Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
1998-10-05 City Council (22)
City of Palo ALto City Manager’s Report TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM:CITY MANAGER 11 DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DATE:OCTOBER 5, 1998 CMR:376:98 SUBJECT:579 VISTA AVENUE/4114 GOEBEL LANE (FILE NOS; 98-SUB-1; 98- EIA-1): APPLICATION OF JEFF LEVIN FOR TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP APPROVAL TO CREATE 12 RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM UNITS ON A 41,253-SQUARE-FOOT PARCEL PURSUANT TO TITLE 21 OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission and staffrecommend that the City Council: ’ 1.Approve the attached Negative Declaration, with a.finding that the project will not result in any significant environmental impacts; and 2.Approve a tentative subdivision map based on the attached revised findings (Attachment E) and subject to the attached revised conditions (Attachment F). PROJECT DESCRIPTION The site is located in the Barron Park area of Palo Alto ne~ ~e comer of E1 Camino Real and Vista Avenue and is comprised of three existing parcels. ~e project site is currently developed with seven small single family residential units, The applicant requests approval of a tentative subdivision map to reconfigure the three existing lots into 12 condominiums for the purposes of constructing a new 13-unit, residential development. One of the condominium buildings will contain two residential units. The proposed parcel reconfiguration is consistent with an Architectural Review Board-approved residential development project on the site (97,ARB-152). For additiona[information on this project, please refer to the Planning Commission staffreports dated July 8 and 29, 1998 and to the attachments relating to the Architectural Review Board (ARB) process. CMR:376:98 Page 1 of 4 COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS This project was reviewed by the Planning Commission on July 8 and on July 29, 1998. The minutes from these meetings are attached for reference (Attachment A). The Planning Commission continued the public hearing from the July 8 meeting in order to obtain additional information about the design of the associated buildings and site improvements and background on .the actiOns of the ARB. On July 29, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended that the City Council approve the tentative map per the staff recommendation and subject to the attached fmdings and conditions attached to the Planning Commission staff report(Attachment B). Below Market Rate (BMR) Units Due to the removal of existing rental units on the site, the developer Was required to provide a 20 percent BMR component. Since the proposed project had relatively few units (13), staff in negotiating the BMR component agreed to the developer providing one on-site unit, one off-site unit and an in-lieu fee to complete the BMR requirement of 2.6 units (see attached letter of agreement).This agreement was in place at the time of ARB and Planning Commission review. A rehabilitation plan for the proposed off-site unit was required to be completed and approved by the Director and the Palo Alto Housing Corporation (PAHC) prior to Final Map approval or issuance of any building permit for the project, whichever first occurs. Further, the BMR agreement requires that rehabilitation of the off-site unit shall be completed according .to this plan prior to issuance of an occupancy permit for any unit in the Project. If, for any reason, the developer does not complete the rehabilitation of the off-site unit to the satisfaction of the City, then occupancy permits for the project will not be issued. The developer initially proposed an off-site unit in the Midtown area that was rejected by staff. The developer has now proposed an off-site unit located at 3491 Park Boulevard. This existing structure has three bedrooms and one bath. The proposed off-site unit has been inspected and reviewed by City staffand the City’s contracting agent for the BMR program, the PAHC. The structure has some substantial foundation cracks, site drainage concerns, work done without permits, work done without permit finalization and other more minor concerns. Due to these concerns, particularly the possible long term maintenance issues by successive owners and liability issues they may assume as the BMR administrator, the PAHC Board of Directors at its meeting of September 9, 1998, recommended that the City not accept this. as an off-site unit. The BMR agreement alternative, if a suitable off-site unit can not be found, is a second on-site unit. Staff has been working with the developer to prepare a satisfactory rehabilitation plan for the Park Boulevard property. This plan is attached and has been signed by the developer. It CMR:376:98 Page 2 0f4 includes a requirement that the CitY secure the services of an independent inspector to review the work with the cost to be paid by the developer. Acceptance of an off-site unit is unusual in the BMR program. It has only been done two times previously, once in the very early stage of the program and most recently with the "The Hamilton" project, which involved an off-site apartment building with the rehabilitation supervised by PAHC. Inherent in accepting an off-site trait is the fact that any proposed unit will be older construction and in need of repairs. Staff believes that the rehabilitation plan and the independent inspector will provide as much assurance as is possible to ensure the acceptabilitY of the off-site unit; therefore, staff is recommending acceptance of the unit at 3491 Park Boulevardas the off-site unit. Findings and Conditions Subsequent to the Planning Commission review of this map, the CitY Attorney recommended that language be added to the required findings of approval that reflected the specifications of the Subdivision Map Act. The CitY Attorney also suggested an additional condition be added to the draft conditions of approval that relates to the provision of security for the required housing in-lieu fee. These proposed changes are indicated as underlined sections in Attachments D and E of this report. TIMELINE Pursuant to the Government Code of the State Of California, this tentative map application must be acted upon by the CitY Council by October 14, 1998 unless an extension of time, not to exceed 90 days, is requested and mutually agreed upon by the applicant and the City. ATTACHMENTS A. Excerpts of Planning Commission minutes dated 7/8/98 and 7/29/98. B. Planning Commission staff reports and attachments dated 7/8/98 and 7/29/98. C. Letter of Agreement re BMR Units dated 1/6/98 D. Draft Rehabilitation Plan dated 9/18/98 E. Revised Draft Findings for Tentative Subdivision Map F. Revised Draft Conditions of Approval for Subdivision Plans (City Council Members only) PREPARED BY: ~George White, Planning Manager DEPARTMENT HEAD: ANNE CRONIN MOORE Interim Director of Planning and Community Environment CMR:376:98 Page 3 of 4 CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: ~ ’ co:JeffLevin, 350 Second Street Suite 7, Los Altos, CA 94022 Barron Park Homeowners Association, Will Beckett, President, 4189 Baker Avenue, Palo Alto, Ca.94306 CMR:376:98 Page 4 of 4 Attachment A 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 :29,° 30 31 32 33 MEETINGS ARE CABLECAST, LIVE ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL 16 July 8, 1998 REGULAR MEETING - 7:00 PM " ¯City Council Chambers Civic Center, lst Floor 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, California 94301 ROLL CALL: Meeting called to order at 7.’10 P.M. Commissioners: Jon Schink, Chairman Owen Byrd - not participating for ltem 5 Bern Beecham Annette Bialson - absent " Phyllis Cassel Kathy Schmidt Patrick Butt Staff: Eric Riel, Jr., Chief Planning Official George White, Senior Planner Brian Dolan, Senior Planner Ariel Calonne, City Attorney " ~COMMUNICA TIONS: Membersof the public may speak to any item not on the agenda with a limitatRm..9.~three minutes per speaker. Those who desire to speak must complete a speaker’s request car.d availabl~o.~ the secretary of the Commission. The PlanningCommission reserves the fight to limit the oral comm~period to 15 minutes. ~ . . Chairm~ Sehink." ~e first ite~van..~ur agenda is Oral Communicationsl This is an opportunity for members of the public to address thePt~ng Commission on any item specifically not onthe agenda. Seeing no one rising to address us on oral co .~_~ations, we will proceed to agenda changes,additions and deletions. ~ ¯ AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS: The.agenda may have additional items added to it up to 72 hours prior to meeting time. - None. ~~ APPROVAL 01"MINUTES. City of Palo Alto 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 because unit 1 is a duplex? ~: Unit 1 contains two separate dwellings.That’ s correct. ~ric Riel. Jr.. Chief Planning: I would like to also note that under the timeline it’s indicated that this will be considered .by the City Council on August 3. It is going to be considered on July 27th instead. "" ~ Chairman~chink: Kathy, you had a question? Commissioner Schmidt: Yes. This is described as a condominium project and I was just wondering why it is a condominium rather than a small lot subdivision since all the units except for one are separate. That just the owners preference? You know, it look~ similar to other small lot projects we’ve had recently. Mr. Whit.~: It is the desire of the owner for it to be a condominium project. I couldn’t elaborate beyond that. Chairman Schink: Owen? Commissioner Byrd: If I’m remembering right, this is the project that abuts the Classic Community project and there was an issue raised about pedestrian access between the two. Has that issue been resolved? ~ As .part of the Architecture Review Board approval a condition was added which is in the conditions attached to your Staff Report requiring the applicant to come.back with a design for that pedestrian passageway that will connect this site with the adjacent Cameo Club site. Subsequent to the Architectural Review Board approval the applicant did return to the Architectural Review Board with a site plan that was approved by the ARB at that time. .~dl~dIlIl~1]~$.c,~: Any other questions? Seeing none, we’ll forward to the public. Is the applicant here? I don’t have any cards on this item. Not seeing the applicant rising, are there members of the public who wish to address us on this item. If so, please after you finish speaking if you could fill out a card with your name and address. If you could speak into the microphone. Bud Shorr. Sandis Humb.gg_/.0ll~ Bud Shorr with Sandis Humber Jones,-the civil engineer and as agent I got a call from Jeff who’s in Hawaii, that he would like me to sit in and answer any questions or something like that. I would say that we’ve been working with ARB and involving all the problems on this for quite some rimeand we’ve really developed quite a niee project here. So if you have any questions feel free to ask. Questions? City of Paio Alto Page 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 .15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 Commissioner Cassel: Yes! I have not seen this project. I’ve. not seen anything about this project. There’s no presentation’here. There’s nothing on the wall to look at. I know we are just doing the subdivision map underneath but I don’t know how I can approve a subdivision map underneath without knowing anything more about this project than what’s in front of me. Are these two-story homes or one-story homes? There’s nothing at all. Chairman Schink: Please use the microphone. hiL_Sh.o.I~ They’re two-story homes. I don’t have any elevations at this time to show you or anything like that. We were under the" impression that this would be just for the condominium purposes. Commissioner Cassel: We rarely have something come in with just a map and nothing else so it’s kind of a surprise. It didn’t happen to come with Architectural Review Board minutes or anything. Can you tell us a little more about the project, why you decided to do it as a condominium and not as a.small lot zone, or not as something else? hiL_Shg.I~ The 12 units are essentially two-story with a single car garage. The units are all detached accept for Unit 1 which would be two units, a studio and another full-size unit..It’s going to be a private driveway. We’ve meandered the driveway to miss oak trees and the lot or units have been reconfigured several times to save as many trees as possible. These private driveways are going to be of a paver, brick paver, that has been approved but all that has been discussed and I wish I had a picture of the layout to show you at this time, but I don’t. ~: Other questions? I’ve got a couple of quick questions for you. Can you explain to me the back-up distances from the garages inthe units? How much clear space they have to back out of the garages? If you know, Okay. You would like to see the presentation of the whole development. ~ No, I would just like you to tell me if you know what the back-up distances are. If you could explain to me what the back-up distances are. If a car-is backing out of the garage in one of these units how far do they have clear to back-up? hlL..SJlgx~ Oh, I see. Backing out of the garage there is like about 30 feet of driveway and the driveways are intended to be three foot strips of concrete with landscape or grass between them to essentially make it a landscape more rural, rustic area commensurate with Barron Parks’ general plan. We’ve also designed the storm system to, put detention basins and get ground water infiltration within these basins instead of adding it to the City storm sewer it was suggested to implement a storm water management program. ’ Did that sort of leads into my second question. CityofPaloAito Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12- 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 35 36 37- 38 39 4O 41 42 43 ~ I’m not familiar with some of it but not all the ramifications. Chai~nk: For unit 8 1 couldn’~ understand how you were making the drainage work on that unit. Looks like you’ve got catch basins in the backyards but I couldn’t fred the catch basin for that yard. I was just wondering how you were draining it. There is a number’t)f catch basinsin the backyard. ~,aizllaan~~ I couldn’t fred it on unit 8. They are pretty small to read. My plan is not particularly clear. ~ Is there a catch basin in the back of unit 8? There’s two area drains in each rear yard. Commissioner Byrd; For the secretary’s convenience could you please speak into the mic so that the tape records you. Thank you. ~ There are two area drains in each rear yard and we’ve designed it so that those area drains would pick up the rear yards because we have really no control over what the homeowner would do with the fenced-in baekyard as far as drainage.. .~,~J]3II~~ Right, I understand that but I can’t fred it for the unit 8 when I reviewed the plans. For which one? Unit 8. ~ Unit 8 drains all the way out to the street. And that is the only one that does not have a catch basin. It drains out to the inftltration basin out by the parking lot. But there is a very fiat area in the back of the property because it’s through the side. ~ How does it drain When the south comer of the property is at 44.2 and the street paving center line is at 44.3. ~: 44.3. There’s a foot fall. .~,l~d]3~l~ll~ I don’t see that. I see the center line of the paving at 44.10: You have a tenth of a foot in over a hundred and fifty feet. I don’t see how your drainage is working. It’s 44.5 at the farthest rear comer of lot 8. As the flow runs around the comer it’s 44.2 City of Paio Alto Page 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 and it flows out to the catch basin area draining at 43.3: It’s a one percent slope for ground water infiltration and it hits ~at infiltration basin at the front. .Chairman Schink: I can see that, I found the one you’re talking about. Now, is that the catch basin system you were describing is that tied into the City storm drain system or is that just on site. ~ The catch basins iffthe infiltration basins are going to be set up approximately three inches so that the water will pond in these basins and percolate into the ground. If there is an exceptional amount of water it would crest and go into the catch basin and out to the storm line. Chairman Schink: So it is tied in to the City storm line. Mr. Shorr: That’s correct. On sheet three the storm drain goes down into Vista Lane, through Vista Lane down towards E1 Camino and it attaches or connects to a storm manhole out there on Vista Avenue. Chainnan~Schink: Good. Thank you. Other questions? We may have some more questions but you can have a’seat for now. Phyllis has a question. Commissioner Cassel: These then are goingto be separate houses with fences between them. Houses will be separate houses. Is that a single family project with the land in common? That’s correct. _Commissioner Cassel: And then a homeowners association that will manage it. ~ That’s correct. Not individual lots ~hdy will just own that interior of the house, the air space.. " ¯ Phyllis was I think mentioning, something else too but you mentioned fences. People will .be allowed to put up fences so that it will not be continuous open space. People will be able to have fences along certain lines. They will, the units will be fenced in and that will be their private area. .C..o.lamaissioner Schmidl;: And that is how it will constructed with the fences? That is correct. " : Thank you. Are there any areas of common space to be shared by the property owners there? CiO~ of Palo Alto Page 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27- 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 ~ Common space would be the front yard, priVate drive and the end of the cul-de-sac and mainly the front yards alad the private drives. Chai~: Are there .any plans for what would be done with the end of the cul-de-sac there? ~ The end of the cul-de-sac is going to be landscaped and there will be two parking stalls and the ARB has asked us to pr6~,ide a walkway to the next proposed development of the Cameo Club. I wish we had the architectural renderings to show you what the developer has in mind for that. The end of the area is landscaped bench seating area and some trees. Where? Right at the end of the driveway? Right. Chairman Schink: How much area is landscaped and seating? ~ Essentially it will be those infiltration ponds or the whole end of it around the parking spaces. ~ Owen. .C,.gmmissioner Byrd: How does the guest parking program work? Where are guest parking and how " will guest parking be aecotnmodated within the site plan? ~ Well, from what I believe is that the guest parking will be in the driveways of the individual units and then there.are two extra parking places at the end. ~ Actually if I eouid interject there. The guest parking requirement for the site is two spaces. The two spaces at the end of the cul-de-sac are the required guest parking. Okay, thanks. _C_ommissioner_Schmidt: Currently there are several older homes on the site. Are any of those older than 50 years such that they fall into the historic category? ~ I do not know the disposition of that. ~ I could also clarify here. I believe five of the seven homes .were originally given ..contributing status. The applicant and owner appealed that status and the application was lifted by the City Council. So that they may be demolished, that’s correct. City of Paio Alto Page 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 Commissioner Schmidt: Okay, thank you. Chairman~.~ink~ Other questions for the applicant? Pat? Commissioner Burt: The two, now this more directed toward Staff, on the two guest parking spaces, how is the need for guest parking determined and what is your sense about the adequacy of just two spaces for 12 units? "~ ~ The guest space regulations exist in the ARM 15 regulations. We had; during the Architectural Review Board approval 15rocess, our transportation division review these plans in terms of adequacy for turn around and adequacy for parking and so forth and at that time it was felt that they were adequate. Originally the applicant proposed no guest parking and the Architectural Review Board required the two spaces at the end of the cul-de-sac. Commissioner Burr; There is also discussion of a loss of a large cedar and replacement with an oak. How large of a canopy is that large tree and what would be the canopy of the proposed replacement? Mr. Whit." The cedar in question was at the entrance driveway. Originally the applicant proposed a divided drive. Our City arborist viewed that as a less than perfect solution and recommended that the tree be removed and replaced with two specimen oak trees, one on either side of the entry drive which I believe are going to be 48-inch box specimens. Other questions? Kathy. Commissioner Schmidt: Talking about trees, in visiting the site, it’s a little difficult to tell which trees are going to be preserved since they’re not the type of tree is not called out on the plans that we have. Would you eonftrm that the two large [diad6rs] toward the back of the lot, I believe on sites probably 7 and 8 or near those units, are they to be preserved? And there’s also a large palm tree? Mr. White: The two large cedars are to be preserved on the-site. The palm tree is proposed to be moved on the site. ¯ .C~mmissloaxeLSchmidt: Okay, thank you. C.,haizman~c, hink: This might be a question for you or it might be a question for Staff. The driveways, will they be private parking, easements in addition to .... how is that established that the driveways are controlled to each space? We’re looking at a condo plan and I don’t see what here is regulating me from parking across the street. ~ These are detached units and each is served by a private driveway that has tandem parking. So there’s not going to be any impediment for someone who wanted to park in someone’s driveway, I suppose, but it would be the same in any single family development. It’s controlled by the people that live, I suppose, in the units, ultimately. City of Palo Alto Page 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 Chairman Schink: But I’m not seeing anything on the map which indicates who controlsthe front yard. ’ Mr. White: Well, the front yard outside the driveway parking area is common space. So it’s only the parking spaces themselves that would be assigned to each unit. _Chairman Schink: I don’t knoW’how this is always done. I just kind of recollect from reviewing these in the past, that those areas were designated, I think, what they call as private parking easements or something like that. So that each person understood that in that private parking easement went with that particular unit. Otherwise I-Own that, if I live across the street, I come home and mine is occupiedby my kid so I have the right to park across the street. It doesn’t sound like common courtesy but without it being designated on the plan. Mr. White: All I could say is technically that would be true I suppose. In other words it is common .area, if someone chose to park there I suppose they could but I believe it would be adequately controlled by the occupants of those units. Chairman Schink: Kathy. Commissioner Sctt!axi.d_~ Related to that, my experience in another situation where the land is owned in common, it’s a condominium arrangement, and the common spaces are in common, it’s very clear that the inside and the outside of the house is maintained by the owner and that the land is defined as the use for that family in general, but the land is owned, this happens on University property kinds of things. So maybe this needs to be clear. Who does take care of the outside of these units? Is it not the person who owns the actual house? Where are the lines for these pieces of property? Aren’t there pieces of property that they have responsibility for? C.~tmmissioner Beecham: Theonly useful if the Staff would explain to us what a condo was and how that works. I think a lot of these .questions go to the heart of how condos operate. " e " ¯ But it is possible to have a condo for a separate house. I think we tend to think of them as apartments. ~ That’s correct. A condo is more a legal vehicle by which the, in this case the developer of this property can sell each of these units versus having them beapartments for rent. This is a multi-family zoning district. The proposal that the ARB reviewed meets all of the zoning requirements~ and could exist without this condominium map. All the eondomiru’um map does is give them the ability to sell these as individual air-right units. So the owners of these units have ownership of the air in these buildings and the air in the rear yards indicated on the map. Everything else you see is common area and will be governed by the CC&R’s on the project. ~ Do we have other questions for the applicant? Seeing no other questions we’ll proceed to other members of the public. Are there any other members of the public here to address City of Palo Alto Page 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28" 29 30 31 32 33 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 us on this item? Alright, seeing none, do you have any final questions for the applicant? Seeing none we’ll go ahead and close’ the public hearing and return to the Planning Commission. Questions for Staff?. Bern. Commissioner Beecham:. I think the Commission is used to seeing quite a bit more when we have this type of issue come before us and as the questions come up we seem to be missing the traditional elevations and details on parkin~"and everything else. What is it that we are minimally required to look at on a parcel map versus on what we see in PC zones and other common issues where we have a lot more data coming in front of us? Ariel Calonne. Ci_ty Attorney: The subdivision map gives you control over design and improvement of the subdivision. What your job is is to make sure that the lot pattern and the design and improvement of the subdivision is consistent with the comp plan and the zoning. There is nothing to compel this owner, under our ordinance, to build any particular product on these lots. What the law is trying to do is make sure that the lots, if sold, are fully served by all the usual infrastructure you would expect with a lot. I think that in terms of the motives, the reasons why you would do it this way, the Commission is probably used to seeing the PC zoning which has been used pretty extensivelyto gain various development standard reannexation where necessary. Here you’ve got an RM-15 and it probably just was not necessary for fire applicant to go through the effort of trying to show public benefit. Now, the flip side is both the PC and a vesting tentative map confer a very advanced right to develop. The tentative map youtre approving tonight does not. The Council could conceivably and Planning Commission could recommend down the road changes that would preclude the right to build here. So until this property is developed conferring the rights under a tentative map does not give a vested right to build the project. That’s distinguishable from the way our PC really works and the way a vesting map works. So, I mention that because the level of detail and the level of control is somewhat commensurate with the degree of vesting that is being granted, the rights being granted tonight. The flip side of that is under the Subdivision Map Act you generally have to apply .any condition to the tentative map that you could have applied, meaning you can’t apply it at some later stage. The. concerns raised about parking are legitimate ones. I was looking at the ordinance trying to see whether there is a way to add that kind of condition. Ithink there probably is if you’re dissatisfied that the parking arrangement might not actually serve these units. You probably have authority to impose a condition along the lines that Chairman Schink was discussing. That’s sort of a long answer about why you don’t have detail that you’re accustomed to. Our ordinance, and George or Eric correct me if I’m wrong, I believe our ordinance for vesting tentative maps which are the ones that confer rights to build require the kind of detail that you mightbe used to seeing under a PC, require a more advanced design work of what’s actually going to be constructed. But the keyto keep in mind is there is nothing to compel this owner to construct anything in particular here other than our infrastructure that the City would end up with and the lot pattern. Just a follow up on that thought. This map does not then, identify 12 building City of Palo Alto Page 11 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 envelopes that the applicant would be constrained to. of habitable space on the parcel? That is correct. Is that correct?He could reconfigure the layout ’ .So, in essence all we!re doing is saying that if we were to approve this tentative map tonight is to say h~ can’t put anywhere on this parcel he wants 12 condos¯ ~ You’re resolving the number of parcels that are going to be created, concluding that that’s consistent with the zoning comp plan and you’re requiring that the necessary utility and public works infrastructure will be there before these parcels can be sold. Commissioner Beecham:- How do we do that if we don’t know exactly the configuration of the parcels? ]~[~ifl.9.1~ You know the configuration of the lots. I thought Commissioner Byrd was referring to the air space¯ You’ve got the lot configuration. What you should be satisfied with is that, and I believe the staff report says this, what you’re ending up with are lawful, buildable parcels. Commissioner Schmidt: One other clarification. You’ve got existing thrge parcels and we’re going to convert that into lot A which is essentially the access area, .or is lot A the entire.thing? Is this still ’ one piece of property with 12 footprints that are defined? And those are the lots? Those are the lots. That’s correct. " ¯ So with the footprints~.this is a condominium project so it’sthe phasing is a little hard to understand here ..when you’re talking about the 12 units and the lots but they’re not lots or they’re the footprints are not binding or they are binding. I’m not quite sure what we’re saying. ~ I think they way to say it is, there’s one lot where 12 structures and 13 units. There is 12 specific defined envelopes for the 12 structures. .~.~maissionerSchmidt:~ The footprints are defined and if the footprints want to be changed then there must be a modification somewhere. ~ An amendment to the map, that’s right. \ ¯ An amendment ~hat comes back to us, to the City in some way. Whether it’s a minor amendment and anyway the safe plan,, let’s say, that we see now would be what we would be approving tonight. ~ That’s right¯ Again, Commissioner Byrd was I believe referring to the building envelope as opposed to the footprint. City of Palo Alto Page 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2o 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 Commissioner Beecham: Could you define for me then; what it is we are approving in detail tonight. My understanding is a lbt and the ability to build 12 buildings, 13 units, and you’re say not this footprint or with this footprint as shown tO us? With this footprint and what the effect of that is to confer the right to sell these spaces. C,.o.lnmissioner Byrd: One morquestion for Staff. On unit 5 the rear-set back for that unit is five feet while all the other perimeter set backs, at least on the north and south sides, are ten. I take that back unit 7 is eight. In any event, is that five foot set back on unit 5 adequate under our code? Mr. While; Actually the difference in the set backs on the perimeter of this project were results of the applicant and the City having desire to avoid conflicts with the oak trees on the site. The applicant went through what is called a design enhancement exception process. That is a process by which the Architectural Review Board making certain findings can make minor deviations from the standards that are applicable. Commissioner Schmidt: Okay, just a further clarification is then that we are being asked to approve this subdivision with these footprints but we do not know what they look like in three dimension. The ARB has reviewed what they look like in three dimension and approved that but we are 0nly seeing the footprint. Chairman Schink: George maybe you could spend a little time explaining to us what the ARB thought about this project. ~ We!l initially the ARB had a lot of concerns and questions about the design of the project including the relationship to the oak trees, the access, the parking, the tandem parking arrangement that was being proposed, and.also the design and the building materials being proposed. Initially it was designed somewhat as a typical condominium kind of project where you had a low wall in the front with a sign and all the typical accouterments that go along with that type of development. The ARB desired it to be more integrated into the neighborhood at large, in Barron Park. They wanted it to be more rural, they wanted the materials to be natural, and they expressed that and the applicant responded to that and made a number of different changes including the design and the placement of the buildings over time. The applicant, I believe,, went to a total of three Architectural Review Board hearings in which time it was refined to the point where the ARB felt that they could approve it. ~ I have a question for Staff. In the recent Cameo Club proposal which was a PC we had a mechanism to be able to look at a micro park or whatever. Since this is not a PC is there any mechanism to be able to encourage creation of common space or park act of any sort? ~ Beyond the RM-15 requirements for a minimum amount of private and co~on open .space there is no mechanism to require a park on the site. Which is to say there is a mechanism to require common open space and I think the City of Palo Alto Page 13 1 2 3 ,4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 ~32 33 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 number is 35 percent total, common and pri~,ate open space. district. ~ That’s a requirement of the zoning And that 35 percent is that primarily in these front yards? ~ It’s a combination of the front yard areas and the rear yards that are designated on the map.. "~ Commissioner Burr: I thought the representative of the applicant had said that the rear yards were the private space and fenced. ’ Mr. White; That’s correct. As the City Attorney mentioned, the standard is 35 percent of the combined amount of common and private open space on the site. So the combined amount of those rear yards and the other common areas is 35 percent of open space. Commissioner Bur~ And other than that percentage is there any mechanism to address the form that that space would take? ~ Any other questions?. I sense’ for many of the questions the Planning Commission is asking is there’s a considerable level of discomfort. Whether it is well placed or not I’m not altogether sure at this point. We’re used to seeing a lot more and I frankly find myself a little uncomfortable trying to make decisions as to whether this is...this project is compatible with the eomp plan without seeing more. But maybe that’s just the fact that we’ve always seen more wbenwe’ve made these decisions and I can’t get over that hurdle myself. I’m trying very hard to sit back here and say, you know, this person has the right to come to us in a rather more abstract state, as they have, but I also know that they’ve done a whole lot of work that has been reviewed by the ARB. So the answers are really out there. They’re on a piece of paper we’re just not seeing them in front us tonight and that adds a little more discomfort. Ariel? ]~.C, aJP.I:I~ I think the Commissions concern may be more properly directed at Eric in terms of how you’d like to see .these presented, in.terms of what degree of the ARB information would inform your judgmem. I think the staff report does exactly the right thing in terms of presenting the information necessary to justify the recommendation and gives you what’s within the scope of your authority. There’s nothing to stop Staff, if you request it, from giving you more information. I would only add that one of the reasons that you might have of a multi-family zone that permits density as a matter of right is to facilitate it without additional level of review. And so that is exactly what is working in this instance. I believe that is among the Comprehensive Plan policies that justify density. I think you could ask Staff to provide that kind of detail in the future, inform your decision with the ARB work, but it certainly is not material that is necessary for you to make the f’mdings. Now, the flip side is if you have a concern about comp plan consistency. If you have a particular City of Palo Alto Page. 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 i 1 12 13 14 15 16 17. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 issue there you want to analyze further or that causes some concern, you can certainly ask Staff to elaborate. The fmdingg are sufficient but not elaborate on the comp plan issue. There is certainly room in that document to probe almost any issue you would like. Commissao" nerCasselz Let me try to move this along. We asked that the Staff give us a little less information, that.we were getting too much, and so we got less. We got what we asked for. This falls within the zoning and we if’ere trying to encourage units, and we’re trying to encourage some multi-family units in town, and so it falls within the Comp. Plan expectations. I don’t know that I needed more information to actually approve it. I think I would have been more comfortable with a little presentation and a little more inf6rmation to back up my feelings but it’s laid out as a condominium project. There’s nothing wrong with doing single-family condominium projects, I’ve seen them in other places, just something we don’t typically see here, and I’m. comfdrtable with going ahead and approve this at this time and not bring it back. Commissioner Cassel: I move that we approve the Staff Recommendations. .Commissioner, Schink: Is there a second for the motion? Commissioner Beecham: I second. .CommissioneLSchink: Any other discussion on the motion? Coramissioner Byrd: I can’t remember a time, in recent memory, where on a discretionary approval the applicant did not appear in person. I think part of our discomfort tonight is the applicant’s absence. I would be open to continuing the item to enable the applicant to come back and answer these questions for us, so that we have a comfort level to make the required findings. I’m not trying to add to our agenda, or work load, or burden but "it seems to me if the applicant can’t organize himself to be here that, unless we’re facing a permit streamlining act limitation or a priming concern, that we ought to continue it, and when he feels like he can be. here then we can ask him the questions. Commissioner Cassel: I just don’t think that more answers to the questions are going to change my vote any. Chairman Schink: Bern? Commissioner Beechar0d. I think, on that issue, any applicant takes a risk that there isan issue coming up that may not be properly answered and therefore we do in fact turn it down. I don’t think we have an issue like that tonight and I would not want to set a precedent that applicants must be here to get approved for the request. I think what is in front of us is minimal. I think it is however, satisfactory to approve the tentative map. I think that as Phyllis indicated it entirely fits in with the RM-15, it’s getting in 13 units in something slightly under an acre.. In recent history and in this City, that’s tough to do. So in fact that makes me happy to go ahead and vote to approve this tonight. City of Palo Alto Page 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 Chairman Schink: Kathy? ~~ I’m uncomfortable about a few things here too. I’m uncomfortable that the applicant is not here. He did choose to appear for the Kenya Club project once or twice. But he’s not here to represent his project. I’m also uncomfortable with not having had access to the ARB minutes and the ARB information. That’s something that’s existing and we’re not asking for any more information, so I think that that’s always useful to have. The City Council always say it’s useful to read our minutes. I think it’s very useful when we are reviewing something that’s already been reviewed by a Board to be able to look at their minutes in any case. It does sound from our questioning like the ARB did it’s work: and got appropriate changes to the project that would make it acceptable. I’m happy to see the additional housing in this location and also very happy to see the pedes_ta’ian connection that we asked about originally with the Kenya Club property and now it looks like it’s going to be a reality today. I think that that will be a great benefit to both areas. Having said all that I’m leaning towards also supporting what’s here as a tentative map even though it would have been nice to have that additional information and project representation. Pat. Commissioner Burr; I guess the aspects that I’ve been concerned with is whether the projectdesign and the public space aspects of it are presented in a way that allow us to determine whether Comp. Plan objectives for how this will build a community there and relate to the surrounding community and a lot of the various Comp. Plan objectives would be fulfilled or addressed. I just feel like I don’t have much information at all that lets me render a decision on that aspect. C_hairman~chink: I have another question for Staff. In the draft findings for the subdivisionmap that number five states that the design of the new lot pattern will not conflict with public easements for access through the prope .rt),.. Have those publiceasements been defined? That seems to be the one issue I’m really hung up on. ]h~L___.Wh~: I’m not sure I understand thequestion. Are you talking about the access question? .