Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-07-17 City Council (22)City of Polo Alto Manager’s Report TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DATE: SUBJECT: JULY 17, 2000 CMR:320:00 2825 EL CAMINO REAL [99-D-4, 99-EIA-13, 99-V-13 AND 00-DEE- 01): REQUEST BY~ JIM BAER ON BEHALF OF MORRIS ASSOCIATES FOR SITE AND DESIGN REVIEW OF THE DEMOLITION OF A ONE STORY COMMERCIAL BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION OF A THREE STORY MIXED-USE BUILDING (OFFICE/RESIDENTIAL) WITH GROUND FLOOR COVERED PARKING; REQUESTED VARIANCES AND DESIGN ENHANCEMENT EXCEPTIONS AND A PROPOSED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH CEQA GUIDELINES. RECOMMENDATION Staff, the Planning Commission and Architectural Review Board recommend that the City Council (1) approve the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed project at 2825 E1 Camino Real (see Attachment 6); and (2) approve the proposed project, based upon Site and Design findings (Attachment 2), variance findings (Attachment 3) and Design Enhancement Exception findings (Attachment 4), and subject to the recommended conditions of approval (Attachment 5). PROJECT DESCRIPTION The 11,250 square foot project site, shown on the location map (Attachment 1), is currently developed with a 1,426 square foot commercial building. The proposed three- story building would be comprised of a ground floor parking garage, second floor office area and three third floor residential units, each of which would include substantial balconies. The total proposed Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is .9:1. The office would provide 4,500 square feet of floor area or .4:1 FAR plus an employee amenity area. The two- bedroom two-bathroom residential units would provide a total floor area of 5,650 square feet (.5:1 FAR). The ground floor parking is exempt from floor area calculations. CMR:320:00 Page 1 of 3 ~/ BOARD/COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS Planning Commission On March 29, 2000, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the Site and Design application on a 6-0-1-0 vote (Commissioner Burt absent), recommending approval of variances for side yard and daylight plane encroachments, denial of a variance for additional lot coverage, and modification to a staff-suggested condition of approval regarding filing of a condominium map. The Planning Commission expressed its appreciation for the mix of uses and project design, noting that the proposed building is proportional to its surroundings. Recognizing that the zoning ordinance update work program would take a few years to complete and that the current requirements make the creation of mixed use projects difficult, the Commission commented that the benefits of providing housing warranted finding a creative approach to the lot coverage issue in this case. Commissioners stated that shortening the building would not provide additional ground floor recreational space for the residents, and urged staff and the applicant to find "other tools in the tool kit" to make the project succeed. Commissioners noted that they hoped mixed-use projects could be more easily accommodated in the future as the zoning ordinance is revised to support the Comprehensive Plan policies. Subsequent to the Planning Commission meeting, the applicant revised the plans to remove a portion of the office balcony "coverage" and the Director of Planning and Community Environment determined the proposed additional lot coverage represented by the third floor residential units was minor lot coverage that warranted approval of a Design Enhancement Exception. Architectural Review Board On June 15, 2000, the Architectural Review Board (ARB) recommended approval of the Site and Design application and supported findings for the Design Enhancement Exception and Mitigated Negative Declaration on a 3-0-2-0 vote (Member Lippert and Vice-Chairman Alfonso. absent), adding an additional condition of approval to staff- recommended conditions of approval. The ARB members supported the Design Enhancement Exception, agreeing that: (1) the private balconies would be more useful to the residents than ground floor open space on this particular site; (2) the minor additional lot coverage would be acceptable in that the proposed massing and design are appropriate to the use; and (3) the future parking spaces in landscape reserve in the front yard are appropriate if turf block pavers are used to provide a turnaround area for parcel delivery trucks. The ARB appreciated the proposed building materials, colors and glazing, and noted its interest in seeing final plans addressing its detailed comments (Condition of Approval #58, Attachment 5) after the City Council reviews the project. No members of the public spoke at the ARB hearing. ~.CMR:320:00 Page 2 of 3 Attachment 1: Attachment 2: Attachment 3: Attachment 4: Attachment 5: Attachment 6: Attachment 7: Attachment 8: Attachment 9: " Attachment 10: Attachment 11: Attachment 12: ATTACHMENTS Location Map Findings for Site and Design Approval ARB Findings Design Enhancement Exception findings Variance Findings Proposed Conditions of Approval EIA Mitigation Measures Architectural Review Board minutes, June 15, 2000 (excerpt) Planning Commission minutes, March 29, 2000 (excerpt) Architectural Review Board staff report, June 15, 2000 Planning Commission Staff Report, March 29, 2000 Environmental evaluation and proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration Plans (Council Members only) Prepared By:Amy French, Acting Senior Planner DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW: G.GAWF Director of Planning and Community Environment CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: EMIL~ H~SON Assistant City Manager CMR:320:00 Page 3 of 3 3 4 Attachment The City of Palo Alto PL,ANNING DIVISION /’ File No(s): 99-ARB-97, 99-D-4, 99-EIA-13, 99-V-13 Proposed Action: Demolish existing building and build new 10,150 s.f. mixed use building Date: 1/12/2000 400’ d:\GlodaD~u’twork\Ma ps~SiteLocat~onMa }s\ECR_2825,al 5 6 o Findings for Site and Design Approval 2825 El Camino Real (99-D-4) Attachment 2 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, ngise, 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 since the three of the four properties adjacent to the subject property are currently developed with commercial buildings, the project proposed commercial and residential uses will ensure the desirability of investment and conduct of business in adjacent areas. Sound principles of environmental design and ecological balance have been observed in the project design and conditions of approval ensure that the design details will carry out the mitigation measures identified in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. This mixed use project will be in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, which encourages mixed uses in this area of the city, and the project meets the Comprehensive Plan Policies and Programs. City of Palo Alto 7 ARB Findings 2825 El Camino Real (99-D-4) ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD STANDARDS FOR REVIEW Attachment 3 The design and architecture of the proposed improvements, as conditioned, furthers the goals and purposes of the ARB Ordinance as it complies with the Standards for Architec- tural Review as required in Chapter 16.48 of the PAMC. (1) The design is consistent and compatible with applicable elements of the city’s Comprehensive Plan, which encourages a mixture of residential and non-residential uses on single properties; (2) The design is compatible with the immediate environment of the site in that the project area is a prominent intersection where building heights have been increasing in recent years; (3) The design is appropriate to the function of the project in that provision of residential and commercial use and required parking has been integrated into a functional design; (5) The design promotes harmonious transitions in scale and character in areas between different designated land uses in that the landscaped setback will soften the introduction of the first three story building on this block of E1 Camino Real and provide a residential amenity consistent with the characteristics of residential use; (6) The design is compatible with approved improvements both on and offthe site in that the greater setback will allow for any potential future widening of E1 Camino Real; (7) The planning and siting of the various functions and buildings on the site create an internal sense of order and provide a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and the general community in that the gated front courtyard and elevator lobby will orient pedestrians arriving from the sidewalk along E1 Camino Real, while those arriving from the parking lot on site would be provided access to the rear door of the elevator lobby or rear staircase; (8) The amount and arrangement of open space are appropriate to the design and the function of the structures in that the balconies will be useful to both second and third floor occupants and the walled and landscaped courtyard will provide an appropriate amenity to occupants of the mixed use building; City of Palo Alto 9 (1 O) Access to the property and circulation thereon are safe and convenient for pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles in that sufficient distance is provided from El Camino Real to avoid conflicts between entering and exiting vehicles, and pedestrian pathways are provided from the E1 Camino Right of Way and along the south side of the building to allow access for those persons who may use the proposed bicycle lockers on the adjoining property; (12) The materials, textures, colors and details of construction and plant material are appropriate expression to the design and function in that quality materials are proposed, and the materials are compatible with the adjacent and neighboring structures, landscape elements and functions; (13) The landscape design concept for the site, as shown by the relationship of plant masses, open space, scale, plant forms and foliage textures and colors create a desirable and functional environment and the landscape concept depicts an appropriate unity with the building on the site in that a welcoming courtyard at the building entry is provided; (14) Plant material is suitable and adaptable to the site, capable of being properly maintained on the site, and is of a variety which would tend to be drought-resistant and to reduce consumption of water in its installation and maintenance; (15) The design is energy efficient and incorporates renewable energy design elements including, but not limited to: (A) Exterior energy design elements, (B) Internal lighting service and climatic control systems, and (C) Building siting and landscape elements. ARB standards 4, 9, and 11 are not applicable to this project. City of Palo Alto Design Enhancement Exception Findings 2825 El Camino Real (99-DEE-01) Attachment 4 A. Open Space Exception The requested exception to allow 400 square feet (of the 616 square feet) of private residential balcony area in lieu of 400 square feet of the required common open space (30% total required) can be approved based upon the following findings: (1) There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the. property or site improvements involved that do not apply generally to property in the same zone district due to the following factors: (a) the exterior noise levels due to proximity to E1 Camino Real suggest that private residential balconies would be utilized more by residents for recreational purposes than would the ground floor common areas facing E1 Camino Real, (b) the lot is not legally substandard, because the C-S district does not have minimum lot sizes or dimensions. However, it is smaller, narrower and shallower than most C-S lots (south of Pepper Avenue and other C-S properties along E1 Camino Real). The lot is only five feet wider than the minimum width for multiple family residential development (RM-30 district regulations, incorporated into C-S district regulations by reference for mixed-use projects, require a minimum lot size ofT0’ x 100’), (c) the lot fronts on E1 Camino Real, a heavily traveled arterial. The City has requested, and the applicant is willing to provide, a deeper than normal front setback to accommodate possible future road widening. (d) the lot fronts on E1 Camino Real and is therefore subjected to higher-than- ’ normal noise levels, (e) the lot is narrow, and each of the adjoining lots has a driveway located on the side next to the subject property, so there is. only one possible location for a driveway on the subject property, (f) the zoning standards (Chapter 18.45) and design guidelines for E1 Camino Real do not permit parking to be placed in the required front yard of a parcel (and the only reason there is a required front yard on this parcel is due to the proposal for a mixed-use project.) The Comprehensive Plan similarly discourages parking in the front yard on E1 Camino Real, (g) mixed-use projects in the C-S district are required to have covered parking facilities for the residential parking spaces (six covered parking spaces are required for residential in this case) and screened parking facilities for the commercial parking spaces along E1 Camino Real, (h) because of reasons (b) through (e) above, underground parking cannot be City of Palo Alto 11 constructed. The only alternative is ground-level covered parking. Using the minimum permitted dimensions for two-way drive aisle and parking stall depth, the structure must encroach into the required 10-foot side setbacks at the ground level. (All of the proposed stalls are 17.5 feet deep, and the proposed drive aisle width is 25 feet, for a total interior clear width of 60 feet and 62.5 feet to outside of the structure. Since the lot is only 75 feet wide, only 12.5 feet remains to meet the 20-foot combined side setback requirements.), (i) because of the need to allow a central open space for parking, the elevator and stairways must be located within the set back area for the upper stories. Since one central stairway/elevator core cannot be built, two stairways must be built to meet Uniform Building Code exiting requirements, (j) because underground parking cannot be constructed, the habitable space is proposed to be located on the second and third floors. The height of the resulting taller building (35 feet) increases the setback requirements on the upper floors (½ the building height equals 17’6"), (k) 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. Similarly, the site area in front of the proposed building is subject to high noise levels. Therefore, balconies or decks provide more usable outdoor space for commercial and residential tenants. 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 additional balcony areas for each residential unit (400 square feet) would break up the expanse of exterior building walls and would be more useful to the residents than ground floor open space on this particular 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 wil! not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience in that the extra balcony area would face E1 Camino Real and commercially zoned properties, no balconies are proposed on the south wall, which would have the smallest set back of all the proposed setbacks, and adequate screening of the rear balconies is proposed in the project plans. City of Palo Alto B. Parking Spaces in Front Yard Exception The requested exception to allow parking spaces within the 25 foot front yard setback set forth in the RM-30 District guidelines can be approved based upon the following Design Enhancement Exception Findings: (1) There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property or site improvements involved that do not apply generally to property in the same zone district in that (a) given the 25 foot required front setback and small size of the subject property, all the vehicle spaces required for the proposed uses cannot be provided in the rear and in the enclosed parking garage, and only severely substandard width stalls could be provided between the front setback line and the front wall of the building, (b) the proposed screening measures, including a low wall (3’10" high), hedge and densely spaced trees to be planted along the inside of the wall, would provide adequate screening of the vehicle parking spaces, which are proposed to be landscaped until such time as they may be needed for parking spaces, (c) reasons b - k listed under Finding # 1 for the open space exception requested in conjunction with this application, and (d) provision of turf block pavers in the landscape reserve parking spaces will allow for delivery truck turnaround 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 full size deferred parking spaces can be provided if allowed within the 25 foot setback; if the spaces were placed behind the 25 foot line, only seven feet of width would remain for the provision of a parking space on each side of the driveway, which would not meet City standard for parking stall width and would not allow for the proposed attractive landscaping and entrance adjacent to the building. (3)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 the proposed landscape reserve parking spaces will be surrounded with attractive landscaping and low Wall which will mitigate any detriment of having deferred parking spaces in the front yard. C. Increase in Lot Coverage The allowable lot coverage is 40% of 11,250 or 4,500 square feet. The parking structure covers roughly 5,400 square feet or 48% of the site. Even if the building length were to be reduced to meet the 40% lot coverage requirement, the uncovered site area would still City of Palo Alto be used as parking area. Therefore, there is no additional recreational open space to be gained by reducing the lot coverage on the subject property. The findings for the increased lot coverage are predicated upon the implementation of recommended conditions of approval, including maintaining the employee amenity area in perpetuity. (1) the There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to property or site improvements involved that do not apply generally to property in the same zone district as described in reasons (b) through (k) listed under Finding # 1 for the open space exception requested in conjunction with this application. 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 residential floor area, which is less than the allowable residential floor area in a mixed use project, would not be attractive as a cantilevered third floor, such that the proposed third floor support system represents an enhancement to the design, and the massing and design are appropriate to the use. 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 sufficient usable open space is provided for use by building occupants in conjunction with the proposed development, and the additional lot coverage will not be detrimental to owners and occupants of adjacent properties. City of Palo Alto Variance Findings 2825 Camino Real (99-V-13) Attachment 5 FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL OF VARIANCE FOR ENCROACHMENT INTO 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 is not legally substandard, because the C-S district does not have minimum lot sizes or dimensions. However, it is smaller, narrower and shallower than most C-S lots (south of Pepper Avenue and other C-S properties along El Camino Real.) The lot is only five feet wider than the minimum width for multiple family residential development (RM-30 district regulations, incorporated into C-S district regulations by reference for mixed-use projects, require a minimum lot size of 70’ x 100’). B. The lot fronts on E1 Camino Real, a heavily traveled arterial. The City has requested, and the applicant is willing to provide, a deeper than normal front setback to accommodate possible future road widening. C. Because the lot fronts on E1 Camino Real, it is subjected to higher-than-normal noise levels. D. Because the lot is narrow, and each of the adjoining lots has a driveway located on the side next to the subject property, there is only one possible location for a driveway on the subject property. E. The zoning standards (Chapter 18.45) and design guidelines for E1 Camino Real do not permit parking to be placed in the required front yard of a parcel (and the only reason there is a required front yard on this parc.el is due to the proposal for a mixed- use project.) The Comprehensive Plan similarly discourages parking in the front yard on E1 Camino Real. F. Mixed-use projects in the C-S district are required to have covered parking facilities for the residential parking spaces (six covered parking spaces are required for residential in this case) and screened parking facilities for the commercial parking spaces along E1 Camino Real. G. Because of reasons one through four above, underground parking cannot be constructed. The only alternative is ground-level covered parking. Using the minimum permitted dimensions for two-way drive aisle and parking stall depth, the structure must encroach into the required 10-foot side setbacks at the ground level. (All of the proposed stalls are 17.5 feet deep, and the proposed drive aisle width is 25 feet, for a total interior clear width of 60 feet and 62.5 feet to outside of the structure. City of Palo Alto 15 Since the lot is only 75 feet wide, only 12.5 feet remains to meet the 20-foot combined side setback requirements.) H. Because of the need to allow a central open space for parking, the elevator and stairways must be located within the set back area for the upper stories. Since one central stairway/elevator core cannot be built, two stairways must be built to meet Uniform Building Code exiting requirements. I. Because underground parking cannot be constructed, the habitable space is proposed to be located on the second and third floors. The height of the resulting taller building (35 feet) increases the setback requirements on the upper floors (% the building height equals 17’6"). 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. Similarly, the site area in front of the proposed building is subject to high noise levels. Therefore, balconies or decks provide more usable outdoor space for commercial and residential tenants. K. Since the total floor area 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), the deeper front yard setback is needed to provide the required parking. L. The proposed front and rear setbacks are larger than required. The front setback and rear setback, combined, is 62’6" (or 17’6" greater than required). The front setback is seven feet deeper in order to accommodate two of the required parking spaces and usable open space area. M. Due to the narrow width of the subject parcel, the 17’6" 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 rear stair, essentially meets the side daylight plane requirements, the side setbacks at the office floor level are unnecessarily restrictive. N. It is necessary for new development on this parcel to accommodate a potential 12-foot increase in the width 0fE1 Camino Real near Page Mill Road. This is a circumstance that does not apply generally to other properties along the E1 Camino Real corridor, and suggests the provision of a larger front setback than the required 25-foot setback. The site area displaced by the potential widening of E1 Camino Real is 900 square feet, whereas the area of encroachment in the side setbacks is 712 square feet, which is a reasonable replacement area for floor area that might have been placed at the front but that may be potentially lost to such a widening. o. The location of these parcels near a major intersection results in an ambient noise level of 70 Db Ldn, which also suggests the provision of a larger front setback to buffer the proposed residential units from the noise, thereby reducing the potential building envelope. City of Palo Alto 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: Encroachments into the side setbacks to .accommodate minimum dimensions for the enclosed ground floor parking facility are necessary to make mixed-use development feasible on this parcel. 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 parcel (under the same ownership) to accommodate additional vehicle parking spaces. This is a hardship for the creation of a mixed-use project on this property. The 25-foot front setback area needed for residential development along a major arterial street and the 20-foot rear setback results in an allowable building envelope of only 105 feet in length. This would allow for only 4,200 square feet of building (37% lot coverage or .37:1 .FAR each for the residential and commercial areas) and make a mixed use project unfeasible on this parcel. 3.The granting of the Variances for side yard setback and daylight plane encroachments 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: On the south side: Since the proposed zero lot line wall (at the rear staircase) has no openings, the commercial site to the south may still be further developed in the future, such that a commercial building could have a zero setback and height of 50 feet. Furthermore, the windows on the south side (set back five feet) provide light only to the common hallway for the residential units and as such, do not provide a "view". The privacy of both the proposed residential units and any future residential units on the property to the south will not be impacted by the reduced setback. Also, there are no office windows or balconies on this side. Therefore, the proposed reduced setback will not negatively impact the adjoining commercial property to the south. On the north side: The commercial site to the north is much smaller than the subject property, so that it is unlikely that third floor residential development will ever be developed on that property. The proposed 8’ 10" setback is larger than the zero setback normally provided for commercial development so that more than normally required light and air would be provided for the commercial space. Any commercial redevelopment on the site to the north would not be impacted by the proposed project’s minor setback encroachments at the first floor (1 ’7"), and second floor and City of Palo Alto third floors (8’6"). The existing trees on the adjoining site and proposed trees on the subject property will help to mitigate any privacy issue for the residential units on the third floor. City of Palo Alto Attachment 6 Proposed Conditions of Approval 2825 El Camino Real (99-D-4, 99-ARB-97, 99-EIA-13, 99-V-13, 00-DEE-0) Planning Division and Transportation Division Comments The plans submitted for Building Permit shall be in substantial conformance with plans dated June 7, 2000, except as modified by these conditions of approval. Any mitigation measures identified in the Environmental Impact Assessment/Mitigated Negative Declaration (and attached to these conditions) which have not been incorporated into plans dated June 7, 2000, shall be incorporated into the designs where applicable, and shall be printed along with these conditions of approval, on the cover sheet of the plan set submitted with the Building Permit application. The site adjustments at the rear parking lot on 2865 El Camino Real to accommodate the ten bicycle lockers, as shown on plans dated June 7, 2000 for this project, shall include re-striping of all required parking spaces, a six inch high concrete pad that extends a minimum of five feet to the front of the lockers, the side of locker #10, and to the side access gate on 2825 E1 Camino Real. The raised pad will provide the required protection from automobile circulation and parking, as required by PAMC 18.83. An alternative to the pad would be the placement of steel bollards 5 feet apart with the edge of the pad would be. Parking space #1 (2865 E1 Camino) must be perpendicular to the rear property line so drivers will not be constrained by the bike parking area. The make and model of lockers must be stated on the plans. The bicycle lockers must be selected from the lists of acceptable facilities. o An access easement shall be prepared to allow tenants of 2825 E1 Camino Real to access the bicycle lockers on 2865 E1 Camino Real as a part of this project. Said easement shall be submitted for review by the City Attorney as to form and content, and once approved, shall be recorded with the County Recorder’s office. Said easement shall be recorded prior to the issuance of building permits for development at 2825 E1 Camino Real. The side gate shall be open-able at all times by tenants of 2825 E1 Camino. °Designate three of the garage spaces for residential tenant use only (per PAMC Chapter 18.83). City of Palo Alto 19 10. 