Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-03-18 City Council (19)City of Palo Alto City Manager’s Report TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: Planning and Community Environment AGENDA DATE: March 18, 1996 CMR:188:96 SUBJECT:315-335 Everett Avenue/332-340 Bryant Court; Application to rezone vacant property from RM-30 to Planned Community (PC) District for the purpose of developing 13 detached, single-family residential dwellings. Project includes a request for a variance from the 10-foot landscape setback requirements of Section 16.68.150(c) of the PAMC (95-EIA-22, 95-ZC-8, 95-V-21). REQUEST The subject application is a request for rezoning of property from RM-30 to Planned Community (PC) District for development of 13 detached single-family dwellings. The request includes an application for variance from the minimum landscape setback requirements of Section 18.68.150(c) of the PAMC. RECOMMENDATIONS The Planning Commission, Architectural Review Board and staff recommend that the City Council take the following actions: Approve the attached Mitigated Negative Declaration (95-EIA-22) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), finding that the proposed project will not result in any significant environmental impacts. Adopt the attached ordinance, including findings and special conditions, rezoning the subject property from RM-30 (Medium Density Multiple-Family Residential) District to Planned Community (PC) District, allowing the development of 13 detached single-family dwellings (Attachment # 1). 3.Approve the attached Standard Conditions of Approval (Attachment # 1A). CMR: 188:96 Page 1 of 9 Approve the proposed setback variance (95-V-21) based on the attached findings (Attachment #2). POLICY IMPLICATIONS .Comprehensive Plan Compliance As outlined in the attached Planning Commission staff report of February 14, 1996 (Attachment #8, pages 8-10), the proposed project is consistent with the policies and programs of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. In addition, the project is consistent with the City of Palo Alto Single-Family Residential Guidelines. A summary of the policy issues that were addressed and reviewed by the Planning Commission and Architectural Review Board is provided as follows: The project is consistent with Program #1 of the Housing Element in that it proposes preservation of single-family residential use adjacent to the downtown shopping area. Although the site’s proximity to downtown (access to shopping, transportation and services) justifies a higher density or a clustered/attached housing product, the proposed single-family residential use would be consistent with the uses located north of the site and would be compatible with the mix of residential unit types and densities found in the neighborhood. The project is consistent with Program # 13 of the Housing Element in that it would provide one unit to be priced for BMR sale at $107,550. The proposed price would be suitable for sale to a household with an income at the low end of the target range for the BMR program (80 percent of the median). The project is consistent with the Urban Design Element in that it proposes improvements which are of high aesthetic quality and variety. Furthermore, the project, as proposed and as conditioned, would result in the preservation and protection of existing, mature trees found on the site and along the property frontage of Everett Avenue (street trees). The project is consistent with the Multiple-Family Residential land use designation in that it proposes a density of 14.9 dwelling units per acre, which is within the permitted 10-45 unit-per-acre residential density range of the Comprehensive Plan. The project would be consistent with the City of Palo Alto Single-Family Residential Guidelines in that a) it would follow the urban design pattern of the properties located north of Bryant Court, b) would be in-scale with existing improvements and would respect that existing streetscape and c) would protect and preserve many of the existing mature trees on the site, and street trees along the Everett Avenue frontage. CMR: 188:96 Page 2 of 9 Standards for Architectural Review The design and architecture of the project has been reviewed by the Planning Commission, Architectural Review Board and staff for compliance with Standards for Architectural Review (Section 16.48.120 of the PAMC). A summary of the project’s compliance with these standards is presented in Attachment #2A. As modified by recommended conditions of approval, the project complies with these standards. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Project Description and Proposed Public Benefit In summary, the project proposes the development of 13 detached, single-family residential units on small, individual lots. Six of the homes are proposed with direct access from Bryant Court, a 20-foot-wide, paved public lane located north of the site. Seven of the homes are proposed with access, via two shared driveways to Everett Avenue. The two-story homes range in size from 1,377 to 1,801 square feet. The project proposes a rezoning of the .87 acre site from RM-30 (Medium Density Multiple- Family Residential) District to Planned Community (PC) District. The primary public benefit proposed by the project sponsor is the concrete repavement of Bryant Court from Waverley Street to Bryant Street and other associated improvements including the installation of a minimum of six pedestrian-scale street lights. The rezoning request is accompanied by a variance application. The variance would permit a reduction in the required 10-foot landscape setback along the westernand eastern property boundary for 5 of the 13 units. A detailed description of the proposed project and the public benefit statement is provided in the attached Planning Commission staffreport of February 14, 1996 (Attachment #8, pages 2-4) and in the written statement provided by the project sponsor (Attachment #6). The proposed project has been reviewed for compliance with Title 18 of the Palo Alto Zoning Ordinance. Given that the project proposes a rezoning to the PC District, the current RM-30 District would not apply to this development. Furthermore, development of single- family residences in the RM-30 requires compliance with R-1 District site development standards. The following table presents a comparison of the project with the RM-30 and R-1 District standards. Standard/Regulation RM-30 R-l*Proposed District District PC Dist.++ Permitted Density (max. units/acre)30 du/ac 7 du/ac 14.9 du/ac Maximum required lot area per unit 1,350/unit 6,000 2,200-4,300 CMR:188:96 Page 3 of 9 Standard/Regulation RM-30 District Maximum permitted lot coverage Maximum permitted floor area ratio Maximum permitted building height Side yard daylight plane Minimum required front yard setback Minimum required rear yard setback Minimum required side yard setback Minimum usable open space Minimum required on-site parking 40~5% 0.75:1 35ft. 45 degrees at lOft. 20 ft. lOft. lOft. 30% of gross lot area 1.3- 2.1/unit R-l* District 35% 0.425:1 30ft. 45 degrees at lOft. 20 ft. 20 ft. 6ft. none required 2/unit Proposed PC Dist.-~- 38%-gross 45% per lot 0.51-gross .75:1/lot 27 ft. 75 degrees at 10 ft.** range from 10 ft. to 13’8" range from 6’10"-15’ range from 6’-18’+ range from 575- 2,000 sf 35%-gross 2 per unit, except 1/BMR unit Section 18.24.090 (Special Requirements) of the RM-30 District requires application of provisions under Section 18.12,050 through 18.12.080 of the R-1 District for sites in single-family use. 75 degrees at 10 feet for a portion of Unit #13; 45 degrees at 10 feet as recommended by the ARB 10 foot side yard setback required by the PC District, where adjacent to an RM District Plans as modified following the December 13, 1995 Planning Commission review Summary. of Planning Commission Review On February 14, 1996, the Planning Commission voted (6 ayes, 0 noes, Commissioner Schink absent) to support the staff recommendations to approve a Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, approve the PC District zone change and approve the 10-foot landscape setback variance. The Planning Commission meeting minutes are included in the March 14, 1996 City Council packet. The Planning Commission supported the concrete repavement and street lighting improvements to Bryant Court as a public benefit and supported the project conditions presented in the draft PC Ordinance (Attachment # 1) and in the Standard Conditions for Project Approval (Attachment # 1A). The Commission, however, recommended several amendments to the draft conditions as a result of the following concerns and comments: CMR: 188:96 Page 4 of 9 Exterior Building Materials While the Planning Commission supported the design and architecture of the project, there were concerns expressed about the quality of the exterior building materials. Consequently, condition #14(a) of the Standard Conditions for Project Approval (Attachment #1A) has been amended. The revised condition requires the use of high quality exterior building materials, with the final selection to be reviewed and approved by the Architectural Review Board, prior to the issuance of a building permit. o "Parallel" Driveway Parking - B~. ant Court Frontage The Planning Commission discussed the "parallel" driveway parking design proposed along the Bryant Court frontage. Following a discussion of a possible parking design alternative, the Commission reinforced the importance of condition 14(e) of the Standard Conditions for Project Approval (Attachment # 1A, page 6). This condition requires that the project sponsor study and submit an alternative to the "parallel" parking concept for review by the Architectural Review Board. Prior to this review, the altemative is to be reviewed by the City Transportation Division for a recommendation to the ARB on the preferred plan. B~. ant Court Improvements - Trq.f-f!c Calming Measures As summarized in the attached meeting minutes, the Planning Commission expressed concem over the traffic speeds along Bryant Court (a.concern raised by several neighboring residents during public testimony). The Commission recommended that measures for slowing traffic be explored by the project sponsor and reviewed by the City Transportation Division. The Commission recommended that if acceptable measures for slowing traffic are available, they should be incorporated into the project sponsor plans for repaying and improving Bryant Court. Following the Planning Commission hearing, City staff (Planning, Public Works, Transportation) met with the project sponsor to discuss various measures that could be considered for slowing traffic along Bryant Court. Measures discussed included raised speed bumps, speed humps (slightly raised), signage, landscape "bulb-outs" and special street pavement textures. Also discussed was the alternative of introducing two-way traffic along Bryant Court (currently one-way). The outcome of this meeting is summarized as follows: ao Introduction of two-way traffic along the right-of-way was discarded given that it would eliminate all on-street parking. Raised speed bumps were discarded as an option given the potential for vehicle damage, possible increases in noise and incompatibility with the scale of the public lane. CMR: 188:96 Page 5 of 9 Landscape bulb-outs, while attractive and effective, would result in the loss of on-street parking along the right-of-way. Generally, it is the City’s policy to survey property owners and residents who would be impacted by the installation of traffic-calming measures prior to making a decision regarding installation. Regardless of whether a traffic calming measure is installed, City staff recommends that a 15 MPH speed limit sign be installed at the Bryant Court entrance. Of the traffic-calming measures discussed, two were found to be suitable for consideration given the characteristics of Bryant Court. These two measures are speed humps (slightly raised, 6 feet in length) and textured pavement strips (at-grade, 5-10 feet in length). Each of these two measures would also include bollards at the ends of the humps or textured pavement strips to prevent drivers from circumventing the device. In response, the project sponsor has prepared two Bryant Court improvement plan options which offer traffic-calming measures (plans provided to Council). Option # 1- Slightly-Raised Speed Humps Two slightly-raised concrete speed humps would be installed along the right-of-way. The humps would be 6 feet in length and would extend the width of the right-of-way. Appropriate signage (speed limit and "bump") would be installed. The project sponsor would continue to propose an entire repaying of Bryant Court and installation of six new pedestrian-scale street lights. Bollards designed to be consistent with the street lights would be placed at each end of the humps. Option #2- Textured Pavement Strips Two "at-grade" textured pavement strips would be installed along the right-of-way. The concrete strips would be 5-10 ft. in length. Appropriate signage (speed limit and "slow") would be installed. The project sponsor would continue to propose an entire repaying of Bryant Court and installation of six new pedestrian-scale street lights. This option proposes to either install a pedestrian path along the south side of the right-of-way or install no path. If no path is installed, it is proposed that the special pavement texture or color be incorporated elsewhere, as pavement accent, in the right- of-way. Staff has reviewed the options and present the following findings: CMR: 188:96 Page 6 of 9 ao Slightly-raised speed humps (Option # 1) present a proven method of reducing traffic speeds. The "at-grade" textured pavement strips (Option #2) are less effective at reducing traffic speeds but provide a more appropriate surface for the scale and use of a small lane such as Bryant Court. bo Under Option #2, the project sponsor proposes to either install a delineated pedestrian path or incorporate the special pavement texture/color elsewhere in the fight-of-way repavement. Installation of the 3-foot-wide pedestrian path and a required 3-foot detectable warning strip would leave 14 feet of right-of- way and pavement (20 feet - 6 feet = 14 feet) for a travel lane and street parking (north side of the lane). Given that a travel lane must bea minimum of 10 feet in width, there would not be adequate width for on-street parking. The elimination of this on-street parking would be a significant impact. The City’s CIP design consultant fmds that given the scale, width and multi-use of the lane, it would be more appropriate to treat the lane as a court. Incorporation of textured or color pavement accents throughout the right-of- way repaving would provide a desirable surface for the public lane’s multi-use link between Bryant Street and Johnson Park. Condition e.(ii) of the PC Ordinance (Attachment # 1, pages 4-5), which addresses the detailed plan requirements for Bryant Court improvements has been amended. This revised condition includes requirements for street signage regarding a 15 mile per hour speed limit and incorporation of textured/color pavement accents into the repavement of the lane (in-lieu of a delineated pedestrian path). In addition, the condition notes that should the City determine that traffic calming measures are appropriate and desirable for Bryant Court, then such measures, as determined by the City, shall be incorporated into the detailed plans for the right-of-way and installed as part of the overall improvements. FISCAL IMPACT The project will not have a significant fiscal impact upon the City. Given that the development proposes the construction of 13 new residential dwelling units, the project would generate property taxes, as well as permit and utility fees. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared and is provided as Attachment #3. Potentially significant impacts associated with project development can be or have been mitigated to levels of insignificance. Consistent with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality A~ct, a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program has been prepared and is attached for City Council review and approval (Attachment #4). CMR: 188:96 Page 7 of 9 ATTACHMENTS: Attachment # 1: Attachment #1A: - Attachment #2: Attachment #2A: Attachment #3: Attachment #4: Attachment #5: Attachment #6: Attachment #7: Attachment #8: Attachment #9: Attachment # 10: Attachment # 11: Attachment # 12: Attachment # 13: Plans PC Ordinance with Findings and Conditions Standard Conditions of Project Approval Findings for Variance Request (95-V-21) Findings for Architectural Review Approval EIA- Mitigated Negative Declaration (95-EIA-22) Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Location Map Project Description and Public Benefit Statement submitted by the project sponsor Letter to Scott Ward, Classic Communities from Ken Schreiber, City of Palo Alto; November 8, 1995 Planning Commission Staff Report, February 14, 1996 (without attachments) Architectural Review Board Minutes, January 18, 1996 Planning Commission Minutes, December 13, 1995 Letter from Barrie D. Coate and Associates, Horticultural Consultants; January 2, 1996 Letter from Steve Frankel; January 10, 1996 Letter from Jeanne Smith, February 11, 1996 (City Council Members only) PREPARED BY: Paul A. Jensen, Contract Planner DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW: KENNETH R. SCHREIBER Director of Planning and Community Environment t~ERN~d3 M. STROJN~’\ (" Assistant City Manager CMR: 188:96 Page 8 0f9 CC:Scott Ward, Classic Communities, 1068 East Meadow Circle, Palo Alto CA 94303 Jim Baer, Ware & Friedenrich, 400 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto CA 94303 Margery Brandt, 360 Everett Avenue, #5B, Palo Alto, CA 94301-1422 Marvin Feinstein, 1600 Bryant Street, Palo Alto CA 94301 Steven Frankel, 351 Bryant Court, Palo Alto CA 94301 Carol Francis, 321 Bryant Court, Palo Alto CA 94301 Downtown North Neighborhood Association, Tony Badger, 381 Hawthorne, Palo Alto CA 94301 Downtown North Neighborhood Association, Pat Sharp, 333 Waverley St., Palo Alto CA 94301 CMR: 188:96 Page 9 of 9 Attachment #1 OR!DINANCE NO. ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING SECTION 18.08.040 OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE (THE ZONING MAP)TO CHANGE THE CLASSIFICATION OF PROPERTY~ KNOWN AS 315-335 EVERETT AVENUE/332-340 BRYANTCOURT FROM RM-30 TO PC DISTRICT WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, after a duly noticed public hearing held February 14, 1996, and the Architectural Review Board, upon consideration at its meeting of January 18, 1996, have recommended that Section 18.08.040 (the Zoning Map) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code be amended as hereinafter set forth; and WHEREAS, the City Council, after due consideration of the recommendations, finds that the proposed amendment is in the public interest and will promote the public health, safety and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION i. Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, the "Zoning Map," is hereby amended by changing the zoning of certain property known as 315-335 Everett Avenue/332-340 Bryant Court (the "subject property") from "RM-30 Medium Density Multiple Family Residential District" to "PC Planned Community." The subject property is shown on the map labeled Exhibit "A," attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 2. The City Council hereby finds with respect to the subject property that: a.Site. The site is so situated, and the existing uses proposed for the subject property are of such characteristics that the application of the RM-30 District standards will not provide sufficient flexibility for the proposed development, or ~or a development that is compatible with the mix of residential uses, density and design of the surrounding neighborhood. Specifically, while the RM-30 District encourages the development of higher density housing, particularly in the areas adjacent to downtown, it does not provide the flexibility for developing a small-lot, detached single-family residential project and tends to produce housing that is inconsistent with the scale, character and circulation patterns of older, residentia! neighborhoods, such as Downtown North. Furthermore, while the RM-30 District allows single-family residences as a permitted usei the required provisions for developing such uses within this district (Section 18.24.090-Special Requirements, RM-30 District and Sections 18.12.050 through 18.12.080-Site Development Regulations, R-I District), in this case, make it difficult to design a single- family residential project that is compatible with the mixed residential land uses and development pattern of the surrounding neighborhood, particularly along the lane named Bryant Court. 960307 lac 0080217 While RM-30 would permit greater density than the proposed project, it would also permit monolithic development or result in single- family homes on large lots, which would be out of scale and character with the other housing in the area. Adoption of the PC District for this particular project would permit ~the necessary flexibility in individual lot size and reductions in setbacks so that a compatible, detached, single-family housing project can be built in an area of small increment, mixed residential uses. The proposed project wil! also not result in objectionable environmental impacts such as peak hour traffic impacts. b.Benefits. Development of the site under the provisions of the PC Planned Community District will result in public benefits not otherwise attainable by application of the regulations of genera! districts or combining districts, as follows: (i) Application of the PC District to this project and site would permit the clustering of detached single- family residential homes on small lots, which would be compatible with the density, design and character of the immediately surrounding neighborhood. (ii) The PC District will allow a style and type of housing which is needed in the community but which is not consistent with existing single- and multiple-family zone. The proposed project provides medium sized, 3 and 4 bedroom homes with modest private open space that will accommodate families, and will address a major housing need in the community. Residential trends over the last decade demonstrate that the variety of housing types has been very limited. For-sale homes have been confined primarily to expensive, large single-family homes on conforming R-I lots, moderately-sized townhomes with limited open space and common green area, and more moderately priced stacked flat condominiums dominated by smaller units. These trends have created a gap in housing stock between attached housing designed to accommodate young households without children and expensive single-family housing, which accommodate higher income households. (iii) The application of the PC District standards as proposed would result in public benefits by providing desirable street improvements to the Bryant Court road right-of-way. These street right-of-way improvements would be beneficial to the neighborhood and co~nity ~t large in that it would create ~nattractive ~_._.~iii!!~!~iiiiiii~~ii!iii~iiiiiipedestrian link from Bryant Street to J~~-~ ............................................................ c. Comprehensive Plan Goals. As modified by conditions of approva!, the proposed project, specifically the proposed single-family residential use, would be consistent with the ~alo Alto Comprehensive Plan and consistent with the mix of residential unit types and densities which presently exist in the surrounding neighborhood. Specifically, the project would be consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan "Multiple-Family Residential" (density range of 10-45 dwelling units per acre) land use 960307 lac 0080217 2 designation for this site, in that, it would result in an overall density of 14.9 dwelliDg units per acre, which is within the permitted range for this site. Furthermore, the project would be consistent with Program #i and Program #13 of the adopted Housing Element in that it would maintain a single-family residential use of the site adjacent to the downtown area, and would provide a housing product for households with children. The proposed project would be consistent and compatible with the development pattern, density and the mix of units types found in the Downtown North neighborhood and al!ows for a project to be designed to respect and protect site resources. SECTION 3. Those certain plans entitled "Conceptual Site Plan-Everett Court S.F.D. Proposal," prepared by Bassenian Lagoni Architects, dated January 2, 1996, accompanied by a "Technical Site Plan" dated January 2, 1996, floor plans and elevations dated October 20, 1995, Preliminary Landscape Concept Plans (Gates & Associates) dated January 4, 1996,__~._~~__~rt Plan (Gates & Associates) dated January 4, 1996, ~i!iiii~f~iiiiiiii~!~ii~iii and approved by the Architectural .Review Board on J~~:~:~:~:~:~:~~:~~~ copy on file in the Planning Division office, and to which copy reference is hereby made, are hereby approved as the Development Plan for the subject property, pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code section 18.68.120. Said Development Plan is approved for the following uses, and subject to the following conditions: a.Permitted Uses. The use shall be limited to single- family residential and accessory uses incidental thereto, as set forth in Section 18.12.030 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. b.Conditional Uses. All conditional uses as allowed in the R-I (Single-family Residential) District as listed under Section 18.12.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, subject to issuance of a conditional use permit. c.Site Development Requlations. All improvements and development shall be substantially in accordance with the approved Development Plan. The following are site deve!opment regulations which establish rules for modifications or additions to any building, accessory structure or landscaping on the subject property. Definition of terms used shall be in accordance with Chapter 18.04 (Definitions) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. (i)The approved Development Plan requires the preservation and protection of a number of mature trees within the development and along the Everett Avenue street frontage. No development or improvement on any home and lot, following initial construction and occupancy,shall result in the removal or destruction of these trees. (ii) Once the project has been constructed consistent with the approved Development Plan, landscaping, spas, swimming pools, building colors and materials, skylights, exterior wall surface treatments, windows and/or window coverings may be 960307 lac 0080217 installed and/or modified without the approval of the Architectural Review Board, and will be subject to the site development regulations for substandard lots as applicable in the R-I zoning district. (iii)’ Any ~ther exterior changes to the buildings or any new construction not specifically permitted by the Development Plan or by these site development regulations shall require an amendment to this Planned Community Zone. (iv) No new floor area or coverage may be constructed on any lot, except porches, patio covers or.trellises of less than 120 square feet, which shall not exceed twelve feet in height and shall be setback at least three feet from any property line. d.Parking and Loading Requirements. The parking and loading requirements governing the subject property shall be in accordance with the approved Development Plan, on file with the Department of Planning and Community Environment and as amended in accordance with this section. Amendments to the Development Plan shall be made consistent with the following conditions: (i)Driveway and/or guest parking spaces shall be provided for unit numbers 1-6 (Bryant Court frontage) to serve as the second on-site parking space for these units (in addition to the one-car garages). The final design and arrangement of these driveway and/or guest parking spaces shal! be subject to further study as required by the standard conditions of project approval. These parking spaces shall be surfaced with a high quality decorative pavement, interlocking paver or turf block, as approved by the Architectural Review Board. If parallel driveway parking spaces are installed to meet this requirement (as depicted on the Conceptual Site Plan), each space shall be i0 feet in width by 20 feet in length, as measured from the property line. If an alternative parking arrangement is approved, each space shall comply with the minimum dimensional standards required under Chapter 18.83 of the PAMC. (ii) Adequate maneuvering and back-out dimensions shal! be provided for unit numbers 7, 8, 9 and 12, as approved by the Transportation Division. Portions of the two driveways serving the Everett Avenue units where maneuvering and back-out area is ’shared’ between units shall be surface with a high quality decorative pavement, as approved by the Architectural Review Board. (iii) The curb cuts and driveway aprons for the two Everett Avenue driveways (serving as access to unit numbers 7-13) shall be adjusted to preserve and protect the existing street trees (two Southern Magnolias, trees #2 and #4 as identified in Attachment #3 of 95-EIA-22, on file with the Department of Planning and Community Environment). The ’shared’ driveways shall be reduced in width from 18 feet to 15 feet, except where these driveways intersect with the private driveway aprons for each unit [where an 18-foot width or greater shall be maintained to comply 960307 lac 0080217 4 with required condition (d) (ii)]. The final configuration of the driveways shall be approved by the Planning and Transportation Divisions and the City Arborist. (iv) Signage and landscapSng shall meet the sight distance requirements of Section 18.83.080 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code applicable to all driveways within the development, to the satisfaction of the Transportation and Planning Divisions. The above noted amendments shall be reflected in the Tentative Subdivision Map, the Final Map and the final plans submitted for the issuance of a building permit(s). Special Requirements. (i)In conformance with the City’s Below Market Rate (BMR) requirements (Program #13, Housing Element, Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan), unit #6 of the development shall be reserved for sale as a below market rate (BMR) unit. Unit #6 shall be placed in the City’s BMR program as for a ’for sale’ unit. The Palo Alto Housing Corporation (PAHC) is the City’s designated representative to administer sale of the BMR unit. The specific requirements shall be as fol!ows: (aa)The sales price of the unit shall be $107,550. (bb)The -unit shall consist of approximately i, 377 square feet and contain three bedrooms, corresponding to Plan #i on the Development Plans dated October 20, 1995, on file with the Department of Planning and Community Environment. (cc)The design, construction, materials,. finishes, windows, hardware, light fixtures, landscaping, irrigation, appliances, and other like features of the BMR unit, shall be comparable to the design and construction of all other units in the project. The provisions of this condition e.(i) have been negotiated between the City and the project applicant, and are set forth in that letter from the Director of Planning and Community Environment dated November 8, 1995, acknowledged and agreed to by the applicant on January 31, 1996, and these provisions shall also be incorporated into the Subdivision Improvement Agreement required as a condition of approval of the tentative subdivision map for the subject property. In the event of conflict between the November 8, 1995, letter and this Ordinance, the terms of this Ordinance shall prevail. 960307 lac 0080217 5 property owner shall prepare and submit a detailed plan for improvements to the Bryant Court public street right-of-way. Consistent with the proposal presented by the applicant, the improvements are to include a repavement of Bryant Court from Bryant Street to Waverley Street (concrete materia! for a width of 20 feet) with incorporation of ~!~~iliiii!iiiii~iiii!i!!~~iiiiiii! ~~"d~-~’the paved right-of-way. The proposed improvements include the replacement of the existing street lighting standards with new, pedestrian-scale light standards. The detailed plan for t~ Bryant Court right-of-way shall be reviewed and approved by the Architectura! Review Board, the proj to complete the following: (aa) that the concrete 960307 lac 0080217 (bb)The project sponsor shall identify the proposed location/geographical placement of at least six new pedestrian-scale street lighting standards. These standards shall be placed along the north and south side of the lane, within the width of the paved right-of-way. Furthermore, a detailed specification of the lighting standard shall be submitted. The selected standard shall be consistent with the smaller of the two lighting standards presented in the Bryant Court Plan (Gates and Associates), dated January 4, 1996. The final standards shall be approved by the Department of Public Works. f.Development Schedule. Construction of the project approved by this ordinance shall commence no later than September I, 1996, and shall be completed on or before October i, 1997. SECTION 4. The Council finds that this project, as mitigated, will not have a significant environmental effect. SECTION 5. This ordinance shall be thirty-first day after the date of its adoption. INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSTENTIONS: ABSENT: ATTEST:APPROVED: effective on the City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: Senior Asst. City Attorney City Manager Director of Planning and Community Environment 960307 lac 0080217 7 Exhibit "A" Graphic Attachment to Staff Repor~ Date: February 28, 1996 Scale: linch=2OOFT ATTACHMENT #1A STANDARD CONDITIONS OF PROJECT APPROVAL Everett Court Residential Development 315-335 Everett Avenue/Bryant Court, File Nos: 95-ZC-8, 95-V-21 and 95-EIA-22 Most of the conditions listed below are standard conditions. These conditions would normally be applied to the project as part of the f’mal ARB approval process. However, given that the project proposes a zone change to the Planned Community District, which includes the normal ARB process, these conditions have been incorporated into this recommended action. Major and/or special conditions are proposed for incorporation into the PC Ordinance for this project. Additional and more detailed conditions may be imposed as part of the Tentative Subdivision Map review and approval process. Prior to Submittal of a Tentative Map The project sponsor shall test the sewer line on Everett Avenue for flow capacity. The project sponsor shall be responsible for any required upgrade of the sewer in conjunction and in an equitable manner with other proposed developments in the immediate vicinity. Prior to .Approval of a Tentative Map Conditions of approval for the Tentative Subdivision Map and the design of the Final Map and improvement plans/drawings shall incorporate the required mitigation measures presented in the Environmental Assessment-Mitigated Negative Declaration (95-EIA-22), and the approved Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, both on file with the Department of Planning and Community Environment. The Tentative Subdivision Map shall show the location of all lot lines along with easements for deed restricted areas and reciprocal use of land for private yard areas and parking spaces. Draft conditions, covenants and restrictions shall be prepared and submitted as part of Tentative Map review. P:\PCSR\EVERETT.CON Page 1 Prior 4. to Recordation of a Final Map and/or Prior to Issuance of a Building Permit A construction logistics plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Transportation Division and Public Works Engineering Department, 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 to the City of Palo’s Truck and Truck Route Ordinance, Chapter 10.48, and the route map which outlines truck routes available throughout the City of Palo Alto. This plan shall specifically address construction staging and phasing along Bryant Court, during construction of road right-way improvements. A detailed grading and drainage plan shall be prepared. The plan shall include the details for installation of a catch basin in front of the project area on the Everett Street frontage and replacement of the sidewalk for the entire property width along the Everett Avenue frontage. The plan shall also show the drainage patterns for the whole length of Bryant Court. The Final Subdivision Map and improvement plans as well as construction drawings for issuance of a building permit shall comply with or include all conditions recommended by, the Utilities Engineering Division summarized in the memorandum from Jose Jovel, dated September 18, 1995, on file with the Department of Planning and Community Environment. Utility Engineering Division. Prior to the recordation of a Final Subdivision Map, final landscaping and irrigation plans as well as other pertinent improvement details including but not limited to above ground utility boxes and apparatus, shall be submitted for review and approval by the Architectural Review Board, City Arborist, Utility Energy Service Division and Planning Division. The f’mal plans shall include the following: (a) The landscaping and irrigation improvements for all front and side yard areas, as well as ’concept plan’ for private rear yard areas, as presented on the Development Plan. (b) The property owner shall be required to install a six foot high wood fence along the western and eastern property boundaries, extending from Everett Avenue to Bryant Court to comply with the provisions of Section 18.68.150(c) 0~C District) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. The details and location of the two fences shall be presented in the final landscaping plan and shall follow the same design theme of the development. P:\PCSR\EVERETT.CON Page 2 (c) Preservation of and protection measures for the large Coast Live Oak tree (42" trunk identified as tree # 13 in Attachment #3 of 95-EIA-22) located at the center of the site, as recommended in the tree survey and analysis prepared by Barrie D. Coate and Associates, dated November 3, 1995. (d) Preservation of and protection measures for the Coast Live Oak trees (trees #19, 20, 21 and 22, as identified in Attachment #3 of 95-EIA-22) located at the western edge of the site, as recommended in the tree survey and analysis prepared by Barrie D. Coate and Associates, dated November 3, 1995. Likewise, the same measures shall apply for the preservation and protection of tree #7 (Eucalyptus) located near the eastern property boundary. (e) The landscape plan shall include detailed measures and steps required for the removal, relocation and replanting of trees #6,m~et #15 and #18 (Canary Island Palms). (f) Minor adjustments in the Everett Avenue driveway curb cuts and aprons to preserve and protect the two Southern Magnolia street trees (trees #2 and #4. (g) The installation of, at minimum, two street trees along the Everett Avenue frontage (to accompany the four street trees that are to remain), to be located within the landscaped parkway between the sidewalk and street curb. These trees shall be planted at a minimum 24 inch box size, with the species and planting specifications as determined by the City Arborist and the Planning Division. (h) The fmal plans shall meet the City’s Water Efficiency Standards. (I) Final Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (CC & Rs) covering all issues outlined and required by conditions of approval. Submittal of a tree protection plan, prepared by a certified arborist, for review and approval by the Planning Division and implemented prior to demolition and throughout construction. The plan shall include implementation of the recommendations contained in the report by Barrie D. Coate and Associates, dated November 3, 1995. The plan shall preserve and protect on-site trees #7 (Eucalyptus), #13, #19, #20, #21, #22 (Coast Live Oaks), trees #6,m~l #15 and #18 (Canary Island Palms to be removed and replanted). The plan shall survey and accurately map all trees to be protected and shall include measures for their protection during construction, including an temporary construction fence to be erected around each tree that is to be saved. The fence shall consist of portable cyclone fencing or wire mesh, security attached to metal posts driven into the ground, or alternative fencing approved in writing by the Planning Division. The P:\PCSR\EVERETT.CON Page 3 purpose of the fencing is to keep all construction activity and storage outside the dripline of the trees. It shall be erected before any construction machinery enters the site, and shall not be removed until the final landscape grading is completed. The site and landscaping plan shall be designed to provide tree roots with air and water through use of perforated paving or other permeable surfaces. The following measures shall incorporated into the Final Map improvement plans and construction plans for issuance of a building permit to protect and preserve the large Coast Live Oak tree (42" trunk diameter), identified as tree #13 in Attachment #3 of 95-EIA-22 (Barrie Coate and Associates tree survey and analysis, November 3, 1995): ¯Prohibit, through initial design and deed restrictions, all pavement within the dripline of the tree. ¯Prohibit installation of turf within 20 feet of the mink. If turf is installed within the dripline, the Bonsai Tall Fescue ~escue anmdinacea ’Bonzai") shall be used as it requires less frequent irrigation than other turf species. Any soil preparation within the dripline of the tree for turf installation must not involve rototilling that is deeper than three inches below the soil. ¯Avoid the installation of irrigation lines within the dripline of the tree. ¯Avoid construction access within the tree canopy. ¯Implement the pruning and cabling measures recommended in the tree survey and analysis, referenced above. ¯Require that the subdivision design include conditions, covenants and restrictions (CC & Rs) establishing a restricted use area and/or a deed restriction over the rear yard of lots #7, #9 and #11, as identified on the Development Plan. The restriction shall be worded and recorded to include all restrictive use and maintenance measures to ensure the long-term life and continued health of the tree. In addition, the restrictions shall include violations and frees for destruction or unauthorized removal of this tree. 10.The proposed development will result in a change in the impervious area of the property. The project sponsor shall provide calculations showing the adjusted impervious area, submitted with the Final Map and/or building permit. A storm drainage fee adjustment will take place in the month following the approval of construction by the Building Inspection Division. P:\PCSR\EVERETT.CON Page 4 11. 