The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About0122.091COIaI,sloner C.ll.n c •• t t~e dissenting vote, .Ince ,he did not fe.l thot this was .n un.,u.l situatIon Ind that neighborhood 'erylces would be a better .,e of the sIte th.n offices. She .lso noted that the reque.t •• s not for. sm.l1 aDOunt of extra footage, but Wi' double that .llowed without. po .. lt. Rtc;gmendat1gn Staff recommend. th.t the Council uphold the decIsion of the Pl.nnlng Comol.,lon Ind the Zoning Adminl,trltor to approve the 10,300 square feet of com.ercfal office space. where 5,000 square feet would "anaal1} be the .ax1~m permitted, based on the following findings •• revised by the Pl.nnlng Comlsslon: Findings: 1. The proposed use It the prop.sed 10tition will not be detrl .. nt.l or Injurious te property or laprovoments In the vicinity, and will not be det.l .. nt.l to tho public health, safety, general welf.ro or convenience, in that, first, for this sptc1f1c sfte, offfce use is more coap.tlble with resIdential uses beclu,. of unique driveway 11.ltations and second, for tnT' specific site, there Is • strong urban de,lgn desire for. street w,ll deSign. z. The proposed use will be loclted Ind conducted In ... nner In accord with the P.lo Alt. Comprehensive Plan and tho purpose. of Title 28 of the P.lo Alto MunICipal Code, I. that the lower parking requlreoents for .fflce use will .llo~ DOre housing unIts to be built on the site, consistent with Polley 14 of tne Housing Element which ca11s for providing Incentlv.s to add resldent!.l "nits to coonercl.1 developoents. The Increased number of housing units will result In acre BMR units, supporting Progr .. 13 of the Hou,lng Element. In addition, the office .se will add. dayti .. pOpulitlon to help support the n.arby nelghborh.od ret.il Ire. on the £1 Camino WIY trlangl. and will result I. an upgradIng of the appearance of El Camino Real, as promoted by Prograe 22 of the Urban DeSign Element. Condit I ons: 1. The flcade of the proposed offIce building I. refereoced plao, for the Use Penolt shall be redesigned; and the fin.! design of the project P: /CMR/Cl1R398 I £.CM!! 0IR:122:iI 1/17/91 Page 2 • Ihlll be lpproved by the Archltecturll Review Board, the Planning Conal,slon and the City Council through the Site an~ Design process. Respect'.lly submitted, ~~4~ J ES E. GILLIlAND nager. Planning Projects J EFl9lI~ ,.I,tant City ",n'ger ~ ,e --/;.4~9 KENNETH R. SCHREIBER -" Director of P1a"nin~ and Cc~n1ty Envfronment January 9. 199) Planning Commission minutes J,nuary 4, IS9] Planning Commls,lon staff report ~th attachments, including letter Df appeal Environmental Impact Assessment cc: David Mitanf, The Steinberg Group Denny Pet.rosla., 443 VentU"i Avenue, Apt. 2, Pilo Alto, CII 94306 Borren P,rk As,oclltion, c/o John Joynt, 3589 Lagun., . ,,10 Alto, CA 94306 8Gb Moss, 3010 Onne, ,,10 Alto, ell 94306 ':/CMRICIIR3981£ .CMR CMR:I2Z:9] 1/17/91 P'ge 3 EXCERPT PlannIng Comml.s!on Mln.to. Jan.ary g. 1991 3281 El CAMINO REAL: Appell of t~. zonIng administrator's decisfon to approve I~ app11,ation f~r I conditional ~se pe~it to allow construction and operation of • JO ,300-square-foot office use w~ere a ~ .. !muc 5.0DO·square·foot us. would otherols. be the aax!aum allowed. Env!ronment.l Assessment: No slgnlfl<ant lopa,ts were detenolned to re,ult from the project, and I negative detlaration has been prepared. file Nos. 90·UP·34. 90·EIA·3D. Zone Dlstr;ct CS. No st.ff ccaments. COmmissioner leech •• : On Page 4, Item '3, the end of the item talks about an addftfonal 53 parking spaces being required if the office use were to be changed to ret.ll use. I could not duplicate that numbe,. and would lIke to fInd out how that was calculated. Mr. GIllilond: I Clnnot duplIcate It .'ther. I get approxi~.tel, a difference of thlrte.n. Ch.'"""n Marsh: Perhaps staff can clarlf, that later. II one of the sU9ge.t!ons from Denny Petrosi,n durlog • previous public cooment wa. that the site be de.eloped purely for hou,ing. tin you tell us What that would do to the number of units alr •• dy suggested for the slte? Mr, 611111and: I think the maximum number of units lIsted i. here wa, 44 Instead of the 38. It would be posslbl. to do that. However. the yolume or amount of fiG:Jf arei. that could be used for housing Is at the 5aXirzILIIJI, s. you .. uld haYe 44. with 'omE of the units .llghtly smaller th.n thoy are naw, because It 1$ It the .axi~um fleor area ritio (FAR). Cnairman Marsh: Sa you would gain no additional sQuare rootage to be placed in housing h1 .110In.tlng .11 of the office space. ft(. Gilliland: Th,t is correct. Cbalnn.n Marsh: Presumably. the deyeloper has already .ade a choice to go with the larger sized units •• 0 we do not know that there would be any Incentive to downsIze them and produce BOre units. Mr Gilliland: The de.eloper can address th.t better. but I would say that i •• f.ir Issumptlon. Com-issfoner [til1en: Nowhere i~ the report did I see any conSideration of other penoflted use •• beside. retaIl. In this CS portion of the pr~ject. As I checked the zoning ordin.nce. General BUSiness Services s.~d to be • pe .. ltted use. They Include. on Page 549 of the definitions I. the zoning ordinance, -Ictivities and ~erv1c!s of a ge~er.l nature. includf"9 prlotlng. blueprinting. publishing. commerci.l ba •• ries. creameries Dr 01/09/91 ·1- .. ,--." ·- (") 1"'\ clterlng, clblnetrl'"iind furDItur. repair, bulk tlealmlg Ind hundry se~1ces, lW1btr. plUMbing, electric.', sheet metl' and other construction Ind building .. terllls." J find It difficult t. belIeve there Is not. nled for $OII! of thon ge!lenl business services in tn. cO!II1unlt,)', since we hIve had I lot of te5tl800y abcut wIping out servIces In the c .... ~!ty. AI J correct that these would be penaltted uses Ind could conform. if 5,000 square feet were cff1c~ spice, ind the other 5,000 square feet could be generll bu.lness us.s? Mr. '111110nd: They tertllol, are penoltted u.es. Coomlssl~~: ~y WI' no c.nslder.tlon given to th,t Instead of just strllght retail I. the report we received? Was it becau.e the nelghb~rhood was tllklng s. much Ibout retail? Mr. Gilliland: Ms. V,rhelt Idvls .... that she believes that to be correct. Chatnaan Marsh: [f t~ere are no other questfon$, I will now open tne publl.:; hearing. Bob ~.s, 4QI0 0"",. Pilo altp: J •• speaking tonight on behalf of the Barron Pi:rk Assoc.htlon b:ecuthe (.DtIII11ttee. The entire board has not yet Yoted on thl. because .f the Christ~s holiday., but I have discussed it with board -..beTS and as quit. confident th.t the board endors.o what the executive committee has already done. I would like to glye you. little background on the CS ver ••• CN and the E} C .. lno ~e.J goal., which date bock about 15 ye.rs. Tbi. particular site and adjacent sites are zo~ CS pri~rilJ because in 197~, uses on those sites were .. tols, which were CS us.s. Therefore, the are. froo the creek north WIS zoned CS so that the existing buolne,.es would be conforming. That Is the onll re.so. that that sit. Is not zoned CN. I. creltlng the zoning along [1 Casino Real, this was done with a lot of care and a lot .f forethought. The fntentlon wa. that the uses Ilong EI Camino Real, whether they be CS or eN, should be neighborhood-serving, should be prl .. r11y coomerclal, and the Intenolxture of commercial and residential .long that street was recognized by the fact that the loning ordinance was changed to allow ret,il on the first floor and hou,ing on the o.cond and third floors. The CN lone has a 25·(00t height limit, except if you put a third floor on for housing. The concept of mixing housing with retail uses was then applied throughout t~e ctty, including same structures within walking dlstanct .f the cltl hall. Therefore, the city council, the planning cOAIlsslon and the st.ff had no qualms abo"t .ixi09 retail and res1dent111 on the sa.e site. Fart~er ~own on E1 Camino Way, In The Hamlet, we have exactly that alx. We have ret.il on the first floor, with housing behind It. Therefore, there Is no reason to have an office use, rlther than retlll, i~ order to protect housing. Hone whatsoever. J would lite to addre.s the staff report. J will not repeat the letter. 'roo the Barron Park Association, which spe.k quite clearl, to our conce~.. J would like to r.spond to the <PORents and findings I~ the staff report. The report prepared by Nancy lytle, on P.ge I, talks about retlil yersus office, and It Dalts the fact that the 5,000 square·foot li.lt on offite sple. loltlall, WiS p.ssed I. August of 1985 It the very boslnnlng of the Citywide lind Us. Ind T~ansportat;o" Stody. It was, 01/09/91 ·Z· • 1"\ 1'""'\ "-/. '-" b,oaye&r .aratoria; it was reviewed and extended' for -II"! Jldditional year on May 26. 1987. I went bact and looked it the ~I"utes of t~ose .. etlngs earlier tonight, and at no t1ee was there any particular controversy over extending the 5,000 .qua .. ·foot limit for offic.s. In foct, when the 5,000 .qu ... ·f.ot li.it .long [1 Camino Rea1 vas dIscussed, It was explicitly stated, and agreed to by both the planning commission and the city councO, that becI"" the lones .loog £1 Camino Real, the CN and CS zones, were 'nd1stin9ufshable fr~ each other IS you went up lind down the street. except for the pre·exlstlng uses In 1978, It was felt completely Ipproprlate to fmpose • 5,000 square· foot office use IS a ll~it In both zone.. Tbit hiS bee. done since 1985. On 'ogo 4 (Ind this fs the SOPe comment th.t Commissioner Cullen had), I checked .Y copy of the zoning ordinance, which Is admittedly old, but in ~tI"" 18.83.070, the pirklng requ'.roments, it states that office. require one parking space for 250 squ.re feet. 10,300 squ,re feet of office space would require 41 spaces. Retail ~s divid!d into two $egments ~~ fntensfve, requiring an! per ISO square feet, and Extensive, requiring on~ per 350 square feet. If we assume intensive retail use, t~e parking for 5,000 square feet of office pl.s 5,300 ,quare feet of ret.il would require S5 parking spaces. or an increase of 14 spates, not 53. Jf it is an extensive retl1l use --S.300 square feet of retail plus 5,000 square feet of office .