11. The recycle-able cardboard generated at 2825 E1 Camino Real shall be transferred to the cardboard recycling facility at 2865 E1 Camino Real. Legal agreements shall be filed for the shared cardboard recycling facility at 2865 E1 Camino Real. Double glazed windows shall be used on all windows. Plans submitted for building permit shall address all recommendations of the ARB regarding materials and coverings to ensure glare from interior lighting is minimized. Timing devices shall be used for interior lights in the office space. Timing devices shall be used for exterior lights, and there shall be no unnecessary continued illumination. Plans submitted for building permit shall address all recommendations of the ARB regarding fixtures to ensure glare from exterior lighting is minimized. All roof protrusions shall be obscured from public view by roof screens or proper placement. The proposed new mechanical equipment and mechanical screen wall shall comply with the PAMC Noise Ordinance 9.10. The new building shall have adequate provisions on site for trash and recycling enclosures (cardboard recyclables are addressed by condition #4). The European hornbeam trees shown as 15-gallon size trees along the northerly property line shall be 24" box size trees. The applicant shall meet the City’s requirement for protection of all trees on the adjacent site to the north (2805 E1 Camino Real) during construction on 2825 E1 Camino. 12.All trees shall be automatically irrigated using two bubbler heads each mounted on flexible tubing placed on top of the root ball. The tree irrigation system shall be connected to a separate valve from other shrubbery and ground cover, pursuant to the City’s Landscape Water Efficiency Standards. Irrigation in the right-of-way requires a street work permit per CPA Public Works standards. The 48 inch box oaks shall have 3 bubbler heads each placed at the outer edge of the root ball. 13.Landscape Plan shall ensure the backflow preventer is adequately obscure with the planting of appropriate size and type shrubbery, fitted with green wire cage, painted dark green or other color to minimize visibility. 14.Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, the Planning Department shall be in receipt of written verification that the Landscape Architect has inspected all trees, City of Palo Alto 2O 15. shrubs, planting and irrigation and that they are installed and functioning as specified in the approved plans. The specifications on the pole lights, shown in the from setback on plans, shall be printed on plans submitted for a building permit. The light from the pole light shall be directed downward and light levels shall not exceed the City’s lighting standards. 16. 17. 18. A construction logistics plan shall be submitted with the Building Permit. This plan shall include construction 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 ofPalo Alto’s Trucks and Truck Route Ordinance, Chapter 10.48, and City route map which outlines truck routes available throughout the City of Palo Alto. Contractor worker parking and storage of equipment or materials must conform with plans approved by the Transportation Division and Public Works Department. Late hour and early morning truck traffic shall be discouraged. Plans for recovery (reuse and recycling) of construction materials shall be required in conjunction with the applicant’s submittal for Building Permits. All non-residential construction activities shall be subject to the requirements of the City’s Noise Ordinance, Chapter 9.10 PAMC, which requires, among other things, that a sign be posted and that construction times be limited as follows: 8:00 AM to 8:00 PM Monday thru Friday, 9:00 AM to 8:00 PM Saturday, 10:00 AM to 6:00 PM Sunday. For construction on residential property, the ending time shall be 6:00 p.m. Monday - Saturday. The developer shall apply for a Tentative Map for the proposed subdivision prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. The Tentative Map review process and recording of the Final Map shall be completed prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. No condominium conversion of housing units shall be permitted if occupancy permits have been issued for rental housing units on the subject property unless it conforms to Comprehensive Plan Programs H-15 and H-16, and to the PAMC Condominium Conversion Ordinance. 19.The Below Market Rate fee of 3.25% of the sale price of each unit shall apply. No BMR fee shall apply if the property is not subdivided and the number of rental housing units is less than five units. Public Works and Building Conditions City of Palo Alto 20.Before submittal of final plans for ARB review, the developer must submit a conceptual grading and drainage plan for Public Works Engineering approval. Submittal is to verify that the basic design parameters affecting grading drainage and surface water filtration. In order to address potential storm water quality imports, the plan shall indenity the Best Management Practices (BMP") to be incorporated into the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that will be required for the project. The SWPPP shall include both temporary BMP’s implemented during construction and permanent BMP’s to be incorporated into the project to protect storm water quality. The approved conceptual grading and drainage plan shall be incorporated into the building permit plans. 21.The applicant shall submit a final grading and drainage plan to Public Works Engineering, including drainage patterns on site and from adjacent properties. The plan shall demonstrate that pre-existing drainage patterns to and from adjacent properties are not altered. Sec. 16.28.270. 22.The proposed development will 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 storm drainage fee adjustment will take place in the month following the final approval of the construction by the Building Inspection Division. 23.The applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit or temporary lease from Public Works Engineering for the proposed construction which will impact the use of the sidewalk, street, alley or on property in which the City holds an interest. PANIC, Sec. 12.12.010. 24.The applicant shall obtain a Permit for Construction in a Public Street from Public Works Engineering for construction proposed in the City right-of-way. Sec. 12.08.010. 25.A portion of the proposed work is within the State of California or County of Santa Clara right-of-way. A permit must be obtained from the applicable agency. Evidence of permit approval shall be submitted to the Planning Department. 26.To reduce dust levels, it shall be required that exposed earth surfaces be watered as necessary. Spillage resulting from hauling operations along or across any public or private property shall be removed immediately and paid for by the contractor. Dust nuisances originating from the contractor’s operations, either inside or outside of the right-of-way shall be controlled at the contractor’s expense. City of Palo Alto 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. The contractor must contact the CPA Public Works Inspector at (650) 496-6929 prior to any work performed in the public right-of-way. No storage of construction materials is permitted in the street or on the sidewalk without prior approval of Public Works Engineering. The developer shall require its contractor to incorporate best management practices (BMP’s) for stormwater pollution prevention in all construction operations, in conformance with the Santa Clara Valley Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program. The Inspection Services Division shall monitor BMP’s with respect to the developer’s construction activities on private property; and the Public Works Department shall monitor BMP’s with respect to the developer’s construction activities on public property. It is unlawful to discharge any construction debris (soil, asphalt, sawcut slurry, paint, chemicals, etc.) or other waste materials into gutters or storm drains. (Federal Clean Water Act) All construction within the City right-of-way, easements or other property under City jurisdiction shall conform to Standard Specifications of the Public Works and Utility Departments. All sidewalks bordering the project at E1 Camino Real shall be repaired and!or removed and replaced in compliance with Public Works approved standards. Sec. 12.08.010. 32. 33. 34. 35. The unused driveway located at E1 Camino Real shall be removed and replaced with curb and gutter. Sec. 12.08.090. The Public Works Inspector shall sign offthe building permit prior to the finalization of this permit. All off-site improvements shall be finished prior to this sign-off. The applicant shall arrange a meeting with Public Works Engineering, Utilities Engineering, Planning, Fire, and Transportation Departments after approval of this map and prior to submitting the improvement plans. These improvement plans must be completed and approved by the City prior to submittal of a parcel or final map. All construction within the City right-of-way, easements or other property under City’s jurisdiction shall conform to standard specifications of the Public Works and Utility Department. Sec. 12.08.060. City of Palo Alto 23 36. 37. 38. The subdivider shall post a bond prior to the recording of the final parcel map to guarantee the completion of work. The amount of the bond shall be determined by the Planning and Public Works Departments. No openings are allowed less than five feet from the property line at first floor garage (UBC 5-A). Protected openings required when less than 10 feet from property line at 1st and 2nd floors. 39. 40. Exit court along south side is less than 10 feet wide, requires one hour walls and protected openings to a height of 10 feet on each side. UBC 1006.3.5. The exit separation at the 2nd floor is not adequate per UBC 1004.2.4 (must include balcony floor area) Fire Department Conditions 41.A fire sprinkler system shall be provided which meets the requirements of NFPA Standard # 13, 1996 Edition (PAMC 15.04.160). Fire Sprinkler system installations require separate submittal to the Fire Prevention Bureau. Underground water supply for fire systems installation shall require separate submittal to the Fire Prevention Bureau, Public Works Department and Utilities Department. An approved audible sprinkler flow alarm to alert the occupant shall be provided in the interior of the building in an approved location, with manual pull stations, heat detectors and smoke detectors provided as required. Fire Alarm system installations or modifications require separate submittal to the Fire Prevention Bureau. 42. 43. The elevator shaft shall be gurney accessible based on gurney dimensions of 24" x 82" plus a minimum of two emergency response personnel (PAMC 15.04.120). Any hazardous materials that will be removed as a part of the project shall be submitted on an Inventory prior to application for building permits, and a plan to prevent the release of any hazardous substances during demolition, grading or construction activities shall be submitted. Utilities Department Conditions Utilities Engineering Electrical City of Palo Alto 44.Padmount transformer proposed on adjacent site (2865) shall provide three phase service to the new development at 2825 E1 Camino Real. The location of the transformer shall remain accessible to the utility at all times for setting removal or for maintenance. 45.Services over 400 amps must be placed underground 46.A public utility easement shall be granted to the utility to cover the transformer pad and associated primary conduit to the public right of way. Primary service is not available at the property line. Customer/applicant shaH be responsible/will be billed for any system extension/upgrade needed to provide three phase service to the new development. Any work required to be done on E1 Camino Real or on Page Mill Road will require a permit from Caltrans or street opening (sidewalk work) permit from the City’s Public Works Department. All work up to the meter must be done in compliance with the Electric Utiltiy Service Requirements Handbook as applicable to the project. Utilities (WGW) 47. All utility installations shall be in accordance with the City of Palo Alto Utility Standards for Water, Gas & Wastewater. 48.The applicant shall submit improvement plans for all 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 cleanouts, and any other required utilities. 49.Each unit or parcel shall have its own water, gas meters and sewer lateral connection. 50. 51. 52. 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). The applicant shall show on the site plan the existence of any water well, or auxiliary water supply. The applicant shall submit a request to disconnect all utility services and meters including a signed affidavit of vacancy. The demolition permit will be issued after all utility services and/or meters have been disconnected and removed. City of Palo Alto 25 53.The approved relocation and abandonment of water and sewer facilities including services, meters, hydrants, or other facilities shall be performed at the cost of the applicant or developer. 54.The applicant’s contractor shall not be allowed to begin work until the utility improvement plans have been approved by the Water, Gas and Wastewater Engineering Division and all utilities conditions are met. 55.The applicant shall pay the connection fees associated for the installation of the new services to be installed by the City of Palo Alto Utilities Department. Utilities Marketing 56. The final landscape plan for plantable areas out to the curb must be submitted and approved by the ARB. The landscape must be capable of being irrigated by a Maximum Water Allowance as defined in the Standards. Preliminary landscape plans may be approved by the ARB subject to the condition that final plans be approved by Utilities Marketing Services. Final landscaped and irrigation plans must be approved by Utility Marketing Services prior to issuance of any building permits. Additional Conditions Related to ARB~DEE 57.The employee amenity area shall be delineated in plans submitted for City Council review and in plans submitted for building permit and shall be held in perpetuity. 58.The final project plans shall be submitted for ARB review prior to the submittal of Building Permit plans, for review and approval of the following ARB-suggested improvements: bo C0 Re-examine orientation and incorporate alternate energy systems (including ~assive devices such as sun screens on the west elevation to avoid the look of continually drawn indoor curtains/blinds, and solar, radiant and/or photo- voltaic systems, especially to mitigate gain at project-south side). Improve materials in the vicinity of the lobby at the garage entrance to offer safe and pleasant every-day pedestrian use/circulation (night-time security lighting should be addressed). Provide vine pockets adjacent to the southeast (project-south) wall facing Old Pro, Use a different material (not brick) on the cornice cap (at" towers"). Open up the low wall along E1 Camino Real to enhance pedestrians’ experience of landscaping along the sidewalk. City of Palo Alto 26 f. Provide plan and specifications for demolition and consider using recycle materials from the demolition in the project (concrete, concrete block, etc.). g. Install turf block in the parking reserve area to provide a turnaround area for delivery trucks. h. Use overhangs and balconies to provide shading. i.Use fritted glass or other integrated material for balcony railings. j.Provide details showing how materials meet, including entry canopy, brick grouting and corners (and consider other natural stone instead of brick), coping detail with provisions for.drainage. k. Provide landscaping to soften northeast (project north) wall (consider incorporating a trellis with vines). Planning Arborist Condition (added by staffprior to City Council meeting): 59.To enhance the health of the new street trees and minimize maintenance of the sidewalk, the plans shall specify Structural Soil as the base course material under the sidewalk right-of-way. Excavation of existing soil shall be a minimum of 30" deep. Specifications are available through Departments of Public Works Engineering or Planning and Community Environment. City of Palo Alto 27 Attachment 7 o EIA Mitigation Measures, 2825 El Camino Real (99-EIA-13) (measures addressing plans dated March 14, 2000) The lighting shall be shielded such that the light will not extend beyond the site, the lighting will be directional, and the source of light will not be directly visible. The exterior lights shall not be mounted higher than 15 feet. If during grading and construction activities, any archeological or human remains are encountered, construction shall cease and a qualified archaeologist shall visit the site to address the find. The Santa Clara County Medical Examiner’s office shall be notified to provide proper direction on how to proceed. If any Native American resources are encountered during construction, construction shall cease immediately until a Native American descendant, appointed by the Native American Heritage Commission of the State of California, is able to evaluate the site and make further recommendations and be involved in mitigation planning. Permanently maintained usable open space area shall be provided to meet the City’s minimum area requirements of 30% common usable open space. Approval of a Design Enhancement Exception is necessary to allow the proposed 616 square feet of private open space to contribute to the common open space requirement. Any subdivision application for condominium purposes (Tentative Map for residential and commercial units), if proposed, shall be submitted for review and shall be processed prior to the issuance of occupancy ~ permits for the project. (Reflects recommendation of Planning Commission). An acoustical study shall be prepared to ensure that the proposed residential uses will include the appropriate noise attenuation barriers around required private and common usable open space areas, to reduce the existing 70dB noise levels to meet the 60 dB guideline in Comprehensive Plan Policy N-39. Where the City determines that providing an Ldn of 60dB or lower outdoors is not feasible, the noise level in outdoor areas intended for recreational use shall be reduced to as close to the standard (60dB) as feasible through project re-design. Required design changes shall be reviewed in conjunction with the acoustical study prior to review by the Architectural Review Board. City of Palo Alto 29 o An acoustical study shall be prepared to ensure that the screen proposed around the rooftop HVAC equipment will provide noise attenuation to meet the City’s noise standards. o A Below Market Rate (BMR) contribution to meet Comprehensive Plan Program H-20 shall be provided. A BMR Agreement shall be entered into after review of the project by the Architectural Review Board. This measure only applies if the applicant carries out his intention to subdivide the subject property. City of Palo Alto 3O Attachment Minutes of June 15, 2000 Architectural Review Board Review (excerpt) Item 5 2825 El Camino Real [File Nos: 99-ARB-97, 99-D-4, 99-EIA-13, 99-V-13, 00 DEE- 01]: Request by Jim Baer on behalf of Morris Associates for Architectural Review Board review of the demolition of an existing 1,426 square foot building and construction of a new three-story mixed-use building comprised of three two-bedroom residential units, office space, and a ground floor parking area for 15 vehicles. Proposed site improvements include six rear-yard parking spaces and a walled, landscaped front yard with two deferred parking spaces in landscape reserve. Off-site bicycle parking facilities are proposed on the adjacent site (Old Pro Restaurant/Bar, 2865 E1 Camino Real). A Design Enhancement Exception is requested to allow (1) deferred parking area to be located within the required front setback, (2) the use of additional private open space in lieu of a portion of the required common usable residential open space area, and (3) increased site coverage beyond the maximum permitted. Site and Design review of the project, and review of the environmental document and Variance request for side setback and daylight plane encroachments are scheduled for the City Council meeting of July 24, 2000. Environmental Assessment: A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with CEQA guidelines. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommended approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration (subject to Mitigation Measures 1-7) and approval of the Site and Design, Variance and Design Enhancement Exception applications, subject to the conditions set forth in Attachment 7 of the staff report (Conditions 1-57). Architectural Review Board Action: The Board recommended approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and applications for Design Enhancement Exception and Site and Design Review (3-0-2-0, Board Members Lippert and Alfonso absent), subject to staff recommended conditions of approval with the following additional condition of approval: 58.The final project plans shall be submitted for ARB review prior to the submittal of Building Permit plans, for review and approval of the following ARB-suggested improvements: Re-examine orientation and incorporate alternate energy systems (including passive devices such as sun screens on the west elevation to avoid the look of continually drawn indoor curtains/blinds, and solar, radiant and/or photo- voltaic systems, especially to mitigate gain at project-south side). City of Palo Alto l. Improve materials in the vicinity ofthe lobby at the garage entrance to offer safe and pleasant every-day pedestrian use/circulation (night-time security lighting should be addressed). m. Provide vine pockets adjacent to the southeast (project-south) wall facing Old Pro, n. Use a different material (not brick) on the cornice cap (at "towers "). o. Open up the low wall along El Camino Real to enhance pedestrians’ experience of landscaping along the sidewalk. p. Provide plan and specifications for demolition and consider using recycle materials from the demolition in the project (concrete, concrete block, etc.). q. Install turf block in the parking reserve area to provide a turnaround area for delivery trucks. r.Use overhangs and balconies to provide shading. s.Use fritted glass or other integrated material for balcony railings. t.Provide details showing how materials meet, including entry canopy, brick grouting and corners (and consider other natural stone instead of brick), coping detail with provisions for drainage. u. Provide landscaping to soften northeast (project north) wall (consider incorporating a trellis with vines). City of Palo Alto 32 Attachment 9 Minutes of March 29, 2000 Planning Commission Review (excerpt) 2825 El Camino Real [File Nos.: 99-ARB-97, 99-D-4, 99-EIA-13, 99-V-13, 00-DEA- 0_~: Review of an application by Jim Baer on behalf of Morris Associates for Site and Design Review of demolition of an existing 1,426 square foot building on a parcel in C-S zoning district and construction of a new 35-foot high, three story mixed-use building including three two-bedroom residential units comprised of approximately 5,650 square feet on the third floor, office space comprised of approximately 4,500 square feet on the second floor, and a 15-vehicle parking area on the first floor. Related site improvements include six uncovered parking spaces in the rear yard, and a walled and landscaped front yard that includes landscaped area reserved for two deferred parking spaces. Since it includes residential units, the project is subject to the RM-30 District (Multiple Family Residential) development regulations, therefore: A Design Enhancement Exception is requested to allow (1) deferred parking are to be located within the required front setback; and (2) the use of additional private open space in lieu of a portion of the required common usable residential open space area. A Variance is requested for (1) construction within required side setbacks, (2) encroachment into side daylight plane, (3) increased site coverage beyond the maximum permitted coverage area. Environmental Assessment: A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with CEQA guidelines. This project has been tentatively scheduled to return to the Architectural Review Board for a public hearing on April 20, 2000 and tentatively scheduled for a public hearing with the City Council on June 5, 2000. Ms. French: Thank you. I’ll try to keep it brief in the interest of time. Staffdoes recommend approval of this site and design application. Staff recommends approval on the variance application for side setbacks and daylight plane encroachments. Staff recommends approval on the design enhancement exception applications. Staff, however, recommends denial of the variance application for lot coverage. The site and design review and approval is requested for a three story building. The adjoining sites both have one story buildings. They are commercial sites. The adjoining residential site to the rear has a single story detached garage adjacent to the parcel. The parcel has a 75 foot width which is generally smaller than many CS District parcels. The applicant is stating that the residential units will be for sale condominium units. This is anticipated in the environmental document prepared for the project. The subdivision application has not been submitted but would have to come in prior to a building permit application filing and would be considered by the City Council. City of Palo Alto Page 26 33 There are ten extraordinary circumstances identified in the report that would justify the variance findings for the side setback and daylight plane encroachment. With that, I’ll conclude the presentation. If you have questions we are here to answer them. Chairman Schmidt: Are there any questions for Staff at this point? Seeing none we will go to the applicant and open the public hearing. You have 15 minutes. Mr. Jim Baer, 172 UniversityAvenue, Palo Alto: Thank you very much. I want to thank you for the opportunity to visit about a significant Comprehensive Plan issue and zoning issue which has to do with how mixed-use developments work and where they are allowed in many zones and in areas where we encourage mixed-use but where there are obstacles. I also want. thank Staff. We’ve started meeting on this in March of last year. I have a much better appreciation, not being a home builder, for the complexity of what the requirements are in order to build