HomeMy WebLinkAbout0348.091-
~o
" " '.~" ,n""'-
" ..
July 3, 1991
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
Palo Alto, Californi.
SITE AND DESIGN REVIEW AI/D VARIANCES FOR MIXED USE RESIDENTI~COi'l'lERCIAL
PROJECT AT 3981 El CAMINO REAL
Members of the Council:
PROJECT IN BRIEf
This application (s for site and design approval for a mixed use commercial
and rEsfdential praject, including variances to required front and side yard
setbacks and d.ylight plane. The ARB, Planning Commission and City staff
recommend approval of the project.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The projett consists of a 51000-sQ~are-foot, two-story office building
franting on E1 Ca~ino Real and 42 residential units located behind the office
building_ The residential units are in three buildin9s arranged in a U shape
around a central courtyard. The residentfal buildings are three stories high,
with two-story townhouses over gra~e-1eye1 flats. Par~in9 is provided for
bot~ uses in an underground parking garage and a surface parking court which
are accessed by I shared driveway.
The applicant is reQuestin~ 1 variance to 111~w the front of the offic€
building tQ be set back 20 feet and a two-story pedestrian arca~e to be set
back S to 10 feet .mere. 2S·foot front setback ,s requ'red. They are also
requesting a variance tD allow the proposed trellis element at the entrance to
the site to extend 10 feet into the side yard setback and 8 feet into the
daylight plane.
On May 20 , 199J , the City Councll rezoned a portion of this site, adopting the
Negative Declaration and approving the Comprehensive Plan land use
redesignatior. from Service COjilTlercial to Multiple-Family Residential and the
zone change fro~ CS to RM-40. This rezoning permitted 5,000 square feet of
allowable commercial development to be converted to residentia1, thus enab1ing
the applicant to replace 5t OOO square feet of previously proposed office space
with four additional residential units.
For a more detailed d)St~5Sion of the proposed project ~nd the ~arilnCeSt
please see the attached Plannin9 Commission staff report dated June 7, 1991.
CMR:34B:91
L
•
s~,«til,
PlANNING COMMISSION RtVlt~
On June 1~, 1991, tne Planning Commi,.lon reviewed ar.d approved this project,
4~2-1~C, with Commfssloners Hirsch ind Christiansen opposed and Commissior.er
Cullen absent. The Ccmmiss'oners sup~ortin9 the PTOj~tt and variar.ces fQu~d
th.t it contributes to the City go.l of providing housing on £1 Camino Real,
that the residential and commercl.l uses work well logother and that the
project has. satisfactory rel.tlonship to .djacent use •. Th,y supported the
variance to front setba,k beca~se no setback would be required f~r a
commercia1 development on this site, the open p~rtfco in the design provides a
per~efved setback, and the setbac~ dces not serve t~e purp~se of protecting
the resldenti.l units slnce they ore located behind the co .. ~rci.l building.
me Conmissfoners who opposed the project found that teo much intensity of use
is being proposed ~n the site to 1tcomrnQdate a quality prDject and that the
design of the commercial bu11d~ng fs too massive and does nDt have an adequate
setback from £1 Comino Re.l. Minutes of the Pl.nning Conmisslon meeting of
June 12, 1991, .re included in the Council pack,t.
ARtHlTECTURAl kEYIE~ BOARD REVI~
The Arch,tectural Reiit~ Board reviewed and approved this project, 4-0-0-1,
.ith Shirley Wilson absent, on Jun. 20, 1991. Th. So.rd .pproved the project
with tbe staff recommended findings and conditions. with Conditions 12 and 13
ame"ded as indicated tn italics. The project deSign will return to the
Arc~ltectural Re~i&w Board for review and approval of architecturJl deta11s
and the landscape pTan prior to fssuance of a b~iTding permjt. Minutes of the
Architecttlral R!:"r'iew Board meeting Qf June 20, 1991. are included in the
Council packet.
RECOIKKOATlOH
The ARB, Plannin9 Commission and staff recommend that the City Counc!l approve
the project, based on the Neg.ti,. Dec1aration adopted by City Council on May
lO, 1991. subject to the followin9 find!ngs and conditions.
Pjanni~g Comr~issl0n and staff further recommen~ that the City Council approve
a varii~ce to allow i S~ to lO-foot front yard setbcck for the entry pcrtico~
a 20 4 foot setcack for the b~;ldin9, and variances to allow the trellis to
extend 10 feet into the si~e yard setback, and vertically 8 feet into the
dayl ight plane, subject to tile following findirtgs i:ld cCTldHtons.
Findings for Appro~al of Site and Design ApplicatlDn
1. The proposed project is orderly, harmonious and compatibl. with adjOining
uses. in that the Site plan is arranged so that the commercial building
is located next to E1 Camino R~ll, tne reSidential ~~its are located at
the rear ~f the site near ot~er reSidential uses and buffered from El
Camtno Real. the circulation is safe, orderly and attracti~e, and useful
outdoor spactS Ire being provided.
2. The project will ensure the de$ir~bility of fnwestment and the cond~ct of
authorized occupations, in that the buiTding stock is being improved and
the site mor~ intensively used and the ne~ buildin9s v111 result in an
improvement in the general appearance of this portion of [1 Camino ReaJ.
CMR:348:91
CAASOV/yv
7/3/91
Page 2
\
\
\.cji
-> ,
-
-""-': -.
3. Sou~d pr1ne1p'es ~f environmenta' desig" ind eco1og1ca1 balinte are being
observed. 1" that as .o.y as possible (13) of the existing trees are
bolng retaIned and the underground garage Is set back approximately 2,
feet from the property line. provl11ng sufficient soil volume to SUstain
aaximua growth of & m,~i~ of 5ix ne~ aedium-llrge SlIt varieties of
trees. Trees .re .1so being planted to sh.de the Interior courtyard.
Bicyc1. parking ,onvenlently located on the p1az. l.,el and the provision
of I pedestrian bridge across the creek channel should encourage walKing
and bicycling. The provision of high density housing in , regior. with a
jobs/housing Imb.lance will have I positlv. environmental effect .s well.
4. Tne use is consistent wit~ the ~ses deSignated in t~e Comprehensive Plan
for this site. The project Is in accord wIth Policy 5 of the Housing
E1eaent In providing a mix ~f resident~al uses in a commercial area. and
with Policy 6 of the Urban o.slgn £1 .... nt to upgr.de fl Camino Real. It
supports fo1fcies 8 and 12 of the Transport1on £Tement to dis(ourage
auto.obtle use and enco~rage bicycle ~s~ by .ak1"g bicycle ~5e
convenient, and by the proximity to public transportation_
Findings for Approv.l of Variance to front Yard Setback
and Approval of Variance to Side Yard Setback and Da~light Pl.n~
1. There are e~ceptional or extraordinary circ~mstances or conditions
applicable to the property involved that do not apply generally to
property 1n the same district in t~at the c~rcial uses in the mixed
USt p~oject are located next to £1 Ca~'no Real vith the residentia' units
Tocated behind the commerCial building and are acc~ssed by paSSing
through the ComMercial port~on of the site; othe~ cGrnme~c;~l buildings
along the street have little or no setbacki the parking for this building
15 located behind the buiTding and is not Visible from the street; and
the building is located on a prosfnent corner where the reQuired setback
does not meet urban design goals for a strong fonn to anchor the corner.
2. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and
enjoyoent of • substanti.1 property right of the applicant. ond to
prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship, in that
providing the additional 20·foot required front yard 5etbac~ would reduce
by appr~ximately 3,000 squa~f feet th~ usable open sp~ce interior to the
site and thus have a substantfal detrimental effect on the quality of the
site amenities. and the trelliS ext2nding across the dr;veway to the side
property line c~lls attention to the auto access to the site and to the
parking located behind the building.
3. The granting of tne appiication will not be detrrmenta1 or injurious to
property or improvements in the vic1n'tty in tt.at the proposed reSidential
units are located on the site behind the commercial office building so
that nn \lTdt is c.loser tha"l 55 fee-t from £1 Camino Real, thus pro'l'ding a
gre.ter boffer from the arterial than that provided by the required
25·foot front setbac~. The location of the trel1i. in the side yard i ••
lIinfmal intrusion whien wil] not pose design di fficu1ties for future
development on the adjacent site.
CMR:348;91
CMRSDV/I'W
7/3/91
Page 3
,
-.
,
i
..
\
\ -... -,V.
·"c "
,
~ j
II c'j
I
I
1
1
I
1
-
Condltfons cf Approvll for S1te and Deslg" and Varfance
I. The applicant sh.ll implement the following sound control ~Itlgatlon
me~sures to achievE compliance with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and
Tltl. 24 ,tandards, prIor to application for building pe .. lt.
Exterior Residenti.l Are. Noise Control. to Achieve ~5 dBA
Re.r p.tlos and decks withIn 195 feet of tne west property line and
havfng I direct Dr side vfew of [1 Cam~no Real, construct
~-foot-high acoustical patIo fences and 36-inch-high solid deck
railings_ Patios and decks f.cing onto tne interior pla,a area
will not require noise controls, due to the shielding provided by
the planned building arrangement.
The ra.p to the underground g.rage sh.ll be faced with Icoustlc.l
laterfal to reduce the noise impact on residentia' units over and
near t~e rI.lIp.
Interior Residenti.l Holse Controls to AchIeve 40 dBA
CMR:348:91
(MRSDV/Y11
Vlthin 195 feet of £1 Camino Real, one of the following mitigations
shall be required:
I. Required window construction uSlng sing't pane of 1/4-inch
glass providing STC-32 rating or higher. This .ssu .. s ~indows
will be kept closed at all tl .. s and that ~chanical
ventIlatIon will be provided.
b. Requ1red window construction using I prefabricated acoustfcal
Window p,ovldlng STC-S4 rating or higher. ~ith thIs
alternatfve, windows ~y be kept open up to SO percent of th~
tile for nat~r~l ventflation and mechanical ventilation is not
required.
Further than 195 feet to El C.mino Real, one of the follOWing
.itfgations s~al1 be rE~uired:
I. Required window construction ~sfng i single pane of lIt-inch
gl.ss pro.idlng 5TC-28 rating or higher. This assumes windows
will be kept closed at ,II tImes and that mec'.nlcal
ventilat10n will be provided.
b. Required window construction using i prefabricated acoustical
window providing 5T(-46 "tlng or higher. ~ith this
alternatlve, windows ma~ be kept open up to SO percent of the
time for natural ventil.tion and mechanical ventilation ;s not
required.
Tne windows of the residential units that are specified to be
~aintained closed at all times for noise control are to be
operable, as the reQuirement does not imp:y a fixed condition.
Units ~,aving the closed window condition should be provided with
some farm of mechanical ventilatl0n to assure a habitable
environment, is specified by the Uniform Building Code (UBC).
7/3/91
Page 4
. /" .
-
2.
3.
To .,tlg.te tne loss of tne large valley oak and other trees, the
applicant shill phnt l Ilinimllm of 24 15-ga110r. medium-lug! size broad
canopy trees in t~e landscaped perimeter of the site wher2 soil vOlume
is adequate to sustain maximum tree 9r~h prior to final~z~tion of the
building permft. The number, location, spec1es 'ind s1ze of trees. in the
final landscape plan sn,ll be to the satisfaction of the Planning
D;~1s1on, with consultation by tne City Arborist. The applicant sha1l
submlt, with the final landscape plan, {.t IIB Y sCl7e fer the courtyard
are.} I tree prote-etion program prepared by I certified arborist for
protection of the exist1ng trees to be retafn!~, with a certifie~
arborist deSignated to be responsible for implementation of the tree
protection measures. The final landscape and tree protection plan shall
be .pproved by the ARB prior to Issuance of • building permit, and shall
inc1 ude iI pTan for street tree enhancement and speciil pavement
tre.tl!lent extending into the pub 1 fc right-of-WlY to the curb.
The final design det.lls of the project sh.ll be revlewed and .pproved
b,Y ttle Arcflitectural R!vfew Board prfor to issuance of the bufld;ng
permit. The wind"", syste/Jls shan not fnc7/Jde false-grid divided Tight
features. The deUf1s 51'1" T inc1lJde the design Df the tre1J is and its
i"terfac~ Ititlt the bu;TdifJgs ,M the reside."Iti.1 units_
4. The deSign of the bridge and access to it sh.ll be .pproved by the Fire
Department. the Public Works Department, the Arc~itectural ReviEW Board
and by the Sant; Clara Valley water District prior to issuance of a
building permit. The applicant shall be responsible for obtain;~9 a11
property rights necessary for completing the pedestrian and emergency
access from the site to Wilkie W.y. The fin.l design of these
improvements wil' require lacked gates at both ends in order to restrict
access to reSidents only.
5. The applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from Cal Trans for any
work or construction activity in the public rlght of way.
6. The applicant shall pravide four BMR units; two one~bedrOOM units for
$60 ,000 each, and two two-bedroom units for $72,000 ~ach. Because of
the fluctuation in the project deSign, final agreement has not been
reached bebfe:!n the Clty and the deYe:lo,o€r.
Re3pectfijliy submitted,
11 "1'0-1;~.i...·\
YIRG~IA WARHEIT
Senior Phnne
ZMER
%rvlld /. Jd~/*
KENNETH R. stHR£IBER 7
Director of P1anning and
Community Environment
Attachments: Staff Report of Planning Commission of June 7, 1991
Negative Declar.tion
01&:348:91
CMRSDV/W
L
Plans (Commission Members only)
7/3/91
Page 5
. ;
'.
~ ..
('!tv of l'olo 'Rlto v ,_ '" 1
TO: PALO ALTO PLANIIIHG COMISSION PREPARED BY: Vlrglnl. Warhelt
OAH: June 7, 1991 FILE NO.: 90-EIA-30, 90-0-0g, 90-ARB-57
90-UP-J4, 91-V-II
PROJECT INFORMATION
lOCition:
Applic.nt:
Propert) OWners:
Requested Attlon:
PROJECT SUllMARY
3961 £1 C .. lno Real
Palo Alto, tA 94306
The SteInberg Group
60 Pierce A~enue
San Jose, CA 95110
Mayflower P.~. Oevelopment l.P.
3083 Lawrenc! Expressway
Santa Clara, CA 95051
Major Site and Desiqn Review and Variances for a
Mixed US! Condomini~m Office and ReSidential
Condominium Proj~ct
This application is for site and design approval for a ~ixed use commercial
and residential project, includIng Yariances for the front and side yard
setback. and daylight plane Intrusions_
The applicant had pre'ieusly applied for •• ixed us. project on the subject
sit! with a iO,OGO-squlrt-foot office component, but was u1timately denied a
~se permit to exceed 5,000 square feet of office space~ The applicant then·
rEvised tht proposal to scale batk the office component to 5,000 square feet
and increase the residentfal component by approxi~tell tne eQui~a1ent amount
of square feet, increasing the number of reSidential units from 38 to 42. 1n
order t~ permit this c~nversiQn of S~OOO square feet of allowab1e commercial
development to an equivalent increase in the amOJnt of residential
develop~"t, the applicant applied to rezone. part of t,e CS portion of the
site to RM-40. This proposed zone change was recommended for denial by t,e
Planning Coonissio. ot their meeting on April ~4, but was subsequently
approyed by City Council on June 3, IggI, by adoption of Ordinance No. 403S.
The proposed office building has been redesigned since the previous reviews by
Planning Comm'sslon and City touncil. During the precee6ing review p~oce$s.
members of the publ', and of the reYiewi~g bodies and staff expressed concerns
about certain deSign aspects of the offiGt bu"ding. In response tD these
concerns, t~e applicant has made ~ajor changes to tne architecture of the
offict bui1ding, including eliminating the corner tower, replaCing the t111
free-standing wall with a trellis. and extending a t.o-stor) open portico with
second story balcQnies across the front af the building.
The resldenti.l units ore stac~ed two·story town~ouses o,er ground level
fl.ts. The three residential buildings are arranged around an open courtyard
as in the previous proposal. The residencfs and the (ommercial bui1ding are
PC3gSIap/Vll 6/7/g1
-1-
•
r I .' .
-
• ceessed by I eocmon drive.ay off [1 Camino Re.l. One ~undred nine (109)
parking .pates are provided, with 104 spaces lecited In an underground ~.rking
9,"age and 3 gue,t and Z handicap Spates loc.ted in • surf.ce parking lot near
t~e entrance to t~e site.
The .ppl1tlnt ~i requ~$t.n9 vlriances to permit I vlrying s-to lO~foot front
yard setback for the effit. building and trelli. where 2S feet would nono.lly
be reQ~1red. The applicant 11~o reQ~e$ts two ~iriances for the proposed
trellis ocross the entry drive. One Ylrl'nc. i. needod to the .Ide property
line where l IO-foot side yard setback Is required lnd l second for .0 8-fcot
Yerticil intruSion Into the required side yard daylig~t plan •.
RtCCllKEIG)ED ACTION
St.ff recoomends th.t the Plann;o. Commission recommend that the City Co"ncil
reference the recently adopted ~eg.t!ve Declar.tion, and approve the project
based on findings and conditions contained in this report.
SITE INFORllATlON _____________________ _
Parcel Silt.-:-
Assessor's Parcel NuMber:
Existing Zonfna:
Compre~ens!ve Plan
Desi9natlon:
Density:
Existing lan~ Use:
S~rroundi~q Land Use:
H!story:
PC398Iap/VW
132-42-69
(S, AM-30, AM-40
Serylce Commercial, Multiple-Family Re.id.nti.l
4S units allowed, 42 units proposed
Kotel
T~e project sfte is presently occupied by •
motel. The nearby area is i m'x of res'dent'al
ind cammerc1~' uses. Tke parcel to the north of
the project is presently in commer,1al use but is
zoned sfall.rly to t~e project sl~e and can b<
expected to redeyelop. Directly to the south is
the Dry Creek channel and across fro~ that is the
420 Jacobs Court sfte, recently rezoned from R-2
to AM-IS. The Jacobs Court site h.s an
Architectural Review ~.rd application in process
for 19 townho"s. units. Th. project is bordered
on t~e e.st by the Venturi School site. A
sin91e-f~ily neighborhood is east of the site
b<yond the Creek and ~j1kie ~ay. The west sid.
of tne project fronts onto E1 Camino Rea' where
there are a variety of commercial uses.
Marth 2, 1990; ~plicition filed far prel1m,nary
arch~tectural re.iew of the propos.ed mixed use
office/resident!.l project with a
In,3~n-squar.-foot office building and 38
condominium residcfices over underground parking.
6)7)91
-2-
PC398lap/Vll
..... ",. .. _--
April 19, 1990: Pr.l1min.ry review by tne
Archlt.ctur.l Revi.w Bo."d (ARB) of the proposed
.Ixed use project. Minutes of tn. ~.RB meoUng
are .ttached.
June 7, 1990: S.cond preliminary rovlew by the
Architectural Review Board of the proposed .ixed
use proJ.ct. Minutes of tho ARB De.tlng are
.ttaclted.
May 14, 1990: App1!<atlon filed for .ajor sit.
and desfgn review of t~e ~ixed US!
offlc./re,ldential project with.
IO,300·sQuare·foot office building .od 38
co~ominium residences ever underground park1ng.
October 10, 1990: Major site and design rovl ••
by the Plann!"9 t~ission. The project was
continued to allow tho applicant to 'pply for.
conditional us. penait to .110. an excess of
5,000 square feet of office space. ~;nutes of
t~e Planning CommiSSion meeting are itt.ched.
October 16, 19~: ApplIcation filed for
Conditional Use Penlit to a1low construction and
operition of 10,300 sQuire feet of office use.
November 19, 1990: Us. Permit (90·UP·34)
approved for construction and operit~~n of 10,300
sQuare fo.t of office use.
November 26, 1990: Appeal of Us. Permit,
90·UP-34. filed by Barron Par. A.soclatlon
Executiv. CDRlltt,e.
January 9 , 1991: Planning CommiSSion r!view of
appeal of Us, P'roit .nd of Site and Design
proposal. Tne Planning Commission recommended
tMat tho appeal be denied and the Zoning
Administrator's deCision granting the Use Permit
be upheld and th.t the Site and Oeslgn be
approved.
January 28, 1991: City Council gr.nted tMe
appeal, reyerstn~ the Zoning Adminfstrator's
decision and denying the Use PeTait to construct
10,OCO sQu.re feet of office space.
February 21. 1991: Application filed for zone
change and Comprehensive Plan amendment to relone
14, 000 sQuare f.et fr"" CS to R/I·40.
March IS, 1991: Aevlsed Site and Design
appllcatfon submitted, showing 5 1 000 sQuate feet
of office space and 42 condominium units,
6/7/91
·3·
\
~~;"-'
··.;"~~~~tfi .... ___ J""_~--'---~ -
f -
M.n~.tory ~ctlon Oat.(s):
Environment.' Impact
As s lumen t:
NlALYSIS
Project Description
April l4, 1991: Planning Commission recommended
denfil af the request for zonp. c~lnge and
Comprehensive Plan .menamer.t to rezone 14,000
square feet from CS to RM-40. Sit. and design
Ippllcation continued until after the r.quested
lc~e change a~d Comprehensive ~lan amend~£nt ;s
acted on by City Co"ncll_
May 20, 1991: CHy Council "ppro,.d the
re~uested zone chanqe and Comprehensive PTan
Ute~dmep't.
Sit, .nd Design Application deemed complete
OCtober 10, 1990. On March 27, J991, a 90-day
extension was grin ted by the Director ~f F1anning
and Community Enviran~nt. Date for ~an6itory
City CounCil action Is July 9, 1991. Th. project
Is tentatlv.ly sch.duled for fin,l r.,i •• by the
~chitectural Re"iew Board on June 20, 1991, and
for City Council review on July 8, 1991.
No significant Impact; • Negative Declaration has
been pl'epa.red and is ittathed to this repc>rt.
Since this project WAS la~t revfewed by t~e Planning Commission, the size of
th~ commerci.l portion of the project has been reduced to the 5,000 square
f.et allowed by t~e Zoning O~ln •• c., .nd four additional residenti.l units
have been added. T~e offfce ~ilding has .1so been redesigned .rchitecturally
in response to c~nts mide during prevfous reviews. The carner tower
element in the previous design ha. been eliminated. It has ~een replated by a
two-story open portico which extends across the entire front of the building,
giving the buildin9 • strong but human-scaled presence at the street. The
ll-foot-high, free-standing wall of the previous design has been replaced by a
tre1'1s structure, with metal hDrilo~tll .embers suspended across masonry
columns, repeattng the ~sonry and metal materials used in the office
building. Staff finds th~se cha~ge$ to be very positive and responsiwe to
public concerns.
The residential portion of the project has not been changed substantially
except for the addition of four residential unit._ It continues to be three
wood shingle three-story buildings In • U-shape arrangement around an open
courtyard, .ith two-story t~house$ stlck~d ovtr g~ade-le~el flats. A more
detailed description of the building arc~itectur. and of the courtyard Is
included In the attached staff report of Octeber 5, 1~90_
The replotement of 5,000 fe.t of office space with four residenti.1 uoits
res~lts in eleven fewer parking spaces required. In response to t~is reduced
parking requirement, the liyout of the ~nder9round parking garage "as been
modified to provide a more efficient and easily accessib1e irrange~nt of
parking spaces. storage areas and trash and recycle facilities.
PC3981ap/yW
--'---~-~
L
6/7/91
-4 -
.. k ..••..... ~ .~,,~'
-
ISSUES
EJergency Access Bridge
The app'fca~t 1r.1t1il1y proposed that tne 20-foot access corridor to ~ilkie
Way and the br1dge across Or~ Creek would be fOT the exclusive use of tne
r.sidents and would not be accessible to the generol public, At the October
10, 1991 Planning Commissicn hearing, it was suggest.d by Commissioners that
there DaY be •• lu. In using the easement and bridge to provide. publ!c
pedestrl.n and bicycle connectlcn bet.een Wilki. Way and El Camino R.al,
I;ow~yer, at the January S, ]991 Planning Conmiss1cn hearing, th~ Corr.lIission
conc1 ud.d as 0 condition of approva1 thlt there shou1d be locked gates at both
ends of the aceess corridor to prevent casual pedestrian, bitycle or venicuTar
access ~
lhe ~r~pose~ bridge Gye~ the O~y tre!k channel is required by the fire
Oepartaent for par~dic vehicle a((Iss. The bridge wou1d be no nore than 12
feet wide~ fire trucks will not use t~e bridge. They will enter and leave
the 20-foot-wide corridor .long the cr.ek fro~ £1 eamin. Real and will fight
fir!s from this space, as th!y cannot drive onto the fnterior pTazl.
Paramedic v!~icles, unliKe fire trucks, must be able to leave is well as enter
the site quickly, The bridge acrDSS the cre.k will .11D~ paramedic vehicles
to get ioto and out of the site withDut delays, Since the fire trucks will be
stopping In the 20·foot access corridor along the creek and fighting the fire
frm. this location, they would block a paramedic .an which .rri,ed ahead of
t~e~ from leavins by this route unl~ss the bridge access is provided.
The proposed bridge connects to Wil.i. Way through an existing 12-foot-wide
ict~SS strip. The two adjoin1ng praperty owners, the Jacobs Court condominium
project on the west Ind Mr. George Smith on the east, e.ch own a 6·fo~t w;~t~
of the iCC~S$ strip. The Santi Clara ~Illey Water C,strict kiS a~ easement to
allow access to the creek from Willie Way. The W~ter Oistrict has apprcved
the concept of the bridge and access through the easement. A pedestrian and
emergency access easement for residents at 3981 E1 Camino Rea1 and for
paramedic vans will be required as i conditio~ of subdivision apprDval for the
420-460 Jacobs court project, The design of the brldse, the access strip and
the gates must b. approved both by the ARB and by the Water District,
Varian~e to Site Development Regulations
The design as proposed reQuires a varfa~ce (or i 5-ta lO-foot front yard
setback for the entry portico. and lO-foot setback for the office bUl1ding and
tre11 is eleaent over the entry drive wh'2re 2S feet is required'. A varfance
for a lO-foGt extension into the side yard setback arod an 8·foot vertical
exlenston fnt~ the daylight p1ane for the proposed trelliS is also reQuested.
Staff supp'lrls both of the requested variances. The Zoning Ordinance requires
mixe~-us~ projects to ccmply ~ith the site development regUlations of the
applicable residenti.l Zone, The required front yard 'etback for RM-30
development. on a" arter,.l street is 25 feet. [n the proposed deSign, the
front building wall is set back from the property line 20 feet, and the entry
portiCO is set back. distance of 5 to 10 feet. Staff feels that the findings
for a variance are warranted, gi¥!n that the purpose of the 25-foct required
setback is to provide. buffer for resident,.l units and the residential units
in this project ire located behind the office building, that the prevailing
pattern for commercial b~i1djn9s along EJ Camino Real is little or no front
PC39Blap/yw
L
\
6/7/91
-5-
• -, .•....... ~ .-:--"I
,
,-,
·,,~
" .
. 'i-... ,.' "1
L
setback, t~,t the proposed setback will provl~. a better commercial des I." .t
thl! c.rner loc.tfon than the deeper required setb,ck, and th,t the proposed
setback ts s~ff1cient to provide for landscaping and a pedestrian entry
portico along the stre.t.
In this revised design, the free-stl.dlng w.ll has ~en replaced with a
trellis structure vhlch extends frOG the bul1dlng .cross the entry drive to
the side property lin •. This trellis Is .t the same height ., the first story
of the building, approximately IS feet, and carrie. this line .cross the front
of the site. The trellis .ls. extends fro~ t~e back of t~e .fflce building
around the parking court to the western-east residential unit, and from this
unit over the garage entry to the sfde property line, thus separotlng the
parking court from the interior courtyard and providing a pedestrian ent~ince
tc the residential development. The RK-lO sit. deve10pment regul,lion. require
a IO-foot side yard setback and a IO-foot and 45 degree daylight plane. Since
t~e trellis extends to the side property 11n£, it wil' r~~uire a variance.
Staff believe' t~.t the presence of the trellis •• er the drl.eway accomplishes
the impartant purpose of v~sua"1 .arking tne entrance to t~e site and to t~e
surface parking which f. located behind the office building, and th.t the
prop=sed so1ut'on require, .inimal intrusions into the required setbaCKS lnd
will not pose design problems for future development on the adja,ent site_
Staff i. recom.endlng a variance to per.lt • maximum height of IS feet for the
trellis in order to allow the designer SOle f1exibllity in the design of the
various cooponents of the trellf •.
IlEtOllMEllDA T1 ON
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that t~e City Council
approve the project, based on the recently adopted Negati-,. Declaration,
subject to the f.llooing findings and conditions.
Staff further rec.-nds that the Planning Comission reco_nd th.t the City
Council approve I va~i~nce to .110. I 5-t~ lQ·fo~t front ya~ sttback for the
entry portico , , 20~fQot setback for t~e building, and variances to allow the
trellIs to extend 10 feet into the side yord setboc', and vertically S feet
intD the daylight p1a.ne, subjetl to the follOWing findings and cond,tions:
f1N1iINIOS
APPROVAL OF SITE ~~D DESIGN
1. The proposed project is orderly. harmonious and compatible with adjoining
uses~ in that the site plan is arranged 50 that the commercia' building
is located next to £1 Camino Re.l, the residential units are located it
the rear of the site near other resident1al uses and buffered from £1
Camino R.al, the (ircu1,tion is safe, orderly and ittracti~e, and useful
outdoor spaci!S Ire being pro.ided.
2. The project win ensure the d~siri.bility of inl:'estment a.nd the conduct of
authorized occuPJtions, in that the building stoc~ is being improved and
the site IIOre intensively used and' the new buildings will result in an
imp~Dvement in the general appearance of this portion of [1 Cimino Rea1.
3. Sound principles of environmental design and ecological balance are being
observed, in that as many is possible (11) of the existing tr.es .re
being retained and the underground glrage is set back approximately 25
PC39SIapj'IV
". ,
&/7/91
-6-
.~.
,
\
I
I
I
._J
.~ ..
. " i
-~ -'7
-,-'
... -.'.'" :--__ :: !i_lOlOIIy .. =.~~~ ;all ~ ,t;f t~}lt;:!b: I+ .. ,-,,,,.,,,\-. <-'.
-
feet fro. the property llne, providing sufficient sol1 velume to sustlin
max1mu. growth of a .1~f~ul of six new ~dfum·large size varieties of
trees. Trees ire also bei~g pl.ntEd to .hade t~e interior courtyard.
Bicycle parking convoniontly located on the pIa,. level and the provision
of I ~edestrla" ~rldge across the creek channel s~ould encourage walKing
and bicycling. The provision of high donsity hou'ing in • region where
t~e jDbs/ho~sfng fmbalancf encourages communfty otherwise, will ~ave a
positive environment.l .ffect as .ell.
4. T~o use Is cons!stent with the us •• deSignated in the Comprehen.iv. Plan
for t~l. site. The project Is in accord ~ith Policy 5 of the Hou,lng
£lement 1r. provfding a mfx of residentla' uses in a cOmRercfl' area, and
with Policy 6 of the Urban Oe.lq" Element to upgrade [1 Camino Real. It
supports Policies Bind 12 of the Transportlon flemont to discourage
automobile use and encourage bicycle use by ~akin9 bicyt1e use
con-,.ni.nt, and by the proximity to publtc transportition.
APPROVAL OF YARIANCf TO FRONT YARD S[TBACK AND APPROVAL Of VARIANCE TO SIDE
YARD S(lBACK ANO OAILIGHi PLANE
1. There are e~ceptional or extraordinary circumstances Qr ~Qndit'Q"S
applicable to the property involved that do not apply generally to
property tn t~e same district tn that the commercial uses In the mixed
u.e project are located next to fl Camino Real with the resident tal units
located behind the commercial building and are accessed by passing
through the commercial port!on of the site; other commerci.l buildings
along the street have 11ttle ~r no setback; the plr.ing for this building
is located behind the building and is not visible fro~ the street; the
bui1ding is located on , prominent corner where the required setbac~ does
not r~et urba~ design goals for I strong form to anc~or the corner.
2. The grlntfng of t~e applfc~tf~n fs ~ecessary for the preser~ation and
enjoyment of a substantl.l property right of the applicant, and to
prevent unreasonab'e property loss ~r unnecessary ~lrdshipl in that
providing the additional 20-foot required front yard set~.ck would reduce
by approximately 3,000 sQuar~ feet the usable open space interior to the
site and thus ta,-,e l subsh.r.thl detrimenta.l effect or. the quality of the
site amenities, and the trellis extending ,cross the driye~ay to t~e side
property "ne calls attention to the auto iccess to the site and to the
parking located behind the building.
3. The granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to
property ar 1mpro~ement$ in tne ~itin~t1 in that the propOSEd residentia1
~nits are located on the sfte behind the commercial office building so
that no unit is closer tnan S5 feet from £1 Camino Real, tnus provIding a
greater buffer from the arterial than that provided by the required
2S-foot front setback. The loca!ion of the trellis in the $~de ya~d is a
minimal intrusfon which will not pose design d1ffjc~ltfes for future
deve10pment on the adjacent 5ite.
COIIDITl OMS
J. The ipplicant Shill !mplement the following soun~ control mitigation
measures to achieve c~mpliance with the Palo Alto C~mprehensi~e Plan and
Title 24 .tandards, prior to application for building permit.
PC3981ap/1'II
L
-,
o/7nl
-7-
,
~~
~;$:'
''<.
J-
r
· , .
~~~2:t _____ ,. __ ._
-
Exterior Residenti.l Area Moise Controls lo Achieve 65 dBA
Rear patiOS and decks within 195 feet of the west property line and
h.vlng I direct Dr side view of £1 Camino Re.l, construct
S-foot-high acoustl,o' potio fences and lS-lnch-hlgh solid deck
r.illng,_ PatIos and decks f.clng onl. the Inlerior plaza Irea
will not require nols. controls, due to the shielding provided by
the plooned building arrangement.
The rup to the underg-roufld giTige $),a11 be faced with "oustfcal
aater1al to reduce the nofst f~act on resfdentfal units oyer ind
llear the TUIP.
Interior Re,identl.l Holse Controls to Achieye 40 dBA
Withl. 195 feet of £1 C .. inc ~eo1, cne cf the fcl1~ing ~itig.ticns
sholl be requir.d:
I. ReQuired window construction using sing1e pane of l/C~inc~
gla'$ pro.iding STC-32 roting or higher. Thi, os,um.s windows
will be kept closed ot .11 times ond that mechanicol
yentl"tl.n vill be provided.
b. Required window construction using a prefabrIcated acoustical
wind~ providing STC-54 rating or higher. Wit' t,ls
alternative, vindow •• ay be kept open up to 50 percent of the
time fer naturil ventilation and ~cnlnitl1 ~ent'lltiGn is not
reqt.lired.
Further tnan 195 feet to El Camino Real, one of the follo~ing
.itigations .hall be required:
I. Required window construction using I single pane ~f 1/4·inch
gl.ss prDviding STC-2S rating or higher. Thi, Issume. windows
will be kept closed at oIl ti .. , and that mechanical
ventll.tion viII be provided.
b. Requ'T~d w1ndc_ construction u~ing a ~reflbr'(lted lto~stitll
window providing STC-46 rating or higher. Wit' this
alternative. vfndow5 mal b! kept open up to 50 percent of the
time for naturll ventilation and mechanical ~entilition is r-ot
required.
The windo., of the residential "nit. t'at .re specified to be
maintained closed at ill times for noise contro1 are to be
aperab1e, is tht requ1reme~t does not imply i fixed condition.
Unit. ha.ing the clo.ed .indow condition should be providej wit'
some form of mechanical ventilation to aSsure i habftable
enyironment, as specified by the Unifcno Building Code (UBC).
2. To mitigate t~e loss of the large Valley oak and other trees, the
applicant shall plant a ~fnimum of SiX 15-91110n medium-1arge size canopy
trees in t~e landscaped peTimeter of the s,te .here soil ~olume is
adequate to sustain maximum tree growth prior to fina1;zatlon of the
building permit. The number, location, species and size of trees in the
final land,cape plan shall be to the satisfaction of the Pl.nning
1'1:3981 ap/VII
,. ,
6/7/91
-8 -
..
,
"
I
I : i
I
I
)
I
i
".:~, --.'-<
~~~-~-~~;;.!~-:~:, ~ ~ '.
·'~~,;:~1~r.:'j:~."·':" .. '';'' ... I'!Ii;OJ IIi"lr~_",",8i-""··'·'_;· ,_~~, ' ..
-
Division. with consultation by the CHy Arbor I s1. The applicant shall
SUD.it, with the final landscape plan, I tree protection pro9ram prepared
by • certified arborist for protection of the eXisting tree. to be
retained. with a certified arborlst deSignated to be responsible for
i~lementation of the tr!e protection measures. The {ina' landscape and
tree protection pl.n shall be approved by the ARB prior to issuance of a
b~ildfng permit, and shall fnc1ude a pl.n fer street tr9.E enhancement.
3. The final design details of the project shall be revie.~ and approved by
the Architectural Revi •• Board.
4. The design of the bridge and .ccess to It Shill be approv.d by the fire
Oepartaent, th~ Public Works Depart~nt, tne Architectural Review Board
and by the Santa Clara Valley Witer District prior to issuance of a
building pennlt. The applicant shall be responsible for obtaining all
property rights Qecessary for completing the pedestrian and emer;ency
acc •• s frca the ,ite to Wiltie Way. The fln,l design of th.,e
improvements will requ1r~ locked gates at both ends in order to restrict
iccess to residents only.
5. The applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from CalTra"s for any
work Dr con$truct10n activity in the public right of way.
6. Tne applicant s~all proyide four BHR units; two one~bedroom units for
$60,000 each, and two two-bedroom units for $72,000 tach. Stcause of the
fluctuatfon in the project deSign, fi~al agreement has not been reached
between the City and the developer.
ATTACIII!OOS
Negative Declaration
Excerpt ~inute. of the Planning Commission meeting, April 24, 1991
Action Minutes of the City Council meeting, May 20, 1991
Excerpt Minutes of the Planning COIaission meeting, January 9, 1991
Excerpt Minutes of the City Council meeting, January 2B, 1991
Planning Commission Staff Report. January 4. 1~91
April 19. 1991 letter from appllca.t
Plans (Commission Members only)
COPIES SOO TO
The Steinberg Group, eo Pierce Avenue, San Jose, CA 95110
Tne Barron Park Association, c/o John 0+ Joynt, 3589 laguna Avenue, Palo Alto,
CA 94306
Tom Fisher. 81lckman Turkus. 3350 West Bayshore Road. Suite 110, Palo Alto, CA
94303
Will Beckett. Hewlett-Packard Company, 3000 Hanover Street. P. O. Box 10301,
Palo ATto. CA 9430C
PC3981ap/VII
-----""'1ltO'" ,,~~~.
L
6/7/91
-9-
"~
•
, .
,", ,;,:."
,~~
~1 _ ;,"," ,.'1ti'~~~:i~~' -
£n~~ronmentl~ Oocuments . City of Palo Alto
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Pr~ject Description/Title: Major S,te l De5f~n review ~f a mixed use project
with 38 residential units and a 10 3GO s uare foot commercial bui1din with
unn ergrOlJn parking.
locatiQn/Address: 3981 [1 Ca,ino Real
Palo Aito. CA
Sponsoring Agency/Applicant: The Stein~er9 Group
Address and T.lephone of Applicant: 60 Pi ere. Avenue
_ ... (~4"'OB"'I~29<:5<:-."-5"'44,,6'-_______ San Jose, CA 9 511 0
Application for: Major Site a~d Design Review
Zoning ,t Project location: (S. RH-3C Fe! Receipt No.: ........ --.
HOT ICE Of DETERMINATION
Based upon review of the project files, the undersigned Irt€mber of the Planning
Department has concluded:
l!1 Negative Dfclaration: the project has no significant enVironmental
impact. No EnVironmental Impact Report is required. The reasons for a
Negative Declaration are: in the.attached initial study. A record of
project action is a~ajlable for re~iew at the p~ Alto Planning Department
located en the 5th floor of City Hall, 250 ~amiiton A~enue, Palo Alto! CA.
Planning Department Offjci~l:
Planning Director: X~~(df:.
The project has befn apprcved.
The project has been denied.
Rev i sed 8/1/79
tIAFRM
j
S::j ." (L, Date : 9-17-90
Date:
Date:
file No.: 90-I)A-30
90-EIA-30
1
Environment.l Documents -City of Palo Alto
I.
II.
Project Title/Address:
INITIAL STUDyl.~
3981 E1 Camino Real
IIf, Environmenta1 S~ttfng: The nea~by area is ~ mll of residential and
c~erci~l uses. The site to the north of tne project is presently in
commercii' use but is zoned similarly to the project site and eln be
expected to redevelop. Oirectly to the south i~ the Dry CreeK channel
and across that is an R-2 site currently occupied by sill: small cottages.
tbe project is bordered on thE east by the Ventura School site. Tne west
!ide of the project ~ it! fronts onto [1 Camino Real where th2.re are a
~ariety of commercial uses.
IV. Environmental Impact Check.list (Explanati.on (If ;,11 ·yes· ans'IIers are in
Section V):
1. Earth. Will the proposal result in:
ElAfKCK
i. Unstable earth conditions or changes
in geo1ogic sub~tructur~s1
b. Disrupti~ns, displacements~ compaction
or overCo~p.rin9 of the soil?
c. Change in topognphy or ground surfa;e
relt~f feature~1
d. The destruction, coverin~ or modificitj~n
of any unique geologic or physica1
features?
e. Any increase in ~ind or ~ater erosion of
soils. either en or off the site?
f.
g.
Exposure of people or prcpert) to
geologic hazards such .s eartnquakes,
landslides, ~udslides, ground failure,
or Similar haZi~rls1
Changes in siltation, depOSition, or
erosion whiCh m=y modif) th~ cna~~e1
of ~ river or tne bed of a bay elr inlet?
"L.· ",-,.
YES
...!..
MAYBE NO
...!..
...!..
...!..
...!..
9Q-ElA-30
2
•
"~:"< ' .
.--'
-
l. Air. Will the proposal result in:
I. Substantial lir emissions or deteriorl.
tion of ambient air quality?
b. The creatior. of objectional odors?
C. Alteration of liT mo~emfnt) moisture
temperature, 0:-any chang! in tl it'"late,
either local1~ or regionil?
3. W.te". Wlll the propos.l result in:
I. Changes in absorption rates, drainage
patterns, or the rate iH".d amCUrit of
surface water runoff?
b. Alterations to the course or flow of
flood waters?
c. Discharge into surface waters, or in any
alteration of surface water Qua1ity.
includin; but not limited to temperature,
d1sso1~ed oxygen or turbidity?
d. Alteration of the direction of rite of
now of ground waters?
E. Exposure of people or property to water
related hazards such as flooding or
tidal waves?
f. Change in the Quantity of gr~und waters,
elt~er tnrough direct additions or wit~
drawals, cr through interceptions of in
aquifer by c~ts or excavations?
4. P1ant life. will the proposal resu1t in:
E IAFMCK
a. C~an~e in the diversity of spec;es~ or
number of any species of plants (includ
ing trees, shrubs, grass, crops, ~1cro
flora and aquatic plants)?
b. Reduction of tne number~ of any unique,
rare or e~dangered species cf pla~ts?
c. Introduction of ne~ species of plants
into an area, Dr in a barrier to t~e
normal replenishment of e)isting species?
d. Reducticn in acreage of any ~gricultural
crop?
x
90·UA-3C
3
•
_1_
_1_
x
x
5. Animal Ufe.. II'ill the pro,poul result tn:
I. Change in tne diversity of species, or
of any species of anim;ls (birds, land
anlmals incTudlng reptiles, fish and
s~el1f1$h, benthic organisms, insects
or microfauna)?
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unfque,
rare or endangered species of animals?
c. lntroduction of ne~ species of anfmals
into an area, or result in I barrier to
the migration or movement of anj~a's?
d. Deterior.tfon it'! existing fis.h or
wildlif. habitat?
6. Noise. Will the proposal result in:
7.
a. Increases in existing noise leVEls?
b. fxposure of people to severe noise
levels'!
t igt:j and 91are. Will tht proplJsil produce
new ight glare?
8. land Use. Will the proposal result in a
suEstantiil alteration of the present or
planned land use of an area?
9. fnergy(HattJTal Resour-c:u. Will the proposal
resul till:
i. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or
energy?
b. Substantial increase in demand upon
existing sour,es of energy. or req~fre
th~ development ~f new sources or
e.neT'9Y?
c. rncrease in the ri!te of IJse of any
nit~ral resources?
d. Substantia' depletion of any nonreneat
able natura' resource?
]0. Rlsk of Upset. Does tne proposal involve a
risk of an explosion or the re1ease of
hazardous substances {including. btJt not
limited to) oil. pesticides , chemicals or
radiation) in the event of an accident O~
upset?
EJAFMCK
-
YES
_x_
x
·,
-
11.. Popuhtion/Housing.
I, Will the proposal alter the location,
dist~ibution, d~ns1ty. D~ growth rate
of the human popll1itJon of an area? .l
b. Will the proposal effect existing
housing, or cteate a demand for addi~
tiona' hous;"'g?
12. Transportatfen/Circulat;on. Will the pr~posal
result in:
i. C~neration ~f substantial addltional
vehicu1ar ~o~ement?
b. Effects on existing parking f.cjlities.
or d~mand for nev plrk~r.g1
c. ~lter~tiens to present patterns of
circu1ati~n or movement of people and/
or goods?
d. I~,rease in traffic hazards to motot
vehicles. bicyc1 ids or pedestrians?
13. Public Services. Will the proposal have in
effEct UPO~. or res~1t in a need for new or
altered governmental services in any of the
fo11owing are3S:
&. fire protection1
b. Po1ic~ ~rotettion?
c. Schools?
C. Parks or cth~r recr~ationl1 faci1ities?
e. Maintenance of public facilities,
including roads?
f. Other governmental ser~ices?
14. Utilities. Will the proposal result in i n~ed
fOT new systems, or substantia1 alterations to
the following utilities:
ElAFMCK
i. Power or natural gas?
b. Communications systems?
90· ElA':lO
5
x
•
j
I
!
!
j
I
I
i
I
c. Water?
d. Sewer ~r septic tank?
e. Stora wattr drainage?
f. Solid waste and disposal?
IS. HLlman Health. ~i 11 the proposal result in:
i. Creation of any health hazard or
potenti.l health hazard (excluding
mental health)?
b. Exposure of people to potential hea1th
~aziTds?
Hi. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in U!e
Dbstructton of any scenic vista or View
open tD the public, or ~ill the proposil
result in the cr~ation of an aesthetically
offensive site open to public view?
)7. RecTntion. W1H the pr~posal result in an
impatt upon the quality or quantity of exist.
ing recreatior.al opportunities?
IS. Cu't~ral Resources.
a. Will the pr~posa' result in the alter •.
tion af/or the destruction of a
prehistoric or historic archaeo1ogical
site2
ElAFMCK
b. Will ttle proposal result in adverse
phys ieal or aestnetic effects t!l a
prehistoric or historic building,
structure~ or object?
Co Does the proposal ha .... e the potentia'
to cause a physical change which would
affect unique cultural ~alues?
d. Will the proposal r~striet existing
religious or sacred uses ~ithin the
potential impact arei?
Irs
90·E1A·30
6
x
""",
I-
I
I
I
t
t ..
I
!
j
!
" ,
II
J9. Mandatory findings of Significance.
I. Oaes the project have the potential to
degrad! the quality of tht environment,
sl.:bsta ... tial1y reduce the habit .. t of iI
fish or II/l1dlife species, c.au~e i fis~.
or wildlife population to drop below
self~~u$ti;nins levels. tnreaten to
eliminate I plant or animal community.
reduce the number Dr restrict the range
of a rire or endangered plant or in1mal or
eliminate fmportant examples of the major
,periods of California history or
prehistorY?
b. Does th~ project have the potential to
achieve short-te~, to the disadvantagE
of Tong-term, environmental goals? (A
short-term impact on Ue envi r-Oflment ; s
one wbich occurs in i relatively brief,
definitive period of ti~ w~ile 1ong-tenm
impacts will endure well into the f~ture.J
c. Does the project have impacts .... hic,.., are
1ndi~iduilly limited. but cumulatively
considerable? {A project may impact on
two or more separate resources ..... here the
impact on each reSQur(e is relatively
sm.ll. but ~here the effect of the tot.l
of those impacts on the environment ;s
si9nificant. )
d. Does t~e project have environmental
effects which ~;11 cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings, eitn€r
dl~e~tly or indirectly?
V+ E~~lanation of ·yes· answers in environmental checklist.
See att.ched.
ElAFMCK
L
_x_
90-ErA·3D
7
'-~ ",.('.' -.-', .,.
,: '
-
-.,'
.-
J (b,f) tlrth~ Construction of the 107 space underground parking garage and
building fo~ndation will re$u~t in disruption of site soils and excavition and
removal of eart~ from the sftt. These impacts ire typical fo~ a project of
this size whid will provide u • .,der~round parkir.g. As t .... e !:ite is located
within I built urban envlronment. such impacts are not considered significant.
The project site is located in I seismic aT!i of moderate risk and will be
s~bje~t to very strong ground shaking in the event of an earthQuake~ All new
construction ~ill be subject to the requirements of the current Uniform
B~ilding Code which are design!d to mlnimize the Toss of life and property due
to an earthquake~
4 [a) Pl~nt tife. The irborist's r2port pr~vided by the applicant
identifies40 tree! existing on the s;te~ These inciude 17 Ailanthus, 4 oaks,
4 pepper trees, 2 conifers and a viriety of fruit tr~es. Many of the trees
are in poor condition or are an insignificant slz! and species. Most of the
trers aTe located near the perimeter of the site. Thirteen of t~e existing
trees are going to be retained, w~ich includes all but one of the significant
trees on the site. One 3S-Valley o,k in fiir~poor condition will be removed.
