
installation shall meet the National Electric Code requirements and the City
standards.
2.24 Prior to fabrication of electric switchboards and metering enclosures, the customer
must submit switchboard drawings to the Electric Metering Department at 3201
East Bayshore Road, Palo Alto 94303 for approval. The City requires compliance
with all applicable EUSERC standards for metering and switchgear.
2.25 All new underground electric services shall be inspected and approved by both the
Building Inspection Division and the Electrical Underground Inspector before
energizing. Utilities Rule & regulation # 18.
AFTER CONSTRUCTION & PRIOR TO FINALIZATION
2.26 The customer shall provide as-built drawings showing the location of all
switchboards, conduits (number and size), conductors (number and size), splice
boxes, vaults and switch/transformer pads.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING OCCUPANCY PERMIT
2.26
2.27
2.28
2.29
2.30
2.31
2.32
The applicant shall secure a Public Utilities Easement for facilities installed on
private property for City use. Utilities Rule & Regulations # 16.
All required inspections have been completed and approved by both the Building
Inspection Division and the Electrical Underground Inspector.
All fees must be paid.
All Special Facilities contracts or other agreements need to be signed by the City
and applicant.
The developer/owner shall provide space for installing padmount equipment (i.e.
transformers, switches, and interrupters) and associated substructure as required
by the City. In addition, the owner shall grant a Public Utilities Easement for
facilities installed within the subdivision as required by the City.
The civil drawings must show all existing and proposed electric facilities (i.e.
conduits, boxes, pads, services, and streetlights) as well as other utilities.
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-gas-wastewater service connection
application - load sheet for City of Palo Alto Utilities. The applicant must provide
all the information requested for utility service demands (water in g.p.m., gas in
b.t.u.p.h, and sewer in g.p.d.).
3.2 The applicant shall submit improvement plans for utility construction. The plans
must show the size and location of all underground utilities within the
development and the public fight of way including meters, backflow preventers,
fire service requirements, sewer mains, sewer cleanouts, sewer lift stations and any
other required utilities.
3.3 The applicant must show on the site plan the existence of any water well or
auxiliary water supply.
3.4 The applicant shall be responsible for installing and upgrading the existing utility
mains and!or services as necessary to handle anticipated peak loads. This
responsibility includes all costs associated with the design and construction for the
installation/upgrade of the utility mains and/or services.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT
3.5 The applicant’s engineer shall submit flow calculations and system capacity study
showing that the on-site and off-site water and sanitary sewer mains and services
will provide the domestic, irrigation, fire flows, and wastewater capacity needed to
service the development and adjacent properties during anticipated peak flow
demands. Field-testing may be required to determined current flows and water
pressures on existing main. Calculations must be signed and stamped by a
registered civil engineer.
16
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.
This meter shall be designated as an irrigation account and no other water service
will be billed on the account.
3.10 A new water service line installation for domestic usage is required. Show the
location of the new water service and meter on the plans.
3.11 A new water service line installation for irrigation usage is required. Show the
location of the new water service and meter on the plans.
3.12 A new water service line installation for fire system usage is required. Show the
location of the new water service on the plans. The applicant shall provide to the
engineering department a copy of the plans for fire system including all fire
department’s requirements.
3.13 An approved reduce pressure principle assembly (RPPA backflow preventer
device) shall be installed for all existing and new water connections from Palo
Alto Utilities to comply with requirements of California administrative code, title
17, sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive. The RPPA shall be installed on the
owner’s property and directly behind the water meter. Show the location of the
RPPA on the plans. Inspection by the utilities cross connection inspector is
required for the supply pipe between the meter and the assembly.
3.14 An approved detector check valve shall be installed for the existing or new water
connections for the fire system to comply with requirements of California
administrative code, title 17, and sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive. Double
check detector check valves shall be installed on the owner’s property adjacent to.
the property line. Show the location of the detector check assembly on the plans.
Inspection by the utilities cross connection inspector is required for the supply
pipe between the City connection and the assembly.
3.15 A new gas service line installation is required. Show the new gas meter location
on the plans. The gas meter location must conform to utilities standard details.
3.16 A new sewer lateral installation is required. Show the location of the new sewer
lateral on the plans
DURING CONSTRUCTION
3.17 The contractor shall contact underground service alert (800) 227-2600 one week in
advance of starting excavation to provide for marking of underground utilities.
3.18 The applicant shall provide protection for utility lines subject to damage. Utility
lines within a pit or trench shall be adequately supported. All exposed water, gas,
and sewer lines shall be inspected by the WGW Utilities Inspector prior to
backfilling.
3.19 The contractor shall maintain 12" clear, above and below, from the existing
utilities to the new underground facilities.
3.20 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.
3.21 All utility installations shall be in accordance with the City of Palo Alto utility
standards for water, gas & wastewater.
3.22 Utility service connections will be installed between 30 and 40 days following
receipt of full payment. Large developments must allow sufficient lead-time (6
weeks minimum) for utility construction performed by 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
performed by authorized utilities department personnel. The applicant’s contractor
shall notify the Utilities Department not less than forty-eight (48) hours in advance
of the time that such operation is required.
3.28 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.
3.29 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 Changes from the utility standards or approved submittals will require new
submittals, as specified above, showing the changes. The new submittals must be
approved by the utilities engineering section before making any change.
3.31 All improvements to the gas system will be performed by the City of Palo Alto
Utilities.
3.32 All customer piping shall be inspected and approved by the building inspection
division before gas service is instituted. Gas meters will be installed within five
working days after the building piping passes final inspection and the building
inspection division sends the set tag to the Utilities Department.
4. Utilities Marketing Division
4.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
Prior to issuance of either a Building Permit or Grading Permit, all common area
landscaping shall be approved by the Utilities Marketing Services division of the
Utilities Department. The landscape shall conform to the Landscape Water
Efficiency Standards of the City of Palo Alto. A water budget shall be assigned to
the project and a dedicated irrigation water meter shall be required. Call the
Landscape Plan Review Specialist at 650.329.2549 for additional information.
Fire Department Conditions
A fire sprinkler system shall be provided for each building which meets the
requirements of NFPA Standard No. 13 - 1996 Edition. Fire Sprinkler system
installations require separate submittal to the Fire Prevention Bureau.
(PAMC 15.04.083) NOTE: Building plans will not be approved unless complete
sprinkler coverageis indicated.
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. (PAMC15.04.083)NOTE: Fire Department approval will
be withheld until Utilities Department and Public Works Department requirements
have been met.
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 ground floor retail space shall be provided with separate men’s and women’s
accessible restrooms, based on occupant load (calculated as total square footage
divided by 30).
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.
2O
8.2
8.3
Transportation Division
A landscape plan must be provided which must also show clearly the back of the
sidewalk and any obstructions to the required sight distance.
Planning Arborist
Tree Appraisal. In addition to the Tree Inventory and Protection Plan, the
applicant shall submit a tree appraisal or replacement value of all site trees
to be removed and trees to be preserved (each tree listed separately and
formula used). The appraisal shall be performed in accordance with the
current edition of the Guide for Plant Appraisal, under the auspices of the
Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers.
The grading plans shall specify critical information outlined in the arborist
report, such as root buffer zones, tree protection fencing, wearing surface
material for the driveway and parking areas over the tree roots, aeration
systems, etc. Cut sheet details shall be provided and approved by the
Planning Division Arborist.
To avoid root-severing excavation, standard curb and gutter construction
shall not be used. The final plans shall employ on-grade asphalt berm or
surface-set wheel blocks.
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:
Co
a.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.
Irrigation schedule and plan.
Fence locations.
23.
8.6
8.7
eo Lighting plan with photometric data.
f. Trees to be retained shall be irrigated,aerated and maintained as
necessary to ensure survival.
g. Specify quantity, size and spacing of Boston ivy plantings.
h. Ceanothus (sun-loving) vegetation shall be replaced with a shade
tolerant variety compatible with the predominantly covered area.
i. All new trees planted within the public fight-of-way, as shown on the
approved plans, shall be installed per Public Works Standard Tree
Well Diagram #503, shall have a tree pit dug at least twice the
diameter of the root ball. The Public Works Detail #503 shall be
shown on Landscape Plans. A Four foot square tree grate approved by
Public Works Engineering Department shall be installed.
j. 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.
k.The Landscape Plan shall ensure the backfiow preventer is adequately
obscured by planting the appropriate size and type shrubbery, fitted
with green wire cage, or painted dark green to minimize visibility.
Approved Planting Soil Mix. The planting soil in the planter areas shall show a
uniform soil mix to a 24-inch depth. Prior to planting, the contractor shall provide
soils lab report to the City Arborist verifying that the following soil mix has been
delivered to the site.
a. Palo Alto Soil Mix by volume (pre-mix off site)
*65% sandy loam (mostly medium to coarse grade)
*15% clay
*10% 1/4-inch fir bark
*10% volcanic rock
¯Fertilizer. Combine Osmocote 18-6-12 or equivalent at label rates per
yard in the 12-inch area surrounding each root ball.
Tree Protection and Preservation Plan. All specifications recommended in the
arborist report shall be implemented (Ray Morneau Arborist, dated April 26,
2001). The grade of the existing oak roots shall be determined and evaluated to
establish the grade of proposed improvements, aeration of the critical root zone
and to enable the health and long term viability of the oak trees. A Tree Protection
Zone (TPZ) for each tree to be retained in which no soil disturbance is permitted
shall be established and be clearly designated on all improvement plans, including
22
8.8.
8.9.
8.10.
8.11.
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.
Root buffering specified root zone areas specified in the arborist report is
mandatory.
All recommendations specified in the Tree Preservation Report for the project
shall be implemented and maintained throughout the course of construction. A
separate TREE PROTECTION AND PRESERVATION INSTRUCTIONS sheet
shall accompany the plans submitted for building permit and referenced on all
Civil drawings (Utility, Storm, Grading, Erosion, etc.); Demolition; Staging;
Building; Landscape, Planting and Irrigation Plans. The Tree Protection and
Preservation sheet shall also contain the following notes: Conditions of Approval
#1-9 listed below and the arborist report (Ray Morneau Arborist, dated April 26,
2001). This sheet shall clearly show the tree protection zone, indicating where the
fencing will be placed and denote all trees to be retained and those to be removed.
(Ray Morneau Arborist, dated April 26, 2001). The grade of the existing oak roots
shall be determined and evaluated to establish the grade of proposed
improvements, aeration of the critical root zone and to enable the health and long
term viability of the oak trees.
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 and non-compacted state and 3) to identify the Tree Protection Zone (TPZ)
in which no soil disturbance is permitted and activities are restricted, unless
otherwise approved.
Size, type and area to be fenced. All trees to be preserved shall be protected
with five or six (5’ - 6’) foot high chain link fences. Fences are to be mounted on
two-inch diameter galvanized iron posts, driven into the ground to a depth of at
least 2-feet at no more than 10-foot spacing.
Type I Tree Protection
23
The fences shall enclose the entire area under the canopy dripline or TPZ of the
tree(s) to be saved throughout the life of the project. Parking areas: fencing must
be located on paving or concrete that will not be demolished, the posts may be
supported by an appropriate grade level concrete base.
Type II Tree Protection
For trees situated within a narrow planting strip, only the planting strip shall be
enclosed with the required chain link protective fencing in order to keep the
sidewalk and street open for public use.
Type III Tree Protection
Trees situated in a small tree well or sidewalk planter pit, shall be wrapped with
2-inches of orange plastic fencing from the ground to the first branch and overlaid
with 2-inch thick Wooden slats bound securely (slats shall not be allowed to dig
into the bark). During installation of the plastic fencing, caution shall be used to
avoid damaging any branches. Major scaffold limbs may also require plastic.
fencing as directed by the City Arborist
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 waming 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.
8.13 During construction, all neighbors’ trees that overhang the project site shall be
protected from impact of any kind.
8.14 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.
8.15 During construction, the following tree preservation measures apply to all trees to
be retained:
24
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
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 International
Society of Arboriculture (WC-ISA) Guidelines; Standard Practices for Tree
Care Operations outlined in the ANSI A300-1995; ANSI Z133-1994 and
Chapter 8.10 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code.
b.Any work on trees within the right-of-way must first be approved by Public
Works at (650) 496-6974.
8.17
8.18
Landscape Architect Inspection prior to Occupancy. The contractor shall call for
an inspection by the Landscape Architect, and provide written verification to the
Planning Department that all trees, shrubs, planting and irrigation are installed and
functioning as specified in the approved plans.
Post Construction Maintenance. For the life of the project, all landscape shall be
well-maintained, watered, fertilized, and pruned according to Nursery and
American National Standards for Tree, Shrub and Other Woody Plant
Maintenance- Standard Practices (ANSI A300-1995). Any vegetation that dies
shall be replaced or failed automatic irrigation repaired by the current property
owner within 30 days of discovery.
9.Planning Division
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.
25
Truck deliveries shall be prohibited before 8: AM and after & 7:00 PM.
Prior to submittal for building permits, the applicant shall provide the planning
department with materials for the ARB to review and provide comments. The
items are as follows:
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Physical materials board, including color of the cast in place concrete walls.
Tree maintenance and protection plan.
Location of utilities and mechanical equipment.
Study and detailing of entry element to garage, including signage.
Landscape and hardscape materials.
Final color elevations.
Final design of balcony screening, louvers, and structural design for the
front fagade.
List of environmental "green building" program for construction.
26
Attachment C
2PLANNING DIVISION
STAFF REPORT
TO:PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
FROM:
AGENDA DATES:
Amy French, Senior Planner DEPARTMENT: Planning and
Community Environment
July 11, 2001, Planning & Transportation Commission
July 12, 2001, Architectural Review Board
SUBJECT:2051 El Camino Real [01-D-5, 01-V-9, 01-DEE-I]: Request by
Carrasco & Associates and Mehmood Taqui on behalf of Joe and
Evelyn Bradford for Site and Design Review of a new 4,325 square
foot, three story building to contain ground floor retail, second
floor office and second and third floor residential uses, on a 4,938
square foot parcel in the CN District.
Variances are requested for:
Encroachments into front and side setbacks and side daylight
planes
(1) Increased lot coverage (5% above CN District, 20% above
RM-15)
(2) A reduction in required parking spaces by one parking space
(a total of eight parking spaces are proposed where nine are
required.
A Design Enhancement Exception is requested for (a) a partially
covered residential parking space where one fully covered
residential parking space is required, and (b) a four foot wide
perimeter planting area on west side of parking stall #8 where a
five foot wide planting area is required.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Planning Commission and Architectural Review Board recommend
approval of the Site and Design application to the City Council, based upon the attached
City of Palo Alto Page !
Findings (Attachment 1) and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval (Attachment
6).
Planning Commission
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of:
(1) Variances for encroachments into the front and side setbacks and side daylight
planes, based upon the attached Findings (Attachment 2);
(2) A Variance for a 20% lot coverage increase above the CN District 35% maximum
for a mixed-use project, based upon the attached Findings (Attachment 3); and
(3)A Variance for the elimination of one required parking space, based upon the
attached Findings (Attachment 4);
Architectural Review Board
Staff recommends that the Architectural Review Board recommend approval, based upon
the attached Findings (Attachment 5), of a Design Enhancement Exception for:
a) a partially covered residential parking space where one fully covered residential
parking space is required, and
b) a four foot wide perimeter planting area on the west side of parking stall #8 where five
foot wide perimeter planting area is required.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Site Information
The site is located on the north side of E1 Camino Real between Stanford Avenue and
Oxford Avenue, north of the Multi-Neighborhood Center known as the Cal-Ventura
Mixed Use Area identified in the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, which designates this
site for Neighborhood Commercial uses.
The 4,938 square foot is below the typical lot size for parcels in the area, and the vacant
lot contains major vegetation. According to the Arborist Report, there are three mature
Coast Live Oaks in good condition and one Oak tree in fair condition. The fifth Oak tree
is in poor condition, as is the Tree of Heaven. The existing street tree, a London Plan
tree, is in the location of the proposed driveway. The tree trunks are located very close to
the side and rear property lines, and the canopies extend across a significant portion of the
site and adjacent sites.
A laundromat is located within the one-story building on the parcel to the north and one-
story residential units with detached garages are located on the parcel to the south. The
garages for these residential units front E1 Camino Real. The parcel to the east is
developed with a single-family residence with a detached garage located directly behind
the subject property.
CiO’ of Palo Alto Page 2
Project Description
Building
The proposed three-story building includes retail area at the ground floor, office and
residential areas at the second floor, and residential area at the third floor. The exterior
materials include glass storefront at the first level, with stucco plaster on the second floor
walls and wood, horizontal siding on the third floor walls. An aluminum sun-screen with
horizontal fins would shade south-facing windows at the second floor level. Cast in place
concrete would be used for walls along the side property lines.
Separate staircases are proposed for the office and residential units and comprise 537
square feet of floor area. The office stair would be located to the right of the retail store,
and the residential stair would be located to the left of the driveway. Both the residential
and office staircases would be accessible from the parking area and from the E1 Camino
Real sidewalk. Office tenants would be allowed to use the residential staircase as an
emergency, secondary staircase. The retail and residential entries would be recessed
(3’6" from the front property line) and glass doors are proposed. A perforated aluminum
panel is proposed for the office door and front wall of the office stair, located to the fight
of the retail store. Behind the retail space, a restroom and covered access-way to the
parking area is proposed, which are included in the 433 square foot total retail floor area.
