1 Kallas, Emily
From: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, February 6, 2025 12:15 PM
To: Architectural Review Board
Cc: Kallas, Emily; Raybould, Claire
Subject: One of the finest public discussions I have ever heard CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
Thank you Chair Rosenberg and board members and Emily and Claire.
It was a joy to see five adults work through a complicated challenge of approving the applicant's work and telling council that the entire site should have more housing.
I appreciate David's persistence of reminding us that the city's adopted housing goal will require bold action and that projects of 10 units will not make it happen.
I appreciate the board's approval of this project and the hard work (and expenses) that the applicant has put in.
I appreciate Peter's hard work to embrace both positions and I hope you reapply for the ARB. You are a powerful and thoughtful voice.
I look forward to attending future meetings.
Thank you again for the fine and, I thought, respectful discussion.
Steve
/0 /1 /2 /i255 /4 /1 /5 /6 /2 /i255 /7 /8 /5 /9 /2 /10 /0 /i255 /11 /12 /10 /6 /13 /14 /11 /12 /15 /i255 /16 /6 /6 /i255 /11 /0 /17 /i255 /17 /2 /15 /18 /2 /12 /0 /17 /i255 /1 /16 /17 /i255 /19 /2 /2 /12 /i255 /2 /20 /16 /6 /13 /16 /0 /2 /14 /i255 /16 /17 /i255 /16 /17 /11 /12 /15 /6 /2 /i255 /7 /8 /5 /9 /2 /10 /0 /i255 /16 /17 /i255 /8 /2 /21 /13 /11 /8 /2 /14 /i255 /19 /22 /i255 /23 /24 /25 /26 /27 /28 /1 /16 /12 /29 /i255 /22 /5 /13 /i255 /30 /5 /8 /i255 /22 /5 /13 /8 /i255 /10 /5 /12 /17 /11 /14 /2 /8 /16 /0 /11 /5 /12 /i255 /5 /30 /i255 /0 /1 /2 /17 /2 /i255 /10 /5 /18 /18 /2 /12 /0 /17 /27 /31 /2 /8 /19 /i255 /32 /5 /8 /5 /10 /29
January 30, 2025
Emily Kallas
Planner, City of Palo Alto
[email protected]
(650) 617-3125
RE: Applica&on No. 24PLN-00095
Dear Ms. Kallas,
We have reviewed the latest submi3al from Storm Land LLC and The Hayes Group (Storm Development) for Applica&on No. 24PLN-00095 (Plan Set Date 01/07/2025, Comment Response 3), which requests a Planned Home Zoning (PHZ) for the construc&on of a new 3-story residen&al condominium at 70 Encina.
Our past review and commentary about the requested PHZ project are summarized below:
• a le3er to the Palo Alto City Council dated September 8, 2022 • a le3er to the Architectural Review Board (ARB) dated December 2, 2023 • a le3er dated July 24, 2024
• a le3er dated September 3, 2024
• a le3er dated October 30, 2024
Addi&onally, we have voiced these concerns in person at the City Council hearing on September 12, 2022, at the ARB Study Session on December 7, 2023, the Planning and Transporta&on Commission (PTC) Hearing on September 11, 2024, and an ARB Hearing on November 7, 2024.
Feedback on Current Submial
In the current submission, we find no meaningful changes have been made to address our previous feedback about the massing, layout and opera&onal impacts of the proposed project on Town and Country Village (TCV).
Based on encouragement from ARB members before and at the November 7, 2024, ARB Hearing, we have reached out to each ARB member and discussed a possible path forward on a comprehensive development plan for the en&re North parking lot at TCV, inclusive of TCV parking areas and the proposed 70 Encina development site (North Lot). During each of these discussions, ARB members expressed a desire to see a comprehensive proposal, crea&ng a thoughFully planned project resul&ng in a greater number of new housing units than the 10 isolated luxury condominium units proposed by the 70 Encina project.
Given this feedback, we have taken meaningful steps over the last 60 days to study residen&al development at the North Lot. To that end, the collec&ve ownership of TCV has discussed possible deal structures that will bring housing to the North Lot, and the ownership is generally suppor&ve of such a project. Addi&onally, we have retained an architect and have begun to evaluate the best approach for
the North Lot that balances architecture and the experience of our retail customers, opera&onal considera&ons and the need to maximize housing development.
TCV reached out to Storm Development to solicit a collabora&on for a possible joint comprehensive project for the North Lot. We look forward to further discussions with Storm Development in the coming weeks. Addi&onally, should a collabora&on fail to materialize, we are also studying mul&family development for our por&on of the North Lot. However, in our opinion, a comprehensive solu&on would result in the best design and greatest number of housing units for the City.
Given the need for housing in the City, we understand that the North Lot is a prime candidate for new residen&al development, and support such a project. As we have repeatedly expressed in our prior le3ers and comments, we con&nue to feel that the proposed development in the current applica&on is poorly conceived, and in isola&on would be detrimental to TCV and its customers who treasure this important community asset. Planned Home Zoning is intended for comprehensive planned developments, and the required findings cannot be made for a small isolated 10-unit project that is not compa&ble with exis&ng uses, and may not be as compa&ble as possible with any future residen&al development of the North Lot. We, therefore, respecFully request that the ARB pause on a decision for this applica&on un&l a cohesively planned and architecturally suitable residen&al development across the full North Lot can be studied, crea&ng more meaningful new housing towards the City’s RHNA goals.
We thank you for the chance to again be heard on this applica&on, and value our partnership with the Palo Alto Planning Department. As we embark on our third decade as the stewards of TCV, we see a great future for this unique property and we hope to work with the ARB, City staff and poten&ally with Storm Development to create a be3er project that we can all be proud of in the future.
Sincerely,
Dean Rubinson
Director of Development
Ellis Partners LLC on behalf of CEP Town & Country Investors LLC
Cc: James F. Ellis, Ellis Partners
Melinda Ellis Evers, Ellis Partners
Mitchell Serrato, Ellis Partners
Architectural Review Board, Palo Alto
Claire Raybould, City of Palo Alto
Leigh Prince, Fox Rothschild
Outlook
70 Encina Place
FromSusan Setterholm <[email protected]>
Date Sat 11/2/2024 12:48 AM
To Architectural Review Board <[email protected]>
Cc Palo Forward <[email protected]>
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
Hello,
I urge you to approve 70 Encina Place.
Palo Alto needs more housing.
