HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-08-12 City Council (6)City of Palo Alto
Manager’s Summary Repor
TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: Planning and
Community Environment
AGENDA DATE: August 12, 1996 CMR:374:96
SUBJECT:315-335.Everett Avenue/332-340 Bryant Court: Appeal of the
Director of Planning and Community Environment’s approval of
Bryant Court driveway parking plan alternative for 13-unit
single-family residential planned community development.
Appeal of the Director of Planning and Community Environment approval of a driveway
parking plan alternative (Bryant Court frontage) for a 13-unit single-family residential
planned community development (See appeal letter, Attachment #1).
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council:
Find that the driveway parking plan approved by the Director of Planning and
Community Environment to be consistent with the findings made by the City Council
in approving the Planned Community (PC) District for this development project
(Attachment #2A, Standards for Architectural Review). The draft finding is presented
in Attachment # 1.
Deny the appeal and uphold the Director of Planning and Community Environment’s
approval of the Bryant Court driveway parking plan, as recommended by the
Architectural Review Board.
CMR:374:96 Page 1 of 14
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
This project was reviewed for compliance with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and
associated City policies during the rezoning review process. On March 18, 1996, the City
Council approved a Planned Community (PC) District and a variance for the 13-unit project.
This action was based on findings that the project complies with pertinent City policies.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
As noted above, on March 18, 1996, the City Council approved a Planned Community (PC)
District zoning and a variance for the development of 13 single-family, residential dwelling
units at 315-335 Everett Avenue/332-340 Bryant Court. Conditions of project approval
require that the project sponsor study an altemative to the parallel driveway parking plan that
had been proposed for the six units (Units # 1-6) fronting Bryant Court, a 20-foot-wide public
alley. The conditions require that the alternative plan be submitted for review by the City
Transportation Division and that a preferred parking plan be approved by the Architectural
Review Board (ARB).
Several parking plan alternatives were prepared and presented to the ARB. On June 20,
1996, the ARB recommended approval of one of the parking alternatives (Option #3), which
is described in the attached reports. Following ARB review and recommendations, the
Director of Planning and Community Environment approved this preferred parking
alternative.
The Director’s action has been appealed by six neighboring residents on Bryant Court. The
reasons for the appeal are outlined in the attached In-Depth staff report and in the appeal
letter dated June 28, 1996 (Attachment #1). Staffrecommends that the appeal be denied and
the Director’s action on the preferred parking plan be upheld.
FISCAL IMPACT
The residential project will not have a fiscal impact upon the City. Given that the
development proposes the construction of 13 residential units, the project would generate
property taxes, as well as permit and utility fees.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
An environmental assessment was prepared as part of the City’s development review process
for this residential project. A Mitigated Negative Declaration and a Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Program were approved by the City Council on March 18, 1996.
CMR:374:96 Page 2 of 14
PREPARED BY: Paul Jensen, Contract Planner
KENNETH R. SCHREIBER
Director of Planning and Community Environment
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
BERNARD M. STROJNY
Assistant City Manager
CMR:374:96 Page 3 of 14
CMR:374:96 Page 4 of 14
City of Polo Alto
C ty Manager’s Report
SUBJECT:315-335 Everett Avenue/332-340 Bryant Court: Appeal of the Director of
Planning and Community Environment’s approval of Bryant Court
driveway parking plan alternative for 13-unit single-family residential
planned community development
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council:
Find that the driveway parking plan approved by the Director of Planning and
Community Environment to be consistent with the findings made by the City Council
in approving the Planned Community (PC) District for this development project
(Attachment #2A, Standards for Architectural Review). The drat~ finding is
presented in Attachment #1A.
Deny the appeal and uphold the Director of Planning and Community Environment’s
approval of the Bryant Court driveway parking plan (Option #3), as recommended by
the Architectural Review Board.
BACKGROUND
Project History_
On March 18, 1996, the City Council approved a PC District rezoning and a setback variance
for the development of 13 new single-family residential dwelling units at 315-335 Everett
Avenue/332-340 Bryant Court. Conditions of project approval require that detailed plans
and additional study for certain project elements return to the ARB for final approval.
Among these conditions is a requirement that an alternative to the parallel driveway parking
design be studied for Units # 1-6, which front Bryant Court (a 20-foot-wide, paved public
alley located north of the subject property). This requirement is addressed in condition d(I)
of Ordinance 4339 (PC District zoning, see Attachment #3) and in condition 14(e) of the
Standard Conditions of Project Approval, which reads as follows:
"14.Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the following shall be
submitted for Architectural Review Board review and approval:
(e) The project sponsor shall study and submit an alternative plan
to the parallel parking arrangement proposed for Units # 1-6 (fronting
CMR:374:96 Page 5 of 14
Bryant Court). Prior to ARB review, the City Transportation Division
shall review the alternative and present a recommendation on the final
preferred plan."
As required by the conditions of approval, the project sponsor studied and submitted several
driveway parking design alternatives for review by the City Transportation Division and
consideration by the ARB. On May 16, 1996, the ARB reviewed and rejected a hybrid
driveway parking alternative, which was designed to permit the option of either parking
parallel to the street or nosing-in between the units (Option #1). As a follow-up, the project
sponsor submitted two additional parking alternatives. One alternative (Option #2) presents
a revised parallel parking design. The other alternative (Option #3) presents a reverse
(reverse of units and driveway orientation) of the hybrid parking design that had been
previously reviewed by the ARB (Option # 1). A discussion and a description of these
alternatives is provided in the attached ARB staff report (Attachment #4) and presented in
the full-size plans (distributed to Council Members only).
In addition to the three parking design altematives submitted by the project sponsor, a fourth
alternative (Option #4), had been suggested by two neighboring property owners (Steve
Frankel and Mark Nanevicz). Option #4 requires that Units # 1-6 be sufficiently set back
from Bryant Court to allow for diagonal/angled parking in the from of these units. Given
that this alternative was not supported by the project sponsor, staff prepared a schematic plan
depicting 45 degree driveway parking in the front of these units (this schematic plan is
included in the full-size plans distributed to the Council Members only).
On June 20, 1996, the ARB reviewed all four parking alternatives. The Board reviewed
these alternatives and considered the recommendations presented by the City Transportation
Division (summarized in amemorandum from Carl Stoffel to the ARB dated June 7, 1996, .
part of Attachment #4 and in a memorandum from Carl Stoffel to the ARB dated June 19,
1996, Attachment #5). The Board voted (3-1-0) to recommend conditional approval of the
Option #3 alternative. Option #3 would:
Allow a parallel driveway parking space in the front of each unit,
Result in reversing the floor plans and driveway orientation for Units # 1-6, and
Maintain a pavement design that would permit nose-in parking as an option to
residents.
Following the ARB review, the Director of Planning and Community Environment approved
the parking plan alternative, as recommended.
CMR:374:96 Page 6 of 14
Appeal of Director’s Action
An appeal of the action by the Director of Planning and Community Environment to approve
the Option #3 parking design alternative has been filed by five residents of Bryant Court.
This appeal is summarized in the attached letter dated June 28, 1996 (Attachment #1). The
appellants cite six points for a request to reverse the Director’s action on the preferred
driveway parking. The points of the appeal are summarized as follows:
The approved parking plan does not constitute an altemative plan as required by the
PC District conditions of approval.
o The project does not have the required landscape screening, as required under Section
18.68.150(d) of the PAMC.
The ARB was misinformed by Staff regarding parking and landscaping requirements.
The parking plan does not meet the size or back-up distances as per Chapter 18.68 of
the PAMC.
o The ARB ignored the recommendations of the City Transportation Division and thus
contradicted the condition requirements of the PC District.
The ARB accepted unsubstantiated data from the applicant regarding the adequacy
of the parking plan, as required by Section 18.68.090 of the PANIC.
A response to each point is provided in the DISCUSSION section of this report.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
As part of the PC District rezoning and the variance review process, the project was reviewed
for compliance with the Pal. Alto Comprehensive Plan and associated City policies.
Approvals were based on the finding that the project, as proposed and conditioned, is
consistent with the policies and the programs of the Pal. Alto Comprehensive Plan. In
addition, it was found that the proposed development is consistent with the Single-Family
Residential Design Guidelines for Pal. Alt0.
DISCUSSION
Response to Six Points of Appeal
Staff has reviewed the appeal letter and provides the following responses to the six points
raised by the appellants:
CMR:374:96 Page 7 of 14
The approved parking plan is not considered an alternative parking plan. as required
by the PC District conditions of ap ro.p_Lq.v~l. The appellants note that the original
project design reviewed by the ARB and the Planning Commission presented a
driveway parking concept utilizing parallel parking. Given that the ARB and
Planning Commission expressed concern that the parallel parking would not be
workable, the conditions for project approval required the study of an alternative
parking design. The appellants contend that this condition has not been met in that
all the alternatives presented by the project sponsor have been designed to include
parallel parking. The appellants argue that any parking alternative which presents
parallel driveway parking is truly not an alternative and, therefore, would not be
consistent with the intent of the condition of approval.
Response: Staff does not agree with the appellants on this issue. While each of the
parking plans present some form of parallel parking, two of the four present a nose-in
parking option (Options # 1 and #3). The nose-in parking was considered
unacceptable by staff, given the substandard width of the parking space and
maneuvering dimensions. As noted in the appeal, the PC District provisions (see
Section 3d(I) of Attachment #3) require that the driveway parking spaces meet the
dimensional standards of Chapter 18.83 of the PAMC. Furthermore, it should be
noted that serious consideration was given to including the neighbors’
diagonal/angled parking concept in the list of alterative parking plans (Option #4).
While this concept was not supported by the project sponsor, staff demonstrated its
potential merits through the preparation of a schematic plan. The diagonal/angled
parking concept was not recommended primarily because the concept results in
significant pavement of the yard area and potential impacts to the design of the front
porches and entrances to Units # 1-6.
As indicated in the appeal, when the ARB initially reviewed this project (January 18, ’
1996), the Board questioned if parallel parking would be workable. At that time,
there were issues associated with the parallel parking plan, which justifiably
questioned the workability of the plan. These issues included the following:
The parallel parking spaces did not meet the minimum dimensional standards
of the PAMC.
The pavement areas for parallel parking access were limited to the dimensions
of the substandard-sized parking space and bordered by landscaping, yard
fencing and porch posts. The Board was concerned that these conditions
would result in excessive vehicle maneuvering, thus discouraging residents
from parking parallel in the driveway.
CMR:374:96 Page 8 of 14
The improvements that were proposed for Bryant Court included a pedestrian
path along the south edge of the right-of-way. The Board expressed concern
that vehicles not properly parked in the driveway would encroach in the road
right-of-way, thus blocking the pedestrian path and vehicle traffic along the
alley.
The Board was convinced that a nose-in parking option would be preferred by
the residents in that it requires the least maneuvering.
The ARB noted that issues a-c could be addressed by decreasing the size of the porch
of the units by two feet, eliminating the low fencing in the yard and shifting the
landscaping area over by two feet. These changes would allow enough area to
maneuver a vehicle into a standard size space without encroaching into the public
alley. Condition 14(e) of the standard conditions of approval was added to require
exploration of the above solutions and of available driveway parking options to the
initial design. The condition was not intended to dismiss the parallel parking concept
but to determine if there was a better parking option available that could be
implemented.
The project does not have the required landscape screening to neighborhood
properties as required under Section 18.68.150(d) of the PAMC. The appellants note
that Section 18.68.150(d) requires that a planted landscape screen of 100 square feet
must be maintained along the Bryant Court frontage of the project. It is noted that
this landscape screen is based on the provision that the yard requirements be the most
restrictive of the residential district located opposite the site. Properties located north
of the Bryant Court alley are zoned RM-15.
Response: The appellants have not properly interpreted the requirements of Section
18.68.150(d). This section of the PAMC establishes minimum yard requirements
(setbacks) that are to be landscaped; it does not present minimum square footage
standards for landscaping. This section of the PAMC reads as follows:
"(d) On any port, ion of a site in the PC District which is opposite
from a site in any RE, R-l, R-2, RM or applicable PC District, and
separated therefrom by a street, alley, creek, drainage facility or other
open area, a minimum yard of 3.0 meters (10 feet) shall be required.
Where a use in a PC District, where the gross floor area, excluding any
area used exclusively for parking purposes, is at least sixty percent
residential, the minimum yard requirements shall be at least as
restrictive as the yard requirements of the most restrictive residential
district opposite such site line. The minimum yard shall be planted and
CMR:374:96 Page 9 of 14
maintained as a landscaped screen, excluding areas required for access
to the site."
The properties opposite the Bryant Court (alley) right-of-way are zoned RM-15.
Therefore, the project must comply with the most restrictive setback provisions of the
RM-15 District. The most restrictive setbacks of the adjacent RM-15 District are
presented under Section 18.22.050(e)(2). This section requires a 10 foot setback for
the first story of a structure and an 11-12 foot setback for the second story (% height
of building). The project complies with this requirement (10 foot setback provided
for the first floor of the units and 13-23 foot setbacks provided for second story). As
per the provisions cited above, landscaping is provided for those areas of the yard,
"excluding areas exclusively used for parking purposes" and "areas required .for
access to the site."
The appellants note that the project does not provide a landscaped yard area that is
100 square feet in size. The appellants have cited the requirements of Section
18.22.050(j)(2)(B) of the RM- 15 District, which presents minimum requirements for
usable outdoor area per unit, not minimum yard requirements. Although this section
of the RM-15 District would not apply to the proposed project, the project would
comply with the provis.ions. Usable outdoor yard area for the units in the project range
from 575 to 2,000 square feet. The 100 square feet of usable outdoor area (ground
level) is to be required on a ’per unit’ basis; this is not a requirement that is applied
to each yard area of an individual lot.
The ARB was misinformed by staffregarding parking and landscaping requirement~s.
The appellants state that staff misinterpreted a comment made by a member of the
public regarding the project’s compliance to Section 18.68.150(d) of the PAMC. The
appeal notes that the staff cited and responded to the requirements of Section
8.68.150(c) instead of the questioned Section 18.68.150(d). The appellants argue that
this misunderstanding resulted in a recommendation from ARB that violates Section
18.68.150(d). Furthermore, the appellants note that staff misinformed the ARB at
previous meetings that lot lines on the approved Tentative Subdivision Map could not
be moved or adjusted to accommodate driveway parking modifications for the
units/lots fronting Bryant Court.
Response.: The appellants are correct in stating that staff misinterpreted a comment
made by a member of the public regarding the project’s compliance with sections of
Chapter 18.68 (PC District). However, the ARB was not misinformed by staff nor
does the ARB recommendation violate any code sections of the PAMC. As noted in
the response to #2 above, the project complies with the minimum yard requirements
of Section 18.68.150(d). Furthermore, as part of the PC District process, the City
CMR:374:96 Page 10 of 14
issued a variance to the setback standards of Section 18.68.150(c). The appropriate
process was followed in the review and issuance of this variance.
The appellants contend that staffhad previously misinformed the ARB by noting that
the lot lines of the approved Tentative Subdivision Map could not be moved to
accommodate changes in the parking plan. The ARB was not misinformed. Lot
lines cannot be moved t~om those approved on a Tentative Subdivision Map. The
Tentative Subdivision Map conditions of approval for this project acknowledge and
account for potential changes in the parking ~ depicted on the map, based on
the final approved parking plan. The conditions were intended to allow flexibility
should a different parking alternative than that originally proposed be found.
o The parking plan does not meet the size and back-up distances as p~er Chapter 18.68
~. Specifically, the appellants note that the parking space and
maneuvering dimensions for the nose-in parking recommended by the ARB (under
approved Option #3) should not be permitted as they do not meet the minimum
requirements of Chapter 18.83 of the PAMC. In addition, it is noted that the garage
spaces for Units #1-6 do not have the adequate back-out ’ dimensions to meet the
provisions of PAMC (if a car is parked on the north side of Bryant Court).
The ARB ignored the recommendations of the Ci_ty Transportation Division and thus
contradicted the condition requirements of the PC District. Although the City
Transportation Division clearly recommended the elimination of the nose-in parking
option as it does not meet the minimum space and maneuvering dimensional
requirements, the ARB recommended that the nose-in parking be maintained as part
of Option #3. In addition, the appellants note that maintaining a nose-in parking
option significantly reduces garage back-out and maneuvering for Units # 1-6.
Response to #4 & #5: Upon consideration of the City Transportation Division’s
comments, the ARB recommended a parallel parking space with a nose-in space as
a secondary choice (modified Option #3). The ARB found that the pavement for
possible nose-in parking may be usable for a smaller car and would encourage people
to park offthe alley. The appellants are correct in concluding that a parked car in the
nose-in space creates a problem for garage back-out and maneuvering. However, the
nose-in space is not the required second parking space for the unit.
The appellants note that the garage back-out distances for Units # 1-6 would not meet
acceptable standards, if a vehicle .is parked on the north side of Bryant Court. While
the standards of Chapter 18.83 (Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations) of the
PAMC do not apply to single-family residential uses, this garage back-out distance
CMR:374:96 Page 11 of 14
would comply with the 90 degree parking maneuvering requirements for Uni-Class
spaces.
The ARB.accepted unsubstantiated data from the applicant regarding the adequacy
of the parking plan. as required by Section 18.68.090 of the PAMC. The appellants
argue that the project review did not comply with the requirements of Section
18.68.090(h), which states:
"The parking and loading shall be based upon the requirements of
Chapter 18.83, unless requested modifications to meet the needs of the
individual project are supported by traffic engineering studies or
relevant data, as may be required by the zoning administrator,
demonstrating the feasibility and adequacy of the plan."
Response: The project was reviewed and processed in accordance with Section
18.68.090(h) of the PAMC. As outlined in the attached memorandum from Carl
Stoffel to the ARB, dated June 19, 1996 (Attachment #5), the parking spaces and
maneuvering dimensions presented on the parking plan were tested in the City Hall
Parking Lot. The testing, which was completed by the City Transportation Division,
found the proposed parking space and maneuvering dimensions to be workable. The
Zoning Administrator has concluded that this testing is considered to be "relevant
data," which demonstrates that the proposed plan is feasible and adequate in meeting
the requirements of Section 18.68.090(h).
Parking Plan Consistency with Findings for Pro_iect Approval
The March 18, 1996 City Council approval of the Planned Community (PC) District for this
project was based on the fmdings presented in Attachment #2A of this report. These findings
address the City’s standards for architectural review and approval, as mandated by Chapter
16.48 of the PAMC. None of these findings would be affected by the approved driveway
parking plan. Findings #9 & #10 presented in Attachment #2A specifically address
circulation and on-site parking. The approved driveway parking plan would be consistent
with these findings in that the plan would maximize use of land for parking without
impacting the ample, private outdoor area provided per unit. A draft finding has been
prepared for City Council consideration on this appeal. This draft finding is presented in
Attachment # 1A.
Conclusions
Staff recommends that the City Council uphold the approval of the Director of Planning and
Community Environment. Staff finds that adequate driveway parking alternatives were
prepared and studied to determine a preferred parking plan. The PC District conditions of
approval were never intended to dismiss parallel driveway parking as an option, but to
CMR:374:96 Page 12 of 14
determine if there is a better solution to providing driveway parking for the units fronting
Bryant Court.
ALTERNATIVES
Approve the appeal and require further study of the parking solution for Units #1-6, fronting
Bryant Court.
FISCAL IMPACT
The residential project would not have a significant fiscal impact upon the City. Given that
the development proposes the construction of 13 new residential dwelling units, the project
would generate property taxes, as well as permit and utility fees.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMEN_.T
An environmental assessment was prepared for this project as part of the City’s review and
approval of the PC District rezoning (95-ZC-8) and variance applications (95-V-21). A
Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring ’and Reporting Program were
approved as part of the project approval.
STEPS FOLLOWING APPROVAL
The project approvals that have been granted to date include a rezoning to PC District, a
variance (for reduction in the required side yard setbacks) and a Tentative Subdivision Map.
Pending actions include 1) ARB approval of the final details for the improvements to Bryant
Court, 2) the approval and recordation of a Final Map and 3) approval of grading and
building permits.