12. 13. 14. All utility meters, lines, transformers, backflow preventers, and any other required utilities, shall be shown on the final landscaping and irrigation plans and shall show that no conflict will occur between the utilities and the landscape materials and shall be screened in a manner which respects the building design and setback requirements, subject to ARB review and approval. The following permits shall be secured from the Deparmaent of Public Works: (a) Co) (c) An Encroachment Permit for use of the sidewalk, street and alley. A Permit for Construction in the Public Street. A Grading and Excavation Permit. Any construction within the CPA right-of-way, easements or other property controlled by the City of Palo Alto must conform to the standards established in the CPA Standard Specifications for Utilities Department and the Public Works Deparlxnent. Signage and landscaping shall meet the sight- distance requirements of Section 18.83.080 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code applicable to all driveways within the development, to the satisfaction of the Transportation and Planning Divisions. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the following shall be submitted for Architectural Review Board review and approval: (a) Exterior building materials shall be studied by the project sponsor. Consistent with the concerns and recommendations the Planning CommisSion high quality materials, particularly for exterior siding, stone/brick trim and windows, shall be required with actual samples submitted for Architectural Review Board approval. Co) The exterior building material colors palette is acceptable, as submitted. However, a stronger contrast of colors shall be proposed to better reflect the range of building colors found in the surrounding neighborhood. (c) Detailed elevations of all fences and walls, calling out all proposed materials. Color and material samples of all fences and walls shall be submitted. (d) Final location, design and treatment of the pad-mounted electrical. transformer. P:\PCSR\EVERETT.CON Page 5 15. (e) The project sponsor shall study and submit an alternative plan to the "parallel" driveway parking arrangement proposed for Units #1-6 (fronting Bryant Court). Prior to ARB review, the City Transportation Division shall review the alternative and present a recommendation on the final preferred plan. (f) Detailed plan for the Bryant Court public right-of-way improvements as implemented per required conditions of approval. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the building elevations shall be modified as follows: (a) All fireplace chimneys shall be surfaced with the same exterior siding material that is approved for the building. Use of stucco material on the chimneys is not acceptable. (b) A’"hip" rather than a "gable" roof design shall be used for the west elevation of Unit #13 to comply with the R-1 District daylight plan requirement. Likewise, a "hip" roof design shall be permitted in-lieu of a "gable" for the east elevation of Unit #8. Durin~ Construction All public street trees to be retained, as shown on the approved tree inventory (Tree Survey and Analysis prepared by Barrie D. Coate and Associates, November 3, 1995), as required by this condition and as shown on the f’mal landscaping plan, shall be protected. The street trees that are to be preserved and protected shall include trees #1, 2 and 4 (Southern Magnolias) and tree #3 0~vergreen Ash), as located and discussed in the analysis prepared by Barrie D. Coate (Attachment #3 of 95-EIA-22). The following tree protection measures shall be approved by the City Arborist and included in construction/demolition contracts and be implemented during construction activities unless otherwise approved. The following tree protection measures shall apply: PAMC 8-4-070. Any modifications to these requirements must be approved in writing by the City Arborist. (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 galvan~ed iron posts, driven into the ground to a depth of at least two 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 P:\PCSR\EVERETT.CON Page 6 17. 18, 19. 20. 21. 22. the approved plans to be done under the trees to be protected (Public Works Department standard specification detail #505). (b) No storage of material, topsoil, vehicles, or equipment shall be permitted within the tree enclosure area. (c) The ground around the tree canopy shall not be altered. (d) Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and maintained as necessary to ensure survival. Implement all measures required during project construction for the protection of the large Coast Live Oak tree located near the center of the site (specified under condition #8, above). A new catch basin shall be installed in front of the project area along the Everett Avenue frontage. All of the existing sidewalk along the Everett Avenue property frontage shall be replaced. Dust control measures shall be imposed to ensure that temporary air impacts to the surrounding neighborhood are reduced. Measures during construction shall include 1) the watering of all exposed earth surfaces during the construction process (early morning and early evening), 2) avoid overfilling of trucks to reduce spillage into the public right-of-way and requiring contractors to clean-up spillage in the public right-of-way, and 3) requiring the contractor to submit a logistics plan identifying routes of transported earth material. All construction activities shall be subject to the requirements of the City’s Noise Ordinance, Chapter 9.10 of the PAMC, which requires, among other things, that a sign be posted and that construction times be limited as follows: (a) (b) (c) 8:00AM to 6:00PM, Monday - Friday 9:00AM to 6:00PM, Saturday 10:00AM to 6:00PM, Sunday All new electrical service shall be placed underground. All electrical substructures required from the service point to the switchgear shall be installed in accordance with standards published by the Utilities Engineering Division. P:\PCSR\EVERETT.CON Page 7 23.No storage of construction materials is permitted in the street or on the sidewalk without prior approval of Public Works Engineering. 24.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 developers construction activities on public property. It is unlawful to discharge any construction debris (soil, asphalt, saw-cut slurry, paint, chemicals, etc.) or other waste materials into gutters or storm drains (Federal Clean Water Act). 25.The following fire protective measures shall be installed: (a) Installation of on-site fire hydrants every 300 feet (model 76 type). (b) Installation of residential smoke detectors in accordance with UBC 1210 for R1 occupancies. (c) Emergency vehicle access in accordance with Article 10 of the UBC. (d) Installation of building address signage, per the specifications of the Fire Department. After Construction 26.All activities shall be subject to the requirements of the City of Palo Alto Noise Ordinance, Chapter 9.10 and all ofther applicable City codes. Ongoing (Throughout Processing and Construction) 27.City staff time required for the implementation and monitoring of the Mitigation Monitoring and Report Program (MMRP) shall be subject to cost recovery fees charged to the project sponsor. P:\PCSR\EVERETr.CON Page 8 ATTACHMENT #2 DRAFT FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL OF A VARIANCE TO THE PC DISTRICT MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 18.68.150(c) Exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and conditions are applicable to the subject property, which do not apply generally to property in the same district. Accordingly, the reductions in the minimum 10 foot side yard setback requirement for Units #1, #6, 8, #12 and #13 are necessary. Specifically, the subject property is exceptional in that it contains a large, Coast Live Oak tree (42" trunk diameter and a 78 ft. canopy spread) located near the center of the site. In order to protect this oak tree,, new structures, pavement and private yard areas must be carefully placed and clustered, resulting in the need to provide large open areas near the center of the site, while reducing setbacks in other areas of the site. The granting of this variance for reduction in the side yard setbacks of Unit #1, #6, #8, #12 and #13 is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights and would prevent unreasonable loss and hardship in that it would permit building clustering for tree protection and preservation and would permit side yard setbacks which are in keeping with the typical sideyard setback requirements for single-family residential development in an R-1 District. Furthermore, the reductions in setbacks would allow large setbacks for areas proposed for private, usable yard space. The granting of this variance for the reduction in the minimum 10 foot sideyard setbacks of Units #1, #6, #8, #12 and #13 will not be detrimental or injurious to subject property or adjacent and surrounding improvements and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience in that the proposed setbacks would be adequate to provide and maintain privacy, light, air and natural screening for future residents of the development and adjacent residents. Furthermore, privacy, light and air would not be compromise~ given that the overall average side yard setback proposed along the western and eastern property lines is 10 feet or greater, which would be consistent with the intent of the setback requirement and will not harm any oak trees, necessary for screening the west property use. Lastly, the reductions in setbacks would not cause impact to the adjacent developed properties in that a) existing building setbacks for the two adjacent apartment structures are adequate to maintain light, air and privacy and b) the reduced setbacks that are requested would be consistent with the minimum sideyard setbacks required for single family residential development in the R-1 District. ATTACHMENT #2A Findings for Architectural Review Approval The design and architecture of the project complies with the Standards for Architectural Review (Section 16.48.120 of the PAMC). A summary of the project’s compliance with the ARB standards for review is as follows: o As outlined on pages 8 and 9 of the staff report, the proposed project is consistent and compatible with the applicable elements of the City’s Comprehensive Plan (Standard #1). The project design and the proposed improvements are compatible with the immediate environment and the surrounding improvements (Standard #2). The design and placement of the proposed single-family homes would be in scale with the surrounding improvements, in that the project proposes ample building setbacks compatible with the existing building setbacks in the neighborhood and consistent with the R-1 District requirements. The design of the proposed improvements is appropriate for the single-family residential function of the project (Standard #3). Specifically, the project has been designed to provide ample outdoor living area for each unit, presents architecture that is pedestrian-oriented and provides adequate on-site parking and circulation. The subject property is not located in an area which has a unified design or a historical character. However, the project design is in keeping with and an improvement to the variety of the architectural designs in the surrounding area (Standard #4). The project, as designed, promotes harmonious transitions in scale and character to the surrounding neighborhood (Standard #5). The project presents a transition between the higher density residential development along Everett Avenue and the lower density residential development which is present north of Bryant Court. The design of the project would be compatible with the existing improvements both on and off site (Standard #6). Specifically, the project is designed to preserve and protect existing tree resources, including street trees, thus maintaining the mature landscaped character of the surrounding, developed neighborhood. 7. The planning and siting of the proposed single-family dwellings, private outdoor P:\PCSR\EVERETT.ARB yard areas, on-site parking and circulation and landscaping would create an internal sense of order and provide a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and the general community in that, the project is designed to follow the building orientation, and scale as well as the pedestrian and vehicle access pattern that is found in the neighborhood. Furthermore, the project is also designed to maximize building and outdoor space orientation toward a specimen 42" Coast Live Oak tree located near the center of the site (Standard #7). o The amount and arrangement of open space are appropriate to the design and function of the. proposed structures (Standard #8). The site plan assures that each single-family dwelling is designed with ample, private yard area and also ensures preservation and protection of existing tree resources. The project proposes a design that provides sufficient ancillary functions to provide support for the single-family residential use (Standard #9). The design of ancillary functions, specifically the location and arrangement of on-site parking and circulation as well as the location and amount of individual, outdoor yard areas are compatible with the project’s design function. 10.The site plan has been designed to ensure that property access and circulation are convenient for pedestrians, cyclists and Vehicles (Standard #10). Access to lots fronting Everett Avenue is limited to two ’shared’ driveways, thus minimizing impacts to street trees and maximizing the amount of on-street parking. Driveway parking for the units fronting Bryant Court has been designed .to maximize use and compatibility with the existing street side parking found along this public lane. 11.Natural features are appropriately preserved and integrated into the project (Standard #11). Specifically, the project has been designed to preserve and protect mature trees which exist on and around the site. Protection of this resource would be consistent with the mature landscaping which exists in the surrounding developed neighborhood. 12.The materials, textures, colors and details of construction coupled with the proposed plant materials are appropriate for the function and design of the single-family residential project and would be compatible with the neighboring uses, structures and landscape elements (Standard #12). The proposed building designs and exterior materials would be similar to those designs and materials found on other residential buildings in the surrounding neighborhood. 13.The landscape design of the project as designed and as recommended through conditions of approval, would create a desirable and functional environment for the P:\PCSR\EVERETT.ARB future residents of the proposed dwellings and to neighboring residents (Standard #13). Landscaping is designed to protect and preserve existing, mature trees that are on and around the subject property. Protection of these trees and the proposed new plantings would provide unity for the project as a whole and compatibility with the landscaping that exists in the surrounding neighborhood. 14.The plant materials as proposed and as recommended through conditions of approval, would be suitable and compatible for the site (Standard #14). Drought- resistant as well as special plant materials are proposed and recommended for sensitive areas around the existing oak trees that are to be preserved. The common landscaping theme would promote more efficient maintenance. 15.The project design as proposed and as recommended by conditions of approval would be energy efficient (Standard #15). The proposed single-family dwellings are situated and designed to maximize southern, solar exposure to private yard areas and major rooms in the dwelling units. Furthermore, the dwelling units are situated to maintain solar exposure to adjacent residential buildings, while providing and maintaining privacy through tree preservation and new plantings. P:\PCSRkEVERETT.ARB ATTACHMENT #3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1. Project Title:Everett Court Residential Development 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue, 5th floor Palo Alto, California 94301 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Paul Jensen, Contract Planner (415)479-9438 4. Project Location"315-335 Everett Avenue/Bryant Court (AP#s 120-14-037, 038, 039,040, 042 & 043) 5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address: Scott Ward Classic Communities, Inc. 1068 East Meadow Circle Palo Alto, California 94303 (415)496-4496 6. General Plan Designation: Multiple-Family Residential 7. Zoning:RM-30 (Medium Density Multiple-Family Residential) District 8. Description of the Project: The project proposes the rezoning of .87 acres (approx. 38,000 sq.ft.) of vacant land fronting Everett Avenue and Bryant Court for the purpose of developing 13 new, detached single-family residential homes. The property would be rezoned from RM-30 to PC (Planned 95-EIA-22 P:\EIA\EIA.evr [11/95] 1 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM Community) District. Details on this proposed development are as follows: A total of six homes are proposed to front Bryant Court, while seven homes are proposed to front, and/or be accessed from Everett Avenue. Although no specific lotting pattern is proposed at this time, these homes would be located on individual lots ranging in size from approximately 2,200 to 4,300 square feet. The homes are proposed to be two-stories, ranging in size from 1,377 to 1,801 square feet. Four floor plans propose 3-4 bedrooms, 2 ½ baths and large family rooms. The preliminary architectural drawings present a craftsman design with large front porches, gable and hip roof designs. Use of wood, stucco and stone/brick veneers are proposed for all units. On-site, covered parking is proposed for all homes. Homes fronting and/or accessed by Everett Avenue are designed with two-car garages. These homes are ’grouped’ to share two driveways, thus minimizing curb cuts along Everett Avenue. Each of the six homes proposed along Bryant Court are designed with a one car garage. For five of these six homes, a second, uncovered parking space is designed parallel to the garage and road right-of-way. Each home is designed with a private rear or side yard, sized and dimensioned for outdoor use. Minimum yard depths are 15 feet. Although rear yards are not proposed to be landscaped, front yards and areas around driveways would be landscaped as part of the development to establish a common design to accompany the homes. One of the thirteen homes (unit #6, fronting Bryant Court) is proposed to be priced at $104,000 for below market rate (BMR) sale to a household qualifying at low income. In addition, the sponsors propose to a contribute over $20,000 to the City’s Residential Housing Fund. Since the project proposes a rezoning to the PC District, the project sponsors are required to present a public benefit package. This package is intended to offset any deviation from the usual zoning standards (eg, minimum setbacks, maximum lot coverage, etc.). The public benefit package proposed for this project includes a) one below market rate unit and contribution to the Residential Housing Fund (outlined above), b) design 95-EIA-22 P:\EIA\EIA.evr [11/95] 2 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM improvements to the Bryant Court right-of-way (lighting and pavement), c) a 65% reduction in the amount of traffic that could be generated from this site if developed to its full zoning potential and d) a project that is in better scale and character with the surrounding neighborhood than a large apartment or condominium development. The project sponsors also note that the development would provide needed, more moderately- priced single-family housing for families. Other City of Palo Alto approvals required for this development will include a Tentative Subdivision Map, Final Map and Building Permits. 9. Surrounding Land uses and Setting: Surrounding uses include two-story apartment structures located to the west and east, multi-story apartments to the south and a combination of single-family residential and duplex uses to the north. The neighboring apartment located west of the site is approximately five feet from the common property line. The neighboring apartment structure east of the site has setbacks ranging from 8-20 feet from the common property line. 10.Other public agencies whose approval is required: None. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: 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 Population and Housing Geological Problems X Biological Resources Energy and Mineral Resources Hazards Aesthetics Cultural Resources Recreation 95-EIA-22 P:\EIA\EIA.evr [11/95] 3 Water Air Quality Transportation and Circulation Noise Public Services Utilities and Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance 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 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 are imposed upon the proposed project. X Paul A. Jensen,~)/ontract Planner Date Director of Planning & Community Environment Date EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 95-EIA-22 P:\EIA\EIA.evr [11/95]4 1 ) 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). 2)All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including 0ff-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3)"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. 4)"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). 5)Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, 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. 6)Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordi.nances). 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. 95-EIA-22 P:\EIA\EIA.evr [11/95] 5 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sourcas Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless - Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact 1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? b)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) e) 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)? 2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: 6,7, 8(B-1) 2,7 8(B-1) 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. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. a) Fault rupture? b) Seismic ground shaking? c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? e) Landslides or mudflows? f)Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill? g) Subsidence of the land? h) Expansive soils? 6,7 8(B-1) 1,2,3 1,2,3 X X #8(B-1) Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: 9,10 9,10 9,i0 9,10 9,10 9,10 X 9,10 9,10 X X X X X X X X X X X X X 95-EIA-22 P:\EIA\EIA.evr [11/95] 6 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact I) Unique geologic or physical features?9,10 11 9,12, 8(B-7) 6,7 8(B-7) 6,7 6,7 X 4. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a)Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? b)Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? c)Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? d)Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? e)Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? 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? g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? h) Impacts to groundwater quality? I)Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? 5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a)Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an exiting or projected air quality violation? 9 9 9 8(B- 6), 13 13 7,11 b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants c)Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? d) Create objectionable odors?X7,11 6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: X X X ~X X X X X X X 95-EIA-22 P:\EIA\EIA.evr [11/95] 7 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? b) c) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment))? Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? f)Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in: a)Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals or birds)? b) Locally designated species (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? 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? 9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: 8(B- 2), 14 14 7,11 1,11, 14 7,11 15,16 7,15 8(B- 12) 17 8(B- 12) 8(B-7) 8(B- 12) 18 18 18 X X X X X X X X X X X X X 95-EIA-22 P:\EIA\EIA.evr [11/95]8 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact 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? b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? a) Fire protection? b) Police protection? c) Schools? 8(B-8, B- 9),19 19 19 19 8(B- 4), 20,21 8(B- 4), 20,21 X 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: 22 22 22 d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?22 e) Other governmental services?22 12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or 22 22 22 substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? b) Communications systems? c)Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? X X X X X X x X X X X X X X 95-EIA-22 P:\EIA\EIA.evr [11/95] 9 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No]Impact d) Sewer or septic tanks?22 X e) Storm water drainage?22 X f) Solid waste disposal?22 X g) Local or regional water supplies?22 X 13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway?23 X b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect?6,7,1 X 1 c) Create light or glare?11 X 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources?8(B-X 14) b) Disturb archaeological resources?8(B-X 14) c) Affect historical resources?8(B-X 13) d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which 8(B-X would affect unique ethnic cultural values?14) e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the 8(B-X potential impact area?14) 15. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a)Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks 24 X or other recreational facilities? b) Affect existing recreational opportunities?8(B-X 11) 16.MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. 95-EIA-22 P:\EIA\EIA.evr [11/95]10 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources IPotentlally Significant Issues - Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact 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? 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? 25 25 25 25 X X 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 © (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. Monterey Board of Supervisors, 222 Cal. App. 3d 1337 (1990). 95-EIA-22 P:\EIA\EIA.evr [11/95] 11 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Significant act Impact 18. SOURCE REFERENCES (All of the following references are available and on file with the City of Palo Alto Department of Environmental Management, 250 Hamilton Avenue, 5th floor, Palo Alto) 1 Palo Alto Municipal Code- Title 18 (Zoning), Zoning Map, Chapters 18.24 (RM-30 District), 18.68 (PC District) & 18.83 (Off-Street Parking); 1992 2 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan 1980-1995, Land Use Map; 1981-1992 3 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan 1980-1995, Housing Element; 1990 4 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan 1980-1995, Urban Design Element; 1981 5 Single-Family Residential Guidelines for Palo Alto; 1991 6 Aerial photograph of subject property and surrounding community; 1995 7 Field investigation of subject property and surrounding community to survey existing conditions and land uses; September 15, 1995 8 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update, Existing Setting Summary Memorandum, Maps B-l, B-3, B-4, B-5, B-6, B-7, B-9, B-12, B-13 & B-14; 1994 9 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan 1980-1995, Environmental Resources Element, pgs. 65-72; 1981 10 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update, Geology & Seismic Technical Report; 1994 11 Everett Court Preliminary Development Plans (site plan, building elevations, cross-sections, landscape plan, tree survey); 1995 12 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update, Geology & Seismic Technical Report, Figures 7 & 8; 1994 13 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update, Air Quality Technical Background Report, pgs. 15-30; 1994 14 Memorandums from Carl Stoffel, Transportation Division, City of Palo Alto; Aug. 18, 1995 & Sept. 14, 1995 15 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan 1980-1995, Transportation Element; 1981 16 Citywide Land Use and Transportation Study - A Summary, City of Palo Alto; 1990 17 Tree Survey and Study for Everett Court Residential Development, Barrie D. Coate and Associates; 1995 18 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan 1980-1995, Environmental Resources Element, pgs. 50-60; 1981 19 Memorandum (Departmental Comments) from Palo Alto Fire Department (Hazardous Materials); September 6, 1995 20 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan 1980-1995, Environmental Resources Element, pgs. 60-63; 1981 95-EIA-22 P:\EIA\EIA.evr [11/95]12 21 22 23 24 25 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update, Noise Technical Background Report; 1994 Written comments submitted by City of Palo Alto departments on the proposed project Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan 1980-1995, Urban Design Element, pgs. 42-49; 1981 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan 1980-1995, Schools and Parks Element, pgs. 37-41; 1981 Answer is substantiated through the responses provided for items 1-15 95-EIA-22 P:\EIA\EIA.evr [11/95]13 19.EXPLANATIONS FOR CHECKLIST RESPONSES la& lb Land Use and Plannina. Would the proposal conflict with the general plan designation or zoning? Would the proposal conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? The subject property is located in the RM-30 (Medium Density Multiple-Family) zoning district. This zoning district permits a mix of residential land uses and development of up to 30 dwelling units per acre. Lands to the south, west and east are also located within the RM-30 District, while properties north of the site are located within the RM-15 (Low Density Multiple-Family Residential/max. 15 dwelling units per acre, The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan (Land Use Map) designates the subject property for Multiple-Family Residential use. This designation permits a residential development density range of 10 to 45 dwelling units per acre. The Comprehensive Plan Housing Element encourages multiple-family housing close to downtown (Program #1), given convenient access to shopping, employment, transportation and services. The project would result in the development of 13, detached single-family residential units and a rezoning of the property from RM-30 to PC (Planned Community) District. The development would result in a density of 14.9 dwelling units per acre, which is considerably lower than the existing developed densities along Everett Avenue. While the project would eliminate an opportunity for a higher density residential development close to downtown, this loss would not represent a significant impact given the following reasons: The project proposes a housing product and development that is suitably sized, des!gned and priced for small, young families. This product would provide a needed housing stock in an area of generally high- priced, large single-family dwellings and smaller apartments and condominiums. Furthermore, the development would be consistent with Policy #7 of the Comprehensive Plan Housing Element in that it would provide a housing product that is suitable for middle-income households with children. The project would result in a development that is 50% the size, scale and bulk of what could be developed on this site; the property zoning would permit a maximum development of 26 units. Consequently, impacts to the site and the surrounding neighborhood would be significantly lower with the proposed development of 13 homes. c.The development would provide one below market rate (BMR) unit that would be priced for an eligible moderate income household. Mitiqation: None required. 95-EIA-22 P:\EIA\EIA.evr [11/95]14 3b 4a & 4d Geolo_aic Problems~ Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving seismic ground shaking? Settina: The subject property is fairly level with most of the earth surface free of structures and pavement. According to the City of Palo Alto resource maps (technical and background reports prepared for the Comprehensive Plan Update), the property is characterized by the following: *Seismic area of moderate risk subject to very strong ground shaking in the event of an earthquake. *Class I geotechnical constraints (range of 1-4 with 1 being the least constrained and 4 being the most constrained). The project would result in the development of 13, two-story wood-framed structures. The City of Palo Alto construction regulations require compliance with Uniform Building code (UBCi standards. Application of UBC standards require measures to minimize seismic risk. Mil;ioation: None required. ~ Would the proposal result in changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and the amount of surface runoff? Would the proposal result in changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? 8ettina: As mentioned above, the subject property is fairly level with most of the earth surface free of structures and pavement. The ground surface on the site is somewhat compacted but likely allows penetration of most rainfall, generating little runoff. The property and the surrounding neighborhood is served by e publicly managed stormwater drainage system. Runoff is collected via gutters to storm drains. The system is presently sized to adequately serve the neighborhood. The project would result in the development of new structures and pavement. It is estimated that approximately 50% of the site would be covered with impervious surfaces thus resulting in a reduction of rainfall absorption and an increase in runoff. The increase in the amount and rate of runoff would not be substantial enough to result in a significant impact. Furthermore, the design of the project would not result in a change to drainage patterns; proposed runoff would be directed into the public stormwater drainage system. Mitiqation: None required. 95-EIA-22 P:\EIA\EIA.evr [11/95] 15 5d 6a Air Quality. Would the proposal create objectionable odors? The subject property is located in an area of residential development. Furthermore, the site is bounded on the south by Everett Avenue and on the north by Bryant Court, both designated as local streets. Air quality in the neighborhood is higher than many Palo Alto neighborhoods. According to the Air Quality Technical Background Report prepared for the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update (August 1994), the property is not located in an area which contains uses or activities that are major air pollutant emitters. Development of 13 new single-family dwellings would not result in any new air quality impacts. Furthermore, the size of the project and the nature of the proposed use would not meet the threshold for review by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. However, the project would result in temporary dust emissions and other temporary odors during grading and paving activities. These impacts would be primarily associated with the movement of dirt during site grading and construction preparation. Incorporation of the recommended mitigation measures would result in minimal air quality impacts. Mitioation: 2.1 Dust control measures shall be imposed as conditions of approval to ensure that temporary air impacts are reduced to a level of insignificance. Measures shall include the following: a. Watering all areas of exposed earth surfaces during the construction process (early morning and early evening). b. Avoid overfilling of trucks so that potential spillage in the public right-of-way is minimized. The contractor shall be required to clean up all spillage in the public right-of-way. c. Require that the project sponsor submit a logistic plan that identifies the routing of all transported earth material. Transporl;al;ion ~nd Circulation. Would the proposal result in increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? Settin(~: The subject property is located in the Downtown North neighborhood, an area of predominantly residential development. The property fronts Everett Avenue and Bryant Court, both designated as local streets. Collector streets in the area include Waverley Street and Lytton Avenue. Neighborhood streets and intersections currently operate at acceptable levels of service. According to the Existing Setting Summary Memorandum prepared for the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update (August 1994), major intersections in the general area (Downtown Palo.Alto) operate at Level of Service ’B’ during the PM peak hour. The project would result in 130 new average daily trips and 13 new PM peak hour trips. These assumptions do not the historic development of the property with six single-family dwellings (50% reduction in trips). According to the City’s Transportation Division (memorandum from Carl Stoffel dated November 8, 1995; see Attachment #2), the amount of traffic anticipated by the project is relatively small and would be quickly dispersed through the neighborhood. The project would not result in any changes to the operation of intersections in the area. Historically, residents in the.area have complained about traffic levels along local streets. Although a small amount of traffic would be generated by this project, this increase will exacerbate their concerns. rvlitiaation: None required. 