Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0280.091(D. " ". .,,4 ~ay 16, 1991 HONORABLE CIIY COUNCIL Pal. Alto, California ,- ,; .' / CITY COUNCIL REVIEW OF fINAl ARB APPROVAL fOR A 19-UNIT RESIPENTIAL PROJECT AT 42Q-461 JACOBS COYRT Kembers of the Council: Proiett in Brftf The C;t~ Council approved I finding of no significant enVironmental impact, a ~Qne eh~nge to RK-15 and l CQmp(ehe~siye Plan land use designattan change t~ Multiple Family Resldentl.l for this site on Oecember 10, 1990. A condition of that approval was. requirement that the final plans for the proposed residential project would be referred t. the City Council .fter Architectural Revfew Board recommendation. Backgrgund and ARB Actiqn Details regarding t~e site and actions leading to the Council's review of the proposed ~roj.ct design are .ttached. The Architectural Review Board reviewed and approved, 3-2, the proposed design at the ARB .. eting on March 21, 1991, The aajority of the ARB approved the project based on the interesting and sp1Tlted arch;te~turil design, whfcn is reflective of the historic neighborhood) and a practical site planning solution. T~e two .embers who voted not to apprcve the project did so pri .. rily beeause they felt that the opplicants had not r •• ponded to s~bstantive design fssues raised by the Board It the preliminary architectural review. including tree pret,eryation~ a.aunt and desiqn of open ~pace, tne predominance of hardscape, blockfn~ss of the buildings and expanses of blank walls and garaqe d~Drs at the ground level. Tne conditions of approval Includ. the req"ireoent that the design return to the ARB for furth.r development of arc~itecturil detail and for revi&W of the final landscape plan, The Information Memorandu. and the minutes of the Marth 21, 1991 ARB aeeting are attached to this report. RecOI!!IM!ndltion Staff concurs with the ARB's approyal of the proposed design and recommends City Councll adoption of I .ation approving the design with the following Ftndinqs and Conditions. CMR:280:91 o flndlngs , , J. The design of the ~roJect fs compatfble wlt~ the Ilnedfate environment of the site, and It promotes hlrmonfo~s transitions in stale lnd character between different deslgnited land uses, 10 that there ire generous setbacks between the project and the adjicent R-I zones, the buIlding .issing ls scaled to reflect nearby sfngle-family structures, and the style of the architecture fs ipproprlate both to the urb •• character of El Camino Real and to the nearby single f .. fly and multiple f .. lly resid.ntial areas. 2. Tile desIgn provides actess to the property ind eirculotlon thereon which Irt safe and convenient for pedestrtins, cyclists lnd vehicles. in that the iUto access Is restricted to £1 C .. lno Way with the driveway located to provide for safe entry and exitIng, and a gate at the rear of the sfte provides the project residents w1t~ pedestrian and bicycle access onto Wilkie Woy. 3. Tne aater1als, textures, colors and details are appropriate expressions to the design and functIon and are compatible with the adjacent and neighboring ~tructure$ and landscape, in that t~e Irtfculatlon of the building facides, the use of wood ond stucco wall finishes ind metal porc~ roofs, and preservation of several large trees on tne site ~elp to retaia the semi-rural feeling of t~e site and the i~formal residential character of t~e neighbar~ood. Candjtfons 1. Standard noise level control s~all be implemented througho~t the project not to exceed 40 dB fnteriar level. to protect fro. bot~ street and nois! venerated on the project site. Z. Additional design .odif1cations Dr details, such as flues, windows, trellises, stairs, eyebrows, flues, expansion jofnts, water le;ders and transitfons between .aterials, s~al1 return for Board review and approval .fter review and appro~al of the Cfty Counctl and prior to su~itting for I Building Per.;t. 3. After the project is re~le~ed by C1t1 CQu~cil and prior to submitting for I building permit, a detailed final landscape plan shall returc for ARB approval. The landscape plan shall include I planting and irrigatIon plan In c-.pliance with the Utility Oepartment llndscape Guidelines; full, dimensioned parting spaces, driveways, side.alks and planting areas; detalls of paving materials, fences, gates, t~ellises, benches and Dther l.ndscipe features; location of electric utility transformer; landscape material samples, T~e design of the common uSible D~en space shall be developed to speclfic.lly provide for the play needs of children. A revised lighting plan sh.ll also return for review with the final landscape plan. CMR:280:g1 p:\c.or\42OJacob '15 "N't 5/16/91 Page 2 • li '-1 ~ 1 1 ,~ " I I. 4. ~...o..' C' • At the tl .. the 'Ina~ 1.ndscape p1.n Is revl~d by ARB, the applicant sh.11 show evidence a' , contract with. Certified Arbori.t who will b. r.sponslb1. 'or supervising Imp1ement.tlon 0' the following tree protectfon .easures: .) Prior to .ny demolition or construction a' the site, all trees designated to be preserved sh.l1 b. protected with. 6-'oot high ch'ln link fence .. unted on 2·lnch diameter galv.nized Iron posts driven Into the ground to • depth of .t 1e.st 2 feet and no ~re than IO-foot spacing. The fen~e 5~al1 enclose t~e entire aTea under the drip line, or • dist.nce 'rom the tree of 1 foot per each inch of tr~nk diameter; whichever is grelter. This Irea sh.11 be shown on the layout .nd pl.nting pl.n.. Spray paint the top 0' the f.nce with bright orang. paint befo,'e unrolling the fabric to ensure v1sib11ity of the barrfer. [n no case shall any vehicles, Dr equipment or any type of aaterials, fncluding soil, be penoltted to be stored within this enclosed area. Fence .ha11 be erected before demolition or constructfo~ begins and shall remaln in place until final planting operations are com91ete~. b) Any trenching wit. enclo.ure sh.11 be done by h.nd. AnY tree roots encountered smailer than 2 inches sh~'l be cut clean with approved tree pruning tDcTs and sealed with an approved fungicidal-tree sealant. Tree roots 2 fnches or larger shall not be Cyt. Route pipes f"tc alternate location to avoid conflict. c) Any grlde change within the fenced zone sh.ll be ltoited to 6 inches of cut or fill fro. the original grade and shall be .ccompll.hed by hand. d) No $oil sterilants shall be applied under pavement near existing trees. e) Above ground surface runoff shall not be directed into the tree canopy area from adjacent areas. Ensure tkat sidewalks ar other construction do not trap water near the tree. r) Supplemental irrigation and fertilization before, during and after construction for all trees to be retafned and cDrrectional pruning and cabling of specified tree. shall be provided o. directed by • Certified Arborist. 4. A 24 x 24 Inch standard stop sign 'hall be In.ta11ed on the right·h.nd side-of the drhewiIY .;t the back of the 5idewaH:. ta the satisfaction (If tnt Transportation Olvisior. prior to occupancy~ 5. In compliance with conditions. of (';ty Council approul of the zone change fro. R-2 to RH~151 thrfe aMR units s.hall be provided rather than the two required. This requirement .h.ll be fulfilled to the CIIR: 28C1: 91 p:\CIIT\420Jacob 5/16/91 Page 3 • -• _-• J -0 ,.;," .', ~ ~-;,::.~§:':'. ':'~' ';:-.:"j< o satisfaction of the City Attorney and the Director of Plannfng and C_ntty EnvlrOMient In conjunction with the subdivision process. R'S~),ftf.lIY SUbojft;d. A'. ;f /~PV~ U~INIA IlAAHEIT ... ,' " .. ~ . KENNETH R. SCHREIBtR Dfrector of Planning and C~nlty Environment t FLElUNl; ~. • A slstant Cfty-:.~:r~ Attacn.ent.: Tran .. lttll fro. applicant Sfte [.foraa!ion and Project History Minutes of the City Council meeting. Dec~r ARB InfDraatlon ~randu •• March 21. 1991 Mfnutes of the ARB ... tlng. March 21, 1991 Project Plans (Council Members only) cc: Architectural Review Board Barron Park Association Mr. George R .. sberg. llghtner Property Group 10, 1990 Denny 'etrosfan. 443 Ventura 12. 'alo Alto, CA 94306 lois Vanderbeek. 736 Barron Avenue, Palo Alto. CA 94306 Bob lless, 4010 0 .... Palo Alto. CA 94306 Jane DeKoven. 42[ Jacob. Court. ~alo Alto. CA 94306 Gary Breltbard, 740 San Jude A.enue. Palo Alto. CA 94306 Herb Borock, Z731 Byron. Palo Alto. CA 94306 George Solt'. 390 Macl.ne Street. 'alo Alto. CA 94306 Brian DonDv,n. 4054 Wilti. Way. PaT. Alto. CA 9430. ReT.ted CMRs: CMR:602:9 CMR:ZBO:91 p:\aor\4ZOJacob 5/16/91 '.ge 4 rdc lAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES April ::l0. 1991 ~s Virginia Wsrheit Planning Department City or Palo Alto 4-25 Hami 1 ton Palo Alto. California 9430] Re; 420-461 Jacobs Court Lj~htner Property Group DE.-al' Yi rginia: In accordance .ith Condition J. of the City Council's approval of ~ODe change and compr~hensiye plan amendment for the above relerenced property. the Director of Planning is to -rerar to the City Council tbe decision regardin~ any ARB recommendation regarding the application for development of t~e property; end the City Council shall act on the application pursuant to Section 16 .. 48.090 of tte FAMe.- The Architectural Bevie. Board recommended approval of the design at ?t's March 7th meeting. We are no~ complying witb Condition 3. {above) by providins the requisite plans; an.d -E!"lihibits for Council's re~ie.. It is my understanding tbat tbis project is scheduled to be r€vie~ed by tbe Council at its May 20th meeting. In addition to the plans and exhibits contained within the packets being ~ent to the Council members, the architects will bring to th6 Council me~tjng a sC4l~ mod~l of the project, colorec renditions of site end landscape pla~s, and perhaps some otber visual aides to assist the Council in its revie~. Naturally] will be present at the meeting as .ill be Mr Li~htner. Tbanks [or your help in coordina1in~ this application_ ~in,"rlY'~ --,£ LW&.I_ ::;r'" Ge~ He berg y RDC , 800 El C8mi~ ReaJ West 1180 • Mountain View. CA 94040 14151903-2266· Fax' (415)903-2237 -,;.