-w~uld require 3S parking spaces. or six les~. Section 18.83.010(0) i ••• i.ed ose development permits tne staff to waiVe up to 20 percent of t~e parking requlr ... nt upon finding tn,t both the ret.il or ca.uercral and residential would dually us~ the parking spaces. Therefore, with a 20 percent deferr.l of parking, you would b. talking about 33 parking spaces required for all office .se, 44 spaces In a mixed office/retail which wa, fnten.ive ret,ll, and 28 sp,ces ;0 • mixed Dff1ce/retlil whic~ was extensive retl1l. Tne difference in parking requ! .... nts Is in,lgniflcant, conSidering the 64,000 square· foot site lrel. I find the statement at the top of Page 4 that office uses are fnherently more compatible with t~e residential component of .ixed use developments unpersuasfve. Just down the street on the [1 Camine island, there was an approval granted for I mixed use for what is now a ~sed car lot, for i ccabln"tlon retall·office·condos, .11 io the ,'me structure. Ho. can that be incompatible? Tne city co~n(i' and planning con.tssion approved a 3J 700 square-foot sfmilaT projett, whic~ bas never been built. for retail with residential directly above. right on [1 Camino Real. There is no reason to s~ ~ prefer office space because it is moTe compat1b1e~ There Is no difference. In tenos of the urban design element. and whether t.ls building Is more compatible because it Is off!ce space is re,11y Irrelevant. If the motel is taken down and a new development goes fA, and ff t~e Arc~itectural aeview eoord (ARa) does a good job of design (much better t.an they did with Honey Baked HaAS), we will h,ve an attractive structure on fl Camino Real and an upgrodlng of the property. It does not have to be office space. There Is 0 comment th,t thf, Is a .s.ful project because the office workers will provide retail vitillt, for the El C.mlno Isl.nd. That is a novel concept. ~e are .llowing offlc. use' to be built ,11 ,'ong t.e [1 tamlno Is'and. There Is , 3,200 square· foot office building that I, going i. next to what I, now , Chinese restauront .nd was the AlW. There Is I .ixed office use deyelopment which I ,eferred to Dl/09/91 .). • '-.'; . ./ C\ rJ Ilrlier; ICroSS t~treet It Che. loul. there I. I~er proposal for a .Ixed use which would Include ret.ll .nd office. Do you really think you h ... to hlye office uses i. order to .. t_ shopping along [1 Camino Real .I.ble? "onsen,.. Wh,t you need i •• dequlte shops, the kind of shops th.t are penoltted f. I business use. for example, peoplo haye been cryfng for years for I s.all bakerYI In ice cream store l a ~irdware ,tore. There Ire • lot of uses that we had --a .ery .Ice drug stcre ~ent out of business. All of those Ire .I.ble u,.s. The drug store WiS • vlabl. use for .lmost 40 years. They could go Into that .It •. Ret.ll .long .1 Camino Re.l Is working. S~ of the •• cant propertle, .long El C .. ioo R.il farther to the north h •• e been ,old and Ire in the process of being reno •• ted. Within six bOnths, those are going to b •• iabl_ ret.il lues. Soae of the ,a.e concerns about whether office uses ITe l1able ire sprinkled throughout Vlrglnl. Varhelt', comments on the .pproval of the project. Rother tha. repeat them all, I just •• nt to ~ntlon one. That Is that the site I, more intensively "sed and therefore, thl, Is an 1~roveMept, and there fs I cQ~cept t~lt office use, befng MOre ;ntensf~e, Is • benefit. J tond to disagree .ith that. I do not find intensity of use as a benefit. 1 think .e have to look It the oyeroll uses along El C .. ino Real and the overall intensification W~ have ~ad on th! island and adjacent properties, and look at this as a total development, not piecemeal. If you look.t the entity of El Camino Real, the best use for th.t .ite Is ret.ll. Retail Is what the c~nlty needs, and Is .mat has been removed fA some IreaS, and w~at we would like to ~ave restored. We are 10s1ng so;e COmMerCii) developments an the other s~de Df the street, because they are being lBOrtized out. We would like to have I place where they can go, If they wish to. This site Is an appropriate site. 1ft clo,lng, I wculd like to ask you to uphold our .ppeal of the variance, averturD the Yarlonce, and recommend to the city council that this .ite be developed ~th retatl IS the primary ~se, and offfce IS a secondary use. Not office for the entire IG,300 ,quire feet. I don't .ant to see office buildings go up along El Carino Re.l and drive out the ret,il we n~ hive. Offices are ~re lucrativei they can get ~re rent. t~ey danrt pa~ any taxes. There Is I comment about the tax •• sh I. the report, but It Ignores the fact that If retail 90es In there In the 5,300 square feet, the sales tax revenue. dependf~g on the s~ccess Df the project, will be anywhere from $200 to SI,OOO per ye.r. You will get zip from ~ffice uses. So &~ retail there is .ore remun~rittve to the citJ as a tax revenue than straight efflce us.. It is not, big bit. The difference of • few hundred dollars to a thousand dollirs and $15,000 I agree Is not .,jDr, but It is present, and w. ought to get something back for .11 of the paiR we ~r. going through. Thank you. Cb.,rwa" Marsb: When Jacobs Court was being consioered right ne~t door to th'5 praject. J know there were extensive co~cerns (r~ the Barron Park A.sociatlon regarding the traffic impact of redeyelopment of the Jacobs Court tre. and the wal I. which that tr.fflc would then .. rge into tne fl C .. !no Re.l area. It seems to me that the Site we are tolklng about has. partlcularl, problematiC frontlge Dn El C •• ino Rell for traffic access. How do you see that? Mr. Moss: I agree, and I raised that poiot at one of the ARB .. ellngs. HoweYer, the .. jor trofflc Impact from tbls site is not going to be from 01/09/91 -4- o the c .... rc!.l 1. front. It will be t~. resldentl.l lap.ct. Putting 38 units of houslog ther. Is going to gonerote approxImately olght trip. per unit, and that Is going to be .t peak hours. The actol us. gener.tes off· peak tr.fflc. By the way, ther. I. a statement I. the report which stItes t~.t Jacobs Court h.s been re •• ned RM·15. As you know, that i, f.l... Th~t hiS not been rezoned; the re,onlng hiS not come before the planning ca.m1ss1on nor before the ctty council. The Cit, council has Just told the .t.ff to go back .nd write something up lnd come back with It. So the zoning at Jacob. Court currently Is R·2. There Is "0 &Ssurlnce that the RM-15 lonfns will. in fact, occur~ but that is a ~!ry dangerous intersection ia a congested area. T~at is one of tn~ reasons why I prefer rotlll to offlc., becau.e the office us. will genorot. more traffic .t pe.k hours. Th. retail ".os would b. spr •• d throughout the day. You would not have as ~uch trafffc in the .orBing rwsn hour with rot.ll I. you would with office. To that extent, you would roduce the trlfrle h.zard and danger. The aajor lap.tt on traffic from that ,ite is going t~ be additional h.uslng. Denny Ptt!Qsi.n. 443 ventura Avenue. Palo Alto: I subscribe to ~r. MGss' cOBMents. in t~e _.tn. One of the things he pOinted out very well in his comments on the staff report fs that the developer ~as options. This 1S not a do·or·die s;tuation for the developer. Sc.ling the office down to 5,000 .quare fe.t is something that I. well within the flexibility of this project. I would al.o I.k you to lOOk at this I. tho context of the whole £1 Camino Re.l, ., Sob said. If we start looking ot El Cornino Real again, little bltty property by little bitty proporty, w. are going to build error back fnto a system and start creating i hodgepodge again. So please consider It In that larger picture. £1 C .. ino Real Is I .ery speci.l area, not like Menlo Park Dr Sunnyvol. Dr Burlingame or any other strip of El Camino Real. It Is a .ery nirrow strip of coomerclal, but the dominant development In this area is three large residentl.l developments, and that is wh.t Is reflected behind that narrow strip of commercial. 50«11 office building. do exist alon9 there, Ind they are In scale with that reality. larger office buildings than S,GOO square feet begl. to give a different ~s,.ge .10ng that strip. It does .ean forcing retail rents up. The reason that roany retail spaces haye become ~icant 'S not because retail spate cannot ~Ke 1t, but b!cause of rent·gouglng going on. That I, why those spaces ore e"pty. When the ront gougers realfre that they .re not going to get those rents, they will come down and t~e kinds of bU$fn~sses we want to see will come iQ ind loc.te. If we start seelng office space on that frontage, we ;re going to make it even harder for retail to locate I. the rot.ll space that exist.. I think th.t It would be • bfg _istak. to approve the .ery first ,.riince to the stlpulatfon that was arrived at .s • r.,ult of the Citywide land Us. and Transportation Study for I limit on office .pace. \/e not ollly h ... projects waiting 10 the wings of .ixed u.e that If this .arlonce I. 9ranted. Cin ca.e in and 511, ~ have I .fxed ~$e on £1 Ca.ino Real, we hive ta.mercfa' front&ge, and YOy giye t~ern t~~ office space. so give ~s office space, too. Give us eore than 5,000 square f.et. How Ir. 'au going to de"1 tn .. ? The Chez louis project is one of tho.. The eotel right next door, the Cozy Eight, I. an .xact rep'iea of this property, Il ... t. Another developer could go Into that one. How could IOU deny the one next door? It Is not onl1 .reas on El C .. ino Real Where there is 01/09/91 -5· • \.\ ,-:...:,. -. . / ~ 0 .beel vse lonfng. "Ti t~. big car lot Just south 0(-1$.2 louIs went Oul. of business and I .'~ed use ca.t iD there, it would hive i lot of hOUSlng on tbe back, but they would want offfce on thE front. You begl. to have El ta.1no Reil t~rned into an office lone~ so ] feel this Is I very da"g~rous direction to go In. Rudolf.', could be sase sort of sItuation. We asked Rudolfo', to Co.! In for a Mixed use PC ~ropo •• l wit~ the restourant In f~t and hou.lng In the back. He could Co.! In and s.y. I have decided I cannot to.p thIs restauront, so I will put housing i. the back and ~Ive m, offices In the front. If the developer were to change this Into an all·houslng project. I do not se. how he could lose .. ney. You sfaply don't lose peney on housIng. There Is not rea.on why tbat could not 90 .11 the w.y out to El CImino Real. There is .1so no reason why IOU couldn't have it part retail and part effice. A s.a11 retail $ectlo~ or general business ijse, if it fits • • fche 10 thIs area, will dr •• pede.trlans froe Pal. Alto Commons. If you had. little coffee shop/bakert, you would get people walking frem the Commons and fro~ t~e tr,iler court behInd the All American Market. That Is SOMething we have w.nted to see on El C .. lno Real. If you have a small ar •• for retail with a s .. ll office building, you cln dra. that. ~akin. the whole project much DOre dynamic with th.t type of combin.tion. If you approve this project, the argument will be used across the board that t. order to maxfmtze housing, yeu replice (ommerc;~l wit~ office, as It requires fewer parking spaces. I do not think that would be a productive direction ,. which to go f. on El Camino Real, because by .sing that argu.ent. you aay ~iximfze housing by one or two unfts, and what you will do Is !lcriflce the commercial goals that have been on the drawIng board for £1 C .. lno Real to .a'e It • healthy. flourishing business area. So I think th,t Is the Intent. I. going to 'ago 3 of the st.ff report prep.red by Nancy lytle, ot the bottom, there il t~e staff cGmment that ~t~is area 1S not generally Intended for nelghborhood·servlng r.tall. but Is intended for for citywide and regional services.' That certai.ly Is what Is encouraged and penritted here. but in any case. the 1Dtent is for a health, business district and Is not to permit uses such .s this th.t work Igalnst the overall co..erclal goa1, for Palo Alto. Golog to Page 5 of the staff report. Finding ", 'The proposed "se at the propo.ed loc.tion wIll not be detriment.l or Injurious to property or I~rovements I. t~e ylcl.!ty, and will not be detrimental to the publ!c healt~1 safet}. general welfare or conyenfe~ce .•. • I read into t~at that It Will, in fact, be detrimental to the publIc welfare because of the goals we ~aye for tomaercfa' development along £1 (amino Real. So I don1t think that this partlc.lar finding Is valid. I just urge you to look at the fact that developer has flexibility in thl. project, and rather than begl. some very detrimental precedents, I urge you to requlr. the developer to bring the proposal In within the law. Rebert Steinberg. 