Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2000-11-20 City Council (15)
TO: FROM: City of Palo AltoC ty Manager’s Re rt HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DATE: SUBJECT: NOVEMBER 20, 2000 CMR:421:00 4131 EL CAMINO REAL [00-D-2, 00-V-4, 00-EIA-6]: REQUEST BY HAYES GROUP ON BEHALF OF FRED BAREZ FOR SITE AND DESIGN REVIEW OF A THREE-STORY, MIXED-USE BUILDING AND SITE IMPROVEMENTS AND FOR A VARIANCE FOR FRONT AND REAR SETBACK ENCROACHMENTS AND REAR DAYLIGHT PLANE PROTRUSIONS, WITH 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 project for the property located at 4131 E1 Camino Real (Attachment 2); and (2) approve the proposed project, based upon Site and Design findings and Variance findings and subject to the recommended conditions of approval (Attachment 3). PROJECT DESCRIPTION The si~e, shown on the attached location map (Attachment 1), has frontages on E1 Camino Real and E1 Camino Way, a trapezoidal shape, and is zoned Neighborhood Commercial (CN). The proposed 16,127-square-foot, mixed-use building would include commercial area on the first floor and on the portion of the second floor facing E1 Camino Real. Eight attached single-family residential rental units (one- and two-bedroom) are proposed on the portion of the second floor facing E1 Camino Way, and on the third floor. The total commercial area would be 8,311 square feet, including second floor office area (2,080 square feet) and first floor retail and services (5,847 square feet). A plaza allows pedestrian access through the building to the opposite frontage. Parking facilities would be accessible from E1 Camino Real and E1 Camino Way, and would include 27 underground spaces and 10 surface spaces. Variances are requested for encroachments into front and rear setbacks and rear daylight plane encroachments. The development CMR:421:00 Page 1 of 3 standards from the RM-15 Zoning District are applied in this case in accordance with the CN District Regulations for Mixed Use Projects. BOARD/COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS Architectural Review Board On September 21, 2000, the Architectural Review Board (ARB) unanimously recommended approval of the project, with a recommended condition that the project return to the ARB on consent calendar to address the ARB condition #52. The ARB agreed the design was attractive. The applicant plans to return to the ARB after the City Council review and prior to submittal of building permit plans with detailed plans meeting condition #52 (providing solar and wind studies, detail regarding exterior lighting, glazing and stair railings, enhancements to the landscape plan at the plaza and on the second floor residential common deck.) No members of the public spoke at the ARB hearing. Planning and Transportation Commission On September 13, 2000, the Planning .and Transportation Commission recommended unanimous approval, on a 6-0-1 vote (Commissioner Byrd absent). The members agreed that the mix of uses on the site would be appropriate and the project would be a great addition to the island; and that the requested Variances were minimal and Variance findings could be easily made. One Commissioner noted the Comprehensive Plan program emphasized the creation of a neighborhood focal point at the island and noted that establishing neighborhood serving retail uses in the building would contribute to that program. The same Commissioner asked if the City could require more units on the site to meet the Below Market Rate (BMR) criteria than the minimum required, which is at least 10 percent of the total number of units. Staff clarified the City’s BMR criteria are established by the Comprehensive Plan, and noted that the City does not have the authority to require more than that amount (10 percent of 8 units in this case), but that sometimes more BMR units are offered as a public benefit for a project requesting rezoning to Planned Community District. Two members of the public spoke during the Planning and Transportation Commission meeting. The first speaker, a member of the Charleston Meadows Neighborhood Association, expressed the Association’s concern that the retail services should be neighborhood serving stores the residents could walk to. She read into the record a letter from the Association’s President, which is included in the meeting minutes (Attachment 7). The second speaker, who lives on Magnolia Drive west of E1 Camino Real, noted her concern about traffic in the area, the rust and brown exterior colors, and her desire for a small grocery store and no offices in the new building. CMR:421:00 Page 2 of 3 ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1:Location Map Attachment 2:Environmental evaluation and proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration Attachment 3:Variance and Site and Design findings and conditions Attachment 4:Architectural Review Board summary minutes, September 21, 2000 Attachment 5:Planning and Transportation Commission verbatim minutes, September 13, 2000 Attachment 6: Applicant’s statement Plans (Council Members only) Prepared By:Amy French, Acting Senior Planner Manager Review: John Lusardi, Current Planning Manager DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW: Director of Planning and Community Environment CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: EMIL~( H~SON Assistant City Manager CMR:421:00 Page 3 of 3 PC -3775 Attachment 1 PC RM The City of Palo A1 to PLANNING DIVISION review of residential/commercial project including eight residential units in a three story building. d:\GlodaD~twork\Ma ps~t~ffRepor13\Ecr4t 31.al Attachment 1: Location Map Attachment 2 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment Project Title:Mixed-use building o Lead Agency Name and Address:City of Palo Alto - Planning Division 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 o Contact Person and Phone Number: Project Location: Application Number(s): Amy French, Acting Senior Planner, 650/329-2336 4131 El Camino Real (APN 132-46-109) 00-D-2, 00-V-4, 00-EIA-6 Project Sponsor Name and Address:Hayes Group Architects, Inc., 210 High Street, Palo Alto, CA 94301 7.Property Owner:Fred Barez 11. General Plan Designation:Neighborhood Commercial Zoning:CN (Neighborhood Commercial) Project Description: Request by Hayes Group on behalf of Fred Barez for Site and Design review of a three story building and site improvements to establish a mixed ~se project on irregular shaped CN zoned lot. The proposed 15,700 sq.ft, mixed use building would be comprised of commercial area on first and second floors and eight attached single family residential rental units (one and two-bedroom) on the second and third floors. The proposed 8,311 sq.ft, of commercial area would include second floor office area (2,080 sq.ft.) and first floor retail and services (5,847 sq.ft.). Variances are requested for first floor commercial floor encroachments into front and rear setbacks established in RM-15 code, and rear daylight plane encroachments. The proposed parking facilities are accessible from E1 Camino Real and E1 Camino Way and include 30 underground spaces and 10 surface spaces. Street frontage improvements include curb cut closures and new driveway openings, new street trees on E1 Camino Real and new irrigation and plantings and ground cover in the E1 Camino Way planter strip Description of this project based upon plans and project data submitted to the Planning Department on June 28, 2000. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The project site is an irregularly shaped .52 acre parcel bounded by E1 Camino Way, E1 Camino Real and two parcels, also zoned for neighborhood commercial land use and developed commercially. A two story building housing a restaurant is located on the parcel to the north and a one story building housing a restaurant/bar is located on the parcel to the south. Across E1 Camino Way from the project site is a two story office building and across E1 Camino Real from the project site is a two story multiple family residential building. The site is paved and .contains a small wood building and a tall freestand!ng sign, and was formerly in use for vehicle sales. i2.Other public agencies whose approval is required: CalTrans 13.Date Prepared: July 31, 2000 14.Public Review Period: August 11, 2000 - August 30, 2000 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked’below would be potentially affected by this project as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. X Aesthetics Hydrology/Water Quality Transportation/Traffic X X Agriculture Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology/Soils Hazards & Hazardous Materials X X Land Use/Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population/Housing Public Services Recreation 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. 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 propo.nent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. X 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 proposed 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 applicable l~gal 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, nothing further is required. P~ject Plan~r -- ° . Director of Planning ~~ Environment EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Date Date 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)All 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 well as direct, and construction as well 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 less 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 Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 17, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross-referenced). 5)Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect hss 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) b) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within 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) 7) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the 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 individuals 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 significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b)The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance fIssues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Less Than Significant Significant Unless Impact Mitigated NO Impact I.AESTHETICS. Would the project: a)Have a substantial adverse affect on a scenic vista? b)X c) d) II. 1) 2) 3) IlL a) b) c) d) 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 g!are, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? 1,2,3 l,2, 6, 8 1,3 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 1 X 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 1, 2, 3 X Williamson Act contract?xInvolve other changes in the existing environment which,1 due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? violation? 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: Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable 1, 2 X air quality plan? Violate any air quality standard or contribute 1, 2 substantially to an existing or projected air quality X 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 Expose sensitive receptors (residential, school) to 1, 2 shbstantial pollutant concentrations? Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources e)Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number 1, 2 of people? IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated Less Than Significant Impact b) c) d) e) Have 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 Wildlife Service? 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? 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? 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? 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 conservation plan? 1,2 (N-l) 1,2 (N-l) 1,2 (N-l) 1,2 (N-l) X V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of 1, 2 an historical resource pursuant to 15064.5?(L-7) b) c) 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? 1,2 (L-S) 1,2 X X X Issues and Supporting Information Sources d)Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated X Less Than Significant Impact VI. 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: i)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. 2 (N- 5), 5 2 (N-5, N-10), 4 ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?2 N-8, N- 10), 4 iv) Landslides?2 (N- 5), 4 Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?2 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? b) c) d) 2 5), 4 2 (N- 5), 4 n/a X e) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creati.ng 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? VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS’MATERIALS. Would the project: 1,2a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routing transport, use~ or disposal of hazardous materials? X X X X X X X X I Issues and Supporting Information Sources c) d) g) h) Create 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? Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one- quarter mile (1,320’) of an existing or proposed school? 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? 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? 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? 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 wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Sources 1,2 1,2 1,2 n/a n/a 1, 2 (N- 7), 10 1,2 (N-7), 10 Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a)Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge 1, 2 requirements? b) c) 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? 