I worked in Palo Alto for years. I lived in Palo Alto until I was priced out.
Please approve the development with two below market units for others like me.
Thank you.
Susan Setterholm
1000 Sutter Street
San Francisco CA 94109
Outlook
70 Encina
Fromeileen menteer <[email protected]>
Date Sat 11/2/2024 7:23 PM
To Architectural Review Board <[email protected]>
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
Tho not a beautiful building, it provides 2 units of affordable housing, which isn't nothing. It would be a much better place to call home than the Harry Potter cubby, the $800 Palo Alto version. I hope you will approve this project and many more which will help people live closer to their jobs.
Eileen Menteer
Outlook
SUPPORT - new homes at 70 Encina Street
FromAdam Schwartz <[email protected]>
Date Mon 11/4/2024 9:02 AM
To Architectural Review Board <[email protected]>
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
Greetings:
I write in strong support for the construction of new homes at 70 Encina Street. I urge the Architectural Review Board, at its upcoming meeting on November 7, to approve the application to rezone this lot, to allow construction of ten new homes, including two at below market rate (BMR).
Palo Alto has a severe housing crisis. Our teachers, civil servants, and service workers cannot afford to live here, so they are driving super-commutes both ways, burning green-house gasses as they go. We need new homes at all price points -- including these proposed two new BMR homes and eight new market-rate homes.
I've lived in Palo Alto for nine years. My friends have been priced out. My kids, who went to junior high school and high school here, cannot afford to move back to be near me. My mother, who has increasing health problems, cannot afford to move here to be near me.
This is an excellent location for ten new homes: 70 Encina Street is next to transit, shopping, and other amenities. This project has already been under review for more than two years, and has already been significantly reduced in size to address various concerns. Now is the time to approve this project -- and build new homes.
Sincerely,
Adam Schwartz
523 Channing Ave.
Outlook
ARB Items #2 & #3 - 70 Encina & 3150 ECR
FromPalo Alto Forward <[email protected]>
Date Tue 11/5/2024 4:28 PM
To Architectural Review Board <[email protected]>
2 attachments (316 KB)
3150 ECR Support Ltr (11.5.24).pdf; 70 Encina Support Ltr (11.5.24.pdf; CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Architectural Review Board & City Staff,
Please see our attached letters of support for agenda items #2 and #3 being heard on November 7th.
Thank you,
--
Amie Ashton
Executive Director, Palo Alto Forward
650-793-1585
**Want to be counted as a supporter of housing? Add your name here.** November 5, 2024
SUBJECT: AgendaItem#3- 70EncinaAvenueTownhomeProject
Dear Chair RosenbergandReviewBoardMembers,
Wewriteinsupport of theproject at 70EncinaAvenue. Thismodest 10-unit townhomeproject(includingtwoaffordableunits) hasbeenthroughalong, but sadlytypical, PHZprocesssince2022. It hasundergonesignificant changes, includingadecreaseinthetotal number of units, inorder toaddressneighboringpropertyissues. Theproject ishalf itsoriginal size.
Theproject locationisperfect for housing, withlocal schools, jobs, retail, andserviceswithinwalkingdistance. Theproject isalsoclosetoCaltrainandthereisabundant existingandplannedactivetransportationinfrastructureintheimmediatevicinity, includingtheEl CaminoReal bikelanesandtheEmbarcaderoBikePath.
Thisisaconstrained, infill sitewithlimitedopportunitiesfor increasedsetbacksandlandscapingwithout significantlycompromisingthefeasibilityof theproject asawhole. However, ourmassivehousingshortagerequiresustorecognizethetradeoffsthat must bemadetofacilitatehousing. For theselarger, family-sizedunitsinthislocation, thetradeoffsareworthmaking.
Theproject still facesalongapproval process, withat least twomorehearingsbeforeapproval.Weurgeyounot todelaythisproject further. Longdelaysoftenmeantheendof housingprojectsduetocontinuallyincreasingcosts. Pleasetakesubstantiveactionat thehearingandrecommendapproval of theproject tothePlanningandTransportationCommission.
Thankyoufor your thoughtful commentsontheproject andfor your servicetoour community! AmieAshtonExecutiveDirector, andonbehalf of theBoardof PaloAltoForward
October 30, 2024
Emily Kallas
Senior Planner, City of Palo Alto
[email protected]
(650) 617-3125
Dear Emily,
We have carefully reviewed the latest submi,al from Storm Land LLC and The Hayes Group for Applica2on No. 24PLN-00095, which requests a Planned Home Zoning (PHZ) for the construc2on of a new 3-story residen2al condominium at 70 Encina. Town & Country Village (TCV) has reviewed all itera2ons of this applica2on and has par2cipated in all related public hearings to voice our concerns about the design, density, and opera2onal impact on TCV, its tenants, customers, and the community.
Our concerns have been communicated through the following documents:
• a le,er to the Palo Alto City Council dated September 8, 2022 • a le,er to the Architectural Review Board (ARB) dated December 2, 2023 • a le,er to Planning staff dated July 22, 2024
• a le,er to Planning staff dated September 3, 2024
Addi2onally, we have voiced these concerns in person at the City Council hearing on September 12, 2022, at the ARB Study Session on December 7, 2023, and the Planning and Transporta2on Commission (PTC) hearing on September 11, 2024.
Feedback on Current Submial
We are not reitera2ng herein our specific concerns for the aesthe2c and opera2onal impacts that we foresee this proposed project imposing on our property, our tenants and the community. Please refer to our prior le,ers for that detail.
In the interest of simplicity and clarity, we are providing the a,ached matrix to highlight that the applicant has not addressed the overwhelming majority of the feedback that it has received at the last two hearings (ARB on December 7, 2023 and PTC on September 11, 2024). The feedback at these hearings was very clear and consistent and aligns with the concerns that we have con2nued to raise in our le,ers and at the prior hearings.
We understand and support the City’s efforts to increase the local housing supply, however, given the limited 2me availability of City staff and the City’s Boards and Commissions, it feels inappropriate for the applicant to request con2nued expenditure of the City’s resources while largely ignoring the clear feedback they have received. Addi2onally, we feel that the most recent submi,al makes no effort to
Feedback from PTC Applicant Response
PTC Meeting - September 11, 2024 Cycle 3 Plans - Plan date 10.4.24 Bulb Outs beyond curb not supported Bulb out removed.