The second floor office area, which includes two restrooms, is proposed to be 1,232
square feet. The residential unit would occupy the rear portion of the second floor (682
square feet), and the third floor (1262 square feet) for a total of 1,944 square feet. The
owner has stated that he plans to live in the residential unit. The residential floor plans
show three bedrooms, a study, two bathrooms, and a cantilevered rear balcony at the
second floor, and living/dining area, a small kitchen, ½ bathroom, two bedrooms and
uncovered deck areas on the third floor. The third story would be stepped back from the
second floor on all sides, and open deck area for the residential unit would be provided on
the roof of the second floor. The second floor wall would be cantilevered approximately
2’4" over the first floor wall.
The mechanical equipment (HVAC unit) is proposed on the roof of the office toward the
office staircase and front parapet wall. The solid stucco parapet/guardrail at the third floor
deck would provide some screening of the unit from E1 Camino Real and afford residents
some privacy at the rear deck. Exterior lighting (two light sconces) are proposed on the
residential second floor rear wall to illuminate the cantilevered second floor deck.
Parking and site development
All parking spaces would be located behind the front portion of the building, partially
covered by the building and accessed from the ground floor. The driveway curb cut and
opening of the "garage" are 18 feet wide and a roll-up vehicle door is proposed at a
Cio’ of Palo Alto Page 3
distance of 18 feet from the front property line. Tenants would access the door using a
remote control device. There would be a keypad for bicyclists, fire and police personnel.
Customers to the retail would likely park on the street. Visitors to the residential unit may
park on site, with access provided by the owner to the secured parking. Special paving is
proposed on the covered drive in front of the roll-up door, and Boston ivy is proposed
along the side walls of the entry. Covered trash and recycling facilities would be
provided behind the residential staircase.
Eight of the nine required parking spaces, including one ADA space and two residential
spaces, would be provided as partially covered spaces on site. The six parking spaces
along the easterly property line are 18 feet in length, 5’6" of which would be covered by
the second floor. The three spaces at the rear would be 16 foot deep, 10 feet of which
would be covered by the second floor residential deck. The parking spaces would be
surfaced in turf-block to allow water to reach the roots of the protected Oak trees, and
wheel stops would be installed to prevent vehicles from hitting the Oak trees. Boston Ivy
is proposed along the property lines, to grow onto a black wire seven foot high fence.
Ground cover (Ceanothus) is proposed between the turf block and the Boston Ivy. All
healthy existing mature trees (that is, those in "good" and "fair" condition) would be
retained. A street tree is proposed, in a species to be identified in the landscape plans for
review by the Architectural Review Board.
BACKGROUND
Proiect History_
The Architectural Review Board (ARB) reviewed initial preliminary development plans
on January 18, 2001. Revised preliminary plans were reviewed by the ARB on April 5,
2001. The ARB and citizens’ comments are summarized below.
First ARB Preliminary Review
The building in the original plans did not include a ground floor retail component, had
greater office floor area and less residential floor area than the current proposal, and
included a large basement area. The first project more closely conformed to the lot
coverage limitation (proposed at 2% over the allowed 35%), met the 10’ front setback
requirement for the commercial portion, but did not meet the 25’ front setback for the
residential portion.
The ARB suggested that mixed use with residential may not be appropriate on such a
substandard lot and noted the conflict between the Comprehensive Plan goals and Zoning
Ordinance development standards for mixed uses. The ARB also noted their concern
about the success of live-work spaces, loss of privacy for the residential lot behind the
site, location of the mechanical equipment, and the need for neighborhood outreach.
Concerned that the building appeared as a parking structure and parking requirements
City of Palo Aho Page 4
were driving the design, the ARB suggested that ground floor uses be introduced to
engage the public at pedestrian level, Feeling that the massing of the building appeared
forced onto the small site, and believing that the exterior materials (slate tiles) and
architectural style were incompatible with neighboring structures or E1 Camino Real, the
ARB suggested reducing the mass and using lighter materials. A member of the public
spoke regarding her opinion that the building should be pedestrian-oriented, should
include retail use on the ground floor, with neighborhood-serving office uses on the
second floor.
Second ARB Preliminary_ Review
The applicant was advised to submit concept drawings for a second preliminary review
prior to submitting a formal application for Planning Commission review. The revised
proposal:
¯introduced retail area with storefront glass at the ground floor,
¯changed the exterior materials from slate tile to stucco and wood siding,
¯introduced a second floor wood-louvered screen
¯eliminated the front yard setback,
¯reduced the garage opening from 25 feet to 18 feet, and
¯removed the basement (because of the proximity of the Oak trees on the site.)
The ARB expressed their support for the retail component and the yellow stucco panel
above the residential entry. The ARB expressed concern about the survival of the turf in
the turf block under the Oak trees. The ARB suggested using operable louvers, photo-
voltaics, salvaged or certified woods, glass on the office door, different colors to break up
the austerity. The ARB suggested improving the concrete masonry unit walls on the side
property lines, and asked the applicant to address the building facade behind the louvers.
The ARB asked the applicant to study the concrete paving pattern at the driveway entry to
the parking area, explore stained concrete walls at the vehicle entry and introducing vine
pockets along these walls, take the storefront glass over to the office door and up the
office stair volume, and increase the valance height above the storefront to allow for
signage. The ARB asked the applicant to consider breaking up the 20 foot-tall span of
trellis to see what’s behind it, using a glazed or transparent roll up vehicle door and
finding other alternatives to concrete masonry unit walls. The ARB asked the applicant to
submit a massing model and provide a landscape plan for their next review.
During the second ARB preliminary review, one member of the public spoke about the
project. She noted her concem about variances, stating that the project does not have a
five-foot wide landscape strip at parking lot, or the required 10 foot front setback, and is
5% over lot coverage. She noted that, by proposing mixed uses, the applicant was
gaining a height advantage of 10 feet as well as parking advantages. Actually, with the
mixed-use development, the more restrictive RM-15 regulations are applied, thus the
Ci& of Palo Alto Page 5
nedd for variances.
She suggested switching the office use to residential use, noting her concern about
conversion of residential space to office space. She noted that the laundromat is recessed
four feet, stated her concern about the rollup door restricting the parking lot and about the
deck looking into the backyard of the residence to the rear.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS/SIGNIFICANT ISSUES
Variance and Design Enhancement Requests (Chapters 18.90 and 18.91)
The application includes a Variance request for (1) side and front setback encroachments,
and side daylight plane encroachments, (2) increased lot coverage (20% beyond the 35%
maximum permitted in RM-15 District regulations, 5% beyond the 50% maximum
permitted in CN District regulations), and (3) eight parking spaces where 9 spaces are
required. A Design Enhancement Exception (DEE) is requested to allow (a) partially
covered residential parking spaces, and (b) a four foot wide perimeter planting buffer
between the reference west property line and parking space #8, where a five foot wide
planter is required.
The applicant has included a request for increased height in their Variance request a
building height of 33 feet. This is necessary because the P_M-15 development standards,
Chapter 18.22.050(g) has a height limit of 30 feet.
The applicant has included in the DEE request an allowance for common residential open
space on the residential roof deck and second floor residential balcony in lieu of a portion
of the ground floor common area. Although 30% of the lot area is required to be common
open space for multi-family residential projects, staff is of the opinion that an exception
for multi-family common open space is really not needed, since there is only one
residential unit. The proposed private open space (1,188 square feet, or 24% of the lot
area) greatly exceeds the private open space requirements of the RM-15 District (50
square feet). The additional open space (landscaping other than parking area plus a
walkway) proposed at ground level is approximately 800 square feet, which represents
approximately 16% of the lot area. So the proposed total open space would be 1,988
square feet or 40% of the lot area.
Site and Design Review (Chapter 18.82)
The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires the Planning Commission to make the following
findings in order to approve the Site and Design request:
(a) Construction and operation of the use will be conducted in a manner that will be
orderly, harmonious, and compatible with existing or potential uses of adjoining or
nearby sites.
(b) The project will ensure the desirability of investment, or the conduct of business,
City of Palo Alto Page 6
research, or educational activities, or other authorized occupations, in the same or
adjacent areas.
(c) Sound principles of environmental design and ecological balance shall be observed.
(d) The use will be in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan.
Proposed findings for conditional approval of the Site and Design application are
provided in Attachment 1, attached to this report.
Variance Discussion
Side Setbacks and Daylight Plane
The CN District regulations requires a 10 foot interior side yard setbacks for commercial
projects when the property abuts an R-2 zone (the project site abuts an R-2 zone to the
rear). However, the RM-15 District regulations which are applicable to mixed residential
and non-residential projects in the CN District also requires a 10-foot side setback at the
first floor level and a setback equal to one half the height of the structure at the upper
floors. In this case, the proposed height is 33 feet, so the required side setback at the
upper floors is 16’6".
The proposed building would have zero setback at the west interior sideyard, and a zero
setback at interior east sideyard at the office stair along 21 ’2" of the property line.
Because the site abuts an R-2 zone at the rear, a 10 foot interior sideyard is required (The
rear yard setback is 27 feet where 20 feet is required). The two site along the projects
sideyards are in a CN District. However a variance is required for the sideyard setbacks.
The front yard setback is zero feet, where 25 feet is required along an arterial street._The
portion of the development that is located at the zero setback is the ground floor retail and
parking entrance. The second floor office is also a t zero setback, and the residential unit
on the third floor is setback 10 feet. A variance is required for the frontyard setback
reduction to zero feet.
The building will encroach into the west-side daylight plane at all three floors. The
building will encroach into the east-side daylight plane at the top five feet of the second
floor volume and the top seven feet of the third floor volume.
Findings supporting the requested Variance for encroachments into the Side Setbacks and
Side Daylight Planes are provided in Attachment 2. The lot is smaller than most other
sites in the area and 20 narrower than the minimum width. Significant oak trees align on
interior sideyard, these factor create a difficult development site, especially for mixed-use
development standards and parcels abutting an R-2 zone to the rear. Insofar as the rear
setback with the R-2 property is maintains a greater than required setback and the nature
of the lot size, configuration and protection of the oaks trees, staff supports the sideyard
CiO, of Palo Alto Page 7
setback and daylight plane variance.
Front Setback and Building Height
The CN District requires a 25 foot front setback for a mixed use project. The proposal is
for an approximately one-foot front setback, with recessed entries three feet back from the
setback. The third floor front wall of the residential unit would meet the 25-foot required
front setback. The retail and office portions of the building on the first and second floor
would not meet the minimum front setbacks.
Where a mixed-use project is proposed in a CN District, the RM-15 standards apply. In
that application the RM-15 maximum building height is 30 feet, instead of the 35 feet
allowed in the CN standards. The project proposes a second and third floor residential
unit with a height of 33 feet, which is 3 feet above the requirement and therefore a
variance is required.
Findings supporting the requested Variance for encroachment into the Front Setback and
height are provided in Attachment 2. Similar to the sideyard variance, the lot size and
configuration results in substandard conditions for development. In addition, the
developer added a ground floor retail space to enhance the neighborhood commercial area
as well as strengthen the street frontage for pedestrian activity. Because of the narrow
width and the oak trees, the development envelope is considerably less, and a three foot
increase over the height requirement for the residential unit can be supported.
Floor Area and Lot Coverage
The proposed building would cover 55% of the site (2,713 square feet of coverage).
Therefore, the Variance request is for a 5% increase above the C-N District’s 50%
maximum lot coverage or 20% above the RM-15 District’s 35% maximum lot coverage.
During preliminary ARB review process, staff and the ARB encouraged the provision of
retail floor area at the ground floor, the reduction in the garage opening and placement of
parking behind the building. The addition of a ground floor retail component would
contribute to the retail vitality of E1 Camino Real as encouraged in the Comprehensive
Plan for all Centers, Policy L-20. Staff supports the provision of residential housing on
¯ the upper floors as encouraged in the Comprehensive Plan for all Centers, Policy L-19.
The size and lot configuration in conjunction with preserving the oak trees results in a
challenging site to achieve a mixed use project with ground floor retail and residential
components. Staff supports the findings for a Variance to allow a 55% Lot Coverage are
provided in, Attachment 3.
Parking Space
Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 18.83 contains sections allowing the Director or
Zoning Administrator to adjust parking requirements. Section 18.83.120 allows the
Cit3., of Palo Alto Page 8
Director of Planning and Community Environment to reduce the number of stalls by up to
20% for joint use parking facilities for 30 or more parking spaces. Section 18.83.130
allows the Zoning Administrator to reduce the number of stalls by up to ten spaces for
joint use parking facilities in parking assessment districts. Since the project site is not
within an assessment district and only nine spaces are required, the City Council will
decide on the parking Variance request upon recommendation by the Planning
Commission.
The introduction of a retail component for the mixed use project resulted in design
changes that would support retail customers using on-street parking. In addition the
narrow lot size oak trees makes it prohibitive to develop below grade parking. Findings
supporting a Variance to allow 8 spaces where 9 spaces are required are provided in
Attachment 4.
Design Enhancement Exception Discussion
Partially covered residential parking space
One fully covered residential parking space is required for the residential unit. Five
partially covered spaces are provided. Due to the size of the Oak trees, it would not be
possible to provide completely covered parking on the site, unless the driveway were
located adjacent to the easterly property line under the Oak tree canopy and five of the
parking spaces were located entirely in the covered garage area. However, this alternative
redesign would be more severe than the proposed design due to: (1) the proximity of the
driveway on the adjacent site to the east, resulting in a safety hazard, (2) a need to reduce
the rear parking spaces from three to two spaces, resulting in a greater parking deficiency,
(3) less vehicle maneuverability, and (4) elimination of the office stair element as a
distinctive architectural component. Therefore, staff supports a Design Enhancement
Exception for partially covered parking spaces.
Perimeter planting area
The decreased planting area width west of parking space #8 (representing a loss of 19
square feet of planting area) is minor. The site is too narrow to accommodate the parking
spaces and the five foot wide planting beds along both east and west property lines. In
order to provide the five feet in that location, the width of the planting area in front of
parking spaces #1-#5 would have to be reduced from five feet to four feet across a greater
length of planter, representing a loss of 74 square feet of planting area. Therefore, staff
supports a Design Enhancement Exception for a decrease in the width of the planting area
on the west-side of space #8.
Multiple Family Guidelines (Chapter 18.28)
Although the project includes only one residential unit, it is subject to Chapter 18.28
regulations. The project conforms to many of the Chapter 18.28 Multiple Family
CiO, of Palo Alto Page 9
Guidelines, including the following provisions:
¯Pedestrian protection from water at the entries,
¯Accessible and screened trash and recycling area,
¯Textured paving on driveways,
¯Rooftop equipment screens,
¯Common outdoor area special paving,
¯No illumination in parking areas and common open space,
¯Textured paving on all parking spaces in the rear parking lot.
The following feature suggested in the Guidelines has not yet been incorporated into this
project but will be required in conditions of approval (Attachment 6):
¯Adequate insulation and double glazed windows (not indicated on drawings).
Additional Site Development & Design Regulations, Commercial Districts (Chapter
18.64)
The following guidelines are applicable to this C-N Zone project, since the project is
within 150 of a residential district:
¯Minimize visual impacts from both interior lighting sources (timing devices for
interior lights) and exterior lighting sources (no unnecessary continued illumination,
timing devices, plus limitation in mounting height to 15 foot high, lowest intensity and
energy use feasible).
¯No highly reflective surfaces/glazing facing residential, subdued paint colors.
¯Roof protrusions should be obscured from public view by roof screen or proper
placement.
¯Late hour and early morning truck traffic should be discouraged
The project would meet these guidelines. Conditions of approval in Attachment 6 would
ensure the project’s impacts upon the adjacent residential parcel would be minimized.
C-N District (Chapter 18.41) regulations for mixed use project
The C-N Zoning District requires the use of RM-15 Zoning District development
regulations for mixed residential and commercial projects. Density and FAR regulations
are specifically described for mixed-use projects in the C-N Zoning District regulations.
The proposed project complies with the density and FAR regulations for mixed uses. The
following table (Table 1) illustrates the project’s conformance (and non-conformance)
with applicable regulations for mixed-use projects in the C-N District:
CiO, of Palo Alto Page 10
Feature
Density*
Maximum FAR**
Site width
Site depth
Height
Rear Setback
Table 1: CONFORMANCE WITH C-N REGULATIONS FOR MIXED USE
PROJECT
Regulation Proposed
East Side Setback
West Side Setback
Front Setback
15 res. Units/acre
site is. 11 acre
.9:1 (.5:1
residential, .4:1
nonresidential)
70 feet min
100 feet min
35 feet
20 feet
10’ 1st ft., 16’6"
upper floors (1/2 of
the proposed 33’
height)
10’ 1st fl. 16’6"
upper floors
25’ next to arterial
Required on rear
and sides
Daylight Plane (45
degrees)
1 res. Unit
.87:1 (.423:1 res.,
.337:1 comm., .1:1
res/comm stairways)
50 feet (existing)
100 feet (existing)
33 feet
29’ @ Ist floor,
26’8" @ 2nd floor
walls and 3rd floor
deck, 21’ @ 2nd
floor balcony
0 feet at office, 7’ to
office deck and hall
below, 15’-9 ½" to
office & residential
wall, 20’7 ½" to
third floor wall
O’ 1~t and 2’~’~ ft.,
5’8" 3rd fl.
0’ at perpendicular
western wall end,
less than 1’ across
50’4" front wall.
