HomeMy WebLinkAbout0279.091,
~ ____ .... _& __ "C_, ____ , __ _
~ , r---------------------~
-
"OJ' 16, 1991
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
Palo Alto, California
PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PlAN AMENOMENT fROM SERVICE COMMERCIAL TO HULTI?LE
fAMILY RESIOENTIAl AND ZONE CHANGE fROM CS TO RH-40 TO PERHIT ALLOWABLE
COHKERCIAl SQU~E FOOTAGE TO BE CONSTRUCTEO AS RESIDENTIAL USE AT 39Bl El
CAMIHQ REAL
~ber. of the Council:
Pro1ect jn Brief
T~e applicant is reQuesting rezoning of 14,004 square feet of the project site
at 3981 [1 Camino Real from CS to RM-40 and amendment of the Compr.hensive
Plan d!signatfon to reflect the rezoning. The site is a single parcel of land
w;t~ two zone district designations, CS on the [1 Camino R!al frontage and RM-
30 at the back of the sit •. The applicant has proposed a mixed us.
offic./resldentlal project. Th. site Is currently occupied by the Hayflower
Garden Hotel. The .llowable floor area ratiO (F~) for ~ixed use projects in
the CS zone is 1.0, .lth commercIal fAR limited to 0.4 and residential F~
limited to 0.6. The allowable FAR in RH-40 is also 1.0, so the proposed zone
c~ange would not result in any increase in allowable fAR. The purpose of the
proposed zone chang. to RM-40 Is to permit all of the allowable FAR on the
rezoned portion of the site to be developed as res1dentill use rather tnan 0.4
ccamercial and 0.6 residential. The effect of the zone change would be to
convert 5,600 square feet of allowable commercial development to an eQui~alent
amount of rasidential development, resulting in four additional housing units.
See Attachment A at the end of thi, raport for a comparison of the allowable
resident1al and c~rcial FAR under present and proposed zoning. T~e chart
has been amended for clarity since tne Planning Commission meeting.
Badcgrgund
The applicant orig'nal1y proposed to construct 10,600 square feet of office
space Ind 38 resident;al units. However, bis application for a Conditional
Use Permit to construct more than S~OOO square feet of office space was denied
by the City Council on appeal. After Countil action, tne applicant reviewed
the possibility of incorporatin9 5,600 square feet of retail into the proj.ot.
He developed several alternatfve designs and presented the~ to retail real
estate brokers in the co~nit1 for tneir input on tne viability of the
proposed ret~11 spaces~ The response ~as generally negative, due to site
co"strif~ts ~1ch resulted in 11.ited parking, difficult access and poor
visibility for the majority of the retail spaoes. Staff has oon'istently
recommended to the applicant and the policymakers that retail would have
marg;~al Yiability under the current mixed use design without visible and
convenient park;ng~
CMR:279:91
•
\
t
f-
At the YirfDUS public hearings where thts project was r~Yftwed, comments made
by some Planning Coomissioners, City Council Kembers .nd meabers of the public
indic,ted support for the housing component of the project and an interest in
seeing DOre ~ousfng provided and commercial square footage replaced into
housing. At the October 10, 1991 Planning Commission meeting, Commissioner.
Hirsch and Glazier commonted that these relativ.ly modest units priced for
people entering the housing market and the low p~ices of the four BHR units
wOijld be i benefit to tne community~ Curing the review of the Conditional Use
Permit ippell on J3nu.r~ 9, ]991, CD~fs$ioner CulTen questioned whether the
CS portion of the site could b9 developed as housing. and Commfssioner Beecham
.sked staff to clarify whether any addition,1 housing square footage could be
added to the projett. Oenny Petrosian spoke to the itea, suggesting that the
project be changed to an all-residenti,l project. Conalssioners Marsh .nd
Beech .. explored the possibility that adding ret.il .pace to the project would
require I reduction in t~e number of housing units being provided. due to th!
increased parking require.ents for r!tiil use. At the City Council review of
the Conditional Use Permit .ppeal on January 22, 1991, Council Member Woolley
asked if ~re square footage ~o~ld be availabl! for housing if t~!
retail/commercial component were limited to 5,000 sq~are feet, and Council
Moaber Renzel questioned staff IS to whet~er the .dditio .. 1 square footage for
office being requested by tne applicant could be used for housing.
These questions and comments encouraged staff to look for ways to permit the
allowable ca.mercill fAR fQ excess of 5,000 square feet to be converted to
housing. The alternative would be to develop them IS allowable ~ses, e.g.,
flnancial services D~ general business services, ne;t~er of which would be
attr,ctfve options under the curr!nt .ixed use design. It ~as recognized t~at
CQnyer5to~ to housing could be accomplished on11 through a zone change to RH-
40, which provides the s ... 1.0 FAR is permitted under the present CS zoning,
but ,11 of the FAR could be residential. Consequently, staff encour.ged the
applicant to apply for. zone change for part of the CS portion of the sile
.nd to MOdify the design accordingly.
Planning CommiSSion Denial of the Proposed RM-40 Zoning
The Planning Commissfon rewiewed the proposed Comprehensive Plan i~endment and
zone change on April 24, 19~1. A .. tion to appro,e both changes f.;1ed 3-3-0-
], with Commlssioners Cullen, Glazier and "_rsh ~oting yes, CommiSSioners
Christens~n, Hirsch ind Huber votfng no, and Comaissioner Beech~ absent.
Bob ~OSS, representing Barron Park Association, spoke against the zoroe c~ange
on the basis that it would set • precedent for RH·40 loning along [1 Camino
Real. The main rei~~~ cited by Commissioners for voting against the zone
change was the concerh t~at this action would set i precedent for rezoning
other properties to RM-40 (refer to min~tes included in your CounCil packet).
Reasons g;ven by C~;ssioners who supported the proposed Compr!nensive Plan
amendment and zone change were that converting potential commercial square
footage to housing is a benefit to the c..munity, that this act;on will not
set a precedent for RM-40 zoning because the extent of the rezoning is
insign;ficant~ the site is unique and the Commiss'on will have the opportunit1
CMR:Z79:~1
p; \CItR\3981 ECR
5/16/91
Page 2
•
..
•
to review and evaluate any future rezoning prDposals, and tnat RM-40 zon1ng is
approprl.te ln t,ls location. COmMissioner Cullen stated that she had opposed
1110wing BOre than 5,000 square feet of office space and was pleased to se~
the addltlonal coomercl.l square footage conyerted to residentlll, resulting
i~ more housing units and lower BMR paywents. In makihg a motion for
approya1, Coomls,loner C,11en amended Finding '2 to ,ay that the RH-40 lone in
this particular parcel results fn a minilal increase in density, &nd should
not be considered as I precedent. Commissioner Glaz1e~ stated t~at the site
WiS sufficiently unique not to set a ~recedent and any other fut~re proposals
for zone changes on other s1tes would be revfewed an their own merits.
Commissioner Harsh said that she ~ad asked if there were a way to increase
housing and keep office use to less than 5,000 square feet. She noted tnat in
the public hearings few people ~ad argued tnat ret.i1 was appropriate, but
rat~er tnat .ddltion.1 office space was not appropriate. She felt that tnis
site has real physfcll constrJints which aake it different from other sites~
and this location on [1 Camino Real was one place in the City where RM-40 was
appropriate ..
Analysls
Staff does not concur with the divided Planning Commission denial
recommendation and instead recommends approval of the proposed Comprehens1ve
Plan and zone changes. based on t~e findings listed below. We do not s~are
the concern abo~t the use of RH-40 loning. Used in this way. sandwiched
betwee~ CS and RH-lO t for a very If.ited site area, tt is an appropriate ~se
of the ~-40 lone designation and will facilitate the redevelopment of ill
property which Is in need of upgrade consistent with Polley 6 of the Urban
Design Element of the Comprehensiye Pl.n. The effect of the lone ch.nge i.
t~is sit~ation has SEveral positive benefits. By converting allowable
commercial sqyare footage to housing, it adds relatively affordable u~its to
the housing stock, lowers t~e prices for the project's four BMR units, and
generates less traffic than an eq~al amount of com.erctal de~elopment. It is
also a practical solution for a .ixed use design on a constrained site. where
allowable commercial uses are not likely to function optimally.
The project site is distinctive enough to preclude setting a precedent for
reznning other properties to RM·40. Except for the two parcels directly north
of this site, there do not appear to be any other sites zoned CS (or CH) and
RM-30 where tne residentially-zoned property must be accessed through the
commercially-zoned property. Additionally. the two sites directly to the
nort~ differ fro. this site iD that they are not lo~ated on a corner and they
do not share a lot line with the creek c~annel, both of which features have
introduced design constratnts for t~i$ site.
As d;sc~ssed above, the applicant fs ~ot asking to increase the square foot
development potential of thiS 5ite. He is asking for a zone designation that
will a110w • combination of uses that work we11 together on the site and have
good .arketability. No deyeloper is like1, to develop the CS portion of the
site with on11 5,000 squart feet of office, leaving the remaining 5,600 square
feet of allowable floor area unde~eloped. G;~en the development constraints
presented by the location and configuration of t~e site, 1t is unlikely to be
CI1R:27g:91
p:\~R\l981£CR
-, ,-
5/16/91
Page 3
•
,
/
developed for reta;l~ The most likel~ alternative for the remaf~ing sqyare
footage, if .dd1tiDn~1 housing is not permitted, is I financial service use,
such is a bank or other financial insttt~tfon. Since this is not I stro~s
site for such I ~se, we could expect vacancles and failures and, in the long
te~, cont1nuing requests for I Conditional Use Permit for office use. It Is
in the com.u~1t1 ir.terest to gain four add1tional housing units and lower cost
BMR un1ts in exchange for 5,600 square feet of low grade commercfal
deYeloPll"ot.
1~ s~mnarYt staff helfeves that this f~ a ~nique solution for I un1que site,
and one that produces the best possible coabinatfon of uses, given t~e
follovl"9 constraints laposed on t~e site: alxed ca.merci., and residential
zoning on a sfngle p.rcel, an urban desfgn rp.Quire.ent for no parking in front
of the butl~ing, access li.ited to • single driveway at the north edge of the
s1te, required access strip ~long the creek channel, and the residential
portion of the slto accessible only through the coaoerci.l portion or the
site.
Staff Recgmmendation
Staff recommands that the City Council adopt the Negative Declaration and
approve the zone change and Comprehensive Plan amendment. based on the
fiodings listed below.
findings
J. lhe proposed zone change and Comprehensive Plan amendment is in the
public iDterest, ift that it ~1l1 allow an increase in tne hoysing stock
of the com.unity and thereby improve the jobs/housing imbalance.
2. The proposed zone change and CoaprehensiYe Plan amendMent 1S consistent
~ith land u,. patterns in the City, in that RM-40 zones occur adjacent
to commerci.1 ~ses and between ,omaercial lones and other lower~dens;ty
residential areas, and the RH-40 in this particy1ar parctl results in a
.1nimal increase in denSity, and should not be considered as i
rrecedent.
3. The proposed zone change and Comprehensive Plan amendment will create no
significant id~erse en~ironmenta1 effect, in that it will result in a
Tess intensive use of the site than the current zoning 1110W5.
CMR:279:91
p:\CMR\398IECR
"j:f.4d -f' -<,lA~~>
(ENNETH R. SCHREIBER
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
5/16/91
Page 4
. .
-_._ ..•• _----.
•
,
,:-~ .nm~. I
Assistant City Manager L-l v
Attachments: Chart showing allowed FAR [amended)
Ordtl'\a.nce
Resolution
Excerpt Planning Commisston ainutes of January 9, 1991
Planning Commi.sion Staff Report for Zone Change and
ComprehensfYe Plan Amendment, April 19, 1991
Planning Comofssion Staff Report for Sfte and o.si9n,
April U, 1991
ce: lhe Ste;nberg 'roup
The Barron Park Associatto"
Tom Fisher, Blltkman Turkus, 3350 West Baysnor., Suite 110
Palo Alto, CA 94303
Wfll Seckett, Hewlett-Packard Company, 3000 Hanoyer Street,
P. O. Box 10301, Pal. Alto, CA 94304
CMR:279:91
p: \CMIi\3981 ECR
y------.
5/16/91
Page 5
:...:
..
RM ·30
38.400 -.-J
I'ropo.1td change from I cs to
RM-40
14.004J
cs I
12.600
TObll FAR Allowed •
1
,~
Comparison of FAR AIIQwed
Undar E'dltlng lonlng: Und., Prapoaed Zoning:
Commercl" ResldenU" Camllllrclal Realmn!!.,
o .8 -23.040 o ,8 -23.040 sq. ft.
.4 -6.602 .6 -8.402 o 1.0 -74,00411q. ft.
.4 -5000 6 -7.500 A...-5.000 ~ 7.500 .q. ft
70,602 38.942 6.000 44,644 sq. ft.
49,644 Iq. ft. 49.644 Iq. ft.
, , .-! • ~
'~ ... ,.
:~-;
'~ . .. ' ,
" , "
•
" ;~
• '''-'. .'
I ,
1
,/
ORDINANCE NO.;-c==
ORDINANCE OF i'HE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
AMEJlDING SECTION 18.08.040 OF THE PALO ALTO
JroIfICIPAL CODE (i'HE ZO~"ING MAP) TO CHANGE THE ZONE
CLASSIFICATION OF A PORTION OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT
3981 EL CAKINO REAL FRaN CS TO RM-40
The Council ot the city of Palo Alto 40es ORDAIN as
follows:
SECTjON 1. Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto MUnicipal
Code, the ·Zoning .Map., is hereby amended by chanqing the zone
classification of a portion of the property located at. 3981 El
Camino Rea~ (the -Property·} fro!!!: ·CS Se.rvice commercial· to "RM-40
High Density Multiple-FamilyR as sho ..... ·n on EXhibit ·A-, attached
hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
SECTION 2. The city Council hereby finds that this project
will have no significant effect on the environment.
SEctION 3. This ordinance shall become erfective upon the
commencement of the thirty-first day after the date of its
adoption.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
ABSENT:
AT'l'EST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Senior Asst. City Attorney
APPROVED:
Mayer
City Manager
Director of Planning and
community Environment
-
RM-15 , ,
PF
VENTURA
SCHOO,l
RM-\5
•
GRAPH! C ATIAC)i)!£NT r.:DA;:T-:E~: ::4_-_8--;;971-:;;-;-;:-;l~S'iiC:-A~L[ .. :~~1 ·~'~2;,;O .. U'~ ____ t
TO STAFF REPORT FILE NO. 91-ZC-4 91-CPL-1 91-EIA-6
PROJECT; Zane Chanu from CS to R..'1-40 for 104 000 5 it
of 3981 U Cat:dno Real
(Zone Map Page 1J
LOCATION MAP
L
NOR~
I
'-
RESOLD'l'ION NO ',-;:;-:::;;;-== RESOLD'l'ION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CIT'i OF pAlJ) ALTO
A><EN!)ING THE LAIfD USE !lAP OF THE PAlJ) AL1'O
COIfPREHENSIVE PLAN TO CHANGE THE LAND US E
DESIGNATION OF A PORTION OF THE PROPERT'i LOCATED
AT 3981 EL CAMINO REAL FROM SERVICE COMMERCIAL TO
MULTIPLE FAMIL'i-RESIDENTIAL
-'-.-,
WHEREAS,. application has been made by the owner of
property known as 3981 El Camino Real (the -Property·},. located in
the City of Palo Alto, requesting that the City amend the Palo Alto
Comprehensive Plan (the ·Plan-J to change the land use designation
of a portion of the Property from Service Commercial to Multiple
Family Residential: aT~
WllEREAS, the Planninq Commission, after duly noticed public
bearing held on April 24, 1991, recommended that the City council
amend the Plan as requested~ ana
WllEREAS, upon consideration of said recommenaation after
duly noticed public bearing, the Council desires to amend said Plan
as hereinafter set forth;
NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the city of Palo Alto does
RESOLVE as follows:
SECTION 1. The city council finds that the public
interest, health, safety and welfare require an amendment to the
Plan as set ~orth in section 2.
SECTION 2. The city Council hereby amends the Palo Alto
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Hap to change the land use desiqnatlon
of a portion of the Property from Service commercial to Multiple
Family Residential, as shown on Exhibit -A-, attached hereto and
incorporated herein by reference.
SECTION ,. The City Council hereby finds that this project
will have no significant effect on the environment.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
A'iES:
NOES:
ABS'l'ElITIONS:
ABSENT:
1
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED lo.S TO FORM'
Senior Asst. City Attorney
2
APPROVED:
Hayor
city l!anaqer
Director of Planninq and
Community Environment
•
-----------~----~~-~---~--------------
•
,-.~-
", ..,: ....
. " .
-...;...---....... ------~. "-
" . w ,-I ---::1=!-:-!I~I-..JIL...JIl_::!I!::='!~I~· IL
SECOND STREET
~
t III I--
VENTURA z
;, ~IRA :5 Ct SCHOOL r-'I u c
[1
~
: .
I
\\\
i SITE. LOCATION H\\~ WILKIE WAY
I i
~.1111( I-3981 (I Camino Real
I
'II: I-
~ I--
~
W >
r-r-• -~, ~-.l-40.l-o-o-L---I-E-L-
-,..
----r-r------_
t
f-J [ ? IAl r-----...
3900
I
[
"lI ....... "I := I l} ~
R.L& ¥lSToi. c:'[ L...-.-
~
"-r--. ?--I
-~I----I
-1----1 ~;I----I
-1---'1..:
-.... 1---1
-1----10 •
~ GRAPHIC JiTIACHllENT I D~ I SCALE: 1" -20U'
Tel STAFF REPORT I FILE NO .• _cr. 91-CPL-l 9
, :. ili. P1~ .... "~"'-fro. ., 01
• • te w:.; lY feT 1.;-000-5~ rt e' 3981 U
, HAP, (Ba •• lIop Page 7) Camine R.al NORTH
I •
f~viron~ntal Documents -City·of Palo Alto
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Proje~t Oescriotion/Title: Major Site 1 Des;?" review gf a mixed use project
wit" 38 residenth1 units and a 10.300 .sguareoot corrrnerdal building with
unnderqround paTking~
lo~at?cn!Address: 39BI (1 Camino Real
Palo Alto. CA
SponsQTing Agency/App1icant: The Steinberg Sroup
60 Pierce AV2nue Address and Telephone of Applicant:
(40B) 295-5446 San Jose. CA 95110
Appli<.tlon for: Major Site an~ O~si9n Review
loning at Project location: (5. RM-30 fee Receipt No.: -----------
NOTICE OF DETERMINATION
Based upon review of the proje~t fi1es, the undersigned ~ember of the Planni~g
Department has concluded:
l!l Negative Declaration: The proJect has no significant environmental
impact. No Environmental Impact Report is required. The reasons for a
Negative Oeclarition are: in tne attached Jnit'ial stlJ9..Y.. A record of
project action is available far revieli at the Pillo .Alto Planning Oemtment
located on tMe 5th floor of C~ty Hail. 250 Hamilton Aven~e, Palo Alto. CA.
Planning Department Official:
Planning Director:
The p~oject has been approved.
The project has be~n denied.
RevIsed 6/1/79
EIAfRM
j
Date: 9-11-90
Date:
Date:
File No.: 90-EIA-30
SO-ErA-30
I
•
.. r::-
,
Environmental Documents -Cit1"cf Palo Alto
INITIAL STUDyl,Z
1. Project Title/Address: 3981 £1 Camino Real
]1. Project DescriptSon; Majo~ Site and Design review of a mixed use
TO ect with 38 residential condominium units and a 10 300 s uare foot
corrmercia but ding II over underground parking.!.. ~~mme-rcia
build;n is at the tront of the site lid "acent to Et Camino Real and the
residentia units are ocated eh~ ___ t~e commercia bui ding and are
clustered around an 0 en court ard. Both uses share a common drivewa
o amino Rea. The project wil rep ace in existing mete oil..!!!!
site.
III. Environmental Setting:
lV. Environmental Impi:ict Checklist {ExpHMtion of al1 ·yes· anS\!jers are in
Secti.n V):
1. Earth. \fill the proposal result in:
[IAfMCK
a. Unstable earth conditions or changes
in geologic substructures? ~
b. Disruptions. displacements. compaction
or <l'o/ercovering of the soil? I
c. Change in topography or ground surface
re1 ief features? X
d. The destruction, covering Dr ~od;ficition
of any uniq~e geologic or physicil
features? ....!...
e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of
soils. eith.er on or off the site? ~
f. Exposure of people or property to
geologic hazards such as earthquakes.
landslides~ .udslides~ ground failure.
or similar hazards? __ 1 __
g. Changes in siltation. deposition. ~r
erosion whicn may modify the channel
<If a river or the bed of a bay or inlet? -'L
90-EIA-lO
2
2. Air. Wil'1 the proposal result in;
I. Substantial air emissions ar deteriora
tion of ambient air Quality?
b. Tne creation of objectional odors? .
c. Alter'ti~n of air movement, moisture
temperature, or any change in climat!,
eit~er locally or regional?
3. Water. Will the proposal result in:
I. Changes in absorption rates, drainage
patterns. or the rate and amount of
surface water runoff?
b. Alterations to the course or flow of
flood waters?
c. Oischarge into surface waters, or in any
alteratio~ of surface water quality,
including but not limited to temperature,
dissolved oxygen or turbid,t,?
d. Alteration of the direction of rate of
flow of gro~nd waters?
e. Exposure of people or property to water
related hazards such as flooding or
tidal 'Waves?
f. Change in the quantity of ground ~aters,
either through direct additions or with
drawals~ or through interceptions of an
aquifer by cuts or excavations?
I
4. Plant life. Wll1 the proposal result in:
EIAFMCK
a. Change in the diversity of species, or
number' of any species of plants lind ud
ing trees, shrubs~ grass, (rops, micro-
flor~ and aquatic p1ants)? X
b. Reducticn of the numbers of any unique,
riTe or endangered species of pl an.ts? ....!...
c. lntroductian of new species of plants
into an area t or in a barrier to t~e
normal replenishment of existing species? L
d. Redu(tion in acreage of any a9ri(ultural
crop? l
90-EIA-30
3
.:-,'
---~-~-~-----------------------------------
< •.
~. Animal II fe. Wi 11 ~fle proposal result in:
a, Cnange fn the diversity of species, or
of any species of ani~als {birds, 14nd
infmals fn(luding reptiles, fish and
shel1fish, btnthic ~rganisms, insec~s
or lIicrofauna)?
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique,
rare Dr endangered species of animals?
C. JntrGductlon of new species of anima1s
into an area, or resu1t in I barrier to
the migration or ~¥ement of animals?
d. Deterforitf~n in existing fish or
wildll fe habitat?
6. NoIse. VIII the proposal result io:
a. r"creases in existfng noise levels?
b. Exposure of people to severe noise
leyels?
1. lfght and glare. Will the proposal produce
new light glare? ~
B. ¥.~~~ Will the proposal Ti!sult in a
C lal alteration of the pr~sent or
9.
planned land use of an area?
Enersy/Natural Reso~rces. Will the prop~sil
result ir.:
i. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or
energy?
b. Substantial increase in demand upon
existing sources of energy, or require
the development of new sources Dr
energy?
c. Increase in the rate of use of any
natural resour~es?
d. Substantial depletion of any nonrenew
able natural resource?
10. Risk of Upset. Does the proposal involve a
risk of an explosion Dr the release of
hazardous substances (including, but not
limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or
radiation) in the event of an iccident or
upset?
EIAHICK
_1_
90-EIA·30
4
_1_
ll. PopuhtJon/Hous~n9·
i. Vill the prop~sal alter the lccitfDn,
distribution, dens1t" ~r growt~ rate
of the human population cf an area?
b. Will the propos.l effect e~istfng
housing, or create a demand for add;·
tion,a,l hQusing?
12. lransport,a,tion/C\rc~lation. Will the proposal
result in:
i. Seneration of substantial addition,a,l
vehicular movement?
b. Effects on ex1sting parkfng facilities,
YES
or demAnd fOf" new parking? ...!...
c. Alterations to present patterns of
circulation or movement of people andl
or goods?
d. Increase in traffic hazards t~ motor
vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians?
13. Public Services. Wlll the proposal ~ave an
effect upon. or result in a need for new or
altered governmental services io iny of the
follOWing areas:
a. Fire protection?
b. Police protection?
c. School!:?
d. Parks or other recreational facilities?
e. Maintenance of public facilities,
including roads?
f. Other 90~ernmental services?
14. Utilities. Will the proposa1 result in a need
for otw syste~s, or substantial alterations to
the following utilities:
2. Power Dr natural gas?
b. Communications systems?
ElAFHCK
... " At -1M: 111
90-EIA-30
5
x
I
x
x
•
\
..
c. Water?
d. Sewer or septic tank?
e. Storm witer driinage?
f. Solid waste and disposall
15. Human Health. Io'ill tn. proposal result in:
16.
i. Creation of any health hazard Dr
potenti.l ~e.lth hazard Cexcluding
menhl he.1th}l
b. [xposure of people to potenti,l health
'hual"'d's?
Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the
obstruction of any scenic vista or view
open to the public, or will the proposal
result in the cr~at;on of an a~sthetic;lly
offensive site open to public Yie~?
17. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an
impact upon the quality or quantity of exist
ing recreational opportunities?
18. Coltural Resources.
£IAFKCX
i. Wlll the proposal result in the altera
tion of/or the destruction of a
pr!h'storic or historiC irc~aeological
site?
b. Will the propDsal rtsult in advers!
physical or a~st~eti' effects to a
prehistoric or historic building.
strYcture. or object1
c. Does the proposal have the potential
to cause a physical change whlc~ wo~ld
affect unique cultural values?
d. Will the proposal restrict existing
religious or sacred us~s within the
potential impact area?
'-
YES MAYBE
--.
90·EIA-30
6
NO
_1-
l
l
l
I 19_ Mandatorl Findings of Significance. YfS
I . ,. Does the project have the potential to
degrade the Quality of the environment,
substantially redute the habitat of._
fisb or wildlife species, cause ~ fish
or wlldlife populltlon to drop below
self-sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate I plant or animal community~
redl'ce the number OT restrict the range
of I rare or endangered p1ant or animal or
eliminate lmp~rtant examp1es of the ~ajor
periods of California history or
prehistory?
b. Does the project have the potential to
.chiev! short-term, to the disadvantage
of long-term, environmental goals? (A
short-term impact Dn the enwironment is
one which occurs 1n I relatively brief.
definitfve period of time while long·term
impacts will endure well into t~e future.)
c. Does the project have impacts wtlich are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerahle? ,A project ~ay impact on
two or more separate resources. where the
impact or. each resource lS relatively
small, but where the effect of the tot.l
of those impacts on the environ~ent is
significant.)
d. Does the proje(t have environmental
effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human he1ngs. either
directly Dr indirectly?
.,~ Explanation of ·yes· answers in envircnlnent.al chec\(list.
See attached.
ElAFHCK
.. '
"""V BE ~o.
...L
~
_1-
_1-
90·ElA-30
)
•
. , ~--'
_! • .i
I (b,') Eart~. Construction of th~ 107 space underground parking garag! and
bUl1di~g foundltfon will ~esu1t In ~is~uption of site soils and exciv~tion and
removil of eirt~ from the sfte. These impacts are typical for a project of
t~is size which will provide underground parking. As the site is located
within a built urban environment, such impacts are not conSidered significcnt.
Tne project site 1s located fn I seis~ic area of moderate risk and will be
subject to very strong ground shaking in tne event of a~ earthquake. All new
construction will be s~bject to the requirements of the current Unifo~
e~ilding Code which are designed to .injmize the loss of life and property due
to an earthquake.
4 (a) Plant tife+ The arborist's report provided by tne applicant
identiffes40 trees existing on the site. These include 17 Ailanthus~ 4 oaks.
4 pepper trees. 2 conifers and a var'ety of fruit trees. Many of the trees
are in poor condition cr are an insignificant Sl2t and species. Most of the
trees are located near the perimeter of the site. Tbirteen of tne E%isting
trees are going to be ret.ained, which itH:ludes all but one of the significant
trees on the site. One 38· Valley oak in fafr-poor condition will be removed.
Tbis tree is located near the middle of the Site and is not judged to be a
good enough speciman to require the project t~ be designed around it. The
three other oa"s on the site 'Will be retained, includin; a 47"' Vaney oak near
the southeast corner of the site. Approximately SO ne~ trees will be planted
on the site, including ill number of medfum or Targe sile trees+ The
underground garage is set back apprUximiate1y 2S feet from the property line,
leaving sufficient soil volume at the perimeter of the site to sustain large
trees. Tne fi~al landscape plan will be subject to tne approval of the
Architectural Revlew Board and will include a p1an for protecting during
construct;on the trees which ire to be retained.
6 C!1b} Noise. Construction activities will result in temporary increases in
loca ambient nOise 1evels. All construction activities shall b£ subject to
the provisions of the City Noise Ordinance. (hapter 9.10 pAM(.
The p~oject site adjacent to [1 Camir.o Real has bee, identified in the
Comprehensive Plan as being witnin an area experiencing major traffiC noisf.
The Comprehensive Plan recommEnds that 1 minimum acceptable outdoor noise
level of 65 dBA and an interior superior noise level of 40 dSA be maintained
for rfsidential land uses. In addition, California State law, TitTe 24,
requires that a minimum interior 45 db (NEl (Community NOise Equivalent level)
or less be maintained for new multiple-family prOjfctS. The fo11owing table
represents actual noise levels on site documented in an acoustical repo~t
prepared by Edward 1+ Pack, Associates, dated July 20, 1990. The noise levels
ElAFMCK
---.,...~----
•
..
"
I.
are caT,ul~ted at the m;nimu~ planned setback from E1 Camino Real for each
Iotse:
EXTERIOR HOISE LEVELS (LIO dSA)
Q!l! Night
Residenti., 67 61
COIMIHcial 73
IHTERIO~ NOISE LEVELS (LIO dBA)
Residenti.,
Comercial
Q!l! Night
52
47
In order to achieve compliance with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan ind Title
,~ ;tandards the following sound contrcl measures shall be required as •
cond it i cns:
Exterior Residential Area Noise Controls to Achieve 65 dBA
For rear ~atios and decks within 195 ft. of the west property line and
having a direct or side vi~ of el Camino Real, construct 6 ft. high
acoustical patio fences and 36 high so1id deck railings~ Patios an~
decks (acing onto the interior pl au arEa ... ill not reQui re noise
centrols, due to the shielding provided by the planned buiTding
arrangement.
Interior Residential Noise Controh to Achieve 40 cBA
Within 195 ft. of £1 Camino Real, one of the following ~iti9ations shall
be reQuired:
i. Required window ~onstruction using single pane of 1/4-glass
providing S1C·32 rating or higher. This assumes ~indows ~ill be
kept ctosed' it all times and that Il'.echanical ventilati{ln "''ill be
provided.
b. ReQuired wi~dQW construction using a prefabricattd acoustical
window providing STC-54 rating or higher. With this alternati~e,
windows maJ be kept open up to S~ of the time for natural
ventil;tion and mechanical ventilation is not required.
Further than 195 ft. to E1 Camino Real, one of the following mitigations
s~al1 be required:
••
E1AFMCK
Required window construction using a single pane of 1/4-glass
providing STC-28 rating or higher. This assumes windows will b~
90'ElA-30
9
-.
. -'-~ ..
kept C105~d it all times and thit mechani~il yentilatfon ~il1 be
provided.
b. Required window constr'.:ction using it prefabncated acoustica1
wind:Jw prov'ding STC.-4S nt'ng t'r hi9'ller_ With· this illter-nathe,
~indows may be lept open up to Sot of t~e time for natur.l
ventilation and ~echanica1 ventilation is not required.
The windows of the residential units that ar~ sp~cified to be maintained
closed It .11 ti~s for noise control irt to b~ op~rab1t, is the requirement
does not impl} a fi~ed condition. Units hiving the c10sed ~indow condition
should be provided with soms form of mechanical ventilation to assure a
habitable environment. as spec~fied by the Un'for~ Sui1ding Code (USC)_
7 light and Slare. The project will result in an increase in light and glare
generated frQm the site. ]t is recommended that a11 exterior lig~ting be
s~ielded and directional and that light standards be kept at the mlnimum
height necessary for security purpases~ The final lighting plan shall be
reviewed and appTov~d by the Architectural Review Board. Because the site is
opposite residential ~ses, the commercial portion of the project will be
required to comply ~ith the additional site development and des7gn reg~lations
of Chapt~r 18.64 of the zoning ordinance which iye dlrecte~ at minimizing
impacts on residential uses. including lighting impacts~
11 (a,b) Popu1~tion/Housinq. The construction of 38 dwelling units will
~li9htly reduce the current jobs/housing imbi1anc~ ind allow for an
1ncremental increase in the City's residentia1 population~
The project is subject to Progra= 12 ~f the Pa10 Alto Comprehensive PJan's
Housing Elem!nt belo~ MarKet Rate {~~R} program~ ~h1ch requires that housing
projects with ten or more units provide ]0 percent of the total units as BMR
units_ Compliance with Pr~gram 12 will require the provision of four (4) 8~R
units for this project.
The lO~300 squ~re fe!t of commerCial deveTopm!nt in this project is under the
20,000 square foot threshold required t~ trigger housing mitigation fees.
12 (b) Transportation/Circulation. The site of thls project ~iS include~ 1n
Area 6 cf tne Citywide land ~s~ and Transportation Study ErR. Thus~ the
traffic impacts of t;,is ,project tla't'e been accounted for in that ErR. As the
project cQnforms to the uses approved for that area, and as conditions have
not substantia1ly chang~d s,nce the EIR ~lS approyed~ no further e~v1ronrnenta'
review is necessarYr Whatever traffic lmpacts would be generated by
development in Area 6 hAve been deemed acceptable by the City Counci1 in its
acceptance of the fIR and the accompanying mlti91t'~n measures.
Thert is i substantial transportation improvement belng ~ade in the immediate
vicinity of this project, at the intersection of £l Camino ~QJIEl Camino
Rea1/los Robl~s Avenue. free-running right turns ~l1; be eliminated and bike
lanes, landscaping and signal hird~are ~ill b~ improved~
The 4J residentia1 parking spaces and 79 commercial parking spaces required by
ordinance for this project are belng provided on the site.
The applicant ~ust obtiin approva1 from Cal Trans for any work or construction
activity in the £1 (amino Real right of way_
£IAfHCK 9C-EIA-3C
10
--.... _. ----." ..... _-> , , .~.~ .......... "'~ .... -.... -------
•
T~e ipplfeant .ust obtain Ippro~al fr~ the Santa Clira ~a)ley Water District
for the design and installation of the pedestrian hrfdge ind any other
fmprovements wfthln the SCVWO easement.
EIAfMCK 90-tIA-30
II
AGENDA ITEM 4
~ k"lJ'lG COMMISSION MlNUTMS or<:r t: /f9/ c?
3981 EL CAMINO REAL: Appeal of the zoning
idm;~istritor~s decision to approve an applicati~n tor a
conditicnal use permit t~ allow construction and
operation of I lOI300~square-foot office use where a
aaxi~m sIOaO-square-foot use would otherwise be the
maxiaum al1owed_ (nvironmental Assessment: No
significant impacts vere determined to result from the
project, and a negative declaration has been prepared.
File Nos. 90·UP·34. 90·EIA·3D. Zone District (S.
No staff comments.
Cpmmissioner Beecham: On Page: 4, Item '3. the end of ttl! item talks about
an additional 53 parking spaces being required if the office use were to
be changed to retail use. I could not duplicate that number, and would
like to find out how tnat ~as talculated.
Me Gilliland: I cannot duplicate it either.
difference of t~irteen.
get ippro~imatelJ a
C~airman Marsh: Perhaps staff can clarify that later.
In one ~f the suggestions fro. Denny Petros;an during a previous public
CosmeRt was that the site be developed purely for hDusing. Can you tell
us what that WQuld do to the number of units already suggested for the
site?
Mr Gilliland: J think the maximum number of units listed in he;e was 44
instead of the 38. It would be possible to do that. However. the volume
or amount of floor area that could be used for housing is at the maximum~
so you would have 44, wit~ some of the units slightly smaller than they
are now, because it is at the maximum floor area ritio (FAR).
01/09/91
·3·
/
I
'haitaan Marsh: So you would golfn f'l1) additional' square foohge to be
pllced In houslnq by eliminating .11 of the office space.
Mr, Gillil.nd; That ts correct.
Chairman Marsh: Presumlbly, the developer ~a5 already made i choice to go
wit~ the llrg~r sized units, so we do not ~now t~at ther! would be any
incentive to downsize them and produce more units.
Hr. Gil 1 iland: The delieloper can address that better. but 1 \'ould say
that is a fair assumpt'on.
tommissiQner (ull@n: Howhere i~ the report did I see any consideration of
~tker penaitted uses. besides retai1, in t~is CS portion of the project.
As 1 checked the lon1ng ordinance, General Business Ser~ices seemed to be
• permitted use, They include, on Plqe 549 of the definitions in the
loning ordin~nce, -activities ~~ serv,ces of a general nature l including
printfng. bl~epr1nting, publ1shfn9, commercl~l bakeries, creamerfes or
caterfng~ cabinetry and furaiture repair. bulk ,leaning and laundry
services~ lumber, plumbing, electrfcal. sheet m!tal and other (onstruction
and building materials.· I find it difficult to believe there is not a
need for some of those genera' bus5ness services in the community, since
we have had I lot of testimony about wiplng out services 1n the
community. Am 1 correct tnat these would be permitted uses and could
conform, lf 5,000 sqo.re feet were office space, .nd the other
5.000 squ~re feet could be generil business uses?
Mr. GIlliland; They certalnly are permitted uses.
CommiSSioner Cullen: Why was nO (onsideralion given ta that instead of
just straight retail fa the report we received? Was it becaose the
neighborhood was talking so much about retail?
Mr. G111iland: Ms. Warheit advises ~e that she belie~es tnat to be
correct.
Chajrman Marsh: If there are no other questions, I ~ill now op€n the
publ f' heari ng.
Bgb MDSS, 4010 Qrme, Palo AltO; I am speaking tonight on behalf of th~
Sarron Park Associ~tion Exec~tive Committee. The entire board has not 1et
voted on thh because of the Chrfstms holidays, but r have di scussed it
.ith board ~embers and 1~ quite confident that the ~oard endorses ~hit the
executive committee has already done.