~=haJ]:l]~dL~¢,~: I’mgoing back to the access and you’re referring here in your findings. Number 5? ~ In Number 5, you talk about public easements for access through the property. Are you just saying hypothetically because of the way the lots are configured that they would not conflict with the easements? - ~ They would not conflict with any public easements, that’s correct. ’~ So at a certain point in time they are going tO have to come to you and prove to you. When do we see these easements, or do we ever see this? Oty of Palo Alto Page 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 LClr. White: Well, as indicated here, two of the front units, the front of Vista Avenue have access to this avenue. The other~ll units will be access off a private driveway. Okay, so the public easement is just across, just to get out on the street. That’s correct. ChairmanSchink: It’.s not actually what we’re talking about for the easements all the way back. That’s correct. Just st~ee~ access. Okay, I misunderstood that. Pat. Commissioner Burt: I guess the more I have been trying to consider whether we have adequate information I’d feel more comfortable reviewing this with having access to the ARB minutes and seeing what they really addressed and how it might relate to our concerns on Comp. Plan conformity as well as having the opportunity to have the applicant answer these things in more detail. Chairman Schinl~: I’m trying to listen to what everyone is saying here and trying to count noses at the same time and I’m sort of coming up in my.mind that we’re sort of 3-3 at this point. Should we have a vote on the motion on the floor? Does someone want to substitute the motion? Should we vote on the motion? Go ahead. There’s a motion on the floor to approve the project, approve the Staff Recommendations of the project. All in favor please say aye. [Aye’s] Chairma~~: Opposed? [voices] ~ That fails, on a 3-3 vote. Sehink, Cassel and Beecham voting yes, and Byrd, Schmidt and Burr voting no. Another motion would be in order. ]~[.Q.T]D.~ ~ An alternative motion is to continue the application in order for the Commission to receive additional information about the ARB deliberations on the map and also in hopes of having the applicant return at a later date to answer Commission questions in order to make the required findings. ~ Is there a second for the motion? ~" "" " I’ll second it. .C, haiZ~llLi~tlJl~ Discussion on the motion. I just had one point. I’m wondering if you could soften your requirement for the applicant or representative qualified to answer more detailed ¯ questions? I’m a little concerned about setting a precedent specifically saying the applicant himself. think I said, "in hopes that he’d be here," but if that’s not soft enough an City of Palo Alto Page 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2o 21 22 23 24, 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 applicant or qualified representative would be fine. Chairman Sclaia~ Okay.. Qualified. We have a motion on the floor, any further discussion?Bern? Commissioner Beecham: I will oppose this motion because I think we do have enough in front of us tonight. And I’d point out, although I don’t think it will go anywhere, that another option is that we simply recommend denial of this and still send it on to the Council as it is. MOTION PASSF_,~ Chairman Schink: Any other discussion on the motion? Alright. All in favor please say aye. [ayes] Opposed? That passes on a 5-1 vote with Bern opposed and Annette absent. hlL_.C, alg~all~ I just want to make a comment that might help the.commission. First I think the action is well within your authority to take a look at the ARB material but the problem you have is not unique.. In other jurisdictions I remember Staff fighting off applicants coming in with gorgeous elevations that had no bearing whatever on the action that was before the Planning Commission being approved. While the ARB is within our collective municipal umbrella you certainly don’t control it and you can’t condition the map to stick to those renderings. So that is the two-edged sword problem that you have. I think the Commission is well within its authority, but keep in mind that those pictures are not a promise that you can enforce with your jurisdiction. .C, hftilma]~.~;hi~: When would this come back to us? Do we have any idea about that at this point? would say either one of the two meetings in August. ~ If in addition to the Architectural Review Board information if you could provide any information that was compiled in conjunction with the design enhancement exceptions and so forth, I think that’s really si ~ggi. "ficant in trying to figure out how these footprints are determined. think we’ll be able to provide you with everything that the ARB essentially saw. J~t.L_.C,a~la~ Mr. Chairman, I’m sorry, I was careless. It would be preferable to have the Commission continue, it to a date certain and we can continue it again at.that time if necessary in order to avoid Noticing headaches. So my recommendation would be that you reconsider the motion and then make a motion to continue to a date certain and specify, one of the August meeting dates. If we need to continue it again we’ll so recommend. That will save us re-noticing. C¢.haiI:13l~i_i~.~ Would one of the members of the commission who .voted favorably request that this be reconsidered? In other words, we need a motion to reconsider. ¯"~ ¯I move that we reconsider. ~ Is there a second? O~y of Palo Alto Page 18 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 Commissioner Schmidt: Second. Chairman Schink: All in favor of reconsidering the motion. (Ayes) Opposed? That passes on a 5-1 vote with Bern voting no and Annette absent. We have the motion now back on the floor. Would the maker of the motion consider amending the motion? Would-Staff prefer that the motion include August 12th or August 26th? Mr. White: I think August 12th would be preferable at this point. Commissioner Byrd: Then I’d like to amend the motion to have the item continued to a date certain of Wednesday, August 12th. Chaiz:manSchink: Is that acceptable to the seconder of the motion? Commissioner Schmidt: Yes. Chairman Schink; Alright. Are we all ready to vote? Please say aye: [ayes] Opposed? That passes on a 5-1 vote with Bern voting no and Annette absent. We are now finished with this item. Commissioner Cassel: Jon, can I ask one more thing? It would be helpful if they could help us understand the particular kind of condominium flatting that .they are doing. Because I think that there was probably a lot of the confusion. ~,~.e ,n.dm4. 1159 Lincoln Avenue [File No.: 98-PM-2]: Application by Margaret Toor for an _ endment to the conditions of an approval Parcel map with exceptions. The ents relate to removing or reducing recorded restrictions on the designated buiIti~ area, floor area ratio, setbacks, and basement ceiling height. Environmental Assessm"~." Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act Staff Recommen~on: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the Ci~uncil to deny the amendment request subject to the draft ~mon our agenda is 1 l’~L~incoln Avenue. Would Staff please ~le N_o._’. 98-p_M-2"]~r~ appli~tion of Margaret Toor for an amendment to the conditions of an approval Parcel Map witli ceptions. The amendments relate to removing restrictions on the designated building area, ~ are ratio, setbacks and basement ceiling height. Environmental Assessment is if the project is exemp"~m the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Zone District R-1. SNff.~ City of Palo Alto ~ MEETINGS ARE CABLECAST LIVE ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 July 29, 1998 REGULAR MEETING- 7:00 PM City Council Chambers Civic Center, 1st Floor 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, California 94301 ROLL CALL: Meeting called to order at 7:00 P.M. Commissioners: Jon Schink, Chairman Owen Byrd Bern Beecham - absent Annette Bialson Phyllis Cassel Kathy Schmidt ¯ Patrick Butt Staff: Eric Riel, Jr., Chief Planning Ojficial George White, Senior Planner Virginia Warheit, Senior Planner Ariel Calonne, City Attorney Lisa Grote, Zoning Administrator limitation~ee minutes per speaker. Those who desire to speak must complete a speaker s request card available fttsm~e secretary of the Commission. The Planning Commission reserves the right to 7it the oral commu~od to15 minutes.Chairman Schiak: The first item’On.O~ agenda is Oral Communications. This is an opportunity for ~ to address the Pla-’m~ Commission on any item specifically not on the . 7enda. _ ._ ...... " ........ Dorothy Bender. 591 Military. Wa_.v. P_al0 Alto: _The file n2ma.~r is 98-ZC-05, 98-ARB-80. ~ Planrfing Departed, Jim Baer outlines the project at ne is a three story --is a two story . . apartment building consisting of 12 studio apartments, a building area of approxima~ Cir.’ of Palo Aho ¯ ~ "" ~*~-’-" ~ Pag"~ ’ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 1P.~O VAL OF MINUI~ES. ~,~val of minutes of July 8, 1998. ¯¯. Cha!rrnan- Schink:’~nk you. I have no other cards for Oral Communications so we’ll close that portion of the agenda ahd.~ve forward approval of the minutes. Do we have any comments or ~oner Schmidt: I"tt~ve one small correction and then I will move approval wi~on. On page 16 my comme’ht-~.t the top of the page where there are two references ~lled the "Cameo~..b." And then I will move approval of the _mln~tes as_c~ .rr~cte~._ ..... ’ _C_ha_i???Sc~nl~: M0ved by Kathy. Is.thereasecond?~ " ~-"’C-°--n~n-iss-i’°:erByr-d:-’rc°nd"--’ ’" ’~"~ ’" That UNFINISHED BUSINESS. Pubfic Hearings: 579 Vista Avenue/4114 Goebel Lane [File Nos: 98-SUB-I, 98-EIA-1]: Application by Jeff Levin for a tentative subdivision map approval to create 12 residential condominium ¯ units on a 41,253 square-foot parcel pursuant to Title 21 of the PaloAl(o Municipal Code. Environmental Assessment: An initial Study has been completed and a Negative Declaration has been prepared. Zone District: RM-15. This itemwas continued from the July 8th Planning Commission meeting and is tentatively scheduled for review at a public hearing of the City Council on September 22, 1998. Staff Recommendations: Staff Recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council: a.Approv~ the Negative Declaration with a finding that the project will not result in " any significant environmental impacts; and b.Approve a tentative subdivision map based on the findings and subject to conditions contained in the staff report of July 8th. e W ’ e ": Staff has nothing additional to add except to say that additional Cir. of Palo Alto Page 3 1 2 3 4 5 .6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 materials, as requested by the Planning Commission, were attached to the packet. ARB reports,and minutes and that the ARB approved plans have been displayed here in the Council Chambers this evening. That concludes Staff’s remarks. Thank you George. Any other questions for Staff?. .C=.ommissioner Schmidt: I do ha~-~one, a repeat of something we discussed last time. This is a condominium project and we discussed that the footprint there is what we are approving as the ¯ condominium location. If the applicant wants to change either the appearance of the units, the appearance would go to. the ARB. If h~’ wanted to change the footprint it would come back to Staff or to us or someone to review. Mr. White: That is correct. The design of the individual buildings, the site improvements, the landscaping, tree preservation, design enhancement exception, any of those, if those were proposed to be changed would be under the purview of the Architectural Review Board. The tentative map which essentially establishes the unit locations and footprints for sale, if there was an amendment proposed to this particular proposal that would come back to you and the City Council. Commissioner Schrqidt: Thank you. .Chairman Schink: Any other questions? We’ll go ahead and open the public hearing. Is the_, applicant here? Would you like to-make a brief presentation? You have up to 15 minutes. Jeff Levin. J. Levin Properties. 350 Second Street. suite 7. Los Alms:. I have additional color renderings. Rather than put them up there maybe I could just hand them out so you get a little better view. This is a 13 unit condominium project designed as 12 detachett single family homes. It was ¯ approved by ARB earlier in the. year. It’s designed =is a 1930-1940 style bungalow/cottage style community. Cobblestone streets, street lanterns, private drive, with the first home i.n the project; in that large drawing there I think on my right, which is the home on Vista Street which is the.entrance to the project, that would be unit number 1 and then the rest of the homes going around all the way to unit number 12. Unit number 1 actually has another unit which is unit number 13 which is a rental studio as part of that home. It appears as one large home from the street. In fact the rental unit does have a separate entrance, separate garage and it’s about 400 square feet. First of all, my apologies for not being here at the last hearing. It was my understanding, that it was fairly procedural and unfortunately I was out of the country for along advanced planned trip and wasn’t able to attend for some of the questions that you had had last time. I think some of the concerns last time perhaps were number one -- we haven’t even seen this project, we don’t know anything about it. Again, because we didn’t go through thePC process we were able to comply with straight zoning. We went the ARB route. Some of the questions that I believe that you had were, how were these homes going to be maintained, how are they going to be kept up and so on? Unlike a traditional single-family subdivision where the lots are all independently owned we are going to have all the exterior painting maintained by the association. It’s our belief that when homes are close Ci.ty of Palo Alto Page 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 together in a zero-lot line’style development to have individual owners responsible for painting when perhaps one home goes a~tray and it looks raggedy six or seven years from now in a community that’s that tight it would be to the detriment to the rest of the community. For that very reason, we are going to be have a larger association dues and having the outside maintenance responsible for the association. The roofs are going to be individual unlike a typical condominium where the association takes care of the roofs. These are individual homes and the individual owner will be responsible for that. All of the exterior landscaping in front of the homes will be taken care.of by the association, to ensure the high-end quality Of the community. T6.make sure that all of the landscaping is in excellent shape all of the time. All of the homes have individual rear yards that are fenced off. The rear yards will be taken care of by the individual owners, that’s their responsibility. The community was created with a synergistic style of architecture, whereas all of the units have large private front porches. The porches are equivalent in size to most bedrooms. They have a ceiling fan and it will I think, feel like a nice old time community where people have the ability to put furniture on their porch, not just a chair but a full table and chairs and love seats, etc. and be able to interact with the other residents of that community. Perhaps I’ve answered all the questions? Commissioner Cassel: There’s a comment in the written material that indicates that swings and things of that sort would be expected to be in the backyard. In my neighborhood the swings and basketball courts are out front. Are there going to be any restrictions in that? That the swings are expected to be in the bacl~yard? Commissioner Cassel: Well, it was some reference here to those private activities such as .swings that would be in the backyard. I can’t remember exactly where it was. People can use their backyards as they wish. They are private fenced-off rear yards. ¯ Commissioner Cassel: My question is the reverse of that - is it prohibited in the front yard? Yes. Commissioner Cassel" . Well that’s too bad because what you’re doing there is Prohibiting activities that are common and bring people together. ~: Well, perhaps but if you would look at the scale in terms of the front yards, the front yards are pretty small. There really wouldn’t be any room for .it. The front yards would be typical .in size to the Classic Communities project over behind the Times Tribune building. " e a el: I guess these were just swings that hang from a tree. They aren’t big. What you’re doing is prohibiting structures that would have activities in the front yard. City of Palo Alto Page 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 .15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 .25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 ~: Yes. There really isn’t the physical space for that which is why we created the private/public open spac~ and they are the small private yards in the front. To create a lot of private open space we made the large decks where people would be able to have a space in front of their home, on their deck, and a good size rear yard where they would have some room in the back but there just isn’t physically the room. Some of these homes are literally three or four feet from that cobblestone street. Chairman Schink: Kathy? Commissioner Schmidt: ! just wanted Ib confirm from the ARB minutes it appears that at one time there was a gate across Wisteria Lane and that is no longer existing? Mr. Levin: .Right. As a matter of fact I never contemplated that. I think at one point the architect had done a sketch with a gate. It never got into the presentation for the ARB. Chairman Schink: Owen. Commissioner Byrd: I’m still unclear on the advantage to the community.. Maybe the advantage to you, of processing this as a condo map. Why’did you choose to submit that application instead of doing this small lot/single-family with an additional lot for the drive and the shared space? Mr. Levin: That’s a good a question. My preference in the beginning was to go with the PC Zoning processes with individual lots. I was actually talked out of it by staff members along with other people that had gone through the process and said it was unlikely that I would get approval. Don’t ¯ take the risk of going through a nine month process, year long process, to be turned down and start all over again. Since we had designed a community that basically conformed with existing zoning, rather than run the risk of going through that proces~ and having to start all over again which is an expensive process, we chose just to go straight to zoning. Commissioner Bye: We’ve created a new land use designation in our new Comp Plan that is supposed to accommodate small lot/single-family. There is no zoning to accompany it yet, and no land is designated with it, but just for our own education, if such a land use designation and a zoning category existed is it possible to ~ay whether you would have pursued that route as opposed to the other route? ~L_l.,g.V~; I would definitely have pursued the route. There was no reason for me to pursue the existing route other than just from a time standpoint and from a risk standpoint. In owning the properties I did when I started the process it was just too prohibitive cost-wise to take the risk of going through a nine month process, being turned down and having to start over again which had been proposed to me at that time. Co~: Thanks. Cir.’ of Palo Alto Page 6 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2o~ 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3o 31 32 33 34 .35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 Commissioner Butt: I guess I want to return the theme that Phyllis was trying to pursue and that is that you had characterized the front yards as common space and yet described them as approximately the size of the Times Tribune site which is, to my memory,, almost non-existent front yard, and then the common driveway as common space. I think it strikes me as a development that is really pretty devoid of any place that is a common space. Those backyards are pretty small and a lot of.the aspects of the Comprehensive Plan that we have are looking at what design elements help .build a sense of community as well as trying to facilitate common openspace. ~: Let me respond to that. Unfortunately, the original design that was presented to the ARB, you’ll see down at the end of th6"private drive there are two parking spaces for guest parking. Well, we had planned a fairly nice size park at the end of the street. The park was going to have benches and lighting, and some community art and so on. Our proposal was that that be a park at the end of the street. Since the driveways were all 40 feet long that that would be ample space for, not only the residents to park but if they had a guest come over to their home, for the guestto park in their driveway as well. Unfortunately due to existing code, which we tried to argue against, it required two guest park.ing spaces on the site for additional guest parking. Although we felt that there was really an equivalent of 12 guest Parking spaces when you took into account each person’s driveway we were overruled on that by the parties at the approval process insisting that we have two guest parking spaces. Thus having to abandon the park concept. So the park gave way to two cars. ~: You don’t own the "existing residence" property, correct? That’s not part of this development. This property called "existing residence" is excluded from your development? Right, that’s on the bottom right. That is not part of the project, no. Commissioner Burt: I guess i’d be interested in searching for a way to cometo some solution to that problem on the guest parking spots. Whether it be re-examining whether other parking would qualify or whether there are other places to locate them and return to that concept of a small common space. ~: I can assure you that there is no other place on the property for two guest parking spaces. That was an eXhaustive Search ~nd study that lasted for several months and several trips back and forth to the ARB. We’ve eXhausted every potential possible spot for guest parking. Again, it was our argument that if somebody comes over to your home to visit, why can’t they park in your driveway? You’ve got a 40 foot long driveway that would accommodate probably.three or four cars, let along at least just one. That in all likelihood if somebody were coming over your house to. visit you would just tell them, "come on over and please park in my. driveway." Unfortunately because of zoning, again the zoning requirement called for two guest parking spaces. That was part of the problem going with existing zoning versus the PC which we could have gotten rid of the two guest parking spaces. Commissioner Butt: CiO’ of Palo Aho So the lengths of all the driveways are in the neighborhood of 30-40 feet? Is Page 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 "7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 that what you are saying? ~: Yes. You see the garages are in the very back of the homes. You’ll see the small rectangles in the back and the driveways are up front. The driveways, in addition to being a nice long driveway, right when it gets to the front of the garage it fans out-and becomes a courtyard as well. So you’ll them on the site plan, on the color version, where it becomes a nice outside patio area in front of each garage which is jug~0ff the kitchen/family room. So it would have been ample for guest parking. Chairman Schilak: Any other questions’f0r the applicant? Alright, you’ll get an opportunity to speak at the end. Are there other members of the public who wish to address us on this item? Could you give us your name. Dorothy Bender, 591 Military Way, Pal0 Alto: I’m just responding to Pat Byrd’s suggestion around the park. Why not eliminate one. of the units and then you could have the park. It’s just a suggestion. Chairman Schink: Thank you. The applicant has an opportunity to make any closing remarks you’d like to make. Mr. Levin:. I don’t have anyother Comments. It is an approved project. Construction is due to start in two weeks for your information. We would gratefully look for your approval on the tentative map. Chairman Schink: Thank you. We’ll now close the publiehearing and turn back to Commission members. Other questions for Staff?. .~: I’d like to ask Staff to respond to the applicant’s assertion that it’s the zoning that causes the loss of an oppo.rmnity for a pocket-p~irk in order to accommodate the guest par.king. Is that correct? Mr. White: It’s correct in the sense that the two guest spaces are required for the number of units that he is proposing. The ARB felt that those two guest spaces were critical to supplying the needed parking on the site. He actually, as part of the process, applied for design enhancement exception which you’ve probably seen in the materials that included an exception to allow guest parking in the- driveways. The ARB felt that they could not support that particular exception. f2ommissioner Byrd: Ariel, if we felt, on a map application, that the project would be better served by a better use of that public space at the end, what are our options? ]~,L_C, tl.9~:I~: I think it’s difficult given the density that has been planned and zoned for the site. The Commission does not have a lot of flexibility to reduce residential density to meet other goals. That’s a consequence of state law which establishes policy that we need health and safety grounds to reduce the number of units as a mitigation. Now, if you asked me how would I go about trying to get there, I’d need to look at the new Comprehensive Plan which is in effect and see if there were policy basis Cir., of Palo Alto Page 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 ¯ 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 there that might meet that state law standard for reducing, density. Commissioner Byrd: If we’re not interested in reducing denslty, in other words, we want to keep the same number of units but we .want to drop the two guest parking spaces and enable the applicant to provide a common space there, what’s the route to get there? Mr. Calonne: When the applicant.said he has an approVed project, he does have approval to construct ¯ the_project, he doesn’t have approval without the subdivision to sell or lease it. So what I’m hesitant about is what authority the Commission might have to e.ssentially request the ARB to reconsider its action on the design enhancement exce~ion. I’m not aware of a procedure in our code to allow that but that’s something I’d be happy to look at. It ought to be there. Commissioner Byrd: But the parking, the guest parking, is an element of the tentative map. Mr. Calonne: It is but it’s a consequence of the zoning. So the map really is required to implement the zoning requirement that you have. I was looking at the exception procedures in our subdivision ordinance and they’re there but they don’t really help given the zoning requirement. So I think the Commission would have to come at this as George mentioned, by trying to reach back to the design enhancement exception that was unsuccessfully sought. Commissioner Byrd: ~ So at best we could approve the map and then make a non-binding request to the ARB to reconsider the exception because we felt that the map would work better if there was a different use in that site? ]~dL,_Cdfl.9.I~: I’m sorry. I think you’re right: There is not a procedure in the code to allow you to communicate back to the ARB on an application they’ve already acted on. So it would be some sort of non-binding request for reconsideration. Again, .it strikes me that that’s a reasonable thing to do but I don’t believe we have a lbrocedure and if you wanted us to we could try and graft something. Chairman Schink: I’m a bit uncomfortable. We’re in uncharted waters here. The applicant has followed the normal procedures on this application and unless I think there’s an extraordinary concern by Commissioners about this prpblem, I think that it’s up to.us to solve this in the larger realm and then apply it to future projects but not try to solve the problem here. Commissioner Cassel: Should we .discuss that later when we get to non-Staff questions? Chairman Schink: I just don’t want us to get too bogged down in looking for solutions to something that hopefully we won’t pursue. Other questions for Staff?. Pat? .Commissioner Bur~: What does Staff think about the concept of these long driveways and that they might serve the guest parking needs? Mr. White: At the time the design enhancement exception was requested by the applicant, the Staff Ci.ty of Palo Alto Page 9 1 2 3, 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 position, I think, that was agreed with by.the Architectural Review Board was that the guest parking arrangement in the driveCvay was not optimum arrangement. That additional guest parking was still needed on the site. We felt that we could not make the findihgs for the exception at that time. Chairman Schink: Kathy? Commissioner Schmidt: I just w~nted to ask a question or maybe confirm something, that appears to be in the various minutes we’ve been provided with, which I’m actually very happy to have, it makes the project much clearer and I thank the Staff for providing us with these. In the discussion of the BMR units, I believe it ends up requirifi’g that there be 13 units on the site. Is that correct? Mr. White: Actually the Comprehensive Plan requires that. The BMR program and the Comprehens!ve Plan requires the number of units. Commissioner. Schmidt: Right but the calculation of starting from the number of existing units, that will be taken away. Mr. White: "That’s correct. Commissioner Schmidt: Okay, thank you. Chairman Schink: Annette. .Commissioner. Bialson: I just want to mention that since I was not present at the July 8th meeting, I reviewed the minutes and am going to vote strongly relying on Ariel’s advice in that meeting that we are rather limited in what we can find here. Once we find that the map is consistent with the zoning and the Comp Plan and essentiglly that the necessary" utility and public works infrastructure is provided that we have really little choice. We can ask for the items such as the parking versus the pocket-park to be addressed in the zoning law as we come up with it, may apply, be more appropriate given the new Comp Plan but I think given the project in front of us, Ariel’s advice to us and the presentation by the applicant we can’t do anything but approve the project. Chairman Schink: Is there further discussion of the project or are we ready for a motion? Phyllis. Commissioner.. Caste!: I wanted to make a comment now that we’re into discussion on the parking. I’m afraid I agree that they do need the two parking spaces. The reason is this, and it can be used for open space if people want to, this is why I was concerned about being able to put a basketball rack up at the end where people can play. The reason I think you need it is that in a standard home arrangement you have a certain amount of street parking as well as a certain amount of off-street parking. The street parking provides group parking. You have a party today and you have ten cars, and I have the party tomorrow and have ten cars and we hope we don’t have the party on the same day. What’s going to happen in this project is people are going to end up having to park out on the public way down the street because there simply is not any space here. Thosespaces that are in the City of Palo ,4 lto Page 10 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 driveways will be dealt with as private space. You won’t park in your neighbor’s yard every time you have two or three pdople over instead of one. So there is some need for some general parking and because of this road being as narrow as it is it will not b~ able to be in front of these houses. There’s only these two spaces that are there. In fact we do have a greatly reduced parking requirement on this site already. Chairman Schink: Is there any 6ther discussion of the project? Would someone like to try a motion? Annette. Commissioner Bialson: Did you want/he to make the motion? Commissioner Byrd: I can’t pass up the opportunity to put in two cents which is that I think from a zoning perspective and a map act perspectivewe’re doing the right thing, from a community design perspective we’re not doing the right thing. It makes a higher value use of that.portion of this site to put a little pocket-park there than it does to put parking. Hopefully in the future, on a project like this we would do that. Chairman Schink: We still need a motion. ~ Commissioner Schmidt: I will move the Staff recommendation to approve the attached Negative Declaration and approve a tentative subdivision map based on the attached findings and attached conditions from our July 8th staff report. Commissioner Bialson: Second. Chairman Schink: Moved by Kathy. Second by Annette. Any further discussion of the motion? Kathy? . Commissioner Schmidt: I would again like to thank Staff for providing the material from the ARB. I think this is somewhat of an unusual circumstance in that subdivision map, I think that we are more used to seeing rectangles or a big block rather than footprints. I think several of us were uncomfortable not knowing any.thing more that what we see there up on the overhead right now. So, it’s very useful to see what is planned, hopefully executed and to see what the ARB process was to see that there were several changes along th~ way that it looks like have significantly improved the project. We’re always saying we’re happy to have more housing in the City and I’ll say that again. I’m glad to get 13 new units although we’re losing seven old units. I’m happy that we have a connection through to the Cameo Club property. I think that will be useful for both projects and that it will help connect neighborhoods. I think the design of theseunits is an interesting, slightly different product type with garages behind and narrow, almost San Francisco-like units and the scale. of the community, will be pretty interesting and I think that despite the fact that we are unable to designate that small area of two parking spaces as a park, I think that the proximity of units and having porches in front, and having nice paving materials instead of concrete or asphalt will actually make that area like a big main street just for these people. I think it will be a comfortable and useable City of Palo Alto Page !1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 ~.0 ~2 community space. It will be interesting to see what happens but I think there will at least be some of that. It’s also got lots ogmature landscaping. I hope that the trees do well with the changes and that the additional landscaping grows rapidly. Those are my comments. ~hairman Schink: Any additional comments? Phyllis. .Commissioner Cassel: I think tti~ we’ll find that that end area will end up being used very much as common space. There will be a lot of kickball down there, a lot of tricycles and bicycles that need hard surface kinds of playing in that end because there will not be too many cars. Hopefully the neighbors on that end will not mind gafliering all the kids around. So that’s why I was hoping for a basketball hoop. It can double as both. Chairman Schink: Pat. Commissioner Burt: I’m going to support the motion but I would like to point out, in the same recurring theme of looking for this common space in developments, that in our responsibility to review the project for its consistency with the Comp Plan, I think program C-26 captures it best where it says, "in conjunction with new development proposals pursue creation of park, plaza.or other public gathering places that meet neighborhood needs." I think that’s the recurring theme that’s been a sentiment on the Commission, and I think in the community as well. Now that this Comp Plan has been adopted I’d certainly like to hope that we look for every opportunity to pursue the creation of those common spaces. MOTION PASSES: Chairman Schink: Any other comments? Seeing none let’s vote. All infavor please say aye (ayes). Opposed? That passes unanimously with Bern absent. Thank you. ~3 Other Items: None. ~MMITTEES. " " 3. Discussion of-~’e-la~cess "and schedule for the drafting of the Incentive and Benefits of the ~_ ___._____ ~___~---~,-,_~n ourjagehd~ Report From Committees. I don’t know of any.Committee reports so we’ll move forward to Repo~ Officials. The first item under Reports backup materials. What Staff is desirous of the Planning Commission this evening is two things of Palo Aho Page 12 Attachment B PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT TO: FROM: ¯ Planning Commission George White Senior Planner DEPARTMENT: Planning AGENDA DATE: SUBJECT: July 8, 1998 579 Vista Avenue/4114 Goebel Lane (File Nos; 98~SUB-1; 98-EIA- 1): Application of Jeff Levin for.tentative subdivision map approval to create 12 residential condominium units on a 41,253 square foot parcel pursuant to Title 21 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that. the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council: 1.Approve the attached Negative Declaration, with a finding that the project will not result in any significant environmental impacts; and, 2.Approve a tentative subdivision map based on the attached findings (Attachment B) and subject to the attached conditions (Attachment C). PROJECT DESCRIPTION The site is located in the Barron Park area of Palo Alto near the the comer of E1 Camino Real and Vista Avenue and is comprised of 3 existing parcels. The project site is currently developed with 7 small single family residential units. S:/Plan/Pladiv I PCSP-JANANDA.WPD Page 1 The applicant requests approval of a tentative subdivision map to reconfigure the 3 existing lots into 12 condominiums for the purposes of constructing a new, 13 unit, residential development. One of the condominium buildings will contain two residential units. The requested parcel reconfiguration is consistent with an Architectural Review Board (97-ARB-152) approved residential development project on the site. PROJECT INFORMATION Applicant:Vista Goebel, LLC Owner:Jeffrey Levin Assessor’s Parcel Number:137-23-014, 013, 021 Lot Area:41.253 square feet (gross) Comprehensive Plan Designation:Multiple Family Residential Zoning District:RM-15 (Multiple Family Residential) Surrounding Land Uses:.Single Family Residential, Multi-family Residential and vacant Commercial (zoned Multi-Family Residential). BACKGROUND In 1997, the applicant received Architectural Review Board (97-ARB-152) approval to construct a 13 unit residential project, private driveway and associated site improvements. The project approval included conditions relating to tree preservation, landscaping, building materials and.pedestrian access to the neighboring Cameo Club site. (See Attachment E, ARB approval letter dated 3/20/98). POLICY IMPLICATIONS The project is consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance. SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ISSUES Access and Utility Easements: The proposed vehicle access for this site is a private driveway, varying in width from a minimum of 14 feet to a maximum of twenty feet. The meandering design of the S:/Plan/Pladiv [ PCSR/ANANDA,WPD Page 2 driveway was required to avoid conflicts with significant oak trees on and adjacent to the subject property. The site design has been reviewed and approved, in concept, by the Transportation Division and by the Public Works, Fire and Utilities Departments as part’ of the Architectural Review Board process. All required utility service will be contained in a Public Utilities Easement that will exist under or adjacent to the private driveway. This easement is indicated on the Tentative Map exhibit attached to this report. An additional easement will be required, as condition of approval, for the existing overhead wires along the western property line. The location and intended use of these easements will be recorded with the final subdivision map. FINDINGS & CONDITIONS Draft Findings and Conditions are outlined in Attachments B and C. PUBLIC NOTICE Public Notice of the Planning Commission review of the project was provided by publication of the agenda in a local newspaper of general circulation. In addition, property owners and utility customers within 300 feet of the project site were mailed a notice card. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT The project is subject to environmental review under provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). An environmental impact assessment was prepared for the project and it was determined that there are no potentially significant adverse impacts relating to the tentative map. The Negative Declaration was made available for public review from June 19 to July 8, 1998 (please see Attachment D). An environmental impact assessment was previously completed and a mitigated negative declaration was prepared for a variety of associated site improvements, including 12 new buildings containing 13 residential units, private driveway, parking facilities and landscaping, during the Architectural Review Board approval process (File# 97-ARB-152, 97-EIA- 29). This previous negative declaration contained mitigating conditions that will ensure ¯ the survival of a number of large Oak and Cedar specimen trees on and adjacent to the project site. TIMELINE Date application: March 20, 1998 Notice of Incomplete issued: April 20, 1998 Application deemed complete: May 26, 1998 S:/Plan/Pladiv I PCSR/ANANDA.WPD Page 3 Following the Planning Commission review, the application is tentatively scheduled for City Council review on August 3, 1998. If the City Council approves the application, the applicant may submit for a final subdivision map. Prior to final map approval, the applicant will be required to submit improvement plans showing access and utility improvements. Once an application has been made for a Final Subdivision Map, the map will be reviewed for compliance with all conditions of approval by the Public Works Department and Planning Division and returned to the City Council for final approval, prior to recordation. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Location Map Attachment B: Findings Attachment C: Conditions of Approval Attachment D: Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Attachment E: Architectural Review Board Approval 97-ARB-152 (letter dated 3/20/98) Tentative Map (Planning Commission members only) COURTESY COPIES: JeffLevin, 350 Second Street, Suite 7, Los Altos, Ca 94022 Barron Park Association, Will Beckett, President, 4189 Baker Avenue, Palo Alto, Ca 94306 Prepared by:George White, Senior Planner Reviewed by: Division Head ApproVal:Lisa~nistratorEric Riel, Cilef Pl~m~g .Official S:/Plan/Pladiv I PCSR/ANANDA.WPD Page 4 SCHOO.L ATTACHMENT A WILKIE WAY RM-15 RM-15 RM-30 VERDOSA ARBOL DR. CAMPANA DRIV 7 Project: 579 Vista Avenue/ 4114 Goebel Lane Date: 7-8-98 File #: 98-SUB-1; 98-EIA-1 pC..2.65! Scale: 1" = 400’ North ATTACHMENT "B" DRAFT FINDINGS FOR TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP Recommended Findings for Approval o o o o The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable Comprehensive Plan policies ¯ and programs including those policies governing land use, residential density and housing. The .site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed in that the proposed lot configuration accommodates construction of 13 new residential units in twelve new buildings and other site modifications which meet the Architectural Review Board Standards for Review and which fully comply with all existing zoning regulations. The design of the new lot pattern and building locations will not cause any environmental impacts as the site improvement has undergone environmental review and mitigating conditions of approval have been attached to the Architectural Review Board approval. The design of the new lot pattern and the proposed improvements will not result in serious public health problems in that all necessary public services, including public utilities, are available and will be provided. The design of the new lot pattern will not conflict with public easementsfacce, ss through the property in that ~ ravill-provi~Sv~’treet access-toeleven-of-the-new~tmits-and-that--l~dbl~tl~t~ac~:~ ~ .-" ¯ ~ ATTACHMENT "C" DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL OF SUBDIVISION GENERAL All Conditions required under Architectural Review Board application 97-ARB-152 shall apply to this project and be are incorporated as a part of this approval. The developer shall repair, restore or replace, at the developers expense, any City property damaged while performing work within the City right-of-way. PRIOR TO SUBMITTAL OF FINAL MAP o The Applicant shall arrange a meeting to discuss the improvement plans necessary for the project with Public Works Engineering, Planning, Fire and Transportation Departments. These improvement plans must be completed and approved by the City prior to submittal of a final map. All construction within the City right-of-way, easements or other property under the City’s jurisdiction shall conform to standard specifications of the Public Works find Utility Departments. o The applicant shall submit a current Preliminary Title Report and Grant Deed for the subject properties. If the applicant desires to name the new private street, a submittal shall be made to the Palo Alto Historical Society for this purpose which is consistent with the street naming policy contained in the Palo Alto Policy and Procedures Manual, Section 1-16. PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF FINAL MAP o The final map submitted shall show all the widths of streets in the vicinity as well as all easements affecting the property. .’The final map shall include a five foot wide public utility easement along the western property line for the exiting overhead wires. The subdivider shall post a bond prior to the recording of the final parcel map to guarantee completion of the items approved under improvement plan. The amount of the bond shall be determined by the Planning Division and Public Works Department. ATTACH~IENT D ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1. Project. Title: 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: 579 Vista Avenue/4114 Goebel Lane City Of Palo Alto - Planning Division 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 3.Contact Person and Phone Number:George White, Senior Planner (41 5)329-2541 4.Project Location:579 Vista Avenue/4114 Goebel Lane Palo Alto, CA 5."Project Sponsor’s Name and Address:Jeffrey Levin 350Second Street, Suite 7 Los Altos, CA 94022 6.General Plan Designation: 7.Zoning: Single Family Residential RM-1 5 8.Description of the Project: The applicant is requesting Tentative Subdivision Map approval to create 12 residential condominium units on a 41,253 square foot parcel. This is an accompanying action relating to the previously approved Major Architectural Review Board application (File # 97-ARB-152)and the associated environmental impact assessment (File #97-EIA-21) for various site improvements, including new 12 new residential buildings, a new private driveway, landscaping and parking facilities. 98-EIA-1 579vista1 .nd Page 1 //. Surrounding Land uses and Setting: The property is bordered on the north by Vista Avenue and multi-family residential, on the east by a medium density residential apartment building, on. the south by the vacant Cameo Club site (which is zoned for multi-family residential) and on the west by single family residential. 10.Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g. permits, financing approval, or participation agreement). None. The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ’ Land Use and Planning Biological Aesthetics Resources Population and Housing Geological Problems Water Air Quality Transportation and Circulation Energy and Mineral Resources Hazards Noise Public Services Utilities and Service Systems X Cultural Resources Recreation Mandatory Findings of Si~lnificance None 579vista1 .nd 98-EIA-1 Page 2 DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find thatthe proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,. there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT-be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (1) have been analyzed in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that ar~nposed upon the proposed project. Project Date Direct )mmunity Environment Date X 579vista1 .nd 98-EIA-1 Page 3 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) A brief explanation is required for all answers ~ except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question, A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e. g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e. g..the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. "Potentially Significant Impact’ is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 17, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross-referenced). Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has be.en adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 © (3) (D). Earlier analyses are discussed in Section 17 at the end of the checklist. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. A source listshould be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 7) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different ones. 579vista1 .rid 98-EIA-1 Page 4 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Signifiosnt Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than SignifiCant Impaot 1.LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) b) c) d) e) a) b) c) 3. a) b) cl Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? Be incompatible with existing land use in the. vicinity? Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impact to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority community)? 1,6 1 2 .2 POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or ¯ indirectly (e;g. through projects in an undeveloped areaor major infrastructure? Displace existing housing, especially affordable .housing? 2 2 X GEOLOGY. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: Fault rupture? Seismic ground shaking? Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? Landslides or mudflows? 1 1 1 1- 1 X X X X X X X X X X X X 579vista1 .nd 98-EIA-1 Page 5 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sour(:es Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Inoorporated Lass Than Significant Impact f) g) h) ~) 4. a) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill? Subsidence of the land? Expansive soils? Unique geologic or physical features? 1 1 1 X X X X WATER. Would the proposal result in: Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the 2 X rate and amount of surface runoff? b)Exposure of people or property to water related hazards " 2 X such as flooding? c)2 X d) e) Discharge into surface waters or otheralteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen, turbidity or other typical storm water pollutants (e.g. sediment and debris from construction, hydrocarbons and metals from vehicle use, nutrients and pesticides from landscape maintenance? Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body or wetland? Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements, in marine or freshwater, or wetlands? Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? Impacts to groundwater quality through infiltration of reclaimed water or storm water runoff that has contacted pollutants from urban or industrial activities? 2 2 2 2 2 f) g) h) X X X X 579vista1 .nd 98-EIA-1 Page 6 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? j)Alteration of wetlands in any way? 5.AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: X X a)Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an exiting or projected air quality violation? .b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants c) d) 6. a) b) c) d) e) f) g) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? Create Objectionable odors? TRANSPORTATIONICIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion?3 Hazards to safety fro~ design features (e.g. Sharp curves Or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses 3 (e.g. farm equipment))? Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby 3 uses? Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?3 Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?3 Conflicts with adopted polici’es supporting alternative 1 transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts?2 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result reduction or interference in: Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals or birds)? X X X X X X X X X X 579vista1 .nd 98-EIA-1 Page 7 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation InCorporated Less Than Signifi=ant Impact b) Locally designated specie~ (e.g. heritage trees)? c)Locally designated natural communities (e.g, oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool? e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? 2 2 2 2 8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) b) c) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? 1 2 2 9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) b) c) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to." oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? d)Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? e)Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass of trees? 2 2 2 2 2 X X X X X X X X X X X 10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increase in existing noise levels?I 2 1 !I X I 98-EIA-1 579vista1 ,rid Page 8 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Potentially Significant Signifioant Issues Unless Mitigation Inoorporated Loss Than Signifioant Impact Impaot 11. PUBLIC SERvIcEs. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection?4 b) Police protection?5 c) Schools?2 d)Maintenance of public facilities, including roads or 2 storm drain facilities? e) Other governmental services?2 12.UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or. supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? b) Communications systems? c)Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? d) Sewer or septic tanks? e) Storm water drainage or storm water quality control? f) Solid waste disposal? g) Local or regional water supplies? 13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? c} Create light or glare? 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 2 X X X X . X X X X X X X X X X X 579vista1 .nd 98-EIA-1 Page 9 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Source.=Potentially Signifioar~t issues Potentially Signifioant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impaot 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? b) Disturb archaeological resources? c) Affect historical resources? d)Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? e)Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? 1 1 1,2 1 15. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a)Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks" or other recreational facilities? X X X X X b) Affect existing recreatioqal opportunities?2 X 16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a)×Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? X 579vista1 .rid 98-EIA-1 Page 10 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Souroas Potentially Significant leages Potentially Signifioent Unless Mitigation Inoorporated Less Than Signifioant Impaot c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of the past projects, the effects of other current projects, end the effects of probable future projects) d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? X X 17. EARLIER ANALYSES; Earlier analYsis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects. have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). In this case a discussion should identify the following items: a) Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions of the project. Authority: Public Resources Code Sections 21083 and 21087. Reference: Public Resources Code Sections 21080 (c), 21080.l~ 21080.3, 21082.1, 21083, 21083.3, 21093, 321094, 21151; Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino, 202 Cal. App. 3d 296 (1988); Leonofff v. Monterey Board of Supervisors, 222 Cal. App. 3d 1337 (1990). 579vista1 .nd 98-EIA-1 Page 11 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Significant Issues P~tentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Signifioant Impact 18.SOURCE REFERENCES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Pale Alto Comprehensive Plan 1980-1995 Planer’s general knowledge of the project and project site Pale Alto Transportation Division Pale Alto Fire Department Pale Alto Police Departmentr Pale Alto Municiple Code, Title 18 Pale Alto Utilities Department Pale Alto Public Works Department City Arborist 19. EXPLANATIONS FOR CHECKLIST RESPONSES 2c.POPULAT.ION AND HOUSING 7b. The site contains seven small single family residences that are proposed to be demolished to accommodate the new housing development. Pursuant to the City of Pale Alto’s Below Market Rate (BMR) housing program, the applicant is required to designate 20 per cent of the new housing units as BMR units. For the project, this requirement is equivalent to 2.6 BMR units. To this end, the applicant has signed a BMR agreement letter with the City of Pale Alto that designates one of the new on site units as a BMR unit and one off site unit to be purchased by the applicant as a second BMR unit. The applicant will also be required to pay an in lieu fee, per an established formula, to the City of Pale Alto to account for the fractional unit. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES The City Arborist has previously reviewed proposed improvementsto this site as part of the Architectural Review Board approval process and has recommended mitigations to reduce potential impacts to existing biological resources on the site to a less than significant level as indicated in the associated Mitigated Negative Declaration (File No. 97-EIA-21).These mitigations are hereby incorporated by reference. 579vista1 .nd 98-EIA-1 Page 12 Cityof Palo Alto Department qfP~. ning andCommunity Environment March 20, 1998 ATTACHMENT E Planning Division Jeffrey. Levin 600 So. Springer Road Los Altos, CA 94024 Dear Mr. Levin: The Director of Planning and Community Environment, upon recommendation of the Architectural Review Board at its meeting of March ~05. 1998 has approved with conditions the following application per. the plans submitted for review: 579 Vista - 4114 Goebel Lane Jeffrey Levin. 97-DEE-3, 97-EIA-21, 97-ARB-152 Application of Vista Goebel, LLC.for review of the Architectural Review Board review and recommendation to the Director of Planning and Community Environment to demolish 7 existing residences and to construct 13 multi-family residential structures, ranging from 42~2 to 1701 square feet in floor area, associated parking and site improvements. Environmental Assessment: An Environmental Impact Assessment has been completed and. a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared. Zone District: RM-15 (Low Density Multiple Family Residential). CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: Prior to Issuance of Demolition. Grading or Building Permit 1. Colors to return on consent calendar to ARB. 2.Design of pedestrian link shall return on consent calendar. City Planning Arborist ":"’ 3. As a replacement for the removal of the large Deodar Cedar located b~a the Vista Avenue frontage, one Coast Live Oak of 60 inch box size shall be planted along the Vista Avenue frontage; and one tree (species subject to approval by the Planning Arborist) of 36 inch box size shall be planted along the Vista Avenue frontage. The specific locations shall be approved by the Planning Arborist. 250 HamiltonAvenue P.O. Box10250 PaloAlto, CA94~ 415.329.2441 415.329.2240Fax o The City Planning Arborist shall be in receipt of a statement from the Applicant or project arbodst verifying that the protective tree fencing is in plac~!ibefore demolition and construction permit issuance unless .otherwise approved. All trees to be retained, including the neighbor trees, as shown on the approved plans shall be protected as per the Arbofist Report dated 11/12 & 26, 1997 during construction. These plans must be included within demolition or building plans and contracts, or on the grading plan if it stands alone from .any other permifii Any modifications to these requirements must b~ approved, in writing, by the Planning Arbofist. In addition, the following tree preservation measures apply to all trees to be retained: All trees to be preserved shall be protected with six-foot-high chain link fences. Fences are to be mounted on two-inch diameter galvanized iron posts, driven into the ground to a depth of at least 2-feet at no more than 10- foot spac!ng. The fences shall enclose the entire area under the drip!ine of the trees. The fences shall be erected before construction begins and remain in place until final inspection of the. building permit, except for work specifically required in the approved plans to be done underthe trees to be protected. (See Public Works Department’s standard specification detail #505). This detail shall appear on grading and construction plans. Before the protective .tree fencing is installed, all trees to remain shall be pruned in compliance with the following industry, standards. bo All specifications for working on Protected Trees shall be written and administered by a qualified arborist. All work on protected Trees performed within the City of Palo Alto shall be " in accordance With the industry Standard Practices for Tree Care Operations outlined in the ANSI A300’1995 and ANSI Z 133-1994. All specified tree work shall be designed to promote practices which encourage the preservation of tree structure and health, according to-.the Western Chapter of the International Society of Arboriculture (WC-ISA) ¯ Guidelines for Certified Arborists and Tree Workers. The landscape plan shall be modified to show the following: Additional screen trees shall be planted along the rear and side property lines. The trees shall be planted six feet on center and shall be of an evergreen type that will grow to a height often feet within 3 years. Each unit shall have at least two such irees. Final placement and selection of species shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Planning Arbodst. bo A new, seven foot high good neighbor type fence shall be installed on the side and rear property lines. The new fence shall be in compliance with the ¯ applicable provisions of the PAMC. Co The tree islands shall be designed to include protective boulders around .the 6 foot radius, reflectors to alert oncoming vehicle and appropriate low level lighting. Final plan details of the island design is subject to the review and approval of the City Planning Arbofist and the Public Works Department. Housing ¯ 8. In compliance with Program 9 and 13 of the Housing Elementof the Comprehensive Plan, the project is subject to a 20 percent Below Market Rate (BMR) requirement. The applicant shall provide 2 three bedroom units at Below Market Rates. One unit, designated as #11 on the approved site plan dated 12119/97, will be provided on site. The second unit will be provided off site. An in-lieu fee equal to 1.091% of the sales price of each non-BMR unit is required. Provision of the units and fee shall be consistent with the Letter of Agreement, dated 1/6/98, from Ken Schreiber, Director of Planning and Community Environment, and signed by Jeffrey Levin. The Letter of Agreement is attached and is included herein by .reference and requires that a BMR agreement, satisfactory to the City Attorney, beprepared.and~x-ecuted +by the owner and city ~ t’l~at the agreement be recor~ded in the office of Santa Clara recorder priorttrthe-issuance of a building permit. Transportation Plan~ing 9. . The site plan shatl-be mo~~delIare, e~fe~t.~a~" additional driveway next to the driveway of unit #11 to allow for appropriate maneuvering area around tree island. Public 10. 11. i2. 13. Works If the applicant desires to create a condominium ’on the site, a subdivision map application is required. The applicant shall submit a final grading and drainage plan to Public Works Engineeri.ng, including drainage patterns on site and from adjacent properties. The plan shall demonstrate that pre-existing drainage patterns to and from adjacent properties are not altered. See. 16.28.270. " The proposed development will result in a change in the impervious area of the property. The applicant shall provide calculations showing the adjusted impervious area with the building permit application. A storm drainage fee adjustment will take place in the month following the final approval of the construction by the Building inspection Division. Permittee must obtain a grading permit from the City of Palo Alto Building Inspection Division if excavation .exceeds 100 cubic yards. 14. 15. A construction logistics plan shall be provided, addressing at minimum parking, truck routes and staging, materials storage, and the provision of pedestrian and vehicular traffic adjacent to the construction site. All track routes shall conform with the City of Palo Alto’s Trucks and Truck Route Ordinance, Chapter 10.48, and the attached roUte map which outlines truck routes available throughout the City of Palo Alto. The applicant shall obtain a Permit for Construction in a Public Street from Public Works Engineering for construction proposed in the City right-of-way,sec. 12.08.010. Utilitie~ . ¯ 16. A dedicated irrigation watermeter shall be shown on the f’mal landscape plan. The final landscape plan shall be reviewed and approved for water efficiency. Fire Department 17. ~A residential sprinkler system is required. Details shall be shown .on final construction plans. During Construction City Planning Arb0rist 18. A monthly inspection of the protection and preservation measures .by the project arborist shall be required and a summary faxed to the Planning Arborist at (650) 329-2154 during the first week of each month. 19. 20. 21. All neighbors trees that overhang the project site shall be protected from impact of any kind. The applicant shall .be responsible for the repair or replacement of any pub’licly owned trees that are damaged during the, course of construction, pursuant to Section 8.04.070 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. The following tree preservation measures apply to all trees to be retained: ao, bo No storage of material, topsoil, vehicles or equipment shall be permitted within the tree enclosure area. The ground aroundthe tree canopy area shall not be altered. Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and maintained as necessary to ensure survival. All trees shall receive monthly watering. A written log of each watering application shall be kept updated at the site construction office. The CPA shall be in receipt of this log before final sign off is approved. Public 22. Works To reduce dust levels, it shall be required that exposed earth surfaces be watered as necessary. Spillage resulting from hauling operations along or across any public or private property shall be removed immediately and paid for by the contractor. Dust nuisances originating from the contractor’s operations, either inside or outside of the right-of-way shall be controlled at the contractor’s expense. The developer shall require its contractor to incorporate best management practices (BMP’s) for stormwater pollution prevention in all construction operations, in conformance with the Santa Clara Valley Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program. The Inspection Services Division shall monitor BMP’s with respect to the developer’s construction activities on private property; and the Public Works Department shall monitor BMP’s with respect to the developer’s construction activities on public property. It is unlawful to discharge any construction debris (soil, asphalt, sawcut slurry, paint, chemicals, etc.) or other waste materials into gutters or storm drains. (Federal Clean Water Act) 24.All construction within the City fight-of-way, easements or other property under City jurisdiction shall conform to Standard Specifications 6f the Public Works and Utility Departments. Prior to Final Inspection City. Planning Arborist 25. All new trees shall be planted as per Public Woi’ks Standard Tree Well Diagram #504 and have the tree pit dug at least twice the diameter of the root ball. This diagram shall be shown on Landscape Plans. 26. Public 27. Project construction shall include installation of irrigation supply to all trees. Details on the Irrigation Plans shall show an inline loop of drip tubing placed around the top of the rootball at a point one-third of rootball diameter. All tree irrigation shall be connected’to a separate valve from other shrubbery and ground cover as required in Landscape Water Efficiency Standards for the City of Palo Alto (V-C)(o). Works The Public Works Inspector shall sign offthe building permit prior to the finalization of this permit. All off-site improvements shall be finished prior to this’sign-off. Should you have any questions regarding this ARB actioni please do not hesitate to call the Planning Department ate.(415) 329-2230. Phillip ARB Staff Liaison PLANNING DIVISION MEMORANDUM Date: To." From: Subject: July 29, 1998 Planning Commission George White, Senior Planner 579 Vista Avenue/4114 Goebel Lane (File Nos; 98-SUB-1; 98-EIA-1): Application of Jeff Levin for tentative subdivision map approval to create 12 residential condominium units on a 41,253 square foot parcel pursuant to Title 21 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. At the July 8th regular Planning Commission meeting, the above referenced item was continued to the July 29th meeting. The Commission desired to review more detailed information relating to the previous Architectural Review Board (ARB) approval on this site. To this end, staff has attached pertinent ARB documents, including public heating minutes, staff reports and plan excerpts. A complete set of full sized plans will be displayed at the July 29th public ’ hearing. The applicant has indicated that he will provide additional information on the project, as requested by the Planning Commission, at the meeting. Attachments: ¯ A. ARB Minutes dated 8/21/97, 1/15/98 and 3/5/98. B. ARB Staff Reports with attachments dated 8/21/97, 1/15/98 and 3/5/98. C. Excerpts from ARB approved plans (Planning Commission only). Dave Ross - The proposed project is a good use of density; E1 Camino Real could become more of a residential street. The proposal should close off the north curb cut; this could make the front area at the street more friendly. The proposal should incorporate a bench or something for the pedestrian experience at El Camino Real. The proposal is a nice recognition of what is in the Comprehensive plan. The applicant should take a chance on the architecture. The applicant is encouraged to modified the comer unit to improve the project. Jim McFall - Pleased to see a proposal for this site. The proposed building elevations read very fiat. The ,applicant is encouraged to provide porches on the front. The wedge of asphalt in the front of E1 Camino Real could be better enhanced. 10.579 Vista Avenue*97-ARB-130 Vista/Goebel LLC Application for Preliminary Architectural Review Board review to allow the demolition of seven existing single family structures, and to permit the construction of twelve new residential condominium units and related site improvements. PROJECT REPRESENTATIVES: Jeffery Levin, project applicant present proposal and Mr. Banvard, architect presented the architectural concepts. PUBLIC TESTIMONY: None ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD ACTION: No action on preliminary review Jim MeFall: The first part of the house goes over the property line; need to verify if it is all on the property. The concept 0f a gate is not community oriented. The regularity of the housing pattern is defeating the goal of tree preservation. It is important to see where the trees are located; indicate the location of the trees. Barron Park has a rural character and there is a strong consistency with style and patterns. The proposal will read as if it was built in 1997 or 1998. The proposal should make something unique versus the current scheme. The proposed shingle style bungalow is appropriate. The use of natural materials and porch more in keeping with character of the neighborhood. The proposal should be more woodsy instead of a polished look. Frank Alfonso: The gated community would be an error and should be discouraged. The use of the motor court is an interesting idea. The terminus is too exposed to on coming traffic. The proposal should provide a visual screen for a sense of protectiveness. It is very difficult to use variety of homes to make them look different. The use of too many material and styles could make the project look like "Disneyland." The use of landscape could create A:kARB24hMIN0821.drf Page 27 more variety. Changes in platelines and entry features and color could add variety. The buildings should become more woodsy and less polished. Bob Peterson: The proposal should respond to the nature of Barron Park Neighborhood; the project should be innovative with the community. Maybe the comer house should face Vista Avenue instead of Goebel Lane. The proposed site is special because it has existing trees. The proposal should not be a gated community. It would be better if there are fewer materials used. All of the proposed building plate lines goes straight across. Dave Ross: This project is similar to the project that was reviewed earlier. The proposal should embrace the terminus as an extension of the play area. The use of the open space for parking is good. The proposal should make a slight variation in the foot print; this would make it more eclectic. The proposal could incorporate different plate lines and a different treatment at the roof edge. He likes the idea of orienting the living to the courtyard. NEW BUSINESS Discussion and recommendation to City Council for priorities in FY 1998-2000 This discussion was continued to September 4, 1997. BOARD MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS. ARB Representative Attendance at the following meetings: Midtown 5:00-6:30 PM Downtown Improvements 4290 E1 Camino Real (Hyatt Cabana) 430 Sheridan Ave. (440 PMR) 675 El Camino Real Meeting Date Representatiw ARB: TBD All ARB PC:TBD Members CC:6/9 PC:6/11, 7/09 ARB:6/19 CC:8/04 PC:7/30, 9/24 ARB:8/21 CC:10/20 PC:7/30, 9/24 ARB:8/21 CC:10/20 [3ob Peterson 99 , 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 1865-85-95 ECR PC: 8/27 ARB: 9/18 CC: 10/20 ?? ?? ?? 800 High Street PC:. 8/27 ARB: ?? ?? A:~kRB24hMIN0~21.drf Page 28 ATTACHMENT A ARCHITECTURAL REVIEWS BOARD ACTION: No action on a preliminary review; Lippert, stated conflict of interest and stepped down. Alfonso :The placement of various buildings makes a lot of sense; The outdoor area of the proposed multipurpose room is very interesting. The parking and traffic situation will need to be addressed. It would be nice to have as much lawn as possible for the children to play. Bellomo.; He appreciated the thought that has gone into the project. He finds the overall texture of the building to be effective. He is concerned about the parking and drop off for the school. Peterson: He appreciated the applicant’s effort for neighborhood outreach. The parking and traffic will be an issue for the project. He is in complete support of this project; it is a very handsome, and thoughtful project. The site plan is excellent and the orientation to the outdoor space is good for children. Piha: She welcomed the use of materials and the architectural forms, the creativity of the various spaces and the opportunities created for exteribr access to the building. In general, the site is being overdeveloped. They have done a good job meeting building pro~am requirements and size of the school and the population that they are trying to accommodate. The areas of biggest concern are the traffic, parking, bicycle parking spaces and the limited space in the courtyard. 579 Vista Ave.hue/4114 Goebel Lane 97-ARB-152, 97-DEE-3, 97-EIA-21 Vista Goebel, LLC Application for Architectural Review Board review and recommendation to the. Director of Planning and Community Environment to demolish seven existing residences and to construct 13 multiple-family residential structures ranging from ’ 422 to 1,701 square feet in floor area associated parking and site improvements.. Environmental Assessment: A mitigated negative declaration has been prepared.. Zone District: RM-15 (Low Density Multiple-Family Residential). STAFF REPRESENTATIVE: George White passed out a letter from Jeffery McDaniel, 4133 Verdosa Drive, adjacent to the project site, expressing concerns about potential loss of privacy and the impact on their rear yards, also the A:\011598mtg.arb .Page 7 increase in density. PROJECT REPRESENTATIVE: Jeffrey Levin, owner and developer of the project, made a presentation; Navi Banvard, project architect presented the architectural concepts; and Phil Vandertulen, landscape architect explained that the landscaping plan. ¯ PUBLIC TESTIMONY: John Baca, 417.1 Verdosa Avenue, He said that Vista Avenue is very difficult for the garb.age trucks to pick up refuse..They have to wheel the cans in, as the trucks cannot enter and turn around. Also, people who need to be transported by ambulance must be w.heeled on a gurney along four or five houses to the ambulance. He was also concerned that the residents whose homes back up to the project will lose their sunlight from the structures. He hopes that balconies will not come close to the lot line. Jeffrey Yost, 4121 Verdosa Drive, whose backyard is contiguous with One of the proposed units. His area of concern ~vas the ten-foot:setback at the one-story level, as his house is about 20 feet from his fende. Also, he was concerned about the windows in the second story being intrusive, as ~vell as the setback of the second story-balcony. He commented that no one had met with the developer; but the developer met with the Barron Park Association. He did not feel that a wall with a name on the front is appropriate for Barron Park, and is the antithesis of Barron Park. He would like trees along the rear. Some new fencing would also be nice. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD ACTION: Item to be continuetl (3-1-0- 1) Lippert, Nay and Peterson, absent. This item is to retu.rn to ARB with the following modifications; a) remove the fence and silage at the entrance; b) revise the palette of materials to avoid the artificial quality of the hardy board planks and cultured stone; c) revise the street drainage to avoid excess mud; and d) remove pilasters in the fence and just have a wood fence. NEW BUSINESS: None. BOARD MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS AND A:\011598mtg.arb Page 8 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 2 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 building and the construction of a two story 128,700 square foot, Research and Development Building, parking, landscaping and various site improvements. Staff Recommendation: As this is a preliminary ARB review, a formal recommendation is not made. Draft verbatim minutes will be available. Project Representatives: Kevin Jones and Sonny Lan, project architects, made a presentation. Public Testimony: Pat Steck, 860 Chimalus, lives adjacent to the proposed site; the project does not address (e) trees and screening elements. Aldo Paeagni, 830 Chimalus, is concerned about the project and type of development in the Stanford Research Park.. : Architectural Review Board Action: No action for preliminary review. Board members Piha and Peterson, stated conflict of interest and stepped down. 579 Vista Avenue/4114 Goebel Lane [97-ARB-152, 97-DEE-3, 97-EIA-21]: Application of Vista Goebel, LLC for review of the Architectural Review Board review and recommendation to the Director of Plarming and Community Environment to demolish 7 existing residences and to construct 13 multi-family residential structures, ranging from 422 to 1701 square feet in floor - area, associated parking and site improvements. ’Environmental Assessment: An Environmental Impact Assessment has been completed and a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared. Zone District: RM-15 (Low Density Multiple Family Residential). Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval subject to the conditions. Project Representatives: Navy Banvard, project architect, and Bud Chor, project engineer made a presentation. Public Testimony: Cheryl Piha read a letter from Will Beckett, 4189Baker Avenue, the Barro.n Neighborhood Association has no objections to the proposal. Architectural Review Board Action: (5-0-0-0). ][’.rior to Issuance of Demolition, Gradin~ermit Colors to return on consent calendar to ARB. 2.Design of pedestrian link shall return on consent calendar. Planning Arborist C~w. of Palo Alto ....,Page 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17. 18 19 20 21 22 23 2,4 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 o As a replacement for the removal of the large Deodar Cedar located on the Vista Avenue frontage, one Coast Live Oak of 60 inch box size shall be planted along the Vista Avenue frontage; and one tree (species subject to approval by the Planning Arborist) of 36 inch box size shall be planted along the Vista Avenue frontage. The specific locations shall be approved by the Planning Arborist. The City Planning Arborist shall be in receipt of a statement from the Applicant or project arborist verifying that the protective tree fencing is in place before demolition and construction permit issuance unless otherwise approved. All trees to be retained, including the neighbor trees, as shown on the approved plans shall be protected as per the Arborist Report dated 11112 & 26, 1997 during construction. These plans must be included within demolition or building plans and contracts, or on the grading plan if it stands alone from any other permit. Any modifications to these requirements must be approved, in writing, by the Planning Arborist. In addition, the following tree preservation measures apply to all trees to be retained: ao All trees to be preserved shall be protected with six-foot-high chain link fences. Fences are to be mounted on two-inch diameter galvanized iron posts, driven into the ground to a depth of at least 2-feet at no more than 10-foot spacing. The fences shall enclose the entire area under the dripline of the trees. The fences shall be erected before construction begins and remain in place until final inspection of the building permit, except for work specifically required in the approved plans to be done under the trees to be protected. (See Public Works Department’s standard. specification detail #505). This detail shall appear on grading and construction plans. Before the protective tree fencing is installed, all trees to remain shall be pruned in compliance with the following industry standards. All specifications for working on Protected Trees shall be written and administered by a qualified arborist.$ All work on Protected Trees performed within the City of Palo Alto shall be in accordance with the industry Standard Practices for Tree Care Operations outlined in the ANSI A300-1995 and ANSI Z133-1994. All specified tree work shall be designed to promote practices which encourage the preservation of tree structure and health, according to the Western Chapter of the International.Society of Arboriculture (WC-ISA) Guidelines for Certified Arborists and Tree Workers. The landscape plan shall be modified to show the following: a. Additional screen trees shall be planted along the rear and side property lines. The trees shall be planted six feet on center and .shal! be of an evergreen type that will grow to a height often feet within 3 years. Each unit shall have at least two such trees. Final placement and selection of species Ct~. of Palo Alto ....Page 12 shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Planning Arborist. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 b. A new, seven foot high good neighbor type fence shall be installed on the side and rear property lines. The new fence shall be in compliance wfith the applicable provisions of the PAMC. c. The tree islands shall be designed to include protective boulders around the 6 foot radius, reflectors to alert oncoming vehicle and appropriate low level lighting. Final plan details of the island design is subject to the review and approval of the City Planning Arbodst and the Public Works Department. Housing 8. In compliance with Program 9 and 13 of the Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan, the project is subject to a 20 percent Beloxv Market Rate (BMR) requirement. The applicant shall provide 2 three bedroom units at Below Market Rates. One unit, designated as #11 on the approved: site plan dated 12/19/97, will be provided on site. The second unit will be provided off site. An in- lieu fee equal to 1.091% of the sales price of each non-BMR unit is required. Provision of the units and fee shall be consistent with the Letter of Agreement, dated 116198, from Ken Schreiber, Director of Planning and Community Environment, and signed by Jeffrey Levin. The Letter of Agreement is attached and is included herein by reference and requires that a BMR agreement, satisfactory to the City Attorney, be prepared and executed +by the owner and city and that the agreement be recorded in the office of Santa Clara recorder prior to the issuance of a’building permit. Transportation Planning 9. The site plan shall be modified to provide three feet of additional driveway next to the driveway of unit #11 to allow for appropriate maneuvering area around tree island. Public Works 10. If the applicant desires to create a condominium on the site, a subdivision map application is required. 11.The applicant shall submit a final grading and drainage plan to Public Works Engineering, including drainage patterns on site and from adjacent properties. The plan shall demonstrate that pre-existing drainage patterns t3 and from adjacent properties are not altered. See. 16.28.270. 12.The proposed development will result in a change in the impervious area of the property. The applicant shall provide calculations showing the adjusted impervious area with the building permit application. A storm drainage fee adjustment will take place in the month following the final approval of the construction by the Building Inspection Division. 13.Permittee must obtain a grading permit from the City of Palo Alto Building Inspection Division if excavation exceeds 100 cubic yards. 14. A construction logistics plan.shall be provided, addressing at minimum parking, truck routes and City of Palo Alto Page 13 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 staging, materials storage, and the provision of pedestrian and vehicular traffic adjacent to the construction site. All truck routes shall conform with the City of Palo Alto’s Trucks and Truck Route Ordinance, Chapter 10.48, and the attached route map which outlines truck routes available throughout the City of Palo Alto. 15.The applicant shall obtain a Permit for Construction in a Public Street from Public Works Engineering for construction proposed in the City right-of-way. Sec. 12.08.010. Utilities 16. A dedicated irrigation water meter shall be shown on the final landscape plan. The final landscape plan shall be reviewed and approved for water efficiency_ Fire Department 17. A residential sprinkler system is required. Details shall be shown on final construction plans. During Construction City Planning Arborist 18. A monthly inspection of the protection and preservation measures by the project arborist shall be required and a summary faxed to the Planning Arborist at (650) 329-2154 during the first week of each month. 19. All neighbors trees that overhang the project site shall be protected from impact of any kind. 20.The applicant shall be responsible for the repair or replacement of any publicly owned trees that are damaged during the course of construction, pursuant to Section 8.04.070 of the Paio Alto Municipal Code. 21.The following tree preservation measures apply to all trees to be retained: a.No storage of material, topsoil, vehicles or equipment shall be permitted within the tre~ enclosure area. b. The ground around the tree canopy area shall not be altered. Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and maintainedas necessary to ensure survival. All trees shall receive monthly watering. A written log of each watering application shall be kept updated at the site construction office. The CPA shall be in receipt of this log before final sign. off is approved. Public Works 22. To reduce dust levels, it shall be required that exposed earth surfaces be watered as necessary. Spillage resulting from hauling operations along or across any public or private property shall be Cir.’ of Palo Alto .....Page 14 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 24 25 26 30 34 40 41 4~ 43 removed immediately and paid for by the contractor. Dust nuisances originating from the contractor’s operations, either inside or outside of the right-of-way shall be controlled at the contractor’s expense. The developer shall require its contractor to incorporate best management practices (BMP’s) for stormwater pollution prevention in all construction operations, in conformance with the Santa Clara Valley Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program. The Inspection Services Division shall monitor BMP’s with respect to the developer’s construction activities on private property; and the Public Works Department shall monitor BMP’s with respect to the developer’s construction activities on public property. It is.unlawful to discharge any construction debris (soil, asphalt, sawcut slurry, paint, chemicals, etc.) or other waste materials into gutters or storm drains. (Federal Clean Water Act) 24.All construction within the City right-of-way, easements or other property under City jurisdiction shall conform to Standard Specifications of the Public Works and Utility Departments. prior to Final Inspection Ci_ty Planning Arborist 25. All new trees shall be planted as per P.ublic Works Standard Tree Well Diagram #504 and have the tree pit dug at least twice the diameter of the root ball. This diagram shall be shown on Landscape Plans. 26.Project construction shall include installation of irrigation supply to alltrees. Details on the Irrigation Plans shall show an inline loop of drip tubing placed around the top of the rootball at a point one-third of rootball diameter. All tree irrigation shall be connected to a separate valve from Other shrubbery and ground cover as required in Landscape Water Efficiency Standards for the City of Palo Alto (V-C)(o). Public Works 27.The Public Works Inspector shall sign off the building permit prior to the finalization of this permit. All off-site improvements shall be finished prior to this sign-off. Other Items. 1) Presentation of the revised agenda format; Eric Reil made a presentation on the changed procedures of ARB hearings. 2) Discussion of ARB retreat: Item was continued to March 19, 1998. 3) Historic Preservation updated:Item was continued to March 19, 1998. 4) Discussion of Design Awards: Item was continued to March 19, 1998. Ct~.’ of Palo Alto 7 ¯Page 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 .10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22- 23 REPORTS FROM OFFICIALS. None. BOARD MEMBER Q UES TI ONS, COMMENTS, AND/OR ANNOUNCEMENTS. Architectural Review Board representative at City Council meetings: ~Meeting date 4100-4120 ECR Cameo Club CC: 5/18 PC:1/28, 4/29 ARB:4/2 Representative Next Meeting: March 19, 1998 ADJOURNMENT. Meeting adjourned at 1:15 PM March 11, 1998 [s:\O305min.arb] Cloy of Palo Alto Page 16 Architectural Review Board Staff Report Item No. II.10 Agenda Date:August 21, 1997 Architectural Review Board From:George White, Senior Planner Department: Planning Subject:579 Vista Avenue File No.: 97-ARB-130 VISTA GOEBEL, LLC REQUEST Review of preliminary Architectural Review Board application to allow the demolition of seven single family homes on three parcels and to permit the construction of 12 condominium units and related site improvements. File No.97-AR~-130. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant is proposing to construct 12 new, detached residential condominium units, ranging in size from 1~294 to 1,715 square feet. The total new building area is proposed to be 19,634 square feet, including the garages. The site consists of three parcels totaling 39,268 square feet (net). The proposed building setback for the unit closest to Vista Avenue is 20 feet. The remaining 11 units would be setback roughly 10 feet from Goebel Lane. Parking is provided for each unit and totals 29 spaces for the development Please refer to the applicant’s written description and project plans for further details regarding the project. arb:\579vista RECOMMENDATION As this is a preliminary ARB review, a formal recommendation is not made, however, given.. the scope of the tree protection, site planning and other identified issues relating to the"~’ proposal, it is unlikely that staff could support the project without substantive changes. The Board should consider the City Council directive pertaining to this site, as summarized in the Site Description section of this report, and provide comments to the applicant on the design of the project. POLICY IMPLICATIONS The project must be determined to be consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and Architectural Review Board Ordinance. The following Comprehensive Plan policies are relevant to this project: Policy Consistency The project is consistent or generally consistent with the following policies: Housing Element Policy#13 "lncrease funding sources to provide affordable housing. " The project will provide Below Market rate units that will contribute to the supply of affordable housing. Urban Design Element, Objective, page 42, "Promote the orderly and harmonious development of the City and the attainment of the most desirable land use and improvements through the review of new development. "The site is designated Multiple Family Residential and is proposed to be developed at or near the maximum density allowed. The proposed plan makes efficient use of the site by removing seven units and replacing them with twelve units. The site acts as a part of a transitional zone between the commercial core of E1 Camino Real and the low density residential uses beyond. DISCUSSION Site Description The site is irregular in shape and consists of three parcels of land totaling 39,268 square feet. The three parcels are currently occupied by seven, relatively small, single family homes. A portion of the site, which contains two of the existing homes, fronts on the public right- of-way on Vista Avenue with the remaining five homes having street access off a narrow, private street known as Goebel Lane. arb:\579vista ....2 Five of the existing seven homes on the three parcels were originally identified as contributing historic structures by the Historic Review Board. Subsequently, the applicant appealed this determination to the City Council. The City Council overturned the decision of the HRB on August 11, 1997. The Council also moved that the ARB, in reviewing future development of this site, should consider the the quality of the materials used in replacement structures and ensure that the design of the new development is consistent with the characteristics of the surrounding Barron Park neighborhood. The existing site is virtually fiat with a large canopy of mature trees, including a number of Oaks. The site is bounded on the north by Vista Avenue and single family residential, on the east by a medium density apartment building, on the south by the vacant Cameo Club site (which is zoned for multi-family residential) and on the west by multi-family residential. As a reference, the applicant has provided a site plan which superimposes existing site conditions onto the proposed development plan. Project Information ¯Information regarding the applicant, owner, . assessor’s parcel number, Comprehensive Plan designation, zoning district, existing land use, and parcel size is shown below in Table 1. TABLE 1: PROJECT INFORMATION Applicant: Owner: Assessor’s Parcel Number: Comprehensive Plan Designation: Zoning District: Surrounding Land Use: Parcel Size: Vista Goebel, LLC Jeffrey Levin 137-23-014, 013,021 Multiple Family Residential RM-15 (Multiple Family Residential) Single Family Residential, Multi-family Residential and vacant Commercial (zoned Multi- Family Residential). 39,268 s.f. or .9 acres arb:\579vista ..3 Issues and Analysis The staff analysis for this project relates to tree preservation, site planning, usable open space, landscaping, architectural design, zoning compliance and other City departmental comments. Tree Preservation: The site contains a large canopy of mature trees that are in close proximity to the existing private street. The proposed widening of this street will likely result in the removal of many or all of these significant trees. Without a detailed arborist report, it is impossible to evaluate the relative health and value of these trees, however, it is clear that this tree cover represents the predominant aesthetic feature of the site. The applicant has acknowledged this "profusion of trees" and indicates that all efforts will be made topreserve trees on the site. The conceptual site plan does not indicate which if any of the existing trees are to be retained. Any realistic effort to retain all or a portion of these trees would result in a major redesign of the project. The applicant should seriously consider an alternative right-of-way design along Goebel Lane that would reduce development conflicts with the most significant tree specimens. Site Planning: The project calls for the construction of 12 detached, condominium units to be surrounded with landscaping on all sides andserved by the existing private street, which would be widened to approximately28 feet to accommodate access to the new development and guest parking facilities. The proposed front setback is 20 feet from Vista Avenue and roughly 10 feet from the private street. The side and rear setbacks are proposed to be 10 and 9 feet, respectively. The overall project density is roughly 13 units per acre. Staff has concerns regarding various aspects of the proposed site design as follows: Vista Avenue is one of the entrance points to the neighborhood of Barron Park. The traditional development pattern along Vista Avenue is that of single family homes facing the public right-of- way. The proposal would remove two of these homes and orient the replacement structure towards Goebel Lane. The process of turning of these units to the side eliminates a significantresidentialpresence on Vista Avenue.. The inconsistency of the proposed development with the existing residential pattern on Vista Avenue will be clearly illustrated by the fact that the older home on the southwest comer of Vista Avenue and Goebel Lane, which is not part of the project site, will remain facing Vista Avenue after the site is redeveloped. Staff believes that the setback and orientation of this remaining house should guide the location of future development on the portion of this site that fronts on Vista Avenue. To arb:\579vista ..4 maintain an appropriate residential presence, one or two of the proposed units should be turned to face Vista Avenue. The irregular spatial orientation of the five homes on Goebel Lane is not retained as part of the proposed site design. The irregular spacing of the existing homes among the mature trees endows the site with a unique rural character that is representative of the surrounding Barron Park neighborhood. The applicant should consider retaining some element of the existing spatial orientation. This type of design may serve to reduce paving, allow more landscaping, including the preservation of existing trees, and be in keeping with the established residential character Barron Park. Staff has a concern regarding the legal access to the three parcels that make up the project site. Assessor’s parcel information indicates that the existing 20 foot private right-of-way that constitutes Goebel Lane is divided equally between the two parcels that front on Vista Avenue, one of which is not part of tl’;is project. The proposed widened right-of-way appears to encroach over the property line of this adjoining property. The applicant should provide documentation that he holds appropriate rights over this right-of-wayto ensure that the site and access way could be improved as planned. Because the site consists of three separate parcels, which would be reconfigured into 12 "air rights" condominium units, a subdivision map would be required. Architectural Design: The building architecture is characterized by the applicant as a mixture of "bungalow, craftsman and shingle styles". The developer’s statement indicates that the plan will include four different home elevations with two floor plans. Each home will incorporate front porches, balconies, attached garages located to the rear of the residen, ces and wood or shingle siding. A conceptual building elevation is shown on the preliminary plans. Landscaping: The conceptual landscapingprovidestypical multi-family residential planting along the front and rear lot lines. This landscaping serves as a buffer between the project site and Vista Avenue to the front and a multi family residential site (the former Cameo Club) to the rear. The site plan also. includes formal planting along the rear yards of each unit. This regularly spaced, manicured setting will be in marked contrast to the established random pattern of mature and varied landscaping in the Barron Park area. The removal of existing, mature trees on the site exacerbates this effect. Traffic: The project is not expected to result in a significant impact on traffic congestion. The arb:\579vista 5 proposed twelve .unit condominium complex will generate more vehicle trips than the existing seven single family homes, although this increase is not anticipated to be a significant adverse impact. A traffic analysis would be prepared prior to any formal ARB review. Zoning Ordinance Compliance The .following table compares the known project attributes to the RM-15 Multiple Family Residential District regulations. Project Comparison With Current Ordinance Requirements Floor Area (sq. ft.) Floor Area Ratio Maximum Height Site Coverage Automobile Parking: -Resident :Guest Total Bicycle Parking: -Resident -Guest Setbacks: -Front -Side -Rear !# Dwelling Units BMR Units. Proposed 19,634 0.5:1 unknown 33% 12 covered (tandem)* 12 uncovered (tandem)* 5 uncovered 29 spaces unknown 20 feet 10 feet 9 feet 12 1 onsite, 1 offsite + in lieu fee 19,634 0.5:1 30 feet 35% RM-15 12 covered 12 uncovered 2 uncovered 26 spaces 12 Class I 1 Class III 20 feet 10 feet rain.** 10 feet rain.*.* 13 2.6 (at max. density) arb:\579vista ... 6 ,Proposed RM-15 Usable Open Space unknown 35% Recycling Storage unknown required ¯ * Tandem parking is not permitted in the RM- 15 district per Sec. 18.83.090(k) of the PAMC. ** The 10 foot side and rear setback is the minimum required. The proposed structures are also subject to additional second story setback and daylight plane requirements. Parking: The proposed tandem parking arrangement is not permitted in the RM-15 Zoning District. A Design Enhancement Exception would be required for this type of parking. configuration. The proposed guest parking exceeds the standard requirement. Staff believes that there are grounds for approving the Design Enhancement Exception since many of the surrounding homes have tandem parking and because this feature is common to single family homes in Palo Alto. Bicycle Parking: The proposal would be required to provide one Class I bicycle space for each unit plus one additional Class III bike rack for guest parking. The plans do not provide details on bicycle parking. Floor Area and FAR: The 19,643 square feet of proposed floor area is in exact compliance with the City’s floor area requirements and the maximum FAR of .5. .~ While the applicant has not provided detailed architectural plans or building sections; it appears that the individual structures are¯ within the maximum required height limitation of 30 feet in the RM-15 zoning district. While the project plans do not provide building sections, it appears doubtful that the proposed units can comply fully with the applicable daylight plane provisions in Title 18 of the PAMC. Setbacks: The proposed front and side setbacks conform to the minimum first floor setbacks required by the PAMC. The rear setback is proposed at 9 feet where 10 feet is the minimum required. In addition, the proposed structures appear to be in conflict with the RM-15 second story setback standards which require a ten foot minimum interior side and rear yard setback plus one half of the actual height of the structure (but not less than ten feet), for the portion over one story. arb:\579vista ...7 BMR Units: The project is required to set aside 10% of total units as Below Market Rate (BMR). Because this project proposes to remove existing rental units without replacing them with an equal number of rental units or doubling the amount of housing required, the applicant will be required to provide 20% of the total units, Or 2.4 units, for BMR compliance. The applicant has indicated that he plans to meet this requirement by locating one BMR unit on-site, one-off site and pay into an in-lieu fee account for to the remaining .4 unit. Usable Open Space: The project is required to provide 35 % of the lot area as usable open space some of which is to be in common. This open space cannot include area devoted to vehicular right of way and parking. Because the project is proposed to be detached residential units, the private back yard areas for each Unit, which are located in the required side and rear setbacks~ may be used as private open space. After roughly calculating the building footprint and the street and parking areas, it appears doubtful that this project will be able to meet the overall 35 % requirement. Department Comments Public Works: The applicant will be required to improve the storm drainage system on the site and may be required to construct a continuation of the sidewalk on the Vista Avenue right of way. Transportation: The Transportation Division expressed concern regarding the required backup distance for the narrow garage and driveway configuration. Code requires an unobstructed backup area of 28 feet. Since no scale was provided on the plans, accurate measurements were not possible. Guest parking as proposed is acceptable if the lane width is adequate. For 12 units the required lane width minimum, absent of parking, is 20 foot..An additional 8-10 feet is required for the guest parking stalls. There is insufficient room for guest parkers to turn around on the site thus potentially resulting in the undesirable practice of vehicles backing out onto Vista Avenue. Public Works; An easement will be required over the. front of the site for future improvements, however, the City policy has been not to install sidewalks in the residential areas of Barron Park. ~ The project should include an area for a padmount transformer. This transformer will require a Public Utility Easement of approximately 6’ x 6’. arb:\579vista .8 If the City maintains Goebel Lane, only standard city street lights will be allowed. FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS Because this application is preliminary in nature, the actual conditions of project approval are not presented. In addition, Staff has determined that this project may be in conflict with several of the required Architectural Review Board findings. A brief summary of these findings follow: Finding 4. In areas considered by the board to as having a unified design character or historical character, whether the design is compatible to such character. The group of homes to be demolished is part of the larger Barron Park neighborhood. Previously detailed aspects of the proposed development may not be compatible with the established character of this neighborhood. Finding 8. Whether the amount and arrangement of open spaces are appropriate to the design and the function of the structures. Staff doubts that the project site, as designed, could yield the required usable open space. Finding 11. Whether natural features are appropriately preserved and integrated within the project. As previously discussed, a significant number of trees are likely to be removed to allow the construction of the prosed twelve units. The applicant has stated that all efforts will be made to preserve existing trees, however, the submitted site plan does not indicate which, if any, are to be retained. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Notice of this preliminary ARB review was provided by publication of the agenda .in a local newspaper of general circulation. In addition, property owners and utility customers within 300 feet of the project site were mailed a notice card. TIMING ACTION LIMITS Preliminary ARB review is not subject to any specific legal time requirements. It is expected that the applicant will proceed with a formal application that may be reviewed by the ARB in the Fall of this year. arb:\579vista .9 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Since no decision will be made, this preliminary review application is not subject to environmental review under provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). An environmental assessment will be completed prior to formal ARB review. ATTACHMENTS/EXHIBITS Attachment # 1: Applicant’s Development Statement Plans (Architectural Review Board members only) COURTESY COPIES: Jeffrey Levin, 350 Second Street, Suite 7, Los Altos, Ca 94022 Prepared By: Manager Review: George White, Senior Planner Lisa Grote, Zoning Administrator arb:\579vista .10 Project Description Wisteria 12 Home subdivision The proposed development consists of a 12 home subdivision located on Vista Ave. and Goebel Ave. in the Baron Park community of Palo Alto. The site consists of three parcels having a total gross land area of 41,268 sq.ft. After deducting the 20 foot frontage utilized for public rightaway, the net site area is 39,268 sq.ft. Zoning on the site is R-15, and a tentative map will be filed to create a common interest in the land to be maintained by a street association. Currently existing on the property, are seven small single family homes averaging 650 sq. feet in size. Built prior to 1940 they have been classified as contributing residences. Keeping with contributing review standards, the new homes and streetscaPe will follow those guidelines. Four elevations are planned with two floorplans. Design emphasis is placed on large front porches, balconies, rear garages, carriage style, garage doors with garages at the rear of the property, attention to window and door detail, and exterior siding in either wood and or shingle. Emphasis will be to create a sfl’ong traditional neighborhood environment, evoking a real sense of community. The architectural theme is conceived as a mixture of bungalow, craftsman, and shingle styles, combined intoa rich community fabric, rather than one repetitive, homogenous tract. Particular attention will be paid to streetscape and landscape, using such materials as stone, brick, and or concrete rather than asphalt. Along the private street, benches, a gazebo, and small public garden area ( for Wisteria residents) is under review. The driveways are intended to minimize paved surfaces, therefore, "tiretracks" are proposed. A well defined entrance will be created, combining a stone wall, landscaping, and signage. The property is adjacent to a poorly maintained 12 unit apartment building onthe East side, built in approximately 1960, and adjacent to a poorly maintained 2-story single family residence built in 1929, on the West side. Directly across Vista to the North, are two condominium townhouse developments developed circa 1975-1980. On the contiguous property to the South (Cameo Club .site) a residential subdivision is currently in planning. An abundance of trees are now found on this site, and every design effort will be pursued to maintain all heritage and unique specimen trees. Many of the trees however are either overgrown scrub bush, or are not healthy. An arborist will be hired to advise project consultants. Access to the property will utilize the existing private road called Goebel Lane~ with the new street paved in materials as earlier mentioned, and widened to a width of 28 feet. A request will be made to re-name the street to Wisteria Lane. Parking on the site is accomplished by providing 1- car garages with each residence, 1- tandem space in each driveway, and five additional guest parking spaces along the private street. Although this parking plan conforms to R-1 zoning rather than that of R-15 zoning, a "Design Enhancement Exception" will be submitted with the final ARB package. An alternate site plan has been prepared that conforms to R-15 zoning which depicts a 38 foot wide street, and parking along both sides of the street with little available space available(if any) for landscaping. Although this plan has not been submitted as part of the pre-ARB package, it can be made available for review if necessary. The narrower street plan has greater support from City departments, and is more consistent with "Contributing Standards" as established by the HRB. Architectural Review Board Staff Report Item No. II.7 Agenda Date: To: January 15, 1998 Architectural Review Board From: Subject: George White, Senior Planner Department: Planning 579 Vista Avenue/4114 Goebel Lane, VISTA GOEBEL~ LLC., File Nos. 97-ARB-152, 97-DEE-3, 97-EIA-21; Application for Architectural Review Board review.and recommendation to the Director of Planning and Community Development to allow the demolition of seven single family homes on three parcels and to permit the construction of 13 residential Units and related site improvements and a request for Design Enhancement Exception to allow for tandem parking, guest parkingin driveways and minor setback and daylight plane encroachments. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval subject to the conditions listed at the end of this reporf (see attachment #7) PROJECT DESCRIPTION Miscellaneous project information is shown below in Table 1. TABLE 1: Applicant: Owner: Assessor’s Parcel Number: Lot Area: Vista Goebel, LLC Jeffrey Levin 137-23-014, 013,021 39,268 square feet (.9 acre) arb:\579vistl.arb 1 Comprehensive Plan Designation: Zoning District: Surrounding Land Uses: Multiple Family Residential RM- 15 (Multiple Family Residential) Single Family Residential, Multi-family Residential and vacant Commercial (zoned Multi-Family Residential). Existing Site Characteristics: The project site is irregular in shape and consists of three parcels of land totaling 39,268 square feet. The three parcels are currently occupied by seven, small, single family homes. The front portion of the site, on Vista Avenue, contains two of the existing homes with the remaining five homes having vehicular access off a narrow, private street known as Goebel Lane. The site is virtually flat and characterized by a large canopy of trees, including three protected Oak specimens. The site is bounded on the north by Vista Avenue and multi-family residential, on the east by a medium density apartment building, on the south by the vacant Cameo Club site (which is zoned for multi-family residential) and on the west by single family residential uses. ~Project Proposa!: The applicant is proposing to construct 13 new residential units, ranging in size from 422 to 1,701 square feel Unit #1 and #13, a studio, will be contained in one structure fronting onVista Avenue. The remaining 11 units will be detached structures with individual driveways accessing onto a new private street. The total building area for all structures is 19,634 square feet, includingthe garages. The proposed building setback for the two unit structure on Vista Avenue is 20 feet. The remaining 11 units would be setback 7 to 12 feet from the new private street. Vehicle parking is provided for each unit and totals 27 spaces for the development. Please refer to the applicant’s written description and project plans for further details regarding the project. PROJECT HISTORY Five of the existing seven homes on the three parcels were originally identified as contributing historic structures by the Historic Review Board. Subsequently, the applicant appealed this determination to the City Council. The City Council overturned the decision of the HRB on August 11, 1997. The Council also moved that the ARB, in reviewing future development of this site, should consider the the quality of the materials used in replacement structures and ensure that the design of the new development is consistent with arb:\579vistl..a.rb the characteristics of the surrounding Barron Park neighborhood. The project was reviewed on a preliminary basis by the ARB on August 21, 1997. The verbatim minutes from that meeting are attached for reference. SUMMARY OF SIGN. IFICANT ISSUES_ Tree Preservation: The site contains a number of trees that are in or in close proximity to the building area. Among these trees are three protected Oaks, three large Cedars and one Canary Island Date Palm. The three Oaks are protected under the PAMC and, therefore, cannot be removed. Appropriate efforts have been made by the applicant to incorporate these trees into the project design, including the manipulation of building footprints and street widths. In addition, a group of Oak trees on the neighboring property directly adjacent to the proposed street will be protected and maintained. The two large Cedar trees to the rear of the project site will remain. The third Cedar tree located near the Vista Avenue frontage is proposed to be removed to accommodate the new private street. Conditions have been.included at the end of this report to mitigate this loss by requiring a 60 and 36 inch box tree as replacements. The replacement trees will be installed on either side of the entrance to the new private street. The Palm will be relocated on the site in front of the proposed unit.#5. The remainder of the existing smaller trees and shrubs will be removed. The project calls for the construction of 13 residential units with a common landscaped area and served by a new, curvilinear private street. This street narrows from 20 to 14 feet in width near unit #4 in order to avoid conflicts with a protected Oak tree. The predominant side and rear setbacks are at the minimum required 10 feet. To avoid conflicts with existing protected oak trees, unit # 5, 7, 8 and 12 are proposed to be at a five, seven, eight and nine foot setback, respectively. The applicant has applied for a Design Enhancement Exception (DEE) for these setback eneroachments (see page 8 of this report for the DEE discussion and Attachment #5 for suggested findings). The project will maintain the appearance of the development pattern along Vista Avenue by orienting the g .arages and one of the entrances to the two unit building toward the public fight of way. To further maintain this residential presence, the ARB may consider requiring both arb:\579vistl ..arb 3 entrances to be facing Vista Avenue.