1130 Brvant Street. Palo Al1R: I am pres.nt ton1ght representing the appllclnt. It Is a challenge to follow two ,uch persuasive Indiyldual. who sp.ak so clearll about their thoughts. I would like to s~lre with you that we .lso appreciate all the effort that has gone loto the Citywide land Use and Transportation Study. Thi, attempted 01/09/91 ·6· • . ' . '-' t. stl.vl.te retail .lon9 [1 Ca.lno Re.l aod discourag" office us.. In .any, .any Instances, t~at Is • well founded policy and Is one that you should endorse. I appreciate the previous speaker'5 grive concern about setting' precedent. It Is unfortunate that we .re one of the first .ppllc.tlon~ to COMe before you. ".d I do understand that concern for tho pnotedent. But I do f •• l that this Is not. typic,l site, and 1 do not feel that It Is I. any ~ay precedent·,ettlng. It Is also important to understand that I. addltlo. to the land .se study and generol. clt~;de broad·based pol!cles that the city establishes. there are also goals for .ach Indl.ldual site. [very Indlv;dull ,ite hiS Its own special needs, requirement. OTId gools that the city planners and the ARB encourage designers and developers to respond to. In this part1cular else, this is I long. narrow. pr1marlly restdential site. When we mEt kith the city, 1 was I little surprised that neither of the previo':Js speakers responded to the fact that one of the key things the cltl hiS ~eQuired us to do. which groups have asked us to respond to at ARB •• etings and at eoetings before you! was to mir.i.lzf traffic on the site. This sit! is at one of t~e oddest fotersectlons In Palo Alto. It Is 0" a slx·l.ne road. It is 0 busy, cQnf~si~g, awkward r"tersect1o~. When we aet with the traffiC engineer, froe day one, we came in and s~owed you the analySis that we did. We loo~ed ot different points where we could get access to the site. Ve could not get it adjacent to [1 Camino Vay. We coula not get it .10ng the .1dd1~ of t~e site, and the only safe place was at the extreme north end of the site. h our last meeting before you. some of the community members said we should downsize the project because we have too ~C~ traff1c. So .ini~;zing the traffic and the vehicylar access were .ajar criteria we were asked to address . • Ve were .150 asked to address the faet that from in urban design pTannfng standpOint, the city wanted. two-story or even higher street wall that ~uld COle up to the street edge and reinforce the street wall along El 'amino Real. Certal.ly, there was encourog ... nt to provide affordable housing. ~e housing we are proposfng ranges from 800 to ],200 square feet. We are not proposing ~ulti·.illlo" dollar homes. We are propOSing affordable, starter housing. These wtre the goals we were encouraged by the city to pur,ue. I ha.e to tell you that I fe.l a little caught between two different poHc1es that the cit, WQu1d liKe us to respond to whic~ are 1a conflict w1t~ one anot~er. Tne retail uses that the zoning administrator felt ~re Snappropriate for this site will unQuestionably Incre.se traffic at this location. Anybody that tells you that a hardware store, an ice cream store. a drug store is going to have less traffic 1 cannot agree with. To Introduce that kind of traffic ot this Intersection I f.el would be .eTI. very difficult and In conflict with e.erythlng .e ha.e discussed for the last .ine ~.ths on this project with al! of the entltfes of the city. I will .lso tell you that If we ~.re to .d~ the retail, and we added 14 additional parking places, that would reduce approxl.ately .eyen units of tho project, or close to 20 percent of the affordable housing that .e are trying to put on the site. Cespite the letter that you got from Hrs. Petrosfan. we cannot eliminate the ret~il or the office and put ~ousing there. The zoning does not accommodate It. The ooly thing .e would b. able to do would be to reduce the size Dr the number of units, but we would not be oble to fill t~e additional are. and the frontage with housfng. 01/09/91 -7- • / .•.. In conc1"slem, I .fi!Rd like to "1 that I feel UisQ I .ery unique sit.. It Is not. precedent· settIng site. It is I busy, awk.ard confusIng Intersection. It Is Inlpproprlate for retail, quick In·and·out "ses. Tbls Is I deep .It. that Is pri.arlll resIdential. and to have tho retlll c.-ponent wipe out 20 percent of the resldentl.l If tor you h,.e rezoned It for .ffordable housing se ... to DO to be Inipproprlite. St.ff hi. Indlclted that I ..all &ROu.t of office that wIll ha.e less tr.ffic on the sit. will support t~e neighborhood ret.,l that Is beIng developed adjlcent on £1 C .. lno Way, where there Is access fro. two different sides, •• e.y dlff.rent conditIon fro. wh.t we Ire flcing her.. For .laost eIght or line aont~5, we hive received very !ncourag~ng coaments from the Archltectu'il R •• lew Board. s"pport frOM the cIty staff I.d the zoning ldol.lst •• tor. and I hope th,t we wlTl ha,e your support to"lght •• s well. ThInk you. Cqmm1ssjQner Callen: Mr. Steinberg, dfd I understi~d you to say tnat yOu thoug~t the zoning would preclude housing on the CS portion of thIs property? Mr. Steinberg: YIS. Mr. Gilliland: It does nDt preclude housing. The difference here fs that the •• xlmua fAR for the site Is 0.6 a"~ that is what they haye used for. these units. They Ire ... 11 units at 800 to 1,200 square feet. ~ISS!One. C.l1.n: My question Is whether It Is pe.fectly possible to lId housing on the CS part of the property and to utiTlze the property that WiY. I .. not suggesting )OU should do thit. but I just want to be cl •• r th.t that Is • possibIlity. Met Steinberg: [do stand corrected. Mr. $illiJand: He can build housing under the RM·30 regUlations on the CS portion. Mr. Stolnberg: Ve have .sod the tot,l ,llotment of bult for the housing. and we could distribute It differently. but It would not provide any .ddltional housing. Commissjoner Beecbam: Does staff agree with that last state~~nt? ~s. Warheit: Yes, he $5 correct. The units could be increased from 38 to 44. That Is the only difference, but the squ,re footage that he is proyldlng now is .11 that Is allowod on that ontlre parcel, Including the CS and the RM·30 portloo,. He could .. k. SDOe s .. 11er units and haye 44 Inste.d of 38, but he Clnnot add any .. re squire footage than he has right n .... Chairman Karsb: With the re.'sod figure of 13 additionil parking spaces that would be needed for the retail development, how .an, housing units would you los.? Ht..Stelnbfrq: If you figurod approxi •• tely two Cirs per unit ind you take fourteen ond divide it by two, I .ould "Y that is seyen units less. If we had 44 units. it Is clo •• to • 20 percent reductIon I. the number of "nIts. 01/09/91 ·8· • o Cgmaf$$tODet Cullen: The allotment fo~ genera' busfness uses for parking Is one per 3SO .quI .. faet. T~.t Is less than the 111eboent fer co.oe",Iol, for office US., which Is one per 2SO. Is t,at what It still Is now? (Yes) So, In flct, by using 5,000 square fe.t for g •• er.l use, for •• -.ple, you would oct"ally be redUCing the number ef required porking spate.. I .Int to ask you If you ore aWlre of t~at. Mr. Steinberg; As I ~nd~rstood from the previous speak!r. there Ire two types of ret.!l us •. Commissioner tullen; [aa talking Ib~ut j~st gen~ri' busi~e$s use and the WIY we define it f~ the zo"1"9 ordinance. Have we changed that definition? l!1:...iill1hru!: lie have not changed the definition. We do use one per 350 squ~eet for extensive retlil. For intensive , it is one per ISO squire feet. Cpmmissiongr Cullen: One for 350 square feet for generl' business ~ses, whic~ I quoted .t the beginning of the Beeting from the zoning ordinante. Mr. St@1nbera: Would a ~ardware store Dr an fce cream store fit into that cotegory1 COMmissioner Cg1len: No, but many otner things would. Mr. St,lnberg: I did not jot down all of the .s.s you aentionad, but .any of the., such IS buildfng supp11es, tD me wou1d be certliB1, less conducive to interface on a compact Site with residential. You Ire right that numerlcail1, we could .. ke that .. rk, but I would Isk you if we are .. illy setting up co.potible neighbors in thlt kind of situation. tomrnfssioner C~11gn: l~ t~e arel south of Forest, we ~ere very clear not to reocve the CS services there betause they served the residential cORlUnlty. The people I. that area begged us not to. [xample, are bulk laundry lnd dry cleaning, construttlon supplies, t~at kind of thing. Those come under general busfness uses and do not require the number of pirkfng spaces that office does or that retail does. Mr. St.lnberg: Thot Is a good pOint, but) .. uld draw a very distinct difference bet.een those two e.amples. The people who .sked you to keep that in the are. south of forest don't have to go bahlnd it .nd 1i •• behind it. That ,. their total frontage to these residential units. That is their window to the community. To hive the back door of • laundromat be lour common entry motor court with your front door concerns me. f do not think that is • co~atibl. relationship. l~is is • long, narrow, deep ,ite and that is why I do feel that it i, different from your typical exuplt. Cqoais.ioner (.llen: ) am not saying that everything on that list would be compatible, but there Is a long list. There may be same co~.t1ble uses there. tkafr.an Marsh: Since I hive no otner cards from .embers of tne public, will close the public hearing lod retur. this item to the planning 01/09/9) -9- • / ._lulon. o o Mr. Glllll.nd: On Plge 4, I .anted to cllrlfy th.t the figures would require In addltlon.1 14 plrkln; spaces Ind would reduce the Irea devoted to .. sldentl.l developoent by appro.l .. t.11 4,200 square f •• t. C!!oJnlssioner kechl!!: 1 havo I Question Ibout tile I"""t of the reductl.n of the 4,200 square feet. The appro.l .. tlon was about 4,200 s~u"r. f •• t It BOO squIre feet per Ipartmeot 1$ one thing. [ICI! opartoent olso requIres two plrtlng spices. 50 If we say thlt 14 spaces is 4,200 square feet. How .. ny square feet per space Is thlt, per parkIng space? Hr. $Illiland: I. reducing the figures, we used roughly 300 square feet for tach spac., gl.en the parkIng sp.ce and the tra.el lane. Commissioner Beechaa~ So then fer _ unit. if it is 800 square feet of living space, two parking spaces, that is an additional 200 square feet, whIch tot.1s 1,400 square feet. That divides Into 4,200 squ.re feet about three tImes. So we Ire talkIng about • difference of tnree units. Mr. '1Illland: I don't thInk you cln quIte do it that .ay because we are toltlng about an underground g.rlge her.. The figures you are basing It on, yo~ would ba~e to Pijt them on top of each oth!r. Mr. stelnberg~ It 15 the parking t~at o~errides e~erything. It has nothing to do with the square footige of t~e unit. There would b! no ,lace to relocate those 14 spots. Chairman Marsh: W. Ire fortunate to have with us tonight Shirley Wilson from the Architecturo! RevIew Soard. 