Encroachments into
west and east side
daylight plane
Conformance
Conforms
Conforms
For mixed-use
project, substandard
with RM- 15 multi-
family residential
For mixed-use
project, substandard
with MR- 15 multi-
family residential.
Conforms
Conforms
Variance requested
Variance requested
24’ encroachment.
Variance requested.
Variance requested.
Cio, of Palo Alto Page I1
Table 1: CONFORMANCE WITH C-N REGULATIONS FOR MIXED USE
PROJECT (continued)
Lot Coverage
Usable Common
Open Space,
residential unit
Usable Private Open
Space for residential
unit
Maximum size,
office
35% of the site area
(1,728 sq.ft.) for
RM15 (50% for
CN)
30% of site area
(1,481 sq.fi.) at
grade
Balcony 50 sq. ft.
min. or 100 sq.fl.
private patio
Office up to 2,500
55% of the site area
(2,713 square feet)
836 sq.ft, at grade,
1,188 sq.ft, at 2nd
and 3rd floor decks.
17% (1188 sq.ft.) at
2"a and 3ra floor
decks
1,232 s.f. office
20% over RM- 15 lot
coverage, 5% over
CN lot coverage
DEE requested.
Private decks to
serve as "common"
space for a single
family residence
Conforms
Conforms
*One unit is within the density limitation set forth in Section 18.22.060 (incorporated by
reference in the C-N District regulations). The entire site area is used for density
calculation irrespective of non-residential area per PAMC Section 18.41.070(a)(1).
**The covered drive aisle and semi-covered portion of parking spaces not counted as
floor area.
Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations (Chapter 18.83)
The following table illustrates the project’s conformance and non-conformance:
PARKING FACILITIES SUBJECT TO CHAPTER 18.83 REGULATIONS
Parking Spaces
Vehicle
ADA accessible
Bicycle, commercial
Bicycle, residential
Loading space
Required
9 spaces ( 7 spaces
at 1:250 sq.ft, for
office, 1:200 sq.ft.
for retail, plus one
uncovered and one
covered spaces for
residential)
One space
1 space
None required
None required
Proposed
Total: 8 spaces
including five
9’xl 8’ partially
covered spaces and
3 uncovered
compacts
One van space
Two bike rack
spaces
NA
No loading space
Conformance
Variance for one
retail space and
DEE requested for
partially covered
residential spaces
Conforms
One space conforms
NA
NA
Cir., of Palo Alto Page 12
LANDSCAPING SUBJECT TO REGULATIONS OF PAMC CHAPTER 18.83
Landscape Feature
% interior parking
lot plantings
Islands (5’ x 5’
min.)
# interior trees in
surface parking lot
Tree, shrub sizes
Perimeter plantings
Required
7.5% of facility area
Proposed
More than 7.5%
Conformance
Conforms
One per ten spaces Conforms
ConformsOne tree per six
stalls
Less than ten spaces
in a row
Six existing trees
per 10 stalls
Existing trees, ivy,
grass
Five foot wide strip
provided at rear and
east side property
lines, 4’ at west side
property line.
15 gal. trees, 25%
24’.’ box, 5 gal
shrubs 50%
5 ft. wide,
fence/wall may be
required
Conditions will
require minimum
sizes to be met
Fences at side and
rear property lines
with ivy planted
adjacent to the fence
proposed. DEE
requested for
reduced planting
width on west side
property line.
Conformance with El Camino Real Design Guidelines
The 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 Real District. The project is consistent with the E1 Camino Real Design
Guidelines I, II, IV, V and VI. No sign plans have been submitted to date so Guideline III,
Signs, was not used in reviewing the project. -_.
II.
IV.
Landscaped Street Theme
One 15 gallon street tree will be required for every 30feet offrontage on El Camino
Real or streets intersecting El Camino Real; The project site has a feet of frontage on
E1 Camino Real. Ones street tree will be provided along the E1 Camino Real frontage
to meet this guideline.
Landscaping, Paving
Guidelines II (1) through II (9) have been met.
Architecture, Site Plan
3. All automobile parla’ng should be screened from the street,"
CiO, of Palo Alto Page 13
o
10.
13.
14.
Areas for mechanical equipment, whether on the roof or within parking areas,
should be screened. Ductwork should be painted to match the color of the roof
ifa screen is not appropriate; The mechanical equipment will not be visible
from E1 Camino Real.
Minimizing the number of driveways to the lot increases the area for
landscaping close to the street, decreases the number of conflict points for
automobiles, bicyclists and pedestrian using the right-of-way, and increases
the area of water permeable surface; One driveway is proposed.
In Neighborhood Commercial (CN) Zones, the design should be pedestrian
oriented. Signs and details should not be primarily automobile oriented,"
Signage plans were not included in the application materials.
Commercial buildings, new or remodeled, which are located adjacent to or in
close proximity to other similar properties, should be compatible with their
neighbors; The architecture incorporates some materials that are not used in
adjacent buildings, but the horizontality of the design will be compatible with
that of the neighboring structures.
Improvements should demonstrate a respect for the rights to light, air, and the
privacy of residents in existing developments; The existing oak trees on the site
will provide a substantial visual buffer to enhance views of the project from
the existing single family and multi-family developments in the area, and will
enhance privacy for residents of the proposed project.
go Buffers, Parking Lots
Guideline V (6) states that a minimum landscaped buffer of five feet is required
around parking lots per Zoning Chapter 18.83. The minimum planting area is not
provided along the east property line due to the narrow lot width and need to meet
parking stall depth and aisle width. Guideline V (7) states that a minimum of one
15 gallon tree is required per 25 feet length of parking lot perimeter. No trees are
proposed, since existing trees meet this requirement.
vt Lighting
This guideline includes statements that overall site lighting should be an average of
.25 to .5 foot-candles, and that the spill-light cannot exceed. 1 foot-candle on
private property at any point over six feet outside the boundaries of the parking lot.
The lighting on the rear wall of the second floor residential unit will be reviewed
by the Architectural Review Board to ensure compatibility with the City’s
standards and with the overall design.
Conformance with Comprehensive Plan
In summary, the project meets the intent of the Comprehensive Plan as follows:
Program L-10 notes that new mixed use zoning standards should be created and applied,
Cio’ of Palo Alto Page 14
including a "Residential/Office" designation. No new standards have been created to
date. Program L-IO 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 and a front setback that is less than one foot
wide.
Policy L-75 states: Minimize the negative physical impacts of parking lots. Locate
parking behind buildings or underground wherever possible. The rear parking lot
conforms to Policy L-75. Since an underground parking facility is unfeasible for the
number of spaces required for the proposed mixed use project, due to the protected Oak
trees, a partially covered 8-space ground floor parking facility behind the front portion of
the building is proposed. This project meets the intent of providing parking facilities
screened from the street.
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.
Policy L-9 states: Enhance desirable characteristics in mixed-use areas. Use the
planning and zoning process to create opportunities for new mixed-use development.
The project proposal includes a request for Variances to create opportunities for new
mixed use-development
Program T-2 states: Promote mixed use development to provide housing and commercial
services near employment centers, thereby reducing the necessity of driving. The project
is near employment centers.
Policy N-17 states: Preserve and protect heritage trees, including native oaks and other
significant trees, on public andprivate property. The healthy oak trees on the property
will be preserved. Removal of tree(s) in poor condition is allowed when the tree has
structural deficiencies.
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 is proposed on all parking spaces.
Policy N-39 states: Encourage the location of land uses in areas with compatible noise
environments. Use the guidelines in the table "Land Use Compatibility for Community
CiO, of Palo Alto Page 15
Noise Environment’" to determine compatibility. 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. 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.
Policy N-42 states: The city may require proposals to reduce noise impacts of
development on adjacent properties through appropriate means including such methods
as noise walls, soundproofing and double glazed windows, and control of hours of
operation including deliveries and trash pickup. Double glazed windows will be
incorporated into the project plans submitted for building permit, and limitations on hours
of deliveries and trash will be enforced (pursuant to conditions of projectapproval.)
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act.
NEXT STEPS
The project is to be reviewed by the Architectural Review Board on July 12, 2001. If the
Planning Commission recommends approval of this project, the Architectural Review
Board would review and forward a recommendation, along with the Planning
Commission recommendation, to the City Council. The City Council heating of the
project is tentatively scheduled for August 6, 2001. If the Planning Commission
recommends denial of this project, the project would be forwarded directly to the City
Council for review.
ATTACHMENTS/EXHIBITS:
Attachment
Attachment
Attachment
Attachment
Attachment
Attachment
Attachment
1:Findings for Approval of Site and Design Permit
2:Variance Findings for from and side setback and side daylight plane
encroachments
3:Variance Findings for increased lot coverage
4:Variance Findings for reduction in parking stalls
5:Design Enhancement Exception Findings
6:Conditions of Approval
7:Applicant’s project description and findings
Cio, of Palo Alto Page 16
COURTESY COPIES:
Carrasco & Associates, 120 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301
Mehmood Taqui, Oak Shadows L.L.C., 1336 Tasso Street, Palo Alto, CA 94306
Prepared by:
Reviewed by:
Amy French, Senior Planner
John Lusardi, Currem Planning Manager
Department/Division Head Approval:
Lisa Grote, Chief Planning Official
Cio’ of Palo Alto Page 17
Attachment 1: Findings for Approval of Site and Design Permit
2051 El Camino Real (01-D-5)
The proposed construction and operation of the use will be conducted in a manner that
will be orderly, harmonious, and compatible with existing or potential uses of adjoining
or nearby sites, in that conditions of approval ensure that lighting, noise, construction
hours and delivery hours will be coordinated to create harmony with residential
neighbors.
The project will ensure the desirability of investment, or the conduct of business,
research, or educational activities, or other authorized occupations, in the same or
adjacent areas, in that the proposed commercial and residential uses will ensure the
desirability of investment and conduct of business and residential uses in adjacent areas.
o Sound principles of environmental design and ecological balance have been observed in
the project design, in that the existing healthy Oak trees will be preserved and sun shades
will be provided on the south facing elevation.
This mixed use project would be in conformance with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan
and meets the Comprehensive Plan Policies and Programs
CiO’ of Palo Alto Page 18
Attachment 2: Draft Variance Findings
2051 Camino Real (01-V-9)
Setbacks and Daylight Plane Encroachments
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL OF VARIANCE FOR ENCROACHMENT
INTO FRONT AND SIDE YARD SETBACKS, AND PROTRUSIONS INTO
SIDE DAYLIGHT PLANES
There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable
to the property involved that do not apply generally to property in the same
district, in that:
A.The lot (4,938 square .feet) is smaller than most C-N lots along E1 Camino Real but is
not legally substandard, because the C-N district does not have minimum lot sizes or
dimensions. The lot is 20 feet narrower than the minimum width, and approximately
one foot shorter than the minimum depth necessary for multiple family residential
development (RM-15 district regulations, incorporated into C-N district regulations by
reference for mixed-use projects, require a minimum lot size of 70’ x 100’).
B. The lot contains healthy, mature Oak trees that must be protected in accordance with
Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 8.10, Tree Preservation and Management
Regulations. These Oak trees severely limit the site area and location available for
construction. Construction cannot extend farther than 15’9 ½" towards the
southeasterly (reference east) side property line across a depth of 74’2" (measured
from the rear property line toward the front property line) or farther than 20’ 10"
toward the rear property line. Therefore, construction is forced toward the reference
west-side property line and front property line.
C. The zoning standards (Chapter 18.41) and design guidelines for E1 Camino Real do
not permit parking to be placed in the required front yard of a parcel and the
Comprehensive Plan discourages parking in the front yard on E1 Camino Real and
encourages parking to the rear of a building.
D. Mixed-use projects in the C-N district are required to have covered parking facilities
for the residential parking spaces (one covered parking space is required for one
residential unit in this case) and screened parking facilities for the commercial parking
spaces along E1 Camino Real. However, underground parking cannot be constructed
because of the Oak tree root system and narrow site width. The only alternative is
ground-level, partially covered parking. To address the visual impact of a large
parking entrance opening at the pedestrian level, the building (parking entrance door)
must extend across the width of the parcel at the front of the parcel. The structure
must encroach into the required 10-foot reference west side setback at the ground
level. (The proposed stalls along the reference east property line are 18 feet deep, the
proposed drive aisle width is 25 feet, the Oak tree protection area width is 2’ 1 ½" and
the trash and stair area width is just under 5 feet). Since the lot is only 50 feet wide, no
3.9
width is left to meet the 20-foot combined side setback requirements.
H. Because of the need to allow space for parking, the stairways must be located within
the set back areas to provide required access to the upper stories, to meet Uniform
Building Code exiting requirements.
I. Underground parking cannot be constructed because of the lot size and oak trees. The
height of the resulting taller building (33 feet), which is below the permitted 35 foot
height for a mixed-use residential element in the CN zone. Reduction in retail or
office space would still require a three story building.
J. Again, because of the need for surface level parking, the uncovered site area at the
rear of the subject property is not well suited to open space recreational use.
Therefore, balconies and decks provide more usable outdoor space for commercial
and residential tenants.
K. The one-story commercial building to the reference west of the subject property is
constructed at the property line, so that a zero setback at the reference west side of the
proposed building would not impact the daylight or functions of the adjacent building.
L. The total floor area that can be constructed on the site does not meet the City’s
minimum threshold to allow shared parking facilities on the project site (where
parking spaces would be used alternately by residential and commercial tenants).
M. The proposed rear setback at the ground floor is larger than required (20 feet where 10
feet is required) and the reference east side setback is larger than required (15’9 ½"
where 10 feet is required) in order to accommodate the required parking spaces and
protect the Oak trees.
N. Due to the narrow width of the subject parcel, the 16’6" setback required at the second
floor is more restrictive than the side daylight plane restriction at that level. Since the
proposed office floor, discounting the stair, essentially meets the reference east side
daylight plane requirement, the side setback at the office floor level are unnecessarily
restrictive.
The granting of the Variances for setback and daylight plane encroachments is
necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of
the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary
hardship, in that:
A.Encroachments into the front and side setbacks to protect the Oak trees are necessary
to make mixed-use development feasible on this parcel.
B.Encroachments into the front and side setbacks to accommodate minimum dimensions
for a screened, ground floor parking lot are necessary to make mixed-use development
feasible on this parcel.
C. Shared parking is not allowed by the City’s regulations, because the proposed floor
area is smaller than required by the Zoning Code to participate in a shared parking
arrangement. Furthermore, there is no available area on the adjoining parcels to
accommodate additional vehicle parking spaces. This is a hardship for the creation of
20
Do
a mixed-use project on this property.
The 25-foot front setback required for residential development along a major arterial
street, the 20-foot rear setback and 16’6" side setbacks required at the upper floors
results in an allowable building envelope of only approximately 17 feet in width and
53 feet in length. This would allow for only 901 square feet of building envelope
(18% coverage of the 4,938 square foot site) and make a mixed use project unfeasible
on this parcel.
o The granting of the Variances for encroachments into front and side yard
setback and side daylight plane will not be detrimental or injurious to property
or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health,
safety, general welfare or convenience, in that:
Bo
F°
The adjacent buildings provide less than 10 feet setbacks from the front property
line, so the proposed reduced front setback for the subject property will not be
detrimental or injurious to these properties, nor to the health safety, general
welfare or convenience of the public.
On the reference east side: Since the proposed zero lot line wall (at the staircase)
has no openings, and since the residential garage on the commercial site to the
south is less than one foot from the shared property line, the site to the east may
still be further developed in the future. Furthermore, there are no windows in the
first floor restroom/hallway that would face the reference east side (set back 7’2
½"). Therefore, the proposed reduced setback will not negatively impact the
adjoining commercial property to the south.
On the reference west side: The commercial site to the north is much narrower
than the subject property, so that it is Unlikely that third floor residential
development will ever be developed on that property. Any commercial
redevelopment on the site to the west would not be impacted by the proposed
project’s setback encroachments.
The provision of ground floor retail and residential housing is encouraged in the Palo
Alto Comprehensive Plan,
The requirement to retain mature healthy Oak trees on site limits the available width
and depth of the building, and
The requirement for screened, surface-level parking facilities severely limits the
available location for the desired ground floor retail component.
21
II.
Ao
Do
o
Ao
Bo
Co
E°
m
Attachment 3: Draft Variance Findings
2051 Camino Real (01-V-9)
Lot Coverage Increase
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL OF INCREASE IN LOT COVERAGE TO
55%
There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable
to the property involved that do not apply generally to property in the same
district in that:
The allowable lot coverage for commercial uses on a CN parcel is 50%, which
would be 2,469 square feet of the 4,938 square foot site.
Since a residential unit is proposed above commercial uses, the lot coverage is
limited by RM-15 regulations to 35% of 4,938 square feet, or 1,728.3 square feet.
The oak trees on the site restrict the height of construction on certain portions of
the site, so that the proposed building covers more of the site.
Underground parking is unfeasible on the site due to the small size of the property.
The alternative that conforms to the policies of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan
is to provide parking facilities behind the building so they are adequately screened.
The granting of the requested Variance for increase in lot coverage is necessar),
for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the
appliea~tt.
The site is currently vacant and the provision of ground floor retail and residential
housing is encouraged in the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan.
The proposed lot coverage is 2,713 square feet, which is 244 square feet greater
than the maximum lot coverage available to construct an entirely commercial
project on the site. This is a minor increase in the 50% commercial lot coverage to
establish commercial land use on the site.