----.-~ SITE INFOIUIATION AND PROJECT HISTORY PJtOJECT UIfOlUlATION location: Applicant: P rope rty awners: ReQuestod Action: SITE INFORMATION Parcel Size: Assessor's P!rcel H~r; E.hUng Zoning: Comprehensive Pl,n Designation: Allowable De.sity: [xi sting land Use: Surrounding land Use; History: Des&llh/v. 4l0-461 Jacobs Court Palo Alto, CA 94303 llghtner Property Group lS4 Santa f.ul. Avenue San FranCiSCO, CA 94127 Jacob~s Court ~5sociates 355 Santa Rlt. Avenue f,lo Alto, CA 94301 City Co~ncil adoption of ARB retcmmendat;on to approve the ~roposed 19 unit condomfnlum project~ with Findings and Conditions. S4,497 square feet 132-43-140,150,151 R/t-IS Multiple-Family Residential 19 units Six single-famil, homes Tne property is s~rrounded by a ~ix of land uses: SingTe-faml1y (R-I) to the •• st along WiT ,i. Way, low and mediUM density multiple-family (RM-lS and RM-lOJ on either side of the Tear portion of the site and neighborhood cOmRErcial (eN) and service commercial {CSJ adjacent to t~e front part;cn of the site along £1 Camino Real and [1 Camino Way~ April l4, 1990: Application filed requesting a zone change from R·2 to RM-1S and amendment to Comprfhfnsive Plan land use designation from Single-Family Residential to MultipTt-Family Resldenth:l. April 2S, 1990: Application for pre1iminar1 arc~jtettural review of proposal to demolish the Page 1 De,,"ls/ .. o existing six s'ng'e-f~111 ho.es I~d to construct 19 condos1n! .. units on tne site. "OJ 11, 1993: Prell.lnary review by tne Architectural Review Board of the proposed condominium project. July 25, 1990: Plannfng Commission unanimously denied the applIcation for zone change and Comprehensive Plan .-endmont. August 13, 1990: City Council approved the applicant's request to continue Indefinitely tne application for zone change and Comprehensive Plan &oendaent. Deceober 10, 1990: City Council approved, 6-3, the proposed zone change ,nd Comprehensive Plan &oendment, with the conditon that the final ARB review of the proposed reSidential project would retuno to City Council for approval. february I, 1991: Application filed for final ARB review of ]9 unit condominium project. Mirc_ 21, 1990: Architectural Review Board recom.ended approval. 3-2. of the proposed condoefniu. project. Page 2 --.- / o ORPlllANCE .OQJ entitle~ ·ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY ~ ALTO AllTHORIZING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONTRACT SETWEEN THE CIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND THE BOARD OF AIlMI1USTRA THE CALI10RIIIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RE'l'lREMEN'l' SYSTEM-(1st Rea ~ 1/19/90, passed 8-0, Andersen absentJ (515) (NPG) KenIOli l!UBS» 9-0. AGENQA CHANGES, ADPITIONS. ~1p DELETIONS City Manager William Zaner announced. Item UNFINISHED BUSINESS 11. PUBLIC HEARING: Planning commission Recommendation re denial of an application for a zone change from R-2 to RM-15 and Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map chanqe from Single-Family Residential to Multiple-Family Residential for property located at .20-461 Jacobs court (continued from 8/13/90) (JOC) (CJ!R: 602: C) Planning Commissioner Joe Hirsch said the Planning commission was concerned. about the loss of affordable rental housing to condomini­ um. units at a :market value ot approximately $375,000 and the displacement of the current occupants~ Council Member Renzel queried if the existing lot pattern on the property consisted of three lots of different sizes and what the procedure would be if a re-subdivision was required under the current zoning~ ~onin9 AdDinistrator Nancy Lytle said any re-subdivision to the maximum potential of the property would be a major subdivision of five lots and would require Planninq Commission and Council approval~ Council Member Renzel queried if the property was included in the current status of the R-2 zone referral to the Planning Commission. Ms. Lytle said the property would be subject to the interim R-2 requlations~ Vice Kayor Woolley queriad other possi~le results if the Council did not rezone the property. senior Planner Virginia Warheit said the R-2 and R-2 Interim Requlations were based on a hypothetical prototype of five lots which miqht qo on the site with no exceptions being required. Vice Mayor woolley queried if there would be five lots under either the R-l or R-2 zoning, unless variances vere qranted~ 65-168 12/10/90 o HB. Warbeit said yes. tha floor area ratio under the R-2 zoning. The lots would be developed the same,. bUt (FAR) per lot could be put into two units Vice Mayor Woolley queried if the ace. 58 would be trom El Camino Way tor two units. MS. Warheit said yes. Tbe developer ske.tched out several scenarios for dividinq the property into five or six R-2 lots which all re­ quired some kind of exception to lot size or street access. The prototypes, however, vere based upon what could be done without asking tor any exceptions to the subdivision process, and other sche:aea would require exceptions .. ~yor Cobb querie4 if t~o pie-shaped R-l lots CQuld be created to front onto Wilkie Way to create a completely R-~ situation off wilkie .ay ¥her4 the backyard would front onto E1 Camino Real and could provide for aultiple-family units facing onto El camino way and R-1 completely on the part. 'Which fronted onto Wilkie Way, colOpletinq an R-l neighl>orhood rather than having a multiple-family intrusion. Ms. Lytle believed a map could be created with one R-.l lot off Wilkie Way at the rear; however~ two lots leading onto Wilkie Way would create a situation callinq tor exceptions for width~ Mayor Cobb queried if the potential area had been looked at as having R-l lots on Wilkie Way with the rest being Eulti-family. MS. Lytle said no. Council ~aber Kniss qaeried if only one below-market-rate (8MR) unit would be required. with the density ot the ten units versus the nineteen units .. Xs. Lytle said t.'te BKR requirement would be 10 percent ot the number of units; under the R-l zoning, if each of the. five lots had a duplex of two units~ one BMR unit 'Would be required. Under the RM-.l5 Eoninq, two B1ffi units would be required. Mayor Cobb ~.clared the Public Hearinq open. Jane Oekoven~ 42~ Jacobs Court, spoke as an individual and as a representative of several residents of 421 Jacobs Court, who lived and ~orked in Palo Alto and would be displaced if the proposed project was approved.. Sbe disaqreed with the need for another condominium project. There 'Were several vacancies in the Palo Alto CO.Qlons and the Haml.et ac:cordinq to a real estate agent from COrnish' carey. The environment of Jacobs Court had not changed substantially. Rather than make Palo Alto look like Sunnyvale, it aened .ore challenqinq to uintain 'What made Palo Alto unique. In terms of Mr.. Remsburg"s arg'lllftent that the zoninq of adjacent properties had changed allowing similar or hiqher density residen- 65-169 12/10/90 • I • - / o tial uses, she believed the statement refuted one of the proposal's major points, i~e.; that opportunities fo~ balancing the jobs and housing imbalance were rare. To one walking along El Camino Way, it appeared many opportunities 'Were prevalent. She UI'qed maintain­ ing the residential character of the area as par~ of the Wilkie way neighborhood. In terms of the jObs and housing imbalance, Palo Alto could not solve all of its tax base and housing imbalance problems in a three, square-block area of El camino Way. The traffic and population density problems were not being addressed for the projects currently underway.. She opposed the proj ect • Bob Moss, 4010 arme Street, referred to the deteriorated natur~ of the buildings and pointed out that no money had been put into maintenance for the past few years. There were onqoing satety issues and paying for a -No u-tu~n-sign would not mean anything. There currently existed a -No Right Turn-s1gn on El Camino Real just before El Camino Way which was regularly violated. The accident history did not go back far enough. In terms of energy efficiency, when one increased the number of units and made them twice as et'f"icient, it actually served to increase enE".rqy usage. more than 50 percent. He disputed the affordability of the units and their actual impact on the jobs and housing imbalance. The proposal would trade re:latively affordable I'"2ntal housinq for relatively unaffordable owner housinq, and it would increase traffic in an already dangerous area. He urged rejection at the proposal. lferb Borock, 2731 Byron street., lived in a similar zoning situation an~ was concerned about the bad precedent. In August, 1990., he provided documents froll 198) relating to the subject property, which were. given to the applicant., 'Which clearly reflected the Santa Clara Valley Water District easement as the area on the Wilkie way side of the property. On the present plans the easement was between the property line and the chain link fence. He believed the ARB application was incomplete because it included flood area property and easements in the site area calculations in violation of Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMe) Section 18.88.070 and construction in the u~ility easement areas without an encroachment permit in violation of PAMe Section 18 ~88. 