Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-04-15 City Council (15)City of Palo C ty Manager’s TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: Planning and Community Environment AGENDA DATE: SUBJECT: April 15, 1996 CMR:225:96 315-335 Everett Avenue/332-340 Bryant Court; Tentative Map application to subdivide 0.87 acres of vacant land into 13 lots for Planned Community (PC) single-family residential subdivision. (96-SUB-1, 95-EIA-22) REQUEST The subject application is a request for approval of a tentative subdivision map for a Planned Community (PC) development of 13 detached single-family dwellings. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission and staff recommend that the City Council approve the Tentative Map based on the attached findings (Attachment # 1) and subject to the attached conditions (Attachment #2). POLICY IMPLICATIONS As outlined in the attached Planning Commission staffreport of March 27, 1996 (Attachment #4), 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 policy and program issues is outlined on pages 2 and 3 of the Planning Commission staff report. EXECUTIVE,,, SUMMARY Project Description The project proposes approval of a tentative subdivision map to subdivide 0.87 acres of vacant land into 13 lots for single-family residential development. This application is required follow-up to the City’s recent review and approval of a rezoning (PC District) and setback variance of this planned residential development. CMR:225:96 Page 1 of 3 As outlined in the attached Planning Commission staffreport of March 27, 1996 (Attachment #4), the tentative map proposes small single-family residential lots with a traditional lotting pattern. Lot locations and configurations are based on the approved PC District development plan. The shared use of driveways and land for driveway and private yard encroachments are addressed through the use of easements. Although no homeowner’s association is proposed for the project, draft Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC & Rs) have been prepared and submitted, to address the shared easements and special provisions required as part of the City’s project review. The draft CC & Rs are attached (Attachment #7). A breakdown of the proposed easement encumbrances over each lot (shown on the tentative map and discussed in the draft CC & Rs) is presented on page 2 of the attached Planning Commission staff report. Special tentative map conditions are recommended to address the following: Driveway Parking Easements for Lots #1-6 (B~, ant Court.) Parking easements proposed for Lots #1-6 (fronting Bryant Court) address the current "parallel" driveway parking design presented in the approved PC District development plan. The conditions of approval for the PC District require that an alternative to the "parallel" driveway parking design be prepared and submitted for review by the City’s Transportation Division. The preferred driveway parking plan will then be selected for final review and approval by the ARB. Proposed tentative map condition #5 (see Attachment #2) has been amended to require adjustments in the driveway parking easements for Lots # 1-6, based on the preferred plan approved by the ARB. Any required adjustments in these easements must appear on the final subdivision map. Adjustments to these easements would be in substantial compliance with the approved tentative map, given that they would not result in significant changes to the location of lot lines or lot configurations. Oak Preservation Easements Conditions of the PC District require the protection and continued preservation of several Coast Live Oak trees located on the site. Although addressed in the draft CC & Rs, draft tentative map condition #7 recommends that an Oak preservation easement be included over portions of Lots #7, 9, 11, 12, and 13. Summary. of Planning Commission Review On March 27, 1996, the Planning Commission voted (7-0) to recommend approval of the tentative subdivision map. The Planning Commission meeting minutes are provided as an attachment to this report (Attachment #5). The Planning Commission approval incorporated the draft findings (Attachment # 1) and the draft conditions (Attachment #2). A modification to draft condition 13a(iii) was included in the Planning Commission action to reflect recent CMR:225:96 Page 2 of 3 changes to the Below Market Rate (BMR) agreement negotiated between the City and the project sponsor. This modified condition has been incorporated into Attachment #2. FISCAL IMPACT The project involves the approval of a Tentative Subdivision Map for the construction of 13 new single-family residential dwellings. These units would generate property taxes, as well as permit and utility fees. They will also create demand for City services. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT An environmental assessment was prepared for this project as part of the City’s review and approval of the PC District rezoning and variance applications. This assessment (95-EIA-22) included the subdivision as part of the project description and addresses issues including tree removal and preservation, traffic, on-site circulation, parking, as well as light and privacy issues for the neighboring properties. A Mitigated Negative Declaration and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program was approved as part of the PC District rezoning. A copy of these documents is provided as Attachment #6 of this report. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment # 1: Attachment #2: Attachment #3: Attachment #4: Attachment #5: Attachment #6: Attachment #7: Attachment #8: Draft Findings Draft Conditions Location Map Planning Commission Staff Report, March 27, 1996 (without attachments) Planning Commission Minutes, March 27, 1996 95-EIA-22 and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Draft Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC & Rs) March 26, 1996 Agreement L~tter to Scott Ward, Classic Communities Subdivision Map (City Council Members only) PREPARED BY: Paul Jensen, Contract Planner KENNETH R. SCHREIBER Director of Planning and Community Environment Assistant City ~,Ianager CMR:225:96 Page 3 of 3 ATTACHMENT #1 ,Findings for Approval of Tentative Map (96-SUB-I) 1.The proposed subdivision is consistent with the applicable policies and programs of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan in that, it would result in a project that it would preserve single-family residential use of a site located adjacent to downtown shopping and would result in a project that is compatible with the scale and development pattern of the surrounding neighborhood and improvements. In addition, the subdivision would be consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan in that it would result in a project density that is well within the allowable density range of the Multiple-Family Residential land use designation. The site is physically suitable for the type and density of the development that is proposed in that the lots are designed to provide sufficient private outdoor living space and are designed to protect significant on-site trees and street trees. Furthermore, the proposed subdivision respects .the physical conditions of the site by appropriately arranging lots with frontage on both Bryant Court and Everett Avenue, reflecting patterns in this traditional neighborhood. o The subdivision design would not cause significant environmental impacts or substantially or unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat, as documented in the attached, approved Mitigated Negative Declaration (95-EIA-22). Mitigation measures have been incorporated into the conditions of the PC District rezoning approval and in the conditions of the Tentative Map, which will reduce all potentially significant impacts to less-than-significant levels. Specifically, conditions ensure the protection of significant tree resources found on and around the site. The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements will not result in serious public health problems in that all necessary public services, including public utilities and access to two public streets, are available and will be provided. The design of the subdivision will not conflict with the provision of utilities to adjacent land uses or public easements in that the project layout and map is designed to receive direct utility connections from two public right-of-ways. No easements through private property are required to serve the subdivision. In addition, the project proposes to improve utility connections for adjacent land uses through installation of new underground utility lines along Bryant Court, sized to accommodate future connections. 4-15-96 96-SUB-1 Page 4 ATTACHMENT//2 Conditions for Tentative Map Prior to the Submittal of a Final Map The Final Map and Improvement Plans shall comply with the conditions of the Planned Community (PC) District Ordinance and the Standard Conditions of Approval, approved by the City Council on March 18, 1996. Approval of the Tentative Map shall not go into effect until the City Council has completed a second reading of the PC District ordinance. The Final Map and Improvement Plans 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 Deparmaent of Planning and Community Environment. o The project sponsor shall test the sewer line on Everett Avenue for flow capacity. If any upgrading of the sewer system is necessary to improve capacity to the system or to provide adequate sewer service to the project, the cost of the upgrading shall be responsibility of the project sponsor. The Final 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, common driveways and parking spaces. As required by conditions of the PC District, final ARB review of the project may result in changes to the "parallel" driveway parking concept and parking easements for Lots#l-6 (Units #1-6). If an alternative driveway parking design is selected, the parking easements for Lots #1-6 shall be adjusted accordingly, and reflected on the Final Map. The Final Map and Improvement Plans shall comply with or include all conditions recommended by the Utilities Engineering Division summarized in the memorandums from Jose Jovel, dated September 18, 1995, and Roland Ekstrand, dated February 16, 1996, on file with the Department of Planning and Community Environment. The Final Map shall include an oak preservation easement over portions of lot #7, 9 and 11 based on the landscape setback restrictions for Coast Live Oak tree #13 presented in the arborist report, which is outlined and included in the Mitigated 4-15-96 96-SUB-1 5 Negative Declaration (95-EIA-22). An oak preservation easement shall be placed over the western portions of lots #12 and 13 to acknowledge protection of Coast Live Oak trees #19, 20, 21 and 22. The boundaries of the easement shall be based on the recommendations presented in the arborist report addendum, prepared by Barrie D. Coate and Associates (August 23, 1995), on file with the Palo Alto Planning Department. The map shall note that a description of the oak preservation easement is provided in the subdivision Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&RS) and shall be provided in the deed to each lot. The Improvement Plans for the Final Map shall present an accurate and updated survey of all trees (on-site and street trees along the Everett Avenue frontage), as required by the conditions of the PC District approval. The following amendments shall be made to the final Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions: Section 2.9 (Heritage Oak Preservation Easement) shall be amended to include oak preservation easements below Coast Live Oak trees #19, 20, 21 and 22, located along the western property boundary. Easements shall be established along the western portions of lots #12 and 13. Section 5.4 (Amendments) shall be amended to include a new sentence inserted at the end of this section to read: "No amendment of Sections 2.9 (Heritage Oak Preservation Easement) or 4.16 (Special Use Restrictions Required by City) are permitted without written consent of the City of Palo Alto." 10.The Improvement Plans shall include the location and specifications of the above- ground pad-mounted electrical transformer in a location approved.by the Architectural Review Board (ARB). In addition, the Final map shall include a public utilities easement along the length of the underground electric lines from the designated point of electrical service to the above-ground transformer location. 11.The project sponsor shall be required to underground all utility services along the width of the property frontage of Everett Avenue and Bryant Court. 