ATTACHMENTS/EXHIBITS
Attachment# 1:
Attachment # 1A:
Attachment #2:
Attachment #2A:
Attachment #3:
Attachment #4:
Attachment #5:
Attachment #6:
Plans/drawings
Letter of Appeal, June 28, 1996
Draft finding for denial of appeal
Architectural Review Board Minutes, June 20, 1996
Findings (Standards for Architectural Review) made for approval of the
PC District
Ordinance 4339 (PC District zoning)
Staff Report to Architectural Review Board, June 20, 1996
Memorandum from Carl Stoffel to ARB, June 19, 1996
City Council Minutes, March 18, 1996
(Council Members only)
CMR:374:96 Page 13 of 14
CC:Steve Frankel, 351 Bryant Court, Palo Alto, CA. 94301
Mark Nanevicz, 228 Waverley Street, Palo Alto, CA. 94301
Carol Francis, 321 Bryant Court, Palo Alt6, CA. 94301
Steven Lightbum, 333 Bryant Court, Palo Alto, CA. 94301
Steve Chapman, 321 Bryant Court, Palo Alto, CA. 94301
Scott Ward, Classic Communities, 1069 East Meadow Circle, Palo Alto, CA. 94303
Downtown North Neighborhood Assoc., Tony Badger, 381 Hawthorne St, Palo Alto,
CA. 94301
Julie Maser, ARB Liaison
CMR:374:96 Page 14 of 14
APPEAL FROM THE DECISION OF THE DIRECTOR OF
PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
in the matter of the development known as
315-335 EVERETT/320-340 BRYANT COURT
City Council
City of Palo Alto
Palo Alto, CA 94306
.RECEIVED
JUN 2 8 1996 Filed: June 28, 1996
We, the undersigned, hereby appeal the decision of the Director of Planning and
Community Environment (the Director) to approve the recommendation of the
Architectural Review Bo&rd (ARB) made on June 20, 1996 regarding the development
known as 315-335 Everett/320-340 Bryant Court (the Development). Classic
Communities is the Applicant for the Development.
The ARB recommended approval of the parking plan for the Development. We
contend that this decision was erroneous as both a matter of law and fact.
Our appeal is based upon the following six (6) issues:
t
1) The parking plan was not an alternative plan, as required under Attachment #1A of
the Planned Community Ordinance (PCO) for.this project.
2) The project does not have the required landscape screen to neighboring properties
as required under Palo Alto Municipal Code PAMC 18.68.150 d).
3) The ARB was misinformed by staff regarding parking and landscape standards,
resulting in the above recommendation to the Director.
4) The parking plan does not meet size or back-up distances as per PAMC18.68 and
18.83.
5) The ARB ignored the recommendation of the Transportation Division in their motion
and recommended approval, directly contradicting the wording in the PCO for this
project.
6) The ARB accepted unsubstantiated data from the Applicant regarding the adequacy
of the parking plan, as required under PAMC 18.68.090.
Detailed Analysis of the Issues Supportinq Our Appeal
1) The parking plan was not an alternative plan, as required under Attachment
#IA of the Planned Community Ordinance (PCO) for this project.
At the Dec. 1995 and the Jan. 1996 ARB meetings, serious concerns were raised with
respect to the workability of parallel parking within this project. Planning Commission
Chairman Beecham stated" Parking is problematic.., parallel parking does not
work.."
ARB members expressed concern that the residents of the Development would use the
parallel parking improperly. For example, rather than parking parallel in the space
provided by the Applicant, the residents would likely "nose-in" to the space, thus
obstructing the public right-of-way. Mr. Ross stated he believed the parallel parking
would".., detract from the value of that pedestrian walk" along Bryant Court, a
pedestrianwalk the Applicant included in the project as part of the public benefit
requirement. Mr. McFall did not consider (parallel parking) "workable." Ms. Masser did
not "...see how it (parallel parking) got approved (by Transportation Division)."
Every ’alternative’ parking plan submitted by the Applicant included the parallel parking
space as the primary and ’legal’ parking arrangement. Of thefour alternatives
submitted for review at the June 20 ARB meeting, only one proposed parking plan,
"Option Four," was an alternative to the parallel plan and met all size and back-up
distances under PAMC 18.83. This alternative was developed by the neighboring
property owners. Even though Option Four Was approved and recommended by the
Transportation Division, it was rejected by the ARB. ,
Simply put, the ARB acquiesced to a parallel plan that was, in all substantive respects,
identical to parking plan(s) rejected at all previous hearings. The final, approved
parking plan differed from the previously rejected parking plan(s) only in reduced
landscaping, fencing, and porch location.
2) The project does not have the required landscape screen to neighboring
properties as required under Palo Alto Municipal Code PAMC 18.68.150 d)
In an effort to make the parallel parking plan meet the size requirement in the PCO and
address the entry and egress concerns of the ARB, the Applicant removed nearly all of
the landscape in front of the six (6) units facing Bryant Court. In fact, the ’approved’
plan shows a sea of paving stones surrounding the front of the houses.
The lack of adequate landscape was questioned at the June 20 ARB meeting during
public comments. PAMC 18.68.150 d) requires a planted landscape screen be
maintained when a PC Development is within 150 feet of and across a street or alley
2
from R-l, R-2, RE, or RM zones. In addition, 18.68.150 d) states that the yard
requirements be the most restrictive of the residential district opposite the sight line to
the proposed PC district.
Proprties directly across Bryant Court (a 20 foot wide alley) from the PC Development
are zoned RM-15. Minimum requirements for a front yard is 100 square feet. The
parking plan as approved does not meet this requirement.
The average width of the fronts of the Bryant Court is 32 feet. On average for each
unit, the driveway is 10 feet wide, the parallel parking space adds 10 feet wide, and the
remaining 12 feet include a paved 8 foot nose-in parking space. The setback for the
front is 10 feet, all of which is paved for the parallel parking space. There is insufficient
setback for a landscaped area in front of the houses.
ARB may not have realize that the Development did not meet the landscape
requirement because the planning staff misunderstood the issue voiced by the public
and misinformed the ARB.
3) The ARB was misinformed by staff regarding parking and landscape
standards, resulting in the above recommendation to the Director.
At the June 20 ARB meeting, a member of the public, stated that the landscape was not
adequate under PAMC 18.68.150. The staff advised the ARB that landscape concerns
applied only to adjacent properties, and were addressed by the variance in the PCO for
the project.
We believe this information was erroneous. The staff was referring to
PAMC 18.68.150 c); however, the public comment was referring.to
PAMC 18.68.150 d). This was confirmed by a conversation with Mr. Herb Borock, who
made the public comment. As a result of this misunderstanding, ARB made a
recommendation that in fact violates PAMC 18.68.150 d).
On other occations, staff misinformed the ARB. At both the May and June ARB
meetings, staff advised the ARB that the Tentative Map lot lines were not movable to
accommodate parking modifications. We assert that the staff misinterpreted PMAC
21.12.090 and the PCO wording. Traffic flow and parking were not resolved issues,
and as such the Tentative Map could have been modified to accommodate changes to
resolve these issues. Traffic flow and parking were clearly conditions of the PCO. As
a result of this misinterpretation, the ARB and the Applicant were compelled to reject
any changes to lot lines that would allow accommodate an acceptable alternative to the
parallel parking plan.
3
4) The parking plan does not meet size or back-up distances as per PAMC18.68
and 18.83.
At both the May and June ARB meetings, the Transportation Division submitted written
reports stating that the park space size and parking backing distances for all
alternatives submitted by the Applicant were insufficient. The nose-in alternative was~deef=,atefor of Size. the nose-in alternative didanycarregardlessMoreover,
not provide adequate backing distance as per PAMC 18.83. The Transportation
Division also noted a previous oversight; the garage parking space also did not have
proper backing distance. In addition, use of the nose-in space increased the backing
distance from the garage space.
Despite the Transportation Division reports, staff recommended adoption of the parking
plans at each meeting. Statements from staff indicated~their belief that there were no
size or backing standards for’ "residential zones".
5) The ARB ignored recommendation of the Transportation Division in their
motion and recommended approval, directly contradicting the wording in the
PCO for this project.
At the June 20 ARB meeting, the Transportation Division report clearly recommended
elimination of the nose-in parking space. The ARB rejected that aspect of the
recommendation and reinstated the nose-in parking space. As determined by the
Transportation Division and stated in the reports for the May and June ARB meetings,
the backing distance for a vehicle using the nose-in space is inadequate. In addition,
the Transportation Division reported that a parked car in the nose-in space creates a
maneuvering problem for the adjacent garage.
6) The ARB accepted .unsubstantiated data from the Applicant regarding the
adequacy of the parking plan, as required under PAMC 18.68.090.
The ARB should not have rejected the Transportation Division recommendations
detailed above without traffic engineering data supplied by the Applicant showing the
justification for a variance from PAMC 18.83. Modifications to PAMC 18.83 for parking
require engineering studies or relevant data, as per PAMC 18.68.090 h) The applicant
assertion regarding the usabiltiy of the sub-standard parking spaces and the types and
size of ’typical’ family cars does not meet this requirement. The ARB should have
requested studies to verify these claims prior to approving a sub-standard parking area.
4
In view of the foregoing, we, the undersigned, request that the City Council of Palo Alto
reverse the decision of the Director to approve the recommendation of the Architectural
Review Board (ARB) made on June 20, 1996 regarding the Development known as
315-335 Everett/320-340 Bryant Court.
Signed by:
Steve Frankel
351 Bryant Court
Mark Nanevicz
228 Waverly Street
Steven Lightburn
333 Bryant CoUrt 321 Bryani Court
Carol Franc
321 Bryant
228 Waverly
Palo Alto, CA
94301
June 28, 1996
Lanie Wheeler
City Council Members
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton
Palo Alto, CA
94301
I am writing in regard to the parking for the proposed
development on Bryant~Court. I have attended most of the
meetings regarding this new project and have continually
brought up the issue of parking at every meeting including
the very first.
It seems that approvals for this project have been going
along with out any real solutions to the parking problems on
Bryant Court. The current submittal from the developers
includes one garaged parking space and one parallel parking
space which blocks the garage, which is below standard size
as required by the traffic department’and will encourage
"nose in parking" partitally blocking right of way on Bryant
court. This parking scenario will force the new resident to
shuffle cars On a daily basis, and will eventually lead to
parking on the street.
The parking space in .the garage still does ndt have the
required back up clearance as required by zoning ordinance
chapter 18.83 for off-street parking and loading regulations.
Why was this development ever proposed with parking ordinance
violations? If they do not have to comply with the minimum
size and backup space as stipulated in our city’s ordinances,
I would like to know at what point in time the developer was
informed they did not have to comply and who gave them
permission for noncompliance. This project has not had one
single submission to the city of Palo Alto with a parking
plan that is to code and I am very concerned about any
backpedaling on compliance with the city’s codes and the
requirement by the ARB to include one additional parking
alternative to the parallel space.
There is no consideration for any guest parking on the
developer’s behalf. When asked about guest parking, the
developer said they can park on the street as is the case
with the rest of the neighborhood. This would be fine if the
development were on a standard street using standard lot
sizes and had legal parking available in front of these
houses. Unfortunately, this is not the case. The surrounding
neighbors are expected to provid~ parking in front of their
houses toaccomm0date the newly built houses° The
neighborhood of Downtown North is already in the worst
parking ~ondition possible for residentso I do not believe
the current proposal of one garage space and one parallel
space blocking the garage on a 20’ wide one-way alley can be
considered acceptable for six houses.
If this plan goes through, the cars parked on the alley
will block the view of driveways for oncoming traffic and
maneuverability for existing driveways° Traffic will become
congested when cars driving down the street have to wait for
cars trying to squeeze into these proposed parking spaces
inching back and fourth to get in°
I recommended having 3 diagonal parking spaces per unit
across the entire front of the Bryant court development° This
would allow a more reasonable back-out clearance for such a
small street and assure the new residents easy and quick
access to their house. This idea was rejected by the
developer. This rejection was based on the amount of space
diagonal parking requires and on supposed lost curb appeal.
The other problem with diagonal parking brought up by the
developers and planning committee was the elimination of the
front porch° The porch is considered to be a "neighborhood
enhancement" encouraging socialization among neighbors~ I
have spoken to my neighbors regarding this, and they all feel
that the problems caused by the extra cars trying to find
space in front of other peoples houses will certainly cause
more stress amoung neighbors" than a three foot wide porch
will ever alleviate.
If having cars parked along, the entire front of this
development is not acceptable, having cars parked in front of
the existing neighbors is not acceptable. This problem is
being pushed off on to the neighbors with substandard parking
sizes, inadequate backout clearances and lack ~f guest
parking.
Please reject the current plans until a reasonable solution
is found which will have the development carry it’s own
weight. Don’t push the problem onto the neighbors and cause
even more parking problems and tension. This is our chance
to plan ahead and create a better neighborhood.
Mark Nanevicz
228 Waverley
Palo Alto,CA
ATTACHMENT #IA
Draft Finding Denying Appeal and Upholding
the Approval of the Director of Planning and Community Environment
315-335 Everett Avenue/332-340 Bryant Court
Approval of the driveway parking plan, as approved by the Director of Planning and.
Community Environment and as recommended by the Architecttwal Review Board would
not effect or require changes to the findings made by the City Council in approving the
Planned Community (PC) District for this development project (Ordinance 4339).
Specifically, approval of the driveway parking plan for Units #1-6, fronting Bryant Court,
would comply with required conditions of project approval and as such, would be consistent
with the findings supporting approva! of this project. Furthermore, the driveway parking
plan would be consistent with the findings that were made to approve this residential
development project, in that, the plan would maximize use of land for parking without
impacting or compromising the ample, private outdoor area that has been provided for each
dwelling unit.
ARCI ZCTURAL REVIEW BOAR~
June 20, 1996
BEARING
Attachment #~2
315 Everett Street
Classic Communities
95-ZC-8
95-V-21
The Architectural Review Board will review and consider driveway parking alternatives (Bryant
Court), revised window and exterior manufactured stone samples, as well as a revised exterior
building color palette for a recently approved planned development of 13 single-family
residences. This review is required per the Architectural Review Board’s action of May 16,
1996. Environmental Assessment: A mitigated negative declaration was prepared and approved
by the City Council as part of the project approval on March 18, 1996.
Chairman Ross: This is before us for restudy. Does staffhave anything to add?
~: Yes, two items. One is that the project sponsor is going to nm through some offlae
window samples they presented, as well as the stone samples. Lisa Grote or Carl Stoffel may
want to summarize the revised memorandum to the original memorandum that is in the staff
report. There was an additional study done by Carl Stoffel and also there was some testing at the
city garage on th~ movement of vehicles in and out of parking spaces that were dimensioned
based on the three options that are before you.
Ms. Grote: In general, the memorandum states that in Option #3, there had been some concern
about the backup distance out of the garage. Carl typically uses a 25-foot backup distance for
90 ° angle parking. That is really a multiple-family, industrial and commercial standard. It is not
a requirement that it be used for single-family. He uses it as a guideline, along with a template,
to calculate that backup distance. Carl and Paul went to the garage and actually scaled off a 22-
foot backup distance, which is what we have here in the proposal, and it does work, so that it is
acceptable for single-family. We will be getting into this in more detail, because some of the
residents are here to talk about Option #4 and some diagonal parking in the front. That option
would require setting the house farther back. Staff is not in favor of that proposal, because if
there were two diagonal spaces there, it would take up to 25 feet of frontage, which basically
replaces the pedestrian amenities, such as the porch, with parking spaces. Whether or not that is
one space or two spaces, it still replaces those amenities that we feel are important to the overall
character of not only the new section of the alleyway but the entire alleyway. What we are trying
to achieve out there is a pedestrian-friendly alleyway. Putting diagonal parking in front of the
houses obliterates those kinds of amenities. We can get into that in more detail as we proceed
with this heating.
Chairman Ross: I would like to hear from Carl as to any comments he may have on the tests he
did and the revised props.
Carl Stoffel, Transportation Division: Just a couple of comments. The two memos really go
together. The second one does not supplant the first one. It is more supplemental. To follow up
on what Lisa said, the 22 feet works. It is tight. I like to term it "minimally acceptable." The
KIT[PCMINS.3IA:\315EVER.ARB
6-20-96
Page 1
standards normally used i ~quire25 feet, and are there for a reast . But there are different
degrees. The 25 feet is fairly roomy and allows decent maneuvering that you might need in a
parking lot with lots of cars. This does work, and you just have to understand that things have to
happen slowly, and once in awhile, someone with a big car might have to do an extra maneuver.
The one proviso to this is that modifications have to be made to Option #3 to make it work.
There are some obstacles on the side. You cannot have something right next to the backout area
of the garage.
Mr. Ross: So the landscaping and fences have to be modified and the head-in stalls don’t really
work very well.
Mr. Stoffel: Yes, head-in parking and supplemental stalls cannot be there, because that constricts
cars either entering or exiting. The landscaping needs to be pulled back, as well. Then it works.
That is mentioned in here.
Mr. McFall: Where is the 22 feet you just mentioned? How do you get 22 feet?
Mr. Stoffel: The backup entry distance is measured from the back of the stall to whatever the
obstacle is on the other side, whether it is another row of cars or a wall, etc. In this case, the back
of the stall is the front of the garage door, including ten feet on the site, plus in the alley, we are
presuming the worst case that all of the parking spaces on the north side will be used.
Mr. Peterso_n: That is with parking on the other side?
Mr..Stoffel: Yes, and there may not be parking there all the time, or some of that area may be
someone else’s driveway so you cannot park there anyway. It also presumes that on either side
of the stall, there is nothing immediately next to you behind the stall on either side, because
space is needed immediately for the swinging of the car. When you pull forward, you occupy
most of that space. That is why we need to get rid of as much of that stuff in front as possible.
With three feet of the porch sticking out on the neighboring units on the site located for Option
#3, it does work. It would not work for Option #2 because the porches are on the exiting
direction.
Mr.Peterson: Are you saying that the porch on this side needs to move?
Mr.Stoffel: No, porches do not have to move for Option #3.
Mr.Peterson: So this works as shown.
Mr. Stoffel: Yes, with the two modifications that are in my memo, which is to not have a head-
in stall next to the garage, the uncovered stall, and making that part like Option #2. The other
proviso is that the landscaping in front of the porches needs to be pulled back just a little, and I
describe that in the memo.
Ms. Piha: Does the code read 25 feet, and you would be allowing this 22 feet as a variance?
Mr. Stoffel: No, for single-family, those are not code requirements, but obviously they are there,
6-20-96
KITIPCMINS.3IA:\315EVER.ARB 2 Page 2
and they are there for a. .on, so we try to apply it wherever pos e.
Ms. Piha: Why are we reviewing this?
h..C..~l~a~: This board decided that the restudy p~esented to us in May was not adequate to
meet the conditions that were put on the previous approval.
~: But why are we reviewing this if it is single-family housing?
Chairman Ross: Because it is a PC.
Ms. Piha: I think that lends credibility to using the parking requirements.
Ms. Grote: It does not. It is a PC, but it is still a single-family housing type, so if you are going
to evaluate what is needed for a traditional single-family backup, we would not use the 25 feet.
So there is no precedent for using it as a part of the PC.
Ms. Piha: I think another point made was that single-family housing would never have this size
lot. That is what is guiding this.
Ms. Grote: But the size of the lot does not influence how much room you need in which to back
out from a garage. The size of the lot is not a part of that determination.
Mr. Stoffel: The narrowness of the alley does factor into the determination. Most single-family
homes are on a wider street, and there is no need to worry about the space. Here it gets tight.
Chairman Ross: I think we have some single-family developments in the city on this size lot.
They were built mostly 80 or 90 years ago. We did not have the opportunity to review it, and the
parking standards were different.
Ms. Grot~e: As were car sizes. We also do have other single-family homes on alleyways that do
not have 25 feet of backup, so the 25 feet is not a standard that we require for a single-family
development.
Chairman Ross: Any other questions for staft~.
Mr. Peterson: What is the number of parking stalls that needs to be approved for this? Is it one
per unit?
Ms. Grote: It is one covered and one uncovered per unit. The uncovered parallel stall needs to
meet the dimensional requirements.
Mr. Peterson: Some of them looked a little short.
Ms. Grote: That is correct. The plans have been modified to meet the minimum dimensional
requirements. The parallel stall was determined to have met the requirements for uncovered
spaces, with the condition that it be 20 feet in length. They have accommodated that. So it was
KITIPCMINS.3[A:\315EVER.ARB
6-20-96
Page 3
determined to have met t~.- ,quirement.
~: That one we did not want to skimp on, as it is fairly tight already. Plus it is so close
to the alley that there was a concern of people not actually parking into the alley, not doing it
properly and sticking out, so I wanted to be quite strict on that one.
Ms. Piha: With Option #3 and the elimination of landscaping that is required for the parking,
does that meet the landscape requirements for the project?
Ms. Grote: Again, single-family does not have specific landscape requirements. This does not
really eliminate all landscaping. It reduces it a bit, pulling it back. It does not remove it, but just
makes it a little smaller. The PC has no landscaping requirement.
Chairman Ross: Let us have the applicant’s presentation.
Ms. _Piha: Doesn’t the single-family have a requirement for landscaping at the front of the
property? You could have an entire paved surface in front of the property.