060.. The site area shown 'WaS more than 5,000 5quare feet larger than in 1S83, but the property share of the abandoned Wilkie Way extension vas much less than 5,000 square feet.. Wilkie Way was only 60 feet wide and the extension was only 50 feet wide. The proposed property's share of the extension was only 20 feet wide, and of that, six feet was the flood cC'ntrol easement so that the additional area in that abandoned extension 'Was less than 2,500 square feet. The April 13, 1983, Planninq Commission Minutes cle.arly indicated the residential redevelopment guidelines would have required a zone of R-l, RM-1 or RM-2 if the land use had been changed to multi-family in 1983. Those zones were replaced by the RM-15 zone. It was misleading to compare the density of the current RM-15 zone proposal with the density of a fictitioUS RM-5 proposal from 1983~ council needed to ;" 65-170 12/10/90 / o compare the development proposal before it with the new zone V2:rSUS what could ~ developed under the current zone. It the applicant was successful in obtaininq a zone change, he could always submit an entirely different project after the liew Council was on board. ~_e cumulative effect of development on adjacent properties should caur.e less--not more--development on the parcel~ Council had the absolute riqht under the Subdivision OrcUnance, Title 21.. to probi~it access trom Wilkie Way it it was the street abutting the rear property line.. The application tor a zoning chanqe was independent of the building plans. Regarding the deterioration of thfl properties, even in the strictest rent control cities, property owners could pass on ~aintenance costs to tenants. He urqed rejec­ tion of the z.one change applicat.ion and that the applicant meet with the water District to survey the property and to find out how much property the Water District owned and how large the easement was .. Council Me»bar Andersen queried whether Mr .. Borock's position was still, as stated in the July 25, 1990, city council Minutes, that if Council decidec:l on P.K-1S zoning on the property. any kind ot access either for vehicles or pedestri~ns should be onto WilJtie way. Hr. Borock: said it was his &econdary position~ His primary position was that the R-2 ;r;oninq should remain. He referred to Planning Co.aaissioner Christensen's comments in the July 25, 1990, Minutes that there vere Significant vacancies with the existing development on El Camino Way and there vere significant parking and traffic problems on El Camino Way. If there was access on Wilkie Way which permitted people to either drive throuqh or park and walk throuqh, people with business or needs to be on properties on El camino way would be .otivated to park on Wilkie Way and use that access. Ms. Lytle said the Water District easement was carefully subtracted frca the net area of the site at the time of ~ submittal. Four parcels were contained in the legal description fo~ the property. George Smith, 390 Maclane Avenue, lived for 38 years behind Mrs~ .Jacobs' property. Since Krs. Jacobs died, the property had deteriorated to a point where someone had to apply for a zone Change in order to improve it. The proposed housing would not even he affordable to Palo Alto employees. The City should buy the property and build some truly affordable housinq. Tim Gadus, 4080 Wilkie Way, said there were too many hiqh density projects t>eiTlC) put in the little u-ea of El Camino Way. The streets suffered from tremendous overflow traffic and parkinql and children had a difficult time maneuvering the bi~e path to qet to school. He opposed access onto Wilkie Way where they already received o~erflov traffic from West Keado~ Drive and El Camino Way_ He opposed the project. 65-171 12/10/90 '. " i ., ~ I i 1 ---~-------------------- .-. ,- o Bobbie Redstro~, ~51 Churchill Avenue, was appalled to learn that the Jacobs Court project was aqain before the Council, especially when the Pl~nning Commission unanimously recommended against rezoninq. Ther.e yas little affordable housinq in Palo Alto and council was elected to honestly represent the people's interest in the community. The proposed project was not affordable housinq. she urqed rejection of the project~ Denny Petros ian, .43 Ventura Avenue, represented herself and Willie Branch, Mrs. James Peterson and Elsie Cosby~ She referred to the three letters in the packet which apPE".ared to be endorsements of the project. Mr .. Chan and Y..r. Durham were concerned about any development reqardless of the number of units, the ac'equacy of setbacKs, no access to Wilkie Way, and the improved appearance of the property. When Council rezoned the subject property for 12 units in 1978, the intent vas to maintain the affordable rental housinq opportunities for as lonq as possible.. to discourage speculative redevelopment yet maintain for the owner reasonable redevelopment rights to double the number of units on his land if be so chose. The zoning was never intended to create a maximum number of units~ The RM~15 zone was specifically rejected at that time. In the contest between ~aximizing the number of new units and preserving existing rental units, rental units almost always lost~ If Council voted to change the Comprehensive Plan, it Would also change the original intent, would become a responsible party to the premature demolition of affordable housing in direct violation or the Comprehensive Plan .. and set a terrible precedent for the demolition of other affordable re~tal units throughout the City. Since conditions could not be imposed on a rezoning, there vas no substantial public benefit to be gained whether the property was developed at 12.. 10 or 19 units. It would be a more becoming posture for council to let the original zone with the original intent of integrity and fairness to work in its own way. She urged council to make the same findings as the Planning Commission and to reject the application. She urged Council to focus its attention on securing affordable housing on the 15 acres of the Mal!imart property and the other large parcels available. It ~as ridiculous to take housing away from people to get $375~ 000 condominium units. George Remsberg, 200 Osaqe Avenue, Los Altos, represented the Lightner Pr~ty croup. They believed their proposal was a qood one and would benefit the City by providing Iloderately priced bousinq while more than tripliIl9 the housing stock on the site. On balance the benefits of approving the application outweighed the concerns expressed, and they had suggestions for possibly mitigat­ ing the displacement issues. A professional civil engineer was employed to eXaJDine the title report and perform the required survey work. They were prepared to stand with the figures provided in terms ot the area of the property. They never intended any vehicular access onto Wilkie Way, and if that was made as a condition, it could be accepted. They wanted pedestrian access because it did not make sense to turn their backs on the rest of the neighborhood. 65-172 12/10/90 " Kayor CObb queried whether con~ideration was given.to the idea of an R-l .ituation Which fronted onto Wilkie Way to complete the R-l nature of that neighborhood with "!lultl-family fronting onto El Ca.ino Way. Mr. aeasberq said yes. Anytize there vas a change between single ta.ily and higher density, there was a line. On one side was sinqle-family and on the other side was the llediWil density.. The most i.mediate impact In terms of hejqht~ setbacks~ dayliqht plane, etc. i would occur to the Chans whose home was to the right and the rear. If the existing parcel remained R-l and was developed as such, it would result in a qreater neqative impact on the property, Le., a six-foot setback in contrast with the 20 feet proposed, and a daylight plane which began at 10 feet above grade at property line and proceeded upwards to 45 degrees in contrast 'With t..'le proposal whicb vas 5 feet up at a 45 degree angle. While it vas c~naidered, they did not believe it was necessarily a benefit, and it further restricted the balance ot the property. city' Attorney Ariel Calonne cautioned Council that while the model vas attractive, it was irrelevant to the Comprehensive Plan amendment and zoning issues before it. It was inappropriate to consider the model as a factor in the deciSion-making process. Vice Mayor Woolley queried what type of development would occur if council did not approve the zone change. Mr. lte.lIsberg sa.id the final decision would be market driven, but he believed the likely development would be single family. Whether it would be five or six sinqle family homes, be did not know. If the lots vere changed in size from 7,500 square feet, they were fairly collfortable that with the 15,000 square .foot lots, they could achieve six homes. If market conditions improved and returned to where they were, the homes could easily sell in the $600,000 to $800,000 range. council Kember McCown queried 'Whether the applicant considered pursuing the project through a planned community (PCl zone process which would provide the community some certainty in terms of the project. Mr. Reasberg said it was considered, and while there were advantag­ es to a PC zone in terms of the City being able to ensure that 'What Vas proposed was built, there 'Were some difficult findings to be aade particularly with respect to the public benefit. The RM-~5 zone had certain safeguards built in a.nd within the approval process, and the ~odel and plan maximized th~ floor area ratio, density, lot coverage, and came close to maximizing the height. While the architectural style could change, in terms of the envelope, there could not be :more. ~ ---~ ___ A'N' d'_~'_ 65-173 12/10/90 • \ 1 i , .": '-:-' ," o council Member McCown asked about the applicant IS thouqhts on :miti­ gatinq the illlpacts of redevelopinq the site on the current residents .. Mr. Remsberg said developers always considered that the ~itiqation requirements to gain approval could he sufficient to sink the ship. They had always been aware that the real concern was the loss of the rental units. Their original application vas submitted under guidelines which indicated the requirement tor 10 percent BMR units or 1.9 or 2 units out of 19. Subsequent Council action changed that guideline such that wben rental housing stock was displaced, the project would have to meet two or three other objectives, one of which would result in a BKR count c! 20 percent or in