12.The Improvement Plans-shall include the detailed specifications for repaving, light fixtures, and other improvements to Bryant Court, extending from Waverley Street to Bryant Street. Plan details and improvements shall comply with the requirements of the Planned Community (PC) District Ordinance conditions, approved by the City 4-15-96 96-SUB-1 6 Council on March 18, 1996. In addition, the new utility lines/infrastructure that are to be installed within the Bryant Court right-of-way for service to the subject property, shall be sized to accommodate possible, future utility connections for other properties along this lane. Prior to the Recordation of a Final Map 13.The subdivider shall enter into a subdivision agreement with the City of Palo Alto. The agreement shall be recorded with the approved final map at the office of the Santa Clara County Recorder and shall include the following agreements: The subdivider shall agree to provide a total of one below-market-rate (BMR) unit in fulfillment of Program 13 of the Housing Element of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. The units shall be placed in the City’s BMR program as for sale units. The Palo Alto Housing Corporation (PAHC) is the City’s designated representative to administer sale of the units. The following are the specifics to the agreement: (I)The BMR unit is number 6 as shown on the Site Development Plan dated October 20, 1995 (revised January 2, 1996), prepared by Bassenian Lagoni Architects and is located in the northern corner of the site, or equivalent unit designated by City if plans are revised prior to project approval. This unit is located on Lot #6, as shown on the Tentative Map dated January 1996, prepared by Kier and Wright. (ii)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. (iii)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 $146,550. This price was reached utilizing the City of Palo Alto’s current Housing Price Guideline (effective 5/95) base price for a 3-bedroom unit of $146,550. In addition, the project sponsor shall pay an in-lieu fee of 0.8125% of the actual value of each of the remaining 12 units in the project, which is to be collected by the subdivider upon the first sale of each unit in the project and paid to the City for deposit in the housing reserve fund. Proof of sales price must be submitted to the 4-15-96 96-SUB-1 7 City of Palo Alto at the time of the sale. The in-lieu fee requirement for any unit that is not sold and becomes occupied on a rental or lease basis shall be based upon the sales price of the most expensive unit that is sold in the development. The subdivider shall submit improvement plans for the design of the improvements proposed for the public right-of-way and all public utilities. These improvements shall be installed by the subdivider, at the subdivider’s expense and shall be guaranteed by bond or other form of guarantee acceptable to the City Attorney. All public improvements shall be constructed by a licensed contractor and shall conform to the City’s standard specifications, except as modified by this approval (see City Standard Drawing 201). During Construction 14.The project sponsor shall comply with all conditions required during construction, as specified in the PC District Standard Conditions of Approval list, approved by the City Council on March 18, 1996. 4-15-96 96-SUB-1 8 KIPLING JOHNSON PARK -PF WAVERLEY S’I-! RMD(NP) 315 - 330 Everett Avenue PF ~415-1q TO 101 EMERSON ST TO STANFOt~D UNI. TA$$O F~ RM-3 -C(P) PF PF 3266 VICINITY/LOCATION MAP 315-335 Everett Avenue/Bryant Court 95-EL~,-22 ATTACHMENT ~--..~ PLANNING COMMISSION TO:PLANNING COMMISSION FROM:Paul Jensen, Contract Planner DEPARTMENT: Planning AGENDA DATE: March 27, 1996 SUBJECT:315-335 Everett Avenue/332-340 Bryant Court: Tentative Map application to subdivide 0.87 acres of vacant land into 13 lots for Planned Community (PC) single-family residential development. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council: approval of the Tentative Map based on the attached findings (Attachment #1) and subject to the attached conditions (Attachment #2). BACKGROUND/PROJECT INFORMATION Project Description The project proposes approval of a Tentative Map to subdivide 0.87 acres of vacant land into 13 lots for single-family residential development. This application is a required follow-up to the City’s recent review and approval of a rezoning (to PC District) and setback variance for this planned residential development. Consistent with the approved development plan and building layout, a small lot concept is proposed. Six of the proposed lots have frontage on Bryant Court, while seven of the lots have access off of two shared driveways along Everett Avenue. Although small lots are proposed, the lotting pattern and concept is traditional. Each lot is designed so that setbacks can be provided on all sides of the proposed dwelling, thus avoiding a ’zero lot line’ or similar concept. In addition, individual lots are designed to reflect the location of shared driveways and respect existing trees that are required to be preserved. No homeowner’s association is proposed for this project. Therefore, shared use of driveways and land for parking and private yard encroachments are addressed through the use of easements. These easements are reflected on the Tentative Map. The .following chart presents information on lots size and width, as well as a description of easements: 2,304 36 ft.private yard easement for lot #2 2,048 32 ft.parking easement for lot #1 private yard easement for lot #3 2,048 32 ft.parking easement for lot #2 private yard easement for lot #4 2,048 32 ft.parking easement for lot #3 private yard easement for lot #5 2.048 32 ft.parking easement for lot #4 private yard easement for lot #6 2,176 34 ft.parking easement for lot #5 3,672 55 ft.private joint driveway access easement, lots 7-9 3,190 55 ft.private joint driveway access easement, lots 7-9 5,418 42 ft.private joint driveway access easement, lots 7-9 private yard easement for lot #7 2,900 50 ft.private joint driveway access easement, lots 10-13 3,740 55 ft.private joint driveway access easement, lots 10-13 3,264 48 ft.private joint driveway access easement, lots 10-13 3,074 53 ft.private joint driveway access easement, lots 10-13 Draft Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions(CC&Rs) have been prepared and submitted. These CC&Rs include a description of the various easements and provisions including special provisions for the protection of the 42" Coast Live Oak tree located near the center of the site. The City does not enforce CC&Rs, which are private agreements. However, the recommended conditions (refer to Condition No. 9) would provide that no amendment to the provisions of the CC&Rs relating to tree protection could be amended without the City’s written consent. P:\PCSR\SRTNTMAP.EVT (3/20196) 3-27-96 96-SUB-1 Page 2 Site Information The subject property encompasses 0.87 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 presently provides access to 12 properties within this block. Bryant Court has a 20 foot public right-of-way width and is surfaced in concrete. The property is currently divided into six parcels and contains a number of mature trees of varying species. The largest tree, a Coast Live Oak with a trunk diameter of 42", is located near the center of the site. 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. Properties to the south, west and east are zoned RM-30 (Medium Density Multiple-Family Residential), while lands to the north are zoned RM-15 (Low Density Multiple-Family Residential). Project.....History The property was once developed with six, detached single-family dwellings. In 1991, the City approved development plans for the construction of 12 townhouse units. No building permits for this development were ever issued; however, the homes were demolished several years later. On March 18, 1996, the City Council approved a Planned Community (PC) District rezoning of the site for the development of 13, detached single-family residential homes. Included in this action was the. approval of a variance for the reduction in required landscape setbacks. The approved development plan presents a small lot concept which includes outdoor yard areas for each lot and shared driveways. The PC District zoning for the site is subject to a number of conditions, including a requirement that a Tentative Map application be filed and approved. POLICY IMPLICATIONS As part of the PC District rezoning process, this project was reviewed for consistency with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. Pertinent issues are as follows: P:\PCSR\SRTNTMAP.EVT (3/20/96) 3 -27 -96 96-SUB-1 Page 3 Housing Element The project is consistent with Program #1 of the Housing Element in that it preserves single-family residential use adjacent to the downtown shopping area. Furthermore, the project is consistent with Program #13 in that it would provide a component of affordable housing, consisting of one unit/lot (Unit #6 on proposed Lot #6) priced for below-market-rate sale at $107,550. Urban Design Element The project would be consistent with the objectives of the Urban Design Element in that it would be compatible with the scale and development pattern of surrounding improvements. Secondly, the project would compliment the overall mix of residential development in the neighborhood. Finally, the project would result in the preservation of existing mature trees and the planting of new trees, which is encouraged under the Urban Design Element. Land Use Element The project would be consistent with the Multiple-Family Residential land use designation of the Comprehensive Plan. The project proposes a density of 14.9 dwelling units per acre, which is within the allowable density range of 10 to 45 dwelling units per acre. Compliance with the City of Palo Alto Single-Family Residential Guidelines The project is consistent with the Palo Alto Single-Family Residential Guidelines. Specifically, the development would be in-scale with the surrounding improvements and would preserve existing, mature trees. The project would not be subject to the guideline prohibitions for the creation of "flag" lots, in that this policy applies to subdivisions located in the R-1 District. DISCUSSION Issues and Analysis The subdivision, as proposed, would be consistent with the PC District and the conditions of zoning approval. The map layout and proposed easements appropriately address access, parking and private outdoor yard areas for each lot. It is recommended, however, that the Final Map include the following: P:\PCSR\SRTNTMAP.EV’T (3/20/96) 3-27-96 96-SUB-1 Page 4 The map shall include an oak preservation easement over portions of lot #7, 9 and 11. Although oak tree preservation is addressed in the draft CC&Rs, an easement should be shown on the map for added protection. The map shall include any easement that may be required to accommodate a ’parallel’ driveway parking space for lot #6 (parking space for lot #6 required as a condition of PC zoning approval). The improvement plan for the Final Map shall present an accurate and updated survey of all trees (on-site and street trees along the Everett Avenue frontage), as required by the conditions of the PC District zoning. The draft CC&Rs have been reviewed by the City Attorney’s office. Minor text changes are recommended, which are included as a condition of Tentative Map approval. Recommended conditions also require that Section 2.9 (Heritage Oak Tree Preservation Easement) of the CC&Rs be amended to include acknowledgment of the four Coast Live Oak trees (trees #19, 20, 21 and 22) located along the western property boundary. These trees are located in the proposed side yards of lots #12 and 13. Protection measures and easements should be established consistent with the arborist recommendations presented in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. In addition, recommended conditions presented in Attachment #2 of this report reference and require compliance with the Planned Community (PC) District Ordinance and Standard Conditions of Approval (approved by the City CounciI on March 18, 1996). Many of the conditions approved as part of the property rezoning address specific measures for tree protection and preservation, improvements to the Bryant Court right-of-way and the submittal of detailed landscaping and irrigation plans. Public participation Notice of this project was provided by publication of a public hearing notice in a local newspaper of general distribution. In addition, property owners and residents within 300 feet of the subject property were mailed a public hearing notice. In addition to the City’s standard notice and hearing process, the project sponsors held several meetings with neighborhood residents and property owners. These meetings were held during the property rezoning process and resulted in a number of changes to the project design and layout. P:\PCSR\SRTNTMAP.EVT (3/20!96) 3-27-96 96-SUB-1 Page 5 ALTERNATIVES Alternatives to the project were considered when the City reviewed the PC District ’rezoning and variance applications for the project. During that review process, the zoning of the property was RM-30. Alternatives that were considered included a higher or lower density residential project or an attached, multiple-family residential project. FISCAL IMPACT The project involves the approval of a Tentative Subdivision Map for the construction of 13 new single-family residential dwellings. These units would generate property taxes, as well as permit and utility fees. E.