You conceivably could. We have never had that kind of a proposal.
Ms. Piha.: That is what this is proposing. There is no front yard.
Ms. Grote: Actually, there is more of a front yard in Option #3 than there would be in Option #4.
Much more.
Chairm~ Ross: If that completes the staff questions, we will have the applicant’s presentation.
Scott Ward, Classic Communities: I want to point out that we have brought along a modified
color palette that we prepared in response to your direction. We also have put together these
boards that show the actual type of masonry that we are proposing for the project. We are
presenting three different types of windows for your consideration. We are prepared to install
any of these three windows at your discretion. This is an aluminum casement window. This is
the wood with an aluminum cladding. We are, to some extent, partial to the casement with
aluminum clad window having to do .with long-term liability issues. Our view is that this wood
window will create maintenance and life-long liability issues for us. If they are not well
maintained by the homeowners, there will be significant potential for shrinkage and cracking.
They will have to be maintained to a much higher standard than either of the other two, but we
are prepared to install any of the three.
With respect to the parking, as you know, we have presented two additionaloptions to meet the
condition of the ordinance to study an alternative to the original parking concept. With the
addition of these two alternatives, we have now presented three alternatives to the original
concept. We are prepared to implement any of the four options that we have presented. It is
important to point out that each of them has, at a minimum, a standard parallel parking stall.
There was a comment in, I believe, Carl’s report that suggests that the 18-foot length is not
documented in each case. We are able, through modifications to the porch, as demonstrated with
Option #3, to comply with that ninth requirement. We are also prepared to implement the
KITIPCMINS.3[A:\315EVER.ARB
6-20-96
4 Page 4
modification to Option ~ as recommended in the staff report.
So we axe prepared to implement any of five different options, again at your discretion. We have
acted in good faith in presenting workable alternatives, and based on our reading of the
condition, we feel we have met the condition of the ordinance. We are not prepared to
implement Option #4, formulated by some of the neighbors. Apart from the impact and livability
of the homes, which as we will describe, in our opinion is really disastrous, the parking does not
work, either. In our view, a depth of 17-1/4 feet or 17-1/2 feet from the right-of-way to the front
of the home will do nothing more than encourage people to head in, then presumably intrude into
the right-of-way.. That was the original concern that resulted in the requirement to restudy and
present different options. So we do not even think it is even functional in terms of parking. We
do not see them heading diagonally into these. In addition, in terms of the livability of the
homes, I feel it is fairly apparent that there is no front yard~ no rear yard, no porch, and no front
door. There are serious problems in terms of the floor plan, that is, if you were to enter from the
side of the home, you would be stopped short by a wall that would be approximately 12 feet from
you. You would not get to look through the home to a rear yard or side yard, and that is very
important in terms of the livability of these small-lot homes. We feel it is also fundamentally
inconsistent with the desire to give this alley a little more community character and bring people
out into it and have living spaces on the alley. Staff says that Option #3, as modified, works. In
fact, the 22-foot dimension only applies to three of the units. There are curb cuts that make it
clear that in half of the cases, there will be 30 feet to back up, and there is a net gain in terms of
landscape with Option #3, as modified by the staff. You lose two feet in front but you pick it up
on the side. We know Option #3 works. We laid it out on the site yesterday. We drove it and
we filmed it. We are happy to make that available to you if you would like to view it.
Chairman Ross: Are there any questions of the applicant by the board?
Mr. McFall: I have one question on the Transportation Division memo about the length of the
parallel spaces as to the actual dimension versus the dimension he mentioned of 20 feet. Can you
address that? Will you be able to get 20 feet?
Mr. Ward: Yes, we absolutely can. You may recall in our last meeting of May 16 that we
presented to you a schematic modified floor plan and elevation showing that the porch colunms
would be moved a distance of eight inches apiece. That will be the one foot, four inches we need
to have the full 20 feet.
Mr. Jensen: I have a comment about something I want to make sure you know about. In looking
at a PC ordinance and an on-site parking ordinance, there is no minimal requirement for
landscaping in terms of coverage for this particular project. There would be for a parking lot. In
that instance, there is a certain percentage of landscaping you have to provide, but this project is
not a proposed parking lot.
Chairman Ross: Does this project already have a PC approval?
Ms. Grot_._.._.ge: Yes, it does.
Chairman Ross: And what we are considering here today is a minor change to that PC that is
KITIPCMINS.3IA:\315EVER.ARB 5
6-20-96
Page 5
within in our jurisdiction~ ~
~: Yes, it is a condition of approval to look at altemative ways to park on this site. If
there are no acceptable alternatives, no better alternatives, then the board has within its purview
the ability to approve what was originally presented, or some modification to that. So the
applicant is attempting to meet the condition that requires them to look at alternatives. In staff’s
opinion, they have done that. We are recommending Option #3 as the preferred option.
Chairman Ross: We will now open the public heating.
Mark Nanevicz. 228 Waverley Street. Palo Alt0: My house is on the comer of Bryant Court and
Waverley Street. I have been following this project from the very beginning. My concem on
this project has been the parking all along, and I have brought it up at every meeting I have been
to so far. I reviewed the parking comments, and basically, the last letter we received was that the
parking arrangements for Options 1, 2 and 3 to be built by the project applicant do not provide
minimum parking spaces for these units. I know all of the neighbors on my street, and I do not
know of any single neighbor on the street that thinks that any of the options that have been
presented so far are really usable. We are adding another 18 bedrooms on this alley. Right now,
the developer is recommending that we have one garage parking space and one parallel parking
space blocking the garage space. That, more than likely, will mean that one car is going to be
parked on the property and one car is going to be parked off the property, if you take into
consideration that most houses are going to have at least two cars. Even with the two cars both
parked on the property, guests are going to be forced to park on the street. This development is
built on the no-parking side of a 20-foot-wide, one-way alley. The only guest parking spaces that
will be available and used will be in front of other people’s houses at this point in time. I don’t
think it is even close to reasonable to expect that these houses are going to be providing guest
parking in front of their own house. They cannot. It will have to be provided by the existing
neighbors’ parking. Right now, if we park on the north side of Bryant Court, there are several
sections of that court which existing neighbors need to back out. Their bumpers are basically
along the edge of the alley which is grandfathered in. Right now, it would not be acceptable.
Filling that alley in with cars, which is going to happen, will mean that a lot of residents cannot
get out. As it stands now, when people park in the alley, we have to go and knock on each
others’ doors to get out at times, so most of the neighbors know each other and are considerate of
where we park. Adding this many cars to the alley is going to cause nothing but a.lot of stress
amongst the neighbors, and more tension, which we really do not need at this point in time. That
is why we have been asking that you consider something like the diagonal parking plan, which
would accommodate a guest parking space, eliminate having to shuffle cars, and more or less
guarantee that both cars of the residents would be able to park on their own property without
having an additional impact on the alley.
The other thing is that the developers have not been at all interested in doing any diagonal
parking from the very beginning, which I recommended almost a year ago. There are some
things that can be done to enhance the look of the diagonal parking, such as divider islands. If
they are 30-foot-wide lots and you need a nine-foot-wide stall, I think there is some square
footage to have some form of landscaping in the front. As far as a .pathway to the front door, if
you look at the option for the one on the right side, if there is one car parked in the garage and
one car parked diagonally, we could still have a path going directly to the front door, as long as a
KITIPCMINS.3[A:\315EVER.ARB
6-20-96
6 Page 6
guest car is not parked ~ ~. Overall, I think the development s~, ~. :l carry its own weight in
terms of being able to accommodate two cars and guest parking. ~/e have been told by the city
that the guests can park on the street just like anyone else can park there. The problem is that
most of us who live in the neighborhood have legal, ample parking in front of our houses right
now. This development has no parking in front of its houses right now. That means it has to
park in someone else’s guest parking. So I would recommend that we at least fred some kind of
agreeable alternative so that the rest of the neighborhood and everybody on the street can say yes,
this is going to work; it is not going to have a negative impact. This development is supposed to
have some sort of public benefit, but right now, it is becoming a public hindrance. I know that
everyone on my street is in agreement with that right now. There are a few neighbors who came
this morning and could not stay long enough to comment On it, but there is nobody on that street
right now that thinks that this Option #3 or any of them proposed by the developers is going to
be workable and livable and basically, it is going to cause a loss of parking space among the
neighbors. Thank you.
Steve Frankel, 351 Bryant Court. Palo Alto: I will try not to reiterate what my neighbor, Mark,
has said. The last time I was here, I was asked if I had an altemative to the parking plan, and I
did not. But in working with my neighbors, we came up with an alternative parking plan. We
talked with Carl, and we talked to Paul, and we came up with an alternative plan. If need be, we
can come up with a landscaping plan, too, if that is what it takes. What has happened here is that
the developer, the applicant, the neighbors and myself are looking at different realities. The
developer wants to build homes; and they think that we are basically stopping their development.
They have an ordinance, and they are ready to go, and they are just trying to get this one little
detail ironed out. My reality is different. I live on a 20ofoot-wide, no curb, one-way street lot. It
is narrow; parking is different. Parking is allowed only on side because it is a narrow, curbless
street. This development has to take into account that reality. We talk about what is in other
places, what is other existing. Other existing how? Parking on two sides. Other existing has
curbs. The realities in this case require careful planning. That is the basis of a planning process
to avoid future problems. Carl played it out, and it is very likely that with the other options that
the developers have presented, the new neighbors will likely come back and say, we want to
eliminate parking across the street from our homes. That should be avoided in the planning
process. We have drawings of houses. We have lot lines that are drawn. Lot lines can be
moved. Houses can be flipped over. They flipped the entire units in a mirror to make a new
option. Things can be modified to avoid any future problems.
I feel that the staff report was premature in saying that the diagonal Option #4 eliminates
landscaping and the pedestrian connection. I think it is premature because we never asked the
developer, in fact, the developer refused to consider it. We can come up with a landscaping plan
and a pedestrian connection option if that is required. The developer continues to show the nose-
in parking, for which Carl said no in his previous report. We also agree that that is not an option.
It does not provide a reasonable parking space. I would not be so arrogant as to presume what a
new person would want in terms of car, and to use their cars to try these things out is arrogant. I
certainly would not want to buy a half million dollar home and then not be able to easily get into
my home, easily park, especially in this new development. I would have to believe that the city
has looked this over. They have had lots of experience in parking situations for new
developments. We should know what is the easiest and most convenient for people. I think
those things are tending to be ignored, and the thought is that these houses are already built.
KITIPCMINS.3[A:\315EVER.ARB
6-20-96
Page 7
These houses are already ; and these lots are already laid out. "[ leveloper chose to put a
lot of homes on small lots. Certainly mitigations have to occur, but the mitigation that should
not occur is that people should be sacrificed in their parking and neighbors should be sacrificed
in their access and their parking situations. Thank you.
Herb Borock, 2731 Byron Street. Palo Alto: I thought I heard staff saying that there were not
any landscaping requirements. To make it clear that under the PC zone, in Section 18.68.150(d),
for sites that are opposite residential, especially in this case where it must be 60 percent and in
this case the site is 100 percent residential, the landscaping yard requirement is the same as the
most restrictive requirement of the site opposite. I don’t know what is opposite, but if it is R-1
that is opposite, that is a 20-foot yard requirement. I am sure that since this came in under a PC,
everybody who looked at this from the applicant to staff to the board, the commission, and the
council are well aware that there is a landscaping requirement. I will just leave that here. Thank
you.
Chairman Ross: Before we remm to the board for comments, I would like to ask for another
clarification from ~taff. In the ordinance requiring a PC to reflect the most restrictive opposite
requirement, in this case, R-1 across the street, in the R-1 requirements, are there landscaping
requirements?
Ms. Grote: No, there are not landscaping requirements for R-1. There is a setback requirement
but not a landscape requirement.
Chairman_Ross: So within that front yard setback, virtually any treatment is within the code of
the city. If someone wanted to pave it with asphalt, there might be a lot of complaints about it,
but it is legal. So it is a setback issue.
Mr. Jensen: If I may add a couple of comments, this issue was raised when the PC went through
the initial process. Again, just as a point of clarification, it is not a landscaping requirement, it is
a setback requirement. The setback requirement of the abutting properties is ten feet. There was
a variance granted for several of the units that abutted the adjacent property line. Several were
greater than 10 feet and some were less than 10 feet. There was a variance granted, and it was a
setback requirement. The abutting zoning is RM~30, not R-l, so there is a 10-foot setback.
Mr. Peterso_n: Is that across the alley?
Mr. Jensen: Across the alley, I believe it is RM-30 as well. Abutting was east to west, so that is
Chairman Ross: That is what the PC ordinance addresses.
Mr. Jensen: RM-15 is to the north of the site.
Mr. Peterson: Was there a variance on the front yard setback?
Ms. Grote: No, because lots across the street are not considered abutting.
KITIPCMINS.3IA:\315EVER.ARB
6-20-96
8 Page 8
Mr~P~: What siz, :e the parcels across the street in terms, ¯..widths and depths? Can
you make a general comment about that?
Mr. Frankel: Most of them are 50 feet wide.
Mr. Peterson: And the depths?
Mr, Frankel: It varies. The one neighbor on the left is 50 x 60. My lot is 50 x 81, and the next
to mine is 50 x 100, and it goes street to street.
Chairman Ross: Let us return this item to the board for comments.
Mr. Peterson: Fll take the easy one first. Let’s talk about windows. My support would be either
for the aluminum or for the wood clad. My experience with unclad windows has been miserable,
over time. I have no problem with the aluminum window, even though it is not quite in character
with this kind of house, but it looks perfectly all right with me. From experience, ! know they
will hold up very well. So either of those would be what I would support, and I would not
support the wood window option, due to upkeep. The clad window allows you to paint on the
inside..
I live close by and have gone down that alley a lot, not as much as the residents, obviously, but I
have gone along there a lot. I am surprised that there is not as much parking in that alley as I
thought there might be. It seems to be fairy free of parking most of the time. I am sure you all
know each other and have each other move the cars, etc. Adding these additional houses is
obviously going to complicate that. It will make it more difficult, however, I do not think it is
fair to disallow these properties from being developed. But it will be a change, and it will be a
more difficult situation.
I personally support Option #3. I feel that it clearly provides a parallel space that is legal and is
usable. I still prefer keeping the pull-in space even though it is very narrow and is not going to
work for some cars, but ifI were to occupy one of those houses, I would probably use that. I
would rather have the car pulled in, and it would be easier for me to pull in than to parallel park.
I feel it is less of a conflict. It gives the future owners an option as to which way they want to do
it, while still providing the legal one that is parallel. I think that having pulled the landscape
back makes it much easier to pull in in both the parallel position and the straight-in position. It
seems to me that it is workable. I believe you can pull out of that garage and turn, so that is the
one I would support. I like the changed color palettes. I certainly would support those.
Mr. Ross: Do you have any comments on the proposed stone material?
Mr. Petersor2_: I glanced at that on the way in, and that is satisfactory to me, as well.
Ms. Piha: I will tackle the easy ones first, also. The two window options that I would prefer
would be the two wood and wood-aluminum clad windows on the end. Either of those two
would be acceptable. The revised color palette has improved, and I find the stone to be an
acceptable material. The parking is where I am still troubled. I really do not find that any of the
solutions presented are acceptable solutions to solve the parking problem. I think this is the
KITIPCMINS.3IA:\315EVER.ARB
6-20-96
9 Page 9
essence of a developmen ~t is over built, considering the proper, . ad conditions at the site. I
am not sure what the solution is, but I do not think that the solutions presented are workable
solutions that have a long-term effect. The point that one of the neighboring property owners
made is an important one, that these lot lines are not cast in bronze yet. Once we allow this kind
of development to go into the ground, they are. They cannot be changed then, but at this point,
they are not. I think they were approved with the condition that acceptable parking would be
provided. I cannot find in these submittals that an acceptable parking solution has been
provided. I do not feel that that condition has been met.
Mr. McFall: I will start with the windows, too. I would support the two double-hung window
options. Those are both acceptable. I am a little distressed that real wood windows are no longer
feasible because people are concerned that they will fall apart, which they will, as will most
building materials, but there is some responsibility to be taken by someone for saying, they own
the property, and they will take care of it, and if they don’t, they can sue someone. Wood
windows have been used for 100 years, and they can hold up for at least half that long, if not
longer, with proper maintenance. So they are certainly a viable option.
The stone is acceptable, although I would like to offer the opinion that synthetic products are
certainly are not ones that I would hope this board would encourage, generally, and would,
instead, support the use of real materials for projects that come before us.
The color I find acceptable. And then the parking. I would echo Bob’s comment that no matter
what is built here, it is going to worsen the traffic situation, and although it is not good to begin
with and will probably get worse. I previously mentioned that I live on a narrow street and deal
with this on a daily basis. It is difficult, and it is inconvenient. This project is not going to
improve that, but I do not feel it is the responsibility of the city or the developer to try to make it
better. Certainly, we want to work to avoid making it worse than it is or a lot worse. It is
unfortunate that there is no solution that will make everyone happy. I don’t think that is going to
happen without significant changes in the project, which I am not going to suggest. I appreciate
the neighbors’ efforts to come up with an option that is functional. I think what they have
proposed, to a certain extent, is functional. It creates other issues and other problems, which is
not their problem, but those are the problems that make that option unviable.
I have mixed feelings about the new options we have seen from the applicant. I believe Option
#3 can be somewhat improved and can be made more or less workable, so I will support Option
#3 with the modifications that have come from staff on that. I don’t think that the nose-in
parking, because of its narrowness, is viable, so I would echo staff’s comments on that. To
summarize, I would support Option #3 with reservations.
Chairman Ross: I will begin with parking, the hard part. I think that the ordinances that require
a certain amount of parking forany type of development are there for several reasons. One is to
make sure that a minimum, reasonable amount of parking is provided as part of the project. The
other is, in a sense, to give some shelter to invest in a sense of property right to the property
owner or developer that they do not have to go a whole lot beyond that in order to develop a
piece of property. I certainly feel very possessive about the street parking in front of my house.
normally park there at night. I have come to expect that. When someone else is parked there, I
feel like running out and finding out who they are and ask them to move their car. As I
KIT]PCMINS.3[A:\315EVER.ARB
6-20-96
Page 10
understand it, the public, king on the street is available to anyb{ We do not even check
citizenship on that parking. It is publicly owned land. We do not a~low people to use that
publicly owned land to satisfy guest parking requirements. It is not permitted. We have seen
applications, especially preliminary applications, where people have asked to be able to count on
street parking for their parking requirement, and that has always been denied. To my knowledge,
it has never been acceptable. So from a technical point of view, I feel that the parking
requirement has been met here, and it has really received quite a bit of review. My recollection
of our approval of this project, and from reading the minutes and conditions, it is supported, that
we actually approved the parking scheme as submitted, but we asked them to restudy that scheme
to see if there Weren’t a better solution. There were some staff conditions at the time that
required those parallel parking spaces to be made the legal size. This is a controversy that has
grown beyond the previous approval. We really cannot take this too much further without
actually undoing an approval that the board has made. I feel that Option #3 has improved, and I
am happy to support that option with the requirements that staff has set forth to make sure that
the parking spaces do comply with the technical requirements of length, width, etc. So that is
where I stand on parking.
On the windows, from this distance, I have a real hard time distinguishing between the two
double-hung windows. In fact, I think they are identical except for the cladding. Cladding is a
protection that is applied that is superior to paint, in a sense. You touch it, and you know that it
is metal, but it is wood on the inside. When I think about wood windows, I think of the profiles
that are involved. So I am satisfied with the aluminum-clad double-hung window as a wood
window in spirit and design style with superior maintenance issues.
As far as protecting the public from bad design, which is really our charge here, I do not believe
the public is going to be able to tell the difference, particularly from the sidewalk, as to whether
these buildings have aluminum clad casements or a wood window, so I will be happy to support
either option. It sounded to me as though the applicant’s preference was for the aluminum clad,
so I will support that.
I like the changes to the painting schemes. Thank you for mixing it up a little bit. The synthetic
stone is fine with me. I am not troubled too much by synthetic materials, particularly when
natural materials are becoming increasingly an irreplaceable resource and where a synthetic
material can be used that is good looking on its own. I do not have any trouble with that just
because it is synthetic.
MOTION: Mr. McFall: I move to approve the item that is before us, which includes either of
two options for a double-hung wood window, also the proposed stone material, the revised
exterior color palette, and lastly, the parking Option #3 with revisions as recommended by staff.
That includes elimination of the pavement from the nose-in option, elimination of a small
amount of landscaping adjacent to the driveway, and reversing the units along Bryant Court. I
would add a recommendation later, but not a part of this motion, regarding the issue of
eliminating parking along Bryant Court now or in the future.