the subject instance of 3. e units. Another change was the underlying R-2 zoning changed from no limit on floor area ratio and kind of a safety valve if the property had to be developed under R-2 require­ ments. Currently, R-l was in an interim zoninq classification which para1leled R-1. Small changes could be absorbed if market conditions remained relatively stable; major changes could not. A chanqe from 2 BMR units to 3.8 or 4 BMR units was a substantial chanqe in the project. However, they were prepared to provide three SMR units rather than the technically required two BHR units if such a change could be codified. Hr. Calonne said while staff had st~onqly discouraged Council from conditioning zone cbanges or Comprehensive Plan amendments, counci1 could condition one or both of the entitlements to make the rep~esentation made a mandatory feature of the entitlement. The practice was not favored in planning circles because of administra­ tive problems in tracking the individual, unique conditions which applied to each piece of property around the town. While he believed the process was better not started, it could be done. Mayor Cobb clarified ~e idea of prohibiting access to Wilkie way would fa11 with~n the same description. Mr. Calonne said that was correct. Council Member Kniss queried if Mr. Remsberq .. as offer-ing three BMR units of the nineteen to be built and if he had thouqht of any other type ot mitiqation which might be acceptable. Mr. Remsberg had considered others vhich were difficult to come to qrips with but which were open for discussion and consideration~ One, which .iqht answer the human problem, would be some sort of Rental Housing Assistance Program relocation assistance; however, determining h~w to do it would be difficult and would depend upon different circumstances, needs, and income levels amonq the resi­ dents; and if an additional BMR unit was provided, it would be more difficult to meaninqful1y address the relocation assistance. Council Kember lCniss queried if Mr. Calonne would comment on relocation assistance. 65-174 12/10/90 / o Hr. Calonne said rent reJ.ocation assistance necessitated ad hoc adainistrative proqrams on a particular zone change. He advised the Council against becominq involved in a relocation pr09ram because it became elC'tremely difficult to administer and define. As the 'process progressed to extremes, the council could become involved in legal questions. As a practical matter, be would be very" cautious in the types ot conditions the council should become involv .. d in. Mayor Cobb declared the Public Hearing closed. XO!'IOB'z Council Ke!llber Renzel moved, seconded by Fazzino, to approve the Planninq Commission recommendation to deny an applica­ tion for a zone change from R-2 to RM-15 and Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map change .from Single-Family Resid.ential to Multiple­ ramily Residential for property located at 420-461 Jacobs Court with the appropriate findings as fellows: 1~ The proposed Zone change and Comprehensive Plan amendment will reduce the artordab1e rental h~usin~, and the resulting in­ cr~se in total housing units is not substantial enough to mitigate this loss o~ rental units; 2~ Tbe pcoposed zone change and Comprehensive Plan amendment is not consistent with land use patterns in the City, in th3t R-2 zoning commonly eerves as a more appropriate buffer between single-family residential areas and more intensive land uses; and 3.. The proposed zone change a.nd Comprehensive Plan amendment ..,ill result in an increase in traffic at an intersection with a~k­ ~ traffic patterns~ council Member ltenze.l believed many good reasons had been <;iven for approvinq the Planning C~mmission recommenQation~ Jacobs Court had eXistinq rental housinq, the current zoning allowed twrice the existinq density, and the neiqhborhood had been heavily impacted by high-density projects~ The proposal vas f~r a zone change and a comprehensive Plan amendment, but the effort could have been put into a. planned community (PC) zone with 12 units if the developer's desire was to utilize existing zoninq more amenably~ Findings had been ~de on PC ~onea for years with fewer public amenities than Jacobs court would offer with 12 units~ There was no reason to (\ouble. or triple the density~ Even with thre.e BMR units, the project would net mitiqate people ~ho lost housing. The location vith six existing housing units ~as awkward, and the opportunity for six aore existed under existing zoninq. She urqed council to deny the application and uphold the Pla.nning Commission recommenda­ tion~ If something more creative came in, she would be willing to consider it, but she did not believe addinq 50 percent more density was the answer .. 65-175 12/10/90 .-- ~ .. '.-'-.. : --~.-. . " '.,-' / -"---~-.:...-----------"- o Vice Mayor Soolley opposed the lIIotion~ If Council allowed the existing zoning to remain, there ~as no guarantee the rentals would remain.. The rea~ choice was lihether to have R-2 zoning which could result in either six single-family houses or ten duplexes or whether to have 19 to~~ouses. If the existin9 zon1n9 remained, the property owner could 90 ahead with the R-2 or R-l buildings. She referred to an editorial in last we~k's san Jcse Mercury News about a meeting in San Jose between environmentalists and housing advocates, whi~h indicated the agreement was to keep the hills in open space and concentrate housing along major arterials and transportation corridors. El Camino Real was a major transporta­ tion corridor and had the only good ten-minute beadway bus service in Palo Alto. S"ne pre.ferred rezoning to RM-:lS to allow 19 townhouses, at the lower price end of wbat could be purchased in Palo Alto. rather than obtaining six sinqle-f~ily houses in the $800,000 category. While traffic and safety problems .. ere an issue. sbe believed there were secondary. The basic issue vas how many housinq units should be provided. statf said no accidents had occurred and siqnificant improvements would be made in the near future, perhaps even before the project was completed4 The proposed units were townhouses, which were considered the next best thinq to a single-family home and more desirable than condos4 The neighbors most heavily impacted would receive larger setbacks and more restriotive daylight planes. RM-15 zoning vould be better for the Wilkie Way residents than R-l toning. council Member Renzel said if the property was developed as single­ family, there would be fewer units and minimal impact on the neigh­ borhood. In terms of in-fill. there .. as ample existing, ready-to­ be-developed zoning in Palo Alto. The Maximart site and several other larqe sites were already zoned multi-family. There was no way the City would catch up with the jobs and housing imbalance, but the problem should also be tackled on the jobs end. She disagreed that $365.000 townhouses were entry-level4 The fact that townhouses were more popular than condos suggested higher rather than lower prices on the market rate units. council Member McCo~~ opposed the motion4 Cocmissioner Chandler referred to a comment by Hr. Borock that it was unliJcely the property would stay status quo. She said the same thing in 1983. and raised the same concern when she was on the Planning Commis­ sion. She believed the community would regret, as a long-term land use matter. ~~e development of the site for $600,000 to $700,000 houses. The site cou.ld handle som.e additional units,. and the project att~~pted to do so while beinq sensitive to the Wilkie way access issues. In terms ot the zone chanqe, she was concerned that while the plan might be sensitive to the neighborhood, the action requested did not guarantee the plan would be the one presented for a building permit. Council had created other opportunities for additional housing, and the Haximart property was one example. However. the City's action was completely opposed by the property owners I and no one had sabDitted a proposal consistent with the City·s qoals for the site4 The Jacobs Court situation was an 65-176 12/10/90 • "----- .'. o economlcally-driven interest of a private owner asking the City to look at the posl!dbility of creating additional housin9". She believed sut:h situations ill the future 'Would be the ones the council should carefully consider~ The long-term plan.ning vie .. for the site and the opportunity the pr~sal presented for additional housinq arqued in its favor. council He.m];)er Levy agreea with Council Member McCown. The property was on a .ain, highly-traveled street, in a relatively noisy area, surrounded by commercial and hiqher-density, residen­ tial uses, and it was appropriate to have th~ transitional multi­ family use which RM-15 represented. Palo Alto was more a sinqle­ family community, and whenever there was a development, there was always a desire to have less rather than more der~sity; bUt the question ~as, if Palo Alto was qoing to have hiqher density, where it should be concentrated$ and the appropriate place was on a major street surrOunded by hi9her density uses. While Council could not be assured the proposed develcp!llent would come forward, it 'Was likely, and there would be d~sign and review through the ARB and the design and appeal process, so the City would have a chance to look intensely at the particular development and make sure it remained highly sensitive to the sinqle famiLy homes on Wiltie Way which joined a portion of the property. If the Council had a motion for an RM-15 rezoning, he aqr~ed the third BMR unit should be part of it and, with the increased computerization ot planning activities, the Council would he able to track the special elements more specifically. He believed there shoUld be no vehicle access to Wilkie Way and the comment made by the applicant to extend the -median on El camino Way in order to reduce further the possibility of U-turns, if the City's Transportation DiVision agreed to it, was proper and should be part of the RK-15 zoning application. Counci.l Kember Kniss said it was a difficult de.cision, and sbe 'Wis.hed she could vote with the residents. The issue. 