This tr~e is located near the middle of the site and is not judged to be a
good enough speciman to requi~e the project to be designed around it. The
three other oaks on the site will be retained, includlng a 47-Valley oak near
the southeast COTner of the site. Approrimately SO new trees ~;ll be planted
on the site. including a ~umber of medium or large size trees. Tn!
underground garage is set back approximiately Z5 feet from the property Tine,
leaving sufficient soil volume ilt U.e perimeter of the site to susta!n large
trees. The final landscape pTan will be subje~t to the appr~~al of the
Architectural Review Board and will include a plan for protecting during
construction the trees wh1ch are to be retail1ed~
6 (a,b) Noise~ Construction activitles wilT result in temporary increases in
10ca ambient noise levels. All construction activities sha1l be subject to
the provisions of the City Noise Ordinance, Chapttr 9.10 PAMe.
The project sHe adjacer. t to El C ... mi no Rei 1 has been i dent i fi ed in the
C~mprehe~$j\le P:an as being witn in an area. experiencing major traffiC noise.
The Comprehensive Plan recommends that i minimum acceptabTe outdoor noise
level of 5S dBA and an inttr;or superior noise leyel of 40 dBA be maintained
for ri:sidei1tial land Llses. In addition, California State law, Titlt 24,
requires that a minimum interior 45 db CNEt (Community Noise Equivalent tevelJ
or less be maintained for new llultiple·familJ projects. The following table
represents actual noise levelS on site documente~ in an acoustical report
prepared by Edward 1. P,ck, Associates, dated July 20, 1990. The noise levels
EIAFMCK
L
90-fIA-30 a
..... -----
-
ire calculattd ~t th~ minimum p7anned s~tback from £] Cami~o R~a1 for each
use:
EXTERIOR NOISE LEVELS (LIO ~BA)
Qu Night
Residential 67
Co"",ere i ,I 73
61
INTERIOR NOISE LEVELS (LIO dSA)
Residential
Corrmerchl
~
S2
4l
Night
46
In order to achieve compliance with the Pale Alto Comprehensive Plan and Titlf
24 standards the following sound control measures shall bf required is
conditions:
Exterior Residential Area Noise Controls to Achieve 65 dBA
For rear patios and d~ck5 within 195 ft. of tne west propert~ line and
~iving , direct or side ~iew of et Camino Real, construct 6 ft. nigh
acoustical patio fences and ~6 high solid deck railings. Patios and
decks facing onto the interior plaza a~ea will not requlre noise
c~ntrols, due to t~e shielding provided by the planned building
arrangement.
Interior Fl_esidenthl Noise Centrols to Achieve 40 dBA
~ithin 19S ft. of [1 Camino Real, one of the fo11owing mitigations shall
be re Qui red:
a. Required window construction usin9 single pane of 1/4· 91ass
providing 5T(-32 rating or htgher. This assumes windows wili be
kept closed at ill times and that mechanical ventilation .. ill be
provided.
b. Required window constructio~ using Ii prefabricated acoustical
window providing STC-S4 rating or higher. With this alternative,
windows l1ay be kept open up to SO% of the time for natural
ventilation and mechanical ventilation is not requtred.
Furtner than 195 ft. to El Camino Rea1, one of the following mitigations
shall be required:
a. Required window construction using a single pane of 1/4-glass
providing 5TC-28 rating or higner. This assumes windows will be
EIAFMC~ 90-[IA-30
9
•
.. _----
.. ~~ .....
",
I
j
-
k.ept clcsed it 111 times. arod U ... t IMcf'.a.nitil vt!ntila.tion .. ill be
provided.
b~ Required window construct~on ~sing 1 prefabricated acousttca1
window provid,ng STC-~6 rating ot higher. With this l1t~rnat've,
wi~dows may be kept open up to 5~ of the time for natural
~entjla.tion and mechanical ~entilatfon is not required.
The windows of the residential units that are $pecified to be mainta.ir.ed
c10sed at all tfmes for ncise (ontrol ire to be operable. as the requirement
does not imply a fixed condition. Units havins the closed window condition
should be provided with some form of mechanical ventil.tion to assure a
hab;tabl~ envi~Dnment. is specified by the Unifora Building Code (UBC).
7 light a~d Glare. Tne project .... n1 res~it if I Zon fncre.ue in light and glare
generated from the site. 2t is reco~nded that ,11 !xterior lighting be
shielded and d1r~ctiondl and that light stinda~ds be kept at the minimum
height necessary for security purposes. The (inll lighting plan shall be
reviewed aMd approved by the Architectura' Revie~ Board. Because the site is
Dpp~site residential uses, the tcmmercial portion of the project will be
required to comply vith the additional site development and desi3n regu'ation~
of Chapter 18.6~ of the zon~n9 ordinance which i~e directed at minimizing
impacts on residentiil uses, including lighting impacts.
11 (a,b) Populaticm/Housing. lhe construction of 38 dwe1l1ng units "'"ill
slightly reduce the current joos/housing imbalance and a"ow for an
incrementa' increase in the City's residential population,
Ihe project is subje:t to Program 12 of the Palo Alto Comprehensi~e Plan's
Hous'n9 Element be10w Markt!t Rate (SMR) program, ~~ich requires that housing
projects wit~ ten or ~ore units pro~ide ]0 percent of the total units as BKR
units. Compliance with Program 12 ~i'l require the provision of four (4) BMR
units for this project.
The 10.300 square feet of commercia' development in this project 1S under the
20,000 square foot tnresh01d required to tri.gger .hous ing lI1it igat ion fees.
12 (b) Trinspcrtlti~n/Circu'Gtion. The sitt of tn15 project ~as inc1uded in
Area ~ of the Citywide land Use and Transportation Study ErR. ihus~ the
traffic impacts of this project have been accounted for in that fIR. As the
pr~ject conforms to the uses appro¥ed for that area, and as conditions have
not substantially changed 5;r.C~ the EIR was appro~ed, ~o further environmental
review is necessary. Whate~er traffic impacts would be generated by
de~elopment in Area 6 have been deemed acceptable by U,€' City Council in fts
acceptance of the EIR and the accompanyi~g mitigation measur€s,
There is a substantia' transportation irnprov~ment being made in the immediate
viciuity of this project, at the intersection of El (ami.~o lriay/El Camino
Re.al/Los Robles Avenue. Free-runni~g right turns will be elfminated .and biKe
1anes, landscaping and 5'gnal hardware will be improved.
Ihe 41 residential parking spaces and 79 commercial pa~{ing spaces required by
ordinance for this project arf beir.g provided on tne site"
The ap?l1cant must obtain app.ro\,il1 from Cal irons for -any 'Mark. or construction
activity in the £1 Camino Real rigl1t of way.
EIAfMCK
L
30-EIA-30
10
,
I r
\
I
,
,"
\.
", "
•• "!,"
The ippTfcant ~ust obtlin approval from the Sinta Clara Ya1ley Water District
for the deslgn and ~nstill.tion of tnt pedestrian b~jd92 and any Qt~er
fmprove~nt5 wit~in t~e stVWO easement.
E1AfHCK 9D-E1A-30
11
•
! , ,
":~~~:~":
.:~J ..
i
I
l
1
I
j
I
I
I
-
•
. .
.' ,
l:XCERPT of Palo Aleo Planning
Commiss!oQ minutes of 4/24/91
AGfHDA 11EJ1 3 3981 EL CAMINO REAL: Applic.tion for. Comprehensive
Pl.n amendment and zoning aap amendment for.
14,000 square-foot porlion of • 64,904 square-foot site.
The Comprehensi •• Plan land "se designation is proposed
to change from Service Commercial to Multiple-family
Residenti.l. The proposed rezoning is from CS to RK-40.
Environmental Assessment: Ho significant fmpacts ~ere
determined to result from the project, and a negative
declaration has been prepared. Fil. Nos. 90-EIA-30,
90-ZC-4, 90-Cpt-l.
Chairman Marsh: W& saw this Item for the first time about two months
age. Whit we ire reviewing tonig.ht is In application for a Comprehens,",'t
Plan aMendment .nd • zoning map .mendment for the site, with the proposed
rezoning froa CS to RK-40_
Commissioner Hirsch: 1 wish to comment that I was pr~sent at the
October 10, 1990 commission hearing on this item, but I was not present at
•
04/,4/91
-~-
•
.. ,,"
".\
/\
.,
:::::'" --'" -
:\~t-.~ .'
the January 9. 1991 hearing. However, J bive read the ~1nutes and feel
prepared to stt aDd partfclpate fn this discussion tonight.
Commissioner HYber: I will make the same comment, as I was not present
for the January 9, 1991 hearing.
Ch.in"n !!Jrs,: I wfll take publfc co""",nt for Agenda Items 3 and C .t
one time. W. wfll then tlke commission comments separ.tely on each agenda
Item. Are there .ny stoff comments? (None)
'OIlIIfss1pntr Hyber: [hive .. QlJutfon for chrfflcltfon. If I understand
thfs correctly. 'Wit". the request to rezone to in RM a 4C, do we go to I;
1.0 FAR?
as. Warhelt: Th.t is correct.
Commissjoner Huber:
be • 0.6 ond a 0.4.
different.
Under the (S, it can .1so be a 1.0 fAR, b"t it has to
Is that correct? (Yes) So the tot.l load is net
Ms. Wlrheit: That fs correct. The fAR is no different .t ,II.
Chairman Mar.h: I will now open the public he.rfng. Mr. Steinberg may
speak ffrst, repre.enting the applicant.
RDbert Steinberg, 60 Pierc, Avenye, San Jos,; I am the architect for the
project. I wo"ld like to address four pOints. I would like to begin by
recounting the history of this proj~ct. You may be aware that we had
started out quite some ti ... '9' on t'i. project. We '.ve been to the
irehitectura1 revfew bo.rd (ARB) ,ever,l ti .. s. We came to the planning
cOJ:IIission requesting approVJl of the project, and it that time, it our
fi~$t meeting, it tame to everYDne's attention tnat we needed I
coDditional use permit for the additiona1 offices. We then c.me back to
you I second time, and that was granted to us. We then went to the tit)
council, ~ere that Wi. turned down on appeal. We listened very carefully
to what the city council said. and they wantee! ~s to p(Jrsue re-hil. So
t~at ;s what we have tried very hard to do. We develcped numerous
alternatfve s-:hemes that included retail, reducing tne office space down
by 5,000 square feet and putting in retlt1~ W~ ~et with brokers; we met
vitf'i people jn ttle retail industry, and weTe strongly advised that Ulis
was a poor 10cat10n fDr retail. and it would probably not be successful.
We brought t~at information to staff, and they concurred with it.
The currerlt zoning al1aws an FAR of L O. We arE: not .asking to change
that. But because retail does not wor-k. or. the site, we. ; n e-ffect, are
~nable to increase tne densfty without tne reloning. In a sense, we feel
it wou1d be penalizing t~e Site because it is net gOing to work. for
retail. The current proposal and rezoning attempts to substit~tE: the
5,000 square feet of retail ~ith S,OOO square feet of housing. The FAR
would remair exactly the same. so ~e are not asking to change the bulk on
the site.
The second point I would like to t,lk about is the v.riance, since you .re
taking discussion on bot~ agenda ltems at once. We disagree sllghtly with
staff regarding the second variance. The ftfst variance tnat tney are
recommending approval of (the front setback) we certainly .re in agreement
L
04/24/91
-5-
-
witft. In tenos of the side yard setback fo. the arching w.ll th.t goes
into the side yord. we feel that it Is import.nt to f"ve the arching wall.
which connects tne offices and the hOlJsfng. It fcnr.'s the entry and
pedestr1ln/v~h1culir motor court, ~aking a full wrap in a sense of
enclosure arDund the Site. We feel tnat it is doing two thi~g5. One is
tbat it fD~S when you go under~eath and through the wall, JOU ~ove from
the publ!c f1 Ci~;no into a semi-private entrance to tne project. When
you 80ve your vehlcle through the wi'l i second time, you go down into the
parking garage, so it begins to screen the ~arkir.9 garage.
Whit we hav! talked to staff ~bout, subsequent to the staff report, ;s the
IdOl of reducing the height of that w.ll at the property line. lie feel
that It is very important to have something which spans th, road on both
sides. but we could certainly reduce the height of it. It would probably
be possible to reduce its height by about half.
Commissioner Hirsch: What is the height?
Mr. Steinbera! It is about 30 feet. ~~ other experience where we ha~e
done this in Palo Alto, we have needed about 14 feet clear for vehicles to
get UTtderneath. ~e would like to have some structure on top of that, so
the 30 fe.t could be reduced substantially. but we do fe.l tnat that is
important and would 1 ike your consideratiorl in regard to .I modified height
of thlt ... 11.
~ last point 1s that there was some concern about the design of the
office component. We nave reduced the size of it from ]0,000 square feet
to 5 ,000 square feet, as ] mentioned. We have also tried to redeSign the
building so that it has a mere p2destrian cnaracter in scale. The windows
have been reduced $0 that they Ire identifiab'e~ ind the~ ~ave a hu~n
scale. We have developed a pedestrian arcade f~ont that ~ill pr~vjde
s~ade. and finally. ~e have changed from the shinier, ~re metallic
~terials to ~c~ earthier and natural kinds of materials. So that is our
overview.
Commissioner C~l]en; Would you specify the ~ateriils and where they are
to be used?
Hr. Steinberg: The shingle is for the resider.tial units behind; the
office bu1ldin~ would be clad in m.sonry. ~e are suggesting that it be •
two-tone masonry, primarily in the lighter coTor. with banding and accent
in the darker c~lor. Also, there is i metal trellis and arcade at the
lower level that goes in front of the building that would be in metal. and
that WDuld be in tne red too •.
Tne roof on the offiCE building would be just a flat? buiTt-~p roof, but
the red color would be similar to the metal ~ullions ~n the reSidential
units behind. They ~ould b. metal.
Commissioner STalier: In your pre~ious proposals. how ~any 8elow-Market
Rate [BHRJ units were inCluded. and is there any increase with the four
additional housing units tnat yo~ are proposing with this design?
Mr. Shinberg; ] am not realJ; .able to answer that Question.
Mr. rGilliland; There "auld not be any increase. There would still be
•
,
.... /
-
fcur units. The neg.tlated price that ~e hay. ~Ith them would probably b.
Idju,led I llttl. bIt.
Commissioner Hpber: Regarding the Ylri~nce r~que5t. there art two
relding to that c1rcijhr wilL One 1.5 wah re~ud to hefqht, and :me
co~cerns sfde yard setback. [s that correct?
Ms. '.rbell: One is f~r belght in lbe side Ylrd. One is daylight plane,
Ind one i, ~.vlng something of lhat heIght In the side yard setback.
Cqmm1ss1ongr Huber: lher~ is i ten·fDot extension into the Side yard, and
there ts the daylight plane i"ue. When you Denticned the possibility of
lowering that, It obyiously de.ls with the height dropping down. What
aboul the sid. yard setback comment that the staff made?
PIT, Stelnbern: If w do not infringe Into the side yard at least with a
support of that wall, we wIll not be able to have the feel in; that you .re
... lng through I plane. Thit Is what we Ire trying to achie.e. What J
would like to suggest Is that we oould like tbat op~ortunlty. That .as
very strongly supported by the ARB as • fundamental concept of the
design. w. would like tc try and work w;th that and see how we accomplish
t~at in a more oe1iclte ~nner than we had orlgina11y proposed.
tomisstoDe:r Hirsch; I have a question rf-gard'fng U'le lIajor trees on
site. The,.. Is • huge oak near the rear of the property. ls that being
retalnedl (Yes} ih.n there is • smaller one in this area in the middle.
~ Sttlnbtrg: That one will not be retlined.
Commj$S50ner Hjrsch: How abGut the big palm t~e@ near tne pool? ~i11
that be lost .s well?
Mr, Steinberg: It is gone.
Commlssiqner Cullen: To 90 back to your sample board. the wood shfngles
that you .aid wore gr.y. Are they on the residentl.l portion of the
property but not on the commercl.l portion! (Yes) I am looking at the
,taff report for the office building where it U:lS, "The previously
propcsed wood s~in9Te$ have been replaced with a more pe~anent material,
such IS .asonry or tlle.· So what you are bringing to us is masonry for
the office building.
Mr. SUlnberg: Th.t Is correct. It maj be • little confusing, becau"e
the pr •• lous office building was primarily glass with a little bit of
shingle trellis. That I. why it ha' been stated that ~.y.
Comi$$ioner Gluie,..; Mr~ Gilliland. I want to fol10111 up l)!'l the BMR
question. When you sa! you will renegotiate the pric@, does that mein you
will renegotiate them downward? (Yes) Can you approximate by h.~ much?
8r. Gilliland: Around SIOO,OOO per unit, ± SIO,OOO.
Chalnpan Marsh: Mr. Steinberg, yO" described the adjustment that you were
willing to make to the wall. What .as that again? Did you say you could
drop the height of the wa1l at the setback?
04/24/91
·8·
,
I
I
I
\.
,'. -
, ,
. ..J
Mrs Steinberg: res. It is presentl1 abQ~t 30 feet or I littl~ more. It
is comparable to t~e $ec~~d level of the office building. O~r proposal
would be that we would like the-ability to span the stre.t, so you will
hi" the feeling that you are e.vlng und~rneath and through Into a
different space. 'n order to accomplish that, we will noed approximately
14 feet (llir in befg~t for ~ehlcles to p;ss underneatn; we will n~ed same
stTucture on top of that so that it (eel. you are moving thrQugh a plane.
We could reduce that 30 feet by approximately one·third or more, but'
hate t. name exact (igure •• Ince it is not designed at this time.
Chairman Marsh: So It .ight be something like what t~is model sU9gests If
the lattice work were not pTesent.
~T, Stefnberg~ Yes, exactly_
Chairman ~jrsh: And it angles up to the ivy. Do ~e ~ave a sense of
whether that would then take care of the daylight plane problem?
Ms. Wathelt: It is 10 feet at the property line and a 4S degree angle. I
will check the model.
CpMm1sS'Q~t~ Hirsch; Mr. Steinberg. is th!re some other ~ay besides
constructing the wall that you could create the feeling that you wish to
creite t~ere? Could you do it with trees or lindscaping Dr in some ather
way that would be a softer impact than a rather large wall?
Mr. Stejnberg: You would need to do it with I buildjng ~ateri~l. When we
talk abo~t i wall. 1t could be as simple as having a column tnat has some
depth. to itt which is the same thick.ness as the 'Wall on the oUter side t
wit~ i metal piece o~er the top so that it becomes m~ch lighter in
appearance tilan i 501 id~ thick wall. I illI1 tlot sure whether it would
angled; it CQuld eYen be flat. It is l mi~ed use project, and because of
the configuration. we have. joint shared entry to bot~ the office and the
housing. We wanted to try and celebr.te that, making you feel that you
~ad bOYed from a busy t~oroughfare, where the site nec~. do~n a little a.
you pass the office building. Into a specia' place. I feel thit b, using
the wall to embrace that will be very effective. I agree that the height
shown, and even ~hen ~e wtre shnwing it at the higher l~~el. W~ made it
s .. I-transparent to lighten it up, but I do r.ot fe.l that that one
element, the thickness of the wa~l, perpenditular to tn~ property line. at
a stcry-and-a-half, is gOlng to feel particularly different than a f~nce
at • r;ght angle t~ the property line.
~jssiontr Hirsch: 1 was thinking of some type of p'antin9. where you
might have a climbing plant such as 1~Y or wisteria, which .auld be
somewhat softer than just a wall.
Hr. Steinberg: What 1 would s~9gest is that we do the wall, and that we
put ivy or somet~in9 that w~uld climb on it, to accomplish just what you
Ire S"9gesting. 1 would be very comfortable with that. That ~ould
certafnly be o~r intent, not only at the edges. but there wDuld b! other
poc~ets for landscaping that would grow up over that wall, as w&il.
C~a1rman Marsh: 1 have a question about the use of the plaza anticipated
in the interior of the project. My understanding is that that area is the
only common amenity for residents of the project. 1 know you have ideas
L
04/24/91
-9-
; .'
L
r
about how l""t open spac. would be used by residents. Could you talk.
11ttl. about l~.t1
Mr. Steinberg: Orlgln.11,. the concept was to turn the public spaces In
the units _a the livfng roODS and the MOrt active rooms, th! patios, the
places where you c .... I. lnd out of the un ;ts '0 th.t t"ey would focus on
that Ire'. It would have some lctlvlty that would have places for
se.tlng. There Is bicycle storage there; there are arbors. ~e talked
about the notion of • f •• nt,'n, but with the water sltu.tlon, that Is
posslbl, on the back burner. We have not developed .11 of the det.11s
that Ire going to go In there Dacause we have been working or. the broader
I$sues .t this pOint. But the concept .a. that typically, people will
turn their back on their neighbors and relate to the more private areas.
In t~ls case, we pur,oseful1y tried to reverse that so there would be
people coming and going and focusing of activity Into that courtyard, so
it would Gffe~ in o~portunit1 to interact I~d sot;,lize ~itn n~ighbors.
Cbalrman Marsh: 1 Tealize from wh.t you bave said tbat you still have
aor. work that you wlnt to do on how that are. actu.lly functions, but
have you given any thought .s to how c"11dren could be accommodated in
that area, as it is the anly open space ~n the sit!?
Mr· St@1nberg: Specificilly for children, no, we ha~e not. ~t would be
happy to do that, and would be open to any suggestfons~ I would remind
you that these are quite sma" units. They are cne·bedroom, 800+ sQuare
faot units and two-bedroom, 1,~OO+ square-foot units.
Chairman Marsh; We do ~aye falilies with children living in Abatare 1
which is. of similar sizf!, r belie'll.e.
Mr. Steinberg: w~ are open to any 5~9gestion5 for that.
(COMmissioner Christensen joins t~e meeting)
Commjsstcner Cullen: If we are getting into deSign, would you please walk
us through how people in these ~"ft5 are going to get to tne underground
gange.
Mr, Steinberg: ihere Ire two places that would givt access to the
residential units. T.e parking is under the Whol. podium. There is a
$talrway In the ~iddl. of the courtyard that .ould come directly up to
serve residents~ and tnere is a second one here that would service that
e.d of the site.
CornmfSSlooer Cullen: So t~ey wo~ld be walking through the common area tc
get to the stairways? (Yes) Is there iny protettion from tne elements?
(Not that ., have had any elements for .while!)
Mr~ Steinberg: No, there is not, altho~9~ the distances from almost any
un;! to get to • stairway would not b, ouch more than 50·75 feet. It
~Guld be very comparab1e to Bircn Court wh1cn has undergroynd park'"g and
access to a podium. and ther. you have an exterior stair to YGur unit. rt
is a fairly common arrangement.
CD1l1TIissioner Christensen: Is there any fencing arcund' tne perimeter of
the Site beyond th~t wall. or are you fenclng tne entire site?
------;
L
04/24/91
-10·
•
~~
'J!t ... ",
-.' ....
'.;~
Mr. St.lnberg: Tne whole sit. would be fenc.d.
Commissigner Christeesen: With ~~at material?
eT. Steinberg: Thert is an ordinance reQl.iirfng some k.ind of fencing. I
am not sure if ft 15 of wDod or masonry, but there woul~ be a perimeter
f,nc •.
Coami$sfoner Hirsch: Could you comment on the setback from the £1 Camino
property line. Is tnat still It five fe.t? Is th.t the reque,t th.t nas
been mde?
Mr. Steinberg: Originally, the .ntir. building was pushed out to that
five-foot dlmenslcn. How, on1y the tangent point on Ure tower, t~e
f.rthermost, would be fiv' f.et. The ~.jor part of the building Is set
back behind lone-story arcade. Ve have tried to mov! the building back.
W. will get planting Dn th.t tr.llis arc.de In front of the office
building.
CQmrnission!r Hirscb~ How far back. from the property line is the main
fa,ade of the bYilding at that point?
!W. Steinberq~ BEcause the property 11ne is skewed. it varits. but it
looks to ~, measuring it Quickly, like the closest down near the driveway
would be Ibout IS fe.t, Ind it would to go appro.lmatel, 2~ feet.
Commissigner Hirsch: The pll" shows some pillars withjn that setback. Do
they need a variance for those pillars?
Ms. lytle: Anything that fal1 s in the setback, except for a fe:-.ce.
requires I variance, so the p1ans would be referenced on t~is. The
portions ~f the struct~re t~at they show on the setback are what are
.!lowed.
Commissioner Hirsch: So basically. the five-foot setback woul~ apply to
tne turret particn of the building. and also the col limns tnat 9'J down the
1 ine.
Ms. lytle: Correct.
Chn Sharpless. 777 til Para. Palq AU,?: I nave lived in Pale Alto for
ever 30 years, and! have li'lled on La Para Avenue for about 2S years. ]
am I design prof~ssional, and! use the Los Robles exit to turn o~to E1
Camino Real to make InOst of my routes out of Barron Park. r would 1 ike to
request that we have a moratorium of any kind of redevelopment or
develDpment on £1 Camino Real until we have a plan for [1 Camino. If you
were to stand on th~ corner of los Robles and [1 Camino and look to see
what you can see, right now .11 of those properties will be up for
redevelopment in the next few years. Off to the right is Honey Baked
Hams~ wit~ pink st~cco. 00 you people recall that deSign? Then we 5~e
th. rendering of this project. It looks like the walls of Jericho.
Imagine walls up 30 feet high or whatever his rendering shows. Can you
imagine how high that is? This morn;,ng 1 was havlng coffee at Denny's and
was standing next to the redwood condos there. Whoever the architect was
who designed these buildings around that horrid parking lot certainly
04/24/91
-11-
•
.-1.
showed crelt1v1ty. It hid l sense of breeztne$s; tt had red~o~ trees, it
~ad ._thlng that just fit Into El C",'no. It is ver}' attractl'e.
Also, another project --several yeaTs ago •• y neighbor .as looking at the
project at £1 Camino .nd Page Mill. Palo ~lto Square .as belog built, and
he .ald. Ire we going to 100. at th.t sea of cars all these years to
com. 1 Tnen h. proposed that aound so that we never se. the cars. Ve do
see tn. tops of the buildings, but they put redwood trees In there, and It
is very .ttrlcti~e.
Getting b.ck to what J propose. It may seem like an lopossibl. request,
but J would re.l1y like you to consider it. As people .ho drive many
tl .. s a day In and out of the Barron P,rk area, Mayfie1d, los Robles,
Ka.tadero. that 'lie 9D in a.nd $ee sometht1'\q that is 'Visua11,Y .Jttracth'e a~d
Inttl'estlng to look at. Now Is really til. time to clean up our Ott
regarding that street, and that we ha.e an oyerall plan, so th,t peo~le
like the Mayflo.er Mot., project wIll have some guIdelines, and we can
hive sooetblng that will leak like Mountain View. Sunnyva1e, dowrtoom San
Jose. V. would really like to be proud of our city, as stated in the
newspaper. as being the fj"t place to live in the bay ar ••.
Bob Moss. 40)0 PrIDe, Palo Alto: first, I .~uld like to r.,Iew , little
history on the Site. T~en J would li'e to make some comments on behalf of
the Barron Park Association. T~e FAR in the CS zono Is not 1.0. It is
0.6. You only get the 1.0 If you •• ke • joint housin~/commerclal
project. The d.ve'oper c .... In with a plan for 10,300 square feet of .11
office/commercial. The ~'ty counCil. in its .'sdom, de1'\ied tnat on a vote
of 6·3. He ~as .s~ed to go back and [on vert the rejected 10,300 square
fee:t Df (omlne-refal from office to retail. As you heard, he has !lade
investigations. il,d for ~ario~s reasons, hoe has deterllined tnat that size
of commercial 1$. on the Idvite of experts, not likely to be tota11y
viable. ,'though. smaller portiDn might, in fi:t, be viib1~. But h~ made
; financial, commerciil decision ~ot to b~ild the maximum amount of
commercial that is allowed Dn the site. By doing so, he forfeited the
right. under the eXlsting toning, to build the other four-tenth 1 s of FAR
for the ~ousin9 bQn~$~ Hare;s whert th~ fa11~cy ~~s in. There is a
supposition on the part of the de¥eloper~ Jnd to a certain extent~ tne
stiff, that because he had i certain area and volume of building that came
before the city ,cuncil previously, ~e has some kind of entitlement to the
same area and volume. If he cannot get ~t ~ith the eXlsting zoning, then
he sh~"ld replace that by upzoning the CS to RM·40. That is not true.
There is no entitlement. Tne pr~perty was purchased fer development with
the zoning as ;s today. The Barron Park Association's position has
conSistently o~er the list 20 years been to butld to the existing lone.
Oo~'t upzone. ,nd don't ask for variances unless there is some really.
re.lly compelling r •• son. If wo had our druthers. we druther that that
not be CS, and that it be eN. We probably druther that the RM·30 be a
lower density. We iTe not asking that you approve something which does
not ex1st~ We aie not asking YDU to force a develop~r to came in with i
project ~ich meets our entire fond des1re, which is for a lo~er intenSity
zone. We are ~;11ing to live 'IIith the 20ning as it exjsts today, but we
sure don't want ft incr~ased.
Th. developer will get four additional units. If you amortize those four
U"Its Dver the tot.1 price of the land, then the total cost of the land
per unit goes down. That does not mean the price of the units will go
L
04/2V91
-12·
•
-, ..
... &."N •..... .'~'"
:~~.; ~
~.-,
", -.
.~->
.~
I
1
I
I
I
j
I
r
-
d~ when they go on the aarket. Tne units will sell for whate'er the
Dlrket will bear .t wh.t~ver time they come on the ~arket. Vhen I talked
with Mr. Steinberg, he basico11y agreed with me. I th!nk 011 of you know
that that Is true. If. in (let, the ~arket ts weak when these come on,
t~ey wfll either have to cut their price or go bankrupt, as othe~ projects
10 Polo Alto have gone bankrupt. The Hamlet, for ex.mple, went bankrupt
because they could not get what they thought they should get .~en they
c .... on the .arket. Too bad. If he makes 0 b'Jnd;e, fine. If he loses a
bundle, f1ne.. We arE not hh partners.
So yeu are not improving the .ffordabillty of the housing by incre.sing
density. You Ire getting no assurance of that. The only assurance you
have is fn the BMRs. He is only required to gfve you four, and raising
the units from 38 to ~2 does net raise that number of BMRs. So.e would
ask th,t you deny the request for a zone chaogo. Wo do not feel it is
justified. ~ost of .11, .e ore quite concerned that this would ,et a
very, very adverse precedt:!nt for the rut of the ITea. If ,YOU look at the
other properties, all of them along E1 Camino are just as Susc!ptible to
upzoning by future developers. There is nothing unique about this lot;
there is nothing uniQue about this project. The only thing that •• kes it
unique in terms of asking for the RM·40 is that the developer is asking
for that which h. had previously requested aod was refused by the ~itl
council.
let's talk about whether we need llare housir.g. I got s~me interestin9
figures from tne staff report on housing construction in P.le Alto. It is
• 1itt1. shocking. From 1984 to 1990, there was a net increase of 868
housing units in the entire City of Palo Alto. In the list two ye.rs
alone, 1989-1990, one·third of the time period, alll!Ost Z90 housing units
were approved just in the area from Charleston to 3939 £1 Cami~o Real.
~~er one-third of all the housing units approved in the past two years
~aye been in our se~t1on of [1 (amino. Tnat is a hell of an increase for
an area which nas three of the five most congested intErsections in Pale
Alto. The IIIOst congested -' Alma/Charleston; the fourth ar,d fifth most
congested are E1 Camino Real/Charleston and Arastradero/Foothill
8oulevard. Why do _E ~eed more development, ~re intensity of use? Why
do we need more ~plonin9 in thls area~ I don't think W~ do.
let's talk about the variances. The statement 1n the stiff report tnat
the adjacent properties have essent1illy no setback is true, and it is
most unfortunate. We thinK that is an error tnat we wo~ld like to see
corrected, not perpetuated. fr. fact) in tMe eN zon~, there is i lO-foot
front yard setback required. The tower, whic~ comes toe closest to tne
f1ve feet to the corner, is exact1y the wrong place for encroachment.
looking at the map, it is right at the dangerous corner Df [1 Camino Way~
[1 Camino Real and los Robles~ where there ~ave been a number of accidents
and some fatal1ties. 1f you actually have the bu;ldin9 pulled back from
that corner instead of pusr,ed fol"'Jltard in order to impro'lle sight 1 ines and
safety.
As for the variance for tne wall, I 14·(00t hi~h entry is not reQuired for
passenger cars. rt is not even required for ~ans. You could drfve a seroi
through it. Why do .e need a I~·foot high entry gato? One of the
questions the commiSSion isked was whether or not you hid to have a wall;
were there other ways of having a sense of entry. The Cameo Club project
at ~120 EI Camino Real h.d exactiy the same problem. How do you tell
04/24/91
·J3·
,
I' ~ ..
people when tney ha~e Irrfwed on the site? How do you give them a sense
of e"try? The architect in that case, with encouragement fr~m the ARB~
opted for In openwork) wooden trellis~ about 10-12 feet high, covered with
flowers and clll11blng vines. It dH not hive. "'ill; It did not stretch
across the entfre wfdth of the prope~ty, and It was modest and
unobtrusive. That Is the sort of t~ing you need. T~ •• arlanc. that Is en
the tibT~ Is for a 31-foot high ",all. When the architEct comes In and
• tarts negotiating with you over the t.ble, what are you giving hlro a
variance for? You do not ~ave anything offici~' to give a variance to.
\/lien I.e says It h !4 feet:!. a couple of feet for the architecture .nd it
Is going to go Into the side wall but is not going to go into the 10-foot
setback too much. what tind of a varfance can you grant? You do not have
anything on paper before you. Are you going to grant whateYer the .no
.avlng was tonight? r surely hope not.
finally, wo had a lot of discussion about tho safoty access along the
creek and across U.e creek on tile brldg •• Ii. think that is • bad idea.
fire engines that go alongside the croek are not going to be able to exit
without backing up unless you specifically put in some kind of a
turnaround_ It will have to be • very big one. You cannot get. hook and
ladder in tnBt aCCESS road. You can only get a pu~er in there to
three-story buildings_ So you really should have access for a ladder
tr~ck. You wi11 not ~aY2 that with wnat has been proposed. So we wou1d
,u9ie,t that you go back and re-ev.luat. the site plan and the s.fety
access, eliminating the bridge over Barr<ln Creele. and nave adequate
circulAtion so tMat peop1! can go crmpletely .r~und t~e site, or pernaps
exit t~rou9h Ventura ~hoo\, if netessary. and be able to have safe iCtesS
for emerqency vehicles, In short, we ask that you reject both the zone
change to RM-4Q and the variances, and Isk that the property be developed
under the eXisting toning, the eXisting loning envelope. and no more.
Thank you.
Chairman Marsh; Mr. Hoss t you referred to the fncrtase in development ijf
housing .long tne soytherly part tf £1 Ca~ino Real. Certainly we have all
noticed that in our comings ind goings in tnat area. However. my
1mpressfan is that much of that housing develcpment has been spurred by
the fact that we are coming tow3rd the end of the i~ortlzaticn period
whic~ was p1aced on many Qf those properties. Is that torre,t?
~r. ~oss, No. 120 units at the senior ~roject ind the 51 units of the
Traynor-Hill property h.ve nothin9 to do with amortization. There are 49
units being built at the Cameo Club. Only 20 of the 49 are being
amortized. So if we talk about what is currently developed, only 20 of
the 280~some units that have gone in are due ta amort;zation. What
frank1y stares the hell out of us is that the other pr~perties are g~i~9
to be amortfzed ~~ Rudo1fo's. all along the~e. When that happens, we are
90ir.9 to have a hwge increase i~ traffic, and the increase that you get
from residential is very slgnificant compared t~ some of the uses ~~ have
now. For examp1e, Rudolfo's has no traffiC in the morning. The} do not
open IJnt il 4 :30 p, m. If )'DU put res ident ial on that si te, that corner is
going to plug. Right now. on i busy day, I can have as many as 12 cars
backed up ~ait;n9 for that stoplight to cross [1 Camino Real.
CQmrnissfoner Hirsc~: Mr. Moss, I hear what you are saying about the zone
change, but 1 need to have you flesh it out ~ little more for me. Given
thit the lon~ chan9~ to RM-40 would only add about four more units, ~hic~
L
04/24/91
·34-
•
,
~~$-.
~~>,
-'"'t, . 1,
·,'-
has got to be an ~.~erceptiblt change, why such a COnteT~?
I1r. Ploss: It Is one sit!, four "olts In R/I·40. I hUed this over wit"
Ms. l1tl., and thore Is nothing th.t Is peculiar .bout this site. It sets
a preeedent~ and ther! is no rels~n why anybody else could not come in and
Isk for R/I·40 all .long there. The whole area will be Impacted.
Furthermore, the height In RH·40 Is greater. You can build the buildings
l.~er. In this case, he has cho.en to keep tho height the same, but he
does not have to. The next guy th.t comes in Can build them blgsor. We
don't want w.lls .long there. Also, If you look at the zoning map, there
fs no RM-40 anywhere .10"9 £1 tamlno. So why do we need it? 1 say, stop
it ~~. let's not set a bad precedent. The four extrl units, an~ .e have
lBO-sOle already. with four unIts here ar.d four units there, I don't think
we need '"1 nore.
CommiSSioner HIrsch: ChaIrman Marsh alluded to the activities that took
pl.ce back In the late 70's, and J thought part of that was to do at least
two things: II) to create DOre CN, which [ think Barron rark WiS
instrumental in I,hie'ing, Ind 121 trelte more housing .long £1 Camino
~ell in these parcels of land t~at were in the Barron Park arel. Now, we
ire seeing .ore housing, and J a~ somewhat surprised t~at tne Barron Park
AsSOCiation is objecting to it.
Mr. ~Q$s: Tne Barron Park Associ.tton was not th! genesis for the housing
.long El Gamino Real. Th.t c.~ from the planning commission and council,
primarily frances B~enner4 A lot Df pEDple in the community are be~1nn;ng
to get concerned, because of the loss of retail along (1 Ca~ino Rea' ~nd
becaUSE of the additional congestion we are seeing from the traffiC. So
we h.ve probably gone past the tipping polot wh.'e people feel .e have too
.. c~ housing develoP"Ont along El Camino Real, and that it is time to pull
back. The Barron Park As,oclatlon was never stronqly in favor of
converting III of that. In flct, W! have come out strongly 1~ favor of
retainIng Rudolfo's, .s an example.
Chairman Mars~: You did , ~oweverl oppose tne extension of the office
above 5,000 square feet in • prior round.
~r, Moss: But the re.son for that ~as that we •• nted retail. Our goal
has been for retail along [1 Camino, not affices. ~e want something tnat
serves the loc.l comownity.
Chairman Harsh: Seeing no other speakers, J wil' close th~ public hearing
and retu~ this item to tne piin"ing commissiDn.
Mr. £illlla.d: 1 would like to follow up on t~. questions about the ~R
units. This prfce 1 1m 901n9 to giYG r~u is subject tD addltianal
negotiation. and there Ire seyerll ways that they (ould make the
additional payment, including an in-lieu fee. lhe previous prices were
for two ont-bedroom un1ts l~d two t.o-bedraom ~nil5. Based on the
additional ""its, probably the one-bed roo. units will now be in the range
of 560,000 e.ch. The two-bedroom units will be in the range of
$72,000-$75,000 each.
Chainman Marlh; We will now separite out the lssues t~at we have in front
Df ~s. let us coofin! Dijr Questions from this point on to Ittm 13, the
20ne chanqt and the comprehensive map change. later we ~i11 take ~p the
04/24/11
-15-
•
.';~:';,,:
~~c:
\
....., .... ;: • I
<' I .
>. 1
.' I
:','",,--'::
"r~,~
:. .. ~--.;~
-
site and design Issue •.
CQllDisr'qner Cqllen: I have I questfon for staff on the change in the
zoning. How .. ny additional units would be allowed if we were to change
the CS portion to RH-30 Inste.d of RH-40? ~e have four In the RH-40.
Vould It be three In tne RH-30?
(Stoff takes tl .. to calc"'ate}
CommissIqngr iji[$ch! Meanwhile, what is the FAR for j~st I rtsidential
project In the CS zone, without nwober-of-units dlfferenti,l?
Hr. Gilliland: If It Is all residential in the CS zone, it is a 0_6 fAR.
Commis5jonrr Hirsch: So that is the same 15 RM-3C, ~ich has I 0.6.
nr, Gilliland: That Is correct_
!Is, ,ytJe: The unit difference between RH-30 and RH-40 Is going to ~e one
unit. He would get three additional under RH-30, and he would qet four
under the RH-40 _ -
Commissigner Hirsch: Does that mean t~at if we left it at CS, tne
differentlo1 would .till be only one unit?
Ms. lytle: ne probl ... with the CS was the fAR_ [t.as not the unit
count. The reason he was running into constraints was that his units are
already is small as he was willing to make tnea. He was running into i
floor &rea barrier, not & unit barrier.
'_Issjoner Hirsch: In the RH-3D ond in the CS, they both blve In fAR of
0.6 residential?
MS· Lvtle: That is correct, and that is ~hy the proposal before you is
RM-40, because that lifts that to a I_D.
C~alrl!an Marsh; So it I1Ust be a differential of four units.
~s lytle: That is. true. But the problem is not that the units Ire a
constroiot. Th. probleo js that the size and the units together become a
constraint. IIs_ Warheit tllinks that jf he does not get the reHef from
the FAR~ then he cannot convert tnat floor area to units, and he is back
to t~e original number of units under the orlgin.1 proposal, which ~.s 38.
Chairman Marsb: It is not the denSity, It Is the FAR that is the
constraining factor. So the RH-40 is needed for the fAR.
Ms. lytle: That Is correct_
Commissioner Cullen: ~at if he were to remoye t~e lot line on t~e RH·30
and the RH-40? ~ould that give him the relief he is seeking, and still
keep the zoning RM-30?
Ms lytlt: There is no lot liro!. This is one parcel with Zone lines
running through it.
L
04/24/91
-l6-
.'-....
•
.. ' ..
L
. '
, " >
"'r
CbaSTlan Marsh: Has the question ~afsed by Sob Moss regarding ~isib1'ity
.t the corner with t~e tower intrusion into the front setback been
reviOWPd by Tr~nspDrt.tion?
Ms. Iytl.t.~ \"es, they hiVe revie-wed the plai"l~ They do not have any
concern ~yer sight distance.
Chairman Marsh: Mr. Moss has objected to the rezon1ng based on I couple
of constderat1ons, one of wh1ctl is tnffic concerns. Can you giVe us a
ballpark compiri~Dn of four units of residential development versus
5.000 square feet of co_relal s.rvic. develoPlll<!nt ""jc~ o;ght otherwise
~ it this site?
Ms. lytle: In total traffic trips generated, I know it will ~ reduced
with four units of residential over the commercial.
Chairman Marsh: We Ire now ready for comments on this agenda Item.
CDmmissioner Christensen: I have a concern about the zoning. As someon~
who has ha. a long history wit~ tne South [1 Camino area and is somebody
who was one of the people responsible for pushing housing throughout tne
South £1 Camino Jrea, ] feel we made a commitment at the time we, in a
sense, went against tM! wishes of the comm~~ity and supp~rted housing in
thil are •• to not have it at the highest density. and to k.ep it .t the
RM-30 ~nd to keep it even in conjunction witn the C5 ~iKed use :t ~~-30.
I have a real probleo backing off from tne commitment r feel we ~'de and
rezoning part of this site to RK·40. I underst,"d the .rg~~nt that is
being .. de by the staff. but Bob Moss is correct. There Is no RH·40
anywhere along thi~ area, and there is nothing unusual about this
particular site. If we ga to RM-40 on ttlis sfte for this reaSOrt. there ;s
just as good ~ reason to go to RH-40 on the stte next door and next door
and next door.. ] have i real proble. with that. 50 even tflough we ire
starting to see the results Df what we Mave done and we are starting to
see housing. which is what we have pushed for in this part of [1 Camino
Real, I don't like to push people too far. We are seeing what we wanted
to see at tne density we wanted to se! it It. I don't want to say. let's
take that next step and pus~ it to t~e limit. So I am not prepared to
support It It this time.
COmDissioner Hirs~h: ]t goe$ baek to a q~e5tion for staff.. Gi~!n the
f~ct that there won't ~ .ny more 6MR "nits, Is there any other p"bllc
benef~t to this increase in zoning? You will get four MOre units. but
beyond that, it does seem, as Bob Moss suggested, tnat tne vast majority
of benefit on this proposal goes to the Ippl icant, not to t~e cOlllnunity at
large.
~s. Lytle: A finding of publit benefit is not required for I simp1e zone
change, to begin with. It was origlnall1 suggested by Mr. Moss and
eventually taken up by some of tne policym,kers that we should take that
squire footage, and of course, retail was first choice, but someone
Mentioned converting it to housing. We sa~ that the ratio in the CS
district for mixed use was getting in the way of ~akin9 that conversion4
We even explained that to some of the p01icymakers during the council
aeeting as tD -my they cDuld not just convert that square footage to
ho~sjng. It was being looked at as though something is not quite right
with D~r code if they Clnnot take that square foohge and simply make
L
04/24/91
·17 .
':""+, 4, ' <,;"e""""",
."
•
" . ,
; ..
~ ,~ ... ·r
-
hDus1ng units out of it if we den) the offfce spice. SO W~ looked for I
wa~ of being able to allow tft.t conversion to take place. This sort of
featftered zoning concept t~at w.s til ked about during the Citywide Study
bee ... oue suggested solutIon. We see the prImary benefit to the
coaounlty IS being the provision of additional of housing units. Also,
the traffic 1p-pacts If! less tnan the commercial eQu1va1ent would create.
It is not an UpZ011'tng t in (1I/r linds i it f s a downzonfng fro,"!1 the (S.
We se, the RM-30 developing on £1 Camino Real at a ouch lo .. r yield than
It would gen,rally be expected t~ develop. The Traynor-Hill project at 51
units was far le$s than the zoning .llows. Other projects have come in
wIth the townhouse concept at considerably l.ss than the density permits
with hrqer units. This was one project that had come in at the lIaximum
density, and we see the bene-fit being IIO"'E housing units.
Commissjoner ~lrsch; Do I und!rstand correctl~ that there is a proposal
for 5,000 square f.et of office space, and that 1$ the •• ximum that c.n be
built on thIs sIte?
Ms. Lytle: That is correct. The proposal to exceed that 5,000 square
foot ••• iROm was denied b~ the city councIl on appeal_
Commissioner tullen; As the on1, member of the commission ~~o ¥oted to
retain tne 5,000 square·fQot limitation, ! am very pleased to see the
conversion to housing. J am not i.lncotnfortab1e with one mort-unit of
housing in RH·40 in such a .iniscule area. The additional unft of housing
1S t indeed, an addition to the city. I a_ not concerned about the trips
or congestion. I think CIl.ir.an Marsh's questions enabled staff to talk
about t~e nUllber of trips being less for housing tnan for COlmlerchl. ~e
were told, on the l.st two applications for this area by the
Transportation DfYis1on, that this intersection is going to go through
radfeal redesign very shortly, S(I I _ not uncomfortable With one IOOre
housing unlt_ Also, I believe that in addition to the four BHR units,
there Is a partIal SMR payment, so beSIdes the four units, there Is •
fraction, is that not so?
Mr. Gilliland: No, that fr.ction is I~cluded. The reason the prIce would
be reduced is because of that fraction.
Commlssipner Cullen: That is • benefit In itself, getting the fr.etlon to
get th?se unIts dowr In price. So I am very comfortable wIth the lor,
change and the Comprt~ensive Plan amendment.
~: Commissioner Cullen; I move the staff recomaendat;~n that t~e
city touncil adopt i ne~ative declaration and approve tne zone chlnge and
the COMprehensive Plan amendment, with the findings that It is in the
public Interest to allow an increase i~ the housing stock. a~d that ~it is
consistent with land use patterns in the city In that RM-40 zones OCcur
adjacent to commercIal uses' although I aM not really happy with that
phrase. I think tne RH-40 increase here consists of I Ili nimal increase,
so I would amend tnat ffndingj it will cre~te no significant adverse
environmental effect.
~: 8y CommiSSioner ellzier.
ChaIrman Marsh: Commissioner Cullen, would yo~ clarify your amendment of
04/24/91
-l a-
.~
-
the ftrlllfng.?
Comp1sstgntr Cullen: J would rephr~s! finding '2 tc say that -The
proposad lone change and Comprehensive Plan a.end~nt is consistent ~ith
land use pattErns fn the cfty, and thit the RH-40 zone fn thfs partfcular
parcel results in I .in1.al ~ncrease in density, lnd should not be
considered as I precedent.-As we III know, w! look It these projects one
~t I time, and J do not see it as precedent-setting in this are •.
Commissiongr Huber: I look It this in somewhat the same way as
Ca.missfcner Christensen. The number of units does not botner me~ nor
does tne traffic coneern .e, but I have some concern about C~an91"g the
zoning. I think we will see .are Ind more projects coming in requesting
RK-40. The zoning that we did .akes sense. If somebody doe. not like It
and t"e council waflts to convert it, such IS COIaeTe:hl, etc~ to Mousing,
then t~ere ought to be • cnange that deals wfth that, rather than on a
cise-by-case basis. So] 1m torn~ r like tMe Jdea of the housing, and am
not concerned about traffic, etc. but I do not philo.ophlcally like the
way thfs .a. done, so I wfll not support it.