Chairman Ross: The transportation department has made a pretty strong statement about that. I
don’t think it is going away. I cannot think of a way that we would be able to make it go away or
keep it there.
KITIPCMINS.31A:\3 15EVER.ARB
6-20-96
Page 11
~: By chairman .s.
Mr. Peterson: I still like the nose-in option because I feel it gives the future owners some choice.
Mr. Jensen: Which specifically?
Mr. P~: Yes., It is easier, and therefore, will encourage them to get off that alley. I would
like to leave it open. It may be usable for a smaller car and would encourage them to keep cars
offthe alley. So I think they should have that option.
~: So you are suggesting eliminating the requirement that the pavement for a nose-in
space be eliminated.
Mr. Peterson: Yes.
Mr. McFall: I will accept that amendment to the motion.
Chairman Ross: There are also some other technical, minor changes that staffhas proposed. So
we can leave it as Option #3 with staff modifications, except for elimination of the nose-in
paving.
Mr. McFall: Yes.
Chairman Ross: I.will accept that also as seconder. Is there any clarification required by the
applicant before .we vote?
Herb Borock: I would like some clarification. Your concerns are that parking is not
properly resolved?
Mr. Ross: Our discussion has covered the issue of parking as well as other project details. We
will now be voting to determine whether or not these issues have been adequately resolved.
Chairman Ross: All those in favor of the motion? Opposed? That passes 3-1, with Ms. Piha
opposed.
KITIPCMINS.3IA:\315EVER.ARB
6-20-96
"12 Page 12
ATT~
The design and architecture of the project complies with the Standards for Architectural
Review (Section 16.48.120 of the PAMC). A summary of the project’s compliance with
the ARB standards for review is as follows:
As outlined on pages 8 and 9 of the staff report, the proposed project is consistent
and compatible with the applicable elements of the City’s Comprehensive Plan
(Standard #1).
The project design and the proposed improvements are compatible with the
immediate environment and the surrounding improvements (Standard #2). The
design and placement of the proposed single-family homes would be in scale with
the surrounding improvements, in that the project proposes ample building setbacks
compatible with the existing building setbacks in the neighborhood and consistent
with the R-1 District requirements.
The design of the proposed improvements is appropriate for the single-family
residential function of the project (Standard #3). Specifically, the project has been
designed to provide ample outdoor living area for each unit, presents architecture
that is pedestrian-oriented and provides adequate on-site parking and circulation.
The subject property is not located in an area which has a unified design or a
historical character. However, the project design is in keeping with and an
improvement to the variety of the architectural designs in the surrounding area
(Standard #4).
The project, as designed, promotes harmonious transitions in scale and character
to the surrounding neighborhood (Standard #5). The project presents a transition
between the higher density residential development along Everett Avenue and the
lower density residential development which is present north of Bryant Court.
The design of the project would be compatible with the existing improvements both
on and off site (Standard #6). Specifically, the project is designed to preserve and
protect existing tree resources, including street trees, thus maintaining the mature
landscaped character of the surrounding, developed neighborhood.
7. The planning and siting of the proposed single-family dwellings, private outdoor
P:\PCSR\EVERETT.ARB
Q
10.
11.
12.
13.
yard areas, on-site parking and circulation and landscaping would create an internal
sense of order and provide a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and the
general community in that, the project is designedto follow the building orientation,
and scale as well as the pedestrian and vehicle access pattern that is found in the
neighborhood. Furthermore, the project is also designed to maximize building and
outdoor space orientation toward a specimen 42" Coast Live Oak tree located near
the center of the site (Standard #7).
The amount and arrangement of open space are appropriate to the design and
function of the proposed structures (Standard #8). The site plan assures that each
single-family dwelling is designed with ample, private yard area and also ensures
preservation and protection of existing tree resources.
The project proposes a design that provides sufficient ancillary functions to provide
support for the single-family residential use (Standard #9). The design of ancillary
functions, specifically the location and arrangement of on-site parking and
circulation as well as the location and amount of individual, outdoor yard areas are
compatible with the project’s design function.
The site plan has been designed to ensure that property access and circulation are
convenient for pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles (Standard #10). Access to lots
fronting Everett Avenue is limited to two ’shared’ driveways, thus minimizing
impacts to street trees and maximizing the amount of on-street parking. Driveway
parking for the units fronting Bryant Court has been designed to maximize use and
compatibility with the existing street side parking found along this public lane.
Natural features are appropriately preserved and integrated into the project
(Standard #11). Specifically, the project has been designed to preserve and protect
mature trees which exist on and around the site. Protection of this resource would
be consistent with the mature landscaping which exists in the surrounding developed
neighborhood.
The materials, textUres, colors and details of construction coupled with the proposed
plant materials are appropriate for the function and design of the single-family
residential project and would be compatible with the neighboring uses, structures
and landscape elements (Standard #12). The proposed building designs and exterior
materials would be similar to those designs and materials found on other residential
buildings in the surrounding neighborhood.
The landscape design of the project as designed and as recommended through
conditions of approval, would create a desirable and functional environment for the
P:\PCSR\EVERETT.ARB
future residents of the proposed dwellings and to neiglaboring residents (Standard
#13). Landscaping is designed to protect and preserve existing, mature trees that
are on and around the subject property. Protection of these trees and the proposed
new plantings would provide unity for the project as a whole and compatibility with
the landscaping that exists in the surrounding neighborhood.
14.The plant materials as proposed and as recommended through conditions of
approval, would be suitable and compatible for the site (Standard #14). Drought-
resistant as well as special plant materials are proposed and recommended for
sensitive areas around the existing oak trees that are to be preserved. The common
landscaping theme would promote more efficient maintenance.
.15.The project design as proposed and as recommended by conditions of approval
would be energy efficient (Standard #15). The proposed single-family dwellings.
are situated and designed to maximize southern, solar exposure to private yard areas
and major rooms in the dwelling units. Furthermore, the dwelling units are situated
to maintain solar exposure to adjacent residential buildings, while providing and
maintaining privacy through tree preservation and new plantings.
P:\PCSR\EVERETT.ARB
ATTACHMENT #3
ORDINANCE NO. 43i9
ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALOALTO
AMENDING SECTION 18 . 08 . 040 OF THE PALO ALTO
MLTNICIPAL CODE (THE ZONING MAP)TO CHANGE THE
CLASS IFICATION OF PROPERTY KNOWN AS 315 - 335
EVERETT AVENUE/332-340 BRYANTCOURT FROM RM-30 TO
PC DISTRICT
WHEREAS, the Planning. Commission, after a duly noticed
public hearing held February 14, 1996, and the Architectural Review
Board, upon consideration at its meeting of January 18, 1996, have.
recommended that Section 18.08.040 (the Zoning Map) of the Palo
Alto Municipal Code be amended as hereinafter set forth; and
WHEREAS, the City Council, after due consideration of the
recommendations, finds that the proposed amendment is in the public
interest and will promote the public health, safety and welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto does
ORDAIN as follows:
SECTION I. Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal
Code, the "Zoning Map," is hereby amended by changing the zoning of
certain property known as 315-335 Everett Avenue/332-340 Bryant
Court (the "subject property") from "RM-30 Medium Density Multiple
Family Residential District" to "PC Planned Community." The
subject property is shown on the map labeled Exhibit "A~" attached
hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
SECTION ~. The City Council hereby finds with respect to
the subject property that:
a.Site. The site is so situated, and the existing
uses proposed for the subject property are of such characteristics
that the application of the RM-30 District standards will not
provide sufficient flexibility for the proposed development, or for
a development that is compatible with the mix of residential uses,
density and design of the surrounding neighborhood. Specifically,
while the RM-30 District encourages the development of higher
density housing, particularly in the areas adjacent to downtown, .it
does not provide the flexibility for developing a small-lot,
detached single-family residential project and tends to produce
housing that is inconsistent with the scale, character and
circulation patterns of older, residential neighborhoods, such as
Downtown North. Furthermore, . while the RM-30 District allows
single-family residences as a permitted use, the required
provisions for developing such uses within this district (Section
18.24.090-Special Requirements, RM-30 District and Sections
18.12.050 through 18.12.080-Site Development Regulations, R-I
District), in this case, make it difficult to design a single-
family residential project that is compatible with the mixed
residential lan[ uses and development pattern of the surrounding
neighborhood, particularly a!ong the lane named Bryant Court.
960402 lac 0080217
While RM-30 would permit greater density than the proposed project,
it would also permit monolithic development or result in single-
family homes on large lots, which would be out of scale and
characterwith the other housing in the area. Adoption of the PC
District for this particular project would permit the necessary
flexibility in individual lot size and reductions in setbacks so
that a compatible, detached, single-family housing project can be
built in an area of small increment, mixed residential uses. The
proposed project will also not result in objectionable
environmental impacts such as peak hour traffic impacts.
b.Benefits.. Development of the site under the
provisions of the PC Planned Community District will result in
public benefits not otherwise attainable by application of the
regulations of general districts or combining districts, as
follows:
(i)Application of the PC District to this
project and site would permit the clustering of detached single-
family residenti~l homes on small lots, which would be compatible
with. the density, design and character of the immediately
surrounding neighbgrhood.
(ii) The PC District will allow a style and type
of housing which is needed in the community but which is not
consistent with existing single- and multiple-family zone. The
proposed project provides medium sized, 3. and 4 bedroom homes with
modest private open space that will accommodate families, and will
address a major housing need in the community. Residential trends
over the last decade demonstrate that the variety of housing types
has been very limited. For-sale homes have been confined primarily
to expensive, large single-family homes on conforming R-I lots,
moderately-sized townhomes with limited open space and common green
area, and more moderately priced~ s~acked flat condominiums
dominated by smaller units. These trends have created a gap in
housing stock between attached housing designed to acco .mmodate
young households without children and expensive single-family
housing, which accommodate higher income households.
(iii) The application of the PC District standards
as proposed would result in public benefits by providing desirabl~
street improvements to the Bryant Court road right-of-way. These
street right-of-way improvements would be beneficial to the
neighborhood and community at large in that it would create an
attractive and functional vehicular and pedestrian link from Bryant
Street to Johnson Park.
c. Comprehensive Plan Goals. As modified by conditions
of approval, the proposed project, specifically the proposed
single-family residential use, would be consistent with the Palo
Alto Comprehensive Plan and.consistent with the mix of residential
unit types and densities which presently exist in the surrounding
neighborhood. Specifically, the project would be consistent with
the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan "Multiple-Family Residential"
(density range of 10-45 dwelling units per acre) land use
2
designation for this site, in that, it would result in an overall
density of 14.9 dwell~ng units per acre, which is within the
permitted range for this site° Furthermore, the project would be
consistent with Program #i and Program #13 of the adopted Housing
Element in that it would maintain a single-family residential use
of the site adjacent to the downtown area, and would provide a
housing product for households with children. The proposed project
would be consistent and compatible with the development pattern,
density and the mix of units types found in the Downtown North
neighborhood and allows for a project to be designed to respect and
protect site resources°
SECTION 3. Those certain pl~ns entitled "Conceptual Site
Plan-Everett Court S.F.D. Proposal," prepared by Bassenian Lagoni
Architects, dated January 2, 1996, accompanied by a "Technical Site
Plan" dated January 2, 1996, floor plans and elevations dated
October 20, 1995, Preliminary Landscape Concept Plans (Gates &
Associates) dated January 4, 1996, and Bryant Court Plan (Gates &
Associates) dated January 4, 199"6, and March 1996, and approved by
the Architectural Review Board on January 18, 1996, copy on file in
the Planning Division office, and to which copy reference is hereby
made, are hereby approved as the Development Plan for the subject
property, pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code section 18.68.120.
Said Development Plan is approved for the following uses, and
subject to the following conditions:
a.Permitted Uses. The use shall be limited to single-
family residential and accessory uses incidental thereto, as set
forth in Section 18.12.030 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code.
b.Conditional Uses. All conditional uses as allowed
in the R-I (Single-family Residential) District as listed under
Section 18.12.040 of the Palo Alto Municipa~ Code, subject to
issuance of a conditional use permit.
c.Site Development Requlations. All improvements and
development shall be substantially in accordance with the approv@d
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.
(i)The approved Development Plan requires the
preservation and protection of a number of mature trees within the
development and along the Everett Avenue street frontage. No
development or improvement on any home and lot, following initial
construction and occupancy,shall result in the removal or
destruction of these trees.
(ii) Once the project has been constructed
consistent with the approved Development Plan, landscaping, spas,
swimming pools, ’building colors and materials, skylights, exterior
wal! surface treatments, windows and/or window coverings may be
960402 la¢ 0080217
3
installed and/or modified without the approval of the Architectural
Review Board, and will be subject to the site development
regulations for substandard lots as applicable in the R-I zoning
district.
(iii) Any 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.
(iv) No new floor area o~ coverage may be
constructed on any lot, except porches, patio covers or trellises
of less than 120 square feet, which shall not exceed twelve feet in
height and shall be setback at least three feet from any property
line.
d.Parkinq and Loadinq Requirements. The parking and
loading requirements governing the subject property shall be in
accordance with the approved Development Plan, on file with the
Department of Planning and Community Environment and as amended in
accordance with this section. Amendments to the Development Plan
shall be made consistent with the following conditions:
(i)Driveway and/or guest parking spaces shall
be provided for unit numbers 1-6 (Bryant Court frontage) to serve
as the second on-site parking space for these units (in addition to
the one-car garages). The final design and arrangement of these
driveway and/or guest parking spaces shall be subject to further
study as required by the standard conditions of project approval.
These parking spaces shall be surfaced with a high quality
decorative pavement, interlocking paver or turf block, as approved
by the Architectural Review Board. If parallel driveway parking
spaces are installed to meet this requirement (as depicted on the
Conceptual SitePlan), each space shall be i0 feet in width by 20
feet in length, as measured from the property line. If an
alternative parking arrangement is approved, each space shall
comply with the minimum dimensional standards required under
Chapter 18.83 of the PAMC.
(ii) Adequate maneuvering and back-out dimensions
shall be provided for unit numbers 7, 8, 9 and 12, as approved by
the Transportation Division. Portions of the two driveways serving
the Everett Avenue units where maneuvering and back-out area is
’shared’ between units shall be surface with a high quality
decorative pavement, as approved by the Architectural Review Board.
(iii) The curb cuts and driveway aprons for the two
Everett Avenue driveways (serving as access to unit numbers 7-13)
shall be adjusted to preserve and protect the existing street trees
(two Southern Magnolias, trees #2 and #4 as identified in
Attachment #3 of 95-EIA-22, on file with the Department of Planning
and Community Environment). The ’shared’ driveways shall be
reduced in width from 18 feet to 15 feet, except where these
driveways intersect with the’private driveway aprons for each unit
[where an 18-foot width or greater shall be maintained to comply
960402 hc 00~0217
4
with required condition (d) (ii)]. The final configuration of the
driveways shall be approved by the Planning and Transportation
Divisions and the City Arborist.
(iv) Signage and landscaping shall meet the sight
distance requirements of Section 18.83.080 of the Palo Alto
Municipal Code applicable to all driveways within the development,
to the satisfaction of the Transportation and Planning Divisions.
The above noted amendments shall be reflected in the Tentative
Subdivision Map, the Final Map~-and the final plans submitted for
the issuance of a building permit(s).
Special Requirements.
(i)In conformance with the City’s Below Market
Rate (BMR) requirements (Program #13, Housing Element, Palo Alto
Comprehensive Plan), unit #6 of the development shall be reserved
for sale as a below market rate (BMR) unit. Unit #6 shall be
placed in the City’s BMR program as for a ’for sale’ unit. The
Palo Alto Housing Corporation (PAHC) is the City’s designated
representative to administer sale of the BNIR unit. The ~pecific
requirements shall be as follows:
(aa)The sales price of the unit shall be
$146,550.
(bb)The unit shall consist of
approximately 1,377. square feet and
contain three bedrooms,
corresponding to Plan #i on the
Development Plans dated October 20,
1995, on file with the Department of
Planning and Community Environment.
(cc)The design, construction, materials,
finishes, windows, hardware, light
fixtures, landscaping, irrigation,
appliances, and other like features
of the BMR unit, shall be comparable
to the design and construction of
all other units in the project.
In addition, an in-lieu fee of .8125% of the actual
sales value of each of the remaining 12 units in the project shall
be collected by the applicant upon first sale of each unit and paid
to City for deposit in the housing reserve fund.
The provisions of this condition eo(i) have been
negotiated between the City and the project applicant, and are set
forth in that letter from the Director of Planning and Community
Environment dated November 8, 1995, acknowledged and agreed to by
the applicant on January 31, 1996, as amended by letter dated
March 26, 1996~ and these provisions shall also be incorporated
into the Subdivision Improvement Agreement required as a condition
960402 lac 0080217
5
of approval of the tentative subdivision map for the subject
property. In the event of conflict between the November 8, 1995,
letter and this Ordinance, the terms of this Ordinance shall
prevail.
(ii) Prior to the issuance of a building permit
or prior to the submittal of a final Map, whichever first occurs,
the property owner shall prepare and submit a detailed plan for
improvements to the Bryant Court public street right-of-way.
Consistent with the proposal presented by the applicant, the
improvements are to include a repavement of ’Bryant Court from
Bryant Street to Waverley street (concrete material for a width of
20 feet) with incorporation of textured or concrete pavement
accents within the width of the paved right-of-way. The proposed
improvements include the replacement of the existing street
lighting standards with new, pedestrian-scale light standards. The
detailed plan for the Bryant Court right-of-way shall be reviewed
and approved by the City’s CIP Design Consultant and the
Architectural Review Board. Prior to a review of the detailed plan
by the Design °Consultant and the Architectural Review Board, the
project sponsor shall be required to complete the following:
(aa)If the City determines that traffic-
calming measures are appropriate and
desirable for Bryant Court, then
such measures as determined by City
shall be incorporated into the
detailed plans for the right-of-way
and installed as part of the overall
improvements.
(bb)The project sponsor shall identify
the proposed location/geographical
placement of at least six new
pedestrian-scale street lighting
standards. These standards shall be
placed along the north and south
side of the lane, within the width
of the paved right o of o way.
Furthermore, a detailed
specification of the lighting
standard shall be submitted. The
selected standard shall be
consistent with the smaller of the
two lighting standards presented in
the Bryant Court Plan (Gates and
Associates), dated January 4, 1996.
The final standards shall be
approved by the Department of Public
Works.
(cc)The project sponsor shall install 15
MPH speed limit signs along the
Bryant Court right o of - way. The
geographic location and
960402 lac 0080217
specifications for these signs shall
meet the requirements of the City
Transportation Division.
f.Development Schedule. Construction of the project
approved by this ordinance shall commence no later than
September i, 1996, and shall be completed on or before October i,
1997.
SECTION 4. The Council finds that this project, as
mitigated, will not have a significant environmental effect.
SECTION 5. This ordinance shall be effective on the
thirty-first day after the date of its adoption.
INTRODUCED: March 18, 1996
PASSED: April I, 1996
AYES:ANDERSEN, FAZZIN0, MCCOWN, SCHNEIDER, SIMITIAN, WHEELER
NOES :
ABSTENTIONS :HUBER
ABSENT: KNISS, R0SENBAUM
APPROVED :
¯ ~
Ig and
Community Environment
960402 lac 00802
7
315-:~35 Everett Ave/332-340 Bryant Ct
Zone change from Medium DenSity
Multiple-family Residential (RM-30) to
Planned Community (PC) District. ’
Gr.aphic Attachment to
Staff Report
Date: February 28, 1996
File Nos: 95-ZC-8, 95-EIA-22
Scale: linch=2OOFT
North
EXIIIBIT "A"
ATTAC ENT #4
Architectural Review Board
Staff Report
Item No, IIo3
Agenda Date:
To:
June 20, !996
Architectural Review Board
From:
Subject:
Paul Jensen
315-335 Everett Avenue/
332-340 Bryant Court
Classic Communities, Inc.
Department:
File No.:
Planning
95-ZC-8, 95-V-21
REQUEST
Review driveway parking design altematives (Bryant Court), window and manufactured
stone samples, and revised exterior color palette for new planned development of 13
detached single-family dwellings.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
On March 18, 1996, the City Council approved a PC District rezoning and a setback variance
for the development of 13 new single-family residential dwelling units at 315-335 Everett
Avenue. Conditions of project approval require that detailed plans for certain project
elements return to the ARB for final approval.
Consistent with approved conditions, on May 16, 1996, the ARB reviewed specific project
elements which included a) building materials and colors, b) revisions to building elevations,
c) review of a ’preferred’ driveway parking alternative (Bryant Court units) and d) detailed
landscaping and irrigation plans. The ARB directed that the project sponsor study additional
alternatives for driveway parking along Bryant Court and pursue modifications to several
building materials and color features.