'Was not whether the City was goinq to keep rental housinq on the site; it was about a zoning cha~ye and not even a PC. She ~as persuaded the location was close to a main thoroughfare and was vithin walking distance to shopping. She opposed the motion. Council Member Sutor ius referred. to the Planning cOlDIDission actions of 1983 end said he had been in the minority because he &t~ongly believed a zoning review 'Was. appropriate. He now had a. better understanding of the neighborhood, tried to accommodate for the benefit of the community, and recognized the sensitivity of the total Subject. Be was pleased Council had the opportunity to do somethinq specific to protact Wilkie Way and provide access to protect the mature landscaping. He opposed the motion$ supported the comments of Vice Mayor Woolley and Council Members McCown and Levy, and would support a positive motion. council Member 7azzino supported the motion and the recommendation of the Planning Commission. He was sympathetic to Mr. Remsberq's points and mi9ht accept, in the fina~ analysis, a significantly 65-177 12/10/90 .-.. ' "':-; -. '" . . , / o larger number or units in return for more BMR units. He believed chanqinq the Comprehensive Plan and the .zoninq for a specific project vas a trouble.some precedent ~ The council talked abo'.lt what it aiqht get in return but pulled back upon the advice of the city Attorney. He would h~ve preferred a PC applicatio~ in which the Council could have made legitimate, specific planned trade-offs. Be recognized Jacobs Court would not remain the way it was much longer, and Council had to deal with the fact the rental housing stock would not remain. He believed a PC application would have been a more appropriate way to address the issue. He als::o believed the City had placed significant amounts of density in the neighbor­ hood over the past few years and that the ~est side of El Camino way represented the butfer between commercial and resiciential. The Council action would indicate there would be no buffer between the cOlll1Dercial/hiqher-density area and a single-family residential area and was important to recognize in context of discussions with respect to other neighborhoods throughout the City. Council Member Andersen opposed the motion. He was concerned if the zoning of the property remained, the owner might decide to wait for another Council it the vote happened to be close. He was pleased tJy the offer of the third BMR unit and encouraged Mr. Remsberg to work with the Palo Alto Housing Corporation (PMfC) concerning the relocation issues. He 'Was concerned about the prospect of monster houses being built and believed that would occur if the zoning was not changed. JIIayor CObb associated with Blost of the comments of Council Member Fazzino and believed the economics would not allow the status quo to be preserved. He preferred a lower-density soll~tion and believed the ideal solution was to complete the R-1 on Wilkie way and have multi-family fronting on El Camino Way which Would give appropriate density levels. He did not believe the ~arket would support $700,000 to $800,000 single-family homes on a property which fronted on E1 Camino way. A PC would be the hest way to qet appropriate controls and creative solutions such as the ndxed R-2 and multi-family. If the Council went forward with the applicant'S request, there would be no chance to see such a creative solution. He believed findings could be made of public benefit and preserving the character of the neighborhood which a PC application would make possible. Be supported the motion. MaTIO. raILED 6-3, Cobb, Fazzino, Renzel Waye.- IIOT.IQII: Vice Mayor Woolley moved, seconded by Kniss, to direct the staff to return to Council with a resolution and ordinance, and a contract with the applicant that implements the staff recommenda­ tion as amended, 'With findings qenerally as ~ollows: 1. Approval of the proposed zone chang-e from R-2 Two-Family Resi­ dence zone to RM-1S Multiple-Family Residence zone, with the 65-178 12/10/90 As Corrected 01/22/91 condition that three BMR units "'ill be provided by the appli-" cant and that no vehicle access vill be permitted from Wilkie way; 2~ Approval of the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment tor change of land use desiqnation from Single-Family Residential to Multiple-Family Residential; J. Adoption of the neqative declaration of no signitica~t enviroNlental iapacti and. ... Oirection to the Director of Planninq and community Environ­ aent a..1"ld the Architectural "Review Board that vehicular access to the site should be exclusively fro~ El camino way, since such access can be accoJDPlished safely and would result in less t.pact on the adjacent neiqhborhood than auto no vehicle access fro. Wilkie way. 1. The proposed zone change and Comprehensive Plan amendment 'Will reduce 'the affordable re~1tal housing, and the resulting in­ crease in total housi~~ units is not substantial enouqh to .itigate this loss of rental units; 2. The proposed zone change and Coaprehensiv8 Plan amendment is not consistent with land use patterns in the City, in that R-2 zoninq caaaonly serves as a mere appropriate buffer between single-family residential areas and more intensive land uses; and 3. The proposed 'Z.one cha.nge. and Comprehensive Plan amendment viII result in an increase in traffic at an intersection with awk­ ward traffic patterns. Vice Kayor woolley said the addition of the BMR units would apply to the proposed proj ect only; any subsequent proj ect would come under the new requlations which would require 3.8 BMR units. She did nat believe access needed to be a condition because tbe developers and the neighbors did not want access ~rom Wilkie Way. council Member Levy said the staff recommendatio~ called for no access fro. Wilkie W~y. Hr. Calonne referred t.o the BKR units and the previous Council action which read the tinal design approval needed to be obtained by AUqust 1, 1991; if it was not obtained by then, the project Qr any other would need to provide four BMR units. The ordinance drafted durinq the summer was not suited to the Council's present action. Be recomaended tho motion be modified to direct staff to return to council with three documents; an ordinance with appropriate conditions on the zoninq, a resolution amending the ...,.",-----_. ---"-"- 55-D9 12/10/90 . " • j 1 -J I 1 I I I I , ~~--~-~--------------------- • '- \ o Comprehensiva Plan, and an additional agreement binding the a~licant to the terms of the contract zoning. Kayor cobb queried if the motion would prohibit vehicular access tc Wilkie way_ Mr. Calonne said the recommendation was a direction to the ARB and tell short of a m~ndatory condition • council Member McCown queried wbat the mechanics of taking action would. . be if the COUJ'lcil believed the process should be achieved through a PC zone process rather than a zoning change and what would be the process which the applicant would need to go through from scratch or how much could be incorporated into the PC process. Ms. Lytle said if the Council denied the application and provided direction to reapply for a PC zone change, the applicant could use whatever preliminary plans to make the application and start a new process which would include a Planning commission and ARB review and City council action. Council Kember Renzel believed the Council should recognize that if it approved the motion, it would be accelerating the 105s of rental housing units and would not be encouraging replacement vith rental units, whereas the existing zoning did have the option.. and it would not have total control over what a developer would do with the land. If the zoning 'Was there,. there was a qood chance it would ~e properly used and would provide an equivalent number of rental units~ There was no specific project; the models and pieces of paper with designs were not before the Council, but what was before the Council was a zone change whi~h told people if they saw a zone with small houses on it or under-utilized rental units, it would be worth a gamble to get a 50 percent increase in the allowed density 1:1::; qivinq up one, two, or three units of the six additional units for BMR units; and the council was still giving a very substantial profit to the developer, would be responsible for not qetting the kind of affordable housing needed in the community, and allowed a major site to be used for the senior Care project ~hich was only 50 percent full and had a major impact upon the Jacobs Court neighborhood. Sbe believed the council would be sending out a signal that it paid to speculate in Palo Alto4 Council Member Kniss queried if staff could elaborate more upon the PC process. Ks. Lytle said the PC process went to the Planning Commission at a concept level for its recommendation on vhether or not the public benefit.was adequate and whether the project should proceed. If the application received a positive recommendation, it went forward to the ARB for its recommendations on the design aspects of the project and assistance in further deve1opment; it came back to the Planning Commission with a more finalized plan and: a specifiC development schedule required by the PC ordinance. The Planning 65-180 12/10/90 -, -- o commi8sion wOUld take action on ~~e.bpecific proposal which would lOCk in the plan, and the application would be forwarded t~ the Council tor final .etian. council Member Kniss queried how lonq the process would take~ Ms. Lytle said the process usually took six months. Council Member Kniss liilJPported the Ilotion~ The proposal would have abOut 19 