housing. We’ve solved many problems. This happens to be an area where there are over-head power lines but no easement for those over-head power lines. So we’ve been working with Utilities on how we create a transformer and create the rights to get the transformer into the site when that right doesn’t currently exist across where the over-head power lines are. We’ve worked with Public Works to develop a drainage system that they approved and that Cal Trans has approved even though there is only a six inch curb which makes water flow off into the streets not a very good solution. There are many, many, many more of these kinds of problems and I really appreciate that Staff have hung in there with us in solving many of these. Some of these have been revisited more than one time because of my inexperience in being able to strategically identify those issues that arise for housing because of my inexperience. We had a half dozen good conversations and exchange of letters on this issue of how do you grant variances and under what conditions for mixed-use. Chairman Schmidt, I appreciate your comments in the Oral Communications to say that the Commission is very familiar with the Comprehensive Plan. So I won’t recite the 20 provisions of the Comprehensive Plan other than to summarize by saying: multi-modal transportation is available near the largest employment center in Palo Alto in a zone that permits mixed- use. We are not asking for a greater height than is allowed. We are not asking for a greater floor area than is allowed; in fact we are about 1,000 feet under the allowed area. We are satisfying the parking requirements. We are 35 feet set back from the street, which is an extraordinary accomplishment on E1 Camino. At the same time we have no setback or daylight plane encroachments into rear yard, which is normally the condition which you want to protect in a transitional zone where the commercial zone along E1 Camino wants to protect its rear neighbor. So we’ve protected the rear neighbor. The real challenge is that this overlay of Section 1824 of the Ordinance, when you overlay what are the requirements for an RM-30 zone on top ofa CS Commercial Zone you have conflicts that you can’t satisfy the setback. You can’t satisfy the daylight plane. And City of Palo Alto Page 27 34 while the CS has no setback, no daylight plane except against a residential order, and no site coverage problem, that the mere fact that we are trying to do good, I mean that generally, that we are going to the complexity of adding three true two-story bedroom units, and by the way their average size is about 1,450 to 1,500 feet because of stairways, elevators and corridors, is exactly the kind and size and type of housing that we want, near employment center, we will do what we agreed to do for the Medical Foundation, we will agree that there can be monitoring but these are not fudged commercial uses. These are true homes that we plan on selling. That to have these kinds of conflicts and the one that the Staff have not been able to make as a finding is that we should be able to satisfy the 40% site coverage. But the only way to satisfy the 40% site coverage is to reduce the size of the office which is a disincentive that we would not want to duplicate as a policy. To say, you can do mixed-use so long as you don’t build your commercial area to the size that you’re allowed. That’s the alternative available to us. So the policy that we would like your assistance on and in the regime of very qualified Planning Director with a qualified Planning Staff and the Attorney’s Office take the position that variances are difficult and they should be extraordinary. While the Comprehensive Plan says very specifically in Program H-8 our zoning ordinances need to be changed because they work as disincentives and they require variances to get mixed- use. The Staff are saying, but we need to be granted by policy makers direction, that for mixed-use programs, true housing in these kinds of locations, if this is what we want then the Comprehensive Plan is full of it, then we fill of the want for mixed-use. If we want this then we need to give an expression to Staff that while variances are not a favored mechanism that if this is what it takes to create the opportunity for housing in a mixed use environment, in commercial zones near transportation and near employment, that that would be an important policy direction to give. The economic circumstances are such that the ability to provide horizontal mixed-use which was not financially viable at the time that the Comprehensive Plan was being adopted is now right. And that there are many projects that have this same problem that they are facing. We want to add the housing but the zoning ordinances are making it impossible or difficult or sacrificial. So we’re hoping that you can find your way to make the finding for site coverage issue as well. There is a second policy issue that I’d like your assistance with. As Staff has pointed out they are asking that there be a subdivision map filed before delivery of a building permit rather than before occupancy permit. This is based on the condominium conversion ordinance. Conversion is defined as a change including a proposed change in the type of ownership of a parcel or parcels of land together with the existing structures from a rental housing complex to a community housing project. My point being that it does specifically talk about there needs to be an existing structure for there to be a conversion. The relief we need is, if it would be possible to have the subdivision map approved at City of Palo Alto Page 28 35 occupancy rather than building permit. The reason is this, forthright: we can’t be developing the subdivision map to create the condominiums because we don’t know what we are getting approved yet. So we are adding six months of subdivision map work when the intent is clear. If there is a bonding mechanism that says we can’t occupy and here is the bond and we will have a map because we can’t physically define where the stairs and elevator and the separation of the units are and what the common areas are until we have an approval sufficiently advanced from where we are. I’m going to add one other alternative that exists for us on the site coverage variance that the Staff have provided. The owner of this property is also the owner of the Old Pros property. The Staff had asked, why not grant yourselves 750 feet and grant.back an easement to the Old Pros. That could be done. What that means is we would then be at 40% site coverage because we’ve lot line adjusted and increased the.size of our parcel. Isn’t that an awkward way to say we like your physical outcome, we appreciate the three units as genuine housing, but let’s manipulate your other parcel because we are not able to make the findings that this type of housing is good and we can make the variance finding for site coverage as well. For the remaining time I’d like to have Monty Anderson present what we think is really an outstanding site plan. We go to ARB from here. We hope that this does provide the opportunity to fulfill and to encourage mixed-use developments many of which are ripe for E1 Camino. Mr. Monty Anderson, Cody, Anderson, Wasny Architects, Palo Alto: Good evening. Our project is situated on the E1 Camino between two venerable Palo Alto landmarks, the old Polly & Jakes building and the Old Pro. The site is currently occupied by Burnett’s Auto Repair Shop. I think they’ve actually moved out. Our challenges with this site started really right from the very beginning with the design of the ground floor and the site plan itself. The lot width that we had here of 75 feet presented a challenge as you started to lay out the parking. Once you put up the parking stall land then the required back up then another layer of parking you sort of prescribed the width of the building from that standpoint. Once you had that width then we had to look at where it would be sited in between. It was clear that we were going to be in violation of setback no matter what we did in order to try and achieve an efficient parking scheme. What we’ve done is set back the building from the front E1 Camino side. In the future they may actually widen E1 Camino and Staff had asked that we provide a greater setback there which we’ve done. We’re asking to put two of the parking spaces in landscape reserve and put that into the front of the project along E1 Camino so that we can create a nice sort of landscaped buffer to E1 Camino. You can kind of see it a little bit in this City of Palo Alto 36 Page 29 version here that we’ve actually created from a photograph of the site. You can see the landscaping in the front helps to really nestle the building into the site. The second floor of the project would be office. The third floor would be residential. What we tried to do architecturally is create the entrance to the parking, the building above sort of bridges across and we wanted to place an emphasis on where people enter this building. You are only entering on one side of the building. So we’ve created the entry over here with the canopy outside that makes the suggestion of entry. The material palette that has been chosen for the building, which I believe is over here, is sort of a very soft wheat colored brick with a cast stone panel and bronze anodized window frames. So we are trying to keep with sort of a very soft monochromatic color palette that we think would blend nicely. We tried to avoid the red brick or something more institutional like that. The upper floors have balcony areas that exceed the minimum requirements because we are also trying to accommodate public open space requirements by providing larger balconies for the units. The unit plans themselves are actually I think pretty generous two-bedroom suites. We’ve tried to center the living areas so that they focus out onto the balconies. In each unit you get sort of a large kitchen, living, dining area. So as you come up onto the third floor out of the elevator there is a hallway here then you lead into each one of the units. Each unit has a large dining, living, kitchen and then sort of a bedroom suite on either wing in these areas. On the third floor we tried to articulate the fact that there is a different function happening here. Instead of carrying the brick all the way around the building we’ve actually broken it up in places up on the third floor with an integral colored stucco to try and define the function as somewhat different than the office function down below. The site itself, as you can see, presents a lot of challenges. Once we add the parking in we are pretty limited in a lot of places that we can go. It’s the reason why we’ve expanded the balconies up on the third floor for the open space requirements. We’ve also been working with Charles Salter, the acoustical engineer, in order to come up with ways to mitigate the sound impacts especially to this front unit up here. They’ve been out doing some sound testing and we’re currently working on that and hope to have the four railing design solved by the time of ARB. Our preliminary indication is that the open designs that we have shown here on the drawings, we’re going to be able to achieve that and still come into compliance on the sound levels. Chairman Schmidt: Thank you. Are there questions? Owen has a question. Commissioner Byrd: If you don’t get the variance for the increase in lot coverage what does it do to your structure? City of Palo Alto Page 30 37 Mr. Anderson: Basically this portion of the building, the office area and the rear parking area is where Staffhas made the suggestion that maybe that could be pulled in and that would bring us to a 43% coverage by losing the last bay of covered parking and bringing in the office level. Losing basically a bay of office across the top. What we don’t like about that is that it creates sort of a large bustle out of the living area which protrudes beyond that. We’ve tried to ground that by creating an open balcony off of the back of the office area here as an amenity for the office but also just not to simply have this piece poke out in the back for the residential units. To meet the full 40% requirement you would have to pull back actually even further than losing this last bay. You would have to pull in to about the mid point of the next parking lot and basically shorten the entire length of the building to about that point right there. Mr. Baer: The impact is to lose 750 feet of the 4,500 feet of office and you really can’t cantilever enough of the third or second floor to create meaningful open space at the ground floor. The policy issues are two. One is if you can make variance finding for setback and daylight plane, that it is not injurious, that’s a unique parcel with extraordinary circumstances, and there is a substantial economic hardship in the loss of a development right. I’ve been confounded and have expressed this to Staff that I don’t understand why once you’ve made the three findings you are pregnant with the three findings and whether it’s about setback, daylight plane, or site coverage, those findings would continue. Unless there really a policy that says we aren’t sure we’re for mixed- use. That’s been the ongoing discussion that we’ve had that’s not resolved that we hope will be resolved by policy-makers. That we shouldn’t have to sacrifice, create an awkward building, or reduce the area allowed. I should also point out that this very same variance was granted, not for mixed-use, but on the issue of site coverage. The site coverage at 835 Page Mill was granted saying that you wouldn’t be allowed to develop to the .4 FAR in LM Zone unless we give you a variance for site coverage. So we need help. If that is to modify our building or to do a lot line adjustment or to give Staff direction that in fact we want to encourage mixed-use, we just need clarification so we and others near the Downtown along E1 Camino know how to proceed. Chairman Schmidt: Any other questions for the applicant? Thank you. It looks like we have no one who wants to speak in the public hearing portion of this so I will close the public hearing and bring it back to the Commission. Are there questions for Staff’?. Jon. Commissioner Schink: I’d like to hear Staff’s response to Jim’s last comments. Ms. French: The one regarding 835 Page Mill? City of Palo Alto 38 Page 31 Commissioner Schink: No, the one regarding you’re pregnant with triplets why not four? Ms. Furth: We probably ought to go back to the beginning of what we do when we interpret ordinances and advise you. Basically our task is to understand what the people of Palo Alto did through their elected representatives by adopting ordinances. So when we give you advice what we are charged to do is to read what the Council actually adopted and wrote into law. We then tell you what we believe the parameters are in applying that law. One of the frustrating things, I think for.people dealing with this mixed-use issue, is that the Comprehensive Plan is clear on the desirability of mixed-use projects. It is also clear on the inadequacy of present zoning. But Comprehensive Plans are not self-executing. The fact that they say an ordinance should be changed doesn’t mean that the ordinance has been changed. These issues about the problems with mixed- use are evident in a huge range of projects. This is the smallest one. They also have become increasingly important in the Hyatt Ricky’s application. It has the exact same kind of dispute about the interrelationship between the commercial regulations and then this application on top of them of the various RM district standards. So the first thing we did when we looked at all this was to say, could they really have meant this? Because as the applicant and person speaking in open session were so eloquent about, you give with one hand and take away with the other. So we went back and actually did all this research for Hyatt Ricky’s because we had a very large issue there. We went back and pulled all the documents on this for about 20 years. They are very clear. The zones used to not work this way. They used to not put this kind of restriction on commercial development that now happens when you add residential development. In fact, projects were built under that earlier combined standard. The projects, according to the person who was Director at the time, were not met with universal approval. So in 1989 the City took back that decision. They explicitly removed the provision that limited these special standards to the residential portion of the project. They applied it to the whole project. So we couldn’t say, that isn’t what they meant. It is clear that is what they meant. So that leaves you with a couple of ways of addressing particular applications. The one that is involved here is a request for a variance. Variances are not things that you can use to let people maximize development on a lot. Variances are things that you use to take an oddly shaped or configured lot, e.g., one that has an historical building on it; one that has a heritage oak on it; one that is only five feet wide at the back when the zone requires 50 feet; and treat it in a way that makes it more like other lots, not different than other lots. So the very eloquence with which the applicant and Mr. Hayes, the architect, described the problems with every application under these zones and every parcel is the reason that variances are not available generally to address this problem. You have to address the problem by amending the code. City of Palo Alto Page 32 39 So having arrived at that state of affairs we then looked very carefully at what we could say about this particular lot. The Page Mill lot is an interesting contrast because the Page Mill lot is a legally substandard lot. You may remember the extraordinary housing situation you had where you had the little legal non-conforming lot on the hillside where between the mandatory setback and the creek setback you had something like a ten foot strip to build a house on. That’s a classic case for a variance. This is not a substandard lot. It doesn’t violate any of the zoning standards for the requirement. It is a perfectly legal conforming lot for this district. So we looked at it to see if there were other strange things about it that would disadvantage it compared with other legal lots in the district. There are some things that Staff, with a lot of work, isolated and analyzed. They mostly had to do with the fact that this property is on E1 Camino. That creates a bunch of constraints. One of them is that we’ve asked for additional front setback. Another one is that it is a very highly trafficked, noisy street. Another factor about it is that we need to space driveways. This is an area which is a pattern of many small lots and each of the adjacent properties happened to put their driveway next to this lot. That leads to a constraint on where you can locate the driveway for this parcel. Then when you combine that with the actual size of the parcel, our parking requirements, the fact that it’s so small that you can’t use the combined parking provisions, the fact that they can’t build underground parking here because it is just too tight a site to get the driveways to spin around underground, you’re forced to develop above ground covered parking. So that gives us a basis for providing variances from the side constraints. We have minimum width requirements for parking spaces and for parking isles. I suppose if you were being extremely strict you could say well, they can build a much smaller building and only have parking on one side. But we think it is reasonable to say that in order to meet the parking requirements you have to build this wider structure, that the wider structure can be built. You can also argue that having said that, that doesn’t justify variances on the sides for the upper stories. But when you look at how the construction is constrained by the fact that all this central space has to be cleared for cars you have to put the stairs at the sides, you have to put the elevator at the side. You end upwith an elevator and stairway unattached to the building if you don’t pull the building out as well at the upper stories. So we actually thought this was pretty creative. So on this basis and this analysis we could manage to make valid, legal, legitimate findings for why you can make this building wider than would otherwise be the case. Because they’ve designed it so that, for example on the residential floor the wall that is closest to the side-yard reduced setback only has windows in the corridor. We felt that we could say that there is no damage tO the potential occupants of this building and similarly it is sort of reassuring on the lower floor which is commercial to know that even with a reduced setback they get more air and light than a typical office is allowed under our zoning code. We don’t require that kind of setback typically. So that made us feel that City of Palo Alto 40 Page 33 we weren’t causing damage by recommending this to either the future occupants of this building or the future occupants or developers of the adjacent buildings. We cannot come to the same conclusion when it comes to building a building which is overall larger, that goes further back, that exceeds the lot coverage, because you don’t need it to do the parking. It doesn’t logically follow from the parking. We were unable to come up with any lawful basis for a variance. So in answer to the question, I don’t think I can come up with a good pregnancy analogy but the variances have to be justified because there is something about the condition of the lot that requires them. So you might have to reduce the setback, for example~hecause you needed to pull in the building somewhere else to accommodate a tree. That doesn’t justify a height variance so you can get the theoretically maximum FAR. The courts have been very clear on that point. So we did our best. Chairman Schmidt: Annette. Commissioner Bialson: I really appreciate that very clear explanation. It sort of reaffirms my general thinking which was that this was a heck of a well designed project. I’d like to see this improve this somewhat odd corner of E1 Camino. I’m trying to sort of accelerate the process given the lateness of the hour. But I felt like it was too big a project trying to shoehorn into a small lot. I agree with Staff that we can come up with good reasons for the variances on all issues except for the site coverage. Chairman Schmidt: Jon. Commissioner Schink: I would sure like to try to make a creative approach at finding a solution because I think this is a great opportunity to get some housing that we might not otherwise get. I think that from my perspective if you can make the argument that it is logical to stretch this building a little wider, seems to me that proportionally it is logical that you could make this. building a little longer. That’s what I would encourage this Commission to look to find if we want to try to get some housing on top of this commercial space. Chairman Schmidt: Owen. Commissioner Byrd: I like the building. I think it is proportional to its surroundings. I’d like to see it built. I think it is a sad example of the need to move swiftly to update our zoning so we can get buildings just like this that are conforming. The problem is, as Wynne described, the variance findings on lot coverage are tough to make. Because the applicant owns the adjacent parcel and a lot line adjustment, from what I understood Staff City of Palo Alto Page 34 41 to say ,would solve the problem there is a way around the issue to enable delivery of this same building without being overly gymnastic in making the findings and using it as inspiration to get around to re-writing the zoning code. Clearly that may limit the applicant’s development potential on that adjacent lot, the Old Pro, if it is ever redeveloped. But I think that’s the best we can do under the circumstance. Chairman Schmidt: Annette. Commissioner Bialson: I’m very concerned about the precedent value here because as Jim Baer pointed out developers are going to be looking at just how we rule on this for ¯ guidance on how they develop future parcels. I think that we’ve got to wait until we re- write the zoning ordinances, until we come up with something that will allow buildings as well designed as this to be constructed. Right now I don’t want to warp the variance process. Chairman Schmidt: Bonnie. Commissioner Packer: I agree with Owen. It would be great if we could do that lot line adjustment so that we can meet the quantitative requirements of the code. Certainly from a qualitative perspective this shortening of the building doesn’t achieve the stated intent in the Staff report which is to proyide more open space and recreation for the tenants. It is kind of a joke to say just because you’re moving in eight feet they are going to have more recreation space on top of that parking space. So I would hope we can do this and that the owner can agree to that lot line adjustment whatever it takes so that this nicely designed building can go ahead. I just want to add that I grew up on top of my father’s store. So I really have a feeling for mixed-use. Chairman Schmidt: Jon. Commissioner Schink: I have a question. I’m sure Annette and Owen can answer this. First I was under the impression that there is no precedent value to variances. The second is, is it right for us to be giving any consideration to the fact that we’ve heard that this property owner owns the property next door? That’s just been suggested but do we really know that and should we be in fact taking that into account here. I think we should be looking at this application totally on its own. Commissioner Bialson: Answering your first question, I think strictly speaking, legally there is no precedent value but in terms of the message we are giving I think it’s loud and clear. With respect to knowing or being told that the property is owned by a property owner that owns the adjacent parcel I think we can keep that in mind. Again, I’d rather keep the variance process a little purer. City of Palo Alto Page 35 42 Chairman Schmidt: Phyllis. Commissioner Cassel: It is going to be some time before we get through the zoning to make these changes. We know that for some reason people didn’t like the previous zoning. We know what we’ve got doesn’t work. And we know we want to do something that works. This is a real bind. Ms. Grote: The zoning ordinance work program will be created by June of this year. However, to do the actual analysis and update the entire ordinance will take probably a couple of years total after that. Chairman Schmidt: Annette. Commissioner Bialson: I think what that indicates is that we are not going to be able to maximize some lots. I think other lots may come forward with the ability to make the findings that allow us to grant variances. But I would not be in favor of granting a variance for lot coverage in this situation. Chairman Schmidt: Other comments? I’ll say that I certainly wish that we could make the findings to grant the variance. I would love to see good mixed-use projects easily march through Palo Alto and come here to live. We’re not able to do that at this time. It is unfortunate that projects that were done in the 1980’s ended up getting the ordinances changed so that we could no longer do mixed-use projects with any ease. As an aside, we’ve talked about as the zoning ordinance is updated it isn’t necessarily going to be done as one piece and adopted as one piece. It may or may not be done that way. I don’t know if there will be any sort of priorities as to what parts of it get done first but they are probably all urgent. I