Results in fewer trees since no trees
have been added
Concerns about sound and proximity of commercial
services, recommends accoustic dampening added to
design
Concern not addressed in 10.4.24 plans
Setbacks at property lines desired Concern not addressed in 10.4.24 plans Concerns about project being too dense for size of
parcels
Concern not addressed in 10.4.24 plans
Insufficient greenspace and trees included Applicant removed the only added greenspace (bulb out).
Project adds no new greenspace or added trees
Gate at property line will be a traffic issue Concern not addressed in 10.4.24 plans Trash Pickup Room is too close to curb Concern not addressed in 10.4.24 plans Feedback from ARB Applicant Response
ARB Study Session - December 7, 2024 Cycle 1 Plans - Plan date 3.8.24 Lack of setbacks at property lines raised as a concern
Concern not addressed in 10.4.24 plans
Trash room only accessible by leaving the property Minor updates made, still requires residents to leave property to access trash room.
Windows facing each other in the courtyard is a privacy concern
Minor window adjustments made.
Submission still has a
number of windows facing each other.
Access to parking in northern two units is a problem,
and would require multi-point turns to access
Concern not addressed in 10.4.24 plans
Gate at property line is a traffic and queuing issue Concern not addressed in 10.4.24 plans
SUMMARY OF APPLICANT RESPONSES TO FEEDBACK FROM PTC & ARB 70 Encina - 24PLN-00095 - 10.4.24 Submittal
July 22, 2024
Emily Kallas
Planner, City of Palo Alto
[email protected]
(650) 617-3125
Dear Emily,
As you proceed with your staff level review of application number 24PLN-00095, request for Planned Community Zone Change (PHZ) to allow construction of a new 3-story, 22,552 sf residential condominium building, we, as the owners and operators of Town & Country Village (“TCV”) wish to raise our continued concerns with regards to the proposed 70 Encina development. Our concerns and objections were previously communicated in our September 8, 2022, letter to the Palo Alto City Council, in our letter from December 2, 2023 to the Architectural Review Board (both attached) and we addressed these concerns in person at the City Council hearing on September 12, 2022 and at the Architectural Review Board (ARB) Study Session on December 7, 2023.
We and our consultant architect, Randy Popp, have carefully reviewed the revised development plans, dated March 8, 2024. While we recognize that the applicant has made some minor changes to the proposal, our team and Mr. Popp believe that the vast majority of the concerns raised by the ARB on December 7, 2023 have gone completely ignored, notably the lack of a buffer between this zero lot line proposal and TCV and the lack of architectural compatibility for this sensitive setting. Furthermore, all the operational concerns that we have repeatedly raised about this problematic project remain unaddressed.
Background
We of course understand the critical need for new housing development in Palo Alto and throughout the region, but we request that you require the applicant to revise its proposal to address the concerns raised by the ARB as well as the aesthetic and operational impacts that we have continued to highlight over the last three years. We do not consider this ¼ acre site surrounded by our north parking lot to be a suitable housing site and feel that the ten luxury townhomes this project will create will do little to address the City’s housing shortage. Furthermore, the addition of these ten units does not justify the degradation of TCV, a unique and treasured community asset and source of significant sales taxes for the City of Palo Alto.
As you may be aware, at the September 8, 2022, hearing, the City Council “asked the applicant to work with Town & Country to receive their support of the project and stated that consideration should be paid to how this development may affect the vitality of Town & Country. Council also wanted any project at 70 Encina to provide a better visual connection with Town & Country, such as through the use of materials.”
Ever since that hearing, we have reviewed the prior revisions from the applicant and provided clear and consistent feedback to the applicant and to City staff in the hopes that the design would evolve in a manner that we can support and that is more appropriate and consistent with TCV’s architectural vocabulary, massing and operational considerations.
In terms of specific feedback on the most recent submittal, we are providing herein a summary of the impacts the proposed project would have on the operation of TCV and the potential areas of conflict it might create for our tenants and customers with the future occupants of the proposed development.
Also attached is a letter from Randy Popp highlighting his concerns with the current design and the lack of architectural compatibility with TCV.
TCV Operational Concerns
1. The Planning Department has expressed concern multiple times about parking at TCV, and while we comply with current code and issued approvals, our concern is that guest parking for the proposed residential development is going to spill into our adjacent lots and displace our customers. The proposed design includes no guest parking for ten residences and only provides an average of 1.4 spaces for these three-bedroom units. While we understand the desire to not build large parking facilities in Palo Alto, it is inevitable that future guests and residents will park on our property given its proximity. TCV will then be forced to police and tow guest parking for this development, and TCV will need to involve the City in repeated complaints about unauthorized use of our property.
2. This development will also result in an increase in vehicular traffic on our property. Given its design and orientation, residents and guests will likely use our property to drive through from Embarcadero, given Encina is sometimes hard to access by car via El Camino Real. As stated above, we believe the increase in traffic posed by the proposed development will create adverse impacts to our property and our patrons. TCV will be forced to involve the City in mitigation of neighbors using our property for path of travel.
3. Poke House, Asian Box, Antoine’s Cookies, Jamba Juice, Douce France, and Horsefeather will all be operating food and beverage facilities adjacent to the new residents, whose homes will be along on our primary service alley. Our concern is that residents will complain and try to impose on our tenants’ ability to operate. Each of these food service operations receive deliveries at early hours, and early morning businesses like Jamba Juice & Douce France will have employees and patrons arriving at the site early each day. Horsefeather will be utilizing a nearby outdoor patio until 10 PM at night, as allowed in their planning approval, which poses a potential conflict with residents who will likely complain to the City about the incompatibility of a these two nearly adjacent uses.
4. Since the proposed development abuts our rear service alleyway, we are concerned that residents will complain about off-hours deliveries, trash pickups, and other typical elements of commercial food operations. Employees occupy the service alleys adjacent to the residences at all hours of the day, and our concern is that residents will inevitably complain to the City about their presence, and the general operations of our tenants. The proposed development includes no buffer or setbacks to mitigate this and proposes high-end residential units directly adjacent to our active shopping center that has been operating for over 70 years in this location.
Zoning Violations
Beyond our concerns with the revised proposal, we would also like to remind you and others at the City of Palo Alto, that the owners of the subject site installed a chain link fence on or about November 2021, surrounding their portion of the parking lot. Based on conversations we had with planning staff in 2021, we were told that the installation of this fence was a clear zoning violation and that its installation would require an application by the 70 Encina property owners to modify prior planning approvals, factoring in changes in traffic flow and aesthetics. Since no such application has been filed, we have repeatedly reminded staff of this situation and now after nearly three years of weeds, pavement cracks and overall
blight, this situation remains unchanged, as a result of a lack of zoning enforcement (current condition photos attached). Given how meticulous City staff is in enforcing zoning codes and processes at TCV, it is quite surprising that the City is willing to process this new development application for a site that has a nearly three year old outstanding zoning violation that is blighting such an important community asset.