1 wonder If you would respond to 0 coupl. of cOROent. that came up In the public h.arlng. One Is just to po,. along to u' any cooment. thot the ARB had I. tenos of the kind of develo~"t thot would be appropriate on the [1 Camino Real frontage. Secondl1, the kind. of use. that you would see as being appropriate with the housing DO the back of thl. project. "s, Wilson: I feel supporti.e of the staff canoents for this particular site. It I, 0 very awkward Site, ond I think the ace ... would be 0 killer for any retail that wa. trying to function on that .i!e. 1 understand the IOtf.es ,r the neIghborhood, but 1 do not r.al11 feel that the full breadth of [1 Camino Real that affett, that neighborhood needs to be all ret.ll to serve the neighborhood, [t r.olly ne.ds to be loned, and tnat population denslt, there 1 .gree ~ould be helpf.l to the [1 Ca.ino Island .nd The Mo.let businesses. ehlirmiD Marsh: Has the ARB dIscussed the kInds of development they would like to see on [1 C .. lno Re.l? Mr. 5tei.borg .. de a reference to having a strong frontoge on fl Camino Real. H,ve all of you talked abo"t that? Ms. Wilsqn: Thlt stlte.ent was aade It Gur aeeting that I strong presence C~ [1 tL~ino Rel1 was really helpful, if not continually. It certain points. Dwe to the width and seal. of that street, It Is .ery difficult to mointo'. any sense of place, with everyt_lng being ODe-and two·.tory and drIbblIng off Into the residential neighborhood. I would like to see the frontage of that building .oftened somewhat. There could be some llndselplng. It does not hive to be voId of .ny life. That was fairly 01/09/91 ·10· , • '. unonl .. u, on the bo~. ChalOlan Mar,b: I .1'0 hive some questIons for Carl Stoffel, TrlnsportltlGn EngIneer. ane I. In regard to Icces, t. thIs property. r wonder If NT. Stoffel could relterote the staff's concern Ind requIrements I. tOniS of Icce... Secondly, I wonder If you would walk us through the pelk-hour tr,fflc lnaly,l, tb.t hiS been dDne with office .erSu, ret.ll. Mr. Stoffel: The on11 difference between thl' partIcular locltion and any other on El tamlno Real I, the flct that It I, near that corner. The only thing that It has to do with Is t~at it Is oice to keep I drl.e.ay, especially going tn. IS far fr~ &n fntersectfon 15 pOSSible, because people have other thibgS on their aind' when gOing through an Intorseetlon, and they .ay not be watching .s carefully to s.e If somebody 1$ going to slow down and make I t~rn. There ire a number of impr~vements thlt will be goIng on withIn I few d.ys at that Intersection, th.t w,ll .. ke thing' • little safer there. We ire getting rId of the two free right turns, one on the Barron Park side and the other on the £1 Camino V'Y side. T~ey vIII b. replaced with • rlg~t-turo lane. That will slow down 'ODe .f tho •• right turo .. "ements • llttl. bit. Thof. will be some bike 1.ne improvement. on El C.mino Way that will help the bIcyclists. A. far a, people running the stop light" there Is going t. be some new signal hardware goIng In that will be .uch l.rger, brighter IndicatIons that occording to CalTr.n. will help solve th.t problem. Nevertheless, it is still close to t~e coroer, which 1S w~y the drf~eway I, up ., far .s It can be. People le.ving the .ite will ~ave ample opportunity to get ever to the first block and make 0 U·tur. if they wish to bead south. There will be long gap. cre.ted by the red 1;9ht at los Rcbles. and people wantfng to enter the Site c~ing fro~ t~e north can .. ke • U-turn It los Robles. When they •• ke that U·turn, tr.ffle on £1 C .. lno Real Is stopped, and with getting rid of tt,e free·running right turD lane froo El Coal no Way, It will h.lp th.t to be a fairly cl •• r access I.to the site. I do not have too MUch of • problem wft~ tnose activities going on there. espeCially since in .1 opibicn, t~e rncrease in activities over what the .otel fs. fs an increase but is not I large one. Then on t~e peak hour trip generation, generally spelling i offices g •• erate less trofflc than retail. I say ge.erally because there .re lot. of different kinds of ret.il. I ju,t did some calculations for 5,000 square f.et and c .... out with I retan on the low end to be about the sase amount of trip generation as an office. But It could gb up much .igher. There are a let of retail uses, s~c~ IS fa$t food outlets and convenience stores ... ybe a video store. that can generite a lot ~re traffic than an office. Of course, retail tends to be open longer hours than offices, including W&ekends. In that sense, it generates more trlfflc. Offic. traffic, though. l1ttl. less, is oriented In the ,.m, general dIrection IS .11 of Polo Alto's rush hour traffic, tn.t Is, outbound I. the e.enlng. At thot p.rticular spot, that .. y not .a~e a lot of diff,rence, but 10 general, office traffiC 0111 Idd to the generol c .... t. dlrectio. of traffIc out of Palo Alto In the evening and Into Palo Alto in the .... Ing. Retail has less Ictivity I. the .. nalng and does not quit. haye those s .... directions. Gen.rally speaking, hawever, retail has .. re tr.fflc. 01/09/91 -11- , . • . ~.' . ;,;.-. -' o eo..i •• 'oDtr tplltn: I .. not going to be ob1. to uphold the zoning admlol.trotor's findings. I find thea .pp1loab1e to ,ny zone In Palo Alto .nd not to t~ls p,rtlcular location. To say thot a less intensl.e use Is in office .s. Is no justifiCAtion for c~anglng the .110tBont that Is in the zoning ordinance. You could say that about anyplace In Palo Alto. r .lso tAint that the services generated In a CS zone ore essentl,l for nearby res1dentfll use, IS J st;ted eirlfer. As ~e .re getting more and lOre resldentl.l u •• s In t~at lamediate irea, I think the need for servlc •• Is tv.n 9r.,ter. Thirdly, 1 think the lower parking reQuirements for general business serv1ces, .htch is a permitted yse and he would not eve. be I. front of us If ho had not gone for the tot.l office use Instead of just t~. 5,000 squIre feet. I ... lso very disappOinted that the amount of time and effort and years that vont Into trying to get office us. reduced in these areas Is now be!~ overlooked. The request for I ,"rl,nce is not for I small differential b.tween What Is accommodated by the zoning ordinance, but is double the amount that Is .llowed. So I am not going to be able to uphold the zoning ,dBI.lstrltor's juds-ent on this. CQBafss10ner Beetham: let ne address the traffic issue first. I t~ink the t,"fflc Issue I> I wash I. both directions. Th. last time we had. discussion .t • public hearing on this, people opposed to the project In generol were complllning about the l.k.aTd tr.fflc situation. Tonight the applicant for the project Is saying It is a.k •• rd, and therefore, things should be reduced Dr .Ioimized. The tr.fflc sftu.tlon Is not much different than I •• lmost any other loc.tion. It is unique only because It fs the onl, one on this (~rner. There are other intersections which have other problems, and to .. , this Is I generIc type of problem that occurs .11 up and down [1 Camino Real where you hive businesses or offices or other uses nelf an intersection. for the peDple It'':tua11, using t~e s1te to hive. single entrance, that Is an Impact on the resIdences. That Is one of the thing, that drive., oplolon on this. This Is • very close Issue. I ~ very sensitive to the findings In No. I, Indicating that aff;ce use 5s • less i~tensfye use than most of the allowed uses. ] don't think,", at III want to say t~.t office fits botter with housing than would retill. That fIle, in the face of the whole issue of what,", are dofng. I~ t~is particw1ir case, it would, because the re$;d~nce$ have no other aCcess except fro~ El Camino Re.l to go by the uses. On It .. l of the findings, 1 can .argln.lly support that. I •• y e.tlaotlon, It Is five units, .. ybe le,s, .aybo 8Oro. I 1M still not clear on bow one worts out the parking issue in tenMS of more intenslvE or less intensive retail uses, but [ do belie~e that if retail gO!} in there, the sacrifice will be to replace some residential units with retail. S. based on those lleos, 1 will support the zoning administrator on this tssue. Commissioner Glazier: I. fn general, Swpport Commissioner Beecham's c~ntl and will vote tD upbold the zoning ad.in1stritor's aecfsion. ] re<:OCJnlze ond appreCiate the need for retail in th.t zone, but I .lso h .. e to weigh that against. number of other benefit. th.t the city would get frca thl. project. ~uober One, ono of the ~st important •• ndates of the Cooprehenslve Plan Is to •• ke [I Camino Re.l look very oice, and t,is 01/09/91 ·12· • !':r'\, ·0~ o project certainly .c~l.v.' th.t objective. It get • .ore ho"slng. which Is an I~rtont objective, and It .1'0 gets the p.th thro"gh Wilkie Way t~ the Yenturl School. If we were to explore some other Ilternltlve path, perhap' Incorporating retail, we MiY not be obI. to get that. I do agree with some of the comment. that It I, I pretty difficult site for retaIl, Ind therefore I wfl1 vote to uphold the zoning Idmlnlstrltor', decision. (,.IOOln M.rsh: The doel •• nt reaction I had to this •• 5 expressed by Comolssfoner Beecham, which fs that t~l, I, I very clos. fs,ue. To my .ind, there '5 nD very tlelfcut response. no clearc~t dlctlte as to what Ictlon we should tlke. Howo.er. I come down on the side of the zoning .~Infstr.tor for two r.o,ons. One I. the conflgurltlon of this lot. It does ~ave a narrow frontage. It 1$ • very long, nirrow. deep lot and the Icce5S fs limited becluse of the .'Y the site fits, to h.vlng, is Co-afssioner Be,chim noted. I single drive that has to serve a'1 of the uses on the parcel. The second f"ue f' sloply that of location Ind the fact th.t I agree with the applicant that we have I parcel ~ert that is in a probl!mat1c space on E1 (amino Real~ However. we need to be very. very clear that we are not setting any precedent in th;s case for exceeding the Dff~ce limitation in the future. That is an iSSUE that concerns Be ver7 m~ch. because [ very .uc~ support having an office li.it and encouraging retail or other forms of commercl.l developoent oloog £1 C .. ino Real. I think that beth the configuratiDn and location of this parcel is fairly unusual, and I do not see other propertl.s .10"9 £1 Camino Real being able to lleet the standard, that we see on this parcel. So g1ve~ that. I, tOQ, will support the z~n1ng admlsistrator's recommendation. It would c~rtainl1 be a very poslt'.e step for the appllc,nt to agai. take one last iook It this before it goes to the city council to see t f t~ere is any way of reasonabl, t~orpor.ting any kind of low-key coomercl,l development th.t Eight serve the residents It that 51te, IS well IS the nearby residents~ f simply zat. one la,t pl., to the applicant to take another look at it, but I .ill support the recoomendation. Commisslon.r Cll1en: It sounds to lie, frON the comment ... de by ~ fellow commissIoners, that the findings listed will have to be revised. ~: Comm;ssiQner Beecham: [.eve that we uphold the zoning Idminlstrator, b"t to IIOdif1 finding n to the following: 'The proposed use It the proposed location will not be detrfmental or injuricus to property or improve:aents in the lrictntty. and w111 not be detr-fmental to the public health, safety, general welfare or tc~veRi~i~e. in t~at ~ for lh5$ §pec1fit site, office qsc is more compatible wit~ residential G~e because of unique drivewaY limitations. and second. for t~i$ specific site. therg is I strong urban desfgn desire for i street wall desfgn.- The second finding .... Ios IS wrftten. ~: By Coontssfoner Gllzfer. MOTION PASSES: Cnafn-an Marsh: Is there an) further discussion on this .. tlon? It ha, been ROved and seconded th.t we uphold the zonIng &da1.I.trator's r.c .... nd.tion and ft wo"ld approve the conditlon.l use penolt for 10,300 square fe.t of offIce space where a .axl.um of 5,000 square f.et .. uld nonallly be penoltted. It Is s"bject to findings 01/09/91 -13- • . . "-, . , . , IS written I. tnt ~po.t. with t~e aaendment IS Stl~ by Commissioner Beech ... which Iddressed the partIcular occoss to thIs sit. and I desire for I stroot will desIgn, Finding No. 2 stands IS written, Ind Is Incorporated In tho cor~ltlon IS listed 'n th. report. All those I. flyor. say AYe? All opposed? Thot passes on a yote of 3-1. with CoImlssloner Co1lon dissenting. and (DODlsslo"ers Hirsch. Huber and Christensen Ib.ent. Mr. G111110nd: Talo Is sched"led for the city council for January 22. 01/09/91 -14- o TO: PALO ALTO PLN!!!ING COIOIISSIOIt fILE NO.: fO-UP-~. fO-EIA-30 PREPARED BY: Hancy lytle OATE: Janu •• y 4. 