think that in this particular case since the property owner owns both this parcel and a neighboring parcel that that’s what we are going to have to work with to get this project done. Owen. Commissioner Byrd: Let me go ahead and try and a motion. I will move the Staff recommendation. Commissioner Bialson: Second. Chairman Schmidt: Is there other discussion? Jon. Commissioner Schink: Could I ask Staff a question? Would it be conceivable for you to make the argument that because the argument that you used for the on grade parking then necessitated the need for an extra set of stairs and egress from the third level of the City of Palo Alto Page 36 43 building which would not be required had you not then raised the parking, so that because you’ve got additional egress requirements for the parking on the ground plane, you forced them to go over the lot coverage? Would that be sufficient? Ms. Furth: We don’t believe so. Commissioner Schink: Okay. Chairman Schmidt: Any other comments? Owen do you want to speak to the motion? Commissioner Byrd: I’ve never been more reluctant about a motion I had to make. I want to see this project succeed. I hope that there are other tools in the tool kit available to the applicant to make it succeed. Commissioner Bialson: Can I ask if we can allow Jim to make a comment? Just a quick one. Chairman Schmidt: Sure. Mr. Baer: Just that Commissioner Byrd and Commissioner Cassel said, if you own the adjacent property and can make a lot line adjustment there is not a variance for side coverage required. We can do whatever lot line adjustment is necessary to bring us to a 40% site coverage and I don’t believe we would be exceeding the .4 FAR of the Old Pros in doing that but i~ would really be a shame to send us packing when the policies so much support it. I should say we have this frustration that I can’t not express to you. We’ve not seen a written legal opinion and we do think that Mr. Sanger’s arguments that the combining districts aren’t even applicable at Hyatt’s is a large part of what you are finding as such forceful resistance. You are being given a legal opinion that you cannot make this finding which is astounding to me since we haven’t see that legal opinion. We think there is the Hyatt in the woodpile going on that what is driving this decision. That’s not very good way to work on policies for how to get mixed-use on small parcels. The real message is to say that we would do a lot line adjustment so that we are in compliance on the 40% site coverage. Chairman Schmidt: Jon. Commissioner Schink: There was one point that I did want to try to address. I believe Mr. Baer raised the concern about requiring the subdivision map prior to the application for a permit. I would just like to share with all of you my experience that that’s normally the case and can in fact cause some real problems. During the plan check process the plan check engineers will often times will require larger structural members and beams City of Palo Alto Page 37 and you could really get caught in a real problem with wall placements changing. Having the civil engineer draw up your condominium map then in plan check it’s got to go back and forth. It really is more logical to change and put that condition as prior to occupancy. So I would encourage the maker of the motion to include that. Commissioner Byrd: You have reminded me that I had intended to do that. Ms. Furth: We didn’t require that he prepare it or final it. We required an application. Commissioner Schink: You can’t make your application because you don’t know where the lines are going to be. The walls may change in the plan check process. Ms. Furth: Of course the map itself is just the single lot. It is the condominium plan that has those details, right? Commissioner Schink: Right. Ms. Furth: I think the purpose of the condition is to make sure that we don’t find ourselves in one of those messes where we’ve inadvertently subjected somebody to the conversion requirement. Mr. Ray Hashimoto, Zoning Administrator: Right, and that hasn’t been the problem in the past. I’m just referring to the specific map of the units. Commissioner Byrd: A condo map is three-dimensional. It makes sense to make sure that the structure is finalized before the map is drawn to accommodate that structure. So for that reason I don’t think we run the risk of running afoul of the conversion ordinance by requiring that the map be applied for prior to occupancy as opposed to the standard prior to building permit. So I would like to amend my motion to reflect that. Mr. Hashimoto: With all due respect to the applicant, that was mentioned in a meeting as. part of a brainstorming to see what could be done. We were looking at all sorts of solutions to try to get to where we all wanted to go. I think that needs to be investigated. I think it needs to be looked at from the standpoint of how it does impact the Old Pro site egress. So I am concerned about forging ahead with this. I think we could take some direction and look at that. I don’t want the Commission to go away thinking that that’s the panacea that’s going to take care of everything because I’m not sure it is. Commissioner Cassel: Nothing ever is. City of Palo Alto Page 38 Chairman Schmidt: Okay. Are there other comments? Let’s take a vote. This would be the Staff recommendation that supports most of the project except the one variance for greater lot coverage with the additional condition that the condominium map is applied for around the time of occupancy versus at the time of building permit. Ms. French: Technicality. Condition number 18 modification to reflect timing of condo map filing. Chairman Schmidt: Okay, all those in favor please say aye. (ayes) All those opposed say no. That passes unanimously with Commissioner Burt absent. Commissioner Cassel: That is a sad vote because we do in the long run want to make those changes. Chairman Schmidt: It is and we hope that in the future we will be able to accommodate mixed-use projects easily. Thank you. City of Palo Alto Page 39 Attachment 10 Architectural Review Board Staff Report Agenda Date: To: From: Subject: June 15, 2000 Architectural Review Board Amy French, Acting Senior Planner Department: Planning and Community Environment 2825 E1 Camino Real [File Nos: 99-ARB-97, 99-D-4, 99-EIA-13, 99-V- 13, 00 DEE-01]: Request by Jim Baer on behalf of Morris Associates for Architectural Review Board review of the demolition of an existing 1,426 square foot building and construction of a new three-story mixed-use building comprised of three two-bedroom residential units, office space, and a ground floor parking area for 15 vehicles. Proposed site improvements include six rear-yard parking spaces and a walled, landscaped front yard with two deferred parking spaces in landscape reserve. Off-site bicycle parking facilities are proposed on the adjacent site (Old Pro Restaurant/Bar, 2865 E1 Camino Real). A Design Enhancement Exception is requested to allow (1) deferred parking area to be located within the required front setback, (2) the use of additional private open space in lieu of a portion of the required common usable residential open space area, and (3) increased site coverage beyond the maximum permitted. Site and Design review of the project, and review of the environmental document and Variance request for side setback and daylight plane encroachments are scheduled for the City Council meeting of July 24, 2000. Environmental Assessment: A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with CEQA guidelines. RECOMMENDATION ’ Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board recommend approval of the Site and Design application to the City Council, based upon the attached Findings (Attachment 4) and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval (Attachment 7). Staff recommends that the Architectural Review Board recommend approval of the Design Enhancement Exception application, based upon the attached Findings (Attachment 6). Staff and the Planning Commission have recommended approval of the requested Variances. The ARB is not required to make recommendations regarding the requested Variances. The City Council will consider this project along with board recommendations at their meeting on July 24, 2000. City of Palo Alto Page 41 47 BACKGROUND/ISSUES The project was heard before the Planning Commission on March 29, 2000. The Planning Commission concurred with Staff’s recommendations for conditional approval of the requested Site and Design, Design Enhancement Exceptions, and Variances for side setback and daylight plane encroachments. The verbatim minutes of the Planning Commission meeting are attached to this report (Attachment 10.) The Commission recommended a change to Condition #18 regarding the timing of the filing of a subdivision application. At the time of the Planning Commission hearing, the increased lot coverage request was considered as a Variance, and denial was recommended. Subsequent to the Planning Commission hearing, the Director of Planning and Community Environment determined that the 8% lot coverage overage is eligible for a Design Enhancement Exception per Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 18.91, Section 18.91.020. The Architectural Review Board is requested to review the resulting design (Pursuant to Section 16.48.135 and in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 18.91) to ensure that the appearance and design of the development is enhanced by the minor overage of lot coverage. The Planning Commission also reviewed several requested exceptions to the off-street parking provisions and the Director of Planning and Community Environment has determined that the requested exceptions are in accordance with the purposes of Chapter 18.83, Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements. Section 18.83.120, Adjustments to requirements by the director of planning and community environment, provides for adjustments that will not create undue impact on existing or potential uses adjoining the site or in the general vicinity. The adjustments include: (1) the substitution of eight off-site bicycle lockers for one on-site vehicle parking space (Pursuant to Section 18.83.120, item (a) and (g)), and (2) the provision of two deferred parking spaces in the front yard in landscape reserve, (Pursuant to Section 18.83.120, item(e)). The Architectural Review Board is requested to review these exceptions (Pursuant to Section 16.48.135 and in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 18.91) to ensure that the resulting design will enhance the appearance and design of the development. Staff had originally recommended a reduction in the lot coverage to meet the 40% requirement, which would have reduced the office floor area accordingly (around 300 square feet). Since it is now considered eligible for a Design Enhancement Exception, the lot coverage may remain as originally proposed, subject to a positive recommendation by the Architectural Review Board and final approval by the City Council. Since both stairways are included in the gross floor area requirements for the office (although the elevator is considered exempt since it is required only for the third floor residential units), it is necessary to dedicate a portion of the office as "employee amenity area" as originally proposed by the applicant to ensure that the floor area ratio (FAR) is not exceeded. The applicant proposes to provide an employee amenity area totalling of 250 square feet within the second floor office area. This area can be considered exempt from the calculation of gross floor area pursuant to Chapter 18.04, Section 18.04.030 item 65 (B),(iv), which states, "In commercial and industrial districts except in the CD District City of Palo Alto Page 42 and in areas designated as special study areas, additions of floor area designed and used solely for on-site employee amenities for employees of the facility, approved by the director of planning and community environment, upon the determination that such additions will facilitate the reduction of employee vehicle use. Such additions may include, but not be limited to, recreational facilities, credit unions, cafeterias and day care centers." The type of the employee amenity has not been described in plans to date by the applicant, however a condition of approval requires the inclusion of the area in plans submitted for City Council action and plans submitted in conjunction with a Building permit application. EXISTING SITE The site is currently developed with a 1,426 square foot one-story building most recently occupied by Burnett’s Auto Repair. The subject property is a level parcel having 75 feet of frontage on E1 Camino Real, located two parcels south of Page Mill Road as shown on Attachment 1 (attached to this report). The subject property is located within the Cal-Ventura area identified in the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan (see Attachment 8). The project site is approximately 11,250 square feet and is designated C-S or "Service Commercial" on both the Comprehensive Plan map and Zoning Map. SURROUNDING PROPERTIES The surrounding properties are developed with commercial land uses in one-story buildings. The adjacent commercial uses, also on C-S zoned properties, include a restaurant/bar (Old Pro) located on E1 Camino Real to the south, and retail stores (Cellular One Store and Ken’s Bonsai Garden) located on E1 Camino Real and Page Mill Road to the north. The front setbacks of the existing commercial buildings along this side of E1 Camino Real are predominantly zerO. The subject property also abuts an R-1 zoned property to the east, sharing ten feet of the residential property’s side property line, which results in more restrictive standards for development on the site in regard to the rear setback. The Cellular One store to the north is set back 36 feet from the shared property line with 2825 E1 Camino Real, and a driveway and parking area are located in this 36 foot wide space. The project includes a proposal for off site bicycle lockers at 2865 El Camino Real, the parcel south of the project site that is under the same ownership as the subject property. The site contains the Old Pro building, which i; set back 25 feet from the property line shared with 2825 E1 Camino Real. A~driveway is located in this 25-foot wide space, allowing access to the parking spaces on the site. In 1978, a Use Permit was approved (file 78-UP-26) allowing six substandard parking spaces along the north side of the Old Pro building and five parking spaces along the rear property line of the Old Pro site. The proposal for off-site bicycle lockers on the Old Pro site is discussed under project description in this report. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Site and Design review and approval is requested for the demolition of the existing one-story commercial building and construction of a three-story mixed residential and commercial building and related site improvements. The application includes a Variance request for side setbacks and side daylight plane encroachments, which was considered by the Planning Commission and will City of Palo Alto Page 43 49 be reviewed by the City Council. The project also includes a proposal for the placement of 10 bicycle lockers in the rear northerly comer of 2865 El Camino Real, to serve commercial teriants of the proposed project at 2825 E1 Camino Real. The applicant has submitted a detailed project description and statements, including findings for the Design Enhancement Exceptions, in Attachment 9. A Design Exception Enhancement has been requested, pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 18.91, for the following: (1) to allow private open space to apply to common open space, (2) to allow 4% of the total private open space (5.4% of the lot area) to apply toward common open space, and (3) to allow 8% additional lot coverage. Although an application for Subdivision has not been submitted to date to enable separate ownership of the residential units and office space, the applicant states that the residential units will be "for sale" condominium units. Proposed Building The proposed building includes three two-bedroom residential units on the third floor, office space on the second floor and a partially enclosed ground floor containing 15 vehicle spaces, a trash and recycling area, a lobby area to access the elevator and stairwell, and a second stairwell that would provide access to the upper floors from the exterior on the south side of the building. The proposed building has a height of 35 feet to the upper parapet, a rear building set back of approximately 30’6" and a front setback of approximately 32 feet. A zero side yard setback is proposed along the second stairwell at the southerly property line, and a five foot setback is proposed elsewhere along this property line. There are no openings in the wall at the lot line, but openings are proposed in the wall five feet from the property line. An 8’-4½" side yard setback is proposed along the northerly property line. Each of the three residential units would have two bedrooms, two full bathrooms, a den/study, a laundry facility, living and dining area, a kitchen, and a bicycle storage closet. The middle unit (Unit #2) would also provide a breakfast nook. The front unit (Unit #1) would have two balconies comprising 216 square feet, where the balcony facing E1 Camino Real would be set into the building and the one on the side would project from the building. The rear unit (Unit #3) would have three projecting balconies comprising 207 square feet. The middle unit (Unit #2) would have one projectingbalcony comprising 193 square feet. City of Palo Alto 50 Page 44 Proposed building materials include tan brick and pre-cast stone at the first two stories and integral color stucco at the third story. The architectural style includes contemporary features, such as pre-cast panels, metal entry canopy, bronze anodized windows, metal balcony guard rails, decorative metal screens and antique bronze finish signage. The proposed exterior wall sconces (two altematives proposed) would glow from the front of the lamp only. These light sconces would be placed on three sides of the building. On the front elevation, four sconces would flank the vehicle and pedestrian entrances on the first floor, and two sconces would illuminate a private residential balcony on the third floor. On the rear (east) and south sides, exterior lighting is proposed on third floor residential balconies only. Site Improvements, 2825 El Camino Real Six unenclosed compact parking spaces are proposed at the rear of the site. This rear parking area will be paved with pervious concrete unit pavers. The front yard would include two parking spaces that would be held in "landscape reserve" until such time as the parking spaces may be needed. A paved pedestrian entry court split by a brown integral-color concrete driveway is proposed in the front yard. The sidewalk along the project frontage would also be improved with integral color concrete. A 42" high stucco wall is proposed on either side of the driveway with adjacent shrub plantings and a wrought iron gate for pedestrian entry from the sidewalk. Bicycle racks for two bicycles would be provided for office employees in the front courtyard area. Two street trees (California Sycamore bloodgood and Holly Oak) would be removed and replaced. One off-site Oak tree that abuts the side property line would be removed on the adjoining property at 2865 E1 Camino Real, which is under the same ownership as the subject property. The tree would not be replaced on the adjoining site, but two coast live oaks (48" box) and two ornamental pear trees (24" box ) would be placed on the subject property near the rear property line. Eight ornamental pear trees (24" box) are proposed in the front yard and perimeter landscaping is to be provided along the north side of the building, including four European hornbeam trees (15 gallon). The side setback on the south side of the building would be paved to allow access to the rear staircase and front elevator lobby. The proposed site lighting includes (1) lighting in the walled front yard area, where up-lights would be placed at the base of the trees and two pole lights would be placed next to two benches, and (2) lighting in the rear. parking lot, where two up-lights would be placed at the base of two trees. Off Site Bicycle Parking (2865 El Camino Real) Ten bicycle lockers are proposed to be located on the adjacent site of the Old Pro restaurant/bar. Eight of these bicycle lockers are to replace one required vehicle parking space on the subject property at 2825 E1 Camino Real. The other two bicycle lockers are proposed to address the bicycle parking requirements for the commercial space at 2825 E1 Camino Real. A gate in the proposed fence along the common property line between this site and the subject property would allow the bicycle-riding commercial tenants to access the walkway along the south side of the proposed building on the subject property. The placement of bicycle lockers on the Old Pro site City of Palo Alto Page 45 would not displace the five vehicle parking spaces along the rear property line required as a part of the original Use Permit, but the location of the vehicle spaces would need to be adjusted. POLICY IMPLICATIONS Analyses of the project’s compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and E1 Camino Real Design Guidelines are attached to this report as Attachment 2. In summary, the project meets the intent of the Comprehensive Plan and E1 Camino Real Guidelines. The project is required to meet the provisions of Zoning Code Chapters 18.45 (C-S Zoning District), 18.83 (Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations), 18.82 (Site and Design Review), 18.28 (Multiple Family Guidelines) and 18.64 (Additional Site Development and Design Regulations for Commercial and Industrial Districts). Analyses of the project’s compliance with these Zoning regulations are presented below. Project’s conformance with C-S District (Chapter 18.45) regulations for mixed use project The C-S Zoning District requires the use of RM-30 Zoning District development regulations for mixed residential and commercial projects. Density and FAR regulations, however, are specifically described for mixed-use projects in the C-S Zoning District regulations. The proposed project complies with the density and FAR regulations for mixed uses, as follows: The proposed residential density is three units, which is within the density limitation set forth in Section 18.24.060 Residential Density (incorporated by reference in the C-S District regulations) of five residential units for an 11,250 square foot site (entire site area used for density calculation irrespective of non-residential area per PAMC Section 18.45.070(a)(1)). The proposed floor area ratio of the project is .4 to 1 for the office area (4,500 square feet, given exempt floor area) and .5 to 1 for the residential area (5,650 square feet) for a total FAR of .9:1. The project complies with the maximum FAR of 1:1 for mixed uses on C-S zoned property (PAMC Section 18.45.050 (g) (3)). The covered parking on the first floor is not counted as floor area. The following table (Table 1) illustrates the project’s conformance with other applicable regulations for mixed use projects in the C-S District (RM-30 Regulations incorporated): Table 1: CONFORMANCE WITH C-S REGULATIONS FOR MIXED USE PROJECT Feature Regulation Proposed Conformance Site area 8,500 sq.ft, minimum 11,250 s.f.Conforms Site width 70 feet min 75 feet Conforms Site depth 100 feet min 150 feet Conforms Height 35 feet 35 feet Conforms City of Palo Alto Page 46 52 Rear Setback Front Setback 10’ @ first story, and 20’ @ upper stories facing R-1 lot 25 feet required for mixed use project a~djacent to arterial 30’6" at all stories 32.5 feet from front property line Conforms Conforms Project’s Non-Conformance with C-S District Regulations for Mixed Use Projects The building, as designed, would exceed the maximum lot coverage allowed, would encroach into the required side yard setbacks and would protrude into the required side daylight planes. In addition, the parking requirements will be met only partially on the subject property. The following table (Table 2) illustrates the project’s nonconformance with the applicable regulations for mixed use projects in the C-S District: City of Palo Alto Page 47 Table 2: NON-CONFORMANCE WITH C-S REGULATIONS, MIXED USE PROJECTS Feature Regulation Proposed Nonconformance Daylight Plane (45 degrees taken from 10’ above the side and rear property lines) Side Setback Lot Coverage Usable Common Open Space for residential units Required on rear and sides (television and radio antennas, flues, chimneys excepted). Protrusion, south side: stairs @ upper flrs., 8.5’ @ 3rd fl.,19’ @ parapet. North side: 4’@ 3rd fl., 16’ @ parapet. 8’4 ½" at 1s~ floor, north side; 0’ across the 25 foot second stair portion and 4.5’ for remaining portion at 1 st floor, south side. 48% of the site (5,400 sq.fl, proposed) Usable Private Open Space for residential units Location of parking spaces Required: 10’ at first floor, and 17’6" on upper floors (or half the proposed building height (35’) 40% of the site area or 4,500 sq.ft. 30% (3,375 sq.ft.) of site area permanently maintained common open space at ground floor Private open space contiguous to unit, balcony minimum of 50 sq. ft. for each unit No parking spaces in the 25’ required front yard setback 26% (2,934 sq.ft.) at ground floor; the remaining required 4% is included in the private open space Each unit provides over 50 square feet of balcony area (units 1 &3 have multiple balconies, unit 2 has one balcony). Overall total of 616 square feet private open space area 5.4% of total lot area. Two "deferred" parking spaces are proposed in the front yard Variance requested for side daylight plane protrusions (combined total protrusions: 12. 5’ at floor of residential, 35’ at parapeO Variance: north side: 1.7’ on lSt floor, 9.2’ at upper floors; south side: 5’ and 10’ at first floor, 17. 5’ and 12. 5’ at upper floors). Design Enhancement Exception: 8% over allowed lot coverage Design Enhancement Exception (DEE) requested to allow private open space to apply to common open space(PAMC Chapter 18.91) DEE requested to allow 4% of the total private open space (5. 4% of the lot area) to apply toward common open’space (PAMC Chapter 18. 