The residential unit as proposed would cover less than 35% of the lot if the
commercial component were removed. The 35% lot coverage restriction is too
restrictive to establish commercial uses on the site, due to the reasons in Finding
#1.
The necessity to provide screened, surface-level parking facilities on this site
severely limits the available location for the desired ground floor retail component.
Having three pedestrian doors for three different uses at the front property line
increases the pedestrian amenities on the site.
The granting of the Variance for increase in lot coverage will not be detrimental
to the adjacent properties.
Cin., of Palo Alto Page 22
No
The adjacent property to the east is a multi-family residential development. Since
the multi-family development is located along the property line and the proposed
building is set back from the east property line, there will be no detrimental impact
from the increased lot coverage.
The adjacent property to the north is a single-family residential development.
Since the rear daylight plane restriction and setback will be met, there will be no
detrimental impact from the increased lot coverage.
The adjacent property to the west is a single story commercial building located
along the common property line. There will be no detrimental impact from the
increased lot coverage.
City of Palo Alto Page 23
III.
Attachment 4: Draft Variance Findings
2051 Camino Real (01-V-9)
Reduction in Parking Spaces
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL OF REDUCTION IN ON-SITE PARKING
SPACES FROM NINE TO EIGHT PARKING SPACES.
There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable
to the property involved that do not apply generally to property in the same
district.
A.The zoning standards (Chapter 18.41) and design guidelines for E1 Camino Real do
not permit parking to be placed in the required front yard of a parcel and the
Comprehensive Plan discourages parking in the front yard on E1 Camino Real and
encourages parking to the rear of a building.
B. Since the parking spaces must not be placed in the front setback, and due to the small
size of the property and need to provide a handicapped van space, no more than eight
parking spaces, including a handicapped van space, can be placed on the site.
C. Mixed-use projects in the C-N district are required to have covered parking facilities
for the residential parking spaces and screened parking facilities for the commercial
parking spaces along E1 Camino Real. However, underground parking cannot be
constructed because of the Oak tree root system and narrow site width. The only
alternative is ground-level, partially covered parking.
o
No
The granting of the requested Variance for a reduction by one parking space is
necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of
the applicant.
The applicant’s original proposal was for ten parking spaces, including front yard
parking spaces. Due to design and land use considerations..expressed by the ARB
and staff, the project was modified to include a retail component and to screen the
parking spaces with a building along the front property line, which eliminated the
available area to provide the ninth parking space.
The granting of the Variance for a reduction by one parking space would not be
detrimental to the adjacent property.
The adjacent property to the east provides garage parking (four garages) for the
residents. Residents’ guests would typically use on street parking at night.
The adjacent property to the west does not provide on site parking. The
laundromat patrons would typically use on street parking.
CiO, of Palo Alto Page 24
Co The parking needs of office and retail tenants and customers are typically business
hours, whereas the parking needs of residential tenants and guests would typically
be after business hours, so the sharing of the eight space parking lot is likely to be
successful.
Cio’ of Palo Alto Page 25
(a)
Attachment 5: Design Enhancement Exception Findings
2051 El Camino Real (01-DEE-I)
Partially Covered Parking Space and Perimeter Planting Strip Width
A partially covered residential parking space where one fully covered residential
parking space is required. One covered Residential parking space is required. The
requested exception can be approved based upon the following Design
Enhancement Exception Findings:
There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable
to the property or site improvements involved that do not apply generally to
property in the same zone district.
One fully covered residential parking space is required for the residential unit.
Five partially covered spaces are provided. Due to the size of the Oak trees, it
would not be possible to provide completely covered parking on the site, unless the
driveway were located adjacent to the easterly property line under the Oak tree
canopy and five of the parking spaces were located entirely in the covered garage
area.
The granting of the application will enhance the appearance of the site or
structure, or improve the neighborhood character of the project and preserve an
existing or proposed architectural style, in a manner which would not otherwise
be accomplished through strict application of the minitnum requirements of
Title 18 and the standards for review set forth in this chapter in that.
The proposed design for partially covered spaces is the best alternative because the
other alternative (placement of the driveway next to the east side property line
would be problematic because: (1) the proximity of the driveway on the adjacent
site to the east, presents a safety hazard, (2) the rear parking spaces would be
reduced from three to two spaces, resulting in a greater parking deficiency, (3) the
parking lot would provide less vehicle maneuverability, and (4) the distinctive
office stair element would be eliminated.
o The exception is related to a motor architectural feature or site improvement
that will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the
vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare
or convenience in that
(b)Perimeter planting area width less than five feet adjacent to west-side property
line. The requested exception can be approved based upon the following Design
Enhancement Exception Findings:
CiO, of Palo Alto Page 26
2.
There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable
to the property or site improvements involved that do not apply generally to
property in the same zone district.
The site is too narrow to accommodate three parking spaces, oak tree preservation
area and five-foot wide planting beds along both east and west property lines.
The granting of the application will enhance the appearance of the site or
structure, or improve the neighborhood character of the project and preserve an
existing or proposed architectural style, in a manner which would not otherwise
be accomplished through strict application of the minimum requirements of
Title 18 and the standards for review set forth its this chapter.
The decreased planting area width west of parking space #8 (representing a loss of
19 square feet of planting area) is minor. In order to provide the five feet in that
location, the width of the planting area in front of parking spaces #1-#5 would
have to be reduced from five feet to four feet across a greater length of planter,
representing a loss of 74square feet of planting area. It is preferable to have the
five foot wide planting strip along the east side property line, since more
landscaping is gained on the site.
The exception is related to a minor architectural feature or site improvement
that will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the
vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare
or convenience.
The project plans include a perimeter fence and vine plantings along the fence, so
the parking area will be sufficiently screened from the adjoining properties, so as
not to be a detriment to views from adjoining properties.
CiO, of Palo Alto Page 2 7
Attachment 6
2051 El Camino Real
Conditions of Site and Design Approval
File 01-D-05
The plans submitted for Building Permit shall be in substantial conformance with plans
dated , 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
1.2
1.3
1.4
The Applicant shall submit a final Grading and Drainage Plan with the Building
Permit submittal. This plan shall include existing and proposed drainage patterns on
site and from adjacent properties. The plan shall show that pre-existing drainage
pattems to and from adjacent properties are not altered.
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.
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.
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.
Cio, of Palo Alto Page 28
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
.
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.
Cio’ of Palo Alto Page 29
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 Location of the electric panel/switchboard shall be shown on the site plan and
approved by the Architectural Review Board and Utilities Department.
2.10 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
primary voltage of 12,470 volts and the customer shall provide the high voltage
switchgear and transformers. Utilities Rule & Regulation #3.
2.15 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.
Cio’ of Palo Alto Page 30
2.16 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 fight-of-way. This
includes 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 with 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
the off-site substructure work may be constructed by the Applicant. Utilities Rule
& regulation #16.
2.21 All primary electric conduits shall be concrete encased with the top of the
encasement at a depth of 30 inches. No more than 180 degrees of bends are
allowed in a primary conduit run. Conduit runs over 500 feet in length require
additional pull boxes.
2.22 All new underground conduits and substructures shall be installed per City
standards and shall be inspected by the Electrical Underground Inspector before
backfilling. Rule & Regulation #16.
CiO, of Palo Alto Page 31
2.23 The customer is responsible for installing all underground electric service
conductors, bus duct, transition cabinets, and other required equipment. The
installation shall meet the National Electric Code requirements and the City
standards.
2.24 Prior to fabrication of electric switchboards and metering enclosures, the customer
must submit switchboard drawings to the Electric Metering Department at 3201
East Bayshore Road, Palo Alto 94303 for approval. The City requires compliance
with all applicable EUSERC standards for metering and switchgear.
2.25 All new underground electric services shall be inspected and approved by both the
Building Inspection Division and the Electrical Underground Inspector before
energizing. Utilities Rule & regulation #18.
AFTER CONSTRUCTION & PRIOR TO FINALIZATION
2.26 The customer shall provide as-built drawings showing the location of all
switchboards, conduits (number and size), conductors (number and size), splice
boxes, vaults and switch!transformer pads.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING OCCUPANCY PERMIT
2.26 The applicant shall secure a Public Utilities Easement for facilities installed on
private property for City use. Utilities Rule & Regulations #16.
2.27 All required inspections have been completed and approved by both the Building
Inspection Division and the Electrical Underground Inspector.
2.28 All fees must be paid.
2.29 All Special Facilities contracts or other agreements need to be signed by the City
and applicant.
2.30 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.
Cin., of Palo Alto Page 32
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-gas-wastewater service connection
application - load sheet for City of Palo Alto Utilities. The applicant must provide
all the information requested for utility service demands (water in g.p.m., gas in
b.t.u.p.h, and sewer in g.p.d.).
3.2 The applicant shall submit improvement plans for 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.
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
Cio, of Palo Alto Page 33
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.9
registered civil engineer.
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.
The applicant shall pay the connection fees associated with the installation of the
new utility service/s to be installed by the City of Palo Alto Utilities. The
approved relocation of services, meters, hydrants, or other facilities will be
performed at the cost of the person!entity requesting the relocation.
Each unit, parcel or place of business shall have its own water meter, gas meter
and sewer lateral connection shown on the plans.
A separate water meter and backflow preventer shall be installed to irrigate the
approved landscape plan. Show the location of the irrigation meter on the plans.
This meter shall be designated as an irrigation account and no other water service
will be billed on the account.
3.10
3.11
3.12
3.13
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 water service 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 on the
CiO, of Palo Alto Page 34
3.14
3.15
3.16
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.
A new sewer lateral installation is required. Show the location of the new sewer
lateral on the plans
DURING CONSTRUCTION
3.17
3.18
3.19
3.20
3.21
3.22
The contractor shall contact underground service alert (800) 227-2600 one week in
advance of starting excavation to provide for marking of underground utilities.
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.
The contractor shall maintain 12" clear, above and below, from the existing
utilities to the new underground facilities.
If the Contractor elects to bore new pipes or conduits, the pilot bore hole shall be
24" clear from any existing utility pipes and all existing utility crossings shall be
potholed prior to starting work.
All utility installations shall be in accordance with the City of Palo Alto utility
standards for water, gas & wastewater.
Utility service connections will be installed between 30 and 40 days following
receipt of full payment. Large developments must allow sufficient lead-time (6
weeks minimum) for utility construction performed by the City of Palo Alto
Utilities.
Cin., of Palo Alto Page 35
3.23
3.24
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.
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
3.26
3.27
3.28
3.29
The applicant’s contractor shall immediately notify the Utilities Department (650)
496-6982 or 650/329-2413 if the existing water or gas mains are disturbed or
damaged.
All backflow preventer devices shall be approved by the WGW engineering
division, inspected by the utilities cross connection inspector and tested by a
licensed tester prior to activation of the water service.
No water valves or other facilities owned by Utilities Department shall be operated
for any purpose by the applicant’s contractor. All required operation will only be
performed by authorized utilities department personnel. The applicant’s contractor
shall notify the Utilities Department not less than forty-eight (48) hours in advance
of the time that such operation is required.
The contractor shall not disconnect any part of the existing water main except by
expressed permission of the utilities chief inspector and shall submit a schedule of
the estimated shutdown time to obtain said permission.
The water main shall not be turned on until the service installation and the
performance of chlorination and bacteriological testing have been completed. The
contractor’s testing method shall be in conformance with 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 engineering section before making any change.
All improvements to the gas system will be performed by the City of Palo Alto
Utilities.
3.32 All customer piping shall be inspected and approved by the building inspection
division before gas service is instituted. Gas meters will be installed within five
Cio’ of Palo Alto Page 36
working days after the building piping passes final inspection and the building
inspection division sends the set tag to the Utilities Department.
4. 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
Uti!ities Department. The landscape shall conform to the Landscape Water
Efficiency Standards of the City of Palo Alto. A water budget- shall be assigned to
the project and a dedicated irrigation water meter shall be required. Call the
Landscape Plan Review Specialist at 650.329.2549 for additional information.
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
Fire Department Conditions
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.
(PAMC15.04.083) NOTE: Building plans will not be approved unless complete
sprinkler coverage is indicated.
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.
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 Communi~ Environment Department
6.1
6.2
Building Division
Open parking garages (5-4 occupancies) are not permitted in Type V-N building.
(The materials of the construction must be changed to meet code).
The electrical service shall be located at an exterior location or in a room directly
accessible from the exterior.
Cio’ of Palo Alto Page 3 7
6.3
6.4
The ground floor retail space shall be provided with separate men’s and women’s
accessible restrooms, based on occupant load (calculated as total square footage
divided by 30).
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.
7.Transportation Division
7.1 A landscape plan must be provided which must also show clearly the back of the
sidewalk and any obstructions to the required sight distance.
8.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
used). The appraisal shall be performed in accordance with the current edition
of the Guide for Plant Appraisal, under the auspices of the Council of Tree and
Landscape Appraisers.
8.2 The grading plans shall specify critical information outlined in the arborist
report, such as root buffer zones, tree protection fencing, wearing surface
material for the driveway and parking areas over the tree roots, aeration
systems, etc. Cut sheet details shall be provided and approved by the Planning
Division Arborist.
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 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.
8.5 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:
Cir., of Palo Alto Page 38
8.6
a.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.
c.Irrigation schedule and plan.
d.Fence locations.
e.Lighting plan with photometric data.
f.Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and maintained as necessary
to ensure survival.
g. Specify quantity, size and spacing of Boston ivy plantings.
h. Ceanothus (sun-loving) vegetation shall be replaced with a shade tolerant
variety compatible with the predominantly covered area.
i. All new trees planted within the public right-of-way, as shown on the
approved plans, shall be installed per Public Works Standard Tree Well
Diagram #503, shall have a tree pit dug at least twice the diameter of the
root ball. The Public Works Detail #503 shall be shown on Landscape
Plans. A Four foot square tree grate approved by Public Works
Engineering Department shall be installed.
j. 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.
k.The Landscape Plan shall ensure the backflow preventer is adequately
obscured by planting the appropriate size and type shrubbery, fitted with
green wire cage, or painted dark green to minimize visibility.
Approved Planting Soil Mix. The planting soil in the planter areas shall show a
uniform soil mix to a 24-inch depth. Prior to planting, the contractor shall provide
soils lab report to the City Arborist verifying that the following soil mix has been
delivered to the site.
a. Palo Alto Soil Mix by volume (pre-mix off site)
*65% sandy loam (mostly medium to coarse grade)
*15% clay
*10% 1/4-inch fir bark
*10% volcanic rock
o Fertilizer. Combine Osmocote 18-6-12 or equivalent at label rates per
yard in the 12-inch area surrounding each root ball.
Cio’ of Palo Alto Page 39
8.7 Tree Protection and Preservation Plan. All specifications recommended in the arborist
report shall be implemented (Ray Morneau Arborist, dated April 26, 2001). The
grade of the existing oak roots shall be determined and evaluated to establish the
grade of proposed improvements, aeration of the critical root zone and to enable the
health and long term viability of the oak trees. A Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) for each
tree to be retained in which no soil disturbance is permitted shall be established and
be clearly designated on all improvement plans, including grading, utility and
irrigation, and show that no conflict occurs with the trees. The plan shall specify, but
not be limited to, monthly arbofist 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.
8.9.All recommendations specified in the Tree Preservation Report for the project shall
be implemented and maintained throughout the course of construction. A separate
TREE PROTECTION AND PRESERVATION INSTRUCTIONS sheet shall
accompany the plans submitted for building permit and referenced on all Civil
drawings (Utility, Storm, Grading, Erosion, etc.); Demolition; Staging; Building;
Landscape, Planting and Irrigation Plans. The Tree Protection and Preservation sheet
shall also contain the following notes: Conditions of Approval #1-9 listed below and
the arborist report (Ray Morneau Arborist, dated April 26, 2001). This sheet shall
clearly show the tree protection zone, indicating where the fencing will be placed and
denote all trees to be retained and those to be removed. (Ray 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.
8.10.Tree Protection Statement: A written statement shall be provided to the Building
Department verifying that protective fencing for the trees is in place before
demolition, grading or building permit will be issued, unless otherwise approved by
the City Arborist.
8.11.Fencing - Protected Trees, Street Trees, or Designated Trees. Fenced enclosures shall
be erected around trees to be protected to achieve three primary functions, 1) to keep
the foliage canopy and branching structure clear from contact by equipment, materials
and activities; 2) to preserve roots and soil conditions in an intact and non-compacted
state and 3) to identify the Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) in which no soil disturbance
is permitted and activities are restricted, unless otherwise approved.
City of Palo Alto Page 40
Size, type and area to be fenced. All trees to be preserved shall be protected with
five or six (5’ - 6’) foot high chain link fences. Fences are to be mounted on two-
inch diameter galvanized iron posts, driven into the ground to a depth of at least 2-
feet at no more than 10-foot spacing.
Type I Tree Protection
The fences shall enclose the entire area under the canopy dripline or TPZ of the
tree(s) to be saved throughout the life of the project. Parking areas: fencing must
be located on paving or concrete that will not be demolished, the posts may be
supported by an appropriate grade level concrete base.
Type II Tree Protection
For trees situated within a narrow planting strip, only the planting strip shall be
enclosed with the required chain link protective fencing in order to keep the
sidewalk and street open for public use.
8.12
8.13
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
Duration. Tree fencing shall be erected before demolition, grading or construction
begins and remain in place until final inspection of the project, except for work
specifically allowed in the TPZ. Work in the TPZ requires approval by the project
arborist or City Arborist (in the case of work around Street Trees).