~ Building Design and Materials: The building architecture is characterized by the applicant as a mixture of "bungalow, craftsman and shingle styles". The project plans include four different building elevations with three floor plans. Each home will incorporate porches, balconies and attached garages located to the rear of the residences. The new homes will be sided in wood, shingle or stucco, utilize wooden window treatments and be accented with brick and stone. The applicant will present material samples and renderings depicting the use of these materials at the public hearing. The street will be constructed of concrete pavers with solid concrete banding and the ~erminus of the private street will be accented by a colored concrete medallion. Landscaping: Six large trees are to be retained on the site. In addition, two specimen box trees will be planted, on either site of the entrance way off Vista Avenue. Additional landscaping will be provided along the front and rear lot lines. This landscaping serves as a buffer between the project site and Vista Avenue to the front and a multi family residential site (the former Cameo Club) to the rear. Staff has included additional conditions of approval that require additional tree planting and new solid wood fencing, for screening, on the side and rear property lines. Traffic: The project has been reviewed by TransportationPlarming and will not result in a significant impact on traffic congestion. The proposed thirteen unit complex will generate more vehicle ~ trips than the existing seven single family homes but this increase is nota significant adverse impact. Below Market Rate (BMR.) Units: The project is required to set aside 10% of total number of units as Below Market Rate (BMR). Because this project proposes to remove existing rental units without replacing them with an equal number of rental units, the applicant will be required to provide 20% of the total units, or 2.6 units, for compliance with the BMR. program. The applicant has agreed to meet this requirement by locating one BlVIR unit on-site (unit # 11), one-off site and paying into an in-lieu fee account for to the remaining .6 unit (see.Attachment #3, BMR Agreement Letter for further details). e"c t e " : The applicant is requesting a Design Erthaneement Exception relating to the following items: arb:\579vistl .arb 4 Parking: The plan proposes tandem parking for all of the units fronting on the new private street. This tandem parking arrangement is not permitted in the RM-15 Zoning District. Staff believes that there are grounds for approving a Design Enhancement Exception for this arrangement because man)’ of the surrounding homes utilize tandem parking and because this feature is common to single family homes in Palo Alto (see attachment #5 for suggested DEE findings). Setbacks and daylight plane encroachments: In order to avoid conflicts with protected oak trees on the site, the side and rear setbacks adjacent to unit # 5, 7, 8 and 12 are proposed at five, seven, eight and nine feet, respectively, where 10 feet is the minimum required. The manipulation of the building footprints also results in minor encroachment into the daylight plane on unit # 6, 9, 10, 11 and 13. Staff believes that this exception can be supported due to the fact that the building footprints have been adjusted to avoid impacting protected Oaks and other significant trees. The retention and maintenance of these trees represent a tangible enhancement to the site design of the project (see attachment #5 for suggested DEE findings). Guest Parking: The project plan locates two guest parking spaces at the terminus of the new private driveway. While this configuration conforms to the City’s Parking Ordinance requirement, the applicant desires a Design Enhancement Exception to eliminate the guest spaces at the end of the private drive and to have one guest parking space in each of the driveways of the new units. Staff believes that the applicant’s proposal would result in the effective elimination of designated guest parking for the project and, therefore, can not be supported as a design enhancement (see Attachment #6 for suggested DEE findings for denial). POLICY. IMPLICATIONS . The project is consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance and Architectural Review Board Ordinance (see Attachments #4, 5 and 6 for appropriate findings). Zoning Ordinance Compliance Table 2 compares the project attributes to the current RM-15 Zone District standards. TABLE 2: Zoning Ordinance Comparison Proposed Floor Area (sq. ft.)19,634 19,634 RM-15 arb:\579vistl,arb 5 Floor Area Ratio ’Maximum Height Site Coverage Automobile Parking: ’ -Resident -Guest Total Bicycle Parking: Setbacks: -Front -Side -Rear # Dwelling Units BMR Units Usable Open. Space Proposed 0.5:1 30 feet 34% 13 covered (tandem)* 12 uncovered (tandem)* 2. uncovered 27 spaces 13 Class I 20 feet 5 fee~* 7 feet* 13 2.6 (1 onsite, 1 offsite + in lien fee) 37% 0.5:1 30 feet 35% RM-15 13 covered 12 uncovered 2 uncovered 27 spaces 13 Class I 20 feet 10 feet 10 feet 13 2.6 35% * Please refer to the discussion under Design Enhancement Exception above. Notice of this ARB review and recommendation was provided by publication of the agenda in a local newspaper of general circulation. In addition,property owners and utility customers within 300 feet of the project site were mailed a notice card. ACTION TIME LIMIT Date application: August 28, 1997 Date application deemed complete: December 22, 1997 Action time limit (180 days after deemed complete): May 22,1998 Optional extension at applicant’s request (90days): August 22, 1998 arb:\579vistl.arb 6 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT The project is subject to environmental review under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). An Environmental Impact Assessment (please refer to attachment #5) was prepared for the project which determined the project to have less than a significant impact on the environment provided that certain mitigation measures were included in the project. The Mitigated Negative Declaration was made available for public review from December 26, 1997 to January 15, 1998. ATTACHMENTS Attachment # 1: Applicant’s Development Statements Attachment #2: Verbatim ARB Minutes dated 8/21/97 Attachment #3: BMR Agreement Letter Attachment #4: ARB Findings Attachment #5: Design Enhancement Exception Findings for Approval Attachment #6: Design Enhancement Exception Findings for Denial Attachment #7: Conditions of Approval Attachment #8: Environmental Assessment Attachment #9: Correspondence Attachment # 10: Plans (Architectural Review Board members only) cc:Jeffrey Levin, 350 Second Street, Suite 7, Los Altos, Ca 94022 Prepared By:George White, Senior Planner Manager Review:Llsa Grote, Zoning Administrator arb:\579vistl.arb 7 579 VISTA AVE./4114 ATTACHMENT #1 GOEBEL LAN: Project Description Wisteria 12 Home subdivision The proposed development consists of a 12 home subdivision located on vista Ave. and Goebel Ave. in the Baron Park community of Palo Alto. The site consists of three parcels having a total gross land area of 41,268 sq.fi. After deducting the 20 foot frontage utilized for public rightaway, the net site area is 39,268 sq.ft. Zoning on the site is R-!5, and a tentative map will be filed to create a common interest in the land to be maintained by a street association. Currently existing on the property, are seven small single family homes averaging 650 sq. feet in size. Built prior to 1940 they have been classified as contributing residences. Keeping with contributing review standards, the new homes and streetscape will follow those guidelines. Four elevations are planned with two floorplans. Design emphasis is placed on large front porches, balconies, rear garages, carriage style garage doors with garages at the rear of the property, attention tO window and door detail, and exterior siding in either wood and or shingle. Emphasis will be to create a strong traditional neighborhood environment, evoking a real sense of community. The architectural theme is conceived as a mixture of bungalow, craftsman, and shingle styles, combined into a rich cormnaunity fabric, rather than one repetitive, homogenous tract. Particular attention will be paid to streetscape and landscape, using such materials as’ stone, brick, and or concrete rather than asphalt. Along the private street, benches, a gazebo, and small public garden area ( for Wisteria residents)is under review. The dd~’eways are intended to minimize paved surfaces, therefore, "tiretracks" are proposed. A well defined entrance will be created, combining a stone wall, landscaping, and signage. The property is adjacent to a poorly .maintained 12 unit apartment building on the East side, built in approximately 1960, and adjacent to a poorly maintained 2-story single family residence built in 1929, on the West side. Directly across Vista to the North, are two condominium townhouse developments developed circa 1975-1980. On the contiguous property to the South (Cameo Club site) a residential subdivision is currently in planning. An abundance of trees are nov,’ found on this site, and every design effort will be pursued to maintain all heritage and unique specimen trees. Many of the trees however are either overgrown scrub bush, or are not healthy. An arborist will be hired to advise project consultants. Access to the property will utilize the existing private road called Goebel Lane, with the new street paved in materials as earlier mentioned, and widened to a width of 28 feet. A request will be made to re-name the street to Wisteria Lane. Parking on the site is accomplished by providing 1- car garages with each residence, 1- tandem space in each driveway, and five additional guest parking spaces along the private street. Although this parking plan conforms to R-1 zoning rather than that of R-15 zoning, a "Design Enhancement Exception" will be submitted with the final ARB package. An alternate site plan has been prepared that conforms to R-15 zoning which depicts a 38 foot wide street, and parking along both sides of the street with little available space available(if any) for landscaping. Although this plan has not been submitted as part of the pre-ARB package, it can be made available for review if necessary. The narrower street plan has greater support from City departments, and is more consistent with "Contributing Standards" as established by the HRB. Revised 12:19-97 Design Enhancement Exception "Wisteria" 12 Home Subdivision - Vista and Goebel Palo Alto This project includes a request for a Design enhancement Exception (DEE) to the parking design standards to allow tandem parking in the RM-15 Zone district, when tandem parking is normally allowed in the R- 1 zone district only, .and to allow guest parking in the individual driveways for each residence (11 on-site guest driveway spaces) in lieu of two non-driveway guest parking spacces, where two unrestricted on site parking spaces are required in the RM-15 zone district. As identified in the findings below, allowing the use of tandem parking and driveway guest parking improves the design and function of the site plan and is consistent with the single-family character of the project. The elimination of the two end of street guest parking spaces allows for greater community open space, and provides additional area for the creation of a small park (when combined with the rear setback) to establish a community meeting place to foster a sense of community consistant with a traditionalR1 neighborhood. Additionally, a request is made for several minor side and rear yard set back encroachments, where a 10’ side yard and rear yard setback is normally required, for the purpose of saving several of the fine specimen 20" trees and three protected oal( trees on the site, and minor daylight plane encroachments to enhance architectural character and consistency of design. In accordance with the provisions of Section 16.48.135(g), the proposed DEE complies with the following findings: There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property or site improvements involved that do not apply generally to property in the same zone district, in that the project has been designed to comply with the adjacent neighborhood’s single-family character, which is a product that is not anticipated by the RM-15 zone district site development regulations nor the multiple-family parking regulations. Furthermore, the site contains a large number of mature trees including protected trees, that make the site extremely difficult to develop, while maintaining and integrating the trees in a community design, ’ consistent with the surrounding neighborhood. The project has been designed as a typical single-family cul-de-sac, with access to private driveways and garages from a central common street. The only difference between the proposed project and a traditional single-family subdivision is that the units are airspace condominiums, with no division of land; The granting of the application will enhance the appearance of the site or structure, or improve the neighborhood character of the project and preserve an e .xisting or proposed architectural style, in a manner which would not otherwise be accomplished through strict application of the minimum requirements of Title. 18 and the standard for review set forth in this chapter, in that the proposed tandem parking design and private driveway guest parking reduces the amount of on-site paving, increases tree preservation, preserves the character of the single-family type design, and provides more space for common amenities and landscaping. By allowing the driveways to the individual garages to serve as required uncovered parking, the need to provide an additional paved area of at least 153 square feet (8.5’ X 18’) on each lot is eliminated. If uncovered parking were provided in the common street, it would have to be widened from 28 feet to 36 feet, resulting in the o loss of mature trees, the common park area, and approximately 3,325 square feet of landscaped area (a hard surface paved area increase of 65%). Reduction of the landscape area and the setbacks of the units to the common street would be inconsistent with the rural neighborhood character and the "compatibility review standards", which were established to assure that new development is consistent with the design character of the building in the neighborhood. Since the project’s circulation and parking will function as a classic single-family subdivision, it is logical to apply the single-family parking regulations which allow tandem parking and guest parking in private driveways. Furthermore, the requirement of two on site guest spaces, may (and often) leads to abuses by residents, who use those spaces for additional resident parking, thus requiring guests to utilize the private ¯ driveways. In addition, the reduction of the requested side and rear yard setbacks required to provide the necessary safe distance from protected trees, will allow retention of those trees, that will greatly enhance the site and "greenery" view from surrounding properties; and The exceptions are related to minor architectural features or site improvements that will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the .vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or Convenience, in that all of the required parking will be accommodated on-site, and will function in a manner consistent with the single-family homes in the neighborhood. Additionally, as with traditional single-family homes, the tandem parking space will be provided in a private driveway that is used exclusively by the homeowner. revised 11-17-97 579 VISTA AVE/4114 GOEBEL LA~ ATTACHMENT #2 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD HEARING August 21, 1997 579 Vista Avenue Vista/Goebel LLC 97-ARB-130 Application for preliminary Architectural Review Board review and comment on the demolition of seven existing single-family structures and to permit the construction of twelve new. residential units and related site improvements. Chairman Ross: This is a major project. George, do you have anything to add? Mr. White: No. Chairman Ross: Any questions for staff?. presentation. You have ten minutes. (None) Then we will invite the applicant to make a JeffLevin/Applicant: The Wisteria project is designed to foster a strong sense of commmaity. (Not holding the mike) We looked at a multiple-family site in order to create a unique R-1 style development in an RM-15 zone. We paid at a lot of attention to not only the exterior elevations, whereas we have four unique elevations. By mixing and matching the materials, we effectively have 12 homes where n.o two are alike. We wanted to create a 1930s style traditional community where there are a lot of design features, a lot of softscape, cobblestone streets, and create detached homes in a multiple-family zone on a one-lot subdivision that has the appearance of single family. Wisteria will have a small parking area off the street. The rest being open space which will encourage community development and a lot of interaction, at the same time having private yards. So having a lot of private space while meeting both common space elements by creating extra large front porches in the front suitable for a full set of furniture to encourage people to sit on their front porches and visiting with each other to try and create a strong sense of community. Using traditional materials of high quality, yet rural in nature at the same time, a lot of cobblestones, brick, wood shingles, such elements, creating a traditional feel. Mr. Banvard/Architeet: Good afternoon, everybody. Jefftook half of my presentation. I have a couple of points about the history of the background from where we are coming with a project. like this. It really is about more than just houses in terms of designing something like this. Our firm more and more subscribes to the concepts behind the new urbanismmovement that is gaining popularity throughout the west coast, indeed the entire country. Our focus is less and less on the architecture of the buildings and more on the architecture of the community. That really is the driving principle behind the overall concept. When Jeffeame to us, we sat down and had a few conversations about this RM-15 site and what could we do.~with it. We evaluated different scenarios and sketches about condominiums, stacked flats, attached townhouses, lots of different things one might think of. In my mind, I saw this as a real opportunity to create a very special enclave of detached condominiums at a rather high density. Some of the key concepts of this neo-traditional planning; which Jeff touched on a little bit, really is to create a focal point area in the center of the project, off of which everybody lives. It was interesting listening to the previous presentation, because I think a lot of you guys touched on some of these issues. I think it is a great idea to have a central focal point, and in our case, it is the street. We do not envision it as an ordinary, paved street. We want it to be a textured street, something with enriched pavement, maybe cobblestones, something like that. For house designs, we looked at them in terms of confronting that public space with four levels of three hierarchies of space. The front porches are the first level or public area of the house. A ’front porch is great, but it has to be a usable front porch to be meaningful. So what is a useable front porch? It has to have at least a dimension of 8 x 8, 8 x 10, 10 x 10, which is what we are looking at, so you can go out and put a porch swing on it, also a table and chairs onit, and you get to know your’ neighbors. These houses are really designed to front on the street and community, not to turn your back on it and end up in your back yard. The second hierarchy of space that you see is the loader port which is tucked into the middle of the lot. You can see it in that area of the house. We see that as a flexible, reversible space in that certainly, people can put a second automobile into that space, but we hope that actually, maybe the automobile is left Out on the tracks between the houses, and that could become a secondary play area for kids, which generally, in our house design, is offofttie kitchen with very high visibility adding to private open space a semi-private Open space. The third hierarchy is the homeowner’s rear yard where they can go and have some private open space. It is large enoughto put in a spa or a swing set, something like that, getting some privacy and putting things back there that you do not want to clutter up the street with. In my mind, those are the key concepts to the overall development of the site. In reading the staff report, a lot of the issues that are talked about are important ones. We don’t look at them lightly. In developing a site like this, we are confronted With a series oftradeoffs. What do we want to achieve? How do we want to achieve it? If we are Willing to give up anything, what do we want to give up? For instance, on this site, as you folks probably have all been out there, there are all of these beautiful, mature trees, and that is very important not only to the community in general but to the people going in. We are still in the design process, and the design is evolving. Right now, as we count them up, we have 28 trees of significance. We are able to save in place 14 of them. Jeffhas an arborist looking at them. A couple of the smaller oak trees that are coming out fight now are worthy of moving and saving, and we are going to talk about that, and lift them out and put them back down somewhere. There are some 7-inch and l 0-inch caliper oak trees on the site, . In addition to the public street, I wanted to give this private driveway a little focal point at the end of it at its termination. I apologize a little for the reproductions of things that were turned out of our o~ee very qu. iekly at the last minute. We have a common space with benches in more of a tranquil setting where neighbors can come and meet for afternoon tea or conversation at the end of the street. The paving at the very. end of the street is enlarged to help in a turnaround type of idea. It is really more of a terminus. It is nice to solve the traffic engineering issues but more importantly, it is really a focal point for the drive. I don’t want to get into the architectural design, and am even a little leery about bring it in today, because I think that is a little ahead of where we see ourselves right now. The design is continuing to evolve. I will just mention that we are heading in the direction of.traditional styles, craftsman, bungalow, shingle style, those types of things. Jeff mentioned before a lot of variety. We would love everybody to have a distinctive elevation to be able to point at one and say, that’s my house as a recognizable entity. The last thing I want to point out, in terms of the overall design for you guys to consider, is that a lot, of times, detached condominiums can mean a lot of things. They can be good; they can be bad. We have done both, by the way. Here, what we really td.’ed hard to do, and I think we.have achieved it, is to not use what you might think of as a shotgun approach to. a house, where you have a 20-foot-wide house or a 24-foot-wide house with eight feet between them, and there is this long, narrow sideyard between them which is rather dark. We have two plan types. Each. one has a element carved out of the center so that they can get some decent light on two sides of that house. We are at ten feet for a short piece of each house, and then we go to 15 or 16 feet in that area. I think that is really important. We think it is a strong eoncep.t. Now, w,e will be glad to answer your questions. Chairman Ross: Thank you very much. Mr. McFall: Starting with the site, staff mentioned an apparent discrepancy between the property line dimensions at the southwest comer with the adjacent house there. Could you clarify what is happening there? On the site plan we received, there is an 80-foot lot dimension, but the survey indicates 90 feet. Mr. Banvard: To be honest with you, I vaguely recall that discrepancy from two or three months ago, but it has been corrected. The plan that you see fight now is using the final survey from the civil engineer which corrects that. It is not dimensioned in this plan. Mr. McFall: driveway? Do you have parking on that lower left hand comer? Is there parking along your Mr. Banvard: No. .~_1: We have a couple of conceptual elevations which are fight here. What you brought today is significantly different. Could you talk about the change in approach over why that versus this? ]~L__]~.~.Z~: From my standpoint, I still see that a little differently. I see them along the same vein as the recreation or revival of traditional styles in the bungalow, craftsman, shingle style, as I said before... Obviously, the design process is a process. What we were able to submit at the initial concept level were some very rough sketches. They have continued to evolve, and what we are trying to get at is an authentic recreation of traditional styles that one mightfind in the area. It is interesting that you know about this issue about contributing status compatibility standards. It was interesting to me that in the creation of the site plan and in thinking about architectural styles, we did all of that before we ever got wind of contributing or not contributing. Once we got into it, we tried workwith this and maybe we are not going to be in that category, our goal is still to work with those compatibility standards and provide quality materials and authentic styles for each of the houses. Mr. McFall: So you are talking about using real brick and real stone? (Yes) Could you show on the site plan where it looks like you have a gate and some fencing along Vista? Where is that on the plan? Mr. Banvard: As we analyzed the concepts and the overall concepts in the community and what we want to achieve, we went back and forth on gates and fences and things like that. Right .now, on this site plan, which is already a couple of weeks old, we were contemplating a medium height, 3- or 4-foot wall. There was some stepping back and an entry feature, and just.sort of an entering feature, maybe it is a free standing column, to give some significance. Here wehad in the initial scenario, wehad a gate. We still are going back and forth on that, but the latest conversation is that.maybe we don’t want a wailor gate. It would be great to hear from you guys as to whether you like gated communities. We are certainly open to hearing what you guys would like to see. Mr. McFall: Again, how many plan types are there? Mr. Banvard: Right now, there are three basic floor plans. Two primary ones, Plan #1 and Plan #2. There differences in square footages. Plan #2 is a large plan. It is family-oriented. Then we have the BMR unit, which is a modified Plan # 1. Jeff Levin: We examined that very front unit so that there is more articulation on Vista so that the actual front of the house for the most part, goes in the same direction as the other houses on Vista, as well as the driveway and garages. So when you are approaching the community, you get more of a sense of not only the side of the house but kind of a combination of the side and the front. Mr. Banvard: We were really trying to go beyond that. We talked about this. We don’t want to design a completely new house. There is some level of economy versus the number of houses and plan types. In this alternate scheme, when we were discussing this prior to receiving ~e staff report, we-talked about mining two houses. Our thought there is that this house is designed and articulated as it would be in front, or address itself offofthis street; To be honest with you, at this stage, we are going back and forth between a direct driveway offof Vista or a sweep driveway where you do not see.the garage door. That is sortofin motion right now. So that really is a third plan type as we have gotten into the thing about addressing the architectural orientation to Vista. .The staff.report mentions setbacks, specifically, the second floor setback for an RM-15. Do these designs meet that requirement? Mr. Banvard: Yes, and almost. At the submittal stage of the drawings, there were a couple of areas along the rear property line where, at the time, we were at nine feet instead often feet. That has been corrected at the first floor to ten feet. I guess we would like to propose a design enhancement exception for small parts of.the second floor. In this type of construction and framing and things like that, the requirement of half the height of the building would bring us to twelve-and-a-half feet or 12 feet, 4 inches at the second floor. We would hope to get an exemption for that. While we understand the requirement for stepping back, it does not work particularly well on houses like these so really, the choice is just to take two-and-a-half feet more out of the yard, which is starting to affect our ability to provide quality houses when you take that to the length of the property. So we would like to pursue that. Related to that, we have done some daylight plane studies for at least the perimeter of the project. We comply except for some very, very minor exceptions, if you want to see that. We have ,some diagrams. have some site planning issues. Did you try any alternative site plans that would save more of the trees? Is there anything there that is possible? ~dl~!.9._wa.~: We looked at alternative site plans from an organizational standpoint, initially. The first time I looked at the survey and in talking to my client, we saw the trees, and how are we going to do it.,.’? I cannot, say that I have done a layout that tried to work around all of those tXees, but my experience tells me that that would be very, very difficult. .Mr. Peterson: But the same basic concept. .Mr. Banvard: Well, a similar concept. We looked at more of an attached condominiumbuilding, and then we looked at a townhouse product that had sort of a loop stream on it. .Mr. Peterson: Did that help the tree preservation situation? Mr. Banvard: Yes, it did. I cannot say with 100% certainty, but probably with 95% certainty, it did not help the tree situation because of the spacing between the units. ~: As a matter of fact, it was worse, because you would have the road going around the side and the back, and most of the trees are concentrated in this area. Tomake room for the road going all around the back. So what we have done is, we have brought these farther apart. At the same time, what we have done is to put in a design enhancement exception on the street road width, because based on the RM-15 code, this road normally, would have had parking on it all the way up and down the street. The design enhancement exception that we put in allows for tandem parking in the driveway, just like R-l, so we are able to go~ instead of with a 36-foot-wide street which we would normally have had to have, with parking all up and down the street, which ¯ would have wiped out all of the trees on the whole site. By having the tandem parking, it made the street narrower, and created more of a charming, quaint feel and at the same time, saving more trees. Mr. Peterson: That leads to my next .question. That is, you show parking on that street. planning that that would be possible? Are you Mr...Banvard: Right now, .we have guest parking in a small section. Mr. Peterson: That is my next question. you provided for that? Where do the guests park? How much parking have Mr. Banvard: Based on the code and based on the percentages, we have two right now. These are also very long driveways because of the rear garages, so there would be ample space to park another car in the driveway. Frank, any questions? No. (Change of tape, material lost) ~: ...:..development of the street probably should not include height and structures, or slope of the roof, that sort of thing. kLL_B.gl:LV.g~: Yes and no. What we tried to do on all of the structures is to provide a one-story group elemen.t as a transitional element to give some human scale to the street. It is typically our front porches that gets a one-stoD" roof over it. As I said before, we are concerned about these elevations, in a review in our office at this level of study, the porches are not effectively enough, we are working on that and have developed that further even as we speak. So yes, there are one- story elements along the street facades. The plate heights for each home are the same. .Chairman Ross: I am thinking more of the second story roof. Given a consistent plate height, if you have any room in the height limit, and it looks like you might, to steepen some of the roofs. Mr. Banvard: As a matter of fact, that is exactly what we are going through right now. This element right here does some of what you are talking about. The difference between this plane and that plane is approximately eight feet, per my recollection. We have actually taken this elevation and steepened that pitch higher. So we are continuing to develop those things. There is a great opportunity here and we are really striving for a good project. Chairman ROSS: That completes the questions, so I will open the public hearing and ask if. anyone is present to address us on this item. Seeing no one coming forward, I will close the public hearing and come back to the board for comments. ~: I asked the question about the discrepancy with the adjacent property dimensions. It looks like this may respond to that, but I do notice that it appears that the first portion of the driveway goes over the property line. So you probably should look at that more closely to make sure there are no issues there. When you talk about a new urbanism and a sense of community, which is generally something that I feel strongly about and support. I do question those concepts with the idea of a gated community. I think they conflict with each other. I would strongly suggest that the idea of a gate tO drive down this driveway is not something that really is community minded. So I would encourage you to avoid that. On the site issues, there have been some questions about trees and how that impacts the site plan. It doesn’t really 1ooI~ like it has affected the site plan. One of the wonderful things about this property is the trees. They are very nice, very lush. You cannot see the houses for the trees, literally, which is something that needs to be addressed. I. would hope that when you come back, we can see where the trees are and what you are doing to work with them. I don’t see that here because of the regularity, unless by some amazing coincidence, the important trees fit within your module. I do not see a serious attempt to try and work with these natural amenities. So I would definitely encourage that approach here. Barron Park is a very rural area, as you know. The sidewalks are not there, and there is a certain character, a lack of continuity, that gives it its charming character. It is really the only area like that in Palo Alto. That is what attracts a lot of people to it. I would encourage a walk through Barron Park and try to bring that feeling to this project. I see astrong consistency within these 12 units in terms of style, pattern, materials, even though the colors vary and the porches are different. This is going to read as something that was built in 1997 or 1998, which is okay, but it seems to me that in this area in particular, an attempt to make something a little bit unique that is not common to every unit is certainly goingto fit a lot better in Barron Park than a consistent approach, which is what you have fight now. I support the idea of using high quality materials. I had asked about that versus this. This reads ve~" differently to me. Maybe it is because of the looser nature of the drawing, but this feels more comfortable. I think that maybe, because these are a little more polished, you are using certain materials in a style that reflects a very suburban approach to housing --.the briekarehes, the stone work, which to me, is not a bungalow, is not a shingle style, but is what you see being built today. In this area, I agree with you. I think a shingle style bungalow craftsman approach is appropriate. Using wood materials, using natural materials, is definitely something that fits in well in Barron Park. Also I agree with the idea of porches, which we discussed in the last project. I think theyare vital, and as you said, and I think you can do more to open those up, making them more receptive and open to the neighbors. In general, I think that for want of a better word, a more woodsy, less polished architectural approach is going to go a lot further in making this feel a part of Bah’on Park, which is vital, since that is where it is. That completes my comments, and thanks for coming in early for a preliminary review. Mr. Alfonso: First of all, I want to second what Jim said regarding the gate. I don’t like the gated community, and-I think that would be a big error. So I certainly discourage that. The general planning approach that I see here .is really quite interesting. The idea of the motor court for them to use the outdoor space in a variety of different ways is really quite interesting. Certainly, the. treatment of the streetscape in the materials and in juxtaposition is quite interesting. I applaud the use of high quality materials there. I would caution you in terms of the terminus and that area at the end to develop that in such a way that you are not feeling that you are too exposed tO vehicular traffic, especially fro children, even if it is just a visual screen, something that Would create a sense of protectiveness through landscaping or other features. Mr. Banvard: Could you elaborate on that a bit? Mr. Alfonso: If you are sitting out there, what are you looking at? You are looking down the street. Just something that can give you a sense of protectiveness from the oncoming traffic. With respect to the actual buildings themselves, it is a tricky business to create variety all at the same time. You re doing 12 homes today, right now,.and how do you make them look like they were done over the course of a century? I am not sure that ! have ever seen that done well. Your approach to create variety in this very dense configuration is going to primarily lie in its relationship to landscape and the placement of important tree canopies and the variety of creating an infrastructure by which a particular homeowner can do their own thing, if you Will. Certainly, within building materials, I would second Jim’s comment about being more woodsy and less polished. That captured my sentiments, as well. I am not sure that you need a lot of different materials. I think you can do more with less materials through variety of color and texture. If you get too broad a range of stylistic uses, I think you will find that it can look a little Disneyland, .and I don’t think that is what you want, so I would encourage you to tone down the January 7.1998 Cityof Palo Alto Depa~t o~Planning aml Ccnnmtmi~/ EnvironmeTzt 579 VISTA AVE/4114 GOEBEL ATTACHMENT #3 LANE Jeffrey A. Levin J. Levin Properties 350 Second Street, Suite 7 Los Altos, CA. 94022 FINAL REVISIONS Planning DMsion SUBJECT: Below Market Rate (BMR) Agreement for Proposed "Wisteria" Multi-Family Residential Project at 579 Vista & 4114 Goebel Lane in Palo Alto; 97,ARB-152 Dear Mr Levin: This letter describes the agreement between you and Planning Division staff in satisfaction of Programs 9 and 13 of the Housing Element of the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan for your proposed "Wisteria" multi-family residential project at 579 Vista and 4114 Goebel Lane in Palo Alto (’the Project"). This letter is based on the revised project plans dated December 19, 1997. This letter supersedes and replaces any and all prior statements or agreements made by Planning staff. As of the date of this agreement, you have filed an application (97-ARB-152) for Architectural Review Board (ARB) approval for the Project. You have informed staff that you intend to file a subdivision map application and to develop and sell the units in the Project. However, because you informed staff on December 11, 1997 that you are also considering retaining ownership of the completed homes and operating the Project as a rental development for some period of time, staff has modified this agreement to provide for both possibilities. The terms of this letter of agreement shall be incorporated into the conditions of approval recommended by the ARB, into the conditions of approval for the Tentative Subdivision Map and into the Subdivision Agreement, which must be completed and signed prior to the final map being considered by the City Council. Because the Pr0ject includes the demolition of existing units with multi-family zoning, you must comply with Program 9 of the City’s Housing Element. Because Program 9 and Program 13 (the Below Market Program).are interrelated, the applicant must first present the City with a proposed project plan which meets the requirements of Program 250Hamilton Avenue P.O.Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 415.329.2441 . 415.329.2240 Fax 97-ARB- 152 BMR January 7, 1998 Page 2 9. Once an acceptable plan has been prepared which meets Program 9, the Zoning Ordinance and other City development regulations, then the exact number of required BMR units under Program 13 can be determined. Program 9: Mitigation for Removal of Rental Housing Units The objective of Program 9 is the preservation of the City’s rental housing stock of small apartment buildings, cottages and houses.. The program is structured to encourage developers to replace rental units with new rental housing, or to provide a significant increase in the City’s housing stock, if the rental units are not replaced. Any demolition of rental units, in areas zoned multi-family, must be mitigated as provided in Program 9, in order for aproject to comply with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Ira project does not comply with the Comprehensive Plan, then it cannot be approved by ¯ the City. Under Program 9, a developer must mitigate the demolition of existing rental units by lmeeting two out of three alternative provisions in Program 9. Although the City would prefer that rental units be replaced, any combination of two of the three mitigation measures is acceptable to the City. Your choices under Program 9 are to: 1) Include in the new project, an equal number of~ units to replace the number of existing rentals units on the ,,site that are to be demolished (Note the explanation of how rental units are defined, below), and / or 2) Provide a 100% increase in the ~housing units previously existing on the site, and / or 3) Provide a Below Market Rate Program contribution equal to 20% of the ~ units to be developed, in the new project. 1) Replacement of Rental Units: It is important to clarify that the units referred to in the different parts of Program 9 are not counted in the same manner. Due to past difficulties .in determining if units were in fact rental, City policy is that all existing units, except one, will be counted as rental for the purpose of determining the number of rental units that must be replaced. As applied to your site, Which has a total of seven (7) existing housing units, a minimum of six (6) rental units would need to be provided in the new.project, in order to meet the rental unit replacement mitigation option in Program 9. 