95-EIA-22 P:\EIA\EIA.evr [11/95]16 6d Transporl;ation ond Cirqulal;ion. Would the proposal result in inefficient parking capacity on-site or off- site? Settina: The subject property has frontage on two public streets, Everett Avenue and Bryant Court. Everett Avenue is a full width (35-40 ft. curb-to-curb) City street. On-street, curbside parking is available on both sides of the street and is heavily used by residents. Bryant Court is a narrow, public street (approximately 20 feet curb-to-curb) located north of the subject property. This street extends for one block, commencing at Bryant Street and terminating at Waverley Street. This street is not developed with curbs and gutters. On-street parking is limited and generally informal. This street currently provides vehicle access to 12 developed properties which either front Bryant Court or the adjacent City streets. Historically, the residents have expressed concern about the narrow width, access and parking along this street. Units proposed with access from Everett Avenue are designed with two-car garages. Access to the garages are provided by two ’shared’ driveways, thus minimizing curb-cuts along the Everett Avenue with one or two-car garages. The on-site parking for the Everett Avenue units complies with the minimum off- street parking requirements. This concept is acceptable in that a) grouped driveways would significantly reduce the curb-cuts along Everett Avenue thus maximize the amount of on-street parking along the street b) would encourage the protection of street trees and street tree sites and c) it encourages unit clustering in order to protect the large Coast Live Oak tree located at the center of the site. The City’s Transportation Division has reviewed the ’shared’ driveway concept (See Attachment #2). The one concern expressed pertains to on-site vehicle maneuvering, specifically for units #7, #8, #9 and #12. Minor changes to the site plan can be made to improve driveway dimensions and maneuvering. Units proposed with access along the Bryant Court frontage are designed with one-car garages. In addition, all but unit #6 are designed to include one driveway parking space. This driveway parking space is designed to be parallel to the road right-of-way and sized at a seven foot width (length anywhere from 13 feet to 19 feet). While intended to provide a second ’tandem’ parking space to meet minimum code requirements, the design of the spaces is problematic because a) they do not meet minimum dimensional requirements (10’ X 20’) for parallel parking design and b) on-street parking on Bryant Court is already limited and could be further aggravated. Meeting the minimum ten foot parking space width could be accomplished by shifting all the units in the development southward by three feet. This southward shift would reduce the frontyard setbacks of buildings along the Everett Avenue frontage from 17 and 19 feet to 14 and 16 feet (to building face). These adjusted frontyard setbacks would be consistent with the frontyard setbacks of the two contiguous apartment structures to the west and east (approximate setbacks of 10 feet). Furthermore, this southward shift of all units within the development would not result in any changes to proposed private yard areas or additional tree removal. To accomplish the needed length of the parallel parking spaces, there would need to be some modifications to the front porch design of the Bryant Court units. In order to maintain an attractive streetscape along the Bryant Court frontage, front porches should be designed to become a more prominent feature and high quality decorative pavement, interlocking pavers or turf block should be used for the surface of all parallel parking spaces. 95-EIA-22 P:\EIA\EIA.evr [11/95]17 6d Mi!;iqal;ign M~sures: 6.1 Decorative pavement shall be incorporated into the design of the grouped driveways which serve as access to the Everett Avenue units. The pavement selection, texture and colors shall be approved by the ARB, prior to the issuance of building permits. 6.2 The site plan shall be modified so that adequate maneuvering and back out dimensions are provided for proposed units 7, 8, 9 and 12. 6.3 The site plan shall be modified so that all the units within the development are shifted three feet southward. Parallel parking spaces designed to serve as ’tandem’ driveway parking for Bryant Court units shall be a minimum of ,10 feet in width and 20 feet in length. In order to minimize the prominence of the driveway parking spaces along the Bryant CoUrt frontage, all spaces shall be surfaced with a high quality decorative pavement, interlocking paver or turf block. In addition, the elevations of the Bryant Court units shall be modified so that the front porches are designed as a more prominent feature. The details shall be approved by the ARB. 95-EIA-22 P:\EtA\EIA.evr [11/95]18 7b Biological Resources. Would the proposal result in impacts to locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees) ? Settino: The subject property consists of .87 acres of vacant, level land that was once developed with six single- family dwellings. Although vacant, the property contains a number of trees of varied species. An inventory and analysis of the trees found on and around the site has been prepared by Barrie D. Coate and Associates (see Attachment #3). The study finds that the site contains 23 mature trees which warrant discussion and analysis. The variety in tree species includes Coast Live Oak, Silk Oak, Incense Cedar, Magnolia, Canary Island Palm, Monterey Pine and Acacia. The most significant tree found on the site is a large Coast Live Oak (referenced as #13), located near the center of the site. This tree has a trunk diameter of 42 inches, a canopy which spans 42 feet in diameter and a height of 45 feet. The analysis prepared by Barrie D. Coates and Associates finds that many of the 23 trees are in good health and structure. However, seven trees in the inventory have a low condition rating and are thus recommended for removal by Barrie Coates. These trees are identified in the study (Attachment #3) and are identified as #3 (Evergreen Ash, a street tree), #5 (English Walnut, a street tree), #12 (Monterey Pine), #14 (Silk Oak), #16 (Silk Oak), #18 (Canary Island Palm) and #23 (English Walnut). The study also identifies those trees that are best suited for special attention and preservation, which include #13, #19, #20, #21 and #22, all Coast Live Oaks. The project would result in both tree removal and tree preservation. In addition to the seven trees that are recommended for removal by Barrie Coate, the project would result in the removal of eight trees for a total removal of 15 trees. These eight trees are #2, #4, #6, #9, #10, #11, #15 and #17. R~ference #Soecies/Size-Trunk Diameter Condition *; Puroose of Removal #2 +Southern Magnolia/16 inch Rating = 3; new driveway for access from Everett Ave. #4 +Southern Magnolia/9 inch Rating = 6; new driveway for access from Everett Ave. #6 Canary Island Palm/30 inch Rating = 2; construction of unit #8 #9 Coast Live Oak/18 inch Rating = 3; construction of unit #5 #10 Bailey’s Acacia/9 inch Rating = 5; driveway construction for unit #2 #11 Monterey Pine/12 inch Rating = 2; construction of unit #2 #15 Canary Island Palm/28 inch Rating = 3; driveway construction adjacent to unit #13 #17 Monterey Pine/25 inch Rating = 3; driveway construction adjacent to unit #13 Condition rating is a range from 2 - 10 with 2 representing the best condition and 10 representing the worst. Street tree (Everett Avenue frontage) Loss of street trees along Everett Avenue are great concern and would be inconsistent with City policy for street tree preservation. The project would result in the removal of two street trees that are in poor condition (#3 and #5) and two trees that are in good to very good condition (#2 and #4). Trees #2 and #4 would be removed to accommodate the new curb driveway curb cuts. It is recommended that the driveway and curb cut alignments be adjusted to protect and preserve these trees. The project would avoid removal of five existing trees that are recommended for preservation and special attention by Barrie Coate (noted above). No buildings or pavement would be proposed within the dripline of the large 42 inch Coast Live Oak (#13), which presents the most significant protection technique. The Coate study also recommends a number of tree preservation and protection methods to be imposed during and after construction. Mitigation measures are recommended to educe impacts to a level of insignificance. The City Arborist has reviewed the plans and report, concurring with the findings (Attachment #4). 95-EIA-22 P:\EIA\EIA.evr [ 11/95]19 7b Mitigation Measures: 7.1 The site and landscaping plan shall be designed to provide tree roots with air and water through use of perforated paving or other permeable surface. 7.2 Protective construction fencing shall be installed around the five trees that are to be preserved. The protective fencing shall be installed prior to the commencement of construction and shall remain intact and undisturbed until all construction is completed. The fencing shall be a chain link material mounted on two-inch galvanized iron posts driven two feet into the ground. 7.3 The following measures shall be implemented for tree #13 (42" Coast Live Oak): a. Avoid any pavement within the dripline of the tree. b. Avoid installing turf within 20 feet of the trunk. If turf is installed within the dripline, the Bonsai Tall Fescue (Fescue arundinacea ’Bonzai’) species shall be used as it requires less frequent irrigation than other turf species. c. Any soil preparation within the dripline of the tree for turf installation must not involve rototilling that is deeper than 3 inches below the soil. d. Avoid the installation of irrigation lines within the dripline. e. Avoid construction access within the tree canopy. f. Implement the pruning and cabling measures recommended in the tree study prepared by Barrie D. Coate and Associates, dated November 3, 1995 (Attachment #3). 7.4 Trees #19, 20, 21 and 22 (Coast Live Oaks) located along the western property line shall be preserved and protected through construction. These trees provide excellent screening between the subject property and the adjacent apartment development. The City of Palo Alto standard protective measures shall be implemented for protection and preservation. 7.5 The site plan shall be modified to preserve and protect existing street trees #2 (Southern Magnolia) and #4 (Southern Magnolia) as located and discussed in Attachment #3 (Barry Coates and Associates tree survey and analysis) of 95-EIA-22. Minor modifications shall be made to the driveway curb cuts along Everett Avenue to accommodate preservation and protection of these trees. A permit shall be obtained for the removal of street trees #3 and #5. To offset the loss of .these trees, two new trees shall be planted with species selection and size determined by the City Arborist. 95-EIA-22 P:\EIA\EIA.evr [11/95]20 10a Noise. Would the proposal result in an increase in existing noise levels? 13c The subject property is located in the Downtown North.neighborhood, an area of predominantly residential uses. According to the Noise Technical Background Report prepared for the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update (August 1994), this portion of the Downtown North neighborhood experiences noise levels of 60dBA or less. The project proposes single-family residential development, a use that would be compatible with the existing residential use pattern in the surrounding neighborhood. The use and the design of the project is not expected to generate any new, substantial noise impacts to the neighborhood. However, temporary impacts would occur as a result on construction activities. Proper implementation and compliance of the City of Palo Alto Standard Conditions of Approval would reduce construction noise impacts to a level of insignificance. Miti(~ation: 10.1 Require implementation of and compliance the City of Palo Alto Standard Conditions of Approval and Chapter 9.10 (Noise) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. In addition, limit construction to day time hours so as to minimize disturbance to surrounding residents. Aesthetics. Would the proposal create light and glare? SettinG: The subject property is vacant and is bordered to the west and east by two-story apartment structures. The property’s solar exposure is moderate to high given the following factors: a. The site is level and is .87 acres in size. b. The existing, mature trees found on and around the site provide some property shading. c. The closest building to the site’s boundary is a two-story apartment structure to the west. This building is approximately 5 feet from the common property line. The project proposes 13, two-story single-family dwellings with six of the homes accessed and oriented toward Bryant Court and seven homes oriented and accessed from Everett Avenue. Each home is proposed to be located on a lot sized and configured to allow adequate building setbacks and ample private yard areas. Private yard areas range in size from 575 - 2,000 square feet. The closest distance between units is 8 feet (units fronting Bryant Court). A solar study was prepared to demonstrate solar access to each unit and each private yard area (included in the plans submitted by the project sponsor). The study analyzes the Winter Solstice (December 21) and Summer Solstice .(June 21) conditions. The study demonstrates that all units and yard areas would be provided with satisfactory sola access. Mil;iaation: None required. 95-EIA-22 P:\EIA\EIA.evr [11/95] 21 15a Recreation. Would the proposal increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? The subject property is located in the Downtown North neighborhood. The closest public park is Johnson Park, located one block east as the corner of Everett Avenue and Waverley Street. Cogswell Plaza is located 1 1/2 blocks to the south, fronting Bryant Street and Lytton Avenue. The proposed project would result in 13 new single-family residences designed and sized for families. Each home is proposed to be located on an individual lot designed with a usable yard area for private recreation use. The development would result in a new residential population thus increasing the potential use of Johnson Park. The additional population would not result in a significant impact to this public recreation facility. Mitigation: None required. 95-EIA-22 P:\EIA\EIA.evr [11/95]22 NE, THE UNDERSIGNED, HEREBY ATTEST THAT WE HAVE REVIEWED THIS MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION :)ATED , PREPARED FOR THE PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT OF ~ROPERTY KNOWN AS 315-335 Everett Avenue/Bryant Court, PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA, kND AGREE TO IMPLEMENT ALL MITIGATION MEASURES CONTAINED HEREIN. kpplicant’s Signature Date \ttachments: ~,ttachment #1 : ~,ttachment #2: ~,ttachment #3: ~,ttachment #4: Vicinity/Location Map Memoraf~dum from Carl Stoffel, Transportation Division, City of Palo Alto; November 8, 1995 Tree Inventory and Analysis, Barrie D. Coate and Associates; November 3, 1995 Written comments from City Arborist; November 8, 1995 95-EIA-22 P:\EIA\EIA.evr [ 11/95] 23 TASSO 1 RM-3 J .OHNSON PARK PF (P) PPF PF opI STAN~ORO PARK VICINITY/LOCATION MAP 315-335 Everett Avenue/Bryant Court 95-EIA-22 ¯ . ¯.. .........¯ ¯ ~F, Ur’IUO M MORANDUM Novemb~" 8, 1995 FROM: Paul Jensen/Planning Division s c2Carl toffeFTransportation Division SUBJECT: Project Re~’iew Comments fo~ 315 Everett (P,l, gns Dated ! 0~20/95) Garage doors are usually eight feet wide, and the corresponding required backup distance for standard ears is at least 28 feet. The units on Bryant Court only have 27 feet of backup distance. Under a PC, less than standard distance could be accepted, and 27 feet would be acceptable. The backup distance of 28 feet is provided for units 10 - 12, but it should be noted that the backup area will be shared by opposite units. For example, a driver baetdng out of unit I 0 would need the full width of the 18-foot driveway, plus a portion of the apron for the garage of trait 13. For units 8 and 9, the backup distance provided is only 23 feet (18 feet of driveway plus 5 feet of garage apron) because the garages of these units are not located opposite other garages. Rather, they are opposite five-foot landscaped areas belonging to the the opposite units. This 23-foot backup distance is greatly compromised from the standard 28 feet, and will make entering and exiting these garages very difficult. The backup distance for units 7 and 12 is also greatl,v compromised because the r~quired 28 feet is provided only directly opposite the gm’ages, then narrows to the 18-foot wide driveway at the edge of the garages. Drivers backing out of these =,garages can back up 28 feet, but when they pull forward they run out of space, and will have to back up and pull forward again. The parallel spaces on the Bryant Court side of the project m’e too small. The ¯ required size next to a wall (garages, in this case) is 20 feet long by 10 feet wide ~©V-~6-95 THU ll:IS P, 03/03 315-335 Everett November 8, I995 Page 2 (PAMC 18.83.0900a)). Tl~ey appear to be only 19 feet long by 7 feet wide. The requk.ed size should not be reduced through the PC process, because parked vehicles would probably then encroach into the Bryant Court right,of-way. The trip generation of I3 new single family units will be about 130 daffy trips. This amount oftraftic is relatively small and will be quickly dispersed throughout the area, producing no significant traffic impacts. However, residents in the area complain from time to time about traffic levels on Everett and Hawthorne, so this additional traffic will exacerbate their concerns. ¯ CS BARRIE D. COATE and ASSOCIATES Horticultural Consultants ,408~353.1052 - 2.~$3~ Summit Road., Los Gatos, CA 95030 Ivov tAN ANALYSIS OF THE HEALTH AND STRUCTURE OF TREES AT THE TAN PROPERTY BETWEEN EVERETT AVENUE AND BRYANT COURT ¯.’i,. ....~o : AT-THE 300 BLOCK OF EVERETT COURT :PALO ALTO .. Prepared at the Request of; Scott Ward Classic Communities 1068 East Meadow Circle Palo Alto, CA 94303 FAX: (415) 493-9050 Site Visit By: Barrie D.Coate August 23, 1995 ... Job #08-95-190 BARRIE D. COATE and ASSOCIATES ~Horticultural Consultants 408m353-1052 23535 Summit Road., Los Gatos, CA 95030 ~,AN~ANALYSIS OF THE HEALTH AND STRUCTURE OF TREES AT THE TAN PROPERTY BETWEEN EVERETT AVENUE AND BRYANT COURT¯ ¯ ~ . AT THE ~300 BLocK OF EVERETT COURT PALO ALTO Purpose ,of This Report. The~pt~.rpose Of .this report.is to 0ffe~.info.rma.tipn about the species, size, and. general condition of trees found on theTan property ori the 300 block of Everett Avenue spanning the land between Everett Avenue and Bryant Court. Counting the five street trees xn the parking Strip and the six significant trees along the west property line between this property and the adjacent apartment h~use, thereare 23 trees on the property which deserve mention. Six of those are directly on the property margin between this property and the adjacent apartment house. Two of these are Coast Live Oaks (Quercus agrifolia) Which are really too small to be of major concern to the City of Palo Alto. They are, however, healthy enough young specimens which should be mentioned for preservation in this report. Inventory Four of the trees on site are Canary Island Date Palms (Phoenix canariensis), but three of those are relatively young specimens which are still in the shrubby stage that they create in their early years. All three of thes~ could be easily transplanted.if that is desired,but one of them is so short that it would be difficfilito transplant it and s~ill make it a useful plant. There is a row of volunteer seedlings Of a variety of species along the western margin of this property whei’e it abuts the property of the adjacent apartment house complex. Most of these are Coast Live Oaks and most of them are 6- to 8-inch diameter, only one of them being of larger size tha~ that (1.2.-inch diameter). These are mentioned because they are healthy, young trees, and with very little care during construction it should be easy to prevent serious damage to them and would allow them to remain a significant screen between this property and the adjacent one. There are three Monterey Pines (Pinus radiata) on the property, all of which are in reasonably good condition for Monterey Pines in the interior of California, but since this species is notorious for susceptibility to California turpentine beetle (Dendroctonus valens) and Pine bark beetle (Ips paraconfusus), especially after stress from adjacent construction, I suggest that these trees not be considered of significant value. AN ANALYSIS OF THE HEALTH AND :STRUCTURE OF TREES AT TttE TAN PROPERTY-.BETWEEN EVERETTAVENUE AND BRYANT COURT -: -~T.C~_~,~ ALTo " A large incense cedar (CaIocedrus decurrenS) is seen on the north side.of the property as is a mature iBaile~,’s.Acacia (Acacih bailej:ana)..The Acacia, of co_urs.e,is ofiittle, value. . -""This l~av.eslpri~afiiy’tw~ Coast Live Oaks.Onl¥ one Of those is an unusually large tree. Preservation of .~ i: this tree!will belthe.inajor challeng~:’oia the. site and will rexiuireli.ome significant compromises between . p ":ma)dmum ia~e.oi; th r ~ai~l tree resen, ati0n."-’" " -.AS the enclosed sketch dem0nsti’ates,this treeis so large that-it occupies a significant proportion .of the property andsin.~e all areas beneath its canopy would include absorbing root tips. Protection of those areas beneath the canopy is very impo.rtant. The enclosed charts will offer dimensions and general health evaluation and approximate location of all other trees on the site, but since it appearS that it would not be possible to keep most of those during the construction process, ~ wi!l focus the majority of this report on tree #13, the large Oak. Tree Preservation Detail It should be understood that the absorbing root tips of these trees are in the Upper six inches of soil surface and extend not 6nly out tO the drip line, but far beyond the drip line of the tree’s canopy. True preservation efforts_will make every possible effort t6 avoidcompaction of thesoil over those roots or removal of the. top 6 inches of the s~il containing those roots during the construction process. E~iery effort should be made to provide continuing access bY those roots to air and water through perf~ra!ed Paving Or whateverother means are possible. Fencing .- Construction perio.d, fencing should be considered the most critical aspect of tree preservation during construction. Construction period fencing should be installed before any rough grad.ing is done on site or before any construction equipment of any kind (including contractors’ pick-up trucks) arrive on ’site to conform tO the margins of actual construction. This fencing must be installed before constr]:ction equipment, appears and must remain intact and undisturbed until all construction is completed. This fencing should bea chainlink fence mounted on 2- inch ga!.vanized iron posts driven 2 feet into the ground and must provide sturdy, long-term protection against equipment, personnel, and intrusion for the length of the construction process. 3 AN ANALYSIS OF. THE HEALTH AND STRUCTURE OF TREES .AT-THE TAN PROPERTY~BETWEEN EVERETT AVENUE AND BRYANT COURT AT ~THE 300 BLocKoF EVERETT.COURT PALO ALTO Moveable fence panels are not acceptable. :.Alld~her/sees which are tobe pr~serged should be prot.ected in this same manner if true preservation is the ..,~,.,~,~int~nt. " "." ,The Older the specimen and the larger its canopy, Obviously the larger the protected area must be. I suggest that the critical aspects of this preservation detail be used for the area beneath the canopies of trees along the west side of the property, especially tree #22. " Specific Preservation Detail Tree #13 Please refer to the enclosed map for reference. Most of the area beneath the canopy will be unpaved, but turf is shown in the design beneath the canopy. This ¯turf must be kept at least 20 feet from the trunk. Preparation of soil for tuff installation in any area beneath the canopy must not involve rototilling deeper than 3 inchesl . ’~ ~ Installation of irrigation mainlines must not be inside the dripline. Installation of laterals must not be par. allel to the canopy but must enter the area beneath the canopy at right angles to the canopy. A landscape and irrigatiofi plan must be submitted to our office for review. Irrigation patterns must not wet soil Closer to the trunk than 20 feet. Turf used must be or~e of the dwarf tall fescue cultivars, such as Bonsai Tall Fescue (Festuca arundinacea ’Bonsai’) which will require less frequent irrigation than-other turf grasses. Our office must inspect tree preservation detail when fences are installed, which must occur before grading equipment is on site AT THE AN ANALYSIS OF THE-HEALTH AND STRUCTURE OF TREES TAN PROPERTY BETWEEN-EVERETT AVENUE AND BRYANT COURT ". i . ~.AT THE.300 BLOCK OF EVERETT COURT --PALO ALTO -.- t suggest that the entry road planned here and the area beneath the canopy of this tree not be usedas . ConStruction access to the site ..... .- I suggest .that c6n~tnacti0n access be located elsevChere in areas not beneath the canopies of trees which -it6 be pi:egerved.-if.thati~ i~ot p~s~ible,it will be necessary t9 lay steel plat.es on the soil in all areasb~ne~ the’canopy of the tree which are to be part of construction access. Befo~-e these plates are laid on the .! ground it will be nece~ar:y to lay rolls of used carpeting, used carpet padding, or equivalent materials oJ the groundto serve as a slight cushion for the absorbing roots. The plan enclosed will produ~ minimum impact on tree #13 if the steps noted above are carefully followed. Pruning and Cabling I suggest that significant endweight be removed from the west side of the canopy and that a cable be installed between the largest southwest-facing limb and the opposite nor’daeast -facing limb. I suggestthat the lowest limb on the west side be removed to provide clearance and that a second 8-inchdiameter limb, which emerges from the west-facing limb at 25 feet above" grade, be removed back to the major limb since those two parts are functionally inactive and not p.roviding benefits to the tree. -An additional 10-in~hdiam~terlimb at approxihaately 30 feet abov~ grade, which is suspended in the Southwes( qua~irant, should be removed. It will be a challenge for a qualified ~arborist to remove enough parts to both begin the process of balanci the canopy and remove limbs and branches which will be in the way of construction while not i~emovin~ more than 30 percent of the total foliage mass. " -Only an ISA-certified arborist should be allowed to perform this work. It will be necessary to perform some slight end-weight removal on the east and south sides of the canor as well, but those areas are less critical than the west and southwest portions. ? This tree is in excellent health and has a basically good structure. This is due to the excellent soil qualit3 the site which will also allow removal of slightly more topsoil than might otherwise be tolerable becaus~ AN ANALYSIS OF THE .HEALTH AND STRUCTURE ~OF TREES AT .THE TAN PROPERTY ¯BETWEEN EVERETT AVENUE AND BRYANT COURT " :,AT THE¯300 BLOCK OF EVERETT COURT - PALO ALTO aeration i~to slightly deeper. Soil zones (as at 12 inches below grade) will occur here as opposed to heavier c_la.y soillsites.-: .: " " -. -. Tree #21 i~ bai-ely on this pr6pe.rtyand is a fine,-young Coast Live Oak which desexes careful preservation, i is’ weli21 ~uggest tha~care be takenbendath its Canopy with Me same detail previously noted _ for tree#13 Wher_e possible to preserv~ it successfully. Trees #19, 20 and 22 .. These trees are young Coast Live Oaks which are far smaller than those usually Of concem to the city.. However, it seemed worth noting that they will serve a critical screening function for the next door property and care for them should be observed during this construction process. Respectfully submitted, - BDC:kc Enclosures:Tre~ EvaluatioiaCharts Map - Pervious Paving Detail Assurnpti0ni and Limiting Conditions Barrie D. Coate Tree numbers correspond to evaluation charts. .All dimensions and tree !ocations are approximate. BARRIE D. COATE AND ASSOCIATES 23535 Summit Rd Los Gatos, Ca 95030 (408)353-1052 Horticultural Consultants Consulting Arborists An Analysis of Trees The Tan Property Palo Alto Prepared for: Classic Communities Job #08-95-190 DATE:8/23/95 IIII=IO11=I d "IV^OI~I~II=I "IV^O~31=I I=13Z17111=I=14 80=I=IN ~-D £Q3~N 8n$ (£-I.) =ISV=ISlO C£-I.) 03W3AO0 UVT’IOO 1OOEI (£-I.) AVO:lO ),INAEI1 (£-I.) OOOM OV:::IO (£- I.) =:18V::1810 N/~OUO ~ C£- i.) S10=ISNI C£-1.) AllWOIl:ld ONINAEId # O::IO=IgN 8=178VO .LHE)I~W3N~ ~AOIA~W ONI$1~W N/~OEIO NOLL"CdOJ..£~I NOU.O~CL.-qEI N/~OI=IO E)NINNIt-U. N/~OEIO EX’,IINV-gqO N~OEIO (6"8) ONIIVEI (0 I.,~) E)NI/VEI NOWONOO (£- I.) :qEIAJ.OAEI.L$ (£-L) H17V3H 1334 ~ © EI3.L3~VIO HSO HSO ~31S-117171/~ HSO (8-~) "IVAOI~I~I=I "IVAOI~I~I=I ON=~I~IOO~I=I ~qZ1711~3_-I (~- I.) 8033N 8178 (£- I.) ::18V::1810 (£- 1-) O=II::I:IAO0 (£-I.) AV030 ),1NI71::11 (£-I.) O00/~ (£" I.) (£- I.) £10:18NI (£- I.) ~111::!011::1 cl # 03033N 8378V0 J.HgI3/WON3 ~DNISIVW NOI1’CWOJ.83W ’ NOLLOnO31=I N/~Ot=lO ONINNII-LL N/~OWO (6-8) OWV-~fH NOWONOO (£- I.) (£’~) HI7V3N O’V’gWdS lI4~DI3H NSO HSO ~3.L$’I.L717~ HSO O0 II ~I "IVAOI~I~II=I EF:IZI7111=I=I4 80:=I=~N 6-’C]33N 817~ HSO BARRIE D. COATE and ASSOCIATES Horticultural Consultants 408-353-1052 23535 Summit Road, Los Gatos, CA 95030 ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS 1.Any legal description provided to the appraiser/consultant is assumed to be correct. 10. Any titles and ownerships to any property are assumed to be good and marketable. No responsibility is assumed for matters legal in character nor is any opinion rendered as to the quality of any title. It is assumed that any property is not in violation of any applicable codes, ordinances, statutes, or other governmental regulations. Care has been taken to obtain all information from reliable sources. All data has been verified insofar as possible; however, the appraiser/consultant can neither guarantee nor be responsible for accuracy of information provided by others. The appraiser/consultant shall not be required to give testimony or to attend court by reason of this appraisal unless subsequent written arrangements are made, including payment of an additional fee for services. Loss or removal of any part of this report invalidates the entire appraisaVevaluation. Possession of this report or a copy thereof does not imply right of publication or use for any purpose by any other than the person(s) to whom it is addressed without written consent of this appraiser/consultant. Neither all nor any part of the contents of this report, nor copy thereof,shall be used for any purpose by anyone but the client to whom it is addressed, without the prior written consent of the appraiser/consultant; nor shall it be conveyed by anyone, including the client, to the public through advertising, public relations, news, sales or other media, without the written consent and approval of the author; particularly as to value considerations, identity of the appraiser/consultant or any professional society or institute or to any initialed designation conferred upon the appraiser/consultant as stated in his/her qualifications. This report and the values expressed herein represent the opinion of the appraiser/consultant, and the appraiser’s/consultant’s fee is in no way contingent upon the reporting of a specified value nor upon any finding to be reported. Sketches, diagrams, graphs, photos, etc. in this report, being intended as visual aids, are not necessarily to scale and should not be construed as engineering reports or surveys. This report has been made in conformity with acceptable appraisal/evaluation/diagnostic reporting techniques and procedures, as recommended by the International Society of Arboriculture. When applying any pesticide, fungicide or herbicide, always follow label instructions. No tree described in this report was climbed, unless otherwise stated. We cannot take responsibility for any defects which could only have been discovered by climbing. A full root collar inspection, consisting of excavating the soil around the tree to uncover the root collar and major buttress roots, was not performed, unless otherwise stated. We cannot take responsibility for any root defects which could only have been discovered by such an inspection. ¯ CITY OF PALO ALTO DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT, c~r.’,~ TO:Building Inspection - Gall Schuler Public Works - Dave Matson L--~~at~ons[i ree~.~)- Mike Mille~ PW Operations/Recycling - Karen Gissi-bT-~ Transportation - Carl Stoffel Fire - Phil Constantino Fire (Hazardous Materials) - Angela Giuliani Utilities (Resource Conservation) - Beth O’Connor Utilities Engineering - Taha Fattah Utilities Engineering (WGW)- Jose Jovel Police - Susan Jones, Lacey Burt PASCO- Other- DATE: APPLICATION #’S: FROM:Planning Division PROJECT ADDRESS: _~/~"- ..~.~<" EV’L:-7",~£-"-?’7"" TYPE OF APPLICATION:ARB EIA SITE & DESIGN USE PERMIT VARIANCE PARCEL MAP SUBDIVISION HRB Your evaluation and comments regarding the proposed project are requested. These comments may be quoted in a staff report to the Architectural Review Board, Planning Commission, or City Council. Please do not mark up the plan, as it may be be needed for further distribution. If you should have any questions regarding the project, you m~y contact ... /,d~¢,!. _/~...3.,,~=7,,/ at ext. Please return this comment sheet along with the plans and all attachments to ~.,~o~y’,,~,v by il//7./~If your comments are not received by this date, the plan will be assumed acceptable. COMMENTS: Reviewed by:Ext. White Copy: Planning Division copy (return to Planning Division) Yellow Copy: Applicant copy (return to Planning Division) Pink Copy: Retained by responding Department Date: c:~adminfrm~routencr,frm Revised 3/13/94 =’5<~_ ¯o ¯¯¯ .£ --.8 KIPLING JOHNSON PARK WAVERLEY S’I ,,,..,--_B.RYANT ST RMD(NP) RAMONA ST ...... ~ R’vtr~)(lk P) ~-’~ ~ EMERSON ST" 30( 315 - 330 Everett Avenue PF lid II TO 101 ro STANFORD UNI. ATTACHMENT #5 4. DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM STATEMENT ATTACHMENT #6 oao NECESSITY OF THE APPLICATION/COMPLIANCE WITH REQUIRED DETERMINATIONS The primary goal of the proposed development is to create a high quality residential community that is woven into the fabric of the Downtown North neighborhood. To achieve this goal, the following project objectives have been established: 1. Serve as a model for "unified, comprehensively planned developments that provide substantial public benefit" in the Downtown North area; 2. As outlined in the Downtown Urban Design Guidelines, "promote Lytton Avenue as an enlivened mixed commercial and residential district; ensure that development respects the transition into the adjacent Downtown North neighborhood; and protect this residential neighborhood from incompatible encroachments by commercial buildings"; 3. As recommended in the Single Family Residential Design Guidelines, "provide for individual initiative and creativity while still reflecting common, characteristic neighborhood patterns" (such as the "eclectic" character of Downtown North); and 4. Further the policies of the Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan designed to maintain the high quality of existing neighborhoods and to encourage the development of new housing, especially for low-, moderate- and middle-income households and for targeted groups such as young families and older households. 4.a.1. Application of District Regulations not Sufficiently Flexible Designating the subject property as a PC (Planned Community) District is necessary because neither the existing RM-30 (Medium Density Multiple-Family Residence) District nor any of the other residential districts in the Zoning Ordinance permit the type of housing that is best suited to accomplisfi the objectives specified above. The subject property is located along a sensitive transitional axis between the higher density multi-family neighborhood and the lower density single-family neighborhoods within Downtown North. The challenge for the proposed development is to accomplish a transition in development intensity; building scale, massing and character; and traffic circulation within a limited half-block area. The Zoning Ordinance does not acknowledge the specialized conditions attached to this property and the transition challenge cannot be met successfully within the confines of the Ordinance’s residential district standards. Based on these considerations, the proposed development is clearly an appropriate project for the site specific zoning afforded by the PC District. While the RM-30 District encourages the development of higher density housing which may be responsive to Citywide objectives for the delivery of more affordable housing, it also tends to produce housing that is inconsistent with the scale, character and circulation patterns of older residential neighborhoods such as the Downtown North neighborhoods which are adjacent to the subject property. At the same time, while the lower density housing permitted in the R-1 (Single-Family Residence) and RM-15 (Low Density Multiple- Family Residence) Districts may meet residential neighborhood preservation objectives, this type of development is not responsive to many Citywide and Downtown area needs and objectives. 4.a.2. Public Benefits Not Attainable by Application of District Regulations The proposed development will provide a range of public, benefits not attainable by application of the development standards specified in the general districts or combining districts. Many of these benefits are designed to improve conditions considered to be deficient by many representatives of the Downtown North neighborhood. Traffic circulation through the neighborhood and effective transition from more intense to less intense land uses within the neighborhood appear to be the two primary neighborhood concerns. The major public benefits produced by the proposed project are as follows: 1. Decrease in Traffic Generated by Improved Property The incremental parking generated by the residential element of the project, developed at a density of 15 units per acre, will be very limited and will be substantially lower than the level produced by a residential use at 30 units per acre. In fact, based on typical traffic generation algorithms, the proposed residential use would be expected to produce less then 65 percent of the trips generated by a project developed under the existing RM-30 standards. 2. Development of Innovative Type of Lower Cost Housing for Younger Families and for Older Households Residential development trends over the last decade demonstrate that, as the marketplace has met the Zoning Ordinance, the variety of housing types has been very limited. For-sale home types have been confined to very expensive, large single- family homes on conforming R-1 lots; more moderately priced townhomes with limited open space and common green area; and lower priced stacked flat condominiums dominated by smaller unit types. These trends have created a major gap in the housing stock between relatively affordable attached housing designed to accommodate young households without children and extremely expensive single- family housing that will accommodate families. The proposed project, which provides moderately priced, 3 and 4 bedroom homes, will contribute to closing this gap and will address a major housing need in the community. In addition, this type of housing is proving to be an attractive alternative for older households who no longer need the larger homes in which they raised families, but who value the independent living afforded by a single-family home. As Palo Alto has the highest percentage of older households of any community in Santa Clara County, this represents an increasingly important segment of the homebuying market in the community. 