units, of which three would be BMR units available to the City. While they were not rentals, the Council could not pass a lav which required rental houses in the area; however, it did face only .. zoninq: change.. She 'Would bave pr-eferred to have the process come ;as a PC zoning change and 'Was concerned about having five large houses in a neiqhborhood 'Which would not be compatible.. She believed the area was a good one for multi-family housing; it ~as close to bus lines and shoppinq and not too far from child care And schools, and the loss of rental housing units. was partially mitiqated by requirements that the new development comply with Programs 9 and 12 and added one more BKR unit. She vished the council could protect people who were lfIisplaced by the 105s of rental units; however, the motion ~as only for a zoninq chanq~w council HeJ:Ilber Levy was unSure whether RM-15 or a PC chanqe was the best way to tackle the problem. Be aqreed the PC miqht have been the best way but was willing to accept RM-15. The odcls were overwhelming that the project would be similar to what the developer bad already projected trom the comments made by neighbors and the council, and the developer vould be taking a qreat risk if be redesigned the project and had to get questionable approvals of the Planning commission and the ARB. He believed the project lIIould be very much like the project presented. He was willing to accept RH-15, unless someone came up with coqent reasons he had not thought of for the PC route .. The December 5., 1.990, letter from. the developer mentioned a willingness to fund SOlDe roadway improvements which would ~iseourBqe U-turns in front of an access from El Camino Way, and he was concerned ~~at drivers would come in from El Camino Real and make a U-turn in a very dangerous area. He queried if the council should speak to the situation new or rely upon the Pl~nning OepaLtDent and the Transportation Division to make sure the traffic patterns would be. considerate of the turning: movements in the area.. Ms. Lytle said the area had some capital improvement projects underway for improvelllent of the intersection which had been neqotiated with caltrans for the past several years, and there was potential to move forward with makinq further adjustments to the intersection which could be initiated through the ARB process. Transportat.ion had. looked at the area extensively and was comfort­ sble with the safety but did not object to further improvements which could be incorporated into the tinal design~ council Meml:>er Levy believed a close look at the turning lIlooveme.nts in the final project would be necessary. 65-181 12/10/90 • I ! 1 , '.' / o council Member Sutorius said council Member Levy's observations about the PC versus the zone change was understandable and shared by a number of council Members vho bad wre&tled with the problem. Throuqh the appeal process, the L·ytton/Tasso proposal bael been before the Council. The Council continued the ito while the project want back to the ARB and ultimately returned to the Council for tinal review and action$ ~hich '~as acoeptable to the applicant and an unusual departure from the normal situation. It worked well with the resulting project being one which the council approved, and the applicant ~as bappy~ .VB1Il)MJD"!': Council Member Sutorius moved, seconded by Fazzino, that the project., after review and approval/action by the ARB, return to the city Council for final r~view. Mr. calonne said the zone change and Comprehensive Plan chanqe would have occurred by that point in time, and he was not sure what recourse the council would have it if was dissatisfied with the action taken by the ARB. He suqqested having an agreem~t signed and ready for Council approval, along with the Comprehensive Plan amendment zone change, so there would be no further actions left to be taJcen by the applicant with respect to conditions before the leqislative action approving the zone change. He 'Would not. 'Want the leqislative action taken and left dangling, pendinq some continqency; a condition such as suggested for an ARB revie'W by the council added a contingen~i after the leqislative action. Council Kember Sutori~s wanted to incorporate the amendment to be companion to the zone and Comprehensive Plan change to add certainty ~~at the loop had been closed. Tbe applicant should be motivated to act promptly because the BMR requirement would chanqe to four units as of August, 1991, and the applicant would know the process had to go through the ARB which had wrestled with public comments .. Mr. Calonne was concerned about tbe council taJcing action to approve a zone change and Comprehensive Plan amendment havinq continqencies in the form of a condition when it returned at a later time and about What remedy wou1d be available to the Council. Legislative action could be taken to undo the-previO\!s zoning action, but when talkinq about conditions of approval, he did not think in terms of havinq to go back and undo something but in terms of the action never being fully effective i~ conditions were not fully performed.. The problem with looking to another design/review process was that there was no way to keep the zone chanqe and Comprehensive Plan actions open-ended for a lonq period of tiae. Council Member McCown anticipated the project ~ould be pr-esented at the ARB and was aware there .. as .no guarantee. The developer could sell the property to someone who would come in with a different project. The zoning would be in place and the project would go through the process. Council Member Sutor ius was suggesting there be something different than the appeal process, which 'Was the only 65-192 12/10/90 'J o way the COuncil aav an ARB item.. It was a situation where the ~onin9 was 1n place and a desiqn needed ARB approval, and the only city council involveaent was when there was an appeal to the ARB decision. She understood Co~,cil Kember sutorius's intent was to r~ire that any ARB process for Jacobs court would return to the council tor review. The Council could then deny the project even it the J.R!; approved th.. design. Mr. C&lonne understood the uendment to be a condition of the zoninq. If it was a separate direction tor a referral to come back to the Council and not a part of the zone cbange, he 'Would concur. Cou<>cil Member sutorius believed the amendment loqically belonged with Condition 4 which would cause the item to ccme b.ack to council. A step would be inserted which the council ordinarily did not take, but it had been used in the most recent case on an appe~, 1 situation and was the design step which was built into a PC process .. Mr. calonne said existing language ii. Condition 4 incorporated the direction. Council Member sutorius said the amendment would assure the project wou~d come back to the Council after the ARB review. council Kember MCCown said the intent of the amendment was not to be a condition of the Comprehensive Plan or zone change but a separate provision with respect to the .7acobs court site. Once the zoning and Comprehensive Plan chanqes were in place, any develop­ ment proposal for the 6ite would come after ARB review to t.he council for final deoision on the desiqn issue. Mr. Calonne believed the lanquaqe was appropriate. Hayor Cobb believed the non-access to Wilkie Way should be mandatory rather than SU9gesti ve. LUlGtlAGB RBGlJU)DlG VBIUCllLAlI HOH-J.CCESS ~O nUXB ny J.!!I) ~T "KE FZRAL ARB APPLXC&TrOH FOR DBVBLO~ 0» !BE SrTS BE REFERRED TO !'D CU'Y cotlllcn &ftD AU RlICOJII!ENl)J.nOH X»CORPORATE!) XIITO ~KE XU-1IO'n0lf BY !'D DXEII AIlJ) 8ECOJII)KR Plannlnq commissioner Hirsch opined the. Jacobs Court proposal violated at least five of the first six policies in the Housing Elelllent of the Comprehensive Plan. Members of the community looked to the city COuncil tor guidance in terms of the meaninq ot the Comprehensive Plan. Mr~ calonne suggested since they ~ere operating under the premise of an sqreement and some additional items were inclUded beyond the RKR units that applicant consent be indicated on the record. Kayar Cobb confirmed the applicant indicated approval. 65-18) 12/10/90 • .. ':1 /~ .. -:;: o XOTtOR PASSED 6-l~ Cobb, r~zzino, Renzel -no.- RECESS; ';50 P.M, TO 1 Q ;00 p.M. 12. PUBLIC HEARING: Weed Abatement (1250-01) (CMR:563:0) Hayor obb said notice of the hearing was 9iv~n in the time, manner and fo provided tor in Chapter 8.08 of the Palo Alto Municipal COde. N written objections vere-received. He declared. the public hearinq n. Receivinq no requests from the public to speak, he declared public hearing closed. No one appeared or filed written obje tians against the weed abatement proceedings, and any resolution pa ed by the Council would reflect that finding. JroT:IOZU Vice Ma r Woolley Iloved, seconded by SUtorius, to approve the staff ree dation to adopt the resolution ordering the abatement of weeds. BESOLt.'7ION 6953 ntitled -RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO RDERING WEED NUISANCE ABATED" 110'1';[011 PASSED 7-0. Levy. nzel absent. RESOLUTIONS 13. Resolution Suspending Oper tinq of section 7.02(8) of Settle­ ment Aqreement and Master ter Sales contract with the city and County of San Francisco 121) (CMR:591:0) .0000XOII': Council Member McCown m-:> d, seconded: by Fazzino,. to approve the staff recommendation to ad t the resolution suspending use of water consumption in fiscal ye 89/90 and 90/91 from the vesting procedures of the San Francisc Water Oepartment Master Agreement, conditional upon similar a ion by all remainin~ suburban purchasers affected by the. alloca . on process. RESOLUTION 6954 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CIT¥ OF PALO ALTO SUSPENDING OPERATION OF ECTION 7.02(B) OF SE'I"l'LEMEt1T AGREEKENT AND MASTER WATER SALES NTRACT WITH THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO FOR FISCAL YEARS 1989-90 AND 1990-91- .KO'l'10l1' PASSEl) 7-0, Levy .. Renzel absent. QBPlHANCES 14. Ordinance Amending the Budget for Fiscal Year 1990-91 vide an Additional Appropriation for CIP Project No. 8812 -Information Systems Development-for a Hard Disk Driv re Financial Data Base (801-10) (CMR:582:0) 65-184 12/10/90 .. I NFORIIA TI OItAL HE!10RANCIffl ARCHITECTURAL REVI Ell BOARD "arch ZI, IS91 II. . REGULAR AGENDA Z. 4Z0-461 JACOBS COURT • lightner Property Group 91-ARB-l8 90-E1A·26 Final revie. of demolitfon of six residences and ~onstruction of 19 candom1n;um units with on-grade parking ZONING RM·1S Low Density Multiple family Resjd~ntial Distritt ENYIROHM!NTAL IMPACT ASSESSKENT A negative d!claration of no signif~c~nt environmental impact has heen prepared and was adcpt!d by City Council at the time that the lone change frorn R·2 to RK·1S was approved, December 10, 1990. PUBLIC NOTICEjREVIElI BY OTHERS Mitled notices ~re lent to .11 utility customers and property owners within 300 feet af tne project site. BACKGROUNO This project was presented to the Architectural R~view Board for Preliminary Review on May 11. 