’Warning’ sign. A warning sign shall be prominently displayed on each fence at
20-foot intervals. The sign shall be a minimum 8.5-inches x 11-inches and clearly
state: "WARNING - Tree Protection Zone - This fence shall not be removed and
is subject to a fine according to PAMC Section 8.10.110. ’"
During construction,the project arborist shall perform a site inspection to monitor
tree condition on a minimum of four-week intervals. The Planning Arborist shall
be in receipt of the inspection report during the first week of each month until
completion at fax # (650) 329-2154.
During construction, all neighbors’ trees that overhang the project site shall be
protected from impact of any kind.
Cio’ of Palo Alto Page 41
8.14
8.15
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 tc~
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
ensure survival.
8.16
8.17
8.18
During construction, and prior to the installation of the required protective fencing,
any necessary pruning work on trees to remain shall be performed in accordance
with the following:
a. All work on Protected Trees shall be done in a manner that preserves the tree
structure and health, pursuant to the Western Chapter of the International Society
of Arboriculture (WC-ISA) Guidelines; Standard Practices for Tree Care
Operations outlined in the ANSI A300-1995; ANSI Z133-1994 and Chapter 8.10
of the Palo Alto Municipal Code.
b.Any work on trees within the right-of-way must first be approved by Public
Works at (650) 496-6974.
Landscape Architect Inspection prior to Occupancy. The contractor shall call for an
inspection by the Landscape Architect, and provide written verification to the
Planning Department that all trees, shrubs, planting and irrigation are installed and
functioning as specified in the approved plans.
Post Construction Maintenance. For the life of the project, all landscape shall be well-
maintained, watered, fertilized, and pruned according to Nursery and American
National Standards for Tree, Shrub and Other Woody Plant Maintenance- Standard
Practices (ANSI A300-1995). Any vegetation that dies shall be replaced or failed
automatic irrigation repaired by the current property owner within 30 days of
discovery.
9.1
Planning Division
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
Cin., of Palo Alto Page 42
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 Truck deliveries shall be prohibited before 8: AM and after & 7:00 PM.
9.6 Prior to submittal for building permits, the applicant shall provide the planning
department with materials for the ARB to review and provide comments. The
items are as follows:
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Physical materials board, including color of the cast in place concrete walls.
Tree maintenance and protection plan.
Location of utilities and mechanical equipment.
Study and detailing of entry element to garage, including signage.
Landscape and hardscape materials.
Final color elevations.
Final design of balcony screening, louvers, and structural design for the
front fagade.
List of environmental "green building" program for construction.
To:
From:
Date:
RE:
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COM]V~SSION
Joy Ogawa
July 11, 2001
2051 El Camino Real [01-D5, 01-¥-9, 01-DEE-I]
RECEIVED
JUL 1 1 2001
Department ol Planning and
Community Environment
I have spoken at both of the Preliminary Review hearings the ARB held on this project.
I have also provided you with a copy of my comments that I submitted at the 2nd ARB
Preliminary Review. I believe that all of my comments are accurate and still relevant,
except for any reference to a basement, which has been eliminated ~om the current
project.
I strongly oppose the granting of any variance that would be required of this project
ff it were a fully commercial (non-residential) project in the CN zone.
Contrary to the implication on page 6 of the staff report (the last sentence of the top
paragraph ), not all of the requested variances are due to the application of the RM-15
zoning regulations, that are being applied because oft.he included residential use.
Variance (1) for encroachment into the FRONT setback, variance (2) for increased lot
coverage, and variance (3) for a reduction in parking spaces would still be required even
ifRM-15 regulations were not applied. I oppose the granting of these variances.
I am not opposing the variance for side setbacks, because this variance would not be
required if the building was fully commercial.
Height Variance - Is One Required Or Not?
I note that while no height variance is listed on page 1 of the staff report, nor on page 2 in
the staff recommendation, the staff analysis of Front Setback and Building Height on
page 8 of the staffreport says that a height variance is required. Amy French told the
ARB at the 2"d preliminary review, that no height variance was required. Please clarify.
If a height variance is required, I oppose such a variance. By including residential in the
building, the applicant is already receiving the benefit of an increased height limit that
would otherwise be only 25 feet for a fully commercial building.
I also point out that a request for a height variance was not included in the Public Notice
that was published for this item. Therefore, it would not be appropriate for the
Commission to take action on any height variance without proper notice to the public.
FRONT SETBACK
433 square feet of ground floor retail is not an acceptable reason to allow a zero-ft, front
setback. 433 square feet is only 10% of the square footage oft.he proposed building,
and, in my opinion, is only a token amount of retail.
RM-15 requires a 25-ft. front setback, but even CN zoning requires a 10-foot front
setback.
At the very least, a 10-foot front setback should be required for this project.
Contrary to the picture painted by the A.ppli,’cant, the zero-ft, front setba~ notcompatible with the existingab~flot~oS~ ~ ~fo~tes ~ae~Er~l~ ba~U.~odi~i ~,~o~ aaZce;~eflr
front setback for more than g "" g "(’..Y .-~.---~
d ofor a wall extends to the sldewalk, with the rest of the building set further back~, an ~-~f
the existing buildings are one-story.
With the proposed project, a pedestrian walking west (north) along that side of E1
Camino will be confronted with a 2-story monolith suddenly jutting out into the sidewalk
area.
1NCREASF~ LOT COVERAGE
Lot coverage should only be allowed to increase to, at most, 50%, which is what is
allowed for a fully commercial building in the CN zone.
Applicants’ arguments that a substandard lot requires less strict requirements are
extremely flawed. If anything, substandard lots should be subject to even stricter
regulations. Our Code recognizes this by requiring a lower height limit of 17 feet for
substandard lots (vs. 35 feet for non-substandard lots) inthe R-1 zone.
Furthermore, the Applicants should have been aware of the lirnitatirns of this property
when it was purchased. I understand that title passed to this present owner only within
the past year. The zoning code has not changed within that time, and, coast live oaks
have been protected under the tree ordinance for several years.
RED UCTION IN PARKING SPA CES
As I read it, the proposal is to keep the parking garage door closed at all times, so that
retail customers would not have access to the on-site parking. Street parking is already
very limited, and the proposed driveway for this project will cause the loss of at least one
more street parking space along E1Camino. The staff’report points out that customers of
the existing neighboring businesses already must vie for the limited street parking. I
2
believe that by reducing the amount of on-site parking, and by eliminating access to the
on-site parking for the retail use, the Applicants are dooming the retail use to failure.
MIXED USE: DANGERS and POLICY
Not all mixed use is necessarily desirable. The Comprehensive Plan does not endorse
mixed-use projects in this CN zone. The current Comp Plan describes Neighborhood
Commercial as having stores that serve the immediate neighborhood. There is no
mention ofofflces being an appropriate use in a CN zone.
If the office use were eliminated from this project, then I would be more willing to
support the granting of variances. I also believe that such a project (without office use)
could more closely conform to the requirements of the zoning code, because of a
resulting reduction in the on-site parking requirement.
The con.figuration of the second floor office and residential uses of this project invites
furore encroachment of the offlee use into the residential area. Before any mixed-use
project is approved, there should be effective safeguards built in to the project to protect
against office use encroaching into the residential and retail-designated areas. T.his
project does not have such safeguards, and it invites future abuse by expansion of the
office use.
3
To:
From:
Date:
RE:
Architectural Review Board
Joy Ogawa
April 5, 2001
2051 E1 Camino Real [00-PAR-09] - comments
I was very disappointed when I read the StaffReport and saw the exceptions and
variances that this proposed project would require. I was disappointed because when Mr.
Taqui showed his plans to Pria Graves and myself, I specifically asked him what
exceptions he was requesting for this project. And he assured me that there would be no
exceptions necessary, other than exceptions that made up for the more restrictive
requirements of a mixed-use project over a purely commercial project.
I now see that there is at least one requested exception that is unrelated to the residential
use, i.e., the exception for lack of a 5-foot wide perimeter landscaping strip. There are
also variances that would still be required of a fully commercial building. Such variances
include the proposed 0-fl setback from E1 Camino, since a fully commercial building
would still be required to have a 10-ft. street setback. A variance would also be required
for the lot coverage, which is proposed to be 55%. A fully commercial building would be
limited to a lot coverage of 50%.
Mixed Use Requirements
I’ve heard staff’and board members comment about how mixed use is penalized by more
restrictive requirements. I don’t think this is an entirely accurate picture. Yes, the
setback requirements are less restrictive for a fully commercial building in the CN zone,
however, a mixed-use project with residential has the advantage of a 10 ft higher height
limit. In a CN zone, a fully commercial building has a height limit of 25 ft. If the
building includes residential, it has a height limit of 35 ft. This allows for a 3-story
building with residential, while a fully commercial building is limited to 2-stories. I
consider this to be a major advantage and incentive for a building in the CN zone to
include residential use under the existing code regulations.
Another advantage a residential use has is the less burdensome parking requirement,
since the amount of parking required for a single residential unit of 2 bedrooms or more
is only 2 parking spaces, regardless of the square footage of the residence. In fact, l~om
my reading of the ordinance, if the applicant were to change the proposed office space
into a second residential unit, only one parking space would be required for this second
residence, compared with 5 parking spaces required for the office use. This would
decrease the parking requirement by 4 parking spaces. This would allow for a redesign
that would likely conform better with the code, and/or allow for an increase in the
ground-floor retail space from 433 square feet to a larger floor area that might be more
workable for a retail tenant. I know that I would find a residential use much more
preferable to an office use, and I would be much more willing to support exceptions and
variances for a project without any office use.
Problems With The Office Use
There are other problems that are ,c, aused by the office use, besides its being a less
desirable use for the neighborhood s-perspective, and in worsening the jobs/housing
imbalance. This proposed project does not have a strong separation between the office ~
space and the residential space. The second floor has both office and residential use, and
they are readily accessNle to each other. There is the problem of the basement being \
included as residential for determining the parking requirement, even though there is no
way of ensuring that the basement use will be solely residential. The basement is easily ’~
accessible from the office, even thought the ARB requested that not to be the case. At ~"
present, Mr. Taqui plans to live in the proposed residence, and I don’t question that the
basement and the residential part of the second floor will be kept for his exclusive use for
the duration of his residence in this building. However, what happens if the property
changes ownership, or if he decides to live elsewhere? What’s to prevent the new
occupant from allowing.the office use to expand to take over all of the second floor and
the basement?
Mixed Use Is Not Necessarily Desirable
The staff report says that mixed land use is generally supported in the Comprehensive
Plan. Perhaps that is so, because the Comprehensive Plan does encourage mixed use for
the California Avenue business district and for the South E1 Camino CS zone. However,
with regard to mixed use in the CN zone, the Comprehensive Plan does not endorse or
encourage mixed use. With regard to Neighborhood Commercial the Comprehensive
plan only says that "[i]n some locations, residential and mixed use projects may also
locate in this category. (page L-11 of PACP)
Variances and Exceptions-flawed arguments
Many of the arguments that the Applicants use to justify the granting of variances and
exceptions are flawed. The Applicants argue that this lot is a substandard lot. However,
it seems to me that a substandard lot should be subjected to even stricter limitations. In
the R-1 zone, a house on a substandard lot is limited to a 17-foot height, compared with a
35-foot height limit for a lot that is not substandard.
The Applicants also argue that the variances are necessary because the required 25-ft
setback along E1 Camino is burdensome. However, the Applicants have made no attempt
to conform with the required street setback along E1 Camino. They do not even come
close to meeting the 10-ft street setback that would be required for a fully commercial
building in the CN zone. If the Applicants were conforming with the required 25-ft
setback, then they could reasonably argue that this justifies the granting of other
variances. Since they have not conformed with the E1 Camino setback, their argument is
baseless, and, in fact, argues against the granting of additional setback, height or daylight
plane variances.
E1 Camino Setback
With respect to the E1 Camino setback, the Applicant has indicated that the Laundromat
to the west is built out to the property line at the sidewalk. However, I’ve observed that
only the side walls of the building (a few inches thick, made of brick) are built out to the
front property line. The front of the Laundromat building is recessed some 4 feet from
the front property line. The buildings to the east are not built out to the property line.
One comer of one of the small one-story garage-like structures to the east comes closest
to the front property line, and is still set back about 4 feet. The proposed new building
will jut out to the sidewalk. A pedestrian walking west (north) along that side of E1
Camino will be confronted with a 2-story monolith suddenly jutting out into the sidewalk
area. Note that the Laundromat building and the neighboring buildings to the east are all
one-story, as are all of the buildings presently located on this block.
Parking Exception and Roll-Up Door
I have serious concerns about the roll-up door to the parking lot and about the exception
for one less parking space for the retail use. I think that this is a formula for the failure of
the retail use. Without spaces for customers to park, and without easy access to the one
space that is provided, how is a retail business going to be able to succeed? If a roll-up
door is installed, then it needs to be kept open during the hours when the retail business is
open to customers.
Privacy Concerns
I have concerns about the second floor rear deck. It will look out directly onto the rear
residential neighbor’s back yard. The Multiple-Family Residence District Guidelines
(section 18.28.030 (a) (2)) says that "Units above the first story should be designed so
that they do not look directly on private patios or backyards of adjoining residential
property." The staff report says that it is anticipated that the existing trees would help to
provide a privacy screen However, the existing trees have canopies that only go down to
about 20 feet or so. This means that persons standing on the rear deck will be able to
look directly down into the rear neighbor’s backyard.
Trees
Some of the existing oak trees on the east side of the property have canopies that extend
across more than haKthe width of the property. It seems to me that in order to
accommodate the second and third stories of the building, the oaks will have to be
heavily cut back. The Planning Arborist has indicated other concerns regarding adequate
protection for the oak trees.
I do not support the project as currently proposed, and I do not support the granting of the
exceptions and variances that would be required.
Betten, Zariah
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Info, Plandiv
Wednesday, July 11,2001 3:27 PM
Betten, Zariah
FW: 2051 El Camino [01-D-5, 01-V-9, 01-DEE-I]
From:john baca[SMTP:VERDOSA@HOTMAIL.COM]
Sent:Wednesday, July 11,2001 3:24:04 PM
To:pla ndiv_info@city.palo-alto.ca.us
Cc:amy_french@city.palo-alto.ca.us; city_council@city.palo-alto.ca.us; frank_benest@city.palo-alto.ca.us;
ed_gawf@city.palo-alto.ca.us; dave_dockter@city.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: 2051 El Camino [01-D-5, 01-V-9, 01-DEE-I]
Auto forwarded by a Rule
July 9, 2001
Palo A~to Planning Commission and ARB
Re: 2051 El Camino [01-D-5, 01-V-9, 01-DEE-I]
Dear Commissioners and ARB members,
The Planning Commission needs to understand THERE ARE ONLY FIVE OFF-STREET
PARKING SPACES FOR THE 12 RESIDENCES at the corner of Oxford and El Camino
adjacent 2051 El Camino. These residences are small rental studio or 1
bedroom units all with the same owner. The addresses are: on El Camino:
2071,2073, 2075, 2077, 2083, 2087, 2091, and 2091rear; and on Oxford: 478,
480,482, 484(my residence). The 4 small garages at the complex are not
part of the residences; they are rented as storage units and can’t be used
as garages. In addition, the laundromat on the west side of 2051 is an
operation which uses up many on-street parking spaces until it closes at 11
P.M. Other retail operations on the block use up even more on-street
parking. This project threatens to throw the area parking into a desperate
situation, instead of the current difficult situation. And parking during 6
or 9 months of construction? I don’t even want to think of how bad that
will be.
I certainly dispute the various findings and discussions, starting with
Attachment 1, section 1 that the use:
"will be orderly, harmonious, and compatible with existing...uses of
adjoining or nearby sites".
I also refer you to Attachment 2, Section 3.C (page 22 of the staff report):
"...The commercial site to the north is much narrower than the subject
property, so that it is unlikely that third floor residential development
will ever be developed on that property."
Well, you gotta be kidding me when you at the same time say that 2051 El
Camino is too narrow, inferring that narrow lots of a certain size are
allowed variances, whereas different narrow lots are not! There are too
many problems in the staff report statements to include in this letter and
expect that you will have time to critically examine them before and during
your meetings. In places, the staff seems to believe that because the oak
trees are being preserved, the owners should be given special treatment
unlike any other citizen.
I may be wrong, but doesn’t the 433 sq. ft. retail area include an access
way and a male and/or female restroom? Does not this reduce greatly the
area of the retail space to the point of absurdity? Or should I ask how
many 250 sq. ft. or less retail spaces exist in our fair city!
The adjacent residences are shaded and cooled by the leaf canopy provided by
the existing trees, reducing electrical demands for cooling and providing a
visual aesthetic more pleasing than a 3-story concrete structure. The
proposed Section 8 conditions (Attachment 6, p. 39) regarding trees are
excellent, except that it might be proper to include an explicit condition
that will provide remediation should the oaks decay or are pruned in a way
that negatively impacts the adjacent r6sidences. If the proposed plans and
conditions don’t work, then a remediation condition offers a last measure of
assurance.
This 3-story thing might not qualify as a "monster", but everything else
around is single story. This section of El Camino is not multistory. There
is NO compelling reason to grant so many variances and exceptions; doing so
will be to the detriment of the area. It IS possible to construct a
building on the site without requiring special treatment, although the
people involved may wish for a better deal from the city so that they can
make more money. Do not grant these variances and exceptions.