3. Development of Appropriate Scaled Neighborhood Housing Strict adherence to existing RM-30 District regulations would likely result in a scale and type of housing that would be incompatible with the scale and character of the housing in the adjacent residential neighborhoods of Downtown North. Housing produced under existing RM-30 District standards would likely be stacked fiat condominium units at a density of approximately 30 units per acre, configured in a 3.5 story building envelope with a partially submerged parking garage that would tend to create a barrier between the housing and the street. This type of housing is not consistent with the one and two story single-family housing, at a density of 6 to 8 units per acre, on blocks to the north of the site. The proposed housing provides a balance between these two types of housing, achieving significant densities (approximately 15 units per acre) but in a single-family home form. 4. Improvement of Bryant Court Alley Bryant Court is a public right-of-way that features a mix of residential buildings, ranging from two story garden apartments (including associated carport structures) that side or rear on the alley to one story cottages that front on the alley. While the alley has a scale and dimension that makes it appropriate for pedestrian traffic, its unfinished, unkempt appearance makes it uninviting to pedestrians. The proposed project includes the following improvements designed to address this condition and to facilitate pedestrian Circulation through Bryant Court: replacement of the existing roadway surface extending from Waverly Street to Bryant Street; introduction of a sidewalk surface within the right-of-way; replacement of the existing overhead streetlights with more appropriately scaled lighting that will encourage pedestrian traffic traffic (by installing approximately four new post-top streetlights [such as those located in University Avenue] or by installing approximately six new streetlights that of a scale appropriate to the alley). 4.a.3. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan/Compatibility with Adjoining Uses The proposed uses are clearly consistent with the existing Comprehensive Plan. The specific Comprehensive Plan policies and programs with which this proposal conforms are as follows: Housing Element Policy 2: Preserve older single-family homes and smal!~ apartment buildings. Program 1 In areas adjacent to the Downtown shopping area, maintain single-family and duplex areas and have multiple-family housing close to shops and offices. Policy 3: Protect and enhance those qualities which make Palo Alto’s neighborhoods especially desirable. Program 4: Use the Zoning Ordinance, other codes, and specific plans to maintain high-quality neighborhoods. Policy 7: Encourage and foster the development of new and existing housing units affordable to low-,moderate-, and middle-income households, with primary emphasis on the low- and moderate-income sectors. Program 13: In housing developments of three or more units, not less than 10 percent of the units should be provided at below-market rates to low- and moderate-income families. Employment Element Policy 2: Encourage the construction of more housing primarily on or near industrial and commercial sites. Program 3: Establish procedures and incentives to encourage affordable housing in commercial and industrial zones. Program 4: Assure that the Zoning Ordinance continues to deter encroachment df offices in multiple-family zones. Transportation Element Policy 2: Policy 4: Policy 10a: Increase transit ridership. Reduce through traffic on residential streets. In the Downtown Area, new development should not increase the total weekday peak parking deficit beyond that expected from development existing and approved through May 1986. Urban Design Element Policy 1: Maintain the present scale of the City, but modify those elements which by their massiveness are overwhelming and unacceptable. Program 1: Discourage massive single uses through limitations on height and density to protect surrounding uses and community values. Program 2: Restore and maintain residential character in older sections of Palo Alto. Moreover, the proposed uses are absolutely consistent with the Housing and Community Design goals of Phase I of the Comprehensive Plan Update. The Phase I goals and preliminary implementation measures advanced by the proposed projects are as follows: Sense of Community, Place and Quality of Life B3. Housing, community design and workplace neighborhood concerns but meet citywide needs. options will respect B6. Improve the appearance and increase the sense of pedestrian friendliness of the city’s streets and public realm with the use of trees, street furniture and fixtures. Affordability and Diversity B13.Provide affordable housing options distributed throughout the community to serve different populations in the city, such as seniors, young families and people with disabilities. B14. Increase the housing supply to meet Palo Alto’s fair share of regional housing needs including housing for low/moderate income individuals and families. B15. Encourage a mix of land uses and mixed use projects to promote diversity and vitality. Urban Village Concept B17. Maintain a small-town atmosphere within individual neighborhoods. B 18. Evaluate new development for compatibility with existing neighborhoods. B19. Enhance commercial areas and increase compatibility, interdependence and support between commercial aras and residential neighborhoods. B21. Encourage essential neighborhood services within walking or biking distance of neighborhoods. B24. Support land use and zoning changes so that more people can live close to work. Built Environment B26. Promote quality design and diversity, of architectural styles. Preliminary Implementation Measures 1. Use new and redeveloped housing to provide a variety of options. 3. Address the lack of low-cost rental housing and low cost single family housing. 4. Support home/work options, including telecommuting. 6. Improve, maintain and replace trees with appropriate species. The subject property is bordered on the north by R-l, R-2, RM-15 and RM-30 uses; on the south by RM-30, PC and PF uses; on the east by R-1 and RM-30; and on the west by RM- 15 and RM-30 uses. At a density of 15 units per acre, the proposed project is consistent with the scale and character of the adjacent RM-15, RM-30 and PC (residential) uses. 4.b. USES PROPOSED WITHIN THE PC DISTRICT As shown on the attached design plans, the primary type of permitted use in the District will be single-family residential. Other permitted uses will be as follows: 1. Accessory facilities and uses customarily incidental to permitted uses; 2. Home occupations, when accessory to permitted 3. Horticulture, gardening and growing of food by occupants of a site; residential uses; and products for consumption The following uses may be conditionally allowed in the subject PC District: 1. Residential care homes; 2. Small adult day care homes; and 3. Child day care homes. 4.c. NATURE OF USES PROPOSED/CHARACTERISTICS WARRANTINGDIFFERENT REGULATIONS The proposed project is a new community of 13 small lot, single family residences, including one BMR unit. The project is intended for single-family residential use and the proposed residences are expected to be used in exactly the same manner as a "conforming" single family home. The site plan is designed to have just over half of the units accessed from Everett Avenue, with the balance accessed from Bryant Court. The Everett Avenue units are sited in two courtyard configurations and the Bryant Court units are sited in a traditional rowhome plan. The site plan preserves the existing oak tree as a focal point for the site and creates a series of private rear yard areas for each home. Use easements will be recorded to enable the owners of these residences to have the use of one full side yard extending from building face to building face, while retaining the right to maintain the other side of their home. The proposed project is designed to accomplish a transition in type and intensity of use from the multi-family garden apartment uses on the south to the lower density single-family uses on the north of the site. Since the proposed higher density single-family residential project represents a hybrid of the housing types permitted in R-1 and RM-30 District, it is possible to accommodate the proposed project through variation of the site development regulations for either the R-1 or RM-30 Districts. Site development standards in the R-l, RM-30 and the proposed PC District are as follows: Standard R-__.A.1 Minimum Lot Area/Unit 6,000 Average Lot Area Maximum Coverage - Lot by Lot 35 % Maximum Coverage - Project 35 % Maximum Floor Area Ratio - Lot by Lot 0.425:1 Maximum Floor Area Ratio - Project 0.425:1 Maximum Height 30 ft Sideyard Daylight Plane 45’@ 10 ft Minimum Front Yard Setback 20 ft Minimum Rear Yard Setback 20 ft Minimum Side Yard Setback 6 ft Minimum Useable Open Space N/A Minimum Parking/Unit 2 pc 1,350 2,000 1,520 2,925 40-45 %45 % 4045 %36 % 0.75:1 0.75:1 0.75:1 0.51:1 35 ft 27 ft 45’@ 10 ft 75’@ 10 ft 20ft 5 ft 10 ft +15 ft 10 ft +4 ft 30%35% 1.3 - 2.1 1.5 These differences are warranted by virtue of the need to create a project which will accomplish the necessary transition from higher density to lower density residential uses. The appropriate type of housing product for this site is a more urban form of housing which has the necessary scale and massing to complement a higher density residential building and to reinforce public street geometry. 4.d. Characteristics of Proposed Housing The primary characteristics of the housing proposed in this PC are as follows: Housing Livable Bedrooms/Projected Sale Plan Type Number ~Area Bathrooms Price/Rent * 1 6 S-FD 1,400 3/2.5 $375,000 2 3 S-FD 1,620 4/2.5 $425,000 3 2 S-FD 1,800 4/2.5 $475,000 4 2 S-FD 1,575 4/2.5 $425,000 *Subject to market conditions 6. DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE 6.a. CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE Construction of the proposed project is expected to begin in the first quarter of 1996. The length of the construction period is projected to be approximately nine (9) months. It is projected the residences will be occupied in the last quarter of 1996 or f’trst quarter of 1997. 6.b. PHASING PROGRAM It is anticipated that the development completion and occupancy. will not require more than two (2) years for November 8, 1995 ATTACHMENT #7 Classic Communities, Inc. ATTN: Scott Ward 1068 East Meadow Circle Palo Alto, CA 94303 Planning DMsion Subject:Below Market Rate (BMR) Agreement for 315 Everett, Palo Alto Dear Mr. Ward: This letter summarizes the agreement reached between you and Planning Division staff regarding satisfaction of the provisions of the City of Palo Alto Below Market Rate (BMR) Program. The requirements for a BMR component are contained in Program 13 of the Housing Element of the City of Pa!o Alto Comprehensive Plan. This letter relates to the proposed 13-unit housing project at 315, 325,327 335 Everett Avenue and 332, 340 Bryant Court ("the project"). You intend to obtain City Council approval of a final subdivision map for the project that will allow for the future sale of individual units. The terms of this letter of agreement shall be incorporated into the Subdivision Agreement which must be completed and signed prior to the final map being considered by the City Council. You agree to provide one (1)BMR unit. The unit shall be placed in the City’s BMR program as a for sale unit. The Palo Alto Housing Corporation (PAHC) is the City’s designated representative to administer sale of BMR units. The following are specifics to the agreement: The BMR unit is number 6 as shown on the plans dated October 20, 1995 from Bassenian Lagoni Architects and is located in the northern comer of the site, or equivalent unit designated by City if plans are revised prior to project approval. °The design, construction, materials, finishes, windows, hardware, light fixtures, landscaping, irrigation, appliances and other like features of the BMR unit, shall be comparable to the design and construction of all other units in the project. 950 Hamilton Avenue P.O. IX~x 10L’~ Palo Alto, CA 947~U 415.329.244t 415.32tJ. 2240 Pa\ The unit shall be a 3 bedroom unit of approximately 1,377 square feet corresponding to Plan 1 on the above referenced plans. ,The initial sales price of the unit shall be $107,550. This price was reached utilizing the City of Palo Alto current Housing Price Guideline (effective 5/95) base price for a 3 bedroom unit of $146,550, which was reduced by $39,000. Since the project carries a 10% BMR requirement, the $146,550 base price represent satisfaction of 10 units of the project and the $39,000 reduction represents the remaining 3 units. The terms of this letter of agreement shall be incorporated into the Subdivision Agreement for the project, which must be completed and signed prior to the final map for the project being considered by the City Council. Thank you for your cooperation during the planning process on this project. Please sign this letter where shown below and return to me, indicating that we have reached agreement regarding your BMR contribution. Sincerely, KENNETH R. SCHREIBF.R Director of Planning and Community Environment I agree to provide a Below Market rate component to the project at 315 Everett as described in this letter dated November 8, 1995. Scott Ward Date Marlene Prendergast, Palo Alto Housing Corporation Debra Cauble, Assistant City Attorney Jim Gilliland, Manager Planning Projects Paul Jensen, Contract Planner Nancy Lytle, Chief Planning Official A:\I995\LTBMR315 Attachment #8 PLANNING COMMISSION TO:PLANNING COMMISSION FROM:Paul Jensen, Contract Planner DEPARTMENT: Planning AGENDA DATE: February 14, 1996 SUBJECT:315-335 Everett Avenue/332-340 Bryant Court; Application to rezone vacant property from RM-30 to Planned Community (PC) District for the purpose of developing 13 detached, single-family residential dwellings. Project includes a request for a variance from the 10-foot landscape setback requirements of Section 16.68.150(c) of the PAMC. RECOMMENDATION Staff and the Architectural Review Board (ARB) recommend that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council: 1.Approval of the attached Mitigated Negative Declaration (95-EIA-22) and the attached Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), finding that the proposed project will not result in any significant environmental impacts. 2.Adoption of the attached ordinance, including findings and special conditions, rezoning the subject property from RM-30 (Medium Density Multiple-Family Residential) District to Planned Community (PC) District allowing the development of 13 detached single-family dwellings. 3. Approval of the attached Standard Conditions. 4. Approval of the proposed setback variance (95-V-21) based on the attached f’mdings. P:\PCSR\EVERETT2.SR 2-14-96 Amended 2/15/96 Page 1 BACKGROUND/PROJECT INFORMATION The project proposes the development of .87 acre (38,000 square feet) of vacant, level land fronting Everett Avenue and Bryant Court with 13 new, detached single-family residential dwellings. The property is located in the Downtown North neighborhood, an area of mixed residential development. Details on the project description, as well as information on the subject property and history, are presented below. Project Description The Everett Court residential development proposes the rezoning of the subject property from RM-30 (Medium Density Multiple-Family Residential) District to Planned Community (PC) District for the purpose of developing 13 detached single-family dwellings. Site Design and Subdivision Concept A total of six homes are proposed to front Bryant Court, while seven homes are proposed to be accessed off of two driveways along Everett Avenue. Although no tentative subdivision map is proposed at this time, these homes would be located on individual lots ranging in size from approximately 2,200 square feet to 4,300 square feet. Unlike the ’zero lot line’ or ’zipper lot’ approach, a standard lot line approach is anticipated to avoid common building walls and to avoid the need for a formal homeowner’s association. Easements would be recorded among the lot owners for reciprocal use of land for driveway access and parking. Homes with access from Bryant Court are designed with individual driveways. However, homes fronting and/or accessed by Everett Avenue are ’grouped’ to share two driveways, thus minimizing curb-cuts along this street front. Each home and respective lot is designed with a private yard area that is sized and dimensioned for outdoor use (yard area sizes range from 575-2,000 square feet). Although rear yards are not proposed to be landscaped as part of the development, front yards and areas around driveways would be landscaped, establishing a common landscape design to accompany the homes. Larger lots and outdoor yard areas are provided for units #7, 9 and 11 to avoid impacts to a large Coast Live Oak tree located at the center of the site. P:\PCSR\EVERETT2.SR 2-14-96 Amended 2/15/96 Page 2 Building Floor Plans and Design The homes proposed are to be two-storied, ranging in size from 1,377 to 1,801 square feet. Four floor plans are proposed with 3-4 bedrooms, 2 1,5 baths and large family rooms. Homes fronting Bryant Court are designed with attached one-car garages while homes fronting Everett Avenue are designed with attached two-car garages. All garages have direct, interior access to the units. The preliminary architectural drawings present a craftsman-style design with large porches and gable or hip roof. Use of wood, stucco and stone/brick veneers are proposed for all units. Rezoning to PC (Planned Community District), and,,Statement of Public Benefit Since the project involves a rezoning from RM-30 to PC District, the project sponsors are required to present a statement identifying the proposed uses, the phasing schedule and the public benefits of the project. The project description presented by the project sponsor (attached) proposes a list of permitted uses (single-family residential, accessory uses, home occupations) and conditional uses, identical to those provided in the R-1 (Single-Family Residential) District. The construction schedule presented expects development to begin in the first quarter of 1996 with completion by early 1997. As required, a public benefits statement has been prepared by the project sponsor and is attached to this staff report. The project sponsor has presented five public benefits. An analysis of the proposed public benefits is presented in the DISCUSSION section of this report. Variance for Reduction in Required Landscape Setback The project includes a variance request from the minimum landscape setbacks requirements of the PC District. Section 18.68.150(c) [Special Requirements] of the PC District requires a 10-foot side yard setback along the property line that is shared with contiguous properties that are located in an RM District. Specifically, a 10-foot minimum side yard setback is required along the western and eastern property boundaries of the project (adjacent sites located in the RM-30 District). The proposed side yard setbacks along the western and eastern property lines range from 6 to 18 feet. P:\PCSR\EVERETT2.SR 2-14-96 Amended 2/15/96 Page 3 The project proposes a variance from this landscaped setback standard for Units #1, 6, 8, 12 and 13. Site Information The subject property encompasses .87 acres (38,000 square feet) of vacant, level land located in the Downtown North neighborhood. The property fronts on Everett Avenue along the southern boundary. Along the northern boundary, the property fronts Bryant Court, which is a narrow, one-way public lane/alley that provides access to 12 residential properties within this block. Bryant Court has a 20 foot public right-of-way width and is surfaced in concrete. Although this lane lacks curbs, gutter or sidewalks, the concrete surface extends the full width of the right-of-way. Five overhead utility poles run along the south side of the right-of-way; three of these poles are equipped with street lighting. The property was previously developed with six, detached single-family homes, which were demolished several years ago. Furthermore, the property contains a number of mature trees of varying species. See the section of this report entitled DISCUSSION and the attached Mitigated Negative Declaration (95-EIA-22) for a discussion of trees. Surrounding uses include two-story apartment structures located to the west and east, multi-story apartments to the south and a combination of single-family residential and duplex uses to the north. The neighboring apartment structure west of the site is approximately 5 feet from the common property line. The neighboring apartment to the east of the subject property has setbacks ranging from 8-20 feet from the common property line. The subject property is located within the RM-30 (Medium Density Multiple-Family Residential) District, which permits a maximum development density of 30 dwelling units per acre. Properties north of Bryant Court are within the RM-15 (Low Density Multiple- Family Residential) District, which permits a maximum development density of 15 dwelling units per acre. A table comparing the project with the RM-30 District standards and regulations is presented in the DISCUSSION section of this report. Project History As noted above, the site was once developed with six, detached single-family residential structures. In 1991, the City of Palo Alto approved development plans for construction of 12 residential townhouse units on the site. Demolition of the six single-family homes was included in the approval of this townhouse development. No building permits were ever issued for the townhouses; however, the homes were demolished several years ago. P:\PCSR\EVERETT2.SR 2-14-96 Amended 2/15/96 Page 4 The 12 trait townhouse plan presented a clustered, attached development pattern with three- story building elements. Although site coverage was somewhat less than what is presented under the current plan, building mass and bulk was greater under the townhouse plan. The clustering did permit the opportunity to protect and preserve a number of the mature trees on the site. Summary. of Architectural Review Board Preliminary_ Review On September 21, 1995, the ARB reviewed preliminary plans for development of the site with 13 detached single-family homes (proposed by the current project sponsor). This preliminary plan proposed a substantially different project, presenting the following features: Vehicle access for all units from a private ’alley’ served by Bryant Court. Narrow, individual lots and ’row-type’ homes with high building to site coverage. Small, individual private yard areas. The ARB expressed a number of concerns about the project design and concept. The ARB directed that: a)the project be redesigned so that access to units is provided from both Everett Avenue and Bryant Court, b) that larger private yard areas and building setbacks be provided per unit, c) that greater attention be given to protecting and preserving existing trees, and d)that neighbors concerns be addressed. Resident concerns included traffic and access from Bryant Court, parking and density. Many of the ARB and neighborhood’s concerns are reflected in the current plan. Summary. of Planning Commission Review of Current Project On December 13, 1995, the Planning Commission completed an initial review of the current project. The Planning Commission provided comments on the proposed use, the environmental assessment, the variance request and the proposed public benefit statement. The Planning Commission minutes are attached. The Planning Commission P:\PCSR\EVERETT2.SR 2-14-96 Amended 2/15/96 Page 5 voted to forward the project to the ARB with the following comments and recommendations: 1.The Commission supported the proposed single-family residential development concept for this site. A majority of the Commission supported the proposed landscape setback variance along the western and eastern property boundaries provided that the setback is no less than what would be required for single-family dwelling development in an R-1 District (minimum 6 feet). The Commission requested that the findings or the project be revised to provide better justification for approval of a variance, in terms of privacy conflicts and tree protection. The Commission expressed particular concern for Unit #12 (proposed 5 foot side yard setback), recommending that the side yard setback be increased. Furthermore, the Commission recommended that attention be given to design methods for assuring that privacy is maintained for residents of the adjacent apartment building. The Commission supported the concept of improvements to Bryant Court as a public benefit. However, a majority of the Commission supported improvements along the entire length of Bryant Court (from Bryant Street to Waverley Street). The Commission supported the staff recommendations that the buildings be shifted five feet southward to provide larger sized parallel parking spaces along the Bryant Court frontage. Several Commissioners suggested that a parallel driveway parking space be provided for Unit #6 (BMR unit). The Commission recommended that the preliminary landscape plan be modified to show all existing trees (those to be preserved and those to be removed). It was also recommended that the landscape plan be modified to reflect the recommendations of the arborist report and that it include a concept for rear yard planting. 6.Several of the Planning Commissioners recommended that better quality exterior building materials be used for the project. With the exception to recommended modifications in exterior building materials and provisions for a second on-site parking space for Unit #6 03MR unit), the project application materials and plans have been revised per the Planning Commission’s comments and recommendations. The information in this staff report reflects the laiest revisions. P:\PCSR\EVERETT2.SR 2-14-96 Amended 2/15/96 Page 6 Architectural Review Board Action On January 18, 1996, the ARB reviewed the project (inclusive of the latest revisions). On a 4-0 vote, the ARB recommended approval of the project, including approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, draft f’mdings and conditions. The ARB, however, recommended some changes in the draft conditions and recommended further study on several issues (see attached ARB meeting minutes). A summary of.the ARB comments and recommendations is as follows: The exterior building materials, particularly the wood siding materials, windows and stone trim, need to be studied further. The Al~ required that high quality materials be used with actual samples to be submitted for f’mal review and approval by the Board. Furthermore, the Board recommended that the fireplace chimneys for each of the units be surfaced with the exterior siding material rather than stucco. Although the exterior building material color palette was deemed acceptable, it was recommended that bolder colors be proposed to create a stronger contrast between the buildings within the development and to better reflect the colors of buildings found in the surrounding neighborhood. o The ARB expressed concerns about the usability and impacts of the parallel parking that is designed to serve the units fronting Bryant Court. It was recommended that an alternative plan be studied and presented for review by the ARB. Should the parallel parking concept prove to be a more superior and usable design option, then it is to be implemented as proposed and as conditioned. The ARB found the proposed improvements to Bryant Court to be an acceptable public benefit. The ARB specifically supported the installation of six of the smaller, pedestrian-scale street lighting standards (rather than the option of four larger standards). However, it was recommended that the material, color and texture of the proposed pedestrian path be carefully studied to ensure that there is a distinct and strong contrast between the concrete travel lane and the path. In order to comply with the minimum daylight plane requirements of the R-1 District, it was recommended that a "hip" roof design rather than a "gable" be required for the west elevation of Unit #13. Likewise, a similar "hip" roof design was permitted for the east elevation of Unit #8 (reverse .plan of Unit #13). P:\PCSR\EVERETT2.SR 2-14-96 Amended 2/15/96 Page 7 The ARB recommendations and comments are reflected in the f’mdings and conditions presented in the attached draft PC ordinance, in compliance with the attached standards for architectural review, and the attached standard conditions of project approval. POLICY IMPLICATIONS Comprehensive Plan Compliance A number of City policy issues were raised when the ARB preliminarily reviewed the concept of developing detached single-family residential units on this site. During the preliminary review, although staff had recommended that higher density housing on a portion of the site would be more consistent with City policy, the ARB found the small lot single-family residential land use to be acceptable for this site and consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. Since preliminary review by the ARB, there have been significant changes in the project design. The current design has been reviewed for consistency with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. The following policies are pertinent to the revised project: Housing Element Program #1 of the Housing Element in the current Comprehensive Plan states that the single-family and duplex areas adjacent to the downtown shopping area should be maintained. The program further notes that multiple-family housing should be encouraged close to downtown. The sites proximity to downtown (access to shopping, transportation and services), coupled with the existing development pattern along Everett Avenue (multiple-family, higher density development) justifies a higher density or clustered/attached housing product. However, the proposed single-family residential use would be consistent with the uses located north of the site and would be compatible with the mix of residential unit types and densities in the neighborhood. Program #13 of the Housing Element requires that new development provide a component of affordable housing. A minimum of 10% of the total units of a new development project must be priced for below market rate (BMR) sale. A strict interpretation of this policy would require that the proposed project provide 1.3 BMR units. The project would provide one unit to be priced for BMR sale at $107,550. The City of Palo Alto current Housing Price Guidelines (effective 5/95) establishes an average BMR price for a three bedroom unit at $146,550. The proposed price would be suitable for sale to a household whose income is at the low end of the target range for the BMR program (80% of median income). The difference between the City’s P:\PCSR\EVERETT2.SR 2-14-96 Amended 2/15/96 Page 8 average BMR price ($146,550) and the proposed unit price ($104,550) is $39,000. Staff negotiations with the project sponsor resulted in this reduced unit price. The $39,000 price difference would be applied to and would fulf’fll the partial, 0.3 unit requirement. The 0.3 BMR unit credit for this price difference would be done in-lieu of requiring the project sponsor to pay fees for a partial unit. This approach is consistent with the methodology the City has used for other similar residential projects and.would be consistent with Program #13 of the Housing Element. A BMR agreement has been prepared by City staff and is provided as an attachment to this report. Urban Design Element One of the main objectives of the Urban Design Element is to promote improvements that are of high aesthetic quality and variety, as well as being considerate of one another. Although most of the immediately surrounding properties are developed with higher density, multiple-family units and structures, the proposed use would be consistent with existing single-family uses located on the north side of Bryant Court. Furthermore, the project would compliment the overall mix of residential development in the neighborhood. The Urban Design Element encourages the maintenance of existing trees and the planting of new trees. A number of mature trees can be found on the site and along the property frontage of Everett Avenue (street trees). The proposed project would result in the preservation and protection of a number of the existing trees as well as the planting of new trees. Conditions are recommended to ensure protection and preservation of existing trees. For a detailed discussion of trees, see the section of this report entitled DISCUSSION and the attached Mitigated Negative Declaration. Land Use Element The Comprehensive Plan land use map designates the site as "Multiple-Family Residential". The permitted residential density range for this land use category is 10 to 45 dwelling units per acre. The project proposes 14.9 dwelling units per acre, which is consistent with the acceptable density range. Compliance with the City. of Palo Alto Single-Family Residential Guidelines The proposed project has been reviewed for compliance with the City of Palo Alto’s Single Family Residential Guidelines. The subject property is located in the Downtown North neighborhood which presents a diversity of unit types and densities. The guidelines recommend that new development follow the distinct style of the P:\PCSRLEVERETT2.SR 2-14-96 Amended 2/15/96 Page 9 surrounding neighborhood. Although the neighborhood contains many traditional design elements and pedestrian-oriented design features, it does not present a specific style or theme. However, the proposed single-family residential units would follow the urban design pattern of the properties north of Bryant Court. Furthermore, the units would be in-scale with the existing improvements and are designed to respect the character of the existing streetscape. The guidelines recommend that all mature, existing trees, including street trees be saved as part of a new development. Most of the. existing trees that are in good condition would be protected and preserved as part of this development. Minor modifications to the site plan have been made to preserve two existing street trees along the Everett Avenue frontage. Recommended conditions include street tree preservation and protection requirements (See DISCUSSION section of this report for further details). The guidelines require that new development respect and relate to existing properties, with particular regard for protection of privacy. The project complies with this guideline in that ample setbacks are provided between units and from adjacent buildings. In addition, individual yard areas are sized to be usable and private. The guidelines prohibit the formation of new ’flag’ lots in R-1 (Single-Family Residential) Districts. The proposed units/lots along the Everett Avenue frontage would constitute a ’flag’ lot arrangement but are not subject to the R-1 restrictions since they are not in an R-1 District. Zoning Ordinance Compliance The proposed project has been reviewed for compliance with Title 18 of the Palo Alto Zoning Ordinance. The proposed use would be consistent with the existing RM-30 District, in that single-family residences are considered a permitted use in this district. Although the RM-30 District is intended to encourage larger-scale, higher density residential development projects, particularly close to the downtown area, the proposed development would be consistent with the mix of residential unit types and densities currently found in the surrounding neighborhood. Given that the project proposes a rezoning to the PC District, the provisions of the current RM-30 District (Chapter 18.24) would not apply to the development. If the proposed P:\PCSR\EVERETT2.SR 2-14-96 Amended 2/15/96 Page 10 development were processed under the current RM-30 District, it would require a number of variances. Variances would be necessary for reductions in required setbacks, increases in site coverage and floor area ratio and reductions in minimum parking and lot area. Section 18.24.090 [Special Requirements] of the RM-30 District requires that sites for single-family residential use be subject to the provisions of Sections 18.12.050 through 18.12.080, which are the site development standards for the R-i District. A comparison of the proposed project, as recently revised, with the standard RM-30 District provisions and those mandated under Section 18.12.050 through 18.12.090 is presented in the following chart. Permitted Density (max. units/acre) Minimum required lot area per unit Maximum permitted lot coverage Maximum permitted floor area ratio Maximum permitted building height Side yard daylight plane Minimum required front yard setback Minimum required rear yard setback Minimum required side yard setback Minimum usable open space Minimum required on-site parking 30 du/ac 1,350/unit 40-45 % 0.75:1 .35 ft. 45° @ 10’ 20 ft. 30% of gross lot area 1.3 -2. l/unit 7 du/ac 6,000 35% 0.425:1 30 ft. 45°@10’ 20 ft. none required 2/unit 14.9 du/ac 2,200-4,300 38 %-gross 45 %-per lot 0.51-gross .75:1-per lot 27 ft. 75o@10,’" range from 10’ to 13’8" 6’10"- 15’ range from 6’ to 18’+ range from 575-2,000 sf 35 %-gross 2 per unit, except 1/BMR unit "Section 18.24.090 (Special Requirements) of the RM-30 District requires application of provisions under Section 18.12.050 through 18.12.080 of the R-1 District for sites in single-family use. "" 75 degrees at 10 feet for a portion of Unit #13; 45 degrees at 10 feet as recommended by the ARB + 10 ft. side yard setback required by PC District, where adjacent to an RM District; see discussion below ++Plans as modified following the December 13, 1995 Planning Commission review P:\PCSR\EVERETT2.SR 2-14-96 Amended 2/15/96 Page 11 As noted above, Section 18.68.150(c) [Special Requirements] of the PC District requires a 10 foot side yard setback along the property line that is shared with contiguous properties that are located in an RM District. Specifically, a minimum 10 foot side yard is required along the western and eastern property boundaries of the project (adjacent sites located in the RM-30 District). Per the direction of the Planning Commission, the proposed side yard setbacks along the western and eastern property lines have been modified to range from 6 to 18 feet. Reduced landscaped, side yard setbacks are required for the following units: ~Proposed Landscaped Setback 1 7’10" 6 6’0" 8 9’6" 12 8’0" 13 8’0" Staff and the ARB fred that the variance is justified given a number of site and project characteristics that are exceptional and extraordinary. This justification is presented in the attached draft findings. Furthermore, the increased setback for Unit #12 (from initially proposed 5 feet to the currently proposed 8 feet) would address the following concerns expressed by the Planning Commission: The 8-foot setback would provide a greater distance between the proposed development and the adjacent apartment building. This greater setback ensures that the existing Coast Live Oak trees along the western property boundary (trees #19, 20, 21 and 22) can be better protected. These trees provide excellent screening for residents of the adjacent apartment building. The modified building setback was reviewed by Barrie D. Coate, horticultural consultant/arborist. The arborist concluded that the additional setback would be acceptable provided appropriate pruning measures and all other tree protective measures noted in their report are followed (arborist letter attached). The additional setback for Unit #12 has been accommodated by replacing floor plan #4 with floor plan #3. Floor plan #3 has fewer second story windows along the western elevation (one bedroom window rather than three bedroom windows), thus reducing privacy impacts to adjacent apartment residents. P:\PCSR\EVERETT2.SR 2-14-96 Amended 2/15/96 Page 12 Standards for Architectural Review The design and architecture of the project has been reviewed by staff and the ARB for c.ompliance with the Standards for Architectural Review (Section 16.48.120 of the PAMC). A summary of the project’s compliance with these standards is presented in Attachment #2A. DISCUSSION Issues and Analysis Project Design and Layout The design and layout of the project would be compatible with the development pattern and scale of the surrounding neighborhood. However, the project presents some innovative andunusual parking and driveway design concepts, which staff and the ARB have analyzed as part of the environmental