1991. as part of th! application to rezone the property from R-2 Two-Family Residence zone to RM-IS Hu1tiple-Family Residence ~one. Minutes of the May 17, 1991 1 ARB meeting ITe i~c1uded in yo~r packet. The zone change was reviewed by Planning Commission on July 25, 1990, and was approved by City Council on Oecem~r lC, 1991, \rith the f01'owing ccnditions: 1_ 7hree BMR units are to be provided, rather than the required two BMR \lnits. 2_ There is to be no vehicular access from Wilkie Way. 3. The final ARB application for the project is to be referred to the C1ty Council after ARB recommendation. DESCRI PTI ON This proposal is to demolish the si~ e~isting single family residences and to construct nineteen two story townhouses. All but two of the units have attached garages, with tne two BMR units at the front of the site sharing a sing1e detached 9irage_ Six guest parking spaces iTe provided on site. The units are arranged around an entTJ drive, with o~ientlti~n and setbacks Df the units varied to break up the building facades. improve - 5 - ......... ,-------. . ... ". ,.::1 . o ~ vtsti5 into th~ entry court and create subcourts wftMin the central area. Each bYilding unit is composed of several vol~e$ and includes porches, balconies. bays and tower elements wit~ clerestory windows. The exterior fs creme colored stucco plaster with terra cotta accent. the windows will be trimmed in grey-green and the roofs will be green-black asphalt shingle with small a~unts of metal roof at entrys and porches for &ccent~ Window materials have not been called out. At the meeting. the appiicant will ~resent window materfals and a co10red render5ng showfng how materials and col~rs are used on the buildings~ Each u~;t has a private back yard with an average s;ze of approximate'1 450 square feet. A common area approximately 20 X 110 square feet is provided at the rear of the site behind two existing large pepper trees. These trees are a~ng I total of 13 existing trees on the site which are being retained~ A gate at the south end ef the conmon area proldd'es pedestrian access tD Wilkie Way. !NAlYSIS Tne modulation of th2 building masses, variety of celors. materials and details and retention of most of the existing significant trees on the site help to give the project an inviting reSidential feeHng with a· bint of the infcrmal. somewhat rural character of the existing site. Staff is wery supportive ~f the design concept, and we appreciate the appli~3nt's efforts to produce an attractivE project. We continue to have some reservations about the follow;n; aspects ef the design and recommend that they be given further consideration. The first three items concern location of parking and design of the open space and the comman areas at the front of buildings. Since these issues re1ate to building layout, improved solutions could require changes to floor plans and building footprints. The last two items cancer. lighting and bicyc1e parking and would require only minor design .. ctlanges. 1. Amount of pavement, hard surfaces and dominance of the car in the entry court. Building entries aTe d'eepl.1 rec.essed, with Ue entry c~urt lined by garages. This is some~at mit1gated by some garages being turned so that the doors face the side courts. but we note the row of four double garage doors on units 3. C .5 and 6. 2. Guest parking spaces located directlY in frent of front doors with no landscape separation, particularly guest spaces 4, 5 and 6. It seems likely these spaces will he perceived as belonging t~ the units t~ey are i~ front of. and they may be an annoyance to those residents if they are used regularly by others. 3. Design of tne common usable open space. Paving for driv~way. guest parking and entry walks extends under the frent half of the two pepper tree canopies, limiting the common space to i strip behind the trees. We ire concerned that paving over so ~uch of the root zone will harm the trees. and it would be more desirable far the common space to include all the area under the trees. In addition, the common space needs to be designed specifically to a~commodate the play needs of cnildren. - 6 - .~-.-<---,~~-.. ;,~ -,", . o '~ 4. No exterior lights ire shown in the rear Yir~s. Pitio lig~t1ng wbic~ is shielded $0 as not to extend beyond the property iine should be Incl"ded fn the lighting plan. The proposed 20 feet high pole lights along the centr~l drive appear to be in conflict with proposed trees whic~ are located in tne sa~ small planting ishnds. The trees should be retained aJld the 1 ights removed. hy pole lights wh~(h areinstalled on the site s~ould not exceed apprcxlaately 12 feet in height. We are concerned that too muc~ exterior lighting is proposed for the central drive and that t~1s will re,",t in 0 bright spot, reflecting light iota the adjacent rteighborhood~ S. The bicycle parking for the C units should be modified so that bicycles do not have to be takfn up steps to access the bike parking space. RECOHIIENDATION Provided tnat the design is acceptable to the Board. staff recommends approval with the following conditions: 1. Any additional design Ilodifications or details reQuested by the Board 5hall return for Board review after r!view and approval of the project by City Council and prior to submitting for a Building Permit. • 2. After the project is reviewed by City Co~ncil and prior to submitting for a Building Permit, a detailed ftnal landsc~pe plan shall return for ARB approval. The landscape plan shall include a planting and irrigation plan in compliance with the Utility Department landscape G~idelines, fully dimensioned parking spaces, driveways, sidewalks and planting areaSj detiils of paving materials. fences, gates. trellises. benches and other landscape feat~i~s, l~ation of electric utility transformer; landscape material samples. Tne design of the commo~ usable open space shall be developed t~ specifically provide for the play needs of children. A. revised 1 i9hti!"',~ plan shall also return for reYiey with the final landscape plan. 3. At the time t~e final landscape plan is reviewed by AR8~ the applicant shall show evidence of a contract with a Certified ArhQrist who will be responsible for supervising implementation of the fol1owing tree protection ~easures: a. Prior to any demolition or construction on the site~ all trees designated to be preserved shall be protected with ~ 6 feet high chain link fence mounted on l inch diameter £alyanfzed iron posts driven into the ground to a depth of at least 2 feet at no more thap 10 foot spacing~ The fence shall enc10se the entire area under the dripline, or a distance from the tree of 1 foot per each inch of trunk diameter, whichever is greater. This area shall be s~own on the liYOUt and planting plans~ Spray piint t~e top of the fence with bright orange paint before unrolling the fabric to insure visibility of the barTler. In no case shall any vehicles or equipment or any type of =aterials. including soi1t be permitted to be stored within this enclosed area. Fence shall be erected before -] - ""-.., ----'"---"-,--- .~. .' ·~ /. /,;;:.;---'-.:...... . ""~ -'-" _,.' ':L~~(~ -""", ":"';~';'~"'F' ~if~., """= '-" d~lition or co~struction begins Ind shall remain in place ~ntil fin.l pl.nting operition, are completed, b. Any trenching within enclos~re shall be don! by band .. Any tree roots encou~tered smal'er than 2 inches shall be cut clean wit~ approved tree pruning tools and sealed with an approved fungicidal tree sealant. Tree roots 2 incnes or larger s~all not be cut~ Route pipes into 11ternate location to avoid conf'jct~ c. Any grade change wit"in tne fenced lone shall be limited to 6 inches of cut Dr fill from the original grade and sh,ll be icc.~l!shed by hand. d. No soil sterilants shall be applied under pavement near existing trees. e~ Above ground surface runoff shal',not be directed into the tree canopy area 'rom adjacent areas. Ensure that sidewalKs or other construction do not trap .ater near the tree. f. SuppleRenta' irrigation and fertilization before. during and after construction for all trees to be retain~~ and correctional pruning and cabling of specified trees shall be provided as directed by • Certified Arborist. 4. A 24 x 24 inoh 'tandard stop sign shal, be installed Dn the right ha~ side of the drf~eway at t~e back of the sidewall, to the satisfaction of the Transportation Division prior to occupancy. S. 1ft coaplfance with conditions of City Council approval of the zone cha~e from R-2 to RM-1S, three BHR units shall be provided rather than the two required. Tnis requirement sh,ll be fulfilled to the satisfaction of the City Attorney In~ the Director of Planning and ~Co~nit, Environment in conjunction wit~ t~e subdi~ision process. -8 . ·~. Arddted .. ri' . RevIew Bo..,nl ,"ililites ---------~~~~---------------------------------------------------- A. 1I0LL CALL Eo&rd Members Preserlt: Staff Members PZesent: Thursday. March 21, 1991 8,00 A.M. Counei! Conference Room 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, California MarDi Barnes Aino aaRosa Michael Lyz:va Julia Maser Shirley Wilson Bob Haley Nancy Lytle Virginia Warheit B~ APPROVAL OP h1HDtES OF MIlCH 7. 