1,2 (N-2) 1,2 Less Than Significant Impact X No Impact X X 7 Issues and Supporting Information Sources d) e) 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? Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?. Sol.lrc~s 1,2, 9 1, 2, 9 Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated Less Than Significant Impact X X No Impact f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?1, 2 X g)n/a X 1,2 (N-6), 9 h) 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? Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? 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? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudfiow?1,2 X X X IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: Physically divide an established community?X X a) b) c) Conflict 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? Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? 1,2 X MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? 8 I Issues and Supporting Information Sources B Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? 2 Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated Less Than Significant Impact XI. NOISE. Would the project result in: a)Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in 1, 2 (N- X excess of standards established in the local general plan or 3), 3, 7 noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? 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 project vicinity above levels existing without 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? n/a X f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would n/a the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a)1, 2 X 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? n/a n/a X Issues and Supporting Information Sources SouFces Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated Less Than Significant Impact XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES. 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? 10 1 1, 2, 14 1,2 2 INo Impact XlV. RECREATION 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) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the ekisting 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)? Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Result in change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? 1,2 (T- 7, T-8), 11 1, 2, 6 na X X X X X 10 Issues and Supporting Information Sources d)Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? SotlgCes 1, 3, 11, 13 Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated e) Result in inadequate emergency access?2, 12, 13 f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?1, 2, 3,X 13 1, 2, 13g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Less Than Significant Impact XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a)Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the 1, 2, 14 applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b)1,2 c) d) e) g) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction df 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 project from 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? Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? 1,2 1,2 1,2 1,2 1,2 X 11 XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. 18 Xa)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? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c)Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 18 18 X X SOURCE REFERENCES: 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. Site visit, planner’s knowledge of project, review of project plans dated 6/28/00. Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan 1998-2010 & Maps L-7, L-8, L-9, N-l, N-2, N-3, N-5, N-6, N-8, N-10, T-7, T-8 Palo Alto Municipal Code, Title 18 (Zoning Ordinance) and Title 16 (Building Regulations) Uniform Building Code (UBC) Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map Arborist Report by Tree Health Professionals, Inc. dated April 17, 2000 (Attachment C) Traffic Noise Assessment Study by Edward Pack Associates, Inc. (Attachment B) City of Palo Alto Planning Arborist’s comments City of Palo Alto Public Works Department comments City of Palo Alto Fire Department comments City of Palo Alto Transportation Division comments City of Palo Alto Water Quality Control Plant comments Palo Alto Municipal Code Title 8 (Trees and Vegetation) Palo Alto Unified School District comments Answers substantiated through the responses provided in items I-XVI of this environmental checklist. ATTACHMENTS: A.Site Location Ma~p B.Evaluation and Preservation Recommendations for Trees on and Adjacent to 4131 E! Camino Real C.Traffic Noise Assessment Study 12 EXPLANATION FOR CHECKLIST RESPONSES: I. Aesthetics The proposed three story mixed-use building will change the character of the site, which is currently underdeveloped with a very small older wooden structure. The new building would add mass and establish a new architectural presence on a visible site. The new building will be taller and longer than the buildings on adjacent sites, but will nevertheless be compatible with these buildings. The project is subject to review by the Architectural Review Board, to ensure the building design will be aesthetically appropriate and compatible with the site and surrounding development, and the site improvements will be harmonious and appropriate to the building. There is currently no significant glazing or lighting on the site. The development will result in an increase in light and glare from parking lot lighting, glazing on the building and low-level lamps along the walkways adjacent to the street frontages and near the central staircase. Potential adverse impacts from the new light and glare will be partially mitigated by existing and proposed street trees along both frontages and by trees in the E1 Camino Real median strip. Glare from clear glass storefront windows at the first floor commemial space on E1 camino Real would also be mitigated by the shadows from the proposed building overhangs. Two of the existing street trees on the E1 Camino Real frontage will be removed, and one will be replaced in the same location. Three new street trees are proposed along E1 Camino Real: the first would be placed in the sidewalk frontage adjacent to the adjoining property to the north, the second would be placed just north of the driveway and the third would be placed near the southerly property line where an existing driveway curb cut will be closed. One of the street trees to be removed would accommodate the new E1 Camino driveway location and the existing driveway curb cut would be closed; however, no replacement street tree is proposed in the area of this closed curb cut. Since the two-story glass storefront at the center of the site comprises a glass area of approximately 576 square feet and no replacement street tree is proposed in that location, unmitigated glare to the northwest may be the result. Mitigation Measure #1 is proposed to reduce this potential impact to a level of insignificance. The project is required to meet the provisions of Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 18.64, Additional Site Development and Design Regulations for Commercial and Industrial Districts. Section 18.64.030 (a)(2)(A) requires the elimination of light spillover beyond the .perimeter of the development; however, the photometric lighting plan indicates light spillover beyond the property perimeter. Three 15’ high light standards with metal halide lamps are proposed to light the surface parking area, and three accent down- lights would be attached at a height of 15 feet to three new palm trees. There may be light projecting through the glass storefront of the commercial space at night, and tenants may wish to add exterior lighting that could be viewed from both frontages. Mitigation measure #2 requires parking lot light standards employ "zero cutoff’ of light at the property lines, and requires interior lighting systems and interior shading systems to be installed in conjunction with tenant improvements, to ensure any light impacts from the project implementation will be reduced to a level of insignificance. Mitigation Measure #1: An additional street tree and City approved grate shall be installed on El Camino Real prior to issuance of occupancy permits, between the proposed curb cut and the existing tree directly south of the existing driveway, to mitigate potential light and glare impacts from the two story storefront windows. 13 Mitigation Measure #2: Parking lot lighting shall shielded such that the light will not extend beyond the site and the source of light will not be directly visible from adjoining roadways. Interior lighting systems that employ timing and shading devices to meet City requirements shall be installed in conjunction with tenant improvements. II. Agriculture Resources The site is not located in a Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance area, as shown on the maps prepared for the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Piogram of the California Resources Agency. The site is not zoned as an agricultural use, and the site is not regulated by the Williamson Act. Mitigation Measures: None required. ilI.Air Quality The site is located approximately 1,800 feet from Ventura School. Multiple family residental development on E1 Camino Real is located across the street within 300 feet of the project site. The increased vehicle emissions from automobile traffic to and around the new building would be greater than those from currently nonexistent vehicle trips than the existing small commercial building, yet this increase is not considered a significant impact beyond the existing emissions level from traffic on El Camino Real and it does not exceed thresholds established by the Comprehensive Plan Environmental Impact Report 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 conditions of project approval would reduce these air quality impacts to less than significant levels. The standard conditions of approval will require that the following dust control measures be employed at the site to reduce dust emissions to acceptable levels during construction: 1) Exposed earth surfaces be watered frequently, during the late morning and at the end of the day, with frequency of watering increasing on windy days; 2) Spillage resulting from hauling operations along or across any public or private property shall be removed immediately; 3) Overfilling of trucks by the contractor is prohibited; and 4) Trucks shall be covered during the transportation of demolished materials from the site. The proposed building and site modifications, therefore, will not have a significant effect on air quality. Mitigation Measures: None required. IV. Biological Resources No endangered, threatened, or rare animals, insects and plant species have been identified at this site. There ar~ six street trees adjacent to the E1 Camino Way frontage, and six street trees adjacent to the E1 Camino Real frontage. One London Plane tree would be removed as a part of the proposed project, to make way for a driveway to E1 Camino Real. No replacement street tree is proposed, and is not required by Title 8 of the City’s Municipal Code (although Mitigation Measure #1 requires street tree replacement in case light and 14 glare impacts occur). Other existing significant vegetation will remain and will be protected during grading and construction pursuant to the arborist’s report (Attachment B) reviewed by the City’s Planning Arborist, and City standard conditions of approval. Mitigation Measure: None required. V. Cultural Resources The site is currently developed with a small building and the site has been disturbed. No additional area will be disturbed and there are no known cultural resources on the site. However, the Comprehensive Plan indicates that the project site is located within an Archaeological Resource Area of moderate sensitivity. Mitigation Measure #3 will reduce the potential impact to a level of insignificance. Mitigation Measure #3: If during grading and construction activities, any archeologicai or human remains are encountered, construction shall cease and a qualified archaeologist shah 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. VI. Geology and Soils The entire state of California is in a seismically active area and the site located in a seismic risk area, subject to strong ground shaking in the event of an earthquake. Seismic ground failure is possible but not likely to cause any problems with the facility. No known faults cross the project site. A soil report will be r6quired in conjunction with any Building Permit application submittal. All new construction will be required to comply with to 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. Changes to the site topography are proposed with the introduction of a below grade parking facility. Site soil modifications are not expected to result in significant adverse environmental impacts. 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 There are no hazards or hazardous materials proposed or existing on the site. Mitigation Measures: None required. VIII. Hydrology and Water Quality Construction of the proposed building and related site improvements will increase the amount of impervious ,. 