review process. In addition, the design and layout is partly driven by the preservation of mature trees that can be found on the site. and the need to provide usable, private yard areas for each dwelling. A summary of the major design and layout issues addressed in the environmental assessment are presented as follows: "Parallel" driveway, parking along B~.ant Court: . The six units proposed with access along Bryant Court are designed with one-car garages. In addition, all but one of the six units (Unit #6, BMR unit) would include a one-car driveway space designed to be parallel to the public right-of-way. The Transportation Division finds this parking space configuration acceptable and workable but recommends that the dimensions of the spaces be increased. As reflected in the current plans, an increase in parking space size was accomplished by shifting all of the units in the development in a southward direction by three feet. This southward shift has not impacted the design of the units or compromise individual yard areas. However, recommended conditions (see Attachment #1) which require that a) the spaces be 20 feet in length, b) the use of decorative pavement, interlocking pavers or turf block be used for the surface of the parallel parking spaces so as to soften their appearance from Bryant Court and c) that a ’parallel’ driveway parking space be P:\PCSR\EVERETT2.SR 2-14-96 Amended 2/15/96 Page 13 provided for Unit #6 03MR unit). As noted above, the ARB expressed, concerns about the concept and usability of parallel parking. The ARB recommends that the project sponsor study an alternative prior to implementing the parallel parking design. Shared driveways with access along Everett Avenue: The seven units proposed with access from Everett Avenue are designed with two-car garages. Access to these garages is provided by two ’shared’ driveways. The design and layout,, in this case, is appropriate in that it would minimize curb cuts along Everett Avenue. Minimizing curb cuts along this street front allows for more on-street parking, which is critical in an area of higher density, mixed residential development. Furthermore, the grouped driveways would minimize impacts to existing street trees. Some of the design components of the shared driveways do not meet the dimensional and maneuvering standards of Chapter 18.83 (Off-Street Parking and Loading) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. However, minor changes in the site plan are recommended to increase these dimensions and improve vehicle maneuvering. A decrease in the 18-foot driveway entrance width (to a 15-foot width) is recommended to reduce the amount of pavement and further ensure protection of existing street trees. Tree Removal and Preservation: The project site contains a number of large, mature trees, including some mature street trees along the Everett Avenue frontage. The most significant tree found on the site is a large Coast Live Oak located in the center of the site. This oak has a mink diameter of 42" and a canopy spread of 78 feet. A tree survey and analysis was recently completed by Barrie D. Coate and Associates (see attached Mitigated Negative Declaration). The survey identifies and assesses 23 trees for species, size and general condition (including street trees inthe Everett Avenue right-of-way). Of the 23 trees assessed, the consulting arborist concludes that seven trees have a low condition rating and should be removed. TWO of these 7 trees are street trees located along the Everett Avenue frontage (#3, Evergreen Ash and #5, English Walnut). The current plans reflect the removal of these 7 trees. However, staff recommends that tree #3 (Evergreen Ash street tree) be preserved and protected. Furthermore, the project sponsor proposes that one three of these seven trees (trees #6, #15 and #18, Canary Island Palm) be replanted as part of the landscape plan. The project would result in the removal of a total of 13 trees, of which 6 are P:\PCSR\EVERETT2.SR 2-14-96 Amended 2/15/96 Page 14 recommended for removal given their low Condition rating (noted above, except #18- Canary Island Palm) and seven are proposed for removal as a result of building and pavement improvements. Nine existing trees with a higher condition rating would be preserved and protected. Special measures are recommended for the Large Coast Live Oak, including recommended restrictions and/or easements for the yard areas of units #7, #9 and #11. These restrictions should be included in the subdivision CC&Rs. Mitigation measures recommend some minor changes in the location of the two Everett Avenue driveways to ensure the protection of two existing, healthy street trees. The plans have been modified to ensure that these trees are protected. The attached conditions as well as the attached Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program identify all trees that are to be protected and preserved. Compliance with recommended conditions would reduce tree removal to 10 trees. Trees are referenced by number, as presented in the arborist report (see Attachment #4). Exterior Building Materials: During the initial review by the Planning Commission, several of the Commissioners requested that better quality exterior building materials be used in the development. The ARB also expressed concerns about the quality of the materials, particularly the exterior siding, windows and the stone trim. As noted above, the ARB recommends that high quality materials be studied by the project sponsor and that actual building material samples be submitted for review and approval by the Board. Assessment of PC .District and Public Benefit Statement A rezoning to the PC District is justified and appropriate in this case, in that it would permit the development of a small lot, clustered single-family residential project in a neighborhood of mixed residential use. Strict application of the RM-30 District special requirements force a standard, larger lot single-family subdivision approach to design, which is not appropriate in an area of higher density residential development. These requirements do not acknowledge or encourage an innovative small lot or clustered, single-family approach to design. The project sponsor has provided a public benefit statement that is included in the attached project description. Since the initial filing of this PC application, there have been several changes in the proposed public benefits. The current public benefit proposal has been reviewed by City staff and the ARB. The following provides a P:\PCSRLEVERETT2.SR 2-14-96 Amended 2/15/96 Page 15 response to the current proposal: The project sponsor’s proposal to provide one below market rate (BMR) unit (Unit #6, fronting Bryant Court) would comply with the City’s BMR policy (Program 13 of the Housing Element and the provisions of Section 18.24.080 (BMR Requirements) of the RM-30 District. Although the unit would be priced for a low- income household ($107,550), this would not be considered a public benefit as it is meeting a minimum requirement that is already mandated by the City. The project proposes improvements to the Bryant Court public right-of-way. The improvements involve a repavement of the 20-foot-wide right-of-way from Bryant Street to Waverley Street. The 20-foot-wide surface would be repaved with concrete. This repaving would include a 3-foot-wide delineated pedestrian path along the southern edge of the paved surface. New street lighting standards are proposed to be installed to replace the three existing street lights located on utility poles. The project sponsor offers two alternatives: a) four new street light standards (similar to the standards found on University Avenue and other residential streets in the City) are proposed to be installed on the south side of the lane or b) six new street light standards of a smaller scale and detail. The pavement type and street lighting standards have been selected to comply with City-approved specifications to ensure that the City can provide long-term maintenance of the lane. The ARB recommends that the material, color and texture of the pedestrian path be studied so that the f’mal selection ensures that there is a strong contrast between the path and the travel lane. Furthermore, the ARB recommends the installation of six smaller scale lighting standards in that they would be better suited and more appropriate for this public lane. The f’mal lighting standard, placement and number would have to be selected for review and approval by the ARB. The concept of improvements along this right-of-way would constitute a public benefit as it could be enjoyed by the residents of the neighborhood and the general public. The improvements have the potential to provide a more desirable east-west pedestrian connection to Johnson Park. It should be noted that since the project sponsor proposes utility connections along Bryant Court, the surface of the lane would be torn up. The Department of Public Works would typically require that the entire lane be repaved to accommodate utility line construction in the right-of-way. The project sponsor notes that the proposed housing type (smaller single-family dwellings designed and priced for younger families and older households).is a P:\PCSR\EVERETT2.SR 2-14-96 Amended 2/15/96 Page 16 public benefit. Staff and the ARB agree that the project would provide new, single- family dwellings in a community that is primarily developed with large, expensive single-family homes or small apartments and condominiums. This was considered an inherent public benefit when the City approved a similar residential housing product for the Times-Tribune site (one block west of the subject property), it was not considered a sufficient public benefit to warrant a PC zone for that project. The project sponsor claims that the project would result in a significant reduction in traffic and neighborhood impacts compared to the impacts of a higher density development on this site. While this would be considered a benefit to the residents of the area, it is not considered to be a public benefit as the term is used in the PC Ordinance. Development of the site at the highest density allowed under the RM-30 District would not result in adverse traffic impacts. A public benefit cannot be derived from reducing an impact that is not adverse. The project sponsor claims that the project is in appropriate scale with the surrounding neighborhood, which should be considered a public benefit. Designing a project that is in scale with the surrounding neighborhood is required for all development projects. While this would not be considered as a public benefit, it lends justification for making one of the required fmdings for approving a PC zoning district (Section 18.68.060 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code). This statement is incorporated into the draft findings presented in the attached ordinance. As required for approval of a PC District, the project sponsor has provided a construction schedule and phasing program (see Attachment #3). The schedule proposes commencement of construction in the first quarter of 1996 with a construction period of nine months (by early 1997). Staff finds that this schedule is optimistic and does not build in time for potential delays. Consequently, the attached draft PC ordinance presents a much more realistic construction starting date of no later than September 1, 1996, and a completion date of October 1, 1997. This construction completion date assumes potential processing and weather delays. Draft Findings and Conditions Draft findings and conditions have been prepared to reflect staff and ARB recommendations. These findings and conditions have been revised to reflect the current project design and the recommendations of the Planning Commission, as well P:\PCSR\EVERETT2.SR 2-14-96 Amended 2/15/96 Page 17 as the recommendations of the ARB. Public Participation Property owners and residents within 300 feet of the subject property were mailed a public hearing notice. In addition, the project sponsor has held several meetings with neighboring residents. At the September 21, 1995 ARB meeting, several residents of the neighborhood spoke on the preliminary plans. Residents expressed distinct support for single-family residential development on this site, but voiced some concerns about the preliminary site plan design with regard to vehicle access to the units and traffic. Many of the concerns expressed have been addressed in the current proposal. Several residents and property owners presented testimony at the Planning Commission hearing of December 13, 1995. While there is support for the proposed project and the improvement concept for Bryant Court, several residents requested that the Bryant Court improvements extend along the entire length of the lane (Bryant Street to Waverley Street). The current public benefit proposal for Bryant Court improvements is consistent with this request. Concerns were also expressed regarding the potential loss of light and privacy to neighboring residents. In response to these concerns, modifications have been made to the project to increase building setbacks, improve proposed daylight plane conditions and improve privacy to contiguous residents. ALTERNATIVES The property is currently zoned RM-30, which permits a variety of residential units types, design and density alternatives. Alternatives that can be considered include the following: 1.Recommend a higher or lower density residential project in compliance with ARB standards. 2.Recommend an attached, multiple-family development project in compliance with ARB standards. FISCAL IMPACT P:\PCSR\EVERETT2.SR 2-14-96 Amended 2/15/96 Page 18 The project involves the construction of 13 new single-family dwellings. These units would generate property taxes, as well as permit and utility fees. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT The project is subject to environmental review under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared (95-EIA- 22) and is attached to this staff report. The major issues addressed include: 1) traffic along local streets and Bryant Court, 2) on-site circulation and parking, 3) tree removal and impacts to street trees and 4) solar access to all units and private yard areas. The assessment concludes that the project has the potential to result in significant environmental impacts; however, mitigation measures are recommended to reduce impacts to a level of insignificance. Certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration is recommended. A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program has been drafted and is recommended for approval. Many of the mitigation measures have been implemented as a result of the recent revisions to the site and landscaping plan. STEPS FOLLOWING APPROVAL The project involves a rezoning to PC (Planned Community) District. The process for this rezoning action involves 1) an initial review by the Planning Commission, 2) review and recommendation by the ARB, 3) review and recommendation by the Planning Commission [second review], and 4) review and action by the City Council. Following approval of a rezoning, the project sponsor would be required to secure approvals for a Tentative Subdivision Map, Final Map and building permits. In addition, as required by recommended conditions of approval, a number of project issues and details will need to return to the ARB for fmal approval. No permits or approvals are required from other agencies. ATTACI-IMENTS fEXHIBITS: Attachment #1: Draft PC Ordinance with Findings and Conditions Attachment #1A: Standard Conditions of Project Approval P:\PCSR\EVERETT2.SR 2-14-96 Amended 2/15/96 Page 19 Attachment #2: Draft Findings for Variance Request Attachment #2A: Project Compliance with Standards for Architectural Review Attachment #3:. Project Description and Public Benefit Statement submitted by the project sponsor Attachment #4 Mitigated Negative Declaration, 95-EIA-22 Attachment #5:Location Map Attachment #6:Letter to Scott Ward, Classic Communities from Ken Schreiber, City of Palo Alto; November 8, 1995 Attachment #7:Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Attachment #8:Letter from Barrie D. Coate and Associates, Horticultural Consultants; January 2, 1996 Attachment #9:Planning Commission Minutes, December 13, 1995 Attachment #10:Architectural Review Board Minutes, January 18, 1996 Attachment #11:Letter from Steve Frankel; January 10, 1996 Plans [Commission members only] COURTESY COPIES: Architectural Review Board Scott Ward, Classic Communities, 1068 East Meadow Circle, Palo Alto CA 94303 Jim Baer, Ware & Friedenrich, 400 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto CA 94303 Margery Brandt, 360 Everett Avenue, #5B, Palo Alto, California 94301-1422 Marvin Feinstein, 1600 Bryant Street, Palo Alto, California 94301 Steven Frankel, 351 Bryant Court, Palo Alto CA 94301 Carol Francis, 321 Bryant Court, Palo Alto CA 94301 Downtown North Neighborhood Assoc., Tony Badger, 381 Hawthorne, Palo Alto CA 94301 Downtown North Neighborhood Assoc., Pat Sharp, 333 Waverley, Palo Alto CA 94301 Prepared by:Paul Jensen, Contract Planner Project Planner: Paul Jensen, Contract Planner Division/Department Head Approval: .......Nancy Maddox Lytle, Chief Planning Official P:\PCSR\EVERETT2.SR 2-14-96 Amended 2/15/96 Page 20 Attachment #9 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD Hearing of January 18, 1996 315-355 Everett Avenue, 332-340 Bryant Court Classic Communities Inc. 95-ARB-152 95-ZC-8 95-EIA-22 95-V-21 Rezoning from RM-30 (Multiple family) District to Planned Community (PC) District for development of 13 detached single-family residential units. A subdivision is also proposed on the subject .87 acres (38,000 square feet) of vacant land fronting on Everett Avenue and Bryant Court. The subdivision will create individual lots for the 13 single-family units. The project incudes a request for a variance from the minimum 10-footlandscape setback requirements of Section 18.68.150(c) of the PAMC. Reduced setbacks of five feet and eight feet are requested for five of the proposed dwelling units abutting the western and eastern property boundary. Environmental Assessment: A mitigated negative declaration has been prepared. Ms. Maser: Are there staff comments? Ms. Grote: I haveseveral brief comments. This is a revised proposal from what you saw at your preliminary hearing on this item. Staff is supporting it. Since the writing of the staff report, however, it has come to our attention that there is a daylight plane intrusion on Lot 13, I believe, which is the lot that faces Everett Avenue. It is my understanding that the applicant has discussed this with our contract planner, as well as the residents in the area. It could be resolved with the use of a hip roof rather than the proposed roof. You may wish to discuss that with the applicant. You may also want to make it a condition of approval, if that is an acceptable solution. The other comment is on the public benefit. The current public benefit proposal is to repave the entire alleyway with a pedestrian path at grade along the southern part of the alley. There would also be light fixtures in the alleyway. The exact number and design of the light fixtures was not known at the time we wrote the staff report/ You may want to ask the applicant if they have further information on that. Ms. Maser: Is that the only public benefit? 1/18/96 ARB Minutes KITIMinuteslA:\everett.arb .Page 1 Ms. Grote: It is repaving the entire alleyway, pedestrian path, and the light fixtures, which would be of a pedestrian scale, with the number and type to be decided. There are other public benefits that the applicants feel to be public benefits that staff has not accepted. Those are outlined in your staff report. Repaving the alleyway with a pedestrian path and light fixtures is acceptable. Ms. Maser: Does this go on to the city council after we have seen it for determination of the public benefit? Ms. Grote: It goes to the planning commission first on February 14th and then on to the city council on March 28th. We did get a letter, which I believe is included inyour packet, from Steve Frankel on January 16th. We received a call from Marvin Feinstein who is present to address the daylight plane issue. Paul Jensen is unable to make it today. Ms. Maser: After writing that monumental tome. Ms. Maser: If there are no more staff comments, are there any questions for staff before we proceed with the presentation? Mr. McFall: I have a few. As far as the action today, can you specifically say what a motion should include? Ms. Grote: It could include what is stated in the recommendation. It could include approval of the environmental assessment, the mitigated negative declaration, the mitigation monitoring, the recording program, and a recommendation to the planning commission and city council for approval of the PC zone change and variance applications. Mr. McFall: In the report, it mentions the review by the planning commission which included a comment that the commission had requested that a higher quality material be used. I was curious, because I did not see it in there. Was there a specific problem with certain materials, or just a comment about the siding being natural wood siding? Ms. Grote: Right, actual wood siding. They did not mention specifically what kinds of materials they would like to see. They just made the general comment that they would like them to be of high quality. You may want to discuss what kinds of materials the applicant would consider to be high quality. Mr. McFall: My last question is on the city standard for two-way driveways. Do you know, off hand, about those? Ms. Grote: The street width? Man: The entry driveway off of Everett Avenue. 1/18/96 ARB Minutes KITIMinuteslA:\everett.arb Page 2 Ms. Weiss: It is 20 feet. Ms. Grote: Yes, the access ways to the three units would be 20 feet. We have gone as low as 18 feet under special circumstances. Ms. Maser: May we now have the presentation by Scott Ward. Scott Ward, Classic Communities, 1068 East Meadow Circle, Palo Alto: I am the project applicant. I am joined today by Steven Duwan from the City of Newport Beach, the project architect, also David Gates, the landscape architect and Henry Fisher, Vice President, Classic Communities. I want to make a brief presentation, and then these gentlemen are available to respond to your specific questions. We have made an attempt to be very responsive to the direction that we got in the preliminary review with respect to the desire to make certain adjustments, with respect to site planning, in particular, and to respond to both your concerns and the concerns of the some of the neighbors of the project. We feel that we have been successful with those adjustments. The neighbors, generally speaking, are very pleased with the primary site plan change, which results in about half of the units taking their access from Everett Avenue and half from Bryant Court. You may recall that our earlier site plan funneled all of the traffic down Bryant Court and into a central, private alley that was sort of at the spine of the block. Access to the units was distributed from that central alleyway. We have reoriented the site plan so that six of the thirteen units are .accessed from Bryant Court. The remaining seven are from Everett Avenue. That clearly has benefits in terms of the level of utilization along Bryant Court, which has a very narrow, 20-foot right-of-way, and the neighbors were very concerned about circulation and parking. It also has benefits in terms of reducing the amount of on-site blacktop area and converting it into green space, essentially providing more of a suburban green space in the rear yard configurations, as opposed to the more urban type of site plan we had where we had more of the green space in the front yards and blacktop to the rear. It also makes for a much happier home for the oak tree, which is the centerpiece of this site. We are gratified by a positive response from the neighbors with respect to this plan, as well as from the planning commission. We have made one additional adjustment, based on the recommendations of the Planning Commission, pertaining to Lot #12. We originally had a pair of units of the type of Unit #11 at the rear of the southerly court. Concerns were expressed about the impact of that unit type on the neighboring apartment building and on a tree that is located in that part of the site. We modified the plan to introduce a different unit type at Lot #12, which increases the side yard setback and makes it possible to preserve that tree which provides a good bordering condition to. the apartment building. 1/18/96 ARB Minutes KITIMinutes[A:\everett.arb Page 3 With respect to a couple of the outstanding issues that staff addressed, we have for your review an elevation showing a hip roof plan configuration for that plan type, which we would propose to do at Lot #13, which should bring us into compliance with the daylight plane there. At your discretion, we would probably propose to do that at Lot #8, as well. It would make it a little easier on our field crews, doing one unit type. With respect to public benefit, we have had extensive dialogue with staff regarding the appropriate level of public benefit. I think we have come to agreement that what we are proposing to do is consistent with the level of impact that is generated by a project of this type. The neighbors are pleased with the outcome, although they would like to see us do a little more in terms of traffic control. They would love to have speed bumps along Bryant Court. We have advised them that, based on our discussions with Public Works, it is unlikely that those will be approved. We have arrived at what all the parties to that negotiation believe is a reasonable level of benefit. In terms of building materials, some comments were made by the planning commission regarding the quality of these materials. We feel that the materials that we are proposing are of a higher quality than one typically finds in tract housing, and we believe clearly that the quality of architecture and the detailing here support that, particularly with what is happening at the pedestrian level along the porch elements where we are applying masonry at the base and a lot of detailing. There are some things that we did not have an oppommity to discuss with the planning commission because when the concern was expressed, it was a limited concern expressed by a minority of the planning commission, and the public hearing had been closed. For instance, one question was raised about real wood siding as opposed to hard board siding. We understand that concern, but there are really serious cost implications associated with wood siding. It is our perception is not a requirement in other new housing of this type in Palo Alto. We think there are other things one can do to address those issues. For instance, one typically fmds in tract housing that with hardboard siding, applications that we think are of lower quality applications, for instance, fire boxes. Chimneys are often enclosed in this same material. We do not do that. All of our chimneys are stucco chimneys, as one would expect to have a masonry chimney and fire box. One often, as well, finds with the hardboard siding, since it is the most efficient and least costly way to accomplish a corner condition, a corner board that covers up typically rough edges. We do not do that. We lace our corners and hang them so that they are interconnected in the same way one would expect to see in an older, craftsman home. There are other detail treatments like that which we will apply here, which we are convinced will meet the test of quality in this community. Steven Duwan and Henry Fisher have much greater capability to give you more information on those particular details. Ms. Maser: Would you like to start with questions? Mr. Peterson: Sure. First of all, I met with the applicant in December. Let’s continue on the subject of materials. Will you tell us what the material of the wall board is? Also, the roofing material, the windows and the doors. 1/18/96 ARB Minutes KITlMinuteslA:\everett.arb Page 4 Henry Fisher, Vice President, Classic Communities: I am in charge of construction. As far as the hardboard siding material, it would probably be produced by a company like Weyerhauser. There are many producers of it, but right now, we are using Weyerhauser. It has some grain in it when it is produced. It appears, when painted, very similar to long-grain, fir siding. It comes in lengths of about 16 feet. When applied to the house and painted, it is virtually the same as traditional wood siding. Mr. Peterson: You said the comers are staggered. Can that material be exposed up to the edges? Mr. Fisher: No, the usual, cheap way to do it that you often see in developments is that the hardboard is laid on up to the comer and is rough-cut at the edges. To cover the rough cut, there is a 1" x 4" board laid on in both directions. That presents some problems, because with the quality of the wood these days, the 1" x 4" boards tend to move, and you end up with a large caulk joint, and it is quite unsightly. What we do, in this case, is to take the extra time to cut each board exactly to the length so that it meets evenly on the comer with the other board going 90 degrees to it. Then there is a trim piece that is applied to that to cover the end. It is a little piece of metal trim. We can provide examples for you and some photographs of houses that we have done that way. The term is "lacing" the comer. You see it often on shingle houses and on the higher quality hardboard siding jobs. It ends up with a stepped edge where the lines from the left side and the lines from the right side meet in a point, and then it steps to the next point. Mr. Peterson: And the windows? what material are they? Mr. Fisher: The windows would be of a high quality like a MilGuard, which has an aluminum grain. That is fairly standard in our industry now. I believe that the air gap that is required by Title 24 is now one full inch between the inner and outer panes, so it is an insulated glass. That would be encased in wood, and the amount of aluminum that you would see would be quite minimal. About 1-2 to 3/8-inch would be exposed around the wood trim. This is from a number of different window manufacturers. It shows the difference between a true divided light in an insulated glass and tree divided light in a single pane. As you know, the State of California mandates, in Title 24, that we meet certain energy efficiency standards. To do that, especially in a house of this size, we need to use the full, one-inch insulated glass. That would require us, if we do divided lights, to do either a snap-on grid that goes on the exterior, which we find not to be a particularly appropriate solution, because with snap-on grids, you get a little parallax. If you view it from the side, you can see the grid which is an inch away on the inside. To do a true divided light, because of the thickness of the pane, you can see from that cut sheet that you go from a window style that is 7/8-inch wide to one that is 1-11/16-inch, close to two inches wide. Given the proportions that we normally see in a residential window, let’s say a 3- foot by 5-foot window that would have six lights in it, you are used to seeing a style that is close to 7/16-inch or maybe as much as an inch wide, but certainly not two inches wide. That is out of proportion, in our opinion, to the size of the window lights that you end up with. 1/18/96 ARB Minutes KITIMinuteslA:\everett.arb Page 5 Mr. Peterson: Which one are you using? Mr. Fisher: We would propose using the one that has a grid on the interior between the panes so that you do not get the parallax. You get the benefit of the Title 24 requirement, so it meets the California standards, but you do not end up with something that is out of proportion. Ms. Maser: You are not using wood windows anyway. Mr. Fisher: No, we are not using wood. These could be wood, or they could be vinyl, or they could be aluminum. Mr. Peterson: Then the roofing material, and the exterior doors themselves? Mr. Fisher: We use a door that is manufactured by Peachtree. It currently can be viewed on the buildings at Everett and Ramona. It is a panelized door and has raised panels with some grain imbedded in those panels, paint grade. Painted out, it looks very similar to a wooden door, but it is actually a fiberglass sheath over a solid core wood door. We use those because they are dimensionally stable, and they do not tend warp or crack or move. A lot of times, front doors will get differential amounts of sunlight and moisture, and tend to warp and crack. We found that to be a tremendous problem in maintenance with our buyers. This door performs extremely well. It holds up over time with a very nice finish on the exterior without cracking or shrinking and other problems associated with wood doors. Your other question was on roofing. I believe we are talking about a 30-year dimensional comp shingle that has a non-uniform cuts. Being a 30-year, it is thicker than your average roof, so you get a lot of shadow lines and some color variation in it. We would vary the color appropriately per house. Mr. Peterson: And all of the materials, that is, the siding and trim, is painted? Mr. Fisher: That is correct, with the exception of the stone work at grade. Mr. Peterson: That is all of the questions I have on materials. I have a question about the Bryant Court resurfacing and finishing you are doing. Are you doing the full width of that alleyway plus the pedestrian way, that full distance from street to street on that? (Yes) What is that width now, or what will it be when it is complete? Mr. Fisher: It is 20 feet now, and will be 20 feetthen. 1/18/96 ARB Minutes KITlMinuteslA:\everett.arb Page 6 Mr. Peterson: Next I have questions about the orientation on three of the units, Units #8, 10 and 12. I think your orientation for outdoor living is excellent on all of them except for those three. Those three all have the outdoor space facing northwest, it is obviously complicated by the access to the garage. It would probably mean at least adjustments or kinds of units, I wonder if there is a possibility of getting that orientation so that it would be facing south instead of northwest. It makes such a difference in the living quality of the buyer. You do not need to respond to that immediately, but those are the only three that do not have a good orientation. Mr. Ward: I will say that these kinds of courtyard relationships were pretty carefully thought out in terms of what is happening on the court and the room-to-room, window-to-window relationships. It would be very difficult for us to achieve the preferred orientation for each unit. We are fighting a lot of variables here. We would like to think that different people have different approaches to light and different perceptions of a high quality of life. For instance, Henry and I are from the east coast, and we think it is just too darn hot in Palo Alto, so we wouldn’t mind that. Mr. Ross: Bob has done as pretty good job of covering the bases, but I have a few questions. Are there ultimately going to be fences on the interior property lines, especially in the rear yards? There is a fairly strong line separating the Bryant Court houses and the Everett Avenue houses. I am curious as to whether you are building something into the CC&Rs in order to prevent a fence there that would in a sense divide up or organize the outdoor space there. Or is it intended to remain as very open ground? Mr. Ward: Our intention would be for there to be a fence along that access. That is important to us in terms of the marketability of these homes so that there is a clear expectation of what someone is buying. We think that is essential to make the homes marketable. We are still thinking through issues related to access to the planted area under the oak tree and whether there might be oppommities to build into the CC&Rs some broader access to that particular zone. We really have not resolved that. The planning commission did impose a condition that would require us to build into our CC&Rs the elements of a very-code planting recommendation for the oak. We will do that. We are conferring with our marketing specialist now to get a sense of what they think about that -- the oppommity to upgrade the use of the oak tree, although in some respects, our view is that at this point, they have the benefit of the tree as it is, with the fences in place. We are not persuaded yet that there is substantial additional benefit associated with being able to go and sit under the tree. With the canopy of the tree, some folks are going to be close to sitting under it, in any case. Mr. Ross: I also have a question about utilities. I am wondering if there have been any more developments since the planning commission where you just indicated that the location of padmount transformers have been resolved with the Utilities Department. 1/18/96 ARB Minutes KITlMinuteslA:\everett.arb Page 7 Mr. Ward: With respect to the padmount transformers? Not really. We have this loop on the discussion where we think we are all interested in trying to minimize the impact of the transformer, and we are prepared to make that case as stridently as we can, which we did the last time. We did not succeed in making the case, at least with respect to the other project and the below-market-rate building, as well. We are prepared to carry that forward again, but we do not expect any more of a successful outcome. So the dialogue we have had is that it might be located somewhere to the north of Lot #6. There are probably more oppommities here than there were at the effort on Emerson and Ramona. Mr. McFall: Following up on the question about utilities, are there any planned modifications to the overhead lines along Bryant Court? Could those come out as a part of this project? Mr. Ward: No, that is not planned. We will have to underground water, gas and sanitary and storm on Bryant Court because they currently are not. Most of the cottages up front on Bryant are accessed from Hawthorne. They are second-swelling units from Hawthorne, so Bryant is substandard in terms of what one would think of as a standard constellation of underground utilities. So we are going to be bringing all of those down Bryant Court. Mr. Fisher: We will also be undergrounding the electrical service for our project. So in the future, when the City undergrounds all utilities, it can use the conduit we placed underground nOW. Mr. McFall: Could you briefly recap the benefits which are entirely on Bryant Court? Are they primarily repaving? Mr. Ward: Yes. There are several. I am not sure if it is documented in these photographs, but the existing alley improvements are in very poor condition. It is concrete that has significant cracks, probably about every 15 feet. Our initial proposal for public benefit, at least conceptually, is designed to facilitate pedestrian traffic along Bryant Court, because we think it has the opportunity to be a desirable alleyway. Right now, there are a lot of mixed messages along there. There are the cottages, second-dwelling units that front on Bryant Court, and then there are certain garage structures and other service-oriented issues the back end of these more monolithic, sort of garden apartments which do not necessarily relate to Everett, either. They tend to be linear. So you get some front yard messages and you get some back yard messages, and you are not invited to come into Bryant Court. That is why we had originally proposed improvements that would provide for special paving and this kind of inlaid sidewalk to encourage pedestrian traffic along Bryant Court. We met with Public Works on site and had some discussions with them. They have the view that the alley, in its current condition, is at least workable. There are issues associated with the start of some improvements, but in its current condition, there is some question of where it would stop, i.e., how one could do some 1/18/96 ARB Minutes KITlMinuteslA:\everett.arb Page 8 incremental improvements. Given that we are going to have to do some undergrounding and some trenching to improve the utilities, in any case, it seemed to be the consensus that the best alternative was to resurfacethe whole fight-of-way. It includes the inlaid sidewalk. Ms. Maser: Do you consider public benefit inherent in the project itself in constructing this type of housing? Mr. Ward: We do, but I am not sure about the city. We have proposed that but it-has not been endorsed by the staff. Ms. Grote: Not as a public benefit. We have endorsed it as part of the grounds or findings to approve a Planned Community zone change, but not necessarily as a public benefit. It is true that with housing projects, we have accepted less public benefit than we might with a commercial project. Mr McFall: Why is that? Ms. Grote: Because of the nature of the project. We want to encourage housing, if it meets other Comprehensive Plan goals. Mr. Ward: Our baseline for the public benefit calculation here is that the expectation, like any subdivision in Palo Alto, we would have an obligation to do a half section of street improvements as our property line fronts on the fight-of-way. So in our view, any improvements that go beyond a ten-foot section of Bryant Court from our property line would be construed to be public benefit. Mr McFall: You mentioned speed bumps as a concern of the neighbors. Would you entertain that, assuming they were acceptable to the city? Or it not acceptable to the city? Mr. Ward: We had discussion with respect to the Everett~merson!Ramona project on speed bumps. That was not favorablyreceived at that point in time by the traffic group. So we are anticipating that, again as with the padmount transformers, we would meet with a similar reception here. Ms. Grote: I think that is true. The transportation division does not encourage speed bumps. They do not see them as being particularly effective, especially on a narrow roadway, to begin Mr. Ward: We also have the view that with additional buildings fronting on Bryant Court, that will close a little of the panorama that you have as you drive down Bryant Court, making it a more intimate street. There will be more of a built-in environment that will focus your view. and that will tend to slow the cars in the alleyway. 