97-ARB- 152 BMR January 7.. 1998 Page 3 2) .100% Increase in Total Housing Units: To meet this mitigation measure, the total number of existing housing units must be doubled. The Housing Element language specifies "total units", as opposed to rental units. As applied to your site, which has seven (7) existing housing units, your project would need to include at least fourteen (14) units to meet the 100% increase in existing units mitigation. Of course, the proposed project must also comply with the density limitations of the site’s RM-15 district. If the maximum number of units permitted under the site’s existing zoning is less than the number necessary to provide a 100% increase of units under Program 9, you would only be required to provide the maximum allowable units under the current zoning. Under the site’s RM-15 zoning, a maximum of 13 units would be permitted given the 39,268 square feet of net site area.. Therefore, development of 13 units on the site would meet the 100% increase in existing units mitigation measure of Program 9. There are no restrictions in Program 9 regarding the replacement units’ size or tenure type (owner or rental) provided that your plans meet the applicable City requirements . such as parking and Uniform Building Code requirements for minimum living area. You have informed staffthat you intend to revise yohr November 19, 1997 plans for Lot 1 (which fronts on Vista) to include a house with an attached efficiency rental unit, thus providing a total of 13 units in the Project. 3) 20% BMR Contribution: The other alternative available to you to satisfy Program 9 is to provide a BMR contribution equal to 20% of the total units in the proposed project. For a 13-unit project, 2.6 BMR units are required to meet the 20% BMR provision. A 20% BMR contribution is subject to the same policies and standards as the regular 10% requirement. You have indicated in your discussions with staff that you intend to meet Program 9 by complying with options #2 and #3 above, by providing a.total of 13 units in the project and a 20% BMR contribution of 2.6 units in a combination of on-site and off-site units and in-lieu fees as described in this letter. The BMR agreement is described in more detail, as follows: Program 13: Below Market Rate Program ¯ All residential developments of three or more units must comply with Program 13 of the Housing Element which generally requires a BMR component equal to 10% of the total units developed in the project. City policy requires that the BMR units be provided on-site and located throughout the project. The BMR units must reflect the same proportional mix of unit types and sizes as the project as a whole. In unusual circumstances, off-site units may be approved by the City. Because you are providing a 97-ARB-152 BMR January 7, 1998 Page 4 20% BMR contribution, and the project is relatively small in size, we have agreed that only one on-site BMR unit will be required. The second BMR unit may be provided off-site. An in-lieu payment shall be made for the fractional portion of a unit not satisfied by the provision of actual BMR units. The Palo Alto Housing Corporation (PAHC) is the City’s administrator for the sale of BMR units and for the income certification of tenants in the BMR rental units. PAHC identifies eligible buyers from the BMR ownership program waiting list and administers the sales transactions. Maintenance of a list of interested renters is up to the property owner. ON-SITE BMR UNIT: Generally, the designated on-site BMR unit shall have approximately the same lot area, interior square footage, number of rooms, bedrooms, baths, parking and open space as the most common floor plan in. the project. Desi_maation of On-Site Ulait: Based on the unit mix, square footage and other features shown in the plans dated December 19, 1997, the City requires that you designate one of the five Plan I units as the on-site BMR unit. You have selected the Plan I unit on Lot 11 on the plans dated December 19, 1997, as the on-site BMR unit. This unit must be comparable in all respects to the other Plan I units in the Project other than its location. Please be aware that the inclusion of a second dwelling unit in the designated BMR unit plans is unacceptable to the City. Designation of the on-site BMR unit Shall be shown on the fmal plans submitted for ARB reviewand on the plans submitted for the subdivision map application, o General Features and Requirements: The design, construction, materials, f’mishes, windows, hardware, light fixtures, landscaping, irrigation, appliances and like features of the on-site BMR unit shall be comparable to the design, quality and construction of other units in the project. The BMR unit occupants shall have access to all facilities, amenities, parking and storage as that provided to other residents in the project. ~: The initial sales price of the designated on-site BMR unit shall be $187,550. This price was determined using the City ofPalo Alto’s current Housing Price Guidelines (effective July 22, 1997) and is the average price in the price range for 3-bedroom units. The price guidelines are adjusted annually.’ The greater of$187,550, or the average price for 3-bedroom BMR units in effect at the time of final map approval, shall be the initial sales price of the BMR unit. 97-ARB-152 BMR January 7, 1998 Page 5 Alternative Sales Price Based on Actual Costs: If you can demonstrate that the above price will be insufficient to cover your actual direct construction and financing cost of the unit, exclusive of land, marketing, off-site improvements and profit, you may request approval of a higher sales price based on your actual, documented costs. This process, and the final determination of the unit sales price, must be initiated by you, and agreed to by the Director, prior to issuance of the first building permit for any units in the project. OFF-SITE BMR UNIT: The off-site unit shall be a single-family, detached house on its own lot, located within the City of Palo Alto and shall have at least three bedrooms and one bath. .Selection of.Off-Site Unit: The selection of the off-site BMR unit and approval of the plans for its rehabilitation and improvement shall be approved by the Director prior to final map approval or issuance of any building permit for the Project, whichever first Occurs. Deadline for Sale of Off-Site Unit to BMR.Buyer: Prior to the issuance by the City of an occupancy permit for any unit in the Project, the off-site unit shall be made available for sale to an eligible buyer in the City’s BMR Program. Standards for Condition of Off-Site Unit: As of the date of sale to the BMR buyer, the off-site unit must be in good and safe eonditi0n including, but not limited to, all structural and major building components such as foundation, framing, roof, insulation, electrical, plumbing, water and space heating, fireplaces, decks, fences, carport or garage and driveway, pathways and other concrete flatwork. While the unit is not expected to meet current building codes, it must meet all applicable codes and any unsafe conditions and code deficiencies must be corrected. All deficiencies noted in the inspection reports described below shall also be corrected. Any pest infestation or dry rot conditioris shall be corrected. The building’s structural components must have a remaining useful life of at least 20 years. The exterior siding and painting, windows, interior floor coverings, doors, kitchen and bath fixtures, cabinets, counter tops and appliances shall be in good condition and shall have at least one-half of their normal expected useful life remaining. The interior walls and trim shall be newly painted and the unit shall be completely cleaned. When components must be repaired or replaced to meet these standards, then the replacement materials, systems or work shall meet current codes and shall be completed with all necessary building permits. 97-ARB-152 BMR January 7. 1998 Page 6 Inspections and Evaluation of Off-Site Unit: The following inspections and evaluations shall be completed and submitted to the City with the request for approval by the Director of the off-site: 1) pest, termite and dry rot inspection; 2) structural, safety and seismic safety inspection of all building components described above; 3) roof inspection 4) inspection for hazardous materials including asbestos and lead based paint 5) an evaluation of the condition and remaining useful life of the structural and major building components and the exterior and interior finishes and fixtures described above. You shall select inspectors and licensed contractors to complete these tasks. The scope of investigation for the inspections and the proposed inspectors and licensed contractors shall be reviewed and approved by PAHC and City staff prior to commencement of the inspection work. ¯ Rehabilitation Plan: Plans and specifications adequately describing the repairs and rehabilitation needed to bring the property up to the standards described above shall be prepared by you and approved by PAHC and the Director as part of the required submittals for approval of the off-site unit. Completion of Rehabilitation W0~’k: All work described in the approved rehabilitation plan shall be completed, final City inspections and permits issued and full payment made to all contractors and suppliers, to the satisfaction of PAHC and the City prior to sale of the off-site unit to the BMR buyer, and thus also prior to the occupancy of any unit in the Project. Sales Price of Off-Site Unit: The initial sales price of the off-site unit shall be " $187,550. This price was determined using the City ofPalo Alto’s current Housing Price Guidelines (effective July 22, 1997) and is the average price in the price range for 3-bedroom units. The price guidelines are adjusted annually. The greater of $187,550, or the average price for 3-bedroom BMR units in effect at the time of final map approval, shall be the initial sales price of the BMR unit. No adjustment or other calculation of the sales price based on your actual costs is allowed for the off-site unit. lternative See d - "te it: Should you and City not be able to agree on the selection of the off-site unit or the rehabilitation plans as described herein, then you 97-ARB-152 BMR .January 7, 1998 Page 7 shall designate and provide a second unit in the project under the same conditions and restrictions for the first on-site BMR unit, i.e., a second on-site unit of a Plan I configuration subject to the "General Features and Requirements" and "Sales Price" of the first on-site BMR unit as described in this agreement. IN-LIEU FEE FOR FRACTIONAL UNITS: Based on the plans dated December 19, 1997 for a 13-unit project, an in-lieu fee shall be paid to satisfy the 0.6 portion of the 2.6 BMR requirement. Because the provision of two BMR units (one on-site and one off-site) satisfy, the BMR requirement for 10 of the project’s 13 units, that leaves 3units for which an in-lieu fee is due. The in-lieu fee is calculated as follows: The market value, or the actual sales price of each unit, whichever is greater, shall be multiplied by 0.01091 to obtain the actual fee for each unit. The 0.01091 was obtained as follows: At a 20% BMR, the 3 units not met by the provision of actual units become 6 fractional units. The City’s multiplier for 6 fractional units is 4.00% (Page 35 of the Housing Element). To be equitable, the in-lieu fee is applied to all of the non-BMR units in the project. Therefore, the calculation is 4.00% x 3 units, divided by 11 units which equals 0.01091, assuming that one of the homes includes a secondary rental unit. For example, if the actual sales price of a unit is $600,000, the in-lieu fee on that unit would be $6,545.45. The fee is due and payable to the City at the time of fhst sale of each non-BMR unit in the project. The in-lieu fee applies to the total actual sales value (or fair market value, if greater) of each unit plus the sales value of all improvements, add-ons, options, fixtures, appliances, landscaping, equipment, furniture and so forth that the buyer purchases from the developer or his contractors, prior to close of escrow. and transfer of title to the unit. Satisfaction of BMR Requirements In Case Project is Held As Rental Housing Should you decide to initially operate the Project as a rental housing development, you shall still provide the one off-site BMR under the terms, conditions and schedule as described in this agreement. As long as you have not sold any units in the Project, you 97-ARB-152 BMR ¯ January 7, 1998 Page 8 agree to rent one (1) unit in the project as a BMR rental unit. The unit shall be the same unit designated per this agreement as the for-sale BMR unit. As of the date of close of escrow for the sale of any market-rate unit in the Project, you shall offer the on-site BMR unit for sale to qualified BMR buyers through the normal process administered on behalf of the City by the Palo Alto Housing Corporation and in conformance with this agreement including "General Features and Requirements" and "Sales Price". The BMR unit shall be clean, ready to occupy and shall meet the maintenance standards for resale units established for the BMR program. Determination of BMR Rent: The BMR rent is the total monthly charges for rental of the BMR unit, no additional charges may be assessed. The base BMR rent shall be equal to the HUD Section 8 (or successor program) Fair Market Rents (FMRs) for that unit type in effect as of the date of this agreement, which is the Section 8 FMR issued ¯ by HUD on October 1, 1997. For 3-bedroom units the base BMR rent is $1,357 per month. Determination of Rent Increases: The date of the first structural building permit for any portion of the Project is defined as the "StartDate". As of the Start Date, the Base BMR Rent shall be adjusted by one-half of the increase in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers, Rent Residential, San Francisco-Oakland area (CPI) from the base CPI for December, 1997 to the latest index available on the Start Date. Thereafter, on each anniversary of the Start Date, the maximum BMR Rent, shall be adjusted by one-half of the increase in CPI using the latest indexavailable prior to the anniversary of the Start Date. The calculation of the rent adjustment is made only once a year and is to be effective as of each Start Date anniversary. The resulting BMR rent is the maximum applicable as leases expire or new tenafits move-in to the BMR unit over the 12 month, period following the Start Date anniversary. No cap is placed on the amount of the annual adjustment and no negative adjustment is required. The owner shall submit proposed rent changes to City, or the City’s designee, for approval at least 90 days prior to the effective date of the rent increase. If the City does not approve or disapprove the proposed rent within 30 days of receipt by City, the proposed rent shall be considered approved. This will allow for 60 day minimum notification to tenants of rent changes. Rent less than the maximum allowed may be charged. Rent for BMR tenants may not be increased more than once in any 12 month period regardless of whether the tenant is renting under a month-to-month rental agreement or an annual lease. All applicable State and local laws and ordinances 97-ARB-152 BMR Januau’ 7, 1998 Page 9 affecting the.operation of rental housing apply to the operation of the BMR unit at the Project. Household Eligibility: Households must meet income limits and household size standards to be eligible for rental of a BMR unit. A household must have a certified gross household income below 80 per cent of the then current HUD median income for Santa Clara County, adjusted for family size. For a 3-bedroom unit the eligible household size range is from 3 persons to 7 persons. Each BMR tenant’s household income shall be certified prior to initial occupancy and recertified on an annual basis according to the procedures of the HUD Section 8 or successor program. The City, or City’s designee (currently the Palo Alto Housing Corporation), will be responsible only for income certification and annual recertification in the determination of eligibility for occupancy of the BMR unit. Owner shall be responsible for the actual selection of BMR tenants including conducting the owner’s normal tenant screening process. Priority for occupancy will be given for persons who live or work within the City limits of Palo Alto. BMR tenants whose incomes upon recertification exceed the then-current median incomes (100 percent) for Santa Clara County, adjusted for family size, will no longer qualify for BMR rent. The owner must then give such tenant 30-days written notification to that effect, advising said tenant of the rent increase as determined bythe owner, but not to exceed the rates for comparable market-rate units in the complex. The owner must then provide to the BMR program the next available vacant 3-bedroom unit within the Project and rent it to a qualified BMR tenant. Other Requirements: Notwithstanding any language to the.contrary in Section 9.68.020(d) of the PAMC, the provisions of PAMC Chapter 9.68, including the requirement to offer tenants a one year lease, shall apply to all.the units in the project, including the BMR units. Owner shall be responsible for maintaining a waiting list for the BMR unit, provision of information to prospective BMR applicants and maintenance of records to demonstrate compliance. City reserves the right to review those records at any time. Owner shall prepare and submit to the City, or the City’s designee, an annual report in a form specified by City on the status of the BMR unit and compliance with the requirements of the BMR program and this agreement. Owner shall comply with the provisions of the BMR Rental Guidelines as modified by this agreement. ~ 97-ARB-152 BMR January 7, 1998 Page 10 -Calculation and PaYment of In-Lieu Fee When Project is Initially Held. as .a Rental ~: The in-lieu fee percentage (i.e. the .6 fractional BMR requirement for a 13-unit project) shall be determined in the same manner as described for a for-sale project in this agreement. However, the in-lieu fee percentage shall be applied to the appraised value of each of the units instead of the actual sales price. The appraised value shall be determined based on the fair market value of the sum of each of the completed units as an ownership project as determined by an independent appraiser selected by the City. The cost of the appraisal shall be paid the applicant. The total in-lieu fee covering all units in the Project except the BMR unit (for which no fee applies) shall be paid to the City prior to issuance by the City of any occupancy permit for any portion of the Project. Thank you for your cooperation during the planning process on this project. If you agree, with this revised proposal, you may sign this letter indicating that we have reached agreement regarding the BMR component for your project. Sincerely, KENNETH R. SCHREIBER Director of Planning and Community Environment I agree to provide a Below Market Rate component to the Project (97-ARB-152) at 579 Vista & 4114 Goebel Lane in Palo Alto as described in this letter dated January 7, 1998. I hereby agree to provide the unit on Lot 11, as shown on the plans dated December 19, 1997, as the on-site BMR unit, an off-site BMR unit and an in-lieu fee as described herein. Jeffrey A. Levin, applicant Date 97-ARB-152 BMR January 7,1998 Page 11 CC."Debm Cauble,. Senior Assistant City Attorney Eric Riel, Chief Planning Official Jim Gilliland, Assistant Planning Official Catherine Siegel, Housing Coordinator- George White, Senior Planner Marlene Prendergast, Palo Alto Housing Corporation S:\plan\pladiv\share\Itbmrgoe.rev ATTACHMENT #4 FINDINGS FOR ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW APPROVAL 579 Vista Avenue!411,4 .Goebel Lane The following findings for the Standards for Architectural l~eview have been prepared by staff in support Of the proposal: 1. The project is consistent with the land use designation of the Comprehensive Plan (Standard # 1 ) in that it is a multiple family residential use and is within the density allowable on the site. 2. The design is compatible with the immediate environment of the site (Standard #2) in.that the site is surrounded by existing and proposed single and multiple family residential uses and the new buildings will be consistent in terms of mass and scale with surrounding buildings. 3. The buildings will function well for residential use (Standard #3) in that the design provides a healthy, safe, and comfortable living environment including public and private" open space. 4. The subject property is not located in an area which has a unified design or a historical character (Standard #a4). However, the project design is in keeping with the variety of architectural designs in the surrounding area. 5. The proposed project promotes harmonious transitions in scale and character to the. surroundingneighborhood (Standard #a5) in that the project scale and density are compatible with neighboring residential projects. 6. The design is compatible with approved improvements both on- and off-site in that the condominiums and associated architectural improvements complement the scale and-design of the existing and adjacent buildings in the vicinity of Vista Avenue. (Standard #a6). 7. The planning and siting of the proposed condominiums, on-site parking, circulation and landscaping would create an internal sense of order and provide a desirable.environment for occupants, visitors, and the community in that project includes ample landscaping, open spaces and on-site parking (Standard #a7). 8. The proposed amount and arrangement of open space is appropriate to the design and function of the project in that the site plan provides adequate public and private open space and in that the landscape plan maximizes the amount of landscaping on the site (Standard #a8). 9. The interior landscaping, public and private, open spaces and new private street provide sufficient ancillar3 functions compatible with and supportive of the main function of the prqject’s design concept (Standard #ag). 10. Access to the property and circulation for both drivers and pedestrians would be provided in a safe and convenient manner in that vehicular and pedestrian access to the site is provided by a new private street off Vista Avenue. (Standard #al 0). 11. Natural features are appropriately preserved and integrated into the project in that the landscape plan retains the majority of mature.treeS, including three oak trees, and provides two new specimen replacement trees and provides appropriate perimeter landscaping (Standard #al 1). 12. The proposed traditional architecture utilizing high quality building materials is an appropriate expression for this building style and is compatible with other residentialprojects in this area (Standard #a12). 13. The proposed landscape design provides a desirable and functional environment and pleasant outdoor space and is appropriate to a condominium building in that the landscape scheme provides pleasant landscaping and public and private open spaces. (Standard #al 3). 14. The proposed plant material is suitable and adaptable to the site and can be properly maintained on the site and the plantings are appropriate for outdoor use and includes a mix of trees, shrubs and groundeover suitable for this type Of development and to this climate. (Standard #a14). 15. The building design incorporates energy efficient features such as dual glazing and insulation (Standard #al 5.) (579vistl.arb) ATTACHMENT #5 DESIGN ENHANCEMENT EXCEPTION FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL 579Vista Avenue/4114 Goebel Lane 97-ARB-152, 97-DEE-3, 97-EIA-21 1. Exceptional circumstances andspecial conditions are applicable in that the project design mirrors the tandem parking pattern in the immediate vicinit3’ and in the City of Palo Alto and in that the proposed yard and daylight plane encroachments are the result of a site design that -avoids conflict with six mature trees that are considered to be significant biological resources. 2. Granting the. application will enhance the appearance of the proposed project which would not otherwise be accomplished through the strict interpretation of Article 18 in that the tandem parking is consistent with the design of parking facilities in and around the project site and in that the proposed yard and daylight plane encroachments will serveto protect and allow future maintenance of significant trees on the site. 3. The exception is related to minor architectural features that will not be detrimental or injurious to other properties in the site vicinity due to the fact that the tandem design will still provide the required covered and uncovered parking spaces on site and in that the proposed yard and daylight plane encroachments are minor and will be further mitigated by the requirement for additional landscape screening and perimeter fencing on the site. ATTACHMENT #6 DESIGN ENHANCEMENT EXCEPTION FINDINGS FOR DENIAL 579 Vista Avenue/4,114 Goebel Lane 97-ARB-152, 97-DEE-3, 97-EIA-21 1. Exceptional circumstances and special conditions are not applicable in that the project, as demonstrated by the submitted site plan, can provide the required guest parking onsite. 2. Granting the application Will not enhance the design of the proposed project which would not otherwise be accomplished through the strict interpretation of Article 18 in that locating the guest parking spaces in each driveway serves to eliminate the accessability. and utility of a dedicated parking and, therefore, does not enhance the design of the project. 3. The exception is related to minor architectural features that will be detrimental or injurious to other properties in the site vicinity due to the fact that the lack of guest parking could result in increased demand for off site parking thus potentially impacting properties in the immediate neighborhood. ATTACHMENT #7 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 579 Vista Avenue/4114 Goebel Lane Prior to Issuance of Demolition. Grading or Building Permit City Planning Arborist 1. As a replacement for the removal of the large Deodar Cedar located on the Vista Avenue frontage, one Coast Live Oak of 60 inch box size shall be planted along the Vista Avenue frontage; and one tree (species subject to approval by the Planning Arborist) of 36 inch box size shall be planted along the Vista Avenue frontage. The specific locations shall be approved by the Planning Arborist. The City Planning Arborist shall be in receipt of a statement from the Applicant or project arborist verifying that the protective tree fencing is in .place before demolition and construction permit issuance unless otherwise approved. All trees to be retained, including the neighbor trees, as shown on the approved plans shall be protected as per the Arborist Report dated 11/12 & 26, 1997 during construction. These plans must be included within demolition or building plans and contracts, or on the grading plan if it stands alone from any other permit. Any modifications to these requirements must be approved, in writing, by the Planning Arborist. In addition, the following tree preservation measures apply to all treesto be retained: All trees to be preserved shall be protected with six-foot-high chain link fences. Fences are to be mounted on two-inch diameter galvanized iron posts, driven into the ground to a depth of at least 2-feet at no more than 10-foot spacing. The fences shall enclose the entire area under the ddpline of the trees. The fences shall be erected before construction begins andremain in place until final inspection of the building permit, except for work specifically required in the approved plans to be done under the trees to be protected.. (See Public Works Department’s standard specification detail #505). This detail shall appear on grading and construction plans. 4.Before the protective tree fencing is installed, all trees to remain shall be pruned in compliance with the following industry standards. a. All Specifications for working on Protected Trees shall be written and administered by a qualified arborist. All work on Protected Trees performed within the City of Palo Alto shall be in accordance with the industry Standard Practices for Tree Care Operations outlined in the ANSI A300-1995 and ANSI Z133-1994. Co All specified tree work shall be designed to promote practices .which encourage the preservation of tree structure and health, according to the Western Chapter of the International Society ofArboriculture (WC-ISA) Guidelines for Certified Arborists and Tree Workers. 5.The landscape plan shall be modified to show the following: a. Additional screen trees shall be planted along the rear and side property lines. The trees shall be planted six feet on center.and shallbe of an evergreen type that will grow to a height of ten feet within 3 years. Each unit shall have at least two such trees. Final placement and selection of species shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Planning Arborist. b. A new, seven foot high good neighbor type fence shall be installed on the side and rear propertylines. The new fence shall be in compliance with the applicable provisions of the PAMC. c. The tree islands shall be designed to include protective boulders around the 6 foot radius, reflectors to alert oncoming vehicle and appropriate low level lighting. Final plan details of the island design is subject to the review and approval of the City Planning Arborist and the Public Works Department. . 6.In compliance with Program 9 and 13 of the Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan, the project is subject to a 20 percent Below Market Rate (BMR) requirement. The applicant shall provide 2 three bedroom units at Below Market Rates. One unit, designated as # 11 on the approved site plan dated 12/19/97, willbe provided on site. The second unit will be provided offsite. An in-lieu fee equal to 1.091% of the sales price of each non-BMR unit is required. Provision of the units and fee shall be consistent with the Letter of Agreement, dated 1/6/98, from Ken Schreiber, Director of Planning and Community Environment, and signed by Jeffrey Levin. The Letter of Agreement is attached and is included herein by reference and requires that a.BMR agreement, satisfactory to the City Attorney, be prepared and executed +by the owner and city and that the agreement be recorded in the office of Santa Clara recorder prior to the issuance of a building permit. Transportation Plannin,g 7. The site plan shall be modified to provide three feet of additional driveway next to the driveway of unit # 11 to allow for appropriate maneuvering area around tree island. Public Works 8. If the applicant desires to create a condominium on the site, a subdivision map application is required. The applicant shall submit a final grading and drainage plan to Public Works Engineering, including drainage patterns on site and from adjacent properties. The plan shall demonstrate that pre-existing drainage patterns to and from adjacent properties are not altered. Sec. 16.28.270. 10.The proposed development will result in a change in the impervious area of the property. The applicant shall provide calculations showing the adjusted impervious area with the building permit application. A storm drainage fee adjustment will take place in the month following the final approval of the construction by the Building Inspection Division. 11.Permit’tee must obtain a grading permit from the City of Palo Alto Building Inspection Division if excavation exceeds 100 cubic yards. 12.A construction logistics plan shall be provided, addressing at minimum parking, truck routes and staging, materials storage, and the provision of pedestrian and vehicular traffic adjacent to the construction site. All truck routes shall conform with the City. ofPalo Alto’s Trucks and Truck Route Ordinance, Chapter 10.48, and the attached route map which outlines truck routes available throughout the City of Palo Alto. 13¸.The applicant shall obtain a Permit for Construction in a Public Street from Public Works Engineering for construction proposed in the City right-of-way. Sec. 12.08.010. 14.A dedicated irrigation water meter shall be shown on the final landscape plan. The final landscape plan shall be reviewed and approved for water efficiency_ 15.A residential sprinkler system is required. Details shall be shown on final construction plans. During Construction City Planning Arborist 16. A monthly inspection of the protection and preservation measures by the project arborist shall be required and a summary faxed to the Planning Arborist at (650) 329-2154 during the first week of each month. 17. All neighborstrees that overhang the project site shall be protected from impact of ¯ any kind. 18.The applicant shall be responsible for the repair or replacement of any publicly owned trees that are damaged during thecourse of construction, pursuant to Section 8.04.070 of the Palo Alto Municipal code. 19. The following tree preservation measures apply to all trees to be retained: a.No storage of material, topsoil, vehicles or equipment shall be permitted within the tree enclosure area. b. The ground around the tree canopy area shall not be altered. c.Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and maintained as necessary to ensure survival. " . do All trees shall receive monthly watering. A written log of each watering application shall be kept updated at the site construction office. The CPA shall be in receipt of this log before final sign off is approved. Public Works 20. To reduce dust levels, it shall be required that exposed earth surfaces be watered as necessary. Spillage resulting from hauling operations along or across any public or private property shall be removed immediately and paid for by the contractor. Dust nuisances originating from the contractor’s operations, either inside or outside of the right-of-way shall be controlled at the contractor’s expense. 21.The developer shall require its contractor to incorporate best management practices (BMP’s) for stormwater pollution prevention in all construction operations, in 22’. conformance with the Santa Clara Valley Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program. The Inspection Services Division shall monitor BMP’s with respect to the developer’s construction activities on private property; and the Public Works Department shall monitor BMP’s with respect to the developer’s construction ¯ activities on public property. It is unlawful to discharge any construction debris (soill asphalt, sawcut slurry, paint, chemicals, etc.) or other waste materials into gutters or storm drains. (Federal Clean Water Act) All construction within the City right-of-way, easements or other property under City jurisdiction shall conform to Standard Specifications of the Public Works and Utility Departments. Prior to Final Inspection City Planning Arborist 23. All new trees shall be planted as per Public Works Standard Tree Well Diagram #504 and have the tree pit dug at least twice the diameter of the root ball. This diagram shall be shown on Landscape Plans. 24.Project construction shall include installation of irrigation supply to all trees. Details on the Irrigation Plans shall show an inline loop of drip tubing placed around the top of the rootball at a point one-third of football diameter. All tree irriga~tion shall be connected to a separate valve from other shrubbery and ground cover as required in Landscape Water Efficiency Standards for the City of Palo Alto (V-C)(o). 25.The Public Works Inspector shall sign offthe building permit prior to the finalization of this permit. All off-site improvements shall be finished prior to this sign-off. 579 VISTA/4114 GOEBEL LANE ATTACHMENT #8 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1. Project Title:579 Vista Avenue/4114’ Goebel Lane 2. Lead Agency Name and Address:City Of Palo Alto - Planning Division 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 3.Contact Person and Phone Number:George White, Senior Planner (41 5)329-2541 4.Project Location:579 Vista Avenue/4114 Goebel Lane Palo Alto, CA 5.Project Sponsor’s Name and Address:Jeffrey Levin 350 Second Street, Suite 7 Los Altos, CA 94022 6. General Plan Designation:Single Family Residential 7.. Zoning:RMol 5 8. Description of the. Project: The applicant is requesting Architectural Review Board review and recommendation to the Director of Planning and Community Development demolish 7 single family residence on three parcels and to construct 13 new, detached, multi-fam.ily structures, related parking and site improvements. 97-EIA-21 579vista.mnd Page 1 9.Surrounding Land uses and Setting: The property is bordered on the north by Vista Avenue and multi-family residential, on the east by a medium density residential apartment building, on the south by the. vacant Cameo Club site (which is zoned for multi-family residential) and on the west by single family residential. 10.Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g. permits, financing approval, or participation agreement). None. The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Land Use and Planning X Population and Housing Geological Problems Water Air Quality Transportation and Circulation Biological Resources Energy and Mineral Resources Hazards Noise Public Services Utilities and Service Systems Aesthetics Cultural Resources Recreation Mandatory. Findings of Significance . None 579vista.rnnd 97-EIA-21 Page 2 DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect (lJ has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant-effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (1) have been analyzed in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to. that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Project PlaKner ’Date Director of PIenning X 579vista.rand 97-EIA-21 Page EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e. g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone)..A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e. g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. "Potentially Significant Impact’ is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect’to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 17, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross-referenced). Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the t~iering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or-negative declaration. Section 15063 "~ (3) (D}. Earlier analyses are discussed in Section. 17 at the end of the checklist. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the cl~ecklist references to information sources for Potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where.the statement is substantiated. A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 7) This. is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different ones. 97-EIA-21 579vista.rand Page 4 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Significant issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact 1,LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) b) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? d)Affect agricultural resources or operations (e,g. impact to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)?, e)Disrupt or divide the physical ar,rangement of an established community (including a low-income minority community)? 1,6 1 2 2 2, POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a)Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? b)Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or major infrastructure? c)Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? 3. GEOLOGY. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? b) Seismic ground shaking? c) d) e) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? Landslides or mudflows? 1 1 1 1 1 X X X X X X X X X X X X X 579vista.rand 97-EIA-21 Page 5 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact f)Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill? g)Subsidence of the land? h) I) 4. a) b) c) Expansive soils? Unique geologic or physical features? WATER. Would the proposal result in: Changes in absorption .rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen, turbidity or other typical storm water pollutants (e.g. sediment and debris from construction, hydrocarbons and metals from vehicle use, nutrients and pesticides from landscape maintenance? d)Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body or wetland? e)Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements, in marine or freshwater, or wetlands? f)Change in the quantity of’ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through. interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?g) h)Impacts to groundwater quality through infiltration of reclaimed water or storm water runoff that has contacted pollutants from urban or industrial activities? 