15 surface area. The City’s standard conditions of approval require pollution prevention measures to be implemented in building permit plans. The contractor will be required to incorporate best management practices (BMPs) for storm water pollution prevention in all construction operations, in conformance with the Santa Clara Valley Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program. A stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) is required to be submitted in conjunction with building permit plans, to address potential impacts to storm water quality. The SWPPP shall incorporate both temporary and permanent BMP’s. With the standard condition of approval, the water impacts of the project will not be significant and there will be not be significant additional runoff from the site. 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 flood 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 The General Plan and zoning designation for this site is Neighborhood Commercial; however, the RM- 15 zoning regulations are applicable as well, due to the proposed residential component of the proejct. Immediately surrounding land uses include restaurants, multi-family residential buildings and mixed-use buildings. The project meets all development standards set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapters 18.41, 18.22, and 18.28 with the following exceptions: Front yard setback and daylight plane encroachments, for which Variances have beeri requested and will be reviewed by Palo Alto’s Planning Commission and City Council. Joint use parking facilities are proposed and in conjunction with the proposed mixed uses, a 20% parking requirement reduction is requested pursuant to PAMC section 18.83.120 item (c) Joint Use Parking Facilities. The project’s conformance with the provisions of Chapter 18.83, Parking Requirements, is addressed under the Transportation/Traffic section of this Initial Study. Mitigation Measures: None required. X. Mineral Resources The proposed commercial building will utilize more energy resources than the existing building on the site, since it would be a larger amount of floor area. However, any additional amount of energy is not expected to be more than normally associated with commercial uses in the area and therefore would represent less than a significant impact. The standard conditions of approval include a condition of the Utilities Engineering Department of the City of Palo Alto for the submittal of load sheets and costs related to any necessary upgrade to the system to provide the service connection would be the responsibility of the applicant. Mitigation Measures: None required. XI. Noise The Traffic Noise Assessment Study (Attachment C) prepared for the project application reveals that the primary noise source is E1 Camino Real, which carries an existing Average Daily Traffic volume of 49,500 vehicles. 16 Noise exposure excesses occur at the site, such that under existing traffic conditions, 64 dB DNL would occur at the two proposed balconies closest to E1 Camino Real and that under future traffic conditions, 65 dB DNL would occur. The City’s maximum noise level for exterior residential required open space (60 dB DNL) would be ’, ..:ceded unless mitigated as suggested in the Study, using 42" high acoustically effective balcony railings at the two balconies facing E1 Camino Real. The City’s maximum interior noise level for residential units would (45 dB DNL) would be exceeded unless mitigated as suggested in the Study, to maintain closed at all times second floor windows of living spaces with a direct or side view of E1 Camino Real and to use windows having a minimum STC 27 rating and provide mechanical ventilation. Residential balconies and deck areas that do not face E1 Camino Real would be below 60 dB DELL. To mitigate the potential adverse impact to a level of insignificance and meet the City’s land use regulations, Mitigation Measure #4 and 5 must be incorporated into the project. Demolition of the existing development and construction of the new 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. Long term noise associated with the new building will be produced by rooftop mechanical equipment for the HVAC system. A .screen is proposed to buffer the equipment, visually. The City’s standard conditions of approval will be applied to the project to ensure the construction noise and rooftop mechanical equipment noise impacts will be mitigated to a level of insignificance. Mitigation Measure #4: The proposed residential uses will include the appropriate noise attenuation barriers, pursuant to recommendation of the Noise Assessment Study, around required balcony and usable deck areas, to meet the 60 dB guideline in Comprehensive Plan Policy N-39. Where the City determines thatproviding an Ldn of 6OdB 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 required design changes, to be reviewed by the Architectural Review Board. Mitigation Measure #5: The windows on residential unit walls facing El Camino Real and on residential walls having a side view of El Camino Real shall be rated minimum Sound Transmission Class 27 and mechanical ventilation shall be provided to those units to enable the tenants to keep them closed at all times. Population and Housing The project site currently is occupied by a small commercial building; therefore, project implementation would not displace housing. Since the new floor area (16,127 sq. ft.) will not exceed 20,000 square feet, the project is not subject to the imposition of housing mitigation fees as required by Chapter 16.47 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. Mitigation Measure: None required. XIII. Public Services Fire 17 The proposed project would not impact fire service to the area and the site is not located in a high fire hazard area. The standard conditions of approval contain requirements to address all fire prevention measures, such as a complete sprinkler system. Police The site is located within the jurisdiction of the Palo Alto Police Department. The facility would 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, which would not generate a substantial increase of population and residents to Palo Alto. A standard school impact fee of $.31 per square foot of net new floor area is currently required, collected by the Palo Alto Unified School District. This fee is subject to an increase, to meet current State minimum impact fee rate ($.33 per square foot), pending completion of a justification report. Evidence of payment of school impact fees is required in conjunction with the Building Permit application. Parks No direct demand for additional parks would result from the project, which would not generate a substantial increase of population and residents to Palo Alto. Other Public Facilities None Mitigation Measures: None required. XIV. Recreation No direct demand for additional recreational facilities would result from the project, which would not generate a significant increase of population and residents to Palo Alto. Mitigation Measures: None required. XV. Transportation/Traffic Access/Traffic Increase Access to and from the site would be provided from E1 Camino Real and E1 Camino Way. The project is considered a small project that is not expected to result in a significant increase in traffic nor 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 Palo Alto. The Chief Transportation Official had determined that 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 of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. Parking Spaces/Landscaped Parking Areas A’ total of 46 parking spaces are required for the building (I6.8 spaces, including guest spaces, for the eight residential units and 29.46 spaces for retail and office area), where only 37 spaces are proposed. A reduction 18 of up to 20% of the required parking spaces can be approved by the Director of Planning and Community Environment for Joint Use Facilities pursuant to the PAMC Chapter 18.83. Since the project is located along public transportation routes and the number of bicycle parking spaces exceeds the required number (14 lockers are proposed where four are required and four racks are proposed where one is required), the request for reduction is reasonable. The City’s requirements for parking lot trees and landscaped perimeter have been met in project plans. Mitigation Measure: None required. XVI. Utilities and Service Systems The proposed project would not significantly increase the demand on existing utilities and service systems or use resources in a wasteful or inefficient manner. The development would tie into the existing service provided to the site. The conditions of approval will require load details to be submitted in conjunction with the building permit to determine whether the existing transformer service is large enough to accommodate the project. The project plans indicate the provision of required recycling and trash enclosure(s). The standard conditions of approval will ensure that the new building will have adequate provisions for trash and recycling enclosures. Mitigation Measures: None required. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE The project would not have an impact on fish or wildlife habitat, nor would it impact cultural or historic resources. The uses are appropriate for the site and the development would result in an adverse visual impact. There is nothing in the nature of the proposed development and property improvements that would have a substantial adverse effect on human beings, or other life or environmental impacts, given that mitigation measures 1-5 are incorporated into the project by reference. 19 WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, HEREBY ATTEST THAT WE HAVE REVIEWED THIS INITIAL EVALUATION/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION DATED JULY 31, 2000, PREPARED FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF PROPERTY KNOWN AS 4131 EL CAMINO REAL, PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA, AND AGREE TO IMPLEMENT ALL MITIGATION MEASURES CONTAINED HEREIN. Summary of Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure #1: An additional street tree and City approved grate shall be installed on El Camino Real prior to.issuance of occupancy permits, between the proposed curb cut and the existing tree directly south of the eMsting driveway, to mitigate potential light and glare impacts from the two story storefront windows. Mitigation Measure #2: Parking lot lighting shall shielded such that tile light will not extend beyond the site and the source of light will not be directly visible from adjoining roadways. Interior lighting systems that employ timing and shading devices to meet City requirements shall be installed in conjunction with tenant improvements. Mitigation ~leasure #3: If during grading and construction activities, any archeological or human remain, 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. Mitigation Measure #4: The proposed reMdential uses will include the appropriate noise attenuation barriers, pursuant to recomnwadation of the Noise Assessment Study,.around required’balcony and usable deck areas, to meet the 60 dB guideline in Comprehensive Plan Policy N-39. Bqzere the City determines that providing an Ldn of 60dB or lower outdoors is nat feasible, the noise level in outdoor areas intended for recreational use shall be reduced to as close to the standard (60dB) as feasible through required design changes, to be reviewed by the City’s Architectural Review Board. Mitigation Measure #5: The windows on residential unit walls facing El Camino Real and on residential walls having a side view of El Camino Real shall be rated minimum Sound Transmission Class 27 and mechanical ventilation shall be provided to those units to enable the tenants to keep them closed at all times. 20 Attachment 3 Attachment 3: Variance and Site and Design Approval 4131 El Camino Real A. Variance Findings, 4131 Camino Real (00-V-4): Findings for Approval of Variance for Encroachment into front and rear yard setbacks and protrusions into rear daylight plane. 1. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved that do not apply generally to proper, ty in the same district. (a)The existing lot is not substandard for C-N District development requirements, because the C-N district does not have minimum lot sizes or dimensions. However, it has less depth than would be required for an .RM-15 zoned parcel, where the minimum depth is 100 feet. RM-15 district regulations require a minimum 70’ width by 100’ depth for development of multi-family residential units. The narrow depth of the subject parcel (64 feet at the narrowest between roads, measured perpendicular to El Camino Real) in combination with the setbacks set forth in the RM-15 Zoning District (25’ front setback on arterial E1 Camino Real and 16’ rear setback from street side E1 Camino Way) allows for only a 22-foot wide building at the narrowest point. The commercial component of the project meets the commercial setbacks of ten feet on E1 Camino Real and zero feet on E1 Camino Way. The residential component of the project meets the 25 foot front setback and 16 foot rear (street side) setback. (b)The lot fronts on E1 Camino Real, a heavily traveled arterial, and is therefore subject to the provision of a 25’ setback for residential use of the property. Because the lot fronts on E1 Camino Real, it is subjected to higher-than-normal noise levels. The residential portion of the project is set back 25 feet from E1 Camino Real. (c)The lot is irregularly shaped. The shape of the lot limits placement of the driveway and parking area. Mixed-use projects in the C-N district are required to have covered parking facilities for the residential parking spaces (16.8 covered parking spaces are required for residential in this case) and screened parking facilities for the surface parking spaces. The proposed driveway, loading space, surface parking area and access ramp to the below grade parking lot necessitate placement on the widest portion of the site, forcing the building onto the narrower portion of the site where the setback restrictions limit developable area. The zoning standards (Chapter 18.41) and design guidelines for E1 Camino Real do not permit parking to be placed in the required front yard of a parcel. The Comprehensive Plan similarly discourages parking in the front yard on E1 Camino Real. The shape of the lot suggests placement of the surface parking lot within the large side yard on the north side of the building, which allows the provision of a minimum of 10 feet between front and rear property lines and parking spaces. 