1/18/96 ARB Minutes KITlMinuteslA:\everett:arb Page 9 Mr. McFall: The second parking place layout for Units 1 - 6 is parallel to the court. That now includes Unit #6. Is that correct? Mr. Ward: Yes, it includes Unit #6, and Unit #6 is only about 17 feet, whereas for the other units, it is about 19-1/2 feet. Mr. McFall: And the idea is that you parallel park, then cross over the sidewalk to get into that space? Mr. Ward: Right. You have ten feet clear from the back of the sidewalk to the front of the garage. Mr. McFall: Has Traffic looked at that? Ms. Grote: Yes, and they have accepted it. Mr. McFall: Are these individual lots that are sold separately? (Yes) Do these parallel parking places cross those property lines? (Yes) Then how do you deal with that? Mr. Ward: By easement. Mr. McFall: There was mention made about stucco on the chimneys to communicate the idea of a masonry fireplace. Is that the only location of stucco on the material palette? Mr. Ward: Yes, of stucco. There is some masonry at the porch bases. Ms. Maser: Does marketing research indicate that people prefer that, that there is the image of brick or masonry? We have not subjected that to any kind of formal market test. It is just a product ofMr. Ward: our bias. Ms. Maser: Subconsciously, do you think it is preferable? Mr. Ward: We have gotten positive response from our buyers as to the perception of quality in our projects, generally speaking. We think that is an element of it, but we have not literally posed that question. We have the view that is more traditional and that it is distinctive in comparison with most of the newer homes in the marketplace. While we have not called it out, we think it is an element of the perception of the quality of our work. Mr. McFall: Is there a metal screen element at the top of the Chimney? 1/18/96 ARB Minutes KITlMinuteslA:\everett.arb Page 10 Mr. Fisher: Yes, and it is required as a spark arrestor. Mr. McFa!.!.: Is it the manufacturer’s spark arrestor? Mr. Fisher: No, we typically produce them. Our tin worker produces them in his shop, specifically to the chimney, depending upon the design. They may not appear to be the same color as the chimney, but it is often difficult to see the difference, aside from the fact that the finish is a smoother finish than the stucco. Mr.McFall: Do you have the spark arrestor inside this shroud? Mr.Fisher: That is typically what happens, yes. Mr.McFall: The colors are not included in this submittal, I take it? Mr. Ward: We submitted a color materials board sometime ago with the original submittal. That continues to be our proposal. Mr. McFal.!: So you are proposing the colors that were included in your preliminary hearing? (Yes) My last question has to do with landscaping. I would like to hear a little about what is proposed for both the street frontages and rear yards. There were some comments made on the planning commission regarding rear yards. What, if any, proposal do you have for those areas? Mr. Ward: I think most of the comments at the commission had to do with confusion between the arborist’s report and the landscape plan as to which trees were going to be preserved and relocated. I think we have those squared away now. David Gates, Landscape Architect: We did two enlargements. The one on the right is a typical back yard, an enlarged patio space with either a built-in seed wall, or it could be a trellis or different things, with a little subspace to that, just to give a sense of how the use might be. The other diagram shows the treatment under the oak, which is a little exaggerated, at this point, frankly. You can come within the drip line to some degree with a deck or other elements that do not decrease the amount of moisture or air down to the root system. This is an absolute, very- code, to the letter kind of response. Mr. McFall: Will plants thrive in the drip line of trees? Mr. Gates: There are actually many plants, such as amaryllis, which take absolutely no water. There are some lantanas that will spread, so it does not have to be all pea gravel or lava rock. I do not like that look, personally. I would rather see something green and biologically vibrant down there. So we can do that. This is just to show that you can still get some character out of the space. 1/18/96 ARB Minutes KITtMinuteslA:\everett.arb Page 11 Mr. McFall: Will this be covered in the CC&Rs? Mr. Gates: Yes, I saw those comments in the planning commission minutes. We have never done that. We have put landscape overlays across front yards and backyards, and we have scenic easements. I suppose we could do that and make the owner very aware of the specialness of the tree and also of the city requirements. I think you will soon have an ordinance, won’t you, that actually protects specimen trees? So the answer is yes, we will have something in the understanding with the owner of that particular tree and its value to the surrounding properties, but perhaps not in the CC&Rs. Mr. McFall: So the proposed landscaping is what is shown on this plan, including the two driveways going in from Everett Avenue. Mr. Gates: And you can see the relocated palm trees, which was the subject of the prior comment. There were also comments about the nature of the fronds. They are fairly young, but by the time we pineapple them, which is to take off the lower 30 percent of the fronds and shape them, it is my belief that the frond pattern will be above circulation. Those trees will be good, movable, front yard trees. They do not appear that way now because the fronds come down too low. Ms. Maser: Is that typical to prune those to the pineapple look? Mr. Gates: It is good for them. It forces the growth upward and forces quicker growth. You should pineapple a good Canary Island palm every three to five years anyway, just to get the old fronds off and chase off the rats and spiders that end up being harbored in those. They have never been pruned. They have not been pineappled yet. When that gets done, it is easier to move them at that point, anyway. AS regards the pines there, they are going. They are Pinus Radiata which have infestation and are not in good shape. The same with the acacia that is out there. Mr. Peterson: I have a question for the landscape architect about the improvement in the alleyway and sidewalk. How is that defined? Does it look different? Mr. Gates: The sidewalk will have texture and color to it, whereas the actual alleyway is going to more like what is out there now. We are trying just to define the territory for pedestrians. Mr. Peterson: Have you given any consideration to some indication to the neighbors who cross the alley? Right now, some of them have fences fight against their property. Could you texture around their entry? 1/18/96 ARB Minutes KITIMinuteslA:\everett.arb Page 12 Mr. Gates: We had not thought about that. I guess we want to keep the travel lane pure and distinct from the pedestrian character, so within that realm, there certainly is some potential to fred entries and points. We are trying to do that on our side, trying to define front entry points. Mr. Ross: In our discussions with Public Works, they tend to like a uniform division of pavement so that if they ever have to come into maintain it, they can replace what they have had to cut out, as necessary. They want to be able to get in there and redo exactly what was there before. So if we do some special paving pattern, I suspect you will need a maintenance agreement with Public Works. Mr. Peterson: I think he is asking more for score lines, maybe grid scored, or something. Mr. Ward: I think it is really just finishing. I think they will accept that. I believe it is doable. And it won’t cost us anything. Mr. McFall: Can somebody talk to the colors and materials that we have here? Mr. Gates: The trees are green! Steven Duwan, Pacini and Ligoni Architects: These two color boards represent the paint color schemes on this board, as well as the finish materials on the roof and the brick and the stone veneers on the other board. As you can see, there are eight color schemes represented on this board. They create an eclectic mix that is sensitive to the existing homes in the neighborhood. We are going to bring those colors into these new homes to help them to blend in. As you can see, the colors represented here include the base color of the homes, the trim colors such as the fascia, and at the columns, as well as the two-tone color coding that we sometimes do where we highlight elements and areas on the houses to break down the scale of the home, as well as to create a visual interest in the architecture. On this board, we are representing four roof color schemes, going from a dark, woody earth tone to a bluish gray, more of a natural tone, with just a mixture on the end. Again, those colors would coordinate on the roofs with these paint color schemes to create a nice, visual effect. We are also showing four different brick types. As you can see on the bases of the porches, we are using a brick and stone veneer to create more visual interest. So it is a mixture of the brick. This an imitation type of stone with natural brick to create a variety of looks throughout the project. Mr. McFall: You have eight color schemes there. Are those all going to be used? If so, where would they be? Mr. Duwan: On the back of the color board, we are showing where each color scheme would be coordinated with each home. 1/18/96 ARB Minutes KIT[MinuteslA:\everett.arb Page 13 Mr. McFall: Does it call out the units on that schedule? Mr. Duwan: No, this schedule does not call out the specific unit at this time. We can provide that. We use all eight, and we try to be unpredictable. That way, it looks as though it did not all take place at one time. As we choose the colors, we look at it as a street scene, as well as the overall picture. We want to create a different color scheme and a different application of the placement of the colors, especially when we are doing two-tone colors. That is another step in making the houses appear more unique, more individual. Mr. McFall: Is the brick a veneer, or is it actual, full thickness brick? Mr. Fisher: For us, we found that full thickness brick is just as cost-effective for us in the long term. So we use a full brick. The stone, however, is a veneer. It is a cultured stone made in Napa. It is extremely high quality. We have been very pleased with it. The results are similar to Headquarters stone or river stone. Ms. Maser: I have a couple of questions. We were just discussing using this on another project. Is there anyplace where you have built a similar structure with similar materials and similar siding and similar comer details that we could go and look at to see exactly how these materials look when they are installed? Mr. Ward: Yes, we can refer you to two locations. One is known as Classics on the Circle in Los Altos at Chester Circle and San Antonio Road. Ms. Maser: What materials have you used on those? Mr. Ward: The masonry veneers are there. The laced comers are there. The variety of color is there. Ms. Maser: The same color palette? Mr. Fisher: This particular color palette was developed by a colorist in Steven’s office whom we brought up here and spent a day with, walking through the neighborhood. She tailored this to the particular neighborhood, so it varies somewhat. Man: Is that project right on San Antonio Road? Man: Yes, just a few blocks west of E1 Camino. It has the stucco chimney and the composition shingle. Mr. Fisher: The composition shingle we are proposing here is actually a little heavier and more varied than what is out there at Chester Circle. 1/18/96 ARB Minutes KlYlMinuteslA:\everett.arb Page 14 Mr. McFall: And you mentioned one other project? Mr. Ward: Yes, Classics by the Creek in Sunnyvale at Bernardo and Fremont. Ms. Maser: On Bryant Court, every house has the garage on the same side and the entrance on the same side. There is a certain repetitive regularity there. I was wondering if you would consider clipping some of these units so that we did not get quite this cookie cutter pattem. Mr. Ward: We had considered it. It is difficult, with this string of dimensions, to do that. It is set up so that each unit lives to one side yard. That goes in succession down the string of dimensions. If we were to reverse that, we would have this "train wreck" effect at some point along that run. We tried to address that issue by having a little more variety in roof forms. That is why we have the one "C" plan to do something that would interrupt the sense of regularity there. Hopefully, we will be able to do that also at the pedestrian level in terms of hardscape. In terms of changing the orientation of a unit, I feel that would have negative impacts on probably two or three units. Ms. Mas.e.t: I was thinking it might improve the parking situation, because I think it is going to be really hard to jockey cars into these little parallel parking places. I thought that if you were combining them, it might make it an easier situation, but I understand what you are saying. Mr. Ward: We debate this pretty regularly with traffic engineering departments. Our bias is that these parking standards were developed when people were driving 1973 Buick Electra 225’s, and they are to accommodate cars like that. Ms. Maser: What is the size of this plan, actually? Mr. Ward: It is ten feet by about 19 or 19-1/2 feet. The city standard is 10 x 20, so we are a little shy of that. We did, at one point, go out and measure a Ford Taurus station wagon a few years ago, which was the most popular car in the country at that time. It is about 5 feet two inches by about 13 feet 9 inches. This size space provides more than enough clearance for effective movement of a car that size. Mr.McFal..!.: Can you parallel park into these? Mr.Ward: Yes. Mr.McFa!..!.: You cannot just pull in. Mr.Ward: No. 1/18/96 ARB Minutes KITIMinuteslA:\everett.arb Page 15 Ms. Maser: And the sidewalk is at the same elevation as the court, and this is just a change in the texture? (Yes) So you are pulling partially up onto the sidewalk to back into these spots. Mr. Ward: You would cross over, but you would be clear of the sidewalk, once you were parked. You have ten feet of width. Mr. McFall: And there is no change of elevation? No curb? (Right) Ms. Maser: Does Bryant Court remain a one-way drive in this plan? (Yes) That completes everyone’s questions. Are there members of the public who wish to speak to this project? (None) Then we will remm this item to the board for board comments. Jim, would you like to start, since you had all that rest with the last project? Mr. McFall: I am pleased with the direction that the project has gone. It has come a long way from what we have seen originally. The siting and location of the units is very good offof Everett Avenue, as well as Bryant Court. I think the applicant has come a long ways in improving the siting. Regarding the services, the transformer location is still to be resolved. I am a little concerned about that, because there is not much room to deal with that. I will be interested in seeing where that ends up going. The overhead utilities that are there now are planned to remain, but at some point, the city may desire to put them underground. I would hope that there would be some dialogue about doing that sooner than later, having experienced an undergrounding in my neighborhood, which was very disruptive. So it makes eminent good sense that if the new hardscape on Bryant Court can be done simultaneously with the undergrounding, then it is one less headache for the neighborhood to deal with. I do not know what the mechanism is to see if Utilities is considering something along that line, butI would certainly encourage some discussion about that. I would hate to see all of this work done, and then, in a few years, have the city come back and decide to put those lines underground. Also, I think it is going to make that street much nicer, as well as your project, if those overhead lines are not running in front of your second-story windows. Regarding the parking, I have some concerns about the parking along Bryant Court. I was a little surprised to hear that Traffic had okayed the parallel parking spaces. I do not consider it to be a workable plan. My perception is that people will pull into those driveways and run the front of the car right up against the garage door and project out over the driveway. It is going to be very hard to parallel park in that space because of the fact that you do have to go up on the sidewalk to get in there. By having no curb, it is going to be difficult. Also, the fact that the tailpipe of those cars, if they do get into those spaces, will be six feet from the neighbor’s front window and 12 feet from the front door, which makes it very difficult. I have neighbors who like to go out and mm on their car and go back inside for a few minutes to let it warm up. It is a problem waiting to happen. It is not an issue for us, but for the occupants of those houses, I can see a situation 1/18/96 ARB Minutes KITIMinuteslA:\everett.arb Page 16 where someone is not going to want their window open when the neighbor is out mining on his car. I do not know what the action is there, but parallel parking does not appear to work properly. On the architecture, I share Julie’s concerns about the sameness of Bryant Court. With the six units being the same plan and the same orientation, you have a repetition that, to my eye, is going to be obvious as you go down the street. There is the one unit in the middle, I believe it is Unit #4, that does have a slight difference, but the repetitive nature does not serve the-project as well as it could. I think there could be some means to have it vary a little more. Contrasting that is the Everett Avenue side, which is a wonderful streetscape to add to that street. There is variety there, and there are gaps between the buildings which vary, as opposed to Bryant, which has the same motion throughout. Everett is going to be successful because it has some interest, some variety. It will not look like it was all built in 1996. I would be interested in hearing what the rest of the board has to say about that. My last comment has to do with the materials. I find the colors to be appropriate for the neighborhood. I think they will work out very well. I have concerns about the windows. If you have muttons, I do not consider anything to be acceptable unless they are on the outside of the glass. Interior muttons are going to read as very cheap. The projects I have seen that have done those do not come off as well as others that do have, if not true divided lights, at least with muttons planted on the outside and the inside, despite the parallax problem. It is going to read a lot better and of a much higher quality if that is done. Also I would throw in an endorsement for consideration of wood windows. The craftsman or bungalow approach that you have taken fits in well, but vinyl or aluminum windows do not. I think it will read as a contemporary part of the project that does not fit in with the style as well as a classic, wood sash window would. I ampleased that you are using actual brick. I have seen a lot of stone, some of it premanufactured, and it may be high quality manufactured stone, but it typically does not look like anything but manufactured stone. I would be interested to hear about past projects and whether you have used this or other types of materials. I would again suggest that with the small amount of stone that you have, perhaps spend a little more and use real stone, not necessarily anything beyond a veneer stone, but make it authentic. I had asked about the stucco earlier. I do not concur with the perception that stucco indicates that there is something other than wood framing and a metal firebox behind it. What I think this reads as is a nice wood house with a stucco fireplace and a chimney that has a metal chimney inside. I do not see it reading as anything but a contemporary, prefab fireplace. If it wants to look like masonry, then it should be, with masonry on the outside. So I would suggest that it be clad to match the house and actually make it tie in better, and that, along with the fact that you are going to have a metal piece at the top that is going to make it very clear that it is a modem, metal fireplace. So I would suggest that in our action, that we respond to that, as well. Overall, I am supportive of the project with some adjustments. 1/18/96 ARB Minutes KIT[MinuteslA:\everett.arb Page 17 Mr. Ross: Bob covered lot of ground, so I will not repeat most of that. I agree with most of it, and will call out what I disagree with. First of all, I think it is a good project. It is better than the preliminary review we saw, which I felt was better than the previous effort. There was something that has been learned each time and has been responded to, and I appreciate that. I think it is a very nice looking project, particularly in the siting and massing of the most public view of the project, which is Everett Avenue. I am not troubled by Bryant Court. The specific reason is that it is really not much in the public view. There will be some people walking by there and some people driving by, but it is not a tourist destination, and I do not feel it will detract from the ambience of Palo Alto North. I think that the contribution that the Everett elevation makes to the street is a very fine one. IfI were living on Bryant Court, I might be concerned about the first year, coming home drank from a party, getting to the right house, even if I were walking. But there is a certain sameness about them that will have the early residents counting as they make their way home. That, I am sure, will be improved by finish treatments to add some variety and distinctiveness to them. But to my eye, certainly something more appealing than an apartment house elevation would be along there. It is very much a townhouse elevation with some gaps in between. I personally am not troubled by it. I do very much like the Everett Avenue variety, however, and applaud you on that. Also in talking about things I like, the lower scale pedestrian lighting on the Bryant Court pathway I feel is very appropriate for back there. I would be concerned about making sure the illumination levels are low enough so that people do not have to keep their blinds closed all the time to keep the light out at night so that if there are some bedrooms facing that direction, they do not flow too brightly. I responded well to your comments about the standard use of hardboard siding in residential developments. Even very expensive houses, such as one that was just built across the street from me on Cowper Street (and appears to be selling for well over $600,000 and has done great things for the property values) is exactly as you describe. There are several others in the neighborhood. It is hardboard siding that is slapped on with a poorly attached comer board with a lot of caulking. It is a grayish powder blue and white which seems to be the standard color palette for every single one of those I have seen. We do not have jurisdiction over those kinds of projects. We have some good fortune (maybe not yours) in having jurisdiction over larger projects like this. I think this is a very much finer project than those single and duplex developments that I see going on generally in the neighborhoods. So in contrast to that sort of market-oriented housing which seems seems to sell for very high prices but does not look very good, I think you have done a nice job here. I am a little concerned about the external fences. Partly it is because the lots are fairly small. They are going to provide a lot of shade, compared to the amount of open space that is available, if there is a way to do a good neighbor fence but have it be relatively transparent with vines growing at or near the top, not just a six-foot wall that separates these yards. Fences are important for marketing purposes and people’s sense of privacy. It certainly has been a trend in 1/18/96 ARB Minutes KITIMinuteslA:\everett.arb Page 18 the last 20 or 30 years. I still have fond memories of growing up in a neighborhood that had absolutely no fences between the yards. For kids, it was great. We had a great play space. I do not think we will have that here. Most of the houses have some kind of access to the specimen tree. As you say, it is so broad. I am not sure it won’t live in Lot #9 and have the whole neighborhood traipsing through my back yard. It seems like there is some kind of oppommity for a shared, communal space back there. It probably is not asked for by the market. It is only of interest to theoretical buyers. I would love to see that instead of fences, but I know it is not going to happen. I won’t make it a condition. As regards the color palettes, I do not care to see which houses you are putting them on. You are going to be careful about mixing things up so that you have an appealing project. For my taste, I do not even need to see which color goes on the sash and which color goes on the siding. I am comfortable with your judgment on those things. Regarding the other materials, hardboard siding is much more common than solid wood siding these days. Wood siding has a number of problems now, due to the scarcity of materials. The extraordinary cost of the kind of materials that were being applied 25 or 30 years ago -- you just cannot get clear heart redwood full dimension siding anymore. It is like gold. The real wood products that are trying to be available to the broader housing market tend to be very cheap and flimsy. In some cases, the quality, especially after a few years, with checking and warping, makes it look much worse than quality hardboard siding. There are a number of projects around town with hardboard siding that we all accept as being good looking projects. We probably do not think about the fact that they have hardboard siding on them. One of the Mayfield Apartments on Page Mill Road does have some problems where the hardboard siding was curved around the balcony, so it tends to get some warps and sags, but otherwise, it looks very nice there. So I have no problem with hardboard siding. I appreciate the comer details you talked about using. I think it looks very good, and over the long run, it will be more weather-tight, as well. There is a real concern for dry rot over the years. When you get up close to touch it, it is obviously a manufactured sort of a system, but from five feet away back to the street, it looks a whole lot nicer than a comer board just plunked on to hide the rough ends, in my opinion. It requires quite a bit more care in installation and is significantly more expensive, in my experience. The boards have to be cut to the right length instead of just being whacked off and thrown up. A certain amount of skill is required. I like the stucco chimneys. I do not see them as trying to pretend that there is masonry behind them. It is preferable to give some kind of a contrast and to express the chimney as a vertical element, which helps break up the facades a little. Most of the houses I have seen in my neighborhood with the hardboard siding, the approach was to clad the firebox and chimney with horizontal siding. I think it looks odd. I do not like the clash between the horizontal siding and the verticality of the chimney. I think it is very appropriate to have it give some vertical element 1/18/96 ARB Minutes KITtMinuteslA:\everett.arb Page 19 and be a distinct material. We are not going to get any more real fireplaces or real chimneys, so I would rather see something that is authentically stucco expressing a metal firebox than certainly a veneer masonry. I personally like it the way you have drawn it. I am very comfortable with the roofing materials. I think the key to making these roofs work is that they are sort of cut up. You do not have many large roof planes there. I am familiar with the roofing materials you are talking about, and they are in the high end of asphalt shingles of a dimensional variation that is not of an incredibly uniform look that detracts from a higher quality house. So all in all, I like what you are doing. Ms. Maser: Do you agree with Jim on anything? Mr. Ross: Yes. I absolutely believe that despite all of your best intentions, people are going to park nose-in the additional parking spaces. I know that what you are doing here is meeting a city requirement of two parking spaces per dwelling unit, and this is the best solution to arrive at. I personally believe that people are going to nose in and simply park across the pedestrian turf, especially since the traffic back there is not terribly heavy, and the pedestrian traffic there also is not terribly heavy. A lot of people will not mind meandering down the middle of the alleyway. I think this is a wonderful idea, and the pedestrian walk is a fabulous idea, but my guess is that it will be dominated by cars. Even where we have sidewalks in town that are very distinct, most of the area south of Oregon has rolled curbs. The cars use those sidewalks more than pedestrians do. People like those rolled curbs because it allows them to get their car up off the street and onto the sidewalk where it is safer. They do not have to worry about its being sideswiped at night. So I think people will absolutely nose in here. I do not see many people parallel parking, even though the space for it is probably quite generous. Ten by twenty is more than enough to handle an E1 Dorado in good hands. So I agree with Jim that if the car is parked in parallel fashion up against the house with the driver’s door opening against the garage door, I believe that people are just not going to do it. They will probably park right across there. I don’t know if there is anything else you can do. I would hate to see you lose the street tree that you would have to lose if you had the nose-in parking between the houses. I don’t know if it is possible to park across the court and have that somehow count for your project. If this satisfies the requirement that you have to satisfy and Transportation accepts it, I will not object to it, but I do believe that people will not use it as you have intended. It will detract from the value of that pedestrian walk. I agree with Jim just about 100 percent on that one. Also, we both liked the Everett elevation. One last thing, however, on benefits. We seem to end up talking about this and saying the same thing every time. Projects that require PC zones sometimes place great stress on their environment. In exchange for that, public benefits are required to balance the stress that is created. This project, in every aspect that I can think of, is creating less stress on the environment than a project for which the site is zoned, if it were built out fully. An RM-30 project with underground parking and built out to the maximum probably Would not only not look very good, but it would be somewhat hostile to the neighbors, put more 1/18/96 ARB Minutes KITIMinuteslA:\everett.arb Page 20 cars in the street, and in every way that I can think of, it would have a greater negative effect on the community. The only positive effect I can think of would be more housing units for people to live in. So I do not personally believe that a project like this needs to have any public benefits. I understand the regulations, but I think the benefit being provided should be balanced with the stress that is being placed on the environment. There needs to be some justification for requiting public benefit. So I am not troubled by any thinness of public benefits here. I think that the public benefit is giving a nice viewscape for the tree. I could accept that as sufficient for the project. To me, it is not the kind of project that really needs public benefit. They are pushed into this zoning proces~ because the city simply does not have adequate zoning for this kind of development. Ms. Maser: Would you comment on the variances they are requesting? Mr. Rozs.: I feel just fine about the variances. The experience of the Palo Alto housing area is that if you took each parcel and analyzed it in terms of daylight plane, setbacks, etc., you would find a high percentage of current homes violating current zoning in some way. This project, because it is asking for those variances, may make it more consistent with a lot of the neighborhood than if it actually met all of the setback requirements. I think the massing is broken up enough so that there are not any problems from the alleyway point of view. The side neighbors would be objecting a lot more loudly if they perceived problems there. I appreciate the way the developers have responded on Unit #13 to meet the daylight plane. That will improve the design of that unit. I can fred support for the variance findings. Mr. Peterson: I am in support of this project. I think the site plan is very good, and is much improved over what it was. I think it is a very good site plan. There is not a lot of landscaping, but what is there is very good. The improvement on Bryant Court is truly a public benefit. It is going to make a real impact on that little alley. I know it well; I have walked along it a number of times, and getting that improved is going to help all of the residents in that area. It will encourage more pedestrian traffic through there to the park, which is very nice. I would encourage you, if it is possible, to give some indication to the neighbors, as long as you are improving that, as long as you can do that in some textural way. That would be nice for them. If there were some way to define it in a way that is a little more enriching than just a little scoring, that would be nice, too. It is probably related to cost. Interlocking pavers along there would be nice and is not a big cost, so that is something that might be considered. All of the neighbors will benefit from the canopy of the tree. I don’t think that opening that up to public access or even to that development would be viable. I cannot see how that owner would be able to tolerate that. The canopy is sufficient as long as there is adequate control so that the tree will remain healthy. That is the major issue there. 1/18/96 ARB Minutes KITIMinuteslA:\everett.arb Page 21 We certainly would like to see the window samples. Also, let me make a couple of comments about the architecture in general. First of all, in terms of materials, I differ here with Dave and probably with your marketing people. In general, I think the units are too cutesy. They have too many materials. There are too many things going on. That does not mean they are not going to sell and are not going to be very desirable, but stuccoing a metal flue really is trying to give the message that it is masonry under there. It isn’t masonry. I would rather have wood on it or some metal material and not try and simulate the idea that there is masonry underneath there. Putting shutters on there, fake shutters, I think is ridiculous. It is an affectation. It is like hood ornaments on cars. They don’t do anything. As regards windows, if they are divided, they are divided. If they are not, they have those ridiculous things on there. I think they look silly, and they cheapen the overall impact and quality of the project. The masonry materials are veneers. Having the simulated stone, in addition to the veneer, is adding insult to injury. I do not appreciate that at all. ! would not make that a condition, but I personally do not think it enhances the project at all. Also, I have no problem with the hardboard siding at all until you try and simulate it and make it look like wood, putting that fake grain on there. That is ridiculous. There is nothing wrong with good, plain hardboard siding. Putting a texture on there does not do a thing for me. Again, I think it cheapens it, if anything. Having said all those negative things, I am still completely in favor of the project. It is an excellent use in that area. I would have one comment about the color scheme, particularly in relationship to Bryant Court. Those are vimmlly identical units. It seems to me that if anything, the colors are too soft and too blended. I could see some definition being given to those houses by having some of those colors with more impact, greater change. These are so blended that I think you may err in not knowing that you have changed from one to another. I think you could have a significantly stronger change and still be very attractive. That completes my comments. Ms. Maser: I am also in support of the project. The first time you came through, I was disappointed in the missed oppommity to have greater density on this site. It is a site near transit and downtown, and we have been through all of that. I disagree a little bit with David in that there are projects that have underground parking or depressed parking that are handled absolutely beautifully. That could have been a consideration here. For example, the Rosewalk, Sandburg’s. job, is an excellent way of dealing with depressed parking. They have elevated the unit over the garage and then brought it down to a split level in the front, so that you enter on grade. They have done some remarkable things there. It is really a project worth going to visit, not only because of that but also because of the landscape treatment in extraordinarily tight spaces. We have been through that and are back to where you are now. I can tremendously appreciate your changing the aspect of this projecralong Everett. I think this is a tremendous improvement. 