~O~NTAL ASSESSMENT An environmental assessment was prepared for the project as part of the City’s review and approval of the PC District rezonlng and variance applications. This assessment (95-EIA- 22) included the subdivision as part of the project description and addresses issues including tree removal and preservation, traffic, vehicular access and parking as well as light and privacy issues for neighboring properties. The assessment resulted in the approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and approval of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). The assessment and MMRP adequately address the potential impacts of the Tentative Map application. STEPS FOLLOWING APPROVAL Following the approval of a Tentative Subdivision Map, the project sponsor would be required to secure approvals of a Final Map, building permits and necessary encroachment permits. No permits or approvals are required by other agencies. ATTACHMENT$/EXI~BITS: Attachment #1: Draft Findings Attachment #2: Draft Conditions Attachment #3: Location Map Attachment #4:95-EIA-22 and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Attachment #5: Draft CC&Rs Plans/Subdivision Map [Commission members only] P:~PCSR\SRTNTMAP.EVT (3/20/96) 3-27-96 96-SUB-1 Page 6 COURTESY COPIES: Scott Ward, Classic Communities, 1068 East Meadow Circle, Palo Alto, CA 94303 Jim Baer, Ware & Friedenrich, 400 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94303 COPIES ~THOUT ATTAC~NTS: None. Prepared by: Paul Jensen, Contract Planner Project Planner: Paul Jensen, Contract Planner Division/Department Head Approval: Nancy Madd0x Lytle, Chief Planning Official P:\PCSR~SRTNTMAP.EVT (3120196) 3-27-96 96-SUB-1 Page 7 EXCERPT MINUTES OF THE PALO ALTO PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 27, 1996 315-335 E~RETT AVENUE/332-340 BRYANT.COURT: Review of a tentative map application subdividing .87 acres (38,000 square feet) of vacant land fronting Everett Avenue and Bryant Court. The subdivision will create 13 individual lots for development of detached, single-family units. A rezoning to a Planned Community (PC) District and a development plan for this project have been previously reviewed by the Planning Commission and Architectural Review Board. Environmental Assessment: A mitigated negative declaration has been prepared. File Nos. 95-SUB-1, 95-EIA-22. Chairman Beecham: For the record, we have Commissioner Carrasco with us on this item, so he will be participating. Our consideration of this item may be short, as we have spent a good amount of time on it in the past. However, this item does include a public hearing. Since we want to do justice to the public hearing, if anybody would wish to speak, we will have a public hearing on a continued date, probably April 10. If it seems that there is no public hearing, then perhaps we could deal with it at the moment. I see no one who wishes to speak from the audience. Does the staff have any comments? Paul Jensen: I have a couple of brief comments. This is a follow-up to the Planning Commission and City Council action on the PC rezoning. It is strictly a division of land for the approved development plan. There is one revised condition, Condition #13a, a revised BMR agreement that was negotiated just this last week to go forward to the City Council next week for the second reading of the PC ordinance. Co~issioner Cassel: At the meeting I attended this morning for the Palo Alto Housing Corporation, it may be helpful for people to understand just very briefly that if you remember, the price of the Times Tribune project that rented for more money than they anticipated. They anticipate that this project will sell for more money than they were originally estimating, thus they made some adjustments to the BMR in the fee payment. That is what this about, to reflect those changes. They cannot go back to the other one, going backwards, but they can try not to make the same mistakes the second time. Chairman B.eech~: Since there are no further comments or questions, I will open the public hearing. Herb Borock, 2731 .Byron...Street,...Palo Alto: I want to talk about the BMR language. The reason ! want to talk on this subject is the same concern that Commissioner Cassel expressed, not to try and delay this project, but to see that future projects dealing with BMR follow the city’s Comprehensive Plan Housing Program # 19. As I understand the Program 13, it requires a 3/27/96 calculation first of the cost of building the unit, exclusive of the land cost. You do not go directly to a table of incomes, but first, you want to see what is the cost to the developer for building it. I do not see anything in the staff report that would indicate that that happened. Also, in terms of the BMR program, as I understood it, it represented for each family size a range from 80 percent of the median family county income to 120 percent. For various sizes and numbers of bedrooms, that would cover also a range of family sizes. So I do not understand why a particular price is chosen, because we would be looking at the range of medians in the table of BMR prices. So those are the two things that I would be concerned about in the future. First, that it shows whether or not the BMR price is related to the construction cost. If the construction cost is much higher than the target for the BMR program, then there is a reason to lower that price. Otherwise, you would end up with double counting of the money that should have applied for the fraction of the units and somehow lower used it to lower the price when it would have been lowered anyway, based on the construction cost. Chairman Beecham: Thank you, Herb. I will now close the public hearing and return this item to the commission. Any discussion? Ms. Cauble: I would like to clarify something. The staff recommendation in the memo dated March 27th with respect to the wording of the BMR condition reflects the staff recommendation that is going to the City Council next Monday night for the second reading of the PC ordinance. The council may or may not accept the staff recommendation, so I think that your motion might be to incorporate this condition, or as it might be modified by the City Council as part of the PC zoning. ~.gmmissioner Carrasco: I thought this problem would be easy to look at, however, I am a little bothered by this new piece of information before us. While on the one hand, I agree that we do need below-market-rate housing and we need it badly and as much of it as we can find, I am not sure that this is the right type of mechanism to take a 3-bedroom $450,000 or $500,000 home and sell it for $146,000, giving one family that windfall. I am not sure about that whole philosophy. The next part of it really bothers me. After asking a developer to give his fair share of that amount of money, and addition to ask for a 0.8125 percent of the actual value of the remaining twelve units I do not believe is grounded in the Comprehensive Plan, nor is it grounded in the subdivision ordinance. So I do not see how we can ask for this. It is an additional tax that is beyond our authority, and it conflicts with state law, I imagine, as well as our own policies. Ms. Lytle: The first objection that Commissioner Carrasco had is a Comprehensive Plan policy currently. The windfall that he talks about is a below-market-rate program, and we do not consider it to be objectionable, in fact, it has been a long-standing city policy. The second point, that is, the fee over and above, is also part of the Comprehensive Plan and comes right out of a table in the Comprehensive Plan. The intent of this modification is to try and capture a piece of information that has come up recently. That is, that the units are selling for a whole lot more money than we originally thought they would be selling for. We base our calculation for this 3/27/96 additional amount on the expected sales price. What this revision is doing and what council asked staff to remm with at the second reading is to update what the market now tells us about the final sales price of these units. The condition that you heard as presented by our city attorney tonight is the way we would like it to read. This is subject to council purview. They have called this issue back in the second reading of the PC zone. This is our recommendation to them, and we would like you to defer to what they finally agree to in their second reading in terms of the condition on the map. Commis.si0ner.....~arrasco: Can you tell me which part of the ordinance allows you to do both the deep unit discount, as well as the 3 percent fee? Your reasoning, Nancy if you can address the fact that on the one side, you say you are going to go into the program because you fred that the house prices are higher. Do you as also do it when the house prices are lower than expected? Do you discount the amount? Ms....L_vtle: First of all, let me answer the first question. It is Program #13 of the Housing Element that specifies that for fractions of BMR units, the in-lieu payment will be determined as a percentage of the selling price of each unit for which no BMR unit is provided by utilizing a sliding scale. There is a table in the Comprehensive Plan that gives you that sliding scale, 3.25 percent. The actual timing of when we enter the agreement is usually when we fix the approximate sales price. What happened in this particular instance is that the market went "whoosh" from the time we entered into the agreement and the time it got to the council. Council was concerned about that issue, essentially. That is the reason why they asked us to go back and relook at it. There is nothing in the policy that would prevent us from doing that. The applicant, in fact, agreed to come back and see this tentative agreement. In fact, it was done with the applicant acknowledging that the sales price had gone up. So that is where we are on it. So yes, the market could just as easily have dropped, and I assume that the applicant could have come to a council meeting and requested that it be reconsidered, based on the fact that the market went south. That is not the way it worked. Instead, it was the council asking for reconsideration because the market had not depreciated at all. Eo~issionet.......Ojakian: Since Mr. Ward is in the audience, could he indicate with a nod of the head or something, do you agree with the BMR charges that are stated in the staff report? Have you seen it yet? Scott Ward,... Classic Communities, 1068 East Meadow Circle,....palo Alto: I am not sure what document you are referring to, but we did execute the letter within the last day or so, modifying the terms of the BMR agreement. Commissioner Schink: I have a question for staff. This is proposed to be also part of the PC, so what we are looking at is not just the BMR but also one of the compelling reasons why we would have approved this PC? 3/27/96 Ms. L~le: It is referenced in the PC ordinance, although it is not doing more than fulfilling the BMR component of the project. It is not the public benefit of the project. The second reading of the ordinance was directed to include this modification, and that is the PC ordinance we are talking about. Commissioner Schink: Some of us may have, in fact, taken into account that there would be some sort of BMR component in making our PC decision. Ms. Lytle: Yes. Commissioner Ojakian: The only other thing I would say, Bern, is that since I was at the council meeting that discussed this matter, this is written in the way that the council basically directed the staff to put something together to be available for the second reading. So they sort of conditionally almost approved this project and wanted to review it in the second reading. So what we have here should not be a sticky matter. It is basically what the council told the staff to put together. Chairman Beecham: Thank you, Vic. Any other comments on this item? MOTION: Commissioner Ojakian: I move that we approve the staff recommendations as stated on Page 1 of our staff report, as follows: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council: approval of the tentative map based on the attached findings (Attachment # 1) and subject to the attached conditions (Attachment #2), and including the language as stated earlier by Ms. Lytle that includes this BMR agreement as just given to us in Attachment #4. SECOND: By Commissioner Schink. Ms. Lytle: Can I understand that to include "or as amended by council in their final adoption of the PC ordinance?" Commissioner Ojakian: Yes, that is correct. Commissioner Carrasco: Can we separate out Item !3a, because I would like to vote against that, whereas I like the overall project. Chairman Beecham: Let us go for the overall motion, and your comments are registered in the minutes. Commissioner Schink: I share some of Tony’s concerns on a general basis. With regard to this particular project, since they have chosen to do a PC, I do not have any discomfort at all with 3/27/96 applying these rules here. They have an obligation for public benefit, and a BMR is an important public benefit. I am happy.to apply it here, but I think it is a question that I am beginning to get a little uncomfortable with when we start applying these formulas to extract these dollar figures from some of these subdivisions. I share Tony’s concerns there. MOTION PASSES: Chairman Beecham: Is there any further discussion on this motion? We have a motion by Commissioner Ojakian, seconded by Commissioner Schink, to accept the staff recommendation that we recommend to the City Council approval of the tentative map with attached findings and conditions, and with the revised Attachment #4 regarding the BMR, as may be modified by the City Council. All those in favor, say aye. All opposed? That passes unanimously on a vote of 7-0. C.o~s.sioner Carras~9: I voted for it, but I want to register my opposition to Condition #13A. Chairman Beecham: Thank you, Tony. So that does pass unanimously with a notation by Tony. When does this go to council? Ms. Grote: The PC amendment goes to the City Council Monday, April 1. Chairman Beecham: What about the map? Ms. Lytle: The map is tentatively scheduled for April 15. 