91) DEE requested (PAMC Chapter 18.91) to allow parking spaces in the required front setback. As noted, the Variances were considered by the Planning Commission, who have recommended approval of the side setback and daylight plane encroachments and denial of the additional lot City of Palo Alto Page 48 54 coverage as a Variance request. City of Palo Alto Page 49 Project’s conformance with Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations (Chapter 18.83) The following table (Table 3) illustrates the project’s conformance with Chapter 18.83: Table 3: PARKING FACILITIES SUBJECT TO CHAPTER 18.83 REGULATIONS Parking Spaces Vehicle, 4,500 square feet of office Required 1:250 office uses 18 spaces Bicycle, in-lieu for one commercial vehicle Loading space Deferred Parking or "Landscape Reserve" space (18.83.120(e)) Proposed 17 vehicle spaces on site (including two deferred "landscape reserve" spaces) plus 8 off-site bicycle lockers replacing one on-site space) 6 spaces for tenants Conformance Conforms (Bicycle lockers discussed under significant issues) Vehicle, residential 2 spaces/2-bedroom Conforms unit = 6 spaces Vehicle res. Guests 0 guest space required 0 guest space Conforms ADA accessible One van space One van space Conforms (included in required included in the 17 on- spaces for office use)site spaces. Bicycle, commercial 3 spaces (2 Class I 4 spaces (2 class I Bike racks conform. space and one rack)spaces off site, two racks on site) Bicycle, residential 3 class I spaces (1 3 spaces (class I space Conforms space per unit)in each res. unit) 8 bicycle spaces for 8 class I spaces Locker placement on one vehicle adjacent lot Conforms Conforms No loading space Two "reserve" parking spaces in front yard No loading space Deferral up to 50% of vehicle parking and up to 25% of bicycle parking for unknown or unusual circumstances 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, research, or educational activities, or other authorized occupations, in the same or adjacent areas. City of Palo Alto Page 50 (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 4, attached to this report. Multiple Family Guidelines (Chapter 18.28) The project conforms to many of the Chapter 18.28 Multiple Family Guidelines, including the following provisions: ¯Pedestrian protection from water at the lobby entry, o Accessible and screened trash and recycling area inside the parking enclosure, ¯Textured paving on driveways, ¯Rooftop equipment screens, ¯Common outdoor area special paving (slate is proposed), ¯Landscaped area in front yard for recreational purposes, .Minimal 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 7): 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-S 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. o Late hour and early morning truck traffic should be discouraged The project would meet these guidelines. Conditions of approval in Attachment 7 ensure the project’s impacts upon the .adjacent residential parcel would be minimized: SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ISSUES Design Enhancement Exception Findings (pursuant to PAMC Chapter 18.91) The Design Enhancement Exceptions are requested to allow: ¯landscape reserve parking within the required front yard setback, ¯private residential open space to apply toward the required common usable open space, and ¯minor (8%) increase in lot coverage. The Architectural Review Board is requested to review the proposal for Design Enhancement City of Palo Alto Page 51 Exceptions and provide a recommendation to the Director of Planning and Community Environment. The Palo Alto Municipal Code notes that items for which exceptions may be granted include, but are not limited to, dormers, eave lines, roof design, bay windows, cornices, parapets, columns, arcades, fountains, art, ornamentation, atriums, balconies, trellises, moldings, balustrades, stairs, entry features, and other minor architectural elements and design features. The code states that no exceptions shall be granted 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. Generally, exceptions shall be limited to minor changes to the setback, daylight plane, height, lot coverage limitations, parking lot design and landscaping configuration, and additional flexibility in the proportion between private and common open space. The required Design Enhancement Exception (DEE) findings are: (1) There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property or site improvements involved that do not apply generally to property in the same zone district; (2)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; and (3)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 Planning Commission voted unanimously to support findings for the proposed location of parking spaces in the front yard and in support of the proposed use of private open space (residential balconies) to meet the usable open space requirements for the residential units. The front yard parking spaces are recommended because the proposed landscaping and low wall in the front yard meet the recommendations contained in the E1 Camino Real Guidelines for screening of parking facilities. The balconies in lieu of ground floor open space are recommended because they will be more usable for third floor residents and will help to add interest to the exterior walls. Finally, the findings have been made in support of the minor increase in lot coverage to facilitate the implementation of a mixed-use project on a small lot. The allowable lot coverage is 40% of 11,250 or 4,500 square feet. The parking structure covers roughly 5,400 square feet or 48% of the site. Even if the building length were to be reduced to meet the 40% lot coverage requirement, the uncovered site area would still be used as parking area. Therefore, there is no additional recreational open space to be gained by reducing the lot coverage on the subject property. The findings for the increased lot coverage are predicated upon the implementation of recommended conditions of approval, including maintaining the employee amenity area in perpetuity. City of Palo Alto Page 52 Proposed DEE findings specific to this project are provided in Attachment 6. Parking A total of 24 vehicle-parking spaces are required for this project. Fifteen spaces would be enclosed, and six spaces would be located in an open rear parking area, for a total of 21 spaces proposed for initial installation. The remaining three spaces are accounted for in the following manner: Two of the required vehicle spaces are proposed to be placed on site in "landscape reserve" pursuant to PAMC Chapter 18.83, Parking, Section 18.83.120 (e), which allows deferral of meeting full requirements for up to 50% of vehicle spaces (up to 12 spaces in this case) and up to 25% of bicycle spaces (up to 1.5 spaces in this case). Chapter 19.91, Section 18.91.020, allows the Director of Planning and Community Environment to approve a minor exception for landscape reserve parking lot spaces in the front setback. One required vehicle space would be substituted with eight off-site bicycle lockers. Ten lockers are proposed on the adjacent site at 2865 E1 Camino Real, eight of which are proposed to replace one of the required vehicle-parking spaces. The other two off-site lockers are proposed to meet the requirement for two Class I bicycle lockers for the office tenants. The site plan indicates that a five foot pathway will be provided to ensure access to these lockers. A gate in the fence along the property line will allow access to the path. Conditions of approval in Attachment 7 require an easement to be prepared and recorded, and require striping of the proposed access pathway, to ensure these bicycle lockers will remain accessible for the tenants of 2825 E1 Camino Real. Architectural Design The proposed building will change the character of the site and streetscape along the E1 Camino Real corridor, adding mass and additional light and glare from a three-story residential/office building were there are presently one-story older commercial buildings. The proposed building’s front setback is much greater than those of adjacent buildings, which are aligned at the front property lines along E1 Camino Real. However, this setback is needed for several practical reasons and, combined with the plantings and hardscaping proposed at the pedestrian level along E1 Camino Real, will help reduce the visual impact of the building. One of the reasons for the large setback is that the 1989 Citywide Transportation Study (and Comprehensive Plan EIR, CIRC-8) determined that El Camino Real may be required to be widened up to 12 feet to a point 400 feet south of Page Mill Road (four parcels). In order to accommodate this potential street widening, this project must significantly increase its front setback. Another important reason is that a buffer is needed between the proposed residential units and the noise generated by the E1 Camino Real traffic. Recycling The applicant proposes to place the cardboard recycling facility for this project on the adjoining property (2865 E1 Camino Real) under the same ownership. The applicant proposes to record legal documents to ensure this shared recycling use. Conditions of approval in Attachment 7 ensure these concerns will be met. City of Palo Alto Page 53 59 Noise As noted in the Comprehensive Plan analysis (Attachment 2), special measures are required to meet the standards of Comprehensive Plan Policy N-39 for outdoor noise. As noted in the EIAiMitigated Negative Declaration, indoor noise can be mitigated by the provision of required insulation and double-glazing on all residential windows. The balconies may need to be modified for sound attenuation purposes. The applicant has agreed to comply with any acoustical attenuation requirements. One attenuation device that has been utilized is the installation of a transparent material that will not interfere with the proposed design. Outdoor noise in the front courtyard may be mitigated by the low wall, but since there are no true recreational spaces, the noise will not be problematic in the courtyard. Long term noise associated with the HVAC rooftop equipment will be limited in accordance with the recommendations of the acoustical study. Construction hours will be limited to the City’s standard hours of construction, so short term construction noise will be limited to these hours. Conditions of approval in Attachment 7 ensure these concerns will be met. Privacy Issues: Landscaping, Fencing and Lighting Balconies are proposed at the upper stories on the rear wall of the proposed building. However, no upper floor balconies are located directly opposite the ten-foot side property line of the adjoining residential parcel (since the rear stairwell is located opposite the residential property.) In any case, the two proposed oak trees will provide privacy screening for the backyard of the ’ residence. The City’s Planning Arborist has evaluated the proposal for tree removal, replacement and protection. The removal of the off-site oak is allowed, due to structural deficiencies identified in the Arborists’ report. The Arborist suggests that the size of trees (hornbeams) along the northerly property line be increased from 15 gallon size to 24" box size. All trees on the adjacent site to the north will be retained and protected during construction. In addition, the detached garages and solid fences on the adjoining properties will supplement the privacy screening afforded by the proposed oak trees at the rear of the property. The adjacent commercial property to the rear, a retail store, contains a one-story garage and a low masonry wall adjacent to the rear property line of the subject property, which is half the length of the side property line of the retail property. The residential property to the rear has a solid wood fence along the 11-foot common property line in addition to the detached garage. The wood fence on the adjoining commercial property to the north provides screening of the parking lot from Page Mill Road. Therefore, there is no needto install a solid fence in addition to (or instead of) the proposed vine-covered decorative wrought iron fence. An increase in light and glare may result from the use of large windows on the upper floors. The following condition of approval is recommended to address this issue: Double glazed windows shall be used on all windows. Plans submitted for building permit shall address all recommendations of the ARB regarding materials and coverings to ensure glare from interior lighting is minimized. (Condition #6.) City of Palo Alto 60 Page 54 As noted, the proposed trees near the rear property line will provide screening to mitigate any loss of privacy due to the proposed rear balconies. These trees will also mitigate the increase in light and glare as seen from properties behind the subject property. The existing mature trees on the property to the north will provide some screening of the windows on the upper floors, and the proposed trees will contribute to this screening effect. The third-floor windows facing south will not be similarly screened from the side, since no screen trees would survive within the proposed five-foot setback. However, these three windows will be set back 68 to 90 feet from the front property line and 58 to 80 feet from the rear property line, so that the view from E1 Camino and the residential district to the east would be an oblique view. No second floor windows are proposed on the south side. The wall sconce fixtures will satisfy the City’s lighting requirements (PAMC Chapter 18.64) and shield any direct light seen by pedestrians and vehicles. In order to minimize the potential glare to motorists along E1 Camino Real and to residents who could view the rear of the site, some fixtures may need to be modified or removed, or alternative lamp styles may be necessary. The Architectural Review Board is requested to review the proposed fixtures and recommend alternatives if necessary, to ensure potential glare is minimized. The landscape up-lights (each providing an output of 50 watts) at the front of the property will be directed away from E1 Camino Real. The landscape up lights (two) in the rear are to be directed to the pear trees only, which could reach a height of 40 feet. The two pole lights, to be submitted and reviewed by the Architectural Review Board, will be required to direct light downward and meet the City’s standard for maximum exterior light levels. The solid low wall and densely planted trees will help to screen the light from E1 Camino Real. Conditions of approval in Attachment 7 ensure concems with new lighting and glare will be addressed. Transformer on 2865 ECR The applicant proposes to install a transformer pad and transformer in the northernmost comer of 2865 to meet the electrical service needs for the proposed project at 2825 E1 Camino Real and other projects in the area. The location has been reviewed by the City’s Electrical Utilities Division staff. An easement will be required to allow this location. Conditions of approval in Attachment 7 ensure any concerns will be addressed. City of Palo Alto Page 55 Tentative Map and Housing The project applicant has stated his intent to submit an application for Tentative Map for condominium purposes. Staff anticipates that, since there are three residential units, one office space and one common area for parking and other site improvements, the project submittal would be an application for a major subdivision. The potential subdivision was anticipated in the Environmental Impact Assessment, and no significant environmental impacts were identified. A subdivision application for five lots would be reviewed by the Planning Commission and acted upon by the City Council. The applicant has indicated he will provide the Below Market Rate (BMR) contribution to meet Comprehensive Plan Program H-20 (3.25% of the market value or sales price of for sale units is required). He noted he will enter into a BMR Agreement in conjunction with the Subdivision Application. A Mitigation Measure in the Mitigated Negative Declaration included this requirement. If the applicant decides not to subdivide the property, this mitigation will no longer be applicable to the project (since there is no BMR requirement for less than five rental units). Conditions of Approval in Attachment 7 set forth the process requirement and Below Market Rate contribution requirement, to ensure concerns regarding any impacts to housing will be addressed. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for the project and is attached to this report. The public review period was open from December 22, 1999 through January 12, 2000. The potential adverse impacts were found in the area of aesthetics (light and glare), cultural resources (archeological remains), land use/planning (usable open space), noise (balconies, rooftop HVAC equipment), and transportation/traffic (bicycle parking location!capacity). Staff concluded that these potential impacts could all be reduced to a level of insignificance through proposed mitigation measures. The applicant agreed to the mitigation and has incorporated all but one of the design-related measures into the revised plans submitted to the City on March 16, 2000. The only outstanding mitigation measure to be incorporated into project plans is the measure related to acoustical design at the residential balconies. The applicant has agreed to comply with any acoustical attenuation requirements. TIMELINE Action: First Application Received: Revised Application Received: Notice of Incomplete due, but not sent ("complete"): Public Review period of EIA/Mit. Neg. Dec. Letter accepting waiver of Permit Streamline Rights (Extending Council adoption of Mit.Neg.Dec. beyond 6/3/00 and action on project beyond 8/3/00) Date: June 24, 1999 November 8, 1999 December 7, 1999 12/22/99-1/10/00 March 2, 2000 City of Palo Alto 62 Page 56 Revised Plans submitted: Application actually complete: Revised plans submitted: Action time limit on Mit. Neg. Dec.: (max. 90 day extension from June 3, 2000) Action time limit on project decision (max. 60 days from adoption of Mit.Neg.Dec.) March 17, 2000 March 22, 2000 June 8, 2000 September 1, 2000 October 31, 2000 PUBLIC NOTICE Public Notice of the Architectural Review Board review of the project was provided by publication of the agenda in a local newspaper of general circulation. In addition, property owners and utility customers within 300 feet of the project site were mailed a notice card. ATTACHMENTS/EXHIBITS Attachment 1: Location Map Attachment Attachment Attachment Attachment Attachment Attachment Attachment Attachment Attachment Attachment 2:Staff Analyses of project’s compliance with Comprehensive Plan and El Camino Real Guidelines 3:EIA/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4:Site and Design Findings 5:Draft ARB Findings 6:Draft Design Enhancement Exception Findings 7:Conditions of Project Approval 8:Comprehensive Plan land use diagram for Cal-Ventura area 9:Applicant’s statements (including program development statement, variance request application and findings for design enhancement exception) 10: Minutes of Planning Commission March 29, 2000 11: Revised plans dated June 7, 2000 (ARB only) COURTESY COPIES Jim Baer, 172 University Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Cody Anderson Wasney Architects, Inc. 941 Emerson Street, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Barron Park Association College Terrace Association, Attn: Pria Graves Prepared by: Amy French, Planner Reviewed by: Lisa Grote, Chief Planning Official City of Palo Alto Page 57 63 64 Attachment 11 PLANNING DIVISION MEMORANDUM TO:PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: AGENDA DATE: Amy French, Planner March 29, 2000 DEPARTMENT: Planning and Community Environment SUBJECT:2825 El Camino Real [File Nos: 99-ARB-97, 99-D-4, 99- EIA-13, 99-V-13, 00 DEE-01]: Review of an application by Jim Baer on behalf of Morris Associates for Site and Design Review of demolition of an existing 1,426 square foot building on a parcel in C-S zoning district and construction of a new 35-foot high, three-story mixed-use building, including three two-bedroom residential units comprised of approximately 5,650 square feet on the third floor, office space comprised of approximately 4,500 square feet on the second floor, and a 15-vehicle parking area on the first floor. Related site improvements include six uncovered parking spaces in the rear yard, and a walled and landscaped front yard that includes landscaped area reserved for two deferred parking spaces. A Design Enhancement Exception is requested to allow (1) deferred parking area to be located within the required front setback, and (2) the use of additional private open space in lieu of a portion of the required common usable residential open space area. A Variance is requested for (1) construction within required side setbacks, (2) encroachment into side daylight plane, and (3) increased site coverage beyond the maximum permitted. The project includes a request for off-site bicycle parking on the adjacent Old Pro Restaurant/Bar site at 2865 E1 Camino Real. Environmental Assessment: A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with CEQA guidelines (this document anticipates the potential Subdivision). RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Site and Design City of Palo Alto Page 59 65 application to the City Council, based upon the attached Findings (Attachment 4) and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval (Attachment 7). Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Variance application for side setbacks and daylight plane encroachments, based upon the attached Findings (Attachment 5). Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Design Enhancement Exception application, based upon the attached Findings (Attachment 6). Staff recommends denial of the Variance application for lot coverage (See "Significant Issues" section of this report). EXISTING SITE The site is currently developed with a 1,426 square foot one-story building most recently occupied by Burnett’s Auto Repair. The subject property is a level parcel having 75 feet of frontage on El Camino Real, located two parcels south of Page Mill Road as shown on Attachment 1 (attached to this report). The subject property is located within the Cal- Ventura area identified in the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan (see Attachment 8). The project site is approximately 11,250 square feet and is designated C-S or "Service Commercial" on both the Comprehensive Plan map and Zoning Map. SURROUNDING PROPERTIES The surrounding properties are developed with commercial land uses in one-story buildings. The adjacent commercial uses, also on C-S zoned properties, include a restaurant/bar (Old Pro) located on E1 Camino Real to the south, and retail stores (Cellular One Store and Ken’s Bonsai Garden) located on E1 Camino Real and Page Mill Road to the north. The front setbacks of the existing commercial buildings along this side of E1 Camino Real are predominantly zero. The subject property also abuts an R-1 zoned property to the east, sharing ten feet of the residential property’s side property line, which results in more restrictive standards for development on the site. The Cellular One store to the north is set back 36 feet from the shared property line with 2825 E1 Camino ¯ Real, and a driveway and parking area are located in this 36 foot wide space. The project includes a proposal for offsite bicycle lockers at 2865 E1 Camino Real, the parcel south of the project site that is under the same ownership as the subject property. The site contains the Old Pro building, which is set back 25 feet from the property line shared with 2825 E1 Camino Real. A driveway is located in this 25 foot wide space, allowing access to the parking spaces on the site. In 1978, a Use Permit was approved (file 78-UP-26) allowing six substandard parking spaces along the north side of the Old Pro building and five parking spaces along the rear property line of the Old Pro site. The proposal for off-site bicycle lockers on the Old Pro site is discussed under project description in this report. PROJECT DESCRIPTION City of Palo Alto Page 60 Site and Design review and approval is requested for the demolition of a one-story commercial building on 2825 E1 Camino Real, which is an 11,250 square foot parcel fronting E1 Camino Real, and construction of a three-story mixed residential and commercial building and site improvements on the site. The proposal does not meet the. development standards for the site. Variances and a Design Exception Enhancement have been requested. Although an application for Subdivision has not been submitted to date to enable separate ownership of the residential units and office space, the applicant states that the residential units will be "for sale" condominium units. The application for subdivision must be filed prior to filing of the building permit application. The proposed project also includes a proposal for the placement of 10 bicycle lockers in the rear northerly comer of 2865 E1 Camino Real, to serve commercial tenants of the proposed project at 2825 E1 Camino Real. The applicant has submitted a detailed project description and statements for Planning Commission consideration of the proposed Variances and Design Enhancement Exception requests, in Attachment 9. Proposed Building The proposed project includes three residential units comprising approximately 5,650 square feet on the third floor and office space comprising approximately 4,500 square feet on the second floor. The partially enclosed ground floor (5,400 square feet footprint) would contain 15 vehicle spaces, a trash and recycling area, a lobby area to access the elevator and stairwell, and a second stairwell that would provide access from the exterior on the south side of the building. The proposed building has a height of 35 feet to the upper parapet, a rear building set back of approximately 30’6" and a front setback of approximately 32 feet. A zero side yard setback is proposed along the second stairwell at the southerly property line, and a five foot setback is proposed elsewhere along this property line. There are no openings in the wall at the lot line, but openings are proposed in the wall five feet from the property line. An 8’-4½" side yard setback is proposed along the northerly property line. Each of the three residential units would have two bedrooms, two full bathrooms, a den/study, a laundry facility, living and dining area, a kitchen, and a bicycle storage closet. The middle unit (Unit #2) would also provide a breakfast nook. The front unit (Unit # 1) would have two balconies comprising 216 square feet, where the balcony facing E1 Camino Real would be set into the building and the one on the side would project from the building. The rear unit (Unit #3) would have three projecting balconies comprising 207 square feet. The middle unit (Unit #2) would have one projecting balcony comprising 193 square feet. Proposed building materials include tan brick and pre-cast stone at the first two stories and integral color stucco at the third story. The architectural style includes contemporary City of Palo Alto Page 61 67 features, such as pre-cast panels, metal entry canopy, bronze anodized windows, metal balcony guard rails, decorative metal screens and antique bronze finish signage. The proposed exterior wall sconces (two alternatives proposed) would glow from the front of the lamp only. These light sconces would be placed on three sides of the building. On the front elevation, four sconces would flank the vehicle and pedestrian entrances on the first floor, and two sconces would illuminate a private residential balcony on the third floor. On the rear. (east) and south sides, exterior lighting is proposed on third floor residential balconies only. Site Improvements, 2825 El Camino Real Six unenclosed compact vehicle parking spaces are proposed to the rear of the site. This rear parking area will be paved with pervious concrete unit pavers. The front yard would include two parking spaces that would not be initially constructed, but the space would be held in "landscape reserve" until such time as the parking spaces may be needed. A paved pedestrian entry court split by a brown integral-color concrete driveway is proposed in the front yard. The sidewalk along the project frontage would also be improved with integral color concrete. A 42" high stucco wall is proposed on either side of the driveway with adjacent shrub plantings and a wrought iron gate for pedestrian entry from the sidewalk. Bicycle racks for two bicycles would be provided for office employees in the front courtyard area. Two street trees (California Sycamore bloodgood and Holly Oak) would be removed and replaced, and one off-site Oak tree would be removed on the adjoining property at 2865 E1 Camino Real, which is