1/18/96 ARB Minutes KITIMinuteslA:\everett.arb Page 22 I have a lot of problems with the materials. You will be coming back, and I will be very interested in going to visit these other projects and seeing how some of these things look installed. I share the concerns with Bob, particularly. I agree that the stucco chimneys just tend to make the project look fragmented. I do not see the necessity for it. I will be interested in seeing the stucco stone or cultured stone at the other projects, but I am negatively inclined toward the use of that. I do agree with Bob that there are just too many materials being used. To a certain extent, I think you are trying to establish individuality here, with a different character for each house, but maybe it has gone a little bit too far. I was looking at the previous submittal you made a long time ago, the very first one, and I thought I liked that submittal at the time, but I like this a lot better. That had some Colonial verandahs and first and second floors, which worked rather interestingly, but I really like what you are doing now even better through the form and the use of details. The hardboard siding, for me, is a tough one, because I did clapboard siding on my house, and considered it. I found that the butt end of that clapboard siding was so flimsy that it did not give a good, strong shadow line that bespeaks quality. I could not fmd Weyerhauser or any other manufacturer that made a hardboard siding that had the dimension that I thought gave it a gutsy enough quality. So again, I will be interested in visiting these projects to see how that comes off in this scale. I almost want to suggest that you consider something other than clapboard, because ¯ that dimension does not become quite so evident when you are just doing it as horizontal siding or shingles, etc. Shingles are another subject, but I do think that when you have the clapboard effect, that dimension becomes rather important. I have no problem with the roofing. I agree that the colors could be a little stronger. Regarding the windows, I completely agree that I would rather see no divided windows at all than ones that are caught between two panes of glass. You either have to bow out on this and do it right or just forget it and have simple panes of glass or simple casements with no divisions in them at all. If you are going to have divided lights, which I think would be great if done well, we need to see a sample, of what you intend to do, or else a very, very convincing photograph. I do not think this parking works. I don’t know how it got approved by the Traffic Department. Maybe they see things in it that we do not understand. I really think you should take another look at that. If by flipping some of these houses, you can resolve some of the problems that creates in the use of side yards and combine these parking spots where there are two next to each other so that a person can really maneuver in there, I don’t know if that would work or not. It is a suggestion, but you really need to look at that again. Regarding public benefit, I think I agree with what David is saying. Just looking at Bryant Court, it is a sorry mess now, and it will be wonderful to get that put into decent shape. I think it will be very nice back there for the residents and for those wandering through the neighborhood. 1/18/96 ARB Minutes KITlMinuteslA:\everett.arb Page 23 Mr.Ross: Do you agree that there is no need for public benefit? Ms.Maser: I think I agree with that. Mr.Ross: This would be a public benefit. Ms. Maser: Yes, this part of it. What I am saying is that this, as the public benefit, is probably enough for this project. The project does make a contribution to the housing needs in this community. That, of course, is for us to make comments on, but it is ultimately a city council decision, and they may look at it differently. That completes my comments. I will be going to look at these other examples of what you have done. I have driven by Classics on the Circle by car and have never gotten out and looked at it. I thought it looked like a very attractive development, so I will be interested in looking at that in more detail to see what has happened, if anything, in the short time it has been there, weatherwise, if anything has started to deteriorate. I am sure it has not, since it is such a new development. I do want to see what some of these materials look like dimensionally. Do you want a motion on this? Ms. Grote: You could follow the recommendation in your staff report to recommend approval of the negative declaration, the EIA, the PC zone change and variances. You may want to add conditions about the hip roof on Lot #13, with the windows to return. This item will come back as details on windows and materials. Ms. Maser: Yes, regarding windows, I would like to see a revised color palette. Let’s have a motion. MOTION: Mr. Ross: I move that we support the mitigated negative declaration, the PC zone change, the variance findings, approval of project as submitted with staff conditions, and some additional conditions. They include returning with site and materials treatment for further study and review by the board. The same for windows. Also, a requirement that Unit #13 be modified to show a hip roof rather than a gable end, as shown to us today, and I do not have a problem regarding Unit #8. Mr. McFall:. Would the other board members be willing to include a change to Units 8, 10 and 12 to get the orientation changed? Mr. Ross: I am willing to include that as an item for further study and to be returned to us, although I do not want to make it a condition of approval in my motion. Ms. Maser: Also in that category of strongly recommending restudy, I would like to mention the parking situation. 1/18/96 ARB Minutes KITIMinuteslA:\everett.arb Page 24 Mr. Ross: Yes, I would like to see some alternate idea, even if it does not work, for the second parking staff. I know you are not going to talk Transportation out of the requirement. I would almost rather see that happen than to have a parking space built that is not going to work properly. I would like to see some restudy of that parallel parking along Bryant Court. Also, I would like to see another look taken at the treatment of the sidewalk paving materials for greater contrast with the court. Also, just to echo my fellow board members, I support the stronger contrast in the color palette. I would have no problem with occasional flipping of trim and body colors to get more variety in the palette. Ms.Maser: How about the chimney? Mr.Ross: You can try a friendly amendment. Ms.Maser: There are three of us that are rather unhappy with the stucco chimney. Mr. Ross: Then let’s put in there a reconsideration of chimney materials. That is somewhat covered by the surface material.s, anyway. Mr McFall: That is acknowledgment of the majority of the board. Mr. Ross: My arm is sore already from being twisted on that one. I believe that covers it. Mr. McFall: Also reconsideration of the stone products being used, to be done with submittal of actual samples of the preferred solution. Mr. Ross: I will include restudy of that. I suspect they may be able to convince us that it will be appropriate, but I will be happy to have them bring this up again. Ms. Maser: The next time this comes through, I would like you to make sure that you have drawings of the right size. This is the third time that we have gotten oversize drawings from this applicant.. I would like to see them submit drawings in the right size. Mr. Ross: These drawings in half size would be fine. Ms. Maser: Also, if you could put down as a reminder to us about these twoprojects that we asked about visiting, with the addresses. That is not part of the motion. Mr. Ross: Also, just a reminder that we will want to see the actual utilities device locations for final approval. It is already a staff condition. Ms. Maser: Do we want to say anything about site lighting? Do we have enough information on that? 1/18/96 ARB Minutes KITlMinutes[A:\everett.arb Page 25 Mr. Ross: I am happy to approve the site lighting as submitted, in this motion. There will be six of the smaller fixtures rather than four of the larger fixtures. Ms. Maser: I would like to see that returned when they come back for details. Is there a second? SECOND: By Bob Peterson. Ms. Maser: All those in favor? (Unanimous). Thank you. 1/18/96 ARB Minutes KITIMinuteslA:\everett.arb Page 26 Attachment #10 DRAFT PLANNING COMMISSION EXCERPT MINUTES Meeting of December 13, 1995 ~!5-335 EVERETT AVENUE/332-340 BRYANT COURT: Initial review of an application for rezoning from RM-30 (Multiple-Family) District to a Planned Community (PC) District for development of 13 detached single-family residential units. A subdivision is also proposed on the subject .87 acres (38,000 square feet) of vacant land fronting on Everett Street and Bryant Court. The subdivision will create individual lots for the 13 single-family units, and is intended to be agendized for public hearing at the time of the commission’s final review of the PC zone change application. Environmental Assessment: A mitigated negative declaration has been prepared for this project. File Nos. 95-ZC-8, 95-EIA-22. Chairman Beecham: Does staff have any additional comments for us tonight? Ms. Grote: I would like to introduce Paul Jensen. He is our contract planner who has been taking this Planned Community zone change through the process, so he will be giving the staff report tonight. Paul Jensen: I have a brief presentation. The project proposes a rezoning of vacant land located on Everett Avenue for the purpose of developing 13 detached, single-family dwellings. The property would be rezoned from RM-30 to a PC District. The two-story homes range in size from roughly 1,375 square feet to 1,800 square feet. Six of the homes are proposed with frontage and access from Bryant Court, which is a small, public right-of-way that extends from Waverley Street to Bryant Street. Seven of the homes are proposed with access from Everett Avenue via two shared private driveways. In August, the ARB reviewed a preliminary application for an earlier version of the project. A number of design, concerns had been expressed by the board and also by neighbors. Many of the concerns are reflected in the current design. At the time of preliminary review, staff had raised one major land use policy question. It was a suggestion as to whether or not a higher density housing project would be appropriate for a portion of the site, given the proximity of the site to the downtown, the property zoning and the higher density development that occurs in the neighborhood. The ARB found that the proposed single-family use was appropriate for the site and consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The staff report and accompanying environmental assessment address a number of issues. The primary issues are tree removal and tree preservation, on-site parking, and circulation design. Consistent with the provisions of the PC district, the applicants are proposing a public benefit statement, which is included in your staff report. The statement includes street light and pavement improvements along Bryant Court intended to provide a more lane-like appearance. and an east-west pedestrian connection to Johnson Park. Staff is currently reviewing this public benefit package for sufficiency. Recommendations on the public benefits will be presented to the Architectural Review Board and the Planning Commission at future hearings. Comments are requested specifically on this issue this evening. As outlined in the staff report, there is a variance application that is being requested from the PC District standards for a 10-foot side yard landscaped setback. Staff believes that findings can be made to approve this variance and that the overall average setback requirement would be met and that granting the variance would allow protection of tree resources. This concludes the staff presentation. Chairman Beecham: I did meet with Scott Ward last week and looked at some of the drawings with him. Are there any questions? Commissioner O_iakian: I had a phone conversation Mr. Ward and we talked at some length about the project, for the public record. Commissioner Carrasco: I met with Scott Ward about two-and-a-half months ago. Commissioner Cassel: I want to know why you are not using an RM-30 zone for this project. I know it is only 15 units, but an RM-30 zone would allow this to happen, it seemed to me, so I wanted to know what the problems were. Ms. Grote: An RM-30 zone, for the same housing type, which would be single-family detached, would have required several variances for setbacks, lot coverage, common open space, that sort of thing. Those variance findings would have been difficult to make, given that the applicant is creating the lots through the subdivision process. In other words, he would be creating smaller than typically sized lots and be asking for a variance because there was a hardship or something unusual about those lots. Those findings would have been difficult to make, given the fact that he was creating the lots himself. They were not preexisting. Chairman Beecham: Seeing no further questions, I will open the public hearing. We will hear from the applicant first. Scott Ward. Classic Communities. Inc.. 1068 East Meadow Circle. Palo AltQ: Chairman Beecham and Commissioners, I am the project applicant. I will not take too much of your" time this evening, oI want to urge you to approve the proposed PC zone change. Our objective here is to develop a high quality, new community that provides another housing choice in Palo Alto. It is an objective that we set for ourselves with respect to the redevelopment of the Times Tribune property, as well. We believe we are on the verge of realizing that objective. 2 As we talked about then, as the new home marketplace has met the zoning ordinance in Palo Alto, the number of different types of housing developed in the community has actually proven to be quite limited. There is a set of single-family homes that are typically larger homes on larger lots with larger price tags, and there is a set of smaller, attached units with lower price tags, and not much in between. This type of housing is designed to fill that gap in terms of the marketplace. We feel it is also appropriate for this type of neighborhood where there has historically been a fair amount of conflict over density and density issues. We think.that in a neighborhood like Downtown North where there is a variety of different types of housing, this reallyprovides another appropriate choice for primarily younger households that have a strong desire to locate in the community and have their children educated in the community, among other things, and also for older households that are currently living in larger homes and no longer have the need or desire to remain in those homes. We have some presence in the marketplace today with respect to the Times Tribune homes, and it is clear that this is one of the primary segments of interest in those homes. In fact, it may be that the largest segment of interest is from older households that want to remain in the community and who place a premium on a downtown location. Our understanding is that Palo Alto has the most senior population of any community in Santa Clara County. An extraordinarily large portion of the community is in the elderly population component. We think there is a great need for this type of housing. Clearly, it helps to accomplish a transition in terms of an edge neighborhood that is in close proximity to an intense commercial district. It is also in close proximity to an historic single-family residential district. It preserves, in terms of housing type, the character of the older residential district, and at the same time, it produces a density that tends to support the downtown and accomplishes a transition from even higher density housing that is to the " west and south: We think we have been successful in accomplishing this goal. We have had a series of neighborhood meetings. Our earlier proposal, we felt in terms of the land use, at least, was well received. There were site plan issues that were raised by our neighbors that we addressed. The response, generally, to our revised site plan has been quite positive, but not uniformly positive. We expect you will hear tonight from one neighbor who has concerns about a particular setback issue related to the location of one of the homes. We are confident that we will be able to successfully address that issue as we go through the ARB process. With respect to public benefit, we have the view that Bryant Court can be a hospitable, public right-of-way. We have learned, as we have gotten to know the neighbors, that there is a very vital community on Bryant Court, and the neighbors are very well acquainted with one another. They seem to socialize extensively and to know each other extremely well. Bryant Court right now conveys some mixed messages. It has second dwelling units that front on Bryant Court that are second dwelling units for larger buildings that front on Hawthorne. At the same time, there is also a series of carports that tend to support the garden apartment complexes that have some frontage along Everett. They support what one would think of as rear alley or service uses along Bryant Court. So as you look down Bryant Court, you get some different cues. We think it is a street that if you gave a few more cues that would invite people in, pedestrians in particular, it can be a very hospitable place. That would tend to address some traffic and circulation issues that Bryant Court neighbors have. We think that the proposed improvements stipulated in our public benefit description will accomplish that. We are happy to answer questions. Commissioner Schink: Could you describe your material palette for us? You said it is a high quality project. What kind of windows will there be? Will there be real wood siding, etc.? Mr. Ward: They are likely to be Milguard windows. We are seeing some sort of composition shingle and fibreboard siding. In terms of the porch elements, we are seeing a finished lumber treatment along the porch elements for the things that take place at the street at eye level on a single story plane. Commissioner Carrasco: Scott, can you give us a summary of the public benefit issues. Mr. Ward: In addition to the improvements along Bryant Court, we continue to have the view that the development of this type of housing, in and of itself, is a public benefit. It is an innovative type of housing, and there has been relatively little of it in Palo Alto. It is housing that is designed to respond to this gap in the array of housing choices in Palo Alto. It meets a need that is responsive to the public benefit charge that it will tend to further diversify the population base within Palo Alto. In addition to that, these improvements are designed to create a pedestrian way along Bryant Court to make a statement at the intersection of Bryant Court and Bryant Street and at Bryant Court and Waverley that this is a special place and to connect that special paving treatment to the midpoint of the block, extending in front of the project. We are also proposing a narrow sidewalk that will obviously accommodate pedestrian traffic. I think that right now there are some overhead lights attached to telephone poles that are not the best lighting condition. We feel we can bring the lights down to post top lights for a more human pedestrian scale that will also tend to define this as a pedestrian environment. Typically, we would not expect to go beyond the boundaries of our frontage. Chairman Beecham: On the lights you are proposing, what is noted in the drawing is three lamp posts. Is that what you are actually thinking about, or a range of them between those? Mr. Ward: We are proposing the three. We feel we can accomplish this with the three. Chairman Beecham: I walked through the alley tonight, and there are some very strong street lights on the telephone poles, significantly more than three, casting far more light, currently, than three of these would. I think it would be a loss to replace the existing lights with these three posts. I wonder how open you would be to adding perhaps a half dozen or so of the lamp posts in that area to do a more thorough job. Mr. Ward: We have not done a lighting study. Our desire is to make it a more hospitable environment, and if the result of that activity would be to mak6 it darker at night, we would not have accomplished that goal. Chairman Beecham: So the intent is to improve the lighting and make it more attractive? 4 Mr. Ward: Yes. Chairman Beecham: Okay. Good. I am glad to hear that. Commissioner Schmidt: For clarification, about the more decorative paving on the sketch that is posted, there are a couple of things that form sort of a sidewalk in front of the units and then just a ten-foot wide strip across Bryant Court. So for the entire frontage across the houses, the paving material would not be changed, not the street itself, but just the sidewalk area, and then something similar to the ten-foot-wide strip would be at either end of Bryant Court. Mr. Ward: That is correct. Chairman Beecham: Let me also ask a clarifying question about that. What is shown on the schematic as a shaded area on the pavement, is that a change in the existing pavement? In the alleyway right in front of your property, it is more or less shaded on the pavement? Mr. Ward: We have provided for an extension of this walkwcay to Waverley and to Bryant along the frontage of our property, and beyond the frontage to Waverley and to Bryant. Chairman Beecham: So you are extending the walkway. What about the pavement of the alleyway itself?. Is there any change, in addition to the three 10-foot by 20-foot strips? Mr. Ward: No, none other than what we need to accomplish as a result of having to install new utilities. There will be fairly extensive utility installations here, because a number of the utilities are not stubbed to this site down Bryant Court. Our expectation is that we will have to do so much underground that we will end up putting in a substantial amount of new surface. Commissioner Carrasco: I wanted to understand that the sidewalk will continue all the way from one end of Bryant Court to the other end? Would the new paving also extend all the way from Waverley to Bryant Street or would it stop right in front of your own property? Mr. Ward: That is correct. Commissioner O_iakian: I have a curiosity question. What do you estimate the prices on these homes to be? Mr. Ward: That is again the developer proviso of whatever the market will bear. We see them in the mid threes to the high fours. Commissioner O_iakian: Those are basically the numbers that you gave on a previous project we had for the Times Tribune site. Is that pretty much holding true to form? Mr. Ward: No. We expect to be higher there. The range we cited there was actually the low threes to the low fours. We would expect now to be in the high-threes to probably the low fives. I think that is attributable to several factors, not the least of which is that when we made the original application, we proposed 18, as opposed to the 17 units that we ended up with. Our numbers were based upon one additional unit. We also included at that time the standard developer proviso about the condition of the market. I suppose some of that is attributable to the fact that market conditions have improved. That also reflected some concern that we had about the marketability of this home type in this location. Based on the apparent level of interest in those homes, our concerns have lessened. We now have a better understanding of what the limitations of the homes are, that is, I don’t think they are marketable as standard, single-family homes. They have more the character of town homes. Commissioner Ojakian: I know from speaking to you before that for the homes on the Times Tribune site, you ended up with a substantial waiting list of people who wanted to buy there. Mr. Ward: We have had inquiries from a large number of people who appear to be interested in those homes, probably in excess of 150. Commissioner Qiakian: Wil! there be a similar buyer who would be looking at these particular homes? Mr. Ward: We would think so, although in our minds, these have a little more of a suburban character, that is, they tend to have larger and more well defined rear yards and are set back farther from the street than the Times Tribune homes. There is probably a fair amount of overlap in terms of the market segment to which they will appeal. Commissioner Cassel: I have a related question. These houses appear to me to be a little larger than the other homes at the Times Tribune site. Mr. Ward: No, that is not the case. Of the 17 units at the Times Tribune site, two of them are about 1,300 square feet, and the remaining 15 range from about 1,650 to about 1,875 square feet. The unit that has the second dwelling unit over the top of the garage on the alley has a total of about 2,300 square feet. These range from about 1,375 square feet to about 1,800 square feet, so they are actually smaller. Commissioner Cassel: It sounds like they are the same, because the apartment on the back of it is a separate unit. You are buying a marketable feature in your home. The actual larger home is about the same, then. Mr, Ward: Yes, it is sort of the difference between 1,800 and 1,875 square feet. Commissioner Cassel: You have been talking to us about this being marketable to a lower range of families in the community. Mr, Ward: Right. Commissioner Cassel: Then you said that you have mostly older people moving into these units. How do you know that lower income families are actually moving into these units? Mr. Ward: Well, we don’t know, and we have not made the units available for sale. We are making judgments based on the expression of interest in the homes. It is unclear exactly what the interest is until the homes are sold. Obviously, it is all relative to the notion of a $400,000 home being a lower priced home. That is difficult to accept in some respects, but I think .that is an accurate statement with respect to the Palo Alto market. We have not done any demographic analysis of the older households in Palo Alto generally or of those that have expressed interest in these homes. We simply have no information on that. Commissioner Schink: Have you calculated what the floor area ratio will be with your project for this site? Do you know what the floor area ratio was for the previously approved project for this site? Mr. Ward: Yes, we are substantially lower than the previously approved project. That one had about twelve 2,100-square-foot units approved for it. The average here will be about 1,600 square feet for 13 units. Commissioner Schink: Do you have the actual FAR? Mr. Ward: I do not know what it would be overall, because in the application, my recollection is that it is done on a lot-by-lot basis. So we set a maximum. I can compute it for you. Ms. Grote: There is a table in your staff report for this project. It is on Page 9, and it discusses the FAR for this project. It does not compare it to the other project, however. Commissioner Schink: I now see the maximum floor area ratio, so the proposed is a 0.5 gross FAR? Ms. Grote: That is correct. Commissioner Schink: And then 0.75 per 1 per lot. Chairman Beecham: Can you clarify the meaning of "gross" for a lot in this case? Mr. Jensen: Yes, the 0.5:1 is the square footage of all of the buildings to the entire property area. The 0.75 per 1 is on an individual lot-by-lot basis from what we know about the lot division that is proposed for this project. Chairman Beecham: So the 0.75 is the lot with the highest FAR? Mr. Jensen: That is correct. 7 Commissioner Schink: That gives me a better understanding. I have one more quick question. When you answered Bern’s question about the paving of the court, you lost me. You said you are going to be running a lot of utilities in there, but I wondered if you are going to repave the court or just repair where you put utilities? Mr. Ward: We are currently planning on paving where we put utilities. We are expecting to meet our obligation to improve our frontage along the right-of-way, the half street section, as we would with any other project. Then obviously we will have to repair in the areas where we go underground, but the only other extensions beyond our frontage would be the Walkway to Bryant and to Waverley, the special pavement treatment at the intersections of Bryant and Waverley, and then the extension of that special paving treatment to the far side of Bryant. Commissioner Schink: What sort of utilities are you going to be running down the court? Mr. Ward: We will probably have to be running storm and sanitary sewers. I am not sure what the water line configuration is. My understanding is that gas does not extend along the frontage. Commissioner Schink: So will you run gas, electric and water? Mr. Ward: Electric is there. Commissioner Schmidt: Another paving question. The sketch indicates that the special paving will be just a scored, broom finish concrete. It does not indicate any kind of paving material. Is that basically what you think you would propose, or would you possibly propose some other type of paving material other than just concrete with scores in it? Mr. Ward: We would currently expect the alleys to be in concrete. There are other things we can do in terms of color in the concrete and other types of geometric patterns that may be more elaborate than these that would give it a little more character. Commissioner Schmidt: I take it that even though you may be tearing up a significant section of the frontage there, you would not replace the entire frontage across these six lots. You would just repair where you need to across the width of the street. Mr. Ward: Right. We would presumably be bringing the utilities down the street. Commissioner Schmiclt: They would be down the sidewalk area. Mr. Ward: Yes. Commissioner Eakins: Will you have to have one of these padmounted electrical transformers? Mr, Ward: Yes, we will. Commissioner Eakins: Where will you put it? Mr. Ward: Wherever the utility department tells us we are allowed to put it. Chairman Beecham: Would you have them talk to us when they do that? Mr. Ward: Our hope is that it would be along Bryant near the northeasterly property line. Chairman Beecham: Now we will continue to hear from members of the public. Marvin Feinstein. 1600 Bryant Street. Palo Alto: I am the neighbor that Scott referred to. I am here to raise an objection, not to Scott, who is definitely a kinder and gentler sort, for a developer. He has been very friendly to me and has provided me with much access to him whenever I chose to do so. I would like to show you where I am situated on the screen. The property that I own and manage is the property on the left. It is the rectangular building that runs along the western boundary of this parcel that Scott wants to develop. It is a seven-unit apartment building. They are all two-bedroom, one bath apartments. They are all in excellent condition, and they are occupied mostly by young people who can afford to share rents. It supplies what I would call affordable housing for this area. It is typically $600 to $700 per person for a two-bedroom apartment. It is a valuable property for young, professional people. I don’t think we have ever had a tenant over the age of 30. This new development will intrude on the quality of life in this building. If you look at Unit #12 on Scott’s layout, the setback is measured at five feet from the property line, and our building is five feet on the other side, so there are ten feet that separates the two buildings. It is even closer than that if you go to Unit #12. You will see that it has a protrusion on the rear side of it, so there probably are about eight feet between the two buildings. All along the eastern wall of the building that I manage, it has windows, and all of those windows will lose brightness and daylight, and the residents will lose privacy. They will lose privacy in Unit #1, Unit #12 and Unit #13. We have 14 people living at this property, and we are diminishing their quality of life, to some extent. As I look at the project overall, it is appealing. I like it, and I am not raising an objection to the overall scheme. I am, however, not satisfied with the setbacks. I have raised this issue earlier. I raised it in a letter dated September 20th to Classic Communities, and I think there were some minor adjustments made, but you cannot get much closer than five feet from the property line on that Unit #12. My feeling is that the overall project would be enhanced if one unit were eliminated, namely Unit #12. It would provide a lot more space. There are 13 units, and right now, they have seven on one side and six on the other. If you eliminated Unit #12, you would have a somewhat symmetrical layout with more open space than you now have on the left hand half of the parcel. You would be able to provide more setbacks from that property line. I think it 9 would make a major difference in the quality of life of the new residents of this project because of the additional open space. At the same time, it would preserve the quality of life of the residents of 311 Everett. So with that suggestion, I would just ask you to look at it. Commissioner Carrasco: Is your property about one-third the size of this current project? What are the dimensions of your entire lot? Mr. Feinstein: It runs the same length as the parcel we are talking about. The width is approximately 50 feet wide. One of the reasons why I am the only one objecting tonight is that my building is the only one that is up close to this parcel. The.property on the east boundary is set back and has substantial space between the eastern boundary and the building on that lot. Of course, you have the Everett Street and the Bryant Court separations between neighbors. Steve Franke!. 351 Bryant Court. Palo Alto: I am just across Bryant Court and east of Unit #6. I want to cover two points. The parking was one of the initial issues that I brought up and others brought up at the ARB meeting. They have done a lot to improve the parking situation. The one problem I still have is that all of the units now have two spaces, except for Unit #6, the below-market-rate unit. It seems arbitrary to say that, since you are getting the unit for a lower price, you only get one parking space. It seems to me that all units should have at least two parking spaces. The other issue is the conditioning of Bryant Court in the public benefit. It certainly is a public benefit to improve Bryant Court, but to stop in front of just the project benefits the project more than the rest of the court. I am glad that Chairman Beecham walked the court. It is an old, broken up concrete street, and the improvements in front of the project will only make the court better for the people who front on the project. The entire court should be redone to maximize the public benefit. Thank you. Carol Francis. 321 Bryant Court. Palo Alto: I live immediately across from the six-unit side. The project has improved greatly over what they had before. I really like it, and am pleased to hear that he is going to be putting in a sidewalk as part of the public benefit, but I agree with my neighbor, Steve Frankel, that if we are going to improve Bryant Court, we should go the whole way, especially if we are going to be tearing it up. There are no utilities down that street, and it has been quite neglected for a long time. This would be the opportunity to improve it. Also, if we are going to give the message that this is an area for pedestrians to walk down between Bryant and Waverley on their way to the park, they should also give strong signals that when people turn into this street, they should slow down. We already have a substantial amount of traffic like that on the weekends. Improving the street without making some sort of signal like that very apparent to people is asking for trouble. I know the city is not very keen on speed bumps, but maybe something like that. Scott had talked with us about putting in some scored paving that would make some noise when you drove over it to remind you that there is a possibility of people walking along the street. Also, improving the lighting 10 would be a move in the right direction, as well. Even though you seem to think that the three flood lights are quite strong, we didn’t recognize trick or treaters, if that is any reflection on what it is like there at night. So those are my concerns. Thanks. Chairman Beecham: Seeing no other speakers, I will close the public portion of the hearing and bring it back to the Planning Commission. Are there any questions of staff?. Commissioner Schink: In the draft findings for the variance, staff notes that the site contains numerous mature trees. In order to protect these trees, we need the variance to the side yard setbacks. I am only able to identify the one majestic oak. Are there other large trees that are being preserved that I am not finding? Mr. Jensen: Yes, in the environmental assessment, there is a list of trees that were surveyed on the property. There were seven trees that the arborist is recommending for removal because of their condition, and eight trees that are proposed for removal as part of the improvements of the project, with the remainder of the trees to be maintained on the site. Those trees are listed in the inventory that is provided. The reason why the drawings that you see show primarily the oak is that that is obviously a landmark tree on the property, and there were special measures that were recommended by the arborist specifically for that tree. There is one tree located in the area of Units 7 and 8. Several trees are just west of the area by Units 1 and 13. Commissioner Schink: Is it then the intent to incorporate Barrie Coate’s report on the trees being saved with the landscape plan? I do not see the two working together at this point. Mr. Jensen: That is correct. In fact, the draft conditions address Mr. Coate’s recommendations. Commissioner Schink: I just note inconsistencies between the proposed landscape plan and Mr. Coate’s report. Chairman Beecham: I would like to have clarified the landscape plan on your Page 2 of 4 on your larger drawings. You show a number of the trees to be relocated. I just want to make sure you plan on relocating, for example, the large palm trees there. Would the applicant clarify that for us. Mr. Ward: Yes, we plan on relocating several of the palms. There is one outstanding palm tree liability issue that we are evaluating, but subject to that, we expect to relocate all of them. It has to do with these palm fronds at eye level that can become dangerous over time. These are older trees, and I am not sure how you treat that to avoid the potential of someone poking their eye out. Chairman Beecham: So essentially, on the tree issue that Jon is raising, the coast live oak is staying in the same place. It would be difficult to move. Most of the other trees that are on the site where the buildings are going are, in fact, being moved. Is that correct? 11 Mr. Ward: Only the palm trees are being relocated. Chairman Beecham: All of the existing trees on the interior of the lot that is not on the frontage on Everett, with the exception of the oak, are being removed? Mr. Ward: That is correct. Commissioner Schink: So we are saving the oak tree and relocating the other three trees? Mr. Ward: Yes, and I would point out that that relates to this setback issue that was broached earlier. We have the control point of this grand tree, and we had hoped to have 14 units on this site at one point. Chairman Beecham: And the control point is for the health of the tree, I presume, and we do not want construction beneath its crown structure, basically. Mr. Ward: Correct. Chairman Beecham: It is a huge tree. Mr. Ward: It does need some trimming, as Mr. Coate points out in his report. It is unbalanced to the west at this point. Commissioner Schink: I am still having a little trouble coming to terms with this statement that the site contains numerous mature trees which are in good condition and are being preserved. It sounds like they are preserving one tree and moving a couple of others. Mr. Ward: There are other trees along the boundary, like at Nos. 19, 20 and 21, some of which are oaks that we clearly can accommodate. That is our intention. Commissioner Cassel: I have a far reaching question that you may not like. I am having very severe problems with the public benefit on this site. That is why I asked about the RM-30 zone. I am wondering why you did not position your houses in such a way that that lovely oak tree did not become the central focal point and an open space that one could walk through as the public benefit. Mr. Ward: We sought fairly early on in the process to have maintenance of the tree be considered as a public benefit. We were advised that the ordinance language was such that we were not going to be able to successfully prosecute that as a public benefit. Our view is that this site plan, as it is currently structured, provides the opportunity for most of the homes to enjoy the benefit of the tree. Commissioner Cassel: It would not be a public benefit if it were privately located in the back yard of the project. I was thinking in terms of its being an open area where the public would have access. 