1991 PROJECT INFORMATION locatjgn: Mplleant: Property Owners: ApDQl hnt: PROJECT S!IMI!AJ!Y 3981 El Camino Real The Steinberg Group 60 Pierce Avenue San Jose, CA 95110 Mayflower P.A. ~velopme"t l.P. 3083 lawrence E,pressway Santa Clora, CA 95051 Barren Pzrk ASSOc;ition Executive Committee 3589 taguna, Palo Alto, CA 94306 On October 16, 1990,the applicant applied for I cond,tlon,1 use perait to Illow 10,300 square feet of commercill office space, in combination with a mixed use development propo$al wh~eh also i~cludes 38 condominium units to the rear of the proposed office developmerot. The site and design application for this project was previousl, reviewed by the Planning Commission or. October ]0. Z99O. but continued i" order to resolve several fss~es; the primary issue ~fng whether the office space 1~ excess of 5,000 squarE feet would be permitted. The Zoning Admiafstrltor conducted a public hearing and approv!d th& ~s. pera,t for the excess office space on November 19, 1990_ The decision was appealed by the Barron Park ASSOCiation Executive Committee on November 26, 1990. The site and design application has returned to tne Planning Commfssion IS I subseq~ent publfc hearing item o~ the same agenda with the use 1"'"' I t appe.l. SECOM!\OOEII ACTION Stoff recemDends thot t~e Planning Commlssio, recommend thot the City Council uphold the decision of the Zoning Admfnistrator tQ approve the 10.300 square feet of commercfal office spac., where 5,OQO square feet would normall, be the ~imua permitted, based on findin9s contained 'D t~i$ report~ S lTE I NfOI!IIATIl!!! pirce] 51z,: Assessor's 'arcel Number; PCSTErNB/Nl 64,904 square feet ))2-42-69 Page 1 .,,::'-". [xfsting Zonin9: cqmprebtD$5vg plan Designat1Dn: OeD$.1ty: [51$t1"g Land Use: Surrounding Land Use: Histgry: 1'tST£I N8/Nl CS; ~-3C Service Commercial; Multiple-Family Residenti.l 44 un1ts 111owed; 38 units proposed Motel Horth: Comoerclal Sout~: Dry Creek C~annel and Jacobs Court r~centl,)' rezoned to RH-IS East: Venturi :Sc~,ool and a Single-family neighborhood West: El Camino Real and Commercial Use ~arc~ Z, 1990: Application filed for prelSminary architectural re~iew of the proposed ~ixed-use off1ct/residentitl project c~rised of ]0,300 square feet of office space and 38 residential units over undergro~nd pirking~ April ]9, 1990: PrEli.inary review by the Architectural Review Soard. Minutes art attached to tne s"~sequent staff report for the sit. and design application. June 7, 1990: Second preliminary review by the Architectural Review Board_ ~ay 14, 1990: Application for a major site and design review of the proposed project. October 10, ]990: Planning Commission public ~earing for the project was conducted~ The item was continued to allow fer the conditional use permit application to ~ filed and processed. Hinutes of the meeting are attached to the subsequent staff report for the .ite and design application. November 19. 1990: Zon1ng Adminfstntor hearf'f'!9 was conducted and the application for the conditional use permit was approved. November 26, ]990: The Zoning Administrator decision to approve the conditional use_permit was appealed by the Barron Park Association Page 2 ,~ MJ"datory Action Cat,!s}: Environmental ImpaGt As 5~S linen t: AllAl.ms Project De.crlptlon Exec~t1ve Comm!ttee for reasons Dutl1ned fn the1r letter, received November 26, 1990 and outlined In thiS report. Th" public he.rlng must bo Initiated by Febru.ry 26, 1990, and the Commission's recommendatfon sha'l be considered by the City Council ~Ithln '0 days of receipt of the P'annlng Commission recClTlTlendatio!l. No si5n1ficant impact and I negative declaration has been prepared .nd Is .ttact,ed to this report. The applicant Is proposing. mlxed,use project at 3981 El Camino Real, the c~rrent site of the Mayflower Garden Motel. The subject site is across the creek channel fraa Jacobs (purt, wh1c~ ~as recently rezoned tc RH-1S, near the north.lst side of the Intersection of El Camino Real and EI Camino W.y. The proposed project consists of I lO,300-squ&re-foot, t.o-story office building at the front of the ,!to and 38 resldentl.1 condominl .. units to the rear, over underground parking. The cond1ttonal use penn1t is required in order to exceod the 5,OOO·sq.ar.·foGt office 11.it In the CS zone, I~Gs.d !o 1989 through the Citywide zone changes. Issue. of Conee .. The Barron 'ark AssocIation [xecutlve Committee ~.s appe.led tne Zoning ~1"Istr.tor·s decl,Ion emphasizing reasons outl!ned .s follows! 1. Bet,11 Use yer5us Qfffee U)t The appe11ant supports low·1ntensfty. neighborhood-oriented reta" .Iong El Camino Re.l and hos • long· standing concern about Dffice use5~ The ASSocllt1on was very ~ch in faYGr of the recent Citywide let Ion to limit the size of nDraal11 penoltted office ••• s to 5,000 sq.are feet, and h.s expressed dismay that the first conditlon.1 use penal! app'Ication to be mide .nder this nowly adopted zoning requirement w.s approved. On the other hand, the Zoning Adm!.lstrator found that the CS, SerYi,e Commercl.l district, Is not generally lotended for neighborhood·serYlng retail, preferred by the ASSOCiation, hut inst.ad Is Intended for City· wide and reglo .. l ,"l"Vlces. The zone dl strict does not prohibit office space 'I excess of the 5.000-square-foot limit, but instead conditionally allows such uses when two findings can be ~ade. 1n this fnst.nce. the findings were supported is documented in a s~bsequent I'tSTUNB/Nl Page 3 o o section of thl. report. In general, office u.e. are Inherently DOre coopltibl. with the resldentl.l <ooponent of mixed use development than .lny tY?tS of 5erviee commercii' USfS ~ould be. The Ippellints hl.e 1150 expressed concern, In the orlgln.l l.tter d.ted Noyember 12, 1990, that there aro no large efflce uses anywhere .long this .ectlon of E1 Camino Rell and that Ue subject application, If approyed, would tend to rilse rents to the dls.dvlntage of retail uses. On the contrlry, the Zoning Adm!.'str.tor found tn.t the lack of office ~5es fn the immediate Irea was I reason in fivor of the appl~eation. Th. daytl •• population which would result from the office use would lltely support the growing Yltality of the El Careino Vay Isllnd redevelopment and help support I des!rable mix of uses, including nelghbo~ood retail, lIang this segment of El Camino Real. 2. ViabIlity yf Rete11 Use: T~e appellants have made the argument that there is no reuon to penon exclush'e offlce use for the cOlmW!rchl portion of thl$ .. hed·use proposl1 since retail "ould be '.lable. Whether or not an Ilternate use to that whlth Is proposed would be .Iabl. Is not ~artltularly germane to the findings for a tondltlonal u •• penllt. The per.it Is granted If both of the required findings c.n be Bade for t~e project which is proposed. 3~ Jobs CreatiDn and Traffic Impacts of Offjce Uses: Th~ appellant has also expressed concerD that offite use will ~aye a greater peak hour trlfflc ImpiCt than retail use, and that addl!ion.' Jobs are created froa office use rel.t1ve to retail use~ The enviro~mental Issessment for the project docueents that the office portion of the project will generate less traffic than would an equfvilent lmount of retail $pace. Ind the Incre .. e In pe ••• hour traffic would be minl .. a'. Tile number of Idditlonal jobs which would be crelted by in exclus!ye effie. as opposed to • c-.blnatlon ret.ll{off!ce .lx for this sc.le of project Is not significant on a local or regional level. The number of housing units that cln be accomplished through the proposed combination of .Ixed use fs substantially greater than would b. permitted under a retail .lternatlve. 'If the conditional ose permit were denied, the equivalent floor lrel used for retail rather than office would require an additional S3 parking spaces. This reqUirement would reduce the area noo deyoted to residential development by approximately 16,000 square feet. 4. fiscal lopact: The B.rron Park ASSOCiation, i. the original letter dated Noyember 12, 1990, ~as ,.tsed the Issue of fiscal Impact. Tbis project Is not of sufficient size or significance to trigg2r the analysis directed by the City CounCil's recently adopted policy to exa.1ne fiscal fmpacts IS they relat~ to iand use d!cisions. However. fn response to the Barron Park Associatfon c~ncern, staff requested the finance Department to provide a brief a.s.ssment of the flsca! effects of the .Ite'. redevelopment. Staff concluded that the redevelopment of the motel site to •• lxed·use project would h.ve no impact on the t.xe. received by the City. Lik~ise, the olnor Increa •• io revenues that PCSTE! NB/I4L Page 4 " / ~uld result from rot.ll use versus office use •• uld bo an I.slgnificant fIscal benefit to the City (refer to the section in the st.ff report for the site and de$lgn appllcltlon titled "fiscal Impact Assessment'). CoOprehen.iye Plan Compl'.nce The proposal complies with seYer,1 specific sections of the Cemprehenslye Pl.n. The Urban Design Element, Policy 6, calls for an upgrad. of standards for El Camino Real, and Progr •• 22 calls for improvlog the appearance of £1 Comino Re.l and £1 Camino Way. The Architectural R.vle~ Board's preliminary revle. of the proposed project found the site planning and basic design for the Mixed "se proposal to be conceptu.lly sound and appealing, while expressing some res~rvatfon$ about the arch1tecturt. Staff is confident that t"e Board and ap.pl fcant can resol VI!' tbe architectural pr{J.blems and de-velop I project which contributes significantly to the improyed appearance of this portion of the El C~.lno Real. The project will proylde 38 units of ~ouslng, four of which will be below~ market·rate (~~) units. The proposal Is consistent with ~ollcy 14 and Program 13 (formerly Program 8 .nd Policy 10) of the Housing flement. The lower parking requirement for commercfal office space versus retail allows for Increasing the density of the residential portlen of the project, and an increase in the number of SMR units required. T~e combination of uses proposed Is • _ix that Is likely to b. compatible, since office use is generally of lower intensity and less likely to prod~~e land use conflicts with T.sfde~tfal than would community· serving or r!glonal retail Qr general business service. R£CO!IIE!!DM lOll Staff reco.mends tn,t the Pl.nlng Commission recommend that the Cfty Council uphold the dechlon of the Zoning Adml.lstrator and approye the condltlo"al use permit fo~ 10,300 square feet of office ,se whore a ~axlmum of 5,000 SQuire feet would no~111 be the maximum p~rm1tted* subjact to findings and conditions contaIned i. thIs report. ftI!QIMGS 1. The proposed use at the proposed location will not be detrimental or i~jurious to proper~1 or ~mprovements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the pc,ll" health, .afety, g.neral weI far. or c.onvenience, fn that th:e p"roposed office use is I 1 es"S intensfve use t~a~ most other allowed ~$es. and consequently ';11 provide a better buffer for t~e residences at the rear of the site and will generate less traffic 1. t~e immediate vicinity, particularly at the Maybell/El Camino Real/El Camino Way '.terse,tlon. 2. The proposed use will be located and conducted in i ~anner in acc~Td with the P,'o Alto Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of Title Z8 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, 10 that the lower parking requirements fer office wse will 11Tow ~ore housing units to be b~ilt on the site, PeSTE INB/N l Pago 5 .. ". con.l.tont wIth Pollcy 14 of the ~o"slng (lement whIch ca", for provIding loeentlve. t. add ~.Id.ntl., unIts t. commercIal devel.pllents. Th. Incr .. sed n_r of housIng unih will result in liD". SMR unIts, supporting Progr.~ 13 of the ~ouslng flellent. In addItion. the .fflce us. will add a day-time popul.tlon to help support and .e.rby neighborhood retlll are. 0< the £1 Camino Way trlangl. Ind will result fn In upgrading of the appelrance of fl Camino Real, as promcted by Program 22 of the Urban Design Element. ' CO!I!ITIOIIS 1. The facade of the proposed office building In referenced plans for the U.e Penolt shall be redesigned. and the final design of the project shall be approved by the Archltectur.l Review Board. the Pl.nnfng CommIssion and the City CouncIl through the site and Ceslgn pr~e'5. Locat I on Kap MInute. of the ZonIng Ad~!DI.tr.tor Kearing of November 15. 