There are many substandard lots along El Camino. It is not in the citizens
best interest to establish precedent that each lot will be.allowed variances
such as those proposed. Picture such a result with El Camino having both
sides of the street a set of 3-story buildings for the length of Palo Alto.
It will not be appreciated, it will not work. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if
the city had in place zoning and inducements that would encourage owners of
these substandard lots to get together and plan development is suitable and
that fulfills many purposes benefiting all citizens? If this lot was
combined with the lots to the west, there would be room to have residential,
retail, and neighborhood serving office uses AND conform to zoning.
I am sorry that I am unable to attend the meetings tonight and tomorrow.
Here’s to a better, more balanced Palo Alto!
John Baca
P.O. Box 18527, Stanford, CA’ 94309 650/473-0996 verdosa@hotmail.com
cc: ARB, Amy French, City Council, Frank Behest, Ed Gawf, Dave Dockter
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Betten, Zariah
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Info, Plandiv
Wednesday, July 11,2001 2:51 PM
Betten, Zariah
FW: new building at 2051 El Camino Real
From:john baca[SMTP:VERDOSA@ HOTMAIL.COM]
Sent:Wednesday, July 11, 2001 2:48:54 PM
To:plandiv_info@city.palo-alto.ca.us
Cc:dennisdecker@mindspring.com
Subject:Fwd: new building at 2051 El Camino Real
Auto forwarded by a Rule
>From: "dennis decker" <dennisdecker@mindspring.com>
>To: <planning_commission@city.pal0-alto.us>
>CC: "john verdosa" <verdosa@hotmail.com>
>Subject: new building at 2051 El Camino Real
>Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 23:02:48 -0700
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Received: from [207.69.200.226] by hotmail.com (3.2) with ESMTP id
>MHotMailBD153A150025400438DECF45C8E21DC00; Tue, 10 Jul 2001 23:15:50 -0700
>Received: from oemcomputer (user-2ivfl3i.dialup.mindspring.com
>[165.247.212.114])by blount.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id
>CAA08049;Wed, 11 Jul 2001 02:15:45 -0400 (EDT)
>From dennisdecker@mindspring.com Tue, 10 Jul 2001 23:17:08 -0700
>Message-ID: <008201c109cf$1e7eef00572d4f7a5@oemcomputer>
>X-Priority: 3
>X-MSMaiI-Priority: Normal
>X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
>X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
>
>To the Planning and Transportation Commission, City of Palo Alto
> July 10, 2001
>
> My name is Dennis Decker and I live at 2073 El Camino Real in the
>apartments directly adjacent to the proposed new building at 2051 El
>Camino. I have read the Planning commission staff report on the project and
>have several concerns about the project. These concerns are shared with
>several of my apartment neighbors. I would like to address the variances
>that are proposed as well as the general appropriatness of the building
>itself.
> The first concern is about the front and side setback variances that
>are being considered. There is no diagram in the staff report that I have,
>however, It seems to me that the driveway to the parking in the rear of the
>building will be situated on the laundry mat side of the property. The face
>of the building, as I understand, will be more or less directly butted up
>to the sidewalk. My bedroom window Is located on the apartment side of the
>lot. If the project goes as planned, I believe that the view from my window
>would be the side of the new building with little or no daylight. I could
>not discern from the report if the fence with ivy will be placed along this
>part of the building, which would make my view a wall of ivy. In both cases
>the blocking of my view and sunlight is totally unacceptable.
> The next concern is about the parking situation in general in this
>area and how the new building affects it. On this side of El Camino between
>College Ave_and Stanford Ave..there are six businesses with no designated
>parking. The Fresh Taste restaurant and Delia’s cleaners share very limited
>parking between them. The restaurant is very popular for lunch and dinner
>and patrons use a great deal of on street parking as well as_.patrons to
>the cleaners. The church at the corner of College ave. Has maybe one-fifth
>of the necessary parking it needs during it’s functions. The only business
>with ample parking is the Cellular One store, But it does not share it’s
>parking with any of the other businesses. Please keep in mind that the old
>Firestone store will, more than likely, soon be occupied by another
>business that will require even more parking. It is mistakenly assumed that
>the garages at our apartments are for the apartment residents where, in
>reality, they are rented out separately to people as storage units with the
>exception of one apartment resident who has rented one. In any case there
>are less garages, by far, than there are residents at this complex.
>Therefore, we are forced to find on street parking daily. A lot of times,
>as it is now, it is difficult to find a space. If the church has a
>function, it is almost impossible. I find it very hard to believe’that
>eight ( in reality, seven, because of the disabled parking) spaces is
>enough parking to accommodate employees at in a 1232 square foot office as
>well as customers to a retail business and a residential unit. When taking
>in to consideration the parking requirements for a new building, I think it
>is necessary to consider the availability of parking for the surrounding
>businesses and residents. I’m sure that the new building will have a very
>negative impact on the available parking for us as residents which directly
>affects the quality of or living situation here.
>In general, I think that a three story building situated on such a
>small lot is not appropriate. Taking in to consideration the surrounding
>businesses as well as the fact that it abuts directly onto residential
>property, this project is simply too large and has too much potential use
>to fit into this neighborhood.
>I will try to be present at the planning commission meeting on July
>1 lth, However, my work schedule may not allow me to. I would appreciate it
>if this letter is made available to the planning commission as well as the
>Architectural Review Board. I thank you very much for considering my
>opinion on this project.
>
>
>DENNIS DECKER
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
To~
From:
Date:
RE:
Architectural Review Board
Joy Ogawa
2305 Yale Street
Palo Alto 94306
July 12, 2001
2051 E! Camino Real [01-D-5, 01-V-9, 01-DEE-I]- comments
At the Planning and Transportation Commission heating last night, Current Planning
Manager John Lusardi gave incorrect information to the Commission in response to a
question from Commissioner Burt who asked what size or type of project would be
allowed, given the setback requirements and other constraints, without variances.
In his response, Mr. Lusardi said "But you could go up higher if there was no residential
component to it. So you could conceivably have a taller building if you can park all of
that square footage."
Commissioner Burr asked, "And that height is up to 35 fk?"
Mr. Lusardi replied "That’s correct, if there’s no residential component, the height goes
up to 35 feet in the CN zone."
This is what Section 18.41.050 (i) of the Code says with regard to site development
regulations for the CN zone: "Height. The maximum height shall be 7.6 meters (twenty-
five feet). Where the principal facility has one or more floors in residential use the
maximum height shall be 10.7 meters (thirty-five feet)."
So, in fact, the opposite is true. If there is no residential component, the height limit is a
lower 25 feet. If it i~ residential, the height limit is 35 feet
rc~idcz.~ial/ ..... ~-~:~1 according to staff’s latest interpretation, the RM- 15 height
limit of 30 feet kicks in f~..mi~-~.
I don’t know if the correct information would have resulted in a different decision by the
Planning Commission. But it sure seems to me to have been rather crucial
misinformation.
That’s for the record.
Now today the ARB is being requested to approve two Design Enhancement Exceptions.
One of these DEEs is for a reduction in the width of a required perimeter landscaped strip
adjacent to the west property line.
For the record, I want to read Section 18.91.020 of the Code which addresses the scope of
the Design Enhancement Exception Process:
"No exceptions shall be granted under this section which would increase floor
area, decrease the number of required parking spaces, decrease the amount of required
on-site landscaping, or decrease the required open space."
The DEE that is being requested decreases the amount of required on-site landscaping.
Such an exception is specifically prohibited by the Code.
I’m not speaking to the merits of the exception, which arguably is a minor decrease in the
width of the required landscape strip.
However, for the record, if you approve this exception, you will be ignoring Section
18.91.020 of the Code.
And I find it troubling that Staff can recommend such an action.
Attachment D
Excerpt
Planning and Transportation Commission
Verbatim Minutes
July 11, 2001
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
The next item on the agenda is 2051 E1 Camino Real.
2051 El Camino Real*: Request by Carrasco & Associates and Mehmood Taqui on
behalf of Joe and Evelyn Bradford for Site and Design Review of a new 4,325 square
foot, three story building to contain ground floor retail (433 sq. ft.), second floor
office (1,232 sq. ft.) and second and third floor residential (1,944 sq. ft.) uses plus
stairway area (573 sq. ft.), on a 4,938 square foot parcel in the CN District. Variance
are requested for (1) encroachments into front and side setbacks and side daylight
planes, (2) increased lot coverage (5% above CN District, 20% above RM-15), and
(3) a reduction in required parking spaces by one parking space (a total of eight
parking spaces are proposed where nine are required). A Design Enhancement
Exception is requested for (a) a partially covered residential parking space where one
fully covered residential parking space is required, and (b) a four foot wide perimeter
planting area on west side of parking stall #8 where a five foot wide planting area is
required. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the California Environmental
Quality Act. This item has been tentatively scheduled for an Architectural Review
Board public hearing on July 12 and a City Council public hearing on August 6,
2001.
Commissioner Byrd: Mr. Chair, I have a conflict of interest on this one and cannot participate.
Ms. Furth: Commissioner Byrd, could you specifically identify the source of your conflict for
the record.
Commissioner Byrd: I have a business partnership with Tony Carrasco and Carrasco &
Associates is one of the applicants.
Ms. Furth: Thank you. It is a requirement of State law.
Commissioner Burt: Thank you, Owen. Would Staff like to present their report?
Ms. Furth: Commissioner Burt before you start the hearing it might be a good idea to inquire as
to which of those heating the matter have viewed the site so that when the applicants and
members of the public make their presentation they know that you do or do not have first hand
familiarity with it.
Commissioner Burt: Thank you. Commissioners would you care to share with us your first
hand familiarity with the site.
Commissioner Cassel: I walked around the block yesterday and looked at the site.
-1-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Commissioner Schmidt: I also visited the site yesterday.
Commissioner Packer: I visited the site today.
Commissioner Burt: I visited the site recently.
Ms. Furth: Thank you.
Mr. Lusardi: Mr. Vice Chair and Members of the Commission, the item before you is a site and
design review for a new mixed-use project on E1 Camino Real. The Commission has received a
Staff report describing the proposed project as well as the applicant’s request for variances. The
Architectural Review Board is scheduled to review this project at their meeting tomorrow
morning at 8:00 a.m. The ARB will review the proposed project design as well as the request for
design enhancement exceptions. The Staff will report to the ARB the proceedings and
recommendations from the Planning Commission this evening. Prior to tonight’s meeting the
Commission received three letters from residents addressing this project. The Commission has
also received a revised project data calculation sheet essentially the revised calculations show a
building size increase by 178 square feet. The increase is in the residential unit, the square feet
for the office and the stairways has been reduced. No other project data has changed. This
project is scheduled to be heard by City Council on August 6. Staff recommends that the
Planning and Transportation Commission recommend approval of the site and design application
to the City Council based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained in this Staff
report.
I do want to point out one issue with respect to the variances before this Commission. The
height variance that has been requested by the applicant, one of the commentors is correct in
stating that we did not correctly notice that height variance for this Commission meeting. The
reason being that when you look at the CN-Zone Ordinance the CN Zoning Ordinance allows for
a maximum height for a commercial building of 25 feet then also states that for a residential
component in the CN the height can go up to 35 feet. That was the standard that was being used
when we were reviewing the project. However, in preparing the Staff report we realized that it
was the RM-15 standard that we need to apply. When you apply the RM-15 standard the height
restriction then goes to 30 feet. The project is proposing a height of 33 feet and therefore a
variance would be required for that height. We did not notice that height variance for this
particular Commission meeting. That being so, this Commission cannot discuss the height
variance at this meeting. What we will do if you propose to support this project, we will notice
the height variance for a subsequent Commission meeting and bring the height variance itself
back to the Commission for a review and recommendation. This concludes Staff presentation.
Thank you.
Commissioner Burt: Are there any questions of Staff at this time? Seeing none, we have 15
minutes from the applicant, Mr. Carrasco.
Mr. Tony Carrasco. 120 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto: Good evening Chairman Burt and
Members of the Commission. I represent Mehmood Taqui the applicant. Let me start where the
zoning doesn’t go. This project is on a very narrow lot, 50 feet where normally 70 feet would be
the standard, with trees on the side to the very east of the property. The zoning ordinance that
-2-
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
1 we have to obey is written in a form that almost discourages the creation of an additional housing
2 unit, which I think, was written 20 years ago with a different culture. Today even one housing
3 unit over a commercial property is valuable in our community. I believe that is the intent of the
4 new Comprehensive Plan. The way the zoning ordinance is written you could build a
5 commercial building up to 25 feet tall where we have it on this model and from property line to
property line setting the building 10 feet back from the rear property line. Obviously we have td
save the oak trees but it is in that context that I ask you to look at what we are proposing.
We have a commercial property front point to this model meeting the commercial guidelines.
When the residential portion of it that is sitting up on top in this place here, setback five feet
from this property line and several feet from that property line in order to preserve the canopy of
the oak trees. Let me also explain that in spite of the constrained lot we have conformed to the
density, we conform to maximum floor area, we do not conform to site width which is a function
of the site. If you go down your list we can conform to height except for three feet as Mr.
Lusardi has just defined. We conform with the rear setback and we have violated the side yard
setbacks and ! cite the reason why we have to violate it is that the ordinance as written says that
if you add a second residential unit you must conform the entire project to the residential
guidelines rather than to commercial guidelines. I think that as you go along as Commissioners
and the City Council members that guideline will probably change down the road to allow for the
residential units on busy streets if they are on top of commercial properties to conform to
commercial guidelines.
The front setback was another leftover from the past. The front setback as required in the present
ordinance is 35 feet. That setback does not imagine a retail sort of storefront or an office
storefront in today’s idea of a commercial street. In order to make retail function you have to
bring that retail right up to the street. This was pointed out to us both by the Architectural
Review Board and the neighborhood representatives, Pria Graves and David [Schwan]. It is at
their request that we changed this in our last submission which does not appear in your packet
from a building that used to sit back to a building that comes up to the street with retail in the
front. We have decreased the office space from the top and moved that commercial space to
retail down below. That is the cause of the front yard variance.
Again, we have daylight plane issues. As you imagine the RM-15 daylight plane starts up there
and cuts into the commercial because we are forced to use the residential daylight planes. That is
another reason why we are asking for a variance there. That is both side yards and the variance
for the front.
There is a parking space that we are asking for a DEE. We had a parking space that used to sit
up front here. When we talked to the neighbors and the neighborhood representatives, Pria and
David, they suggested to remove that parking space and replacing it with the retail bringing it all
the way forward. That sort of generally describes the variances and through that description
describes the project that we have before you.
I think that’s basically it. Again, let me reiterate that I think one more unit in Palo Alto is
valuable on commercial property. I think this long process that we are going to go through is
worth that additional one unit both in terms of financially as well as for the City. Thank you.
-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
Commissioner Burt: Any questions for the applicant? Bonnie.
Commissioner Packer: In that space for retail which is 433 square feet, which is rather small,
what kind of retail do you think would go there? Would it be viable or do you think it might end
up as a dead space?
Mr. Can’asco: 433 square feet is quite large enough. We are doing another project with retail
and they are as small as 300 square feet. It could be a small deli. I remember doing a project on
Alma. It had a retail space that was about 200 or less square feet. It fimctioned as a small little
deli, little restaurant, not a sit down type of restaurant.
Commissioner Butt: Phyllis.
Commissioner Cassel: Tony, the daylight plane from the side with the residential units how is
the sun going to affect the Small residential units?
Mr. Carrasco: IfI can point this out here, north is about like that. The sun rises there in the
winter and sets here in the winter. In the summer the sun rises up there (pointed to model) and
goes across the sky like that sets here. We can see with the trees that exist on this site shade the
residential units anyway. These trees have heavy foliage and sunlight does not penetrate these
trees in the winter. The winter sun is right there which will not cast a shadow or in the summer
when it sets here. See what I’m saying? The trees in any event shade these units. The buildings
make shadows and the trees make shade so it is a whole lot better.
Commissioner Cassel: I was there yesterday afternoon and it appeared that the sun was peering
in the windows. They are just little windows and little notches so I was curious whether they
would be shaded entirely.
Mr. Carrasco: Maybe when the sun is horizontal almost when it is coming in under the trees, if
you went there at about 7:30 in the evening or something like that, then I could see it going
through. However, those windows sit on the property line and they should really be boarded up
from the property owners side and not allowed to have an opening within five feet of the
property line. These are about six inches away.
Commissioner Cassel: But they existed prior to the current zoning.
Commissioner Burt: Kathy.
Commissioner Schmidt: I appreciate the idea of trying to do mixed use in our current zoning
situation where it is difficult to do that and we haven’t quite gotten to the point of getting that
changed. A couple of questions about the mixed use concept here. If you look at the plan it
looks like the whole building could pretty easily be office space all the way up to the top floor
because there are several small rooms called out as bedrooms that could be offices pretty easily.
You have done some other live/work buildings just down the street and I was wondering what
your experience is with the reality of a building where you are trying to combine residential and
office and now commercial use too. Does it turn out that way or does it end up being all office?
-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
Mr. Carrasco: This is a difference in the kind of project than the one that you are referring to
which is at 1885 E1 Camino. At 1885 the access to the residential unit happened through the
offices down below and not a separate entry as is proposed in this case. So this one should
function and should rent to two different tenants. At 1885 E1 Camino we were forced to rent it to
one tenant because the access to the unit is from down below. One of the objectives of that
project was to decrease commute hour trips so that we have someone there sleeping and working
in that space and that the person working in that space would be the user of that residential unit.