12 Mr. Ward: I see. We found that there is difficulty in terms of defining public and private zones and providing public access easements over private property and how that burdens the owners of a single-family home. It argues that that is basically an unworkable burden to impose upon the buyers of these homes. Commissioner Schmidt: I have an oak-tree-related question, also. Since it is proposed that that tree would become the property of one of the owners, and the city does not yet have any sort of tree ordinance, would it be possible for that owner, if he did not like oak trees, to cut it down, after we have gone to lengths to preserve it? And for the neighbors whose yards that the tree extends across, could they chop it off at their fence line? Ms. Cauble: Could I attempt to answer that? Since a condition of the environmental assessment is that that tree be preserved if the project-is approved, it will be a condition of the PC zone that the tree be preserved. Certainly, physically, someone could go out and chop down the tree, but it would be unlawful to do so under the terms of the PC ordinance, just as it would be unlawful if a tree ordinance is adopted later. It would be equally unlawful under a new tree ordinance or under this PC zone. There might be a question of how we ensure that that property owner is aware of the requirement, but it would be a legal requirement that that tree not be removed. We could prosecute for violation of the ordinance. Commissioner Schmidt: All right, What about neighboring property owners whose property the tree extends across? I happened to experience a situation with a tree of mine that Was on my property, but the neighbor trimmed it up to the property line. It is now half a tree. The same thing could happen here, as well. Ms. Cauble: You raise a good point. The zoning, of course, would apply to the entire site. I think your comments should be taken into consideration in trying to draft the best condition we can, and not just simply say, the tree shall be preserved, but instead, be very specific-about the affirmative obligation of the owner of the lot on which the tree rests, and the obligations of surrounding owners not to harm the tree. We could spell that out in the ordinance. Chairman Beecham: So perhaps there might be a deed restriction relating to that? Ms. Cauble: I don’t know if this is a project that would have CC&Rs. Mr. Ward: Yes, it will. And we would expect for the tree to be addressed in those. Commissioner Qiakian: Scott, what is your response to the earlier speaker’s suggestion that Unit #12 be removed? What impact would that have on the project? Mr. Ward: It would go to the heart of the economic feasibility of this development. We had been hopeful of doing more units on this site, but given the constraints of the alley and the tree, we have not been able to achieve our goals with respect to the density. I think there are other ways to address it without losing a unit. That is a bit of a drastic idea. Just off the top, for instance, the projection is a single-story element that includes a fire box and a media niche. 13 It is not central to the floor plan layout of that home, so that is an appendage that could be readily removed. There may be opportunities to narrow the setback between Units 11 and 12 and free up some side yard setback. It is conceivable, as well, that we could look at other alternative floor plans for that location that would increase the side yard setback a little bit. Having some variations of back lines along that edge is not the worst thing in the world. I would also point out that as that floor plan works, that particular edge at the second story level, and even at the first story, that edge of the building is not particularly active space. The home tends to live to the rear yard, not to the side yard, so I do not see any conflicts in terms 0f that. .Chairman Beecham: If I could clarify a point that you brought up, a question for staff. For small features on a side wall, such as a chimney that is two or three feet wide, is that normally acceptable in a side yard setback? Ms. Grote: There are certain allowable intrusions of up to two feet into the side yard for chimneys and other minor features. Ms. Lvtle: But in this instance, I think they are much more than that. Chairman Beecham: Yes, it is the entire wall. Commissioner Qiakian: So I think what you are saying is that it sounds like you are willing to be a little flexible here because it is still a long process for you to go through, and you will have an opportunity to discuss that additionally. I will play devil’s advocate for a moment, and ask, if that large oak tree were removed from this site, what impact does that have in terms of units on this site? Mr. Ward: The four-unit court that you see on the left would presumably be repeated on the right. We could put that from west to east. So at a minimum, we would pick up another unit. It is conceivable that we could even pick up three more units, and they would be a different set of floor plans. That tree really commands a lot of respect in terms of our site plan. So that would add a minimum of one unit, and potentially three. Commissioner Ojakian: One last question. Alluding to something a speaker said earlier, one of the things we have to grapple with is public benefit for this site. How amenable are you to having more extensive improvements to the Bryant Court alleyway? By more extensive, I mean something more than patching up the sections that you will have torn up. Mr. Ward: We have not done a full utility analysis here. I would like to have a better understanding of what the utility requirements are going to be. If they are extensive, then it would seem to be logical to go ahead and complete the job. I just do not know that at this point. 14 Commissioner Schmidt: Did you consider at all as a design feature for both public benefit and the benefit of the houses that face on Bryant Court your doing something more extensive in the decorative paving area to extend those front .yards with interesting paving all the way across Bryant Court? Mr. Ward: At one point we did, but when we elected to connect the project frontage to Waverley and Bryant, we thought that that was likely to be more successful in terms of creating this pedestrian connection. There is already a fair amount of hardscape taking place in front of the Bryant Court units, because there will be a second parking space for those units in that zone that will not always be occupied. Commissioner Schmidt: After the proposed sidewalk is in, does the city maintain that sidewalk? Ms. Grote: It is a public right-of-way, so I assume the city would be maintaining anything that is put there. Commissioner Carrasco: I want to suggest, as Jon did, that there are several inconsistencies between Barrie Coate’s recommendation and your landscape plan. I imagine that would go through the architectural review process, and that will be made consistent before you bring it back. Mr. Ward: Yes, I appreciate that, and we will address that. Commissioner Carrasco: I have a question that Vic also brought up. How economically sensitive is your project to paving the entire Bryant Court and turning it into a kind of pedestrian mews kind of space, with nice paving and small-scale, pedestrian-oriented street lights that Bern was suggesting, with a light level of half a foot candle average, per the city’s ordinance? Mr. Ward: Until we do some more work on those off-site improvements, we are already on the cusp of feasibility here. So I am open to exploring ways in which we can improve the public benefit, but I am reluctant to obligate myself at this point. The goal is to create a more hospitable pedestrian connection, and I feel that what we have proposed to do will achieve that. Frankly, w feel that the level of repair, or lack of thereof, in the public right-of-way today, is not our responsibility. It is the city’s responsibility, and to the extent that it has fallen into disrepair, it seems to us that the city ought to address it. Commissioner Eakins: You have answered the first question I wanted to ask, which was, have you thought about doing the whole area. I think Tony used the right word. It is a mews, a one-lane road, so it is in a mews style, and that should be enhanced there so that it feels attractive and charming. It is a wonderful opportunity to have a kind of old world ambience there. I guess I am preaching to the choir. You would like to do it if it didn’t cost money. 15 Mr. Ward: We would be open to exploring a cost-sharing arrangement with respect to certain elements of the creation of that kind of mews. We understand that we have a public benefit obligation. Commissioner Eakins: How about ways to slow the traffic, because it is one way. People tend to think they can go faster on a one-way, narrow street than they can on a two-way street. I don’t know who should explore making that two-way, just considering that that might make it slower. I know that when the traffic lights are out all over the place, people go very slowly. There is nothing like a lack of control to make people a little more cautious. So whatever can be done, as an earlier speaker suggested, about making sure traffic is slow. People take that one-way sign to mean one-way fast. The other thing I wanted to ask if whether you have an overhead projection to show what the courtyard arrangement looks like? I am concerned that it not be dominated by garages. Mr. Ward: I don’t believe we have an overhead that depicts that. However, we have done other courtyard types of developments, and we are very careful about the design of those spaces so that they are not dominated by garages and that they do allow for light penetration. We have reveals at second-story levels and single-story .edges within the court, also projections over the garages to lessen the impact of the garage at grade. So that is an issue for us, as well, and we pay attention to it. We also address it in terms of the paving treatment for the courtyard itself. Effectively, for the rear units in the court, that really is a part of their front yard. Chairman Beecham: As we begin our discussion, let me try to focus what we do tonight. This is an initial project review. The applicant’s desired action by us is that we approve the draft findings and forward this to the ARB. Along with that, we should advise the applicant on the public benefit findings and also make comments on the conditions in the environmental assessment. Ms. Cauble: I wanted to make a correction of an error in the staff report, although it is worded correctly in your agenda. You are not being asked to actually approve the findings tonight. As you stated, you are being asked to comment on the findings and give feedback. But they are not in a final form, and they will be back for you the next time. Chairman Beecham: Thank you. Perhaps it would be best right now if we talk about the public benefit and clarify that to the applicant. Commissioner Schink: I would like to talk about all facets of the project, not just public benefit. I do not see the project as having a public benefit without being able to discuss the quality of the design, things like that. I could make more general comments. Commissioner Carrasco: The applicant is saying that the entire project is a public benefit, so Jon’s comments are probably appropriate. 16 Chairman Beecham: Then how about a discussion of the requirements for a variance for setback. Do you believe that the setback is an issue? Commissioner Schink: At this point, I do not have the facts that justify the variance for me. The inconsistencies between the arborist’s report and what I see on the landscape plan leave me uncomfortable. So at this point I would not be able to support the variance. Even if those facts were consistent, it is. really tough to make the side yard variance findings, considering the impacts on the adjoining property. I would hope that when they return to us, they will provide us with some really clear evidence that they are not being injurious to the neighbors. If they can show evidence that it really does not affect the neighboring property, I would be much more open to it. Commissioner Schmidt: Is the side setback for a PC ten feet versus six feet for a single-family residence? (Yes) So for a PC, if we did not accept the variance, we would be requiring that all of the units be ten feet away from the property line versus just the one unit. Is that correct? Ms. Lytle: Even with the PC, there is a ten-foot setback. The RM-30 had that and the PC has it. The only thing that would not have that would be a single-family development. C0mmisgioner Schmidt: I would say that, in general, I do not feel that the units need to be ten feet away from all side property lines. They are single-family units. The current. single-family requirements are six feet, even five feet in some cases, and many of the older houses in the city are at six and five feet, so I would not feel strongly that these need to meet the PC requirement of being ten feet away. I think it might be reasonable to look at Unit #12 and make some adjustments to that unit a little bit. I don’t think they all need to be ten feet away from property lines. Commissioner Carrasco: On the issue of the variance, I generally feel as Kathy does, however, I really like the benefit of a public hearing before I can make a decision, a public hearing that presumably goes before the Zoning Administrator. M~. Grote: This would be processed with the PC application, so there would not be a separate Zoning Administrator hearing. That is why the findings would need to be made as part of this application. Commissioner Carrasco: Then I generally feel the same way as Kathy does. However, related to the seven-unit apartment building on the west side, I think the applicant should be locating windows on that building and planning adjacent windows to respect the light and open space needs of the existing apartment building, and plan the new project in such a way that they might get closer to places where there might be blank walls in that existing building, and open spaces where there is not. Commissioner Cassel: I like this project, but most of the findings I cannot make. So I am having a lot of problems in that sense. We are back to the situation where this is a new style of zoning; and we do not have a ordinance that fits it very well. So there is a whole series of 17 things in the findings that I cannot make, in other words, that I do not agree with. "RM-30 standards will not provide sufficient flexibility for a development that is compatible with the mix of residential uses, density and design of the surrounding neighborhood." If we agree with that, we have essentially thrown out our RM-30 for this whole part of town. It may be that at this time, the market says, you cannot build anything else, but that would throw our zoning out if we agreed with that. "It tends to produce housing that is inconsistent with the scale, character and circulation patterns of older residential neighborhoods such as Downtown North." This is an eclectic neighborhood. It has all kinds of units in it. There are references in here to try to compare the 15 units in this project with the 30 units if it were fully built out. But there is nothing in this that says that some other project could not be built at 15 units, so you have to compare 15 with 15. You cannot compare 15 with 30 as a justification or throwing out of some parts of the ordinance. "The proposed project will also not result in objectionable environmental impacts such as peak hour traffic impacts." I cannot see how that would be any different, ,whether it was this project or another project of 15 units per acre on that site. I did agree, on Page 15 of Attachment #1, with Paragraphs i, ii and iii. Also (iv), "The application of the PC district standards, as proposed, would result in public benefits by providing desirable street improvements to Bryant Court." The only street improvements that are being put in would be the ones that service the units, so it does not become a public benefit. It is already a right-of-way of way there. People already walk through there. If it provides a sidewalk, it would provide a safer surface for the people using these new units, but it is not repairing the street, other than what would absolutely have to be repaired. If any kind of project went into that site and you dug up the street, you would have to repair the street. So I do not see that as an additional public benefit. Chairman Beecham: Are there other comments on the setback issue? Commissioner Qiakian: I am in concurrence with Commissioners Schmidt and Carrasco. I guess it is all in the way you want to look at this situation. I look at it as being more of an R-1 type project, and therefore, I am comfortable with the six-foot setbacks, or even something a little less than that. From hearing Mr. Ward tonight, something can be worked out that is compatible with six-foot setbacks. Commissioner Eakins: In spite of the arborist’s report and the landscape plan not being consistent at this point, I have a general opinion that saving a wonderful tree is worth adjusting. setbacks for. I think that is just a good principle to follow, especially if it is put into the CC&Rs and there is even some kind of tree easement, although I do not know how to do it, something that is really definable, identifiable, that people can give a good, self-explanatory name to, so tying, that back to the setbacks, I think it is worthwhile tradeoff. Chairman Beecham: I will support that, and to be specific, on Page 16 where it talks about the findings, Finding #1 mentions numerous mature trees. I think that if it is simply focused on the coast live oak and its requirement for living space, that is sufficient, in my opinion, for 18 an extraordinary circumstance. Also I certainly agree that in terms of what would be appropriate setbacks for this project, because it is much closer to R-1 than to RM-30, that a six-foot setback would be a reasonable target. Therefore, the variance that kind of implicitly we are looking at, although not to the letter, would not be from a ten-foot setback but from a six-foot setback. I would not have too much trouble finding some justification for that. But I certainly would urge the applicant to work it out with his neighbor and see how that can be reduced. Does anyone have other issues they want to address? Commissioner Schink: I want to clarify one opinion that I stated earlier. I do not have any problem with the variance setbacks inside the development. My only concern about that the variance is in relationship to the neighbor’s property. That is where I have more trouble. It is obvious that this is essentially a single-family development, and we can look at less within the project. Chairman Beecham: Are we ready for the public benefit discussion? Commissioner Schink: I am happy to address the whole project and address the public benefit at the same time, if I may. The first crucial issue, in my mind, for this project is the design. Since we are deciding to throw out the rule book out and let them do a PC here, I believe that they have to do everything in an exceptional way. That is generally what we have seen in most PC applications in the past. That starts with a superior design. I like the basic design of their project, however, I believe that the quality of the materials needs to be improved, and also the variety of materials needs to be improved. They have the proper focus for the quality of the materials in the front porch areas, and they are using less quality in other areas. However, since this is a very dense project and because it is a PC, I think it warrants our requiring that they use truly superior materials like real wood, shingle siding, true wood windows, across the board, doing a superior project, because we are providing a density that would not normally be allowed in this location. So for me to find that this project has an overall public benefit and will have a public benefit for many years to come, I feel they have to improve the quality of the materials. I believe they also have to make a sincere, total commitment to Bryant Court, and that would mean repaying the street. Finally, when they come back to us, I would hope that in your presentation, you would show us how all of the second-story windows align on the project so that we can be assured that as you are standing in one unit, when it is ten feet away from someone else’s unit, that two people with long arms cannot reach out and shake hands. Those are the kinds of details we will need to look at, because we are providing such density here. So hopefully, you can provide us with some graphic illustrations of how nobody looks at anyone else in the morning. Finally, as regards the real question of public benefit, can we make the stretch in this case? I believe we have, in the past, seen reasonable arguments for the fact that our ordinance does not provide a mechanism to build housing, which we need, in a way that both the marketplace 19 will accept and that developers are willing to do. This is an example. If we want to get housing that people will buy, this is what we need to do. So I am willing to make that stretch if the developer is willing to do a really top quality project. Commissioner Carrasco: I am having a hard time saying that the project, in and of itself, is a public benefit. I think it is a sad time when our zoning has failed to the point where a PC comes along and says, he has a better zone, and therefore, it is a public benefit. That is a miserable failure for our zoning. Regarding the next issue, I feel very much like Jon does. I think it is a marvelous site plan, and I could go on and on as to why this is a good site plan. I will touch on the highlights. The staggered pattern of some units behind and a few units in front are very much the pattern of deep lot subdivisions in that neighborhood. I think the creation of the rear alley kind of mews, the small pedestrian street with limited car access, is a good one. Like Jon, I feel that the developer should be committed to doing the entire alley in some kind of concrete paving with street lamps that meet the half-foot candle average that the city has an ordinance for, with street lamps that meet the scale of the new ARB ordinance. In general, I think the materials in the units should conform with the way that Jon described them. I don’t think hard board siding would be appropriate in this kind of density. You would see the imperfections, and I think it is important to have wood siding and wood windows. I am comfortable if the site plan is designed sensitively to the apartment building on the west side, and within each court, that there is public benefit if the mews is paved and cut up and carefully designed and landscaped so that it feels like a good place. Commissioner Schmidt: I basically support a lot of the comments made, especially Jon’s comments. I like the concept of providing smaller, single-family homes. I think we will eventually come up with a mechanism within our zoning to allow this. As noted in the staff report, we did allow this type of housing as a public benefit at the Times Tribune site, so that is a precedent we have already done at the present time. Hopefully, in the not too distant future, we will have a type of zoning that allows something like this. I understand from the staff report that significant changes were made in the site plan to bring about what we have now, which is a nice site plan, although I do like Phyllis’ idea about having public access to the tree. It may be a little too late to do that now. I would very much support having something in the CC&Rs to require the maintenance of the tree, or a tree easement, which Sandy suggested. Also, I very definitely believe that there must be more done to Bryant Court in order for that to be a real public benefit for the project. When I read the concept for that, I though it sounded great, but when I see what is represented in the plans, I do not see it as being adequate to be a significant public benefit for the project. Chairman Beecham: Let me jump in and head in the other direction. That is to say, the public benefits, as staff identifies it in the report, I feel are appropriate. I do agree with the comments that you generally made to the effect that the housing, by itself, as a benefit, is not 2O where we should go and is not what is required by our code. But every PC we have inherently has some level of appropriate public benefit. For this particular application, the city is not suffering anything. We are not losing any aspect of quality of life or some aesthetic value, etc. What is being done is, as Tony mentioned, it is a shame to say we have a failure of our zoning regulations, but we do not have zoning regulations that are appropriate for this type of appropriate housing. So as before, we have a PC application coming before us to do this kind of housing. This kind of housing is not a burden on the city, and it does not inherently need a lot of public benefit to say, therefore, the city gets the benefit overall, on balance. I think what the applicant is talking about regarding improvements on the alley generally are commensurate with the need for public benefit. I also would certainly like the alley to be a wonderful mews, and I have no idea what that word really means, but whatever it is, I like it. If we could pave it, that would be great, and putting lighting up and down and making it very pedestrian-friendly would be great. In my opinion, paving the entire alley is out of scale with the benefit that is required here. I would not push to have that be a public benefit, but I would like to see the applicant, and perhaps the neighbors and the city, talk about other things that might be done on the alleyway to enhance it. Lighting is one. If there is anything else that can be done fairly easily to say, this is a pedestrian place and to make it friendly, that would be wonderful. I would like to see it. But I do not see the need for repaving all of it, even though it might warrant it. Commissioner O_iakian: I will begin with the public benefit. Obviously, in a PC application at this stage, we are looking at it and saying, this feels right, it is pretty good, and we think it should go on through the PC process. We will have another stage in the PC process when you have to come back, when we take a final stab at this before we pass it on to the council, as Mr. Ward knows. So my comments on the public benefit are that maybe there is something else that needs to be done, other than what was suggested tonight. I think Mr. Ward said something about a cost-sharing arrangement with the city. I would be interested in hearing what that translates to be when we get this back the next time so that I would have a feel for exactly what type of public benefit you are comfortable with and what the city and staff feel comfortable with. For me, that is sufficient enough to say that this project should go on to the next steps and have an opportunity to show us what that is going to be. I want to comment on the project itself so that we do not lose sight of a few things. I am comfortable with this project, exclusive of what Commissioner Cassel said earlier about the findings. I think we need to look at those a little more, but frankly, I think this is a pretty good project. Once again, we are going to have housing of an interesting nature that fills a certain niche in the marketplace. We have gone down this alley before, so to speak, and have been comfortable with what we saw. The project at the Times Tribune site is working out well. One of the things Mr. Ward said that was very interesting tonight, and part of the reason why I asked the question was, what is the demand for this type of housing. We have 17 units there, and we have 150 people sitting there asking about this piece of property. Frankly, some of those people I know, because they have talked to me about the Times 21 Tribune site. They are people with young children looking for a house in a certain price range in a particular location in town. This one meets a lot of their criteria for trying to find a house. So it is good housing, and there.is a demand for it, so we should be sensitive to that. I also think it fits in well with the neighborhood. There is a potpourri of housing in this neighborhood. Some of the people who have lived in that neighborhood have felt a little besieged, at times, that what always is going to go in there was high-density housing. In fact, we have a different variety of housing that fits in with all of the other types of housing in the area, and is similar, in some ways, to some of the houses. I think of Mr. Beecham’s house, which may not have extensive setbacks, and I think this would be somewhat similar. One of the things we ought to look at, although I am not sure how I feel about this, but felt I should bring it up is, that we make sacrifices in certain projects. The sacrifice we are making with this particular project, if it goes forward the way that it is, as we make tradeoffs here, is that we are deciding to keep a tree because of our culture and our history and some of the things that go with it. In the meantime, what we decided to trade off against that is somewhere in the neighborhood of three other units and what the effect oi~ that would be on the overall cost of these units and what that translates out to be in a certain way. I think that is okay. I know there are a lot of people in favor of the tree. That is the bulk of the comments I heard tonight. We are positive toward keeping things like the large oak tree, but we ought to sometimes step back and ask, what does that mean to us, and realize that we are going to trade off something. My main point is, I would like to see this project go on. Commissioner Eakins: Like the rest of you, I like the project, and I think it will be a nice improvement to the neighborhood. Doing something at a lot lower density than it was originally designated for is a good idea. It just fits in better. The members of the public who talked about the parking spaces and conditions of car movements on the alley, our Bryant mews, those comments are similar to the ones I read in the traffic engineer’s report. So those should be taken into account. Something needs to be made a foot longer, and something else needs to be done to improve the movement. Also, I know that we have wanted to have a Planned Unit Development, or PUD, a planned community idea without public benefit, just for housing. I think any good idea is always ahead of its time, and usually precedes the laws and the rules. This is an example of that. Ironically, this is also a case where the proposal is better than the rules. Earlier this evening, we had an application that did not meet the standards or rules. Here, our rules do not meet the standards of the application. It is a dilemma. I hope we will get to that soon. 22 I am thinking about the discussion of the whole of Bryant Court. When we talked about that, I agreed with Bern that asking one applicant to do the entire length of Bryant Court seems excessive, but the whole width does not seem so bad where it is being torn up. So something in there is an appropriate benefit in this transitional time between relying only on a PC and not having a small, single-family zone, or PUD. This is a pre-PUD era. I don’t think that will catch on. A standard design for the length of the street should be done at this time, and I know that the planning department’s work program is full, but could this be put on a wish list for next year that the whole alley or mews be done as a standard so that when anything is changed along there, it becomes part of the Capital Improvement Budget, but that a design be done now for a really lovely passageway. Commissioner Cassel: I, too, have no problem with the six-foot variance. I am hoping that when they research and look at this back alley, that there are some things we can do that are not too expensive. I like Vic’s idea that might carry through for the whole street and pick up the idea that it is consistent. I would like to see how that looks when it comes back to us. That picks up the public benefit issue for me. I think we need to reword some of these things. We need to somehow make these wordings work, but I do not want to word this in such a way that we cut ourselves out in some other ways, so we need to be careful. MOTION: Commissioner Schink: I would move that we forward this application to the Architectural Review Board. SECOND: By Commissioner Ojakian. Chairman Beecham: We have a motion by Commissioner Schink, seconded by Commissioner Ojakian, that we forward this application to the ARB. I would have a few more comments to make. One is in response to comments by Jon and Tony about the requirement for high quality in the presentation, using wood, etc. I certainly do want it to have a high quality appearance, but also, we need to keep in mind that as the quality goes up, so does the price go up to the buyer. The one thing we are trying to do here is to make this somewhat affordable, so that is always a tradeoff that we have to keep in mind, although I certainly do like wood. I am sure staff will include the conditions for the public benefit that are not in the current conditions in our report. On the alleyway, I think parking is still a bit problematic. The city and the applicant have worked out more or less minimal, parallel parking in front of each unit. Certainly if you have a full size car, it does not work. I think it will be difficult. I am not sure what a good solution is, but I would like to see more effort put into that. 23 Regarding the comment about having only one space for the BMR unit, I would certainly expect that anyone living in the BMR unit, especially if it has multiple bedrooms, is likely to have two cars. I do not know how that can be worked into the design. Finally, I want to reiterate Vic’s comment on the tree. Protecting and preserving the tree and preserving a massive amount of space around it is a community benefit. Whether that can be considered a public benefit I will not argue tonight, but I think the community needs to recognize that there is a great value in preserving and ensuring that the health of the tree is preserved for many years to come. Commissioner Schmidt: One thing I do not believe we talked about much tonight is that I believe no landscaping is going to be designed or provided in the back yards of these homes. I think it would be nice if there were landscaping. If there is not landscaping, maybe some general recommended plans or plant materials to get people started thinking about what they could do pretty easily when they move in with landscaping in the front, but dirt in the back, with an oak tree extending over portions of their back yards and nothing else. It would be nice to do something to get the landscaping under way, if full landscaping is not provided. Commissioner Schink: I would like to add to that. I think it is really impc~4tant that they landscape the three back yards that are adjacent to the large oak tree, just in the hopes that they will get the right type of landscaping in there so that someone else would not come along and landscape them incorrectly, inadvertently killing the oak tree. Commissioner Cassel: I would like to look at adding that. This is a particularly large and beautiful oak tree. It is really special, and I would like to support what you suggested to see if that is a possibility in this case. Chairman Beecham: I believe the arborist’s report does specify what type of ground cover is best for that area, and I believe it is more or less incorporated in the requirements. Commissioner Cassel: I am talking about including that in the public benefit in some way. Commissioner Eakins: This discussion makes me think that it is something else for the CC&Rs to specify plant materials. I know this is done in other places, and it is not a loss of freedom. It is to have the most appropriate plant materials used. You do not want a very thirsty kind of plant around an oak tree. With too much water, you will get oak root fungus, and then you would have no tree. So specifying a plant list is a really good idea. MOTION PASSES: Chairman Beecham: Is there any further discussion on this motion? We have a motion in front of us made by Commissioner Schink, seconded by Commissioner Ojakian, that we forward this application to the Architectural Review Board. All those in favor, please say Aye. All opposed? That passes unanimously on a vote of 7-0. Ms. Grot¢: This goes to the ARB on January 4, 1996. Chairman Beecham: Thank you for staying with us tonight. We appreciate your comments. 24 BARRIE D. COATE and ASSOCIATES Horticultural Consultants 408--35~-I05Z :~.~S.~S ~ummit Road., [.oa Gato~. CA ~S03o Attachment #11 AN ADDENDUM TO OUR ~PORT OF AUGUST 23, 1995 REGARDING THE EVERETT AVENUE AND BRYANT COURT PROJECT PALO ALTO Scott Ward Classic Communities 1068 East Meadow Palo Alto, CA 9a303 Fax: 4151493-9050 Preparedby: Barrie D. Co~e January2. 1996 Job #08-95-190 BARRIE D. COATE and ASSOCIATES l-lorticultur~l Con~ult~nt~ 408--353-10~2 23535 bummit Road., Los Galo$o ~A g$030 P.2 AN ADDENDUM TO OUR REPORT OF AUGUST 23, 1995 REGARDING THE EVERE’[’I" AVENUE AND BRYANT COURT PROJECT PALO ALTO A nlnrificminn is needed regarding tree #’21 on that prope~y. It would be.. qt,le acceptable, to plane, a building within S feet. of the trunk of this tr~ assuming appropriate pruning m¢~ures and all other trc¢ protective measu~s noted in our report az~ followed. Ttfi.~ tt~: is a yuu~t~, vi~uluu~ ~p,~i~lmz which will toletat¢ this treatment Very cagily and :yet it~ presence is important as a screen bev,~¢¢n this project and the adjacent one. Respectfully submitted, Baffle D, Coate BDC:Ia Lisa Grote City of Palo Alto Planning Department Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Ms. Grote, Attachment #12 RECEIVED January 10, 1996 ~h~pattment of Pianning andCommunity Environment I am writing to you regarding the proposed development at the site commonly referred to as 315-335 Everett / 332-340 Bryant Court. The proposal is for the construction of 13 single family homes. I am generally in favor of the type of project proposed for the site. The developer has requested a zone change to Planned Community (PC) for the site, and has stated the public benef’its they perceived. I do not believe the developer has shown substantial public benefits that would warrant the zone change. Some the stated benet-its follow. 1. Save the old oak tree. The tree will be spared, however the tree will not be visible to the general public. It will be in the backyard of one of the development homes. Only some of the new residents in the development homes will have any view or benefit from the tree. The ARB had suggested that a public benefit would have come from a walking right-of-way connecting Everett and Bryant Court. This would have enhanced foot traffic to and from Bryant Court and allowed the greater public to view the oak. 2. The increase in affordable housing. There will be an increase in housing, however based on the current zoning, the number of new housing units is much lower than allowed, diminishing the public benefit. 3. Street lighting. There is benefit from more aesthetic lamp posts compared to the power pole mounted street lights, however the new lighting has to be installed beyond the project boundary. The new lighting should be installed along the length of Bryant Court. This would provide improved light levels and integrate the new project and the existing neighborhood. 4. Road improvements. The developer proposes creating a textured "walkway" along Bryant Court,. The developer must place the utilities underground and repair the road regardless of the zoning designation. There is no benefit to claim for doing what is mandated. The developer also proposes an improved road surface half the width of Bryant Court along the project boundary. I believe this will have a negative effect on the neighborhood. It does nothing to integrate the project into the surrounding housing. Unless all of the road surface of Bryant Court matches, the development will appear exclusive, degrading the surrounding properties. The developer needs to re-surface all of Bryant Court to provide the public benefit for the neighbors and pedestrians walking the Court. In summary, the public benefit for this development comes from improving the "walkability’ of Bryant Court. This will mean improvements beyond the project boundary, along the entire length and width of Bryant court. Sincerely, Steve Frankel 351 Bryant Court (415)323-1708 83/12 17:51 Attachment #13