[ would like to give you a little background on the CS ~ersus eN and the
(1 Camino Real goals, which date back about 15 years. This particular
site and adjacent sites are zoned CS primarily betause in 1978. uses en
those sites were motels, w~ich were CS uses_ Therefore, the area from the
creek n~rth was zoned CS so that the existing business!s would be
conforming. Tn~t is t~e only reaSon that thit site is not zoned eN. fn
creating tne zoning along [1 Camino Rell, this was done with a lot of care
and a lot of forethought. The lntention was that the uses .10ng El C.mino
Re.l, whether they be tS or tN, should b. neighborhood-serving, should be
priaarill ,ommercial~ and the intermixture of commercial and residential
01/09191
-4,
•
-----. -_._----------------------
;
along that street was recognized by the fact tnat tht loning ordinance was
changed to 11Tow retafl on the first floor and housing on the second and
t~ird floors. The eN zone hiS i 25-foot heIght limit, oxcopt if you put.
third floor on for housing. The concept of mixing housing with retail
uses was then appTf~ t~rougho~t the city. Jncludjng some structures
within Wilking distance of the city hill. Therefore, the citi council,
the planning commission and the staff had no qualms about mixing ret;il
and rEsldentt~l on the same s,te. Farther down Qn E1 Camino Way, in lhe
Hamlet, we have exa:tly t~at mix. We have retail on the first floor, with
housfng behind it. Therefore. there is no reason to have an office use,
rather t~an retail, in order t~ prottct housing. None whatsoever.
I ~ould like to address the staff report. I vil) not repeat the letters
from the Barron Park ASSOCiation? which spea~ quite clearly to our
concerns. I ~ould like to respond to the comments and findings in the
staff report. The report prepared by Nancy lytle. on Page I, talks about
retiil versus office. and it a.its the fact that the 5,000 square-foot
limit on offite space initllllJ was passed in August af 1985 at the wery
beginning of the Citywide Land Use and Transportation Study. It was a
two-year moritoriumj it was reviewl!d and extended for an l;dditiollal year
on Ma~ 26? 1987. I ~ent back and looked at the minutes of those meetings
earlier tonight. and at no time was there any particular ~ontroversy over
extending t~e 5,000 square-foot lj~it for offices. In f.ct, when t~e
S,OOO square-foot limit along El Camino Real was discussed, it was
explicitly stated, and agreed t~ by both t~e p'a~ning commission and the
cit~ council. that because the zones along [1 Camino Real, the eN ana CS
zones, weI'! indistinguishable from each other is you went up and down the
street, except for the pre-existing uses in 1978? it was felt completely
appropriate to impose i 5,000 squlre·foot office use is i limit in bath
zones_ That has been done since 1985.
On Page 4 {and this is the same comm~nt that Commissioner Cullen had), I
checked my copy ~f the z~njng ~rdinance? which is admittedly old, but in
Section 18.S3.07~, the parking r~Qu;rements, it states that offices
require on€! parkin9 space for 250 square feet. ]0,300 square feet of
office space would require 41 spaces. Retail is divided into two segments
--intensive, rilQuiring one per l~ square feet, and e)(tensive, requiring
one per 350 square feet. If we assume intensivt! retail us.e, the park.ing
for S,OOO square feet of office plus S,300 square feet of retail would
require S5 park.ing ~paces, or af! increase of 14 spaces, not 53. If it is
an extensive retail use --S,300 square feet of retail plus S,QOO square
feet of office --would require 35 parking spaces. or si~ 1ess. Section
18.83.070{a) in a mixed use development perzits the staff to wai¥e u~ to
20 percent of the parking requirement ~pon finding tnat bot~ the retail nr
commercial and ~esidential wo~ld dually use the parking spaces.
Therefore, with oil 20 percent deferral of parking. you ~ould be talting
about 33 parking spaces reQuired for ill off1ce use, 44 spaces in a ~ixed
office/retail which was intensh1e retail, and 28 spaces in a ali xed
office/retail which was extensive retail. Tne difference in parking
requirements 1S inSignificant, considering tne 64~000 square-foot site
area.
I find the statement at the top of Page 4 that office uses are inherently
more compatible with the residential component of mixed ~se devel~pments
unpersuasive_ Just down the street on the £1 Camino island, ther! _is an
approval granted for I mix!d use for what is now a used car lot, for a
01/09/91
-5-
•
~-" ,
combinat'on r~t&il-office-cQndo$) ,1' in the s~me structure~ How can that
be 1nc~p'tible? The city council Ind plann;ng commissiDn approved a
3 ,700 square-foot si~llaT project, which has ne~er been built, for retail
with residential directly above, right pn El Camino Real. There is no
reason to say we prefer offite space because it 1S more compatible. T~ere
Is no difference.
1~ terms of the urban design element, and whet~er this building ;s more
compatible because it is office space is rea11y irrelevant. If the mote'
;s taken down lnd a new development gOtS in, and if t~e Architectural
RevIew Board (ARB) doe •• good job of design (.U(~ better than they did
with Honey Bak~ Hams), we will have an attractive structure on £1 Camino
Re.al and .an upgrading of tf\e property. rt does not have to be office
space. There;s a comment that this is a useful prcject because t~e
office workers will provide retail vitality for the [1 Camino island.
T~at is a novel concept. We are allowing cffie! uses to be b~ilt all
along the [1 Camino island. There is i 3,200 square-foot offic! building
that is going io next to what is now a Chinese restaurant and was the
A.W~ There '$ a ~1xed office use development which 1 referred to
!arlferi across the street at Chez louis ther! i! another proposal for a
mixed use which would include r!tatl and office. Do you rea1ly think you
have to ~ave offfce uses in order to make shopp}~g along [1 Camino R!al
vfable? Honsense. What you need is .adequate shops, t~e «ind of shops
that are pe~itted in iii busin!ss ~se. For example, people have been
crying for years. for a small baker.Y, an ice-cream store, a hardware ..
stor~. Thert Ire 1 lot of uses that ~e had --a very nice dr~9 store ~ent
out of business. All of those are viable uses. The drug store ~as a
viable use for almost 40 years. They could go into that site. Retail
.along El Camino Real is working. Some of the vacant properti~s along El
Camino Real farther to the north have betn sold and are in the process of
be;~g renovated. Wit~in six months, those ire going to be ~iable retail
uses.
Some of tne same conCErns about whether office uses are viable are
sprjnk1ed throughout Virginia Warheitis comments on the approval of the
project. Rather t~an repeat them all, I just want to mention one. That
is that the site is more intensiwely used and the-refore, this is an
improvement, and tnere is a concept that offlce use. being more intenSive,
is a benefit. J tend to disagree with that. I do not find intenSity of
use as a benefit. 1 think we hive to lOOK at the ~veri11 uses aloog El
Camino Real and the o~erall intensification ~e have had on the island and
adjacent properties, and look at this as a total development, not
pl!cemeal. fr 'yOU look at the entit~ of [1 (amino Real, the best use for
t~at site is retail. Retail is ~hat the co~nity needs, and is what has
been removed in some areas, and what we would like to have restored. We
are losing some commercial developments on the other side of the 5treet,
because th~) are being amort,zed Oyt. We would l'le to have a place where
they can go, if they wis~ tao This site is an appropriate site.
In closing. r wo~ld like to ask you to uphold our appeal of the variance,
overturn HIe varlinee, and recoDllend to the city c-ouncil that this site be
developed with retail is the primary use, and office as a secondary use.
Not office for the entire JO.300 square feet. [don't wint to see office
buildings g~ up along El Clmin~ Real and drive out the retail ~e now
have. Offices ar! more lucrativei they can get more rent; the-y don't pay
any taxes. There is a comme-nt about the tax was~ i~ the report, but it
01/09/91
-6-
ignores'the fact tnat if retail goes in there ;n the 5,300 square feet,
the sales tax revenue, depending on the success of t~e project, wlll be
anywhere from S200 to $1,000 per year~ You will get zip from office
uses. So any retalt there is more remunerative to the clt~ as a tax
revenue than straight offlce use. It 15 not i big ~ft. The difference of
a fe~ hundred dollars to i thousand dollars and S15,000 1 agree is not
major, but It is present, and we ought to get something back for all of
the pain we are g01ng through~ Than~ you.
Chainman Marsh: When Jacobs Court was being ,onsidered rlght next door to
tnis project, I know there were extensi~e concerns from the BarrDn Parr
Association regarding the traffic impact of redevelopment of the Jacobs
Court area and t~e way in which that traffic would then merge into the El
Camino Real area. rt seems to me that the site we are talking about has a
particularly problematit frontage en £1 Cam1no Real for traffic access.
How do you ~ee that?
Mr. Moss: ] agree, and I raised that poi~t at one of the ARB meetings.
However, tne ~ajor traffic impact from tnis site 1S not going to be from
the cornnercial I, front. It .ill be the residenti.l impact. Putting 38
units of h~using there is going to generite approximate'J eight trips per
Lin1t~ and tf\at fs going to be .at peak hours. Th.e motel US!! generates
off-peak traffic. 8y the way, there is a statement fn the report which
states that Jacobs Court has been rezoned RM-JS. As you ~now, that i~
false. That has not been rezoned; th~ rezoning has not come before the
planning commission nor before the city council. The city council ~$
just told the staff to go back and ~rite something up and (ome back with
it. So the zonfng at Jacobs Court currently is R·2~ There is no
assurance that the RM-1S zoning will. in fact. occur. but that is a very
dangerous intersection in i congested area. That is one of the reasons
why I prefer retail to office, because the office use will generate more
traffic at peak hours. Tne reta~l uses would be spread throughout the
day. You would not have as much triffic in the morDlng rush hour with
retail as you would with offic!. To that extent~ you would redUCE the
traffic hazard and danger. The ~ajor impact on traffic from that slte is
going to be ~ddit~cnal housing.
Denny Petrosian. 443 Ventura Avenye. Palo Alto: I subscribe to Mr. Moss'
comments, in the main. One of the things he pointed out very well in his
comments on the staff reptrt is that the developer has options. This is
not a do-or-die situation for the developer. Scaling the {lffice down to
S,OOO square feet is somet~ing that is well within the flexibilitJ of this
project. I would also ask you to look at this io the conte)t of the whole
£1 Camino Real. as Bob said. ]f we start looking it [1 Camino Rea' again.
little bitty property by little bilty property. we ar. going to build
errOr back into a system and start creating a hodgepodge agai~. So please
consider it in that larger picture~
El Camine Real is a ~ery speCial area. not ltke Menlo Park or Sunnyvale or
Burlingame or any other strip of [1 Camino Real. Jt is i very narrow
strip of co~rcial. but the dominant development in this area i~ threE
1arge residential deve1opments. and that is what is refle~ted behind that
"arro~ strip of commercial. Small office buildings do exist aiong there,
and they are in scale with that reality. larger office buildings than
5,000 square feet begin to gi~e i different message along that strip. It
does mean forcing retall rents up. The reaSOn that many retail spaces
01/09/91
-7-
..,~--~'" ...... -----
".
~aye beco.e vacant Is not beeaus. retail space cannot make it, but because
of rent-gougfng g01ng O~. T~it 1s why those spaces are empty. When the
rent 90ugers realize that they are not going t~ get t~ose rents, they ~i1'
come down and the ti~S of businesses we want to see will come in and
locate.
If we start s!e1ng office space an that frontage. we are going to make it
even harder for retail to locate in tne retail space that exists. I think
that it WQuld be I big mistakr to approve the ver~ first variance to tne
stlpul.tion that was arrived at as • re,ult of the Citywide land Use and
Transportation Study for a 11m1t on office space. We not DITly have
projects waiting tn t~e ~in9s of mi)ed ~se that if this variance is
granted, can COile in ano say. we have I mi.xt1:! use on £1 Camino Real. we
Mave commerclal frontage, and you gave them the office space, so give us
office space, too. Give us more t~in 5.000 square feet. How are you
going to deny them? The Chez louis project is one of them. The motel
right next door, t~e Cozy Eight, fs an exact replica of this property.
almost. Another developer c04Jld go into that one. Holtf cou1d you deny the
one next door? It is not only areas on [1 Cimino Real wher~ there is
mixed yse zoning. If the bfg car lot j~st south of Chez Louis went out of
business and i ~ixed use C~ in there. it would have a lot of housing on
the back, but they would ltiarlt office C'n the front. You begin to have ET
Camino Real turned into In office lone, so I feel this is a very dangerous
direction to go in. Rudolfo~s could be same sort of situation. We asked
Rudolfo's to came in for a mlxed yse PC proposal wit~ the restaurant in
front and ~ousfng ~n tbe back. He could come in and say. I have decided I
cannot keep this re~taurant, so r will put housing in the back and give me
office~ in the front.
If the developer ~re tQ change this into an Ill-housing project. I do not
see how he could lose money. You sfmply don't lose mone~ on Mousing.
There is not relson why t~at could not go all the way out to ET C~ino
Real. There is also no reason why you couldn't have it part retail and
part offic!. A small retail section Dr general business use. if 1t fits a
niche in this area. will draw pedestrians from Palo Alto Commons. If you
had a little coffee shoP/ba~ery, you would set people walking from the
Common~ and from the trailer court behind the All ~rican Market. That
is something .e have wanted to see on El Camino Real. If you have a small
area for retail with a small office building, you can draw that. making
the ~hole project much ~re dynamiC with that type of combination.
If you approve this project t the arg~ment will be used across tnE board
that in order to ~axirnize housing, you rep1ace commerc~al with office. as
it requires f~wer parking spaces. I do not tnink that would be a
productive dit'ection in which to go if! on El Callino Real, because by using
that argument. you may maximize housing by one or two units~ and what you
will do is sacrifice the commercial goals that have been on the drawing
board for [1 Camino Real to aake it a heaTt~y, fto~rishing business area.
So I think that is the intent.
In going to Page 3 of the staff report prepared by Nancy lytle, at the
batt~m. there is the staff co~nt that ~this area is not generally
intended for neighborhood-serving retail. but is intended for for citywide
and regional services.-That certainly is what is ~ncouraged .nd
permitted here. but in any case, the intent is for a healthy business
district and is nat to permit uses such as this that work against the
01/09/91
-8-
•
overall commerciil go,ls (or 'alo Alto.
GoIng to Page 5 of the staff report, findIng Il. "The proposad use at the
proposed locatfon will not be detrlmenta' or Injurious to property or
improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the pijblic
health, saffty. general welfare or convenience .. ~· 1 read into tkat that
it will, in fact, be detrimental to the public welfire because of the
go~ls we have for ~ommercia1 development along E1 (amin~ Real. So [ don't
t~ink that t~is particular finding is valid.
I just ~rge you to look at the fact that developer has flexibility in this
project. and rather than begin some yer~ detrimental precedents. I urge
you to require the developer to bring the proposal in witnin the law.
Robert Sttinberg. JI3Q Bry~nt Street. Pale Alto; I am present tonight
representing the applicant. It is a challenge to follow two such
persuasive individuals who speak so clearly about their thoughts. I would
like to share wlth you that we also appreciate all the effort that has
gone into the Citywide land Use and Transportation Study. This attempted
to stimulate retail along £1 Camino Real and discourage office use. In
many, many instantes, that ;s i well founded policy and is one that you
should endorse. I appreciate the previous speakerTs grave concern about
setting a precedent. It is ~nfortunate that we are one ~f the first
applf(atfons to come before you, and I do understand that concern for the
precedent. But I do feel that this is not a typical site, and [ do not
feel that it is in any way precedent·setting~ It is also important to
understand that fa additton to the land use stud~ and general, citywide
broad-based policies tnat tn~ cit~ establishes, there are aTso goals for
each indiyidual sit!. Eyer~ indjyidual site has its own special needs,
requirements and goals that the city p1anners and the ARB encourage
designers and developers to respond to. In this paiticular case, this is
a long, narrow, primarily residential site. When we met with the city, J
was a little 5urprfs!d that neither of the previous speakers responded to
the fact that one of the key thfngs the city has required us to do, which
groups have asked us to respond to at ARB meetings and at meeting5 before
you, was to minimize trafflc O~ the site. This site is at one ~f the
oddest intersections in Palo Alto. It is on a six-lane road. It is a
busy, confUSing, aw~ward intersection. When we met with the traffic
engineer, from day on!. we came in and showed you the analysis that we
did. We looked at different points where we could get access to the
site. ae could not get it adjacent to E1 Camino Way. We could not get tt
ilon~ the middle of th~ site, and the only safe place ~as at the extreme
north end of the site. In our last meeting before you, some of the
community members said we snould downsize the project because we have tno
much traffic. So ~inimizing the traffic and the vehicular access were
major criteria we were asked to address.
We were also asked to address the fact that fro~ an urban design planning
standpoint. t~e City wanted a t~o-story or e~en higher street ~al1 that
would come ~p tr tne street edge and reinforce the street wall along EI
Camino Real. Certainly, there was enc~uragement to provide affordable
housing. The housing we are proposing ranges from 800 to 1,200 square
feet. We are not propOSing multi-million dollar homes. We are proposing
affordable~ starter housing. These were the goals we were ~ncouraged by
the city ta pursue. I have to tell you that [ feel a littl~ caught
between two different policies that the city wo~'d like us to respond to
01/09/91
-g-
•
'" ,
,
i .'
. ,
"
whfc~ are in cQnflict with one another. T~e retail uses that the zoning
IdmfnJstrator felt were inapprQpr1ate for this site will unQuesticnabl)
Incre.s. tr.fflc it this 10c.tlon. Anybody that tell. you that. hard •• re
store, an fce cre~ store. I drug store is gofng to have less traffic I
cannot agree with. To introduce that kind of traffic ot this Intersection
I feel would be .er), very difficult .nd In conflict with everything ••
have discussed for the lost nIne month. on thIs project with .11 of the
entities of the city.
I will .1so tell you tnat if we were to add the retail, and we added 14
additional parking pTaces t that would reduce approximate1y seven units of
t~e project, or close to 20 percent of the affordable housing that we are
trying to put on the site. Despite the letter that you got from Mrs.
Petros;an, _e cannDt eliminate the retail or the office and put housing
there. Tne zoning does not accom.odate ft. Tne onl1 thing we would be
ablE to do would be to reduce the size or the number of units. but we
would not be able to fill the additional area and the frontage with
housing.
In conclusion, I would like to say t~at I feel this is a very uniQue
site. It is not a prec~dent-settin9 site. It ts a bosy. awkward
confusing intersection. It 1S i~appropriate for retail t quick 1n-and-out
uses_ This is a deep site that is primarily residential t and to have the
retail c~anent wipe out 20 perc!nt of th~ resident'al after you have
rezoned it for affordablt housing seems to me to be inappropriate. Staff
has indicated t~at a smal' amount of office that ~ill have less traftlc on
the site will support the neighborhood retail that Is being developed
adjacfnt on [1 Camino Way, where there is access from two different s'des~
a very different condition frOB w~at we ire facing here. For almost eight
or aine months, we have r~celved very encoyraging comments frOM the
ArcAltectural Revi~ Board. support from the city staff and the loning
admiaistrator, and I hope that we will have your support t~night. as
~e1l. Thank you.
Commissioner Cullen: Mr. Steinberg. did [ understand you to SiY that you
thought the zon'ng would preclude housing on t~e CS portion of this
property?
Mr. Steinberg: Yes~
Hr Gilliland: [t does no~ preclude housing. The difference here is tnat
t~e maximum FAR for tne site is 0.6 and that is what t~el hive used for
tnese units. They are sm~ll units at 800 to 1.lOO square f~et.
Comnis~ioner Cullen; ~y question lS whether it is perfectly possible to
build hou,ing on the CS part of the property and to utilize the property
that way. r am not suggesting you should do t~at, blJt I just want to be
clear that that Is 0 possibility.
Hr. Steinberg: I do stand corrected.
Mr. Gilliland: He can bUild housing under the RH-30 regulations on the ($
partiGn.
Mr. Steinberg: We have used thf total allDtment of bulk for the nGusing~
and we could distribute it differently. but it would ~ot provide any
•
j 01/09/91
-10---::~
..
"'----
Idd;t;onal housing. ,
Commissioner 8eecha~: DOfS staff agree with that list ~tltement?
M~ Warheit: Yes, he is correct. The units could be fn~relsed from 38 to
44_ Toat is toe only difference, but the square footage t.at he is
pro~id1ng npw is .1' t~at is 11'~ed on that entire parcel. including the
CS and the RH-30 portions. He could ".ke some smaller units and "a"e 44
instead of 38, but he cannot add any more square footage than he has right
now_
("aITII'" M.rsh: With tile re.hed figure of 13 additionol p.rking spac.s
that would be needed for the retail developaont. how m.ny housing units
would you lose?
Mr. Steinbtrg: If you figured appro~fmate'y two cars per unit and you
take fourteen and divide it by two, 1 would say that is seven units less,
If we had 44 units, it is clo!t to I 20 percent reduction in the number of
units.
Commissioner Cullen: The a11atment for general business uses for parking
is one per 350 square feet. nat is less than the allotment for
comreertial. for offiee use, whieh is one per 250. [5 that what it stll1
is now? (Yes) So, in fact, b, using 5,000 square feet fer general use.
for example. you would actually be reducing the number of required parking
spaces. [want to ask YO\"l if you are aware Df tnat. ..
Mr, Steinberg: As I understDod from the preYio~s speaker. there are two
types of ret,il wse.
Commissioner Cullen: I am talking abQ~t just general business use and the
way we define it in t~e zoning ordinance. Haye ~e changed that
definition?
Mr, Gilliland: WE ~ave not chang!d the definition. We do ~se one per
350 square feet for extensive retail. for intensive. It is one per
150 square feet.
Commissioner Cullen: One for 350 sQuare feet for general business uses,
.hieh I quoted at the beginning of the meeting from the loning ordinance.
Mr. Steinberg; Would i hardware store or an ice cream store fit into that
categ{)!",Y1
COmmissioner Cullen: Ho, b~t ~any other things would.
~r. Steinberg: J did not jot down III of the uses you mentioned, but many
of them. such as building s~pp11~s, to me w{)uTd be ,ertainly less
conducive to interface an a compact site with residential. You ire right
that numerically, we co~ld make that work, but I would ask you if ~e are
really setting up compatible neighbors in that kind of situation.
Commissioner Cullen: In the area ~outh of forest. we were very clear not
to remove th~ CS services ther~ because they served the residential
community. The people in that area begged us not to. Examples are bulk
laundry and dry cleaning. construction supplies, that kind of thing.
01/09/91
-11-
t' ,
Those come under general business uses and de not require the number of
parkfng ~paces that office does or that retail does.
Mr. Stefnberq~ That is I good pofnt. but J would draw ~ ~ery distinct
difference between thoje two examp1es. The people w~o asked you to keep
that fn t~e area south of Forest don't hive to go behind it and live
behind it. That is thefr total frontage to these residential units. That
is their wfndow to the commun1t1. To hlV~ the back door of a laundromat
be your common entry not or court with your front door concerns me. I do
not think that is I co~atible relationship. This is a ]on9, narrow, de~p
site ,nd that is why r do f •• 1 that it is different from your typical
uample.
Commissioner Cullen: ! a~ not saying that everything on that list would
be compatible, but ther~ is a long list. There may be some compatible
IIses t~ere.
Cnai"""· Marsh: Since I ha~e no other cards from Glembers of the pybl ic.
will close the public hearing and return this item to the planning
c:onnhsion.
Mr. Gilliland; On Page ~. I wanted to clarify that tne figures would
require an add1tional J4 parking spaces and would reduce the area devoted
to residential development by approxfmately 4,200 square feet.
Commissioner Beecham: J hive a Q~estjan about the impact of the reduction
of the 4,200 square feet. The approximation was about 4,200 square feet
at eo~ square feet per apartment is one thing. Each apartment also
requires two parking spaces. So if we say that ]4 spaces is 4,200 square
f~t. How many square feet per space \5 that, per parking space?
Mr. Gilli)and: I~ reducing the figures, we used roughly 300 square fe~t
for each space, given t~e parking space and the travel lane.
tomm;ssio~er Beecham: So then for a unit, if it is aoo square feet of
living space, two parking spaces, that is an additional 200 5quare feet.
which totals ],400 square feet. That divides into 4.20~ square feet about
three times. So we are taH.irlg about a difference of three units.
Mr. Gtllil~; J danFt tnink you can quite do it that way because we are
talking about an underground garage here. Tbe fig~re5 you are basing it
on, you would have to put them on top of each other.
Mr. Steinberg: rt is the parking that Q¥errides everything. rt Mas
nothing to do with the square footage of the unit. There would be no
place to relocate those 14 spots.
Chairman Harsh: We are fortunate to have with us tonight Shirley Wilson
from the Architectural Review Bnard. I wonder if you wou1d respond to a
couple of comments that came up in the public hearing. One is just to
pass ,long to us any comm.nts that t". ARB ~.d in t.rms of tn. kind of
development that would be appropriate on the [1 Camino Real frontage.
Secondly, the kinds of uses that you would see as being appropriate with
the housing on the back of tAis project.
~llson: I feel supportive of the staff comments for this particular
-~-.-~-,
01/09/91
-12-
site. It is I very awkward site, and [ think the access would be a killer
far any retail that was trying to function on that site. I understand the
IIOtf.esof I~e ne1ghborhood, bol J do not really feel Ih.t the full
bre.dtn of £1 t.mlne Real Ih.t .ffects that neighborhood needs to be all
retail to ser~e the neighborhood. It r'il1y needs to be zoned~ and tnat
popul.11on denSity Ihere J .gree .oold be helpful to the El C.mino isl.nd
and Tbe Ham1et businesses.
Chairman Marsh: HiS the ARB dlscussed the kinds of development they wcu1d
like to see on E1 Camino Real? Mr; Steinberg made a reference tD having i
strong frontage on El Camino Real. Have all of y~u talked about that?
Ms. Wilson: That statement wa$ made at our meeting that a strong presence
on £1 Camino Real was really helpful. if not contlnual11~ at certain
points. Due to the .idth and scale of that street, it is ~ery difficult
to malntatn any sense of p1ace, with everything being one-and two-story
and dribbling off into the re$identi~l neighborhood. 1 would like to see
the frontage of that buildi~g softened somewhat. There could be some
landscaping. It does not ~;ve to bt void of any life. That was fairly
unanimous on the board.
Chairman ~arsh: I also ~a~e s~ questions for Carl Stoffel,
Transportation Engineer. One is in regard to actess to this property.
wonder if Hr. Stoffel co~ld reiterate the staff's concern and requirements
in terms of access. Secondl" I wonder if you would walk us through the
peak-hour traffic analysis that has been done with office versus retail.
Mr. Stoffgl: Tne onil difference between this particular location and any
other on [1 Camino Real is the fact tnat it is near that corner. The only
thing that it has to do with \$ that it is nice to keep a dri~eway.
espeCially gQing tn, as far from an intersection as possible~ because
people ha~e other t~ings on their minds when going through an
,~tersect;an~ and they ~y not be watching as carefully to see if somebody
is going to slow down and make a turn. There are a number of lmpro~ements
that will be gOing on within a few days at that jot~rse'tion, that will
ma~e things a little safer tnere. We are getting rid of the tw~ free
right turns. one on the Barren Park side and the other on tne £1 (amino
~iY ~ide. Ihe~ vill ~e rep1it~d ~ith a r'9ht-turn lane. T~~t will slow
down some of those right turn movements a little bit.
There will be some bike lane improvements on El Camir.o Way that will help
the bicyc1ists. As far is people runnin9 the stop lights, th~re is going
to be some new signal hardware go1ng in that will be much larger, brlghter
indications that according to CalTrans will help solve that proble~.
Neyerthe1ess, it is still close to the corner, which is why the driveway
is up as far as it can be. People leaving the site will nave ample
opportunitJ to get over to the first block and make ~ U-turn if they wish
to head south. There .il1 be long gaps cre.ted by the red lighl at los
Robles, and Deople wanting to enter the site coming from the north can
make a U-turn at los Robles. When they make that U-turn, traffic or. El
Camino Real is stopped. and with getting rid of the free-running right
turn lane from El Camfno Way~ it ~,ll help that to be i fairly clear
access 1~tD the site.
I do not have too much of i prgble~ ~;th those activities going on there,
especially since in lI'Iy o~iniDn, the increa'Se in activities over what the
01/09/91
-13-
..
\ ,
, : . ...:.
\
___ ~"o,'·"i;~:~;'"
.... ~'>y
•
DOtel fs, Is an increase but '5 not i large one.
Then on the peak hour ~r1p_ generation, gen~ral1y speakfng. offices
generatt less traffic t~an ret.~l. J say generally because ther~ are Tots
of different kinds of retail. J just did some calculations for
5,000 square feet and came out with a retail on the low end to be about
the same amount of trip generation is an offfce~ But it could go up much
higher. There are a lot af retail uses, su,~ as fast foed outlets and
convenience stores~ maybe a video store, tnat can generat~ i lot more
traffic than an office. Of course, retail tends to be open longer hours
than offices, including ~eekends. rn t~at sense, it generates maTe
traffiC. Office traffic. though i little less, is oriented in the same
general direction as all of Palo Alto's rush hour trafjic. that is,
outbound in the evening~ At that partftular spot, that may not make a lot
of difference, but in general, office triffic will add to the general
cOlllllute direction of traffic out af Pila Alto in the evening and into Palo
Alto in the morning. Retail has les5 activity in the ~ornin9 and d~es not
quite have those same directions. Generally speaking~ however, retail has
more triffi c .
CPmmissioner Cullen: r am not going to be able to uphold the zoning
idefnfstrator's flndings. I find them applicable to any zone i~ Palo ATto
and not to this particular location. To say that a less intensive use is
an office ~se is no justification f~r changing the allotment that is in
the zoning ordinance. You could say that about anyplace in Palo Alt~.
I also think that the services generated in a (S lone are essential for
nearby residential use, as r stated earl;er. As _e are getting more and
mor9 residenti;l uses in t~at fmmediate a~eat J tnink the need for
services 1s ~yen greater. Thirdly. I th1nt the lower parking reQuirements
for general bUSiness services, wh,t~h is a permitted use and he wouJd not
even be in front of us if he had not gone for the total office use instead
of just the 5,000 square feet.
r am also very disappointed that the amount of time and effort and years
that went into trying to get office use reduced in these ar!as is now
being overlooked. The request for a variance is not for a small
dlfferentiil between what is accommodated by the loning ordinance. but is
double the amount that is allowed. So I am not gOing to be able to uphold
the zoning administrator's judgment on this.
Comiss iDner Beecnam: let me address the t!"affic issue first. I thjnk
tne traffic issue is a wash in both directions. The last time we had a
discussion at a public hearing on this, people opposed to the project in
general were complaining about the awkward traffic s1tuation. Tonight the
app11cant for the project 1s sayfng it is awkward, and therefore, thfngs
s~ould be reduced or minimized. The traffic 5it~ation i~ not muc~
different than in almost any other location. It is unique only because it
is the only one on tnis corner. There are other intersections which ~ave
oth!r problems. and to me, this is a generiC type of proble~ that OCcurs
all up and down [1 Camino Real where you bave bUSinesses or offices or
other uses near in intersection. for the people actually using the site
to have a slngle entrance, that is an impact on the residences. That is
one of the things tnat drive my opinion 01'): H.is. This is 1: very close
issue. I am very sensitive to the findings in No. I. indicating that
officf use is a less intensive ~se t~an most of ttle allowed uses. I don't
01/09/91
·14-
•
\
I
~
:j
'I
J
1
" .
t~fnt we at all want to .ay that office fits better with housing than
W(luld retal1. ' Tholt f1 fes tn the hce of the whole fssue of w~at VE' are
doing_ In this particular (ase. tt would, because the re~idence5 ~ave no
other access except f\'"olfl [1 Camino Rea' to go by the uses.
On Itea 2 Df the findings, J can marginally suppcrt that. In my
esti~tion, ~t is five units. maybe Trss. maybe more. I am still not
clear on how one ~rks out the parking issue in-terNS of more intensivE or
1es$ intensive retlil uses. but I do believe that if retail goes in there~
the sacrifice w111 be to replac~ 5~ resldent1al units with retail. So
based on those 1tus, I will support Ue zonfr,9 adllinistrator on trtis
is51.1e.
COmmissioner GlJzfer: It in general. support Commissioner Beecham's
comments and will vote to uph~ld the zoning administrator's decision.
recognize and appreciate the n~ed for retail in that zone, but I also nave
to weigh that aglinst i number of other benefits t~at the city wouid get
from this project. HUMber One, one of the most important mandates of the
Comprehensiye Plan is to make [1 Camino Real look very nice. and this
project certainly acnieves that ~bjective. It gets more housing, which is
an important Dbjective t and it also gets the path through Wilkie Way to
the Ventura School. If we were to explore some other alternative path,
perhaps incorporating retail. we ~y not be able to get that. I do agree
with some of t~e comments that it is a pretty difficult site for retail,
and therefore I ~1ll Yote to uphold the zoning administrator's decisi~n.
Chairman Mars~; The dominant reaction I had to this .as expressed by
Commissioner Betchan. which is that this is a ver~ close issue. To my
mind, there 1S no v!ry eleareut response. no clearcut dictate as to what
action we should tak!. However. I COmt down on the side of the zoning
administrator fDr t~ reasons. One is the configuration of this lot. It
does have a narrow rrontige~ rt is a very long. narrow. deep lot and the
access is limited bec~use of the way the Site fits. to having. as
(ommiss;oner 8eecha~ not!d. a singl! dr;~! that has to serve all of the
uses on the parcel.
The second issue is simply that of location and th~ f~ct that I agree with
the applicant that we have a parcel here that i5 in i problematic space on
£1 Camino Rea'~ However. we ne!d to be very, ver~ clear that we are not
setting any prec~ent in this case for exceeding the office limitation in
the future. That is an issue that concerns me ver1 much, because I very
muc~ support having an office limit and encouraging retail or other forms
of commercial development along E1 Ca~ino Real~ [thtnk that botn the
configuration and location of this parcel is fairly unusual, and I do not
see other properties along [1 Camino Real being able to meet the standards
that we see on this parcel. So given that, I, too, will support the
zoning administrator's re,o~~dation. It would certainly be a ver~
positive step for the app1icant to again take one last look at this before
it goes to the city council to see if there is any way of reasonably
incorporating any kind of low~k!y commercial devel~pment that might se~ve
the resid!nts at that site, as well as the nearby residents. I simpl~
make one last plea t~ the applicant to take another Took at it, but I will
support tne recommendation.
Conmissioner Cullen: It sounds to me, frorl the coments mad€ by my fellow
cammissioners~ that the findings listed will have to be revis€~.
I ,
01/09/91
-I s-
•
"\
I
-------~
-::/-~~
,
t!QI..K.!t!: COMissioner' kechm: [lIOve ttat life uphold the zoning
a~lnlstr.tor, ~t to modify Findlog II to the following: "The proposed
use at the proposed location will not be detrimental or injurfo~s to
property or 1~royeeents in the vicinity. Ind will not be detrjme~tal to
t~e public health, safety. general welfare or convenience, in that first.
for this specific site. affie, use 1s pore compat1b1e wit~ residential us~
because of unique driveway 11~1t;t1ons, and second. for this specific
s1te. there 1s I strong urban deslg" desire tor a strget wall des1gn~·
The .econd finding remoin, a, written.
~: By CORIissloner "azier,
NOTION p~: (Datrman ~arsh: Is there any further discussion on this
aotlon? [t has been .aved ind seconded that we uphold the zoning
ad~infstrltor's recommendation and it would approve the co~dit;onal use
perait for 10,300 sq~are feet of office space where a maximum of
SJOOO square feet would normally be permitted. It is 5ubject to findings
as written iD t~e report. with t~e amendment as stated by Commissioner
Beecha-, which addressed t~e particular access to t~is site and a desire
for a street wall design. Finding No.2 stands as ~ritten. and is
incorporated i. the condition as listed in the report. All those in
favor, sa, Aye? All opposed? Thot passes on a vote of 3-1. ~ith
Commissioner Callen dissenti~9. InC CommiSSioners Hirsch, Huber and
Christensen absent.
Mr, Gilliland: This Is scheduled for the city countil for January ll.
'-
•
'_ .... -
'.
'''.
~ 0 eox 1"~SO
TO: PALO AlTO PlANNING COMMISSION PREPARED BY: Yirglni, Warhelt
OAT(: April 19, 1991 FILE NO.: 90·EIA·30, 90·D·09, 90-ARe·S7
go·YP·34, 91·ZC-4
PROJECT INFORI!ATlOll
location:
Applicant:
Property Owners:
3981 El Camino Real
Palo Alto, CA 94306
The Steinberg Group
60 Pierce Avenue
San Jose, CA 95110
Nayflower P.A. Development l.P.
lOS3 lawrence [xpressw'J
Santa Clara, CA 95051
~eguested Action: Zone Change and Comprehensive Plan Amendment
PROJECT SlMMAAY
The applfcant ;nittil11 proposed a mixed·use project on this site ta include
10.000 SQUire feet af office space and 38 condominium units. Office space in
excess of 5 1 000 square feet in th~ CS zone requires i Use Permit. The Zoning
Admlnistrater granted. Use Penoit for the 10,000 square feet of office space,
but that decision was overturned by Cit1 Council on appeil. The project was
thus limited to no more th.t 5,000 square feet of office space.
The applicant then reevaluated the possibllty of replacing 5,000 square feet
of the proposed office space with retail. He ~evelDped severil design schemes
that included retiil space and consulted with retail property brokers about
their marketability. The proposals recfeved generally pDor response from
brokers. ~o believed that due to a combination of access~ parking and
vis'bility prob1ems~ some of the retail spaces in each scheme would ~ot be
viable~
During the public review process. Planning Commissioners, City Council members
and sa.e ~r$ of the public expressed an f~terest in repll~ing some of the
proposed office space witt! hous.ing. H[hiiever l V.e .0. floar area ratio (fAR)
llail on residenli,l for mixed· use projects in the CS zone precluded the
applicant fra. including any additional residenti~l square footage in the
project. In order to be able to replice approximately S,OOQ square feet of
the previously proposed office space wit~ ho~sing, the applicant is applying
to rezone 14,000 square feet of the CS portion of the site to RM·40. This
will pono;t all of the .llowable FAR (1.0) for that portion of the ,ite to be
residential construction. rather than the .aximu~ .6 residential il10wed in
the CS lone. This additional residential square footage will result in four
additional housing units.
PC39SIzc/yw 4/19/91
·1·
_.,,-
" ... -----.
REtOMllDlllED ACTIOH
Staff recommends t~at the Planning Commission recommend th.~ the City Council
adopt the Hegative Decl.ration and approve the zone change and Comprehensive
Plan ... ndment based on the findings and conditions contained In this report.
SITE llIfORIIATIOH
Parcel Size;
Assessor's Parcel Number:
Exlsting 2onfng:
~rehenSlye Pl.n
slgnatlon;
Densny:
Existing Land Use:
Surrounding land Use:
History~
Mandatory Action O.t.(I):
Envi~onmental impact
Assess_nt:
PC39alze!yw
" . ,
R.zonlng proposed for, If,004-square-foot
portion of a 64,904-square-'oot parc.l
132-42-09
CSt RH-30; The portion of the Site to be rezoned
Is curr •• tly zoned CS
Service Commerci.l, Multiple-family Residential
for the portion of the sit. to be rezoned, II
units allowed, 10 units proposed
Motel
The parcel 15 pre.ently occupied by a DOtel. The
near-by aTea \s a mix of ~s1dent;al and
c~rcfil uses. The parcel to the north of the
prQjtct is presently \n comaerti&1 use but is
zoned .i.i1.rly to the project sit. and can be
expected to redevelop. Directly to the south is
the Pry Creek chann.1 .nd across from that Is the
4Z0 Jacobs Court Site currently occupied by .i.