We accomplished that. There are people sleeping there. It rams out that its not the same person
every night. There may be a person there for seven nights and then it changes or sometimes
there are three or four people who sleep there and work there late at night. So it is working in
some form of residential live/work but this is more of a mixed use project than a live/work.
Commissioner Schmidt: It says in the Staff report that the owner intends to live there.
Mr. Carrasco: Yes.
Commissioner Schmidt: Okay. Thank you.
Commissioner Burt: At this time we have three speakers from the public. Excuse me, Phyllis
another question for the applicant.
Commissioner Cassel: In looking at this project it looks like the second floor residential area
would make a nice separate unit. You’d have two residential units. You’ve had to make
exceptions here just for parking anyway and I realize you’d have to make other exceptions to put
two residential units in there but why didn’t you ask for two residential units here?’
Mr. Carrasco: We started out hoping for two residential units because there is enough space
from the floor area point of view but the density of the project only allows us to have one.
Commissioner Cassel: So it wouldn’t need another variance?
Mr. Carrasco: Yes. The balance on density is not something that Staff has ever done before, I
don’t think.
Commissioner Burt: Bonnie, a question?
Commissioner Packer: Kathy’s comments triggered something in my mind. Looking at the
second floor where the office is and the bedrooms of the residential unit are behind. Let’s say
there is a change in ownership and a change in the use of the offices. Is there anything that
would prevent all those bedrooms being converted into office space so that the whole floor
would become office space?
Mr. Carrasco: If you go through the front door they could do that but there is a fire separation
between office and residential that is required by the building code that is not penetrable. You
cannot penetrate from the office to the residences through the wall. They would have to go out
the back door and into the front door of the unit to get into the unit. What is to prevent? I don’t
know other than honor and good Staff watching it.
-5-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Ms. Grote: Any conversion to office space would require a tenant improvement because they
would need to change it to an office space. They would have to apply for a building permit and
we would not approve such a building permit primarily because it wouldn’t meet the parking
requirement. There might be other fire safety issues as well but primarily because it would not
meet parking. So we would not approve a building permit for that kind of conversion.
Commissioner Butt: No other questions? At this time we will open the comments to the public
with a maximum of five minutes per speaker allowed. Our fist speaker is Heidi Huber.
Ms. Heidi Huber, 482 Oxford Avenue, Palo Alto: I live around the comer from where this site
is. I just wanted to make the comment that there is already parking problems as it exists right
now. With Ananda Church and the Delia’s Cleaners and the restaurant and the laundry mat and
there is also nail and hair place and a cleaners there too there is not enough parking within the
area. Even on E1 Camino, across the other side of E1 Camino, in that area there is not enough
parking. So if there is not parking made available for this particular project I think it will create
problems for the residents and the merchants in the area. I just wanted to say that. So please
take parking into consideration. Thank you.
Commissioner Butt: Thank you. Our next speaker is Dennis Decker.
Mr. Dennis Decker, 2073 E1 Camino Real, Palo Alto: Thank you very much for allowing me to
speak. I live in the apartment complex right next to the proposed project. I live behind the
garage that is directly adjacent to the building. In behind that garage are four apartments. I took
a quick look at the blueprints and it kind of assumes that those are all garages. ! don’t know if
that is really reflective in the Staffreport however, I live in the second apartment down. My
view from my rear window if this project were to go through would now be a concrete wall. I
would get no daylight whatsoever. I don’t think that’s right to block my view and my daylight.
Contrary to what Mr. Carrasco says I do get daylight through my window. It is especially nice in
the winter when it is cold. Even if it is not direct it is indirect. So at this point.if that project
were to go through as it stands I would have absolutely no view and no sunlight whatsoever.
That would be true for the rest of the residents on that side of the apartment building. That really
deteriorates the quality of our life there. Not that we already have to put up with the noise on E1
Camino and stuffbut taken into consideration I think we should be allowed to have our view and
our sunlight.
The other issue is parking as Heidi stated. Between Stanford Avenue and College Avenue I
counted six businesses with no parking whatsoever. It is all on-street parking. The Fresh Taste
restaurant and the Delia’s Cleaners kind of share a parking lot however, it is much too small.
There is complete overrun from their businesses..The Ananda Church has a very small parking
lot and if they have any functions it is really impossible to find a parking space around our
house. In the staff report, it says those garages are for the residents in my complex however,
they are rented out separately and are used as storage units. So those aren’t our garages. Even if
they were there wouldn’t be enough garages for the amount of tenants in that building. So we
are forced to be parking on the street. Right now it is already difficult and if the Ananda Church
has something going on there are times when I’ve had to park a block and one-half or two blocks
away from my house. The retail business as it stands in this project has zero parking spaces. I
-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
find it hard to believe that a business that could afford to pay rent on E1 Camino could justify
such a small amount of traffic as to need zero parking spaces. It just doesn’t make any sense.
When I left today to come to this meeting there was one parking space available in the
immediate area around my house and it would be exactly where the driveway is now on that
building. So I think there is a major problem with the parking in general. I don’t think a lot of
foresight has been taken in consideration with all the businesses in the immediate area that don’f
have any parking available. In addition we have the Firestone building which is now closed
however, I am sure it will open up into another business which will require even that much more
parking. I think we have to start looking into the future a little bit also. I appreciate you letting
me talk and I hope it helps the cause. Thank you.
Commissioner Burt: Thank you.
Mr. Lusardi: Mr. Vice Chair, just a comment. The correspondence that Staff received this
evening was the first time that we were made aware that those parking structures on the
adjoining property were converted to storage units. Staff appreciates the concerns that have been
raised about the parking issue. We are not sure that those conversions to storage units is a legal
conversion and we assume that they were parking for that residential complex. We will have to
look into that.
Commissioner Burt: Thank you. Our next speaker is Joy Ogawa.
Ms. Joy Ogawa, 2305 Yale Street, Palo Alto: Good evening. I hope you got my written
comments. I was believe the only member of the public to speak at both of the preliminary
reviews that the ARB held on this project. I am speaking tonight to very strong opposition to the
granting of any variance that would be required of this proj ect if it were a fully commercial
project in the CN Zone. Parts of the Staff report have implied that the only reason that the
variances are required is because oflhe more restrictive RM-15 zoning regulations that are
applied to a mixed residential~commercial project. However, the following variances would still
be required even ifRM-15 regulations were not applied and these are: Variance 1 for
encroachment into the front setback; Variance 2 for increased lot coverage; and Variance 3 for
reduction in parking spaces. I oppose the granting of these variances. I’m not opposing the
variance for side setbacks because this variance would not be required if the building were fully
commercial. The height variance I guess I can’t talk about that. I think I pointed out the
problems with that. So I will skip over to the front setback. 433 square feet for retail to me is
not an acceptable reason to allow a zero foot front setback. 433 square feet is only 10% of the
square footage of the proposed building and in my opinion this is only a token amount of retail.
At the very least a 10 foot front setback should be required and a 10 feet is what a fully
commercial building would be required to have. The zero foot front setback is not compatible
with existing buildings. I brought a photo that I’ll pass around at the end. It is to demonstrate
that this two-story structure jutting out to the sidewalk is going to be a big change. It is really
going to impact what the feel is to the pedestrians.
Lot coverage. Lot coverage should only be allowed to increase at most to 50%, which is what is
allowed for fully commercial buildings. The applicant made some points about the lot being
small and he can’t really fit stuffin there and talking about sub standards therefore it should have
all these variances. I feel that if a lot is substandard is actually should be required to have stricter
-7-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
regulations and I believe that the code does say that for R-1 zoning a substandard should have a
lower height requirement of 17 feet instead of 3 5 feet. Furthermore, the applicant should have
been aware of the limitations of this property when they purchased it, which I understand, with
the last year. The zoning code has not changed since that time and the Coast Live Oaks have
been protected under the tree ordinance for several years. So it shouldn’t come as any surprise to
them that there are limitations to development on this property.
Parking spaces, what they are proposing is basically to eliminate the retail parking space, which
is not only bad in terms of available parking as you’ve heard, but they are also setting up the
retail to fail. If there is no easy parking for retail it is going to fail. I believe that granting the
requested variances would be encouraging office use and not encouraging residential or retail. If
the office use were eliminated from this project I’d be more willing to support the granting of the
variances. I believe that actually eliminating the office would probably make it so that variances
would not be required or fewer variances would be required because of the reduced amount of
parking that would be required for a more highly proportioned residential use of the property.
I believe that there is a big danger inherent in mixed use projects that contain office. That is a
danger of a potential future abuse where office use eventually takes over residential or retail
space. The configuration of the second floor office and residential of this project has especially
great potential for such abuse. It may be that a new building permit would not be granted if the
user went through the Planning Department to ask for a building permit but what is to keep them
from just simply using the rest of the second floor as office? I believe that as a rule that before
any mixed use project with offices is approved there need to be effective safeguards built into the
project to protect against this kind of abuse. I don’t think this project has such safeguards.
I hope that you will make sure that this project conforms to the code as much as possible and
help us preserve our neighborhood commercial for neighborhood serving uses. I will pass up
this photo, it is just a Polaroid. It shows what this property would look like from the sidewalk
today. Then what a building that’s proposed would do to the pedestrian use of that sidewalk.
Thanks.
Commissioner Butt: Thank you. Our next speaker is John Ciccarelli.
Mr. John Ciccarelli, 2065 Yale Street, Palo Alto: Good evening. I’m aresident of College
Terrace and I’m here tonight not to speak to the project so much, although this is my first
introduction to the Planning and Transportation Commission, but to introduce myself as College
Terrace’s new City Observer which is one-third of a board position. We have a Government and
University Observer position. One of the three of us sharing that position is myself watching the
City issues including E1 Camino, another third of that is Carry Epstein who is looking at Stanford
campus and Stanford County issues and the third person is Paul Garrett also a College Terrace
resident looking at Stanford Management Company and Research Park issues. College Terrace
is interested in development along E1 Camino, both sides of E1 Camino not just our side, from
Sera Street down to Page Mill Road. So this development is within our scope of concern if not
our scope of influence. I’m not prepared to comment on the application, like I said, I’m just
coming up to speed. In general we favor ground floor retail, neighborhood serving retail, and
innovative ways to supply a variety of housing options. I just wanted to say I am looking
-8-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
forward to following Planning and Transportation Commission agenda issues and visiting your
meetings again. Thank you.
Commissioner Burt: Thank you. Our next speaker is Lynn Chiapella.
Ms. Lynn Chiapella, 631 Colorado Avenue, Palo Alto: I have many of the concems that were
expressed by Joy Ogawa. This is actually a very small lot but certainly the lots next door to it
are even smaller. This is the first domino in a series of dominoes to fall because if you do this
for this lot you really have to do it for everyone else who owns that commercial property along
there. If I look at that picture basically what I see is a completely filled in lot surrounded by very
small one-story buildings on very small lots. We also see that this is adjacent to residential on
two sides and that those residential apartments and houses will be dramatically affected by these
variances in the setbacks. So we have a very small lot and that is what is exceptional here and
want to put a very large building on it. I sympathize with the problem because of the oak trees
and I think there are grounds because of oak trees and preserving them for some exceptions but
what they are asking for is a variance in the front yard setback, a variance for both side yard
setbacks, a variance for the building height, a variance for the daylight plane, a variance for the
reduction in parking which we all know is extremely short of parking. They are also asking for
an exception for the required covered parking and an exception for the four foot wide planting
where five feet are required. This the planter around the oak trees. I’m sure you are aware the
situation with the oak trees but in particular when you cement and cover so much of the area and
that’s why they cannot put the underground garage in addition to the fact that apparently the site
is just plain too small for an underground garage. The actual square footage for retail, I think, is
actually unknown as I look at that plan and ! read the Staff report. In the retail you have
stairwells and bathrooms and something I can’t even define on the right side. I don’t know what
the actual square footage is but I know the actual square footage is not 433 square feet. Maybe it
is 250, maybe 300, I really don’t know what it is and I have looked at the plans and ! have read
the Staff report. You have to consider all the other things that are in this tiny, tiny spot.
The previous speakers have all mentioned the parking. There is no way that this is not going to
exacerbate all the problems for all the businesses and residents in that area. Residents who live
three blocks away have told me they have extreme parking problems from E1 Camino and
California Avenue. Those are people who are living a block further in than the residents who
spoke to you tonight. All of their area was parked up tonight when ! went down to see it. I
drove around in circles looking for a parking place tonight when I went to look at it at about 4:00
p.m. So if in your wisdom you decide to go along with a project like this, I think you can see
how it just out-sizes everything, I would ask that you at least put conditions on it for the
protection of the oaks you need that five feet, you need something for those oaks.
For the height, somehow that height needs to be pulled back or there needs to be cantilevering or
something done for the residents who are below you and in back of you. For example, as I read
the Staff report it says that this rear lighting is not going to be a problem. I haven’t seen yet
where lighting of commercial in parking lots adjacent to one-story residential housing has not
been a problem with lights glaring down into their backyards. In the case of the security
lighting, it glows right into the bedrooms even though it is required to be baffled or have some
kind of cover. ! would ask that the lighting not be able to extend past the property line for
example. And that you put these conditions on that would protect the residents that are nearby.
-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
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
think that you are really looking at a situation where it is really too large for the site and for the
area. If you consider it a blighted area as was discussed last night then this area would be as
welcome for a redevelopment as the area that was discussed by City Council last night. This is a
very problematic situation. What is to prevent every owner on that block with those tiny pieces
of property from not wanting what this property owner wants? Thank you.
Commissioner Burt: Thank you. Our fmal speaker is Karen Holman.
Ms. Holman: Hello again. I felt it necessary to speak on this because I spoke on the last item
because I said it is often perceived that private property owners and individual architects are
dealt with differently than developers. How many variances are being requested on this project
and are being supported? Whereas one minor exception, in my perspective at least, an HIE was
requested on the last property and that was denied. So it seems to me that the playing field really
is not even. I think it is a very, very serious issue. Also, I understand very well from working
with the SOFA projects how it is difficult to make findings for a residential unit on top of the CN
Zone for instance because of setbacks, daylight plane issues, etc. But I find it counter-productive
to make the exceptions for a single residential unit when office is being allowed below which
more than complicates the situation and one housing unit does not counter-balance the office
being allowed in the building. The other thing is to go ahead and allow a variance that ignores
those setbacks while I support residential development to go ahead and to allow these exceptions
or variances to change that code is essentially what that’s doing. ¯ I would recommend that
instead that this Commission make a recommendation to Council to change that zoning. Again,
as other speakers have said, what is to keep another project from coming forward and asking for
the same exceptions? So in effect what this Commission and Staff would be doing is changing
code without it going through proper procedure and policy through the Plarming Commission for
that change and to the Council for that change. Thank you very much.
Commissioner Burt: Thank you. At this time do we have some questions for Staff from
Commissioners? Phyllis?
Commissioner Cassel: The first question has to do with these residential units that are right next
door. John, I think I asked you this question yesterday, how far back is the solid wall in
relationship to those residential traits and will they be blocked?
Mr. Lusardi: The request for the variance on that side property line is for a zero setback but it is
only for an extension of approximately seven feet back from the front property line. So then the
building steps back from there 15 feet. So the side along the residential property line is a setback
of approximately 15 feet.
Commissioner Cassel: What is a standard requirement for that setback is what? In a residential
area it is six feet.
Mr. Lusardi: In this case the requirement for a side yard setback in that respect, because this lot
abuts a R-2 zone in the rear, the requirement would be a 10 foot side yard setback. That’s why
the variance is necessary on that side of the property line because there is that one portion of the
building right at the beginning that has a zero setback.
-10-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Commissioner Burt: Bonnie, any questions?
Commissioner Packer: I have a question. It seems that in looking at the drawings the only
reason that would require that zero setback for those stairs is because there is a bathroom. There
seem to be two bathrooms there. Is it absolutely necessary to have that part of the building there
or could you still have a viable building without having that part jut out in front. I’m talking
about where I see stuff sticking out there on the second floor. It has to do with the design of the
stairwell and the bathrooms.
Mr. Lusardi: I’ll try and answer that and if Tony wants to add to it that’s fine. The reason for
that area was to create a separate entrance to the office space along that side of the property and
at the same time the retail space on the ground floor has to have a bathroom per code. So if you
were to pull the building in further you would begin to reduce your retail space because you have
to maintain the driveway opening width.
Commissioner Packer: I just fail to see how it was absolutely necessary. It was because the
retail space was there.
Mr. Lusardi: Yes.
Commissioner Packer: Okay, thank you.
Mr. Lusardi: Let me also clarify. The setback, the building there is not seven feet, I think it is
more like 20 feet. I apologize.
Commissioner Cassel: Then it sets back not 15 but some other amount for a certain distance and
then it sets back at the 15.
Mr. Lusardi: That’s correct, yes.
Commissioner Burt: Kathy, do you have questions at this time? We can move back later,
Bonnie. Ihave a couple.
What project would be allowed given the setback requirements and the other constraints without
any variances? What size of a project and what type of a project? Not merely the FAR
limitations but given all of the other constraints of the trees, and the setbacks, etc.