under the same ownership as the subject property. Seven trees are proposed in the front yard and perimeter landscaping is to be provided along the north side of the building. Four trees, including two 48" box coast live oaks would be placed near the rear property line. The side setback on the south side of the building would be paved to allow access to the rear staircase and front elevator lobby. The proposed site lighting includes (1) lighting in the walled from yard area, where up- lights would be placed at the base of the trees and two pole lights would be placed next to two benches, and (2) lighting in the rear parking lot, where two up-lights would be placed at the base of two trees. Off Site Bicycle Parking (2865 El Camino Real) Ten bicycle lockers are proposed to be located on the adjacent site of the Old Pro restaurant/bar. Eight of these bicycle lockers are to replace one required vehicle parking space on the subject property at 2825 E1 Camino Real. The other two bicycle lockers are proposed to address the bicycle parking requirements for the commercial space at 2825 E1 Camino Real. A gate in the proposed fence along the common property line between this site and the subject property would allow the bicycle-riding commercial tenants to City of Palo Alto Page 62 access the walkway along the south side of the proposed building on the subject property. The placement of bicycle lockers on the Old Pro site would not displace the five vehicle parking spaces along the rear property line required as a part of the original Use Permit, but the location of the vehicle spaces would need to be adjusted. POLICY IMPLICATIONS Analyses of the project’s compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and E1 Camino Real Design Guidelines are attached to this report as Attachment 2. In summary, the project meets the intent of the Comprehensive Plan and E1 Camino Real Guidelines. The project is required to meet the provisions of Zoning Code Chapters 18.45 (C-S Zoning District), 18.83 (Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations), 18.82 (Site and Design Review), 18.28 (Multiple Family Guidelines) and 18.64 (Additional Site Development and Design Regulations for Commercial and Industrial Districts). Analyses of the project’s compliance with these Zoning regulations are presented below. Project’s conformance with C-S District (Chapter 18.45) regulations for mixed use project The C-S Zoning District requires the use of RM-30 Zoning District development regulations for mixed residential and commercial projects. Density and FAR regulations are specifically described for mixed-use projects in the C-S Zoning District regulations. The proposed project complies with the density and FAR regulations for mixed uses, as follows: o The proposed residential density is three units, which is within the density limitation set forth in Section 18.24.060 Residential Density (incorporated by reference in the C- S District regulations) of five residential units for an 11,250 square foot site (entire site area used for density calculation irrespective of non-residential area per PAMC Section 18.45.070(a)(1)). The proposed floor area ratio of the project is .4 to 1 for the office area (4,500 square feet) and .5 to 1 for the residential area (5,650 square feet) for a total FAR of .9:1. The project complies with the maximum FAR of 1:1 for mixed uses on C-S zoned property (PAMC Section 18.45.050 (g) (3)). The covered parking on the first floor is not counted as floor area. The following table (Table 1) illustrates the project’s conformance with other applicable regulations for mixed use projects in the C-S District (RM-30 Regulations incorporated): City of Palo Alto Page 63 69 Table 1: CONFORMANCE WITH C-S REGULATIONS FOR MIXED USE PROJECT Feature Regulation Proposed Conformance Site area 11,250 s.f.Conforms Site width 75 feet Conforms Site depth 150 feet Conforms Height 35 feet Conforms Rear Setback 30’6" at all stories Conforms Front Setback 8,500 sq.fl. minimum 70 feet min 100 feet min 35 feet 10’ @ first story, and 20’ @ upper stories facing R- 1 lot 25 feet required for mixed use project adjacent to arterial 32.5 feet from front property line Conforms Project’s Non-Conformance with C-S District Regulations for Mixed Use Projects The building, as designed, would exceed the maximum lot coverage allowed, would encroach into the required side yard setbacks and would protrude into the required side daylight planes. In addition, the parking requirements will be met only partially on the subject property. The following table (Table 2) illustrates the project’s nonconformance with the applicable regulations for mixed use projects in the C-S District: Table 2: NON-CONFORMANCE WITH C-S REGULATIONS, MIXED USE PROJECTS Feature Regulation Proposed Nonconformance Daylight Plane (45 degrees taken from 10’ above the side and rear property lines) Required on rear and sides (television and radio antennas, flues, chimneys excepted). Protrusion, south side: stairs @ upper firs., 8. 5’@ 3rd f!., 19’ @ parapet. North side: 4’ @ 3rd f!., 16’ @parapet. Variance requested for side daylight plane protrusions (combined total protrusions : 12. 5’at floor of residential, 35’ at parapeO City of Palo Alto Page 64 7O Side Setback Lot Coverage Usable Common Open Space for residential units Usable Private Open Space for residential units Location of parking spaces Required: 10’ at first floor, and 17’6" on upper floors (or half the proposed building height (35’) 40% of the site area or 4,500 sq.fl. 30% (3,375 sq.ft.) of site area permanently maintained common open space at ground floor Private open space contiguous to unit, balcony minimum of 50 sq. ft. for each unit No parking spaces in the 25’ required front yard setback 8’4 %" at 1st floor, north side; 0’ across the 25 foot second stair portion and 4.5’ for remaining portion at 1 st floor, south side. 48% of the site (5,400 sq.ft. proposed) 26% (2,934 sq.ft.) at ground floor; the remaining required 4% is included in the private open space Each unit provides over 50 square feet of balcony area (units 1 &3 have multiple balconies, unit 2 has one balcony). Overall total of 616 square feet private open space area 5.4% of total lot area. Two "deferred" parking spaces are proposed in the front yard Variance: north side." 1.7’ on lSt floor, 9. 2" at upper floors; south side." 5’ and 10’ at first floor, 17.5’ and l2.5’ at upper floors). Variance: 8% over allowed lot coverage Design Enhancement Exception (DEE) requested to allow private open space to apply to common open space(PAMC Chapter 18.91) DEE requested to allow 4% of the total private open space (’5.4% of the lot area) to apply toward common open space (PAMC Chapter 18.91) DEE requested (PAMC Chapter 18.91) to allow parking spaces in the required front setback. As noted, the project includes a request for both Variances and Design Enhancement Exceptions, discussed fully under "significant issues" section of this report. Project’s conformance with Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations (Chapter 18.83) The following table (Table 3) illustrates the project’s conformance with Chapter 18.83: City of Palo Alto Page 65 7~ Table 3: PARKING FACILITIES SUBJECT TO CHAPTER 18.83 REGULATIONS Parking Spaces Vehicle, 4,500 square feet of office Vehicle, residential Vehicle res. Guests ADA accessible Bicycle, commercial Required 1:250 office uses 18 spaces 2 spaces/2-bedroom unit = 6 spaces 0 guest space required One van space (included in required spaces for office use) 3 spaces (2 Class I space and one rack) Proposed 17 vehicle spaces on site (including two deferred "landscape reserve" spaces) plus 8 off-site bicycle lockers replacing one on- site space) 6 spaces for tenants 0 guest space One van space included in the 17 on- site spaces. Conformance Conforms (Bicycle lockers discussed under significant issues) Conforms Conforms Conforms 4 spaces (2 class I spaces off site, two racks on site) 3 spaces (class I space in each res. unit) 8 class I spaces Bike racks conform. Bicycle, residential -3 class I spaces (1 Conforms space per unit) 8 bicycle spaces for Locker placement one vehicle on adjacent lot Bicycle, in-lieu for one commercial vehicle Loading space Deferred Parking or "Landscape Reserve" space (18.83.120(e)) No loading space Deferral up to 50% of vehicle parking and up to 25% of bicycle parking for unknown or unusual circumstances No loading space Two "reserve" parking spaces in front yard Conforms Conforms City of Palo Alto Page 66 72 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: (e) 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. (f) 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. (g) Sound principles of environmental design and ecological balance shall be observed. (h) 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 4, attached to this report. Multiple Family Guidelines (Chapter 18.28) The project conforms to many of the Chapter 18.28 Multiple Family Guidelines, including the following provisions: *Pedestrian protection from water at the lobby entry, o Accessible and screened trash and recycling area inside the parking enclosure, .Textured paving on driveways, *Rooftop equipment screens, o Common outdoor area special paving (slate is proposed), *Landscaped area in front yard for recreational purposes, o Minimal 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 7): 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-S 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). City of Palo Alto Page 67 73 o 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 7 ensure the project’s impacts upon the adjacent residential parcel would be minimized: SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ISSUES Tentative Map and Housing The project applicant has stated his intent to submit an application for Tentative Map for condominium purposes, after the Planning Commission and Architectural Review Board have reviewed the project. Staff anticipates that, since there are three residential units, one office space and one common area for parking and other site improvements, the project submittal would be an application for a major subdivision. The potential subdivision was anticipated in the Environmental Information Assessment, and no significant environmental impacts were identified. A subdivision application for five units would be reviewed by the Planning Commission and acted upon by the City Council. The applicant has indicated he will provide the Below Market Rate (BMR) contribution to meet Comprehensive Plan Program H-20 (3.25% of the market value or sales price of for sale units is required). He noted he will enter into a BMR Agreement in conjunction with the Subdivision Application, to be submitted after review of the project by the Architectural Review Board. A Mitigation Measure included this requirement. If the applicant decides not to subdivide the property, this mitigation will no longer be applicable to the project (since there is no BMR requirement for less than five rental units). Conditions of Approval in Attachment 7. set forth the process requirement and Below Market Rate contribution requirement, to ensure concerns regarding any impacts to housing will be met. Variance Findings (pursuant to PAMC Chapter 18.90) Variances are requested to allow: reduced side setbacks, such that the total area of side yard encroachment at grade would be approximately 712 square feet (10’ side setbacks are required at the first floor and, since the upper floor side setbacks are required to be half the proposed 35 foot height, the required side setbacks at the upper floors are 17’6".) side daylight plane protrusions for the rear staircase at upper floors and a total of 12’6" of residential floor area (8’6" at south side, 4’ at north side) and 35’ protrusion at parapet (19’ at south side and 16’ at north side). City of Palo Alto Page 68 74 increased site coverage (8% over allowed 40%), such that the building would cover 900 square feet more than the allowed 4,500 square feet. The Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 18.90 requires the Planning Commission to make the following findings to approve any Variance: 1.There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved that do not apply generally to property in the same district. 2.The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enioyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship. 3.The granting of the application 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. Finding # 1, discussion: The following exceptional/extraordinary circumstances or conditions exist for 2825 E1 Camino Real: 1. The lot is not legally substandard, because the C-S district does not have minimum lot sizes or dimensions. However, it is smaller, narrower and shallower than most C-S lots (south of Pepper Avenue and other C-S properties along E1 Camino Real.) The lot is only five feet wider than the minimum width for multiple family residential development (RM-30 district regulations, incorporated into C-S district regulations by reference for mixed-use projects, require a minimum lot size of 70’ x 100’). 2. The lot fronts on E1 Camino Real, a heavily traveled arterial. The City has requested, and the applicant is willing to provide, a deeper than normal front setback to accommodate possible future road widening. 3. Because the lot fronts on E1 Camino Real, it is subjected to higher-than-normal noise levels. 4. Because the lot is narrow, and each of the adjoining lots has a driveway located on the side next to the subject property, there is only one possible location for a driveway on the subject property. ’ 5. The zoning standards (Chapter 18.45) and design guidelines for E1 Camino Real do not permit parking to be placed in the required front yard of a parcel (and the only reason there is a required front yard on this parcel is due to the proposal for a mixed- use project.) The Comprehensive Plan similarly discourages parking in the front yard on E1 Camino Real. 6. Mixed-use projects in the C-S district are required to have covered parking facilities for the residential parking spaces (six covered parking spaces are required for residential in this case) and screened parking facilities for the commercial parking spaces along E1 Camino Real. City of Palo Alto Page 69 75 7.Because of reasons one through four above, underground parking cannot be constructed. The only alternative is ground-level covered parking. Using the minimum permitted dimensions for two-way drive aisle and parking stall depth, the structure must encroach into the required 10-foot side setbacks at the ground level. (All of the proposed stalls are 17.5 feet deep, and the proposed drive aisle width is 25 feet, for a total interior clear width of 60 feet and 62.5 feet to outside of,the structure. Since the lot is only 75 feet wide, only 12.5 feet remains to meet the 20-foot combined side setback requirements.) 8. Because of the need to allow a central open space for parking, the elevator and stairways must be located within the set back area for the upper stories. Since one central stairway/elevator core cannot be built, two stairways must be built to meet Uniform Building Code exiting requirements. 9. Because underground parking cannot be constructed, the habitable space is proposed to be located on the second and third floors. The height of the resulting taller building (35 feet) increases the setback requirements on the upper floors (½ the building height equals 17’6"). 10. 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. Similarly, the site area in front of the proposed building is subject to high noise levels. Therefore, balconies or decks provide more usable outdoor space for commercial and residential tenants. Staff has provided draft Variance Findings in support of the requested side setback and daylight plane encroachments (Attachment 5, attached to this report). However, the City’s requirements for covered, screened and standard size parking facilities do not require the proposed expansion in lot coverage to 8% beyond the allowed lot coverage. Therefore, Staff has provided draft Findings for Denial of the Variance requested for the 8% lot coverage increase. Findings for Approval of Side Setbacks and Daylight Plane Encroachments The ten circumstances listed above can be used to justify the proposed ground floor setback encroachments, and upper floor elevator and stairwell encroachments, at a minimum. The Design Enhancement Exceptions (discussed later in this report) can be similarly justified. Finding # 1 can be made for the proposed encroachments into the side setbacks and daylight plane because: o Since the total floor area 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), the deeper front yard setback is needed to Ci(y of Palo Alto 76 Page 70 provide the required parking. The proposed front and rear setbacks are larger than required. The front setback and rear setback, combined, is 62’6" (or 17’6" greater than required). The front setback is seven feet deeper in order to accommodate two of the required parking spaces and usable open space area. Due to the narrow width of the subject parcel, the 17’6" 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 rear stair, essentially meets the side daylight plane requirements, the side setbacks at the office floor level are unnecessarily restrictive. It is necessary for new development on this parcel to accommodate a potential 12-foot increase in the width of E1 Camino Real near Page Mill Road. This is a circumstance that does not apply generally to other properties along the E1 Camino Real corridor, and suggests the provision of a larger front setback than the required 25-foot setback. The site area displaced by the potential widening of E1 Camino Real is 900 square feet, whereas the area of encroachment in the side setbacks is 712 square feet, which is a reasonable replacement area for floor area that might have been placed at the front but that may be potentially lost to such a widening. The location of these parcels near a major intersection results in an ambient noise level of 70 Db Ldn, which also suggests the provision of a larger front setback to buffer the proposed residential units from the noise, thereby reducing the potential building envelope. Finding #2 can be made for setbacks and daylight plane because: Encroachments into the side setbacks to accommodate minimum dimensions for the enclosed ground floor parking facility are necessary to make mixed-use development feasible on this parcel. 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 parcel (under the same ownership)to accommodate additional vehicle parking spaces. This is a hardship for the creation of a mixed-use project on this property. o The 25-foot front setback area needed for residential development along a major arterial street and the 20-foot rear setback results in an allowable building envelope of only 105 feet in length. This would allow for only 4,200 square feet of building (37% lot coverage or .37:1 FAR each for the residential and commercial areas) and make a mixed use project unfeasible on this parcel. Finding #3 can be made for setbacks and daylight plane because: City of Palo Alto Page 71 77 On the south side: Since the proposed zero lot line wall (at the rear staircase) has no openings, the commercial site to the south may still be further developed in the future, such that a commercial building could have a zero setback and height of 50 feet. Furthermore, the windows on the south side (set back five feet) provide light only to the common hallway for the residential units and as such,, do not provide a "view". The privacy of both the proposed residential units and any future residential units on the property to the south will not be impacted by the reduced setback. Also, there are no office windows or balconies on this side. Therefore, the proposed reduced setback will not negatively impact the adjoining commercial property to the south. On the north side: The commercial site to the north is much smaller than the subject property, so that it is unlikely that third floor residential development will ever be developed on that property. The proposed 8’ 10" setback is larger than the zero setback normally provided for commercial development so that more than normally required light and air would be provided for the commercial space, Any commercial redevelopment on the site to the north would not be impacted by the proposed project’s minor setback encroachments at the first floor (1’7"), and second floor and third floors (8’6"). The existing trees on the adjoining site and proposed trees on the subject property will help to mitigate any privacy issue for the residential units on the third floor. Findings for Denial of Excess Lot Coverage The C-S district does not restrict building coverage for non-residential projects. The maximum 40% coverage 4,500 (40% of 11,250) is due to the residential component of this mixed-use project. The parking structure covers roughly 5,400 square feet or 48% of the site, and the upper floors roughly follow this coverage area. The intent of the 40% lot coverage requirement is to provide ground floor open space and recreation area for residential tenants. The open site area behind the building is to be used for required vehicle parking to meet Comprehensive Plan policies and E1 Camino Real .Guidelines. The open site area in front of the building would provide some usable ground floor open space. The remainder of the usable open space for residential tenants will be provided in private balcony areas on the third floor. It could be argued that, since the applicant proposes to provide the required usable open space to meet the residential open space requirements, it should not be necessary to meet the lot coverage requirement. Nevertheless, staffis unable to make all three Variance findings to allow the requested 8% increase in lot coverage. The reasons are as follows: 1. The required parking can be provided without exceeding the 40% coverage limitation. City of Palo Alto Page 72 2.There may be other alternative designs that could reduce the lot coverage to meet or more closely meet the coverage limitations on the site. The floor areas on the second and third floors would need to be reduced accordingly. The elevator and two stairwells are required for access and are included in lot coverage and FAR calculations. Enclosed recycling facilities are required but could conceivably be placed outside the parking structure on the site. It appears that the applicant would need to uncover at least two parking spaces in the rear and adjust the location of the staircase in order to meet the 40%. The following scenarios are presented to illustrate the issue: 43% Lot Coverage: By reducing the length of the parking structure by nine feet, uncovering parking spaces #9 and # 18, and moving the rear staircase forward on the lot, the coverage at the ground floor could be reduced 550 square feet to 4,850 square feet or 43% lot coverage, which is closer to the required 40%. The second floor deck could be (1) eliminated, or (2) moved back the equivalent distance (resulting in a loss of about 500 square feet of office area plus the area lost to adjust the restrooms due to rear staircase relocation) or (3) reduced and cantilevered. The third floor would also need to be (1) cantilevered, or (2) reduced by 500 square feet so that either (a) unit three would lose both bedrooms and half the dining/living area and be converted to a one-bedroom unit, or (b) floor area of all three units would be reduced and the floor plans would be adjusted accordingly. o 40% Lot Coverage: If half of parking spaces #8 and #17 are uncovered, and the rear staircase is moved forward on the lot, the coverage at the ground floor could be reduced to 4,500 square feet or 40% lot coverage. The second floor deck and about 280 square feet of office area (plus area lost for restroom adjustment) could be eliminated. The residential floor would need to be reduced by 770 square feet and floor plans would need to be adjusted accordingly. Offsite bicycle parking is proposed on the adjacent site (2865 E1 Camino Real) to meet the parking requirements for the mixed-use project at 2825 E1 Camino Real. Although the use of off-site lockers may be approved by the Director of Planning and Community Environment, the placement of these lockers have the potential to adversely affect the traffic circulation on the adjoining site. If the lot coverage were reduced to meet the 40% limitation, and the commercial office floor area were reduced by 250 square feet, there would no need to provide eight of the ten bicycle lockers proposed on the adjoining site (which were proposed to replace one vehicle space, since the parking ratio is one space per 250 square feet of office area). The remaining two bicycle lockers for commercial tenants’ use could easily be fit onto the project site or on the second floor. City of Palo Alto ,Page 73 79 It is suggested, in Condition of Approval #1 of Attachment 7, that the project be redesigned to comply with the 40% lot coverage requirement. Staff recognizes that the City’s current zoning code does not facilitate the mixed residential/commercial uses that are promoted in the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Comprehensive Plan Program L-10 notes that new mixed use zoning standards should be created and applied, including a "Residential/Office" designation. No new standards have been created to date. The Planning Commission and City Council may want to consider directing staffto prepare specific zoning code amendments to incorporate flexibility for mixed-use projects on smaller (less than .5 acre) in-fill parcels in the C-S District, where the residential zoning regulations clearly hamper the ability to develop mixed use projects. Design Enhancement Exception Findings (pursuant to PAMC Chapter 18.91) The Design Enhancement Exceptions are requested to allow: *landscape reserve parking within the required front yard setback, and *private residential open space to apply toward the required common usable open space. The required Design Enhancement Exception findings are: (1) There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property or site improvements involved that do not apply generally to property in the same zone district; (2)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; and (3)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. Proposed findings specific to this project are provided in Attachment 6. These findings are in support of the proposed location of parking spaces in the front yard, because the proposed landscaping and low wall in the front yard as recommended in the E1 Camino Real Guidelines for screening of parking facilities. The findings are also in support of the proposed use of private open space (residential balconies) to meet the usable open space requirements for the residential units. Parking A total of 24 vehicle-parking spaces are required for this project. Fifteen spaces would be enclosed, and six spaces would be located in an open rear parking area, for a total of City of Palo Alto Page 74 21 spaces proposed for initial installation. The remaining three spaces are accounted for in the following manner: Two of the required vehicle spaces are proposed to be placed on site in "landscape reserve" pursuant to PAMC Chapter 18.83, Parking, Section 18.83.120 (e), which allows deferral of meeting full requirements for up to 50% of vehicle spaces (up to 12 spaces in this case) and up to 25% of bicycle spaces (up to 1.5 spaces in this case). Chapter 19.91, Section 18.91.020, allows’the Director of Planning and Community Environment to approve a minor exception