1990 Pl.ns (refer to the pl.ns for the subsequent Site and Design .ppllcatlon. same agenda) letter of Application from David Mltanl. The Steinberg Group. October 15. 1990 letter from the Barron Pork Association. November 12. 1990 Letter fros Denny Petroslan. November IS, 1990 Litter of appe.l and attacheents from the fiarron Park Association Executive Committe., KovOllber 26. 1990 COPIES SEMI TQ DaVid "ltanl, the Steinberg Group Denny Petroslln. 443 Yentur. Avenue. Apt. 2. P.lo Alto. CA 94306 Barron Park Association. c/o John Joynt, 3589 Laguna. P.lo Alto. CA 94306 PCST£[NB/Nl Page 6 o VENTURA SCHOO,L RM-15 • .' E LOCATION NORTH EXCERPT "INUTES FDl! 3981 El CAHI!!ll RtAI. ZONING AIIMIHISIPATQR MQ.RIHG OF !!llYEl!m, 15. mo Nlnq' Lytle: DavId IUtan;: Nanc, l,U.: David !litanl: Nlnc, Ljlt 10: Tne next it .. on the Igend. is 3981 £1 CamIno R •• l (90·UP· 34, 90·EIA·30}: Conditional Use permit to 1110. construction and operation of I lO,300-square-foot office use where I maxil1t!m S,OOO-square-fDQt office us!' wouTd "o~'ly be l11~ed_ rnvironment.l Assessment: No sIgnificant Impacts. Zone District CS. Is the applicant present? 11m. 00 you have any comments to ~ake for the record? I can answer any questions. I ~ave received two letters. One is from the Barron Park Associatlon and the ether is fr~~ Dennl ~etros~an. Both pDrt~ons are not in support for the app'feation. On any appeal of any decisio~t we would expect to run concurrEnt with the resalnder of the Site and Design application. This application, for the public'S benefit, is one that req~ires Site and Design approvil. Any .Ixed·". project in the community does 90 through a pro~els whereby the Planning CDllnissian reviews it and makes recQIsnendat10ns to ttle Cit,. tDuneil. There's also the Architectural review board review and t~. CIty Coune!l tlk.s final action on the project so this will go through J couple evening hearings as well and, If there fs an appeal of the us. permit, we will try and see tnat those items run concurrently so that 111 issyes can be dlscus.ed at the same bearing. Is t~ere anyone else here to speak to this item? Seefng no one, I will close the public hearing since J hive no Questions of the applicant, 3981ECR<1iL Page 1 OCtober 15. 1~90 1111. Sane\!' I.vUe ZODiDg Adalniatrator City of Pala Alto Plannl~ Depar~nt 2~O 8s.11ton Avenue Palo Alto. California 9430~ r~ ~ Oak Ji!eadow I TIlt' St'PiJtbf'~ Group The proposed project at 3961 El Casino Real .it~ 1ts .ixed use of conda.jniu. and office .~aee wl11 re~laee an existJn~ .atel Qge. The app11cact fs requestinc an increase ot tbe allowed eo •• ereial area troa 5.000 .Q~are feet to 10.300 square !e~t. The lD.~OO square foot fi¥Ure Is equal to the O.fO I.A.i. peraJted due to fact that tbe residentIal erea 1. t1zed at 0.60 F.A.R. the ordinance does Dot allow a total F.A.R. over 1.0. The appiicant la Det plecinc retail YIS. In the C-S Zone because tbe .aJor fDcreul!' in parkin,. .HI not .llow III feas.JbJe reside-ntjal layout aod a retail .nvironaent WQuld be detrj.entaJ to the jJvab11ltv of the re,Jdeat1al OCCupants. la addition. retail u~e would undoubtedly require ¥j.1bl~ par~ln~ alona tbe E1 em.lao Real front. thus l!.lliol a desirable bUlldln¥-e~ee at the street. fhe increased oftice space poses DO adverse affects on the .llrroundin~ conte1t. Tbe .ote] to tbe north. the schoolyard to tbe east. ec •• ereia) _t E1 Ca.ino Real to the west. and low densJty residential buffered bv • water cbaanel to the south _ill not be negativelY affe~ted i~ the areas ot publi~ beelth. lafety. convenfeDce or lenera] weltare. the applicant. tb~tefore. propuses that _n aJlowed j~crease in co .. erc!a1 office .pace _ill blend bar.onlously _Jth the E1 C.-ino neJ~borhood as well •• tha propcsed reslde~tla] co.-unity. Sincer-ely. THE STEINBERG GROUP ~nl,>J EnclOlure -\,.:, . .,,'1',.:.," \" ""J. , '. ~ ,II"!.·" ,,, .. ' I _." '" :,JI BARRON PARK ASSOOATION PALO ALTO. CALIFORNIA No Nancy Lyt ng Adnln1 stratOf'" City of Palo Alto 250 Hami 1 ton Ave. ·Palo Alto~ Ca. 94301 Dear-..... t.yt te; o vamer" 12". 199Ci The Barron Park Association E)(eo.Jt1ve Co:mnittee liishes to register our oppositlon to the applieatloo 10(' a condltional use permit for a 10.300 square foot offjce use at 3981 £1 camino Real (90-UP-34. 9O-EL\-30}. No offlce use e)(ceed!i'!"lg 5OC() square feet is justified Of" warra. .... ted on cs or (,til zoned property aTong E1 camino Real between Page W,l1 and Charleston. lie urge you to reje<:'t tl'1; s appl1eatlon. and 1 tfl'lit office use to:) 5000 square feeL Please CClTt)ly wUh the extensive re~few and evaluation which was concl..cted during the C1tywide lNld ~ and Traffic: St<.ldy and "do not anow th1s 'USe. Ther'e ,. no need to approve &n all-office use on this site. One argunent made in 'tavc,. 01 off1ces rather than c:onnercial is tt.e need for otf-street parlCing 1n front of retail uses to IIViIIke the busH-.ess viable. This 1& not nec:ess.ary. Many retat 1 uses have prospered aTong El Canino Aeai without front parking lots. f'"or eXalple. Barron. Park Phal'f1l&Cyon the corner of Curtner had no park1ng at all in front of the store. yet the~ operated sucesSfully for aHrost 40 years. When they c;lQsed~ 1t was because of a huge rent increase. not lack of pariling Of' custOlT'ers. Lana. 1 Flowers t-.a.s only a shOrt: secti!XI of str~t par 111':1 ng , yet theY have been sucess1ul for lTDre than 30 ye-ars. The new i-bney Baked Ham store at .113 ECR has no street pairking or parking lot aeces.s fran El c.mino Real, yet they made. lTBjor 1F1'Ve'$trnent expecting to. be &UCessfu1. There are many other businesses a.long £1 Ca'n1no wh1ch dieS quite well 10(' years with no "front park1 ng lots. Thus there is no reaSOl'\ not to feql.l; re that any camercfal use exceedfr"19 5000 8qJafe feet be retail, not offices. As you know, 1t 15 it f1Mn goal of the Barron Par. AsSOCi.t1on to promote l'etal1 U8eS along E1 c.r.ino. There are no large office uses an)"Wtler'e along this se-=.t1on of El CMlino. It is i!1'POf'tant that roo SUCh office uses become entrenched there, or they might force the desirable retllll uses ouL Offices can dED8nd hi~r rents. ard may price reta11 uses OYt of the market ~ Another c:onsider.tlDn 1s. the fucai 1~t of office rather that! ret.1' uses. The e.IC.lStlng II"Otel use 16 a hig, tax generat1'ng use. Aetall w111 generate sales taxes. Offices se-ldCm generate soy taMes. lnst~ they CQf'l&I.me c1ty ,.....,s. Thus granting the U5e permlt will • have an adverse im.pact on ci ty r~"enues. ";e understand there may be & lE"ndenq: to be-syulpathetic to the &J:.p! icant because noone told him that there is a 5000 square foot lilltit Of! officI? use-s in CS z-ones~ Tr,at is unrortun&tE'~ but it is no justitfeation ro~ violating the n£~ly adopted regulations on office size ill C:-': -nd CS zones. nor do~s it .arrant yiolating' go-od Jdennlng and la.nd use polic)· .. An~· effort to Qcccrnodate the applicant ","til ereate hardships f<;ll' the community. Tho:-prcr,~r-course is to ~eny the appiicat ion and recognize that the 4: years sperjt studying-prc,p€'r uses in the CS and eN ~ones resulted in the correct limits for oCfices. ~O\( they must be enforced. Please deny the application tor a use permit for 10,300 .square reel or office use at 3981 El C._inc Real. Enforce the ~ooo square ro-ot 1 im! t on off ices. Any cOIlJ.r..I.erC' i al uses abc ... e-5000 squu'e fee t aust be retail only. Yours very truly. cc; AIlo 1alto City Quw:i1 alo alto Flaming 0::EmiM:ic:n BIrTa': Pa1'k Jdo:ICiatiaI Ibsrd BARRON PARK ASSOOATlON PALO ALTO, CALifORNIA " -'------'---'-' AR;:lea1 of Use Penna 9O-UP-34. &O-EIA·30. 10,300 Sq. Ft. Office eui1dlr,g at 3981 [1 o.n100 ANl fhe B.PJt E!tecutive Ccnrn.ittee wishes to appeal 9"ant1r.g of a use pernnt for a 10,300 sq. ft. office bundlng at 389~ El c..nfno Real. in the CS zone. Zoning perm; ts no rtr>re tr ... n 5OCO sq. ft. of office LISe on any single lOot "In the! CS zane. 01 August 1, 1989, the Palo .Alto Clty O;u-cil <:c:::fr1)leted the 4-rear CHYW10e Land Use al"ld Traffic Study by adaC:lt1ng ma""y ameuSne·.ts to Title 18 PfIJ.c, Zon1ng. For the CS ZOf'IE, Se<:tion 18.45.07GCU was amen:ied to state ·0. No lot shan have fT'I)re tl'lrisin 465 square meters (5000 square fE€t) 01 off1ee ~.. The l1mtt was ee:tablished after e)ltens1ve 1rp,Jt frcm staH. the pubhc, developers. the P16.11tlln.;d Ccmniss:ion ana City C.oIIlC11. Rehef frc:rn the limit rmy be g.'"ar.ted br ttle Zoning Ad':11nistrator wlth a Use PerfTnt P'!!'t' Section 18.45.070(f)2. Tr.e Barr-OI"1_ Park A.. ... so;iation E.II:e;:ut1ve Conl11ttee ClppOSE'O the granting of such a use permit 10:" trw: 10.330 square faot off1ce bu11ding ~DpflSed flY. 3891 El Cimino Real. Now that the Zonir.g Ad'nin1statcr has gra~ted tne Us~ Permtt, the Barron Park Association 80& ... 6 wishes to appeal this permit. and to request that the P1ann~ng Cclm!i ssion and! C1ty Cot.nci 1 honor ~ Zani,.-o9 O'dl nanc:e. the r.aref!Jll~ thought-out goa's a~ oojec-tni e3 of the Citywide Land Use and Tr-a1'flc study~ and the E1 Carlino Real Guickhnes. and overturn the ruling of the Zoning ActrI1nl'Strator and deny the use permit. 0Jr justlficatloos are given in the lll!tter from the SPA £.recutive CcmnHtee to Nancy Lytle doted Novenber 12, and other attacl'Jnents. • ·,-. o Appeal of Use Pemit 9O-UP-S4. 9O-EIA-3/) 10,300 Square Foot Office 84Jl1d1ng at 389' El C«nino Real 1lle Barron Fark Assoc1.t1on Nis been c.orc~'ned &rout Brd has cbjected to office uses in the CN and CS zones. espec:~a' ly alQflg [1 Carnino Re.!l~ 'Since 1978. We Q)OS.1 .. tantly Iilsked that de'ole1opnent$ .long E1 Canino be low intens1ty, ne1~hOod oriented, and that they prO .... 1de retall sales and serI/1r;es~ For-nal att~pts to limit the 151 ze of offices in the CN and CS zone can be doct.tnented at least as far back as Novsmer 19C:3. ~ Counci lrne"Tt:>ers SUtorious &nC McGowa."l &ef'ved with dlSt1r.ct10f'1 on the PlarYI"ing Connission. At!ached is a copy <:.f a letter frerr, the !PA to then M.a)'tJr 1(1'eln ~ted June 1, 1984, ~herE1n l\mits on the s1ze of offices. ar~ action to preyent encroactment of offices in tne CS and Q.I zone& was requested. QJr reqoest 'Was not adopted then because fi·Sot a ~rehe:1Sl'ole Plan Review. an:! late:-the CHy ... ide Land Use and Traffic Study were C1ted as ~tun1t1es for a ~oaj re'olle~ of ofhees and ma.,y othc;(" issues in the CS ar..d Oi zone. IIJe had the re-wiew and $t~y~ We sper.t ne<.tr1y S3OV,000 on con$:.J1tants~ ~re were alrTOSt .. )'edrs of repo;ts. hca!"i rogs. testimony. and edensi:ve diSCltSSlon_ T'I-Ie rest.:1t was si9'1ificant Cha.noges in regtJlatioo:;. g::»....-erning tx.dlck"-1Ut potenUal and officE uses in He CS and CN zones.~ Ever~or.e praise.::: the extensive af"ld 'dete; 100 work that result~ 'In the Zoning Ordjn.3-"1Ce ~.t1i of Aug.J'Gt 1ge9. A ma}or' Change to the CS &rid eN. zones was the 5CX)O SQ. ft. 1im.t on office uses. At last we t~lt OU~ 11 year eff~t to protect i'eiiilll and cornrerclal uses along F:1 Ca:n1no Real ccne !.Q frulhon. Now the first non-rHidentHll IX"Olec.t to ap;Jear in the CS zone since reyislon of Ti tle 18 is for an al1-offlce use rrore than t .... ice the per-mlssahle siZe! More appall~r.9 is. the 1iiPP'0VCIT of the use permi t even t~ it is a clear violation of the Tetter a."'ld intent of the ne'oIilY acS.:l;;ted Zoriing Of'cm,a"lC€', .. tnch is to 1 i,11i t off1c~ uses In the CS erd CN zones. Please remain true to the carefull:r conside:-ed 2nd fully di£c~soo reYisions. to the 2OOi9 ordinan:::e and reject thiS use peml1. There i& !lO need to ailow an all office use 0-:1 U"11s sHe. Retail is perfect1y vlsble on E\ C8'r1ino ReJil. with Of' .. ",thout off&treet par~ing in front of the bui1dlng. If the developer is requ1red to acIlef"e to the 5000 $q_ ft. office lim1t he -.as several: options. He can rE.