3/27/96 ATTACHMENT~ ~ ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1. Project Title:Everett Court Residential Development 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Paio 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 X Population and Housing Geological Problems 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 Mandatory Findings of Public Services Utilities and Service Systems 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 Impa~t." 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. P:\EIA\EIA.evr [11/95] 95-EIA-22 5 ~sues and Supporting Information Sources SOUrCes Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incoq~orated Less Than Significant Impact LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? )Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? ) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? )Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impact to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority community) ? 1,2 3,4,5 6,7, 8(B-1) 2,7 8(B-1) 6,7 8(B-1) ~-. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: X X Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? ~)Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or major infrastructure? c)Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? 3.GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. a) Fault rupture? b) Seismic ground shaking? 1,2,3 1,2,3 e 8(B-1) Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: X 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? 9,10 9,10 9,10 9,10 9,10 9,10 9,10 9,10 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 Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Significant Impact Impact 4. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a)Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the 1 1 X rate and amount of surface runoff? b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards 9,12,X such as flooding?8(B-7) c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of 6,7 X surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved 8(B-7) oxygen or turbidity? d)Changes in the amount of surface water in any water 6,7 X body? e)Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water 6,7 X movements? f)9 X I) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? Impacts to groundwater quality? Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? 9 X 5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a)Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an exiting or projected air quality violation? b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants c)Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? d) Create objectionable odors? 8(B- 6), 13 13 7,11 7,11 X X X X 6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: P:\EIA\EIA.evr [11/95] 95-EIA-22 ~sues and Supporting Information Sources SOUrCeS Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Significant a Impact Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion?8(B- 2), 14 Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp 14 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 b~rriers 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? 7,1 1 1,11, 14 7,11 15,16 7,15 X X X X 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats 8(B-X (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects,12) animals or birds)? b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?17 X c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak 8(B-X forest, coastal habitat, etc.)?12) d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool?8(B-7)X e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors?8(B-X 12) 8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?18 X b)Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and 18 X inefficient manner? c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral 18 X resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? 9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: 95-EIA-22 P:\EIA\EI~,.evr [11/95] 8 ssues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Issues PotentiaJly Significant Uniess Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass of trees? O. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: Increase in existing noise levels? b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 8(B-8, B- 9),19 19 19 19 8(B- 4), 20,21 8(B- 4), 20,21 11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? . b) Police protection? c) Schools? d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? e) Other governmental services? 12. 22 22 22 22 22 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: X X X X X X X X X X x a) Power or natural gas?22 X b) Communications systems?22 X c)Local or regional water treatment or distribution 22 X facilities? 95-EIA-22 P:\EIA\EIA.evr [ 11/95] 9 ,sues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentialiy Significant UnJess Mitigation Incorporated Significant Impa Impact Sewer or septic tanks?22 X Storm water drainage?.22 X Solid waste disposal?22 X Local or regional water supplies?22 X 3. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway?23 X Have a ~demonstrable negative aesthetic effect?6,7,1 X 1 Create light or glare?11 X 4. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: Disturb paleontological resources?8(B-X 14) Disturb archaeological resources?8(B-X 14) Affect historical resources?8(B-X .13) Have the potential to cause a physical change which 8(B-X would affect unique ethnic cultural values?14) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the 8(B-X potential impact area?14) 5. RECREATION. Would the proposal: Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks 24 X or other recreational facilities? Affect existing recreational opportunities?8(B-X 11) 6.MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. 95-EIA-22 P:\EIA\EIA.evr [11/951 10 ssues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated ILess Than ~ NoSignificant! Impact Impact t)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? ~)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 X 25 25 25 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. Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refin.ed 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 sues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially SigPJficant Issues Potentially Sigr,Jficant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Significant act Impact SOURCE REFERENCES (All of the following references are available and on file with the City of Palo Alto epartment of Environmental Management, 250 Hamilton Avenue, 5th floor, Palo Alto) 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 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan 1980-1995, Land Use Map; 1981-1992 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan 1980-1995, Housing Element; 1990 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan 1980-1995, Urban Design Element; 1981 Single-Family Residential Guidelines for Palo Alto; 1991 Aerial photograph of subject property and surrounding community; 1995 Field investigation of subject property and surrounding community to survey existing conditions and land uses; September 15, 1995 Plan Update, Existing Setting Summary Memorandum, Maps B-l, B-3, B-4, B-5, & B-14; 1994 Plan 1980-1995, Environmental Resources Element, pgs. 65-72; 1981 Plan Update, Geology & Seismic Technical Report; 1994 Development Plans (site plan, building elevations, cross-sections, landscape Palo Alto Comprehensive B-6, B-7, B-9, B-12, B-13 Palo Alto Comprehensive Palo Alto Comprehensive Everett Court Preliminary plan, tree survey); 1995 Palo Alto Comprehensive Palo Alto Comprehensive Memorandums from Carl 1995 12 Plan Update, Geology & Seismic Technical Report, Figures 7 & 8; 1994. 13 Plan Update, Air Quality Technical Background Report, pgs. 15-30; 1994 14 Stoffel, Transportation Division, City of Palo Alto; Aug. 18, 1995 & Sept. 14, 15 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan 1980-1995, Transportation Element; 1981 16 Citywide Land Use and Transportation Study o A Summary, City of Palo Alto; 1990 17 Tree Survey end 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 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update, Noise Technical Background Report; 1994 22 Written comments submitted by City of Palo Alto departments on the proposed project 23 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan 1980-1995, Urban Design Element, pgs. 42-49; 1981 24 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan 1980-1995, Schools and Parks Element, pgs. 37-41; 1981 25 Answer is substantiated through the responses provided for items 1-15 95-EIA-22 P:\EIA\EIA.evr [11/95]13 9.EXPLANATIONS FOR CHECKLIST RESPONSES la& lb Land Use and Plannin_~. 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, designed 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 ;a & 4d Geologic Problems. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving seismic ground shaking? 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 ~ity of Palo Alto construction regulations require compliance with Uniform Building code (UBCi standards, Application of UBC standards require measures to minimize seismic risk. Mitigation: None required. Water, 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? 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 a 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. Mitigation: None required. 95-EIA-22 P:\EIA\EIA~evr [ 11/95]15 5d 6~ 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 I~’cal streets. Air quality in the neighborhood is h~gher 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. Transoortation and Circulation. Would the proposal result in increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? 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. T-hese 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. MitiQatiorf; None required. 95-EIA-22 P:\EIA\EIA.evr [11/95]16 6d Transportation and Circulation. Would the proposal result in inefficient parking capacity on-site or off- site? Setting; The subject property has frontage on two public streets, Everett Avenue and Bryant OOurt. 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 Pr0blem.atic 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 [11/951 17 6d Mitiaation Measures; 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-E1A-22 P:\EIA\EIA.evr [11/95]18 7b Bioloqi~o.I Resources. Would the proposal result in impacts to locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? 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 ~ating 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 ~otal removal of 15 trees. These eight trees are #2, #4, #6, #9, #10, #11, #15 and #17. Reference # #2 + #4 + #6 #9 #10 #1i #15 #17 Soecies/Siz~-T.rvnk Diameter Condition *: Southern Magnolia/16 inch.Rating = 3; Southern Magnolia/9 inch Rating = -6; Canary Island Palm/30 inch Rating = 2; Coast Live Oak/18 inch Rating = Bailey’s Acacia/9 inch Rating = 5; Monterey Pine/12 inch Rating = 2; Canary Island Palm/28 inch Rating = 3; Monterey Pine/25 inch Rating = 3; representingCondition rating is a range from 2 - 10 with 2 worst. Street tree (Everett Avenue frontage) PurDos~ of R~mgv~l new driveway for access from Everett Ave. new driveway for access from Everett Ave. construction of unit #8 3; construction of unit #5 driveway construction for unit #2 construction of unit #2 driveway construction adjacent to unit #13 driveway construction adjacent to unit #13 the best condition and 10 representing the 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 [11/951 19 7b Mil;iqation 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 lOa 13c Would the proposal result in an increase in existing noise levels? 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. 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? 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. Mitiaation: 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 nefghborhood. 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. MitiQation: None required. 