Per the direction of the ARB, the project sponsor presents the following:
A:315EVER.SR Page 1
1.Modifications to the exterior building materials color palette
The color palette has been modified to include a greater variety and contrast of
building colors. Per the suggestion of the ARB, colors have been reversed, where in
some cases, darker colors are proposed for the building base and lighter colors are
pi’oposed for the trim. Furthermore, the lighter base colors have been replaced with
a darker tone. The attached chart presents the current color selection for each of the
13 units (Attachment # 1). The revised color board will be presented to the ARB at
the hearing.
Modifications to the window materials and operation
The ARB directed that the project sponsor restudy the proposed windows.
Specifically, it was recommended that wood windows be considered and that
’casement’ type windows be used instead of the proposed ’sliding’ windows.
In response, the project sponsor has submitted three window alternatives. The
specifications on these windows are as follows:
Material Operation
Milgard aluminum frame casement
wood frame single-hung
wood wrapped in aluminum single-hung
Width of Sash
in profile
2 ½" (all sides)
2½"
(top/bottom) and
1½" (sides)
2½"
(top/bottom) and
1½" (sides)
Actual window samples of the three window alternatives will be presented at the ARB
hearing.
A:315EVER.SR
Review sample of manufactured stone sample for porch column bases
The ARB requested that full-size samples of the manufactured stone, proposed for the
porch column bases, be submitted for review. Full-size samples have been submitted
and will be presented to the ARB at the hearing.
Page 2
4.Altematives to driveway parking design for Units # 1-6 (Bryant Court)
Per condition d(I) of the PC Ordinance and 14(e) of the PC District standard
conditions of approval, the project sponsor was required.to study an alternative to the
"parallel" driveway parking design concept for Units #1-6, fronting Bryant Court. A
’nose-in’ parking design (90 degree parking spaces located between units) was
initially studied. However, this alternative was deemed to be unacceptable by the City
Transportation Division given inadequate maneuvering dimensions and substandard
parking stall width. A second alternative was studied, which presented a "hybrid" of
parallel and nose-in parking for Units # 1-5. This alternative proposed an L-shaped
driveway, which would permit residents of these units to either park parallel to the
garage or to ’nose-in’ between units. The ARB found this alternative to be
unacceptable and directed the project sponsor to study another alternative.
In response to the ARB direction, the project sponsor has prepared two parking
alternatives. These alternatives are described below and are referred to as Options 2
& 3 (Option 1 reprgsents the "hybrid" plan reviewed by the ARB on May 16):
Option #2
This parking altemative presents a 10’ X 20’ parallel driveway parking space, situated
in front of the garage of each unit. The frontyard fences (at front property line) have
been removed and front porches have been slightly narrowed to improve parallel
parking stall size and maneuvering. Driveway paving ’fans’ into the frontyard
landscape area to provide smoother maneuvering into and out of the driveway area.
Option #3
This parking alternative presents a similar L-shaped driveway configuration as the
"hybrid" plan (Option # 1), reviewed by the AKB on May 16. However, under this
alternative, all of the floor plans have been ’reversed’, thus reversing the direction of
the L-shaped driveway pavement. Given that Bryant Court is a one-way street ( lane
travels in an east to west direction), the reverse in the driveway pavement permits
vehicles to enter/exit with a larger, smoother turning radius. This larger turning
radius provides easier maneuvering. In addition, the small, frontyard landscape areas
proposed under Option # 1 would be reduced under Option #3. As proposed under
Option #2, driveway pavement would ’fan’ into the frontyard landscaped areas and
two entry posts (replacing the frontyard fences located at the property lin) would be
setback from the front property line. These modifications are also intended to
promote easier maneuvering into and out of the driveway area.
A:315EVER.SR Page 3
Alternative presented by neighboring residents (Option #4.)
In addition to the two altematives submitted by the project sponsor, one additional
driveway parking suggestion has been presented by two property owners/residents of
Bryant Court. This parking concept is not proposed or supported by the project
sponsor but is being presented at the request of the residents. This concept proposes
that Units # 1-6 be sufficiently setback from Bryant Court to allow for diagonal/angled
parking in the frontyards of these units. In order to accommodate diagonal parking at
a 45 degree angle, a perpendicular frontyard setback of 17.’25 feet (as measured from
the property line) would be necessary. Staffhas prepared a schematic plan depicting
the 45 degree driveway parking, which is included in the plans distributed to the
ARB. The concept calls for the removal of the frontyard landscape patch, in order to
create a driveway parking stall which does not block access to the garage. In
addition, the concept plan presents two scenarios. One scenario would involve
removal of the front porch and relocating the front door to the side of the house. This
scenario would result in a rearyard setback of 10 feet. The second scenario would
maintain the front porch as currently designed and approved, resulting in a rearyard
setback of 4 feet. 0
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the ARB approve the modifications based on the comments presented
in the Discussion section of this staff report.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
As part of the PC District rezoning and variance review process, the project was reviewed
for compliance with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and associated City policies.
Approval was based on the finding that the project, as proposed and conditioned, is
consistent with the policies and programs of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. In addition,
it was found that the proposed development is consistent with the Single-Family Residential
Design Guidelines for Palo Alto.
DISCUSSION
Staff has reviewed the modifications proposed by the project sponsor. Staff comments are
as follows:
A:315EVER.SR Page 4
Modifications to color palette
The revised color palette provides a greater variety of color combinations for the
units. The lighter colors have been sot~ened, which would reduce glare.
Window materials and operation
Staff recommends that the ARB review and select one of the window options
presented by the project sponsor. The three window options present are more
attractive and provide a wider sash than the initially proposed Milgard aluminum
frame window. Per the previous direction of the ARB, staff recommends the use of
wood frame windows.
o Manufactures stone sample
Staff finds that the manufactured stone sample is of superior quality. The bull~ and
texture of the material has the appearance of natural stone.
Driveway parking alternatives
The following table summarizes the comments from the Planning and Transportation
Division staff on the four parking options:
OptionlAlternative
Option # 1
Initial ’hybrid’ plan
O_.ption #2
Revised parallel driveway
parking
Advantages Disadvantages
* easier, improved maneuvering by
’fanning’ the pavement,
eliminating the frontyard fences.
* rejected by the ARB given the
substandard nose-in parking, front
yard fence and porch post
obstructions and substandard
parallel parking stall length
* provides only one option for
parking in the driveway
* garage access would be blocked
when driveway is used
* inadequate back-out garage back-
out distances ifa car is parked on
the north side of Bryant Court
A:315EVER.SR Page 5
Reverse of ’hybrid’ plan
* easier, improved maneuvering by
’fanning’ the pavement,
Option #4
Angled/diagonal driveway
parking
elimination of frontyard fences and
setting back the path entry posts.
* continues to provide the resident
with the option of parallel or
’nose-in’ (small car) parking.
* improves maneuvering access to
the garage (wider turning radius)
provided that ’nose-in’ parking is
removed.
* provides an opportunity for one
- two on-site driveway parking
spaces for each unit (one blocking
garage access)
* increases back out distance for
garages to meet minimum code
requirements
* basically the same L-shaped
’hybrid’ plan as Option #1, except
with less maneuvering and easier
access to garage and driveway
parking.
* ’nose-in parking does not meet
minimum dimensional standards
for stall size and maneuvering
* significantly reduces rearyard
area and impairs usability.
Rearyard setback would be 10 feet
if front porch is removed and 4 ft.
if front porch is retained.
* potentially eliminates all/most
frontyard landscaping and impacts
street scape appearance along
Bryant Court. Eliminates
pedestrian connection between the
public lane and the entrance to
units
* potentially impacts the
appearances of the units if front
porches were to be removed and
unit entrance relocated
Option #4 presents an opportunity for at least one, on-site driveway parking space that
would be usable and would not block access to the garage. However, this option
would dramatically change the streetscape along Bryant Court and would result in
excessive pavement surfaces. Furthermore, this option would significantly reduce the
amount of usable, private rearyard area for each unit.
Staff finds that Option #3 presents the best solution to providing driveway parking
that is adequately sized and designed for easy maneuvering while maintaining an
attractive streetscape and usable private yard area. By reversing the units and the
direction of the driveway pavement, maneuvering out of the garage is greatly
improved. The following modifications shall be made to Option #3:
Eliminate the pavement that is proposed for the ’nose-in’ parking option. The
pavement should extend for a maximum distance of 12 feet, as measured from
the front property, line.
Eliminate a small patch of landscaping located between the driveway and the
A:315EVER.SR Page 6
o
entrance path (path to the porch). Pavement area should be increased to
accommodate better maneuvering for entering the garage.
ARB request to study elimination of street parking on Bryant Court
At the May 16 hearing, the ARB requested that the Transportation Division study the
possibility of eliminating street parking on the north side of Bryant Court. The
elimination of parking along Bryant Court is not advisable at this time. Available
street parking along Bryant Court is widely used by the residents during the evening
hours. While street parking impairs maneuvering and access to driveways, garages
and carports, the residents appear to accept this current condition. Elimination of this
Street parking would force residents to use street parking on Waverley Street, Bryant
Street, Hawthorne Street and Everett Avenue.
ARB ORDINANCE COMPLIANCE
This project was reviewed for compliance with the ARB Ordinance Standards (Section
16.48.120 of the PAMC) during the PC District rezoning process. The project, as designed
and conditioned complies with the ordinance standards.
PUBLIC NOTICE
Notice of this ARB review of project requirements was provided by publication of the
agenda in a local newspaper of general circulation. In addition, property owners and
residents within 300 feet of the property Were mailed a courtesy notice.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
An environmental assessment was prepared for this project as part of the City’s review and
approval of the PC District rezoning (95-ZC-8) and variance applications (95-V-21). A
Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigated Monitoring and Reporting Program were
approved as part of the project approval.
CONDIT_IONS:
A:315EVER.SR Page 7
°
Parking Option #3 shall be incorporated into the construction plans for issuance of a
building permit, with the following modifications:
ao
Co
The parallel parking space shall be a minimum of 10’ X 20’ in size.
The pavement for ’nose-in’ parking shall be eliminated and replaced with
landscaping. Pavement shall extend for a maximum distance of 12 feet, as
measured from the front property line.
Eliminate a small portion of the landscaping located between the driveway and
the entrance path (path to fi:ont porch of unit). ~.
The pavement for the driveway area and the ’fanned’ pavement areas located in
the frontyard landscape setback shall be an interlocking paving stone, as
previously required.
The project sponsor shall be required to install wood-framed windows throughout the
development. Wood window details and specifications shall be shown on the final
construction plans.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment # 1:
Attachment #2:
Attachment #3:
Revised Color Schedule, May 21, 1996
Memorandum from Carl Stoffel, Transportation Division; June 7, 1996
ARB Meeting Minutes; May 16, 1996
PREPARED BY:Paul Jensen, Contract Planner
MANAGER REVIEW: Lisa Grote, Zoning Administrator
A:315EVER.SR Page 8
A’T1"A£~ 4~P-. NT"
o
zzO<Otu
~"r
o -<0 Z ILl
d
LU8"’
_o _o o _o ,z.z
~ ~ o o ~ o o @ ,,,
/ TTACt.It I NT 2
MEMORANDUM
June 7, 1996
TO:
FROM:
Architectural Review Board
Carl Stoffel/Transportation Division
SUBJECT: .Comments on Revi~ed Plans for 315 Everett (Bryant Court Project) .C_Dated 5/23/96)
The above revisions incorporate Options 2 and 3 in addition to the originally-proposed parking
arrangement along Bryant Court (Option 1). In preparing the following comments, we were able to
field-test parking maneuvers for the three options by mocking-up the front yard layout and using a
test vehicle.
This option is the same as that reviewed in our May 13 memo to the Planniiag Division; however,
following are some revised comments about the parking on Bryant Court as proposed for this option.
The parallel spaces on Bryant Court must be 10 feet wide by 20 feet long, and they appear to
measure only 18 feet long. The 20-foot length is considered to be a bare minimum when one
or both ends of stall are bordered by a curb or other obstacle, such is the case for all t.hree
options (22 feet would be better). The minimum required dimensions must be provided in
order to make sure vehicles do not protrude into the Bryant Court right-of-way.
The head-in spaces next to the garages on Bryant Court will not work--they are too narrow
and the aisle width behind the stalls (backup/entry distance) is not sufficient. The 8-foot wide
stall is not acceptable even for optional parking for a compact car because it is bordered by
two walls. A minimum of S-½ feet is required for that case, in order for car doors to be
opened. Even if adequate width were provided, these spaces still would not work, due to the
insufficient backup/entry distance. The code-required backup/entry distance is 25 feet for a
standard car (uniclass) or 20 feet for a compact. The alley is only 20 feet wide and, with
parking on the north side, only about 12 feet is available. Thus, the optional head-in parking
stall does not work for any sized car.
In the focus on parallel and the extra head-in spaces along Bryant Court, a similar inadequacy
in the backup/entry distance for the garage spaces has been overlooked--only 22 feet of
backup/entry distance is provided (10 feet on site and 12 feet in Bryant Court, allowing eight
feet for parking on the northside of Bryant Court). This distance is further compromised by
the on-site obstacles on both sides of the backup/entry area between the front of the garage
door and Bryant Court--the porch and a (raised? fenced?) landscaped area on one side, and a
C:\WF~P RCa, EVE P,315.6
Bryant Court Parking
June 7, 1996
Page 2
potential parked car in the head-in space on the other. The required backup/entry distance of
25 feet assumes that the area immediately behind, and on both sides of, the parking stall is free
of obstacles. The obstacles on the sides prevent a driver from beginning the turn to back out
of the garage until the front of the car is near the edge of Bryant Court, effectively reducing
the backup distance to only about 12 feet (assuming that cars are parked on the north side of
the alley). Assuming that a car is parked in the head-in stall bn one side of the garage, and
with the landscal~ed area and porch on the other side, it is unlikely that drivers will be able to
back out of or enter their garages. Thus, in Option 1, the garages do not work.
4.The parallel spaces are only 18 feet long--refer to comment 1 above.
o It is acceptable that the optional head-in stalls are not provided, for the reasons described in
comment 2 above.
Because the head-in stall and some of the landscaping have been removed, these obstacles to
backing/entering the garage are removed. However, the landscaping in front of the porch, and
the porch, still present obstacles on the west side of the garage. Even if all landscaping in front
of the porch were removed, the porch (extending about three feet out from the front of the
garage), still blocks the pull-forward maneuver during exiting (assuming that cars are parked on
the north side of the alley), making the garage access still unacceptable--refer to comment 3
above.
Option 3
The parallel spaces for units 3-6 appear to be 19 feet long, even though 20 feet is called out on
the plans--refer to comment 1 above.
8.The optional head-in stalls do not work--refer to comment 2 above.
Some of the landscaping in front has been replaced with hard surface, removing part of the
obstacle on one side of the garage, and the porch still remains next to the garage backup/entry
area, extending out about three feet toward Bryant Court. The head-in parked car remains as an
obstacle to exiting the garage. The garage, therefore, still does not work acceptably.
10.Some Bryant Court residents have proposed that 45-degree diagonal parking be provided in front
of the Bryant Court units by pulling the units back from Bryant Court. Diagonal parking has the
advantage of considerably less backup/entry distance, and is compatible with the one-way
circulation of Bryant Court. From a parking viewpoint, this option is potentially workable, as
discussed ~ below.
(2:\WP~PRC~EVER315.6
Bryant Court Parking
June 7, 1996
Page 3
Following are two recommendations for a minimally-acceptable parking arrangement along Bryant Court.
Modify Option 3 by (a) for units 2-6, removing a portion of the landscaping in front of the porch so that
the angled edge of the landscaped area next to the driveway begins at the front of the porch rather than
about two feet out from the porch (this aids the entering maneuver); and (b) for units 1-6, eliminating the
optional head-in parking stall, by making it 0nly 12 feet long as measured from the edge of Bryant Court
(this aids the exiting maneuver). This area can still be used as an extension to the parallel stall by
someone who wants to enter the parallel stall in the forward direction (see example for unit 5). The
landscaped area on the west side of the head-in space extending out to the edge of Bryant Court can
remain, as it does not block the exiting maneuver from the garage. The layout for unit I is acceptable
(with the porch on the west side of the garage), because this unit has been set back from Bryant Court
three feet more than the other units, thus permitting the exiting maneuver even with the three-foot
protrusion of the porch. Note that this solution still results in tight maneuvering in and out of the garage
for units 1-6, due to the 22-foot backup/entry distance, instead of the required 25 feet. (Even though the
required distance of 25 feet is provided for unit 1, the protruding porch makes the exiting maneuver
tight.) Drivers of larger cars, would probably have to enter and exit by performing extra backup and pull
forward maneuvers, which is minimally acceptable.
In order to make Option 4 workable from a parking viewpoint, some landscaping would have to be
removed, and the units would have to be moved back into the site in order to provide a minimum of 17-%
feet of perpendicular depth between Bryant Court and the faces of the units. 45-degree parking requires
12 feet of backup/entry space for 9-foot-wide stalls, which is provided by the usable width of the alley
(i.e., with parking assumed on the north side of the alley). One or two diagonal spaces per unit could be
provided with this design, depending on whether the garage access is blocked, and/or how much area is
. needed or desired in the front yard for landscaping and a walkway to the front door. The same issues
concerning keeping obstacles out of the backup/entry space behind the garage as described for the Option
3 modification in the previous paragraph are also applicable here.
~onclusion
The parking arrangements for Options 1, 2, and 3 developed by the project applicant do not provide
minimum acceptable parking spaces for these units, due primarily to backup/entry distance limitations.
If the units along Bryant Court were built according to Option 1, 2, or 3, the tight parking arrangement
could lead the residents of these units, in the future, to.request that the City prohibit parking on the north
side of Bryant Court. This on-street parking will probably be needed from time to time by the new
Bryant Court residents, just as it is now needed by the current residents. Option 4, based on a proposal
by some Bryant Court residents, could provide usable parking. Either Option 3 or 4, with the
modifications described above, is recommended to create the proper space needed fc~r parking two
vehicles per unit.
CS
CAWPWRC~VER.315,6
ATTACHMENT
MEMORANDUM
June 19, 1996
’TO:
FROM:
SUB CT:
Architectural Review Board
Carl Stoffel/Transportation Division
~..upplemental Comments on Revised Plans for 315 Everett (Brya, nt Court Pr~ec~
(Dated 5/2.3/96)
Following are some comments on the above plans that supplement my June 7 memorandum to the
Architectural Review Board.
My June 7 memorandum refers to required dimensions for parking, such as minimum back-up
distance. Even though the 315 Everett development is a multi-unit project, the units are
individual single family homes. The parking space dimensions required in PAMC 18.83 apply
only to multi-family and commercial developments, not to single family homes. However, these
dimension tables, as well as vehicle turning templates, are used as guidelines for evaluation of the
parking layout of single family homes. That was the case for this project. In addition, the front
yard layouts for Options 1 - 3 of the Bryant Court units were mocked-up in the City Hall garage
and tested with a vehicle. We found that entering and exiting the proposed Bryant Court garages
with a 22-foot backup/entry distance would be workable, provided that the two modifications to
Option 3 are made as described at the top of page 3 of the June 7 memorandum. (Those
modification are (a) for units 2-6, remove a portion of the landscaping in front of the porch so
that the angled edge of the landscaped area next to the driveway begins at the front of the porch
rather than about two feet out from the porch; and (b) for units 1-6, eliminate the optional head-in
parking stall, by making it only 12 feet long as measured from the edge of Bryant Court.) Thus,
the applicant’s Option 3 is workable, both from parking and aesthetic viewpoints, provided that
the above two modifications are made. Please note that City regulations permit the second
parking space for a single family home to be in front of the garage.
Regarding Option 4, suggested by some Bryant Court residents, my June 7 memorandum states
that up to two 45-degree diagonal spaces could be provided in front of the units if the units were
set back at least 17-¼ feet from the edge of Bryant Court. Please note that two such spaces
would take up approximately 25 feet of frontage parallel to Bryant Court, thereby converting
almost all of the front yard to a paved parking area.
cs
ATTACHMENT #6
Excerpt of minutes of the meeting of the
Palo Alto City Council
March 18, 1996
Pd!~LIC HEARING: The Planning Commission recommends to the
City Council approval of an application to rezone property
located at 315-335 Everett Avenue/332-340 Bryant Court from
RM-30 (Multiple Family) District to (PC) Planned Community
District for. development of 13 detached single-family
residential units (CMR:188:96)
Mayor Wheeler said the matter was a quasi-judicial item, and she
reminded Council to divulge any communications with the applicant
or with others who helped them formulate their positions.