<1UCe the bt.nlC1ing size by 5300 sq~ ft. and have an .11-offlce use along El c.niro in front of the hous.ir;g. ~ can red.Jce the total s:ze of the building and place P8~f<ing 5paces in front. with access fran £1 Camino Re&1. He can reconfi9Ul"'e the site plan ~ have parking and automot1ve access along the northerly voperty line. and nave the comnercial bu11Cing de-signed as an L 01'" a V with the ope.i "100 fac1n.g [1 Ca'nmo Real. Since a ff.aJ&:lnun he1gt,t of 35 feet 15 pcrmltted .. tJ)e coomercial buildlng can be :; stories tall with the ~r 2 5torles offices. not to exeeL~ 5000 14. ft. total. The propert~ 15 18rg.'!' and deoep. and t~e is no reaSoOf"I that thE: txnld109'S carv-ot be redesi~ ard rf:locat£<S to • o either limit offices to 5000 sq. ft., ~ to have both reta1l and off1~ with • ~ ~. ft. limit on offices. Office uses create m)re jobs: and l!I)f'e peak hour traffic than retail. The ~O,300 ~. ft. under the use PCr"ffl:t .. cw'lc resuH in about 41 j~. The san~ arEa in retail wou~d crea~e 10 or 11 ,cbs. If the boildU".g _as 5000 sq. flo reta"il a:"ld 5-00:) sq. ft. offices there woulcS be a~ut 2S jots Cl'catec. ASSI.IT'.'1f"l'J that the e .. ist ing [X)'::.el pro'..-,ces. 6 jobS, an a1 J office 1J$e WKluld res~' t ; . ., a r.~t increase of 33 lotas. An ai 1 retail use \Io'OU:d' res:.Jlt in ~ Of' 3 rrore }obs, and mixed retal~ and office w~id result ,n ~~ 17 r~t r~ JOO6. rros: frOllI t!'"~ off"icl!;'s. Thf;re .il1 t...e lnCrE-... $E-d dei.ax fo~ hous:ng. ~.:;,;-tlcu'arTy affordilile hous·,rog, cu..~ to tho:-i2;·:1'Y:d jo::·!:. frO"1 off"ic.e uses. T~s the new housln;:J or. trI(.o sHe .. i 11 noi.lke a far ~"er lr:;:.. .. ct or, the hv:.J&ing s'lCrtfall 'With Ter9f: cffice us(;s U",,",n w1:tt". reta', L (he eXC<hE'2-not to have r£tal1 0,. the-'S ... te is th.:lt it tf.ai not be econo""!,c&lly Y18~le. That is purE: GPL"Cu1ation. R·::tall via'Y.lity oc;:>e.nds at lfo'",~t liE. nuc:', on the natur-E: of th.::! r~tai 1 or 6erVlcr:: c.ffered. tt'.e sO< 111 of t~ operator s and owr-,er s t Cl1"ld :.~ oyer a11 ecoran1C. cl1mate 1n the CO"lm.Zli ty~ None of tht."S-e arE: proper concerns of land use Of" planning bodles. ),,any S"I611 retall ~1ne&ses have !.urvived a10ng El CCC'.ino F«: ... 1 for years. ~ haye only street parking \n front. SCfllI! ha. ... e par--kin; Tots 1n fro:1t. and 5O"Di! !'\aye parft:ing on the side or 1n the rear. EII:~les o~ rctall SU(..ess and retail f.a11ure can be fOl.-rd in a11 thr~ ca!'e3.~ S:.Jcess de:pe"lCfs ('I'JOl"e upon the prock..lCt oi~ef'cd and the &ok; 1 1 of the pt"opf'i-ete>r tP"l~n on Whether or not the propert/ HI; next to a cr-eek. un a ~rner. or-in mtdbl~:k. $1nce a cond'itlon of t~ use permit 1$ reGoO'Slgrt of tr.e buj161ng~ requiring a cha~ to rctall plus G~~~ces is not a 5ig!'1ifie3nt a.:fded burden. OfflCes. ea.') be redx.c-d to 50:)0 sq. ft. arG the r~ining carrrerciaT $pace redesigned for ret;;;'11, 1111tn parking; ;."'. front 11 desired, or-the totol sHe of Hoe b...nldHlg cou1d be reduced. We are not opposed to reu-se c-f the 'SHe for ho.JSing or a rr.he-:: use ~ject 11 it '$ done in aceo>dance wlth tr~ ca~£1ul'~ thought out and rece.,tly adopted zoning ord;nance~ We do w6nt 8 prOj£ct Which 1$ attradi ... e~ sens' t1ve to the ne1~rhor.:::od. and which carpties w1 th Hoe goals of an 1!7{"AOVed anC \I~at.le ;;.or;r';'.erC~o.l d1strict aloog El Caot,ino A~l. The best fuoc-tlOO of the Pl('1nt11ng COOnfsslor. en.:: CHy Cou."lCll 1s to establi6h reg..olat;ons go ..... ernH ... tg develo~nt envelop...">S. carp.;;., ti b T e and 11"1CCfl"pa t ,.b 1 e uses • and ; npJocts on t r af f ) C • j ;Xl grOllo'th, and housing dEmand, That 11; exactly or,".at was d..>rtt:' 1a~ t yl. ... r .. "!'len the !:OOO ~, ft. c..a;:> on Clffic~ was ,a;Jpli~ to ttl.:! CS ax eN zones. Please r8Tl!l1n. consi'Stant w1th the: recently adopted office 11I11U.. CD not approve oversi.zed office deve-ioprents the f1,.st t1rne an appMl S. &lim1 tled~ Support our long ana: petlent efforts to preserve ret611 vaalHy along £1 canine Real. Reject this overs1zed a'l office us.e-penna. Application No. 90-UP-34: 3981 £1 C.mlno ~ Use Penait 90-UP-34 is ~pproved for construction and operation cf 10.300 sQuare feet of office use where a maximum of S,OOO square feet would norma11y be allowed. as per attached plans, at 3~Sl [1 Camino Rea', Zone Oistrict CS, Palo Alto, C,1ifoTDia. and is subject to conditions listed below. fTNPINGS 1_ The proposed ~se It the proposed locat\on ~ll not be detrimental or injurious tOo property or impl"'D"Vements in the vicinity, al1d will not be detrimental to the public healt~, safety, genera' welfare or convEnience, in that the proposed office use is a less intensive use than most other al1cwed uses, and consequently will prow ide a better buffer for the residences at t~e rear of the Site and will generate less traffic in the lmmediate vic~~itl, particwlarl) at the Maybel1/£1 Camine Rel1jEl Camino Way intersect f on. 2. The proposed ~se will be lo(ated and c~~ducted in a ~anne~ in a~coTd with the Palo Alto Comprehens;v~ tlaq Ind the purposes of Title 18 of the Pal~ Alto Municipal C~de, fn tkat the lower parkfng requirements for office use will allow more housing ~nits to be b~ilt or. the Site, consistent wit~ Program 8 of the Housing Element which call. for providing incentiy •• to add r •• identl.l un\ts te commercial developments. Tbe increased number of bousing units will result ~1'l .ore BMR unas, supporting Policy 10 of the Housing Element. In addition. the office us. will add. daytime population to help support the nearby neigh~rhood retail area on the EI Cam'oo W.y triangle and ~\ll r.s"lt in an upgrading of the appearance of £1 Camino Real, as promoted by Program 22 of the Vrban O •• ign Element. CQ!!Q!TIONS 1. The facade of the proposed office building f~ reference~ plans for the Use Penait shall be redesigned, and t~e f,"ll design of the project s~all be approved by the Architectural Rev"iew Board, tn.e Phnning Commfssfon and the City Council through the Site and Design process. A /t.//)j NANCY MAOOOl LYTLE lanfng Adslnistrator November 19. 1990 VP9C34 NL 11/18/50 Fag. I This fa .. ~o •• not constitute the use permit for ~Ic~ Ippll,otlon was ~.d •. If the Ippllcotlon I •• pproved and if no .ppe.' from t~is decIsion Is filod by In1 perSOD. fir. or corporitton affected by the dectslon on or by November 3D. 1990, lOU wIll rece!.e • copy of your permit In the ~ill. If thIs Ippllc,tlon Is nat decf~ed to your s.tlsf~ctlon, the de~lslon ~, be .ppea'ed to the Plannfng Coomiss!on by fIling an .pp.al 'ppllcltlon with the PlannIng Oeplrtment and Cttl Clerl D~ or before the Ibove-wentfoned dltt. cc: Denny 'etroslan. 443 Ventura Avenue, Apt. Z, Palo Alto, CA 94306 Barron P~rk A5socfition, c/o Jon JOYDt, 3589 Laguna, P.l0 Alto , CA 94306 UP9034 NL 11/18/90 Page l o EnvlrohOental Documents -Cit1 of Palo Alto EMVIROIf!ENTAl ASSESSIIENT Project Descriptlon/'ltle: Major Site' Deslon review of a .Ixed uso project .It~ 3i ro.identl.l units Ind a 10.300 sauare foot coomerc;al build,og with unnderground parking. location/Address: 3gSI [1 Camino Rell Polo Alto. CA Sponsoring AgenCY/APplicant: The Steinberg Group 60 Pierce Avenue Address and Telephone of APplicant: (408) 295-5445 San Jose. C~---gs!lO APplication for: Major Site and O.sign Re,iew Zoning at Project location: (S. RM-30 Fee Receipt Ho.: ---------.- NOTICE OF DETERMINATION Based upon review of the project file •• the undersigned member of the Planning Department has concluded: l!l Negative Declaration: f~.ct. No Env!ronmental "09atl.e Declaration are: The project has been approved. The project has been denled_ Revised 8/1/79 [INRI! 9-11-90 Date: Olte: File "0_: 90-EIA-30 90-E1A-30 J • / o Envfron.ent.1 Docuoento • City of ,.1. Alto INITIAL STUDyl.Z I. Project Title/Address: -,3.,9~8~1..!{"-I-,C,-, ... ""-!.!I"~0-,R.,,e,-!a!.1 _________ _ II. III. lY. Envl romoenta I Impact Checkllsi (Explt.atlon of all ·yes· answ!rs are 10 Section V): 1. Earth. Will the prop ••• l result fo: YES ~ NO a. Vnstable earth conditions or changes 10 geologic .ubstructures? ..!. b. Disruptions, dlsplace.ents, compaction or overeovorlng of tne sol11 .L c. Change i. topogrlphy or ground surface relief f.atures? .L d. Tbe destruction, covering Dr -.dlfltatlon of .ny unique ge~loglc or phySical feltures? .L I. Any fncre.se fn wfr.d Dr water eraSion of salls, either on or off the olt.? .L f. Exposure of people or property to geOl~!C hlzards such as earthquakes, Iinds Ides. audslldes, ground failure, or sf.ll.r hlZards? .L g. Changes f. Siltation, deposition, or erosion ~Ich '" -.dlft the chlnnel of a river or the bed of • bay Dr Inlet? .L E1Afl1CK go·£IA·30 Z .-." Z. AIr. WIll the 9ropo •• l result In: •. Sub.tlnt!.l Ilr eols.lon. or d.torlor. tlo. of alblent Ilr qu.llty? b. Th. cre,tion of obJectlon.l odors? c. A1ter,tlon of Ilr -.v ... nt, .alsture teeper&ture. or any change in cl1aate. either locally or reglonal1 3. W.ter. VI11 the propos.' result in: I. Chlnge, In .b,oT9tl~n rates, drll.age patterns, or lbe rite and amount of surf ate water runoff? b. Alterations to the tours. Dr flo. of flood waters? o c. Discharge into surface waters, or in any .lteratlon of surface w.ter Guality. includiog but not limited to temperAture, di •• olved oX1gon or turbidity? d. Alteration of the directlo. of rat. of fI ow of ground .. oter.l e. Expo.ure of people Dr profltTty to water related haz.rd, s.ch ,s flooding Dr tid., .. a.eH f_ Change I. the quantity of ground w.ters. either through dIrect .dditlons or with dr ••• '" or through interception. of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? 4. 'lant llfe_ Will tne propos.l re.ult In: l. Change in the diyersity of species, or number of any species of pl~nts (jnclud~ fng trees, shrubs. grass, crops, mfcrc flora and .quatic pl.nt.)? b. Reduction of the nu~btr5 of Iny unique, rlre or endangered species of pllnts? c. Introduction of new specl.s of pl,nto into In Irei. or in I barrier to the nona,1 replenl.haent of existing species? d. Reduction I. Icr •• ge of .nl Igrle.,tur.' crop? gO-E1A-30 3 ..L ..L ..L ..L .' @ "'?>, , . ..;,,/ 5. Antl •• t lIf •. Will t~~ propos.l result ,.: YES MAYBE HO •• Chlnge ,. thl diy.rslly of species, or of 'ny specfes of .. f .. ls (birds, lind .nl .. ls fncludlng reptll •• , ffsh .nd shellflsh, benthic o'9,nl ... , fnsect. or .Ieroflu •• )? -L. b. Qed.cllon of the • .-bers of •• y unique, rlre or end.ngered specl.s of 1.I .. ls? -L. e. Introductfon of new species of •• f •• ls Into .n area, or r,sult 1 •• barrier to t~. Rlgratlon or ... ..ont of aniaals? -L. d. Detorlo,.llo. I. existlni fish or wlldllfe habit.t? -L. 6. Nolse. Wl11 the propo •• l res,lt In: •• Increases 10 existing nofs& 1!~els1 -L. b. Exposuro of peopl. to s.yo .. noise leveh? _1_ 7. light ond glare. ViII the proposal prodoce new ljght gl,re? -L. 8. VIII tho proposal resolt 1 •• .ltor.tion of the present or Ind us. of an a .. a? -L. 9. Ener.fy~aturll Resources. Will the propos.1 resu t n: •• Use of sub.t.nti.1 aDOunts of fu"l or 0.'''911 -L. b. Substantial increase in demand upo~ existing sources of energy, Dr req~fre tbe development of new sources or energy? c. l.cr •• s. In the r.t. of use of .ny natural resources? -L. d. Subst,ntl.l depletion of .ny non renew· Ible natural resDuTc~? -L. 10. Risk of Upset. Does the propos.l fnyo1.e • risk Gf In explosion Dr the releise of hazard"., ,.bstances (lne1udln~b't not li_lt.d to, Oil, pestiCides, c IClls or radiation) I. the event of on accident or upset? -L. ElAfMCK 90·[JA.