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 X X X X X X X X 579vista,rand X X 97-EIA-21 Page 6 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Lass Than Significant Impact Impact j) 5. a) b) c) d) 6. a) b) c) d) e) f) g) 7. a) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater 2 otherwise available for public water supplies? Alteration of wetlands in any way?2 AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an 2 exiting or projected air qLJality violation? Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants 2 Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause 2 any change in climate? Create objectionable odors?2 TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion?3 Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses 3 (e.g. farm equipment))? Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby 3 uses? Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?3 Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?3 Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative 1 transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts?2 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result reduction orinterference in: Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats "1 (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals or birds)? X X X X X X X X X X X X 579vista.rand 97-EIA-21 Page 7 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact b) c) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool? e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? 2 2 2 X 8. ENERGY AND MINERAL. RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? b)Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? c)Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? 1 2 9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a)A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? b)Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? c)The creation of any health hazard or potential health .hazard? d)Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? e)Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass of trees? 10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increase in existing noise levels? 579vista.rand X X X X X X X 97-EIA-21 Page 8 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Leas Than Significant Impact INo Impa: 1 1. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: X a) Fire protection? b) Police protection? c) Schools? d)Maintenance of public facilities, including roads or storm drain facilities? e) Other governmental services? 4 5 2 2 X X X X X 12.UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? b) Communications systems? c)Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? d) Sewer or septic tanks? 7 7 X X X X e) Storm water drainage or storm water quality control?’ f) Solid waste disposal? g} Local or regional water supplies? 13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: 7 7 7 X X X a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? ’ b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? c) Create light or glare? 2 2 2 X X X 579vista.rand 97-EIA-21 Page 9 Issues and Supporting Information Sources SOUrCeS Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation ’ Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impac. 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? b) Disturb archaeological resources? c) Affect historical resources? d)Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? e)Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? 1 1 1,2 1 X X X X X 15. RECREATION. Would theproposal: a)Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional 2 X parks" or other recreational facilities? b) Affect existing recreational opportunities?2 X 16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a)XDoes the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant .or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b)Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term,X to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental,goals? [ .... 97-EIA-21 579vista.rand Page 10 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, .but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of the past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects) d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? X X 17.EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been ade~luately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). in this case a discussion should identify the following items: a) Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated,"" describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions of the project. Authority: Public Resources Code Sections 21083 and 21087. Reference: Public Resources Code Sections 21080 (c), 21080.1,. 21080.3, 21082.1, 21083, 21083.3, 21093, 321094, 21151; Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino, 202 Cal..App. 3d 296 (1988); Leonofff v. M~nterey Board of Supervisors, 222 Cal. App. 3d 1337 (1990). 97-EIA-21 579vista.rand Page 11 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Significant |ssues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation incorporated Less Than Significant Impact 18. SOURCE REFERENCES - 1 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan 1980-1995 2 Planer’s general knowledge of the project and project site 3 Palo Alto Transportation Division 4 Palo Alto Fire Department 5 Palo Alto Police Departmentr 6 ¯Palo Alto Municiple Code, Title 18 7 Palo Alto Utilities Department 8 .Palo Alto Public Works Department 9 City Arborist 19. EXPLANATIONS FOR CHECKLIST RESPONSES 2c.POPULATION AND HOUSING ]’he site contains seven small single family residences that are proposed to be demolished to accommodate the new housing development. Pursuant to the City of Palo Alto’s Below Market Rate (BMR) housing program, the applicant is required to designate 20 per cent of the new housing units as BMR units. For the project, this requirement is equivalent to 2.6 BMR units. To this end, the applicant has signed a BMR agreement I~tter with the City of Palo Alto that designates one of the ne~, on site units as a BMR unit and one off site unit to be purchased by the applicant as a second BMR unit. The applicant will also be required to pay an in lieu fee, per an established formula, to the City of Palo Alto to account for the fractional unit. 97-EIA-21 579vista.rand , Page 12 7b.BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES The site contains three mature Oak trees, one Canary Island Date Palm and three large Cedar trees that are considered to be significant biological resources. The three Oak trees are proposed to be retained and protected during construction. The Palm is proposed to be moved on site and integrated into the new development. One of the cedar trees is proposed to be removed to accommodate the new private driveway; the two remaining cedar trees are proposed to be retained and protected during construction. In addition, several mature Oak specimens on the adjacent property are potentially impacted by the proposed development and are proposed to be protected during construction. The City Arborist has reviewed the site, the development proposal and the mature trees on the site and has recommended the following mitigating conditions of project approval that will bring the potential impacts to the Oak trees to a less than significant level and mitigates the loss of the removed tree. The City Arborist’s reports dated 11/1 2, 12/26 and 1213197 are incorporated by reference. Mj.tiaation Measures:. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF DEMOLITION. GRADING OR BUILDINGP~MIT To mitigate the loss of the large Deodar Cedar located on the Vista Driv~ frontage, one Coast Live Oak of 60 inch box size shall be planted along the Vista Drive frontage; and one tree (speci.es subject to approval by the City Planning Arborist) of 36 inch box size shall be planted along the Vista Drive frontage. The specific locations shall be approved by the City Planning Arborist. The City Planning Arborist shall be in receipt of a statement from the Applicant or project arborist verifying that the protective tree fencing is in placeibefore demolition and construction permit issuance unless otherwise approved. The City Planning Arborist shall be in receipt of a statement from the applicant or the project arborist verifying that the protective tree fencing is in place before demolition and/or construction permit can be issued. All trees to be retained, including, the oak trees on the neighboring parcel to the west, as shown on the project plans shall be protected as per the City Arborist Report dated 11/12 & 26, 1997 during construction. These plans must be included within demolition or building plans and contracts, or on the grading plan if it stands alone from any other permit~ Any modifications to these requirements must be approved, in writing, by the Planning Arborist. In addition, the following tree preservation measures apply to all trees to be retained: a.All trees to be preserved shall be protected with six-foot-high chain link fences. Fences are to be mounted on two-inch diameter galvanized iron posts, driven into the ground to a depth of at least 2-feet at no more than 10-foot spacing. The fences shall.enclosethe entire area under the ddpline of the trees. The fences shall be erected before construction begins and remain in place until final inspection.of the building permit, except for work specifically required in the approved plans to be done under the trees to be protected. This detail shall appear on grading and construction plans. 579vista.rand 97-EIA-21 Page 13 5.A tree protection zone shall be established not less than twenty-five (25’) feet from the trunk perimeter or as the project arborist determines, whichever is greater. a.This area shall be enclosed with protective fencing for the duration of the project until completion. Final landscaping shall be installed while the protective fencing is in place. 6.To allow the Coast Live Oak roots to thrive, plans shall show that any hardscape surfaces within twenty-five feet of the trunk perimeter are of a pervious nature, and not require a cut or fill in excess of four inches above existing grade. 7.Plans shall show that no permanent irrigation is designed within twenty-five (25’) of the Coast Live Oak trunk perimeter. THE FOLLOWING INSTRUCTION NOTES ARE TO APPEAR ON THE SITE, DEMOLITION, GRADING OR BUILDING PLANS AS APPLICABLE 8.The City Planning Arborist shall have received a statement from the Applicant or project arborist verifying that the protective tree fencing is in place before demolition and construction permit issuance. o All trees to be retained, as shown on the approved plan shall be protected during construction. The approved tree protection plans shall be included in demolition or building plans and contracts, .or on the grading plans if it stands alone from any other permit. Any modifications to these requirements must be approved, in writing, by the City Planning Arbotist...The following tree preservation measures apply to all trees to be retained: All trees to be preserved shall be protected with six-foot-high chain link fences. Fences are to be mounted on two-inch diameter galvanized iron posts, driven into the ground to a depth of at least 2-feet at no more than 10-foot spacing. The fences shall enclose the entire ~rea under the dripline of the trees~. The fences shall be erected before construction begins and remain in place until final inspection of the building permit, except for work specifically required in the approved plans to be done under the trees to be protected. This detail shall appear on grading and construction plans. If the above will block the sidewalk or street right of way, the above fencing may ~nclose the entire planting strip to allow pedestrian traffic to use the sidewalk. If the trees are in a small tree well, the trees shall be wrapped with 2-inches of orange plastic fencing from the ground to the first branch with 2-inch thick wooden slats bound securely with additional orange plastic fencing. They shall not be a/lowed to dig into the bark. While this protects the trunk, caution must be used not to damage any branches. Major scaffold limbs may require the same treatment as the above or as directed by the City Arborist. b,Each protective fence shall have a "Warning" sign prominently displayed on the tree protection fence. The sign shall be a minimum of 18-inches square and clearly state: "WARNING - This fence shall not be removed or relocated without written authorization from the City of Palo Alto Planning Director. Violators will be prosecuted and are subject to fine according ~o City Code 8,10,110." 579vista.m~d 97-EIA-21 Page 14 c.All specifications for working on Protected Trees shall be written and administered by a qualified arborist. d,All work on Protected Trees performed within the City of Palo Alto shall be in.accordance with the industry Standard Practices for Tree Care Operations outlined in the ANSI A300-1995 and ANSI Z133-1994, e.All specified tree work shall be designed to promote practices which encourage the preservation of tree structure and health, according to the Western Chapter of the International Society of Arboriculture (WC-ISA)Guridelines for Certified Arborists and Tree Workers. DURING DEMOLITION 10.Pavement and Hardscape Removal near the Oak: Removal of existing pavement over tree roots shall include the following precautions: Break into manageable pieces with a jackhammer or pick and hand load the pieces onto skiploader. Skiploader must remain on undisturbed pavement. Do not remove base rock that has been exploited by established absorbing roots. Apply tree chips over the exposed area within one hour, wet chips and base rock. The roots must not be allowed to dry out at any time. 11.The removalof the Shop and the relocation of the Carriage House shall be implemented by working from the perimeter of the tree toward the center. Removal of the foundation of slab shall then be performed by the above technique. ~_URING CONSTRUCTION 12.All neighbors’ trees that overhang the project site shall be identified and protected from impact of any kind. "Appropriate protective measures shall be installed after consultation with the project and City Planning Arborist. 13.The applicant shall be responsible for the repair or replacement of any publicly owned trees damaged during construction, pursuant to Section 8.04.070 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. 14. The following tree preservation measures apply to all trees to be retained: a. No storage of material, topsoil, vehicles or equipment shall be permitted within the tree enclosure area. The ground around the tree canopy area shall not be altered. Trees to be retained shail be irrigated, aerated and maintained as necessary to ensure survival, The appropriate maintenance measures shall be determined by the project arborist and reviewed by the City Arborist. 579vista.rand 97-EIA-21 Page 15 ’ WE, THE UNDERSIGNED,HEREBY ATTEST THAT WEHAVE REVIEWED THIS MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION DATED , PREPARED FOR THE PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT OF PROPERTY KNOWN AS , PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA, AND AGREE TO IMPLEMENT ALL MITIGATION MEASURES CONTAINED HEREIN. Applicant’s Signature Date 579vista.rand 97-EIA-21 Page 16, 579 VISTA AVE/4114 GOEBEL Li ATTACHMENT #9 January5,1998 George White Senior Planner, Planning Division Department of Planning and Community Environment 250 Hamilton Ave. Palo Alto CA 94301 ¯ Re: 579 Vista Ave/4114 Goebel Ln Demolition/Construction Dear George: Thanks again for taking the time to meet with me on Monday December 29, 1998 to discuss the proposed development on Goebel. I own a 3 bedroom, 2.bath home at 4121 Verdosa which abuts the proposed development, such that my back fence will be shared by the new development. (In simpler words, the new houses will be over my back fence.) As a result of our conversation, I would like to express some of my concerns regarding the current proposal: 1) I believe the privacy of both my backyard, and rear two bedrooms of my home will be significantly impacted by the current design of the proposed housing units. My most serious concern is in regard to the rear-facing upper ¯ floor window, and the rear-facing elevated balcony that, in essence, point right into my backyard. My master bedroom opens to the rear by a large area of’ floor to ceiling glass, and would be in a direct line with the new housing’s proposed balcony and window. If possible, I would appreciate some modification of the orientation or placement of the balcony, and the use of some type of opaque glass or high opening in the rear-facing window, in order to preserve some privacy in my backyard and house. 2) It would be great to have some sort of fast.growing evergreen trees planted along the fence line of the new construction, again in the interest of privacy. 3) If new fencing is proposed for the construction, I would like to coordinate schedules so that the piece of fence in my backyard that is not shared by the new construction can be replaced around the same time, with similar material. If the developer of the property were willing to help out with the new piece offence, that would be even better. Well, that’s about it for now. Thanks for taking the time to consider my concerns. I hope to see you at the meeting on January 15, at 8 a.m. Sincerely yours, Memorandum ~:: ::: ~ :-’~:~:::~:::~ ~.":.:: ":~:: ~:~:::.":::~::~ ~ ::: :::::~: ~’.’:: ::::~: ::::: :~:::! ~ ~’.’.::::::: ~ :::.’.:: ::: ~’. :.’: .::.’::: ::~:::::::!: ::: ::::::~::::::::: ::-’:.’:~:: :~:~ i::: !:::::::::::~:::-’:. ::.::::.::::~:::::: i: :.’::::~: Date:March 5, 1998 To:Architectural Review Board From: Subject: George White, Senior Planner 579 Vista Avenue/4114 Goebel Lane, ~,qSTA GOEBEL, LLC., File Nos. 97-ARB-152, 97-DEE-3, 97-EIA-21; Application for Architectural Review Board review and recommendation to the Director of Planning and Community Development to allow the demolition of seven single family homes on three parcels and to permit the construction of 13 residential units and related site improvements and a request for Design Enhancement Exception to allow for tandem parking, guest parking in driveways and minor setback and daylight plane encroachments. At the January 15, 1998 Architectural Review Board meeting, the above referenced item was continued to allow the applicant time to revise the project plans to reflect the following: a. Remove the low wall and subdivision signage at the front entrance area; b. Revise the material palette to avoid the artificial quality of the hardy board and cultured stone elements; c. Revise the street drainage to avoid excess mud and d, Remove pilasters from the fence between the project site and the property directly to the south on Vista Avenue. The minutes from the APO3 meeting area attached for reference (Attachment A).. The applicant has submitted a detailed letter (Attachment B) responding to the stated concerns of the ARB along with a set of revised plans (Attachment C). The letter and the plans are attached for review. Page PLANNING DIVISION Memorandum To summarize, the low wall and subdivision identification sign have been removed from the plan. The applicant has eliminated the artificial stone detailing from the project. Real brick has been added to the building material selection. The applicant has replaced the hardi- board siding with real wood siding or shingles. The applicant is required to have final drainage plans reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department.. The fence between the project site and the property to the south on Vista Avenue has been redesigned to a simple wood "good neighbor" type fence. Samples of the proposed material will be presented at the meeting. The applicant’s letter provides additional details including information on development altematives, site planning and material selection. Pedestrian Pathway In a related but separate matter, staff has been directed by the Planning Commission to. consider a pedestrian pathway between this project and the adjacent vacant Cameo Club site. This direction was part of the Planning Commission discussion and review, of the Classic Communities 27 unit condominium project.proposed for the vacant Cameo Club Site. This project is scheduled for review by the ARB in March of this year. " The logical location for such a passage way is to the rear of the Vista/Goebel project, behind the required guest parking spaces. Staff recommends that the ARB consider a pede’stdan passage as an additional condition of approval on this project and on the any future approval relating to the adjacent Cameo Club site. The basis for this condition could be that ARB standard #a)10 has been met, which provides for safe, convenient on site access and circulation. RECOMMENDATION: Review the submitted revised plans and applicant’s letter responding to the concerns of the ARB regarding building materials and other design issues. Pursuant to the Planning Commission’s direction to staff, consider the addition of a condition to require a pedestrian passageway between this site and the adjacent Cameo Club site. If the Board is satisfied with the applicant’s revised proposal, recommend that the Director of Planning and Community Environment approve the project subject to the conditions attached to the original staff report dated 1/15/98. Page 3 PLANNING DIVISION Memorandum /~~lly submitted, \ Senior Planner Attachments: Attachment A: ARB minutes dated 1/15/98 Attachment B: Applicant’s letter dated 1/27/98 Attachment C: Revised Plans (ARB members only) ATTACHMENT B Date:January 27, 1998 To:Members of the Architectural Review Board City of Palo Alto From:Navy F. Banvard, AIA, Architect This memorandum is intended to summarize the planning and design concepts from which the subject project evolved. In addition, it will respond to specific issues raised by the members in its January 15, 1998 hearing. Backqround The .Baron Park area of Palo Alto is a mix of single family, multi-family, and neighborhood commercial uses. The predominant zone is R-l, single family, in both small.lot and large lot divisions. There is also a mixture of Neighborhood Commercial (CN) Service Commercial (CS) and Low, Medium, and High Density (RM-15, RM-30, RM-40) Multi-Family zones along the northeast and southeast edges of the area. Our site is zoned RM-15 and is located along the northeast edge of Baron Park, providing a transitional zone between a Medium Dens!ty Multi- Family (RM-30) zone and a group of smaller lot single family. The site is bounded on the southeast by’a Planned Community of attached homes. (PC-3023). My observation of the neighborhood character is that it is a modest, eclectic mixture of Post- War contractor ranch and traditional architectural styles, predominantly executed in a rurall,setting, emphasized by the lack of curb and gutter streets with large canopy street trees and lush landscaping. There are, however, some notable areas of Baron Park that contradict this general description. Again, the word eclectic comes to mind since there is clearly a great variety of housing and improvements within the neighborhood. While there are many good examples of thoughtfully designed homes that enrich the neighborhood, there is also an abundance of poorly maintained tract homes, trailer homes, non-descript condominiums and newer homes that are notable for their lack of thoughtfulness and contextualism. VAN TILBURG, BANVARD & SODERBERGH, PENTHOUSE, 225 Ai~IZONA AVE, SANTA MONICA CA 90401 TEL 310.394.0273 FAX 310.394.2424 PR.INTED:’01/27/98 IV[E~ORANDUIM Page 1 of 9 Planninq Approach During the initial design phase and in a more recent re-examination of the site, I considered several important issues related to the allowable (and required) density and the context of this particular site. Some of the key issues were identified as follows: 1.The site is bounded on three sides by attached apartments and condominiums and on one side by small lot single family. 2.To remove the seven units on the site, the developer must achieve a minimum of thirteen units in response to local housing policies. The site is notable for its mature trees, which should be ’maintained to the greatest extent possible. Incorporate the general principles espoused by the new urbanism movement in higher density housing and create an architecture of community. Reduce the impact of the automobile and, in particular the garage door, or the community. o Respond to and incorporate the wishes of today’s homebuyer in this market segment. To respond to these and other issues, I studied three different approaches to the landplan: Attached Condominiums This study provided a single building that incorporated thirteen units in an attached configuration. !t was studied with both semi-subterranean parking and with attached on-grade garages. The former version was accessed by a singular private drive from Vista Street, with the latter version accessed by a perimeter loop drive. I did not believe then, nor do I believe now that this type of project relates very well to the adjacent single family, lots along Verdosa Drive. Since many of the significant trees are located along the existing Goebel Lane, neither of these schemes was successful in saving a majority of trees. VAN TILBURG, BANVARD & SODERBERGH, l~ENTHOUSEI’225 AR!ZOI~IA AVE~ SANTA MONICA CA 90401 TEL 310.394.0273 FAX 310.394.2424 01/27198 ~]V[ORANDIR¢[ Page 2. o£ 9 :2.Detached Townhomes This study located detached townhomes around a central greenbelt area with a perimeter loop drive for access to each unit. This scheme did an adequate job of preserving the existing trees but the units did not get a private rear yard, and front door to front door dimensions were inadequate. The loop drive was dominated by garage doors and was feared it would result in little more than an alley. Detached Courthomes This is .the study that was selected and is being presented for approval. believe it incorporates some very strong attributes:. A high-density detached prototype is an appropriate transition between apartments and traditional single family. The organization of the site is very similar, albeit at higher density,, to what currently exists. Maintaining a central drive has allowed us to save most of the existing trees. Placing the garages at the rear of each home reduces the visual impact of the automobile and, in particular,~the garage door. This is very desirable even though we plan to use a "carriage" type of garage door. eo Large, usable, front porches are provided on each home to encourage interaction between residents and add pedestrian activity to the private drive. Each home is provided with three exterior zones: A public zone, which is manifested by the large front porches; a semi-private zone, which is the courtyard in front of each garage; and finally the private space in the form of an enclosed rear yard. Clearly, this prototype is high density for a detached housing alternative, but I believe strongly that higher density.housing is a very viable product. It is also a fact of life (for better or worse).given land values and affordability considerations. As mentioned, the City’s housing policies required a replacement of demolished units on nearly a two-to-one ratio. We did not debate the merits of this policy nor did we discuss the merits of the current zoning. The planning solution is intended to provide an appropriate response to the context and density of the site, while creating a livable.sub-community within the Baron Park neighborhood. VAN TIL.BURG, BANVARD & SODERBERGH, PENTHOUSE, 225 AR]ZOI~A AVE, SANTA MONICA CA 90401 TEL 310.394.0273 FAX 310.394.2424 PRINTED: 01/27i98 MEMORANDUM Page 3 of 9 AIA Desi,qn Approach In the design of each individual home, we studied many aspects of providing high quality housing that responded to the needs of today’s homebuyer and general context of the site. Of many issues, the three most important elements were: The floor plans: function and organization. The building massing. The architectural style and character. With respect to the floor plans, we have chosen three basic plans that respond to the Owner’s programmatic requirements, as well as related requirements of the local housing policies. Each plan is organized with the public spaces on the ground floor (i.e. living, kitchen, dining) and the bedrooms upstairs. There are two driving forces that have .shaped the development of the predominant plans known as Plan 1 and Plan 2. First, placing the garage to the rear benefits the overall site design immensely. It is also very consistent with historic development of Baron Park. The second is the strong desire to bring light into the middle of the house, by creating the courtyard in front of each garage. This allows us to get fifteen feet between the homes, which works well for enhancing the natural light. .The result of these key elements is a narrow-deep organization but one that still provides for a functional arrangement of rooms and a logical sequence of spaces. We believe that the courtyards adjacent to the Dining/Kitchen areas as well as the second floor gallery spaces will be particularly effective. The building mass is a result of the plan factors mentioned above as well as the density and program goals. In traditional single family home design on larger lots, the massing is dictated primarily by the principles of form and style that architects are well trained to observe and implement. In high density housing, the challenge is clearly to translate, as best we can, the program plan and density requirements into a cohesive design that has an appropriate human scale and mass. The detached courthome implicitly breaks down the mass of a larger "attached" type Of building into smaller pieces. This device by itself, however, is not enough, so experience has led me to work with the "edges" to the greatest extent possible. The most effective tools here are to use one-story elements and varying plate heights in the design. In most locations, our homes do indeed provide one- story elements in the front and rear of each home as well as in the courtyard. In addition, we have (in our most recent submittal) worked to vary the plate heights and configuration to add variety to the massing of each home, at least so far as it is perceived from the private driveway. While there may not be the variety that one may find at lower densities, the mixture that we have been able to provide, along with the existing trees and new landscaping will result in a scale that is appropriate and "friendly" to the private street and also to the surrounding lots. VAN TILBURG, BANVARD & SODERBERGH, PENTHOUSE, ~25 ARIZONA AVE, SANTA MONICA CA 90401 TEL 310.394.0273 FAX 310.394.2424 PRINTED: 01/27/98 MEMORANDUM Page 4 of 9 I have struggled, admittedly, with the architectural style and character for these homes, including the selection of the appropriate materials. There is, at the heart of this design problem, a basic conflict between proportion and vernacular. In reviewing the design guidelines for Baron Park single family development and in a personal review of the neighborhood, it seems appropriate to work with Craftsman, Bungalow and Shingle models. The proportions of the facades, however, do not lead themselves well to an authentic and totally consistent stylistic response using these models. Given that we have made the planning decision to go with the detached home as a prototype, the stylistic response is left to the arena of translation and interpretation. Input from the Board has been valuable in this area, as have my more recent trips to the neighborhood. ’ We have come to the conclusion,, as represented by the current submittal, that the appropriate stylistic response is an interpretation of the "Shingle Style" and what I refer to as "American Traditional" (Colonial and Bungalow revivals.) The designs are deliberately modest but still providing a certain level of detail that current homebuyers typically use to judge quality construction. We have tried to be very consistent in the selection of materials, certainly more so than in our previous submittal. We have indeed deleted all stone (or stone by-products) from the design. This deletion is not because of any argument about the merits (or lack thereof) of synthetics, but rather in response to the neighborhood and indeed the entire City of Palo Alto. I was recently struck by the discrepancy between what one perceives to be present in a particular neighborhood and what actually exists in the neighborhood. With respect to Palo Alto and, specifically Baron Park, the perception was that stone is a commonly used material. The reality is that brick is a commonly used materialand we have therefore, and correctly, modified our designs to incorporate a "used brick" material for a little enrichment. As a final note on materials, we are now proposing real wood siding, either lap or shingle, for all of the homes. While a synthetic product like Hardiboard is more durable, the wood products are very acceptable and again, admittedly a little less precision looking (and therefore more "woodsie’.) The brick veneer will be authentic used brick and we will make sure to return the materials to appropriate places on the side elevations. (This was always our intent with the cultured stone although not described very well.) The brick will return in a logical and consistent pattern, but .will not completely wrap the house when used. This is simply not done in the current homebuilding industry, nor was it done in the early Post-War and subsequent building periods. We are still proposing the composite wood and vinyl windows. We believe that they are a superior product. The vinyl exteriors are very durable and watertight, while the wood interior portion is warm to the touch and easily finished (and refinished over the years.) i don’t view these products as a "false" representation of wood windows. They are simply a good product with substantial frame profiles that will enhance the appearance of the elevations. VAN TILBURG, BANVARD & SODERBERGH, PENTHOUSE, 225 AI~ZO~A AVE, SANTA MONICA CA 90401 TEL 310.394.0273 FAX 3 I0.394.2424 PRINTED: 01/27/98 MEMORANDUM Page 5 of 9 , Responses Since the January 15, 1998 hearing, we have reviewed the videotape, met with a couple of. Board members, and had conversations with others. This summary will list each concern related to architecture/planning that we heard and provide our response or refer to salient parts of the previous narrative. Automobiles may bump into adjacent structure. We are detailing the "Hollywood Tracks" so that the track closest to the adjacent home will have a six-inch curb. This will require one to "jump the curb" before doing damage. Detached homes are inappropriate. We believe that given program and density requirements and homebuyer preferences, the detached.courthome is a viable prototype.Refer to the previous narrative about our objectives and approach. Concern about privacy from rear windows and terrace. This will be mitigated by new landscaping and existing trees. The second floors are also set back an additional five feet from the property line. =Request for model or perspective rendering. Based upon the design and planning ..approach, which considered many contextual factors and alternatives, we believe that the project as resubmitted is a strong housing solution. Additional renderings, or models do not seem to be cost effective or timely, therefore we have decided t~ot to pursue them. Ten-feet between homes is too tiqht. Many zoning codes throughout the area and state provide for sideyards to be ten percent of lot width up to a maximum of five feet (for one or two story structures.) The ten foot dimension is therefore not inconsistent with traditional development patterns, which we believe work well. GroUped or attached homes are preferred. Refer to the previous narrative about planning and design approach. VAN TILB.URG, BANVARD & SODERBERGH, PENTHOUSE, 225 ARIZONX AVE, SANTA MONICA CA 90401 TEL 310.394.0273 FAX 310.394.2424 PRINTED: 01/27/98 lv[EMORANDUM Page 6 of 9 ¯ Materials are not appropriate. Refer to the previous narrative about design approach. been changed in this resubmittal. Many materials have Density is a problem. Higher density housing was anticipated by the underlying zoning and is an appropriate response to current trends in land cost and affordability issues. Again, refer to the previous narrative. Project doesn’t relate to Baron Park. Refer to the previous narrative on Background and Planning Approach. We believe the design solution is an. appropriate transition between the ¯ commercial and high-density, multi-family areas of Baron Park and the adjacent single-fami!y.uses. The site is on the edge, not in the heart of Baron Park. 10.Cultured stone is not acceptable. Re-submittal deletes all stone products in favor of an authentic used brick. 11.Vinyl window not appropriate. We disagree and continue to propose a composite window. previous narrative on design approach. Refer to the 12.Zoninq is inappropriate. We cannot respond to this. 13.Materials on all sides. The wood siding is carried all around each house. The used brick will be returned along the sides of each home to an .appropriate termination point. We have .not carried it all the way around each home due to the economics, but also because a brick veneer is typically not carried around the entire home. VAN TIL~URG, BANVARD & SODERBERGH, PENTHOUSE, 225 ARIZONA AVE, SANTA N[ONICA CA 90~01 TEL 310.394.0273 FAX 310.394.2424 PRINTED: 01/27198 IVIEIvIORA_NDUIv[ Page 7 of 9 AIA 14.Shared Driveways. The homes, as proposed, provide tandem parking for each unit. In studying a shared driveway concept, we end up with either less parking spaces due to conflicts, or less units, which is a program and City Housing policy conflict. 15.Restudy Mass. We re-examined our overall approach to the project design as well as conducted a thorough survey of the adjacent uses. Given the program requirements, city housing policies, existing site conditions, we believe that our proposal is the most viable housing solution. Refer to the previous narrative for more discussion about the building mass. 16.Project Wall and Siqna.qe is Inappropriate. The stone wall and sign have been removed. 17.Stone Columns at Wood Fence are Inappropriate. The fence in question will remain due to the condition of the adjacent property, but the stone columns have been removed. 18.Edqe treatment of private drive. The Civil Engineer is recommending a rolled concrete curb and gutter and will present a detail at the next hearing. As a final comment, I would like to reiterate that my firm and I take great.pride in our work. Much of it involves innovative design solutions for today’s housing needs. W,e have been recognized through an array of design awards for our thoughtful designs. I believe that the modifications that we have made to this project are beneficial and will enhance and enrich this community. High-density housing is here to stay, in the context of urban infill. It can be thoughtfully. designed, carefully detailed, and respond directly to the basic need for human shelter. None of us have to make excuses for it, nor should we do so. The Crossings project is a fine example, on a larger scale, of new urbanism principles. The Vista Street proposal is founded upon many of the same principles, although under additional constraints. VAN TI~BURG, BANVARD & SODERBERGH, PENTHOUSE,~25 ARIZONA AVE, SANTA MONICA CA 90401 TEL 310.394.0273 FAX 310.394.2424 PRINTED: 01/27198 MEMORANDUM Page 8 of 9 I am proud of this proposal and ask that you give it your thoughtful consideration. Hopefully you too will someday be proud of what we are trying to accomplish. ’,anvard, Princi )al Van :)urg, Banvatd & Soderbergh, AIA VAN TILB.URG, BANVARD & SODERBERGH, PENTHOUSE, 225 ARLZON,k AVE, SANTA MONICA CA 90401 TEL 310.394.0273 FAX 310.394.2424 PRINTED: 01’/27/98 ]vIEMORANDUIVI Page 9 of 9 City Palo Alto ~o~nrtment ofPlanningand munityEnvironment Attachment C January 6, 1998 Jeffrey A. Levin J. Levin Properties 350 Second Street, Suite 7 Los Altos, CA. 94022 ORIGINAL FINAL REVISIONS Planning Division SUBJECT: Below Market Rate (BMR) Agreement for Proposed "Wisteria" Multi-Family Residential Project at 579 Vista & 4114 Goebel Lane in Palo Alto; 97-ARB-152 Dear Mr Levin: This letter describes the agreement between you and Planning Division staff in satisfaction of Programs 9 and 13 of the Housing Element of the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan for your proposed "Wisteria" multi-family residential project at 579 Vista and 4114 Goebel Lane in Palo Alto (’the Project"). This letter is based on the revised project plans dated December 19, 1997. This letter supersedes and replaces any and all prior statements or agreements made by Planning staff. As of the date of this agreement, you have filed an application (97-ARB-152) for Architectural Review Board (ARB) approval for the Project. You have informed staff that you intend to file a Subdivision map application and to develop and sell the units in the Project. However, because you informed staffon December 11, 1997 that you are also considering retaining ownership of the completed homes and operating the Project as a rental development for some period of time, staff has modified this agreement to provide for both possibilities. The terms of this letter of agreement shall be incorporated into the conditions of approval recommended by the ARB, into the conditions of approval for the Tentative Subdivision Map and into the Subdivision Agreement, which must be completed and signed prior to the final map being considered by the City Council. Because the Project includes the demolition of existing units with multi-family zoning, you must comply with Program 9 of the City’s Housing Element. Because Program 9 and Program 13 (the Below Market Program) are interrelated, the applicant must first present the City with a proposed project plan which meets the requirements of Program 250HamiltonAvenue P.O. Box 10250 PaloAlto, CA94303 415.329.2441 415.329.2240Fax 97-ARB-152 BMR January 6, 1998 Page 2 9. Once an acceptable plan has been prepared which meets Program 9, the Zoning Ordinance and other City development regulations, then the exact number of required BMR. units under Program 13 can be determined. Program 9: Mitigation for Removal of Rental Housing Units The objective of Program 9 is the preservation of the City’s rental housing stock of small apartment buildings, cottages and houses. The program is structured to encourage developers to replace rental units with new rental housing, .or to pi’ovide a significant increase in the City’s housing stock, if the rental units are not replaced. Any demolition of rental units, in areas zoned multi,family, must be mitigated as provided in Program 9, in order for a project to comply with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. If a project does not comply with the Comprehensive Plan, then it cannot be approved by the City. Under Program 9, a developer must mitigate the demolition of existing rental units by meeting two out of three alternative provisions in Program 9. Although the City would prefer that rental units be replaced, any combination of two of the three mitigation measures is acceptable to the City. Your choices under Program 9 are to: t) Include in the new project, an equal number of rental units to replace the number of existing rentals units on the site that are to be demolished (Note the explanation of how rental units are defined, below), and / or 2) Provide a 100% increase in the total number of housing units previously existing on the site, and / or 3) Provide a Below Market Rate Program.contribution equ.al to 20% of the tota_.._A1 units to be developed in the new project. 