Chief Planning Official Nancy Lytle said the files indicated the
site originally had six units on it, which were vacant and in poor
condition as far back as 1988. In 1990, the Fire Department
approached the property, owner about the possibility of using the
structures in a ’training exercise where under controlled condi-
tions, the structures would be burned down. In 1991, an
Architectural Review Board (ARB) application was approved for the
property under current RM-30 zoning, and the project yielded 12
units in a townhouse-style design. The approval included a
preservation of significant trees on the site particularly the
large oak; it had primary access from Everett and from the Bryant
Court side. Demolition of the six units was part of the approval
and they were removed in a Fire Department training exercise
subsequent to the entitlement being granted. The property had
been vacant since the time the structures were destroyed. As
staff understood it, the approved project was granted an extension
03/18/96 78-384
in 1992, but ~ was never financed and ~onstructed and the
approval expired in 1993.
Zoning Administrator Lisa Grote said the application was. for a 13-
lot subdivision. Seven lots would be accessed off of Everett
Street from two shared driveways, and six lots would be accessed
off of Bryant Court with individual access ways. The proposed
density was 14.9 units per acre which was within .the range of I0
to 45 units per acre as contained in the Comprehensive Plan.
Public benefits to the Bryant Court alleyway included nine street-
lights about 14 feet high and 62 feet apart staggered on either
side of the alleyway. The street!ights were a scaled down version
of the streetlight~ on University Avenue. There was a three-foot
wide pedestrian path on the south side of the alley with an area
another three feet in width of truncated domes required for
Americans with Disabilities (ADA) requirements. There were travel
and parking lanes. Rather than losing parking along the northern
edge of the alley, an alternative public benefit would treat the
overall alley more as a court without the pedestrian path. The
decorative paving would be in bands across the width of the
alleyway as well as s~me accent bands along the edges but there
would not be a delineation~between pedestrian paths and travel
lanes for vehicles. The overall court would be treated in a much
more unified way and as a pedestrian and vehicle environment.
She noted the public benefits were ~as stated in the ordinance
which was Attachment #I to the staff report (CMR:188:96). The
public benefit as the applicant originally proposed was in
Attachment #6 in their application letter. Some of the items the
applicant proposed as public benefits such as outstanding
architecture and saving the 42-foot oak tree were not accepted as
public benefit but rather as good project design. The ARB
reviewed the application on January 18, 1996, and recommended
approval. There were concerns with the parallel parking
arrangement an~ some of the materials proposed for the project.
The project was also reviewed and approved by the Planning
Commission on February 14, 1996, with some minor comments about
exterior materials and the parallel parking arrangement andalso
the possibility of including traffic calming measures along Bryant
Court. Staff recommended approval of the project with the
findings and conditions contained in the staff report.
Planning Commissioner Victor Ojakian said the project reflected
the Planning. Commission’s realization of the need for housing. As
a natural outcome of some of the work on the Comprehensive Plan,
over the past few years the Planning Commission had shown
sensitivity toward design which explained why there were comments
related to the exterior building materials or where garages were
placed, etc. Care and attention Were also given to safety matters
which explained some of the discussions in the February 14, 1996,
Planning Commission minutes about parking and how that should be
set up and arranged. The staff .report (CMR:188:96) noted a couple
of options to improvements of Bryant Court which arose since the
Planning Commission meeting, and while the planning commission had
not discussed them, his personal preference was option No.I,
slightly-raised speed humps.
Architectural Review Board Vice Chairperson David Ross said as
noted in the staff report (CMR:188:96), the ARB approved the
project on a 4-0 vote. While there were some concerns and
conditions regarding further review of the exterior finish
materials, the comments were also echoed by the Planning
Commission. There would be another visit by the applicant to the
ARB, at which time the details would be worked out.
Council Member McCown queried the solution on the parallel parking
on Bryant Court.
Ms. Grote said currently the project proposed parallel parking as
shown in the plans. There would be.a parallel space the resident
could back into in front of their unit. The ARB and the Planning
Commission encouraged the study of an alternative solution, but
the proposals had not changed.
Contract Planner Paul Jensen said for units 1 through 5, the
proposed garage space came in front Bryant Court and the parallel
parking space ran in front of the garage and a portion of the
front yard. There was a condition in the recommendations that
unit No. 6 also include a parallel space.
Mayor Wheeler a~ked if Council adopted therecommendation, whether
the study would take place and whether it would be reviewed by the
Transportation Division and presented to the ARB.
Ms. Grote said yes. Condition 14(e) on page 7 of Attachment No.
IA, to the staff report (CMR:188:96) called for further study that
would go through the Transportation Division staff and then the
ARB for review and approval.
Mayor Wheeler clarified there was not parallel parking on the
Everett Avenue side. units.
Ms. Grote said that was correct.
Council Member MuCown could not find the proposed parallel parking
spaces in the plans Council received.
Council Member Andersen queried how many cars would be able to
park on Bryant Court and whether there would be cars on both
sides.
Ms. Grote said the current parking on the north side would remain,
and there would only be the parallel parking on private property
on the south side. There would not be two row of parking.
Council Member Andersen clarified there would be parking for six
cars where the new units were plus whatever was already there.
Ms. Grote said that was correct. The cars for the six units would
be off the alleyway and on private property. There was also
parking on the north side of the alley.
Council Member Andersen queried whether there would be enough
space in the middle for two cars to pass with cars parked on
either side.
Ms. Grote said there was enough room for one car to pass plus an
area for pedestrians.
Council Member Andersen asked whether the change which would occur
as a result of the additional six cars would intrude further out
into the actual alley.
Ms. Grote said if the cars were parked correctly, they would be
entirely on private property.
Council Member Andersen referred to the below-market-rate (BMR)
unit. The pric~ would be approximately $107,000, and he queried
how the price was determined.
Mr. Jensen said the project was required to provide 1.3 BMR units
because it was a 13-unit development, and 10 percent was the
City’s minimum requirement. Typically, the price was 80 percent
of the median. The price of unit No.6 would be approximately
$150,000. Since the project sponsor was obligated to also provide
an additional amount of BMR units because of the 0.3 partial unit,
they chose to apply it to one unit by reducing the price of the
unit for the incremental cost they would be required to pay the
City for the partial unit. The price was lower than what would
typically be required for moderate income.
Council Member Andersen asked where the $20,u00 additional funds
came from.
Mr. Jensen said that was part of an earlier proposal.
Council Member Andersen clarified at that point there was only one
BMR unit priced considerably below 80 percent.
Mr. Jensen said as noted in the staff report (CMR:188:96), the BMR
unit was not a public benefit per se because the applicant was
meeting the minimum obligations.
Council Member Andersen clarified the only public benefit
identified at that point was the street itself, which was normally
something the City would do anyway.
Ms. Lytle referred to page 2 of Attachment No.1 to the staff
report~ (CMR:188:96). The benefit findings before Council
reflected that the design of the project was inherently more
compatible than a conventional zoning would yield in that it
reflected more of the traditional patterns in the surrounding
neighborhood, allowed for more use of the alleyway in terms of
facing units, addressed street-scape in a more pedestrian-friendly
manner than the traditional zoning might, and the type of unit
yielded would not necessarily come from conventional zoning,
either RM-30 or R-I which would also be allowed under the RM-30
regulations. The right-of-way improvements also went beyond what
the City would traditionally require of a project in that special
pavement treatments or lighting fixtures would not be a standard
requirement for the frontage of a project.
Council Member Andersen clarified the difference was between the
color in the concrete approach and the kind of lighting fixtures
being used, and’the design.
Ms. Lytle said that was correct.
Council Member Simitian understood from the materials provided
that staff distinguished between inherent quality of design, and
did not consider it a public benefit because projects should be
well-designed. On the other hand, looking for public benefit
inherent in the proposed project, as distinguished from asking for
extras, was when the case was made that it was inherently
beneficial to the public to have a particular housing type as
contrasted with what the community would receive if one went with
the standard zoning.
Ms. Lytle said that was correct.
Council Member Simitian referred to the improvements along Bryant
Court and said theissue was also the length of the improvements
as opposed to the extent of the improvements within that
relatively short corridor.
Ms. Lytle said that was correct.
Mayor Wheeler queried the fate of the large, healthy tree on
Bryant Court.
Mr. Jensen said if the tree were in the area of unit No.i, which
was roughly the corner of the property, it could be an incensed
cedar, which was one of the trees which was listed in the
inventory. The arborist who prepared the report went through a
condition charting of each of the trees and identified which were
worth preserving and which had problems.
Mayor Wheeler referred to the utilities. The renderings reflected
a beautiful, improved alleyway, and she assumed the standard terms
and conditions requiring applicants to underground the utilities
at least along the portion of the alleyway the project affected
applied. There were two or three other unattractive standard
utility poles along the Bryant Court right-of-way, and she queried
whether those would be impacted by the application.
Ms. Grote said there was not currently any condition or require-
ment to underground the rest of the utilities other than those
along the frontage of the project.
Mayor Wheeler declared the Public Hearing open.
Scott Ward, Classic Communities, applicant, 1068 East Meadow
Circle, encouraged support of the Planning ~Commission, ARB, and
staff recommendations to approve the proposed project. The
project was well conceived, designed, and favorably received by
the neighborhood. The project addressed a need in the new home
marketplace and was consistent with the current Comprehensive
Plan. He clarified Classic Communities did not assert the project
would address a need in the new home marketplace in the Palo Alto
community lightly. He clarified the highest sales .price on the
Times Tribune site wasnot $720,000, but about $650,000, -and only
four of the units sold for more than $600,000. All of the lots
had both primary and secondary dwelling units on them so the buyer
effectively purci~sed two homes for the price of one. He also
clarified none of the sales conZracts had closed at that point.
In terms of dollars per foot calculations, the homes sold for
about the same price as other homes in the Downtown north
neighborhood. Secondarily, Classic Communities voluntarily
accepted lower prices than it could have obtained. The Dutch
auction process had been utilized for centuries in different
marketplaces and was designed to" achieve a price for a similar
type of unit and not necessarily the Maximum price for the
particular unit. He encouraged thinking of it as a lowest common
denominator approach, e.g., if there were four units of a
particular type available, the four highest offers were accepted,
but the home sold for the fourth highest price. He queried how
many homeowners voluntarily elected to accept a third, fourth or
fifth highest price offered for a home. If Classic Communities
wanted to focus only on maximizing the sales prices of the units,
it would have engaged in a different process. Little advertising
was done, the units were not modeled, and~they were not presented
to the brokerage community. Yet, the project ended up with about
300 interested parties. Ultimately, when Classic Communities took
the homes to auction on the limited basis, it had 50 offers for i0
units. The applicant took its responsibility as corporate
citizens seriously. In terms of the advance sales, it was not
uncommon.for a developer to meserve units in a project, and in
fact, many developers were required by the terms of their
financing to do so. It was absolutely typical for a developer to
release units on a phase basis and in popular projects, for prices
to increase sometimes significantly between phases. In the
subject case, advance sales were made at a market rate in order to
secure agreements with several parties who were highly motivated
to purchase the homes. The advance sales were not made on a
discounted basis designed to favor friends. In the PC applica-
tion, the applicant projected the homes would sell in the mid-
$300,000 to mid-S400,000 range. The applicants also stipulated in
the application that the homes would sell for whatever price the
market would bear. A unit was lost in the approval process. When
the Projection was made,- there were about 40 homes for sale in the
Downtownnorth neighborhood as documented by the multiple listing
service (MLS). When the Times Tribune site went to market, there
was one home on the market available for sale and a transaction
was pending on it. Obviously, the market changed in the
intervening 18 months. Even so, the applicant failed to
appreciate the distinctive character of the Palo Alto market since
it had not had the same experience in other communities.
Regarding the representations made in the application with respect
to the prices for the homes, Classic Communities represented that
03/18/96 78-390
the homes woula sell in the high $300,0%1~ to high $400,000s
before the Times Tribune experience,, and based on it, the homes
would sell in the low $400,000s to low $500,000s. Regarding
public benefit, he believed the proposed housing filled a gap in
the range of choices in Palo Alto, and the housing was priced in
the middle range for Palo Alto. With respect to the homes on the
Times Tribune site, there was a gap between a $300,000
condominium and a $700,000 single-family home, and the project was
clearly within that range. While the applicant expected to be at
the low end of the range, they might be in the middle to higher
end. The entire range appeared to be ratcheting up at the moment.
The buyer profile was consistent with their projections,, e.g.,
they had a number of first-tlme buyers, many older couples who
were leaving larger homes on larger lots, and several young
families. The applicant was protective of its goodwill in the
community. He referred to a letter from one of the buyers who had
lived in Palo Alto from 1976 to 1984 and had not been able to buy
anything in. Palo Alto since that time. The buyer was moving his
family into one of the Times Tribune site homes and was pleased to
be a part of the community.. Classic Communities continued to
focus on the substance and merits of the project and believed it
provided an opportunity to create another high-quality new
community that would be integrated into the Downtown north context
and would provide a housing choice not currently prevailing in the
marketplace. Based on a series of meetings with the neighbors and
the support of the Planning Commission and ARB, the applicant was
confident he/she was on the verge of accomplishing the goal a
second time. Regarding the parallel parking space, he did not
believe Council’s drawings showed the parallel parking space.. The
applicant .took seriously the direction from the Planning
Commission and the ARB to find another way to make it work, and
therefore, in the latest set of plans, the head-in space only was
depicted, which would provide for traffic to circulate along
Bryant Court c~ar of the guest spaces that Would be parked head-
in, and there would be no obstruction in Bryant Court with respect
to parking. On the BMR question, typically developers elected to
opt out of the requirement because they feared contamination of a
project by the introduction of a low income buyer. Theapplicant
did not have that fear and was happy to have the unit in the
project and to meet his/her obligation in that manner. With
respect to public benefit, the applicant’s obligation typically
would only be to improve one-street section or abou£ 2,000 square
feet of Bryant Court as opposed to the more than i0,000 square
feet proposed for improvement. As the applicant understood the
Utilities Department, the balance of the undergrounding activity
03/18/96 78-391
apart from the applicant’s frontage along~ Bryant Court was
scheduled for sometime between the year 2008 and 2011.
Council Member McCown said Council’s plans did not depict the
parallel parking scheme but rather the, head-in parking scheme.
She clarified the applicant proposed the head-in scheme, and
queried whether staff concurred. She was concerned Council was
supposed to approve that aspect of the plan that evening and she
was not clear on it.
Mr. Ward was comfortable with the direction of the staff
recommendation that it return to the ARB for final approval. He
was trying to demonstrate that the applicant was open to
alternative ways to provide the parking.
Council Member McCown clarified Council was not approving a
specific solution to the parking situation but rather it would be
worked out.
Ms. Grote said that was correct. Condition #14(e) indicated the
parking alternative would return to the Transportation Division
staff as well as the ARB for final review and approval.
Council Member McCown said her concern over the issue was whether
realistically usable spaces were being provided because it was the
second required space. If there were some issue that Could not be
resolved, she was cOnc@rned about leaving the matter dangling if
it really affected the number of units or how units were placed on
the site. It seemed to her it could be a significant issue, and
she did not hear a high degree of certainty that there was an
obvious solution.
Mr. Ross said the parking issue was actually resolved before it
reached the ARB. The ARB raised the question, but he believed the
Transportation Division staff endorsed the parallel parking plan.
Council Member McCown understood from the ARB minutes there was
still a concern about whether the parallel parking scheme ~was
really going to be usable.
Ms. Lytle said the concern was whether people would park the way
the parallel parking was currently designed or whether they would
in reality use the nose in parking, which was the revision the
applicant placed in the Council’s packets but which was not the
set of plans referenced in the Ordinance. Staff would study
further whether it was realistic to do paralle!, nose in, or a
03/18/96 78-392
combination of une two but did not belieg~ either option was a
significant issue for the project design. It was more of a subtle
detail Staff believed could be worked out at the ARB.
Council Member Andersen thanked Mr. Ward for the extensive
explanation of some of the issues with regard to the Peninsula
Times Tribune site. He queried whether there would be advance
sales on the subject project.
Mr. Ward did not currently have a marketing plan in place for the
subject project nor did he have a marketing plan in place for the
Times Tribune project until about a week before it went to market.
It could be argued that to the extent all of the homes were.
exposed to the marketplace, it was conceivable the prices would be
even higher. The applicant did not have a particular need for
advance sales.
Council Member Andersen queried the benefit of an advance sale.
Mr. Ward said in the subject instance, a number of parties had
been in contact with Classic Communities for quite some time and
had expressed a strong desire to purchase one of the homes. Their
objective as businessmen was to take advantage of that motivation
to secure revenue for a portion of the project. A price was put
to the most highly motivated set of buyers.
Council Member Andersen clarified those prices might be lower than
future prices if all the units were done at the same time.
Mr. Ward said it was not uncommon to establish what one perceived
to be a provisional price to see how the market responded. If the
market received it favorably, then the price might be increased to
the point where the market did not receive the units favorably.
Council Member Andersen queried how much interest was generated.
Mr. Ward said by the time the units were made available for sale,
there was an interest list of about 300 parties. The definition
of interest in their minds was a telephone contact.
Council Member Andersen said the applicant also indicated the
prices would be somewhere within the mid-S400,000 to low $500,000
range.
Mr. Ward said assuming current market conditions prevailed at the
point at which the units were expected to be delivered but there
were no guarantees.
Council Member Andersen said some communities had some type of
add-ons into the BMR fund when prices went beyond a certain level,
and he queried how the applicant felt about it.
Mr. Ward had not experienced such a thing in other communities,
and staff had not conveyed any such provision. As a policy
matter, it would require significant additional study because it
had implications he was not prepared to address.
Council Member Rosenbaum disclosed a telephone .conversation with
Mr. Ward earlier in the’day. Clearly, the reason Council was
concerned about the cost of the Times Tribune site units was
because some Council Members felt foolish by what was said a
couple of years ago about why they were approving the project in
terms of fulfilling a certain market hitch for the public. Even
as recently as a few months ago, there were signs on the property
indicating what the prices were going to be. In the end when it
did not turn out that way and when it was further compounded by
the fact that not all of the units were available to the public,
he believed there was some understandable notice taken. Council
was looking for, and so far was not getting, some indication that
the current 13 units would be treated differently so there was not
the same reaction.
Mr. Ward clarified a sign was not posted on the property
indicating the price of the units. For a period of time, however,
a sign had been posted that the homes would be priced from
$379,000. When the decision was made to make the homes available
starting at $399,000, the sign was removed. The argument
initially made with respect to the Times Tribune site project and
its positioning in the marketplace was still valid. There were no
other new single-family homes available in the community priced in
the low $400,000 to low $600,000 range. The applicant did not
assert that the units were moderately or affordably priced homes,
but it was a segment of the marketplace where there were not a lot
of offerings in Palo Alto. There was no particular need to
reserve the units in the subject project for any sort of advance
sale.
Council Member Rosenbaum said the applicant mentioned the quoted
price of $720,000, which he believed someone bid for the unit, but
it was not going to be the sales price.
03/is/96 78-394
Mr. Ward said in the subject instance, s~,~e people apparently
approached the auction as a sort of gaming strategy in which the
belief was if they bid a high price, a price they did not actually
intend to close on, it would put them in a position to secure a
unit as the price was established by those who were actually
bidding what.they believed to be the market values of the homes.
That was the case with respect to the $720,000 offer.
Council Member Rosenbaum clarified the buyer reneged and was not
going to pursue the home.
Mr. Ward said the buyer was notified that his/her bid was the
winning bid and was invited to enter into a contract to purchase
the home at that offering price. The bidder declined the offer.
Mayor Wheeler asked about fate of the large, healthy tree on
Bryant Court.
Mr. Ward believed it was an evergreen tree in close proximity to
lot No. 5 on the drawing, and it was proposed for removal.
Mayor Wheeler asked why.
Mr. Ward said the tree conflicted with the location of a-driveway
apron or a porch. There were seven feet of setbacks from the
Bryant Court right-of-way line to the single-story porch structure
and about another three feet to a two-story element of the homes
which fronted along Bryant Court. The trip line of that tree was
probably a radius of about 15 feet. There was not enough
clearance.
Mayor Wheeler clarified the slated removal was not because of the
condition of the tree but rather because of the building plans.
Mr. Ward believed the arborist found the tree to be a reasonably
healthy but not highly valued specimen.
~C!~SS: 9:50 P.M. - 10:07 P.M~
MOTION: Council Member Andersen moved, seconded by McCown, to
bring Item Nos. i0 and ii forward for the purpose of a continu-
ance.
MOTION PASSED 6-0, Fazzino, Huber, Kniss absent.