Commi$siQ~er Hirscb; Hor will I support the .ctfon. Fi~ding 12, as
revised, t~lks about land use patterns fr, the cit1~ Based on the comments
by Mr. Mos. ind Commi.sfoner "rfsten.en, clearly they are not typical
land use patterns i~ this particular area. ] am I little torn, as
Comofs.;oner Huber fs, Ind I do not really thfnk the four additional unit.
Ire going to have I .ajor iMPact on the area. The traffic is so heavy on
£1 Camfno Real that these would net add aueh, but I am concerred about the
precedent fr thfs arei. We ire just .tarti!lg to .ee the tip of the growth
in the future, as we go through I generation ~f housing in this area, ~o I
hu'e iii concern IS we 11.
When I look it Ffnding '3, but here the staff ha. said thfs 'will r •• ult
in I less intensive use of the site tnan current loning allows.· ]f
nothing else. the current zoning here wo~ld provide for three or four less
units, so that has to be I less inte~siye use than this prDposal is~
Could you clirffy that?
Ms_ lytle: Alt~oug~ the council denied the reque.t for 5,000 'Quare f.et
of offic~ use, there wauld still be the potentil1 for building an
additional S,OOO square feet of c~rc1.1 here~ It could be I financial
service; it could be retail. What the clie~t has found .s that it would
probably be unsuccessful retail, and would probably turn o~er i lot a"d
difffcult to ffll.
COMmj§stpner Hjrsch: ] do not understand how you get 10,000 square feet
here.
Hs. Lytlt: ine ]0,000 square feet is what the mixed use in the CS
district lllows, as long is tney stayed witnin the FAR ratiO. They could
not ~.ye DOre .ffice space than the 5,000 square feet, but the additional
5,000 square feet that was denied as office could be built as commercial
space. It would De Ii.Hed to the uses nonnally penlitted --financl al
services, retail uses, personal ser~ices.
CQmmjssioner Hirsch: Just not office space.
04/24/9]
-19 -
-'~~-~~
. "'!'
,-.-1
\
~
. '
,'., . r
M,. Lytle; Th,t Is carrect.
Cpml1ss1pn'r &J.21er: As tnt seconder of t~e aotlon. I obvfD~sly support
It. In t~ls ClSe, I .. going to dlslgr.e with Sob Moss .t .y own peril,
given his record of ~ucce$S with the council on this issue. Regarding
Bob'5 co.ments about the ZOO new units being perhaps ~re t~~n the area
needs, tne l.st tIme I looked It the jobs/hou,lng Imbalance, It wa' stilI
In tne nelgh~r11ood of thousands, so I thInk It I, Important t. get these
extrl four units out there.
~ perspective on the RH-40 versus the RH-30 Issue is that I feel the
.. rket will drl.e the density. I do "ot feel we Ire ,ettlng a precedent.
We need to give deyelopers like the Ippllcant tonight the opportunity to
provide additional housing. Many people ha.e correctly mentioned that
this Is I unique site, and we will h •• e the opportunity to review each
Indlvidull case that c..es before us. I haye no problem with the RH-40.
'.'$Signer Chrhtenur:: Bued on ey earlier c~nts, I will not
support the DOtion. I do not see I waJ of drawing the line with thi,
developer. When tf'le person next door comes in and proposes i similar
sltultlon, what~ro"nds do you have for .. ylng no to him, if you da not
say na to this deyeloper? lie did .ake I cOlllnlt .. nt to the community. lie
are not trying to solve the job,{~ouslng Imbalance on th~ back of South
Palo Alto 110ne. That Is on. of the r ••• on, why I supPDrt~d housing
tnroughout the community Ind continue to do sa. I will not support RM-40
at this Site. [very place we haYe put RK·40 has been very controyersial.
lie hlye had long discussions .~ut It; we h,ve done it ,'ery judiciously;
we hive done It very carefully, .nd I object to the w.y It is being done
I. this sltu,tlon.
Ch.! .... n Marsh; The outcome of the IlOtion is clen at this pol"t, but I
will .. ke ~ ccanents nevertheless. 1 first saw this application In.
prec..-i,slon .. eling before the last round. My comments to ,t.ff at that
tiae were, is t~ere SOle way we c~n ~xim;ze housing on this site 50 that
we do not have to go over the 5,000 square fe.t of office space? They
explained to .. what they l.ter expl.lned to th~ city council .nd to
others , which is "0 , under t~e current loning, we cannot do that because
of the FAA restrictions. So Ilthough In that iter.tlon, I did ,upport the
extended off"ice: use on the site. Ity first interest was really in seeinQ
hOUSing e.plolted to the extent possible on the site. In the
cDnversations at t~e planning commission, a~d those It the city council
which 1 listened to, there were very few people who argued th,t ret'il was
ictually an appropriate use on the site. It was ""re that the ar9_nl
against the application was that it was not ,ppropri.te to .llow
additional office space. There were very few people who 'poke to the Item
who argued that ret,ll space could be successful, given the limitations of
the site. So I am pleased to see this appl icatlon come forward, and!
will support it.
I want to make thr.e specific comments. First is that I think RM-40 is
appropriate. If It Is appropri,te any pllce in the city, It is going to
have to be Ippropriate along our ... jor traffic corridors. E1 CiIJIIlno Real
Is one of those, IS Is the downtown area and the San Antonio area. There
Ire very few places in town that can accommodate Q~r highest denSity
zoning, but tnis fs one that can do so. Secondly, staff has indicated
that traffic consideratfons of tne rezoning are not a g~eat issue, in
L
04/Z4/91
-20·
:
\
i
I
I
I
,
,
.. ~:
~~-
-:-:l. :-.: ..... ' . ,,~.', "-1
" ;.
,"',
flCt, t~ trlfflt to.slderltion. that will Imp.ct the Ir., with the
addft1~n of four unfts Ire actua1ly less than ~ would otherwise have se!n
under d,v,'opoonl of the site with S,OOO sQuare feet ~f tommercll'
lonlng. So J do not se. thlt IS sGiething we should ~l.ce • lot of weight
on tonight. Third'y, [ feel thert aTe reilly exceptfonal c;rc~stances to
the ,It.. This Is something we 'tlted the l.st time we reviewed this
.p~llcltlon, Ind something the city couoctl gener.lly said, IS well •• ven
a5 the~ rejected the extended office use on the site. This site has some
very specIfic, phy,lcal constroi"t. that are dIfferent from other site •
• long £1 Camino Real. It Is not approprllte for ret.11 development. On
the other hand, • .are extensive housing deyelopment within t~e some
den,lty envelope .1lo.ed on the .ite Is an approprl.te ",e of the buildout
of the sit •.
flno'ly, I ,.Int t. "ake one tongent;'l1y rellted co_r.t. which 1. that we
hay! heard from I ~umber of people in the Barron Park Irea recently,
encouraging ~s to take up design ilsues on El Camino. In flct, Mrs.
S~.rple,s c ... before U$ tonight and .,d •• similar comment. J think
those hsues are well taken, ~o~e\'er, the kind of development we are
•• elng hore th.t e.plclts the hou.ing potential of El Camino Is an
Indlcition that we have bOre serious problems In our El Camino zoning than
design aTone. We have some serious use quest,ons in the area of [1 Cami~o
that we will have to tackle. We are trying to encourage Neighborhood
COImerci,1 in aany of tho.e .re.s. and ther> are physlc.l eonstr.!nt. \h.t
are going to .. ke It very difficult to de.elop that kind of very ,mall,
neighborhood-based commercial site.. So What we ar. goin9 to contlnu. to
,ee, until we tackle that, Is developments that do come forward reQuesting
the ability to do , Maximum amount of hou,lng. Th.t is the on. kind of
developoent that .ay be ,ucce"ful ,long £1 Comlno when other small.
commercial development Is not possible or feasible. So they are right in
thot there Ire probl .. , that we are ,.elng on £1 CI~ino. but they do go
f,r beyond design. We eu,t start to look It the Ictua1 use.
Comm,ssfpner Hirsch: [appreciate the benefit Df your thQughts, but in
doing so, you ~ave ,onvinced me more than ever that if we penmft t~is type
of approa,~ in t~1s area, then every other app11cant will attempt the same
approach. J saw Le Levy .whlle ,go. He typicilly .ays that building will
l\O\fe to the N.X'"um pel"l\itte.j' by the zone. Whi.t 'ICe are seeing flo!)'" ire
zone c~ar.ges being requested so that tn!re can be an fncreise in the
maximum. That is fundamentally fl.,..d and I. improper on this site.
thajno.n~: My final comment .ould be that RM-4~ along the [1 tamino
Rea' frontage is appropriate.
MOTION FAILS: Cbt'rm,n Mar$h: Is there any further discussion on this
~t1Dn? T~e .alion has been ~ade to adopt the staff recommendation wit~
the finding, "' Indicated in the .taff report, with on. change to Finding '2. All those in fiYOr, say Aye? All opposed? That flil, on I yote of
3-3, with Commissioners Cullen, Glazier and Mars~ voting yes, and
Commissioners C~ristensen, Hirsch and Huber voting no.
AGENDA IT~ 4
L
398! EL CAMINO REAL: Major Site and Design application
for 1 Bixed use pr~ject with 42 residential cnndorni~ium
units and a 5,000 square-foot commercial b~;ldin9 over
underground parking. Environmenta1 Assessment: No
04/24/91
·21· ,-,
. -~-.. .;.-;.::::-,:~:~
. . i'::~\:~~t .. ·
L
slgr.lflcant I~p.cts were determined to result from t~e
project t ."d I neglttve decll)-atfon ~il5 been prepared'.
Fil. Has. 90-£IA-30, 90-D-09, 90-ARB-a7. Zone District:
P:I!-3Q, CS.
Chalrm.n ~arsh: We probably need to look what adjust~nt$ to site and
design are a~propTlltely •• de, gi.en the flct t~.t t~e motion to rezone l
portion of the project hIS failed. J .ss .... that would e1 imln.te four
resldentl.l units. The applfcont might choose to .ake additional changes
In response to th.t, depending upon city council outc~.
Ms, C.s.: He cannot stand before you ond ~k. that change. At this
point, your options '"0 somewhat ~re limited than they were five .inutes
"go. lhey are either to retom.end denl.l or to recomnend that the
applicant go blCk and redeSign, and continue It under your jurisdiction.
(halrman Marsh: If we continue it, wou1d Comprehensive Plan lnd zone
c~.nge go on to the co"ncll?
Ms, C .. e: T~lt lIight be t~. lIO.t expedient ... .1 to handle th •• ,.tt.~.
(b"rman M.~.h: I do not know what tb. applicant has In IIlnd, but it
would .ake the most sense, tD ~, for us to conttnue 5ite lnd deSign, and
to .llow the zone ~h.nge to go forw.rd to the council, .. lth that input
then fed back Into the ,Ite and design pro<ess.
~: CommissiDner Cullen: 1 move continuante unt'l the zoning and
1.nd use ..end .. nt has been determined by the council, with the consent of
the applicant_ (Applicant Indicates ye.}
~: ay Commissioner Christensen.
Ms, Ca,.: Ve will need his written approv.l for that, but presumably, we
will receive that later on.
Mr. Steinberg: For clarification, my understinding is that thit means
that the land use I"u •• nd the rezoning would go to the city council.
'"airMan Mar$h: That fs correct. You would then proceed with the site
and de,lgn after getting f.ed b.ck from the city council.
Mr. Steinberg: We ... uld be in favor of that_
Mr_ Gilljland: The date will be May 20 for, hearing by the city council.
HQTION PASSES: Chairman Marsh: Is there any furthe" discussion on this
.otfon? We hi~e I motion on the floor for continuance on this item to a
date sOGetl .. In the future, to be renoticed. All those In fivor, .ay
Aye? All opposed? Th,t p,.'es on I vote of 6-0, with Co~issioner
Beec~ •• absent.
•
~:.~ ~.
~;,~;;
l
-,;~ ,'.-
Pl· ... ' ..,::~..... ;t _.' ._' _""'4kI!l • ..,,,",,,.iCll:'I'!'~",,'f: < '."
03LIC HEAAIRGS (cofitlnued)
XcCcwn ter polLey and Proeedu~ •• COmmitt.e -XOT10N
PASSED ,,-0. sutorhu ab.ent
PUBLIC ~ING: Pl&nnifig commi •• Lon recommend. to the ~ity
council tbat Council uphold the d.cL.lon of the toning
Admini.trator, and approve a Yari&nee for prop9rty loe.ted ae
1101 ~n!v ••• l~y AY.n~. (300)
r
I
POILlC HZARING: Plaooing C~i •• ion rec~enda to the City
COuncil denial at an applieatlon (or a zone change from cs to
~-40 and a Comprehen.ive Plan Land ~~e ~Ap rede.ignatlon frem
Service Comm&rc!al to Multiple-Family Re.identi.l fo~ property
located at 39S1 11 ~ino Real (300) (CKR:2'9~SlJ
f
I
Levy/woolley -Approv. .t~ff recommendAtion to adopt the
Neq&tiv. o.clar.tion and approve the zone change and Compre
hen.iva Plan a=endment. baaed on the fiftdinge li.ted belo~~
Findinge
I. The prcpoaed ~cne change and Comprehen.ive Pl&n amendment
i. in the public intere.t. in that it will allow an
inc~.... Ln th_ hou.ing .tock ot the eommunlty and
thereby ~prcve the job.fhcu.in~ imbAlance.
2. The prcpo.ed zone change and COmprehen.ive Plan &mendm~nt
1. con.i.tent with land ~.e patterna in the City, in that
RH-4C %on •• occur adjacent to commercial ~8es and between
commercial zonea and other lower-aenaity reeidential
arB ••• and the RM-40 in thi. particular parcel result. in
a ~nlmal incr.a.e in den. tty. an~ .ho~ld not be conaid
ered a. a pr9cedent.
J. The propo&ed zone cha~ge and Comp~ehen.ive Plan amendment
will er •• ~e nc .iqnifieant &~v.r ••• nviror~ental effect.
in that it will reault in & 1 ••• ifiten.lve ~Be of the
.ita tb&a t~ current zoninq all~_
Ordinance lat ~.ading enti~led ·~RDIKANCZ OF THE CO~CIL or
THE CITY OF PALO ALTO NmKIlING 5E"C'rION le.oe.O'o Of' THE PJU,O
~TO MUNt~IPAL OOOE (THE ZONING MAP) 10 CRANG~ THE lONE
CLASSlrlCAlloN 07 A PO~TION OF P~OPERTY LOCATED AT 3gel EL
CAKIHO llE.AL ~K es ro li..Mo-40"
J.ESOt.U'l'ION 69Se. ent.!.t.led ·USOLU'I'IOll or 'IKE COUNCIL or THE
ClrY 0 .. PALO AL'1'O AKENDING THE UND OSE JolAP or THE PALD AL':'O
OOKPRERENSlVE ,~ TO CHAKGE ~HE LAND USE OESIGNA!ION OF A
POR1'ION or TR! PROPERl'Y LOCATEO 11.1: Hel EL CAMINO REAL FRO!'!
SERVICE COKKE.RCIAL TO l«!t.T'i.PU-FAM:LI nSID'["N'1'U.!.-
MOTION PASSED 8-0. Sutoriu& ab.e~t
?ORTS or OOKM.I't'TEES Ml) COKKtsSIONS
'-
LXC£RPT of Pale Alto City
C('Iuncil Acti!..'o Agenda fot
meeting of ~y 20~ 1991 -
Agenda ItC!ll 10.
•
>
~I II , :
~ .:
----~
EXCERPT of Palo Alto Planning
COmmission minutes of 1/9/91.
AGENDA ITEM 4 3i8! El CAMINO REAL: Appell of the zoning
idministritor's decisiQn to approve an application for a
condftional use p!~it to a~low construction and
operation of I 10,300~square-foot office use where a
maximum S,OOO·$quare-foot use would otherwise c! the
~aximum allowed. Environmental Assessment: No
significant 1~acts were determined to result from the
project, and I negltl~e decTaratiofi ~as been prepared.
File Nos. 90-UP-l4. 90-EIA-30_ Zone District (S.
No staff corrments.
COmmissioner Beecham: On Page •• Item 13, the end of the item talks about
an additional 53 parking spaces being r~qu1red tf the ~ffjce use were to
be changed to retaH use. r could not dtlplicatE that number, and would
like to find out how that was calculated.
~_ Gilliland: I cannot duplicate it either_ I ~et approximately a
difference of thirt.en.
C~airman Marsh: Perhaps staff can clarif1 that lat~r.
In one of the suggestions frOB Denny Petrosiar. curing a pre¥ious public
tomment was that the site be developed purely for ~ousing. Can you tell
us ~at that would do to the number of units already suggested for the
site?
~r. Gilliland: [think the maximum numher Df units lfsted in here was 44
instead of the 38. It would be possible to do t;at. However, the 'olume
or amount of floor area that could be used for housing is at the maximum.
so you wo~ld have 44, with some of the units slightly smaller than t~ey
are now, because it is at the maximum floor are~ ratio (FAR).
I
I
f
,
~. .
i
~
.\ .
..
..
" .
-
, "r"
Cb.lnoa~: So you would 9i'n no ad~itlonal square foot0ge to be
placed in housIng by .110In.tlng .11 of th. office spice,
~rT 'i)l~liDd: That is correct.
tbl1nnan ~.rsh: Pres~bly, the deve'~peT hIs already made a choice to go
w~tn the larger sfzed units, so wt do not know t~lt there would be any
incentive to downsize the. and produce more ~nit5~
Mr, iilillan~: The developer Cln addTe'. that better, but 1 would say
that Is a fair .ssumpt!o.,
COmmissioner Cullen: Nowhere in the report did I Sf! any consideration of
other per.itted uses, besides retlil, !n this CS portion of the project.
As I checked the zoning Drdinance, General Business Services seemed to be
a permitted ose, They fnclude, on Page 549 of the definitions in the
zoning ordinance, -lctlvities and services of a general nature. including
p~int~"9, blueprinting, publishing. ~ommerct.l b.kerles, creameries or
catering, cabinetry and furniture repair. bulk cleaning ind laundry
services. lumber, plumbfng, electr1~alt sheet metal a~ other construction
and building .. terl.ls.' I find it diffie_It to belie,o tnere is not a
need for some of those general busfness services fn the community. s;n(e
we have ~ad a lot of testimony about wiping out services in tne
community. Am I correct t~at these would be permitted uses and could
confono, If 5,000 square f.et were office space, and tne other
5,000 square feet could be goneral buslnes, u"s?
Mr, Gilliland: They certainly are permitted uses.
Caanissioner Cullen: Why was no considention qi'len to that instead of
just straight retail !n the report we received? Vas it because the
neighborhood ~.s talking so ouch .bout rot,ll?
Nr. Gilliland~ Ms. Warheit advises me that she believes that to be
correct.
Chajrman Marsh: If t~ere are no other Q~esttons, I will now open the
pub! ie hearing,
Bob Moss, 4010 Pone, Polo Alto: [am sp.aklng tenlght on ben.lf of th,
Barron Park Assoctation Executrve Committee. T~e e~tire board has not yet
voted on this because of the Chr!st .. s holidays, but I have discussed it
with board members and am quite confjdent that the boar~ endorses what the
e)ecutive committee has alread1 done.
J would like to give you a little backgroue1d on t~e CS \"ersus CN and the
£1 Camino Real goals, wh1ch date back about IS years. T~is particular
site and adjacent sites are zoned CS primari11 because in 1978, uses on
those sltes were motels, whic~ were CS uses. Therefore, the area frorn the
creek ~orth was zoned CS so tnat the existing bUSinesses would be
conforming. That is the only reason that that site is not zoned eH. In
creating the zoning along [1 Camino Real. this ~as done with a lot of care
and, lot of forethougM, Th. Intention .as that the uses .long El Caminu
Rell, .hether they be CS Dr CN, should be oeighborhood'ser,ing, should be
primarlly commercial. and t~e intermixture of commercial and re~idential
L
01/09/91
-4-
"
~; I
lj
I
I ,
\ ,
-
. \~
110ng tftat streec _"as recognized by tne fact that UtE' lOr',ing crdi!lance ..,as
c~anged to a'low reta1i on the ffrEt floor ind housing on the second and
third floor •. Th. eN lone has. 25-foot helght limit, except If you put a
third floor on for ~ousing. The concept of .i~'n9 housing wfth retail
~ses was then applied thro~ghout the cfty, fnc1ud1ng some 5tructures
wlthlo walking distance of the c~t1 h.ll. Therefore, the city couocll,
the plannlng comm1ssfon and the stiff had nC qualms Ihout mi~!ng retail
and residenti,1 on t~e same site, Firther dawn On [1 Camino Way, in The
H .... 'et, we havo exact'1 that _lx. We haye rot.n on the first floor, .ith
~ous1ng behind It. Therefore, there is no relson to have an office use,
rilther tflan retail. in order to protect housing. Hone w~atsoe'w"er.
J .ould like to address the staff report. J .ill "ot repe.t the letters
from the Barron Park Association, which speak Quite clearly to our
CQncerns~ [would like to respond to the comments and findings in the
staff report. T~e report prepared by Nancy lytJe, on Page 1, talks about
retail vers~s offfce, and it omits the fact that the 5,000 square~foot
limit on offfee space Initially was passed in August of 1985 at the very
beginning of the C;tplde land Uso ind Transport.tion Study. It.as.
two~year moratoriumj it was revi~ed and extended for an ajditional year
on May 26, 1987. J went back and looked at the minutes of those meetings
earlier tonight, and at no time was there any particular contrcversy o~er
extendi~g the 5,000 square~foot limit for offices. In fact, when tne
5,000 squar~-foot limit along [1 Camino Real was disc~ssed, it was
e~plicitl, stat!d, and agreed to ~y both the planning commissicn and the
city council, that because the lones along E1 (imin~ Real, the (N and CS
zones, werf indistinguishable from each otner 1$ you went up i~d down the
street, except for the pre-existing uses in 1978. it was felt complet~ly
appropriate to impose a 5,000 sq~are-foot office use is a limit in both
Zones. That has been done since 1985.
On Page 4 (and this is the same comment that Commissioner Cullen had), I
c~ecked my ccpy of the zoning ordinance, which is admittedly old~ but in
Section lE.83.070, the parking requirements, it stat€s tnat offices
reQuirf one parking space for 250 square feet. ]0,300 square feet of
office space woul~ require 41 spaces. Ret.il is divided into two segments
--intensive, req:Jiring ene per 150 square feet, and' extensi~e, requiring
one per 350 square feet. If we assume ir.tensive retail use, the parklng
for S,ODO squa~e feet of office plus 5,300 square feet of retail would
require 55 parkfng spaces, or an increase of 14 spaces, not 53. If it is
an extensive retajl use --5,300 square feet of retail plus 5,000 square
feet of office -. wculd require 35 parking spaces, or six less. Section
1S.83.D70(a) in a mixed use development permits the staff to ~aiv€ up to
20 percent of the parking requirement upon fi~ding that both the retail or
commercial and residential would dually use the parking spaces.
~herefore, witn i 20 percent deferral of parking, you would be talking
~bout 33 parking spaces required for all office use, 44 spaces in a mi~ed
office/retail which was intensl¥e retail, and 28 spaces in a mixed
office/retail which was exter.si~e retail. The difference in parking
requirements is insignificant, considering the 64,000 square·foot site
arei.
J find the statement at the top of Page 4 that office uses are inherently
mar! compatible with the residential component of mixed use deveiopments
unpersuasi~e. Just down the street on the El Camino is7and, there was an
approval granted for a mixed use for what is nOw a used car lot, f~r a
L
01/09/91
-5-
\
•
.~~.:
.. 't"
.~
~' !." .... ' .. ' . ,,'
,
..J
"
\
I -
,oetnation retatr~offfcl!'-ccndos, III 1n tf'le same structlJre. How Ciln t~,at
be '"c~.tlbl.l The cIty council Ind plonnln9 coomis.lon approyed a
3,700 square·foot sim11ar project. whtc~ has never been built, for retail
with reside.ttll directly Iboye, right on E1 Camino Real. There is no
reason to 51) we prefer office spa,. beCi~S! it 1s nore compatible. There
Is no difference.
In tenos of t~e urban design elosent, and whether this boildin9 is ~re
compatible beelus. It is office spice ,s r .. lly irreleyant. If the motel
is taken down and I new development goes in, Ir.d if th~ Architectural
Reyiew Board (ARB) doe. a good job of design (8Oeh better th.n they did
with Haney Saked H~)~ we w1ll ~ave an attractive structure Dr. [1 Cami~o
Rell "nd an upgrading of the property. It does not haYe to b. office
space. inere Is iI comment that this is a usef~l project because tne
office wor'ers will provide ret.,1 vitality for the £1 Camino island.
That Is a nDvol concept. We are allowing offlce uses to be built all
alo09 the £1 C •• ino ls1and. There Is • 3,200 square· foot office building
that is going in next to wnat is now I Chfnese restau~ant and was the
A&W. T~ere ls a .ixed office use developDent whlc~ I referred to
urlieri acrosS the stree-t It Chez louis there is anDther proposal fo} a
oiled use which would include ret,ll and office. 00 you re.lly think you
have to have offlc. uses in order te •••• shopping alo09 El Camino Re.l
viible? Nonsense. Whit yeu r.eed ~s adequate snops, the kind of shops
that 4re peraitted 1n iI bUSiness use. for exa~le, people have be~n
cryitlg for years for a 5 .... 11 bakery, an ice creiJI store, a hardware
store. There are a lot of uses that we ~ad --a very nice drug stare went
out of bUSiness. All Qf those are viable uses. The drug store was a
viable us. for II most 40 ye,rs. They could gD Into that site. Retail
along El Camino Re.l is working. Some of the v.c.nt prop.rtie, .10ng El
Cuino ROIl farther to the nort~ haye be .. sold lnd .re in the process of
being renovated. Withfn six months, those are g01ng t~ be viable retail
uses.
s~ of the same concerns about whether office uses ~re viable are
sprinkled throughout Virginia Warhelt's comoents on the approy,l of the
project~ Rather than repeat them all, I just want to ~ention one. That
is that the site is more-intenst"wely used and thef"ef<:rE:, t~is is an
impro~ement, and there is I concept that office use, being mJre intensive,
i •• bonefit. J t.nd tD disagree with th.t. I do not find intenSity of
use as a benefit. J think we ha'lle to Jook at the 0 .... eril1 uses along £1
CimhD Rul and the overall lrttensification we r,ne had on the isla.'Id and
adjacent properties, and look .t this as a total development, not
pieceme.l. If y •• look.t the entity of El C,rnino R •• l, the best use for
th.t site is retail. Retail is what the c .... unity needs, and is wh.t has
been removed in some areas, and what we would 1fk! to have restored. We
are losing some connerc'a1 developments on the other side of the street,
because they are bejr,Q amortized out. We would' 1 jke to have a place wr,ere
they can g~, if they wish to. This site is an appr~priite site.
In closing, I would like to ask you to ~phold our appeal ~f tne variance,
Q'IIerturn t~e variance, and recommend to the citl council that this site be
develDped with retail as the primary use, ~nd office as a secondary use.
Not office for the entire 10,300 square feet. r don't want to see office
buildings go up along £1 Camino Real and drive out the retail we now
have. Offices are more lucrativej they can get more rent; tney donlt pay
any ta~es. There is a comment about the ta~ wash in the report. but it
L
01/09/91
·5·
,
'¥i:~/
<!i;~.
,-,
. .,. :. -" .
. -" ~ .
" -:,." .
-:'
~~i_r-· Ii.C iJ "II! .,.001 ,~,:.-~ ..
-
ignores t~e fict that if reUn ~~S in there In the 5,300 square feet,
the sales tax revenue, depending on tnt success cf th! proj!ct, will b~
anywhere fr~ $200 to SI,OOO per year. You ~il1 get ZlP from office
uses. So ;n1 retl11 there is more rrmuneratlv! to the ctty as a tax
re~enue t~an stralgnt office ~se. It is not i big hit. The difference of
a few hundred doll.rs to • thousand dollars and S15,000 I ,gr •• is net
major. but it is present, and we Dught to get someth1n~ back for all of
the pain we are going through. Th.nk you.
ChairMan Marsb: When Jacobs Court waS befng conSidered right ~ext door to
t~is project, I know there were extensive c~ncerns frem the Barr~n Pi~k
Associatio, regarding the traffic Impact of redey.10pment ef t,e Jacebs
Court Irei and the way in which that traffic would theo m~rge into the El
Camino Real aru. It seems to De that the site we are talking about ~as a
particul.rly problematic frontage On £1 Camino R.al fer traffiC access.
How do you see that?
Kr. Kess: I agre., and I raised that point at one ef the ARB meeting<.
However. the major traffiC impact from this Site is not gQing to be from
the cc:m:ercia' in front. It w111 be tr,e ",sidentiol impact Putting 38
units of housing there is g01ng tD gene-rite approximate1y eigft~ trips per
~n1tl and tnat Is going to be at peak hours. The mote' USE g€nerates
aff-peak traffiC. By tf'le I.iay, there is i $tatemer.t in en! report 'Which
states that Jacobs Court has been reloned RM-1S. As you kno~, that is
false. That has not been rezoned; the rezoning has not come ~efore the
planning corrrni,ssion nor before tf'le city countil. The city council has
just told the staff to go back and write semet,lng up and ceme bac~ ,'ito
it. So the zon1ng at Jacobs Co~rt currently is R-2. There is no
ass~rance thit the RM·lS zoning w1ll, in fact, occur, but that is a very
dangerous intersection in a congested area. That is one of the reasons
~hy [ prefer retail to office, beeaus! the office us~ will generate more
traffiC at peak hours. The retail uses would be spread throughout the
day. You would not ha~e as much traffic in the morning rusM hour with
retail as yo~ would with office. To that txtent t you would reduce the
traffic hazard and danger. The major i~pact on traffic from that site is
going to be additional housing.
Denny Petros;?n. 443 ventura A~enue. Pllo Alto: I subscribe to Mr. Moss'
conrnel1ts, in the main. One of the things he pointed cut very \fI/el1 in MiS
comments on tMe staff re~ort is that the developer has options. This is
not a do-or-die situation for the developer. Scaling the office down to
5,000 square feet is something that is well within the flexibility of ttlis
project. I would also ask you to look at this in ttle context of the whol~
£1 Camino Real. as Bob said. If we start loo~ing at [1 Camino ~eal again,
littl. bitty property by little bitty preperty, w. are going to build
error back into a system and start creating 1 hodgepodge again. So please
consider it in t~at 1arger picture.
E1 Camino Real is a very special area, not like Menlo Park or Sunnyvale cr
B~rlingame or any otMer strip of £1 (amino Real. It is a v~ry narrow
stri~ of commercia'. but the duminant development in tMis area is three
large residential deve1opments, and that is what is reflected behind tnat
narrow strip of corrmerciaL Srull office buildings do exist along there,
and they are in sca1e with thit reality. larger office buildings than
5,000 square feet begin to give. different message .10ng tnat strip. It
does mean forcing retail rents up. The reason that many retail spaces
L
Ol/09/91
·7·
~aye be,a.e yacl~t 11 n~t betluse retail space cannot make it, but b~cause
of rent-90u9ing going on_ That Is why tho,. spaces are empty_ Whon the
rent gouger' re.lize th.t they are not going to get those rents, they will
come down and the kinds of businesses we want to see will come in and
loclte.
If we start .eelng office splee on that f,ontage, ve are going to make it
even harder for retail to locot. In the retail space that exists. I think
that it vould be a bIg mistake to 'ppro,e the very first 'arianee to the
stipulation that Was .rrived at a$ a result of the Citywide la,d Use and
Transport.tlon Study for a 11.lt on office space. We not only h.ve
projects waiting In the wings of .ixed use th.t if this variance is
granted I can COle in and saYt we ~ave I afxed US! on [1 Ca~;no Real, we
have c .... rcl.l frontage, aod you gave th .. the offlee space, so give us
office space t too. GiYe us lOre than 5,000 square feet. How are you
going to deny them? The Chez louis project is one of them. The motel
right next door, the Cozy Eight, ts In exact rep1ici of this property,
i1~st. Another developer could go Into th.t one. How could you de"y the
one next door? It is not onl1 areas on E1 (amino Rell where there is
aixed use zoning. If the big car lot just south of Chez louis went O"t of
business and a _ixed use ca~ In there, it would haye i lot of housing on
the back, but they would .ant office on the front_ Vou begin to have El
Ca.ino Re.l turned lnto an office zone , so I feel this is I very dangerous
directlon to go In. Rudolfo's cou1d be so .. sort of situation. We asked
Rudolfo's to come in for i aixed use PC proposal with t~e restauTint in
fro~t and housing in the back. He co~ld co.e in and say, I ~ave decfded T
cannot keep this ;"estaLlnnt , so I will put housing in the back and give AlE!
offices in the front.
If the develop~r were to change this into an Ill-~ousin9 ~roject, J de not
see how he to~ld lose money_ You stafTy dDn't lose roone~ on housing.
There is not reason why that could not go ill the ~'Y out to EI Camino
Real. There is .1so no reason why you couldQ't have it part retail and
part office. A s~11 retail sectIon or general bUSiness use, If It fits a
niche in this area, will draw pedestrians from Pi10 Alta Commons. If you
had. little coffee shop/b.kery, IOU would get people w.lking fro. the
Commons and from t~~ trailer court behind the All American Market. That
;s somethirlg we halle wanted to see on El Camino Real. If yt>u: have a small
ar.a for ret.il ~ltn • sm.ll office building, you can dr •• that, •• king
the whol~ prcject ~ucn more dyr.amfc with that type of combination.
If you approve this pr~ject, the argument will be used across the board
t~at fn order to ~aximize housing, you rep1ice commerCial with office, as
it requires fewer parking spices. I do not t~ink that would be a
productive direction in whf'~ to go in on £1 Camino Real. because by using
that argument, you may maximize h~usin9 by Dne or t~o units, and what you
will do is sacrif;'e the commerC~il goals th.t halle been on the drawing
board for (1 Camino Real to make it I healt~y, flDurfshing bUSiness area.
So I think that is the int.nt.
In going to Page 3 of the staff report prepared by Nancy lytle, at the
bottom, there is the staff tomment that -this area 1S not generally
intended for nei9hborhood-serving retail, but is inten~ed for for citywide
and regional 1ervices.· That certainly is what is enc~uraged and
pe~1tted nere, but in any case, the intent ;s for i heaTthy business
district and is not to permjt uses such is this that work agafnst tne
L
01/09/9l
-8-
•
.. , j
J
~ ,
J
\
,~,
-
·r . __ ....
over.ll c_refal go.ls for PIlo .~lto.
Going to Plge 5 of the staff report. findfng 11. WThe proposed ~se at the
proposed location will not be detrlaentll or injurfous t~ property or
i~rQVement5 in the Vicinity. and will not be detr'mental to the public
h~ilth, safety, general we'far~ or convenience ... • I r~ad into that that
it will, in f.ct, be detrimental to the publ!c welf.re because cf the
goals we hne for cemmertial develos>ment along E1 Camirro Real. S:) I don't
t~ink th.t this particular finding is v.lid.
I just urge you to look at the fact that deyeloper his flexibility In this
project, and rather than begin some very detrimental precedents. I urge
you to requIre the deyeloper to bring th. proposil In within t;e law.
RoDgrt Steinberg. 1130 Bryant street. Pilo Altq: I am present tonight
representing t"e applicant. It ~s a c~illenge to fo11o~ two such
persuasive individuals ~ho speak so clearly about their thoughts. i would
like tc snare with you that we also appreciate all tne effort tnat has
gone into the Citywide land Use and Transportation Study. This attempted
to stimulate retail along El Clmino Real and discourage office USE. in
many, ma~y instances, that is a well founded policy and 1S one that you
should endorse. I appreciate the previous speaker's grave concern about
setting a precedent. It is unfDrtunate that we ire one of the first
applications to come before you, ind I do understand that concern for the
precedent. But J do feel that t~1s is not. typicol site, and I do not
feel that it is in any .ay precedent·setting, rt is .lso important to
understand tnat in addition to the land ~se $tudy ~nd g!neral. city_ide
broad-based pclic;es tnat tne city establis~es, there are also goaTs for
each individual site. every indiyjdual site has its o~n special needs,
reQuirement~ ind goals tnat the city planners and the ARB en(ourage
designers and developers to respond to. In this particular case, this is
a lang, narro~, primarily residenthl site. Iihen we met with the city, I
was a little surprised that neither of the previous speakers responded to
the fact that one of the key things the cIty has required us to do, which
groups have asked us to respond to at ARB meetings and it meetings before
you, was to m!n1mize trafffc on the site. This Site is at one of the
oddest i~tersect1~ns in Palo Alto. It Is on a six-lane road. It is a
busy, conf~stng, awkward intersection. When we met with the traffic
eng;neer~ from day one, we came In and sho~ed you the analysis that we
did. irl'e looked at different points wf1ere we could get access to the
site. We could not get it adjacent to [1 Camino Way. We could not get it
along the middle of the site, ,nd the only safe place was at tne extr!me
nortn end of the site. In our last meeting before you, same of the
community members said we sho~Td downsize the project because we have too
~ch traffiC. So minimizing the trAffic and the vehicular access were
major criteria we were asked to address.
We were also isked to address the fact tnat from an urbar. design planning
standpoint, the city wanted a two-story ~r even higner street ~cll that
wo~Td come up to the street edge and reinforce the street wall al~n9 El
Camino Real + Certainly, there was encouragement to provide affordable
nousing. The ~ou$lng we ire proposing ranges from 80~ to 1,200 square
feet. 'We are not proposing lIulti-million dollar nOrTies. We are proposing
affordable~ starter housing. Tnese ~ere the goals we were enc~uraged by
the city to pursue. I have to tell you that r feel a little cdught
between two diff!rent policies that the city would like us to respond to
01/09/91
-9-
,
, ",
-.'''/
"
-
.'
whfch are fn conflict w1t~ ant a~other. T~f retli1 US!$ thlt the loning
ldo!.!strator f.lt were inappropriate for thl, ,Ite will unQuestlonlbly
Incre .. e troffic .t t~1s locltion. Anyb<>dy tI'.at tell, you th.t a hardware
stare. In tee cream store, a drug store is going to have less traffic J
CI"not agree with. To introduce that kind of traffic .t this lnters.ctlon
I f •• l IfOilld be very. very difficult Ind In conflict w·.th everything we
have discussed for the l.,t nine IOnths on thl, project with .11 of the
entlt!es of the ctty.
I will .ls. tell you that if we were to add the ret.il. and we added 14
Idditlon.l parking places. that would reduce approximately se,en units of
the project. or clos. to 20 perconl of the .ffordable housing that .e are
trying to put on the site. Despite the letter that yO" got fro~ Hrs.
Petrosian, we cannot e11.ln,t. the reta11 Dr tM! office and put housing
there. The zoning does not ,ccommod.te It. The only thing w. would be
able to do WDyld be to reduce t~f size or the number of units, but we
would not be abl. to fill the addltlon.l are. and the frontage with
housing,
In concl uSian. J would 1 i ke to say that I feel this j s a very unique
Site. It is not a precedent-setting site. It is , busy. a.kw.rd
conf~sing fntersection. Jt is fnlppropriate for retail, Quick fn-ind-out
USPS. T~is f~ I deep Site that is prf~ari11 resldential, and t~ have t~e
ret.ll component wipe out 20 percent of the residential .fter you have
rezoned it for .fford.ble housing s ... , to .. to be inappropriate. St.ff
~as indicated that a ... 11 amount of office th.t will h.,e les, traffic on
the sit. will support the neighborhood retail th't Is being developed
adjacent on E1 C&a;no ~aJ, where there is Iccess from two different sides,
i vEry different condition fro. ~lt wt Ire facing h!re. ~or almost eight
or nine .antns. we hive received very encouraging comments (rem the
Archit.ctural Review Board. support fro. the city staff and the zoning
administrator, and I hope that WI will hav! your support tonight, as
well_ Thank you.
Commissioner Cu11,n: Mr. Steinberg, did I understand yeu to say that you
thought the zoning would preclude housing on the CS portion of this
property?
Mr. SteinHrQ; hs.
Mr. Gilliland: It does not preclude ho~sin9. The difference here is that
the maximu. ~AR for the site is 0.6 and that is what they have used for
these units. They ire small units at 800 to 1,200 sQuare feet.
Commissioner Cyllen: ~y q~!stiQn is whether it is perfectly possible to
build housing on the CS part of tho property and to utilize the prop.rty
that way. I am not suggest1ng you should do that, but I just want to be
clear tn.t that is • possibility.
Mr. Stejnberg: I do stand corrected.
Mr, Gilliland: He can build housing under the RM-30 regulations on the CS
portior:.
Mr4 Steinherg: We have ~sed the total allotment of b~lk for the ~Ousing,
and we could distribute it differently, but it would not provide any
01/09/91
·10-
.-'
.~ ..
, .
Commissigner Beecham: Dots stiff Igree with th,t lIst statement?
Ms. Warheit: Yes. he is correct, Th~ units could be increased (rom 38 to
44. Tnat is the only difference, ~t tne sQuar. footage tnat n. is
providing new Is .11 t~.t Is allowed on that •• tir. par,el, including the
CS and the RH-30 portions. He could .. ke sDmQ smaller .nit •• nd have 44
instead of 3B, but h. cannot add ""1 .ore squIre footage tnan h. hi' right
nOW.
Chilcoa. Marsh: ~Ith the r.vised figure of 13 additional parking spac.s
that would be needed for the retail d.v.lo~nt, how mony housing units
,"ould you lose?
Mr, Steinberg: If you figured approxlmatel, two cars per unit and you
t.ke fourteen and divide it by two, 1 would say that is seven units less.
If we had 44 units, it {s cias. to I 20 per,e~t reduction in the number of
units.
Commissioner Cullen: T~e )11~tment fer generll business uses for parking
is one per 350 square feet. That Is l.ss than the .llotment for
commercial, for office u'., "'Ich Is one p.r 250. Is that "'at it still
is now? (Yes) So, in fact, by using ~,OOO sQuare feet for genera1 use,
for example, you ~ould actually be reducing the number of required parking
spaces. I .ant to isk you if you are aw.r. of th.t_
Mr. St,;nbe!9: As 1 understood from the pre~ious $pF.a~er, there are two
types of retail u ••.
CommiSSioner Cullen: 1 ~ talking Ibout just g~neral bUsiness use and the
way we define it in the zonlng ordinance. Have W~ changed that
definition?
Mr. pillilind: ~e hive not changed the definition. ~e de use one per
350 square feet for extensive retail. For intensive, it is one per
150 square f •• t.
(otrrnissianer Cullen: One for 3S0 sQIJ1.re feet for general business lIses,
whic~ 1 Quoted at the be9i~n1ng of tne meeting frc~ tnt zoning ordinance.
Mr. Steinberg; Would i hlrdwate store or an ic~ cream store fit into that
category?
COmmissioner (ullen~ Ne, but many Dther th'ngs would.
Mr. Steinberg: J did not jot down ill of the usts you mentioned, but many
of t~em, such as buildi~g supplies, to me wou1d be certainly less
conducive t~ interface On i Compict s'te with res1dential. You are right
that numerically, we could .... thit work, but I would is. you if we ar.
r •• lly .etting up coopatibl. neighbors in tnat .ind of .ituation.
Commissioner Cullen: [n the area south Df Forest, we were very clear not
to remo~e the (S ser~ices tnere because they served the residential
community. Tne peop1e in that area bigged us not to. Examples are bulk
liundrJ and dry c1~in\n9~ construction sup?1'~s. that lind of tn'"g.
01/09/91
·11-
•
, ,
\
. .
•
.. ,
>
J .. C"c ...•. '.~.· .... .. .-
I.< .~
i
lI
I
I
I
. ': .... ;t
-
Those come undar generJl business uses lnd do not reqyire the number of
p.~kl.g spices that office do.s or th,t retlll does.
IIr. 5teiaberG' TII,t 15 a good point. but 1 would dr ... a very distinct
difference between those two e • .apl... The people Vho ,.ked you to keep
thlt I. the .rea south of rorest don't h, •• to go behino it ,'0 live
behind It. That Is theIr total frontage to th.s. r.sldential ualts. Th,t
Is their window to the c~unlty. To hive the back door of • I.und~.t
be your <oomon entry .. tor court .,th your front door concerns me. 1 do
not t~lnk th.t is a coopatlbl. relationship. This Is • long. n.rrow, deep
site .n<! that if wt,y 1 do fe.l th.t it 15 different from your typlCil
exa.ple.
~.'on.r Cullen: J am not s.ylng that everything on th.t 1"t would
be compatible, but there Is , long list. Ther •• '1 be some compatible
uses there.
Chairman M.rsh: Since J have no ether cords fro. -..beT. of the publiC, J
will close the public he.rlng and return this Item to the planning
cOl1ll'lission.
Mr. Gilliland: On Page 4, I want~ to (1.rtfy that the figure, would
require an additionil 14 parktnq ~paces and would reduce th~ area devoted
to residenli.l development by approxi~t.ly 4,200 square feet.
Commissioner Beecham: I have I q~estion about the impact of tn! reduction
of the 4,200 square feeL The Ippraximllt;on 'IIiS &bout ",too sqYare feet
at 800 squIre feet per apart.ent Is one thing. Each .partment also
requires t"o parking spaces. 50 If we say that 14 space, is 4,200 square
feet~ How ~any square feet per space is that, per parking space?
Hr. Gilliland: In reducing the figures, we used roughly 300 square f •• t
for each space, gfven the parkfng space and the travel lane.
Cpmmiss;oneT Bet&bam: So then for a unit, if it is 800 square feet cf
living space, two parking spaces, that is an additional 200 square feet.
which tOials 1,400 square f •• t. That ~ivjd.s into 4,200 square feet .bout
threi times. So we a~e talking about a difference of t~ree units.
Mr. Gilliland: I dan;t think you can quite do it that way because ~e are
talki~g about an underground gar~ge here. The figures y~u are baSing it
on, you WQ~ld have to put the~ on top of each other.
He Steinberg: It is the par~ing toat override, everything. It has
nothing to do with the square footage of the unit. There ~ou'd be no
place to relocate thcse J4 spot •.
Ch,irm\n Kirsb: We .re fortunite to hive with us tonight Shirle) Wilson
froo the Architectural Re~le ... BOird. [wonder t f yO\! would respond tJ a
co~ple of comments tnat came up in the public hearing. One is just to
pass .long to u, any comments that tne ARB had In terms of tn. kind of
development that would be .ppropriote on the [1 Comino Re.l front'ge.
Secondly, tne kinds of use. that you would see .s being appropriate with
the housing on the back of this project.
~L. Wil,on: I fe.l support;v. of the staff comments for this partieulor
Olj09/aJ
·)2·
.,."-' .. , ..... '\..
L
•
I
I I ':?
I
•
\ .
\.-.
1· . ... ~
·71.·
-
'.
-
stte. It is • very iwk~ird site. and [ think the access would be I killer
for .ny retail that was trying tG function on tholt site. I uflderstand the
.. tl ••• of the neighborhood, but I do not r •• lly feel that the full
breldt~ of [1 C .. lno Re.l that Iffeets thlt neIghborhood need. to be .11
retll1 to serve the neighborhood. It re.lly needs to be zoned, and th.t
pop.'othn density thtre I 'sr •• would be ~,.lpf.l t. the £1 CL~lno Island
and The Ma.let bu,ln.".s.
Chli ... n Karsh: HIS tho ARB dIscussed tho kInds of development they would
like te ••• on El Camino R.al? Kr. Steinberg •• de • reference to having a
'trong frontoge on [1 Camino Real. H.". all of you hIked about that?
M$. Wjlson: That statement .i$ .. de It our De~tin9 th~t i strong presence
on El Camino Re.l wa. r .. lly h.lpful, If not continually, at certoin
points. Due to the width .nd selle of that street, it is very dIfficult
to .a1nti1~ any $~nse of place, with ever1th'n~ be1ng ope-and tw~-story
and dribbling off 10to the residential neighborhood. I .culd like to see
the frontage of that b"ilding softened somewhot. Ther. could be ....
landscaping. 1t does not h~ve tD be void of iny 1ife. That was fairly
unani.aus Qn the board.
(nai~an Marsh: 1 also have S~ q~estfO"5 for Carl Stcffe'~
Transportation En9'neer~ One (s in r&ga~ to access to this property.
wonder if Mr. Stoffel co~lj retterite the staff's concern a~d reQuirements
Tn terms of access. Secondly, I wonder if you w~uld wa1k us through the
peak-hour traffic ana1ysis that has been done ~ith offic~ ~ersus retail.
Mr. Stoffel: r~e only difference between this parttc~lar locatfon and any
other on [1 Camino Real i, the flct that It is near that corn.r. The only
thing that it has to do .it. Is that it I. nice to keep a drive •• y,
especially going in, i5 far from an f~tersection IS possible, because
people hav. other thing. on their .inds when gain; throu9h an
'nterstct1on, and they ~ay not be watching IS caref~111 to se~ if somebody
is gOing to slow down ard r.ake a turD. T~ere are i number of impr~vements
that will be going on within a fe. days at that intersection, that will
m.~e things a little safer there. W. are getting rid of the t~o free
right turr.s, cine on t.~t Barron Park side and tne other on ttle fl Camino
Way side. They will b. replaced .itn 0 right-turn I .... That will slow
down some ~f those right turn movements iii litt1e bit.