5 .. 11 cottages, which is In the process of being
rezono4 to RK-1S. The project is bordered on the
east by the Yentura S:hool sit.. A single-family
neighborhood heiSt of the site beyor,d the Creel<.
and Wilkl. Way. Tne west side of the project
fronts onto (1 Camino Real where t~ere lre a
variety of comaercill uses.
Please refer to t~e History section of the staff
report for 3981 El Camino Real Site and Design
project scheduled on the same City Council
agenda.
Application deemed complete March 23, 1991. Six
month action date for final City Council action
is September 23, 1991. The project is
tentatively scheduled for final review by the
City Council on Hay 20, 1991.
No significant impacti I negative declaration has
been prepared and is attached to this report.
The propo~ed zcr.a cnange and Comprehensive Plan
4/19/SI
-2-
~--...... .-... • Ii >A~~_."JIJ"I"J _. __ .... -___ ••
ANAlYSIS
BACKGROlIHD
•
aMendment represent I less intensive development
of tke site tkan tkat considered In t~e
Environmental Assessment.
When the application for a Use Pennit to construct 10,000 square feet of
offic~ ~pace WiS de~ied by City Countil~ the appl,cant reconstdered the
proposed .fx of uses for this project. Considerable interest had been
expressed during the public hearir.g process in providing retail on the site.
I~terest was also expressed in increas!ng t~e housing component of the
project. The applicant prepared several design options whlc~ Included retail
space~ However, he was advised by retail property bro\ers .no reviewed the
proposals tkat they did not provide Quality retail spaces and he could expect
difficulty allr.cling and keeping tenants. Staff agrees wit. t.is asses.ment
and recommended against retafl on this site in the previous application.
Consequently, responding to support by the City Council and others to add
housing units, the applicant reviewed with staff the possibility of overcoming
the .6 fAA barrier for housing in the CS zone. It was detennined that
rezoning a port~on of the sit! from CS to RH-40. with a residential FAR of
1.0, would serve t~is purpose. so the applicant ~as applied to rezone 14,004
square feet of the site from CS to RH-40.
INtRfASf IN RtSlOEN11AL fAA
The attac~ed chart, Exhibit A. shows. schemclic diagram of the proposed
zoning for this parcel, with the square footage to be included in each zonE
district. Tne RM-30 portion of the site remains unchanged. The CS p~rtion is
divided, with the rear 1',004 square feet to be rezoned to RH-40 and the front
12,500 square feet to remain CS. To the right of the diagram is the amount of
FAR .'lowed in each zone for commercial development and for residential
development. The total allowable fAR Is not increased by the proposed zone
change, s1nce the fAR for .ixe~-use proj!cts in the CS zone is .4 commercia'
plus .6 residential for a total fAA of 1.0, and thE fAR in the RH-40 zone is
1.0 residential. The change in lonin~ merely permits ail of the fAR for th,s
portion of the site to be residential.
RECOf1KEII!lA TI OH
Staff recommends that the Planning Commiss)on recommend that tn! City CounCil
adopt the Negative Declaration and approye the zone change and Comprehensive
Plan ~ndment, based on the findings listed below~
FIIIlINllS
1. Tn! proposed zone change and Comprehensive Plan amendment is in the
public interest, ia that it will allow an in(rease in the housing sto(k
of the community and thereby imprDve the jDbs/~ou~ing imbalanc!.
2. lhe proposed zone change and C~prehen5isve Plan amendment is consistent
with land use patterns in the City, in t~at RM-4D zones occur adjacent to
commercial uses and between commercial zones and other 10wer density
resfdential area5~
Pt3981zcfVl/ 4/19/91
-3-
\ , ,
•
3. The propcsed zane change ind Coaprehens1ve Plan amendment wi11 create no
sIgnificant adverse envlron .. nt.l eff.ct, in that It will result In a
loss intensive use nf the site th'n the curront znnlng allows.
ATTACIIIOOS
En,tlel.ntel0\55ess.",t
lind Use .. p showing proposed Zone change·
lInd Use "'p showing proposed tomprehenslve Plan ....,nd .. nt
9N;'liRee
RBS81 .. thA
COPIES SOO TO
The Steinberg Group
The Barron Park Association
To. Fisher, 81ec"".n Tirkes, 3350 lIest Bayshore, Suite 110, P.lo Alto, CA
94303
11111 Beckett, Hewlett,'ackard tompany, 300 H.nover Street, P. O. Box 10301, '.10 Alto, CA 94304
Pt3981zc/VII 4/19/91
-4·
-----------....-~----,-...... -'-"---'
" ,
-I
•
\
.$
.'-.' .
RM-15
L
. ,
PF
VENTURA
SCHOO.L
RM-15
GRAPHIC AnACHKENT DATE: 4-8-91 SCALE: 1"· 200'
TO STAFF REPORT FILE NO. 91-ZC-4 91-CPL-l 91-ElA-'
PROJECT: lone Chan2e from CS to R."1-40 for 14 000 Ii ft
of 3981 £1 camino Re;(l
(Zone ~p Page ;)
LOC .... TlON M .... P
•
",
NORTH
-_..'.
_ •. ____ ",AP"-" .. '';;'''.;;;: ... -__ II''"' "2"'''''''' --"'"'-
,
,: W l I I I I I I I I I ! ,
SECOND STREET
Ii -
VENTURA
\I~""""" ct SCHOOL r
SITE LOCATION ~\\ WILKIE W~Y
': r-398~ fj Camino Real r-
::) t--~
!AI > -~ ......
3100 ~ j -
-r-------
[ ~-........ f-'l ?" J ~
~ 'III~". Y ::)
I J) z -I .. III
I:: >
VILLa ..... T. e '----III: "I---CI -I----r -s ~ S ,-•
G) GAAl'HIC ATIACIf4l:KT DATE: 4-8-91 I SCALE: I" • 200'
T() STAFF REPORT FILE NO_ 91-SC-4 91-CPL-l 91-EIA-6 ~ PROJECT: COlII'9rehen5ive P14~ Amendment from Cc=mer~1al
to Xulti-lam11, Resid~otlal for 14.000 aq ft of 3981 E1
LOCATION HAP: (Baal! Hap Page )) CamiDo Rea NORTH
'"
-
-~--.---~~~~-
•
.. '-' --~-..
TO: PAlO ALiO PlAIIIllIG COIIUSSIOH PR,PAR[O BY, Virginia Warheit
DAH: Ajlril 19, 1991 FILE NO.: 90-EIA-30, 90-0-09, 90-ARB-87
90-UP-34, 91-Y-ll
PROJECT INFORMATIOH
L""at i on:
Appllcant:
Propert, Owners:
Requested Actfon~
PRDJECT SIlIIIWY
3981 E1 Cillino Real
Palo AltD, CA 94306
The Steinberg GrDup
60 Pi!rce Avenue
San Jose, CA 95110
Mayflower P.A. DevelDpment L.P.
3083 lawrence Expressway
Santa Clara, CA 95051
Major Site and Design Review and Multiple
Variances for i ~ixed Use Condominium Office and
Residential Condominium Project
The subject COMmercial office and residential application is for a site and
design apPrGval for i mixed use project witn variances required for the front
yard setback, sid. yard setbacc and daylight plane.
,he applicant had previously applied fDr • mixed us. prDject on this site b"t
was ulti .. tely denied the requested 10,000·sq"are-foot Dffice prDposal_
{Refer to staff report on the accompa~yinQ proposed zone chang! for further
fnfo~ation.} The revised design is si_flar to the previous applicatiDn but
~as been sealed back to a 5,OOO-square-foot two-story office building at the
front of th! site and increased to 4l condominiu~ reSidences in three-story
buildings on the rear portion of the site. Tne residential units are stacked
two-story town~ouses over ground level flats. Tne t~ree residential buildings
Ire arranged around an open courtyard as in the previous proposal_ The
residences and the commercial building are accessed by a common driveway off
El CaminD Real. One-hundred· nine (109) parking spaces are provided, ~ith 104
spaces located in a~ underground parking garage and 3 guest and 2 handicap
spaces located in a surface parking lot near the entrance to the site.
RECOIIKEllDEII ACTIDN
Staff recoomends that the Planning CommissiDn recommend that the Citl CD"n,il,
based on tne recently adopted Negative Declaration. approve the project based
on findings and conditions contained i~ this repDrt.
SITE INFORMATION
Part-el Size:
Assessor's Parcel Number:
PC398lap/V1l
64,904 sq"are feet
132·42·69
4/19/91
-1-
\ ,
" .
.', ,. ,
Existing Zonfng:
Density:
Existing Land Use:
S"rroundlng lind Use:
History:
pt398hp/'IV
, "
~./ .
/' ':
CS, RM-30
Service Co_rcill, "ultlple·r .... lly Resldentill
4S units Illowed, 42 units proposed
Motel
Tbe project site Is presently occupied by •
motel. T~e nearb, ire; is i ~fx of resfd!ntia'
Ind c ..... rcfol "ses. The parcel to tile north of
the project Is presently In conoerclll use but is
zoned sl.llarly to the project site and can be
expected to redevelop. Directly to the south Is
the Dry Creek channel and across from that ;s the
420 Jacobs Court site, currently occ"pied by six
s .. ll cottages. The rezonfng of this site from
R-2 to RM·15 fs currently i. process. The
prcject is bordered on the eist by the Venturi
School site. A slngle·family neighborhood is
Clst of the site beyond the Creek and Viltie Vay.
The west ,Ide of the project front' onto El
C .. ina Rei' where therE are a ~lr1et1 of
c~rcfll ~ses.
March 2, 1990: Application filed for prellmin.ry
arch1tectuTI' review of the proposed mixed use
office/resldentlll project with 0
IO,300·square·'oot office building and 38
ca~domfnfUi resldences over underground parking.
April 19, 1990: Preliminary review by the
Architectural Review Board (ARB) of the proposed
.Ixed use project. "Inutes of the ARB Meeting
are attached.
June 1. 1990: Second preliminary review by tn!
Architectural Review Board of the proposed mixed
use project. Minutes of the ARB .. etlng ore
attached.
May 14, 1990: Application filed for ~ajor site
and deslgn review of the mixed use
office/residential project with a
IO,300·sQuare·foot office building and 38
candomfnfum reSidences over undergro~nd parking.
October 10, 1990: Major site and design revle.
by the Planning C~isslon. The project was
Continued to Illow the applicant to apply for a
conditional use pen.ft to J1Tow an excess of
5,000 square feet of office space. Minute, of
tne Pllnnfng Ca.missfDn meeting ir~ attached.
4/19/91
-2-
•
. "
[ , ,
I , portion of the plrce1 to RH-40. T.at proposed zone c.ange Is schedu1ed for
revfew earlier on t~i5 agenda. Please refer to the stiff report for tnat item
for the d1sc~ssfon of reasons for the zone change.
The resident ill portion of the project has not be.n changed substantially
since It w,s last reviewed by the Planning Coomisslon_ [t continues to be
three three-story buildings i. , U-shape arrangeoent around an open courtyard,
with two-story townhouses stacked over grade level fl.ts_ A more det.iled
description of the building architecture and of the courtyard is inclu~.d in
the stiff report .f October 5, 1990.
The cOlDerclal portion of the site has been redesigned so that the office
building Is reduced to 5,000 SQu.re feet. With the reduction In the site area
occupied by the office building, the entry court ha. been shifted forward on
the site, i~ four additional residential units have been added in the area
previously occupied by the office building. The office building has been
red.slgned as described in'the ISSUES section below.
The replacement of 5,000 feet of office spa,e with four residentl,l un,ts
results in eleven fewer parking spates required. In response to this reduced
parking reqUirement, the layout of the underground par,i09 garage has been
MOdiffed to provide a aore efficient and easilJ accessible irrangement of
parking spaces~ storage areas Ind trls~ and recycle facilities.
ill!!il
Design of the Office Building
The office building has been substantl.lly redesigned since the l.st Planoing
Commission review, particularly in response to concerns expressed by
Ccoalssioners about the need to avoid 0 'hard edge' look. The total floor
area has been reduced fro. ]0.000 sq~ire feet to 5.000 square feet, but i~
order to provide, strong fono in this corner locltlon the applic,nt has
retained I two-story design. There is also still a vertiCil arc~itectural
element at the south corner of the building. The gl.ss to.er of the previous
prDposal ~as been replaced with a circijTar str~cture with an open entry
portiCO Dn the gro~nd floor and office space an the second floor_ A covered
pedestrian arcade extends .Iong the front of the bulldin9, connecting to the
entry portico. Windows ~ave been red~ced in size ind increased in number to
give I acre human scale to the building_ The previously proposed wood
shingles have been replaced ~th a ~re pennanent material, such as masonery
Or tile_
The front wall of the offfce building has been moved back to 20 feet behind
the fnGnt property line, rather tnan the 5 feet previousl, proposed. The
entry portico and arcade extend JO feet into t~is setback, i~ tne remaining
10 fe.t behind the side.alk will be landscaped_
Emergency Access Bridge
Tne applicant I"itlolly proposed that the 20-foot iccess corridor to Wilkl.
Way and the bridge across Dry Cr.ek wou1d be for the exclusive use of the
residents Ind would not be ,ccessibl. to the general public_ At the October
10, 199J Planning C~issian hearing. it was suggested by Commissioners that
there.oy be •• 1 .. In vslng the easement and bridge to provide. publfc
pedestrian and bicycle connection bet.e.n Wilkie Vay and £1 tamino R •• l_
PCJ98lap/W
•
'-.-:~:~<,-I.
jZ~~;i£;
4/19/91
-4-
•
-,.
--'-----~--,;"...~------
However, It the JanYlry 9, 199] Plinn1ng C~isslon hearing, the Commission
included as & conditfon of approval that tnere should be locked gates It oath
ends of the IcceS5 corridor to prevent casu~l pedestrfan, bicycle or vehicular
access.
The proposed bridge over the Dry Creek channel Is required by the Fire
Oepart.e~t far paramedic vehic~e access. Tne bridge would be no more than ]2
feet wide. FIrE trucks will not use the bridge. They will enter and leave
the 20·foot·wlde corridor along the creek from El Camino Real and will fight
fires from this space, as they cannot drive onto the interior plaza.
Paramedic vehitles, unlike flTe trucks. must be able to leave as well as enter
the site quickly. The bridge .cross the creek will allow paramedic vehicles
to get into and out of the site without delays. Since the fire trucks will be
stopping in the 20-foot access corr;d~r along the creek and flghting the fire
from this location, they wou1d block a paramedic van which arrived ahead of
them fro. leaving by this route unless t~e bridge access is provided.
Tne proposed brfdge connects to Willie Way through an existing 12-foot-wide
access strfp. The two adjofni~g property owners. the Jacobs Court condominium
proje<:t on the west and Mr. George Saitn on the east. each own Ii 6-foot widUt
of the acceS5 str1p~ The Santa Clara Valley Water Distrfct has an easement t~
allow access to the creek from Wilkie Way. T~e Water Oistrict has approved
the concept of the bridge and access t~rough the easement. Keyed access fDr
residents and for paramedic Yans will be required as a condition of
subdivision approval for the 420·460 Jac'lbs Court project. The deslgn of the
bridge, tn. access strip and the g.tes oust be approved both by tne ARB .nd by
the Water District.
Yarlance to Site Development Regulltions
The design IS proposed requires i variance for i 5-foot front yard setback
Where 25 feet is required. and also i variance for a lO-foot extension into
the s~de lard setback and i 21-foot vertical exte~siDn into the da~light plane
for a free-standing wall. Staff supports the variance for front yard setback
since I strictly commercial project would be allowed to construct up to the
property line. Staff does not support the variance for extension into the
side yard and daylight plane.
The Zoning Ordinance requires mixed-use projects to comply with the sfte
development regulations of the applicable residential <one. The required
front yard setback for RM·30 developments on an arterl.l street is 25 feet.
In the proposed design, the front building wall is set back from the property
lfne 20 feet, and the pedestrian arcade and entr~ portico is set back a
distance of 5 to 10 feet. Staff feels tnat the findings for a variance are
warranted g1ye~; that the purpose of the 2S-fo~t required setback fs to
provide i buffer for residential ~nits and t~e residential units in this
project are located be~fnd the office building; that the prevailing pattern
for coamercfal buildings along [1 Camino Real is little or no front setback;
that the proposed setback will provide a better deSign it this corner location
than the deeper required setbaCK; and that the proposed setback is $ufficient
to provide for generous landscaping and I pedestrian artade.
The proposed design includes, 31·foot high w.ll around the perimeter of the
circular parking area. This wall extends from the side property, across the
entry drive and connects to the office building. It t~en CDntinues from tne
office building iround the entry to the interior courtyard to the western-most
PC39BJap/W 4/19/91
·5·
'. ;.
•
•
\
--_._. -P ....... -.....
resIdential unIt, and from thIs unit over tho garage entry to the sIde
property lin.. The RH-30 sIt. development regul.tlons reQuire. 10-foot sIde
yard setback and a 10-foot and 45 degree daylfght plane. SInce th~ .all
extends to t~e property line and is 31 feet hig~. it would rEQuire I variance.
Staff does not believe that t~e findings for i variance can be supported~ The
location of the w,11 In the s!de yard Is a design decision not directly
.. I.ted to .ny unusual conditions of the site and it can be delete~ wIthout
.ny ad •• r •• Impact on tho project. 5t.ff Is partlc.larly concernod that the
extensIon of the 31-foot-hlgh wall to the sIde property line in t.o locations
will caus. consIderable deSign diffIculties for the adjacent property owner
when that property Is rede.eloped.
RECOIOIEllJATIOH
staff recomoends that the Planning CommIssion recommend that the City Council
appro.e the project, based or. the recently .dopted Neg.tive Oeclaration.
subject to the f.llowlng fIndIngs .nd conditions.
Staff further recommends tkat the Planning C~i$sion recommend that the City
Councfl approve a variance to allow a S-foot front yard setback but de~y a
yarlance to allow the free-standing wall to extend 10 feet Into. sIde yard
setback and to extend vertieolly 21 feet into the dayl i9M pTane. s"bject to
the following findiogs and conditions:
FINDINGS
APPROVAL Of SITE AND OESIGN
1. The proposed project is orderly, ~araonlous Ind compatible with adjoining
uses, in t~at t~e site plan is arranged so that the commercial building
Is l~.ted next to El Camino Re.l, the residential units are located .t
the relr of t~e site near other resfdentfal uses and buffered from £1
Ca.iQO Real, t~e circulation is safe, orderly and attractive, and usefu1
outdoor spaces are being provided.
2. The project will ens~re the desirabflity of investment and the conduct of
authorized occupations, in that the b~ildl~g stock is being improved and
tne site more intens;vely used and the new buildings will result in an
improvement in the general appeara~ce of t~;s portion of E1 Camino Real.
3. Sound principles of en~ironmental design and ecolog;cal balance are being
observed, In that as .any .s possible (13) of tne existing trees are
being retained and tne underground garage Is set back apprOXimately 2S
feet from the property line. providing sufficient 5011 volume to sustain
~xi~ growth of a ~fni~m of six new medium-large size varieties of
trees. Trees are .lso being planted to shade the interior courtyard.
Bicycle parking conveniently located on the p1aza level and the provision
of a pedestrian bridge across the creek channel should encourage walklng
and bicycl ing.
4. The ~se is consistent with the uses deSignated in the Comprehensive Plan
for this .it.. The project is in accord with Policy S of the Housing
Element in providlng a ~'x of residential uses in a commercial area, and
with Policy 6 of the Urban Design Element to upgrade El Camino Real. It
supports PolicIes 8 and Il of the Transportion Element to dis,ourage
PC3 98 Iap/'lll
...... "
4/19/91
-6-
·'
" .
auto.oblTe use and .nc,ur'ge bfcycl. use by making bicycle u'e
convenfent, and by the proximIty to publIc transportatfon.
APPROVAl Of VARIANCE TO FRONT YARD SETBACK AND DENIAL Of VARIANCE TO SIDE YARD SETBACK AND DAYLIGHT PLANE
J~ There are excepttonll or extraordi~ary circumstances O~ conditions
applfcabl. to the property fnvolved that do not apply generally to
prope~y in the same district: in that the commerti~l uses 1ft the mixed
use project are located next to El C .. ino Real with the residenti.l unIts
located behfnd the ",,,,,,,,rchl building; !n that other coomerchl
buIldings al.ng the street have little or no setbac'; in that the
buflding is located on a prominent corner where the reQuired setback does
not Reet urban design goals for I strong form to anchoT the corner.
These exceptional circumstances of the s~te are not relevant to the
proposed extension of the free-standing wall into the side yard and the
daylight plane.
2. The granting of the application fs necessary for the preservation and
enj.~nt of • substantial property right of the applIcant, and to
prevent unr~,sonable property 105$ or unnecess,r~ hardship, ;n that
providing the additional 20 feet required front yard setback would redUce
by approximately 3,000 square feet t~. usable open space interior to the
$ite and thus ~aYe a $ubstlntitl detrimental effect on the quality of the
site amenities. Deleting the proposed free-standing wall from the side
yard would not result In any such hardship or loss of property value.
3. The granting of the application ~ill not be detrimental or injurious to
property or improvements in the vicinity? in that the proposed
residentill units Ire located on the Site behind the commerica1 offite
building so that no unit is closer than 55 feet fr .. [1 Ca.fno Real, thus
provIding • greater buffer froo the arteri.l than that provided by the
required 2~ foot front setback. The exten~icn of the free-standing ~,'1
into the side yard and into the daylight plane will be detrimental or
f~jurfo~s to the adjoining property, in t~at it may present conSiderable
design diffic~1ties and 1imitat'ons for future redeve1apment Df thlt
property.
COIIll Tl OIlS
I. The applicant shall delete the extension of the free-standing wall into
the side yard setback and into the daylight pl.ne to comply with the
above variance denied for that portion of tht project.
2. The applicant shall implement tho following sound control ~;tig.t;on
~asures to achieve compliance with tne Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and
Titl. 24 standards, prior to application for buIlding permit.
Exterior Residential Area NOise Controls to Achieve 65 dBA
Rear patios and decks within 195 feet of the vest prQperty 11ne and
having i direct or side view of [1 Camino Real. CDnstr~ct
6·foot-high a,oustical patio fences and 36·inch-high solid deck
railings. Patios and decks fating onto the interior plaza area
will not require noise controls, due to the shielding provided b~
the planned building arrangement.
PC398lap(Vll 4/19/91
-7-
•
•
. -
T~e rup to t~e underground garage s~all be faced wit~ oco"stical
saterl.l to reduce the noise impact on resident1.' units over and
near the ramp.
Interior Residential Hoise Controls to Achiev. 40 dBA
Wlthi. 195 f.et of El Camino Real, one of the following mitigations
shall be required:
I. Required window cor.structfon using sfngle pane of IJ4-1nc~
glass providing 5TC-32 rating or bigher. This .ssumes windows
will be kept closed .t all tI ... s and th.t mechanical
ventilation will be provided.
b. Required window construction using a prefabricated acoustical
Window providing 5TC-54 rating or higher. With this
.lternatlve, windows may be kept open up to 50 percent of the
tiMe for natural ~entilit;on ind mechanical ventilation is not
required.
further than 195 feet to El C .. ino Real, one of the following
.Itigations shall be required;
i. Required window construction ~s1ng a sin;le pane of 1/4-inch
gloss providing 5TC-28 r,tlng or higher. This assumes windows
will be kept closed .t all ti~s and that mechanical
ventll.tion will be provided.
b. Required wi~ow construttion using ~ prefabrfcated acoustical
window providing STC-46 r.ting or higher. With this
olternotive, windows .ay be kept open up to 50 percent of the
t;~ for r.atural ventilation and mechanical ventilation lS not
required.
The windows of the residential units that are specified to be
.aintained closed at a11 times for ~oise contro1 are to be
operable , as the reQuirement does not imply a fixed condition.
Units having the closed win~ow condition should be provided with
some fora of 5ec~anical ventilation to assure i habitable
envirornoent, as specified by the Unifono Building Code (UBC)_
3. To .ltigat. the loss of the large Valley oak and other trees, the
applicant shall plant •• inlmua of six IS·gallon .odlum-l.rge size canopy
trees 1. the landscaped .erlmeter of the site where soil volume is
adequate to sustain maximum tree growth prior to finalization of t~e
building permit~ Tne number, location I species and size of trees in the
final landscape plan shall be to the satisfoction of the Planning
Olvlslon, with consult.tion by the City Arborist. The applicant shall
suo-it, wit~ the final landscape plan, I tree protectfon program prepared
by a certified arborist for protection of tne existing trees to be
retained, wtt~ a certified arborist deSignated to be responsible for
1~leoentltlon of the tree protection noasures. The fln.l landscape and
tree protection plan sh.ll be approved by the ARB prior to issuance of a
building pe .. lt.
PCl !ISlip/VII 4/19/91
-8-
--'~-ri;¢'iV-~
•
. ,
1
/
-,
•. The final design detail. of the project sh.ll be reviewed and approved by
t~e Arc~1tecturll Review Board, prior to issuance of a building permit,
Including a resolution to 'ondition I above.
S. The design of the bridge and access to It shall be approved by tho Fire
Department, the Public works Depart~nt, the Architectural Review Board
and by the Santi Clara Valley Water District prior to fssuance of I
building pe""it.
6. The applicant.shall obtain an encroachment permit from Cal Trans for any
work or const,"ction lctlvity in the public right of .ay.
7. The applicant shall provide four BMR units; two one·bedro~ units for
$73,100 each, and two two·bedro~ units for $90,500 each.
ATTACHIIENTS
Excerpt "inutes of the Planning Commission meeting, January 9, 1991
excerpt "Inutes of the City Council .. etlng, January 28, 1991
Planning C .... issfon Staff Report, Januat,' 4, 1991
April 19, 1991 letter froo applicant
Plans
COPIES SEIIT TO
Th. SteInberg Group, 60 Pierce Avenue, San Jose, CA 9Sl10
The Barron Pirk Assocfitio~, cia John D. Joynt, 358~ laguna Avenue, Palo Alto.
CA 94306
Tom Fisher, Sleck.an Tirkes, 3350 Vest Bayshare Road, Suite liD, P,lo Alto, CA
94303
Will Beckett, He.lett-Packard Company, 3000 Hanover street, P. O. Box 10301,
Palo Alto, CA 94304
PC3981ap/'o1i 4/19/91
-9·
AGEIIOA HEll 5
/'
3981 El CAHIHQ BfA!: Application for' major site .nd
design for a Ilx&d use project .it~ 38 residenti,l
cond .. lnl~ "nits .nd • IO,300-square-foot commercial
buildi~ over underground parking. environmental
Asses ... nt: No significant Impacts .ere determined to
result from the project, and a neg.tl.e decl.ration h.s
been prepared. File Nos. 9O-[IA-30, 90·0-09, 90-ARB-87,
SO-UP-34. Zone District RM-30, (5.
Chai"'" Marsh: This is the first Site .nd desi9n applic.tion that tho
planning c"","isslon has considered In the El Cillino area. It m.y be
helpful to reiterate _hy, in fact. we have such a requirement for aixed
.s. projects. Site and design has historically bee" .sod for properti.,
that or. located near the foothills and for some of the cOl1Jllercial
developoent which is to the .. st of Foothill Express •• y, and in the
bl11lnds~ [n tnose cases, the ca.atssfon's task has been to look at areas
which were enY1ro~ntlll1 s!nsit've and to comment on the waJs in which i
devolopoent rel.tos to the environment specifically. In the Case of EI
Ca.ino Reali ~ do not ~~ve those same envirDnmental proble~s, but i~ the
course of the Citywide St~, .. decided, and the city council agreed, to
applJ • sit, and design hearing on .11 mixed use projects. Our task is ,
littl, bit different. Our eophlsl. Is not on the architectural and
,ny!ron.ent.1 i"ues that we look .t 10 the foothill, and the baylands.
We are here to look at the ways 10 wh!c~ the various uses that are
incorporited Into. single de.olopoent rellte to each other .nd to the
surrounding wses. We -nl1. and can, look ~t architectural issues. but
01/09/91
-16-
PLANNING COmnssION MINUTES
. .
-
•
-_.=------
those Ire really secondary tc what our pT1.ar~ focus tonight should be.
No staff ccm.ents.
Cn.frm,n Marsh: I w1ll ~DW open t~! public hEaring.
Robert St,jDbtt9. 1)30 Bryant Street, palO Alto: last time ~~ ~t with
you, I gave you. f"Tly lengthy ~resent.tlon .bout the development of the
stte and tts c:hlnctel'htfcs. As I recill. tnere Wi$ prlmarily the issue
th.t we Just de.lt with that was of concern, and the second area of
concern had to do with the specific design of the office building. We
have don. some modification to the office building to try and increa,. the
feeli~ of scale, to use somewhat .ore traditional, textural materials.
aithough I understand th,t Is not the specific pOint of what we are doing
it this moment. I would be happy to either gi.e you. full-blown
~resent.tlo" or answer specific qu_stlons.
Chalraan Kars': We would like to h.ve the complete presentation.
Hr_ Steinberg: In de.eloplng the site, we looked at sev.ral different
oltornotlves_ We looked .t altern.tl.es th,t had .ccess closest to the
intersection. Ve looked at acceiS points in the middle of the site. We
looked at access points f.rthest to the north, a •• ~ fr~ the
intersectfon. After some discuulol1s witft the tnffic: department. it was
deeBed thit we should provide one access is fir aw~ from the inters!ction
illS possible.
A second key eleaent W&5 that we wert encouraged to maintain i street wall
along £1 Camino Re.l. A third element was that we had 0 requirement for
paramedit and fire access along the water c~annel tnat could actually
either turn iro~nd and back up, or .ove through the site, ever the water
channel and out via the existing easesent. So those were three key
elements that .ffected the design of the site.
One of the challenges of the Site was how to develop an integrated
community that had a narrow frontage, and that combined both office and
residential. One of the things we tried to do was to use common materials
and common color palettes, but to reverse their proportion. Because we
had such a narrow window on the site, ~ felt 1t was important that the
office building lock handsome .nd .. et .11 of the urban design guidelin.s,
but ft should 1150 give yall SOfIe clue that the,..e ;s anot~e" act hit),
~appenlng It t~e rear of tne $ite --tne residential. To rejnforce that,
we took advantage of a common, $Ingle driveway a~d developed a shared
motor court that had I front door to the offices. and a front door to the
residential portion. You could go through the motor court and continue on
to an underground parking garage. which provided parking for the office
use, as well as (or housing.
One of the things .. did with the housing is that typically in residenti.1
deSign, you will find thot when you have a courtyard 11«. this, a lot of
the time, we will design it where you come into the unit from the shared
experlence, and then you face outward and become ~er1 private within your
own unit. What we wanted to do here. since we felt that this was a little
enclaye, was that we wanted to foster the notion of a community. so we
purposel)' designed the more p~blic spaces. i,e., the living rooms, the
dining rooms, the patios. the kitchens. to orient in to~ard t~e common
01/09/91
·17 -
CQurtyard. with wfndow$ and ~lcor.te$ and terraces, so that hopefully,
people would get I chance to know one another l~d reall} create a sense ~f
ca..unfty. Along the exterior, we developed the .are priv.te areas --the
bedrooms and bath~s. and landscaped that in Dare private fashio~, so
that your 50~ prlyate roOBS ~ad ~re priYlcy.
Our setback, are Ipproxf .. tely five feot from £1 Cimino Real and Z5 feet
back from t~e other sides. We hive ilmost , SO·foot setback froc the
creek Irea. The .ffice building, is you .ay reelll, was a little
eontroversi.l tho l,st tl .. we were here. People had interesting things
to say about our corner. Whot we h.Y~ tried to do Is to go back Ind do a
series of different studies. We have met with .. Abers of the ARB and with
members of the planning stiff. I am not sure that we have a final design
to present to you tonight, but one of the things we are trying to do is to
res~~dy the .aterials used. If you recall, there was concern about
extensive use of glass or reflectfve .atarf.ls. We ~aye eliminated those
fro. tne design. There was encouragement to try and reiNtroduce the
notion of identlfi.ble doors .nd windows th.t havo • selle and a
proportion that you can identify and rel.te to the human fon., yet still
to develop sene ellllTlent en the corrler. We tliVe backed off from our
nuclear power plant i.agery that was referred to last time, to sometn7ng
that will be a little lOre ha ... nfo., wit" the hOUSing. This is not a
final design but it is the direction in which we are going. We would
envision trying to work out tnose final details in co~cert with the ARB.
The l.st thing I wanted to .. ntion which wo discussed i, our emergeocy
access. At that time. it was our intention to try and ~afntain this is
pri¥ate, outdoor space for the resfde~tial units. S~bsequentlYt the cit1
has expressed interest i~ • public easement t~lt would illD~ members of
t~e coomunity .nd n.lghbor~ood out to £1 Comino Re.l through the site. Ve
are presently work.ing with staff to try and accomp1 is'" that. We are
agreeable to working out the details. T~at is the direction in which we
are ftOving.
CQ!missigner C,11en: Would that cut down on the private, outdoor space ~f
t~e people living adjacent to that easement?
~r. Steinhgra; It would not c~t down on their private ~utdoor space.
What was proposed here was a combfnation of concretl, turf block ar.d
9ro~nd cover that emergenc1 vehicles could drfve on. We orfginally were
going to try and close off the propert,. One of our concerns was that we
did not w.nt these 38 residents to accept liability for. publiC
thoroughfare t~rou9h their site. Sfmjlar to some other sftes ~ have
worked on with the city, we discussed the notfon of a public easement
where the liability and maintenance would re~ert to tne cit1~ We do nave
secondary entrances at the lower levels, with arch entry gates. S~ if that
became a pedestrian walkway~ these individual units would have a seconda.y
front yard on t~at with a pedestrian gate. It coyld actually work very
nice11·
tQm!issigner Cullen: Whit about security? Is there I fence or gate that
could be locked by the residents? The re.son I bring this up is that [
live in I complex with only ten units, and It went tnrough without getting
• security gate put in. Some people thought It would be great for people
to be able to wander tnrough there, and ~e get people wanderlng througn.
It is not to the satisfaction and comfort of those of us who li~e there.
.~---
01/09/91
·18-
'>
<
lie even t,VI! tt-N It..,,c''i~g I)" QiJr wall ~
Mr. Steinberg: Because the~ were elevlted s1;ghtly from the public
.~l~'YI etch one Qf the untts would ~lre&dy hi~e about a t~G-foot
eleYatlona1 c~.nge. T~en t~.y have flye-foot high prlyate gardens and
patiOS, with a lockabl. wroug~t lren gate In It. So they haye the
elevat1on. and if people are Wilking by. they ~lnnot look in, a~d th~1
have t"elr own fenced-In, prIvate yard_
Com;jssicner Beecham: 1 would like to ~ke sure I understand the changes
we had prey;ously IS tempored to tonight's changes. In term. or the
foundation of the buildings, what you ar. propo51ng now Yersus what we .aw
before, hO¥ has the footprInt of the buIlding changed, if at all?
Mr-Steinberg: It has not really chang.d. It is more the materials and
the Ins and outs of the offIce buIlding t~.t Is dIfferent.
CQ!miss1oner ",cham: So the small patios on the canal sid~ of the units
are the same patfos as we sa. before?
Mr. Steinberg: Yes, that i. correct.
Commi\sioner Cullen; I wish to state that a1though I was not &t the first
~earfng on this project, I ~ave read all of the cinutes frQm both the
plannIng commls5ion and the ARB_ I feel confident in oy ability to ~.ke
an ass.ssaent of the project.
Site and design revIew almost alway. includes. board shOWing the colors
and ~teril1s proposed~ 00 we ~Ive suc~ I hoard tonight? r wish someone
vould put. note I. the file that before .ite and design reyiew cooes
before the Co.miSSlOR) there should be samples of colors and materials
submitted.
Mr. Steinberg: The resid!ntial component has a sh~ngle siding. Our
intent is to paint it either an off·white or a light grey, with a
corrugated. vaulted roof that is a little darker gray to tie in with the
sfding. Our sunscreens and our trellises and some of our meta1 elements
have a ~genta accent. en our pre~ious effice building. we had a kind of
whimSical trellis at the lower level tkat was a very thin line in a yellow
color. That wl11 go t~rou9h some change. IS t~e office buildIng takes
shape. The YCDfing material is a standfng sea. meta1 roof. which is
r~ally on! of tne most durable, flfrly expensive .. terials. We were
trying to strike I balance in the .. terials~ We wanted them to be warm
and hive texture. That is why we used Shingles. W. chose to paint the
Shingles 5D that as time goes on, they will stay clean and crisp. 51n,e
we are usin9 an unusual roof form, which 1S a ~iult. ~e ~anted to access
that w;t~ a rich materia'. it has I standing seam, which means you have
very Dice shadow lines. We hope ~t will have a very crisp. tailored look.
Commissioner Cullen: Is the office bijildtng still glass-fronted?
Mr. Steinberg: No, we have moved away fr .. the gllss front. We listened
to the cosments from the commission and others, and we are struggling with
that at the moment. ! haye a reeling we will hoye a coupl. of rounds wit~
the Architectural Review Board. We w;nted to use permanent materials for
the office building on £1 Camino Real_ I do not feel that residential
01/09/91
-19-
•
\
\ ---_.
----..... !----~-
.aterillJ $~ch a5 shfngles wfl1 weather wel' on El Camino Real. So we are
looking It different type. of tile, at Met., panels that might tie in with
the residential bui1ding. The Q~f9inal i~e~ ~~s to have p~lmarily glass
on the frent. w1t~ ,n Iccent 1" shingle, and as you go back to the
restdentfll, it would be ~rilllarny s~jfl1g1e5t with, glass accent. What 'We
are now trying to do I. to get a slall,r bal,.ce but get a~ay from glossy.
reflective .. tori.,. for the office, s~thln5 that would be permanent.
Commissioner tu)len: o~. of the reiSCn$ we h~ve s'te and design before us
for a .ixed use Is so that compatibility between the commerCial Ind the
resldentl.l Is taken Int. consider.tion. I am ha.ing 0 little difficulty
picturi~ Vhere you Ire he.ded with the office portion. so t am not sure I
con say tonight that it is compatible. If we .r. gOing to approve this.
we will h •• e to be guided a lot by the ARB. We can give the. some of our
concerns, and we have done that at times 1~ the past. 1 wisn we could get
this Slt~ ~nd design ~view syn,hronlzed so that we thaw what ~e are doing
When we get the iteo before us.
Is the conica' thing now gone?
Me, StefnDerq: Th~t is correct. T~is nodel shows our current design. I
hesit,ted tc s.y t~i. is cur final design. Decaus. I was under the
impression that the ARB would have influence on this decision, as well. J
have tried to respond to the ,omment: we have gotten so fart and take that
to I certain level. lhe~ J thought we would have additiona1 input.