1) Replacement 0fRental Units: It is important to clarify that the units referred to in the different parts of Program 9 are not counted in the same manner. Due to past difficulties in determining if units were in fact rental, City policy is that .all existing units, except one, will be counted as rental for the purpose of determining the number of rental units that must be replaced. As applied to your site, which has a total of seven (7) existing housing units, a minimum of six (6) rental units would need to be provided in the new project, in order to meet the rental unit replacement mitigation option in Program 9. 97-ARB- 152 BMR January 6, 1998 Page 3 2) 100% Increase in Total Housing Units: To meet this mitigation meas.ure, the tota._._.[l number of existing housing units must be doubled. The Housing Element language specifies "total units", as opposed to rental units. As applied to your site, which has seven (7) existing housing units; your project would need to include at least fourteen (14) units to meet the 100% increase in existing units mitigation. Of course, the proposed project must also comply with the density limitations of the site’s RM-15 district. If the maximum number of units permitted under the site’s existing zoning is less than the number necessary to provide a 100% increase of units under Program 9, you would only be required to provide the maximum allowable units under the current zoning. Under the site’s RM-15 zoning, a maximum of 13 units would be permitted given the 39,268 square feet of net site area. Therefore, development of 13 units on the site would meet the 100% increase in existing units mitigation measure of Program 9. There are no restrictions in Program 9 regarding the replacement units’ size or tenure type(owner or rental) provided that your plans meet the applicable City requirements such as parking and Uniform Building Code requirements for minimum living area.~ You have informed staff that you intend to revise your November 19, 1997 plans for Lot 1 (which fronts on Vista) to include.a house with an attached efficiency rental unit, thus providing a total of 13 units in the Project. 3) 20% BMR Contribution: The other altemative available to you to satisfy Program 9 is to provide a BMR contribution equal to 20% of the total units in the proposed project. For a 13-unit project, 2.6 BMR units are required to meet the 20% BMR provision. A 20% BMR contribution is subject to the same policies and standards as the regular 10% requirement./ You have indicated in your discussions with staff that you :intend to meet Program 9 by complying with options #2 and #3 above, by providing a total of 13 units in the project and a 20% BMR contribution of 2.6 units in a combination of on-site and off-site units and in-lieu fees as described in this letter. The BMR agreement is described in more detail, as follows: Program 13: Below Market Rate Program All residential developments of three or more units must comply with Program 13 of the Housing Element which generally requires a BMR component equal to 10% of the total units developed in the project. City policy requires that the BMR units be provided on-site and located throughout the project. The BMR units must reflect the same proportional mix of unit types and sizes as the project as a whole. In unusual circumstances, off-site units may be approved by the City. Because you are providing a 97-ARB- 152 BMR January 6, 1998 Page 4 20% BMR contribution, and the project is relatively small in size, we have agreed that only one on-site BMR unit will be required. The second BMR unit may be provided off-site. An in-lieu payment shall be made for the fractional portion of a unit not satisfied by the provision of actual BMR units. The Palo Alto Housing Corporation (PAHC) is the City’s administrator for the sale of BMRunits and for the income certification of tenants in the BMR rental units. PAHC. identifies eligible buyers from the BMR ownership program waiting list and administers the sales transactions. Maintenance of a list of interested renters is up to the property owner. ON-SITE BMR UNIT: Generally, the designated on-site BMR. unit shall have approximately the same lot area, interior square footage, number of rooms, bedrooms, baths, parking and open space as the most common floor plan in the project. Designation of On-Site Unit: Based on the unit mix, square footage and other features shown in the plans dated December 19, 1997, the City requires that you designate one of the five Plan I units as the on-site BMR unit. You have selected the Plan I unit on Lot 11 onthe plans dated December 19, 1997, as the on-site BMR. unit. This unit must be comparable in all respects to the other Plan I units in the Project other than its location. Please be aware that the inclusion of a second dwelling unit in the designated BMR unit plans is unacceptable to the City. Designationof the on-site BMR unit shall be shown on the final plans submitted for ARB review and on the plans submitted for the subdivision map application. / General Features and Requirements: The design, construction, materials, finishes, windows, hardware, light fixtures, landscaping, irrigation, appliances and like features of the on-site BMR unit shall be comparable to the design, quality and construction of other units in the project. The BMR unit occupants shall have access to all facilities, amenities~ parking and storage as that provided to other residents in the project. Sales Price: The initial sales price of the designated on-site BMR unit shall be $187,550. This price was determined using the City of Palo Alto’s current Housing Price Guidelines (effective July 22, 1997) and is the average price in the price range for 3-bedroom units. The price guidelines are adjusted annually. The greater of $187,550, or the average price for 3-bedroom BMR units in effect at the time of final map approval, shall be the initial sales price of the BMR unit. 97-ARB- 152 BMR January 6, 1998 Page 5 Alternative Sales Price Based on Actual Costs: If you can demonstrate that the above price will be insufficient to cover your actual direct construction and f’mancing cost of the unit, exclusive .of land, marketing, off-site improvements and profit, you may request approval of a higher sales price based on your actual, documented costs. This process, and the final determination of the unit sales price, must be initiated by you, and agreed to by the Director, prior to issuance of the first building permit for any units in the project. OFF-SITE BMR UNIT: The off-site unit shall be a single-family, detached house on its own lot, located within the City of Palo Alto and shall have at least three bedrooms and one bath. Selection of Off-Site Unit: The selection of the off-site BMR unit and approval of the plans for its rehabilitation and improvement shall be approved by the Director prior to final map approval or issuance of any building permit for the Project, whichever first occurs. Deadline for Sale of Off-Site Unit to BMR Buyer: Prior to the issuance by the City of an occupancy permit for any unit in the Project, the off-site unit shall be made available for sale to an eligible buyer in the City’s BMR Program. Standards for Condition of Off-Site Unit: As of the date of sale to the BMR buyer, the off-site unit must be in good and safe condition including, but not limited to, all structural and major building components such as foundation, framing, roof, insulation, electrical, plumbing, water and space heating, fireplaces, decks, fences, carport or garage and driveway, pathways and other concrete flatwork. While the unit is not expected to meet current building codes, it must meet all applicable codes and any unsafe conditions and code deficiencies must be corrected. All deficiencies noted in the inspection reports described below shall also be corrected. Any pest infestation or dry rot conditions shall be corrected. The building’s structural components must have a remaining useful life of at least 20 years. The exterior siding and painting, windows, interior floor coverings, doors, kitchen and bath fixtures, cabinets, counter tops and appliances shall be in good condition and shall have at least one-half of their normal expected useful life remaining. The interior walls and trim shall be newly painted and the unit shall be completely cleaned. When components must be repaired or replaced to meet these standards, then the replacement materials, systems or work shall meet current codes and shall be completed with all necessary building permits. 97~ARB-152 BMR January 6, 1998 Page 6 Inspections and Evaluation of Off-Site Unit: The following inspections and evaluations shall be completed and submitted to the City with the request for approval by the Director of the off-site: 1) pest, termite and dry rot inspection; 2) structural, safety and seismic safety inspection of all building components described above; 3) roof inspection 4) inspection for hazardous materials including asbestos and lead based paint 5) an evaluation of the condition and remaining useful life of the structural and major building components and the exterior and interior finishes and fixtures described above. You shall select inspectors and licensed contractors to complete these tasks. The scope of investigation for the inspections and the proposed inspectors and !icensed contractors shall be reviewed and approved by PAHC and City staff prior to commencement of the inspection work. Rehabilitation Plan: Plans and specifications adequately describing the repairs and rehabilitation needed to bring the property up to the standards described above shall be prepared by you and approved by PAHC and the Director as part of the required submittals for approval of the off-site unit. Completion of Rehabilitation Work: All workdescdbed in the approved rehabilitation plan shall be completed, final City inspections and permits issued and full payment made to all contractors and suppliers, to the satisfaction of PAI-~C and the City prior to sale of the off-site unit to the BMR buyer, and thus also prior to the occupancy of any unit in the Project. Sales Price of Off-Site Unit: The initial sales price of the off-site unit shall be $187,550. This price was determined using the City ofPalo Alto’s current Housing Price Guidelines (effective July 22, 1997) and is the average price in the price range for 3,bedroom units. The price guidelines are adjusted annually. The greater of $187,550, or the average price for 3-bedroom BMR units in effect at the time of final map approval, shall be the initial sales price of the BMR unit. No adjustment or other calculation of the sales price based on your actual costs is allowed for the off-site unit. Altemative of Second On-Site BMR Unit: Should you and City not be able to agree on the selection of the off-site unit or the rehabilitation plans as described herein, then you 97-ARB- 152 BMR January 6, 1998 Page 7 shall designate and provide a second unit in the project under the same conditions and restrictions for the first on-site BMR unit, i.e., a second on-site unit of a Plan I configuration subject to the "General Features and Requirements’.’ and "Sales Price" of the first on-site BMR unit as described in this agreement. IN-LIEU FEE FOR FRACTIONAL UNITS: Based on the plans dated December 19, 1997 for a 13-unit project, an in-lieu fee shall be paid to satisfy the 0.6 portion of the 2.6 BMR requirement. Because the provision of two BMR units (one on-site and one off-site) satisfy the BMR requirement for 10 of the project’s~ 13 units, that leaves 3 units for which an in-lieu fee is due. The in-lieu fee is calculated as follows: The market value, or the actual sales price of each unit, whichever is greater, shall be multiplied by 0.01091 to obtain the actual fee for each unit. The 0.01091 was obtained as follows: At a 20% BMR, the 3 units not met by the provision of actual units become 6 fractional units. The City’s multiplier for 6 fractional units is 4.00% (Page 35 of the Housing Element). To be equitable, the in-lieu fee is applied to all of the non-BMR units in the project. Therefore, the calculation is 4.00% x 3 units, divided by 11 units which equals 0.01091, assuming that one of the homes includes a secondary rental unit. For example, if the actual sales price of a unit is $600,000, the in-lieu fee on that unit would be $6,545.45. The fee is due and payab/le to the. City.at the time of In’st sale of each non-BMRunit in the project. The in-lieu fee applies to the total actual sales value (or fair market value, if greater) of.each unit plus the Sales value of all improvements, add-ons, options, fixtures, appliances, landscaping, equipment, furniture and so forth that the buyer purchases from the developer or his contractors, prior toclose of escrow and transfer of title to the unit. Satisfaction of BMR Requirements In Case Project is Held As Rental Housing Should you decide to initially operate the Project as a rental housing development, you shall still provide the one off-site BMR under the terms, conditions and schedule as described in this agreement. As long as you have not sold any units in the Project, you 97-ARB- 152 BMR January 6, 1998 Page 8 agree to rent one (1) unit in the project as a BMR rental unit. The unit shall be the same unit designated per this agreement as the for-sale BMR unit. As of the date of close of escrow for the sale of any market-rate unit in the Project, you shall offer the on,site BMR unit for sale to qualified BMR buyers through the normal process administered on behalf of the City by the Palo Alto Housing Corporation and in conformance with this agreement including "General Features and Requirements" and "Sales Price". The BMR unit shall be clean,, ready to occupy and shall meet the maintenance standards for resale units established for the BMR program. Determination of BMR Rent: The BMR rent is the total monthly charges for rental of the BMR unit, no additional charges may be assessed. The base BMR rent shall be equal to the HUD Section 8 (or successor program) Fair Market Rents (FMRs) for that unit type in effect as of the date of this agreement, which is the Section 8 FMR issued by HUD on October 1, 1997~ For 3-bedroom units the base BMR rent is $1,357 per month.. Determination of Rent Increases: The date of the first structural building permit for any portion of the Project is defined as the "Start Date". As of the Start Date, the Base BMR Rent shall be adjusted by one-half of the increase in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers, Rent Residential, San Francisco-Oakland area (CPI) from the base CPI for December, 1997 to the latest index available on the Start Date. Thereafter, on each anniversary of the Start Date, the maximum BMR Rent, shall be adjusted by one-half of the increase in CPI using the latest index available prior to the anniversary of the Start Date. The calculation of the rent adjustment is made only once a year and is to be effective as of each Start Date anniversary. The resulting BMR rent is the maximum applicable as leases expire or new tenants move-in to the BMR unit over the 12 month period following the Start Date anniversary. No cap is placed on the amount of the annual adjustment and no negative adjustment is required. The owner shall submit proposed rent changes to City, or the City’s designee, for approval at least 90 days prior to the effective date of the rent increase. If the City does not approve or disapprove the proposed rent within 30 days of receipt by City, the proposed rent shall be considered approved. This will allOw for 60 day minimum notification to tenants of rent changes. Rent less than the maximum allowed may be charged. Rent for BMR tenants may not be increased more than once in any 12 month period regardless of whether the tenant is renting under a month-to-month rental agreement or an annual lease. All applicable State and local laws and ordinances 97-ARB- 152 BIVIR January 6, 1998 Page 9 affecting the operation of rental housing apply to the operation of the BMR unit at the Project. Household Eligibility.: Households must meet income limits and household size standards to be eligible for rental of a BMR unit. A household must have a certified gross household income below 80 per cent of the then current HUD median income for Santa Clara County, adjusted for family size. For a 3-bedroom unit the eligible household size range is from 3 persons to 7 persons. Each BMR tenant’s household income shall be certified prior to initial occupancy and recertified on an annual basis according to the procedures of the HUD Section 8 or successor program. The City, or City’s designee (currently the Palo Alto Housing Corporation), will be responsible only for income certification and annual recertification in the determination of eligibility for occupancy of the BMR unit. Owner shall be responsible for the actual selection of BMR tenants including conducting the owner’s normal tenant screening process. Priority for occupancy will be given for persons who live or work within the City limits of Palo Alto. BMR tenants whose incomes upon recertification exceed the then-current median incomes (100 percent) for Santa Clara County, adjusted for family size, will no longer qualify for BMR rent. The owner must then give such tenant 30-days written notification to that effect, advising said tenant of the rent increase as determined by the owner, but not to exceed the rates for comparable market-rate units in the complex. The owner must then provide to the BMR program the next available vacant 3-bedroom unit within the Project and rent it to a qualified BMR tenant./ Other Requirements: Notwithstanding any language to the contrary in Section 9.68.020(d) of the PAMC, the provisions of PAMC Chapter 9.68, including the requirement to offer tenants a one year lease, shall apply to all the units in the project, including the BMR units. Owner shall be responsible for maintaining a~waiting list for the BMR unit, provision of information to prospective BMR applicants and maintenance of records to demonstrate compliance. City reserves the right to review those records at any time. Owner shall prepare and submit to the City, or the City’s designee, an annual report in a form specified by City onthe status of the BMR unit and compliance with the requirements of the BMR program and this agreement. Owner shall comply with the provisions of the BMR Rental Guidelines as modified by this agreement. 97-ARB-152 BMR January 6, 1998 Page 10 Calculation and Payment of In-Lieu Fee When Pro_iect is Initially Held as a Rental ~: The in-lieu fee percentage (i.e. the .6 fractional BMR requirement for a 13-unit project) shall be determined in the same manner as described for a for-sale project in this agreement. However, the in-lieu fee percentage shall be applied to the appraised value of each of the units instead of the actual sales price. The appraised value shall be determined based on the fair market value of the sum of each of the completed units as an ownership project as determined by an independent appraiser selected by the City. The cost of the appraisal shall be paid the applicant. The total in-lieu gee covering all units in the Project except the BMR unit (for which no fee applies) shall be paid to the City prior to issuance by the City of any occupancy permit for any portion of the Project. Thankyou for your cooperation during the planning process on this project. If you agree with this revised proposal~ you may sign this letter indicating that we have reached agreement regarding the BMR component for your project. Sincerely, .KENNETH R. SCHREIBER Director of Planning and Community Environment / I agree to provide a Below Market Rate component to the Project (97-ARB-152) at 579 Vista & 4114 Goebel Lane in Pa!o Alto as described in this letter dated January 6, 1998. I hereby agree to provide the unit on Lot 11, as shown on the plans dated December 19, 1997, .as the on-site BMR unit, an off-site BMR unit and an in-lieu fee as described herein. (~Jeffre~in, applicant Date 97-ARB- 152 BMR January 6, 1998 Page 11 CO:Debra Cauble, Senior Assistant City Attomey Eric Riel, Chief Planning Official Jim Gilliland, Assistant Planning Official Catherine Siegel, Housing Coordinator George White, Senior Planner Marlene Prendergast, Palo Alto Housing Corporation S:\plan\pladiv\share\Itbmrgoe.rev I SEP ,?, 1 1998 City of Palo Alto Department~P~. ningand ConnnunityEnvironment Attachment D BMR AGREEMENT FOR 579 VISTA - 4114 GOEBEL LANE PROJECT (98-SUB-I; 98-EIA-1; 97-ARB-152) Planning Divk~on The attached draft rehabilitation plan for the proposed off-site unit located at 3491 Park Boulevard, Palo Alto, to be contributed to the Below Market Rate (BMR) Program under the conditions of approval for the "Wisteria" townhome project (98-SUB-l’, 98-EIA-1; 97-ARB- 152) is accepted. Final acceptance of the off-site BMR unit is subject to completion of the actual rehabilitation of the Property by the developer to the satisfaction of the City. Jeffrey A. Levin, for Vista Goebel LLC CITY OF PALO ALTO: Anne Cronin Moore Interim Director, Planning & Community Environment Dated: September ~/~, 1998 ZS0 HamiltonAvenue P.O.Box10250 PaloAlto, CA94303 415.329.2441 415. 329. 2240 Fax DRAFT REHABILITATION PLAN FOR PROPOSED BELOW MARKET RATE PROGRAM (BMR) UNIT AT 3491 PARK BLVD AS OF SEPTEMBER 14, 1998 Introduction This document is a draft rehabilitation plan for the single family house at 3491 Park Blvd:, Palo Alto ("Property") that will be sold to an eligible buyer through the City’s Below Market Rate (BMR) home ownership program by the developer of the 13-unit residential project at Goebel Lane & Vista (called "Wisteria", 97-ARB-152 and 98-SUB-1) pursuant to Condition #6 of the Architectural Review Board’s Conditions of Approval on March 5, 1998 and the BMR program Letter Agreement ("Agreement") dated January 7, 1998. The developer’s contribution of the " Property will provide a portion of the 2.6 required BMR units. As part of the process for City acceptance of the Property, a rehabilitation plan to bring the unit up to the standards required by the Agreement must be prepared and agreed to by the City and the developer prior to issuance of a building permit for the Wisteria project. This draft rehabilitation plan is based ~ on information provided by the developer about the condition of the property from the sources described below. This description.of work to be done is not complete. There are certain key issues of concern about the property’s condition that need further study and it is possible that later inspections may reveal the need for more extensive repairs than are presently planned by the developer. It is also possible that during the process of rehabilitation the scope of the work may need to be revised and expanded to correct defects which are now hidden or unknown. It is for these.reasons that this rehabilitation plan is considered a draft plan. The draft rehabilitation plan is based on the following documents: A) Termite Inspection by National Building Inspectors (NBI) dated April 13, 1998 [referenced as "A" ] B) Physical Inspection by National Building Inspectors (NBI) dated April 13, 1998 [referenced as "B" ] C) Asbestos Inspection Report by Environmental Remediation Technologies, Inc., dated June 1, 1998 [referenced as "C" ] D) Seller’s Disclosure Statement by Eric & Katherine Fischer-Colbrie dated March 23, 1998 [referenced as "D" ] " E) Review of City of Palo Alto Building Permit Records as of September 2, 1998 [referenced as "E"] F) Letter dated September 9, 1998 from Jim Henson, Residential Project Manager, W. L. Butler, Inc. to Vista Goebel, LLC (project applicant) and letter from Jeffrey A. Levin, Page 2 of 8 representing the applicant to Jim Gilliland, dated September 9, 1998 [referenced as "F"] G) Visual Inspection byRon Hall, Jess Wilson, Mar.lene Prendergast of the Palo Alto Housing Corporation (the City’s BMR program administrator) and Catherine Siegel, City of Palo Alto Housing Coordinator on September 1, 1998 [referenced as "G"] H) Any other pertinent information from the developer’s records and other site inspections. [referenced as "H"] The Property has been purchased by the developer and is currently occupied by tenants until the developer is ready to begin the rehabilitation work. After the tenants move out, the Property will be inspected by the developer, City’s representatives and City staff to determine if there has been any damage or further deterioration that has occurred, or was not apparent, at this time. This rehabilitation plan will then be amended to include the recommendations for any such additional work. General Requirements for Rehabilitation and Improvements to the Property ¯ All rehabilitation and improvements shall be completed by W. L. Butler, Inc. acting as the general contractor to the developer, or by licensed subcontractors under the supervision of W. L. Butler. All work recommended in the above inspection reports A, B, C above shall be completed. ¯ A structural engineer shall be hired by W. L. Butler to determine the cause(s) for the foundation cracks and the most appropriate method of addressing both the problem and its cause(s). The rehabilitation work shall eliminate the problem of water collecting under the house. ¯ All work done without required City permits from 1993 to date, and all work done from 1993 to date with City permits which did not have all required inspections and final sign-off from the City Building Division, shall be completely evaluated for code compliance by W. L. Butler and any necessary testing, inspections and corrective work shall be completed and final sign-off obtained from the City Building Division. ¯ All required permits for rehabilitation work on the’property shall be obtained from the City and final inspections issued. ¯ The City shall secure the services of an independent inspector to review and supervise the rehabilitation work and the City’s cost for this service shall be reimbursed by the applicant. ® All materials, finishes; fixtures and appliances used in the work or installed on the property shall be of good quality, equivalent to a major brand name’s mid-line model and of a style and Page 3 of 8 design appropriate to the age and character of the house. ¯ Copies of all inspection reports, seller disclosure statement, contractors warranties and equipment warranties and manuals will be provided to the BMR buyer by the developer. Tentative Description of Required Repairs & Improvements - Subject to Revision and Additions: 1.Foundation and Crawlspace: a)Rot Damage: Repair rot damage to 2 X 6 rim block adjacent to front porch (see 1D of Termite; p. 16) b)Substantial Foundation Cracks: 1) Further evaluation is to be done by a structural engineer to determine the cause of these cracks and recommendations for repairs 2) Repair foundation per recommendation of structural engineer c)¯Piers: Replace or re-build piers adjacent to abandoned heater that have been undermined per recommendation of the structural engineer d)Pest Infestation: ¯Remove all cellulose debts (1A) ¯Chemically treat entire foundation area for termites (1B) Property_ Site: Site Drainage: Faulty roof and site drainage was identified as a significant problem requiring further analysis in the inspection reports & by previous owner. (See "A" - p.,6 and "B" - p.6 & 17 and "C" - p.1) - Subcontractor with expertise in soils/drainage should be hired to recommend corrective measures, including, but not limited to: a.) roof drainage should be re-directed away from the foundation when new gutters & downspouts are installed; b.) rain water leakage under the house from the crawl space access hatch by the rear patio should be corrected. Driveway:.. Remove existing asphalt driveway; re-grade for proper drainage if needed; Replace with new asphalt driveway as recommend by paving subcontractor (B - p. 5) Page 4 of 8 a.) Remove existing rear yard fence and replace with new 6 foot, 1" X 10" redwood fence, pressure-treated wood may be used for the fence posts (B -p. 5) b.) Repair front yard picket fence and re-paint to match house trim .Sidewalk & Walkways: a.) Repair minor cracks and lifting in sidewalk b.) Remove existing concrete walk to front door and replace with new 16" x 16" concrete ¯ stepping stones surrounded by decorative gravel Landscaping: a~) Ivy: Remove all ivy at front of house and trim bushes (p.6) and inspect exterior stucco & wood for damage (B - p. 6) b.) Trees: Prune and trim all trees on property per recommendations of the City’s Planning Arborist c.) Other: Prune, trim, weed, remove and install shrubs, ground cover, flowers as needed Irrigation System: Inspect existing irrigation system to ensure it is working properly and repair or replace components as needed; conduct test of repaired system Building Exterior: Stucco Siding: a.) Repair all cracks in stucco siding prior to re-painting house b.) Make any repairs to front of house if needed aft6r ivy & bushes are removed Exterior Painting: Clean, scrape, prime and paint entire exterior of house and Trim - Using 2 colors, one for walls and 1 for trim 10. 11. Concrete rear patio: Remove existing deteriorated patio and build a new concrete patio of similar size in a manner to prevent future lifting problems. Roof: Seller reports that a new roof was installed in october, 1997. Obtain name and address of contractor and guarantee on roof for transfer to BMR program buyer. 12. Flashings on roof: Recaulk and seal all roof protrusions and flashings ("B" p.7) 13.Gutters and down spouts: Replace all rain gutters and down spouts ("B" - p. 7) and direct roof drainage away from the foundation Building Interior: Kitchen: 14. ~: Check condition of all kitchen appliances Page 5 of8 15. a)Garbage disposal - developer states a new unit was installed in 1998; check condition of disposal b)Ga’s stove - replace with new gas (or electric) range with self-cleaning oven; "GE" brand or equivalent [if possible new BMR buyer should have choice of gas or electric range] c)Dishwasher - replace if less than one-half useful life remaining d)Built-in Microwave - replace if less than one-half useful life remaining e)Refrigerator - Replace if less than one-half useful life remaining Tile Counter Top: Determine cause of cracks in edge tiles on the kitchen counters and complete appropriate repairs to prevent future cracking; Replace all cracked, loose and damaged tiles to match existing ("B" - p. 8) ~ 16.Kitchen cabinets: Touch-up interior and exterior finish of cabinets as needed 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. Vinyl Floor: Replace vinyl floor in kitchen and laundry room with new "good" quality flooring and matching coving; Repair any damage to underlayment or replace with new underlayment if needed, to be determined in field when old vinyl flooring is removed. 22. Interior Walls: a.) Fix or patch all holes and.cracks in plaster or drywall throughout the entire interior of the house (one hole was noted in kitchen and there are cracks in the living room) b.) Clean and paint all interior walls and trim ("B" - p. 9) Interior Doors: Replace all interior doors (bedroom, closet, bath) with raised panel masonite hollow core doors [Note: existing solid wood doors may be repaired, stripped and sanded and repainted as an alternative] Interior Door Hardware: Install all new interior door hardware (door knob sets and hinges with "good" quality brass finish sets that fit character of the house Exterior Doors: Install new solid core front door and rear door, painted to match house trim and stabilized door areas to prevent future.sticking ("B" - p. 10: front door sticks shut) Exterior Door Hardware: a.) Install new "Quickset" good quality brass finish door knob sets on front, back door and carport door and matching door knocker and address numbers on front door that fit character of the house ("B" - p. 10) b.) Replace dead bolt lock with a turnstile lock ("B" - p. 10) Smoke detectors/alarms: Install smoke alarms in each bedroom per current law ( "B" - p.9) Win~dows: Caulk windows as needed to prevent leaks Page 6 of 8 25.Hardwood Floors in Living Room. Bedrooms, Hall: a.) Repair buckled floor area in comer of living room ("B" - p. 10) b.) Attempt to remove stains on hardwood floors c.) Refinish hardwood floors with at least 2 coats ot~ durable wood floor finish [Alternative option for flooring is to cover all hardwood floors with new, "good" quality wall-to- wall low pile, nylon carpet with pad. If possible, permit new BMR buyer to make choice of repair wood floor or installing carpet and selecting carpet color] 26. a) Repair water damage to bathroom sub-floor next to tub ("B" p.10-11) from leakage from shower).; Repair per Section 10A of Termite Report, page 5 b.) Sub-floor must be re-inspected when framing is exposed ("A" - p. 5) c.) Install new underlayment & new vinyl flooring d.) Replace cracked shower tiles to match existing e.) Re-caulk glass shower enclosure frame f.) Install new brass finish bathsink faucet and matching shower fixture (American Standard builders or equivalent) g.) Fix bath sink drain stopper h.) Install new bathroom fixtures and accessories including new light above bath mirror (brass finish; multi-globe), new toilet paper holder and towel racks and new toilet seat 27.Carp_on: a.) Have City inspect carport including all electrical work in carport to determin.e if work complies with codes (See "B" p. I I; Note: permit taken out 5/28/96 - never finalized) b.) Fix lighting and door lock as noted in "B" 28.Electrical: a.) Main panel and all interior wiring and outlets: Licensed electrical subcontractor to inspect installation to determine if work done in 1993 was in compliance with codes; Correct any problems. b.) Do work recommended (see "B" - p.12) 29.Copper Water Piping: Determine if copper piping installed in 1993 without permits complies with codes ("B",- p.13) and repair any deficiencies found. 30.Water Heater: a.) Determine age of unit (may be 1993) and remaining useful life; may need to replaced b.) Comply with recommendations on p. 14 of"B" (discharge piping for pressure relief valve and seismic bracing) 31.Gas Wall Heating Unit: a.) Get.unit inspected by the City - b.) Confirm age of unit ifpossible (former owner reports wall heater was new in 1993); Determine remaining useful life and replace if less than one-half of useful life remains Page 7 of 8 32. c.) Wrap aluminum foil tape around exposed asbestos-containing covering on metal flue pipe that serves the heater in the attic area (see "C" - p. 5) a.) Install insulation to R-19 and an attic ventilation or fan system (see "B" - p. 15) b.) Install "catwalk" system so that attic can be completely inspected (see "A - p. 5) c.) Inspect attic interior for any problems such as rot from prior roof leaks Page 8 of 8 ATTACHMENT "E" REVISED DRAFT FINDINGS FOR TENTATIVE SUBDMSION MAP Recommended Findings for Approval The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable Comprehensive Plan policies and programs including those policies governing land use, residential density and housing. The site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed in that the proposed lot configuration accommodates construction of 13 new residential units in twelve new buildings and other site modifications which meet the Architectural Review Board Standards for Review and which fully comply with all existing zoning regulations. The design of the new lot pattern and building locations will not cause any environmental impacts as the site improvement has undergone environmental review and mitigating conditions of approval have been attached to the Architectural Review Board approval. The design of the new lot pattern and the proposed improvements will not result in serious public health problems in that all necessary public services, including public utilities, are available and will be provided. In addition, no fish or wildlife or habi~t thereof are impacted by this subdivision. o The design of the new lot pattern will not conflict with public easements for access through the property in that there were no such easements. An ungated private street provides access to eleven of the new units and the remaining two ,units have direct ~eecss to _ubli treet ATTACHMENT "F" REVISED DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL OF SUBDMSION. GENERAL 1.All Conditions required under Architectural Review Board application 97-ARB-152 shall apply to this project and are incorporated as a part of this approval. The developer shall repair, restore or replace, at the developers expense, any City property damaged while performing work within the City right-of-way. PRIOR TO SUBMITTAL OF FINAL MAP The Applicant shall arrange a meeting to discuss the improvement plans necessary for the project with Public Works Engineering, Planning, Fire and Transportation Departments. These improvement plans must be completed and approved by the City prior to submittal of a final map. All construction within the City right-of-way, easements or other property under the City,s jurisdiction shall conform to standard specifications of the Public Works and Utility Departments. The applicant shall submit a current Preliminary Title Report and Grant Deed for the subject properties. o If the applicant desires to name the new private street, a submittal shall be made to the Palo ~Alto Historical Society for this purpose which is consistent with the street naming policy contained in the Palo Alto Policy and Procedures Manual, Section 1-16. PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF FINAL MAP ° Securi _ty for the payment in lieu of providing additional housing, pursuant to the Below Market Rate Letter of Agreement, herein incorporated by reference, shall be submitted in a form satisfactory_ to the City_ Attorney. This shall include a provision that a second on-site below market rate unit shall.be desi_maated and held by the subdivider until such time as the City. accepts an off-site unit. The final map submitted shall show all the w~dths of streets in the vicinity as well as all easements affecting the property. The final map shall include a five foot wide public utility easement along the westem property line for the exiting overhead wires. 10.If necessary., the subdivider shall post abond prior to the recording of the final parcel map to guarantee completion of the items approved under improvement plan. The amount of the bond shall be determined by the Planning Division and Public Works Department.