4131 E1 Camino Real - Findings and Conditions Page 1 of 11 2. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship. (a)Encroachments into the front and rear setbacks are necessary to make mixed-use development with below grade pai:king feasible on this parcel. (b)The 25-foot front setback area needed for residential development along a major arterial street and the 16-foot rear setback results in an allowable building envelope of only 22 feet, which would make a mixed use, accessible project meeting residential open space requirements unfeasible on this parcel. (c)The proposed encroachments of staircase, deck, balconies and portions of building into the rear daylight plane are necessary in order to provide required residential open space and the bedrooms for all of the residential units. 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. On the El Camino Way side: Since the proposed zero lot line wall is for commercial first floor area only on a public right of way, there would be no detrimental effect or loss of privacy. The proposed reduced setback, with openings to the plaza, would have a positive effect by drawing customers to the plaza and ground floor businesses. The existing trees on the right of way will help to mitigate any privacy issue surrounding use of balconies and the communal deck for the residential units that encroach into the daylight plane. Since the development opposite the rear property line is commercial and is separated from the subject property by E1 Camino Way, the rear daylight plane restriction is not necessary to protect the daylight of the proposed residential units nor the daylight of neighboring projects. There is no residential use directly across E1 Camino Way. On the El Camino Real side: The i’esidential units are setback at least 25 feet from the property line along E1 Camino Real and are buffered by the commercial portion of the building. B.Findings for Site and Design Approval (00-D-2): The proposed construction and oi~eration of the use will be conducted in a manner that will be orderly, harmonious, and compatible with existing or potential uses of adjoining or nearby sites, in that conditions of approval ensure that lighting, noise, construction hours and delivery hours will be coordinated to create harmony with residential neighbors. 4131 El Camino Real - Findings and Conditions Page 2 of 11 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 C. Conditions of Project Approval, 4131 El Camino Real (00-D-2, 00-V-4) The plans submitted for Building Permit shall be in substantial conformance with plans dated June 28, 2000. The mitigation measures identified in the Environmental Impact Assessment/Mitigated Negative Declaration which have not been incorporated into plans dated June 28, 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. EIA Mitigation Measures~ 4131 El Camino Real Mitigation Measure #1: An additional street tree and City approved grate .shall be installed on E1 Camino Real prior to issuance of occupancy permits, between the proposed curb cut and the existing tree directly south of the existing driveway, to mitigate potential light and glare impacts from the two story storefront windows. Mitigation Measure #2: Parking lot lighting shall shielded so that the light will not extend beyond the site and the source of light will not be directly visible from adjoining roadways. Interior lighting systems that employ timing and shading devices to meet City requirements shall be installed in conjunction with tenant improvements. Mitigation Measure #3: 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 4131 E1 Camino Real - Findings and Conditions Page 3 of 11 -9f the State of California, is able to evaluate the site and make further recommendations and be involved in mitigation planning. Mitigation Measure #4: The proposed residential uses will include the appropriate noise attenuation barriers, pursuant to recommendation of the Noise Assessment Study, around required balcony and usable deck areas, 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 required design changes, to be reviewed by the City’s Architectural Review Board. Mitigation Measure #5: The windows on residential unit walls facing E1 Camino Real and on residential walls having a side view of E1 Camino Real shall be rated minimum Sound Transmission Class 27 and mechanical ventilation shall be provided to those units to enable the tenants to keep them closed at all times. Planning Division Conditions 1. 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 unnecessarv 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. The proposed new mechanical equipment shall comply with the PAMC Noise Ordinance 9.10. The specifications On the pole lights 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. In conformance with the City’s Below Market Rate (BMR) requirements (Program H-20 of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan), a lump sum payment in-lieu of the provision of BMR housing shall be paid to the City for deposit in the Residential Housing In-Lieu Fund. The BMR in-lieu payment shall be paid by Owner prior to occupancy of any portion of the project. The amount of this payment shall be 4.50% times the fair market value of the residential portion of the project (the eight rental apartments). The fair market value of the 8-rental units shall be determined by an independent appraiser selected by the City and the appraisal costs shall be paid for by the Owner. An Agreement, satisfactory to the City 4131 El Camino Real - Findings and Conditions Page 4 of 11 Attorney, shall be prepared and executed by the Owner prior to issuance of any building permit for the project. Color chips to match the colors specified in the building permit drawings shall be attached to the cover sheet of the building permit drawing set by the Project Planner. Section 16.48.120 (a)12 and (c). o The approved building materials and color scheme shall be shown on building permit drawings for all buildings, patios, fences, utilitarian enclosures and other landscape features. o Signs (not included in this proposal) require a separate application. Sec.16.48.050a, Sec.16.48.120a (14), Section 16.48.120(c). The owner shall develop an overall sign program for this property. Sec. 16.48.120(c) 1. Planning Arborist Conditions 9. All public trees to be retained on the approved tree inventory or landscape plan .dated June 28, 2000, shall be protected during construction per the Palo Alto Standard Tree Protection Measures. These measures shall be printed on the plans and referenced on the demolition, grading, utility, landscaping and irrigation sheets. 10.Tree Protection Statement: A written statement shall be provided to the Building Department verifying that protective fencing for the trees is in place before demolition or grading or building permit issuance, unless otherwise approved by the City Arborist. 11.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. 12.Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, the Planning Department shall be in receipt of written verification that the Landscape Arctfitect has inspected all trees, shrubs, planting and irrigation and that they are installed and functioning as specified in the approved plans. Transportation Division Conditions 13. An encroachment permit from Caltrans is required for any work or traffic control measure proposed to take place on the State right-of-way. To apply for a permit, the applicant will need to submit a completed application form, environmental documentation, and five sets of plans, in metric units with the State right-of-way clearly depicted, to the following address: G.J. Battaglini, District Office Chief, Caltrans District 4, Office of Permits, P.O. Box 23660, Oakland, CA 94623-0660. 4131 El Camino Real - Findings and Conditions Page 5 of 11 14.Sheet L-1 should refer to Class I bicycle storage in the small enclosure along E1 Camino Way. 15.A detail showing placement of racks near the lobby door shall be provide (it is not clear as shown on sheet A2.1) 16.The make and model of locke~s and racks must be shown on plans. Building Division Conditions 17. 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. Fire Department Conditions 18, A fire sprinkler system shall be provided which meets the requirements of NFPA Standard No. 13, 1996 Edition, (PAMC15.04.160). Fire Sprinkler system installations require separate submittal to the Fire Prevention Bureau, (PAMC 15.04.083). 19.An approved audible sprinkler flow alarm to alert the occupant shall be provided in the interior of the building in an approved location (98CBC904.3.2). Smoke detection shall be provided for each building containing residential occupancies in accordance with the 1998 Cal. Fire Code and NFPA Standard No. 72 - 1996 Edition. Fire Alarm system installations or modifications require separate submittal to the Fire Prevention Bureau. (PAMC 15.04.083) 20.Underground fire supply system installations or modifications require separate submittal to the Fire Prevention Bureau (PAMC15.04.083), Public Works Department and the Utilities Department. 21.An approved standpipe system for the parking garage shall be combined with the sprinkler system, and shall meet the reqairements of NFPA Standard No. 14 - 1996 Edition. Standpipe system installations require separate submittal to the Fire Prevention Bureau. (PAMC 15.04.083) 22.Elevator car shall be sized for Fire Department gurney access requirements based on gurney dimensions of 24" x 82" plus a minimum of two emergency response personnel. (PAMC 15.04.120) Utilities Department Conditions 4131 El Camino Real - Findings and Conditions Page 6 of 11 Utilities Marketing Division 23. All common area landscaping is required by the Utilities Marketing Services division of the Utilities Department to be capable of being irrigated by a Maximum Water Allowance as defined in the Landscape Water Efficiency Standards for the City of Palo Alto. All other applicable requirements of the Standards must be met. Contact Beth O’Connor at 329-2549. A Landscape Water Use statement, water use calculations and a statement of design intent shall be submitted in addition to the irrigation plan (which shall include an irrigation schedule.) Utilities WGW Division 24. All utility installations shall be in accordance with the City of Palo Alto Utility Standards for Water, Gas & Wastewater. 25.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. 26.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). 27.The applicant shall show on the site plan the existence of any water welt, or auxiliary water supply. 28.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. 29.The applicant’s contractor shall not be allowed to begin work until the utility improvement plans hav.e been approved by the Water, Gas and Wastewater Engineering Division and hll utilities conditions are met. 30.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 Engineering Electrical Division 31.The customer shall install all electrical substructures required from the new electric service and the switchboard according to the CPA Electric Service Requirements Manual, 1999. Text portion of this manual can be viewed in Palo Alto’s website. A detailed and complete load data (load-sheet) shall be submitted 4131 El Camino Real - Findings and Conditions Page 7 of 11 to the Engineering Division along with a site plan when applying for the building permit. 32.The permit-tee shall be responsible for identification and location of all utilities, both private and public, within the work area. Prior to any excavation, the permittee or his contractor shall contact Underground Service Alert @ 1-800-642- 2444, at least 48 hours in advance to help locate all underground utilities. 33.All other required utilities shall be shown in the site plan and no conflict shall occur between the utilities and landscape item. All easement for utility service equipment, transformer, switches, etc:, shall be arranged and granted by the owner as per conditions in the initial submittals on this project, including a 10 foot public utility easement on the southeast project boundary (see drawing A2.1). 34.The consultant/applicant will coordinate and bring to the notice of Utilities Engineering Division for any conflict from the other conditions to this project from other City of Palo Alto Departments. Public Works Department Public Works Operations/Recycling Division 35.136 sq.ft, trashroom for 2 yard(3) mixed paper, 2 yard(3) cardboard, and 4 yard (3) trash should be adequate. Toters for newspaper and beverage containers are located outside trash room in the side setback. It is recommended that recycling containers for beverage containers be placed near trash receptacles in the plaza (two or three strategically placed) that complement the plaza design. 