Mr. Lusardi: I can’t specifically say what size in square footage would be allowed under that but
when you are dealing with in this particular property because of the narrowness of the property
and if you were to respect all of the setbacks you would have a rear setback of 20 feet, you’d
have two side yard setbacks of 10 feet each and a front setback of I believe 20 feet. You would
effectively reduce the building envelope almost down to a postage stamp. So it would be a very
small building in that respect. But you could go up higher if there was no residential component
to it. So you could conceivably have a taller building if you could park all of that square footage.
Commissioner Burt: That height is up to 35 feet?
-11-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Mr. Lusardi: That’s correct, if there is not residential component the height goes up to 35 feet in
the CN Zone.
Commissioner Burt: And this building’s proposed height is 33 feet. What is requiring the height
variance is the fact that it is an RM-15 requirement, which is 30 feet.
Commissioner Burt: This is perhaps a question for Lisa. Lisa, you responded to an inquiry on
some of the ways in which the residential component could be guaranteed to remain residential
and that they would have to get a building permit to convert that. We have had a number of
circumstances where we had mixed use buildings where the intended residential purpose ended
up becoming office at different locations Downtown, etc. How are those conversions able to
happen without going through the process that you described would be necessary for this one?
Ms. Grote: Most of those conversions did come through the Building Division for building
permits but Downtown they can pay in lieu parking fees rather than provide the parking onsite.
So that may have been used to help convert what had been a residential unit to an office space
Downtown. We had a parking assessment district, which allows the use of in lieu parking fees.
IN one case there was actually a PC (Planned Community) Zone that included a residential unit
then they withdrew the PC and reverted back to the original zoning and paid the in lieu parking
fee. That’s how they converted that particular unit.
Commissioner Burt: Wyrme, you had a comment?
Ms. Furth: We also have a certain number of illegal conversions. People don’t pull building
permits or they don’t do tenant improvements and when we had a very, very strong office market
certain apartment buildings did suddenly have only daytime occupants. Those we treat as a code
enforcement matter when they are brought to our attention.
Commissioner Burt: Bonnie.
Commissioner Packer: I have a question on the front setbacks. Would this building, if it were
built with the variances as requested, be flush with the laundry mat or would it be jutting out a
foot or two? Also, it seems like all the buildings along there don’t seem to be complying with
this 25 foot setback.
Mr. Lusardi: That is correct. The setback for the proposed project is approximately one foot.
I’m not sure exactly what the setback of the existing laundry mat is maybe Tony could answer
that question. It would either be flush or it would be a nominal difference.
Commissioner Packer: The reason I was asking was the picture that Joy Ogawa passed out.
Would this be accurate that there would be some projection onto the sidewalk?
Mr. Lusardi: The building could not project onto the sidewalk. It can’t project past the property
line. It is kind of tough for me to tell from that picture. All I can tell you is the building can’t
extend past the property line and the sidewalk is on the other sideofthe property line. So it
wouldn’t extend into the sidewalk.
- 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
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Commissioner Packer: The reason I ask is sometimes the property line has an easement over but
this is not the case?
Mr. Lusardi: No.
Commissioner Packer: Okay.
Commissioner Burt: I have a couple of questions regarding the retail. First, one of the speakers
questions what would be the actual space available for retail. Do you have a clarification that
you can make on that?
Mr. Lusardi: The actual space for the retail is 433 square feet. The other space is the space for
the bathroom and the stairways and is calculated separately. So the actual retail space is 433
square feet.
Commissioner Burt: Thank you. Several of the speakers raised the issue of the their not being a
dedicated off-street parking space for the retail. Would you like to comment on that issue as
well?
Mr. Lusardi: When the original project came in it met the setback requirement and it didn’t have
any retail component in it. Actually members of the community and the Architectural Review
Board encouraged the applicant to go back and design a project, make it much more pedestrian
friendly, reduce the driveway opening, enhance the driveway opening and soften that open hole
and add a retail component to it. That’s when the design pulled it forward to kind of give it a
stronger pedestrian feeling with that retail space there. That’s the reason for the retail component
and the building coming forward in that respect.
Commissioner Burt: Can you share with us a bit more about the design of the original proposal
and what it included in commercial space, residential and retail?
Mr. Lusardi: The original design had a further front yard setback but the rest of the setbacks
remain pretty much the same as .this project. It did not, however, have any retail space at the
street level. The parking opening for the parking structure was considerably wider and more
open but it did have a residential unit. The residential unit I believe was smaller in the original
design. The office space was larger than what is proposed now.
Commissioner Burt: What variances would have been necessary with the original proposal?
Mr. Lusardi: I believe under the original proposal all the variances would have been the same
except for the front yard variance when the building pulled forward to create a better interface
with the street.
Commissioner Burt: Any other questions from Commissioners? Phyllis
Commissioner Cassel: There was a comment made about the oak trees. My understanding is
that the paving that’s being used there is not solid, that that is going to be permeable paving?
-13-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Mr. Lusardi: That is correct, yes. That has been reviewed by the City Arborist and there is an
Arborist report that sets standards and conditions for how those trees have to be preserved. I will
point out that one of the comments in the letters pointed out that there was no requirement in
there that requires the applicant to maintain the trees if they get diseased. That is something we
will look into and enhance that requirement if necessary.
Commissioner Burr: One final question from me. The applicant, I believe, had commented on
an inability to have two residential units in the project design. I didn’t fully understand whether
that was at the expense of the commercial space or in addition to it or what. Can you shed any
light on that?
Mr. Lusardi: The actual limitation there was the parking requirement. They would have had a
higher parking requirement. If you add the ground floor retail component plus two residential
units you would have had to have a greater parking variance. You couldn’t have parked two
residential units, the office and the office space.
Commissioner Burt: Phyllis.
Commissioner Cassel: Then my understanding is this site will only allow 1.5 residential units
and so the other problem is the density.
Mr. Lusardi: That’s correct. The density.
Commissioner Cassel: So if they made two units out of it which seems more logical and would
be better in terms of our chances of keeping it residential doesn’t work because the zoning
doesn’t allow it.
Mr. Lusardi: That’s correct, yes.
Commissioner Burt: I think that concludes our questions for Staff. It looks like we have time to
proceed with discussion and motions from Commissioners prior to a break. Who would like to
begin? Would you like to take a stab, Kathy?
Commissioner Schmidt: I will take a stab at starting the discussion here. As we have
mentioned, we have had some other projects along E1 Camino that have come along to try to do
mixed use and it is difficult to do and it often requires a lot of variances and design exceptions.
Maybe someday in the not too distant future I believe we will have new ordinances that will
allow mixed use. I think mixed use is appropriate on E1 Camino and in some other parts of the
City.
This particular site is very small and difficult to do much of anything on. I think the architect has
been creative in trying to deal with all the difficulties of the site. I think it is fairly reasonable to
grant variances to do this. As I said, it is an exceptionally small site, the architect is working
with existing trees and trying to preserve them, actually keeping it open on the side that is
adjacent to the residential part of the block and making an attractive project. It is stated that this
will be residence, office and retail. I would have to believe that this is what the intended uses are
as I commented earlier I would have some concerns that it could all be used as office. In which
- 14-
1
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
case the parking would be inadequate for what’s being proposed. But for the uses depicted there
and the uses that have been presented here tonight the parking is only one space shy of what is
required. I think the members of the public have mentioned protecting oak trees and we have
talked about that tonight. I think that is something indeed that we would want to make certain
with anything on the site that the trees are protected so that we can have them living long lives. I
think there was another comment about lighting. If this project goes ahead the lighting at the
rear should be designed to minimize its impact on the residential neighbors. Those are my
comments to start this out.
Commissioner Burt: Phyllis.
Commissioner Cassel: We are in the awkward situation that this does meet the goals of the
Comprehensive Plan. The goals are to have mixed uses in this particular area and our zoning
doesn’t match it. We haven’t yet had a chance to catch our zoning up with some of our goals.
So this creates an awkward situation. We had a site on E1 Camino on the other side of Oregon
Expressway in which we dealt with some of these same issues. The project that came before us
had no retail space on the street and office on the second and residence on the third. There were
a lot of objections to that because there was no retail on the street and what we ended up with
was a screened parking area on the street. We were very unhappy with that. So in this case,
some of the neighbors and the Architectural Review Board requested that this have a retail
component on the first floor. Those usually are place forward to the street and not set way back.
The rest of the buildings along that street are presented fairly close to the sidewalk line, they are
not set 25 feet back. The garages that are supposed to be serving those residential area are not
set back even a standard amount of distance. So there isn’t a 25 foot setback along that section
in front. So we are dealing with a front setback that would actually be out of line if it was 25 feet
back. Those are some of the comments. The zero lot line next to the laundry mat would match a
zero lot line that is already next to the laundry mat. The lot line next to the residential units is
back most of the distance that it is supposed to be, although, those will be cars that will be
parked relatively close to it. Again, those units are almost on the lot line if they are not on the lot
line and that is an existing condition which makes it more awkward for those units no matter
what we build in that site.
Commissioner Burt: Bonnie.
Commissioner Packer: I was trying to imagine the alternative if this project was not built and if
a project was built that fit the requirements let’s say for a commercial zone. You’d have
probably just a 35 by 30 foot box and a zero front setback would probably be granted because
everything else is zero or one foot setback. But then you would just have 10 feet on either side
and a box, if it was a commercial building, and you add residential and you have the other types
of setbacks you have to comply with and you end up with a more interesting looking box. A box
that has layers. So even though I went to the site and I tried to imagine this massive.thing there
because everything else next to it is single story, it seems a bit shocking but that is what’s
allowed. So there is nothing we can do about that when that is what the zoning allows for the
sites. So that’s what I took into consideration thinking this probably is a viable project and that
the variances are necessary in order to have such a mixed use on such a small lot.
-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
Commissioner Burt: I agree with Phyllis that we really have a dilemma here because our current
zoning is not consistent at this time with our Comprehensive Plan goals to encourage mixed use
development in these sorts of areas. One of the thoughts that I have that the Commission may
want to consider is that since we are going to have to revisit the height issue at a subsequent
meeting, if there were recommendations for changes or suggestions that we have at this time,
would it be appropriate to revisit any of those changes being incorporated in the proposal when it
comes back to us for the height consideration. John, do you have any comment on that?
Mr. Lusardi: This gets into a process questions. If you are making recommendations with
respect to changing the design of the building, this project is going to the Architectural Review
Board tomorrow and then there were further changes to be made, and the Commission wanted to
look at those changes and they were affecting the design of the building we would be compelled
to go back to the ARB for them to review any changes. We can report those changes to the ARB
tomorrow if you are recommending that and if they support them we can work through that but
what we want to try to avoid is the ping-ponging back between Commission and ARB before it
goes to Council.
Commissioner Burt: Thank you.
Ms. Furth: Excuse me. One way to think about it is that if there are changes that you think are
necessary in order for you to support variances because they are tied into the do no harm aspect
of the variance or something like that then that’s the kind of thing that it is most appropriate to
comment on.
Commissioner Burt: The other question I would have for the Commissioners is I would
welcome a discussion of what would we like to achieve at this site. Then to compare the
proposal to what our goals are for this site. We certainly have the Comprehensive Plan
guidelines in a general sense but I’m straggling with having a clear concept of what are the
project aspects that we would like to see here. So I would welcome any discussion of that.
Commissioner Cassel: Let me hit the parking issue, which I think, is driving this and causing us
the most problems. No matter what we put here unless you put something very small here or
maybe go to residential, even if you go to residential you’ve got to park it and you have to spend
most of that space on that first floor parking it. That puts everything on the second or third floor
no matter what kind of building you put in. We are talking about being unable to put in an
underground parking situation so I am looking at other alternatives and the site is very
constrained. That, I think, is driving our awkwardness because if you could put underground
parking and you are still going to have a wide entrance on the street to enter the parking because
you are coming offE1 Camino, there is no other access in or out, so you have to have a two-car
wide entryway in and out of that site. If you could go down then you could bring the height of
the whole building and the scale down. Otherwise you have to park the cars. It is very common
for us to make an exception when there is a residence situation where we expect some office uses
would be there during the day and some will not at night so we can usually forgive one space in
these kinds of situations. But the site is primarily occupied by parking. So whatever is built is
going to built mostly on the second and third floor. The other alternative is to just have
something on the second floor and no third floor.
-16-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Commissioner Burt: I agree that is kind of my struggle. For me the question is do we have the
size of the project and the variances that would be necessary for a larger project be essentially
the given or does the parking requirement drive the size of the project? So that is some of what
I’m struggling with.
Commissioner Cassel: If you brought the size of the building down, you’ve got two required
spaces for the residence, no matter if it is this size or a smaller size. So you’d be cutting how
much of what space out to get the number of parking spaces down enough to bring the whole
thing down. What are the numbers?
Commissioner Butt: I don’t know.
Mr. Lusardi: You would have to effectively reduce the office space to reduce the parking
requirement. That is the only use that you could reduce, and you would have to reduce it enough
to eliminate the need for one more parking space, 250 square feet approximately.
Commissioner Butt: Reduce the commercial by 250 square feet.
Mr. Lusardi: I would say reduce the office not the retail, yes.
Ms. Furth: I was going to say that you are in a very difficult position because this is such a
complicated and unsatisfactory ordinance. I know that makes these discussions and analysis
very complicated. It makes the projects difficult to design and hard to analyze. I think that one
thing to keep in mind is this is still a variance request and there is still a set of findings. You
have identified the unusual and constraining factors about the site, the trees, the narrow width,
the location on E1 Camino. You went through a similar exercise further down the road. But
there is still the two findings, are these particular variances necessary for the project and can they
be granted without having adverse impacts in the area and on adjacent properties. So at some
point in your discussion and your decision-making you do need to focus on that aspect of the
discussion in order to have the legally adequate decision aside from these more complicated and
interesting issues.
Commissioner Schmidt: I was going to say we have a project before us to evaluate and I don’t
know if we should be redesigning what the square footage should be. We have a proposed
project right here.
Commissioner Burt: Okay, does anyone wish to make a motion on the project before us?
MOTION
Commissioner Packer: I think I.can make the motion to support the request for the variances
except for the height variance which wasn’t noticed and support the findings that are in the
attachments for all the variances except for the height variance for this project.
Commissioner Butt: Is there a second?
SECOND
-17-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Commissioner Schmidt: I’ll second it
Commissioner Cassel: Can you add to that the light screening? I’m sure that will be in the
conditions when that comes back but the light screening and the Arborist report requirements for
the oak trees.
Commissioner Packer: Yes, all the conditions, light screening, tree protection.
Mr. Lusardi: Staff will recommend that the Architectural Review Board review a lighting plan
to ensure that the lighting meets those kinds of standards.
Commissioner Packer: To speak to my motion I just want to reflect what we have discussed
before, that we have difficult ordinances. I think the architect has come up with something that
is workable. The variances are necessary in order to achieve the retail, the office space and the
residential and the parking requirements. There probably will be some adverse impact but those
would have been with the building if there were no variances. It would have been a similar kind
of impact on the surrounding properties. So in that sense I don’t see that the granting of the
variances changes the impact that would have been if there were no variances and a totally
conforming structure were built. I’m glad it is a mixed use project even though it is just one
residence but it creates a precedent and maybe over time the other properties along E1 Camino
will be similarly developed and we will get a little bit more housing along the way.
Commissioner Schmidt: It is evident that we are all struggling with this because it is
complicated and because as we noted the existing ordinances do not agree with the goals of the
Comprehensive Plan at the moment. So it just makes it hard. I think mixed use is appropriate on
E1 Camino. I think the applicant has been responsive to neighbor’s suggestions to add the retail.
I think that will make it a more pleasant building along E1 Camino. I don’t actually mind a little
height on E1 Camino either. We are not addressing total height tonight but this is a three story
building and it is stepped back on all sides to minimize the third story. I hope that this is actually
used as a three-use mixed use project. I think having the more residences we get in the City the
better. We definitely need residences and I think it is desirable to have residences on
transportation corridors and in places where you actually can walk to other services and other
uses around the neighborhood. It is definitely an urban neighborhood. As noted before, the
architect has been creative and responsive in the design on a difficult site.
I just want to address the statement that it looks like we treat developers and homeowners
differently. It may appear that way tonight but I think that the HIE process typically works very
well to allow homeowners to have exceptions to solve their problems. In this case as we have
noted, our zoning does not agree with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan at the moment.
Commissioner Burt: Phyllis.
Commissioner Cassel: I think the only comments that I can add to this are that parking is driving
this because we are trying to maximize the parking space onsite. Even if we put this as a
retail/residential only we would be having parking problems onsite and be pushing this building
up. So I think this makes a reasonable compromise. I am disappointed that we have one large
-18-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
unit and not two small units. I think we would have been better off if we could have used that as
two units.
Commissioner Butt: I agree with my fellow Commissioners on the comments that this design
proposal is innovative in many ways and that it helps address some of the goals of the
Comprehensive Plan that current zoning does not encourage. My only real problem is in finding
that the project is in conformance with finding number one that it would be harmonious and
compatible with the existing uses of adjoining or nearby sites. That is the one I struggle with and
am not finding an adequate basis to approve the project. I think that there is potential for the
project to be modified in a way that it would adequately meet that finding but at this time I
would not be able to support the project as proposed because of its inability to meet finding
number one.
Any further discussion?
MOTION PASSES
All those in favor? (ayes) Opposed? (nay) The project proposal passes the recommendation of
the Planning Commission on a vote of 3-1 with two Commissioners absent and one
Commissioner with a conflict.
At this time shall we take a brief 10-minute break before beginning on the next agenda item?
- 19-