O3/lS/96
I0.Initiation o~ Community Commercial Zone Text Change for the
Stanford Shopping Center
II.Mayor Wheeler re A Proposal for Creating Unity through City-
Facilitated Community Action
MOTION TO CONTINUE: Council Member Andersen moved, seconded by
McCown, to continue the Item Nos.¯ 10 and ii to a date to be
determined by staff.
MOTION TO CONTINUE PASSED 6-0, Fazzino, Huber, Kniss absent.
’ : Public Hearing re 315-335 Everett
Avenue/ 332-340 Bryant Court
Wayne Swan, 240 Kellogg Avenue, said about 30 years ago he devised
a review process for planned unit developments that analyzed high-
density residential buildings, the kind which went six or more
stories in height and created shadows, etc. One of the problems
was what to do with vacant land and how to evaluate its appropri-
ate density. By studying the number of bedrooms in the living
units and relating it to the gross residential area or acres, it
was possible to get another parameter to evaluate different types
of residential development. In Other words, four bedroom houses
in a standard subdivision tended to generate a certain number of
people as residents, and cars. He did a little figuring to
determine what the present project would look like and how it
compared with the Times Tribune project site. The particular
project had six three-bedroom units, and seven four-bedroom units,
which totaled 46 bedrooms. The population per gross residential~
acre would be 43.5. The curb parking space available on the
public street per unit was seven-tenths, less than one parking
space per unit0 could park at the curb. Parties or gatherings
would create a’ parking problem in any project area that did not
provide reasonable amount of on-street parking in addition to the
off-street parking. Comparing the proposed project with the Times
Tribune site, the population per gross residential acre there was
33.3 or about .twice the number of parking spaces per curb. He
cautioned Council to be careful about establishing PC districts.
He was particularly concerned about rezoning the particular site
when it was already zoned RM-30. He believed it was an unneces-
sarily high residential density and there was inadequate off-
street parking.
Steve Frankel, 351 Byrant Court, lived across the court from the
proposed project. He had been involved in most of the public
03/is/s6 vs- s6
presentations aHout the project and gen=~ally supported the
product outlined. There were still some unresolved issues
mentioned in the Ordinance regarding speed control down Bryant
Court, the parking, the court surface, the street lighting,
numbers, and locations. He wanted to ensure the public input
would still be a part of the process once the ordinance was
approved. The other issue was whether the new utilities would be
sized for addition to the existing systems by the property owners
on Bryant Court. If that were not normally part of the Ordinance,
he requested it be included.
Lynn Chiapella, 631 Colorado Avenue, believed the public benefit
was weak. Council should accept the BMR housing unit. A
contribution to the BMR program should be tied to the cost of the
houses so if the houses sold for $500,000 or $600,000, the City
actually profited in the BMR program. The market was strong, and
it made no sense to artificially use $39,000 figure to reduce the
price of the BMR unit to $107,000. She believed anyone in Palo
Alto would be delighted to pay $146,000 for a three-bedroom, two-
bath house. She was concerned about how the street trees would
fare after the project because frequently trees were damaged
during the construction process. She suggested irrigation and
maintenance of the street trees be tied to the construction. For
example, if a tree died within a year, it would be replaced and
irrigation would be tied to the houses so the trees had a chance.
With reduced sized lots, there was little soil, so if the street
trees were not watered and cared for properly, they would not
survive. She was confused about the parking in the alley. The
plans showed people walking down the middle of the alley, yet the
report repeatedly referred to speed problems not yet addressed.
The old mature oak on Lot No. 9 was a big responsibility. It
would be costly to maintain,-and the responsibility for it would
fall on one individual. It would have been a public benefit if
the cost to ma±~tain the oak were shared.
Herb Borock, 2731 Byron Street, referred to the previous project
proposed for the site which went before the ARB and possibly the
Council for approval at a time when there were some rental units
on the property. That project required compliance with Housing
Program 9 of the Comprehensive Plan where the developer was
required to meet two out of the three conditions for the preserva-
~tion of rental housing. The project had an unusual history
because those houses were demolished after project approval but
the project never went forward. The new owner essentially bought
a vacant piece of land and got out of the requirements of Housing
Program 9. That was an example of what happened when housing was
demolished before there was project approval. In November 1995,
Council approved new Building Code provisions that allowed anyone
to demolish housing before project approval, and Council was told
there were no policy implications of that action. The unusual
case for the subject property would be a general case in the City,
e.g., developers with multiple-family parcels could demolish
existing housing and not have to abide with Housing Program 9.
Council should revisit the issue of allowing demolition before
approval for a new project. Page 4 of the staff report
(CMR:188:96) provided a table to compare the various regulations
of the proposed project with both RM-30 and R-I district regula-
tions. He believed it was a misinterpretationof the Zoning Code
and misleading to compare the proposed project with R-I regula-
tions. The purpose of the language in the multiple-family zones
for developing single family referred to development within the RM
regulations that met the minimum site area of those regulations.
It had,nothing to do with comparing it to something that was much
smaller such as the individual lots. With regard to "minimum
required on-site parking," multiple-family zones required on-site
parking as an addition of resident and guest parking. The main
advantage of doing a PC zone for the subject type of housing was
it eliminated guest parking by claiming the applicant wanted to
create something which had no ownership in common, and the only
way to provide guest parking was with something owned in common.
The particular site with reserved parking would require a higher
amount of guest parking, than a Project with spaces that any
resident could use. The parking item should show the actual total
number of parking spaces that would be required in the RM-30 zone
by totaling the resident and the guest parking rather than trying
to show some vague ratio as shown in the report. Palo Alto did
not have t~ look at other cities’ regulations to determine the BMR
sale price formula. Palo Alto started it, and for fractional
units, it was a.percentage of the total sale price of the project.
With the proposed project, one unit should be provided as an
actual unit on site, and for the others, the price could be based
upon three out of thirteen times the sales price times the
relevant percentage for BMR rather than just picking a number of
$39,000 out of the air.
Irv Brenner, 250 Byron Street, said the proposed rezoning required
some significant public benefit, and the only benefits offered
were the questionable improvements to Bryant Court balanced
against the loss of trees, and the supposedly moderate priced
housing to be provided. He heard Mr. Ward say the pricing was all
driven by market forces. To him that was a euphemism for we want
to get whatever we can out of the houses. Mr. Ward should have
been held to h~s agreement to offer the ~ouses on the Times
Tribune site and presumably the next set of houses within some
price range. That was the whole point; there was no other public
benefit unless he did so. He had no objection to the project
until, he heard the testimony. He was concerned because he did not
believe the public benefits were clarified and they were talking
about a rezoning with an equivalent public benefit. Unless the
public benefits were defined, he did not believe the project
should go forward.
Mr. Ward assumed the new utilities would be sized so that growth
was anticipated and discussions had been held with the Utilities
Department to that effect. With respect to the BMR requirement,
it was a negotiated process, and he understood the Palo Alto
Housing Corporation (PAHC) conveyed to the staff representative
the particular highest priority needs for a particular project,
and that staff representative sought to have the applicant meet
the need in the project. He did not understand the matter to the
extent that if the market rate homes increased in value then
presumably the limitation on the BMR contribution also grew. At
330 Emerson, Classic Communities developed a four-unit apartment
building which would shortly be conveyed to the PAHC and rented by
very low income individuals. That project presumably also grew in
value at the same rate the Times Tribute site project grew in
value, and therefore, he could argue a bad judgment was made in
not seeking to cap the amount of the contribution. Based on
negotiations with staff, he understood delivery of the units was
the important thing. To pay an in-lieu fee and then seek to place
those fees in the present marketplace was not a particularly cost-
effective use of the funds. With respect to the previous project,
those 12 units were approved with an average area of about 2,400
square feet. In terms of the actual intensity of use and the
market positioning for those units as opposed to the units
proposed, the units would have been priced substantially higher
than proposed in the subject instance. He believed the public
benefit was well defined, and he reiterated the amount of area
proposed for improvement on Bryant Court was five times the amount
of area that would otherwise be required to improve. In addition,
the quality of those improvements was substantially higher than
would otherwise be required to make. Bryant Court was in decrepit
condition, and it was an area which needed to be addressed, and
Classic Communities was in a position to do so, and it was clear
what the program was.
Mayor Wheeler declared the Public Hearing closed.
Council Member S~,,itian said there was some ~ambiguity about the
issue of affordability as a public benefit. His understanding was
that affordability was not being represented as a public benefit
attached to the project.
Ms. Lytle said that was correct.
Council Member Simitian had pushed for affordable housing projects
often in the minority of one or two, and if Council wanted
affordability, it needed to be built into a project. His vote on
the subject proposal would in no way be with any belief that
affordability was attached to the project except with respect to
the BMR unit. The affordability discussion with regard to the
proposed project was extraneous, and it was important to be clear
so people did not have unreal expectations. In terms of public
benefit, Council Member Rosenbaum raised good points three or four
years previously when he pushed Council to find public benefit
inherent within projects by virtue of their design. The push was
instead of telling an applicant what to do as long as there were
enough extras, or to return to the City and ask for public benefit
when the applicant would make the case that the rules did not
produce the best project and that a more creative development was
actually better for.’the public interest than following all the
rules. The burden was then on the applicant to make the case to
the Council. In terms of public benefit, staff said it believed
if Council had the applicant do what the rules suggested, the
project might end up being much less beneficial to the public than
the one proposed on the merits. In addition, there was the
incremental public benefits of the improvements on Bryant Court.
He did not believe the discussion should conclude with all the
emphasis on Bryant Court because it detracted from the direction
Council wanted to go which was to determine the inherent public
benefit in projects when Council broke the mold and let applicants
present something outside the rules.
Council Member Andersen believed there would be a significant
parking deficiency with the number of spaces being provided. If,
as a result of the design, there were not much flexibility in
terms of parking availability, the neighborhood did not have a lot
of parking spaceeither. When he drove down the courtyard, he did
not see a lot of space for additional cars over and above what was
being discussed. He queried staff’s thoughts on some of the
issues raised with regard to guest parking and the options .for the
residents who had two cars. While he realized there was a trade-
off in terms of the number of units, there was also a question of
space and neighborhood problems down the road.
Ms. Lytle said tnere was not a magic answer ~o where people would
park. They would park on-street as guests just as they currently
did for other developments in the area which had no guest parking.
There was some ability to stack in the long driveways for the
units which faced on Everett Avenue and there would probably be
some tandem parking occurring. Other than that, guests would
compete for parking.
Council Member Andersen referred to Herb Borock’s point that the
City was now in a position where people could actually demolish
rental units and the City would find itself in a position where it
might not be able to leverage the creation of the unit which was
previously destroyed. While he did not require a response at that
time, he would be interested in knowing whether the statement was
accurate. Regarding the landscaping conditions for the old oak,
it was on one property, and as he recalled, there was to be a
specific landscaping plan in place so the property would have the
yard completed in a manner most conducive to preservation of the
tree.
Mr. Jensen said that was correct. The draft conditions not only
applied to Lot No.9 but to two other lots in which the tree canopy
encompassed. The conditions required certain types .of landscaping
for those yard areas and a specific turf type because of the
sensitivity of the drip line.
Council Member Andersen clarified the conditions would be carried
over into the ownership of the properties.
Mr. Jensen said that was correct. Staff was working on draft
conditions for the tentative map portion of the entitlement
process, which included deed restricted easements.
Mayor Wheeler a’sked whether any sensitivity was expressed toward
the mature tree Mr. Ward indicated was in the way of a porch or a
driveway when the plans were reviewed. She urged a design around
it.
Mr. Ross did not recall much concern about the tree plan. The ARB
believed the arborist did a good job, and the trees being
sacrificed were a good solution recognizing that some trees would
be lost in a housing project. To save many more trees misht
result in fewer units. He had the tree plan for the site along
with the arborist’s recommendation for each of the trees.
MOTION: Council ~mber McCown mo~ed, seconded by Rosenbaum, to
approve the following actions:
Approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration (95-EIA-22) "and
Mitigation Monitoring and Repor£ing Program (MMRP), finding
that the proposed project will not result in any significant
edvironmental impacts.
Introduce the Ordinance, including findings and special
conditions, rezoning the subject property from RM-30 (Medium
Density Multiple-Family Residential) District to Planned
Community (PC) District, allowing the development of 13
detached singlezfamily dwellings.
Approve the Standard Conditions of Approval in Attachment No.
IA.
Approve the proposed setback variance (95-V-21) based on the
findings in Attachment No. 2.
ATTACHMENT No. IA
Most of the conditions listed below are standard conditions.
These conditions would normally be applied to the project as part
of the final ARB approval process. However, given that the
project proposes a zone change to the Planned Community District,
which includes the normal ARB process, these conditions have been
incorporated into this recommended-action. Major and/or special
conditions are proposed for incorporation into the PC Ordinance
for this project. Additional and more detailed conditions may be
imposed as par~ of the Tentative Subdivision Map review and
approval process.
’V
The project sponsor shall test the sewer line on Everett
Avenue for flow capacity. The project sponsor shall be
responsible for any required upgrade of the sewer in conjunc-
tion and in an equitable manner with other proposed develop-
ments in the immediate vicinity.
Conditions of approval for the Tentati~u Subdivision Map and
the design of the Final Map and improvement plans/drawings
shall incorporate the required mitigation measures presented
in the Environmental Assessment-Mitigated Negative Declara-
tion (95-EIA-22), and the approved Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program, both on file with the Department of
Planning and Community Environment.
The Tentative Subdivision Map shall show the location of all
lot lines along with easements for deed restricted areas and
reciprocal use. of land for private yard areas and parking
spaces. Draft conditions, covenants and restrictions shall
be prepared and submitted as part of Tentative Map review.
Prior to Recordation of a Final Map ’
Buildina Permit
o
°
A construction logistics plan shall be submitted for review
and approval by the Transportation Division and Public Works
Engineering Department, addressing at minimum parking, truck
routes and staging, materials storage, and the provision of
pedestrian and vehicular traffic adjacent to the construction
site. All truck routes shall conform to the City of Palo’s
Truck and Truck Route Ordinance, Chapter 10.48, and the route
map which outlines truck routes available throughout the City
of Palo Alto. This plan shall specifically address construc-
tion staging and phasing along Bryant Court, during construc-
tion of road right-way improvements.
A detailed grading and drainage plan shall be prepared. The
plan shall include the details for installation of a catch
basin in front of the project area on theEverett Street
frontage and replacement of the sidewalk for the entire
property width along the Everett Avenue frontage. The plan
shall also show the drainage patterns for the whole length of
Bryant Court.
The Final Subdivision Map and improvement plans as well as
construction drawings for issuance of a building permit shall
comply with or include all conditions recommended by the
Utilities Engineering Division summarized in the memorandum
from Jose Jovel, dated September 18, 1995, on file with the
Department of Planning and Community Environment, Utility
Engineering Division.
03/18/96 78-403
Prior to th~ recordation of a Final Subdivision Map, final
landscaping and irrigation plans as well as other pertinent
improvement details including but not limited to above ground
utility boxes and apparatus, shall be submitted for review
and approval by the Architectural Review Board, City
Arborist, Utility Energy Service Division and Planning
Division. The final plans shall include the following:
(a) The landscaping and irrigation improvements for all
front and side yard areas, as well as ’concept plan’ for
private rear yard areas, as presented on the Development
Plan.
(b) The property owner shall be required to install a six
foot high wood fence along the western and eastern property
boundaries, extending from Everett Avenue to Bryant Court to
comply with the provisions of Section 18.68.150(c) (PC
District) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. The details and
location of the two fences shall be presented in the final
landscaping plan and shall follow the same design theme of
the development.
(c) Preservation of and protection measures for the large
Coast Live Oak tree (42" trunk identified as tree #13 in
Attachment #3 of 95-EIA-22) located at the center of the
site, as recommended in the tree survey and analysis prepared
by Barrie D. Coate and Associates, dated November 3, 1995.
(d) Preservation of and protection measures for the Coast
Live Oak trees (trees #19, 20, 21 and 22, as identified in
Attachment #3 of 95-EIA-22) located at the western edge of
the site, as recommended in the tree survey and analysis
prepared by Barrie D. Coate and Associates, dated November 3,
1995. Likewise, the same measures shall apply for the
preservation and protection of tree #7 (Eucalyptus) located
near the eastern property boundary.
(e) The landscape plan shall include detailed measures and
steps required for the removal, relocation and replanting of
trees #6, and #15 and #18 (Canary Island Palms).
(f) Minor adjustments in the Everett Avenue driveway curb
cuts and aprons to preserve and protect the two Southern
Magnolia street trees (trees #2 and #4).
(g) The installation of, at minimum, t..o street trees along
the Everett Avenue frontage (to accompany the four street
trees that are to remain), to be located’within the land-
scaped parkway between the sidewalk and street curb. These
trees shall be planted at a minimum 24 inch box size, with
the species and planting specifications as determined by the
City Arborist and the Planning Division.
(h) The final plans shall meet the City’s Water Efficiency
Standards.
(i) Final Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (CC & Rs)
covering all issues outlined and required by conditions of
approval.
Submittal of a tree protection plan, prepared by a certified
arborist, for review and approval by the Planning Division
and implemented prior to demolition and throughout construc-
tion. The plan shall~include implementation of the recommen-
dations contained in the report by Barrie D. Coate and
Associates, dated November 3, 1995. The plan shall preserve
and protect on-site trees #7 (Eucalyptus), #13, #19, #20,
#21, #22 (Coast Live Oaks), trees #6, and #15 and #18 (Canary
Island Palms ~to be’removed and replanted). The plan shall
survey and accurately map all trees to be protected and shall
include measures for their~protection during construction,
including a temporary construction fence to be erected around
each tree that is to be saved.’ The fence shall consist of
portable cyclone fencing or wire mesh, security attached to
metal posts driven into the ground, or alternative fencing
approved in writing by the Planning Division. The purpose of
the fencing is to keep all construction activity and storage
outside the dripline of the trees. It shall be erected
before any construction machinery enters the site, and shall
not be removed until the final landscape grading is com-
pleted. The site and landscaping plan shall be designed to
provide tree roots with air and water through use of
perforated paving or other permeable surfaces.
The following measures shall be incorporated into the Final
Map improvement plans and construction plans for issuance of
a building permit to protect and preserve the large Coast
Live Oak tree (42" trunk diameter), identified as tree #13 in
Attachment #3 of 95-EIA-22 (Barrie Coate and Associates tree
survey and analysis, November 3, 1995):
Prohibit, through initial design and deed restrictions, all
pavement within the dripline of the tree.
Prohibit installation’ ofturf within 20 feet of the trunk.
If turf is installed within the dripline, the Bonsai Tall
Fescue (Fescue arundinacea ~Bonzai") shall be used as it
requires less frequent irrigation than other turf species.
Any soil preparation within.the dripline of the tree for turf
installation must not involve rototilling that is deeper than
three inches below the soil.
Ii.
Avoid the installation of irrigatiqn lines within the
dripline of the tree.
Avoid construction access within the tree canopy.
Implement the pruning and cabling measures recommended in the
tree survey .and analysis, referenced above.
Require that the subdivision design include conditions,
covenants and restrictions (CC & Rs) establishing a
restricted use area and/or a.deed restriction over the rear
yard of lots #7, #9 and #ii, as identified on the Development
Plan. The restriction shall be worded and recorded to
include all restrictive use and maintenance measures to
ensure the long-term life and continued health of the tree.
In addition, the restrictions shall include violations and
fines for destruction or unauthorized removal of this tree.
The proposed development will result in a change in the
impervious area of the property. The project sponsqr shall
provide calculations showing the adjusted impervious area,
submitted with the Final Map and/or building permit. A storm
drainage fee adjustment will take place in the month
following .the approval of construction by the Building
Inspection Division.
All utility meters, lines, transformers, backflow preventers,
and any other required utilities, shall be shown on the final
landscaping and irrigation plans and shall show that no
conflict will occur between the utilities and the landscape
materials and shall be screened in a manner which respects
the building design and setback requirements, subject to ARB
review and approval.
12.
13.
The following pe1~nits shall be secured ~rom the Department of
Public Works:
(a) An Encroachment Permit for use of the sidewalk, street
and alley.
(b)A Permit for Construction in the Public Street.
(c)A Grading and Excavation Permit.
Any construction within the CPA right-of-way, easements or
other property controlled by the City of Palo Alto must
conform to the standards established in the CPA Standard
Specifications for Utilities Department and the Public Works
Department.
Signage and landscaping shall meet the sight distance
requirements of Section 18.83.080 of the Palo Alto Municipal
Code applicable to all driveways within the development, to
the satisfaction of the Transportation and Planning
Divisions.
14.Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the following
shall be submitted for Architectural Review Board review and
approval:
(a) Exterior building.materials shall be studied by the
project sponsor. Consistent with the concerns and
recommendations of the Planning Commission high quality
materials, particularly for exterior siding, stone/brick trim
and windows, shall be required with actual samples submitted
for Architectural Review Board approval.