·30 4 .... - () 0 11. P02ul.tlen!Hous1ng. •• W!ll t~e propos.' .lter t~e loc.tlon, distribution, density, or growth rlt. of the h~n popul.tlon of In Ire.? b. Will the prepos.l .ffect .xl,tlng housin~, or cr •• t •• de .. nd for addl- tion.l ho .. !ng? 12. Tr.ns~ort.tlo~Circ.,.tf.n. Will the propo,.l result In: I. Ge.er,tlon of substantl.l .~dttlon.l .ehlcul.r "vODent? b. Effects on existing parking f.cilltle., or demand for new plrklng? c. Alterations to present p.ttenos of circul,tlon or ftQvement of people .ndV or goods? d. Increase in traffic hazards to MOtor ye~fcTe$, b'cyclfsts Dr pedeitr1ans? U. Public Services. Will the propos.l h •••• n .ffect upon~ ~r result in I need for new Dr .ltered goyernment.l services '0 ,ny .f the following Ire.s: a. fire protection? b. Pollee protection? c. Sehools? d. Parks or at~er recreltfonal fitllitles? e. M.intenanee of public f,cllftles, Including roads? f. Other gover ... nt.l services? 14. Utilities. Will the propos.l result 'n • need fer new systems, or substontl.l ,lter,tlons to the foll&olng utilities: I. Power or nlturil gls? b. Ca.m.nle.tlons systems? £lAflICK ns -L -L IlAIBE NO -L ...L ...L -L _L ...L .l... -L ...L -L 9Q-EIA-30 S ...L c. lIater? d. Seoer or septiC tank? e. Sto .. Wlter dr.I.age? f. Solid Wlste Ind disposl1? 15. Hom •• Hellt~. 11111 the propo.ll result In: •• Cr •• tlon of .n~ health h.Zlrd or potential h •• 1th hazlrd ( •• c1udlng ... nt.l health)? b. Exposure of 9Oop1. t. potontla1 he.lth hazards? .- 16. Ae,thetlcs. 11111 the proposll result In t~o ob5truction of any tcen1e yfstl or view open to the public. OT will the proposl1 result 1ft the creation of In •• sthetlcl", Gff~nsfve sfte ~r~n to public wiew? 11. llill the proposal re,,1t II .n the quality or qu.ntlt, of e.lst· Ing recreational opportunities? 18. C.ltura1 Resources. E1AfMCK •• lIill the proposll res.lt In the .'terl tfon .f/or the destructfon of • prehistoric or hl.torlc Irchleologlcll site? b. Vll1 the propo •• , res.1t fn adverse ph,sl,., ~r •• sthetlc erfects to a prehistoric or hl.torlc building. str~etureJ or object? c. Does the propos., hive the potential to CIU'. a ph"I,a1 chlnge .nitA would affect unique cultural •• 1ue,? d. Vi11 the propo.l1 restrict .xlstlng religious or ,.cred .,.s wft~f. the potentl., Impact ar •• l y[S 90·EIA-30 6 · ,:. ® 0 19. Mlnd.torr findIng. of Slgnlflcanc •. YES I. Doe. the project ba.e the potential to dogr.de the qUlllty of the enwlron ... t, ,"bstlntl.lli redote the habltlt of • fl.h or wild Ife .pecle., cau!~ a fish or wlldllf. populatIon to drop below •• If-,ustalnlng lo.els, threaten to .11.lnlt. I pllnt or anl .. l coomunlty. reduce tho nu.ber or re,trlot the range of • rlre or endlngered pllnt DT Ini~l Dr .11~lnlt. laportant •• lepl •• of the .. jor period. of C.llfo.,11 .!story or prehistory? b_ Ooes the project ha.e the potentlll to achle.e short-te .. , to the dl.advantage .f long-te .. , environmental goals? (A shorl-tena I~.ct on t~e envIronment Is one which occurs in I relativel, br~ef, defloltl.e period of II .. whIle long-te .. I~acts vil1 endure well Into the future.) c. Does the project ha.e I.pacts which are Individually ll.'ted. but cu.ulatlvely considerable? (A project •• y Impact on two Dr .art seplrlt. resources where t~e I~.ct on e.ch resource Is rellt'.e11 ... 11. but where the effect of the total of tho,. I~act. on t~e en.ironaent Is slgnl flclnt.) d. Does the project ha •• en.ironDent.l effects which will cau,e substlntl.l ad.erse .ffects on hum.n beln9s, .,ther dlrectll or indirectly? Y. ExplanatiDn cf ~y!s· answ!rs in e~v)rDn~~ntll checklist. See .nached. UAfIICK MAVBE NO ..!.. ..!.. l _X_ 90-£IA-30 7 1 Ib f) EaTt~. Const .. etlon of tho 107 space ~nd.rgrc"nd parking garlge and bu 1~lng founaltfon will .. ,.It In dl,~ptlon of sit •• 011s Ind oxcI.otlon Ind reoo.ll of .arth fro. the ,Itl. Th.,. Il9lcts ar. typlc.l for I project of thl' 'Ize whIch will provide underground parklnQ. A, the .It. I. loclt.d .lt~l. I built Urbl. e.vlronoent, loch f~.ct. ar. not eonslder.d sIgnificant. Th. project .It. Is loclt~ In I .elsolc Ire. of moderlte risk and will be lubject to vory str~ ground shlklng In the event of an •• rthq.lke. All ne~ const .. ction wIll be subject to the requlr..ents of the current Uniform &ulldlng Code which Iro designed to .1.1.1 •• the lo.s of lifo and property due to An e.rthquake. 4 I.! Plant life. The arborl.t's report provlO~ ~y the Ippllcant fdentlfles40 trees e.lltlng on the lito. The.e Include 17 AIlanthus, 4 olks, 4 pt~per tre •• , 2 conlf.r. and a "Tltty of fruit tr.... "lny of the tree. Ire I. POOT ~ondltlon or ore In fnslgn!flco.t slle I.d specie.. Kost of the t ••••• r. loclted neor the perl .. ter of the sltt. Tblrt •• n of the exl,tlng tree. ar. going to be rltoln~. which Includes III but one of tne sIgnificant tree. on the site. One 38" '0111Y 0.\ i. filT·poor condition wIll be ...... d. Tbl, tree i. loclted n •• r the .Iddle of the ,Ite In. I. not Judged to be I good .nough speclaon to requlr. the project to be desIgned around It. Th. three other oak' on the site wIll be ret.lnod, Including 0 47' r.l1ey oak near the ,outho.st corner of the sIte. Approxlaotely 50 new tree. will be pl.nted on the slle, Including I nwaber of .odIum or llrge siz. tr.... The undergrDund garoge I, •• t bock appro,fR,.tel, 25 feet from the property lIn., leovlog sufficient soil vol~ It the perl .. ter of the sIte to sustllo llrge tr.es. The fln.l landsc.pe pl.n will be .ubJett to t~e oppro •• l of the Archltecturol Revl .. Board Ind will Include I plln for protecting during constrJctlon the tree. whIch are to be r.tllnod. E (.lb~ol,e. tonstruetlon Ictlyitles will res.lt 10 teopor.ry fne ••• s.s In loc. ,ent noise lev.l •• All construction Ictlvlties sh.ll be subject to t~. prevision. of the City Noise Ordln.nce, Chapter g.IO PAKC. Th. project .It. adjacent to E1 CamIno Real h •• been i~.ntlfleO I. the Caaprehenslve Pl.n IS beIng wlthl. In a .. 1 experlenelng •• jor trlfflc noi.e. The Comprehehslvo Plan recoonend. th.t I .Iftlmu. Iccopt.ble outdoor noise lo.el of 65 dBA and In loterlor superior nol.e level of 40 dBA b ••• Int.ined for resIdent 111 lind uses. Z. oddltlon, Cilifoml. Stato law, Title 24, requl •• s that a .1.loum Inte.lor 45 ~ C~El (Ccomunlty ~oise Equivolent lo.el) or less ~ •• iotlined for new ~ltlpl.·f .. iI1 proj.cts. The follo.lng t.ble represents actual noise leyels on site documented 1. In acoustical report prepor~ by (dward 1. P,ck, Associates, d.ted July 20, 1990. The nol.e levels ElAflICK -, 90·E1A·30 8 • o Ire cllcullted It t~e .Inl ... pllnned setback fr~ El C .. lno Real for each "SI: UTEllDR IIOIS£ LEVEtS (LID dlA) Q!r: NlaM Rtsldentt.l 67 61 Comerclll 13 INTERIDR NOISE LEVELS (LIO dlA) Q!r: ~19bt Resldentlll C ..... rtlll 52 e1 46 In order t~ lchieve compli.nce with the P.lo Alto ComprehensIve Plan and Title 2e stlnd.rds the followIng sound control .. Isures shall be requIred as conditIons: £oterlor Resldentl.' Area NoIse Controls t. Achle.e 65 dIA For .. ar potios and decks wlt~l. 195 ft. of the west property line and h.vlng a direct or sIde vi •• of .1 Comlno Real, construct 6 ft. blgh acoustIcal pltio fence. and 36 hIgh solId deck raIlings. PatIos and decks facIng onto the Interior plazl area wIll not requlrt nOise controls, due to the shIelding provIded by the pl.nned buIldIng ilTringment. Interior Re.ldentlal Hol.e C.ntrols to A,hleve 40 dBA Wlth!n 195 ft. of El Camino Real, one of the follow;ng mitigation. shall be required: I. Required window construction using single pane of 1/4" gl.ss pro,lding 51C·32 r.tlng or Digher. T~ls Issumes windows will be kept closed It .11 tl.e. and that .. ehanical ventll,tlon will be provided. b~ Required wfndow cDnstructfon ~s1ng & prefabrfcatef acoustfcal window providIng STC·54 ratln9 or ~19her. With t~is alter.,tl.e, windows .'Y be kept open up to SOl of the time for n.t.r.l .entllatlon and .. chinlc.l ventilation Is not r~ulrod. Further than 195 ft. to El C .. inc Real, one of the followIng _Itig.ticn. sh.ll be requIred: I. Required window eon.tructlon u,lng • single pane of 1/4" gl.ss providing 5TC·28 rating or higher. Tais ISSUoeS windows will be UAfMCk gO·EI~·30 g "' ". b. t.pt clo.ed It III tlBOS lnd thit .. chlnlcll ventilition will be provided. R.qulred wlndo. construction uslni I prefabrlclted lcoustlcll window providing STC-46 r.tln9 Dr .Igher. Wlt~ this .1temltl,., windows '" be kept open up tD 50s Df the tl .. for nlturll v,ntilition and BOeh.nlc.1 vontllatlo. I. ~t required. The windows of the resldentl.l units that Ire specified to be .. Intalned closed It .11 tl .. s for nol,e control Ire t. be operabl., .s the requirement doe •• ot laply I fixed condition. Ur.lts having the closed window (ondilion s~uld be provided with some fono of .. th.nlcll •• ntll.tlon to Is,.r •• h.bltabl. environment, a5 specified by the Unlfono Building (ode (UBC). 7 lliht Ind Gl.r._ The proJ.ct will res.lt I. In Incre.5. I. light and gl,r. venerlted fro. the site. It I> recommended that III •• torlor lighting be sblelded and direction.' and th,t light st.ndards be kept It the .1.1.0. height .,ce •• lry for security purposes. The final lighting pl,n sh'll be reviewed and approved by the Archltecturl' Review Boord_ Beco.,e the site Is opposlt. resldentll' uses, the commercial portion of the project wIll be required to c.-ply with the addition.' sit. development and d.,lgn regul.tlons of Chapter 18.64 of the zoning ordlnanc. Which are directed It olololzlO9 I~.cts on residential u,es, Inc'udlng lighting I~.ct •. 11 !.,b) ~ulatl.n/Houslng_ The co.structlon of 38 dwelling units will sllghtl, uce tho current Jobs/housing Illbalance and allow for an Inc .... nt.l Increase Ie the City', residential populatlon_ Tn. project Is subJ.ct to Program 12 of the Palo Alto C.-prehensl.e Pl •• '. Housing [l ... nt bel,. Market R.te (BKR) progrom, Whick require. that ho",lng projects with ten Dr .. re unit. pro.ldo 10 percent of the total units as BMR units. Coopllanco with Progrom 12 w1l1 require the provision of four (e) BKR units for t~ls project. ~ 10,300 >qulre feet of coomer.111 development In this project Is under the 20,000 square foot threshold required to trIgger housing .ltl90tlon fees. 12 (b) Transportatlon/Clrculatlon_ The sIte of this project WI. ~ncluded i. Arel 6 of the Citywide Lind Use and Transportation Study EIR_ Thu., the traffic Impacts of this project have been accounted for In th.t EIR_ As the project confo..." to the uses approved for that arel, and IS conoitlons h .. e not subsfantla"y c~.n;ed since the EIR w •• approved, no further env;rDnoentol review Is necesnry. lIhate,'er traffic illljlacts ...,uld be generated by developoent In Ar •• 6 ha.o been deemed acceptable by the City Council In Its .ccoptance of the EI~ Ind the iccompanylng .Itlgotlon Deasure._ ~re Is a subst.ntl.1 trlnsportatlon Improvement being made In the Immediate ylcl_lty of this project, .t the Inter •• ctlo. of El C •• lno Vay/tl C .. I.o ••• IILos Robles Avenue. Free-running right turns will be ell.lnated .nd bike II.es, l.ndscaplng Ind Sli.al hardwlre will be improved. The 41 re.ldentill plrklng ,plces a.d 79 commercia' parking spices required bl ordinance for thIs p~ject are being provided on the sit •• The Ippllcl.t ... t obtlln approval frQ! Cal Trans for .ny work or construction actIvity In the El C .. lno Rail right of way. EIAfMCK .. 0--.1""" ' , to-ElA-30 10 • ' .. • The applicant .. st obtai. ~roval froo t~ So.t. Clara ,.1101 Vator District 'or the desIgn and Instal1.tl0. of the pod.strla. bridge and •• 1 ot~.r llIIprov_.ts wlthln the SCWO t .. o .. nt. [JAflICK 90-[1"'-30 11