T~ere will be some bike lane improvements on [1 Camine Way tnat will help
the bicyclists. As far as people running the stop lights. there Is going
to be some new signal hardwa~e going in t~lt will be ~uth larger, br'~hter
indications that according to C.lTr.n. will help solve that probl.m,
Nevertheless, ft is still 'lose to the corner. whft~ is why the dr1ve~ay
is up is far is it can be. Peop1e leaving the site will ha~e amp1e
~pportunity to get aver to the first block .nd m.ke a U-t"ro If they wish
to h.ad south. There will b. long gaps created bj the red li9ht at los
Robles, and people wanting to enter the site corning frem the no .. th car,
••••• U·turn at los Rob1es. Whon they make that U·turn, traffic on [I
Camino Real is stopped, and with getting rid of the frEE--running right
turn lane from [1 Camino Way. it wi'l help that to be a fairly clear
access into the slte.
I do not hawe too ~uch of a problem with those activlties going on there.
espec1ally since in my opinion, the increase in activities o~er what tne
L
01/09/91
-13·
;
,
. ; ..
'.'
-. ....
r -_ .. _--_ .. _---.--~--_.-
L
IOttl is. is an increase but is not I large o~e.
Then on the peat hour trip g.neratlon, generally spe'klng, offices
generate le,$ trlfflc than r.tall. I say g.nerally beca.s. there are lots
of different kinds of retlil. I j.st did some ca'cu,.tions for
5.000 tquare feet I~ came out wft~ I retail on the low end ta be about
tht sale amount of trip gen!ratlon as an office. But 1t could 90 up much
higher. Ther •• re I lot Df retiil uses, such IS fist food outlets and
convenience stores, miybe a Yfdea store. that can generate a lot more
traffiC thin an office. Of cDur •• , ret,ll tends to be open longer hours
tho. offices, Including weekends. In thlt sense, It gener.tes more
tr.fflc. Office traffiC, though. little less, is oriented in the same
general direction as III of Palo Alto's rush hour triffic~ that is.
outbound fn the eyening. At that particular spot, that may not make a lot
of differenc!'. ~t in genera't office traff1t w1ll Ide: to t~.e general
c~tt direction of traffic o~t of Palo Alto in the e~ening and into Palo
Alto in t~e ao~ing. Retail has less activity in t~e ~rning and does not
Quite have t~ose sa~ directions. Ge~eril11 speak;ng, ~owe¥er, retlil has
Mre traffic.
CgoDissloner Cullen: I am not going to be able to uphold the zonIng
admlnfstrator's findings. I find them applIcable to any zDne In P.lo Alto
Jnd not to this particular location. To say that a less intensive ~se is
an Dffice us. Is no justification for chonglng the allotment that i. in
the zoning ~rdinlnce. You could say that about anyplace in Palo Arto.
1 also tni~k tnat the services generated ~n a CS zone are essentill for
nearby resfdentfal use, is I stated earlier. As we ire getting ~ore and
more r~sidenti,l uses in that immedIate area, I think the need for
serviCES is even greater. Thfrd1y, J think the lower parking requirements
for general bUSiness ser~ices, which is I permitted use and he wo~ld not
eyen be in front Df us ff he hid not gone for the total office use Instead
of just the S,OOO square feet.
I am also very disappointed that t~e amount of time and effort ~nd years
that went into trying to get office use redlJced in these areas 1S now
being overlooked. The request for a variance is not for a small
differential between what is accommodated by tn! zoning ordinance, but is
double the amount that is .ll~d. $0 1 am not going to be able to uphold
the loning administrat~r's j~dgment on this.
Commissjonfr Be,cham: let me Iddress the trafffc issue first. I think
the tr,fflc issue is a wash in both directions. Toe last time we had a
discussion at a public ~eirjng on thi$, people opposed to the project ln
general were complaining about t~e a~lward traffiC situation. T~night the
appl'eant for the project is saying it is awkward, and therefore, things
should be reduced or .inim1zed. The traffic s1tuati<ln is not much
different than in almost any oUter location. It is unique only because it
is the only one on this corner. There are other intersections whfch have
other problems, and to ae. this is a gener'c type of problem that occurs
all up and down El Camino Real where you ~aye businesses or offlces or
other uses near an intersection. For the people actually using the slte
to have a single entrance. that is an impact on the residences. That is
one of the tnings that dri~e my opinion on this. This is a very clese
"issue. I am very sensitive to the findings in No. J, indicating that
office use is a less intensive ~se than mO$t of the a110wed uses. r don't
01/09/91
-14·
•
•
'..", ;;;~,
,$;.".'
>,
'.
.. :.>
. "
\
-', ,',', .... ,.-
.~
think we it .11 .int te SlY t~.t office fit. better .it~ housing thin
would retotl. Th.t flies In the foee of the .hol. Issue of .hat .e are
doing. In th1s p.tt'tw'.~ ~aset it would. because the resid~nces ha~e no
Qt~er .ccess except fro. £1 C .. ir,o Rea' to go by the uses.
On It ... 2 of the findings, I can .01inally support that. In my
estfllhltiar" it is five units, lliybe ess, maybe more. J am still not
clear on how one workl o~t t~e p~rklng 1ss~e in tt~s of mare intensiv~ or
less Intenstve ret,ll u.e., but I do belle.e that If retail go.s in ther.,
the s.,rlftee will be to repl.,. SOle residentl.l unit. with ret.il. So
b.sed 00 those tteos, I .111 support the lontng admlnlstr.tor on this
issue-.
CQ!I'IIlissiQoer Glu,er: I. in gener,1. support C0!r.11SS~Oii€r aeechd.m's
eooments and will vote to upheld tho lonlng administrator's deCision.
recognize and ippreciate the need for retail in that lone. but r also have
to weigh that agiinst a number of other benefits that the city would get
frOftl this 'project. Humber Qne, one of tne IDOst important »andates of the
Comprehens,ve PlIo is to Dake E1 C.-lnG Real look very nice, .nd this
project certainly achieves thilt objettive. It gets Ilore housing, which is
an important objective, and It .1.0 gel. the p~th throu9h Wil.ie Way to
the Ventura School. If we were to explore some other alternati~e path.
perhaps incorporating retail, we lIIiY not be able to 9~t that. I do agree
with some of the comments that it is a pretty difficult site for retail,
and therefore 1 will yot. to uphold the zoning administrator's decision.
Chairman Marsh: The dominant reaction r had to t~is was e~pressed by
Commissioner Beethlm, which is th&t tnis Is l very close issue. 10 my
mind, there is no very clearcut response, no clearcut dictate as to what
action Yf shou1d take. However, I come down on the side of the loning
ad~in1strator for two reasor-so One is the configuration of t~is lot. It
does have a narrow frDntage. It h I very long, narrow? deep Tot and tnt!
access 1s limited tec,us. of tne way the sit. fits, to haVing, as
Co~issioner Beecham noted, a sfngle drive tnat has to serve al1 of the
uses on the parcel~
The seco~d issue is simpl, that of location and tne fact that 1 agree ~it~
the appl jcant that we have a parcel here ttlat i.s in I problematic space on
£1 Camino P.eal. However, we need to be ~ery, very clear tnat we are ~ot
setting any preceder.t in this case for exceeding the offi~e limitation in
tni future. That is an issue t~at co~cerns me very ~uc~, because I ~ery
much support ha~ing an office li.it and encouraging retail or ~ther forms
of commercial development .10ng El Ca.inc Re,l. I thin, that both the
confiqurition and 'otati~n of th~s p&rcel is fairly unusual? and 1 do not
see oth!r properties along E1 Cimino Re,l being able to meet the standards
that we see on this parcel. So given tnat. 1, to~. will support the
zoning admfnistritor's recommendation. It would certainly be a very
positive step for the ipplicant to again take one last lOOK at this bef~re
it goes to tne cit~ ,auncil to see if there is any way of reasonably
in(orporating any kind of low-key commerCial development t~at might serve
the residents at that site~ is well as the nearby residents. I simply
make one last pIe. to the applicant to take another look at it, but I will
support the recommendation.
CommiSSioner Cullen: It sounds to me, from the c~nts made by my fellow
commiSSioners, that the findings listed will nave to be revised.
0[/09/91
·15·
..
,
.~ ...
-
~: tRtm's$iODCr 8efcb,,: J .aVf tnat we up~o'd the zoning
.dministr.tor, but ~: ~ifi finding i1 to the following: ·The ~roposed
use It t~e proposed location will ~ot te detriment.l Dr injurious t~
property or I~rovements In the vlclnlt1, Ind will not be detrimental to
the public health, s,fet1, genera' welf.re or conven1!nce, in that ~
fpr this spg,tf1c site. office usc is mere comD~tfble with residential use
because of un1gyt dr~VfWay l~m1t.tions, and second. for this s~~
site, there if t strong vrban design desire fpr i street wall design.-
The second finding romllns IS written.
~: By Comolssioner Gllzi.r.
MOTION PASSES: Cb.lrwin Marsh: Is ther~ Iny further discussion on tnfs
motion? It has been aoved and seconded that we ~pho'd the loning
admfnistrator's retommendatfon a~ It would approve tne conditional ~se
perlit for 10,300 square feet of office space where a ma~imum of
5,000 square feet .ould oorm,"y be penultted. It is subject to findings
as written in the report, with the ..endment IS stated by Comm:ssioner
Betchlm, wh'ch addressed the particular .cc@ss to this site and a d!S1re
for, street wall desIgn. Finding No.1 stands IS written, and is
incorporit.d in the condition IS listed in the report. All those in
favor, .ay Aye? All opposed? Thlt p •• ses on a vote of 3·J, with
Commissioner Cullen dissenting. and CoaafsJf~ners Hirsch, Hub~r and
Christensen absent.
Mr, Gilliland: This \S scheduled for the city council for January 21.
AGENDA ITE" 5 398i El CSHINO REAL: Applic,tion for a major site and
design for. _Ixed use project with 38 residenti.l
condominium units Ind a JO,300-sGuare-fo~t commercial
buil~ing over underground parking. En~ironmental
Assessment~ No signif1tant impacts w~re determined to
result from the project, and a negatlv! declaration has
been prepared. File Hos. 90-[14·30, 90-D-09, 90-ARB-B1,
90-UP-34. Zone District RM-30, CS.
~an Mar,h: This Is the first sIte lnd design Ippli,.tion that the
pl.nning commission has considered in the (1 t .. ino area. It may be
helpful to relterate why, in factI we tuve such a reqvirement for mixed
u.e projects. Site and design hiS historically been used for propertie,
that are located near tne footh1llJ and for some of the commer,iil
development which is to tho west of foothIll [xpre.sw.y, and in the
bay1ands. In those Clses, the cOmlfss;cn's task has been to luok it areas
whic~ were en~jronmentally sensitive and to c~nt on the ways in whicn a
development relates to the en,jron .. nt speclfic,lly. in the case of [1
Camino Real, we do not haVE those Sale environmental prob1ems, but in the
course of the Cityw1dt Stud1, we decided, and the c,ty council agreed, to
app1y a sice and design hearing on all .ixed use projects. Our task is a
little bit different. Our emphisis is not on the architectural and
environmental issues that we look it in the foothills and the baylands.
~e are h~re to look it the ways in which the various uses that are
i"corporated into I sinqle develop~nt relate to each ot~er and to tne
surrounding uses. We will, and can, look it architectunl issues~ but
L
01/09/IJ
-16-
•
L
r
!
I
I
I
,
.-
.--":,..:":"
'.<.0
those Ire reiily secondary to whit our prl~lry focus tonight shou'd be.
~ stiff c.-ments.
Ch.!"",n Maril!: r w111 now open the public huring.
~SteinbeM' 1130 Bryant Street, Pt1q A112; list time 'lie met with
you, I g.ve you I flfrly 1."9thy present.tfon Ibout to. de,.lopment of the
site and its charleterlsties. As] recill i there was primarily the issue
tnat we just dealt w;t~ that was of concern. and the second ~rea of
cencern had to do with the specffl: design of the office building. W.
have don. SDoe mod!ffc.t!.n t. the office building to try and increase the
reeling of scale 1 to use somewhat .ore tradft1(1nal, textural materials,
11though I understand that Is not the specfflc point of what we are deing
at thfs .oment_ I would be hiPPY to efther gfve you a full-blown
presentitfo" or Inswer specific qu.stf~ns.
ChJir;an Mjr1h: We would 11k! to ~Ive the complete presentation.
Mr. Sttinbtrg: In developing the site. we looked at several different
alternatives. We looked .t olt.motfves thot had access closest to the
intersection. We looked at access points in the middle of the site. We
looked at access pOints farthest to the north? .way from the
fntersectton. Aft~r some d1scYSsions w'th the traffic departm!nt, it ~as
deemed that.e should provide· one access as far away from the intersection
as possible.
A second k!y element was that we were encouraged to maintain a street wall
along El Camino Real. A third element was that W~ had a requirement for
paramedic and fire access along the water channel that could actually
either turn around and back Y~, or DOve through the site, over the water
char-nel and out via the existing easeeent. So those were tnree key
el.~nts that affected the desIgn of the site.
One of the challenges of the site was ~ow to develop an integrated
community that had a narrow frontage, I~d that combined both office and
residential. One of the things we tried to do was to use common materials
Ind common cc10r palettes, but to reverse their pr~portion. Because ~e
had suc~ a narrow Window on t~e slte. we felt it was important that the
office building lOOK handsome .nd meet .11 of the urb.n design guidelines.
but it should .150 give you so.e clue t"at there ;5 another activity
happening at the rear of tne site --the residential. To reinforce that,
we took advantage of a common, single drivew~y and developed I shared
motor co~rt that had a front door to the offices, and I front door to th~
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 is for housing.
One of the thir.gs we did with the housing is that typically in residential
deSign, yo~ will find that when yay have a courtyard like this, a lot of
t~e t;ae, we will design it ~ere you come into the unit from the shared
experie~cep Ind then you face outward and become very private within your
own unit. w~at we wanted to do here, since we felt that thlS was i little
enclave. was that we wanted to foster the notion of a community. so we
purposely designed the more public sp.ces, i.~., the iiving rooms, the
dining rooms. the patios. the titc~ens. to orient in toward the common
OIIO~/91
-11-
,
"
",c', .
J ..::.:;, :
-
"".-~.
courtYlrd, with windows and balton1e£ and te~rices, $0 that hopefu11y.
people would get 0 chance to know one onoth.r Ind re.11y cre.te a sense of
cco.unlty. Along the exterior, we developed the DOr. privite are.s .. the
btdrooa> ond bathro .. s, Ind l.ndscaped th.t In DOre priv.te f.shion, so
t~lt your .are private roOBS had .. re prlv.cy.
OUr setblck. ire appro.lm.t.1y five fe.t fron £1 CaMino Rell and 25 feet
back fro. the other .Ides. We have 11DOSt 0 SO·fDat s.tback from the
creek ac ••. The office bUilding, as you •• y rec.ll, wa •• little
controverslil the l.st time we were hero. People had Inter •• tlng t~ing$
to soy about our corner. What we have tried to do Is to go back and do a
sorl.s of dlffer.nt studies. W. have .. t with members of the ARB and .ith
~rs of the planning staff. I._ not 5YrE that we hl~e i final dtsign
to pr.sent to yO" tonight, bot one of the things ve are trying to do is to
restu~y the .. terlol. u.ed. If you recIll, there was concern about
extensi'll'e use of glus Dr refle<:the &1terills. lie "'..,'e e111J'fnated' those
fro. the desfgn~ There was encour~9~nt t~ try and reintrodute the
notion of Identlfllble door. and windows that hive. sc.le and a
proportion thilt you can identlfy and relate to the ~!Jman form, ,)let still
to deyelop soae element on the corner. We have backed off from our
nucluT poW!.r p] ant imagery that WiU referred to list time. to something
th.t will be • little more hanneniou. wlth the hou'ing. This is not a
fin,l design but it Is the direction in which we .re gOing. We would
envision trying to work out those fin.l dot.l1. in concert with the ARB.
The last thing I wanted to aentfon whic~ we discuss~d lS o~r emergencJ
access. At that time, ;t was our fntent;o~ to tr1 ind maintain this as
privlte, outdoor space for the residential units. Sub$eQ~ently, the city
has expressed iDterest in a ~~blic elsement that would allow members of
the c~unlty and neighborhood out t. [1 C.mino Re.l through the site. Ve
are presently working with ,toff to try Ind ,cc.-plish that. We are
agreeable to working out the det.ils. Th,t I. the direction in which w.
arl!" IAOving.
Commissioner Cullen: W~uld that cut down on the private, outdocr space of
the people living adj.cent to t~at e.sement?
Mr, St,;nberg: It wou1d not cut down on tneir private outdoor spate.
What 'lias p,,'oposed here was a clX.Winatton of concrete, turf block and
ground cover that ~rQer.cy vehicles could drive on. We originally were
going to try and clo •• off the property. o.e of our con,ero. wa' that we
did not want th ••• 3B re.ldeots to lccept liability for. public
thoroughfare t~rough their site. Similar to some other sites we ha¥e
worked on with the city, we dlSCUSSed tne notion of a publi( easement
where the liability and m.inten.nce would revert to the city. W. do have
secondar1 entrlnces at the l~er levels, with arch entry gat€s, so if t~at
beca.e i pedestrian walkway. these indTvid~al units would ~ay~ a secondary
front 1ard on t~at with iI pedestri In gate. It cculd actually work lIery
n1ce1,.
Commissipner Cullen: Wnat about security? Is there a fence or gate tnat
could be locked by the re.ldents? The re •• on I bring thi' up is that I
live In a ca.ple. with only ten units, a,d it went through without getting
a security gate put in. Some people thought it would b. great for people
to be able to wander through there, and we get people wandering through.
It is not to the satisfaction and comfort of tnose of us who live there.
01/09/91
·18·
•
~I
-
w~ e¥~n have them lunching on our .il'.
I1r. Steinberg: Because they we-re eleYited slightly from t"'e pub' ic
walkw.r, each one of the units would aJread1 ~iye about I two~foot
.1 ••• tion.l chan;e. Then they ~l.' fi.e-foot 'igh prl,ate g.~ens and
patiOS, with a lockabie wrought iron 9ite in It. So they have the
elev)t\on. and if p~ple Ire ~a'king by, they cannot look in, and they
ha.~ their own fenced-in, private yard.
Commissioner geecham: J would like to ~ake sure r understand the c~anges
we had pre.iously .s campored to tonisht's changes. In terms of the
f~llnditiDn of the buildings, what you Ire proposing now versus what we sa~
before, how has the footprint of the b"ilding changed, if at all?
Hr. Stehbera: It has not rully changed. rt is inert the Inaterills and
the !ns and outs of the office building that 15 different.
Commissioner Beecham: So the smal) patiOS on the canal Side Qf the units
Ire the same patfos as we sa .. bef..lre?
Mr. Steinberg: Yes. that is correct.
Commissioner CulTen: J wish to state tnat although J was not at the first
hearing on this projeet, I haVE read all of the ~inutes from both the
planni~g corrmiaiQn ar.d the ARB. [(eel confident in my ability to make
in assessment of the project.
Site and desfgn review a1most ll~ays includes a board showing the colors
and materials proposed. 00 we ~ave such a board tonight? I wish someone
would p~t a note in the file that before site and design review comes
before the commission, there should be Simples of colors and ~~terials
submitted.
Mr. Steinberg: The residential component ~as a shingle siding. Our
int~nt is tc pa'~t it either an off-~hite cr a 1i9ht grey, w\th a
corrugated, vaulte~ roof that is a little dark~r gray to tie in with the
sid'~g. Our sunScreens and our trellises and s~me of our meta1 eiements
have a magenta iccent. On our previous office bui1ding, ~e had a kind of
whimsical trellis it the lower 1e~el that w~s a very thin line in a yellow
color. That will go through s""'" chang ... s t~e office building ta,es
shape. The roofing ~atp.r;al Is i standing seam metal roof, which is
,tally one of the IIOst durable, fa.lrly expensive materials. We we-re
trying to strike a balance in the materials. We wanted them to be warm
and have texture. That is why we used shingles. We chose to paint the
shingles so that as time goes on, they will stay clean and criSp. Since
we are using an unusual roof fo nr. , which is a vallH. 'We wanted to atr::ess
that with a rich matErial. It has a standing seam, which means you have
~ery nice shadow lines. w~ hope it will have a ~ery criSp, tailored look.
(Qmm,~s,oner Cu11e~: Is the office builQing still glass-fronted?
Mr. Steinberg: NQ, we have moved away frcm the glass front. We listened
to th~ comments from the commission and otners. and ~e are str~ggling ~ith
that at tne moment. I have 0 feeling we .ill have a couple of rounds with
t~f Architectural Review 50lrd. We wanted to use permanent materials for
the office building on £1 Camino Real. I do not feel that residenti.l
OI(OS/SI
-1 g-
.,~~~~ '"
.~~.
I
, -':'." . ,
-
~te~ia's suc~ as shtng1e$ will we&ther well on E1 C~ino Rei1. So we are
looking .t different types of tile, .t .et.l panels tnat might tie in with
the re,identi,l bUilding. The orlgln.l ide •• as to ha •• primarily gla,s
on the front, with In Iccent in s~fn91., Ind IS you go back to the
resldentl,l, It would be prl .. rl1y ,nlngles, with. gl.s, .ccent. Yhat we
Ire now trying to do Is to get a similar bal,nc. but get Away from glossy,
ronectlve .. terhls for the office, s_thing th,t •• uld b. pennanent.
Comm;s5 i pner Cullen: One of the reasons we ha~! site and design before us
for I Mixed U$e 1$ so that camp.tlbility between the cemmerci,l Ind the
resldenti.l I. tlken Into consider.tlon. I am ha.lng a little difficulty
picturing wher. you Ire he.ded with the office portion, so I am not ,ur. I
can s.y tonight thit it is cOBp.tibl.. If.e .re going to approve this,
we will have to be guided. lot by the ARB. We can gi.e them some of our
concerns~ and we hive done that at times in tne past. I wish we could get
this site and design review synchronized $0 that we know what we ar~ doing
when we get the it ... beforo us.
Is the con'c.' thing now gone?
Hr. Steinbrrg~ Tnat is correct. T~fs .odel ShDWS our current dEsign~
hesitated to say this is our fin,l design. because I was ~nder the
impress;on that the ARB wo~ld ~ive Influence on this decisinn, is we11. I
have trjed to respond to the comments ~ have gotten so far. and take t~at
to • certain 1 •• e1_ Then [ tbought we would ha,e additional input.
COmmissiDner Cul1en: My concern wou'd be about the material ~ou us~ en
that office building. I hope tho ARB will take a very close look at the
compatibility with lh. r •• identl.l. I ~now they ar. already concerned
with having a harsh 100<, even though on [1 C .. ina Reil it .ight be good
to ~.v. something I litt1. slick.r, but there should b. something in
between.
Mr, Sttinbera: I agree with you.
CommiS5iQneT Beec~am; You mentiDned (on$idering cera~ic tile. Where
would th.t be applied?
Mr_ Stoinberg: In some of the infermal meetings with the ARB and staff.
Some ef the recommendations ~ere t~.t if ~e ~ould estlblisn tettii~
horilontal control lines. such as ~a;nseott;ng or cornice lines t~at could
set • height and, rhythm for the street w.l1 that could be picked up by
other deve1opment. One of tne t~O~g~t5 was to introduce some element pf
tile .t the lower bas. of the wainsc.t. If you loo~ at many of the
buildings up ar.d down Ei C.mina Rea' and adjacent blocks. they
predominantly have some sort of i wa'n~cot. It CoveTS everything fTO~
bric~ to ceramic tiTe ta ~re natural stone. The thowght ~ou1d be to try
and use some of the re$ident~il ~aterfals on the office bUilding, but to
gi~e a harder~ .ore permanent edge at the base where people walk and ~~ere
the building takes weir and tear_
Commissioner Beecham: The ~etal frame en the forner, I presume. is
entire1yornamental.
Mr. Stejnbgrg: Ho, there would be offic. space behind that,
L
01/09/91
-20-
,
r
l~
I
-
C0lm1ssioner 8etch.m: Ye$, b~t otherwfse, tnere is roo f~r.ction for ~aving
that t~.re as opposed to shfngl.s or '0Ie other materi.l?
Mr, SteInberg: No.
Commt$!loner GlAzier: Wh,t 1$ the ~terftl that Bern just referred to
t~.1 used to be the water tower?
Hr. Steinberg: What we Ire lookfng at there is glass for that element.
~. ho.e go,. round and round with the ARE that there should be somethIng
strong Ihere b>Jt it .t,ould hold tho corner. 0... honest intention fs to
tT, and pic. up the t"""",nts you .. de, and bring that back to the IIP.S.
They .1so have equally .tTOng feelIngs. We are tryin9 to incorporate all
of these in steps, r,ther Ihan ha.lng It be • f.it .ccompl; and be
jumping back and forth.
Chajrman Nar5h~ ] would now Tike to ask Shtrley ~lTson to tel1 us where
the Arcbitecluril Re~iew 80ard is on Its revfew of this projett.
Ms. Wil$Q~: I am very new to this process. J was not aw~re that it went
on with the (1 Camino Reai projects. We have seen other mixed use
projects, and ne~er realized tnat you did tnis type ~f arcnitectural
review.
Chiirman Marsn~ Tni! is the first ti~ that we ha¥t.
Ms. Wilson~ My u~der$tanding of the design process is that Mr. Steinberg
is at a point where he has a s;t, plan approved and has usage approved, so
you do not get tQO strongly into t~e irchiteclura1 detaiis u~til yo~ get
past those hlJrdles. [appreciate .!lis position. I assume he would go back
and do SOMe architectural des\~n next before toming t~ the ARB. 1 do not
Q:uite understand where you 'fit into that process. I wou1d encourage YOll
to sh.te ya.lJr feelings alxlut .aterials, so that 'lie tan ha've that add.ed
information as we do cur arc~itett~ral revftw.
Chairman Harsh; Has the ARe seen thfs one time?
Ms. Irilson: Twice, but lIIi€ really haYe not talked much about
arc'nltecture. We saw it in its earl,er inCilrnation. This model is
somewnat revised from wnat w! have seen.
C"ii~an Marsh: The planning c~ission is going to wrestle with how well
developed an architectural design ~e need to see in order to approve a
site and deslgn, as we get into tne discussion after the public hearing.
Ms. Wilson: I wo~ld think you .auld have to sp~'k to a lot of
generilitie~.
Chainnan Marsn: Th~ ne~t speaker will now come forward.
George Smith. 390 Macline Street, Palo Alto: I liye just across the
street from the ahandoned se,tion of Wiltie Way wh~re you are proposing to
put a bridge across the creek. v.hen that street was abandoned to us many,
many years a9~, the idea ~iS t~ keep it blGC~ed off~ and we were tc1d to
do so. In the interim, the flood control district came to us, that is, to
KT, Jatobs and myself (and 1 have been there 38 years so ! am ver1
L
01/09/91
·21·
'.
1 ,
"\
I
i
i
','
".
-
fun IIr with "".t has gone onJ, .nd asked for sl. feet oro either sIde of
the conter line to ~ut a llttl. streot through there so they could get
access t. the cTee~ t. cle,n It out. They Slid they ~.nted a gat. It the
WilkIe W.y and ~.cl.ne Intersectfon to be blocked off at .11 time,. If
you hive been out there, you will se. th.t It Is well adorned with No
Tresplssing signs all a1o~g the cre.k, including the iCC!SS. 1here are
three locks on that g,t., o.e for the city, ooe for flood control, ,od I
h". one. J use it fr,"" time to thle to clean out the hy, If th.t gate
Is left open, It does not toke long for b!cycllsts, pedestria"s and even
iutOIObiles to try and get through it. In ~ opInion, if .llowed access
to El Clain. Real, bIcyclists c .. l"9 up through there are go1n9 to be .t
the .. rey of those entering from £1 CamIno Way to £1 Camino Real •• king a
rIght turn, PedestrIans would be s.fer. People making i right turn are
not lookIng for .nyon" on their right. They Ire looking to the left, I
.. sure there are qolnq to be bicyclists hIt by cars. Al.o, ~.ny
bic}clists are not amenable to traff1c Taws t and you will find a lot of
tho. going Icross therr to get to los Roble •.
So if you .110w that t. be cpen to Wilkie Way, there is going to be all
kinds of trouble in tenos cf people trying to get through ther., including
IlJtomobnes, from MJcl alle and Willie to [1 Camino RuT and back. A good
example is when traffic picked up years Igo on E1 Camino ~eal from the
Industrill traffic, a lot of people didn't _ant to cut orf on El Camino
Way to west Meadow Drive, so they st.rt.d sIftIng thro"gh the
neighborhood. As Ii result of that. a lot of pressure was brought to bear
to slow down the t~.ffic on Park. Kow. as you Know, Park traffic is
s1o.ed down from ~ll the islands put in there. So, yo~ ar~ asking for
nothIng but trouble if you put. bridge across there. Thank you.
C~aj~an Marsh: My understanding from 1D~r co~nts is that you contro1
the e.s~nt 2tross. there. You Gwn th~ underlying lind. Is that correct?
Mr. Smith: That street was abandoned. But later on, the flood control
decided to put in J concrete c~anne1 in Barron Creek, so they wanted
access to tle3~ it out. SG they a~ked us fa~ encugh space an ~ithe~ sid~
of tne center line to .110w truck.s in to clean it out. We granted' them an
easement.
Ch.irm.~: So presw.ably, for the applicant for this de,elopment to
use that easement. they would need to negotiate witn you for an easement
for the emergency access t~ey are contemplating.
~r. Smith: I am not I la~er. so 1 do not know the answer
would assume that you would discuss it wit~ flood control.
to tilk wito anyone who wishes to talk about it.
to that, but I
J will be glad
1 wou1d add' that there is. plenty af access to Ven.tura School from Second
Street and also from Ventura Driye. For parking purposes, they come in
from Yentu~a Court.
Bob 110", 401Q Orme. Palo ~lt9: I III appalled by tho planning
commission's vote on the previous action. 1 hope that next time an ilsue
comes before you where there is i close iS5~!, that in the future. you
will (orne down on the side of the community, n~t against t~em.
J would like to discuss the site and design of this project. First or
L
01/09/91
·22·
"~.'. :> i
---,'~
-
.11, 1 ask that the ~roj.ct be designed so that the comm<rc;.l building in
the front be Uled for either off~cas O~ ret.,l, i~d not in such a ~anner
t~.t preclud •• the use of r.t.ll. If, by some olsfortune, the city
council should uphold your rulln9 tonight, and If this is built, and if
off~ces go in there, Ind ff, as I hope, whoever uses th~se offices for an
effice use, suffers the CUTse J will lay on thlS project an~ goes brok~t I
would lite the building to be 50 designed th.t ret'il could go in on th.
ffrst floor, .t which point I would lift the curse.
Reg~rding the fire access ~lon9 tne creek, that ~$ & ~st rtmarkable
suggestion. T~ose of you ~o ire f.milflr with Jacobs Court ju~t across
the c~k kn ... that the cit~ council, "hen con',ldering th.t proj>ct and
suggested it co.e biCk with an RK-15 zone, as I condition Qf that zone
they said. Thou sh.lt have no access frem that property to Wilkie ~ay.
Thou shalt ha.e nO pOlSibility of people going from Wilkie Way. through
the project, to [1 C •• ino Real and £1 Camino W.y. To put in , 20-foot
bridge dfr!ctly across from Wllkfe Way, alongside the creek, exiting to [1
Caefno Rea' ir. In area where the traffic engineer has told yo~ repeatedly
t~it it is a most dangerous place to ~ave access to the street, il
ibsolute insanity. Do you know ~ho will be using that? Not just
bicycles. not just pedestrians. You will have motOI cycles, you will have
go-carts. yeu will ~ave people entering onto £1 Camino Real right It that
lnters~ctlon. and I absolutely guarantee that if that 9~es thrcu9h, within
the first year you will hive ~ serious vehicle accide~t at that spot. No
questl0n about it.
The best thing you can do with the access ,long the cree~ and bridge is to
forget about it_ rf the fire department requires access, let them have a
narrow path from £1 Camino Real with a loc~~d 9ite that goes parall~l to
the cr!ek and dea~ ends. ~ile Mr~ Smith is not i lawyer. I believe t~at
ff his easement was granted, IS it ;probably WiS, ~pecificiny for access
to the water district to maintffn the creek~ it is not. t~en, legal for
the water district to sub1ease that. or to grant In access for vehicles,
POt withou.t some a.ddit'on.l legal action. So the basiC site and design. is
poor.
Orl Page Five is I conment about i \larianc.e from the setback {If 25 feet.
wt;;ch is requjred because this is iI mixed use. 11115 five-to s~X"-foot
setback a'on~ [1 Camino Real is fr.sufficient. The C~ lone was designed
.. ith a 10-foot setback. We asked for a 10·foot setback in the CS lor.e,
and it was denied solely t}ecause so D'lany of the existing structures
illready were built to t~e sidewalk. If the pla1'll'ling commi-Ssion and the
ARB Ire, in fact, serious about upgrading the appearance of E1 Camino
Real. you will require a sufficient setback so that first of all. we do
not ~av~ ~ wall of buildings along the streft, and second1j, so that ~~
have enough room to put in landscaping and ~ave it be given a reasonable
chance of surYi~al. Fiy! to $i~ feet does not do it. len ftct is
~arginal. Twenty·fiwe feet is what really ougnt to be done tnere. But I
i~ ~illing to compromise ~ith 15 or 20 feet. That means the entire
building should be moved back.
The finding that the project ~s orderly and ~armonious because the
conmerchl is in the front In the cormercial zone, )"here commerc.ial js
required to be, and the housing is in the back in the residential lone,
where c:orrmercial is prohibited, says that basicol1ly, t~ese people ought to
be patted on the head be:."'e they are obeying the law. I suppa,. that
01/09/91
·23·
, ,
t ,
I
-,
"(,i:,
.~~""
"
.'
L
since we ~aye Just given tnel tht Ylr1ance, anytime they obey the law in
any .. nner. we should praise theM, but I don't think that is i va1td
fi,ding. Just s.ying th,t this co.plies with the lone and zoning
ordinance is not an adequate reason to qo ahead with it.
tn tar.s of the appelrante of th~ project, I think it is ~xcessivly
block,. Tn" buildings ought to be cut so that thej do not have the 10n9.
linea' wall .ppearlnc.. I would .. ntion to Ms. ~ilson th.t when the ARB
loo~s It this, when we tilk about hl~ing I presence along [1 Camino Real,
we .ean sa.ethjng that gives I sense of place. We also mean somethtng
that hiS some gra.e and chano. not just • big blo<k. looking at this .t
the .nd of the building from £1 Camino Real, that is what it is. For
God's sake. Shirley. don't give us ,nother Honey 8a.ed Ham. How in the
world could the ARB have let. pink building go .10ng side, green
building with no reil grace or appearance. £veryone in Barron Park has
expressed theIr disgust with th,t building.
Finally, 1 would like to suggest tn.! the open space in the center b.
enl.rged. Right now. I think the Site is too crowded, ,nd you could get
more ~se, for eXimp1e, by having a litt1! area 110ng the creek~ open the
b~ildin9s up toward th! creeK, and hive some idea there ;s 50metning
there, even though it is I concrete channel. It is open ~pace" Maybe
they could put some landscaping 110ng there, and get a semblance of some
greenery. Right now, the site tota11, ignores the water (ourse, and
totally ignDres what .ight be built icross the creek It Jacobs Court. It
is just i~sular, and 1 do not think that is g~~ng t~ w~rk. This project
is ~Ol gotng to be successful ~th ~n aCC!S$ di~ct1y onto ~il~,e Way. lnd
J do not thir.k it i~ go'ng to enhance the community ~"1ess the commerCial
building .long £1 Casino Re.l is significantly improved in Quality. Thank
you.
Penny Petrosian, 443 Ventyri, Pile Alto: I want some clarification on
what bappens to the rout! that approaches the bridge. Does it go across
the bridge onto Wilkie, and then another branch of it goes into t~e
¥entura SchOOf Site? Is ther! an entrance into the back of tne Ventura
School there?
Ms. ~arheit: There isn't any proposed entrance, but t~at has recently
been brought up is something we ~ight wint t~ consider. The plans that
you see do ~ot ShDW that.
Ms. Petrosi.n: Thank you. I wo~ld rell1~ strongly disCDura~e any opening
~nto Ventura School, sj~11 because for years, it has been oriented toward
cni1dren~ first IS a school and nOw as I daycare (enter. lhe security of
the children is rea111 important. Vhen my children went to Ventura a few
years ago) there were SQme scary incidents (ro= people wandering off of El
Camino Reil and someMow getting into the school. People wandering around
on El Camino Real at odd ti~s of the da1 and night are mare common now
than they were before. So it is , real security iss~e to ha¥e access to
the children there. so 1 ~ould urge th.t not to be considered.
In the same "teh, on tne one hand, you do not want somethi"g to become too
insular and separated from the e~fst;"g neighborhood. and on the other
hand, access onto Wilkie is ~erJ prob~ematic" The peop1e who 1tve on
Wilkie Way feel r •• lly strongly .bout this •• nd spo~. it the Jacob, (ourt
ttearlng." So [ am wondering: if it is possib'e~ if tnis emergency lane wer~
L
01/09/91
·24·
\.
.~.;-: "",
,
.~
·'-<.-
·il~~;;~-·
.~~-/~J ... '-.~~ ......... kllldQlflJII! .. "'it.II!I~~.~_~r!! _~:"~"/'~ "., __ ~,-... d.:
-
to go thro~gh. ta ~'ve I loc~ed gate witn ver~ li~ited access by emergency
persor.nel. both It E1 Caltino Rul ilnd it thf! bridge? So if there were a
bridge or SORe Kind af connection, could thtt be specified to be only ~sed
for ~rgenc~ use? Not for pedestrians. not for cars, n~t for bicycles.
~l~: Certa1~lYI with the design is it stands rig~t now. there
is no i~tention whatsoever that it be a ~ehicular access. The bridge is
onl1 J2 feet wide and 1$ intended only for paramedic vans. Tn! ends of
the pathway would be designed to preclude that, and to only allow
paramedic vehlc1es in. There is an intent at this time that It be
aVI11able for redestrian and bicycle use, but that has not been revlew~d
or finalized by the tra~sport'tion division as to whether or not this is a
desirable location.
~s. Petrosian: What J am wondering is whether that can be locked it all
times except for ~rgencies?
Mr. Gilliland: If it Is decided that it should not be used for pedestrian
Dr bicycle use, certainl} it can be deSigned that way+
Ms. Petro\ian: That is critical+ On [1 Camino Real, ~e have a lot of
e~perJence with the police being there often ("Ising somebody for seme
crime throu9~ th! neighborhoods. To make that even easier for someone to
run through the ~eighbQrhoods, it is worrisome. There are a lot of young
children on W11kie Way. New flmiltes have moved in there, so 1 think it
;s critical for those gates to be locked except for emergency, and for
ttut to be made a co~di:tion of approvil + Not only could they go directl}
into Ventura School If it were open, but it is a VeT} short distance down
Maclane to the rear Df Venturi School.
I know t~at the people on Wilkie ~ay have a tremendous concern even about
p~estr;ans going into this develGpment and tne Jacobs Court development,
which has another ]7 units, so that is 38 units. If pede~trians (an get
into Wilkie Way, tney can park on Wnkie Way lind waH. in that way fer
parties, etc. Any social ever,ts that happen in these residential areas~
it is going t~ be difficu1t for people to gEt there from El Camina Real so
they are ;oing to ha'll! to find somewhere to park. It is going to boe very
attracti'llt'! for' tnem t~ park on Wilkie: Way. That will make it difficult
for the people lfving tnere.
Chairman Marsh: You have asked about locked gates~ b~t my u~derstanding
lS that emergenc~ v~hic'es would accept I locked chain, but i gate I do
not think is what is contemplated. Js that correct?
Ms. Warheit: That is correct.
Chai~a~~: So we might hive loc~ed chains on both sides. but for
those entrances to be accessible t~ emergency personnel at t~e spur of the
moment. a gate is probably not possible.
Hr. Gilliland: In working with the flre department, I bel ieve we could
(ome ~p with an acc!ptable design of a gate of some type, and would
precl~de pedestrian or bicycl! access.
Chajrman Marsh: Since r have no other cards from members of the publlc.
will c70se the public hearing ind return this item to the planning
01/09/91
-15·
•
-
Ca.tission.
~SSla"fr Be,cbaa: 1 would 11ke to clarify the li~t comme~ts. My
\Jndersh_nd~r.9 is that stl.ff now believes tt\at it Iny be pos.sible to design
a gate 5YSte. that woul~ prohibit bicycles, pedestrians and incidental
vehfcTrs of any nature from using tne bridge and the other access.
Mr. Gillll.nd: That Is co~r.ct.
CommisSioner Beecham: The City fire department believes they can work
this out?
Mr. Gilliland: T~eir preference is MOre fer an Dpen thing. such as. a
chain across there t but I do believe an acceptable design (ould be found.
Commissioner Cullen! Tne conditions include i pedestrian access~ That is
one of tnt!' things we shollld be IMk1ng i rl!'cO!UT\endatfon en tonight. rt;s
not a given, so is that one of the controversial areas? (Ves)
Cqmmiss;g~er Beecham: My recollection is that certainly, one of our main
concerns is the appearance of the street front on EI Ca.ino Real. I think
the rewislons by the applf.:ant go .. long way towird res~1vjng Illy concerns
on it, that is, re~vin9 the 9'ls3-~irror effect. and a1su the toweT~ I
do r.ct know Quite w~ere I am in tenls of the view of the planning
commjssio" on this Y~rsus what J would expect from the ARB. The planning
c~iss;on is not the ARB, and I wou1d eKpe:t them to exhibit mure
abilities there than i ~ave to design a proper front on this. From my
limited abilitie. to judge thf. type of thing, I think it would ue
probably acceptable. I would hope it would be somewhat improved and h,ve
more thought given to the calors, the ceramics, to somethin9 that ~ou1d
give it character. So from the issue we ~ad before a~out the front of the
site, 1 have nQ problem with how it is now des;g"ed, frQm ~ planning
coam1ssion paint of view.
~~other iss~e we had was the access from the site to the Wl1kie Way area.
I do not believe it is appropriate to have triffic of any nature passing
by the back yards of these ~nit5~ It is unfair to the peop1e who li~e
there to bave t~at kind ~f ~ccess. and it is also unfair to the people on
Wilkie 'lfay to have t~is. new lCCes.s created. r wOIJ1d not support a ~lan in
which thert is unfettered access~ IS hlS been discussed on paper~ that 15,
~o gates, no chains, keep it open for the paramedics. I ~ou1d support the
idea of ha"ing gates across that to prohibit an,Y type (If casual traffi c
through that area.
Chairman Marsh: Before continuing. let's clirify the addjticnal steps of
review that this project would have to go through. As I understand it,
the loning administrator's recommendation will now 9~ stra}ght on to the
coancil. The site and desi9n~ on the other hind. will go next to the
Architectural Re~jew Board. Would it tnen come back to ~S, or is this our
final review on it?
Kr. GitltJjnd: This is your final revie~ of thf site and de~ign
application. It will go on to the ARB and then stri1ight to tiH! council.
Commissipnrr Cullen: What ahout the subd1~i~ion?
L
~I/~9/91
-26-
\
I
I
. .-1.
II'I"-~-~~
,~
l
! " I
i \
\
'~r· " . :.~
Cbl1T'1ln Harsh: The subdfvfs'on would fol1olt IIlJch liIter. >There are two
~ltegQrfes of decisions before us tonight. One;s th~ ~iY in wnic~ the
51te /s uses relate to each otner and surr~und1ng uses. Second~rily ire
the Irchitectural fssues. W@ probably need to disc~ss our comfort with
t~e fllrly unde •• loped stlt. t~.t the lrehiteeturll .speets of this
project Is In. It hi' been I long time since t~is project ha, been
through the ARB, Ind It Is probably relsonable to expect th.t it might be
quite different from whit ve antlelp.te ton~ght, when finally approved.
It Is pretty cle.r th.t the basic parameters of the development will st.y
IS they are, but c~rtlfnly, mlter111s a~d co1~rs could chan;e.
Commissioner Gla,ler, I do not f •• 1 that what we have gotten tonight on
lIaterials and colors is as much as what] would have liked. However, I
will admit that even if .11 of the colors and materills were ther., I do
not know t~at I would be able to mike as good I decIsion as the ARB could "'e. So I will say t~at since "y mojor concern, softening of the front
of the building. has been acco.plis~ed, I feel comfortable In passing it
on to the wise hinds of the ARB to discuss and decide on the materIals.
etc.
Commissloner Cyllen: That pof~t has been well made. and J tn1nk tne ARB
has gotten it. ] am uncomfortable with seeing. is our first site and
d~sign review for a mixed use. i gap fn the information that we have.
hope that we deliy it the nut time until we have more information. I
~~ar what the applicant is saying, t~at this model 1S gone. and we have
seen a new sketch. but we know from the past that there i, a big
differenc~ bet~een what one s~es i" i sketch and what comes back as part
of the blueprints. So! am • little unco.fortable with that. My advice
to the ARB would be to soften up the front considerably and not to feel
t~at just because it is on £1 Camino Real, it must necessarily be very
urban in nat~re. We ha~e, on some of our downtown urban streets, some
buildings which are quite softened up and have landscapIng In front of
them. An example Is the setback along Hamilton Avenue. which has provided
for a str1p of Tand5cap1ng~ although only five feet, but it does make ~
big diff.rence on those commercial buildings. So y~u do not have to have
that hard edge to iI cOITITIercial building jlJst because it ;s on an urban
street. So r look forward to t~e ARB looking OVEr that ~erj carefully,
not only softening the materia1s~ but perhaps e· ... en the lines a little.
like the square corner that is replacing the dome or w~ate~er that is.
But it is very difficult to envisfon it from the way it is shown~ so ]
would like the ARB to take a very tnorough look at that.
] agree with Commi~sfoner Beecham, ~nd I could not nave sa1d it more
eloq~entl't about yrecluding a~cess throug~ the site. r feel we should
have a locked gate it both ends. r cannot believe that this commj~s;on,
after going through the Traynor property, ~ere we refused access to
Willie Way, and through the Jacobs Court property. ~here the same thing
happened, .ould now recommend access to Wilkie way. So even jf we were to
recorrmend it. J am sure the council would Mt go along with it. I feel it
;5 a dangerous t~ing to have access tnere thr~ugh to t~e school. which is
supposed to be an enclave for very young children, where tney would be
subject to people wandering through. And r don't t~ink anyone who lives
in i ~uTtiple unit development .ants people wandering through. any more
tnan people living in single-family houses want people wandering through
their yards~ just because there is a nice view or a park at the other
side. So I alT. opposed to that condition. J am uneasy with sending this
01/09/91
-2 7 ~
•
•
71.·· ."~ ... :'--f···
L-~ -
,
I
,
1
,
1
I
; c,
,,: I
I ..;
. ;;,;cf*.}: r-
-' -;<: .. J _
. ----_. ~>~,....."..--... '"~-..
on, but the ARB will take into cons1darlt1on tnese prob1ems.
~fth Te9ard to the rec~ndltlon for i ~ar!inCe 90in9 down to five feet •
I would e~c~ur.ge the applicant to be I little more g~nerous there w~th
the request for I rariance on an arterial street. You could get I nicer
entrance to thlt whole corner. and it is a s~~nat different corner in
that 1t 1s not I sharp corner. It does go into the c~rve of E1 Camjno
Real, so It is Quite a different sltu.tion, and a little extra landscaping
t~er. would ~ very appropriate.
~h.i"",n Marsh: At this point, is it appropri.te for the planning
co..issi6n to offer gu~dance to the zoning ordinance in te~s of the
yarfance that we anticipate?
!§. Case: This fs a little unusual. Normally. the variance would
probably have come before t~is point. Knowing tnat a variance is
obviously g01ng to be needed for the desi;n that is proposed, [ certainly
do not f .. l it would be out of line for the commiSSion to be giving
cooments as to how they think it should be handled.
C~ai~an Harsh: Are there any comments on the viriance?
Ms. Case: At least, on the setback, not on the yariance~
Chii[,!jln Marsh; In tE-rIIIS of the nriance, it is ""ery clear that the
variance is needed for the development of t~is project IS antfcipated.
wo~ld s~pporl a smaller setback of si) feet as opposed to the 2S-foot
req~irement. I do hive one editorial camment, which fs thlt this is a
good example of why we should never haye imposed such a reQuir~nt on
mixed ~se projects. This was disc~$sed vociferousl~ about a year ago, and
some cf us up here were very strongly opposed to placing residential
reQ~irements on mixed use projects, exactly for this reason. Any kind of
commercial use tnat fronts on [1 Ca.ino Real must have ~ery different
requirements in order for it to be successful In the way that it relates
to El Camino Re.l. The fact that the .ery first application coming before
us 3S a mixed use project has to appl1 for I ~ariance should show us the
error of o~r ways.
[ alsQ want to respond to the access issues, that is, the proposed publlc
acc~ss along the creek. ] was one of those wno spoke to that the last
time this project was before us. One of the mistakes that we frequently
make in this town is to try and draw very strong limits between where a
reSidential neighborhood ends and the eommertial neighborhood begins.
Tbat is a particular p~oblem along [1 Camino Real. where you ~ave a very
long strip of commercial frontage, and then rlght behind it. you have
residenti.l neighborhoods. Tbose residentfal neighborhoods, in order to
access any of the c~r,ial frontage t are forced to go well out to the
major access roads and around, so there is very little relatlonship
between the comnereial frontage and the residential directly be~ind it.
strongly feel that we are much better off if we can create natural and
friendl1 aCcess between adjoinlng klnds of uses. Wf have some examples of
wher. that has worked very .el1 throughout the city. A lot of our older
neighborhoods have a.lleyways that are ver1 publfc whfch cut behind
people;s hOQes or apartments. We also have actual mid-block acc~ss points
in some of our neighborhoods that :uve been created spoecifita1l1 so that
neighboring people <an get through easi1y from Cowper to the bloc. behind
Cl/O!/!l
·28-
•
.,
.. --.1
I
,
I
I
• I·
"
i .. · 1
~ I
f J
1
1
i
I
'.