95-EIA-22 P:\EIA\EiA.evr [ 11/95]22 =_, THE UNDERSIGNED, HEREBY ATTEST THAT WE HAVE REVIEWED THIS MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ~TED , PREPARED FOR THE PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT OF IOPERTY KNOWN AS 315-335 Everett Avenue/Bryant Court, PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA, JD AGREE TO IMPLEMENT ALL MITIGATION MEASURES CONTAINED HEREIN. ~plicant’s Signature Date :tachments: :tachment #1 : :tachment #2: :tachment #3: :tachment #4: Vicinity/Location Map Memorandum 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 When Recorded Return To: Hanna & Van Atta 525 University Avenue, Suite 705 Palo Alto, California 94301 EVERETr COURT DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS TABLF~ OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTORY PARAGRAPHS A thru B ARTICLE I DEFINITIONS .........................................................1 1.1 Declarant .................................................I 1.2 Declaration ................................................I 1.3 Lot or Lots ................................................2 1.4 Map .....................................................2 1.5 Mortgage .................................................2 1.6 Mortgagee ................................................2 1.7 Mortgagor .................................................2 1.8 Owner ...................................................2 1.9 Person ...................................................2 1.10 Private Joint Access Easement ................... ..............2 1.11 Private Parking Easement .....................................2 1.12 Private Yard Easement .......................................2 1.13 Project ...................................................3 1.14 Property ..................................................3 ARTICLE II DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT, DMSION OF PROPERTY, AND "CREATION OF PROPERTY RIGHTS ......................................3 2.1 2.2 2.2 2.3 Description of Project ........................................3 Drainage Easements .........................................3 Owner’s Rights and Easements for Utilities ........................3 Easements to Accompany Conveyance of Lot .......................3 2/29/96 T:’,WP ~,~ N6~,PR O/ECT~EVERETTkDECTC O~ce~ ol Van Att~ 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 Encroachment Easements .....................................3 Private Yard Easements .......................................4 Private Maintenance Access Easement ...........................4 Private Parking Easements ....................................5 Private Joint Access Easement ..................................5 Heritage Oak Preservation Easement ............................6 2.10 Easements to Accompany Conveyance of Lot .......................7 2.11 Shared Fences .............................................7 2.12 Deelarant’s Reservation of Rights ...............................7 ARTICLE III MAINTENANCE .......................................................7 3.1 3.2 Landscaping ...............................................7 Repairs ..................................................7 ARTICLE IV USE RESTRICTIONS ...................................................8 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 Use of Lot ................................................8 Nuisances .................................................8 Vehicle Restrictions .........................................8 Commercial Activity ................, .........................9 Signs ....................................................9 Hags, Pennants, Banners, Ete ...................................9 Garbage and Refuse Disposal ..................................9 Animals ..................................................9 Exterior Clothes Lines .......................................9 4.10 Leasing ...................................................9 4.11 Automobile Maintenance ....................................10 4.12 Sports Apparatus ..................................: ........10 4.13 Architectural Review. .......................................10 4.14 Radio and Television Antennas ................................10 4.15 Solar Energy ..............................................10 4.16 Special Use Restrictions Required by the City ......................10 A.Permitted Uses ........................................10 B.Conditional Uses ......................................11 C.Site Development Regulations .............................11 ARTICLE V GENERAL PROVISIONS 11 5.1""Enforcement .. ............................................11 5.2 Invalidity of Any Provision ...................................11 5.3 Term ................................................... 5.4 Amendments .............................................12 2~9/96 T:\WP WIN 60~ R O.rE C’F$~EVER ET’Pj3 EC’T C 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9 5.10 5.11 5.12 5.13 Mortgage Protection Clause ..................................12 Notice ..................................................12 Fair Housing .............................................12 Below Market Rate Lot .....................................12 Dispute Notification and Resolution Procedure ....................12 Arbitration ...............................................14 Assignment by Declarant .....~ ...............................15 Effective Date ............................................15 Number; Gender ...........................................15 2/29/96 T:\WP WI N60"~P R OJE CT$,,EVER ETIkD E CI’C When Recorded Return To: Hanna & Van Atta 525 University Avenue, Suite 705 Palo Alto, CA 94301 EVERETT COURT DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS THIS DECLARATION, made on the date hereinafter set forth by Everett Court,/., P., a California Limited Partnership, hereinafter referred to as "Declarant," is made with reference to the following facts: A.Deelarant is the owner of certain property located in the City of Palo Alto ("City"), County of Santa Clara, State of California, described as: Lots 1 through 13 shown on the Subdivision Map for Tract , which Map was filed for record in the Office of the Recorder of the County of Santa Clara, State of California, on ,19~, in Book of Maps, pages , Instrument No. B.Declarant intends by this document to impose upon the property mutually beneficial restrictions under a general plan of improvement for the benefit of all Owners of Lots 1 through 13. NOW, THEREFORE, Declarant hereby declares that all of the property described above shall be held, sold, leased, mortgaged, encumbered, rented, used, occupied, improved and conveyed subject to the following declarations, limitations, easements, covenants, restrictions, and conditions, which are imposed as equitable servitudes pursuant to a general plan for the development of the property for the purpose of enhancing and protecting the value and desirability of the project and every part thereof, and which shall run with the real property and be binding on Declarant and its successors and assigns, and on all parties having or acquiring any right, title or interest in or to the property described or any part thereof, their heirs, successors and assigns, and shall inure to the benefit of each Owner thereof. ARTICLE I DEFINITIONS 1.1 "Declarant" shall mean and refer to Everett Court, L. P., a California Limited Partnership, its successors and assigns if any successors or assigns should acquire more than one (1) undeveloped lot from Declarant for the purposes of development and/or sale, and shall assume, in writing, the obligations and rights of the Declarant hereunder. 1.2 "Declaration" shall mean and refer to t~’is Declaration, and any amendments thereto. 2/5/96 T:\WPWI N60NPR OJEC~S,EVER ~EC -1- 1.3 "Lot" or "Lots" shall mean and refer to Lots numbered 1 through 13, together with any improvements thereon, shown upon the Map. 1.4 "Map" shall mean and refer to that Subdivision Map entitled Tract ., recorded on the day of , 19~, in Book of"Maps at page(s) __ through m, Instrument No. , in the records of Santa Clara County. 1.5 "Mortgage" shall mean and include a deed of trust as well as a mortgage, recorded against a Lot. ¯"Mortgagee" shall include a beneficiary or a holder of a deed of trust as well1.6 as a mortgagee. 1.7 "Mortgagor" shall include the trustor of a deed of trust as well as a mortgagor. 1.8 "Owner" shall mean and refer to the record Owner, whether one (1) or more persons or entities, of a fee simple title to any Lot which is a part of the Project, but excluding those persons or entities having an interest merely as security for the performance of an obligation. If a lot is sold under a recorded contract of sale, the purchaser, rather than the fee Owner, will be considered the "Owner". 1.9 legal entity. "Person" means a natural person, a corporation, a partnership, trustee, or other 1.111 "Private Joint Access Easement" ("PJAE") shall mean and refer to the area(s) designated on the Map as "Private Joint Access ESMT & P.U.E.". A PJAE constitutes a joint and reciprocal non-exclusive easement for vehicular and pedestrian ingress and egress and for installation, maintenance, repair and replacement of utilities. Each LOt within which a portion of the PJAE is located, has, as the dominant tenement, a non-exclusive easement over the other Lots within which a portion of the PJAE is located (servient tenements) and, as the servient tenement, it is subject to a non-exclusive easement in favor of the other Lots, as dominant tenements, the boundaries of the easement being as described on the Map. For example, LOt 9, as the dominant tenement, has a non- exclusive PJAE over Lots 7 and 8, and each of Lots 7 and 8, as a dominant.tenement, has a non- exclusive PJAE over Lot 9, as a servient tenement. 1.11 ’’Private Parking Easement" ("PPE") shall mean and refer to the area(s) designated on the Map as "Private Parking ESMT for Lot ." A PPE constitutes an exclusive easement in favor of and appurtenant to the Lot designated on the Map, as the dominant tenement, over the portion of the LOt within which a portion of a parking space is shown, as the servient tenement. For example, LOt 6, as the servient tenement, is burdened by an exclusive easement appurtenant to LOt 5, the dominant tenement, for parking. 1.12 "Private Yard Easement" ("PYE") shall mean and refer to the area(s) designed on the Map as "Private Yard ESMT for Lot ." A PYE constitutes an easement in favor of and appurtenant to the Lot designated on the Map, as the dominant tenement, over thal..portion of the LOt within which a PYE is shown, as the servient tenement. For example, Lot 5, the servient tenement, is burdened by an easement appurtenant to Lot 6, the dominant tenement for private yard purposes. Each PYE constitutes an exclusive easement except for the right of the Owner of the 2/5/96 -2- T.SWP W’I N60"~P R O J EC’TS~EV ER E’TI’q’M9 EC servient tenement to enter the PYE as necessary to make repairs to the home of the Owner of the servient tenement as provided in section 2.5. 1.13 "Project" shall mean and refer to the residential development that is constructed on the property and made subject to this Declaration, including all improvements thereon. 1.14 "Property" shall mean and refer to the real property described on the Map. ARTICLE II DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT, DMSION OF PROPERTY, AND CREATION OF PROPERTY RIGHTS 2.1 Description of Project: The Project consists of the underlying real property, including the thirteen (13) Lots shown on the Map (numbered 1 through 13). 2.2 Drainage E,~ements: Reciprocal appurtenant easements between adjoining lots are hereby created for the flow of surface water. 2.3 Owners’ Rights and Easements for Utilities: The rights and duties of the Owners of Lots within the Project with respect to sanitary sewer, drainage, water, electric, gas, television receiving, telephone equipment, cables and lines (hereinafter referred to, collectively, as "utilities facilities") shall be as follows: Whenever utilities facilities are installed within the Project, which utilities facilities or any portion thereof lie in or upon a Lot or Lots owned by other than the Owner of a Lot served by said utilities facilities, the Owners of any Lots served by said utilities facilities, shall have the right of reasonable access for themselves or for utility companies or the City of Pale Alto to repair, to replace and generally maintain said utilities facilities as and when the same may be necessary. B.Whenever utilities facilities are installed within the Project which utilities facilities serve more than one (1) Lot, the Owner of each Lot served by said utilities facilities shall be entitled to the full use and enjoyment of such portions of said utilities facilities as service his Lot. C.In the event of a dispute between Owners with respect to the repair or rebuilding of said utilities facilities, or with respect to the sharing of the cost thereof, then, upon written request of one (1) Owner addressed to the other Owner(s), the matter shall be submitted to binding arbitration within sixty (60) days pursuant to the rules of the American Arbitration Association, or any successor thereto, and the decision of the Arbitrator(s) shall be final and conclusive on the parties, and judgment may be entered thereon in any court having jurisdiction. 2.4 Encroachment Easements: Each LOt as the dominant tenement shall have an easement over adjoining Lots as the servient tenements for the purpose of accommodating any encroachment due to foundations, exterior w.all, windows, roof overhand and fences or walls which are built in accordance with the original design, plans and specifications of Declarant, or due to minor engineering errors, errors of adjustments in original construction, settlement or shifting of the building, or similar causes. There shall be valid easements for the maintenance of said 2/5/96 -3- T.%WP V~I N6~r/~ R OJ ECTSAEVER ETTkDEC encroachments as long as they shall exist, and the rights and obligations of Owners shall not be altered in any way by said encroachment, settlement or shifting; provided, however, that in no event shall a valid easement for encroachment be created in favor of an Owner or Owners if said encroachment occurred due to the intentional conduct of said Owner or Owners other than adjustments by Declarant in the original construction. In the event a structure is partially or totally destroyed, and then repaired or rebuilt, the Owners of each adjoining Lot agree that minor eneroachments over adjoining Lots shall be permitted and that there shall be valid easements for maintenance of-said encroachments as long as they shall ~xist. In the event that an error in engineering, design or construction results in an encroachment onto an adjoining LOt, or into a required setback area, a correcting modification may be made in the subdivision Map. Said modification shall be in form of a certificate of correction and shall be executed by Declarant (so long as Deelarant is the sole Owner of the Project) and by Deelarant’s engineer and by the city engineer. 