C~fssiQn'r Cvtlen~ My ,oncer,a would be abo~t the aaterial you ~se on
that office building. I hope the ARB will take. very close look .t the
compatibility .ith the reside.ti,l. I know they are already concerned
with h.vir~ a harsh look. even though on E1 Camino Real it might be good
to have something. little slicker, but there should be something i.
bet_no
Hr. Steinberg; I agree with you.
Commissioner Bee~: yo~ mentioned considering ceramiC tile. Where
would that be applied?
Mr. Steinberg: In some of the informal meetings with tne ARB ind st~ff.
Some of t~e recommendations were that if we could establ!sh certain
horilontal contro1 lines, such as wainscotting or cornice lines that could
set. height and • rbythm for the street ~.ll that could be picted "P by
oth.r developoent. One of the thoughts was to introduce some element of
tile at t~. lower base of t~. wainscot. If you look at many of the
building. up and down E1 Camino Reo1 and adjacent blocks. they
predOMinantly have SOMe 50rt of a wJJnscot. It covers everythin9 from
brick to ceramic tile to .ore natural ston!. The thought would be to try
and use some of the residential ~'terials on the offt,e building, bot to
giv~ I harder~ aore permane~t edge at the base where people walk and where
the building takes weor and tear.
Commissioner BeCkham: The .etal frame on th~ corner. 1 presume, is
entirely ornamental.
~. Stejnberg: No, there would be cffice sp.ce behind that.
01/09/91
·lO-
•
;0II1sstQner Beech"~ Yes. but ot~erwise, tnere Is ~o function for ~avlng
th.t there as opposed to shIngles or SODe other .. terlal?
Mr. Stelnbero: No.
CQnl1$Si9ntt i]l;ler: What is t~e ~ter1il thit Bern just referred to
th.t .sed to be the water tower?
Hr. St,inberg: Whit we are looking it th~re is glass for that element.
W. ha.e gone round and round wIth the ARB th.t there should be something
strong there but it shoold hold the conner. Our honest intention is to
try and pIck up the cogoents you made, and bring th.t b.ck to the ARB.
They .lso ha.e equally strong feelIngs. We ore tryIng to incorporate .11
of these In steps, r.ther than ho.lng it be 0 ,.it .ccompli and be
Juoping back and forth.
Ch.i ...... I!;trsh: I would now lIke to ISk 5h;'·I.y Wilson to tell us where
the Architecturil Review Board is on its review of tnis project.
~s. Wilson: I im very new to this protess. 1 WiS not aware tha~ it went
on with t~e El C .. in. Real projects. We h.ye s.en other mixed use
projects, and neyer realized thot you did this type of architectur.l
re~iew.
Chaianan ""rsh: This Is the first tl .. tnat we haye.
Ms~ Wilson: "y understanding of t~e design process is that Hr. Steinberg
is at a poiDt where he ~IS a site plan approved and has usage approved~ so
you do not get too strongly Into the architectural details until you get
past those h~rdles. ] appreciate bis pOsition. r assume he would go back
and do some arc~itect~ral design next before coming to the ARB. I dD not
quite u~der5tand where you fit 1~to that process. J would encourage you
to state your feelings abo~t materials. so tnat we can have that added
information as we do our arc~1tecturil review.
Chairman Marsh: Has the ARB seen thfs one time?
Ms. Wilson: Twice. but we really have not til xed much about
architect~rf. We saw it in its earl fer incarnation. Tbis ~el is
somewhat revlsed fr~~ what we have seen.
C~ajnnan Marsh: The pla~ning c~ission is going to wrestle with how well
developed an architectural design we need to see in order to approve a
site and design, as we get into the discussion after the public hearing.
~s. Wilson: J would think you would haye to speak to a lot of
gener.] it i es.
Chainman Marsh: T~e next speaker will now c~ forward.
George Smith. 390 Mac1ane Street. filo Alto: I 1ive just across the
street from the abandoned section of Wilkie Way wnere you are proposing to
put a bridge across the creek. When t~at street was abandoned to us many~
many years ago. the id!i was to keep it blocked off. and we w!re told to
do so. 1n the interim, t~e fiood control district came to us, that is. to
Mr. Jacobs and myself {and 1 have been there 38 years so I am very
01/09/91
-21-
\
•
f .. lllar .Ith what has gone on), .nd •• ked for slo feet on .;t~er side of
the center line to put a little .tneet t~r.ugh there so they could get
IcceS5 to the creek to eTeln it o~t. They slid they wanted. gate ,t the
Wllkl. Way and "aelane Intersection to be blocked off at .11 tlses. If
you hay, been out there. you will se' thit It Is well adorned with No
Tresp~ss1ng signs 111 110ng the creek, incl~~in9 the access. There are
three locks on that gate, one far the city, one far flood control, and r
ha,. one. I use It froe tl .. to tl .. to clean out the i.y. If thit g.te
is left open, it does not take long for bfcyc11sts, pedestrians and even
autoaobll •• to tTY and get thTOUgh It. 1n my opinion. If al10~ed access
to [1 Caoln' Reil, bIcyclists e"'ng up throug~ there are goIng to be at
the mercy of those .ntering from [1 taolno WiY to 11 Camino Real making •
right turn. Pedestrians would be safer. People .aklng i right turn are
not looking for anyone on their right. They are looking to the left. I
am sure there are gOing to be bicyclists bit by Cir.. Also, many
bicyclists ire not amenable to traffic laws. and you will find i lot of
thea going across there ta get ta Los RabIes.
So If you .llow that to be open to Wilki. Vay. there is going to be .11
kinds of trouble in teno, of people trying to get througo there. including
automobll.s. from Maclane and Wilkie to [1 Camino Real and back. A good
e.ampl. is when traffic picked up yurs Igo on El Camino Real from the
fndustrlll triffic, I lot of people didn't want to cut off on [1 C~ino
Wi' to West Meadow Drive. so they storted ,Ifting through the
ne19hboThood~ As i result of t~at, a lot of pressure ~as bro~gnt to bear
to slow down t~e traffiC on Pork. Now, as you know, Park traffic is
slowed down from .11 the Islands put In there. SO. ,OU .re asking for
not~ing but trouble if you put. bridge .cross ther.. Thank you.
Chairman Ma~s~: My understanding froe your comments is that you tantrol
the easement across there. lou cwn the ~nderly;ng land. Is that correct?
Mr. Smith: That street was abandoned. But later on. the flood control
decfded to put in I contrtte c~annel in Barror. Creek, so they wanted
access to clean it out. SO they asked us for enough space on ejtner sid!
of the center 1,ne to allow trucks in to clean it out. We granted them an
eaiement.
(n.irma, M.rs~: So pTesumabl,. for the applicant fOT this development to
use that easement, they wo~Td need to negotiate with you for an easement
for the emergency access they are contemp1ating.
Mr. Smith: I am not i lawyer. so I do not know the inSW!r to that t but I
woold a,sume that you would dlsc"s. It with flood control. I will be gl.d
to talt with anYDne who wishes to talk about it~
I would ldd that there Is plenty of access to Ventora School from Second
Street and also from Ventura Or1~t. For parking purposes t they come in
from Ventura Court.
Bob Moss. 40100noo, Pil. Alto: 1 iD appalled by the planning
commission's vote on the previous ,ctto~~ 1 hope that next time an issue
comes before you where there is a close issue, that in the future. you
will come down on the side of the communit't pot against them.
1 would like to discuss thE site and deSign of this project. first of
01/09/91
,22-
•
t ,
~-. ,
•
• \ ,
-~------.--~""'"
Ill, I ask that the project be designed so that the commercial building in
the front be us~ for eftner Dfffces or retail, and not in such i manner
tnat precludes the us. of retail. If, by some Misfortune, the city
council should uphold lour ruling tonight, and If thl. is built, and if
offices go in there. ina ff, is I ~opel whoe~er uses those offices for an
office U$e, s~ffers the curse] will lay on tnis project and goes broke, r
would 11 .. the building to be s. designed that retail could go in on t~e
first floor, It which point I VDuld 11ft the cur.e.
Regarding t~e f1re 'ccess 110ng the creek, that is a most remarkable
sugge.tion. Tho.e of you who Ire fami]iar with Jacobs Court just acro.s
the creek know that the city council, when considering that project and
suggested it CODe biCk with an RM-15 zone, as a condition of that zone
they .aid, Thou shalt have no acceSS f..-that property to Wilkie Way_
Thou shalt have no possibility of people going froe Wilkie Way, through
the project, to El Camino Real and EI Camino Way_ To put in a 20-foot
bridge directly across from Wil.ie Way, alongside the creek, •• iting to El
Camino Reil In an area where the traffic engineer has told you repeatedly
that it ;s a ~st dangerous place to have itcess to tne street, is
absolute Insanity_ Do you kr.ow who will be using t~at? Hot Just
bicycles, not Just pedestrfans. You will have notor cycles, you will have
gQ-carts, you will hay. people entering on~o £1 Camino Real Tight at that
intersection, and J absolutely 9~arantee that if that goes through, within
tne first year you will have i serious vehfcle acc1dent it that spot. No
question about it.
The best thing lOU can do with the access along the creek and brid9. is to
forget about It. If the fire department reQuires access, let them have a
narrow path from El Camino Real with a locked gate that goes par,llel to
the creek and dead ends~ While Mr~ Smith fs not a lawyer, 1 believE that
if bts easement was granted, as it probably was, specificall, for access
to tbe water district to ~aintain the creek, it is not, then, legal for
the water district to sublease t~at, or to grant an access for vehic1es.
not without sase additional legal actfon. So the basic site and design is
poor~
On Page Five is a comment about a variance from the setback of Z5 feet.
whlc~ is required because this is a mixed us~. Tbis flve-to 3i~-foot
setback along £1 Camino Reil Is insufffcient. The CN lene was designed
with a 10-foot setbaCk. We asked for a IO-foot setback in the CS zon.,
and it was denied solely because so many of the e~ist1ng structures
already w@re built to the sidewalk. If the planning cnmrnission and th~
ARB are. in fact, serious about upgrading the appearance of El C~ino
Real~ you will reQ~ire a s~fficient setbaci so that first of all, we do
not have a wa11 of buildings alo~g the street~ and secondly. so tnat we
have enough room to put in landscaping and have it be given a reasonable
chance of survival. Five to sil feet does not do it. Ten feet is
nargfnal. Twenty-f.ive feet is what really o~gflt to be done there. But]
am willing to ca.promlse with 15 or 20 feet. That ~ans the entire
building should be moved back.
The finding that the project is orderly and harmonious because tne
comaercial is Tn the front ic the commercial zone~ where commerCial is
required to be, and the hOUSing is in the back in the residential zone~
where commercial is prohibited, says that basically. these people ought to
be patted on the head because they are obeying the lao. I suppose that
01/09/91
-23-
-
_____ ...... t ... 4 ......... ' __ ,~t'~ . ..-<-_, __
lince we haye just gtven t~em the variance, Inyti~ they obey the law in
any.anner, we should praise them. but 1 don~t t~fnk t~it is I valid
finding. Just soyln9 t~it this c-.plles with the zo,. and zoning
ordinance 1$ not an ioequate reason tD go a~eld with it.
I~ te~ of the appear.nce of the project, I think it Is excessivTy
blocky. The bol1dlngs .ught to be cut so that they do not ha,e the long,
llneor wall appearance. I would .. ntion to Ms. Wilson that when the ARB
looks ot this, when we talk .bout hlYlng i presonce along [1 C .. ino Real,
we .e~n s~th1ng that gives i sen$e of place. We also mean something
that has sooe grace and chano, not just I big block. tooking.t this at
the end of tne boilding fr .. [1 C .. ina Reil, tnat is wnat It is. For
God's sate, Shirley, don't glye us inother Honey Baked Ham. How In the
world could tne ARB have let 0 pink bollding go .long side 0 gr •• n
building with no rell grace or appearance. Everyone in Barron Park ~as
e>pressed their disgust with thot building.
Flnall" I would like to suggest th.t the open space In the center be
onllrgo6. Right now, I think the site is too crowded, and you could get
~re ~se, for exa.ple. by having I little area aTong the creek, open the
~ildin9s up toward the creek, and hav! some idea there is somet~i~g
th~rel even t~ough ft is a concrete chann!l. It is open space. ~aybe
thel could put some landscaping along there t and get a semblance of some
greenery. Right now. t~e site totally ignores the water course, and
totall, ignores whit might be boilt ocross the cr.ek at Jacobs Court. It
Is just in.ular, and I do not think that is going to work. This project
is not gofng to be successful wfth an access directly onto Wilkie Way. and
[ do not think it is going t~ enhance tne cO_limit, unless the cCHmIercial
building along [1 Camino Re.1 Is slgnificantl, improved in Quality. Thank
you.
~~trosjiD. 44} Ventura, P,lo Alto: J want some clarification on
what hapP2ns to the route that approaches the bridge. Does it g~ across
the bridge onto Wilkie, and then anot~er brinch of it goes into tn~
Ventura School site? [5 there in entrance into the back of the Ventura
Schoo 1 there?
Ms. Warbeit! Tnere isn't any proposed entranc~, b~t that hiS recently
been brought up is somet~in9 we .1ght want to cons;der. The plans that
you see do not show t~at.
Ms. Petros jan; T~ank you. J would really strongly diScQ~rage iny opening
onto Ventura School. si~ly because for years, it has b~en oriented toward
children, first as I school and now is a daycare center. The security Qf
t~e chfldren is really important. Wh~n ~ children went to Ve~tura a few
years ago, there were some scary fncidents from people wandering off of [1
Camino Real and somenow getting into the school. People wanderfng around
on El Camino Real at odd times of the day and night are more common now
than they were before. So it is • real security issue to have access to
the children there, so I would urge that not to be considored.
In the s~ vein, on the one hand. you do not want something to become too
insular and separated from the existing netghborhood, and on the other
hand, access onto Willie is very problematic. The people who live on
Wilkie Way feel really strongly about this, and spoke at the Jacobs Court
hearing. So! am wondering if it 1S possfble, if this eme~gency lane were
01/09/91
-24-
•
•
to go through. to ~iye a TDCked gate wfth very limited access by emergency
pe .. onn.l. bot~ at El Culno ROll and It tile bridge? So If tllere we"e a
bridge or so.e k1~ of connection, CGuld that be specifIed to be only ~sed
for eaergency us.? Not for peciestrfi.ns. ~ot for Clrs, not for bicycle'}.
Mr~ G1111110d: CertainTy, w1t~ the design IS it stands rfgnt now, there
is no fntenttDn whatsoever that it be I ~eh1cular access. T~e bridge is
onll 12 feet wide and Is Intended Dnly for paramedic .ans. Tne ends of
tne pathway would be designed to preclude that, and to only allow
paraoedic .ehloles in. There Is in Intent at this time that It be
available for pedestrfan and bfcytle US!, but that nas not been rev1ewed
or finalized by the transportation dlv~sion as to whether Qr not this ;s a
desirable locatioD.
Ms. petrgsi.n; Whit I am wondering is whether that can be locked at all
times except for emergencies?
Mr. Gilliland: If it ;s dtclded that It should not be used for pedestrian
or bicycle use, certlinly it can be designed that way.
Ms. Petro$;an: That;s criticil. On [1 Camino Real, we have a lot of
experience wit" the police being t~ere often chasing somebody for some
crime thrDugh the neighborhoods. To .ake that even easier for someone to
r~n tnrough t~e neighborhoods, It is worrisome. There are a lot of young
children on Wilkl. Way. Ne~ families have moved In there, so I think it
is critical for t~ose gates to be locked except for emergency, and for
that to b. made i condition of approval. Not only oould they go dIrectly
into Ventura School if it were open, but it is I VeT) short distance down
Maclane t~ the rear of Ventura School.
r tnow that the people on Wilkie Way have a tremendous concern even about
pedestrians gO;~9 into t~is de~elopment and t~e Jacobs (ourt development,
which haS another 11 units, so t~at is 38 units. rf pedestrians can get
;nto Wiltie Way, the) can park on Wilkie Way and wal« in that wa1 for
parties, etc. Any socfal events that happen in these residential arels,
it Is going to be difficult for people to get tnere fro~ [1 Camino Real so
they are going to have to find somewhere to park. It is going to be very
attractive for them to park on Wilkie Way. Tn,t will make it difficult
for the people ll>ing there.
~h.ino.n Harsh: You have .sked about locked gates. but ~ understanding
is that emergency veilicles would accept ol locked chain, bllt a gate [ do
not think is what is contemplolted. Is tnat correct?
Ms. Warheit: That is correct.
Chainman Harsh: So we might have locked chains on both sides~ but for
those entrances to be accessible to emergency personnel at the spur of th~
moment, a gate is probably not possible.
!!r. Gilliland; In working with the fir. depart""nt. I believe we could
come up witn an acceptable d!sign of I gate ~f some type, and would
preclude pedestrloln or bicycle access.
Chainman Harsh: Since J have no otner cards from members of the public,
will close tne public hearing and ret~rn this ite~ to the planning
01/09/9]
,25· --.
., ,
"
0.
co.iss'on.
(QII1$z59Dtr Beecba.: 1 ~ould like to cl.rifJ the last comments. My
underst.ndlng f. that staff POW believes thot ft M'Y be possible to design
• g.t. systeo that would prohibit bicycles, pedestrians .nd fncidental
veh1cles of any nat~re fro. ~sfng the brfdge and the other access.
Mr, G11111.nd: That Is correct.
Cpmajss10ner Beech.,: T~e ctty fire department belf~ves they can work
this out?
Mr. Gilliland: ThefT preferanct is nore for an o~n thing, such as a
chalD ICroSS there, but I do belleye .n Icceptable desfgn could be found.
Cgmmissjoner Cgllen: T~e conditions include a pedestrian access. That is
one of the things we should be making a recommendatio, on tonight. It is
not a given. So fs that one of th~ controversial areas? ,Ves)
Commissioner Betcbam: My recollection is that certair.l,. one of our mai~
concerns 1s the appearance of the street front on E1 Camino Real. 1 tnink
the revisions by the applicant go a long way toward resolving my concerns
on it, that is , removlng the glass-.irror effect, and also t~e tower. J
do not know quite where Z .. in terms of the vfew of the planning
commission on this versus what I would expect from the ARB. The planning
commission is not tne ARB, and 1 would expett them to exhibit more
.bilitie, there than I ha.e to design. proper front on this. from my
li.ited .bilities to judge this type of thing, I think it would be
probably .cceptable. I would hope it would be so.ewh.t j~roved Ind ha.e
more thought given to t~e colors, the ceramics, to something that would
give it c~aracteT. So from .~e issue we had before about the front of the
site , 1 have no problem w;tn ~o. it is now designed t from a planning
co.mission poi~t of view.
Another iss~e ~ had ~as the access from the site to the Wilkie Way area.
1 do not believe it is appropriate to have traffic of any nature passing
by the back yards of these units. It fs unf.ir to the people who live
there to have that kind of access. and it is also unfair to th~ people on
Wilkie Way to have this new access created. 1 would not support a plan in
which there is unfettered access, IS ~as been discussed on paper, that is,
nc gates. no chains, keep it open for tne par~dics. I would support the
idea of having gates across that to prohibit any type of casual traffic
through that area.
Cnatrman Marsh: Before continUing, let's clarify t~e ~dditional steps of
re~iew that t~fs project would have to 90 through. As I understand it,
the zoning adminfstritor's recommendation will now go straight on to the
council. T~e slte and deSign, on the other hand , will go next to the
Arc~ftectural Revlew Board. Would tt then come back to US , or is this our
final re~iew on it?
Hr. Gl1liland; This is your ffnal review of the site and design
applicatfon. It will go on to the ARB and then straight to the council.
Commfssioner Cullen: What about the subdivision?
01/09/91
-l6-
•
,
.. ' ..
~. , ,
'.
-. --
•
CbliVlto Mlt$h: The 5ubdiv1sfcn would fellow ~ucn liter4 T~erf are two
categories of decfsfons before us t~nig~t. One is the way In which the
site's ~s.s relate to each other and surrounding uses. Secondarily are
the .rt~ttecturl) issues. We probably need to d1scUS5 cur comfort with
the fllrly unde.eloped stat. thlt the Irchltectur,l aspects of this
project I. In. It has been a long tl .. sine. this project has been
through the ARB, and It is prob.bly relson.bl. to expect that it might be
quite different from whit we anticipate tonight, when finally ap~roved.
It Is pretty cl •• r that the basic plrlmeters of the development will stay
is they Ir •• but certlf~Ty, later111s and colors could change.
C""lsslpner Gliller: I do not feel th.t what we have gotten tonight on
.. terl,l. and colors Is IS auch as whit I would have liked. Hcwe,er, I
will adDi! that e.en if all of the colors and .. terials were there, I do
not know that I would be able to .ake .s good. decision as the ARB could
.. k.. So [ will .IY that since ~ aajor concern, softening of the front
of the building, has been accomplished, I f.el c .. fortable in passing it
on to the wi •• hands of the ARB to dl,cuss and deCide on the materials,
etc.
CoMlls'ioner tvllen: That pOint has been well ~ade, .nd [ think the ARB
has gotten 1t. [&A uncomfortable with seefng, as our first site and
d~$ign review for a .ixed use, a gap in the l~fo~tion that we ~aye.
hope that we delay it the next tt~ until we have more information. r
hear wh.t the applicant i, saying, that thi' model is gone, .nd we h.ve
seen a new sk.tc~, but we know fra. the past that there is a big
difference between .mat one Sees in a sketch and what comes back as part
of the blueprints. So I am a little uncomfortable with that. "y advice
to the ARB would be to soften up the front conslder.b1t and not to fe.l
tbat just beca~se it is on £1 Ca.lno Real. it must necessarily be very
urban in nature. We ~ave, an some of our downtown urban streets, some
buildings which are Quite softened up and have landscaping in front of
them. An example fs the setback .long Hamilton A~enue, which has provided
for a strip of landscaping. althougb only five feet. but it does make a
big diff~rence on those commercial buildings. So you do not have to nave
that hard e~;~ to a commercial building just because it is on an urban
street. So I look forward to the ARB looking ov,r that very c.refully,
not only softening tne materiais. but perhaps even the lines ~ little+
like the SQUire corner t~at is replacing the dGme or whate~er that is.
But it .Is very difficult to enyjslon it from ttle WilY it is shown~ so I
would like the ARB to take a very thorough look at that.
1 agree with C~issioner Beecha_t and J could not have said it MOre
.10Quently, .bout preclvding access t.hrough the site. I feel we should
have a locked gate at both ends. I cannot believe that this coomisslon,
after going tnrough the Traynor property. wherE we refused access to
Willie Way. and t~roug~ the Jacobs Ccurt property, where the Sime thing
happened, wo~ld now recGmmend access to Wilkie Way. So even if we were to
recommend it, 1 am sure the council would nat go along witn it. I feel it
is a dangerous t~ing to have access there through to tne school, which is
supposed to be an enclave fdr ~ery yo~n9 children, wnere they would be
subject to people wandering thro~g~. And [ don't think anyone who lives
in a multiple unft development wants people wandering through, any more
than people )i.ing in single-family houses want people wandering through
their yards, just because there 1s a nfce view or a park at the otner
side. So 1 am opposed to that condftion. r am uneasy with sending this
01/09/91
-17·
t
r
'.
on, but the ARB will talt into consideration these problems.
Wtt~ regard to tne recommendation for I viriance gOing down to five feet?
I would enc~urage the applicant to be I little acre generous there with
the re~ue$t for I wariance on an arterfal street. yo~ could get i nicer
entrlnce to that whole corner. and it is a somewhat different corner in
t~at It is not a 5~lrp corner. It does go 1nto t~e curve of El Cami"Q
Real, so it I. quite, different ,Itu.tlon, and a )Itlle extra landsoaping
there ... uld be very appropriate.
Ch.lrman Karsb, At t~I' pOint, I, It appropriate for the planning
co.mfss1on to offer guidance to t~e zoning ordinance in terms of the
variance that we anticipate?
Ms, tase; This is I little unuscal. Normally, the vdriance WQuld
probably have COle before this point. knowing that i wariance is
obviousTy going to be needed for the design th.t 1s proposed, I certainly
do not feeT it would be out of Tine for the commi',ion to be giving
comments a, to bow they think it should be handled.
Chair!@n Hirsh: Are there any comments on the variance?
Ms. Case: At least, on th~ setb.cc, not on the variance.
Chairman ear~h! In terms Df the variance. it is very clear t~at tne
~irlance is needed for the development of this prDject as anticipated.
would support a smal1eT setback of S;J feet 15 opposed to the 25-foot
requirement. J de hive one editori.l co~nt. which is that thls is a
good examplt of wh~ we should never have imposed such a requirement on
.ixed use projects. Tbis was discussed vociferously about a year ago, and
some of us up here were verJ strongly opposed to placing residential
requirements on mixed use projects, exactly for this reason. Any kind of
com.ercial use that fronts on [1 Camino Real m~st have very different
r~Quirements in order for it to be successful ;; the way that it relates
to [1 Camino Real. The fact that the very first application comi~g before
us as a mixed wse project has to apply for a variance s~ould snow us the
error of our ways.
J also want to respond to the atcess issues, that is~ the proposed public
access along t~e creek. I was one of tnose who spoke to that the last
time this project was before us. om! of the mistakes that we frequently
.ake in this town is to try and draw very strong limits between where a
residential neighborhood ends and the commercial neighborhood begins.
That is a particular problem along £1 Camino Real, where you have a very
long strip of commercial frontage, and then rlght behind it? you have
residential neighborhoods. Those residential neighborhoods, in order to
access iny of the cOIAercia1 frontage. aTe forced to go well out to the
major access roads and around. so there is very little relations~ip
between the commercial frontage and the residential directly behind 1t.
strongly feel that we ire ~Ch better off if we can create natural and
friendly access between adjoining tinds of uses. We have some examples of
where th.t has worked very welT throughout the city. A Tol of Our older
neighbor~oods have alleyways tnat are very p~blic which cut behind
people's homes or apartments. We also have attual mid·block access paints
in Sage of our neighborhoods that have been created specffically so that
neighboring people can get through easlTy from Cowper to the blook behind
01/09/91
·28-
•
. -
\,
It. Those ~ave worked very successfully, and r do not see it is i problem
here It all to ~aye i public access directl, behind people's back yards.
Frankl" I think the people on Wilkie ~.y would .oon find t'at they were
the ones who were using t~fs access to get to the market on £1 (amino Real
ond to use the retoll us •• t.at we ~ope will develop with time on [1
CaMino Real. So 1 am disappointed that t'ere seem. to b. very little
support for that, because it Is an urban design amenity th.t we would find
benefit. bot~ the people fn the project and the people in the
neighborhood. The "IMPle, that have be.n u,ed are not apprepriate_ In
tenos of Jacobs Court, the prebl ... ith ace e •• there i. th.t the public
access would go right down the middle of the project, and that is very
different from this case where you could design public access gOing down
t~e sfde of t~e project. Nonetheless, there is a clear division not to
s~pport t~at, so I will ~ke that comment and hope it will be considered
at some ttme in the future. S;Yen t~at we are not gOing to have public
access, J would support locked gates, because i chain or anything less
t~.n a locked gate simpl, invite. illegal public use. Other than that,
will support the project as delineated.
T~e ARB does have i good deal of work to do on this project, so I am a
lfttle uncomfortable with leting it when the materials are so undefined.
The applicant has a big challenge before ~im, because on the one ~and, you
~aY~ to come ~p with ~aterfaTs that w1lT reT ate to the residential portion
of the project so that the project. is a _ho'e, blends the separate
elements ill sOW! Wiy. On the other hand. yOll have to come up with
materials that reT ate to the £1 Camino Real fr~"tage and the heavy
commercial area there. I aa not sure what kind of medium you are going to
find that answers bot~ of tne calls upon you arch;tectural1y. We will
presume that that is in the capable hands of the Architectural Re~]ew
Board at this pOint.
C~issioDer Glazier; ]s the proposal before us that tnere would be
locked gates on both sides of the access or just one end?
Chairman Marsh; We can des'gn it as we wis~. That is certainly on!
possibility. We are going to have to write a condition. because the
report states public access.
HOTION: Commissioner GlaZier: I DOve the staff recommendation, Wlt~ tne
noclflcation that we fr.clude a provision for a locked gate at tne back
entrance of the southern end. That is a change in Condition '6.
Commissioner Beecham: I would like to propose some more specifics on
tnat. Also, I wish to p~int out that there is no C~ndit;on '7. I presume
that is a typographical error, and Nos. 8. 9 and ]0 should be Nos. 1, S
and 9_
~s. Warheft: That is correct.
[Ql!'lTlissioner Beec.ham: M~ sU9gestion for a IDOdification of Condition .6 is
to simply delete the reference to bicycles and pedestrians in the second
line. h addHion. to InDdify Condition '8 (17), in the firit line, again
delete ·pedestrian· and add at the end of the condition, ·~nd shall
include locking gates or similar struttures at both ends to pre~ent casual
pedestrian, bicycle and vehicle use.·
01/09/91
-29-
\
"
•
,
'-
...
'QllfssJoDtr C,l]'n: Conditfon'4 seems to include I pedestrian bridge
and speaks about entr.nces, If we just deleted everything from
-residential use$· on. the r~st of ft is taken care of.
CQlPi$sjoner Beecham: If we just delete ·pedestrian-from that, it ~ould
be ,onslstent.
CQ!!jssiongr Cullen! Yes, that will do it.
~: By Co.missloner Beecham.
HOTION PASSES: Chairman Marsh: Is there any further discussion on this
motion? the ~tiDn ~s to approve the project. as del~neated, adopting tne
negatiYe declaration cf no significant environmental impa~tsl and would
incorporate the findings in the staff report and the conditions, with
changes to Condition 14, deleting the phr •• e "the design of the pedestrian
bridge," Also. change to Condition 16 deletIng the phrase "bicycles and
pedestrians" and a change to Condition '8 (7) so that it reads "The design
of tnis bridge and lccess t. it shall be approved by the fi re depa"tOle.t,
the public workS department and the Architectur~l Review Board~ and by tn~
Santa Clari Water Oistrict, and shall include locking gates or similar
structures .t bot~ ends to pre~ent casual pedestriin, bicyc1e and vehicle
use.-All those ;~ f.yor~ say Aye? All opposed? That passes on i ~ote
~f C~O, ~ith tOlmissioners Christensen, Mirsch and Huber absen~~ The
appeal will be decided, and then it will return, so the date that this
item will actu.lly travel to the city council is really ind.finite at this
point, depending on how many trips it makes to the Architectural Review
Board.
~s. Warheit: r have a question about t~e access. Originally. the intent
was onlJ that the reSidents af the new development would use th~ brtdge to
move back and forth t. the resldenti.l neIghborhoods. Then, at the
planning cQmmtssion htartn9~ the public acceS$ was br~~ght up. Now it is
clear that we do not want public access. My question is, if there is a
.ay to design the b.ck connection between the bridge and thj, new
developme~t t~at would allow the residents only to cross the bridge. would
the planning commission wish to ."ow that? It may not be possib1£ to
come up with suc~ • deSign, but it could be an option that somebody might
want to try,
Ms. Case: You have ~de your deCision, and it is pretty clear that you do
not want any pedestrians.
Chli~an Karsh: tn terms of our discuss,on, we ~aye <ome to a
conclusion. Another body further down may revisit that.
NO UHFINISHED BUSINESS
HEW BUSINESS.
Cnmmi$sioner Cullen: As you know, I r~ceived a lelter from the tity
attorney today saying that [ nave a conflict of interest in serving on the
SOFA Subcommittee. J inte~d to pursue it a little further with her to see
if J can particip~te in a genera' di$cUSi'OO. but nat in any specific
..
OI/OS/S]
·30·
•
\
rezonfng discussion. Who is the standby?
Cha'rma n MarSh: C~issioner Hirsch. iltho~gh he may not be aware of 1t. Is there an iDitia1 heeting set?
!r, lj ... rman: ~o, not yet, for tWQ reasons. r did not know who the t~;rd _r wo"ld be, aod until the conf] ict i. settled, I h'" not j~itiated it~ 1 will set up a schedule within t~e ne(t two weeks.
•
I
. -.
... entitled ""RZSO.:..l.'"TI~~~ OF THE CODNCIL OF THE
REVERSING nn: PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION
TO GRAlIT A CONDITIONAL liSE PERlin' TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION J,ND
OPERATIOII OF A 10. J OO-SQOAl<E-FOOT OFFICE OSE AS PART OF A
MIXED-lISE PROJECT WHXRE AS. 0 OO-SQOARE-FOOT OFFIC! OSE WOOL[)
OIHERIflSE BE !'If!: JlAXIIIOII ALt.OWEO FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT ] 981
EL CAIIINO RI!At. AND SOSTAINING THE APPEAL TREREOY" (300 J
_Ia.: PUBB 9-0.
•
•
NO Action Taken..
Ei. PUBLrC H.EARING: Plann.1fl'i Commission Racommenaation to Upbold
the Decision of tt.. Decision of the 20ninq Ad~inistrator and
Approve a Conditional U •• Permit for Property Located at 3981
El e&aino R.al (300) (CMR:122:1)
Plannlnq CQ_isslon.r 8111 Clazier said the Planninq commission did
not believe: there was any clear cut -ri9'ht-BnS'Wer. While-the
commission voted 3 to 1, to support the Zoning Administrator 1 s
decision to grant the conditional use permit, the Commission
r.~tated its support tor retail uses alonq the El Camino and the
limitation on larqe office uses which came out of the Citywide Land
Use and Transportation Study. The commission did not intend nor
d.id it believe the recomaendation se.t a precedent for other
developments either in the imm.diately adjacent area or along the
entire stretch of El Camino in _outh Palo Alto. There were many
probleas incorporating retail into the development on the particu
la-r eite. The positiv-e. outcomes of iaproved housing-supply and
aesthetic appeal on El Camino led the Commission to conclude the
Zoning Administrator's decision was appropriate4
council Member Woolley asked about the compatibility of the retail
and tha housing in the particular configuration.
Zoning Administrator Nancy Lytle recommended that any retail
component of the project not be required with the proposed design.
The design was based on the office proposa14 With retail, there
could be a desire to <better butter the two uses and provide some
parkinq and a di~ferent presence along II Camino for retail useS4
Council Member Woolley referred to the pre-plannin9 process where
a vall along El Camino vas encouraged to preclude parking in the
front of the retail.
Ms. Lytle said there was an encouragement to create a sense of
place along the particular portion of El Camino by bringinq the
urban ~all ~t cloae to the aidevalk4
Council Member Woolley clarified no parking vas allowed on E1
Cami~> itself in front of the subject property.
Ms. Lytle said that was correct.
council Mell2ber Woolley queried. whether the situation 'Was c-oDUllon
along El Camino from Paqe Hill south where the two lots immediately
to the north were very long, deep ana narrow.
Ms. Lytle did not believe the parcel configuration was particularly
unique, but its situation at the intersection and on the corner and
adjacent to a ~lood control channel created a uniqueness about the
site. Tbe exceptional extraordinary cirCUlllstances had to 60
primarily ~ith the location of the property at the corner and its
relationship to the El camino Way Island and the intersection with
UTY COUNCIL MlNUT£:S 9UWtt-l4 c42jr9!
65-2)9
01/22/91
•
..
. -"
El Caaino Real, the urban plannlnq goals of the Architectural
Review 8o«rd to create a bet tar •• nse ot place at the Inte~section.
and the narrow conti~ation of the property allowing tor one
primary entrance to the site.
council Member Woolley asked! whether there would be increased:
square footaqe !or housing or more housin9 units it retail space
vas limited to 5,000 square teet.
Ma. Lytle s~id the retail requirement for parkinq would reduce the
amount of space both in the parkinq area a..M elsewhere in the
project for residential units 60 there would be a trade-down in the
number of units allowable.
Council Member Xniss asked whether the two adjacent pieces of
property 'Would qualify as havinq the same .needs if they 1tere
separately developed in the same way.
Ms. Lytle said neither property 'Was located on a corner nor
aajacent to the El camino way rsland aevel~ent.
Council Member Kniss asked it pa't'lcing tor those. properties could be
on El Camino.
Ms. Lytle ~alieved it would be easier to have parking on El casino.
Holding the street presence down that block ~ace yould not be as
critical as it was at the corner.
council Meaber K.'liss IOai<l it appearec:l there would be little parking
in front o~ the two propertles~ especially with the driveway.
Mr. Glazier believed the two properties north of the property in
question 'Would probably have. some flexibility in placinq the
driveway either on the north or south side, and perhaps the ability
to h~ve two separate driveways; one to support the retail and the
other to support the housing. The limited retail ~rontage vas not
necessa~ily attractive for retaIl tenants. In reqard to no front
parkinq, if the tenant vas a traffic intensive use~ the traffic
situation might be unpleasant given the property directly abutted
onto El Camino way and only one access route. would serve both
retail and housing. The Planninq COmmis.ion believed it would be
difficul t to effectively support and mo!lintain a retail presence
given the constraints of the lot.
Council Me~r Cobb ~sked about having the one office incursion in
the .iddle of a series of other kinds of uses, either housing or
cOllQlercial.
Ms. Lytle said the context of the application was also part of the
persuasive arqument for approving the use permit tor of~ice4 The
lack of the phenomena in the area indicated a possible wisdom in a
healthy mix of use.s. It took 80me daytiae: population to add
vitality to the adjacent neighborhood, and ~~at issue was addressed
65-240
01/22/91
" ,
.' , .
'I
1 ,
'I
i
, I,
i
I
\
\
in the zoning Administrator's tindinqs. The lack of that type of
use was more reason to look favorably upon the application.
Council Kember Cobb asked whe.ther it would be necessary t.o
calculate bow much attics, hOWiling, and retail was needed: to
balance the economics of the aree. or whether oS partic\.,lar use 'Would
make a ditterence.
~~ Lytle Baid no calculations had been made. The argument vas
based en qeneral knowledge of what existed and projects in the
pipeline.
Council Kember Ren%el believed the Glass Slipper provided a nice
sense of place. She asked if there was a setback in the eN zone.
Hs. Lytle believed there was a eN setback, and there
ten-toot buffer along the 1:1 Camino Way island.
district.
was a specia 1
That vas CS
council Member Renzel queried whether the Architectural RevieW'
Board (ARB) would have the sAllIe conclusion regarding-a stronq sense
of presence with respect to the next properties along the line, or
whether they would see some zoning that more properly reflected the
residential uses that were in the rear.
Ks Lytle reiterated the corner vas a speCial consideration, and it
would not necessarily be reflected down the block face in future
decisions.
council Kember Renzel asked if the desiqn feature of building right
out to the street would suggest that all the properties down the
line would have to do the same thing.
Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber said
no. The ARB referred to the particular corner in the relationship
to El camino Way. Buildings with the design quality of the Class
Slipper would be fairly high on staff's list of ~pgrading, although
it was not necessarily the type ot place with Which they wanted to
identify. Staff welcomed the proposed application and would
welcome similar application.. for some ot the adjacent site.s. While
not every site was appropriate ~or retail, where appropriate, it
vas strongly encot.lraged. Given the lack of on-street parkinq" one
access, the location at El camino Way" statf believed upgradinq of
El Camino could best be done by working with the applicants in
t6~ of how the application vas 'submitted rather than trying to
redesiqn it to creat_ parking immediately a~jacent to the street
otf the same entry as the residential units~ The desi9'n factor was
an important policy issue in teras Qf the particular application.