. . .
• : < "".'"""
It. Those ~iW! worked very successfully. ind I do not see it is • problem
her-e It all to have I pu'.>'ic access d 4,rectly beh1nd people's back. yards.
-
f .. "~IJ, J tbln~ the people on Wi] ,i. W.y .oold soon find th.t they." e
the ones wno were using this actess to get to the market on El Camino ~eal
and to use the retail uses that we hope ~i'l develop with time on [1
C .. fno Re.l. So J am disappointed that there se.ms to be .ery little
support for that. because it ;s an urban design amenity tnat WE would find
ben.flt. ~th the people in the project .nd the people in the
nelghbor~ood. The ex~p'es that have been used are not appropriate. r~
terms of Jacobs Court, the prOblem with access there is that t~e pub'lc
.cces. would go right down the middle of the project, .nd th.t is very
djfftrent from this CiSe where you could design publ ic access going do .... n
the ~ide of tne project. Ncnetheless, there is a clear division not to
support tnat, so I will make t~at comment and ~ope it will be cor.Sidered
.at some time in ttle futtJre. Gh-en that we are not going to tlii .... e publ ic
access, r would support locked gates t because 3 chain ~r anything less
than. locked g.te simply in'ites illeg.l public use. Other than th.t, 1
will support the project as deline.ted.
The ARB does have i good deal of work to do on this project, so I am a
little uncomfortable with seeing it ~hen tne materia1s are so undefined.
The applicant has a big challenge before him, because on the one hand, you
ha~e to come up with materials t~at will relate to the residentia1 portion
of the project so that the project, as a whole, blends the separate
elements in some WiY. On the otner ha~d, you have to come up with
lIaterial s that relate to t~e n Camino Reil frontage and the heavy
c:oanerc1il are iii there. I am not stJre 'What kind of medium you are going to
find that answers both of tne calls upon you architectura1ly. We will
pr~sume that that is in the capable hands of the Architectural Review
Soard at this pOint.
C.olMlissione,.. Shzie,..; Is the proposa1 before us that there ~{luld be
locked gates on both sides of the access or just one end?
Chairman Marsh: We can design it IS we wis~.
passibil ity. We ar~ goi ng to have to write a
report states public access.
That is certainly one
condition, because the
HOTJON: Comm;s5"ioner GlaZier:
modjficati~n that we include a
~ntrar.ce of the south!rn end.
r move the staff recommendation, with the
prevision for a loc~ed gate at the back
rnat is a change ir. Condition '6.
Conrnissioner Beecham: I would like to ,propose some Clore specifics on
that. AJs~? J wish to point out that there is no Condition 17. I presume
that is a typographical error, and Nos. 8, 9 and 10 shc~Td be Nns. 7, B
and 9.
Ms. ~ar~eit: Tnat is correct.
(OJiYJiissloner Beecham: My suggestion for a ll1odificatjo'1 of {oi~dition 16 is
to Simply delete the reference to bicycle3 and ,pedestrians in the second
line. In addition, to modify Condition #8 ('7). in the first Une, again
delete "pede~trhn· and add at the end of the condition, "and shall
inclUde 10cking gates or Similar str~~tures at both ends to pre~ent casual
pedestrian~ bicycle and vehicle use."
L
01/09/91
-29·
\ \. -
"_"\'--
•
).
i
1
I
-
Commissigner Cullen: Condftion 14 seeas to include a pedestrian bridge
and speaks about entrances. If.e just deleted ,.erytning from
'resldentia1 uses' on, the rest of it Is tiken care of.
COIIi$signer Beec~am: If we just de1ete -pedestrian' fro~ that, it would
be consistent.
CQlEissigMI" Cullen: Yes, that '11111 do it.
~; 8y Coomissioner 8eecn'm.
HOTIQH PASSES; Cba!nnan Karsh; Is tbere any furtber discuSSion on this
ootion? tbe action is to approve the project, as delineated. adopting tne
negative declarjtion of no sfgnfffcant environmental impacts, and wo~ld
incorporate the flndlngs 1n tne staff report and tne conditions. w~th
changes to Condition I~, deleting the phrase 'the design of the pedestrian
bridge.' Also. change to Condition 15 deleting the pnra"e "bicycles and
pedestrians-and a c~ange to Condition '8 ,7J so tnat it reads 'T~e design
of this bridge and access to it shall be approved by tbe fire department,
the public works depart ... nt and the Architectural Review Board, and by the
Santa Clara Water District, and shall include locking gates or sj~ilir
structures at both ends to prevent casual pedestrlan, bicycle and vehicle
use.-All those in fiYOr. say ~e? All opposed? Tnat passes 00 a vote
of 4-0, w1th Commissioners Christensen, H;rsc~ and Huber absent. T~~
appell will be decided, and then it .ill ret"rn, so tne date that this
item will actuallJ travel to the city council is really lndef1nite at this
point, depending on how many trips it makes to the Architectural Revie~
Board.
Ms. Warheit: J ha~e a Question about the access. Originally, the i~tent
was only that the residents of the new develop~nt would use the bridge to
move back and forth to the residential neighborhoods. Then, it the
plannir.g commiSSion hearing. the public access was brought up. No~ it is
clear t~at ~ do nDt want pub1ic access. My question is, if there is a
way to design the back connection between the bridge and this ne~
deyelo~nt that wouli allow tn" residents only to cross tn' bridge, would
the plannfng commission wish to .11ow that? It may nDt be possible to
come up with such a design, but it could be an option t~at somebody might
want to try.
Ms. (ase: You nave made your decision, and it 1S pretty clear t~at you do
not want an~ pedestrians.
Chairman Marsh; rn terms of our discussion, we ~a ... 'e com€ to oil
conclusion. Another body flirther down may revisit tnat.
..,
;J
I
1 RESOLUTION 6961 er~ti tl~d "'R=So:.t--rI":!: OF THE COUNCIL OF TH2
CITY OF PALO ALTO REVERSING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION
TO GRANT A CONDITIONAL-. USE: PERMIT TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION AND
OPERATION OF A lO,300-SQUARE-FOOT OFFICE USE AS PART OF A
MIXED-USE PROJECT WHERE A 5,OOO-SQUARE-FOOT OFFICE USE WOULD
OTHERJo/ISE BE THE l!AlClHUH ALLOWED FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3'981
EL CAMINO REAL AND SUSTAINING THE APPEAL THEREOF" (300)
KeTrON PASS~ 9-0.
•
.'
No Action Ta)cen~
6. PUBLIC HEARING: Pl~nninq commission Recommendati~n to Uphold
the Oecision of tbe Decision of the Zoning Administr~tor ~r'ld
Appr-ove a Conditicnal Use Pennit for Property Locatll;!d at 39S1
El camino Real (300) (c~: l22: l)
Planning commissioner Bill Glazier said the Planning Commission did
not believe there ... as any clear cut Bright-ans,,·er.. While the
Commission voted 3 to 1_ to support the Zoning Ja.d..mini~trator' s
decision to grant the conditional use permit, the COJnmission
restated its support tor retail uses along the £1 Ca~ino and the
lilnitation on large office 'UseS ... 'hich came out of 'the citywide Land
Use and Transportation Study. The Commission did not intend ncr
did it believe the re.::ommendation set a precedent for other
developments either in the immediately adjacent area or along the
entire stretch ot El Camino in south Palo Alt,o. There 'Were It',any
proble~s, incorporating retail into the development on the particu
lar site.. The positive outcomes of improved housing supply and
aesthetic appeal on El Camino led the Cornnission to conclude the
Zoninq Administrator's decision vas appropriate.
Council Member Woolley asked about the compatibility of the ret~il
and the hou~ing in the particular configuration.
zoninq Administrator Nan~y Lytle recommended that any retail
cOIllponent of the project not be required 'With the proposed design.
The deSign ~as based on the office proposal. With retail, there
could ~ ~ desire to better buffer the t~o uses and provide so~e
parking and a different presence along El Camino tor retail uses.
Council Member Woolley referred to the pre-planning process wher~
a vall along El Ca~ino vas encouraged to preclude parking in the
,front of the retail.
Ms. Lytle said there ,,",as an encourage.ment to create a sense of
place along the particular portion of £1 Ca~j no by bringing tho:!
urban iiall out close to the side ... ·alk.
council Member Woolley clarified no parking ",·a.$ allo\o'ed on £1
camino itself in front of the sUbject property.
Ms. Lytle si!l:id that \i{as correct~
council Membe.r Woolley queried \i{hether the situation .... as comman
along El Camino from Page Mill sou.th ,"'here the t~o lots immediately
to the north iiere very long, deep and nerro~.
M.s. Lytle did not believe tne parcel configuration -was particula.rly
unique, but its situation at the intersection and on the corner and
adj acent to a flood control channel created a uniqueness about t,he
si te~ The exceptional extraordinary circumstances had to do
primarily loIith the location of the property at the corner and its
relationship to the t.l camino Way Island and "t.rle intersect.ion \oii t.h
-
"'>L-
. ,. '.
65-2J9
01/22[91
•
I
\
.tl clImino Real, the. urban plannin.:; 90als of the Architectural
Revie~ Boa~d to create a better sense of place ~t the i~ter5ection,
and the n.Zlrro~ configuration ~f the prop.;;-rty allowing t.or one
primary entrance to the site.
council Member Woolley asked whether there 'Would be increased
square footage ~or housing or ~ore housing units if retail space
~as limited to 5#000 square teet.
!is. Lytle s:!id t.~e retail requireJ:le:nt ~or parking ",rauld rerl'..lce the
amount of space both in the park.ing area and elsewhere in the
project tor residential .. omits so there 'Would be a trade-down in the
number of units allo'Wable.
Council Member Kniss asked whether the tW'::;l adjacent pieces of
property would qualit'y as having the same needs if they were
separately developed in the same ~ay.
Ms. Lytle said neither property was located on a corner nor
adj~cent to the El Camino Way Island developm~nt.
Council Me1:lber Xniss asked if parking for those properties could be
on El Camino ~
Y.s. Lytle believed it ~ould be easier to have parking on £1 Ca~ino.
Bolding the street presence down that block face ~ould not be as
critical as it was at the corner.
Council Member Kniss said it appeared there would be little parking
in front o~ the two properties, especially vith the driveway.
Mr. Glazier believed the t~o properties north of the property ir.
que:stion .... ould probably have so:-ee flexibility in placing the
drive~ay either on the north or south side, and perhaps the ability
to have two separate driveways; one to support the retail and the
other to support the housing. The limited retail frontage ~as not
necessarily attractive for retail tenants. In regard to no front
parking, if thE tenant was a traffic intensive use, the traffic
situation might be unpleasant given the property directly abutted
onto El camino Way and oilly cne access route \o"ould serve both
retail and housing. The Planning Commission b~lieved it would he
difficult to effectively support and maintain a retail presence
given the const~aints of the lot.
Council Member Cobb asked about having the one office incursicn in
the middle of a series of other kinds of uses, either housing or
commercial.
Ms. Lytle said the context of the application ""as also part of the
persuasive argument fOr approving the use permit tor office. The
leck ~f the phenomena in the area indicated a possible ~isdom in a
healthy mix of uses. It took some daytime popUlation to add
vitality to the adjacent neighborhood. and that issue ~as addressed
L
-
65-240
01/22/91
•
\
1
\
in the Zoning AdDlinistrator's findings. The l&cl( of that t:>~pe of
use vas ~cre reason to look favorably ~pon the application.
council Member Cobb ~sked whet~er it yould be necessary to
calculate ho .... much oftice, housing~ and retail 'Was needed to
balance t'he econom.ics of the. area or 'Whether a particular use -• .'ould
~ake a difterence~
Ms. Lytle said no calculations had been made. The argument .. ·as
based on general kno-.rledge of ..... hat eXl$ted find projects in the
pipeline.
council Member Renzel believed the Glass Slipoer prcvided a nice
sense of place. She as"ked if there ... as lit setback in the eN zone.
Ms. Lytle believed there was a eN setback, and the~e ~as a special
ten-foot buffer along the E1 Camino 'Way iSland. 'l'hat was CS
district~
council }l!ember ~enzel querieo. 'Whether the ArcnitectuIal ~evia ...
Board (ARE) vould have the same conclusion reqarding ~ strong sense
of presence with respect to the next properties along the line, or
whether they voula see 50~e ~oning that more properly reflected the
residential, uses that W'ere in the rear. ~ •
Ms Lytle reiterated the ~orner was a special consideration~ and it
~ould not necessarily be reflected down the block face in future
decisions.
council Member Reazel asked if tne design feature of building ri9ht
out to the street would suqgest that all the properties down the
li~e would have to do the same thing.
-Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken scnreiber-said
no~ The ARB referred. to the. particular corner in the rel:ations:!".ip
to II ca~ino Way. Buildin9s ~ith the design q~ality of the Class
Slipper would be fairly high on staff's list of upgracinq, althowgh
it. "·a.s not ne.cessarily the type of place 'With lo'hich t~ey · .... anted to
ident.ify. staff welcomed the proposed applic:~tion and .... oula.
welcome similar-applications lor SOZl:le of t.."le adj 21 Cent sites. ;;hile
not every site vas appropriate for retail~ ~here appropriate. it
vas strongly encouraged. Given the lack of on-street parking, one
access. the location at El Camino Way, staff believed ~P9r"din9 of
El camino could :best be cone Py worKing with the applicants in
terms of hov the application vas "submittea rather than tryinq to
redesign it to create parking i~ediately adjace~t tc the street
oft the sa~e entry as the residential units. The design factor ~a5
an important policy issue in terms of the particular application.
Council ~ember Renzel asked if there was a mixed use bonus on the
property, Qr whether the same or a greater number of housing units
~ould be allowed it there were no office er co~ercial co=ponent to
the project.
-
6S-2n
01/22151
\
• !
...•..•.............. • :r_
,
-
'" '!.'
-';'~~;~~.
~", .
. ", ~ " ~
:3~~~1-.
Ms~ Lytle said there: ""oul~ be a 9'r.eater nurn.ber of srr.aller '.l!1its but
no ~ore square ioot6ge.
Council Merr.ber ,Renzel claritie" the po:-tion devoted to office
.builcUng in the front .. as. square footage that could not be u'sed for
housing even though mo:e units could be built.
Mr. SchrEiber-said Ul3t .... as correct. The proposed units .... ere
alrea(jy relatively sOTlall, and he dout:ted they cOl,lld get :t!ore units.
The ~mount of square foot~ge devoted to housing had already b~en
divided fairly tightly.
Council Me~er McCovn reca)lej many f~oj~ct5 recently constructed,
under construction, or-pending construct ion on the £1 Camino 'h'3Y
island included some amount of ot/ice co.c:pc:1el"".ts. She asked for a
summary of the total ne .. ' office construction ir. t!"Je .tl Camino Jo,'ay
area.
Ms. Lytle knew of two o!tic~ projects ~lready approved on the El
Camino Way islana: One vas a 3,5DO sq .. are toot office project in
tront ot the old }I.&W property ~ ar.d the ether .... as a mixed-use
project designed by Michael LYlW'a on ""'hic:h she :believed vas .not
more than 5~OOO square feet.
Mayor Sutor1us declarej the Public Hearing open.
B~b Mos$, 4010 Or~e~ Palo Alto, represented the B~rron Park
Association (BPA). Which opposed th~ office use~ Fetall ~long £1
camino had been a 90al of tbe nei9n~rhood aS$ociations in the area
since the mid-1970's although they had acceded to loss of retail
because of the nf"lP'd for housing in the cOrT1!llunity. C$ zoned
property .,as not supposed to be neiqhborhood-serving~ and those
currently existing ir:: t!"";e area. were because 'When the loning map ..... as
drawn in 1978 they ~~re alre~cy there. and staft had not ~anted to
~C!"eate non-confor-:nir:g uses for the motels. It could have ~orked
out differently if the area had been l1eighborhooJ-co;:;;oercial. ~f
the proposeo mix of retail was c~anged, the applica.nts ~culd lose
seven units, and a maxi~um loss of t~o units if they ~ent tor 5.000
feet of r~tail. and 5,300 square feet of offices. Tne Existing
lonin9 orcinance required ~ 25-toot setb3ck !O~ the project u~less
a variance was granted so the parking as proposed would require a
variance. He opposed having the building up to the stree~. He w~s
concerned the jobs/housing balance ~ould be ey.acerbated by Offices
at the subject location. cou~cil ~a5 being aSKed to app~oye or
disapprove a .... arience. If council .... entej good urban design~ it }-."c!
an ARa~ "I"wo of the fincUngs in the Eitaff repo:t related to design~
Council was bEing asked to determine whether an office use on the
site ~as appropriate~ ;''"bile BFA opposed an office USE, it believed
retail ,",'as viaklle.. The q".Jestion .... as lo'hether parking needed to
directly in front of the building to make viable retail, and he did
not believe it did.. He had read in the San ~ose ~ercury that Palo
.li,lto h21d 568.')00 squ"re feet of vacant office space jus': in
buildings of :more then 10.DDO Sq\:are feet. El camino should be
L
-
<5-2<2
Ol{22{Sl
"
J
1
J
--
upgraded, and it should have a 9'ood design presence ... ·ithout o.ffice
structures.
Rob steinberg. l~JO Bryan~ street~ represented the applica~t. The
origin;!;! intent 'When the dE!sis'n and development of the proje;:t
began ~dS to provide the maxi~um number of residential units at a
sales price below .. 'hat could be typically .found in Palo Al to. The
goal ~as not to development a retail complex or an office building.
They began 'With a homeowners' meeting to which six different
individual and ho~eowner groups Vere invit£d, ~nd no one attended.
They decidea to .... ork: ",ith the city Planninq Department statt,
Traffic Divisiorl, and ARB on ho",' to proceed with the design. The
first site analysis reflected a typical retail design .rtith the
building set back~ a convenient parking lot in front, ~nd housing
beyond. Stat! and the ARB said that was not what they ~ere looking
tor on that portion of El Camino. They preferred a building at the
corner to anchor the major intersection. Another alternative ·.:ith
the drive~ay on one side to take advantage of the open space along
the cre~k was also not acceptable because of difficult traffic ~t
that intEt"section~ The only acceptable place for a drive .... ·ay .... as as
far a .. ay from the intersection as possible, and that was the
present design. The site was unique in that the entry drive could
be no fUrther than .135 feet away from a major contorted inter
section. ;,ypicallY., the Traffic DiVision .. -ante,j drive ... ·a:ts·a
minimum of 150 feet from an intersection. There could also be only
one shared front door for the office, retail or JB housing units.
The site ~as problematic for retail in that it ~as presently ~oned
cs which zone was created to maint~in areas that vould accomroodate
Cit~ide and regional services that may be inappropriate in
neighborhoods, or pedestrian-oriented shopping areas. The site
dimensions and the driveway configura~ions did not accommodate a
mix of residential and commercial. The site ~as restricted, the
compatibility of uses ~as incorrect. and if they provided conven
.tional retail, they ~ould need to reduce the number of residential
units hy 20 percent. Extensive retail would require 75 percent of
the floor area to be used for display~ and he ... 'ou]d not .. 'ant to
share th~ only access to his ho~e ~ith such uses. He supperted
retail alo!l.g El Camino but believed retail experts .... ould agree
indi vidual neighborhoods could only acco!r~odate so much specialized
retail. There ~ere other general business office uses that could
be supportive of the island and neighborhood ~ithout competition,
e~9.. real estate otfices~ insurance offices, investment
counseling, a tailor, a seamstress, a travel agent. Neighbors
revie""ing the Jacobs court development indicated the traffic at the
intersection was already a nightmare~ and retail ~ould add to it.
He hoped Council ~ould support applicants' request.
council Member Cobb asked ~hat would happen it Cou~cil held the
site to the S~OOO sguare foot office limit~
Mr. steinberg could not speak definitively for their clients, but
did not believe there would be any additional housing. The housing
..... as modest in terms of square footage. They .... en:~ pro .... iding o.~e
bedroom. one-story units at BOO sq'Jare feet and t ... 'o-story~ t ... 'o-
L
65-243
01(22(91
---
\: ... ~" ..
r·" .
. ~ .•.• ' :,;
", ,~
",-:".
';' . ~~+".'
,..-1
• •
--.-. --_. ---"'" ,
bedr~o= ~t 1 200 square feet~ If th~ project p~oceeded, it ~ould
proceed with 5~OOO square feet 'of office, it the economics
permitted, the applicants ~ould p~obably ~educe th~ retail to the
minimal amount or ~one .e;t e.ll because he. d).d nc·t bel~eve any au.ount
vould be successful. VP9rading.£1 Camino ... ith elripty new buildings
~ould not serve the inte~t of the City.
council Member Cobb cl~rified that if the 5,000 square-foot
li~itation "alas 1I[,.pos'ed~ the ~?plicaC1t.s· inclination 'Would be to
build the 5,000 square foot of office; and, because they could not
really increase the housing, the likely econo~ic impact ... ould be to
drive up the price of the housing that vas there.
Mr. Steinberg said that was correct.
George Smith~ ~90 Maclane street: read a letter from John Douglas;
360 Maclane Street. who .... ~as concerned the proposed bridge to
connect Wilkie Way vith the proposed development would change the
character of their neighborhood by providing direct access to El
camino, and that people vho could not find parking space at tbe ne~
development would park on their street. Rec2nt developments on El
camino Way had already increased parking along Wilkie Way. Maclane
was a major bicycle thoroughfare to £1 Camino. The bridge might
also provide a get-away route for suspects fleeing p~lice in the
relatively-pigh crime stretch of El camino. While he ~nder~tood
the need for access to the cotlJplex by emergency vehicles, there
were alternatives to the proposed bridge. The complex could be
redesigned similarly to the Jacobs Court development to enable a
fire engine to turn around in the central courtyard. He believed
the mix should be retail combined 1,{ith residences rather than
office space~
Roger Kohler~ 4291 Wilkie way, owned Kohler Associates A=chitects
in Palo Alto; had spe!1t the last 18 months \{ori<.ing 'With single
family horneo'Wners trying to conform to the zoning ordinance. If
Council approvec the proposal, it ...... ould be difficult to explain
approval of a variance tor twice the amount of office area en El
Camino. Many homeO-."!lers in Palo Alto 'Were struggling 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 garage~ The proposal
seemed excessive l and he disagreed vith staff's assertion that
retail qenerated. more traffic than offices. The traffic C!"l
Charleston every evening ... as backed. up to £1 camino going east
to~ard.s Bayshore l and those people vere criqinating from offices
not Stanford Shopping Center.
Mr~ Schreiber clarified the action before the council was an appeal
of a ~5e permit~ ~ot a variance.
Shirley Wilson, 509 Hale Street, vas a member of tne ARB and Urban
Design Committee. There were al'Ways sites vhich did not fit ...... hat
the zoning prescribed. There .as a ground floor retail requirement
in the downtown area ...... hich ran all the vay up to the underpass, and
ter ~aC1y years. the City ~atched the retail frOD High Street to the
-
65-244
01/22/91
,
'.
I
I
I
underpass and found it had not functioned ~ell. The Urban Design
Co:mmitt~e concluded it would be tDore bene.ficial to have the
buildings full of pe"ple 'Who 'Would be ..... alking into t.o'-'Tt and
particip~tin9 in the viab~e r~tail core than to keep !or~ing retail
wt'lere it did not seem t.o 'Work. The proposed site had slltilar
proble~s. It 'Was referred to as a "corner" frequently but it ~as
an odd configuration. would be difficult to access fro~ a retail
standpoint I and it 'Was not attractive to the retail shopper. T~e
office use there served veIl to frame what activity 'Would develop
in the island and it .. ould be valuable t~ enclose the existing
office use and =ake a good presence on the corner~ She supported
the ~ffice use and housing as designed.
Council Member Andersen asked if cO:1sicteration .'as given to the
bridge access, the effects of traffic flo~ going across the creek,
and the possibility of additional traffic in the residential area.
Ms. Wilson was at the Planning Co~ission ~hen Jacobs Co~rt and the
subject site ~ere considered and the conditions ~ere similar. She
'Was initially surprised at the neighbors' reaction against ne ...
housin9 but the evidence presented about vandalis~ and crime sho~ed
it to be a real concern. ~he neighborhood deserved some protec
tion. She believed ilt",prove.d. tenancy and p.eople bein9 there 24
hours a day 'Would help improve the sociological cli1rtate.
Jean Olmsted, 240 w. Charleston, supported the. appeal. 'i'he
decision was ~hether to build 5.000 or 10,300 square feet of office
space. She believed it retail served the people in the area, it
~i9ht be more successful than unneeded office space. The findings
did not seeln tc jU5.tify -more Office spacE.. lntensit.y of use and
parking problems 'Wel"e lesser proble~s with the sn-.aller a!r.ount of
office space. The 5~OOO sq"'lare foot office space limit .... as
established to avoid building unneeded office space. She urged the
. Cc\,mcil not to approv~ the larger a:t',Qunt of office space.
Denny Petrosian, 443 Ventura Avenue, representee herself and David
Jeong, ~056 Park Boulevard, .... 'ho fou.nd not.hing in the findings t.o
justify approval of the extra 5 1 000 square feet. The threat to
ho~sinq was not a persuasive arg~ment eitner; the investors knew
.. nat. they .. ere getting into. }" significant. nu:mber of Planning
c,-,mmissio!1ers 'Were not at the Planning COD1D.ission 'meetin~, ar.d she
did not believe the reco~~endations sufficiently represe~ted the
Planning Commission's input. She cautioned the Ccuncil not to be
influenced by the design of a particular prcj2:ct since it .... as
SUbject to change, and was concerned about redevelop~e~t of
commercial trontllge up and doo.rn the El Camino. Office use forced
up rents I took away essential retail space, and forced existing
retail out because of the rising rents. There ~oulQ end up being
'Wall-to-wall offices along El Camino if the restrictions on its
development were not upheld. The City paid $~OQ.OOO to a cons~l
tant tor a Cityvide study, and the ~ost important note .as the need
to reduce emplo,Ylnent pot.ential in order to catch 'Up ..... ith the
jobs/housing imbalance. She did not understand -why it ",:as not
possible to have 5,000 square feet o[ offices and 5,000 sguare feet
-
65-245
01/22/91
•
--_.--....--.-----'"'
of retail~ A business such as' a coffee and pastry shop 'oIould
succeed. She urged the Council to uphold the 5,000 square toot
limit.
M~~ Mess believed 44 units could ~e accommodated on the sIte and
the pric~ of the housing would be whatever the mark£t ~ould bear,
and whether the applicant built more or less commercial ~ould not
h~-Ye a sign.ificant im.pact on the actual cost people .... e.t'e expected
to pay~ In terms of all retail, all oftice~, or 4 mixture, if the
develQper wished to build 10,000 ~quare feet of co~~ercial, a clear
choice Yas that no more than 5,000 square teet could be offic~s,
If he chose not tc build r£tail, the developer had a legal right to
put. in only 5,000 s-:;ua.re feet of offices, 'Which Would allo .. a
better site plan and possibly ~ore housing. The trend in
condon:iniums ..... as to larger unit.s~ He sa.., no justification for
allo"wing the conditional use permit for an all-office lC.OCO sguare
foot buildiTi9~ Council 'Was not obliged to give the develope:r
everything he requested; it had the discretion to deci~e. He urged
Council to reject the use permit, and ~phold the appeal~
Mr. Steinberg said City policies ~ere sometimes in conflict ~ith
one another~ One policy vas to encourage retail along E1 Camino
anc3 another ... as to encourage e.ftordable housitlg~ The subject
project was not an office park but a housinq development. They had
40,000 square feet of ~esiden~ial and 5,000 to 10,000 square ~eEt
of office or retail. They tried to balance the housing with the
city goals of anchoring the corner, to have a street ~all~ to not
exacerbate parking on that difficult corner, and to develop a use
compatible with the residential. While there were many sites along
£1 Camino where retail would be viable~ the subject site vas not
one of them~ He aqreed with Ms. Wilson~
Mayor Sutorius declarea the PUblic Hearing closed.
".MOTION: Council Member Woolley moved'j seconded by Andersen, the
Flanning Commission reco~endation to uphold the decision of the
Zonir.g Administrator to approve the lOtJOO square feet of commer
cial office space. whe~e 5,000 square teet ~ould normally be th~
zr.aximu"m pennittecl, based on the follo~jn9 findings as revised by
the Planning Cc~~ission:
Findings~
1. The proposed use of tne proposed location ~ill not be detri
mental or injurious to property or im?rove~ents in the
vicinity, and ~ill net be detrimental to ~he public health,
safety, general velfare cr conveni~nce, in that, first. for
this specific site, office use is »ore co~patible ~ith
residential uses because of uniq\!e drive ...... ~y li1:nitations a.nd
seconc, for this specific site, there is a strong urban design
desire for a street wall design~
2". The propose~ use \o,iill De located and conducted irl a 1%<anner in
accord vith tbe Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and ~he p~rposes
L
-"
65-246
01122/91
,
\
\
l
,
Tl
" .
.'
I
i
V~. .i~··_. _ .. ··_:CIlJillltOl!l,.r •. '_.I!I.!Ij:llill";~.
of Title 28 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code~ in that the lo· .. ·er
parking reQuire~ents for office ~se vill ~llov more housing
units to be b~ilt on the site, consistent ~ith Pelicy 14 of
the UOUS1f19 Element "'hich calls for p:.-ovidil'lg incentives to
add residential units to commercial develop~ents. The
increased number of housing units "'"ill result in more BMR
units~ supporting program 13 of the· Housing Elem-ent. In
addition, the office use will add a daytime population to help
support the nearby neighborhood retail a=ea on the £1 Camino
~ay triangle and vill result in an upgrading of the appearance
of &1 Ca~ino Real, as promoted by Prosra~ 22 of the Urban
Design Element.
'Cor.d i ti ons::
~~ The facade of the proposed offi~e building in referenced plans
for the Use Per~it shall be redesigned; and the final design
of the project shall be approved by the Architectural Revie .. '
eoard, the Pl~nninq Commission and the City Council through
the Site and Design process.
Council Member 'Woolley agreea 'With first fin-:!ing and. did not
believe supporting the %:lotion ""ould be a precedent-setting decision
by the CounciL ,Not only Was there only one access, it ... ·us ~ver.y
sudden, and 'it was better ta have regular rather than occasional
users enter that. c.rive'Way. While the decision cc,uld spillover to
the next t.;o lots, in the total pictu;:-e of south El camino, she did
not believe Council Was setting a precedent. Chez Louis 'Was a:
different situation b~cause access would be easier to arrange on a
corner property. Regarding the second tir::ding. the use definitely
supported Policy l~ of the Comprehensive Plan to enco~rage housing
and also Program 13 to encourage Seloy-Mark.et-Ra.te (BMR) units, of
yhich the project ~ould provide four.
Council Member Andersen associated "w"i th Counci 1 Member Woolley. He
believed the corner ~ould be aangerous for retail, and there ~as a
serious qu.estion in ter.ns or the pc.ssibility for success of a..
retail establisr~ent.
Council Member Lev,;.' said .. hile the findin95 ...... ere used to allo ...
10,CeO square feet~ he did not see that they endorsed lC,CCC squere
feet. The findings could apply equally for 5,000 square feet, and
he queried 'What unique cjrCW!lstances required council to move to
the 10,000 feet level.
Mr. schreiber !;:larifieo Council did not ha.~.'e to make a finding of
uniqueness tor is. use permit. The required findings ...,ere that the
proposed use at the location would not be detrimental or injurious
to property or improvements I etc., and that the project wculd be
located and conducted in a onarmer consistent ",'ith the Comprehensive
Plan~ In te~s of the ~5e permit application~ it ~as i~por~ant to
consider site planning, ~he driveway, the relationship of uses to
the driveway, the desire to have a wall along El Ca~ino Real, and
the sense of physicel presence.
"
-
65-247
D1/22/91
I
J
i
\
\
I
i
\
\
Mr. Glazier said qiven there ~ere some Urban Design aspects in the
desire to create a vall along £1 Camino, the Planning Commission
believed if the applicant scaled the office use back too 5,000
square feet., it might be some .... -hat more difficult to create the same
U~ban Design as?ect or feel.
council Me~ber Le~ wD~ld be interested in w~at his colleagues had
to say. rt Council found the site "'as a special situation that
allow2Cl 10,000 square feet of office use., he \ioL.:!d query .... hy o!lr..cst
every site on E1 camino 'Was not similarly suitable. T·he first
finding indicated the proposed use at the locatio!"1 would not be
detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the
vicinity, which could probably be said in that negative way for
almost any other site. As ttley looiced at £1 Camino during the
study several years ago, Council decided limiting the size of
offices to 5,000 square feet ~as a worth~hile City policy in terms
of reducing employ-lnent development and the resulting traffic.
~~ile he concurred it was a good architectural design and develcped
is!: preseJ"1ce on £1 Camino, the density involved by allowing double
the office square footage concerrled him becauSe Council .ould be
hard pressed to kno~ whether the decision would be a precedent for
the tva adjoining sites.
Council Member Renzel believed the CS zoning recognized~ the
existing use, and no one anticipated the redevelopment that had
90ne on in the City or they might have designated the property
differently a She agreed "With council Me:nber Levy there \ltas no
justification for doubling the office size. There .... ere plent J'+ of
"Walls along El can1.ino because of the many videnings, and the
bui ldings were right against the sidewalk, \/hich she di.::~: not t ind
aesthetically appealin9~ ~nile much was said about the dangerous
intersection, it was a closely-controlled intersection and wha~ was
t.rue of Jacobs C:::urt ..... as not necessarily true fer t.he sub:'p..ct site.
The big issue was wh~ther to ~ave 5~OOD or 10,300 square feet. of
office, and .... 'hether t.;r,~e developers chose t.o d·o reto!il "\."ith any
surplus was their choice. The :!"lousing price .'O:..J ld be .... hat. the
mc3!'Jeet would bear and ","c·uld not affect. ho ... office building might
affect the develope~s' eco~omics. Office space .as limited in t.he
commercial ZO"1.es t.o avoid the competition vith a nUl"?ber of retail
uses the council _anted t.o see in Palo Alto. To say other space
could be used for office instead of retail negated the particular
benefit of having an office limitation. Council kneW" the problems
of the Cit'{'w'ide study and the peak period traffic engendered by
offices_ The council should uphold the appeal, and she opposed the
motior...
council Member McCo"loln joined with council Member Renzel on the
issue and opposed the motion~ The point of t.he 5,000 square foot
office limitation ..... hen it "Was adopted "Was to achieve a positive
goal for the co~unity to look to a balance of office and retail in
certain zones in certain parts of the community. The conditional
use process ~as to allo~ [or those situations where the limitation
"IoIould not achie .... e that positive goal OJ:"" ... ·~.en some ot.her goal could
L
-
65-2 .. 8
01/22/91
•
\
I
-
i1t ..
be better achieved by permittinq more than the 5,000 square toot
limitationr While council did not ~ant an absolute blanket rule
subject only to the vari~nc:e approach, she 'Was not perslJaded the
City would have a ~ore positive situation by permitting more office
than the limit~tion. There ~ere difficult ~iting issues, but other
projects on strangelY-$haped sites ~ent for~ard cnder the existin9
zoning and came up .... ith cor:.cepts and approaches for mixed uses.
While she lias impressed by the applicants' genuine interest in
having housing be the dominant focus of the project, she believed
it could be accomplished 'Within the zoning a.~d 'Without the
necessity of 10,300 square feet of oft ice. The CS zone also
allowed all of the eN uses so there was a broad range of potential
users of square footage. She believed the appeal was ~ell stated
and the applica.nts should stay " .. ith the provisions of the 'Zoning.
Council Me~er Cobb believed the decision ~as a close call~ He
commended the applicant for attempting to bring doYn the cost of
housing -whictt would occur if they got mere yield out of the
property. If council did not support the ~otion, the applicant
~ould probably builQ 5,000 square feet of office space, there would
he no retail, and the cost of :housing would go up propc1rtionately.
The basic issues were the intensity of use and th~ ccst of housing.
Council Me:rnb€r .Kniss said there was no cues tion the corner ... ~as. a
difficult one. The real issue ""as 'Whether the findings justified"
the result, and she could not determine that the 10. ;00 square. feet
of otfice use was vhat was really roeant by the par-tic~lar criteria~
She could support the 5,000 s~are foot limitation~ She appre·
eiated Mr~ Steinberq's comments, and the need for housing in the
$200,000 to $250.000 range, was some,";hin.g Council had repeatedly
~entioned. The issue was the policy and ~hat precedent was being
se~. While she hoped the project vent for~ard, she Qid not feel
Council had been presented .ith pers~asive arguments that ~ould
.allow her to support the motion.
Vice Mayor Fazzino agreed the issue ~as a difficult one, but ~culd
support the }notion. He vie\1ed the developI;',ent as primarily a
housing project .... ith some office~ Pale Alto had not had tre~endous
success with mixed-use projects~ and given the opportunities ~ith
the s~bject ~roject. it ~as i~~~rtant to ~ake trade-effs. co~ncil
stru9g1e~ to place more housing along El Ca~ino ~eal, and he ~as
delighted ~ith the affordability of the housing in guesticn
compa~ed to most in the ccmmunity. He did not want to lose any of
the ~ore affordable ho~sing to a tremendous uncertainty over retail
on the site. The pa~ticular site was not right for neighborhood
retail uses Which were far more appropriate along either side of El
Camino Way, on Zl camino iml'llediately adj acent to the Ventura
neighborhood or to aarron Park on the other side. The property
... as uniql.le in terms ot the .narroW" frontaqe. the intersection
parking and traffic problems~ The site was much different from
other sites the Council vould be considering in the months ahead.
city Attorney Ariel calonne clarified the conditional Use Per~it
requirement ~as not a justification h~rdle Council needed to get
65-249
01/22/91
[ . .. :::>
-.
\"
\ ,' .
. '.'
'7t .....
. . ~
-:: ; -.
~.:.~. -,,-,
. .
~.
I ,
. ,c....
I' -e __ _
. "'>1·" ~. >.-•
. ;' .. ..:. ., ~-"
r.;t{&-r···
past. The conditional llse pe=-mit process was to 4110\. the City to
enhance 5 situation it the oppo~tunity presented itself anQ vas a
different approach fro~ a variance approach.
Mayor sutorius understood the issue was a ~eighty one. While he
was. not fond of th-e 5,000 square foot office limitation, he
appreciated its purpose, ~nd questione~ how to do the extensive
retail services, or the allo~abl~ qeneral business services on that
site in conjunction vith housing. Arguments by the applicants had
been persuasive in that regard. It came do\tr'n to the point
articulated hy council Members Mceo .... n and Renzel on the S, 000
square toot limitation and ~hether there was a justification for
saying that 10,000 was inappropriate under the circumstances. He
believed the argument as far as the "presence" could be accom
plished with or ~ithout the full 10,OOD square feet. The i~pact on
the housing was difficult to define; the~~fore, he did not see a
need to 9v the full 10,000 s~Jare feet and would ~ot support the
motion.
HO'l'ION 7AILED by a vote of 3-6, Andersen, Woolley, Fazzino votin;
".a)~e ••
)lOTION: Council Member Renzel moved, s€coTlded by McCo"..rn, to
uphold the appeal of the Zoning Administratorfs decision and direct
the City At~orney to return ~ith th~ final vording for ~~e findin~s
at the .January 28, 1.9;'1, City Council meeting based upon the
follo~ing concepts;
1. The 5,000 square feet allo~s ample space for the urban cor~er
design;
2. There is no compelling reason to add ~dditional office space
since retail and other uses are allo .... ed. on the sit:e;
and
3. There is no overriding goal in the Palo Jo.lto (:o:mpreh~nsive
Plan that supports the use penr.it.
council Member McCown believed there was an overriding goal i~ the
Comprehensive Plan ... ;ith respect to the halance and the desire to
not haVe office uses force out retail uses. For that reason she
did not find the subject project satisfied the second finding.
council Member Le~i asked if it was necessary to have findings to
simply move ahead without a conditional Use Permit ~n accordance
with the ~oninq of the City.
Mr. C1J:lorme believed Council did need findings to sustain the
appeal. Statf would retur~ with written findings on the Consent
Calendar tor confirmation at the next meeting.
MOTION PABBBO 9-0.
L
-
65-250
011<2/91
•
,,~
~,;.
." -..:,~
, .
'c j
I
I
\
I
I
I
TO: PAlO AlTO PI.NI1IING COltlISSION
FILE NO.: 'O-EIA-30, to-D-Og, 'O-ARS-B7
to-II"-34
PA,PAAW BY: Vlrginl. 'Ia"helt
D~T[: Janu .. y 4, U91
PROJEtT IIIFDRIIAWlN
Loc.tion,
AppHclnt:
Property OWner5~
Reguested Action:
PROJEtT SUIIlIAAY
39S1 [1 Camino Re.'
'.10 Alto, CA 94306
The Steinberg Group
60 Pierce AVEnue
SIn Jose, CA 95110
M,yflower P.A. DeveloP=Ont L.P.
.lD&3 lAw"",," ~~
Snta Cl ..... , a 15D51,
Major Sit •• nd Design Review of "Ixed Us. Proj.ot
Th. Frape .. l 15 I .!xed uso effic./re.identlll preject with.
lO,lOO-squlre·foot two-story efflce bulldin~ It the front of the site and 38
cDndomi"ium residences i~ three-story b~ilding5 on the rear portien of the
sito. The residentfll units Ire stacked two-story townhouses over ground
level flIts. The three rUidenthl buildin;s Ire I .. onged ""ound an open
COUrtylrd. The residenc.s and the coomerclll building Ire Iccessed by I
c .... n drlvewoy off [I Coeino Real. One hundred nine (lOg) parking spaoe; for
both use, Ire located in in undergro~nd park~n9 girl~e and si~ guest In~ t~~
,hl.aicOF spaces Ire located In I surface parking lot located near the front of
the Site.
RECOIIIIElIDED ACTIOH
Stiff recommends that the Planning Commission reco~nd that the City Council
adopt the nog,tlve declaration, Ind approve the project based on finding. and
conditions contained io this report.
UTE JNFORIIATIOH
Pirce1 Size:
ExistIng lonlns:
Comprehensive Plln
Designation:
Density:
[xlstlng Land U'e:
PCSR398l.rw
-,
,
>",',; ~-~;
'.'
64,904 square feet
13l·CZ-69
CS; R/!·30
Service Commerci,l; Multiple·famil, Residentia'
44 unit •• 1Iowed; 38 units proposed
Hotel
1/4(9]
•
. ', •
.. ---~-
,
.-~
,
,
! '
•
i
l
\
\
\ ,
" .. -
Surroundlpo Land U •• :
History:
PCSR3981/Y'oi
---,'L-,' ,
,,: ..
"-.~
-
, .
__ ~,x It
Th. p~j.ct oit. io pre.ently occupied by a
~t.l. The n.lr-by .re. i •• Ri. of residenti,l
Ind c .... rcl.l uses. The parcel to the north of
the project fs presently In commercl'l us. but Is
zoned sl.llorly to tho project sit. ond c.n be
expected to redevelop. Directly to the .outh Is
the Dry Creek chlnnel .nd .crDSS from thit Is the
420 J.cobs Court site c~rrently occupied by six
$1011 cott.ges. ~lch WiS recently zoned AM-IS.
Tn. project Is bordered on the .ast by the
Yenlur. SchOll" sitt. A single-faml1y
neighborhood is east of the sit. beyond the Cree •
• nd lIilkle lilY. The west side of the project
fronts onto [1 CamIno Rell where there Ire a
variety of coaoercl.l uses.
~rch 2. 1990: Applicati.n filed for preliminary
1.-dIltettltr.1 revIew of pf"OllOs" .io" us.
offlce/residentfll project with
.ID.300-squlre-foot office building .nd 38
condominfum residences over underground parking.
April 19. 1990: Prelimln,ry review by the
Architecturll Revie. Soard (ARB) of the proposed
.ioed use project. "inutes of the ARB ... ting
Ire Ittached.
Jun. 1. 1990: Second preliminary reviEW by the
Architectur.l Review Bo.rd of tne propo.ed mixed
us. project. ~Inutes of the ARB meeting are
attached.
~, 14. 1990: Appllc.tion filed for ... jor site
Ind design review of .1xed use cffic!/reside~til'
project with 0 IO.300-squar.-foot .fflce building
and 38 condominium residEnces ever undergro~nd
p.rking.
October 10. 1990: "ajor site and design r.vie.
by the Plonnfng Commission. The project •• s
ContInued to allow tne applicant to apply for a
conditional use peralt to allow in exc.ss of
5.000 square fe.t of office space_ Minutes of
the Pllnning Commlss!on ~etin9 ore attached.
October 16. 1990: Applic.tlon filed for
CDnditional Use Permlt to 1110w construction and
operAtion of JO.300 square feet of office use.
November !9, 1990: Use P.rmit (90-UP-34)
Ipproved for construction and operation of 10,300
squ.re feet of offi ce .. e_
November 26. 1990: Appeal of Use Penl\it,
90-UP-34, filed by earron Park Assocl'ti~n
executive Committe •.
1 14 19 1
.. -_._--'
.i1bu
I·
! •. ,
b
i
I
,ociatorr ActIon Dd_ls):
l,fronmentll Imput
j it ssrnen t:
Lents
. 1 ,ject Ducrlption
,
App11catlon deewed templ_t. October 10, 1990.
51 ... nth actIon date for fin.l City Council
lcllon I. ~rll 10, 1990. The ~roje'l is
\.ntltl •• ly scheduled for final re.!ew by the
Arch!tectural ~ •• Iew Board on Februlry 21, 1991,
l.d for (Ity tountll To.low on Mirth 18, 1991.
Ro sIgnIfIcant Impacl; a neg.tl._ detlo,.tion has
~n prepared and Is .ttlched to thi" re,ort .
.:, front 175 feet of this plr"l Is zoned Service Co"",ertial (tS) with the .iT J).Ttion zoned R!1-3Q. The applicant is proposing a .. ixed us. projoct with
~ ...,.rtef')I Dffjc. !lUild'", lD!:lted OIl 'tile tS ~lon of tile lit. OIl £1 C."ino I 1 and t~-ltorl condominium Te.!d.nCIl arrlnged around. touTtyord on tn,
i r 1U1-30 poTtion of tho .ite_
I
( office buildfng hIS been redesigned fn response to comments at thf last
I nPiing tonrr:i.ssion revlew. lhe nV1sed dU'gn is dfscussed ~n the lS~UES
',ti~n of tllis report. A detliled description of the rosloential builo;ng'
the slto plio is Included In t~e prevlou, Phoning Comiss ler, staff report
October 10, 1590, Ittached.
, ~ES
1 jition.1 US! Permit
,~ovember 18, 1990, tne Zoning A~ministr.tor granted a Conditional Use
,it ,llowlng ~DnstruetlDn and operation of 10,300 SQuare feet of effi,e us.
the .ite_ Th. re"Dn. for l110wing in excess of ~,OOO .quar. feet of
ice use were that office use is 1~5s fntensive thi~ ~05t ether ptrmitted
; Ind ~onseQuently would be ~re tompitible with t~e proposed residential
en the site t that it wou1d generate less trlffic in the imrnedilte
inH,)', ",ould ldd .. da~-ttme po?uh.tiorl ta he1p ,up port nurby neignborhcod
Lil vses, Ind that the lcwo, parking requirements than retail would ~ermit
, housing units Ind l1ere BI'IR units to be built or. the Site. 1he use pennit
uded the condition thlt lhe faelde of the proposed offiee building b.
's;gned Ind the design Ipproyed by the Phoning '_issien, lil.
itectural Revle. Bo'r~ Ind the City Council through the Site .nd Design
.ss. A cepy of the ,onditlonol .s. penoit with finding. and <anditions is
ehed ~o this r~porl. The Zoning Adminlstr.tor's decision was • .,pealed and
he ,ubjeet of An e.rlier ltoo on the Planning Commission', ogenda.
gn of the Office Building
~spanst tc comments from Ccmmis$loners and ~mbers of the public It the
Plonnlng Commission h.aring, the office b"ilding has been redesign.d.
revised des;gn is I more trlditiDnll composition wfth wood sning~~
rior, ~tcess.d wind~$ It the first and second floors and In Itr1um corner
ent, replacing the metal tower .lement in the original design. The design
cont;n"o to be deyoloped ond refined through the ARB process. The at,iuc.
ent, ••• hown on the plans, exceeds the 35·fooi ~.ight a"o~ed and ~il1
to be rede'igned to comply with the height limit.
3981f\11/ lf41S1
-
..
[
---"'"'
.'
Eoerge.cx Accel. Brldse
The .ppll=.nt Inltl.'ly proposed t~lt the 20·fo.t ICcess corridor to Wilkie
~'Y Ind t~e brIdge .cross Dry Cruk would be for the exclusive .so of the
reSidents •• d would not be .cc.s'l~l. t. the ge.erol pu~llc. AI the 1.st
Flannlng C08Ilsllon he.rln., It w.s sugselted by COlmi,slon.rs that there may
be •• 1uI In using the elsement Ind bridge t. pcovlde • public ped~stri.n and
bicycle connection between ~nkle "'ay Ind [1 Culno R .. l. It was suggested
thlt the City mlQht tlk •• n •• s.-ent Icro,s the access strIp o,d bridge to
rell •• , the property owner of liabIlIty and .. Intenlnce responsIbilities, .nd
tilt appllclnt Is considerIng tM. aHernltl ••.