(b) The exterior building material colors palette is accept-
able, as submitted. However, a stronger contrast of colors
shall be proposed to better reflect the range of building
colors found in the surrounding neighborhood.
(c) Detailed elevations of all fences and walls, calling out
all proposed materials. Color and material samples of all
fences and walls shall be submitted.
(d) Final location, design and treatment of the pad-mounted
electrical transformer.
(e) The project sponsor shall study and submit an alterna-
tive plan to .the "parallel" driveway parking arrangement
proposed for Units #1-6 (fronting Bryant Court). Prior to
ARB review, the City Transportation Division shall review the
alternative and present a recommendation on the final
preferred plan.
15.
(f) Detaileu plan for the Bryant Court public right-of-way
improvements .as implemented per required conditions of
approval.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the building
elevations shall be modified as follows:
(a)
(b)
All fireplace chimneys shall be surfaced with the same
exterior siding material that is approved for the
building. Use. of stucco material on the chimneys is not
acceptable.
A "hip" rather than a "gable" roof design shall be used
for the west elevation of Unit #13. to comply with the R-
i District daylight plan requirement. Likewise, a "hip"
roof design shall be permitted in-lieu of a "gable" for
the east elevation of Unit #8.
16.All public street trees to be retained, as shown on the
approved tree inventory (Tree Survey and Analysis prepared by
Barrie D. Coate and Associates, November 3, 1995), as
required by this condition and as shown on the final
landscaping plan, shall be protected. The street trees that
are to be preserved and protected shall include trees #i, 2
and 4 (Southern Magnolias) and tree #3 (Evergreen Ash), as
located and discussed in the analysis prepared by Barrie D0
Coate (Attachment #3 of 95-EIA-22). The following tree
protection measures shall be approved by the City Arborist
and included in construction/demolition contracts and be
implemented during construction activities unless otherwise
approved. The following tree protection measures shall
apply: P~MC 8-4-070. Any modifications to these require-
ments must be approved in writing by the City Arborist.
(a) All trees to be preserved shall be protected with six-
foot high chain link fences. Fences are to be mounted on
two-inch diameter galvanized iron posts, driven into the"
ground to a depth of at least two feet at no more than I0
foot spacing. The fences shall enclose the entire area under
the dripline of the trees. The fences shall be erected
before construction begins and remain in place until final
inspection of the building permit, except for work specifi-
cally required in the approved plans to be done under the
17.
trees to b~ protected (Public Work= Department~ standard
specification detail #505).
(b) No storage of material, topsoil, vehicles, or equipment
shall be permitted within the tree enclosure area.
(c) The ground around the tree canopy shall not be altered.
(d) Trees to ’be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and
maintained as necessary to ensure survival.
Implement all measures required durin~ project construction
for the protection of the large Coast Live Oak tree located
near the center of the site (specified under condition #8,
above).
18.
19.
20.
A new catch basin shall be installed in front of the project
area along the Everett Avenue frontage.
All of the existing sidewalk along the Everett Avenue
property frontage shall be replaced.
Dust control measures.shall be imposed to ensure that tempo-
rary air impacts to the surrounding neighborhood are reduced.
Measures during construction shall include i) the watering of
all exposed earth surfaces during the construction process
(early morning and early evening), 2) avoid overfilling of
trucks to reduce spillage into the public right-of-way and
requiring’ contractors to clean-up spillage in the public
right-of-way, and 3) requiring the contractor to submit a
logistics plan identifying routes of transported earth
material.
21.
22.
All construction activities shall be subject to the require-
ments of the City’s Noise Ordinance, Chapter 9.10 of the
PAMC, which requires, among other things, that a sign be
posted and’that Construction times be limited as follows:
(a)
(b)
(c)
8:00AM to 6:00PM, Monday - Friday
9:00AM to 6:00PM, Saturday
10:00AM to 6:00PM, Sunday
All new electrical service shall be placed underground. All
electrical substructures required from the service point to
the switchgear shall be installed in accordance with
standards published by the Utilities Engineering Division.
03/18/96 78-409,
23.No storage uf construction materials is permitted in ~he
street or on the sidewalk without prior approval of Public
Works Engineering.
24.The .developer shall require its contractor to incorporate
best management practices (BMP’s) for stormwater pollution
prevention in all construction operations, in conformance
with the Santa Clara Valley Nonpoint Source Pollution Control
Program. The Inspection Services Division shall monitor
BMP’s with respect to the developers construction activities
on public property. It is unlawful to discharge any
construction debris (soil, asphalt, saw-cut slurry, paint,
chemicals, etc.) or other waste materials into gutters or
storm drains (Federal Clean Water Act).
25. The following fire protective measures shall be.installed:
(a) Installation of on-site fire hydrants every 300 feet
(model 76 type).
(b) Installation of residential smoke detectors in accor-
dance with UBC 1210 for R1 occupancies.
(c) Emergency vehicle access in accordance with Article I0
of the UBC.
(d) Installation of building address signage, per the
specifications of the Fire Department.
26.All activities shall be subject to ’the requirements of the
City of Palo Alto Noise Ordinance, Chapter 9.10 and all of
the applicable City codes.
Ongoing (Throughout proc~ssina and Constr~
27.City staff time required for the implementation and
monitoring of the Mitigation Monitoring and Report Program
(MMRP) shall be subject to cost recovery fees charged to the
project sponsor.
~ENT No. ~
FOR APPROVAT,~
~~ETBAC~CTION 18.68.150/_GJ_
Exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and conditions
are applicable to the subject’property, which do not apply
generally to property in the same distr~ct. Accordingly, the
reductions in the minimum I0 foot side yard setback require-
ment for Units #i, #6, 8, #12 and #13 are necessary.
Specifically, the subject property is exceptional in that it
contains a large, Coast Live Oak tree (42" trunk diameter and
a 78 ft. canopy spread) located near the center of the site.
In order to protect this oak tree,, new structures, pavement
and private yard areas must be carefully placed and clus-
tered, resulting in the need to provide large open areas near
.the center of the site, while reducing setbacks in other
areas of the site.
o
The granting of this variance for reduction in the side yard
setbacks of Unit #I, #6, #8, #12 and #13 is necessary for the
preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights and
would prevent unreasonable loss and hardship in that it would
permit building clustering for tree protection and preserva-
tion and would permit side yard setbacks which are in keeping
with the typical sideyard setback requirements for single-
family residential development in an R-I District. Further-
more, the reductions in setbacks would allow large setbacks
for areas proposed for private, usable yard space.
The granting of this variance for the reduction in the
minimum i0 foot sideyard setbacks of Units #I, #6, #8, #12
and #13 will not be detrimental or injurious to subject
property or adjacent and.surrounding improvements and will
not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general
Welfare or convenience in that the proposed setbacks would be
adequate to provide and maintain privacy, light, air and
natural screening for future residents of the development and
adjacent residents. Furthermore, privacy, light and air
would not be compromised given that the overall average side
yard setback proposed along the western and eastern property
lines is i0 feet or greater, which would be consistent with
the intent of the setback requirement and will not harm any
oak trees, necessary, for screening the west property use.
Lastly, the reductions in setbacks would not cause impact to
the adjacent developed properties in that a) existing
building setbacks for the two adjacent apartment structures
are adequate to maintain light, air and privacy and b) the
reduced setbacks that are requested would be consistent with
the minimum sideyard setbacks required for single family
residential development in the R-I District.
’ entitled "Ordinanue of the Council of
the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 18.08.040 of the Palo
Alto Municipal Code (The Zoning Map) to change the
Classification of Property Known as 314-335 Everett Avenue/
332-340 Bryant Court from RM-30 to PC District"
Council Member McCown associated with Council Member Simitian’s
comments at the outset about the issUe of affordability of the
units. She didnot recall that approval of the Times Tribune site
project related to any kind of commitment about pricing. She
realized Council was excited abou£ the concept of the smaller lot,
single-family homes, and hoped the project would fill a price and
type of. housing gap. If Council were in a situation where a PC
application proposed some substantially expanded entitlement of
greater density and square footage, and the public benefit was
some pricing of units, then there would need to be conditions
associated with the PC to tie it down. In the subject instance,
the project was less dense and designed in a unique way so as to
provide a better project than the zoning would allow. Because of
that, the situation was not one where Council would try to exact
some kind of cap, commitment, or legal obligation on the part of
the builder in terms of the ultimate pricing of the units. In
terms of the parking, she needed assurances from staff that the
conditions in the draft ordinance would provide the City with the
mechanism to get sufficient protection for the neighborhood in
terms of creating parking spaces as a part of the project that met
the City’s requirements. She understood the City would hold onto
the commitment that there was to be two parking spaces per unit
with the exception of the BMR unit. Staff had indicated, even
though it was not spelled out exactly how it would be accomp-
lished, that it would be subject to the further study and that
there would be no project until it was shown how two parking
spaces per unit would be accomplished.
Ms. Lytle said the intent of the condition was to ensure that
either the parallel parking would be demonstrated to be usable,
available, and functional for the residents or nose-in parking
would be designed.
Council Member McCown clarified with that requirement, the units
were being required to provide the same amount of parking that any
other single-family, R-I property in the City of Palo Alto was
obligated to have, e.g., two spaces dedicated to each house with
the exception of the BMR unit.
Ms. Lytle said that was correct.
03/18/96 78-412
Council Member McCown said to the extent ~.,ere was other guest
parking needs beyond anything that could be accommodated by the
two parking spaces, some of the guest parking might be able to
park in a driveway or in the street, which was no different than
any other single-family, R-I property in the City. She wanted to
make it clear that the City expected the subject project to do the
same as, but no more than, what was normally required for single
family units.
Ms. Lytle said that was correct. The only caveat was that the
project was more dense than a single-family development would
yield so there would be more spill-over from guest parking than
would be the case.
Council Member McCown referred to page 3 of the Ordinance, which
was Attachment No. 1 to the staff report (CMR:188:96), Section
3c(i), Site Development Regulations, which indicated, "The
approved Development Plan requires the preservation 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." She queried how the
regulation would be communicated to the purchasers of the units.
Mr. Calonne did not read the regulation as a tree maintenance
section. The particular section referred to permit improvements
in a backyard, such as a hot tub. He was specifically thinking
about a case on Lincoln Court some years ago where a variance
approval had a special no-building condition in the backyard.
Council Member McCown clarified that while the next paragraph,
Section 3c(ii), referred to future improvements occurring without
the necessity of returning to the ARB, nothing could occur in a
manner inconsi’~tent with preserving the trees. Her main concern
had to do with the parking question, and it was important for the
record to reflect Council’s expectation both~ to the people who
would live in the units and also to the surrounding neighborhood.
Council would rely upon staff to achieve an adequate plan. She
hoped it would be accomplished.
Council Member Simitian referred to the comment from the member of
the public with respect to BMR pricing. The City was being
provided with one BMR unit since its BMR entitlement was one unit
out of ten. Then, in lieu of the City’s remaining BMR entitlement
of three-tenths, the sales price of the BMR unit was being further
reduced by that amount based on three-tenths of an estimated price
of a unit. The m~,~er of the public suggestes a more accurate and
more generous contribution level might be obtained if the City
took three-tenths of the actual sales price of the units once they
were sold. Heasked for staff comment.
Mr. Calonne suggested that one BMR unit out of ten represented
some cost to the applicant. He clarified the question was whether
three-tenths of the discounted BMR price represented that cost.
Ms. Grote understood the BMR cost was based on an estimated sales
price versus an actual sales price, and the fee was typically
taken before the units were sold.
Council Member Simitian queried whetherthe figure deducted was
the estimated sales price.
Ms. Grote believed the figure was negotiated based on an estimated
sales price.
Council Member Simitian referred to page 2 of Attachment No. 7 to
the staff report (CMR:188:96), which indicated the initial sales
price of the unit shall be $107,550. This price was reached
utilizing the City of Palo Alto current housing price guideline
base price for a three-bedroom unit of $146,550, which was reduced
by $39,000 since the project carried a ten percent BMR
requirement, the $146,550 base price represented satisfaction of
ten units of the project and the $39,000 reduction represented the
remaining three units. He believed the $39,000 was a function of
the $146,000 current housing price guidelines. He asked whether
the housing price guidelines were off the shelf numbers or whether
it bore some relationship to the actual sales price of the units.
Mr. Calonne thought the sales price was the 80 percent number,
e.g., what a person earning 80 percent of the median income could
afford.
Council Member Simitian understood the $39,000 reduction was based
on the $146,550 figure.
Ms. Grote said that was correct.
Council Member Simitian clarified
housing price guidelines.
Ms. Grote said that was correct.
that figure came from the
03/18/96 78-414
Council Member b~mitian queried what the ho.~ing price guidelines
represented.
Ms. Grote said it represented 80 percent of what a person earning
the median income could afford.
Council Member Simitian said if the City were trying to achieve a
contribution equivalent to 1.3 units, then the .3 being claimed in
a price reduction was not driven by what an affordable unit costs
but rather was derived from .3 of a unit in the proposed project.
Ms. Grote said that was correct.
Council Member simitian said if the units sold at $500,000 each,
0.3 of a unit was more like $150,000.
Ms. Grote said the figure was based ona projected sales price
rather than on the actual sales price.
Council Member Simitian said if there were 13 units and each were
worth $500,000, then the City wanted one of the units as the I0
percent set aside, which was worth $500,000. The question was how
one could say that 0.3 of that number worked out to $39,000. He
believed that was the point the member of the public was trying to
make.
Ms. Lytle knew that $39,000 was intended to get at the 0.3
fraction of a unit although she was not sure about the calcula-
tion. If Council needed that information in order to make a
decision, she recommended the item be continued. The mathematics
were not apparent in the record, and she would have to return with
the information.
Mr. Calonne bel°ieved Council Member Simitian’s concern warranted
continuing the item if Council were so inclined. The
Comprehensive Plan appeared to indicate that an in-lieu payment be
calculated as 5 percent of the actual sales price of units sold.
He was hearing that people used some sort of projected price to do
that math. " It was not apparent from page 2 of Attachment No. 7 of
the staff report (CMR:I88:96)how the $39,000 was arrived at.
Council Member Simitian clarified the in-lieu payment was supposed
to be 5 percent of the actual sales price.
Mr. Calonne said the Comprehensive Plan, when discussing in-lieu
payments for projects of ten or more units, stated the in-lieu
payment was to be 5 percent of the actual sales price of each unit
sold.
Council Member Simitian queried whether it was 5 percent of the
sales price for 3 units which was more than $39,000 but substan-
tially less than 30 percent of the cost of a single unit. If
there were 3 units which each sold for $500,000, 5 percent of each
one would be $25,000 or a total of $75,000.
Mr. Calonne could not respond with certainty. The particular
portion of the Comprehensive Plan was not implemented in any set
of ordinances and there was a volume of administrative interpre-
tationso He would need to confer with the Director of Planning
and Community Environment in order to provide an appropriate
response.
Mayor Wheeler queried whether it was possible to act on the rest
of the application and defer action on the part which appeared to
be of issue or whether the entire item should be continued.
Mr. Calonne said there was an opportunity to amend the Ordinance
at a second reading, with Council direction. The amendment would
be contemplated within the scope of the original action. He was
troubled that he was unable to determine how the $39,000 was
derived at as well as not understanding the basis for the number.
Council Member Schneider referred to page 8 of Attachment No. 8 to
the staff report (CMR:188:96). The bottom of the page reflected
the Housing Price Guidelines, effective May 1995, that established
an average BMR price for a three-bedroom unit at $i~6.,550. The
difference between the City’s average BMR price of $146,550 and
the proposed unit price of $104,550 was $39,000."
Mr. Calonne sa~d the part that was missing was the relationship
between three-tenths of a unit and $39,000.
Council Member Simitian believed since a second reading was
required on the Ordinance, the solution was to move forward and if
Council had a resolution on the amendment then action on the
project did not have ’to be delayed. Council could work through
the item although not in consequential detail of BMR prices.
MAKER AND SECONDER AGREED TO INCORPORATE INTO THE MOTION that as a
proviso prior to the second reading of the Ordinance, an amendment
be entertained with [espect to an appropriate calculation of. the
Below Market Rate (BMR) condition.
03/18/96 78-416
Council Member ~cCown clarified the incoz~ration contemplated
that at second reading of the Ordinance Council would have further
information on how the calculation was determined, and it might be
the basis for an amendment to the BMR condition in the ordinance.
Council Member Andersen clarified if the Comprehensive Plan
reflected 5 percent of sale, with the $39,000 figure, anything
over and above taking the sales prices of theproperties and the
difference between that 5 percent and $39,000 would be the
additional contribution into the BMR program.
Council Member Simitian said that was direction he wanted to go,
but the City Attorney indicated that what the Comprehensive Plan
stated and what administrative implementation actually spelled out
in detail might not be congruent.
Council Member Andersen believed, given some of the discussion
about public benefit, that the BMRcontribution was a condition.
He did not believe the differential as being that far out of line
with what was already Contained in the Comprehensive Plan
regardless of administrative history.
Council Member Simitian referred to the issue of the care of the
single specimen tree. The whole project, including the basis for
the variance, was built around the need to preserve the single
specimen tree. He asked whether staff had concerns about the
ability of the single property owner over time to maintain or
protect the singlespecimen under the circumstances.
Ms. Lytle believed the City saw a poor track record on public and
private accountability and preservation. She did not know that
the City could do any more to preserve a tree privately than was
laid out in the conditions attached to the project. Staff had
gone to great ~engths to preserve a single tree.
Council Member Simitian said while he was not proposing a
maintenance bond set aside, there were two or three different
setbacks plus a variance all built around the starting point of
the particular specimen. There was a applicant who designed the
entire project around the desire to preserve the one specimen, but
then the City was not in the position of knowing whether the
specimen would be preserved.
Ms. Lytle knew that maintenance bonds were reported to be an
effective means of getting projects through construction with tree
preservation conditions intact and complied with. She did not
know, nor had sh~ ~eard, whether such bonds % ~’e effective for the
ongoing maintenance of a tree. Shebelieved there would be great
value having the tree on the property in the area. The ongoing
maintenance costs of the oaktree versus the cost of removing it
and whatever bond might be set was not considered.
Mayor Wheeler referred to the issue of public benefit and said she
was uncomfortable about declaring as a public benefit that which
was a fault of the City’s own zoning ordinance or lack thereof. ’
If the housing type were one which the City found to be generally
beneficial in the community and one which should be encouraged,
she hoped the City would move along quickly to fix the zoning
ordinance. It was foolish to say the City’s zoning ordinance was
broken and continually say it was a public benefit some project
proponent to fix it on a temporary basis. If did not do the City
nor an applicant any good to go through the very onerous PC
process. As mentioned in her opening comments and questions, she
would have preferred to see as a public benefit the
undergrounding of the utilities along the length of the court.
She would not offer an amendment because she believed the public
benefit as spelled out in the presentation was adequate and
commensurate with the project. She would have preferred to have
been able to justify in her mind and with the concurrence of her
colleagues the addition of undergrounding the entire alley and
believed it would have made a more attractive setting.
Council Member Andersen said if an area was going to be trenched
in order to put underground utilities into the area where the line
currently did not run, it seemed it might be appropriate to
consider extending~ the undergrounding beyond the particular
project. He was curious about whether an opportunity existed to
proceed with undergrounding that might have to be done regardless.
Ms. Fleming sai~ the issue was not considered.
Council Member Andersen queried whether staff knew where the lines
were going to be trenched.
Ms. Lytle believed the project applicant preliminarily worked with
the Utilities Department, but as presented that evening, there was
no intent on the part of the Utilities Department to do the
remainder of the work identified by Mayor Wheelerfor many years.
When the issue arose at the Planning Commission level, the
applicant was encouraged to look into the opportunity for doing
more undergrounding.
03/18/96 78-418
Mayor Wheeler s=ad the other concern ab< simply requiring
further undergrounding as a condition was that undergrounding of
utilities was not only an expense to the City or the applicant for
a particular project, but it was also an expense as it affected
other property owners and homeowners along the route. Those
homeowners were not prepared to take that expenditure at that
time.
Mr. Calonne believed staff that figured out the arithmetic on the
BMR contribution. With a projected selling price of $400,000 per
unit, the Comprehensive Plan numbers worked out to be 3.25 percent
per unit for three units at $39,000. The Comprehensive Plan had a
table which reflected when down three units above ten, the number
was 3.25 percent per unit. If that were backed up, it came out to
an assumed selling price of $400,000 per unit.Staff would
confirm the calculations.
MOTION PASSED 6-0, Fazzino, Huber, Kniss absent.