2.$Private Yard Easements: As provided in section 1.12, certain Lots, as .the servient tenements, are subject to private yard easements. The Owner/occupant of the dominant tenement shall have the exclusive use of the private yard easement, subject to the following terms and conditions: A. landscaping in the PYE. The Owner of the dominant tenement shall install and maintain the B.The Owner of the dominant tenement may install the following improvements in the PYE: landscaping, irrigation lines, drain and connector lines, surfacing material or other hardscaping that will not unreasonably interfere with the rights retained by the Owner of the servient tenement; C.The Owner of the servient tenements retains the right to enter the PYE on such notice as may be reasonable under the circumstances to repair, maintain (including repainting) or replace the abutting or encroaching building, wall or roof, including windows, eaves, gutters, leaders, drain pipes and any utilities or utility service panels, and any other improvements located in or immediately adjacent to the PYE that serve the servient tenement; D.The Owner of the servient tenement retains the right to encroach into the PYE with the building structure as originally constructed, and with eaves, overhangs, gutters, leaders, the openings of windows, utility service panels and equipment, and similar encroachments that were part of or replacements to the original improvements placed on the servient tenement; and F_,.The Owner of a servient tenement retains the right to connect in and use the drain line installed in the PYE with an underground drain connector line. The Owner of the servient tenement shall maintain and repair that portion of the drain connector line that benefits the servient tenement only, and the Owners of both the servient and dominant tenements shall jointly maintain and repair that por.tion of the drain connection that benefits both Lots. 2.6 Private Maintenance Access Easement. In all cases where a structural wall constituting a portion of a single residence is located on or close to the dividing line between adjacent Lots, Owners of said adjoining Lots shall have reciprocal mutual non-exclusive easements for access to and maintenance of said wall(s), the reconstruction of said wall(s) in the event of the partial or total destruction of the same, drainage associated with said wall, or the residence of which 2/5/96 -4- T:\WPWI N60kP R OJEC"I’SkEVER ETT~D EC said wall is a part, and an easement to accommodate the foundation and/or roof or eave encroachment as per the original design, plans and specifications which were the basis for the original construction of the residence(s) on said Lot(s). Prior to entering the servient tenement, for purposes of maintenance, repair or replacement, the Owner or occupant of the dominant tenement shall provide the Owner or occupant of the servient tenement with reasonable prior notice except in the event of an emergency. 2.7 Private Parking Easements. As shown on the Map, certain Lots are subject to private parking easements as described in section 1.11. The Owner or occupants of the dominant tenements shall have the exclusive use of the PPE, subject to the following terms and conditions: A. paving in the PPE; and The Owner of the dominant tenement shall install and maintain the B, The Owner of the dominant tenement shall park within the PPE and not encroach beyond the PPE into the Lot of the servient tenement. 2.8 Private Joint Access Easement. As shown on the Map, certain Lots are benefitted by and subject to a private joint access easement. The rights and obligations of the parties with respect to the PJAE are as follows: A.The Owners of LOts subject to the PJAE shall maintain the PJAE in good condition and repair at all times. Maintenance shall be performed at any time that the Owners of two or more Lots subject to the PJAE agree that maintenance is necessary. Except as otherwise provided herein, the Owner(s) desiring maintenance (the "Notifying Owners") shall notify the Owners of the LOts in writing of the need for maintenance (the "Maintenance Notice"). The Maintenance Notice shall describe the necessary maintenance, the party to perform the maintenance, the estimated cost to perform the maintenance, the allocation of the costs, the date payment of the funds will be needed, and any anticipated disruption of use during the maintenance period. If the Notifying Owner has received no response to the Maintenance Notice within 30 days of receipt, it shall be presumed that the non-responding Owner(s) has agreed to the maintenance, and has agreed to pay the Owner’s allocable share thereof in accordance with the Maintenance Notice, and such reasonable charges as may be necessary in the course of the maintenance work. The Notifying Owner(s) may then proceed to have the maintenance work completed. If any Owner objects to any information in the Maintenance Notice, in a timely manner, the Owners shall immediately meet and negotiate in good faith to resolve any disagreements. If the disagreement cannot be resolved within thirty (30) days after initial receipt of the Maintenance Notice, or if the parties fail to meet within the time period for any reason, any Owner may commence arbitration under section 5.9 of this Declaration to resolve this disagreement, unless the Owners of three (3) Lots in the case of Lots 10, 11, 12 and 13, and two (2) lots in the case of LOts 7, 8 and 9, consent to have the maintenance work done. The approval of the requisite number of Owners shall control, and there shall be no right or obligation to arbitrate in that case. For all purposes herein, each Lot shall be entitled to one vote, and the vote cast by one Owner shall conclusively be presumed to be the vote cast by all Owners of the same Lot. B.Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, the procedures described herein may be dispensed with in the event emergency repairs are necessary to protect persons or property. In this event, any Owner may authorize such maintenance or repairs as may 2/5196 -5- T:\WPWI Ng~2’,P R OJ EC~S,EVER ETT’d3 EC be necessary to alleviate the emergency situation, and all Owners shall be required to pay their allocable share of the cost of the emergency repairs. C.The maintenance and repair or any utilities within a PJAE shall be the responsibility of the Owner of the Lot served by the utility at that Owner’s sole cost, except for such utilities as may be maintained by the City or by a public or private utility company. If any repair or maintenance will interfere with the use of the PJAE, the Owner intending maintenance or repair shall provide at least ten (10) days prior notice to the other Owners, except in the event of emergency repairs. All repairs and maintenance shall be completed in a good workman-like manner, and as expeditiously as possible to minimize any interference with the use or enjoyment of the PJAE. Upon completion of the work, the PJAE shall be restored as quickly as practicable to the condition it was in immediately prior to the commencement of the work, at the cost of the Owner maintaining or repairing the utilities. D.The costs of repair of the PJAE shall be allocated equally among all Lots subject to a particular PJAE. However, if the need for repair and maintenance is caused by the act or neglect of any Owner or occupant of the Owner’s Lot or any family member, guest or agent of the Owner, the Owner of that Lot shall be liable to pay the cost of the repair and maintenance. If there is more than one Owner of the Lot, the Owners shall be jointly and severally liable. E.Payment Procedure. Payment of each Lot’s allocable share of the cost of repairs of the PJAE shall be due and payable as set forth in the Maintenance Notice, or as otherwise agreed by the Owners of at least three (3) lots in the ease of Lots 10, 11, 12 and 13, and two lots in the ease of Lots 7, 8, and 9, or as directed by an arbitrator. Full or partial payment may be required in advance of commencement of the work. If payment is not made within 30 days after its due date, interest shall commence to accrue on the 31st day at the rate of twelve percent (12%) per annum (but not to exceed the maximum rate authorized by law) until paid in full. F.Insurance. Each Owner shall be responsible for maintaining property and liability insurance over that portion of the PJAE situated within the Owner’s Lot, in such amounts and covering such property, perils and acts as is customarily maintained in a standard homeowner’s insurance policy on similar homes situated within the local community. G. Disputes: Any disputes arising hereunder shall be submitted to arbitration as provided in section 5.10. 2.9 Heritage Oak Preservation Easement. The large Coast Live Oak tree (42" trunk diameter) situated in the northwesterly corner of LOt 9, between Lots 7 and 11, shall be protected and preserved in accordance with the following conditions: No pavement shall be permitted within the drip line of the tree.. B.No turf shall be installed within 20 feet of the trunk. Any turf installed within the drip line, shall be turf which requires less frequent irrigation than other turf species, such as Bonsai Tall Fescue (Fesctl,e Arundinacea Bonsai). C. Any soil preparation within the drip line of the tree for turf installation must not involve rototilling that is deeper than three inches (3") below the soil. 2/5/96 -6- T.~IWP WI N60& R OJECTSkEVER ETTd3 EC D.No irrigation line shall be installed within the drip line of the tree. There shall be no construction access within the tree canopy. be implemented. Pruning and cabling measures recommended by the City arborist shall G.The areas within Lots 7, 9 and 11, that are within the drip line of the tree are restricted. No activity shall occur within the drip line area of the tree which shall threaten or endanger the life and continued health of the tree. Any act or activity which threatens the health of the tree or causes injury to or destruction of the tree shall be subject to the imposition of fines or penalties, the nature and amount of which shall be recommended by the City arborist, and may be imposed under the authority of the City Council. 2.10 Easements to Accompany Conveyance of Lot. The corresponding appurtenant easements described in section 2.2 through 2.9 shall automatically accompany the conveyance of any Lot, even though the description and the instrument of conveyance may refer only to the fee title to the Lot. 2.11 Shared Fences. As part of the original construction of the Project, Declarant constructed fences on or about the common boundary lines between adjoining Lots, which fences are to be shared by the adjoining Lot Owners. The adjoining Lot Owners shall share jointly in the maintenance and repair of the fence with the cost thereof to be allocated equally between the Lots unless the circumstances warrant a different allocation. Each Lot, as the dominant tenement, shall have an easement over the adjoining LOt, as the servient tenement, for access to that portion of the servient tenement as may be reasonably necessary in order to repair, maintain or replace the fence. Any dispute between the adjoining Lot Owners regarding the need for maintenance or repair, the quality or type of maintenance or repair, the allocation of costs, or any related issues shall be submitted to mediation and/or arbitration as provided in section 5.9. 2.12 Deelarant’s Reservation of Rights. Declarant is undertaking the work of construction of a subdivision and incidental improvements upon the property. The completion of that work and the sale, rental, and other disposal of LOts is essential to the establishment and welfare of the project as a residential community. In order that said work may be completed and said project be established as a fully occupied residential community as rapidly as possible, nothing in this Declaration shall be understood or construed to: Prevent Declarant, its contractors, or subcontractors from doing on the Property or on any Lot, whatever is reasonably necessary or advisable in connection with the completion of said work; or B.Prevent Declarant or its representatives from erecting, constructing and maintaining on any part of the Project, such structures as may be reasonable and necessary for the conduct of its business of completing said work and establishing said Project as a residential community and disposing of the same in parcels by sale, lease, or otherwise; or C. Prevent Declarant from conducting on any part of the Project its business of completing said work and of establishing a residential community and disposing of the 2/5/96 -7- T:\WPWI N60"/~ R OJ ECTSLEVER ET’IAD EC Property in Lots by sale, lease or otherwise, including, without limitation, the conversion and use of garage(s) as sales office(s) during the sales program: or D. Prevent Declarant from maintaining such sign or signs on the Project as may be necessary for the sale, lease or disposition thereof. ARTICLE III MAINTENANCE .3.1 Landscaping. The Owner of each Lot shall maintain the Lot and all improvements and landscaping thereon in a first-class condition at all times. Landscaping shall be maintained in a healthy and weed-free condition. Dead or dying vegetation shall be removed and replaced by the Owner. Maintenance shall include regular fertilization, irrigation, pruning and other customary prudent landscaping practices. 