The Public Work. Deportment ~as Indicated support, In prinCiple, for a City
•• sement o •• r the 20·foot ~id. lccess strip and bridge. provided the design
~ts City standards. The Planning and Transportlon Oi,islons support the
concept of In easement to provide I public padestrian and bitycle con,ectlon
bet~n Wilkie Way Ind E1 tomlno Real. Since the Fire Department will not
pa,..it a lilt. ICTOSS tile ent~ to tho .c~ss strip IN! the bridge, It wi 11
be aiffleult to pre.ent tbis u .. f,..,.. bet";~ I de f)(to pub1ic access. 1n
that else, it aay be preferlb1e for the City to ha •• control and
responsibility over the or.,.
The proposed bridge over the Ory Creek thano.l is required by the Fire
Dep.rtment for porlmedtc vehlt1. Icce.s. Fir. truc~s .111 enter Ind l.a,. the
lO-foot-wide corridor along the creek from [1 Camino Re.1 and will fight fires
from thfs space, .s they Clnnot drive .nto the interior 1'1.2.. Paramodic
vehicles, unl ike the fire trucks, I'.Ust be able to leave IS wel} iIS enter the
sft. quictly. The bridge across the cr.ek will .110w par.medic vehicles to
get into Ind out of the sit. wfthout delays caused by t~,"ing and maneuvering.
The pedstri.n bridge connect. to Wil.ie Way through an existing ll·foot·wide
Santa Clara Volley Water District •• sement. Tfie Water District has appro,ed
the concept of the bridge and access through the e.semenl. The design of the
bridge ",ust be approved both by the ARB and by the Water ~fstrict.
Retention and Rep1ocemont of Existing Trees
At the previous Pl.nnlng CommissIon h •• rin9. one Ccmmissioner suggested that
the City Arborlst review the fin,l landscape pl.n to .ssure adequate
mitigation for the loss of exl.tlng tre •• on the site. A detailed description
of the existing trees to be removed Ind retained Is included !n the previou,
Planning C~ission st.ff report, which i •• ttachad to this report. A
condition ha. been added to the recoomendatlon of approval for this project
requiring thit the n~r, 10titio~. species and Silt cf trees i~ the finG1
1and.clpe plan shall be Ipproved by the City Arborist. and that the applicant
,hall submit. tree protection .1an prepared by • certif!ed arborist and that
In arborist be deSignated to be responsible for implementation of the tree
protection ... s~res.
Fiscal l!plct Assessment
While thIs project is not of sufflclent magnitude to warrant. fisoal analysis
under the recently adopted Council policy. a concern was raised by the Sarron
P,rk AsSOclitian Ind t~erefore, staff requested ~ curso~y rewiew by the
Finance Department. 'Projecto~ tax revenues to tne City from the proposed new
de •• lo~nt ore approximately equIl to the tax re,enues be,ng collected from
PCSR39BI(VII
i
I
, ,
,
~y'
~
.-"l.
t
"y:~'
'~ti
--,,-'
,.,,~'"
~..:>' -
1
\
~~ /.,~\-:':.,;,':"'
"\ . ~~
.'r-,
. ~ ~ . .. II' r>rr .... , ~,. ,
tho pro.tnt .. t.l us. on tho sIte, The occu~lncy 'ax plld by the ~.yflo •• r
~rd." Mot.l durlns the fiscal y.a' 1989·1990 w •• 514,027, The property tlX
I.pected to be co".ct.d by the tit, from the actel, ~.rch I, 1191, I. 11,269
[propertl' tax Is J pe",.nt of pTOperty val.ltio., with 10 percu.t of thl tox
.. talned by t~ Cltyl. The combIned re.enue to t~. City '.om t~e acteT
! occupancy tax ,.d property tax during this period is $15,296.
1 ~1 •• tlsoted Vilultion It coopTetlon of lhe propoSld new project Is
ppro.l .. tely SlS,GOO,DOO ,(38 r .. I~."tl&l unH. with In I'"rig' •• 1uI of
I lZS,OOQ plus the offlc. building .,lutd It 53,250,000). The I per«nt
; roperty tlX on this .,1ultlon equols $156,000, .. lth the portion of the tax to
'. rttllned ~y the City (ID perce.t) llOOu.tln~ to SIS,600.
I
! .1""·~rket·Rlte UnlU
I i our BHR units wil' be provided. Two ground 11'11, ene·btaroom unit. oill
1~11 for S73.100 each Ind two stleked flit. wit~ twe bedrooms will •• 11 for
i 1D.5IlD Bdl.
['Til.CO to Sito nt.e1opment Regul.tions
,e zonIng ordinance requires ~;.ed·us. project, to comply with the sit.
,ve10p""nt regullUon. of the Ippl ielbl. residenthl Zon •• In. reQwired
'ont setb.,k for RM·lO de •• lopments on In l.t •• 111 street is Z5 feet, lhl
~pos.d 6·foot front setback, which is ~orl consistent with the •• istin9
~rclll development plttorn Ilong [I CI.fno Real, .. iI' r'Quire I yarianc •.
,ff feel5 thlt the find1ngs for I v~ril~ee Ire warr.nted given the uniQue
reet eonfiquration of El Camino Way lnd [1 Camino Rei' It thiS ,nterse,tion,
e ne~ for the emergenty .cceSs .long t~e Ory (reek corridor, and the
sirabillty of • project de.ign which will integrlt. residenti" lrod
.... nlol uses cDmpatibly and provide a strong design presentation at His
po.rU.nt cante,.... The vlriance appl ie.ation. wi n be considered' concurrent 1y
th the ,u~IYislon applfcatlon, should the site .nd dl.ign application bl
proved.
! CO!'.!!£MOATION ,~~~~~-------------------------------------------
, aff re<om<!nds thlt the Phnn;M; Co"",;ss;," recommen~ that tne City Council
: prove the project Ind adopt the negit1"vr decllT',Jtion of f'lC S~9n)fitaTit
, dro .... ntal ionplCt an~ lppr ••• the project, subject to the findings an;
~ ,dition. listed below.
i )u'd the tcmrniniClfl d".cide to T"tcorrrtlend denial Clf the use permit (pre"ieus I !nda item). then st&ff would recommend thlt the site and design be d~nied as
'11. T~e project 15 not suit,bh fDr r.tln IS d •• ;rl~.
IDIKIlS
T~. proposed project is orderly, harmonious IMd complt;bl. with ,~joini"g
uses, In thlt the sit. plln Is arrlnged so that the commerc;,l building
Is locI ted next to [I Camino R.", the resident!ll units .r. locpted .t
the r.lr Df the site n •• r other r<sid.nti.1 uses on; buffered from £1
tamin~ Rei', the c\rcu'ation is safe lod ordErly Ind Ittr.,tive, ~sefu'
Dutdoor spaces Ire being proyldod.
The project .1" e".ure tho dl.lrlbillty of in •• stment Ind the cordutt of
authorized occuPltions, in that the bu,lding stotk is bei~g imprcved and
03981/V'o1 ... ,. , ...
',~..:.:,-, -,---.:: ,:.',::
L
[ ; ::-..
-.~to;.
c~.,
\ ..
," \'
•
?~ .• • l ~~
'.-1.
-
t~. sit ... no int.nsiv.1, used ,nd the new buildings will resull In In
l~ro .... nt in lh. 9,.,ra1 'ppelr,nce of this portion of El Camino Rell.
3. Sound prlnclp1,s of .n~lronoe.tal d •• lgn In~ ecologl"l blll.t. ,re b.ing
observed, I. that,s SI., as possible (13) of the existing tre.s Ire
bllng retllned and the underground garage i. set batk approxlmatel, 25
f.et f~ lh. p~porty lin., proViding s.fficl.nt soil volume to sustain
SOIl ... growth of a .Inlsuo of Six new sedlwo-llrge slzo lr •• s. Tre.s
Ire 11s. bllng pllnted to shade the loterlor tourty.rd. Blcyc'. parkIng
convenf.Ally localed on the pIlla lovel and the provisIon of a pedestrian
bridge acron the creek channel should ."courage walking and bIcycling.
4. Tbe U$e I. consistent wltb the uses designated in the ComprehensiYe Plan
for this .ite. lb. project Is in accord with Polic.)' 5 of the Hovsing
Elnent In providing a .Ix of resldentia1 uses In a c ...... rcill 'rea, and
with Policy 6 of the Urban Design Element to upgrade El Camino Real. It
JUpport. Pollcl •• 8 and 12 of the Triosportlon Element to dIscourage
asrt..Ibl1t use ami ___ • blqcle UH by .. king bicycle us.
cany .. fent, lnd by the pro.i.lty to public transportation.
COIIDITlOllS
1. Th. applicant shall obtain a variance for front setback fnr the
coomerclal building concurrent with the •• bdivision.
Z. The applicant shall I~lement the following sound control =itisation
.easures to achieve ca.pllance with the ,,10 Alt. Comprehen.iv. Pl •• and
Tltl. 24 .tandards,
Exterior Resldentl.l Arel Nol •• Control. to Achle.e 6; dBA
Re.r ~.tl.s Ind d~tks within 195 feet of the west propertJ lIne ,nd
ha~ing I direct Df lide view Df £1 Camino Rei'. tonstrYct
6-foot-high acou.lltll patiO fences Ind 36-fnch-high solid d,ck
railings. Patio. and decks hcing onto the ir,terior ~laZi "ea
will not require nOise controls. due to the shielding provided by
the planned building Irr.ng.ment.
ThE ramp to t~e underground garage sh.l1 be f.ced wit~ .coustic.1
.. torfl1 to reduce the noise I~.ct on residentIal units over and
nur the 'Imp.
Int.riar Residential Noise 'ontr.l. to Achiey, 40 dBA
Within 195 f.et of [1 CamIno Re.l, one of the following mitigations
sh.11 be required:
a. Required window construction using singl' pan, of 1/4-inch
911$$ providing STC-32 Citing or higher_ Thi ... Slime ... Indows
will be kept closed at all tim •• and that mechanital
ventllati.n will be provided.
b. Required window construction using a prefabricated acoustical
window providing 51(-54 riting ar higher. ~ith this
.lter"ative, window. ~al be •• pt open up to 50 ~.rc.nt of the
PCSRl9S1/Vll ----------~
L
,
ti~ for natura' vlntllatfan Ind eec~initl' ~rntil.tion is not
requlre<l.
Furt~.r than It5 f •• t to [1 Camlne Rell, cnt cf t~. following
.ltI90tlon, .hall be required:
a. Required window construction using I .Ingl. pIne ~f 1/4·lnch
gllss provIding 5TC·28 rltlng or hIgher. This assumes wind."
will be bpt cloud .t .11 tl,.., and thlt llechanical
ventilation wIll be provIded.
b. Required wIndow construction ullng • prefabricated .cou,tical
window provIding 5TC·46 r.tfng or hlghe'_ WIth this
Ilternativl J windows may be tept open u~ to SO pe~c!nt of the
tiDe for nlturi' Y~nt11ltfon and ~,hinicil ventilltion is not
required'.
-n.evll"lll ... vf tile ... slllentlol ... fts tIIat .,.., s;>eclflecl to be
mlf~tJined closed It 111 times fer ~o;se cantrol Irt to be
operable, IS the requ'~rnent does not imply I fix!d condition.
Units having the closed window condition shoul~ be provided wit~
S~ form Df ne~hlnicl' ytntilation to assure I habitabTe
envlronme,t, IS 5pecified by t~£ Uniform Building Code (UBC).
To ~Itig.t. the loss of the l.rge Valley o.k and oth.r trees. the
applicant 5hall plant I minimum of six IS·gall.n medium-large size ,onopy
trees in the landscaped perimeter of the site where soil vol.me fs
adequate to sust.ln maxfmum tree Vrowth. The number. location. species
and size of trees in t~e final landscape plan shall b. opproved by t~e
City Arborist. The lppllclnt shall submit with the final landscape pl.n
I tree protection ~rogram prepared by I certffied arborlst for ~~otectic~
Df the exi5ting trees to be retained, with I certified I~borl$t
deSignated to be responsible for implementltiDr! of the tree p~otection
llelsure.s ..
The design of the project shall be reviewed Ind Ipproved by the ARB. ,itn
pirti:uhr attention to the .special requi~rrnefl,ts f~r r:inimizir,g impacts
of cornntrchl buildin9s 011 residential uus, the design of tne pedestdar.
bridge, entrances to the site from £1 Camino Real and It the bridge. the
pavin9 treitment. and planting in the corridor aleng the creek c~annel.
The height of the tower .1 •• ent sh.ll be revised to conform to the zoning
ordin.ncr regulation.
T~e Ippli~lnt shall dediclt~ I public ac,ess tl5ement for parimedic
vehic'es~ bicycles and ~edestrians compriSing I 20-foot-wide strip aleng
the south 5ide of tne property bordering t~e creek tha~nel and acress the
proposed bridge over the creek channel to provide I connection bEtween E1
C."ino Rul and Wilkie Woy_
The design of the pedest.h. brid~e ond occess to It shill.be approv.ld bj
the Fir. Oepart .. nt, the Public ~orks Oep.rtment, the Arch,tectu,.'
Revie. Board and by the 50ntl Clara Valley ~.ter Dist.ict.
The appliclnt shall obt.in In encroachment permit from Cal Trans fo, .ny
work or construction activity in the publiC right of way.
L
~,. ,
-
I
-.
" ,
,
" \\ ~\:
. j ~
i
I
.1
1
,
..
--, ,
1
I
\
r
ID. T~ Ippll~lnt Ihall provld. four BKR "nltl; two one-bedroom units for
-$73,1~ ,"ch, Ind two two-bedro~ units for 590,SOO '"CO_
ATTACHNEIITS .......
i'RuflllA •• "t.l arnn,,,t
l ... '11f1 Moa,
MInutes of the Architectural Review BD'~ ... tlng, AprilS, 1990
Minutes of the Architectural Reylew 8Ga~ ... tlng, June 6, 1990
Pllnnlng CoomlsslDn Stiff Report, October 10, 1990
Excerpt Minutes of the Planning CommIssion meeting, October 10, 1990
Condltlonll Use Perwlt, 90-UP-34, grlnted Noyember 19, 1990
Letter of Appeal from Barron Park Association, Noyember 26, 1990
CO'lES $00 TO
The Steinberg CTOUIl
The aarTOr. Plrt ASSDclition
Tom Fisher, Blecksan TIrt.s, 3350 West Bayshor., SuIt. 110, PlIo Alto, CA
94303
PCS1!3 981fV11 T " A '0 !
--.
-
•
" ~ ;
\
~ t
,
.. , ~-ArClilrecnrral
. 'tt."\'iew .l."I·"I'te~,,'" !~~ ___________________________ ._.' __ • _______ A
'1--
\
\
1
A. ROll CAll
Thursday. April 5. 1990
8:00 A.~.
Chic Center
250 Hamilton Ave~ue
Co~~cil Conference Room
Pllo Alt~9 Cllifornia
.Board Members Absent: Harlli Barnes
SUff Present:
Jon Scnink arrived during the re~i~w of item 11.9
~nd was present for t~e rest of tne meeting.
Mikt ly~~a left the m~etin9 aft!,.. item 11.9 i~d
did not return for tnt remainder of the agenda.
Jim Gilliland. Virginia ~arhelt. Bob Haley. Sue
Cas.
B. APPROVAL OF "1HUTES:
~--
1. The lIinutes of tho .... tin9 of March 19. 1990. were APPROVE!). 3·0.
with the (0170w1n9 minor thanges:
1. Item ]1,]" 2086 Amaril1~ Avenue. page 7. Hc:ond sentence in t~e
list plr~9r,pM. cnan;E the word -in· 50 that the sentence rea~s
·around the picnic pads·.
2. Item 1I.S .• 1705 [1 Camino liea1. page 13. in t~e second sente .. c.
of the first p.aragraph change ·windo ... • to ·dis,cl.y window" '1"1 hoc
1 oCltions.
APPROVALS: The Arcnitec:tunl Review BOird (ARB) decision 01"1 t~e desigl"l
of th~ project is iI recommendation to t~e Director of Planning il"ld
(o~unit1 (nviron=el"lt (the Director), who ~akes tnt fin.l d~cisiol"l.
Unless otherwise stated by tne ARB or tn! Director. project Ipprovals
gen~r1111 incorporate Project Rfvie~ Committee conditions 1$ mailed to
the .appliclnts ind stiff conditions 1S recommended in the Il"1fo~ition
Hemol"'.andlllns.
CHANGES: Any cha~ge to an approved design plal"l must be resubmitted to
t"e C i l, for approval. Res<Jbmitta1 of a praje=-t may aiso be necess.ary if
change~ are mandated as a res~Tt of tomplying Wltn Public
----~Ilt..~_t. --'-L· . ---"";'j""". .. .
!
I
\
\
i
I
-: '
8.
9.
-
-----~------" ........
-----------
~. The ~l&"t;n; .~d iT~i9ition ~1.n 5h&ll be .p~~o¥ed (or
confaralnee with UU!' City's ~.jjter C(lnlofning .slind'ilrcfs by ttU!
Energy services Oi~is;on.
'50 GUINDA STREff
Strvt Pfer-ce
B9-ARB-Z97
fie-quest for phlsing af construction of seven previot.!.$lJ"-iPpra~eo'.
sing1e-rami1y hov •••
The Board DEN1Etl, 3~O. tne ap~licant's request t~ pnase constrl,;ctiorr
of seven s ingl! fimi 1y homes ave-: oil three year period, ...... U.er than
the two year period illlo~ed with i one year extenSion of the ARB
approvil.l. Tne applicant stated that he was reQuesting the p~ased
con.s:tr-u-ct1on because the hDusfng market is 50ft ina he dlcn't wtlnt to
have .11 the hnuse. on the sarket It the .Im. time. The Soard denied
the request out o! co"~ern fer the implct of an extended CDnstr~ctian
period on the neighborhood. They 1.ft ope" t~, opportvn1ty fDr tn,
applicant t-o r-etuNI to t!'Ie-Baard prior to t,l,! exp;r-ation Df the ARB
approval to re~uest tnat the phasing of constructfon be reconsidered
.t that t i"".
3981 El ~IHO REAL SO-ARB·3B
"ayflo"",r Pilo Alto Development l.P.
Prel1mtnary rev~ew of mixed Uie project wjth lO.OOO-sQuare·f~ot
commercial buildfng and 38 condominium units ~it~ unde~ground parking
The applicant pres!"ted fo~r alternative site plans and discussetl the
issues which bad been consid!red in dtvelcp?ng t~e preferred plin~
He descrf~d the bas;c concept of the P'iI~ is thr*e resident;al
buildings ar-ranged around an urban scale courtyard with a green
border and llrger landscape elements around the perimeter of the
site. The r~sidential buildings are .t the rear of tne site with a
two stoP"l cOttlnerci .. 1 building in front adjacerrt to n Camino Rea1.
The landscape arcnitect descr~bed tnt concept for the c~urtyard as a
seQuence of spices design to !nca~rage SOC1il interaction and to
pr-ovide a proqres5ion from PUb'lC tn private space, and use of trees
fer v;su.al effec't and f~r .shade.
T~e Board commended the applicant on an exemplary preliminary re~iew
presentation, 5aY7ng t~at the proposal was solid, clear and we11
thought cut, and tnat his presentation of ideas and eoncepts was w~at
a preli~ir.ar-y r-evlew s~ouTd be.
Spuffic comments by Soard' membf!rs about the proposed deSign were as
follow>:
Alno daRosa: The functions make sense together. 1he separation Df
lutos ind' pedestrians workS well. Flan works well for the sile, 1S
rational, refreshing, not crammed on the site, pushing tne setbacks.
Hated tnere is a lot of security ;n this entry system. Questlone6
04/05/90
Page 9 JG
-~ .•.
'.-,:" ::,:
'-..:., '/'-
.,.f 53'3 rr: .~---",. -"--p---.
h~ the pla:. vwts vsed l~d what
pr"op;erty 1 he-.
happens to tnt ~ing wall at the
Shirley Wilson: Modplin; cf spaces and light is j~st r;ght9 going
down to two stor,)" lI!ry nluablt and effective, The bad:Yilrds seem
slIall, w111 tIItr, be openness to t"e hndsca,ped perimeter? SeQuence
of spices is supportive of the efflce entry being outdoor space, to
be pu't of the &1irix or hit'l'"lrchy of entry seQiJenCfS.
Mike lyzw.a: T.he conc.ept Ind ~rt$enht;on 15 very strong. CuriolJs to
know how you will develop ~levati~"s Ind facades. on t~e bri~k of
creating" very modern 7mpression. flo .. you will do it frL)rrl here 0:')
will be a real c.hallenge. Details 9 rain .. attr leaders, vent for
parking gar'ge Ire going to have an impact. Some cover snouTd be
pro,ided for on-grade ~andicap parking.
Jon Schink. who arrived d~rins the presentlt70n of 1b;~ jlem.
COftClI!'ftCI with AiDO Nbso's nooarks.
Mjk!' LYlwiI a,nd Shirley Wilson entouTiged tne JPpl jeant to take
adv.,tage of the 50 foet ~eig~t .110wed in tn, CS lone to cr •• t.
1Q-12 feet hign first-story spaces, to emphasize t~e first
level,throug~ arcnes. etc .• not to flatten tne building, to use t~e
h.ig~t, but not to the d.triment of sunlight inte the ccurty.rd.
10. 382-84 CURTNER AVENU,
~.rk I!lgdal
SO-ARB-17
90-EJA-!
-
Mi~or l~c~1te~tura1 and 5,te detafls for prfviousl~-approved,
slx-unit townhouse project.
The Board IJ'PROVro, 3-~, t~. building colors, details of '.ocing.
windows. eiyes Ind cornice, trish containers. cicycl, parking and
guest parking. The Board restited their reQuirement for real wood
horizontal Siding.
!he appliclnt is Idvised thilt tne fo7lowing conditions of approval of
the project on March 1, 1~90, m~st 5t;11 bE ~ft ind irt repeatEd here
for tne convenience of the applicant:
l. Prior to iss~ance IJf <I building penH. a f,nal landscape
plan a~d exterilJr lighting plan s~al1 return to t~e Board for
.ppro,.I_ ('lei .. ref.r to page 25 of the Marc~ l, 1990
ITlfonr.at ion .Memorandum for items to be addressed ;,"1 t~e
lindsclpe p~an.J
2. A plan for the prote~tion of tne tWD pepper treel tc rfmain
on tne site sha11 be submitted for stiff rfvlew prior to
issuanc! Of I demo1ition penr.lt.
J. To reduce dust 1e~els durin; construction it shal' be
reQuir.d tnat eKposed earth surfaces be walfred frfquently
d~rlng tne late mOrnl"; and at the end of the day. ~ith
frequency of wilter increasi:"19 on windy days. All streets and
L
04/05/9~
Fag~ 10 JG
•
"R Ii ... "" --
~ArchltectlJrnl
.tcv5L"1" . Ihmnl ,\\illll'CS I c.tr '" .. ....., _________________________ _
I
I
j
\
A. ROll CALL
Board 11 •• '1 Present: M.ml hrne.
"1_~
IIi t~U I l)'ZV1l
Shirley lIi100n
8.,rd He.r, Abs.nt: Jon Shinck
Th"r.d.y, June 6, J9;0
8:00 A.M.
CiYI c Center
250 H •• flton Aven"e
Council Confrren~e ~~om
P.l. Alto, C.liforni.
Staff present: H.ley, lytle Ind Warheit
8. APPROVAL Of "I~VTES
The ... ting .Inut., of MlY 17, 1910, w~re APPROVEO, 4·0, ., written with
three minor chlnges, IS follow.:
1. It ... IJ.3. (S50 lytton Avenue" p.ge 4. enar.ge the wording in the
third plragraph to ~Id. " •••• ~j.ctod t. Ute .uil~ins rllud up on
stilts .... "
2. ltee 11.4 (420 Jlcobs CO"rt), page 5. Ch.nso Ms. Barnes' comments
to read, • ••• It doe. not make 'en,. for the people who live there
not to h.ve Iccess to Wilkl. Way.'
3. lte. II.ID. (.25 UniveT1lty Avenu.) Chlnge condllions of approv,l
to read, "Th. llrger letter, ,hall ~ no llrg.r th.n 12 Inch ••••• •
C. ORAL COI1l1NICATlONS
D. A~ENDA ITEMS
APPROVAlS: The Archit.ctur.l Revi ... Board (AR!) decision on the design
of tho project I, a r.co=mendation to the Oirector of Pl.nning Ind
Ccmownlt1 En.!~onDlnt rthe Director}, omo •• k.J t~. ffn,l dee!.lon.
Unless otl1.",I$1 'hted by the ARB or the Direetor, proj.ct IpproVils
g.nerally in,orpor.te Project R.vie .. Committ •• conditions .s .,il.6 to
the .ppllclnt, and st,ff condition, .. rfto .... nd.d In th •. Infonll'tion
Memarond""" •
I!lN050? .,.;S;·l'-, -'v .... ,..i_iIIIlqlil .. t.(~>·,··
.,-".,'
~,~, .
,,}/':~~' ,. JIt ..
~ .... ~ ..
•
i
f
"
1
\
.-. ...
~,t,~~0~· '."
:r~~,~';r
-
~fnor rev1ew of I flclde c~lnge and lJndseape p'~n to I~ existing
.ffi" bollding
Due to t~e minor natur~ of the rrop~~e~ changes, th1s item was STAFF
APROVED •
7. 3'81 EL C~IHO REAt * 90-ARB·3B
R'lflower P,10 Alto Development
Se,ond prell.inlrl review of • ol.ed-o,o project with.
lO,OOO·sQ~are-foot CD~rc;al building a~d 3e condominium units ~it~
"nderground plrklng
Fallowing is a summary of COlMlents made by Board members and by Bob
Moss, 4010 Orme, Pilo Alto.
"-rnl lorn .. ,
Intrigued _ith the deslqn. there .rt some exciting things and same
disturbing things happening In the design_ Likes the .,ult fonns on
the f,,"des of the residence ... d the stepping biC' of the th; rd
floor. Is concerned thlt the plul will be lib I canyon. it loo~.
1 U:e a canyan, too narr-uw for the h!ignt. Will tht sequence of
portals make the rear unfts seem too far away from other units?
li 'es the t.....,r .lement In front, but does not I il:< the n ."ed fo"."
-nich gi •• s it 'n Indu.tri,! 'ppe.r.nce, looks like. powerhouse_
Would prefer to see openings in tne wi'l IS .rches rlther than the
Irregul.r shaped open;n~s, ~ich look lik. some bod) goofed.
Horrified about riot saving the ser;ond large ~ak. on the-site. If it
;s lost. ~st provide I number of lirge trees tQ replace t~e biomass.
Severa' trees on sih Ire not shown on the site phn. Existing trees
at the perimeter .s~ould be saved'. rf the fire hne a10:"l9 the canal
is going to be " passive irea, tnen u.se I drcugnt-toler.nt ground
cevlr ritner tna" sad.
~ike Lyzwa:
This ~.s I tough sa •• iilnd combinin9 the cOlmlercial and resider,tial
uses. ~resent5 a ronl cfll11enge. Hive done i lnuterflJl job of scaled
us. of commercl.1 .long (1 C,mlno Real to boff.r r.sldentl,l. Th,
site plan provides v!ry well for the need for pri~.cy and security.
The centrll backbone of the 6esign, the plAza, can provide a great
interaction point between ~ei9hbors. The open raceway provided by
ttle fire hne along the unal makes I g,.-ed phce to get away, to lie
;n the syr.. throw I frizbet. etc.
A tremendous Imount of storase, 2SC cLibic feet per un it, needs to be
ICtOmodited, I place needs to be fou~d for it. T~e units OYer the
garage entry n~ed to be protect~d from noise~ by special 9TalS or a
part lil cover over tne nmp. "ouid love to see trussu in the
.aulted forms, the high wlndo~s could be spectacular at night. Ne.1
to e~el11s~ the commercial building, to mike it stronger.
L
.'" .. ~ ...... ~ .. ",'. ,
~ ~.
-
'.
...
I
I
MIH0607
1'"-'
-
lne 'lndsclpe theory and b&siC concept is a 900d ide~ and wery
Inter.stlng and challen9ins.
At .... daRo .. ,
Canttptual1y, I ver~ strong pTan, good clear plinn1n9. the site plAn
well t~ought c~t. The ide. Df in!tgrltinQ commerciAl Ind resident;al
,r,hlt.,utur. In some VIY Is ,n Important concept.
Wher. we get to tnt Ipecff1c Irchitect~ret Jtems hlrd Ind industria'
IS It appears In t~" bllck lin" print, but is described In the
presentation there's I totilly different f •• 1Ing, with .St of color,
etc. Concern is th.t , r,.ldence not become ••• lic< Ind hard ond
industril1 tnat It ts not I home.
Soao onusull things hlppening thlt you hive to Do careful .bout, lite
tho Ingled wI115, that they not Docome • f.d. Have confldencf in
..,. JOIOI'ft GD"i1l!l teuase ~ 1" ..... i1lll was n ~ OIIt, don't
t~i~t 11 vil1 call.pse .men y.u got t. tn. Irthlt.ct~., jurt rllsing
a rod nlg.
The design Gl the plill is rtll'y cruelll. The fire line Cln be ysed
as • pllto to got ,way from hard .urflces Ind fonul landscaping of
the pl'la~ U5e sod rAther thtn ground cover sc thlt this ti~ be an
Itt1ve lrei~ Jf the residents hlye leeess to the schOOl grQu~ds,
then .ot so important thot the firt llne be In I,tl.e .r •• , ~.Y be
used primirily for ~i~ual re1;ef.
Blcau.o the pllnni"g is so strong, though! ha ••• ome trepidation
about the hlrd .urfa'ts .nd indu.trial look of the project, could
def.r t. you in this project. The only elution is, remember this i.
S01:)8cr\t'S home.
Shirlty Wi Ison:
Aesthetically and griphical1y, the propo,a1 i. "r1 oppe.ling, tut
the task lheld cf ycu is to humanize this. I se! from lQ~r
presentation comments you are already Iwirt Qf this.
leut happy with the £1 Camino Real elevation. Are headed in the
ri9ht direction to use .1ightly ~iffer.nt ~.torials for the
commercial building, nothing that pops out but something that says
ccmmerci~ mQ~e thi~ rt$ide~t'll. Don't think the entry i1 inviting.
don't want to att.,. forms. It is forbidding ooro t~.n InYitlng ind
that bothers me. Th, whol. wall is forbi~din9. I wish 10u'd In,lyze
that. ] hive cor.fidenct YC'u Cln wcrk 1 t cut. It needs to be rea11)'
careful1, consider.d. It ,hould be inviting, it. the tntr, to ~.j,r
funct tons.
The lighter appro.eh and low 5,al. is r.al11 important in the
seQuenti.l portal, in the courtyard. Ther. i' • r •• l opportunity to
develop the ViultS in t'e re5id,nces. 1 think the staff comments
wer! rll11y pretty good. ~ish the iCCtS5 to the oik t~ee were wider.
rt seems ~ore like an D~tsfde tree t~an In inside tree, wc~1d be good
to bring it vis.al1, into the plaza. Supports the .'ibl, open spa,.
In the fire Ian,.
,
\
I
1
\
1
I
I
1\
-"\;-.. .~
Une""fortoble .. It~ t~. evtn height of tho outsld. wall formed by the
buildings, If yau felt it w~s In 1m~rovement, wou1d support raising
some of the roofs to provide ~ariety.
lh~ follDwfng 11.1 summary of (omments by lob ~OSSt 401C O~, Pi1~
Alto:
Tne building ,pp.'", too mi'S!V! fro. the south side, would li~! t.
s •• It bro.en fnto two pieces, look. lndu.triol .r,d bulky. -The
•• stern ond look. unfrl.ndly; m.ybe some curved line, .nd ,tepped
forss would h.lp. Th. cone shaped roof On the entry to the
e .... rch1 buildln2 doesn't fit with the deSign, bec.u:. .11 other
fo~s are curved. Repl.,. t~1s cone $~lpe wit~ i dome and 1t w;11
look right.
Putting thlrty·.!ght unit. plus commerciil on this site is going to
give you I rn' traffic lead. The entry to t~e project is very clost'
10 tat £1 Cmllno Re.I/Los Robl •• int ... octlon, ind do.sn't provide
WIld! distance in ""lcn to IIIOve t. the right line to enter the sHe.
8. 737 LDft4 VERDE AYENUE * (£IA)
Tom stoiln
8g·ARB·2a2
89·£IA·52
ReQuest for recons1deration of project condition requirfng wood
w1ndows it I previo~511-lpprDved condominium project
TnI!' proposed' 'WOod casement windows wert APPROY£I)? 4·0.
9. 1804 OOARCADERO ROAD
Oon Doty
90·ARB·Sl
SO·Pt·g
Mfnor review and minor PC zo~e chan9! for the i1terltion to
elevations, ~arking ind sign progrim .t In existfn; efffcl!' comp1~x
Tn;, item was CANCELLED from the 'genda.
III. HEW/OLD BUSINESS
1. Trinsport'tjo~ Division prestnt.tion to ARB regarding [T Camino ~aJ
cfrc~lltion patterns.
2. Discussion of t~e stlt~s of I proposed ARB Design Awards progrirn.
IV. REPORTS OF BOARD MEMBERS OR STAFF REGARDING MEETINGS Of OTHER CITY BOARDS
OR PROFESSIONAL COHFERENCES
Y • ADJOUJOO!Eh'T
I'IIN0607
-
\
\
f
r··J . (I' 't··' .... ," ,,\' ~ I~.. n.
TO: PAl.O AI. TO 'LAllN1NG CD!t41SS10ll PRE PAR ,0 IV: Virgin!. W"helt
DATE: October 5, I~in rIlE NO.: PO-EIA-lD, 'O-D-O~. eO-ARS-87
PROJECT INFDRIIATI lIN
Loeltlon:
Appllclnt:
Fa Me tf a..=s:
Requested Actio":
'ROJECT SIlIIXAAY
'tal EI C .. lno RII'
,.10 Alto. CA '.306
The St.lnberg 'rollp
ED Pierce A,.nut
Sin Jose. CA tSllD
1IIyfl_ '_A.. AMoaI..-at /...P_
~ LWTelitt (ipi ESSWl1
Slntl CI.rl, CA 9SDSI
Major Sit. Ind Desl;n Ro.le. of Mi •• d Uso Projo,t
The proposil Is I .ixed use officI/reSident III project with I
ID,30D-square-foot two-story office buildIng at the front of the sIt. Ino 38
condoelnlum residences In three-story buildings on the re.r portion of the
site. The resldentl.1 units Ire stacked two-story townhouses OV.' irO"nd
Ie.ol flits. n. three resld.nthl buildings Ire '","Inged ",o"nd .n open
courty.rd. Tho residences Ind the commercl., building "" .cce,sed by I
comoon drlyowal off EI Camino Rell. Plrklng for both use. Is located in on
underground p.rklng ,I "go .nd six guest Ind two hlndicap .PiCts ore 10ClUd
In I surflce p.rklng lot loc.ted ne.r the front of the ,ite.
RECOM[I!!)ED ACTIOH
St.ff rocomaends th.t the '1.nnln9 Coomlsslon recommend th.t t~. Citl Council
ldopt the negative d.,lo •• tion. Ind appro., tho project blsed on fin~ings Ind
conditions cont.lned In thiS report_
SITE INFORNAT!ON
P.,·ctl Size:
Assessor's '.re.' Humber:
hlsting Zonlni:
ComprehenslYe 'l.n
Del;gnilHon:
DenSity:
Existing tlnd US,:
Pt:SR39SI/YII
.L
-
6C,904 squ.r. f •• t
132-42-69
CS; RM-30
Service C ...... <ill; l1ultlplt-faml1, Residential
4C units allowed; 38 unit. proposed
Motel
Pige I
•
~
'.~ ~" .. ' :,~~
~ . :
\ c
-"
,..J
3 · . :.
..•.... , .•.. : l'
..: .
. , ;..--
t
t' 1
IJ . , .,
"
-...
Surro~fns l.nd U.e:
tHlitDry:
",nd.lory Action O.t0tl1:
ANALYSIS
Project DescriptIo.
~ .•. ,~. ~. ~,,--
Tho proJo,t lIt. fl pre.ontl, o<cuplod by •
.,tel. Tn •• ur·by "'" Is • "f. or rtsfd.nt .. l
.n~ c:a.wrchl USIS. TM ,arc .. l to t", "tu'U of
the ,.oj •• t f. pre •• ntly In c ..... 'f.1 UI. b"t fl
&entd .1.1, •• 1, t. tho pnoj.,t .It. Ind c.n be
expected to rede.elop. Directly to t~o south Is
the Dry Cr .. k ch.nnel Ind ocron (rom thlt Is In
R-2 site currently occupIed by Ilx 1 .. 11
cottlg's, The proJect II bord.re4 on the .ast by
the Venturi School Site. A single-family
nefghborhood II •• st of t~e site beyond the Creek
Ind ~;Ikl. ~.y. The west lid. of the proJect
frontl onto [I Ca.lno Rell where there Ir. a
Vlrltty of coone~lll USIS.
IIorth 2. Uto: AppHc.tlon filed for preliminary
.rchltectur.' re.le. of proposed mIxed use
efflc~r .. lde"tlll p.oJect wIth
III .1DO-squ_ftoGt II'ff1m lout, tmg _ lS
cDlld*nh", residences over ""dergT1>1md plrking.
April U. 1990: Prollllinary re.l.w by the
Archlt.,tur,1 Review Board of the proposed ~ix'd
use proJ.ct. "Inutes of the ARB meeting .re
Itteched.
June 7, 1990: Second prtll.lna.y "ev!ew by the
Arch!tectur.l RevIew BOlrd of the proposed ml.ed
use project. Minutes of the ARB lIOetlng ar.
attlched.
lIoy 14. 1990: Applltltlon filed for M.jor SIt.
Ind DeSign review of m!xed UIO offlc./re,ldenti.I
projlct wIth 10,lOO-square·foot office b"ilding
Ind 38 condomlnlwo .. esldence. over underground
plrking.
App1lc,tlon deemed compl.te October 10. 199~.
Sf. BOnt~ Iction dlto for fln.l CIty CouncIl
Ictlon Is April 10. 1990. The proJect Is
t.ntatlvoly s<hod.led for review by the
Archlt.,tu.,) Review Board on November I. 1990.
and for Clly toun<11 revi'w on November 19. 19,0.
~ 119nifiCln! i~.ct; • n08.tl •• d.,l •• llion h.,
been pr.p.red Ind il Ittlchod to this neport.
The front 17S fe.t of this plrcel Is zoned Servl<e C~r'I.) (C5) wIth the
re.r portion zoned ~·3C. The appl!cant !s proposing , ~i •• d us. project with
I two· story office building located on the C5 portion of the site on £1 C.m;no
PCSiI3981/Yil Plge 2
. ....
-.
I
!
l
I
-
Re., .nd three-story eondOl>inl1ll! residenceo .TT.n~ed ..... und I tourtYINS on the
.... r JtM-lQ portion of the siU.
TM resllltnthl units .... In three buildings arrange4 In • U-Shl", fO .... ,lo; •
cantr.l courtyerd. The 9round flQ"r unit. ar, c't-bedroom fllt,_ Outdoor
co ..... d st.trw'lS l,ad to the two-be4roOft-.tlctod unit. on the second .nd
third floors. The 9roWld floor units h •• , front and b.ct PltlO', and tn.
second floor units h,.e front and b.ck ~Ilconl •• _ Tne front p.tlo. and
balconies ov.r10<1k tne cent'" courty.rd, whIch urvu IS • front .ntr,r glrden
to ~ 'hired by all the reSidents. The d.sl;n of tn, courtYlrd IS Somewhlt
fOrQl .nd whIle It will be he •• ily phnted to soften the sp.co, the size of
tree. will be li.lttd by the 10CItion D.er tho parllng glrlge. 8y eontrlst,
the ",rl.etlr of tho sit. at the blcts of the b"lldlngs Will be pllnted ~or.
InforQl1y with ta..,er trees to pro.lde I gre.n zone aroun6 the ••• i6ence. In~
buffer vl~ both Into and out of the slte_ Thirteen existing tr.e. In this
perimeter .rei are being r.t.lned, fncludlng I 47-lnch dllmeter VII ley Olt
located near the south.lst corner of the slto_
1M awM .... 1IIWMa' • .Df till! ns'~1.1 trandl"9l ..... no<! 1111"910 v1th
colorod -et,' chl~IS Ind Pltlo rlllln;s for accent_ The re,lde"ti.l
building. hl.e flIt roOfl, but on tne courtYlrd ,Id. of the buildings v.ulted
roofs partla111 eov.r the front pltlos Ind dects. The office building is
seml-trlnsplrent slasl behind I wood-shlngl0 frl..wort Ind colored ~t.l
sunscreenl for lceent_ A cylindrical fo", It the south corner of the building
'( pro.idu the •• nUng slstem for the underground 9or1ge. A conical roof cove ..
i the circular entry to the offices.
\
DrivewIY Icc." from [1 Cimino It the ~orth edge of the sit. ser ••• both the
offic. building and the resldenc.s. A clrcullr parking court Idjacent to the
11\ offic, building pro. Ides .t-gr.d. 9ue.t p.rking Ind hlndiclp plrklng for botn
uses. A decor.tiv. screen Will and l.ndsc.ped edye It the ,irc.llr plrling
Ire. seplrat. the public commerclll Ir •• fr~ the prl.ato ro,ldontl.l
courtYlrd. The drfvawty eontlnue. alony the north ,Ide of the property Plst
the s~rflce pIrkl", court to the ontrln<e to the underground plrting garlge.
The pIrkl", glrage .xt.nds under both the re.ldences Ind the offiee cuilding
\
.nd Inelude. 43 eommerci.' spaces .nd 66 resldentlll sp.ces. There Is .n
.1 •• ,tor from the gar.ge to the co~rclll building and twe stairwells prpvi~'
.,c.ss from the garl,. to tho re.ldentll' courtyard lbove. The handiClp
! parklro; for the offl'o bulldln; I. lo,.ted In the glr.ge_ Two covered
h.ndl,"p s~lces will be proVided In th' surfac. plrking court for the
resld.ntl.l unlts_
A 20-foot-wld. corridor II belns pro.lded 110ng the south sid. of the property
adj.cent to the Dry Creet chonnel. This will be u.ed for fire Ind emergency
accus. TIlts spice will be partlilly pa.ed with low ground cover 11tenlt ing
with pl.lng .. t.rlll to provide .11 "It her Icce,. Ind It the lime tim. a
seel-gr.en zone which cln be used for pl.y. A nlrro~ bridge will spin the
creek cnlnnel connrcting this CDrridor wit~ In existing .ccess Iisement to
tiltle lI.y. The ~rldg. will be .cce$Slbl. only for pedestrians, bicycles and
paramedic vehlcl,s, but not for .utomobll.s.
itorli' for Indlvidull units II being pro.ided both In the glr'g' and adjacent
:0 the PltioS of elch unit. Bicyel. storlge for all units will be 10clted .t
:he piau 10 •• ' nur front .nd rur p.tlos_ 80th the trlSh dumpster Ind I
, ,pocl.l sp.te for ~cycl.bles .re located in tne b.sement nelT the centr,l
,ta;rwe11_
'CSR3981tyll Plge 3
L
-.
. "", '-4~'
• \
hsues
[ .. rttftCY Acce.s Brldae
The proposed brldil o •• r the Dry C ... t c~.n"el I. r'Qulred by t~t Flrl
Deplrtaent for ,Ir.-edlc Y.hi~l. attl.'. fire truck, will Inttr Ind lilY! the
Zg.f~t·wldo corridor .'0°9 the c~t froc [1 C .. ln. Re.l and will flVht fIre.
froo thl. sp.el, as thol c.nnot drl •• onto tht Int,rlor pll.l. '"r ... dl,
,"hlclIS, unlike the fire t .. eks .... t be obI. to l.ove "' well I. Inttr the
site CI"lckll. The t>rid~. Icress the lreek will .11ow poro:oedlc \'ehlcles to
Vlt Into .n~ out of the sit. wIthout del.,s cluse~ by turn'ng I.d .. ntu •• ring.
Tht bridge will also prevlde I pedestrlan/blcycl. link betwetn the n ••
residences and the existing resident III neighborhood to the elst Ind with the
nelghDrhood commerclll cent.r on the £1 tomlno Way I.l.nd.
The ped,trlan bridge toftneet. with Wiltle WI, through an e.lstlng 12·foot·wld.
Snb Clar-a 'aT1eJ ~ ilistrlct _ t. 1M.w.ter Dlrtria lias ~ved
t~e ttmrept of til. t>rl. aftCI nun thnoagll tM eu_. TIle doslgn ef tM
brld~. will be Ipproved bot~ by the ARB and t~e Wlt~r District. T~. 20"oot
Iccess c.rri~~r Ind the bridg. Ire f., the prlv.t ••• , of the co.~o'i.ium
reSidents .nly. The ent.ances to the corridor at £1 CImIno R •• l and at the
brldie BUst bf designed wlt~ pl&ntl.~, .Igns, elc .• to clt.rll Indicate I
prl.,te ..... nd diseourlge tre,"pa""log, whlll sllll .11owing unimp.~.d
leteS. by fir. truck. Ind other emergency yehlcles. The Fire Oeplrtmenl will
not Illow removlb1, boll.res to be used beea"s! of the de"Y they wo"'d tIUS.
in r.sponding to an emergene,.
B,low Market Rite UnIts
Four BMR units will be provided. Two 9roun~ " •• , one·bedroom u.lts vi11 sell
for $73,100 eath and two ,tacked flat. with two bldrooms will .ell for S30,500
IIch.
Rotentlon .nd Replacement of [xlstln9 7r.es
There are .ppro.i~t.jy ~O existing tree, en the ,Ite. Many.f them are in
poor conditIon or ar. an In,lgnlflcant size and Ip.el... Thirteen of tho
exl.ting tree. Ire being retljn.~, which Includo. ,11 but one of the
s;gnlfica"t tree, on the site. On. 3B·lneh Vall.y Oak In f,'r·poor conditIon
will be rel!ll)Yed. TM. tT"ee Is loute~ t ... ard the .. ld01. of the sit. ""d U,e
City Arborl.t ~IS determined t~,t the seriou, des Ii" eonstrllnts which would
res.1t from 5,vlng the tree are not ju.tlflod, considering its we.kened
condftlon and poor prognosl. for surylvlng the lmp.cts of construction. A
47.lnch VI1lel Clk located ne,r tho south.a.t ,orner or tne .It. Ind two
smaller olk. Ire oaong tho tr.es being retalne4.
The underground 9,r'ge 1. set back Ipproxl .. tell IS fe.t from the propert,
lin •• 1.IYin~ .uffl,llftt soil volume It tho peri .. t.r .f tho sftt t. sustlln
large trees. The final landsclpe pl.n, which .. 111 tie revl •• ed by tho AP,B,
should include a .i.im~ of six new medlum·llrge sll< ,.nop) trees I. the
ptrlaeter Ir.1 to II\ltI9at< the 10" .r the Willey Oak and other tr.... It
,1so should Include, plan for protectIng the .xlstln~ tree. to b. retafned.
PCSR3gellVII
L
"-Of
-.
I
I
I
I
I
Vlri.n~e to Sit! Oe~elop!!r.t ~e5ul.tfons
The Zon'n9 ordlnlnce re~ulres _Ixed uso projects to tOlP11 with the sIte
de •• lo~"t reg"l.tl~ns of the .ppllc.b1. resld.ntl.l Zon.. Th. required
front setblck for ~-!O d ••• lopoents on In .rterl~l stre.t Is 25 feet. The
proposed 6-foot front s.tback, which Is ear. consIstent wIth the .xlstlng
cDOnertl.1 dev.'opoent patte .. ,'ong [1 C •• lno Real, wIll requlr •• var;anc •.
UCOlt!DlDATI 011
Stiff TetOlmends thlt the 'lannlng Comolsslon recommend thlt the Cit, touncl1
appro.e tho project and .dopt the nogltl.o doclarltlon of no sIgnifIcant
envlronment.1 Implct and .pprovo tho project, subject to t~. findings and
conditions listed below_
rJMlJINIOS
1. "1lIe praposec! VT'D~rt is OI'1IeTly. blMlOllIDUS am! cCIII!'.tlblo willi .~jolnlng
uses, In that the sit. plan Is Irringed so that the co_rchl building
Is locat.d nExt to El tamlno Rell. tho resldentlll unIts Ire loclted .t
the reir of the .ft. n,"r ot~er resfdentl11 uses In~ buff. red from [I
Callino R .. l. the circulation I. safe Ind otderl} Ind Ittrlcti ••• u .. ru1
outdoor space. Ire beln; ~ro.jded.
The project will .n.~r. lhe duirablllty of In,utlllent and the conduct of
authorized DecupltiDns, In that the building stock I. being Improved and
the sit. eore Intensl •• ,y used Ind the new buildings will result in In
impTOvement In the genero' oppeorln'E of this portion of El Cimino R •• 1.
Sound principles of enViTOnNent.l design and ecologlcl' bal.nce are being
Dbs.rved, In thlt .s aanl IS po.sfble (13) of the •• Isting trees are
being retained Ind the underground glrog. Is set blck Ipproxim.tely 25
feet frOli the property lfne, providing .ufficfent soil yol.~ to s.'toln
aaximuo growth of I minimum of sf. new .. dium-l,rge slZt trees. Tree.
ar. al.o being planted to 'hade t~e int.rior courty,rd. 8icycle plrking
convenfently located on the pllza lev,l Ind the pro,islon of I ped,striln
bridge Icress the creek chlnn.l s~ould .ncour.ge wilkfn! Ind bicycling.