Please see the recent photos of the site for reference. We respectfully request that you put this application on hold until the property in question is in full compliance with current zoning regulations and the blighted conditions are addressed.
Thank you for your consideration of our concerns. We truly appreciate being included in the review process for this application and are hopeful that it can be revised to result in a project that is more appropriate for this important and sensitive setting. We have been the careful stewards of TCV since 2005 and would be devastated if this project as proposed were to be built in such a dense and incompatible configuration.
Sincerely,
Dean Rubinson
Director of Development
Ellis Partners LLC of behalf of CEP Town & Country Investors, LLC
Cc: Jim Ellis, Ellis Partners
Melinda Ellis Evers, Ellis Partners
Mitchell Serrato, Ellis Partners
Amy French, City of Palo Alto
Attachments:
Design Review Letter, Randolph Popp Architects - July 3, 2024 Current Photos Exhibit – July 22, 2024
Letter to Palo Alto City Council – September 8, 2022
Letter to Palo Alto Architectural Review Board – December 2, 2022
P a g e | 1 of 2
3 July 2024
Dean J. Rubinson
Partner, Director of Development
Ellis Partners
111 Sutter Street, Suite 800
San Francisco, CA 94104
Re: Proposed Planned Home Zoning Project at 70 Encina Avenue
Dean:
I was excited to understand there was an updated package available for the proposal adjacent to Town & Country Village but after my review, I’m quite disappointed to find much of the constructive criticism the development team received when they presented to ARB on December 07, 2023 has not been addressed. In fact, in some areas, the impact has worsened.
First and foremost, it still feels like more units are being squeezed into this property than can reasonably be accommodated. Board Member Chen mentioned this concern, and while I typically advocate for more density, in this particular case, I tend to agree with her perspective.
A number of critical constraints and limitations have not been resolved as outlined below, and the overall design just feels too strained.
The vehicular entry off of Encina has been widened. However, the interior courtyard space still seems to be too narrow, such that, as Board Member Hirsh pointed out, cars will have difficulty getting into and out of the garages. In particular, the first two stalls immediately adjacent to the entry will likely require multipoint turns to safely enter and exit. While this juggling is going on, other vehicles will not be able to enter or exit the property, potentially causing a queuing issue out on the street. At the opposite end of the drive aisle they have added an open weave CMU screen below a pair of outdoor terraces. Noise from the service drive, particularly in the early morning hours, will most certainly translate to the interior courtyard of the development, which will act like an echo chamber, creating an impact for all of the units, not just those adjacent to the service drive.
Accessory to the above is the concern raised by Board Member Chen that interior-facing bedroom windows are directly aligned. This too is a byproduct of the excessive density they are trying to achieve. The impact is a very challenging privacy conflict. It’s unclear how this could be resolved without a significant retooling of the design.
Another issue which has not been addressed but would require some significant reorganization is that the trash room is still only accessible by doors fronting on Encina. It’s difficult to understand how all of the townhomes will utilize this space efficiently and what the long-term impact of this will be for the most distant units. I personally can’t imagine walking my trash, recycling, and compost that distance on a regular (daily) basis.
Both Board Members Rosenberg and Adcock raised valid concerns about the zero setback positioning of the massing at the 3 non-street frontage sides. Although there has been an attempt made to create some additional visual relief to the massing of the building, ultimately, P a g e | 2 of 2
the concept remains essentially unchanged. In respect to the street-facing units, Board Member Baltay pointed out the potential for direct access via stoops on Encina. Rather than doing that, the design continues to exist as a ‘wall’ without addressing many of the objective design standards typically expected for the pedestrian-level street-facing portion of the building.
It appears from some added sheets that additional work has been done relative to fire access.
The result of this is the addition of a very intrusive stair configuration and a heavy screening element. I know from earlier conversations that you and I both feel this elevation is a primary component of the building because so much of it is visually accessible from the interior of Town & Country Village. This add-on is yet another element indicative of a density and massing which is greater than what the site can reasonably accommodate. Contextually, it increases the problematic nature of the development, which we know will continue to exist for decades as a singular building amid a large parking area.
Turning to the elevations, materials, and color choices, Board Members Rosenberg and Baltay most vocally indicated they felt not enough deference was being paid to Town & Country Village. Board Member Chen suggested greater mass along Encina and a reduction in height closer to Town & Country Village. I’m ambivalent about the value of changing the massing to elevate height closer to Encina and feel that may not be productive on such a small site. In regards to architectural deference to Town & Country Village, the addition of a dark-colored rain screen is a positive step, but the beige sandstone-colored brick at the base of the building feels like an inappropriate approach regarding materials and color. I do not consider the current design to be successful concerning the important goal communicated by the ARB Members.
In summary, I don’t believe this submittal addresses the concerns raised by the Board or in response to those identified by your team. I cannot see how, at this point, you might indicate your support for the proposal. I know that was the goal for the Council but we are just not there yet.
Sincerely,
Randy Popp
Randolph Popp, Architect
Current Photos Exhibit - July 22, 2024 Page 1
Current Photos Exhibit - July 22, 2024 Page 2
Current Photos Exhibit - July 22, 2024 Page 3
P a g e | 1 of 4
8 September 2022
Sent via email: [email protected]
City of Palo Alto City Council
Palo Alto City Hall
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Re: Proposed Planned Home Zoning Project at 70 Encina Avenue
Honorable Mayor, Vice Mayor, Council Members, and Staff:
In response to the proposal submitted for 70 Encina Avenue, Ellis Partners has retained my services to assist in their understanding of the project and its potential impact on Town & Country Village.
Having practiced in this community for over 32 years including serving on the Architectural Review Board, I believe my insight and evaluation could be beneficial as a part of your review of the application. While I am typically a proponent of increasing the availability of housing, I do not feel the proposal offered for this particular site meets the standards our city has set in several critical areas.
I’ll preface all of this by stating my general appreciation for the projects Hayes Architects has designed. I think they are a valuable local resource and have enhanced our environment through their work time and again. One notable example of their work was the thoughtful and compatible Trader Joe’s addition to Town & Country Village. However, with this project, their client is not Ellis Partners, and the design is not compatible with Town & Country Village.