36.A solid waste management and recycling plan must be implemented and completed. Public Works Engineering Conditions 37.The applicant shall meet with Public Works Engineering (PWE) to verify the basic design parameters affecting grading, drainage and surface water filtration and submit a final grading and drainage plan to Public Works Engineering for approval. In order to address potential storm water quality impacts, the plan shall identify the Best Management Practices to be incorporated into the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan required for the project. The SWPPP shall include both temporary BMP’s to be implemented during construction and permanent BMP’s to be incorporated into the project to protect storm water quality. The PWE approved grading and drainage plan shall be incorporated into the building permit plans. A note on plan shall require catch basins to have stencils "no dumping, flows to Barron Creek". Drainage from the basement to connect into the Sanitary Sewer 4131 E1 Camino Real - Findings and Conditions Page 8 of 11 shall be shown on the plan. The plan shall note the cover provided over the trash area. 38. 39. 40. 41. 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 of Palo Alto’s Trucks and Truck Route Ordinance, Chapter 10.48, and City route map which outlines truck routes available throughout the Cit.y 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 requir6d in conjunction with the applicant’s submittal for Building Permits. A handout articulating these and other requirements for a construction logistics plan is available from PWE. Existing storm drain main lines in the area may be unable to convey the peak runoff from the project site. The applicant may be required to provide storm water detention on site to lessen the project’s impact on city storm drains. The applicant’s engineer shall provide storm drain flow calculations for the determination of the impact of this proposed development on the city storm drain system. The calculations must be signed and stamped by a registered civil engineer. A Grading and Excavation Permit issued by the CPA Building Inspection Division is required for the proposed project. Phased projects which include issuance of a separate grading permit will involve phased approval of utilities. Grading permit plans will only authorize grading and storm drain improvements. Other site utilities may be shown on the grading plan for reference only and should be so noted. No utilities infrastructure should be shown inside the building footprint. Installation of these other utilities will only be approved as part of a subsequent building permit application. Three wet stamped, ~igned copies of a Soils Report must be submitted with the plans that includes the subsurface construction proposed for the underground parking garage. This report shall be prepared.by a licensed soils or geotechnical engineer. This report shall identify the current groundwater level, if encountered, and by using other available information as well as their professional experience, the engineer shall also project, the highest groundwater level likely to be encountered in the future. It must be insured that any retaining wall drainage system is placed above this highest projected level. The design engineer, working with this information, shall make specific recommendations regarding waterproofing and structural enhancements required to the retaining wall to prevent groundwater seepage based on this projected highest water level and the 4131 El Camino Real - Findings and Conditions Page 9 of 11 depth of construction. If the proposed subgrade structure is above the projected highest water level, then the basement may be constructed in a conventional manner with a subsurface peripheral drainage system to relieve hydrostatic pressure. No pumping of groundwater is permitted. 42.The sidewalk associated with a new driveway alignment shall be replaced with a thickened section as required to CPA Public Works Department standards. Any existing driveway to be abandoned shall be replaced with standard curb & gutter. A note of this requirement shall be placed on the plans adjacent to the area on the site plan. 43.The applicant is required to submit a drainage plan showing existing and proposed drainage of the site. This plan shall show the existing affected off-site storm drainage and provide showing how this system will handle the proposed site run- off. This plan should show spot elevations of existing and proposed grades showing how drainage patterns work. Existing drainage from adjacent properties shall be maintained. In no case shall the final grading increase the sheet flow onto adj acent properties. 44.The ramp for the subgrade parking garage should be designed to be covered or bermed so that storm water from the street will not flow down the ramp. The Designer may propose an equivalent system in lieu of a covered dock. 45.Adjacent to all new drainage inlets, paint the "No Dumping/Flows to Barron Creek" logo in blue color on a white background as shown on the attached sheet. Stencils of the logo are available from the Public Works Environmental Compliance Division, which may be contacted at (650) 329-2598. A deposit may be required to secure the return of the stencil. Include this requireme.nt on the construction grading and drainage plan. Include maintenance of these logos in the Hazardous Materials Management Plan if such a plan is part of this project. 46.Tree protection to City trees must be provided to the satisfaction of the CPA Arborist (650/496-6974). The Applicant must have written approval of the CPA Arborist for any street tiee removal, installation or performing any excavation work within ten feet of a street tree. This written approval shall be available at the time of Building Permit submission. 47.Construction conducted within the city right-of way and the E1 Camino Real sidewalk must have a Permit for Construction in the Street must be obtained from the CPA Public Works Department prior to commencement of work. Any construction within CPA right of way, easements or other property controlled by the City of Palo Alto (El Camino Way sidewalk) must conform to standards established in the CPA Standard Specifications for the Utilities Department and the Public Works Department. The plans for off-site work in the Caltrans right-0f- 4131 El Camino Real - Findings and Conditions Page 10 of 11 48. 49. 50. way must be ~’eviewed and approved by Caltrans as a condition of approval by the Public Works Department. A Performance Bond will be required to secure the repair of existing public right- of-way improvements and/or the installation of new improvements which are part of this project. Proposed development could result in a change in the impervious area on the property, which would affect the monthly storm drainage fee. The Applicant must provide calculations showing the impervious area with the building permit application. The fee adjustment will take place in the month following the final approval of the construction by the Building Inspection Division. Forms for this calculation are available from Public Works-Engineering. 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. 51. 52. The Applicant will be required to obtain an Encroachment Permit from the. California Department of Transportation if any lane closures are needed on E1 Camino Real in performance of this work. The following details shall be submitted for ARB review and approval: the exterior lighting plan, details regarding the glass and glazing with a related solar study, stair railing details, an enhanced landscape plan taking results of wind studies into account, and details of the private residential second floor plinth. 4131 El Camino Real - Findings and Conditions Page 11 of 11 Attachment 4 Attachment 4: Architectural Review Board Summary Minutes Excerpt of ARB Meeting Minutes of September 21, 2000 Agenda Item #5,4131 E1 Camino Real 4131 El Camino Real [00-D-2, 00-V-4, 00-EIA-6]: Request by Hayes Group on behalf of Fred Barez for Architectural Review Board review and recommendation to the City Council for a Site and ’Design application for construction of a three-story building and site improvements to establish a mixed use project on irregular shaped CN zoned lot. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Architectural Review Board recommend approval of the Site and Design application, based upon the Site and Design Findings (Attachment 5) and Architectural Review Board Findings (Attachment 6) and 1 subject to Conditions of Approval (Attachment 7). Public Testimony: None. Architectural Review Board Action: The Board recommended approval of the project based upon staff recommended findings and conditions, with an additional condition to return to the ARB on consent to address exterior lighting, provide solar and wind studies, details on the glass, glazing and stair railing, enhanced landscape plan for plaza and residential common deck (4-0-0-0, Boardmember Peterson moved seconded by Boardmember Lippert.) Summary of Member’s Comments Drew Maran:Noted it is an attractive project and that a study of environmental systems, materials and energy use is recommended.. Joseph Bellomo: Noted benefits of an acoustical study and solar study, and suggested corltacting PG&E to address their concerns. Described an exterior scrim system on glass he saw in Berlin that would provide control. Noted that it is a details-driven project and attention should be given to nodes of entry and the issue of solar gain. Stated that landscaping, lighting and the corner entry components such as the E1 Camino Way stairs, need definition. Suggested that the common deck is a private streetscape and the idea of porch or vestibule for each unit to divide the space up a bit. Lee Lippert: Agreed with J. Bellomo’s comments, and noted that the plaza is not quite there yet, in terms of landscaping and that the palm trees are a little "gimicky", that the landscape should serve residents. Noted that sun control is needed on the glass volume and the "plinth" area needs guidance and presents an opportunity for architectural control. Bob Peterson: Noted the circulation is intuitive and natural, and stated his support for the variances. Stated that the materials and forms are well thought out, but there needs to be more landscaping on the plaza. Described how the glass "prow" will be a sun problem and suggested using an exterior system, such as bamboo or fritted glass. Excerpt Architectural Review Board Minutes of 9/21/00 Page 1 of 1 Attachment 5 Attachment 5: Planning Commission Verbatim Minutes :MEETINGS ARE CABLECAST LIVE ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL 16 September 13, 2000 ADJOURNED MEETING- 8:00 PM City Council Chambers Civic Center, 1st Floor 250 Hamilton Avenue Paio Alto, California 94301 ROLL CALL: Commissioners: Annette Bialson, Chair Patrick Burt, Vice-Chair Jon Schink Kathy Schmidt Owen Byrd - absent Phyllis Cassel Bonnie Packer Staff: Lisa Grote, Chief Planning Official Wynne Furth, Senior Assist. City Attorney Amy French, Acting Senior Planner Zariah Betten, Executive Secretary Chairman Bialson: This is a continuation of the meeting that was held last Wednesday night. Could you please take the roll. Tonight we only have one item before us and that is Agenda Item number one. Can we have a report from Staff’?, NEW BUSINESS. Public Hearings: 4131 El Camino Real*: [File Nos: 00-D-2~ 00-EIA-6~ 00-V-4|: Request by Hayes Group on behalf of Fred Barez for Site and Design review of a three story building and site improvements to establish a mixed use project on irregular shaped CN zoned lot. The proposed 16,127 sq.ft, mixed use building would be comprised of commercial area on first and second floors and eight attached single family residential rental units (one and two- bedroom) on the second and third floors. The proposed 8,311 sq.ft, of commercial area would include second floor office area (2,080 sq.ft.) and first floor retail and services Planning and Transportation Commission Excerpt Minutes of 9/13/00 Page 1 of 11 (5,847 sq.ft.). Variances are requested for first floor commercial floor encroachments into front and rear setbacks established in the RM-15 zoning district, and rear daylight plane encroachments. The proposed parking facilities are accessible from El Camino Real and E1 Camino Way arid include 27 underground spaces and 10 surface spaces. Environmental Assessment: An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration has been proposed in accordance with CEQA guidelines (this document anticipates the potqntial Subdivision). This item is tentatively scheduled for a public hearing with the Architectural Review Board on September 21, 2000 and a public hearing with the City Council tentatively scheduled for October 16, 2000. Ms. Amy French, Acting Senior Planner: Yes, good evening. Staff recommends approval of this site and design application and approval of the requested variance for setback and daylight plane encroachments. In your report, Attachments 5 and 6 of the Staff report contain the necessary findings in order to approve these applications. Attachment 7 includes the Draft Conditions of Approval. The project will be going on to the Architectural Review Board next week, on the 21st, and it also is tentatively scheduled to go before Council on November 6 and possibly that would be postponed to November 13 due to elections. The ARB did review preliminary plans back on November 18, 1999. Verbatim minutes are attached to your report. The ARB supported the project including the daylight plane and setback encroachments. The ARB appreciated the design, the location of the deck on E1 Camino Way for common use by the residential tenants. They appreciated the various frontages reflecting the speed of travel: the more pedestrian E1 Camino Way and E1 Camino Real with more of a vehicle orientation. The ARB’s comments have been addressed by the use of inventive building materials, the provision of security and multiple stairways for the residential units, increasing the sunlight into the plaza area, and providing amenities to draw people into the plaza. The articulation of hardscape is another one of those items that the ARB was interested in seeing and that has also been incorporated out into the parking lot from the plaza. There has been an Environmental Impact Assessment and Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared and circulated. We received just one comment from the public today, from a member, which I believe you have at your places. Their concern is just basically around use and encouraging retail use on the ground floor and neighborhood serving commercial uses.’ I am available for questions and I’know the applicant is interested in presenting the project to you. Chairman Bialson: Do the Commission members have any questions for Staff at this time? I think we will have the applicant present. You have 15 minutes and we look forward to your presentation. Mr. Ken Hayes, Hayes Group Architects, 210 High Street, Palo Alto: Good evening Chairman and Members of the Commission. I’ll be presenting the project tonight on behalf of Fred Barez, the owner of the project. He is here in the audience and will be happy to answer questions if you should have any. Also here tonight is Brent Cottong and Taniguchi Landscape Architects. He would be happy to answer any questions. The presentation will basically focus on the architectural aspects, but we do have a landscape plan if you have any questions you want to address. We’d be happy to answer those. Planning and Transportation Commission Excerpt Minutes of 9/13/00 Page 2 of 11 I would also like to thank those members of the Commission that met with Fred Barez and myself a few months ago to review the project in a little bit more detail than time would permit tonight. What I would like to do is talk briefly about the owner’s goals and objectives for the proje’ct, and then talk about the site context, circulation and parking, the building concept, materials for the building and thenwrap it up with my input on the variance request at the end. There is a model up front and I invite all of you to look at that. The owner’s goals were to basically create a mixed-use project for long-term ownership that he would have both apartments and commercial space incorporated within. It would also have commercial areas that would respond and serve the community and the neighborhood adjacent to the site. He also wanted to work within the CN and RM-15 guidelines applicable in that area. There had been previous proposals that were looking for PC’s and other kinds of requests. It is now a goal to work within the CN and RM-15 guidelines as best we can. In terms of the site context, I have a site photograph here. This is probably better than the overhead. I have some photographs that, if you haven’t gone out to the site. I would love for you to pass those around. The site is essentially here in green. This is northbound on E1 Camino, E1 Camino is a divided highway at that point with a median strip in the center. This is James Avenue coming in here which serves kind of a mixed-use neighborhood right now. There are commercial and residential units back in this area and then eventually it evolves into a residential neighborhood. Across the street from the site, I believe it is here, there is the new multi-family for sale development that has just gone in. The adjacent parcel is a couple of apartments and a closed restaurant and there was a bar on the property right here. There is a signal up here at E1 Camino Way on the back side and there is a signal right here at the southern comer of E1 Camino Way. So E1 Camino Way kind of wraps behind the site and E1 Camino Real in front. E1 Camino Real obviously is a much more urban and commercial oriented strip where the area to the back of the site is much more residential in character. One wonderful site feature on the rear of the site, which is nice because it faces the residential, is this wonderful row of Chinese Elm Trees. You can see on the model they are enormous, about 50-60 feet tall probably. In terms of pedestrian flow, there is a bus stop on this comer here. We’ve gone out to the site and done some pedestrian circulation studies. Most people are walking on the back side, on the E1 Camino Way side, when they traverse this area to get to the bus stop or to the shopping center down here. In the course of a day, and we were out there for three days, one person actually bisected the site and walked throu.gh the site. And maybe two people were out here on E1 Camino Real and I think one of them was a cyclist. So by and large most of the pedestrian activity, bicycle and foot traffic, occurs along E1 Camino Way at the rear of the site. In terms of circulation or approach to the site, very important elements that we kept in mind when addressing the site were site identity and building identity when traveling along E1 Camino Real in an automobile. Once on the site we wanted the vehicles to stay on the site and not have to wander looking for parking. On-grade parking was a must because we figured that someone that’s driving there to go to a commercial use on the ground floor would want a place that is convenient to park and they would first look for that onsite. There is below grade parking as you can see in the Staff report. And then pedestrian linkages were very important. As I’ve said, the bus stop is down here, North E1 Camino is this way, E1 Camino Way is at the back, so this is Planning and Transportation Commission Excerpt Minutes of 9/13/00 Page 3 of 11 where all the people are walking and we began to figure out ways for them to get into the site. I’ll talk about those briefly. In terms of travelling in a car, the ARB went through this, it was a very difficult one and we arrived at this solution. Northbound we want to be able to see the building first, identify where you are going and so you are passing it by, and you would turn in basically at this entry point. At that point you can park on-grade or go down to the subterranean parking. For exiting purposes you can exit back onto E1 Camino and head northbound to the north stoplight or you can go out here and turn on E1 Camino Way and head down to the southern stoplight at E1 Camino Real down at the other end. So we felt like that circulation pattern made a lot of sense and it afforded us the opportunity to put some parking on this wider portion of the site. In terms of pedestrian circulation, as I said there is lots of pedestrian around the back. We felt it was very important to introduce visual queues to them and also pathways to get through the edge of the building on this side into what we’re creating here as a public plaza for the project. It was also important to divide the space into public and private. Public, hoping people would use the space. There is retail on the ground floor, commercial on the ground floor and we’re trying to make it a very interesting place but there are also residents up above. So the circulation for the people that live there is from a stair back here. Then they can travel at terrace level. Once they are at their terrace or podium level, the gray are residential units, they have this whole terrace above grade which serves as their required open space and also their kind of level of privacy above ground. They all have their own private balconies as well. This pedestrian link comes out over here at the southern end of the site to E1 Camino so that if they want to go that way to shop or to the bus stop that was very easy. So the private circulation kind of goes through the site like this but they also have an opportunity to come down a main feature stair here so they car,. participate at what happens at that center plaza area. As I said before, the public circulation would be limited primarily to what’s happening at grade. In terms of the building concept, the model helped me the most as we evolved. The concept was to break the building into two pieces essentially and raise and lower those pieces as they respond to the site forces and carve the building out to create visual interest and public space. So because of the two faces of the street, E1 Camino Way and E1 Camino Real, it made sense that along E1 Camino Real we create a little bit harder edge some thing that reinforces that corridor. So we are doing that with the introduction of trees but also the building line at that point is two stories. It is commercial on the ground floor, it’s commercial office on the second floor. As you move to the rear of the site it has a markedly different character and it looks more residential in quality and in scale. We have pitched roofs on the backside and more articulation in the building wall. This also creates separate individual entries as well as opportunities for balconies that are off of the second floor of the units. The units are all townhouse-style. They are all two stories. There are eight of them, six two-bedroom and two ox~e-bedroom units, and they all can participate in this outdoor area here. Some of the comments from ARB at preliminary were was there a way to reduce the extent of that terrace level above grade. Previously this line came straight through. So at the preliminary ARB we incorporated this idea, on the backside, to create a concrete trellis or something where we can get things growing. It begins to kind of get some dappled light through and down to the ground there and create some interest for people to enter the building at that point. We also raised the building up so that at this location here and here, you in fact when you are at the terrace level can see through the building into this courtyard. When you are at the Planning and Transportation commission Excerpt Minutes of 9/13/00 Page 4 of 11 ground floor level you can see through into the courtyard as well. That’s the passageway that you see through right there at that location. In terms of materials for the project they are a little bit varied trying to respond to the site forces. Along E1 Camino Real again we have a combination of metal panels, Along E1 Camino Real this portion of the building is intended to have a storefront system with clear.glazing and metal panels. You can see the metal panels here and it would be clear glazing in an anodized finish. This main element here that is raised above the level of what we are calling the podium here would be a cement plaster with the storefront window system in the same finish. So there is some continuity in the frame-finish of the windows. As it moves toward the plaza we felt like we really wanted to bring people in and create a knuckle here on the comer. That is a two-story glass space that we’re hoping will kind of be the feature tenant located in the building. In fact, as you’re passing by out on the street you can actually see through the building into that courtyard. As the building moves around to the residential side .... yes? Chairman Bialson: I notice that the public cannot see what you are presenting to us. I invite those members of the public who would like to see this to perhaps stand on this side, you can stand behind us, or to the side. I apologize for not mentioning this earlier. Mr. Hayes: So on the residential side we have the pitched roofs in the back. We have the residential units above this podium level. The podium level and down which is where the commercial retail will be consists of probably concrete with an integral colored finish, probably sandblasted and then lots of glass on that ground floor for the retail use. This is where you would walk through. The residences above have a little bit more residential forms and we’re,- using some more variations of colors to try to create some more interest and articulation in that ~ fagade. The colors are on your color board there and we’re using pretty much the variety of them. This color here at the bottom is the sandblasted concrete then we have kind of a matching dark green. Then the Staff described this a pumpkin color that would be this element here. Then here are portions in the building where we have expressed those colors as they wraparound to the backside. Are you interested in the plans of the units at all or should I just move on to closing? Chairman Bialson: I think you should move on to closing. You only have about a minute left. Mr. Hayes: Several months ago I came and spoke to you about my concerns with the application of the CN zoning ordinance in mixed-use developments. At that time I said the ordinance was inconsistent With the Comprehensive Plan since it serves to discourage residential development rather than encourage them. There are three incentives that are provided though, in the ordinance, FAR, building height and an exception in shared parking. Disincentives are basically what prevail after that. In this case, where we have an underlying CN zone, since the project is a mixed-use residential and commercial