I 4. The U5e fs to •• I,tent with the us •• d •• lgnltod In the Co=pt.hensl •• Pl ••
for this sIte. Th. project Is 'n ICCOrd with P011t, S of the ~ou'i.g
[leme.t In providing a ~i. of residentll' u ••• In I commerel.l .re ••• nd
wit~ Policy 6 of tht Urbln Desig" [lement to uP9rade [1 Camino Re.'. It
supports. Policies Bind IZ of the Trl.sportion [lemont to disceurage
lut.mobile use and In,ourage bic~cle use by .. ~ln9 b;c~cle use
I
I
i
ccn •• nient, I.d bl thl pro.i~;ty te publiC ttl.Spottlt,O ••
tOMlJITlOlU
I. Th. Ippllclnt shall obtltn • vartlnte for 'ro,t s.tb,ek for the
c~rclll bulldin; from the zoning 1~lnfltritor_
! . The Ippll,"nt shl" Implement the following sound contro1 ~1~i9.tion
,,"sure. to ~chieye complianc. with the "'0 Alte Compr.h,." •• Pl.n Ind
Titl. 24 stlndards:
'tSR3981/VlI
L
-
>
~;-;
.~~.
-,
\.
1
,
""'. :
-'
, ... ,
,tnerlor "oillo.tlol " .... Nols. Co.I •• ls t. Achl ••• 6S elBA
.. ar Pltlol and doct, within 115 , •• t of the WIst prop.rty line and
~a.lng • ellrect ~r Sid •• 'ew of [I C .. ln ••• al, construct
f-foot-."h .coustfc.l ,.tlo '.nc ••• nd 36·rnch-hlgh s.lld deck
rlillng._ ,,110' .nd d,ck. ',cing onto the tnt.rloT pl.,. ,r"
will not require .ols, control., due ta the shl.ldlng provided by
thl phnn,d b11lldillll .Trlng_nt.
The r.mp to the underground Va.IV. shall ~ faeld wIth .e •• 'tl,.1
Eltlrl., to redue. the .ols. lap.tt on re.lclenlia' unIt, o.er .n~
..... the rlap.
Ilot.rlor Resldentla' Nols. Control. to Ac~I.yt 4Q liSA
Wlt~l. liS f •• t of [I Coftl •• Re.l, on. of the fo" •• ln; mlllv.tions
sh.n be requlrecl,
L • I 'hid w!1Idw umS~j act 11111 .s hili ~'''''t l'-.r 1!4-1m:t1
"as, pro.ld!n; STC-32 rlting or blghtr. Thi, ISSumeS windOWl
Will be kept clo.ed at 111 tiDrS Inel that MOcha.lell
ventll.tio. will be proyld,d.
b. R.q"jr.d wIndow ~onstr"ctlon "Sl'g I pref.brle.ted .co"stlc.l
wl.clow prOyldlng 5TC-$4 rltlr.; or ~Ivher. ~;th this
.'tern.Ii •• , wl.dow. "1 be kept ope. up to 50 perc.nt of the
" .. for •• tur.l .0ntll.!lo. I.d .. ch.nlc.' ••• tl'atlo. Is not
required.
Furthe. than 19; f.et to £1 tlml.o Real, one of the followl.;
~Itlg.tlo •• shall be rtQulrecl:
a. Req"lro~ window constructlo. usl.g a llngl. pin. of 1/4-lnch
g1lSS providing STC-Z8 r.tlng or hlvher. This ISSumeS winoow,
will be t.pt clos.d at all ti .. s lnel thlt .. cha.leal
ventll.tlon will be proytdod.
b. Required window construction usIng. profabrlcatod Ico.stlc,'
window provielln; STC-46 rltlnv o. higher. Vilh this
.It.m,tl.o, window. "1 be kopl opo. UP to 50 p.rtent of t~.
tl .. far ~aturll ••• tll.tlon and .. chanica; •• ntll.tlon I, not
required.
Th. wlnclows of the resld •• tl., units th.t Ir. spetlfled to b •
.. Inlll.ad e'osed It ," times for .O'SI control Ir. t. be
operlbl., IS the requirement doos ftot l~ly a fl.ed condition.
Units h •• lng the closed window concltle" s.ould b. p.oyided with
,~ fono of .. thlnita' •• ntilatl., to assurt • ~abitablt
••• i ...... 1, IS sp.tifled by the Uniform 8uildi.g tDele (US'I .
• itlgate the 105s of the I.rso Valley e,k Inel other tre.'. tho
I!tant shal' ,1,.1 • al.iaom of Sll 15-g,'lon ~dlum·l.rgo slz. "OOP}
'$ I. the , •• dseaptd p.ri~ler of the .I~. where •• 11 yolume Is
lUlt. to sustal .... iDUe tree growth.
L
-
\: .-
!
[ \ -:::: ...
I • ~~ I '~.'.
I
I
I
I
I
I
'/t<:~,
'" ;""
4.
s.
5.
7.
Tbt dosf,. .f the proJ.ct shIll be rtvlowed and ,ppro.ed by the ARB. with
plrtlc.l,r Itt.ntf .. to the spael,l reQulre.ents for mlnl.',lng I~.ct.
of ooonercl,1 ~Ildln;s on .. sld.nt!,l .s.s, the d.sIV" of the pedestri,.
b.ldge •• ntt.not. to the lit. from £1 Camino Re,l and ,t the brldie. the
plvlnG trt.t.ent. and pl.ntlna In the cDrrldor along the creek chlnnel.
Tho ~strl'n brldse and I""S to It shill be approved by the Fir.
Dep,~nt and by the Sint. Cl.r, V.l1.y Wlter District.
The appllc,nt shIll obtaIn In .ncrol'~nt perm't from '"IT.,.s for Iny
work or construction letl.lty fn the publIc right of woy.
The applicant shIll provide fo"r BHR unltl, two one·bedr.om units for
$73.IDD tach, a.d two two-bedroom unIts for $9D,500 tlch.
ATTACffI£NTS --INCLUD ~R VIOUS TO THIS REPORT
'J~ hvl'Di,_~1 7~~;;~~~1:~f.=~;~;~~ LoC.tlon IIal)
IIinutu of the ArchItectural 'R 0' n • April 5. 1990
Minutes of the Archl .,1 •• Board "".tlng. 1990
c
P'SR3981/Y11
-
•
.. ,-.0 "~. ,--.
•
.. 'f
1 ,
i .
t
• ,
t
i ,
q
l
•
£XCERPT PLAH~ING COMMISSION MIHL~£S or OCTOIi£R 10, 1990
AGENDA ITEII 2 398! EL CAMINO REAL: Appllcltion for I major site .nd
design for. mixed use project with 38 residential
condominium units and I IO,300-sQuare foot commerci.l
b~ilding oyer underground parking. Environmenta'
AsS!5Sment: No significant 1mpa,ts were determined to
10/10/90
-2-
•
-., .. :
nJu't fro-the projtctJ and I; '''''il"l;ti~t cS!'C111'"itiDn tI.5
be.n prepared. file Nes. 'O-£IA·lO. 90-0-Og. 90-ARB-S'.
Zone District RH·30. CS.
~: I would 1 ike tD rt'yf~ the reason why tMs fUm hu come
~o the pllnr.ing ca.misJion, and the tfndJ of t~in9s we shov1d be lookf~g
lor tonlg~t. Site Ind design hu hlstorico11, been us.d by the planning
loomisslon Ind city council Is It applies to hillside properti.s that Ir.
lo"~!der.d to bo ,nylro_ntally sensltlv •. TypIcally. I site Ind d"'g'
ieview hu bo,n either ~f the lnd.,trlll Iru that is we.t of Foothnl
Ilpressway or of tho hIllside r,sidQntl,1 areas th,t are ,Iso In th,t
I'rectien. About two ,.I.S ago. howev.r. when .. e ~id the Clty.ide Study.
i' applied slU I.d design revi.., to .hed .Sf project, In th. E1 Com; no
i~iII' II"'.". 01Jr f~nttion on then k.inds of project.s. however, is rither
iifferent ttl an on the site and design review thit -we .have dO~f 01'1 thf
iilhlde Ireas. Since UI1 Is. 1 believe. the first of theSf kinds of
[)plications to come !lefote LIS, it II.Y he1p to revfeow whilt it fs we irt
I>okfng .at .
. : tile tlfllsides. lite ani! 110$1911 amsiSU. \a 1~ part. of
:'cttite.ctr.ll iSSIMl, bet,tlS!! the l.,.chitl!ctU,..l' inuts. IT'f. 'Prim in th"
.1 tll,t tllose bui ldin •• p~l iel! ions relate to tn" surround; og
'lvircn",er.t. Wh~,.. wt Ire leok;",; It mixed vse ·p-rnje::.ts en E1 Cimino Real,
(feel we are looking It a dHferent set of issues. We are leoking at
',cess inues and It the w.y in wMen ttle differ-ent kinds of Ll'ses re1ate
eicn other-. A1se, at tnt WiY fn which t~ose mixed uses relate to t~e
rrounding prDper-tfes and t~, envfronnent in wh;t~ tney are S!t o~ E1
mino Re,l. When we get Int. tnfs toniBht. w. may find that tnere .r.
cnftect,r,l fssue, tn,t are still ""tst,nding or tnat ~.v. not been
Yi~d by the Architect,r,l Rev;.w Soard (ARB)_ ! don't tMink that
ould stop us In our ,ite .nd duign revi •• ·• know'ng tnat the ARB will
ter toke those cn. Rather. 1 think we re.lly •• nt tc fDtus Dn the
sues tnat are specific to I ~i~ed ~se project in t~e [1 Camino Irei.
Ie there l.n.1 que-s.tions?
,"Trnissfpn,r Hiuch: 1 tllYIf I qlJestiD1'l regarding the density
'1(IJ1atfon!. p.artlcu1arly .itl'l r-uptct tD tne t'lum!ler cf unHs .llowed al"lO
>poS.d. I thInk those calculat;ons are on Page 3 of tile dra.'.gs. As I
jerstlnd it. in determini~9 the tommerc;al s~ulre footage, Q~e lQolS to
• CS portio" of the site IMd t~en "ulli~li •• b)" tne appropriate P.R
:tor. Is that correct?
VI~h,it: Yes. it is.
miu;on,r IHrgh: lIfhen ene looks to ttle ruidentil1 po-rtion ind Hte
~er Df units p-r~postd. does Dne look to the ent;re site Dr j~st to the
30 port Ion?
Wlrhtit: The den.!ty for the re~ident'"l Is thlt al10.ed in tne RM-lO
tlon pl •• a110wed RK-30 density en t~e tS portion. net tc e.ceed I
Dr I~f.a ,.,tiCl Df ent for tnt trlIo1e site. It is intended to be
it'Vt4 1t is In int.ntlvI tD prDvide hOUSing.
,iss'on.r Hirsch: So on t~e CS portion. you get both th. res de,Iial
)rdlng to the c~rr.nt r,gu'aticns and, &S l ;nce~tiye. you ge the
SO~ whf,h 1 take it is the corrrspDnding, underlyfng -resident a1 zone
L
-
10/10/90
-3-
1.1 : !~ .. ."
-.
c.rresp."dl"~ t. tho CS.
Ms W.~bt1t: T~lt is correct.
CqmmfF1fgncr H'rscb~ So you get both. On one portion, you get
res~d,ntill p1us c~rti.l~
HI WITh,lt: On Ih. CS porI lon, you g.t both Ih. commerci., lnd the
resid,.till.
Comrniss1pn,r Hir$&h! And tno., numbtrs hive be~n strutini%e~ And ~erif\ed
IS being .ppr.~ri.t~?
Ms. Wirheit: They hive been very clrefully scrutinized. and the ~lans
melsured ,g.inst the squire footage allo~.d. ~e found thit the original
plans were oyer the l110wed flo~r Ire,. and the ,~chitects went b,ct l~d
red~ew the pllns, 1ncludi~g C~Jn9ing the floor plans over the issue of
jLlst I few tf'lou.nnd square feet 011 ttle entire site. Ir'e feel it is ~uite
aa:.nu.
Chl",a" ~.rs~: 1.,,11 now ~n the ~ub1i, helri"g.
Robert Steinbero· J]30 Brytnt Street. Palo Alto; I 1m representing t~e
applitant tonig~t. We art p1~ased to be he~e tonight. As YOY ITt w!11
lware, this is nat the first step in the process. ~e hi~e had two
meetin9$ with tne Arch~tectural Re~iew Board, and receiv!d Quite a bit of
,nCo"rlgement fro. tnem r.gardlng tne de.ign of tn. project. We wrote to
I number of hDmeowner organizations and tried to hive I pub1ic meeting to
soli"cit info'l"'ml.ticn a.nd s.hare iott.s regudin.g the-design. At tkat
meeting, we ~ad no .ttendee£, which is i first in ~y e.perience in Palo
Alto. So I nope tnat we wi'l .1.0 h,ve your ,upport thi. evening.
I wou1d like t. t.k •• coupl. of minute. to t.1. about the land use and
compltibility wilh Idjo,.ncl ••. Here il our lite (indi'"ting I modell·
Adjacent to vs we hiye In existing hotel, I school s;te to the reaT. the
wlter c~inne1. I~d there is commercial Icress the street. My
und.rst.nding i. that there i, an app1ication for .dju'tment to the
houslog on Jacobs Cc"rt on the other side of the water channel. One of
the thin~s that is unique \n P,10 Alto ;$ tnat setbicks ire ~ei$ured from
the Dutside or bltk ~f t~e Gasement, so we ~lve quite I s~bst~ntill
setb&,k t. the adj.cent nouslh9 acre.s the cr.ek.
On_ of the first thing. we did after mettln; wit~ the ARB was to try and
look It Ilt_motlve WIYS of de.eloping the site. I .ould like to share
with yeu the four alternatives that we considered to 9i~e you I sense of
how our de.ign Ivol.ed. lnt first oo'ution th,t we looked .t had the
come-rei" to the front of the SUI, tlad In entr an.c!. ibout lICidway betiJo.'een
the property linel of tne site, with .,cess 110"g the water c~annel. and
housing to the rear of tile .ito. One of the ra .. on •• e rejected Inio
p1.n, .1though we liked coming in .nd ha.ing the focus and the cresc.nt of
the c.-merel.l is that the city h.d • guideline thot they would like to
see the retoil pushed up, with .ery littl •• etb.,., and holding I street
edge .1Dng £1 Clmine, FOT that re,sor., the notion of commerci.l pvsheo
bl,k was rejected.
lhe •• ,ond .lt~mative that .e looked It tried to respond to that, .nd
10/10/90 ...
L
\
\ -
i
" ,
[
1
p~sh.d the t~rcr.l right up to £1 C •• ino. so that we reinforced t~!
street ~al'. It ~.d 1ft Iccess along the Wlter channel .~d 1 thought we
~ cotlld sPl ..... that vhual opl!'n SpIC. and bne U'II! resldtnthl wrapping
, areu"d bohlnd. Again, lit. the fl.st pIa., that gave .s s~ buffer to
t~f hOUlf"g. ~Yfn~ It aWl, from th. Itt1~1ty and fntensit, Df E1 Clmi~o.
That bad sooe possibility, ~Ith a sha.ed .. ta. eourt that eould h".
Je,.ss both tc t~e c~rcfl' b~11ding, II well IS tc the residential.
When ve reviewed this ~ith the trlnsportlt'~n and traffic departments.
thoy folt vrrl .trongly that ace.s. so clese te the Intrr.ecticn ef £1
Camino W,~ and [1 tlDlir.c Retl was .. problem. fer that rtast)T\, we wtnt to
• t~lrd alternative, which agal", had the commercial building pushed up
clo,e to reinforce the strett ¥a", had a s~ared motor eeurt, in this
CIS" as far away from the £1 Camino WiY Snt.rstction IS W! tou1d. wit~
tho hou,lng behind. ~. hId In oftOrgonty atc.,s that wrapped lround .nd
took advantog. of the bridge over the wator ,h,nn.1 for emorgenoy acc.ss.
On. ef tho thing, we found, in reviowlng th.t with th. fir. dep.rtment,
was t~.t t~el felt this Iccess vas verl t;rc~ftcus. Ind they were net in
favor ef that.
So ... denloprd tile fourtlt .lten\all"" tllal we folt .... ~tt;,"g clo •• r .nd
clou, to ntisfyin9 .11 ef th .... teds. II. had tho conmercill a10n9 tn.
street; we had an emergency atcess along t~e creek t~lt would .110w
lmerqency vehicles to come in icross the bridge Ind exit o~t; we had,
shared ~otor court that gave Iccess to tne co~ercil1 and to t~e housing,
with the hcysin9 be~ind. The housing WIS Iglin ~roken into three
buildings with a break to take ad vintage of a ~ajor Ol~ tree en the site.
So this i. the plan thot evolv.d, t~rou9h a series of ~eti"9S and re"ow
with tho different city dep.rtment •.
Thl. i. I sketch that .hows cur ent.anc. moved a.ay from £1 C.mino W.y.
Wo hav. our commercial building out on tho corner, .el.ting to the str •• t
and reinforcfng the retl;l 5treet w111. We have I shared Metor court that
all~. people to h.v. short· term parking and ,cce.s tno office b"ilding.
short-t~~ plrking for t~e housing J Dr to continue on undfrneat~. ~here
t~ert 15 parking under the entire complex. One of t~e design issues, in
developing a .hed un Ifte Hkt this which is hirl.1 long and narrt)Io'. ;:s
t •• ·fold. Now do you buffer the residential from the intonsity of £1
C •• ino, which Rly not b. tho most residential pl.c. to live, .nd .t tn.
same time. with. flirly narrow wi!'l'~DtI' to the street? How do you let
people t~ow thlt there is ho~sinq behind? For t~lt reison, .e hive trifd
to 0'0 .. teri.ls th.t ~rt sl~11.r cn both the effieo building .nd on the
.esldenti.l th.t <ha"god i" proportion, that used a ,hared ~otor court,
th.t WDuld allow propl. to understand th.t it w •• a .ixed us. de,.'opmE"t
with I retail I~d I ccmmtrc,,' in front. and hous,ng It the re,~.
On. Gtn., brief thing I ~euld li •• to p.lnt cut is t~.t we h.,. twe ty~.s
of open spac. on the proj.et, perhaps I 11 ttle di Herent from what you
~19ht typically e.pect in I residentl.l develop.ent ef t~is tlpe. ~h.t Wf
hov. dono on t~. p1aza Irea is to op.n all ef tho pub1ic rooms _. tho
11~ing rooms. the dinfng rooms. the _ore public rooms in your home ~-so
th.t peep1e would h.vI the opportunIty to d.v.lop a SIn •• of community and
interlct vft~ one Inother 1 IS compared to ~avi"g bedrDoms and bathroom~
with clo$e~ c~rtl1ns and never 9!tting I chance to know your neighbors.
We ~ant.d to rIver •• that, s. that we would cre.te the noti.n ef a
co_unity. On the outSide .. where we bave fiirly ge~erous setbacks V.oil
Ire not under t~e Plrkfng giTige. ~ envision tlkin9 advlntJge of
L
10/10/90
-5·
-
rttltnfng q~tte a nU8ber of Ixlsting trrel and addfng Id~itf~n,l t~ees.
In~ hlv!n9 the bedrocrs a~d t~t bathroQm$. Ind the mert privAte To~ml.
that would rei.tt out in a mort prf~lt! fashion. So it 11 I 11tt~e
diff.rent thin we would typically do. T~lt is In Oyervie~ of the
pllnnlng.
tcmmi\SSeDCr H5rtCh: Atg'~tn9 l~t large Ol~ tree that ,pp're~tly w,l' be
lost i~ t~t process. were there any plans tnlt Wei! looked It that .o~1d
att.~t tc liVe t~lt t.e.?
Mr. $tefnbrrq: In the very earl,. stages of t~e duign, 'lfe IIH with the
city .rborist and reviewed the conditions of t~e tr,ei. Tnt ;nfD~ation w. we'. gl>"n It that time regarding the tr.e In question is that the
conditIon of thlt tre. wa, margln,l, Ind the impact of trying to dov,lop
lro~nd it was not ~~c~urlging. So fo~ that relson. we did not try to save
that particular one. lhe sost ~~jor tree on the site is this Qne heie,
andwo hive trltd to work ,round that ve.y ,",.fu11y with a p"king
SlilTige, not Or'll), to de~~'l)p an a.c.c.tss it'! tMs diT'ettion as. ptopie 'ffttT
tI>e pedestnlll aourtynC'. /lat ...... "'" .U_tU '" a. •• l"l' ~ ,perpendicular
.teen that";l1 ,..k. tlt.t • fntllA "" the siU.
COlll'l1issioner Nirg": J have I quution regirding tne design ccnC:f~t. It
is wh,t J call tnt water tower or cniteau d~eau effect frDm tM! corner
element hc:fng £1 Cimino. Why h that nec.eHilT'Y?
I4r, $U1nbtra: It is not absolutely necesury. It i1 part 0'1' QUI'" desigf';,
and Q~e of the most d;ff1~ult things in Irc~ite~t~~e is dfll\~g witM
intersections, p.rticulaT'l, with the torners Qf bu;l~ings or corners of
streets. torners I.e typically. mere difficu1t element to •• ,oneil" th"
linear design ~lements. There Ire ~a~y ways to handle the corner of the
building. One of the ~st to~n ~Jys ii to haVE 9'ass ~tt £t the ccrner
and hive I sense of I ~oid. We frlt, in this plrti,ullT intersection.
beC&US~ we haye four stre~t$ ~om'ng together in I S~.hlt unusu,l
configuratfon. and t~e intenSity of that, tnat to hlv! a g1&ss corner
pUihing out t~ the interse,ticn ~ight not be the most des;r~ble solution.
albeit a comman onto A second tnoughl we hid was to de~tlop a piece of
sculpture, freestanding from the building. We ,onsidere~ th~t quitt I
bit, but becluse of tne "cess I'Dng tnt creek, we found t~lt there rel'ly
WIS not a good 10e.tion t. do t~lt. We kept thinking th,t that corn.r
need~d in some way to De an,hored with a SOlid element. S~ WE began to
do •• lop thlt notion th.t turned the ~o.n.r .f the office building Ind
.11owed the shingled sun screen th,t ;s projected out fro~ the bui1ding to
die t~to tt, to fc~ a clear. intersection, and couid be I somewhat ~niQ~f
and 'ery ~le.n architectural .lement t,"t brought together a •• rlety of
different objecti.es that we had for the project.
We t~en looked It t"at a little further, Ind realized thlt we needed to
exhl~st lir from the pi.kin9 garage. In mixe~ use prQjects, ideally YD~
would like to exhaust that as f,r IW~Y (rom the residencts as p~ssible.
So we also de,.loped thot into a function,1 element thlt would 1110. us to
e.~aust t~. plrking girlg.. The more we thought Ibo"t It Ind the f,ct
ltl~t it h .. d SON SCloIlpturJl elements. And it allowed IJS to turn the c.O~r.er
qu1te gracefully, ond It h,d some functional .lements thlt n .. dod to be
Iddres.ed, the DO'" thot lpp •• l.~ to us. That is the re.son for
developlng that corner i~ thit m~nner.
L
10/10/10
-6-
•
.,-
" "Jtr.:.
~>
. -, .. ,.,.'.
: ~;;,-
" '; . 1
-,/~" , ~ ;;::-
c ".---.
, ..
,
'qapi,stoncr Chrtlten"ft! Is th, ~elt of the frQnt~ge gl~ss?
Mr. St.1nbtr9: l~ere Ire two ~Irts tD t~e fro~t&ge. The taller element
thlt you J .. in the ~Il is gllss. The .lement in ([OMt of it wit~ t~e
Irche. Is shln;le. It Is doIng •••• r.l thing.. o.e Is t~lt the shin;le,
f~ aur opfn~Gn, is t~e element that the hous1r.g bt~fnd is c1~~ in. $0 it
t.lls pe.pl. who PISS th.t there Is .~tn!ng els< hlppen!n; on the site,
lind that thl're is • .art rufdenthl e:h&rlcttT. It is Ilso pr(lviding sun
control by shadowing on the offi,' building.
C~.!~'n ~Jrsb: Would you discuss t~e treatmeMt of tnf emergency lccess
n •• t to the creek?
"t. Sttfnbrts: T~ere is I r.~uired Ilsrment to gl1n JCCtSS tc tne cree~.
It 11.0 Is • requlre .. nt 'or emergenty •• hieles to serve the pcojeel.
Yh.1""t .n two types Df emeT"9l!'nc:y vehfcles of which we tlilye been informed
th.t need to be addressed. One Is In cal. of fire .nd one is for
.mervency .. diel1 Issist.nee. Th. 'Ire department fe.l, very eomfort.~le
l8at ~ ~ld Co-! I. the r~, bock In here, turn .round and exit Out.
But IIIIPI~t1y the ""!J'O'1lJ _1"1 ~Ius Ire ffM-ttmfng tfIIlr .kills
.nd needs, Ind Ii •• e ~te .... ;ned till! t. liaye t~ ... ke I bltkujl IIDvnem and
return in the 0PPos'te dire,tion ;s t;~~con5~ir.9. from tneir pOint of
view, ~ h~yt that Iccess th.t would continue along In~ ,'lo~ t~em to go
o~er the bl~d9! Ind exit through the sjt~. The fjre department and t~t
emergent,)' serw1c:u feel th~y de not want to hive gites. as it .. ou1d
~ncvmber their speed of re5ponse. At the Sime time. they .1so re~uire a
certlln •• ount of plvlng so they COn see a elnrcu! place for them 10
drive their eQ~ipment on ,nd ~ct hlvr to guess 1n In emergency_ Our
intent, at this time. is tc landsc.pe that in • way that ~is'uuTige5
publIc lee •• s through the site. Ve thought thlt it was inlppropriate for
I ... all number 0' homeownerl t. corry the 1 iobiHty .n~ responsibil ily 0'
• pu~lie thoroughflre throug~ their pr~perty. So .llhough we elnnot n,ve
fencls I"d gat.l. but through landstiping, it wo~'d be our \~tent to not
encourage public access t~rou9~ ther~. There lisa bas been I suggestion
frem the ARB when we ~t wIth them th,t i! woul~ be deSirable to t'ke
,advantage Clf this (lp!n s~lce and lI,ve it I: reasonably lethe outdoor 1'111
.~e. for the ~tsidents. The ~recfse 11~dsclpe deslsn hiS root yet been
determined, but .. e do not Intend this to become I public Iceess route
through these peopl.'s blek Ylrds. Some of those design specifics will
hlv! to be worked out ~1th the fire dtpilrtment. Another 11ternat;ve.
11thoug~ It "IS not the Ippllc.nt's first choice, wou1d b. that if the'e
needed to be pu~li' leces. thrDug~ there, thlt that lind responsibilily
and lil~ilit1 issues be g;Y!n over to someone else. We hIve deaTt with
that In ether prOject.s ir. Pilo Alto wtlere, fOf n.amp1" at the Hoover
School site, there was leees. fro. Middlefield to the p.rk behind, Ind
that land .. IS deed.d over to the city. lhey a"epted ~,Iinte"nee Ind the
responsibility Df that. Thlt is Inct~er pOlsibility, but the first ,Molee
.. IS to try and r.tlin that llod for the residen!s.
CgmmiJ$;pncr C~rfst!nlf": HIS there been I~Y d;sc~ss~cn &bo~t p~ovlding
I~cess thrDugh t~ the sehoo' ,.r~? HiS the schcc1 district bern
Ippro.ched about thlt?
Mr Sttfnbcra: ~! hive d~scussed it. and frinkly. we ~~ye not pursued
thlt to • conel~.ioo IS yet. So we are open to suggest, on. in thlt
regard.
L
10/lO/90
·7·
•
,..-1
1
""'-.,",.
'";';:"t~·
~,~~-~-?;i'
• \
lOb Mp51 4010 Onpc. pllA Altp: ] w.s interested to he.~ that the
neighborhood aisociatlo~s h~d been inyited to I ~etfn9, because I ne~er
recehed any. nor do] know anyone else i~ the Blrron Ptrk ."u~ciolt1~n III'~C
re(efved Iny. We te~tafn1y would h.ve Ittfnded one.
I ~.v. I n .... r of probl.1IlS with this propoSil. The fl rst on. 1 s Ihe
eoneopt of I two·story offie. building on El Cimino Rell. El Comino Re.l
fl supposed to be I retail zene. [thought that w~en we went throu9h four
yOlrs of the Citywide lind Us. Ind Trlnsportltion Study thlt we inclu~.d •
li.ft of 5,000 .qulr. foet on any tH or (S plreels This is obYiousl, not
In COIIIPlllneo with th.t. I would cortoinl, b. strongly opposed to .n
office use on El Camino ROIl and no r.tlil. If t,,"y wish to liruit ", use
to 5,000 SQuare feet on ttle .second floor fer office only, with retail en
the first flo.r, I would hl.e no objection. But I would I ito to see •
condition of Ipproy.l that we hive ret.il Dn t~is sit~.
Socondly, I have some rOll problems with tn. traffic. In th,
.....,. ......... ul .""..:t f'eljort {IllZ). tlu!y tlmd to ~ru5h trJffic aside by
u,l'iili. w stadied 1t dUThl9 tile tltywi~ lind Use .n~ Tronsportltlon
Study, lnd this is not going to hi,. I "9,ificant imp.ct on Are.~. T',t
dep.nds an ~ow you r •• d Ar.a 6. If you t.lk .bout tne ,umber of extrl
. tilTS on [1 Cimino Rnl whl~h carriu ;-erh.ps 35.000 cars p!'r day in t~is
arel, that i5 one tntn;. But if you .re talking ebout t~f impact on tn;s
spe-cific ;nter.sect;on ilnd' the s1gnifiCli'lt ciunge fn tnffic mDvt!mel'lt which
will be en9t~dered by a project $yth IS this. thit lS something eTse. For
example. right now. we have I motel use. Hotrls tend not te nave traffic
d~ring pelk tr.fflc hours. Residenti., and cffic~ uses, in particular 9
do. Any~y who wants to ent.r thlt site, heading .outh On El Camino
R .. l, will ~.ve to go inta the left tUTTl blY It EI Camino Way, •• k ••
sharp U·turn and ,ross over tD the driveway which II about 15 or 80 fEet
from where the traffic 119ht is. going Icross three traffic lanes in order
to get Into the sit •. Anybody who wish •• to lea.e the sit., including th'
38 re$ide~ces, wishing to go south, ~i'l have to crDSS tMr!e lines ~f
traffic: l'l'1d go north to the next traffic light .t Curtner 9 'Ilake a U·tlJrn
Ind head ,o~th. As [ think you know, the place w~ere ycu 9ft into trouble
and hl~e 'C(lCents and fltalities is crossing ~otions ac~oss lanes of
traffiC. and mot;ons It trlffic: signl1s, eJpeCillly U·tlJr~s. Anot~er
t~ing th.t ougnt to be noted is that that is one of the ~Oie dangerous
intersections in the city. People regy1ar1y run that red lig~t. Those of
us who cress E1 C.a:mfno Re.1 bJyt lurned Ulat when ttle 1 igM tt.lrns green,
yau d. not proceed i_diat.ly. You stop Ind theck tn, traffic. I h".
had caTS, tr~~ks and even busses run t~e intersection It 3S .nd 40 mi1fs
an hour I good four or flv. seconds after the light hi. turned gr.en to
cross fl Camino Real.
Any addition.l traffic is going to crelto problems. On Plge 5 of the EIA,
under ]2, Traffic. 'The generaticm of subshnthl additiDnal lIeh'icLlhr
movement' hiS been checked ~No.' It 5~ould be at lelst -Maybe-and
perbaps ·Yes,· bec.use yeu Ire going to h~ve ~ore trlff~' goi~g i~t~ I
sito which Is aeeupiod by housing ond reUil Dr by rot .. l Ind off,ce th.n
you Ir. by I .. t.l. The slme goes for 12C. There will be • significant
implct an trlffic circulation, fo~ the ~tlsons J hive just described. Ind
]20, then w11l t in fact, be I significant ;ncruse ;n traffic tl~zards.
becluse p~Dple Ir, geing to be crossing tnree lln~s of trlff1c e't~er to
go into the Site Dr to le ••• the sit. Ind go sout"bound.
L
10/10/90
·S·
'.
,
,,~;;:
. •. >
• ,
;'rl.~ :
;
..
I .-
1
!
" .
10 t .... of lhe density on t~t site, I think It Is excessi... Puttins 18
unltJ in th~r2 crowds the J1te and just '~l,.~bat~s t~1 t~.ffic problem.
J ~IY' the SI-e reaction thlt tommfssfon'T Nirsch did to the -jteambo.t
funn,l· on the corn,T of the building. It rt~l"d. DO • l¢t of the old
loe~t1¥.s tnat you h.v, seen in the westerns. J g~ess t~t building is
g~fng to tak. aff one of these days. Thene is anether project down the
stTt.t th~t ~ill r,pla,e the t ... o Club. 1"0 original deslsn lDOk.d "'Y
.ueh like I steamship.
I ha.e I qu.,tlon for s~.ff. Ho~ tall Is tho funnol? If It exce.d, the
h.ight 110lt, It should be chopped down. J would like to 'e. it slimmer
Ind not quito so obtrus;ye. In s""O'I, I think that. pcoject like t~i,
should emphaslz, rotal1, oot offices. I should comment thot the city
Te,ontll Idopted • Tequlrement for a fiscil lmp.,t T.port on projects.
T~is one 5temS lite I nltural. Thi$ wou1d replltt I mottl. Ai you kno~.
I .otfl 5s I verI hi~h revenue~generlt~ng ust ~er squire (Dct i~ the city.
bocluse of til. 10 percent transient occup.ncy tox. If office us. goes in -..e, _ tel.zlr ia UI'1U III ula.. toU r •• tn".. Wo ,,;11 h". costs to
1>Oliee aDd fir-. omI ,ubHc .. ~b to .. inhi. t ... site. II ... 111 ~ ... costs
t. service the residents, and we would h,.e an lnerO'5. in the pro~rty
tax .alue for tho project. I would like to seo all of thlt studied and
ballnced off. What will be the net co,t or net benofit t. the city for
r.phcing I uso like. II1ot.l "lth • us. lik. tnis? I opposed the city',
going through tll.s. finlneill imp.ct reports ""en it ,.me befo'o the
council g but S If'ltt the council hu setTi fit to requi re it. ! tn ink lie
should go ~ith it. nank you.
Ch,frm'n M;:rsh: Bab hiS rlhed ,I very good qLlution regir-ding V,e
10,000 sqUire fe.t In office buIldings. H •• doe. th.t r.l,te to the
5,000 sqUire-foot limit we h,'e discussed in the p.,t?
Ms. Warhejt: AA u,e .. to the ~,OOC squ.,. flft Cln be 9T1r.ted with.
conditional use percit. They hive nat 1,t Ipp'ied for I condit,oni' ijse
per.it, but throug~out the Intire review of this project, t~e lenin;
ldl!lirthtr .. tor hu bern 1nHllilU·',y connfcttd with the deve70pment of the
-preject. She "tl1,j'~ flot hlilvt enc.ouri9l!d tntm to proceed' if s."t nad l'lot
believed thlt it W~5 l justtfiable situltlcn for ~Qrt tnln S.CO~ 5~vare
feet of office sp.ce.
r,~i~rmJ~ MI~sh: But we do f'lot ~now what her t~inkin9 on tnlt \s.
Mr. llmrno"",n: I tllink It ".s omitted in the lltest re.ision to the
lonlng ordinlntt. I e~ecke~ b,ck bee au .. I r'Cllled thlt thtro ....
5,000 squ.~e·foot c.p. In t~. suornl'1 of tho Citywid. Study, it doe'
st.te that there Is • ~,OOO squ.r,·foot cap In the ,I.e manne, "' tn,
s,coe squlre·foot elp in the eN. Hit is • threshold, Ind to go .bove
thlt • conditlonll use peMliit would be ~.quir.6. I did 1001< in the .rdi~onc. just now, and thot 5,000 ,quare' foot limit WI' oot picked up in
the recent updlte of t~e zoning ordinlnc •.
Chii!,J~ KITth: HII the 5,000 sQYlrt~fDot limit been discussed_with t~e
Ippll".t?
/11, Worhelt: I do not re"ll its being brought up IS being a problem. So
1 prtsumo that the deplrtftOnt belieye. thiS to b. In Ippropr,.t. u'e, I,d
L
10/10/90
,9·
I
t
I
f· ,
\
•
, ~;:"
~ ..
.-
'.: ."-~-' .... ' .
"". '
i r
I
I
I ' " Ii!.. ,;
-
the Jppl1c,tfan ~II btln tncOurl9.d tD p~gceed in t~is WIY.
Cb.!,..n ".rsa: I would like to 1St the Ipp11c.nt If he Is Iwore tb,t
ttere ~as be.n dtltuss1cn with this Co=mtssiDn and .n understlndf~g that
lucb I ll.ft.tlon b.d been I~.sed_
M .. , St,jnberg: Mo. ArId' 'WI t\a'/e hid numercus. Jluat'rou'l lHttings antS
re~itws of c.lcuTatiDns. ftC. We hive not been f~formed ef t~lt.
Cp!III!lnfp",r thrh\C"$I!'n: I III sun that in t"'e ord'inlnces we thou9~t we
•• opted, we did fnclude th.t 5,000 squ.re-f.ot lloit, so I do. not kno.
wh.t the Sf tUition fs_ Perhaps this Is I quostion for the city attorney.
If we IdopUd In ordinlnce but It did not lU~e it 10to tnt ~ubl ished .
• erslon of the ordinlnce.
MI_ tlse: 1 wou'd ~lye to re~1ew thlt. 1 ~ivt no ide. wh@t ~lp~ened.
Whether it 90t into the adopted or~inance Dr not, ! de not know It thi~
tiae.
rein;,.".. !!ind!O If tt lUll. 1t _Id stili be biAJ;tIQ. wuJd it oo!,
e.en tbou~h it did not .,a~ U ifttD $_ 1>M1Itl>Irt?
Ms. C,',: If it w.s Idopted thlt .'y, it h,s to be fo'low.~, .nd t",y
would hl.e to apply for I us. penoit_
tgmmjl$fpner Hirich: Is t~E granting Df I use permit .ppea'able?
Mi. CI$e~ Yes. to the planning ta~i$sion Ind t~en to tne city council.
C~11rman Marsh: Tbe second question 1 want to fo11ow up on frem Bob MOS5'
co_nts was the fl,o.l Impact report requir.".nt. I am not fully
fa.ill.r with th't. tin you re.ie. for us wh.t w.s .dopted by tn. city
council and wh.t project, It is applicabl, to?
Mr, Zimmerman: Notning has been adopted by the city council. Tbe finance
and Public Werks Committee hiS made I recommendation. which the city
cou~cil bas nGt considered it this time, for the c1ty to consider revenue
impacts of major project5 In the future, rijor projects being those that
~Du'd require I 'ompre~ens;wt Plan i~ndment, IS we)' is I zone change.
In addition (an~ the costs for t~,t type Df rt~enut impact analysi~ would
be borne by the Ippl!Clot), the fin,nce Ind PubliC Works Committee .1.0
rtcommendtd that fut"re area studies of ,ommtr,ia' and industrial zones
a1so have 1 reve~ut impact lnllysi' condwtted for \~t~. The cost of th~se
studie. would be borne by the city.
~s. Clse: Even ~en iuch an impact study ;s approyed by the council. its
applic,tion will h.ve to be limited, I think. I c.o see that it would be
Ippliclb1t in easel w~ere there is l1ready an EIR, for instlnc£. And
perhap~ etonomic con5iderations are lllowed to be eonsidered in
environmental ISSeS$mentl. Jt might also be very Ippropriate i~ cases
where the city is go;ng to make some legislatiye change, as Hr. Zimmer.man
stated_ It wou1d be ao lpproprlate to.,iderati •• " t. whethtr or not to
do 1.nln~ or C~rehenslye Plan ch,ng." It would be I lot l •• s oele'ant
1. tho t". of I ptnoit Dr other kind of entitlement for individu.l
pr~jtcts, betause there ;s really no other basiS in li~ far you to
consider the tCDnQ~i' i~act of i project.
10/10/90
-10-
-:
r
"(_'U1p,.,,, Buch.lII: J wcr.t1d .ask sUff to fol10w up on the CO!m1frlU from
Mr. Mass r.gardlng tht traffic 1~let$ t. ens"r, th.t stiff ha, lnd.ed
looktd It the oddltlonal trlfflc In this .rt •• thlt Is. In ttno, of the
...... r .f people c .. lni 1. and out of tllis prOpfrty, and Ihe di ffieuTt) of
crosJ1ng t~ret lines if they wlnt to 90 50ut~ on £1 Cimino Rell .s they
utt. I ... sure stiff hIS looked at trlffle tllp"ls. but I .ould like t.
know .. re ~( tho d.tlth. If you hlv, th ... Iv.ilobl •• on what the
ISseuMnt was ~
PI, Varb.I!: The proJ.ct ~a. revlo-.d b1 the tr.o,portatton dep.rtment.
In~ the EIA ~I. based on rtspo ••• s from thlt department·s eVI1.ltlon of
tM< pol.ntill 1~lCtS. I con find tb.ir c ..... nts. if yO" would Ii ••••
to.
Cpnwiu'pnrr BC'ec"'j1!'!l~ Jf you would hIve-t~e tiM to not! .. p\ything in
plrtle.'lr. I would Ippr.ellt. lb.t.
Cp!!I!infprtn; HirsCh; 1 biv.r .. oQ,ue.stiori fDr Mr. Mou, 00 ),ou ~are oiIr-:y
COTIc«TU • .,. d6es tbe brn'" Pork As,aclni"" ba ... ml1 uncerns &IIcUt tho
proposed si,·foot ,etblck en El Camino ~ •• 1?
Plr Moss, I would lik. lIor •• biJt .nfort.natoly. the CS lone does not
!"'"4!QUir'f it. Tb! eN zone does requir-e I ten~foot sttbac:k, and t~e fact
Ulolt t.his is CS is only bec.uH it WiIS I; motel. W~tn t~;,s property ~r;d
the Jdj.ctnt properties were rezoned ye~rs ago. tney tried to ~.ke t~e
zo~ing confDrm to eJiitini uses. A motel ~IS a use t~.t was compatlble
~it~ CS. not with eN. If you were going to dr ... this on • blank .ap.
rationilly it would b. a CN witb • ten·foot setb.ck. I .ould like to s ••
• d.eper setblck Dys.lf. I ,'so think that beelu,e it is ,10" te the
cornef. yeu ~lve I rationa' reaSDn for haying a grelter setbatk. Tnat is
r.a111 a very nasty corner. and anything you e.n do to •• ,. the sight
1 ints better would be useful. I 1150 .. ant to "fntion th.t it h • major
bike rout. for kids going back and forth to both J,l. Stanford and Gvnn.
CJtmmissiqn,r Hirlch: The 5ttb.ck is measured fr-cm t~1! property line.
Where is the property line on thi. p.rcel? I. it .t the curb or inside
the sid .... ,.?
Ms. lIa""it, I would hIVe to ch.tk tile •• p to tell you that, It ,1udy
would ha~t been taken ;nto Iceount ~en the compl;l~cl! with sitt
d~yelopment requ;rements wu done hI reviewing ttli.s projec:t. HliI.t is
,tlndlrd. According to tb. survey. lb. property line is It an ,ngl. and
is l(t •• 111 n.xt to the back of t~. sidewalk at the nortb end of tne
property_ Tn,n IS }o" moV. so"th down Ei Camino R.ll. the property lin.
IIOV" back so that It on. pCint. ft Is sov,rll f •• t b.bind th' .dge of tn.
s,do-.U ..
Commi$$;9~tr Hir,>h: So 1n eS$!nce, YDU get l~e benefit of the sid~walk
f~r vis"al Ind ,sthetfc p"rposes. pl.s tb. si.·foot •• tbac' from t~e
property lloe, IS well. I, th.t (orTfct?
~ •. Vlrhelt: 1. some pllces. It will bt more thin si' f.,t b.ck fro~ the
s ide.alk.
CommissiDn,r ~irs'h: Because th~ property line Ingles IWIY from the
L
10/10/90
·ll·
•
•
i
I
I
-
-', ~
• Id .... 't?
H$ WICbtft: ~el. at the so~th edge. it 11 It the co~ner. but thlt
fnt'''Sfction fs going' to bf reeonf5qured, 10 ttlL~ locatfon of the preser:t
,Idow.l. Is .ot tn Indicttio. of wh.t will flnilly exist t~er •.
Cpmrn1sJfpncr Hirsch: The bUilding does not go thlt fir InYWiY. There ii
the .etbl,' from the creek.
Ms. V.rh.!t: Right. Prob.bly by the ti"", yov .re bit« the 20 feet
through t~ creek .cces., It i, behind the exi.ting sidewalt.
(holmn ~.rsh: I hive. question for the appHctnt. !ou st.ted pretty
unequivDcI1I, thlt this I, office spice. It I. cl •• r from tho model thit
thfs hiS be.n designed IS effice space. What il the Consid.rltion in the
design phl,e for Insorting some retlll Into the project?
Mr. St.inbtrg: I probably stlted It I little stronger than it should have
fIeea. Dar tIIooIoJIrt IOU u..t ft ..... ld lIOt lie *ignll dosirible .. RUiI.
In~ ft would ~roblb'y be moro successful IS office space. Tnat Wi' the
r.ature of tho design. Th.t does not preclude Its being retail, If there
wore I rot,ll use that ""'ets those particular needs.
thil~jn Ma~$b; 00 you t~ink this pirti:uTir design is adaptable to
retail. or would you cnange it .if you incorporated retlil?
Mr. St.lnbeng: If you I.ked I ret.ll.r whit kin~ of spice th.y would
want. they are 90ing to want plrking In front of t~eir build7ng, and they
Ire going to wlnt the building set blOk from the str •• t. Th,t i, in
direct conflict with the direction the city has be.n giving u' that, in
f.ct, they wlnt tho building pushed to the front. So there is a conflict
there thlt wo~ld probibl, discourage most retail ~Strs. 1 feel it is
possible, but I do not view it as an ideal retail site.
Cpmmissioner Hirsk~: ] would like to heir your comments regarding
tr.ffic.
Mr. Str1fther9: ] ean just tell you tt.at WI. also, _ere conc.r~ed about
the tr,ffic, J think tho site merits concern In that regard. W. had two
~etfngs with the traffiC engineers of t~e tity. Their discussions with
us was th.t th.r ... s not I tr.fflc Imp,ct from this proj.et, and that if
wo loclhd the Icce ... t the point where wo h .. e 10<lt.d it. th.y did not
see Iny probTem. T~ere fs not access to go south, bec~use there is a
llediln thero. So I do not f •• , thlt th.t thlt r .. lly Is not In issu!. We
have reviewed t~fs in 5DGe detail with tne trafflc department. and we ~ave
been ••• ur,d thlt they Ir. comfortlbl' with the de.ign 's it is.
Ch,frman Mar~b; We ir, new reldy for discuss;on of this item.
tpmmi$!fpner Chrjs\rn~tn: J wlnt to begin by siyi~9 t~lt J think t~e site
plln hiS been .ery well do.e. Th. Architectural R.vi.w Board pr'i,!d it,
.nd It s~ow. I lot of thought. I p.rticul.rly lit. the hcuslng ~orlion of
It. It hiS boe. plrtlc.llrly well de.igned. Ind the entrYWIY is .ery
dr .... tic Ind effectlYe. I do hive I concern abol't the co_rci,l
front.ge, both Its Ippelrane, and the f.ct th,t it viol.te. our ,
5,000 squire· foot limit. I do n~t tno~ ho~ we e,n deal w1th that lssue.
10/10/90
-I Z·
1·'
,
\-
"~ -1'--
•
..
. :-
. ' .
. .... " •. ':.
be'luse cl.,rly. rf we &re going to 1nsist on retlll, it is prob~b'y going
to 'nvDl¥e I~ redesign of that frentagt.
Ms , ••• : I would note tnat It fs In the code.
Cp!!!I'!fufpn,," [hrfst,nun: Sg t"e flct .that they lroe nGt a~ .. r-e cf it is
boeaus! nobody told them!
Hs !llIjlelt: think It Is Soing to bo handled through the condition.i
uSf pe ... ft protus. I do not know If th.t should ha .. be.n done before
c .. lng bofore the planning commission. That hzs not be.n i"dic.ted.
"S, CIS" One might h ••• thougM that It .,i9M hIVe been handled
(:otersinously. at 1.ut. or contt'mpDr,nt'ClUS'Y~ It r.1:>u nct hayE' to, blJi.
It certaInly might have .ffected his design to begin wit~. It i. not
fah1. by Iny Hans. V.lt it is n~t bting hand1ed (:ontl~or.j\eous'.)', but
cl.,rly, it hiS to be I cendition of apprOYll, if there is I~ ipprD¥l'~
'''''slrence lhrbteos.n: J Ilso tlave I concern w1t~ t~e fronhge along
fl taino IIn1. lib ... 1 s.. it "" tile lIr.wings ~t"" "«Iwed, it 1.~Ud
• lot '1k~ on, of "1 l.urt flv •• ite tNildhrg •• ,~ [1 C.."i"o 11 .. 1, .. Me"
is the GemboTc Icross the street, wlth I lot of g'ass and some other
fa;ide surrounding the g1ass. I feel tI'IIt h I very ineffective buildir.;
i1cng El C.minD Rei' and ~Dt I very attractive one. 1t has not wQrked
veT~ we" ~s retail. because [ believe it was designed to be In off}C!
frontage. r do riot nec·uuri11 -concur thlt retail h 'inlppropriiltll! ~r
could not hippen in this space. It is jYst I question of design to
e~,curI9t I rel~il frontage and tD indicate to people where th'$ Can
p •• k, I do not feel it ls htal to the de.ign th.t thoy b, up on El
Cimino Real and the plrking be behind, So I 1m not prep.red, .t this
point, to s"pport it, although I liko lots of thIngs about it, .nd It hu
betn vtyy weil thD~9ht Oyt and very WI" dont. 1 de have I CDncer~ about
that commercial front.go.