To support my evaluation of the proposal I have worked with a well-known and widely respected renderer who has developed additional dimensionally accurate views of the building using the information provided in the proposal package. I have attached those images to this letter and, without attempting to alter the building design, believe they represent a range of building heights to help illustrate how a more reasonable two- or three-story proposal might be viewed within the existing context.
As we all know, a new development in Palo Alto is generally obligated to conform to the review standards of the Architectural Review Board and as such, must satisfy findings to be deemed approved. This project falls short in almost every category.
Consistency with ARB Review Standards:
• Promote orderly and harmonious development of the city Our Comprehensive Plan, Municipal Code, and Zoning regulations clearly define what is appropriate regarding orderly and harmonious development within the city. The project is located in the Community Commercial Zoning District which is designed to encourage retail and some commercial uses. Notably, residential use in this area is highly restricted through both Zoning and Comprehensive Plan policy. As can be seen in the attached renderings, a five-story structure, placed in a parking lot, and adjacent to primarily single-story structures, is jarring and out-of-context.
• Enhance the desirability of residence or investment in the city P a g e | 2 of 4
While there might be some convenience to living in this location, the proposed height and massing in this location is entirely inappropriate. While many would argue that we need housing in any format we can achieve it, I would argue that there are other more appropriate locations.
Compromising to allow a PHZ project of this scale at this location sets precedent for ignoring development standards we have agreed are necessary to maintain aesthetic balance across Palo Alto. Indicating encouragement for this type of dramatic change here would result in far reaching impacts that will significantly alter our environment. • Encourage the attainment of the most desirable use of land and improvements Approving a project of this scale and character at this location will result in unintended consequences for this street and Town & Country Village. The likelihood of other projects similar to this being developed in the near future is slim (Ellis Partners has a long-term ground lease) so this would remain an isolated anomaly for the foreseeable future. Based on current Zoning and Comprehensive Plan Policies, which indicate the most desirable use of the site is retail/commercial, the land use change necessary to achieve this type of development at this site would create a condition that is not in harmony with the existing surrounding development or what can be reasonably be anticipated for the future. • Enhance the desirability of living conditions upon the immediate site or in adjacent areas It is challenging to understand how an isolated, purely residential project, could be considered compatible with the adjacent properties. If a coordinated effort here was able to allow a significant land area to be developed for residential use, there might be enough benefit to the nearby retail to balance the visual impact it would cause. At that scale, it could be large enough to allow for transitions to the adjacent context in a way this small parcel cannot. The dimensions of this project site within the context of the single-story and parking lot adjacent uses allows for no reasonable transition to a building at the height proposed. The limited number of units possible simply does not outweigh the negative aesthetic impact the proposal creates.
Additionally, the limited setbacks proposed, and overall building layout, will make any future adjacent project even more difficult to accommodate.
• Promote visual environments which are of high aesthetic quality and variety and which, at the same time, are considerate of each other.
As stated above, the scale of this project, exaggerated by the boxy massing, represents no acknowledgment of the adjacent environment and is inconsiderate of the low-slung Hacienda style. It is common practice for projects to terrace, or step back, from edges that border on parcels with lesser height. As this site is bordered by single-story and parking lot adjacent uses, the only possible approach would include a significant reduction in overall height. A more appropriate approach, as suggested in the attached images, might be a revised two- or three- story proposal that could transition from the adjacent single-story context and would then be more consistent with nearby 2-story structures.
Consistency with Findings for Approval
(1) The design is consistent with applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, coordinated area plans (including compatibility requirements), and any relevant design guides.
As outlined in the letter provided by Land Use Attorney Leigh Prince, this project is inconsistent with both the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning regulations. This Finding cannot be made.
P a g e | 3 of 4
(2) The project has a unified and coherent design, that:
(C) Is consistent with the context-based design criteria of the applicable zone district The project is inconsistent with context-based design criteria for the district within which it is proposed. Notably, the FAR is significantly in excess of what would reasonably be anticipated.
This Finding cannot be made.
(2) The project has a unified and coherent design, that:
(D) Provides harmonious transitions in scale, mass, and character to adjacent land uses and land use designations
The project does not provide a harmonious transition in scale, mass, or character to the adjacent land uses and land-use designations. The project proposes a 5-story 55-foot high square stucco building amidst parking and adjacent to Town & Country Village, which is primarily a single-story Hacienda style collection of structures. As the images I provided show, the contrast between the two is severe and there seems to be no attempt toward transition. This Finding cannot be made. (3) The design is of high aesthetic quality, using high quality, integrated materials and appropriate construction techniques, and incorporating textures, colors, and other details that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area.
While acknowledging this is a preliminary proposal, my evaluation is that the current design does not suggest it will strive to be of the highest aesthetic quality, using high-quality integrated materials, or incorporating textures, colors, and other details that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area. Although the immediate context is eclectic, the predominant style is the low-slung architecture of the Town & Country Village. Departing from that in the manner proposed will not unify or allow for a transition that could satisfy this requirement. This Finding cannot be made.
(5) The landscape design complements and enhances the building design and its surroundings, is appropriate to the site's functions, and utilizes to the extent practical, regional indigenous drought resistant plant material capable of providing desirable habitat that can be appropriately maintained.
Due in large part to the 86.5% site coverage proposed the minimal landscape design does not truly enhance the building or its surroundings. It appears to be only modestly appropriate to the site’s function and does not appear to represent a desirable habitat. This Finding cannot be made.
Consistency with Objective Standards
When evaluated in the context of the adopted Objective Design Standards for the CC Zoning District, and consistent with other requirements listed above, it seems important to understand the direction outlined in Section 18.24.050 Building Massing (underlining added for emphasis):
(A) Intent
To create buildings that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area through the consideration of building scale, massing, and bulk. Massing should create a human-scale environment that is of high aesthetic quality and accommodates a variety of uses and design features. Building massing should include elements that:
P a g e | 4 of 4
- Are consistent in scale, mass and character to adjacent land uses and land use designations - Provide harmonious transitions between adjacent properties The project as proposed does not reflect consideration of this Standard and significant modification would be needed in the form of step-back/terracing and height reduction to conform to the many requirements the Palo Alto regulations describe. Note that these are similar and related to the other obligations described above and as I have repeatedly stated, the 5-story box is in no way compatible or consistent with Town & Country Village.