Council Member Renzel asked if there was a mixed use bonus on the
property, or whether the same or a greater number of housing units
would be allowed if there were no office or commercial component to
the project.
65-241
01/22/91
•
'\
, ..... -
-------------------------
•
MS. Lytle said there would be a qreater number ot smaller units but
no _ore squa re ~ ootage;O
Council Member Renzel clari.fied the portion devoted to ~ office
building in the tront was square tootaqe that could not be used for
housing even thcugh more units could be built.
Mr. Schreiber said that was correct. The proposed units were
already ~~latively smal1 6 and he doUbted they could qet more units.
The a.ount ot square footage devoted to housing had already been
divided fairly tightly.
Co~ncil Member McC~ recalled many projects recently constructed I
under ~onstruction, or pendinq construction on the El Camino Way
island Included some amount ot office components. She asked for a
summary of the total new office construction in the II CaD ina Way
area.
Ms. Lytle knew of two office projects already approved on the El
Camino Way island: One was ~ 3#500 square toot office project in
tront of the old A&:W property, and tbe othezo was a .ixed-use
project designed by Michael Lyzva on which she believed was not
more than 5,000 square feet.
Hayor Sutor ius declared the Public Hearing open.
Bob Moss, 4010 orme., Palo Alto, represented the Barr-on Park
Association {BPA), which opposed the office use. Retail along £1
Camino had been a goal of the neighborhood associations in the ~rea
since the aid-1970's althcugh they had acceded to loss of retail
because of the need for housing in the comm.unity~ cs zoned
property vas not supposed to be neighborhood-serving, and those
currently existing in the area were because when the zoning map was
drawn in 1978 they were already there, and staff had not wanted to
create non-contormlr.g uses for the motels~ It could have worked
out differently if the area had been neighborhood-commercial. If
the proposed mix of retail ~as changed, the applicants would lose
seven units, and a maxi~um 105s of two units if they ~ant tor 5,000
teet of retail, and 5,300 square teet of offices. The eXisting
zoninq ordinance required a 25-~oct setback fer the project unless
a variance was granted so the parking as proposed would require a
variance. 8e opposed having the buildinq up to the :street~ Be was
concerned the jobs/housing balance would be exacerbate~ by offices
at the subject location. Council vas beinq asked to approve or
disapprove a variance. If Council wanted 900d urban desiqn, it had
an ARB. Two ot the findings in the staff report related to desi9n~
Council was beinq asked to determine whether an oft ice use on the
site vas appropriate. While SPA opposed an Office use# it believed
retail VAS v1able. The question was vhether parking needed to
directly in tront of the building to make viable retail, and he did
not believe it did. He had read 1n the San Jose Mercury that Palo
Alto had 5158,000 square feat of vacant office space just in
buildings of .ore than 10,000 square feet~ El Camino should be
65-242
01/22/91
-'
upqraded, and it ahould have a good deaiqn presence vithout office
.truett:res.
Rob steinberg, 1130 Bryant Street, repr~5~nted the applica~t. The
oriqiMl intent "ben the design and de..,elnpment of the project
began was to provide the maximum number ot residential units at a
sales price below what could be typically found in Palo Alto. The
qoa.l vas net to development .. retail complex or an office building.
They beqan tiith a bo.eowners· meeting to which six different
individual and ho_owner qroups were invited, .end no one attende.d ..
They decide<! to work with the City Planninq Cepartaent staff.
Traffic Oivision, and ARB on how to proceed with the design. The
first site analysis reflected a typical retail design with the
bulldinq set back, a convenient parking lot in front, and housir~
beyond. staff and the ARB said t.'lat was not what they were lookinq
for on that portion of El CaJllino.. They preferred a building at the
corner to anchor thct .ajar inter8ection~ Anotber alternative 'With
the driveway on one side to take advantaqe of the open space along
the creek ~as alao not acceptable because of difficult traffic at
that intersection.. The only acceptable place for-a driveway was as
far away fro. the intersection as possible.. and that vas the
present desiqn.. The site Was unique in that the entry drive could
be no further than 1.35 feet away from a major contorted inter
section. rypically .. the Traffic Division wanted. drivewa-rs a
.iniauD of 150 teet from an intersection.. Ther~ coold also be only
one shared front door for the Office .. retail or 3B housing units.
The site was proble.atic for retail in that it was presently zoned
cs which zone 'Was created to ~aintain areas that would accommodate
Citywide and regional services that may be inappropriate in
neig:hborhoods, or pedestrian-oriented shopping areas. The site
dimensions and the driveway configurations did not accommodate a
.Ix of residential and commercial. The site was restricted, the
compatibility of uses was incorrect, and if they provided conven
tional retail .. they would need to reduce the number of residential
units by 20 percent. Extensive retail would require 75 percent or
the floor area to be used for display, and he would not want to
share the only access to his home with such USES. He supported
retail a10n9 E1 Camino but believed retai 1 experts would aqree
individual neighborhoods could only accommodate so much specialized
retail. There were other general business office uses that could
be supportive of the island and neighborhood without competition ..
e.g., real estate offices.. insurance offices, investlll.ent
counseling, a tailor, a seamstress, a travel agent. Neighbors
reviewinq the Jacobs Court development indicated the traffic at the
intersection vas already a nightmare, and retail would add to it.
He hoped Council would support applicants' request~
council Member Cobb aske~ what Yould happen if council held the
site to the 5 .. 000 square foot office l.imit.
Hr. Steinberg could not speak definitively for their clients, but
did not believe there would be any additional housing. The housing
was modest in terms of square footage. They were providing one
bedroom, one-story units at BOO s~are feet and two-story, two-
65-243
01/22/91
bedroom at 1,200 squar~ teet. If the project p~oceeded. it woul~
proceed with 5,000 square teet of office, it the economics
permitted, the applicants ·would p~obably reduce the retail to the
mini~l aeount or none at all because he did not believe any amount
would be s~ccesstul. upgrading El Camino with empty new buildings
would not serve the intent of the city.
Council Member Cobb ~laritied that if the 5,000 square-foot
limitation waa l-.posed, the applicants t inclination would be to
build the 5,000 square foot of ottice; and, because they could not
really increase the housinq, th~ likely economic impact would be to
drive up the price of the housing that was there.
Mr. Steinberg said that was correct.
Georqe Smith, 390 Haclane Street, read a letter trom John Douglas,
360 Haclane street, who was concerned the proposed bridg-e to
connect Wilkie Way with the proposed development WOuld change the
character ot their neiqhborbood by providinq direct access to E1
Camino, and that people who could not fi~ parking space at the new
development would park on their street. Recent developments on E1
Camino Way had already increased parkinq along Wilkie Way. )laclane
was a major bicycle thoroughfare to El Camino. The bridge might
also provide a get-away route for suspects fleeing police in the
relatively-bigh crime stretch ot E1 Camino. While he under4tood
the need for access to the complex by emergency vehicles, there
were alternatives to the proposed bridge. The complex could be
redeSigned similarly to the Jacobs Court development to enable a
tire engine to turn around in the central courtyard. He believed
tbe mix should be roetail coabined with t;eaidences rather than
office space.
Roger Kohler, 4291 Wilkie way, owned Kobler Associates Architects
in Palo Alto, had spent the last 18 months working with single
family homeowners trying to conform to the zoning ordinance~ If
Council approved the proposal, it 'Would. be difficult to explain
approval of a variance for twice the amount of office area on El
Camino. Many homeowners in Palo Alto were stryqqling to remodel
their new homes and conform to the regulations and had given up on
a studio ·or an extra bedroom or a two car qaraqe. The proposal
seemed excessive. and he diaa9reed 'With staff's assertion that
retail generate.d lIore traffic than offices. The traffic on
Charleston every evening was backed up to El Camino qoing east
towards Baysbore, and those people were oriqinating trom offices
not Stanford Shoppinq center.
Mr. Schreiber claritied the action before the Council was an appeal
of a use permit, not a variance.
Shirley Wilson, 509 Hale street~ vas a member of the ARB and Urban
Design Committee. There were always sites Which did not fit what
the zoninq prescribed. There vas a qround flocr retail requirement
in the downtown area which ran all the way ~p to the underpass. and
for many years. the City watched the retail from High street to the
65-244
01/22/91
•
"
I~
i", '"i'1$-ift.; , .
,
•
. ,
underpass and found it bad not functioned well. The Urban Design
committee concluded it 'Would be 1I!ore beneficial to have the
buildings full ot people who would be walkinq into town and
participatinq in the via.ble retail core than to keep forcing retail
1thera it did not EieeJII to 'Work. The proposed site had similar
problema. rt was referred to as is ·corner-frequently but it was
an odd configuration, would be difficult to aCcess from a retail
.tandpolnt~ and it was not attractive to the retail shopper. The
ott ice use there served well to trame what activity would develop
in the island and it would be valuable to enclose the existing
ott ice Use and make a good presence on the corner. She supported
the office U~ ~~ housil~ aa designed.
council Member Andersen asked if consideration was given to the
bridqe access, the effects of traffic flow going across the creek,
and the possibility of additional traffic in the residential area.
Ms. Wilson vas at the Planninq Commission when Jacobs Court and the
subject site were considered and the conditions were similar. She
was initially surprised at the neiqhbors' reaction against new
housit19 but the e.vidence presented about \'andalislZI and. crime showed
it to be a real concern~ The neiqhborbood deserved some protec
tion. She belieVed improved tenancy and people being there 24
hours a day would help improve the sociological climate.
Jean Olmsted, 240 W. Charleston, supported tbe appeal. The
decision was whether to build 5,000 o~ ~O,300 square feet of office
space. She believed if retail served the people in the area, it
might be 20re successful than unneeded otfice space. The findinqs
did not seem to justify more office space. IntenSity ot use and
parkinq problems were lesser problems with the smaller amount of
office space. The 5,000 square foot office space limit 'Was
established to avoid buildinq unneeded office space.. She urged the
Council not to approve the larqer amo~nt of office space.
Oenny Pet~osian, 443 Ventura Avenue, r~presented herself and David
Jeong, 4056 Park Boulevard, who found nothing in the findings to
justify approval of the extra 5 t OOO square feet.. The threat to
housinq was not a persuasive arqument either; the investors knew
what they were qettinq into.. A significant number of Planning
commissioners were not at the Planning Commission meeting, and she
did not believe the recommendations sufficiently represented the
Planning commission's input~ She cautioned the Council not to be
influenced by the design of II particular project since it 'Was
subject to Change, and was concerned about redevelopment of
co-=ercial frontaqe up and down the El Camino. Office use forced
up rents, took away essential retail space, and forced existing
retail out because ot the riSing rents. The~e would end up being
wall-to-wall offices along £1 ca.ino if the restrictions on its
development vere not upheld. rhe City paid $300,000 to • consul
tant tor a Citywide study, and the most important note was the need
to reduce employment potential in order to catch up with the
jobs/housing imbalance.. She did not understand 'Why it 'Was not
possible to have 5,000 square teet of offices and 5~OOO square feet
.c
65-245
01/22/91
•
or retail. A business such aa a coftee and pastry shop 'Would
succeed. She urged the c~uneil to uphold the 5,000 square toot
Uait.
Hr. Moaa believed 44 units could be accommodated on the site and
the pr!ce of the housing vould be whatever the m4rket would bear,
and whether the applicant buIlt more or less co~erci&l would not
have a .iqni~icant impact on the actual cost people ~ere expected
to pay_ In ter.s o~ all retail# all ottice" or II mixture, if the
developer wished to build 10,000 ~~are teet of commercial, a clear
choice was that no more than 5,000 square teet could be offices.
If he chose not to build retail, the developer had a legal right to
put in only 5 ,000 square teet ot offices, Which would allow a
better site plan and possibly more housing. The trend in
condominiums was to larger units. He saw no justification for
allowing the conditional use permit tor an all-ott ice 10,000 square
:foot buildinq. Council was not obliqed to qive the developer
everythinq he requested; it had tbe discretion to decide. He ur9'ed
Council to reject the use permit, and uphold the appeal.
Kr~ Steinberg said City policies were so.eti.es in conflict with
one another. One policy was to encourage retail along El camino
and another was to encouraqe affordable housinq. The !Subject
project was not an office park but a housing development. They had
40,000 square feet of residential and 5,000 to 10,000 square ~eet
of office or retail. They tried to balance the housing with the
City 90&1s o~ anchoring the corner# to have a street wall, to not
exacerbate parking on that ditficult corner, and to develop a use
compatible with the residential. While ~~ere were many sites along
El Camino where r~tail would be viable, the subject site was not
one of th~. He agreed with Ms. Wilson.
Mayor SUtor ius declared the Public Hearing closed.
KOTIOH: Council Kember Woolley moved, seconded by Andersen, the
Planning Commission recommendation to uphold the decision of the
Zoning Administrator to approve the 10,300 square feet o~ commer
cial office 8p~ce, where 5 .. 000 sc;uare teet would normally be the
maximum permitted, based on the following findings as revised by
the Planning Commission:
Findings:
1. The proposed use of the proposed location vill not be detri
mental or injurious to property or illlprovements in the
vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health,
satety, general yelfare or convenience, in that, firat, tor
this specific site, office use is more compatible with
residential uses be~au.e of unique driveway limitations and
second, for this sp.~ific site, there is a strong urban design
de$ire for a street wall design.
2. The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in
accord with the Palo Alto ComprehensivE Plan and the purposes
65-246
01/22/91
•
of Title 28 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code~ in that the lower
parking requirements for oft ice use will allow more housing
unit. to be built on the ~ite, consistent with Policy 14 of
the Bousinq Element which calls tor providing incentives to
add residential units to commercial developments. The
increased number of housing units will result in more BHR
unita, a:upporting Program 13 ot the' Housing Element. In
additIon, the ottice use will add a daytime population to belp
.upport the naarby neighborhood retail area on the El camino
way trianqle and viII result in an upgrading of the appearance
of El camino Real, as proDloted by Progra-22 ot the Urban
Desi..,. El .... nt.
Conditions:
1. Tbe facade of tlIe proposed oft ice building in referenced plans
for the Use Permit shall be redesigned; and the final design
of the project shall be approved by tbe Architectural Review
Board, the Planning Commission and the City council through
the 5i te and Desiqn process.
Council Member Woolley aqr-eed with tirst finding and did not
believe 5upportinq the motion would be a precedent-setting decision
by the council. Hot only was there only one access, it vas .very
sudden, and it was better to have reqular rather than occasional
users enter that driveway. While the decision could spillover to
the next two lot., in the total picture of south 21 Camino, she did
not believe council was setting a precedent. Chez: Louis was a
different situation beca~5e access would be easier to arrange on a
corner prcperty. R"9uding the second findi"'1. the use definitely
supported policy 14 of the Comprehensive. Plan to encouraqe housinq
and alao Proqraa 13 to encouraqe Below-Market-Rate CBMR) units, of
which the project would provide four.
Council Member Andersen associated with CQuncil Member Woolley. Be
believed the corner would be danqerous for retail, and there vas a
serious question in terms of the possibility for success of a
retail establishment.
council Member Levy said while the findinqs were used to allow
10 .. 000 square fe.et, he. did not :see that they endorsed 10~ 000 square
feet. The findings could apply equally for 5,000 square feet, and
he queried what unique circumstances required Council to .ave to
the lO,OGO feet leve.l.
Hr. SChr-eiber clarified Council did not have to make a findinq of
uniqueness for a use permit. The required tindinqs were that the
propoaed use at the location would not be detrimental or injurious
to property cr iaprovements~ etc., and that the pr-oject would be
locate4 and conducted in a manner consistent with the Co.prehensive
Plan. In terms of the use permit application, it vas important to
consider site plan.ninq~ the drjveway~ the relationship of uses to
the driveway, the desire to have a wall alonq E1 Camino Real, and
the sense of physical presence.
65-247
01/22/91
•
;'''-', '. ~ ,
-,
~. Glazier said qiven there were some Urban Desiqn aspects in the
desire to create a wall along El Camino l the Planninq commission
believed it the applicant scaled the office use back to 5,000
square teet l it aight be somewhat more difficult to create the same
Urban Design aspect or teel.
council Member Levy would be interested in what his colleagues had
to say. It Council tound the .ite ~as a special situation that
allowed 10,000 square feet of office use, he would query why almost
every aite on El Camino 'Was not similarly suitable. t'he first
finding indicated the proposed use at the location would not be
detrimental or injurious to property or inprovements in the
vicinity, which could probably be said in that negative way for
almost any other site. As they looked at El camino durinq the
stucty several years ago, council decided limiting the size of
offices to 5 1 000 square feet was a worthwhile City policy in terms
ot reduciM9 elIlployment development and the resul tinq traffic.
While be conc\lrre~ it 1Ifas a good architectural design and developed
a presence on El Camino, the density involved by allowing double
the offic~ square footage concerned him because Council would be
hard pressed to know whet~er the decision would be a precedent fer
the two adjoining sites.
Council Member Renzel believed the CS zoning recognized' the
existing use, and "'0 one antiCipated tl":Ie redevelopment that had
gone on in the city or they might have desiqnated the property
differently. She agreed with council Member Levy there vas no
justification tor doublinq the oft ice size. There 'We~e plenty of
walls a10"9 £1 Camino becausP-of the many videnings, and the
buildinqs were riqht against the sidewalk, which she did not find
aesthetically appealing. While much was said about the dangerous
intersection l it was a closely-controlled intersection and whst was
true of Jacobs Court was not necessarily true for the subject site.
The big issue was whether to have 5,000 or 10,300 squa~e feet of
office, and ..... hetl" .. er the developers chose to do retail with any
surplus was their choice. The housing price would be What the
market would bear and would not affect how office buildinq aiqht
affect the developers' economics. Office space was limited in the
co~ercial zones to avoid the competition with a number of retail
uses the Council wanted to see in Palo Alto. To say other space
could be used for office instead of retail negated the particular
benefit of havinq an office limitation~ council Me" the problems
of the Citywide study and the peak period traffic engendered by
otfices. The council should uphold the appea.l, and. she opposed the
motion.
Council Kember McCown joined with Council Member Renzel on the
issue and opposed the motion. The point ~f the 5,000 square foot
office limitation when it vas adopted vas to achieve a positive
goal for the co=munity to look to a balance of office and retail in
certain zones in certain parts of the community. The conditional
use process vas to allow tor those situations where the limitation
would not achieve that positive goal or when some other goal could
.,
65-248
01/22/91
. ---.-~. --.... -~~-----
..
·'
be better achieved by peraitti~ more than the 5,000 square toot
11.itation. While council did not yant an absol~te blanket rule
subject only to the vAriance approach, she vas not persuaded the
City woul~ have a .ore positive altuation by permitting more office
than the lialtatlon. There were ditficult aitinq issues, but other
project. on .trangely-.hape4 aits. vent forward under the existinq
zoning and came ~p ~lth concept. and approaches for mixed uses.
While she va. i:.pre ••• d by the applicants I qenuine interest in
baving housing be the dominant focus ot the project, she believed
it coull! be accomplished vlthln the •. onin<] and vithout the.
necessity of 10,300 aquare feet of office. The CS %one also
allowed all of the CH uses so there was a broad range of potential
users ot square tootaqe. She believed the appeal was well stated
and the applicants should stay with the provisions of the zonin9~
council Member Cobb believed the decision was 4 close call. He
commended the applicant tor attempting to bring down the cost of
housing which 'Would occur it they qot more yield O':Jt of the
property. It Council did not support the motion, the applicant
~ould p~obably build 5,000 square feet of office space l there would
be no retail, and the cost ot housing would 90 up proportionately~
The basic issues 'Were the intensity of use and the cost of housinq.
Council Member Xniss sai6 there vas no question the corner v~s a
difficult one. The real issue vas whether the findings justified
the result, and she could not determine that the 10,300 square teet
ot ot~ice use ~as what vas really ~eant by the particular criteria.
She could support the 5,000 square foot limitation. She appre
ciated Mr. Steinberg's comments, and the need for bousin9 in ~~e
$200,000 to $250.000 range~ was something Council had repeate~ly
mentioned. The issue was the policy and what precedent was beinq
set. ~~ile she hoped the project went forward, she did not feel
Council llad be.n presented with persuasive ar9uments that would
allow her to support the motion~
Vice Mayor Fazzino agreed the issue vas a difficult one# but would
support the JDotion. He vi~wed the development as priaarily a
housing' proje.ct with some office. Palo Alto had not had tremendous
success with mixed-use projects l and given the opportunities with
the subject prcject l it vas important to ~~e trade-ofts. Council
struqgled to place more housinq alonq El Camino ~eal# and he was
delighted vith the affordatility of the housing in question
compared to most in the community. He did not want to lose any of
the more affordable housinq to a tremendous uncertainty over retail
on the site. The particular site was not riqht tor neiqhborhood
ret~il uses which ~ere far .ore appropriate alon9 either side of £1
Camino way, on El Camino immediately adjacent to the ventura
neiqhborhood or to Barron Park on the other side. The property
WAS unique in terlllS of the narroW' .frontaqe, the intersection
parking and traffic problems~ The site was much different from
other sit~s the Council voul~ be considering in the months ahead.
City Attorney Ariel Calonne Clarified the Conditional Use Permit
require=ent was not a justification hurdle Council needed to get
_.
65-249
01/22/91
•
\
.'
past. The conditional use permit process ~a. to allow the City to
enhance a situation i~ the opportunity presented itself and vas a
ditrerent approach froD a variance approach.
Mayor Sutorius understood tbe issue was a weighty one. While he
was not tond of the 5,000 aquare toot ot.fice limitation, he
appreciated its purpose, and questioned how to do the extensive
retail services, or the allovable qeneral business services on that
site in conjunction with housi"9. Ar9""ents by the applicants had
been persuasive in that regard. rt came down to the point
articulated by Council Members McCown and Renzel on the 5,000
square root limitation and whether there ~as a justification tor
saying that 10,000 was inappropriate under the circumstances. He
:believed the arqument as far as the ·presence'" could be accom
plished with or without the full 10,000 square feet. The impact on
the housing was difficult to ~efine; therefore, he did not see a
need to qo the full 10,000 square feet and would not support the
motion.
RorIOX ~LBD by a vote of 3-6, Andersen, Woolley, Fazzino votinq
-aye.-
aO!'IOlf-:. Council Member Renzel moved, seconded by MCCown, to
uphold the appeal of the Zoning Administra.tor's decision and direct
the City Attorney to return with the final wording for the findings
at the January 28, 1991, City Council JIIeetinq based upon the
following concepts:
1. The 5,000 square teet allows aaple space tor the urban corner
design;
2. There is no compelling reason to add additional office space
since reta.il and other uses are allowed on the site;
and
:3. There is no overriding goal in the Palo Alto Comprehensive
Plan that supports the use permit.
Council Member McCo.n believed there vas an overriding goal in the
Comprehensive plan with respect to the balance and the desire to
not have office uses force out retail U8as. For that reason she
did not find the subject project satisfied the s4cond finding.
council Member Levy asked if it was necessary t~ have findinqs to
simply .ove ahead without a Conditional Use permit ~n accordance
with the zoning of tha City.
Mr. calonne believed council did need. findings to sustain the
~ppeal. Staff vould return with written findinqs on the Consent
Calendar for confirmation at the next .eetiDg.
1I0000:tDJI PAn.D 9-0.
65-250
01/22/91
7. PUBLIC !IEl\lUNG: Planning COllU!liesion Re=-endation' re
Application for _jor sit" and d."iCJll revi.... tor property
located It J981 E1 Camino Roal (JOO)
.~.< <7
".'
TO: PAlO AlTO PLANII!IIS COltlISSION PREPARED BY: Wlrglnl. Wlrheit
DAlf: Jlnuocy 4, 1911 FILE NO.: go-(!A-30, 90-0-09, 90-ARS-S7
9O-UP-34
PItD.lftT IIFORIIATIOH
locltlon:
Applicant:
Property Owners:
Requested Action:
3981 [; Camfno Real
P.lo Alto, CA 94306
The Stefnberg Group
60 Plerte Avenue
Son Jose, CA 9SII0
H.yflo .. r P.A. Development l.P.
JjI8J Uwruce ~oy
s.ta Cl..... tA I5Il!il .
MOJor Site ond Design Revie. of Mixed Use Project
The proposal is • olxed use offic.fresidenti.l project with •
10,lOG-squlre·foot two-story office building .t the front of the site and 38
condoafnium resfd~nces iA t~ree~story bUildings Dn t~e rear portion of the
site. The residential units are stacked two-story townhouses over ground
level flats. The three resldentl.l building. are Irranged around an open
courtyard. The residences and the commercl.1 building Ire .ccessed by •
c .... n drl.oway off [1 Comino Real. One hundred .Ine (109) parking spaces for
both uses are loclted In an underground parking gar.ge and six guest and t.o
handicap .plce •• re located i. a surfac. parking lot lototed ne.r the front of
the .ite.
RECCIIIEJI)ED ACT I ON
Staff recomaends that the Pl,nnlng Commission recommend that the City Council
adopt the negative declor.tion, .nd oppro,. the project b.sed on f'ndings and
condftfon. contofned i. this report.
SITE INFORMTIOH
Pln:e1 Size:
[xistfng Zoning:
Comprehensive Plln
DeSignation:
Density:
ExistIng Lind U •• :
PCSR39BI(W
..
,
64,904 square feet
I3Z-42·69
CS; ~·30
Service Conoercl.l: Multiple-F •• ily Resfdential
44 units .llowed; 3B units proposed
!letel
1/4/91
·1·
-~----",,,, .. --.. ,-----
Surrounding lind U.e:
History:
PCSRl9SI,IViI
The project .ite Is pres.ntl~ occupied by I
~tel. The nelr-by Irel is I mix of residential
and t~rcfll uses. T~e parcel to th! north of
the project is presently in commercial use but is
zoned sf.11lrly to t~e project sitt and can be
expected to redevelop. Directly to the sDutn 1$
the Dry treek channel and across from that is the
410 JacDbs Court sfte currently occupied b~ six
... 11 cottage., whIch wa. recently zoned RM-IS.
The project Is bordered on the east by the
Venturi School site. A single·famlly
neighborhood 15 .ast of the site beyond the Creek
and Wiltle WIY. The west side of t,e project
fronts onto [1 Camino Real where there are a
v,riety of cCORerclal uses.
IIorch 2, 1990: Appllcdio. filed for preliminary
IrclIltectur.l review of pr"Oj)O£ed .. hed use
office/resident ill project with
alO,300·square·foot office building and 38
eondOllh!um residences aver I,ndergoround parking.
April 19, 1990: Prell.inary r.vlew by the
Architectural Review Board (ARB) of the proposed
Mixed use prcject. Minutes of the ARB moeting
.re attached.
June 7, 199u: SecoMi preliminary review by the
ArchItectural Review Board of the proposed mixed
use project. "inutes of the ARB meeting are
attached.
MIx 14, 1990: Appllcltlon filed for major site
.nd design rev few of .txed us~ off1ce/residentil1
project with' 10,JOO·square-foot office building
and 38 condominium residence$ over underground
parking.
October 10, 1990: Major site and design review
by the Phnning C""",isslon. The project .as
Continued to allow the applicant to apply for a
conditional use penait to allow in excess of
5,000 square feet of office space. Minutes of
the Planning CDODisslo" meeting are .ttached.
October 16, 1990: Appllntion filed for
Conditfonal Use Permit to allow construction and
operltfon of 10,300 $q~ire feet of office use.
November 19, 1990: Use PermIt (90-UP·34)
approved for construction and operation of ]0.300
square feet of office use.
Hovember 26, 1990, Appeal of Use Permit,
go·.P·34, filed by Barron Park Association
Executlv! Committee.
1/4/91
-2-.. _--_ .. _,_-......._'_.
.,
Mandatory Action Oat.(.):
Envfronnentll Impact
AsseSSMe!'lt:
ANALYSIS
Project Description
,-.
. ~-.
Application deemed compl.t. October 10, 1990,
51. month action date for final City Council
lctlon I. April 10, 1990, The project I.
t.ntatl •• ly scheduled for fln.l rEyle. by tne
Architecturll Review Boar~ on F,bruary 21, 199].
and for City ~o"ncll rovle. on March 18, 199J.
No s1gniflcint impact; • negative decllr~tion has
been prepared and Is lttached to this report.
The front 175 fe.t of this parcel I. zoned Serylce Commercl.l (CS) with the
relr portion zoned RM·30. The appll'lnt is proposfn9 I ~ixed use project with
a ""'-s\orJ" /lffice fJulldiwg louted on ~ CS IIOf'ti0n of tile sit. on £1 C.",ino
Real and t~ee-ltory ~andomiw1um resfdences ~rringed around I c~urtyaTd en the
r •• r RM·30 portion of the site.
The gffice building has been redesigned in response to comments It the last
Planning Commission review. The revised des1gn is discussed fn the JSSUES
section of this report. A detailed description of the reside~tia1 bui'~jngs
and t~e site pl.n is included in the previous Planning Co=mis!ion staff report
of October 10. 1990, attached.
illru
Conditional Uso Permit
On November 18, 1990. the 20nlng Administrltor gr.nted • Condltlon.l Use
Permit allowing construction lnd operltion Df 10~300 square feet of office yse
on the site. The reisons fer allowing '" excess of 5,000 square feet of
office u.se were that office use is less intenshe than most other permitted
~ses and consequently would be more compatible with the proposed residential
use on the site~ that it wou1d generate tess traffic in the immediate
Vicinity, wou1d add II diiy-ti"~ popL:latfon to he'p 5IJpport nnrbJl neighborhood
rehil uses, .nd that the lower parking requirements t"an retail wou1d permit
more housing units and ~ore BMR units to be built on t", site. T~e use pe~it
incl.ded the condition that the facade of the proposed offic. building be
redesigned and the design appro.ed by the Pl.nnlng Commission, the
Architecturll Reyie. Board and the City 'Duncil through the Site .nd Design
process. A copy of the conditional use per.it with findings and conditions is
attached to this Teport. The Zoning Administrator's decision was appealed and
i. the subject of an earlteT Item on the Planning Commission's agend •.
Ooslgn of tho Office Building
In response tc comments from tcmmissione~$ and members of t~t public at tne
lilt Planning Commission hearing, the office building has been redes19ned.
The reYlsed des;gn is a more triditional composition with wood shinglf
!xterior. recessed windows at the first and second floors and an Itri~m corner
.1 emont , Teplacing the .. t., towor .'oment \> the origlna' design. The design
.ill continue to be developed and r.fined through the ARB process. The atri"e
elemont, as shown on the pl.n., •• c.eds the 3S·foot height .llowed and will
need to be redesignod to co~ly with the height limit.
PCSR398IfY\' 1/4/91
·3·
•
, ,
[
[
Eiergencl Acce.s Bridge
Tn. applicant Initially proposed tnat the ZO-foot access corridor to Wilkie
Way and the bridge .cross Dry Creek would be for the exclusive u.e of the
residents Ind would not be acclsslbl. to the generol publ!c. At the last
PhMIII9 C ... lsslon he.ring, It .os suggested by Co",!ss!oner. th.t there may
be •• lue I. us!ng the easement and bridge to provide. public pedestrian and
bicycle connection bet •• en Wilkie Way Ind El C.m!no Re.l. It was suggested
that the City Bight take In e.sement ICross the access strip and bridge to
rell ••• the property owner of liability .nd Dalnten.nc. responsibilities, .nd
the .ppllc.nt 'S conSidering thl •• ltern.tl ••.
The Public Works Department h •• Indlclt.d support, In prlncipl., for I City
eosement ever the ZO-foot wide access strip and bridge, pro.ided the design
MOets City standards. The Planning and Tr.nsportlon Oi.lsions support the
concept of In easement to provide. public pedestrian and bicycle connection
between Wilkie Way and El Camino Reil. Since the Fire Department will not
",rait I gate KnISS tile wrnco t. tile Iccess strip ~ tile bridge, ;t will
be difficult t. preyent this are. froa becoming. de fact. public access. In
that cue, It .. ay be preferable for the City to have control and
responsibility over the arei.
The prGpo.od bridge o.er the Dry Creek channel I. requIred by the fire
Department for paramedic ve~icle IC"S5. Fire trucks .nl1 enter and leave the
ZO-foot-wide CGrrldor .long the creek from El C .. inG Real and will fight fires
f~ t~fs $p~ce. IS they cannot drive onto the fnt!rior plaza. Paramedic
vehicles, unlike the fire trucks, BUst be abl. tG l.ive as well as enter the
site quIckly. Th. bridge acrG.s the creek will Illow paramedic yehicles to
get into and out of the Site without delay. caused by turning and maneuvering.
The pedstrl!. bridge connects to Wilkie Way throu~h an existing 12·foot-wide
Santa Cl.ra Yolley Water District easeme.t. Th. Water Di.trict has approved
the concept of the bridge and access through tho e.sement. Th. design of the
bridge BUst be approved both by the ARB and by the Water Di.trict.
RetentiGn and Replacement of ExistIng Tree~
At the previous Planning Commissfon hearing. one C~is5iDneT suggested that
the City Arborist review t~e final landscape pTan to assure adeQuate
.itfgation for the loss of existing trees on the site. A detailed description
of the exIsting trees to be remo.ed and retained Is included in the previous
Pl.nning Com-iss;on staff report, which is attached to this report. A
condition ha. been added to the recommendation of approval for thl. project
requiring that the number, location. species and size of trees in the final
landscape plan shall be approved by the City Arborist, and that the applicant
Shall submit a tree protection pIa. prepared by a certified .rborist and th.t
an .rborfst be deSignated to be re.ponsibl. for implementation of tne tree
protection .... ures.
Fiscal lep.ct Assesseent
Whll. this project fs not of suffltlent •• gnltude to warraot • fiscal an.lysis
under tne recently adopted Council policy, • concern .as raised by tn. B.rron
Park A$sociation and, therefore, staff reQuested I cursory review by the
rfnlnce DepartDent. Projected tax revenues to the City from the proposed new
de.elopoent are .pproximately equal to the tiX revenues being collected from
PCSR3981/VW 1/4/91
-4-
,." -----"--,----~.
•
, "
the present .atel US! on t~e site. T~e occ~plncy tl~ paid by the ~ayflo~et
'arden Met.l d"ring the flseal ye.r 1989·199~ .0' 514,027. The property t"
expeeted to be eollect.~ by the City from t~. -.tel, ~.rc~ I, 1991, i. $1,269
(property tax is 1 percent of property .olu.tlon, o1th 10 percent of the ta,
reUined by tile City). The eOlllbined re .. r,u. to the (.ity fro .. the lIot.l
oceupincy tlX .nd property tlX during this period is S15,296.
Th. esliaat.d .i1.atlon at coopletion of the proposed ne~ project is
approxl .. t.ly SIS,Goo,OOO 138 residenti.l unit, with an aver'ge •• lu. of
S)2S,ooO plus the offiee building valued It 13,250,000). Tn. I percent
property tlX on this YI1 •• tion equil, 1156,000, with the portion of the la, to
be retlined by the City (10 percent) >mOunting to $15,600.
Below·Market-Rit. Units
four BMR units 0111 be provided. Two ground level, one-bedroom unit. will
0.11 for 173,100 eich In~ two staeked flats with two bedroom. ~ill sell for
SJD,5IID MeII.
Variance to Slt~ Deve1opme"t ~e9ul.tions
The zoning ordinance reQuires Mixed-use projects to comply w:th the sit.
development regulations of the .pplicable r,sidentlal zone. Tn. required
front setback for RM-30 de.elopments on In .rteri.l street I. 25 f.et. Th.
proposed 6·foct frent setback, which 1S more eonststent wit" the e(isting
commercial deve'cpment patt.~ along E) tami~~ Rea), ~i" re~uire a variance.
St.ff fer1s that the findings for I variance are warranted given the unique
street (onfi9~rltion of [1 Camino Way and [1 Cimino Real It this intersection,
t~e need for the emergency access .long the Ory CreeK corridor, and the
desirability "f • project design which will Integrlte residonli.1 .nd
commercia' uses compitibly ~nd provide a strong design presentation at this
important corner. Tne variance application will be considered concurrent7)
wit~ the subdivision application, should tne site and design application be
approved.
RECDH11EIIDATION
Slaff recommends that the Pl.nn;n; Commission recommend that t~e City (ouncil
approve the project and .dopt the negative declaratlon of nQ s\gnifi,ant
envirornmentll ~mpact and approve th! project, subject to the findings and
conditions listed btlow.
Snould the CommissiDn d~cide tc recommend d!nia' of th! use permit (previous
.genda item). then stiff would rec~nd that the site and dEsign be denied as
well. The project I. not s.itable for ret.l1 is desired.
flNDINIiS
I." The proposed project is orderly, h'rIIOnious .nd comp.tlble wit" .djoini"
us.s, in tnat the site pl.n i. ,rranged so that the commertl.l building
Is loclted n •• t to £1 C~!no Real, the resldenti.1 unit. are lotJt.d .t
the relr of the site neir other residentill use. ind buffered from EI
Callinc Reil, ttle circulation is .safe and order"l, .and Ittnctive, i.lseful
outdoor spoce •• re being provided.
2. Ttle project will ensure t~e desirability cf in~tstment and the conduct of
authorized occupations, in that the building stock is bei~9 impro~eo and
PC5R3981/W
-
1(4(91
-5·
•
,
-'
the sit ... ro lotonsl.ely used and the new buildings will result In an
l~ro .... nt In the general app.arlnco of this portion of El Camino Real.
3. Sound principles of envlro ... ntll des!gn and ecological balance are being
ob.erved, I~ that IS .. ny IS possible (13) of the oXi,tlng tre.s are
being retained Ind the underground garage is ,et back approxlmat.ly 2S
feet fro. tho property line, providing ,ufficient soil .olume to sustain
... 1_ growth of • Ilnl_ of six ne. IIO<ilum·hrge size trees. Tre.,
are also being planted to shade the Interior courtyard. Bicycle parking
con.enlently located on the plaza level and the provision of a ped.strian
bridge .cross the cre.k Channel ,hauld encourage walking and bicycling.
C. The u,. I, conslst.nt with the use, deSignated In the Comprehensive Flan
for thl, slto. The projoct Is In accord with Polley 5 of the Housing
Elesent 1A prov1dfng I ~1z of residentfl1 ~ses in I commerclal ir~a. and
with Policy 6 of the Urban Design £le.ent to upgrade El Camino Re,l. It
supports PolIcies a and 12 of the Transportlan Element to discourage
~fl. IlSO and ___ • "'eye1 •• se 111 _tlng bicycle ose
eon ... ,ent, and bl the vraxl.lt, to public transportation.
CllIIIlTIOllS
I. The applicant shall obtain a varlance for front setback fo' the
e .... rci.l building concurrent with the subdivision.