project the RM-15 guidelines are overlayed and basically supercede the CN guidelines. I have a drawing here that can compare the two. Basically this is what would be allowed with the CN guidelines but as soon as we want to put residential on top our building envelope gets reduced to this portion here. Same thing occurs here. This is the CN guideline. As soon as we do mixed-use this becomes what you can develop. So this is why we are asking for the variance. We believe, as Staff does, that the findings can be made for the Planning and Transportation Commission Excerpt Minutes of 9/13/00 Page 5 of 11 requested variances since the site dimensions, trapezoidal configuration and double street orientation, front and back. We believe that the double street orientation presents and exceptional or extraordinary circumstances that do not generally apply to property in the same district. We believe that the granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental or injurious to the property or improvements in the area. So I look forward to a favorable review, to ARB and City Council. Thank you. Chairman Bialson: Thank you. Are there any Commission members that have questions of the applicant? I see none right now. I think we should go to the public comments. I have one card. You’ll have five minutes to speak. Our speaker is Jean Olmstead. Ms. Jean Olmstead, 240 West Charleston, Palo Alto: I’m a member of the Charleston Meadows Neighborhood Association Board. I’m here tonight to read the letter that Deborah Ju sent in, she was unable to come. What we really want you to do is. to make sure ,that some of these retail services are neighborhood serving. They are things that we can walk to. My own favorite idea would be a small market. We still miss the All American Market that used to be nearby. I’ll read this quickly because I realize you may have already read it. I understand this is the procedure. Charleston Meadows Association represents the resident’s of Charleston Meadows 1 & 2 extending from Meadow Avenue to Adobe Creek and from Park Boulevard to E1 Camino. We didn’t know about this meeting tonight until very recently. We, therefore, haven’t studied-the plans for the project completely and can’t really comment on them generally. We have one concern at this time which we urge you to consider. The area of South Palo Alto has a severe shortage of neighborhood serving commercial use with the exception of Jamba Juice which recently opened across E1 Camino from the island. There are few if any commercial establishments which people living in this area can walk to. Rather, we have to get in our cars and drive in order to get groceries or a cup of coffee or even an’ice cream cone. We need places which we can walk to and our children can bicycle to with friends. This would help establish what the Comprehensive Plan promotes as a walkable neighborhood. Accordingly, we urge that the retail use on the ground floor of this project be developed in this manner. Thank you. Chairman Bialson: Thank you. Are there any other members of the public here to speak? Great. Ms. Gee Gee Lenhart, 3850 Magnolia Drive, Palo Alto: As you know I have been coming to Planning Commission meetings and City Council meetings and Board meetings this. I’ve been wondering why everything happens in the middle of summer before everybody comes back. I’ve been reading the local papers and I really wasn’t aware of this whole project. I don’t know where I’ve been but I think I’ve been right here reading the paper every day. I think it is amazing that all of this is ready to voted on and I wonder how many other people don’t know what’s happening. I’m very concerned about the East Meadow and E1 Camino Way since the senior center is there and everything else has gone in there it has become very difficult to get through that area. As Planning and Transportation Commission Excerpt Minutes of9/13/00 Page 6 of 11 _you know, Luck?)’s Store/Albertson’s wants to develop over there and that is going to be a. channel to go back and forth. In thinking about this new project, first of all I’d like to comment that I don’t think that rust and brown are Northern California colors. They are E1 Paso colors. I’m really tired of E1 Camino becoming a great big brown drab area of all these mustard colored places. I hope you look into that as you plan the future. Secondly, I hope that this particular area does make for walking and shopping for us. Over the long term we’ve lost a lot of little shops on E1 Camino because of zoning changes and as has been said before, we are a desolate area when it comes to just regular little shopping. I hope you have some grocerystore thoughtsfor this area in addition to Albertson’s. I hope there are other little things that we have close by. You’ll think of the neighborhood. I don’t think we need any more offices there. I’d like to see this be a little lower but maybe I’m just way too late. You’re probably all ready to vote this thing in but I would like to see it one story shorter and lots more little shops for walking and meeting in our neighborhood. It is a great place for it. I think it is a terrible place to live. I would never be caught living there. Good luck. Chairman Bialson: Thank you. Any other members of the public? Seeing none, I’ll close the public comment period and turn this back to the applicant. Does the applicant have any closing comments? The applicant indicates that he doesn’t, so I’ll close the public hearing. Are there some comments that the Commissioners which to make at this time? Thank you Phyllis. Commissioner Cassel: I need to report that I met with the applicant to review this project. Commissioner Schmidt: I did also. Commissioner Packer: I did also. Chairman Bialson: Okay, so that is Phyllis, Kathy and Bonnie. No one else? Can I have one of the Commission members kick off’the discussion about this? If we don’t have any discussion do we want to vote? Commissioner Cassel: I can make a motion and then we can discuss it from there. Chairman Bialson: Go ahead. Commissioner Cassel: I’d like to move the Staff report including the attached findings, the conditions of approval and the approval for the variance application. Commissioner Schmidt: I’ll second that. Chairman Bialson: Any comments? Do you want to speak to the motion? Commissioner Cassel: This is really a very nice project. There are people living in a mixed-use project across the street on E1 Camino Way. It does indeed have a very unusual shape. When we make our findings for .the variance it is such an unusual piece of property it is required. We have a similar piece on the other end of this island. But it is not in general use in a CN district to have this kind of an unusual arrangement of a street in front and a street in back of a piece of property with kind of a trapezoidal shape. The mixed-use is already pres.ent in this Planning and Transportation Commission Excerpt Minutes of 9/13/00 Page 7 of 11 neighborhood. We’ve been looking for a way to work this out and we have already found it difficult as we have worked with other projects to put a mixed-use project together.The variances requested for this are minimal. Chairman Bialson: Anyone else care to speak? Kathy? Commissioner Schmidt: I like this project a lot and I appreciate the applicant’s persistence in trying different scales of projects and going to the ARB a few times and finally coming up with what I think is a very nicely designed and interesting project. I think it will be a great addition to the E1 Camino island there. It is an area that we have hoped to revitalized. As you know we did a charette in this area to really bring this together as a focal point in the area. It would be nice if more pieces of property could be involved in this but this is a very nice start. This project by itself does the kinds of things we hoped would happen on the island. Bringing a public place into the center of it really inviting people into it from both sides, I think it is a very nicely designed project. I think it is a very difficult site too. It is narrow, odd-shaped and has streets on both sides. So I think that the findings for variance are easy to make with this shaped property in this location. I think also just the planning of the project with the commercial and office toward E1 Camino and the residential toward the more residential street with the nicely developed more mature trees and the real walking area fits very well. I appreciate the architect showing the difficulty of our current zoning ordinances in dealing with mixed-use projects. It helps illustrate why very soon we will be tackling changing or at least evaluating and hopefully changing some of the existing requirements of the zoning ordinance. Chairman Bialson: Anyone else? Jon. Commissioner Schink: I would agree with the comments that Phyllis and Kathy have made. I only wish to add that the architect has done a wonderful job detailing this project. That will add to the pedestrian experience that some of the neighbors are looking forward to. Right down to the clear glass windows which make it a much more pedestrian friendly building. So I will look forward to seeing it completed. Chairman Bialson: Bonnie. Commissioner Packer: I agree with all the comments of my colleagues. Having a mixed-use on this site allows for much more interesting shape on the site instead of the box that could have been there. That’s really exciting. I’m looking forward to see how the plaza will be used. I hope people do walk from the residential neighborhood and depending on what market forces there are that that would ultimately decide how the retail space is used, there will be something there for people to walk to and make that public space a useful space. I suppose the size of it, any retail establishment would be dictated by the limited amount of ground parking spaces. That’s understandable. I think it’s a really nice project and will really be a great addition to the neighborhood. Commissioner Burt: I concur with the comments of my fellow Commissioners. I have just a couple of questions actually. The retail use, what would be allowed under the existing zoning? Planning and Transportation Commission Excerpt Minutes of 9/13/00 Page 8 of 11 Ms. Frenchi There is no restriction as to type of retail. The two types of retail are intensive and extensive. Extensive would be such things as a furniture store or something like that. The spaces that are proposed are more likely to lend themselves to the intensive or standard retail shops. Neighborhood services and personal services are also allowed. There is a limitation as to sizes (the amount of square footage for office). That is 5,000 square feet. In your Staff report there is a chart, I can refer you to the page if you’re interested in the actual numbers, page 11. Commissioner Burt: My concerns are consistent with those raised by the Charleston Meadows Neighborhood Association. The Comp Plan in program L-32 really make an emphasis about the E1 Camino Way triangle there and that it should be a neighborhood focal point. Was there any consideration of how the retail uses would contribute to it being a neighborhood focal point as opposed to other retail uses that will probably occur there if it is not zoned for neighborhood serving retail? Ms. Lisa Grote, Chief Planning Official: The zoning ordinance, the CN Zone, doesn’t currently distinguish between different kinds of retail services. So anything that it listed in the definition of retail services would be allowed in this building. Now the way the building is designed lends itself to pedestrian orientation. There are many doors that open out onto E1 Camino Real and it brings the building forward. It includes clear glass so people can see into it and kind of invites them in. So I think the combination of retail uses that are allowed as part of the definition of retail and then the way the building is designed will work in concert to make it a pedestrian serving kind of neighborhood oriented building. Commissioner Burt: One final question. The BMR requirement is listed as at least 10% of housing units. The Staff report allowed for an in lieu fee because there were less than 10. It seems that the interpretation of the BMR requirement by the Staff report more of an at most 10%. That since they are fewer than 10 housing units they necessarily would not be required to provide a BMR unit but instead can contribute to the in lieu fee. As I read the wording in the Comp Plan, it say at least 10%. Is there a reason that we are not pushing for one BMR unit to be provided here? Ms. Grote: It has been standard practice to accept the in lieu fee rather than have an onsite unit if there are fewer than 10 units in the overall development. The reason for that is if there is only one or perhaps two units required that it is difficult to manage those units. It is difficult to maintain them. And that it is often times more efficient to collect the in lieu fee and then apply that to a larger project elsewhere where the management becomes more efficient and more easily accomplished. So that’s been the rationale in the past. That’s what we applied to this project as well. Commissioner Burt: Does the in lieu fee adequately support a BMR unit? Ms. Grote: It is probably low in that respect. It is based on the formula that is in the Municipal Code. It could be reevaluated and probably should be reevaluated however, we’ve applied the fee that is in place at this point in time. Planning and Transportation Commission Excerpt Minutes of 9/13/00 Page 9 of 11 Ms. Wynne Furth, Senior