Critique of the submitted documents
A further critique of the submitted documents yields other problematic concerns.
The lowest level of the building, which is primarily a parking garage, is an entirely solid wall for virtually all of the perimeter. While modestly appropriate along Encina, the remainder of the building, which is viewable from all sides, lacks articulation or character at the pedestrian level.
The rendered representation of the building provided by the applicant, both in elevation and perspective, fails to fully clarify the character of this building relative to its context. I think it is important to note that the 2-foot-tall parapet as shown would not be sufficient to screen typical roof- mounted equipment that would need to be placed there. A more common screen height would be closer to 5-7 feet, pushing the total visual height of the building to somewhere in the neighborhood of 60 feet. That height will be approximately 40 feet more than the Town & Country building it is most adjacent to and similarly in contrast to the single-story buildings on the opposite side of Encina. The multi-story buildings shown in the renderings are misleading in that they are far from the project site at a distance of roughly 300 feet (the length of a football field).
In closing, I believe there are many other housing opportunity sites that might be appropriate for this type of development but find the proposal presented for this site to be impossible to support based on established standards for review and approval.
Sincerely,
Randy Popp
Randolph Popp, Architect
70 Encina Avenue – Study Illustrations
View A
Key Plan
Five Level
Three Level
Two Level
70 Encina Avenue – Study Illustrations
View B
Key Plan
Five Level
Three Level
Two Level
70 Encina Avenue – Study Illustrations
View C
Key Plan
Five Level
Three Level
Two Level
70 Encina Avenue – Study Illustrations
View D
Key Plan
Five Level
Three Level
Two Level
70 Encina Avenue – Study Illustrations
View E
Key Plan
Five Level
Three Level
Two Level
WILLIAM L. McCLURE JOHN L. FLEGEL DAN K. SIEGEL JENNIFER H. FRIEDMAN MINDIE S. ROMANOWSKY LEIGH F. PRINCE DAVID L. ACH GREGORY K. KLINGSPORN NICOLAS A. FLEGEL KRISTINA A. FENTON CARA E. SILVER KIMBERLY J. BRUMMER CAMAS J. STEINMETZ ____________ BRITTNEY L. STANDLEY CHRISTIAN D. PETRANGELO JOSEPH H. FELDMAN JORGENSON, SIEGEL, McCLURE & FLEGEL, LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1100 ALMA STREET, SUITE 210 MENLO PARK, CALIFORNIA 94025-3392 (650) 324-9300 FACSIMILE (650) 324-0227 www.jsmf.com September 7, 2022 OF COUNSEL KENT MITCHELL ____________ RETIRED JOHN D. JORGENSON MARGARET A. SLOAN DIANE S. GREENBERG ____________ DECEASED MARVIN S. SIEGEL (1936 - 2012) JOHN R.COSGROVE (1932 - 2017) Sent via email: [email protected] City of Palo Alto City Council Palo Alto City Hall 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: Proposed Planned Home Zoning Project at 70 Encina Avenue Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council Members: Town and Country Village (“Town and Country”) is a specialty retail shopping center that was originally completed in the 1950s. Since acquiring Town and Country, Ellis Partners has been committed to retaining the original character of early western-style architecture with red tile roofs, heavy wood beam and column-supported covered walkways and stately oaks growing throughout. Over the years, Ellis Partners has completed renovations to Town and Country, including the construction of Trader Joe’s. These renovations have preserved the low-slung character of Town and Country, while increasing its appeal as one of Palo Alto’s primary retail destinations. Recently, a Planned Home Zoning (“PHZ”) project was proposed at 70 Encina Avenue (“project site”). The project site was previously used and permitted by the City of Palo Alto (“City”) as a part of Town and Country for parking (although in recent months the owner has fenced off the project site without City approval). The current proposal would rezone the project site from Community Commercial (“CC”) to PHZ to allow the development of a 55-foot high five-story condominium building. This proposed project is not only out of character with the adjacent Town and Country buildings, but it is also inconsistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Approving the proposed project, even at a more palatable height and scale, would require more than rezoning the project site to PHZ, it would require a Comprehensive Plan amendment and a zoning text amendment. As a result, Ellis Partners opposes the project because as proposed it would detract from this important and iconic pedestrian-oriented retail destination.
City of Palo Alto City Council Planned Home Zoning Project at 70 Encina September 7, 2022 Page 2 Town and Country Village Includes the Project Site Town and Country is defined as all properties zoned CC and bounded by El Camino Real, Embarcadero Road, Encina Avenue and Southern Pacific right-of-way – this includes the project site. See Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.16.030. Town and Country was originally constructed in phases between 1952 and 1958 including one and two-story buildings, an extensive parking lot, trees and landscaping. From the 1950s to the present (approx. 70 years), the City has considered Town and Country by these boundaries. A recent Planning Commission staff report dated February 10, 2021, included figures showing Town and Country. These figures illustrate how the City and the community at large understand Town and Country – as including the project site. Figures Showing Town and Country Residential is Inconsistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan Palo Alto’s Comprehensive Plan does not support the rezoning of the project site, which has historically been part of Town and Country, from its current CC zoning to PHZ zoning. Comprehensive Plan Policy B-6.6 provides that Town and County should be retained as an attractive, local-serving retail center. Most importantly, Comprehensive Plan Policy L2.4.4 provides that “Conversion to residential capacity should not be considered in Town and Country Village.” Rezoning the project site to allow a residential condominium building would violate these Comprehensive Plan policies. As a result, the finding needed to approve the proposed project and rezone to PHZ – that the proposed use would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan – cannot be made. Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.36.060. If there is a strong desire to alter the long-standing policy regarding preserving Town and Country for low-density retail, approving a PHZ rezoning to allow housing, even at a more palatable height and scale, would require approving a Comprehensive Plan amendment to change the language that housing should not be considered at Town and Country. In addition, a zoning text amendment would be needed to carve out the project site from the definition of Town and Country in Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.16.030. Such a significant policy shift should not be undertaken lightly as it may have lasting and precedent setting impacts on Town and Country, potentially undermining this iconic retail center and further eroding the City’s dwindling retail uses. It is Ellis Partners’ firm belief that the City Council cannot make the required finding to rezone, absent a Comprehensive Plan amendment and a zoning text amendment. As it currently stands, the Comprehensive Plan provides that residential capacity should not be considered at this location and Town and Country should be retrained as a local serving retail center.