3.2 Repairs. Owners shall not let their improvements fall into a state of disrepair. Regular preventative maintenance, including repairs to and maintenance of roofing, siding, exterior doors, windows, and screens shall be performed. ARTICLE IV USE RESTRICTIONS In addition to all of the covenants contained herein, the use of the Project and each Lot is subject to the following: 4.1 Use of Lot: No Lot shall be occupied and used except for residential purposes by the Owners, their tenants, and social guests, except that Declarant, its successors or assigns, may use the Property for a model homesite or sites, and display and sales office during construction until the last Lot is sold, by Declarant. A Lot may be used as a combined residence and executive or professionaloffice by the owner thereof, so long as such use does not interfere with the quiet enjoyment by other Lot owners of their Lots and does not include visiting clients. No tent, shack, trailer, basement, garage, outbuilding or structure of a temporary character shall be used on any Lot at any time as a residence, either temporarily or permanently. 4.2 Nuisances: No noxious, illegal or seriously offensive activities shall be carried on upon any LOt, or any part of the Property, nor shall anything be done thereon which may be or may become a serious annoyance or a nuisance to or which may in any way interfere with the quiet enjoyment of each of the Owners of his respective Lot. 4.3 Vehicle Restrictions: No trailer, camper, mobile home, commercial vehicle, truck (other than standard size pickup truck or standard size van), boat, inoperable automobile, or similar equipment shall be permitted to remain upon any area within the Property, other than temporarily, unless placed or maintained within an enclosed garage or carport. Commercial vehicles shall not include sedans (or standard size vans or pickup trucks) which are used both for business and personal use, provided that any signs or markings of a commercial nature on such vehicles shall be unobtrusive and inoffensive as determined by the Board. No noisy c~ smoky vehicles shall be operated on the Property. No unlicensed motor vehicles shall be operated upon the Property. 2/5/96 -8- T:\WPW1 N60"~P R O/EC~rSkEVER ET’Pd3 EC 4.4 Commercial Activity: No business, professional, or commercial activity of any kind shall be conducted on any Lot, except for provided in section 4.1. 4.5 Signs: No signs shall be displayed to the public view on any Lot or on any portion of the property except "For Sale" or "For Rent" signs Shall be allowed, provided they do not exceed five (5) square feet in size. Only one (1) such sign shall be permitted on any Lot. 4.6 Flags, Pennants, Banners, Etc.: There shall be no exhibiting, flying or hanging of any flags, pennants, banners, kites, towels, etc., from any area of the Project that would be visible from the street, common area, or other Lot, except as expressly permitted by statute. 4.7 Garbage and Refuse Disposal: All rubbish, trash and garbage shall be regularly removed from the Lots, and shall not be allowed to accumulate thereon. Trash, garbage and other waste shall not be kept except in sanitary containers. All equipment for the storage or disposal of such material shall be kept in a clean and sanitary condition, and shall be screened from view of neighboring LOts, and streets, except that containers may be placed out during garbage pick-up times. No toxic or hazardous materials shall be disposed of within the Project by dumping in the garbage containers or down the drains, or otherwise. 4.8 Animals: No animals or birds of any kind shall be raised, bred, or kept on any LOt except that no more than two (2) usual and ordinary household pets such as dogs, cats, birds, etc., may be kept, provided that they are not kept, bred, or maintained for any commercial purposes, and they are kept under reasonable control at all times. Notwithstanding the foregoing, no pets shall be kept on any Lot which cause an annoyance to or are obnoxious to other Lot Owners. Owners shall not permit their dogs to roam unleashed on the Property. No dog whose barking disturbs other Lot Owners shall be permitted to remain on any LOt. Owners of dogs shall be responsible for promptly cleaning up excrement left by their dogs anywhere on the Property. Any Owner may cause any unleashed dog found within the Property to be removed to a pound or animal shelter under the jurisdiction of the City of Palo Alto, or the County of Santa Clara, by calling the appropriate authorities, whereupon the Owner may, upon payment of all expenses connected therewith, repossess the dog. 4.9 Exterior Clothes Lines: No exterior clothes lines shall be erected and maintained and there shall be no outside laundering or drying of clothes upon any LOt. 4.10 Leasing. The Owner of any Lot may rent or lease his or her Lot, subject to the following conditions: A. The lease or rental agreement must be in writing and must be for an initial term of not less than 60 days; B.Any lease or rental agreement shall be subject to this Declaration, and any violation of any provision of the Declaration shall constitute a default under the lease or rental agreement, regardless of whether it so provides in the lease or rental agreement. If any tenant violates any provisions of this Declaration, the Owner of the Lot shall immediately take such steps as may be necessary to correct the violation, including, if necessary, evicting the tenant. ,-- C. Under no circumstances shall any Owner separately lease, rent or license any parking space on the Owner’s Lot or any PPE. 2/5/96 -9- T:I~Wp W’! N60"~p R OJEC’TS’xEVE R ~E C . 4.11 Automobile Maintenance. There shall be no maintenance or repairs performed on any automobile except within an enclosed garage, except for any emergency repairs that are necessary in order to remove the vehicle to a proper repair facility, Or except for the washing and/or waxing of vehicles. 4.12 Sports Apparatus. No basketball standards or other similar sports apparatus shall be installed anywhere in the Project. 4.13 Architectural Review. So long as Declarant owns any Lot in the Project, none of the following shall take place on any Lot without the prior written approval of Declarant: A.Any construction, installation, or repair (including exterior painting), replacement, alteration or removal of any building, outbuilding, structure, wall, fence, sign, garage, trash enclosure, storage area, berms, utilities or other improvements; Any grading, excavation or site preparation; .C. Any placement or storage of building materials or temporary structures, including trailers, tents, mobile homes, offices or vehicles. D.Notwithstanding anything here to the contrary, any Owner may repaint the improvements on the Owner’s Lot in the same colors, and remove and replace any siding or roofing materials in the same material and colors as originally constructed without approval of the Deelarant, subject to the approval of the Building Department of the City. Declarant, from time to time and during normal business hours, may enter any Lot for the purpose of inspecting any construction to confirm compliance with the approvals granted by Declarant. Before commencement of any alteration or improvement, or construction approved by Deelarant, the Owner shall apply to the City for necessary approvals and shall comply with all City ordinances. 4.14 Radio and Television Antennas: No antennas, towers, poles, satellite dishes (with a diameter greater than 36 inches) or any other structure to be used for the purpose of transmitting or receiving radio, television or related signals, except equipment installed by Declarant, or by Cable Coop, shall be installed on any Lot so as to be visible to the public view or to another Owner. 4.15 Solar Energy: Any exterior solar panels shall be constructed in a manner and location so as to limit the visibility thereof from other Lots and/or the street to the absolute minimum that is not substantially inconsistent with efficient performance and energy conservation. 4.16 Special Use Restrictions Required by City:. In addition to all of the covenants contained herein, the use of the Project and each LOt is subject to the following conditions required by the City: 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. 2/28/96 -10- T.%WP WI N60XP R O!E C’fSLEVER ETT,D EC B.Conditional Uses. All conditional uses as allowed in the R-1 (Single- fami.ly 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 Regulations. All improvements and development shall be substantially in accordance with the approved Development Plan. The following are site development 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. (1)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. (2)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 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-1 zoning district. (3)Any other 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. (4)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. ARTICLE V GENERAL PROVISIONS 5.1 Enforcement: Any Owner shall have the right to enforce, by any proceeding at law or in equity, all the restrictions, conditions, and covenants now or hereafter imposed by the provisions of this Declaration, and in such action shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorneys’ fees as are ordered by court. Failure of any Owner to enforce any covenant or restriction herein contained shall in no event be deemed a waiver of the right to do so thereafter. Each Owner, tenant or occupant of a Lot or dwelling shall comply with the provisions of this Declaration, and failure to comply with such provisions shall be grounds for an action by any Owner to recover sums due, for damages, or for injunctive relief, and attorney’s fees. 5.2 Invalidity of any Provision: Should any provision or portion hereof be declared invalid or in conflict with any law of the jurisdiction where this Project is situated, the validity of all other provisions and portions hereof shall remain unaffected and in full force and effect. 5.3 Term: The covenants and restrictions of this Declaration shall run with and bind the property, and shall inure to the benefit of and shall be enforceable by the Owner of any Lot subject to this Declaration, and his respective legal representatives, heirs, successors, and assigns, for a term of thirty (30) years from the date this Declaration is recorded, after which time they shall be 2D.8/96 - 11- T:~WPV¢I N60kPR OJECrSAEVERETTkD EC automatically extended for successive periods of ten (10) years, unless an instrument in writing, signed by a majority of the then Owners of the Lots has been recorded, within the year preceding the beginning of each successive period of ten (10) years, agreeing to change said covenants and restrictions in whole or in part, or to terminate the same. 5.4 Amendments: This Declaration may be amended only by the affirmative vote (in person or by proxy) or written consent of a majority of the Owners of Lots. Any amendment must be recorded and shall become effective upon being recorded in the Recorder’s Office of the County of Santa Clara. The amendment shall be signed by any three (3) Owners, each of whom shall declare, under penalty of perjury, that the required vote or written consent of a majority of the Owners has been obtained. Mortgage Prot~etion Clause: No breach of any of the covenants, conditions and restrictions contained herein, shall render invalid the lien of any first mortgage (meaning a mortgage with first priority over any other mortgage) on any LOt made in good faith and for value, but all of said covenants, conditions and restrictions shall be binding upon and effective against any Owner whose title is derived through foreclosure or trustee’s sale, or otherwise. No beneficiary under a deed of trust or any purchaser at a foreclosure sale of such deed of trust shall be obligated to cure any of the payment defaults of the previous Owner of the LOt, unless such obligation is expressly assumed in writing. 5.6 Notices: Any notice permitted or required by the Declaration may be delivered personally or by mail. If delivery is made by mail, it shall be deemed to have been delivered seventy-two (72) hours after a copy of the same has been deposited in the United States mail, first class or registered, postage prepaid, addressed to each person at the current address given by such person to the Deciarant or to the Committee or addressed to the LOt of such person if no address has been so given. Each Lot Owner covenants to provide the other Lot Owners with a current address for the purposes of receiving notices, in the event that the Lot Owner resides elsewhere. 5.7 Fair Housing: No Owner shall, either directly or indirectly, forbid or restrict the conveyance, encumbrance, leasing, or mortgaging, or occupancy of his LOt to any person of a specified race, color, religion, adulthood, ancestry, sex, marital status, physical disability or national origin. 