C9TM1jssipnrr Hif"Seh: I l!!l 1150 canc-erned' about w~,at Hr. HOB his brou;~,t
out, and appropriately so •• th' limitation of S,COO sqUire feet i" th,
CDlTmerC;I' pDrtiljn of Ulis project. J wOLlld urge us, w,,"en we 9H to iI
llot;Dn stagE', to conSider !lak.ing that another condition of appro· .. i1 9 and
U-lt in SOJrH! respects, the comtercill portlon be iimited to 5,000 square
feet.
I am toncerned about t~o ret.il, and .lthough I would like to h.,. It ,nd
f .. l it would bo bonefielal to h ... It .long [1 C.mlno ROll, I do ~," ••
little dIfficulty .oelng w~.re the pa.king ~ould go to support r,t.il,
unless the interi()r of the project wu subsUn.tial1y redesigned to provide
additional ret.11 parking te support retll1 shop., W. Ir, right at the
carner of £1 Cl~ino Way. Ind th!r! is "0 n!lrby street plrki~9 for It
llist I few p~r,els down the TOid. 1 do not reel" how fir it 90e$ dc_n,
but I .ssu"'" tllere will be n. street parking directly in front of this
partieu'ar ,ito, ,ince It is just aftor mitlng the right turn from EI
Ca.ino W.y onto El tami.e Rell It.olf.
The .the. condition I would llkO to add, if we get t. In .ffirmative
motion stage, is thit the.e be so"", landse.p, pl.n approved by the city
Irborlst , including .are fi~ proposlls to sive the llrgt elk tree
•• ist\ng on the lite. 1 do net see t~lt ~n cur cu~rtnt ~cndit\ons. and
L
10/10/90
·Il'
I
I
!
. ->.
f r ,
f
...,
,
I
I
l
I
I
I
1
I
I
-
would lik. to SH It. I recognize t~.t Condition 13 t.l ks Ibout th •
• lllglllon of the loss of some tr •• s Ind thot othtr one. bt pl.nted. but
ftDr...1Ty we ~.vt in .. tters of this tJ~t some IffiMmlt;ve obligation to
prGvide I llndJclpe plln I~proyed by the ctty Irbori$t~ J do not sef that
!>ere tonight.
'pmm!ssip~!r Bcc;~lm: Reglrding t~t cGnditionl' US! permit, 1 t~'nk the
Ippliclnl prob.bly h •• 1 slgniflc.nt u"c.rt.inty no. in how they •• nt t.
pr-oc.od. If Wf! do Ippro." tho I<tlo" btfore us now, this dots not In any
.ense gUlrant,. th.t the condition.l use pormlt would be Ippro.ed in the
(uture for this to bt 1 commrrcl.l Site. So he is hereby .dvised of
th.t.
There Ire one or two other iss~e$ that need to be d;5,usse~. One is
trlffic.. J certainT] underst.lnd' the ceneern, IS tI'Iis is I SOlttwhit
confused Ind conges·td intersection. Ttllt fs not uniQue 11c~g [l Cimino
Re.l •• nd 11m not .ure there is Inl inter.ection th.t is obeyed by .11
tr.ffic u t<> £t<>p light •• etc. I de not ,ee '".rt~lng unique .b •• t t"lS
sIt .. to 1"'Kl. lIS 'f"". saying that t~l. t",. .f deftlity (,,,,,Uog DII £1
tlmlno ,*,1 is ill advl.ed. Difficult, 1ft some .as.5, yes. bat 111
I~yj$ed, J do ~Dt btlievt se.
A t~lrd is.uo t".t has be.n brought up is tho quostion or public .,cess
going f~ £1 Cimino Real to the schocl. On. qu.stion I h.ve to th. staff
is whether Dr not the existing Site ~iS I~Y p~bl;' i~CeS$ or waTkway from
£1 Comino Real t, the SChool sitol
Ms. Warheit: Do you ~.n from £1 C.~ino Re.l tnrougn th.t site onto th,
.s'hool site?
Cpmmilsio",r Be~,nlm: Through the sfte, to the back Df t~e Sit!. at
lust.
M$ Wlrheit: 1 bel~.vf there is I fence .11 IrD~nc.
Commissioner Seechtm: Sa the scheme of having no wi1kwiY through would be
CDn5iste~t with the current usage of the site. O~e cf ~y feel;~gs about
having publiC walkways through priv.t. ownership is tnat IS the applicant
indic.ted. th.t puts. burden on tne Ipplicant in terms of liability,
wMch I w:>llld n.t "UPport. If th~re ore other co""",nt. on tho need for a
wIlko". or other woy. of addres.ln; that. I would b. int.rested in
h.oring it. Othe.wise, J would not require t~e Ipplicant to provide.
w.lko" t~rough the Site to the b.ck. In fact. I think it .ould be •
dl.adv.ntlge to the resident. to h.ve such a w.lkw.y. es.enti,ll, through
their back y.rd •.
Cornmfssfoner thr1stenstn: Thr wl'kwi~ tnat is being talked Ibout in terms
of a public IcceS5 is the one th.t the plrlmedits Ire request:ng Icross
the bridge onto Wilkie W.y. The Icce .. to the school site th.t I ...
discus.ing. I was not thinking of th.t In tenns of m.king it • public
w.lkway. I was thinking or I g.t. so Ih,t the residents living in the
project could go onto the school ground. At present, if you want to get
onto the school grOlJnd , they tllve to go all aT~und via E1 ClminlJ Way. dow!'\
Wilkie Way. down Park aoulevard, back on Ventura Avtnue, 2nd onto the
school sit.. I was .u~g.stlng It .s a benefit to the peopl. living there,
not to provide public Iccess through the batk llrds.
10/10/90 _'t_
L
"'_ >, ••. h.""",~.~~;:","'\.",.~~<;.;.,: _ <~ ,
'.
IIhdoncr Hirsch: JI the Venturi Ic:hcol sftt owned by t"~ tHy of Pa' 0
~?
£1!.n M.rlh; M~ underJtlndfng 1$ t~lt it 1s ~ed and leas!d It a
".1 rlt. t. tho ,.1. Alt. C_nH, Child C •••.
I,nionrr N1eld: It would Sfelll that the .$C"hoo' distr~ct w~uld hili! to
•• got. In the fIn, •• The., Is nothlog the .~pll'.nt c.n do obout ~t.
than to .. ke a roQ".st,
us!on •• Gluier: I "oold 11k. to c.-nc! the a~~l1c.nt on befng .ery
.nslYt to I numbtr of the city's conc.rns. He ~as done i very good
,n working wlth tho City of ,.10 "'lto. I would I fk. to s •• scme form
Ih project e •• ntually clevelo~ed. We would b. adding 38 or so ~ore
mg unit' to the housing stock In the cfty cert.lnly helps. Ve ar.
o looking for acro w.ys to Idd housll'9 her, at the cOlMlissicn level
n the council. whe, or th·, be condos or rental housing. etc. I
" the .J4 .. rut r .. t4! .mlts Ind the 4 BMR units .. oul d be • gr .. t publ i c
~it_ I am I Httle eonc ...... d. !nd~ncle1rt Df tile 5,CDD ftrsus the p square fftt Inue. about the issue of t~ls huge, ... "iye ... 11 of
~ space on [1 Camino Rei'. Commissioner C~rist.nsen referr!d to J
, of buildings on El Camino R •• l that h.ve not been .e.y successful
-e pretty unattractive, so I would lit! to see tM' Ipp1icant e)p1ore
c'"ssibi1!ty of incorporating S .... asptel of ret.il in the f.cnt.
"$ OM the first floor. in gen.rll, J w.,ul/j like to.su sometr.ing
IhiS go through, It w.uld be good for all parti... I don't know
hat .. e h.Ye her. i' o.aclly wh.t we "ant to go ahead with. but in
'1. I ... supportive of the concept.
Ian Mirsh~ Our optir:ln~ Ire btCDming chrifhd. We can pus ttlis
condition that spe.ks to the ros.lution of the 10.000 square-foct
qUlstiDn. If plopl, Ir~ uncomfortable wit~ that, we can co~tinu!
or clorHication by the zoning .dminist .. to.. lie do not h.ve the
t of her counsel tonight .nd ther.fore. do not know wh.t hor
~ hlye been on whlt~lr or not she would grint I condit;ona' use
Ind wh.t tho Irguments for thlt .ight be. On the other hand •• ,
project th.t hiS be.n designed pretty cle.rly for office sp,,<. It
.osy te i •• gine hew you could design thot p.rticul •• buildln; with
I in t:-a. front, &5 YOL: would for IIIn), retlll SpiCes, because of Ue
Question. Alreidy. we nlve pushed the driVEway IS far n~rtn IS we
'Iy can for ufety Questions. If you put parking in the fr.nt. you
ly would hive to relocote the Ieee,s to th.t. or els •• sot the
g fir b.ck In order for people to be obI. tc enter and lea,. by Cne
:" ICCesS, So I f .. l that t~e current design is problom't ic for
I W. just hi .. to decide whether we are willing tc croft a
'on that speaks to that.
~: I would CDncur with 10ur remlrks en the retlil. Ind
1d that if 10. did IPpl, a condition for retail. It "ould be with
,.stlnding th.t lOst likely. there .. ould be substantial red~.ign.
of tho plrking reQulre .. nt, I would also urge lOU to cons,der the
,spects. IS well IS the Iccess aspects. If IOU h.d to h,.e p.rking
'runt. you would substantially ch.ngo the o.e .. ll sit. plln of tho
1$ curr~nt11 propos.d. J wDuld allo urge you to co~s;der the
,ility Question betw .. n .lTious types of retail Ind tho housing in
L
-
10/10/90
-15·
I
I
I
I
f
I
"::",
.. ,"
-
the rear, Yers~s the offtce use Ind the ~oustn9, IS proposed.
,ts ew: As tol1owup to wtJ,t Mr-. lflllotrun hIS just $lid', it seems to lIle
thlt w1t~ a11 that f~ .tnd. you prDb.b'l Ire tlking or. an 'wr~l lo~ In I
condiUon. It Is 11k. red .. igning the ~rojo<t by condition. I.m not
lure that fl total'y fn kteping wit~ what YDU Ire supposed to be dOing in
.. ting • decl110n on I lito .nd de.lgn itea. It .ight be better. in this
c •••• to do whll YO" blye done on ~clsion In tho ~Isl. Ih,t Is. 10 keep
It within your jurisdiction Ind s.nd il b.ck for. 'rethinking' in vi •• of
the cCODenls .. de by the pllnning commission. It s •• ms to .. thll that
lighl be I 1lttl. lOre Ipproprllte. first of Ill, .ve. If the zoning
ldalnlslrator wer. pr .... t tonl9M. she would hlY. no .uthorlty to tell
you wh.t she might grint In • us. permit. But .he certainly do.s re,d the
.inutes of these lettings, Ind she will, It leist, have In understindi~g
of ho~ the teamissi.ners fe.l .bout the project.
Ch.innan J!!.rsh: [1m very clear thlt 1 wou1d not be wi 11 ing to vote for a
condition tonight thot Imposed retoil .n this project. Whit 1 ~.s
Ui1Iti1Ig n " ......... 40 :.0 .... r.f ~ uru!il iO/) tbU lli9ht b •• n .1th,r/or
'\~. It wi gilt be t1IIt t!t\1oeT • amdltillftll .... 1Ift1I\t ~ IIffict SJlAt:f
be ~btllned or .n II'Propriit •• ""lmt of ,..tai 1 be ;nco,."onted into t",
project. ... e would hIYe to decide If .e ore comfortlble wit" th.t broad I
condition.
'ommi55iDn,r Hirsch: I assume that when you sly. send it back, it wo~ld
go to staff. Tne only way we could h.v. cl.rific.tion on the c.ndition.'
use permit would be for the zoning administrator to hive a h!lring Ind
.ake I ruling on th.t. if th, .pplicant want.d to proc,ed with office
sp.ce in excess of S,OOO .quar, f,.t.
Ms, [.se: Thlt is correct~ After listening to the comments, if the
IppliClnt still wlnts to go fo ... ard If1 th thlt. th.t would b. th,
IPplicant's prerggitiVt. T~ey would apply for the use permit at tnat
Ii,.., Ind those proe.edings could .tort. It could 5till come back to you
even before that WIS clarifi.d, because It least the planning commiSSion
would know Ih.t thot Is the direetlon the Ippliclnt had decided to t.k,.
If t~.e Ippllc.nt decides to tako Ir.oth,r .pprOlch, 1i •. iting it to
S.OOO squ,re f •• t, it sounds lite th_1 would ,nt,i1 I subst,nti,l redesign
.f th, project. n.t Is oy feel ing obout Idding • rath,r large condit ion
whieh in lisen". entlil1 " redesfgn Df the project, 50 that you really do
not know. th,n. whit you Ictu.lly haye .pproyed.
(pmm1}sfoncr Hirsch: Whit is wrong with that? Wr Ire not supposed to
look It the d,sign. Ire w.?
Hs. CIS!: Thfs is I sitt and design review, and ;s your opportunity to
look It the deslg •.
C •• i ... n M.rsh: I do not fe,l w. Ire he,.. "Ith the respDnsibility of
looking It the Irch1treture, bet we Ire here to look It hDw the proJect
relltes to the surrounding environment. Tne setbacks. the Iccess, etc,
.re definitely f.lr g.mt for us. Those Ire Issu,. th.t.cou'a b.
Influenced by .ny kind of design that i.corporotes ret"l.
Commini9ner Hirsth: J tlte it that wou1d in,' ude. 1:'1 loLlr lIind~ tf'lf!
.. ssiveness of tho froot commercill building.
10/10/90
·16·
".',; .
,
, . ........, ... " .... ' .. ,
, ,,:
I
I
1
. .... I
~j
~
I
I
.... '"
Cbairman M'rib: Ves. a1thaugh th.t is not of person,' p.ramcunt interest.
'awmtl11pDcr le"hl.: Since we Ire aptnt~9 the dogr for co~nts an the
.rehtt.eturt, IS that 1$ whit I just "nderstooO you t. s.y.
Ch.'(!,n "'r$h~ Tn. archftfctu~e 11 withfn D~r pi~l~teTs. It is just
not wh.re I feel the .aphl.ls of the ~iscu.slon should be.
Connls'l"n.r J,.ch.m: Just '$ so.e Input to lho lppllclnt on t~o
,rchitecture, then, I Igro. with the comments of CommissIoner Christen.en
regl~lng I 9'"SI structure on [1 CImino Rell. I belle •• Commissione'
Gllzler ,Iso lllentior,ed thot. I 1m not sur. th.t we need lroother 91".
front On [l (amino Real, Ind feel there ,auld probably be som< other
design which adds more to the Irchit.tt, •• of the Ire. thIn ju.t •
• irrcr. Reglrd~~g the turret. perhaps that looks nitt. 1 am not sure.
Th.re blS be.n some conco", lbout It. I would not Sly I t is nee ... ari ly a
bid Idea. It ~ •• some good potentl,l.
lIqlt'dlftg ..... t ...... ualglrt., 1 _,. Ul1 .... n ~. ::;;:: UjlfI.te, t.a.illS
Idvised tho Ipplfeant that there Is untertllnt, ~Dut r.cer.ln9 I
~.ndltl.n.l us. permit, to stIll ma\. a actIon for appro •• ' af t~i. sit.
I~d d!si9" as it stands now, not having sten whit may ceme (orwird to us
in the future fer 1 conditional ~se pt~it.
~: [Dmmi$$ip~e~ Beecham: Given t~it, 1 ~O~E the stiff
recommendation that we approve the project based en the findings and
,andition. in thIs report.
MOTIQM fAllS FOR LACK Of A SECONp.
Chairman Marsh: Dc we hl~e .nother motion?
HQJ.l.QH: [CM!I!1iuipncr ~irH;b: ] will move the stiff report. with the
proposed findings Ind ,anditions, but J would Idd two conditions. One is
to 1I.it the cOiIIL!erei.l portIon of the project te 5,000 squiTe feet, IS
required by the lonfng Drdinlnce~ The second 's thit i landscape pla~,
approved by the city .rborist. be provided, inc1uding I proposi1 to sa~e
the llrge 00. tree existing on the site.
MOTION fAILS FOR LACK OF A S[eOND.
Ch.iroyn M •• ,n: We do hi •• a path that hi. eme.ged for U', and thit is,
in light af the un~ertlinty, tD give us another go-around, SD t~it we can
ne whit the intent of the .ppl ielnt, lnd th.n ".ft • conditio" that
re',tes to whd the applicant Intends to d. with tl\e project.
CQlMlissfpl'llv' Hirsc;h: Is it obligatory to ~a'ie nhil on Uis site? Or is
it just th.t the zoning requires thlt off,ce sp.ce be limited to
5,000 square feet?
Mr, Zi-mono.n: Ret.ll Is not required on th.t site, but you do h •• o tl\e
5,000 square-foot threshold.
Commissipner Chrtite"te~: 1 ~ould likt t~ ~iYe us contin~e tt~ end have
same of th ... issues t".n up ~y the ipp1 :ClOt. I do not want to til' the
L
10/10/90
-)7.
?l "
---1
~,
.-
, 1
I
I .. r ,
I
I
~.
I
I
-
,
proJ,ct, If. ret.ll requlr ... nt would till the project.
.bovt tho ..... rcf.l frontoge .nd the f.~od. on El ~a.lno
lit. to Jft ,0.0 work don. wIth th.t, but typlC.lly w. do
thlse fteas Ixcept upon ICCtptlnet by tht Ippliclnt.
I 1m concer-ned'
Ru1. I ".u'd
not continue
Cb.lno.n Harsb: Would the Ippllcant be willing to hive the Ite. continued
fo~ re$~l~tion of ,o.e of these {1~U'i?
Mr. Sttfnbera: J am not Quit. lure that we undtrstand the alternatives.
CgmmissJoner ChrIstensen: ~t hlv, ~ot beln Ible to get I Batie" to Jccept
the .t.ff r.port Ind to .ave the .ppllcltlon In that direction. Th. other
IlternoUv. is to deny the .ppli<ltlon .. d "",v. It .long th,t way ..
C~11rman M.rlh: The second mot~Dn WII to impost I retail component onto
the proj.ct. Th,t .1 •• flilod. This I, blslcll'y In opportunity for
·,t.ff to work .ith you Ind resolve this q"e.tlon of the 10,000 squ.re f.et
.,d to know ~.t yeur Intent is, &nd th.n to come blck to us so th,t .e
a.. 1:B1't • C8ftditioo u..t .... ,,1' ~ 1<> ...u! w, wlnt te hi .. hlppen
flen.
Commissipner Hirs,h: The second motion reall, just l1mittd tnt c~mmeTcia'
effice pDrtfcn. Tnat was .1 intent. Perhaps J Slid ·commtrc;al· but I
~int th.t i! opposed t~ retlil. ] was trying to bring tne proposa1 in
tc~fcr&ant. _ith what 1 vnderstDcd the zoning ordinance to be.
Ch,frr.'n Mir$~: So t~e a'ternatlve to incorporlting retail would bive
been. in that else, tD ~at use4
Comrnfssicncr Hirsch: Since it was clarified afte~a~d that retail is not
obligltory, Ind 1 que.ti •• ~.th.r it is Idvislbl. on the corner of El
Camino Re.l Ind £1 Comino Way, 1 would just limit tho commer.i.l portion
to 5,000 squire f.et. Presum.bly, that would Ilso be on. storl. thereby
reducing tho ••• sl.enes. of the building f ••• de.
(ha;~an ~ar5h: The Questlon to the appliclnt ;s whether & continuante is
lec.pUble.
Mr, StelnborG: It not ~nly Is Iccept.blt. it is prefer.ble from cur
Vintage point. ] 1m very con,erne~ that our inttrest in making an
Ilternate .alfon, WI ';ll Ciuse reperc~ss1ons that we are not tninkins cut
to the full •• tont.
C",lnn.n ".rs~: [specioll, Since you were not .~.re of th. 5,000
squlre~foot li.1t. you certainly tin U5e 'o~ ti~ to go back an~ see hew
you wlnt to .p~ro.<h thlt.
Mr St.lnb'rg: W. would lpprecllte th.t opportunity.
tpmmils1o",r Hirsch: Dc y~u hive s~ffi,;ent tlarificitiD~. g;~en the
comment. tonight, for the contlnuon,.? You will undoubtedly get it. Do
you feel you hive 111 the guidlnce you need from our collecti~e comments?
Mr. Steinberg: No!
CommiFsian,r Hirsch: Thlt is whit J am concerned about. J tried to put
L
10110lSO
·1 B·
.....-
I
, .
\ ~I~'f 18 Robert·, sho~s. Ind ] •• net s~rt 1 und~rstDodt w1th 1two motiDns
that 90t no letonds. and ~othtng else ~lp?~n(ng, ~tthtr he hIs sufr'~ient
guld.nct to .... forwlrd.
Cpmmf$s1pDCr Chrl'ten~tn: lD clarify, thtrt WlS I motion that did not 9~t
a setc~d, to 80~~ the stiff r.tO~ndltfon as curre~t11 p~cpostd.
c.omisstOftfr Hirsc"'s IIOtfon wu tD U.it thE cOIl1TleTch.1 spice to
5.000 J~l.Ilr. feet. Pe,.jod. In his vie .. , r thfnk that Steins I one·.stor,y
building with no retlil. Is t~.t corrtct?
Commisslpntr ~irSth: It could be retli1. it dots not ha,e to be
commorclll.ut with I 5.000 squar.-foot limit on this sit •• I think it
... ,t lIke1y would bo office ,pace.
Cwfufpncr Ct'lrhtl!'nun: 1 bel hve tht rest of LIS art Hlrching for a
combtnition thlt wou10 mett Dur des'rrs Ind your needs It this time, Ind
we do not s •• that in either of these t.o motl.ns.
"5 Warhrlt: J would like to comment on cCmmtrCfll versus retail on t~e
corooer. Tf>e ,....ject. as ~. is ...., ti1!lt on tlio stu. Ttwre is no
ext ... n>.... lI~t.n ftllUlres • tligtler Porl:;1l9 <_""""t. I ,",uH expect
that If he g ••• fer ret.il. you 'Oi 11 ,"oe s .... of the hou. i"g. There is
no way in whieh to squeeze eve~ythf~g on there. In terms ~f & tWQ·stCfJ
buildi!'l9 on that (Dm.r, [1 Clmina Reil is In e,dremelJ' wide street .. ar,d'
tll,t Is I key spot at that corner. In ":I opinion •• two·,tor, building
could be I better design sol~tion on the corner thin lone-story
b\lilding. I ttlirok. you Ire a11 h"'fing • problem with that particul,r
t.o·,lory building. but the .rchittct is probably open to recon.ldering
it. To tr1 and Qtt i one·story building en that torne~ would be I design
.,istake.
Chai"".n M .. s~: It Is pretty ch.r th.t ... are not prep.red tonight to
dttidt the issue of retail versus non-retail. Whit we tin do is to
~rovidt a continulnce, ~~t~ SOmt d~rett1on to the ,ssues thlt we ~c~'d
like to ha,. fleshed out in the coming ~ •• ~s.
~: CQ!M;hsfonrr (~ri$trn.u:n:
meeting that is 'ppropri,te for the
our schedule ..
~: By Commissioner B •• 'hl~.
J moYe tn continue this Ipp1icant to,
,app1 iClnt'$ nUda Inc' one \tI/hic'h !:',Hts
(h.IMn.n ".rsh: 1 would 1fke to sum,rize some of the inues for the
lpplieant that might ~arr.nt r.,I ••• be,id., the 10.000 .ersu,
~.OOO SQUire· foot issue. W. ~Ive 1 question regirding the [1 t.mino Reil
fa~'de; we had some concern IS to the Irchitectur11 model ~ay me,a~ to the
[1 Cimino Rell frontage t sam! concern tnat it might not be IS attractive I
building IS we would like to see. We had concern about the access 'long
the side of the project. 1 person.lly would like to se. s"". exploration
of voys t. perhaps deed that SPitt to the city '0 th.t we could hi •••
poa.slriln/blcycle lCCOS' .long th. project 1.lding biCk into the Wiltie
WIJ nelqhborhood. Too m.ny times In tho city. we Ipprolch projects that
.r. different and Ire Idj.cent t. on. Inotnor by trying to build wall,.
sep.r.ting projects fro. peopl.. I tnink tn.t is definitel, the wrong w.y
to inc:orporlt* differellces within rlei9~borhoods. ] would IILjdl prefer to
se. thlt t~.re be neighborhood acc.ss from the ~ilk\. ~ay neighborhood to
L
IC/IC/90
• Jg.
... 1··
,
I
I
I
• I
: j
I
j
-.', -'
the £1 CI.lno a.al frontage, plrtlcu11rly Whe ••• n, of OUT li~. for the [1
Culn. I/IY frontlge Ire to develop Hel~~borhood Coamercll' ov.r I 101;9
period of ti... In ""1 WlyS, thlt neighborhood fs r •• l1y ls01.t.d from
El , .. Ifto aaal, .nd thl. could be I dellghtf., Itte.s thlt could ~ •• t the
needs cf neig~bDrl and nat just ler~t the PfDpl. who ITt living in the
project. So I would like to see th.t fssue explored over the interim
period •
(777;"',.., Hie*,,: J ~r.,ur wit~ CDmmissioner Bee~hlm~s statements
ft9&Tdl1lg traffic. 1 .. NIt see ttlis ~1 IS bel1llJ vnus .. 1l.1' Imique
on n Culno aaal. Thre Ire • lot of C·turns you hive to .. ke When lOU
wont to vet to s_thing on the other .ide of the str •• t. I ,1so eor,eur
with Coomlssloner "azier's comm.nt. regarding the 8MR unit.. That is •
substantlll ben.fit. I sly t~.t partlcu11r1y I ••• the price. os being in
I very nice rlnge~ The~ art below 5JOO,OOO. and one Dr two art we'l be1c~
th.t. Thlt f •• ery dulroblt. I I. comfortable with the 5!tbaek, given
that It I ...... r.d from th. prop.rl, lin., which I. Inside the Sidewalk
for .. st of the portIon of tht lect.s along [1 tam!"o Rfl1. There .il1 be
adequate setblek. there.
CpmmiJ$ipncr ,l.zier: ] would like to see the ippliclnt explo~e the
possfbillt} of .caeho. softening up the front. Right now, It is •
str.lght gl.s. wall. I do not know whot you could do to ~.ke that.
llttl •••• f.r on the .ye, but [ would like you to take I look It thot.
~9!I!!!§U1Qflrr Wirsct!: The design Df tf'le corrrnerc.h1 bu:ilding rrmi:ncs ft i
at of the building It Cl11forni& Avenue Ind £1 Cimino Real, the nortnealt
torner. [t ,toDd YI,"nt for I long time, Ind J do not believe th.t h.s
t.er bIen considered to be I highly lttrletive building.
kh.'~'n Marsh: That is ene of .y faverite buildings! To 5ummarize. you
hlye , lQt of enthusiastic response to this project. Tntre are several
.aj~r issues ~e w~uld like some clarific&t,cn an befo~e it t~~5 blCk,
those being t~e f',lde, the I,ees', Ind t~. ineorporation of retlil yer,.s
office spaee within the project.
MOIlptl PASSES: Chjlirl!in Hlrs~!: Is tnere Iny further disc~ssicn en ttlis
.. tfo,? All tho.e In f.vor, s.y Ayt? All opposed? Tnlt pa,ses
unlofmou,'" Ind we will see th'. back at I dlte to b. determined.
END OF EXCrRP1
L
, ,
-
•
L'
\
. -~
\
, .. ' '-
j
~
j
1 , ,
,.... ..:. "'\ 11 ..... ~~.i\1 ~f (, ..... :;.: " ... ' •• l..,' ..... " , •
Appllcltlcn Nc. SO-UP-]4: 3981 £1 C.mlng R •• l
Us. Poroll 90-UP-3C is approvod for con.lr~cticn and cper.lior. of ]0,300
squire feel of office u., where a .... I .. um of S,OOO SQu.re fe.t would normally
be allowed. IS per altached plans. at 39B] [1 Camino ROIl. Zone Oislrict CS,
p.le ~llo, C.llforn; •• and Is subject to conditio,. li.t.d b.lo •.
flHQINGS
]. The preposed use at Ih. proposed 10CItion w;ll nol bo detriment.l
or Injuriou. to property or improvement. In Ihe 'icinlly. and will
GDt be detrllllntil to tho public health ... fety. goneral welf."
iii" COIIVeniftce. t1I tIIat t1Ie 1If1IIIDse<! offiCI! ase is • less
Intenslv, us. than wmst other ~llowed 0 •• '. ~d c .. s.~"ently will
provide a better buffer for the r,sld.nces at the r •• r of the slto
and will gentrate less triffic in t~t immediate vicinity.
parllcularll It tho Mayb.ll/El C.mlnc R •• l/El C.mino Way
intersect i on.
2. The proposed use will be located J.nd conducted in I: manner in
ICCOrd with the Pile A1to Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of
1111. 18 of the Polo Allo Munlclpol Cod •• In tnat th. lo •• r
parking requirements for office use will .llow more housing un1ts
to be b.llt on the sil •• consistent with Progrom B of tne Housing
Element which Cills fer prcvid~ng incentives to I~d rtsidentia'
units to commercial developments. The increased ~umber of housing
units will result in ~~ro BKR units, supporting Policy 10 cf the
Housing Element. In Iddition, the office use will Idd I daytime
pcpulotion tc h.lp S"pporl the n.arby neighborhood retail ,rea on
the £1 Ca~Inc W.y trlangl, and will r.,ull In ,n upgrading of tn.
appearance of £1 Comino Real •• s promoted by Progr,m 22 of the
Urban o.sl9n Element.
[ON01TIONS
1. The flclde of the proposed office building in rtfere~ced plans ~or the
Use Permit s~ll1 b~ redeSigned, and the f;~al design of the proJect
snall be approved by t~e Architectural Review Beard, the Plann\~g
CommiSSion and the ~ity Council thrDugh the Site and Design pro~ess.
Ad/j);.
~ANCV /tAOOOX l VUE
Zoning Admintstratcr
November 19. 1990
~P9034
Nl
-
II/le/90
Page I
-: '
.
•
,,", .
~
-~.i:'. ~~
. ~ -,.
,
I
1
ThiS fOnl does not constitute the use penrlt for which Ippllcltlon v.s mad •.
If tho Ippllcltl.n Is Ipproved and If no Ippe.l from this doclslon Is filed by
",y person. fino or corporation .ffected by the decision on or by November 30,
1"0, 1CU will receive I copy of your penrit In the .all. If this applIcation
I. not decided to your ,"tl,f.ction, the decisl.n .ay be appealed to the
Pl.nnlng C ... lssI.n by 'Illng In appeal application with the Pl.nning
Deplrblent and City Clerk on or before the above-.. ntloned dlte.
cc: Denny fetroSian, 443 Yenturl Avenue, Apt. 2, PlIo Alto, CA 94306
Sirron 'Irk As,oclatlon, c/o Jon Joynt, 3Sn L'!lunl, Fal0 Alto, ell 9006
UPi03C
NL
11/18/90
Pig! 2
•
\
I !
I ,
I
-
L
BARRON
PARK
ASSOOATION
PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA
~ ~;'. ~~ "f~"~:
j' \I ,1..,; -..:.... ""':-"1
! NUV ~! ID~j
--:',
, ~
I
_'_' __ ,;'_' ___ '_':-' . ....:~i
~1 (If u.e Perral t 9O-U? -34. SlO-£.IA-30.
10,300 Sq, n, Office Bul1~'''Il .t 398, £1 c-.,., Reo'
"The ePA l:>::ecutive Ccmnittee wishes to 8;Jpeal gr-a"t1ng 01
• ~ penm1t for a 10,300 sq. fl. oiflce bu11d109 at 3aS1 El
Ca-nHlO Re-.al. fl"'l the CS zone_ ";)fling pe:~~ ts no r.'D~e thcr'.
SCOO set. ft .. of offlee 1.Is.e c;.n any sHlgie lot 1:n the CS zone.
0, Aug..l$t 7. 1989. the-Filio "', ~o c, ty COU'1Cl 1 c:r,p'E't~
the 4-year CHYWlde land U5e ana Tnl1flc StLC'Y by .~t"ing
many _Ilie+Xlil!"l':S to THle 16 PNIC, Zonlr.g. For-the CS Zonf:,
S«'tion 18.45.070(,f) .. 85 ."EnJed to ltate ·(1) No lot shall
have mot'e than .55 5q\.Iare meters (5000 SQUare 'feet) of offlce
ut.eS,-The llm'it "''as estabi1:shed after ektens,ve ,rout frem
SUff. the P\.t!l,C. develc;x-r&. V-.e Fl,ar"lrling C::::nrr.U$1C>rl .~
C, ty Ccx.rci 1.. Rehef frO'Tl the l1mlt may be g-ar.te-:: by the
2or'llns Acrninatr.tor wi:h • i.Ise Perma pel" Se-:tlcn
1S.45.070{fJ2. !he 8a~ron Park A5SOC1.tlon £x~utlv~
Comn "i. tee oppcs.ed tne grar..-: i ng 01 5UCh • use pr:mll t for-the
10,SOC .,quare foot ofHce o:J\ ldlng propoSed for 3891 £1
Cannno Real .. ,..,.. that the 2oni~ AanlnlSU'::or ""'$ -granted
the Us~ Permit. tne Barron Park Association Boilrc w'shes to
appeal trns permlt, .rod to ~ec;ue$t that t~ Plam,...;
C<lrrni ss i on and C tt)' Counc: 11 hOor'Or" .-nended Zom r..g Orel1 nanc.e •
the caref",' iy thOo.lgt"lt-oot goals .00 ob]e:::tlVes of the
Cltywide Lanc:1 Use and T,..f11C StUdy. ar")ld tr.e £1 c.r.mo Flea'
G..I1de11nH, ar.::l overturn the rullng of the Zonlng
atd1'I;n15triitor-and ~i' the use pemlt. O:.Jr JustlflU.tli:)f"'$
are ;:'f'lfe"l H" tne letter frCl'T'l the ePA [ ... eeLlt'~ Cam'llttee to
Nar'lC)' Lytle dated' NiOverrber 12. ana other attaehnenU.
~."I n·l:V;' ,
•
~-------~'
_I of UR hnoa 80· .... ·$4. go·£IA·30
10.300 Sca,lar« Foot Office 8ul1dlng at 3991 [1 CM1'Iino 'Aeal
r The e.,,"on Park As.oc1. t 10n hils been c:onc.erned alXX.It .rO ..... $
I. ted to offfce LIM$ 'in the CN an::Ii CS zones, espte'!;;al1y along £1
~o AN1, since 1178. -.:e c.ons'a.tantly asked thllt dre-vel~ts
L £'1 Ce'ftfno be lOc 1nten&1ty. "'1gtC1Ol"'h:)Cx1 or1ent..,;~ at'CI ttvt
iorov'cX-ret.11 sales and' H,.v1"s. Forma.l atterrpts to hml t
lilt of ClfflCfl 11\ the GN at'IQ' CS zone ca" be doC..znented at Teast
,~ back as ~QvenDel'" 15£3, ~ CCur'.:iT~'" S4J::CI"'I01.J$ .ne:
: .. "'lI MI"'¥eO wi1'fol dllt1nc:t1~ on the f'lammg Cc:nmUS1VO.
:"'Iitd 1S .. eopy of • ietter fran troll! 8::1'; to then "»..1yc;1" K!eHl
1'.JI..Ine 1, 19&4 •• 'P1ere1" hmlts Of"l tne a:ze of of11c:es~ .I""j
I to proeven! enc:.ro.ctnent of O·flCes HI the CS .nd OJ z:cnes ... 'a.5
,tC .. Qr ~ .... n::tt ~ed 'tt8ll'eCause "!''1:J'''st ..
tens: ~ "1.." Relt1-ev • .,,:j 'ater t!"lte e, ty., de Land: Use and:
:: Stu:::l)' .el"'e Clttld as opportunlt," 'fGI" a b:-o.a::: reVle-. Clf
s .l"Id It',.a:o-;), ot,",,-""f' 1Is.ue& 1n tr.e CS liJ"d Col :~.-! .
.... iIIO the re\;l~ a-.d s::;,:C;t'. .Ij~ ~.t m ... :-l)! ,::;,:,,:,~,~:: on
. oi."~a. Thte-:-E were a',ffQ$t , )e...i!"S Ci~ r-e"",.or':.5. nr~;-~r~3.
rl),. anc::' e-xten51'Ve dU,;.;JSS10f"., i~ rC!sd't ... a! ~~"-lf1C~~~
ln regt..l.JtiOr'oS goverrnr--9 ~1idoU':' ~to!'!"\:',aj anc: offlce L.5~S
:.s arIC eN. ZC'Ine$. Eve")'O!"':e ~"'ii'~ tt~ e ... tens1",e a~ Ce~&lle-::
.t res. ... ~te--.:f ,n thl:: Zc"-:r~ QaC'H'j..iXe Ir.~ts of ~.JSt
" t:1a}Cr Ch&r',~ ~o the ts .riC QI. Z0n6:S ...... t~ 50)0 sq. ft.
'1 ctflC£ IJS.eS. At b3.t -..e t~t eo.,;:-1 ~ ye.r ef1()f"t tc:
reU,l I.t''': ~rClal \IS~ .1,:,ng £i C~l~ ~eal c.ne t.:l
'. p~ t."".e -:lrs~ r'l'l·re~":.~'f'.,::~ .. 'l' ~.r.:.:'!":.! ':.c· ~~ ,.r, !:'l'e ,",.:0 ce r~¥i$1~ ~~ ~It~e 16 lS f~~ ~~ 31:~cffice ~se ~e tr.~
of: ptr.,,~ssac~E s1.Ze! t.Oore .;::j:' .. ~1i"'''; ~. t:-,e ~';,:"c'''''iI:I~ c~ t~~
: t ew;n t~~ "It u. a c1ur "1C~dt'0!", Of !hI! 1ett~r-.~
f tne r ... .II'i)' ad:;l;lte.j ,z;)M1ng orci".a'"ICe~ wt'!1C~ 11 ~o 11,"tll':;
$es 'In the CS ariC C: .. Zones. Pie.se re::M' n true to tr.e
f Co:".slcereQ and 11.0'1 ~y d'1 SCV$lSec revls1(.t'\s to t~ zon~~
! .nc: reJect th1S LoSe permTt.
e-1$ rIC r.ec tc .~:QIfo .n a:l ,ff1Ce-'-Ise C""I tria lilto!'.
pe"p"fectl)' v'lie,,i)lo! VI 11 CalnP"1Q F.e.J1, .. :t., .:>r _nhCu:'::
p.t.r-k,1""I9 1" fror'lt Of the t-Yi,,:ell"'§l. I'! t,y cJeve1opep" 15
:D aahere to the 5000 sq. 1t. off'c~ 11m?t he ~$ sever.l
He un redt.lc;;e tne tu'llChng Slze b)' S300 sq. ft~ ar'IC' have
lce IIJSe along [1 c..r.ll"C1 In front of tJ"'>e. ftOVSinSJ. He can
! tot",l .ae of the bu11dlO!; ~ place pa,.}on; 'paCK in
'" .. ccess fr"" £1 Cirrlll"C1 Re.ll. He can rec.on!~9JI"e tl'"lle " te
.vt: par-k11"9 an:l' ..utcnotl"'e access .long tne noP"ther-1y
lne, "rx:I N.ve' the a;mner-c1al bl,1l1C'H''19 de'Sl~ as an l or
~ 0Qet'1 s,oe 1&Clng £1 c..r,n .. ..o 'Fte.l. SH'~e,l Ir"A 1~
15 f*"lt IS penn'ttec~ tne cc:nmerc1.' Dr..nld',ng un Doe 3
11 W1tt", trae-~r 2 stor-les offIces, not to eJ:ceoed s.oco
'.' ~ Tte propert)' '18 large and' deeQo. ano thep"e , s t"'Cl
. tne ~,.I11dlP"QS c.nt"'Clt tie reoes.i;nec' and relocated to
L
-
,
\
\
,j,
I
f
I
!
either li,.U of11c:es to .&000 SQ. ft •• or to halfe bot~ reta1l and
otf1ces w1th _ &000 5q. ft. limit on offlCes.
Office U8eS crute lIDre jobs and IIOre peak I'Qzr tr-aU1c than
ret.1l. The 10,300 loCI. ft. ~r the UH! perm1 t wou'd' resul t ,. n
about "" ~obs. 'Thieo hfI"e .1'"" in I'et_n WOU'd c.r-eate 10 or " jObs.
If tne bYnd1ns; was ~ sq. ft. ret.ll .nd 5COO .~. 'ft. offfc~s
ther-e would' be about 25 jobs created. ASSt.lT'i1ng t~t the existing
r.otel pro~ides 8 jobs. an .,1 office use ~'d result ,~ • r~t
1ncrease of 33 jD::l$. An.' 1 ret.ii use WOUrO rHu1t ,n .2: er 3 rrore
joos. and mixed ret.l~ and c.ffice w~i';d res.ylt 1r-. abcu": .1 net r.ew
jODs, lft;)$.t fr-an the offices. There w'\l1 be H')CrE:a~ ~nc' for
housing, partle;J1arl), affordable hc:x.:S1ng, cue to t!le .~ JO~ '!'rO":'!
Off1C:e ...... n... the .... hI:ausi:inQ.on trae 'slte w~ll rroake a f.r
s:aa"er "'I1I;:lIiIrt on the 'housing ~MfAll w11:tl 1ar-ge D1'1'ic:e uses tnen
witI'! ret.,l.
O".e eJCc...I5e rIOt to) Nave ret .. " or'\ ~r.e ~~te Hi that it rt.a:r not t.f:!
ecOt"lCr.'l~c .. 11y vt,a,:,le. T~~t'$ ~re ~I,oi~a::,on. ~·!ta'-:: "'ltS~ 11:':"y
C::~~nds at le.6'5t .s. m"c;, on tr-oe r.at~~e 0-:' t~ rt"t.,1 Of" S~:,"·",CF.:
Qt1e~~, the s~i'\ o~ t~ ~r-ators ana ~~rs, ~nd :ne over.~l
ecOl'"oCmlC c:Hi'T'IItl!" 1n tl"'C coon • .2"nty~ Nc-rlE Of t~se a"IE: P'""c,:;.er
c.oncerns of TArc L'Se or-pjarll1r"1S bod,es. l~y sma~l rata,l
~S1ne5$H have LU:"v'v~ lIiong E1 c..r.,rc; F.E.i.l for years. !'Oane ,.. .. ,,!'
on')' 'Street partong ;n frOr",t, SO":Ie h;i"·e pa-kln; lQt$ 1n f1'o:"lt, IinC
some nave ~r~in; on t~~ S'de or ,n the reer. Examp·es c~ re~~ll
$U<;.iI!'$S and reUl1 fill 1 ur I! can toe found , n .1' t hr ~ ~$>e.s. SUcess
~:"IdS lfOI'e upor, the product o'f""ered and t!""e •• '01: of tl'\e
pr~-r1e:or t~3ln or: .. "he"'::I'".er or not the pr;:;;e!'"tl ' ~ l"of-.r'l: ":.:1 II c.;ee~.
on. a C-:I"r::o!r. 0:-1 n cn01 0-:.;: •
SHlCl! a concH,on of t~ \lSI! pe:--mlt 's fl!'Oe$",gn cf tne
bu,ldlns, reQUlrlng a Change to ret.,' p1us c~~~ces '$ ~t a
S"9!"I1ficant • .:tded ti>urCen. Offlces c:an be reducE<::! .0 5-000 "SQ. ft.
and the rB:la1mng c.cr.rre;cl.l space reCes'9~ for ret.;,~" w,th
parlC1"9 'Ir. fr-mt 11 ces,r«" or the toUl ... ~Z~ of troe OCl';::~:'\9 could
~ reduced.
We are not e~sec to F"ey5e c·t the site for ."I!';:a,l$ln; or • mace:
use ~O]ect ,f it 15 done in accordance w,th the carefully thought
out .at'Jj: r-ecently aOopted Ze>nifl9 Of"dlnanc;;::e~ We do want a prOject "',cn 11 attractive. sens.ltive to the neightlOrt"lOoC. and "Wh;Ch
c:crrp11es with the p.1als of an i~o~ed and" v1&tl1e ~r-c"l
c,str1ct .long E1 cam1no Real.
The best fu:nc;t,on of the Pianr"!\9 CoTnl SSlor. arc C, t)' Counc:, 1
15 to establu" reGL'1atlO'"l$ govermng de~lc~nt en .... e1opes.
eompet'ble and '~tlble uses, and lmpaets on t~a1flc, lob
growth, and houslng d!man::1. That 'IS ex.act 1y what •• s O:Y-e 1a'St yur
When the 5000 SQ. ft. c.&;:I on OfflCe-s was. 3ooo1,ed to the CS arc CN
-
•
)
,
.. ~.A ..... . . J.';'
.---1.
HIneS. Pl .... ,. .. 11'1 c:ror.t.t..,-.t w1t~ trw l'IfCWIUy ~ted 01111;:e
ltmna. J);I,""t apf:trt'Ove O¥er-s;z'l!d offie,., OevtTopnt!r"Its the f1rst t1/'h1!
"" _, ,. lO<£n1tt"". ~t "" 1_ an<! Pf,t, .... t e'ff(H'U to
..,. __ "" ret.il vlt.1ity .long .. 1 t.n1"" lINt. !'Io!jeet tl>lo
0Yer11zed .ll offi:;e: UN penr!1t .
. ,
\ ,
•
-J
I
I
-
April 19, 1991
lois. NBDC) L)'tIe
Zooios Mministtala<
CiIy 01 Palo AIlo
I'lamIiDa Depan=ul
2SO Hamilton A'YCD'De
Palo AIIo, c.Jifaruia 94303
.., Oal Meadow Court
The propo&e4 projcd Il 3981 J:'l CamiAo Real with its mixed-ase of condominium ~ office ~ w.il.I
replace e e.zi.stiq motel OM. The IppliC8.D1 is feQUC'Sting two s.elbad: ,'ariance&. Varince 1 is a
bai1ding setbact variance a!oog, £J Cami:oo Real. Vuiance 2.is .. setbacl: ~ for I CUf"o't:d '"ViJll~
.... """"""" !he pom.g cowt. The fol\owing "",!IDe. !he >peciIie 01 each v.uiaAce 'cq ,,,,-V_,
L Tbe 20'4]' .etbad is DO( CODSisteot. wiLh other commercial projects along El Camino Real The
ARB II. ,"""",,cd !hat !he """",.,cia] buiJ<f;".. be S.(]' from the pwpeny line a100g E! c.mio<>
Real
b_ The ...-. ... ZO!>e 01 the _"1' aa4 the small size 01 !he sit, ooIy an"", foc Ilmitcd "",1W!g
acc:ess aDd 1ocalioa.. 'l'be w!act parkins has buD located to • parl:i.Ds colU1 between the two
uses. 1be aureDI reqaired bciJdiDg setbac.k of]!J'..fJ' would limit the: area available to ODI: DC ho(h
01 the """-
Co Grautiag of the a~catiOll. will DO( be: det'imellW 10 the public, prnpert)' or improvement in the
vicinity in any way. The commercial building~s closer proximity :0 the stceel provides morc
immediate ~ to the pedestrian. as wee as pto"IiJiag a significa.nt: urban "stteet wall".
To allow curved parking court "waD-l{l go into 10'-0" :setback al the waDs ends along tlortbwe.sr
property fu>e_ (See plans Sbeet 2 and 9) .
.... ~b.
This mixed-usc site Iw. 15S..()" of frcmtage along El Camino Real and is located at the iotcrsealoll oI
El Camiao Real and EI CamillO Way_ After identifyiDg these .i!'sD~S the City of Palo Allo
tr.us.portatlon di-.'is.iot! required the Owner to Iim.i.t vehicuhr ac.tQ5 to the site to an entrance adjacet1l
10 !he ~ propeny line.
Af\.;~lto'::~L!r ..
Pl;.mnlrl:r
1n.1<'T1,or,
•
l.
r-. ~
I
t
" .
, :;: >, ;
I The
Steinherl/
Group
AI. pntimiur)'AllB meefulg the ARB reqg,es.ted tlIa.t the commercial b;.aiJding be S'-O" from the
prop:ny Iiac aloos El c.miDo Ru1. No "'""" ,,",kq aJ""Il ftcmage"
TbU JiaUaecI ...... Jocatioo aDd "'i-few DO ,una .. ,,",kq a1cagfr~ ha,. pt.c.4 the ,daa:
port;Dg _ the offia, boiWing. To identify this locaUoo from the "'''' • cun<ed .. ..n. sunounding
• parkiDs ""'" u. been ck.signc4 .. th-, """" ~ e!etnent of the eotire P' c;.a" The _ defines
the..mc.lar port;Dg Jocatioo from the otteet by =eodiD& "'" the d1!ry driveway 10 the property Ene.
It ~ over tlac ~a'y II, its' other end 10 define the garage entry.
c. nc graatiDs of the ~Iiration wiD Dot be detrimcl1Lal or iDjuriotas 10 property or improvements
Do the ftc:iaiIy. The cou-.ed"wall" .."..'0 d<lS< the proj«u sum .. ""'~ The _ DDly"cps
"". the 10'-0'" _ Iwia: ooee .. Old CD<!. n.e.e eo& drop d""", in height .. they approach the __
The oppIiomt, thetelore, propose;; tha< these vuian= will .now the 0 .. M .. d .. " eo.n !,,<>joe! 10
bkod hanu~ with the El c.miDo .. ighborbood.
•