City of Palo Alto City Council Planned Home Zoning Project at 70 Encina September 7, 2022 Page 3 Neither Consistent with Nor a Reasonable Modification to Existing Zoning The existing CC zoning for the proposed project site would not allow the development of the proposed project. Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.16.040 provides that in the CC zone residential is permitted, but only as part of a mixed-use development or on sites designated as housing inventory sites. The proposed project site is not listed as a housing inventory site (in fact it was administratively removed from the list of potential sites in this Housing Element cycle). In addition, while adding housing would make Town and Country mixed-use as a whole, the premise of the applicant’s proposal is founded on separating itself from Town and Country. Therefore, to be permitted the project itself would have to be mixed-use and it is not. Further, the City Council’s policy direction regarding the PHZ has been to look for reasonable modifications to the existing zoning. This project proposes a significant departure from the existing zoning. It proposes a project that is substantially different from and not compatible with Town and Country. See Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.38.060 requiring the Council to find the project would be compatible with existing and potential uses on adjoining sites or within the general vicinity. 1. Floor Area Ratio - The maximum allowable floor area ratio (“FAR”) is 0.35 for Town and Country. The maximum FAR for mixed-use development for Town and Country is limited to 0.50 provided that no more than 0.15 shall be residential. The project has proposed a FAR of 2.4 for residential only, far in excess of both the underlying zoning and the existing surrounding retail center. To put it into perspective, the proposed FAR is 6.8 times larger than the allowable FAR for retail and 16 times larger than the allowable FAR for residential in a mixed-use project. 2. Site Coverage – The maximum site coverage is 50 percent. The project proposes a site coverage of 86.5% or 36.5% percent more than allowable under the existing zoning or allowed for any of the surrounding Town and Country uses. 3. Height – Although the maximum allowable height is 50 feet in the CC zoning district, the majority of buildings in Town and Country are a blend of one and two stories approximately 18 to 24 feet in height. Thus, 55-feet and five stories is a significant departure from the low-slung character of the retail center. The proposed project would be the first and likely only building of this type and magnitude for the foreseeable future at Town and Country making it incompatible with the surrounding uses. Given the established retail uses, existing zoning regulations and long-term ground lease, Ellis Partners does not anticipate any significant change to Town and Country, and certainly nothing that would be compatible with the height and scale of the proposed project. Furthermore, the City’s Comprehensive Plan programs and policies speak to transitions in scale between developments (Policy L-1.3) and discouraging abrupt changes in scale and density (Policy L-6.7 and Program L6.7.1). The proposed project provides no transition and is an abrupt change in scale from Town and Country buildings and parking which would surround it. Conclusion Ellis Partners appreciates the significant amount of time and resources these pre-screening applications consume and thanks City staff and the Council for their time and attention to this matter. Ellis Partners understands the City’s need to plan for housing; however, housing development of this height and scale is not appropriate at Town and Country and if approved as City of Palo Alto City Council Planned Home Zoning Project at 70 Encina September 7, 2022 Page 4 proposed would undermine the look and feel of this iconic retail center. Thus, Ellis Partners respectfully requests that the City Council not to support moving this project forward as proposed. Sincerely, Leigh F. Prince Leigh F. Prince cc: Jonathan Lait, Planning Director ([email protected])
152454300.2
December 2, 2023
Sent via email: [email protected]
City of Palo Alto City Architectural Review Board
Palo Alto City Hall
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Re: Proposed Planned Home Zoning Project at 70 Encina Avenue
Dear Chair Baltay, Vice-Chair Rosenberg, and Members of the Palo Alto Architectural Review Board:
Town & Country Village is appreciative of the reduced scale and concept modifications represented in the submitted design but continues to be concerned about the proposed project at 70 Encina Avenue.
We have been the thoughtful stewards of Town & Country Village as an important community asset for nearly 20 years and throughout our ownership we have been focused on preserving and protecting this unique neighborhood treasure in a manner that is entirely consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and all the City’s design guidelines.
The proposed project, however, does not preserve and protect this community treasure and is wholly inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Comprehensive Plan Policy L-2.4, Program L2.4.4, states explicitly “Conversion to residential capacity should not be considered in Town and Country Village.” Although the 70 Encina parcels have no buildings on them and have existed for 70 years as parking for the center, this site is clearly listed under the Municipal Code as within the boundary of Town & Country Village. As such, when considering this project, we hope you will focus your attention on weighing the relative value of the zoning code concessions you are being asked to evaluate and the impact of the project on the Town & Country Village as a whole.
We clearly understand there is a housing crisis and appreciate the City’s efforts to mitigate the deficit in Palo Alto by identifying locations for 6,086 potential new housing units (plus an additional 780 units to act as a “buffer”) within the city per the 6th Cycle Housing Element, with the majority (3465) being at moderate or below moderate-income levels. However, it seems inconsistent with the City’s housing goals to allow 10 luxury condominiums to take precedence over the continued preservation of a valued, historical neighborhood center at a location where the Comprehensive Plan specifically prohibits housing.
As a reminder, the Comprehensive Plan, when speaking about the future of Town & Country Village in Policy L-4.12, states that proposed developments should, “recognize and preserve Town and Country Village as an attractive retail center serving Palo Altans and residents of the wider region. Future development at this site should preserve its existing amenities, pedestrian scale, and architectural character.” While we appreciate the applicant’s decision to reduce the scale of the project, which previously towered over the primarily single-story Town & Country Village, we continue to believe that the latest iteration is still lacking consistency within this important and sensitive setting and as proposed, would most certainly not contribute to the preservation of “its existing amenities, pedestrian scale, and architectural character.
152454300.2
While we understand that the application is proposed as a PHZ/PC, which allows the City some leeway to depart from current zoning standards established for these parcels, it is essential to remember, as stated in the staff report, that “a planned community district is particularly intended for unified, comprehensively planned developments that are of substantial public benefit and which conform with and enhance the policies and programs of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan.” The proposed project, even though scaled down, is not a unified, comprehensively planned development – it will exist as a small one-off residential development within the Town & Country Village shopping center parking lot. It does not provide substantial public benefit – likely providing a mere two affordable units amongst eight condos likely costing over $1.5 million each. It does not enhance the policies and programs of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan but rather, stands in direct opposition to those policies and programs.