5.8 Below Market Rate Lot. LOt 6 is subject to affordable housing restrictions in accordance with ordinances and policies of the City. 5.9 Dispute Notification and Resolution Procedure (Declarant Disputes). Any disputes between any Owners and the Declarant or any director, officer, partner, employer, subcontractor or agent of the Declarant relating to this Declaration, the use or condition of the Property, and/or the construction and installation of any improvements located thereon shall be subject to the following: A.Notice. Any Person with a claim against the Declarant or any director, officer, partner, employer, subcontractor or agent thereof (collectively, the "Declarant" for purposes of this section) sl~ll notify the Declarant in writing of the claim, which writing shall describe the nature of the claim and the proposed remedy (the "Claim Notice"). 2/28/96 -12- T~WPWI N60’TR O!ECTSkEVER ETI’~DEC B.Right to Inspect and Right to Cure. Within a reasonable period after receipt of the Claim Notice, which period shall not exceed 60 days, the Declarant and the Claimant shall meet at mutually-acceptable place within the Project to discuss the claim. At such meeting or at such other mutually-agreeable time, Declarant and Declarant’s representatives shall have full access to the Property that is subject to the claim for the purposes of inspection the Property. The parties shall negotiate in good faith in an attempt to resolve the claim. If the declarant elects to take any corrective action, Deelarant and Declarant’s representatives and agents shall be provided full access to the Project to take and complete corrective action. Non-Binding Mediation. If the parties cannot resolve the claim pursuant to the procedures described in subparagraph B above, the matter shall be submitted to non- binding mediation pursuant to the mediation procedures adopted by the American Arbitration Association or any successor thereto or to any other entity offering mediation services that is acceptable to the parties. No Person shall serve as a mediator in any dispute in which the Person has any financial.or personal interest in the result of the mediation, except by the written consent of all parties. Prior to accepting any appointment, the prospective mediator shall disclose any circumstances likely to create a presumption of bias or prevent a prompt commencement of the mediation process. Within ten (10) days of the selection of the mediator, each party shall submit a brief memorandum setting forth its position with regard to the issues that need to be resolved. The mediator shall have the right to schedule a pre-mediation conference and all parties shall attend unless otherwise agreed. The mediation shall be commenced within ten days following the submittal of the memorandum and shall be concluded within 15 days from the commencement of the mediation unless the parties mutually agree to extend the mediation period. The mediation shall be held in Santa Clara County, California, or such other place as is mutually acceptable by the parties. The mediator has discretion to conduct the mediation in the manner in which the mediator believes is most appropriate for reaching a settlement of the dispute. The mediator is authorized to conduct joint and separate meetings with the parties and to make oral and written recommendations for settlement. Whenever neeessa~, the mediator may also obtain expert advice concerning technical aspects of the dispute, providing the parties agree and assume the expenses of obtaining such advice. The mediator does not have the authority to impose a settlement on the parties. Prior to the commencement of the mediation session, the mediator and all parties to the mediation shall execute an agreement pursuant to California Evidence Code § 1152.5(c) or successor statute in order to exclude the use of any testimony or evidence produced at the mediation and any subsequent dispute resolution forum, including, but not limited to, court proceedings or arbitration hearings. Pursuant to California Evidence Code § 1152.5(a), the agreement shall specifically state: (1)Evidence of anything said or of any admission made in the course of the mediation is not admissible evidence, and disclosure of any such evidence shall not be compelled in any civil action in which, pursuant to law, testimony can be compelled to be given. (2) Unless the document provides otherwise, no document prepared for the purpose of, or in the course of, or pursuant to, the mediation, or copy thereof, is 2/7.8/96 -13- T:\WPW~N6~APR O!ECTSkEVER ~ EC admissible in evidence; and disclosure of any such document shall not be compelled, in any civil action in which, pursuant to law, testimony can be compelled to be given. Persons other than the parties, the representatives and the mediator may attend mediation sessions only with the permission of the parties and the consent of the mediator. :Confidential information disclosed to a mediator by the parties or by witnesses in the course of the mediation shall not be divulged by the mediator. All record, reports, or other documents received by the mediator while serving in such capacity shall be confidential. There shall be no stenographic record of the mediation process. D.Alternative Dispute Mechanism. If the parties cannot resolve the claim pursuant to the procedures described in subparagraph C above, prior to the commencement of any litigation in any court of competent jurisdiction, the parties shall negotiate in good faith regarding the submission of the claim to general references pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections § 638-645.1 or any successor statute thereto. The parties shall use the procedures adopted by the American Arbitration Association for the general reference procedures or any other entity offering general reference dispute resolution procedures as may be mutually acceptable to the parties. The parties shall cooperate in good faith to ensure that all necessary and appropriate parties are included in the alternative dispute mechanism. Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, Deelarant may elect not to participate in the general reference proceeding if Deelarant is not satisfied that all necessary and appropriate parties will participate. If the Owner has complied with requirements of subparagraphs A, B, C and D above and Deelarant elects not to participate in the general reference proceeding, the Owner may bring an action in any court of competent jurisdiction to resolve the dispute. Each Owner covenants that each shall forbear from commencing any litigation against the Deelarant without complying with the procedures described in subparagraphs A, B, C and D, above. If the Owner breaches the foregoing covenants, Deelarant may obtain an appropriate order compelling the Owner to comply with the procedures described in subparagraphs A, B, C and D. Notwithstanding any other provision herein to the contrary, in any dispute between any Owner and the Declarant, each party shall bear its own attorneys’ fees. Any and all communications by and between the parties, whether written or oral, which are delivered by the parties or their attorneys or other representatives in an effort to settle the claim shall be considered communications undertaken in the course of effecting a settlement or compromise and as such shall not be admissible as the admission on the part of any party or any representative or agent of that party to be utilized for any such purpose in any action or proceeding. Nothing herein shall extend or toll any applicable statue of limitations. ~5.10 Arbitration. Except as otherwise provided herein, if any disputes arise regarding the rights and duties under these Covenants, the dispute shall be submitted to the American Arbitration Association or any successor thereto for resolution in accordance with its commercial rules. Arbitration shall be held in Santa Clara County, California, unless the parties agree otherwise. The dispute shall be heard by one arbitrator gnless the parties agree otherwise. The arbitrator, in his or her discretion, may order discovery prior to the hearing pursuant to the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure § 1283.05 or any successor statute thereto. The arbitrator may 2/28/96 -14-T.%WP WI NCg%P R OJECT$~EVER ~ EC award costs, including attorney’s fees, to the prevailing party. The decision of the arbitrator shall be binding on the parties and may be enforced in any court of competent jurisdiction. Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, if an owner has approved the Maintenance Notice or failed to object or respond in a timely manner, it shall be presumed conclusively that the Owner has waived any right to arbitrate any matter in connection with the work performed under the Maintenance Notice (the "Waiving Owner"). Any other owner attempting to collect the Waiving Owner’s allocable share may file an action directly in any court of appropriate jurisdiction without any obligation to arbitrate. The Waiving Owner shall not be deemed to have waived any defense to such action, provided, however, the Waiving Owner shall bear the burden of proving that he or she does not owe his or her allocable share for the work plus accrued interest thereon. $;I1 Assignment by Dedarant. Declarant may assign all of its rights and delegate all of its duties to any other person or entity, and, from and after the date of such assignment and!or delegation, the Deelarant shall no further rights and/or duties hereunder. Any successor or assign of the fights and duties of Declarant may execute an instrument assuming the rights and duties of the Declarant hereunder, and, thereafter, shall be entitled to exercise all the rights of Deelarant’ and shall be obligated to perform all of the Declarant’s duties, provided that such successor or assign shall not be liable in any manner for any act or omission committed or omitted by the Declarant before the date the successor or assign succeeded to the rights of Declarant hereunder. 5.12 Effective Date. This Declaration shall be effective as of the date this document is recorded in the Official Records of Santa Clara, California. 5.13 Number;, Gender:. The singular and plural number and the masculine, feminine and neuter gender shall each include the other where the context requires. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned, being the Declarant herein, has executed this Declaration this ~ day of ,19m. Everett Court, L P. Scott Ward 2f28/96 -15- TAWPWI N60~R OJECTS~VER ETT~DEC STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF On this ~ day of ,19__, before me,, a notary public for the state, personally appeared , known to me or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of whieh the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Notary Public, State of California 2/28/96 -16- T:\WP WI N 60IP R OJE L--~VE R ET’P~D EC I"!" I I I’-1--I I1’~’1 ~.,1~ i City of Palo Alto Departn~t of Planni~zg and Community Environment March 26, 1996 21arming DMsion Classic Communities, Inc. ATTN: Scott Ward 1068 East Meadow Circle Palo Alto, CA 94303 Subject:Below Market Rate (BMR) Agreement for 315 Everett, Palo Alto Dear Mr. Ward: This letter summarizes the revised agreement reached between you and Planning Division staff regarding satisfaction of the provisions of the City of Palo Alto Below Market Rate (BMR) Program. This letter supercedes the previous letter dated November 8, 1995. Final agreement is subject to City Council review scheduled for April 1, 1996. The requirements for a BMR component are contained in Program 13 of the Housing Element of the City of Palo 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. In satisfaction of the 10% BMR requirement, you agree to provide one (1)BMR unit and to pay an in-lieu fee for the 3 units in excess of 10. The required BMR 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 January 2, 1996 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. Zq0 Hamilton Avenue P.O. Box 1~..50 Palo Alto, CA %2,03 415.329.2441 415. 329. 2240 Fa.\ Mr. Scott Ward March 26, 1996 Page 2 o The’design, construction, materials, finishes, windows, hardware, light fixtures, landscaping, irrigation, appliances and other like features ofthe BMR unit shall be comparable to the design and construction of all other units in the project. 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 $146,550. 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. In addition, an in-lieu fee of 0.8125% on the actual sales value of each of the remaining 12 units in the project shall be collected upon the first sale of each unit in the project. The 0.8125% fee is determined for the fraction of 3 units over 10 and the Program 13 requirement for a 3.25% fee for those units (.0325 x 3/12 = .008125). Proof of sales prices must be submitted to the City of Palo Alto at the time of sale. The in-lieu fee requirement for any unit that is not sold and becomes occupied on a rental or lease basis shall be based upon the sale price of the most expensive unit sold. Payment shall be due at the time of occupancy of the unit(s) not sold. 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. SCHREIBER Director of Planning and Community Environment A:\1996\LTBMR315 Mr. Scott Ward March 26, 1996 Page 3 I agree to provide a Below Market rate component to the project at 315 Everett as described in this letter dated March 26, 1996. Scott Ward Date CC: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:\ 1996\LTBM R315