199): None C. ORAL COIIIroIflCA'UORS. Mr. Bob Moss presented to the Board a proposal for improvement of the design guidelines for El Camino Real for the ABB's information and review. D • AGEIQ).I. I'rBHS APPROVALS: The Archit.ect.ural Reviev Board (ARB) decision on the design of the project is a recommendation to the Director of Planning and Community Bnv.ironment (the Dir~ctor), vho makes the final decision. Unless otherwise stated by the ARB, or the Director, project approvals generally incorporate Project Bevlev Co~ittee conditions as recommended in the InforEatlon Meruorandums. CBAMGESJ Any change to an approved design plan must be resubmitted to the City for approval. ~esubmittal mandated as a result of complying with Public worksl Engineering or applicable code or ordinance requirements .. 1---3/21/91 ',' ' o ~1nal r~viey of demolition of six residen~es and construction Of 19 condominium uni~6 with on-grade porldll g. After preseftta~ion and discu$$lon Boar~ commeht Ya6 as tollovs: MS~ ~ eO~F~imented ~he 4pplican~ on d~veloping a ~oDdertul design feeli~g ~bat sbovs a lot of .picit a~6 interest reflective Qf tbe ni5toric n$ighhorhood and ~OUld be a vonderfnl ad4ition ta this area of tovn~ Sbe ~$ ~om~vhat conoerned a~ut the ~eyebroy­ ele.ents o~eT th~ back doora_ feeling they mal look £ll»sy and ha$ some reservation about the dark-colored roof. Hs. Masex stated she yould like to see the play area enlarged, fee1ing it vonld be a benefit tQ the entire project. Tbe vines an4 trellises described by tbe landscapa architect should he Included~ and th. proyosed lighting level ~ay ~ too bright. H5~ n&ROSA st~ted that &~e could not .pprove tb~ p~Qjaat at this tlm~, £eeling eh.t continuance would be mQr~ apFropr1ate for the fOllQ~ing reasons: I~ The majo~ OQncerns raised ~y the majority of the ~o&rd at prel!minary Review have not been addressed_ These ~oncern$ vere and are; a. lle-du'Ctic·n or mit-igatioll of the p-redominance of hardsoape. b. llIport.ance of the s.peci:alness of t.he" lSite and its sany trees_ Two of ~he ~r~es ~i~g 5av~d are li.ted in poor conottiQn vb11e thzee bein~ ~e~oved ar~ large an6 in av~rage con~ition (part1c~la$ly 3 20; waln~t vith a 25' canopy}. ~. M1ni.iElng t~e .olid blOCK of the project (e6peci"~ly on l-l ~1~e). M$~ aa~05a felt these ~hree ls$ue6 CO~ld be ~ealt vith hy brea~in9 ~p the buj~4ing blcc~ thus saving more trees, _llQving ~ore landscaping to mitigate bards cape ana providing re~lef to a long bull~ing ~a11 at ~-1 6id~# Some of the unite proposed are ta1r1y laxge an~ v1de and could be reconfigured to provt4e an op~Dirtg b~tyeel\ uni tc ~ 2. The arch1~ectqre i9 too vag~e& The BQar$ should not grant ~pptOVal with the condition that numerOU$ detAils ~~turn tor approval prior ~o 1&6Uane~ o£ • building per&~t~ Since elevations d~ not .a~ch the site p~.n (specIficallY garage 40cr loc.tlons) and 7---3/21/91 o elevations do not ~atch floor plans tor vindow layouts and an overa11-site-landscape-coDcept plan (important to mitigate hardscape) ~as not includ~d, Ms~ daRcsa felt tha.t it vas prematurJ: to approve the archit.ecture. MS. ~ stated she felt this .as a v~ry refreshing pre$ent&tion acd feels this is going to be a wcnderful project and likes the general fee1. She stated she felt the roof may be too shallov and veulC! like the applicant to return Vith a ~etailed landscapin~ ptan. Ms. Wilson 1s not concerned about the hardscape and feels not much more Can be done with cars on the 5ite~ She vould like to see the lighting toned aO',in and YOl!ld also like to see turf in the baCkyards and suggested placing trellises over the garage doors a~d she said the garage doors ShOOld be good quality. She advised the architect to de ~hat cou1d be done to mitigat~ the long-b~ildinq Yal~s. she does not think that there Is room on the site to provide additional openings betveen units without reducing tbe size of the project. She stated that a 10t of design has to occur whicb sbould come back with the landscape p1an MS. BARNES Thanked the applicant for a detailed presentation. but felt the applicant didn't give himself the freedom to to11oY through with his stated concepts~ and bas not addressed tbe concerns and comroent6 stated at the preliminary review by the Board~ SUell as clustering of buildings. Ms. BarnEs WOuld like to see ~re space between buildings and feels the entryvays &re too small and cramped with not enough light. She fe~t that ~hile th~ secoDa-story e~evations were quite interesting, the bottom story vas co~posed of massive val1 and garage ~oors. She stated it ¥ill be difficult to get grass to grow under the Pepper trees located in tbe pl~y area and agrees vith the comments given by Ms. daRosa regarcing tbe trees vhich are being removed. ~s. Barnes alSO wondered ~hy the BMR onits were not randcm~y Placed within the complex aDd would like to see tbem ~ispersed throughout the complex. HR~ LYZMa concurs with the comments made by Ms. Maser and Ms. ~ilson and has been cocfirmed through his own 6i~e planning exercise on the property that tbe applicants have provided the most practical site planning sol~tion and that providing space between buildings vas not feasib~e without reducing the project size. He also stated he feels detailS need to be worked out as far as the vood YiDdovs~ expansion joints. f~ues, trellises~ eyebrows~ stairs and the transition betveen ~aterials~ 8---U21/9I .. ------~~.,--­.-------- o , ., r.bis item vaa ~, 3-2, Ms. daRosa and Ms. Barnes opposed, y!tb tbe following condition: 1. Standard .Doise ~evel control shall be implemented throughout tbe project not to exceed 40 a b interior level, to protect from both street noise and noise generated on the project site. 2. Additional design ~odlf!C'~tfons or details such 38 fInes, v1ndoys, trelliaes, stairs, eyebrows, flues, expar.slon joInts, vater leaders and transitions between materials shall return for Board review and approval a~ter review and approval of the City Counci~ and prior to suhmitting for a Building Permit. 3. After the project is reviewed by City Council and prior to submitting for a building permit, a detailed final landscape plan shall return ~Or ARB approval~ The landscape plan shall include a planting and irrigation plan in compliance with the Vtility Dep6rtment Landscape GfJldelines; fUlly dimensioned parking spaces, driveways, sidewalks and planting areas; details of paving ~teria16, fences~ gates. trellises. benches and other landscape features~ location of electric ~tility transformer; landscape material samples a The design of the common usahle open space shall be developed to specifically provide for the play needs Of childrefta A revised lighting plan shall also return ror revie~ with the final landscape plana 4. At the time the final landscape plan is revieved by ARB, the applicant shall sbow evidence of a contract with a Cert1fied'ArbOrist who viII be responsible for supervising i~plementation of the following tree protection measures: a) Prior" to any demolition or const~cctiou of the 5ite, all trees designated to be prese;ved shall b~ protected vith a 6-teet high chain link fence mounted on two (2) inch diamet~r galvanized iron posts driven into the ground to a depth of at least 2 feet and no more than IO-foot spacing. The fence shall enclose the elltire area under the drip line". or a distance from the tree of 1 foot per each inch of trunk diameter; whichever. 1s greater. This area shall be shovn Oll the layout and planting plans. spray paint the top of the rence with ~ight orange paint ~£ore unrolling the fabric to ensure visibility of the barrier. In no case shall any vehiCles, or equipment or any type of materials, including soil~ be permitted to be stored 9---~/21/91 X'. :.:""'" , . vi thin this enclosed ·area. Fence .shall 'be erected before.demo1it1on 0: constroctivll begins and shall remain in place until Einal planting operatJons are eompleted .. ,b) Any trenchicg within P~Cl06ure shall be done by hand. Any tree roots encountered smaller tban 2 inches shall be cut clean vith approved tree pruning tools and sealed with an approved fungicidal-tree sealant. Tree roots 2 inches, or larger, shall not be cut. Route pipes into alternate location to avoid conflict. c) Any grade change within the fenced zone shall he limited to 6 inches of cut or fill from the original grade and shall be accomplished by hand. d) No 5011 steri1ants 6hal~ be applied under pavement near existing trees. e) AboVe ground'sUI~ace runoff shall not be directed into the tr~e canopy area from adjacent areas. Ensure that sidewalks or other constroction do not trap vater near the tree. ~) Supp~emental irrigation and £ertili%ation before. during and after constroction tor all trees to be retained and correctional pruning and cabling of specified trees shall be provided as directed by a Certified Arborist. 4. A 24 X 24 inch standard stop sign shall be installea on the rl;ht-hand side c~ the driveway at the back of the sidewalk. to the satisfaction of the Transportation Divisi?n prior to occupancy. 5. In compliance witb conditions of City Council approval of the zone change from R-2 to RM-15. three BHR units shall be provided rather than the tvo required. This requirement snaIl be feltilled to the satisfaction o~ the City Attorney and the Director of Planning and C~unily ~DvironmeDt in conjenction vith the sub~ivi6ion process. 3. 551 LYTTON ATZRUE Landmark Properties 90-AlIB-4 Fina~ landscape plan for previously approved four-unit condominium project. 10---3/21/91 !