We consider this proposal to be inappropriate in its attempt to use the PHZ/PC process. As proposed it will certainly result in a dramatic degradation of the community treasure that has been carefully protected for decades and that we have been working to preserve since 2005. The City Council, at the September 12, 2022 hearing clearly recognized the risk of this project adversely impacting Town & Country Village. As stated in the Staff Report, “they asked the applicant to work with Town & Country to receive their support of the project, and stated that consideration should be paid to how this development may affect the vitality of Town & County. Council also wanted any project at 70 Encina to provide a better visual connection with Town & Country, such as through the use of materials.”
We encourage you to respond to this application in a manner that aligns with the City Council’s direction to achieve Town & Country support, limits conflict with the Comprehensive Plan, and aligns fully with the intent of the PHZ/PC process. As the proposed project does not yet achieve any of these, we respectfully request that you provide the applicant with such feedback. The proposal you are being asked to evaluate will have a lasting adverse impact if approved in its current form. We appreciate your partnership in maintaining Town & Country’s unique character, scale, and architectural charm for the future.
Below is a more detailed evaluation provided in consultation with Randy Popp, an Architect and former Chair of the ARB, who we have asked to advise us in evaluating this design proposal, its consistency with City design guidelines, and the impact it would have on Town & Country Village. Also provided below is a list of significant operational concerns this proposal raises.
Thank you for your careful consideration,
Dean Rubinson
Director of Development
Ellis Partners LLC
Architectural Review Findings:
Regardless of the concessions granted through the PHZ regulations, the role of ARB is to ensure that all required Architectural Findings (PAMC 18.76.020(d)) must be met by the applicant. We find that it is inconsistent with the following criteria:
152454300.2
1. The design is consistent with applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, coordinated area plans (including compatibility requirements), and any relevant design guides.
This project site was not intended to be developed as residential. While current changes in policy may make this project seem desirable, any departure from established plans or codes should provide significant community benefit, far beyond the enrichment of the development team. Furthermore, the proposal should seek to achieve the greatest possible alignment with all other established aspects of zoning regulations and policy.
2. The project has a unified and coherent design, that:
a. Creates an internal sense of order and desirable environment for occupants, visitors, and the general community.
A sense of order and desirability of the environment for the general community is not accomplished through the proposed design. The current proposal does not support or enhance the requirements for a desirable retail environment, as further explained in the operational section below.
b. Preserves, respects and integrates existing natural features that contribute positively to the site and the historic character including historic resources of the area when relevant.
The proposed project does not integrate into the existing historic character of Town & Country Village. Due to its proximity, the proposed project should seek to achieve greater compatibility in its design, massing, and use of materials. The submitted design stands in stark contrast to the historic character of Town & Country and must be substantially modified to meet this Finding.
c. Is consistent with the context-based design criteria of the applicable zone district.
N/A - we are not aware of any context-based design criteria for this site.
d. Provides harmonious transitions in scale, mass and character to adjacent land uses and land use designations.
While the applicant has reduced the scale, the proposed project is still inconsistent with adjacent architectural character and land use. Town & Country Village has a distinct scale and design vocabulary, (roof slope, materials, deep overhangs at comfortable pedestrian walkways, etc.) and we feel the current proposal is incompatible with the historic nature of the center.
e. Enhances living conditions on the site (if it includes residential uses) and in adjacent residential areas.
The design does not enhance living conditions on the site.
The intensive operational needs of a thriving neighborhood center include receiving deliveries, handling trash, well-lit customer parking, and the like. We believe that residents would find these necessary operational demands to be
152454300.2
unpalatable. Until the proposal can achieve mitigation of these existing necessary constraints, the application should be returned for modification.
3. The design is of high aesthetic quality, using high quality, integrated materials, and appropriate construction techniques, and incorporating textures, colors, and other details that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area.
As stated before, we do not find the current design to be compatible with the current historic design, massing, or character of Town & Country Village.
4. The design is functional, allowing for ease and safety of pedestrian and bicycle traffic and providing for elements that support the building's necessary operations (e.g., convenient vehicle access to property and utilities, appropriate arrangement and amount of open space and integrated signage, if applicable, etc.).
We feel the proposed development will result in a net-negative to the safety and ease of access for pedestrians and bicycle traffic. The added vehicular traffic, loss of parking for retail use, and minimal setbacks combine to create an unmitigated series of impacts.
Additionally, given the tight constraints of the site and the density of the proposed development, there is serious concern for the impact to retail vehicular access at an already constrained site, and certainly represents reduced access for operational needs.
5. The landscape design complements and enhances the building design and its surroundings, is appropriate to the site's functions, and utilizes to the extent practical, regional indigenous drought resistant plant material capable of providing desirable habitat that can be appropriately maintained.
The current proposal has the property fully developed leaving little to no room for the required landscaping necessary to achieve compliance with this Finding. The project landscape design does not provide the necessary transition to the adjacent Center design. In addition, please note that the proposed development represents a net loss to the existing tree canopy. Currently, the canopy coverage on the site is approximately 2170 square feet across 8 existing trees, while the proposed development includes 7 replacement trees with limited growth potential for a proposed approximate canopy of 550 square feet.
6. The project incorporates design principles that achieve sustainability in areas related to energy efficiency, water conservation, building materials, landscaping, and site planning.
We have yet to fully understand how this proposal achieves compliance with this Finding. As stated previously, the bar for approval should be set high due to the concessions being requested for approval of this proposal at this site.
Operational Review Findings:
Given that the proposed project stands in contrast to the City’s planning documents, it is not surprising that if approved it will likely create several significant impacts on the pedestrian, vehicular and other operational aspects of Town & Country Village:
152454300.2
1) It is incompatible to locate residences within the parking lot of a busy commercial shopping center. Our shopping center receives tenants’ deliveries throughout the day and frequently these are more intense in the early morning hours before the center opens to customers.
Additionally, certain dining tenants operate into the late evening hours which might impact potential new residences within the vicinity. Lastly, we have trash and recycling serviced daily, immediately proximate to the proposed development. While these operations are consistent with City codes and existing approvals, residents will almost certainly find them incompatible with their residential use. We would ask that you carefully consider these concerns in your evaluation of the project to avoid creating a cycle of complaints that cannot be resolved.
2) Given the density of the proposed development, we foresee constraints on parking and pedestrian access. The current proposal allows for no space for potential residents’ visitors, service vendors, or deliveries. With Encina Avenue already fully parked during the day, and with all our parking stalls restricted for our retail and restaurant uses at the Center, we feel the added traffic and parking load on Encina Avenue and the surrounding area would be untenable.
The project should be designed in anticipation of all these needs, as would be required of any other proposal brought forward.