2. The applicant shall fmple.ent the following sound control mitigation
.. asure. to achle.e c.-plla.ce with the Palo Alto Compre~ensive P1.n and
Tftle 24 st.ndards:
Exterior ResIdential Area Noise Controls to Achieve 65 dBA
R.ar patiOS and decks within 195 f.et of the west property line and
hivfng I dfrett or side vfew af E1 Camino Re~l~ constr~ct
6·foot·blgh acoustIcal patiO f.nces and 36·lnch.high solid deck
railings. Patios and decks ficing onto the interior pIa,. are.
will not require noise controls, due to the shielding provided by
the planned bunding .rrangement.
The ra.p to the underground garage shall be faced with Icoustic,l
.ateri.l to red~ce the nofle impact on residentill ~nits over and
neor the ramp.
Interior Residential Noise Controls to Achieve 40 dBA
Within 19S feet of El Camino Real, one of the foll0.lng roitigatfons
shall be required:
a. Required window constTU.tlon usfng sfngle pane of I/C·fnch
glass providing STC·32 r.tlng Dr blgher. ThIs aSsumes windows
wIll be kept closed at all times and that .. chanical
.entilatlon will be provided.
b. Required window construction using a prefabricated acoustic.l
window providing STC·54 rating Dr higher. With this
alternatlve, windows ~~ be kept open up to SO percent of the
PCSR398ljVl1 1/4/9)
·6·
•
"
I
\
I •
. '.'
I
1
ti~ for nlturl' ventflatfon and ~chini,al ventilation is not
requfre<!.
furt~er thin ]95 feet to £1 C~m1nD Re~l. on! of the following
.ftlg.tfans .hlll be requfred:
•• Requfre<! window canstr"ctlan using • single pane of 1/4-lncn
gllss providing STC-28 rating or higher. This assumes windO~5
will be kept closed .t .11 tImes .nd tnat .e,hanical
ventll.tlon wfll be prOVided.
b. RequIred wfndow construction using. prefabricated "O"stlc.l
window providing S1C-46 rating or hlgner. With this
alternative, w1ndows ~ay be kept open up to 50 percent of the
tfme for natural ventilation and ~chanfcal ventilation is not
required.
"", ¥1m1ws 1If tM ",sll1entlol Imlts tflrt .... ~c!fied to be
.Ii~tained closed at 11' times for noise tantrol are to be
opeT~ble, IS the requ;reme~t does not imply I fi~ed condition.
Units haYing the closed yindow co~ditiDn should be provided with
some form cf mechanica' ventilation to assure i habitable
environment. as specified by the Uniform Building (ode (UBC).
3. ;0 IIltlgate the loss of the large ~alley oak and other tr .... the
.pplicant sh,n pI ant I ol.llIum of six 15-gallon lIedi"m·large size "nap!,
trees in the llndst.ped perImeter of the sIte where .oil volume is
adequate to sustafn .axi.um tree growt~. The n~ber, location. speciEs
and size of trees I. the fln.l llnd.cape plan shall be approved by the
City Arborlst. The Ippllclnt shall submit with the fln.l landscape plan
I tree ~rotectiDn program prepared by • certified Irborist for protection
Df t~e existing trees to be retlfned, wit~ a certified arbcrist
designated to be responsible for fmpTementatfon of tne tree protection
lleiSures ~
4. ne design of the project sh." b<! r.vie.ed and approved by tne ARB. ~ith
partiCij11r attention to the special requirements for ~inim;zing impacts
of connerc;'1 buildings on residenthl l,Ises. the des ig'" of tne pedestri ar;
bridge. entrlnces to the site from [1 C,mino R.,l and at the bridge, the
paving treatmentt and plantfng f~ t~e corridor along the creek c~annel.
5. Th. height of the tower element shall b<! revised to confo..., to the zor.ing
ordinance regu1atfon.
6. T~e applicant $~,ll dedicate I publit lCtesS easement for paramedic
ye~icles. bicycles and pedestrians comprising i 20·foot-~id! strip ilong
the south side of the property bordering the creek channel and across the
proposed bridge over the creek c~annel to provide I connecti~n between [1
Comino Reil .nd Wiltle Way.
8. The design of tne ped •• trlln bridge and "cess to it shall be app.ov~d by
the Fire Department. the PublIc Works Department. the Architectur,l
Revfew Board and by the Sint. C1I.a Walley Water District.
9. The applIcant Shill obtlin In encro.ohmen! permit from CalTrons for any
work or construction activity In the public right of •• y.
PCSR3981/Y11 1/4/91 ,
'.
10_ Tn. .ppllclnt s~lll provide four SMR unit.; two one-bedroom units for
-573,100 •• ,~ •• nd two two-bedroom units for 590,500 ea,"_
ATTACIIIIOITS
~
~dN".'Ttl) 'u.u_rt ..... * .. " Ma, Mlnuto. of the Archlte,tur.l Review Board ... tln9, April 5. 1990
"Inute' of the Archlt.,tur.l Revle~ Board .. etlng. June 6, 1990
'lannlng C ... ls.lon St.ff Report, October 10, 1990
Excerpt Minutes of the Pl.nnlng Commis.lon ... ting, October 10, 1990
Condltlon.l Us. Penolt, 90-UP-34, granted November 19, 1990
letter of Appeal fr .. Barron Park Assocl.tlo •• November 26, 1990
COPIES 500 TO
1M Stetnbm.l Group
The Barron Park Assocl.tlOft
Tan rlsher. Blockaan Tlrke •• 3350 ~.st Bayshore. Suite 110, Palo Alto, CA
943D3
PCSR3981,IW 1/4/91
-s-
--~--------~--
•
· A "rCliltccfiJral ~\~~~I _________________ ~j~l~i_II~II_t_e_s
-----,""' .. --
A. ROLL CALL
T~ursd.y, April 5, 1990
S: 00 A.M.
Chic Center
250 Hamilton Avenue
(ovnci] Conference Room
Pa1c Alto. (alifornll
Boan! _rs Present: daR .... Lyz>n.. ScMnt. and Vi hon
Soard Members Absent: Mirni Barnes
Staff Present:
Jon Schink irrived during t~e review of item 11.9
and was present for the rest of the ~eeting+
Mike lyzwa left the ~eting after item 11.9 and
cld not return for tne remainder ~f the agenda.
Jim Gilliland~ Virginia Warh!it, Bob Haley. Sue
Case
B. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
1. T~e minutes of the meeting of Harch )9, 1990. were APPROVED. 3·0,
with the fOllowing minor changes:
J~ Item 11+1., 10S6 Amarillo Avenue, page '. seton~ sentence in the
last paragraph. (hange tne word ·in-so t~at the sentence reads
-around tne picniC pads·,
2. Item 11.5., 1705 £1 Camino Real. page 13. in the second s~nte~ce Dr t~e first paragripn cnange ·window· to -display windo~· in t~o
loc.,ation5~
APPROVALS: Tn! Art~itectural Review Board (ARBJ decision on the design
of the prDj~ct ;s i recommendation to the Director of Planning a~d
Community Environment (the Directorj. who makes the final decision.
Unless ot~erwi$e stated by the ARB or tne Director, project approvals
generall, fncorpor,ate Project Review Commlttee conditions as ~ailed to
the applicants and stiff conditions IS recommended in the lnformation
Memorandums.
CHANG[S: Any change to
the City for approva1.
chang~s ire mandated is
an approved design plan must be resubmitted to
~esubmittal of a project may also be necessary if
a result of complying with Publ;c
--~---------
8.
z.
> ..
<.
j ..
ihe ~1a~t;n9 And ;~rigat;on pl." sh~'l be .pp~oved for
conforman~e with the Clty'S ~ater conserving standar~s b1 the
Energy servic~s Division.
3. SignagE!' .,ill retur:'l on II sepante apphcillt;:on fer-appr-cv.l.
~50 GUINDA STREET
Steve Pierce
Request for phasing of construction of seven previously-approved,
slngle·farni1, houses
Tne Board DENIED, 3-~, the applicant's request to pnase construction
of seven single family homes over i thTee year-period. rather than
the two year period allowed with a one year ext~n5ion of the ARB
approval. The applicant stated that he was requesting the phased
construction because the houstng mark~t is soft and hi didn't want to
have III the houses on the sartet It the Sime time. Tne Board ~nied
the req~est cut of concern for the impact of In extended tor.struction
period o~ the neighbornood. They left open the opportunity for the
applfcant to return to the Board prior to the expiration of the ARB
approval to reQuest that the phasing of construction be re(~nsidered
It t~.t Hme.
9. 3981 EL C~IHO REAL 90·ARB·38
Mayflower Palo Alto Development L.P.
Preliminary review of ~ixe~ use project witM lO,OOO-sQuare-foot
commercial t,uiTding and 38 con~omir.;lJm unHs with underground parking
The applicant presented four ilternat1ve site plans and discussed the
lS5ues which ~ild been considered in developing the preferred plan.
Ne described tne basic concept of the plan as tnree residential
buildings arranged around an urban scale courtyard with oil ~reen
border and larger landscape elements ~rnund the perimeter of the
site. The res;denthl buildings are at the rear of the stte with a
two s~or~ cORmlercial build1ng ~n front adjacent to [1 C~mino ~eal.
The landscape architect described the concept for the courtyard as a
sequence of spaces design to encoura~e social interaction and to
provide a progression from ~ubl1C to private space, and use of trees
for ~lsual effect and for shade.
The Board commended the applicant o~ an exemplary prellminary review
pres~ntat;o~, saying that the proposal was solid, clear and well
t~ought out, and that his presentatfon of ideas and concepts was ~hat
a preliminary r~v;e~ should be.
Specific comments by Board members about the proposed deslgn were as
follows:
Al~O diRosa: The
autos and pedestr
rational, refresh
Noted there 1S a
functlons make sense together. The separjtion of
ans worKs we11. PTan works well for the site. is
n9, ~at cra~d on the site, pusning the setbacks.
at of security in this entry system. Questioned
04/05/90
Page 9 JG
•
"'-.
[
~ H;;";;'~·
i
'\
/ .0
j= .• ~ ..•. tp!"'"'t!"",-"!'---" --_ ... ----.
how the plazl getl USt~ lnd what happens to the wing wa" at the
property 1 fn~ ..
Shirley Wilson: Modeling of spael'S ,nO' l~gM Is just right, going
down to tw~ story very valuable and effective. The backyards seem
small, will t~eTe be openness to the landscaped peri~ter? SeQue~,e
of spaces is s~pportiye of the office entry being outdoor spice, to
be ~art of tnt mitrj~ or hierarchy of entry sequences.
Mike Lyzwa: The concept and presentltlon ;5 Yery strong_ CU.iOU5 to
know how you vill deve10p elevations and facades, on t~e brink of
creating J very modern jmpr~ss;ont ~ow you wi11 do it from here on
will be i real challenge. Details, rainwater leader~, vent for
parking garage are going to have an impact. Some tover should be
pro~ided for on-grade handicap parking.
Jon Schink. who arrived during the presentation ~f tbis iUm:.
CGIICtIrAd witJo A_ IWID .. ', ~ru_
Mite Lyzwa and Shirley Wilson encouraged the applicant to take
.dv.ntage of the 50 foot height illowed in the CS lone to create
20-12 feet higll first-.story spices, to emphasize t"'e first
level,through irthes~ etc .• not to flatten t~e building, to use the
"'eight. b~t not to the detriment of $un7ight into the ccur~yard.
10_ 382-84 CURT~£R AVENUE
Kark Migd.,
90'ARS-17
90-[!A-6
Minor I~cllitectural and site details for previo~sl~-approved,
six-unit townhouse project.
The Board APPROVED, 3-0, the building color., det.il. of fencing,
windows. eaves and cor~fce. trash containers. bicycle parking and
guest parking. The Board restated their requirement for real wood
horizontal siding.
The applicant is adv'jsed that the following condiHons of approval cf
the p~oject or. MaTc~ J. 1990. must still be met and are re~eited Mere
for the conv~njence of the app1icant:
). Frior to issuanc! of iI bU17c'ing permit. a final landscape
plan and exterior lfgf1ting plan s~all return to the Board for
.pprov.l. (Ple .. e refer to page 25 of the M.rch I, ]990
!~formation Memorandu~ for items to be addressed in t~e
landscape plan.)
2. A plan for the protection of the two pepper trees to remain
on the sjte shall be submitted for staff review prior to
;ssuance of i demolition permit.
3. To reduce dust levels during construction it shall be
reQuired tnat exposed earth surfaces be watered frequently
during tne lilte morning and at the end of the day. with
frequency of water increasi~g on windy days. All streets and
04/05/90
Page 10 JC
•
sa
_ • ~rchitecfural .A!~~:;~e,!.l ,\\itilites . "" .. ---------------------------
A. ROLL CAll
B.ard _ber. Present: H.",i B"'"es
Ai .. ~
IIlelI .. l lnwa
Shirl.y Wilson
Board Hembers Absent: Jon Shinck
ThursdlY, June 6, 1!90
8:00 A.II-
Civic Center
250 Nomilton Avenu.
Council Conference ~oom
Polo Alto, C.liforni.
Staff present: Nilty, Lytlt .nd Warheit
B. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The ... ting mfnute. of Hay 17. 1990, .ere APPROVED, 4-0, .s writt,n with
three .inor chlnges. IS follows:
1. Item 11.3. (550 lytton Avenue), p'ge 4. Chonge the wordfng in the
third p.rogr.ph to re,d, • ••• obj.ct •• to the buildfng rafsod up on
stilts .... '
2. Item 11.4 (420 Ja,obs Court), p'gt 5. Ch,ng, Ms. B,rnes' commtnts
to read, • ••• It does nDt .ake sense for the plopl. who live there
not to hive Iceell to Wilkie Way.-
3. Ite .. 11.10. (425 Unlversfty Avenue) Change conditions of approv'l
to re.d, 'The lorg.r lettors .hall be no llrger than 12 Inch.s .•• •
C. ORAL COMUNICATIONS
None
D. AGENDA ITEMS
APPROVAlS: The Archlt.ct"rol R'vlew Bo.rd (ARE) decision on the design
of the project is I r"camendotfon to the Director of PI.nning lnd
' .... nity Environment (the Direct.r), who •• ke, the ffn.l deciSion.
Unless otherwi" .tated by the ARB or tne Director. project appro •• 's
glneral1, fntorpor.te Project Revlfw Committee candit;ons IS mliTfd to
the Ippli,.nt, Ind 5t.ff ~Dnditfons '5 recommended !n the Info .. ,tiDn
...... r.ndU1ll.. .
~IN0507 6/7/90
VW -1-
. n It"'
7.
/'
Minor review Dr • facade cnange and landscape plan to an e~ist1n9
offl'. building
Cue to the _inor nature of tne proposed changes. t~;s item waS STAFF
APROVElJ.
90·ARB·38 • ~~="ti';r.'-7r.= Devel opme n t
Second preliminary review of a m1xed~use projfct with I
ID,COO-square-foot co~erc1a' building and 38 condominium units ~ith
underground parking
Following fs I sUlTI!lar,y of CCimments Ilade by (loard members and by Bob
Noss, 4010 Orm<, Palo Alto.
ftIIrn1 Barnes:
Tntrigued with the design, there Ire some ex,itlng things and some
disturbing things happening in the design. likes the vault forms on
the flcades of the residences and the stepping back of the third
Ooor. Is concerned that the plaza will be like a ,anyon, H looks
llke • canyon, too narrow for the he'9ht. Will the sequence of
portals ~ke the relr units seem too fa,.. away from other units?
Uk .. the tower .l_nt 10 front, but does not like the flared fonn.
wh1ch gfyes it an industrial Ippearance, looks like i powerhouse.
Would prefer to see opening' in the •• 11 as arches rather than the
irregular 'haped openIngs, which look like s~body goofed.
HorrifIed .bout not saving the second large oak on the site. If it
is lDst • .ust provide I number of large trees to replace the biomass.
Sever,' trees on site Irt not shown on the s;te plan. Exist;ng trees
It the periDeter should be Slved. If t~e ffr, line 110n9 the c.ana'
is 90in9" tD be .. J)lsstve Jrea. Ulen us. I drougtlc-tol t,"ant ground
cover rat~er t~l~ sod.
"Ike lYZWI:
This is .. to~~ s;te. and co=bining the commercial and residential
U$es presents a real chillenge. Have done a masterful jo~ of scaled
use Df eo.merctll alo~g £1 Cimino Real to buffer residentiil. The
sfte plan proyides very well for the need for privacy and security.
Tne central blckbone Df tne design, the p1aza, can provide a great
interaction pof"t between neighbors. The open raceway provided by
the fire line .1o~g t~f (,n .. l .akes I great place to get away, to lie
in the SU~t throw I 'rfl~!. etc.
A tremendous .-o~~t of Itoragr. 250 cub;, feet p~r unit. needs to be
acco.odited~ I plict needs to be found for it. The units over t~e
garage .ntr1 r.ted to be pP"Gtected fram noise. by speci.l glass or a
plrtfil coyer oyer t~e r.-p. Would lo~e to see trusses In the
viulted fon.s. the hlg~ windows could be spectacular at nfg~t. Need
to a.btllis~ t~r c~rC;ll building. to ~ake it stronge~.
i'UN0601 6/7/90
VW ·6·
\
!
•
t
> •
MIN0607
VII
The landscape theory and basic concept is I good 1del and very
fnteresting and challenging .
Ai no dlAosa,
Conceptually. I ver~ strong plan, good clear plannins. the sfte plan
weil thought out. The idea of integrating commercial Ind residential
Irc~ftecut~re fc some way is In important concept.
When we get to the specifit Irc~it.ct~re, seems ~lrd Ind fndustrill
as It appears In the blatk line print, but as destrlbed in the
prese,tation th.re's a totally different feeling, with us. of tolor.
Ite. Concern is that I rfsidenCf not become so slick and ~Ird and
Industrial that it is not a home.
So.e vnus~al t~in9s happening that you hive to be careful about, Tike
the .ngled Wills, th.t they not betom. a fad. Have tonfldence in
w.t _'ft -.. 1IeUIIH t!Je 1>'-'" .as ... "t1IougfIt 1111\, Gem't
tlIf1II< 1\ v111 collapse wflew 10u get to tile .rchit.ct ...... just raising
a red flag.
The design of the plaza is reilly crucil'. T~e fire lane can be used
IS I piace to get away from hard surfaces and formal lanascaping of
the pllza. Use sod rather t~an ground cover so that this can be an
acHy! I"I~ [f the resfdents hIVe acceu to ttlt' school grol.mds.
tnen not so important that the fire lane be an active arei, may be
uSld pri~arily for wisual relief.
Because t~e planning is 50 strGng. tnough J hive some trepidation
about the hard surfaces Jnd industril' look of the projett, could
defer to yo~ f~ thi5 projett. The onl1 clutton is. remember t~is is
s~':me' J hoNe.
SI1frley Vllson,
Ae.thetically and grlpoic,ll" the proposal
the tlsk ahead of you is to hu •• nize this.
presentation comments you are ,1rtady Iware
i.s very appeal lng,
I see frDm your
of t"is.
but
least happy with the £1 Camino R.,l elevation. Are headed in tho
right direction to use slightly different mlterials for the
coomercial building, nothing that pops out but something that says
ccmaercfl lIore than rf.stdentilL Oon~t think tf\e entry is inviting.
don't want to .ttIC' fonos. It fs forbidding mort tha. inviting a.d
that bothers De. The whol. wall is forbidding. I wi,. you'd a.alyz.
thlt, I hive (Dnfidence you Cln work ft out. It needs to be r!al1y
carefully consIdered. It should be Inviting, its the entry to .ajor
functions.
The lighter approach and low scale is reall, important in the
sequential portlTs tn the courtyard. There 15 I real opportunity to
develop the .aults i. tho residences. I think the staff comment.
were reall, pretty gODd. Wish the access to the oik tree were wider.
Jt Sfem5 more l~te In outside tree than an inside tree. wDuld be good
to bring It .isua11, into the plaza. Supports the ,sabl. ope. spice
f. the fIre lan'.
, .
6(7/90
·7·
,.-
..• ,:--<
/
Uncomfortable .jt~ the e.en height of the outside .all fOM!l1!d bJ the
buildings. If you felt it Wi' an improvement. would support raising
some of tilt roofs to provfde yarittJ.
T~e followfng fS.1 summary of comments by Bob ~oss~ 4010 Onme, Palo
Alto:
The bu1ldlng Ippelrs too ~as$fye from the south side, would lfkt to
see It broken Into t.o ~"ces, looks Industrial and bulky. ·The
eastern end looks u"frfendly~ ~aybe some curved lines and stepped
fOnls would he1p. Tbe ~one s~aped roof an the entry to tne
eo~rcial building doesn't fit with the design, because all other
forms Ire c~rved. Replice thts cone shape with a dome ind it wi!'
look right.
Putting thirty-eight units plus commercial on this site Is going to
give you a real trafffc load~ The entry to the projett is very cT~se
tD tAe £1 ez.fnD "Ol/tD. Robles fntersect10n, and doesn'! provide
.. eI, distance 10 Whlef! to "Dye to the right hn. to enter the sft ••
8. 731 lO~ VERDE AVENUE • (EIA)
fOG Sloan
89-AAB-ZBZ
89-EIA-S2
Request for recon$ideratfon of project cDndjtfcn requiring wood
wind~ at I previously-approved co~dQmtn;um projrct
The proposed wood casement windows were APPROY£O. 4-0.
s _ 1B04 VlBAACAOERO ROAO
OOn DOty
90-ARS-SI
90-PC-g
Minor revj~ Ind minor PC zone change for the alteration tc
elevations, parking and sign program at in existing office com~1ex
This Item •• s CANCELLED fr~~ the agend •.
111_ HEW/OUD BUSINESS
1. Transportation Division presentation to ARB regarding [1 Camir.o Way
circul.tton patterns.
2. Di$cu~sion of the status of a propo$ed ARB Design Awards program.
IV_ REPORTS OF BOARD ~EMBERS OR STAFF REGARDIHi MEETINGS OF OTHER CITY SOARDS
OR PROFESSIONAL CONFERENCES
Y. ADJOURllllOO
~IH0607
1'\1
_________ -~---~---------_:::7'"
,/
l-1'''' ':1' (1/ r. \ '. fi~ l,~ ft... .•
TO: PALO ALTO PlAIIIIlNG COIIIISSIOH PREPAREO BY, VirgInia Vlrhelt
DATE: October 5, 1990 FILE NO., IO-EIA-3D, IO-P-09, 'O-ARB-S7
fROJECT IIIF00000TICIfI
Location:
Appll cant:
"441t' ..... :
Requested Action:
PROJECT SUIOWIY
JIBl [I C .. lno Rell
PlIo Alto, CA 94306
Tn. Stllnberg Group
60 Pleree AVlnue
Sin Jos., CA '5110
1Iltfl-'.L ,,"-I,...u L.P.
1'CIB L .. , §JJt'I ~1
Santi Cllro, CA 95051
MijGr Sitl Ind Design Review of Kixed Use Proj.,t
The propo •• l Is •• Ixed use offici/resldintial project with I
IO,laO-squ.re-foot t~·.tory offiCI building It the front of the .it •• nd 3S
cond .. lolua resldenc .. In th .... -.tory buildings on the rur portlon of the
sit., The resldentlll units .re stlcked two·story townhousos over gro"nd
11 •• 1 flits. The three residentlll buildings Ire Irrlnged Iround In open
courty.rd, The residences Ind the conmercl.l building are .,cessed by I
ccomon driveway off £1 C .. lno Rell. 'orklng for both us.s Is loclted in In
undergrounQ plrklng glr.go and sl. gOESt .nd two handlclp spices are loeoted
I. a surf.ct plrklng lot loc.ted ne.r the front of the sit ••
UCOKlt[HDED ACTION
stiff recommends thlt the Planning Ceamlsslon recommend thot the City Council
.dopt the negltlve dec'"r.tlon, Ind .pproy. the project blsed on findings Ind
conditions contllned I. this report.
SITE INF_TlOH
P.re.l Size:
Assessor's P.reel Wuaber:
Existing Zoning:
~tehenSlY. Pl ••
s gn.tl0.:
Dens It"
EXistIng lind Us.:
PCSR3t81/Yl1
64,904 squlr. f •• t
132·42-§G
CS; 1i1'1-30
ServIce Coaoercl.,; Muitlpl.-r&l111 Resldentl.l
44 .. It •• 11owed; 38 "nits proposed
""tel
Plgo I
____ ... , ~TIl~"'~'."""'_-··
•
Surrounding lind U •• :
HlltorY:
Mandatorr Action Dlte!sl;
Project Oescrlptlon
" ,
T~ proJect .Ite I. pre.entl, occupied by I
.. t.1. The nelr-by Ir •• Is I »lx or residential
and c~rc111 uses. The 91rcel to t~e north of
the project Is preslntly In c .... rcl.l use but Is
zoned .1»lllrl, to the project .Ite Ind c.n be
IXpotted to redevelop. Directly to the south Is
the Dry Creek ch.nn.l Ind .cros. fro. that Is .n
R·2 .Ite currently occupIed by sll ... 11
cottages. The project Is bordered on the east by
the Venturi School .Ite. A slngle·family
neighborhood Is •• st of the site beyond tne treek
Ind Wilkie Way. The west Iide or the project
fronts onto El Coal no Real Where there are I
vlrlety of c .... rcl.l uses.
March 2. 1990: App1lc.tlon filed for pr.ll.lnary
Irchltectur.l review of proposed »I.ed use
offlc~resldent,.1 proJect with
lO,3IIO-sqnre-fWl wfflc. IIIItldt11g _ 1I
c_nlUII relldences over IITIderg.ound ",rtfng.
Aprn n. 1990: PreHolnorl review by t~e
Archlt .. tu •• l Revle .. BOlrd of the p.opo.ed .ixed
us. project. ~Inutes of the ARB neetlng Ire
attached.
June 7. 1990: Second prelloinary revl ... by the
Archltectur.1 Review Board of the proposed .ixed
use project. "inute. of the ARB .. etlng .re
Itt.ched.
May 14. 1990: App1lc.tion filed for Hajor Site
and DesIgn revlow .r of xed use offlce/residenti.l
project with IO,300,square-f.ot offiCI building
.nd 3B condoDlnl .. residences over underground
parking.
Application deemed complete October I~. 1990,
Six .. nt~ Ictlon d.te for flnll City Co"ncl1
Iction is April 10. 199Q. The project I.
tentotlve'l .ch.du'ed for review by the
Architecturll Reyle .. Board on Novasber I, 1990,
.06 for City Council r.yie. on Hovesber 19. 1990,
No srgnlflcant fopact: I negatr •• decl.rltlon has
been prepared Ind i. Ittached to this report.
The front 17S feet Df t~ls parcel II zoned Servlc. Coomercl.l (CS) .It~ the
re.r portion zoned RM·30. The .pplfclnt Is propOSing a .i.ed v •• project with
• two· story office building located on the C5 portion .f the site on £1 C •• ino
PCSR39aI/W Plge l
•
.'
.'1'J
-
._-_ ....... ---.---_.-----
Re.l .~ three-story cDndo.fnfua restdences arrAnged around & courtYlrd on the
rur l1li-30 portion of th. sit •.
Tbt re.ldontl.l unit. are In t~rt. buildings arra"ge~ In aU-shape f.rolng a
c..tr.l COUTtYlrd. T~ ground floor unit. ar. one-bedroom flit •• Outdoor
co •• rod .tllrwoys laad to the two-bed room-stacked units on the s.cond and
third floors. Th. g ........ d floor units hue front and back patios, Ind tho
second floor unit. hive front and back blleo.les_ Th. front patio. and
balconl.s oyorlook thl c.ntrll courtyard, which ..... s IS a front ontry gardo,
to be shared by III the .. sld.nts. T~. ~eslgn of the eourtyord fs somewh.t
fo ... l and while It will be heaylly pllnted to soften the sp.c., the sfze of
t .. es will be 11.lted by the loeatlon ov.r the p.rklng gar.ge_ By contrast,
the perlDOter of the site at the b.cks of the b"lldlngs wfll be pllnted Mor.
lnfo ... lly wlt~ l.r~tr tnees to provide a green zone .round the resIdences ,nd
buffer Ylews both Int~ Ind out of the sit.. Thirteen .xlstln9 tree, I. this
pe,'mete. lrei ••• being .. tllned, InclUding I 47-lnch dla .. t.r Volloy Oak
loelted nel' the south.a,t Co.ner of the sit ••
"The utwrflrr ~Il$ -' tile ",1*"t1.1 ""11dlngs ue ......s sfllnv'. with
colored .. tl' chl ... y. and patiO rl.llngs for lccent. Th. resldentlll
buildings hlv. flat roofs, but on the courtyard .Ide of the buildings .oulted
roofs partlilly coYor the front potios and deck.. Th. office building is
seol-t.an'plront glass behind a wood-shlngl. frlmework and colored met.l
sunscreens for accent_ A cylindrical fono It the south corner of the building
provide. the venting syst .. for the underground go,"ge. A conicil roof COY'rs
the elrcullr entry to the offices.
Drlvoway access rro. El Camino at the north edge of the site ,.r.es both the
office building and the rosid.nce,. A clreul.r parking court Idjicont to the
office building proyld., at-grod. gu.st p.rking Ind handicap porking for both
uses. A decorltlYe scre.n .all Ind landsclp.d edg. It the clrcullr parking
lrel separate the public coomerelll I •• a from the pri,"te resident III
eourtYlrd. The drl.eway continues along tn. north side of the property p.st
the surflee plrtlng court to the Intr.nce to the underground porking gorage.
The parking glroge extends under both the resldenc •• Ind the office bUilding
and fncludes 43 coomercial spices "nd 66 resldentlll spaces. Ther. Is a"
elo.ltor from the garoge to the ecmoercial building Ind two stairwell, provide
acce •• from the glrlge to the residentla' courtyard Ibo.e. Th. hindi cop
parking for the offlc. building fs loeoted in the g.rage. Two coy.red
hindi cap spoces will be pro.ided f. the surface porking court for the
resldentlll units.
A 20-foot-wlde corridor Is being proYlded along the south side of tho prop.rty
adjlcent to the Dry Creek channel_ This will bo used (or fire Ind emergency
aece.s_ This spice will be plrtl.lly poyod with low ground coyer alt.rnoting
with plYing .. terlal to proylde 0'1 ... ther Iccess and at the some time 0
s_l-green zone which Cln be used for p1oy. A narrow bridge will .pon the
creek channel connectfng t~is corridor with an existing atee55 .alenent to
Wilkie Woy. The brldg. will be Iccesslbl. onl1 fo. p.de.trlon., blcyol.s .nd
plraaedie vehlcl •• , but not for lut..obil.s_
Storlg< for indlrldual units Is being provid.d both In the glrage and adjocent
to the potlos of loch .nlt_ BIcycle stor'ge for all units will be loelted .t
the plaza '.yel near front Ind rear p.tio,_ Bot~ the trlsh dumpster Ind i
specll' spice for recyclables .re loclted in the b,sement n •• r the centrol
stlirwe11.
PCSR39BI/W Poge 3
hs" ..
[!lmn!:! Access Bridge
Tho proposed brIdge OVlr the Dry Creek ch,nnel Is required by the fire
DeplrtBent for plraoedic vehlcl. Icce... fire trucks will .nter and le.ve the
20·'oot-wld. corridor along tht crltk from [1 C .. fno Real and will ffght fires
fro. thfs .paCI, IS they cannot drlv. onto the Intorlor plaz.. Plramedlc
v.hfcl.s, unllk. the fire trucks, au.t bt abl. to l •• v. '" well I. Inter the
.Itt quickly. The bridge acro$S the croek will allow plrl1l>e<Jic ,'ehlele. to
get I.to and out of the sit. wIthout d.llYs clused by turnin~ and maneuvering.
The bridge will .lso provIde a pedestrlan/blcycle link btt.e.n the ne.
residences and the existing residential neighborhood to the east Ind with the
.elghorhood coaoercl.l center on the [1 C .. lno WlY Islond.
The pedstrlan bridge connects wIth Wlltle Wly through an existing 12-foot·wld.
Sonih Clara ,.11eJo !later lHstr1ct au t. 1Ioc! ~tM IHdria lou oJP9f"O"'"
the amcept at tile IIrldge and access tllnlugll tb. eas...-rrt. ".. design of tll<!
bridge will be Ipproved both by the ARB and the ~Iter District. The 20·foot
.ecess corridor and the bridge art far the pr~vlte use of t~e condomf~f~
resident. On11. The entrlnc •• to the corridor at El Camino Roal and at the
brlag ..... t be desfgned with plantfng, Sign., etc., to clelrly Indlclte I
prlv.t •• rea and discourage tressplsslng, Whfle still allowin; unimp.ded
.cces. by fire truck, In6 other emergency v.~fcl.s. The Fire DlplrtMOnt will
not allow removable bollards to be used becaus. of the del.y th.y would C'USe
In responding to .n emergency.
Selow Mark.t Rate Units
four BHR units will be provided. Two ground I.vel one·bedroom units will .ell
for S73.100 .Ich and two stlcked flat. with two bedroom, will solI for S90,500
uch.
~.tentlon and Replacement of E.lstfng Trees
Ther. ar. apprOXimately 40 e.lstl"g tree. on the .It.. Hlny of them .re In
poor condition or ar. In Insignificant .fze and sp.cles. Thlrte.n of the
e'istlng trees Ire being retained, Whfch Includes all but one of the
slgnlflclnt tr.es on the site. On. lS·lnch Volley Oak In fllr'poor condition
will be removed. This tree Is loclted tow.n! the .16dl. of the site Ind the
tlty Arborlst has detennlned thlt the serious design constrllnt. Which would
result from saving the tr •• Ire not justified, considering it. weak.ned
condition .nd poor prognosl. for survlvfng the impacts of con,tructlon. A
C7-lnch Vllley O.k loclt.d n.lr the southelst corn.r of the site and two
saaller olk' are among the trees being ret.fned.
The underground 9lr.ge I. set blck Ipproxlaat.ly 25 feet froo the property
line, l.aving ,ufflclent .oil vol ... It the perf .. ter of the .ft. to sustain
large trees. The final landsc.pe pl.n, whfch will be reviewed by the ARB,
should Include I .iolmum of .f. ne ... dium-large sl.o c.nopy tree. Inth.
perlMOter lrel to mitigate the lo.s of the Valley Oak and other tr.... It
11.0 should Include I plln for protecting the existing tree. t. be r.tline~.
PCSRJ 9S l/VII Page C
-.-.,-
,
Va~iane. to Site Deve'opoent Regu,"trons
lb. lonlng ordinance requl~s .Ixed use proJocts to coaply with the sit.
de •• lopment regulltions of the .ppllclbl. ~sld."trl' lone. The ~qulred
frent •• tbICk for AM·3D d ••• lopment. on In Irt.Ti.l .treet Is 25 f.et. The
proposed 6·foot front .etblck, whfc~ Is .. r. consfst.nt with the •• !stlng
c_rcfll de,elopaent p.tU." "'ong [1 C..,lno Rea', will .equl" I ,"riance.
RECDIVI ElIDA! I 011
St.ff ~eeoomends thlt the Planning Comml,slon recoomend thlt the City Council
appro •• the project end adopt the negatl.o declarltlon of no slgnlflclnt
en.lronmentll f~lct and Ip~ro.e the project, subject to the findings and
conditions listed below.
FINDINGS
J. ". 1I'I'I'I'Osed l'MI~ct is vn!erly, ~1""",,1ous nd compatlbl. with .~joj"lng
uses, 1~ thrt the site plln is .rr.nged so thit the commercl'l building
is located next to El Camino Rell, the reSidential units Iro loelted It
the reir of the sit. nelr other resldentill .ses Ind buffered from El
C •• ino Real, the clrculltlon Is sife Ind orderly Ind Ittrlcti.e, useful
outdoor SpIC'S Ire being pro.lded.
2. The project will .nsu~ the desirability of Investment and the conduct of
authorized oecupltlons. In that the building stock Is being Impro.e~ Ind
the site DDr' Intensively used Ind the new buildings will result in In
Impro.ement In the generll IppelTlnoe of thi, portion of El C.~ino Real.
3. Sound principles of .nvlronment.l d.sign Ind ecologicil b.lance Ire bein;
obseryed. I. thlt IS .. ny IS pos,ibl. (13) of the "i5tln9 trees Ire
being retllned Ind the underground glrlge Is set b.ok Ipproxl.ately 25
feet from the property line, proylding sufficient soil .olum. to sustlin
~aximum grDWth of a .~nfmum Df six new aedium~llrge size tree.~ Trees
are Ilso being plar.ted to shde the Intorlor courtYlrd. Bicycle parking
conveniently loclted Dn th! pllz. level and the provision Df I pedestrian
bridge Icross the creek c~ann.l should .ncourlg. wIlkln9 lnd bicycling.
(. The us. Is consistent with the uses deslgn.ted In the Comprehenslye Plan
for this .It.. The project Is in IccOrd with Pellcy 5 of the Housing
Element In proyidlng a mi. of resldentill uses In I commerclll Irel, and
with Policy 6 of the ijrban Ceslgn Element to upgrlde EI C •• lno Rell. It
supports Policies 8 Ind 12 of the Transportlon Element to discourage
lutomoblle us. Ind encourlge bicycle use by making bioltle use
conYenient. Ind by the proxi_lty to public transportltlon.
COIID IT! OHS
I. T~ Ippllcant shill obtlln I .arllnee for front setblck for the -
commercial building from the Laning administrator.
2. The applltlnt shill Impl~nt the follOWing sound control .itig.t;~n
Deasures to lehle •• campli,nce with the Polo Alto Comprehensi,e Plan and
Title 24 stlnd,rds:
I'tSR39SI/VW Pig. 5
, ,
•
•
(xi.rlor Resfdentlll Arel Nol •• Co.trols to A,hle.e 65 dBA
Rolr ,.tlos Ind dects within 195 feet of t~ we.t property II •• a.d
.IYf., I direct Or .Ide vltv of [1 C .. lno Roll, co.struct
i-foot-.Igh IcoustlCll ,.tlo f.nc.s Ind 36· Inch-high solid dec,
rllll.,s. 'otlos Ind decks flclng onto the fnt.rlor pl0Zl or.o
will not require noise cD.trols, due to thl shielding proyldod by
the pll.ned bulldl., orrl.,.-..t.
T~ rl~ to the underground Vlrog. Ihlll be f.ced with Icoustlc.l
.. tothl to reduce the .oht 1"'I>Ict on residential u"lts over Ind
Mlr tilt rllll>.
l.t.rlor Reslde.tl.l NoI.e Controls to Achle.e 40 dBA
Within 195 f.et 0' [1 C .. lno Re.l. o.e of the following mltl,.tl0.'
shill be reqUired:
L ' 4 Ii oed .".... Qlllrtnlrt t.... "'II!I $""'. ,..... "!If I,.. -1ftC!\ gllss ~roYldlng STC-3! rltlng or hlgher_ This .ss~s windows
will be ,ept closed at III tlDOS end that Me,honicil
Yentllotlon will be proylded.
b. Roqul'ed window construction using 0 pref,brlcot.d leoustl,ol
wIndow providing STC-$4 rltlng or higher. With this
.lte .. otl •• , windows moy be kept open up to 50 percent 0' the
tl .. 'or "Iturol ye.tll.tfo. Ind DO,h,"lcol ye.tllotlon fs not
required.