Assistant City Attomev: We’ve applied the only fee we have a legal authority to apply. Because the BMR fees rise and fall partly in response to income levels they can get out of tune with property prices. That’s what has happened now. Commissioner Burt: Would we legally have a right to require a BMR unit in this circumstance. Ms. Furth: No. There is nothing in the Comprehensive Plan that would authorize us to require more than the equivalent of one-tenth, and that’s a partial unit, and for those we accept fees. Commissioner Burt: Program H-20 on the BMR says that it requires at least 10% of all housing units built in for sale projects of three units or more to be BMR. Ms. Furth: That is not authority to ask for more than 10%. It is written in an odd way. A typical situation when you get more than 10% is a PC zone, where one of the public benefits is an additional number. But we would have a very difficult time saying that because we ask for at least 10% we can have more. I don’t believe it is authority to do that. It means that we can certainly have more if we are negotiating or they are presenting an entire package and they are saying one of the reasons you should allow a PC district here is because we are providing more of a needed resource - housing. You’ve, in fact, approved a number of projects on that basis with more than 10%. This is of course a straight site and design review and we don’t have a basis for asking for more. Chairman Bialson: I absolutely agree with the other comments made by my fellow Commissioners up here. I find this to be an exciting project. I cannot wait until that area of E1 Camino Way and E1 Camino Real becomes a little less of an eyesore. So I would be happy to support the motion. I think we should take a vote at this time unless there are other comments. Ms. French: If I could add to your motion, could you perhaps amend your motion to include a recommendation for approval of the mitigated negative declaration based upon the findings. I’m sorry I neglected to make that clear in my recommendation. Commissioner Cassel: Of course. Commissioner Schmidt: Of’course. I’ll just accept that and second it. Commissioner Cassel: None of us happened to mention the underground parking in this project and that is really what makes this project possible. Most of the parking will be underground. It was one of the problems we were most concerned about when we worked on the Comp Plan was how do you park this site and have something decent come out of it. So I’m delighted to see the . underground parking for the offices and homes. Chairman Bialson: Are we ready for a vote now? Commissioner Schmidt: I just have one brief comment for the members of the public. Staff please correct me if I’m wrong, but project that come to us and projects that come to the Architectural Review Board are noticed in the Weekly two weeks prior to when they appear. So it would have appeared in the paper each time it went to the ARB. It was actually supposed to Planning and Transportation Commission Excerpt Minutes of 9/13/00 Page 10 of 11’ come before us two weeks ago. So it was in the paper four weeks ago. I believe the Daily also now tries to do a sort of miscellaneous article on projects that are coming up before various Boards and Commissions too. So these projects do appear in the paper and probably the clearest way y,>a can find them is to check in the Weekly in the section that describes what’s happening at all the Boards and Commissions and Council. Ms. Grote: To add to that, we also sent notices to all property owners and occupants within 300 feet of the perimeter of the site. Ms. Furth: Maybe most important of all, there are two more hearings on this project at which those who are interested in the neighborhood will have a chance to comment. Do you have those dates? Ms. French: Yes. Those dates are next Thursday, September 21 at 8:00am and that is the Architectural Review Board. The second meeting would be the City Council Meeting. Now that has been on the docket for November 6th but it is possible that it will be postponed to November 13th due to elections. It apparently has been happening each year if the Monday falls on the election night then that kicks the meeting dates around. So we are looking at a possible continuation to the 13th. Commissioner Burt: When I was involved with neighborhood associations, we were routinely notified and received packets on projects that were within the neighborhood or adjacent to it. Is that department policy to do that? If not, is that something that we could establish as policy? Ms. Grote: We can certainly establish that as policy. It hasn’t been except for unusually large projects. But we can certainly look at doing that. Commissioner Burt: Great. Chairman Bialson: Thank you Staff. Are we ready for a vote at this time? Great. All those in favor of the motion please say aye. (ayes) Any in opposition? Seeing none, that is unanimous with Commissioner Byrd not in attendance. Thank you very much to the applicant and those of thepublic who spoke. I have no other item numbers that we need to address at tonight’s meeting. Planning and Transportation Commission Excerpt Minutes of 9/13/00 Page 11 of 11 Attachment 6 April 18, 2000 Revised June 24, 2000 .RCH[TECTURE. "-~TE RIORS. LANNING. Zoning Administrator City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA RE:Variance Request Application And Project Description 4131 E! Camino Real To Whom It May Concern: The project site, 4131 El Camino Real, is a nearly vacant piece of land, located on a narrow strip of land, between El Camino Real to the west and E1 Camino Way to the east. The properties to the north and south are developed with a restaurant and a bar/lounge respectively. Across E~ Camino Real is a new Classic Communities housing project. Across El Camino Way are established businesses and apartment buildings. The site is in the CN-Commercial Neighborhood Zone. Residential development is permitted in this zone subject to the RM-15- Multifamily Zone requirements. This project Seeks three variances for setback and daylight plane, each of which arises from the application of the more stringent RM-15 Zone requirements to mixed use projects in this zone. If the project were solely a commercial development, the requirements of the CN Zone would be easily satisfied. These RM-15 development standards become applicable to a mixed-use project in the CN Zone and supercede the CN Zone development standards. If this project were not adding housing no variances would be necessary, as there is no daylight plane imposed and the only setback requirement is ten feet along El Camino Real. The project proposes eight one and two bedroom apartments located above first floor commercial space facing El Camino Way. The commercial space is intended to support neighborhood service businesses and shops on the first floor and office space on the second floor. The commercial space fac(s both streets and develops a community plaza at the center. Although a full level of underground parking is provided for the project, public transportation is readily available to the south of the site. This project provides the kind of mixed-use project that is envisioned by ihe Comprehensive Plan. 210 HIGH ST, PALO ALTO, CA 94301 EMAIL: HA~’EsGROUP@Aot..CO~,t FAX: 650,326.7440 TEL: 650.326.8787 Parking Summary: The required parking.for the project per PAMC 18.83.120 is as.follows." One Bedroom Units: 2 x 1.5 Two Bedroom Units: 6 x 12 Guest Parking: 1 + 8(. I) Office: 5000/250 Retail: 3311/350 Total parking = 3 spaces = 12 spaces = 1.8 ,spaces = 20 spacees = 9.46 spaces = 46.26 spaces Mixed use Parking reductim~ Per PAMC section 18.83. I20 ©: Reduction: .2(46.26) = 9.25 spaces; 46.26- 9.25 = 37 spaces. Since the project is mixed use and has a requirement.for more than 30 parking s’paces, this section allows for a reduction of tq~ to 20% from the application of the parking schedule. This project combines housing with the commercial use which should assume that some of the required parking J Or the housing will be empty ~htring the day, thus .fi’eeing up spaces for the commercial uses. A,Mitionally, since the proposed project is on El Camino Real, public t~zmsportation is immediately available for the use of workers and shoppers. There is a bus stop at the end of the block.. The project provides an open plaza on the grouml.floor with ample bicycle parking, pedestrian amenities and potential neighborhood services which we believe will encourage people to walk from #re neighborhood to visit the project. Because of the public transit, residential use, bicycle parking and neighborhood amenities, we are seekhtg the full 20% reduction itt parking Requested Variances: The project requires a variance for fi’ont yard setback. There is a ten-foot front yard setback in the CN Zone. The more stringent RM-15 development standards impose a twenty-five-foot front yard setback on the commercial component. The residential portions of the project comply with the twenty-five-foot setback; however, we are seeking a front yard setback of ten feet, as allowed under the CN Zone. Commercial sites to the north and south have front yard setbacks of ten feet or less. The project requires a variance for the rear yar~l’setback. There is no rear yard setback in the CN Zone. The more stringent RM-15 development standards impose a sixteen-foot rear yard setback on the commercial component. The residential portions of the project co~ply with the twenty-foot setback; however, we are seeking a rear yard setback of zero feet, as allowed under the CN Zone. The project requires a variance for the rear daylight plane. There is no daylight plane requirements in the CN Zone for this parcel since it is not adjacent to any property with a residential zone designation. Under the RM-15 Zone requirements, a daylight plane limits the building height to five feet at the property line and increasing at a 45-degree angle. This project cannot meet the daylight plane requirements, provide housing and open space for the housing at the housing level, and provide the allowed commercial space. Pursuant t~ Chapter 18.90, we present the three findings required for the granting of these variance: Variance Finding #1: There are excel)tional or exttztordinat3" circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved that do not apply generally to property i~t the same district. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to 4131 El Camino Real that do not apply generally to property in the CN Zone. The parcel is long and narrow, with its widest portion to the north and reducing in width to the south. El Camino Real borders the parcel to the west and El Camino Way to the east. This is an exceptional site with conditions described that generally do not apply to parcels in the CN Zone. Variance Finding #2 The granting of the application is necessat3’.¢br the preserwttion and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, attd to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship. The granting of the Application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right for.the owner of 4131 El Camino Real and to prevent unreasonable property loss or hardship. In the CN Zone there is a permitted FAR of .4 to 1.0, or 8,311 SF for Commercial, and .5 to 1.0, or 10,389 SF for Residential development. Other commercial development along El Camino Real enjoys ten-foot or less commercial setbacks, which are essential for the continuity and exposure of the retail businesses along this corridor. Doubling the setback to twenty feet reduces exposure and puts the retailers at a disadvantage to other retailers on neighboring properties. In order to enjoy the substantial property right pe~Tnitted other properties in the CN Zone; these variances for daylight plane and setback are necessary due to the narrowness of the parcel. Variance Finding #3 The gratttittg of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to properO, or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or com,enience. 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. Other establishments facing El Camino Real already have ten feet or less setbacks for commercial. Granting this application would not be detrimental to these properties. Daylight planes are intended to provide additional light and air to one’s property and neighboring properties not provided by setbacks alone. Rear daylight planes were established assuming that another property was at the rear of the site. This parcel has a street at the rear, which provides abundant light and air to this property. The daylight plane should not apply to the rear in this case. It is not necessary; however, the project does comply with side yard daylight planes. Reducing the rear setback for the commercial portion will not diminish light and air for the adjacent properties since the street borders the rear of the parcel. Imposing the more stringent RM 15 development standards on this parcel is a disincentive for providing much needed housing in the general community. Without this much.needed housing our general welfare could suffer. We have studied the building design. We have had a preliminary hearing with the Architectt!ral Review Board, which unanimously supported the project. We are committed to providing housing in the community without diminishing the commercial development. We ask for your support in granting these minor variances so housing can be provided at this location consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Very Truly Yours, Ken Hayes, AIA