for landscape reserve parking lot spaces in the front setback. One required vehicle space would be substituted with eight off-site bicycle lockers. Ten lockers are proposed on the adjacent site at 2865 E1 Camino Real, eight of which are proposed to replace one of the required vehicle-parking spaces. The other two off-site lockers are proposed to meet the requirement for two Class I bicycle lockers for the office tenants. The site plan indicates that a five foot pathway will be provided to ensure access to these lockers. A gate in the fence along the property line will allow access to the path. Conditions of approval in Attachment 7 require an easement to be prepared and recorded, and require striping oft, he proposed access pathway, to ensure these bicycle lockers will remain accessible for the tenants of 2825 E1 Camino Real. Architectural Design, The proposed building will change the character of the site and streetscape along the E1 Camino Real corridor, adding mass and additional light and glare from a three-story residential/office building were there are presently one-story older commercial buildings. The proposed building’s front setback is much greater than those of adjacent buildings, which are aligned at the front property lines along E1 Camino Real. However, this setback is needed for several practical reasons and, combined with the plantings and hardscaping proposed at the pedestrian level along E1 Camino Real, will help reduce the visual impact of the building. One of the reasons for the large setback is that the 1989 Citywide Transportation Study (and Comprehensive Plan EIR, CIRC-8) determined that El Camino Real may be required to be widened up to 12 feet to a point 400 feet south of Page Mill Road (four parcels). In order to accommodate this potential street widening, this project must significantly increase its front setback. Another important reason is that a buffer is needed between the proposed residential units and the noise generated by the E1 Camino Real traffic. Recycling The applicant proposes to place the cardboard recycling facility for this project on the adjoining property (2865 E1 Camino Real) under the same ownership. The applicant City of Palo Alto Page 75 proposes to record legal documents to ensure this shared recycling use. Conditions of approval in Attachment 7 ensure these concerns will be met. Noise As noted in the Comprehensive Plan analysis (Attachment 2), special measures are required to meet the standards of Comprehensive Plan Policy N-39 for outdoor noise. As noted in the EIAiMitigated Negative Declaration, indoor noise can be mitigated by the provision of required insulation and double-glazing on all residential windows. The balconies may need to be modified for sound attenuation purposes. The applicant has agreed to comply with any acoustical attenuation requirements. One attenuation device that has been utilized is the installation of a transparent material that will not interfere with the proposed design. Any required design solution recommended by the applicant’s acoustical consultant will be submitted prior to the review of the project by the Architectural Review Board tentatively scheduled on April 20, 2000. Outdoor noise in the front courtyard may be mitigated by the low wall, but since there are no true recreational spaces, the noise will not be problematic in the courtyard. Long term noise associated with the HVAC rooftop equipment will be limited in accordance with the recommendations of the acoustical study. Construction hours will be limited to the City’s standard hours of construction, so short term construction noise will be limited to these hours. Conditions of approval in Attachment 7 ensure these concerns will be met. Privacy Issues: Landscaping, Fencing and Lighting Balconies are proposed at the upper stories on the rear wall of the proposed building. However, no upper floor balconies are located directly opposite the ten-foot side property line of the adjoining residential parcel (since the rear stairwell is located opposite the residential property.) In any case, the two proposed oak trees will provide privacy screening for the backyard of the residence. The City’s Planning Arborist has evaluated the proposal for tree removal, replacement and protection. The removal of the off-site oak is allowed, due to structural deficiencies identified in the Arborists’ report. The Arborist suggests that the size of trees (hornbeams) along the northerly property line be increased from 15 gallon size to 24" box size. All trees on the adjacent site to the north will be retained and protected during construction. In addition, the detached garages and solid fences on the adjoining properties will supplement the privacy screening afforded by the proposed oak trees at the rear of the property. The adjacent commercial property to the rear, a retail store, contains a one- story garage and a low masonry wall adjacent to the rear property line of the subject property, which is half the length of the side property line of the retail property. The residential property to the rear has a solid wood fence along the 11-foot common property line in addition to the detached garage. The wood fence on the adjoining commercial City of Palo Alto Page 76 property to the north provides screening of the parking lot from Page Mill Road. Therefore, there is no need to install a solid fence in addition to (or instead of) the proposed vine-covered decorative wrought iron fence. An increase in light and glare may result from the use of large windows on the upper floors. The glazing material on the building has not been specified, but the glazing will be reviewed by the Architectural Review Board to ensure necessary measures are taken to mitigate impacts of interior lighting. As noted, the proposed trees near the rear property line will provide screening to mitigate any loss of privacy due to the proposed rear balconies. These trees will also mitigate the increase in light and glare as seen from properties behind the subject property. The existing mature trees on the property to the north will provide some screening of the windows on the upper floors, and the proposed trees will contribute to this screening effect. The third-floor windows facing south will not be similarly screened from the side, since no screen trees would survive within the proposed five-foot setback. However, these three windows will be set back 68 to 90 feet from the front property line and 58 to 80 feet from the rear property line, so that the view from El Camino and the residential district to the east would be an oblique view. No second floor windows are proposed on the south side. The wall sconce fixtures will satisfy the City’s requirements (PAMC Chapter 18.64) and shield any direct light seen by pedestrians and vehicles. In order to minimize the potential glare to motorists along E1 Camino Real and to residents who could view the rear of the site, some fixtures may need to be modified or removed, or alternative lamp styles may be necessary. Again, the Architectural Review Board will review the proposed fixtures and recommend alternatives if necessary, to ensure potential glare is minimized. The landscape up-lights (each providing an output of 50 watts) at the front of the property will be directed away from E1 Camino Real. The landscape up lights (two) in the rear are to be directed to the pear trees only, which could reach a height of 40 feet. The two pole lights, to be submitted and reviewed by the Architectural Review Board, will be required to direct light downward and meet the City’s standard for maximum exterior light levels. The solid low wall and densely planted trees will help to screen the light from E1 Camino Real. Conditions of approval in Attachment 7 ensure concerns with new lighting and glare will be met. City of Palo Alto Page 77 Transformer on 2865 ECR The applicant proposes to install a transformer pad and transformer in the northernmost corner of 2865 to meet the electrical service needs for the proposed project at 2825 E1 Camino Real and other projects in the area. The location has been reviewed by the City’s Electrical Utilities Division staff. An easement will be required to allow this. Conditions of approval in Attachment 7 ensure any concerns will be met. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for the project and is attached to this report. The public review period was open from December 22, 1999 through January 12, 2000. The potential adverse impacts were found in the area of aesthetics (light and glare), cultural resources (archeological remains), land use/planning (usable open space), noise (balconies, rooftop HVAC equipment), and transportation/traffic (bicycle parking location/capacity). Staff concluded that these potential impacts could all be reduced to a level of insignificance through proposed mitigation measures. The applicant agreed to the mitigation and has incorporated all but one of the design-related measures into the revised plans submitted to the City on March 16, 2000. The only outstanding mitigation measure to be incorporated into project plans is the measure related to acoustical design at the residential balconies. The applicant has agreed to comply with any acoustical attenuation requirements. Staff anticipates that the design solution will be submitted prior to the review of the project by the Architectural Review Board tentatively scheduled on April 20, 2000. NEXT STEPS The project is to be reviewed by the Architectural Review Board on April 20, 2000. 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. If the Planning Commission recommends denial of this project, the project would be forwarded directly to the City Council for review. ATTACHMENTS/EXHIBITS: Attachment 1: Location Map Attachment 2: Attachment 3: Attachment 4: Attachment 5: Attachment 6: Attachment 7: Attachment 8: Staff Analyses of project’s compliance with Comprehensive Plan and E1 Camino Real Guidelines .El/k/Mitigated Negative Declaration Site and Design Findings Draft Variance Findings Design Enhancement Exception Findings Conditions of Project Approval Comprehensive Plan land use diagram for Cal-Ventura area City of Palo Alto Page 78 Attachment 9:Applicant’s statements (including program development statement, variance request application and findings for design enhancement exception) COURTESY COPIES: Jim Baer, 172 University Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Cody Anderson Wasney Architects, Inc. 941 Emerson Street, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Barron Park Association College Terrace Association, Attn: Pria Graves Prepared by: Amy French, Planner Reviewed by:Ray Hashimoto, Zoning Administrator Department/Division Head Approval: Lisa Grote, Chief Planning Official City of Palo Alto Page 79 86 Attachment 12 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM City of Pa/o Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment o Project Title: Lead Agency Name and Address: Contact Person and Phone Number: New Mixed Use Building City of Palo Alto - Planning Division 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Amy French, Planner 650/329-2336 Project Location: Application Number(s): , Project Sponsor’s Name and Address: 2825 El Camino Real 99-D-4, 99-ARB-97, 99-EIA-4, 99-V-15 Jim Baer, 172 University Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 on behalf of owner, Morris Associates, 2500 Sand Hill Road, Menlo Park, CA 94025 = General Plan Designation:Service Commercial Zoning:Service Commercial (C-S Distr!ct) Description of the Project: Demolition of existing 1,426 square foot building used as car repair shop (Burnett’s auto repair), and construction of 35 foot high three story mixed use building comprised of four one-bedroom residential units in 5,650 sq.ft, of area on the third floor, 4,500 sq.ft, office area on the second floor, and 4,425 sq. ft. parking area for 15 vehicles on the first floor. Paving in the rear yard will inclu de six asphalt parking spaces, a concrete area for bicycle lockers (14) and a drive aisle of interlocking pavers. Paving in the front yard will include a scored concrete driveway and slate entry plaza. A concrete sidewalk is to be provided along the south side yard to a stair access. Landscaping will include perimeter landscaping along the rear and sides, and a grassy area in the front yard to be reserved for two future parking spaces. 87 10. 11. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The parcel is located near the corner of El Camino Real and Page Mill Road. Commercial developments are located on adjacent parcels on El Camino Real and Page Mill Road. A residential district is located within 150 feet of the subject property. The parcel has frontage on El Camino Real. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g, permits, financing approval, or participation agreement). None. .Date prepared:December 21, 1999 Public Review Period: Decemb.er 22, 1999 - January 10, 1999 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. X X Aesthetics Agriculture Resources Air Quality Biological Reso’urces Cultural Resources Geology/Soils Hazards & Hazardous Materials X X Hydrology/Water Quality Land Use/Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population/Housing Public Services Recreation X Transportation/Traffic Utilities/Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance None DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. 88 2 I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the prol~osed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect: 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to app]icable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothi.ng further is required. ProJect Planner ¯ Director of P! nning & Com~ ni y Environment Date X EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1)A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e. g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e. g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2)Ali answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as wel~ as direct, and construction as we~l as operational impacts. 3)Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or {ess than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4)"Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant 89 5) Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly expla.in how they reduce the effect to a less than sig.nificant level (mitigation measures from Section 17, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross-referenced). Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 © (3) (D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were w{thin the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation.Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant.with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 6)Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into ~e checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or indivi~luals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8)This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free tO use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project’s environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) the significan.ce cdteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) the ~itigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance 9O Issues and Supporting Information Sources source potential potentially significant significant issues unless mitigation incorporated Iless than significant impact noim- pact a) b) c) d) I1. a) c) AESTHETICS. Would the project: Have a s~bstantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? 1 1 X X X x AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? 1,2 X X X II1.AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) b) c) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? 1,2 X X 91 d) e) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? 1,2 1,2 IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:’ a)XHave a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and VV]ldlife Service? b)Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish. and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c)Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d)Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e)Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? 1,2 (N-l) 1,2 (N-l) 1,2 (N-I) 1,2 (N-i) 1,2 X X V. CULTURAL RESOURCES, Would the project: a) b) c) d) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in 15064.5? Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to 15064.5? Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? 1,2 (L-7) 1,2 (L-B) 1,2 1,2 X X X X 92. 6 Vl. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: a)Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? b) c) d) e) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? 2,4 (N-5, N-8, N-IO) 2,4 (N-5, N-8, N-lO) 2 (N-5) 2 2,4 (N-5) 2, 4, 6 (N-5) n/a X X X X X X X X VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project? a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the 2, 7 X environment through the routing transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b)2, 7 XCreate a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? 93 c)Emit hazardous emissi.ons or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one- quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d)Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e)For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working the project area? h) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildla.nds are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: b) c) d) Violate any water quality standar~Is or waste discharge requirements? Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site. or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? 2,7,8 2,8 n/a n/a 1,2 iN-7) 1,2 2 iN-2) 2 94 X X X X X X X X X e)Create or contribute runoff water which wfuld exceed the 2 capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional Sources of polluted runoff?. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?2 g)Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h)Place within a lO0-year flood.hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? I)Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involve flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? n/a 9 (N-6) X X X X X Xj)2 IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community?1,2 X b)1,2,3 XConflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? 1,2c)Conflict with any applicable.habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? X. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: Result in t~e loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mine#al resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? 2 a) b) Xl. NOISE. Would the project result in: 2,7 (N-3) Xa)Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? X X X 95 b) c) d) e) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the p_r0j _e_ct vi~!~!_ty_ above levels existing _w_i~tho_u_t.the project? A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the projec.t expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 2,7 X 2, 7 X 2,7 nla n/a XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a) b) c) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 1,2 n/a n/a Xlll.PUBLIC SERVICES. X 96 10 a)Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? Police protection? Schools? Parks? Other public facilities? XIV.RECREATION 11 10 2 2 2 a)Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b)Does the.project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? 1,2 n/a XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFiC. Would the project: a) b) c) d) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? Exceedl either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Result !n change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) P, esult in inadequate emergency access? 1,2 (T-7, T-8), 12 2 3,12 X x X X x X X X X X X X f) g) Result in inadequate parking capacity? Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? XVI. 1,3 2, 12 X UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) b) c) d) e) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the projectfrom existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? f)Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to acoommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? g)Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and re.gulations related to solid waste? XVll.MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. 1,2 t,2 1,12 2 1,2 2 2, 12 a)Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? 15 98 12 X X X X .X X b) c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively ~ considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are cqnsiderable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 15 15 X SOURCE REFERENCES: 1.Site visit. Planner’s knowledge of the site and project. 2.Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan 1998-2010 & Maps L-7, L-8, L-9, N-l, N-2, N-3, N-S, N-6, N-8, N-t0, T-7, T-8 3.Palo Alto Municipal Code, Title 18- Zoning O~dinance 4.Required compliance with the Uniform Building Code (UBC) Standards for Seismic Safety and Windload 6.Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map 6.Uniform Building Code 7.Information submitted bythe applicant 8.City of Palo Alto Fire Hazardous Materials Division, written comments on project 9.FEMA Flood Map, Community Panel Map #060348 0006DX, dated 9/6/89 10.City of Palo Alto Police Department, written comments on project 11.City of Palo Alto Fire Department, written comments on project 12.City of Palo Alto Transportation Division, written comments on project 13.City of Palo Alto Public Works Engineering Division, written comments on project 14.City of Palo Alto Planning Arborist’s written comments on project 15.Answers substantiated through the responses provided in items I-XVI of this environmental checklist. ATTACHMENTS: A. Site Location Map 99 EXPLANATION FOR CHECKLIST RESPONSES: I.Aesthetics Answers to 1(c) and (d): Architectu re/Stre ets cap# Construction of the new building will not degrade, but will certainly change the character of the site, adding mass and additional light and glare and establishing a three story residential and office building were there are presently one-story older commercial buildings. The height of the new building will be 35 feet to the upper parapet. Above that, a three foot high metal screen will be placed around rooftop equipment to be located toward the rear of the building. The ele~tator housing, located toward the front of the building, will extend about two feet above the parapet height. The p.roject architecture and site improvements represent a new look for this section of El Camino Real streetscape. The proposed building is set back farther than adjacent buildings, which are aligned at the front property lines along El Camino Real. Proposed building materials include tan brick and pro:cast stone at the first two stories and integral color stucco at the third story. The architectural style includes contemporary features, such as precast panels, metal entry canopy, bronze anodized windows, metal balcony guard rails, decorative metal screens and antique bronze finish signage. The project is subject to review by the Planning Commission and Architectural Review Board to ensure a design that will be aesthetically appropriate and compatible with the surrounding d6velopment. The details at the pedestrian level along El Camino Real will help red~Jce the visual impact of the apparent mass. These include brown integral color concrete driveway and sidewalk along the project frontage, two new street trees and five trees along the front property line, shrub plantings adjacent to the sidewalk, and 42" high stucco wall with wrought iron gate .for pedestrian entry. The proposed building lighting would be wall sconces (two alternatives proposed) that glow from the fror~t of the larap only. This wall lighting would be placed on all sides of the building. On the front elevation, the lights would flank the vehicle and pedestrian entrances on the first floor (3 lights) and illuminate a residential balcony (4 lights) on the third floor. The applicant’s statement indicates the fixtures will satisfy the City’s requirements (PAMC Chapter 18.64) and shield any direct light seen by pedestrians and vehicles. On the rear (east) and south sides, lighting is proposed on both third floor residential balconies and second floor commerciat balconies (east side only). In order to minimize the potential glare to motorists along El Camino and to residents who could view the rear of the site, some fixtures may n’eed to be modified or removed, or alternative lamping may be necessary. The proposed site ~ighting includes lighting in the walled front yard area, where uplights will be placed at the base of the trees and two pole lights will ~ placed next to two benches, and lighting in the rear parking lot, where two uplights will be placed at the base of two ~trees. The upli~hts at the front, of the property would be directed away from El Camino Real and the solid low wall would partially screen the light. The uplights at the rear of the property would be directed toward the rear property line, and. When the four trees proposed near the rear property line are mature, they will help to screen light from the upper stories. A decorative wrought iron, fence is proposed, which would not contribute to the screening effort. However, the adjacent commercial property to the rear, a retail store, contains a one-story garage and a low masonry wall adjacent to the rear property ~ine of the subject property, which is half the length of the side property line of the retail property. An increase in light and glare may result from the use of large windows on the upper floors. The glazing material on the building has not been specified. With the proposed mitigation measure #1, the light and glare impacts of the project will be reduced to level of insignificance. Mitigation Measures: 1. An analysis of lighting and proposal for screening both at the rear property line and at the upper windows shall be submitted for review by the Architectural Review Board. The conditions of approval will require the shielding of lighting lO0 ’ ]4 such that the light will not extend beyond the site, the lighting will be directional, and the source of light will directly visible. I!. Agriculture Resources The site is not located in a Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance area, as shown on the ~, prepared for the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency. The site is not zoned ~’~ ~.