Further tho. 195 feet to £1 Casino .eol, one of tho follOWing
.Itlgotlo.s sh.ll be required:
a. Requi.ed window construction usfng 0 .Ingl. pine of 1/4-lnch
glass proyldlng 5TC-28 rating or blgher. ThiS assume. windows
will be kept closed at all times and that .. ch.nfca'
ventllatfon will be p;-Oifded.
b. Required window constructIon ulfng 0 prefobricoted acoustic.l
window providing 5TC-46 ratl'g or higher. With this
alternotlve, wfndows m.y be kept ope. up to 50 percent of the
tf .. '.r nat".ol Yentilitfon and Me,hanicil ventilation I. not
req"lred.
T~ window. of t~ resldentlol unit. thlt or. speclffed to be
.. Inta!ned closed at all tl .. s 'or nofs. control ore to be
operlble, as the requlremlnt do ••• ot Imply 0 ffxed condfti.n.
Unfts hlying the closed wfndow c.ndition should be provfded with
so.. form 0' "c~.lnICll •• nllllllon to ISsur. I habiloble
enyfr .... nt. as specffled by the Uniform Building Code (UBt).
To _Itlilte the loss of the Ilrge Valley 00\ and other t .... , the
Ipplicant shall plant a .Inlmum of Ilx IS-goll.n .. diua-Iorge Ilze clnopy
troe. In the land,clped perimeter of the .fte where soil .olome Is
adequate to sustolo .. xi ... tree ~rowth.
•
[
---'-"~'--.. "' •.
4. Th. de.lgn of tho proJe<t '~Ill be .. viewed ond a~prov.d by the ARB, with
plrtleullr lttontlon to tho .pocla1 r.qul .... nts for olol.lllng Impact.
of e .... rclll bUildings On re.ld.ntl.l US." the doslgn of tho pedestrian
bridge, entrances to the sit. from £1 Caolno Rell Ind at the bridge, the
plvlng t .. atat.t, and pllntlng 10 the corridor .long tho creek channel.
S. The pedestrlln bridge Ind accpss to It shall be approved by the Fire
o.plrtaent Ind by the Sinta Cllra WIll.y Wat.r District.
6. The .ppllcant shill obtain an encroachatnt permit froo CalTrlns for any
work Dr construction activity In the public right of WlY.
7. The Ippllclnt shall provld. four 8KR unlt'l t.o Dn"bedroom Units for
$7),100 .Ich, and two t.o-bedroom units for 190,500 ,"ch.
ATTACHKENTS --INCLUDED PR V OUS TO THIS REPORT
P1 ..... &wlr~ \al;~~~~;;~~~~~~~~~~~~ Locltlon !lap
Minutes of the Architect" .. l 1! • n • Aprll 5. Ina
"inutes of the Archl v;e. Board .... tlng. 1990
c TO
Th. Steinberg Group
PCSRl981/Yl1 Pig. 7
I
I
!
I
I ,
!
£xCt~ PLANNI~G C~IS5ION ~INUTES
OF OCTO!£R 10. 1990
AGENDA !l£1! ~ ]9SI El CAMINO REAL: Appl1,"tior. for I ~ajcr sit. and
61.190 for ~ ei •• d use project with 38 re.identi,l
condominium units and , IO,300-square foot commercial
building gwer undtrground plr~in9. Environment"
AJ ...... nt: No significant l~p.tt. weT' determined to
ID/10/90
-2-
'-
re£~lt fro. t~e ,roject. Ind I 'negative decllrat10M has be,. pr,p.reG. fil. Nos. 90-[I~·lO, 90-0-09, 90·ARB-S7.
lon, District RM-lO, (S.
tbafrlfn ~ar$h: J would lfke to review the reason why this item has come
to the plln~ing COMmission, Ind the kinds of things we shou1d be loo~'~g
for tonfght~ Site and de51;n ~IS bistcriclll) been used by the plln~)ng
coaml15ion and efty co~nc;l IS it Ipplles to hillside properties that are
cDnsidered to be environmental', sensftive. Typicilly. I ~itf and deslgn
review tol' been elt~er of t~. industrial Ire. thlt is west of Foothill
Expressway or of the hi11Jide residential arels that are ,1so in that
direction, Ab~ut twa Y~lrs IgO, howe~er. when we did the Citywide Study,
we applied Site and design re~iew to .ired use projects in the El Cimino
Real Irea. Our function on these kinds of projects, however, is rather
different than on t~e site and design review that we ~Ive done on the
hi1lslde arels. Since this is. I believe, the first of t~ese k;n~s of
applitatfons to came before U5, It "1 help t~ review what it is ~e ire
looking at.
111 tile "i11sides. sltt! and desill" CllJlSirts. t. 1-. PArt, !If
architectural issues, because t~e architectvra1 issues Irt ~r;~ in t~t
~ai that those building applications relate to tne surrounding
environment. When we ire looking It ~;xed use prcjects on £l Camino Real.
J feel we are tOOkl~9 It I different set of issues. We are looking at
access issues Ind at the way in ~i,h the different kinds of ~ses relate
to elch ct~er. Also~ at the wlY fn which those mixed uses rellte to the
surro~nding properties and the envlro~ment i" which the~ are set o~ [1
Camino Rea'~ When we get fnto this tDnfght, we may find that there are
architectural issues that are still outstanding or that ~ave ~ot been
reviewed by t~. Architectural Review Soard (~RB). I don't thinK that
should stop ~s in our site and design review. kn~wing that the ARB will
later tlke those O~. Ratner. J thin~ we really want to focus on the
issues that Ire specific to I mixed use proje{t fn the [1 Cimino arei.
Are there any questions?
Commission,r Hirsc~: I have a qUfstion regarding the den~ity
ca1culations, particularly with reSpf{t to the numter of ~nits Illowed and
propose-d. J think t~ose ulcuhtfons are on Pige 3 of thE" dra""ngs. As I
understind it, Sn determining the commercii' square footage. one locks to
the CS portion of tne site an~ then multiplies by the app~opriite FAR
factor. fl that correct?
Ms. ",,..",it: Yes~ it is.
[gmmj$sioncr Hir5ch: When one looks to the reSidential portien an~ the
number of units proposed, does one look to the entire Site Dr just to the
RH-30 portion?
Ms. Warh.;!: The density for the resi~entiil is that allowed in the RM·30
portIon pl"s Illowed RH-30 den,ity on the CS portion, not to e.,eed •
floor arel rltlo of one for the ~ol. ,ite. It is intended to b.
additive. It 1s In incenthre to p~o¥ide housing.
(omml.sioner ~irsth: So on t~. CS portion, you get both the re.ld.nti.l
according to the current rfgulltionl Ind, IS i Incfnt1¥t. yc~ get the
RM a 30. whlc~ I take It is the corresponding. underlying re~ident;ll lc~e
-.. ~~:~~, '
10/10/90
-3-
•
t"
·'
-----,,-.. ------------~
torrespond!n; to tho CS.
Ms. WJrhfit: That is correct.
[p!m1ssioner Hjrsc~: Sa lOU get both. On one portion, yDu get
residential plu$ c~r(iil.
Ms. WI~hett: On the CS pertion, you vtt both t~e commercial and thf
residentlol.
Cpmmfssioner Hirsch: A~d th~st numbers ~'ve been scrutinized and verified
IS being approprilt.?
Ms. Warheit: They hive betn very cir~ful1y scrutinized, and the plans
... sured 191;"5t the square fDotag! .1lowed. We fDund that the origir.al
plans were over the l'lD~ed floor arel t and the architects k!nt ~ack and
r!drew the plans, including c~anging the floor plans aver the issue of
just I few t~ousand square feet on the entire site. We feel ft is Quite
~te_
C~ii~j~ !ats~; 1 .nl1 now vpen t~e public hearing.
~rt Steinberg. 1130 Bryant Strfrt. Palo Altp; I am representfng tnt
applicant tonight. We are pleased to be here tonight. As you ir~ well
aware, this is not the first step in the process. We have had two
~etfng5 ~ith the Architectural ReYi!~ BOird, and received quite a bit of
en,ourag~nt from them regarding the delign of the project. We wrote to
i fiumber of homeowner organilations and tried to hive i public ~eting to
solicit l~formation and snare ideas regarding the design. At that
meeting, we had no attend!es, which is I first in my experience in Palo
Alto. So I hope that we will .150 hive your support this evening.
I wD~ld like to take I couple of ~i~~tes to lalk .bout the land ~se and
compatibility with Idjate~ct!s. Here is o~r site {indicating a model).
Adjacent to us we nave In exjsti~g hoLel, a schogl site to the rear~ tne
water channel, and t~er! is commercial across the street. My
understandih~ is that there is In applic~tion for adjustment to the
ho~sing on Jacobs Cc~rt on t~e ather side of the ~ater channel. O~e of
the t~ings that is unique in Palo Alto is that setbaCKS are ~!asured (rom
the outSide or blck of the easement, so ~e have quite a subst~ntial
setback to the adjacent housing I~ross the creek.
One of the first things we did ofter meeting .ith the ARe was to try ond
look ot 01temati.e woys of de.eloping the s,te. I would like to shore
with you the four .lternatfves that we co~sfdered to give you a sense of
how our de'ign e.olved. The first solution that we locked at had the
cgamereial to the front of the site, had an entrance about midway between
t~e property lines of tne site. with 'ccess .long the water channEl, and
housing to the rear of the site. One of the reasons we rejected t~i5
plan~ 11t~ough we liked coming in Ind having the focus In~ the crescent of
the comoertl01 I, thot the tity hid. guideline thlt they would like to
see the retail pushed up, with very little setback, and holding I street
edge along £1 Caaino. FDr t~at reason, the notion of commercial pushed
back was rejetted.
Tn~ seco~d alternative tnat we looked at tried to respond to that, and
10/10/SO
·4·
\
.' , ,
•
, .
pushtd the coamereia' rfght up to [\ Cimino, so t~it ~ r~fnfOTCtd the
street will. rt hid an Iccess alang t~e water channel and J thought ~t
could S~ire that visual open space and have the residential wrlpping
around behind. Aglin, like the first plln, t~at gave us some buffer La
the hous'fti, .ov1ng it awly from the activity and f~tens;ty of E1 Camino.
That hid SODe pos~fbil1t1. with I shared motor court tn.t could ha~e
Iccess both to t~e commercill building, IS well 15 to tne residential.
When we rtvie.ed this with tht transportation I~d traffic depart~nts,
t~.y f.ll yery strongly I~.t lcces, so clos. to Ihe fnte.section of £1
Cimino Wa, and £1 Camino Rell was I problem. for tnat rflson, we went to
I t~frd IltematlYe, Whfch ag.in. hid the commercf., bu;1~ing pushed up
close to reinforce the street Will. had I s~~red motor cau,t. in this
CIS', IS far Iway from tk! El (amlna VIY 1nt~rsection as we could? with
the housing behind. We ~ad In emergency Iccess t~it wrlpped around a~d
took Idvantage of the bridge ever the water channel for emerg!ncy Iccess.
Oro. of the thing. we found, fn reviewfng that with the fire departmont,
was t~at they felt this access was very circuitous, and they were not in
fi.or of that.
So WI! ~n'oJ>Od Ue fourt~ .'t.r ... t"~ thrt we felt was gotti119 clDse, .nd
clDser to satisfiing all Df these need5~ We ha~ the commercia' I'~ng t~e
street; we ~ad an emergency access .long the creek that would a1Tow
emergency vehicles to tome in acr?ss the bridge Ind exit out; we hid i
shared motor court that give access to the commercial and to the ~ousing,
w1t~ the housing behind. Th! housing was Igain broken into three
buildings wit~ a breaK to tlke advantage of I major oak tree en the site.
So this is the plan that evolved. t~rough a series of ~eetings an~ re~iew
wft~ the dffferent city departments.
This is I sketch that s~ows our entrance .eved away from [1 Camino Wai.
We hive our commtrcial building out on the corner. relating to the 5tre~t
and reinforcing the retail street wall. We ~aye a s~ared ~otor court that
allows people to have s~ort~t,rm par~ing and Iccess the office building,
short·term parking for the housing. ar to continue on underneit~, .here
there is parking u"der the entire complex. One of the desfgn issues. ;~
deyeloping a .ixed use site like this which is flirl] long and narrow, is
two~fold. How do you buffer the resid!ntial from the intensity ~f El
tamino, which may not be the .~st residential place to liye, and at t~e
same time, with I fairly narTOW window to the street? How do you let
people know that there is hcUSin9 behind? f~r that reaser., we ha¥e tried
to use ~terials that were similar en both the office building an~ on the
residential that changed In proportion. that used a shared motor court.
that wo~ld allow people to understand tkat it was a mixed use develop~ent
with. retlil and. commer,fal in front, Ind hou.ing .t the r.ar.
ene other brief thing 1 would like to ~oint out f. that we have two types
of open space on the project. perhlps I little different from what you
.ight typically expect in I resident'a1 dey~lopment of t~ls type~ What we
haye done on the pll,a Irea f. to open .11 of tho publit rooms --the
lt~ing ~s, the di~fng rooms, tke .ore public rooms in your heme ~~ so
that peep'! would have the opportunity to develap I sense of community and
interact with one another. as compared to hlying bedrooms and bathrooms
wit~ clesed curtains and ne~er getting I chance to know 10ur neighbors.
W. wonted to reverse that. 50 that we would treat. the notion Df •
communit1~ On the outside, where we hive fairly generous setbicks that
Ire not under the pJriing Sirige, w! envision taking advantige of
10/10/90
-So
•
[
-
ntl1!11ing quite a number of existing trtes and Idd'n.9 Idditlonil tren,
ind ha~t"g t~e bedrooms and the blthrooms. an.d the .ore prlyate rooms,
t~at would relate out in a ~re private fashion. So it is .. little
different than we would typically do. T~it is In c~lryi~. of l~e
ph nrdn 9·
Cpmmf$$fqncr Hfr$,h: R~glrding th! llrg! Oit tree that apparently ~;1' be
lost i!ll t~ process, were there Iny plans thlt were looktd at thlt wo~'d
att~t to Sive t~lt tr .. ?
Mr. Sttlnberg: In the vtry tarly stlges of the deSign, w ••• t with the
city arborist and reviewed the conditions of the trees. The ;nfO~ition
we were given It t~.t time reglrding the tree In question Is that the
condit~on of t~at tree was _Irq;na', I~d the impact of tryin.9 to develop
arovnd it was not encourAging. So for that relson, we did not try to save
that particular one. The most mljor tree O~ th~ site ;s t~is one here,
and we havt tried to work around that ~er1 ,aref~111 with a parking
garage, not onll to develop an access ;~ this direcliQn IS people ~nter
tbe ..,test"-aourtJ3'1l'. lout· ...... ~ .tt_,,,,, 14> M."llj> ~ ~rjlen'Ecu1ar
ar.ces. t~a' vill Dlt. "at I ~.tvre on tbe sit ••
Commls$foner Hirs,h: ! hive I questfon regarding t~e design concept. It
is what J call the water tower or c~ateiu d'eau effect from the corner
element facing E1 Clsino. ~y is tkat necessary?
Mr. Steinb'~9: It is nDt absolutely necessary. It is part of our design,
and one of the .ast difficult thfngs in architecture is deaiir.g with
fnttr5ectl~ns, particularly with th~ corners of buildings or corners of
streets. Corners are typically a more diffic~lt element to reconcile than
l1nElr desfgn elements. Ther~ are many ways to handle the corner of t~e
building. One of the most common ways 1$ to hive glass meet at the corner
and have a sense of a VOid. We felt, in this particu1ar interse~lion.
because we hive four streets coming together i~ I somewhat unusual
configuration, and t~e intensit, of that. that to ~aye I glass corner
pushing out to the intersection. might not be the most d!sirable solution.
a1beit a common one. A second thought we had was to de~elDp I piece of
sculpture, freestanding frOil the-build'ng~ We considered' ttlat quite a
bil, but because of t~e acc~ss along tnt cretk. w! found th.t there really
ViS not I good locltion to do t~it. We kept thinking that that corner
needed in same way to be anchored with I solid element. So we be;an to
deyelop that nation that turned the corner of the office building and
allowed the shingled sun screen that is projected out from the building to
die into it, to fo~ a clean int~rse'tion, .nd could be I somewhat uniQue
anod very clean architectural element thlt brought together a variety cf
different objectives that we hid for the project.
w. then looked It thlt • little further, and realized that we needed to
exbaust afr from t~e parking glrlg!. In mixed use projects, ideally you
wDuld like to exhl~st that as fir Iway frem the reside~ces as possible.
So we Ilso d.velaped that Into I functional elemont that would ""OW us to
exhaust the parking glrog.. The mort we thought about it and the fact
that ;t h.d soae scu1pturl1 elements, Ind it Illowed us to turn tnt corner
qultt grleef.ll" and it hid some 'unetional elements that n.oded to be
addressed, the more thlt Ippealed to us. That is the reason for
developing t~at corner in thlt ~anner.
10}10}90
-6-
•
.. :.
-.. ..::. .... "
~ " L ~ •
------------~---
J 'OImf"'oncr Cbrfst.nSfn: Is the rest of the frontlge glass?
Me Steinberg: There Irt two Pitts ta the frontage. The t.11er 'leme~t
that you sel! h, the IIOdel is 91UI. Tne th .. nt in front of it witn H.e
'rche. is shlngl.. 'I f. d.log ,evero' thln9" One is th.t tn, shingle,
fn our opinion. $1 the element t~it the hOU5i~g behind ;s Clid i~. S~ it
tells people who PISS that there is something els! happening on t~e Site.
and t~at t~ere is I. aore resident ill chltacter. It is also pro~idin9 sun
control by shldowlng on the offic. building.
Chlirman Marsh: Would you discuss the treitment of the emergency .,cess
next tD the creek?
Mr. Strfnb~rg; There is I. r'Quir~ easement to gain iccess to t~e ,ree~.
It 1150 is " requirement for eRr;enc,. vehicles to serve the project.
There Ice two types of emergency yehicles of which we have been informed
that need to be addressed. One 15 ~n tlse of fire and ene is for
emergency ~ic .. l ISs\stance~ The fire department (eels Yi!ry comfor"tab1f
taat ~ cowld ~0Ie fA the F~. b~ci in here. turn around Ind exit out.
But ~rentl! tb. ",",,' .€Ii'" _,Ii cal wrv;tes an ff ... -t...,11il1 tM;" .kills
arId needs. and flllv! IlSete".;:nI!d t~at to tlIVt! tD lid.! .. b1tkup 1PIOWt!'!l!fl:t ar,d
returtl in the opposite direction is time-consuming. From their 'POint of
yre •• _e have t~lt Iccess that would continue along and allow them to go
over the brfdge and e~it through the site~ The fire departme~t and the
emergency SeryiCfS feel they de not wa~t t~ have g!tes. as it would
encumber their speed of response. At the same time. t~ei 11 so reQuire a
certain amount of paving so they can see I clearcut place f~r them to
drive their equipment on and not have to guess in an emergen',. Our
intent, It tnis t~me, is tD landscape that in I way that discourages
publf( Iccess thro~gh the site. We tho~ght t~at it was inappropriate for
iI s1llall number Df homeowners to (ury the lilbilHy and responsibility of
I publ;c ttlDro~ghfart through their property. So alt~ough we cannot have
fences and gites, but through landscaping. it would be our i~ter.t to not
encourage pub1ic access through there. There 1150 bls been a suggestion
from the ARB ~en we ~t with them that it would be desirable to take
advantage of this open space and have it iI reasonably act~ve outdoor ~lay
Irei for the residents. The preCise landscape design has not yet been
determined. but we ~c not intend this to become a public access route
t~ro"gh tnes. peopl.'s book yords. S .... of those design specif"s .ill
~aye to be worked out with the fire department. Another alternative.
although it WIS not the Ipplicint's first choice. would be that if tnere
needed to be public access throu;~ ther., that that lind responsibility
and liibility issues be gi~tn over to s~one ~lse~ We have dealt ~ith
that f~ other projects in Palo Alto where, for rxample~ at the Hoover
School site, there was Iccess from Middlefield to the plr~ be~ind. and
th;t land was dreded over to the city. They accepted mai~tenance and the
responsibility of that. That is Incther possibility. but the first ,noice
WI. to try .nd r~tll. thlt land for tn. residents.
Commi$$igner [hr\st'n5,n~ ~as there been any discussion IbQut providing
access through tc the school yard? Has the schoc1 district been
appr.lched Ibout tn.t?
Mr~ Stef,.berc: ~e have dHcuSSed it, In~ frankly, we hne not pursued
thlt ta I conclusion IS yet. So w! are optn to sU9gestions in that
regard.
IO/IO/gO
-7-
,
.'
•
I
-
~~~----~~~ .. --~.----------------------------
,
-~---"",''''''''''""'...,;.
Bob Me'S, 4010 QO!C, ,,10 ~lto: I was inttrested to hear that the
neighborhood &5Soc1ltion5 hid been Invited to • meetin9~ beclu~t I never
re~lived any. nor do I know Inyone e15t in t~t B.~ron Park ASSO(iltlon who
received Inl~ We certainly would hiye attended one.
I hive I nUiber ~f problems witn this proposal. The first one is the
concept of a two-sto~¥ office bu;lding an [1 CaminD Real. [1 CimIno Real
I. supposed to be I r.tol1 zone. I thought that When .e .ent through four
years of t~e Citywide Lind Use and Transportation Study t~lt w! included a
11.lt of 5,000 SQuire f •• t on any CH Dr CS porcels ThiS Is obviously not
in compltlnce with that. J would certainly be strong,y opposed to In
office use on [1 Cam§no Real Ind no retail. If they wish to limit the use
to 5.000 squlre feet on t~e second floor for office only. with retail on
t~e f~rst 'loor. 1 would ~aye no objection. But] ~ould 11ke to see a
cono:ition of approval that we have retail on this site.
Secondly, I ""ve some re.l problem. with the traffic. I" the
eDIi ....... ttl i~ct report ,IJii. tbe~ lend to br".h tr.ffic oside by
nyill9, "" studied it during the tit,wjde Land Us, ind Tran,portltiDn
Study, Ind th,s is not going to have I sigT,; ricant imp2llct Dn Area 6. That
depends on how you read Area 6. If you ta1k about t"e number ef extra
·cars on [1 Camino Real w~icn carries perhaps 3S.000 cars per day in this
arel, that is one tning. But if you Ire talkin~ about the impact on this
specific intersection and the ~ignificant (hange in traffic movement which
will be engendered b~ a project su(~ as this, that is something else. for
example, right now, we have a motel use. Mote1s tend not to have traffic
during peak trlffic ~ours. Residential and office uses, in particular,
do. Anybody who wants to ent~r that site, heading $out~ on [1 Camino
Real. will have to go into the left turD bay at E1 Cimino Way? make a
sharp U~turn and cross over to the driveway which is Ibout 7S or eo feet
from ~ere tke traffIc light lS, going across three traffiC lanes in order
to get into t~e Site. Anybody who _ishes tD lelve t~e site. i~cTuding the
38 reSidences, wishing to go south, will have to cress tnree lanes of
traffic and go north to the next traffiC light It C~rtner~ make i U·turn
and bead sout~. As I think you know, the place where you get into trouble
and ~ave accident5 and fatalities is crossing motions across lanes of
traffic, and motions at traffic signals, especially U~turns. Another
thing t~lt ought to be noted is t~it t~at is one of the more dangerous
intersections in tne (ity. People rr;uhrly run thollt red light. nose of
ijS who cross £1 Camino Rea1 have learned thit wnen the light turns 9reen,
you do not proceed immediately. You stop and check the traffic. I have
had cars, trucks ind even busses run th! intersection it 35 and 40 miles
an hour I good four or five seconds after the light hiS turned green to
cross El C ... ino ROIl.
Any Idditlonal trlffie is going to cr •• t. probl.ms. 00 P.g. 5 of the EIA,
under 121 Traffic, -The generation of substantial additiona' vehicular
.. vement· ~.s been checked 'No.' It shoul~ be ot le •• t "Majbe" and
perhaps -Yes,-because you are going to hawe core traffit going into a
site which lS Dccupied by housing and rEtail or by retail Ind office tnan
you Ire by 0 mot.}. Th. same go.s for 12(. Tner. will be I lignificant
iaplct on traffic circu1.tion. for the reasons I have just described, and
22D, there w11l, ill fact t be I significant incruse in traffic tlaurds,
because people are going tD be crossing three lanes of traffic either to
gD intD the Site or to leiwe the Site Ind go southbound.
10/10/90
·8·
\
" ,
-
In teras of the density on t~e site, r t~i~k it is excessive. Puttin9 38
units 1ft there crowds thf sfte and j~st .~acerbltes the traffiC problem.
I hlYI the sa.e reactiDn that Commissioner Hirsch did to the ·steamboat
funnel· O~ the corner of the building. Jt reminds he I Tot of the old
l~~tryes t~at you hIve seen 1n t~~ westerns. [gutS! tne building is
going to tlke off One or these days. Tnert is another project dOwn the
st~t t~lt will tepT.ce th. Ca~o CTub. The origin.l design looked .ery
.. ch like I st.lmshlp.
I hl.e I question for stiff. HOW till is the funnel? If it exceeds the
heIght llelt, It should be chopped down. I would like t. see i\ slimmer
and not quite so obtrusl.e. In sum.ty, I think thlt • project like this
,hould e~h.size tetail, not offices. I should comment th.t the city
recently adopted & requirement for I fiscal 1mpi~t rep~rt on projects.
This ane seems like I naturAl. This yould replace I motel. As you kno~ •
• motel is I ver, high revenue·generat;ng US! per sQuare foot in the City.
beciuse of the )0 per,ent transient occupancy tax. If office use goes in
-.. ..... tet zlf HI U"'"' .. [ ... les UJr t.,.nue. ~e will have costs to
~11te and fi~ and ,.bl1c worts to ~;nt.iR tbe .Ite. ¥t will ~IV' costs
ta .ervice the TI5ident1, and we would ~aye an increase in the prDperty
tox Vll ue for the project. I would lfl<e to se •• 11 of that studied and
balanced off. vnat will be the net cost or net benefit t. the city for
replacing a use like I motel wit~ i use like this? J opposed the city's
g~1ng throug~ these financial impact reports ~hen it came before the
ccu~e~l, but since the counCil hiS seen fit tc require jt, I t~ink we
should go with it. Thank you.
(~I'rmtn MiT$b: Bob hiS raised a very good quesLion regarding the
10,000 square feet fn office buildings. How does that relate to the
5,000 square-foot limit we have diseussed in the past?
Ms. Warheit: An excess to the 5,000 square feet can be granted with i
conditional use permit. They hive not yet app1ied for a conditional ~se
permit, b~t throughout the entfre review of this project, the zoning
Idmin~5trator has been intimately connected with the development of t~~
project. She wo~ld not have encourige~ the~ to proceed if she ~ad ~ot
believed that it was. justifiable sitoatiDn for more than 5,000 square
feet of office space.
Chairman Marsh; But we do nat know w~at her thinking on thit is.
Mr. Zjmm<Tman: I think it was omitted in tne latest revision to tne
loning ordinance. J check~d back because r recalled that there was a
5,000 square· foot cap. In tn. summary of the Citywide Study, it does
stlte that there i5 I 5,000 sQuare· foot cap in the same ~inner as the
5,000 squ.r.·f.ot tiP in the CH. Tn.t Is a tnreshold, .nd to go .bo,e
that. a conditianll use permit would be required. I did loo~ in the
ordinance J~st now, and that 5,000 sQ~are·foot limit was not picked up in
the recent update of the zon;ng ordinince.
C~ljrMan Marsh; Has the 5.000 square-foet limit been discussed_wit~ the
applicant?
~., Warn,lt: I d. not rec.l1 its being brought up IS being a problem, So
I presume th.t the dep.rtment believe, this to be ., appropriate us., and
""._.
10/10/90 .g.
."
[
[
_. __ .........
the applfcation bas been encDurl~ed to proceed ;n t~is way.
Chal,..," MInh: J would like ta uk tJlt applicant if tit is awart tholt
there hIs been dfsc~$ston with t~1s commis$l~n and In understanding that
such I 11.lt,tlo. hid bee. loposed.
~. Strinbtrg: No. And ~ hive ~ad "~rous. numercys meetings and
rev;e~s of calcullt1ons. ett. ~e have not been informed of t~at.
Cpmmfssfpntr Christensen: I 1m sure t~at in the ordinances we thought we
adopted, we did include thlt 5,000 square-foot limit, so I do not kno~
whit the sltultion Is. Perhlps this Is l question for the city ottorn.y.
If we ldopted an ordinance but it did not mIke it into the published
ver;foTo of the ordinance.
Ns. Case: I would ha~t to review tkat. I have no idea wh~t happened.
Whether it got into the adopted ordinance Or not, I do not know at this
tll.e.
If " did, it -..ld stili be biAdiog, ~oul~ il oct,
1lUt lIIa\e it into sne .,n1ltDlrt?
Ms. Case: If it was adopted that w.y, it has to b. fol10 •• d, ono they
would haye to appl} for a use permit.
Commissigner Mirsch: Is the granting of a use permit appealable?
Ms. (ase: Yes. to the planning commissieh and t~en to the tity cou~cil.
Chairman Marsh: The second question 1 want to follow up on from Bob Moss'
cGmments was the fiscal i~act report requirement. ] am not fully
'amili.r with t~it. Can you review for ~s what ~as adopttd by the city
eouncl, and what projects it is applicable to?
Me Zfmperman: Nothing has been adcpted by the city coun~il. The Finance
and Public Works Committee ~as ~Ide I recommendation, whic~ the city
countil has not considered at this time. for the City to consider revenue
iapacts of .ajor projects in the future, major projects being those that
would requtre I Comprehen5i~e Plan I~ndment, as well as I zone change.
IA aDdit~on {and the costs for that type ~f revenue impact analysis would
be bo~e by the applicant), the Finance and Public Works Committee also
recommended that futurp area studies of cemmert;al and industr;Il zones
also have a revenue impact analysis conducted for them. The cost of those
studies wou'd be borne by the clty_
Ms. Case: E~en when such an impact stud~ is Ipproved by the council. its
Ipplicatlon will hive to b< limited, I t~ink. I can see thot it would be
applicable in Clses ~ere t~ere is already an EIR. for instance. and
peThaps eco"omfc considerations are allowed to be considered in
environmental assessments. It mfght alse be very appropriate in cases
where the cit} is going to ~ike some legislative change. as Mr. Zimmerman
stlted. 1t would be In appropriate consid!ration as to ~eth!r or not to
do loning or Comprehensive Plan changes. It would be I lot less ~levant
I. the case of • permit or other kind of entitlement for Indivldua'
projects, because there Is really no other basis in law for you to
consideT the economiC impltt of I project.
10/10/90
-10-
•
'p!!!!hsjpncr 8cc,",m; ] would asi. staff to fol low up Dr! the corrments f'roli.
Mr. Moss regarding the trlffit i~pacts to ensure that st.ff ~as indeed
'ooked It the addftlonal traffic ift this area, that is. in te~s of t~e
number of people coming f~ Ind out of this p,operty, and the difficulty or
crossing three lines if thll want to 90 south on El Camino Reil is they
exit. ] as sure staff has looled It trlffic i~ictS. but I would like to
know .art of the details, if you kave them aya11ab7e, on what tnt
IS sessDent WiS.
Ms. Warhe't: The project was reviewed by the transportation department,
and the EIA was bl!ed on responses from that department's evaluitlon of
the potential impacts. I can f~nd their comments, if you would like r.e
to.
Commi$siqn,r B"cham: Jf you would have the time to note anything in
particular, ] would ~pprecfate that.
Cq!!fssfonc~ HiC5'h~ ~ ~~e ~ ~~15tjon for Mr. Moss.
C'Dt'ltentS~ DT does "the l;arron 'ark, bSD-Ctation hive an1
propos~d slJ-foot setback on £1 Cimino Rei'?
Do you ha .... e an1
concerns aboIrt the
Mr, Moss: r wou1d like more. but unfortunately, the (S zone does not
require it. Tbe eN lone does require. ten· foot setback, and the fact
that tt'lis is CS is enl), becaust it was a mote'. When tl'ti s p!"opert.)' a~:::
the adjatent properties were ~eloned years ago. they tried to mike t~e
loning confor1ll to existing UO$lS. A mote1 was iI use that .. as tompatible
with'S, nat with eN. If you were going to draw t~is on I tlank map,
ntional1,Y it would be I: eN with a ten-foot s.eaack. I "'Duid 1 ike to ~ee
I deeper setback ~,Yself. I 1150 think that because it is close to the
corner~ you have a rational reason for having a greater setback. lhat is
reilly I: very ~asty (orner. and anything you can da to make the s)~ht
lines better would be usefu1. I alsD want to mention that it is a major
bike route fDr kids g~ing back and forth to both J.l. Stanford InO Gun~.
Commissipn,r Hjrs,h:
Where is the property
the !1de .. aik.?
The setback is measured frDm tne propertJ l;n~.
lin!' on this pa.rcel? Is it it the curb or inside
Ms. lI,rheit: I would hi .. to check the .. ap to te'1 you that. It cha-l,
wou7d ba~e been tlken into account ~~en the compiiance with site
development requirements was done in reviewing this project. That ls
stlndard~ According to t~e survey, the propertJ line lS It an ;ngle and
is lctual1y next to the back of the s;~e •• lk at tho north end of the
property. T~er. IS you ~ve SOyt~ down £1 Camino Real. t~e property line
moyes back 50 t~lt It one p01nt, it ~s several feet behind tne Idge of the
s,d •• aU.
Commjssjpner Hirs,h: So in essence, YGU get the benefit ~f the sidewa1k
for vts~a' and esthetiC purposes, plus t~e s\l·foot setback from t~e
prapert, line, a~ well~ ]5 t~lt correct?
Ms. Warhrit: In some p11ces, it will ~e mare than si~ feet back. from the
5ide .. alk..
tommissionrr Hirsch: Because the property line angles a~ay from the
10/10/90
-11-
.. ~
•
[
£hfewaH.?
M$ Wlr~tjt: Yes, It t~e sout~ edge. it ~s at tne corner. but thJt
intersection fs 90in9 to be recDnfigured, 50 the location of the present
sld ... lk fs not .n Indie.tfon of w~.t will finally exist there.
Comml$sipncr Hirsch; The bu~ld;ng does not go thit rar Inyway. There is
the set bock fr .. the er.ek.
~s. Worheil: Rfght. Probably by the tfme you .re tack the 20 feet
through the ereet leeess, It fs behind the existing sidewalk.
Ch,inman Marsh: [~ave a question for the applicant. Vou stated pretty
uneQulyoe~lly that thfs Is office sp.ce. It i. ele.r from the model th.t
t~is bas been designed as office space. Whit is the consideration in tne
desfgn phose for Inserting some retoll fnto the project?
Kr. Stejnbrrg: I probably stated it I little stronger than it should ~ave
_. Oar t1IoagIrt ..as u.at it _lei lIOt lie • fg/lll desi rible ... reU ii,
and it would ,robltly be~ ... uccessful os office 'pace. T~.t w,. t~.
nature of tne design. That does not ~rec'ude its bein~ reta,l, if there
were I reta~l use that meets those partfcular needs.
Chairman Mar$h: 00 you think this particular design is adaptable to
retail, or WDuld you change it .if you incorporated retail?
Jl!r. Steinberg: [f you ask.ed Ii retll1er what lind of space they would
want, they are goIng to want pariing f~ front of their building. and they
are gOing to want the buildin~ set bace from the street. Tnat is in
direct conflict ~ith t~e dire'tion the city has bten giving ~s that, in
fact, t~ry want the b~ilding pushed to the front. So tnere is I conflict
tnere that wou1d probably discourage most retail users. ! feel it is
possible, but [ do not ~it., it as iIIn ideal retatl sHE-.
Commlssfoner Hir$c~: 1 wou1d like to hear your comments re~arding
troffie.
Mr. Sttinberg: ] can just t~'l you that we, 1150, were concerned about
tne traffic. ] think the Site merits concern 'n tnat regard. We had two
meetings with the traffi' engineers Gf the citl. Tneir discussions with
us was that there VIS net a traffic impact from t"lS project, and tnat if
we located the leeess at t~e polot ~ere we hove locoted it, they did not
see Iny problem. Thtre i5 not aCC!5S to go so~th, because there is a
~tdi~n there. So [ do not feel tnat that that reil11 is not an issue. We
have reviewed this in some detlil with t~t traffic department, and we have
been I$s~red t~at the1 are comfortable with t~e design as it is.
thairman Marsh: We Ire now re~dy for dfscu~sion of this item.
Coami5sioncr Chri5tt~sen; ] wlnt to begiB by slying that I think the site
plan hiS been very well done. The Arc~itecturll Review Board praised it.
Ind It .hows I lot of thought. I partie.larl, Ilk. the housfng porticn of
It. It hiS been plrtleulorly well desIgned, Ind the entryway is 'er1
dramatiC and effective. J do ~ave I concera about t~e c~mmertia1
frontage, both its Ippearance and the flet that it Ylolates our
5.000 sQuare~foet li~jt~ ] do not know how we tan deal wit~ that issue?
10/10/90
·12·
--
•
becluse clearly, if we Ire going to 1nsfst on retlil. it 15 probably going
to 1nvolvt some redesign of that frontage.
fts Cn,: J would flote t.,.t it is In the cadI!'.
CqemiJsfpner Chri$t,n$tn: So tnt fact that t~ey Ire not I~are of it is
because nobody told them?
N. Vlrh.it: I think It I. ,olng to ~ handled through lhe condilional
~se penalt process. I do nOl know if thlt should have beon done before
coa1ng before the planning commission. T~it ~as not been indicated.
Ms. CI.O: One might h.v. thought th.t it might hIve been h.ndled
colenainously. at l~ast, or contempDrineousll. It dees not have to. but
It <ort.lnl1 .ight have ,ffocted his design to begl. with. It is not
fatal. by I~Y means, that it ;s not being "an~led contemporaneously. but
clearl" it hiS to be I candition of approval, if there is In approva1.
Ct--f'Jioner (hristens,n: J ilso have I concern with the frontlge along
£1 CUlno R .. I. 1ftI ... 1 saw it "" tI>e dr"'''115 tiIIt _ reeelftd. U IDoted
• lDt like one of "y least favoTiU buildings .'CTI1I £1 Cni". ~ul. whith
is the &!mboro IcrOiS the stree~. with I let of glass Ind some other
ht;"de sU'rrounding the ghss. I feel that is a \ler,)' ineffectfve bt:ildi,,;
along £1 Carnino Real and not J \lfry "ttract'~t onto It has not wor~ed
\leTY well as retail. bet.use J be1ieve it was designed to be an office
frontage. I do not necessarily concur that retail ~s inapproprtate or
could not hap~en ;n this spice. It;5 just I Question of design to
encourage a retail frontage and to indicate to people where they can
plrk. I do not feel it is fit., to the design that they b. up on [1
Camino Real and the parking be behind. So J am not prepared. at this
point t to support it. although I like lots of things about it. and it ha~
been verJ well thought out and very well done. r do ?laye a concerr\ about
that commerCial frontage.