~ agricultural use, nor is the site regulated by the Williamson Act. Mitigation Measures: None required. II!. Air Quality The new building will generate more vehicle trips than the existing commercial building, although this increase is not cons~,~ a significant impact because it does not exceed thresholds established bY the Comprehensive Plan Environmental Impact and Santa Clara County Congestion Management Agency (CMA). The project would result in temporarY dust emissions during grading and construction activities. The City’s standard of project approval Would reduce these air quality impacts to less than significant levels. The standard conditions of approw~l require that the following dust control measures be employed at the site to reduce dust emissions to acceptable levels construction: 1) Exposed earth surfaces be watered frequently, during the late morning and at the end of the day, with frequer~,:~, of watering increasing on windy days; 2) Spillage resulting from hauling operations along or across any public or pri~ate shall be removed immediately; 3) Overfilling of trucks by the contractor is prohibited; and 4) Trucks shall be covered during transportation of demolished materials from the site.The proposed project, therefore, will not have a significant effect quality.. Mitigation Measures: None required, IV. Biological Resources The City’.s Planning Arborist has evaluated the proposal for tree removal, replacement and protection. Two street tree~ Sycamore ’bloodgood’ and Holly Oak) will be removed and replaced, and one off-site Oak tree will be removed, subject to the property owner’s permission. The removal of the oak is allowed, due to structural deficiencies identified in the Arborist~;’ Two new 48" box coast live oaks will be placed near the rear property line. A verification that the locations of all trees near the rear property line will be feasible is needed, since existin.g structures on l~he property to the rear are located the property line. All trees on adjacent site to the north will be retained and protected during construction. The standard of approval will ensure these concerns are met. Mitigation Measures: None required, V. Cultural Resources The Comprehensive Plan indicates that the project site is located within an Archaeological Resource Area of ’moderate sensiti~,i~y’ and not within a Williamson Act property. The site has been disturbed as a part of the existing development. Nevertheles~, flatlands of Palo Alto are known to contain widely dispersed prehistoric sites with shell-ridden components, including human and a variety of artifacts. The proposed mitigation measure #2 will reduce this pote’ntial impact to a level of insignificance. Mitigation Measure: 2.If during grading and construction activities, any archeological or human remains are encountered, constructior~ cease and a qualified archaeologist shall visit the site to address the find. The Santa Clara County Examiner’s office shall be notified to provide proper direction on how to proceed. If any Native American are encountered during construction, construction shall cease immediately until a Native American descendant, appointed by the Native American Heritage Commission of the State of California, is able to evaluate the site and make further recommendations and be involved in mitigation planning. VI. Geology and Soils Construction of a new commercial building and related site improvements will increase the amount of impervious surface area without signit~cant changes to the site topography. Site soil modifcations are not expected to result in significant adverse environmental impacts. The entire state of California is in a seismically active area and the site located in a strong seismic risk area, subject to very strong ground shaking in the event of an earthquake, Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction and subsidence of the land are possible, but not likely at the site. No known faults cross the project site, therefore fault rupture at the site is very unlikely, but theoretically possible. All new construction will be required to comply with the provisions of the most current Uniform Building Code (UBC), portions of which are directed at minimizing seismic risk and preventing loss of life and property in the event of an earthquake. The City’s required standard conditions of approval ensure that potential impacts on erosion and soil will not be significant. Project conditions of approval will require the applicant to submit a final grading and drainage plan subject to review by the Department of Public Works prior to issuance of any grading and building permits. Mitigation Measures: None required. VII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials The subject property is currently used for an auto repair business and contains hazardous materials that will be, removed as apart of the project, in order to prevent the release of hazardous substances during demolition, grading or construction activities, t~ City’s required standard conditions of approval shall ensure that potential impacts will not be significant. The proposed building. pavement, and landscaping would not involve hazardous substances and the proposed building is not designed to facilitate the use, storage or handling of hazardous materials or waste. Mitigation Measures: None required. VIII. Hydrology and Water Quality With the City’s required conditions of approval, the water impacts of the project will not be significant and there will be not b significant additional runoff from the site. The City’s standard conditions of project approval will require a drainage plan to b~ submitted including drainage patterns on the site and from adjacent properties. The contractor will be required to incorporate bes management practices (BMPs) for storm water pollution prevention in all construction operations, in conformance with the Santz Clara Valley Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program. A stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) is required to b. submitted in conjunction with building permit plans, to address potential impacts to storm water quality. The SWPPP sl~, incorporate both temporary and permanent BMP’s. A run-off permit from the Regiona~ Water Quality Control Board will ~ required, since the subject property is more than five acres in size. The site is in Flood Zone X, which is not a special flood hazard zone, It is an area of moderate flooding, outside the 100 year f~oo zone but inside the 500 year flood zone or flooding to a depth less than 1 foot in the 100 year flood event. Mitigation Measures; None required. IX. Land Use and Planning 102 The designation of this site, as set forth in the City’s Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map, is Service Commercial. Comprehensive Plan Policy L-31 states, "Develop the CaI-Ventura area as a well-designed mixed use district with diverse land uses, two- to three-story buildings, and a network of pedestrian-oriented streets providing links to California Avenue." The proposed uses and building height are consistent with the policies of the C!ty’s Comprehensive Plan. The related program, Program L-30, states, "Prepare a Coordinated Area Plan for the CaI-Ventura area. Use the_ !and .use diagram from_the _Community Desig~Workshop a~t~e ~arting-~-~i~-for--p~epa~ing this Plan." No such plan has been prepared. The project site is within the CaI-Ventura Mixed Use Area, and is identified on a conceptual diagram (Comprehensive Plan p. L-24). as an appropriate site for mixed use development. The residential district within the same block, is identified as an appropriate site for live/work develop mont. The proposed project is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan land uses proposed ~or this area and the project meets all development standards set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapters 18.45, with the exception of Section 18.45.070, which requires project compliance with Chapter 18.24 (RM-30 District) regulations and Chapter 18.28 guidelines, due to the proposed mixed residential and non-residential uses. The following variances from the RM-30 code are represented by this project: Setbacks/Dayli,qht Plane (1) a zero side yard setback is proposed along a portion of the southerly property line to accommodate a staircase, and a five foot setback is proposed elsewhere along this property line. There are no openings in the zero lot line wall, but openings are proposed in the five foot setback wall. Although the CS District does not require any side yard setback, the RM-30 District regulations require a ten foot setback at the first floor level and 17,5 foot setback required at the upper floors (side setback requirement for upper floors is 1/2 fie proposed building height, 35 feet). The adjacent property to the south is developed with a one story commercial building (currently in use as Old Pro bar) set back 25 feet from the common property line. A driveway is located in this 25 foot wide space, allowing access to the bar’s rear parking lot and providing separa~on between the existing bar and the proposed three story building. Since the proposed zero lot line wall has no openings, the commercial site to the south may still be further developed in the future, such that a commercial building could have a zero setback and height of 50 feet. Therefore, the proposed reduced setback .will not negatively impact the adjoining commercial property to the south. (2) an 8’10" side yard setback is proposed along the northerly property line, Where 10 feet would be required on the first floor and 17,5 feet would be required for upper floors (side setback for upper floors is. 1/2 the proposed building height, 35 feet).’ The adjacent property to the north is developed with a one story building (currently in use as Cellular One store) set back.36 feet from the common property llne. A driveway and parking area are located in this 36 foot wide space, providing separation between the existing store and the proposed three story building. The commercial site to the north may still be further developed in the future, such that a commercial building could have a zero setback and height of 50 feet. Therefore, the proposed reduced setback will not negatively ira, pact the adjoining commercial property to the north. (3) a daylight plane encroachment is proposed along both the southerly property line and northerly property line, for the second and third floor area and a portion of the first floor area. Since the adjacent properties are currently developed with commercial buildings, there is no significant impact upon adjacent properties. Usable open space (4) a total of approximately 2,700 square feet of permanently maintained usable common open space is provided, where 3,375 square feet (30% of the lot area) is required. The applicants have stated that 3,375 square feet of common open space is provided in the project, but several areas that cannot be considered permanently maintained usable open space by definition set forth in PAMC Section 18.04.030 (a)(142) were included in this number. These non-qualifying open space areas include parking areas (bicycle parking areas (297 square feet), landscaped vehicle parking reserve area (272 square feet)) and a service area (over 100 square feet for pump vault and backflow preventer location). As noted under section XV, Transportation/Traffic below, if the bicycle locker area is increased to meet placement requirements per City Standa.rds, a portion of the 2,700 square foot open space area shown in plans may be displaced. A Design Enhancement Exception may be requested for any private open space area beyond the minimum requirement to apply toward the 30% open space requirement. A Design Enhancement Exception may also be requested to allow a stair tower to exceed height and daylight plane limitations in order to reach a rooftop garden to meet common open space area requirements. 103 Mitigation Measure #3 is proposed to ensure the minimum permanently maintained usable open space will be provided or~ the site. (S) In plans dated 11/5/99, the residential private open space proposed for residential units #2 and #3 does not meet PAMC Section 18.24.050 (j)(2), which requires a minimum fifty square feet of private area contig.u..0u_s ~to _~.e .un!_t._ ._A pgrtio_n of balcony for unit~#2 is adjacent-to ~he~win~dov~f Unit #3, a~-d ~ee~l~t~-~--~li~-t~l-t~0-p~’~id~ privacy. The balcony area for unit #3 is le~ than 50 square feet and needs to be increased. On 12/22/99, the applicant’s architect submitted the following adjusted areas to achieve compliance with minimum private open space area requirements: Rear balcony, unit #3 will be 53 square feet, Side balconies for units #2 and #4 will be 72 square feet, Side balcony for unit #1 will be 52 square feet, Front balcony for unit #1 will be 112 square feet. Mitigation Measure #4 is proposed to ensure the City’s minimum requirements for private open space are met in final plans. Variance Findin,qs In order to render a decision on the project, the City’s Planning Commission, Architectural Review Bo6rd and City Council must first evaluate the impacts of and reasons for the variances from the RM-30 Zoning District regulations, Findings must be made based upon the specific conditions of the project site and its relationship to and potential impacts upon adjoining properties. The policies of the Comprehensive Plan will be considered in conjunction with the Zoning Code Requirements. Another alternatiw is for the City to allow a rezoning of the site to a Planned Community zone, for which the development parameters would be specific to the property, and p[oject features constituting a "public benefit’ would be required. Tentative Map : The project applicant has stated their intent to submit an application for Tentative Map for condominium purposes, to be submitted after the Planning Commission and Architectural Review Board have reviewed the project. Since there are four residential units and one office space, the project submittal would be an application for a major subdivision. When.a complete application f~ Tentative Map is submitted,.it would be analyzed pursuant to CEQA requirements, reviewed by the Planning Commission ar acted upon by the City Council. Mitigation Measure #5 is propo, sed to ensure the City’s Tentative Map process is followed. Mitigation Measures: Permanently maintained usable open space area shall be provided to meet City’s minimum area requirements of 30% common usable open space. Additional open space area shall be provided on site and shown in proposals to be presented to the City’s Planning Commission and Amhitectural Review Board. Approval of a Design Enhancement Exception is necessary to allow any extra private open space to contribute to the common open space requirement, and to allow any stair tower to exceed the height and daylight plane limits to allow access to a rooftop common are. for use by the third floor residential tenants. Private usable open space shall be provided to meet City’s minimum area requirements. 5. Any subdivision application for condominium purposes (Tentative Map for residential and commercial units), if proposed, shall be submitted for review and shall be processed prior to the issuance of building permits for the project. X. Mineral Resources The proposed building will utiliz8 more energy resources than the existing building on the site. However, the additional amour of energy is not expected to be more than normally associated with commercial and residential uses in the area and therefor~ would be a less than significant impact. Mitigation Measures: None required. 104 Xl. Noise The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Noise Exposure Contours map identifies the subject property as being within the 70 dB Ldn noise contour, with El Camino Real traffic generating the offending noise. Comprehensive Plan Policy N -39 notes that the guideline for maximum interior noise levels in residential areas is 50 dB in bedrooms and 55 dB in other rooms, indoor noise will be mitigated by the provision of required insulation and double glazing on all residential windows, as shall be addressed in the City’s standard conditions of approval. Comprehensive Plan Policy N-39notes that the guideline for outdoor noise levels in residential areas is 60 Ldn. The proposed project does not meet this guideline. The project includes a 42" high stucco wall along El Camino Real, except for the driveway and walkway openings. This low wall may milJgate some noise in the front yard area, although more detailed noise measurements are required to ensure these walls will provide acoustically effective barriers. The project includes only metal balcony railings around the private open space provided for the residential units. These open railings, as designed, will not mitigate the noise levels to the guideline stated in Policy N-39 Residential Unit #1 has a balcony facing El Camino Real and another balcony facing the north side property line. The private balconies of Residential Units #2, 3 and 4 face the side and rear property lines, but wi~I also be impacted by the El Camino Real traffic noise levels. Conditions of project approval would require a reduction of noise levels in both interior and extedor living spaces in compliance with City’s Comprehensive Plan Policy. The design and placement of the residentialbalconies will be required to be modified and an acoustical ’study will be required to indicate that potential noise impacts can be mitigated to acceptable levels in accordance with the City’s noise standards. The proposed mitigation measure #6 will ensure the existing noise impacts upon the proposed residential uses will be mitigated to a level of insignificance. Demolil~on of the existing pavement and construction of the new commercial building will result in temporary increases in local ambient noise levels. Typical noise sources would include mechanical equipment associated with demolition, excavation, grading and construction noise, which will be short term in duration and will be mitigated by standard City conditions of approval. These conditions will limit the hours of construction and methods of demolition, and require compliance with the requirements of the Palo Alto Noise Ordinance, Chapter 9.10 PAMC. Long term noise associated with the new building will be produced by an HVAC system, with rooftop equipment to be screened from view and offer some sound attenuation. The HVAC noise impacts upon residential tenants in the proposed project and upon nearby residential properties must be evaluated in an acoustical study.. The proposed mitigation measure #7 will ensure the project’s proposed noise impacts upon existing and proposed residential uses wil~ be mitigated to a level of insignificance. Mitigation Measures: 6. An acoustical study shall be prepared to ensure that the proposed residential uses will include the appropriate noise attenuation barriers around required private and common usable open space areas, to reduce the existing 70dB noise levels to meet the 60 dB guideline in Comprehensive Plan Policy N-39. Where the City determines that providing an Ldn of 60rib or lower outdoors is not feasible, the noise level in outdoor areas intended for recreational use shall be reduced to as close to the standard (60dB) as feasible through project re-design. Required design changes shall be reviewed in conjunction with the acoustical study prior to review by the Architectural Review Board. 7. An acoustical study shall be prepared to ensure that the screen proposed around the rooftop HVAC equipment will provide noise attenuation to meet the City’s noise standards. Xll. Population and Housing The project site is currently occupied by a commercial building, and therefore would not displace housing, The proposed building will provide four one-bedroom rental housing units. The applicant states that a tentative subdivision map for condominium uses will be submitted after the initial Planning Commission and ARB review. The applicant has indicated that a Below Market Rate (BMR) contribution to meet Comprehensive Plan Program H -20 will be provided. A BMR Agreement will be entered into after review of the project by the Architectural Review Board, Mitigation Measures; None required Public Sel~’ices Fir__~e The site is ser~/ed by the Palo Alto Fire Department. The proposed project would not impact Fire District service to the site or area. The standard conditions of approval will require the provision of any fire safety equipment and proper site abcess and address as may be required by the Fire Department. Police The site is located within the jurisdiction of the Palo Alto Police Department. The use in the new building on the project site wout~ not by itself result in the need for additional police officers, equipment, or facilities. Schools No direct demand for school services would result from the project as the proposal is for one-bedroom residential units, and as such, does not generate an increase of school-age residents to Polo Alto. Parks No direct demand for additional park~ would result from the project as the proposal is for four units, and common usable open space will be required on the project site for the residents (Per mitigation measure #3.) Other Public Facilities The project would not result in impacts to other governmental agencies. Mitigation Measures: None required. XIV, Recreation No direct demand for additional recreational facilities would result from the project as the proposal does not generate an increase of population and residents to PaSo Alto. Mitigation Measures: None required. XV. Tran sportation/Traffic The subject property is located near a major intersection, Page Mill Road and El Camino Real. There are currently no plans to widen El Camino Real adjacent to the project, however, the project plans must be approved by CalTrans, which well be addressed in the City’s Standard Conditionsfor the project. The project is not expected to result in a significant impact on traffic congestion because it does not exceed thresholds established by the Santa Clara County Congestion Management Agency (CMA) and the City of Polo Alto. According to the Transportation Division, no further traffic analysis of the proposed project is required because the development of the site was evaluated in the City-wide Land Use and Transportation Study. There are 25 vehicle parking spaces required for this project, and 21 are proposed. Two of the required vehicle spaces are proposed to be placed in "landscape reserve". One of the required vehicle spaces will not be required if 250 square feet of the office area is used for employee amenity as proposed. The other required vehicle space is proposed to be substituted with eight bicycle lockers. However, the bicycle lockers are shown on the site plan as being stacked and located behind parked cars, which is not an acceptable placement according to the City of Polo Alto Transportation Division Staff. The location of the bike racks ant lockers must be adjusted in order to comply with the City’s Standards. The provision of additional area for ground placement oi each of the bicycle lockers would result in a further reduction of the usable common open space area and perimeter landscaping. An acceptable alternative would be to provide two separate, Iockable bicycle storage rooms within the building near the building entrances and elevator, one accessible to residents and the other accessible to office employees. Mitigation Measure #8 ensure the bicycle locker and rack location adjustments will be made so this impact will be mitigated to a level of insignif~canc~ in conjunction with the adjustments to be made per Mitigation Measures #2 and #3. 106 2O Circulation: Demolition and construction activities could disrupt pedestrian and vehicular circulation near the subject site. With the City’s required standard conditions of approval, construction impacts will not be significant. The conditions of project approval would require a construotion logistics plan which addresses at minimum parking, truck routes and staging, materials storage, and the provisions of pedestrian and vehicular traffic adjacent to the construction site. Contractor worker parking and storage of equipment or materials must conform with plans approved by the Transportation Division and Public Works Department. M itigation Measu res: 8. The bicycle racks and lockers shall be adjusted to meet City standards for placement on the site. Lockable bicycle storage rooms may be provided in lieu of lockers. If lockers remain on the ground floor level, ar~y ~ommon open space area is displaced by the additional area needed for these lockers shall be added to the project’s usable open space area to meet minimum requirements. XVI.Utilities and Service Systems The p~oposed project would not significantly increase the demand on existing utilities and service systems or use resources in a wasteful or ineff’cient manner. The development would tie into the existing service provided to the site. The conditions of approval will require 10ad details to be submitted in conjunction with the building permit to determine whether the existing transformer service is large enough to accommodate the project. Solid waste and recvclin.q The project plans indicate the provision of required recyclihg and trash enclosure(s) inside the enclosed parking area. The applicant proposes shared use of the adjoining property (2865 El Camino Real) cardboard recycling. This property is under .the same ownership, and the applicant proposes to record legal documents to ensure this shared use. The standard conditions of approval will ensure that the new building will have adequate provisions for trash and recycling enclosure.s, including legal agreements to be filed for the shared cardboard recycling facility. Plans for recovery (reuse and recycling) of construction materials will be required in conjunction with the applicant’s submittal for Building Permits. Mitigation Measures: None required. XVII, Mandatory Findings of Significance The proposed project will not result in adverse impacts if the proposed mitigation measures and City standard conditions of approval are applied to the project. 107 W~!.~ THE UNDERSIGNED I-IERElitY ATTEST THAT WE HAVE REVIEWED THfft INITIAL ~"TUDYIMITIGATED NEGATIVI~ DECLARA~QN~ DATED DEeEM~R 21, ~9sS, PREPARED FOR THE PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT QF PROP~R~ KNOWN AS 2S2S ~ CAMINO REAL, PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA, AND AGREE TO IMP~MENT ALL MI~GATIQN CONTAINED HERI~IN, An analysis of lighting and proposal for .~mening both at the rear property line and at the upper.w(ndows shall ~e submiffed f~r review by ~e A~e=ural Review B~ard. The ~ndit~ns of approval wilt r~uim ~e =ixl~ing of fightl~g such ~hat ~a light will not ex~nd ~y~nd the eke, the l~hting w~l ~ di~ional~ and tl~e source uf light ~ill not ~ di~tly visible. Any lighting das~n and l~ht =em~ solutions shall ~ rev~w~ by ~e A~hi~rll Rev~w BooN, ~. "!~ duri.g 9r~lirt~l, and =mStruction actiVities, any amh~logic~l or human mma~s a~ ~un~ed, ~ls~ffi~n shall Examiner’s office shall be no~fied to provide proper dir~San on how to proceed, if any Nativ~ ~erican racemes ~re Sncounter~ dgrl~g ~nstr~ct~n~ ¢o~rg~ Shall Cease im~iately ~ntil a Native Amer~ d~e~da~ appoint~ by ~e Native Amedc~ Heritage commissio~ of the ~a~ of California, Is able to evalu~e ~e site and ~aka fu~her recommenda~ons and be involved in ~gation pl~nnjn9, ommo~ Usable open space. Additional open space ~rea shall be prov~¢d on =~d to a~low a~y slalt tower ~ exc~d t~ height and daylight p~ne !lmi~ for us~ by ~e ~ird f~or residential ~. Pr~vat~ ~sab~ open spac~e shall be provided to me~t City’s minirnam ~,~ mqulremer~ts. Any subdivision application 1or ~o~dominium Purposes (Tantative Map for ~sidentia| ~nd commemial utah’s), if proposed, shall be s.bmitted for t©view and shall he processed prior to the issuance of buikt~g permit appli~’-stion. ~a~se ~evols to me~t ~he ~0 d~ g~ideline in Comp~ensive Plan Policy N~9, 7,A~ a~oustical st.dy shall be pmpaPad to ensure that tha screen proposed arour~d the rooftop HVAC eq~ipm~-~t will p~ovide n~i~e att~nuatio~ ~o rne~ tl~e city’s noise s1:andarffs. 108 The bicycle racks and lockers shall be adjusted to meet City standards for placement on the site. Lockable bicycle storage rooms may be provided in lieu of lockers, if lockers remain on the ground floor level~ any common open space area is displaced by the additional area needed for these lockers shall be added to the project’s usable open space area to meet minimum requirements. 109 23 110