CDlmlissfonfr IHr$clt: I alii a1so concerned Ibout what Mr. Moss has brol.:;~t
out~ and approp~iately 50 •• the limitation of 5,000 SQuare feet in the
cDlrmercia' portien of tnis piCiject. I would urge us. when WI! get to a
!lOtion stage, to consider IIIking that another condition of approva'. ar,d
that in some respects. the commercial portion be 1imite~ to 5,000 sQuare
feet.
I am concerned Ibout the retail. and Ilthough I would like to have it and
feel it would b. ~neflcial to hlye It ,lo.g [1 C •• ino Rell. I do have •
little difficulty .eelng where tho p.rking would go to support retail.
unless the interior of the project was substantiall, redesigned to pro~lde
additional retail parking to support retlil shops. We are ri9~t It the
corner of £1 Camino Way. and t~ere is no nearby street parking for at
le"st I few parcels down the road. I do not rec,'l hDw far ~t goes down,
but I assume there will be no street parking dirtctl} 1n front of tniS
partieul.r .Ite, since It Is just If tor makIng the right turD from [1
C .. lno W.y ontD (1 C •• I.o ReI' itself.
The other condltion I would lib to add. U we get tD an affirmati''(e
eotion st.ge. Is th.t there be some landscape p'a. Ipprovod by tho city
.rbor.st. including .ore firm proposals to save the large oak tr~e
existing an the site. I do not see thlt in ~ur current conditions, an~
10/10/90
·13·
--~ ---. '''" .. ~
•
--"
-...... ----~ ..
would 11k. to se. It. J rec09nl:e th.t Condition 13 tllk, ,bout the
.ft1gltfon of the 105s of ,ome trees and that other ones be planted, but
nOnDl11, we hIve in .atters of this type some lfflnmative obligation to
provide I 1,ndsclpe plln approye~ by the ~it1 lrborist~ I do not see t~at
h .... tonight.
CpamfJsfoncr B"ch.~; Regarding the ~Dr.dltionll use pe~it. J t~ink the
applicant probably hiS I significant ~ncertlfnt1 now in how t~ey want tc
procred4 If we do Ipproye the Iction before us now, this does not in any
sense guarantee thlt tne conditional use pe~it would be Ipproved In t~e
future for this to be 1 commerclll site. So he Is her.~y .d.is.d of
th.t.
There are one Dr two other issues that need to be discussed. One is
trlff~,. J certlinly understand the concern, as this is I $omewhat
ccnfused and cong!s·!d intersection. That;s not unlQue l'on9 El Cimin~
Real, and I a_ not $ure there ;5 Iny intersection that is obeyed b~ all
tr.fflc ~ to stop ill/hI., .tc. I do not .e •• nit~lng unique .bout tf,I,
site t. ~l" as f""" .ayi~g tho! this typo of clen.ity fr""ti"!/ Dn £1
Camino lIe.l is ill .~vlS!d. Diff\C>/lt, 10 some c.n., yn, but ill
.d.ised, I do "ol belie.e 50.
A third issue that has been brought up il the Question of public access
going from [1 Cimino Reil to the sch~ol. One Questior. r have to the stiff
11 whether or not the uisting site has iiln~ put-,1ic Iccess or lfIaHwiljI from
E1 Camino Real to the school site?
Ms. Warheit~ 00 you mean fro~ El Camino Rea' through t~at site onto t~e
school site?
CQmmis$ipner Btrch.m; Through the site. to the back of tne sit!, iilt
1 ... t.
Ms. Wilrheil: I belie~e there is J fence all around.
Commissioner Beecham: So the scheme of ~aving ~Q walkway through ~ou'd be
consistent with the current usage of the site. One of my feelings about
having ~ublfc walkways t~rough prl~ite ownership is that as t~e applicant
indicated, tnat puts. buraen on the applicant in term. of liability,
whjc~ I would ~ot support. If there Ire other comments on the need for a
walkway. or ot~er ways of ad~ressing t~at, J would be interested in
h ... lng It. Othervist, I would not require the applicant to provide a
walk •• y t"rough the site to the back. In fact, I think It would be •
disadvantage to the residents to haye such a waltway. essentiil'~ through
their bact Ylrds.
Commissfoner C~risttn$en; The walkway that is being ta1ked about iD terms
of I public access fs tne one that t~e plramedics ire requeiting ilcross
the bridgt onto Wilkie W.y. The .cc.ss to the school .Ite that I .as
discussin;, j was nat thinking of that in tt~S of making it I public
walk •• y. I was thinking of a gat. so that the reSidents li.ing In the
project could go onto the school ground. At present, If you want to get
onto the sc~ool grDund. they ~ave to g~ III around vii [1 Camino Way. down
Wilkie Way, down Park Boulev.rd, b.ck on Ventura Avenue, .nd onto the
school sit.. I WIS suggesting it as a benefit to t~e people living there,
not t. provide public acce •• through the back yards.
10/10/90
·14·
•
"
iJ u r~ nm;$$19ne~ Hfrsch: Is tnt Yentur. school site owntd by the C~ty of Pilo
.~ to?
llr.l~ ~.rsh: My understandfng fl thlt it is owned Ind leased It I
ninll rate to the , .. 10 AHa Comunlty Cr,lld Care.
1misJfpner Hit,ch: It WDuld seem that the school di$t~ict wou1d have to
~ 'e I g,ate fn the 'tnce. There-1.5 not.hing tne applicant can do About it,
~ ,er than to .. ke a nque.t.
~, wniu'oner §lnirr: I wou1d lih to comer.d the ilpp1iCilrlt on being very
ponsfve to I n~fr of the city·s tonctrns. He hilS done i very goed
, in working with the City of P.lo Alto. I would like to see scme form
this project eyentuall, deyeloped. W. would be adding 38 or .0 more
sing units to the housing stock in the city certainly ~elps. We ,r,
ays looking for ~rt ways to add housing ~ere at the ,ommissicn level
in th. CQu~cfll whet !r t~ey be condos or rental housing? etc. J
"'" ''''' ~ .. rut r.u .mitJ In~ the 4 BMR .nits would be I great publ ic .nt. J ... I lItt1. conc.",.6. i"6epe~ Df U. 5.Doo """lIS the
000 SqUITt 1.-1 issue, about t~! fssue or t~ls huge, ma~liye will ~f
ice lp,.ce on [1 Camino R:nl. Corrmfssianer Ctlrfstenun Te-ferred to a
ple of buildings on [1 Camlno Real tnat ~ave not been very sutcessf~'
are pretty unattrictf~eJ so 1 would like to see the app1icant e~ploTe
possibilit, of fncorporating some Is~ect of retail in the front?
haps on the ffrst floor. In general, 1 ~ou'd like to see sometni~g
• this go through. It ....,,16 ~. goo~ for ,11 parU... I ~on't know
t what we ~ave here is eXJctlJ what we want to go ahead with. but in
eril, I 1m supportive of tne concept.
irmap .MiT$": Our options Ire becoming clarUjed. lie can pas:! Vds
h a con~!t;on that speaks to the Tesolutlon of tn. 10.000 square· foot
ice question. Jf people Ir. uncomfortable with t~at. we tin continue
s fg~ c11~lficltign by the zoning adm1nlstrato~. We do not hawe the
efit of he~ ,guns,l tonight and therefore, do not know what her
ughls havt been en whet~er or not 5he would grant I cond;tional US!
.it an~ what the orguments for tnat ~ight be. On tne other hand. w •
• a project that has bee" ~ .. ;gned pretty clearly for office spi,e. It
not easy to iDagine how you could design that parlic~lir building ~ith
king ~n the front. IS you would for ~ny retail spaces. becaUSE of tne
ess Question. Alread~, we have push~d the driveway as far nort~ is we
sibly can for sofety questions. If you put p.rking in the front. yeu
tlinl". would billve to rlloclt, ttlt acten to U,ilt, or else. set ttu
lding fIr baek i. order for people to b. oble to enter and l •• ve by one
thera ICCISS. Sa I feel th,1t the current design is problematic r~r
.;1. We just hive to decide whet~er we ire willing to craft a
jiHon that spelks to thot.
Zieme~i~: I ~uld co~cur wit~ your ~emilrks on the retail, and J
ld odd that If you did opply I condition for rotail. it would be ~ith
un6erstlnd;ng thot "",st likely. there would be subshntial re~esi9n.
~use of the parking requirement. J wo~ld alsD urge YDU to consider the
Jal asp,etl, II well &s t~r .ccess iIIspects. If 10~ hid to hiwe parking
the front. lOU would substantillly ching. the ov.rall site pl.n of the
fect IS currentl, p~gposed. [would .150 urge you to consider the
).tibilit, qurstion between various types of retail .nd tne housing in
10/10/90
·15 -
. " --. -, .... -' .... --_ ..... -,.-.::.. __ .. --
•
I
[
-
. .
./
the r.ar t ver5~S the office use Ind the ~Dusin9, is proposed.
M$ c.s,~ As f~'lowup to whit Mr. Zimmenman ~as just S11d~ it seeml tc me
th.t with 111 t~lt in mind, you probably are tlking on In awful lot 1n i
cond1tfon. Jt ts l1ke redesignfng the project by condition. 1 1m not
sure that ,. totall) jn keeping with whit you Ire supposed to be doing in
.. king a decl.lon on I .Ite Ind design Item. It olght bo botter, in this
CIS., to do whit 10U hive done an DeclsiDn ~a the past, t~at 15. to keep
ft w1t~in your jurisdiction and send it back for I ·ret~i~k1n9· in v;e~ of
the e~nts .. de by the planning 'omsission. It s •••• to me that that
might be a little .ore appropriate. First of Ill, eyen If the zoning
administrator were pre.ent tonight, she would hlye no authority to tell
you whIt .he olght grant In I u.e per.I!. But she <.rtainly does reid the
~;nutes of these ~tin9$, and she will. at leist, hive an understandin~
of how the ccoml •• !oners feel .bout the project.
C~iirmi" Marsh: I am verI clea~ that I would not be willing to vote for a
condition tonight t~lt i~osed retail on this project. What I ~as
Uiwti1lfl .f ........ t. ,.,... IIf 1I CIIndiljon tho! might b. an either/or
~~. 1t .,Ight lie tIllt e1ti1eT' • Clllldlti ..... ' os. ~t for offiCI $lI1"
be obtl;ned OT an appropriat~ amount of retail be i~torpoT.ted l~tD the
project. We wou16 hlye to decide If we Ire comfort.bl. with th,t broad,
condlt!on.
CPmmissioner HiT5ch: I assume tnat when you say. send it back, it woul~
go to 5tiff. The only way we could haye clariflcation en the conditional
use penmit would be for the zonin9 adm1nistrator to have I hearin~ and
make i ruling on t~at, if the lpplicant wanted to pToceed with office
$~ace in excess of 5,000 sq~are feet.
Ms, C,se: That fs CDTrect. After listening to the comments, if t~e
applicant still w,nts to go forwlrd with that, that would be the
ipplicant'5 prerogative. They k~u'd apply faT tbe ~se permit it that
time, ind those proceedings cou1d start~ It could still come back to you
even before that w~s clarified, beciuse ~t least the planning commission
would know t~lt thlt Is the dire,tlon the app1i,ant h.d decided to t.ke.
If the applicant decides to tlke lnother lpprolch, limiting It to
5,000 squaT! feet, it sounds 1ik! that w~uld entail I substantia' redesign
of the project. That is m) feeling abo~t adding I Tither large condition
whic~ in essence, entlils a redesign of t~e project. so that you rtally do
not k~ow, t~en, what you actually have approyed.
Commissioner H1T5ch: What is wrong wit~ thit? We ire not supposed to
look it the deSign, Ire we?
~$~ Clse: Tbis is a site Ind design review, and is youT Dpportunity to
look .t the design.
Chairman Mlrsh: J do not feel we Ire here w;t~ the responsibilitl of
looking It the IrchitectuTe, but we are here to look it how the project
re1ates to the surrounding enYironment. The s~tbacks, the access, etc.
Ire definltell flir game for us~ Those are issues that cou1d be
Influenced by any kind of design that ,n,orpo,"tes retoi1.
Commissioner Hirsch: 1 tlk! it that wDuld i"tlude, in your ~indt the
~sstyeness of the front commercial building.
.: ..
10/10/90
-16-
--'~--::-.--.-',
•
r·"···1: , . .,
.------~
CbiftIJn Marsb: les, altho~gh that fl not of p.rsonll paramount interest .
'9"'$$19"'[ leech •• : Since we Ire apening t~t door for comments on t~e
Irchitecture, IS thlt 1$ whit 1 j~st understoOd 1~~ to say.
C~lft!l" Marsh: The architecture is w1t~1n our p'ramet~rs. It is just
not where I fe.l thE esph&sis of the disc,ssion should be.
Cpomlssioner Be,c~im: Just IS so.e Input to the Ipplicant on the
.rc~it.ctvre, then, [ agree with the com-ents of Commissioner Christensen
regirdlng I gIl" structur. on EI C&aino Re.l. I b.liove Commissioner
Gluier .lso llentfoned thn. I 1m not sLire tIIit we need .noUer ghss
front on El Camino Rell, and fe.l there could probibly be so •• Olh.r
design which adds more to tho archlt.ctur. of the .re. thin just a
.irror~ Regarding the turret, perh.ps th.t looks nice~ 1 1m net sure.
There hIS been same c.oncern I.bout fl~ 1 would not U)' it is necessarily a
bad idu. It has s .... good pottnthl.
lleganli1lll _t ... lID t.ight. 1 _ld "1_1t 1. _,oprine, IIIv;"11
advised t~. &ppllelnt t~at there I. uncertainty about Tecelvl.g a
conditional Vie permit. to st;11 sake I mctio~ for approwal of thii 5;t~
and design IS it stands now. net having seen ~nlt may come forwar~ to ~s
fn the future for a condition.' use permit.
HQIlQN: C9mmillioner Beecham: Given that. I ~we the stiff
recommendation that ~ approve the project based on t~e findings an~
conditions in this report.
MOTION FAilS fOR LACK OF A SECOND.
Cnairman Mars~! 00 we have another ~t1on1
~: Comrnissig"gr Hir$c~: I will move the staff report, with the
proposed findings Ind condit1ons 9 but I would add two conditiQns. One is
to limit the cocmercial portion of t~e project to 5,000 square f.et, as
required by the zoning ordinance. The second \5 that I landscape p'a~,
approved by the city arborist. be provided, includ;n~ a proposal to sav!
til. h",e elk tree existing on the sHe.
MOTION FAllS FOR LACK Of A SfCONO.
ellal",a" Marsll: We do h,vo a pat~ that h.s emerged for U', and that Is_
1ft l1ght of the u~cErtaf~t11 to g;~r us another go-around. so that we can
see what the intent of t~! applicant, I"d t~en craft I conditi~n t~at
relltos to what the .pplj,.nt intenGS to do with the project.
CQ!mf'$fongr Hlrsch: Js it oblfgatory to hive r!tlil on this 5itt? Or is
It just that the lonlng requires th.t .ffice sp.co be limited to
5,000 SqUire fe.t?
Mr. Zf.meTmtn: Reta,l is not requfred on thlt site, but you do have tne
5,000 SQUire-foot tllreshold.
Cpmmissigner Ch~fslen5en: J would like to ~ave us continue it. ind have
some of theso Iss,es tiken up by the applicant. I do not wlnt to kill the
10/10/90
·17·
•
..... ,
l '.
<-.;."' ... <_"'io.::
~Ielf In Ro~rt's shoes l l~d ] 1m not sure J understood, w1th~two ~otf~ns
t~lt 90t no seconds, Ind notni~g else happening. whet~er he his sufficient
9ufdinci to .aye forward.
(pmmfs$foncr CnristcnSCD! To cllrif,. thert WIS I motion t~at did not get
I second. to lOve the staff recommendation as currently proposed.
Comnfss'oner Hirsch's eot1on WIS to lt~jt t~e commercill spice to
5,000 squlr, reet. Period. rn his view. r think that me.~s I one·story
b"lldln9 with no rtt.ll. Is thot eerreet?
Cppmi$sfoner Hirsch: Jt could be retail. It does not ~Ive to be
eomoereill. 8"t with I 5,000 'Quare· foot limit on t~is .Ite, I t~;nk it
most llk.1J would be office spIce.
Cpmmf$$ion.r Chrfsten$en: J beli.~e the rest of ~s ITe selrching fer i
coabinat1on thlt would meet our desires and your needs at this time, and
we do not see that in eIther of these two ~tions.
Ms. WIThe!t: [~~ld 11k! to comment on commertill versus Tet.il on the
aonItI". TIIe~. as~. i$ Wft)' tiVht on tift sit •. TtIere Is no
• .t... ........ !teton "quir ... IligMr ,Irtlng elIIIII"",ent. t ,""uH expect
that ff he goes for retlll, ,.u will 10 •• so .. of tne housing. Th.re Is
no WiI)' in which to squeeze everithir.g on there. rn terms of i two· story
b~11ding on t~at corner, £1 Camino Real is an e~treme1y wide street, and
thit is a key spot It tnat CDrner 4 In my opfn;on~ I two+story building
could be I better design sol~tion on tne corner tnan lane-story
building. I think yo. ore .11 ~Iving I probl.m .it~ tnat part ieuT or
twO+stOT), building, but the architect is probably open to reconsidering
it. To try and get I one·stor~ building on that corner would be i desi~n
.Istake.
Chairman Marsh: [t is pretty cleif that wt are not prepared tonight to
decide the issue of retli' versus non·reta11. What we can do is to
pr,vide I contInuance, with some direction to the issues t~at we wou1d
like to have fleshed aut in the coming weeks.
~: CommiS5!ontr Ch~i5ten$en;
meet;~g that is appropriite for the
our schedu 1 e.
~: By Commissior.er Beecham.
I move to continue t~is applicant to ;
app1icant's needs and ene whicn meets
Chafnni" Marsh: [would like to summarize some of the issues for the
applicant that ~ight warrant review, besides the lC?OOO Yer$~S
5,000 squlre·fDot iS5~e. We ~ave I question regarding the El Cimino Rea'
fa,ade; we had some concer~ as to t~e ITchitfctura' MOdel may mean to the
[1 Camino Real frontage, some (on cern that it might not be as attractive a
bui'ding IS we would lite to see. We had concc(~ about the access along
the side of the project. J persanally would lit! to see some exploration
of WlYS t~ perhlp, de.~ th.t spice to the eltl so t~.t we coul~ have I
pede.trlln/blcycl. Iccess Ilong the project I •• ~ing b.et Into the Wilkie
WIY n.19hborhoo~. Too mlny tImes In the city, we Ipprolch project' that
Ire different and art adjacent to Dnt another by trying to bui'd wa~ls.
separatIng project. from people. J think that Is ~efi"ltelJ the wrong "Y
to incorporate differencts within neighborhoods. J would much prefer to
see that there be n.jghbor~oo~ .ccess from tho Wilti. WiY n.ighborho,d to
10/10/90
·1 g.
•
•
the (1 C .. I •• Roal frontage, ,"rlit,'ar11 when elny .f our II •• for th' £1
C .. lno WlY fr.ntage Ir. to dev.l.p Neighborhood Commertlal ever I long
period .f tl... I_ .. ny ~IY', that nelghborh.od Is r •• ,1y l.o1lted from
El C .. lno Roa1, a.d t~ls to.ld be a dellghtf., atte,. th.t could meet lh.
need. of nllghbors and not just serve the people who are living In the
pr'jett. So I would lite to se. that Issue explored o.er th' interim
perIod.
r "I'..,e #fc*,,~ J ~n,~r with Commissioner Btechi~'s statements
ftpftIt1Ig t ... ffl~. 1 .. NIl sa tins pi DPEi t1 .s bol", _111 IIftlque
Dn n C,,'n. b.1. Then Ire I 10t ef U·turns you have t .... to """" you
wI.l t. get to something on the other side of the ,(re.t. I al.o toncur
wit~ (.-mIssioner 'liller's c .... nt' reglrding the BMR unit,. That is •
sub,tantlal bonofit. I say that particularly I see the prices a, being in
I very lice ran9t. They are below S100,000, and ont or two I~e well belo.
that. That Is very desIrable. I om to.fortable with the set bock, given
th.t it I ... a,urod from the property line, which Is Inside the side •• 't
for .. ,t of the portion of the ICCO'S alo.g El Comlno Rell. There will be
adequate setbacks ther ••
Cp!nfS$icner GJlzier: J would like to see the applicant explore the
possibility of somehow softenIng up the front. Right now, it is I
str.lght 911s, .. 11. I do not know whIt you could do to .. te that a
little •• sler on the eje, but I would like you to t,ke I look It thot.
Cran1nigncr Hjrs'b~ The d~sign of t~e coanerchl build;ng reminds me iI
lot Gf the bu\ldi~g at C.lifornia Avenue &nd E1 Camino Real, t~e northeast
tamer. It stood vacant f~r I long time. and I do not b!1ieve that has
ever been considered to be I highly attractive bu;ldin9~
[h,il"9i!fI Marsh: That 1.5 one of 11)1 favcrUe b'Ul1dings! To 5ulmluize, you
have i lot of enthustast~c response to this project. There are severa'
"Jor Issues we wou'd like some el.rifltltion on before It comes blCk,
those being t~e fl~lde, the access. and tne fncorp~rition of retlll vers~s
offlte space withl. the project.
MOTION PASSES: Cha;rman Marsh: [5 there any further discussion on thls
.. tion! All tho.e I. fl.or, say Ayel ~" opposed? Th,t pISS.S
unlnlaou,'y, Ind we will .e. this back at • d,te to be determined.
END OF EXCERPT
.... ( ~'\ III _ ..
: ~.iq ..... l.'I." .. .. .. ~ l· -".. ..' ' ..
Application ~o. gO·UP-34: ]981 £1 Cimino Beil
Use Perolt gO· UP·]. Is approved for construction ond operotion of 10,300
squire feet of office use where a ".'mu. of 5,000 square f.et would normally
be Illow.d, as per attached plans, at 3981 EI CI.ino Reil, Zene Oi,tri,t CS,
PJla Alta. Cilifornll 1 and is subject to conditions ltst!d belDw.
FINDINGS
1. The proposed use at the proposed loclt;an will nat be detrimental
or Injurious to property or Improvements in the viCinity, and will
DDt be detri ... t.l to the public healt~, safety, generol .olfare
.... cannnfelm. is tut tIte ...... sed offim lise is • less
Intensive us. than .. Tt otheT ~'I~d .se., lmd ,onsequently will
provide a better buffer for t~e residentei at the rear of the site
and -nll generate less trlffic in the immediate 1;cln\t,.
pirtleularly ot the Maybell/EI Camino Reol/El Camino Way
intersection.
2. Ttle propo5ed' use will be located and conducted in a manner in
accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of
Title 18 of the Palo Alto ""nitlpal Code, in that the lo.or
parking reQu;re=ents for Dff~ce use will allow more housing units
to be built on the site. consistent with Program e of the Housing
Ele .. nt whlc~ calls for providing fncentives to add resid,otlal
units to commercfal developaents. 7~e tntreistd number of housing
u~its will result ;n more BMR units. $~pportin9 Policy 10 Df the
Housing Ele~nt. In addition, the office us, will add. daytime
population to help .upport the nearby neighborhood retail area on
the £1 Camino Way triangle and will result in an upgrading of the
appearance of El Camino Real, os promoted by Program 22 of the
Urban Design Element.
tONDITlONS
1. The facade of the proposed office building in referonced pl,ns for the
Use Permit shill be redesigned. and the final design of the proje(t
shall be approved by the Archltecturol Revio. Board, the Planning
Commission Jnd the City Council through tne Site and Design process.
Afi.l!/J
NANCY KADDOl LYTLE
Zoning AdainlstTator
Ho,.mb< r 19, 1990
UP9034
Nt
11/18/90
Pog. I
~ ..
.--':,
"" ."
I.
Tbl, fOnl does not constlt.te t~e .so permit for whlc~ applicatIon was ~.d."
If the application Is apprevld and If no appeal from thl. deciSion f' filed by
any person. fino or corporltlon affected by the decision on Dr by November 30.
1990. you will recel.e I copy of your perolt I. the mall. If this application
Is not decided to your satisfactIon, t~e decl,lon .ay be appe.led to the
PlannIng C..-Isslon by ffll"i In appe.l Ipplleltfon with t~e Planning
Deplrblent and City Clerk on or before the above-.. ntloned date.
ce: Denny Petresfln, 443 Ventura Avenue. Apt. 2. P.l. Alto. CA 94306
Barron Park Assoclltfon. c/o Jon Joynt. 3589 Laguna. Pal. Alto, CA 94306
UpgOl4
NL
i
11/18/90
P.ge 2
BARRON
PARK
ASSOOATION
PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA
I :~~', ~ ... i-,. :;""4
:.". ,') :!
j ,:,'\.:.... '--'-: ii :.
I NU" ~ I l~gJ
'~7 ,', : ..
'I
I
-"_' _-__ ~ __ ._-_' .;,_ ! ~ , .. i
.Appeal of Use Perm; t SO-UP-34. 9O-0A-30.
10t 3DO Sq. "t. Of'fice 1!Iu11dlng at 3981 £1 c.mno Ae.l
The SPA Exec:uti ve Ccmn.i ttee w j shes to a¥Pea 1 gr arlt 1 r.g of
• use penm,t 1~ a 10,300 SQ. ft. of11ce bu11dlng ~t 3&9' E1
Cam; no Real, in tr-.e CS zone_ Z,y.lng pe;""m~ ts no r'X:!1""!! U';Cr'I
5COO sq. ft. of office use en any 51ngie 10t 1n t~ CS zone.
On Aug,zst 7~ 1989. the Fa.io Al'!'.o C1ty ~11 e~'Hed
the 4-ye.ar CltYW1C!e l.ard use and Traff1c Stuc::y by a~ting
many anenc:tTle-,-::s to TUle 18 PNC.. Zonir;g. For the CS Zone.
s.ec-tion 18.45.070(" 'a'as ~ to "tate -Ill No lot shall
have rrJ',)f"e than .65 square meters 15000 SQUare feet) of offlce
uses." The 11m,t was estab~ished after extenslve ,nput from
staff. the pU)llC , deveicpe:I""Si, tt".e Plal'V',inQ COI'1"tr.ission ane
C"i ty Counc:i 1. Ael ief from the 1 'tmi t may be g-ar.ted by the
Zon,ns Actninistra;tor wi'th a Us-e Pen-mt per Sectlon
18.45.070(f)2. ihe Barron Park Assoc,atlon Exe=utlYe
Camnttee opposed the grant1llQ 01 such • use perr:llt for the
10,300 square foot offlel!' tr ... nldlng propoSed for .3891 E1
c.,.1no Real. Now that the Zoning AO'l'nnlStator has granted
tne Use p-!rmit. the Barron farlt Assoc::iatlGn Boc.rd ""shes to
~~l thlS perm, t, arid tg request that the Planrnng:
carmi 551 on and C 1t Y COIrc.l1 nonor-atnended Zorn r.g Ordl narce.
the carefully thought-out goa's and otn-ect\'Ves gf the
CUywjde Land Use and Trilff1c StUdY. and U".e El CamIno Real
Gu1 de1 "nes. and o ... er t urn the rul, ng of the L:rIl ng
Aanlnistrator and deny the use perm1t. Q.I.r )ust1ftcatlons
are given 1n the lett-er-fran the SPA Exec-ut l ... e Ccnnnttee to
Nancy Lytle dated No't'e1t>er 12. and other oI.ttactmenU.
/ -
~1 01 use PeNnI t 9O-UP-;3.4~ 90-£1"-30
10.300 $qua,... '-oot Offlce 8ui'tcl1ng ., 3891 £1 Carn'lro Real
The BArron Park M,aociation has been concerned abOUt and .... '$
;eelec1 to of11ee-\AeS 'In the OJ and CS ZOI"le$, espec:.l.'ly along El
'1'Ilr"1O f'e.al. since 1978. 5e ccr'lSlst",ntly asked tNt df:~e'opnent"
X"I9 El Canit'O be low intensity. ne-,~hOod oriented. and' that:.
~y·prO'V1de ret.,l sales arc -.erY\ce$~ Formal aU8'fPts to. '",mit
~ siZe-of offices in the ~ and CS lone <.af', be CkK'\.JI'Iented' .t leas.t
'fa.r back as '«:Ivt:n't:ler 19£3 • ...nen c:.cunenmertlel"So Su:cnous lone 0!It"" se1"yed with a,stH'ctH)f'\ on the Plarn,n; Cottn,S,S,lor\ .
. ached ;$ a ~ of a iett~r from tt~ S~A to then ¥ay~r K'cln
eo June " '~, _herein 11~ltS on the $1~e of Qf~'ces, .~
10$'\ to pr~'ir.l.t ~roactrner.t o.f o~f'c~ HI tne CS c.nd ().i .&;or..es, 'lias.
westeC. a.-~ .-. f'I)'t adtQ'tetl 'tnen tre:;aus~ 'f1f'S.t •
~et"W\s~ve P\M"I 'Aev1~. ~ 'atef' t~ C'ty~101!: Lat"IC: Use and
ffi~ St\dy ..eT'e ..::,ted as o;JPOrtunH le'S. ft;.': .. ~oa':1 reY~~ Of
, :,es and ft'.a.:l~ oU~r ; s.~ i n U·~ CS iiI d C-I. .&;oN".o! ~
"'e ~ .. d the r-~,oew a"1d 5: ... ':,.. 'liE: s.~·,t nes~'!~ t3<:~ .. )C':: on
!,.-,l1 ta..,,~s.. The,-E= were. a":«rQ$! 4 )"e3!'"S G~ r-er-,..;Ort'S. ;'"tIe_:""~:'''i:i. •
..... ""C(\)'. anc:' e.r.tenslve dl$V~S'O«~ Trio:! res,-'t 'to"'$. s~g-lf1Ca.:'\t
.~~$ In regulatlQr4 ~Vernlr.g t~11dOU~ pot~~i.1 &nC o~f,c~ ~s~s
he CS ana eN %OOeS. ['IIer),Of'" . .e Pf'cn~ He eLtent.we an::! Cet.l1~
.: t!"'.At r~He.::! i.n thl; Zcn-:r--s o--C'r\.i.~ ar.:~~'!'.!. cf A"";...lSt
A e:1I.)or Ch4r,;e ':.0' tt.e CS arod. 0... l.Qrcs 1iII&'!t the. .50')0 sq, ft.
t en c~f'ce uses. ~t '4~t we t~t ~:"" 11 year ef~ort tc
ect ret.l t ~ ... ~ e-:ntnerl;:lal uses alOf"lg £i Ca.~1:'10 (:,eal ,arne. 1.)
ti~,. 1.;.0. ... t!:.e ~1r$.! ("<n-re~'c.'t.:'t'".-:'~.il1 ~.,..::.;~:. ~c ~ .. n', ':.:1~ C~
~1nce rlli!l!"£lo~,:'!' 71t1e 16 1$ for" il,."'1 31 7-off·,.;~ ..,;R more t,.. .... ~1
E tt.e ~'.":$sac:..: size! ~re a;pa.~~1r.; 1$ t?l4!' d;·~~C""a.~ c.t t,..~
::-ernt~t eYE:n t~ 'It " .. .clur "io~dt'Of"j of the 1~tter ... ~
nt of the r.e"M'i:y ado;»teQi z~:in;: or-c;:u·.a"'l(:e. IIftlien lS ':.:0 11,11':;
:e y:ses 'in thl!: CS .,-Q c:-.: Z~_ f'iease rena~ n true to the
f ... ~1i c~s;cered an:;j tul'V dIScus-sec: revU:cl"'ls to t~ Ztln~'i
1.Cd"ICe and' re)ect tn1" a..se pe'l"'O!it.
Tr-.e..-E: Hi rc r.e-ec tc ":'O'III,an a~l Gfflce use ,,:"10 tr,~$ sIte.
115 per-tec:tly Vl~'~ on £1 (;.Im'roO J;e.Jo~. OW".:. .... ~ wltt1C~':.
reet parking 1n 1ron: of the bui:a'r-~. l~ the developer is
red to ~re to the 5000 SQ. 1t~ 01flce llmTt he has feyer.l
>OS. He un reduce the eullc:nng ."ze by 5300 SQ. ft. M'Id Nlfe
l-offlce use .1ong £1 c.nlnQ 1n front of the hou5'ing. HIt un
e the total sUe at the wildir"lgl ar"'C place p..r","S; sp.JC::eIi ;n
, .,tn aecess f'rcn £1 c.t'!H'O Real. ,... can i'«oo~~gure tre IlU:
.ana ha1fe r;NIrif1ng and .utCJft:ltlye .ccess .long the northerly
~tJ' hoe. and 1\i:Ye tne CO'I17Wrr;lill bI,JllCulg de$1gr"1ed as an L or
~tP1 the open SIde faclrg,[1 Ci1mu";o Re .. l. S1nc.e .. rroil.'ns.1'!1
: of 35 feet 15 penll1tted, the canner-".l blnTd:ng can boe 3
es tall w,U'. the I"flper 2 stor-let offlces, not to e.o:.eed !.oOO
: .. totaL The pt"opert,. as l,arge .nd deeiP •• I'd there 1$ no
~, thllt the bu11G'lnQS carnot be "edeSl~ and relocetea to
--~---------~-------------
'-
'.
/-
.ithl-r limit offiC'eti to 5000 sq. ft .• or to ..,.. ..... e bot" reh1t and
otfj~1i wah. 5000 sq. 't. 11.rnit on Off"iCH~
Off'iee uses Cf'eate rrore )obs and lI1:)r-e ~k hour traff1c than
ret.n. The 10.300 lei. ft~ IX'ICfe:r the use perma would reSl.l1t 1n
abOut 41 'obs. The ~ area in retail would create 10 or 11 jObs.
If the bYlld1ng .... s 5000 sq. ft. retail and 5000 sq. ft. -offices
there would be about 25 'obs created. ASS..r.lng ti'lat the e:t1st;~
metel proviees 8 1Obs, an .11 office use ~uld result ;~ a f~t
'1ncrease of 33 jobs. An ai 1 rehi:i LOse wou',d resul t 'In 2 Cf' 3 rrrxe
jobs. &ne1 mixed retal1 and (,office w0y1d result ln a.bcl.': i1 net r.-ew
Jotts, most from tt"\e 01'f1Ce5. There ..,111 be ~ncrE:.i$ed &!r..anc:: for
hou5ing, ~t't"icu1.rl)' affordable ~S1fl9, cue to t~ 6<X1ed JO~$ frCT.'l
office .... n... UIe ~ 1aos'inQ on the 5jt~ w,11 ./roake a far
S'!Ia1'er '1ft;liI.Ct on ue hOu&1ng C'ertfan ..,1:h 1erge cffu:e uses than
wit:t'l ret.i 1.
O':e ellc;.rse rC't t~ have reta,l 0" ".r,e s~te 15 t~.at .t irA::,· nol t~
eeoncr.1~C'iiol1)' "'1 abl \!. Troe:'t 1'5 ;vr-e sp.;."'Cu~ation. ::\,.!ta,1 ... .,"':::)' 11ty
ce;e-nas at 1e6st is:S n-oo.::l 01' troe r.atl,.;.~e of t~ l"c-tall or S~1'"'Jler:
offered. tr-.e $loe;ll o~ t~ oper.ator:s and O'Mf".er-s, .. rd ':.hE-ever .. :l
ecoraTIic cl1,1\iIte In t~ carrwrnty. NcrIE' o'!" t~se art: prc~r
c:oncec"'ns of l.nc:: \;se or ~,~anrnng bocfles. Many snai 1 rc!'ta11
~5ine&.se5 Mile ~U:-"l"'~ along E1 Ca-nlnc Rc.l fo. yea:-s. ~ t-.a ... e
onl)" street parlnng in 1"rOol"",t, SO':'Ie ha\'f!' pa'-kin; lots. "in fro~t, .OC!
some have pariOn-; .Of'l tt"..e siee Of" ln the l"eer. E.xatrp1es 1.;;'" re::an
sucess ar.cS retai 1 fal lure can toe fOLKld 'In .1 1 t:'ll"~ c:a~e$. S:.Jc1!'$$
~ mere u;:,or, the prOOUCt of'*"ered oarod tte s,;<11 ~ of tr.e
prC)l:..,.,e'::or tr=an or: .ne':t.er Of" not the pr:pertj' 15 l"\E"lt! ~o a c:,eek:,
on a c,;.:-r,.;:r. 0, 1,1 r:nc:ilo.;k.
Sir.ce ii. conc:~ t~cn of the use permi t "IS reces1gtl cf the
bu11C1Mg, r~lr'ng • Change to retell plus o~~lces 1S not a
s1gn1ficant &IXSed burCtl'n. OfflCes can toe reducE<!' to 5Qt)O sq. ft.
M'CI the l"er."lalnH'9 c.am-e:"c-l.' spa,ce r-eces.l§r"IeC: for ret;;,'l~ Wlttl
p,itrk;ng ir, front 'If CeSlred. or tl"'le tota.l S1Zoe of tt".e b4..:1. ~~~ng couTd
t..e r~ed.
we are not c.pposed to r~!' c,f the 5i te f~ ~US1 nw or a ml lIee
use proJect 1f 1t 115 done in aceor-dance w"ltl"! the careful1,. trought
out .,.., recently adopted zoning ordjn.ance. We dO WOJnt • prOject
wh;CP'I 1:1 attraet1ve, sens1t1\le to the nel~hOod. and which
cc:rT$)11es w1tl'\ the goals of an ;~oved anc:I v'iable CQ'lTr'II':rCla1
d1str1ct along E1 Cam1no ~,.
The best funetlon of the Plarv11ng CaTnlS'SilQr. ar.c: ell,. Councl1
is to estab11st'l regulatlons. goverrn"'9 delle'c~nt envelopes,
compatlble and lncampat1.ble U5e$, and i~cts on traffiC, lob
growth. and housU''-.; dsnand. That 1S e.ICaetly what was dor.e last year
when the 5000 '5q. 1t. up Of'! OU1Ces was. app"ed to the CS are 011
ZCIf"IM.~ Plee:". reNtn cor.1atant W1th tr-e recent1y ~ted office
111n1ts~ Dc not ~ over-.1Z«1 off1ce dreve'~ts tt'e first ttf'l'lilt
.,.. oIIPPN1 15 ~tte:1. ~t our-100; .-ncI pat1ent effort" to
p-nef"ve retan vnal1ty .1on;; El Ca'r.inc AMl. Reject thi.
~1.%ed all office .... pemJ1t.